command Thirdly that the same Iesus the sonne of God was the Priest which offered that all-sufficient sacrifice for remission of the sinnes of all that beleeue in him Thus the Authour hauing layd the ground worke of his subsequent matter doth in the sequell of the Epistle polish euery particular part with sundry arguments still building vpon that foundation which he had laid But because the Iewes thought it strange that the Gospell should take place and be preferred before the Law therefore the Authour first declares the excellency of Iesus Christ shewing him to be not onely man but God farre aboue all Angells and consequently worthy of a great deale more honour then Moses Hauing handled his Propheticall and Regall offices hee comes in the fourteenth verse of the fourth chapter to his Priestly office and comparing him with Aaron layes downe diuers differences betweene Christ and Aaron who differed First in person the one being onely man the other as well God as man Secondly in qualitie the one being sinnefull offered sacrifice not onely for others but for himselfe also the other being Choris hamartias without sinne offered himselfe for vs. Thirdly in order the one being of the Leuiticall order the other after the order of Melchisedech and consequently the one was temporarie the other eternall Fourthly in the manner of sacrificing Aaron offered the blood of beasts but Christ offered himselfe yea his owne blood Fiftly in efficacie the sacrifices of Aaron being in themselues of no vertue not able to cleanse sinne but the sacrifice of Christ was effectuall purging all beleeuers from all their sinnes Sixthly in the reiteration for Aaron and his sons were bound to reiterate their sacrifices euery day Christ offered once for all Seauenthly Aaron entred into an earthly tabernacle without the people but Christ into a heauenly with all his faithfull members Then the Apostle shewes what Analogie and proportion there was betweene the Priest-hood of Christ and that of Aaron which agreed First in election for as the Leuiticall Priests were elected to their office so was Christ ordained of his Father Secondly they did offer sacrifice with blood so did Christ. Thirdly they did it in behalfe of the people so did Christ. Fourthly they prayed for the people so did Christ. Last'y they entred into the Sanctum Sanctorum Holy of Holyes so did Christ. The Authour in the ninth chapter hauing compared the carnall rites with the spirituall the 〈◊〉 Tabernacle which was corruptible with the glorious tabernacle of Christs humane nature which was and is incorruptible the blood of beasts with the blood of Christ shewing that these were but the shadowes whereof Christ was the substance in whom we inioy all things spiritually and by whose blood al things are sanctified vnto vs in this chapter he shewes the insufficiencie of the Leuiticall oblations to be imployed by their frequent reiteration and the perfection of Christs sacrifice by the single act wherefore the Hebrewes should not rest in the Leuiticall sacrifices which being types of Christ had their perfection in him who hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne sitteth for euer at the right hand of God This text doth diuide it selfe into two parts An Agent and his Actions The Agent in this relatiue pronoune Autos He. His Actions are two The first done and past The second present and in doing The first hee offered one sacrifice for sinne where we haue First the subiect of his action He offered a sacrifice Secondly the singularitie of this subiect One sacrifice Thirdly the end of both for finne His second action is expressed by three predicaments Situs His gesture He sitteth Vbi His place at the right hand of God Quando His time how long for euer In the first is intimated his Maiestie in that hee sitteth In the second his Omnipotencie at the right hand of God In the third his Eternitie in that hee sitteth for euer In the first action you haue Christ in the state of humiliation In the second in the state of exaltation In the first he is dying for sinne in the second 〈◊〉 ouer sinne And first of the first Hee hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne In the handling of which words this Method shal be obserued First I shall shew who was the Priest that offered Secondly what was the sacrifice which was offered Thirdly the scope and end whereunto it was directed This Priest was Christ the eternall sonne of God one with the Father 〈◊〉 of all things and by whom all things doe subsist King of Kings Lord of Lords a perfect man without sinne full of grace and truth He it was that tooke vpon him this function to be a Priest and to offer an all-sufficient sacrifice to expiate for the sinnes of the elect And herein did Christ 〈◊〉 mainely differ from the Leuiticall Priests in that they were onely the persons offering sacrifice and not the sacrifice it selfe but Christ was both the Priest and Sacrifice for there could no sufficient sacrifice bee found for the sinne of man but onely Christ and none worthy to offer the sonne of God but onely himselfe But seeing Christ in the vnitie of his person had entertained a dualitie of natures consisting of Deitie and Humanitie hence arises a question Whether the Priestly office of Christ belong vnto his Godhead or to his manhood or to both The answer is that Christ is this Priest according to neither nature separately or diuided but according to both natures ioyntly as he was both God and man See this confirmed How much more shall the blood of Christ who by the eternall spirit offered himselfe to God purge our consciences from dead works to serue the liuing God By which eternall spirit we are to vnderstand his eternall Godhead concurring with his manhood to make him a perfect Priest The reasons why the Priestly office of Christ did require that he should be both God and man are these First as he was a Priest so was he to be a Mediatour but he could not be a Mediatour except he were God and man for Opera Christi Mediatoris sunt The andrica The workes of Christ which concerne his Mediatourship proceede from both natures Secondly because he was to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech so that he must bee apator and ametor without father without mother as Melchisedech was Now he was not without father but as hee was man nor without mother but as he was God Thirdly because hee must be both God and man that reconciled in one God vnto man and man vnto God Lastly because no creature could satisfie Gods 〈◊〉 but onely God none ought but onely man wherefore the Godhead of Christ did giue unto his manhood efficacie and merit to deserue at Gods hands remission of our sinnes for the manhood of it selfe without the Godhead hath no vertue or efficacie to be meritorious So it appeares that Christ Iesus was the High Priest for
Ireneus speakes The sacrifice receiues its efficacy and value from the Priest that offers it Wherefore the sacrifice that was offered for the sinnes of man beeing of infinite worth and excellencie according as the sinne of man was of infinite deformitie and deserued infinite punishment so must the Priest likewise bee of infinite desert at the hands of God that must offer so great a sacrifice Hereupon it followes that the humane nature of Christ beeing perfectly holy of it selfe yet not infinitely holy could neuer haue beene a sufficient sacrifice for our sinnes had not the Dietie beene vnited to it so to make him an infinite Priest that hee might giue infinite merite and efficacie to his oblation But a creature of infinit desert could not be found Not Angels who are finite in being and whose holinesse is but deriued from God his Sanctitie being the fountaine and theirs the streames 〈◊〉 man for he had corrupted his wayes and was become abhominable and had neede of a Mediatour to stand betweene God and himselfe None there for was sufficient for this function none worthy of this Priesthood but Christ Iesus the Sonne of God By the ground of this reason wee may obserue a maine difference betweene a Sacrifice and a Sacrament a Sacrament doth not receiue it efficacie and vertue from the minister but may be administred effectually to a beleeuer albeit it be by a wicked Minister but a sacrifice is either accepted or reiected for the worthinesse or vnworthinesse of the person 〈◊〉 As appeares euidently in Cain and Abel their sacrifices both sufficient for matter but God imbraced Abels because he offered with a righteous heart and abhominated Cains because he was wicked The people of 〈◊〉 and Iudah because their 〈◊〉 was full of blood and their hearts full of 〈◊〉 therefore were 〈◊〉 sacrifices an abhomination vnto the Lord and for their wickednes did the Lord 〈◊〉 his owne ordinances The third reason why Christ onely is that Priest who can offer a perfect propitiatorie sacrifice for the sinnes of mankind is because he that offered that oblation was to haue neither archen emeron nor zoes telos beginning of dayes nor end of life but what creature is there which was not framed in time by the God of eternity seeing in the beginning God made the heauen and the earth and all things therein where then shall we find any Priest to parallell eternity but onely Christ Iesus the Sonne of God Fourthly there was and is but one Mediatour betweene God and man which was the office of the Priest but this Mediatour is onely Christ Iesus For albeit there bee appointed ministers of Gods holy word to present the prayers of the faithfull before God and to impetrate for them yet this is not for the worthinesse of their owne persons and in their owne names but in the name and for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ do they make request for the whole Church of Christ. And to this purpose Saint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these words If the Apostle had 〈◊〉 These things haue I written vnto you that you should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if any man sinne you haue me for a Mediatour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by my prayer obtaine pardon for your sinnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placeth the Bishop to be a Mediatour betweene God and the people what good or faithfull Christian 〈◊〉 abide him who would behold him as the Apostle of Christ and not rather as Antichrist By which words of Saint Augustine it appeares to be a point of 〈◊〉 to place any creature as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and man but onely hee who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and man Christ Iesus Fiftly and lastly there is but one that could offer this Sacrifice because as the Priesthood was peculiar to Christ alone so the act of offering this sacrifice according to the order of that Priesthood did properly and personally appertaine to Christ. Now Christ had such a Priesthood as no creature was capable of and therefore the Apostle cals it aparabaton ierosunen such a priesthood as could not passe from him to any other creature no not to the father or the holy Ghost therefore was it translated from Aarons order to Christ where it resteth and from whom it cannot be translated or remooued by succession or any other wayes and seeing he hath translated the Leuiticall Priesthood and bound it to his owne person hee hath thereby made the new Testament vnalterable and his priesthood vnchangeable Wherefore seeing there is but one onely that is God and man after the order of Melchisedech without father without mother king of Salem and Prince of Peace Seeing there is but one that is of equall dignitie with this all-sufficient sacrifice Seeing there is but one that hath neyther beginning nor end of dayes Seeing there is but one Mediatour betweene God and man And seeing the priesthood was tyed to one particular person and all these agree onely vnto Christ it followes therefore that there is but one onely priest who was worthie and able to offer this perfect satisfactorie sacrifice and that was Iesus Christ. The first vse of this point is for confutation of the doctrine of the Church of Rome for you haue heard that Christ is Priest not according to his humane nature onely but also according to his diuine which the papists veterly deny making him to bee a priest onely as he was man but altogether vniustly for in the office of priesthood there are two things necessarie Ministerie and Authoritie In respect of the Ministeriall part Christ performed that office as man but in respect of Authoritie of entring into the Holy of Holyes and presenting vs before God and reconciling vs vnto him which was the principall part of his priesthood he did performe it as the Sonne of God as the second person in the Trinitie co-worker with the Father in the creation of the world wherefore that he might be a priest able and worthy to make attonement with God he was God that his reconciliation might extend to men he was man and so being God and man he is a perfect mediatour between God and man and an high Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech But the Papists hold Christ to bee a Priest onely in his humane nature because they thinke that onely in his humane nature he was annoynted I answer that if this annoynting be onely taken for the collation of the gifts and graces of the Spirit it is true onely the humane nature of Christ was annointed But by this annointing is also vnderstood the ordaining of Christ to be the Mediatour and Sauiour of the world and in this sence not onely his humane nature but also his diuine was annoynted to this end For the humane nature of Christ albeit it was pure and spotlesse yet could it neuer haue wrought our redemption without the assistance of his Godhead for as he was man so he was borne hee fasted he suffered he dyed but to rise from the
external thing as Abel of the firstlings of his flock c. For it must be some outward visible thing animate or inauimate I speake of the sacrifices of the law and not of the Gospell which I shall shew to be as well internall as externall I say moreouer that it must be offered to the true God and therefore all sacrifices offered by the Heathens vnto their Idolls and fained gods are improperly called sacrifices in regard that it can neuer be called sacred which tends to the dishonour of the true God Furthermore I say there must bee ioyned with this Knowledge for there can be no acceptable sacrifice vnto God which is done ignorantly without the knowledge of Gods holy will the Apostle sayes whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne And without faith it is impossible to please God now faith cannot subsist without the knowledge of that which we doe beleeue Lastly I say it must bee a thing acceptable to God Therefore the price of a whore the price of blood a dogs head swines blood and the like though they were offered yet are they abhominable because they are forbidden yea whatsoeuer is unseemely or vndecent is not acceptable The Leuiticall sacrifices were of two sorts Ilastika expiatory or Eucharistika Gratulatory In the expiatory propitiatory or satisfactory sacrifice for these different titles belong all to one thing the Iewes had respect vnto their sinnes and by the laying their hand on the beast and slaying it before the Lord they did in act confesse that they themselues had deserued death eternall for their sinnes but by the blood of Iesus Christ the immaculate lambe who was to dye for mankind they were assured to receiue remission of their sinnes and freedome from eternall death This sacrifice was called Catat that is sinne or a sacrifice for sinne So Paul alluding hereunto saith that God hath made him sinne for vs who knew no sinne that is to say God made him a sacrifice for sinne It is also called Ilastikon or expiatory from the end for the which it was instituted namely to represent the sacrifice which should expiate and satisfie for our sinnes which was Christ himselfe So that this sacrifice was called Expiatory not properly but Metonymically as hauing relation to the Messiah Vnto his sacrifice were referred that offering which was called 〈◊〉 of Olon and chauo because it was allburnt in the fire and the priests had no part of it or else it was so called of Holah which signifies to ascend because it being wholy consumed in the fire did ascend vp vnto God in the smoake Vnto this Expiatory sacrifice were also referred those oblations which were offered for the cleansing of lepers for the purification of women after childbirth for touching of dead bodies for the sanctifying of Priests for all these pollutions had respect to the pollution of sinnes The other sacrifices were Eucharistica or offerings of thanksgiuing whereby they did testifie their thankfulnesse for benefits temporall or spirituall this kind of sacrifice was called Zebach Schelamim 〈◊〉 pacificorum a peace offering because it was offered by them that had beeing reconciled to God by the former sacrifice receiued remission of their sinnes and were at peace with God as also because thereby they testified their gratitude to God for all his fauours which the Hebrewes did comprize vnder the word Peace And to this sacrifice were referred the meate offerings and drinke offerings the first fruits and the tenths all which were testimonies of their thankfulnes And indeed all sacrifices may be reduced to these two heads Either Ilastika or Eucharistika Expiatory or Gratulatorie For according vnto Gods affection towards man such were mens 〈◊〉 towards God Now God is either angry with vs and so punisheth vs or is well pleased and so blesseth vs and all the effects of God vpon euery man are either blessings or cursings when hee is angry hee sends cursings when hee is well pleased hee sends blessings wherefore hauing stirred him vp to wrath by sinnes the Iewes offered Ilasticke sacrifices to appease his wrath hauing appeased his anger and pleasing him by obeying his commandements they obtained his blessings and fauours to their bodies and soules wherfore they offered Eucharisticke sacrifices to testifie their thankfulnesse to the Lord. Now in both these kinds of sacrifices had the Iews respect vnto the Messiah fixing the eye of their faith vpon Christ that was to come both in him expecting saluation by the satisfactory sacrifice of his death and in him rendering thankes vnto Iehouah for all his blessings which they were made partakers of through the Messiah Thus much of a sacrifice in generall and of the kind of sacrifices among the lewes The second thing I propounded is to shew you what this particular sacrifice is which Christ offered for finne As there was vnder the law a double sacrifice Ilasticum and Eucharisticum Expiatory and Gratulatory So is there vnder the Gospell this double sacrifice offered by Christ for when he had finished his Propheticall office here on earth he then entered vpon his Pontificall or Priestly office which was to offer sacrifice for all beleeuers And albeit this expiatory sacrifice was first in order of nature as making way for the Eucharisticall whereby it might be acceptable to God hauing satisfied for sinne by his death and so reconciling God and man yet in time his Eucharisticall sacrifice was offered before his Expiatory and the reason hereof is alleadged by a most famous Diuine whose words are these Although the Father was first to be appeased by the Ilasticall sacrifice of Christ 〈◊〉 the crosse and so forgiuenesse of sinne and of punishment beeing obtained then should haue followed the sacrifice of thanksgiuing for all benefits obtained by Christs death and passion yet Christ offers his sacrifice of thankesgiuing as if hee were already crucified For so he was indeed in Gods decree and in his determination and in this respect hee is 〈◊〉 The lambe slaine from the beginning of the world This Eucharisticall sacrifice of Christ was in the Lords Supper which was not vnworthily euer after in the Church of God by the Fathers tearmed by the name of the Eucharist Yet vnderstand mee I doe not say that the bread and the cup were this Eucharisticall sacrifice that Christ offered but the thanksgiuing which he offered to his father For before hee brake the bread and gaue the cup to his Disciples it is the opinion of all ancient and moderne writers that lifting vp his eyes vnto heauen in the name of all the elect that were are and euer shall bee in the world he gaue thanks to his heauenly Father for all his blessings of nature grace and glory but especially for that remission of 〈◊〉 and redemption from eternall death purchased by that sacrifice of his body vpon the crosse So that in these two sacrifices of Christ all the Leuiticall sacrifices had their full perfection and
accomplishment Therefore the Apostle sayes 〈◊〉 5.2 that Christ gaue himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an oblation and a sacrifice by an oblation vnderstanding a gratulatory offering and by sacrifice an expiatory host for sinne And that the 〈◊〉 sacrifices had their consummation in Christ appeares in that figuratiue casting the open and doues out of the Temple as Theophylact. on the 21. chapter of Math. obserueth saying Iesus eiiciendo boues columbas praesignauit non vltra opus esse animalium sacrificio sed oratione 〈◊〉 casting the oxen and doues out of the Temple signified that there should no longer need the sacrifice of beast but of prayer But it is demanded Which of these two sacrifices it is that the Apostle speakes of The text it selfe cleares this doubt you heard before that the Eucharisticall sacrifices were for mercies and blessings receiued and the Ilasticke or Expiatorie sacrifices were for sinnes committed so that when the Apostle sayes this sacrifice was for sinne it plainely appeares that hereby is meant the Expiatory sacrifice of Christ offered to appease his Fathers wrath This sacrifice is no other then Christ himselfe dying vpon the crosse for the transgressions of mankind Origen speaking of Christ sayes Ipse est hostia Sancta Sanctorum He is the most holy sacrifice for his holy ones Which the Apostle Saint Peter confirmes saying For so much as ye know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as siluer and gold But by the precious blood of Christ as of a lambe without blemish or without spot Christ himselfe was this sacrifice who so loued vs that he gaue himselfe for vs an offering and sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour But according to which nature was Christ the safice for sinnes Onely according to his humane nature as appeares By which will we are sanctisied through the offering of the body of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 by which words the body of Christ we are to vnderstand the whole humane nature of Christ for there the part is put for the whole so that Christ the man consisting of body and soule was the sacrifice for our sinnes and as we in soule and body had transgressed against God so Christ both in soule and body was to suffer punishment and to make satisfaction for our offences Compare this place of the Hebrews with the words of the Prophet Esa. and you shall easily discouer this truth Yet it pleased God to bruise him hee hath put him to griefe when thou shalt make his soule an offering for sinne he shall see his seede he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand What the Propheticall Apostle Paul attributes to the body the Euangelicall Prophet Esa. attributes to the soule so that both these being essentiall parts of man make the whole humanitie of Christ to bee the sacrifice for our sinnes And as the Tree of life did represent the Godhead of the Messiah so did the Animate sacrifices of the Leuiticall law shadow out his Manhood And the reasons why this sacrifice that Christ offered should be his manhood are these 1. Because that in the same nature the offence was made in the same nature was the sacrifice to bee offered and the satisfaction to bee performed for otherwise Gods iustice could not be appeased but in the nature of man was a transgression committed therefore in mans nature must a sacrifice bee offered and satisfaction made And for this reason the Angels that fell from God had no benefit by the Incarnation of Christ nor by his death and passion because he tooke not vpon him their nature neither in their nature did he offer sacrifice 2. Secondly the death of the beasts in the Ceremoniall law did figure out the death of that sacrifice which the Sonne of God was to offer vnto his Father for mans Redemption So that in that nature wherein Christ dyed in that nature he was to sacrifice but Christ as he was God could not dye for the Godhead is apathes and cannot suffer but according to his humanitie he dyed truely and not fantastically and in shew onely as Marcion and the Manichees heretically thought And indeed considering Gods eternall decree of sending his Sonne to be 〈◊〉 flesh it was necessarily required that hee should dye and shed his blood to appease his Fathers wrath and to procure forgiuenesse of sinnes for all beleeuers for according to the words of the Apostle choris haimatekchusias ou ginetai aphesis without blood shedding is no remission So it appeares that the humane nature of Christ consisting of soule and body was the Alsufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of all beleeuers 3. The third thing propounded is the necessitie of this sacrifice Adam being seduced by his wife and eating the forbidden fruit brought vpon himselfe and all his posteritie three euills First hee was by his transgression guilty of 〈◊〉 before God Secondly he was depriued of all his grace of integrity and righteousnesse which God had conferred vpon him in his creation Thirdly he was driuen out of Paradise to signifie his banishment from the celestiall Paradise Wherefore it was necessary that there should bee a sacrifice offered for man First that his sinnes might be remitted whereby he was turned from God Secondly that he might be restored againe to the state of grace Thirdly that he might be re-united and reconciled vnto God and inherit eternall life These three were effected by the sacrifice of Christ. For first by this Sacrifice our sinnes are pardoned and the guilt of all our iniquities is washed away by the blood of Iesus hee was that promised fountaine which should be set open for Iudah and Ierusalem to wash in This appeares by the words of Paul Traditus est in mortem propter offensas nostras He was deliuered to death for our offences Secondly by this sacrifice wee are made pertakers of his grace whereby wee are comely in the eyes of God the Father for hee thereby imputed his righteousnesse vnto vs and communicated that life of grace which was radically in himselfe the head vnto all his faithfull members for by him it is that wee all receiue grace for grace Thirdly hereby are wee entitled againe vnto the kingdome of heauen lost by our first parents for when this earthly tabernacle is dissolued we are put inro possession of that building of God not made with hands which endures for euer in heauen All these three are contained in one verse Christ Iesus is made vnto vnto vs of God righteousnesse sanctification and redemption Righteousnesse in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes 〈◊〉 in the communication of his grace and Redemption in the saluation of our soules and bodies By this that hath beene spoken wee may note that the beginning middle and end of mans happinesse is from the sacrifice of Christ by him wee are deliuered from the bondage of sinne by him wee are in the liberty of grace by him are wee
estated in glory By him we haue our fetters knockt off and our filthy rags cast away by him we are arrayed with rich apparrell of holines and innocencie by him wee are brought into his fathers presence and are accepted of God Almightie Through him we haue our Iustification through him we haue our Sanctification through him we haue our Glorification Seeing then the saluation of all beleeuers is perfectly wrought and consummated by the sacrifice of Christ here may arise a question Quest. Whether there be any sacrifices to bee offered by Christians vnder the Gospell or no Answ. I answer there are not any Ilasticke or propitiatory sacrifices to bee offered for attonement with God for to that end Christ hath offered himselfe once for all But as you haue heard that all Christians are spirituall Priests so they haue spirituall sacrifices to offer still vnto God which sacrifices are these First a broken and a contrite heart The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit a broken and a contrite heart oh Lord thou wilt not despise without this sacrifice all others are abhominable in the sight of God Secondly the offering vp of beleeuers per leitourgian ministrornm by the seruice of Gods ministers of this Paul speakes That I should be the minister of Iesus Christ to the Gentiles ministring the Gospell 〈◊〉 God that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable 〈◊〉 sanctified by the Holy Ghost Thirdly al manner of prayer and supplication Let my prayers be directed before thee as 〈◊〉 incense and the lifting vp of my hands as the euening sacrifice Fourthly all praise and thanksgining which wee giue vnto God By him therefore let vs offer the sacrifice of prayse to God 〈◊〉 that is the fruits of our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thanks to his name This sacrifice of 〈◊〉 Orthodox fathers called an im ton thu sian an vnbloody sacrifice as 〈◊〉 in his embassage for the Christians to the Emperours Antonius and 〈◊〉 And Eusebius Offerant illi logikas kai anaimous thu sias Let them offer 〈◊〉 and vnbloody sacrifices So Cyrill Oecumenicus Iustine Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus fathers of great 〈◊〉 called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haleluiahs of Angels and the holy hymnes of the Saints acceptable 〈◊〉 sacrifices Fiftly our almes and reliefe of the poore are spirituall sacrifices To doe good and to distribute forget not for with such sacrifices God is well 〈◊〉 And Paul calls the beneuolence of the Philippians sent by Ep phroditus an odor of a sweet smell and a sacrifice acceptable well pleasing to God Sixtly there is the sacrifice of righteousnesse or iustice Offer to God the sacrifices of right 〈◊〉 and againe Then shalt thoube pleased with the sacrifices of righteousnesse 〈◊〉 there is the slaying of our sinnes and offering them vp dead vnto the Lord with there signation of our selues to Gods seruice I beseech you therefore 〈◊〉 by the mercies of God that you present your bodies a liuing sacrifice holy and acceptable to God which is your reasonable seruice Eighthly the bodily death of the Martyrs inflicted on them by bloody tyrants is a spirituall sacrifice Thus Paul calls himselfe a Sacrifice Yea if I bee offered vp a sacrifice for the seruice of your faith And I take it in this sense it is the Prophet Dauid speakes saying Precious in the sight of God is the death of his Saints Thus did that holy Polycarpe the Disciple of Saint Iohn call his death which hee indured for the testimony of Iesus a Sacrifice And so Saint Augustine speaking of the Martyrs hath these words The Gentils dedicated Temples consecrated Priests erected altars and offered sacrifices to their gods We Christians dedicate Temples to our Martyrs not as to Gods but to their memories as to dead men whose spirits liue with the Lord. Neither doe we erect alvars whereon we sacrifice to the Martyrs but to one God theirs and ours Wee offer sacrifice at which sacrifices those Martyrs as men of God are named in their place and order nor are they 〈◊〉 by him that offers the sacrifice for the sacrifice is not made to them but to God although it be in the remembrance of them for he is the minister of God and not theirs and the sacrifice is the body of Christ which is not offered vnto them for they themselues are that body In the latter end of which words Saint Augustine shewes that the whole Church which is the mysticall body of Christ whereof the Martyrs are a part is a gratefull sacrifice acceptable vnto God Lastly the sacrament of the Lords supper is a sacrifice but not after the manner of the Papists but onely figuratiuely So the bread and cup are called the sacrifices of Christians by Iustine Martyr because they represent the sacrifice of Christ and were instituted in remembrance of it So Dyonisius calls it Sumbolike ierourgia ☠Symbolicum Sacrificium Eccles. Hiera cap. 30. a Symbolicall sacrifice So Saint Augustine Quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium signum est veri 〈◊〉 That which by all men is called a sacrifice is but a signe of the true sacrifice And that immolation which is in the hands of the Priest is called the passion death and crucifixion of Christ not that it is so indeed and in truth but onely by the way of remembrance So that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be called Sacrificium 〈◊〉 a Recordatory Sacrifice wherein vsing the signes and Symbolls of his body and blood with true faith and thankfull hearts we celebrate the memoriall of the death and sacrifice of our Sauiour Iesus Christ. Wherefore the Fathers called it an vnbloody sacrifice because it was not a proper sacrifice but onely mysticall and figuratiue And indeed this makes it not to bee properly a sacrifice because in a sacrifice we giue vnto God but in a Sacrament wee receiue from God but in the Lords Supper wee giue not the body and blood of Christ vnto God but receiue it from the minister as from Christ for the confirmation of our faith which makes it to be properly and truely a sacrament but a sacrifice it is called improperly and by representation Thus you see what was the sacrifice offered by Christ and what are the spirituall sacrifices of euery Christian. Now followes the third branch of this first part of the text Namely the cause why Christ offered this sacrifice or the end whereunto this sacrifice was directed which is said here to be for sinne But this man hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne Here we are to note that albeit the Angels had sinned as well as man yet it was not for their sinne that Christ offered sacrifice for they had no benefite by his incarnation death or passion but for the sinnes of mankind and withall we are to obserue that albeit Christ was a man endued with true humane nature yet in regard he was not a sinnefull man but a lambe without blemish and without spot a
but makes it plaine by restraining it to some onely This is my blood which is shed for many for remission of sins and the sonne of man 〈◊〉 that he might giue his life a redemption for many and he was offered once for the sins of many By this it is plaine that all men haue not benefite by Christs sacrifice neither is the guilt of euery mans sinnes washed away by the 〈◊〉 of this lambe of God but onely of the elect in Christ who haue doe and shall beleeue in his holy name Away then with the erroneous innouation of the Arminians teaching satisfaction for each particular man And away with that 〈◊〉 conceit of most common people concerning 〈◊〉 Redemption whereby they are apt to say that all men shall be saued and God forbid that any man should goe to hell thus out of 〈◊〉 charitie they iudge contrary to the Canon of Gods word for the iudgement of charitie is not alwayes the iudgement of verity The 〈◊〉 and Sacrifice of Christ with the end of both of them beeing thus largely and sufficiently explained I shall thinke it necessary now to draw all that hath beene formerly spoken to this Corrolary which I will lay downe as a generall doctrine collected out of the three parts of the first branch of the text and it is this That Iesus Christ the eternall Sonne of the euer-liuing God as God and man was the onely Priest that offered on the crosse his whole humane nature soule and body a true and perfect Expiatory sacrifice to satisfie for all the finnes of all true 〈◊〉 where by hee wrought their perfect reconciliation with God and obtained full remission for all their offences The which position in euery particular hath beene so fully prooued that it needs no further confirmation wherefore it shall be necessary to make some application to our selues The vses to be made of this doctrine are diuers Vse 1. First it teacheth vs to consider the true and proper nature of sinne which is so contrary to the 〈◊〉 essence of God so opposire vnto his sacred law so odious and abhominable in his eyes so noxious and dangerous to the soule of man that all the creatures in the world men and angels gold and precious iewells could not appease the wrath of God or be a propitiatory sacrifice for the atonement and reconciliation of mankind but onely 〈◊〉 Christ God and man the eternall Sonne of his Father Oh then how are most men too blame that esteeme their 〈◊〉 as things not worthy regarding not worthy excepting against and how are all men to bee condemned that either for a little gaine or a small deale of perishing pleasure will make no scruple to pollute 〈◊〉 to wound and slay their soules with wilfull and knowne wickednesse Alas alas sinne is so hainous in Gods account that all the world is not able to satisfie for it but onely the eternall Sonne of God and that by being a sacrifice and powring foorth his precious blood Well then did sinne draw Christ from the bosome of his father Did sinne cause him to take our nature vpon him Did sinne nayle him to the crosse piercing his hands his feet his side Did 〈◊〉 take away his blood and with his blood his life Did sinne make him a sacrifice burning in the flames of his fathers wrath and crying Eli Eli 〈◊〉 My God my God why 〈◊〉 thou for saken me was sinne the procuring cause of all this his 〈◊〉 Cursed then be that man that shall eyther 〈◊〉 and delight in sinne or shall extenuate and lessen his sinne esteeming it 〈◊〉 or slender cause why God should cast a man into hell or as sinne 〈◊〉 the heart of Christ shall not bee pricked and pierced at the heart with sorrow and repentance Put thy sinne in one ballance and the price that was payd for it in the other and thou shalt soone finde the one to be of infinite weight to presse thee downe to hell and the other to be of infinite pretiousnesse to recouer thee to heauen This is the first vse of this point for information to teach vs that if Christ were offered a sacrifice for our sinnes sinne then is not to be 〈◊〉 as a slight and slender thing Vse 2. The second vse of this point is for instruction to teach vs what loue God the Father hath expressed vnto vs mortalls in that he sent his Sonne to bee a sacrifice for mankind God commendeth his loue towards vs in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for vs. Great yea infinite surely was the loue of God in that when we had reiected him and giuen heede to the entisements of the Serpent when we had raced forth his image out of our whole man and instead thereof had imprinted therein the feature of the Diuell when we had rebelled against our maker trampling his law vnder our feete destroying our owne soules yet that there should remaine within his bosome a more then fatherly affection towards vs insomuch that he gaue his onely sonne that euery one that 〈◊〉 in him might not perish but haue euerlasting life this is loue indeede farre transcending the loue of any creature which ought to beget in vs true thankfulnesse and a holy retorsion of loue againe For but that God had so much compassion on Adam as to make vnto him that promise of the blessed seede he and we in him had beene hopelesse and helpelesse not 〈◊〉 to get forth of that pit into which we were plunged so that the Lord may say vnto Adam Perditio tua ex te ô Adam saluatio ex me Oh Adam thy destruction proceedes from thy selfe thy saluation only from me and from my loue Should not the consideration of this loue of God plentifully powred out vpon vs without any desert on our part prouoke vs to loue him with all our heartes withall our strength withall our power Why do men loue riches more then God why doe men loue pleasure more then God why do men reioyce more in temporall honour then in God Because they call not to minde the loue that God hath shewed to mankind in sending his sonne into the world to be a sacrifice for our sinnes Hath God so manifested his loue and shall it be so buried in obliuion O consider this yee that forget God least I teare you in peeces and there be none to deliuer you Here as God the father hath manifested his compassion so God the Sonne Iesus Christ hath declared his prompt and ready affection to vs poore sinners in that sponte of his owne free-will he was pleased to take vpon him that arduous and paineful office of priesthood and to effect that stupendious worke of our redemption That he that was verbum increatum the Word increate should become verbum incarnatum the Word incarnate Here was loue without parallell without compare Especially if wee consider that he could not take vpon him the shape of a seruant but
Peter S. Marke S. Matthew S. Andrew S. Dennis S. Clement These are nothing but forged fables of which we may say as Augustine touching that false booke of the Acts of the Apostles which the Manichees falsely pretended that hereby the enemies of the Gospel endeauour to weaken the strength of the scriptures and to strengthen the arme of falshood and therefore I may say of them as Leo the first said of those writings That these pretended writings of the Apostles which vnder their names containe the seedes of many false doctrines 〈◊〉 not onely to be forbidden in the Church but quite banished and burned Forged they are as appeares First by this that they abound so with errours which in the purer ages of the Church were not hatched Secondly in that none of them were euer mentioned by any of the Fathers that liued 500 yeares after Christ. Lastly in that in the masse of St. Iames many sentences yea whole clauses of Paules Epistles are wouen in and inserted albeit St. Iames was beheaded before Paul writ any Epistles Fiftly they alledge for the maintenance of their blasphemous sacrifice that Epistle which quite kils it and huntes it out of the world Wee haue an altar whereof they haue no power to eate which serue in the Tabernacle Now say they if they had an altar then had they also a sacrifice and if a Sacrifice what but that of the Masse Ans. I answere let vs learne what this Altar is and wee shall soone know what the sacrifice is The scope and meaning of the Author is to prooue that as the beasts were burned without the campe which were offered for sinne-offerings for the people so Christ suffered without the gates being made a sinne-offering for his elect and as the Priest that serued in the Tabernacle had no part of that sinne offering so they that trusted in the ceremonies of the leuiticall Law and thought to be made perfect by legall sacrifices they had no part in Christ and that because they did make frustrate the Crosse of Christ which was the visible Altar whereon hee was offered without the gate And thus and no otherwise hath their owne glosse vnderstood it saying We haue an 〈◊〉 that is the Crosse vppon which Christ was offered of which Christs sacrifice And saith he according to this second manner it is proper to this sacrament that Christ is immolated or sacrificed therein Thus these great and learned Doctors pillars I may call them of the Church of Rome confesse the same with vs that Christ is not really properly and truely sacrificed in the Eucharist but Metonymically because therein is a representation of the death of Christ and a commemoration of his passion and an application to euery particular beleeuer of the benefits of Christs redemption vnto himselfe by faith And here we are to take notice of the reason why the Fathers tearmed the Sacrament by the name of a Sacrifice and why they called it an vnbloody Sacrifice Seeing the whole outward seruice both of the Iewes and Gentiles consisted principally in sacrifices it seemed hard and harsh to those that were conuerted either from the one side or other and like to giue much offence if the Church should wholy abolish all sacrifices because these Prosolites newly conuerted to Christianity did not beleeue that religion could subsist without sacrifices Least therefore they might exasperate or prouoke either the one or the other the Christians applyed themselues both to heare and speake of altars and sacrifices and for that the Apostles had taught them that all externall sacrifices had their end in Christ they therefore durst not giue any approbation to the continuance of Iewish sacrifices much lesse to Heathenish therefore they called the Lords Supper their prayers their seruice their almes and well-nigh euery religious actions a Sacrifice the Table of the Lord an Altar the Bishops and Pastors Priests And thus the Fathers called the Supper of the Lord the true Sacrifice of Christ because of the truth of representation and truth of the effect thereof to the faithfull because also that the Church doth therein truely offer her selfe to God as August de ciuit Dei lib. 10. cap. 20. Thus the Lords Table was called by the Fathers an Altar not properly but by a signe and allusion and hereupon sometimes it is called an Altar sometimes a Table The Table of thy spouse hath holy bread and an 〈◊〉 Cup. And Augustine None say so 〈◊〉 such as receiue life from the Lords Table Againe he calls it an Altar Ad Bonifa Epist. 90. saying They rushed in vpon him with horrible 〈◊〉 and furious cruelty with clubs and such like weapons as he stood at the Altar breaking downe the wood of the Altar most barbarously And some of the Fathers deny that they haue any Altar properly which doubtlesse they would neuer haue done had they acknowledged a Propitiatory sacrifice in the Sacrament Our Altar is an earthly gathering together of such as do apply themselues to prayers Arnobius sayth The heathen did accuse the Christians because they did not build them Altars About the 400. yeare Altars began not for sacrifice but for the honour and memory of the Martyrs as the Councill of Carthage doth record cap. 11. Now how do the Fathers call it an vnbloody sacrifice In two respects first thereby to distinguish betweene this representatiue Sacrifice of the Sacrament and the bloody sacrifices of the law and the bloody Sacrifice offered by Christ himselfe vpon the Crosse by which very distinction it appeares that the Fathers dreamed not of Transubstantiation or the presence of any humane or 〈◊〉 blood in the Sacrament for then doubtlesse they would neuer haue vsed that distinction And me thinkes that distinction being admitted by the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 and ouerturneth the reality of a Propitiatory 〈◊〉 For Christ cannot be sacrificed except hee be slaine and he cannot be slaine without shedding of blood and if his blood be shed really vpon the Table after a corporall manner then how is it an vnbloody Sacrifice wherefore it is first called an vnbloody Sacrifice to distinguish betweene the bloody sacrifices of the Iewes and of Christ himselfe it being not a resacrificing of Christ but onely a figuratiue representation and a mysticall commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ. Secondly it was called an vnbloody Sacrifice because it was Eucharisticall and a sacrifice of prayse and thankesgiuing as for all blessings in generall so especially for the worke of our redemption by Christ. And this is manifested by a notable saying of Saint Augustine Hold it firmely and doubt not that the only begotten sonne of God which was made flesh for vs offered himselfe for vs a sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour vnto God to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost in the time of the ancient Law liuing sacrifices were offered and to whom now with the Father and the holy Ghost one onely God
the holy Church dotb not cease to offer bread and wine throughout the whole world For in those carnall sacrifices there is a figuring of the flesh of Christ which hee was to offer for our sinnes and of the blood which he was to shed for the remission of sinnes but in this sacrifice there is a commemoration and thankesgiuing for the flesh of Christ which he hath offered and of the blood which he powred out for vs. Obserue here first he calleth it bread and wine which is offered Secondly hee shewes the end only for commemoration and thanksgiuing So that none of the Fathers did tearme the Eucharist or Sacrament of the Lords Supper in that sence which the Papists doe to bee an vnbloody sacrifice because Christ without shedding of 〈◊〉 was really properly and personally offered but because it was both a representation of that substantiall and great sacrifice which Christ offered on the Crosse as also because it was a sacrifice of prayse thanksgiuing and commemoration And heereupon some of the learned Papists as Gropperus and others being ashamed of this grosse and 〈◊〉 opinion of the Romanists haue confessed the Masse to be nothing but Onely a remembrance of the passion of Christ in a publicke congregation of Christians where there is a generall thankesgiuing for the benefit of our redemption but that Sacrifie of Christ vpon the Crosse to bee offered to God and to remaine in the presence of God in the time of the Supper that when a man despaires of his owne worth hee may apprehend the price of our redemption to wit the body of Christ by faith and offer it to God betweene the wrath of God and his sinnes for the obtaining of that pardon which Christ hath both merited and procured Thus haue wee at length brought this first part of our confutation to an end in which is plainely prooued that the Popish Sacrifice of the Masse hath no foundation either in the Scriptures or Apostolicall constitutions or was either knowne vnto or named by the Fathers for the space of 600. yeares after Christ as also that the Fathers vsed the word Sacrifice in a farre different sence from that of the Church of Rome The second part followes wherein wee shall demonstrate how and by what degrees the Masse was brought into the Church and how it increased and first shall I shew the meaning of the word Masse and how it was vsed in the Ancient Church The Papists themselues are not certaine of the antiquity of the word Missa the Masse yet they finde it no ancienter then Pope Leo and Saint Ambrose his time so their owne Iesuites confesse Bellarmine and others But the word Missa when it is vsed by the Fathers signifies nothing but a publike meeting to the Communion and prayers or a dismission of the assembly or the forme of their religious worship For the first of these it 〈◊〉 an 〈◊〉 gathered together to serue God publikely as Georg. Cassan. praefat in preces suas confesseth which the Greekes signified by the word sunagein to meete together sunaxeis poiein to make congregations ekklesiazein to gather together which words they for the establishing of their hereticall doctrine haue absurdly translated to make Masse or to goe to Masse Secondly the word Masse was vsed for the forme of religious seruice vsed by and in the Church and signified the same with 〈◊〉 or hierourgia The Meleuitan Counsell taketh prayers and Masses both for one thing and to this purpose Saint Augustine in a Sermon if it be his sayth There are some and chiefly great men in the world when they come vnto the Church are not deuoutly affected to celebrate the Prayses of God Sed cogunt presbiterum vt abreuiet Missam but compell the Minister to make short the Masse Heere the word Masse signifieth the whole Liturgie reading of Scriptures singing of Psalmes Prayers and Praysings of God Thirdly it signified the dismission of some of the congregation as wee shall shew immediately The Papists deriue it diuersly some a missione Quia oblatio preces ad Deum mitttantur because an I oblation and prayers are sent vp to God or Quia Angelus a Deo mittatur qui sacrificio 〈◊〉 because an Angell is sent from God to assist the Sacrifice Some of the word Missath vsed Deutr. 16. 10. or Masah which signified a free gift or Eleuation but certainly there are no words now vsed in the Church of the Latines or which were vsed formerly deriued of the Hebrewes but they were first vsed by the Greeke Church and Fathers but this word Missa or Missath was neuer vsed by any of the Fathers of the Greeke Church to signifie either the assembling or seruice or Sacrifice of the Church And therefore is rather to be thought to be deriued a missione and that two wayes either a donis missis from the gifts that were sent by such as were of ability at the celebration of the Sacrament both for the furnishing of the Lords Table as also for the reliefe of the poore Or else it was called 〈◊〉 a dimissione populi as Cyprian calls remissam peccatorum for remissionem when the Deacon cries Ite missa est Leaue is granted you may depart And it is not vnlikely that the same custome was vsed by the Greeke Church when the Minister cried Aphesis laois dismission to the people This dismission was two-fold The first was called Missa 〈◊〉 when the Catechumeni that is such as beeing conuerted to Christianity but not sufficiently 〈◊〉 in the principles of religion and therefore were not as yet baptized were caused to depart as 〈◊〉 with them the Penitents who for some open and scandalous crime did do publike penance in the congregation and the Energoumenoi that is such as were excommunicate who were so called because being deliuered vp vnto Sathan they were supposed to be vexed with wicked spirits These three sorts of people were permitted to bee present both at the prayers seruice and Sermon but when the Lords Supper began to be administred they were to depart wherefore the Deacon cryed with a loud voyce Ite missa est Leaue is giuen you must depart A custome not vnlike that of the Iewes which was not to permit any Leprouse or infected person to be present at their sacrifices and the 〈◊〉 of the Heathens who would haue present at their sacrifices and augurations neither enemy nor conquered nor woman nor virgin nor any profane person wherefore the Priest was wont to aske T is têde who is there and the answere was returned Kaloi k'agathoi none but such as are good and honest The second was Missa Fidelium the Masse of the Faithfull which was the whole ceremony and celebration of the Lords Supper Then all things being finished they had liberty to depart Thus it appeares that the word Masse is not so ancient as our aduersaries pleade Ierome who was the Pastor of Rome and of no
small credit with them neuer vses the words Ambrose once onely Augustine but twise and neither of these in that sence in which the Papists vse it And whereas they obiect that place of Ierome one the 11. chapter of the Prouerbes it is not thought to be his because therein is mentioned Gregory who liued about 200. yeares after Ierome but the best learned do ascribe it to Bede as they do the Sermon of Saint Augustine de tempore to Ambrose or Hugo de Sancto Victore But from the name let vs proceede to the thing it selfe Albeit that about the time of Saint Gregory there hapned such an alteration of the Canon of the Masse of the manner of seruice of vestiments of the bread of priuate Masses of prayers vnto Saints and so continued till Charles the great insomuch that the Church of Rome had cast off her ancient simplicity and Matron-like habit and became like a garish Curtezan yet this sacrifice of the Masse was not as yet allowed of generally in the Church Not in Gregories time for Bellarmine himselfe confesseth he could finde nothing in his writings for confirmation of this their sacrifice For the corporall reality of this sacrifice which our aduersaries defend vpon an imagination of a Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ seemes to be sufficiently confuted by that disputation held by Gregory against Eutiches the Hereticke who denied that Christ had a true humane body against whom Gregory obiected 〈◊〉 saying of our Sauiour to his Disciples who after his resurrection made a doubt of that which 〈◊〉 spared not to maintaine namely that it was not the same body wherein he was cruified but onely a shadow of a body and so his humanity was but kata Phantasian not really but onely in appearance But Gregory obiects the words of Christ. Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me haue behold my hands and feete that it is I my selfe By the same testimony of sence may Christians now discerne bread to be bread after consecration by which the Disciples discerned Christs flesh to be flesh after resurrection they were to beleeue because they did see and feele it to be the flesh of Christ wee haue the benefit of foure sences seeing handling tasting smelling to prooue vs to receiue not flesh but bread And here we may note what was the faith of the Church of England about those times of St. Gregory by an ancient Homily written in the Saxon tongue and appointed to be preached throughout England in euery Church vpon Easter day Part where of runnes thus In the holy sont we see two things in that one creature after the true nature the water is corruptible water and yet after 〈◊〉 mystery 〈◊〉 hath hallowing might So also wee behold the holy housell it is bread after bodily vnderstanding then wee see it is a body 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 but if wee acknowledge therein a spirituall might then vnderstand wee that life is therein and it giueth 〈◊〉 to them that 〈◊〉 it with 〈◊〉 Much difference there is betweene the inuisible might of the holy 〈◊〉 and the visible shape of the proper nature It is naturally corruptible bread and corruptible wine and it is by the might of Christs word truely 〈◊〉 body and his blood not so notwithstanding bodily but spiritually much difference is there betweene the body that Christ suffered 〈◊〉 and the body that is hallowed to housell the body 〈◊〉 Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary with blood and with bone with skinne with 〈◊〉 in humane limmes with a reasonable soule 〈◊〉 and his spirituall body which we call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thered of many cornes without blood and bone without limme without soule and therefore nothing therein is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 but all is spiritually to be vnderstood By these words 〈◊〉 appeares that the ancient Christians in England held not that grosse transubstantiation maintained now by the Romish Church which is the mother of the Massing sacrifice for take away 〈◊〉 and of necessity you lay the honour of their sacrifice in the dust For the space of 〈◊〉 yeares after Gregory this Sacrifice of the Masse beganne to gather strength and to be taught and 〈◊〉 though not generally in the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 Abbot of Corby in 〈◊〉 hath these words Because we sinne daily Christ is Sacrificed for vs Mystically and his Passion giuen in Mystery Againe The blood is drunken in Mystery spiritually and it is all spirituall which wee eate And The full similitude is 〈◊〉 and the flesh of the imacculate Lambe is faith inwardly that the truth he not wanting to the Sacrament and it be not ridiculous to Pagans that wee drinke the blood of a 〈◊〉 man Note here that he would 〈◊〉 the outward 〈◊〉 and the inward substance represented by the signe to subsist in the Sacrament otherwise it takes away the truth of the Sacrament and hee would not haue the 〈◊〉 thinke the 〈◊〉 to be so absurd as to drinke the reall and substantiall blood of Christ with their bodily mouthes but onely Sacramentally and in a Mystery Bertram 〈◊〉 liued about the 900. yeare of Christ in the time of Charles the 〈◊〉 whose wordes agree directly with the Doctrine of the Church of England and are these Our Lord hath done this at once euen in offering himselfe 〈◊〉 is to say sacrificing himselfe for vs For hee was once offered for the finnes of the people and this 〈◊〉 notwithstanding is dayly celebrated by the 〈◊〉 but in a mysterie to the end that what hath beene accomplished by our Lord lesus in offering himselfe once might be handled 〈◊〉 day by the celebrating of the Mysteries of the 〈◊〉 of the memory of his passion Where is to be noted how he opposeth the mysticall 〈◊〉 to the reall receiuing and the dayly 〈◊〉 of the remembrance to the once offering of the 〈◊〉 Againe He which is dayly offered by the faithfull in the mysterie of his body and his blood namely that whosoeuer will draw neere vnto him may know that he must 〈◊〉 part in his sufferings the image and representation whereof is exhibited in the holy Mysteries About the 1000. yeare liued Theophilact who seems to deny this Propitiatory Sacrifice in these words The medicines which are effectuall and forcible do heale at the first time being administred but those which neede to bee taken againe and againe doe sufficiently argue their weaknesse by that onely note euen so it fareth betweenethe Legall Sacrifices and the Sacrifice of Christ. But here ariseth a question Whether we also doe offer sacrifices without shedding of blood vnto which we answere affirmatiuely but it is that we doe renue the Memory of the death of the Lord and yet in the meane time it is but one Sacrifice not many because it hath beene offered but onely once We offer then 〈◊〉 himselfe or rather the Remembrance of this oblation
by which he did offer himselfe And in another place he hath these words Where there is remission of sins there needes not any more sacrifices but Christ hath offered a Sacrifice seruing and standing sufficient for euer and therefore wee haue no neede of any other second sacrifice About the 1000 yeare they beganne to ordaine Priests with these words Accipe potestatem missas celebrandi sacrificium offerrendi pro viuis mortuis Take power to celebrate Masses and to offer Sacrifice sor the quicke and the dead Then had priuate Masse gotten some life wherein the Priest alone did communicate for himsefe and for those who had payed him a good price to be remembred when hee receiued the Sacrament that intentionally the vertue of his communicating might profit them to saluation Then began the circumgestation or carrying about of the host with the adoration or worshipping of it Then began they to ascribe to it the power of healing and working of miracles And about this time did the Church of Rome giue vnto the Sacrament that great and as yet vnrecouered name of taking away the cup of the Lords Supper from the Layity that is like Arithmeticians they had liberally studied addition making many things essentiall to the Sacrament of the Supper which were not so now they might put in practise Substraction by with-holding the one halfe of the Elements wherwith Christ institutes and the Apostles and Primitiue Church celebrated the Lords Supper from the lay people Let euery man iudge here whose religion is new or who are the Innovators they or we Among diuers other additions vnto the ceremonies of the Masse in the yeare 1065. was ioyned the blessing of the incense wherein there is mention made of a propitiatory sacrifice But this doctrine was not generally established in the Church till within this 408 yeares for as one of their greatest Schoolmen 〈◊〉 Ante Concilium Lataranense hoc dogma non suit Before the Councill of Lateran this opinion namely of 〈◊〉 was not that is generally approued and maintained And Cornalius Musso a Bishop of Bitrutum so famous for his learning as Sixtus Senensis writeth that he was a Preacher at twelue yeares old and all Italy ranne after him did defend in the Councell of Trent that Christ at his last Supper did offer no sacrifice at all meaning no true Propitiatory sacrifice For as he vrgeth if he offered himselfe to his Father in his last Supper then should he not haue perfected his sacrifice with one oblation made as Saint Paul teacheth but with a double oblation twice made once in the Supper and once vpon the crosse which were most repuguant to the holy Scripture But from the time of the Laterane Councill this doctrine of the Masse tooke such roote and spread it selfe so farre and so fast that the greatest part of Europe is darkned with the darke shade thereof growing by degrees from an action of thanksgiuing to an Eucharisticall Sacrifice and from thence to a Propitiatory sacrifice by way of Mystery and Commendation and from thence to a true proper and reall Propitiatory sacrifice equall with nay farre more effectuall then the sacrifice that Christ himselfe offered vpon the crosse And this dangerous and blasphemous doctrine crept in the more easily by the ignorance of these latter ages both in the Church and Common-wealth caused by the troubles of the Church of Rome as also by the corruption of languages which was in this last thousand yeares occasioned by the mixture of diuers nations together in seuerall kingdomes and especially Italy and this heresie beeing crept into the Church was fostered and nourished by the coldnesse of mens deuotion the couetousnesse of the Priests and the 〈◊〉 of the Bishops The coldnesse of mens deuotion was such that whereas in the feruent zeale of the Christian Church the Supper of the Lord was celebrated euery Lords day yea in some Churches euery day and great multitudes resorted and thronged thereunto yet in processe of time men began so to neglect the Lords Table that there was this law enacted to compel them to a more carefull respect of communicating That such lay people as did not communicate at the least euery feast of the Natiuity Easter and Whitsontide should bee held for Infidells This law was afterward ratified by Charles the Great and vrged vpon the people But hereby it came to passe that the profits of the Priests were much curtalled because the people brought not so many offerings as in former times wherefore the Clergie thought to vse a speedy remedie for this disease and therefore began to teach them that the Sacrament was not onely profitable for the saluation of the Communicants but also for all their friends and kindred liuing and dead which the Priest should remember secretly with himself at the time of celebration and this they called Vim 〈◊〉 the force efficacie of the Masse This broght in store of gaine to the Priests purse as Diana did to Demetrius and his companions and as the Pythonisse did vnto her masters no maruaile then if they stand to maintaine that which maintaines them This doctrine of the Massing sacrifice they cunningly built vpon two foundations which were layd both at this time the better to keepe the people in awe and to cause the more respect vnto their sacrfice The first was Transubstantion for after it was taught that the bread and wine was changed substantially into the body and blood of Christ then what reuerence was too great for this sacrifice who could doubt that it was Propitiatory The second was Purgatory for then might the people argue if our friends departed out of this world doe abide the scorching flames of Purgatory and that wee our selues must thither too and if the holy sacrifice of the Masse hath such vertue as to ease the soules therein then let vs out of charitie to our friends pay some portion of money to the Priest for the cessation of their paines and out of loue to our selues when we dye let vs leaue grounds and goods to the Church that Masse may be sayd for vs when we are dead Thus you see how the sacrifice of the Masse got footing vpon what ground it stood and so continues But God that still prouideth for his Church will and hath caused light to breake out of darknes that albeit the darknes of Fgypt bee palpable yet light shall shine clearely in Goshen and to this end hath sent diuers of his seruants to deliuer truth out of prison and to manifest the light there of vnto his people Their owne tongues are against them and some of their owne brood hatched about the time of the Laterane Councell disclaime this point As you haue heard Aquinas speaking in this case pag. 71. so heare whether he be not still the same who sayes It behooneth that there euermore should remaine some representation of the passion of our Lord. In the old teament this principall
sacrament was the Paschall lambe whereupon the Apostle sayes Christ our Paschall Lambe was offered And in place thereof hath succeeded the Eucharist in the new Testament which is a Memoriall of his passion past and suffered as the other was a prefigurer and 〈◊〉 of his passion to come Petrus Alphonsus at the same time did acknowledge the Masse or Eucharist for no other thing then a Sacrifice of praise And this was at that time one of the questions disputed by the Albigenses and Petrus Brutis who was burnt at Tholosa where hee taught publikely that it was not a Propitiatory All these sacrifices saith he which were vsed vnder the law were nothing but 〈◊〉 of this great sacrifice which was to destroy sinne But since the comming of Christ wee vse not any other Sacrifice but that of bread and wine which he hath ordained is like vnto that which Moses in the law called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sacrifice of prayse for therein we prayse God for the benefit hee hath bestowed vpon vs sauing vs by his onely Sonne c. Alexander Hales seemes to crosse the Masse in diuers of his assertions for he speakes thus Iesus Christ hath offered a double sacrifice a spirituall and corporall the spirituall that is a sacrifice of deuotion and loue towards mankind which he hath offered in spirit the corporall the sacrifice of the death which he vnderwent vpon the crosse which is represented in the sacrament Marke he confesseth no realitie of a sacrifice any otherwise then by 〈◊〉 The spirituall figured by the incense and perfume which was made vpon the inner 〈◊〉 the corporall which hee offered in his flesh two wayes that is to say sensibly vpon the crosse and insensibly vpon the altar Obserue he tearmes it an insensible offering not grosse vnder the formes of bread and wine That sensible sort being shadowed out by the sacrifices of beasts but the insensible by the sacrificing of things that are insensible as fruits bread and wine both the one and the other vpon the vtter altar Here he maketh one Propitiatory for such were the sacrifices wherein beasts were offered with the shedding of their blood for sinne figuring out the singular sacrifice vpon the crosse offered by the Messiah the Lord Iesus Christ. The other Eucharisticall onely for such properly were those of fruites bread c. Lyra also that Catholike interpreter of the whole scripture seems not much to dissent from the former for writing of the Sacrifice of Christ that it is not to be iterated preoccupates an obiection thus You will say the sacrament of the altar is euery day offered vp in the Church But the answer hereto is that this is no reiterating of the sacrifice but an ordinary remembring and calling to mind of the onely Sacrifice offered vpon the crosse wherefore it is said Math. 26. Doe this in remembrance of me That most learned Arrias Montanus vpon Luk. 22. thus writes This is my body that is My body is sacramentally contained in this sacrament of bread and straight way he addes like another Nicodemus Christs nightly disciple The secret and most mysticall manner whereof God will once vouchsafe more clearely to vnfold vnto his Church Thus hath the light of truth appeared from the beginning of the Primitiue Church vntill these our dayes albeit till within this hundred and odde yeares it hath from the time of Gregory shined more dimmely and since the Laterane Councell seemed well nigh to be quite extinct But at last the Sunne of righteousnes communicated his light vnto these 〈◊〉 which haue illuminated our Horizon such as Luther Zuinglius Oecolampadius Caluine Beza Iewell and many famous Martyrs in queene Maryes dayes as Cranmer Latimer Ridley Bradford Philpot c. which albeit it pleaseth the Romish Factors to brand them with the title of Heretickes haue so dispelled the darkenesse of superstition and discouered the Mysterie of Antichrist that all the world may point out which is the purple and scarlet Whore Babylon the great the mother of harlots and abhominations of the earth whose shame her children louers and friends would saine conceale but God hath layd it open and will dayly more and more before men and angells till the time come when she shall be cast downe burnt with fire and made desolate for euermore Thus haue I let you see briefly and I doubt more briefly then so ample a matter doth require how the sacrifice of the Masse crept into the Church and how it hath continued How first it was celebrated in a most plaine and simple manner Secondly it began to admit some encrease of ceremonies especially the offerings for the dead which was but a gratulation and thankesgiuing for them vntill 200. yeares after 〈◊〉 Thirdly prayers for the dead got entrance into the Supper about 400. yeares then came in Purgatory and redemption of soules thence by Masses though not generally taught nor authorized by any Councill About the 780. yeare Gregoryes Masse was publikely taken vp in the Churches of Italy whereas before Ambrose his Masse was of more generall vse Fourthly the disputations of Transubstantiation began about the yeare 840. but were not fully concluded till the Councell of Lateran by Innocent the third anno 1216. After which came in the offering of the body and blood of Christ vpon the altar And after that there followed the enclosing carying about and adoration of them Thus grew the Church of Rome from euill to worse till it came to that miserable state wherein it now is And as the Romanists are Innouatours in respect of the Sacrifice of the Masse so are they also in respect both of the Canon of the Ceremonies of the Masse for whereas they boast that the forme of the Masse in respect of the Canon is so ancient as that they deduce it from the Apostles and to this end alleadge the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy of Dionysius some of their owne writers doe question the veritie and antiquity of that book doubting whether it be spurious or no and that the Canon hath admitted diuers additions by seuerall and sundry Popes appeares by their owne Polidore Virgill whose words bee these All the Mysteries were deliuered by Christ to his Apostles barely and plainely sauouring more of piety then outward shew for Peter was went onely to consecrate by saying the Lords prayer after this these 〈◊〉 were enlarged by Saint Iames by Saint Basill Coelestine added the entrance of the Masse beginning with this 〈◊〉 Iudge me oh Lord. Damasus added the confession which is made by the Priest before hee ascend vnto the Altar some ascribe it to Pontianus Gregory added the 〈◊〉 which followeth the Entrance and that Lord haue mercy vpon vs should bee repeated ninetimes with the Antiphonie after the Epistle Gospel and communion Telesphorus added the hymne of glory to God on high Gelasius added the conclusions of the prayers as vpon Christmas day because thou didst
and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine In the one there is the forme and substance of Melchizedechs sacrifice in the other the accidents alone Againe if Melchisedechs sacrifice doth represent the sacrifice of the Masse it must represent it as a sacrifice but the Masse is no sacrifice but in respect of the inward substance for the outward formes are not the sacrifice but the body of Christ vnder those formes ergo Melchizedechs sacrifice must represent the Masse in the substance which is the body of Christ. Thirdly types and shadowes differ from the body in outward symboles onely but agree in substance as St. Paul shewes Christ to bee the same spirituall meate and drinke to the Israelites and vs but to be sundryly represented by diuers Sacraments or representations wherefore the sacrifice of Melchizedech and that of the Masse if it were a true resemblance of Christs sacrifice should differ in externall forme but agree in substance Againe if Melchizedechs Priest-hood be eternall by the offering of the body of Christ by the Priests of Rome then it would follow that either these Priests shal say Masse and offer this sacrifice after the consummation of this world and the day of iudgement or else Christ shall make choyce of some others who may offer this sacrifice in Heauen or else this sacrifice must cease and so not be eternall any of which no man of a sound minde or firme iudgement will admit Lastly if Melchizedechs Sacrifice of bread and wine were a type of the Masse then should it be as the Church of Rome holds the Masse to be a true propitiatory 〈◊〉 for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead otherwise why should they so much labour to reduce their sacrifice to the sacrifice of Melchizedech and so to make it more excellent then the Leuiticall sacrifices the excellency whereof cannot consist in the resemblance of the formes of Melchizedechs offering but also in the vertue and efficacy But no man euer sayd that Melchizedech offered a true Propitiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead Thus much shall serue for answere vnto their first Argument The second Argument is taken from the Paschall Lambe and it stands thus The Paschall Lambe was a figure of the Eucharist but the Paschall Lambe was first sacrificed ergo in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is a sacrifice We answere what if we should grant them the whole argument they cannot glory much in their purchase for what would be concluded but what is already granted namely that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice to wit Eucharisticall or at most 〈◊〉 by way of representation or recordation But let vs grapple with our aduersaries a little more closely First wee doe confesse the Paschall Lambe and the Eucharist to haue some analogy and similitude as that they both represent Christ crucified as also they were both to bee eaten the one with sowre hearbes the other with sorrow and repentance thirdly in the end for remembrance of deliuerance the one corporall the other spirituall But againe there were many dissimilitudes the Passeouer was eaten with blood the Eucharist without materiall blood The Passeouer was eaten at Euen the Eucharist is administred in the Morning of the Passeouer nothing was left but of the Eucharist is left and reserued by the Papists the Passeouer was eaten in their houses the Eucharist in the Church seeing then they agree not in all things why may they not disagree in the matter of a sacrifice But to speake precisely we cannot grant the Paschall Lambe to be a Type of the Eucharist albeit this succeeded in the roome of the other but properly and directly to be a Type of Christ according to the Euangelist That the Scripture should be fulfilled not a bone of him should be broken and if the Typicall Passeouer was fulfilled in Christ wee are not to seeke any other Antitype wherein it should be accomplished Furthermore it was not a Type of Christ in all things for then as Zanchius obserues Christ should haue beene fleade and had his skinne pulled off scorched in the fire and his bones burnt after the lewes had eaten his naturall flesh as they did with the Paschall Lambe but as the Lambe was sacrificed and eaten in remembrance of their deliuerance out of Egypt so Christ was sacrificed on the Crosse and eaten in the Sacrament for a remembrance of our eternall redemption by his meritorious Sacrifice Vnto the assumption we answere It is not probable that the Paschall Lambe was sacrificed because sacrifices were brought vnto the Priest and offered by none but a Priest on the Altar but the passeouer was slaine by the housholder and all his family as Philo Iudeus affirmes without any Altar now if our aduersaries will haue such an exact correspondency why then should it not be as lawfull for a lay person to consecrate the host as for a maister of euery family to slay dresse and eate the Paschall Lambe or for a multitude to consecrate and not one Priest alone Againe it was not lawfull for an vncleane person to offer sacrifice till he had separated himselfe for some certaine season according to the prescribed time of the ceremoniall Law but no mans vncleannesse ought to exclude him from he 〈◊〉 Numbers 9. 10. Ergo the Paschall Lambe was no sacrifice Againe the Iewes after the edifying of the Temple sacrificed not out of Ierusalem yet were they accustomed in all their remouings from place to place to eate the Paschall Lambe in the moneth appointed And Moses when Pharaoh permitted him to sacrifice in Egypt refusing sayd It was not-meete yet refused hee not to celebrate the Passeouer there whereby it appeareth to be no sacrifice But Bellarmine to proue the Passeouer alleadgeth Marke 14. 12. When they sacrifice the Passeouer But we must obserue that it is called a sacrifice Katati after a sort because it was slaine as the other sacrifices and because it was a spirituall sacrifice for the word Zebach which signifies a sacrifice killed is often vsed about the ceremony of the Paschall Lambe because it was killed as other sacrifices and is vsed also sometimes largely for a spirituall sacrifice as The Sacrifices of God are a broken spirit But let it be granted that the Paschall Lambe was a Sacrifice yet no otherwise then Eucharisticall for the remembrance of the great and admirable deliuerance of the Iewes out of Egypt Yea if we grant it to be propitiatory it helpes them not but rather disaduantageth them in their practise for if they will haue the Paschall Lambe to be a figure of the Masse how comes it to passe that the former was offered with blood this without the one by the whole family the other onely by the Priest of the former nothing was to be reserned but they reserue the host to be kept in the pyx the former was not to be carried forth of the house but the host
the commers thereunto perfect for then should they not haue ceased to be offered because that the worshippers once purged should haue had no more conscience of sinnes What doth the Apostle conclude here He opposeth the Gospell to the law our Soueraigne Priest Christ Iesus against the Priests of Aaron his sacrifice which had no need to be renewed against their sacrifices repeated euery day the holinesse and effectuall sanctifying power which was in his sacrifice against their weakenesse and disability to sanctifie Hereupon he concludeth Hee taketh away the former to establish the latter the sacrifices of the law to establish his owne sacrifice Now how could this conclusion be good if this sacrifice should be reiterated seeing the often repetition argues weakenesse and impotency therefore the Apostle so often vses these words once offered to note the al-sufficiency of Christs sacrifice in the single and vnrepeated act of offering hee hauing annihilated and disanulled all other sacrifices whatsoeuer Wherefore the blood of Christ shed personally by himselfe being of sufficient vertue and merit to purifie cleanse and redeeme all beleeuers it must necessarily follow that there needes no reiteration but we may content our selues with that onely sacrifice offered vpon the crosse The Minor is so plaine and Orthodoxe that hee deserues not the name of a Christian that shall deny it Argument 2. Secondly he that offereth a true Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne must be of more value then the sacrifice it selfe but the Priest is not of more value then the body of Christ. Ergo the Priest in the Masse cannot offer the body of Christ. The Maior is true for the gift is not accepted for it selfe but for the worthinesse of him that offers it as Ireneus affirmes wherefore albeit Cains sacrifice was not of lesse worth in it selfe then Abells yet the person of Cain being vnworthy because of the wickednesse of his heart his offering was reiected but Abell beeing more worthy then his oblation in regard of his faith the Lord had respect vnto him and to his offering so Christ as Priest was God and man and therefore of more merit and efficacy then his humane nature which was the onely sacrifice for without the merit of the Godhead by which the humanity was offered the sacrifice of Christ could not haue beene of infinite value and desert Wherefore he that presumes to offer the body of Christ truely and really vnto God the Father for a Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne blasphemously sayes in effect that he is of more value worth and merit then the sacrifice he offers Argument 3. Thirdly 〈◊〉 lawfull sacrifice is grounded vpon expresse words of Scripture whereby it may appeare that God hath instituted such a sacrifice but there is no command in scripture for the sacrifice of the Masse Ergo. The sacrifice of the Masle is not lawfull The Maior proposition is prooued by the words of Christ Invaine doe they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandements of men Where our Sauiour sharpely reprehendeth the Scribes and 〈◊〉 for teaching those things to belong to the worship of God which were of their owne inuention and not by Gods expresse command for this is a true Thesis Nothing ought to bee accounted of the substance or essence of Gods worship but what God himselfe hath expresly commanded in his word And for this very thing did God reprooue the Iewes because they worshipped in Tophet offering such kind of sacrifices as hee neuer appointed for I spake not vnto your fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them forth of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices but this I said commanding them Obey my voyce and I will be your God c. Where first God condemned them for doing what they were not commanded as offering their children vnto Molech in the vally of Tophet Secondly God shewes them wherein he will bee worshipped namely in that which he expresly commandeth Therefore albeit God had commanded the sacred action of sacrificing as a part of diuine worship yet because the Gentils in their sacrifices did not follow the prescript forme of the law of God therefore were their sacrifices abhominable and no other then I dolatrous The Minor proposition is perspicuous for let all the Gospells and writings of the Apostles bee strictly suruayed and there can neither the name nor sacrifice of the Masse be found for the sacrifices of the law had their precise and prescript forme enioyned why then if God would haue an externall sacrifice to remaine vnder the Gospell hath hee not left vs directions for the manner And whereas our aduersaries pretend a command in these words Do this hereunto we haue already answered page 56. Wherefore the sacrifice of the Masse hauing no ground in the new Testament wee must needes account it fictitious a humane inuention and therefore to be reiected Argument 4. Fourthly that sacrifice wherein there is no shedding of blood cannot bee Propitiatory But in the Masse there is no shedding of blood Ergo the sacrifice of the Masse is no Propitiatory sacrifice The Maior proposition is grounded vpon the words of the Apostle Without blood shedding there can be no remission of sinnes and in the legall sacrifices all that were Propitiatory were liuing creatures which were slaine by the Priests The minor is true according to the common consent of our aduersaries who make the Masse to be sacrificium incruentum an vnbloody sacrifice and albeit the blood of Christ be powred out yet it is not shed for them in behalfe of whom it is offered wherein they doe directly contradict themselues Argument 5. Fiftly that doctrine which is contrary to it selfe is not to be embraced in the Church But the doctrine of our aduersaryes touching the sacrifice of the Masse is contrary to it selfe Ergo it is not to bee imbraced The Maior neither Protestant nor Papist will deny The Minor is prooued For our aduersaries teach that the body of Christ in the Masse is an externall sacrifice and is truely offered vnto God the Father vnder the formes of bread and wine And yet they teach the body of Christ to be inuisible in the sacrifice wherein they are contrary to themselues for no externall sacrifice is an inuisible sacrifice neither can a sacrifice be visible which they affirme of their sacrifice when the thing offered is inuisible Wherefore if they will make it an externall offering the sacrifice it selfe must be visible but here is nothing visible according to their Tenent but the Altar the Priest his ceremoniall and mimicall actions his many hundred crossings the accidents and outward formes which are no part of the sacrifice Here then their doctrine implyes a contradiction to make it a visible sacrifice and yet the sacrifice is inuisible it is an externall oblation yet the matter offered is internall and cannot be discerned Howsoeuer though no man can perceiue the matter of their sacrifice yet euery man may perceiue the manner of their iugling
places and the like it is euident that hee that was to be the Priest of the new Couenant was also to be the Mediatour betweene God and man and that there is no Mediatour but onely Christ appeares by the words of Saint Paul For there is one God and one Mediatour betweene God and man the man Iesus Christ. Wherefore if they say they are Priests of the new Testament they may as well say they are Mediatours and if Mediators then Redeemers of the Church Argument 10. Tenthly if Christ in the Sacrament be giuen vnto vs to bee receiued with truth faith and humble reuerence then Christ is not offered vnto his Father by the Priest in the Eucharist much lesse in the Masse But he is offered vnto vs in the Eucharist Ergo. Christ is not offered by the Priest vnto his Father The hypotheticall connexion appeares by the nature of those things which are opposite for the end of Christs institution of the Supper was to exhibite himselfe vnto all beleeuers Spiritually to be receiued Sacramentally for the sealing and confirmation of their faith and not to bee offered vp by any mortall vnto his Father And whereas they obiect that God gaue vnto the Israelites sacrifices which they should offer vnto God We answer that this exception is plaine heterogenes of another nature for their sacrifices were corporall and externall ours spirituall and internall The assumption is prooued by the words of Christ Take eate this is my body which is giuen for you Taking doth presuppose a giuing it is called The Communion of the body and blood of Christ. That is the communicating and distributing of the blessed body and blood of Christ whereof all beleeuers in common are made partakers They affirme the Eucharist to be not onely a Sacrament out also a Propitiatory sacrifice were deny it vpon this ground because all expiatory sacrifices properly so called haue their complement in the most perfect and absolute sacrifice of Christ Iesus which he offered himselfe vpon the crosse But say they Christ sacrificed himselfe in the Eucharist which appeares by these words Datur frangitur effunditur is giuen is broken is powred out where our Sauiour speakes in the present tense and not shall be broken shall be giuen shall be powred out We answer first some of their owne writers haue denyed that Christ offered any Propitiatory sacrifice when he instituted and distributed the Eucharist see p. 84. And he himselfe saies that his time was not fully come namely wherein he should be offered Againe their owne translation hath tradetur effundetur shall be giuen shall be powred out which Lyra following doth so render and so is it in the Canon of the Masse Moreouer our Sauiour might so speake not to signifie a present sacrifice but to intimate that his body was already broken and his blood shed in Gods determination and his owne resolution in which sense he is called Agnus ab origine mundi occisus The lambe slaine from the beginning of the world because God had appointed him from the beginning to be the Sauiour of the world And why might not Christ speake in the present tense hauing respect vnto their 〈◊〉 whose property is to make things past and to come to be truely present But the direct answer is that in the words of Christ there is an Enallage temporis the present time being set for the future and this kind of speech is frequent in the scripture as Woe vnto that man by whom the Sonne of man is betrayed for shall be betrayed Vnto vs a sonne and borne of c. And thus their owne Cardinall expounds it saying Euangelistae in voce praesentis effunditur Paulus in frangitur futuram in cruce effusionem carnis frnctionem significarunt c. The Euangelists in the word is powred out being of the present tense and Paul by the word is broken did signifie the suture effusion of his blood and the breaking of his flesh vpon the crosse And so Gregory de Valentia vpon these words This is my body which is giuen for you saith That is which shall be offered by mee slaine vpon the crosse So Hugo Cardinalis vpon Math. 26. Fregit id est frangendum in cruce signauit He brake that is he signified it to be broken vpon the crosse Now who sees not the blasphemie of our peruerse aduersaries who against the light of holy scripture and I thinke I may safely say against the light of their owne conscience dare affirme that Christ in the Lords Supper offered his transubstantiated body vnto his Father an expiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the elect how can they reconcile this doctrine and the words of the Apostle Christ offered himselfe once for all which they can neuer effect till they prooue the action which Christ performed in the night before he was betrayed to bee eadem numero the same indiuiduall action which hee did the day following for if hee offered himselfe for sinne in the Sacrament and offered himselfe for the same sins vpon the crosse How can this bee true Hee offered himselfe once for all who sees not by their doctrine a double offering of Christ Who perceiues not double dealing in the matter Argument 11. The eleuenth argument That sacrifice which is not of diuine institution is not lawfull in the Church But the sacrifice of the Masse is not of diuine institution Therefore the sacrifice of the Masse is not lawfull The Maior is prooued by the confession of their owne Iesuite who sayes that the Church cannot institute any new sacrifice or sacrament for the ordinance of such essentiall parts of Gods worship must bee of diuine institution and as he affirmeth 〈◊〉 7. Sacrificia veteris legis omnia fuerunt a Deo immediate instituta licet erant a Mose promulgata Sacrificij autem 〈◊〉 gis solus Christus Deus homo author est God was the authour of all the sacrifices of the old Law albeit they were promulgated by Moses and Christ God and Man is the authour of the sacrifice of the new Testament Therefore hath Salomon their Iesuite iustly taxed a Great Scholler of their owne Church for saying the Church had authority to institute a new sacrifice if Christ himselfe had instituted none The Minor is true for as Martin Luther exacteth of our aduersaries a demonstration of their sacrifice from the institution of Christ wherein as hee obserueth We reade that Christ did distribute this sacrament vnto his disciples but that he offered it vp in forme of a sacrifice we cannot find Hereunto their Cardinall Bellarmine answereth That this manner of argument from scripture 〈◊〉 as thus it is not expressely set downe is scripture Ergo it was not done is ridiculous among schoole-boyes But if he wold take the aduise of Suarez or stand to his owne answer which elsewhere he himselfe hath deliuered he would not so slightly reiect that forme ofarguing For first Suarez a
Scripture yet it is effectually proued by the tradition of the Church Which may make vs iustly admire the vaine 〈◊〉 of our aduersaries who boasting of nothing more then Scripture are yet faine wholy to relinquish it and to build vpon the tradition of the Church but an answere 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 afore And for these words Is giuen broken shed for you they interpret to be a present giuing in the Eucharist by way of sacrifice but this is sufficiently answered in the former 〈◊〉 Now seeing the words of Christs institution doe make their sacrifice to be a meere non Ens let ve examine his actions and see if any of them will breath any life into this their sacrifice The actions of Christ the Scripture mentions to be foure Hee tooke bread He blessed it He brake it He gaue it Not any one of these can seeme to import a sacrifice And whereas our aduersaries haue divided their sacrifice into fix actions in the which of them this sacrifice should consist Suarez makes it doubtfull The first action is the taking of the bread before consecration and the heauing it vp which they call the Eleuation of the host this is not essentiall to the sacrifice by the Iesuites owne confession because it cannot be prooued neither by Scripture nor the tradition of the Church that Christ did vse it Albeit herein he dissents from Sotus a learned Doctor who with others thought it to be vsed by Christ and in some sort to 〈◊〉 to the substance of this sacrifice The second action is the Consecration of the Host in the words of Christ Hoc est corpus meum This is my body This Suarez 〈◊〉 to be intrinsecall and essentiall to this sacrifice and to be the sacrificing action and yet tels vs that it was the opinion of many learned men That consecration was but only an antecedent vnto the sacrifice but properly neither to be of the essence nor yet any part of this sacrifice And how can the Papists confidently build their sacrifice vpon those words This is my body when their owne Bishop hath prooued from the testimonies of the most ancient Fathers that those are not the words of consecration but that the words of consecration were before those words when Christ prayed and blessed the bread and the cup and therefore hee alleadgeth the perpetuall practise of the Church from the age of the Apostles whose custome was to consecrate by prayer or benediction as also the Liturgies of St. Iames Clement Basil Chrysostome do declare the same being backed with the iudgement of many learned Schoole-men to whom hee adioynes the Diuines of Colein all agreeing consecration rather to be in the prayer or blessing of Christ then in these words This is my body which hee rather accounts to be the institution then the consecration of the Sacrament The third action after the words of consecration is the Oblation vsed by the lifting vp of the Host in these words Be mindfull ô Lord c. Concerning which there is great 〈◊〉 some great Doctors haue placed the whole essence of this sacrifice in this Oblation or Eleuation as Ecchius 〈◊〉 Ruardus Others say it is of the essence but not the whole essence as Scotus Gabriel Biel Soto Canus these Suarez quoteth but differing from them all for he affirmes it to be no essentiall part of the sacrifice with whom agrees Bellarmine because say they it is not expressed in the Scripture neither yet is it probable other wayes that this kinde of eleuation or lifting vp was vsed by Christ in the institution onely herein these Iesuites differ Suirez will haue this eleuation to be an Ecclesiasticall rite but Bellarmine to be Apostolicall The fourth action is the dipping of the consecrated Host into the cup which Canus makes to bee of the substance of this sacrifice which Suarez againe one the same ground disanulls because that it appeares not that Christ did vse any such action The fift action is the distribution of the 〈◊〉 according vnto the example of Christ who gaue it vnto his Disciples which saith the Iesuite some Catholike Doctours haue iudged to be the full complement and perfection of this sacrifice But as learned Morton obserues first they must shew vnto vs where the essence of this sacrifice is to bee found least they tell vs of the perfection of a sacrifice before their sacrifice appeare to be Ens or to haue any beeing The last action is the Priests consuming the consecrated formes by eating and drinking some make this to be the substance of the sacrifice and the very essence of it as the Moderne Thomists Ledesima Canus and Bellarmine who are againe contradicted by other great Doctours of the Roman Church as Thomas Aquinas 〈◊〉 Maior Alan Cassalus Catharinus Turrianus Palacius with whom Salmeron doth consent all which doe deny that this consumption of the Host doth belong to the essence of this sacrifice Thus haue you seene what 〈◊〉 warre our aduersaries doe maintaine among themselues 〈◊〉 against Manasses and Manasses against Ephraim but both against Iudah 〈◊〉 war in their owne campe yet they all conspire against the truth Now let the Reader iudge where is vnity or consent in doctrine when their greatest Doctours in the maine point of religion are at variance directly contradicting one another with est non est it is and it is not They vniustly vpbraid vs with dissentions when alas ours is no dissention if compared with theirs we onely differing in the fringe they in the garment wee alone in the ceremonies they in the substance and very soule of religion Thus haue we largely and sufficiently prooued by the testimonies of our aduersaries that the sacrifice of the Masse was not instituted by Christ and therefore by the confession of their owne Iesuites not to be admitted into the Church Argument 12. The twelfth argument is grounded vpon Bellarmines owne ssertion which is this Ad verum sacrificium requiritur vt quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sacrificium plane destruatur id 〈◊〉 ita mutetur vt desinat esse id quod erat To a true sacrifice is required that that which is offered vnto God in sacrifice be wholy destroyed that is be so changed that it cease to be that which it was And againe Verum reale sacrificium veram realem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A true and a reall sacrifice requireth a true and reall death or destruction of the thing sacrificed Which assertion is true in all Propitiatory sacrifices wherein there was alwayes a destruction of the offering or sacrifice and that by death and shedding of blood that therein they might bee perfect figures of the great sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse wherein his body did shed blood suffered death sustained destruction though not totall and perpetuall yet partiall and for a season in so much that although hee was not consumed yet there was in him for a time a cessation or
ceasing to bee a liuing man as hee was before Our aduersarie then hauing vouchsafed vs this ground worke we will make bold thus to build vpon it Euery thing really and properly sacrificed for propitiation doth suffer a real destruction of the substance But the body of Christ doth not in the sacrifice of the. Masse suffer a reall destruction Ergo. In the sacrifice of the Masse the body of Christ is not really and properly offered The Maior being graunted by the Cardinall the Minor prooues it selfe thus If the body of Christ doth in the Masse suffer destruction which to say were blasphemy it must eyther be in whole or in part if in whole how come we to finde the same Christ the same body and blood the next morning againe in the Masse If but in part or for a time as it was during his beeing in the graue then would follow that the Church for a time hath no Christ perfect God and perfect man Now Bellarmine affirmes that the Priests eating of the consecrated elements which are made the body of Christ is the destruction of the sacrifice his words are these Consumptio seu manducatio quae fit a sacer dote quôd fit essentialis pars 〈◊〉 inde probatur quia in tota actione missae nulla est alia realis destructio victimae praeter istam requiri autem realem destructionem supra probatum est The Priests consumptionor eating of the Host is prooued to be of the essence of the sacrifice for in the whole action of the Masse there is no destruction of the sacrifice but onely this and that there must be a reall destrustion of the sacrifice I haue already prooued But herein how is hee constant to himselfe who sayes The substance of the sacrifice must suffer destruction and yet hold againe that the Priest consumes not the body of Christ by eating it for it suffers no diminution but onely the formes of bread and wine Who sees not here a most palpable contradiction for he will haue the body of Christ to be the substance of this sacrifice and this sust ance must be consumed or els it is no sacrifice and yet when it comes to the push the body of Christ suffers not destruction but only the formes Is not this to make quidlibet ex quolibet Is not this to make it a sacrifice and no sacrifice Is not this to say the body of Christ is the substance of this oblation and not the substance because it is not consumed Againe if a Propitiatory sacrifice be as Bellarmine defines it That which doth pacifie the wrath of God for the remission of sinnes I demand then how remission of sinnes is procured mentall presence of the Lords body and blood there is a true reall and actuall application of his death quo ad meritum in regard of the merit of it to all that receiue with faith But the Iesui te will haue a proper death of Christ in the Eucharist euen as he is truely really substantially and corporally present and yet see how he thwartes and crosses himselfe in the last words saying Christ in the Eucharist dyes not Hence we may frame this Argument After the same manner that Christ is in the Eucharist after the same manner hee dyes in the same for an actuall and corporall presence requires an actuall and corporall death as a sacramentall presence a sacramental death onely But in the Eucharist by our aduersaries owne confession Christ dyes not properly actually or bodily Ergo in the Eucharist hee is not properly actually or bodily present Thirdly note how contrary this doctrine is vnto it selfe The body of Christ saith he and the blood of Christ are consecrated apart and seuerally yet they do not subsist apart least there should be an actuall and reall effusion of the blood of Christ. But I demand if it be so that they are consecrated and made apart then when the Priest hath consecrated the body of Christ first for hee cannot consecrate both in an instant doth not that body subsist without blood till hee hath made and consecrated the blood also This is strange in the sacrament that the body of Christ and his blood should admit for a time such an actuall separation as is betweene that which hath a being and that which hath no being Lastly note how enigmatically he tells vs of those things which are separated by consecration and yet are indiuisibly conioyned that they cannot be separated contrary to the institution of Christ who tooke the bread and the cup seuerally consecrating them asunder to figure vnto vs that actuall and reall separation of the body and blood of Christ vpon the crosse Argument 13. The thirteenth Argument is this That which is a Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne must appease and pacifie the wrath of God this Bellarmine affirmeth But the sacrifice of the Masse doth not appease the wrath of God Ergo The sacrifice of the Masse is not Propitiatory The Minor is thus prooued That which doth appease Gods wrath must bee of infinite value But the sacrifice of the Masse is not of infinite value Ergo The sacrifice of the Masse cannot appease Gods wrath The Maior is prooued because the wrath of God for sinne being infinite cannot be pacified but by that which is of infinite merite and desert and this is confessed by their owne Iesuite in these words Si Aaron aut 〈◊〉 Pontifex hostiam obtulisset quae visua tolleret peccata non esset necesse alteram offerri 〈◊〉 iam peccata per illam deletaerant Dices illa hostia delebat peccata vsque ad illam oblationem commissa sed quum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noua peccata quid obstat alteram offerri frustra id fieret 〈◊〉 si 〈◊〉 sua tollebat peccata infiniti valoris erat non enim aliter poterat tolli peccatum compensari iniuria Deo facta If Aaron or any other high Priest had offered a sacrifice which by it owne vertue had taken away sinne there had beene no need to haue offered any more because all sinnes were already taken away by the former Thou wilt say that sacrifice did take away those sinnes which were committed before it was offered but when afterward new sinnes were committed why may not new sacrifices be offered No that were but in vaine for if by it owne proper vertue it did take away sinnes it was then of infinite value and merit for otherwise sinne could not bee taken away nor the iniury done vnto God recompenced First here he disableth the Leuiticall sacrifices because of their often repetition and reiteration Secondly he prooues our Maior Proposition that nothing can appease the infinite wrath of God and so satisfie his iustice but that which is of infinit merit and desert therefore all the Angells in heauen could not haue wrought mans redemption by satisfying for the sinne of Adam but Christ himselfe nor he had he been meere man and not Theanthropos God and man for no finite
sacrifice of Christ offered on the crosse once for all Our aduersaries themselues dare not nor doe not deny it yet will they not relinquish their sacrifice of the Masse Argument 15. The fifteenth Argument The Apostle sayes that Christ needes not to offer himselfe often but now once in the end of the world hee hath appeared to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe and againe By one offering he hath perfected for euer them that are sanctified From these testimonies of Scripture I frame this Syllogisme If Christ once in the end of the world was sacrificed to put away sinne and by one offering hath perfected them that are 〈◊〉 then he is not offered in the Masse But Christ once in the end of the world was sacrificed to put away sinne and by one offering of himselfe once for all hath perfected them that are sanctified Ergo Christ is not offered in the Masse Bellarmine answeres that the Apostle there speaketh of the bloody and painefull sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse which was sufficient once to bee done but this taketh not away the vnbloody sacrifice which is but a continuance of the former whereby the fruite and efficacy of the former oblation is applied vnto vs. But wee are to obserue that the Apostle by these words excludes and cuts of all iterations of the sacrifice of Christ for otherwise if Christ should now be often sacrificed really though after any manner the difference of the Apostle could neuer stand betweene the Leuiticall sacrifices which were often repeated and the sacrifice of Christ which was once offered Secondly that is but a false distinction of a bloody and an vnbloody sacrifice as they vnderstand it otherwise then the fathers did for there can be no proper vnbloody sacrifice of Christ neither could hee be offered vp otherwise then by dying Therefore he is not offered vp in the Eucharist because therein hee dyeth not Thirdly we neede not inuent a new kind of sacrifice which may apply vnto vs the efficacy of Christs death seeing to that end Christ hath appointed the preaching of the word and the administration of the Sacraments Bellarmine replyeth first though the death of Christ be applyed by the Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet it may be applyed also by the sacrifice of the Masse which in this behalfe is not superfluous no more then Baptisme is by which also Christs death is applyed Secondly that the Apostle speaketh of the bloody and painefull sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse it appeareth by the words following For then he must haue often suffered But we cut off Bellarmines answere by affirming That albeit both the Eucharist and Baptisme doe apply the death of Christ vnto vs yet is not Baptisme superfluous because it is of Christs institution so is not the Masse Againe they apply Christs death diuersly baptisme as the seale of our regeneration the Eucharist as a signe of our redemption the one signifies our sanctification by the washing of Christs blood the other our iustification by the sufferings of the same Christ our Sauiour the one for our initiation into the Church the other for our confirmation so that neither of them are superfluous but the sacrifice of the Masse is superfluous because the remembrance and shewing forth of Christs death is sufficiently performed without a sacrifice Wherefore the comparison holds not that the Masse may as well be vsed to apply the vertue of Christs death albeit the Eucharist doth the same as baptisme seeing baptisme is of Christs institution the Masse is not and baptisme and the Lords Supper though they both apply the death of Christ yet in diuers manners and for diuers ends But the Papists pretend the same to be the end of the Masse which is of the Lords Supper And whereas Bellarmine sayth the Apostle speakes of the bloody sacrifice of Christ it is true for he neuer once dreamed of an vnbloody sacrifice which could neuer haue any existence in rerum natura For if you marke the Apostles words hee quite knockes this vnbloody sacrifice of the Papists on the head saying Not that he should offer himselfe often c. For then must 〈◊〉 often haue suffered Intimating that there can be no proper offering or real sacrificing of Christ but by death and suffering Wherefore where there is no actuall death of Christ nor reall suffering there can be no true and proper offering and Christ hauing but once died really he could but once be really offered Argument 16. The sixteenth Argument is taken from the words of Christ who being on the Crosse cryed out Consummatum est It is finished Giue vs leaue to demand what was finished Let one of their owne friends speake Why now was finished whatsoeuer God had determined whatsoeuer he had commanded whatsoeuer the Law and the Prophets had foretold concerning Christ whatsoeuer was necessary and conducible for mans saluation the oblation was offered the types fulfilled the shadowes abolished the Scriptures were verified and the great sacrifice quo solo Deus placari potuit by which onely the 〈◊〉 of God was pacified is now perfected In which words obserue first that whatsoeuer was necessary for mans faluation was now accomplished what neede then haue we of Masses Secondly that Ferus sayes The sacrifice of Christ was finished How dares any man then renew it in the Masse Thirdly he sayes The sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse onely could 〈◊〉 Gods wrath How then comes the sacrifice of the Masse to be propitiatory Bellarmine answeres that these words It is finished are to be vnderstood of the Prophecies of his passion not that all things were done necessary to mans saluation For then the Sacraments and all Doctrine should bee 〈◊〉 But this answere will not serue the turne for the prophecies were not all fulfilled when hee spake these words for after this time two prophecies were fulfilled First the not breaking of abone foretold Exod. 12. 46. Secondly the pearcing of him with a speare prophecied Zach. 12. 10. But let vs admit for good Ferus his wordes Quoniam fuit in opere consummationis ideo dixit consummatum est because they were in the act of consummation or ready to be consummated therefore he sayd It is finished And let vs admit for good the first part of Bellarmines answere that the prophecies were fulfilled yet let vs a little pause before we grant the second For whereas he sayes All things necessary to mans saluation were not finished it is true if hee meane some speciall actes 〈◊〉 did concerne Christs person as his resurrection and assension without which our redemption could not bee perfectly consummated Againe if he vnderstand it of some indiuiduall actions of religion which were to be performed for the saluation of such particular persons as should beleeue afterward it is true they were not finished because the persons whom God had appointed and decreed to
vse as meanes for the conuersion of others were to liue in future ages and had not as yet beeing and consequently could not at that time finish those acts whereunto they were destined of God but if he vnderstand by these words All things necessary for mans saluation are not finished all the specificall acts of religion as Prayer Preaching Administration of the Sacraments c. and whatsoeuer of that kind which is necessary to mans saluation is not finished this is false for that they had their institution from Christ before his death and so in the species they were finished Or if thereby the sacrifice of Christ was not finished this is false for both it and the saluation of man by it was finished as appeares by the Apostles vsing the same words saying With one offering teteleioken consummauit he hath consummated for euer such as are sanctified And whereas he sayes that if all things necessary for mans saluation were consummated then the sacraments and all doctrine should bee superfluous this is false for the institution of them might be consummated although the exercise of them in future ages were not finished Againe the perfection of Christs sacrifice abolisheth not the vse of doctrine and Sacraments which doe represent vnto vs the death and sacrifice of Christ but it abolisheth all other sacrifices of Propitiation for if they be but memorialls of Christs death they are superfluous the word and sacraments beeing sufficient to that end and if they be more then memorials as auaileable to forgiue sinnes they are blasphemous and make Christs sacrifice imperfect Argument 17. The seauenteenth argument is taken from the falshood of the Canon of the Masse and it is thus framed Such as is the Canon such is the sacrifice But the Canon of the Masse is false Ergo the sacrifice is false and consequently not Propitiatory The falshood of the Masse appeares in diuers things 1. In the ancient Church when the Lords Supper was celebrated the Christians vsed to bring their agapai which were the bread and wine for the reliefe of the poore and the maintenance of the Ministry and when they had laide downe these oblations which were neuer accounted a Propitiatory sacrifice they prayed for the prosperity and preseruation of the Church which in the Canon before the consecration is applyed vnto the bread and wine and the bread and wine is offered vnto God the Father for the happinesse of the Church Secondly in the Canon They pray vnto God that he would accept that pure sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ as he accepted the sacrifices of Abell and Melchizedech In which words they become intercessours vnto God the Father to accept his Son Iesus Christ as though he were not worthy to be accepted of himselfe And how absurd is it to compare the most pretious sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ if it were so really and truely vnto the sacrifice of Abel which was but a lambe or a goate And how vnwisely doe they pray that God would accept the sacrifice of his Sonne as hee did accept the sacrifice of Melchizedech whereas it cannot appeare as is formerly prooued by the holy scripture that Melchizedech offered bread and wine how absurd is it then to compare the sacrifice of Christ with that sacrifice which neither was is nor shall be Thirdly the Canon saith that the Priest offereth vnto God the heauenly Father the bread of life But where are they commanded to offer the bread of life seeing in the scripture there is mention made of eating the bread of life but not of offering Fourthly the Canon ouerthrowes the article of ascension for it commands the Angells to carry that vnspotted sacrifice to the high Altar of heauen and to present it before God the Father What Is not Christ ascended and fitteth for euer at the right hand of God and hath he now more need of the helpe of Anglls then when he first ascended by the whole power of his Godhead and cannot hee appeare before his Father but by the assistants of Angells But let me bee bold to demand three questions of our aduersaries grounded vpon these words of the Canon Supplices te rogamus omnipotens Deus iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli c. We humbly beseech thee O Omnipotent God that tbou wouldest command this sacrifice to be carryed by the hands of the holy Angell vnto thy high Altar in the sight of thy diuine Maiesty c. First if they vnderstand it of the bread and wine transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ how comes it to passe that they are not taken by the Angell and carryed immediately into heauen according to the prayer of the Church Secondly I demand if their doctrine bee true of their Multipresence that the true humane body and blood of Christ be both in heauen and in many thousand places vpon the earth at one time what need then the Angell to carry the body of Christ into heauen where it is already before his heauenly Father Thirdly if it be so as they say that Christ in the night when he instituted the Lords Supper did offer himselfe his naturall body and blood vnder the forms of bread and wine a true Propitiatory sacrifice to his heauenly Father I demand whether the Angell did carry this sacrifice into heauen or whether it did 〈◊〉 before his Father in heauen or no If they say no how then was the sacrifice accepted or how comes the Church to pray for that priuiledge of hauing this sacrifice carryed into heauen which was not vouchsafed to the sacrifice offered immediately by Christ himselfe If they affirme that it was carryed into heauen it would then follow that Christs body was in heauen before his passion resurrection or ascension and when he in his humane nature ascended into heauen from his Disciples hee found his humane body and blood before his Father and to haue beene there before it came thither Thus they make Christ to haue two bodies and consequently two soules and so Christ is not one but two but many but innumerable These absurdities doe directly result and arise from their blasphemous Canon which is so grosse and palpable as deserues to be hissed out of the Church Lastly the Canon in diuers places ouerturnes the Mediation of Christ in that they pray to Saints and Angells making them to be intercessours it also establishes Purgatory and prayer for the dead doctrines so dissonant from the truth of the Scriptures as when we see them authorized in the Church of Rome wee may iustly call in question the vertue of their massing sacrifice Argument 18. The eighteenth Argument is taken from the effect of the Masse thus That which destroyeth the true nature of the Lords Supper cannot be a true Propitiatory sacrifice for the 〈◊〉 of the quicke and the dead But the pretended sacrifice of the Masse doth subuert and destroy the nature of the Lords Supper Ergo