begun is reputed by God perfect and compleat And St. Paul shews clearly the truth of what hath been said 1 Tim. 2. 8. in these words I will that men pray every where listing up holy hands without wrath and doubting And Ephes 5. Jesus Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Objection 6. 20. The sixth Objection is drawn from Gen. 14. in these words And Melchisedec King of Salem bringing forth bread and wine for he was a Priest blessed him And from Psal 110. and from Heb. 7. where it is said Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec From which words our Adversaries argue thus First They say that Jesus Christ is a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedec the difference between Aaron and Melchisedec consisting in this viz. that Aaron and the other Levitical Priests offered bloudy Sacrifices killing and shedding the bloud of Beasts which they sacrificed to God as a sign and figure of the bloudy sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross But Melchisedec offered an unbloudy sacrifice for when he went to meet Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings he offered to God Bread and Wine And seeing this Bread and Wine offered to God by Melchisedec were signs and types of Christs body and bloud Jesus Christ was obliged to offer an unbloudy sacrifice viz. his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine which he did at the institution and celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist that so the reality of the thing typified might answer those shadows and types Secondly That although Melchisedec had brought all this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his Army that returned from the slaughter of the Kings yet he first offered it to God and then gave it to them that so they might partake of the sacrifice of bread and wine And the reason of this is because the Scripture saith that Abraham returned from the battel with great spoils amongst which there was meat and drink enough for the refreshment of himself and his people also it saith expresly that Abrahams people had taken such refreshment as was necessary before Melchisedec met them and consequently they had no need of the bread and wine which he brought except it had been to partake of the sacrifice of the bread and wine which he offered Thirdly They say this is strongly proved by the following words for he was Priest of the most high God which shew the reason why Melchisedec brought bread and wine viz. to make an oblation or offering of it to God for if he had brought this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his people the Scripture would have said that he had brought this bread and wine because that Abraham and his Army being faint and tired had need of meat and drink but it speaks nothing of this on the contrary it saith that he brought bread and wine for he was Priest Fourthly They say that Jesus Christ is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec and seeing there can be no Priest without a sacrifice there can be no eternal Priest without an eternal or perpetual sacrifice But the sacrifice of the Cross was offered but once and cannot be reiterated for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore there must be another perpetual sacrifice in the Church which Jesus Christ offereth by the hands of Priests which can be nothing else but the sacrifice of the Mass viz. the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud under the species of the bread and wine typified by the sacrifice of the bread and wine of Melchisedec Answer 21. To this I answer First That the Hebrew word doth not signifie bringing but brought drew out caused to be brought c. but our Adversaries falsifie the Text thus to make way for another falsification viz. to put these words in a Parenthesis for he was Priest in stead of putting them without a Parenthesis and he was Priest so that we may say that in these few words they have made three falsifications first when they translate it proferens that is bringing in stead of translating it protulit that is brought or drew out secondly when they translate it erat enim sacerdos that is for he was Priest in stead of translating it and he was Priest thirdly when they translate it benedixit ei that is blessed him instead of translating it benedixit ei that is and he blessed him And so of three different propositions viz. Melchisedech also brought bread and wine and he was Priest and he blessed him they have made but one with a Parenthesis thus Melchisedec bringing bread and wine for he was Priest blessed him 22. Secondly I answer that the Hebrew word used by Moses signifies commonly brought drew out caused to be brought caused to be drawn out caused to come c. But we must not stray from the proper signification of words but upon very great necessity which appears not in this Text. And although this Hebrew word should signifie brought to offer and that it should be taken for offered yet our Adversaries would gain nothing by it for it is not said in the Text that he brought bread and wine to offer unto God but we must rather expound it thus viz. that he brought bread and wine to offer and present it to Abraham And indeed the following words viz. and blessed him do clearly shew it for the Pronoun Relative him relates to Abraham according to the exposition of the Apostle Heb. 7. where he saith expresly that Melchisedec met Abraham and blessed him And a little after he saith that Melchisedec blessed him that had the promises and that the less is blessed of the greater But if these words he brought bread and wine must be expounded thus he offered bread and wine to God then it must necessarily follow that Melchisedec blessed God and not Abraham for in these words viz. he offered bread and wine to God and blessed him the Pronoun him can relate to none but God 23. Thirdly I answer That Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people and not to offer unto God Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 6. confesseth that Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people who returned faint and tired from the slaughter of the Kings which is true but he adds that Jesus Christ had offered it to God before which is false and cannot be proved Jerome in his Epistle to Euagrius writes that the Jews understood it that Melchisedec meeting Abraham after his victory brought bread and wine to refresh him and his people Josephus writing this History saith
that the sacramental words do operate that which they signifie But by their own confession they signifie the separation of Christs body from his bloud as Card. Perron acknowledgeth in his reply to the King of Great Britain pag. 1108. in these words The scope of the entireness of this Sacrament is to put us in mind that this body and this bloud which we receive were divided by his death on the Cross whence St. Paul saith as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup we shew the Lords death till he come Thirdly I say That as he that eats bread dipt in wine hath indeed wine in his mouth but doth not drink it so he that should eat or swallow a consecrated host would not drink Christs bloud though it were in it 8. Lastly I say That seeing the Sacraments were instituted to assure us the more of the truth of Gods promises and that all our comfort depends on this perswasion that all Gods promises are most true it necessarily follows that as much of the Sacrament as is taken away so much of the certainty of this perswasion is diminished And 't is to no purpose to say that one part of the Sacrament doth as much confirm Gods promises as the whole Sacrament doth for if it be so then God hath unnecessarily instituted two Sacraments for it had been enough to have instituted Baptism only seeing it is ordained to confirm Gods promises But if for such a confirmation two Sacraments are better then one and if two pledges and two seals for that purpose are of more consequence then one alone then in one Sacrament also two signs are of more weight then one alone for the confirmation of Gods promises and seeing it is said St. Luke 22. and 1 Cor. 11. that the cup is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ because it is the Sacrament of it why then are people deprived of it 9. As for the imaginary dangers and scandals which the Romish Doctors find in peoples partaking of the cup I say in general that Jesus Christ in whom the treasures of wisdom are hid and in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily foresaw them as well as they and yet he instituted and administred the cup and commanded all to drink of it And St. Paul who was extraordinarily inspired by the Holy Ghost doth notwithstanding these pretended dangers and scandals command the Corinthians as well Lay persons as Ecclesiastical to drink of the cup as hath been already proved 10. The first inconvenience which our Adversaries find in peoples partaking of the cup is that they fear they may dip their moustaches in the Chalice and so the bloud of Christ may remain on some hair of the moustache also they fear that the species of the wine and consequently Christs bloud may fall to the ground and being fallen it cannot be gathered up again To this I answer First That Women Eunuchs and such young men as have no beards ought not to be excluded Secondly It is better to be without Moustaches then without the participation of the whole Sacrament Thirdly This inconvenience proceeds only from a false supposition viz. that Christs bloud is under the species of the wine but if in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there be nothing but Bread and Wine in substance and any of it should fall to the ground accidentally and not through any fault of ours this inconvenience is not great enough to violate the institution and command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles 11. The second inconvenience is That it is almost impossible to observe this Law where there is a great number of people and but one Priest To this I answer First That in places where there is much people as in Cities there are divers Priests Secondly If one Priest be not enough another must be called from some neighbouring place Thirdly That which cannot be done in one day must be done in two or three days rather then the command of Jesus Christ should be violated and the practice of the Primitive Church abandoned 12. The third inconvenience is that some have a natural antipathy or aversion to Wine and consequently cannot drink of the cup. To this I answer That because corporal actions do depend on certain natural powers they are supposed to be commanded to those that have natural powers proper to exercise those actions and to none else For example The hearing of Gods Word is not commanded to deaf persons but to those that can hear it but drinking of Wine is a corporal action and therefore commanded to those only that can drink it So that if the cup must be taken from all Lay-people because some of them have a natural antipathy to Wine then the preaching of the Gospel must be taken from Christians because some of them are deaf and cannot hear it 13. The fourth inconvenience is That there are some Countries where no Wine grows as in Lapland Norway c. To this I answer First That although no Wine grows in those Countries yet some may be brought thither Secondly But if none can be brought without being spoiled and its form changed then it is better to substitute the ordinary drink of the Country in stead of Wine Thirdly But if this common drink of the Country may not be substituted in stead of Wine then they that cannot have Wine do abstain from it because they are forced thereunto and it is neither impudence nor contempt to abstain from a thing commanded by Jesus Christ when it is not to be had but to ordain that they that have wine in abundance shall abstain from the cup is an insufferable boldness and a most unchristian contempt of the Sacrament CHAP. VII Against the Mass 1. THe Mass according to the Romish Doctors is a Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of Christ propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead and so it is defined by the Council of Trent Session 22. Against such a Mass we might alleadge all the Arguments already made use of against Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host for our Adversaries confess that those reasons which destroy Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host do also destroy the Mass But in this Chapter we shall only use such Arguments as are directly against the Mass and do utterly destroy it 2. The first Argument is drawn from this viz. that in the institution and first celebration of the Eucharist Jesus Christ did not sacrifice nor offer his body and bloud to his Father as appears by what is mentioned in the three Evangelists and the Apostle St. Paul in which there is not the least foot-step to be seen of a sacrifice or oblation of Christs body and bloud This Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 27. in these words The oblation which is made after consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament but is not
of its essence which I prove because neither our Lord nor his Apostles did make this oblation at the first as we have demonstrated out of Gregory The Jesuite Salmeron in Tom. 13. of his Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul makes a Catalogue of unwritten Traditions in which he puts the Ecclesiastical Hierarchie the worshiping of Images the Mass the manner of sacrificing and the tradition that Jesus Christ did offer a sacrifice in the Bread and Wine Card. Baronius in his Annals on the year 53. freely confesseth that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is an unwritten Tradition A strange thing that the Mass which is the foundation of the Romish Church for the Doctors require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Jesus Christ And the truth is if Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist had offered unto God his Father a sacrifice of his Body and Bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should have been sacrificed again on the Cross because having already expiated our sins in the sacrifice of the Eucharist there was no need he should expiate them again on the Cross To this I add that St. Paul Ephes 4. 11. mentions the Offices which Jesus Christ left his Church when he ascended into Heaven in these words He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers but makes no mention at all of the Sacrificers of Christs body and bloud nor in 1 Tim. nor in the Epistle to Titus when he describes the duty of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons without making the least mention of this sacrificing of Christs body and bloud 3. The second Argument is drawn from the definition of a Sacrifice as it is given us by our Adversaries Card. Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 2. defines it thus Sacrifice is an external oblation made to God alone whereby in acknowledgment of humane infirmity and the divine Majesty the lawful Minister consecrates by a mystical ceremony and destroys something that is sensible and permanent From these last words viz. that the lawful Minister destroys something that is sensible I form two Arguments which destroy the sacrifice of the Mass The first is this In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses for our Adversaries say it is a sensible thing But the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the Mass under the accidents of the bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we find by experience Therefore the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be under the accidents of the bread and wine are not the thing sacrificed The second Argument is this In every true sacrifice the thing sacrificed must be utterly destroyed that is it must be so changed that it must cease to be what it was before as Bellarmin saith in express terms in the place above cited But in the pretended Sacrifice of the Mass Christs body and bloud are not destroyed for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore in the pretended Sacrifice of the Mass the body and bloud of Christ are not the thing sacrificed 4. To these two Arguments Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Mass ch 27. and other Romish Doctors answer that Christs body simply is not the thing sacrificed in the Mass but it is Christs body as it is under the species of the bread and that it is in reference to the species of the bread that Christs body is sensible and visible Secondly They answer that in the sacrifice of the Mass Christs body is destroyed in respect of its sacramental being but not in respect of its natural being for when it is eaten in the sacrament it ceaseth to be under the species of the bread 5 To these answers I reply First That Christ body is not visible by the species of the bread because as our Adversaries say that hides it from us and hinders us from seeing it And although a substance may be said to be visible and cognizable by its accidents yet it is never so by the accidents of another substance and consequently Jesus Christ may be said to be visible by his own accidents but not by the accidents of the bread which are just alike both in the consecrated and unconsecrated hosts and 't is a ridiculous shift to say that Christs body is visible under the species of the bread because that species is visible for as we cannot see Wine that is in a Hogshead because we see the Hogshead and we cannot see Money that is in a Purse closed because we see the Purse so neither can we see the body under the species of the bread because we see the species for as our Adversaries say that species hinders us from seeing it 6. Secondly I say That by the sacramental being is understood only an accidental being of Jesus Christ for example his presence in the Sacrament or else besides that is understood his substantial being too If his substantial being be also understood seeing the substantial being of a thing is nothing else but its substance and nature then it will follow that if Jesus Christ be destroyed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist in respect of his substantial being he must also be destroyed in respect of his natural being which is contrary to what the Apostle saith Rom. 6. that Jesus Christ dieth no more If an accidental being of Jesus Christ be only understood for example his presence in the Sacrament then these absurdities will follow viz. First That the sacrifice of the Mass will be the sacrifice of an accident only and not of Jesus Christ because the presence of Jesus Christ is not Jesus Christ himself but an accident of him Secondly It will follow that the sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross will not be the same sacrifice in reference to the thing sacrificed because Jesus Christ and his presence are not the same thing Jesus Christ being a substance and his presence an accident which is contrary to the decision of the Council of Trent which hath determined that the sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross are the same in reference to the thing sacrificed Thirdly It will follow that the thing which is destroyed in the Sacrament is not the same with that which was produced there because there is only an accident destroyed whereas a substance was produced by Transubstantiation which is a substantial conversion as hath been sufficiently proved Fourthly It will follow that the sacrifice of the Mass will be offered in the Priests stomach only because this presence is not destroyed till the Priest hath eaten the host and consequently the sacrifice of the Mass will be offered after the Mass for this presence is only destroyed by the destruction of the accidents and commonly these accidents are not destroyed till after
Mass is said Fifthly It will follow that the justice of God will cease to be the same for whereas heretofore it could not be satisfied but by the death of Christ and by the destruction of his natural being now God is appeased our sins expiated and Gods justice satisfied by the destruction of his sacramental being only for they will have it that the sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory for the sins of the living and the dead 7. The third Argument is drawn from these words of the Apostle Heb. 9. Almost all things are by the Law purged with bloud and without shedding of bloud is no remission It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the Heavens should be purified with these but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices then these From which words I form this Argument There is no propitiation or remission of sins without sheding of bloud as the Apostle saith But in the Mass there is no sheding of bloud for it is called an Unbloudy sacrifice Therefore in the Mass there is no propitiation or remission of sins and consequently no propitiatory sacrifice for sin This Argument may be thus confirmed Under the Old Testament there was no propitiation or purification without sheding of bloud and the types of heavenly things were so purified as the Apostle saith Heb. 9. Therefore under the New Testament also there can be no propitiation or purification without sheding of bloud and heavenly things being represented by the legal types must be purified by a more excellent sacrifice viz. by the sheding of Christs bloud And although the Apostle useth the word Sacrifices in the plural number yet we must understand the only sacrifice of Christ on the Cross because when one thing is opposed to many it is often expressed in the plural number as when Baptism which is but one is called Baptisms Heb. 6. 2. But the only sacrifice of the Cross of Christ in the Text above cited Heb. 9. 23. is opposed to the old Sacrifices which were types and figures of the sacrifice of the Cross 8. The fourth Argument is drawn from the words of the Apostle Heb. 10. 16. This is the Covenant which I will make with them after those days saith the Lord I will put my laws into their hearts and in their minds will I write them and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more Now where remission of these is there is no more offering for sin Whence I form this Argument Where there is remission of sins there is no need of an oblation or a propitiatory sacrifice for sin as the Apostle saith But in the Christian Church by vertue of the New Testament or New Covenant confirmed by the bloud of Christ there is remission of sins Heb. 10. 16 17. Therefore in the Christian Church now adays there is no need of an oblation or propitiatory sacrifice and consequently no need of the sacrifice of the Mass 9. The fifth Argument is drawn from the words of the Apostle Heb. 9. Jesus Christ offereth not himself often as the High Priest entereth into the holy place every year with the bloud of others for then must he often have suffered from the foundation of the World but now once in the end of the World hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself And as it is appointed to men once to die but after this the judgment so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation This is confirmed by the words of the same Apostle Heb. 10. The Law having a shadow of good things to come and not the very image of the things can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect for then would they not have ceased to be offered because the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins But in those a remembrance is made again of sins every year for it is not possible that the bloud of bulls and of goats should take away sins c. And every High Priest standeth dayly ministring and offering often times the same sacrifices which can never take away sins but this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sate down on the right hand of God For by one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified which is conformable to what he had said a little before that we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all From all which I form these Arguments 10. First the old sacrifices were reiterated for the Apostle saith that the High Priest entereth into the holy place every year with the bloud of others but the sacrifice of Jesus Christ must not be reiterated for the same Apostle saith that Jesus Christ offereth not himself often and that he hath once appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass is not the sacrifice of the Cross reiterated or the reiteration of the sacrifice of the Cross as our Adversaries would have it 11. Secondly The Apostle adding else he should often have suffered from the foundation of the World Makes it apparent that Christ cannot be offered without suffering For as he that should say this is not fire else it would be hot doth necessarily presuppose that fire is hot and as he that should say he is no man else he would be rational doth necessarily presuppose that man is rational so when the Apostle saith that Jesus Christ offereth not himself often otherwise he should often bave suffered doth necessarily presuppose that Jesus Christ cannot offer himself without suffering But Jesus Christ doth not suffer every day in the Mass Therefore he is not offered every day in the Mass by the ministry of Priests 12 Thirdly These words from the foundation of the World are of great weight for 't is as much as if the Apostle had said if the only sacrifice of Christ on the Cross be not sufficient to take away sins which shall be committed hereafter it follows that it was not sufficient to take away sins which have been committed heretofore from the creation of the World for it is very unsuitable that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross should have more vertue before it was offered then since But the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross had the vertue to take away sins before it was otherwise saith the Apostle he should often have suffered from the foundation of the World Therefore it hath also vertue to take away sins committed since it was and consequently there is no need that it should be reiterated in the Mass 13. Fourthly The Apostles comparison is considerable the sense whereof is this As men suffer death but once and after death appear no more till the day of the resurrection and day of judgment so Christ hath offered
himself to his Father once for all on the Cross to take away sins and will be no more on earth until he comes to judge the quick and the dead This utterly destroys the Mass in which Jesus Christ is said to be offered and sacrificed continually by the ministry of Priests 14. Fifthly Sacrifices that take away sins and sanctifie those that come thereunto ought not to be reiterated for the only reason which the Apostle alledgeth why the old sacrifices of the Law were reiterated is because they could not take away sins nor sanctifie the comers thereunto as appears by the Text above cited But the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross takes away sins and sanctifies those that come thereunto Therefore the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross ought not to be reiterated and consequently is not reiterated in the Mass 15. If Jesus Christ did offer himself a sacrifice on the Cross that he might sanctifie us for ever and purchase eternal redemption for us then it is evident that the fruit and efficacy of this sacrifice endures for ever and that we must have recourse to no other sacrifice but to that of the Cross But Jesus Christ did offer himself a sacrifice on the Cross that he might sanctifie us for ever and purchase eternal redemption for us as appears by the Texts aforesaid Therefore the efficacy of the sacrifice of the Cross endures for ever and we must have recourse to no other Sacrifice but to that of the Cross In a word either we must confess that the sacrifice of the Cross hath no vertue to take away sins and to sanctifie us for ever which is contrary to what the Apostle saith or else if it hath this vertue and sufficiency then Jesus Christ hath offered one only sacrifice once for all and consequently is not offered dayly in the Mass by the Ministry of Priests 16. Lastly The Apostle almost throughout the whole Epistle to the Hebren s saith that Jesus Christ was constituted and consecrated by his Father High Priest for ever and particularly chap. 7. he saith That many were made Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death but Jesus Christ because he continueth forever hath an unchangeable Priesthood and that he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them and consequently he hath no need of Vicars or companions in his Priesthood 17. In answer to these Arguments the Romish Doctors are wont to say that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same with that of the Cross in respect of the essence of the Sacrifice the same thing being offered in both viz. the body and bloud of Christ by the same Priest viz. by Jesus Christ But it differs in respect of the manner of offering for on the Cross Jesus Christ offered himself bloudily that is when he died he shed his bloud for mankind but in the Mass he offers himself unbloudily that is without sheding his bloud and without dying On the Cross Jesus Christ was destroyed in respect of his natural being but in the Mass he is destroyed in respect of his sacramental being They add that all the Arguments drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews respect only that bloudy oblation which was once offered on the Cross but besides this bloudy sacrifice there is another that is unbloudy which is daily offered in the Mass Lastly They say that the sacrifice of the Cross is primitive and original but this of the Mass representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Cross as the Council hath it in its 22. Session 18. To these distinctions I reply That the sacrifice of the Mass doth not differ from that of the Cross in respect of the manner only which is but an accidental difference but it differs in respect of essence too First Because the natural death of Jesus Christ is of the essence of the sacrifice of the Cross But the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend the natural death of Jesus Christ for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend that which is of the essence of the sacrifice of the Cross and consequently differs from it essentially and not in respect of the manner only Secondly Because the representation of a thing differs essentially from the thing represented For example The Kings Picture differs essentially from the King Also the memorial of a thing differs essentially from the thing whereof it is a memorial For example The celebration of the Passover which was a memorial of the Angels favourable passing over the houses of the Israelites differs essentially from that passing over And lastly the application of a thing differs essentially from it For example The application of a Plaister differs essentially from the Plaister But according to the determination of the Council of Trent in Session 22. the sacrifice of the Mass is representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Cross Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass differs essentially from that of the Cross Thirdly Because the sacrifice of the Cross is of an infinite value and consequently ought not to be reiterated for its value being infinite it is sufficient to take away all sins past present and to come as Bellarmin saith Book I. of the Mass chap. 4. But the sacrifice of the Mass is of a finite price and value according to the same Bellarmin and other Romish Doctors at which we may justly wonder seeing as our Adversaries say it differs not from the sacrifice of the Cross either in respect of the thing sacrificed or in respect of the chief Priest and yet from these the sacrifice hath all its price and value 19. Secondly I say that an unbloudy propitiatory sacrifice is a feigned and an imaginary thing and that the Arguments drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews do wholy destroy it First Because it is said Heb. 9. that without sheding of bloud there is no remission of sins Therefore in the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass there can be no remission of sins and consequently it cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice for sin Secondly Because Jesus Christ cannot be offered without suffering for the Apostle saith Heb. 6. Jesus Christ offereth not himself often otherwise he should often have suffered But the sacrifice of Jesus Christ with suffering is a bloudy sacrifice Therefore there is no unbloudy sacrifice Thirdly Because the bloudy sacrifice of the Cross being of an infinite value hath purchased an eternal redemption Heb. 9. and hath taken away all sins past present and to come Whence it follows that there is no other sacrifice either bloudy or unbloudy that can purchase the pardon of our sins the sacrifice of the Cross having sufficiently done it Fourthly Because the justice of God requires that sins shall be expiated by the punishment that is due to them and this is so true that the wrath of God could
not be appeased but by the bloudy and ignominious death of the Cross Therefore the justice of God must have changed its nature if sins can be expiated in the Mass without pain or suffering 20. Thirdly To the distinction of Primitive sacrifice which was offered on the Cross and representative commemorative and applicative which is daily offered in the Mass I reply First That what the Council of Trent saith in Session 22. viz. that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Mass may bear a good sense viz. that there is in it a representation commemoration and application of the sacrifice of the Cross viz. a representation because the bread broken represents the body broken and the wine poured into the cup represents the bloud of Christ shed for the remission of sins a commemoration because all that is done in it is done in remembrance of Jesus Christ and his death according to his own command in these words Do this in remembrance of me and according to what St. Paul saith 1 Cor. 11. As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come and an application because the merit of the sacrifice of the Cross is applied to us not only by the word but also by the Sacraments as we shall shew hereafter But our Adversaries are not content with this for they will have it that in the celebration of the Eucharist there is offered a true and proper sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the living and the dead which hath been already refuted at large Secondly I say that the application of the sacrifice of the Cross may be considered on Gods part or on mans part on Gods part when he offers Jesus Christ to us with all his benefits both in his Word and Sacraments on mans part when by a true and lively faith working by love we embrace Jesus Christ with all his benefits offered to us both in his Word and Sacraments And this is it that Jesus Christ teacheth us St. John 3. in these words As Moses lifted up the serpent in the Wilderness even so must the Son of man be lifted up viz. on the Cross that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son viz. to die that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life he doth not say whosoever sacrificeth him in the Mass but whosoever believeth c. And St. Paul shews it clearly in these words God hath set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud he doth not say through the sacrifice of the Mass but through faith And we really and truly apply the sacrifice of Christs Cross when we have recourse to him as a man applies a Plaister when he hath recourse to it and lays it on the wound But the recourse or refuge of a penitent sinner to the sacrifice of the Cross for obtaining mercy from God is nothing else but Faith As for the distinction of the sacramental and natural being of Jesus Christ it hath been already refuted in the 6. Number 21. I shall conclude this discourse with the testimony of Thomas Aquinas the most famous of all the Romish Doctors and called by our Adversaries the Angelical Doctor This Thomas in Part. 3. Quest 83. Artic. 1. having proposed this Question viz. Whether Christ be sacrificed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist he concludes with these memorable words The celebration of this Sacrament is very fitly called a sacrificing of Christ as well because it is the representation of Christs Passion as because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion And afterward he gives his answer in these words I answer We must say that the celebration of this Sacrament is called a sacrificing of Christ in two respects First Because as Augustine to Simplicius saith we are wont to give to Images the name of the things whereof they are Images as when we see Pictures on a Wall or in a Frame we say this is Cicero that is Salust c. But the celebration of this Sacrament as hath been said above is a representative Image of Christs Passion which Passion is the true sacrificing of Christ and so the celebration of this Sacrament is the sacrificing of Christ. Secondly The celebration of this Sacrament is called the sacrificing of Christ in regard of the effect of Christs Passion because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion Let the Romanists keep to this decision of their Angelical Doctor and we shall agree with them in this point for I am confident that there is not one of the Reformed Religion but will subscribe this true doctrine of Thomas Aquinas CHAP. VIII Containing Answers to the Objections of the Romish Doctors 1. IN the two first Chapters we have answered the two principal Objections of the Romish Doctors drawn from these words This is my body c. and from these he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life c. Now we must answer the rest Objection 1. 2. The first Objection is this When the establishing of Articles of Faith the Institution of Sacraments and the making Testaments and Covenants are in agitation men speak plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuravitely But in the celebration of the Eucharist Jesus Christ established an Article of Faith instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist and spake of a Testament and a Covenant for it is said of the Cup that it is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ yea he spake then to his Disciples to whom he spake in plain and proper terms and not in obscure terms or in figures or parables as he did to the people Answer 3. To this objection I answer First That it is false that Articles of Faith are always expressed in proper terms in holy Scripture as when it is said in the Creed that Jesus Christ sitteth on the right hand of God it is evident that this is a Figure and a Metaphor for God being a Spirit hath neither right hand nor left and all interpreters expound this sitting on Gods right hand metaphorically viz. for that Lordship both of Heaven and Earth which he hath received from God his Father as earthly Princes make their Lieutenants whom they appoint to govern in their name to sit on the right side of them Again When it is said St. Matth. 16. Vpon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it and I will give thee the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. It is manifest that these are Figures and Metaphors as Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Bishop of Rome chap. 10. and yet it is