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
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
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
Purgatory The sixteenth impiety of the Masse is It subuerteth Gods decree of Reprobation for it is auaileable for whomsoeuer the Priest shall offer it both for remission of sinne and liberation from punishment who doubts not but then many a Reprobate for whom Masse is sayd is 〈◊〉 from eternall damnation The seauenteenth impiety of the Masse is It robs God of his right for whereas it is a prerogatiue royall belonging to the Regall Crowne of Heauen to institute Sacraments and Sacrifices the Church of Rome hath vsurped that power instituting this sacrifice which God neuer commanded them neither came it into his minde but they like Antiochus Ephiphanes haue exalted their Idoll vpon the Lords Table what audacious boldnesse was this in any man to inuent without Gods command a sacrifice to appease and pacifie the wrath of God And what is it but an Ethelothrescta a 〈◊〉 diuised of their owne carnall and corrupt wils and affections The eighteenth impiety in the Masse It establisheth the doctrine of merit and ouerthroweth the satisfaction of Christ for if a man may merit by the sacrifice of the Masse what iniustice was it in God to lay the burthen of mans wickednesse vpon Christ causing him to satisfie by death when men may merit by hearing or saying Masse by offering or receiuing this sacrifice The nineteenth impiety is Their Iesuite Salmeron is permitted to write That the oblation of Christ in his last Supper which the Romanists hold to be satisfactory and Propitiatory receiued no efficacy or vertue from the sacrifice vpon the crosse Which all Orthodoxe Christians cannot but iudge to bee an impious Paradox Seeing both the Sacrament of Baptisme and of the Eucharist haue their foundation in and vertue and operation from the great and all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ offered vpon the crosse The twentieth impiety is in the manner of celebrating this sacrifice In that it is performed in an vnknowne tongue directly contrary to the Apostolicall iniunction of Saint Paul who willeth euery man that prayeth to pray in that language which the common people vnderstand that the Church may be edified Secondly in regard of the gesture of the Priest which is so changeable so ridiculous so affected more like a Player then a Sacrificer for the Priest varieth and changeth his gesture at least fourty or fifty times during the time of the Masse First he boweth his body then he rayseth himselfe and kisseth the Altar on the right side he boweth againe and looketh toward the host hee ioyneth his hands wipeth his 〈◊〉 listeth vp the host then he listeth vp his eyes and boweth himselfe and lifteth vp his eyes againe hee boweth againe and lifteth vp the hoast aboue his forehead vncouereth the Chalice and holdeth it betweene his hands keeping his thumb and forefinger together then hee boweth and lifteth vp the cup a little then to his breast or aboue his head he setteth it downe againe wipeth his fingers then he spreades his armes a crosse he boweth his body then rising kisseth the Altar on the right side after this he smiteth his breast then hee vncouereth the Chalice againe and maketh fiue crosses with the host beyond the Chalice on each side vnder it and before it then he layeth his hands vpon the Altar the Deacon then reacheth the Priest the Paten which he putteth to his right eye then to his left and maketh a crosse beyond his head with it kisseth it and layeth it downe then hee breaketh the host in three parts holding two pieces in his left hand the other part in his right hand ouer the Chalice which with a crosse he letteth fall into it the Priest then kisseth the Corporas the Deacon taketh the Pax from the Priest giueth it to the subdeacon and he to the Queere then humbling himselfe he first taketh the body then the blood so hee goeth to the right horne of the Altar then the Subdeacon powreth in wine and the Priest rinseth the cup and washeth his hands hee turneth himselfe to the people commeth againe to the Altar and turneth to the people the second time then bowing his body and closing his hands he prayeth to himselfe he riseth againe making the signe of the crosse and bowing againe so goeth to the Altar insomuch that Roscius-like hee seemes rather an Actor then a priest the Masse it selfe beeing stuffed full of ceremonies borrowed from the sacrifices of both Iewes and gentiles as Innocent the third and Baronius themselues confesse The one and twentieth impiety That the onely accidents of bread and wine can nourish the body without their proper substance The two and twentieth impiety That the body and blood of Christ may be made poysenous for Bernar dus de monte Politiano de Domcastro a Monk of the Iacobines order poysoned with the Host Henry the seauenth Emperour of Germany and Victor Pope of Rome was poysoned with the wine he tooke in the Masse The three and twentieth impiety That the body and blood of Christ doe subsist apart separated one from another both in the act of consecration and afterward The foure and twentieth impiety That Christ is now in the Eucharist not a liuing but a dead Christ in regard that albeit as they affirme the bread bee changed into his body and the wine into his blood yet neither of these according to their owne tenent can be transubstantiated into his soule which is a spirituall and an immateriall substance how then shall his soule be vnited to his body seeing when by these words This is my body hee changed the elements into his body and blood yet hee makes no mention of his soule Wherefore the body subsisting without a soule must be but inanimate a dead corps The twenty fiue impiety Christ had two bodies one visible wherewith hee sate at Table another inuisible which he distributed to his Disciples vnder the formes of consecrated bread and wine The sixe and twentieth impiety They say Christ at his last Supper gaue his naturall body to be eaten of his Disciples but by their doctrine would follow that Christ gaue his mortall body as it was before his passion vnto his Disciples but vnto his Church hee giues now his glorified body such as it is sitting at the right hand of God The seauen and twentieth impietie That the body of Christ doth daily ascend into heauen and descend from heauen as Iaecobs Angells and is contained in the hands of the Priest is crashed in his teeth his bones being broken The eight and twentieth impiety That the body of Christ being kept a long time in any vessell will corrupt and putrifie and wormes will bee generated of it as Alphonsus Magnus the king of Aragon found by experience The twenty nine impiety That Christ Iesus the Sonne of God was not incarnate for vs suffered not dyed not rose not againe ascended not 〈◊〉 heauen for vs but onely bread and wine did all these things in our behalfe Or which is the last impiety The body
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
two persons of Christ and Iudas then hee stretcheth out his armes to figure Christ stretched on the crosse Which done he maketh three crosses to represent the threefold estate of such as haue benefit by that sacrifice namely those in Heauen on earth in purgatory He smiteth afterwards his breast to play the part of the Publican repenting in the Temple But this smiting must be with the three hinder-most fingers for the thombe and the fore-finger are reserued to consecrate and transubstantiate the Host into the body of Christ moreouer he smiteth his breast three times to figure the three-fold offence of thought word and deede Then he eleuateth the host to be adored Then he lifteth vp his voyce to represent the person of the theefe or the Centurion which confessed Christ in his passion Six other crosses are againe made three vpon the chalice couered to represent the three houres that Christ hanged on the crosse aliue and the other three on the chalice vncouered with the round host lifted vp againe to figure the three houres that Christ hanged on the crosse dead Then he kisseth the chalice and maketh two crosses to figure the water and blood that issued out of the side of Christ. Then the Priest must take the couering cloath off from the chalice and couer it with the patyne to figure the breaking of the vaile of the Temple in the middest at the death of Christ. This done the host is put from aboue the chalice and is couched vnder the corporas to figure the burying of Christ. The Priest hauing thus acted the parts of Christ of the holy Theefe of Iudas then acteth the person of the Centurion in singing the Pater Noster by the seauen petitions whereof Durandus would signifie the seauen weepings of the Virgin Mary or the seauen graces of the Holy Ghost or the seauen Beatitudes or the seauen deadly sinnes This song finished the Priest keepeth silence to signifie the silence or rest of Christ in the Sepulcher Who sees not here a Masse of fopperies and will-worship in this sacrifice of the Masse shall not God say vnto our Masse-mungers as he did vnto the Israelites Who required these things at your hands where hath Christ either giuen precept or example to make such representations of his passion by externall mummeries and histrionicall gestures But these things are of great antiquity and haue beene of long vse in the Church and why should wee now become Innouatours Answere I answere wee are not Innouatours because we abolish these Popish Idolatries and keepe our selues to the practise of the Primitiue Church but they are Innouatours that haue brought these superstitions into the Church And 〈◊〉 as they pleade Antiquity I answer first Antiquity or continuance of an euill is no ground for a tolleration and idolatry in religion is not to be permitted though neuer so ancient for by the same argument may the Turkes 〈◊〉 their Mahometan Alcoran which they haue possessed about 900 yeares vnder the which law they haue subdued nations conquered Realmes and Empires By the same reason might the Israelites iustifie the sacrificing of their children vnto Moloch in the valley of Tophet a most detestable Idolatry yet pactised well nigh the space of 1200 yeares till it was quite abolished by that good King Iosiah The Brazen Serpent a thing commanded by God himselfe possessed by the Israelites for the space of 900. yeares vnto which the people had burnt incense from time to time yet neither the long continuance nor the generall practise of such an Idolatry could preuaile with Hezechiah for tolleration Could the people of Israel be excused for committing 〈◊〉 by the two calues of Dan and Bethel erected by 〈◊〉 and worshipped for the space of three or foure hundred yeares No the long practise of an euill can afford no ground for permission but Idolatry though neuer so aged is to be extirpated as Theodosius the Emperour answered vnto the Senatours of Rome when they pressed him with the antiquity of their Pompilian religion which they had obserued for the space of 1000. yeares Againe the Masse is not so ancient as our aduersaries pretend neither in respect of the Canon nor in respect of the Ceremonies least of all in respect of the Sacrifice The Canon being patched together by sundry Popes who haue added their parts and parcels at seuerall times The Ceremonies as the diuers garments holy-water wax-tapers the Offertory Prayer for the dead Procession the like crept in also by degrees one after another as their owne Histories declare sufficiently And the sacrifice not acknowledged by any till within these 400 and odde yeares about the time of the Lateran Councell vnder Innocent the third Now let the indifferent Reader iudge of the impudencie of our Aduersaries who bragge so much of antiquitie endeauouring to deduce their Masse from the Apostles time against their owne consciences and the credit of all hystories For hereby clearely is declared the induction not onely of the Ceremonies but also of the very Canon of the Masse all which do not sauour only of Innouation but also of Iudaisme and Gentilisme the badges of a false and superstitious Sacrifice The third part of this confutation followes wherein we shall giue answer vnto some of the maine and principall arguments wherewith they endeauour to establish their battered and shaken imposture and to oppugne the inuincible truth of God and his Church So that wilfully they ouerturne the very principles of nature the order of all things the humanity of their Sauiour the truth of the Sacrament the truth of Scripture the foundations of all 〈◊〉 confusedly iumbling heauen and earth together rather then they will admit of a tropicall speech in our Sauiours consecration And first for the maintaining of the sacrifice of the Masse they alleadge That Christ is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech but the proper act of Melchizedechs Priesthood did consist in sacrificing vnder the formes of bread and wine Ergo. The eternity of Christs Priesthood standeth in the sacrificing of his body and blood in those formes by those Priests whom hee hath promised to continue in his Church till the worlds end Rhemist annot Heb. 7. sest 8. Bellar. cap 6. Hoffmeyst assert sacrific missae And that Melchizedechs Priesthood consisted in oblation of bread and wine they would prooue by these Reasons First from the word He brought forth The Hebrew word is properly applyed to the bringing forth of a sacrifice as Gen. 4. The like word is vsed to signifie Cain and Abels sacrifice Secondly because Abraham had no need of bread and wine to refresh himselfe being returned with so great spoyle from his enemies and so hauing sufficient to refresh himselfe with it is likely Melchizedech brought them forth to offer to God Thirdly as Melchizedech is said to be the Priest of the High God so it was requisite that the Scripture also should make mention of his
Argument 6. Sixtly if the sacrifice of Christ was perfectly finished vpon the Crosse then is it vnlawfull for any Priest to presume to offer againe this sacrifice But the offering of the sacrifice of Christ was perfectly finished vpon the crosse Ergo it is vnlawfull to presume to offer this sacrifice againe in the Masse The consequence is euident For hee that goes about to offer that sacrifice which was perfectly finished vpon the crosse cannot but by his reiteration preiudice and call in question the perfection thereof for as Chrysostome speaketh he that hath a soueraigne medicine which by once applying is perfectly able to cure a disease and shall often apply the same doth derogate from the vertue thereof so he that shall reiterate the all-sauing sacrifice vpon the crosse by the frequent reiteration charges it with impotency and imbecility Wherefore whatsoeuer pretence our aduersaries may vse they by their Massing sacrifice doe no lesse then robbe the al-sufficient sacrifice of the Crosse and with irreligious blasphemy derogate from it the meritorious power to saue all that beleeue The Minor is manifest by the words of our Sauiour he cryed Consummatum est It is finished What is finished The Ceremoniall law was abrogated the Morall law was fulfilled the sacrifice of Christ was perfected the saluation of mankind accomplished And God forbid that against so many euidences of scripture any man should affirme the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse not to be perfectly finished as though he had left any part to bee supplyed by the Masse-Priests which hee himselfe was not able to effect Wherefore if Christ hath on his crosse cancelled the hand writing which was against vs if hee by his crosse hath reconciled vs vnto his father if he on the crosse did once sacrifice himselfe for all beleeuers then God forbid any man should 〈◊〉 in ought saue the crosse of Christ God forbid any Christian should seeke for a Propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist which hath no vertue in it to procure pardon for sinne vnto any soule but onely faithfully receiued to seale the remission purchased by the bloody sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse But our subtle Antagonists thinke to auoide the force of our argument by this cunning distinction There is say they two degrees of remission of sinnes The first that God would for his part and as much as in him lyes be reconciled to men Secondly that he would receiue them into fauour they working by faith and repentance The first degree say they is in the sacrifice of Christs death on the crosse The second is in the sacrifice of the Masse and for the confirmation of this distinction they adduce the saying of the Apostle God was in Christ reconciling the world vnto himselfe not imputing their trespasses vnto them and hath committed vnto vs the word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But our aduersaries by this distinction thinking to auoid us haue giuen vs the greater aduantage For this latter degree of remission of sinnes is nothing els but the application of the sacrifice of Christ vnto all men as if they should say that then are wee made partakers of that great benefite of Christs sacrifice when we doe receiue him with a true faith And for this end was the sacrifice of the Masse instituted Vt cruenti sacrificij salutaris virtus in remissionem corum quae quotidie committuntur a nobis peccatorum 〈◊〉 That the sauing vertue of the bloody sacrifice may be applyed vnto vs for the remission of those sinnes which are dayly committed by vs. From hence I conclude that if the application of a Propitiatory sacrifice bee not the sacrifice it selfe for he that confounds the thing and the application of that thing shewes but weakenesse of iudgement and that in the Masse there is an application of the great Propitiatory sacrifice offered by Christ it must needes follow that in the Masse there is no Propitiatory sacrifice it selfe true and reall but onely an application of the great and al-sufficient sacrifice offered by Christ. Therefore the Apostle sayes that God hath committed to vs his ministers the ministery of reconciliation From which words I collect these two obseruations First that the Pastors of the Church of Christ are Ministers of application of Christs sacrifice but not of sacrificing Christ himselfe Secondly that this application is made not by sacrificing of Christ as our Romanists dreame but by teaching admonishing and exhorting with the administration of the Sacrament according to the institution of Christ. Argument 7. Seauenthly if Christ be truely and really offered in the Masse then in the Masse he is really slaine But in the Masse he is not truely and really slaine ergo in the Masse Christ is not reall offered The Consequence appeares by this that the offering of Christ and the slaying of Christ are neuer seperated in the holy Scripture For it was not with Christ as with the beast vnder the Law which were first slaine and then offered vppon the Altar but Christ in the instant of his death was offered a sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauor to his Heauenly Father Let the Scriptures be examined and iudge whether euer they speake of the Sacrifice of Christ but thereby is meant his death For this he did once when he offered himselfe How much more the blood of Christ which by the eternall spirit offered himselfe without spot to God So Christ was once offered to beare the sinnes of many These and all other places of the new Testament which speake of the offering of Christ are to be interpreted of his death Wherefore to say Christus 〈◊〉 est Christ is offered is nothing else but to say Christus mortuus est Christ is dead or Christ is slaine Wherefore if Christ be truely and really offered in the Masse he must be truely and really slaine Our aduersaries answere That there is a Sacramentall immolation of Christ in the Masse because by the power and vertue of Transubstantiation the body of Christ is consecrated and made to subsist by it selfe and the blood of Christ is consecrated and made to subsist by it selfe and so though they are seperated locally and in appearance yet they are not seperated propter concomitantiam by concomitance they are both ioyned together By this their distinction they thinke to vp hold their Masse by which they ouer-turne it For first in that they say it is a Sacramentall immolation herein they speake more truely then they are aware wherein wee consent with them for if it be Sacramentall it cannot be proper reall and externall seeing that which is Sacramentall is so relatiue hauing reference vnto that substance whereof it is a shadow or resemblance Againe for the body and the blood to be framed seperately and yet by concommitance not to be seperated who heares not a contradiction in these words The Minor our aduersaries themselues confesse they will not say Christ is slaine really and truely in the Masse least their
Priests should become Christochthonoi Christ Killers Yet how can they auoid the suspition of treason against the life of Christ when they seperate his reall body from his blood for it is greatly to be feared that they who powre out his liuely blood and breake his reall and substantiall body are guilty of the death of our Lord and Sauiour Argument 8. Eighly If Christ be dayly sacrificed in the Masse then Christ doth daily satisfie for our sinnes but Christ doth not daily satisfie for our sinnes ergo Christ is not dayly sacrificed in the Masse The consequence is plaine by euidence of Scripture for wheresoeuer and whensoeuer Christ was to be sacrificed it was for the satisfaction of his Fathers wrath for sinne Who gaue himselfe a ransom for all to be testified in due time Hee was delinered to death for our offences Who loued vs and gaue himselfe for vs an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweete smelling sauour If when we were enemies we were reconciled vnto God by the death of his sonne c. Who gaue himselfe for our sinnes that he might deliuer vs from this present euill world By these and diuers other places of holy Scripture it is plainely prooued that satisfaction for our sinnes is the end of Christs sacrifice and in naming the one wee suppose the other The Minor is prooued because Christ did perfectly satisfie for the sinnes of all the elect appeasing fully the wrath of God by his sacrifice vpon the Crosse and now ceasing from making any further satisfaction he onely sitting at the right hand of God maketh intercession for vs. For to satisfie the wrath of God is to doe that for vs which wee should haue done and to suffer that which we had deserued namely death and so Christ should againe yeelde obedience to the Law and suffer death againe but the Apostle sayth Christ being once dead dyeth no more neither is Almighty God so vniust as to require satisfaction of him that hath perfectly satisfyed already But our aduersaries say that Christ is sacrificed in the Masse to apply vnto vs the satisfaction which Christ hath giuen for vs on the Crosse. But so in applying satisfaction he makes satisfaction for Christ cannot be sacrificed truely but hee must truely die and he cannot die but to make satisfaction Againe if Christ ought to be sacrificed againe that the fruite of his sacrifice may be applyed vnto vs then ought he as well to be incarnate againe in the wombe of the Virgin that the fruite of his incarnation may be applied vnto vs to die to be buried to rise againe that so the fruite of his death Sepulture and resurrection may be applyed vnto vs. Lastly the application of the benefit of Christs sacrifice by reiteration of his sacrifice is not found in Scripture But there is a double meanes one internall and that is the efficacie of the Spirit of God which powerfull applies 〈◊〉 vs the vertue of Christs sacrifice the other is externall namely the Preaching of the word and the Sacraments which two concurring together beget faith in the soule which particularly applies the benefit of Christs oblation to the beleeuer In a word let them consider what applicari to be applied signifies and they shall easily perceiue that the sacrifice of Christ is applied vnto vs when Christ is offered not to God as in the Masse but to vs as in the holy Eucharist Christ freely giuing his body to be eaten his blood to be drunke and that spiritually by faith Argument 9. Ninthly if in the Masse Christ be offered vnto God by the Priests of Rome then hee is not the onely Priest of the new Testament But Christ is the onely Priest of the New Testament Ergo he is not offered by the Priests of Rome in the sacrifice of the Masse The consequence is true for if there be a true and reall sacrifice in the Masse there must needes follow a true and reall Priest-hood which offereth this sacrifice and so Christ is not the onely Priest of the new Testament The Minor is denied by our aduersaries but is proued by vs. First there is no other proper externall Priesthood vnder the Gospell but that which is after the order of Melchizedech of which order there is no man worthy but onely Christ as is sufficiently declared And whereas our aduersaries vainely boast their Priest-hood to be after the order of Melchizedech herein they are contrary to Scripture which makes this not to be a common Priest-hood as Aarons was but personall belonging onely vnto Christ wherefore the Apostle sayes that Christ because he continueth for euer hath Aparabaton Hierosunen such a Priest-hood as cannot passe from one to another Where the Apostle plainly shewes that such as were mortal and consequently not eternall were vncapable of that order of Melchizedech such are the Priests of Rome mortall as those of Aaron were and thereof vnto them cannot this Priest-hood be diuolued They thinke to cut vs off with this distinction Christ is the primary or principall Priest but men may be secundary and lesse principall by whose ministery Christ may offer himselfe vnto God I demaund then was not Christ euen vnder the Law a Priest after the order of Melchizedech and were not the Priests of Aaron being compared to Christ that was to come Secundary Priests were they not therefore Types and figures of the Priest-hood of Christ wherefore when the primary or superior Priest was come the Priest-hood of Aaron vanished and the Apostle would haue no legall Priesthood to remaine But where hath he substituted any other secundary Priests instead of the former Certes the Scripture hath not appointed any Againe by the same reason that the Apostle disanulles the legall Priest-hood hath he also excluded all other externall Priest-hood vnder the Gospell for he opposeth him that is immortall against those that are mortall God and man against those who are meere men Now if the Priests of Rome be no freer from mortality or fuller of deity then the Priests of Leuy they are then by the same reason both excluded for Cui ratio perfectum medium conclusionis conuenit eidem ipsa conuenit conclusio To whom the true reason and perfect medium of a conclusion doth agree to the same also the conclusion it selfe may be applied Againe Christ is plainely manifested to be the only Priest of the New Testament and so alone able to offer the sacrifice of propitiaton for our sinnes by that figuratiue entring alone of the high Priest once a yeare into the Tabernacle Againe he that offers a true propitiatory sacrifice effectuall in it selfe to procure pardon for 〈◊〉 must needes be a Mediator of the new Testament therefore is it sayd of Christ But now hath hee obtained a better ministry by how much also he is made a Mediator of a better couenanant And for this cause he is the 〈◊〉 of the new Testament that by meanes of death c. By which
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
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
the pretended sacrifice of the Masse is not Propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead The Maior is not denyed by our aduersaries The Minor is thus prooued Augustine saith Sacramentum est visibile signum inuisibilis gratiae a visible signe of inuisible grace so that in euery sacrament there is signum signatum the signe and the thing signified both which abide whole and intire in such sort as it is not possible that the one can be the other or any part of the other But the sacrifice of the Masse destroyeth the nature of a sacrament for it taketh away the substance of the bread which is the signe and seale of his body it taketh away the substance of the wine which is the symbole of his blood and that by 〈◊〉 and altering them as some of them hold or els by annihilating them as others say or by reducing them into their first matter from substances into accidents contrary vnto all nature yea contrary to the things signified for there ought to be resemblance betweene the signe and the thing signified as Manna did represent the bread of life which came downe from heauen in baptisme water which washeth away corporall spottes the blood of Christ which cleanseth our spirituall pollutions bread and wine which nourish our naturall life the body and blood of Christ which sustaine and feede vs vnto eternall life But roundnesse whitenesse moistnesse and rednesse which they giue vs for signes what analogy or proportion haue they with our spirituall nourishment These accidents of bread and wine haue no power or vertue to feede the body but the substance of bread and wine they leaue those and take away this where then is the sacrament when the signe is abolished Againe the sacrifice of the Masse taketh away the thing signified in the Lords Supper What 's that It is the body and blood of Christ yea Christ himselfe For the very body and blood of Christ was giuen only for them which 〈◊〉 in him and abide in him for them saith the Apostle which dwell in him by faith and in whose hearts he dwelleth for them saith Saint Augustine which are his members and therefore the same Father saith a man may eate panem Domini the bread of the Lord and yet not eate panem Dominum the Lord the bread making a difference betweene the bread in the sacrament and that life-giuing bread which is Christ himselfe represented by the symboles in the Eucharist But oh what iniury is offered by the Papists in their sacrifice vnto the body and blood of Christ which is the food of eternall life when dogs and swine that is reprobates and hypocrites shall bee made pertakers of it nay and these ex opere operato by vertue of the very act of receiuing doe merit remission of sinnes and relaxation of punishment nay a Mouse or a Dog may eate the precious body of our Lord Iesus Christ which doth so 〈◊〉 their greatest Doctors that if it be demanded Whether if a Dog or a Mouse doe eate the 〈◊〉 Host they doe 〈◊〉 the very body of Christ they are at a non plus and know not what to answer Wee affirme and dare iustifie That the signe of the Sacrament may be receiued of all that are of competent age in the Church But Res Sacramenti the thing signified in the Sacrament can onely be receiued by the faithfull which are rightly of the Church for so saith Origen Of this true and verie meate of this Word made flesh no wicked or vngodly man can eate because it is the Word and Bread of life because hee that eateth of this bread liueth for euer And S. Augustine speakes plainely to this purpose saying The Signes are common to the good and 〈◊〉 but the thing proper to the faithfull alone therefore the Apostles did eate Panem Dominum The bread which was the Lord but Iudas onely Panem Domini the Bread of the Lord against the Lord. Doth not this take away Christ himselfe when the Church shall giue vnto wicked men and vnbeleeuers and they themselues shall receiue the very substantiall Body of Christ. Againe they destroy the humanity of Christ for the which the Fathers of the Church haue so mightily contended against diuers Heretikes for when without warrant of Gods word they ascribe vnto this body a property of being in a thousand places at once how do they not destroy the nature of a true Humane body which can be but in one place at one time as is prooued Pag. 198. Nay doth not this Sacrifice make Christ a dead Christ in that they doe really separate his body from his blood making them in consecration and after consecration to subsist apart which separation was the very death of Christ And whereas Christ saith I am with you vnto the end of the world And Where two or three are gathered together in my name I will be in the middest of them These and the like speeches are to be vnderstood of the Diuinitie of Christ which filleth all places as these Speeches You shall not have me alwaies with you It is expedient for you that I goe away The heauens must containe him vntill the restauration of all things are to be vnderstood of his Humanity which is circumscriptiuely onely in one place at once And so the Fathers vnderstand these places Origen saith It is not the man which is euery where Where two or three be gathered together in his name Or yet is alwaies with vs vntill the end of the world Or which is in euery place where the faithfull are assembled but it is the Diuine power which is in Iesus And so Saint Augustine You haue the poore alwaies with you c. Let not good men be troubled in respect of his maiestie prouidence grace c. It is fulfilled which he said I am alwaies with you In respect of the flesh which the Word tooke vpon it it is the same which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You shall not haue me alwaies The Church enioyed him but a few daies in respect of his bodily presence but now it possesseth him by faith and seeth him no more with these bodily eies c. And in another place vpon 〈◊〉 words Vado venio ad aos He went as men he staied behinde as God He went in as much as he was but in one place he staied and abode still in as much as hee was euery where By which words of S. Augustine it appeares that hee conceiued the Humane body of Christ to reside in one place and not to bee in many places at once And in another of his writings hee hath these words It is expedient for you that I goe Although that hee be alwaies with vs by his Diuinitie but if he had not gone away from vs corporally we should haue seen him daily with these carnall eies and should neuer haue beleeued in him spiritually c. And for this cause he hath absented himself in
are of iudgment that he receiues not the body of Christ who doth not beleeue that he receiues it like Magick charms wherin strong imagination and beleese workes the effect And yet obserue here how contrary againe they are vnto themselues when they teach that Opus operatum The worke wrought is sufficient to merit What difference then is between the godly and the wicked Or what priuiledge hath the righteous more then the prophane seeing both good and bad receiue the same consecrated Christ performe the same worke of communicating And for all men that can pay well without difference is the Sacrifice of the Masse offered Or what comfort can the Laity of the Roman Church find in the Sacrament when that which shold giue life to their faith breedeth in them nothing but doubting and vncertainty seeing that after they haue prepared themselues they know not what they receiue because they are not assured of the intention of the consecration But here I demand of the Romanists If the consecration of the body and blood of Christ depend vpon the intention of the Priest so that if he intend not in the act of consecration the Body of Christ is not then present neither is the Bread or Wine transubstantiated How then can the Doctors of the Church of Rome free the people from the sinne of Idolatry which worship the creature in stead of the Creator the vnconsecrated Elements in stead of the true and substantiall Body and Blood of Christ For they worship the bread supposing it to be the Body of Christ when through either the negligence or wilfulnesse of the Priest in not intending consecration it remaines in its owne proper substance They thinke to falue this sore with a nice distinction they tell vs it is materiall Idolatry but not formall as though Idolatry masked vnder a couert were not a sinne and because it is not voluntarie or intentionall therefore it were tollerable The Idolatry of Israel was neuer so grosse as to worship any grauen Images in stead of God but as our Papists plead to worship God in or through their Images yet this prouoked God vnto iealousie and drew downe his vengeance vpon these Idolaters Is not this more palpable Idolatry where the Bread and Wine which are but creatures are worshipped with Latreia adoration which thēselues ascribe vnto God alone And to manifest that they ascribe vnto this Sacrifice the same diuine worship which they ascribe vnto God let but the Christian Reader examine the last generall Councell held by the Church of Rome namely the Councell of Trent where he shall finde this blasphemous Canon Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum venerandum neque processionibus secundum laudabilem vniuersalem Ecclesiae sanctae ritum consuetudinem solemniter circumg estandum vel non publicè vt adoretur populo proponendum eius adoratores esse Idololatras Anathema sit If any man shall say that Christ the onely begotten Sonne of God is not to be adored with externall diuine worship in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and that it is not solemnly to be carried about in Procession according to the laudible and vniuersall rites and custome of holy Church and that it is not publikely to be shewed to the people that they may adore it and that the worshippers thereof are Idolaters let him be accursed And in the beginning of the same Chapter there are these words Nullus 〈◊〉 dubitandi locus relinquitur cum omnis Christi fidelis pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto latriae cultum qui 〈◊〉 Deo 〈◊〉 huic 〈◊〉 sacramento in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is now no place of doubting left seeing all the faithfull of Christ according to the custome which was alwaies 〈◊〉 in adoration may giue vnto this sacred Sacrament that worship of Latria which is belonging to the true God This is a doctrine of Diuels commanding most 〈◊〉 Idolatry and yet not to be contradicted vnder paine of his Holinesse curse But let vs admit that Christ is to be worshipped in the Eucharist yet how can the people 〈◊〉 the sinne of Idolatry when albeit the Priest faile in his intention and consequently consecrate not yet they worship the 〈◊〉 and wine with adoration But I will not here enter into the discussion of this point whether the Eucharist is to 〈◊〉 with Diuine worship Least I should too much enlarge this Treatise which hath already transcended the limites of my intention Thus hauing sufficiently satisfied as I hope the indifferent and impartial Reader concerning the propounded parts of this controuersie as namely that the pretended sacrifice of the Masse hath no ground in the Doctrine of the Scriptures practise of the Apostles or writings of the ancient Fathers as secondly touching the originall encrease and continuance of the Masse Thirdly of the imbecillity and weakenesse of their obiected Arguments Lastly of the firme and solide grounds of our dislike and opposition I shall in fine lay before the eyes of all men a briefe enumeration of all the impieties and blasphemies of this abhominable Idoll and so shall conclude all with a serious disswasion from all or any participation in that superstitious worship The Impieties of this Sacrifice are these First it is not onely diuers from the institution of Christ but quite ouerthrowes it as appeares by these particulars 1. First Christ instituted a Sacrament wherein he freely offereth himselfe to be receiued of all beleeuers by faith and to bee eaten spiritually They turne it into a sacrifice which is offered vnto God the Father not beeing distributed to the people but deuoured by the Priest and that 〈◊〉 really and materially So that whereas the Church should haue beene thankefull for that God hath giuen his onely sonne for her saluation shee striues to make God her debter by offering vnto him a sacrifice but such a sacrifice as he neuer desired expected or commanded 2. Christ in the Sacrament consecrated bread and wine which remained as signes and symboles of the body and blood of Christ. In the Masse they consecrate the reall and substantiall body of Christ taking away the Sacrament in that they take away the signes 3. In the Sacrament the vertue and efficacy is in the power of God making it operatiue by the grace of the Spirit In the Masse the deede done deserues pardon and the Priest hath a portion of remission of sinnes which may bee bestowed on whom he will 4. The Sacrament is onely profitable for the liuing but the Masse for the quicke and the dead 5. The Sacrament was instituted to manifest the Communion of Saints therefore called the Communion figured by the bread framed of many cornes and made into one loase and the wine made of many grapes so all 〈◊〉 are one body but in priuate Masse the Priest consumes all the host himselfe as though hee alone had right
to goe in to bow with his Master in the house of Rimmon and therefore prayeth twice for mercy for it professing he will neuer worship any but the true God neither doth he onely pray for sinne past but in the sence of his owne weakenesse desireth mercy that 〈◊〉 may not bee drawne from his purpose and withsll stirreth vp the Prophet to pray for him that God would giue him grace and strength and for pardon if at any time hee should against his purpose bee drawne into his former sinne and in this sense the Prophet bids him goe in peace as if hee should say I will pray that God would keepe thee in thy godly resolution and for mercy and pardon if thou shouldest be drawne aside and so farewell The words of the Prophet Elisha Goe in peace are also diuerssy expounded Some thinke the Prophets words 〈◊〉 no grant made vnto his petition but rather a prohibition not to trouble himselfe about those matters as if he should haue sayd Content thy selfe require no such thing it would trouble thy conscience but goe in peace keepe a good conscience and labour for the peacetherof so as Polan obserues the words of the Prophet are Tantum dimittentis abeuntem non concedentis postulatum onely a valediction and not any concession or granting of his request Againe it appeares not by the words of the Prophet that he gaue any tolleration or dispensation vnto Naaman for Naaman makes in one verse two petitions one for permission to goe into Rimmons Temple the other for two mules load of earth to carry home with him to offer sacrifice vpon vnto the Lord. Now the Prophet makes the same answer vnto both and therefore doth either condescend to both or deny both but grant them both he did not for the one was cleane contrary to the law to giue Naaman leaue to sacrifice in Syria who was not a Priest whose office it was alone to offer sacrifice and moreouer Ierusalem was the onely place appointed for that action This request therefore the Prophet can by no meanes be thought to haue granted Ergo nor the other And vnto this sence I doe adhere for that the Prophet neither could nor durst giue any liberty to Naaman to be present at the Idolatrous worship of the Syrian Rimmon I am not ignorant of the opinion of some that the Prophet answers dispensando by the way of dispensation though not generally yet in that case onely to goe into the Idols Temple and to bee present at their Idolatry But Lyranus will haue it declarando by declaring it to be lawfull for Naaman to bee present in the Temple of Rimmon at Idolatrous seruice and sacrifice so it were onely for ciuill respect vnto the king his Master and of this opinion seemes 〈◊〉 to be who allowes a man to bee present by reason of some ciuill office so hee yeeld not to the least shew of Idolatry but I should rather commend the practise of the Protestant Princesat Augusta who brought Charles the fift their Emperour along as he was going to the Masse but left him at the Church doore as also of Valentinian who brought Iulian to the Temple of his Idols and when the doore-keeper sprinkled his gowne with the Idols water as the Pagans vsed Valentinian forthwith gaue him a blow on the eare Conclusion Thus hauing sufficiently refelled their strongest arguments and giuen answer to their chiefest pleas the conclusion shall bee this Seeing the Romish Masse hath quite ouerthrowne and thrust the Supper of the Lord out of the Church the holy Supper being an assembly a body of the faithfull vnited and knit together in one spirit strengthening our faith 〈◊〉 our charity kindling our zeale wherein is celebrated the memory of the death and passion of our Lord by a plaine and open rehearsall of the cause manner and benefits of the same whereby the faithfull are taught to acknowledge and call to mind the greatnesse of their sinnes and to admire and magnifie the great and vnspeakeable mercies of God whereby they are stirred vp to renounce and forsake themselues to giue themselues wholy vnto God to dye vnto their lusts and concupiscences and to liue vnto Christ who hauing once deliuered himselfe to the death of the crosse for to giue them life did yet further vouchsafe to giue himselfe to them in this sacrament as spirituall meate and drinke to feede their soules vnto eternall life and herein all the faithfull doe communicate together in the bread and in the cup in the body and in the blood of our Lord being taught thereby that they are diuers members of one mysticall hody whereof Christ is the head being quickned mooued and gouerned by one Spirit euen the Spirit of Christ liuing one life and hauing their hearts vnited one to another by loue Herein wee are seriously admonished of our bond and obligation to God the Father for sending his Son and God the Sonne fulfilling the will of his Father the remembrance of whose death wee shew forth till he come who as verily as the Minister giueth vs the bread and wine to be receiued with our hands which being eaten and drunken are conuerted into our substances and become nourishments of our bodies giueth vs his body and 〈◊〉 to be receiued with faith that we may eate and drinke them spiritually and that they may be turned into the life and substance of our soules making vs one with Christ and Christ one with vs. This was the holy Supper of the faithfull in the ancient Church and this is ours with the rest of the reformed Churches But in the Masse there are no footsteps of the holy Supper but all things are so changed as if the Lords Supper were abolished and the Masse were come in the stead therof for in the Masse there is a Prieft in a strange garment his face fixt vpon an Altar with a Clarke standing behind him muttering in a strange language interlarded with signes lifting vp a wafer in an affected and ceremoniall superstitious sort causing it to be worshipped dipping it in the wine eating it alone persuading the people that by thus much as hath beene done beeing at their request and bought with somepiece of money he hath sacrificed Christ for them What shewing foorth of the Lords death is there till he come Nay is there not an abolishing of the perfection value and efficacy of Christs death and sacrifice Is their not 〈◊〉 in robbing the lay-people of the cup Is not the Masse ful of abhominable blasphemies and grosse impieties Are not the deaths and sufferings of Saints and Martyrs rather reckoned vp then the death of Christ represented Is there not rather a breach of charity then any Symbole of loue when the Priest eates all himselfe the common people being excluded from it where is there any communion betweene the members or signification of our engrafting into Christ The scriptures neither authorising nor the Primitiue and Apostolicall