authenticall Edition of Sixtus quintus and Clemens octauus the Soph pasuk you vrge is expressed onely by a comma and in some of the Vulgar there is not so much as a comma Wherefore this doeth rather argue a relation to that which followeth then to that which went before and consequently these words He was a Priest of the most High God cannot be referred to the bringing foorth of the bread and wine but rather to the blessing And that it is so may appeare by the Epistle to the Hebrewes where the Type of Melchisedec is vnfolded and yet there is no mention at all of sacrificing but only of blessing But if we should suppose that it were to be translated by the causall for and that these words For he was a Priest of the most High God had relation to that which went before concerning the bringing out of bread and wine what should you gaine by it PHIL. The very point in question For the latter part shall yeeld a reason of the former Did Melchisedec bring foorth bread and wine to Abraham What moued him so to doe The reason is rendered because he was a Priest of the most High God Therefore this was a Priestly action ORTHOD. He gaue entertainment to Abraham and was thereunto moued by consideration of his owne Office euen because hee was not onely a professour of the true Religion but also a Priest for as it becommeth all that imbrace Religion to loue one another and reioyce at their good so this duetie especially belongeth to the Priest And your learned Iesuite Andradius hence obserueth the great lincke of Religion saying Who would not wonder that a man tyed by no lincks of acquaintance with Abraham but to those whom Abraham conquered tyed by the lincke of neighbour-hood and peraduenture of alliance also for I hold it very probable that Melchisedec was a Canaanite should prosecute Abraham with presents and other kind offices and for the victory gotten ouer his owne country men should congratulate Abraham not without procuring to himselfe great enuie from his neighbours but seeing there are no lincks to bee compared with the linkes of religion Moyses saith that he performed these offices to Abraham because he was a Priest of the most high God that all men might vnderstand that hee was coupled with greater lincks of loue with Abraham who excelled for singular commendation of Pietie and religion then with them to whom he was tied by the Law of nature and country therefore there is no necessity to say that he sacrificed bread and wine for the text euen read and pointed as you would haue it may in the iudgement of some of your learned Diuines admit an excellent sence without any sacrifice BVt let vs imagine that hee did sacrifice bread and wine what is this to the purpose PHIL. Yes it proueth our Priest hood directly and strongly For must not the truth answere to the Type ORTHOD. You make the type consist in this that Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine but stay a little did Christ sacrifice bread and wine where find you that PHIL. A Type consisteth in representation and representation dependeth rather vpon the outward accidents then the inward substance therfore whereas Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine the truth of that Type must consist in the outward accidents that is in the formes of bread wine and the Type was fulfilled in that Christ offered himselfe in the formes of bread and wine ORTH. Was the sacrifice of Melchisedec bread and wine in substance or was it the body and blood of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine if you say the first then our communion doth better answere to the sacrifice of Melchisedec then your Masse and consequently our ministery doth better resemble his then your Priesthood but if you say that he offered the very bodie and blood of Christ in the formes of bread and wine that would fit your turne well for then Melchisedec should be a Masse Priest but it is so absurde that you dare not auouch it For then the very bodie and blood of Christ should haue beene actually and substantially existent before it was conceiued in the wombe of the Virgin Mary Thus say what you can you are quite ouerthrowne PHIL. If Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine then surely hee offred an vnbloody sacrifice and seeing Christ being a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must needs haue the essentiall properties of that Order therefore Christ offered also an vnbloody sacrifice ORTHOD. Or rather thus seeing Christ is a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec hee must haue all the essentiall properties belonging to that Order but his sacrifice was bloodie and not vnbloody for With his owne blood hath he entred into the most Holy and hath purchased an eternall redemption for vs therefore to offer an vnbloody sacrifice is no essential propertie of the Order of Melchisedec wherfore if he did so it followeth not that Christ should do so PHIL. It was both bloody and vnbloodie bloody vpon the Crosse vnbloodie in the Eucharist ORTHOD. Doe you not teach that Christ offered his owne body and blood in the Eucharist if hee sacrificed his owne blood how can that sacrifice be vnbloodie PHIL. His blood was shed and sacrificed in the Eucharist in an vnbloudie manner that is in the forme of bread and wine ORTHO The Scripture saith that Christ was Once offered and that with once offering he hath Consecrated for euer them that are sanctified and this offering is called the blood of the Crosse not the blood of the Eucharist but the blood of the Crosse. PHIL. Will you deny the blood and sacrifice of the Eucharist ORTHOD. Christ saith Doe this in remembrance of mee therefore in the Eucharist there is a memoriall of Christ euen of his bodie and blood which were sacrificed for vs vpon the Crosse once for all as hath been alreadie prooued Therefore the blood was shed and sacrificed vpon the Crosse properly and substantially in the Eucharist improperly and in a mystery by way of commemoration an representation as shall appeare more amply when we come to the point PHIL. ANother difference betweene Aaron and Melchisedec is thus set down by Bellarmine Estetiā alia differentia inter Sacerdotium Melchisedechi Aaronis quòd illud fuit vnius tantū hominis qui non successit alteri cui non successit alter istud autem fuit multorum qui per mortem sibi inuicem succedebant i. There is an other difference betweene the Priesthood of Melchisedec and of Aaron that the former was onely of one man who succeeded not an other and to whom no man succeeded but the latter was of many men which succeeded one another by death where we may obserue two properties of the Priesthood of Melchisedec vnity and eternity ORTH. The first propertie belongeth most aptly to Christ who alone hath offered himselfe a sweete smelling sacrifice to God for vs but to
his wordes should bee taken properly but to expresse the similitude most emphatically Euen so our Lord Iesus willing to expresse in how liuely manner the Bread and Wine doe represent his Body and Blood doth not say that they signifie his Body and Blood or that they are signes and Sacraments of his Body and Blood but speaking most significantly hee saith this Bread is my Body this Wine is my Blood Another reason is because our sweete Sauiour would seale all his comfortable blessings vnto the soule of the worthie receiuer as if a King bestowing a Castle vpon one of his subiects and reaching vnto him the sealed writing containing the graunt should say vnto him behold here take what I giue thee it is such a Castle For though hee might haue said this writing doth signifie the gift of such a Castle yet it is more significant and more comfortable to say it is such a Castle For so the king doth cheere vp his heart and by that writing doth put him into actuall possession of the Castle Euen so our Lord Iesus though he might haue said this is a sacrament of my body yet to giue vs more cordiall comfort he saith this is my body assuring vs thereby that in giuing vs that Bread hee giueth vs himselfe and putteth vs in actuall possession of his graces and blessings purchased vnto vs by his body and blood PHIL. Suppose we should grant that the pronoune this did signifie the bread what could you conclude ORTHOD. Bellarmine may teach you who declareth out of the writings of Luther that the words of the Euangelist this is my body according to Luther do cary this sence this bread is my body Which sentence saith Bellarmine must eyther be taken tropically that the bread may be the body of Christ by way of signification or it is plainely absurde and impossible For it cannot be that bread should be the body of Christ properly wherefore the schollers of Luther had rather runne backe to a trope then admit a manifest absurditie Here is a cleere confession that if by this be meant this bread then the proposition must needs be taken tropically that is as we take it or otherwise it is absurde and impossible But it were blasphemy to say that Christ spake absurdities and impossibilities therfore if the pronoune this doe demonstrate the bread the proposition must needes carry that sence which we make of it and then the Protestants haue gotten the victory by the confession of your most learned Cardinall For great is the trueth and preuaileth So your carnall presence and consequently both your sacrifice and Priesthood doe fall to the ground ANd if for disputations sake wee should faine though indeed it bee a meere fiction that the body of Christ were corporally and carnally in the Sacrament yet for all this you are neuer able to proue your Sacrifice vpon which your Priesthood dependeth because the Scripture acknowledgeth no other then that vpon the Crosse. For neither by the blood of goates and calues but by his owne blood which the Scripture elsewhere calleth the blood of the Crosse entred he in once into the holy place and obtained eternall redemption for vs. Hee is entred into the very heauen to appeare now in the sight of God for vs Not that he should offer himselfe often as the high Priest entred into the holy place euery yeare with other blood for then must hee haue often suffered since the foundation of the world but now in the end of the world he hath appeared once to put away sinne by the Sacrifice of himselfe And as it is appointed vnto men that they shall once die and after that commeth the iudgement so Christ was once offered to take away the sinnes of many and vnto them that looke for him shall he appeare the second time without sinne vnto saluation This man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sinnes sitteth for euer at the right hand of God and from henceforth tarieth till his enemies be made his footestoole For with one offering hath he Consecrated for euer them that are sanctified If Christ haue shed offered and sacrificed his blood not often but once and that vpon the Crosse then can it not bee really shed offered and sacrificed in the Eucharist If by one oblation he hath obtained an eternall redemption put away sinne and Consecrated for euer those that are sanctified then your sacrificing of him is vaine and vnprofitable contrary to the Scripture and iniurious to the all-sufficient sacrifice of Iesus Christ. PHIL. He was sacrificed once and not often in that manner as he was vpon the Crosse yet hee was sacrificed in the Eucharist also as I will prooue both by the words of Christ and by his actions First by his wordes for hee said this is my body which is giuen for you or as it is in Saint Paul which is broken for you And againe this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you Is shed is broken is giuen not to you but to God for you Doe not these words argue a reall actuall and proper sacrifice ORTHOD. They argue a sacrifice to God not in the Supper but on the Crosse. PHIL. You must consider that it is not said which shall bee giuen shall bee broken shall be shed but which is giuen is broken is shed which argues that the place is not to be expounded of the sacrifice of the Crosse that was to come but of a sacrifice in the Eucharist which was present ORTHOD. The present tense is vsed for the future funditur for fundetur for proofe wherof I wil produce two witnesses which with you are most authentical the vulgar translation and the Canon of the Masse in both which it is not funditur is shed but fundetur shall be shed Whereby you may learne that the present tense vsed in the Greeke is to be expounded by the future vsed in the Latin and consequently it is to bee vnderstood of the sacrifice of the Crosse which was to come PHIL. Both are true and neither of the readings ought to be denyed and especially that of the present tense because the Euangelists and S. Paul did write in the present tense ORTHOD. Ex ore tuo serue nequam Is funditur in the present tense lesse to be denyed because the Euangelists and S. Paul did write in the present tense is it so indeede albeit the Canon of the Masse and your vulgar translation which may not be reiected vnder any pretence haue fundetur in the future tense then it seemeth that the blessed originalls are to be preferred before a translation whatsoeuer the Counsell of Trent haue said to the contrary O the force of trueth which breaketh out like lightning and shineth in darkenesse though the darkenes comprehendeth it not but this by the way Now for the present point though the vulgar hath not expressed the letter of the text yet it hath
and substantiall parts of Priesthood For your Church giueth no authoritie to offer the soueraigne sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ and though you haue a kind of absolution yet to small purpose For you neither vse auricular confession nor sufficient inioyning of pennance nor satisfaction for sinne but haue turned the true iudiciall absolution into a declaratory LAst of all your Deacons are no Deacons not onely because your Bishops haue no authoritie to ordaine but also because they are defectiue in the maine point of their function for though the Bishops say Take thou authoritie to execute the office of a Deacon yet he meaneth nothing lesse for the chiefe office of a Deacon is to assist the Priest in saying of Masse which you scorne and contemne By this it appeareth that you haue not one Bishop one Priest one Deacon in all the Church of England that hath a lawfull ordinarie vocation therefore your pretended Ministers are meerely lay men All these things with euery branch thereof shall bee iustified to your faces from point to point if you or any of your Rabbines dare incounter vs in a scholasticall combat either priuately or rather publickly in the face of an Vniuersitie or rather solemnly in Court in the Princes presence This is the thing that we desire ORTHOD. THe world is well enough acquainted with your boasting bookes and vaine glorious vaunts Wee haue heard the bragges of Bristow and of Parsons the great Polypragmon but especially wee cannot forget Campian the glorious Iesuite who comming into England to display the Popes Banner like a worthie Champion cast out his gantlet and braued both our Vniuersities But the successe of this proude popish challenger may call to your minde the saying of the King of Israel to Benhadad King of Syria Let not him that girdeth on his harnesse boast as hee that putteth it off You exclaime against our ministery as though wee had neither Bishops Presbyters nor Deacons whereupon it followeth that the whole controuersie about our ministerie consisteth of three particular controuersies the first concerning Bishops the second concerning Presbyters and the third concerning Deaccâ—s Againe in our Bishops you disanul both their consecration and iurisdiction Wherefore the first particular controuersie is diuided into two branches the former of Episcopal consecration the latter of iurisdiction concerning which for mine owne part I doe not professe my selfe a champion to accept your challenge our Church God be thanked is farre better furnished and our two famous Vniuersities are like to the Tower of Dauid built for defence a thousand shieldes hang therein and all the Targets of the strong men Yet I must needes confesse that my soule is grieued to heare the hoast of Israel the armie of the liuing God reuiled Wherfore in regard of my dutie to God and the Church I will not keepe silence Yet one thing I admonish you if you meane to dispute with reproach and disdaine the garland is yours I will yeeld you the bucklers before we beginne but if you desire in singlenes of heart to find and follow the trueth if to this ende you will compare reason with reason and argument with argument in meekenes and mildnes of spirit if you hold the trueth of God in that precious account that you will suffer it to ouer-ballance all popular applause and worldly respectes then I am content to bee partaker with you in the search thereof The Lord giue vs wisedome and grace to knowe his will and to doe that which is acceptable in his sight If it please you to embrace these conditions then propose and prosecute your arguments in order PHIL. I will begin and proue that your Bishops are no Bishops CHAP. III. Wherein they descend to the first branch concerning Episcopall consecration wherevpon arise two questions the former whether three Bishops hee required of absolute necessity to the consecration of a new Bishop the state whereof is explaned out of Popish writers ORTHODOX WHerein are they defectiue Are they bare titularie Bishops without any Sees or are they Bishops without the Bishoply office and function The first you cannot affirme because wee consecrate none but such as are assigned to the administration of a certaine place according to the Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon But whether you haue offended in this or no witnesse your owne famous Panormitane Nota quod multi sunt Episcopi sine administratione Episcopatuum vt sunt illi qui vulgariter Nullatenenses appellantur i. Note that there are many Bishops without the administration of Bishoprickes as are they which are commonly called Bishops of Vtopia These pretend great titles and please themselues in that sweet humor which is nothing else but a vaine dreame and meere mockery They are like vnto the mad man which when any shippes arriued at Athens cried out al is mine and tooke an Inuentory of their goods yet was he neuer one penny the richer Of this frantike crue were Olaus Magnus and blind Robert Archbishops in conceite the one stiled Vpsalensis the other Armachanus both sent to the Councell of Trent to fill vp the number So Robert King the last Abbot of Osney was entituled Episcopus Roanensis whose episcopall See was supposed to bee in the Prouince of the Archbishoprike of Athens but hee was glad to bee translated from thence to Oxford Thomas Merkes Bishop of Carlile was remooued by the Pope from his owne bishopricke which yeelded him conuenient maintenance to the imaginarie bishopricke of Samos in Greece whereof he knew hee should neuer receiue one penny of profit but as one hath well obserued Hee was so happie as neither to take benefit of the guift of his enemie nor to bee hurt by the masked malice of his counterfeit friend Anthonie Beck Bishop of Durham was aduanced by the Pope to be Patriarch of Ierusalem but if hee had reaped no better maintenance from the Bishoprick of Durham then from Ierusalem for all his glorious title he might haue starued For the Pope as B. Iewel hath told you beeing forsaken of the foure principall Patriarches of the world appointeth out foure of his ordinary Chaplaines or other Prelates whom it pleaseth him and giueth them the names of foure Patriarches the first for Constantinople the second for Alexandria the third for Antioch the fourth for Ierusalem and thus hauing these foure at command in this pleasant fancie hee ruleth and gouerneth the whole world In such a solemne brauery the great Cham of Tartary at this day after he hath dined himselfe soundeth out a trumpet and giueth all the Emperours and Kings of the world leaue to goe to dinner in which imagination and iollitie he continueth his claime to the possession of the world So the Pope maketh painted Patriarches filling their ambitious heads with emptie titles like to great bladders blowne full of wind Such Vtopian Bishops may iustly be called no
yet saide is nothing because to the very being of a Bishop the order of Priesthood is essentially required which is not to be found in the Church of England For there are two principall functions of Priesthood the first is the power of Sacrificing the second of Absolution but you haue neither as I will prooue in order to beginne with the first it is giuen in holy Church by these wordes Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium deo missasque celebrare tam pro viuis quam pro defunctis in nomine domini that is Receiue power to offer Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masse as well for the quicke as for the dead in the name of the Lord. But you vse neither these wordes nor any aequiualent in your ordination of Priestes as may appeare by the Booke therefore you want the principall function of Priesthood ORTHOD. If you meane no more by Priest then the holy Ghost doeth by Presbyter that is a Minister of the new Testament then we professe and are ready to prooue that we are Priestes as we are called in the booke of common prayers and the forme of ordering because we receiue in our ordination authoritie to Preach the word of God and to minister his holy Sacraments Secondly by Priestes you meane Sacrificing Priestes and would expound your selues of spirituall Sacrifices then as this name belongeth to all Christians so it may bee applied by an excellencie to the Ministers of the Gospell Thirdly although in this name you haue a relation to bodily Sacrifices yet euen so we may bee called Priestes by way of allusion For as Deacons are not of the tribe of Leui yet the ancient fathers doe coÌ„monly call them Leuites alluding to their office because they come in place of Leuites so the ministers of the new Testament may be called Sacrificers because they suceed the sons of Aaron and come in place of Leuites so the Ministers of the new Testament may be called sacrificers because they succeed the sonnes of Aaron and come in place of sacrificers Fourthly for as much as we haue authoritie to minister the Sacraments and consequently the Eucharist which is a representation of the sacrifice of Christ therefore we may be said to offer Christ in a mystery and to sacrifice him by way of commemoration Is not this sufficient if it be not what other sacrificing is required PHIL. THere is required sacrificing properly so called which is an externall oblation made onely to God by a lawfull Minister wherby some sensible and permanent thing is Consecrated and changed with Mysticall rite for the acknowledgement of humane infirmitie and for the profession of the Diuine Maiestie ORTHOD. What is the sensible and permanent thing you offer PHIL. It is the very body and blood of Christ. ORTHOD. The Church of England teacheth thus according to the Scripture The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption propitiation and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world both originall and actuall and there is no other satisfaction for sinne but that alone and consequently it condemneth your masses for the quicke and the dead as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits PHIL. But the Councell of Trent teacheth that in the masse there is offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead and curseth all those that thinke otherwise ORTHOD. HOw doe you prooue that the Sacrificing Priesthood which offereth as you say the very body and blood of Christ is the true Ministery of the Gospel PHIL. That Ministery which was typed in the old Testament foretold by the Prophets instituted by Christ and practised by the Apostles is the true Ministery of the Gospel But our sacrificing Priesthood which offereth the very body and blood of Christ is such therefore it is the true Ministery of the Gospel The proposition of it self is plaine euident the parts of the assumption shall be prooued in order ORTHOD. Then first let vs heare where your Priesthood was typed CHAP. II. Of their argument drawne from Melchisedec PHIL. THe Sacrifice of Melchisedec was a type of that which Christ offered at his last Supper with his owne hands shal offer by the hands of the Priests vntil the end of the world For the vnderstanding wherof we must consider that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in a more excellent maner then Aaron insomuch that Christ is called a Priest after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron For betweene these two Priesthoods there are two differences the first consisteth in the externall forme of the Sacrifice For the Sacrifices of Aaron were bloodie and represented the death of Christ vnder the forme of liuing things that were sâ—aine The sacrifice of Melchisedec was vnbloody and did figure the body and blood of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and Wine From which property of the order of Melchisedec we may draw this argument If Melchisedec did offer an vnbloody sacrifice vnder the forme of Bread and Wine then seeing Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec he also must offer an vnbloody Sacrifice vnder the formes and shapes of Bread and Wine but the Sacrifice of the Crosse was bloody therefore he offered another Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of the Crosse and what can this be but the Sacrifice of the Supper But he commaded his Apostles and in them vs to doe as hee did saying doe this in remembrance of me therfore Christ commanded that we should sacrifice him in an vnbloody manner in the formes of Bread and Wine consequently the Ministers of the Gospel are Sacrificers by Christs owne institution ORTH. We graunt first that Melchisedec was a type of Christ because the Scripture saith he was likened to the sonne of God Secondly that Christ was a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedec because God hath not only said it but sworne it The Lord hath sworne and will not repent thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedec but wee deny that Melchisedec did offer any Bread and Wine for a Sacrifice to God wee deny that Christ euer offered any such or euer gaue any such commission to his Apostles Therefore this is so farre from prouing your pretended Priesthood that it will quite ouerthrowe it PHIL. THat Melchisedec Sacrificed Bread and Wine is plaine in Genesis ORTHOD. In Genesis Why there is no such thing the wordes are these And Melchisedec king of Salem brought foorth Bread and Wine and he was a Priest of the most high God Where your owne vulgar translation readeth proferens not offerens hee brought forth Bread and Wine and not hee offered it PHIL. True he brought it forth but the end why he brought it foorth was to Sacrifice vnto God ORTHOD. That is more then you can gather out of the text Iosephus sayth
your Popish Priests it cannot agree because they are many for if the Priests should be many then this vnity of the Priest could not bee a property of the Priesthood therefore this vnitie is directly against you Now let vs see what you can conclude from the eternity PHIL. If Christ haue an euerlasting Priesthood then hee must haue an euerlasting sacrifice for euery Priest must haue a sacrifice or else the Priesthood should be idle but the sacrifice of the Crosse was not euerlasting for it was but once offered therefore there must needs be another sacrifice of the New Testament that is the sacrifice of the Masse wherein the sacrifice of Christ is continued for euer and so our Priest-hood is proued ORTHOD. Proued how is it proued the scripture saith that Christ because he indureth for euer hath an euerlasting Priesthood he indureth for euer he euen he in his owne person and therefore hath no neede of you to continue his Sacrifice For Christ is a Priest for euer First in respect of his owne Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. Secondly in respect of his intercession In respect of the Sacrifice which though it were but once offered yet it is an euerlasting Sacrifice because the vertue of it is euerlasting and continueth effectuall for euer for as he is the lambe slaine from the beginning of the world so hee is Iesus Christ yesterday to day and the same for euer neither by the blood of goates and calues but by his owne blood entred he once into the holy place and hath obtained an eternall redemption for vs. PHIL. As hee is a Priest properly for euer so hee must for euer offer a Sacrifice But he hath no more Sacrifice to offer in his owne person therefore he must offer it by another ORTH. Your owne Rhemists affirme that Christ was a Priest from the first moment of his conception Now what if one should reason thus with you if he be a Priest he must offer a Sacrifice but in the Virgins wombe he offered no Sacrifice therefore then he was no Priest Or thus till he was thirty three yeeres olde he offered no Sacrifice therefore all that while hee was no Priest what would you answere PHIL. I would say that Christ was truely then a Priest in respect of that Sacrifice of his body and blood which he offered in due time ORTHOD. If he were a Priest in the wombe of the Virgin in respect of that Sacrifice which was then to come why may hee not bee called a Priest till the end of the world in respect of the same Sacrifice alreadie offered and as he is a Priest for euer in respect of his Sacrifice so he is a Priest for euer in regard of his intercession For his Priesthood hath two parts Redemption and Intercession It behoued our high Priest first to purchase our redemption by his blood secondly to applie his precious merits vnto vs by his intercession and both these are set downe by Saint Iohn if any man sinne wee haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the Propitiation for our sinnes Who is our aduocate euen hee that hath sacrificed his blood a propitiation for our sinnes hee is our aduocate and appeareth in heauen to make intercession for vs. Who shall now lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen it is God that iustifieth who shall condemne vs It is Christ which is dead yea rather which is risen againe who is also at the right hand of God and maketh intercession for vs And seeing we haue a high Priest made higher then the heauens who euer liueth to make intercession for vs In this respect he may well be saide to bee a Priest for euer and needeth not your Massemongers to continue his Sacrifice Wherefore it is euident that your sacrificing priestood cannot bee grounded vpon the type of Melchisedec Which may yet appeare more fully because the Apostle to the Hebrewes speaking very particularly of this Type saith not one word cōcerning his Sacrifice but vnfouldeth it in these branches following First Melchisedec signifieth King of righteousnesse therein being a type of Christ Iesus who is the Lord our righteousnesse Secondly Melchisedec was King of Salem that is king of peace So Christ Iesus is the Prince of peace for he is our peace which hath made of both one and hath broken the stop of the partition wall in abrogating through his flesh the hatred that is the lawe of commandements which standeth in ordinances for to make of twaine one new man in himselfe so making peace And that hee might reconcile both vnto God in one body by his Crosse and slay hatred thereby and came and Preached peace to you which were a farre off and to them that were neere Thirdly Melchisedec was both King and Priest so was Christ Iesus Fourthly Melchisedec blessed Abraham and the blessing of God commeth through Christ Iesus vpon all the sonnes of Abraham that is vpon all beleeuers For we ought all to say with the Apostle Blessed bee God euen the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ which hath blessed vs with all spirituall blessing in heauenly things in Christ. Fifthly Melchisedec receiued tithes of Abraham and consequētly euen Leui being as yet in the loines of Abraham payed tithes to Melchisedec Whereby was signified that the Priesthood of Christ who was after the order of Melchisedec was farre more excellent then the Priesthood of Aaron Sixtly Melchisedec was without father without mother without kindred not simply but is said to be so in respect of the silence of the Scripture which bringeth him in sodenly making no mention at all of father mother or kinred thereby representing Christ Iesus who as he was man had no father as he was God had no mother nor kinred Seuenthly Melchisedec had neither beginning of dayes nor end of life That is the Scripture doth not mention the one nor the other that therein hee might bee a representation of the eternitie of Christ Iesus who as hee is God is from euerlasting to euerlasting Thus the Scripture vnfoldeth the type of Melchisedec plentifully and particularly and yet saith not one word concerning his sacrificing which is an euident argument that it is a meere deuise and imagination of mans braine PHIL. The Apostles silence is no sufficient argument against it For hee renders a reason why hee was inforced to omit diuers deepe points concerning Melchisedec A high Priest according to the order of Melchisedec of whom we haue great speech and inexplicable to vtter because you are become weake to heare Among which no doubt say the Rhemists the mysterie of the Sacrament Sacrifice of the Altar called Masse was a principall and pertinent matter And indeede it was not reasonable to talke much to them of that Sacrifice which was the resemblance of Christs death when they thought not right of Christs death it selfe ORTHOD. We doe not ground
offered in himselfe and he is daily offered in the sacrament because in the sacrament there is a memoriall made of that which was done once PHIL. ONely a memoriall Nay I will prooue that there is truely and properly a sacrifice for there are three things wherein the essence of a true and reall sacrifice cōsisteth First of common it must be made holy Secondly being made holy it must be offered to God Thirdly That which is offered must be ordained to a true reall and externall mutation and destruction ORTHOD. Then let vs consider whether these three things bee found in the Eucharist and first it is euident that Bread and Wine of common are made holy euen the body and blood of Christ Sacramentally but if Bread and Wine be the sacrifice then earthly elements are offered for the redemption of the Church which once to imagine were horrible impiety PHIL. That which of common is so made holy that it remaineth and that onely without doubt is properly sacrificed but the substance of the Bread and Wine doe not remaine and therefore they are not the sacrifice ORTHOD. That they doe remaine hath beene alreadie proued and therefore if that be the sacrifice which of common is so made holy that it remaineth then a piece of bread shal be the sacrifice for the sinnes of the world But if we should faigne that the substance of the elements were taken away and that the body and blood of Christ were corporally and carnally vnder the formes of Bread and Wine yet you could not proue your sacrifice for where doe you find the second point that is oblation PHIL. Deo offertur dum in altari dei collocatur Nam victimam in altari ponere est reipsa illam deo offerre quia vi consecrationis fit vt corpus Christi sanguis incipiat reipsa esse super altare mediante manu Sacerdotis ideo verbis consecrationis vera solennis oblatio celebratur that is It is offered to God while it is placed vpon the Altar of God For to lay the sacrifice vpon the Altar is in very deed to offer it vnto God and because it commeth to passe by the force of Consecration that the bodie and blood of Christ beginne to bee reallie vpon the Altar by the meanes of the Priests hand therefore a true and solemne oblation is celebrated by the words of Consecration ORTHOD. First if by the words of Consecration the body and blood of Christ beginne to bee really vpon the Altar then it is by meanes of the Priests tongue and not of the Priests hand Secondly it is one thing to lay the sacrifice vpon the Altar and an other thing really to offer it as may appeare by the wordes of the Scripture And when they came to the place which God had shewed him Abraham builded an Altar there and couched the wood and bound Izhak his sonne and laied him on the Altar vpon the wood Here the sacrifice was really laide vpon the Altar but it cannot bee said that hee was really sacrificed or offered for a burnt offering but onely in Abrahams intention and Gods acceptation Thirdly if the sacrifice bee the body and blood then seeing by your owne doctrine the bodie and bloud are not vpon the Altar til the words of Consecration be finished it followeth that there is no sacrifice till the Consecration be finished and consequently there is no oblation of the sacrifice begunne before the Consecration bee finished Now if the oblation beginne after the Consecration is ended then is it not celebrated by the wordes of Consecration vnlesse you will say that an oblation may bee celebrated before it bee and that a thing is ended before it beginne But let vs faigne that the body and blood of Christ were properly offered to God by the words of Consecration yet you cannot thence conclude a sacrifice For you required a third condition in a sacrifice that is the destruction of the thing sacrificed PHIL. The thing which is offered is ordered by Consecration to a true reall and externall mutation and destruction which is necessary to the beeing of a Sacrifice For to a true sacrifice there is required that the thing offered in Sacrifice bee plainely destroied that is So changed that it ceaseth to bee that which it was before ORTHOD. How were the sacrifices to be destroied PHIL. If they bee liuing things by killing if without life and solid as meale salt and frankincense they were to be destroied by burning if liquid as blood wine and water they were to be destroied by effusion or pouring out ORTHOD. Then it will follow from your owne positions that if Christ bee aliue in the Eucharist either the Priest doth not Sacrifice him or else he killeth him before hee sacrifice him and consequently either there are no sacrifising Priests in the New Testament except Christ onely or if there bee any they are all murtherers and killers of Christ. If you say that Christ is in the Eucharist and yet not aliue how can this bee Is not Christ in the Eucharist now as hee was at the first institution When Christ said this is my bodie his bodie was then aliue and now also is liuing in Heauen PHIL. The whole Church teacheth as it appeareth by the Councell of Trent that not onely the Body and blood but also the soule and diuinity yea and whole Christ is in the Eucharist but it is certaine that the soule and diuinity are not in the Eucharist by vertue of the Consecration but onely by naturall concomitance because where the one is there the other must needs be vnited with it ORTHOD. If the soule bee vnited with it then it is aliue and then it is either no Sacrifice or else the former absurdities follow and if the bodie should bee without life in the Eucharist then according to your positions seeing it is a thing solid it cannot bee a Sacrifice vnlesse it bee plainelie destroied by burning if it bee capable of burning or destroying it is not corporallie the bodie of Christ For the holie one shall not see corruption and if it bee not destroyed then you confesse that it is no Sacrifice so euery way you are intangled But seeing you hold this to bee a Sacrifice and that euery Sacrifice must be consumed therefore you must tell vs how this is consumed PHIL. It is consumed and destroied by eating ORTHOD. The people doe eate it as well as the Priests shall they also be sacrificers PHIL. As it is performed by the people it is no part of the Sacrifice but as it is performed by the Priest it is an essentiall part ORTHOD. Doe your Priestes eate Christ properly or improperlie if improperlie then how is the sacrifice consumed For if it bee consumed onely by eating and you doe not eate it but improperly then it is not consumed but onely improperly and seeing you hold this consuming to bee of
though Christ saith S. Gregorie liuing immortally now dieth not yet hee dieth in this mysterie and his flesh suffereth for the saluation of the people That is saith the Glosse his death and Passion is represented And you heard before out of the Master of the Sentences that that which is offered and Consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is a memoriall and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation made vpon the Altar of the Crosse. And Bellarmine granteth that Thomas and other Schoolemen doe commonly answere that it is called an oblation because it is a representation of the oblation PHIL. Peter Lombard when he asketh the question whether that which the Priest doth be properly called a sacrifice or an oblation taketh the name of sacrifice or oblation for occision or killing as though he had asked Whether that which the Priest doth be a killing of Christ and answereth most rightly that Christ was truely offered that is slaine but once and that now he is not properly offered that is slaine but only in a Sacrament and representation ORTHOD. First I referre it to the indifferent Reader to consider whether this answere of Bellarmine be not a meere shift and cauill Secondly neither will this shift serue his turne for if the Priest doe not so he cannot be said properly to sacrifice him because in a sacrifice there must be the destruction of the thing sacrificed as is before declared out of Bellarmine PHIL. THe Councell of Trent pronounceth a curse against all those which deny that a true and proper sacrifice is offered in the Masse And they haue reason for as the Apostles so all the Fathers of the Primitiue Church were Masse-Priests For S. Ambrose testifieth That imposition of hands is certaine mysticall words whereby hee that is elected into the Priesthood is confirmed receiuing authoritie his conscience bearing him witnesse that he may bee bold to offer sacrifice to God in the Lords stead ORTHOD. S. Ambrose elsewhere expoundeth himselfe saying Quid ergo nos nonne per singulos dies offerimus offerimus quidem sed recordationem facientes mortis eius That is What therefore doe we doe we not offer dayly truely wee offer but so that wee make a remembrance of his death And againe Ipsum semper offerimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur That is Wee offer him alwayes or rather we worke a remembrance of his sacrifice PHIL. S. Chrysostome saith In many places there is offered not many Christs but one Christ euery where being full and perfect both here and there ORTHOD. S. Chrysostome expoundeth himselfe in the same place Wee offer him saith he or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is We worke a remembrance of the sacrifice Where by the way you may see that S. Ambrose did borrow his former speech from this place of Chrysostome PHIL. S. Augustine saith That Christ commaunded the Leper to offer a sacrifice according to the Law of Moses Quia nondum institutum erat hoc sacrificium sanctum sanctorum quod corpus eius est That is Because this Sacrifice the Holy of holies which is his body was not yet instituted And elsewhere Quid gratius offerri aut suscipi posset quà m caro sacrificij nostri corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri That is What can be offered or accepted more gratefully then the body of our Priest being made the flesh of our Sacrifice And Cyrill Leo Fulgentius and other Fathers haue commonly the like ORTHOD. Then the answering of Austine will be the answering of all Now what his meaning was let himselfe declare Was not Christ once offered or sacrificed in himselfe And yet he is offered in a sacrament not onely at all the solemnities at Easter but euery day to the people Neither doth he lye that being asked doth answere that he is offered For if sacraments haue not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments they should not be sacraments at all And for this resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselues therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ the sacrament of the Blood of Christ is the Blood of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith And elsewhere The flesh and blood of the sacrifice of Christ was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before hee came was performed in trueth and in deed when he suffered is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance since he ascâ—nded PHIL. YOu cannot so delude the ancient Fathers of the Church For the Nicen Councell in that Canon which Caluine and all other receiue saith plainely That the Lambe of God offered vnbloodily is layde vpon the holy Table ORTHOD. The Lambe Christ Iesus which was offered vpon the Crosse for the sinnes of the world is layd vpon the holy Table not substantially but Sacramentally PHIL. But the Councell meaneth substantially for they say It is come by relation to the holy Councell that in certaine places and Cities the Deacons do reach the sacraments to the Priests Neither the Canon nor the custome hath deliuered this That those which haue not the power to offer sacrifice should reach the body of Christ to those that offer it Where you may see that they doe not onely call it the body of Christ but they plainely describe a Priest by hauing a power and authoritie to offer it and distinguish him from the Deacons which haue no such power ORTHOD. Who can better tell the meaning of the Councel then those which were present and subscribed vnto it One whereof was Eusebius PHIL. Very true and hee telleth how when Constantine dedicated the Temple at Ierusalem some did pacifie the diuine Maiestie with vnbloody sacrifices and mysticall Consecrations Who were these but Masse-priests and what were the vnbloody sacrifices but the sacrifice of the Masse for the Body and Blood of Christ are there offered vnbloodily ORTHOD. Let Eusebius expound Eusebius Christ hauing offered himselfe for a soueraigne sacrifice vnto his Father ordained that we should offer a remembrance thereof vnto God in stead of a sacrifice Is not this a plaine demonstration that in the iudgement of Eusebius there is not in the Lords Supper a sacrifice properly so called but onely a remembrance in stead of a sacrifice And this remembrance hee thus describeth VVhich remembrance wee celebrate by the signes of his Body and Blood vpon his Table He calleth it not a sacrifice but a remembrance celebrated not by the substance of his Body and Blood but by the signes and that not vpon an Altar but vpon a Table and this he calleth an vnbloodie sacrifice as appeareth by his owne words And pleasing God well wee offer vnbloodie sacrifices and reasonable and acceptable to him So it is as cleere as the noone day that Eusebius knew not your Massing sacrifice but expoundeth the
demonstrate the Bread for Bread is the Masculine gender both in Greeke and Latine But the Pronoune this is the Neuter gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke and hoc in Latine Which agreeth in Gender with the word body which both in Greeke and Latine is the Newter gender ORTHOD. Indeed if you take it adiectiuely it cannot concord and therefore it is not so to be taken but substantiuely and might be Englished This thing is my body PHIL. If you take it so you make an absurd Proposition For a thing that is seene and openly knowne cannot be termed this thing vnlesse that thing be of the Neuter gender for no man when hee demonstrateth his brother will say this thing is my brother or demonstrating the Image of Caesar will say This thing is Caesar therefore neither could it be rightly said of the Bread which the disciples did see This thing is my body The reason is because the subiectum of the Proposition should be better knowne then the praedicatum therefore when the subiectum is knowne to the hearers in particular it ought not to bee vttered by a name that is generall but then onely it ought to be vttered by a name that is generall when it is not knowne but onely in generall As for example Certaine men see a thing afarre of but yet they discerne not what it is whether a tree a stone or a man but I see that it is a man Wherefore I will say to the rest that thing is a man and not he is a man But if they see him to be a man yet doe not discerne who it is Peter or Paul or some other I will not say that thing is Peter because they know it already to be a man But I will say he is Peter Therefore seeing the disciples did see the Bread and were not ignorant that it was Bread it had bene a most absurd speech if of that Bread the Lord had said This thing is my body when he should haue said This Bread is my body therefore it cannot bee that the word hoc should demonstrate the Bread as the subiect of the Proposition ORTHO A thing that is seene and openly knowne may be expressed by a Pronoune of the Neuter gender without absurditie although the thing it selfe bee not of the Neuter gender As for example When the Lord brought the woman vnto the man he said Hoc nunc est os ex ossibus meis i. Now this is bone of my bones For what thinke you is meant by hoc PHIL. By hoc vndoubtedly is meant the woman and it is as much as though he should say to vse the words of Pererius Domine Deus quae prius ad me adduxisti animalia non erant mihi similia haec autem mulier quam nunc ad me adduxisti est planè similis mei That is O Lord God The beasts which before thou broughtest vnto me were not like vnto me but this woman which thou hast brought vnto me is very like vnto me ORTHOD. If hoc in the words of Adam may and must be taken for haec mulier without any absurditie Why may not the same hoc in the words of Christ be taken for hic panis without any absurditie For in such cases we must not so much respect the subtilties of Logick as the vse of Grammer PHIL. I Adde a most strong Argument out of the Scripture for if when it is said This is my body the Pronoune this demonstrate the Bread Then when it is said this is my blood the Pronoune this should demonstrate the Wine But S. Luke denieth that when hee saith This is the Chalice the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you Where these words which is shed are not ioyned in construction with these wordes in my Blood but with these this Chalice as it appeareth out of the Greeke therefore S. Luke saith that the Chalice was shed for vs. Now the vessell or Wine was not shed for vs but the true blood therefore the Chalice signifieth not a Chalice of Wine but a Chalice of Blood ORTHOD. This Argument for all the imagined strength is but a rotten reede whereupon if you leane you will lye in the ditch and the trunchion of it wil runne into your hands For the better demonstration whereof let me first aske you when and how the bread is changed into the Body and the wine into the Blood PHIL. The Councell of Trent saith First of all the holy Synode teacheth and professeth openly That in the Sacrament of the holy Eucharist after the Consecration of the Bread and Wine our Lord Iesus Christ very God and man is contained vnder the formes of these sensible things truely really and substantially By which we learne that the change is made after the words of Consecration ORTHOD. Is it made successiuely or in an instant PHIL. Cardinall Bellarmine saith That it is In vltimo instantiterminatiuo illius prolationis i. In the last instant which closeth vp the pronuntiation of the wordes ORTHOD. If it be in the last instant then it is not before the last syllable and therefore all the while the Priest is saying Hoc est corpus me there is no change till hee come to the ende of um And so long as there is no change it remaineth bread in substance and consequently according to your owne doctrine at the pronouncing of hoc there is bread in substance and not the Body of Christ. Wherefore the Pronoune this must of necessitie demonstrate bread and not the Body of Christ So when it is said This is my blood the Pronoune this doeth demonstrate the wine and not the blood of Christ. PHIL. That which was shed for vs was the true Blood of Christ but this Chalice is said to be shed for vs as may appeare by the Greeke in that place of Luke therefore this Chalice that is that which is contained in the Chalice was the true blood of Christ. Now where S. Luke saith This Chalice is the New Testament in my Blood S. Matthew and S. Marke haue This is my Blood vnderstanding by the Pronoune this the same thing that S. Luke doeth by this Chalice but he meant as I declared not a Chalice of Wine but of Blood therefore the Pronoune this doeth not demonstrate the Wine but the Blood ORTHOD. The foundation of your Argument is that this Chalice in S. Luke is said to be shed for vs but this I deny PHIL. It appeareth by the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so it is to be construed that the Chalice was shed ORTHOD. It pleaseth the spirit of God in the Greeke Testament sometimes to depart from that phrase and Analogie of speech which is vsual in other Greeke Authors either to expresse some Hebraisme or for some other reason best knowne to his heauenly wisdome therefore though a
participle with an article praepositiue should regularly be gouerned of somewhat going before of the same case number and gender yet there are sundry examples in Scripture where it is otherwise the Article supplying the place of a relatiue as for example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where according to the ordinary Greeke it should bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab ente but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the Article praepositiue standeth for a relatiue as though he should say in Latine Ab eo qui est likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be according to the vsuall Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which concordeth not with any thing going before but the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 standeth for a relatiue as though it were said in Latin ab eo qui venturus the like is to bee said of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which it is euident that the spirit of God departeth from the Analogie of the Greeke tongue and vseth sometimes the Article for a relatiue and so it may be vsed in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may bee translated thus in sanguine meo qui pro vobis effusus est Therefore though in another Authour which tied himselfe to the vsuall Greeke it were requisite to referre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet in the New Testament there is no such necessitie Wherefore seeing according to the speech of the holy Ghost the words stand indifferently to bee referred to both constructions let vs now consider the thing it selfe that so wee may finde the true construction of the words The holy Ghost in these words of Saint Luke declareth what Christ said when hee deliuered the cuppe the same thing is expressed both in Saint Matthew and Saint Marke and both of them vse the same participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and referre it cleerely and emdently to blood both in the Greeke and your vulgar Latin and not vnto the Cuppe Whereby wee are taught that though in Saint Luke the construction stand indifferently betweene the blood and the cuppe yet by conference of Scripture it is restrained vnto the blood and not vnto the cup so the sence of the place is this cup that is the wine in this cup is the New Testament that is a signe and seale of the New Testament in my blood which blood is shed for you And that it must needs bee meant of the cuppe of wine may appeare by Saint Matthew saying And when he had taken the cup and giuen thankes he gaue it them saying Drink yee all of this For by your owne confession before the words of Consecration it was wine but Christ said this before the wordes of Consecration and therefore hee spake of wine but hee addeth immediately for this which I giue you to drinke is my blood therefore hee calleth the wine his blood so the pronoune this demonstrateth the wine For how can it be otherwise You confesse that it was wine till the words of Consecration were ended but when hee said this the words were not ended and therefore then according to your owne principles it was wine which is agreeable to the Fathers Tertullian why saith he doth Christ call Bread his body Cyprian Our Lord at his table gaue Bread and Wine with his owne hands on the Crosse he yeelded his bodie to the souldiers hands to be wounded that his Apostles might teach Nations how Bread and VVine was his flesh and blood Irenaeus the Lord taking bread of this quality and condition which is vsuall among vs confessed it to bee his bodie Hierome Let vs heare that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his Disciples is the Lords body himselfe saying Take eate this is my bodie Athanasius VVhat is the bread the bodie of Christ. Cyrill Christ thus auoucheth and saith of the bread this is my bodie Theodoret In the very giuing of the mysteries hee calleth bread his bodie All these Testimonies and sundry others from time to time haue beene set before you by learned Diuines sufficient to perswade any reasonable man that when Christ sayd this is my bodie this is my blood the pronoune this did demonstrate the breade and the wine and for mine owne part I see no reason why you should denie it for your Church teacheth a transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the bodie and blood of Christ. Now if the pronoune this doe not demonstrate the bread and the wine then there is no bread and wine signified in the words of Christ and if Christ speake not in those words of bread and wine then it is impossible to proue out of these words any transubstantiation of the bread and wine and so you haue made shipwracke vpon this rocke NOw if the pronoune this doe not demonstrate the bread what else shall it demonstrate The Glosse of the Canon law saith The word hoc is taken materially and signifieth nothing How say you haue you not spunne a Faire thread so to tosse and tumble the words of Christ that you haue brought all to nothing if you will say that it must needes signifie some thing then let vs consider what this some thing shal be Stephen Gardiner did make it a kind of indiuiduum vagum as though hee should say somewhat it is but I know not what but this cannot stand because the pronoune hoc beeing a demonstratiue must of necessitie demonstrate some certaine and sensible thing what shal be this be Occam saith Hoc refertur ad corpus Christi the pronoune this is referred to the body of Christ but then it is an Identicall proposition signifying that the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ which were an idle speech and to no purpose Yet it would cleane ouerthrow your transubstantiation Therefore others thinke that by hoc should bee meant Hoc ens as Scotus or haec substantia as Caietan well what can this ens or this substantia bee but onelie the Bread and therefore why should they thus walke in Mistes and Cloudes and not rather cleerely confesse the truth But Iohannes de Burgo will make all cocke sure for hee saith Hoc sub hac specie praesens vel de propinquo futurum est corpus meum that is That which is present vnder this show or shortlie shal be is my bodie Hee durst not say simplie that which is present for then hee must either say the Bread or the Bodie but if hee said Bread hee should haue saide as wee say which had beene daungerous and to expound it of the bodie had beene against his owne conscience because the wordes of Consecration were not yet finished Therefore beeing in a quandary what to say hee thought hee would speake safely though thereby hee shewed himselfe but slenderly resolued Behold what it is for men to leaue the written word and to
wel expressed the sence For Cardinal Caietan confesseth that the Euangelists did vse the present tense in saying the blood is shed and S. Paul in saying the body is broken and signified the future shedding and breaking vpon the Crosse and the Iesuite Salmeron saith Non est negandum morem esse Scripturae vt ea dicantur fieri de praesenti quae confestim esse aut mox fieri debent that is it is not to be denied that it is the maner of the Scripture that those things should be said to be presently done which ought to be immediatly or to be done by and by Yea Cardinall Caietan goeth further and saith Tempus effusâ—onis fractionis erat tum presens quoniam inchoatum erat tempus passionis that is the time of shedding and breaking was then present because the time of his Passion was begunne Thus you see that this shedding and breaking which the Spirit of God expressed in the present tense may aptly be expounded of the sacrifice of the Crosse and that according to the custome of the Scripture euen in the iudgement of your owne men Therefore you cannot hence conclude any sacrifice in the Eucharist PHIL. YEs it may be proued by the words of Christ as they are related by S. Paul This is my body which is broken for you For seeing the Euangelists doe say Giuen for you meaning to God as a sacrifice therefore this breaking also must be expounded of a sacrifice Now breaking agreeth not to the Body of Christ but onely as it is in the forme of bread therefore S. Paul speaketh of Christ as he was sacrificed in the Eucharist vnder the forme of bread ORTHOD. The word breaking may properly be applied to Christ vpon the Crosse. For the Prophet Esay speaking of the Passion saith He was broken for our iniquitie And againe The Lord would breake him and make him subiect to infirmities And though it be most true that there was not a bone of him broken yet when he was nailed vpon the Crosse his skinne his flesh his sinewes his vaines were properly broken Therefore this doeth not euince any sacrifice in the Eucharist but onely vpon the Crosse. CHAP. VI. Of their Argument drawen from the Actions of Christ. PHIL. IT shall be euinced by the Actions of Christ. ORTHOD. By which of his Actions PHIL. By his Consecrating and eating ORTHOD. Indeed Bellarmine hauing anatomized your Masse and searched euery ioynt and veine of it to finde your sacrifice pronounceth peremptorily That if the sacrifice consist not in Consecrating and consuming then Christ did not sacrifice at all Let vs therefore ponder these two points beginning with Consecration PHIL. The Consecration of the Eucharist belongeth to the essence of a sacrifice as Bellarmine hath proued by fiue Arguments ORTHOD. Hee hath produced certaine idle Arguments in reading whereof one may seeke Bellarmine in Bellarmine and not finde him But let vs heare them PHIL. First The sacrifice of the Masse is offered in the person of Christ But the Priest performeth nothing so euidently in the person of Christ as Consecration in which he saith This is my Body Therefore the sacrifice consisteth in Consecration as in an essentiall part thereof ORTHOD. By what authoritie doe you offer this Sacrifice we haue weighed Christs words and can finde no such warrant Therefore looke you to it lest you be found sacrilegious vsurpers of Christs Office And what if the Priest Consecrate in the person of Christ This doeth not argue a sacrifice much lesse that the Consecration is any essentiall part of a sacrifice And if it be then it must either be the matter or forme The matter it cannot be because it is not a thing permanent but a transient action And Bellarmine himselfe when hee went disguised in the habit of Tortus affirmed That the words of Consecration doe not concurre formally but efficiently to the oblation PHIL. Secondly h There is no other action of Christ which can be called a sacrifice either before or after Consecration therefore it must needs consist in these two proposed ORTHOD. Yes his Oblation vpon the Crosse was a proper Propitiatorie sacrifice but in the Eucharist there is no such sacrifice at all PHIL. Thirdly If the Apostles in the beginning added nothing to the words of Consecration but the Lords Prayer then it must needs be they did sacrifice by Consecrating for the Lords Prayer cannot be called a sacrifice ORTHOD. You presume there was a sacrifice Which is to begge the question PHIL. Fourthly The representation of the sacrifice of the Crosse consisteth in Consecration as S. Thomas teacheth but the Reall and representatiue should be both together ORTHOD. And why so The representatiue was in the Sacrament the Reall vpon the Crosse. In the first institution the representatiue was before the Reall In all other celebrations of it the Reall is before the representatiue Neither can you conclude that there is a Reall sacrifice properly in the Sacrament because there is a representatiue PHIL. Fifthly This is the iudgement of the Fathers Irenaeus saith that Christ did then teach the Oblation of the New Testament which the Church throughout all the world doeth vse when hee saith This is my body Cyprian When the bread is blessed with the words of Consecration then the Eucharist is made both a medicine and a burnt offering Chrysostome The words of the Lord This is my Bodie giue strength to the Sacrifice vntill the end of the world Gregory saith That in the very houre of the immolation at the voice of the Priest the Quiers of Angels are present the Heauens are opened high and low are â—oyned together of visible and inuisible things is made one Hee teacheth euidently that the Immolation is perfected by the Consecration ORTHOD. One place of your master of the Sentences shall expound them all Quaeritur si quod gerit Sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio an Christus quotidie immoletur aut semel tantum immolatus sit Ad hoc breuiter dici potest illud quod offertur consecratur vocari sacrificium oblationem quia memoria est representatio veri Sacrificij sanctâ—e immolationis factae in ara crucis Et semel Christus mortuus in Cruce est ibique immolatus est in semetipso quotidie autem immolatur in sacrameÌ„to quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius quod factum est semel That is There is a question whether that which the Priest doeth bee properly called a sacrifice or an immolation And whether Christ be dayly offered or were offered onely once To this may be briefly said That that which is offered and Consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is a memoriall and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation made vpon the altar of the Crosse. And Christ dyed once vpon the Crosse and there was