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
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
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
the essence of the sacrifice therefore there is no sacrifice but improperly and consequently you are no Priests but improperly PHILO The bodie of Christ is eaten properlie and truely euen with the mouth in the Eucharist for to the essence of eating attrition is not necessarie but it is sufficient If it bee taken and conueied from the mouth to the stomacke by humane and naturall instruments that is the tongue and the pallat ORTHOD. If your Priests eate Christ properly with their bodie then are you not men but monsters of mankinde For is not this to make the Priest a Cyclops or a Caniball or rather worse then a Caniball for a Caniball deuours the flesh onely of a meere man but this is to deuoure and consume the flesh and blood of the Sonne of God PHIL. The Canibals doe it in bloody manner so doe not wee ORTHOD. But Saint Austin thinketh that to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of Christ properly is a wicked deede and therefore concludeth that when Christ willeth vs to eate his flesh and drinke his blood the words must bee taken figuratiuely and not properly whereby it is euident that hee condemneth all eating of Christ properly whether it bee in a bloody manner or an vnbloody But to proceede how can the body of Christ bee consumed with eating if it cannot then by your confession there is no Sacrifice PHIL. Wee must consider in the body of Christ a double being a naturall and a sacramentall When it is eaten it looseth not the naturall but the sacramentall ORTHOD. The destruction required in a sacrifice must bee reall for it must cease really to bee that which it was as for example the lambes which were daily offered first they were slaine and so ceased formally to be lambes then the flesh was burned so it ceased materially to bee flesh and when any part of the sacrifice was eaten and by eating turned into the substance of man then it ceased to bee that flesh which it was before Now if in the Eucharist the body of Christ bee not really consumed then according to your positions it is not really sacrified and yet for mine owne part I doe not see but that it followeth according to your principles that the very naturall essence and being of Christ is properly destroyed which is horrible blasphemie PHIL. How can you conclude any such things from our principles ORTHOD. You teach that the very naturall body and blood of Christ and that onely is contained vnder the formes of Bread and Wine but I will proue inuincibly out of your principles that the thing which is contained vnder the formes of Bread and Wine is substantially destroyed and loseth the natural essence that it had before But first let me aske you a question Doe not the consecrated elements nourish after Consecration PHIL. Nourish yes ORTHO If you doubt of it it may be prooued by experience for there is no question but the Priest or any man else may liue a long time though he haue no other sustenance but such Bread and Wine And therefore it is certaine that it nourisheth But nourishment is when the substance of the meate is changed into the substance of the nourished therefore if the consecrated elements doe nourish they must needes haue a substance which must bee changed into the substance of the nourished What substance is this Bread you say it is not for that is vanished by Consecration And therefore it can bee nothing but the Body and Blood of Christ whereupon it wil follow that the naturall Body and Blood of Christ are substantially changed into the substance of the nourished be it man bird or beast which is out ragious blasphemie And if it bee so changed then it hath lost the naturall being and essence which it had before and consequently the Body and Blood of Christ is substantially consumed and destroyed If you bee ashamed of this then bee ashamed of the fountaine from whence it floweth PHIL. It is not the Body and Blood of Christ that nourisheth but the species ORTH. The species are accidents can accidents nourish then a substance shall bee made of accidents and then wee shall haue a world of absurdities PHIL. They nourish by diuine miracle ORTHOD. When yee haue nothing to answere then yee flie to miracles So if the Priest drinke too much of the wine hee shall be drunke by a miracle if the mouse find the way into the box it shall growe fat by a miracle Surely this is a miraculous answere For are not all miracles immediately from God therefore if your answere be true God should prouide miracles for fatting of mice and concurre with a miracle to make the Priest druncke If these things be absurde then your carnall presence your sacrifice and your Priesthood are all absurde CHAP. VII Of their argument drawn from the practise of the Church in the time of the Apostles PHIL. THE practise of the Church doth shewe the contrary for it is saide as they were ministring to our Lord and fasting the holy Ghost c. In which place for ministring we might haue translated sacrificing for so the Greeke doth signifie and so Erasmus translated Yea we might haue translated saying Masse for so they did and the Greeke Fathers hereof had the name Liturgie which Erasmus translateth Masse saying Missa Chrysostomi ORTH. This ministring will not prooue your Massing For the Greeke word is applied to the Angels which I hope you will not call Masse Priestes It is likewise applied to the ciuil magistrate and shall their ministring also be Massing and though Erasmus translate it sacrificing yet there is no necessitie to expound it of your Massing sacrifice Neither doth the word Masse inferre any such thing for it is not from an Hebrew or Chaldee originall as Baronius would haue it that thereupon hee might ground an oblation but it is deriued from the latin as Binius prooueth calling the defendours of the contrary opinion Nouellistes and Bellarmine confesseth that the word Missa is not mentioned of the Grecians which vse in stead thereof the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hee interpreteth munus seu ministerium publicum a publicke office or ministry So the meaning of the place is that they were publickely performing their ministeriall function which is plainely set downe by Saint Chrysostome what is ministring preaching PHIL. This cannot bee for the text saith they did minister to the Lord but you cannot say they preached to the Lord or ministred Sacraments to the Lord. ORTHOD. Very true But in performing these things to the Church they did minister to the Lord because they did them to the honour of God PHIL. This word when it is applied to sacred things and put absolutely is euery where taken for the ministery of Sacrifice ORTHOD. The contrary may appeare because the same word put absolutely without any addition is applied in holy
Scripture vnto the ministring of almes vnto the Saints PHIL. THe sacrifice of the Masse may be strongly prooued out of the first to the Corinthians Flee from the seruing of idoles I speake as to wise men Your selues iudge what I say the chalice of benediction which we doe blesse is it not the Communication of the blood of Christ and the bread which we breake is it not the participation of the body of our Lord For being many wee are one bread one body all that participate of one bread Behold Israel according to the flesh they that eate the hostes are they not partakers of the Altar what then doe I say that that which is immolated vnto idoles is any thing or that the idol is any thing But the things that the heathen doe immolate to diuels they do immolate and not to God And I will not haue you become fellows of the diuels You cannot drinke the chalice of our Lord and the chalice of diuels you cannot be partakers of the Table of our Lord and of the Table of diuels Out of these words are gathered three arguments the first from the comparison of the Lords Table with the altar of the Gentiles where they offered to idoles and with the altar of the Iewes where they offered carnall sacrifice to the true God For thence it followeth that the Lords Table is a kind of altar now an altar is erected to sacrifice and there is no sacrifice without a Priest The like reason may be drawne from the comparison of the Eucharist with their sacrifice and from the partaking the one and the other ORTHOD. The point of the comparison consisteth in this that as those which receiue the Sacraments of Christians doe therein declare themselues to be partakers of the Christian religion so those which vse the sacrifices and ceremonies of Iewes or Gentiles doe thereby signifie that they are partakers of their religion and thereupon the Apostle exhorteth them to refraine from the tables and feasts of idoles least thereby they should haue fellowshipwith the diuels Therefore you cannot conclude hence either sacrifice or altar PHIL. THe altar is plainely mentioned to the Hebrewes Wee haue an altar whereof they haue not power to eate which serue the tabernacle by which altar is meant Christs body in the Eucharist ORTHOD. The Apostle speaketh not of the Eucharist but of the suffering of Christ without the gate and of the sacrifice of praier and thanksgiuing therefore Thomas Aquinas saith well Istud altare c. that is This altar is either the Crosse of Christ on which Christ was offered for vs or else Christ himselfe in whom and by whom wee offer vp our prayers And this is the golden altar of which mention is made in the Apoc. 8. Of this altar therefore they haue not power to eate that is to receiue the fruit of Christs passion and to bee incorporated into him as to the head which serue the tabernacle of legall things for if ye be circumcised Christ profiteth you nothing or they serue the tabernacle of the body which follow carnall delights for to such he profiteth nothing Hitherto Thomas whose authoritie with others perswadeth Bellarmine to dismisse this argument out of the field because saith he there are some Catholickes which vnderstand by the altar the Crosse or Christ himselfe I doe not vrge that place Thus haue you searched the Scriptures and cannot find your sacrifice much lesse can you find that it is properly propitiatory For that honour belongeth onely to the sacrifice of the Crosse. PHIL. Did not Iob who liued vnder the law of nature offer burnt offerings daily for his children Did not God himselfe commaund that the friends of Iob should sacrifice for their sinnes Are there not many sacrifices for sins appointed in Leuiticus Wherefore if the sacrifice of the Crosse did not hinder that these should be propitiatory why should it hinder our sacrifice from being propitiatorie ORTHOD. Though Iob and others did offer sacrifice vnder the law of nature yet they did not offer it by instinct of nature but by the direction of Gods spirit and therefore there is the same reason of those sacrifices and of the other commaunded in the law and all of them were Types of Iesus Christ and are said to take away sinnes not properly but Typically for as the Apostle sayth It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goates should take away sinnes CHAP. VIII Of their argument drawne from the authoritie of the Fathers PHIL. THe meaning of the Scriptures was well knowen to the ancient Fathers who al with one voice acknowledge both Priest Altar oblation and sacrifice ORTHOD. They doe so but not such as you meane For the oblation sacrifice which they defend in the Eucharist is not properly propitiatory nor properly a sacrifice but only a commemoration and a representation of the soueraigne sacrifice PHIL. If the Fathers had meant so then there was no cause why they should speake otherwise of the Eucharist then of Baptisme But they neuer called Baptisme a sacrifice or said that to Baptise is to sacrifice Therefore it is a signe that when they often call the Eucharist a sacrifice they name it so properly ORTHO Doe the Fathers neuer call Baptisme a sacrifice Your learned Bishop Canus confesseth the contrary saying Sedquaeris quid causae plerisque antiquorum fuerit vt Baptismum hostiam appellauerint ideoque dixerint non superesse hostiam pro peccato quia Baptismus repeti non potest Sanè quia in Baptismo Christo commorimur per hoc Sacramentum applicatur nobis hostia crucis ad plenam peccati remissionem hinc illi Baptisma translatitiè hostiam nun cuparunt that is But you demaund what cause had many of the ancient Fathers that they called Baptisme a sacrifice and therefore said that there remained no sacrifice for sinne because Baptisme cannot be repeated Truly because in Baptisme we die together with Christ by this Sacrament the sacrifice of the Crosse is applied vnto vs to the full remission of sinne hence they call Baptisme metaphorically a sacrifice Here is a cleare confession that many Fathers call Baptisme a sacrifice and among these many S. Austin is one Quod holocaustum dominicae passionis eo tempore offert quisque pro peccatis suis quo eiusdem passionis fide dedicatur Christianorum fidelium nomine Baptizatus imbuitur that is which burnt offering of the Lords passion euery one offereth for his owne sinnes at such time as hee is dedicated to GOD by faith in the Passion of Christ and beeing baptised is indued with the Name of faithfull Christians And no maruaile if the Fathers doe call it a Sacrifice seeing they call it the Passion of Christ. Wee are dipped in the Passion of Christ saith Tertullian Baptisme is Christs Passion saith Chrysostome meaning that it is the representation of it So concerning the Eucharist
omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo sacrificium purum Incensa autem Ioannes in Apocalypsi orationes esse ait sanctorum That is In euery place incense is offered to my Name and a pure sacrifice But Iohn in the Apocalyps saith Incense is the prayers of Saints And Austen speaking of this very place of Malachy saith Incensum quòd graecè Thymiama sicut exponit Iohannes in Apocalypsi Orationes sunt sanctorum that is Incense which in Greeke is Thymiama as Iohn expoundeth it in the Apocalyps is the praiers of the Saints So Ierome saith Thymiama hoc est sanctorum orationes Incense that is the praiers of the Saints Eusebius calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the incense of praiers Yea Malachy himselfe saith the Lord shall purifie the sonnes of Leui as gold and siluer that they may offer an offering to the Lord in righteousnesse PHIL. The words sacrifice oblation and such like when they are taken spiritually are alwaies restrained with some addition as the sacrifice of praier of thanksgiuing c. But here the Prophet saith onely a pure offering without any addition or limitation Now the word so taken by it selfe without any restraining tearmes is alwaies in the Scripture taken properlie for the act of outward sacrifice ORTHOD. That rule is not generally true for the Prophet Esay saith They shall bring of their brethren for an offering to the Lord oâ—t of all Nations where he vseth the very same word that Malachi here vseth and yet it is not meant that the Gentiles shal be offered carnally but spiritually PHIL. This sacrifice of which the Prophet speaketh is one but the spirituall sacrifices are so many as are the good workes of Christianity ORTHO Though the word vsed by the Prophet bee of the singular number yet by that offering many offerings may bee signified as when it is said Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not haue PHIL. Spirituall sacrifices are common to vs with the Iewes but the Prophet speaketh of an oblation not common but proper to the Gentiles and the new law ORTHOD. They might euery where pray and praise God as well as wee but this was not a discharge of their dutie vnlesse to these spirituall sacrifices they annexed Carnall to be offered at the time and place appointed so their spirituall sacrifices were mixed but ours are merely spirituall and these are proper to the Gospell PHIL. The offering spoken of by Malachi doth succeed the offerings of the Iewes and is offered in their place but praier fasting and the workes of charity succeed no sacrifices but are ioyned with all kinds and sorts of sacrifices ORTHO Though the spirituall sacrifices of the Iewes and of the Christians were all one in substance yet they differed in manner because as I said theirs were mixtly ours merely spirituall and the meerely succeed the mixed PHIL. Our good workes how beautifull soeuer they seeme are stained and vncleane especially in the iudgement of hereticks but this propheticall oblation is cleane of it selfe and so cleane in respect of other sacrifices that it cannot be polluted by vs nor by any Priests how wicked soeuer they are ORTHOD. Are all our spirituall offerings vncleane then all our good workes are vnperfect and if they be vnperfect they cannot iustifie they are not meritorious nor satisfactory PHIL. And if they be cleane as they must be if they be the pure offering mentioned in Malachi then may they iustifie then are they meritorious and satisfactory ORTHO Not so for they are cleane but vnperfectly they are cleane because they proceed from the Chrystalline fountaine of the spirit of grace they are vnperfect because they are wrought by the will of man which is regenerate onely in part and so the pure Water gathereth mud because it runneth through a muddie channel PHIL. If they bee muddie how can they bee called the pure offering in Malachi ORTHOD. Because the denomination is of the worthier part and the graces of God in his children are like vnto the light which shineth more more vnto the perfect day though the flesh rebelleth against the spirit yet at length the spirit shall haue the victory and the flesh shal be abolished In the meane time though our good workes be stained with the flesh yet God looketh not vpon them as an angry Iudge but as a louing Father crowning his owne graces in vs and pardoning our offences Now because they are imperfect they cannot iustifie merit nor satisfie yet because they are Gods graces they are the pure offering in Malachi PHIL. Christ himselfe may seeme to expound the Prophet Malachi as we doe and withall to prophesie of the sacrifice of the masse in these words to the woman of Samaria The houre commeth and now it is when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and verity for the Father also seeketh such to adore him For in this place by adoration is not meant euery adoration but solemne and publike which is by sacrifice properly so called which may bee proued because the Samaritane speaketh of adoration tyed to a certaine place Our father 's worshipped in this mountaine and yee say that in Ierusalem is the place where men ought to worship which cannot bee meant but onely of adoration by sacrifice and therefore if Christ answere the point he must likewise speake of adoration by sacrifice ORTHOD. Christ answered her question directlie when hee said You adore that you know not wee adore that wee know for saluation is of the Iewes thereby teaching that the Iewes which sacrificed at Ierusalem did according to knowledge grounded vpon the word of God but the Samaritanes which sacrificed in mount Garizim had not the true knowledge of God and when hee had thus answered her question concerning adoration by externall sacrifice hee tooke occasion to declare the adoration which should bee in the New Testament not by externall sacrifices but in spirit and truth as though hee should say the place of solemne worship was Ierusalem the manner by sacrifice but now approcheth the time of the New Testament wherein true worshippers that is all true Christians shall worship God both priuatelie and publikelie not onelie at Ierusalem but euery where not by externall sacrifices which were corporall and Typicall as in the time of the Law but in spirit and truth euery where lifting vp holy and pure hands vnto the Lord of heauen So this place affoards smal comfort either for the Masse or the Massmonger CHAP. V Of their argument drawen from the words of the institution of the Eucharist PHIL. THE words of institution yeelde inuincible proofe that Christ at his last Supper sacrificed his very body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine to God the Father and commanded his Apostles and their successours to doe the same vnto the end of the world ORTHO First you must proue that the very body and
blood of Christ were vnder the formes of bread and wine or else you will come short of your sacrifice PHIL. That is plaine by the words of Christ This is my body This is my blood For he spake of those things which he had in his hands and hee calleth them his body blood but to outward appearance there was only bread and wine therefore seeing the words of our Sauiour must needs be true it followeth that the very body and blood of Christ were vnder the appearance of bread and wine ORTHOD. The words of our Sauiour are most true in that sense wherein he ment them But it was his will that they should be taken Sacramentally and not Substantially which will appeare if Scripture be expounded by Scripture and Sacraments by Sacraments To beginne with Circumcision the Lord said This is my Couenant which you shall keepe betweene me and you and thy seed after thee let euery man child be circumcised hoc est foedus meum this thing is my Couenant what thing that euery man child be circumcised therefore Circumcision is called the Couenant But is it the couenant properly it is impossible therefore it is improperly and figuratiuely for so God himselfe expounds it You shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh and it shal be a signe of the Couenant betweene me and you Therefore Circumcision is called the Couenant because it is a signe of the Couenant But is it a bare and naked signe not so for the Apostle saith he receiued the signe of Circumcision as the seale of righteousnesse of the faith which he had when he was yet vncircumcised so circumcision was not onely a signe to signifie but also a seale to confirme vnto him the righteousnesse of faith that is the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith and imputed to all that beleeue Neither was this seale onely promissory but also exhibitory deliuering vnto them Christ Iesus with all his blessings From Circumcision let vs come to the Passeouer You shall eat it in hast for it is the Lords Passeouer what shall they eat was it not a Lambe there a Lambe is the Lords Passeouer But why is it so called The Lord himselfe expoundeth it saying the blood shall be a token for you so the Lambe is called a Passeouer because it was a token that is a signe and a seale of the Lords passing ouer them From the ordinary Sacraments of the Old Testament let vs come to the extraordinary Saint Paul speaking of the Rocke saith and this Rocke was Christ which Saint Austine expoundeth truely and learnedly not in substance but in signification From the Sacraments of the Old Testament let vs come to the new In the 6. to the Romanes it is said wee are buried with him by baptisme into his death vpon which Saint Austine saith the Apostle saith not we signifie the buriall but he saith flatly wee are buried together with him so hee called the Sacrament of so great a thing no otherwise then by the name of the thing it selfe To which agreeth your owne Iesuite Baptizati vna cum Christo sepeliuntur idest Christi sepulturam representant That is those that are baptized are buried together with Christ that is they represent the buriall of Christ From Baptisme let vs come to the Lords Supper which consisteth of two courses the Bread representing his Body and the Wine representing his Blood the former may be expounded by the latter For Christ calleth This Cup The new Testament because it is a signe and seale of the new Testament Therefore when it is said this is my Body and this is my Blood the wordes must likewise bee taken figuratiuely and sacramentally as though it were said this Bread and this Wine is a signe and a seale of my Body and Blood Yea these very wordes this is my Body may bee expounded by the like wordes signifying the same thing the Bread that wee breake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ which word Communion must of necessitie bee taken figuratiuely and sacramentally for a signe and seale of this Communion The Apostles were well acquainted with this figure and vsed it themselues before the institution of the Sacrament for they saide vnto Iesus where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eate the Passeouer by Passeouer meaning the Paschall Lambe which was a signe and memoriall of the Passeouer Thus the whole course of Scripture proclaimeth that these words this is my body must not bee expounded Substantially but Sacramentally So the meaning is this is my body that is this Bread is a Signe Seale and Sacrament of my Body PHIL. When it is said hoc est Corpus meum this is my body the opinion of Catholickes is that the word this doth not demonstrate the Bread ORTHOD. Why then saith the Scripture Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them saying take eate this is my Body First hee tooke what tooke hee hee tooke Bread materiall Bread such as was vpon the Table After hee had taken hee blessed what did he blesse be blessed that which hee tooke but that was materiall Bread therefore hee blessed the materiall Bread After hee had blessed hee brake and gaue what did hee breake and giue the same which hee had blessed therefore as he blessed the materiall Bread so hee brake and gaue the materiall Bread when hee gaue he saide take and eate what should they take and eate but that which he gaue therefore seeing hee gaue materiall Bread hee commanded them likewise to take and to eate the materiall Bread When hee had saide take and eate hee added imediately this is my Body This what this this that hee had taken this that he had blessed this that hee had broken this that hee gaue them this that hee commanded them to take and eate This and nothing but this hee calleth his Body But this was materiall Bread as hath beene proued and therefore when he said this is my Body the Pronoune this did demonstrate the materiall Bread 2. PHIL. HE tooke bread blessed bread but after the blessing it was changed ORTHOD. As the Paschall Lambe was changed when of a common Lambe it was made a Type of the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world or as the water of Baptisme is changed when of common water it is made a holy representation of the blood of Christ So the Bread and Wine are changed in the Lords Supper that is in vse not in substance for before they bee brought to the Lords Table they are common Bread and common Wine for the feeding of the body but when they are sanctified according to Christs institution then the God of heauen setteth another stampe vpon them and maketh them a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ yet as the lambe still remained a lambe in substance as the water euen in
the action of Baptizing still remaineth water in substance so the Bread and Wine still retaine their former substance euen after the blessing For Christ did breake the Bread after he had blessed it yet still it was Bread as the Apostle witnesseth saying the Bread that we breake Yea the Communicants doe eate it after it is broken and still it is Bread euen in the mouthes of the Communicants For S. Paul saith Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this Bread Neither is it called Bread because it was bread but because it is Bread not in name onely but in nature and properties For after Consecration it nourisheth the body as before it is subiect to fall vpon the ground to bee eaten of Mice to bee deuoured of Beastes to bee burned in the fire to bee turned to ashes and to suffer putrifaction which cannot be affirmed of the body of Christ because that holy one shall not see corruption so the wine after Consecration doth not onely nourish and comfort the heart but if the Priest drinke too much of it it will intoxicate his braine yea and if it bee kept too long it will bee turned to vinegar and putrifie All which things doe argue that the elements doe still retaine the true nature and substance of Bread and Wine and are not changed into the body and blood of Christ in corporall manner by vertue of the blessing But that wee may vnderstand this the better I pray you tell me what is meant by the blessing PHIL. THe blessing is the same with Consecration and was performed in these wordes this is my Body ORTHOD. The Scripture expounds blessing by thankesgiuing For Saint Matthew Saint Luke and Saint Paul say that when Christ had giuen thankes hee brake the bread Saint Marke saith that when he had blessed hee brake it So Matthew Marke Luke and Paul say that when Christ had giuen thankes he gaue the Cuppe and mention not the blessing of it Yet Saint Paul elsewhere calleth it the Cuppe of blessing Likewise whereas Saint Luke saith that Christ tooke the fiue loaues and the two fishes and looked vp to heauen and blessed them Saint Iohn saith that Iesus tooke the bread and gaue thankes whereby it is euident that the holy Ghost vseth the word blessing and thankesgiuing indifferently But withall we must obserue that vnder the word thankesgiuing is comprehended prayer As when the Apostle teacheth vs to receiue the creature with thankesgiuing he renders this reason because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer Where it is plaine that thankesgiuing in the former place comprehendeth prayer and the word Prayer vsed in the latter place comprehendeth thankesgiuing as though the Apostle should haue said we on our part must receiue the creature with prayer and thankesgiuing because it is sanctified as on Gods part by his word and ordinance so on our part by prayer and thankesgiuing Secondly we must obserue that the creature may be sanctified to a double vse That is either corporall or spirituall and to both by prayer and thankesgiuing Thirdly that the sanctifying of a creature is in the Scripture called blessing as when it is said the Lord blessed the seuenth day and sanctified it Now our Lord Iesus intending to institute a Sacrament tooke the bread and gaue thankes not only for the bread but especially for the redemption of the Church and praied that these elements of Bread and Wine might be euerlastingly sanctified to Sacramentall vse thus the Bread and Wine were blessed And whereas you with Bellarmine and others say that this blessing was performed by these wordes this is my Body it cannot bee For the blessing was finished before those words were vttered Saint Marke saith that when he had blessed the Bread hee brake it by which it is euident that the blessing was accomplished before the bread was broken it is manifest that he brake it before he gaue it therefore the blessing was finished before the Bread was giuen But he gaue it saying take eate this is my body therefore the blessing was finished before he said this is my body Now how is it possible that he should blesse by those wordes seeing the blessing was fully ended before those words were begunne Wherefore Cardinall Caietan doth rightly call it benedictionem laudis non Consecrationis i. the blessing of praise and not of Consecration But if we should imagine that he blessed by saying this is my body would not this imagination inuert the order of the actions of Christ PHIL. THere are many Hysterologies in holy Scripture and therefore no maruell if there be one here Now the words and actions of Christ reduced to their naturall Methode are thus to be ordered Hee tooke the Bread and when he had blessed saying this is my body hee brake it and gaue it saying take and eate ORTHOD. Aquinas sayth that these wordes were vttered non consequenter sed concomitanter meaning that he blessed by these wordes this is my body yet so that the wordes were in pronouncing all the while that he brake and gaue the Bread But this vanisheth of it selfe because as hath beene proued out of the text the blessing was finished before the wordes were begunne Cardinall Bessarion ordereth them thus hee tooke the bread and when he had blessed saying take eate this is my body he brake it and gaue it But this may also be confuted by the same reason and moreouer it containeth an absurditie for so he should bid them take it before hee gaue it And thirdly if hee blessed saying take eate this is my body then take and eate are wordes of blessing as well as this is my body Now you with Durantus order them thus he tooke the bread and when he had blessed saying this is my body he brake it and gaue it and saide take and eate but this is also confuted by the same argument drawne from the blessing Secondly the word saying which is but once in the Text by ordering them thus is vsed twice Thirdly the words Take eate which Christ vsed first are put last Fourthly whereas Christ spake all in one continuall sentence the sentence is dismembred and torne into two These inconueniences your owne Doctors Sotus and Caietanus did see and auoid For as your learned Archbishop affirmeth in his Epistle to Pope Sixtus Quintus Hi tenent eundem fuisse ordinem rerum narrationis Euangelicae That is They hold that the actions of Christ were done in the same order wherein they are reported by the Euangelists But let vs feigne that the words and actions are to be ordered as you would haue them yet notwithstanding by the word hoc must needs be meant the Bread for if he tooke the bread and blessed it saying Thus is my body what can be meant by the Pronoune thus but onely this bread PHIL. THe Pronoune this cannot
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
wander in the wildernesse of their owne imaginations But I hope you haue hammerd this point better and therefore I pray you let vs heare your iudgement PHIL. THe opinion of Catholickes is that Hoc doth not demonstrate the bread but the thing contained vnder the formes of Bread which although it were formerly Bread tamen tunc iam erat Christi Corpus as Bellarmine saith that is notwithstanding euen then it was the body of Christ. ORTHOD. What meaneth Bellarmine by tunc iam PHIL. His meaning may appeare by that which hee saith of the Wine by occasion of these wordes Bibite ex hoc omnes Drinke you all of this For that clause of this doth not saith he signifie of this Wine but of that which is contained in the Cup vnder the formes of Wine which verely although it was VVine before Consecration yet the wordes of Consecration being ended it was not VVine but Blood so though there were bread before Consecration yet tunc iam then presently it was the Body of Christ. ORTHOD. If there were not the Body and Blood till after Consecration then hee must confesse out of his principles that the pronoune this doth distinctly demonstrate the Bread and Wine Therefore hee spake against his owne conscience before when hee denied it But why should you so dally and goe about to delude vs with doubtfull tearmes why doe you stagger and stammer in this manner you say it is not Bread but that which is contained vnder the formes of Bread as though that which is contained vnder the formes of Bread were not the substance of Bread For it must of necessitie either be the substance of Bread or the substance of Christs Body as witnesseth your owne Archbishop Cum scriptura duarum tantum substantiarum quae demonstrari hic queant meminerit viz. panis Corporis nescio cur fingant tertiam aliquam quae nec panis sit nec Corpus quae tamen per pronomen demonstretur in quo magnam Scripturae vim faciunt infarcientes illi ex suo cerebro tertiam istam rem cuius nullam habet mentionem quâ positâ propositio falsa esset si autem nullam tertiam rem ponere se dicunt quae sit alia a Christi Corpore cur tot verba effutiunt ad docendum quod Corpus non demonstretur cur nudam nobis rem non proponunt cur tot illam verborum inuolucris contegunt in Dei verbo duarum tantum Substantiarum mentio habetur reuera nulla substantia fuit in Christi manibus post acceptum panem praeter panem Corpus quae per pronomen demonstrari possit tamen solam illam substantiam singularem demonstrabat quae erat in suis manibus sub speciebus panis Tertiam ergo quaerere a pane Corpore discretam vanissimus labor est absurditate plenus i. VVhen the Scripture maketh mention onely of two substances which can here bee demonstrated that is of the Bread and the body I knowe not why they should faigne any third which is neither Bread nor Body and yet is demonstrated by the pronoune Wherein they offer great violence to the Scripture stuffing into it out of their owne braine this third thing whereof they haue no mention which being granted the proposition should bee false But if they say they put no third thing which is diuerse from the Body of Christ why doe they spend so many wordes to teach that the Body is not demonstrated Why doe they not propose to vs the naked matter why doe they hide it with so many folds of wordes In the word of God there is onely mention of two Substances and verely there was no substance in Christes handes beside Bread and his Body which can possibly bee demonstrated by the Pronoune and yet hee did demonstrate onely that singular substance which was in his hands vnder the formes of Bread therefore to seeke a third distinct from the Bread and the Body is a labour most vaine and full of absurditie For what shall this third thing bee you say it is that which is contained vnder the shapes of Bread and Wine but what is that your owne Archbishop saith quic quid dixerint semper eo cogendi sunt vt dicant an Corpus an panis ostendatur in singulari quia pronomen vice nominis proprij positum pro solo singulari sumipossit That is what soeuer they shall say they are still to bee vrged to this issue that they tell vs whether the Body or Bread bee demonstrated in particular because a pronoune put in place of a proper noune must needes bee taken for a particular or singular One of these two it must needes bee vnlesse you will speake vainely and absurdly Now the Body of Christ it cannot bee for then it should bee there before Consecration and without Consecration and consequently it should bee the Body of Christ before it were the body and there should be blood in the Chalice before Cōsecration without Consecration and consequently it should bee blood before it were blood and blood without blood which are intollerable absurdities Thus you haue forsaken the fountaine of liuing water digged vnto your selues broken ceasterns which will hold no water You haue left the Scripture and the Fathers you wander in the wildernesse of your owne conceites and loose your selues in the laberynth of your owne imaginations How much better were it to confesse the truth with the Scripture and the Fathers and giue the glory to God your owne Cardinall Petrus de Aliaco did see euen in the darkenesse of Popery that the Bread remained after Consecration Patet quod iste modus est possibilis nec repugnat rationi nec authoritati biblicae imo est facilior ad intelligendum rationabilior i. It is apparent that this maner is possible neither is it repugnant to reason nor to the authoritie of the Bible yea it is more easie to vnderstand and more reasonable Now the Bread in substance cannot bee the Body of Christ in substance but in signification And consequently the proposition cannot bee vnderstood substantially but sacramentally PHIL. Christ did not say this signifieth my Body or this is a Sacrament of my Body or this is my Body sacramentally but hee said absolutely this is my Body ORTHOD. Hee spake the wordes of wisedome and that in the most excellent manner for which manner of speech two reasons may bee rendered The first because hee was desirous to speake most emphatically when wee see a childe like vnto his father wee vse to say this childe hath his fathers face and yet wee meane onely that hee is very like vnto his father yet wee say not hee is like vnto his father but hee hath his fathers face to expresse a most wonderfull similitude in a most emphaticall manner So if one should haue seene the image of Alexander made by Phidias hee might haue saide this is Alexander himselfe not meaning that
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
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
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
vpon the silence of the Apostle onely but of the silence of all the Apostles and Prophets There is not a word in the whole Bible to declare that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in offering such an vnbloodie Sacrifice in the formes of Bread and Wine and this very silence is like the voice of a Trumpet proclaiming vnto the world that Popery is the meer inuention of man shall wither in the root from whence it sprung For euery plant which our heauenly father hath not planted shall be rooted out PHIL. Doe not the Fathers make this a type of the Eucharist And wherein can it consist but in an oblation or sacrifice ORTHOD. First some of the Fathers say not that Melchisedec offered this Bread and wine to God but to Abraham Secondly those which say it was offered vnto God as a Sacrifice may meane an Eucharisticall Sacrifice and not a propitiatorie Thirdly if any of the Fathers say that hee offered a propitiatorie Sacrifice yet it followeth not that because they make the oblation of Melchisedec a Type of the Eucharist that therefore in the Eucharist there is a propitiatorie Sacrifice for those which hold so must make a double oblation of this Bread and Wine by Melchisedec the first to God by way of Sacrifice the second to Abraham and the armie in the manner of a banquet the first might haue relation to Christ vpon the Crosse the second to the Eucharist Fourthly your Popish massing Sacrifice presupposeth transubstantiation which is contrary to Christs institutiō of the Eucharist as in due place shall be declared Wherefore those fathers which vnderstand the Eucharist according to Christs institution cannot referre the type of Melchisedec to any transubstantiate Sacrifice CHAP. III. Of their argument drawne from the Paschall Lambe PHIL. THe Sacrifice of the Masse and consequently the office of the Priest or Sacrificer is proued by an argument drawne from the Paschall Lambe And first it is cleare by the Scripture that the Paschal Lambe was a Sacrifice For we read in Exodus Take you for euery of your houshoulds a lambe and immolate the Passeouer And againe You shall slay it it is the Victime or Sacrifice of the Lords Passeouer And in the 9. of Numbers Certaine men were defiled by a dead man that they might not keepe the Passeouer the same day and they came before Moses and before Aaron the same day And those men said vnto him we are defiled by a dead man Wherfore are we kept back that we may not offer an offring vnto the Lord in the time therunto appointed And againe But the man that is cleane and is not in a iourney and is negligent to keepe the Passeouer the same person shall be cut off from his people because he brought not the Sacrifice of the Lord in his due season And in the Gospel of S. Mark The first day of the Azyms when they sacrificed the Passeouer And S. Paul saith Our Passeouer Christ is immolated ORTHOD. Admit it were a Sacrifice what can you conclude PHIL. The celebration of the Paschall Lambe was an expresse figure of the celebration of the Eucharist Therefore if the Paschal Lambe were a Sacrifice the Eucharist likewise must be a Sacrifice that there may be a correspondency betwene the figure and the thing figured ORTHOD. As other ceremonies of the Law so the Paschall Lambe was most euidently and expresly a figure of Christ and therefore was fulfilled in the passion of Christ. PHIL. The ceremonie of the Paschal Lambe was more immediately and more principally a figure of the Eucharist then of the passion as may appeare by foure circumstances First the Paschal Lambe was to be eaten the fourteenth day of the moneth at euen and at the same time Christ instituted the Eucharist but the passion was deferred vntill the day following ORTHOD. Because the Eucharist was to succeed the passeouer therefore the wisedome of God so disposed that it should be instituted at the celebration of the passeouer But this doth not proue that the Passeouer was more principally a figure of the Eucharist then of the passion for what saith the Scripture Behold the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world How doth he take away the sinnes of the world Is it not by his death and passion as it is written wee haue redemption through his blood euen the forgiuenes of our sinnes according to his rich grace And againe He is the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the world therefore the substance of the Type consisted in this that hee was slaine which was not in the Eucharist but vpon the Crosse. Which is most euidently set downe by the Euangelist Saint Iohn who rendreth this reason why his legges were not broken because it is written there shall not a bone of him be broken PHIL. Secondly The Lambe was offered in remembrance of the Lords passing ouer and the deliuerance of the people and the Eucharist is celebrated in memory of the Lords passing out of this world to his father by his passion and of our deliuerance from the power of Satan by the death of Christ. ORTHOD. If both bee memorialls of our deliuerance by Christ then one is not the body of the other but the substance of both is Christ. PHIL. Thirdly the Lambe was offered that it might be eaten and so is the Eucharist but Christ was not crucified that he might be eaten neither was there any then which ate him after hee was so Sacrificed ORTHOD. If the Lambe were properly offered then it was more truely a Type of Christ then of the Eucharist For the Scripture witnesseth that Christ was offered vpon the Crosse but it witnesseth no such thing concerning the Eucharist onely Christ sayth doe this in remembrance of me Whereby we learne that the Eucharist is not an oblation but a memoriall of Christs oblation Now whereas you say that Christ was not crucified that hee might be eaten Christ himselfe saith Verely verely I say vnto you except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day For my flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him And a little before The bread that I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world PHIL. That may be meant of his flesh in the Eucharist ORTHO Saint Austin sheweth the contrary in these words De mensa dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium res verò ipsa cutus sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit i. Some receiue the sacrament from the Lords Table vnto life some vnto destruction but
the thing it selfe whose sacrament it is is to euery one that is partaker therof vnto life and to none vnto destruction And so is the flesh here spoken of â— Christ crucified which is meat not for the body but for the soule to be eaten not with the teeth but with the heart by a liuely faith both in the Eucharist and without it PHIL. Fourthly the Paschall Lambe could not be eaten sauing onely of the circumcised and cleane and in Ierusalem so the Eucharist cannot bee receiued but onely of the baptised and cleane and in the Church sed etiam alij possunt ac debent Christum vt in cruce immolatum fide manducare i. But others also may and ought to eat Christ by faith as he is offered vpon the Crosse. ORTHOD. Can the vncleane eate Christ by faith This is contrary to the Scripture which teacheth That God by faith doeth purifie the heart Againe No vncleane thing shall enter the kingdome of Heauen but euery beleeuer shall haue life euerlasting therefore no sound beleeuer is to be reputed vncleane PHIL. Faith goeth before both Baptisme and Iustification therefore a man may haue faith before he be cleane ORTHOD. Faith goeth before iustification onely in the order of nature and not in the order of time but it may goe before Baptisme euen in order of time as the Eunuch beleeued before he was Baptized But wheresoeuer it is found or whensoeuer it purifieth the heart and maketh the party cleane Wherefore notwithstanding all these friuolous obiections it is most sure and certaine that the Paschall Lambe was most expresly a Type of Christs Passion PHIL. Was it not a Type of the Eucharist also ORTHOD. Because they were both representations of Christ therefore there is great similitude and correspondencie betweene them And because the Passeouer gaue place to the Eucharist therefore though most properly and principally it was a Type of Christ yet in this respect it may be called a Type of the Eucharist But what then Must it therefore follow that Christ is properly sacrificed in the Eucharist God commaunded not onely that the Paschall Lambe should be slaine and immolated but also that it should be eaten Now the mactation and immolation was properly fulfilled vpon the Crosse where Christ our Passeouer was sacrificed for vs and not in the Eucharist The eating or manducation may be said to be fulfilled in our Spirituall eating of Christ both in the Sacrament and without CHAP. IIII. Of their Argument drawen from certaine places of the Prophets PHIL. I Wil proue it by other testimonies of the Old Testament And first by the Prophecie of that man of God that came to Eli I will stirre mee vp a faithfull Priest that shall doe according to my heart and according to my minde and hee shall walke before mine Anointed for euer ORTHOD. This was fulfilled both in Samuel and Sadock in Samuel who succeeded Eli in Sadock who succeeded Abiathar who was of the race of Eli For Salomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest vnto the Lord that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which he spake against the house of Eli in Shilo PHIL. S. Austine answereth to this obiection that this Prophecie was fulfilled in Samuel or Sadock insomuch as they did cary the figure of Christian Priests And so the casting out of Eli was a figure of the casting out of the Aaronicall Priesthood and the taking in of Samuel and Sadoc was a figure of the assuming of the Christian Priesthood Which he proueth because the Scripture when it saith that Eli was to bee cast out with his fathers speaketh plainely of Aaron For it nameth him who was appointed of God the first Priest at their departing out of Egypt ORTHOD. Suppose all this were granted what can you conclude if the Lord promised that he will raise himselfe vp a faithfull Priest and thereby signified a Christian Priest doeth it therefore follow that he speaketh of a Popish Priest PHIL. That the Lord meant a Priest properly may appeare by the Prophet Esay who prophecying of the time of the New Testament saith In that day shall the Altar of the Lord be in the middest of the land of Egypt And againe The Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day and doe Sacrifice and oblation And againe Ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord and men shall say vnto you the Ministers of our God ORTHOD. These may be expounded by other places of the same Prophet They shall bring all your brethren for an offering vnto the Lord Where it is cleare that the Prophet speaketh of Spirituall offerings which are offered by the Ministers of the Gospel As S. Paul doeth testifie That the offering vp of the Gentiles might be acceptable to God being sanctified by the holy Chost Which conuersion of the Gentiles the Prophet describeth by allusion to the Leuiticall sacrifices All the sheepe of Kedar shall be gathered vnto thee the Rammes of Nebaioth shall serue thee they shall come vp to bee accepted vpon mine Altar and I will beautifie the house of my Glory Likewise the Prophet Dauid Then shalt thou accept the sacrifice of Righteousnes euen the burnt offering and Oblation then shall they offer calues vpon thine Altar Where by calues he vnderstandeth the calues of the lips that is the sacrifice of Prayer and Thankesgiuing The burnt offering also is to be expounded in the like maner and therefore he calleth them sacrifices of Righteousnes And a little before he said The sacrifices of God are a contrite spirit And as our Spirituall sacrifices are expressed by allusion to the Leuitical so the Ministers of the Gospel are by like allusion called Priests and Leuites I will take of them for Priests and Leuits saith the Lord. Which cannot be meant of Priests properly for then the word Leuite should likewise be taken properly but I hope you will not say that your Masse-priests are properly of the tribe of Leui. By these plaine places we may expound the former by you alleadged PHIL. NAy they are Priests properly in regard of an externall sacrifice properly so called which they offer properly as is euident by the Prophet Malachie From the rising vp of the Sunne to the going downe of the same my Name is great among the Gentiles and in euery place incense shal be offered vp to my Name and a pure offering for my Name is great among the Gentiles saith the Lord of Hosts ORTHOD. The Priests here spoken of are called the sonnes of Leui are your Masse-priests properly the sonnes of Leui PHIL. Of Leui No sir. But they are called so by way of allusion ORTHOD. Then may they be called Priests also by way of allusion PHIL. Not so for here is mention of their offering which is called A pure offering ORTHOD. That is to be expounded of Spirituall offerings in the iudgement of the Fathers Irenaeus saith In
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