places and the like it is euident that hee that was to be the Priest of the new Couenant was also to be the Mediatour betweene God and man and that there is no Mediatour but onely Christ appeares by the words of Saint Paul For there is one God and one Mediatour betweene God and man the man Iesus Christ. Wherefore if they say they are Priests of the new Testament they may as well say they are Mediatours and if Mediators then Redeemers of the Church Argument 10. Tenthly if Christ in the Sacrament be giuen vnto vs to bee receiued with truth faith and humble reuerence then Christ is not offered vnto his Father by the Priest in the Eucharist much lesse in the Masse But he is offered vnto vs in the Eucharist Ergo. Christ is not offered by the Priest vnto his Father The hypotheticall connexion appeares by the nature of those things which are opposite for the end of Christs institution of the Supper was to exhibite himselfe vnto all beleeuers Spiritually to be receiued Sacramentally for the sealing and confirmation of their faith and not to bee offered vp by any mortall vnto his Father And whereas they obiect that God gaue vnto the Israelites sacrifices which they should offer vnto God We answer that this exception is plaine heterogenes of another nature for their sacrifices were corporall and externall ours spirituall and internall The assumption is prooued by the words of Christ Take eate this is my body which is giuen for you Taking doth presuppose a giuing it is called The Communion of the body and blood of Christ. That is the communicating and distributing of the blessed body and blood of Christ whereof all beleeuers in common are made partakers They affirme the Eucharist to be not onely a Sacrament out also a Propitiatory sacrifice were deny it vpon this ground because all expiatory sacrifices properly so called haue their complement in the most perfect and absolute sacrifice of Christ Iesus which he offered himselfe vpon the crosse But say they Christ sacrificed himselfe in the Eucharist which appeares by these words Datur frangitur effunditur is giuen is broken is powred out where our Sauiour speakes in the present tense and not shall be broken shall be giuen shall be powred out We answer first some of their owne writers haue denyed that Christ offered any Propitiatory sacrifice when he instituted and distributed the Eucharist see p. 84. And he himselfe saies that his time was not fully come namely wherein he should be offered Againe their owne translation hath tradetur effundetur shall be giuen shall be powred out which Lyra following doth so render and so is it in the Canon of the Masse Moreouer our Sauiour might so speake not to signifie a present sacrifice but to intimate that his body was already broken and his blood shed in Gods determination and his owne resolution in which sense he is called Agnus ab origine mundi occisus The lambe slaine from the beginning of the world because God had appointed him from the beginning to be the Sauiour of the world And why might not Christ speake in the present tense hauing respect vnto their 〈◊〉 whose property is to make things past and to come to be truely present But the direct answer is that in the words of Christ there is an Enallage temporis the present time being set for the future and this kind of speech is frequent in the scripture as Woe vnto that man by whom the Sonne of man is betrayed for shall be betrayed Vnto vs a sonne and borne of c. And thus their owne Cardinall expounds it saying Euangelistae in voce praesentis effunditur Paulus in frangitur futuram in cruce effusionem carnis frnctionem significarunt c. The Euangelists in the word is powred out being of the present tense and Paul by the word is broken did signifie the suture effusion of his blood and the breaking of his flesh vpon the crosse And so Gregory de Valentia vpon these words This is my body which is giuen for you saith That is which shall be offered by mee slaine vpon the crosse So Hugo Cardinalis vpon Math. 26. Fregit id est frangendum in cruce signauit He brake that is he signified it to be broken vpon the crosse Now who sees not the blasphemie of our peruerse aduersaries who against the light of holy scripture and I thinke I may safely say against the light of their owne conscience dare affirme that Christ in the Lords Supper offered his transubstantiated body vnto his Father an expiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the elect how can they reconcile this doctrine and the words of the Apostle Christ offered himselfe once for all which they can neuer effect till they prooue the action which Christ performed in the night before he was betrayed to bee eadem numero the same indiuiduall action which hee did the day following for if hee offered himselfe for sinne in the Sacrament and offered himselfe for the same sins vpon the crosse How can this bee true Hee offered himselfe once for all who sees not by their doctrine a double offering of Christ Who perceiues not double dealing in the matter Argument 11. The eleuenth argument That sacrifice which is not of diuine institution is not lawfull in the Church But the sacrifice of the Masse is not of diuine institution Therefore the sacrifice of the Masse is not lawfull The Maior is prooued by the confession of their owne Iesuite who sayes that the Church cannot institute any new sacrifice or sacrament for the ordinance of such essentiall parts of Gods worship must bee of diuine institution and as he affirmeth 〈◊〉 7. Sacrificia veteris legis omnia fuerunt a Deo immediate instituta licet erant a Mose promulgata Sacrificij autem 〈◊〉 gis solus Christus Deus homo author est God was the authour of all the sacrifices of the old Law albeit they were promulgated by Moses and Christ God and Man is the authour of the sacrifice of the new Testament Therefore hath Salomon their Iesuite iustly taxed a Great Scholler of their owne Church for saying the Church had authority to institute a new sacrifice if Christ himselfe had instituted none The Minor is true for as Martin Luther exacteth of our aduersaries a demonstration of their sacrifice from the institution of Christ wherein as hee obserueth We reade that Christ did distribute this sacrament vnto his disciples but that he offered it vp in forme of a sacrifice we cannot find Hereunto their Cardinall Bellarmine answereth That this manner of argument from scripture 〈◊〉 as thus it is not expressely set downe is scripture Ergo it was not done is ridiculous among schoole-boyes But if he wold take the aduise of Suarez or stand to his owne answer which elsewhere he himselfe hath deliuered he would not so slightly reiect that forme ofarguing For first Suarez a
Priests should become Christochthonoi Christ Killers Yet how can they auoid the suspition of treason against the life of Christ when they seperate his reall body from his blood for it is greatly to be feared that they who powre out his liuely blood and breake his reall and substantiall body are guilty of the death of our Lord and Sauiour Argument 8. Eighly If Christ be dayly sacrificed in the Masse then Christ doth daily satisfie for our sinnes but Christ doth not daily satisfie for our sinnes ergo Christ is not dayly sacrificed in the Masse The consequence is plaine by euidence of Scripture for wheresoeuer and whensoeuer Christ was to be sacrificed it was for the satisfaction of his Fathers wrath for sinne Who gaue himselfe a ransom for all to be testified in due time Hee was delinered to death for our offences Who loued vs and gaue himselfe for vs an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweete smelling sauour If when we were enemies we were reconciled vnto God by the death of his sonne c. Who gaue himselfe for our sinnes that he might deliuer vs from this present euill world By these and diuers other places of holy Scripture it is plainely prooued that satisfaction for our sinnes is the end of Christs sacrifice and in naming the one wee suppose the other The Minor is prooued because Christ did perfectly satisfie for the sinnes of all the elect appeasing fully the wrath of God by his sacrifice vpon the Crosse and now ceasing from making any further satisfaction he onely sitting at the right hand of God maketh intercession for vs. For to satisfie the wrath of God is to doe that for vs which wee should haue done and to suffer that which we had deserued namely death and so Christ should againe yeelde obedience to the Law and suffer death againe but the Apostle sayth Christ being once dead dyeth no more neither is Almighty God so vniust as to require satisfaction of him that hath perfectly satisfyed already But our aduersaries say that Christ is sacrificed in the Masse to apply vnto vs the satisfaction which Christ hath giuen for vs on the Crosse. But so in applying satisfaction he makes satisfaction for Christ cannot be sacrificed truely but hee must truely die and he cannot die but to make satisfaction Againe if Christ ought to be sacrificed againe that the fruite of his sacrifice may be applyed vnto vs then ought he as well to be incarnate againe in the wombe of the Virgin that the fruite of his incarnation may be applied vnto vs to die to be buried to rise againe that so the fruite of his death Sepulture and resurrection may be applyed vnto vs. Lastly the application of the benefit of Christs sacrifice by reiteration of his sacrifice is not found in Scripture But there is a double meanes one internall and that is the efficacie of the Spirit of God which powerfull applies 〈◊〉 vs the vertue of Christs sacrifice the other is externall namely the Preaching of the word and the Sacraments which two concurring together beget faith in the soule which particularly applies the benefit of Christs oblation to the beleeuer In a word let them consider what applicari to be applied signifies and they shall easily perceiue that the sacrifice of Christ is applied vnto vs when Christ is offered not to God as in the Masse but to vs as in the holy Eucharist Christ freely giuing his body to be eaten his blood to be drunke and that spiritually by faith Argument 9. Ninthly if in the Masse Christ be offered vnto God by the Priests of Rome then hee is not the onely Priest of the new Testament But Christ is the onely Priest of the New Testament Ergo he is not offered by the Priests of Rome in the sacrifice of the Masse The consequence is true for if there be a true and reall sacrifice in the Masse there must needes follow a true and reall Priest-hood which offereth this sacrifice and so Christ is not the onely Priest of the new Testament The Minor is denied by our aduersaries but is proued by vs. First there is no other proper externall Priesthood vnder the Gospell but that which is after the order of Melchizedech of which order there is no man worthy but onely Christ as is sufficiently declared And whereas our aduersaries vainely boast their Priest-hood to be after the order of Melchizedech herein they are contrary to Scripture which makes this not to be a common Priest-hood as Aarons was but personall belonging onely vnto Christ wherefore the Apostle sayes that Christ because he continueth for euer hath Aparabaton Hierosunen such a Priest-hood as cannot passe from one to another Where the Apostle plainly shewes that such as were mortal and consequently not eternall were vncapable of that order of Melchizedech such are the Priests of Rome mortall as those of Aaron were and thereof vnto them cannot this Priest-hood be diuolued They thinke to cut vs off with this distinction Christ is the primary or principall Priest but men may be secundary and lesse principall by whose ministery Christ may offer himselfe vnto God I demaund then was not Christ euen vnder the Law a Priest after the order of Melchizedech and were not the Priests of Aaron being compared to Christ that was to come Secundary Priests were they not therefore Types and figures of the Priest-hood of Christ wherefore when the primary or superior Priest was come the Priest-hood of Aaron vanished and the Apostle would haue no legall Priesthood to remaine But where hath he substituted any other secundary Priests instead of the former Certes the Scripture hath not appointed any Againe by the same reason that the Apostle disanulles the legall Priest-hood hath he also excluded all other externall Priest-hood vnder the Gospell for he opposeth him that is immortall against those that are mortall God and man against those who are meere men Now if the Priests of Rome be no freer from mortality or fuller of deity then the Priests of Leuy they are then by the same reason both excluded for Cui ratio perfectum medium conclusionis conuenit eidem ipsa conuenit conclusio To whom the true reason and perfect medium of a conclusion doth agree to the same also the conclusion it selfe may be applied Againe Christ is plainely manifested to be the only Priest of the New Testament and so alone able to offer the sacrifice of propitiaton for our sinnes by that figuratiue entring alone of the high Priest once a yeare into the Tabernacle Againe he that offers a true propitiatory sacrifice effectuall in it selfe to procure pardon for 〈◊〉 must needes be a Mediator of the new Testament therefore is it sayd of Christ But now hath hee obtained a better ministry by how much also he is made a Mediator of a better couenanant And for this cause he is the 〈◊〉 of the new Testament that by meanes of death c. By which
Scripture yet it is effectually proued by the tradition of the Church Which may make vs iustly admire the vaine 〈◊〉 of our aduersaries who boasting of nothing more then Scripture are yet faine wholy to relinquish it and to build vpon the tradition of the Church but an answere 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 afore And for these words Is giuen broken shed for you they interpret to be a present giuing in the Eucharist by way of sacrifice but this is sufficiently answered in the former 〈◊〉 Now seeing the words of Christs institution doe make their sacrifice to be a meere non Ens let ve examine his actions and see if any of them will breath any life into this their sacrifice The actions of Christ the Scripture mentions to be foure Hee tooke bread He blessed it He brake it He gaue it Not any one of these can seeme to import a sacrifice And whereas our aduersaries haue divided their sacrifice into fix actions in the which of them this sacrifice should consist Suarez makes it doubtfull The first action is the taking of the bread before consecration and the heauing it vp which they call the Eleuation of the host this is not essentiall to the sacrifice by the Iesuites owne confession because it cannot be prooued neither by Scripture nor the tradition of the Church that Christ did vse it Albeit herein he dissents from Sotus a learned Doctor who with others thought it to be vsed by Christ and in some sort to 〈◊〉 to the substance of this sacrifice The second action is the Consecration of the Host in the words of Christ Hoc est corpus meum This is my body This Suarez 〈◊〉 to be intrinsecall and essentiall to this sacrifice and to be the sacrificing action and yet tels vs that it was the opinion of many learned men That consecration was but only an antecedent vnto the sacrifice but properly neither to be of the essence nor yet any part of this sacrifice And how can the Papists confidently build their sacrifice vpon those words This is my body when their owne Bishop hath prooued from the testimonies of the most ancient Fathers that those are not the words of consecration but that the words of consecration were before those words when Christ prayed and blessed the bread and the cup and therefore hee alleadgeth the perpetuall practise of the Church from the age of the Apostles whose custome was to consecrate by prayer or benediction as also the Liturgies of St. Iames Clement Basil Chrysostome do declare the same being backed with the iudgement of many learned Schoole-men to whom hee adioynes the Diuines of Colein all agreeing consecration rather to be in the prayer or blessing of Christ then in these words This is my body which hee rather accounts to be the institution then the consecration of the Sacrament The third action after the words of consecration is the Oblation vsed by the lifting vp of the Host in these words Be mindfull ô Lord c. Concerning which there is great 〈◊〉 some great Doctors haue placed the whole essence of this sacrifice in this Oblation or Eleuation as Ecchius 〈◊〉 Ruardus Others say it is of the essence but not the whole essence as Scotus Gabriel Biel Soto Canus these Suarez quoteth but differing from them all for he affirmes it to be no essentiall part of the sacrifice with whom agrees Bellarmine because say they it is not expressed in the Scripture neither yet is it probable other wayes that this kinde of eleuation or lifting vp was vsed by Christ in the institution onely herein these Iesuites differ Suirez will haue this eleuation to be an Ecclesiasticall rite but Bellarmine to be Apostolicall The fourth action is the dipping of the consecrated Host into the cup which Canus makes to bee of the substance of this sacrifice which Suarez againe one the same ground disanulls because that it appeares not that Christ did vse any such action The fift action is the distribution of the 〈◊〉 according vnto the example of Christ who gaue it vnto his Disciples which saith the Iesuite some Catholike Doctours haue iudged to be the full complement and perfection of this sacrifice But as learned Morton obserues first they must shew vnto vs where the essence of this sacrifice is to bee found least they tell vs of the perfection of a sacrifice before their sacrifice appeare to be Ens or to haue any beeing The last action is the Priests consuming the consecrated formes by eating and drinking some make this to be the substance of the sacrifice and the very essence of it as the Moderne Thomists Ledesima Canus and Bellarmine who are againe contradicted by other great Doctours of the Roman Church as Thomas Aquinas 〈◊〉 Maior Alan Cassalus Catharinus Turrianus Palacius with whom Salmeron doth consent all which doe deny that this consumption of the Host doth belong to the essence of this sacrifice Thus haue you seene what 〈◊〉 warre our aduersaries doe maintaine among themselues 〈◊〉 against Manasses and Manasses against Ephraim but both against Iudah 〈◊〉 war in their owne campe yet they all conspire against the truth Now let the Reader iudge where is vnity or consent in doctrine when their greatest Doctours in the maine point of religion are at variance directly contradicting one another with est non est it is and it is not They vniustly vpbraid vs with dissentions when alas ours is no dissention if compared with theirs we onely differing in the fringe they in the garment wee alone in the ceremonies they in the substance and very soule of religion Thus haue we largely and sufficiently prooued by the testimonies of our aduersaries that the sacrifice of the Masse was not instituted by Christ and therefore by the confession of their owne Iesuites not to be admitted into the Church Argument 12. The twelfth argument is grounded vpon Bellarmines owne ssertion which is this Ad verum sacrificium requiritur vt quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sacrificium plane destruatur id 〈◊〉 ita mutetur vt desinat esse id quod erat To a true sacrifice is required that that which is offered vnto God in sacrifice be wholy destroyed that is be so changed that it cease to be that which it was And againe Verum reale sacrificium veram realem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A true and a reall sacrifice requireth a true and reall death or destruction of the thing sacrificed Which assertion is true in all Propitiatory sacrifices wherein there was alwayes a destruction of the offering or sacrifice and that by death and shedding of blood that therein they might bee perfect figures of the great sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse wherein his body did shed blood suffered death sustained destruction though not totall and perpetuall yet partiall and for a season in so much that although hee was not consumed yet there was in him for a time a cessation or
graue to ascend into heauen to reconcile vs to God this he could not doe but by the power might and efficacie of his Godhead And to this purpose are the words of Bernard Singula 〈◊〉 opera ad 〈◊〉 siue illam necesse est pertinere naturam ad 〈◊〉 scilicet miseria ad illam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the workes of Christ doe appertaine either to one nature or other to the humane nature belongs his miserie to his 〈◊〉 nature his power Diuers authorities of the Fathers are alleadged by the Rhemists for the proouing of their opinion which you shall find sufficiently answered by learned 〈◊〉 vpon the fift chapter of the Hebrewes vers 6. Secondly seeing Christ onely is that Priest that can offer an al-sufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of his elect this then demonstrateth the sacrilegious blasphemie of the Romish Priesthood that they dare presume to arrogate that office to themselues which is onely peculiar to Iesus Christ How dare such presumptuous priests once vndertake to offer a sacrifice for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead seeing the offering of that sacrifice caused the Sonne of God to sweat clods of water and blood to endure the infinite wrath of his infinite father and had he not beene corroborated by the dietie his body had beene vanquished by death and captiuated by the power of the graue if the Sonne of God could not do it but with so much difficultie proud are the sonnes of 〈◊〉 the Priests of Rome who seeme to doe it with such facilitie But I would argue Socratically with them by demanding some questions 1. First he that was to offer this sacrifice was to be God and man without sinne I demaund whether any of them be God and man if not then they cannot offer this satisfactorie sacrifice neither are they after the order of Melchizedech If they say that euery one of their priests is God and man oh how doe they blaspheme how doe they proclaime themselues of the spawne of Antichrist who takes vpon him to be God and exalts himselfe aboue all that are called Gods 2. Secondly the Angell told Daniell Dan. 9. that Christ should take away sinne by his sacrifice and the holy Apostle sayes Christ offered himselfe an oblation and sacrifice to God of a sweet smelling sauour So that this sacrifice could be offered of none but Christ. Are they so many Christs 3. Thirdly there was but one high Priest at once among the Iewes to signifie that there was but one high Priest that could take away our sinnes by offering a satisfactory sacrifice But are not they innumerable 4. Fourthly hee that offered this sacrifice was to be of no lesse dignitie and worth then the sacrifice it selfe seeing a sacrifice is accepted for his sake that offers it But dares the masse priest say he is himselfe of equall dignitie with the sacrifice he offers or that it is accepted for his sake No not for his eares Lastly the sacrifice that the Priest offers in the masse either is the same that Christ offered or another if it be another then it is not propitiatory seeing the true satisfactory sacrifice was but one according to the text hauing offered one sacrifice If it be the same why then doe they make the sacrifice of Christ imperfect and weake by their so often reiteration yea why doe they make the Scripture false which sayes Hauing offered one sacrifice once for all And as the Leuiticall sacrifices being so frequently repeated did shew that they were in themselues imperfect and could neuer make the commers hereunto perfect so doth the often repetition of the sacrifice of Christ argue the imbecility thereof Obiect But the factors of the Church of Rome will say that Christ may haue deputies on earth in his stead to offer sacrifice Ans. I answer hereunto two wayes First I say Christ is not bound to offer any more sacrifice at all for the oblation of himselfe vpon the crosse did consummate mans redemption and put an end 〈◊〉 all typical sacrifices of the law and to his sacrifice which he was to offer for mans reconciliation wherefore seeing Christ is not to offer any more sacrifice what needes he a deputie to offer sacrifices where neither seruice is required nor expected what need is there of a substitute 2. I answer by the way of admission let vs grant that Christ is yet to offer sacrifice or to continue his begunne sacrifice which is most erroneous Yet we must consider Christ two wayes 1. as God 2. as a Mediatour As hee is God with the Father and the holy Ghost he hath Kings and Magistrates to bee his deputies on earth therefore they are called Elohim Gods But as he is a Mediatour he hath neither deputie nor vicegerent neither king to rule ouer his Church nor priest to offer sacrifice for him Quest. If they aske what wee doe then with Ministers in the Church of England Answ. I answer wee make them not Mediatours and sacrificing priests as Parmenian the heretick and the papists doe but we haue them for such purposes as Christ hath commanded namely to administer the word and sacraments to vse prayer and discipline in the Church which is no part of the office of Christs eternall priesthood or chiefe sacrificers dignity Plainely then doe appeare vnto vs the blasphemie and sacriledge of the Priests of Rome in establishing their massing priesthood for while they seeke to maintaine their owne glory they robbe Christ of his endeauouring to confirme the multiplicity of their priests they ouerthrow the singular priesthood of 〈◊〉 Christ. Quest. But heere may bee demanded a question whether the title priest may properly be assigned to a Minister of the new Testament Answ. I answer howsoeuer it bee crept into the Church yet as learned Fulke it is not a proper title for the ministers of the Gospell in regard that wee haue but one Priest Iesus Christ for the office of the Priest is to offer sacrifice which doth not appertaine to the ministers of Christ Iesus neither is the name priest any where in the new Testament ascribed vnto the Ministers in respect of their office But how then shal we answer to that place of Paul That I should be the Minister of Iesus Christ to the Gentiles ministring the Gospell of God that the offering vp of the Gentiles might be acceptable beeing sanctified through the Holy Ghost Where the word 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 ministring the Gospell signifies as much as sacrificing the Gospell and so Erasmus translates it explained by the word following namely that the offering of the Gentiles where it appeares that a sacerdotall action is attributed vnto Paul being a minister of the Gospell and therefore that the title priest may as lawfully and conueniently be ascribed to him So Origen Sacrificale opus est 〈◊〉 Euangelium It is a sacrificall worke to preach the Gospel I answer vnto the place alleadged out of the Romans as Caluin on the place that the
accomplishment Therefore the Apostle sayes 〈◊〉 5.2 that Christ gaue himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an oblation and a sacrifice by an oblation vnderstanding a gratulatory offering and by sacrifice an expiatory host for sinne And that the 〈◊〉 sacrifices had their consummation in Christ appeares in that figuratiue casting the open and doues out of the Temple as Theophylact. on the 21. chapter of Math. obserueth saying Iesus eiiciendo boues columbas praesignauit non vltra opus esse animalium sacrificio sed oratione 〈◊〉 casting the oxen and doues out of the Temple signified that there should no longer need the sacrifice of beast but of prayer But it is demanded Which of these two sacrifices it is that the Apostle speakes of The text it selfe cleares this doubt you heard before that the Eucharisticall sacrifices were for mercies and blessings receiued and the Ilasticke or Expiatorie sacrifices were for sinnes committed so that when the Apostle sayes this sacrifice was for sinne it plainely appeares that hereby is meant the Expiatory sacrifice of Christ offered to appease his Fathers wrath This sacrifice is no other then Christ himselfe dying vpon the crosse for the transgressions of mankind Origen speaking of Christ sayes Ipse est hostia Sancta Sanctorum He is the most holy sacrifice for his holy ones Which the Apostle Saint Peter confirmes saying For so much as ye know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as siluer and gold But by the precious blood of Christ as of a lambe without blemish or without spot Christ himselfe was this sacrifice who so loued vs that he gaue himselfe for vs an offering and sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour But according to which nature was Christ the safice for sinnes Onely according to his humane nature as appeares By which will we are sanctisied through the offering of the body of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 by which words the body of Christ we are to vnderstand the whole humane nature of Christ for there the part is put for the whole so that Christ the man consisting of body and soule was the sacrifice for our sinnes and as we in soule and body had transgressed against God so Christ both in soule and body was to suffer punishment and to make satisfaction for our offences Compare this place of the Hebrews with the words of the Prophet Esa. and you shall easily discouer this truth Yet it pleased God to bruise him hee hath put him to griefe when thou shalt make his soule an offering for sinne he shall see his seede he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand What the Propheticall Apostle Paul attributes to the body the Euangelicall Prophet Esa. attributes to the soule so that both these being essentiall parts of man make the whole humanitie of Christ to bee the sacrifice for our sinnes And as the Tree of life did represent the Godhead of the Messiah so did the Animate sacrifices of the Leuiticall law shadow out his Manhood And the reasons why this sacrifice that Christ offered should be his manhood are these 1. Because that in the same nature the offence was made in the same nature was the sacrifice to bee offered and the satisfaction to bee performed for otherwise Gods iustice could not be appeased but in the nature of man was a transgression committed therefore in mans nature must a sacrifice bee offered and satisfaction made And for this reason the Angels that fell from God had no benefit by the Incarnation of Christ nor by his death and passion because he tooke not vpon him their nature neither in their nature did he offer sacrifice 2. Secondly the death of the beasts in the Ceremoniall law did figure out the death of that sacrifice which the Sonne of God was to offer vnto his Father for mans Redemption So that in that nature wherein Christ dyed in that nature he was to sacrifice but Christ as he was God could not dye for the Godhead is apathes and cannot suffer but according to his humanitie he dyed truely and not fantastically and in shew onely as Marcion and the Manichees heretically thought And indeed considering Gods eternall decree of sending his Sonne to be 〈◊〉 flesh it was necessarily required that hee should dye and shed his blood to appease his Fathers wrath and to procure forgiuenesse of sinnes for all beleeuers for according to the words of the Apostle choris haimatekchusias ou ginetai aphesis without blood shedding is no remission So it appeares that the humane nature of Christ consisting of soule and body was the Alsufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of all beleeuers 3. The third thing propounded is the necessitie of this sacrifice Adam being seduced by his wife and eating the forbidden fruit brought vpon himselfe and all his posteritie three euills First hee was by his transgression guilty of 〈◊〉 before God Secondly he was depriued of all his grace of integrity and righteousnesse which God had conferred vpon him in his creation Thirdly he was driuen out of Paradise to signifie his banishment from the celestiall Paradise Wherefore it was necessary that there should bee a sacrifice offered for man First that his sinnes might be remitted whereby he was turned from God Secondly that he might be restored againe to the state of grace Thirdly that he might be re-united and reconciled vnto God and inherit eternall life These three were effected by the sacrifice of Christ. For first by this Sacrifice our sinnes are pardoned and the guilt of all our iniquities is washed away by the blood of Iesus hee was that promised fountaine which should be set open for Iudah and Ierusalem to wash in This appeares by the words of Paul Traditus est in mortem propter offensas nostras He was deliuered to death for our offences Secondly by this sacrifice wee are made pertakers of his grace whereby wee are comely in the eyes of God the Father for hee thereby imputed his righteousnesse vnto vs and communicated that life of grace which was radically in himselfe the head vnto all his faithfull members for by him it is that wee all receiue grace for grace Thirdly hereby are wee entitled againe vnto the kingdome of heauen lost by our first parents for when this earthly tabernacle is dissolued we are put inro possession of that building of God not made with hands which endures for euer in heauen All these three are contained in one verse Christ Iesus is made vnto vnto vs of God righteousnesse sanctification and redemption Righteousnesse in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes 〈◊〉 in the communication of his grace and Redemption in the saluation of our soules and bodies By this that hath beene spoken wee may note that the beginning middle and end of mans happinesse is from the sacrifice of Christ by him wee are deliuered from the bondage of sinne by him wee are in the liberty of grace by him are wee
small credit with them neuer vses the words Ambrose once onely Augustine but twise and neither of these in that sence in which the Papists vse it And whereas they obiect that place of Ierome one the 11. chapter of the Prouerbes it is not thought to be his because therein is mentioned Gregory who liued about 200. yeares after Ierome but the best learned do ascribe it to Bede as they do the Sermon of Saint Augustine de tempore to Ambrose or Hugo de Sancto Victore But from the name let vs proceede to the thing it selfe Albeit that about the time of Saint Gregory there hapned such an alteration of the Canon of the Masse of the manner of seruice of vestiments of the bread of priuate Masses of prayers vnto Saints and so continued till Charles the great insomuch that the Church of Rome had cast off her ancient simplicity and Matron-like habit and became like a garish Curtezan yet this sacrifice of the Masse was not as yet allowed of generally in the Church Not in Gregories time for Bellarmine himselfe confesseth he could finde nothing in his writings for confirmation of this their sacrifice For the corporall reality of this sacrifice which our aduersaries defend vpon an imagination of a Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ seemes to be sufficiently confuted by that disputation held by Gregory against Eutiches the Hereticke who denied that Christ had a true humane body against whom Gregory obiected 〈◊〉 saying of our Sauiour to his Disciples who after his resurrection made a doubt of that which 〈◊〉 spared not to maintaine namely that it was not the same body wherein he was cruified but onely a shadow of a body and so his humanity was but kata Phantasian not really but onely in appearance But Gregory obiects the words of Christ. Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me haue behold my hands and feete that it is I my selfe By the same testimony of sence may Christians now discerne bread to be bread after consecration by which the Disciples discerned Christs flesh to be flesh after resurrection they were to beleeue because they did see and feele it to be the flesh of Christ wee haue the benefit of foure sences seeing handling tasting smelling to prooue vs to receiue not flesh but bread And here we may note what was the faith of the Church of England about those times of St. Gregory by an ancient Homily written in the Saxon tongue and appointed to be preached throughout England in euery Church vpon Easter day Part where of runnes thus In the holy sont we see two things in that one creature after the true nature the water is corruptible water and yet after 〈◊〉 mystery 〈◊〉 hath hallowing might So also wee behold the holy housell it is bread after bodily vnderstanding then wee see it is a body 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 but if wee acknowledge therein a spirituall might then vnderstand wee that life is therein and it giueth 〈◊〉 to them that 〈◊〉 it with 〈◊〉 Much difference there is betweene the inuisible might of the holy 〈◊〉 and the visible shape of the proper nature It is naturally corruptible bread and corruptible wine and it is by the might of Christs word truely 〈◊〉 body and his blood not so notwithstanding bodily but spiritually much difference is there betweene the body that Christ suffered 〈◊〉 and the body that is hallowed to housell the body 〈◊〉 Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary with blood and with bone with skinne with 〈◊〉 in humane limmes with a reasonable soule 〈◊〉 and his spirituall body which we call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thered of many cornes without blood and bone without limme without soule and therefore nothing therein is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 but all is spiritually to be vnderstood By these words 〈◊〉 appeares that the ancient Christians in England held not that grosse transubstantiation maintained now by the Romish Church which is the mother of the Massing sacrifice for take away 〈◊〉 and of necessity you lay the honour of their sacrifice in the dust For the space of 〈◊〉 yeares after Gregory this Sacrifice of the Masse beganne to gather strength and to be taught and 〈◊〉 though not generally in the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 Abbot of Corby in 〈◊〉 hath these words Because we sinne daily Christ is Sacrificed for vs Mystically and his Passion giuen in Mystery Againe The blood is drunken in Mystery spiritually and it is all spirituall which wee eate And The full similitude is 〈◊〉 and the flesh of the imacculate Lambe is faith inwardly that the truth he not wanting to the Sacrament and it be not ridiculous to Pagans that wee drinke the blood of a 〈◊〉 man Note here that he would 〈◊〉 the outward 〈◊〉 and the inward substance represented by the signe to subsist in the Sacrament otherwise it takes away the truth of the Sacrament and hee would not haue the 〈◊〉 thinke the 〈◊〉 to be so absurd as to drinke the reall and substantiall blood of Christ with their bodily mouthes but onely Sacramentally and in a Mystery Bertram 〈◊〉 liued about the 900. yeare of Christ in the time of Charles the 〈◊〉 whose wordes agree directly with the Doctrine of the Church of England and are these Our Lord hath done this at once euen in offering himselfe 〈◊〉 is to say sacrificing himselfe for vs For hee was once offered for the finnes of the people and this 〈◊〉 notwithstanding is dayly celebrated by the 〈◊〉 but in a mysterie to the end that what hath beene accomplished by our Lord lesus in offering himselfe once might be handled 〈◊〉 day by the celebrating of the Mysteries of the 〈◊〉 of the memory of his passion Where is to be noted how he opposeth the mysticall 〈◊〉 to the reall receiuing and the dayly 〈◊〉 of the remembrance to the once offering of the 〈◊〉 Againe He which is dayly offered by the faithfull in the mysterie of his body and his blood namely that whosoeuer will draw neere vnto him may know that he must 〈◊〉 part in his sufferings the image and representation whereof is exhibited in the holy Mysteries About the 1000. yeare liued Theophilact who seems to deny this Propitiatory Sacrifice in these words The medicines which are effectuall and forcible do heale at the first time being administred but those which neede to bee taken againe and againe doe sufficiently argue their weaknesse by that onely note euen so it fareth betweenethe Legall Sacrifices and the Sacrifice of Christ. But here ariseth a question Whether we also doe offer sacrifices without shedding of blood vnto which we answere affirmatiuely but it is that we doe renue the Memory of the death of the Lord and yet in the meane time it is but one Sacrifice not many because it hath beene offered but onely once We offer then 〈◊〉 himselfe or rather the Remembrance of this oblation
ceasing to bee a liuing man as hee was before Our aduersarie then hauing vouchsafed vs this ground worke we will make bold thus to build vpon it Euery thing really and properly sacrificed for propitiation doth suffer a real destruction of the substance But the body of Christ doth not in the sacrifice of the. Masse suffer a reall destruction Ergo. In the sacrifice of the Masse the body of Christ is not really and properly offered The Maior being graunted by the Cardinall the Minor prooues it selfe thus If the body of Christ doth in the Masse suffer destruction which to say were blasphemy it must eyther be in whole or in part if in whole how come we to finde the same Christ the same body and blood the next morning againe in the Masse If but in part or for a time as it was during his beeing in the graue then would follow that the Church for a time hath no Christ perfect God and perfect man Now Bellarmine affirmes that the Priests eating of the consecrated elements which are made the body of Christ is the destruction of the sacrifice his words are these Consumptio seu manducatio quae fit a sacer dote quôd fit essentialis pars 〈◊〉 inde probatur quia in tota actione missae nulla est alia realis destructio victimae praeter istam requiri autem realem destructionem supra probatum est The Priests consumptionor eating of the Host is prooued to be of the essence of the sacrifice for in the whole action of the Masse there is no destruction of the sacrifice but onely this and that there must be a reall destrustion of the sacrifice I haue already prooued But herein how is hee constant to himselfe who sayes The substance of the sacrifice must suffer destruction and yet hold againe that the Priest consumes not the body of Christ by eating it for it suffers no diminution but onely the formes of bread and wine Who sees not here a most palpable contradiction for he will haue the body of Christ to be the substance of this sacrifice and this sust ance must be consumed or els it is no sacrifice and yet when it comes to the push the body of Christ suffers not destruction but only the formes Is not this to make quidlibet ex quolibet Is not this to make it a sacrifice and no sacrifice Is not this to say the body of Christ is the substance of this oblation and not the substance because it is not consumed Againe if a Propitiatory sacrifice be as Bellarmine defines it That which doth pacifie the wrath of God for the remission of sinnes I demand then how remission of sinnes is procured mentall presence of the Lords body and blood there is a true reall and actuall application of his death quo ad meritum in regard of the merit of it to all that receiue with faith But the Iesui te will haue a proper death of Christ in the Eucharist euen as he is truely really substantially and corporally present and yet see how he thwartes and crosses himselfe in the last words saying Christ in the Eucharist dyes not Hence we may frame this Argument After the same manner that Christ is in the Eucharist after the same manner hee dyes in the same for an actuall and corporall presence requires an actuall and corporall death as a sacramentall presence a sacramental death onely But in the Eucharist by our aduersaries owne confession Christ dyes not properly actually or bodily Ergo in the Eucharist hee is not properly actually or bodily present Thirdly note how contrary this doctrine is vnto it selfe The body of Christ saith he and the blood of Christ are consecrated apart and seuerally yet they do not subsist apart least there should be an actuall and reall effusion of the blood of Christ. But I demand if it be so that they are consecrated and made apart then when the Priest hath consecrated the body of Christ first for hee cannot consecrate both in an instant doth not that body subsist without blood till hee hath made and consecrated the blood also This is strange in the sacrament that the body of Christ and his blood should admit for a time such an actuall separation as is betweene that which hath a being and that which hath no being Lastly note how enigmatically he tells vs of those things which are separated by consecration and yet are indiuisibly conioyned that they cannot be separated contrary to the institution of Christ who tooke the bread and the cup seuerally consecrating them asunder to figure vnto vs that actuall and reall separation of the body and blood of Christ vpon the crosse Argument 13. The thirteenth Argument is this That which is a Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne must appease and pacifie the wrath of God this Bellarmine affirmeth But the sacrifice of the Masse doth not appease the wrath of God Ergo The sacrifice of the Masse is not Propitiatory The Minor is thus prooued That which doth appease Gods wrath must bee of infinite value But the sacrifice of the Masse is not of infinite value Ergo The sacrifice of the Masse cannot appease Gods wrath The Maior is prooued because the wrath of God for sinne being infinite cannot be pacified but by that which is of infinite merite and desert and this is confessed by their owne Iesuite in these words Si Aaron aut 〈◊〉 Pontifex hostiam obtulisset quae visua tolleret peccata non esset necesse alteram offerri 〈◊〉 iam peccata per illam deletaerant Dices illa hostia delebat peccata vsque ad illam oblationem commissa sed quum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noua peccata quid obstat alteram offerri frustra id fieret 〈◊〉 si 〈◊〉 sua tollebat peccata infiniti valoris erat non enim aliter poterat tolli peccatum compensari iniuria Deo facta If Aaron or any other high Priest had offered a sacrifice which by it owne vertue had taken away sinne there had beene no need to haue offered any more because all sinnes were already taken away by the former Thou wilt say that sacrifice did take away those sinnes which were committed before it was offered but when afterward new sinnes were committed why may not new sacrifices be offered No that were but in vaine for if by it owne proper vertue it did take away sinnes it was then of infinite value and merit for otherwise sinne could not bee taken away nor the iniury done vnto God recompenced First here he disableth the Leuiticall sacrifices because of their often repetition and reiteration Secondly he prooues our Maior Proposition that nothing can appease the infinite wrath of God and so satisfie his iustice but that which is of infinit merit and desert therefore all the Angells in heauen could not haue wrought mans redemption by satisfying for the sinne of Adam but Christ himselfe nor he had he been meere man and not Theanthropos God and man for no finite
vse as meanes for the conuersion of others were to liue in future ages and had not as yet beeing and consequently could not at that time finish those acts whereunto they were destined of God but if he vnderstand by these words All things necessary for mans saluation are not finished all the specificall acts of religion as Prayer Preaching Administration of the Sacraments c. and whatsoeuer of that kind which is necessary to mans saluation is not finished this is false for that they had their institution from Christ before his death and so in the species they were finished Or if thereby the sacrifice of Christ was not finished this is false for both it and the saluation of man by it was finished as appeares by the Apostles vsing the same words saying With one offering teteleioken consummauit he hath consummated for euer such as are sanctified And whereas he sayes that if all things necessary for mans saluation were consummated then the sacraments and all doctrine should bee superfluous this is false for the institution of them might be consummated although the exercise of them in future ages were not finished Againe the perfection of Christs sacrifice abolisheth not the vse of doctrine and Sacraments which doe represent vnto vs the death and sacrifice of Christ but it abolisheth all other sacrifices of Propitiation for if they be but memorialls of Christs death they are superfluous the word and sacraments beeing sufficient to that end and if they be more then memorials as auaileable to forgiue sinnes they are blasphemous and make Christs sacrifice imperfect Argument 17. The seauenteenth argument is taken from the falshood of the Canon of the Masse and it is thus framed Such as is the Canon such is the sacrifice But the Canon of the Masse is false Ergo the sacrifice is false and consequently not Propitiatory The falshood of the Masse appeares in diuers things 1. In the ancient Church when the Lords Supper was celebrated the Christians vsed to bring their agapai which were the bread and wine for the reliefe of the poore and the maintenance of the Ministry and when they had laide downe these oblations which were neuer accounted a Propitiatory sacrifice they prayed for the prosperity and preseruation of the Church which in the Canon before the consecration is applyed vnto the bread and wine and the bread and wine is offered vnto God the Father for the happinesse of the Church Secondly in the Canon They pray vnto God that he would accept that pure sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ as he accepted the sacrifices of Abell and Melchizedech In which words they become intercessours vnto God the Father to accept his Son Iesus Christ as though he were not worthy to be accepted of himselfe And how absurd is it to compare the most pretious sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ if it were so really and truely vnto the sacrifice of Abel which was but a lambe or a goate And how vnwisely doe they pray that God would accept the sacrifice of his Sonne as hee did accept the sacrifice of Melchizedech whereas it cannot appeare as is formerly prooued by the holy scripture that Melchizedech offered bread and wine how absurd is it then to compare the sacrifice of Christ with that sacrifice which neither was is nor shall be Thirdly the Canon saith that the Priest offereth vnto God the heauenly Father the bread of life But where are they commanded to offer the bread of life seeing in the scripture there is mention made of eating the bread of life but not of offering Fourthly the Canon ouerthrowes the article of ascension for it commands the Angells to carry that vnspotted sacrifice to the high Altar of heauen and to present it before God the Father What Is not Christ ascended and fitteth for euer at the right hand of God and hath he now more need of the helpe of Anglls then when he first ascended by the whole power of his Godhead and cannot hee appeare before his Father but by the assistants of Angells But let me bee bold to demand three questions of our aduersaries grounded vpon these words of the Canon Supplices te rogamus omnipotens Deus iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli c. We humbly beseech thee O Omnipotent God that tbou wouldest command this sacrifice to be carryed by the hands of the holy Angell vnto thy high Altar in the sight of thy diuine Maiesty c. First if they vnderstand it of the bread and wine transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ how comes it to passe that they are not taken by the Angell and carryed immediately into heauen according to the prayer of the Church Secondly I demand if their doctrine bee true of their Multipresence that the true humane body and blood of Christ be both in heauen and in many thousand places vpon the earth at one time what need then the Angell to carry the body of Christ into heauen where it is already before his heauenly Father Thirdly if it be so as they say that Christ in the night when he instituted the Lords Supper did offer himselfe his naturall body and blood vnder the forms of bread and wine a true Propitiatory sacrifice to his heauenly Father I demand whether the Angell did carry this sacrifice into heauen or whether it did 〈◊〉 before his Father in heauen or no If they say no how then was the sacrifice accepted or how comes the Church to pray for that priuiledge of hauing this sacrifice carryed into heauen which was not vouchsafed to the sacrifice offered immediately by Christ himselfe If they affirme that it was carryed into heauen it would then follow that Christs body was in heauen before his passion resurrection or ascension and when he in his humane nature ascended into heauen from his Disciples hee found his humane body and blood before his Father and to haue beene there before it came thither Thus they make Christ to haue two bodies and consequently two soules and so Christ is not one but two but many but innumerable These absurdities doe directly result and arise from their blasphemous Canon which is so grosse and palpable as deserues to be hissed out of the Church Lastly the Canon in diuers places ouerturnes the Mediation of Christ in that they pray to Saints and Angells making them to be intercessours it also establishes Purgatory and prayer for the dead doctrines so dissonant from the truth of the Scriptures as when we see them authorized in the Church of Rome wee may iustly call in question the vertue of their massing sacrifice Argument 18. The eighteenth Argument is taken from the effect of the Masse thus That which destroyeth the true nature of the Lords Supper cannot be a true Propitiatory sacrifice for the 〈◊〉 of the quicke and the dead But the pretended sacrifice of the Masse doth subuert and destroy the nature of the Lords Supper Ergo
the pretended sacrifice of the Masse is not Propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead The Maior is not denyed by our aduersaries The Minor is thus prooued Augustine saith Sacramentum est visibile signum inuisibilis gratiae a visible signe of inuisible grace so that in euery sacrament there is signum signatum the signe and the thing signified both which abide whole and intire in such sort as it is not possible that the one can be the other or any part of the other But the sacrifice of the Masse destroyeth the nature of a sacrament for it taketh away the substance of the bread which is the signe and seale of his body it taketh away the substance of the wine which is the symbole of his blood and that by 〈◊〉 and altering them as some of them hold or els by annihilating them as others say or by reducing them into their first matter from substances into accidents contrary vnto all nature yea contrary to the things signified for there ought to be resemblance betweene the signe and the thing signified as Manna did represent the bread of life which came downe from heauen in baptisme water which washeth away corporall spottes the blood of Christ which cleanseth our spirituall pollutions bread and wine which nourish our naturall life the body and blood of Christ which sustaine and feede vs vnto eternall life But roundnesse whitenesse moistnesse and rednesse which they giue vs for signes what analogy or proportion haue they with our spirituall nourishment These accidents of bread and wine haue no power or vertue to feede the body but the substance of bread and wine they leaue those and take away this where then is the sacrament when the signe is abolished Againe the sacrifice of the Masse taketh away the thing signified in the Lords Supper What 's that It is the body and blood of Christ yea Christ himselfe For the very body and blood of Christ was giuen only for them which 〈◊〉 in him and abide in him for them saith the Apostle which dwell in him by faith and in whose hearts he dwelleth for them saith Saint Augustine which are his members and therefore the same Father saith a man may eate panem Domini the bread of the Lord and yet not eate panem Dominum the Lord the bread making a difference betweene the bread in the sacrament and that life-giuing bread which is Christ himselfe represented by the symboles in the Eucharist But oh what iniury is offered by the Papists in their sacrifice vnto the body and blood of Christ which is the food of eternall life when dogs and swine that is reprobates and hypocrites shall bee made pertakers of it nay and these ex opere operato by vertue of the very act of receiuing doe merit remission of sinnes and relaxation of punishment nay a Mouse or a Dog may eate the precious body of our Lord Iesus Christ which doth so 〈◊〉 their greatest Doctors that if it be demanded Whether if a Dog or a Mouse doe eate the 〈◊〉 Host they doe 〈◊〉 the very body of Christ they are at a non plus and know not what to answer Wee affirme and dare iustifie That the signe of the Sacrament may be receiued of all that are of competent age in the Church But Res Sacramenti the thing signified in the Sacrament can onely be receiued by the faithfull which are rightly of the Church for so saith Origen Of this true and verie meate of this Word made flesh no wicked or vngodly man can eate because it is the Word and Bread of life because hee that eateth of this bread liueth for euer And S. Augustine speakes plainely to this purpose saying The Signes are common to the good and 〈◊〉 but the thing proper to the faithfull alone therefore the Apostles did eate Panem Dominum The bread which was the Lord but Iudas onely Panem Domini the Bread of the Lord against the Lord. Doth not this take away Christ himselfe when the Church shall giue vnto wicked men and vnbeleeuers and they themselues shall receiue the very substantiall Body of Christ. Againe they destroy the humanity of Christ for the which the Fathers of the Church haue so mightily contended against diuers Heretikes for when without warrant of Gods word they ascribe vnto this body a property of being in a thousand places at once how do they not destroy the nature of a true Humane body which can be but in one place at one time as is prooued Pag. 198. Nay doth not this Sacrifice make Christ a dead Christ in that they doe really separate his body from his blood making them in consecration and after consecration to subsist apart which separation was the very death of Christ And whereas Christ saith I am with you vnto the end of the world And Where two or three are gathered together in my name I will be in the middest of them These and the like speeches are to be vnderstood of the Diuinitie of Christ which filleth all places as these Speeches You shall not have me alwaies with you It is expedient for you that I goe away The heauens must containe him vntill the restauration of all things are to be vnderstood of his Humanity which is circumscriptiuely onely in one place at once And so the Fathers vnderstand these places Origen saith It is not the man which is euery where Where two or three be gathered together in his name Or yet is alwaies with vs vntill the end of the world Or which is in euery place where the faithfull are assembled but it is the Diuine power which is in Iesus And so Saint Augustine You haue the poore alwaies with you c. Let not good men be troubled in respect of his maiestie prouidence grace c. It is fulfilled which he said I am alwaies with you In respect of the flesh which the Word tooke vpon it it is the same which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You shall not haue me alwaies The Church enioyed him but a few daies in respect of his bodily presence but now it possesseth him by faith and seeth him no more with these bodily eies c. And in another place vpon 〈◊〉 words Vado venio ad aos He went as men he staied behinde as God He went in as much as he was but in one place he staied and abode still in as much as hee was euery where By which words of S. Augustine it appeares that hee conceiued the Humane body of Christ to reside in one place and not to bee in many places at once And in another of his writings hee hath these words It is expedient for you that I goe Although that hee be alwaies with vs by his Diuinitie but if he had not gone away from vs corporally we should haue seen him daily with these carnall eies and should neuer haue beleeued in him spiritually c. And for this cause he hath absented himself in
are of iudgment that he receiues not the body of Christ who doth not beleeue that he receiues it like Magick charms wherin strong imagination and beleese workes the effect And yet obserue here how contrary againe they are vnto themselues when they teach that Opus operatum The worke wrought is sufficient to merit What difference then is between the godly and the wicked Or what priuiledge hath the righteous more then the prophane seeing both good and bad receiue the same consecrated Christ performe the same worke of communicating And for all men that can pay well without difference is the Sacrifice of the Masse offered Or what comfort can the Laity of the Roman Church find in the Sacrament when that which shold giue life to their faith breedeth in them nothing but doubting and vncertainty seeing that after they haue prepared themselues they know not what they receiue because they are not assured of the intention of the consecration But here I demand of the Romanists If the consecration of the body and blood of Christ depend vpon the intention of the Priest so that if he intend not in the act of consecration the Body of Christ is not then present neither is the Bread or Wine transubstantiated How then can the Doctors of the Church of Rome free the people from the sinne of Idolatry which worship the creature in stead of the Creator the vnconsecrated Elements in stead of the true and substantiall Body and Blood of Christ For they worship the bread supposing it to be the Body of Christ when through either the negligence or wilfulnesse of the Priest in not intending consecration it remaines in its owne proper substance They thinke to falue this sore with a nice distinction they tell vs it is materiall Idolatry but not formall as though Idolatry masked vnder a couert were not a sinne and because it is not voluntarie or intentionall therefore it were tollerable The Idolatry of Israel was neuer so grosse as to worship any grauen Images in stead of God but as our Papists plead to worship God in or through their Images yet this prouoked God vnto iealousie and drew downe his vengeance vpon these Idolaters Is not this more palpable Idolatry where the Bread and Wine which are but creatures are worshipped with Latreia adoration which thēselues ascribe vnto God alone And to manifest that they ascribe vnto this Sacrifice the same diuine worship which they ascribe vnto God let but the Christian Reader examine the last generall Councell held by the Church of Rome namely the Councell of Trent where he shall finde this blasphemous Canon Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum venerandum neque processionibus secundum laudabilem vniuersalem Ecclesiae sanctae ritum consuetudinem solemniter circumg estandum vel non publicè vt adoretur populo proponendum eius adoratores esse Idololatras Anathema sit If any man shall say that Christ the onely begotten Sonne of God is not to be adored with externall diuine worship in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and that it is not solemnly to be carried about in Procession according to the laudible and vniuersall rites and custome of holy Church and that it is not publikely to be shewed to the people that they may adore it and that the worshippers thereof are Idolaters let him be accursed And in the beginning of the same Chapter there are these words Nullus 〈◊〉 dubitandi locus relinquitur cum omnis Christi fidelis pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto latriae cultum qui 〈◊〉 Deo 〈◊〉 huic 〈◊〉 sacramento in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is now no place of doubting left seeing all the faithfull of Christ according to the custome which was alwaies 〈◊〉 in adoration may giue vnto this sacred Sacrament that worship of Latria which is belonging to the true God This is a doctrine of Diuels commanding most 〈◊〉 Idolatry and yet not to be contradicted vnder paine of his Holinesse curse But let vs admit that Christ is to be worshipped in the Eucharist yet how can the people 〈◊〉 the sinne of Idolatry when albeit the Priest faile in his intention and consequently consecrate not yet they worship the 〈◊〉 and wine with adoration But I will not here enter into the discussion of this point whether the Eucharist is to 〈◊〉 with Diuine worship Least I should too much enlarge this Treatise which hath already transcended the limites of my intention Thus hauing sufficiently satisfied as I hope the indifferent and impartial Reader concerning the propounded parts of this controuersie as namely that the pretended sacrifice of the Masse hath no ground in the Doctrine of the Scriptures practise of the Apostles or writings of the ancient Fathers as secondly touching the originall encrease and continuance of the Masse Thirdly of the imbecillity and weakenesse of their obiected Arguments Lastly of the firme and solide grounds of our dislike and opposition I shall in fine lay before the eyes of all men a briefe enumeration of all the impieties and blasphemies of this abhominable Idoll and so shall conclude all with a serious disswasion from all or any participation in that superstitious worship The Impieties of this Sacrifice are these First it is not onely diuers from the institution of Christ but quite ouerthrowes it as appeares by these particulars 1. First Christ instituted a Sacrament wherein he freely offereth himselfe to be receiued of all beleeuers by faith and to bee eaten spiritually They turne it into a sacrifice which is offered vnto God the Father not beeing distributed to the people but deuoured by the Priest and that 〈◊〉 really and materially So that whereas the Church should haue beene thankefull for that God hath giuen his onely sonne for her saluation shee striues to make God her debter by offering vnto him a sacrifice but such a sacrifice as he neuer desired expected or commanded 2. Christ in the Sacrament consecrated bread and wine which remained as signes and symboles of the body and blood of Christ. In the Masse they consecrate the reall and substantiall body of Christ taking away the Sacrament in that they take away the signes 3. In the Sacrament the vertue and efficacy is in the power of God making it operatiue by the grace of the Spirit In the Masse the deede done deserues pardon and the Priest hath a portion of remission of sinnes which may bee bestowed on whom he will 4. The Sacrament is onely profitable for the liuing but the Masse for the quicke and the dead 5. The Sacrament was instituted to manifest the Communion of Saints therefore called the Communion figured by the bread framed of many cornes and made into one loase and the wine made of many grapes so all 〈◊〉 are one body but in priuate Masse the Priest consumes all the host himselfe as though hee alone had right
Purgatory The sixteenth impiety of the Masse is It subuerteth Gods decree of Reprobation for it is auaileable for whomsoeuer the Priest shall offer it both for remission of sinne and liberation from punishment who doubts not but then many a Reprobate for whom Masse is sayd is 〈◊〉 from eternall damnation The seauenteenth impiety of the Masse is It robs God of his right for whereas it is a prerogatiue royall belonging to the Regall Crowne of Heauen to institute Sacraments and Sacrifices the Church of Rome hath vsurped that power instituting this sacrifice which God neuer commanded them neither came it into his minde but they like Antiochus Ephiphanes haue exalted their Idoll vpon the Lords Table what audacious boldnesse was this in any man to inuent without Gods command a sacrifice to appease and pacifie the wrath of God And what is it but an Ethelothrescta a 〈◊〉 diuised of their owne carnall and corrupt wils and affections The eighteenth impiety in the Masse It establisheth the doctrine of merit and ouerthroweth the satisfaction of Christ for if a man may merit by the sacrifice of the Masse what iniustice was it in God to lay the burthen of mans wickednesse vpon Christ causing him to satisfie by death when men may merit by hearing or saying Masse by offering or receiuing this sacrifice The nineteenth impiety is Their Iesuite Salmeron is permitted to write That the oblation of Christ in his last Supper which the Romanists hold to be satisfactory and Propitiatory receiued no efficacy or vertue from the sacrifice vpon the crosse Which all Orthodoxe Christians cannot but iudge to bee an impious Paradox Seeing both the Sacrament of Baptisme and of the Eucharist haue their foundation in and vertue and operation from the great and all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ offered vpon the crosse The twentieth impiety is in the manner of celebrating this sacrifice In that it is performed in an vnknowne tongue directly contrary to the Apostolicall iniunction of Saint Paul who willeth euery man that prayeth to pray in that language which the common people vnderstand that the Church may be edified Secondly in regard of the gesture of the Priest which is so changeable so ridiculous so affected more like a Player then a Sacrificer for the Priest varieth and changeth his gesture at least fourty or fifty times during the time of the Masse First he boweth his body then he rayseth himselfe and kisseth the Altar on the right side he boweth againe and looketh toward the host hee ioyneth his hands wipeth his 〈◊〉 listeth vp the host then he listeth vp his eyes and boweth himselfe and lifteth vp his eyes againe hee boweth againe and lifteth vp the hoast aboue his forehead vncouereth the Chalice and holdeth it betweene his hands keeping his thumb and forefinger together then hee boweth and lifteth vp the cup a little then to his breast or aboue his head he setteth it downe againe wipeth his fingers then he spreades his armes a crosse he boweth his body then rising kisseth the Altar on the right side after this he smiteth his breast then hee vncouereth the Chalice againe and maketh fiue crosses with the host beyond the Chalice on each side vnder it and before it then he layeth his hands vpon the Altar the Deacon then reacheth the Priest the Paten which he putteth to his right eye then to his left and maketh a crosse beyond his head with it kisseth it and layeth it downe then hee breaketh the host in three parts holding two pieces in his left hand the other part in his right hand ouer the Chalice which with a crosse he letteth fall into it the Priest then kisseth the Corporas the Deacon taketh the Pax from the Priest giueth it to the subdeacon and he to the Queere then humbling himselfe he first taketh the body then the blood so hee goeth to the right horne of the Altar then the Subdeacon powreth in wine and the Priest rinseth the cup and washeth his hands hee turneth himselfe to the people commeth againe to the Altar and turneth to the people the second time then bowing his body and closing his hands he prayeth to himselfe he riseth againe making the signe of the crosse and bowing againe so goeth to the Altar insomuch that Roscius-like hee seemes rather an Actor then a priest the Masse it selfe beeing stuffed full of ceremonies borrowed from the sacrifices of both Iewes and gentiles as Innocent the third and Baronius themselues confesse The one and twentieth impiety That the onely accidents of bread and wine can nourish the body without their proper substance The two and twentieth impiety That the body and blood of Christ may be made poysenous for Bernar dus de monte Politiano de Domcastro a Monk of the Iacobines order poysoned with the Host Henry the seauenth Emperour of Germany and Victor Pope of Rome was poysoned with the wine he tooke in the Masse The three and twentieth impiety That the body and blood of Christ doe subsist apart separated one from another both in the act of consecration and afterward The foure and twentieth impiety That Christ is now in the Eucharist not a liuing but a dead Christ in regard that albeit as they affirme the bread bee changed into his body and the wine into his blood yet neither of these according to their owne tenent can be transubstantiated into his soule which is a spirituall and an immateriall substance how then shall his soule be vnited to his body seeing when by these words This is my body hee changed the elements into his body and blood yet hee makes no mention of his soule Wherefore the body subsisting without a soule must be but inanimate a dead corps The twenty fiue impiety Christ had two bodies one visible wherewith hee sate at Table another inuisible which he distributed to his Disciples vnder the formes of consecrated bread and wine The sixe and twentieth impiety They say Christ at his last Supper gaue his naturall body to be eaten of his Disciples but by their doctrine would follow that Christ gaue his mortall body as it was before his passion vnto his Disciples but vnto his Church hee giues now his glorified body such as it is sitting at the right hand of God The seauen and twentieth impietie That the body of Christ doth daily ascend into heauen and descend from heauen as Iaecobs Angells and is contained in the hands of the Priest is crashed in his teeth his bones being broken The eight and twentieth impiety That the body of Christ being kept a long time in any vessell will corrupt and putrifie and wormes will bee generated of it as Alphonsus Magnus the king of Aragon found by experience The twenty nine impiety That Christ Iesus the Sonne of God was not incarnate for vs suffered not dyed not rose not againe ascended not 〈◊〉 heauen for vs but onely bread and wine did all these things in our behalfe Or which is the last impiety The body