my body must be expounded thus this Bread is the sign and Sacrament of my Body Whence it follows that in one single Proposition of Jesus Christ in the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist viz. this cup is the New Testament there are two figures one in the word Cup being taken for that which is in the cup this is a figure called a Metonymie whereby the thing containing is taken for the thing contained The other Figure is that the cup is called the New Testament this is also a Figure called a Metonymie whereby the sign is called by the name of the thing signified And therefore the Romish Doctors are mistaken when they tell us that all that Jesus Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken literally and without a figure But withal we must not imagine that Jesus Christ spake obscurely because he spake figuratively these figures and manners of speech being commonly and familiarly used by all the World 5. But when we say that these words this is my body this is my bloud must be expounded thus this Bread is the Sign and Sacrament of my Body this Wine is the Sign and Sacrament of my Bloud we do not mean that the Bread and Wine are barely and simply signs of Christs Body and Bloud but we believe that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are signs that do exhibit the body and bloud of Christ to Believers For when they do by the mouth of the body receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist they do at the same time by the mouth of the soul viz. by Faith receive the Body of Christ broken and his Bloud shed for the remission of their sins as will be proved in the next Chapter 6. Add hereunto this one Argument When a man saith that a thing is such if it be not such during the whole time which he imploys in saying it is such he makes a false Proposition For example When a man saith that a Wall is white if it be not white during the whole time he imploys in saying it is white he makes a false Proposition But according to the Romish Doctors when Jesus Christ said this is my body it was not his body during the whole time which he imployed in saying this is my body for they say it was his body afterward only Therefore according to the Romish Doctors Jesus Christ uttered a false Proposition which being blasphemous to affirm we must lay down this for a foundation that that which Jesus Christ gave his Disciples when he said this is my body was his body not only after he had said it but also while he was saying it and before he said it And here we have this advantage of those of the Romish Church that we believe the truth of these words of Jesus Christ this is my body much better then they do because they believe it at one time only viz. after he had said it but we believe it at three several times viz. before he said it when he was saying it and after he had said it But here some may object that we must not take the words of our Lord in too rigorous a sense and that in these words this is my body we must take the Present tense for the next Future and then the sense will be this this will immediately be my body To which I answer that the Romish Doctors will have us take these words this is my body in the rigour of the literal sense and then the Proposition is evidently false I know that the Present tense may be taken for the next Future as when Jesus Christ said I go to my Father and to your Father I go to my God and to your God that is I shall go speedily But who can be so bold and ignorant as to affirm that this speech is without a Figure seeing all Grammarians know that it is a Figure called Enallage of time Therefore the Romish Doctors must confess that by their own doctrine this Proposition of Jesus Christ this is my body is either false or figurative and that seeing it is not false it must be figurative and that the figure must be a Metonymie whereby the sign takes the name of the thing signified as hath already been proved and not an Enallage of time CHAP. II. Concerning the Exposition of these words He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud bath eternal life My flesh is meat indeed c. 1. IN this Chapter I shall prove that Jesus Christ speaks of a spiritual eating and drinking by Faith and not of a corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body My first Argument is this When a man would satisfie his hunger and quench his thirst he eateth and drinketh that thing which he hungers and thirsts after because eating satisfieth hunger and drinking quencheth thirst But it is by Faith that is by believing in Jesus Christ that we satisfie the hunger and quench the thirst which we have after Christ for it is in the sixth of St. John He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst Therefore it is by Faith or by believing that we eat and drink Jesus Christ and consequently the eating of Christ flesh and drinking his bloud is spiritual and not corporal 2. My second Argument is this Jesus Christ saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life And except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you John 6. But it is the spiritual eating and drinking by Faith that gives life eternal and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body because many Reprobates according to the very doctrine of Rome it self do corporally eat the flesh and drink the bloud of Christ and yet shall not inherit eternal life 3. The third Argument is taken from S. Augustine and Cardinal Cajetan who expound the words of Jesus Christ as we do St. Augustin in Book 3. of Christian Doctrine speaketh thus To eat the flesh of Christ is a figure teaching us to partake of Christs Passion and to imprint in our memories with delight and profit that Christ was crucified for us Card. Cajetan in his Commentary on St. John 6. saith To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud is faith in Christs death so that the sense is this if you use not the death of the Son of man as meat and drink ye shall not have the life of the Spirit in you And having sufficiently proved his Exposition he adds To eat and drink the Sacrament is a thing common as well to those that eat unworthily as to those that eat worthily but that which Jesus Christ here speaks of is not common to both for he saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life he saith not he that eateth worthily and drinketh worthily but he that eateth and drinketh Whence it
17. for that by read that if by p. 124. l. 18. for Apostle read Apostles p. 130. l. 2â— read Priest p. 133. l. 13. dele them THE FUNERAL OF THE MASS CHAP. I. Concerning the Exposition of these words This is my Body THE Romanists are wont to tell us that these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body are so clear to prove the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Host and consequently to prove Transubstantiation or the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body that they are amazed we cannot perceive so manifest a truth Against which I form this Argument He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the World and takes words otherwise then all other men do must without doubt speak very obscure But if Jesus Christ by these words This is my Body had meant the real presence of his Body in the Host as the Romish Doctors assert and consequently had meant the substantial conversion of the Bread into his Body he had spoken contrary to the common usage of all the World and had taken the words otherwise then all other men do which I thus prove There was never any Author either sacred or prophane that made use of such words as these This is my Body to signifie the substantial conversion of one thing into another or to signifie the real presence of a thing immediately after the pronouncing of them and not before On the contrary there was never any man that did not use them to signifie that the thing was already that which it was said to be For example When God the Father speaking of Jesus Christ said This is my beloved Son it is certain that Jesus Christ was the Son of God before God said it and in common usage it is never said this is that except the thing be so before it is said to be so For example We do not say this is a Table before that which we mean by the word this be a Table Therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all Authors as well sacred as prophane and contrary to the common usage of all men to make these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body to signifie the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body and the real presence of his Body in the Host immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest and not before Seeing then that Jesus Christ when he said This is my Body did not speak contrary to the common usage of all the World and did not take the words otherwise then all other men do it necessarily follows that these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body do not signifie the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body nor the real presence of Christs Body in the Host immediately after the Priest hath pronounced them and not before And this being so the Romish Doctors must seek some other passages of Scripture than this This is my Body to prove such a conversion and such a presence and seeing they can find none I conclude that such a conversion and such a presence have no foundation in holy Scripture 2 That which I have said concerning common usage is founded on this reason viz. because things must be before there can be any Image Picture or Representation of them and consequently Images are after the things whereof they are Images But words are the Images of conceptions and conceptions the Images of things Therefore things are such before we can really conceive them to be such and we conceive them to be such before we can say they are such Therefore that which Jesus Christ held and gave to his Disciples expressed by the word this was his body before he conceived that it was his body and he conceived that it was his body before he said This is my Body and consequently it is not by vertue of these words This is my Body that that which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples expressed by the word this was his Body but rather it is by blessing the bread or thanksgiving that the bread was made the Body of Christ because it was made the Sacrament of it Whence it follows that these words this is my body must be expounded thus this bread is my body and these words this bread is my body must be expounded thus this bread is the Sacrament of my body which I prove thus 3. A Proposition must be expounded according to the nature of the thing in question for example If a man pointing at the Kings Person should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings Person because the Kings Person is meant But if a man coming into a Painters Shop and pointing at the Kings Picture should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings Picture because here his Picture is meant Even so if Jesus Christ laying his hand on his Breast had said this is my Body we must without doubt have understood the Proposition concerning his real Body and not concerning the Sign or Sacrament of it because his very Body had been then meant and not the sign or Sacrament of it But Jesus Christ being about to institute the Eucharist and to that end having taken bread blessed it and given it to his Disciples with these words Take eat this is my Body it is evident that they must be understood of the Sacrament of his Body and the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Sacrament of my Body because here the Sacrament of his Body is meant And seeing a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent saith in its sixth Session it is evident that this Proposition This is my Body being expounded by this this is the Sacrament of my Body may be expounded thus this is the sign of my Body which I confirm thus 4 In these two Propositions This is my body This cup is the New Testament in my bloud the word is must be taken in the same sense because they are alike having been pronounced upon the same matter viz. the one upon one part of the Sacrament and the other upon the other part of it and because of like things we must give a like judgment But in this Proposition this cup is the New Testament the word is is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being but for a sacramental and significative being because neither the cup nor that which is in the cup is changed into a Testament neither is it really and properly a Testament but the Sacrament of the New Testament Therefore in this Proposition likewise this is my body the word is is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being but for a sacramental and significative being and consequently as this Proposition this cup is the New Testament must be expounded thus the Wine that is in the cup is the sign and Sacrament of the New Testament So this Proposition this is
two distinct terms the one called in the Schools terminus à quo that is the term from which the thing comes and the other terminus ad quem that is the term to which it comes But according to this principle that cannot be annihilated which is so already nor that receive a being which hath one already because the term from which it should come and the term to which it should come would be one and the same thing contrary to the Maxime already laid down viz. that the terms of action must necessarily be distinct and that one of them must be the negation or privation of the other 5. Here perhaps it may be objected That by Transubstantiation the substance of Christs body is not newly produced but only a new presence of him in the place where the substance of the bread was But to this I answer That in all substantial conversions and actions a new substance must be produced as in accidental a new accident must be produced But Transubstantiation according to the Romish Doctors is a substantial conversion Therefore by Transubstantiation a new substance must be produced And seeing that the new presence of Christs body in the place where the substance of the bread was is not a substance but an accident of the Catagorie which the Philosophers call Vbi it is evident that by Transubstantiation the presence of Christs body only is not produced in the place where the substance of the bread was and seeing that the substance of Christs body is not produced there as hath been proved in the preceding number we must conclude that there is no Transubstantiation nor real presence of Christs body in the Host This instance doth also destroy the adduction of Christs body into the Host which hath been already refuted in number 3. 6. My second Argument is this In a true humane body such as Christs body is there is something above and something under right and left before and behind for the head is above the neck and the neck above the shoulders the shoulders above the breast the breast above the stomach the stomach above the belly the belly above the thighs the thighs above the legs c. But all the World knows that in a point there is nothing above or under right or left before or behind Therefore Christs body is not in a point and consequently it is not in every point or part of the Host To this I add that the quantity and greatness of Christs body is nothing else but its length breadth and thickness which cannot be in a point Lastly The quantity of Christs body is nothing else but its extent as we all know and a body is extended when it hath its parts one without another that is they are not one within another as all the Jesuites expound it But the doctrine of the presence of Christs body in the Host puts all its parts one within another because it puts them all in a point Therefore such a doctrine takes away its extent and consequently its quantity 7. My third Argument is this To move and not to move at the same time to be eaten and not to be eaten at the same time to be in a point and not in a point at the same time to occupy a place and not to occupy it at the same time are contradictory things But if the body of Christ were in divers consecrated Hosts it would move and not move at the same time For example When a Priest carries a consecrated Host to a sick person the body of Christ which is pretended to be in it moves with the Host for it leaves the Altar and goes with the Priest toward the sick persons house and at the same time the body of Christ which is pretended to be in the other Hosts that remain on the Altar moves not and so the same body of Christ at the same time moves and moves not which is a contradiction Seeing then it is impossible that one and the same body at one and the same time should move and not move it is likewise impossible that Christs body should be in divers Hosts at the same time In like manner if Christs body were at the same time in Heaven and in the Host it would be eaten and not eaten at the same time for it would be eaten in the Host by the Priest and at the same time it would not be eaten in Heaven Also it would be in a point and not in a point at the same time for in the Host it would be in a point and in Heaven it would not be in a point at the same time Therefore seeing it is impossible that one and the same body at one and the same time should be eaten and not eaten should be in a point and not in a point it is also impossible that Christs body should be both in Heaven and in the Host at the same time 8 The fourth Argument is this Two relatives are always different as the Father and Son the Husband and the Wife c. and relation is always between two things that really differ as the equality between two Ells the resemblance between two Crows c. In a word nothing can have relation to it self but whatsoever hath relation must necessarily have it to something else as appears by the definition of Relation But to be distant is a relative and not an absolute term for when we conceive an absolute term we conceive but one thing as when we conceive a Crow but when we conceive a relative term we necessarily conceive two things For example We cannot conceive a Crow to be like without conceiving something else to which it is like Seeing then we cannot conceive a thing to be distant without conceiving something else from which it is distant it is evident that to be distant is a relative term and that distant things are relatives and consequently are really different Whence I form this Argument Relative things are really different as hath been proved But the body that is at Rome is distant from that which is at Paris by reason of the space of about 300 leagues that is between those two Cities and the body that is in the highest heavens is distant from that which is upon earth by reason of the many thousands of leagues that are between heaven and earth Therefore the body that is at Rome is different from that which is at Paris and that which is in heaven is different from that which is upon earth and consequently one and the same body cannot be at the same time at Rome and at Paris in Heaven and upon Earth else one and the same body might be distant and different from it self which is a contradiction Therefore seeing Jesus Christ is not distant and different from himself it follows that he cannot be at the same time in Heaven and in the Host nor at the same time in the consecrated Hosts at Rome and at Paris 9. But
antiquity and of the conformity of their Creed to that of the Primitive Church and yet can so openly renounce both in this chief and principal point of doctrine 3. Here the Romish Doctors now adays think to shelter themselves by telling us it is true that Jesus Christ did institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both the species of the Bread and Wine and that the Primitive Church did so celebrate it not by any express command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles but meerly by Ecclesiasâ—ical policy which may be changed as several occasions and circumstances require And they add That it is sufficient to observe that which is of the essence of the Sacrament viz. to receive the body and bloud of Christ but that the Church may change that which is accidental viz. to receive them under both the species or under one species only for they will have it that the bloud of Christ is under the species of the Bread by concommitance and that his body is under the species of the Wine by concommitance because Jesus Christ being now glorious his body and bloud cannot be separated 4. To this I reply First That there is an express command of Jesus Christ to take the Cup and drink St. Matth. 26. in these words drink ye all of it To this the Romish Doctors answer That the word all is not extended to all men for then we should say that the Eucharistical Cup ought to be given to Turks Jews and all other Infidels And they add that the word all doth not extend to all those that are of the body of the Church of the Elect for then the Eucharistical cup should be given to little children whom God hath elected to eternal life But say they the word all is extended only to all those to whom Jesus Christ gave the cup viz. to the Apostles considered as they were Pastors 5. To this I reply That although Jesus Christ gave this command to drink of the Eucharistical cup to his Apostles only yet we must know in what quality they received this command But it was not in the quality of Apostles for then none but Apostles could partake of the cup and there being now no more Apostles it should be quite taken away and so Mass could be no more celebrated And it was not in quality of Pastors or sacrificing Priests for Jesus Christ was then the only Sacrificer as the Romish Doctors say and the Apostles did not then exercise the function of sacrificing Priests Besides it belongs to Pastors and those that administer the Sacraments being publick persons to give but to private persons to receive only But the Apostles in the celebration of the Eucharist did only receive of Jesus Christ their Master and Pastor Therefore they received the command to drink of the cup as they were Believers Whence it follows that all the faithful that partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist are obliged by the command of Jesus Christ to drink of the cup. So then the Romish Doctors are mistaken when they tell us that none but Priests that sacrifice have a right to drink of the cup and that those Priests that do not sacrifice must communicate under the species of the bread only for at that time the Apostles did not sacrifice To this may be added that if the command of Jesus Christ drink ye all of it was spoken to Pastors only because they to whom Christ spake were Pastors then it follows that the command of Jesus Christ Take eat was spoken to Pastors because they to whom Jesus Christ spake were Pastors and so the people will not be obliged by any command to communicate under the species of the bread and consequently will be wholy deprived of the Sacrament which is very absurd and contrary to Christian Religion 6. Secondly I say That in 1 Cor. 1. there is an express command to all the Faithful to drink of the cup in these words Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. In which words the Apostle speaks to all Believers who no doubt have cause to examine themselves And this is apparent because St. Paul directs his Epistle and consequently these words to all those of the Church of Corinth as well Lay-men as Ecclesiastical for in chap. 1. vers 2. he directs it to all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. To this I add That Jesus Christ doth not only say as often as ye eat this bread but also as often as ye drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come so that we do as much commemorate Christs death by partaking of the cup in the Eucharist as we do by partaking of the bread And this is very proper for seeing that not only the body of Christ was broken but also his bloud shed on the Cross and that in every propitiation and expiation for sin the effusion of bloud was very considerable because it represents death better then any thing else doth it is certain that they do not celebrate the memory of Christs death as they ought that do not partake of this part of the Sacrament whereby only we commemorate the effusion of Christs bloud 7. Thirdly I say that in the dispute about the Eucharist our Adversaries do alledge to us the words of Jesus Christ in chap. 6. of St. Johns Gospel Except ye drink the bloud of the son of man ye have no life in you Why then do they deprive the people of life by taking the cup from them and hindering them from drinking And it is not at all to the purpose here to alledge concommitance and to tell us that by taking Christs body under the species of the bread we take his bloud also because 't is inseparable from his body For to this I answer First That to take Christs bloud in taking the host is not to drink it But Jesus Christ saith expresly Except a man drink his bloud he hath no life in him Secondly I say That although in some places by the body should be meant the body and bloud too yet it could not be in those places where a manifest distinction is made between the body and the bloud But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist this distinction is very apparent for Jesus Christ gave first the Sacrament and sign of his body in these words Take eat this is my body which is broken for you and then separately the Sacrament of his bloud in these words Drink ye all of it for this is my bloud which is shed for you And he not only speaks of them separately but represents them as really separated in his death for he saith my body broken for you and my bloud shed for you In which words there is no place for concomitance for the body broken by divers wounds doth not contain the bloud and the bloud being shed is not contained in the body Also our Adversaries affirm
not be appeased but by the bloudy and ignominious death of the Cross Therefore the justice of God must have changed its nature if sins can be expiated in the Mass without pain or suffering 20. Thirdly To the distinction of Primitive sacrifice which was offered on the Cross and representative commemorative and applicative which is daily offered in the Mass I reply First That what the Council of Trent saith in Session 22. viz. that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Mass may bear a good sense viz. that there is in it a representation commemoration and application of the sacrifice of the Cross viz. a representation because the bread broken represents the body broken and the wine poured into the cup represents the bloud of Christ shed for the remission of sins a commemoration because all that is done in it is done in remembrance of Jesus Christ and his death according to his own command in these words Do this in remembrance of me and according to what St. Paul saith 1 Cor. 11. As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come and an application because the merit of the sacrifice of the Cross is applied to us not only by the word but also by the Sacraments as we shall shew hereafter But our Adversaries are not content with this for they will have it that in the celebration of the Eucharist there is offered a true and proper sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the living and the dead which hath been already refuted at large Secondly I say that the application of the sacrifice of the Cross may be considered on Gods part or on mans part on Gods part when he offers Jesus Christ to us with all his benefits both in his Word and Sacraments on mans part when by a true and lively faith working by love we embrace Jesus Christ with all his benefits offered to us both in his Word and Sacraments And this is it that Jesus Christ teacheth us St. John 3. in these words As Moses lifted up the serpent in the Wilderness even so must the Son of man be lifted up viz. on the Cross that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son viz. to die that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life he doth not say whosoever sacrificeth him in the Mass but whosoever believeth c. And St. Paul shews it clearly in these words God hath set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud he doth not say through the sacrifice of the Mass but through faith And we really and truly apply the sacrifice of Christs Cross when we have recourse to him as a man applies a Plaister when he hath recourse to it and lays it on the wound But the recourse or refuge of a penitent sinner to the sacrifice of the Cross for obtaining mercy from God is nothing else but Faith As for the distinction of the sacramental and natural being of Jesus Christ it hath been already refuted in the 6. Number 21. I shall conclude this discourse with the testimony of Thomas Aquinas the most famous of all the Romish Doctors and called by our Adversaries the Angelical Doctor This Thomas in Part. 3. Quest 83. Artic. 1. having proposed this Question viz. Whether Christ be sacrificed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist he concludes with these memorable words The celebration of this Sacrament is very fitly called a sacrificing of Christ as well because it is the representation of Christs Passion as because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion And afterward he gives his answer in these words I answer We must say that the celebration of this Sacrament is called a sacrificing of Christ in two respects First Because as Augustine to Simplicius saith we are wont to give to Images the name of the things whereof they are Images as when we see Pictures on a Wall or in a Frame we say this is Cicero that is Salust c. But the celebration of this Sacrament as hath been said above is a representative Image of Christs Passion which Passion is the true sacrificing of Christ and so the celebration of this Sacrament is the sacrificing of Christ. Secondly The celebration of this Sacrament is called the sacrificing of Christ in regard of the effect of Christs Passion because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion Let the Romanists keep to this decision of their Angelical Doctor and we shall agree with them in this point for I am confident that there is not one of the Reformed Religion but will subscribe this true doctrine of Thomas Aquinas CHAP. VIII Containing Answers to the Objections of the Romish Doctors 1. IN the two first Chapters we have answered the two principal Objections of the Romish Doctors drawn from these words This is my body c. and from these he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life c. Now we must answer the rest Objection 1. 2. The first Objection is this When the establishing of Articles of Faith the Institution of Sacraments and the making Testaments and Covenants are in agitation men speak plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuravitely But in the celebration of the Eucharist Jesus Christ established an Article of Faith instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist and spake of a Testament and a Covenant for it is said of the Cup that it is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ yea he spake then to his Disciples to whom he spake in plain and proper terms and not in obscure terms or in figures or parables as he did to the people Answer 3. To this objection I answer First That it is false that Articles of Faith are always expressed in proper terms in holy Scripture as when it is said in the Creed that Jesus Christ sitteth on the right hand of God it is evident that this is a Figure and a Metaphor for God being a Spirit hath neither right hand nor left and all interpreters expound this sitting on Gods right hand metaphorically viz. for that Lordship both of Heaven and Earth which he hath received from God his Father as earthly Princes make their Lieutenants whom they appoint to govern in their name to sit on the right side of them Again When it is said St. Matth. 16. Vpon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it and I will give thee the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. It is manifest that these are Figures and Metaphors as Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Bishop of Rome chap. 10. and yet it is
doth their bodies this being corruptible food which gives temporal life only but that spiritual and incorruptible food which gives life eternal 6. I conclude this Chapter with this consideration When a doctrine is proposed which is pretended to be divine and that passages of holy Scripture are alledged for the proof of it if it opposeth or seems to oppose sense and reason and to include contradictions and that a more suitable and rational sense can be found out for those passages so that all these inconveniences and contradictions may be avoided there is nothing more just than that we should embrace that probable and rational sense and reject that doctrine which opposeth sense and reason and seems to imply contradictions But the doctrine of the real presence of the Manhood of Jesus Christ in the Host and the transubstantiation of the Bread into his Body is repugnant to sense and reason and seems to include divers contradictions viz. that a humane body is in a point without any local extension that a body may be in divers places at one and the same time that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ which were before that accidents may be without a subject c. And the passages that are impertinently alledged to prove such a presence and such a change have a sense very commodious and rational for the avoiding all these contradictions as appears in this and the former Chapter where I have very rationally expounded those two passages which the Romish Doctors impertinently make use of for this subject Therefore they ought to embrace that commodious and rational sense which we have given them and to reject the doctrine of the real presence of the body of Jesus Christ in the Host and the doctrine of Transubstantiation CHAP. III. Against Transubstantiation 1. TRansubstantiation is the substantial conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ which I destroy by divers Arguments the first whereof is this In every substantial conversion that thing into which another thing is converted is always newly produced For example when seed is converted into an animal that animal is newly produced when Jesus Christ turned the water into wine the wine was newly produced c. But the Body and Bloud of Christ cannot be newly produced in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Therefore the Bread and Wine are not substantially converted into the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist The second Proposition viz. that the Body and Bloud of Christ cannot be newly produced I prove thus That which is newly produced receives a new being because to produce a thing and to give it a being is one and the same But the Body and Bloud of Christ cannot receive a new being which I prove thus A man cannot receive â—â—â—t which he hath while he hath it and therefore he cannot receive a being while he hath a being for as it is impossible to take away a being from that which hath no being so it is impossible to give a being to that which hath a being already and as you cannot kill a dead man so you cannot give life to one that is living But the Body and Bloud of Christ have and always will have a being Therefore they cannot receive one and consequently cannot be reproduced in the Eucharist 2. My second Argument is this In every substantial conversion that thing which is converted into another is destroyed For example When the water was turned into wine the water was destroyed But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Bread and Wine are not destroyed by the consecration which I prove thus In the celebration of the Eucharist there is breaking giving eating and drinking after the consecration as appears by the very practice of our Adversaries who after consecration break the Host and divide it into three parts give nothing to the Communicants but consecrated Hosts and eat and drink nothing but what was consecrated But the Scripture saith that in the celebration of the Eucharist Bread is broken that Bread and Wine are given and that Bread is eaten and Wine drunk as appears by these following passages St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. saith The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ and 1 Cor. 11. St. Matth. 26. St. Mark 14. and St. Luke 22. it is said that Jesus Christ took bread brake it and gave it and St. Mark 14. and St. Matth. 26. Jesus Christ after he had participated of the Sacrament of the Eucharist saith I will drink no more of this fruit of the Vine and 1 Cor. 11. As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. 3. Secondly When Jesus Christ said to his Disciples Drink ye all of this St. Matth. 26. that is drink ye all of this cup either he commanded to drink of a cup of Wine or of a cup of Bloud if he commanded them to drink of a cup of Wine then it follows that they drank nothing but Wine because it is certain that they obeyed Jesus Christ for it is said St. Mark 14. that they all drank â—f it Or if he commanded them to drink of a cup of Bloud then it follows that the Wine was already changed into his Bloud because it is not probable that Jesus Christ said to them Drink ye all of this cup of Bloud and yet that it was not a cup of Bloud but a cup of Wine But when Jesus Christ said Drink ye all of this he did not speak to them of a cup of Bloud for the Wine was not then converted into Christs Bloud because according to our Adversaries it was not changed until Jesus Christ had made an end of uttering these following words for this is my bloud But he uttered these words Drink ye all of this before he uttered those for this is my bloud because a man must utter a Proposition before he can give the reason of it 4. Thirdly When a thing is converted into another we cannot see the effects and properties of the thing converted but only of that into which it is converted For example When the seed is changed into an animal we can see no more the effects and properties of the seed but of the animal only and when Jesus Christ turned the Water into Wine the effects properties and accidents of the Water were no more seen but of the Wine only c. But in the Eucharist we cannot after the consecration perceive the effects properties accidents or parts of the Body and Bloud of Christ but we see there all the effects properties and accidents of Bread and Wine Therefore in the Eucharist the Bread and Wine are not converted into the Body and Bloud of Christ And the truth is if that which appears to be Bread and hath all the effects accidents and properties of Bread be not
Bread but Christs Body cloathed with the accidents of Bread then it may likewise be said that they that appear to be men and have all the effects properties and accidents of men are not men but horses cloathed with the accidents of men 5. The fourth Argument is this In every substantial conversion there must be a subject to pass from one substance to another for then it would be a Creation which is the sole action that doth not presuppose a subject But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist after the consecration there is no subject because according to our Adversaries there remains no subject for as they assert the accidents of Bread and Wine remain without any subject at all Therefore in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is no substantial conversion 6. The fifth Argument is drawn from hence That Transubstantiation destroys the nature of accidents thus That doctrine which asserts that accidents are not accidents but substances destroys the nature and essence of accidents because it is impossible that an accident can be a substance But the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that accidents are not accidents but that they are substances which I prove thus That doctrine which asserts that accidents are not inherent but that they subsist of themselves doth assert that accidents are not accidents but that they are substances because inherence is the essential difference of an accident and subsistence the essential difference of a substance But the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that accidents are not inherent but that they subsist which I prove thus That doctrine which asserts that accidents may be without a subject viz. the accidents of Bread and Wine without any substance and without any subject to sustain them for by Transubstantiation the substance of the Bread and Wine is gone and their accidents remain Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation asserts that accidents are not inherent but do subsist by themselves and consequently asserts that accidents are not accidents but substances and so destroys the nature and essence of accidents But here it may be said that actual inherence doth not constitute an accident but aptitudinal only Against which I form this Argument Whatsoever doth exist actually either it exists in something else actually so that it cannot be without it which Philosophers call actual inherence as walking or else it exists in and by it self actually so that it may be alone by it self which Philosophers term actual existence the former of these constitutes an accident and the latter constitutes a substance But the accidents of the Bread and Wine after consecration do exist actually Therefore they must exist either in something else actually or in themselves actually But they do not exist in and by themselves actually for then they would subsist by themselves and be real substances which is impossible Therefore they exist in something else actually viz. in the substance of the Bread and Wine and consequently the substance of the Bread and Wine remains after the Consecration and so there can be no Transubstantiation 7. The sixth Argument is drawn from this That Transubstantiation destroys the nature of Sacraments because every Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent saith in Sess 6. and every sign relates to the thing signified so that we must speak of signs and Sacraments as of things relating to something else But all relative things have as it were a double being viz. an absolute being which is the natural being of the thing and a relative being whereby it relates to something else For example In a man that hath begotten a child we consider his absolute and natural being as he is a man as others are and his relative being whereby he is a Father and is distinguished from other men that have no children and so are not Fathers So in the Sacrament of Baptism the sign viz. the Water hath an absolute and natural being viz. it s cold and moist substance whereby it is water as other waters are and a relative sacramental and significative being whereby it is the sign and Sacrament of Christs Bloud and differs from other waters that are not imployed for this sacred use Even so in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Bread and Wine which are the signs have their natural and absolute being viz. their substance whereby they are Bread and Wine as other Bread and Wine which we commonly use and their relative sacramental and significative being whereby they are the Sacrament and signs of the Body and Bloud of Christ and differ from all other Bread and Wine that is not thus imployed To this I add That it is impossible a relative being should be without an absolute because a relative cannot be without its foundation For example It is impossible to be a Father without being a Man to be equal without quantity c. And this being granted I form my Argument thus That which takes away the natural being from signs and Sacraments destroys their nature and essence because the relative and sacramental being cannot be without the absolute and natural as hath been proved But the doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys the natural being of the Bread and Wine which are signs and Sacraments of Christs Body and Bloud for by transubstantiation the whole substance of the Bread and Wine is destroyed Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation destroys the nature and essence of Sacraments 8. To this Argument our Adversaries answer That in the Eucharist the Bread and Wine are not signs because by the consecration they are destroyed as to their substance But some of them say that the signs are the accidents of the Bread and Wine others say that the Body and Bloud of Christ contained under the accidents of the Bread and Wine are the signs of the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ crucified Lastly others say that neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine only nor the Body and Bloud of Christ only but the Body and Bloud of Christ together with the accidents of the Bread and Wine are the signs of the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ crucified Therefore seeing the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not destroy the natural being of Christs Body and Bloud nor the natural being of the accidents of the Bread and Wine they maintain that the doctrine of Transubstantiation doth not destroy the nature and essence of Sacraments 9. To this I reply That neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine only nor the Body and Bloud of Christ only nor the Body and Bloud of Christ together with the accidents of the Bread and Wine are the true signs of Jesus Christ crucified but the Bread and Wine only which I prove thus First In Sacraments there ought to be an analogy and similitude between the sign and the thing signified as our Adversaries confess and particularly Card. Bellarmin Book 1. of the Sacrament chap. 9. in these words The fourth thing required in a Sacrament is that the
sign should have some similitude and analogy with the thing signified And he quotes St. Augustine in Epist 23. to Boniface speaking thus If Sacraments had not some similitude of the things whereof they are Sacraments they could be no Sacraments But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine nor the Body and Bloud of Christ whether jointly or severally have that similitude and analogy to the thing signified which is required but only the Bread and Wine in substance because that which is principally signified and represented by the signs in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the nourishment of our souls in the hope of eternal life for as Baptism is the Sacrament of our Regeneration and spiritual birth so the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment as Card. Bellarmin confesseth in Book 3. of the Eucharist chap. 9. and in Book 4. chap. 19 he saith that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was ordained to preserve spiritual life which cannot be represented and signified but by signs which can nourish our bodies for the analogy and similitude consists in this that as the signs have vertue to nourish our bodies for the preservation of temporal life so the things signified have a vertue to nourish our souls in the hope of eternal life But neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine nor the Body and Bloud of Christ whether severally or jointly with the accidents can nourish our bodies nourishment being essentially the conversion of aliment into the substance of a living body and it is certain that neither the accidents of Bread and Wine nor the Body and Bloud of Christ whether separately or jointly with them can be converted into our substance but only the substance of Bread and Wine and other aliments which we take Therefore neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine nor the Body and Bloud of Christ whether separately or jointly with them are the true signs but the Bread and Wine only which being the ordinary nourishment of our bodies do represent to us the spiritual nourishment of our souls by the Body and Bloud of Christ received by Faith 10. Secondly The Council of Trent in Session 13. commands that the Sacrament of the Eucharist shall be adored with Latrie which according to our Adversaries is the sovereign worship due to God only But the accidents of the Bread and Wine ought not to be adored because they are creatures and that God only must be adored Therefore the accidents of the Bread and Wine are not the Sacrament of the Eucharist Thirdly A Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent defines it in Sessions 6 and 13. But in the Eucharist the Body and Bloud of Christ are not visible Therefore in the Eucharist the body and bloud of Christ are not the signs Lastly I say that in every Sacrament the sign relates to the thing signified and Relation is always between two different things because nothing relates to it self and consequently nothing can be both the sign and thing signified But the Body and Bloud of Christ are the things signified Therefore the Body and Bloud of Christ are not the signs And it is to no purpose to say that Jesus Christ in the Mass is the sign and figure of himself on the Cross for Jesus Christ wheresoever he is is one and the same yesterday to day and for ever And therefore Jesus Christ not being different from himself cannot be relative to himself nor the sign of himself Other reasons which are usually alledged against Transubstantiation will be more properly mentioned in the next Chapter CHAP. IV. Against the real presence of Christs Body in the Host or consecrated Wafer 1. THe Romish Doctors affirm That immediately after the Priest in the celebration of the Mass hath pronounced these words this is my body the body of Christ is really present in the Host and that it is whole and entire in every part and point of the Host which doctrine I destroy by these following Arguments the first whreof is this 2. If a thing be created in a place either it must be produced there or it must come or be brought thither from some other place for it is impossible to find out a third way of putting any thing in a place And the Romish Doctors have hitherto been able to invent but one of these two ways of putting Christs Body in the Host the Jacobins telling us that it is brought thither from some other place and the Jesuites that it is produced there But the body of Christ can neither come nor be brought thither into the Host nor can it be produced there Therefore the body of Christ is not in the Host 3. First The body of Christ cannot come or be brought into the Host from any other place because it can come from no place but Heaven being no where but in Heaven But Christs body neither comes nor is brought from Heaven into the Host which I prove thus When a body comes or is carried from one place to another it must leave its first place For example if a man would go from Paris to Rome he must leave Paris But the body of Jesus Christ never leaves Heaven for the heavens must contain him until the time of the restitution of all things Acts 3. Therefore Christs body neither comes nor is brought from Heaven into the Host Besides it is impossible that Christs body should come or be brought into the host without passing through the space that is between Heaven and Earth where the consecrated Hosts are because a man cannot pass from one extream to another without passing through the space that is between them But the space between Heaven and Earth is too vast to be passed through in a moment for these Doctors will have it that immediately after the pronouncing of these words this is my body the body of Christ is brought into the Host Moreover it must in a moment be in all the Heavens and in all the Airs between the highest Heaven and this Earth where the Hosts are because a man cannot pass through a place without being there and then it would have three sorts of existences at once viz. one natural and glorious existence in Heaven one sacramental existence in the Host and one airy existence in the Air. But seeing all these things are absurd we must conclude that Christs body neither comes nor is brought into the Host 4. Secondly Christs body cannot be reproduced in the consecrated Host because a thing that is produced already cannot be produced again without a preceding destruction for as a dead man cannot be killed nor that be annihilated which is annihilated already so neither can that be produced which is produced already nor that receive a being which hath one already This common conception of all men is founded upon this principle That every action whether it produceth or destroyeth a thing must necessarily have
die there and at the same time not be hurt at Rome but alive and making merry there Besides Peter might be divisibly at Paris and indivisibly at Rome as Christs body according to our Adversaries is divisibly in heaven and indivisibly in the host But if at Paris where he should be divisibly his head should be cut off he would die and cease to be a man and at Rome where he should be indivisibly and in a point his head should not be cut off and so he should remain at the same time a living and real man which is a contradiction In a word Peter might be at Paris in the midst of flames and be burnt and reduced to ashes and consequently should die and be no man whereas at the same time he might be at Rome in the River Tiber sound and brisk and consequently be a true living man whence it follows that he might be a man and no man which is a contradiction 14. To this may be added other absurdities that would follow from this Position that one body may be in divers places at once viz. That one Candle lighted might give light to all the World if it were reproduced in all places of the World That a great Army might be made of one man reproduced in a hundred thousand adjoining places That all the debts in the World might be paid with one Crown reproduced as many times as there be Crowns due That all the people in the World might quench their thirst with one Pottle of Wine reproduced as many times as there be inhabitants in the World That all the men in the World might drink in one and the same Glass reproduced as many times as there be men in the World whereupon a man might be so curious as to ask whether if this Glass should be broken at Paris it would also be broken at Rome Constantinople and other places That one man reproduced in an hundred thousand places might at the same time marry an hundred thousand wives and lie with them whereupon a man might desire to know whether these women might not conceive and every one of them be delivered of a child at the end of nine months and consequently it may be said that one man did in one night beget a hundred thousand children c. 15. The seventh Argument is this If Christs body were in the host it would be seen there for being there in its glory as the Romish Doctors say it is it would be there more visibly then it was when he conversed amongst men here below because the glory of Christs body doth principally consist in the brightness and splendor of an extraordinary light like to that which it had upon Mount Tabor but who dares affirm that such a glorious body is not visible wheresoever it is and yet it is certain that Christs body is not to be seen in the host which is an evident sign that it is not there But it may be said that Christs body is under the accident of the Bread and that these accidents hide it from us To this I answer that according to our Adversaries Christs body is in the place where the substance of the Bread was But the substance of the Bread was not under the accidents and the accidents of the Bread were not upon their substance for then the substance of the Bread and its accidents had been in two different places above and under being two several differences of place and that which is under is not above c. Therefore Christs body cannot be under the accidents of the Bread and consequently the accidents do not hide it from us And seeing as our Adversaries say Christs body is in every part and point of the host it must needs be in the superficies and consequently cannot be hid or covered by the accidents of the Bread Here again it may be said that Christs body is glorious luminous and visible of it self but God hinders us from seeing it To this I answer That if God hinders it is only because he is pleased so to do and consequently if he were pleased not to hinder he would not do it but would permit it to be seen in the same posture as it is in the host Whereupon I would ask our Adversaries in what posture it would be seen there whether sitting standing lying or in any other posture or whether it would be in any posture at all If it be in no posture it must be without any external form because posture or situation absolutely depends upon external form But how can a man be seen without an external form of a man and without being in any posture of a man and how can Christs body be without posture and without external form seeing as our Adversaries say it is whole and entire in the whole host and occupies the whole space of a great host But if it be sitting or standing or in any other posture and with the external form of a man and if as they say it be whole and entire in a point of the host then it will follow that a man may be seen sitting or standing in a point and seeing a man that is standing hath his head above and his feet below it will follow that Jesus Christ will be seen in a point of the host with his head above and his feet below though in a point there be nothing above or below To this I add That if it could be seen in the host it would appear as big as the host because it would occupy the whole space of the host and it would appear round because it would be bounded by the space that the host occupies which is round Besides if the host should be divided into two equal parts it would appear less by one half and in the form of a half circle because it would be whole and entire in the half of the host and occupy the space of it It would also appear a hundred thousand times less and in a hundred thousand several forms for as they say it is whole and entire in a hundred thousand parts of the host and occupies the spaces of them In a word There was never such a monstrous thing seen in the World as Christs body would be if it were really in the host in such a manner as our Adversaries affirm it to be 16. The eighth Argument is this Either the Manhood of Jesus Christ which is pretended to be in the host can act there or it cannot if it cannot act then it follows that it cannot see hear know or love or exercise any other function of the sensitive or rational soul But if the Manhood of Christ in the host knows nothing nor loves nothing then it follows that it will not be happy because happiness chiefly consists in the knowledge and love of God Also the Manhood of Christ in the host will be different from his Manhood in heaven for it will know in heaven and at the same time know
nothing in the host it will love in heaven and love nothing in the host it will see in heaven and see nothing in the host But if Christs Manhood can act in the host as it doth in heaven then it will follow that it will open its eyes and move its feet in a point because according to our Adversaries it is whole and entire in every point of the host And being as they tell us God can as easily put the whole World into a point as he doth the whole Manhood of Christ into a point of the host it will follow that all the parts of the World existing in a point may do in it all those actions which they now do in a vast space as the parts of Christs Manhood existing in a point of the host can do in it all those actions which they do in heaven and so in a less space then is occupied by a grain of Corn the Sun may move from East to West the Sea may have its flouds and ebbs and the English may have a Sea-fight with the Spaniards In a word A Sparrow may easily swallow all the World seeing the World will not occupy so much space as a grain of Corn doth and yet the World which it shall swallow will be as great as it is at present even as Christs body in the host is as big and as tall as it was on the Cross as our Adversaries affirm 17. The ninth Argument is this As a body cannot be in a place except it be produced there or that it comes or be brought thither from some other place so a body cannot cease to be in a place without being destroyed or going to some other place and consequently if Christs body ceaseth to be in the host after the consumption of the accidents it must necessarily either perish or go to some other place But Christs body cannot perish for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. And Christs body goes to no other place for if it should go to any other place it would go to heaven But it cannot go to heaven because it is there already and a man cannot go to a place where he is already Therefore Christs body doth not cease to be in the host Whence it follows that either Christs body still remains in the host and that it is impossible that should be consumed or else that it never was in the host But every one knows by experience that the hosts are eaten and consumed and that Christs body cannot be there after the consumption of the accidents of the bread Therefore it never was in the host 18. The tenth Argument is drawn from hence That the pretended presence of Christs body in the host destroys the nature of Christs body thus The properties of a Species are incommunicable to every other Species For example The properties of a man are incommunicable to a beast for seeing the properties flow from the essence or are the very essence it self it is evident that if the essence of a Species be incommunicable to another Species then the properties of a Species are also incommunicable to another But the body and the Spirit are the two Species of substance Therefore the properties of the Spirit cannot be communicated to the body as the properties of the body cannot be communicated to the spirit But there are two principal properties which distinguish bodies from spirits The first is That spirits are substances that are penetrable amongst themselves that is may be together in one and the same place but bodies are impenetrable substances amongst themselves that is they cannot be together in one and the same place The second is That bodies are in a place circumscriptively that is all the body is in all the place but all the body is not in every part of the place but the parts of the body are in the parts of the place but spirits are in a place definitively that is all the spirit is in all the place and all the spirit is in every part of the place because a spirit having no parts must necessarily be all wheresoever it is Whence I form my Argument thus That doctrine which gives to a body the properties of a spirit changes the body into a spirit and consequently destroys the nature of a body seeing properties cannot be communicated without the essence But the doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host gives to a body the properties of a spirit because it affirms that the quantity of Christs body penetrates the quantity of the Bread and is in the same place with it that all the parts of Christs body are penetrated amongst themselves and are all in one and the same place and that Christs body is all in all the host and all in every part of the host Therefore the doctrine of the Romish Church touching the pretended presence of Christs body in the host destroys the nature of Christs body 19. The eleventh Argument is drawn from hence That Jesus Christ being sate at Gods right hand is in a glorious estate and yet the doctrine of the pretended presence of Christs body in the host subjects him to divers ignominies viz. that his body goes into peoples bellies and amongst their excrement that it is subject to be eaten by his enemies yea by Mice and other Beasts Hear what Claude de Xaintes a famous Romish Doctor saith of it Repet 5. Chap. 2. Of all these we exclude not one from the true and corporal receiving of the Lords flâ—sh in the Sacrament let him be Turk Atheist Infidel or Hypocrite yea though he should be the Devil himself incarnate It is also subject to be stoln for about 25 years since a Thief was executed at Paris for stealing out of a Church the Chalice and this God in it and the Priest went to the Prison in his sacerdotal Ornaments and falling on his knees before the Thiefs pocket pulled his God out of it And as it is a God that cannot keep himself from being stoln so neither can he keep himself from being burnt as it appeared when the Palace-Hal at Paris was burnt In short The host or God of the Mass hath been seen in the hands of one possessed by the Devil and consequently in the Devils power yea there are charms made by the Romish Priests to compel the Devil to restore God to them A horrible and prodigious thing to put God into the Devils power and into a capacity of being eaten by the Devil incarnate especially seeing he is now glorious in heaven 20 The twelfth Argument is drawn from hence That God doth no miracles without necessity But what necessity is there that he should do so many miracles in this Sacrament viz. that accidents should be without a subject that the Bread should be converted into Christs body which is already that Christs body should be in a point and in a hundred thousand places at once What necessity is there that it should be eaten
appears there 16. To the three foregoing Propositions I add this Argument which is very considerable In lawful adoration it is requisite that he that adores be well assured that what he adores is the true God else he may justy be reproached as Jesus Christ reproached the woman of Samaria Ye worship ye know not what But the Romanists can never be assured according to their own maxims that the host which they worship is the true God and they have always cause to suspect that they worship a morsel of Bread in stead of the Redeemer of the World because according to their own doctrine the real presence of Christs body in the host depends on lawful consecration and lawful consecration depends on the quality of the Priest and on the pronouncing of the words of consecration and on his intention in pronouncing them for there is no consecration as they say when either he that celebrates Mass is no Priest or doth not pronounce the words that are essentially requisite to consecration viz. this is my body c. or doth not pronounce them with intention to consecrate and consequently in these cases the host remains meer bread But it is impossible certainly to know these three things For as for the quality of the Priest he must have been baptized and he that baptized him must have observed the essential form of Baptism and have had intention to baptize him Again he must have received Ordination from a true Bishop and the Bishop must have observed the essential form of Ordination and have had intention to make him a Priest and to make this Bishop a true Bishop he must have been baptized in due form and with the requisite intention and must have received Ordination in due form and with the requisite intention from other Bishops and they again for the making them true Bishops must also have received Baptism and Ordination in due form and with the requisite intention from other true Bishops and these from others and so back to the Apostles But who can be assured that from the Apostles to a Bishop or Priest now adays there hath been no failing either in the essential form of Baptism or Ordination or in the requisite intention As for the pronouncing of the words requisite to consecration none but the Priest can know whether he hath pronounced them or not because in the celebration of the Mass those words are pronounced so softly that no person present can hear them And as for the intention it is evident that no man but himself can know it Besides It is known that some Priests are Magicians as Lewis Goffredi and other wicked Priests who do neither consecrate in due form nor with the requisite intention especially such as believe nothing of what they profess yea divers Monks and Priests that have been converted to our Religion have assured us that for a long time before their conversion they did abhor the Idolatry that was practised in the adoration of the host Judge then if such persons as these had any intention to consecrate in the celebration of the Mass 17. The Romish Doctors have sought all the remedies imaginable to prevent this danger Pope Adrian Quest 3. speaks thus In the adoration of the Eucharist there is always a tacite condition viz. if the consecration be duly made as bath been decided at the Council of Constance otherwise they could not be excused from idolatry that worship the host when the Priest pretends to celebrate but celebrates not or pretends to celebrate and is no Priest as it many times happens Observe these words it many times happens for they shew that there is great cause of doubting and that much caution must be used For as if a woman in her husbands absence should say to a man that comes to her and tells her he is her husband and she hath probable grounds to suspect him If thou art my husband I will receive thee and thereupon endeavours to clear it before she admits him to any privacy this condition frees her promise from blame but if she gives her self up to him before she clears this doubt saying I will receive thee if thou art my husband this condition doth not free her action from blame but she will be reputed an adulteress Even so if a man to whom an host is proposed to be adored and he hath reason to doubt whether it ought to be adored should only say If thou art Christ I will adore thee and should not adore it before he be well assured of it this condition would render him blameless but if notwithstanding his doubt he adores it this condition if thou art Christ I adore thee doth not exempt him from the crime of Idolatry for to what purpose is the condition whether it be tacite or exprest I adore thee if thou art Christ because he actually adores it without knowing whether it be so or not 18. To what hath been said I add That the Primitive Church never adored the host nor believed that the body and bloud of Christ were really and invisibly in the Sacrament of the Eucharist for if the Christians of the Primitive Church had believed it they had furnished the Heathens with specious pretences to excuse the idolatry of their Image-worship and to retort upon the Christians those very arguments which they had made use of against them 19. First The Heathens did maintain that their Idols were composed of two things viz. of a visible Image and an invisible Deity dwelling in it They bring their gods saith St. Chrysostom in Theodoret in Atrep into their base images of wood and stone and shut them up there as in a prison Your gods saith Arnobius Book 6. dwell in Plaister and Baked Earth and that they may make these materials more venerable they suffer themselves to be shut up and to remain hid and detained in an obscure Prison But might not the Heathens have justly replied to the Ancient Christians if they had believed what the Romish Doctors do now adays And do not you believe the very same of your host that it is composed of two things viz. of the visible species of bread and the invisible body of Christ which is hid under the species Doth not your Christ dwell in baked dough and that he may make a piece of bread more venerable doth he not suffer himself to be shut up and doth he not remain hid as in a Prison 20. Secondly The Heathens held that consecration was the means whereby the Deity which they adored was made present in the Image So Tertullian in his Apolog. chap. 12. saith I find nothing to object against Images but that the matter of them is such as our Frying-pans and Kettles are made of which changeth its destiny by consecration And Minutius Felix speaks thus of a Pagan Image Behold it is melted forged fashioned and yet it is not God behold it is gilded finished erected and yet it is not God behold it is adorned consecrated
that the sacramental words do operate that which they signifie But by their own confession they signifie the separation of Christs body from his bloud as Card. Perron acknowledgeth in his reply to the King of Great Britain pag. 1108. in these words The scope of the entireness of this Sacrament is to put us in mind that this body and this bloud which we receive were divided by his death on the Cross whence St. Paul saith as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup we shew the Lords death till he come Thirdly I say That as he that eats bread dipt in wine hath indeed wine in his mouth but doth not drink it so he that should eat or swallow a consecrated host would not drink Christs bloud though it were in it 8. Lastly I say That seeing the Sacraments were instituted to assure us the more of the truth of Gods promises and that all our comfort depends on this perswasion that all Gods promises are most true it necessarily follows that as much of the Sacrament as is taken away so much of the certainty of this perswasion is diminished And 't is to no purpose to say that one part of the Sacrament doth as much confirm Gods promises as the whole Sacrament doth for if it be so then God hath unnecessarily instituted two Sacraments for it had been enough to have instituted Baptism only seeing it is ordained to confirm Gods promises But if for such a confirmation two Sacraments are better then one and if two pledges and two seals for that purpose are of more consequence then one alone then in one Sacrament also two signs are of more weight then one alone for the confirmation of Gods promises and seeing it is said St. Luke 22. and 1 Cor. 11. that the cup is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ because it is the Sacrament of it why then are people deprived of it 9. As for the imaginary dangers and scandals which the Romish Doctors find in peoples partaking of the cup I say in general that Jesus Christ in whom the treasures of wisdom are hid and in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily foresaw them as well as they and yet he instituted and administred the cup and commanded all to drink of it And St. Paul who was extraordinarily inspired by the Holy Ghost doth notwithstanding these pretended dangers and scandals command the Corinthians as well Lay persons as Ecclesiastical to drink of the cup as hath been already proved 10. The first inconvenience which our Adversaries find in peoples partaking of the cup is that they fear they may dip their moustaches in the Chalice and so the bloud of Christ may remain on some hair of the moustache also they fear that the species of the wine and consequently Christs bloud may fall to the ground and being fallen it cannot be gathered up again To this I answer First That Women Eunuchs and such young men as have no beards ought not to be excluded Secondly It is better to be without Moustaches then without the participation of the whole Sacrament Thirdly This inconvenience proceeds only from a false supposition viz. that Christs bloud is under the species of the wine but if in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there be nothing but Bread and Wine in substance and any of it should fall to the ground accidentally and not through any fault of ours this inconvenience is not great enough to violate the institution and command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles 11. The second inconvenience is That it is almost impossible to observe this Law where there is a great number of people and but one Priest To this I answer First That in places where there is much people as in Cities there are divers Priests Secondly If one Priest be not enough another must be called from some neighbouring place Thirdly That which cannot be done in one day must be done in two or three days rather then the command of Jesus Christ should be violated and the practice of the Primitive Church abandoned 12. The third inconvenience is that some have a natural antipathy or aversion to Wine and consequently cannot drink of the cup. To this I answer That because corporal actions do depend on certain natural powers they are supposed to be commanded to those that have natural powers proper to exercise those actions and to none else For example The hearing of Gods Word is not commanded to deaf persons but to those that can hear it but drinking of Wine is a corporal action and therefore commanded to those only that can drink it So that if the cup must be taken from all Lay-people because some of them have a natural antipathy to Wine then the preaching of the Gospel must be taken from Christians because some of them are deaf and cannot hear it 13. The fourth inconvenience is That there are some Countries where no Wine grows as in Lapland Norway c. To this I answer First That although no Wine grows in those Countries yet some may be brought thither Secondly But if none can be brought without being spoiled and its form changed then it is better to substitute the ordinary drink of the Country in stead of Wine Thirdly But if this common drink of the Country may not be substituted in stead of Wine then they that cannot have Wine do abstain from it because they are forced thereunto and it is neither impudence nor contempt to abstain from a thing commanded by Jesus Christ when it is not to be had but to ordain that they that have wine in abundance shall abstain from the cup is an insufferable boldness and a most unchristian contempt of the Sacrament CHAP. VII Against the Mass 1. THe Mass according to the Romish Doctors is a Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of Christ propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead and so it is defined by the Council of Trent Session 22. Against such a Mass we might alleadge all the Arguments already made use of against Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host for our Adversaries confess that those reasons which destroy Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host do also destroy the Mass But in this Chapter we shall only use such Arguments as are directly against the Mass and do utterly destroy it 2. The first Argument is drawn from this viz. that in the institution and first celebration of the Eucharist Jesus Christ did not sacrifice nor offer his body and bloud to his Father as appears by what is mentioned in the three Evangelists and the Apostle St. Paul in which there is not the least foot-step to be seen of a sacrifice or oblation of Christs body and bloud This Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 27. in these words The oblation which is made after consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament but is not
of its essence which I prove because neither our Lord nor his Apostles did make this oblation at the first as we have demonstrated out of Gregory The Jesuite Salmeron in Tom. 13. of his Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul makes a Catalogue of unwritten Traditions in which he puts the Ecclesiastical Hierarchie the worshiping of Images the Mass the manner of sacrificing and the tradition that Jesus Christ did offer a sacrifice in the Bread and Wine Card. Baronius in his Annals on the year 53. freely confesseth that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is an unwritten Tradition A strange thing that the Mass which is the foundation of the Romish Church for the Doctors require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Jesus Christ And the truth is if Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist had offered unto God his Father a sacrifice of his Body and Bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should have been sacrificed again on the Cross because having already expiated our sins in the sacrifice of the Eucharist there was no need he should expiate them again on the Cross To this I add that St. Paul Ephes 4. 11. mentions the Offices which Jesus Christ left his Church when he ascended into Heaven in these words He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers but makes no mention at all of the Sacrificers of Christs body and bloud nor in 1 Tim. nor in the Epistle to Titus when he describes the duty of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons without making the least mention of this sacrificing of Christs body and bloud 3. The second Argument is drawn from the definition of a Sacrifice as it is given us by our Adversaries Card. Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 2. defines it thus Sacrifice is an external oblation made to God alone whereby in acknowledgment of humane infirmity and the divine Majesty the lawful Minister consecrates by a mystical ceremony and destroys something that is sensible and permanent From these last words viz. that the lawful Minister destroys something that is sensible I form two Arguments which destroy the sacrifice of the Mass The first is this In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses for our Adversaries say it is a sensible thing But the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the Mass under the accidents of the bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we find by experience Therefore the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be under the accidents of the bread and wine are not the thing sacrificed The second Argument is this In every true sacrifice the thing sacrificed must be utterly destroyed that is it must be so changed that it must cease to be what it was before as Bellarmin saith in express terms in the place above cited But in the pretended Sacrifice of the Mass Christs body and bloud are not destroyed for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore in the pretended Sacrifice of the Mass the body and bloud of Christ are not the thing sacrificed 4. To these two Arguments Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Mass ch 27. and other Romish Doctors answer that Christs body simply is not the thing sacrificed in the Mass but it is Christs body as it is under the species of the bread and that it is in reference to the species of the bread that Christs body is sensible and visible Secondly They answer that in the sacrifice of the Mass Christs body is destroyed in respect of its sacramental being but not in respect of its natural being for when it is eaten in the sacrament it ceaseth to be under the species of the bread 5 To these answers I reply First That Christ body is not visible by the species of the bread because as our Adversaries say that hides it from us and hinders us from seeing it And although a substance may be said to be visible and cognizable by its accidents yet it is never so by the accidents of another substance and consequently Jesus Christ may be said to be visible by his own accidents but not by the accidents of the bread which are just alike both in the consecrated and unconsecrated hosts and 't is a ridiculous shift to say that Christs body is visible under the species of the bread because that species is visible for as we cannot see Wine that is in a Hogshead because we see the Hogshead and we cannot see Money that is in a Purse closed because we see the Purse so neither can we see the body under the species of the bread because we see the species for as our Adversaries say that species hinders us from seeing it 6. Secondly I say That by the sacramental being is understood only an accidental being of Jesus Christ for example his presence in the Sacrament or else besides that is understood his substantial being too If his substantial being be also understood seeing the substantial being of a thing is nothing else but its substance and nature then it will follow that if Jesus Christ be destroyed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist in respect of his substantial being he must also be destroyed in respect of his natural being which is contrary to what the Apostle saith Rom. 6. that Jesus Christ dieth no more If an accidental being of Jesus Christ be only understood for example his presence in the Sacrament then these absurdities will follow viz. First That the sacrifice of the Mass will be the sacrifice of an accident only and not of Jesus Christ because the presence of Jesus Christ is not Jesus Christ himself but an accident of him Secondly It will follow that the sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross will not be the same sacrifice in reference to the thing sacrificed because Jesus Christ and his presence are not the same thing Jesus Christ being a substance and his presence an accident which is contrary to the decision of the Council of Trent which hath determined that the sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross are the same in reference to the thing sacrificed Thirdly It will follow that the thing which is destroyed in the Sacrament is not the same with that which was produced there because there is only an accident destroyed whereas a substance was produced by Transubstantiation which is a substantial conversion as hath been sufficiently proved Fourthly It will follow that the sacrifice of the Mass will be offered in the Priests stomach only because this presence is not destroyed till the Priest hath eaten the host and consequently the sacrifice of the Mass will be offered after the Mass for this presence is only destroyed by the destruction of the accidents and commonly these accidents are not destroyed till after
chiefly by this passage that they endeavour to prove the Popes authority 4. Secondly I answer That the holy Scripture commonly speaks of Sacraments in figurative terms thus Circumcision is called Gods Covenant Gen. 17. in these words This is my Covenant every male shall be circumcised that is this is the sign of the Covenant as appears by the following verse Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin and it shall be a token of the Covenant between me and you So the Paschal Lamb is called the Lords Passover Exod. 12. because the bloud of this Lamb sprinkled on the dore-posts was given as a sign of the Angels favourable passing over the houses of the Israelites as appears by verse 13. of the same Chapter So Baptism is called the washing of Regeneration because it is the Sacrament of it In a word The Eucharistical cup is called the New Testament because it is the sign seal and sacrament of it 5. Thirdly I answer That in holy Scripture Testaments are not always expressed in proper terms without a Figure for the Testament of Jacob Gen. 49. and that of Moses Deut. 33. are nothing else but a chain of Metaphors and other Figures And Civilians will have it that in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words but the intention of the Testator To this I add that Jesus Christ did not then make the New Testament and the New Covenant but only instituted the Seal and Sacrament of them For the Covenant was made with all mankind in the person of Adam after the Fall when God promised him that the seed of the Woman should break the Serpents head This was afterward renewed with Abraham when God promised him that in his seed all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed viz. in Christ the blessed seed who hath destroyed the Kingdom of Satan After this it was confirmed by the bloud of Christ shed on the Cross Then it was published through all the World when the Apostles had received the Holy Ghost And lastly Baptism and the Eucharist are the Signs Seals and Sacraments of it 6. Fourthly I answer That by these words To speak clearly or plainly be understood to speak intelligibly so that the Apostles might and ought to understand what he said to them then it is certain that Jesus Christ did speak clearly for to speak sacramentally and according to the stile used in all Sacraments was to speak clearly and not obscurely But if by these words to speak clearly be understood to speak without a figure then it is false that he always spake clearly to his Disciples witness the calling of his Disciples to whom he said St. Matth. 4. follow me and I will make you fishers of men And when he saith else where ye are the salt of the earth the light of the world c. To this I add The Apostles did ask Jesus Christ the meaning of Parables and other things which they did not understand and therefore certainly they had much more reason to ask the meaning of so many strange things as follow from the Mass from Transubstantiation and from the pretended presence of Christs body in the Host viz. how a humane body can be in a point and in divers places at once how the head of Jesus Christ and his whole body could be in his mouth how accidents can be without a subject c. 7. Lastly Seeing Jesus Christ said drink ye all of this cup all Priests whether Jesuites Monks or other Romish Doctors would of necessity be constrained really properly and without a figure to drink of the cup whether melted or not and really to swallow it until they should confess that there are figures in the words of Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist Objection 2. 8. The second Objection is this The Sacrament of the Eucharist is more excellent then that of the Passover because the Sacrament of the Passover is a type of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the thing typified is always more excellent then the type But if the Sacrament of the Eucharist did not really contain the body and bloud of Christ but was only the sign of it then it would follow that the Sacrament of the Eucharist would not be more excellent then that of the Passover nay the Sacrament of the Passover would be more excellent then that of the Eucharist because a Lamb and its bloud is more excellent then Bread and Wine and the death of a Lamb and the shedding of its bloud doth much better represent the death of Christ and the shedding of his bloud on the Cross then Bread broken and Wine poured into a cup can do Answer 9. To this I answer First That the thing typified by the Paschal Lamb is Jesus Christ and not the Sacrament of the Eucharist as St. Paul shews clearly 1 Cor. 5. when he calls Jesus Christ our Passover in these words Christ our Passover was crucified for us The truth is a whole Lamb without spot or blemish killed and burnt toward the evening and its bloud shed doth very well represent Jesus Christ perfect without sin put to death and his bloud shed toward the end of the World and in the fulness of time but such a Lamb represents nothing of that which is seen in the Eucharist Besides the Types and Sacraments of the Old Testament were instituted that the Faithful of those Times might come to the knowledge of the things typified and signified for the salvation of their souls But the Faithful under the Old Testament never came to the knowledge of the Eucharist by the Paschal Lamb and though they had come to the knowledge of it yet they had had no benefit thereby In a word seeing the Passover and the Eucharist are types images and signs of Jesus Christ 't is very impertinent to say that the Passover is the type of the Eucharist because a type is not properly the type of another type but only of the thing typified as the image of Caesar is not the image of another image of Caesar but only of Caesar himself 10. Secondly I answer that the excellence of one Sacrament above another must be drawn from its form and efficacie and not from its matter because it is form that chiefly gives being to things composed of matter and form But the form of Sacraments depends on the words of Institution because being signs of divine Institution their form can only depend upon the will of God who chooseth certain things to signifie other things and this will of God cannot be known but by revelation which is the Word so that it is properly said that the Word joined with the Element makes the Sacrament Therefore although the Sacrament of the Passover be more excellent then the Eucharist in respect of its matter because the Paschal Lamb and its bloud are more excellent then the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and that the Lamb and its bloud have a greater analogie with
Jesus Christ and his bloud shed on the Cross then the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist have yet the Sacrament of the Eucharist is much more excellent then that of the Passover in respect of its form which depends on the words of Institution because that at the institution of the Sacrament of the Passover God spake not one word of the principal end for which he did institute it viz. to be the type of Jesus Christ and his death But at the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ declared in express terms that he did institute the eating of the bread broken and the drinking of the wine poured into the cup to be commemorative signs of himself and his death The Sacrament of the Eucharist is yet more excellent then that of the Passover in respect of its efficacy which depends on two things viz. on the form which being more manifest in the Eucharist doth also operate with more efficacy and also because it represents a thing past viz. the death of Christ But the knowledge of things past is more clear and perfect then the knowledge of things to come and we are more toucht with the memory of things past when some symbole brings them to our thoughts then when we consider things to come through clouds and shadows To this I add that the bread and wine of the Eucharist have a greater analogie with Jesus Christ then the Paschal Lamb had in one respect viz. in regard of the spiritual nourishment which we receive by Christs death for as Baptism is the Sacrament of our spiritual birth so the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment But this nourishment is much better represented by bread and wine which are the ordinary nourishment of our bodies then by a Lamb. Lastly I answer That it is far less inconvenient to give some prerogative to the Pasover above the Eucharist â—â—z to give it a more excellent matter and analogie then to assert the corporal presence of Christ in the Host by an unheard of Transubstantiation which destroys the nature of Sacraments gives our Lord a monstrous body includes notorious absurdities and contradictions and gives the lye to Sense Reason and holy Scripture as hath been proved Objection 3. 11 The third Objection was proposed at Nismes Anno 1657. by the Jesuite S. Rigaut thus God doth communicate or can communicate to the creature in a finite degree that which he possesseth in an infinite degree For example God hath an infinite power whereby he can do all things at once therefore he communicates or can communicate to the creature a finite and limited power whereby it may do divers things at once as appears in a man for he can see hear talk and walk at the same time God hath also an infinite wisdom and knowledge whereby he knows all things at once therefore he communicates or can communicate to the creature a finite knowledge whereby it may know divers things at once And even so God hath a virtual infinite extent which is called immensity whereby he fills all things and all places at once Therefore God communicates or can communicate to the creature viz. to a body a finite extent whereby it may fill divers spaces and occupy several places at once Whence it follows that Christs body may be in divers places at the same time viz. in Heaven and in the Host Answer 12. To this I answer That as God cannot be in two places for example in heaven and upon earth without being in all those places that are between both for then he would be distant and separated from himself so Christs body cannot be in two distant places viz. at Paris and at Rome in Heaven and upon Earth in the host without being in all those places that are between both for then it would be distant and separated from it self which is impossible as hath been sufficiently proved Therefore seeing Christs body is not in all places between Paris and Rome and between Heaven and Earth it follows that it is not in heaven and upon Earth in the host nor at Paris and Rome in consecrated hosts So that to make a creature for example the body of Christ partaker of Gods extent or immensity it is sufficient that as God by his infinite extent occupies all places so Christs body should by its finite extent occupy some place But if to make it partake in a finite degree of this divine attribute of immensity it must be in divers places yet it is sufficient that it be in divers places successively and not at once or if to make it partake of this attribute it must be in divers places at once yet it is sufficient that it occupies them by its several parts for example that the head be in one place and the feet in another c. In a word that it be without discontinuance or separation as God is every where without discontinuance Thus the learned Master Bruguier then answered and much better but I cannot remember his full and compleat answer Objection 4. 13. The fourth Objection is this If divers bodies may miraculously be in one and the same place then it also follows that one body may miraculously be in divers places there being no more difficulty or impossibility in the one then in the other But divers bodies may miraculously be in one and the same place for Jesus Christ came into the room where his Disciples were the dores being shut which he could not have done if his body had not penetrated the dores Besides It is said that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and consequently Mary was a Virgin both before and after his birth which could not have been if Jesus Christ had not penetrated her belly and come forth without fraction or overture Lastly Jesus Christ penetrated the stone that was laid on his sepulchre when he rose again and it is said that he penetrated the heavens when he ascended Answer 14 To this I answer First That it is not said that Jesus Christ came in the dores being shut for these are the words The same day when it was evening and the dores having been shut for fear of the Jews Jesus came c. which words do indeed shew the time when Jesus came in unto his Disciples but not the manner of his entry by penetration but if the words be translated the dores being shut and that they do import that the dores were not opened by any body yet they do not exclude the opening of them in the twinckling of an eye by the divine power sith we have examples of this in holy Scripture for Acts 5. we read that the Apostle went out of Prison though the dores had been fast shut but it is said that the Angel of God opened them And Acts 12. The dore of the Prison opened to S. Peter of its own accord that is without being opened by any body And so it is said that Jesus Christ entered the dores
begun is reputed by God perfect and compleat And St. Paul shews clearly the truth of what hath been said 1 Tim. 2. 8. in these words I will that men pray every where listing up holy hands without wrath and doubting And Ephes 5. Jesus Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Objection 6. 20. The sixth Objection is drawn from Gen. 14. in these words And Melchisedec King of Salem bringing forth bread and wine for he was a Priest blessed him And from Psal 110. and from Heb. 7. where it is said Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec From which words our Adversaries argue thus First They say that Jesus Christ is a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedec the difference between Aaron and Melchisedec consisting in this viz. that Aaron and the other Levitical Priests offered bloudy Sacrifices killing and shedding the bloud of Beasts which they sacrificed to God as a sign and figure of the bloudy sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross But Melchisedec offered an unbloudy sacrifice for when he went to meet Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings he offered to God Bread and Wine And seeing this Bread and Wine offered to God by Melchisedec were signs and types of Christs body and bloud Jesus Christ was obliged to offer an unbloudy sacrifice viz. his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine which he did at the institution and celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist that so the reality of the thing typified might answer those shadows and types Secondly That although Melchisedec had brought all this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his Army that returned from the slaughter of the Kings yet he first offered it to God and then gave it to them that so they might partake of the sacrifice of bread and wine And the reason of this is because the Scripture saith that Abraham returned from the battel with great spoils amongst which there was meat and drink enough for the refreshment of himself and his people also it saith expresly that Abrahams people had taken such refreshment as was necessary before Melchisedec met them and consequently they had no need of the bread and wine which he brought except it had been to partake of the sacrifice of the bread and wine which he offered Thirdly They say this is strongly proved by the following words for he was Priest of the most high God which shew the reason why Melchisedec brought bread and wine viz. to make an oblation or offering of it to God for if he had brought this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his people the Scripture would have said that he had brought this bread and wine because that Abraham and his Army being faint and tired had need of meat and drink but it speaks nothing of this on the contrary it saith that he brought bread and wine for he was Priest Fourthly They say that Jesus Christ is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec and seeing there can be no Priest without a sacrifice there can be no eternal Priest without an eternal or perpetual sacrifice But the sacrifice of the Cross was offered but once and cannot be reiterated for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore there must be another perpetual sacrifice in the Church which Jesus Christ offereth by the hands of Priests which can be nothing else but the sacrifice of the Mass viz. the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud under the species of the bread and wine typified by the sacrifice of the bread and wine of Melchisedec Answer 21. To this I answer First That the Hebrew word doth not signifie bringing but brought drew out caused to be brought c. but our Adversaries falsifie the Text thus to make way for another falsification viz. to put these words in a Parenthesis for he was Priest in stead of putting them without a Parenthesis and he was Priest so that we may say that in these few words they have made three falsifications first when they translate it proferens that is bringing in stead of translating it protulit that is brought or drew out secondly when they translate it erat enim sacerdos that is for he was Priest in stead of translating it and he was Priest thirdly when they translate it benedixit ei that is blessed him instead of translating it benedixit ei that is and he blessed him And so of three different propositions viz. Melchisedech also brought bread and wine and he was Priest and he blessed him they have made but one with a Parenthesis thus Melchisedec bringing bread and wine for he was Priest blessed him 22. Secondly I answer that the Hebrew word used by Moses signifies commonly brought drew out caused to be brought caused to be drawn out caused to come c. But we must not stray from the proper signification of words but upon very great necessity which appears not in this Text. And although this Hebrew word should signifie brought to offer and that it should be taken for offered yet our Adversaries would gain nothing by it for it is not said in the Text that he brought bread and wine to offer unto God but we must rather expound it thus viz. that he brought bread and wine to offer and present it to Abraham And indeed the following words viz. and blessed him do clearly shew it for the Pronoun Relative him relates to Abraham according to the exposition of the Apostle Heb. 7. where he saith expresly that Melchisedec met Abraham and blessed him And a little after he saith that Melchisedec blessed him that had the promises and that the less is blessed of the greater But if these words he brought bread and wine must be expounded thus he offered bread and wine to God then it must necessarily follow that Melchisedec blessed God and not Abraham for in these words viz. he offered bread and wine to God and blessed him the Pronoun him can relate to none but God 23. Thirdly I answer That Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people and not to offer unto God Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 6. confesseth that Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people who returned faint and tired from the slaughter of the Kings which is true but he adds that Jesus Christ had offered it to God before which is false and cannot be proved Jerome in his Epistle to Euagrius writes that the Jews understood it that Melchisedec meeting Abraham after his victory brought bread and wine to refresh him and his people Josephus writing this History saith
that Melchisedec presented bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his Army Damascene Book 4. of the Orthodox Faith saith that Melchisedec treated Abraham with bread and wine 24. Fourthly The Reasons of our Adversaries mentioned in the Objections to prove that Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham that he might partake of the sacrifice which he had offered are not considerable viz. because Abraham returned from the battle with great spoils and so there was meat and drink enough for him and his people and that they had taken their repast before Melchisedec met them c. These Reasons I say are inconsiderable because although Abraham had great spoils yet he restored all to the King of Sodom and though his people had eaten and drank of such as they found amongst the spoils yet it is not said that Abraham did eat and drink and though both he and his people had eaten and drank yet it is not said how long it was since and that they had no need of more provision and though they had no need of more yet Melchisedec not knowing that they had eaten and drank did that which prudent men are wont to do viz. provide all that may be needful in case of necessity 25. Fifthly I answer That the principal reason which our Adversaires bring to prove that Melchisedec offered unto God bread and wine viz. because it is in the Hebrew Text for he was Priest is a manifest falsification for it is in the Hebrew Text and he was Priest Also the old Latine Interpreter and the Greek Septuagint translate it as we do viz. and he was Priest And it is very probable that this passage hath been corrupted in Jeroms Latine Translation because in his Hebrew Questions and in his Epistle to Evagrius he translates it and he was Priest St. Cyprian in his Epistle to Caecilius and St. August Book 4. of Christian Doctrine chap. 21. and elsewhere translate it and he was Priest So that although the Hebrew particle used by Moses do sometimes signifie for yet seeing that both its proper and common signification is and and that for one place where it signifies for there are a thousand at least where it signifies and and that there is nothing that obligeth us to translate it for it is evident that the Argument of our Adversaries is of no force at all Therefore it is more pertinent to refer these words and he was Priest to what follows viz. and blessed him then to what goes before viz. brought bread and wine For as Melchisedec being a liberal King brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people so as he was a Priest much more excellent then Abraham he blessed him And though it should be translated for he was Priest yet it would not follow that Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine unto God for it might be said that Moses would shew the reason of the good will of Melchisedec toward Abraham viz. it was very fit that he that was Priest of the most high God should testifie his kindness to so eminent a servant of God as was Abraham by presenting bread and wine to him whereof he thought there was need 26. Sixthly I answer That from what is said Psal 110. and Heb. 7. viz. that Jesus Christ is a Priest for ever it will not follow that he must offer himself every day in the Mass under the species of bread and wine by the ministry of Priests for the Apostle writing to the Hebrews placeth the perpetuity of the Priesthood partly in this viz. that there is no need he should be offered any more seeing by one oblation he hath consecrated for ever those that are sanctified and partly in this viz. that being exalted far above the heavens he intercedes continually for us for the Priesthood consists in certain functions and in the virtue and efficacy of them And seeing there are two parts of Christs Priesthood whereof one relates to the oblation of himself which he offered on the Cross and the other to his intercession it is certain that the virtue and efficacy of the oblation is eternal and that the intercession will continue unto the end of the World 27. Seaventhly I answer That in all the holy Scripture where the Priesthood of Melchisedec is spoken of three things only are mentioned of him viz. that he was a Priest that he was a Priest for ever and that he was so with an oath according to the application that is made of it to Jesus Christ in Psal 110. and Heb. 7. in these words The Lord hath sworn and will not repent thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec but there is nothing at all spoken of the sacrifice of Melchisedec nor is it said wherein it did consist for as it was fit that all the offices which we find were born by the greatest Kings Priests and Prophets under the Old Testament should be collected in the person of the Messiah which was done by proposing them as types and figures of Jesus Christ and that the most illustrious type was Melchisedec so it was more expedient not to speak of the nature of the sacrifice of Melchisedec because it was not expedient then to speak of the nature of the sacrifice of the Messiah And therefore although we know not the nature and quality of the sacrifice of Melchisedec yet we know that he was a Priest Even as we know that Melchisedec was a King though we know not in what manner he executed his Kingly Office 28. Lastly I answer That it is false that the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and that of Aaron did consist in this viz. that Aaron offered the bloudy sacrifices of Beasts and Melchisedec offered an unbloudy sacrifice of bread and wine It is also false that the likeness of the Priesthood of Melchisedec to that of Jesus Christ doth consist in this viz. that as Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine so Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine these are humane inventions and are founded neither on Scripture nor Reason for on the contrary the Apostle writing to the Hebrews placeth the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and that of Aaron and its likeness to that of Christ in quite another thing First He is called Melchisedec which being interpreted as the Apostle saith Heb. 7. is King of righteousness and then King of Salem that is King of Peace and herein he very well represents our Lord Jesus Christ who is truly King of righteousness not only because he is righteous and was always without sin but also because by his satisfaction he hath purchased righteousness for us being made unto us of God righteousness He is also truly King of peace in that he hath reconciled men unto God made their peace with the Angels and hath particularly recommended peace to them As for Aaron and other High Priests they were no Kings much less are