accomplishment Therefore the Apostle sayes 〈◊〉 5.2 that Christ gaue himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an oblation and a sacrifice by an oblation vnderstanding a gratulatory offering and by sacrifice an expiatory host for sinne And that the 〈◊〉 sacrifices had their consummation in Christ appeares in that figuratiue casting the open and doues out of the Temple as Theophylact. on the 21. chapter of Math. obserueth saying Iesus eiiciendo boues columbas praesignauit non vltra opus esse animalium sacrificio sed oratione 〈◊〉 casting the oxen and doues out of the Temple signified that there should no longer need the sacrifice of beast but of prayer But it is demanded Which of these two sacrifices it is that the Apostle speakes of The text it selfe cleares this doubt you heard before that the Eucharisticall sacrifices were for mercies and blessings receiued and the Ilasticke or Expiatorie sacrifices were for sinnes committed so that when the Apostle sayes this sacrifice was for sinne it plainely appeares that hereby is meant the Expiatory sacrifice of Christ offered to appease his Fathers wrath This sacrifice is no other then Christ himselfe dying vpon the crosse for the transgressions of mankind Origen speaking of Christ sayes Ipse est hostia Sancta Sanctorum He is the most holy sacrifice for his holy ones Which the Apostle Saint Peter confirmes saying For so much as ye know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as siluer and gold But by the precious blood of Christ as of a lambe without blemish or without spot Christ himselfe was this sacrifice who so loued vs that he gaue himselfe for vs an offering and sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour But according to which nature was Christ the safice for sinnes Onely according to his humane nature as appeares By which will we are sanctisied through the offering of the body of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 by which words the body of Christ we are to vnderstand the whole humane nature of Christ for there the part is put for the whole so that Christ the man consisting of body and soule was the sacrifice for our sinnes and as we in soule and body had transgressed against God so Christ both in soule and body was to suffer punishment and to make satisfaction for our offences Compare this place of the Hebrews with the words of the Prophet Esa. and you shall easily discouer this truth Yet it pleased God to bruise him hee hath put him to griefe when thou shalt make his soule an offering for sinne he shall see his seede he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand What the Propheticall Apostle Paul attributes to the body the Euangelicall Prophet Esa. attributes to the soule so that both these being essentiall parts of man make the whole humanitie of Christ to bee the sacrifice for our sinnes And as the Tree of life did represent the Godhead of the Messiah so did the Animate sacrifices of the Leuiticall law shadow out his Manhood And the reasons why this sacrifice that Christ offered should be his manhood are these 1. Because that in the same nature the offence was made in the same nature was the sacrifice to bee offered and the satisfaction to bee performed for otherwise Gods iustice could not be appeased but in the nature of man was a transgression committed therefore in mans nature must a sacrifice bee offered and satisfaction made And for this reason the Angels that fell from God had no benefit by the Incarnation of Christ nor by his death and passion because he tooke not vpon him their nature neither in their nature did he offer sacrifice 2. Secondly the death of the beasts in the Ceremoniall law did figure out the death of that sacrifice which the Sonne of God was to offer vnto his Father for mans Redemption So that in that nature wherein Christ dyed in that nature he was to sacrifice but Christ as he was God could not dye for the Godhead is apathes and cannot suffer but according to his humanitie he dyed truely and not fantastically and in shew onely as Marcion and the Manichees heretically thought And indeed considering Gods eternall decree of sending his Sonne to be 〈◊〉 flesh it was necessarily required that hee should dye and shed his blood to appease his Fathers wrath and to procure forgiuenesse of sinnes for all beleeuers for according to the words of the Apostle choris haimatekchusias ou ginetai aphesis without blood shedding is no remission So it appeares that the humane nature of Christ consisting of soule and body was the Alsufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of all beleeuers 3. The third thing propounded is the necessitie of this sacrifice Adam being seduced by his wife and eating the forbidden fruit brought vpon himselfe and all his posteritie three euills First hee was by his transgression guilty of 〈◊〉 before God Secondly he was depriued of all his grace of integrity and righteousnesse which God had conferred vpon him in his creation Thirdly he was driuen out of Paradise to signifie his banishment from the celestiall Paradise Wherefore it was necessary that there should bee a sacrifice offered for man First that his sinnes might be remitted whereby he was turned from God Secondly that he might be restored againe to the state of grace Thirdly that he might be re-united and reconciled vnto God and inherit eternall life These three were effected by the sacrifice of Christ. For first by this Sacrifice our sinnes are pardoned and the guilt of all our iniquities is washed away by the blood of Iesus hee was that promised fountaine which should be set open for Iudah and Ierusalem to wash in This appeares by the words of Paul Traditus est in mortem propter offensas nostras He was deliuered to death for our offences Secondly by this sacrifice wee are made pertakers of his grace whereby wee are comely in the eyes of God the Father for hee thereby imputed his righteousnesse vnto vs and communicated that life of grace which was radically in himselfe the head vnto all his faithfull members for by him it is that wee all receiue grace for grace Thirdly hereby are wee entitled againe vnto the kingdome of heauen lost by our first parents for when this earthly tabernacle is dissolued we are put inro possession of that building of God not made with hands which endures for euer in heauen All these three are contained in one verse Christ Iesus is made vnto vnto vs of God righteousnesse sanctification and redemption Righteousnesse in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes 〈◊〉 in the communication of his grace and Redemption in the saluation of our soules and bodies By this that hath beene spoken wee may note that the beginning middle and end of mans happinesse is from the sacrifice of Christ by him wee are deliuered from the bondage of sinne by him wee are in the liberty of grace by him are wee
but makes it plaine by restraining it to some onely This is my blood which is shed for many for remission of sins and the sonne of man 〈◊〉 that he might giue his life a redemption for many and he was offered once for the sins of many By this it is plaine that all men haue not benefite by Christs sacrifice neither is the guilt of euery mans sinnes washed away by the 〈◊〉 of this lambe of God but onely of the elect in Christ who haue doe and shall beleeue in his holy name Away then with the erroneous innouation of the Arminians teaching satisfaction for each particular man And away with that 〈◊〉 conceit of most common people concerning 〈◊〉 Redemption whereby they are apt to say that all men shall be saued and God forbid that any man should goe to hell thus out of 〈◊〉 charitie they iudge contrary to the Canon of Gods word for the iudgement of charitie is not alwayes the iudgement of verity The 〈◊〉 and Sacrifice of Christ with the end of both of them beeing thus largely and sufficiently explained I shall thinke it necessary now to draw all that hath beene formerly spoken to this Corrolary which I will lay downe as a generall doctrine collected out of the three parts of the first branch of the text and it is this That Iesus Christ the eternall Sonne of the euer-liuing God as God and man was the onely Priest that offered on the crosse his whole humane nature soule and body a true and perfect Expiatory sacrifice to satisfie for all the finnes of all true 〈◊〉 where by hee wrought their perfect reconciliation with God and obtained full remission for all their offences The which position in euery particular hath beene so fully prooued that it needs no further confirmation wherefore it shall be necessary to make some application to our selues The vses to be made of this doctrine are diuers Vse 1. First it teacheth vs to consider the true and proper nature of sinne which is so contrary to the 〈◊〉 essence of God so opposire vnto his sacred law so odious and abhominable in his eyes so noxious and dangerous to the soule of man that all the creatures in the world men and angels gold and precious iewells could not appease the wrath of God or be a propitiatory sacrifice for the atonement and reconciliation of mankind but onely 〈◊〉 Christ God and man the eternall Sonne of his Father Oh then how are most men too blame that esteeme their 〈◊〉 as things not worthy regarding not worthy excepting against and how are all men to bee condemned that either for a little gaine or a small deale of perishing pleasure will make no scruple to pollute 〈◊〉 to wound and slay their soules with wilfull and knowne wickednesse Alas alas sinne is so hainous in Gods account that all the world is not able to satisfie for it but onely the eternall Sonne of God and that by being a sacrifice and powring foorth his precious blood Well then did sinne draw Christ from the bosome of his father Did sinne cause him to take our nature vpon him Did sinne nayle him to the crosse piercing his hands his feet his side Did 〈◊〉 take away his blood and with his blood his life Did sinne make him a sacrifice burning in the flames of his fathers wrath and crying Eli Eli 〈◊〉 My God my God why 〈◊〉 thou for saken me was sinne the procuring cause of all this his 〈◊〉 Cursed then be that man that shall eyther 〈◊〉 and delight in sinne or shall extenuate and lessen his sinne esteeming it 〈◊〉 or slender cause why God should cast a man into hell or as sinne 〈◊〉 the heart of Christ shall not bee pricked and pierced at the heart with sorrow and repentance Put thy sinne in one ballance and the price that was payd for it in the other and thou shalt soone finde the one to be of infinite weight to presse thee downe to hell and the other to be of infinite pretiousnesse to recouer thee to heauen This is the first vse of this point for information to teach vs that if Christ were offered a sacrifice for our sinnes sinne then is not to be 〈◊〉 as a slight and slender thing Vse 2. The second vse of this point is for instruction to teach vs what loue God the Father hath expressed vnto vs mortalls in that he sent his Sonne to bee a sacrifice for mankind God commendeth his loue towards vs in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for vs. Great yea infinite surely was the loue of God in that when we had reiected him and giuen heede to the entisements of the Serpent when we had raced forth his image out of our whole man and instead thereof had imprinted therein the feature of the Diuell when we had rebelled against our maker trampling his law vnder our feete destroying our owne soules yet that there should remaine within his bosome a more then fatherly affection towards vs insomuch that he gaue his onely sonne that euery one that 〈◊〉 in him might not perish but haue euerlasting life this is loue indeede farre transcending the loue of any creature which ought to beget in vs true thankfulnesse and a holy retorsion of loue againe For but that God had so much compassion on Adam as to make vnto him that promise of the blessed seede he and we in him had beene hopelesse and helpelesse not 〈◊〉 to get forth of that pit into which we were plunged so that the Lord may say vnto Adam Perditio tua ex te ô Adam saluatio ex me Oh Adam thy destruction proceedes from thy selfe thy saluation only from me and from my loue Should not the consideration of this loue of God plentifully powred out vpon vs without any desert on our part prouoke vs to loue him with all our heartes withall our strength withall our power Why do men loue riches more then God why doe men loue pleasure more then God why do men reioyce more in temporall honour then in God Because they call not to minde the loue that God hath shewed to mankind in sending his sonne into the world to be a sacrifice for our sinnes Hath God so manifested his loue and shall it be so buried in obliuion O consider this yee that forget God least I teare you in peeces and there be none to deliuer you Here as God the father hath manifested his compassion so God the Sonne Iesus Christ hath declared his prompt and ready affection to vs poore sinners in that sponte of his owne free-will he was pleased to take vpon him that arduous and paineful office of priesthood and to effect that stupendious worke of our redemption That he that was verbum increatum the Word increate should become verbum incarnatum the Word incarnate Here was loue without parallell without compare Especially if wee consider that he could not take vpon him the shape of a seruant but
he must infinitely humble himselfe and in humbling himselfe he must die for vs and in dying for vs he must die not for the righteous but for sinners and if the wordes of Christ be true that greater loue there cannot be then that a man should lay downe his life for his friend how great then is that loue when God shall lay downe his life for his enemies If Christ hath thus loued vs let vs labour to loue him againe and if wee will giue an euident demonstration of our loue to Christ let vs expresse it by this euen by our care to keepe his commandements for so sayes Christ If yee loue me keepe my commandements Thus so often as wee meditate on the Priest-hood and sacrifice of Christ whereby wee receiue remission of sinnes and reconciliation wee should in them as in a glasse behold the incomprehensible compassion of God our father and the vnspeakable loue of Christ our Sauiour The third vse of this point is for consolation vnto all Gods elect who are sanctified with the grace of Christ hauing the eyes of their vnderstandings illuminated and being renewed in the spirit of their minds are become new creatures for to them hath he made an atonement and reconciliation by his sacrifice and oblation which hee offered vpon the crosse once for all Whosoeuer thou art therefore that fearest the Lord and art begotten againe to a 〈◊〉 hope albeit thou findest in thy selfe many failings and infirmities and that the burthen of those 〈◊〉 which thou diddest commit in the dayes of thy vnregeneration and non-conuersion doe so oppresse thee as that thou art weary and heauy laden yet lift vp the eyes of thy faith vnto Christ hee was the Priest that offered vp his humane nature an al-sufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of all that beleeue in him he felt the sharpe wrath of God against him but it was for thy sinnes that thou mightest be freed from the wrath to come he hath borne thine infirmities he was broken for thy transgressions the chastisement of thy peace was layd vpon him and by his stripes thou art healed he put himselfe in thy roome and by the punishment of his soule and body did free thy soule and body from eternall damnation If therefore thou be stung with sinne Christ is the brazen Serpent exalted on the crosse list vp the eyes of faith vnto him and thou shalt be restored It was for thy sake that Christ Iesus was made a Holocaust or sacrifice that he might abandon all enmity and consummate a perfect peace betweene thee and God Wherefore feare not thy sinnes but reioyce in thy Christ and let thy soule be ioyfull within thee say vnto thy soule as Dauid did Prayse the Lord ô my soule and all that is within me prayse his holy Name because hee hath of his tender compassion on thee conferred the riches of his mercy and incorporated thee into the mysticall body of his sonne Christ Iesus by whose most holy sacrifice God is so appeased that I dare runne boldly vnto the Throne of Grace and with confidence in his name assure my selfe of eternall life But vnto all wicked men which liue without feare and die without repentance albeit their outward profession be more glorious in shew then was the profession of the most strict Pharisie but doing good workes in hypocrisie and dissimulation I will say concerning the benefit of Christs Sacrifice as Peter sayd to Simon Magus touching the guifts of the Holy Ghost You haue neither part nor lot in this matter that is in the sacrifice of Christ for your heartes are not right in the sight of God Repent 〈◊〉 of your wickednesse and pray God if perhaps the thoughts of your hearts may be forgiuen you for I 〈◊〉 you are in the gall of bitternesse and band of 〈◊〉 Oh you wicked and vngodly men 〈◊〉 not your soules feede not your selues with vaine hopes and dreaming expectations of future happinesse for vnto heauen can you not come but by the sacrifice of Christ and till you leaue your sinnes by 〈◊〉 and reformation and be changed from your miserable state of nature to the comfortable state of grace you can haue no part norportion in Christs sacrifice for that was onely offered for them that were elected before all time and shall be called in time to the sauing knowledge of the Lord Icsus Christ. Wherefore if any man desire to come to heauen and there to enioy the felicity of Gods glorious Kingdome let him then by a true 〈◊〉 faith apply the sacrifice of Christ vnto himselfe Let the 〈◊〉 for sake-his wayes and the vnrighteous his thoughts and let him returne vnto the Lord and hee will haue mercy vpon him and to our God for hee will aboundantly pardon The last vse of this point is for consutation of that most blasphemous doctrine and damnable heresie of the Church of Rome concerning the sacrisice of the Masse established by Canons in the cursed Councill of Trent and is now taught and beleeued by all Papists The words of which Canons are these If any man shall say that in the Masse there is not offered vnto God a true and proper Propitiatory Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine or shall deny that by this sacrifice is effected that those which come vnto God with a true heart and vpright conscience do obtaine mercy let him be accursed The other Canon hath these words If any man shal say the sacrifice of the masse to bee onely a sacrifice of praise and 〈◊〉 or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse and not propitiatory or shall say that it is profitable onely for him that 〈◊〉 it and not both for the quicke and the dead for their sinnes punishments and satisfactions let him bee accursed This diuelish and most hereticall doctrine as it hath beene already confuted by the Scriptures which are as the ancients stile them the touchstone of truth the pillar of faith a strong army against heretickes so shall it also appeare to bee vnknowne to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church and gain-sayd by diuers of then owne Writers Now if in this 〈◊〉 wee shall somewhat more then ordinarily relye vpon the 〈◊〉 of Writers it is to be borne with in regard that it is the best course 〈◊〉 like owles they 〈◊〉 the light of the Scripture to deale with them which so much stand vpon antiquity by the 〈◊〉 of antiquity and the testimony of their 〈◊〉 men And the 〈◊〉 shall I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it falls so patte in the way that I must eyther remooue it or leape ouer it as also because herein consisteth the most principall part of Diuine Seruice in the Church of Rome and vnto them it is the badge and cognizance to distinguish betweene the good and euill Christian and in going thereunto or not going a man workes his owne saluation or damnation as also because it compriseth in it the doctrine or the
small credit with them neuer vses the words Ambrose once onely Augustine but twise and neither of these in that sence in which the Papists vse it And whereas they obiect that place of Ierome one the 11. chapter of the Prouerbes it is not thought to be his because therein is mentioned Gregory who liued about 200. yeares after Ierome but the best learned do ascribe it to Bede as they do the Sermon of Saint Augustine de tempore to Ambrose or Hugo de Sancto Victore But from the name let vs proceede to the thing it selfe Albeit that about the time of Saint Gregory there hapned such an alteration of the Canon of the Masse of the manner of seruice of vestiments of the bread of priuate Masses of prayers vnto Saints and so continued till Charles the great insomuch that the Church of Rome had cast off her ancient simplicity and Matron-like habit and became like a garish Curtezan yet this sacrifice of the Masse was not as yet allowed of generally in the Church Not in Gregories time for Bellarmine himselfe confesseth he could finde nothing in his writings for confirmation of this their sacrifice For the corporall reality of this sacrifice which our aduersaries defend vpon an imagination of a Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ seemes to be sufficiently confuted by that disputation held by Gregory against Eutiches the Hereticke who denied that Christ had a true humane body against whom Gregory obiected 〈◊〉 saying of our Sauiour to his Disciples who after his resurrection made a doubt of that which 〈◊〉 spared not to maintaine namely that it was not the same body wherein he was cruified but onely a shadow of a body and so his humanity was but kata Phantasian not really but onely in appearance But Gregory obiects the words of Christ. Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me haue behold my hands and feete that it is I my selfe By the same testimony of sence may Christians now discerne bread to be bread after consecration by which the Disciples discerned Christs flesh to be flesh after resurrection they were to beleeue because they did see and feele it to be the flesh of Christ wee haue the benefit of foure sences seeing handling tasting smelling to prooue vs to receiue not flesh but bread And here we may note what was the faith of the Church of England about those times of St. Gregory by an ancient Homily written in the Saxon tongue and appointed to be preached throughout England in euery Church vpon Easter day Part where of runnes thus In the holy sont we see two things in that one creature after the true nature the water is corruptible water and yet after 〈◊〉 mystery 〈◊〉 hath hallowing might So also wee behold the holy housell it is bread after bodily vnderstanding then wee see it is a body 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 but if wee acknowledge therein a spirituall might then vnderstand wee that life is therein and it giueth 〈◊〉 to them that 〈◊〉 it with 〈◊〉 Much difference there is betweene the inuisible might of the holy 〈◊〉 and the visible shape of the proper nature It is naturally corruptible bread and corruptible wine and it is by the might of Christs word truely 〈◊〉 body and his blood not so notwithstanding bodily but spiritually much difference is there betweene the body that Christ suffered 〈◊〉 and the body that is hallowed to housell the body 〈◊〉 Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary with blood and with bone with skinne with 〈◊〉 in humane limmes with a reasonable soule 〈◊〉 and his spirituall body which we call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thered of many cornes without blood and bone without limme without soule and therefore nothing therein is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 but all is spiritually to be vnderstood By these words 〈◊〉 appeares that the ancient Christians in England held not that grosse transubstantiation maintained now by the Romish Church which is the mother of the Massing sacrifice for take away 〈◊〉 and of necessity you lay the honour of their sacrifice in the dust For the space of 〈◊〉 yeares after Gregory this Sacrifice of the Masse beganne to gather strength and to be taught and 〈◊〉 though not generally in the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 Abbot of Corby in 〈◊〉 hath these words Because we sinne daily Christ is Sacrificed for vs Mystically and his Passion giuen in Mystery Againe The blood is drunken in Mystery spiritually and it is all spirituall which wee eate And The full similitude is 〈◊〉 and the flesh of the imacculate Lambe is faith inwardly that the truth he not wanting to the Sacrament and it be not ridiculous to Pagans that wee drinke the blood of a 〈◊〉 man Note here that he would 〈◊〉 the outward 〈◊〉 and the inward substance represented by the signe to subsist in the Sacrament otherwise it takes away the truth of the Sacrament and hee would not haue the 〈◊〉 thinke the 〈◊〉 to be so absurd as to drinke the reall and substantiall blood of Christ with their bodily mouthes but onely Sacramentally and in a Mystery Bertram 〈◊〉 liued about the 900. yeare of Christ in the time of Charles the 〈◊〉 whose wordes agree directly with the Doctrine of the Church of England and are these Our Lord hath done this at once euen in offering himselfe 〈◊〉 is to say sacrificing himselfe for vs For hee was once offered for the finnes of the people and this 〈◊〉 notwithstanding is dayly celebrated by the 〈◊〉 but in a mysterie to the end that what hath beene accomplished by our Lord lesus in offering himselfe once might be handled 〈◊〉 day by the celebrating of the Mysteries of the 〈◊〉 of the memory of his passion Where is to be noted how he opposeth the mysticall 〈◊〉 to the reall receiuing and the dayly 〈◊〉 of the remembrance to the once offering of the 〈◊〉 Againe He which is dayly offered by the faithfull in the mysterie of his body and his blood namely that whosoeuer will draw neere vnto him may know that he must 〈◊〉 part in his sufferings the image and representation whereof is exhibited in the holy Mysteries About the 1000. yeare liued Theophilact who seems to deny this Propitiatory Sacrifice in these words The medicines which are effectuall and forcible do heale at the first time being administred but those which neede to bee taken againe and againe doe sufficiently argue their weaknesse by that onely note euen so it fareth betweenethe Legall Sacrifices and the Sacrifice of Christ. But here ariseth a question Whether we also doe offer sacrifices without shedding of blood vnto which we answere affirmatiuely but it is that we doe renue the Memory of the death of the Lord and yet in the meane time it is but one Sacrifice not many because it hath beene offered but onely once We offer then 〈◊〉 himselfe or rather the Remembrance of this oblation
Purgatory The sixteenth impiety of the Masse is It subuerteth Gods decree of Reprobation for it is auaileable for whomsoeuer the Priest shall offer it both for remission of sinne and liberation from punishment who doubts not but then many a Reprobate for whom Masse is sayd is 〈◊〉 from eternall damnation The seauenteenth impiety of the Masse is It robs God of his right for whereas it is a prerogatiue royall belonging to the Regall Crowne of Heauen to institute Sacraments and Sacrifices the Church of Rome hath vsurped that power instituting this sacrifice which God neuer commanded them neither came it into his minde but they like Antiochus Ephiphanes haue exalted their Idoll vpon the Lords Table what audacious boldnesse was this in any man to inuent without Gods command a sacrifice to appease and pacifie the wrath of God And what is it but an Ethelothrescta a 〈◊〉 diuised of their owne carnall and corrupt wils and affections The eighteenth impiety in the Masse It establisheth the doctrine of merit and ouerthroweth the satisfaction of Christ for if a man may merit by the sacrifice of the Masse what iniustice was it in God to lay the burthen of mans wickednesse vpon Christ causing him to satisfie by death when men may merit by hearing or saying Masse by offering or receiuing this sacrifice The nineteenth impiety is Their Iesuite Salmeron is permitted to write That the oblation of Christ in his last Supper which the Romanists hold to be satisfactory and Propitiatory receiued no efficacy or vertue from the sacrifice vpon the crosse Which all Orthodoxe Christians cannot but iudge to bee an impious Paradox Seeing both the Sacrament of Baptisme and of the Eucharist haue their foundation in and vertue and operation from the great and all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ offered vpon the crosse The twentieth impiety is in the manner of celebrating this sacrifice In that it is performed in an vnknowne tongue directly contrary to the Apostolicall iniunction of Saint Paul who willeth euery man that prayeth to pray in that language which the common people vnderstand that the Church may be edified Secondly in regard of the gesture of the Priest which is so changeable so ridiculous so affected more like a Player then a Sacrificer for the Priest varieth and changeth his gesture at least fourty or fifty times during the time of the Masse First he boweth his body then he rayseth himselfe and kisseth the Altar on the right side he boweth againe and looketh toward the host hee ioyneth his hands wipeth his 〈◊〉 listeth vp the host then he listeth vp his eyes and boweth himselfe and lifteth vp his eyes againe hee boweth againe and lifteth vp the hoast aboue his forehead vncouereth the Chalice and holdeth it betweene his hands keeping his thumb and forefinger together then hee boweth and lifteth vp the cup a little then to his breast or aboue his head he setteth it downe againe wipeth his fingers then he spreades his armes a crosse he boweth his body then rising kisseth the Altar on the right side after this he smiteth his breast then hee vncouereth the Chalice againe and maketh fiue crosses with the host beyond the Chalice on each side vnder it and before it then he layeth his hands vpon the Altar the Deacon then reacheth the Priest the Paten which he putteth to his right eye then to his left and maketh a crosse beyond his head with it kisseth it and layeth it downe then hee breaketh the host in three parts holding two pieces in his left hand the other part in his right hand ouer the Chalice which with a crosse he letteth fall into it the Priest then kisseth the Corporas the Deacon taketh the Pax from the Priest giueth it to the subdeacon and he to the Queere then humbling himselfe he first taketh the body then the blood so hee goeth to the right horne of the Altar then the Subdeacon powreth in wine and the Priest rinseth the cup and washeth his hands hee turneth himselfe to the people commeth againe to the Altar and turneth to the people the second time then bowing his body and closing his hands he prayeth to himselfe he riseth againe making the signe of the crosse and bowing againe so goeth to the Altar insomuch that Roscius-like hee seemes rather an Actor then a priest the Masse it selfe beeing stuffed full of ceremonies borrowed from the sacrifices of both Iewes and gentiles as Innocent the third and Baronius themselues confesse The one and twentieth impiety That the onely accidents of bread and wine can nourish the body without their proper substance The two and twentieth impiety That the body and blood of Christ may be made poysenous for Bernar dus de monte Politiano de Domcastro a Monk of the Iacobines order poysoned with the Host Henry the seauenth Emperour of Germany and Victor Pope of Rome was poysoned with the wine he tooke in the Masse The three and twentieth impiety That the body and blood of Christ doe subsist apart separated one from another both in the act of consecration and afterward The foure and twentieth impiety That Christ is now in the Eucharist not a liuing but a dead Christ in regard that albeit as they affirme the bread bee changed into his body and the wine into his blood yet neither of these according to their owne tenent can be transubstantiated into his soule which is a spirituall and an immateriall substance how then shall his soule be vnited to his body seeing when by these words This is my body hee changed the elements into his body and blood yet hee makes no mention of his soule Wherefore the body subsisting without a soule must be but inanimate a dead corps The twenty fiue impiety Christ had two bodies one visible wherewith hee sate at Table another inuisible which he distributed to his Disciples vnder the formes of consecrated bread and wine The sixe and twentieth impiety They say Christ at his last Supper gaue his naturall body to be eaten of his Disciples but by their doctrine would follow that Christ gaue his mortall body as it was before his passion vnto his Disciples but vnto his Church hee giues now his glorified body such as it is sitting at the right hand of God The seauen and twentieth impietie That the body of Christ doth daily ascend into heauen and descend from heauen as Iaecobs Angells and is contained in the hands of the Priest is crashed in his teeth his bones being broken The eight and twentieth impiety That the body of Christ being kept a long time in any vessell will corrupt and putrifie and wormes will bee generated of it as Alphonsus Magnus the king of Aragon found by experience The twenty nine impiety That Christ Iesus the Sonne of God was not incarnate for vs suffered not dyed not rose not againe ascended not 〈◊〉 heauen for vs but onely bread and wine did all these things in our behalfe Or which is the last impiety The body
external thing as Abel of the firstlings of his flock c. For it must be some outward visible thing animate or inauimate I speake of the sacrifices of the law and not of the Gospell which I shall shew to be as well internall as externall I say moreouer that it must be offered to the true God and therefore all sacrifices offered by the Heathens vnto their Idolls and fained gods are improperly called sacrifices in regard that it can neuer be called sacred which tends to the dishonour of the true God Furthermore I say there must bee ioyned with this Knowledge for there can be no acceptable sacrifice vnto God which is done ignorantly without the knowledge of Gods holy will the Apostle sayes whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne And without faith it is impossible to please God now faith cannot subsist without the knowledge of that which we doe beleeue Lastly I say it must bee a thing acceptable to God Therefore the price of a whore the price of blood a dogs head swines blood and the like though they were offered yet are they abhominable because they are forbidden yea whatsoeuer is unseemely or vndecent is not acceptable The Leuiticall sacrifices were of two sorts Ilastika expiatory or Eucharistika Gratulatory In the expiatory propitiatory or satisfactory sacrifice for these different titles belong all to one thing the Iewes had respect vnto their sinnes and by the laying their hand on the beast and slaying it before the Lord they did in act confesse that they themselues had deserued death eternall for their sinnes but by the blood of Iesus Christ the immaculate lambe who was to dye for mankind they were assured to receiue remission of their sinnes and freedome from eternall death This sacrifice was called Catat that is sinne or a sacrifice for sinne So Paul alluding hereunto saith that God hath made him sinne for vs who knew no sinne that is to say God made him a sacrifice for sinne It is also called Ilastikon or expiatory from the end for the which it was instituted namely to represent the sacrifice which should expiate and satisfie for our sinnes which was Christ himselfe So that this sacrifice was called Expiatory not properly but Metonymically as hauing relation to the Messiah Vnto his sacrifice were referred that offering which was called 〈◊〉 of Olon and chauo because it was allburnt in the fire and the priests had no part of it or else it was so called of Holah which signifies to ascend because it being wholy consumed in the fire did ascend vp vnto God in the smoake Vnto this Expiatory sacrifice were also referred those oblations which were offered for the cleansing of lepers for the purification of women after childbirth for touching of dead bodies for the sanctifying of Priests for all these pollutions had respect to the pollution of sinnes The other sacrifices were Eucharistica or offerings of thanksgiuing whereby they did testifie their thankfulnesse for benefits temporall or spirituall this kind of sacrifice was called Zebach Schelamim 〈◊〉 pacificorum a peace offering because it was offered by them that had beeing reconciled to God by the former sacrifice receiued remission of their sinnes and were at peace with God as also because thereby they testified their gratitude to God for all his fauours which the Hebrewes did comprize vnder the word Peace And to this sacrifice were referred the meate offerings and drinke offerings the first fruits and the tenths all which were testimonies of their thankfulnes And indeed all sacrifices may be reduced to these two heads Either Ilastika or Eucharistika Expiatory or Gratulatorie For according vnto Gods affection towards man such were mens 〈◊〉 towards God Now God is either angry with vs and so punisheth vs or is well pleased and so blesseth vs and all the effects of God vpon euery man are either blessings or cursings when hee is angry hee sends cursings when hee is well pleased hee sends blessings wherefore hauing stirred him vp to wrath by sinnes the Iewes offered Ilasticke sacrifices to appease his wrath hauing appeased his anger and pleasing him by obeying his commandements they obtained his blessings and fauours to their bodies and soules wherfore they offered Eucharisticke sacrifices to testifie their thankfulnesse to the Lord. Now in both these kinds of sacrifices had the Iews respect vnto the Messiah fixing the eye of their faith vpon Christ that was to come both in him expecting saluation by the satisfactory sacrifice of his death and in him rendering thankes vnto Iehouah for all his blessings which they were made partakers of through the Messiah Thus much of a sacrifice in generall and of the kind of sacrifices among the lewes The second thing I propounded is to shew you what this particular sacrifice is which Christ offered for finne As there was vnder the law a double sacrifice Ilasticum and Eucharisticum Expiatory and Gratulatory So is there vnder the Gospell this double sacrifice offered by Christ for when he had finished his Propheticall office here on earth he then entered vpon his Pontificall or Priestly office which was to offer sacrifice for all beleeuers And albeit this expiatory sacrifice was first in order of nature as making way for the Eucharisticall whereby it might be acceptable to God hauing satisfied for sinne by his death and so reconciling God and man yet in time his Eucharisticall sacrifice was offered before his Expiatory and the reason hereof is alleadged by a most famous Diuine whose words are these Although the Father was first to be appeased by the Ilasticall sacrifice of Christ 〈◊〉 the crosse and so forgiuenesse of sinne and of punishment beeing obtained then should haue followed the sacrifice of thanksgiuing for all benefits obtained by Christs death and passion yet Christ offers his sacrifice of thankesgiuing as if hee were already crucified For so he was indeed in Gods decree and in his determination and in this respect hee is 〈◊〉 The lambe slaine from the beginning of the world This Eucharisticall sacrifice of Christ was in the Lords Supper which was not vnworthily euer after in the Church of God by the Fathers tearmed by the name of the Eucharist Yet vnderstand mee I doe not say that the bread and the cup were this Eucharisticall sacrifice that Christ offered but the thanksgiuing which he offered to his father For before hee brake the bread and gaue the cup to his Disciples it is the opinion of all ancient and moderne writers that lifting vp his eyes vnto heauen in the name of all the elect that were are and euer shall bee in the world he gaue thanks to his heauenly Father for all his blessings of nature grace and glory but especially for that remission of 〈◊〉 and redemption from eternall death purchased by that sacrifice of his body vpon the crosse So that in these two sacrifices of Christ all the Leuiticall sacrifices had their full perfection and
the commers thereunto perfect for then should they not haue ceased to be offered because that the worshippers once purged should haue had no more conscience of sinnes What doth the Apostle conclude here He opposeth the Gospell to the law our Soueraigne Priest Christ Iesus against the Priests of Aaron his sacrifice which had no need to be renewed against their sacrifices repeated euery day the holinesse and effectuall sanctifying power which was in his sacrifice against their weakenesse and disability to sanctifie Hereupon he concludeth Hee taketh away the former to establish the latter the sacrifices of the law to establish his owne sacrifice Now how could this conclusion be good if this sacrifice should be reiterated seeing the often repetition argues weakenesse and impotency therefore the Apostle so often vses these words once offered to note the al-sufficiency of Christs sacrifice in the single and vnrepeated act of offering hee hauing annihilated and disanulled all other sacrifices whatsoeuer Wherefore the blood of Christ shed personally by himselfe being of sufficient vertue and merit to purifie cleanse and redeeme all beleeuers it must necessarily follow that there needes no reiteration but we may content our selues with that onely sacrifice offered vpon the crosse The Minor is so plaine and Orthodoxe that hee deserues not the name of a Christian that shall deny it Argument 2. Secondly he that offereth a true Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne must be of more value then the sacrifice it selfe but the Priest is not of more value then the body of Christ. Ergo the Priest in the Masse cannot offer the body of Christ. The Maior is true for the gift is not accepted for it selfe but for the worthinesse of him that offers it as Ireneus affirmes wherefore albeit Cains sacrifice was not of lesse worth in it selfe then Abells yet the person of Cain being vnworthy because of the wickednesse of his heart his offering was reiected but Abell beeing more worthy then his oblation in regard of his faith the Lord had respect vnto him and to his offering so Christ as Priest was God and man and therefore of more merit and efficacy then his humane nature which was the onely sacrifice for without the merit of the Godhead by which the humanity was offered the sacrifice of Christ could not haue beene of infinite value and desert Wherefore he that presumes to offer the body of Christ truely and really vnto God the Father for a Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne blasphemously sayes in effect that he is of more value worth and merit then the sacrifice he offers Argument 3. Thirdly 〈◊〉 lawfull sacrifice is grounded vpon expresse words of Scripture whereby it may appeare that God hath instituted such a sacrifice but there is no command in scripture for the sacrifice of the Masse Ergo. The sacrifice of the Masle is not lawfull The Maior proposition is prooued by the words of Christ Invaine doe they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandements of men Where our Sauiour sharpely reprehendeth the Scribes and 〈◊〉 for teaching those things to belong to the worship of God which were of their owne inuention and not by Gods expresse command for this is a true Thesis Nothing ought to bee accounted of the substance or essence of Gods worship but what God himselfe hath expresly commanded in his word And for this very thing did God reprooue the Iewes because they worshipped in Tophet offering such kind of sacrifices as hee neuer appointed for I spake not vnto your fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them forth of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices but this I said commanding them Obey my voyce and I will be your God c. Where first God condemned them for doing what they were not commanded as offering their children vnto Molech in the vally of Tophet Secondly God shewes them wherein he will bee worshipped namely in that which he expresly commandeth Therefore albeit God had commanded the sacred action of sacrificing as a part of diuine worship yet because the Gentils in their sacrifices did not follow the prescript forme of the law of God therefore were their sacrifices abhominable and no other then I dolatrous The Minor proposition is perspicuous for let all the Gospells and writings of the Apostles bee strictly suruayed and there can neither the name nor sacrifice of the Masse be found for the sacrifices of the law had their precise and prescript forme enioyned why then if God would haue an externall sacrifice to remaine vnder the Gospell hath hee not left vs directions for the manner And whereas our aduersaries pretend a command in these words Do this hereunto we haue already answered page 56. Wherefore the sacrifice of the Masse hauing no ground in the new Testament wee must needes account it fictitious a humane inuention and therefore to be reiected Argument 4. Fourthly that sacrifice wherein there is no shedding of blood cannot bee Propitiatory But in the Masse there is no shedding of blood Ergo the sacrifice of the Masse is no Propitiatory sacrifice The Maior proposition is grounded vpon the words of the Apostle Without blood shedding there can be no remission of sinnes and in the legall sacrifices all that were Propitiatory were liuing creatures which were slaine by the Priests The minor is true according to the common consent of our aduersaries who make the Masse to be sacrificium incruentum an vnbloody sacrifice and albeit the blood of Christ be powred out yet it is not shed for them in behalfe of whom it is offered wherein they doe directly contradict themselues Argument 5. Fiftly that doctrine which is contrary to it selfe is not to be embraced in the Church But the doctrine of our aduersaryes touching the sacrifice of the Masse is contrary to it selfe Ergo it is not to bee imbraced The Maior neither Protestant nor Papist will deny The Minor is prooued For our aduersaries teach that the body of Christ in the Masse is an externall sacrifice and is truely offered vnto God the Father vnder the formes of bread and wine And yet they teach the body of Christ to be inuisible in the sacrifice wherein they are contrary to themselues for no externall sacrifice is an inuisible sacrifice neither can a sacrifice be visible which they affirme of their sacrifice when the thing offered is inuisible Wherefore if they will make it an externall offering the sacrifice it selfe must be visible but here is nothing visible according to their Tenent but the Altar the Priest his ceremoniall and mimicall actions his many hundred crossings the accidents and outward formes which are no part of the sacrifice Here then their doctrine implyes a contradiction to make it a visible sacrifice and yet the sacrifice is inuisible it is an externall oblation yet the matter offered is internall and cannot be discerned Howsoeuer though no man can perceiue the matter of their sacrifice yet euery man may perceiue the manner of their iugling
places and the like it is euident that hee that was to be the Priest of the new Couenant was also to be the Mediatour betweene God and man and that there is no Mediatour but onely Christ appeares by the words of Saint Paul For there is one God and one Mediatour betweene God and man the man Iesus Christ. Wherefore if they say they are Priests of the new Testament they may as well say they are Mediatours and if Mediators then Redeemers of the Church Argument 10. Tenthly if Christ in the Sacrament be giuen vnto vs to bee receiued with truth faith and humble reuerence then Christ is not offered vnto his Father by the Priest in the Eucharist much lesse in the Masse But he is offered vnto vs in the Eucharist Ergo. Christ is not offered by the Priest vnto his Father The hypotheticall connexion appeares by the nature of those things which are opposite for the end of Christs institution of the Supper was to exhibite himselfe vnto all beleeuers Spiritually to be receiued Sacramentally for the sealing and confirmation of their faith and not to bee offered vp by any mortall vnto his Father And whereas they obiect that God gaue vnto the Israelites sacrifices which they should offer vnto God We answer that this exception is plaine heterogenes of another nature for their sacrifices were corporall and externall ours spirituall and internall The assumption is prooued by the words of Christ Take eate this is my body which is giuen for you Taking doth presuppose a giuing it is called The Communion of the body and blood of Christ. That is the communicating and distributing of the blessed body and blood of Christ whereof all beleeuers in common are made partakers They affirme the Eucharist to be not onely a Sacrament out also a Propitiatory sacrifice were deny it vpon this ground because all expiatory sacrifices properly so called haue their complement in the most perfect and absolute sacrifice of Christ Iesus which he offered himselfe vpon the crosse But say they Christ sacrificed himselfe in the Eucharist which appeares by these words Datur frangitur effunditur is giuen is broken is powred out where our Sauiour speakes in the present tense and not shall be broken shall be giuen shall be powred out We answer first some of their owne writers haue denyed that Christ offered any Propitiatory sacrifice when he instituted and distributed the Eucharist see p. 84. And he himselfe saies that his time was not fully come namely wherein he should be offered Againe their owne translation hath tradetur effundetur shall be giuen shall be powred out which Lyra following doth so render and so is it in the Canon of the Masse Moreouer our Sauiour might so speake not to signifie a present sacrifice but to intimate that his body was already broken and his blood shed in Gods determination and his owne resolution in which sense he is called Agnus ab origine mundi occisus The lambe slaine from the beginning of the world because God had appointed him from the beginning to be the Sauiour of the world And why might not Christ speake in the present tense hauing respect vnto their 〈◊〉 whose property is to make things past and to come to be truely present But the direct answer is that in the words of Christ there is an Enallage temporis the present time being set for the future and this kind of speech is frequent in the scripture as Woe vnto that man by whom the Sonne of man is betrayed for shall be betrayed Vnto vs a sonne and borne of c. And thus their owne Cardinall expounds it saying Euangelistae in voce praesentis effunditur Paulus in frangitur futuram in cruce effusionem carnis frnctionem significarunt c. The Euangelists in the word is powred out being of the present tense and Paul by the word is broken did signifie the suture effusion of his blood and the breaking of his flesh vpon the crosse And so Gregory de Valentia vpon these words This is my body which is giuen for you saith That is which shall be offered by mee slaine vpon the crosse So Hugo Cardinalis vpon Math. 26. Fregit id est frangendum in cruce signauit He brake that is he signified it to be broken vpon the crosse Now who sees not the blasphemie of our peruerse aduersaries who against the light of holy scripture and I thinke I may safely say against the light of their owne conscience dare affirme that Christ in the Lords Supper offered his transubstantiated body vnto his Father an expiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the elect how can they reconcile this doctrine and the words of the Apostle Christ offered himselfe once for all which they can neuer effect till they prooue the action which Christ performed in the night before he was betrayed to bee eadem numero the same indiuiduall action which hee did the day following for if hee offered himselfe for sinne in the Sacrament and offered himselfe for the same sins vpon the crosse How can this bee true Hee offered himselfe once for all who sees not by their doctrine a double offering of Christ Who perceiues not double dealing in the matter Argument 11. The eleuenth argument That sacrifice which is not of diuine institution is not lawfull in the Church But the sacrifice of the Masse is not of diuine institution Therefore the sacrifice of the Masse is not lawfull The Maior is prooued by the confession of their owne Iesuite who sayes that the Church cannot institute any new sacrifice or sacrament for the ordinance of such essentiall parts of Gods worship must bee of diuine institution and as he affirmeth 〈◊〉 7. Sacrificia veteris legis omnia fuerunt a Deo immediate instituta licet erant a Mose promulgata Sacrificij autem 〈◊〉 gis solus Christus Deus homo author est God was the authour of all the sacrifices of the old Law albeit they were promulgated by Moses and Christ God and Man is the authour of the sacrifice of the new Testament Therefore hath Salomon their Iesuite iustly taxed a Great Scholler of their owne Church for saying the Church had authority to institute a new sacrifice if Christ himselfe had instituted none The Minor is true for as Martin Luther exacteth of our aduersaries a demonstration of their sacrifice from the institution of Christ wherein as hee obserueth We reade that Christ did distribute this sacrament vnto his disciples but that he offered it vp in forme of a sacrifice we cannot find Hereunto their Cardinall Bellarmine answereth That this manner of argument from scripture 〈◊〉 as thus it is not expressely set downe is scripture Ergo it was not done is ridiculous among schoole-boyes But if he wold take the aduise of Suarez or stand to his owne answer which elsewhere he himselfe hath deliuered he would not so slightly reiect that forme ofarguing For first Suarez a
Iesuite of his owne society that hee might prooue the receiuing of the bread and the wine in the Eucharist not to bee any essentiall part of this sacrifice reasoneth negatiuely from Christ his institution thus It is very likely that Christ instituting this sacrifice did not make it of the essence of this sacrifice for the Priest to receiue for the Euangelists negatiue authority proones it it being probable that they relating the history of so great a mystery would not haue pretermitted so essentiall a rite thereof who doe expresly signifie that Christ did consecrate the Eucharist but that hee himselfe did take it they doe not report and immediately hee addes If the Priests receiuing of the bread and wine be of the essence of the Eucharist it ought to haue bin cleerely and plainely deliuered by the Euangelist From hence may bee collected thus much That wbosoeuer is not expressely related by the Euangelist concerning the institution of this sacrament is not essentiall or absolutely necessary thereunto This is Suarez his confession and as much as Luther and we desire for if the Euangelists haue not layde downe any institution of a sacrifice nor so much as named a a sacrifice in the Eucharist wee ought not to embrace it this therefore argues the malice of our aduersary Bellarmine who calls this a ridiculous manner of reasoning in vs which is vsed by a Doctour of his owne order not inferiour to himselfe in learning and iudgement Secondly let vs appeale vnto the iudgement of the Cardinall himselfe who answers in another case after the same manner for hee reciteth the Liturgies that passe vnder the name of Saint Iames because all things saith he contained in those liturgies and in the liturgies of other Fathers are not taken from the example or precept of Christ. Thus doth the Cardinalls argument frame it selfe whatsoeuer in the seruice of God is not by prescript precept or direct example of Christ confirmed is not lawfull or warrantable see now the partiality and philautia of the Cardinall for what hee thinkes commendable in himselfe he accounts ridiculous in another The Liturgie of Saint Iames is not lawfull because it contains many things not taken either from the example or commandement of Christ yet we may not say that the Masse is vnlawfull because it cannot be prooued by either example or commandement of Christ. Note here the Cardinall requires greater authority for the confirmation of a Liturgy then of their Massing sacrifice Wherefore when they vrge the lawfulnesse of this their sacrifice let vs reply Orthodoxally in the Cardinals owne words Shew vs either example or commandement from Christ and it shall 〈◊〉 For in this tempestuous night of opposition and contention wee haue nothing to steere our course by but by the compasse of Scripture and the Load-starre Christ in whom wee are to obserue dicta facta his words and his actions in his institution It is not vntrue that some Romanists haue thought that Christ did name the word sacrifice or oblation when he spake vnto his father albeit it be not mentioned by the Euangelist for they thought it necessary in consecration that Christ should haue vsed the words offering or sacrificing But that had beene strange forgetfulnesse in the 〈◊〉 to haue omitted the maine thing which must authorize this sacrifice and how did the spirit of the truth lead them into all truth if this were omitted which is the maine part of Gods seruice and the chiefe solace of a Christian soule But we will not 〈◊〉 them to so strict a taske as to finde in the institution of Christ the very words of a sacrifice or oblation it shall auaile them to proue any word tending to that purpose Bellarmine brags of the probate of the point and vseth this argument Christ offered himselfe vnder the forme of bread and wine vnto his father and bid his Apostles do this in remembrance of him therefore the Church may offer a sacrifice propitiatory according to Christs command laying Do this Who sees not here a Paralogisme or petitio principij For he takes that for granted which is the life of the cause and hee supposes that Christ offered himselfe vnder the formes of bread and wine which can neuer be proued and therefore is vnlikely to be granted by vs for if it can appeare that Christ at the institution of the Eucharist or Lords Supper did 〈◊〉 his body into the bread and wine and so did offer it vnto his father wee shall soone yeelde and the controuersie shall haue end But can any man beleeue that Christ carried his whole body in owne of his hands that he gaue it to be eaten to his Disciples which saw him present at the Table and heard him speaking to them both while they were eating him and afterward that the same sonne of man should at once both 〈◊〉 his owne body and 〈◊〉 intine and whole at Table That a true naturall body should be in many places at once Vnlesse hee were as Tursellian reports of St. Xanier one of Loyala's brood who was seene in a boate and ship both at once like Plautus his Amphitruo Sealiger layes downe his Axiome The numericall vnity of a finite thing cannot stand without continuity But Bellarmine sayth The very places wherein Christs body is are discontinued yea and the very body of Christ it selfe is 〈◊〉 from it selfe 〈◊〉 respect of place though not in respect of substance and quantity As though there could be any diuision of a materiall substance but by bounds of place or as if quantity were not both bounded and measured by place alone Or as if that sinite body which is in two places at once were not first diuided in it selfe So that we demaund of Bellarmine as once Paul did in another case Is Christ diuided The Papists do not say as once of old Behold here is Christ or there but which is much worse Behold Christ is both here and there and euery where in his true humane nature thus they blush not to teach impossibilities that the selfe same body should be all here and all not here all visible and all inuisible all vppon the Table and all in Heauen all eaten and all vneaten all in England and all at Rome Who sees not these impostures to be most palpable And for that Bellarmine will haue these words Do this to signifie as much as to sacrifice thereby to establish their great Diana the sacrifice of the Masse hee alleadgeth not one of the whole Catalogue of the Fathers who hath so interpreted those words Insomuch that his brother Cardinall dispairing of the proofe of the Masse by these words is faine to confesse Vt vel hoc ex loco vel alijs scripturae locis essicaciter probari non possit hoc esse sacrificium tamen ex eccle siae traditione idefficaciter probatur That albeit this sacrifice cannot be proued by this text Do this or by other places of
vse as meanes for the conuersion of others were to liue in future ages and had not as yet beeing and consequently could not at that time finish those acts whereunto they were destined of God but if he vnderstand by these words All things necessary for mans saluation are not finished all the specificall acts of religion as Prayer Preaching Administration of the Sacraments c. and whatsoeuer of that kind which is necessary to mans saluation is not finished this is false for that they had their institution from Christ before his death and so in the species they were finished Or if thereby the sacrifice of Christ was not finished this is false for both it and the saluation of man by it was finished as appeares by the Apostles vsing the same words saying With one offering teteleioken consummauit he hath consummated for euer such as are sanctified And whereas he sayes that if all things necessary for mans saluation were consummated then the sacraments and all doctrine should bee superfluous this is false for the institution of them might be consummated although the exercise of them in future ages were not finished Againe the perfection of Christs sacrifice abolisheth not the vse of doctrine and Sacraments which doe represent vnto vs the death and sacrifice of Christ but it abolisheth all other sacrifices of Propitiation for if they be but memorialls of Christs death they are superfluous the word and sacraments beeing sufficient to that end and if they be more then memorials as auaileable to forgiue sinnes they are blasphemous and make Christs sacrifice imperfect Argument 17. The seauenteenth argument is taken from the falshood of the Canon of the Masse and it is thus framed Such as is the Canon such is the sacrifice But the Canon of the Masse is false Ergo the sacrifice is false and consequently not Propitiatory The falshood of the Masse appeares in diuers things 1. In the ancient Church when the Lords Supper was celebrated the Christians vsed to bring their agapai which were the bread and wine for the reliefe of the poore and the maintenance of the Ministry and when they had laide downe these oblations which were neuer accounted a Propitiatory sacrifice they prayed for the prosperity and preseruation of the Church which in the Canon before the consecration is applyed vnto the bread and wine and the bread and wine is offered vnto God the Father for the happinesse of the Church Secondly in the Canon They pray vnto God that he would accept that pure sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ as he accepted the sacrifices of Abell and Melchizedech In which words they become intercessours vnto God the Father to accept his Son Iesus Christ as though he were not worthy to be accepted of himselfe And how absurd is it to compare the most pretious sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ if it were so really and truely vnto the sacrifice of Abel which was but a lambe or a goate And how vnwisely doe they pray that God would accept the sacrifice of his Sonne as hee did accept the sacrifice of Melchizedech whereas it cannot appeare as is formerly prooued by the holy scripture that Melchizedech offered bread and wine how absurd is it then to compare the sacrifice of Christ with that sacrifice which neither was is nor shall be Thirdly the Canon saith that the Priest offereth vnto God the heauenly Father the bread of life But where are they commanded to offer the bread of life seeing in the scripture there is mention made of eating the bread of life but not of offering Fourthly the Canon ouerthrowes the article of ascension for it commands the Angells to carry that vnspotted sacrifice to the high Altar of heauen and to present it before God the Father What Is not Christ ascended and fitteth for euer at the right hand of God and hath he now more need of the helpe of Anglls then when he first ascended by the whole power of his Godhead and cannot hee appeare before his Father but by the assistants of Angells But let me bee bold to demand three questions of our aduersaries grounded vpon these words of the Canon Supplices te rogamus omnipotens Deus iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli c. We humbly beseech thee O Omnipotent God that tbou wouldest command this sacrifice to be carryed by the hands of the holy Angell vnto thy high Altar in the sight of thy diuine Maiesty c. First if they vnderstand it of the bread and wine transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ how comes it to passe that they are not taken by the Angell and carryed immediately into heauen according to the prayer of the Church Secondly I demand if their doctrine bee true of their Multipresence that the true humane body and blood of Christ be both in heauen and in many thousand places vpon the earth at one time what need then the Angell to carry the body of Christ into heauen where it is already before his heauenly Father Thirdly if it be so as they say that Christ in the night when he instituted the Lords Supper did offer himselfe his naturall body and blood vnder the forms of bread and wine a true Propitiatory sacrifice to his heauenly Father I demand whether the Angell did carry this sacrifice into heauen or whether it did 〈◊〉 before his Father in heauen or no If they say no how then was the sacrifice accepted or how comes the Church to pray for that priuiledge of hauing this sacrifice carryed into heauen which was not vouchsafed to the sacrifice offered immediately by Christ himselfe If they affirme that it was carryed into heauen it would then follow that Christs body was in heauen before his passion resurrection or ascension and when he in his humane nature ascended into heauen from his Disciples hee found his humane body and blood before his Father and to haue beene there before it came thither Thus they make Christ to haue two bodies and consequently two soules and so Christ is not one but two but many but innumerable These absurdities doe directly result and arise from their blasphemous Canon which is so grosse and palpable as deserues to be hissed out of the Church Lastly the Canon in diuers places ouerturnes the Mediation of Christ in that they pray to Saints and Angells making them to be intercessours it also establishes Purgatory and prayer for the dead doctrines so dissonant from the truth of the Scriptures as when we see them authorized in the Church of Rome wee may iustly call in question the vertue of their massing sacrifice Argument 18. The eighteenth Argument is taken from the effect of the Masse thus That which destroyeth the true nature of the Lords Supper cannot be a true Propitiatory sacrifice for the 〈◊〉 of the quicke and the dead But the pretended sacrifice of the Masse doth subuert and destroy the nature of the Lords Supper Ergo
the pretended sacrifice of the Masse is not Propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead The Maior is not denyed by our aduersaries The Minor is thus prooued Augustine saith Sacramentum est visibile signum inuisibilis gratiae a visible signe of inuisible grace so that in euery sacrament there is signum signatum the signe and the thing signified both which abide whole and intire in such sort as it is not possible that the one can be the other or any part of the other But the sacrifice of the Masse destroyeth the nature of a sacrament for it taketh away the substance of the bread which is the signe and seale of his body it taketh away the substance of the wine which is the symbole of his blood and that by 〈◊〉 and altering them as some of them hold or els by annihilating them as others say or by reducing them into their first matter from substances into accidents contrary vnto all nature yea contrary to the things signified for there ought to be resemblance betweene the signe and the thing signified as Manna did represent the bread of life which came downe from heauen in baptisme water which washeth away corporall spottes the blood of Christ which cleanseth our spirituall pollutions bread and wine which nourish our naturall life the body and blood of Christ which sustaine and feede vs vnto eternall life But roundnesse whitenesse moistnesse and rednesse which they giue vs for signes what analogy or proportion haue they with our spirituall nourishment These accidents of bread and wine haue no power or vertue to feede the body but the substance of bread and wine they leaue those and take away this where then is the sacrament when the signe is abolished Againe the sacrifice of the Masse taketh away the thing signified in the Lords Supper What 's that It is the body and blood of Christ yea Christ himselfe For the very body and blood of Christ was giuen only for them which 〈◊〉 in him and abide in him for them saith the Apostle which dwell in him by faith and in whose hearts he dwelleth for them saith Saint Augustine which are his members and therefore the same Father saith a man may eate panem Domini the bread of the Lord and yet not eate panem Dominum the Lord the bread making a difference betweene the bread in the sacrament and that life-giuing bread which is Christ himselfe represented by the symboles in the Eucharist But oh what iniury is offered by the Papists in their sacrifice vnto the body and blood of Christ which is the food of eternall life when dogs and swine that is reprobates and hypocrites shall bee made pertakers of it nay and these ex opere operato by vertue of the very act of receiuing doe merit remission of sinnes and relaxation of punishment nay a Mouse or a Dog may eate the precious body of our Lord Iesus Christ which doth so 〈◊〉 their greatest Doctors that if it be demanded Whether if a Dog or a Mouse doe eate the 〈◊〉 Host they doe 〈◊〉 the very body of Christ they are at a non plus and know not what to answer Wee affirme and dare iustifie That the signe of the Sacrament may be receiued of all that are of competent age in the Church But Res Sacramenti the thing signified in the Sacrament can onely be receiued by the faithfull which are rightly of the Church for so saith Origen Of this true and verie meate of this Word made flesh no wicked or vngodly man can eate because it is the Word and Bread of life because hee that eateth of this bread liueth for euer And S. Augustine speakes plainely to this purpose saying The Signes are common to the good and 〈◊〉 but the thing proper to the faithfull alone therefore the Apostles did eate Panem Dominum The bread which was the Lord but Iudas onely Panem Domini the Bread of the Lord against the Lord. Doth not this take away Christ himselfe when the Church shall giue vnto wicked men and vnbeleeuers and they themselues shall receiue the very substantiall Body of Christ. Againe they destroy the humanity of Christ for the which the Fathers of the Church haue so mightily contended against diuers Heretikes for when without warrant of Gods word they ascribe vnto this body a property of being in a thousand places at once how do they not destroy the nature of a true Humane body which can be but in one place at one time as is prooued Pag. 198. Nay doth not this Sacrifice make Christ a dead Christ in that they doe really separate his body from his blood making them in consecration and after consecration to subsist apart which separation was the very death of Christ And whereas Christ saith I am with you vnto the end of the world And Where two or three are gathered together in my name I will be in the middest of them These and the like speeches are to be vnderstood of the Diuinitie of Christ which filleth all places as these Speeches You shall not have me alwaies with you It is expedient for you that I goe away The heauens must containe him vntill the restauration of all things are to be vnderstood of his Humanity which is circumscriptiuely onely in one place at once And so the Fathers vnderstand these places Origen saith It is not the man which is euery where Where two or three be gathered together in his name Or yet is alwaies with vs vntill the end of the world Or which is in euery place where the faithfull are assembled but it is the Diuine power which is in Iesus And so Saint Augustine You haue the poore alwaies with you c. Let not good men be troubled in respect of his maiestie prouidence grace c. It is fulfilled which he said I am alwaies with you In respect of the flesh which the Word tooke vpon it it is the same which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You shall not haue me alwaies The Church enioyed him but a few daies in respect of his bodily presence but now it possesseth him by faith and seeth him no more with these bodily eies c. And in another place vpon 〈◊〉 words Vado venio ad aos He went as men he staied behinde as God He went in as much as he was but in one place he staied and abode still in as much as hee was euery where By which words of S. Augustine it appeares that hee conceiued the Humane body of Christ to reside in one place and not to bee in many places at once And in another of his writings hee hath these words It is expedient for you that I goe Although that hee be alwaies with vs by his Diuinitie but if he had not gone away from vs corporally we should haue seen him daily with these carnall eies and should neuer haue beleeued in him spiritually c. And for this cause he hath absented himself in
vnto Christ the Layty gazing on him appearing rather to be excommunicate persons then to haue any communion in the body of Christ as also the Communion of Saints is abolished by the Masse seeing any notorious sinner who can pay for a Masse shall haue as much relaxation of paines as a 〈◊〉 man 6. In the administration of the Sacrament the Laity did pertake of the cup as well as the clergy But in the Masse the Sacrament is maimed by taking away the cup from the Lay people 7. Christ instituted the Sacrament in remembrance of himselfe saying Doe this in remembrance of me The Priest sayes Masse in remembrance of the dead Againe hereby they destroy the remembrance of Christs death For as a Testament doth suppose the death of the Testator so the alteration of that Testament supposeth that the Testator is not yet dead wherefore the Masse beeing so much altered from the institution of Christ which hee bequeathed as a Testament vnto his Church doth by consequence deny the death of Christ For it beeing sufficiently proued to be another pretended Testament differing from the first institution doth 〈◊〉 require againe that Christ should dye recrucisying the Sonne of God for as Paul sayth Where a Testament is there must necessarily follow the death of the Testator Moreouer if Christ be offered 〈◊〉 day how is this not rather to institute a new sacrifice then to Doe it in remembrance of his great sacrifice vppon the Crosse. 8. Christ instituted the Sacrament to be reuerently distributed vnto the people But the Masse is reserued in the Pix is carried about the Cities and Townes like a may-game 9. Christ gaue bread and wine to his Disciples The Priest 〈◊〉 God vnto the people hee being the maker of his Maker and they eating God with their bodyly mouthes to Christ instituted the Sacrament to confirme our Faith they say Masse to redeeme mens soules to cure diseases to worke miracles The second impiety of the Masse It commandeth and practiseth things directly contrary to Gods word 〈◊〉 inuocation of Saints and Angels Prayer for the dead Adoration of creatures Purgatory c. Thirdly it by consequence affirmeth that Christ is out of the fauour of his Heauenly Father and therefore had neede of an earthly Mediator which is the Priest who may offer the body of Christ vnto his Father and pray that God would accept him as the sacrifice of Abell Fourthly the Masse hindreth the seruice of God for God wil be serued in spirit and truth with an inward and entire affection but the Masse causeth a man to rest in the outward seruice of God as hearing seeing gazing stooping kneeling knocking c. Which things of themselues are meritorious by the worke wrought and because the Masse alone is sufficient therefore it makes needlesse all holy exercises as Preaching Prayer c. Working presumption in wicked men who albeit they haue spent their dayes in wickednesse yet if they haue a Masse or can get the Priest to say Masse for them they doubt not but to be saued Fiftly it blasphemeth the Deity of Christ in that whereas God alone is to be worshipped with Diuine worship they ascribe and yeelde that which is due vnto God alone vnto the creature worshipping it instead of God as the bread and the wine in the Eucharist and doubtlesse their Artolatreia is nothing else but Tololatreia Sixtly it derogateth from the vertue of Christs death making it ineffectuall and his sacrifice imperfect ouer-turning the Crosse of Christ by erecting an Altar and reiterating that perfect and all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ which was offered once for all whereby hee sanctified for euer them that were perfect hauing obtained eternall redemption for vs. And as the reiteration of the Leuiticall sacrifices argued the imperfection of them so the repetition of the Masse argues an insufficiency in the sacrifice of Christ. Seuenthly it falsifies the word of Christ. We vsually obserue the last speeches of dying men as oracles but Christ dying vpon the Crosse shut vp all with this speech It is finished that is Mans saluation is finished by this my sacrifice And yet the Massedenies it What is this but to make Christ a lyer Eightly it denies the Article of Christs humanity in that it a scribes not vnto him those properties which are competent to all 〈◊〉 bodies and without which a reall body cannot subsist as to be locally in one place at once to be circumscriptible to haue true demensions c. Ninthly it 〈◊〉 the article of Christs session at the right hand of God Who enioying a true materiall body if hee be present in the Masse cannot sit as a man at the right hand of his Father for euer Tenthly it is the ground of all diffidence and distruct the Sacrament encreaseth our faith while thereby wee apprehend Christ bodily absent to bee spiritually present but the Masse depending on the intention of the Priest cannot but beget distrust in the minds of the people Eleuenthly the Masse robbes vs of the fruite of Christs death for the fruite of Christs death is remission of sinnes which is sealed vnto vs in the Lords Supper But the Masse by the consent of some of their greatest Doctors is not auaileable for the remission of sinnes Twelfely it opens the mouth of the Common Aduersary who despises both the persons and religions of all Christians because the Church of Rome worshippeth a breaden God The thirteenth impiety of the Masse is this it destroyeth the eternity of Christs Priest-hood who was consecrated of his father a Priest not for a time but for euer after the order of Melchizedech which order was not temporall as the Priest-hood of Rome but eternall not externall and visible after his assension but spirituall and inuisible such as could neither be supplyed by substitutes or successours But by offering the sacrifice of the Masse they make themselues after the order of Melchizedech which order at the end of the world shall cease what then shall become of Christs eternall Priest-hood The fourteenth impiety of the Masse It maketh the Priest of more desert then Christ himselfe For the sacrifice is not accepted for it selfe but for the worthinesse of the person offering Caines sacrifice was as good as Abels when yet it was reiected for the wickednesse of him that offered Abels being accepted for the worthinesse of the sacrificer so the humane nature of Christ being our sacrifice was meritorious by the vertue of the God-head whereby it was offered vnto his Father But if the Priests do offer the body of Christ vnto his Father he must needes be of more desert then the sacrifice it selfe The fifteenth impiety of the Masse It ouerthroweth the Doctrine of grace and iustification which teacheth that in this life alone man hath time to worke his saluation and to procure the fauour of God and pardon for sinne But the Masse is profitable for the dead yea both to mitigate the paines and totally to liberate out of
to goe in to bow with his Master in the house of Rimmon and therefore prayeth twice for mercy for it professing he will neuer worship any but the true God neither doth he onely pray for sinne past but in the sence of his owne weakenesse desireth mercy that 〈◊〉 may not bee drawne from his purpose and withsll stirreth vp the Prophet to pray for him that God would giue him grace and strength and for pardon if at any time hee should against his purpose bee drawne into his former sinne and in this sense the Prophet bids him goe in peace as if hee should say I will pray that God would keepe thee in thy godly resolution and for mercy and pardon if thou shouldest be drawne aside and so farewell The words of the Prophet Elisha Goe in peace are also diuerssy expounded Some thinke the Prophets words 〈◊〉 no grant made vnto his petition but rather a prohibition not to trouble himselfe about those matters as if he should haue sayd Content thy selfe require no such thing it would trouble thy conscience but goe in peace keepe a good conscience and labour for the peacetherof so as Polan obserues the words of the Prophet are Tantum dimittentis abeuntem non concedentis postulatum onely a valediction and not any concession or granting of his request Againe it appeares not by the words of the Prophet that he gaue any tolleration or dispensation vnto Naaman for Naaman makes in one verse two petitions one for permission to goe into Rimmons Temple the other for two mules load of earth to carry home with him to offer sacrifice vpon vnto the Lord. Now the Prophet makes the same answer vnto both and therefore doth either condescend to both or deny both but grant them both he did not for the one was cleane contrary to the law to giue Naaman leaue to sacrifice in Syria who was not a Priest whose office it was alone to offer sacrifice and moreouer Ierusalem was the onely place appointed for that action This request therefore the Prophet can by no meanes be thought to haue granted Ergo nor the other And vnto this sence I doe adhere for that the Prophet neither could nor durst giue any liberty to Naaman to be present at the Idolatrous worship of the Syrian Rimmon I am not ignorant of the opinion of some that the Prophet answers dispensando by the way of dispensation though not generally yet in that case onely to goe into the Idols Temple and to bee present at their Idolatry But Lyranus will haue it declarando by declaring it to be lawfull for Naaman to bee present in the Temple of Rimmon at Idolatrous seruice and sacrifice so it were onely for ciuill respect vnto the king his Master and of this opinion seemes 〈◊〉 to be who allowes a man to bee present by reason of some ciuill office so hee yeeld not to the least shew of Idolatry but I should rather commend the practise of the Protestant Princesat Augusta who brought Charles the fift their Emperour along as he was going to the Masse but left him at the Church doore as also of Valentinian who brought Iulian to the Temple of his Idols and when the doore-keeper sprinkled his gowne with the Idols water as the Pagans vsed Valentinian forthwith gaue him a blow on the eare Conclusion Thus hauing sufficiently refelled their strongest arguments and giuen answer to their chiefest pleas the conclusion shall bee this Seeing the Romish Masse hath quite ouerthrowne and thrust the Supper of the Lord out of the Church the holy Supper being an assembly a body of the faithfull vnited and knit together in one spirit strengthening our faith 〈◊〉 our charity kindling our zeale wherein is celebrated the memory of the death and passion of our Lord by a plaine and open rehearsall of the cause manner and benefits of the same whereby the faithfull are taught to acknowledge and call to mind the greatnesse of their sinnes and to admire and magnifie the great and vnspeakeable mercies of God whereby they are stirred vp to renounce and forsake themselues to giue themselues wholy vnto God to dye vnto their lusts and concupiscences and to liue vnto Christ who hauing once deliuered himselfe to the death of the crosse for to giue them life did yet further vouchsafe to giue himselfe to them in this sacrament as spirituall meate and drinke to feede their soules vnto eternall life and herein all the faithfull doe communicate together in the bread and in the cup in the body and in the blood of our Lord being taught thereby that they are diuers members of one mysticall hody whereof Christ is the head being quickned mooued and gouerned by one Spirit euen the Spirit of Christ liuing one life and hauing their hearts vnited one to another by loue Herein wee are seriously admonished of our bond and obligation to God the Father for sending his Son and God the Sonne fulfilling the will of his Father the remembrance of whose death wee shew forth till he come who as verily as the Minister giueth vs the bread and wine to be receiued with our hands which being eaten and drunken are conuerted into our substances and become nourishments of our bodies giueth vs his body and 〈◊〉 to be receiued with faith that we may eate and drinke them spiritually and that they may be turned into the life and substance of our soules making vs one with Christ and Christ one with vs. This was the holy Supper of the faithfull in the ancient Church and this is ours with the rest of the reformed Churches But in the Masse there are no footsteps of the holy Supper but all things are so changed as if the Lords Supper were abolished and the Masse were come in the stead therof for in the Masse there is a Prieft in a strange garment his face fixt vpon an Altar with a Clarke standing behind him muttering in a strange language interlarded with signes lifting vp a wafer in an affected and ceremoniall superstitious sort causing it to be worshipped dipping it in the wine eating it alone persuading the people that by thus much as hath beene done beeing at their request and bought with somepiece of money he hath sacrificed Christ for them What shewing foorth of the Lords death is there till he come Nay is there not an abolishing of the perfection value and efficacy of Christs death and sacrifice Is their not 〈◊〉 in robbing the lay-people of the cup Is not the Masse ful of abhominable blasphemies and grosse impieties Are not the deaths and sufferings of Saints and Martyrs rather reckoned vp then the death of Christ represented Is there not rather a breach of charity then any Symbole of loue when the Priest eates all himselfe the common people being excluded from it where is there any communion betweene the members or signification of our engrafting into Christ The scriptures neither authorising nor the Primitiue and Apostolicall