is certainly as easie to know what Christ instituted and what he commanded as to know this and consequently what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament without which it would not be such a Sacrament as Christ celebrated and appointed as to know what it is to eat and to drink and yet Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to make this the great difficulty P. 239 257 349. To know what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament and what does not and to distinguish what is essential in it from what is not And by this means he endeavour to darken what is as clear as the light and so to avoid the plainest Institution and the clearest Command The Institution says he does not suffice since the question always returns to know what appertains to the essence of the Institution Jesus Christ not having distinguisht them Jesus Christ instituted this Sacrament in the evening at the beginning of the night in which he was to be delivered it was at this time he would leave us his Body given for us Does the time or the hour then belong to the Institution does this appertain to the essence of it and is it not as plainly and evidently a circumstance as night or noon is a circumstance to eating and drinking Does the command of Christ Do this belong to that or to the other circumstances of doing it when the same thing the same Sacramental action may be done without them is not this a plain rule to make a distinction between the act it self and the circumstances of performing it Because there were a great many things done by Jesus Christ in this Mystery which we do not believe our selves obliged to do such as being in an upper Room lying upon a Bed and the like which are not properly things done by Christ so much as circumstances of doing it for the thing done was taking Bread and Wine and blessing and distributing them does therefore Christ's command Do this belong no more to eating and drinking than it does to those other things or rather circumstances with which he performed those is drinking as much a circumstance as doing it after supper if it be eating may be so too Monsieur de Meaux is ashamed to say this but yet 't is what he aims at for else the Cup will necessarily appear to belong to the Sacrament as an essential and consequently an indispensible part of it and this may be plainly known to be so from the words of Christ and from Scripture without the help of Tradition though that also as I have shewn does fully agree with those but they are so plain as not to need it in this case Eating and drinking are so plainly the essential part of the Sacrament and so clearly distinguisht from the other circumstances in Scripture that St. Paul always speaks of those without any regard to the other The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ the Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ * 1 Cor. 10.16 For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come †11.26 27 28 29. Whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup for he that eateth and drinketh So that he must be wilfully blind who cannot see from Scripture what is essential to this Sacrament from what is not But Monsieur de Meaux thinks to find more advantage in the other Sacrament of Baptism and therefore he chiefly insists upon that under this head and his design is to make out that immersion or plunging under Water is meant and signified by the word Baptize in which he tells us the whole World agree ‖ P. 168. and that this is the onely manner of Baptizing we read of the Scriptures and that he can shew by the Acts of Councils and by ancient Rituals that for thirteen hundred years the whole Church Baptized after this manner as much as it was possible * P. 171. If it be so than it seems there is not only Scripture but Tradition for it which is the great principle he takes so much pains to establish And what then shall we have to say to the Anabaptists to whom de Meaux seems to have given up that cause that he may defend the other of Communion in one kind for his aim in all this is to make immersion as essential to Baptism as eating and drinking to the Lord's Supper and if Scripture and Tradition be both so fully for it I know not what can be against it P. 299. but de Meaux knows some Gentlemen who answer things as best pleases them the present difficulty transports them and being pressed by the objection they say at that moment what seems most to disentangle them from it without much reflecting whether it agree I do not say with truth but with their own thoughts The Institution of the Eucharist in Bread and Wine and the command to do this which belonged to both eating and drinking lay very heavy upon him and to ease himself of those which he could not do if it were always necessary to observe what Christ instituted and commanded he was willing to make Baptism by dipping to be as much commanded and instituted as this though it be not now observed as necessary either by those of the Church of Rome or the Reformed and besides his arguments to prove that from Scripture he makes an universal Tradition of the Church which he pretends all along in his Book is against Communion in both kinds and which is the great thing he goes upon yet to be for this sort of Baptism no less than 1300 years So that neither the law in Scripture nor Tradition as it explains that law is always it seems to be observed which is the thing ought openly to be said for Communion in one kind The Cause it self demands this and we must not expect that an errour can be defended after a consequent manner ‖ Ib. But is Scripture and Tradition both for Baptism by immersion Surely not the word Baptize in which the command is given signifies only to wash in general and not to plung all over as I have already shewn in this Treatise †P. 21. and as all Writers against the Anabaptists do sufficiently make out to whom I shall refer the Reader for further satisfaction in that Controversie which it is not my business to consider at present and so much is de Meaux out about Tradition being so wholly and universally for Baptism by immersion that Tertullian plainly speaks of it by intinction ‖ Omne praeterea cunctationis tergiversationis erga paenitentiam vitium praesumtio intinctionis importat Tertul. de paenir Cap. 6. and by sprinkling * Quis enim tibi tam infidae paenitentiae
The Three Grand CORRVPTIONS of the Eucharist THE THREE GRAND CORRVPTIONS OF The Eucharist IN THE CHURCH of ROME VIZ. The Adoration of the Host The Communion in one kind The Sacrifice of the Mass In Three Discourses LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MDCLXXXVIII A DISCOURSE Concerning the ADORATION OF THE HOST As it is Taught and Practiced in the CHURCH of ROME Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject And to Monsieur Boileau's late book De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1685. right Charge of the Church of England of which no honest man can be a Member and a Minister who does not make and believe it I might give several Instances to shew this but shall only mention one wherein I have undertaken to defend our Church in its charge of Idolatry upon the Papists in their Adoration of the Host which is in its Declaration about Kneeling at the Sacrament after the Office of the Communion in which are these remarkable words It is hereby declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the sacramental Bread and Ware there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood for the sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians Here it most plainly declares its mind against that which is the Ground and Foundation of their Worshipping the Host That the Elements do not remain in their natural Substances after Consecration if they do remain as we and all Protestants hold even the Lutherans then in Worshipping the consecrated Elements they worship meer Creatures and are by their own Confession guilty of Idolatry as I shall show by and by and if Christ's natural Flesh and Blood be not corporally present there neither with the Substance nor Signs of the Elements then the Adoring what is there must be the Adoring some things else than Christs body and if Bread only be there and they adore that which is there they must surely adore the Bread it self in the opinion of our Church but I shall afterwards state the Controversie more exactly between us Our Church has here taken notice of the true Issue of it and declared that to be false and that it is both Unfit and Idolatrous too to Worship the Elements upon any account after Consecration and it continued of the same mind and exprest it as particularly and directly in the Canons of 1640 where it says a Canon 7. 1640. about placing the Communion Table under this head A Declaration about some Rites and Ceremonies That for the cause of the Idolatry committed in the Mass all Popish Altars were demolisht so that none can more fully charge them with Idolatry in this point than our Church has done It recommends at the same time but with great Temper and Moderation the religious Gesture of bowing towards the Altar both before and out of the time of Celebration of the Holy Eucharist and in it and in neither a Ib. Cans 7. 1640. Vpon any opinion of a corporal presence of Christ on the Holy Table or in the mystical Elements but only to give outward and bodily as well as inward Worship to the Divine Majesty and it commands all Persons to receive the Sacrament Kneeling b Rubric at Communion in a posture of Adoration as the Primitive Church used to do with the greatest Expression of Reverence and Humility 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as St. Cyrill of Hierusalem speaks c Cyril Hierosolym Catech. Mystag 5. and as I shall shew is the meaning of the greatest Authorities they produce out of the Ancients for Adoration not to but at the Sacrament so far are we from any unbecoming or irreverent usage of that Mystery as Bellarmine d Controv. de Eucharist when he is angry with those who will not Worship it tells them out of Optatus that the Donatists gave it to Dogs and out of Victor Vticensis that the Arrians trod it under their Feet that we should abhor any such disrespect shown to the sacred Symbols of our Saviours Body as is used by them in throwing it into the Flames to quench a Fire or into the Air or Water to stop a Tempest or Inundation or keep themselves from drowning or any the like mischeif to prevent which they will throw away even the God they Worship or the putting it to any the like undecent Superstitions 'T is out of the great Honour and Respect that we bear to the Sacrament that we are against the carrying it up and down as a show and the Exposing and Prostituting it to so shameful and Abuse and so gross an Idolatry We give very great Respect and Reverence to all things that relate to God and are set apart to his Worship and Service to the Temple where God is said himself to dwell and to be more immediately present to the Altar whereon the Mysteries of Christs Body and Blood are solemnly celebrated to the Holy Vessels that are always used in those Administrations to the Holy Bible which is the Word of God and the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Sacrament is his Body and the New Testament in his Blood to the Font which is the Laver of Regeneration wherein we put on Christ as well as we eat him in the Eucharist and if we would strain things and pick out of the Ancient and Devout Christians what is said of all these it would go as far and look as like to adoring them as what with all their care they collect and produce for adoring the Sacrament as I shall afterwards make appear in Answer to what the a Jacob. Boileau Paris De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. latest Defender of the Adoration of the Eucharist has culled or rather raked together out of the Fathers It seems from that Declaration of our Church that some were either so silly or so spiteful as to suppose that by our Kneeling at the Sacrament we gave Worship to the Elements and that learned man is willing to have it believed that we do thereby externè Eucharistiam colere b Boil p. 145. outwardly Worship the Sacrament and he blames us for not doing it inwardly in our minds as well as outwardly with our Bodies so willing are these men to joyn with our wildest Dissenters in their unreasonable Charges against our Church and use any crutches that may help their own weak Cause or be made use of to strike at us but it may as well be said that the Dissenters Worship their Cushions or their Seats when they kneel before them the roof of the Church or the crowns of their Hats when they fix their Eyes upon them at the same time they are
Jacobi as it is in the Church of England and I hope Boileau will not pretend that this is to the Holy Table it self If whatever we worship before is the very Object of our Worship then the Priest is so as well as the Table but it is neither he nor the Table nor the Sacrament but only Christ himself to whom this Worship is or ought to be given at the Celebration of the Eucharist and therefore this Adoration was as well before as after the Consecration of the Sacramental Elements and so could not be supposed to be given to them 3. There were several very ancient Customs relating to the Sacrament which are no ways consistent with the Opinion the Papists have of it now and with the worship of it as a God. It was very old and very usual for Christians to reserve and keep by them some of the Elements the Bread especially which they had received at the Sacrament as is evident from Tertullian n De Orat. c. 14. Accepto â—orpore Domini reservato and from St. Cyprian o De Lapsis who reports a very stronge think that happened to a Woman and also to a Man who had unduly gone to the Sacrament and brought some part of it home with them I shall not enquire whither this Custom had not something of Superstition in it whither in those times of Danger and Persecution it were not of use but had the Church then thought of it as the Papists do now they would not have suffered private Christians to have done this nay they would not have suffered them hardly to have toucht and handled that which they had believed to be a God no more than the Church of Rome will now which is so far from allowing this private Reservation of the Elements that out of profound Veneration as they pretend to them they wholly deny one part of them the Cup to the Laity and the other part the Bread they will not as the primitive Church put into their hands but the Priest must inject it into their Mouths The sending the Eucharist not only to the Sick and Infirm and to the Penitents who were this way to be admitted to the Communion of the Church in articulo mortis as is plain from the known Story of Serapion p Euseb Eccles Hist l. 6. c. 34. but the Bishops of several Churches sending it to one another as a token and pledg of their Communion with each other and q Iren. apud Euseb l. 5. c. 24. it being sent also to private Christians who lived remote in the Country and private Places which custom was abolisht by the Council of Laodicea these all show that tho the Christians always thought the Sacrament a Symbol of Love and Friendship and Communion with the Church so that by partaking of this one Bread they were all made as St. Paul says One Bread and one Body yet they could not think this to be a God or the very natural Body of their Saviour which they sent thus commonly up and down without that Pomp and Solemnity that is now used in the Church of Rome and without which I own it is not fit a Deity should be treated But above all what can they think of those who anciently used to burn the Elements that remained after the Communion as Hesychius r In Levit. 8.32 testifies was the custom of the Church of Hierusalem according to the Law of Moses in Leviticus of burning what remain'd of the Flesh of the Sacrifice that was not eaten but however this was done out of some respect that what was thus sacred might not otherwise be profaned yet they could not sure account that to be a God or to be the very natural and substantial Body of Christ which they thus burnt and threw into the Fire So great an honour and regard had the Primitive Church for the Sacrament that as they accounted it the highest Mystery and Solemnest part of their Worship so they would not admit any of the Penitents who had been guilty of any great and notorious Sin nor the Catechumens nor the Possest and Energumeni so much as to the sight of it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Participation of this Mystery used always in those times to go together as Cassander Å¿ Consult de Circumgest Sacram. owns and Albaspinaeus t L'ancienne Police de l'Eglise sur l'administration de l'Eucharistie liure prem Chap. 15 16 17. proves in his Book of the Eucharist And therefore as it is plainly contrary to the Primitive practice to carry the Sacrament up and down and expose it to the Eyes of all Persons so the reason of doing it that it may be worshipt by all and that those who do not partake of it may yet adore it was it is plain never thought of in the primitive Church for then they would have seen and worshipped it tho they had not thought fit that they should have partaken of it But he that will see how widely the Church of Rome differs from the ancient Church in this and other matters relating to the Eucharist let him read the learned Dallee his two Books of the Object of religious Worship I shall now give an Answer to the Authorities which they produce out of the Fathers and which Monsieur Boileau has he tells us been a whole year a gleaning out of them v Annuae vellicationis litirariae ratiocinium reddo Praef. ad Lect. Boileau de Adorat Euchar. if he has not rather pickt from the Sheaves of Bellarmine and Perrone But all their Evidences out of Antiquity as they are produced by him and bound up together in one Bundle in his Book I shall Examine and Answer too I doubt not in a much less time They are the only Argument he pretends to for this Adoration and when Scripture and all other Reasons fail them as they generally do then they fly to the Fathers as those who are sensible their forces are too weak to keep the open Field fly to the Woods or the Mountains where they know but very few can follow them I take it to be sufficient that in any necessary Article of Faith or Essential part of Christian Worship which this of the Sacrament must be if it be any part at all it is sufficient that we have the Scripture for us or that the Scripture is silent and speaks of no more than what we own and admit In other external and indifferent Matters relating meerly to the Circumstances of Worship the Church may for outward Order and Decency appoint what the Scripture does not But as to what we are to believe and what we are to Worship the most positive Argument from any humane Authority is of no weight where there is but a Negative from Scripture But we have such a due regard to Antiquity and are so well assured of our cause were it to be tryed only by that and not by Scripture which
substance of Christs Body is plain from what immediately goes before and utterly destroys what they would catch from half his words for he says That the Elements or the mystical Signs do not after sanctification recede from their own but remain in their former substance w 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. Thus their best Witness that seems to speak the most for them yet speaks that against them which destroys their whole cause as he must own whoever reads the Dialogue and considers the design of it which was to answer the pretence of those who said that the Body of Christ was after his Ascension turned into a Divine substance and lost the true nature of Body x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood are changed say those Hereticks into what they were not before Yes saies he Now ye are taken in your own net for they remain in their former nature and substance afterwards and so does Christs Body If then the change of these sacred Elements be only as to their use and vertue but not as to their substance according to Theodoret then he could not mean that they should be adored but only reverenced by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just as the Holy Bible y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liturg. Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acta Concil Ephes is said to be reverenced and the Priest themselves by the very same word z. 4. Some of the Fathers words imply that when we come to the Sacrament it should be with the greatest lowliness both of Body and Mind and as the Primitive Church used to do and as the Church of England does in a posture of Worship and Adoration in the form and manner of Worship as St. Cyril of Hieros speaks a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech Myst 5. or as St. Chrysostome In the form of Supplicants and Worshippers b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Homil. 7. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. de Phil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. in c. 10. Ep. 1. ad Cor. of Christ as the Magi were when they came to bring their presents to him do thou then present him with humility and a lowly and submissive heart and be not like Herod who pretended he would come to worship him but it was to murder him but rather imitate the Magi and come with greater fear and reverence to thy Saviour than they did This is the whole design and substance of what is produced out of St. Chrysostom c Boil c. 7. l 1. And this is the plain meaning of Origen d Hom. 5. in N. T. Tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum ingreditur tu ergo humilians teipsum imitare hunc Centurionem dicito Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum menm that when we come to receive Christ in the Sacrament we should do it with all Humility for consider says he That then the Lord enters under thy roof do thou therefore humble thy self and imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof When the Fathers would give us the Picture of a devout Communicant they draw him in the greatest Posture of Humility and Reverence looking upon and e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostom in Serm. 31. in natal Dom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Johan Hieros apud Chrysost apud Boil p. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Ibid. adoring his Saviour who died for him upon the Cross prostrating his Soul and his Body before him and exercising the highest acts of Devotion to him and with Tears in his Eyes and Sorrow in his heart standing like a Penitent before him trembling and afraid as sensible of his own guilt with his Eyes cast down and with dejected Looks considering that he is but Dust and Ashes who is vouchsafed to this Honour and inwardly Groaning and Sighing and Panting in his Soul saying Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof and the like And thus they may find all devout Communicants in our Church behaving themselves during the whole Solemnity and Celebration of that blessed Sacrament in which Mystery they always adore Christ and that Flesh of Christ which was crucified for then as St. Ambrose and St. Austin speak when their minds are all the while inflamed with the most devout Affections and they are performing all the inward and outward Acts of the highest Devotion to God and their Saviour then they are upon their Knees offering up most ardent Prayers and Thanksgivings but not to the sacred Symbols which are before them or the Sacrament it self as the object to which but as the Circumstance at and in which all this Devotion and Worship is performed And there is a great deal of difference from all this in the Church of Rome when they direct all this to the Sacrament it self and to the consecrated Elements when they terminate their Worship upon what is before them and direct their Intentions to that as an Object and therefore whenever they have this Object appear to them they immediately fall down and worship it not only in the time of the Communion when it finds them at their Devotion but at all other times when they are standing or walking in the Streets and are in no present Temper or Posture of Devotion yet all of a sudden as soon as they see the Host coming by they must put themselves into one and Adore that very Object that appears to them The Fathers always speak of Persons as coming to the Sacrament and partaking of it and worshipping Christ and the Body of Christ in the Celebration of those Divine Mysteries but it never enter'd into their minds or thoughts to perswade or encourage their hearers in their most devout Discourses to Adore the Host as the Church of Rome does either in or especially out of the time of that sacred Solemnity and tho it be very easie to make a Book out of the Fathers and to heap Authorities out of them to little purpose yet it is imposible to prove by all the places produced out of them by T. G. f Chap. 1. Of the Adoration of the blessed Sacrament or more largely by Boileau that they meant any more than what we are very willing to joyn with them in that Christ is to be worshipt in the Sacrament as in Baptism and the other Offices of our Religion and that his Body and Flesh which he offered for us and by which we expect Salvation is also to be adored as being always united to his Divine Nature and that the Sacrament it self as representing the great Mystery of our Redemption is to be highly reverenced by us and that we should come to receive it with all Humility and in the most decent Posture of Worship and Adoration as the Primitive Christians did But that the Sacrament it self is to be adored as
and to the belief of Lies as most Idolaters generally were but may it please him who is the God of Truth to bring into the way of Truth all such as have erred and are deceived in this or any other matter in which charitable and constant Prayer of our Church which is much better than Cursing and Anathematizing its Adversaries I hope as well as its Friends will not refuse to joyn with it FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THere are several mistakes of the Press but most of them are so Plain and Obvious that it is hoped that every Reader will immediately see and correct them without any trouble and without any particular account of them Five Sermons of Contentment one of Patience and one of Resignation to the Will of God By Isaac Barrow D. D. late Master of Trinity Colledg in Cambridg Never Published before in Octavo Printed for Brabazon Aylmer Licensed Aug. 3. 1686. A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind IN ANSWER TO A TREATISE OF THE BISHOP of MEAVX's OF Communion under both Species Lately Translated into English LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MDCLXXXVII AN ANSWER TO THE PREFACE of the Publisher THe Translatour of the Bishop of Meaux's Book of Communion under both Species having told us why he made choice of this Author whom he stiles The Treasury of Wisdom the Fountain of Eloquence the Oracle of his Age and in brief to speak all in a word the Great James formerly Bishop of Condom now of Meaux Having thus brought forth this great Champion of the Roman Church he makes a plain Challenge with him to us of the Church of England in these words If this Author write Reason he deserves to be believed if otherwise he deserves to be confuted By this I perceived he expected that we should be so civil as to take notice of so great a Man as the Bishop of Meaux or any thing that bears his Name and not let it pass unregarded by us after it was for our benefit as he tells us made English and besides I did not know but some unwary persons among us might believe the reason he writes however bad and therefore I thought he deserved to be confuted and ought by no means to go without the civility and complement of an English Answer This I doubt not might have been very well spared had the Publisher been pleased to have gone on a little further with his Work of Translating and obliged us who are strangers to the French Tongue with one of those Answers which are made to de Meaux's Book in that Language but since he has not thought fit to do that I must desire him to accept of such Entertainment as our Country will afford him though it is something hard that we must not only treat our Friends at home but have as many Strangers as they please put upon us But we who cannot Translate so well as others which is a much easier part than to Write at ones own charge must beg leave of our French Adversaries if we sometimes speak to them in plain English and the Bishop of Meaux must excuse me if Truth has sometimes made me otherwise answer him then if I were a Curé in his own Diocess Whoever has so great an opinion of the Bishop of Meaux's Vertue and Learning as to take matter of Fact upon his word which the Translatour's mighty Commendations were designed no doubt to beget in his Reader must believe the Communion in One Kind was the Practice of the Primitive and the Catholic Church which if it were true would be a very great if not sufficient excuse for the Roman This the Bishop asserts with all the confidence in the World and this his Book is designed to make out and whoever will not believe it must necessarily question either the Learning of this great Man or else his Sincerity I shall not dare to do the former but his late Pastoral Letter has given too much reason to suspect the latter He that can now tell the World That there has been no Persecution in France and that none has suffered violence either in their Persons or their Estates there for their Religion may be allowed to say That the Primitive Church had the Communion but in one Kind a great while ago But the one of these matters of Fact deserves more I think to be confuted than the other I suppose it was for the sake of the Author that the Translatour chose this subject of Communion in One kind though he says It is a point peradventure of higher concern than any other now in debate between Papists and Protestants this being the main Stone of Offence and Rock of Scandal and it having been always regarded since the Reformation as a mighty eye-sore and alledged as one sufficient Cause of a voluntary departure and separation from the Pre-existent Church of Rome When this Pre-existent Church of Rome fell into her Corrupt Terrestrial and Vnchristian State among other Corruptions this was one that gave just offence and was together with many more the Cause of our separating from it That it gave the Eucharist but in one kind contrary to Christ's Institution and took away the Cup of Christ's precious Bloud from the People But yet this point of highest concern is in the judgement of the Translatour but a bare Ceremony and upon the whole matter the difference herein between the Church of England and the Roman seems to him reducible in great measure to meer Form and Ceremony If it be then I hope it may be easily compromized and agreed for I assure him I am as little as he for making wider Divisions already too great nor do I approve of the Spirit of those who tear Christ's seamless Garment for a meer Form and Ceremony but we who are sometimes thought fit to be called Heretics and to be Censured and Anathematized as differing in Essential matters from the Church of Rome at other times are made such good Friends to it that we differ but very little and there is nothing but Form and Ceremony between us But what is to Accomodate this matter and Reconcile this difference between the two Churches Why the Doctrine of the Real Presence in which Both Churches he says agree that Christ our Saviour is truly really wholly yea and substantially present in the Sacrament This is to close up the difference not onely of Communion in one kind but of the Adoration of the Sacrament and the Sacrifice of Mass too in the Translatour's judgement But does the Church of England then agree with the Roman in the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body and Bloud in the Sacrament Does it not expresly say the contrary namely That the natural Body and Bloud of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here and that it is against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one * Rubric after Office
est latenter accipere sanctum Domini edere contrectare non potuit cinerem ferre se apertis manibus invenit Cyp. Ib. de Laps so that they received that it seems as well as the Wine which was as miraculously turned into Ashes But why was not the Child as much disturbed at the receiving the Bread if that was given it as at the receiving the Wine Why so it was during the whole time of being there at the Prayers and at the whole Solemnity it was under the same trouble agitation and discomposure but most remarkably at the end and conclusion of all when it had taken the whole Sacrament If the other Christians received the other part of the Sacrament though it be not mentioned so might this child and as I think none will from hence attempt to shew that all Christians were then deprived of the Bread so it is plain they all had the Cup and that the Children as well as the Adult did then partake of both appears from the same Treatise of St. Cyprian de Lapsis where he represents the Children who were thus carried to partake of the Idol Offerings as blaming their Parents for it and making this Vindication for themselves †Nos nihil secimus nec derelicto cibo poculo Domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus Perdidit nos aliena persidia Cypr. de Laps We have not left the Meat nor the Cup of the Lord nor gone of our selves to the profane Banquets but anothers perfidiousness has destroyed us So that they were then to partake not onely of the Cup but of the Meat of the Lord. Monsieur de Meaux was in a great streight sure for some other instances of the Communion of Children in one kind when he brings in ‖ P. 91 92 94. the School-Boys at Constantinople who according to Evagrius * Hist l. 4. had the remainders of the Bread that was left at the Communion given to them which custom he finds also in a French Council †Mascon Were these Boys true Communicants for all that were not the Elements given them as they were sometimes to the Poor who were not present at the Office meerly that they might consume them that so they might not be undecently kept or carried away As for the same reason it was the custom to burn them in the Church of Hierusalem ‖ Hesych in Levit. l. 2. c. 8. and as it is now with us in the Church of England for the Communicants to eat them before they go out of the Church If we should have some remainders of consecrated Bread which we might call the particles of Christ's Body as Evagrius there does would the eating of them be an argument that we had a custom to Communicate in one kind and yet Monsieur de Meaux's Wit and Eloquence must be laid out on such ridiculous things as these to shew what Customs there remain in History in testimony against the Protestants P. 94. and how the Communion of some Infants under the sole Species of Wine and some under that of Bread is a clear conviction of their errour It would be to little other purpose but to tire my self and my Reader to follow that great man through all his little Arguments and Authorities of this Nature and especially into the dark and blind paths of later Ages when Superstition and Ignorance lead men out of the way both of Scripture and Antiquity which are the good old Paths that we are resolved to walk in His French Answerers I hear have pursued him through all these and driven him out of every private skulking-hole he would make to himself I am rather for meeting him in the open Field and for engaging his main strength and most considerable arguments and objections and I seriously profess though I never met with any Book written so shrewdly and cunningly with so much Art and Eloquence upon a subject that I thought could hardly bear it though it stood in need of it above any other yet there is not any thing of strength in it that I have not fairly considered and I hope fully answered The third Custom is the Domestic Communion Of Domestic Communion when after the Christians had received the Sacrament in their publick Meetings they carried it also home with them to receive it alone in their private Houses this must be allowed also to be very ancient being mentioned both by Tertullian * Accepto corpore Domini Reservato de orat Cap. ult Nesciat maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustes Ad Uxor l. 2. and St. Cyprian †Cum quaedam arcam suam in quâ Domini sanctum fuit De Laps and the reason of it was that in those times of Persecution when they could not come so frequently to the public Communions and yet stood in need of the greatest aids and supports they might not want the benefit and comfort of what was so precious to them but though there might be great zeal and piety in this practice yet I cannot wholly excuse it from superstition nor think it to be any thing less than an abuse of the Sacrament and the same opinion the Church quickly had of it and therefore universally forbad it ‖ Concil Caesar Augustan and as Petavius says * De paenit publ l. 1. c. 7. It would be now a very punishable action and accounted a great profanation of the Sacrament Howe-ever angry Monsieur de Meaux is with the Protestants for calling it so †P. 105. undoubtedly the Eucharist was not intended by our Saviour for any such private use but to be a public part of Christian Worship and a solemn Commemoration of his Death and Passion And I know not how to call this a true or perfect Communion unless as it was a part of the same Communion that was in the Church as the sending a person part of the entertainment at a common Feast or Banquet is a making him partaker of the same Feast though he be not present at the Table but eats it by himself however let it be allowed to be never so true a Communion yet I know no advantage that can be made of it to the purpose of Communion in one kind unless it can be made appear that after the Faithful had communicated of both kinds in the Church that they onely reserved and carried home one Species to be received in their private Houses How improbable is this if it be granted that they received both in public which is not denied why should not they be as desirous to partake of both at home as they were in the Church Vpon what account as de Meaux says ‖ P. 114. should they refuse them both And believe that the the sacred Body with which they trusted them was more precious than the Bloud He is forced to own That the Bloud was not refused to the Faithful to carry with them when they
believe that the Wine was truly consecrated this way for so says expresly the Ordo Romanus the ancient Ceremonial as he calls it of that Church the Wine is sanctified and there is no difference between that and consecrated that I know of and it is plain they both mean the same thing there for it calls the consecrated Body the sanctified Body †Sanctificatur vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem and I know not what Sanctification of another nature that can be which is not Consecration or Sanctifing it to a holy and Sacramental use indeed this may not so well agree with the Doctrine and Opinion of Transubstantiation which requires the powerful and almighty words of This is my Body this is my Bloud to be pronounced over the Elements to convert them into Christ's natural Flesh and Blood but it agrees as well with the true notion of the Sacrament and the Primitive Christians no doubt had as truely the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament though they used not those words of Consecration which the Latines now do and the Latines had them both as truly in the Missa Parascues in which as Strabo says they used the old simple manner of Communion as much as on any other days De Meaux must either deny that Consecration of the Elements may be truly performed by that simple and ancient way which will be to deny the Apostolic and first Ages to have had any true Consecration or else he must own this to be a true one The Roman Order says not onely the Wine is Consecrated which it does in more places then one but that it is fully and wholly Consecrated so that the people may be confirmed by it ‖ Vt ex eadem sacro vase confirmetur populus quia vinum etiam non consecratum sed sanguine Domini commixtum sanctificatur per omnem modum Ord. Rom. a phrase often used in Ecclesiastical Writers for partaking of the Cup and entire Sacrament Amalarius thinks this to be so true a Consecration that he says * Qui juxta ordinem libelli per commixtionem panis vini consecrat vinum non observat traditionem Ecclesiae de quâ dicit Innocentius isto biduo Sacramenta penitùs non celebrari Amalar. Fortunat. de Eccles Offic. l. 1. c. 15. Edit Hittorp He who according to the order of that Book Consecrates the Wine by the commixtion of the Bread and Wine does not observe the Tradition of the Church of which Innocent speaks that on these two days Friday and Saturday before Easter no Sacraments at all should be Celebrated So that he complains of it because such a Consecration is used on that day The Author of the Book of Divine Offices under the name of Alcuinus †De hâc autem Communicatione utrum debeat fieri suprà relatum est Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem Alcuini lib. de Off. div p. 253. Ib. makes a question whether there ought to be such a Communion but says expresly that the Vnconsecrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread. Micrologus says the same in the place produced before that it is Consecrated by Prayer as well as mixture with the Body and he gives this as a reason against Intinction in that Chapter ‖ C. 19. In parascene vinum non consecratum cum Dominicâ oratione Dominici corporis immissione jubet consecrare ut populus plenè possit communicare quod utique superflao praeciperet si intinctum Dominicum à priore die corpus servaretur ita intinctum populo ad Communicandum sufficere videretur that the Wine is Consecrated on that day so that the people might fully Communicate to shew that it would not have been sufficient as he thinks to have had the Bread dipt in the Wine the day before and so kept and I suppose he was of de Meaux's mind that the Wine was not so fit to be kept for fear of that change which might happen to it even from one day to the next but he is so far from Communion in one kind that in that very Chapter against Intinction he mentions Pope Julius his Decree * Julias Papa huiusmodi intinctionem penitus probibet seorsùm panem seorsùm calicem juxta Dominicam institutionem sumenda docet which forbids that and commands the Bread to be given by it self and the Wine by it self according to Christ's Institution and likewise the Decree of Gelasius †Vnde beatus Gelasius excommunicari illos praecepit quicunque sumpto corpore Dominico à calicis participatione se abstinerent nam ipse in eodem decreto asserit hujusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non potest Ib. Microlog in these words He commanded those to be Excommunicated who taking the Lord's Body abstained from the participation of the Cup And he asserts says he in the same Decree that this division of the Sacraments could not be without great Sacriledge So that this man could not be a favourer of Communion in one kind or an asserter that the Good Friday Communion was such When ever this Communion came into the Latine Church for it was not ancient to have any Communion on those two days on which Christ died and was buried yet it will by no means serve the purpose of de Meaux for Communion in the Church in one kind for it is plain this Communion was in both and it was the belief of the Church and of all those who writ upon the Roman Order except Hugo de St. Victore who is very late and no older than the twelfth Century when Corruptions were come to a great height that the Communion on that day was full and entire as well with the Bread which was reserved the day before as with the Wine which was truly Consecrated on that and held to be so by the opinion of them all The Lyturgy of the Presanctified in the Greek Church Of the Office of the Presanctified in the Greek Church will afford as little assistance if not much less to de Meaux's Opinion of Public Communion in one kind then the Missa Parasceues we see has done in the Latine the Greeks do not think fit solemnly to Consecrate the Eucharist which is a Religious Feast of Joy upon those days which they appoint to Fasting Mortification and Sadness and therefore during the whole time of Lent they Consecrate onely upon Saturdays and Sundays on which they do not fast and all the other five days of the Week they receive the Communion in those Elements which are Consecrated upon those two days which they therefore call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presanctified The antiquity of this observation cannot be contested as de Meaux says seeing it appears not in the sixth Age as he would have it but in the seventh whereas the beginning of the Latin Office on Good-Friday is very
without it I have therefore prevented de Meaux in all he brings for Tradition and the Practice of the Church unless he will lay so great stress upon that as to make it null and supersede a divine Law nor am I at all concerned in all the instances he brings for it out of the Old and New Testament ‖ § V. §. VI. unless he can bring one to prove that either the Jewish Synagogue or the Christian Church did ever make void a Divine Law by a contrary Practice and Tradition of their own I can never allow any Church to have a power and Authority to do this and I am willing to allow it all Authority that is kept within those bounds It was boldly and openly done indeed by the Council of Constance when it owned That Christ instituted the Sacrament and administred it to his Disciples under both kinds * Licet Christus post caenam instituerit suis Discipulis administraverit subutrāque specie panis vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum Et similitèr quòd licet in primitivâ Ecclesiâ hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur à sidelibus sub utrâque specie Concil Constant Sess 11. and that the faithful received it under both kinds in the Primitive Church Yet to command it under one by its own power and authority and by its own Prerogative to give a Non obstante to Christ's Institution this was done like those that had a sufficient plenitude of power and were resolved to let the World see they had so and that Christ's own Institution was to give way to it they had not then found out the more sly and shifting subtilties that Christ gave the Cup to his Disciples onely as Priests and made them Priests just after the giving them the Bread this was a late invention found out since that Council by some more timerous and wary Sophisters who were afraid of setting up the Churches Power against a Divine Institution neither did they then offer to justifie the Communion in one kind by the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church as de Meaux and others have done since but they plainly gave up this and onely made a late Custom which was afterwards introduced to become a Law by vertue of their present Power notwithstanding the Institution of Christ and the Practice of the Primitive Church to the contrary Here the Case truly lies though de Meaux is willing to go off from it there must be a power in the Church to void a Divine Institution and to null a Law of Christ which can be no other than an Antichristian power in the strictest sense which may by the same reason take away all the positive Laws of Christianity or else Communion in one kind is not to be maintained and this power must be in a particular present Church in opposition to the Primitive and the Universal or else this Communion is not to be maintained in the Church of Rome De Meaux must be driven to defend that post which he seems to have quitted and deserted or else he can never defend this half-Communion which is contrary as I have proved and as the Council of Constance owns to the Institution of Christ and to the Practice of the Primitive Church The new Out-work he has raised from Tradition in which he puts all the forces of his Book and the main strength of his Cause this I have not beat down or destroyed but taken from him and his cause can never hold out upon his own principles of Tradition and the Practice of the Church which is a very strong battery against it as I have largely shewn so that all that he says for Tradition is in vain and to no purpose since this Tradition he pleades for is utterly against him and if it were never so much for him yet no Tradition can take away a Divine Law. He seems to own and I think he dare not expresly deny that what is essential to the Sacraments or belongs to the substance of them cannot be taken away by Tradition or the Power of the Church but he utterly destroys this by making onely Tradition and the Practice of the Church to determine what is thus essential to the Sacraments for if nothing be essential but what is made so by them and may be known by them then they have a power to make or to alter even the very essentials of the Sacraments which are hereby made wholly to depend upon the Church and Tradition We are willing to own that nothing is unalterable in the Sacraments but what is essential to them and that all other indifferent things belonging to them may be altered by the Church or by Tradition but then we say that what is essential is fixt and known by the Institution and by a Divine Law antecedent to Tradition and if it were not so then there were nothing essential in the Sacraments at all but all would be indifferent and all would depend upon Tradition and the Churches Power and then to what purpose is it to say That the Church has power onely in the Accidentals and may alter whatever is not essential or belongs not to the substance of the Sacraments this onely shews that they are ashamed to speak out and they dare not but grant with one hand that which they are forced to take away with another they dare not openly say That the Church has power over the essentials of the Sacraments but yet they say That there are no essentials but what are made and declared to be so by the Church So the streight they are in obliges them in effect to revoke their own concessions and Truth makes them say that which their Cause forces them to unsay again and they are put upon those things in their own necessary defence which amount in the whole to a contradiction If the Bishop of Meaux can shew us that any Divine Institution was ever altered by the Jewish or Christian Church or any Law of God relating to Practice and Ceremony was ever taken away by a contrary Practice and Tradition then he says something to the purpose of Communion in one kind but if the many Instances which he brings for Tradition out of the Old and New Testament do none of them do this they are then useless and insufficient they fall short of what they ought to prove and come not up to the question in hand but are wholly vain and insignificant and to shew they are so I shall reduce them to these following heads 1. They chiefly relate to the Churches Power in appointing and determining several things which are left indifferent and undetermined by the Law of God and here we acknowledge the Church to have a proper Power and that it may oblige even in Conscience to many things to which we are not obliged by the Law of God and may determine many things for the sake of Peace and Uniformity in Divine Worship which are not so precisely determined by
Sence of Scripture III. Whether the Church of England can make out such a visible Succession 5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith with Respect especially to the Romish pretence of the Necessity of such a one as is Infallible 6. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be Received and what Tradition is to be Rejected 7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church maintained in the Church of England 8. A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with Respect to the Errours and Corruptions of the Church of Rome In two Parts 9. A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship or a Scripture-Proof of the Unlawfulness of giving any Religious Worship to any other Being besides the one Supream God. 10. A Discourse against Transubstantiation 11. A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host as it is Taught and Practised in the Church of Rome Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject and to Monsieur Bocleau's late Book de Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. 12. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints 13. A Discourse concerning the Devotions of the Church of Rome 14. A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue 15. A Discourse concerning Auricular Confession as it is Prescribed by the Council of Trent and Practised in the Church of Rome With a Postscript on occasion of a Book lately printed in France called Historia Confessionis Auricularis 16. A Discourse concerning the Worship of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints with an Account of the Beginnings and Rise of it amongst Christians In Answer to Monsieur de Meaux's Appeal to the Fourth Age in his Exposition and his Pastoral Letter 17. A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux's Treatise of Communion under both Species Lately Translated into English A DISCOURSE OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS Imprimatur Guil. Needham October 24. 1687. LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil M DC LXXXVIII The CONTENTS THE charge of the Church of England against the sacrifice of the Mass page 2 3. Sect. 1. The sacrifice of the Mass founded upon two great Errors the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Opinion that Christ offered up himself to God at his last Supper p. 5 to 11. Sect. 2. No Scripture ground for the sacrifice of the Mass p. 11 to 41 Melchisedec's offering Bread and Wine Gen. 14.18 considered p. 13 Of the Melchisedecian Priesthood p. 16 The figure of the Paschal Lamb Examined p. 19 The prophesie of Malachy Examined p. 22 Other places out of the Old Testament Answered p. 25 An Answer to the places out of the New Testament p. 28 Plain places of Scripture against the Mass-sacrifice out of the Epistle to the Hebrews p. 33 Their Evasions to them Refuted p. 35 Sect. 3. The sacrifice of the Mass has no just claim to Antiquity p. 41 to 70 The Eucharist called a sacrifice by the Ancients upon account 1. Of the Oblations there made p. 44 2. Of the Religious Acts there performed p. 47 3. As it is Commemorative and Representative of the Crosssacrifice p. 49 Christ is offered mentally by every Communicant p. 52 How the Minister may be said to offer Christ to God in the Eucharist p. 53 General Remarks out of Antiquity to prove the Eucharist no proper sacrifice p. 54 to 70 1. From the Christian Apologists p. 54 2. From the Epithets they give to it when they call it a sacrifice p. 58 3. From the Novelty of private Masses which are a consequence of this Doctrine p. 60 4. From the Canon of the Mass it self p. 63 5. From the new form of Ordination in the R. C. p. 67 Sect. 4. The Mass-sacrifice in it self Vnreasonable and Absurd and has a great many Errors involved in it p. 70 to 95 1. It makes an external visible sacrifice of what is perfectly invisible p. 70 2. It makes a proper sacrifice without a proper sacrificing Act. p. 71 Their differences about the Essence of the sacrifice p. 73 3. It makes a living Body a sacrifice p. 76 4. The making it truly propitiatory is a great Error and inconsistent with it self p. 77 5. How it is Impetratory p. 80 6. The making it a sacrifice truly Propitiatory and yet only Applicatory of another is a great Absurdity p. 82 7. The making it the same sacrifice with That of the Cross and yet not to have the same vertue and efficacy is strange and unaccountable p. 84 8. Making Christ as they do the true offerer of this sacrifice hath great Absurdities p. 87 9. The Offering this sacrifice to Redeem Souls out of Purgatory one of the greatest Errors and Abuses that belong to it p. 88 Of the Ancient Oblations for the Dead p. 90 to 95 10. The sacrifice of the Mass must be either unnecessary or else must reflect on the sacrifice of the Cross p. 95 The Conclusion and the Reason why no more of the Errors belonging to it are added ERRATA PAge 12. line â antepenult for desire read derive PAge 39. Line 8. for the read that PAge 68. To Concil Carthag in margin add 4. PAge 72. Line 8. for Maunday-Thursday read Good-Fryday A DISCOURSE OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS THE Sacrifice of the Mass is the most considerable part of Worship in the Roman Church It is their Juge sacrificium their dayly and continual Offering and the principal Thing in which their Religion does consist It is they tell us of the greatest profit and advantage to all persons and I am sure their Priests make it so to themselves for by this alone a great number of them get their Livings by making merchandise of the Holy Sacrament and by selling the Blood of Christ at a dearer rate then Judas once did The saying of Masses keeps the Church of Rome more Priests in pay then any Prince in Christendom can maintain Souldiers and it has raised more Money by them then the richest Bank or Exchequer in the World was ever owner of 't is indeed the truest Patrimony of their Church and has enricht it more then any thing else it was that which founded their greatest Monasteries and their Richest Abbies and it had well nigh brought all the Estates of this Kingdom into the Church had not the Statutes of Mortmain put a check to it The Donation of Constantine were it never so true and the Grants of Charles and Pepin were they never so large and the Gifts of all their Benefactors put together are infinitely outdone by it the Gain of it has been so manifestly great that one cannot but upon that account a little suspect its Godliness but yet if it could fairly be made out to be a true part of Religion it were by no means to be rejected for that accidental though shameful abuse of it It is accounted by them the greatest
nor would St. Cyprian or the Bishops who ordained in Council that no offerings should be made for him who appointed a Clergy-Man Executor to his Will have inflicted so severe a punishment upon so small a fault had they thought this would have deprived his soul of a true and real propitiation for his sins nor would blotting out of the Diptychs have been so commonly put in use had this been consigning the soul to the punishments of another World. There was therefore no such thing meant as our Adversaries would now draw from that ancient custom of Oblations for the Dead and yet that this quickly degenerated into superstition and has been farther improved in aftertimes and is now come to very great perfection in the Roman Church we willingly own that the first beginnings of this were lay'd in this unscriptural custom as the Worship of Saints was from the Anniversary memory of the Martyrs is not to be denyed But corruptions in Religion like Diseases in the body might proceed at first from very small causes but by neglect and carelessness grow oftentimes very great and dangerous especially when the Physicians that should have cured them thought it for their purpose and interest rather to heighten and increase them 10. The sacrifice of the Mass must either be unnecessary or else must reflect on the sacrifice of the Cross if it be not necessary for obtaining the pardon and remission of any sin or for the relief of any spiritual want and necessity for which there has been no provision made by the sacrifice of the cross then it is wholly useless unprofitable if it be necessary for any such purpose then the sacrifice of the cross is not perfect and sufficient for all those ends but requires this sacrifice of the Mass to make up what is lacking and behind of the sufferings of Christ upon the cross which is a great diminution to the infinite value of them It is impossible to avoid these inconveniences for if the merit of the cross be so great as to expiate all manner of sin and to take away all kinds of punishment that are due to it and to supply all the spiritual wants and necessities whatever of all Christians then what possible need can there be of any other sacrifice And if Christs sacrifice once offered upon the cross can do all this why should there be any new offering or any reiteration of the same sacrifice when by being once offered it hath done the whole business that it can do were it offered never so often but if there be any kinds of sins which because they are dayly committed by us therefore require a dayly sacrifice as they pretend to be offered for them which implyes that the constant and abiding vertue of the cross cannot reach them which is yet as efficacious to all Christians now as the first day it was offered or as it could be if it were offered every day by Christ himself or if there be any such temporal remains of punishment after the eternal guilt of them is pardoned which are not discharged by Christs sacrifice upon the Cross but there is this small hand-Writing still however against us and continues uncancelled notwithstanding the Death of Christ then we are not perfectly redeemed from all punishment and from the whole Curse of the Law by the sacrifice of the cross but there is something more necessary to deliver and save us if not from Hell yet from Purgatory and whatever Christ has done for us yet the Mass sacrifice must still help us not as an instrument of Religion to work upon us and make us better but as a sacrifice to God to prevail with him to free us from punishment or else we are in a miserable condition which is the true contrivance of the sacrifice of the Mass that necessarily renders it very injurious to the most perfect and sufficient sacrifice of the cross I might add many other Errors belonging to this Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass such as saying their Masses in an unknown Tongue putting confidence in the meer opus operatum offering up Masses to the honour of the Saints and the like but those do more properly fall under other heads of controversie and are the peculiar subjects of other Treatises that are written on purpose upon those matters for though these all run into this Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass which is the great Lake into which most of the Popish Errors empty themselves yet the first head and rise of them is not from hence and so I shall not take them in here The Mass sacrifice contains in it a whole Legion of Errors but 't is only the principal one which I have endeavoured by this Discourse to cast out and that is its being a proper and truly propitiatory sacrifice which I have shown to be founded upon two monstrous Errours to have no true foundation in Scripture nor no just claim to Antiquity but to be plainly contrary to both those and to be in it self very absurd and Vnreasonable which is enough in conscience against any one Doctrine or any Church that maintains it however Infallible they may both of them pretend to be if this be clearly and strongly made out against them as has been Attempted in this Treatise FINIS Books Sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host as it is Taught and Practiced in the Church of Rome Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject And to Monsieur Boleau 's late Book De Adoratione Eucharist A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind In Answer to a Treatise of the Bishop of Meaux 's of Communion of both Species An Answer to a Book Entituled Reason and Authority Or the Motives of a Late Protestant's Reconciliation to the Catholick Church Together with a brief Account of Augustine the Monk and Conversion of the English A Request to Roman Catholicks To Answer the Queries upon these their following Tenets Sect. 1. Their Divine Service in an Vnknown Tongue 2. Their taking away the Cup from the People 3. Their with-holding the Scriptures from the Laicks 4. The Adoration of Images 5. The Invocation of Saints and Angels 6. The Doctrine of Merit 7. Purgatory 8. Their Seven Sacraments 9. Their Priests Intention in Baptism 10. The Limbo of unbaptized Infants 11. Transubstantiation 12. The Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass 13. Private Masses 14. The Sacrament of Penance 15. The Sacrament of Marriage with the Clergies Restraint therefrom 16. Their Sacrament of extream Vnction 17. Tradition 18. That Thred-bare Question Where was your Church before Luther 19. The Infallibility of the Pope with his Councils 20. The Pope's Supremacy 21. The Pope's Deposing Power 22. Their Vncharitableness to all other Christians