Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bad_a	good_a	reason_n	1,431	5	5.5448	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56750	The three grand corruptions of the Eucharist in the Church of Rome Viz. the adoration of the Host, communion in one kind, sacrifice of the Mass. In three discourses.	Payne, William, 1650-1696.; Payne, William, 1650-1696. Discourse concerning the adoration of the Host. aut; Payne, William, 1650-1696. Discourse of the communion in one kind. aut; Payne, William, 1650-1696. Discourse of the sacrifice of the Mass. aut	1688 (1688)	Wing P911A; ESTC R220353	239,325	320

short form whereby they will have the Apostles made Preists so suddenly and unexpectedly happens to be too quick and to make them Priests a little too soon which is a very unlucky thing for their purpose for Christ said those words Hoc facite do this just as he gave them the Bread and spoke them in one continued sentence with Take eat this is my body so that whether he gave the Bread severally to each of them or they took it as it was upon the table as it is said they divided the Cup among themselves it cannot be supposed but that those words hoc facite were spoken by Christ before the Apostles did receive the Bread or at least before they ate it so that it might as fairly be pretended and as truly that the Apostles ate the Bread as Priests as well as drank the Wine as such for they were made as much Priests by those words before they ate the Bread as before they drank the Wine If we do suppose they did receive the Bread into their hands before those words were pronounced by our Saviour which is the most that can be yet they could not eat it before they were And so this fine and subtle Hypothesis which they have invented to deprive the Laiety of the Cup will deprive them of the Bread too and will in its consequence and by the same train of arguing tend to take away the whole Sacrament from the People and make it peculiar to the Priests as some of the Jewish Sacrifices were and the People shall not at all partake of the Altar but it shall be reserved as a peculiar right and priviledge of the Priests to which the Laity ought not to pretend because the Apostles took the Sacrament only as Priests and were made Priests fore they either ate the Bread or drank the Wine this would make a greater difference and distinction between the Priests and the Laiety and tend more to preserve the honour and esteem of one above the other Which is the great reason they themselves give and no doubt a true one for their taking away the Cup from the People and I don't question but so great a Wit and so eloquent an Artist in pleading as the Bishop of Meaux is who can say a great deal for any cause be it never so bad may with as good grounds and as great a shew of reason justifie if he please the taking away the whole Sacrament from the Laiety as the Cup and may to this purpose improve and advance this notion of the Apostles receiving both kinds as Priests to prove the Laiety have a right to neither and may take off the necessity of both parts as well as one by pretending that the real effect and vertue of the Sacrament is received some other way by the Sacrifice of the Mass or by Spiritual Manducation or by some thing else without partaking any of the Symbols as well as without partaking all of them as Christ has appointed for if the effect and vertue of the Sacrament depend upon Christs Institution then both are necessary if it may be had without keeping to that then neither is so but of this afterwards when we come to examine his grounds and reasons I shall make some Reflections upon our Saviours Institution of this Sacrament and offer some considerations against these pretences and Sophistries of our Adversaries 1. I would ask them whither those words of our Saviour Do this in remembrance of me do not belong to all Christians as well as to the Apostles if they do not then where is there any command given to Christians for to receive the Sacrament either in both or in one kind Where is there any command at all for Christians to Celebrate or come to the Lords Supper or to observe this Christian Rite which is the peculiar mark and badge of our Profession and the most solemn part of Christian Worship Those words surely contain in them as plain a Command and as direct an Obligation upon all Christians to perform this Duty to the end of the World as they did upon the Apostles at that time or else we must say with the Socinians That the Sacrament was onely a temporary Rite that belonged onely to the Apostles and was not to continue in the Church or be observed by all Christians in all Ages But St. Paul says * 1 Cor. 11.26 we do hereby shew or declare the Lord's death till he come by this solemn way of eating Bread broken and Wine poured out we are to remember Christ who dyed for us and is gone into Heaven till he come again when we shall live with him and enjoy his Presence for ever Christ has given a command to all Christians to do this and they are to Do this in remembrance of him they are as much obliged to this as the Apostles were and the command does as much belong to the People to receive the Sacrament as to the Apostles or to their Successors to give it them The Apostles and Christian Priests are hereby commanded to do their parts which is not onely to receive but to dispence and distribute the Sacrament and the People or Christian Laiety are commanded to do theirs which is to receive it The Apostles are to do that which Christ did to Bless the Bread and breake it and give it to be eaten to bless the Cup and give it to be drunk by the Communicants and the Communicants are to eat the Bread and drink the Cup and if they do not both of them do this that belongs to them and perform those proper parts of their Duty which are here commanded them they are both guilty of an unexcusable disobedience to this plain command of Christ Do this in remembrance of me No body ever denyed that those words and this command of Christ belonged to the Apostles but to say they belong to them alone and not to all Christians is to take away the Command and Obligation which all Christians have to receive the Holy Supper 2. This command of Christ as it obliges all Christians to receive the Sacrament the Laiety as well as the Clergy so it obliges them to receive it in both kinds and as it obliges the Clergy to give the People the Sacrament so it obliges them to give it in both kinds for the command of Doing this in remembrance of Christ belongs as much to one kind as the other and is as expresly added concerning the Cup as concerning the Bread for so it is in St. Paul ‖ beyond all contradiction and to the unanswerable confusion of our Adversaries who would pretend it belongs only to the Bread Bellarmine observing these words in St. Luke to be added only after the giving of the Bread for they are in neither of the two other Evangelists falls into a mighty triumph and into a most Religious fit of Catholic Devotion admiring the wonderful Providence of GOD * Mirabilis est providentia Dei in

to be thus And is not this to explain away the true meaning of the word and to give up the Controversie The true notion of a propitiatory sacrifice is this that it suffers a vicarious punishment in anothers stead that by it the punishment is transferr'd from the offender to that and so he is discharged from it and God is pleased for the sake of that not to be angry but kind and propitious to him this I think cannot be denyed and let us see if this will fit to the Eucharist If Christ be really present there yet does he suffer any punishment there in our stead does he pay any price there for our sins If not there cannot be any true propitiation then made nor can the sacrifice be truly propitiatory Christ did once upon the Cross where he suffered as our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vicarious punishment for our sins by his one oblation of himself once offered make a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole World * Prayer of Consecrat in Commun Serv. and Bellarmine is forced to own That 't is the sacrifice of the Cross is properly meritorious and satisfactory because Christ when he was then mortal could merit and satisfie but the sacrifice of the Mass is properly only impetratory for Christ being now immortal can neither merit nor satisfie * Nam sacificium crucis fait meritorium satisfactorium impetratorium verè propriè quia Christus tunc mortalis erat mereri ac satisfacere poterat sacrificium Missae propriè solum est Impetratorium quia Christus nunc immortalis nec mereri nec satisfacere potest Bellarm. de Missa l. 2. c. 4. C. Thus truth will out at last though there be never so much art used to stifle and conceal it and this is very fairly to give up the question and surrender the cause for he owns it is not properly propitiatory and gives a very good reason for it because Christ in his immortal state cannot merit or satisfie or be a true propitiation for us the Bishop of Meaux was aware of this and therefore he makes Christs presence upon the Altar to be not a propitiation but a powerful Intercession before God for all mankind according to the saying of the Apostle that Jesus Christ presents himself and appears for us before the face of God Heb. 9.24 So that Christ being present upon the holy Table under this figure of death intercedes for us and represents continually to his Father that death which he has suffered for his Church † Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church But how comes this Intercession of Christ to be upon Earth Is it not to be in heaven and is not Christ there to appear in the presence of God for us Is not Christ entered into the heavens for that purpose as the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the great sacrifice of Atonement after that was offered upon the Altar Does not the Apostle thus represent it in that place in allusion and with relation to that Jewish Oeconomy and could any but Monsieur de Meaux have brought that place to show that Christ intercedes for us by being present upon the Altar when the Apostles discourse is as directly contrary to that as can be and makes him to appear only in Heaven or in the presence of God for us and there present himself and his sacrifice to God as the Jewish High Priest carried the blood of the Anniversary sacrifice of Expiation into the Holy of Holies and there sprinkled it before the Mercy-seat Christ is not entred into the holy place made with hands which are the figures of the true but into Heaven it self now to appear in the presence of God for us Christ therefore making Intercession for us only in heaven and propitiation only upon the Cross how the sacrifice of the Mass should be either Intercessory which is a new way of de Meaux's or propitiatory as the Council of Trent has determined it I cannot understand Some of them tell us it is propitiatory only relatively and by application as it relates and applyes to us the propitiatory vertue of the sacrifice of the Cross but this it may do as a Sacrament and then it is not propitiatory in it self for sins for punishments and for satisfactions as the Council declares it and as propitiatory sacrifices used to be which were in themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 satisfactory payments and prices for sins and for the punishments due to them Bellarmin having owned it not to be properly propitiatory he says * Cum autem dicitur propitiatorium vel satisfactorium id est intelligendum ratione rei quae impetratur dicitur enim propitiatorium quia impetrat remissionem culpae satisfactorium quia impetrat remissionem poenae Bellarm. de Miss l. 2. c. 4. C. When it is called propitiatory or satisfactory this is to be understood by reason of the thing which is impetrated by it for it is said to be Propitiatory because it impetrates Remission of sin Satisfactory because it impetrates Remission of punishment But thus our Prayers may be said to be propitiatory because by them we beg and obtain Mercy and Pardon at the hands of God but a propitiatory sacrifice is to do this not only by way of petition and impetration but by way of price and payment and satisfaction so that after all this improper sacrifice of the Mass is but very improperly propitiatory and when they come closely to consider it they are forced to confess so and cannot tell how to make out their Councils Doctrine that 't is truly propitiatory for sins and for punishments 5. Let us consider next how it is impetratory if they mean only that it is so upon the account of those Prayers which are there made and which are more efficacious in that solemn office of Religion as the Eucharist has relation to the Cross and the sacrifice of Christ upon it which is the foundation of all our Prayers and by vertue of which we hope to have them heard and answered by God so in that solemn Religious and express memorial of it we may suppose them to have a greater vertue and efficacy if this be all they mean who will deny it and why may not this be without the Eucharist's being a sacrifice 't is only Christs sacrifice and offering upon the Cross that gives vertue and power to our prayers at that time when we are devoutly celebrating the remembrance of it and 't is not any offering of him up then any otherwise then by Faith and the inward devotion of our Mind that makes our prayers the more powerful either for our selves or others We are to make Prayers and Supplications for all men and for theirs and our own wants and necessities in this solemn and publick office of our Religion and so did the first Christians pray then for Kings and all that

of Communion So that though Christ be really present by his Spirit and the real Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Bloud be given in the Sacrament yet his natutural Body is by no means present there either by Transubstantiation or by any other way unintelligible to us as the Translatour would insinuate so that all those consequences which he or others would willingly draw from the Real Presence of Christ's natural Body in the Sacrament as believed by us do fall to the ground and I doubt he or I shall never be so happy as to make up this great breach between the two Churches however willing we may be to do it but instead of making a Reconciliation between them which is impossible as long as the Doctrines of each of them stand as they do I shall endeavour to defend that Article of the Church of England which not onely Modern Novellists as the Translatour calls those who are not for his Real Presence and his Reconciling way but the most learned and ancient Protestants who have been either Bishops Priests or Deacons in our Church have owned and subscribed namely That the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian Men † Article 30 th ADVERTISEMENT The Reader is desired to Correct the small Errata of the Press without a particular Account of them A DISCOURSE OF THE Communion in One Kind THE Controversie about the Communion in One Kind is accounted by a late French Writer upon that Subject one of the chiefest and most capital Controversies in Christian Religion * Cum haec quaestio ac Controversia visa sit semper in Religione Christianâ praecipua ac capitalis Boileau de praecepto divino Commun sub utrâque specie p. 217. I suppose he means that is in difference between the Reformed and the Church of Rome it is indeed such a Case as brings almost all other matters between us to an issue namely to this Point Whether the Church may give a Non obstante to the Laws of Christ and make other Laws contrary to his by vertue of its own Power and Prerogative If it may in this case it may in all others and therefore it is the more considerable Question because a great many others depend upon the Resolution of it When it had been thus determined in the Council of Constance yet a great many were so dis-satisfied namely the Bohemians to have the Cup taken from them that the Council of Basil was forced upon their importunity to grant it them again and at the Council of Trent it was most earnestly prest by the Germans and the French by the Embassadors of those Nations and by the Bishops that the People might have the Cup restored to them The truth in this cause and the advantage seems to be so plain on the side of the Reformation that as it required great Authority to bear it down so it calls for the greatest Art and Sophistry plausibly to oppose it One would think the case were so evident that it were needless to say much for it and impossible to say any thing considerable against it but it is some mens excellency to shew their skill in a bad cause and Monsieur de Meaux has chosen that Province to make an experiment of his extraordinary Wit and Learning and to let us see how far those will go to perplex and intangle the clearest Truth He has mixt a great deal of boldness with those as it was necessary for him when he would pretend that Communion in one kind was the Practice of the Primitive Church and that it was as effectual as in both and that the Cup did not belong to the substance of the Institution but was wholly indifferent to the Sacrament and might be used or not used as the Church thought fit How horribly false and erronious those Pleas of his are the following Discourse will sufficiently make out and though he has said as much and with as much artifice and subtilty as is possible in this cause yet there being another Writer later then him † Boileau de praecepto divino commun Sub utrâque specie Paris 1685. who denys that there is any Divine Precept for Communion in both kinds and who hath designedly undertaken the Scripture part of this Controversie which Monsieur de Meaux has onely here and there cunningly interwoven in his Discourse I resolve to consider and examine it as it lies in both those Authors and though I have chosen my own method to handle it which is First from Scripture then from Antiquity and lastly from the Reasonings and Principles made use of by our Adversaries yet I shall all along have a particular regard to those two great men and keep my eye upon them in this Treatise so as to pass by nothing that is said by either of them that has any strength or show in it for my design is to defend the Doctrine of our own Church in this matter which our Adversaries have thought fit to attaque and to fall upon not with their own but the borrowed forces of the Bishop of Meaux whose great name and exploits are every-where famous and renowned but since we have all Christian Churches in the World except the Roman to be our seconds in this Cause we shall not fear to defend them and our selves and so plain a Truth against all the cunning and Sophistry of our Adversaries though it be never so artificially and drest after the French Mode We will begin with Scripture which ought to be our onely Rule not onely in matters of Faith which should be founded upon nothing less than a Divine Revelation but in matters of pure positive and arbitrary Institution as the Sacraments are for they depend merely upon the will and pleasure the mind and intention of him that appointed them and the best and indeed the onely way to know that is by recurring to his own Institution as we know the mind of a Testator by going to his last Will and Testament and by consulting that do best find how he has ordered those things that were of his own free and arbitrary disposal And by this way we shall find that the Church of Rome by taking away the Cup has plainly violated the Institution of our blessed Saviour and deprived the People of a considerable part of that Legacy which he bequeathed to them Let us lay therefore before us the Institution of our Saviour as we find it in the three Evangelists and in St. Paul as he received it of the Lord. Matthew 26.26 27 28. Mark 14.22 23 24. Luke 22.19 20. 1 Corinthians 11.23 24 25. JESUS took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take eat this is my body And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all

that we mean this when we pray for our daily Bread and when we say a man wanteth Bread and so to break our Bread to the hungry Isa 58.7 and by the young childrens asking bread and no man breaketh it unto them Lament 4.4 the same is imported To break Bread was an usual Hebrew expression for giving all manner of food as appears by those instances so that when Bread which is but one part of food is expressed yet the other is included and meant also as when Christ went into the house of one of the chief Pharises to eat bread Luke 14.1 we cannot suppose that he had only such a dry Banquet as not to drink with him too and when Joseph told the Steward of his house that he should prepare an entertainment for his brethren for they are to eat with me at noon Gen. 43.16 hodie sunt mecum comesturi as in the Vulgar he did not I suppose think they were not to drink with him too and that he was not to provide Wine as well as other Victuals neither did Joseph's own Brethren suspect he would send them away dry and thirsty when they onely heard that they should eat bread there v. 25. Notwithstanding this alone is mentioned yet they met with plenty of Wine too as may be seen at the latter end of the Chapter where in the vulgar Latin it is said Biberunt inebriati sunt cum eo The Greeks thought Wine and Drinking so considerable a part of the Feast that they called the whole from that one part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet when they thus drank together at their Entertainments they did no doubt eat too though if we will as strictly insist upon the phrase and not allow a Synecdoche here as well as in the Jewish one of breaking or eating Bread we must make their Feasts to be all of Liquids and the other all of Solids But the phrase is so clear and so usual that nothing could make men deny its being so but their being willing to stick to any thing however weak and little it be that seems in the least to favour a bad cause which is forced to call in the help of a Phrase used in a short History and that against its usual meaning to combat with a plain Command and clear Institution I would only ask these Gentlemen and Monsi Boileau with whom I am especially concerned whither he does not think the first Christians when they met together to break Bread allowing thereby it was to receive the Sacrament did not also at the same time feast together at their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether those were not joyned with the Sacrament and whethese also are not meant here and included in their breaking of Bread together Which I think he or any one versed in Antiquity will not deny And if so he must either say that at those Love-feasts they used no Wine or Drink because none is expresly mentioned here though it is plain they did in the Church of Corinth even to excess or else that this Jewish phrase of breaking Bread is to be here taken as it is in other places by a Synecdoche for both eating and drinking together and that either at the Lord's Table or at any other But in the 3. Third place I have an undeniable Argument to prove either that this must be so meant or else that the Sacrament cannot be meant either in these places or any other where there is onely mention of Bread without Wine For it is universally owned by all the Popish Writers as well as by all others that to the making a Sacrament there ought to be both the Species Consecrated though they are not both given So that in this says Boileau † Hoc enim convenit nobis cum Protestantibus semper debere sacerdotes Eucharistiam consicere sub utraque specie p. 207. we agree with the Protestants that the Priests always ought to Consecrate the Eucharist in both kinds and Monsieur de Meaux ‖ P. 182. when he pretends that he finds upon several occasions in Antiquity the Body given without the Blood and the Blood given without the Body which I shall examine by and by yet confesses that never one of them was Consecrated without the other and it would be Sacriledge says Valentia * Si enim una species absque alterâ conficiatur Sacrilegium committitur De usu Sacram. c. 13. if one Species were Consecrated without the other and after they are Consecrated Bellarmine † Sacerdotibus utriusque speciei sumptio necessaria est ex parte Sacramenti de Euch. c. 4. owns That the sumption of both Species is necessary to the Priests who Consecrate and that upon the account of its being a Sacrament as well it seems as both ought to be Consecrated to make it a Sacrifice Now in all these places of the Disciples at Emmaus of those in the Acts of St. Paul at Troas which is another but too slight to be particularly considered there is no mention of any thing but breaking Bread not one word said of any other Species either as consecrated or as received by any one So that if these places do prove any thing for Communion in one kind they prove as much for Consecration in one kind and for the sumption of one kind even by the Priest that consecrates So that as it was wisely declared in the Council of Trent ‖ Soave's History of the Coun. of Trent l. 6. These places and the reasons from them must be laid aside because by them it would be concluded that it was not Sacriledge to Consecrate one kind without the other which is contrary to all the Doctors and meaning of the Church and overthroweth the distinction of the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament So that Monsieur Boileau's strongest Argument is too high charged and recoils upon himself and his own Church and his friends are obliged to take it out of his hands least he do more harm to them by it than execution upon his enemy But he is a bold man that dare face the mouth of a Cannon who dare undertake to prove the Communion in one kind out of the eleventh Chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians which is such a perfect demonstration against it that a man must out-face the Sun who offers at any such thing St. Paul as the best and truest means to correct the abuses got into the Church of Corinth about the Eucharist recurs to the Institution which he received from Christ himself and which he delivered to the Church of Corinth in which there is so full an account of both the species and such a command of both as is sufficient to shew the Apostolical practice conformable to the Institution of Christ and to let us see what Tradition they left in their Churches about it Had there been any difference between the Priests and the Peoples receiving

upon his servant chosen into the Presbytery by the vote and judgment of all the Clergy and fill him with the spirit of Grace and Wisdom to help and govern the people with a pure heart that he may be filled with healing operations and instructive discourse and may teach the people with all meekness and may serve God sincerely with a pure understanding and a willing Soul and may perform the sacred and pure Offices for the people through Jesus Christ And this with laying on of hands is all the Form of Ordination which is so anciently prescribed St. Denis who is falsly called the Areopagite but was a Writer probably of the fifth Century before the Council of Calcedon he has acquainted us with much the like manner of Ordination in that time * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys Hierarch Eccles c. 5. The Priest kneeling before the Altar with the Holy Bible and the Bishops hand over his head was consecrated with holy Prayers Only there was then added the sign of the cross and the kiss of peace but no such thing as the receiving of power to offer sacrifice and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead This was a thing unheard of in the ancient Church either Greek or Latin neither was it brought into the Latin till about the year 1000 as is confest by Morinus * de sacris Ordinat pars 3. c. 6. nor is it to this day used in the Greek In that age of Ignorance and Superstition when Transubstantiation and a great many other Errors and Corruptions crept into the Latin Church this new Form of Ordination was set up and the Priests had a new power given them and a new work put upon them which was to sacrifice and say Masses for the quick and dead which had it been agreeable to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and had there been any such opinion then of the Mass-sacrifice as there is now in the Roman Church there would no doubt have been the same forme of Ordination or something like this would have been specified in the consecration of a priest They now make this the great and proper office of the priest and these words with the delivery of the holy Vessels or sacred Instruments is made the very matter and form of the Sacrament of Orders and it is made a charge by them against our Ordinations that we want this essential part of priesthood which is to offer sacrifice but since the primitive Church had no such Form as is fully made out by Morinus a man of great Learning and Credit among themselves who has made a great collection of the most antient Ordinale's to show this and there is no such thing now in the Greek Churches as appears from Habertus on the Greek Pontifical we have hereby not only a full defence of our own Orders without any such Form but a plain demonstration of the novelty of that in the Roman Church and consequently of that Doctrine which is brought in by it or perhaps was the occasion of it of the sacrifice of the Mass 4. It is in it self unreasonable and absurd and has a great many gross Errors involved in it As 1. It makes an external visible sacrifice of a thing that is perfectly invisible so that the very matter and substance of the sacrifice which they pretend to offer is not seen or perceived by any of the senses for 't is Christs body and not the Bread and Wine which is the subject-matter and the sacrifice it self Now this is the strangest sacrifice that ever was in the World a visible oblation of an invisible thing had the Jews offered their sacrifices in this manner they had offered nothing at all and had Christ thus offered himself to God upon the cross only in phantasm and appearance as some Hereticks would have had him and not in the visible substance of his body it would have been only a phantastick sacrifice and we had been redeemed by a shadow 'T is contrary to the nature of all proper sacrifices to have the thing offered not to be seen and not visibly presented to God an invisible sacrifice may as well have an invisible Altar and an invisible Oblation and an invisible Priest for why the one should be more visible then the other I cannot imagine Bellarmines definition of a sacrifice is this which we are very willing to allow of but how it agrees to the sacrifice of the mass I cannot see * Sacrificium est oblatio externa facta soli Deo quâ ad agnitionem bumanae insirmitatis professionem divinae Majestatis à legitimo Ministro res aliqua sensibilis permanens ritu mystico consecratur transmutatur Bellarm. de Miss l. 1. c. 2. A sacrifice is an external Oblation made to God alone whereby for the acknowledging of humane infirmity and owning of the Divine Majesty some sensible and permanent thing is by a lawful Minister and by a Mastic Rite consecrated and changed Now Christs Body and Blood being the res sacrificii the matter of the sacrifice and that being offered to God I cannot understand how that is a res sensibilis a sensible thing in the Eucharist and therefore how according to him it is a sacrifice so necessary is it for a great man to blunder in a bad cause when he must either weigh in a false ballance or whatever he says will quickly be found light 2. It makes a proper sacrifice without a proper sacrificing Act the Consumption and Destruction of the sacrifice was always necessary as well as the offering and bringing it to the Altar and without this it was not properly given to God but kept to themselves as much as it was before if it were not either poured out or burnt or slain which was parting with the thing and transferring it wholly to God this consumption is so Essential to all sacrifices that Bellarmine puts it into the definition of a sacrifice * ut supra and says † ad verum sacrificium requ●ritur ut id quod offertur Deo in sacrificium plane destruatur Id. de Miss l. 1 c. ● that to a true sacrifice it is required that that which is offered to God in sacrifice be plainly destroyed But how will this now belong to Christs body in the sacrifice of the Mass Is that destroyed there is not that the sacrifice and is not that now in a Glorious impassible State that can suffer no destruction Bellarmine is in a sad plunge to get out here and let us see how he throws himself about but sticks fast still in the mire By consecration says he the thing which is offered is ordained to a true real and outward change and desiruction which was necessary to the being of a sacrifice for by consecration the Body of Christ receives the Form of food but food is for eating and by this it is ordained for change and destruction Is the Body of Christ then