And if Calvin judged their faith Holy can he judiciously challendge us for embracing it nay is it not best to follow the footsteps of Holy men SUBSECTION VI. The Authority of the Church grounded on her infallibility is a strong argument to believe what she asserts MY last Proof for the Sacrifice of the Mass is this The infallible Church of Christ hath alwayes believed and still believes that in the Eucharist is the true real Body and Blood of Christ and that in her Liturgy or Mass is made a true and proper Sacrifice and therefore I believe it That the teaching Church of Christ is infallible in what she teaches as matter of Faith is clear out of the 4. Chapter to the Ephesians where S. Paul sayes that Christ made some Pastors and Doctors v. 11. Why That now we be not Children wavering and carried about with every Wind of Doctrine Hence we Infer Then they are infallible in what they teach us as matter of Faith For if I thought them fallible I might still waver fear and be ready to be carried away with the Wind of another man or Angel's Doctrine which would make void the ayme of Christ in giving us those Pastors and Teachers that we might not waver Thus it is made manifest from Scripture that the teaching Church of Christ is infallible and also clear from reason grounded on the same Scripture that this teaching Church is the Roman For since no other teaching Church than the Roman so much as claimes to this infallibility in teaching and infallibility in teaching must be found in some Church to make good the words of St. Paul and of the Scripture in many other places it follows by a necessary consequence that it is to be found in the Roman And so that in the Mass is made a true Sacrifice because she has ever and still asserts it That the taught Church is also infallible in her assent to what she is taught by those Pastors in matter of Faith or in her receiving their Doctrine is also gathered from these words of Christ speaking to the Church he that heares you heares me Luc. 10. v. 16. for by that promise if I infallibly assent to the Doctrine of Christ I also infallibly assent to the Doctrine of his Church If a Protestant think he can give such a turne to these passages that they appear to have no force to prove the Churches infallibility I ask him if he be infallibly sure that the Protestant Church is the true Church of Christ or not If not then what he believes may be false and consequently it may be false that Christ is God in a word he has no Divine Faith which is an assent to what we believe for the Testimony of God above all that is an assent so ferme that it stands immoveable against all the arguments of Men or Angels ad Gal. 1. v. 8. But the Protestant's assent is not such then 't is not an assent of Divine Faith When Protestants say they have an objective infallibility but not subjective that is that the object of their Faith viz. God and other Evangelical Truths are in themselves infallible while they the Subjects or Receivers of these Truths are fallible they seem to say something in words but in reality they say nothing as to the controversie in question For the question is whether a Christian is subjectively infallible that is whether or no his understanding be the Subject of an infallible assent in matters of Faith or whether it produces in it self in matter of Faith an assent infallible or which stands immoveable against what an Angel not from Hell but from Heaven if that were possible might oppose to the contrary by reason of which assurance the Christian is denominated infallible in his assent S. Paul sayes yes saying altho an Angel from Heaven Evangelize to you beside that which we have Evangelized to you he be Cursed This not standing with Protestant principles they must either leave them or avow they are not of S. Paul's Religion If he sayes he is infallibly sure that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion I ask from whence he has that infallibility Not from the Church as he avows not from the Scripture as I prove 1. Because he can't so much as Read Scripture in order to know infallibly that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion afore he is infallibly sure that the Spirit that Guids him in Reading it is the true Spirit for if it be a false Spirit he will make that appear white which is black and black which is white and again he can't know infallibly that 't is the true Spirit that Guides him afore he has tryed it by Scripture Io. 4. v. 1. Thus he must know the Scripture by his Spirit and his Spirit by the Scripture which is to make a manifest Circle and prove idem per idem the same by the same while he proves ultimately that his Spirit is a good Spirit because it is a good Spirit It s a good Spirit sayes he because its approved by the Scripture taken in the true sense and it is the true sense he takes it in sayes he again because his Spirit tells him so which is equivalently to say my Spirit is a good Spirit since none but a good Spirit can assure us of the true sense of Scripture So a 1. ad ultimum from the first to the last he proves it to be a good Spirit because its a good Spirit which is ridiculous 2. You can't be infallibly sure from Scripture that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion afore you are infallibly sure that the sense in which you understand it is the true sense but of this you can never be infallibly sure then you can never be infallibly sure from Scriptrue that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion I prove the minor A Body of Men I mean the Roman Catholick Doctors using the same means that you use to know the true sense of Scripture and understanding it as we Romanists in a sense quite contrary to you are not according to you infallibly sure that we have the true sense Then neither you using only the same means we use are infallibly sure that you have the true sense when you udderstand it in a sense quite contrary to us Or tell me what it is that makes you hit infallibly upon the true sense more than we If you say 't is this that you are of the Elect and the Elect are guided by the Spirit of God which makes you see the Truth 1. Who told you that you are of the Elect If you say the Spirit which you have received gives Testimony to your Spirit that ye are the Sons of God Rom. 8. v. 16. I Answer from Io. c. 4. v. 1. you ought to try that Spirit afore ye trust it and so ye return into your former Circle 2. Suppose you are of the Elect some of the Elect have not been alwayes guided by
Sacred Science teaches us that tho there be three different Persones in God there are not three different things because A different thing signifies a different essence Hence S. Aug. lib. de Fide ad petrum chap. 1. sayes Una est patris Filii Spiritus Sti. essentia in qua non est aliud Pater aliud Filius aliud Spiritus Sanctus quamvis personaliter sit alius Pater alius Filius alius Spiritus Sanctus The essence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is one in which the Father is not one thing the Son another and the H. Ghost another altho as to Person the Father be one the Son another and the Holy Ghost another If he was rash in touching the B. Trinity we must not wonder to see him stray also in this Mystery following only the strain of his human Philosophy Mr. Rodon then was not content meerly to believe but would see that he might believe tho S. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 13. v. 12. That such a sight is reserved for the next Life and that now we see only through a Glass darkly But I desire him who is so earnest to have a clear accompt of Divine Mysteries to clear me first in some natural things How is it possible to cover the whole Heavens with the Wing of a Fly Yet this can be done if it be divided in as many parts as God can divide it For after every division the least part will still have its three dimentions length breadth and thickness by all which it may be still divided Now if he deny this saying the Wing is composed of Indivisibles he runs himself into as great difficulties as to avow that a snail makes as much way in an hour as the sleetest Race-Horse for the Race-Horse cannot make an Indivisible of space or way without some part of time and that cannot be less then an Indivisible of time and in the same Indivisible of time the Snail moving cannot make less then an Indivisible of space and so go along with the Race-Horse the rest of the Indivsiibles of the hour and consequently the Snail will have made as much way as the Race-Horse at the hours end which is absurd Neither tell me the Horse can run over a hundred points or parts of space in an instant for his motion is also divisible in points one part must begin afore the other and so comes in again my argument As for the sweld points maintained by some they confound a Body with a Spirit and therefore are to be rejected How is it possible that since three Men cannot get in at once at a narrow Door the pictures or species which are not Spirits but material things of a whole Army should all at once enter without confusion into the apple of the Eye of a Man who from an eminence regards it If all Philosophers Wits are drowned in a drop of water not being able to fell with satisfaction what is the matter or the Form of it and whither it be compounded of divisible or indivisible parts must we claim to a full satisfaction of our reason afore we will believe this Mysterious Transubstantiation and thus banish Faith out of the Church of Christ Let us not soare to high nor dive to deep in this matter since a searcher of the Divine Majesty will be oppressed by Glory Having premitted this discourse to raise Men above their senses when they come to consider mysteries of Faith I now prove the mystery of Transubstantiation thus As God can create so he can Transubstantiate And as he hath revealed Genes 1. That he hath created Heaven and Earth so he hath revealed Math. 26. v. 27. That he hath made a Transubstantiation of Bread into his Body in the Eucharist If you wonder at the strange things that follow from this Transubstantiation consider that creation made something of nothing which seemed so strange to the ancient Philosophers that they tell us flatly Ex nihilo nihil fit of nothing nothing is made Had they had Faith they would have acknowledged Creation submit you your Judgment to Faith and you 'l acknowledge in the Eucharist Transubstantiation SECTION II. Mr. Rodon's objections answered Object IN every substantial conversion that thing into which another thing is converted is alwise newly produced as when Christ turned the Water into Wine was the Wine was newly produced But the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be newly produced in the Eucharist Therefore the Bread and Wine are not substantially converted into the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist Answer 1. I distinguish the Major In every substantial conversion that thing c. Is alwise newly produced Entitatively or modally I grant alwise Entitatively I deny that is in every substantial conversion there is alwise the production at least of a new manner of being So the Body of Christ in the Eucharist has a new manner of being viz. a Sacramental being which it has not out of the Eucharist But there is not alwise in every substantial conversion a production of a new substance Answer 2. I dislinguish the Major again Naturally be it so Supernaturally and when the question is about the almighty Power of God I deny it and say that it is sufficient that the whole substance of Bread be destroyed and the Bodie of Christ put in its place something remaining common to both viz. the accidents of Bread which now by the consecration become the accidents of the Body of Christ morally in as much as they shew to all the faithfull the consecration being made that the Body of Christ is now there and receives a new being not as to the substance which it had already but as to the manner of being a sacramental being under the form of Bread If you ask how the Body of Christ can begin to be there without leaving the place where it was before I answer when a child grows by the nutrition or feeding does the reasonable soul leave the rest of the Childs body to come to the added part of matter or is there a new reasonable Soul produced in it If not but the same Soul acquires only a new presence of relation to the added part of matter reason the same way concerning the Body of Christ in the Eucharist Ob. 2. In every substantial conversion that thing which is converted into another is destroyed but the Bread is not destroyed in the Eucharist because after Consecration it is said to be Broken Divided c. therefore it is not destroyed Answer I distinguish the Minor The Bread is not destroyed as to the substance which is only required I deny as to the accidents I grant and say that by reason of these remaining the Host is said to be broken divided c. and is still called Bread Per distractionem as we speak in Philosophy So our Saviour said to the Disciples of Iohn Math. 11. v. 5. The blind see because they who then did see were afore blind They
the proofs I have brought above the Church doth not think good to give it at this time which she may change it not being a matter of Faith or Command of God when she pleases But the word of God is necessary to those who hear because Faith comes by hearing and is alwayes supplyed to the deaf by outward signs and stronger inward inspirations from God Be pleased to reflect that Mr. Rodon who inveighes against the Roman Church for taking away the Cup to avoid scandals or inconveniences for one of the same allows in this 6. Chap. numb 13. to substitute rather the ordinary drink of a Country instead of Wine notwithstanding that Christ instituded it to be given in Wine SECTION III. The discovery of Mr. Rodon's disingenuous representation of the Decree of the Council of Constance Sess 13. THe taking away says Mr. Rodon of the Eucharistical Cup was established as an Article of Faith by the Roman Church representative assembled in the Council of Constance in the Year 1414. Sess 13. in a Canon Answer That 's a Calumny as shall appear in the discussion of his quotation It is indeed an Article of Faith to believe that under the species of Bread is both Christ's Body and his Blood because his Body is a living Body He dyes no more Rom. 6. v. 9. Wherefore the Council of Constance finding the Church to have been in a long custome of giving the Sacrament under one kind for good reasons to shew that the former Church had not erred in that custome thought good to order them to be punished as Hereticks who should presume to say that that custome was erroneous sacrilegious and unlawful But why punished as Hereticks Because they seem to doubt if the Blood be under the Form of Bread Yet she did not define to be believed as an Article of Faith and of divine right for Lay-people to take it only under one kind for it 's only of Church right for some particular reasons which were not at the time the Apostles gave it One of which is this same which moved the Council Another the Church being now extended to Countries where 't is hard to get so much Wine and many being found in the great body of the Church who have an antipathy to Wine since ther 's no necessity it s better in the way of taking to keep an uniformity in the sick to whom it could not be keept or conveniently carried nor was carried in primitive times and in those who are in health and so avoid scruples which might arise in weak heads not to speak of the danger of irreverence in spilling the Commons of Christians being not now so fervent as they were in the first age Yet we do not hold it unlawful jure divino by divine right for Lay-people to receive under both kinds more then 't is unlawful jure divino to eat Flesh on Frydays Since it is at present the practise of the Greek Church at Rome to give the Communion to the Lay-people once a Year under both kinds Now to shew the infidelity of Mr. Rodon's quotation of the Council's decree The Council sayes Praesens Concilium c. definit quod licè Christus instituerit dederit Sacramentum hoc post cocnam sub utraque specie Discipulis hoc non obstante approbata consuetudo ecclesiae servarit servat quod hujusmodi Sacramentum non debet confici post cocnam neque a fidelibus recipi non jejuuis Here the Council should have added neque sub utraque specie to make out what Mr. Rodon sayes which it hath not nisi in casu infirmitatis aut alterius necessitatis a jure vel Ecclesiae concesso That is The present Council defines c. That altho Christ instituted and gave this Sacrament AFTER SVPPER these Words Mr. Rodon leaves out under both kinds to his Disciples notwithstanding this the approved custome of the Church has observed and observes that this Sacrament ought not to be made AFTER SVPPER nor to be received by the Faithful who are not fasting these words again which alone relate to the Council's saying NON OBSTANTE he leaves out unless in case of Infirmity or other necessity c. allowed by the Law of the Church Where the Council does not speak at all of both kinds when it sayes This notwithstanding but only of the time of Communicating whither AFORE or AFTER SVPPER Viz. Altho our Saviour instituted it after Supper that does not hinder the Church's now ordaining it to be taken only by those who are fasting unless in case of necessity Note as the Council learned from the H. Ghost that Christ's giving it after Supper did not hinder to take it fasting in another circumstance of time so it also learned from the same that the Primitive Church's giving it under both kinds she giving it also sometimes under one as to the sick see Euseb lib. 6. cap. 44. Edit val in the Hist of Serapion also see Tertul de orat cap. 14. and to Infants see S. Cypr. sract de Laps did not hinder to make a Law at that time to give it to the laytie only under one or special reasons one of which is this Since this custome saith the Council in the same place hath been reasonably brought in by the Church and Holy Fathers it ought to stand for a Law which it is not lawful to disapprove or change at pleasure without the authority of the Church Neither does the Councill say not withstanding Christ's command but only not withstanding his Example Now Christ had a particular reason why he gave it after Supper viz. that the Typical Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb might go afore the Sacrifice of the Eucharist which was figured by it Also to conform himself to the custome of those times which was to sacrifice after meat in thanksgiving and the Church an other particular reason to give it since to none but fasting because Christians falling from the primitive servour eate and drunk intemperatly of which S. Paul complains 1. Cor. 11. v. 22. and so rendered themselves unworthy not having that purity of Soul which our Lord gave to understand as a thing required by washing his Disciples Feet afore he gave them the Srcrament Christ then commanded the substance of the Sacrament to be given but left the manner of giving it to the Church changeable in a different circumstance of Times and Persons That particle then of the Council notwithstanding imports only that Christ's giving the Sacrament AFTER SUPPER does not hinder it to be given to those who are Fasting And indeed if that were a breach of his will do not Protestants break it as well as we do not they take their Communion before Supper and for the most part Fasting If the Example of Christ were to be followed in the Ceremony of giving it the Preist or Minister should afore wash the Feet of those to whom he gives it To what Mr. Rodon says at the beginning of this
Chapter of the Churches forbidding Marriage and certain Meats After Mr. Rodon had unadvisedly said that we freely confess that the Decree of the Council of Constance is contrary to the institution and command of Christ which we are so far from confessing that we have proven the contrary He adds If we alleadg that S. Paul Timot. 4. saith That they who forbid to marry and command to â—ob slain from Meats do teach the Doctrines of Devils Romanists need only answer that altho S. Paul doth say so yet they must not believe it because the Romish Church hath determined otherwise Again if we alleadg sayes he that the same Apostle Ephesians 2. saith That we are saved by Grace through Faith and that not of our selves it is the gift of GOD not of works least any man should boast Romanists need only Answer that although this was written by the Apostle yet they must not believe it because the Romish CHVRCH hath determined that we are Saved by Works and Faith as coming from our selves and from the strength of our own free will Answer We know the general approved Councils being guided by the H. Ghost cannot determine against S. Paul We avow 't is a Doctrine of Devils to forbid absolutely to marry as if marriage were ill in it self and of Satan as the Ebionites taught see S. Irereus Lib. 1 Cap. 22. And to command to abstain from certain Meats believing they were of the Devil with the Manicheans See S. Aug. Haeres Manich. 46. But we do not hold it to be a Doctrine of Devils to forbid Preists to marry who cannot use their marriage without breaking their vow made to God If a man be bound to keep his promise of fidelity or conjugal chastity to a Wife is not he as much bound to keep his promise of perpetual Continency made to God The Church I say does not determine against S. Paul 1 Timot. 4. nor against what he sayes Ephes 2. But heartily believes with him that we are saved by Grace through Faith and that this Faith is not of our selves but it is the gift of God not of works done by the force of nature or of the Old Law of which the Jews boasting thought themselves more worthy of Salvation than the Gentils Yet she determines against Mr. Rodon that S. Paul here by Works doth not exclude Works that flow from Faith as acts of Hope Repentance and Charity for S. Mary Magdalen was justified because she loved much Obj. They do not celebrate the memory of Christ's Death as they ought who do not partake of the Cup whereby only we commemorate the effusion of Christ's Blood therefore all ought to partake of the Cup. Answer I distinguish the antecedent they who do not partake of the Cup do not as they ought celebrate the Death of Christ Passively that is they have not an occasion of receiving and do not receive a representation or a memory of the Death of Christ I deny They do not celebrate the memory of the Death of Christ Actively I subdistinguish within themselves producing in their mind a thought of the Death of Christ I deny without themselves putting the Body of Christ under the species of Wine I grant but all are not bound to do so or celebrate a memory of his Death so but only the Preists to whom he gave that command saying Do this in remembrance of me and as often as you sball eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shall shew the Death of the your Lord untill he come And that Protestants understand this to be said to the Ministers only they shew when they say that this Sacrament cannot be rightly ministred without a Sermon of the Death of CHRIST I ask do the Lay-people Preach then CHAPTER VII The Sacrifice of the Mass proved by Reason by the notion of a true Sacrifice By Scripture By the tradition of our Country By the Authority of the Holy Fathers and the Church SECTION I. Proofs SUBSECTION I. Proofs from Reason I. REASON WE must not refuse to Christians that which all other People have had by an instinct of nature viz. to offer a true Sacrifice to the Supream Being God in the 1. Chapter of Leviticus v. 2. does not say by way of command ye shall offer But supposing what they knew to be done by the light of Nature he only prescribes there the manner of Sacrificing S. Paul having cured with a word of his month a Lame man at Lystra the People thinking him for that to be God presently found themselves naturally moved to bring Oxen to Sacrifice to him Act. 14. Men Sacrificed in the Law of Nature in the written Law the Pagan infidel as well as the Faithful Soul all led by this innate light he is to be honoured in a singular manner who is above all The chief end of a Sacrifice is to acknowledge by it God's supream Dominion over us his Creatures as Author of Life and Death and shall Christians who have been by divine favour enlightened above other People be ignorant of this or less sensible than others of their duty to him from whom they have received more Grace No. Then Christians have a true Sacrifice but no other than that of the Mass then that of the Mass is a true Sacrifice I prove the minor proposition because beside the Sacrifice of the Mass Christians have now no Sacrifice but their offerings of Prayers or other Acts of vertue which are only Sacrifices improperly nay God himself distinguishes them from a true Sacrifice saying by the Prophet Samuel 1 Reg. 15. v. 22. Obedience is better then Sacrifice and Math. 9. v. 13. I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice You 'l say we have the Sacrifice of the Cross Answer That is past People in succeeding Ages could not be present at that to do their due homage to God That was made and was sufficient to Redeem all men from their Sin 's past present and to come as much as was required of Christ or on his side as Redeemer but it was not made to Redeem them from their first Duty to God which is still and ever to acknowledge him as Supream Lord as well in all other times as in that at which the Sacrifice of the Cross was offered If that Sacrifice sufficed for all Duty 's what need have we now of Sacraments Faith repentance c. If we have moreover need of Faith for our selves why have we not need of a true Sacrifice as a testimony of our Faith in God to others The holy Patriarches had Faith in their Hearts but did not think themselves to do sufficiently by that their Duty to God without a Sacrifice as a publick profession to men of this their Faith in him You must distinguish the condigne or fully satisfying Sacrifice for Sin from other Sacrifices That the eternal Father required and accepted from his Son alone in Burnt-offerings and Sacrifices for Sin thou hast no pleasure then said I God the Son
the Spirit of God as St. Paul Nay after he had received the Spirit of God he was feared to loose it again saying I chastise my Body and bring it under servitude lest after I have Preached to others I become a reprobate my self 1 Cor. 9. v. 27. How know you then that at this time you are guided by the Spirit of God especially if it be true that a man knows not whether he be worthy of Love or hatred Eccl. 9.1 S. Iohn if you would hear him would tell you a better way to try your Spirit to wit by the Church's approbation of it Io. 4. v. 6. We viz. Governours of the Church are of God he that knows God heares us viz. Governours of the Church he that is not of God heares us not in this we know the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Errour To wit those who are led by the Spirit of Truth submit themselves to the Church whereas those who let themselves be guided by the Spirit of Errour will not this submission but rest in their own Judgment and by this wedding themselves to their own Judgment they become Hereticks being condemned of themselves as S. Paul speaks Tit. 3. v. 11. Other great Sinners are cast out of the Church by the Governours of the same but the Heretick he retires or withdraws himself by his singular and self Judgment contrary to the Judgment and Sentiment of the Catholick Church If you ask me what gives a man so much security in addressing himself to the Church as we are advised by S. Iohn c. 4. v. 6 Answer 'T is that she shews her self by her marks to be the Oracle of God to Men and as it were his mouth by which he speaks sensibly to Men. 1 Thes 2.12 Her marks are these 1. Her perpetual visibility Math. 5. v. 14. 2. Her antiquity Ierem. 6. v. 16. 3. Her easie way to Heaven for the Ignorant as well as the Learned by following only Her Direction Isa 35.8 4. Her having converted all Nations which now acknowledge Christ from Paganism to the Christian Religion Isa c. 2. v. 2. and chap. 60. v. 1. 5. 11. 5. Her working of Miracles Mark 16. v. 17. Note 't is not necessary that every one to believe see Her Miracles 't is enough they be very credibly related to them Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed Io. 20. v. 29. and Mark 16. v. 14. Our Saviour blamed his Disciples for their not believing the relation of Mary Magdalen and others of his Resurrection 6. Her unity and having an efficacious means to conserve unity among Her Children by their submission to Her in matter of Faith and by Her Authority given Her by God to condemn all Hereticks Isa 54. v. 17. 7. Her being Holy in Her Doctrine which breads People up to Saintity 1 Petr. 2. v. 9. And who by their lives shew the force of the Grace of the Passion of Christ as is seen in many of our Religious Persons Ephes 5. v. 25. and 26. 8. Her being Catholick or universal spreading through all times and sending of Her Children to all places to Convert Souls Math. 28. v. 19. Note the Roman Church would not justly be called Catholick if she had not had in all ages from Christ to this present time a Body of Men believing all the same Articles of Faith which she believes now For if they had only believed some of Her Articles they had not been the same Church with Her And by this mark all other Congregations pretending to the name of Catholick are excluded from it 9. Her having a Succession of infallible Pastors lawfully descending from S. Peter to this present Pope Innocent the 11. Ephes 4. v. 11.12.13 10. Her having a true and proper Sacrifice foretold Malach. 1. v. 11. All which marks taken together you will find in no Church but the Roman and therefore she is the Church God will have us hear Math. 18. v. 17. For brevities sake I send you to other Controvertists for a larger explication of those marks I am of opinion that this sole Argument which proves that the Protestants cannot be infallibly sure that the Protestant Religion is the true Religion not to speak of what I have said beside to the same purpose in this 6. Subsection being well weighed in all its parts and set together in the consideration of a serious well meaning Man free from Passion and Interest may make in his understanding to use Mr. Rodon's expression the Funeral of the whole Protestant Religion SECTION II. The Solution of Objections Mr. Rodon's Objections against the Sacrifice of the Mass answered TO his first Argument saying that Christ in the institution of the Eucharist did not Sacrifice nor offer his Body and Blood to his Father and that in the three Evangelists and St. Paul there is not the least Foot-step to be seen of a Sacrifice or Oblation of Christ's Body and Blood Answer Christ was a Preist and in acknoledgment of his Father's Supream Dominion over Life and Death he put his Body under one Form viz. of Bread and his Blood under an other separate Form viz. of Wine upon the Altar having by Consecration destroyed the Substance of Bread and Wine and so offered them to his Father for them and others or the Remission of Sins if we may believe him saying to his Disciples Luke 22. This is my Body which is given Greek didomenon for you Which is broken kloomenon for you viz. quoad speciem Sacramenti This is my Blood which IS poured out Ekkunomenon for you Neither for you only but for many was not this an unbloody Sacrifice Is not there a Foot-step of a Sacrrifice Hebr. 13. where St. Paul speaks of an Altar which is a correlative of a Sacrifice He Objects that Bellar lib. 1. of the Masse chap. 27 confesses that the Oblation which is made after Consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament Bellar. hath Sacrifice but is not of its essence Answer And so do I too but telling you withall that the oblation which is made in the Consecration is of the essence of the Sacrifice Deo offertur viz. Christus sayes Bellar. That sacred thing viz. the Holy Host is offered to God when it is put on the Altar of God and this one suffices for that part of the essence lib. 1. de Missa c. 27. towards the end For Salmeron and Baronius his putting the Sacrifice of the Eucharist among unwritten traditions Answer They do not deny it to be written also Some things the Apostles have delivered to us by writ word and practise as the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Baptism adultorum of adults that is of those who are come to a full age others only by word and practise as the Baptism of Infants The belief of three persons in the H. Trinity is it only an unwritten tradition If so and you believe it why may not you as well believe the unwritten tradition