estated in glory By him we haue our fetters knockt off and our filthy rags cast away by him we are arrayed with rich apparrell of holines and innocencie by him wee are brought into his fathers presence and are accepted of God Almightie Through him we haue our Iustification through him we haue our Sanctification through him we haue our Glorification Seeing then the saluation of all beleeuers is perfectly wrought and consummated by the sacrifice of Christ here may arise a question Quest. Whether there be any sacrifices to bee offered by Christians vnder the Gospell or no Answ. I answer there are not any Ilasticke or propitiatory sacrifices to bee offered for attonement with God for to that end Christ hath offered himselfe once for all But as you haue heard that all Christians are spirituall Priests so they haue spirituall sacrifices to offer still vnto God which sacrifices are these First a broken and a contrite heart The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit a broken and a contrite heart oh Lord thou wilt not despise without this sacrifice all others are abhominable in the sight of God Secondly the offering vp of beleeuers per leitourgian ministrornm by the seruice of Gods ministers of this Paul speakes That I should be the minister of Iesus Christ to the Gentiles ministring the Gospell 〈◊〉 God that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable 〈◊〉 sanctified by the Holy Ghost Thirdly al manner of prayer and supplication Let my prayers be directed before thee as 〈◊〉 incense and the lifting vp of my hands as the euening sacrifice Fourthly all praise and thanksgining which wee giue vnto God By him therefore let vs offer the sacrifice of prayse to God 〈◊〉 that is the fruits of our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thanks to his name This sacrifice of 〈◊〉 Orthodox fathers called an im ton thu sian an vnbloody sacrifice as 〈◊〉 in his embassage for the Christians to the Emperours Antonius and 〈◊〉 And Eusebius Offerant illi logikas kai anaimous thu sias Let them offer 〈◊〉 and vnbloody sacrifices So Cyrill Oecumenicus Iustine Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus fathers of great 〈◊〉 called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haleluiahs of Angels and the holy hymnes of the Saints acceptable 〈◊〉 sacrifices Fiftly our almes and reliefe of the poore are spirituall sacrifices To doe good and to distribute forget not for with such sacrifices God is well 〈◊〉 And Paul calls the beneuolence of the Philippians sent by Ep phroditus an odor of a sweet smell and a sacrifice acceptable well pleasing to God Sixtly there is the sacrifice of righteousnesse or iustice Offer to God the sacrifices of right 〈◊〉 and againe Then shalt thoube pleased with the sacrifices of righteousnesse 〈◊〉 there is the slaying of our sinnes and offering them vp dead vnto the Lord with there signation of our selues to Gods seruice I beseech you therefore 〈◊〉 by the mercies of God that you present your bodies a liuing sacrifice holy and acceptable to God which is your reasonable seruice Eighthly the bodily death of the Martyrs inflicted on them by bloody tyrants is a spirituall sacrifice Thus Paul calls himselfe a Sacrifice Yea if I bee offered vp a sacrifice for the seruice of your faith And I take it in this sense it is the Prophet Dauid speakes saying Precious in the sight of God is the death of his Saints Thus did that holy Polycarpe the Disciple of Saint Iohn call his death which hee indured for the testimony of Iesus a Sacrifice And so Saint Augustine speaking of the Martyrs hath these words The Gentils dedicated Temples consecrated Priests erected altars and offered sacrifices to their gods We Christians dedicate Temples to our Martyrs not as to Gods but to their memories as to dead men whose spirits liue with the Lord. Neither doe we erect alvars whereon we sacrifice to the Martyrs but to one God theirs and ours Wee offer sacrifice at which sacrifices those Martyrs as men of God are named in their place and order nor are they 〈◊〉 by him that offers the sacrifice for the sacrifice is not made to them but to God although it be in the remembrance of them for he is the minister of God and not theirs and the sacrifice is the body of Christ which is not offered vnto them for they themselues are that body In the latter end of which words Saint Augustine shewes that the whole Church which is the mysticall body of Christ whereof the Martyrs are a part is a gratefull sacrifice acceptable vnto God Lastly the sacrament of the Lords supper is a sacrifice but not after the manner of the Papists but onely figuratiuely So the bread and cup are called the sacrifices of Christians by Iustine Martyr because they represent the sacrifice of Christ and were instituted in remembrance of it So Dyonisius calls it Sumbolike ierourgia ☠Symbolicum Sacrificium Eccles. Hiera cap. 30. a Symbolicall sacrifice So Saint Augustine Quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium signum est veri 〈◊〉 That which by all men is called a sacrifice is but a signe of the true sacrifice And that immolation which is in the hands of the Priest is called the passion death and crucifixion of Christ not that it is so indeed and in truth but onely by the way of remembrance So that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be called Sacrificium 〈◊〉 a Recordatory Sacrifice wherein vsing the signes and Symbolls of his body and blood with true faith and thankfull hearts we celebrate the memoriall of the death and sacrifice of our Sauiour Iesus Christ. Wherefore the Fathers called it an vnbloody sacrifice because it was not a proper sacrifice but onely mysticall and figuratiue And indeed this makes it not to bee properly a sacrifice because in a sacrifice we giue vnto God but in a Sacrament wee receiue from God but in the Lords Supper wee giue not the body and blood of Christ vnto God but receiue it from the minister as from Christ for the confirmation of our faith which makes it to be properly and truely a sacrament but a sacrifice it is called improperly and by representation Thus you see what was the sacrifice offered by Christ and what are the spirituall sacrifices of euery Christian. Now followes the third branch of this first part of the text Namely the cause why Christ offered this sacrifice or the end whereunto this sacrifice was directed which is said here to be for sinne But this man hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne Here we are to note that albeit the Angels had sinned as well as man yet it was not for their sinne that Christ offered sacrifice for they had no benefite by his incarnation death or passion but for the sinnes of mankind and withall we are to obserue that albeit Christ was a man endued with true humane nature yet in regard he was not a sinnefull man but a lambe without blemish and without spot a
ceasing to bee a liuing man as hee was before Our aduersarie then hauing vouchsafed vs this ground worke we will make bold thus to build vpon it Euery thing really and properly sacrificed for propitiation doth suffer a real destruction of the substance But the body of Christ doth not in the sacrifice of the. Masse suffer a reall destruction Ergo. In the sacrifice of the Masse the body of Christ is not really and properly offered The Maior being graunted by the Cardinall the Minor prooues it selfe thus If the body of Christ doth in the Masse suffer destruction which to say were blasphemy it must eyther be in whole or in part if in whole how come we to finde the same Christ the same body and blood the next morning againe in the Masse If but in part or for a time as it was during his beeing in the graue then would follow that the Church for a time hath no Christ perfect God and perfect man Now Bellarmine affirmes that the Priests eating of the consecrated elements which are made the body of Christ is the destruction of the sacrifice his words are these Consumptio seu manducatio quae fit a sacer dote quôd fit essentialis pars 〈◊〉 inde probatur quia in tota actione missae nulla est alia realis destructio victimae praeter istam requiri autem realem destructionem supra probatum est The Priests consumptionor eating of the Host is prooued to be of the essence of the sacrifice for in the whole action of the Masse there is no destruction of the sacrifice but onely this and that there must be a reall destrustion of the sacrifice I haue already prooued But herein how is hee constant to himselfe who sayes The substance of the sacrifice must suffer destruction and yet hold againe that the Priest consumes not the body of Christ by eating it for it suffers no diminution but onely the formes of bread and wine Who sees not here a most palpable contradiction for he will haue the body of Christ to be the substance of this sacrifice and this sust ance must be consumed or els it is no sacrifice and yet when it comes to the push the body of Christ suffers not destruction but only the formes Is not this to make quidlibet ex quolibet Is not this to make it a sacrifice and no sacrifice Is not this to say the body of Christ is the substance of this oblation and not the substance because it is not consumed Againe if a Propitiatory sacrifice be as Bellarmine defines it That which doth pacifie the wrath of God for the remission of sinnes I demand then how remission of sinnes is procured mentall presence of the Lords body and blood there is a true reall and actuall application of his death quo ad meritum in regard of the merit of it to all that receiue with faith But the Iesui te will haue a proper death of Christ in the Eucharist euen as he is truely really substantially and corporally present and yet see how he thwartes and crosses himselfe in the last words saying Christ in the Eucharist dyes not Hence we may frame this Argument After the same manner that Christ is in the Eucharist after the same manner hee dyes in the same for an actuall and corporall presence requires an actuall and corporall death as a sacramentall presence a sacramental death onely But in the Eucharist by our aduersaries owne confession Christ dyes not properly actually or bodily Ergo in the Eucharist hee is not properly actually or bodily present Thirdly note how contrary this doctrine is vnto it selfe The body of Christ saith he and the blood of Christ are consecrated apart and seuerally yet they do not subsist apart least there should be an actuall and reall effusion of the blood of Christ. But I demand if it be so that they are consecrated and made apart then when the Priest hath consecrated the body of Christ first for hee cannot consecrate both in an instant doth not that body subsist without blood till hee hath made and consecrated the blood also This is strange in the sacrament that the body of Christ and his blood should admit for a time such an actuall separation as is betweene that which hath a being and that which hath no being Lastly note how enigmatically he tells vs of those things which are separated by consecration and yet are indiuisibly conioyned that they cannot be separated contrary to the institution of Christ who tooke the bread and the cup seuerally consecrating them asunder to figure vnto vs that actuall and reall separation of the body and blood of Christ vpon the crosse Argument 13. The thirteenth Argument is this That which is a Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne must appease and pacifie the wrath of God this Bellarmine affirmeth But the sacrifice of the Masse doth not appease the wrath of God Ergo The sacrifice of the Masse is not Propitiatory The Minor is thus prooued That which doth appease Gods wrath must bee of infinite value But the sacrifice of the Masse is not of infinite value Ergo The sacrifice of the Masse cannot appease Gods wrath The Maior is prooued because the wrath of God for sinne being infinite cannot be pacified but by that which is of infinite merite and desert and this is confessed by their owne Iesuite in these words Si Aaron aut 〈◊〉 Pontifex hostiam obtulisset quae visua tolleret peccata non esset necesse alteram offerri 〈◊〉 iam peccata per illam deletaerant Dices illa hostia delebat peccata vsque ad illam oblationem commissa sed quum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noua peccata quid obstat alteram offerri frustra id fieret 〈◊〉 si 〈◊〉 sua tollebat peccata infiniti valoris erat non enim aliter poterat tolli peccatum compensari iniuria Deo facta If Aaron or any other high Priest had offered a sacrifice which by it owne vertue had taken away sinne there had beene no need to haue offered any more because all sinnes were already taken away by the former Thou wilt say that sacrifice did take away those sinnes which were committed before it was offered but when afterward new sinnes were committed why may not new sacrifices be offered No that were but in vaine for if by it owne proper vertue it did take away sinnes it was then of infinite value and merit for otherwise sinne could not bee taken away nor the iniury done vnto God recompenced First here he disableth the Leuiticall sacrifices because of their often repetition and reiteration Secondly he prooues our Maior Proposition that nothing can appease the infinite wrath of God and so satisfie his iustice but that which is of infinit merit and desert therefore all the Angells in heauen could not haue wrought mans redemption by satisfying for the sinne of Adam but Christ himselfe nor he had he been meere man and not Theanthropos God and man for no finite
graue to ascend into heauen to reconcile vs to God this he could not doe but by the power might and efficacie of his Godhead And to this purpose are the words of Bernard Singula 〈◊〉 opera ad 〈◊〉 siue illam necesse est pertinere naturam ad 〈◊〉 scilicet miseria ad illam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the workes of Christ doe appertaine either to one nature or other to the humane nature belongs his miserie to his 〈◊〉 nature his power Diuers authorities of the Fathers are alleadged by the Rhemists for the proouing of their opinion which you shall find sufficiently answered by learned 〈◊〉 vpon the fift chapter of the Hebrewes vers 6. Secondly seeing Christ onely is that Priest that can offer an al-sufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of his elect this then demonstrateth the sacrilegious blasphemie of the Romish Priesthood that they dare presume to arrogate that office to themselues which is onely peculiar to Iesus Christ How dare such presumptuous priests once vndertake to offer a sacrifice for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead seeing the offering of that sacrifice caused the Sonne of God to sweat clods of water and blood to endure the infinite wrath of his infinite father and had he not beene corroborated by the dietie his body had beene vanquished by death and captiuated by the power of the graue if the Sonne of God could not do it but with so much difficultie proud are the sonnes of 〈◊〉 the Priests of Rome who seeme to doe it with such facilitie But I would argue Socratically with them by demanding some questions 1. First he that was to offer this sacrifice was to be God and man without sinne I demaund whether any of them be God and man if not then they cannot offer this satisfactorie sacrifice neither are they after the order of Melchizedech If they say that euery one of their priests is God and man oh how doe they blaspheme how doe they proclaime themselues of the spawne of Antichrist who takes vpon him to be God and exalts himselfe aboue all that are called Gods 2. Secondly the Angell told Daniell Dan. 9. that Christ should take away sinne by his sacrifice and the holy Apostle sayes Christ offered himselfe an oblation and sacrifice to God of a sweet smelling sauour So that this sacrifice could be offered of none but Christ. Are they so many Christs 3. Thirdly there was but one high Priest at once among the Iewes to signifie that there was but one high Priest that could take away our sinnes by offering a satisfactory sacrifice But are not they innumerable 4. Fourthly hee that offered this sacrifice was to be of no lesse dignitie and worth then the sacrifice it selfe seeing a sacrifice is accepted for his sake that offers it But dares the masse priest say he is himselfe of equall dignitie with the sacrifice he offers or that it is accepted for his sake No not for his eares Lastly the sacrifice that the Priest offers in the masse either is the same that Christ offered or another if it be another then it is not propitiatory seeing the true satisfactory sacrifice was but one according to the text hauing offered one sacrifice If it be the same why then doe they make the sacrifice of Christ imperfect and weake by their so often reiteration yea why doe they make the Scripture false which sayes Hauing offered one sacrifice once for all And as the Leuiticall sacrifices being so frequently repeated did shew that they were in themselues imperfect and could neuer make the commers hereunto perfect so doth the often repetition of the sacrifice of Christ argue the imbecility thereof Obiect But the factors of the Church of Rome will say that Christ may haue deputies on earth in his stead to offer sacrifice Ans. I answer hereunto two wayes First I say Christ is not bound to offer any more sacrifice at all for the oblation of himselfe vpon the crosse did consummate mans redemption and put an end 〈◊〉 all typical sacrifices of the law and to his sacrifice which he was to offer for mans reconciliation wherefore seeing Christ is not to offer any more sacrifice what needes he a deputie to offer sacrifices where neither seruice is required nor expected what need is there of a substitute 2. I answer by the way of admission let vs grant that Christ is yet to offer sacrifice or to continue his begunne sacrifice which is most erroneous Yet we must consider Christ two wayes 1. as God 2. as a Mediatour As hee is God with the Father and the holy Ghost he hath Kings and Magistrates to bee his deputies on earth therefore they are called Elohim Gods But as he is a Mediatour he hath neither deputie nor vicegerent neither king to rule ouer his Church nor priest to offer sacrifice for him Quest. If they aske what wee doe then with Ministers in the Church of England Answ. I answer wee make them not Mediatours and sacrificing priests as Parmenian the heretick and the papists doe but we haue them for such purposes as Christ hath commanded namely to administer the word and sacraments to vse prayer and discipline in the Church which is no part of the office of Christs eternall priesthood or chiefe sacrificers dignity Plainely then doe appeare vnto vs the blasphemie and sacriledge of the Priests of Rome in establishing their massing priesthood for while they seeke to maintaine their owne glory they robbe Christ of his endeauouring to confirme the multiplicity of their priests they ouerthrow the singular priesthood of 〈◊〉 Christ. Quest. But heere may bee demanded a question whether the title priest may properly be assigned to a Minister of the new Testament Answ. I answer howsoeuer it bee crept into the Church yet as learned Fulke it is not a proper title for the ministers of the Gospell in regard that wee haue but one Priest Iesus Christ for the office of the Priest is to offer sacrifice which doth not appertaine to the ministers of Christ Iesus neither is the name priest any where in the new Testament ascribed vnto the Ministers in respect of their office But how then shal we answer to that place of Paul That I should be the Minister of Iesus Christ to the Gentiles ministring the Gospell of God that the offering vp of the Gentiles might be acceptable beeing sanctified through the Holy Ghost Where the word 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 ministring the Gospell signifies as much as sacrificing the Gospell and so Erasmus translates it explained by the word following namely that the offering of the Gentiles where it appeares that a sacerdotall action is attributed vnto Paul being a minister of the Gospell and therefore that the title priest may as lawfully and conueniently be ascribed to him So Origen Sacrificale opus est 〈◊〉 Euangelium It is a sacrificall worke to preach the Gospel I answer vnto the place alleadged out of the Romans as Caluin on the place that the
Scripture yet it is effectually proued by the tradition of the Church Which may make vs iustly admire the vaine 〈◊〉 of our aduersaries who boasting of nothing more then Scripture are yet faine wholy to relinquish it and to build vpon the tradition of the Church but an answere 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 afore And for these words Is giuen broken shed for you they interpret to be a present giuing in the Eucharist by way of sacrifice but this is sufficiently answered in the former 〈◊〉 Now seeing the words of Christs institution doe make their sacrifice to be a meere non Ens let ve examine his actions and see if any of them will breath any life into this their sacrifice The actions of Christ the Scripture mentions to be foure Hee tooke bread He blessed it He brake it He gaue it Not any one of these can seeme to import a sacrifice And whereas our aduersaries haue divided their sacrifice into fix actions in the which of them this sacrifice should consist Suarez makes it doubtfull The first action is the taking of the bread before consecration and the heauing it vp which they call the Eleuation of the host this is not essentiall to the sacrifice by the Iesuites owne confession because it cannot be prooued neither by Scripture nor the tradition of the Church that Christ did vse it Albeit herein he dissents from Sotus a learned Doctor who with others thought it to be vsed by Christ and in some sort to 〈◊〉 to the substance of this sacrifice The second action is the Consecration of the Host in the words of Christ Hoc est corpus meum This is my body This Suarez 〈◊〉 to be intrinsecall and essentiall to this sacrifice and to be the sacrificing action and yet tels vs that it was the opinion of many learned men That consecration was but only an antecedent vnto the sacrifice but properly neither to be of the essence nor yet any part of this sacrifice And how can the Papists confidently build their sacrifice vpon those words This is my body when their owne Bishop hath prooued from the testimonies of the most ancient Fathers that those are not the words of consecration but that the words of consecration were before those words when Christ prayed and blessed the bread and the cup and therefore hee alleadgeth the perpetuall practise of the Church from the age of the Apostles whose custome was to consecrate by prayer or benediction as also the Liturgies of St. Iames Clement Basil Chrysostome do declare the same being backed with the iudgement of many learned Schoole-men to whom hee adioynes the Diuines of Colein all agreeing consecration rather to be in the prayer or blessing of Christ then in these words This is my body which hee rather accounts to be the institution then the consecration of the Sacrament The third action after the words of consecration is the Oblation vsed by the lifting vp of the Host in these words Be mindfull ô Lord c. Concerning which there is great 〈◊〉 some great Doctors haue placed the whole essence of this sacrifice in this Oblation or Eleuation as Ecchius 〈◊〉 Ruardus Others say it is of the essence but not the whole essence as Scotus Gabriel Biel Soto Canus these Suarez quoteth but differing from them all for he affirmes it to be no essentiall part of the sacrifice with whom agrees Bellarmine because say they it is not expressed in the Scripture neither yet is it probable other wayes that this kinde of eleuation or lifting vp was vsed by Christ in the institution onely herein these Iesuites differ Suirez will haue this eleuation to be an Ecclesiasticall rite but Bellarmine to be Apostolicall The fourth action is the dipping of the consecrated Host into the cup which Canus makes to bee of the substance of this sacrifice which Suarez againe one the same ground disanulls because that it appeares not that Christ did vse any such action The fift action is the distribution of the 〈◊〉 according vnto the example of Christ who gaue it vnto his Disciples which saith the Iesuite some Catholike Doctours haue iudged to be the full complement and perfection of this sacrifice But as learned Morton obserues first they must shew vnto vs where the essence of this sacrifice is to bee found least they tell vs of the perfection of a sacrifice before their sacrifice appeare to be Ens or to haue any beeing The last action is the Priests consuming the consecrated formes by eating and drinking some make this to be the substance of the sacrifice and the very essence of it as the Moderne Thomists Ledesima Canus and Bellarmine who are againe contradicted by other great Doctours of the Roman Church as Thomas Aquinas 〈◊〉 Maior Alan Cassalus Catharinus Turrianus Palacius with whom Salmeron doth consent all which doe deny that this consumption of the Host doth belong to the essence of this sacrifice Thus haue you seene what 〈◊〉 warre our aduersaries doe maintaine among themselues 〈◊〉 against Manasses and Manasses against Ephraim but both against Iudah 〈◊〉 war in their owne campe yet they all conspire against the truth Now let the Reader iudge where is vnity or consent in doctrine when their greatest Doctours in the maine point of religion are at variance directly contradicting one another with est non est it is and it is not They vniustly vpbraid vs with dissentions when alas ours is no dissention if compared with theirs we onely differing in the fringe they in the garment wee alone in the ceremonies they in the substance and very soule of religion Thus haue we largely and sufficiently prooued by the testimonies of our aduersaries that the sacrifice of the Masse was not instituted by Christ and therefore by the confession of their owne Iesuites not to be admitted into the Church Argument 12. The twelfth argument is grounded vpon Bellarmines owne ssertion which is this Ad verum sacrificium requiritur vt quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sacrificium plane destruatur id 〈◊〉 ita mutetur vt desinat esse id quod erat To a true sacrifice is required that that which is offered vnto God in sacrifice be wholy destroyed that is be so changed that it cease to be that which it was And againe Verum reale sacrificium veram realem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A true and a reall sacrifice requireth a true and reall death or destruction of the thing sacrificed Which assertion is true in all Propitiatory sacrifices wherein there was alwayes a destruction of the offering or sacrifice and that by death and shedding of blood that therein they might bee perfect figures of the great sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse wherein his body did shed blood suffered death sustained destruction though not totall and perpetuall yet partiall and for a season in so much that although hee was not consumed yet there was in him for a time a cessation or
external thing as Abel of the firstlings of his flock c. For it must be some outward visible thing animate or inauimate I speake of the sacrifices of the law and not of the Gospell which I shall shew to be as well internall as externall I say moreouer that it must be offered to the true God and therefore all sacrifices offered by the Heathens vnto their Idolls and fained gods are improperly called sacrifices in regard that it can neuer be called sacred which tends to the dishonour of the true God Furthermore I say there must bee ioyned with this Knowledge for there can be no acceptable sacrifice vnto God which is done ignorantly without the knowledge of Gods holy will the Apostle sayes whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne And without faith it is impossible to please God now faith cannot subsist without the knowledge of that which we doe beleeue Lastly I say it must bee a thing acceptable to God Therefore the price of a whore the price of blood a dogs head swines blood and the like though they were offered yet are they abhominable because they are forbidden yea whatsoeuer is unseemely or vndecent is not acceptable The Leuiticall sacrifices were of two sorts Ilastika expiatory or Eucharistika Gratulatory In the expiatory propitiatory or satisfactory sacrifice for these different titles belong all to one thing the Iewes had respect vnto their sinnes and by the laying their hand on the beast and slaying it before the Lord they did in act confesse that they themselues had deserued death eternall for their sinnes but by the blood of Iesus Christ the immaculate lambe who was to dye for mankind they were assured to receiue remission of their sinnes and freedome from eternall death This sacrifice was called Catat that is sinne or a sacrifice for sinne So Paul alluding hereunto saith that God hath made him sinne for vs who knew no sinne that is to say God made him a sacrifice for sinne It is also called Ilastikon or expiatory from the end for the which it was instituted namely to represent the sacrifice which should expiate and satisfie for our sinnes which was Christ himselfe So that this sacrifice was called Expiatory not properly but Metonymically as hauing relation to the Messiah Vnto his sacrifice were referred that offering which was called 〈◊〉 of Olon and chauo because it was allburnt in the fire and the priests had no part of it or else it was so called of Holah which signifies to ascend because it being wholy consumed in the fire did ascend vp vnto God in the smoake Vnto this Expiatory sacrifice were also referred those oblations which were offered for the cleansing of lepers for the purification of women after childbirth for touching of dead bodies for the sanctifying of Priests for all these pollutions had respect to the pollution of sinnes The other sacrifices were Eucharistica or offerings of thanksgiuing whereby they did testifie their thankfulnesse for benefits temporall or spirituall this kind of sacrifice was called Zebach Schelamim 〈◊〉 pacificorum a peace offering because it was offered by them that had beeing reconciled to God by the former sacrifice receiued remission of their sinnes and were at peace with God as also because thereby they testified their gratitude to God for all his fauours which the Hebrewes did comprize vnder the word Peace And to this sacrifice were referred the meate offerings and drinke offerings the first fruits and the tenths all which were testimonies of their thankfulnes And indeed all sacrifices may be reduced to these two heads Either Ilastika or Eucharistika Expiatory or Gratulatorie For according vnto Gods affection towards man such were mens 〈◊〉 towards God Now God is either angry with vs and so punisheth vs or is well pleased and so blesseth vs and all the effects of God vpon euery man are either blessings or cursings when hee is angry hee sends cursings when hee is well pleased hee sends blessings wherefore hauing stirred him vp to wrath by sinnes the Iewes offered Ilasticke sacrifices to appease his wrath hauing appeased his anger and pleasing him by obeying his commandements they obtained his blessings and fauours to their bodies and soules wherfore they offered Eucharisticke sacrifices to testifie their thankfulnesse to the Lord. Now in both these kinds of sacrifices had the Iews respect vnto the Messiah fixing the eye of their faith vpon Christ that was to come both in him expecting saluation by the satisfactory sacrifice of his death and in him rendering thankes vnto Iehouah for all his blessings which they were made partakers of through the Messiah Thus much of a sacrifice in generall and of the kind of sacrifices among the lewes The second thing I propounded is to shew you what this particular sacrifice is which Christ offered for finne As there was vnder the law a double sacrifice Ilasticum and Eucharisticum Expiatory and Gratulatory So is there vnder the Gospell this double sacrifice offered by Christ for when he had finished his Propheticall office here on earth he then entered vpon his Pontificall or Priestly office which was to offer sacrifice for all beleeuers And albeit this expiatory sacrifice was first in order of nature as making way for the Eucharisticall whereby it might be acceptable to God hauing satisfied for sinne by his death and so reconciling God and man yet in time his Eucharisticall sacrifice was offered before his Expiatory and the reason hereof is alleadged by a most famous Diuine whose words are these Although the Father was first to be appeased by the Ilasticall sacrifice of Christ 〈◊〉 the crosse and so forgiuenesse of sinne and of punishment beeing obtained then should haue followed the sacrifice of thanksgiuing for all benefits obtained by Christs death and passion yet Christ offers his sacrifice of thankesgiuing as if hee were already crucified For so he was indeed in Gods decree and in his determination and in this respect hee is 〈◊〉 The lambe slaine from the beginning of the world This Eucharisticall sacrifice of Christ was in the Lords Supper which was not vnworthily euer after in the Church of God by the Fathers tearmed by the name of the Eucharist Yet vnderstand mee I doe not say that the bread and the cup were this Eucharisticall sacrifice that Christ offered but the thanksgiuing which he offered to his father For before hee brake the bread and gaue the cup to his Disciples it is the opinion of all ancient and moderne writers that lifting vp his eyes vnto heauen in the name of all the elect that were are and euer shall bee in the world he gaue thanks to his heauenly Father for all his blessings of nature grace and glory but especially for that remission of 〈◊〉 and redemption from eternall death purchased by that sacrifice of his body vpon the crosse So that in these two sacrifices of Christ all the Leuiticall sacrifices had their full perfection and
Priests should become Christochthonoi Christ Killers Yet how can they auoid the suspition of treason against the life of Christ when they seperate his reall body from his blood for it is greatly to be feared that they who powre out his liuely blood and breake his reall and substantiall body are guilty of the death of our Lord and Sauiour Argument 8. Eighly If Christ be dayly sacrificed in the Masse then Christ doth daily satisfie for our sinnes but Christ doth not daily satisfie for our sinnes ergo Christ is not dayly sacrificed in the Masse The consequence is plaine by euidence of Scripture for wheresoeuer and whensoeuer Christ was to be sacrificed it was for the satisfaction of his Fathers wrath for sinne Who gaue himselfe a ransom for all to be testified in due time Hee was delinered to death for our offences Who loued vs and gaue himselfe for vs an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweete smelling sauour If when we were enemies we were reconciled vnto God by the death of his sonne c. Who gaue himselfe for our sinnes that he might deliuer vs from this present euill world By these and diuers other places of holy Scripture it is plainely prooued that satisfaction for our sinnes is the end of Christs sacrifice and in naming the one wee suppose the other The Minor is prooued because Christ did perfectly satisfie for the sinnes of all the elect appeasing fully the wrath of God by his sacrifice vpon the Crosse and now ceasing from making any further satisfaction he onely sitting at the right hand of God maketh intercession for vs. For to satisfie the wrath of God is to doe that for vs which wee should haue done and to suffer that which we had deserued namely death and so Christ should againe yeelde obedience to the Law and suffer death againe but the Apostle sayth Christ being once dead dyeth no more neither is Almighty God so vniust as to require satisfaction of him that hath perfectly satisfyed already But our aduersaries say that Christ is sacrificed in the Masse to apply vnto vs the satisfaction which Christ hath giuen for vs on the Crosse. But so in applying satisfaction he makes satisfaction for Christ cannot be sacrificed truely but hee must truely die and he cannot die but to make satisfaction Againe if Christ ought to be sacrificed againe that the fruite of his sacrifice may be applyed vnto vs then ought he as well to be incarnate againe in the wombe of the Virgin that the fruite of his incarnation may be applied vnto vs to die to be buried to rise againe that so the fruite of his death Sepulture and resurrection may be applyed vnto vs. Lastly the application of the benefit of Christs sacrifice by reiteration of his sacrifice is not found in Scripture But there is a double meanes one internall and that is the efficacie of the Spirit of God which powerfull applies 〈◊〉 vs the vertue of Christs sacrifice the other is externall namely the Preaching of the word and the Sacraments which two concurring together beget faith in the soule which particularly applies the benefit of Christs oblation to the beleeuer In a word let them consider what applicari to be applied signifies and they shall easily perceiue that the sacrifice of Christ is applied vnto vs when Christ is offered not to God as in the Masse but to vs as in the holy Eucharist Christ freely giuing his body to be eaten his blood to be drunke and that spiritually by faith Argument 9. Ninthly if in the Masse Christ be offered vnto God by the Priests of Rome then hee is not the onely Priest of the new Testament But Christ is the onely Priest of the New Testament Ergo he is not offered by the Priests of Rome in the sacrifice of the Masse The consequence is true for if there be a true and reall sacrifice in the Masse there must needes follow a true and reall Priest-hood which offereth this sacrifice and so Christ is not the onely Priest of the new Testament The Minor is denied by our aduersaries but is proued by vs. First there is no other proper externall Priesthood vnder the Gospell but that which is after the order of Melchizedech of which order there is no man worthy but onely Christ as is sufficiently declared And whereas our aduersaries vainely boast their Priest-hood to be after the order of Melchizedech herein they are contrary to Scripture which makes this not to be a common Priest-hood as Aarons was but personall belonging onely vnto Christ wherefore the Apostle sayes that Christ because he continueth for euer hath Aparabaton Hierosunen such a Priest-hood as cannot passe from one to another Where the Apostle plainly shewes that such as were mortal and consequently not eternall were vncapable of that order of Melchizedech such are the Priests of Rome mortall as those of Aaron were and thereof vnto them cannot this Priest-hood be diuolued They thinke to cut vs off with this distinction Christ is the primary or principall Priest but men may be secundary and lesse principall by whose ministery Christ may offer himselfe vnto God I demaund then was not Christ euen vnder the Law a Priest after the order of Melchizedech and were not the Priests of Aaron being compared to Christ that was to come Secundary Priests were they not therefore Types and figures of the Priest-hood of Christ wherefore when the primary or superior Priest was come the Priest-hood of Aaron vanished and the Apostle would haue no legall Priesthood to remaine But where hath he substituted any other secundary Priests instead of the former Certes the Scripture hath not appointed any Againe by the same reason that the Apostle disanulles the legall Priest-hood hath he also excluded all other externall Priest-hood vnder the Gospell for he opposeth him that is immortall against those that are mortall God and man against those who are meere men Now if the Priests of Rome be no freer from mortality or fuller of deity then the Priests of Leuy they are then by the same reason both excluded for Cui ratio perfectum medium conclusionis conuenit eidem ipsa conuenit conclusio To whom the true reason and perfect medium of a conclusion doth agree to the same also the conclusion it selfe may be applied Againe Christ is plainely manifested to be the only Priest of the New Testament and so alone able to offer the sacrifice of propitiaton for our sinnes by that figuratiue entring alone of the high Priest once a yeare into the Tabernacle Againe he that offers a true propitiatory sacrifice effectuall in it selfe to procure pardon for 〈◊〉 must needes be a Mediator of the new Testament therefore is it sayd of Christ But now hath hee obtained a better ministry by how much also he is made a Mediator of a better couenanant And for this cause he is the 〈◊〉 of the new Testament that by meanes of death c. By which
sacrifice of Christ offered on the crosse once for all Our aduersaries themselues dare not nor doe not deny it yet will they not relinquish their sacrifice of the Masse Argument 15. The fifteenth Argument The Apostle sayes that Christ needes not to offer himselfe often but now once in the end of the world hee hath appeared to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe and againe By one offering he hath perfected for euer them that are sanctified From these testimonies of Scripture I frame this Syllogisme If Christ once in the end of the world was sacrificed to put away sinne and by one offering hath perfected them that are 〈◊〉 then he is not offered in the Masse But Christ once in the end of the world was sacrificed to put away sinne and by one offering of himselfe once for all hath perfected them that are sanctified Ergo Christ is not offered in the Masse Bellarmine answeres that the Apostle there speaketh of the bloody and painefull sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse which was sufficient once to bee done but this taketh not away the vnbloody sacrifice which is but a continuance of the former whereby the fruite and efficacy of the former oblation is applied vnto vs. But wee are to obserue that the Apostle by these words excludes and cuts of all iterations of the sacrifice of Christ for otherwise if Christ should now be often sacrificed really though after any manner the difference of the Apostle could neuer stand betweene the Leuiticall sacrifices which were often repeated and the sacrifice of Christ which was once offered Secondly that is but a false distinction of a bloody and an vnbloody sacrifice as they vnderstand it otherwise then the fathers did for there can be no proper vnbloody sacrifice of Christ neither could hee be offered vp otherwise then by dying Therefore he is not offered vp in the Eucharist because therein hee dyeth not Thirdly we neede not inuent a new kind of sacrifice which may apply vnto vs the efficacy of Christs death seeing to that end Christ hath appointed the preaching of the word and the administration of the Sacraments Bellarmine replyeth first though the death of Christ be applyed by the Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet it may be applyed also by the sacrifice of the Masse which in this behalfe is not superfluous no more then Baptisme is by which also Christs death is applyed Secondly that the Apostle speaketh of the bloody and painefull sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse it appeareth by the words following For then he must haue often suffered But we cut off Bellarmines answere by affirming That albeit both the Eucharist and Baptisme doe apply the death of Christ vnto vs yet is not Baptisme superfluous because it is of Christs institution so is not the Masse Againe they apply Christs death diuersly baptisme as the seale of our regeneration the Eucharist as a signe of our redemption the one signifies our sanctification by the washing of Christs blood the other our iustification by the sufferings of the same Christ our Sauiour the one for our initiation into the Church the other for our confirmation so that neither of them are superfluous but the sacrifice of the Masse is superfluous because the remembrance and shewing forth of Christs death is sufficiently performed without a sacrifice Wherefore the comparison holds not that the Masse may as well be vsed to apply the vertue of Christs death albeit the Eucharist doth the same as baptisme seeing baptisme is of Christs institution the Masse is not and baptisme and the Lords Supper though they both apply the death of Christ yet in diuers manners and for diuers ends But the Papists pretend the same to be the end of the Masse which is of the Lords Supper And whereas Bellarmine sayth the Apostle speakes of the bloody sacrifice of Christ it is true for he neuer once dreamed of an vnbloody sacrifice which could neuer haue any existence in rerum natura For if you marke the Apostles words hee quite knockes this vnbloody sacrifice of the Papists on the head saying Not that he should offer himselfe often c. For then must 〈◊〉 often haue suffered Intimating that there can be no proper offering or real sacrificing of Christ but by death and suffering Wherefore where there is no actuall death of Christ nor reall suffering there can be no true and proper offering and Christ hauing but once died really he could but once be really offered Argument 16. The sixteenth Argument is taken from the words of Christ who being on the Crosse cryed out Consummatum est It is finished Giue vs leaue to demand what was finished Let one of their owne friends speake Why now was finished whatsoeuer God had determined whatsoeuer he had commanded whatsoeuer the Law and the Prophets had foretold concerning Christ whatsoeuer was necessary and conducible for mans saluation the oblation was offered the types fulfilled the shadowes abolished the Scriptures were verified and the great sacrifice quo solo Deus placari potuit by which onely the 〈◊〉 of God was pacified is now perfected In which words obserue first that whatsoeuer was necessary for mans faluation was now accomplished what neede then haue we of Masses Secondly that Ferus sayes The sacrifice of Christ was finished How dares any man then renew it in the Masse Thirdly he sayes The sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse onely could 〈◊〉 Gods wrath How then comes the sacrifice of the Masse to be propitiatory Bellarmine answeres that these words It is finished are to be vnderstood of the Prophecies of his passion not that all things were done necessary to mans saluation For then the Sacraments and all Doctrine should bee 〈◊〉 But this answere will not serue the turne for the prophecies were not all fulfilled when hee spake these words for after this time two prophecies were fulfilled First the not breaking of abone foretold Exod. 12. 46. Secondly the pearcing of him with a speare prophecied Zach. 12. 10. But let vs admit for good Ferus his wordes Quoniam fuit in opere consummationis ideo dixit consummatum est because they were in the act of consummation or ready to be consummated therefore he sayd It is finished And let vs admit for good the first part of Bellarmines answere that the prophecies were fulfilled yet let vs a little pause before we grant the second For whereas he sayes All things necessary to mans saluation were not finished it is true if hee meane some speciall actes 〈◊〉 did concerne Christs person as his resurrection and assension without which our redemption could not bee perfectly consummated Againe if he vnderstand it of some indiuiduall actions of religion which were to be performed for the saluation of such particular persons as should beleeue afterward it is true they were not finished because the persons whom God had appointed and decreed to
the pretended sacrifice of the Masse is not Propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead The Maior is not denyed by our aduersaries The Minor is thus prooued Augustine saith Sacramentum est visibile signum inuisibilis gratiae a visible signe of inuisible grace so that in euery sacrament there is signum signatum the signe and the thing signified both which abide whole and intire in such sort as it is not possible that the one can be the other or any part of the other But the sacrifice of the Masse destroyeth the nature of a sacrament for it taketh away the substance of the bread which is the signe and seale of his body it taketh away the substance of the wine which is the symbole of his blood and that by 〈◊〉 and altering them as some of them hold or els by annihilating them as others say or by reducing them into their first matter from substances into accidents contrary vnto all nature yea contrary to the things signified for there ought to be resemblance betweene the signe and the thing signified as Manna did represent the bread of life which came downe from heauen in baptisme water which washeth away corporall spottes the blood of Christ which cleanseth our spirituall pollutions bread and wine which nourish our naturall life the body and blood of Christ which sustaine and feede vs vnto eternall life But roundnesse whitenesse moistnesse and rednesse which they giue vs for signes what analogy or proportion haue they with our spirituall nourishment These accidents of bread and wine haue no power or vertue to feede the body but the substance of bread and wine they leaue those and take away this where then is the sacrament when the signe is abolished Againe the sacrifice of the Masse taketh away the thing signified in the Lords Supper What 's that It is the body and blood of Christ yea Christ himselfe For the very body and blood of Christ was giuen only for them which 〈◊〉 in him and abide in him for them saith the Apostle which dwell in him by faith and in whose hearts he dwelleth for them saith Saint Augustine which are his members and therefore the same Father saith a man may eate panem Domini the bread of the Lord and yet not eate panem Dominum the Lord the bread making a difference betweene the bread in the sacrament and that life-giuing bread which is Christ himselfe represented by the symboles in the Eucharist But oh what iniury is offered by the Papists in their sacrifice vnto the body and blood of Christ which is the food of eternall life when dogs and swine that is reprobates and hypocrites shall bee made pertakers of it nay and these ex opere operato by vertue of the very act of receiuing doe merit remission of sinnes and relaxation of punishment nay a Mouse or a Dog may eate the precious body of our Lord Iesus Christ which doth so 〈◊〉 their greatest Doctors that if it be demanded Whether if a Dog or a Mouse doe eate the 〈◊〉 Host they doe 〈◊〉 the very body of Christ they are at a non plus and know not what to answer Wee affirme and dare iustifie That the signe of the Sacrament may be receiued of all that are of competent age in the Church But Res Sacramenti the thing signified in the Sacrament can onely be receiued by the faithfull which are rightly of the Church for so saith Origen Of this true and verie meate of this Word made flesh no wicked or vngodly man can eate because it is the Word and Bread of life because hee that eateth of this bread liueth for euer And S. Augustine speakes plainely to this purpose saying The Signes are common to the good and 〈◊〉 but the thing proper to the faithfull alone therefore the Apostles did eate Panem Dominum The bread which was the Lord but Iudas onely Panem Domini the Bread of the Lord against the Lord. Doth not this take away Christ himselfe when the Church shall giue vnto wicked men and vnbeleeuers and they themselues shall receiue the very substantiall Body of Christ. Againe they destroy the humanity of Christ for the which the Fathers of the Church haue so mightily contended against diuers Heretikes for when without warrant of Gods word they ascribe vnto this body a property of being in a thousand places at once how do they not destroy the nature of a true Humane body which can be but in one place at one time as is prooued Pag. 198. Nay doth not this Sacrifice make Christ a dead Christ in that they doe really separate his body from his blood making them in consecration and after consecration to subsist apart which separation was the very death of Christ And whereas Christ saith I am with you vnto the end of the world And Where two or three are gathered together in my name I will be in the middest of them These and the like speeches are to be vnderstood of the Diuinitie of Christ which filleth all places as these Speeches You shall not have me alwaies with you It is expedient for you that I goe away The heauens must containe him vntill the restauration of all things are to be vnderstood of his Humanity which is circumscriptiuely onely in one place at once And so the Fathers vnderstand these places Origen saith It is not the man which is euery where Where two or three be gathered together in his name Or yet is alwaies with vs vntill the end of the world Or which is in euery place where the faithfull are assembled but it is the Diuine power which is in Iesus And so Saint Augustine You haue the poore alwaies with you c. Let not good men be troubled in respect of his maiestie prouidence grace c. It is fulfilled which he said I am alwaies with you In respect of the flesh which the Word tooke vpon it it is the same which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You shall not haue me alwaies The Church enioyed him but a few daies in respect of his bodily presence but now it possesseth him by faith and seeth him no more with these bodily eies c. And in another place vpon 〈◊〉 words Vado venio ad aos He went as men he staied behinde as God He went in as much as he was but in one place he staied and abode still in as much as hee was euery where By which words of S. Augustine it appeares that hee conceiued the Humane body of Christ to reside in one place and not to bee in many places at once And in another of his writings hee hath these words It is expedient for you that I goe Although that hee be alwaies with vs by his Diuinitie but if he had not gone away from vs corporally we should haue seen him daily with these carnall eies and should neuer haue beleeued in him spiritually c. And for this cause he hath absented himself in
to goe in to bow with his Master in the house of Rimmon and therefore prayeth twice for mercy for it professing he will neuer worship any but the true God neither doth he onely pray for sinne past but in the sence of his owne weakenesse desireth mercy that 〈◊〉 may not bee drawne from his purpose and withsll stirreth vp the Prophet to pray for him that God would giue him grace and strength and for pardon if at any time hee should against his purpose bee drawne into his former sinne and in this sense the Prophet bids him goe in peace as if hee should say I will pray that God would keepe thee in thy godly resolution and for mercy and pardon if thou shouldest be drawne aside and so farewell The words of the Prophet Elisha Goe in peace are also diuerssy expounded Some thinke the Prophets words 〈◊〉 no grant made vnto his petition but rather a prohibition not to trouble himselfe about those matters as if he should haue sayd Content thy selfe require no such thing it would trouble thy conscience but goe in peace keepe a good conscience and labour for the peacetherof so as Polan obserues the words of the Prophet are Tantum dimittentis abeuntem non concedentis postulatum onely a valediction and not any concession or granting of his request Againe it appeares not by the words of the Prophet that he gaue any tolleration or dispensation vnto Naaman for Naaman makes in one verse two petitions one for permission to goe into Rimmons Temple the other for two mules load of earth to carry home with him to offer sacrifice vpon vnto the Lord. Now the Prophet makes the same answer vnto both and therefore doth either condescend to both or deny both but grant them both he did not for the one was cleane contrary to the law to giue Naaman leaue to sacrifice in Syria who was not a Priest whose office it was alone to offer sacrifice and moreouer Ierusalem was the onely place appointed for that action This request therefore the Prophet can by no meanes be thought to haue granted Ergo nor the other And vnto this sence I doe adhere for that the Prophet neither could nor durst giue any liberty to Naaman to be present at the Idolatrous worship of the Syrian Rimmon I am not ignorant of the opinion of some that the Prophet answers dispensando by the way of dispensation though not generally yet in that case onely to goe into the Idols Temple and to bee present at their Idolatry But Lyranus will haue it declarando by declaring it to be lawfull for Naaman to bee present in the Temple of Rimmon at Idolatrous seruice and sacrifice so it were onely for ciuill respect vnto the king his Master and of this opinion seemes 〈◊〉 to be who allowes a man to bee present by reason of some ciuill office so hee yeeld not to the least shew of Idolatry but I should rather commend the practise of the Protestant Princesat Augusta who brought Charles the fift their Emperour along as he was going to the Masse but left him at the Church doore as also of Valentinian who brought Iulian to the Temple of his Idols and when the doore-keeper sprinkled his gowne with the Idols water as the Pagans vsed Valentinian forthwith gaue him a blow on the eare Conclusion Thus hauing sufficiently refelled their strongest arguments and giuen answer to their chiefest pleas the conclusion shall bee this Seeing the Romish Masse hath quite ouerthrowne and thrust the Supper of the Lord out of the Church the holy Supper being an assembly a body of the faithfull vnited and knit together in one spirit strengthening our faith 〈◊〉 our charity kindling our zeale wherein is celebrated the memory of the death and passion of our Lord by a plaine and open rehearsall of the cause manner and benefits of the same whereby the faithfull are taught to acknowledge and call to mind the greatnesse of their sinnes and to admire and magnifie the great and vnspeakeable mercies of God whereby they are stirred vp to renounce and forsake themselues to giue themselues wholy vnto God to dye vnto their lusts and concupiscences and to liue vnto Christ who hauing once deliuered himselfe to the death of the crosse for to giue them life did yet further vouchsafe to giue himselfe to them in this sacrament as spirituall meate and drinke to feede their soules vnto eternall life and herein all the faithfull doe communicate together in the bread and in the cup in the body and in the blood of our Lord being taught thereby that they are diuers members of one mysticall hody whereof Christ is the head being quickned mooued and gouerned by one Spirit euen the Spirit of Christ liuing one life and hauing their hearts vnited one to another by loue Herein wee are seriously admonished of our bond and obligation to God the Father for sending his Son and God the Sonne fulfilling the will of his Father the remembrance of whose death wee shew forth till he come who as verily as the Minister giueth vs the bread and wine to be receiued with our hands which being eaten and drunken are conuerted into our substances and become nourishments of our bodies giueth vs his body and 〈◊〉 to be receiued with faith that we may eate and drinke them spiritually and that they may be turned into the life and substance of our soules making vs one with Christ and Christ one with vs. This was the holy Supper of the faithfull in the ancient Church and this is ours with the rest of the reformed Churches But in the Masse there are no footsteps of the holy Supper but all things are so changed as if the Lords Supper were abolished and the Masse were come in the stead therof for in the Masse there is a Prieft in a strange garment his face fixt vpon an Altar with a Clarke standing behind him muttering in a strange language interlarded with signes lifting vp a wafer in an affected and ceremoniall superstitious sort causing it to be worshipped dipping it in the wine eating it alone persuading the people that by thus much as hath beene done beeing at their request and bought with somepiece of money he hath sacrificed Christ for them What shewing foorth of the Lords death is there till he come Nay is there not an abolishing of the perfection value and efficacy of Christs death and sacrifice Is their not 〈◊〉 in robbing the lay-people of the cup Is not the Masse ful of abhominable blasphemies and grosse impieties Are not the deaths and sufferings of Saints and Martyrs rather reckoned vp then the death of Christ represented Is there not rather a breach of charity then any Symbole of loue when the Priest eates all himselfe the common people being excluded from it where is there any communion betweene the members or signification of our engrafting into Christ The scriptures neither authorising nor the Primitiue and Apostolicall