Supper First It is true that some Fathers seem to say Christ offered himself up in his Last Supper but it is evident they meant it not really and properly for how could it be so where there was no real effusion of his blood no real occision or death but mystically or as Saint Augustine sometimes expresseth it significante mysterio in a Mystery or Sacrament signifying or representing his Sa ifice or Offering on the Cross presently to follow that Sacramentum Dominici Saerificii Sacrament of the Lords Sacrifice as Saint Cyprian calls it Ep. 63. ad Cacil The Sacrament then at his Last Supper shewing the Lords death that should be or the Sacrifice that should be offered on the Cross and the Sacrament now shewing the Lords death that was and the Sacrifice that was Offered All the wit the Romanists have cannot make the Offering up of himself in the Last Supper as they phansy it and after upon the Cross to consist upon any reasonable terms for as they may not say there were two several Offerings up of the Son of God so they cannot make them really the same The Apostle tells us often in his Epistle to the Hebrews cap. 7. cap. 9. cap. 10. He offered once to take away Sin and the Romanists dare not say he offered himself twice for the sins of the World Yet saying that he offered himself really in the Supper and on the Cross where the Time and Place was several and the Manner of Offering as to the very nature of a real external Sacrifice quite diverse for it was without bloodshed and death in the Supper but with both on the Cross they must needs say He twice Offered himself and all the cunning they have cannot make once and twice here to be really the same or to consist upon any terms free from contradiction Relation of the Eucharist to this Sacrifice of the Cross 5. 4. Champny endevouring to clear the relation which the Sacrifice of the Eucharist hath to that of the Cross is forced to make a wide difference between them and indeed to come to that which we allow in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament without placing such a Sacrifice in it as they vainly contend for The Sacrifice of the Cross saith he pag. 704. is absolute and independent which hath his effect ex propriâ suâ efficaciâ valore virtute from his own Efficacy Value and Vertue but the sacrifice of Eucharist is respectivum dependens applicativum relative to that Sacrifice on the Cross depending on it and borrowing totamsuam propitiandi Vim à Sacrificio crucis all the propitiatory force it hath from that on the Cross Lastly it is applicative of the Sacrifice of the Cross applicando nob is crucis merita Valorem it applyes saith he unto us the merits of that Sacrifice Again for the dependencie of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist upon that of the Cross he acknowledges there in effectu suo non minù quam â—lim Judeorum sacrifisia ab eo dependere that it depends no less upon it as to his effect and force then the Judaical Sacrifices did And pag. 707. he makes the effect of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist in and by the vertue of the Sacrifice of the Cross to be as the Working of the Second Cause by the cooperation of the First And endeavouring to shew how the propitiatory vertue attributed to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist doth not derogat from the sufficiency of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross he cannot do it but by making the one medium applicationis a means appointed to apply the other unto us and this he proves by the Acts of Faith and Repentance which besides the Sacrifice of the Cross are required in us to make it effectuall to us and by Baptisme Ordained of God to apply his blood to us and neither of these derogatory to the sufficiency of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Cross Thus he pag. 714 723.7â—6 5. Now in all this we may observe what a wide difference is made between the Sacrifice in the Eucharist and on the Cross and thereupon how impossible it is to make them one and the same also how sensless it is to affirm this of Christ offering himself up in the Eucharist whether we consider the dependency acknowledged to say Christs offering himself up in the Eucharist had not efficacy of it self but dependently of an other offering up of himself or whether we consider the application spoken of to say that Christ offered himself up in the Eucharist to apply the merit of his Cross unto us But to let pass these and many more Absurdities which follow upon their saying Christ offered himself up in the Last Supper we may farther observe how the Romanists after all their contending for a real proper and propitiatory sacrifice are fain to make it but applicative and that is it which we ascribe to the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament appointed for this end purpose that by it the Sacrifice of the Cross may be applyed to us The greater is their presumption that have taken off this applicative vertue from the Eucharist as a Sacrament appointed of God to that end and ascribe it to the Eucharist under the notion of a Sacrifice of their own devising have drawn off the people from seeking it in the Eucharist of which they are made partakers to expect it from the Mass which is performed by the Priest alone Romish vain pretence from Do this So finely do they plead for this their Sacrifice by our Saviours bidding us Do this and so plainly practice against it for whereas our Saviour saying Do this commands the whole Action of the Sacrament viz. Consecration and participation that which belongs to the Priest to do to bless consecrate distribute and that which belongs to Priest and people to do to take eate and drink as the Apostle plainly shews 1 Cor. 11.24 25 26. the Romanists will not do this accordingly but in the Eucharist suffer not the people to drink of the Cup denying them therein the application of Christs blood shed on the Cross and in the Sacrifice of their Mass they restrain do this to that only which the Priest doth as in their daily private Masses 6. Of the Fathers placing a acrifice in the Eucharish Secondly It is true that the Fathers often speak of the Eucharist as of a Sacrifice and that they say Melchisedech's Bread and Wine prefigured it and that they often apply the words of Malachy cap. 1.11 a pure offering to it and a great noyse is made by the Romanists of the sayings of Fathers upon these places and all to no purpose For what if some Fathers thought Melchisedech sacrificed not in Beasts as the Aaronical Priests did Of Melchisedechs Bread and VVine applied thereunto but in Bread and Wine and out of that Bread and Wine so presanctified and offered before to God he refreshed Abraham and his company and what
or killing of Christ For as this is plainly impertinent to Lombards resolution of the question so is it to that which Bellarmine and all of them do and must grant that in a real Sacrifice there must be a real destruction or consumption of the thing Sacrificed and they are as hard put to it to shew this destruction or consumption of the Body and Blood of Christ as to shew his Occision for at last it comes to this with them that the Species of Bread and Wine under which they will have his body and bloud to be are destroyed and not his body indeed A fair reckoning This place of Lambard was cited by Mason and Champny perceiving as it seems the weakness of Bellarmines answer doth wisely take no notice of it altogether omitting to speak any thing to it But to my apprehension it is very considerable 1. Because it was the purpose and work of the Master of the Sentences to gather a body of Theologie or Resolutions to all Theological Doubts out of the Sentences of the Fathers and to this Quare of a Real Sacrifice he could draw out of them no other resolution then what we have heard 2. Because it is a clear evidence how this present Doctrine of the Church of Rome touching a real Sacrifice was not formed or believed so long after the age of those Fathers they so much boast of The summ of all is this The Fathers usually expressed the Celebration or work of the Eucharist by the Words of Sacrifice or offering up the Body of Christ for themselves and others because there was a Representing of the real Sacrifice of the Cross and a Presenting as we may say of it again to God for the impetration or obtaining of the benefits thereof for themselves and for all those they remembred in the Celebration of the Eucharist 9. Fourthly Of prayer and Offering for the Dead It is true that the Ancient Fathers speak of offering this Sacrifice for the dead but far from the Popish sense according to which Romish Priests in their Ordination are said to receive Power to offer Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead For that offering for the Dead which the Ancients speak of in the Celebration of the Eucharist had the same extent purpose and meaning that their prayers there for the dead had and these anciently were made for those whom they judged to be in bliss Apostles Martyrs Confessors Holy Bishops c. and the purposes of the Church in remembring those in her publick prayers were many as we find in the Ancient Writers especially Epiphanius Haer. 75. I may reduce them to these heads First They were Acknowledgments of the honor and preheminence of Christ above all men that all they stood in need of mercy and that he only was not to be prayed for but to be prayed to note all Invocation of Saints stood excluded then by these prayers for the Dead of the happy estate of those they prayed for that they lived with God Of their own hope that they trusted to attain to the same state of bliss Secondly they were Thanksgivings for their sleeping in the Lord. Thirdly Petitions for that which was yet behind for their consummation that which Saint Paul calls the Redemption of the body Rom. 8.23 the Crown of Righteousness to be given in the last day 2 Tim. 4.8 the Mercy which he prayes Onesiphorus may finde in that day 2. Tim. 1.18 The Arcient Prayer which is yet reteined in the Canon of the Mass sounds to this purpose Remember O Lord the Soules of thy Servants which rest in the sleep of Peace This prayer indeed seems to be framed with respect to that opinion which anciently was very common in the Church that the Souls of just men were not admitted into the sight and presence of God till the Resurrection but kept in Receptacles of Rest Peace and Light of blessed comfort and refreshment yet it tells us that which they prayed for them was in regard of all the mercy and glory that was behind And it is plain by the Writers of those times that this remembring of the Dead thus in the Celebration of the Eucharist which was the representation of Christs Sacrifice was that which the Ancients cald Offering for them or as in Saint Augustines time Offering the Sacrifice of the Altar or the Sacrifice of our Saviour for them i.e. an acknowledging of and thanksgiving for their sleeping pro dormitione as Saint Cypr. and others in the Lord and their saving by the merits of his death and an Impetration by his Sacrifice then represented of all that mercy redemption and glory which was yet behind Thus Saint Augustine in his Confessions speaks of Offering for his Mother Monica whom he doubted not to be in bliss i. e. remembring her upon the like respects The Romanists have applyed all prayers and Offering for the Dead to the Souls in Purgatory Romish misapplication of all to the Souls in Purgatory Bellarmine tells us the Mass may be said in honour of Saints and with invocation of them lib. 2. de Mis cap. 8. so contrary doth the Church of Rome now run to Antiquity which offered for and prayed for the Saints and both in the honor of Christ and his Sacrifice Now the Offering of their Mass and the prayers for the dead are made for the souls in purgatory and in regard of them only it is that the Romish Priests receive power to offer Sacrifice for the Dead And accordingly they are bound to apply the aforementioned prayer Remember O Lord c. to the Souls in Purgatory but so untowardly that Bellarmine answering for the Canon of the Mass could not with all his wit come off any better then thus They rest saith he from the works of sin though not from Torment So then to lie in Torment is to rest in the sleep of peace 10. Indeed in the fourth Century they began to inquire what benefit of the prayers and oblations of the Church might redound to them which were not in requie in rest and sleepe of peace but in aerumnâ in trouble and grief after this life The second Quaere ad Dulcitium is to that purpose where Saint Augustine saith that Paulinus had also consulted him about it Now to this Quaere they spoke their private opinions such as their compassion to the dead suggested Saint Augustine delivers his in that place ad Dulcitium in his Enchirid c. 109. and in his book de curâ pro Mortuis Which book was also occasioned by a like quaere put to him by Paulinus out of like curiosity Private conceits about a Purging fire Whether it was any help to the dead to have their bodies buried neer the Memories or Tombs of Martyrs Then also was enquiry made after some kinde of purging fire to help such as held the Foundation dying in the profession of Christian Faith but whose lives were not answerable as we may see by Saint Augustine Lib. de fide
if they make application of this to the Eucharist it will but amount to this at the most that He who was Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedech should likewise take of Gods creatures as Ireneus speaks Bread and Wine and consecrate them into the Sacrament of his body and blood to be offered up in Sacrifice unto God and to be communicated as spiritual refection to them that come to receive it And so the Eucharist whether considered as first celebrated by our Saviour or as after by us is the representation and shewing of that Sacrifice 1 Cor. 11.26 and the participation or Communion of it 1 Cor. 10.16 17. That this was prefigured in Melchisedechs Bread and Wine as offered to God and brought forth to Abraham is all that by any force of reason can be driven out of the expressions of the Fathers And for that other place of Malachi Of Malachi his pure offering applied thereto of Incense and a pure offering divers Fathers give us the immediat and direct sense Tertullian saith It is Oratio simplex de conscientiâ purâ unfeined prayer from a pure Conscience lib. 4. contra Marcionem cap. 1. Eusebius in his first book de demonstr Evangel cap. 6. makes it the same with that worship our Saviour speaks of S. John 4.23 in spiritu veritate puròque obsequio a Worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth and with pure obedience Hierom also tels us it is here foretold that the prayers of the Saints were to be offered to God not in one place or province but every where Now the usuall exception of Romanists which Champny also pleads here is that such prayer and spiritual Offerings were required under the Law and therefore some Other external Offering and divers from all that was before must be meant by the Prophet But this Exception hath no force for sure our Saviour spoke pertinently when he opposed the Worship in spirit and Truth S. John 4.23 to the Jewish manner of Worshiping notwithstanding that it was required of the Jews to Worship in Spirit and Truth For there is a double difference of this Christian Worship from that under the Law One in the Manner of performance of it among the Gentiles purely without mixture of external Sacrifices or Legal performances in respect to which Saint Paul calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reasonable service Rom. 12.1 and Eusebius lib. 1. de Demonstr Evang. gives us this reason why Malachi calls it sacrificium mundum a pure offering because the Gentiles were to offer to the high God non per cruores not with the blood of Beasts as under the Law but per pias actiones by holy spiritual Acts and Duties Another difference was in the place The whole Worship and offerings of the Gentiles were to be performed to God in every place Our Saviour tells us it was not to be bound either to Jerusalem or to Samaria S. John 4.22 and Saint Paul tells us of lifting up pure hands in every place 2 Tim. 2. and Eusebius in the place forecited shewing how the Religion of the Patriarchs before the Law agreed with the Christians makes this one Instance because they did in omni loco adorare Worship in all places and then proves it by this place of Malchi that the Christians should do so As for the Fathers that applyed this pure Offering to the Eucharist they might well do it upon the former account the Eucharist having his name from the Sacrifice of praise and being that great and solemn performance wherein the pure Offering of Prayer and Praise and the devoting of our selves to Gods service is specially made But it will be said the Fathers apply this Pure Offering of Malachi to the Eucharist in respect of the body and blood of Christ there offered up It is true that some of them so express it and it is no more then what they often say without relation to that place of Malachi according to their usual manner of speech but far from the Romish sense or purpose as it remains to shew in the next place 7. The meaning of the Fathers speaking of a Sacrifice in the Eucharist Thirdly However the Fathers used for the most part to speak of this Mystery of the Eucharist Mystically and obscurely under the properties of the things signified rather then of the external Symbols and therefore seeming to imply a real Conversion of Transubstantiation of the Symbols into the Body and blood of Christ and a real Sacrifice or Offering up of that Body and blood again in the Eucharist yet do they sometimes punctually and positively express their meaning by the Memorial Representation and shewing in the Sacrament what was done upon the Cross and this they learnt from Saint Paul who tells us 1 Cor. 11.26 to do this is to remember and to shew the Lords death And for their mystical and figurative manner of speech they had his his example too Gal. 3.1 Crucified amongst you Was Christ really and properly crucified amongst the Galatians No but by description setting forth or representation of his Death and Passion often made among them in the Word and Sacraments Now for this explication of this manner of speech used by the Fathers I shall instance only in three of them First in Chrysostome who of all the Fathers speaks most high and Hyperbolically in this matter of the Eucharist and the place shall be that which Champny here cites as advantagious to his cause Homil. 17. in Hebr. he puts these questions Do we not offer daily Offerimus quidem saith he sed mortem ejus in memoriam revocamus we offer but it is by making a remembrance of his death Again because we offer often quomodo una est non multae how is his death or offering up but one and not many Hoc est saith he figura illius what we do is the figure of that And because he is offered in many places Multine sunt Christi are there many Christs No hoc fit in recordationem ejus quod tunc factum What we do is done in remembrance of what was then done by him Lastly We offer not aliam Hostiam another Sacrifice but Eandem semper facimus vel potiùs hostiae seu sacrificii recordationem facimus we offer alwaies the same that Christ did or rather mark this correcting of himself we make a remembrance of his oblation or Sacrifice He would be accounted a Lutheran or Heretick in the Church of Rome that should so answer to these questions Next S. Augustine Ep. 23. solves the like question Christ saith he was once immolatus in semetipso offered up or sacrificed in himself but is he not also daily in the Sacrament Non Mentitur qui interrogatus respondet immolari he should not lye that being asked that question should answer He is offered up and what is his reason quia Similitudinem because of that neer similitude which Sacraments have of those things of which they
are Sacraments But Champny and the Romanists do lye when they say Immolatur He is offered up in their sense i. e. really properly and when they say the Priest hath power so to offer him up But we do not lye if we say as the Fathers did Christ is offered in the Eucharist or that the Eucharist is his Death and Passion or that the Bread and Wine is his Body and Blood or that he is truly present in the Sacrament Yea in such attributions of the thing signified to the Sacrament Questions made by Sacramental attributions to be answered affirmatively rather then negatively we ought to answer affirmatively and that because of the similitude and neer union between the Sacrament and the thing signified but especially because of the effect to which God hath ordained the Sacrament that it should be so really to us in the true application of the Sacrifices of the Cross to us in our real Communion and participation of his body and blood in our real conjunction unto Christ Many other places there are of the same Father to the like purpose as lib. 20. contra Faustum cap. 21. speaking of the respect which the Sacrifice before and the Eucharist after had to the Sacrifice of the Cross in those saith he promittebatur it was promised in his Passion the flesh and blood of Christs Sacrifice per ipsam veritatem reddebatur was truly and really exhibited but after his ascension per sacramentune memoriae celebratur it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance And as he is cited by Gratian de Consecr Dist. 2. Vocatur immolatio that offering that is made by the hands of the Priest is called the Sacrifice the Passion and Crucifixion of Christ non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not that it is so in truth and very deed but in a mystery signifying and representing it Lastly let Eusebius speak who in his first book de Demonstr Evang. cap. 10. accurately sets down and clears this whole business of the Eucharist There he shews why Christians do not offer Beasts in Sacrifice as the Patriarchs did before the Law because all such are taken away in Christs Sacrifice which they did prefigure also because Christians have Spirituall Sacrifices now to offer unto God but foretold in the Psalms and the Prophets and thereupon he tels us the relation of the Eucharist to the Sacrifice on the Cross Christ saith he offered a wonderful Sacrifice for our Salvation to his Father and instituted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the memory thereof to be offered by us to God for or in stead of a Sacrifice Again Hujus Sacrificii memoriam in mensâ per Symbola corporis sanguinis ipsius The remembrance of this his Sacrifice at the Holy Table by the Symbols of his body and blood we have received according to the institution of the New Testament and thereupon Incruentas rationales Victimas we offer to God unbloudy and reasonable Sacrifices by the most eminent High Priest whereas the Romanists will have us offer up the High Priest himself And what are those unbloody Sacrifices The unbloody Evangelical Sacrifices which we offer up at the Lords Table as he calls it or at the Altar as the Fathers commonly speak He there numbers them punctually Sacrificamus memoriam magni illius Sacrificii celebrantes c. We Sacrifice by celebrating the Memory of that great Sacrifice on the Cross by giving thanks to God for our Redemption by offering up holy prayers and Religious Hymns Lastly by dedicating our selves wholly to him in Word body and Soule So that Ancient and learned Father 8. Vain exception or Reply of the Romanists All that the Romanists have to reply unto the Evidence of these and other Fathers speaking properly of that respect and relation the Eucharist hath to the Sacrifice on the Cross comes to this that the placing of a remembrance or representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross in the Eucharist doth not hinder it to be a true and proper Sacrifice also no more saith Champny pag. 699. then the respect which the Sacrifices of the Law had to Christs Sacrifice hindered them to be true and real Sacrifices But all this is very impertinent for if the Fathers had barely said there was a remembrance in the Eucharist of Christs Sacrifice it had not excluded a real Sacrifice but when in explaining themselves why they call the Eucharist a Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ and why they say Christ is there offered up they give it for the reason of their so speaking because that Sacrifice once offered by our Saviour is there remembred shewn and represented it is most plain they did not think that which is done in the Eucharist to be a real Sacrificing of Christ Their Instance also of the Legal Sacrifices is as impertinent for they were real Sacrifices in regard of the Beasts really slain and offered Now if the Romanists will have the Bread and Wine which represent the Body and Blood which was really offered to be the real Sacrifice in the Eucharist then indeed the remembrance or representation of Christs Sacrifice there doth not hinder but there may be also an external oblation and so many Fathers accounted the Bread and Wine to be as they were brought and offered to that Holy use and service But the Romanists will not say the Bread and Wine is the Sacrifice they contend for but that it is the very Body and Blood which is offered up Which Body and Blood being the same that was offered up upon the Cross their Real Sacrifice cannot have help by their instance of the Legal Sacrifices of the Bodies and blood of Beasts but stands excluded by the Fathers saying Christ is offered up in the Eucharist by a Mysticall signification by a remembrance by representation as above said It is very remarkable what Peter Lombard saith to this purpose The Question he puts is the same we have in hand and his Resolution the same we give to it Si quod gerit Sacerdos c. Whether that which the Priest doth be properly called a Sacrifice or offering up and whether Christ is daily offered up or was but once To the first he answers It is called a Sacrifice quia memoria est representatio veri Sacrificii in arâ crucis because it is the remembrance and representation of that true Sacrifice on the Cross To the second Christ once died on the Cross ibique immolatus est in Semetipso and there was offered up in himself or offered up himself indeed but he is daily offered up in the Sacrament quia in Sacramento fit recordatio illins quod factum est Semel because in the Sacrament there is made a remembrance of that which was done once upon the Cross Bellarmines answer here is a miserable shift That the Master of the Sentences by this doth not deny a real Sacrifice in the Sacrament Another vain exception but a real Occision
oper where cap. 1. and 15. he confutes them who conceived by mistake of the Apostles words 1 Cor. 3.15 that those which dyed professed of the Christian saith might be purged from all their evill works by some fire and so come to salvation merito fundamenti by reason of the foundation held also in his Enchirid cap. 109. and in 1. quest ad Dulcitium and in his 20. and 21. books de Civ Dei Now though they differed in their conceits about this fire whether it was immediatly after death or at last day commonly cald Ignis conflagrationis and about the Persons to be purged and helped by it yet all of them seem to conceive it to be a fire of Passage only for souls to go through to their appointed receptacles not a fire of Durance for souls to lie in as in a receptacle till the day of judgment as the Romanists believe it All that Augustine concludes upon it is nothing but uncertainty Tale aliquid some such thing may be after this life and quaeri potest it may be put to the question non est incredibile it is not incredible and forsitan verum est perchance it may be true so he of it in the forementioned places We see by this how from the curiosity of some of the Ancients enquiring after relief and help for those Dead whose state was of more uncertain condition Romish superstition hath taken her rise and how from the private opinions and uncertain conceits of some of the Ancients length of Time and strength of Romish presumption hath framed Articles of Faith this of Purgatory for one in respect to which and relief of the Souls tormented therein their Priests receive power to offer Sacrifice even the body and blood of our Saviour 11. Now to conclude By all that hath been said it appears how groundless unwarrantable and presumptuous this power is which the Romish Priests pretend to and how that power which our Priests or Presbyters receive in ordination and use in celebrating the Eucharist is warranted by the express Word and doth the whole work of the Sacrament sufficiently according to all purposes that our Saviour intended it for when he said do this and according to the true and proper meaning of the Fathers speaking usually of a Sacrifice in it And this is so much more considerable because the Romanists place the highest and chiefest act of Worship Evangelicall in this Sacrifice of the Mass and account the chief power and perfection of Evangelicall Priesthood or ministration totam vel maximam perfectionem sacri Ordinis saith Champny pag. 184. to be in this reall Sacrificing or offering up the body and blood of Christ And therfore it is most strange that in all the Evangelicall Writings there should be no Precept for such a Worship no institution of such a Sacrifice no commission for using such a power and that seeing the Apostle had often just occasion to speak of such a Sacrifice and Priesthood in his Epistle to the Hebrews nay had all the reason that could be to have acquainted them with it had there been any such whereas we shew express commands for that way of Worship we retein which with the Romanists is nothing in comparison of their Mass We shew direct commission for that power we use of Preaching Binding Loosing consecrating and celebrating the Sacraments which they account but dependent and subservient to the power of making the body of Christ and offering it up As for their pretence by our Saviours command Do this we found them thereby engaged to affirm that Christ offered himself up to his Father for the sins of the world in the Sacrament flat contrary to the tenour of the Gospel which yeilds that only to the Cross and expresly contrary to Saint Paul who affirmes he offered himself but once for sin Heb. cap. 7. and cap. 9. see above Num. 3. And when they have perswaded themselves of this untruth that Christ offered himself up in the Eucharist how can they assure themselves that do this warrants them to do all they suppose he did i.e. to offer him up as he did himself It is enough for us men to do this as a Sacramentall action blessing distributing eating drinking and by adding to it in remembrance of me he plainly shews he meant no real Sacrifical action by offering him up again but the Sacramental only by representing and remembring his once offering up himself to death and so the Apostle tells us Do this imports 1 Cor. 11. How great presumption is this for Mortal man to take upon him thus to offer up the Son of God Bell lib. 3. Bellarm. vain exception to excuse the Romish presumption de Pontif. Ro. c 19. writing of Antichrist and answering to this as a piece of Antichristianisme charged upon the Church of Rome dare not simply affirme that the Priest offers up Christ but that Christ offers up himself per manus Sacerdotis by the hands of the Priest Whether Bellarmine mend or marre his business here its hard to say This we know that Christ our High-Priest according to the Apostle Heb. 7.25 and 9.24 is in Heaven at Gods right hand executing his eternal Priesthood by interceding for us and in that representing still what he hath done and suffered for us And we know we have warrant and his appointment to do the like Sacramentally here below i.e. in the celebration of the Eucharist to remember his Death and Passion and to represent his own Oblation upon the Cross and by it to beg and impetrate what we or the Church stand in need of We know also that as He gives His Ministers Commission and Autority to do this so he assists them here below by his power and grace But that Christ should daily here below offer himself up personally for this Bellarmine must affirm in his qualifying of the Romis◠presumption by the hands of the Priest is inconsistent with that once offering of himself on the Cross and with the present performance of his Priesthood in Heaven where he is ever to intercede for us Heb. 7.25 and to appeare in the sight of God for us Heb. 9.24 This also would turn our Saviours command Do this in remembrance of me by which the Romanists pretend to take thus much upon them into a promise I will do this in remembrance of my self by your hands A meaning of our Saviours words which the Apostle knew not whē he told the Corinthians what it was to do this so oft as ye eat and drink this 1 Cor. 11. Yea the Priest saith directly in order of their Mass Suscipe Pater hanc Hostiam quam ego indignus servus tuus offero tibi Receive O Father this Sacrifice which I thine unworthy servant do offer up unto thee They that composed this prayer knew not that Christ as the Cardinal contrives it offered up himself there by the hands of the Priest or rather knew not that Christ was there