Christus cuique occiditur cum evedit occisum August quaest Evang. l. 2. and when we believe in Christ from the very remains of this thought Christ is dayly immolated to us (c) Cum credimus in Christum ex ipsis reliquiis cogitationis Christus nobis quotidie immolatur Id. in Psal 73. as St. Hierom says when we hear the word of our Lord his flesh and blood is as it were poured into our Ears (d) cum audimus Sermonem Domini caro Christi sanguis ejus in auribus nostris funditur Hieron in Psal 147. and so St. Ambrose calls the virgins minds those Altars on which Christ is dayly offered for the Redemption of the Body (e) Vestras mentes confidenter altaria dixerim in quibus quotidiè pro Redemptione corporis Christus offertur Ambr. de Virg. l. 2. The Minister also does not only offer to God the oblations of the faithful at the Altar and their spiritual sacrifices of prayer and praise which it is his proper duty in their names to present unto God but he does offer as it were Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for the people by praying to God for the people as a public Minister in and through the merits of Christs death and passion and by consecrating and administring the blessed Sacrament which is hereby made not only a commemorative sacrifice of Christs body and blood but does with the outward sign really exhibit the thing signified to the people So that 't is no wonder to meet with the words offering and offering Christs body and blood as attributed peculiarly to the Minister as in those known places of Ignatius his Epistles 't is not lawful for the Priest to offer without the leave of the Bishop And in Tertullian when the Priest is wanting thou baptizest and offerest and art a Priest to thy self and in the Council of Nice where Deacons are forbid to offer the body of Christ Can. 14. To offer and to offer Christs body and blood is made the peculiar office of the Priest as he alone is the steward of these Mysteries of God and the proper Minister to consecrate and celebrate this Holy Sacrament and in that to offer up the peoples requests to God in the name of Christ and his meritorious cross and passion and by vertue of that to mediate for the people and present as it were Christs sacrifice on their behalf that is Christs body and blood as an objective sacrifice in heaven and as formerly truly offered upon the cross and now sacramentally and improperly upon the Altar but not as an external visible proper sacrifice subjectively present and placed upon the Altar by the hands of the Priest and by a visible and external action presented to God and offered up as the Jewish sacrifices used to be by any consumption or alteration as they hold the sacrifice of the Mass to be No such can be found in any of the Fathers or ancient Ecclesiastic Writers though they speak often of sacrifices and oblations and sometimes of offering Christ and the body of Christ in the Eucharist yet not at all in the present sense of the Romish Church or according to the doctrine of the Council of Trent or the Writers since that which how contrary it is to Antiquity I shall show by a few general Remarks and Considerations 1. Had they had any such sacrifice they might have given another answer to their Jewish and Heathen Adversaries who charged them with the want of outward Sacrifices and Altars as with a great impiety to which they made only this return in their Apologies that they had indeed no proper Altars nor visible and external sacrifices but instead of those they offered the more spiritual sacrifices of Praise and Thanksgiving and of an honest and good mind and of vertuous and holy actions which were the only sacrifices of Christians and more acceptable to God then any other this is the answer which runs through all their excellent Apologies in return to that accusation of their having no sacrifices which they owned to be true in the sense their Adversaries urged it that is that they had no proper external visible sacrifices such as the Jews and Heathens had such as the Roman Church will needs have the Mass to be but their sacrifices were of another nature such as were so only in an improper and metaphorical sense which the Romanists will by no means allow that of the Eucharist to be We are not Atheists says Justin Martyr as they were chargged to be because they had not the visible Worship of facrifices but we Worship the maker of all things who needs not blood or libations or incense with the Word of Prayer and Thanksgiving giving him Praise as much as we can and counting this the only honour worthy of him (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. and we are perswaded he needeth no material oblation from men (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. And in another place he says Prayers and Praises made by good men are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to God (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dialog cum Tryph. We are charged by some with Atheism says Athenagoras who measure Religion only by the way of sacrifices and what do ye tell me of sacrifices which God wanteth not though we ought to bring him an unbloody sacrifice and to offer him a rational Worship (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanag Legat. pro Christ where the rational worship explains the meaning of the unbloody sacrifice Tertullian in his Apologetic answering that charge That Christians did not sacrifice for the Emperours it follows says he by the same reason we do not sacrifice for others because neither do we do it for our selves (e) Pro Imperatoribus sacrisicia non pendltis sequitur ut eadem ratione pro aliis non sacrificemus quia nec pro nobis ipsis Tertull. Apologet. adversus gentes c. 10. but in answer to this he declares how Christians prayed for the Emperour c. 30. and in another place he says they sacrificed for the Emperors health that is with a pure prayer as God has commanded (f) Sacrificamus pro salute Imperatoris i. e. purâ price sicut Dius praecepit Idem ad Scapul and I offer to God says he in the same Apologetic speaking against other sacrifices a rich and a greater sacrifice then le commanded the Jews Prayer from a chast body from an innocent soul proceeding from the Holy Spirit (g) Ei offero opimam majorem hostiam quam ipse mandavit orationem de carne pudicâ de animâ innocenti de Spiritu sancto profectam Ib. Apol. c. 30. This is the Host to be offered says Minutius Felix a good mind a pure soul a sincere conscience these are our sacrifices these are the sacred things of God in answer to their not having Altars and Shrines (h) Cum sit litabilis hostia bonus
and St. Peter in which there are the distinct parts of the people as well as of the Priest as when the Priest is to say peace be with you all the people are to answer and with thy spirit and the service is so framed as to suppose and require company in Communicating or else it would be nonsensical and ridiculous for the Priest alone to pray to God to breathe upon us his servants that are present to grant that the Sacraments may be to all us that partake of them the Communion of the blessedness of eternal Life and after the Communion is over after all have received for the priest to give the blessing to all and pray God to bless and protect us all who were partakers of the Mysteries The same form of speaking in the plural is in the more Authentick Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom where it is very odd for the Priest to exhort others to pray to give thanks and the like and to pray God that they may be worthy partakers of the Sacrament if none were to partake of it but himself The Roman Missal which is much older then these private Masses or then the Doctrine of the Mass as I shall presently show speaks after the same manner and makes the Priest pray for all that are present and that all who have communicated may be filled with all heavenly benediction and Grace These must be all very improper for the Priest to say when he communicates by himself and he may with as good reason make a Congregation by himself alone as make a Communion Private Masses then which sprang up from the sacrifice of the Mass and are wholly suited and agreeable to that Doctrine these being so contrary to the best Antiquity show that that Doctrine also on which they are founded and from whence they arose is so too And I have the more largely considered these because they are another great corruption of the Eucharist of the Roman Church tho they are originally derived from the sacrifice of the Mass Fourthly The very Canon of the Mass as 't is at present in the Roman Church has very little in it agreeable to this new Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass but though it is somewhat difficult to give a certain account of the time of its composition it being made at first by an unknown Author whom St. Gregory calls Scholasticus who is supposed by some to be Pope Gelasius though had St. Gregory known this he would hardly have given him that name and it having a great many additions given to it by several Popes as is owned by their own Writers upon the Ordo Romanus * Walasrid Strabo de rebus Eccles c. 22. Micrologus de Ecclesiast Observat c. 12. Berno Augiensis c. 1. alii in Collectione Hittorpii yet it is no doubt much ancienter then their present Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass which is very near as late as the Council of Trent The first manner of celebrating the Communion was very plain and simple so that St. Gregory tells us The Apostles consecrated the host of oblation only with the Lords Prayer †Mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solammodo orationem Dominicam oblationis hostiam consecrarent Gregorii Regist Epistol 64. l. 7. if they did so and used no other form in that sacred Office 't is certain they could not make a sacrifice of the Eucharist nor offer it as such to God because there are no words or expressions in that prayer whereby any such thing should be meant or signified so that this is a most authentick testimony against any such Apostolick practice but the present Canon Missae or Communion Office of the Roman Church does not fully come up to nor perfectly expresse or contain the present Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass there is no offering of Christs body and blood under the species of Bread and Wine in any formal words as might be expected in conformity to their Trent Doctrine nor is there any mention of Christs being there in his natural body or offered to God by the Priest as a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead for sins for punishments and for other necessities Neither this nor their great Doctrine of Transubstantiation is contained in their present office so that 't is to me a plain evidence of the novelty of both of them and that they are a great deal later then the Canon of the Mass there are several prayers indeed that make mention of a sacrifice and of an oblation but most of them and the most expresse of them are before consecration so that they plainly belong to those Gifts and Oblations which according to the Primitive custom were brought by the Communicants and which as I have shown were one great reason of the Eucharist's being called a sacrifice God is desired to accept and bless these gifts these presents these holy and pure sacrifices which we offer to thee for thy holy Catholick Church together with thy servant our Pope N. and our Bishop N. and for all the Orthodox and for all those that hold the Catholick and Apostolick Faith. * See Canon Missae and then follows the commemoration Prayer Remember O Lord thy servants and thy handmaids N. and N. and all those who are present whose Faith and Devotion is known to thee for whom we offer to thee or who offer to thee this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all others for the Redemption of their Souls for the hope of their Salvation and their safety and render their vows to thee the Eternal Living and True God then after the memorial of the Saints We beseech thee O Lord that thou wouldst mercifully receive this Oblation of our service and of all thy Family and dispose our days in peace and command us to be delivered from eternal damnation and to be numbred in the fold of thine Elect through Jesus Christ our Lord then immediately follows this prayer which Oblation thou O God we bescech vouchsafe to make altogether blessed ascribed ratified reasonable and acceptable Ascripta and Rata are words which they are as much puzled to understand as I am to Translate All these prayers are before consecration so that they cannot belong to the sacrifice of Christs Body but only to the oblation of the gifts and the sacrifice of praise as 't is there expresly called and yet these are a great deal more full and large then the prayers after consecration wherein there is no manner of mention of offering Christs Body and Blood but only offering the consecrated Elements as they were offered before when they were unconsecrated We offer unto thy excellent Majesty of thy gifts and presents a pure host an holy host an immaculate host the holy bread of Eternal Life and the cup of Eternal Salvation The first Composers would have used other words then Bread and Cup had they meant thereby Christs very natural Body and
feared that it is not accepted by God or else it need not be so often tendered and paid again and again so many several times but as Bellarmine says both the sacrifice it self and Christ who then offers it are infinitely acceptable to God * Ipsa hostia offerens Christus infinito modo sunt Deo grata Ib. What account then can be given of this He is the most miserably put to 't that ever good guesser was at this unaccountable thing and with a salvo to better judgment †Videntur mihi salvo meliore judicio tres esse causae hujus rei Bellarm. de Miss l. 2. c. 4. F. which is a squeamish piece of modesty that he is seldom guilty of at other times he offers at three reasons though he owns the cause of it is not certain †Causa non est adeo certa Ib. The first is in respect of the sacrifice it self which is offered in the sacrifice of the cross says he Christ in his very natural being and human form was destroyed but 't is only his sacramental being is so in the Eucharist * Prima sumitur ex parte hostiae quae offertur nam in sacrificio destruebatur ad honorem Dei ipsum esse naturale Christi in formâ humanâ in sacrificio Missae destruitur tantum esse sacramentale Ib. but Christ I hope is as much in his natural being in the Eucharist as he was upon the cross else what becomes of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and he is offered as truly to God in his natural being there why should not then his natural being be as valuable in the one as in the other if his natural beings not being destroyed there makes it to be no true sacrifice as one would think he had it here in his thoughts then indeed he gives a good and a true reason why the one is not a sacrifice nor upon that account so valuable as the other but for fear of that he quits this reason and goes to the next which is * Secunda sumitur ex parte offerentis nam in sacrificio crucis offerens est ipsa persona filii Dei per se at in sacrificio Missae offerens est filius Dei per ministrum Ib. in respect of the offerer because in the one the offerer is the very person of the Son of God by himself but in the other the offerer is the Son of God by his Minister but surely if the oblation be the same of the same worth and value the offerer will by no means lessen and diminish it and how often do they tell us that Christ himself is the offerer of the sacrifice of the Mass when we charge them with the great boldness and presumption of having a mortal man offer up Christ and so consequently purchase our Redemption and make propitiation for sin which none but Christ can do to avoid this the Bishop of Meaux says That Christ being present upon the Table offers up himself to God for us in the Eucharist * Exposition of the doctrine of the Catholick Church So that the Priest is only to set him upon the Table according to him by the words of consecration and then Christ offers up himself to God and Christ being present upon the holy Table under this figure of Death intercedes for us and represents continually to his Father that death which he has suffered for his Church * Ib. And the Council of Trent says It is the same offerer as well as the same sacrifice that was upon the cross and the difference between that and the sacrifice of the Mass is not at all upon the account of the offerer but only the manner of offering †Vna eademque hostia idemque offerens sola offerendi raetione diversâ Conc. Trid. Sess 6. c. 2. This therefore can be no true reason of the different value of the two sacrifices and oblations The Third is taken from the will of Christ for though Christ (c) Tertia ratio sumitur ex ipsâ Christi voluntate nam etiamsi possit Christus per unam oblationem sacrificii incruenti sive per se sive per ministrum oblati quaelib◠à Deo pro quiouscunque impetrare tamen noluit petere nec impetrare nisi ut pro singulis oblationibus applicetur certa mensura fructûs passionis suae sive ad peccati remissionem sive ad alia beneficia quibus in hâc vitâ indigemus Bella. de Miss l. 2. c. 4. H. could by one oblation offered either by himself or his minister obtain any thing or for any person yet he would not otherwise desire or impetrate this but only that in every oblation a certain measure of the fruit of his passion be applyed either to Remission of sin or to other benesits which we want in this Life but where does this will of Christ appear Christ may dispose of his merits and the fruits of his passion as he pleaseth but how do they know that he intends thus to parcel them out and to distribute them in such small measures and scantlings as they think fit and as serves only for their purpose If the sacrifice and oblation be the same it ought to be without doubt of the same infinite value with that upon the Cross and though it be very bold and precarious to guesse at Christs will without some declaration of it from himself yet I cannot see how it was possible that it should be Christs will to have it the same sacrifice and yet not have the same vertue which is as if a Physician should have an Universal Midicine that by once taking would certainly cure all Diseases whatever and yet should for some reasons so order the matter that the very same Medicine should if he pleased have only a limited vertue cure but one Disease at a time or only some lesser smaller illnesses and that even for those it must be often taken This would certainly bring a suspicion either upon his Medicine or himself and no body but would doubt either that it had not such a vertue in it at first or that it was not the same afterwards nor made truly by him as he pretended 8. They make the Priest in the Mass-sacrifice to do all in the name of Christ and to act as his Agent and Deputy and so they say 't is the same Priest who offers as well as the same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross and that he pronounces those words of Consecration This is my Body in Christs name not by an Historical reciting of them but as speaking authoritatively in the Person of Christ himself and that this makes the Sacrifice great and valuable as it is thus offered to God by Christ himself I ask then whether all the sacrificial Acts in the Mass are performed by Christ Does Christ consecrate his own Body for Consecration is the most principal part of the sacrificing Action
A DISCOURSE OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS Imprimatur Guil. Needham October 24. 1687. LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MDCLXXXVIII The CONTENTS THE charge of the Church of England against the sacrifice of the Mass page 2 3. Sect. 1. The sacrifice of the Mass founded upon two great Errors the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Opinion that Christ offered up himself to God at his last Supper p. 5 to 11. Sect. 2. No Scripture ground for the sacrifice of the Mass p. 11 to 41 Melchisedec's offering Bread and Wine Gen. 14.18 considered p. 13 Of the Melchisedecian Priesthood p. 16 The figure of the Paschal Lamb Examined p. 19 The prophesie of Malachy Examined p. 22 Other places out of the Old Testament Answered p. 25 An Answer to the places out of the New Testament p. 28 Plain places of Scripture against the Mass-sacrifice out of the Epistle to the Hebrews p. 33 Their Evasions to them Refuted p. 35 Sect. 3. The sacrifice of the Mass has no just claim to Antiquity p. 41 to 70 The Eucharist called a sacrifice by the Ancients upon account 1. Of the Oblations there made p. 44 2. Of the Religious Acts there performed p. 47 3. As it is Commemorative and Representative of the Crosssacrifice p. 49 Christ is offered mentally by every Communicant p. 52 How the Minister may be said to offer Christ to God in the Eucharist p. 53 General Remarks out of Antiquity to prove the Eucharist no proper sacrifice p. 54 to 70 1. From the Christian Apologists p. 54 2. From the Epithets they give to it when they call it a sacrifice p. 58 3. From the Novelty of private Masses which are a consequence of this Doctrine p. 60 4. From the Canon of the Mass it self p. 63 5. From the new form of Ordination in the R. C. p. 67 Sect. 4. The Mass-sacrifice in it self Vnreasonable and Absurd and has a great many Errors involved in it p. 70 to 95 1. It makes an external visible sacrifice of what is perfectly invisible p. 70 2. It makes a proper sacrifice without a proper sacrificing Act. p. 71 Their differences about the Essence of the sacrifice p. 73 3. It makes a living Body a sacrifice p. 76 4. The making it truly propitiatory is a great Error and inconsistent with it self p. 77 5. How it is Impetratory p. 80 6. The making it a sacrifice truly Propitiatory and yet only Applicatory of another is a great Absurdity p. 82 7. The making it the same sacrifice with That of the Cross and yet not to have the same vertue and efficacy is strange and unaccountable p. 84 8. Making Christ as they do the true offerer of this sacrifice hath great Absurdities p. 87 9. The Offering this sacrifice to Redeem Souls out of Purgatory one of the greatest Errors and Abuses that belong to it p. 88 Of the Ancient Oblations for the Dead p. 90 to 95 10. The sacrifice of the Mass must be either unnecessary or else must reflect on the sacrifice of the Cross p. 95 The Conclusion and the Reason why no more of the Errors belonging to it are added ERRATA PAge 12. line â antepenult for desire read derive PAge 39. Line 8. for the read that PAge 68. To Concil Carthag in margin add 4. PAge 72. Line 8. for Maunday-Thursday read Good-Fryday A DISCOURSE OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS THE Sacrifice of the Mass is the most considerable part of Worship in the Roman Church It is their Juge sacrificium their dayly and continual Offering and the principal Thing in which their Religion does consist It is they tell us of the greatest profit and advantage to all persons and I am sure their Priests make it so to themselves for by this alone a great number of them get their Livings by making merchandise of the Holy Sacrament and by selling the Blood of Christ at a dearer rate then Judas once did The saying of Masses keeps the Church of Rome more Priests in pay then any Prince in Christendom can maintain Souldiers and it has raised more Money by them then the richest Bank or Exchequer in the World was ever owner of 't is indeed the truest Patrimony of their Church and has enricht it more then any thing else it was that which founded their greatest Monasteries and their Richest Abbies and it had well nigh brought all the Estates of this Kingdom into the Church had not the Statutes of Mortmain put a check to it The Donation of Constantine were it never so true and the Grants of Charles and Pepin were they never so large and the Gifts of all their Benefactors put together are infinitely outdone by it the Gain of it has been so manifestly great that one cannot but upon that account a little suspect its Godliness but yet if it could fairly be made out to be a true part of Religion it were by no means to be rejected for that accidental though shameful abuse of it It is accounted by them the greatest and the most useful and comfortable part of Christian Worship and if it be so it is a great defect in us that want it they charge us very high for being without it without a Sacrifice which no Religion they tell us in the World ever was before and one amongst them of great Learning and some temper in other things yet upon this occasion askes whether it can be doubted where there is no Sacrifice there can be any Religion †An dubitari potest ubi nullam peculiare Sacrisiciam ibi ne Religionem quidem esse posse Canus in loc Theol. l. 12. p. 813. We on the other side account it a very great corruption of the Eucharist to turn that which is a Sacrament to be received by us into a Sacrifice to be offer'd to God and there being no Foundation for any such thing in Scripture but the whole ground of it being an Error and mistake as we shall see anon and it being a most bold and daring presumption to pretend properly to Sacrifice Christs body again which implyes no less then to Murder and Crucifie him we therefore call it a Blasphemous Fable †See Article 31. of the 39 Articles of Religion and as it is made use of to deceive people into the vain hopes of receiving benefit by the Communion without partaking of it and a true pardon of sin by way of price and recompence is attributed to it and it is made as truly propitiatory as Christs sacrifice upon the Cross both for the dead and living and for that purpose is scandalously bought and sold so that many are hereby cheated not onely of their mony but of their souls too it is to be feared who trust too much to this easie way of having a great many Masses said for them and because when the priest pretends to do those two great things in the Mass to turn the Bread
and Wine into the very substance of Christs Body and Blood and then to offer Christ up again to his Father as truly as he offered himself upon the cross which are as great as the greatest works which ever God did at the very Creation and Redemption of the World yet that he really does no such thing as he then vaunts and boasts of for these Reasons we deem it no less then a dangerous deceit †Ibid. These are high charges on both sides and it concerns those who make them to be well assured of the grounds of them And here I cannot but passionately resent the sad state of Christianity which will certainly be very heavy upon those who have been the cause of it when the corruptions of it are so great and the divisions so wide about that which is one of the most sacred and the most useful parts of it the Blessed Eucharist which is above any other the most sadly depraved and perverted as if the Devil had hereby shown his utmost malice and subtlety to poyson one of the greatest Fountains of Christianity and to make that which should yield the Waters of Life be the Cup of destruction That blessed Sacrament which was designed to unite Christians is made the very bone of Contention and the greatest instrument to divide them and that bread of Life is turned into a stone and become the great Rock of offence between them Besides the lesser corruptions of the Eucharist in the Church of Rome such as using thin Wafers instead of bread and injecting them whole into the mouths of the Communicants and Consecrating without a Prayer and speaking the words of Consecration secretly and the like there are four such great ones as violate and destroy the very substance and Essence of the Sacrament and make it to be a quite other thing then Christ ever intended it and therefore such as make Communion with the Roman Altar utterly sinful and unlawful These are the Adoration of the Host or making the Sacrament an object of Divine Worship the Communion in one Kind or taking away the Cup from the People the turning the Sacrament into a true and proper Sacrifice propitiatory for the Quick and the Dead and the using of private or solitary Masses wherein the Priest who celebrates Communicates alone The two former of these have been considered in some late discourses upon those subjects the fourth is a result and consequence of the third for when the Sacrament was turned into a sacrifice the people left off the frequent communicating and expected to be benefitted by it another way so that this will fall in as to the main Reasons of it with what I now design to consider and Examine The Sacrifice of the Mass or Altar wherein the Priest every time he celebrates the Communion is supposed to offer to God the Body and Blood of Christ under the forms of Bread and Wine as truely as Christ once offered himself upon the cross and that this is as true a proper and propitiatory Sacrifice as the other and that 't is so not only for the Living but also for the Dead The Objections we make against it and the Arguments by which they defend it will fall in together at the same time and I shall endeavour fairly and impartially to represent them in their utmost strength that so what we have to say against it and what they have to say for it may be offered to the Reader at one view that he may the better judg of those high charges which are made he sees on each side First then we say That the very foundation of this Sacrifice of the Mass is established upon two very great Errors and Mistakes The one is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or Christs Corporal presence in the Eucharist The other is the Opinion That Christ did offer up his body and blood as a sacrifice to God in his last Supper before he offered up himself upon the Cross If either or both of these prove false the Sacrifice of the Mass is so far from being true that it must necessarily fall to the ground according to their own principles and acknowledgments Secondly There is no Scripture ground for any such sacrifice but it is expresly contrary to Scripture under which head I shall examine all their Scriptural pretences for it and produce such places as are directly contrary to it and perfectly overthrow it Thirdly That it has no just claim to Antiquity nor was there any such Doctrine or practise in the Primitive Church Fourthly That it is in it self unreasonable and absurd and has a great many gross Errors involved in it First we say That the very Foundation of this sacrifice is established upon two very great Errors and Mistakes the first of which is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or which may be sufficient for their purpose the corporal presence of Christs natural body and blood in the Eucharist though they disclaim the belief of this without the other but if Christs body and blood be not substantially present under the species of bread and Wine they have no subject matter for a sacrifice for 't is not the bread and wine which they pretend to offer nor the bare species and accidents of those nor can they call them a proper propitiatory sacrifice but 't is the very natural body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine or together with them for they with the species make one entire subject for sacrifice and one entire object for Adoration as they are forced to confess †Panis corpus Domini Vinum sanguis Domini non sunt duo sacrificia sed unum neque enim offerimus corpus Domini absolutè sed offerimus corpus Domini in specie panis Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 37. So that according to their own principles they must both sacrifice and adore something in the Eucharist besides the very body and blood of Christ which is a difficulty they will never get off but I design not to press them with that now but Transubstantiation upon which their sacrifice of the Mass is founded is so great a difficulty that it bears down before it all sense and reason and only makes way for Church Authority to tryumph over both Their wisest men have given up Scripture for it and frankly confest it were not necessary to believe it without the determination of the Church and if so then without the Churches determination there had been no foundation it seems for the sacrifice of the Mass for there can be none for that without Transubstantiation and 't is very strange that a sacrifice should be thus founded not upon Scripture or a Divine institution but only in effect upon the Churches declaration and should have no true bottom without that as according to those men it really has not But Transubstantiation is a Monster that startles and affrights the boldest Faith if the Church be not by to encourage
willing to allow in which the Scriptures we see do understand them and so do the Fathers as I shall evidently demonstrate Upon what accounts and in what sense the Fathers do call the Eucharist a sacrifice and oblation and apply the phrases of immolating and offering and the like to it I shall now particularly consider And 1. They do this upon the account of those oblations of bread and wine and other things which it was the custom for Christians to bring when they came to the Communion out of which a part was consecrated for the Eucharist and the remainder was for a common Feast of love and a Religious entertainment or for the maintenance of the Clergy and the poor to whom they were afterwards distributed This Custom the Apostle takes notice of the 1 Cor. 11. and the Antient Writers expresly mention it in several places after the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Feasts of Love were for some abuses laid aside Clemens Romanus in his first Epistle the most ancient most unquestioned piece of Antiquity we have speaks expresly of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oblations and joins them with the sacred and Religious Offices †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Climens Ep. 1. ad Corinth p. 85. Edit Oxon. and commends those who make these their oblations orderly and at the appointed times * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 86. The Apostolic Canons that go under his name though their credit is not so authentic speak very particularly of these offerings and of their being brought to the altar for a sucrifice (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Canon 3. Ignatius speaks also of offering and of bringing the sacrifice (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sc absque Episcopo Epist ad Smyru Justin Martyr mentions these offerings as accompanied with prayer and thanksgiving and as the way by which Christians worshipt the Creator instead of the bloody sacrifices and libations and incense that were offered by others (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. and these says he we account the proper way of honouring him not by consuming his gifts in the fire but by thus offering them for the poor and for our selves Irenaeus says The Church offers to God who affords us food the first-fruits of his Gifts and the first-fruits of his Creatures not as if he wanted but that we may be grateful (*) Ecclesis offert Deo ci qui nobis alimenta praestat primitias suorum munerum primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis non quasi indigenti sed ut ipsi nec insructuosi nec ingrati sint Iraen advers Haeres l. 4. c. 32. And though Fevardentius in his Notes upon this and the other places of Irenaeus wherein he speaks of this oblation would have it meant of the oblation of Christ himself in the Eucharist yet that is clearly disproved by his so often calling it the offering to God of his own Creatures and the first-fruits of his Creatures (d) Primitias earum quae sunt ejus creaturarum offerentes offerens ei ex gratiarum actione ex creatura ejus Ib. c. 34. which must be no other then of bread and wine and the like and from hence he proves against the Marcionites that Christ was (e) Quomodo autem constabit eum panem inquo gratiae actae sunt si non ipsum fabricatoris mundi filium dicant Ib. the Son of the Creator and Maker of the World because that his creatures were offered in the Eucharist St. Cyprian condemning and blaming some of the rich Women who came to the Sacrament without bringing these oblations thou comest says he into the Lords house without a sacrifice and takest part of that sacrifice which the poor hath offered (f) in Dominicum sine sacrificio vonis quae partem de sacrisicio quod pauper obtuli◠sumis Cypr. de Oper. Eleemos St. Austin insists upon the same thing and bids them offer the oblations which are consecrated upon the Altar a man who is able ought to blush if he eat of anothers oblation * Oblationes quae in altari consecr antur osserte erubescere debet homo idoneus si de alienâ oblatione communicet Aug. Serm. 13. de Temp. without offering himself These oblations are expresly called a sacrifice in the Apostolic Canons in Ignatius and in St. Cyprian as Alms and Works of Charity are in the Epistle to the Hebrews chap. 13. ver 16. and these in our Churches prayer before the Sacrament we beg God to accept of In the Apostolic Constitutions where we have the largest if not earliest account of the Eucharistic office the oblation is thus described We offer to thee King and God according to thy appointment this bread and this cup and we beseech thee to look graciously upon these gifts set before thee O thou God who wantest nothing and send thy holy Spirit upon this sacrifice (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostol Constit l. 8. c. 12. i. e. upon these oblations and make them to be the body and blood of Christ i. e. Sacrumentally and Vertually In the Ordo Romanus and in the Canon of the Mass it self (c) Te igitur Clementissime Pater per Jesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum supplicts rogamus a◠petimus ut accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec munera haec Sancta Sacrificia illibata in primis quae tibi offerimus Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae sed cunctae familliae tuae quaesumus Domine ut placatus accipias Quam Oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam ascriptam ratam rationabitem acceptabilemque facere digneris ut nobis corpus sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi Ordo Romanus p. 62. Edit Hittorp Canon Missae there is this prayer over the oblations that God would accept and bless these Gifts these Presents these Holy and undefiled sacrifices which we offer to thee c. and another to the same purpose said by their Priest with his hand stretched over the oblata This oblation therefore of our service and of thy whole Family we beseech thee O Lord mercifully to receive c. And again This oblation O Lord we beseech thee to make blessed c signing upon the oblata That it may be to us the body and blood of thy dearest Son our Lord Jesus Christ All these prayers over the oblations whereby they are presented to God are made before Consecration so that the oblations which are here called Holy and pure Sacrifices are thought worthy of that Name before they are become the Body and Blood of Christ and so made a proper facrifice in the present sense of the Church of Rome the Canon of the Mass is Older then their New doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass and affords plain evidence for applying the name of sacrifice to the Eucharist upon the
says Chrysostom but 't is by making a remembrance of Christs death and we offer the same sacrifice or rather a remembrance of a sacrifice (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysoit in Heb. Hom. 17. And Eusebius in his Demonstrations giving an account why Christians do not offer sacrifices to God as the Jews did says Christ having offered an admirable sacrifice an excellent victim to his Father for the salvation of us all hath ordered us to offer always to God a memorial instead of a sacrifice (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Demonstrat Evang. l. 1. c. 10. or in the place of a sacrifice as the word and drift of the discourse clearly imply If it be then a memorial of a sacrifice it cannot be the sacrifice it self for the thing remembred must be distinct from that which is to remember it by and if it be performing a remembrance of a sacrifice rather then a sacrifice and the memorial of a sacrifice in stead or in the place of a sacrifice these accounts of it do most perfectly destroy and are wholly inconsistent with that other notion of its being in it self a true and proper sacrifice Thirdly The Novelty of private Masses which were brought in by making the Eucharist a sacrifice to God instead of a sacrament to be partaken by Christians is a plain Argument of the late and novel Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass as they are a certain consequence of it for when it began to be believed that the Eucharist was a true sacrifice that was beneficial and of extraordinary vertue meerly as it was offered to God without being received by themselves then the people left off frequent communicating according to the Primitive custom in which there is no such thing to be found as is now introduced into the Church by this new Doctrine namely the Priests communicating alone without the people and celebrating Mass without the Communion of others Bellarmine owns that there is no express instance to be found of this in any of the Ancients but this he says may be gathered from conjectures †Nam etiamsi nusquam expresse legamus à veter ibus oblatum sacrificium sine communione alicujus vel aliquorum praeter ipsum sacerdotem tamen id possumus ex conjecturis facilè colligere Bellarm. de Missâ l. 2. c. 9. but how groundless they are and how contrary these private Masses be to the Primitive practice I shall show from certain and undeniable Authorities Justin Martyr in his account of the Christian Assemblies and their manner of celebrating the Lord Supper says the Deacons give to every one of those that are present to partake of the blessed Bread and Wine * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr Apolog. 2. Ignatius who was before him says one bread is broken to all and one cup is distributed to every one †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Epist ad Philadeiph the Apostolic Canons command All the Faithful who were present at the Prayers and Reading of the Scriptures to continue also at the Communion or else commands them to be turned out of the Church * Canon 9. So do the Antient Canons of the Council of Antioch Excommunicate all those who come to the Church and Prayers with their Brethren but refuse to communicate of the Holy Eucharist †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Antioch Can. 2. So great a crime was it for any not to keep to constant Communion which was to be done as much by all the faithful as by the Priest himself every Christian in those devout ages who was baptized and had not notoriously violated his baptismal Covenant so as to be put into the state and number of the publick penitents did always communicate as often as there was any Sacrament which was I believe as often as they assembled for publick Worship and he that had not done that in those first and purest times would have been thought almost to have been a Deserter and to have renounced his Christianity All the Catechumens indeed or the Candidates for Christianity who were admitted to the Prayers and Sermons but were not yet baptized they were commanded to withdraw when the Mass or Communion-service began and so were the Penitents and the Energumeni and this is the true meaning of the word Missa the Deacon in the Latin Church crying out Ite Missa est when they came to the office of the Eucharist In the Apostolick Constitutions †l. 8. c. 6 7 9. he speaks to them particularly and dismisses them in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faithful who received the Communion were allowed to be present at the celebration of it which is a very good Argument against our Adversaries opinion of the sacrifice of the Mass for had they believ'd the Eucharist though received only by the Priest had done good as a sacrifice to those who were present although they did not partake of it as they now do in the Church of Rome what need they have put out and excluded all those who were Non-communicants the Jews did not shut the people out of the Temple when the sacrifice was offering If the Eucharist as a sacrifice had been a part of Worship only to God an oblation to him and not a Sacrament to be received by themselves why might not they have been present at it as wellas at the Prayers which were offered to God and at all the other parts of their Religious Worship The most ancient accounts we have of the manner of celebrating the Eucharist and the most ancient Liturgies or Eucharistic forms have not the least shadow of any private Communion by the Priest alone but always speak of the communion of others with him in the Apostolick Constitutions there is a Relation in what Order all the Faithful received First the Bishop then the Priests and Deacons then the Deaconesses and Virgins and Widows then all the whole people in order and after all have received then the Deacons take away the remainder St. Cyril speaks plainly of numbers receiving the Eucharist and not of a single person for he mentions the Deacons speaking to them at first to embrace each other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 give the kiss of Charity those very ancient Forms and Responses Lift up your hearts and the answer we lift them up unto the Lord * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us give thanks unto our Lord God It is just and meet so to do and afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these all show that the Priest did not communicate alone but had always the company of others at the Sacrament to join with him St. Denys called the Areopagite speaks of the Priests exhorting others at the Cummunion and praying that they who partake of these Mysteries may partake of them worthily The same is in all the Lyturgies which go under the name of St. James St. Mark
Blood and it is plain they were not those by what follows Vpon which vouchsafe to look with a propitious and kind countenance and to accept of them as thou didst accept the gifts of thy righteous child Abel and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham and that which Melchisedec thy High Priest offered to thee an Holy Sacrifice an immaculate Host. Now to compare Christs very Body and Blood with the sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedec and to desire God to look upon his own Son in whom he was always well pleased with a propitious and kind Countenance is very strange and uncouth to say no worse of it and to desire according to what follows that God would command these to be carried by the hands of his holy Angel into thy sublime Altar in the presence of thy Divine Majesty These cannot be meant or understood of Christs natural Body and Blood which is already in heaven and is there to appear in the presence of God for us as Menardus expresly owns in his notes upon this prayer in Gregories Sacramentary †Jube haec perferri non Christi carpus sed memoriam passionis sidem preces veta sideliam Menardi notae observat in lib. Sacrament Gregorn Papae p. 19. and if so as we have the confession of the most Learned Ritualist of their own Church then there is nothing at all in the Canon of the Mass that does truly belong to these or that does any way express or come up to the new Tridentine Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass so that we need go no further then their own office to show the Novelty of this and as in other things namely in their prayers to Saints they are forced to use very gentle and softning interpretations to make the words signifie otherwise then what they do in their proper and literal meaning so here they must put a more strong and hard sense upon them then they will really bear or was at first intended to make them speak the new meaning of the Mass-sacrifice so that they must here contrive a way to raise the sense of the Church as they do in other cases to let it down or else their Prayers and their Doctrines will never be brought to suit well together The commemoration for the dead has nothing in it but a meer Remembrance and a Prayer that God would give to them a place of refreshment light and peace through Jesus Christ our Lord not through the merit or vertue of that sacrifice which is then offered there is not the least mention or intimation of any such thing nor any expression that looks that way The Priest indeed a little before he communicates prays Christ to deliver him from all his sins and from all evils by this his most sacred Body and Blood which he may do without its being a sacrifice and I know no Protestant would scruple the joining in such a petition There is a prayer indeed deed at the last by the Priest to the Holy Trinity that the sacrifice which he has unworthily offered to the eyes of the Divine Majesty may be acceptable to it and through its mercy be propitiable for himself and for those for which he has offered it and this seems the fullest and the most to the purpose of the Mass-sacrifice and yet it may very fairly be understood in a sound sense without any such thing as 't is a sacrifice of prayer and as God is thereby rendred merciful and propitious both to our selves and others but it is to be observed that this prayer is not in the old Ordo Romanus where the others are nor in the Gelasian or Gregorian Missal nor in any other ancient one put out by Thomasius Menardus Pamelius Cardinal Bona or Mabillon but was I suppose added of later days to those old Forms Fifthly The new Addition to the form of Ordination in the Roman Church whereby * Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium Deo Missasque celebrare tam pro vivis quam pro mortuis power is given to the Priest to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses both for the dead and living this discovers the novelty of their Doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass for there was no such form of Ordination in the primitive Church nor is there any such thing mentioned in any Latin or Greek Ordinale for near a thousand years after Christ The most antient account of the manner of Ordaining is in the fourth Council of Carthage where there is nothing else but †Presbyter cum Ordinatur Epâ—scapo cum benedicente manum super caput ejus tenente etiam â—â—nes Presoyteri qui praesentes sunt manus suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius tenent Canon 3. Concil Carthag the Episcopal Benediction and Imposition of hands by the Bishop and all the Priests In the Apostolic Constitutions there is a pretty long prayer of the Bishops over the Priest who is to be Ordained †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constirut Apostol de Ordinat Presbyt l. 8. c. 16. that God would look upon his servant chosen into the Presbytery by the vote and judgment of all the Clergy and fill him with the spirit of Grace and Wisdom to help and govern the people with a pure heart that he may be silled with healing operations and instructive discourse and may teach the people with all meekness and may serve God sincerely with a pure understanding and a willing Soul and may perform the sacred and pure Offices for the people through Jesus Christ And this with laying on of hands is all the Form of Ordination which is so anciently prescribed St. Denis who is falsly called the Areopagite but was a Writer probably of the fifth Century before the Council of Calcedon he has acquainted us with much the like manner of Ordination in that time * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys Hierarch Eccles c. 5. The Priest kneeling before the Altar with the Holy Bible and the Bishops hand over his head was consecrated with holy Prayers Only there was then added the sign of the cross and the kiss of peace but no such thing as the receiving of power to offer sacrifice and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead This was a thing unheard of in the ancient Church either Greek or Latin neither was it brought into the Latin till about the year 1000 as is confest by Morinus * de sacris Ordinat pars 3. c. 6. nor is it to this day used in the Greek In that age of Ignorance and Superstition when Transubstantiation and a great many other Errors and Corruptions crept into the Latin Church this new Form of Ordination was set up and the Priests had a new power given them and a new work put upon them which was to sacrifice and say Masses for the quick and dead which had it been agreeable to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and had
there been any such opinion then of the Mass-sacrifice as there is now in the Roman Church there would no doubt have been the same forme of Ordination or something like this would have been specified in the consecration of a priest They now make this the great and proper office of the priest and these words with the delivery of the holy Vessels or sacred Instruments is made the very matter and form of the Sacrament of Orders and if is made a charge by them against our Ordinations that we want this essential part of priesthood which is to offer sacrifice but since the primitive Church had no such Form as is fully made out by Morinus a man of great Learning and Credit among themselves who has made a great collection of the most antient Ordinale's to show this and there is no such thing now in the Greek Churches as appears from Habertus on the Greek Pontifical we have hereby not only a full defence of our own Orders without any such Form but a plain demonstration of the novelty of that in the Roman Church and consequently of that Doctrine which is brought in by it or perhaps was the occasion of it of the sacrisice of the Mass 4. It is in it self unreasonable and absurd and has a great many gross Errors involved in it As 1. It makes an external visible sacrifice of a thing that is perfectly invisible so that the very matter and substance of the sacrifice which they pretend to offer is not seen or perceived by any of the senses for 't is Christs body and not the Bread and Wine which is the subject-matter and the sacrifice it self Now this is the strangest sacrifice that ever was in the World a visible oblation of an invisible thing had the Jews offered their sacrifices in this manner they had offered nothing at all and had Christ thus offered himself to God upon the cross only in phantasm and appearance as some Hereticks would have had him and not in the visible substance of his body it would have been only a phantastick sacrifice and we had been redeemed by a shadow 'T is contrary to the nature of all proper sacrifices to have the thing offered not to be seen and not visibly presented to God an invisible sacrifice may as well have an invisible Altar and an invisible Oblation and an invisible Priest for why the one should be more visible then the other I cannot imagine Bellarmines definition of a sacrifice is this which we are very willing to allow of but how it agrees to the sacrifice of the mass I cannot see * Sacrificium est oblatio externa facta soli Deo quâ ad agnitionem humanae infirmitatis professionem divinae Majestatis à legitimo Minisho res aliqua sinsibilis permanens ritu myslieo consecratur transmutatur Bellarm. de Miss l. 1. c. 2. A sacrifice is an external Oblation made to God alone whereby for the acknowledging of humane infirmity and owning of the Divine Majesty some sensible and permanent thing is by a lawful Minister and by a Mistic Rite consecrated and changed Now Christs Body and Blood being the res sacrificii the matter of the sacrifice and that being offered to God I cannot understand how that is a res sensipilis a sensible thing in the Eucharist and therefore how according to him it is a sacrifice so necessary is it for a great man to blunder in a bad cause when he must either weigh in a false ballance or whatever he says will quickly be found light 2. It makes a proper sacrifice without a proper facrificing Act the Consumption and Destruction of the sacrifice was always necessary as well as the offering and bringing it to the Altar and without this it was not properly given to God but kept to themselves as much as it was before if it were not either poured out or burnt or slain which was parting with the thing and transferring it wholly to God this consumption is so Essential to all sacrifices that Bellarmine puts it into the definition of a sacrifice * ut supra and says †ad verum sacrificium requiritur ut id quod offertur Deo in sacrificium planè destruatur Id. de Miss l. 1 c. 2. that to a true sacrifice it is required that that which is offered to God in sacrifice be plainly destroyed But how will this now belong to Christs body in the sacrifice of the Mass Is that destroyed there is not that the sacrifice and is not that now in a Glorious impassible State that can suffer no destruction Bellarmine is in a sad plunge to get out here and let us see how he throws himself about but sticks fast still in the mire By consecration says he the thing which is offered is ordained to a true real and outward change and destruction which was necessary to the being of a sacrifice for by consecration the Body of Christ receives the Form of food but food is for eating and by this it is ordained for change and destruction Is the Body of Christ then destroyed by eating If it be they are true Cannibals or Capernaitical feeders that eat it I had thought that Christs body was not thus grosly to be broke by the Teeth or chewed by the jaws of the priest or Communicants so as to be destroyed by them The Gloss upon Berengarius his Recantation says this is a greater Heresie then his unless it be understood of the species and not of the body it self and they generally disown that Christs body is thus carnally eaten but only the Sacramental species but the species are not the sacrifice and therefore 't is not sufficient that they be destroyed but the sacrifice that is the body of Christ must be so Christs body as it is food is not a sacrifice but a Sacrament they make two distinct things of it as it is a sacrifice and as it is a Sacrament as it lies in the Pix or is carried to the sick it is food and a Sacrament but they will not allow it to be then a sacrifice and on Maunday Thursday it is eaten but not accounted a sacrifice †Feriâ sextâ majoris hebdomadae nou censetur sacrisicium Missae propriè celebrari licet vera hostia adsit frangatur consumatur Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 27. B. The Consumption then by eating belongs to it not as a sacrifice but a Sacrament and the body of Christ is not then consumed but only the species nay the body of Christ is not then consumed under the species for the real consumption belongs only to the species for the real consumption belongs only to the species and not to the body of Christ which is no more truly consumed with them or under them then it is as sitting in heaven no more then a mans flesh is consumed when only his clothes or his mantle is tore tho he were in them What though
very fairly to give up the question and surrender the cause for he owns it is not properly propitiatory and gives a very good reason for it because Christ in his immortal state cannot merit or satisfie or be a true propitiation for us the Bishop of Meaux was aware of this and therefore he makes Christs presence upon the Altar to be not a propitiation but a powerful Intercession before God for all mankind according to the saying of the Apostle that Jesus Christ presents himself and appears for us before the face of God Heb. 9.24 So that Christ being present upon the holy Table under this figure of death intercedes for us and represents continually to his Father that death which he has suffered for his Church †Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church But how comes this Intercession of Christ to be upon Earth Is it not to be in heaven and is not Christ there to appear in the presence of God for us Is not Christ entered into the heavens for that purpose as the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the great sacrifice of Atonement after that was offered upon the Altar Does not the Apostle thus represent it in that place in allusion and with relation to that Jewish Oeconomy and could any but Monsieur de Meaux have brought that place to show that Christ intercedes for us by being present upon the Altar when the Apostles discourse is as directly contrary to that as can be and makes him to appear only in Heaven or in the presence of God for us and there present himself and his sacrifice to God as the Jewish High Priest carried the blood of the Anniversary sacrifice of Expiation into the Holy of Holies and there sprinkled it before the Mercy-seat Christ is not entred into the holy place made with hands which are the figures of the true but into Heaven it self now to appear in the presence of God for us Christ therefore making Intercession for us only in heaven and propitiation only upon the Cross how the sacrifice of the Mass should be either Intercessory which is a new way of de Meaux's or propitiatory as the Council of Trent has determined it I cannot understand Some of them tell us it is propitiatory only relatively and by application as it relates and applyes to us the propitiatory vertue of the sacrifice of the Cross but this it may do as a Sacrament and then it is not propitiatory in it self for sins for punishments and for satisfactions as the Council declares it and as propitiatory sacrifices used to be which were in themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 satisfactory payments and prices for sins and for the punishments due to them Bellarmin having owned it not to be properly propitiatory he says * Cum autem dicitur propitiatorium vel satisfactorium id est intelligendum ratione rei quae impetratur dicitur enim propitiatorium quia impetrat remissionem culpae satisfactorium quia impetrat remissionem poenae Bellarm. de Miss l. 2. c. 4. C. When it is called propitiatory or satisfactory this is to be understood by reason of the thing which is impetrated by it for it is said to be Propitiatory because it impetrates Remission of sin Satisfactory because it impetrates Remission of punishment But thus our Prayers may be said to be propitiatory because by them we beg and obtain Mercy and Pardon at the hands of God but a propitiatory sacrifice is to do this not only by way of petition and impetration but by way of price and payment and satisfaction so that after all this improper sacrifice of the Mass is but very improperly propitiatory and when they come closely to consider it they are forced to confess so and cannot tell how to make out their Councils Doctrine that 't is truly propitiatory for sins and for punishments 5. Let us consider next how it is impetratory if they mean only that it is so upon the account of those Prayers which are there made and which are more efficacious in that solemn office of Religion as the Eucharist has relation to the Cross and the sacrifice of Christ upon it which is the foundation of all our Prayers and by vertue of which we hope to have them heard and answered by God so in that solemn Religious and express memorial of it we may suppose them to have a greater vertue and efficacy if this be all they mean who will deny it and why may not this be without the Eucharist's being a sacrifice 't is only Christs sacrifice and offering upon the Cross that gives vertue and power to our prayers at that time when we are devoutly celebrating the remembrance of it and 't is not any offering of him up then any otherwise then by Faith and the inward devotion of our Mind that makes our prayers the more powerful either for our selves or others We are to make Prayers and Supplications for all men and for theirs and our own wants and necessities in this solemn and publick office of our Religion and so did the first Christians pray then for Kings and all that were in Authority as the Apostle commands and as we find they did at large in St. Cyril * Catech. Mystag 5. and the Apostolick Constitutions †l. 8. c. 12. and it was in the Sacrament they used their Litanies or general Supplications for all men and for all things as is evident beyond all dispute from those places where they prayed not only for the Church and the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and all the faithful but for the King or the Emperor where they lived for the City and all its inhabitants for the sick for the Captives and banished for all that Travelled by Sea or by Land and so for all things for the peace of the Church and for the quiet of the Empire and for all temporal mercies as well as spiritual for the fruits of the Earth and for the temperature of the Air and for all things they stood in need of Now they did not think the Eucharist did as a sacrifice impetrate all this or as a real instead of a verbal prayer as Bellarmine represents it to be * Ipsa enim oblatio tacita quaedam sed officacissima est invocatio Bellarm. de Miss l. 2. c. 8. B. but they made particular and express prayers for these in the Eucharist and did not think that was to supply the place of prayer or be a prayer in action or in dumb signs instead of words neither did the primitive Church ever say a Mass for to quench a fire or stay an Earthquake much less to cure the Murrain in Cattle or to recover a Sheep or a Cow or Horse when they were sick as is scandalously and shamefully done by those who ascribe such an impetratory power to it that it shall do the work in all cases 6. To make it a sacrifice truly propitiatory in its