that Melchisedec presented bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his Army Damascene Book 4. of the Orthodox Faith saith that Melchisedec treated Abraham with bread and wine 24. Fourthly The Reasons of our Adversaries mentioned in the Objections to prove that Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham that he might partake of the sacrifice which he had offered are not considerable viz. because Abraham returned from the battle with great spoils and so there was meat and drink enough for him and his people and that they had taken their repast before Melchisedec met them c. These Reasons I say are inconsiderable because although Abraham had great spoils yet he restored all to the King of Sodom and though his people had eaten and drank of such as they found amongst the spoils yet it is not said that Abraham did eat and drink and though both he and his people had eaten and drank yet it is not said how long it was since and that they had no need of more provision and though they had no need of more yet Melchisedec not knowing that they had eaten and drank did that which prudent men are wont to do viz. provide all that may be needful in case of necessity 25. Fifthly I answer That the principal reason which our Adversaires bring to prove that Melchisedec offered unto God bread and wine viz. because it is in the Hebrew Text for he was Priest is a manifest falsification for it is in the Hebrew Text and he was Priest Also the old Latine Interpreter and the Greek Septuagint translate it as we do viz. and he was Priest And it is very probable that this passage hath been corrupted in Jeroms Latine Translation because in his Hebrew Questions and in his Epistle to Evagrius he translates it and he was Priest St. Cyprian in his Epistle to Caecilius and St. August Book 4. of Christian Doctrine chap. 21. and elsewhere translate it and he was Priest So that although the Hebrew particle used by Moses do sometimes signifie for yet seeing that both its proper and common signification is and and that for one place where it signifies for there are a thousand at least where it signifies and and that there is nothing that obligeth us to translate it for it is evident that the Argument of our Adversaries is of no force at all Therefore it is more pertinent to refer these words and he was Priest to what follows viz. and blessed him then to what goes before viz. brought bread and wine For as Melchisedec being a liberal King brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people so as he was a Priest much more excellent then Abraham he blessed him And though it should be translated for he was Priest yet it would not follow that Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine unto God for it might be said that Moses would shew the reason of the good will of Melchisedec toward Abraham viz. it was very fit that he that was Priest of the most high God should testifie his kindness to so eminent a servant of God as was Abraham by presenting bread and wine to him whereof he thought there was need 26. Sixthly I answer That from what is said Psal 110. and Heb. 7. viz. that Jesus Christ is a Priest for ever it will not follow that he must offer himself every day in the Mass under the species of bread and wine by the ministry of Priests for the Apostle writing to the Hebrews placeth the perpetuity of the Priesthood partly in this viz. that there is no need he should be offered any more seeing by one oblation he hath consecrated for ever those that are sanctified and partly in this viz. that being exalted far above the heavens he intercedes continually for us for the Priesthood consists in certain functions and in the virtue and efficacy of them And seeing there are two parts of Christs Priesthood whereof one relates to the oblation of himself which he offered on the Cross and the other to his intercession it is certain that the virtue and efficacy of the oblation is eternal and that the intercession will continue unto the end of the World 27. Seaventhly I answer That in all the holy Scripture where the Priesthood of Melchisedec is spoken of three things only are mentioned of him viz. that he was a Priest that he was a Priest for ever and that he was so with an oath according to the application that is made of it to Jesus Christ in Psal 110. and Heb. 7. in these words The Lord hath sworn and will not repent thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec but there is nothing at all spoken of the sacrifice of Melchisedec nor is it said wherein it did consist for as it was fit that all the offices which we find were born by the greatest Kings Priests and Prophets under the Old Testament should be collected in the person of the Messiah which was done by proposing them as types and figures of Jesus Christ and that the most illustrious type was Melchisedec so it was more expedient not to speak of the nature of the sacrifice of Melchisedec because it was not expedient then to speak of the nature of the sacrifice of the Messiah And therefore although we know not the nature and quality of the sacrifice of Melchisedec yet we know that he was a Priest Even as we know that Melchisedec was a King though we know not in what manner he executed his Kingly Office 28. Lastly I answer That it is false that the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and that of Aaron did consist in this viz. that Aaron offered the bloudy sacrifices of Beasts and Melchisedec offered an unbloudy sacrifice of bread and wine It is also false that the likeness of the Priesthood of Melchisedec to that of Jesus Christ doth consist in this viz. that as Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine so Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine these are humane inventions and are founded neither on Scripture nor Reason for on the contrary the Apostle writing to the Hebrews placeth the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and that of Aaron and its likeness to that of Christ in quite another thing First He is called Melchisedec which being interpreted as the Apostle saith Heb. 7. is King of righteousness and then King of Salem that is King of Peace and herein he very well represents our Lord Jesus Christ who is truly King of righteousness not only because he is righteous and was always without sin but also because by his satisfaction he hath purchased righteousness for us being made unto us of God righteousness He is also truly King of peace in that he hath reconciled men unto God made their peace with the Angels and hath particularly recommended peace to them As for Aaron and other High Priests they were no Kings much less are
that the sacramental words do operate that which they signifie But by their own confession they signifie the separation of Christs body from his bloud as Card. Perron acknowledgeth in his reply to the King of Great Britain pag. 1108. in these words The scope of the entireness of this Sacrament is to put us in mind that this body and this bloud which we receive were divided by his death on the Cross whence St. Paul saith as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup we shew the Lords death till he come Thirdly I say That as he that eats bread dipt in wine hath indeed wine in his mouth but doth not drink it so he that should eat or swallow a consecrated host would not drink Christs bloud though it were in it 8. Lastly I say That seeing the Sacraments were instituted to assure us the more of the truth of Gods promises and that all our comfort depends on this perswasion that all Gods promises are most true it necessarily follows that as much of the Sacrament as is taken away so much of the certainty of this perswasion is diminished And 't is to no purpose to say that one part of the Sacrament doth as much confirm Gods promises as the whole Sacrament doth for if it be so then God hath unnecessarily instituted two Sacraments for it had been enough to have instituted Baptism only seeing it is ordained to confirm Gods promises But if for such a confirmation two Sacraments are better then one and if two pledges and two seals for that purpose are of more consequence then one alone then in one Sacrament also two signs are of more weight then one alone for the confirmation of Gods promises and seeing it is said St. Luke 22. and 1 Cor. 11. that the cup is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ because it is the Sacrament of it why then are people deprived of it 9. As for the imaginary dangers and scandals which the Romish Doctors find in peoples partaking of the cup I say in general that Jesus Christ in whom the treasures of wisdom are hid and in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily foresaw them as well as they and yet he instituted and administred the cup and commanded all to drink of it And St. Paul who was extraordinarily inspired by the Holy Ghost doth notwithstanding these pretended dangers and scandals command the Corinthians as well Lay persons as Ecclesiastical to drink of the cup as hath been already proved 10. The first inconvenience which our Adversaries find in peoples partaking of the cup is that they fear they may dip their moustaches in the Chalice and so the bloud of Christ may remain on some hair of the moustache also they fear that the species of the wine and consequently Christs bloud may fall to the ground and being fallen it cannot be gathered up again To this I answer First That Women Eunuchs and such young men as have no beards ought not to be excluded Secondly It is better to be without Moustaches then without the participation of the whole Sacrament Thirdly This inconvenience proceeds only from a false supposition viz. that Christs bloud is under the species of the wine but if in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there be nothing but Bread and Wine in substance and any of it should fall to the ground accidentally and not through any fault of ours this inconvenience is not great enough to violate the institution and command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles 11. The second inconvenience is That it is almost impossible to observe this Law where there is a great number of people and but one Priest To this I answer First That in places where there is much people as in Cities there are divers Priests Secondly If one Priest be not enough another must be called from some neighbouring place Thirdly That which cannot be done in one day must be done in two or three days rather then the command of Jesus Christ should be violated and the practice of the Primitive Church abandoned 12. The third inconvenience is that some have a natural antipathy or aversion to Wine and consequently cannot drink of the cup. To this I answer That because corporal actions do depend on certain natural powers they are supposed to be commanded to those that have natural powers proper to exercise those actions and to none else For example The hearing of Gods Word is not commanded to deaf persons but to those that can hear it but drinking of Wine is a corporal action and therefore commanded to those only that can drink it So that if the cup must be taken from all Lay-people because some of them have a natural antipathy to Wine then the preaching of the Gospel must be taken from Christians because some of them are deaf and cannot hear it 13. The fourth inconvenience is That there are some Countries where no Wine grows as in Lapland Norway c. To this I answer First That although no Wine grows in those Countries yet some may be brought thither Secondly But if none can be brought without being spoiled and its form changed then it is better to substitute the ordinary drink of the Country in stead of Wine Thirdly But if this common drink of the Country may not be substituted in stead of Wine then they that cannot have Wine do abstain from it because they are forced thereunto and it is neither impudence nor contempt to abstain from a thing commanded by Jesus Christ when it is not to be had but to ordain that they that have wine in abundance shall abstain from the cup is an insufferable boldness and a most unchristian contempt of the Sacrament CHAP. VII Against the Mass 1. THe Mass according to the Romish Doctors is a Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of Christ propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead and so it is defined by the Council of Trent Session 22. Against such a Mass we might alleadge all the Arguments already made use of against Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host for our Adversaries confess that those reasons which destroy Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host do also destroy the Mass But in this Chapter we shall only use such Arguments as are directly against the Mass and do utterly destroy it 2. The first Argument is drawn from this viz. that in the institution and first celebration of the Eucharist Jesus Christ did not sacrifice nor offer his body and bloud to his Father as appears by what is mentioned in the three Evangelists and the Apostle St. Paul in which there is not the least foot-step to be seen of a sacrifice or oblation of Christs body and bloud This Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 27. in these words The oblation which is made after consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament but is not
clearly appears that according to the Letter he speaks not of eating and drinking the Sacrament of the Eucharist but of eating and drinking the death of Jesus Christ 4. Now that we may clearly understand this doctrine we must consider wherein the life which Jesus Christ gives us doth consist for seeing the flesh of Jesus Christ is meat to us because it gives us life it is evident that if we know what life what life that is which Jesus Christ gives us we must know likewise how Jesus Christ is meat to us and consequently how we eat him But to know what that life is which Jesus Christ gives us we must consider what that death is in which we were involved which is expressed by St. Paul Ephes 2. in these words When we were dead in sins and trespasses God hath quickned us together with Christ by grace ye are saved and consequently the death in which we were involved consists in two things first in the curse of the Law which imports the privation of felicity and the suffering of temporal and eternal punishment for our sins Secondly it consists in an habitual corruption whereby sin raigns in us and therefore it is said 1 Tim. 5. The widow that lives in pleasure is dead while she liveth Also sins are called dead works Heb. 10. So that the life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in two things First In deliverance from the curse of the Law by the pardon of our sins as St. Paul tells us Colloss 2. God hath quickned you together with Christ having forgiven you all trespasses blotting out the obligation that was against us which obligation proceeded from the Law because it did oblige all the transgressors of it to a curse Secondly It consists in regeneration or sanctification whereof Jesus Christ speaking in John 3. saith Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God and S. Paul Heb. 12. Without holiness no man shall see the Lord. Therefore seeing that the life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in the pardon of our sins and in our regeneration and sanctification which ends in glorification and that Jesus Christ is called meat in reference to this life we must consider the means whereby Jesus Christ hath purchased these things for us and seeing it is certain that his death is the means by which he hath purchased pardon of sins and regeneration we must conclude that Jesus Christ is the food and nourishment of our souls in regard of the merit of his death But that Jesus Christ by his death hath purchased life for us that is justification which consists in the pardon of our sins and regeneration which consists in holiness of life appears by these passages of Scripture viz. We are justified by the bloud of Christ and reconciled to God by his death Rom. 5. We have redemption by his bloud even the remission of sins Ephes 1. He hath reconciled us in the body of his flesh by his death that he may present us holy without spot and blameless in his sight Coll. 1. We are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all Heb. 10. Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that he might present it unto himself a glorious Church c. Eph. 5. Therefore seeing Jesus Christ hath purchased life for us by his death and that his flesh and bloud are our meat and drink because they purchased life eternal for us on the Cross viz. the remission of our sins and sanctification ending in glorification it follows that the action whereby Jesus Christ is applied to us for righteousness and sanctification is the same by which we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud But this action is nothing else but Faith as the Scripture tells us Being justified by faith we have peace with God Rom. 5. God purifies our hearts by faith Act. 15. He that believeth hath eternal life Joh. 6. From what hath been said I form this Argument That Action whereby we obtain remission of sins and sanctification ending in glorification is the same whereby we have that life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death because that life principally consists in the remission of sins and sanctification as we have proved But the spiritual eating and drinking by faith and not the corporal by the mouth is that action whereby we obtain remission of sins and sanctification as we have also proved Therefore the spiritual eating and drinking by faith is the action whereby we have that life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth And consequently seeing in St. John 6. a certain eating and drinking is spoken of whereby we have that life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death it is evident that a spiritual eating and drinking is there spoken of and not a corporal 5. From what hath been said it appears that when Jesus Christ saith my flesh is meat indeed c. the figure falls upon the word meat which is taken not for corporal but spiritual meat The reason whereof is that corporal food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the body as spiritual food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the soul so that although corporal food be taken by the mouth of the body yet that only doth not make it to be corporal food except it be taken for the nourishment of the body otherwise poison medicine a bullet c. which a man should swallow would be corporal food which is absurd to affirm But the flesh of Christ which is pretended to be eaten in the Eucharist by the mouth of the body is not appointed for the nourishment of the body because that food which is appointed for the nourishment of the body is changed into the substance of the body but the body of Christ is not changed into the substance of our bodies Therefore the flesh of Christ is not a corporal food but his flesh broken and his bloud shed on the cross is a spiritual food which nourisheth the souls of those who by a true and lively faith do embrace this flesh broken and this bloud shed that is who do wholy rest and rely on the merit of his death and passion for obtaining mercy from God And certainly seeing that the life which Jesus Christ gives us by his death is spiritual that the nourishment is spiritual that the eating his body and drinking his bloud is spiritual as hath been proved it follows that his flesh must be spiritual meat and his bloud spiritual drink And this flesh of Christ is incomparably better and more truly meat indeed in regard of its effects than corporal food can be because it doth better and more perfectly nourish the souls of Believers then corporal food
antiquity and of the conformity of their Creed to that of the Primitive Church and yet can so openly renounce both in this chief and principal point of doctrine 3. Here the Romish Doctors now adays think to shelter themselves by telling us it is true that Jesus Christ did institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both the species of the Bread and Wine and that the Primitive Church did so celebrate it not by any express command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles but meerly by Ecclesiasâ—ical policy which may be changed as several occasions and circumstances require And they add That it is sufficient to observe that which is of the essence of the Sacrament viz. to receive the body and bloud of Christ but that the Church may change that which is accidental viz. to receive them under both the species or under one species only for they will have it that the bloud of Christ is under the species of the Bread by concommitance and that his body is under the species of the Wine by concommitance because Jesus Christ being now glorious his body and bloud cannot be separated 4. To this I reply First That there is an express command of Jesus Christ to take the Cup and drink St. Matth. 26. in these words drink ye all of it To this the Romish Doctors answer That the word all is not extended to all men for then we should say that the Eucharistical Cup ought to be given to Turks Jews and all other Infidels And they add that the word all doth not extend to all those that are of the body of the Church of the Elect for then the Eucharistical cup should be given to little children whom God hath elected to eternal life But say they the word all is extended only to all those to whom Jesus Christ gave the cup viz. to the Apostles considered as they were Pastors 5. To this I reply That although Jesus Christ gave this command to drink of the Eucharistical cup to his Apostles only yet we must know in what quality they received this command But it was not in the quality of Apostles for then none but Apostles could partake of the cup and there being now no more Apostles it should be quite taken away and so Mass could be no more celebrated And it was not in quality of Pastors or sacrificing Priests for Jesus Christ was then the only Sacrificer as the Romish Doctors say and the Apostles did not then exercise the function of sacrificing Priests Besides it belongs to Pastors and those that administer the Sacraments being publick persons to give but to private persons to receive only But the Apostles in the celebration of the Eucharist did only receive of Jesus Christ their Master and Pastor Therefore they received the command to drink of the cup as they were Believers Whence it follows that all the faithful that partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist are obliged by the command of Jesus Christ to drink of the cup. So then the Romish Doctors are mistaken when they tell us that none but Priests that sacrifice have a right to drink of the cup and that those Priests that do not sacrifice must communicate under the species of the bread only for at that time the Apostles did not sacrifice To this may be added that if the command of Jesus Christ drink ye all of it was spoken to Pastors only because they to whom Christ spake were Pastors then it follows that the command of Jesus Christ Take eat was spoken to Pastors because they to whom Jesus Christ spake were Pastors and so the people will not be obliged by any command to communicate under the species of the bread and consequently will be wholy deprived of the Sacrament which is very absurd and contrary to Christian Religion 6. Secondly I say That in 1 Cor. 1. there is an express command to all the Faithful to drink of the cup in these words Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. In which words the Apostle speaks to all Believers who no doubt have cause to examine themselves And this is apparent because St. Paul directs his Epistle and consequently these words to all those of the Church of Corinth as well Lay-men as Ecclesiastical for in chap. 1. vers 2. he directs it to all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. To this I add That Jesus Christ doth not only say as often as ye eat this bread but also as often as ye drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come so that we do as much commemorate Christs death by partaking of the cup in the Eucharist as we do by partaking of the bread And this is very proper for seeing that not only the body of Christ was broken but also his bloud shed on the Cross and that in every propitiation and expiation for sin the effusion of bloud was very considerable because it represents death better then any thing else doth it is certain that they do not celebrate the memory of Christs death as they ought that do not partake of this part of the Sacrament whereby only we commemorate the effusion of Christs bloud 7. Thirdly I say that in the dispute about the Eucharist our Adversaries do alledge to us the words of Jesus Christ in chap. 6. of St. Johns Gospel Except ye drink the bloud of the son of man ye have no life in you Why then do they deprive the people of life by taking the cup from them and hindering them from drinking And it is not at all to the purpose here to alledge concommitance and to tell us that by taking Christs body under the species of the bread we take his bloud also because 't is inseparable from his body For to this I answer First That to take Christs bloud in taking the host is not to drink it But Jesus Christ saith expresly Except a man drink his bloud he hath no life in him Secondly I say That although in some places by the body should be meant the body and bloud too yet it could not be in those places where a manifest distinction is made between the body and the bloud But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist this distinction is very apparent for Jesus Christ gave first the Sacrament and sign of his body in these words Take eat this is my body which is broken for you and then separately the Sacrament of his bloud in these words Drink ye all of it for this is my bloud which is shed for you And he not only speaks of them separately but represents them as really separated in his death for he saith my body broken for you and my bloud shed for you In which words there is no place for concomitance for the body broken by divers wounds doth not contain the bloud and the bloud being shed is not contained in the body Also our Adversaries affirm
being shut or having been shut which excludes the opening of them by any body but not the opening of them by a divine power in so short a time that it was undiscernable Secondly I answer That the Virgin Mary was a true Virgin both before and after her delivery if by being a Virgin be meant not to have had the company of a man but it is certain that Jesus Christ came out of the Virgins belly by opening her womb for it is said St. Luke 2. that Joseph and Mary carried Jesus Christ to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord as it is written in the Law every male that openeth the womb shall be holy unto the Lord. Thirdly I answer That Jesus Christ did not penetrate the stone that was laid on his sepulchre for it is said St. Matth. 28. That the Angel of God rolled it back from the dore of the sepulchre Fourthly I answer That when it is said Heb. 4. that Jesus Christ penetrated the heavens we must understand it improperly in the same manner as it is commonly said that an Arrow penetrates the Air that is the Air gives way to the Arrow that passeth through the Air and so Jesus Christ penetrated the Heavens because the Heavens gave way to his body and not that the Heavens and his Body were in one and the same place 15. All the Romish Doctors agree with us that modal accidents which are nothing else but the manners of the being of substances as action passion relation figure c. cannot be without a subject no not by the power of God himself But all the Objections by which they endeavour to prove that the accidents of the bread and wine may exist without a subject that is without their substance do prove the same thing of modal accidents too So that I shall not stay now to repeat those Objections with their Answers which are set down at large in my dispute about the Eucharist Objection 5. 16. The fifth Objection is drawn from Mal. 1. in these words From the rising of the Sun unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place shall they offer incense to my name and a new and pure offering where by this new and pure offering nothing can be understood but the sacrifice of the Mass because by this offering we cannot understand Prayers Alms Contrition of heart and other good works which are sometimes in Scripture called Oblations and Sacrifices for the Prophet Malachi promiseth a new offering But Prayers Alms and other good works were common amongst the Jews and besides they of the Reformed Church do believe that all the actions of the Faithful are poluted and the Prophet speaks of a pure and clean offering Again By this offering which Malachi speaks of cannot be understood Lambs Bulls and such like Animals which were wont to be sacrificed in Solomons Temple because the Prophet promiseth that it shall be offered in every place even amongst the Heathen Lastly By this offering cannot be understood the bloudy sacrifice which Jesus Christ offered on the Cross because that bloudy sacrifice was offered but once upon Mount Calvary in Judea and the Prophet speaks of an oblation that shall be offered in every place Therefore by this offering must be understood the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ under the species of the bread and wine which is nothing else but the Mass Answer 17. To this I answer First That by the offering whereof Malachy speaks must be understood that spiritual Worship and Service which Believers should perform unto God under the New Testament which is comprised in that sacrifice which they offer to God both of their persons and religious actions and this is the reason why St. Paul Rom. 12. speaks thus I beseech you therefore Brethren by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service And chap. 15. speaking of the grace that was given him of God he saith it is given him that he should be the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles ministring the Gospel of God that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost Whence it appears that by this oblation whereof Malachy speaks we must not understand the offering of Christs body and bloud under the accidents of bread and wine but the offering up of the persons and religious actions of those that should be brought unto God by the preaching of the Gospel and particularly the Gentiles 18. Secondly I answer That in the whole passage of Malachy above cited the words new offering are not to be found but only clean offering And though a new offering had been there spoken of yet I say that things may be said to be new when being spoiled and corrupted they are restored and made sound again But the service of God which had been corrupted under the Law was re-established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles under the Gospel so that all things were made new a new Time viz. the time of the preaching of the Gospel a new People viz. the Christian People a new place viz. all parts of the World and not at Jerusalem only a new Prayer viz. the Lords Prayer new Sacraments viz. Baptism and the Lords Supper and new Preaching viz. the preaching of salvation by Jesus Christ 19. Thirdly I answer that the oblation which is offered unto God under the Gospel is pure and clean the service which is performed to him according to his Word is pure the preaching of the Gospel is pure In a word the Christian Religion is pure though there be many failings in those that profess it And although the Faithful that present their bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable to God be compassed about with many infirmities and that their religious actions be accompanied with divers failings yet their persons and works may be said to be pure and clean in Jesus Christ in whose name they are presented to God so that although they cannot of themselves please or satisfie God yet as they are members of Christ they are reputed holy before God for it is these St. Peter speaks of in Epist 1. chap. 2. who as living stones are built up a spiritual house a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ And so our sacrifices are a pure and clean offering but it is through Jesus Christ who covers them with his purity and holiness so that the defects of them are not imputed to us To this I add That besides the perfect purity which we have by the imputation of Christs righteousness we have also a purity begun by the Holy Ghost of which St. Paul speaks Rom. 15. in these words that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost for that which God hath decreed Jeâ—us Christ hath purchased and the Holy Ghost hath
of its essence which I prove because neither our Lord nor his Apostles did make this oblation at the first as we have demonstrated out of Gregory The Jesuite Salmeron in Tom. 13. of his Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul makes a Catalogue of unwritten Traditions in which he puts the Ecclesiastical Hierarchie the worshiping of Images the Mass the manner of sacrificing and the tradition that Jesus Christ did offer a sacrifice in the Bread and Wine Card. Baronius in his Annals on the year 53. freely confesseth that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is an unwritten Tradition A strange thing that the Mass which is the foundation of the Romish Church for the Doctors require nothing of the people but that they should go to Mass cannot be found to have been instituted or commanded by Jesus Christ And the truth is if Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist had offered unto God his Father a sacrifice of his Body and Bloud propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead then there had been no need that he should have been sacrificed again on the Cross because having already expiated our sins in the sacrifice of the Eucharist there was no need he should expiate them again on the Cross To this I add that St. Paul Ephes 4. 11. mentions the Offices which Jesus Christ left his Church when he ascended into Heaven in these words He gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers but makes no mention at all of the Sacrificers of Christs body and bloud nor in 1 Tim. nor in the Epistle to Titus when he describes the duty of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons without making the least mention of this sacrificing of Christs body and bloud 3. The second Argument is drawn from the definition of a Sacrifice as it is given us by our Adversaries Card. Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 2. defines it thus Sacrifice is an external oblation made to God alone whereby in acknowledgment of humane infirmity and the divine Majesty the lawful Minister consecrates by a mystical ceremony and destroys something that is sensible and permanent From these last words viz. that the lawful Minister destroys something that is sensible I form two Arguments which destroy the sacrifice of the Mass The first is this In every sacrifice the thing sacrificed must fall under our senses for our Adversaries say it is a sensible thing But the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be sacrificed in the Mass under the accidents of the bread and wine do not fall under our senses as we find by experience Therefore the body and bloud of Christ which are pretended to be under the accidents of the bread and wine are not the thing sacrificed The second Argument is this In every true sacrifice the thing sacrificed must be utterly destroyed that is it must be so changed that it must cease to be what it was before as Bellarmin saith in express terms in the place above cited But in the pretended Sacrifice of the Mass Christs body and bloud are not destroyed for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore in the pretended Sacrifice of the Mass the body and bloud of Christ are not the thing sacrificed 4. To these two Arguments Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Mass ch 27. and other Romish Doctors answer that Christs body simply is not the thing sacrificed in the Mass but it is Christs body as it is under the species of the bread and that it is in reference to the species of the bread that Christs body is sensible and visible Secondly They answer that in the sacrifice of the Mass Christs body is destroyed in respect of its sacramental being but not in respect of its natural being for when it is eaten in the sacrament it ceaseth to be under the species of the bread 5 To these answers I reply First That Christ body is not visible by the species of the bread because as our Adversaries say that hides it from us and hinders us from seeing it And although a substance may be said to be visible and cognizable by its accidents yet it is never so by the accidents of another substance and consequently Jesus Christ may be said to be visible by his own accidents but not by the accidents of the bread which are just alike both in the consecrated and unconsecrated hosts and 't is a ridiculous shift to say that Christs body is visible under the species of the bread because that species is visible for as we cannot see Wine that is in a Hogshead because we see the Hogshead and we cannot see Money that is in a Purse closed because we see the Purse so neither can we see the body under the species of the bread because we see the species for as our Adversaries say that species hinders us from seeing it 6. Secondly I say That by the sacramental being is understood only an accidental being of Jesus Christ for example his presence in the Sacrament or else besides that is understood his substantial being too If his substantial being be also understood seeing the substantial being of a thing is nothing else but its substance and nature then it will follow that if Jesus Christ be destroyed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist in respect of his substantial being he must also be destroyed in respect of his natural being which is contrary to what the Apostle saith Rom. 6. that Jesus Christ dieth no more If an accidental being of Jesus Christ be only understood for example his presence in the Sacrament then these absurdities will follow viz. First That the sacrifice of the Mass will be the sacrifice of an accident only and not of Jesus Christ because the presence of Jesus Christ is not Jesus Christ himself but an accident of him Secondly It will follow that the sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross will not be the same sacrifice in reference to the thing sacrificed because Jesus Christ and his presence are not the same thing Jesus Christ being a substance and his presence an accident which is contrary to the decision of the Council of Trent which hath determined that the sacrifice of the Mass and that of the Cross are the same in reference to the thing sacrificed Thirdly It will follow that the thing which is destroyed in the Sacrament is not the same with that which was produced there because there is only an accident destroyed whereas a substance was produced by Transubstantiation which is a substantial conversion as hath been sufficiently proved Fourthly It will follow that the sacrifice of the Mass will be offered in the Priests stomach only because this presence is not destroyed till the Priest hath eaten the host and consequently the sacrifice of the Mass will be offered after the Mass for this presence is only destroyed by the destruction of the accidents and commonly these accidents are not destroyed till after