Of which censures these Jesuites made a laughing stock in a Booke full of bitternesse which they have titled Spongia For to refute this Spongia the Sorbonne made use of the penne of a Sorbonist called Petrus Aurelius In whose Booke printed at Paris by Charles Morell I finde these words in the page 175. The Bishops have the power to produce Christ Anno. 1634. that is to say God himselfe c. Which vertue is in a manner infinite and equivalent not onely to the fecunditie of the Virgin Mother of God inasmuch as the Virgin-Priests procreate upon the Altar the same God whom the Virgin procreated first in her most holy wombe But alsâ— hath some â—â—â—ulation with the eternall operationes by which the divine persons are produced and with the eternall generation by which the Fâ—â—ther produceth with his divine mouth the same Word which the Priests produce with their sacred mouthes And gathers from thence that the power of Priests surpasses very farre all the Angelicall power And in the page 177. he saith that Priests doe perfect and accomplish the Redemption of mankinde And in the page 187. he saith that the power of Priests is most like unto the Divine power and that they have power over the reall body of Christ and over his mysticall body which is the Church and that with the Approbation of the Sorbon set in the front of the Booke Long before Pope Vrban the second * Simeon Dunelmensis lib. â— Chron. Vignier in his Ecclesiastiall History pag. 310. in the yeare 1097. called a Councell at Rome against the Emperour Henry the fourth in which he did thunder against earthly Princes who challenged to themselves the investiture of Benefices alleadging it is a thing abhominable that the hands of those which create God their Creator by their Character should be bound to this ignominie to be as drudges or servants to the hands that are night and day polluted with filthy and dishonest attractations If these things be true reason requires that so great a power hath not beene given unto Priests without great necessity and without some great profit should come thereby unto the Christian Church and that so many wonders as our Adversaries pile up in the Eucharist be greatly usefull and profitable to the faithfull Yet when we come to examine what the fruit is that comes from Transubstantiation and from the Sacrifice of the Masse we find they reduce it almost to nothing and make the Masse almost needlesse and unprofitable That appeares as cleare as the day by comparing it with Baptisme For in Baptisme there is no Transubstantiation made After these words I baptise thee in the name of the Father c. the water remaines in its owne nature and is not turned into blood Yet notwithstanding according to the doctrine of the Roman Church Baptisme is a thousand times more profitable and beneficiall and of a more excellent nature For in the Roman Church they hold Baptisme with water absolutely necessary to Salvation But as for the Eucharist our Adversaries hold that many are saved without being partakers thereof as appeareth by the example of John the Baptist and of the Theife crucified with Christ our Lord and of many faithfull people that dye without having partaked thereof specially of those which the Ancient Church did call Catechumenes Secondly our Adversaries say that by Baptisme not onely originall sinne is pardoned but even wholly taken away so that those which are Baptised have no more originall sinne nor nothing to speake properly that may be called sinne But concerning the Eucharist the Roman Church doth not beleeve that it wipes away the vices nor vicious customes in such sort as it may bee sayd that all those which are made partakers of the Eucharist bee without pride or without covetouesnesse or without lascivious lusts The principall is that our Adversaries teach that by Baptisme is remitted and abolished all the guilt and punishment both eternall and temporall of all the sinnes as well veniall as mortall committed before Baptisme But as for the Eucharist they say it availeth but against venial I sinnes which they make to be so light that a man needs not so much as to have and contrition or repentance for them Vasquez the Jesuite * Vasquez Tomo III. in 3 parteÌ„ Thomae Disp 179. cap 3. num 26. Rudes non debâ—nt hude ar tâ—â—ulum seire neque virtutem hujus Sacramentâ— prouâ—areâ—â— ad remitâ—â—dum vâ—â—ia lâ—â— quiâ— haec â—â—â—issiâ— non est ad sâ—lutem neâ—essarâ—â— The rude and vulgar sort ought not to know the particular vertue of this Sacrament in remitting veniall sinnes for that remission is not necessary unto salvation And the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent in the chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist * Catechis Trident. Remittâ— Eucharistiâ—i condonari leviora peccat a quae venialia dici solent noÌ„ est quod dubitarâ— debeat It must not be doubted but by the Eucharist light sinnes which are called veniall are remitted and forgiven which remission Vasquez told us just now not to be necessary Bellarmin in the seventeenth Chapter of his fourth Booke of the Eucharist putteth this among Luthers errors to have said that the first effect of this Sacrament is the remission of mortall sinnes And about the end of the same Chapter The whole question is reduced to this article Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist doe conferre the forgivenesse of mortall sinnes wherewith a mans conscience is charged or else for it comes all to one if for to receive the Communion worthily it be required that a mans conscience be not charged with any mortall sinne For all Catholicks teach that the Eucharist remits not such sinnes wherewith a mans conscience is loaden and therefore it is requisite they should be purged before And in the beginning of the eighteenth Chapter In this chapter it is not taught that the Eucharist be instituted for the remission of sinnes but onely for to preserve spirituall life And though even these Doctors were not so expresse upon this subject Yet the practise of the Roman Church shewes evidently that the Eucharist and the Masse availes nothing for the remission of sinnes For he that will receive the communion must be confessed before and after confession he receives of the Priest the absolution and forgivenesse of all his sinnes Whereupon it followeth that when a little after he receives the hoste there is nothing at all to be pardoned and that the Eucharist is a plaister for a healed wound and a remedie for a disease which is not Of how small efficacy likewise the Sacrifice of the Masse is in the Romane Church appeares in that they sing or say tenne thousand Masses for to draw one Soule out of Purgatory and yet after so many Masses they doubte still whether that Soule be in Heaven and are still uncertaine of its condition They Sacrifice in private Masses the body of Christ in a corner of a Church for the
of all men is to be judged of none Except he doe swerve from the Faith Stapleton an English Doctor in the second Booke of the authority of the Scripture chapter 11. * Dixi dico non taÌ„ ipsius fidei regulam in se esse Scripturam quaÌ„ ipsarum Scripturarum regulaÌ„ esse sidem Ecclesiae I have said and say still that the Church is the rule of the Scripture By this reckoning Sinners shall rule God and shall be masters of his word Lindan in the Index of the Chapters of the fifth Booke of his Panoplia The Church by the will of God is not tyed to the Scriptures For he and the rest with him will have the Church bound to the Tradition of the Church that is to say to the Lawes which she giveth to her selfe Now by the Church they understand alwayes the Roman Church and by the Romane Church the Pope Costerus the Jesuite in his Enchiridion Chapter 1. calleth the Tradition of the Romane Church a second kinde of Scripture and saith that a Hujus Scripturae praestantâ—a multis partibus superat Scripturas quas nobis in membranis Apostolâ—re lâ—querunt the excellencie of this Scripture goes famâ— beyoud the Scriptures which the Apostles left unto us written in parchements Gregory de Valentia the Jesuite it the fourth Booke of his Analysis chapter 2. b Scriptura sacram non esse judicem omnium controversiarum sidei probatur The Scripture is not the Judge if controversies And in the third Chapter c Probatur secundo Scripturam non esse sufficientem sideiregulam The Scripture is no sufficient rule of Faith And in the fourth Chapter d Scripturam arâ—â—no Deâ— judicio esse velut lapidem ossensionis in tentationem pedibus insipientium ut quive lint ea sola niti saâ—â—â—lime impingant errent The Scripture by the secret judgement of God is 〈◊〉 stumbling block and a temptation to the feâ—â— of fooles to the end that those which wilâ— rely upon it alone may easily stumble and swerve from the way Wherefore after he hath withdrawne us from the holy Scriptures in the seventh Book he sâ—nds us back to the Pope saying e Pontâ—fea Romanus ipse est in quo authoritas illa residot quae in Ecclesia extal adjudicandum de omnibus omnino controversiâ—s The Roman Bishop is he in whom resideth that authority of judging wholly of all the controversies of Faith According as Andradius saith in the first booke of the Defense of the Tridentin Faith Our faith is contained and sub sisteth by the Popes faith and all mens Salvation depends on his authority The same Jesuite in his first booke of the Sacrifice of the Masse Chapter forty finding no proofes in the Scriptures whereon to ground the Sacrifice of the Masse saith that a Si maxime hic cultus non esseâ— institutus à Deo concluditamen abastis non possit allum non esse legit imum cumid ad bon tatem cultus sacrificij minime requiratur If this worship or Service were not instituted of God Yet these men could not draw from thence this conclusion that it is not lawfull For that viz. to be instituted by God is in no wise required for to make a worship or a Sacrifice to be good And in his second booke b At ego suprà alias saepius ostendi praeceptum Dernon requirâ— ad honitatem culâ—us Here above and often elsewhere I have shewed that for the goodnesse of a worship or service Gods commandemem is not required For these causes in the fourth Tome of his Commentaries he affirmeth that c Greg. de Val. Tomo IV. Dâ—sp 6. qu. 8. Punct 5. §. 10. Et certe quaedam posterioribus temporibus rectius instituta esse quam â—â—tio se haberent there are some things which in the latter times are better ordained than they were at the beginning For he supposeth that the Church now is better instructed than it was in the Apostles time Of this power which the Roman Church taketh upon her selfe to change cancell and make void the commandements of the Lord we have a remarkable example in the Councell of Constance kept in the yeare 1416. which is the first Councell that tooke away the Cup from the people That Councell acknowledgeth in the 13 Session that Christ instituted the Eucharist under both kinds and that in the Primitive Church the people received the Cup. Yet withall it dare say a Cum in nonnull is mundi partibus quidam temerarie asserere praesumâ—nt populum Christia num debere Sacramentum Eucharistie sub utraqu panis vâ—ni specâ—e suscipere â—â—anâ— concupisâ—entia quam aliquando Apostolus piccatum appâ—llat sâ—nâ—â—a Sy 〈…〉 Cathal 〈…〉 â—â—â—peccatum appellari quod 〈◊〉 propâ—â—◠〈…〉 pâ—câ—â—â—uâ—â— sit that in somâ— parts of the World some dare affirme rashly that the Christian people ought to take the Eucharist under both kinds as if it were a temerity to follow Christs example And ordaining that henceforth the people shall receive the species of the bread onely will have this custome to be held as a Law which it is not lawfull to reprove or change Finally this Councell concludeth that those which obstinately affirme the contrary â—ught to be dâ—iven out as Hereticks and grievously punished With the like audacity the Councel of Trent in the 5 Session bâ— speaking of the concupiseence forbidden in Gods Law which Saint Paul in the seventh Chapter to the Romanes calleth sinne declareth and defineth that concupiscence is no sinne in those that are regenerate that is to say baptized and that Saint Paul spake neither truly nor properly Whence will follow that a baptised person may without sinne cover his neighbours wife but in an unbaptised person it is a sin Now let every unpartiall Reader judge with what reason our Adversaries call our Religion a new Religion seeing they doe declare themselves that they may change the Commandements of God add to the Creed and make a new Religion and that in the Masse they are not tyed to the Lords Institution CHAP. XI That our Exposition of these wordes This is my body is conformable to the Scripture and to the nature of Sacraments and approved by the Ancient Fathers and confirmed by our Adversaries THe interpretation that wee give of these wordes This is my body is the same which Christ himselfe giveth in the same place viz. that it is his commemoration And the same which Saint Paul giveth in the 10 chapter of the first to the Corinthians The bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Christ The Sacrament being a figure there is nothing more sit than to make use of a figure drawne from the nature of the action by which the name of the thing siguified is given to the signe Even as in the seventeenth of Genesis the Sacrament of Circumcision is called the Covenant of God a 〈◊〉 in
the pronouncing of the words of Consecration For by these words This is my body the Priest offâ—reth nothing to God But every Sacrifice is an offering made unto God Furthermore in every Sacrifice he that sacrificeth addresseth himselfe to God but these words are addressed to the broad Which is more we have seene hereabove the Confession of our Adversaries acknowledging that in all this action Christ offered nothing to God Therefore he made no Sacrifice 11. It is to be noted that in the Roman Church the Order of Priesthood is a Sacrament whose it stitution they wil have to be found in the Institution of the Eucharist when the Lord said Doe this as if Christ by one and the same words had instituted two Sacraments With as much absurditie as if one would needs finde the Institution of Marriage or of Extreame Vnction in the institution of Baptisme That if these words Doe this in remembrance of mee bee the formall and expresse words whereby Christ conferred the Order of Priesthood how comes it to passe that the Bishops when they dâ—e conserre that Order in the Ember weeks make no mention of these words at all 12. Our Adversaries put two sorts of Sacrifice The one bloody the other unbloody which they call the Sacrifice of Melchisedek and which they say to be farre more excellent that the blooddy sacrifice and will have the Masse to be the Sacrifice after the Order of Melchisedek Whence followeth that the Masse is more excellent than Christs death which is a bloody Sacrifice It is great wonder then that the Apostle to the Hebrewes speaking so at large of the Priesthood of Melchisedek maketh not any mention at all of Masse nor of Eucharist 13. But how is it thay by these words Doe this in remembrance of mee Christ should command men to sacrifice him in the Masse since it is impossible to sacrifice Christ in remembrance of Christ seeing also that Saint Paul immediately after these words addeth the explication of them saying For as often as yee cate this bread and drink this cup ye doe shew the Lords death 1. Cor. 11. He teacheth us that to Doe this is to eate bread and drink the cup in remembrance of the Lords death Here therefore every man that seareâ— God and loves the Lord Jesus shal consider what a crime it is for moratal men and sinners to intrude and take upon themselves to Sacrifice the Eternall Sonne of God to his Father and to bee Priests after the Order of Melchisedek without charge and without commission CHAP. XXXIIII In what sence the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice Of Melchisedeks Sacrifice And of the Oblation whereof Malachy speaketh THe holy Scripture calleth our Almes our Prayers our Praises and Thankesgivings and generally what worship soever wee render unto God Sacrifices In this sence the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice For the question betweene us and our Adversaries is not whether the Eucharist may be calâ—ed a Sacrifiee But whether it be truly and properly a Sacrifice of redemption and whether the Priests in the Masse sacrifice the body of Christ really and truely for the sins of the quick and of the dead Touching that our Adversaries bring no manner of proofe out of the new Testament wherein neverthelesse the institution of this Sacrifice should appeare Only they all eadge out of the Old Testament the example of Melchisedek who as they say sacrificed bread and wine Gen. 14.18 Which they produce falsly for that place saith no such thing Melchisedek brought out bread and wine to Abraham for to refresh his wearieâ— troopes but offered not bread and wine to Abraham in Sacrifice The very Biblâ— of the Roman Church hath proferens and not offerens Neverthelesse we wil suppose that place to be faithfully alleadged For if the Masse be the Sacrifice oâ— Melchisedek it will follow that the Masse is a Sacrifice of bread and wine and not of slesh and bones and blood From thence it followeth also that the Masse is not a Sacrifice of redemption For bread and wine offered up in Sacrified cannot bee the price of our redemption It were an abuse to think that Melchisedek hath sacrificed bread for the redemption of any one The propitiatory sacrifices under the Old Testament were made by the death of the victime and no propitiation was made without shedding of blood saith the Apostle Heb. 9. â—2 In summe it is to speak against the commâ—n sence to argue thus Melchisedek offered bread and wins Therefore the Priest sacrificeth the Lords body and blood They object likewise a place of Malachy chap. 1. wherein God promiseth that in every place Incense shall be offered unto his Name and a pure offering Which is a Prophesie of the calling of the Gentiles whereby God foretels that among the â—â—tions and acceptable service shall bee offered unto him Of the Sacrifice of the Lords body he speaketh nothing of it The novelty of this service is that it shall be made among all Nations whereas in Malachies time â—it was but made in the Jewish Nation They say also that the Passeover of the Old Testament was a Sacrifice and by consequent that the Lords Supper that succeeded thereunto must be Sacrifice They speake with as much reason as if I should say that the night must be cleare because it succeedeth to the day which is bright and cleere and that old Age is strong and lusty seeing it succeedeth to yong Age which is strong and lusty The succession of one thing unto another bringeth commonly great alterations Adde to this that our Adversaries will not have the Masse to be such a Sacrifice as that Passeover was For the Passeover was not offered by the Priests and was not made upon the Altar of the Temple it was a domesticall sacrifice which particular men made at home in their own houses As it appeareth by the Passeover which Christ did celebrate among his Disciples in which no Priest was employed And even though by this example our Adversaries had prooved that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice yet there would remaine for them to prove that in this Sacrifice Christs body is really sacrificed CHAP. XXXV In what sense the Fathers have called the Eucharist a Sacrifice THe ancient Fathers indeavouring to draw the Heathen unto the Christian Faith who esteemed there is no Religion without sacrifice and the Jewes whose Religion under the Old Testament did chiefly consist in Sacrifices have called the holy Supper a Sacrifice and the Sacred Table an Altar and those that serve at it Levites But they shew sufficiently how they call the holy Supper a Sacrifice since they call it Eucharist that is to say Thankesgiving and not a Sacrifice of Propitiation Saint Austin calleth it indeed the Sacrifice of our price in the ninth Book of Confessions chapter 12. But wee have produced a multitude of places out of the same Father that say that in matter of Sacraments the signes are wont to take the name of