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
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
himself to his Father once for all on the Cross to take away sins and will be no more on earth until he comes to judge the quick and the dead This utterly destroys the Mass in which Jesus Christ is said to be offered and sacrificed continually by the ministry of Priests 14. Fifthly Sacrifices that take away sins and sanctifie those that come thereunto ought not to be reiterated for the only reason which the Apostle alledgeth why the old sacrifices of the Law were reiterated is because they could not take away sins nor sanctifie the comers thereunto as appears by the Text above cited But the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross takes away sins and sanctifies those that come thereunto Therefore the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross ought not to be reiterated and consequently is not reiterated in the Mass 15. If Jesus Christ did offer himself a sacrifice on the Cross that he might sanctifie us for ever and purchase eternal redemption for us then it is evident that the fruit and efficacy of this sacrifice endures for ever and that we must have recourse to no other sacrifice but to that of the Cross But Jesus Christ did offer himself a sacrifice on the Cross that he might sanctifie us for ever and purchase eternal redemption for us as appears by the Texts aforesaid Therefore the efficacy of the sacrifice of the Cross endures for ever and we must have recourse to no other Sacrifice but to that of the Cross In a word either we must confess that the sacrifice of the Cross hath no vertue to take away sins and to sanctifie us for ever which is contrary to what the Apostle saith or else if it hath this vertue and sufficiency then Jesus Christ hath offered one only sacrifice once for all and consequently is not offered dayly in the Mass by the Ministry of Priests 16. Lastly The Apostle almost throughout the whole Epistle to the Hebren s saith that Jesus Christ was constituted and consecrated by his Father High Priest for ever and particularly chap. 7. he saith That many were made Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death but Jesus Christ because he continueth forever hath an unchangeable Priesthood and that he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them and consequently he hath no need of Vicars or companions in his Priesthood 17. In answer to these Arguments the Romish Doctors are wont to say that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same with that of the Cross in respect of the essence of the Sacrifice the same thing being offered in both viz. the body and bloud of Christ by the same Priest viz. by Jesus Christ But it differs in respect of the manner of offering for on the Cross Jesus Christ offered himself bloudily that is when he died he shed his bloud for mankind but in the Mass he offers himself unbloudily that is without sheding his bloud and without dying On the Cross Jesus Christ was destroyed in respect of his natural being but in the Mass he is destroyed in respect of his sacramental being They add that all the Arguments drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews respect only that bloudy oblation which was once offered on the Cross but besides this bloudy sacrifice there is another that is unbloudy which is daily offered in the Mass Lastly They say that the sacrifice of the Cross is primitive and original but this of the Mass representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Cross as the Council hath it in its 22. Session 18. To these distinctions I reply That the sacrifice of the Mass doth not differ from that of the Cross in respect of the manner only which is but an accidental difference but it differs in respect of essence too First Because the natural death of Jesus Christ is of the essence of the sacrifice of the Cross But the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend the natural death of Jesus Christ for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend that which is of the essence of the sacrifice of the Cross and consequently differs from it essentially and not in respect of the manner only Secondly Because the representation of a thing differs essentially from the thing represented For example The Kings Picture differs essentially from the King Also the memorial of a thing differs essentially from the thing whereof it is a memorial For example The celebration of the Passover which was a memorial of the Angels favourable passing over the houses of the Israelites differs essentially from that passing over And lastly the application of a thing differs essentially from it For example The application of a Plaister differs essentially from the Plaister But according to the determination of the Council of Trent in Session 22. the sacrifice of the Mass is representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Cross Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass differs essentially from that of the Cross Thirdly Because the sacrifice of the Cross is of an infinite value and consequently ought not to be reiterated for its value being infinite it is sufficient to take away all sins past present and to come as Bellarmin saith Book I. of the Mass chap. 4. But the sacrifice of the Mass is of a finite price and value according to the same Bellarmin and other Romish Doctors at which we may justly wonder seeing as our Adversaries say it differs not from the sacrifice of the Cross either in respect of the thing sacrificed or in respect of the chief Priest and yet from these the sacrifice hath all its price and value 19. Secondly I say that an unbloudy propitiatory sacrifice is a feigned and an imaginary thing and that the Arguments drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews do wholy destroy it First Because it is said Heb. 9. that without sheding of bloud there is no remission of sins Therefore in the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass there can be no remission of sins and consequently it cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice for sin Secondly Because Jesus Christ cannot be offered without suffering for the Apostle saith Heb. 6. Jesus Christ offereth not himself often otherwise he should often have suffered But the sacrifice of Jesus Christ with suffering is a bloudy sacrifice Therefore there is no unbloudy sacrifice Thirdly Because the bloudy sacrifice of the Cross being of an infinite value hath purchased an eternal redemption Heb. 9. and hath taken away all sins past present and to come Whence it follows that there is no other sacrifice either bloudy or unbloudy that can purchase the pardon of our sins the sacrifice of the Cross having sufficiently done it Fourthly Because the justice of God requires that sins shall be expiated by the punishment that is due to them and this is so true that the wrath of God could