are of iudgment that he receiues not the body of Christ who doth not beleeue that he receiues it like Magick charms wherin strong imagination and beleese workes the effect And yet obserue here how contrary againe they are vnto themselues when they teach that Opus operatum The worke wrought is sufficient to merit What difference then is between the godly and the wicked Or what priuiledge hath the righteous more then the prophane seeing both good and bad receiue the same consecrated Christ performe the same worke of communicating And for all men that can pay well without difference is the Sacrifice of the Masse offered Or what comfort can the Laity of the Roman Church find in the Sacrament when that which shold giue life to their faith breedeth in them nothing but doubting and vncertainty seeing that after they haue prepared themselues they know not what they receiue because they are not assured of the intention of the consecration But here I demand of the Romanists If the consecration of the body and blood of Christ depend vpon the intention of the Priest so that if he intend not in the act of consecration the Body of Christ is not then present neither is the Bread or Wine transubstantiated How then can the Doctors of the Church of Rome free the people from the sinne of Idolatry which worship the creature in stead of the Creator the vnconsecrated Elements in stead of the true and substantiall Body and Blood of Christ For they worship the bread supposing it to be the Body of Christ when through either the negligence or wilfulnesse of the Priest in not intending consecration it remaines in its owne proper substance They thinke to falue this sore with a nice distinction they tell vs it is materiall Idolatry but not formall as though Idolatry masked vnder a couert were not a sinne and because it is not voluntarie or intentionall therefore it were tollerable The Idolatry of Israel was neuer so grosse as to worship any grauen Images in stead of God but as our Papists plead to worship God in or through their Images yet this prouoked God vnto iealousie and drew downe his vengeance vpon these Idolaters Is not this more palpable Idolatry where the Bread and Wine which are but creatures are worshipped with Latreia adoration which thēselues ascribe vnto God alone And to manifest that they ascribe vnto this Sacrifice the same diuine worship which they ascribe vnto God let but the Christian Reader examine the last generall Councell held by the Church of Rome namely the Councell of Trent where he shall finde this blasphemous Canon Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum venerandum neque processionibus secundum laudabilem vniuersalem Ecclesiae sanctae ritum consuetudinem solemniter circumg estandum vel non publicè vt adoretur populo proponendum eius adoratores esse Idololatras Anathema sit If any man shall say that Christ the onely begotten Sonne of God is not to be adored with externall diuine worship in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and that it is not solemnly to be carried about in Procession according to the laudible and vniuersall rites and custome of holy Church and that it is not publikely to be shewed to the people that they may adore it and that the worshippers thereof are Idolaters let him be accursed And in the beginning of the same Chapter there are these words Nullus 〈◊〉 dubitandi locus relinquitur cum omnis Christi fidelis pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto latriae cultum qui 〈◊〉 Deo 〈◊〉 huic 〈◊〉 sacramento in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is now no place of doubting left seeing all the faithfull of Christ according to the custome which was alwaies 〈◊〉 in adoration may giue vnto this sacred Sacrament that worship of Latria which is belonging to the true God This is a doctrine of Diuels commanding most 〈◊〉 Idolatry and yet not to be contradicted vnder paine of his Holinesse curse But let vs admit that Christ is to be worshipped in the Eucharist yet how can the people 〈◊〉 the sinne of Idolatry when albeit the Priest faile in his intention and consequently consecrate not yet they worship the 〈◊〉 and wine with adoration But I will not here enter into the discussion of this point whether the Eucharist is to 〈◊〉 with Diuine worship Least I should too much enlarge this Treatise which hath already transcended the limites of my intention Thus hauing sufficiently satisfied as I hope the indifferent and impartial Reader concerning the propounded parts of this controuersie as namely that the pretended sacrifice of the Masse hath no ground in the Doctrine of the Scriptures practise of the Apostles or writings of the ancient Fathers as secondly touching the originall encrease and continuance of the Masse Thirdly of the imbecillity and weakenesse of their obiected Arguments Lastly of the firme and solide grounds of our dislike and opposition I shall in fine lay before the eyes of all men a briefe enumeration of all the impieties and blasphemies of this abhominable Idoll and so shall conclude all with a serious disswasion from all or any participation in that superstitious worship The Impieties of this Sacrifice are these First it is not onely diuers from the institution of Christ but quite ouerthrowes it as appeares by these particulars 1. First Christ instituted a Sacrament wherein he freely offereth himselfe to be receiued of all beleeuers by faith and to bee eaten spiritually They turne it into a sacrifice which is offered vnto God the Father not beeing distributed to the people but deuoured by the Priest and that 〈◊〉 really and materially So that whereas the Church should haue beene thankefull for that God hath giuen his onely sonne for her saluation shee striues to make God her debter by offering vnto him a sacrifice but such a sacrifice as he neuer desired expected or commanded 2. Christ in the Sacrament consecrated bread and wine which remained as signes and symboles of the body and blood of Christ. In the Masse they consecrate the reall and substantiall body of Christ taking away the Sacrament in that they take away the signes 3. In the Sacrament the vertue and efficacy is in the power of God making it operatiue by the grace of the Spirit In the Masse the deede done deserues pardon and the Priest hath a portion of remission of sinnes which may bee bestowed on whom he will 4. The Sacrament is onely profitable for the liuing but the Masse for the quicke and the dead 5. The Sacrament was instituted to manifest the Communion of Saints therefore called the Communion figured by the bread framed of many cornes and made into one loase and the wine made of many grapes so all 〈◊〉 are one body but in priuate Masse the Priest consumes all the host himselfe as though hee alone had right
by which he did offer himselfe And in another place he hath these words Where there is remission of sins there needes not any more sacrifices but Christ hath offered a Sacrifice seruing and standing sufficient for euer and therefore wee haue no neede of any other second sacrifice About the 1000 yeare they beganne to ordaine Priests with these words Accipe potestatem missas celebrandi sacrificium offerrendi pro viuis mortuis Take power to celebrate Masses and to offer Sacrifice sor the quicke and the dead Then had priuate Masse gotten some life wherein the Priest alone did communicate for himsefe and for those who had payed him a good price to be remembred when hee receiued the Sacrament that intentionally the vertue of his communicating might profit them to saluation Then began the circumgestation or carrying about of the host with the adoration or worshipping of it Then began they to ascribe to it the power of healing and working of miracles And about this time did the Church of Rome giue vnto the Sacrament that great and as yet vnrecouered name of taking away the cup of the Lords Supper from the Layity that is like Arithmeticians they had liberally studied addition making many things essentiall to the Sacrament of the Supper which were not so now they might put in practise Substraction by with-holding the one halfe of the Elements wherwith Christ institutes and the Apostles and Primitiue Church celebrated the Lords Supper from the lay people Let euery man iudge here whose religion is new or who are the Innovators they or we Among diuers other additions vnto the ceremonies of the Masse in the yeare 1065. was ioyned the blessing of the incense wherein there is mention made of a propitiatory sacrifice But this doctrine was not generally established in the Church till within this 408 yeares for as one of their greatest Schoolmen 〈◊〉 Ante Concilium Lataranense hoc dogma non suit Before the Councill of Lateran this opinion namely of 〈◊〉 was not that is generally approued and maintained And Cornalius Musso a Bishop of Bitrutum so famous for his learning as Sixtus Senensis writeth that he was a Preacher at twelue yeares old and all Italy ranne after him did defend in the Councell of Trent that Christ at his last Supper did offer no sacrifice at all meaning no true Propitiatory sacrifice For as he vrgeth if he offered himselfe to his Father in his last Supper then should he not haue perfected his sacrifice with one oblation made as Saint Paul teacheth but with a double oblation twice made once in the Supper and once vpon the crosse which were most repuguant to the holy Scripture But from the time of the Laterane Councill this doctrine of the Masse tooke such roote and spread it selfe so farre and so fast that the greatest part of Europe is darkned with the darke shade thereof growing by degrees from an action of thanksgiuing to an Eucharisticall Sacrifice and from thence to a Propitiatory sacrifice by way of Mystery and Commendation and from thence to a true proper and reall Propitiatory sacrifice equall with nay farre more effectuall then the sacrifice that Christ himselfe offered vpon the crosse And this dangerous and blasphemous doctrine crept in the more easily by the ignorance of these latter ages both in the Church and Common-wealth caused by the troubles of the Church of Rome as also by the corruption of languages which was in this last thousand yeares occasioned by the mixture of diuers nations together in seuerall kingdomes and especially Italy and this heresie beeing crept into the Church was fostered and nourished by the coldnesse of mens deuotion the couetousnesse of the Priests and the 〈◊〉 of the Bishops The coldnesse of mens deuotion was such that whereas in the feruent zeale of the Christian Church the Supper of the Lord was celebrated euery Lords day yea in some Churches euery day and great multitudes resorted and thronged thereunto yet in processe of time men began so to neglect the Lords Table that there was this law enacted to compel them to a more carefull respect of communicating That such lay people as did not communicate at the least euery feast of the Natiuity Easter and Whitsontide should bee held for Infidells This law was afterward ratified by Charles the Great and vrged vpon the people But hereby it came to passe that the profits of the Priests were much curtalled because the people brought not so many offerings as in former times wherefore the Clergie thought to vse a speedy remedie for this disease and therefore began to teach them that the Sacrament was not onely profitable for the saluation of the Communicants but also for all their friends and kindred liuing and dead which the Priest should remember secretly with himself at the time of celebration and this they called Vim 〈◊〉 the force efficacie of the Masse This broght in store of gaine to the Priests purse as Diana did to Demetrius and his companions and as the Pythonisse did vnto her masters no maruaile then if they stand to maintaine that which maintaines them This doctrine of the Massing sacrifice they cunningly built vpon two foundations which were layd both at this time the better to keepe the people in awe and to cause the more respect vnto their sacrfice The first was Transubstantion for after it was taught that the bread and wine was changed substantially into the body and blood of Christ then what reuerence was too great for this sacrifice who could doubt that it was Propitiatory The second was Purgatory for then might the people argue if our friends departed out of this world doe abide the scorching flames of Purgatory and that wee our selues must thither too and if the holy sacrifice of the Masse hath such vertue as to ease the soules therein then let vs out of charitie to our friends pay some portion of money to the Priest for the cessation of their paines and out of loue to our selues when we dye let vs leaue grounds and goods to the Church that Masse may be sayd for vs when we are dead Thus you see how the sacrifice of the Masse got footing vpon what ground it stood and so continues But God that still prouideth for his Church will and hath caused light to breake out of darknes that albeit the darknes of Fgypt bee palpable yet light shall shine clearely in Goshen and to this end hath sent diuers of his seruants to deliuer truth out of prison and to manifest the light there of vnto his people Their owne tongues are against them and some of their owne brood hatched about the time of the Laterane Councell disclaime this point As you haue heard Aquinas speaking in this case pag. 71. so heare whether he be not still the same who sayes It behooneth that there euermore should remaine some representation of the passion of our Lord. In the old teament this principall
Priests should become Christochthonoi Christ Killers Yet how can they auoid the suspition of treason against the life of Christ when they seperate his reall body from his blood for it is greatly to be feared that they who powre out his liuely blood and breake his reall and substantiall body are guilty of the death of our Lord and Sauiour Argument 8. Eighly If Christ be dayly sacrificed in the Masse then Christ doth daily satisfie for our sinnes but Christ doth not daily satisfie for our sinnes ergo Christ is not dayly sacrificed in the Masse The consequence is plaine by euidence of Scripture for wheresoeuer and whensoeuer Christ was to be sacrificed it was for the satisfaction of his Fathers wrath for sinne Who gaue himselfe a ransom for all to be testified in due time Hee was delinered to death for our offences Who loued vs and gaue himselfe for vs an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweete smelling sauour If when we were enemies we were reconciled vnto God by the death of his sonne c. Who gaue himselfe for our sinnes that he might deliuer vs from this present euill world By these and diuers other places of holy Scripture it is plainely prooued that satisfaction for our sinnes is the end of Christs sacrifice and in naming the one wee suppose the other The Minor is prooued because Christ did perfectly satisfie for the sinnes of all the elect appeasing fully the wrath of God by his sacrifice vpon the Crosse and now ceasing from making any further satisfaction he onely sitting at the right hand of God maketh intercession for vs. For to satisfie the wrath of God is to doe that for vs which wee should haue done and to suffer that which we had deserued namely death and so Christ should againe yeelde obedience to the Law and suffer death againe but the Apostle sayth Christ being once dead dyeth no more neither is Almighty God so vniust as to require satisfaction of him that hath perfectly satisfyed already But our aduersaries say that Christ is sacrificed in the Masse to apply vnto vs the satisfaction which Christ hath giuen for vs on the Crosse. But so in applying satisfaction he makes satisfaction for Christ cannot be sacrificed truely but hee must truely die and he cannot die but to make satisfaction Againe if Christ ought to be sacrificed againe that the fruite of his sacrifice may be applyed vnto vs then ought he as well to be incarnate againe in the wombe of the Virgin that the fruite of his incarnation may be applied vnto vs to die to be buried to rise againe that so the fruite of his death Sepulture and resurrection may be applyed vnto vs. Lastly the application of the benefit of Christs sacrifice by reiteration of his sacrifice is not found in Scripture But there is a double meanes one internall and that is the efficacie of the Spirit of God which powerfull applies 〈◊〉 vs the vertue of Christs sacrifice the other is externall namely the Preaching of the word and the Sacraments which two concurring together beget faith in the soule which particularly applies the benefit of Christs oblation to the beleeuer In a word let them consider what applicari to be applied signifies and they shall easily perceiue that the sacrifice of Christ is applied vnto vs when Christ is offered not to God as in the Masse but to vs as in the holy Eucharist Christ freely giuing his body to be eaten his blood to be drunke and that spiritually by faith Argument 9. Ninthly if in the Masse Christ be offered vnto God by the Priests of Rome then hee is not the onely Priest of the new Testament But Christ is the onely Priest of the New Testament Ergo he is not offered by the Priests of Rome in the sacrifice of the Masse The consequence is true for if there be a true and reall sacrifice in the Masse there must needes follow a true and reall Priest-hood which offereth this sacrifice and so Christ is not the onely Priest of the new Testament The Minor is denied by our aduersaries but is proued by vs. First there is no other proper externall Priesthood vnder the Gospell but that which is after the order of Melchizedech of which order there is no man worthy but onely Christ as is sufficiently declared And whereas our aduersaries vainely boast their Priest-hood to be after the order of Melchizedech herein they are contrary to Scripture which makes this not to be a common Priest-hood as Aarons was but personall belonging onely vnto Christ wherefore the Apostle sayes that Christ because he continueth for euer hath Aparabaton Hierosunen such a Priest-hood as cannot passe from one to another Where the Apostle plainly shewes that such as were mortal and consequently not eternall were vncapable of that order of Melchizedech such are the Priests of Rome mortall as those of Aaron were and thereof vnto them cannot this Priest-hood be diuolued They thinke to cut vs off with this distinction Christ is the primary or principall Priest but men may be secundary and lesse principall by whose ministery Christ may offer himselfe vnto God I demaund then was not Christ euen vnder the Law a Priest after the order of Melchizedech and were not the Priests of Aaron being compared to Christ that was to come Secundary Priests were they not therefore Types and figures of the Priest-hood of Christ wherefore when the primary or superior Priest was come the Priest-hood of Aaron vanished and the Apostle would haue no legall Priesthood to remaine But where hath he substituted any other secundary Priests instead of the former Certes the Scripture hath not appointed any Againe by the same reason that the Apostle disanulles the legall Priest-hood hath he also excluded all other externall Priest-hood vnder the Gospell for he opposeth him that is immortall against those that are mortall God and man against those who are meere men Now if the Priests of Rome be no freer from mortality or fuller of deity then the Priests of Leuy they are then by the same reason both excluded for Cui ratio perfectum medium conclusionis conuenit eidem ipsa conuenit conclusio To whom the true reason and perfect medium of a conclusion doth agree to the same also the conclusion it selfe may be applied Againe Christ is plainely manifested to be the only Priest of the New Testament and so alone able to offer the sacrifice of propitiaton for our sinnes by that figuratiue entring alone of the high Priest once a yeare into the Tabernacle Againe he that offers a true propitiatory sacrifice effectuall in it selfe to procure pardon for 〈◊〉 must needes be a Mediator of the new Testament therefore is it sayd of Christ But now hath hee obtained a better ministry by how much also he is made a Mediator of a better couenanant And for this cause he is the 〈◊〉 of the new Testament that by meanes of death c. By which