begun is reputed by God perfect and compleat And St. Paul shews clearly the truth of what hath been said 1 Tim. 2. 8. in these words I will that men pray every where listing up holy hands without wrath and doubting And Ephes 5. Jesus 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 to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Objection 6. 20. The sixth Objection is drawn from Gen. 14. in these words And Melchisedec King of Salem bringing forth bread and wine for he was a Priest blessed him And from Psal 110. and from Heb. 7. where it is said Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec From which words our Adversaries argue thus First They say that Jesus Christ is a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedec the difference between Aaron and Melchisedec consisting in this viz. that Aaron and the other Levitical Priests offered bloudy Sacrifices killing and shedding the bloud of Beasts which they sacrificed to God as a sign and figure of the bloudy sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross But Melchisedec offered an unbloudy sacrifice for when he went to meet Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings he offered to God Bread and Wine And seeing this Bread and Wine offered to God by Melchisedec were signs and types of Christs body and bloud Jesus Christ was obliged to offer an unbloudy sacrifice viz. his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine which he did at the institution and celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist that so the reality of the thing typified might answer those shadows and types Secondly That although Melchisedec had brought all this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his Army that returned from the slaughter of the Kings yet he first offered it to God and then gave it to them that so they might partake of the sacrifice of bread and wine And the reason of this is because the Scripture saith that Abraham returned from the battel with great spoils amongst which there was meat and drink enough for the refreshment of himself and his people also it saith expresly that Abrahams people had taken such refreshment as was necessary before Melchisedec met them and consequently they had no need of the bread and wine which he brought except it had been to partake of the sacrifice of the bread and wine which he offered Thirdly They say this is strongly proved by the following words for he was Priest of the most high God which shew the reason why Melchisedec brought bread and wine viz. to make an oblation or offering of it to God for if he had brought this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his people the Scripture would have said that he had brought this bread and wine because that Abraham and his Army being faint and tired had need of meat and drink but it speaks nothing of this on the contrary it saith that he brought bread and wine for he was Priest Fourthly They say that Jesus Christ is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec and seeing there can be no Priest without a sacrifice there can be no eternal Priest without an eternal or perpetual sacrifice But the sacrifice of the Cross was offered but once and cannot be reiterated for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore there must be another perpetual sacrifice in the Church which Jesus Christ offereth by the hands of Priests which can be nothing else but the sacrifice of the Mass viz. the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud under the species of the bread and wine typified by the sacrifice of the bread and wine of Melchisedec Answer 21. To this I answer First That the Hebrew word doth not signifie bringing but brought drew out caused to be brought c. but our Adversaries falsifie the Text thus to make way for another falsification viz. to put these words in a Parenthesis for he was Priest in stead of putting them without a Parenthesis and he was Priest so that we may say that in these few words they have made three falsifications first when they translate it proferens that is bringing in stead of translating it protulit that is brought or drew out secondly when they translate it erat enim sacerdos that is for he was Priest in stead of translating it and he was Priest thirdly when they translate it benedixit ei that is blessed him instead of translating it benedixit ei that is and he blessed him And so of three different propositions viz. Melchisedech also brought bread and wine and he was Priest and he blessed him they have made but one with a Parenthesis thus Melchisedec bringing bread and wine for he was Priest blessed him 22. Secondly I answer that the Hebrew word used by Moses signifies commonly brought drew out caused to be brought caused to be drawn out caused to come c. But we must not stray from the proper signification of words but upon very great necessity which appears not in this Text. And although this Hebrew word should signifie brought to offer and that it should be taken for offered yet our Adversaries would gain nothing by it for it is not said in the Text that he brought bread and wine to offer unto God but we must rather expound it thus viz. that he brought bread and wine to offer and present it to Abraham And indeed the following words viz. and blessed him do clearly shew it for the Pronoun Relative him relates to Abraham according to the exposition of the Apostle Heb. 7. where he saith expresly that Melchisedec met Abraham and blessed him And a little after he saith that Melchisedec blessed him that had the promises and that the less is blessed of the greater But if these words he brought bread and wine must be expounded thus he offered bread and wine to God then it must necessarily follow that Melchisedec blessed God and not Abraham for in these words viz. he offered bread and wine to God and blessed him the Pronoun him can relate to none but God 23. Thirdly I answer That Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people and not to offer unto God Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 6. confesseth that Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people who returned faint and tired from the slaughter of the Kings which is true but he adds that Jesus Christ had offered it to God before which is false and cannot be proved Jerome in his Epistle to Euagrius writes that the Jews understood it that Melchisedec meeting Abraham after his victory brought bread and wine to refresh him and his people Josephus writing this History saith
my body must be expounded thus this Bread is the sign and Sacrament of my Body Whence it follows that in one single Proposition of Jesus Christ in the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist viz. this cup is the New Testament there are two figures one in the word Cup being taken for that which is in the cup this is a figure called a Metonymie whereby the thing containing is taken for the thing contained The other Figure is that the cup is called the New Testament this is also a Figure called a Metonymie whereby the sign is called by the name of the thing signified And therefore the Romish Doctors are mistaken when they tell us that all that Jesus Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken literally and without a figure But withal we must not imagine that Jesus Christ spake obscurely because he spake figuratively these figures and manners of speech being commonly and familiarly used by all the World 5. But when we say that these words this is my body this is my bloud must be expounded thus this Bread is the Sign and Sacrament of my Body this Wine is the Sign and Sacrament of my Bloud we do not mean that the Bread and Wine are barely and simply signs of Christs Body and Bloud but we believe that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are signs that do exhibit the body and bloud of Christ to Believers For when they do by the mouth of the body receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist they do at the same time by the mouth of the soul viz. by Faith receive the Body of Christ broken and his Bloud shed for the remission of their sins as will be proved in the next Chapter 6. Add hereunto this one Argument When a man saith that a thing is such if it be not such during the whole time which he imploys in saying it is such he makes a false Proposition For example When a man saith that a Wall is white if it be not white during the whole time he imploys in saying it is white he makes a false Proposition But according to the Romish Doctors when Jesus Christ said this is my body it was not his body during the whole time which he imployed in saying this is my body for they say it was his body afterward only Therefore according to the Romish Doctors Jesus Christ uttered a false Proposition which being blasphemous to affirm we must lay down this for a foundation that that which Jesus Christ gave his Disciples when he said this is my body was his body not only after he had said it but also while he was saying it and before he said it And here we have this advantage of those of the Romish Church that we believe the truth of these words of Jesus Christ this is my body much better then they do because they believe it at one time only viz. after he had said it but we believe it at three several times viz. before he said it when he was saying it and after he had said it But here some may object that we must not take the words of our Lord in too rigorous a sense and that in these words this is my body we must take the Present tense for the next Future and then the sense will be this this will immediately be my body To which I answer that the Romish Doctors will have us take these words this is my body in the rigour of the literal sense and then the Proposition is evidently false I know that the Present tense may be taken for the next Future as when Jesus Christ said I go to my Father and to your Father I go to my God and to your God that is I shall go speedily But who can be so bold and ignorant as to affirm that this speech is without a Figure seeing all Grammarians know that it is a Figure called Enallage of time Therefore the Romish Doctors must confess that by their own doctrine this Proposition of Jesus Christ this is my body is either false or figurative and that seeing it is not false it must be figurative and that the figure must be a Metonymie whereby the sign takes the name of the thing signified as hath already been proved and not an Enallage of time CHAP. II. Concerning the Exposition of these words He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud bath eternal life My flesh is meat indeed c. 1. IN this Chapter I shall prove that Jesus Christ speaks of a spiritual eating and drinking by Faith and not of a corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body My first Argument is this When a man would satisfie his hunger and quench his thirst he eateth and drinketh that thing which he hungers and thirsts after because eating satisfieth hunger and drinking quencheth thirst But it is by Faith that is by believing in Jesus Christ that we satisfie the hunger and quench the thirst which we have after Christ for it is in the sixth of St. John He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst Therefore it is by Faith or by believing that we eat and drink Jesus Christ and consequently the eating of Christ flesh and drinking his bloud is spiritual and not corporal 2. My second Argument is this Jesus Christ saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life And except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you John 6. But it is the spiritual eating and drinking by Faith that gives life eternal and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body because many Reprobates according to the very doctrine of Rome it self do corporally eat the flesh and drink the bloud of Christ and yet shall not inherit eternal life 3. The third Argument is taken from S. Augustine and Cardinal Cajetan who expound the words of Jesus Christ as we do St. Augustin in Book 3. of Christian Doctrine speaketh thus To eat the flesh of Christ is a figure teaching us to partake of Christs Passion and to imprint in our memories with delight and profit that Christ was crucified for us Card. Cajetan in his Commentary on St. John 6. saith To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud is faith in Christs death so that the sense is this if you use not the death of the Son of man as meat and drink ye shall not have the life of the Spirit in you And having sufficiently proved his Exposition he adds To eat and drink the Sacrament is a thing common as well to those that eat unworthily as to those that eat worthily but that which Jesus Christ here speaks of is not common to both for he saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life he saith not he that eateth worthily and drinketh worthily but he that eateth and drinketh Whence it
17. for that by read that if by p. 124. l. 18. for Apostle read Apostles p. 130. l. 2â— read Priest p. 133. l. 13. dele them THE FUNERAL OF THE MASS CHAP. I. Concerning the Exposition of these words This is my Body THE Romanists are wont to tell us that these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body are so clear to prove the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Host and consequently to prove Transubstantiation or the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body that they are amazed we cannot perceive so manifest a truth Against which I form this Argument He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the World and takes words otherwise then all other men do must without doubt speak very obscure But if Jesus Christ by these words This is my Body had meant the real presence of his Body in the Host as the Romish Doctors assert and consequently had meant the substantial conversion of the Bread into his Body he had spoken contrary to the common usage of all the World and had taken the words otherwise then all other men do which I thus prove There was never any Author either sacred or prophane that made use of such words as these This is my Body to signifie the substantial conversion of one thing into another or to signifie the real presence of a thing immediately after the pronouncing of them and not before On the contrary there was never any man that did not use them to signifie that the thing was already that which it was said to be For example When God the Father speaking of Jesus Christ said This is my beloved Son it is certain that Jesus Christ was the Son of God before God said it and in common usage it is never said this is that except the thing be so before it is said to be so For example We do not say this is a Table before that which we mean by the word this be a Table Therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all Authors as well sacred as prophane and contrary to the common usage of all men to make these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body to signifie the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body and the real presence of his Body in the Host immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest and not before Seeing then that Jesus Christ when he said This is my Body did not speak contrary to the common usage of all the World and did not take the words otherwise then all other men do it necessarily follows that these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body do not signifie the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body nor the real presence of Christs Body in the Host immediately after the Priest hath pronounced them and not before And this being so the Romish Doctors must seek some other passages of Scripture than this This is my Body to prove such a conversion and such a presence and seeing they can find none I conclude that such a conversion and such a presence have no foundation in holy Scripture 2 That which I have said concerning common usage is founded on this reason viz. because things must be before there can be any Image Picture or Representation of them and consequently Images are after the things whereof they are Images But words are the Images of conceptions and conceptions the Images of things Therefore things are such before we can really conceive them to be such and we conceive them to be such before we can say they are such Therefore that which Jesus Christ held and gave to his Disciples expressed by the word this was his body before he conceived that it was his body and he conceived that it was his body before he said This is my Body and consequently it is not by vertue of these words This is my Body that that which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples expressed by the word this was his Body but rather it is by blessing the bread or thanksgiving that the bread was made the Body of Christ because it was made the Sacrament of it Whence it follows that these words this is my body must be expounded thus this bread is my body and these words this bread is my body must be expounded thus this bread is the Sacrament of my body which I prove thus 3. A Proposition must be expounded according to the nature of the thing in question for example If a man pointing at the Kings Person should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings Person because the Kings Person is meant But if a man coming into a Painters Shop and pointing at the Kings Picture should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings Picture because here his Picture is meant Even so if Jesus Christ laying his hand on his Breast had said this is my Body we must without doubt have understood the Proposition concerning his real Body and not concerning the Sign or Sacrament of it because his very Body had been then meant and not the sign or Sacrament of it But Jesus Christ being about to institute the Eucharist and to that end having taken bread blessed it and given it to his Disciples with these words Take eat this is my Body it is evident that they must be understood of the Sacrament of his Body and the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Sacrament of my Body because here the Sacrament of his Body is meant And seeing a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent saith in its sixth Session it is evident that this Proposition This is my Body being expounded by this this is the Sacrament of my Body may be expounded thus this is the sign of my Body which I confirm thus 4 In these two Propositions This is my body This cup is the New Testament in my bloud the word is must be taken in the same sense because they are alike having been pronounced upon the same matter viz. the one upon one part of the Sacrament and the other upon the other part of it and because of like things we must give a like judgment But in this Proposition this cup is the New Testament the word is is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being but for a sacramental and significative being because neither the cup nor that which is in the cup is changed into a Testament neither is it really and properly a Testament but the Sacrament of the New Testament Therefore in this Proposition likewise this is my body the word is is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being but for a sacramental and significative being and consequently as this Proposition this cup is the New Testament must be expounded thus the Wine that is in the cup is the sign and Sacrament of the New Testament So this Proposition this is
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