the commers thereunto perfect for then should they not haue ceased to be offered because that the worshippers once purged should haue had no more conscience of sinnes What doth the Apostle conclude here He opposeth the Gospell to the law our Soueraigne Priest Christ Iesus against the Priests of Aaron his sacrifice which had no need to be renewed against their sacrifices repeated euery day the holinesse and effectuall sanctifying power which was in his sacrifice against their weakenesse and disability to sanctifie Hereupon he concludeth Hee taketh away the former to establish the latter the sacrifices of the law to establish his owne sacrifice Now how could this conclusion be good if this sacrifice should be reiterated seeing the often repetition argues weakenesse and impotency therefore the Apostle so often vses these words once offered to note the al-sufficiency of Christs sacrifice in the single and vnrepeated act of offering hee hauing annihilated and disanulled all other sacrifices whatsoeuer Wherefore the blood of Christ shed personally by himselfe being of sufficient vertue and merit to purifie cleanse and redeeme all beleeuers it must necessarily follow that there needes no reiteration but we may content our selues with that onely sacrifice offered vpon the crosse The Minor is so plaine and Orthodoxe that hee deserues not the name of a Christian that shall deny it Argument 2. Secondly he that offereth a true Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne must be of more value then the sacrifice it selfe but the Priest is not of more value then the body of Christ. Ergo the Priest in the Masse cannot offer the body of Christ. The Maior is true for the gift is not accepted for it selfe but for the worthinesse of him that offers it as Ireneus affirmes wherefore albeit Cains sacrifice was not of lesse worth in it selfe then Abells yet the person of Cain being vnworthy because of the wickednesse of his heart his offering was reiected but Abell beeing more worthy then his oblation in regard of his faith the Lord had respect vnto him and to his offering so Christ as Priest was God and man and therefore of more merit and efficacy then his humane nature which was the onely sacrifice for without the merit of the Godhead by which the humanity was offered the sacrifice of Christ could not haue beene of infinite value and desert Wherefore he that presumes to offer the body of Christ truely and really vnto God the Father for a Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne blasphemously sayes in effect that he is of more value worth and merit then the sacrifice he offers Argument 3. Thirdly 〈◊〉 lawfull sacrifice is grounded vpon expresse words of Scripture whereby it may appeare that God hath instituted such a sacrifice but there is no command in scripture for the sacrifice of the Masse Ergo. The sacrifice of the Masle is not lawfull The Maior proposition is prooued by the words of Christ Invaine doe they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandements of men Where our Sauiour sharpely reprehendeth the Scribes and 〈◊〉 for teaching those things to belong to the worship of God which were of their owne inuention and not by Gods expresse command for this is a true Thesis Nothing ought to bee accounted of the substance or essence of Gods worship but what God himselfe hath expresly commanded in his word And for this very thing did God reprooue the Iewes because they worshipped in Tophet offering such kind of sacrifices as hee neuer appointed for I spake not vnto your fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them forth of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices but this I said commanding them Obey my voyce and I will be your God c. Where first God condemned them for doing what they were not commanded as offering their children vnto Molech in the vally of Tophet Secondly God shewes them wherein he will bee worshipped namely in that which he expresly commandeth Therefore albeit God had commanded the sacred action of sacrificing as a part of diuine worship yet because the Gentils in their sacrifices did not follow the prescript forme of the law of God therefore were their sacrifices abhominable and no other then I dolatrous The Minor proposition is perspicuous for let all the Gospells and writings of the Apostles bee strictly suruayed and there can neither the name nor sacrifice of the Masse be found for the sacrifices of the law had their precise and prescript forme enioyned why then if God would haue an externall sacrifice to remaine vnder the Gospell hath hee not left vs directions for the manner And whereas our aduersaries pretend a command in these words Do this hereunto we haue already answered page 56. Wherefore the sacrifice of the Masse hauing no ground in the new Testament wee must needes account it fictitious a humane inuention and therefore to be reiected Argument 4. Fourthly that sacrifice wherein there is no shedding of blood cannot bee Propitiatory But in the Masse there is no shedding of blood Ergo the sacrifice of the Masse is no Propitiatory sacrifice The Maior proposition is grounded vpon the words of the Apostle Without blood shedding there can be no remission of sinnes and in the legall sacrifices all that were Propitiatory were liuing creatures which were slaine by the Priests The minor is true according to the common consent of our aduersaries who make the Masse to be sacrificium incruentum an vnbloody sacrifice and albeit the blood of Christ be powred out yet it is not shed for them in behalfe of whom it is offered wherein they doe directly contradict themselues Argument 5. Fiftly that doctrine which is contrary to it selfe is not to be embraced in the Church But the doctrine of our aduersaryes touching the sacrifice of the Masse is contrary to it selfe Ergo it is not to bee imbraced The Maior neither Protestant nor Papist will deny The Minor is prooued For our aduersaries teach that the body of Christ in the Masse is an externall sacrifice and is truely offered vnto God the Father vnder the formes of bread and wine And yet they teach the body of Christ to be inuisible in the sacrifice wherein they are contrary to themselues for no externall sacrifice is an inuisible sacrifice neither can a sacrifice be visible which they affirme of their sacrifice when the thing offered is inuisible Wherefore if they will make it an externall offering the sacrifice it selfe must be visible but here is nothing visible according to their Tenent but the Altar the Priest his ceremoniall and mimicall actions his many hundred crossings the accidents and outward formes which are no part of the sacrifice Here then their doctrine implyes a contradiction to make it a visible sacrifice and yet the sacrifice is inuisible it is an externall oblation yet the matter offered is internall and cannot be discerned Howsoeuer though no man can perceiue the matter of their sacrifice yet euery man may perceiue the manner of their iugling
command Thirdly that the same Iesus the sonne of God was the Priest which offered that all-sufficient sacrifice for remission of the sinnes of all that beleeue in him Thus the Authour hauing layd the ground worke of his subsequent matter doth in the sequell of the Epistle polish euery particular part with sundry arguments still building vpon that foundation which he had laid But because the Iewes thought it strange that the Gospell should take place and be preferred before the Law therefore the Authour first declares the excellency of Iesus Christ shewing him to be not onely man but God farre aboue all Angells and consequently worthy of a great deale more honour then Moses Hauing handled his Propheticall and Regall offices hee comes in the fourteenth verse of the fourth chapter to his Priestly office and comparing him with Aaron layes downe diuers differences betweene Christ and Aaron who differed First in person the one being onely man the other as well God as man Secondly in qualitie the one being sinnefull offered sacrifice not onely for others but for himselfe also the other being Choris hamartias without sinne offered himselfe for vs. Thirdly in order the one being of the Leuiticall order the other after the order of Melchisedech and consequently the one was temporarie the other eternall Fourthly in the manner of sacrificing Aaron offered the blood of beasts but Christ offered himselfe yea his owne blood Fiftly in efficacie the sacrifices of Aaron being in themselues of no vertue not able to cleanse sinne but the sacrifice of Christ was effectuall purging all beleeuers from all their sinnes Sixthly in the reiteration for Aaron and his sons were bound to reiterate their sacrifices euery day Christ offered once for all Seauenthly Aaron entred into an earthly tabernacle without the people but Christ into a heauenly with all his faithfull members Then the Apostle shewes what Analogie and proportion there was betweene the Priest-hood of Christ and that of Aaron which agreed First in election for as the Leuiticall Priests were elected to their office so was Christ ordained of his Father Secondly they did offer sacrifice with blood so did Christ. Thirdly they did it in behalfe of the people so did Christ. Fourthly they prayed for the people so did Christ. Last'y they entred into the Sanctum Sanctorum Holy of Holyes so did Christ. The Authour in the ninth chapter hauing compared the carnall rites with the spirituall the 〈◊〉 Tabernacle which was corruptible with the glorious tabernacle of Christs humane nature which was and is incorruptible the blood of beasts with the blood of Christ shewing that these were but the shadowes whereof Christ was the substance in whom we inioy all things spiritually and by whose blood al things are sanctified vnto vs in this chapter he shewes the insufficiencie of the Leuiticall oblations to be imployed by their frequent reiteration and the perfection of Christs sacrifice by the single act wherefore the Hebrewes should not rest in the Leuiticall sacrifices which being types of Christ had their perfection in him who hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne sitteth for euer at the right hand of God This text doth diuide it selfe into two parts An Agent and his Actions The Agent in this relatiue pronoune Autos He. His Actions are two The first done and past The second present and in doing The first hee offered one sacrifice for sinne where we haue First the subiect of his action He offered a sacrifice Secondly the singularitie of this subiect One sacrifice Thirdly the end of both for finne His second action is expressed by three predicaments Situs His gesture He sitteth Vbi His place at the right hand of God Quando His time how long for euer In the first is intimated his Maiestie in that hee sitteth In the second his Omnipotencie at the right hand of God In the third his Eternitie in that hee sitteth for euer In the first action you haue Christ in the state of humiliation In the second in the state of exaltation In the first he is dying for sinne in the second 〈◊〉 ouer sinne And first of the first Hee hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne In the handling of which words this Method shal be obserued First I shall shew who was the Priest that offered Secondly what was the sacrifice which was offered Thirdly the scope and end whereunto it was directed This Priest was Christ the eternall sonne of God one with the Father 〈◊〉 of all things and by whom all things doe subsist King of Kings Lord of Lords a perfect man without sinne full of grace and truth He it was that tooke vpon him this function to be a Priest and to offer an all-sufficient sacrifice to expiate for the sinnes of the elect And herein did Christ 〈◊〉 mainely differ from the Leuiticall Priests in that they were onely the persons offering sacrifice and not the sacrifice it selfe but Christ was both the Priest and Sacrifice for there could no sufficient sacrifice bee found for the sinne of man but onely Christ and none worthy to offer the sonne of God but onely himselfe But seeing Christ in the vnitie of his person had entertained a dualitie of natures consisting of Deitie and Humanitie hence arises a question Whether the Priestly office of Christ belong vnto his Godhead or to his manhood or to both The answer is that Christ is this Priest according to neither nature separately or diuided but according to both natures ioyntly as he was both God and man See this confirmed How much more shall the blood of Christ who by the eternall spirit offered himselfe to God purge our consciences from dead works to serue the liuing God By which eternall spirit we are to vnderstand his eternall Godhead concurring with his manhood to make him a perfect Priest The reasons why the Priestly office of Christ did require that he should be both God and man are these First as he was a Priest so was he to be a Mediatour but he could not be a Mediatour except he were God and man for Opera Christi Mediatoris sunt The andrica The workes of Christ which concerne his Mediatourship proceede from both natures Secondly because he was to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech so that he must bee apator and ametor without father without mother as Melchisedech was Now he was not without father but as hee was man nor without mother but as he was God Thirdly because hee must be both God and man that reconciled in one God vnto man and man vnto God Lastly because no creature could satisfie Gods 〈◊〉 but onely God none ought but onely man wherefore the Godhead of Christ did giue unto his manhood efficacie and merit to deserue at Gods hands remission of our sinnes for the manhood of it selfe without the Godhead hath no vertue or efficacie to be meritorious So it appeares that Christ Iesus was the High Priest for
the pretended sacrifice of the Masse is not Propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead The Maior is not denyed by our aduersaries The Minor is thus prooued Augustine saith Sacramentum est visibile signum inuisibilis gratiae a visible signe of inuisible grace so that in euery sacrament there is signum signatum the signe and the thing signified both which abide whole and intire in such sort as it is not possible that the one can be the other or any part of the other But the sacrifice of the Masse destroyeth the nature of a sacrament for it taketh away the substance of the bread which is the signe and seale of his body it taketh away the substance of the wine which is the symbole of his blood and that by 〈◊〉 and altering them as some of them hold or els by annihilating them as others say or by reducing them into their first matter from substances into accidents contrary vnto all nature yea contrary to the things signified for there ought to be resemblance betweene the signe and the thing signified as Manna did represent the bread of life which came downe from heauen in baptisme water which washeth away corporall spottes the blood of Christ which cleanseth our spirituall pollutions bread and wine which nourish our naturall life the body and blood of Christ which sustaine and feede vs vnto eternall life But roundnesse whitenesse moistnesse and rednesse which they giue vs for signes what analogy or proportion haue they with our spirituall nourishment These accidents of bread and wine haue no power or vertue to feede the body but the substance of bread and wine they leaue those and take away this where then is the sacrament when the signe is abolished Againe the sacrifice of the Masse taketh away the thing signified in the Lords Supper What 's that It is the body and blood of Christ yea Christ himselfe For the very body and blood of Christ was giuen only for them which 〈◊〉 in him and abide in him for them saith the Apostle which dwell in him by faith and in whose hearts he dwelleth for them saith Saint Augustine which are his members and therefore the same Father saith a man may eate panem Domini the bread of the Lord and yet not eate panem Dominum the Lord the bread making a difference betweene the bread in the sacrament and that life-giuing bread which is Christ himselfe represented by the symboles in the Eucharist But oh what iniury is offered by the Papists in their sacrifice vnto the body and blood of Christ which is the food of eternall life when dogs and swine that is reprobates and hypocrites shall bee made pertakers of it nay and these ex opere operato by vertue of the very act of receiuing doe merit remission of sinnes and relaxation of punishment nay a Mouse or a Dog may eate the precious body of our Lord Iesus Christ which doth so 〈◊〉 their greatest Doctors that if it be demanded Whether if a Dog or a Mouse doe eate the 〈◊〉 Host they doe 〈◊〉 the very body of Christ they are at a non plus and know not what to answer Wee affirme and dare iustifie That the signe of the Sacrament may be receiued of all that are of competent age in the Church But Res Sacramenti the thing signified in the Sacrament can onely be receiued by the faithfull which are rightly of the Church for so saith Origen Of this true and verie meate of this Word made flesh no wicked or vngodly man can eate because it is the Word and Bread of life because hee that eateth of this bread liueth for euer And S. Augustine speakes plainely to this purpose saying The Signes are common to the good and 〈◊〉 but the thing proper to the faithfull alone therefore the Apostles did eate Panem Dominum The bread which was the Lord but Iudas onely Panem Domini the Bread of the Lord against the Lord. Doth not this take away Christ himselfe when the Church shall giue vnto wicked men and vnbeleeuers and they themselues shall receiue the very substantiall Body of Christ. Againe they destroy the humanity of Christ for the which the Fathers of the Church haue so mightily contended against diuers Heretikes for when without warrant of Gods word they ascribe vnto this body a property of being in a thousand places at once how do they not destroy the nature of a true Humane body which can be but in one place at one time as is prooued Pag. 198. Nay doth not this Sacrifice make Christ a dead Christ in that they doe really separate his body from his blood making them in consecration and after consecration to subsist apart which separation was the very death of Christ And whereas Christ saith I am with you vnto the end of the world And Where two or three are gathered together in my name I will be in the middest of them These and the like speeches are to be vnderstood of the Diuinitie of Christ which filleth all places as these Speeches You shall not have me alwaies with you It is expedient for you that I goe away The heauens must containe him vntill the restauration of all things are to be vnderstood of his Humanity which is circumscriptiuely onely in one place at once And so the Fathers vnderstand these places Origen saith It is not the man which is euery where Where two or three be gathered together in his name Or yet is alwaies with vs vntill the end of the world Or which is in euery place where the faithfull are assembled but it is the Diuine power which is in Iesus And so Saint Augustine You haue the poore alwaies with you c. Let not good men be troubled in respect of his maiestie prouidence grace c. It is fulfilled which he said I am alwaies with you In respect of the flesh which the Word tooke vpon it it is the same which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You shall not haue me alwaies The Church enioyed him but a few daies in respect of his bodily presence but now it possesseth him by faith and seeth him no more with these bodily eies c. And in another place vpon 〈◊〉 words Vado venio ad aos He went as men he staied behinde as God He went in as much as he was but in one place he staied and abode still in as much as hee was euery where By which words of S. Augustine it appeares that hee conceiued the Humane body of Christ to reside in one place and not to bee in many places at once And in another of his writings hee hath these words It is expedient for you that I goe Although that hee be alwaies with vs by his Diuinitie but if he had not gone away from vs corporally we should haue seen him daily with these carnall eies and should neuer haue beleeued in him spiritually c. And for this cause he hath absented himself in
Apostle speakes there Metaphoricall alluding to the priesthood of Aaron and the Leuiticall oblations that as the priest did offer the oblation that was brought vnto him vnto the Lord so Paul had a carefull desire by the preaching of the Gospell to subdue the affections of the Gentiles and so to offer them as it were a pure and acceptable sacrifice vnto God So Origen and other of the fathers tearme the preaching of the Gospell a priestly or sacrificall worke not absolutely but comparatiuely and by way of similitude Obiect But here may bee obiected these testimonies of Scripture 1. Pet. 2. 5. 9. Reu. 1. 6. Reu. 20. 6. by which place it appeares that there are priests of the new Testament which ought still to offer sacrifice vnto God Answ. Vnto these places I answer that if you consider who these are that are here spoken of you shall finde them not to be onely the Clergie but all faithfull Christians which haue not a materiall or externall priesthood but a spirituall and an internall and so they doe offer spirituall sacrifices as I shall shew when I come to speake of the sacrifice that Christ offered So that these places of scripture doe prooue the 〈◊〉 priesthood not to bee lawfull nor the title of priest properly to appertaine to the ministers of the Gospell but onely that all Christians should be spirituall priests to offer spirituall sacrifice to God The third and last vse of this point is that which the Apostle makes Seeing wee haue not a high Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our in 〈◊〉 but was in all points tempted like as we are without sinne let vs therefore come boldlie vnto the throne of grace that we may obtaine mercy and finde grace to helpe in time of need and againe Hauing therefore brethren boldnesse to enter into the Holyest by the blood of Iesus By a new and lining way which he hath consecrated for vs through the raile that is to say His flesh And hauing an high Priest ouer the house of God Let vs draw neere with a true heart in full assurance of faith hauing our hearts sprinkled from an euill conscience and our bodies washed with pure water Seeing Christ Iesus whom the Father had deereed from all eternity did from euerlasting giue himselfe a Sacrifice for our transgressions and when the fulnesse of time was come by vertue of his priesthood did offer vp himselfe and offering of a sweet smelling sauour vnto God for vs Oh then let vs with wonder admire the infinite oue of God that spared not his owne sonne the infinite compassion of his Sonne that spared not his owne life but shed his blood plentifully for our saluation Let vs with boldnesse confidence and assurance flye vnto our high Priest Christ Iesus who is entred into the Sanctū 〈◊〉 there presenting his 〈◊〉 before his father making request for vs. The children of God therefore ought with much alacritie to cherish themselues in all their worldly troubles and affliction seeing they haue such a high Priest as hath ouercome the gates of hell the strength of the graue and the power of sinne that they shall neuer preuaile against his elect Let not Satan terrifie thee for our Sampson hath slaine the deuouring Lyon hee that is the strongest of all hath bound that strong man and spoyled him of his weapons Let not death cause thee to startle for Christ triumpheth ouer the graue Oh death where is thy sting oh graue where is thy victory Let not the multitude of thy sinnes affright thee for if any man sinne we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous But let vs bee assured that the head being entered into the most holy place will at length draw all the members after it to make them pertakers with it of glory and immortality Thus much for the first part who was the Priest Now followes the second what was the sacrifice In the declaration whereof for our better vnderstanding I shall propound to my selfe this Methode First to speake somewhat of a sacrifice in generall and of the kinds of sacrifices 2. To shew what this particular sacrifice was 3. To shew the necessity of this sacrifice First to speake of sacrifices in generall Sacrifice was instituted by God for the vse of man after his fall for it is thought that if man had not sinned there had neuer beene any institution of sacrifice The persons imployed in sacrificing were men for as the Apostle vnder the Gospell would at no hand permit a woman to execute the publike misteriall function because she was not first in creation though first in transgression so from the beginning in the Church of God the act of sacrificing hath bin practised onely by men for the better shadowing foorth of Christ the Messiah whom in that action they represented The action of sacrificing was accounted so sacred and so honourable that before the promulgation of the law the chiefest persons were imployed in it and vnder the law onely those who were separated from the people and set a part for that end and purpose Yea among the Infidels who did apishly imitate and heathenishly abuse that sacred ceremony sacrifice was offered onely by some choice persons yea pleraque sacra a solis regibus 〈◊〉 consueta the most of their sacrifices were offered of 〈◊〉 kings alone And of that iudgement was Clemens Alexandrinus who sayes that the Egyptians who exceeded all the heathen in aboundance and variety of sacrifices did not commit their mysteries to euery one amougst them c. but to those onely which nere to come to the gouernment of their kingdome and to the Priests of such as were approoued for education learning and linage And so the word Cohen signifies both a Prince and a Priest to intimate that the priestly office did not 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 was king of Salem and 〈◊〉 of the most high God Thus much in a word of the 〈◊〉 imployed in the act of sacrificing Now what a sacrifice is By a sacrifice is sometime in scripture vnderstood the act of sacrificing sometimes the thing ordained to be sacrificed and 〈◊〉 both these concurre to the making of a sacrifice it may therefore be thus defined A sacrifice is a sacred and religious action instituted by God whereby we offer some externall thing vnto the true God which wee know will be acceptable vnto him I called it a sacred religious action instituted by God because it was a part of Gods worship prescribed vnto the Fathers before the writing of the law in Sinai and taught by them vnto their children from age to age and after the deliuering of the law commaunded expresly to the people of Israel Againe it was a sacred and religious action because it was to bee performed holily and religiously to Gods glory the edification of the Church and the saluation of the person offering Againe I say it is the offering of some
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