accomplishment Therefore the Apostle sayes 〈◊〉 5.2 that Christ gaue himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an oblation and a sacrifice by an oblation vnderstanding a gratulatory offering and by sacrifice an expiatory host for sinne And that the 〈◊〉 sacrifices had their consummation in Christ appeares in that figuratiue casting the open and doues out of the Temple as Theophylact. on the 21. chapter of Math. obserueth saying Iesus eiiciendo boues columbas praesignauit non vltra opus esse animalium sacrificio sed oratione 〈◊〉 casting the oxen and doues out of the Temple signified that there should no longer need the sacrifice of beast but of prayer But it is demanded Which of these two sacrifices it is that the Apostle speakes of The text it selfe cleares this doubt you heard before that the Eucharisticall sacrifices were for mercies and blessings receiued and the Ilasticke or Expiatorie sacrifices were for sinnes committed so that when the Apostle sayes this sacrifice was for sinne it plainely appeares that hereby is meant the Expiatory sacrifice of Christ offered to appease his Fathers wrath This sacrifice is no other then Christ himselfe dying vpon the crosse for the transgressions of mankind Origen speaking of Christ sayes Ipse est hostia Sancta Sanctorum He is the most holy sacrifice for his holy ones Which the Apostle Saint Peter confirmes saying For so much as ye know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as siluer and gold But by the precious blood of Christ as of a lambe without blemish or without spot Christ himselfe was this sacrifice who so loued vs that he gaue himselfe for vs an offering and sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour But according to which nature was Christ the safice for sinnes Onely according to his humane nature as appeares By which will we are sanctisied through the offering of the body of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 by which words the body of Christ we are to vnderstand the whole humane nature of Christ for there the part is put for the whole so that Christ the man consisting of body and soule was the sacrifice for our sinnes and as we in soule and body had transgressed against God so Christ both in soule and body was to suffer punishment and to make satisfaction for our offences Compare this place of the Hebrews with the words of the Prophet Esa. and you shall easily discouer this truth Yet it pleased God to bruise him hee hath put him to griefe when thou shalt make his soule an offering for sinne he shall see his seede he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand What the Propheticall Apostle Paul attributes to the body the Euangelicall Prophet Esa. attributes to the soule so that both these being essentiall parts of man make the whole humanitie of Christ to bee the sacrifice for our sinnes And as the Tree of life did represent the Godhead of the Messiah so did the Animate sacrifices of the Leuiticall law shadow out his Manhood And the reasons why this sacrifice that Christ offered should be his manhood are these 1. Because that in the same nature the offence was made in the same nature was the sacrifice to bee offered and the satisfaction to bee performed for otherwise Gods iustice could not be appeased but in the nature of man was a transgression committed therefore in mans nature must a sacrifice bee offered and satisfaction made And for this reason the Angels that fell from God had no benefit by the Incarnation of Christ nor by his death and passion because he tooke not vpon him their nature neither in their nature did he offer sacrifice 2. Secondly the death of the beasts in the Ceremoniall law did figure out the death of that sacrifice which the Sonne of God was to offer vnto his Father for mans Redemption So that in that nature wherein Christ dyed in that nature he was to sacrifice but Christ as he was God could not dye for the Godhead is apathes and cannot suffer but according to his humanitie he dyed truely and not fantastically and in shew onely as Marcion and the Manichees heretically thought And indeed considering Gods eternall decree of sending his Sonne to be 〈◊〉 flesh it was necessarily required that hee should dye and shed his blood to appease his Fathers wrath and to procure forgiuenesse of sinnes for all beleeuers for according to the words of the Apostle choris haimatekchusias ou ginetai aphesis without blood shedding is no remission So it appeares that the humane nature of Christ consisting of soule and body was the Alsufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of all beleeuers 3. The third thing propounded is the necessitie of this sacrifice Adam being seduced by his wife and eating the forbidden fruit brought vpon himselfe and all his posteritie three euills First hee was by his transgression guilty of 〈◊〉 before God Secondly he was depriued of all his grace of integrity and righteousnesse which God had conferred vpon him in his creation Thirdly he was driuen out of Paradise to signifie his banishment from the celestiall Paradise Wherefore it was necessary that there should bee a sacrifice offered for man First that his sinnes might be remitted whereby he was turned from God Secondly that he might be restored againe to the state of grace Thirdly that he might be re-united and reconciled vnto God and inherit eternall life These three were effected by the sacrifice of Christ. For first by this Sacrifice our sinnes are pardoned and the guilt of all our iniquities is washed away by the blood of Iesus hee was that promised fountaine which should be set open for Iudah and Ierusalem to wash in This appeares by the words of Paul Traditus est in mortem propter offensas nostras He was deliuered to death for our offences Secondly by this sacrifice wee are made pertakers of his grace whereby wee are comely in the eyes of God the Father for hee thereby imputed his righteousnesse vnto vs and communicated that life of grace which was radically in himselfe the head vnto all his faithfull members for by him it is that wee all receiue grace for grace Thirdly hereby are wee entitled againe vnto the kingdome of heauen lost by our first parents for when this earthly tabernacle is dissolued we are put inro possession of that building of God not made with hands which endures for euer in heauen All these three are contained in one verse Christ Iesus is made vnto vnto vs of God righteousnesse sanctification and redemption Righteousnesse in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes 〈◊〉 in the communication of his grace and Redemption in the saluation of our soules and bodies By this that hath beene spoken wee may note that the beginning middle and end of mans happinesse is from the sacrifice of Christ by him wee are deliuered from the bondage of sinne by him wee are in the liberty of grace by him are wee
small credit with them neuer vses the words Ambrose once onely Augustine but twise and neither of these in that sence in which the Papists vse it And whereas they obiect that place of Ierome one the 11. chapter of the Prouerbes it is not thought to be his because therein is mentioned Gregory who liued about 200. yeares after Ierome but the best learned do ascribe it to Bede as they do the Sermon of Saint Augustine de tempore to Ambrose or Hugo de Sancto Victore But from the name let vs proceede to the thing it selfe Albeit that about the time of Saint Gregory there hapned such an alteration of the Canon of the Masse of the manner of seruice of vestiments of the bread of priuate Masses of prayers vnto Saints and so continued till Charles the great insomuch that the Church of Rome had cast off her ancient simplicity and Matron-like habit and became like a garish Curtezan yet this sacrifice of the Masse was not as yet allowed of generally in the Church Not in Gregories time for Bellarmine himselfe confesseth he could finde nothing in his writings for confirmation of this their sacrifice For the corporall reality of this sacrifice which our aduersaries defend vpon an imagination of a Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ seemes to be sufficiently confuted by that disputation held by Gregory against Eutiches the Hereticke who denied that Christ had a true humane body against whom Gregory obiected 〈◊〉 saying of our Sauiour to his Disciples who after his resurrection made a doubt of that which 〈◊〉 spared not to maintaine namely that it was not the same body wherein he was cruified but onely a shadow of a body and so his humanity was but kata Phantasian not really but onely in appearance But Gregory obiects the words of Christ. Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me haue behold my hands and feete that it is I my selfe By the same testimony of sence may Christians now discerne bread to be bread after consecration by which the Disciples discerned Christs flesh to be flesh after resurrection they were to beleeue because they did see and feele it to be the flesh of Christ wee haue the benefit of foure sences seeing handling tasting smelling to prooue vs to receiue not flesh but bread And here we may note what was the faith of the Church of England about those times of St. Gregory by an ancient Homily written in the Saxon tongue and appointed to be preached throughout England in euery Church vpon Easter day Part where of runnes thus In the holy sont we see two things in that one creature after the true nature the water is corruptible water and yet after 〈◊〉 mystery 〈◊〉 hath hallowing might So also wee behold the holy housell it is bread after bodily vnderstanding then wee see it is a body 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 but if wee acknowledge therein a spirituall might then vnderstand wee that life is therein and it giueth 〈◊〉 to them that 〈◊〉 it with 〈◊〉 Much difference there is betweene the inuisible might of the holy 〈◊〉 and the visible shape of the proper nature It is naturally corruptible bread and corruptible wine and it is by the might of Christs word truely 〈◊〉 body and his blood not so notwithstanding bodily but spiritually much difference is there betweene the body that Christ suffered 〈◊〉 and the body that is hallowed to housell the body 〈◊〉 Christ suffered in was borne of the flesh of Mary with blood and with bone with skinne with 〈◊〉 in humane limmes with a reasonable soule 〈◊〉 and his spirituall body which we call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thered of many cornes without blood and bone without limme without soule and therefore nothing therein is to be vnderstood 〈◊〉 but all is spiritually to be vnderstood By these words 〈◊〉 appeares that the ancient Christians in England held not that grosse transubstantiation maintained now by the Romish Church which is the mother of the Massing sacrifice for take away 〈◊〉 and of necessity you lay the honour of their sacrifice in the dust For the space of 〈◊〉 yeares after Gregory this Sacrifice of the Masse beganne to gather strength and to be taught and 〈◊〉 though not generally in the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 Abbot of Corby in 〈◊〉 hath these words Because we sinne daily Christ is Sacrificed for vs Mystically and his Passion giuen in Mystery Againe The blood is drunken in Mystery spiritually and it is all spirituall which wee eate And The full similitude is 〈◊〉 and the flesh of the imacculate Lambe is faith inwardly that the truth he not wanting to the Sacrament and it be not ridiculous to Pagans that wee drinke the blood of a 〈◊〉 man Note here that he would 〈◊〉 the outward 〈◊〉 and the inward substance represented by the signe to subsist in the Sacrament otherwise it takes away the truth of the Sacrament and hee would not haue the 〈◊〉 thinke the 〈◊〉 to be so absurd as to drinke the reall and substantiall blood of Christ with their bodily mouthes but onely Sacramentally and in a Mystery Bertram 〈◊〉 liued about the 900. yeare of Christ in the time of Charles the 〈◊〉 whose wordes agree directly with the Doctrine of the Church of England and are these Our Lord hath done this at once euen in offering himselfe 〈◊〉 is to say sacrificing himselfe for vs For hee was once offered for the finnes of the people and this 〈◊〉 notwithstanding is dayly celebrated by the 〈◊〉 but in a mysterie to the end that what hath beene accomplished by our Lord lesus in offering himselfe once might be handled 〈◊〉 day by the celebrating of the Mysteries of the 〈◊〉 of the memory of his passion Where is to be noted how he opposeth the mysticall 〈◊〉 to the reall receiuing and the dayly 〈◊〉 of the remembrance to the once offering of the 〈◊〉 Againe He which is dayly offered by the faithfull in the mysterie of his body and his blood namely that whosoeuer will draw neere vnto him may know that he must 〈◊〉 part in his sufferings the image and representation whereof is exhibited in the holy Mysteries About the 1000. yeare liued Theophilact who seems to deny this Propitiatory Sacrifice in these words The medicines which are effectuall and forcible do heale at the first time being administred but those which neede to bee taken againe and againe doe sufficiently argue their weaknesse by that onely note euen so it fareth betweenethe Legall Sacrifices and the Sacrifice of Christ. But here ariseth a question Whether we also doe offer sacrifices without shedding of blood vnto which we answere affirmatiuely but it is that we doe renue the Memory of the death of the Lord and yet in the meane time it is but one Sacrifice not many because it hath beene offered but onely once We offer then 〈◊〉 himselfe or rather the Remembrance of this oblation
Argument 6. Sixtly if the sacrifice of Christ was perfectly finished vpon the Crosse then is it vnlawfull for any Priest to presume to offer againe this sacrifice But the offering of the sacrifice of Christ was perfectly finished vpon the crosse Ergo it is vnlawfull to presume to offer this sacrifice againe in the Masse The consequence is euident For hee that goes about to offer that sacrifice which was perfectly finished vpon the crosse cannot but by his reiteration preiudice and call in question the perfection thereof for as Chrysostome speaketh he that hath a soueraigne medicine which by once applying is perfectly able to cure a disease and shall often apply the same doth derogate from the vertue thereof so he that shall reiterate the all-sauing sacrifice vpon the crosse by the frequent reiteration charges it with impotency and imbecility Wherefore whatsoeuer pretence our aduersaries may vse they by their Massing sacrifice doe no lesse then robbe the al-sufficient sacrifice of the Crosse and with irreligious blasphemy derogate from it the meritorious power to saue all that beleeue The Minor is manifest by the words of our Sauiour he cryed Consummatum est It is finished What is finished The Ceremoniall law was abrogated the Morall law was fulfilled the sacrifice of Christ was perfected the saluation of mankind accomplished And God forbid that against so many euidences of scripture any man should affirme the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse not to be perfectly finished as though he had left any part to bee supplyed by the Masse-Priests which hee himselfe was not able to effect Wherefore if Christ hath on his crosse cancelled the hand writing which was against vs if hee by his crosse hath reconciled vs vnto his father if he on the crosse did once sacrifice himselfe for all beleeuers then God forbid any man should 〈◊〉 in ought saue the crosse of Christ God forbid any Christian should seeke for a Propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist which hath no vertue in it to procure pardon for sinne vnto any soule but onely faithfully receiued to seale the remission purchased by the bloody sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse But our subtle Antagonists thinke to auoide the force of our argument by this cunning distinction There is say they two degrees of remission of sinnes The first that God would for his part and as much as in him lyes be reconciled to men Secondly that he would receiue them into fauour they working by faith and repentance The first degree say they is in the sacrifice of Christs death on the crosse The second is in the sacrifice of the Masse and for the confirmation of this distinction they adduce the saying of the Apostle God was in Christ reconciling the world vnto himselfe not imputing their trespasses vnto them and hath committed vnto vs the word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But our aduersaries by this distinction thinking to auoid us haue giuen vs the greater aduantage For this latter degree of remission of sinnes is nothing els but the application of the sacrifice of Christ vnto all men as if they should say that then are wee made partakers of that great benefite of Christs sacrifice when we doe receiue him with a true faith And for this end was the sacrifice of the Masse instituted Vt cruenti sacrificij salutaris virtus in remissionem corum quae quotidie committuntur a nobis peccatorum 〈◊〉 That the sauing vertue of the bloody sacrifice may be applyed vnto vs for the remission of those sinnes which are dayly committed by vs. From hence I conclude that if the application of a Propitiatory sacrifice bee not the sacrifice it selfe for he that confounds the thing and the application of that thing shewes but weakenesse of iudgement and that in the Masse there is an application of the great Propitiatory sacrifice offered by Christ it must needes follow that in the Masse there is no Propitiatory sacrifice it selfe true and reall but onely an application of the great and al-sufficient sacrifice offered by Christ. Therefore the Apostle sayes that God hath committed to vs his ministers the ministery of reconciliation From which words I collect these two obseruations First that the Pastors of the Church of Christ are Ministers of application of Christs sacrifice but not of sacrificing Christ himselfe Secondly that this application is made not by sacrificing of Christ as our Romanists dreame but by teaching admonishing and exhorting with the administration of the Sacrament according to the institution of Christ. Argument 7. Seauenthly if Christ be truely and really offered in the Masse then in the Masse he is really slaine But in the Masse he is not truely and really slaine ergo in the Masse Christ is not reall offered The Consequence appeares by this that the offering of Christ and the slaying of Christ are neuer seperated in the holy Scripture For it was not with Christ as with the beast vnder the Law which were first slaine and then offered vppon the Altar but Christ in the instant of his death was offered a sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauor to his Heauenly Father Let the Scriptures be examined and iudge whether euer they speake of the Sacrifice of Christ but thereby is meant his death For this he did once when he offered himselfe How much more the blood of Christ which by the eternall spirit offered himselfe without spot to God So Christ was once offered to beare the sinnes of many These and all other places of the new Testament which speake of the offering of Christ are to be interpreted of his death Wherefore to say Christus 〈◊〉 est Christ is offered is nothing else but to say Christus mortuus est Christ is dead or Christ is slaine Wherefore if Christ be truely and really offered in the Masse he must be truely and really slaine Our aduersaries answere That there is a Sacramentall immolation of Christ in the Masse because by the power and vertue of Transubstantiation the body of Christ is consecrated and made to subsist by it selfe and the blood of Christ is consecrated and made to subsist by it selfe and so though they are seperated locally and in appearance yet they are not seperated propter concomitantiam by concomitance they are both ioyned together By this their distinction they thinke to vp hold their Masse by which they ouer-turne it For first in that they say it is a Sacramentall immolation herein they speake more truely then they are aware wherein wee consent with them for if it be Sacramentall it cannot be proper reall and externall seeing that which is Sacramentall is so relatiue hauing reference vnto that substance whereof it is a shadow or resemblance Againe for the body and the blood to be framed seperately and yet by concommitance not to be seperated who heares not a contradiction in these words The Minor our aduersaries themselues confesse they will not say Christ is slaine really and truely in the Masse least their
vse as meanes for the conuersion of others were to liue in future ages and had not as yet beeing and consequently could not at that time finish those acts whereunto they were destined of God but if he vnderstand by these words All things necessary for mans saluation are not finished all the specificall acts of religion as Prayer Preaching Administration of the Sacraments c. and whatsoeuer of that kind which is necessary to mans saluation is not finished this is false for that they had their institution from Christ before his death and so in the species they were finished Or if thereby the sacrifice of Christ was not finished this is false for both it and the saluation of man by it was finished as appeares by the Apostles vsing the same words saying With one offering teteleioken consummauit he hath consummated for euer such as are sanctified And whereas he sayes that if all things necessary for mans saluation were consummated then the sacraments and all doctrine should bee superfluous this is false for the institution of them might be consummated although the exercise of them in future ages were not finished Againe the perfection of Christs sacrifice abolisheth not the vse of doctrine and Sacraments which doe represent vnto vs the death and sacrifice of Christ but it abolisheth all other sacrifices of Propitiation for if they be but memorialls of Christs death they are superfluous the word and sacraments beeing sufficient to that end and if they be more then memorials as auaileable to forgiue sinnes they are blasphemous and make Christs sacrifice imperfect Argument 17. The seauenteenth argument is taken from the falshood of the Canon of the Masse and it is thus framed Such as is the Canon such is the sacrifice But the Canon of the Masse is false Ergo the sacrifice is false and consequently not Propitiatory The falshood of the Masse appeares in diuers things 1. In the ancient Church when the Lords Supper was celebrated the Christians vsed to bring their agapai which were the bread and wine for the reliefe of the poore and the maintenance of the Ministry and when they had laide downe these oblations which were neuer accounted a Propitiatory sacrifice they prayed for the prosperity and preseruation of the Church which in the Canon before the consecration is applyed vnto the bread and wine and the bread and wine is offered vnto God the Father for the happinesse of the Church Secondly in the Canon They pray vnto God that he would accept that pure sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ as he accepted the sacrifices of Abell and Melchizedech In which words they become intercessours vnto God the Father to accept his Son Iesus Christ as though he were not worthy to be accepted of himselfe And how absurd is it to compare the most pretious sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ if it were so really and truely vnto the sacrifice of Abel which was but a lambe or a goate And how vnwisely doe they pray that God would accept the sacrifice of his Sonne as hee did accept the sacrifice of Melchizedech whereas it cannot appeare as is formerly prooued by the holy scripture that Melchizedech offered bread and wine how absurd is it then to compare the sacrifice of Christ with that sacrifice which neither was is nor shall be Thirdly the Canon saith that the Priest offereth vnto God the heauenly Father the bread of life But where are they commanded to offer the bread of life seeing in the scripture there is mention made of eating the bread of life but not of offering Fourthly the Canon ouerthrowes the article of ascension for it commands the Angells to carry that vnspotted sacrifice to the high Altar of heauen and to present it before God the Father What Is not Christ ascended and fitteth for euer at the right hand of God and hath he now more need of the helpe of Anglls then when he first ascended by the whole power of his Godhead and cannot hee appeare before his Father but by the assistants of Angells But let me bee bold to demand three questions of our aduersaries grounded vpon these words of the Canon Supplices te rogamus omnipotens Deus iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli c. We humbly beseech thee O Omnipotent God that tbou wouldest command this sacrifice to be carryed by the hands of the holy Angell vnto thy high Altar in the sight of thy diuine Maiesty c. First if they vnderstand it of the bread and wine transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ how comes it to passe that they are not taken by the Angell and carryed immediately into heauen according to the prayer of the Church Secondly I demand if their doctrine bee true of their Multipresence that the true humane body and blood of Christ be both in heauen and in many thousand places vpon the earth at one time what need then the Angell to carry the body of Christ into heauen where it is already before his heauenly Father Thirdly if it be so as they say that Christ in the night when he instituted the Lords Supper did offer himselfe his naturall body and blood vnder the forms of bread and wine a true Propitiatory sacrifice to his heauenly Father I demand whether the Angell did carry this sacrifice into heauen or whether it did 〈◊〉 before his Father in heauen or no If they say no how then was the sacrifice accepted or how comes the Church to pray for that priuiledge of hauing this sacrifice carryed into heauen which was not vouchsafed to the sacrifice offered immediately by Christ himselfe If they affirme that it was carryed into heauen it would then follow that Christs body was in heauen before his passion resurrection or ascension and when he in his humane nature ascended into heauen from his Disciples hee found his humane body and blood before his Father and to haue beene there before it came thither Thus they make Christ to haue two bodies and consequently two soules and so Christ is not one but two but many but innumerable These absurdities doe directly result and arise from their blasphemous Canon which is so grosse and palpable as deserues to be hissed out of the Church Lastly the Canon in diuers places ouerturnes the Mediation of Christ in that they pray to Saints and Angells making them to be intercessours it also establishes Purgatory and prayer for the dead doctrines so dissonant from the truth of the Scriptures as when we see them authorized in the Church of Rome wee may iustly call in question the vertue of their massing sacrifice Argument 18. The eighteenth Argument is taken from the effect of the Masse thus That which destroyeth the true nature of the Lords Supper cannot be a true Propitiatory sacrifice for the 〈◊〉 of the quicke and the dead But the pretended sacrifice of the Masse doth subuert and destroy the nature of the Lords Supper Ergo
body frō al the Church to the end that faith may be edified and builded vp And to this purpose S. Cyrill It is meete that all the faithfull beleeue that howsoeuer our Lord be absent in body yet he is present by his power to all them that loue him c. And reciprocally no man doubteth seeing hee ascended into heauen that hee is absent in the flesh though present in the spirit What is it then I will not leaue you comfortlesse that is how that after he is ascended into heauen he is in vs by his Spirit And againe He is absent according to his Humanity but present according to his Diuinitie Vigilius Bishop of Trent dissenteth not from the former saying The Sonne of God had a beginning as concerning the nature of his 〈◊〉 but he had not any if you consider the nature of his Diuinitie in regard of that he is a creature but in regard of this the Creator in respect of that hee is a subiect to be contained in one place but in respect of this it is not possible for him to be contained in any place And this is the Catholike faith confession which the Apostles haue deliuered vnto vs c. Beda saith Christ ascending vp into heauen after the resurrection left his Disciples corporally howbeit the presence of his Diuine Maiesty did neuer leaue them I will conclude these testimonies with the saying of Bernard I goe from you saith the Lord according to my humanitie but I doe not goe away from you according to my Diuinitie I leaue you with my corporall presence but I aide and assist you with the presence of my Spirit But it may be said that the body of Christ being now a glorified body may bee in diuers places at once No so long as the humanity of Christ continues to bee a Creature so long is it limited to one place Theodoret speakes to this purpose It is glorified with diuine grace adored of the celestiall powres but notwithstanding a body subiect to that limitation that it was before And Augustine saith The Lord is on high but the Lord which is verity and truth that is to say in as much as he is God is here also it must needs be that the bodie wherein he rose againe should continue in one place albeit that his truth be dispersed abroad euerie where With whom doth consent Gregory Nazianzen We teach the same Christ consisting of a circumscriptible bodie and of an incircumscriptible spirit of a body which may be contained in a place and a spirit which no place is able to containe Now against such a cloud of witnesses with one consent agreeing that the body of Christ is finite and so limited to one place and cannot be in many places at once doth the Church of Rome contest to maintaine this their Sacrifice like the Vbiquitaries in ancient times who would haue the body of Christ to fill all places But they obiect That Christ is God and therefore omnipotent and consequently can do all things Why then can he not make his body to exist in many places at once I answer A posse ad velle non valet consequentia Christ will not doe all he can And yet I thinke I may bee bold to say that Christ as God cannot doe all things not that this implies any weakenesse in Christ for not to be able to doe some things argues his perfection as Christ cannot lye cannot deceiue cannot sinne for so saies S. Augustine If God could doe these things it were an 〈◊〉 and want of power in him for great is the power of the Word in that it cannot lye for that therein cannot bee any contradiction as it is and it is not Nay some things in the creature God cannot doe for as Aquinas speakes God is not Almightie in respect of the things wherein there is 〈◊〉 because they cannot be accounted of as possible things as he cannot make an 〈◊〉 man nor a Triangle without three angles their lines For this is to make a thing to be and not to be Neither can he as I suppose make a naturall body without quantitie or quantitie without dimensions or that which hath dimension to be in diuers places at once and yet to remaine entire in both places for that were ro make a contradiction true that the whole body of Christ should be here and the whole body of Christ should not be here Wherefore when the Papists ascribe vnto the body of Christ multipresence or vertue to be in a thousand places at one instant what is this but to suppose an impossibility and to take from the natural properties of a true humane body and thus as they destroy the signe in the Sacrament so by their sacrifice doe they subuert the very substance of the thing signified Argument 19. The last Argument is taken from the vncertainty of this Sacrifice and is thus framed That which is a true propitiatory Sacrifice for sinne giues assurance vnto him for whom it is offered of remission of his sinne But the Sacrifice of the Masse giues not aslurance of remission of sinne Ergo The Sacrifice of the Masse is not propitiatory The Minor is thus proued That which dependeth not vpon the institution of the Sacrament nor vpon the sacramentall words as the Papists terme them but vpon the intention of the Priest can giue no assurance of remission For if the Priest intend not with his minde albeit he speaketh the words with his mouth yet according to their owne doctrine he consecrateth not and so the body of Christ is not really in the Sacrament and consequently it cannot be a proper Sacrifice And thus they tye the grace of God not to his institution accompanied with his holy Spirit but to the intention of the consecrating Priest and the Son of God shall not be ours that is the life which is in him shall not distribute it selfe vnto the faithfull further then the discretion of this intention shal extend And it shall be in the power of the Priest to frustrate and send away empty a whole Assembly of Christians gathered together with desire to receiue saluation by this Sacrifice Yea howsoeuer the people are apt to depart without any benefit to their soules for if the intention of the Priest be not to consecrate or that in the act of consecration his minde bee otherwise busied in thinking of other matters then the body of Christ are not vnder the formes of Bread and Wine neither is it a reall Sacrifice And neuerthelesse if he doe consecrate yet the people do not communicate therein because they are not assured of the Priests intention and therefore cannot be assuied of the Reall presence of the body of Christ. Now where there is not assurance in the communicating there can be no comfortable or sauing receiuing but rather sinfull for so S. Paul saies Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sin And they themseluer
Purgatory The sixteenth impiety of the Masse is It subuerteth Gods decree of Reprobation for it is auaileable for whomsoeuer the Priest shall offer it both for remission of sinne and liberation from punishment who doubts not but then many a Reprobate for whom Masse is sayd is 〈◊〉 from eternall damnation The seauenteenth impiety of the Masse is It robs God of his right for whereas it is a prerogatiue royall belonging to the Regall Crowne of Heauen to institute Sacraments and Sacrifices the Church of Rome hath vsurped that power instituting this sacrifice which God neuer commanded them neither came it into his minde but they like Antiochus Ephiphanes haue exalted their Idoll vpon the Lords Table what audacious boldnesse was this in any man to inuent without Gods command a sacrifice to appease and pacifie the wrath of God And what is it but an Ethelothrescta a 〈◊〉 diuised of their owne carnall and corrupt wils and affections The eighteenth impiety in the Masse It establisheth the doctrine of merit and ouerthroweth the satisfaction of Christ for if a man may merit by the sacrifice of the Masse what iniustice was it in God to lay the burthen of mans wickednesse vpon Christ causing him to satisfie by death when men may merit by hearing or saying Masse by offering or receiuing this sacrifice The nineteenth impiety is Their Iesuite Salmeron is permitted to write That the oblation of Christ in his last Supper which the Romanists hold to be satisfactory and Propitiatory receiued no efficacy or vertue from the sacrifice vpon the crosse Which all Orthodoxe Christians cannot but iudge to bee an impious Paradox Seeing both the Sacrament of Baptisme and of the Eucharist haue their foundation in and vertue and operation from the great and all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ offered vpon the crosse The twentieth impiety is in the manner of celebrating this sacrifice In that it is performed in an vnknowne tongue directly contrary to the Apostolicall iniunction of Saint Paul who willeth euery man that prayeth to pray in that language which the common people vnderstand that the Church may be edified Secondly in regard of the gesture of the Priest which is so changeable so ridiculous so affected more like a Player then a Sacrificer for the Priest varieth and changeth his gesture at least fourty or fifty times during the time of the Masse First he boweth his body then he rayseth himselfe and kisseth the Altar on the right side he boweth againe and looketh toward the host hee ioyneth his hands wipeth his 〈◊〉 listeth vp the host then he listeth vp his eyes and boweth himselfe and lifteth vp his eyes againe hee boweth againe and lifteth vp the hoast aboue his forehead vncouereth the Chalice and holdeth it betweene his hands keeping his thumb and forefinger together then hee boweth and lifteth vp the cup a little then to his breast or aboue his head he setteth it downe againe wipeth his fingers then he spreades his armes a crosse he boweth his body then rising kisseth the Altar on the right side after this he smiteth his breast then hee vncouereth the Chalice againe and maketh fiue crosses with the host beyond the Chalice on each side vnder it and before it then he layeth his hands vpon the Altar the Deacon then reacheth the Priest the Paten which he putteth to his right eye then to his left and maketh a crosse beyond his head with it kisseth it and layeth it downe then hee breaketh the host in three parts holding two pieces in his left hand the other part in his right hand ouer the Chalice which with a crosse he letteth fall into it the Priest then kisseth the Corporas the Deacon taketh the Pax from the Priest giueth it to the subdeacon and he to the Queere then humbling himselfe he first taketh the body then the blood so hee goeth to the right horne of the Altar then the Subdeacon powreth in wine and the Priest rinseth the cup and washeth his hands hee turneth himselfe to the people commeth againe to the Altar and turneth to the people the second time then bowing his body and closing his hands he prayeth to himselfe he riseth againe making the signe of the crosse and bowing againe so goeth to the Altar insomuch that Roscius-like hee seemes rather an Actor then a priest the Masse it selfe beeing stuffed full of ceremonies borrowed from the sacrifices of both Iewes and gentiles as Innocent the third and Baronius themselues confesse The one and twentieth impiety That the onely accidents of bread and wine can nourish the body without their proper substance The two and twentieth impiety That the body and blood of Christ may be made poysenous for Bernar dus de monte Politiano de Domcastro a Monk of the Iacobines order poysoned with the Host Henry the seauenth Emperour of Germany and Victor Pope of Rome was poysoned with the wine he tooke in the Masse The three and twentieth impiety That the body and blood of Christ doe subsist apart separated one from another both in the act of consecration and afterward The foure and twentieth impiety That Christ is now in the Eucharist not a liuing but a dead Christ in regard that albeit as they affirme the bread bee changed into his body and the wine into his blood yet neither of these according to their owne tenent can be transubstantiated into his soule which is a spirituall and an immateriall substance how then shall his soule be vnited to his body seeing when by these words This is my body hee changed the elements into his body and blood yet hee makes no mention of his soule Wherefore the body subsisting without a soule must be but inanimate a dead corps The twenty fiue impiety Christ had two bodies one visible wherewith hee sate at Table another inuisible which he distributed to his Disciples vnder the formes of consecrated bread and wine The sixe and twentieth impiety They say Christ at his last Supper gaue his naturall body to be eaten of his Disciples but by their doctrine would follow that Christ gaue his mortall body as it was before his passion vnto his Disciples but vnto his Church hee giues now his glorified body such as it is sitting at the right hand of God The seauen and twentieth impietie That the body of Christ doth daily ascend into heauen and descend from heauen as Iaecobs Angells and is contained in the hands of the Priest is crashed in his teeth his bones being broken The eight and twentieth impiety That the body of Christ being kept a long time in any vessell will corrupt and putrifie and wormes will bee generated of it as Alphonsus Magnus the king of Aragon found by experience The twenty nine impiety That Christ Iesus the Sonne of God was not incarnate for vs suffered not dyed not rose not againe ascended not 〈◊〉 heauen for vs but onely bread and wine did all these things in our behalfe Or which is the last impiety The body
sacrament was the Paschall lambe whereupon the Apostle sayes Christ our Paschall Lambe was offered And in place thereof hath succeeded the Eucharist in the new Testament which is a Memoriall of his passion past and suffered as the other was a prefigurer and 〈◊〉 of his passion to come Petrus Alphonsus at the same time did acknowledge the Masse or Eucharist for no other thing then a Sacrifice of praise And this was at that time one of the questions disputed by the Albigenses and Petrus Brutis who was burnt at Tholosa where hee taught publikely that it was not a Propitiatory All these sacrifices saith he which were vsed vnder the law were nothing but 〈◊〉 of this great sacrifice which was to destroy sinne But since the comming of Christ wee vse not any other Sacrifice but that of bread and wine which he hath ordained is like vnto that which Moses in the law called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sacrifice of prayse for therein we prayse God for the benefit hee hath bestowed vpon vs sauing vs by his onely Sonne c. Alexander Hales seemes to crosse the Masse in diuers of his assertions for he speakes thus Iesus Christ hath offered a double sacrifice a spirituall and corporall the spirituall that is a sacrifice of deuotion and loue towards mankind which he hath offered in spirit the corporall the sacrifice of the death which he vnderwent vpon the crosse which is represented in the sacrament Marke he confesseth no realitie of a sacrifice any otherwise then by 〈◊〉 The spirituall figured by the incense and perfume which was made vpon the inner 〈◊〉 the corporall which hee offered in his flesh two wayes that is to say sensibly vpon the crosse and insensibly vpon the altar Obserue he tearmes it an insensible offering not grosse vnder the formes of bread and wine That sensible sort being shadowed out by the sacrifices of beasts but the insensible by the sacrificing of things that are insensible as fruits bread and wine both the one and the other vpon the vtter altar Here he maketh one Propitiatory for such were the sacrifices wherein beasts were offered with the shedding of their blood for sinne figuring out the singular sacrifice vpon the crosse offered by the Messiah the Lord Iesus Christ. The other Eucharisticall onely for such properly were those of fruites bread c. Lyra also that Catholike interpreter of the whole scripture seems not much to dissent from the former for writing of the Sacrifice of Christ that it is not to be iterated preoccupates an obiection thus You will say the sacrament of the altar is euery day offered vp in the Church But the answer hereto is that this is no reiterating of the sacrifice but an ordinary remembring and calling to mind of the onely Sacrifice offered vpon the crosse wherefore it is said Math. 26. Doe this in remembrance of me That most learned Arrias Montanus vpon Luk. 22. thus writes This is my body that is My body is sacramentally contained in this sacrament of bread and straight way he addes like another Nicodemus Christs nightly disciple The secret and most mysticall manner whereof God will once vouchsafe more clearely to vnfold vnto his Church Thus hath the light of truth appeared from the beginning of the Primitiue Church vntill these our dayes albeit till within this hundred and odde yeares it hath from the time of Gregory shined more dimmely and since the Laterane Councell seemed well nigh to be quite extinct But at last the Sunne of righteousnes communicated his light vnto these 〈◊〉 which haue illuminated our Horizon such as Luther Zuinglius Oecolampadius Caluine Beza Iewell and many famous Martyrs in queene Maryes dayes as Cranmer Latimer Ridley Bradford Philpot c. which albeit it pleaseth the Romish Factors to brand them with the title of Heretickes haue so dispelled the darkenesse of superstition and discouered the Mysterie of Antichrist that all the world may point out which is the purple and scarlet Whore Babylon the great the mother of harlots and abhominations of the earth whose shame her children louers and friends would saine conceale but God hath layd it open and will dayly more and more before men and angells till the time come when she shall be cast downe burnt with fire and made desolate for euermore Thus haue I let you see briefly and I doubt more briefly then so ample a matter doth require how the sacrifice of the Masse crept into the Church and how it hath continued How first it was celebrated in a most plaine and simple manner Secondly it began to admit some encrease of ceremonies especially the offerings for the dead which was but a gratulation and thankesgiuing for them vntill 200. yeares after 〈◊〉 Thirdly prayers for the dead got entrance into the Supper about 400. yeares then came in Purgatory and redemption of soules thence by Masses though not generally taught nor authorized by any Councill About the 780. yeare Gregoryes Masse was publikely taken vp in the Churches of Italy whereas before Ambrose his Masse was of more generall vse Fourthly the disputations of Transubstantiation began about the yeare 840. but were not fully concluded till the Councell of Lateran by Innocent the third anno 1216. After which came in the offering of the body and blood of Christ vpon the altar And after that there followed the enclosing carying about and adoration of them Thus grew the Church of Rome from euill to worse till it came to that miserable state wherein it now is And as the Romanists are Innouatours in respect of the Sacrifice of the Masse so are they also in respect both of the Canon of the Ceremonies of the Masse for whereas they boast that the forme of the Masse in respect of the Canon is so ancient as that they deduce it from the Apostles and to this end alleadge the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy of Dionysius some of their owne writers doe question the veritie and antiquity of that book doubting whether it be spurious or no and that the Canon hath admitted diuers additions by seuerall and sundry Popes appeares by their owne Polidore Virgill whose words bee these All the Mysteries were deliuered by Christ to his Apostles barely and plainely sauouring more of piety then outward shew for Peter was went onely to consecrate by saying the Lords prayer after this these 〈◊〉 were enlarged by Saint Iames by Saint Basill Coelestine added the entrance of the Masse beginning with this 〈◊〉 Iudge me oh Lord. Damasus added the confession which is made by the Priest before hee ascend vnto the Altar some ascribe it to Pontianus Gregory added the 〈◊〉 which followeth the Entrance and that Lord haue mercy vpon vs should bee repeated ninetimes with the Antiphonie after the Epistle Gospel and communion Telesphorus added the hymne of glory to God on high Gelasius added the conclusions of the prayers as vpon Christmas day because thou didst
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
places and the like it is euident that hee that was to be the Priest of the new Couenant was also to be the Mediatour betweene God and man and that there is no Mediatour but onely Christ appeares by the words of Saint Paul For there is one God and one Mediatour betweene God and man the man Iesus Christ. Wherefore if they say they are Priests of the new Testament they may as well say they are Mediatours and if Mediators then Redeemers of the Church Argument 10. Tenthly if Christ in the Sacrament be giuen vnto vs to bee receiued with truth faith and humble reuerence then Christ is not offered vnto his Father by the Priest in the Eucharist much lesse in the Masse But he is offered vnto vs in the Eucharist Ergo. Christ is not offered by the Priest vnto his Father The hypotheticall connexion appeares by the nature of those things which are opposite for the end of Christs institution of the Supper was to exhibite himselfe vnto all beleeuers Spiritually to be receiued Sacramentally for the sealing and confirmation of their faith and not to bee offered vp by any mortall vnto his Father And whereas they obiect that God gaue vnto the Israelites sacrifices which they should offer vnto God We answer that this exception is plaine heterogenes of another nature for their sacrifices were corporall and externall ours spirituall and internall The assumption is prooued by the words of Christ Take eate this is my body which is giuen for you Taking doth presuppose a giuing it is called The Communion of the body and blood of Christ. That is the communicating and distributing of the blessed body and blood of Christ whereof all beleeuers in common are made partakers They affirme the Eucharist to be not onely a Sacrament out also a Propitiatory sacrifice were deny it vpon this ground because all expiatory sacrifices properly so called haue their complement in the most perfect and absolute sacrifice of Christ Iesus which he offered himselfe vpon the crosse But say they Christ sacrificed himselfe in the Eucharist which appeares by these words Datur frangitur effunditur is giuen is broken is powred out where our Sauiour speakes in the present tense and not shall be broken shall be giuen shall be powred out We answer first some of their owne writers haue denyed that Christ offered any Propitiatory sacrifice when he instituted and distributed the Eucharist see p. 84. And he himselfe saies that his time was not fully come namely wherein he should be offered Againe their owne translation hath tradetur effundetur shall be giuen shall be powred out which Lyra following doth so render and so is it in the Canon of the Masse Moreouer our Sauiour might so speake not to signifie a present sacrifice but to intimate that his body was already broken and his blood shed in Gods determination and his owne resolution in which sense he is called Agnus ab origine mundi occisus The lambe slaine from the beginning of the world because God had appointed him from the beginning to be the Sauiour of the world And why might not Christ speake in the present tense hauing respect vnto their 〈◊〉 whose property is to make things past and to come to be truely present But the direct answer is that in the words of Christ there is an Enallage temporis the present time being set for the future and this kind of speech is frequent in the scripture as Woe vnto that man by whom the Sonne of man is betrayed for shall be betrayed Vnto vs a sonne and borne of c. And thus their owne Cardinall expounds it saying Euangelistae in voce praesentis effunditur Paulus in frangitur futuram in cruce effusionem carnis frnctionem significarunt c. The Euangelists in the word is powred out being of the present tense and Paul by the word is broken did signifie the suture effusion of his blood and the breaking of his flesh vpon the crosse And so Gregory de Valentia vpon these words This is my body which is giuen for you saith That is which shall be offered by mee slaine vpon the crosse So Hugo Cardinalis vpon Math. 26. Fregit id est frangendum in cruce signauit He brake that is he signified it to be broken vpon the crosse Now who sees not the blasphemie of our peruerse aduersaries who against the light of holy scripture and I thinke I may safely say against the light of their owne conscience dare affirme that Christ in the Lords Supper offered his transubstantiated body vnto his Father an expiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the elect how can they reconcile this doctrine and the words of the Apostle Christ offered himselfe once for all which they can neuer effect till they prooue the action which Christ performed in the night before he was betrayed to bee eadem numero the same indiuiduall action which hee did the day following for if hee offered himselfe for sinne in the Sacrament and offered himselfe for the same sins vpon the crosse How can this bee true Hee offered himselfe once for all who sees not by their doctrine a double offering of Christ Who perceiues not double dealing in the matter Argument 11. The eleuenth argument That sacrifice which is not of diuine institution is not lawfull in the Church But the sacrifice of the Masse is not of diuine institution Therefore the sacrifice of the Masse is not lawfull The Maior is prooued by the confession of their owne Iesuite who sayes that the Church cannot institute any new sacrifice or sacrament for the ordinance of such essentiall parts of Gods worship must bee of diuine institution and as he affirmeth 〈◊〉 7. Sacrificia veteris legis omnia fuerunt a Deo immediate instituta licet erant a Mose promulgata Sacrificij autem 〈◊〉 gis solus Christus Deus homo author est God was the authour of all the sacrifices of the old Law albeit they were promulgated by Moses and Christ God and Man is the authour of the sacrifice of the new Testament Therefore hath Salomon their Iesuite iustly taxed a Great Scholler of their owne Church for saying the Church had authority to institute a new sacrifice if Christ himselfe had instituted none The Minor is true for as Martin Luther exacteth of our aduersaries a demonstration of their sacrifice from the institution of Christ wherein as hee obserueth We reade that Christ did distribute this sacrament vnto his disciples but that he offered it vp in forme of a sacrifice we cannot find Hereunto their Cardinall Bellarmine answereth That this manner of argument from scripture 〈◊〉 as thus it is not expressely set downe is scripture Ergo it was not done is ridiculous among schoole-boyes But if he wold take the aduise of Suarez or stand to his owne answer which elsewhere he himselfe hath deliuered he would not so slightly reiect that forme ofarguing For first Suarez a
Scripture yet it is effectually proued by the tradition of the Church Which may make vs iustly admire the vaine 〈◊〉 of our aduersaries who boasting of nothing more then Scripture are yet faine wholy to relinquish it and to build vpon the tradition of the Church but an answere 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 afore And for these words Is giuen broken shed for you they interpret to be a present giuing in the Eucharist by way of sacrifice but this is sufficiently answered in the former 〈◊〉 Now seeing the words of Christs institution doe make their sacrifice to be a meere non Ens let ve examine his actions and see if any of them will breath any life into this their sacrifice The actions of Christ the Scripture mentions to be foure Hee tooke bread He blessed it He brake it He gaue it Not any one of these can seeme to import a sacrifice And whereas our aduersaries haue divided their sacrifice into fix actions in the which of them this sacrifice should consist Suarez makes it doubtfull The first action is the taking of the bread before consecration and the heauing it vp which they call the Eleuation of the host this is not essentiall to the sacrifice by the Iesuites owne confession because it cannot be prooued neither by Scripture nor the tradition of the Church that Christ did vse it Albeit herein he dissents from Sotus a learned Doctor who with others thought it to be vsed by Christ and in some sort to 〈◊〉 to the substance of this sacrifice The second action is the Consecration of the Host in the words of Christ Hoc est corpus meum This is my body This Suarez 〈◊〉 to be intrinsecall and essentiall to this sacrifice and to be the sacrificing action and yet tels vs that it was the opinion of many learned men That consecration was but only an antecedent vnto the sacrifice but properly neither to be of the essence nor yet any part of this sacrifice And how can the Papists confidently build their sacrifice vpon those words This is my body when their owne Bishop hath prooued from the testimonies of the most ancient Fathers that those are not the words of consecration but that the words of consecration were before those words when Christ prayed and blessed the bread and the cup and therefore hee alleadgeth the perpetuall practise of the Church from the age of the Apostles whose custome was to consecrate by prayer or benediction as also the Liturgies of St. Iames Clement Basil Chrysostome do declare the same being backed with the iudgement of many learned Schoole-men to whom hee adioynes the Diuines of Colein all agreeing consecration rather to be in the prayer or blessing of Christ then in these words This is my body which hee rather accounts to be the institution then the consecration of the Sacrament The third action after the words of consecration is the Oblation vsed by the lifting vp of the Host in these words Be mindfull ô Lord c. Concerning which there is great 〈◊〉 some great Doctors haue placed the whole essence of this sacrifice in this Oblation or Eleuation as Ecchius 〈◊〉 Ruardus Others say it is of the essence but not the whole essence as Scotus Gabriel Biel Soto Canus these Suarez quoteth but differing from them all for he affirmes it to be no essentiall part of the sacrifice with whom agrees Bellarmine because say they it is not expressed in the Scripture neither yet is it probable other wayes that this kinde of eleuation or lifting vp was vsed by Christ in the institution onely herein these Iesuites differ Suirez will haue this eleuation to be an Ecclesiasticall rite but Bellarmine to be Apostolicall The fourth action is the dipping of the consecrated Host into the cup which Canus makes to bee of the substance of this sacrifice which Suarez againe one the same ground disanulls because that it appeares not that Christ did vse any such action The fift action is the distribution of the 〈◊〉 according vnto the example of Christ who gaue it vnto his Disciples which saith the Iesuite some Catholike Doctours haue iudged to be the full complement and perfection of this sacrifice But as learned Morton obserues first they must shew vnto vs where the essence of this sacrifice is to bee found least they tell vs of the perfection of a sacrifice before their sacrifice appeare to be Ens or to haue any beeing The last action is the Priests consuming the consecrated formes by eating and drinking some make this to be the substance of the sacrifice and the very essence of it as the Moderne Thomists Ledesima Canus and Bellarmine who are againe contradicted by other great Doctours of the Roman Church as Thomas Aquinas 〈◊〉 Maior Alan Cassalus Catharinus Turrianus Palacius with whom Salmeron doth consent all which doe deny that this consumption of the Host doth belong to the essence of this sacrifice Thus haue you seene what 〈◊〉 warre our aduersaries doe maintaine among themselues 〈◊〉 against Manasses and Manasses against Ephraim but both against Iudah 〈◊〉 war in their owne campe yet they all conspire against the truth Now let the Reader iudge where is vnity or consent in doctrine when their greatest Doctours in the maine point of religion are at variance directly contradicting one another with est non est it is and it is not They vniustly vpbraid vs with dissentions when alas ours is no dissention if compared with theirs we onely differing in the fringe they in the garment wee alone in the ceremonies they in the substance and very soule of religion Thus haue we largely and sufficiently prooued by the testimonies of our aduersaries that the sacrifice of the Masse was not instituted by Christ and therefore by the confession of their owne Iesuites not to be admitted into the Church Argument 12. The twelfth argument is grounded vpon Bellarmines owne ssertion which is this Ad verum sacrificium requiritur vt quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sacrificium plane destruatur id 〈◊〉 ita mutetur vt desinat esse id quod erat To a true sacrifice is required that that which is offered vnto God in sacrifice be wholy destroyed that is be so changed that it cease to be that which it was And againe Verum reale sacrificium veram realem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A true and a reall sacrifice requireth a true and reall death or destruction of the thing sacrificed Which assertion is true in all Propitiatory sacrifices wherein there was alwayes a destruction of the offering or sacrifice and that by death and shedding of blood that therein they might bee perfect figures of the great sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse wherein his body did shed blood suffered death sustained destruction though not totall and perpetuall yet partiall and for a season in so much that although hee was not consumed yet there was in him for a time a cessation or