17. for that by read that if by p. 124. l. 18. for Apostle read Apostles p. 130. l. 2â— read Priest p. 133. l. 13. dele them THE FUNERAL OF THE MASS CHAP. I. Concerning the Exposition of these words This is my Body THE Romanists are wont to tell us that these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body are so clear to prove the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Host and consequently to prove Transubstantiation or the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body that they are amazed we cannot perceive so manifest a truth Against which I form this Argument He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the World and takes words otherwise then all other men do must without doubt speak very obscure But if Jesus Christ by these words This is my Body had meant the real presence of his Body in the Host as the Romish Doctors assert and consequently had meant the substantial conversion of the Bread into his Body he had spoken contrary to the common usage of all the World and had taken the words otherwise then all other men do which I thus prove There was never any Author either sacred or prophane that made use of such words as these This is my Body to signifie the substantial conversion of one thing into another or to signifie the real presence of a thing immediately after the pronouncing of them and not before On the contrary there was never any man that did not use them to signifie that the thing was already that which it was said to be For example When God the Father speaking of Jesus Christ said This is my beloved Son it is certain that Jesus Christ was the Son of God before God said it and in common usage it is never said this is that except the thing be so before it is said to be so For example We do not say this is a Table before that which we mean by the word this be a Table Therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all Authors as well sacred as prophane and contrary to the common usage of all men to make these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body to signifie the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body and the real presence of his Body in the Host immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest and not before Seeing then that Jesus Christ when he said This is my Body did not speak contrary to the common usage of all the World and did not take the words otherwise then all other men do it necessarily follows that these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body do not signifie the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body nor the real presence of Christs Body in the Host immediately after the Priest hath pronounced them and not before And this being so the Romish Doctors must seek some other passages of Scripture than this This is my Body to prove such a conversion and such a presence and seeing they can find none I conclude that such a conversion and such a presence have no foundation in holy Scripture 2 That which I have said concerning common usage is founded on this reason viz. because things must be before there can be any Image Picture or Representation of them and consequently Images are after the things whereof they are Images But words are the Images of conceptions and conceptions the Images of things Therefore things are such before we can really conceive them to be such and we conceive them to be such before we can say they are such Therefore that which Jesus Christ held and gave to his Disciples expressed by the word this was his body before he conceived that it was his body and he conceived that it was his body before he said This is my Body and consequently it is not by vertue of these words This is my Body that that which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples expressed by the word this was his Body but rather it is by blessing the bread or thanksgiving that the bread was made the Body of Christ because it was made the Sacrament of it Whence it follows that these words this is my body must be expounded thus this bread is my body and these words this bread is my body must be expounded thus this bread is the Sacrament of my body which I prove thus 3. A Proposition must be expounded according to the nature of the thing in question for example If a man pointing at the Kings Person should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings Person because the Kings Person is meant But if a man coming into a Painters Shop and pointing at the Kings Picture should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings Picture because here his Picture is meant Even so if Jesus Christ laying his hand on his Breast had said this is my Body we must without doubt have understood the Proposition concerning his real Body and not concerning the Sign or Sacrament of it because his very Body had been then meant and not the sign or Sacrament of it But Jesus Christ being about to institute the Eucharist and to that end having taken bread blessed it and given it to his Disciples with these words Take eat this is my Body it is evident that they must be understood of the Sacrament of his Body and the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Sacrament of my Body because here the Sacrament of his Body is meant And seeing a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent saith in its sixth Session it is evident that this Proposition This is my Body being expounded by this this is the Sacrament of my Body may be expounded thus this is the sign of my Body which I confirm thus 4 In these two Propositions This is my body This cup is the New Testament in my bloud the word is must be taken in the same sense because they are alike having been pronounced upon the same matter viz. the one upon one part of the Sacrament and the other upon the other part of it and because of like things we must give a like judgment But in this Proposition this cup is the New Testament the word is is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being but for a sacramental and significative being because neither the cup nor that which is in the cup is changed into a Testament neither is it really and properly a Testament but the Sacrament of the New Testament Therefore in this Proposition likewise this is my body the word is is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being but for a sacramental and significative being and consequently as this Proposition this cup is the New Testament must be expounded thus the Wine that is in the cup is the sign and Sacrament of the New Testament So this Proposition this is
my body must be expounded thus this Bread is the sign and Sacrament of my Body Whence it follows that in one single Proposition of Jesus Christ in the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist viz. this cup is the New Testament there are two figures one in the word Cup being taken for that which is in the cup this is a figure called a Metonymie whereby the thing containing is taken for the thing contained The other Figure is that the cup is called the New Testament this is also a Figure called a Metonymie whereby the sign is called by the name of the thing signified And therefore the Romish Doctors are mistaken when they tell us that all that Jesus Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken literally and without a figure But withal we must not imagine that Jesus Christ spake obscurely because he spake figuratively these figures and manners of speech being commonly and familiarly used by all the World 5. But when we say that these words this is my body this is my bloud must be expounded thus this Bread is the Sign and Sacrament of my Body this Wine is the Sign and Sacrament of my Bloud we do not mean that the Bread and Wine are barely and simply signs of Christs Body and Bloud but we believe that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are signs that do exhibit the body and bloud of Christ to Believers For when they do by the mouth of the body receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist they do at the same time by the mouth of the soul viz. by Faith receive the Body of Christ broken and his Bloud shed for the remission of their sins as will be proved in the next Chapter 6. Add hereunto this one Argument When a man saith that a thing is such if it be not such during the whole time which he imploys in saying it is such he makes a false Proposition For example When a man saith that a Wall is white if it be not white during the whole time he imploys in saying it is white he makes a false Proposition But according to the Romish Doctors when Jesus Christ said this is my body it was not his body during the whole time which he imployed in saying this is my body for they say it was his body afterward only Therefore according to the Romish Doctors Jesus Christ uttered a false Proposition which being blasphemous to affirm we must lay down this for a foundation that that which Jesus Christ gave his Disciples when he said this is my body was his body not only after he had said it but also while he was saying it and before he said it And here we have this advantage of those of the Romish Church that we believe the truth of these words of Jesus Christ this is my body much better then they do because they believe it at one time only viz. after he had said it but we believe it at three several times viz. before he said it when he was saying it and after he had said it But here some may object that we must not take the words of our Lord in too rigorous a sense and that in these words this is my body we must take the Present tense for the next Future and then the sense will be this this will immediately be my body To which I answer that the Romish Doctors will have us take these words this is my body in the rigour of the literal sense and then the Proposition is evidently false I know that the Present tense may be taken for the next Future as when Jesus Christ said I go to my Father and to your Father I go to my God and to your God that is I shall go speedily But who can be so bold and ignorant as to affirm that this speech is without a Figure seeing all Grammarians know that it is a Figure called Enallage of time Therefore the Romish Doctors must confess that by their own doctrine this Proposition of Jesus Christ this is my body is either false or figurative and that seeing it is not false it must be figurative and that the figure must be a Metonymie whereby the sign takes the name of the thing signified as hath already been proved and not an Enallage of time CHAP. II. Concerning the Exposition of these words He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud bath eternal life My flesh is meat indeed c. 1. IN this Chapter I shall prove that Jesus Christ speaks of a spiritual eating and drinking by Faith and not of a corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body My first Argument is this When a man would satisfie his hunger and quench his thirst he eateth and drinketh that thing which he hungers and thirsts after because eating satisfieth hunger and drinking quencheth thirst But it is by Faith that is by believing in Jesus Christ that we satisfie the hunger and quench the thirst which we have after Christ for it is in the sixth of St. John He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst Therefore it is by Faith or by believing that we eat and drink Jesus Christ and consequently the eating of Christ flesh and drinking his bloud is spiritual and not corporal 2. My second Argument is this Jesus Christ saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life And except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you John 6. But it is the spiritual eating and drinking by Faith that gives life eternal and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body because many Reprobates according to the very doctrine of Rome it self do corporally eat the flesh and drink the bloud of Christ and yet shall not inherit eternal life 3. The third Argument is taken from S. Augustine and Cardinal Cajetan who expound the words of Jesus Christ as we do St. Augustin in Book 3. of Christian Doctrine speaketh thus To eat the flesh of Christ is a figure teaching us to partake of Christs Passion and to imprint in our memories with delight and profit that Christ was crucified for us Card. Cajetan in his Commentary on St. John 6. saith To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud is faith in Christs death so that the sense is this if you use not the death of the Son of man as meat and drink ye shall not have the life of the Spirit in you And having sufficiently proved his Exposition he adds To eat and drink the Sacrament is a thing common as well to those that eat unworthily as to those that eat worthily but that which Jesus Christ here speaks of is not common to both for he saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life he saith not he that eateth worthily and drinketh worthily but he that eateth and drinketh Whence it
appears there 16. To the three foregoing Propositions I add this Argument which is very considerable In lawful adoration it is requisite that he that adores be well assured that what he adores is the true God else he may justy be reproached as Jesus Christ reproached the woman of Samaria Ye worship ye know not what But the Romanists can never be assured according to their own maxims that the host which they worship is the true God and they have always cause to suspect that they worship a morsel of Bread in stead of the Redeemer of the World because according to their own doctrine the real presence of Christs body in the host depends on lawful consecration and lawful consecration depends on the quality of the Priest and on the pronouncing of the words of consecration and on his intention in pronouncing them for there is no consecration as they say when either he that celebrates Mass is no Priest or doth not pronounce the words that are essentially requisite to consecration viz. this is my body c. or doth not pronounce them with intention to consecrate and consequently in these cases the host remains meer bread But it is impossible certainly to know these three things For as for the quality of the Priest he must have been baptized and he that baptized him must have observed the essential form of Baptism and have had intention to baptize him Again he must have received Ordination from a true Bishop and the Bishop must have observed the essential form of Ordination and have had intention to make him a Priest and to make this Bishop a true Bishop he must have been baptized in due form and with the requisite intention and must have received Ordination in due form and with the requisite intention from other Bishops and they again for the making them true Bishops must also have received Baptism and Ordination in due form and with the requisite intention from other true Bishops and these from others and so back to the Apostles But who can be assured that from the Apostles to a Bishop or Priest now adays there hath been no failing either in the essential form of Baptism or Ordination or in the requisite intention As for the pronouncing of the words requisite to consecration none but the Priest can know whether he hath pronounced them or not because in the celebration of the Mass those words are pronounced so softly that no person present can hear them And as for the intention it is evident that no man but himself can know it Besides It is known that some Priests are Magicians as Lewis Goffredi and other wicked Priests who do neither consecrate in due form nor with the requisite intention especially such as believe nothing of what they profess yea divers Monks and Priests that have been converted to our Religion have assured us that for a long time before their conversion they did abhor the Idolatry that was practised in the adoration of the host Judge then if such persons as these had any intention to consecrate in the celebration of the Mass 17. The Romish Doctors have sought all the remedies imaginable to prevent this danger Pope Adrian Quest 3. speaks thus In the adoration of the Eucharist there is always a tacite condition viz. if the consecration be duly made as bath been decided at the Council of Constance otherwise they could not be excused from idolatry that worship the host when the Priest pretends to celebrate but celebrates not or pretends to celebrate and is no Priest as it many times happens Observe these words it many times happens for they shew that there is great cause of doubting and that much caution must be used For as if a woman in her husbands absence should say to a man that comes to her and tells her he is her husband and she hath probable grounds to suspect him If thou art my husband I will receive thee and thereupon endeavours to clear it before she admits him to any privacy this condition frees her promise from blame but if she gives her self up to him before she clears this doubt saying I will receive thee if thou art my husband this condition doth not free her action from blame but she will be reputed an adulteress Even so if a man to whom an host is proposed to be adored and he hath reason to doubt whether it ought to be adored should only say If thou art Christ I will adore thee and should not adore it before he be well assured of it this condition would render him blameless but if notwithstanding his doubt he adores it this condition if thou art Christ I adore thee doth not exempt him from the crime of Idolatry for to what purpose is the condition whether it be tacite or exprest I adore thee if thou art Christ because he actually adores it without knowing whether it be so or not 18. To what hath been said I add That the Primitive Church never adored the host nor believed that the body and bloud of Christ were really and invisibly in the Sacrament of the Eucharist for if the Christians of the Primitive Church had believed it they had furnished the Heathens with specious pretences to excuse the idolatry of their Image-worship and to retort upon the Christians those very arguments which they had made use of against them 19. First The Heathens did maintain that their Idols were composed of two things viz. of a visible Image and an invisible Deity dwelling in it They bring their gods saith St. Chrysostom in Theodoret in Atrep into their base images of wood and stone and shut them up there as in a prison Your gods saith Arnobius Book 6. dwell in Plaister and Baked Earth and that they may make these materials more venerable they suffer themselves to be shut up and to remain hid and detained in an obscure Prison But might not the Heathens have justly replied to the Ancient Christians if they had believed what the Romish Doctors do now adays And do not you believe the very same of your host that it is composed of two things viz. of the visible species of bread and the invisible body of Christ which is hid under the species Doth not your Christ dwell in baked dough and that he may make a piece of bread more venerable doth he not suffer himself to be shut up and doth he not remain hid as in a Prison 20. Secondly The Heathens held that consecration was the means whereby the Deity which they adored was made present in the Image So Tertullian in his Apolog. chap. 12. saith I find nothing to object against Images but that the matter of them is such as our Frying-pans and Kettles are made of which changeth its destiny by consecration And Minutius Felix speaks thus of a Pagan Image Behold it is melted forged fashioned and yet it is not God behold it is gilded finished erected and yet it is not God behold it is adorned consecrated
antiquity and of the conformity of their Creed to that of the Primitive Church and yet can so openly renounce both in this chief and principal point of doctrine 3. Here the Romish Doctors now adays think to shelter themselves by telling us it is true that Jesus Christ did institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both the species of the Bread and Wine and that the Primitive Church did so celebrate it not by any express command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles but meerly by Ecclesiasâ—ical policy which may be changed as several occasions and circumstances require And they add That it is sufficient to observe that which is of the essence of the Sacrament viz. to receive the body and bloud of Christ but that the Church may change that which is accidental viz. to receive them under both the species or under one species only for they will have it that the bloud of Christ is under the species of the Bread by concommitance and that his body is under the species of the Wine by concommitance because Jesus Christ being now glorious his body and bloud cannot be separated 4. To this I reply First That there is an express command of Jesus Christ to take the Cup and drink St. Matth. 26. in these words drink ye all of it To this the Romish Doctors answer That the word all is not extended to all men for then we should say that the Eucharistical Cup ought to be given to Turks Jews and all other Infidels And they add that the word all doth not extend to all those that are of the body of the Church of the Elect for then the Eucharistical cup should be given to little children whom God hath elected to eternal life But say they the word all is extended only to all those to whom Jesus Christ gave the cup viz. to the Apostles considered as they were Pastors 5. To this I reply That although Jesus Christ gave this command to drink of the Eucharistical cup to his Apostles only yet we must know in what quality they received this command But it was not in the quality of Apostles for then none but Apostles could partake of the cup and there being now no more Apostles it should be quite taken away and so Mass could be no more celebrated And it was not in quality of Pastors or sacrificing Priests for Jesus Christ was then the only Sacrificer as the Romish Doctors say and the Apostles did not then exercise the function of sacrificing Priests Besides it belongs to Pastors and those that administer the Sacraments being publick persons to give but to private persons to receive only But the Apostles in the celebration of the Eucharist did only receive of Jesus Christ their Master and Pastor Therefore they received the command to drink of the cup as they were Believers Whence it follows that all the faithful that partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist are obliged by the command of Jesus Christ to drink of the cup. So then the Romish Doctors are mistaken when they tell us that none but Priests that sacrifice have a right to drink of the cup and that those Priests that do not sacrifice must communicate under the species of the bread only for at that time the Apostles did not sacrifice To this may be added that if the command of Jesus Christ drink ye all of it was spoken to Pastors only because they to whom Christ spake were Pastors then it follows that the command of Jesus Christ Take eat was spoken to Pastors because they to whom Jesus Christ spake were Pastors and so the people will not be obliged by any command to communicate under the species of the bread and consequently will be wholy deprived of the Sacrament which is very absurd and contrary to Christian Religion 6. Secondly I say That in 1 Cor. 1. there is an express command to all the Faithful to drink of the cup in these words Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. In which words the Apostle speaks to all Believers who no doubt have cause to examine themselves And this is apparent because St. Paul directs his Epistle and consequently these words to all those of the Church of Corinth as well Lay-men as Ecclesiastical for in chap. 1. vers 2. he directs it to all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. To this I add That Jesus Christ doth not only say as often as ye eat this bread but also as often as ye drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come so that we do as much commemorate Christs death by partaking of the cup in the Eucharist as we do by partaking of the bread And this is very proper for seeing that not only the body of Christ was broken but also his bloud shed on the Cross and that in every propitiation and expiation for sin the effusion of bloud was very considerable because it represents death better then any thing else doth it is certain that they do not celebrate the memory of Christs death as they ought that do not partake of this part of the Sacrament whereby only we commemorate the effusion of Christs bloud 7. Thirdly I say that in the dispute about the Eucharist our Adversaries do alledge to us the words of Jesus Christ in chap. 6. of St. Johns Gospel Except ye drink the bloud of the son of man ye have no life in you Why then do they deprive the people of life by taking the cup from them and hindering them from drinking And it is not at all to the purpose here to alledge concommitance and to tell us that by taking Christs body under the species of the bread we take his bloud also because 't is inseparable from his body For to this I answer First That to take Christs bloud in taking the host is not to drink it But Jesus Christ saith expresly Except a man drink his bloud he hath no life in him Secondly I say That although in some places by the body should be meant the body and bloud too yet it could not be in those places where a manifest distinction is made between the body and the bloud But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist this distinction is very apparent for Jesus Christ gave first the Sacrament and sign of his body in these words Take eat this is my body which is broken for you and then separately the Sacrament of his bloud in these words Drink ye all of it for this is my bloud which is shed for you And he not only speaks of them separately but represents them as really separated in his death for he saith my body broken for you and my bloud shed for you In which words there is no place for concomitance for the body broken by divers wounds doth not contain the bloud and the bloud being shed is not contained in the body Also our Adversaries affirm
that the sacramental words do operate that which they signifie But by their own confession they signifie the separation of Christs body from his bloud as Card. Perron acknowledgeth in his reply to the King of Great Britain pag. 1108. in these words The scope of the entireness of this Sacrament is to put us in mind that this body and this bloud which we receive were divided by his death on the Cross whence St. Paul saith as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup we shew the Lords death till he come Thirdly I say That as he that eats bread dipt in wine hath indeed wine in his mouth but doth not drink it so he that should eat or swallow a consecrated host would not drink Christs bloud though it were in it 8. Lastly I say That seeing the Sacraments were instituted to assure us the more of the truth of Gods promises and that all our comfort depends on this perswasion that all Gods promises are most true it necessarily follows that as much of the Sacrament as is taken away so much of the certainty of this perswasion is diminished And 't is to no purpose to say that one part of the Sacrament doth as much confirm Gods promises as the whole Sacrament doth for if it be so then God hath unnecessarily instituted two Sacraments for it had been enough to have instituted Baptism only seeing it is ordained to confirm Gods promises But if for such a confirmation two Sacraments are better then one and if two pledges and two seals for that purpose are of more consequence then one alone then in one Sacrament also two signs are of more weight then one alone for the confirmation of Gods promises and seeing it is said St. Luke 22. and 1 Cor. 11. that the cup is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ because it is the Sacrament of it why then are people deprived of it 9. As for the imaginary dangers and scandals which the Romish Doctors find in peoples partaking of the cup I say in general that Jesus Christ in whom the treasures of wisdom are hid and in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily foresaw them as well as they and yet he instituted and administred the cup and commanded all to drink of it And St. Paul who was extraordinarily inspired by the Holy Ghost doth notwithstanding these pretended dangers and scandals command the Corinthians as well Lay persons as Ecclesiastical to drink of the cup as hath been already proved 10. The first inconvenience which our Adversaries find in peoples partaking of the cup is that they fear they may dip their moustaches in the Chalice and so the bloud of Christ may remain on some hair of the moustache also they fear that the species of the wine and consequently Christs bloud may fall to the ground and being fallen it cannot be gathered up again To this I answer First That Women Eunuchs and such young men as have no beards ought not to be excluded Secondly It is better to be without Moustaches then without the participation of the whole Sacrament Thirdly This inconvenience proceeds only from a false supposition viz. that Christs bloud is under the species of the wine but if in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there be nothing but Bread and Wine in substance and any of it should fall to the ground accidentally and not through any fault of ours this inconvenience is not great enough to violate the institution and command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles 11. The second inconvenience is That it is almost impossible to observe this Law where there is a great number of people and but one Priest To this I answer First That in places where there is much people as in Cities there are divers Priests Secondly If one Priest be not enough another must be called from some neighbouring place Thirdly That which cannot be done in one day must be done in two or three days rather then the command of Jesus Christ should be violated and the practice of the Primitive Church abandoned 12. The third inconvenience is that some have a natural antipathy or aversion to Wine and consequently cannot drink of the cup. To this I answer That because corporal actions do depend on certain natural powers they are supposed to be commanded to those that have natural powers proper to exercise those actions and to none else For example The hearing of Gods Word is not commanded to deaf persons but to those that can hear it but drinking of Wine is a corporal action and therefore commanded to those only that can drink it So that if the cup must be taken from all Lay-people because some of them have a natural antipathy to Wine then the preaching of the Gospel must be taken from Christians because some of them are deaf and cannot hear it 13. The fourth inconvenience is That there are some Countries where no Wine grows as in Lapland Norway c. To this I answer First That although no Wine grows in those Countries yet some may be brought thither Secondly But if none can be brought without being spoiled and its form changed then it is better to substitute the ordinary drink of the Country in stead of Wine Thirdly But if this common drink of the Country may not be substituted in stead of Wine then they that cannot have Wine do abstain from it because they are forced thereunto and it is neither impudence nor contempt to abstain from a thing commanded by Jesus Christ when it is not to be had but to ordain that they that have wine in abundance shall abstain from the cup is an insufferable boldness and a most unchristian contempt of the Sacrament CHAP. VII Against the Mass 1. THe Mass according to the Romish Doctors is a Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of Christ propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead and so it is defined by the Council of Trent Session 22. Against such a Mass we might alleadge all the Arguments already made use of against Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host for our Adversaries confess that those reasons which destroy Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host do also destroy the Mass But in this Chapter we shall only use such Arguments as are directly against the Mass and do utterly destroy it 2. The first Argument is drawn from this viz. that in the institution and first celebration of the Eucharist Jesus Christ did not sacrifice nor offer his body and bloud to his Father as appears by what is mentioned in the three Evangelists and the Apostle St. Paul in which there is not the least foot-step to be seen of a sacrifice or oblation of Christs body and bloud This Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 27. in these words The oblation which is made after consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament but is not
not be appeased but by the bloudy and ignominious death of the Cross Therefore the justice of God must have changed its nature if sins can be expiated in the Mass without pain or suffering 20. Thirdly To the distinction of Primitive sacrifice which was offered on the Cross and representative commemorative and applicative which is daily offered in the Mass I reply First That what the Council of Trent saith in Session 22. viz. that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Mass may bear a good sense viz. that there is in it a representation commemoration and application of the sacrifice of the Cross viz. a representation because the bread broken represents the body broken and the wine poured into the cup represents the bloud of Christ shed for the remission of sins a commemoration because all that is done in it is done in remembrance of Jesus Christ and his death according to his own command in these words Do this in remembrance of me and according to what St. Paul saith 1 Cor. 11. As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come and an application because the merit of the sacrifice of the Cross is applied to us not only by the word but also by the Sacraments as we shall shew hereafter But our Adversaries are not content with this for they will have it that in the celebration of the Eucharist there is offered a true and proper sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the living and the dead which hath been already refuted at large Secondly I say that the application of the sacrifice of the Cross may be considered on Gods part or on mans part on Gods part when he offers Jesus Christ to us with all his benefits both in his Word and Sacraments on mans part when by a true and lively faith working by love we embrace Jesus Christ with all his benefits offered to us both in his Word and Sacraments And this is it that Jesus Christ teacheth us St. John 3. in these words As Moses lifted up the serpent in the Wilderness even so must the Son of man be lifted up viz. on the Cross that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son viz. to die that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life he doth not say whosoever sacrificeth him in the Mass but whosoever believeth c. And St. Paul shews it clearly in these words God hath set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud he doth not say through the sacrifice of the Mass but through faith And we really and truly apply the sacrifice of Christs Cross when we have recourse to him as a man applies a Plaister when he hath recourse to it and lays it on the wound But the recourse or refuge of a penitent sinner to the sacrifice of the Cross for obtaining mercy from God is nothing else but Faith As for the distinction of the sacramental and natural being of Jesus Christ it hath been already refuted in the 6. Number 21. I shall conclude this discourse with the testimony of Thomas Aquinas the most famous of all the Romish Doctors and called by our Adversaries the Angelical Doctor This Thomas in Part. 3. Quest 83. Artic. 1. having proposed this Question viz. Whether Christ be sacrificed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist he concludes with these memorable words The celebration of this Sacrament is very fitly called a sacrificing of Christ as well because it is the representation of Christs Passion as because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion And afterward he gives his answer in these words I answer We must say that the celebration of this Sacrament is called a sacrificing of Christ in two respects First Because as Augustine to Simplicius saith we are wont to give to Images the name of the things whereof they are Images as when we see Pictures on a Wall or in a Frame we say this is Cicero that is Salust c. But the celebration of this Sacrament as hath been said above is a representative Image of Christs Passion which Passion is the true sacrificing of Christ and so the celebration of this Sacrament is the sacrificing of Christ. Secondly The celebration of this Sacrament is called the sacrificing of Christ in regard of the effect of Christs Passion because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion Let the Romanists keep to this decision of their Angelical Doctor and we shall agree with them in this point for I am confident that there is not one of the Reformed Religion but will subscribe this true doctrine of Thomas Aquinas CHAP. VIII Containing Answers to the Objections of the Romish Doctors 1. IN the two first Chapters we have answered the two principal Objections of the Romish Doctors drawn from these words This is my body c. and from these he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life c. Now we must answer the rest Objection 1. 2. The first Objection is this When the establishing of Articles of Faith the Institution of Sacraments and the making Testaments and Covenants are in agitation men speak plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuravitely But in the celebration of the Eucharist Jesus Christ established an Article of Faith instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist and spake of a Testament and a Covenant for it is said of the Cup that it is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ yea he spake then to his Disciples to whom he spake in plain and proper terms and not in obscure terms or in figures or parables as he did to the people Answer 3. To this objection I answer First That it is false that Articles of Faith are always expressed in proper terms in holy Scripture as when it is said in the Creed that Jesus Christ sitteth on the right hand of God it is evident that this is a Figure and a Metaphor for God being a Spirit hath neither right hand nor left and all interpreters expound this sitting on Gods right hand metaphorically viz. for that Lordship both of Heaven and Earth which he hath received from God his Father as earthly Princes make their Lieutenants whom they appoint to govern in their name to sit on the right side of them Again When it is said St. Matth. 16. Vpon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it and I will give thee the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. It is manifest that these are Figures and Metaphors as Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Bishop of Rome chap. 10. and yet it is
being shut or having been shut which excludes the opening of them by any body but not the opening of them by a divine power in so short a time that it was undiscernable Secondly I answer That the Virgin Mary was a true Virgin both before and after her delivery if by being a Virgin be meant not to have had the company of a man but it is certain that Jesus Christ came out of the Virgins belly by opening her womb for it is said St. Luke 2. that Joseph and Mary carried Jesus Christ to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord as it is written in the Law every male that openeth the womb shall be holy unto the Lord. Thirdly I answer That Jesus Christ did not penetrate the stone that was laid on his sepulchre for it is said St. Matth. 28. That the Angel of God rolled it back from the dore of the sepulchre Fourthly I answer That when it is said Heb. 4. that Jesus Christ penetrated the heavens we must understand it improperly in the same manner as it is commonly said that an Arrow penetrates the Air that is the Air gives way to the Arrow that passeth through the Air and so Jesus Christ penetrated the Heavens because the Heavens gave way to his body and not that the Heavens and his Body were in one and the same place 15. All the Romish Doctors agree with us that modal accidents which are nothing else but the manners of the being of substances as action passion relation figure c. cannot be without a subject no not by the power of God himself But all the Objections by which they endeavour to prove that the accidents of the bread and wine may exist without a subject that is without their substance do prove the same thing of modal accidents too So that I shall not stay now to repeat those Objections with their Answers which are set down at large in my dispute about the Eucharist Objection 5. 16. The fifth Objection is drawn from Mal. 1. in these words From the rising of the Sun unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place shall they offer incense to my name and a new and pure offering where by this new and pure offering nothing can be understood but the sacrifice of the Mass because by this offering we cannot understand Prayers Alms Contrition of heart and other good works which are sometimes in Scripture called Oblations and Sacrifices for the Prophet Malachi promiseth a new offering But Prayers Alms and other good works were common amongst the Jews and besides they of the Reformed Church do believe that all the actions of the Faithful are poluted and the Prophet speaks of a pure and clean offering Again By this offering which Malachi speaks of cannot be understood Lambs Bulls and such like Animals which were wont to be sacrificed in Solomons Temple because the Prophet promiseth that it shall be offered in every place even amongst the Heathen Lastly By this offering cannot be understood the bloudy sacrifice which Jesus Christ offered on the Cross because that bloudy sacrifice was offered but once upon Mount Calvary in Judea and the Prophet speaks of an oblation that shall be offered in every place Therefore by this offering must be understood the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ under the species of the bread and wine which is nothing else but the Mass Answer 17. To this I answer First That by the offering whereof Malachy speaks must be understood that spiritual Worship and Service which Believers should perform unto God under the New Testament which is comprised in that sacrifice which they offer to God both of their persons and religious actions and this is the reason why St. Paul Rom. 12. speaks thus I beseech you therefore Brethren by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service And chap. 15. speaking of the grace that was given him of God he saith it is given him that he should be the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles ministring the Gospel of God that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost Whence it appears that by this oblation whereof Malachy speaks we must not understand the offering of Christs body and bloud under the accidents of bread and wine but the offering up of the persons and religious actions of those that should be brought unto God by the preaching of the Gospel and particularly the Gentiles 18. Secondly I answer That in the whole passage of Malachy above cited the words new offering are not to be found but only clean offering And though a new offering had been there spoken of yet I say that things may be said to be new when being spoiled and corrupted they are restored and made sound again But the service of God which had been corrupted under the Law was re-established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles under the Gospel so that all things were made new a new Time viz. the time of the preaching of the Gospel a new People viz. the Christian People a new place viz. all parts of the World and not at Jerusalem only a new Prayer viz. the Lords Prayer new Sacraments viz. Baptism and the Lords Supper and new Preaching viz. the preaching of salvation by Jesus Christ 19. Thirdly I answer that the oblation which is offered unto God under the Gospel is pure and clean the service which is performed to him according to his Word is pure the preaching of the Gospel is pure In a word the Christian Religion is pure though there be many failings in those that profess it And although the Faithful that present their bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable to God be compassed about with many infirmities and that their religious actions be accompanied with divers failings yet their persons and works may be said to be pure and clean in Jesus Christ in whose name they are presented to God so that although they cannot of themselves please or satisfie God yet as they are members of Christ they are reputed holy before God for it is these St. Peter speaks of in Epist 1. chap. 2. who as living stones are built up a spiritual house a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ And so our sacrifices are a pure and clean offering but it is through Jesus Christ who covers them with his purity and holiness so that the defects of them are not imputed to us To this I add That besides the perfect purity which we have by the imputation of Christs righteousness we have also a purity begun by the Holy Ghost of which St. Paul speaks Rom. 15. in these words that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost for that which God hath decreed Jeâ—us Christ hath purchased and the Holy Ghost hath
begun is reputed by God perfect and compleat And St. Paul shews clearly the truth of what hath been said 1 Tim. 2. 8. in these words I will that men pray every where listing up holy hands without wrath and doubting And Ephes 5. Jesus Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Objection 6. 20. The sixth Objection is drawn from Gen. 14. in these words And Melchisedec King of Salem bringing forth bread and wine for he was a Priest blessed him And from Psal 110. and from Heb. 7. where it is said Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec From which words our Adversaries argue thus First They say that Jesus Christ is a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedec the difference between Aaron and Melchisedec consisting in this viz. that Aaron and the other Levitical Priests offered bloudy Sacrifices killing and shedding the bloud of Beasts which they sacrificed to God as a sign and figure of the bloudy sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross But Melchisedec offered an unbloudy sacrifice for when he went to meet Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings he offered to God Bread and Wine And seeing this Bread and Wine offered to God by Melchisedec were signs and types of Christs body and bloud Jesus Christ was obliged to offer an unbloudy sacrifice viz. his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine which he did at the institution and celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist that so the reality of the thing typified might answer those shadows and types Secondly That although Melchisedec had brought all this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his Army that returned from the slaughter of the Kings yet he first offered it to God and then gave it to them that so they might partake of the sacrifice of bread and wine And the reason of this is because the Scripture saith that Abraham returned from the battel with great spoils amongst which there was meat and drink enough for the refreshment of himself and his people also it saith expresly that Abrahams people had taken such refreshment as was necessary before Melchisedec met them and consequently they had no need of the bread and wine which he brought except it had been to partake of the sacrifice of the bread and wine which he offered Thirdly They say this is strongly proved by the following words for he was Priest of the most high God which shew the reason why Melchisedec brought bread and wine viz. to make an oblation or offering of it to God for if he had brought this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his people the Scripture would have said that he had brought this bread and wine because that Abraham and his Army being faint and tired had need of meat and drink but it speaks nothing of this on the contrary it saith that he brought bread and wine for he was Priest Fourthly They say that Jesus Christ is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec and seeing there can be no Priest without a sacrifice there can be no eternal Priest without an eternal or perpetual sacrifice But the sacrifice of the Cross was offered but once and cannot be reiterated for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore there must be another perpetual sacrifice in the Church which Jesus Christ offereth by the hands of Priests which can be nothing else but the sacrifice of the Mass viz. the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud under the species of the bread and wine typified by the sacrifice of the bread and wine of Melchisedec Answer 21. To this I answer First That the Hebrew word doth not signifie bringing but brought drew out caused to be brought c. but our Adversaries falsifie the Text thus to make way for another falsification viz. to put these words in a Parenthesis for he was Priest in stead of putting them without a Parenthesis and he was Priest so that we may say that in these few words they have made three falsifications first when they translate it proferens that is bringing in stead of translating it protulit that is brought or drew out secondly when they translate it erat enim sacerdos that is for he was Priest in stead of translating it and he was Priest thirdly when they translate it benedixit ei that is blessed him instead of translating it benedixit ei that is and he blessed him And so of three different propositions viz. Melchisedech also brought bread and wine and he was Priest and he blessed him they have made but one with a Parenthesis thus Melchisedec bringing bread and wine for he was Priest blessed him 22. Secondly I answer that the Hebrew word used by Moses signifies commonly brought drew out caused to be brought caused to be drawn out caused to come c. But we must not stray from the proper signification of words but upon very great necessity which appears not in this Text. And although this Hebrew word should signifie brought to offer and that it should be taken for offered yet our Adversaries would gain nothing by it for it is not said in the Text that he brought bread and wine to offer unto God but we must rather expound it thus viz. that he brought bread and wine to offer and present it to Abraham And indeed the following words viz. and blessed him do clearly shew it for the Pronoun Relative him relates to Abraham according to the exposition of the Apostle Heb. 7. where he saith expresly that Melchisedec met Abraham and blessed him And a little after he saith that Melchisedec blessed him that had the promises and that the less is blessed of the greater But if these words he brought bread and wine must be expounded thus he offered bread and wine to God then it must necessarily follow that Melchisedec blessed God and not Abraham for in these words viz. he offered bread and wine to God and blessed him the Pronoun him can relate to none but God 23. Thirdly I answer That Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people and not to offer unto God Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 6. confesseth that Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people who returned faint and tired from the slaughter of the Kings which is true but he adds that Jesus Christ had offered it to God before which is false and cannot be proved Jerome in his Epistle to Euagrius writes that the Jews understood it that Melchisedec meeting Abraham after his victory brought bread and wine to refresh him and his people Josephus writing this History saith
doth their bodies this being corruptible food which gives temporal life only but that spiritual and incorruptible food which gives life eternal 6. I conclude this Chapter with this consideration When a doctrine is proposed which is pretended to be divine and that passages of holy Scripture are alledged for the proof of it if it opposeth or seems to oppose sense and reason and to include contradictions and that a more suitable and rational sense can be found out for those passages so that all these inconveniences and contradictions may be avoided there is nothing more just than that we should embrace that probable and rational sense and reject that doctrine which opposeth sense and reason and seems to imply contradictions But the doctrine of the real presence of the Manhood of Jesus Christ in the Host and the transubstantiation of the Bread into his Body is repugnant to sense and reason and seems to include divers contradictions viz. that a humane body is in a point without any local extension that a body may be in divers places at one and the same time that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ which were before that accidents may be without a subject c. And the passages that are impertinently alledged to prove such a presence and such a change have a sense very commodious and rational for the avoiding all these contradictions as appears in this and the former Chapter where I have very rationally expounded those two passages which the Romish Doctors impertinently make use of for this subject Therefore they ought to embrace that commodious and rational sense which we have given them and to reject the doctrine of the real presence of the body of Jesus Christ in the Host and the doctrine of Transubstantiation CHAP. III. Against Transubstantiation 1. TRansubstantiation is the substantial conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ which I destroy by divers Arguments the first whereof is this In every substantial conversion that thing into which another thing is converted is always newly produced For example when seed is converted into an animal that animal is newly produced when Jesus Christ turned the water into wine the wine was newly produced c. But the Body and Bloud of Christ cannot be newly produced in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Therefore the Bread and Wine are not substantially converted into the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist The second Proposition viz. that the Body and Bloud of Christ cannot be newly produced I prove thus That which is newly produced receives a new being because to produce a thing and to give it a being is one and the same But the Body and Bloud of Christ cannot receive a new being which I prove thus A man cannot receive â—â—â—t which he hath while he hath it and therefore he cannot receive a being while he hath a being for as it is impossible to take away a being from that which hath no being so it is impossible to give a being to that which hath a being already and as you cannot kill a dead man so you cannot give life to one that is living But the Body and Bloud of Christ have and always will have a being Therefore they cannot receive one and consequently cannot be reproduced in the Eucharist 2. My second Argument is this In every substantial conversion that thing which is converted into another is destroyed For example When the water was turned into wine the water was destroyed But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the Bread and Wine are not destroyed by the consecration which I prove thus In the celebration of the Eucharist there is breaking giving eating and drinking after the consecration as appears by the very practice of our Adversaries who after consecration break the Host and divide it into three parts give nothing to the Communicants but consecrated Hosts and eat and drink nothing but what was consecrated But the Scripture saith that in the celebration of the Eucharist Bread is broken that Bread and Wine are given and that Bread is eaten and Wine drunk as appears by these following passages St. Paul 1 Cor. 10. saith The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ and 1 Cor. 11. St. Matth. 26. St. Mark 14. and St. Luke 22. it is said that Jesus Christ took bread brake it and gave it and St. Mark 14. and St. Matth. 26. Jesus Christ after he had participated of the Sacrament of the Eucharist saith I will drink no more of this fruit of the Vine and 1 Cor. 11. As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. 3. Secondly When Jesus Christ said to his Disciples Drink ye all of this St. Matth. 26. that is drink ye all of this cup either he commanded to drink of a cup of Wine or of a cup of Bloud if he commanded them to drink of a cup of Wine then it follows that they drank nothing but Wine because it is certain that they obeyed Jesus Christ for it is said St. Mark 14. that they all drank â—f it Or if he commanded them to drink of a cup of Bloud then it follows that the Wine was already changed into his Bloud because it is not probable that Jesus Christ said to them Drink ye all of this cup of Bloud and yet that it was not a cup of Bloud but a cup of Wine But when Jesus Christ said Drink ye all of this he did not speak to them of a cup of Bloud for the Wine was not then converted into Christs Bloud because according to our Adversaries it was not changed until Jesus Christ had made an end of uttering these following words for this is my bloud But he uttered these words Drink ye all of this before he uttered those for this is my bloud because a man must utter a Proposition before he can give the reason of it 4. Thirdly When a thing is converted into another we cannot see the effects and properties of the thing converted but only of that into which it is converted For example When the seed is changed into an animal we can see no more the effects and properties of the seed but of the animal only and when Jesus Christ turned the Water into Wine the effects properties and accidents of the Water were no more seen but of the Wine only c. But in the Eucharist we cannot after the consecration perceive the effects properties accidents or parts of the Body and Bloud of Christ but we see there all the effects properties and accidents of Bread and Wine Therefore in the Eucharist the Bread and Wine are not converted into the Body and Bloud of Christ And the truth is if that which appears to be Bread and hath all the effects accidents and properties of Bread be not
Mass is said Fifthly It will follow that the justice of God will cease to be the same for whereas heretofore it could not be satisfied but by the death of Christ and by the destruction of his natural being now God is appeased our sins expiated and Gods justice satisfied by the destruction of his sacramental being only for they will have it that the sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory for the sins of the living and the dead 7. The third Argument is drawn from these words of the Apostle Heb. 9. Almost all things are by the Law purged with bloud and without shedding of bloud is no remission It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the Heavens should be purified with these but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices then these From which words I form this Argument There is no propitiation or remission of sins without sheding of bloud as the Apostle saith But in the Mass there is no sheding of bloud for it is called an Unbloudy sacrifice Therefore in the Mass there is no propitiation or remission of sins and consequently no propitiatory sacrifice for sin This Argument may be thus confirmed Under the Old Testament there was no propitiation or purification without sheding of bloud and the types of heavenly things were so purified as the Apostle saith Heb. 9. Therefore under the New Testament also there can be no propitiation or purification without sheding of bloud and heavenly things being represented by the legal types must be purified by a more excellent sacrifice viz. by the sheding of Christs bloud And although the Apostle useth the word Sacrifices in the plural number yet we must understand the only sacrifice of Christ on the Cross because when one thing is opposed to many it is often expressed in the plural number as when Baptism which is but one is called Baptisms Heb. 6. 2. But the only sacrifice of the Cross of Christ in the Text above cited Heb. 9. 23. is opposed to the old Sacrifices which were types and figures of the sacrifice of the Cross 8. The fourth Argument is drawn from the words of the Apostle Heb. 10. 16. This is the Covenant which I will make with them after those days saith the Lord I will put my laws into their hearts and in their minds will I write them and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more Now where remission of these is there is no more offering for sin Whence I form this Argument Where there is remission of sins there is no need of an oblation or a propitiatory sacrifice for sin as the Apostle saith But in the Christian Church by vertue of the New Testament or New Covenant confirmed by the bloud of Christ there is remission of sins Heb. 10. 16 17. Therefore in the Christian Church now adays there is no need of an oblation or propitiatory sacrifice and consequently no need of the sacrifice of the Mass 9. The fifth Argument is drawn from the words of the Apostle Heb. 9. Jesus Christ offereth not himself often as the High Priest entereth into the holy place every year with the bloud of others for then must he often have suffered from the foundation of the World but now once in the end of the World hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself And as it is appointed to men once to die but after this the judgment so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation This is confirmed by the words of the same Apostle Heb. 10. The Law having a shadow of good things to come and not the very image of the things can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect for then would they not have ceased to be offered because the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins But in those a remembrance is made again of sins every year for it is not possible that the bloud of bulls and of goats should take away sins c. And every High Priest standeth dayly ministring and offering often times the same sacrifices which can never take away sins but this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sate down on the right hand of God For by one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified which is conformable to what he had said a little before that we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all From all which I form these Arguments 10. First the old sacrifices were reiterated for the Apostle saith that the High Priest entereth into the holy place every year with the bloud of others but the sacrifice of Jesus Christ must not be reiterated for the same Apostle saith that Jesus Christ offereth not himself often and that he hath once appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass is not the sacrifice of the Cross reiterated or the reiteration of the sacrifice of the Cross as our Adversaries would have it 11. Secondly The Apostle adding else he should often have suffered from the foundation of the World Makes it apparent that Christ cannot be offered without suffering For as he that should say this is not fire else it would be hot doth necessarily presuppose that fire is hot and as he that should say he is no man else he would be rational doth necessarily presuppose that man is rational so when the Apostle saith that Jesus Christ offereth not himself often otherwise he should often bave suffered doth necessarily presuppose that Jesus Christ cannot offer himself without suffering But Jesus Christ doth not suffer every day in the Mass Therefore he is not offered every day in the Mass by the ministry of Priests 12 Thirdly These words from the foundation of the World are of great weight for 't is as much as if the Apostle had said if the only sacrifice of Christ on the Cross be not sufficient to take away sins which shall be committed hereafter it follows that it was not sufficient to take away sins which have been committed heretofore from the creation of the World for it is very unsuitable that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross should have more vertue before it was offered then since But the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross had the vertue to take away sins before it was otherwise saith the Apostle he should often have suffered from the foundation of the World Therefore it hath also vertue to take away sins committed since it was and consequently there is no need that it should be reiterated in the Mass 13. Fourthly The Apostles comparison is considerable the sense whereof is this As men suffer death but once and after death appear no more till the day of the resurrection and day of judgment so Christ hath offered
chiefly by this passage that they endeavour to prove the Popes authority 4. Secondly I answer That the holy Scripture commonly speaks of Sacraments in figurative terms thus Circumcision is called Gods Covenant Gen. 17. in these words This is my Covenant every male shall be circumcised that is this is the sign of the Covenant as appears by the following verse Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin and it shall be a token of the Covenant between me and you So the Paschal Lamb is called the Lords Passover Exod. 12. because the bloud of this Lamb sprinkled on the dore-posts was given as a sign of the Angels favourable passing over the houses of the Israelites as appears by verse 13. of the same Chapter So Baptism is called the washing of Regeneration because it is the Sacrament of it In a word The Eucharistical cup is called the New Testament because it is the sign seal and sacrament of it 5. Thirdly I answer That in holy Scripture Testaments are not always expressed in proper terms without a Figure for the Testament of Jacob Gen. 49. and that of Moses Deut. 33. are nothing else but a chain of Metaphors and other Figures And Civilians will have it that in Testaments we should not regard the proper signification of the words but the intention of the Testator To this I add that Jesus Christ did not then make the New Testament and the New Covenant but only instituted the Seal and Sacrament of them For the Covenant was made with all mankind in the person of Adam after the Fall when God promised him that the seed of the Woman should break the Serpents head This was afterward renewed with Abraham when God promised him that in his seed all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed viz. in Christ the blessed seed who hath destroyed the Kingdom of Satan After this it was confirmed by the bloud of Christ shed on the Cross Then it was published through all the World when the Apostles had received the Holy Ghost And lastly Baptism and the Eucharist are the Signs Seals and Sacraments of it 6. Fourthly I answer That by these words To speak clearly or plainly be understood to speak intelligibly so that the Apostles might and ought to understand what he said to them then it is certain that Jesus Christ did speak clearly for to speak sacramentally and according to the stile used in all Sacraments was to speak clearly and not obscurely But if by these words to speak clearly be understood to speak without a figure then it is false that he always spake clearly to his Disciples witness the calling of his Disciples to whom he said St. Matth. 4. follow me and I will make you fishers of men And when he saith else where ye are the salt of the earth the light of the world c. To this I add The Apostles did ask Jesus Christ the meaning of Parables and other things which they did not understand and therefore certainly they had much more reason to ask the meaning of so many strange things as follow from the Mass from Transubstantiation and from the pretended presence of Christs body in the Host viz. how a humane body can be in a point and in divers places at once how the head of Jesus Christ and his whole body could be in his mouth how accidents can be without a subject c. 7. Lastly Seeing Jesus Christ said drink ye all of this cup all Priests whether Jesuites Monks or other Romish Doctors would of necessity be constrained really properly and without a figure to drink of the cup whether melted or not and really to swallow it until they should confess that there are figures in the words of Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist Objection 2. 8. The second Objection is this The Sacrament of the Eucharist is more excellent then that of the Passover because the Sacrament of the Passover is a type of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the thing typified is always more excellent then the type But if the Sacrament of the Eucharist did not really contain the body and bloud of Christ but was only the sign of it then it would follow that the Sacrament of the Eucharist would not be more excellent then that of the Passover nay the Sacrament of the Passover would be more excellent then that of the Eucharist because a Lamb and its bloud is more excellent then Bread and Wine and the death of a Lamb and the shedding of its bloud doth much better represent the death of Christ and the shedding of his bloud on the Cross then Bread broken and Wine poured into a cup can do Answer 9. To this I answer First That the thing typified by the Paschal Lamb is Jesus Christ and not the Sacrament of the Eucharist as St. Paul shews clearly 1 Cor. 5. when he calls Jesus Christ our Passover in these words Christ our Passover was crucified for us The truth is a whole Lamb without spot or blemish killed and burnt toward the evening and its bloud shed doth very well represent Jesus Christ perfect without sin put to death and his bloud shed toward the end of the World and in the fulness of time but such a Lamb represents nothing of that which is seen in the Eucharist Besides the Types and Sacraments of the Old Testament were instituted that the Faithful of those Times might come to the knowledge of the things typified and signified for the salvation of their souls But the Faithful under the Old Testament never came to the knowledge of the Eucharist by the Paschal Lamb and though they had come to the knowledge of it yet they had had no benefit thereby In a word seeing the Passover and the Eucharist are types images and signs of Jesus Christ 't is very impertinent to say that the Passover is the type of the Eucharist because a type is not properly the type of another type but only of the thing typified as the image of Caesar is not the image of another image of Caesar but only of Caesar himself 10. Secondly I answer that the excellence of one Sacrament above another must be drawn from its form and efficacie and not from its matter because it is form that chiefly gives being to things composed of matter and form But the form of Sacraments depends on the words of Institution because being signs of divine Institution their form can only depend upon the will of God who chooseth certain things to signifie other things and this will of God cannot be known but by revelation which is the Word so that it is properly said that the Word joined with the Element makes the Sacrament Therefore although the Sacrament of the Passover be more excellent then the Eucharist in respect of its matter because the Paschal Lamb and its bloud are more excellent then the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist and that the Lamb and its bloud have a greater analogie with
Jesus Christ and his bloud shed on the Cross then the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist have yet the Sacrament of the Eucharist is much more excellent then that of the Passover in respect of its form which depends on the words of Institution because that at the institution of the Sacrament of the Passover God spake not one word of the principal end for which he did institute it viz. to be the type of Jesus Christ and his death But at the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ declared in express terms that he did institute the eating of the bread broken and the drinking of the wine poured into the cup to be commemorative signs of himself and his death The Sacrament of the Eucharist is yet more excellent then that of the Passover in respect of its efficacy which depends on two things viz. on the form which being more manifest in the Eucharist doth also operate with more efficacy and also because it represents a thing past viz. the death of Christ But the knowledge of things past is more clear and perfect then the knowledge of things to come and we are more toucht with the memory of things past when some symbole brings them to our thoughts then when we consider things to come through clouds and shadows To this I add that the bread and wine of the Eucharist have a greater analogie with Jesus Christ then the Paschal Lamb had in one respect viz. in regard of the spiritual nourishment which we receive by Christs death for as Baptism is the Sacrament of our spiritual birth so the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment But this nourishment is much better represented by bread and wine which are the ordinary nourishment of our bodies then by a Lamb. Lastly I answer That it is far less inconvenient to give some prerogative to the Pasover above the Eucharist â—â—z to give it a more excellent matter and analogie then to assert the corporal presence of Christ in the Host by an unheard of Transubstantiation which destroys the nature of Sacraments gives our Lord a monstrous body includes notorious absurdities and contradictions and gives the lye to Sense Reason and holy Scripture as hath been proved Objection 3. 11 The third Objection was proposed at Nismes Anno 1657. by the Jesuite S. Rigaut thus God doth communicate or can communicate to the creature in a finite degree that which he possesseth in an infinite degree For example God hath an infinite power whereby he can do all things at once therefore he communicates or can communicate to the creature a finite and limited power whereby it may do divers things at once as appears in a man for he can see hear talk and walk at the same time God hath also an infinite wisdom and knowledge whereby he knows all things at once therefore he communicates or can communicate to the creature a finite knowledge whereby it may know divers things at once And even so God hath a virtual infinite extent which is called immensity whereby he fills all things and all places at once Therefore God communicates or can communicate to the creature viz. to a body a finite extent whereby it may fill divers spaces and occupy several places at once Whence it follows that Christs body may be in divers places at the same time viz. in Heaven and in the Host Answer 12. To this I answer That as God cannot be in two places for example in heaven and upon earth without being in all those places that are between both for then he would be distant and separated from himself so Christs body cannot be in two distant places viz. at Paris and at Rome in Heaven and upon Earth in the host without being in all those places that are between both for then it would be distant and separated from it self which is impossible as hath been sufficiently proved Therefore seeing Christs body is not in all places between Paris and Rome and between Heaven and Earth it follows that it is not in heaven and upon Earth in the host nor at Paris and Rome in consecrated hosts So that to make a creature for example the body of Christ partaker of Gods extent or immensity it is sufficient that as God by his infinite extent occupies all places so Christs body should by its finite extent occupy some place But if to make it partake in a finite degree of this divine attribute of immensity it must be in divers places yet it is sufficient that it be in divers places successively and not at once or if to make it partake of this attribute it must be in divers places at once yet it is sufficient that it occupies them by its several parts for example that the head be in one place and the feet in another c. In a word that it be without discontinuance or separation as God is every where without discontinuance Thus the learned Master Bruguier then answered and much better but I cannot remember his full and compleat answer Objection 4. 13. The fourth Objection is this If divers bodies may miraculously be in one and the same place then it also follows that one body may miraculously be in divers places there being no more difficulty or impossibility in the one then in the other But divers bodies may miraculously be in one and the same place for Jesus Christ came into the room where his Disciples were the dores being shut which he could not have done if his body had not penetrated the dores Besides It is said that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and consequently Mary was a Virgin both before and after his birth which could not have been if Jesus Christ had not penetrated her belly and come forth without fraction or overture Lastly Jesus Christ penetrated the stone that was laid on his sepulchre when he rose again and it is said that he penetrated the heavens when he ascended Answer 14 To this I answer First That it is not said that Jesus Christ came in the dores being shut for these are the words The same day when it was evening and the dores having been shut for fear of the Jews Jesus came c. which words do indeed shew the time when Jesus came in unto his Disciples but not the manner of his entry by penetration but if the words be translated the dores being shut and that they do import that the dores were not opened by any body yet they do not exclude the opening of them in the twinckling of an eye by the divine power sith we have examples of this in holy Scripture for Acts 5. we read that the Apostle went out of Prison though the dores had been fast shut but it is said that the Angel of God opened them And Acts 12. The dore of the Prison opened to S. Peter of its own accord that is without being opened by any body And so it is said that Jesus Christ entered the dores