Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	blood_n	bread_n	consecration_n	4,106	5	10.7048	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20944	A defence of the Catholicke faith contained in the booke of the most mightie, and most gracious King Iames the first, King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, defender of the faith. Against the answere of N. Coeffeteau, Doctor of Diuinitie, and vicar generall of the Dominican preaching friars. / Written in French, by Pierre Du Moulin, minister of the word of God in the church of Paris. Translated into English according to his first coppie, by himselfe reuiewed and corrected.; Defense de la foy catholique. Book 1-2. English	Du Moulin, Pierre, 1568-1658.; Sanford, John, 1564 or 5-1629.	1610 (1610)	STC 7322; ESTC S111072	293,192	506

body is after a sort the body of Christ and the holy signe of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ and so the holy signe of faith to wit Baptisme is faith Certainely Baptisme is not transubstantiated into faith neyther the Sacrament then of the body of Christ into the body of Christ Now we must note that himselfe in his tenth book of the Citie of God and in the fift Epistle to Marcellius declareth that this word sacrament signifieth an holy signe Vpon the ninety eight Psalme Vnderstand that which I say spiritually you shall not eate his body which you see neyther shall you drinke the blood which my tormentors shall shedde I haue recommended vnto you an holy signe which being spiritually vnderstood shal make you liue Himselfe in his third booke and sixteene Chapter of Christian doctrine Nisi manducauerit is carnē filij hominis non biberitis eius sanguinem facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere Figura est ergo praecipions passioni dominicae esse communicandum suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa vulnerata sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Except you eate saith Christ the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his blood you shall haue no life in you It seemeth that he commaundeth a wickednesse It is then a figure which commaundeth vs to communicate of the Passion of our Lord and quietly and profitably to lay vp in our memories that his flesh was wounded and crucified for vs. Obserue how he expoundeth this Figure to wit that to eate the flesh of the Sonne of man is to communicate of his Passion and to ruminate and meditate thereon carefully in our memories Theodoret in his first Dialogue intituled Immoueable fol. 8. of the Romane Edition The Lord hath giuen to the signe the name of his body What can a man say more expresly And a little after He hath called the signe his blood A little after Iesus Christ hath honoured visible signes with the Appellation of his body not hauing changed their nature but hauing added grace to nature So many wordes so many flashes of lightning In the second Dialogue the Eutychien Heretique agreeth with Coeffeteau and maintaineth the Tran●ubstantiation of the bread into flesh But Theodoret doth reprehend him thus The Mysticall signes doe not change their nature after the consecration for they remaine in their first substance and forme and figure and are visible and to be handled as before but they are vnderstood to bee the things which they are made and are beleeued and reuerenced as being become that which they are beleeued to be Gelasius aboue all is excellent in his booke of the two natures Et tamen esse non desimit substantia vel natura panis vini cert è imago si●●●itudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur Certainly the Sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we receiue are a diuine thing and therfore also by them we are made partakers of the Diuine nature and yet notwithstanding the Substance and nature of the bread and of that wine doth not let to remaine And surely the Image and semblance of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of mysteries What more Let vs heare the Canonists of the Church of Rome in a Glosse more auncient then the Transubstantiation Caeleste Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat carnem Christi dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè vnde dicitur suo modo non rei veritate sed significante mysterio vt sensus sit vocatus Christi corpus id est significatur Sicut caelestis panis qui Christi caro est suo modo vocatur corpus Christi cum revera sit Sacramentum corporis Christi ill us videlicet quod visibile c. couched in admirable formall termes vpon the Canon Hoc est in the second Distinction of the Consecration thus speaketh the Glosse The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly and therefore it is so called after a sort and not according to the verity of the thing it selfe but by a significant mysterie so that the sense is this it is called the body of Christ that is to say the body of Christ is signified thereby The same Text of the Canon drawne out of S. Austin is no lesse direct to the purpose The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is after it manner of speaking called the body of Christ albeit in truth it be a holy signe of the body of Christ to wit of him who is visible palpable mortall hanged on the Crosse Adde hereunto the auncient customes diametrally contrary to Transubstantiation The a Hierom. in 1. ad Corinth cap 11. auncient Christians made a feast in which they did eate the remaines of the Sacrament It was also the custome of many places to giue those residues to little children as * Euag. 4. lib. Histo●iae cap 35 Niceph. lib. 17. cap. 25. Euagrius and Nicephorus doe witnesse In other places they burnt them as Hesychius teacheth in his second booke vpon Leuiticus chap. 8. They gaue the bread of the Sacrament into the peoples b Euseb libr. 7. cap. 8 August contra literas Petiliani lib. 9. cap. 30. handes and sometimes permitted them to carry it home They did not make any eleuation of the Host neyther did the people adore it They did not speake in those dayes of that concomitancy which putteth the whole body of Christ into euery drop of the Chalice In stead of a little Wafer cake which now they lift vp they couered the Table with bread and wine To licke vp the drops which fall from the Chalice to burne the Parings and to put them vp for relicks to seeke for the Host in the vomitings to celebrate the God-feast or Corpus Christi day and to carry God in procession betweene two rowes of Tapestry are customes of which we finde no tract or trace in the auncients who doe neyther likewise speake of accidents without subiect of length without any thing that is long or of roundnesse and nothing round no more then of a body without place and of a body of Christ farre separated from it selfe higher and lower then it selfe which also they affirme to be in this Sacrament figure of it selfe and to be with all his length in each part of the Host to haue a length without extent to haue all his length in one point which hath no length at all In a word there is no mention of a thousand such like prodigious fancies which now they beleeue in the Church of Rome with more respect then the Gospell out of which Coeffeteau without doubt would haue produced some proofes if he had found any rather then haue alleadged foure miserable places of the Fathers falsified and curtalled after his manner 1 For

doth not employ any creature to be presented vnto his Father to call Christ by the name of good things yea of things which God createth and doth alwayes blesse and sanctifie this is to mocke Iesus Christ who cannot bee called by the name of good things that God createth not nor alwaies sanctifieth And yet to offer these things by Iesus Christ that is to say to offer Christ by Christ is to be vtterly voyde of all sense Now to know what the Father 's beleeued in this point we must search the places where they doe expresly speake thereof The nineteenth chapter of S. Austines booke of faith ad Petrum Diaconum handles no other matter where thus he saith The Vniuersall Church throughout the world ceaseth not to offer a Sacrifice of bread and wine in faith and charity In isto autem sacrificio gratiarū actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit sanguinis quem pro nobis idem Deus effudit for in the carnall Sacrifices of the old Testament there was a representation of the flesh of Christ which he himselfe being without sinne was to offer for our sinnes and of the blood which he was to shed for the remission of our sinnes But in this Sacrifice of the Eucharist there is a giuing of thankes and a commemoration of the flesh of Christ which he hath offered for vs and of the blood which the same God hath shed for vs. Obserue that he saith that this is a sacrifice of bread and wine therefore not a sacrifice where the flesh of Christ is really sacrificed Aboue all this word of Wine is full of force for the bloud of the Lord was neuer called Wine Againe he saith that it is a sacrifice of thankesgiuing and of commemoration but not of propitiation or redemption The same Father in the three and twentieth Epistle to Boniface saith When Easter approacheth we say thus to morrow or after is the passion of the Lord howbeit he suffered so many yeares since and that this passion was but once indeede vpon the Saboath we say to day the Lord rose againe although so many yeares be past since the resurrection Why is there no body so vaine is to reproue vs for lying when we speake thus But because we name those dayes according to the resemblance which they haue with the daies wherin these things were done so that this day is called the same day which is not the same but resembling the same by the reuolution of time Was not Christ once sacrificed by himselfe and yet is he sacrificed vnto the people in a sacred signe not onely at euery solemnity of Easter but also euery day neyther doth he lie who being asked makes answere that he is sacrificed For if the Sacraments haue not some resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments they should be no Sacraments Now because of this resemblance they doe most commonly take the names of the thinges themselues This place ought very heedfully to be considered He sheweth how Iesus Christ is sacrificed in the Sacrament and doth illustrate the same by two examples to wit that it is all one as when we say two daies before Easter to day is the passion of Iesus Christ and when vpon the Saboath we say to day is the resurrection of Iesus Christ not that it is so indeede but because of the resemblance and commemoration for that the Sacraments take the names of the things signified Agreeable whereunto is the Canon Hoc est taken out of S. Austin in the second Distinction of the consecration Non rei veritate sed significante mysterio the offering of the flesh which is done by the handes of the Priest is called the passion the death and crucifixion NOT IN TRVTH BVT IN A SIGNIFYING MYSTERIE In like manner as the Sacrament of faith by which we vnderstand baptisme is the faith The same Doctor in the booke of Sentences gathered by Prosper alleadged in the same Distinction saith that Iesus Christ hath beene sacrificed but once by himselfe and yet he is continually sacrificed in a holy signe He is not then sacrificed by himselfe or in his owne person in the Eucharist For stronger confirmation whereof the auncient Glosses of the Church of Rome doe adde this marginall note Christus immolatur id est eius immolatio representatur fit memoria passionis Christ is sactificed that is his sacrifice is represented and the commemoration of his passion is solemnized Crysostome in the seuenteenth Homily vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after hee hath said that that which we offer is a figure of the sacrifice addeth these decyding wordes of that difference We alwaies offer the same sacrifice or rather we make a commemoration of that Sacrifice Herein doth it especially appeare that the auncients beleeued not that the body of Christ was really sacrificed included vnder the formes forasmuch as their opinion was that the sacrifice was sanctified by the offerers that it was pure according to the purity of the persons that offered Now Iesus Christ is neyther sanctified nor purified by men S. Austin against Petilian lib. 2. cap. 52. Such as euery one is that commeth to commenicate Tale cuiusq sacrificium quale est is qui accedit vt sumat omnia munda mundis such is his sacrifice to the pure all things are pure The first that directly handled this question at large was Lombard lib. 4. Dist 12. in the letter G. where he resolues this question by the wordes of S. Austin and S. Ambrose in these words If any aske whether that which the Priest doth he properly called a sacrifice or an offering or whether Christ be continually sacrificed or hath beene sacrificed but once whereunto we may shortly answere that that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest is called a Sacrifice and an oblation because it is the memory and representation of the true sacrifice and of the offering made vpon the Altar of the Crosse Christ died once vpon the Crosse and hath beene once sacrificed in person but he is continually sacrificed in the Sacrament because in the Sacrament there is a commemoration made of that which is once done Wherefore Austin saith that we are sure that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more yet for feare that we should forget that which was done but once it is done euery yeare for our remembrance to wit at all times and as often as Easter is celebrated is Christ therefore slaine so often No BVT ONELY the anniuersary commemoration representeth that which is already done Obserue this word Onely that none doe say the Eucharist is indeede the commemoration of the sacrifice of the Crosse but because Christ ceaseth to be really sacrificed Besides it is not compatible that a thing should be a representation of it selfe and that in the same action there should be both the signe and the thing

Eucharist a sacrifice That the essence of the sacrifice doth not depend from the assistants That the vertue of this Oblation is alwaies one as wel in as out of solemnities Add hereunto that the action cannot be priuate albeit the Priest doe it in particular seeing that he is a publike person That S. Austin speaking of a place haunted with wicked spirits saith that one of his Priests went thither offered the Sacrifice of the body of Christ The Answere The Priest in the Masse saith that he doth offer Sacrificiū laudis pro redemptione animarum which could no otherwise be done but priuately and without solemnity I answere that Coeffeteau takes much paines to no purpose for we agree with the Fathers that the holy supper is a Sacrifice but yet a Sacrifice Eucharisticall that is a giuing of thankes not propitiatory for the redemption of soules where Christ is really sacrificed which we shall see hereafter Yea were it such a sacrifice as our aduersaries would haue it yet ought it to bee celebrated with the communion of assistants because God hath so commanded 1 Christ Iesus saying to the assistants take eate commaundeth them to participate 2 Againe he addeth Doe this that in the celebration thereof we should follow his example And the Apostle S. Paul 1. cor 10.16 defineth this Sacrament by the Communion saying That the bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Christ 4 The Apostle there addeth wordes that strike sure We are all partakers of one bread then all ought to participate 5 Also the word supper which he vseth in the twentieth verse of the Chapter following signifies a common supper and importeth a communion and we haue elsewhere declared that all auncient Writers doe call this Sacrament a supper Now what can be more absurd then to inuite people to a supper to looke on and eate nothing Who euer heard tell of a feast where the inuiter doth eate alone They reply that at a Feast people cannot be forced to eate whereunto I say that if they should not be compelled they should at least be entreated to eate but in priuate Masses there are none inuited and the Priest is often alone I say farther that the guests should be constrained to eate if God haue so expresly commanded and he hath commanded to take eate and communicate in this holy supper It is no wonder then if the word Supper be grown odious and out of vse seeing it serues to discouer the abuse and that the Etymologie therof is a kinde of commandement 6 Besides what resemblance is there between Christ set at the Table with his Apostles distributing the bread and the cup to euery of them and the Priest that not onely eates and drinkes by himselfe but is often alone and grumbles some few wordes vnheard vpon the Host 7 More especially it is to bee considered that the Church of Rome teacheth that the Eucharist is not onely a sacrifice but also a Sacrament whence it followes that although the Eucharist as it is a sacrifice may be performed without Communicants yet as it is the Sacrament of that Communion which wee haue together with Iesus Christ so is the communion thereof among many required as necessary which shewes how impertinently Coeffeteau speakes That it is not necessary that the Sacrifice be offered by many and that the essence of the Sacrifice dependeth not of the Communicants and that the vertue of the Sacrifice is still the same both with the ceremonies and without them seeing we do not here speake of the Eucharist as it is a sacrifice but a Sacrament If any Sophister make answere that the essence of the Sacrament consisteth not in the Communion but in the consecration my replication is that it contradicts the Apostle who defineth this sacrament by the Communion as we haue seene and definitions are the very essence of things Againe the communion of one bread hath an essentiall reference to our Communion with Iesus Christ which two words are relatiues wherof the former depends vpon the latter Touching the pretended consecration of the Church of Rome it cannot be of the essence of the sacrament for euery sacrament is a holy signe but this consecration is not a holy signe because it doth not signifie any thing no body vnderstands any thing or sees any thing In the booke of the Apology chap. 7. And we haue declared in it place that the true consecration is done by prayer and the auncients so beleeued 8 No●withstanding let vs graunt that the Communion is not of the essence of the Sacrament doth it therefore follow that it is not necessary Is there not validity in Gods commandement to make it necessary Is there nothing necessarie besides that which is of the essence of things then shall not the law or the Gospell be necessary for men because they are not of the essence of men and so shal it not be necessary for Coeffeteau to draw his breath because it is no part of his effence there can nothing be said more wide from the purpose 9 Touching that which he addeth that the cheefe sacrifice of the Synagogue was performed by the High Priest alone within the Holy of Holies I doe admire the negligent rashnes of this Doctor that he dares speake of the Scripture before he read it for had he read it he would haue found the contrary he should haue seene that the blood which the High Priest alone caried into the Sanctum Sanctorū was the blood of a beast already sacrificed in the Court vpon the altar of burnt offerings in the presence of the people and there was no sacrifice more publique or more solemnly performed Is there any such a nouice in the sacred History that euer thought that Aaron did sacrifice or offer any beast within the place that was most holy It was then a sprinkling of bloud which he made vpon the Arke as the conclusion of the publique sacrifice and was no sacrifice done in priuate Read the thirtieth of Exodus and the sixteenth of Leuiticus 10 Of like stuffe is that which he addeth that Masses without Communicants or assistants cannot be said to be priuate because the Priest is a publique person this is a goodly conceit So then if a Minister doe pray alone in the Church his prayer shal be a publique prayer And should not this Minister deserue a greene coate if being alone hee should say Attend my Masters when he reprehended the walles yet this is that which the Massing Priest in priuate doth at which priuate Masses being all alone he saith Orate pro me fratres Brethren pray for me and which is more he saith Accipite man ducate ex hoc omnes Take and eate all of this and yet offers nothing to any body but eates alone With like abuse doth he say Vt quot quot ex hac altaris participatione sumpserimus c. That al we which by the participation of the Altar haue receiued the

after Which is confirmed by the Masse it selfe and by the Latine Translation of the Bible which the Councell of Trent will haue onely receiued which saith Qui pro vobis effunditur which shall bee shed for you expresly translating the present tense by the future to shewe that Christ spake not of an effusion of bloud to be presently made but to be done soone after Bellarmine answers this shedding might be vnderstood in both tenses but I say it could not be for Christ here gaue vs not wordes with double visages nor doth he by one word signifie two effusions of blood so disagreeable and beside the Canon of the Masse and the Romane Bible should have idly translated the present tense by the future if it might and should bee taken in the present tense And this is the place where the perplexity of the errour appeareth which hew and interferre that it selfe is not vnderstood for our aduersaries say that vnder the formes the blood of Christ is shed but yet runnes not out of his veynes that it is shed and yet stirres not and howbeit euery effusion be a motion yet it is an effusion without effusion And which is more Effusio est extra fusio they say this Sacrifice is vnbloody whence it followes that there is no effusion of blood that is to say that it is of blood not bloody as if one should say a heate not hote or whitenesse not white so they lead vs blindfolded for there is nothing that a man will not say that thinkes he speakes vnto beasts or that will mocke God himselfe But especially note that these Masters say that the body is also in the cup yea in euery drop of the cup so that he which ouerturnes the cup ouerturnes the flesh and the bones so these Doctors by a new Alchymie distill the body of our Sauior And that they may puzle plaine people As if one should say the formes of a man or of a tre● in stead of h●s length or his colour they say that the blood of Christ is shed vnder the accidents of Wine which they doe fraudulently call the formes But we enquire not of them vnder what the blood is shed but whether it be shed or no for that which is really shed vnder another thing is not there shed the lesse The quality of our redemption and the onely sacrifice of our Redeemer doe arme vs with inuincible proofes against this strange errour We demand of these Masters whether the sacrifice of the Crosse and the sacrifice of the Masse bee two or one and the same sacrifice For feare we should accuse them of confessing another propitiatory sacrifice beside that of the Crosse they say that the Masse is the same with the sacrifice of the Crosse but this we may easily disproue and proue that the sacrifice of the Crosse and that of the Masse cannot be one sacrifice our reasons are 1 First the sacrifice of the Masse and that of the Crosse cannot be one sacrifice because the definition of one agreeth not with the other for the sacrifice of the Crosse is the death of Iesus Christ offered vpon the Crosse for our redemption but the Masse is not the death of Iesus Christ c. and then is not the Masse the sacrifice of the Crosse 2 The proprieties and circumstances differ the sacrifice of the Crosse was painfull this of the Masse is without paine the sacrifice of the Crosse was bloudy this is not bloudy one was visible the other is inuisible and none doth see Christ who they say is offered the one hath beene offered and is not reiterable for Christ died but once the other is infinitely reiterated and in infinite places at one time that was immediately performed by Christ and this is done by the ministery of a Priest 3 So doe they also much differ in vertue and efficacy for the death of Christ which he once suffered was sufficient to redeeme the whole world from eternall damnation but the Sacrifice of the Masse is prized at a very low rate for there must be a greate number of them to redeeme one poore soule out of Purgatory they are sold in the Countrey for sixe blanckes but at Paris they cost more The first of the nine dayes after the Popes death Lib. 1. Sacrarum Ceremoniar Sect. 15. cap. 2. there are two hundred Masses said for his soule and vpon each of the eight daies following there is one Masse said to deliuer his pontificall soule out of Purgatory yea for fiue hundred yeares together there are Masses sung for some deceased persons that haue enriched some Monastery yea scarce fifty thousand Masses are sufficient for one soule 4 To be short seeing the sacrifice of the Crosse is nothing but the death of Iesus Christ no man will beleeue that the Masse wherein Christ dyeth not is the same sacrifice with his death 5 Hereunto can wee haue no answere from them to the purpose for they onely say that it is the same host both in the Masse and vpon the Crosse to wit the body of Iesus Christ and therefore that it is the same sacrifice I answere that put the case that in the Masse Christ be really sacrificed as well as on the Crosse yet doth it not follow that it were the same sacrifice it should indeede be the same thing sacrificed but not the same sacrifice For a sacrifice to speake properly is not the thing sacrificed but the action of offering and the very Etymologie of the word Sacrifice importeth the doing or action which Bellarmine confesseth Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 2. where hauing set downe the definition of a Sacrifice §. Primo igitur Hoc loco sacrificium accipimus pro actione sacrificandi non autem pro victima Et lib 2. c. 4. §. Secundum Sacrificium est actio non res permanens hee saith that by Sacrifice he vnderstands the action of sacrificing and not the thing sacrificed 6 Obserue farther that although the death of Iesus Christ and the Masse should bee the same sacrifice in kinde and that one definition agreed to eyther yet should they not be the same action in number for it is wel known that there are in number many Masses and indeede two Masses do cost more then one for were there not many Masses in number it were very absurd to number them as they doe that sell them againe one action done cannot be the same in number with one that is not done one blow giuen yeasterday cannot be the same in number with that which shall be giuen to morrow else should a thing to come be past that is should be and should not be If then Masses doe differ in number among themselues why shall they not differ in number from the death of Christ Seeing that between the death of Iesus Christ and the Masse there is more difference then betweene two Masses how diuers soeuer in shew The matter being thus plaine these Doctors will not denie that

of Iesus Christ is not destroyed in the Masse it followes that the naturall essence of Iesus Christ is not offered in the Masse and then is it another sacrifice then that of the Crosse where he offered his essentiall being Secondly For it is certaine that that is the destruction of Christs naturall being which is the price of our redemption and then if the Masse doe offer and sacrifice another essence of Christ then doth it not offer the price of our redemption Thirdly Besides this Sacramentall essence is a meere Chimera for one man can haue but one being 2. de Consecrat Can. Sacrificium This is taken out of S. Austin l. 10. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 5. Epist 5 Scotus in 4. dist 10. Quest 5. Oculi Christi subspecie panis non recipiunt obiecta c. Quaest 7. Corpus Christi vt hic non respirat aerem c. §. Aly vi verborum Hoc est corpus meum solum Christi corpus sine anima sine sanguine incipit esse inaltari vi aliorum verborum Hic est sangurs incipit sanguis solus seorsim a corpore esse in altari because it is the being that makes him to be one man Fourthly And seeing the Sacrament by the definition of the Church of Rome doth signifie a holy signe then a Sacramental being must signifie a being significatiue which is open mockerie Fiftly Yea this Sacramentall being of Iesus Christ which is said to be in the Masse cannot be significatiue or representatiue for whatsoeuer representeth any thing ought to be visible but this Sacramentall being is altogether inuisible Sixtly And that which representeth a thing ought to resemble it but this sacramental being is contrary to the naturall being for the natural being giues vnto Christ longitude latitude situation of partes power of mouing seeing speaking and breathing but contratiwise the Sacramentall being depriues him of all these 16 I would willingly know if this speech of Bellarmines be allowed also by their other Doctors namely that By vertue of these wordes hoc est corpus meum the bodie of Christ begins to be vpon the altar without the soule and without blood And that by the vertue of these wordes Hic est sanguis This is the bloud that the bloud begins to be alone and diuided from the body vpon the Altar For if this be so the Masse doth sacrifice a dead body but a liuing and passiue body was offered vpon the Crosse therefore is it not one and the same sacrifice 17 Our aduersaries being thus vrged and extremely perplexed at length they are forced to yeeld and as the Stagge being tyred doth sometimes yeelde himselfe to the Hunters so they vnable to resist so euident a truth they fairely come ouer to our side which is a point whereof I pray the Reader to consider Our aduersaries say that the sacrifice of the Crosse and the sacrifice of the Masse are one sacrifice and that the sacrifice of the Crosse is re-iterated in the Masse but the truth is so strong and the euidence thereof so plaine to the contrary that oftentimes it slips from them and they giue sentence against themselues For the Councell of Trent Ses 22. cap. 1. saith that Christ hath left vnto his Church a sacrifice by which the bloudy sacrifice which he was to make vpon the Crosse was represented and the memory thereof perpetuated The same Councell addeth that the sacrifice of the Crosse and the vertue thereof is applyed vnto vs by this sacrifice And this doe we beleeue and many of ours haue beene burned for so saying And indeed if the Eucharist be the commemoration and application of the Sacrifice of the Crosse it is then certaine that it is not the same sacrifice with that of the Crosse and that it cannot be a sacrifice propitiatory First for the commemoration of a thing is not the thing it selfe the commemoration of a battell is not a battell the commemoration of a sacrifice is not the same sacrifice Secondly In like manner the application of a thing is not the thing it selfe the application of a fashion is not the fashion the application of a Plaister is not the Playster the application of the propitiatory sacrifice of Iesus Christ is not the propitiatory sacrifice of Iesus Christ Thidly Which is most true in matter of payment for the Sacrifice of Christ is the payment ransome for our soules being cleare that the commemoration of a payment is not the payment to remember a payment it needes not to begin it againe and the Priest doth but mocke with God if he thinke eyther to pay him or redeeme vs by a commemoration Fourthly if the sacrifice propitiatory of Iesus Christ be applyed in the Masse then certainly it is not re-iterated for a thing is not reiterated by the application thereof a medicine is not re-iterated by applying it to re-iterate a writing or a sacrifice to apply it this needes purgation more then refutation Let them learne then to speake things in congruity for they must of necessity eyther say that the Masse is neyther application nor commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse or if in that point they be vnremoueable let them confesse that it is not the Sacrifice of Christ nor a sacrifice propitiatory Fiftly and finally if they will needes haue that the death of Christ is applied vnto vs by sacrificing they must shew out of the Scripture that God will haue it so applyed We finde in the Scripture that Iesus Christ is applyed vnto vs and that wee haue communion with him by baptisme Gal. 3.27 1. Cor. 10 16. Ioh. 14.23 Ephes 3.17 by breaking of bread by the word and by faith but of application by sacrificing not a word All which already said is more then sufficient to discouer the abuse and conuince the falshood If they will yet haue any ouer-measure to make the strangenesse of their errour more plaine Then if the Masse be truely and properly a Sacrifice wherin Christ Iesus is sacrificed for a Sacrifice propitiatory for our redemption they must of necessity tell vs in what action this Sacrifice consisteth and that they shewe vs in the institution of the Eucharist which is comprized in the Gospell what were the actions by which Iesus was sacrificed Cardinall Bellarmine after hee hath beene a long while tormented about the matter §. Haec mihi in the last chapter of the first booke of the Masse in the end he fals vpon the opinion of Thomas who sayth that the sacrifice consisteth in these three things in the breaking blessing and eating of the bread But he attributes the principall essence of the Sacrifice to the blessing or consecration which is worthy the examination Of the breaking Touching the fraction or the action of breaking the host it is not onely not of the essence of the sacrifice but also it cannot be an action necessarily in the sacrifice 1. for if by chaunce the Priest let fall

the whole host into the Chalice he swallows downe both the hoste and wine together without any breaking of it and yet such a Masse looseth not the name of a sacrifice 2. Besides if the breaking were an action of the Sacrifice it should follow that that which were broken in the Eucharist were sacrificed Now the holy Scripture testifies that Christ Iesus brake bread and then should Christ haue sacrificed bread and the bread should be the price of our redemption which is a grosse impiety Now that Iesus Christ did breake bread the Euangelists doe tell vs Mat. 26.26 Iesus tooke bread and brake it Likewise S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we breake And the whole Church Act. 20.7 The Disciples were gathered together to breake bread And this doth conformably agree with the Church of Rome that mayntaineth it to be still bread before the consecration And by the text of the Gospell it is euident that Christ brake it before he said This is my body Which is the reason why the Romish Prelates haue corrected the Gospell and will haue the bread to be broken after the wordes pronounced For whereas they will haue the breaking to be an action of the Sacrifice they say well that should they breake the bread after the words pronounced as our Sauiour did they could not say that they doe sacrifice Iesus Christ and then their sacrifice propitiatory should bee a sacrifice of bread thirdly Therefore can they not finde in the institution of the Eucharist which is in the Gospell this fraction which the Priest vseth after the wordes which they would haue to be an action of a propitiatory sacrifice neyther can they finde in their Masse that breaking of bread which Christ vsed The chiefe point is that when we desire our Masters to tell vs what it is that the Priest breaketh in the Masse they are blancke for tell me Mr. Doctors doth the Priest breake bread in the Masse They answere no for it is no more bread when he breakes it Doth he breake the Lords body No neyther for that is impassible and cannot be broken it is wholy in euery part in euery crum of the Hoste what then What is there left for him to breake They say the accidents of the bread which soone after they call the formes that is to say the length and breadth of the bread but not the bread And as Pope Innocent the third sayth and with him the whole Church of Rome Innocent 3. l. 4. de Mysterijs Missae cap. 11. Est enim hic color sapor quantitas qualitas cum nihil alterutro sit coloratum aut sapidum quantum aut quale it is of the length not of the thing that is long of the colour not of the thing coloured Let vs leaue this monstrous Philosophy and let vs only bring their doctrine to the scale They said that which was broken in the Masse is sacrificed Now the accidents colours and dimensions of bread without bread are broken in the Masse and consequently these accidents are sacrificed and offered for our redemption O spirite of slumber that runnes headlong into impiety And here obserue the fruite of these subtilities fiftly for to say that Christs body is broken vnder the accidents and yet continues whole is all one as to say that it is broken and not broken Againe we doe not aske of them vnder what it is broken but onely whether or no it bee broken for that which is broken vnder another thing is broken neuerthelesse sixtly Which error of theirs is new in the phrase of Scripture wherein the breaking of bread is not an action of sacrifice but a signe of charity and pledge of vnity See Esay 58.7 Lament 4.14 Yea and S. Paul doth expresly tell vs that this is the end of breaking bread in the Sacrament 1. Cor. 10.6 The bread which we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ inasmuch as we which are many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of one bread It was also the manner of our Sauiour at his ordinary times of meate to begin with blessing and breaking of bread Mar. 6.41 Luc. 24.30.31 And this I beleeue doth sufficiently refute this fraction which they make an action of sacrifice Of the Consecration The consecration which they say is performed by pronouncing these wordes This is my body cannot be said to be eyther an action of sacrifice or the essence thereof first for they hold that the Pope cannot erre and Pope Innocent the third in the sixth chapter of the fourth booke of the Mysteries of the Masse holdeth that Iesus Christ was not consecrated by these wordes This is my body but that he was consecrated before by the power of his Diuinity And all the auncients do maintaine In the booke of the Apology for the holy Supper cap. 7. that where declared by a great number of places 2 Let vs hereunto adde that the essence of a sacrifice consisteth in the offering of some oblation vnto God Now by these wordes This is my body which they say are the consecrating wordes there is not any thing offered vnto God therefore the consecrating wordes are not of the essence of the sacrifice And that there is nothing offered vnto God by these wordes it is plaine for Christ in speaking them doth not addresse himselfe vnto God but speakes and offers that which he holdes to his Apostles saying Take eate this is my body 3 And if consecration doe necessarily import sacrificing then shall it follow that the consecration of vessels and of the Temple was a sacrifice 4 To proceede it is certaine that in the Masse there can be no consecration because there is nothing consecrated for the bread is not consecrated because it is no more bread also Christ is not consecrated for men cannot consecrate him but it is he that doth consecrate men vnto God Some Sophister wil tel you that the consecration is done vpon the bread but wil not tell you what it is that is consecrated Now we doe not aske them whereupon the consecration is done but what it is that is consecrated and there they champe vpon the bit and know not what to answere Of the Eating As great or greater an absurdity is it to say that the Sacrifice consisteth in the eating 1. For it is a thing vnheard of that to eate should be to sacrifice Iesus Christ for a sacrifice propitiatory secondly And if eating doe why should not drinking import the same thirdly Againe to sacrifice is to offer and present but to eate is to receiue so that there is asmuch difference between sacrificing and eating as betweene giuing and taking betweene offering and receiuing for to reconcile these things is to make contrary things to be the same as if one should say the right hand is the left and white is blacke fourthly If to eate were to sacrifice Iesus Christ the lay people celebrating their Passeouer