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 cup_n shed_v 3,852 5 10.6243 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A07192 Of the consecration of the bishops in the Church of England with their succession, iurisdiction, and other things incident to their calling: as also of the ordination of priests and deacons. Fiue bookes: wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of Bellarmine, Sanders, Bristow, Harding, Allen, Stapleton, Parsons, Kellison, Eudemon, Becanus, and other romanists: and iustified to containe nothing contrary to the Scriptures, councels, Fathers, or approued examples of primitiue antiquitie. By Francis Mason, Batchelour of Diuinitie, and sometimes fellow of Merton Colledge in Oxeford. Mason, Francis, 1566?-1621. 1613 (1613) STC 17597; ESTC S114294 344,300 282

There are 9 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

participle with an article praepositiue should regularly be gouerned of somewhat going before of the same case number and gender yet there are sundry examples in Scripture where it is otherwise the Article supplying the place of a relatiue as for example 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where according to the ordinary Greeke it should bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab ente but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the Article praepositiue standeth for a relatiue as though he should say in Latine Ab eo qui est likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be according to the vsuall Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which concordeth not with any thing going before but the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 standeth for a relatiue as though it were said in Latin ab eo qui venturus the like is to bee said of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 By which it is euident that the spirit of God departeth from the Analogie of the Greeke tongue and vseth sometimes the Article for a relatiue and so it may be vsed in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may bee translated thus in sanguine meo qui pro vobis effusus est Therefore though in another Authour which tied himselfe to the vsuall Greeke it were requisite to referre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet in the New Testament there is no such necessitie Wherefore seeing according to the speech of the holy Ghost the words stand indifferently to bee referred to both constructions let vs now consider the thing it selfe that so wee may finde the true construction of the words The holy Ghost in these words of Saint Luke declareth what Christ said when hee deliuered the cuppe the same thing is expressed both in Saint Matthew and Saint Marke and both of them vse the same participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and referre it cleerely and emdently to blood both in the Greeke and your vulgar Latin and not vnto the Cuppe Whereby wee are taught that though in Saint Luke the construction stand indifferently betweene the blood and the cuppe yet by conference of Scripture it is restrained vnto the blood and not vnto the cup so the sence of the place is this cup that is the wine in this cup is the New Testament that is a signe and seale of the New Testament in my blood which blood is shed for you And that it must needs bee meant of the cuppe of wine may appeare by Saint Matthew saying And when he had taken the cup and giuen thankes he gaue it them saying Drink yee all of this For by your owne confession before the words of Consecration it was wine but Christ said this before the wordes of Consecration and therefore hee spake of wine but hee addeth immediately for this which I giue you to drinke is my blood therefore hee calleth the wine his blood so the pronoune this demonstrateth the wine For how can it be otherwise You confesse that it was wine till the words of Consecration were ended but when hee said this the words were not ended and therefore then according to your owne principles it was wine which is agreeable to the Fathers Tertullian why saith he doth Christ call Bread his body Cyprian Our Lord at his table gaue Bread and Wine with his owne hands on the Crosse he yeelded his bodie to the souldiers hands to be wounded that his Apostles might teach Nations how Bread and VVine was his flesh and blood Irenaeus the Lord taking bread of this quality and condition which is vsuall among vs confessed it to bee his bodie Hierome Let vs heare that the bread which the Lord brake and gaue to his Disciples is the Lords body himselfe saying Take eate this is my bodie Athanasius VVhat is the bread the bodie of Christ. Cyrill Christ thus auoucheth and saith of the bread this is my bodie Theodoret In the very giuing of the mysteries hee calleth bread his bodie All these Testimonies and sundry others from time to time haue beene set before you by learned Diuines sufficient to perswade any reasonable man that when Christ sayd this is my bodie this is my blood the pronoune this did demonstrate the breade and the wine and for mine owne part I see no reason why you should denie it for your Church teacheth a transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the bodie and blood of Christ. Now if the pronoune this doe not demonstrate the bread and the wine then there is no bread and wine signified in the words of Christ and if Christ speake not in those words of bread and wine then it is impossible to proue out of these words any transubstantiation of the bread and wine and so you haue made shipwracke vpon this rocke NOw if the pronoune this doe not demonstrate the bread what else shall it demonstrate The Glosse of the Canon law saith The word hoc is taken materially and signifieth nothing How say you haue you not spunne a Faire thread so to tosse and tumble the words of Christ that you haue brought all to nothing if you will say that it must needes signifie some thing then let vs consider what this some thing shal be Stephen Gardiner did make it a kind of indiuiduum vagum as though hee should say somewhat it is but I know not what but this cannot stand because the pronoune hoc beeing a demonstratiue must of necessitie demonstrate some certaine and sensible thing what shal be this be Occam saith Hoc refertur ad corpus Christi the pronoune this is referred to the body of Christ but then it is an Identicall proposition signifying that the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ which were an idle speech and to no purpose Yet it would cleane ouerthrow your transubstantiation Therefore others thinke that by hoc should bee meant Hoc ens as Scotus or haec substantia as Caietan well what can this ens or this substantia bee but onelie the Bread and therefore why should they thus walke in Mistes and Cloudes and not rather cleerely confesse the truth But Iohannes de Burgo will make all cocke sure for hee saith Hoc sub hac specie praesens vel de propinquo futurum est corpus meum that is That which is present vnder this show or shortlie shal be is my bodie Hee durst not say simplie that which is present for then hee must either say the Bread or the Bodie but if hee said Bread hee should haue saide as wee say which had beene daungerous and to expound it of the bodie had beene against his owne conscience because the wordes of Consecration were not yet finished Therefore beeing in a quandary what to say hee thought hee would speake safely though thereby hee shewed himselfe but slenderly resolued Behold what it is for men to leaue the written word and to
blood of Christ were vnder the formes of bread and wine or else you will come short of your sacrifice PHIL. That is plaine by the words of Christ This is my body This is my blood For he spake of those things which he had in his hands and hee calleth them his body blood but to outward appearance there was only bread and wine therefore seeing the words of our Sauiour must needs be true it followeth that the very body and blood of Christ were vnder the appearance of bread and wine ORTHOD. The words of our Sauiour are most true in that sense wherein he ment them But it was his will that they should be taken Sacramentally and not Substantially which will appeare if Scripture be expounded by Scripture and Sacraments by Sacraments To beginne with Circumcision the Lord said This is my Couenant which you shall keepe betweene me and you and thy seed after thee let euery man child be circumcised hoc est foedus meum this thing is my Couenant what thing that euery man child be circumcised therefore Circumcision is called the Couenant But is it the couenant properly it is impossible therefore it is improperly and figuratiuely for so God himselfe expounds it You shall circumcise the foreskin of your flesh and it shal be a signe of the Couenant betweene me and you Therefore Circumcision is called the Couenant because it is a signe of the Couenant But is it a bare and naked signe not so for the Apostle saith he receiued the signe of Circumcision as the seale of righteousnesse of the faith which he had when he was yet vncircumcised so circumcision was not onely a signe to signifie but also a seale to confirme vnto him the righteousnesse of faith that is the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith and imputed to all that beleeue Neither was this seale onely promissory but also exhibitory deliuering vnto them Christ Iesus with all his blessings From Circumcision let vs come to the Passeouer You shall eat it in hast for it is the Lords Passeouer what shall they eat was it not a Lambe there a Lambe is the Lords Passeouer But why is it so called The Lord himselfe expoundeth it saying the blood shall be a token for you so the Lambe is called a Passeouer because it was a token that is a signe and a seale of the Lords passing ouer them From the ordinary Sacraments of the Old Testament let vs come to the extraordinary Saint Paul speaking of the Rocke saith and this Rocke was Christ which Saint Austine expoundeth truely and learnedly not in substance but in signification From the Sacraments of the Old Testament let vs come to the new In the 6. to the Romanes it is said wee are buried with him by baptisme into his death vpon which Saint Austine saith the Apostle saith not we signifie the buriall but he saith flatly wee are buried together with him so hee called the Sacrament of so great a thing no otherwise then by the name of the thing it selfe To which agreeth your owne Iesuite Baptizati vna cum Christo sepeliuntur idest Christi sepulturam representant That is those that are baptized are buried together with Christ that is they represent the buriall of Christ From Baptisme let vs come to the Lords Supper which consisteth of two courses the Bread representing his Body and the Wine representing his Blood the former may be expounded by the latter For Christ calleth This Cup The new Testament because it is a signe and seale of the new Testament Therefore when it is said this is my Body and this is my Blood the wordes must likewise bee taken figuratiuely and sacramentally as though it were said this Bread and this Wine is a signe and a seale of my Body and Blood Yea these very wordes this is my Body may bee expounded by the like wordes signifying the same thing the Bread that wee breake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ which word Communion must of necessitie bee taken figuratiuely and sacramentally for a signe and seale of this Communion The Apostles were well acquainted with this figure and vsed it themselues before the institution of the Sacrament for they saide vnto Iesus where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eate the Passeouer by Passeouer meaning the Paschall Lambe which was a signe and memoriall of the Passeouer Thus the whole course of Scripture proclaimeth that these words this is my body must not bee expounded Substantially but Sacramentally So the meaning is this is my body that is this Bread is a Signe Seale and Sacrament of my Body PHIL. When it is said hoc est Corpus meum this is my body the opinion of Catholickes is that the word this doth not demonstrate the Bread ORTHOD. Why then saith the Scripture Iesus tooke bread and when he had blessed he brake it and gaue it to them saying take eate this is my Body First hee tooke what tooke hee hee tooke Bread materiall Bread such as was vpon the Table After hee had taken hee blessed what did he blesse be blessed that which hee tooke but that was materiall Bread therefore hee blessed the materiall Bread After hee had blessed hee brake and gaue what did hee breake and giue the same which hee had blessed therefore as he blessed the materiall Bread so hee brake and gaue the materiall Bread when hee gaue he saide take and eate what should they take and eate but that which he gaue therefore seeing hee gaue materiall Bread hee commanded them likewise to take and to eate the materiall Bread When hee had saide take and eate hee added imediately this is my Body This what this this that hee had taken this that he had blessed this that hee had broken this that hee gaue them this that hee commanded them to take and eate This and nothing but this hee calleth his Body But this was materiall Bread as hath beene proued and therefore when he said this is my Body the Pronoune this did demonstrate the materiall Bread 2. PHIL. HE tooke bread blessed bread but after the blessing it was changed ORTHOD. As the Paschall Lambe was changed when of a common Lambe it was made a Type of the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world or as the water of Baptisme is changed when of common water it is made a holy representation of the blood of Christ So the Bread and Wine are changed in the Lords Supper that is in vse not in substance for before they bee brought to the Lords Table they are common Bread and common Wine for the feeding of the body but when they are sanctified according to Christs institution then the God of heauen setteth another stampe vpon them and maketh them a Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ yet as the lambe still remained a lambe in substance as the water euen in
demonstrate the Bread for Bread is the Masculine gender both in Greeke and Latine But the Pronoune this is the Neuter gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke and hoc in Latine Which agreeth in Gender with the word body which both in Greeke and Latine is the Newter gender ORTHOD. Indeed if you take it adiectiuely it cannot concord and therefore it is not so to be taken but substantiuely and might be Englished This thing is my body PHIL. If you take it so you make an absurd Proposition For a thing that is seene and openly knowne cannot be termed this thing vnlesse that thing be of the Neuter gender for no man when hee demonstrateth his brother will say this thing is my brother or demonstrating the Image of Caesar will say This thing is Caesar therefore neither could it be rightly said of the Bread which the disciples did see This thing is my body The reason is because the subiectum of the Proposition should be better knowne then the praedicatum therefore when the subiectum is knowne to the hearers in particular it ought not to bee vttered by a name that is generall but then onely it ought to be vttered by a name that is generall when it is not knowne but onely in generall As for example Certaine men see a thing afarre of but yet they discerne not what it is whether a tree a stone or a man but I see that it is a man Wherefore I will say to the rest that thing is a man and not he is a man But if they see him to be a man yet doe not discerne who it is Peter or Paul or some other I will not say that thing is Peter because they know it already to be a man But I will say he is Peter Therefore seeing the disciples did see the Bread and were not ignorant that it was Bread it had bene a most absurd speech if of that Bread the Lord had said This thing is my body when he should haue said This Bread is my body therefore it cannot bee that the word hoc should demonstrate the Bread as the subiect of the Proposition ORTHO A thing that is seene and openly knowne may be expressed by a Pronoune of the Neuter gender without absurditie although the thing it selfe bee not of the Neuter gender As for example When the Lord brought the woman vnto the man he said Hoc nunc est os ex ossibus meis i. Now this is bone of my bones For what thinke you is meant by hoc PHIL. By hoc vndoubtedly is meant the woman and it is as much as though he should say to vse the words of Pererius Domine Deus quae prius ad me adduxisti animalia non erant mihi similia haec autem mulier quam nunc ad me adduxisti est planè similis mei That is O Lord God The beasts which before thou broughtest vnto me were not like vnto me but this woman which thou hast brought vnto me is very like vnto me ORTHOD. If hoc in the words of Adam may and must be taken for haec mulier without any absurditie Why may not the same hoc in the words of Christ be taken for hic panis without any absurditie For in such cases we must not so much respect the subtilties of Logick as the vse of Grammer PHIL. I Adde a most strong Argument out of the Scripture for if when it is said This is my body the Pronoune this demonstrate the Bread Then when it is said this is my blood the Pronoune this should demonstrate the Wine But S. Luke denieth that when hee saith This is the Chalice the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you Where these words which is shed are not ioyned in construction with these wordes in my Blood but with these this Chalice as it appeareth out of the Greeke therefore S. Luke saith that the Chalice was shed for vs. Now the vessell or Wine was not shed for vs but the true blood therefore the Chalice signifieth not a Chalice of Wine but a Chalice of Blood ORTHOD. This Argument for all the imagined strength is but a rotten reede whereupon if you leane you will lye in the ditch and the trunchion of it wil runne into your hands For the better demonstration whereof let me first aske you when and how the bread is changed into the Body and the wine into the Blood PHIL. The Councell of Trent saith First of all the holy Synode teacheth and professeth openly That in the Sacrament of the holy Eucharist after the Consecration of the Bread and Wine our Lord Iesus Christ very God and man is contained vnder the formes of these sensible things truely really and substantially By which we learne that the change is made after the words of Consecration ORTHOD. Is it made successiuely or in an instant PHIL. Cardinall Bellarmine saith That it is In vltimo instantiterminatiuo illius prolationis i. In the last instant which closeth vp the pronuntiation of the wordes ORTHOD. If it be in the last instant then it is not before the last syllable and therefore all the while the Priest is saying Hoc est corpus me there is no change till hee come to the ende of um And so long as there is no change it remaineth bread in substance and consequently according to your owne doctrine at the pronouncing of hoc there is bread in substance and not the Body of Christ. Wherefore the Pronoune this must of necessitie demonstrate bread and not the Body of Christ So when it is said This is my blood the Pronoune this doeth demonstrate the wine and not the blood of Christ. PHIL. That which was shed for vs was the true Blood of Christ but this Chalice is said to be shed for vs as may appeare by the Greeke in that place of Luke therefore this Chalice that is that which is contained in the Chalice was the true blood of Christ. Now where S. Luke saith This Chalice is the New Testament in my Blood S. Matthew and S. Marke haue This is my Blood vnderstanding by the Pronoune this the same thing that S. Luke doeth by this Chalice but he meant as I declared not a Chalice of Wine but of Blood therefore the Pronoune this doeth not demonstrate the Wine but the Blood ORTHOD. The foundation of your Argument is that this Chalice in S. Luke is said to be shed for vs but this I deny PHIL. It appeareth by the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so it is to be construed that the Chalice was shed ORTHOD. It pleaseth the spirit of God in the Greeke Testament sometimes to depart from that phrase and Analogie of speech which is vsual in other Greeke Authors either to expresse some Hebraisme or for some other reason best knowne to his heauenly wisdome therefore though a
his wordes should bee taken properly but to expresse the similitude most emphatically Euen so our Lord Iesus willing to expresse in how liuely manner the Bread and Wine doe represent his Body and Blood doth not say that they signifie his Body and Blood or that they are signes and Sacraments of his Body and Blood but speaking most significantly hee saith this Bread is my Body this Wine is my Blood Another reason is because our sweete Sauiour would seale all his comfortable blessings vnto the soule of the worthie receiuer as if a King bestowing a Castle vpon one of his subiects and reaching vnto him the sealed writing containing the graunt should say vnto him behold here take what I giue thee it is such a Castle For though hee might haue said this writing doth signifie the gift of such a Castle yet it is more significant and more comfortable to say it is such a Castle For so the king doth cheere vp his heart and by that writing doth put him into actuall possession of the Castle Euen so our Lord Iesus though he might haue said this is a sacrament of my body yet to giue vs more cordiall comfort he saith this is my body assuring vs thereby that in giuing vs that Bread hee giueth vs himselfe and putteth vs in actuall possession of his graces and blessings purchased vnto vs by his body and blood PHIL. Suppose we should grant that the pronoune this did signifie the bread what could you conclude ORTHOD. Bellarmine may teach you who declareth out of the writings of Luther that the words of the Euangelist this is my body according to Luther do cary this sence this bread is my body Which sentence saith Bellarmine must eyther be taken tropically that the bread may be the body of Christ by way of signification or it is plainely absurde and impossible For it cannot be that bread should be the body of Christ properly wherefore the schollers of Luther had rather runne backe to a trope then admit a manifest absurditie Here is a cleere confession that if by this be meant this bread then the proposition must needs be taken tropically that is as we take it or otherwise it is absurde and impossible But it were blasphemy to say that Christ spake absurdities and impossibilities therfore if the pronoune this doe demonstrate the bread the proposition must needes carry that sence which we make of it and then the Protestants haue gotten the victory by the confession of your most learned Cardinall For great is the trueth and preuaileth So your carnall presence and consequently both your sacrifice and Priesthood doe fall to the ground ANd if for disputations sake wee should faine though indeed it bee a meere fiction that the body of Christ were corporally and carnally in the Sacrament yet for all this you are neuer able to proue your Sacrifice vpon which your Priesthood dependeth because the Scripture acknowledgeth no other then that vpon the Crosse. For neither by the blood of goates and calues but by his owne blood which the Scripture elsewhere calleth the blood of the Crosse entred he in once into the holy place and obtained eternall redemption for vs. Hee is entred into the very heauen to appeare now in the sight of God for vs Not that he should offer himselfe often as the high Priest entred into the holy place euery yeare with other blood for then must hee haue often suffered since the foundation of the world but now in the end of the world he hath appeared once to put away sinne by the Sacrifice of himselfe And as it is appointed vnto men that they shall once die and after that commeth the iudgement so Christ was once offered to take away the sinnes of many and vnto them that looke for him shall he appeare the second time without sinne vnto saluation This man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sinnes sitteth for euer at the right hand of God and from henceforth tarieth till his enemies be made his footestoole For with one offering hath he Consecrated for euer them that are sanctified If Christ haue shed offered and sacrificed his blood not often but once and that vpon the Crosse then can it not bee really shed offered and sacrificed in the Eucharist If by one oblation he hath obtained an eternall redemption put away sinne and Consecrated for euer those that are sanctified then your sacrificing of him is vaine and vnprofitable contrary to the Scripture and iniurious to the all-sufficient sacrifice of Iesus Christ. PHIL. He was sacrificed once and not often in that manner as he was vpon the Crosse yet hee was sacrificed in the Eucharist also as I will prooue both by the words of Christ and by his actions First by his wordes for hee said this is my body which is giuen for you or as it is in Saint Paul which is broken for you And againe this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you Is shed is broken is giuen not to you but to God for you Doe not these words argue a reall actuall and proper sacrifice ORTHOD. They argue a sacrifice to God not in the Supper but on the Crosse. PHIL. You must consider that it is not said which shall bee giuen shall bee broken shall be shed but which is giuen is broken is shed which argues that the place is not to be expounded of the sacrifice of the Crosse that was to come but of a sacrifice in the Eucharist which was present ORTHOD. The present tense is vsed for the future funditur for fundetur for proofe wherof I wil produce two witnesses which with you are most authentical the vulgar translation and the Canon of the Masse in both which it is not funditur is shed but fundetur shall be shed Whereby you may learne that the present tense vsed in the Greeke is to be expounded by the future vsed in the Latin and consequently it is to bee vnderstood of the sacrifice of the Crosse which was to come PHIL. Both are true and neither of the readings ought to be denyed and especially that of the present tense because the Euangelists and S. Paul did write in the present tense ORTHOD. Ex ore tuo serue nequam Is funditur in the present tense lesse to be denyed because the Euangelists and S. Paul did write in the present tense is it so indeede albeit the Canon of the Masse and your vulgar translation which may not be reiected vnder any pretence haue fundetur in the future tense then it seemeth that the blessed originalls are to be preferred before a translation whatsoeuer the Counsell of Trent haue said to the contrary O the force of trueth which breaketh out like lightning and shineth in darkenesse though the darkenes comprehendeth it not but this by the way Now for the present point though the vulgar hath not expressed the letter of the text yet it hath
Salomon may rightly be called Prophets PHIL. I say that Salomon deposed Abiathar not as a king but as a Prophet and executer of diuine iustice ORTHOD. As though the King as a King were not an executer of diuine iustice yes Philodox it is the King as King which beareth not the sword in vaine it is the king as king which is The minister of God and a r●uenger of wrath to him that doth euill therefore the King as King is the executer of diuine iustice And so when you say not as a king but as an executer of diuine iustice you put those things asunder which the Lord hath put together againe when you say that hee did it As a Prophet and an executer of diuine iustice you put those things together which the Lord hath put a sunder for a Prophet as a Prophet is the mouth of the Lord the executer of diuine iustice is not the mouth but the hand of the Lord the hand and the mouth must be distinguished PHIL. I will proue that Salomon did it as a Prophet For in the same place it is sayd that Salomon put out Abiathar that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord which he spake against the house of Eli in Shilo ORTHOD. Doe you thinke that such like speeches import the finall cause and the intents of the Agents The souldiours seeing the coate of Christ to be without seame wouen from the top throughout said one to another Let vs not diuide it but cast lots for it whose it shal be that the Scripture might bee fulfilled which saith they parted my garments among them and on my coate did they cast lots doe you imagine that the soldiours had any intent hereby to fulfill the Scripture Euen iust as much as Iudas had when hee sold his master for thirty peeces of siluer or Herod when hee slue the infants or the Iewes when they gaue him vineger to drinke They had no purpose in so doing to fulfill the Scripture yet God so disposed that by their action the Scripture was fulfilled Likewise your owne Bishop Tostatus may teach you that in this place the particle vt doth not signifie the finall cause but the consecution But what if Salomon had done it to that very end and purpose that the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli might be fulfilled would this prooue that he did it as a Prophet Iehu when he had slaine Iehoram said to Bidkar a Captaine Take him and cast him in some place of the field of Naboth the Iezrelite for I remember that when ● and thou rode together after Ahab his father the Lord laide this burthen vpon him surely I haue seene yesterday the bloud of Naboth and the bloud of his sonnes sayd the Lord and I will render it thee in this field saith the Lord now therefore take and cast him into the field according to the word of the Lord The casting of him into the field was not onely a fulfilling of the prophesie but it was also commaunded to bee done euen directly to that end that the prophesie might bee fulfilled yet I thinke you will not say that Iehu was a Prophet so farre are you from prouing that Salomon did it as a Prophet PHIL. Either as a King or as a Prophet not as a King and therefore as a Prophet ORTHOD. NOt as a King why so the Lord had promised that Salomon should sit vpon the Throne of Dauid his father so Salomon was heire apparant to the crowne by Gods owne appointment yet for all this Adonias exalted himselfe and sayd I wil be king and Ioab and Abiathar helped him forward they said God saue King Adonias Whereupon all three were guilty of high treason against the king and all three were punished by the king PHIL. True by the king but not by kingly power ORTHO Yes by kingly power the king did it as a king And to beginne with Adonias the king granted him a conditionall pardon that If hee shewed himselfe a worthy man there should not a haire of him fall to the earth but if wickednesse were found in him hee should die and therefore when hee desired Abisha to wife the wisdome of the King reaching into the profoundnesse of the policie did interpret it as a meanes of aspiring to the kingdome So King Salomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the sonne of Iehoiada and hee smote him that hee died Who did this the spirit of God saith that King Salomon did it so it is ascribed to the King yea it is cleare that the King did it as a King for who could pardon treason but a King as a King Or who should draw the sword of iustice against malefactors but he that beareth not the sword in vaine that is the King by the power and authoritie of a King Concerning Ioab it was tolde Salomon that he was fled to the Tabernacle of the Lord and Benaiah sayd thus saith the King come out and hee sayd nay but I will die here and Benaiah brought the King word againe and the King said doe as hee hath said and smite him in all which there was nothing but the execution of iustice which belongeth to a King as a King Now to come to Abiathar his offence against the King was the same and the Scripture ascribeth the punishment in the same tenour of wordes vnto the king Then the King said vnto Abiathar the Priest euen the king who in the former verse commaunded Adonias to bee slaine that is the King as a King which may appeare further by that which hee said Goe to Anathoth to thy owne fields in which words hee confineth him which is the action of a King And againe thou art worthy of death but I will not this day kill thee because thou barest the Arke of the Lord God before Dauid my Father and because thou hast suffered in all things wherein my Father hath beene afflicted In which wordes hee granteth life to one that had deserued death and who could doe this but a King So Salomon cast out Abiathar from being high Priest vnto the Lord Where wee see death changed into depriuation All which doe argue the power of a King yea it is said that the King put Benaiah the sonne of Iehoiada in the roume of Ioab ouer the hoast which vndoubtedly belonged vnto the King as hee was King and it followeth immediately in the same verse and the King set Sadok the Priest in the roume of Abiathar Thus you see that the whole course of Scripture ascribeth it to the King as a King and why should you thinke otherwise PHIL. BEcause in the old Testament the Leuites were free by the law of God from the power of secular Princes For in the third of Numbers God doth not once but often repeate that the Leuites are properly his owne and that he hath chosen them
the action of Baptizing still remaineth water in substance so the Bread and Wine still retaine their former substance euen after the blessing For Christ did breake the Bread after he had blessed it yet still it was Bread as the Apostle witnesseth saying the Bread that we breake Yea the Communicants doe eate it after it is broken and still it is Bread euen in the mouthes of the Communicants For S. Paul saith Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this Bread Neither is it called Bread because it was bread but because it is Bread not in name onely but in nature and properties For after Consecration it nourisheth the body as before it is subiect to fall vpon the ground to bee eaten of Mice to bee deuoured of Beastes to bee burned in the fire to bee turned to ashes and to suffer putrifaction which cannot be affirmed of the body of Christ because that holy one shall not see corruption so the wine after Consecration doth not onely nourish and comfort the heart but if the Priest drinke too much of it it will intoxicate his braine yea and if it bee kept too long it will bee turned to vinegar and putrifie All which things doe argue that the elements doe still retaine the true nature and substance of Bread and Wine and are not changed into the body and blood of Christ in corporall manner by vertue of the blessing But that wee may vnderstand this the better I pray you tell me what is meant by the blessing PHIL. THe blessing is the same with Consecration and was performed in these wordes this is my Body ORTHOD. The Scripture expounds blessing by thankesgiuing For Saint Matthew Saint Luke and Saint Paul say that when Christ had giuen thankes hee brake the bread Saint Marke saith that when he had blessed hee brake it So Matthew Marke Luke and Paul say that when Christ had giuen thankes he gaue the Cuppe and mention not the blessing of it Yet Saint Paul elsewhere calleth it the Cuppe of blessing Likewise whereas Saint Luke saith that Christ tooke the fiue loaues and the two fishes and looked vp to heauen and blessed them Saint Iohn saith that Iesus tooke the bread and gaue thankes whereby it is euident that the holy Ghost vseth the word blessing and thankesgiuing indifferently But withall we must obserue that vnder the word thankesgiuing is comprehended prayer As when the Apostle teacheth vs to receiue the creature with thankesgiuing he renders this reason because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer Where it is plaine that thankesgiuing in the former place comprehendeth prayer and the word Prayer vsed in the latter place comprehendeth thankesgiuing as though the Apostle should haue said we on our part must receiue the creature with prayer and thankesgiuing because it is sanctified as on Gods part by his word and ordinance so on our part by prayer and thankesgiuing Secondly we must obserue that the creature may be sanctified to a double vse That is either corporall or spirituall and to both by prayer and thankesgiuing Thirdly that the sanctifying of a creature is in the Scripture called blessing as when it is said the Lord blessed the seuenth day and sanctified it Now our Lord Iesus intending to institute a Sacrament tooke the bread and gaue thankes not only for the bread but especially for the redemption of the Church and praied that these elements of Bread and Wine might be euerlastingly sanctified to Sacramentall vse thus the Bread and Wine were blessed And whereas you with Bellarmine and others say that this blessing was performed by these wordes this is my Body it cannot bee For the blessing was finished before those words were vttered Saint Marke saith that when he had blessed the Bread hee brake it by which it is euident that the blessing was accomplished before the bread was broken it is manifest that he brake it before he gaue it therefore the blessing was finished before the Bread was giuen But he gaue it saying take eate this is my body therefore the blessing was finished before he said this is my body Now how is it possible that he should blesse by those wordes seeing the blessing was fully ended before those words were begunne Wherefore Cardinall Caietan doth rightly call it benedictionem laudis non Consecrationis i. the blessing of praise and not of Consecration But if we should imagine that he blessed by saying this is my body would not this imagination inuert the order of the actions of Christ PHIL. THere are many Hysterologies in holy Scripture and therefore no maruell if there be one here Now the words and actions of Christ reduced to their naturall Methode are thus to be ordered Hee tooke the Bread and when he had blessed saying this is my body hee brake it and gaue it saying take and eate ORTHOD. Aquinas sayth that these wordes were vttered non consequenter sed concomitanter meaning that he blessed by these wordes this is my body yet so that the wordes were in pronouncing all the while that he brake and gaue the Bread But this vanisheth of it selfe because as hath beene proued out of the text the blessing was finished before the wordes were begunne Cardinall Bessarion ordereth them thus hee tooke the bread and when he had blessed saying take eate this is my body he brake it and gaue it But this may also be confuted by the same reason and moreouer it containeth an absurditie for so he should bid them take it before hee gaue it And thirdly if hee blessed saying take eate this is my body then take and eate are wordes of blessing as well as this is my body Now you with Durantus order them thus he tooke the bread and when he had blessed saying this is my body he brake it and gaue it and saide take and eate but this is also confuted by the same argument drawne from the blessing Secondly the word saying which is but once in the Text by ordering them thus is vsed twice Thirdly the words Take eate which Christ vsed first are put last Fourthly whereas Christ spake all in one continuall sentence the sentence is dismembred and torne into two These inconueniences your owne Doctors Sotus and Caietanus did see and auoid For as your learned Archbishop affirmeth in his Epistle to Pope Sixtus Quintus Hi tenent eundem fuisse ordinem rerum narrationis Euangelicae That is They hold that the actions of Christ were done in the same order wherein they are reported by the Euangelists But let vs feigne that the words and actions are to be ordered as you would haue them yet notwithstanding by the word hoc must needs be meant the Bread for if he tooke the bread and blessed it saying Thus is my body what can be meant by the Pronoune thus but onely this bread PHIL. THe Pronoune this cannot
offered in himselfe and he is daily offered in the sacrament because in the sacrament there is a memoriall made of that which was done once PHIL. ONely a memoriall Nay I will prooue that there is truely and properly a sacrifice for there are three things wherein the essence of a true and reall sacrifice cōsisteth First of common it must be made holy Secondly being made holy it must be offered to God Thirdly That which is offered must be ordained to a true reall and externall mutation and destruction ORTHOD. Then let vs consider whether these three things bee found in the Eucharist and first it is euident that Bread and Wine of common are made holy euen the body and blood of Christ Sacramentally but if Bread and Wine be the sacrifice then earthly elements are offered for the redemption of the Church which once to imagine were horrible impiety PHIL. That which of common is so made holy that it remaineth and that onely without doubt is properly sacrificed but the substance of the Bread and Wine doe not remaine and therefore they are not the sacrifice ORTHOD. That they doe remaine hath beene alreadie proued and therefore if that be the sacrifice which of common is so made holy that it remaineth then a piece of bread shal be the sacrifice for the sinnes of the world But if we should faigne that the substance of the elements were taken away and that the body and blood of Christ were corporally and carnally vnder the formes of Bread and Wine yet you could not proue your sacrifice for where doe you find the second point that is oblation PHIL. Deo offertur dum in altari dei collocatur Nam victimam in altari ponere est reipsa illam deo offerre quia vi consecrationis fit vt corpus Christi sanguis incipiat reipsa esse super altare mediante manu Sacerdotis ideo verbis consecrationis vera solennis oblatio celebratur that is It is offered to God while it is placed vpon the Altar of God For to lay the sacrifice vpon the Altar is in very deed to offer it vnto God and because it commeth to passe by the force of Consecration that the bodie and blood of Christ beginne to bee reallie vpon the Altar by the meanes of the Priests hand therefore a true and solemne oblation is celebrated by the words of Consecration ORTHOD. First if by the words of Consecration the body and blood of Christ beginne to bee really vpon the Altar then it is by meanes of the Priests tongue and not of the Priests hand Secondly it is one thing to lay the sacrifice vpon the Altar and an other thing really to offer it as may appeare by the wordes of the Scripture And when they came to the place which God had shewed him Abraham builded an Altar there and couched the wood and bound Izhak his sonne and laied him on the Altar vpon the wood Here the sacrifice was really laide vpon the Altar but it cannot bee said that hee was really sacrificed or offered for a burnt offering but onely in Abrahams intention and Gods acceptation Thirdly if the sacrifice bee the body and blood then seeing by your owne doctrine the bodie and bloud are not vpon the Altar til the words of Consecration be finished it followeth that there is no sacrifice till the Consecration be finished and consequently there is no oblation of the sacrifice begunne before the Consecration bee finished Now if the oblation beginne after the Consecration is ended then is it not celebrated by the wordes of Consecration vnlesse you will say that an oblation may bee celebrated before it bee and that a thing is ended before it beginne But let vs faigne that the body and blood of Christ were properly offered to God by the words of Consecration yet you cannot thence conclude a sacrifice For you required a third condition in a sacrifice that is the destruction of the thing sacrificed PHIL. The thing which is offered is ordered by Consecration to a true reall and externall mutation and destruction which is necessary to the beeing of a Sacrifice For to a true sacrifice there is required that the thing offered in Sacrifice bee plainely destroied that is So changed that it ceaseth to bee that which it was before ORTHOD. How were the sacrifices to be destroied PHIL. If they bee liuing things by killing if without life and solid as meale salt and frankincense they were to be destroied by burning if liquid as blood wine and water they were to be destroied by effusion or pouring out ORTHOD. Then it will follow from your owne positions that if Christ bee aliue in the Eucharist either the Priest doth not Sacrifice him or else he killeth him before hee sacrifice him and consequently either there are no sacrifising Priests in the New Testament except Christ onely or if there bee any they are all murtherers and killers of Christ. If you say that Christ is in the Eucharist and yet not aliue how can this bee Is not Christ in the Eucharist now as hee was at the first institution When Christ said this is my bodie his bodie was then aliue and now also is liuing in Heauen PHIL. The whole Church teacheth as it appeareth by the Councell of Trent that not onely the Body and blood but also the soule and diuinity yea and whole Christ is in the Eucharist but it is certaine that the soule and diuinity are not in the Eucharist by vertue of the Consecration but onely by naturall concomitance because where the one is there the other must needs be vnited with it ORTHOD. If the soule bee vnited with it then it is aliue and then it is either no Sacrifice or else the former absurdities follow and if the bodie should bee without life in the Eucharist then according to your positions seeing it is a thing solid it cannot bee a Sacrifice vnlesse it bee plainelie destroied by burning if it bee capable of burning or destroying it is not corporallie the bodie of Christ For the holie one shall not see corruption and if it bee not destroyed then you confesse that it is no Sacrifice so euery way you are intangled But seeing you hold this to bee a Sacrifice and that euery Sacrifice must be consumed therefore you must tell vs how this is consumed PHIL. It is consumed and destroied by eating ORTHOD. The people doe eate it as well as the Priests shall they also be sacrificers PHIL. As it is performed by the people it is no part of the Sacrifice but as it is performed by the Priest it is an essentiall part ORTHOD. Doe your Priestes eate Christ properly or improperlie if improperlie then how is the sacrifice consumed For if it bee consumed onely by eating and you doe not eate it but improperly then it is not consumed but onely improperly and seeing you hold this consuming to bee of
the essence of the sacrifice therefore there is no sacrifice but improperly and consequently you are no Priests but improperly PHILO The bodie of Christ is eaten properlie and truely euen with the mouth in the Eucharist for to the essence of eating attrition is not necessarie but it is sufficient If it bee taken and conueied from the mouth to the stomacke by humane and naturall instruments that is the tongue and the pallat ORTHOD. If your Priests eate Christ properly with their bodie then are you not men but monsters of mankinde For is not this to make the Priest a Cyclops or a Caniball or rather worse then a Caniball for a Caniball deuours the flesh onely of a meere man but this is to deuoure and consume the flesh and blood of the Sonne of God PHIL. The Canibals doe it in bloody manner so doe not wee ORTHOD. But Saint Austin thinketh that to eate the flesh and drinke the blood of Christ properly is a wicked deede and therefore concludeth that when Christ willeth vs to eate his flesh and drinke his blood the words must bee taken figuratiuely and not properly whereby it is euident that hee condemneth all eating of Christ properly whether it bee in a bloody manner or an vnbloody But to proceede how can the body of Christ bee consumed with eating if it cannot then by your confession there is no Sacrifice PHIL. Wee must consider in the body of Christ a double being a naturall and a sacramentall When it is eaten it looseth not the naturall but the sacramentall ORTHOD. The destruction required in a sacrifice must bee reall for it must cease really to bee that which it was as for example the lambes which were daily offered first they were slaine and so ceased formally to be lambes then the flesh was burned so it ceased materially to bee flesh and when any part of the sacrifice was eaten and by eating turned into the substance of man then it ceased to bee that flesh which it was before Now if in the Eucharist the body of Christ bee not really consumed then according to your positions it is not really sacrified and yet for mine owne part I doe not see but that it followeth according to your principles that the very naturall essence and being of Christ is properly destroyed which is horrible blasphemie PHIL. How can you conclude any such things from our principles ORTHOD. You teach that the very naturall body and blood of Christ and that onely is contained vnder the formes of Bread and Wine but I will proue inuincibly out of your principles that the thing which is contained vnder the formes of Bread and Wine is substantially destroyed and loseth the natural essence that it had before But first let me aske you a question Doe not the consecrated elements nourish after Consecration PHIL. Nourish yes ORTHO If you doubt of it it may be prooued by experience for there is no question but the Priest or any man else may liue a long time though he haue no other sustenance but such Bread and Wine And therefore it is certaine that it nourisheth But nourishment is when the substance of the meate is changed into the substance of the nourished therefore if the consecrated elements doe nourish they must needes haue a substance which must bee changed into the substance of the nourished What substance is this Bread you say it is not for that is vanished by Consecration And therefore it can bee nothing but the Body and Blood of Christ whereupon it wil follow that the naturall Body and Blood of Christ are substantially changed into the substance of the nourished be it man bird or beast which is out ragious blasphemie And if it bee so changed then it hath lost the naturall being and essence which it had before and consequently the Body and Blood of Christ is substantially consumed and destroyed If you bee ashamed of this then bee ashamed of the fountaine from whence it floweth PHIL. It is not the Body and Blood of Christ that nourisheth but the species ORTH. The species are accidents can accidents nourish then a substance shall bee made of accidents and then wee shall haue a world of absurdities PHIL. They nourish by diuine miracle ORTHOD. When yee haue nothing to answere then yee flie to miracles So if the Priest drinke too much of the wine hee shall be drunke by a miracle if the mouse find the way into the box it shall growe fat by a miracle Surely this is a miraculous answere For are not all miracles immediately from God therefore if your answere be true God should prouide miracles for fatting of mice and concurre with a miracle to make the Priest druncke If these things be absurde then your carnall presence your sacrifice and your Priesthood are all absurde CHAP. VII Of their argument drawn from the practise of the Church in the time of the Apostles PHIL. THE practise of the Church doth shewe the contrary for it is saide as they were ministring to our Lord and fasting the holy Ghost c. In which place for ministring we might haue translated sacrificing for so the Greeke doth signifie and so Erasmus translated Yea we might haue translated saying Masse for so they did and the Greeke Fathers hereof had the name Liturgie which Erasmus translateth Masse saying Missa Chrysostomi ORTH. This ministring will not prooue your Massing For the Greeke word is applied to the Angels which I hope you will not call Masse Priestes It is likewise applied to the ciuil magistrate and shall their ministring also be Massing and though Erasmus translate it sacrificing yet there is no necessitie to expound it of your Massing sacrifice Neither doth the word Masse inferre any such thing for it is not from an Hebrew or Chaldee originall as Baronius would haue it that thereupon hee might ground an oblation but it is deriued from the latin as Binius prooueth calling the defendours of the contrary opinion Nouellistes and Bellarmine confesseth that the word Missa is not mentioned of the Grecians which vse in stead thereof the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hee interpreteth munus seu ministerium publicum a publicke office or ministry So the meaning of the place is that they were publickely performing their ministeriall function which is plainely set downe by Saint Chrysostome what is ministring preaching PHIL. This cannot bee for the text saith they did minister to the Lord but you cannot say they preached to the Lord or ministred Sacraments to the Lord. ORTHOD. Very true But in performing these things to the Church they did minister to the Lord because they did them to the honour of God PHIL. This word when it is applied to sacred things and put absolutely is euery where taken for the ministery of Sacrifice ORTHOD. The contrary may appeare because the same word put absolutely without any addition is applied in holy
though Christ saith S. Gregorie liuing immortally now dieth not yet hee dieth in this mysterie and his flesh suffereth for the saluation of the people That is saith the Glosse his death and Passion is represented And you heard before out of the Master of the Sentences that that which is offered and Consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is a memoriall and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation made vpon the Altar of the Crosse. And Bellarmine granteth that Thomas and other Schoolemen doe commonly answere that it is called an oblation because it is a representation of the oblation PHIL. Peter Lombard when he asketh the question whether that which the Priest doth be properly called a sacrifice or an oblation taketh the name of sacrifice or oblation for occision or killing as though he had asked Whether that which the Priest doth be a killing of Christ and answereth most rightly that Christ was truely offered that is slaine but once and that now he is not properly offered that is slaine but only in a Sacrament and representation ORTHOD. First I referre it to the indifferent Reader to consider whether this answere of Bellarmine be not a meere shift and cauill Secondly neither will this shift serue his turne for if the Priest doe not so he cannot be said properly to sacrifice him because in a sacrifice there must be the destruction of the thing sacrificed as is before declared out of Bellarmine PHIL. THe Councell of Trent pronounceth a curse against all those which deny that a true and proper sacrifice is offered in the Masse And they haue reason for as the Apostles so all the Fathers of the Primitiue Church were Masse-Priests For S. Ambrose testifieth That imposition of hands is certaine mysticall words whereby hee that is elected into the Priesthood is confirmed receiuing authoritie his conscience bearing him witnesse that he may bee bold to offer sacrifice to God in the Lords stead ORTHOD. S. Ambrose elsewhere expoundeth himselfe saying Quid ergo nos nonne per singulos dies offerimus offerimus quidem sed recordationem facientes mortis eius That is What therefore doe we doe we not offer dayly truely wee offer but so that wee make a remembrance of his death And againe Ipsum semper offerimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur That is Wee offer him alwayes or rather we worke a remembrance of his sacrifice PHIL. S. Chrysostome saith In many places there is offered not many Christs but one Christ euery where being full and perfect both here and there ORTHOD. S. Chrysostome expoundeth himselfe in the same place Wee offer him saith he or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is We worke a remembrance of the sacrifice Where by the way you may see that S. Ambrose did borrow his former speech from this place of Chrysostome PHIL. S. Augustine saith That Christ commaunded the Leper to offer a sacrifice according to the Law of Moses Quia nondum institutum erat hoc sacrificium sanctum sanctorum quod corpus eius est That is Because this Sacrifice the Holy of holies which is his body was not yet instituted And elsewhere Quid gratius offerri aut suscipi posset quàm caro sacrificij nostri corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri That is What can be offered or accepted more gratefully then the body of our Priest being made the flesh of our Sacrifice And Cyrill Leo Fulgentius and other Fathers haue commonly the like ORTHOD. Then the answering of Austine will be the answering of all Now what his meaning was let himselfe declare Was not Christ once offered or sacrificed in himselfe And yet he is offered in a sacrament not onely at all the solemnities at Easter but euery day to the people Neither doth he lye that being asked doth answere that he is offered For if sacraments haue not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments they should not be sacraments at all And for this resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselues therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ the sacrament of the Blood of Christ is the Blood of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith And elsewhere The flesh and blood of the sacrifice of Christ was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before hee came was performed in trueth and in deed when he suffered is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance since he asc●nded PHIL. YOu cannot so delude the ancient Fathers of the Church For the Nicen Councell in that Canon which Caluine and all other receiue saith plainely That the Lambe of God offered vnbloodily is layde vpon the holy Table ORTHOD. The Lambe Christ Iesus which was offered vpon the Crosse for the sinnes of the world is layd vpon the holy Table not substantially but Sacramentally PHIL. But the Councell meaneth substantially for they say It is come by relation to the holy Councell that in certaine places and Cities the Deacons do reach the sacraments to the Priests Neither the Canon nor the custome hath deliuered this That those which haue not the power to offer sacrifice should reach the body of Christ to those that offer it Where you may see that they doe not onely call it the body of Christ but they plainely describe a Priest by hauing a power and authoritie to offer it and distinguish him from the Deacons which haue no such power ORTHOD. Who can better tell the meaning of the Councel then those which were present and subscribed vnto it One whereof was Eusebius PHIL. Very true and hee telleth how when Constantine dedicated the Temple at Ierusalem some did pacifie the diuine Maiestie with vnbloody sacrifices and mysticall Consecrations Who were these but Masse-priests and what were the vnbloody sacrifices but the sacrifice of the Masse for the Body and Blood of Christ are there offered vnbloodily ORTHOD. Let Eusebius expound Eusebius Christ hauing offered himselfe for a soueraigne sacrifice vnto his Father ordained that we should offer a remembrance thereof vnto God in stead of a sacrifice Is not this a plaine demonstration that in the iudgement of Eusebius there is not in the Lords Supper a sacrifice properly so called but onely a remembrance in stead of a sacrifice And this remembrance hee thus describeth VVhich remembrance wee celebrate by the signes of his Body and Blood vpon his Table He calleth it not a sacrifice but a remembrance celebrated not by the substance of his Body and Blood but by the signes and that not vpon an Altar but vpon a Table and this he calleth an vnbloodie sacrifice as appeareth by his owne words And pleasing God well wee offer vnbloodie sacrifices and reasonable and acceptable to him So it is as cleere as the noone day that Eusebius knew not your Massing sacrifice but expoundeth the