17. for that by read that if by p. 124. l. 18. for Apostle read Apostles p. 130. l. 2â— read Priest p. 133. l. 13. dele them THE FUNERAL OF THE MASS CHAP. I. Concerning the Exposition of these words This is my Body THE Romanists are wont to tell us that these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body are so clear to prove the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Host and consequently to prove Transubstantiation or the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body that they are amazed we cannot perceive so manifest a truth Against which I form this Argument He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the World and takes words otherwise then all other men do must without doubt speak very obscure But if Jesus Christ by these words This is my Body had meant the real presence of his Body in the Host as the Romish Doctors assert and consequently had meant the substantial conversion of the Bread into his Body he had spoken contrary to the common usage of all the World and had taken the words otherwise then all other men do which I thus prove There was never any Author either sacred or prophane that made use of such words as these This is my Body to signifie the substantial conversion of one thing into another or to signifie the real presence of a thing immediately after the pronouncing of them and not before On the contrary there was never any man that did not use them to signifie that the thing was already that which it was said to be For example When God the Father speaking of Jesus Christ said This is my beloved Son it is certain that Jesus Christ was the Son of God before God said it and in common usage it is never said this is that except the thing be so before it is said to be so For example We do not say this is a Table before that which we mean by the word this be a Table Therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all Authors as well sacred as prophane and contrary to the common usage of all men to make these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body to signifie the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body and the real presence of his Body in the Host immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest and not before Seeing then that Jesus Christ when he said This is my Body did not speak contrary to the common usage of all the World and did not take the words otherwise then all other men do it necessarily follows that these words of Jesus Christ This is my Body do not signifie the substantial conversion of the Bread into Christs Body nor the real presence of Christs Body in the Host immediately after the Priest hath pronounced them and not before And this being so the Romish Doctors must seek some other passages of Scripture than this This is my Body to prove such a conversion and such a presence and seeing they can find none I conclude that such a conversion and such a presence have no foundation in holy Scripture 2 That which I have said concerning common usage is founded on this reason viz. because things must be before there can be any Image Picture or Representation of them and consequently Images are after the things whereof they are Images But words are the Images of conceptions and conceptions the Images of things Therefore things are such before we can really conceive them to be such and we conceive them to be such before we can say they are such Therefore that which Jesus Christ held and gave to his Disciples expressed by the word this was his body before he conceived that it was his body and he conceived that it was his body before he said This is my Body and consequently it is not by vertue of these words This is my Body that that which Jesus Christ gave to his Disciples expressed by the word this was his Body but rather it is by blessing the bread or thanksgiving that the bread was made the Body of Christ because it was made the Sacrament of it Whence it follows that these words this is my body must be expounded thus this bread is my body and these words this bread is my body must be expounded thus this bread is the Sacrament of my body which I prove thus 3. A Proposition must be expounded according to the nature of the thing in question for example If a man pointing at the Kings Person should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings Person because the Kings Person is meant But if a man coming into a Painters Shop and pointing at the Kings Picture should say this is the King the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Kings Picture because here his Picture is meant Even so if Jesus Christ laying his hand on his Breast had said this is my Body we must without doubt have understood the Proposition concerning his real Body and not concerning the Sign or Sacrament of it because his very Body had been then meant and not the sign or Sacrament of it But Jesus Christ being about to institute the Eucharist and to that end having taken bread blessed it and given it to his Disciples with these words Take eat this is my Body it is evident that they must be understood of the Sacrament of his Body and the Proposition must be expounded thus this is the Sacrament of my Body because here the Sacrament of his Body is meant And seeing a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent saith in its sixth Session it is evident that this Proposition This is my Body being expounded by this this is the Sacrament of my Body may be expounded thus this is the sign of my Body which I confirm thus 4 In these two Propositions This is my body This cup is the New Testament in my bloud the word is must be taken in the same sense because they are alike having been pronounced upon the same matter viz. the one upon one part of the Sacrament and the other upon the other part of it and because of like things we must give a like judgment But in this Proposition this cup is the New Testament the word is is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being but for a sacramental and significative being because neither the cup nor that which is in the cup is changed into a Testament neither is it really and properly a Testament but the Sacrament of the New Testament Therefore in this Proposition likewise this is my body the word is is not taken for a real and transubstantiated being but for a sacramental and significative being and consequently as this Proposition this cup is the New Testament must be expounded thus the Wine that is in the cup is the sign and Sacrament of the New Testament So this Proposition this is
my body must be expounded thus this Bread is the sign and Sacrament of my Body Whence it follows that in one single Proposition of Jesus Christ in the institution of the Sacrament of the Eucharist viz. this cup is the New Testament there are two figures one in the word Cup being taken for that which is in the cup this is a figure called a Metonymie whereby the thing containing is taken for the thing contained The other Figure is that the cup is called the New Testament this is also a Figure called a Metonymie whereby the sign is called by the name of the thing signified And therefore the Romish Doctors are mistaken when they tell us that all that Jesus Christ said when he instituted the Eucharist must be taken literally and without a figure But withal we must not imagine that Jesus Christ spake obscurely because he spake figuratively these figures and manners of speech being commonly and familiarly used by all the World 5. But when we say that these words this is my body this is my bloud must be expounded thus this Bread is the Sign and Sacrament of my Body this Wine is the Sign and Sacrament of my Bloud we do not mean that the Bread and Wine are barely and simply signs of Christs Body and Bloud but we believe that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are signs that do exhibit the body and bloud of Christ to Believers For when they do by the mouth of the body receive the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist they do at the same time by the mouth of the soul viz. by Faith receive the Body of Christ broken and his Bloud shed for the remission of their sins as will be proved in the next Chapter 6. Add hereunto this one Argument When a man saith that a thing is such if it be not such during the whole time which he imploys in saying it is such he makes a false Proposition For example When a man saith that a Wall is white if it be not white during the whole time he imploys in saying it is white he makes a false Proposition But according to the Romish Doctors when Jesus Christ said this is my body it was not his body during the whole time which he imployed in saying this is my body for they say it was his body afterward only Therefore according to the Romish Doctors Jesus Christ uttered a false Proposition which being blasphemous to affirm we must lay down this for a foundation that that which Jesus Christ gave his Disciples when he said this is my body was his body not only after he had said it but also while he was saying it and before he said it And here we have this advantage of those of the Romish Church that we believe the truth of these words of Jesus Christ this is my body much better then they do because they believe it at one time only viz. after he had said it but we believe it at three several times viz. before he said it when he was saying it and after he had said it But here some may object that we must not take the words of our Lord in too rigorous a sense and that in these words this is my body we must take the Present tense for the next Future and then the sense will be this this will immediately be my body To which I answer that the Romish Doctors will have us take these words this is my body in the rigour of the literal sense and then the Proposition is evidently false I know that the Present tense may be taken for the next Future as when Jesus Christ said I go to my Father and to your Father I go to my God and to your God that is I shall go speedily But who can be so bold and ignorant as to affirm that this speech is without a Figure seeing all Grammarians know that it is a Figure called Enallage of time Therefore the Romish Doctors must confess that by their own doctrine this Proposition of Jesus Christ this is my body is either false or figurative and that seeing it is not false it must be figurative and that the figure must be a Metonymie whereby the sign takes the name of the thing signified as hath already been proved and not an Enallage of time CHAP. II. Concerning the Exposition of these words He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud bath eternal life My flesh is meat indeed c. 1. IN this Chapter I shall prove that Jesus Christ speaks of a spiritual eating and drinking by Faith and not of a corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body My first Argument is this When a man would satisfie his hunger and quench his thirst he eateth and drinketh that thing which he hungers and thirsts after because eating satisfieth hunger and drinking quencheth thirst But it is by Faith that is by believing in Jesus Christ that we satisfie the hunger and quench the thirst which we have after Christ for it is in the sixth of St. John He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst Therefore it is by Faith or by believing that we eat and drink Jesus Christ and consequently the eating of Christ flesh and drinking his bloud is spiritual and not corporal 2. My second Argument is this Jesus Christ saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life And except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you John 6. But it is the spiritual eating and drinking by Faith that gives life eternal and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body because many Reprobates according to the very doctrine of Rome it self do corporally eat the flesh and drink the bloud of Christ and yet shall not inherit eternal life 3. The third Argument is taken from S. Augustine and Cardinal Cajetan who expound the words of Jesus Christ as we do St. Augustin in Book 3. of Christian Doctrine speaketh thus To eat the flesh of Christ is a figure teaching us to partake of Christs Passion and to imprint in our memories with delight and profit that Christ was crucified for us Card. Cajetan in his Commentary on St. John 6. saith To eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud is faith in Christs death so that the sense is this if you use not the death of the Son of man as meat and drink ye shall not have the life of the Spirit in you And having sufficiently proved his Exposition he adds To eat and drink the Sacrament is a thing common as well to those that eat unworthily as to those that eat worthily but that which Jesus Christ here speaks of is not common to both for he saith he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life he saith not he that eateth worthily and drinketh worthily but he that eateth and drinketh Whence it
begun is reputed by God perfect and compleat And St. Paul shews clearly the truth of what hath been said 1 Tim. 2. 8. in these words I will that men pray every where listing up holy hands without wrath and doubting And Ephes 5. Jesus Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Objection 6. 20. The sixth Objection is drawn from Gen. 14. in these words And Melchisedec King of Salem bringing forth bread and wine for he was a Priest blessed him And from Psal 110. and from Heb. 7. where it is said Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec From which words our Adversaries argue thus First They say that Jesus Christ is a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedec the difference between Aaron and Melchisedec consisting in this viz. that Aaron and the other Levitical Priests offered bloudy Sacrifices killing and shedding the bloud of Beasts which they sacrificed to God as a sign and figure of the bloudy sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross But Melchisedec offered an unbloudy sacrifice for when he went to meet Abraham returning from the slaughter of the Kings he offered to God Bread and Wine And seeing this Bread and Wine offered to God by Melchisedec were signs and types of Christs body and bloud Jesus Christ was obliged to offer an unbloudy sacrifice viz. his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine which he did at the institution and celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist that so the reality of the thing typified might answer those shadows and types Secondly That although Melchisedec had brought all this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his Army that returned from the slaughter of the Kings yet he first offered it to God and then gave it to them that so they might partake of the sacrifice of bread and wine And the reason of this is because the Scripture saith that Abraham returned from the battel with great spoils amongst which there was meat and drink enough for the refreshment of himself and his people also it saith expresly that Abrahams people had taken such refreshment as was necessary before Melchisedec met them and consequently they had no need of the bread and wine which he brought except it had been to partake of the sacrifice of the bread and wine which he offered Thirdly They say this is strongly proved by the following words for he was Priest of the most high God which shew the reason why Melchisedec brought bread and wine viz. to make an oblation or offering of it to God for if he had brought this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his people the Scripture would have said that he had brought this bread and wine because that Abraham and his Army being faint and tired had need of meat and drink but it speaks nothing of this on the contrary it saith that he brought bread and wine for he was Priest Fourthly They say that Jesus Christ is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec and seeing there can be no Priest without a sacrifice there can be no eternal Priest without an eternal or perpetual sacrifice But the sacrifice of the Cross was offered but once and cannot be reiterated for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore there must be another perpetual sacrifice in the Church which Jesus Christ offereth by the hands of Priests which can be nothing else but the sacrifice of the Mass viz. the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud under the species of the bread and wine typified by the sacrifice of the bread and wine of Melchisedec Answer 21. To this I answer First That the Hebrew word doth not signifie bringing but brought drew out caused to be brought c. but our Adversaries falsifie the Text thus to make way for another falsification viz. to put these words in a Parenthesis for he was Priest in stead of putting them without a Parenthesis and he was Priest so that we may say that in these few words they have made three falsifications first when they translate it proferens that is bringing in stead of translating it protulit that is brought or drew out secondly when they translate it erat enim sacerdos that is for he was Priest in stead of translating it and he was Priest thirdly when they translate it benedixit ei that is blessed him instead of translating it benedixit ei that is and he blessed him And so of three different propositions viz. Melchisedech also brought bread and wine and he was Priest and he blessed him they have made but one with a Parenthesis thus Melchisedec bringing bread and wine for he was Priest blessed him 22. Secondly I answer that the Hebrew word used by Moses signifies commonly brought drew out caused to be brought caused to be drawn out caused to come c. But we must not stray from the proper signification of words but upon very great necessity which appears not in this Text. And although this Hebrew word should signifie brought to offer and that it should be taken for offered yet our Adversaries would gain nothing by it for it is not said in the Text that he brought bread and wine to offer unto God but we must rather expound it thus viz. that he brought bread and wine to offer and present it to Abraham And indeed the following words viz. and blessed him do clearly shew it for the Pronoun Relative him relates to Abraham according to the exposition of the Apostle Heb. 7. where he saith expresly that Melchisedec met Abraham and blessed him And a little after he saith that Melchisedec blessed him that had the promises and that the less is blessed of the greater But if these words he brought bread and wine must be expounded thus he offered bread and wine to God then it must necessarily follow that Melchisedec blessed God and not Abraham for in these words viz. he offered bread and wine to God and blessed him the Pronoun him can relate to none but God 23. Thirdly I answer That Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people and not to offer unto God Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 6. confesseth that Melchisedec brought bread and wine to Abraham to refresh him and his people who returned faint and tired from the slaughter of the Kings which is true but he adds that Jesus Christ had offered it to God before which is false and cannot be proved Jerome in his Epistle to Euagrius writes that the Jews understood it that Melchisedec meeting Abraham after his victory brought bread and wine to refresh him and his people Josephus writing this History saith
appears there 16. To the three foregoing Propositions I add this Argument which is very considerable In lawful adoration it is requisite that he that adores be well assured that what he adores is the true God else he may justy be reproached as Jesus Christ reproached the woman of Samaria Ye worship ye know not what But the Romanists can never be assured according to their own maxims that the host which they worship is the true God and they have always cause to suspect that they worship a morsel of Bread in stead of the Redeemer of the World because according to their own doctrine the real presence of Christs body in the host depends on lawful consecration and lawful consecration depends on the quality of the Priest and on the pronouncing of the words of consecration and on his intention in pronouncing them for there is no consecration as they say when either he that celebrates Mass is no Priest or doth not pronounce the words that are essentially requisite to consecration viz. this is my body c. or doth not pronounce them with intention to consecrate and consequently in these cases the host remains meer bread But it is impossible certainly to know these three things For as for the quality of the Priest he must have been baptized and he that baptized him must have observed the essential form of Baptism and have had intention to baptize him Again he must have received Ordination from a true Bishop and the Bishop must have observed the essential form of Ordination and have had intention to make him a Priest and to make this Bishop a true Bishop he must have been baptized in due form and with the requisite intention and must have received Ordination in due form and with the requisite intention from other Bishops and they again for the making them true Bishops must also have received Baptism and Ordination in due form and with the requisite intention from other true Bishops and these from others and so back to the Apostles But who can be assured that from the Apostles to a Bishop or Priest now adays there hath been no failing either in the essential form of Baptism or Ordination or in the requisite intention As for the pronouncing of the words requisite to consecration none but the Priest can know whether he hath pronounced them or not because in the celebration of the Mass those words are pronounced so softly that no person present can hear them And as for the intention it is evident that no man but himself can know it Besides It is known that some Priests are Magicians as Lewis Goffredi and other wicked Priests who do neither consecrate in due form nor with the requisite intention especially such as believe nothing of what they profess yea divers Monks and Priests that have been converted to our Religion have assured us that for a long time before their conversion they did abhor the Idolatry that was practised in the adoration of the host Judge then if such persons as these had any intention to consecrate in the celebration of the Mass 17. The Romish Doctors have sought all the remedies imaginable to prevent this danger Pope Adrian Quest 3. speaks thus In the adoration of the Eucharist there is always a tacite condition viz. if the consecration be duly made as bath been decided at the Council of Constance otherwise they could not be excused from idolatry that worship the host when the Priest pretends to celebrate but celebrates not or pretends to celebrate and is no Priest as it many times happens Observe these words it many times happens for they shew that there is great cause of doubting and that much caution must be used For as if a woman in her husbands absence should say to a man that comes to her and tells her he is her husband and she hath probable grounds to suspect him If thou art my husband I will receive thee and thereupon endeavours to clear it before she admits him to any privacy this condition frees her promise from blame but if she gives her self up to him before she clears this doubt saying I will receive thee if thou art my husband this condition doth not free her action from blame but she will be reputed an adulteress Even so if a man to whom an host is proposed to be adored and he hath reason to doubt whether it ought to be adored should only say If thou art Christ I will adore thee and should not adore it before he be well assured of it this condition would render him blameless but if notwithstanding his doubt he adores it this condition if thou art Christ I adore thee doth not exempt him from the crime of Idolatry for to what purpose is the condition whether it be tacite or exprest I adore thee if thou art Christ because he actually adores it without knowing whether it be so or not 18. To what hath been said I add That the Primitive Church never adored the host nor believed that the body and bloud of Christ were really and invisibly in the Sacrament of the Eucharist for if the Christians of the Primitive Church had believed it they had furnished the Heathens with specious pretences to excuse the idolatry of their Image-worship and to retort upon the Christians those very arguments which they had made use of against them 19. First The Heathens did maintain that their Idols were composed of two things viz. of a visible Image and an invisible Deity dwelling in it They bring their gods saith St. Chrysostom in Theodoret in Atrep into their base images of wood and stone and shut them up there as in a prison Your gods saith Arnobius Book 6. dwell in Plaister and Baked Earth and that they may make these materials more venerable they suffer themselves to be shut up and to remain hid and detained in an obscure Prison But might not the Heathens have justly replied to the Ancient Christians if they had believed what the Romish Doctors do now adays And do not you believe the very same of your host that it is composed of two things viz. of the visible species of bread and the invisible body of Christ which is hid under the species Doth not your Christ dwell in baked dough and that he may make a piece of bread more venerable doth he not suffer himself to be shut up and doth he not remain hid as in a Prison 20. Secondly The Heathens held that consecration was the means whereby the Deity which they adored was made present in the Image So Tertullian in his Apolog. chap. 12. saith I find nothing to object against Images but that the matter of them is such as our Frying-pans and Kettles are made of which changeth its destiny by consecration And Minutius Felix speaks thus of a Pagan Image Behold it is melted forged fashioned and yet it is not God behold it is gilded finished erected and yet it is not God behold it is adorned consecrated
not be appeased but by the bloudy and ignominious death of the Cross Therefore the justice of God must have changed its nature if sins can be expiated in the Mass without pain or suffering 20. Thirdly To the distinction of Primitive sacrifice which was offered on the Cross and representative commemorative and applicative which is daily offered in the Mass I reply First That what the Council of Trent saith in Session 22. viz. that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Mass may bear a good sense viz. that there is in it a representation commemoration and application of the sacrifice of the Cross viz. a representation because the bread broken represents the body broken and the wine poured into the cup represents the bloud of Christ shed for the remission of sins a commemoration because all that is done in it is done in remembrance of Jesus Christ and his death according to his own command in these words Do this in remembrance of me and according to what St. Paul saith 1 Cor. 11. As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come and an application because the merit of the sacrifice of the Cross is applied to us not only by the word but also by the Sacraments as we shall shew hereafter But our Adversaries are not content with this for they will have it that in the celebration of the Eucharist there is offered a true and proper sacrifice propitiatory for the sins of the living and the dead which hath been already refuted at large Secondly I say that the application of the sacrifice of the Cross may be considered on Gods part or on mans part on Gods part when he offers Jesus Christ to us with all his benefits both in his Word and Sacraments on mans part when by a true and lively faith working by love we embrace Jesus Christ with all his benefits offered to us both in his Word and Sacraments And this is it that Jesus Christ teacheth us St. John 3. in these words As Moses lifted up the serpent in the Wilderness even so must the Son of man be lifted up viz. on the Cross that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son viz. to die that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life he doth not say whosoever sacrificeth him in the Mass but whosoever believeth c. And St. Paul shews it clearly in these words God hath set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud he doth not say through the sacrifice of the Mass but through faith And we really and truly apply the sacrifice of Christs Cross when we have recourse to him as a man applies a Plaister when he hath recourse to it and lays it on the wound But the recourse or refuge of a penitent sinner to the sacrifice of the Cross for obtaining mercy from God is nothing else but Faith As for the distinction of the sacramental and natural being of Jesus Christ it hath been already refuted in the 6. Number 21. I shall conclude this discourse with the testimony of Thomas Aquinas the most famous of all the Romish Doctors and called by our Adversaries the Angelical Doctor This Thomas in Part. 3. Quest 83. Artic. 1. having proposed this Question viz. Whether Christ be sacrificed in the Sacrament of the Eucharist he concludes with these memorable words The celebration of this Sacrament is very fitly called a sacrificing of Christ as well because it is the representation of Christs Passion as because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion And afterward he gives his answer in these words I answer We must say that the celebration of this Sacrament is called a sacrificing of Christ in two respects First Because as Augustine to Simplicius saith we are wont to give to Images the name of the things whereof they are Images as when we see Pictures on a Wall or in a Frame we say this is Cicero that is Salust c. But the celebration of this Sacrament as hath been said above is a representative Image of Christs Passion which Passion is the true sacrificing of Christ and so the celebration of this Sacrament is the sacrificing of Christ. Secondly The celebration of this Sacrament is called the sacrificing of Christ in regard of the effect of Christs Passion because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Passion Let the Romanists keep to this decision of their Angelical Doctor and we shall agree with them in this point for I am confident that there is not one of the Reformed Religion but will subscribe this true doctrine of Thomas Aquinas CHAP. VIII Containing Answers to the Objections of the Romish Doctors 1. IN the two first Chapters we have answered the two principal Objections of the Romish Doctors drawn from these words This is my body c. and from these he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life c. Now we must answer the rest Objection 1. 2. The first Objection is this When the establishing of Articles of Faith the Institution of Sacraments and the making Testaments and Covenants are in agitation men speak plainly and properly and not obscurely or figuravitely But in the celebration of the Eucharist Jesus Christ established an Article of Faith instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist and spake of a Testament and a Covenant for it is said of the Cup that it is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ yea he spake then to his Disciples to whom he spake in plain and proper terms and not in obscure terms or in figures or parables as he did to the people Answer 3. To this objection I answer First That it is false that Articles of Faith are always expressed in proper terms in holy Scripture as when it is said in the Creed that Jesus Christ sitteth on the right hand of God it is evident that this is a Figure and a Metaphor for God being a Spirit hath neither right hand nor left and all interpreters expound this sitting on Gods right hand metaphorically viz. for that Lordship both of Heaven and Earth which he hath received from God his Father as earthly Princes make their Lieutenants whom they appoint to govern in their name to sit on the right side of them Again When it is said St. Matth. 16. Vpon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it and I will give thee the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven c. It is manifest that these are Figures and Metaphors as Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Bishop of Rome chap. 10. and yet it is
being shut or having been shut which excludes the opening of them by any body but not the opening of them by a divine power in so short a time that it was undiscernable Secondly I answer That the Virgin Mary was a true Virgin both before and after her delivery if by being a Virgin be meant not to have had the company of a man but it is certain that Jesus Christ came out of the Virgins belly by opening her womb for it is said St. Luke 2. that Joseph and Mary carried Jesus Christ to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord as it is written in the Law every male that openeth the womb shall be holy unto the Lord. Thirdly I answer That Jesus Christ did not penetrate the stone that was laid on his sepulchre for it is said St. Matth. 28. That the Angel of God rolled it back from the dore of the sepulchre Fourthly I answer That when it is said Heb. 4. that Jesus Christ penetrated the heavens we must understand it improperly in the same manner as it is commonly said that an Arrow penetrates the Air that is the Air gives way to the Arrow that passeth through the Air and so Jesus Christ penetrated the Heavens because the Heavens gave way to his body and not that the Heavens and his Body were in one and the same place 15. All the Romish Doctors agree with us that modal accidents which are nothing else but the manners of the being of substances as action passion relation figure c. cannot be without a subject no not by the power of God himself But all the Objections by which they endeavour to prove that the accidents of the bread and wine may exist without a subject that is without their substance do prove the same thing of modal accidents too So that I shall not stay now to repeat those Objections with their Answers which are set down at large in my dispute about the Eucharist Objection 5. 16. The fifth Objection is drawn from Mal. 1. in these words From the rising of the Sun unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place shall they offer incense to my name and a new and pure offering where by this new and pure offering nothing can be understood but the sacrifice of the Mass because by this offering we cannot understand Prayers Alms Contrition of heart and other good works which are sometimes in Scripture called Oblations and Sacrifices for the Prophet Malachi promiseth a new offering But Prayers Alms and other good works were common amongst the Jews and besides they of the Reformed Church do believe that all the actions of the Faithful are poluted and the Prophet speaks of a pure and clean offering Again By this offering which Malachi speaks of cannot be understood Lambs Bulls and such like Animals which were wont to be sacrificed in Solomons Temple because the Prophet promiseth that it shall be offered in every place even amongst the Heathen Lastly By this offering cannot be understood the bloudy sacrifice which Jesus Christ offered on the Cross because that bloudy sacrifice was offered but once upon Mount Calvary in Judea and the Prophet speaks of an oblation that shall be offered in every place Therefore by this offering must be understood the sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ under the species of the bread and wine which is nothing else but the Mass Answer 17. To this I answer First That by the offering whereof Malachy speaks must be understood that spiritual Worship and Service which Believers should perform unto God under the New Testament which is comprised in that sacrifice which they offer to God both of their persons and religious actions and this is the reason why St. Paul Rom. 12. speaks thus I beseech you therefore Brethren by the mercies of God that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service And chap. 15. speaking of the grace that was given him of God he saith it is given him that he should be the Minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles ministring the Gospel of God that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost Whence it appears that by this oblation whereof Malachy speaks we must not understand the offering of Christs body and bloud under the accidents of bread and wine but the offering up of the persons and religious actions of those that should be brought unto God by the preaching of the Gospel and particularly the Gentiles 18. Secondly I answer That in the whole passage of Malachy above cited the words new offering are not to be found but only clean offering And though a new offering had been there spoken of yet I say that things may be said to be new when being spoiled and corrupted they are restored and made sound again But the service of God which had been corrupted under the Law was re-established by Jesus Christ and his Apostles under the Gospel so that all things were made new a new Time viz. the time of the preaching of the Gospel a new People viz. the Christian People a new place viz. all parts of the World and not at Jerusalem only a new Prayer viz. the Lords Prayer new Sacraments viz. Baptism and the Lords Supper and new Preaching viz. the preaching of salvation by Jesus Christ 19. Thirdly I answer that the oblation which is offered unto God under the Gospel is pure and clean the service which is performed to him according to his Word is pure the preaching of the Gospel is pure In a word the Christian Religion is pure though there be many failings in those that profess it And although the Faithful that present their bodies a living sacrifice holy acceptable to God be compassed about with many infirmities and that their religious actions be accompanied with divers failings yet their persons and works may be said to be pure and clean in Jesus Christ in whose name they are presented to God so that although they cannot of themselves please or satisfie God yet as they are members of Christ they are reputed holy before God for it is these St. Peter speaks of in Epist 1. chap. 2. who as living stones are built up a spiritual house a holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ And so our sacrifices are a pure and clean offering but it is through Jesus Christ who covers them with his purity and holiness so that the defects of them are not imputed to us To this I add That besides the perfect purity which we have by the imputation of Christs righteousness we have also a purity begun by the Holy Ghost of which St. Paul speaks Rom. 15. in these words that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost for that which God hath decreed Jeâ—us Christ hath purchased and the Holy Ghost hath
THE FUNERAL OF THE MASS OR The MASS dead and buried without hope of Resurrection Translated out of French LONDON Printed by Andrew Clark and are to be sold by Randal Taylor at the sign of the Crown in Little Britain 1673. To the Right Honourable The Earl of SHAFTESBURY Lord High Chancellour OF ENGLAND c. MY LORD I Could not without injustice have dedicated this Book to any but your Lordship because as there is no person to whom I am so much obliged so there is no member of either House of Parliament that hath so freely and generously owned the Protestant interest As for my obligations to your Lordship because they are too great to be exprest it is my duty to take all occasions of expressing my thankfulness for them and therefore I take this occasion to proclaim my thankfulness to the World As for your Lordships late owning the Protestant interest in the House of Peers it was so eminent and accompanied with such zeal and courage that next under God and the King your Lordship may deservedly be stiled the chief asserter and promoter of it and consequently the asserter and promoter of the interest of England For the interest of the Protestant Religion and the interest of this Kingdom are so interwoven that the welfare or ruine of either is the welfare or ruine of both Now being obliged by your Lordship both as an English Protestant and also more particularly in my private capacity I beseech God to grant that your life may be long and prosperous your memory and posterity honourable as long as the Sun and Moon shall endure and your soul and body eternally happy when time shall be no more To this Prayer I shall only add that I am unfeignedly My Lord Your Lordships Most affectionate honourer and most humble Servant S. A. The PREFACE THe Author of this Piece was one Mounsieur de Rodon Philosophy Professor in the Royal Colledge at Nismes a City of Languedoc in France where it was written But as soon as it was Printed it was supprest by the command of Authority prohibiting all persons to keep any of them upon I know not what severe penalties and such Copies as could be found were publickly burnt by the Hang man about 1660. Whereupon the poor Gentleman for fear of being condemned to keep company with his Books was forced to fly to Geneva where he not long after died These severities of our Adversaries bring to my remembrance what a learned and ingenious Frenchman once told me viz. that this small Tract hath more netled their Party then any one Piece that ever was extant in France since the Reformation of Religion there Whether that be a mistake I know not but this I dare affirm that though many famous men of that Kingdom have in the memory of this Age written very smartly against the Romish heresies yet there is not one of them whose person and writings have had such hard measure Whence it appears that our Author his very enemies being judges hath made good what he undertook viz. he hath destroyed that great Diana the Mass and hath also by way of prevention destroyed all the Arguments made use of by the Romish Doctors for the restoring and re-establishing of her which he hath so well performed that to this very day not one of them hath dared so much as to attempt to revive her by answering his Book so that here you may see her laid in her grave without hope of resurrection and therefore the Book may very fitly be termed The Funeral of the Mass and consequently the Funeral of Romish heresies and idolatries as the Author well observes For the truth is the Mass and the Romish Religion are almost convertible terms so that if the former be destroyed the latter must vanish into its first nothing and therefore our Author having destroyed the Mass hath destroyed the thing called Popery too As for the monstrous absurdities and blasphemies which flow from this one Romish doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass they would fill whole volumes but I shall content my self to say that the Mass consists of more gross and abominable Superstitions Phanaticisms and Idolatries then ever have been believed or practised by the most ignorant Pagans What the tenets of the Romanists are and what their practices have been in reference to Protestant Magistrates and People woful and sad experience hath sufficiently taught the World I shall only add that they are as pernicious to our bodies and estates as their heretical Doctrines and idolatrous Services are to our Souls And consequently to introduce Popery into this Kingdome would be an act as unpolitick as Anti-christian as hath been demonstrated in that incomparable piece entituled The established Religion in opposition to Popery But because I know not by what strange infatuation or enchantment or rather by what wonderful judgment of God this monstrous absurd and destructive shall I call it Religion prevails amongst us I thought good to English and Print this small Treatise as the best Antidote against Popery the Holy Scripture excepted that ever I read and for ought I know it is not inferior to the best of this kind that ever was yet extant to which opinion the harsh usage it hath had from our Adversaries as aforesaid doth certainly give no small Testimony But I know that the holy Scripture it self cannot profit except God be pleased to give his blessing much less can this Book and therefore I earnestly beseech him that he would make it prosperous and successful for the good of Souls and if any shall receive benefit by it I desire them to give him all the glory and then I shall think my self infinitely recompensed for my pains in translating it The Contents of the Chapters Chap. I. 1. COncerning the Exposition of these words This is my Body Page 1. Chap. II. 2. Concerning the Exposition of these words He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life My flesh is meat indeed c. P. 10. Chap. III. 3. Against Transubstantiation P. 19. Chap. IV. 4. Against the real presence of Christs Body in the Host or consecrated Wafer P. 32. Chap. V. 5. Against the adoration or worshiping of the Host P. 56. Chap. VI. 6. Against the taking away of the cup. P. 78. Chap. VII 7. Against the Mass P. 91. Chap. VIII 8. Containing answers to the objections of the Romish Doctors P. 112. Amend the following Errours of the Press thus PAg. 2. line 5. for obscure read obscurely p. 23. l. 7. for then read else p. 46. l. 22. for accident read accidents p. 49. l. â—2 for being read seing p. 51. l. 3. for that should read that it should p. 57. l. 17. for creatures read creature p. 60. l. 13. for tood read too p. 66. l. 17. for Apostles read Apostle p. 83. l. 12. read Pastors only because p. 105. l. 2. read Council of Trent p. 10â— l. 4. for Mass read Cross p. 115. l.
clearly appears that according to the Letter he speaks not of eating and drinking the Sacrament of the Eucharist but of eating and drinking the death of Jesus Christ 4. Now that we may clearly understand this doctrine we must consider wherein the life which Jesus Christ gives us doth consist for seeing the flesh of Jesus Christ is meat to us because it gives us life it is evident that if we know what life what life that is which Jesus Christ gives us we must know likewise how Jesus Christ is meat to us and consequently how we eat him But to know what that life is which Jesus Christ gives us we must consider what that death is in which we were involved which is expressed by St. Paul Ephes 2. in these words When we were dead in sins and trespasses God hath quickned us together with Christ by grace ye are saved and consequently the death in which we were involved consists in two things first in the curse of the Law which imports the privation of felicity and the suffering of temporal and eternal punishment for our sins Secondly it consists in an habitual corruption whereby sin raigns in us and therefore it is said 1 Tim. 5. The widow that lives in pleasure is dead while she liveth Also sins are called dead works Heb. 10. So that the life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in two things First In deliverance from the curse of the Law by the pardon of our sins as St. Paul tells us Colloss 2. God hath quickned you together with Christ having forgiven you all trespasses blotting out the obligation that was against us which obligation proceeded from the Law because it did oblige all the transgressors of it to a curse Secondly It consists in regeneration or sanctification whereof Jesus Christ speaking in John 3. saith Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God and S. Paul Heb. 12. Without holiness no man shall see the Lord. Therefore seeing that the life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us consists in the pardon of our sins and in our regeneration and sanctification which ends in glorification and that Jesus Christ is called meat in reference to this life we must consider the means whereby Jesus Christ hath purchased these things for us and seeing it is certain that his death is the means by which he hath purchased pardon of sins and regeneration we must conclude that Jesus Christ is the food and nourishment of our souls in regard of the merit of his death But that Jesus Christ by his death hath purchased life for us that is justification which consists in the pardon of our sins and regeneration which consists in holiness of life appears by these passages of Scripture viz. We are justified by the bloud of Christ and reconciled to God by his death Rom. 5. We have redemption by his bloud even the remission of sins Ephes 1. He hath reconciled us in the body of his flesh by his death that he may present us holy without spot and blameless in his sight Coll. 1. We are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all Heb. 10. Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that he might present it unto himself a glorious Church c. Eph. 5. Therefore seeing Jesus Christ hath purchased life for us by his death and that his flesh and bloud are our meat and drink because they purchased life eternal for us on the Cross viz. the remission of our sins and sanctification ending in glorification it follows that the action whereby Jesus Christ is applied to us for righteousness and sanctification is the same by which we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud But this action is nothing else but Faith as the Scripture tells us Being justified by faith we have peace with God Rom. 5. God purifies our hearts by faith Act. 15. He that believeth hath eternal life Joh. 6. From what hath been said I form this Argument That Action whereby we obtain remission of sins and sanctification ending in glorification is the same whereby we have that life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death because that life principally consists in the remission of sins and sanctification as we have proved But the spiritual eating and drinking by faith and not the corporal by the mouth is that action whereby we obtain remission of sins and sanctification as we have also proved Therefore the spiritual eating and drinking by faith is the action whereby we have that life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth And consequently seeing in St. John 6. a certain eating and drinking is spoken of whereby we have that life which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by his death it is evident that a spiritual eating and drinking is there spoken of and not a corporal 5. From what hath been said it appears that when Jesus Christ saith my flesh is meat indeed c. the figure falls upon the word meat which is taken not for corporal but spiritual meat The reason whereof is that corporal food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the body as spiritual food is that which is appointed for the nourishment of the soul so that although corporal food be taken by the mouth of the body yet that only doth not make it to be corporal food except it be taken for the nourishment of the body otherwise poison medicine a bullet c. which a man should swallow would be corporal food which is absurd to affirm But the flesh of Christ which is pretended to be eaten in the Eucharist by the mouth of the body is not appointed for the nourishment of the body because that food which is appointed for the nourishment of the body is changed into the substance of the body but the body of Christ is not changed into the substance of our bodies Therefore the flesh of Christ is not a corporal food but his flesh broken and his bloud shed on the cross is a spiritual food which nourisheth the souls of those who by a true and lively faith do embrace this flesh broken and this bloud shed that is who do wholy rest and rely on the merit of his death and passion for obtaining mercy from God And certainly seeing that the life which Jesus Christ gives us by his death is spiritual that the nourishment is spiritual that the eating his body and drinking his bloud is spiritual as hath been proved it follows that his flesh must be spiritual meat and his bloud spiritual drink And this flesh of Christ is incomparably better and more truly meat indeed in regard of its effects than corporal food can be because it doth better and more perfectly nourish the souls of Believers then corporal food
sign should have some similitude and analogy with the thing signified And he quotes St. Augustine in Epist 23. to Boniface speaking thus If Sacraments had not some similitude of the things whereof they are Sacraments they could be no Sacraments But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine nor the Body and Bloud of Christ whether jointly or severally have that similitude and analogy to the thing signified which is required but only the Bread and Wine in substance because that which is principally signified and represented by the signs in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the nourishment of our souls in the hope of eternal life for as Baptism is the Sacrament of our Regeneration and spiritual birth so the Eucharist is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment as Card. Bellarmin confesseth in Book 3. of the Eucharist chap. 9. and in Book 4. chap. 19 he saith that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was ordained to preserve spiritual life which cannot be represented and signified but by signs which can nourish our bodies for the analogy and similitude consists in this that as the signs have vertue to nourish our bodies for the preservation of temporal life so the things signified have a vertue to nourish our souls in the hope of eternal life But neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine nor the Body and Bloud of Christ whether severally or jointly with the accidents can nourish our bodies nourishment being essentially the conversion of aliment into the substance of a living body and it is certain that neither the accidents of Bread and Wine nor the Body and Bloud of Christ whether separately or jointly with them can be converted into our substance but only the substance of Bread and Wine and other aliments which we take Therefore neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine nor the Body and Bloud of Christ whether separately or jointly with them are the true signs but the Bread and Wine only which being the ordinary nourishment of our bodies do represent to us the spiritual nourishment of our souls by the Body and Bloud of Christ received by Faith 10. Secondly The Council of Trent in Session 13. commands that the Sacrament of the Eucharist shall be adored with Latrie which according to our Adversaries is the sovereign worship due to God only But the accidents of the Bread and Wine ought not to be adored because they are creatures and that God only must be adored Therefore the accidents of the Bread and Wine are not the Sacrament of the Eucharist Thirdly A Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace as the Council of Trent defines it in Sessions 6 and 13. But in the Eucharist the Body and Bloud of Christ are not visible Therefore in the Eucharist the body and bloud of Christ are not the signs Lastly I say that in every Sacrament the sign relates to the thing signified and Relation is always between two different things because nothing relates to it self and consequently nothing can be both the sign and thing signified But the Body and Bloud of Christ are the things signified Therefore the Body and Bloud of Christ are not the signs And it is to no purpose to say that Jesus Christ in the Mass is the sign and figure of himself on the Cross for Jesus Christ wheresoever he is is one and the same yesterday to day and for ever And therefore Jesus Christ not being different from himself cannot be relative to himself nor the sign of himself Other reasons which are usually alledged against Transubstantiation will be more properly mentioned in the next Chapter CHAP. IV. Against the real presence of Christs Body in the Host or consecrated Wafer 1. THe Romish Doctors affirm That immediately after the Priest in the celebration of the Mass hath pronounced these words this is my body the body of Christ is really present in the Host and that it is whole and entire in every part and point of the Host which doctrine I destroy by these following Arguments the first whreof is this 2. If a thing be created in a place either it must be produced there or it must come or be brought thither from some other place for it is impossible to find out a third way of putting any thing in a place And the Romish Doctors have hitherto been able to invent but one of these two ways of putting Christs Body in the Host the Jacobins telling us that it is brought thither from some other place and the Jesuites that it is produced there But the body of Christ can neither come nor be brought thither into the Host nor can it be produced there Therefore the body of Christ is not in the Host 3. First The body of Christ cannot come or be brought into the Host from any other place because it can come from no place but Heaven being no where but in Heaven But Christs body neither comes nor is brought from Heaven into the Host which I prove thus When a body comes or is carried from one place to another it must leave its first place For example if a man would go from Paris to Rome he must leave Paris But the body of Jesus Christ never leaves Heaven for the heavens must contain him until the time of the restitution of all things Acts 3. Therefore Christs body neither comes nor is brought from Heaven into the Host Besides it is impossible that Christs body should come or be brought into the host without passing through the space that is between Heaven and Earth where the consecrated Hosts are because a man cannot pass from one extream to another without passing through the space that is between them But the space between Heaven and Earth is too vast to be passed through in a moment for these Doctors will have it that immediately after the pronouncing of these words this is my body the body of Christ is brought into the Host Moreover it must in a moment be in all the Heavens and in all the Airs between the highest Heaven and this Earth where the Hosts are because a man cannot pass through a place without being there and then it would have three sorts of existences at once viz. one natural and glorious existence in Heaven one sacramental existence in the Host and one airy existence in the Air. But seeing all these things are absurd we must conclude that Christs body neither comes nor is brought into the Host 4. Secondly Christs body cannot be reproduced in the consecrated Host because a thing that is produced already cannot be produced again without a preceding destruction for as a dead man cannot be killed nor that be annihilated which is annihilated already so neither can that be produced which is produced already nor that receive a being which hath one already This common conception of all men is founded upon this principle That every action whether it produceth or destroyeth a thing must necessarily have
by wicked men by Beasts and by Devils incarnate What necessity is there that it should be carried away by the Devil that it should be stoln burnt c. Can it be said that it is for the salvation of the soul of him that eats it But Reprobates as our Adversaries confess eat it too and the Faithful under the Old Testament did not eat it nor do the little children of Believers under the New and yet they are saved for all that Can it be said with Bellarmin and Perron that the host being eaten serves as an incorruptible seed for a glorious Resurrection But the Faithful of the Old Testament and the little children of Believers under the New will rise again gloriously though they never participated of the Eucharist And St. Paul tells us Rom. 8. that this seed of the resurrection of our Bodies is not Christs flesh but his Spirit in these words If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you he shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you 21. Lastly The holy Scripture is clear in this matter for Jesus Christ is asceuded into heaven Acts 1. And the heavens must contain him until the time of the restitution of all things Acts 3. and he himself saith I leave the World and go to the Father St. John 16. The poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always St. Matth. 26. To which may be added what Jesus Christ saith St. Matth. 24. viz. In the last days false Prophets will come that shall say Christ is here or there and that he is in the secret chambers or Cabinets which cannot be but by the doctrine of the Romish Church which puts Christs body in divers places and shuts it up in several Cabinets on their Altars and it is very remarkable that in the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in the Cupboards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being properly a Cupboard to keep meat in CHAP. V. Against the adoration or worshiping of the Host 1. AGainst the adoration of the host I form three Propositions The first is this We are not obliged to adore or worship God every where or in all places where he is at least not with external adoration but we are only obliged to worship him in all places where he appears in his glorious Majesty The first part of this Proposition viz. That we are not obliged to worship God in all places where he is appears by the practice of all Christians For God being every where and consequently in Stones Trees Beasts Devils and all other Creatures there is no man so extravagant as to fall on his knees before a Tree an Ass or a Devil that he may worship God in them who is as really present in them as he is in heaven 2. The second part of this Proposition viz. that we are only obliged to worship God both with internal and external adoration in all places where he appears in his glorious Majesty is proved first by the commands which Jesus Christ gave his Apostles when they asked him how they should pray for he answers them thus When ye pray say Our Father which art in Heaven St. Matth. 6. St. Luke 11. Why doth he say which art in heaven and not which art on Earth or in the Sea or in the Air seeing God is equally in all these places but only because God appears in heaven in his glorious Majesty and there crowns all the blessed Spirits with his glory Secondly When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush which was not consumed he said to him Take thy shoes from off thy feet for the place where thou standest is holy ground Exod. 3. Why is this ground called holy and Moses commanded to approach it with reverence submission and adoration seeing any other ground is equally Gods creatures and that he is equally present every where but only because God did manifest somewhat of his power and glory in that place by causing the Bush to burn without being consumed Thirdly Joshua and the Israelites did prostrate themselves before the Ark of the Covenant Joshua 7. 6. because God appeared there in a peculiar and glorious manner for from the Mercy-seat which covered it he gave his oracles and made known his will Exod. 25. 22. Numb 7. Fourthly When the Priest celebrates Mass a little before the consecration he recommends the sursùm corda that is the lifting up of their hearts Why the lifting them up seeing God is equally both above and below but only because God appears above in heaven in his glorious majesty and consequently it is thither that we must direct our Vows our Prayers and our Worship 3. The second Proposition is this We are not obliged to adore Jesus Christ in the water of Baptism though he be really there in regard of all that is adorable in him The first part of this Proposition viz. That we are not obliged to worship Jesus Christ in the Water of Baptism is chiefly proved by the practice of all Christians for no man ever fell on his knees before the Water of Baptism and adored Jesus Christ in it at least not with external worship which is only here intended and doubtless the reason is because Jesus Christ discovers no beam of his glory there nor doth he appear in the Water of Baptism any more then in other waters so that as we are not obliged to worship God save only where he appears in his glorious Majesty as hath been proved so neither are we obliged to worship Jesus Christ but only where he discovers some beam of his glory which he doth not in the Water of Baptism 4. The second part of this Proposition viz. That Jesus Christ is really present in the Water of Baptism in respect of all that is to be adored in him is proved thus All that is of it self adorable in Jesus Christ is either his Godhead or his divine Person or his divine Attributes As for his Godhead seeing it is really every where it cannot be denied but that it is also in the Water of Baptism As for his Person seeing it is divine and eternal and infinite it is really every where and consequently in the Water of Baptism and as for his divine attributes seeing they are not really different from the Godhead or the person of Jesus Christ it necessarily follows that seeing the Godhead and Person of Jesus Christ are really in the Water of Baptism his divine Attributes must really be there likewise 5. The third Proposition is this We are not obliged to adore Jesus Christ in the host though he be really there in respect of all that is to be adored in him viz. in respect of his Godhead his divine Person and his divine Attributes yea though he were there invisibly in respect of his Manhood too The principal reason of this hath been toucht upon already viz. That as we are not obliged to worship God
antiquity and of the conformity of their Creed to that of the Primitive Church and yet can so openly renounce both in this chief and principal point of doctrine 3. Here the Romish Doctors now adays think to shelter themselves by telling us it is true that Jesus Christ did institute the Sacrament of the Eucharist under both the species of the Bread and Wine and that the Primitive Church did so celebrate it not by any express command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles but meerly by Ecclesiasâ—ical policy which may be changed as several occasions and circumstances require And they add That it is sufficient to observe that which is of the essence of the Sacrament viz. to receive the body and bloud of Christ but that the Church may change that which is accidental viz. to receive them under both the species or under one species only for they will have it that the bloud of Christ is under the species of the Bread by concommitance and that his body is under the species of the Wine by concommitance because Jesus Christ being now glorious his body and bloud cannot be separated 4. To this I reply First That there is an express command of Jesus Christ to take the Cup and drink St. Matth. 26. in these words drink ye all of it To this the Romish Doctors answer That the word all is not extended to all men for then we should say that the Eucharistical Cup ought to be given to Turks Jews and all other Infidels And they add that the word all doth not extend to all those that are of the body of the Church of the Elect for then the Eucharistical cup should be given to little children whom God hath elected to eternal life But say they the word all is extended only to all those to whom Jesus Christ gave the cup viz. to the Apostles considered as they were Pastors 5. To this I reply That although Jesus Christ gave this command to drink of the Eucharistical cup to his Apostles only yet we must know in what quality they received this command But it was not in the quality of Apostles for then none but Apostles could partake of the cup and there being now no more Apostles it should be quite taken away and so Mass could be no more celebrated And it was not in quality of Pastors or sacrificing Priests for Jesus Christ was then the only Sacrificer as the Romish Doctors say and the Apostles did not then exercise the function of sacrificing Priests Besides it belongs to Pastors and those that administer the Sacraments being publick persons to give but to private persons to receive only But the Apostles in the celebration of the Eucharist did only receive of Jesus Christ their Master and Pastor Therefore they received the command to drink of the cup as they were Believers Whence it follows that all the faithful that partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist are obliged by the command of Jesus Christ to drink of the cup. So then the Romish Doctors are mistaken when they tell us that none but Priests that sacrifice have a right to drink of the cup and that those Priests that do not sacrifice must communicate under the species of the bread only for at that time the Apostles did not sacrifice To this may be added that if the command of Jesus Christ drink ye all of it was spoken to Pastors only because they to whom Christ spake were Pastors then it follows that the command of Jesus Christ Take eat was spoken to Pastors because they to whom Jesus Christ spake were Pastors and so the people will not be obliged by any command to communicate under the species of the bread and consequently will be wholy deprived of the Sacrament which is very absurd and contrary to Christian Religion 6. Secondly I say That in 1 Cor. 1. there is an express command to all the Faithful to drink of the cup in these words Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. In which words the Apostle speaks to all Believers who no doubt have cause to examine themselves And this is apparent because St. Paul directs his Epistle and consequently these words to all those of the Church of Corinth as well Lay-men as Ecclesiastical for in chap. 1. vers 2. he directs it to all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. To this I add That Jesus Christ doth not only say as often as ye eat this bread but also as often as ye drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come so that we do as much commemorate Christs death by partaking of the cup in the Eucharist as we do by partaking of the bread And this is very proper for seeing that not only the body of Christ was broken but also his bloud shed on the Cross and that in every propitiation and expiation for sin the effusion of bloud was very considerable because it represents death better then any thing else doth it is certain that they do not celebrate the memory of Christs death as they ought that do not partake of this part of the Sacrament whereby only we commemorate the effusion of Christs bloud 7. Thirdly I say that in the dispute about the Eucharist our Adversaries do alledge to us the words of Jesus Christ in chap. 6. of St. Johns Gospel Except ye drink the bloud of the son of man ye have no life in you Why then do they deprive the people of life by taking the cup from them and hindering them from drinking And it is not at all to the purpose here to alledge concommitance and to tell us that by taking Christs body under the species of the bread we take his bloud also because 't is inseparable from his body For to this I answer First That to take Christs bloud in taking the host is not to drink it But Jesus Christ saith expresly Except a man drink his bloud he hath no life in him Secondly I say That although in some places by the body should be meant the body and bloud too yet it could not be in those places where a manifest distinction is made between the body and the bloud But in the Sacrament of the Eucharist this distinction is very apparent for Jesus Christ gave first the Sacrament and sign of his body in these words Take eat this is my body which is broken for you and then separately the Sacrament of his bloud in these words Drink ye all of it for this is my bloud which is shed for you And he not only speaks of them separately but represents them as really separated in his death for he saith my body broken for you and my bloud shed for you In which words there is no place for concomitance for the body broken by divers wounds doth not contain the bloud and the bloud being shed is not contained in the body Also our Adversaries affirm
that the sacramental words do operate that which they signifie But by their own confession they signifie the separation of Christs body from his bloud as Card. Perron acknowledgeth in his reply to the King of Great Britain pag. 1108. in these words The scope of the entireness of this Sacrament is to put us in mind that this body and this bloud which we receive were divided by his death on the Cross whence St. Paul saith as often as we eat this bread and drink this cup we shew the Lords death till he come Thirdly I say That as he that eats bread dipt in wine hath indeed wine in his mouth but doth not drink it so he that should eat or swallow a consecrated host would not drink Christs bloud though it were in it 8. Lastly I say That seeing the Sacraments were instituted to assure us the more of the truth of Gods promises and that all our comfort depends on this perswasion that all Gods promises are most true it necessarily follows that as much of the Sacrament as is taken away so much of the certainty of this perswasion is diminished And 't is to no purpose to say that one part of the Sacrament doth as much confirm Gods promises as the whole Sacrament doth for if it be so then God hath unnecessarily instituted two Sacraments for it had been enough to have instituted Baptism only seeing it is ordained to confirm Gods promises But if for such a confirmation two Sacraments are better then one and if two pledges and two seals for that purpose are of more consequence then one alone then in one Sacrament also two signs are of more weight then one alone for the confirmation of Gods promises and seeing it is said St. Luke 22. and 1 Cor. 11. that the cup is the New Testament and the New Covenant in the bloud of Christ because it is the Sacrament of it why then are people deprived of it 9. As for the imaginary dangers and scandals which the Romish Doctors find in peoples partaking of the cup I say in general that Jesus Christ in whom the treasures of wisdom are hid and in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily foresaw them as well as they and yet he instituted and administred the cup and commanded all to drink of it And St. Paul who was extraordinarily inspired by the Holy Ghost doth notwithstanding these pretended dangers and scandals command the Corinthians as well Lay persons as Ecclesiastical to drink of the cup as hath been already proved 10. The first inconvenience which our Adversaries find in peoples partaking of the cup is that they fear they may dip their moustaches in the Chalice and so the bloud of Christ may remain on some hair of the moustache also they fear that the species of the wine and consequently Christs bloud may fall to the ground and being fallen it cannot be gathered up again To this I answer First That Women Eunuchs and such young men as have no beards ought not to be excluded Secondly It is better to be without Moustaches then without the participation of the whole Sacrament Thirdly This inconvenience proceeds only from a false supposition viz. that Christs bloud is under the species of the wine but if in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there be nothing but Bread and Wine in substance and any of it should fall to the ground accidentally and not through any fault of ours this inconvenience is not great enough to violate the institution and command of Jesus Christ and his Apostles 11. The second inconvenience is That it is almost impossible to observe this Law where there is a great number of people and but one Priest To this I answer First That in places where there is much people as in Cities there are divers Priests Secondly If one Priest be not enough another must be called from some neighbouring place Thirdly That which cannot be done in one day must be done in two or three days rather then the command of Jesus Christ should be violated and the practice of the Primitive Church abandoned 12. The third inconvenience is that some have a natural antipathy or aversion to Wine and consequently cannot drink of the cup. To this I answer That because corporal actions do depend on certain natural powers they are supposed to be commanded to those that have natural powers proper to exercise those actions and to none else For example The hearing of Gods Word is not commanded to deaf persons but to those that can hear it but drinking of Wine is a corporal action and therefore commanded to those only that can drink it So that if the cup must be taken from all Lay-people because some of them have a natural antipathy to Wine then the preaching of the Gospel must be taken from Christians because some of them are deaf and cannot hear it 13. The fourth inconvenience is That there are some Countries where no Wine grows as in Lapland Norway c. To this I answer First That although no Wine grows in those Countries yet some may be brought thither Secondly But if none can be brought without being spoiled and its form changed then it is better to substitute the ordinary drink of the Country in stead of Wine Thirdly But if this common drink of the Country may not be substituted in stead of Wine then they that cannot have Wine do abstain from it because they are forced thereunto and it is neither impudence nor contempt to abstain from a thing commanded by Jesus Christ when it is not to be had but to ordain that they that have wine in abundance shall abstain from the cup is an insufferable boldness and a most unchristian contempt of the Sacrament CHAP. VII Against the Mass 1. THe Mass according to the Romish Doctors is a Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of Christ propitiatory for the sins of the living and dead and so it is defined by the Council of Trent Session 22. Against such a Mass we might alleadge all the Arguments already made use of against Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host for our Adversaries confess that those reasons which destroy Transubstantiation and the pretended presence of Christs body in the host do also destroy the Mass But in this Chapter we shall only use such Arguments as are directly against the Mass and do utterly destroy it 2. The first Argument is drawn from this viz. that in the institution and first celebration of the Eucharist Jesus Christ did not sacrifice nor offer his body and bloud to his Father as appears by what is mentioned in the three Evangelists and the Apostle St. Paul in which there is not the least foot-step to be seen of a sacrifice or oblation of Christs body and bloud This Bellarmin confesseth in Book 1. of the Mass chap. 27. in these words The oblation which is made after consecration belongs to the entireness of the Sacrament but is not