Truth and Falsehood, Book · Chapter 16
Againſt the ſacrifice of the Maſſe, or of the Altar, as they call it. CHAP. 16
THE PROTESTANTS
NOwe to their groſſe abſurdities, and manifeſt deprauings of the inſtitution of Chriſt, they adde alſo their blaſphemies, againſt the ſacrifice of Chriſt Ieſus, which as he was once offered, Heb. 10.10.14and by that one offering for ſinnes, hath conſecrated for euer thē that are ſanctified. Heb. 9.12.And hath obtained eternall redemption for vsus: ſo wee confeſſe that by that one ſacrifice he is the propitiation for our ſinnes, 1. Iohn 2.2.which he offered for vsus vpō the croſſe, and cannot be dayly offered by the Prieſt, without great wrong to Chriſtes eternall and onelyonly Prieſthood, and without great preſumptiō in that prieſt, that dare offer ſo excellent a ſacrifice, neither without derogatiō to the vertue of his death.
THE PAPISTS
BƲt the Church of Rome teacheth, that in the Maſſe, the priest (a ſinfull man) doth offer vp that moſt holy ſacrifice Ieſus Christ vntounto God the father, a ſacrifice propitiatorie for the quicke and the dead: yea, for the greateſt ſinnes that wee commit. As for originall ſin, they confeſſe, that Chriſt hath taken that away by his ſacrifice, but our voluntarie ſinnes, which therefore alſo are more odious, muſt be taken away by this ſacrifice, that the prieſt offereth vponupon the Altar: So hauehave they turned the Sacrament into a ſacrifice, Chriſtes holy ordinance into a blaſphemous Idoll, and al for their owne gaine, that the Prieſtes might bee hyred to vſe this remedie for the ſinnes of the people: this ſalue for all ſores.
De Miſſa. li. 1. cap. 6 Out of Ge. 14.18The firſt argument that Bellarmine hath for proofe of this vnbloudie ſacrifice of the Maſſe, is at large handled by Bellarmine: but the effect of it is this. The thing figured muſt bee like to the figure: But Melchiſedech, who was the figure, offered to God bread and wine, as a ſacrifice: Therefore alſo muſt Chriſt offer his bodie in forme of bread, Bell li. 1. ca. 7. de Miſſa. Heb. 7.and his bloud in forme of wine, for a ſacrifice. Firſt, his firſt propoſition is not ſimplie true, but onelyonly inaſmuch as the one muſt be figured of the other. But in what things Melchiſedech is a figure of Chriſt, none can better tell than the Apoſtle to the Hebrewes, who fully handleth that matter,Col. cum Tryph. fol. 36 and yet doth not once mention this ſacrifice. And therefore we may gather, that Melchiſedech was no figure of Chriſt in that point: For if he was, then was not the Apoſtle faithfull to omit ſo neceſſarie a point. Iuſtin alſo hath a notable compariſon of them, but he doth not touch that in one worde. Secondly, a ſacrifice muſt be offered: but this bread and wine was but brought foorth for ſo doth their owne tranſlation teſtifie. Thirdly, a ſacrifice muſt be offered to God: this place mentioneth no ſuch thing, and therefore moſt likely that it was brought to refreſh Abraham, and his ſouldiers. Whereby we ſee, that Bellarmines minor hath no truth in it, wherein he affirmeth that Melchiſedech offred bread and wine to God in ſacrifice. Laſtly, what a conſequence is this: Melchiſedech offered to God bread and wine in ſacrifice: therefore Chriſt offered himſelfe in forme of bread and wine. Rather is this a ſtrong argument to the contrarie, if wee ſhould graunt that he did offer the bread and wine to God, which hath no probabilitie in it: But I ſay, if that ſhould be granted, wee might thus reaſon: The thing figured muſt bee like to the figure: but Melchiſedech who was the figure, offered but bread and wine, therefore Chriſt offered nothing elſe but bread and wine: and ſo maketh it nothing for that ſacrifice, for which the Papiſts doe alledge it.
As for his teſtimonies out of the fathers, for proofe of Melchiſedechs offering of bread and wine to God in ſacrifice, becauſe I purpoſe eſpecially to goe through his generall arguments, I omit of purpoſe a particular examining of euerie place, onelyonly contenting my ſelfe with this generall obſeruation, that out of the teſtimonies alledged hee can hardly conclude that which hee taketh in hande to prooue, becauſe the fathers ſeeme rather to allude many times vntounto that which he did, than ſo to alledge his doing, as that they thinke anie neceſſarie argument for proofe hereof, is to be gathered out of the ſame. And that may wel be gathered out of Chryſoſtom vponupon this place, who ſaith thus:In Gen. hom. 3. For the honor that he ſhewed to the patriarke, ſee how a ſacrament is inſinuated: For he offred to him bread and wine. Marke (to him) that is, to Abraham, flat againſt that which they would. And this is moſt agreeable vntounto the hyſtorie written by Ioſephus, who by all likelihood knew beſt in his time how that ſtorie was thē vnderſtood,Ant. li. 1. c. 18 he ſaith that Melchiſedech gaue great intertainment vntounto the ſouldiers of Abraham, And ſo Chryſoſtome in the place alledged ſaith, Abraham brought forth loaues and wine. And thus doth the Chaldee Paraphraſe expound it: So that if we rightly conſider, not onelyonly what they ſay, but how they ſpeake it, and vponupon what ground, to anſwer whatſoeuer he can bring out of the fathers concerning this point, will not be hard.
Argument. 2 The celebrating of the Paſſeouer (ſaith Bellarmine) was an expreſſe figure of the Euchariſt: de Miſſa. lib. 1. cap 7.But, the Paſſeouer was a kinde of offering of a ſacrifice to God: Therefore the Euchariſt muſt ſo be. Maiſter Bellarmine hath forgotten what he ſhould proue: hee muſt teach Chriſt to be in his laſt ſupper a ſacrifice properly ſo called: but this argument proueth the Euchariſt to be a kinde of ſacrifice.
This argument, to be ſhort, is thus anſwered: There were two things in the Paſſeouer: The one was, the killing of it, by which was Chriſts death repreſented vntounto vsus, as Iuſtine Martir that ancient father teacheth, Dialog. cū Tryph. Iudaeo. The other was, the eating of it, by which was figured vntounto them that ſpirituall foode of the ſoule Chriſt Ieſus, who was promiſed vntounto their fathers. And in this reſpect may it in ſome ſort bee called a figure of the Euchariſt, becauſe it repreſented vntounto them that thing, that the Euchariſt repreſenteth vntounto vsus. Therfore, if in the firſt propoſition. Bellarmine meaneth by celebrating the Paſſeouer, the eating of the Paſſeouer, I graunt it, but then is his minor or ſecond propoſition vntrue: For the eating of it was not the killing of it, and ſo not a ſacrifice. But if by the celebrating of the Paſſeouer, he vnderſtand the killing of it, then is his maior to be denied, becauſe in the Euchariſt is no killing, or ſhedding of bloud. But on the contrarie, a man may thus reaſon: The celebrating of the Paſſeouer was not in euerie reſpect a figure of the Euchariſt: For the Paſſeouer muſt hauehave the ſprinkling of blood which might not be ſprinkled but by the Prieſt only: as appeareth 2. Chron. 30.16. where that ſolemne keeping of the Paſſeouer, by king Ezechiah is deſcribed: and 2. Chron. 35.11. where it is declared, how zealouſly Ioſiah performed the ſame ſeruice. And in that reſpect onelyonly is it to be counted a Sacrifice: for that onelyonly belonged to the Prieſts to doe, ſo as no other but the Prieſts might doe it. All other things might be, and were performed by others: But the Euchariſt they all with full mouth, confeſſe to bee vnbloodie: and therefore in this thing wherein onelyonly the Paſcall Lambe may be accounted a ſacrifice, it is no figure of the Euchariſt: So the celebrating of the Paſſeouer, euen in that point wherein it is a ſacrifice, doeth nothing proue that ſacrifice which the Romiſh church would teach in the Maſſe. And ſee how vnneceſſarie an argument this is: In the celebrating of the Paſſeouer, there was a bloody ſacrifice: therefore in the Euchariſt muſt bee a bloodie ſacrifice. This conſequence the Papiſts themſelues will not graunt: and yet it is as good and neceſſarie as that of theirs. In celebrating of the Paſchall Lambe there was a ſacrifice: therefore in the Euchariſt there muſt bee a ſacrifice. For this principle that maſter Bellarmine doeth ſet downe, That celebrating of the Paſſeouer, was en expreſſe figure of the Euchariſt: if it proue the Euchariſt to hauehave a ſacrifice, it doth alſo proue it to hauehave a bloodie ſacrifice: for otherwiſe the Lambe or Paſſeouer was not an expreſſe figure of the Euchariſt. If therefore the Papiſts will denie that it is a bloudy ſacrifice, why ſhould we grant it to bee a ſacrifice, vnleſſe they can alledge better reaſon than this that is taken from celebrating the Paſſeouer. And thus much for the ſecond argument.
Argument. 3 The third argument that maſter Bellarmine bringeth, he ſayeth hee neuer read anſwere to it: and this it is, The blood of the olde Teſtament, Exod. 24. Cap. 8.was the bloud of a ſacrifice alreadie ſlaine and offered: therefore the blood of the new Teſtament is ſo: Anſwere But this blood of the new Teſtament is the blood of Chriſt, as himſelf faith, This is my bloud: therefore he was the ſacrifice offered vp in the Supper. It is true, that when Moſes ſaid, This is the bloud of the couenant that God hath made with you, the beaſt for ſacrifice was alreadie ſlaine: but that it muſt needes be ſo in the bloud of the newe teſtament, there is no neceſſitie, and therefore that argument muſt bee denied. Firſt, becauſe maſter Bellarmine maketh the eſpecial thing in this couenant to be, that the bloud was ſhed before the words were ſpoken: whereas the principall part in deed is, that the couenant muſt be eſtabliſhed by bloud. And therein Moſes directed them to Chriſt, in whoſe bloud the couenant of grace is eſtabliſhed with Gods people. Which the Apoſtle to the Hebrews doth rightly conſider of,Heb. 9.8. and therefore looketh not to the time wherein the ſacrifice was ſlaine, but to the matter wherby the couenant was eſtabliſhed. Secondly, the order which Mo… ſes doth vſe, and the Apoſtle obſerueth out of him as a verie materiall point, is of vsus to be marked. For firſt, the couenant was made betweene God and the people, & then it was ra… by the blood euen ſo becauſe Chriſt muſt needs make this couenant, and ſet downe th… s h… s laſt will and Teſtament, therefore his blood … muſt of neceſſitie bee after the … of this his laſt will: ſo that although that blood of the … Teſtament was … before the words were ſpoken, yet it is not needfull it ſhould ſo bee in the newe Teſtament. Nay, it can not ſo bee, becauſe hee muſt ma… e this con… whileſt yet hee was … e, and no other coulde make it for him. Then do hee confirme … by his blo… ſhedding, which was afterwardes vponupon the croſſe, whereof that bloud of the olde Teſtament was but a ſhadowe. And thus I truſt, iuſt cauſe appeareth to denie his argument. And then that which followeth, that Chriſt therefore muſt be ſacrificed in his laſt ſupper without … further labour, falleth to the gr… . As for the fiue ſundrie arguments alledged by him in the … th Chapter of the aforeſa… de booke,… it is no mar… though maſter Be… armine make no great account of the ſame. For he cannot proue out of them, that Chriſt in h… s laſt ſupper did offer vp his owne bodie to God,… … 2 3… and his blood, in forme of breed and w… . His arguments are taken out of the ſtory of Hely the 2. out of the Prouer. 9.1 2 The third, out of Eſay, 19, 21. The fourth out of Eſay, 66.21 … d Ier. 33.17, 18 the fifth out of Dan. … , 11, 12, and 12, 11 Read the places who ſo will, and it ſhall eaſily appeare, that they ſerue not to proue that which Bellarmine would, and therefore I paſſe them ouer thus briefly.
…But the mighte argument, the w… ght whereof well beare downe all before it, is taken out of Malachy. I hauehave no pleaſure in you, …ſaith the Lord of hoſtes neither will I accept an offering at your hand For from the riſing of the ſunne, vntounto the going downe of the ſame, my name … great among the Gentiles, and in eueryevery place incenſe ſhall … offred vntounto my name, and a pure offering, for my name … great among the heathē, ſaith the Lord of hoſts. Which place to be vnderſtood of a ſacrifice properly ſo called, … not of ſpirituall ſacrifices, maſter Bellarmine will proue by ſundry arguments: The firſt is drawne from the Hebrew word which the Prophet vſeth there, which maſter Bellarmine will not in any wiſe hauehave to be vſed but for thoſe ſacrifices that are properly ſo called. And yet in this very booke, a little before,Cap. … he confeſſeth that ſacrifice that is called by the ſame name, to be But as a part, or as it were the ſ… ce of another ſacrifice. And that anſwer did then, as he thought, ſerue his turne, to ſtop the mouth of Kemnitius. But, now hee will hauehave it, not onelyonly to be a ſacrifice, but euen a moſt proper ſacrifice. But by that word, and … that place we are taught, that the ſacrifices of Chriſtians ſhalbe the true ſacrifices, not conſiſting onelyonly of outwarde ſhew, but hauing that … ſeaſoning and true ſ… ceritie, which through Ieſus Chriſt ſhalbe acceptable vntounto God. And that ſinglenes of heart, was ſignified by that Mincha which was commanded to be offered by the people of God, with their dayly ſacrifices. Therefore the name proueth not ſtrongly inough the ſacrifice for which it is brought. His ſecond argument is taken out of that worde Cleane ſacrifices, wherein he ſtriueth much to proue,Howe … talked … that our ſpirituall ſacrifices of prayers, thankeſgiuing, yea, of our ſelues and all ou… obedience, cannot bee cleane: Wherein although he ſaith truly of our workes as they are in themſelues conſidered, yet are they alſo called Cleane: firſt, in reſpect of the fountaine of regeneration from whence they proceed, in regard whereof, although they bee not ſimpl… e cleane, yet in compariſon of the workes of them that are ſecure in their wickedneſſe they are cleane. Secondly, becauſe God accounteth them as cleane for Chriſts ſake. Thirdly, in reſpect of that whereunto the workes of the regenerate doe tende: for though they cannot attaine to perfection, yet doe they firme for it. And … this ſort Dauid confeſſeth, ſome may be Cleane. Pſa. … 4.3… .Who ſhall climbe vp into the hal of the lord, or who ſhal ſtād in his holy place? He that hath innocent hands, and a cleane heart. To this Eſay Eſay 1.16 1. Tim. 2.8exhorteth: Be you cleane. And of this ſpeaketh the Apoſtle Saint Paule, In euerie place lifting vp pure hand, or cleane hands. And if M. Bellarmine do not content himſelfe with this cleanneſſe, he will find that euen the ſacrifice of the Maſſe it ſelfe, for which he ſtriueth ſo in this place, ſeeing the vertue therof muſt ſomewhat depend vponupon the goodneſſe and deuotion of the Prieſt (as he ſaith) wil not be found verie cleane,De Miſſa li. 1. cap. 4 becauſe the ſacrificer is manie times verie vncleane. His third reaſon is taken out of the words that are in the beginning of the text alleaged. Out of which he will proue that it muſt bee a new ſacrifice, and ſuch as was not before: but our ſpirituall ſacrifices hauehave beene alwayes, therefore the Prophet cannot meane of our ſpirituall ſacrifices. It will neuer be proued that the Prophet ſpeaketh of ſuch a ſacrifice as neuer was. But the Iewes truſted too much in their externall Sacrifices: yea, though they were not ſuch as God commaunded that they ſhould be. But on the contrarie, God telleth them, that euen among the Gentiles whom they deſpiſed, thinking that no good could be amongſt them, I ſay, among them ſhould be offered, not ſuch polluted and vncleane things, as the Prieſts were content to take of the Iewes to offer to God, but a Cleane offering: euen ſuch an offering as was the bodie of their ſhadowes, the truth of their figures, and the ſubſtāce of their ceremonies, in reſpect of him that brought the offering: that is, they ſhould ſerue the Lord with a ſincere and ſingle heart. And this is the cleane ſacriffce that Malachie meaneth, which was acceptable alwayes, and alwayes ſhall be. Fourthly, Bellarmine imagineth, that God by Malachy ſetteth the contempt and diſhonouring of God, done by the Leuiticall Prieſts againſt the honour that he ſhall hauehave among the Gentiles. Be it ſo. What then: The Iewes (ſayth he) diſhonoured God in a viſible ſacrifice, therefore the Gentiles alſo muſt honour him by a viſible ſacrifice: otherwiſe the diſ… onor done by the Iewes, is greater than the honour done by the Gentiles: I denie his conſequence: for, they diſhonored God but in a corner of the world, but the Gentiles worſhipped him from the riſing of the Sunne, to the going downe of the ſame: and herein ſtandeth the force of the compariſon, as by the wordes plainely appeareth. Fifthly, he ſuppoſeth that the Prieſtes of the olde lawe, are compared with the Prieſtes in the Goſpel, but there is no ſuch matter, as the wordes declare. But to wring and force wordes, to ſee what may be gathered out of them, rather than to ſearch what their true meaning is, doth bring but ſmall credite to their cauſe, and weake proofe to their doctrine. His laſt argument to prooue this place of Malachie not to belong to a ſpirituall ſacrifice, is out of the fathers, where, in my iudgement hee ſheweth his weakeneſſe, more than in his other reaſons, or elſe a worſe humour. For although that Iuſtinus Martyr whom hee firſt alledgeth,Col. cum Tryph. Iudaeo. doeth in trueth affirme, and wee denie it not, that Malachie ſayeth that the Euchariſt is a ſacrifice, yet that hee ſpeaketh not of a ſacrifice properly ſo called, Bellarmine muſt needes confeſſe, except he ſpeake agaynſt his owne conſcience, if hee conſider what hee ſayeth long after in that booke: namely, that Euerie one that is called by the name of Ieſus Chriſt, are in deede made Prieſts to God, as God doth teſtifie, ſaying: In euerie place cleane and acceptable ſacrifices ſhall bee offered. Which ſacrifices alſo what they are, he afterwards teſtifieth, prayers and thanks giuings. What can be more plaine? But this eſpecially is to be remembred, that not Prieſts only, but eueryevery Chriſtian doth by Iuſtines wordes, offer vp theſe cleane offerings, and therefore that hee ſpeaketh of ſpirituall ſacrifices. Irene his ſecond witneſſe, maketh little for his purpoſe: for euen immediately before the words whereby Bellarmine woulde prooue the Euchariſt to bee a ſacrifice, after the proper ſignification of the worde, hee ſheweth that God hath no delight in ſacrifices or burnt offerings, but in Faith, obedience, and righteouſnes. And after, that he taught his diſciples to offer to God the firſt fruits out of his creatures, Iren. lib. 4. cap. 32not that hee needed any thing, but that they ſhould neither be vnfruitful, nor vnthankfull. And ſo he tooke bread, and gaue thanks, and eat, as is by Bellarmine alledged. Can any thing be more plaine? He firſt ſheweth that God regardeth not thoſe reall ſacrifices, that I may ſo terme them: then he ſheweth, that the Euchariſt is a ſacrifice of thankeſgiuing. And as in the words alledged by Bellarmine, it is an offering of the firſt fruits of his gifts,Cap. 33. that giueth vsus our nouriſhment, and in the next chapter he expoundeth the incenſe (ſo alledging the wordes of Malachie, In euerie place incenſe ſhalbe offered vp) by that place of the Apocalips,Apoc. 5.8 that the incenſe was the prayer of the Saints: ſo we ſee that prayers and praiſes are the ſacrifices that he ſpeaketh of, & theſe are ſpiritual, and not reall ſacrifices. And as for Tertullian Tertul.whom in the 3. place he bringeth forth: as he hath nothing for him in the place by him alledged,Tert. cont. Marcion. li. 4 ſo yet he plainly expreſſeth in another place what hee vnderſtandeth by that cleane ſacrifice that Malachie ſpeaketh of,Exam. Con. Trid. 2. part. namely, Sincere praier out of a pure conſcience. Which place being alledged by Kemnitius againſt the councel of Trent, Bellar. to ſhift it off, as boldly as vntruly, he affirmeth that Tertul. doeth not expound Malachies place, where he nameth the cleane ſacrifice, but where he nameth the incenſe. But the place of Tertullian plainly ſheweth the vntruth of his anſwere: for Tertullian ſpeaketh thus: In euerie place a ſacrifice ſhal be offered in my name, and a cleane ſacrifice, euen ſincere prayer out of a pure heart. So that Tertullian did not ſo much as dreame of any incenſe there: and it is ſo placed, that it muſt needes expound how he vnderſtandeth that cleane ſacrifice ſpoken of by Malachie. The next commeth in Cyprian, who ſaieth, That the olde ſacrifice is aboliſhed, and the new celebrated: and then (ſayeth Bellarmine) he citeth this place of Malachie. Ad Quirin. lib. 1. ca. 16 Eſay 1.11.12 Pſa. 50.14.15, 23It is true: but firſt he citeth Eſay, and the 13. verſe of the 50. Pſalme, or as he doeth recken it, of the 49. for reiecting of their externall ſacrifices, and then out of the ſame Pſalme hee teacheth, that prayer and prayſe are the true ſacrifices: and alſo out of the 4. Pſalme,Pſal. 4.6 hee ſpeaketh of the ſacrifice of righteouſneſſe. And then followeth that of Malachie. whereby it is moſt manifeſt, that Cyprian vnderſtandeth by the ſacrifice mentioned in Malachie, no other than that which out of the Pſalmes he learned. And in all theſe places, Bellarmines euill dealing is notorious: For hee will not ſo much as ſee the wordes that are before his eyes, but onelyonly picketh out that which hee thinketh ſerueth for the eſtabliſhing of his errour, and concealeth that which would giuegive light to the trueth. And it were too tedious to anſwere to euerie teſtimonie, eſpecially ſeeing that which hath beene ſaide of the places before alledged, doth ſufficiently teſtifie what was the iudgement of the auncient fathers concerning this place of Malachie nowe in queſtion: I will therefore returne to his generall arguments.
Argument. 5 Maiſter Bellarmine his fift principall argument, Ioh. 4.21.23is taken out of ſaint Iohn, where he ſheweth that the true worſhippers ſhall worſhip in ſpirit and truth: but this worſhip muſt needes be (ſaieth he) the offering of ſacrifices propely ſo called: Therefore the true worſhippers in the daies of Chriſt ſhall offer theſe ſacrifices properly ſo called.In Iohn Hom. 32 But Chryſoſt. vponupon that place can find no ſuch ſacrifices, but expoundeth this place by the 12. to the Romans, of our ſpirituall ſacrifices, with whom alſo Theoph. ſeemeth to agree.In. Iohn Tract. 15. And S. Auguſt. thinketh not that this kind of worſhipping needeth to be performed in any materiall temple, but that our ſelues are Gods temple, yea, and that his holy temple, and therefore that this worſhip muſt bee in our ſelues, & therefore ſpirituall. Hitherto hauehave we heard ſome reaſons to proue in the Euchariſt that there is a ſacrifice properly ſo called, gathered partly of the figures of the old law, of the which I may truly complaine,De vnit. Eccl, cap. 19. as S. Auguſt. did of the Donatiſts: You ſtay (ſaith he) vponupon thoſe dark points, leaſt you ſhould be forced to grant that which is plaine: or elſe forced out of ſome other doubtfull ſentences, whereof alſo with the ſame father, againſt the ſame heretikes, I may ſay, Alledge ſomething that needeth no interpreter, Cap. 16that cannot be prooued to be ſpoken of ſome other thing, and you indeuour to draw it to your owne meaning. And therefore, out of ſuch vncertaine allegations a certaine concluſion cannot be gathered. But now let vsus ſee what is alledged out of the verie inſtitution it ſelfe: for if any thing worth hearing can bee brought out of it, it muſt needs be forcible. Therefore thus he reaſoneth: Argument 6 Bel. de miſſa li: 1 ca. 12.Chriſt in his laſt ſupper offered himſelfe vnderunder the forme of bread & wine to God the father, and commaunded that to be done of the Apoſtles, and their ſucceſſors to the end of the world: But this is to offer a ſacrifice, properly and truly ſo called, and to inſtitute that it ſhould be offered: Therefore the Euchariſt is a ſacrifice properly ſo called. For the maior in this argument, wherof all the doubt is, it is a plain fallacie: for he beggeth to hauehave that confeſſed that is denied, & to hauehave that granted that is in queſtion. For if he could proue that Chriſt did offer himſelfe in his laſt ſupper to God the father, we would eaſily confeſſe it to be a ſacrifice true and proper. So that on the contrary, I may as well reaſon thus: Chriſt cōmanded nothing to be don, but that which himſelf did in his laſt ſupper: but himſelfe did not ſacrifice: and therfore he commaunded no ſacrifice in the laſt ſupper. Wel, his firſt proof of this vntrue propoſition, is yt which he hath ſaid of Melchiſedech, the paſchal Lambe, & the blood of the couenant, of which I truſt I hauehave ſpoken ſufficiently, in the iudgement of any indifferēt man, in my anſwer to his 3. firſt principall arguments.Luke 22.19 20 1 Cor. 11.24 His ſecond reaſon is this: Theſe words, Is giuen, is broken, is ſhed, which are words of the preſent time, do ſignifie that he was giuen, broken, & ſhed vntounto god for a ſacrifice. M. Bellar. ſeemeth to me to be hopſhakled, yt he cānot wel ſtep forward. He hath taken vpō him to proue out of theſe words, yt chriſt offred his body in his ſupper to his father for a ſacrifice: & how doth he proue it? becauſe the words ſhew that he is giuen, broken and ſhed for a ſacrifice to God: is not this a good leape, thinke you? And yet his propoſition that he ſhould prooue, and his reaſon whereby hee doeth it, are all one. But if hee ſtand vponupon theſe wordes, Is giuen, broken, and ſhedde, therefore it is an act that then was done, and therefore done in the Supper: what will hee ſay to their owne tranſlation, which tranſlateth, Shall bee ſhed, in Matthew and Marke, and Luke alſo, and alſo of the bread, This is my bodie, which ſhalbe giuen for you. It ſeemeth when that tranſlation was firſt ſet foorth, that peece of ſcripture was not ſo taken as it is now: but that thoſe words of the ſupper,Math. 26.28 mar. 14.24 luk. 22.20 1. cor. 11.24 were taken for a promiſe of that which Chriſt performed the next day, as in truth they were. I but maſter Bellarmine telleth vsus, that al theſe readings are good, becauſe there may be a good reaſō of either of them. I confeſſe that to be true: and therfore M. Bellarmins reaſon is not ſtrōg, whoſe force hangeth vponupon theſe wordes onelyonly, which may well be tranſlated otherwiſe. But by the way, what if I ſhould thus reaſon? A repreſentatiue ſacrifice is not a protiatorie ſacrifice: but Chriſts ſacrifice that in his ſupper hee offred vntounto God, was repreſentatiue, ſaieth Bellarm. in this place, therefore not propitiatorie, and much leſſe then is the Maſſe a propitiatorie ſacrifice: Neither do I ſee to what end Chriſt ſhould repreſent to God the ſheding of his bloud, which ſhould be afterwards vpō the croſſe, although M. Bellar doth ſay it: becauſe he is loth to tell the true reaſon (which I hauehave alreadie touched) why their cōmon Latin tranſlation did not preciſely follow the Greeke in tranſlating of theſe words, ſhalbe giuē, broken, ſhed. His third reaſon out of the words of the inſtitution. to proue his ſacrifice, is as ſtrong as the ſecond, and is this: Breaking cannot be ſpoken wel of the bodie, and in this place (which is broken for you) cannot be true of the bread, for the bread is not broken for vsus: therefore it muſt be vnderſtoode of Chriſts bodie in forme of bread. In this argument M. Bellarmine reiecteth their vulgar tranſlation which ſomtime he and his fellowes doe highly extoll, for, that ſaith, which ſhalbe deliuered. And ſo doe Chryſoſtome, Ierome, Primatius, Theophilact, yea, and Thomas of Aquine alſo, al of them expounding theſe very words.Epiſt. 3 And Cyprian in his ſecond booke of Epiſtles: and ſo doe our Engliſh Remiſts tranſlate it likewiſe. Al whoſe tranſlations do ſufficiently proue, that they eſpied not any ſuch myſterie in that worde, is broken, but that they were bolde to deliuer the verie true ſence of it, ſhalbe deliuered, to ſignifie that the body of Chriſt ſhould ſuffer the torments vponupon the croſſe, which S. Paul did expreſſe by the word of breaking. And in that reſpect doth Thomas of Aquine (who woulde faine hauehave the Euchariſt to be a ſacrifice) ſay it is a Repreſentatiue ſacrifice of Chriſts paſsiō, 1. Cor. 11. lect. 5.by which paſſion hee gaue his body to death for vsus. But whereas Tho. and after him M. Bellarmine would make their Euchariſt a repreſentatiue ſacrifice: read and peruſe who ſo will the words of the inſtitution, it will not be found that our Sauiour Chriſt did offer in his laſt ſupper any ſacrifice to God, but only ſpoke to the Apoſtles inſtructing them in the vſe of the ſacrament which then he inſtituted. As for that he reaſoneth out of the words of S. Luke becauſe he ſeemeth to ſpeake of the ſhedding of the cup, not of the bloud: Matthew and Marke Mat. 26.28. Mar. 14.24.make the matter more plaine, and tell vsus that the bloud of Chriſt is ſhed. Doth not this wringing & wreſting of ſcriptures, to force them from their true and natural ſence, to ſerue their turne, manifeſtly argue that it muſt needs bee a weake tottering building, that is rayſed vponupon ſo bad foundations? and that it is but for want of better proofe, that they are faine to ſcrape togither ſuch poore helps? The ſecond argument of M. Bellarmines, to proue a ſacrifice by the inſtitution, is this in effect, Chriſts body & bloud are receiued in the Euchariſt, therefore they cannot but be ſacrificed. Which argumēt for vsus to deny, it is ſufficient, ſeeing that M. Bellarmine himſelfe ſeemeth to inforce this only againſt them that confeſſe a real preſence in, with, & vnderunder the bread, and yet deny the ſacrifice. But whereas Kemnitius requireth in a ſacrifice 4. properties, wherof he wanteth 3. in the Euchariſt, M. Bellar. can finde them al. Firſt the perſons that ſhould ſacrifice are the prieſts, who are willed to ſacrifice in theſe words (if ye wil truſt Bellar.) Do this. Who would euer hauehave gathered thus, yt had eies to looke vponupon the words of the inſtitution? You muſt Doe this: ergo you muſt ſacrifice? Yea, Bellar. ſeemeth in the beginning almoſt of this chapter, to be half aſhamed of this argument, and blameth Caluine and Kemnitius, becauſe they ſay that with the papiſts in that place, & thoſe words, To do, is to ſacrifice, and therfore it needeth no farther anſwer. But for the act of ſacrifiſing: it troubleth Bellarmine to finde it out, neither knoweth he howe to diſtinguiſh betweene that act, I meane the ſacrifice which Chriſt offered ſaith he. and other actions in the ſupper. And yet maſter Bellarmine is ſure, that ſuch a thing there is there, but where to finde it he cannot tell. Is this (thinke you) good dealing for them that ſhould be good guides vntounto others, to take vppon them to leade men they knowe not whether themſelues? The words for a ſacrament are very plaine, but if you would follow with a bloud-hound, you can neuer finde a ſacrifice out of thoſe wordes. As for the teſtimonies that maſter Bellarmine alleadgeth out of the fathers, they ſhall hauehave this anſwere. The Euchariſt is in ſundry reſpectes called a ſacrifice,A ſacrifice. of the fathers, not only becauſe therein we offer the ſacrifices of praiers, and thankes giuings, and duties of louelove, but alſo, and that eſpecially, becauſe it is a memoriall of the true ſacrifice which Chriſt offered for vsus vponupon the croſſe: Therefore it is not enough for M. Bellar. to bring them in, ſaying, that the Euchariſt is a ſacrifice, which we deny not, but that it is a ſacrifice properly ſo called, which the papiſts affirme, but cannot proue.
Argument. 7 His 7. generall argument needeth no anſwer for it is ſo weak, that eueryevery child may ſee ye fault of it. For out of thoſe wordes,Act. 13.2. As they miniſtred vntounto the Lord (ſpeaking of Paul & Barnabas & others) miniſtring ſeemeth to be, or may be taken for ſacrifycing: ergo it is takē there for ſacrifycing, ſaith M. Bellar. Iudas ſeemed to be a true ſeruant of Chriſt but was not.Lib. 1. de M… ſſa. ca. 13. And the very children doe know that it is no good argumēt to ſay, ſuch a thing may be, therfore it is ſo.
Argument 8 Rhem. Teſt. De miſſa li. 1 cap. 14But in the tenth Chapter of the firſt Epiſtle to the Corinths, which the Papiſts make their ſtrong bulwarke, maiſter Bellarmine findeth three arguments. His firſt argument is this, Euerie altar which in deed is an altar, is builded for offering of ſacrifices: But the Lords table after a ſort is an altar: therefore it is for offering of ſacrifices. We will not ſtriue with maſter Bellarmine much for this point: for we will confeſſe that ſuch ſacrifices are offered vponupon the altar, as maiſter Bellarmine confeſſeth the altar to be. The Lordes table (ſaith he) is a kinde of altar, or an altar after a ſort: So we ſay, that ſacrifices after a ſort, namely ſpirituall ſacrifices, are offered thereupon. His ſecond reaſon out of this place, is a lowde lie: For thus hee ſaith: For the Apoſtle ſpeaketh plainly, that we that are faithfull, doe ſo receyue the bodie and blood of the Lord, at the table of the Lord, as the Iewes their ſacrifices, or the Gentiles their meates offered to Idols, on their altars or tables. And becauſe hee cannot proue this to bee true, you muſt truſt him of his owne worde, for he bringeth no proofe at all. Let the indifferent reader peruſe the place, and marke his falſe dealing with it. The wordes cited by him, begin at the 14. verſe of that Chapter, and continue vntounto the 22. the ſumme whereof is this, as they that conſider the place may ſee: As by participating at the Lords table, you are made partakers of Chriſt, and ioyned togither, amongſt your ſelues in one bodie, verſe 16, 17: ſo by participating at the table of Idols, you are made partakers of them, and ioyned in fellowſhip with the Idolaters. But that which he telleth vsus, is ſo plaine in theſe wordes, cannot be gathered out of them. And this alſo is a ſufficient anſwere to his thirde argument that hee wringeth out of theſe wordes. Whereby he will force Saint Paule whether hee will or not, to finde out an offering in the Euchariſt, becauſe he ſaith, they that eate the offrings, are partakers of the altar. Out of which place, as hee cannot probably conclude any thing to proue a ſacrifice in the euchariſt, ſo hee plainely proclaimeth, that if it ſhould be proued, that their maſſe were a ſacrifice, yet the prieſt only is the better for it, becauſe the prieſt onlie eateth vp all. For, They that eate the offrings, are partakers of the Altar.
The ſecond ſort of proofes which Bellarmine promiſed, is gathered out of the fathers.Lib. 1. de miſſa cap. 6. And the firſt argument of that ſort, is drawen from the wordes of ſacrifice, ſacrificing, offering, oblation and ſuch like.Chap. 15. Why the fathers vſe thus to ſpeake of the Euchariſt, I hauehave ſhewed a little before in the anſwere to his ſixte argument. But nowe maiſter Bellarmine proueth, that a ſacrifice may be both commemoratiue, and repreſent an other thing, as did the ſacrifices in the Leuiticall law, and alſo be a true ſacrifice indeede, which is moſt true: and thereupon concludeth, that this ſacrifice repreſentatiue in the euchariſt is alſo a true ſacrifice. But this his argument hath no neceſſarie conſequence: for, the Leuiticall ſacrifice muſt needes be a ſacrifice truely ſo called, that by the death of the beaſt offered vp, and by the ſhedding of that blood, the death & blodſhedding of Chriſt, might be the more liuely repreſented to the faithfull, and more conſtantly beleeued of them, which thing being in trueth perfourmed, and Chriſt Ieſus the true facrifice indeede being offered,Heb. 10.26 There remaineth no more ſacrifice for ſinne
Moreouer, in thoſe ſacrifices, that they might bee knowen to be ſacrifices inſtituted and appointed of God, we ſee how the thing ſacrificed, the manner of ſacrificing, and all the circumſtances are plainely ſet downe and commaunded by God: And on the contrary, in this ſacrifice which they ſeeke to maintaine, all things are obſcure: not ſo much as a probable ſhew of any commaundement, or of any inſtitution of a ſacrifice: Therefore the Iewiſh ſacrifice can be no proofe for the ſacrifice of the maſſe. Secondly, he will prooue, that in the euchariſt, is not only a repreſentatiue ſacrifice, becauſe the fathers ſpeake ſometimes of oblations and ſacrifices in the plural number, and therefore there are more ſacrifices than that one repreſentatiue: but he taketh more paines then he needeth, for we teach that beſides the repreſentation of Chriſts ſacrifice, we offer in the Euchariſt the ſacrifices of prayers, prayſes, and ſuch like ſpirituall oblations.
Thirdly, baptiſme, ſaith hee, is a ſacrament repreſenting Chriſtes death, but is not called of any of the fathers, a ſacrifice offered to God: therefore the only repreſentation of Chriſts death and bloudſhedding cannot make the Euchariſt be called a ſacrifice. For baptiſme, it repreſenteth vntounto vsus the efficacy and vertue of Chriſtes death, rather than the death it ſelfe: So that there is great difference betweene theſe two ſacraments. For the ſacrament of the Lords ſupper repreſenteth the ſacrifice it ſelfe which he vponupon the croſſe did offer, euen the tormenting and mangling of his body, & the ſhedding of his bloud. So that there is much more cauſe why the Euchariſt ſhould be called a ſacrifice, than baptiſme. Fourthly, M. Bellarmine imagineth, that if it were not indeed a very proper ſacrifice, we might in the Euchariſt ſay to God truely, I offer to thee this gift, accept Lord this ſacrifice. And moreouer he chargeth vsus that we doe wholy abſtaine from ſuch wordes, and greatly reproue them for vſing of them. And yet in one ſhort praier vſed after the receiuing of the communion with vsus, we pray thus, Accept this our ſacrifice of praiſe & thankeſgiuing. And after, We offer and preſent vntounto thee o Lord our ſelues, our ſoules & bodies, to be a reaſonable, holy, & liuely ſacrifice to thee. Which wordes doe not only anſwere the ſlaunder wherewith he vniuſtlie chargeth our churches, but alſo ſheweth that well we maie vſe thoſe words, I offer to thee this gift, accept Lord this ſacrifice, although we take not vponupon vsus to offer Chriſt really in the Euchariſt. As for the hyperbolicall ſpeeches, which the fathers vſe ſometimes, which is his firſt reaſon, we learne thereby rather with howe reuerent an affection we ſhoulde come to theſe ſacramentes, than what wee ſhoulde thinke the thinges themſelues to be. For howe can it els bee true that Bellarmine himſelfe out of the Greeke fathers alleadgeth, that they call it a ſacrifice terrible and full of horrour, which cannot be properly verified of the ſacrifice propitiatorie which they woulde hauehave it to bee, for that muſt needes bee ſweete and comfortable vntounto vsus: in it is only grace and mercy, no horrour, no terrour.
Laſtly, becauſe the fathers acknowledge in this ſacrifice of the Euchariſt, that there is that honor performed, which is due to God only, therefore woulde maſter Bellarmine conclude, that it muſt needs be more than a ſacrifice of repreſentation. And we doe eaſily yeeld vntounto him, that it is alſo called a ſacrifice, of the fathers, yea & of vsus alſo, in reſpect of the ſpirituall ſacrifices therein offered. And this yet muſt be noted, that properly to ſpeake of the Euchariſt, it is but a ſacrament: But in the reſpectes aforeſaide,De miſſa li. 1. cap. 16. it is ſometime called, yet vnproperly a ſacrifice. But ſaith maſter Bellarmine, the fathers make mention of an altar: therefore they alſo proue thereby that the Euchariſt is a ſacrifice: for there is no Altar, but in reſpect of a reall ſacrifice.
But the firſt altars were but tables of wood, not altars of ſtone, ſuch as are now for the popiſh ſacrifice, in theſe daies commaunded: and theſe altars of worde they caried about from place to place, as occaſion ſerued: and therfore, although the names of altars be found in the moſt ancient fathers almoſt that are, yet popiſh altars are not thereby proued, neither were there any altars of ſtone before the time of Silueſter, who liued more than three hundred yeares after Chriſt: For hee firſt commaunded that ſtone altars ſhould be made, as their freind Gerſon writeth: And therefore as they call it ſometime an altar, ſo ſometime they call it a Table,Lib. 4. cont. Floratum. De conſecrat. diſt. 1. cap. Nemo as doeth Clement, who they ſay was one of the firſt biſhops of Rome, he twice within few wordes mentioneth the Lords Table. If therefore it be a good argument thus to reaſon: The fathers do ſometime mention an altare for the euchariſt: therefore they thought it was a ſacrifice, for there needeth no altar but for a ſacrifice. I am ſure this is as good an argument: Somtime they ſpeake of a table for the euchariſt as out of Athanaſius, Theodoret, Auguſtine, this Clement, and others, is moſt plaine: and therefore they thought it not to be a ſacrifice, for, there is no ſacrifice vponupon a table, but onelyonly vponupon an altar.
De miſſa lib. 1. cap. 17.Yet maſter Bellarmine roueth againe with his vncertaine proofes. The fathers (ſaieth hee) ſpeake of prieſts, therefore they will hauehave a ſacrifice in the euchariſt. And why may not the fathers vnderſtand prieſts as wee doe in our booke of making of miniſters, and in our booke of common prayer, who ſucceede in the publike miniſtery in the church the prieſts of Leui, Leuit. 10.11. Deut. 17.5. mal. 2.7.not in ſacrificing, for the ſacrifices are ended, but in teaching: for that was alſo the prieſts office, and is now the office of them that we ſometime call prieſts. And yet we, although we vſe the name, do not alow that popiſh ſacrifice, which Bellarmine would hauehave. And why then ſhould this be holden for a good argument: The fathers ſpeake ſometimes of prieſts: Therefore the euchariſt is a reall ſacrifice, or a ſacrifice after the proper ſignification of that word. As for that which hee hath in the eighteenth chapter of that his firſt booke of the maſſe, is almoſt all one with that which hee ſaide in the fifteenth chapter, and therefore it is anſwered before. But his laſt proofe,Chap. 19 whereby hee will out of the fathers prooue a ſacrifice, is, as himſelfe ſaith, vnanſwerable, vnleſſe we do vtterly reiect the fathers. The fathers deſire not to be credited againſt the trueth. They were men, they might erre. OnelyOnly Gods word is perfectly true. And therfore, as wee do them no wrong, to trie and examine their doctrine by that rule and ſquare that cannot deceiue:How the fathers are to be receiued. ſo if it be not agreeable to that word of trueth, wee muſt rather confeſſe all men to be liars, than ſwarue one iote from that perfect way. And therefore it is not abſurd, if wee leaue the fathers, when they goe without their guide of Gods written word, or ſpeake without their warrant of Gods infallible trueth. So that although wee are content, to ſhew how the fathers wreſted by them, either muſt or may be vnderſtoode, that by that meanes wee may pull from them that viſard of antiquitie & conſent of fathers, wherewith they cloke and colour their dangerous and deceitfull hereſies, yet we receiue the fathers but as men, and therfore no maſters to giuegive vsus new lawes, but yet men of excellent gifts in their time, and alwayes worthy of much reuerence and honour. But yet this is not a good argument: The fathers hauehave ſomctime written this, or hauehave done this: Therefore it is true, or it is good. But let vsus view his vnanſwerable argument: If the euchariſt were not a ſacrifice, the fathers would not hauehave offred the ſame, for peace, ſafety, and ſundry ſuch things: but they did: therfore it is a ſacrifice. Marke howe hee prooueth that they did offer the euchariſt for ſuch things. Hee firſt alleageth Chryſoſtome in his homilies to the people of Antioch,Hom. 79. Hom. 7… . and then alſo vponupon Mathew, moſt notably belying that father, as though he ſpake thereof the ſacrifice in the euchariſt, whereas the firſt whole Homily is altogether of praier, and Chryſoſtome there ſheweth, that they pray in deed for the whole world, and for ſundry perſons: but of ſtanding at the altar, not a word: And therefore maſter Bellarmine belieth that father. And in the ſecond place, Wee pray firſt for them that are poſſeſſed, the ſecond, for the penitent, &c. Is this good dealing to auouch, that that ancient father ſaith in thoſe places, that the Euchariſt was offered for ſuch things. Other falſifications of theſe very places I omit, as not much materiall.
When I heard his great cracke, I imagined this ſhot would hauehave made a great breach, but it is like to doe no hurt at all. Then, for that which he alleageth out of ſame Auguſtine, that the Euchariſt was offered by one for freeing a certaine houſe from euill ſpirites.De ciuit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. It is true that he reporteth ſuch a thing, and addeth, That hee prayed as earneſtly as he could, that that vexation might ceaſe. Firſt, it is not ſaint Auguſtine himſelfe that doth this, but another: and this fact is not either commended or allowed to be wel done of ſaint Auguſtine. But they wil anſwere, The euill ſpirits left the houſe: And therefore the euent prooueth the fact to be good. Not ſo: but it is an argument of Gods might and merciemercy, that can and will by euill, or the abuſe of good meanes, bring to paſſe good things. Secondly, it may iuſtly be doubted, whether ſaint Auguſtine did impute this effect vntounto that ſacrifice that he ſpeaketh of, or the earneſt prayers that were made for it. Yea it ſeemeth rather that he imputeth it vntounto the ſacrifice of prayer, than any other ſacrifice.
Moreouer it ſeemeth, that as in the dayes of ſaint Paul there were that were baptized ouer the dead, either to declare their hope of the reſurrection, or to teſtify their dying vntounto ſinne, or for ſuch other conſiderations: ſo in theſe dayes of S. Auguſtine, ſome, vponupon ſuch occaſions would celebrate the ſacrament of the body and blood of Chriſt, by that aſſurance and pledge of Gods louelove, to ſtirre vp and confyrme their faith, that with more earneſtneſſe and faith they might craue Gods helpe. But if maſter Bellarmine would hauehave this to be a catholike doctrine, that hath but one or few examples, he will hauehave Vincentius Lirinenſis flat contrary to him.Confeſſ. li. 9. cap. 12. So that alſo that is alleaged of the oblation for his mother: it can not bee denied, that there were at that time ſome ſuch abuſes creeping into the church of God, concerning that charitable ſuperſtition, that I may ſo terme it, of prayer for the dead, of the which ſome had good liking, ſome liked not. But out of them it is hard to eſtabliſh a ſtrange doctrine in Gods church, and ſuch as Gods word is not acquainted withall. But euen by that booke of S. Auguſtine it is plaine, and namely by the next chapter to the place alleadged, that S. Auguſtine did not once thinke of any propitiatory ſacrifice that was in the maſſe. And I would alſo deſire the indifferent Reader to iudge how litle ſuch matters ſauour of the maieſtie of that ſpirit, which is ſeene in the ſcriptures. Bellarmines laſt ſort of arguments are drawen from reaſon: The firſt is grounded vponupon this principle,De miſſa lib. 1. cap. 20. there is no religion without an externall ſacrifice: which is moſt falſe, for God when he ſeeth his people to whom he commanded thoſe external ſacrifices, to repoſe themſelues too much vponupon them, doeth not onelyonly reiect thoſe ſacrifices which himſelfe appointed, but alſo teacheth wherein true religion conſiſts, Iſa 1.15, 16. and Mich. 6.8. Yea, marke the whole ſcriptures & it wil appeare, that faith & obedience are the eſpeciall things that god requireth of vsus, & that the ſacrifices directed therto. His ſecond argument taken from reaſon is this: The Iewes had ſuch ſacrifices: therefore wee muſt hauehave them.Chap. 21. If this argument be denied, he can neuer prooue it. For the Iewes had thoſe ceremonies and rudiments of the world, becauſe they were in their nonage,Galat. 4.3. and Chriſt was not yet come, and ſo the reuelation of Chriſt, was not then ſo plaine as now it is: therefore they needed thoſe things, but we do not. And moreouer, if theſe ſacrifices were ſo neceſſary as they affirme them to be, as that there is no religion without them, & of neceſſity we muſt hauehave them, then were the Apoſtles too blame, who giuing direction to the Gentiles what were neceſſary for them,Acts 15.19.20. neuer warned thē of this externall ſacrifice. For ſeeing there was not anie ſuch thing plainely ſet downe in the word of God, it was needefull that it ſhould hauehave beene ſignified to them, if any ſuch thing had bin thought neceſſary. But Bellarm. thus prooueth his argument: God hath not aboliſhed al things in his law, as he hath not taken away the commandemēts: therefore he hath not aboliſhed the ceremoniall law.
I would maſter Bellarmine would hauehave taken ſome paines to ſhew what part of the ceremoniall lawe is continued. But he telleth vsus the ſacraments are not takē away, they are but changed: ſo the ſacrifices muſt be but changed, not taken away. When hee ſheweth what commiſſion hee hath to tell God what he muſt doe, we will regard his wordes, but vntill that bee ſhewed, hee muſt giuegive vsus leaue, to acknowledge all theſe things in Chriſt to be performed, eſpecially ſeeing the worde telleth vsus not of anie commaundement to change it, or when, how, or into what it ſhould be changed. But I am loath to confute his groſſe aſſertions, and reaſonleſſe reaſons, whereby he ſeeketh to keepe vsus ſtill in bondage to externall things. One or two arguments mo he hath, the one grounded vponupon ſuch differences as themſelues hauehave deuiſed, betweene a ſacrament and a ſacrifice, the other is the generall conſent of the church throughout the world: the firſt is ſomewhat touched in the fifteenth chapter, the other is the thing that is in queſtion, whether the true church hauehave acknowledged it to be a ſacrifice, truely ſo called, and properly.
Now to conclude, ſeeing in the inſtitution of this ſacrament, there is not any ſacrifice preſcribed as the wordes do teach vsus, neither can it be proued by the ſcriptures, neither can we find any ſuch doctrine vniuerſally receiued of the fathers in the purer age of the church: Laſtly, ſeeing the arguments that are brought for defence of it, are ſo hard and obſcure, ſo forced and wreſted, as they are both frō the ſcriptures & the fathers: let vsus reſt vponupon this foundation,Heb. 9.28. Heb. 10.12 that Chriſt was once offered, to take away the ſinnes of many: Once, I ſay, and not often, and that being done, He ſitteth for euer at the right hand of God. So that either they muſt deny him to hauehave a natural body, but ſo deified, that it may be in many places at one time, as Neſtorius the heretike taught: or that hee ſitteth not on Gods right hand, againſt that which in our creede wee acknowledge: or that he hath two bodies, the one in glorie and maieſtie, with God in heauen, the other ſhrowded vnderunder a little cake, the one viſible in heauen, the other inuiſible in the earth, or elſe they muſt confeſſe, that he cannot be changed into that little peece of bread, that he may ſo be offered vp to God his father, for a ſacrifice in the Euchariſt.