The Buckler of the Faith, Part 2 · Article 35 · Subpart 10
Of the sacrifice of the Masse.
Sect. 12 The Councell of Trent in 22. Session and 2. Canon, thundreth out excommunications and curses against all those that say that our Lord Iesus Christ by these words, Do this in remembrance of me, did not conferre the order of Priesthood to his Apostles, nor commanded them to sacrifice his body and his bloud.
The ordinary exposition which they make of these words, Do this in remembrance of me, is, Sacrifice my body and my bloud, really vnderunder the kinds of bread and wine, as a propitiatorie sacrifice for the liuing and the dead. To expound the Scripture in this manner, is not so much to wrest it, as to play therewith. These Doctors contrary to all apparence of truth, will hauehave that to be Iesus Christs meaning, which the words of our Lord can by no meanes beare.
1 For we cannot sacrifice Iesus Christ, in remembrance of Iesus Christ. The memories of things are of other nature then the things themselues: as mens pictures are not the persons themselues.Bellar. l. 2. de Euchar. c. 24. Idem Christus fuit figura sui ipsius. Et §. Tertia. Est verè corpus Domini, & signū eiusdem corporis. And there is nothing more absurd nor extrauagant then the affirmation of these Doctors which hold, that in the Masse Iesus Christ is the figure of himselfe, and the signe, and the thing signified, as if a man should say that the Kings picture is the King, or that the King is his picture.
2 Adde hereunto, that remembrance is necessarily vnderstood of things absent. Men may well make rehearsals or remembrances of the valors of a King in his owne presence, but those rehearsals or remembrances are not remembrances of the Kings person being present, but of his actions past. So the sepulchers of Martyrs were called the memories of Martyrs, because they put men in mind of their sufferings past. It cannot but very improperly be said, that the person of a Martyr is in his tombe, when the best part thereof is in heauen, and that which resteth is consumed to dust. The ashes of a Martyr are not the person of the Martyr.
3 These words, Do this, are so clearely and manifestly expounded by the Apostle Saint Paul, that there is no contradiction to be made. For 1. Cor. 11.25.26. after he had said, Do this in remembrance of me, for an exposition of these words he addeth, saying, For as often as you shall eate this bread, and drinke this cup, you shew the Lords death till he comes. To do this therefore in remembrance of Iesus Christ, is to eate this bread and to drinke this cup, to shew and celebrate his death, and not to sacrifice it.
4 Moreouer in all the action of this Sacrament, we see no shew nor apparence of a sacrifice. First, Iesus Christ speaketh not of a sacrifice nor of an offering. Secondly, Iesus Christ presenteth nothing vntounto God, but to his disciples, saying, Take, eate. Now whosoeuer offereth a sacrifice to God, presenteth something vntounto him, and prayeth God to accept of his offering. Thirdly, Iesus Christ did not lift vp the host, which is a common custome and vse in all sacrifices. Fourthly, the Apostles did not adore the host, but sate still at the table without vsing any adoration. For although they had Iesus Christ ordinarily present with them, yet they did neuer eate him, nor euer were present at any such kind of sacrifice. And if eueryevery sacrifice requireth adoration, how much more then such, and so admirable a sacrifice? specially in an action, which should serue for a patterne and an example in the Church, to conforme men thereunto in time to come? And if any one (when the host is lifted vp) to conforme himselfe to the example of the Apostles, should sit still, without adoring it, should he not be thought and esteemed to be a prophane person? And if he were in Spaine or Italie, should he not be sent to the Inquisition? And yet in the person of such a man they should make a processe against the Apostles.
5 It is to be considered, that if the body of Iesus Christ be really sacrificed in the Masse, it is conuenient and very necessary, that the bread should be consecrated before they sacrifice it. And therein we agree with our aduersaries. Which being graunted, I reason thus: Whosoeuer offereth an oblation vntounto God, necessarily speaketh vntounto God. But in this action, after the words which they say are consecrating words, Iesus Christ speaketh not to God, Ergo, in this action after the consecrating words, Iesus Christ offereth no oblation to God. The action of thanks-giuing and the blessing of the bread went before the words that are called consecrating words; therefore they can be no part of that sacrifice. For that to blesse bread, and to giuegive thankes to God, is not to sacrifice it to God. This blessing is vsed at all meale times, and Iesus Christ did it at the distribution by him made of the loues of bread in the desert.Matth. 14.19. Luc 9.16.
6 It is to be noted that the Councell of Trent saith, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory,Hoc sacrificiū laudu pro redemptione animarum. and that in the Canon of the Masse, the Priest saith, that he offereth a sacrifice for the redemption of soules. If the Masse be a sacrifice of redemption, necessarily it must be called so, either because the death of Iesus Christ is applyed vntounto vsus thereby, or because Iesus Christ dieth in the Masse, and suffereth there for our redemption. But it is not because Iesus Christ dieth in the Masse; for Rom. 6.9. Iesus Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more. Then the Masse must be propitiatory, and a sacrifice of redemption, because in it the death of Iesus Christ is applyed vntounto vsus, which onelyonly is the price of our redemption. But if that be so, Baptisme and the preaching of the Gospell, and faith in Iesus Christ, are sacrifices of redemption, and sacrifices truly propitiatory. Adde hereunto, that to apply the sacrifice of the Crosse vntounto vsus, which is the death of our Lord, it is neither conuenient, nor possible to sacrifice the Lord againe. For as to apply a plaister, or to make a payment of mony, we need not another plaister, nor another payment: So to apply the reall sacrifice of the body of Christ vntounto vsus, we must not really sacrifice the body of Christ. By that reason, to apply the death of Iesus Christ vntounto vsus, we must make Christ die againe. And in so important a thing, we must ground vponupon the word of God, and shew that God will hauehave vsus to apply the death of our Lord, by sacrificing him really in the Eucharist.
7 There is no reason more absurd, then to apply a ransome payd for vsus, vntounto vsus by paying it againe. Yet this is done in the Romish Church, which will hauehave the faithfull to apply vntounto themselues the redemptiō of their soules made for them on the crosse, by offering the same redemption againe, and by sacrificing Iesus Christ againe in a sacrifice of redemption.
8 Moreouer, that which our aduersaries do is cleane contrary to that which they pretend to do: for to offer Iesus Christ to God▪ is not an application and an appropriating of him vntounto our selues. There is as much difference betweene these two things, as there is betweene giuing a thing to another, and keeping it for our selues. In the holy Supper we apply the sacrifice of Iesus Christ vntounto our selues, by receiuing and accepting it by faith, as giuing himselfe vntounto vsus; and not by offering him as a sacrifice to God.
9 I would hauehave our aduersaries tell me, whether the redemption or propitiation which the Priest offereth and maketh to God in the Masse, be all one with the propitiation which Iesus Christ offered and made on the crosse, or another. If it be the same, necessarily the Priest must offer a reall sacrifice of the death of Iesus Christ, which is impossible; for Iesus Christ dieth not really in the Masse. If it be another redemption and propitiation, then there is two prices of redemption, and another propitiation for our soules besides the death of Iesus Christ, and vnderunder shadow of applying the redemption made on the crosse, to vsus, they substitute another redemption, and so forge another Gospell.
10 The Apostle to the Hebrewes witnesseth excellently of this matter, he speaketh much of the office of a sacrifice according to Melchisedech, without speaking of the Eucharist: whereby it followeth, that the Eucha…ist is not the sacrifice of Melchisedech.
11 Besides in Hebrewes 10.14. it is said, That Iesus Christ with one offering hath reconciled for euer them that are sanctified. Here is one onelyonly oblation or offering, and the vertue thereof for euer. And to exclude the reiteration thereof, in the tenth verse he saith, That we are sanctified euen by the offering of the body of Iesus Christ once made.
12 They answer and say, that he offered himselfe but once in a bloudy sacrifice, but that he is offered diuers times in a sacrifice that is not bloudy. Which is a manifest errour; for, to offer himselfe diuers times in a sacrifice without bloud, is alwaies to offer himselfe diuers times, and so to contradict the Apostle. Adde hereunto, that the bloudy sacrifice is found in the Scripture, but there is no mention made of the sacrifice of Iesus Christ without bloud. To mocke the Scripture by distinctions vnwritten, is vnderunder pretence of interpreting, to correct the Scripture. And our aduersaries hauing rackt the words of the institution of the holy Supper, finde nothing therein but their owne condemnation. For, to alledge the words of Iesus Christ saying▪ This cup is the new Testament in my blo…d which is shed for you, to prooue a sacrifice without bloud, is to cōdemne themselues: because those words speake of effusion of bloud, and not of a sacrifice without bloud. To prooue a sacrifice wherein there is no bloud shed, by a place that speaketh of shedding of bloud is as good an argument, as if to excuse theft, a man should alledge the law which saith, Thou shalt not steale.
13 Therefor the Apostle preuenteth this excuse; for Hebr. 9.25.26. after he had said that Iesus Christ did not offer himselfe oftentimes, he addeth, That then he must hauehave suffered oftentimes. Manifestly shewing, that he acknowledged no other sacrifice of Iesus Christ but his passion. And to cut off all difficulty, he addeth, verse. 27.28. And as it is appointed vntounto men that they should once die, and after that commeth the iudgement: So Christ was once offered to take away the sinnes of many, and vntounto them that looke for him, shall he appeare the second time, without sinne, vntounto saluation. Now where is the distinction of a bloudy and no bloudy sacrifice? seeing that the Apostle sheweth, that as a man can die but once, so Christ offered himselfe but once? How ridiculous a thing should it be, for one to say, that a man can die but once bloudily, but diuers times vnbloudily?
14 The same Apostle, in the same chapter and the 22 verse, after he had spoken of sacrifices and purifications of the law, concludeth by this generall maxime, That without shedding of bloud there is no remission of sinnes. If then the Masse be no bloudy sacrifice, there is no remission of sinnes made by it. And you must note that he speaketh of the present time, saying, There is no remission of sinnes: lest men should thinke that he spake onelyonly of Iudaicall sacrifices that were abolished. The Apostle will hauehave this rule to be certaine at this present time. Note also, that the Apostle saith not, that there is no remission of sinnes, but by the vertue of bloud-shedding: but he saith, that in sacrifices there is no remission of sinnes without effusion of bloud. It is nothing to the purpose, to seeke in the old Testament for examples of propitiatory sacrifices, wherein no bloud was shed: as the goate of Azazel, or the Scape-goate, which was sent away aliue into the desert laden with the sinnes of the people, Leuit. 16.20. That is not to dispute against vsus, but against the Apostle. And yet that goate was but a part of the sacrifice: there being two goates, wherof the one was killed, the other let go, and both of them were but one sacrifice. As in the sacrifice of two sparrowes, whereof one was killed,Leuit. 14. the other let flie away; one to represent the death of our Lord, the other, to be a figure of his resurrection: which two things could not be represented by one beast. If our aduersaries find reasons to prooue that propitiatory sacrifices without shedding of bloud, ought to be practised vnderunder the new Testament, the same reasons of like force are to be found vnderunder the old Testament: where neuerthelesse they were not suffered to be done.
15 He that is carefull of his owne saluation, will consider what kind of religion that is, which maketh two sacrifices of redemption, wherein Iesus Christ is really sacrificed. Two sacrifices of Iesus Christ differing in specie and in definition, in proprietie, in accidents, and in efficacie. For the sacrifice of the crosse is the death of Iesus Christ, but the sacrifice of the Masse is not the death of Iesus Christ. The one is a painfull sacrifice, the other without paine. The one bloudy, the other without bloud. The one wherein the body of Iesus Christ is broken, the other wherein it remaineth whole. The one visible, the other inuisible. The one done but once, the other which is done a thousand millions of times. The one done immediatly by Iesus Christ, the other by the hand of a Priest. The one which being offered was sufficient for the redemption of all mankinde; the other, which is repeated a thousand times, to draw one soule out of Purgatory. The one which is done freely, the other which is sold for money. The one offered for the remission of sinnes, and for the saluation of mens soules; the other which is offered for a sicke horse, for corne that is blasted, for the successe of a voyage, and to be short, which serueth for all things, but not for the saluation of soules. White is not more contrary vntounto blacke, nor heauen more distant from the earth, then there is difference betweene these two sacrifices.
16 This pretended sacrifice without effusion of bloud, is contrary to the nature of all sacrifices so called properly. For both we and our aduersaries say, that in eueryevery sacrifice properly called a sacrifice, the thing that is offered must be visible, and that visible thing must be destroyed by the sacrifice. In this it is cleane contrary. For in this sacrifice, Iesus Christ which is the thing sacrificed, is not seene, nor perceiued; and he is so farre off from being visible vnderunder the species or accidents of bread, that on the contrary, it is the accidents that hide him, & make him inuisible, if we beleeue our aduersaries. And that which is destroyed in the Masse, is not the thing which is offered vntounto God. The body of Iesus which they pretend to sacrifice, suffereth no distruction in the Masse. For the destruction of a liuing thing is nothing else but death. The accidents onelyonly are destroyed, which are not offered vntounto God. And if (as our aduersaries say) the sacramentall being of Iesus Christ is destroyed, it followeth that the same sacramentall being is sacrificed. Then that sacramentall being is the price of our redemption: for that which is sacrificed to God, ought to be the price of our redemption. Now Iesus Christ in his naturall being is our redemption, which was destroyed vponupon the Crosse, and not in a sacramentall being, that is, significantly, which is a Chimaera, and a meere fiction. So that nothing is destroyed in the sacrifice of the Masse which can be our redemption. Adde hereunto, that the destruction of the species or accidents being done onelyonly in the Priests stomacke, when the same species dissolue by digestion, we ought to say, that the sacrifice is not done till certaine houres after the Masse is finished, and that the Priests stomacke is the altar, and that the sacrifice is made two or three houres in the afternoone.
17 And when it is to be defined, in what action or part of the Masse the sacrifice formally consisteth, nothing troubleth our Doctours more then that, notwithstanding all their subtiltie. If they say, they sacrifice consisteth in the eleuation of the host, then Iesus Christ did not sacrifice, for he vsed no such eleuation: if in the breaking of the consecrated bread, then Iesus Christ did not sacrifice, for he brake the bread before he pronounced those words wherein the Church of Rome make the Consecration to consist. And if that which is broken in the Eucharist or Sacrament is sacrificed, by that reckoning Iesus Christ sacrificed nothing but bread. And Iesus Christ remaineth whole vnderunder the species of bread and wine, and by consequence is not broken vnderunder the species, and therefore is not sacrificed.
And if they say, the sacrifice consisteth in the eating, then the Priests mouth is the altar for the sacrifice; and by that reason,Snaè dici potest, quòd Christus virtute diuina confecit: & postea formam expressit sub qua posteri benedicerent. Ipse namque per se virtute propria benedicit, nos autē ex illa virtute quam indidit verb…s. Catharinus et Capitefontiū, hauehave made two bookes expresly of this matter. as many as are communicants are as many sacrificing Priests.
They are no lesse troubled touching the Consecration, that is, whether the Sacrifice formally consisteth in the Consecration; for they agree not among themselues about the words by the which Christ consecrated. Pope Innocent the third, in the sixt chapter and fourth booke of the Masse, is of opinion, that Iesus Christ did not consecrate by these words, This is my body, but that he had consecrated before by his diuine vertue. And all the ancient Fathers with one accord say, that Consecration is made by prayer. Whereupon the Grecians call Consecration, Inuocation, and Prayer. At this day they say, that Consecration is done by these words, This is my body, which are no words of Sacrifice nor Oblation, because they offer nothing vntounto God, neither are directed vntounto God, but to the Apostles; Take, eate, this is my bodie which is broken for you. And if to consecrate be to sacrifice, then by this reason it will follow, that consecrating of daies, of the Temple, and of the vessels belonging thereunto, are so many Sacrifices.
18 Touching this point we hauehave inuincible reasons, which hold our Aduersaries so fast bound that they can by no means vnloose themselues. They say, (and that with good reason) that in all Sacrifices, that which is offered vntounto God ought to be consecrated. But in the Masse, that which is sacrificed to God, is not consecrated. Therefore nothing is sacrificed vntounto God in the Masse. That no consecrated thing is offered to God in the Masse, it appeareth hereby; that if any consecrated thing is offered to God in the Masse, it must either be the Bread, or the accidents of the Bread, or else the Body of Christ. But it is not the Bread, for it is no more bread, (as they say) after the consecrating words are pronounced; nor the accidents of the Bread, for they are not offred vntounto God: The colour, the roundnesse, and the breadth of the bread, without bread, is not a fit and proper offering for our redemption. Nor the body of Iesus Christ, for he cannot be consecrated by vsus; seeing that on the contrarie, it is he that consecrateth vsus, as the Apostle saith, Hebr. 10.14. For with one offering hath he consecrated for euer them that are sanctified. So there is nothing that is consecrated in the Masse which the Priest can offer vntounto God. Here our Aduersaries are at a stay, and say that the bread is consecrated, but tell not what consecrated thing is offered to God in the Masse.