The Buckler of the Faith, Part 2 · Article 35 · Subpart 11
Reasons which our Aduersaries alledge for the Sacrifice of the Masse.
Sect. 13 The proofes which our Aduersaries bring for this matter, are very weake and miserable.
1 They say Melchizedech offered Bread and Wine. Be it so, but what do they inferre thereupon? By that they conclude that the Priest in the Masse sacrificeth the bodie and bloud of Christ. This consequence is ridiculous, and made as it were of set purpose to discredite their cause: for from thence rather it should follow, that the Priest sacrificeth nothing but bread and wine, no more then Melchizedech did.
I could shew by*Philo lib, de Abraham. Iosophus lib. 1. Antiquitatū. Philo the Iew, by Iosephus, by the Chaldean Paraphrase, and by diuers of our Aduersaries themselues, as by Hugo de S. Ʋictore, and by Cardinall Caietan, and also by the Romish Bible, that in Genesis 14.18. from whence this place is taken, it is not said, That Melchizedech sacrificed, but that he brought forth, or presented bread and wine, to refresh Abraham and his souldiers, not to make an offering vntounto God. I could likewise shew, that the Apostle in Hebrews 7.1. compareth Melchizedech to Iesus Christ, not in this, that he sacrificed bread and wine, but herein, that he is set downe to be without father or mother: Also in this, that he was a King and a Priest: and in this that he blessed Abraham, and tooke tithes of him, as his superiour. I could also shew**Pererius Iesuita in Gen. ca. 14.18. & 20 Hebraea lectio Latine ad verbū conuersa, sic expressit hunc locum. Et Melchisedech rex Salē protulit panem & vinum, & ipse erat Sacerdos Deo altissimo: & paulo post Caietanus quasi vulgatam translationem non approbās. Quod (inquit) in vulgata editione subditur, vt causa oblationis, erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi, in Hebraeo non habeatur vt causa, sed vt separata clausula. that the Romish Bible hath falsified this place, and hauehave put an enim for an &, and translate, For he was a Priest of the most high God, in stead of, And he was a Priest of the most high God, according to the Hebrew, and the Chaldean Paraphrase:*The version of the 70: foreign. or as the seuentie Interpreters translate it: But he was a Priest. But it is needlesse to take so much paines to confute so ridiculous an argument, and which is alledged to proue that the Masse is a sacrifice of bread and wine. One thing is not to be omitted, that is, that our Aduersaries make two sorts of Sacrifices, one bloudy, the other without bloud: one according to the order of Aaron, the other according to the order of Melchizedech: one of lesse excellence, the other of more excellencie; and say that the Masse is that excellent Sacrifice, according to the order of Melchizedech. By this meanes they make the Masse to be more excellent then the death of Iesus Christ: which is a bloudy Sacrifice, and which by consequence is not a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchizedech. But the Apostle in Hebr. 5.6.7. maketh Melchizedechs Sacrifice to be bloudy: for there he sheweth, that Iesus Christ at his death did execute the office of a Priest, after the order of Melchizedech.
Howsoeuer, seeing that the Priesthood of Melchizedech continueth for euer, Psal. 110.4. Hebr. 5.6. I cannot see how our Aduersaries can affirme that the Masse is the Sacrifice of Melchizedech; for they say that it shall no more be done after the day of iudgement, and that before the day of iudgement Antichrist shall abolish it.
2 With the like subtiltie they alledge the Paschall Lamb, to proue that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice. They say, the Paschall Lambe was a Sacrifice: and therefore, that the Eucharist which is ordained in stead thereof, is a Sacrifice. Whereby they go about to proue that which is not in question betweene vsus: The speciall point of difference is. Whether the body of Christ is really sacrificed in the Eucharist; and not, Whether the Eucharist is in some sence a Sacrifice.
3 They likewise make a great shew of the place in Malachie 1.11. where it is said; For from the rising of the Sunne, euen vntounto the going downe of the same, my Name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in eueryevery place Incense shall be offered vntounto my Name, and a pure offering. In this place I see nothing spoken of sacrificing the bodie of Christ, nor of making a propitiatorie Sacrifice for the liuing and for the dead. In more then a dozen places of the New Testament, prayers, almes, puritie and innocencie of life, and the worke of the Ministerie are called Sacrifices. In that sence I doubt not but that the holy Supper may be called a Sacrifice; but yet a Sacrifice of Eucharist, that is, a sacrifice of Thanks-giuing. And the word Oblation in Malachie is foreign minha, which signifieth a Cake, with aspersion of oyle, which was not offered in a propitiatorie sacrifice, but in a sacrifice of Thanks-giuing.
This exposition disliketh our Aduersaries: for they will hauehave this pure oblation to be the sacrifice of the Masse, wherein Iesus Christ is sacrificed. An interpretation drawne out of the vnwritten word. For the Scripture speaketh not of sacrificing the body of Iesus Christ in the Masse; neither is there any shew thereof in that place.
The reasons why they reiect our exposition, although it be grounded vponupon the Scripture, are, because prayers and almes are no new things, in that they were vsed in the Old Testament; and here (they say) he speakes of a new Oblation. I answer, that the ministerie of the Gospell, and the profession of Christian faith, are new things, and not vsed in the Old Testament: and those things also are called Sacrifices, Rom. 15.15.16. I say the same of the holy Supper, which by the same reason may be called a Sacrifice of Praise, and of Thankes-giuing. And also, that touching the manner and forme of praying in the name of Iesus Christ, it beganne with the publication of the Gospell. And it is euident, that the same which Malachie specifieth to be new, is, that prayers and spirituall offerings should beginne to be offered to God, from the rising of the Sunne to the going downe of the same, by the vocation of the Gentiles.
But they reply, That prayers, almes, and spi…ituall Sacrifices, cannot be that pure offering, seeing that we say, that our best workes are vncleane and imperfect. I could shew, that they wrong vsus herein; but it sufficeth at this time, that the Ministerie of the Gospel, and the Sacrament of the holy Supper, cannot (without blasphemie) be called impure or vncleane; for although that he which administreth them is a sinner, that changeth not their nature. The puritie of the Gospell and of the Sacraments dependeth not vponupon the puritie of those that pronounce and administer them.
4 The rest of the places which they alledge out of the old Testament, seeme rather to be alledged in ieast, then for instruction; in 1. of Samuel 2.35. God foresheweth to Hely, that he would take the office of Priest from him, and would raise vp vntounto himselfe a faith full Priest, to whom he would build a sure house. And Prouerbs 9.1. Wisedome hath built her house, she hath killed her beasts, she hath mingled her wine, she hath also furnished her table. Therefore (say they) the Priest sacrificeth Iesus Christ in the Masse. To prooue the Masse by those places of the Scripture, is all one as to warme themselues by Moone light.
5 Now let vsus come to the new Testament. First, they alledge these words, This is my body. But we will speake of the sence of these words hereafter when we come to Transsubstantiation. Now we say, put the case it were so, that by these words the bread should be transsubstantiated into the body of Christ; what makes that for the sacrifice? Is the body of our Lord Iesus Christ sacrificed in eueryevery place where it is? And say that the body of Iesus Christ should be really in the Priests hands, yet the Priest must not sacrifice it, vnlesse God command him to do it. Now that is it which we desire to see, but they could neuer yet produce it.
6 Being put from that, they insist vponupon the words that follow, This is my body which is giuen for you, or which is broken for you. From whence they inferre, that seeing those words are spoken of the present time, it must needs be that Iesus Christ at that present time brake his body, & gaue it to his disciples.
This is to play with the Scriptures, and (in effect) to renounce the Bible and their beleefe. For they which dispute in that manner, might learne by the Romish Bible, by the Masse, and by their owne Doctors, that Iesus Christ by those words speaketh of giuing his body to die for vsus, and of the breaking of his bodie vponupon the crosse. For that which Saint Paul saith, Which is broken for you, the Romane translation saith, Quod pro vobis tradetur, which shall be giuen for you. And in the consecration of the cup, in stead of Which is shed, both the Romish Bible and the Masse, hauehave Effundetur, which shall be shed. To giuegive them to vnderstand, that he spake not of any effusion then made, but of that which should be made at his death. It was our Sauiours manner and vse to speake in that sort. Matth. 26.45. Before any of the Iewes were come to lay hands on him, he said, Behold the Sonne of man is giuen into the hands of sinners. And Ioh. 10.17. I lay down my life, that I might take it againe: and 17.11. Now I am no more in the world, and a little after, When I was in the world, &c. And Saint Paul 2. Tim. 4.6. I am already offered: foreign,speaking of his death which was neare. And Iesus Christ administring that Sacrament had reason to speake of his death as present, because it was the euening before he died. So Saint Chrysostome vnderstood it, in his 83. Sermon vponupon Saint Mathew; his words are these.*foreign. This is my bloud which is shed for the remission of sinnes: he said that, to shew that his passion and his crosse is a mysterie. The Iesuite Sa vponupon the words of Saint Matthew, saith, In Greeke it is said which is shed: the present for the future tence. And Cardinall Caietan vponupon the 22. of Luke*Eadem ratione qua Euangelistae futuram in cruce effusionē sanguinis significauerunt in praesenti effunditur, eadem ratione Paulus futuram in cruce fractionem carnis Christi significat in praesenti, dicendo Frangitur. saith, Euen as the Euangelists by the present tence hauehave expressed the future effusion of bloud, saying, is shed, S. Paul saying, is broken, signifieth by the present time the breaking of his body which was after to be done vponupon the crosse. Barradius the Iesuite*Vtitur Dominus praesenti tempore pro paulò post futuro: de futura enim & propinqua passione sunt verba intelligenda. Hoc sensu. Hoc est corpus meū quod pro vobis passioni & morti paulo post dabitur. in the 4. Tome of his Harmonie of the Euangelists, lib. 3. cap. 4. saith, The Lord vseth the time present, in stead of the future time which then approched; for the words ought to be vnderstood of his future passion which then drew neare, in this sence, This is my body which shall shortly be giuen for you, to suffer and to die.
It cannot be said, that these words, is giuen and is broken, can be vnderstood presently and futurely: for one selfe same word cannot signifie both present and future. For the Masse and the Romish Bible should do wrong to translate those words in the future tence, if they were to be vnderstood in the present tence. Those interpreters which translate that which is spoken in the present tence, by the future tence, do it because there is an inconuenience to vnderstand it in the present tence, & to follow precisely the letter. And it is not to be doubted, that if he which set that downe in the Canon of the Masse, had beléeued the real sacrifice, as at this day it is beleeued, he would hauehave left the word effundetur in the present tence to ground his owne opinion, and would not hauehave rested himselfe vponupon so weake a ground as otherwise the Gospel affoords him; I say a weake ground, because those words read in the present tence, and translated according to the Greeke copie, make nothing for the reall sacrifice of Christs body in the Eucharist. For the action it selfe which is a Sacrament, bindeth vsus to beleeue that they are sacramentall words, and that the sence of those words is, that in the Eucharist the body of our Lord is broken, and his bloud sacramentally shed, to represent the breaking and the shedding of his body and bloud vponupon the crosse. In the same manner that the bread in that place is called the body of Christ, and the cup the couenant. Therefore it is expedient to translate it in the present tence, that all the speech may be sacramentall, and conformable to the nature of the action. For the clearing of the truth hereafter, nothing maketh more then the diuersitie of the words which Saint Luke and Saint Paul vse touching the same; the one saying, Which is giuen, the other saying, Which is broken. For if Saint Luke vnderstands, that the body of our Lord is really and actually giuen in the Sacrament, we must also say that Saint Paul vnderstood, that in the same Sacrament the body of our Lord is really and actually broken. For they are things disagreeing, to say, that the body of our Lord is really broken vnderunder the species of bread and wine, and yet that it is whole vnderunder the species. The body of our Lord is not broken vnderunder the species, seeing it remaineth whole vnderunder the species. They are as much combred about the shedding of the bloud. For they say, that the bloud of our Lord is shed in the Eucharist, and yet that it stirreth not, and that it comes not out of the body nor from the veines. That it is shed vnderunder the species, and yet that it stirreth not from vnderunder the species. And as it is certaine that all shedding is a mouing, they make a shedding without mouing. They say that the bloud of the body of Christ is shed, and yet that not one drop of bloud comes out. These men are angry when they are contradicted, and in the meane time they contradict rhemselues: they will be beleeued, and yet they beleeue not that which themselues say.
And this is yet more absurd which the Romish Churches beleeue, to wit, that the body is whole in eueryevery drop of the wine in the cup, and that in the cup the bloud is not out of the body: in such manner, that it is the body which is shed and the Priest drinks the flesh and the bones. It seemes that these men were in doubt to be beleeued, and tooke pleasure to heape vp a number of absurd conceptions.
7 Some much please themselues with an opinion of acutenesse in reasoning on this manner: All shedding of bloud made for remission of sinnes, is a propitiatory sacrifice. But Iesus Christ saith that his bloud is shed in the Eucharist for the remission of sinnes. Ergo the Eucharist is a propitiatorie sacrifi…e.
The first proposition is not vniuersally true. For there is a sacramentall and not a reall shedding of bloud, which is made to represent the shedding of Christs bloud vponupon the crosse: that is no propitiatorie sacrifice. Therefore to take away the ambiguitie, the first proposition ought to be made in this manner, All reall shedding of bloud made for the remission of sinnes, is a propitatory sacrifice. And yet still the proposition will beare exceptions. For in the circumcision of Iesus Christ, there was reall shedding of the Lords bloud made for the remission of our sinnes, and yet circumcision was no sacrifice. The reall shedding of bloud is then a propitiatory sacrifice, when it is made by the death of the thing offered.
The second proposition also is false: for in the Eucharist Iesus Christ saith that his bloud is shed, but saith not, that it was shed in the Eucharist. In this question we speake of a reall shedding, without which there can be no reall propitiatory sacrifice.
8 Their most vsuall obiection against vsus is out of Acts 13.2. where it is said, As they ministred to the Lord, and in the Romish Bible it is, Ministrantibus illis Domino. That is, as they serued the Lord in their ministerie, conformable to the Greeke, foreign. They would needs hauehave (but I know not why) this seruice to be the Masse. For these our Maisters command it shall be so. Say it were so, (although there is neither reason nor colour fot it to be so) and let vsus beleeue that there it is said, that the Apostles were assembled together to sing Masse: yet still the difficultie remaineth, that is, whether in that sacrifice they sacrificed the body of Iesus Christ. I know not what moueth them to interpret foreign to sacrifice. By the same reason we must say that the Angels sing Masse, and sacrifice Iesus Christ, seeing that in Heb. 1.14. the Angels are called ministring spirits, foreign foreign. We must also say that Epaphroditus sacrificed and sung Masse, seeing Saint Paul, Philip. 2.25. calleth him foreign, administrator. But Saint Paul confuteth that, and expoundeth himselfe, saying,foreign. He that ministred vntounto me such things as I wanted.
9 Some also alledge this place for the Masse, Hebr. 13.10. We hauehave an altar, whereof they hauehave no authoritie to eate which serue in the tabernacle. By this altar they will hauehave the Apostle to vnderstand the sacrifice of the Masse, and that in this Masse Iesus Christ is sacrificed: which are great suppositions without proofes. But Cardinall*§. Respondeo: & §. Accidit. Apostolus non meminit sacrificij panis & vini. Et paulo post. Apostolus dedita opera omisit oblationem panis & vini, ne cogeretur explicare mysterium Eucharistiae, quod altius erat quàm vt ab illis capi tunc posset. Bellarmine in the sixt chapter of his first booke of the Masse, reiecteth this place, and all whatsoeuer they can alledge out of that Epistle for the Masse. For he acknowledgeth that the Apostle in all that Epistle to the Hebrewes speaketh nothing of the Eucharist, saying, That the Apostle maketh no mention of the sacrifice of bread & wine. And a little after he saith, The Apostle hath expresly omitted the oblation of bread and wine, lest he should be constrained to expound the mysterie of the Eucharist, which was too high a subiect to be comprehended by those to whom he wrot. Reade the whole place of the Apostle, and you shall see that he speaketh of the death of Iesus Christ, which he suffered without the gate: of which sacrifice the crosse was the altar. Where also he speaketh but of one altar in the singular number. In this sacrifice the Apostle saith that those that serue in the tabernacle of ceremonies hauehave no participation.