A Defense of the Catholic Faith, Book 2 · Article 9

A Defense of the Catholic Faith · Book 2 · Article 9

p. 202ARTICLE IX. Touching Maſſes without Communicants and without Aſsiſtants.

BVt if the Romiſh Church hath coyned new Articles of faith, The KINGS Confeſſion.neuer heard of in the firſt 500. years after Chriſt, I hope I ſhall neuer be condemned for an Hereticke, for not being a Noueliſt. Such are the priuate Maſses, where the Prieſt playeth the part both of the Prieſt and of the people.

p. 203If euer man turned his backe and ſhamefully fledde, it is Coeffeteau in this place: We expected from him the defence of priuate Maſſes by the word of God, or at leaſt that he ſhould hauehave produced vntounto vsus the practiſe of the auncient Church, or ſome examples of priuate maſſes in the firſt fiue hundred yeares after Ieſus Chriſt; ſeeing that the King of great Britain doth limit him to that terme, but of all this not a word. But rather he turneth aſide his Diſcourſe, & caſteth himſelfe vponupon the ſacrifice of the maſſe,Fol. 22. pag. 1. heaping vp many paſſages of the Fathers, who cal the Euchariſt a ſacrifice. He ſaith onelyonly that it is not neceſſary that a ſacrifice be offered by many, that in times paſt the greateſt ſacrifice of the Synagogue was done by the high Prieſt alone in the holy of holies; that the fathers in many places called the Euchariſt a ſacrifice. That the eſſence of the ſacrifice doth not depend from the aſſiſtants: That the vertue of this Oblation is alwaies one as wel in, as out of ſolemnities. Add hereunto that the action cannot be priuate, albeit the Prieſt doe it in particular, ſeeing that he is a publike perſon: That S. Auſtin ſpeaking of a place haunted with wicked ſpirits, ſaith, that one of his Prieſts went thither, & offered the Sacrifice of the body of Chriſt,The Anſwere. The Prieſt in the Maſſe ſaith that he doth offer Sacrificiū laudis pro redemptione animarum. which could no otherwiſe be done, but priuately and without ſolemnity.

I anſwere, that Coeffeteau takes much paines to no purpoſe; for we agree with the Fathers, that the holy ſupper is a Sacrifice; but yet a Sacrifice Euchariſticall, that is, a giuing of thankes, not propitiatory p. 204for the redemption of ſoules, where Chriſt is really ſacrificed; which we ſhall ſee hereafter. Yea were it ſuch a ſacrifice as our aduerſaries would hauehave it, yet ought it to bee celebrated with the communion of aſsiſtants, becauſe God hath ſo commanded.

1 Chriſt Ieſus ſaying to the aſsiſtants, take, eate, commaundeth them to participate.

2 Againe he addeth, Doe this, that in the celebration thereof we ſhould follow his example.

And the Apoſtle S. Paul, 1. cor. 10.16. defineth this Sacrament by the Communion, ſaying, That the bread which we breake is the communion of the body of Chriſt.

4 The Apoſtle there addeth wordes that ſtrike ſure; We are all partakers of one bread: then all ought to participate.

5 Alſo the word ſupper, which he vſeth in the twentieth verſe of the Chapter following, ſignifies a common ſupper, and importeth a communion: and we hauehave elſewhere declared, that all auncient Writers doe call this Sacrament a ſupper. Now what can be more abſurd, then to inuite people to a ſupper, to looke on, and eate nothing? Who euer heard tell of a feaſt, where the inuiter doth eate alone? They reply, that at a Feaſt people cannot be forced to eate: whereunto I ſay, that if they ſhould not be compelled, they ſhould at leaſt be entreated to eate: but in priuate Maſſes there are none inuited, and the Prieſt is often alone: I ſay farther, that the gueſts ſhould be conſtrained to eate; if God p. 205hauehave ſo expreſly commanded: and he hath commanded to take, eate, and communicate in this holy ſupper. It is no wonder then, if the word Supper, be grown odious, and out of vſe ſeeing it ſerues to diſcouer the abuſe, and that the Etymologie therof is a kinde of commandement.

6 Beſides, what reſemblance is there between Chriſt ſet at the Table with his Apoſtles, diſtributing the bread and the cup to eueryevery of them, and the Prieſt that not onelyonly eates and drinkes by himſelfe, but is often alone, and grumbles ſome few wordes vnheard vponupon the Hoſt.

7 More eſpecially it is to bee conſidered, that the Church of Rome teacheth, that the Euchariſt is not onelyonly a ſacrifice, but alſo a Sacrament: whence it followes, that although the Euchariſt, as it is a ſacrifice, may be performed without Communicants, yet as it is the Sacrament of that Communion which wee hauehave together with Ieſus Chriſt, ſo is the communion thereof among many required as neceſſary: which ſhewes how impertinently Coeffeteau ſpeakes, That it is not neceſſary that the Sacrifice be offered by many, and that the eſſence of the Sacrifice dependeth not of the Communicants, and that the vertue of the Sacrifice is ſtill the ſame, both with the ceremonies and without them: ſeeing we do not here ſpeake of the Euchariſt, as it is a ſacrifice, but a Sacrament. If any Sophiſter make anſwere, that the eſſence of the Sacrament conſiſteth not in the Communion, but in the conſecration: my replication is, that it contradicts the Apoſtle, who p. 206defineth this ſacrament by the Communion, as we hauehave ſeene, and definitions are the very eſſence of things. Againe, the communion of one bread, hath an eſſentiall reference to our Communion with Ieſus Chriſt: which two words are relatiues, wherof the former depends vponupon the latter. Touching the pretended conſecration of the Church of Rome, it cannot be of the eſſence of the ſacrament, for eueryevery ſacrament is a holy ſigne, but this conſecration is not a holy ſigne, becauſe it doth not ſignifie any thing, no body vnderſtands any thing, or ſees any thing.In the booke of the Apology, chap. 7. And we hauehave declared in it place, that the true conſecration is done by prayer, and the auncients ſo beleeued.

8 No…withſtanding, let vsus graunt that the Communion is not of the eſſence of the Sacrament, doth it therefore follow that it is not neceſſary? Is there not validity in Gods commandement to make it neceſſary? Is there nothing neceſſarie beſides that which is of the eſſence of things? then ſhall not the law or the Goſpell be neceſſary for men, becauſe they are not of the eſſence of men: and ſo ſhal it not be neceſſary for Coeffeteau to draw his breath, becauſe it is no part of his effence, there can nothing be ſaid more wide from the purpoſe.

9 Touching that which he addeth, that the cheefe ſacrifice of the Synagogue was performed by the High Prieſt alone within the Holy of Holies: I doe admire the negligent raſhnes of this Doctor, that he dares ſpeake of the Scripture, before p. 207he read it; for had he read it, he would hauehave found the contrary; he ſhould hauehave ſeene that the blood which the High Prieſt alone caried into the Sanctum Sanctorū, was the blood of a beaſt already ſacrificed in the Court, vponupon the altar of burnt offerings, in the preſence of the people; and there was no ſacrifice more publique, or more ſolemnly performed. Is there any ſuch a nouice in the ſacred Hiſtory, that euer thought that Aaron did ſacrifice or offer any beaſt within the place that was moſt holy? It was then a ſprinkling of bloud which he made vponupon the Arke, as the concluſion of the publique ſacrifice, and was no ſacrifice done in priuate. Read the thirtieth of Exodus and the ſixteenth of Leuiticus.

10 Of like ſtuffe is that which he addeth, that Maſſes without Communicants or aſsiſtants, cannot be ſaid to be priuate, becauſe the Prieſt is a publique perſon: this is a goodly conceit. So then if a Miniſter doe pray alone in the Church, his prayer ſhal be a publique prayer. And ſhould not this Miniſter deſerue a greene coate, if being alone hee ſhould ſay, Attend my Masters, when he reprehended the walles? yet this is that which the Maſsing Prieſt in priuate doth; at which priuate Maſſes being all alone, he ſaith, Orate pro me fratres, Brethren pray for me: and which is more, he ſaith, Accipite & man ducate ex hoc omnes; Take and eate all of this: and yet offers nothing to any body, but eates alone With like abuſe doth he ſay, Vt quot quot ex hac altaris participatione ſumpſerimus, &c. That al we which p. 208by the participation of the Altar, hauehave receiued: the bodie, &c Wherupon the queſtion is asked, to whom the Prieſt ſpeakes, when he ſaith, Brethren pray for me. Pope Innocent the third doth anſwere finely in the ſecond booke of the myſteries of the Maſſe, chap. 25. It muſt (ſaith he) be religiouſly beleeued, that the Angels doe beare them companie that pray, according to the ſaying of the Prophet, I will ſing vntounto thee in the preſence of the Angels. Which will alſo ſerue to reſolue other doubts, preſuming that when the Prieſt ſaith, Take, eate, he doth invite the Angels to eate, for they come with good ſtomackes. And ſo of the reſt.

At length the place of Auſtin is brought, which is the onelyonly paſſage of antiquity that Coeffeteau can finde. This Father, lib. 22. De ciuit. Dei, ſpeaking of a place haunted with euill ſpirits, ſaith, that one of his Prieſts went, and offered a Sacrifice there: wherupon Coeffeteau ſaith, that this could not be done but priuately and without ſolemnity: but he dares not to affirme, that he had no aſſiſtants, or communicants; which is that which he ſhould, or elſe the place makes not to the purpoſe. And indeede we may preſume the contrary, foraſmuch as S Austin ſpeakes of a great houſe, and of ſome great perſon of quality, that ſent not for a Miniſter of the Church of Carthage to celebrate the holy Sacrament,Nuſquam expreſſe legimus a veter ibus oblatum ſacrificium ſine communione al…cuius ve! aliquorum. to leaue him alone without aſſiſtants, or communicants: and indeede Bellarmine confeſſeth the impertinency of this place, lib. 2. de Miſſa cap. 9. where he acknowledgeth, That there is no expreſſe p. 209place ſound, where the auncrents hauehave offered the Sacrifice, without ſome Communicants.

The common excuſe, and the ſame which the Councel of Trent vſeth in the ſeuenth Seſſion, is that it comes to paſſe through the indeuotion of the people: which ſpeech doth both confes, and yet approue the abuſe: for the ſame Councell addeth, The holy Councell doth not forbid thoſe Maſſes wherein the Prieſt alone doth communicate ſacramentally, as priuate and vnlawfull, but doth approue and commend them: which their practiſe doth proue; for if it be through the want of deuotion in the people, why doe they not endeauour the remedie? for if there be any queſtion of caſting into the boxe, if any buſines fall out concerning tithes, and offerings, they eaſily finde the meanes to holde the people in the humor of contribution; neither do I finde that the Cardinalls, and Biſhops doe communicate of…ener then the people.

For the Prieſts hinder the people from aſſiſting them, becauſe they ſay an infinite number of Maſſes in priuate, and vponupon the ſudden; of which they giuegive no warning. For three ſundry perſons will one Prieſt diſpatch three Maſſes, to eueryevery one his own, that each of them may pay for a whole Maſſe And they that will hauehave yearely Maſſes, doe found yearely Penſions: for neuer was any priuate Maſſe ſaid for him that gaue nothing; they vſe not to make God for nothing: Maſſes are ſold for more or leſſe according to the prouiſion that is made; & if one pay for one Maſſe, is it any reaſon that another p. 210ſhould equally ſhare with him? Yea they buy Maſſes for the ſoules of young children dying ſoone after baptiſme, which they hold muſt needes be in Paradice: for if Maſſes doe no good to them that are dead, yet they profite thoſe that are aliue: Doubtleſſe it is couereouſneſſe that hath hatched this abuſe, and ſuperſtition hath fomented it.

Theſe men do againe reply, although but weakly: for (ſay they) if no Communicants offer themſelues, muſt the Sacrifice be therefore diſcontinued? Let them heare S.Chryſoſtome thundring thereupon in the third Homily vponupon the Epheſians:foreign. O cuſtome! O preſumption! in vaine is Sacrifice daily offered, in vaine doe we ſtand at the Altar, and none communicate. And a little after, Whoſoeuer doth not communicate in theſe myſteries, is impudent and raſh in ſtanding by. And further adde, that they do falſly preſume, that the holy ſupper is a Sacrifice, in that ſenſe which they take the word Sacrifice, as we ſhal preſently ſee. Now let vsus heare the teſtimonies of the Auncients.Peracta conſecratione omnes communic ent qui noluerint Eccleſiaſticis carere liminibus, Sic enim & Apoſtoli ſta tuerunt & Sancta Romana tenet Eccleſia. Tanta in altario holocauſta offerantur quanta populo ſufficere debeant, &c.

The auncient rule of the Church of the Citie of Rome, which is found in the ſecond Diſtinction of the conſecration vnderunder the name of Anaclet, in the Canon Peracta, is this, The conſecration being ended, let all thoſe communicate, that will not be excluded out of the bounds of the Church: for ſo hauehave the Apostles ordained, and the Church of Rome obſerueth.

And in the Canon Tribus gradibus, of the ſame Diſtinction, Let as many offerings be laid vponupon the Table, as will ſerue for all the people to communicate: p. 211and if any doe remaine, let them not be kept vntill the morrow.

And in the firſt Diſtinction of the Conſecration in the Canon Hoc quoque, the Pope ſpeakes thus: It is ordained that no Prieſt preſume to celebrate the ſolemnities of the Maſſe, if he hauehave not two others that may anſwere him, and that the Prieſt be the third: becauſe when he ſaith in the plurall number, The Lord be with you, and that which he ſaith in ſecret, pray for me, it is apparantly requiſite that anſwere be made to his ſalutation.

Iuſtin Martyr in the ſecond of his Apologie, The Deacons doe diſiribute the bread to eueryevery one that is preſent.

Ignatius in the Epiſtle to the Philadelphians,foreign. Dominica Coena omnibus debet eſſe communis. One loafe hath beene broken to all. S. Ierome vponupon the firſt to the Corinth. cap. II. The ſupper of the Lord ought to be common vntounto all. The Reader may compare this word, the common Supper, with the priuate Maſſe.

The Authour of the Conſtitutions aſcribed vntounto Clement, lib. 2. cap. 61. Let eueryevery one receiue the bodie of the Lord. And ſo hauehave all the auncient Liturgies,Accipiant ſinguli per ſe Dominicum corpus. although they be much falſified: yea and ſome traces thereof are to be ſeene in the Maſſe, where the Prieſt, though he be alone doth alwaies ſpeake as vntounto many communicants.

Cum ex more Diaconus clamaret, Si quis non communi at det locum.Gregory the firſt, Biſhop of Rome, in the ſecond booke of his Dialogues, chap. 13. ſaith, that the Deacon according to the cuſtome, crieth, if there be any that doth not communicate, let him depart. And this was ſixe hundred yeares after Chriſt, and we could diſſcend p. 212lower. But this ſufficeth againſt a man that feares the triall, who being not able to alleadge againſt the King of great Britaine, any ſyllable of Scripture, no nor any of the Auncients that ſpeake of priuate Maſſes, doth flie from the matter and deſperately runnes into the diſputation of the Sacrifice of the Maſſe. We may let him runne, ſeeing he betakes himſelfe to his heeles; yet let vsus giuegive him this aboue his bargaine.

Of the Sacrifice of the Maſſe.

AS all errours goe hand in hand, and are linked together, ſo the opinion of the Sacrifice of the Maſſe, hath drawne priuate Maſſes after it: for after it began to be beleeued, that in the Maſſe the Prieſt doth really ſacrifice Chriſt Ieſus for the price, and ranſome of our ſoules; mans reaſon witty to deceiue it ſelfe, hath preſumed that this payment cannot but be good, though made in a corner, and that payment may be made for vsus without our aſſiſtance: for to celebrate the Sacrament of the Communion which we hauehave together with Ieſus Chriſt, a communion of many is neceſſarily required: but to offer a payment vntounto God, retchleſſe ignorance hath held it leſſe requiſite for many to be aſſiſtants: this is the reaſon why this wound muſt be ſearched to the quicke, and this abuſe carefully diſcouered; beſides, this point troubles vsus the more, becauſe to goe to Maſſe, and be a Romane Catholicke, are taken in one ſignification.

p. 213The Councell of Trent in the two and twentieth Seſſion declareth, that in the Maſſe Chriſt is really ſacrificed as a true propitiatory ſacrifice for the ſinnes of the liuing and the dead: by reaſon whereof, when the Biſhop ordereth a Prieſt, after he hath annointed him in ſundry places of his bodie, he laieth his handes vponupon him, and ſaith,Accipe poteſtatem offerendi ſacrificium Deo Miſſaſ que celebrandi tam pro viuis quam pro defunctis. Receiue power to offer Sacrifice vntounto God, and to celebrate Maſſe both for the liuing and the dead. So hee confirmes him a Sacrificer, to ſacrifice Chriſt Ieſus really for a propitiatory ſacrifice. And this ſacrifiice is called the Maſſe, which is celebrated by a Prieſt clad with aenigmaticall and allegoricall robes, with a thouſand feates and geſticulations by tale, and in wordes not intelligible; therefore the people vſe to ſay, Let vsus goe heare a Maſſe, but if one ſhould phraſe it thus, as the Apoſtles doe,Act. 2. & 20.Acts 2 Let vsus goe breake bread, or, Let vsus goe to the Lords Supper, he ſhould be thought eyther to be out of his wits, or to deſerue the Inquiſition: for in this admirable age the language of the Holy Ghoſt is become eyther ridiculous, or prodigious, or vnſeaſonable.

Being then armed with the word of God, let vsus gently ſift out the falſhood, that here offers it ſelfe more then halfe vnmasked, for the errours are palpable.

1 Firſt we demaund of our Maſters: who hath authoriſed the Biſhops to eſtabliſh Sacrificers in the Church of Chriſt? Here they are ſilent, and can neuer anſwere to the purpoſe; and ſo the Prieſts are conuinced to hauehave no calling, but an imaginary p. 214charge brought into the Church without the commandement of God: as if one ſhould bring in Fidlers or Fencers among the Counſellors of State, to make them ſit in the Kings Courts: and place Sacrificers in equall ranke with faithfull Paſtors, and Biſhops of the flocke.

2 Againe we aske of them, who hath inſtituted this propitiatory ſacrifice of the Maſſe, where Ieſus Chriſt is really ſacrificed? They anſwere, that Chriſt hath inſtituted it. Enquire farther, where, and in what wordes of the Inſtitution of the Euchariſt, they alleadge theſe words, Do this in remembrance of me: An admirable proofe; Doe this, that is to ſay, Sacrifice me really vnderunder the forms of the bread and wine, is a Sacrifice propitiatory for the liuing and the dead. O fruitfull words in conſequences, which like ringing bels, may be made ſpeake anſwerably to eueryevery mans imagination.

3 But let vsus take them according to their own words: for they themſelues confeſſe, that by theſe words, (do this) Chriſt hath commanded to do that which himſelfe did: then muſt they ſhew vsus, that Chriſt in this Sacrament offered his body for a ſacrifice, and there are they grauelled, and put to ſilence: it is eaſie to finde what Chriſt offered to his Diſciples, when he ſaid, Take, eate; but it appeares not that he offered any thing vntounto God.

4 Neyther did Chriſt vſe any eleuation, a Ceremony vſed in Sacrifices, which the Prieſt obſerueth alſo in the Maſſe.

5 Alſo the Apoſtles performe no adoration: againſt p. 215the nature of eueryevery Sacrifice, which doth neceſſarily require adoration in thoſe that offer.

6 Beſides, whoſoeuer doth offer vntounto God, addreſſeth himſelfe by ſpeech, and otherwiſe vntounto God: but Chriſt in the whole forme of the inſtitution of the Euchariſt, neyther addreſſeth himſelfe vntounto God, nor ſpeakes to any but his Apoſtles.

7 Yea theſe wordes, Do this in remembrance of me, doe call our aduerſaries to a triall: for if Doe this, ſignifie Sacrifice me, it then followes, that Doe this in remembrance of me, ſignifies Sacrifice me in memory of me: which is a ſenſe abſurd and incompatible: for the memoriall of a thing cannot be the thing it ſelfe: no man offers a preſent in remembrance of the preſent; not would ſacrifice a Lambe in memory of the Lambe; ſo doth he not ſacrifice Ieſus Chriſt in remembrance of Chriſt.

8 But will we hauehave theſe wordes, Doe this, expounded? Let vsus then learne them of the Apoſtle, 1. Cor. 11.25.26. Ieſus tooke the cup, ſaying, This cup is the new Teſtament in my blood, doe this as oft as yee drinke it in remembrance of me; for as often as ye ſhal eate this bread, and drinke this cup, ye ſhew the Lords death till that he come. Then to doe this in remembrance of Ieſus Chriſt, is to eate the bread and drinke the cup, to ſhew or celebrate his death.

9 Some thinking here to ſhew their wits, argue thus: EueryEvery powring out of blood for the remiſſion of ſinnes is a ſacrifice: but Chriſt ſaith that in the Euchariſt his blood is ſhed for the remiſſion of ſinnes: therefore the Euchariſt is a ſacrifice.

p. 216Whereunto I anſwere, that both the propoſitions of this Argumunt are falſe; yea the ſecond is contrary to the Church of Rome. It is falſe that the ſhedding of blood for the remiſſion of ſinnes is a ſacrifice, vnleſſe this blood be offered vntounto God for an Oblation, and with the death of the Sacrifice the blood whereof is ſhed. Now here you ſee not, that Ieſus Chriſt did offer any thing vntounto God, nor that he ſuffered death in the Euchariſt. The ſecond propoſition is alſo falſe; for it is true that Chriſt ſaith in this Sacrament, that his blood is ſhed, but ſaith not that it is ſhed in this Sacrament He ſpeaks of the effuſion of his blood vponupon the Croſſe, which he was to doe immediately after: for Chriſt doth often ſpeake of his death approaching, as if it were at hand; as in the tenth of Iohn, ver. 17. I lay downe my life, that I may take it vp againe. And a little before, I giuegive downe my life for my ſheepe. S. Paul ſaith in like manner, 2. Tim 4 6. For I am now offered, becauſe he ſhould be ſacrificed ſoone after: Which is confirmed by the Maſſe it ſelfe, and by the Latine Tranſlation of the Bible, which the Councell of Trent will hauehave onelyonly receiued, which ſaith, Qui pro vobis effunditur, which ſhall bee ſhed for you; expreſly tranſlating the preſent tenſe by the future, to ſhewe that Chriſt ſpake not of an effuſion of bloud to be preſently made, but to be done ſoone after. Bellarmine anſwers, this ſhedding might be vnderſtood in both tenſes; but I ſay it could not be, for Chriſt here gaue vsus not wordes with double viſages, nor doth he by one word ſignifie two effuſions p. 217of blood ſo diſagreeable: and beſide the Canon of the Maſſe, and the Romane Bible ſhould have idly tranſlated the preſent tenſe by the future, if it might, and ſhould bee taken in the preſent tenſe.

And this is the place where the perplexity of the errour appeareth, which hew and interferre, that it ſelfe is not vnderſtood: for our aduerſaries ſay, that vnderunder the formes the blood of Chriſt is ſhed, but yet runnes not out of his veynes: that it is ſhed and yet ſtirres not: and howbeit eueryevery effuſion be a motion, yet it is an effuſion without effuſion. And which is more,Effuſio eſt extra fuſio. they ſay this Sacrifice is vnbloody: whence it followes, that there is no effuſion of blood; that is to ſay, that it is of blood not bloody, as if one ſhould ſay a heate, not hote, or whiteneſſe, not white: ſo they lead vsus blindfolded: for there is nothing that a man will not ſay, that thinkes he ſpeakes vntounto beaſts; or that will mocke God himſelfe.

But eſpecially note, that theſe Maſters ſay, that the body is alſo in the cup, yea in eueryevery drop of the cup: ſo that he which ouerturnes the cup, ouerturnes the fleſh and the bones: ſo theſe Doctors by a new Alchymie diſtill the body of our Sauior: And that they may puzle plaine people,As if one ſhould ſay, the formes of a man, or of a tre… in ſtead of h…s length, or his colour. they ſay that the blood of Chriſt is ſhed vnderunder the accidents of Wine, which they doe fraudulently call the formes But we enquire not of them vnderunder what the blood is ſhed, but whether it be ſhed or no: for that which is really ſhed vnderunder another thing, is not there ſhed the leſſe.

p. 218The quality of our redemption, and the onelyonly ſacrifice of our Redeemer, doe arme vsus with inuincible proofes againſt this ſtrange errour. We demand of theſe Maſters, whether the ſacrifice of the Croſſe, and the ſacrifice of the Maſſe bee two, or one and the ſame ſacrifice. For feare we ſhould accuſe them of confeſſing another propitiatory ſacrifice beſide that of the Croſſe; they ſay that the Maſſe is the ſame with the ſacrifice of the Croſſe: but this we may eaſily diſproue, and proue that the ſacrifice of the Croſſe, and that of the Maſſe cannot be one ſacrifice: our reaſons are

1 Firſt the ſacrifice of the Maſſe, and that of the Croſſe cannot be one ſacrifice, becauſe the definition of one agreeth not with the other: for the ſacrifice of the Croſſe, is the death of Ieſus Chriſt offered vponupon the Croſſe for our redemption: but the Maſſe is not the death of Ieſus Chriſt, &c. and then is not the Maſſe the ſacrifice of the Croſſe.

2 The proprieties and circumſtances differ: the ſacrifice of the Croſſe was painfull, this of the Maſſe is without paine: the ſacrifice of the Croſſe was bloudy, this is not bloudy: one was viſible, the other is inuiſible, and none doth ſee Chriſt, who they ſay is offered: the one hath beene offered, and is not reiterable, for Chriſt died but once: the other is infinitely reiterated, and in infinite places at one time: that was immediately performed by Chriſt, and this is done by the miniſtery of a Prieſt.

3 So doe they alſo much differ in vertue and efficacy; for the death of Chriſt which he once ſuffered, p. 219was ſufficient to redeeme the whole world from eternall damnation: but the Sacrifice of the Maſſe is prized at a very low rate, for there muſt be a greate number of them to redeeme one poore ſoule out of Purgatory: they are ſold in the Countrey for ſixe blanckes, but at Paris they coſt more. The firſt of the nine dayes after the Popes death,Lib. 1. Sacrarum Ceremoniar. Sect. 15. cap. 2. there are two hundred Maſſes ſaid for his ſoule, and vponupon each of the eight daies following there is one Maſſe ſaid, to deliuer his pontificall ſoule out of Purgatory: yea for fiue hundred yeares together there are Maſſes ſung for ſome deceaſed perſons that hauehave enriched ſome Monaſtery; yea ſcarce fifty thouſand Maſſes are ſufficient for one ſoule.

4 To be ſhort, ſeeing the ſacrifice of the Croſſe is nothing but the death of Ieſus Chriſt, no man will beleeue, that the Maſſe wherein Chriſt dyeth not, is the ſame ſacrifice with his death.

5 Hereunto can wee hauehave no anſwere from them to the purpoſe: for they onelyonly ſay, that it is the ſame hoſt, both in the Maſſe, and vponupon the Croſſe, to wit, the body of Ieſus Chriſt, and therefore that it is the ſame ſacrifice.

I anſwere, that put the caſe, that in the Maſſe Chriſt be really ſacrificed, as well as on the Croſſe, yet doth it not follow that it were the ſame ſacrifice: it ſhould indeede be the ſame thing ſacrificed, but not the ſame ſacrifice. For a ſacrifice, to ſpeake properly, is not the thing ſacrificed, but the action of offering: and the very Etymologie of the word Sacrifice importeth the doing, or action; which p. 220Bellarmine confeſſeth, Lib. 1. de Miſſa, cap. 2. where hauing ſet downe the definition of a Sacrifice,§. Primo igitur. Hoc loco ſacrificium accipimus pro actione ſacrificandi non autem pro victima. Et lib 2. c. 4. §. Secundum Sacrificium eſt actio, non res permanens. hee ſaith that by Sacrifice he vnderſtands the action of ſacrificing, and not the thing ſacrificed.

6 Obſerue farther, that although the death of Ieſus Chriſt, and the Maſſe ſhould bee the ſame ſacrifice in kinde, and that one definition agreed to eyther, yet ſhould they not be the ſame action in number: for it is wel known, that there are in number many Maſſes: and indeede two Maſſes do coſt more then one; for were there not many Maſſes in number, it were very abſurd to number them, as they doe that ſell them: againe, one action done, cannot be the ſame in number, with one that is not done: one blow giuen yeaſterday, cannot be the ſame in number, with that which ſhall be giuen to morrow: elſe ſhould a thing to come be paſt, that is, ſhould be, and ſhould not be. If then Maſſes doe differ in number among themſelues, why ſhall they not differ in number from the death of Chriſt? Seeing that between the death of Ieſus Chriſt, and the Maſſe there is more difference then betweene two Maſſes, how diuers ſoeuer in ſhew? The matter being thus plaine, theſe Doctors will not denie, that the Sacrifice of the Croſſe and the Maſſe, doe differ in number that is, that there is as much difference betweene the Maſſe, and the ſacrifice of the Croſſe, as between Philip and Alexander: And then it is not the ſame ſacrifice, for Philip and Alexander are not the ſame man.

7 Whereupon the Reader may obſerue, how p. 221theſe men are entangled: they ſay that the Maſſe is the reiteration of the Sacrifice of the Croſſe; not conceiuing that they do thereby acknowledge that the Maſſe is not the ſame thing with the Euchariſt, which Chriſt celebrated with his Diſciples; for that was not the reiteration of the ſacrifice of the Croſſe, becauſe that was not yet offered: and they are onelyonly actions paſt, which are reiterated.

8 Yea the ſacrifice of the Croſſe being finiſhed, whoſoeuer afterwards would reiterate the ſame, ſhould of neceſſity reiterate the death of Ieſus Chriſt, and crucifie him againe: for the ſacrifice of the Croſſe, and the death of Chriſt are one, and the ſame thing.

9 Now were it that proofes of Scripture were of authority among vsus, this difference were ſoone decided. The Apoſtle, Heb. 10.14. ſayth,foreign. Ʋnica Oblatione that Chriſt with one offering hath conſecrated for euer them that are ſanctified. Lo then one oblation, and the vertue thereof for euer. And to exclude all re-iteration, he ſaith in the tenth verſe, That we are ſanctified by the offring of the body of Ieſus Christ ONCE made: foreign.and more plainely doth he exclude this re-iteration about the end of the ninth Chapter. As it is (ſaith he) appointed vntounto men to die once, and after that commeth the iudgement: ſo Chriſt beeing offered once, ſhall appeare the ſecond time without ſinne vntounto them that looke for him, vntounto ſaluation. So that according to the iudgement of the Apoſtle, the offering of Chriſt can be no more re-iterated then the death of men: nay he ſaith, that after the death of men, nothing p. 222is looked for but the iudgement, ſo after the offering once made by Ieſus Chriſt, nothing is expected but his ſecond comming.

10 Which doth alſo preuent the euaſion of our aduerſaries, which ſay, that the ſacrifice of Ieſus Chriſt cannot indeede be re iterated with bloud, but that it may and ought to be re-iterated without bloud: for this cannot agree with the Apoſtles compariſon, ſeeing the death of a man kil'd bloudily cannot be re-iterated without bloud, as it may be ſemblably affirmed of the bloudy ſacrifice of our Sauiour.

11 Againe, this re-iteration without bloud of a bloudy ſacrifice ſhould hauehave his grounde in the holy Scripture; but our aduerſaries doe thence alleadge neyther commaundement, nor example.

12 And it is to be maruelled, that the two third partes of the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes being ſpent in ſpeaking of the Sacrifice, and the Prieſt-hood of the New Teſtament, and of his prerogatiues aboue the ſacrifices of the law; yet in the whole Epiſtle is there not one word found, eyther of this vnbloudy ſacrifice, nor of the ſacrificing Ieſus Chriſt vnderunder the formes of breade and wine. Surely then, or not at all, was it fit to treate thereof. The Apoſtle diſcourſing ſo largely of the Sacrifice of the new Teſtament, ſhould he hauehave forgotten the matter wherein it only conſiſteth, if we credite theſe men? ſhould he hauehave omitted the moſt eſſentiall point, and principally neceſſary to his purpoſe?

13 But where is the iudgement of theſe great p. 223ſuble Doctors, that perceiued not, that in ſaying that a bloudy ſacrifice might be re-iterated without bloud, they doe contradict themſelues? Who would not laugh if I ſhould ſay, that a race might be runne ouer againe, without mouing out of the place, or that Coeffeteau doth repeate his ſpeech while he holdeth his peace, or that he warmes himſelfe againe whiles he freezeth? And yet this is it which theſe Maſters ſay, who will hauehave a bloudy ſacrifice re-iterated without bloud, a bloudy action done againe vnbloudily; and that it is the ſame action: if one beleeue them, he doth not beleeue, for they ſay, and vnſay, and I aſſure my ſelfe that they beleeue not themſelues.

14 The ſame Apoſtle, chap. 9. ver. 22 (and this place is very conſiderable) after he hath ſpoken of ſacrifices and purifications, concludes with this generall Maxime, without ſhedding of blood there is no remiſsion of ſinnes. If then the Maſſe be an vnbloudy ſacrifice, it procures no remiſſion of ſinnes: for the Apoſt to ſhew that he ſpeaks not only of Iewiſh ſacrifices that are aboliſhed, but alſo of the preſent time, ſpeakes in the preſent tenſe, ſaying, Without ſhedding of blood there is no remiſsion of ſinnes: And in truth, the ſacrifices of the law were not propitiatory, if they were not bloudy, to giuegive vsus to vnderſtand, that the Sacrifice of Ieſus Chriſt muſt bee with bloud, and that an vnbloudy ſacrifice is not the ſacrifice of Ieſus Chriſt. So that then it follows that the Maſſe is not the ſacrifice of Ieſus Chriſt, and that the auncient ſacrifices were not figures of p. 224the Maſſe, as our aduerſaries will hauehave them: for the ſhedding of bloud cannot be the figure of an action without effuſion of bloud. Now if vnderunder the new Teſtament an vnbloudy ſacrifice may be propitiatory, who ſees not, that for the ſame reſpects the ſacrifices without blood vnderunder the law might hauehave bin propitiatory, and had more relation vntounto the Maſſe.

15 Hereunto adde the confeſſion of Cardinall Bellarmine, lib. 1. de Miſſa, cap. 2. In eueryevery ſacrifice (ſaith he) properly ſo called, there is required ſome ſenſible thing that may be offered: §. Secundum. In omni ſacrificio proprie dicto requiritur res aliqua ſenſibilis quae offeratur.but in the Maſſe, that which they pretend to offer, to wit, the body of Ieſus Chriſt, is not ſenſible, neyther doth any ſee, or perceiue it: for to ſay that it is viſible, vnderunder the formes of bread which couer it, is to ſay, that it is viſible, becauſe the formes hide it, and hinder the ſight: this is to ſay, that they ſee it, becauſe they ſee it not;Bel. l. 1. de Miſſa cap. 12. howſoeuer Bellarmine boaſt of ſeeing it, for hee hath no other eyes then common people hauehave.§. Haec ſententia verum & reale ſacrificium veram & realem mortem & ſacrificium rei immolatae deſiderat Gregory of Valence ſaith the ſame in the firſt booke of the Sacrifice of the Maſſe. Cap. 27. l. 1. §. Tertio.

The ſame Cardinall in the ſeuen and twentieth Chapter of the ſame booke, ſaith, That a true and reall Sacrifice requireth a reall death, or deſtruction of the thing ſacrificed. Now in the Maſſe the thing which they ſay is ſacrificed, to wit Ieſus Chriſt, doth not really dye, nor is deſtroyed: therefore the Maſſe is no true and reall Sacrifice. To this they reply, and it is Bellarmines euaſion, that the naturall eſſence of Ieſus Chriſt is not deſtroyed in the Maſſe, but his ſacramentall being. Firſt then (ſay we) ſeeing that p. 225the eſſentiall being of Ieſus Chriſt is not deſtroyed in the Maſſe, it followes that the naturall eſſence of Ieſus Chriſt is not offered in the Maſſe; and then is it another ſacrifice then that of the Croſſe, where he offered his eſſentiall being: Secondly, For it is certaine, that that is the deſtruction of Chriſts naturall being, which is the price of our redemption; and then if the Maſſe doe offer and ſacrifice another eſſence of Chriſt, then doth it not offer the price of our redemption: Thirdly, Beſides, this Sacramentall eſſence is a meere Chimera; for one man can hauehave but one being,2. de Conſecrat. Can. Sacrificium This is taken out of S. Auſtin l. 10. de Ciuit. Dei cap. 5. & Epiſt. 5 Scotus in 4. diſt. 10. Queſt 5. Oculi Chriſti ſubſpecie panis non recipiunt obiecta &c. & Quaeſt. 7. Corpus Chriſti vt hic non reſpirat aerem, &c. §. Aly vi verborum Hoc eſt corpus meum, ſolum Chriſti corpus ſine anima & ſine ſanguine incipit eſſe inaltari & vi aliorum verborum Hic eſt ſangurs incipit ſanguis ſolus & ſeorſim a corpore eſſe in altari. becauſe it is the being that makes him to be one man: Fourthly, And ſeeing the Sacrament by the definition of the Church of Rome, doth ſignifie a holy ſigne, then a Sacramental being muſt ſignifie a being ſignificatiue, which is open mockerie: Fiftly, Yea this Sacramentall being of Ieſus Chriſt, which is ſaid to be in the Maſſe, cannot be ſignificatiue, or repreſentatiue; for whatſoeuer repreſenteth any thing ought to be viſible, but this Sacramentall being is altogether inuiſible: Sixtly, And that which repreſenteth a thing ought to reſemble it, but this ſacramental being is contrary to the naturall being: for the natural being giues vntounto Chriſt longitude, latitude, ſituation of partes, power of mouing, ſeeing, ſpeaking and breathing; but contratiwiſe the Sacramentall being depriues him of all theſe.

16 I would willingly know if this ſpeech of Bellarmines be allowed alſo by their other Doctors, namely, that By vertue of theſe wordes, hoc est corpus p. 226meum, the bodie of Chriſt begins to be vponupon the altar without the ſoule, and without blood. And that by the vertue of theſe wordes, Hic est ſanguis: This is the bloud, that the bloud begins to be alone, and diuided from the body vponupon the Altar. For if this be ſo, the Maſſe doth ſacrifice a dead body, but a liuing and paſſiue body was offered vponupon the Croſſe: therefore is it not one, and the ſame ſacrifice.

17 Our aduerſaries being thus vrged, and extremely perplexed, at length they are forced to yeeld: and as the Stagge being tyred, doth ſometimes yeelde himſelfe to the Hunters; ſo they vnable to reſiſt ſo euident a truth, they fairely come ouer to our ſide, which is a point whereof I pray the Reader to conſider. Our aduerſaries ſay, that the ſacrifice of the Croſſe, and the ſacrifice of the Maſſe are one ſacrifice, and that the ſacrifice of the Croſſe is re-iterated in the Maſſe; but the truth is ſo ſtrong, and the euidence thereof ſo plaine to the contrary, that oftentimes it ſlips from them, and they giuegive ſentence againſt themſelues: For the Councell of Trent, Seſ. 22. cap. 1. ſaith, that Chriſt hath left vntounto his Church a ſacrifice, by which the bloudy ſacrifice which he was to make vponupon the Croſſe was repreſented, and the memory thereof perpetuated. The ſame Councell addeth, that the ſacrifice of the Croſſe, and the vertue thereof is applyed vntounto vsus by this ſacrifice. And this doe we beleeue, and many of ours hauehave beene burned for ſo ſaying. And indeed if the Euchariſt be the commemoration and application of the Sacrifice p. 227of the Croſſe, it is then certaine that it is not the ſame ſacrifice, with that of the Croſſe, and that it cannot be a ſacrifice propitiatory. Firſt, for the commemoration of a thing is not the thing it ſelfe: the commemoration of a battell is not a battell: the commemoration of a ſacrifice is not the ſame ſacrifice: Secondly, In like manner, the application of a thing is not the thing it ſelfe; the application of a faſhion is not the faſhion, the application of a Plaiſter is not the Playſter, the application of the propitiatory ſacrifice of Ieſus Chriſt, is not the propitiatory ſacrifice of Ieſus Chriſt.

Thidly, Which is moſt true in matter of payment (for the Sacrifice of Chriſt is the payment & ranſome for our ſoules) being cleare that the commemoration of a payment is not the payment: to remember a payment, it needes not to begin it againe; and the Prieſt doth but mocke with God, if he thinke eyther to pay him, or redeeme vsus by a commemoration: Fourthly, if the ſacrifice propitiatory of Ieſus Chriſt be applyed in the Maſſe, then certainly it is not re-iterated, for a thing is not reiterated by the application thereof: a medicine is not re-iterated by applying it: to re-iterate a writing, or a ſacrifice to apply it, this needes purgation more then refutation.

Let them learne then to ſpeake things in congruity: for they muſt of neceſſity eyther ſay that the Maſſe is neyther application nor commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Croſſe: or if in that point they be vnremoueable, let them confeſſe that it is p. 228not the Sacrifice of Chriſt, nor a ſacrifice propitiatory: Fiftly and finally, if they will needes hauehave that the death of Chriſt is applied vntounto vsus by ſacrificing, they muſt ſhew out of the Scripture, that God will hauehave it ſo applyed: We finde in the Scripture that Ieſus Chriſt is applyed vntounto vsus and that wee hauehave communion with him by baptiſme,Gal. 3.27. 1. Cor. 10 16. Ioh. 14.23. Epheſ. 3.17.Gal 3:271 Cor 10:16John 14:23Eph 3:17 by breaking of bread, by the word, and by faith; but of application by ſacrificing, not a word.

All which already ſaid, is more then ſufficient to diſcouer the abuſe, and conuince the falſhood. If they will yet hauehave any ouer-meaſure, to make the ſtrangeneſſe of their errour more plaine: Then if the Maſſe be truely and properly a Sacrifice, wherin Chriſt Ieſus is ſacrificed for a Sacrifice propitiatory for our redemption, they muſt of neceſſity tell vsus in what action this Sacrifice conſiſteth: and that they ſhewe vsus in the inſtitution of the Euchariſt which is comprized in the Goſpell, what were the actions by which Ieſus was ſacrificed. Cardinall Bellarmine after hee hath beene a long while tormented about the matter,§. Haec mihi. in the laſt chapter of the firſt booke of the Maſſe, in the end he fals vponupon the opinion of Thomas, who ſayth, that the ſacrifice conſiſteth in theſe three things: in the breaking, bleſſing, and eating of the bread. But he attributes the principall eſſence of the Sacrifice to the bleſſing, or conſecration, which is worthy the examination.

Of the breaking.Touching the fraction, or the action of breaking p. 229the hoſt, it is not onelyonly not of the eſſence of the ſacrifice, but alſo it cannot be an action neceſſarily in the ſacrifice: 1. for if by chaunce the Prieſt let fall the whole hoſt into the Chalice, he ſwallows downe both the hoſte and wine together, without any breaking of it; and yet ſuch a Maſſe looſeth not the name of a ſacrifice: 2. Beſides, if the breaking were an action of the Sacrifice, it ſhould follow, that that which were broken in the Euchariſt, were ſacrificed. Now the holy Scripture teſtifies, that Chriſt Ieſus brake bread, and then ſhould Chriſt hauehave ſacrificed bread; and the bread ſhould be the price of our redemption; which is a groſſe impiety. Now that Ieſus Chriſt did breake bread, the Euangeliſts doe tell vsus, Mat. 26.26. Ieſus tooke bread, and brake it. Likewiſe S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we breake; And the whole Church, Act. 20.7. The Diſciples were gathered together to breake bread: And this doth conformably agree with the Church of Rome, that mayntaineth it to be ſtill bread before the conſecration. And by the text of the Goſpell it is euident that Chriſt brake it, before he ſaid, This is my body: Which is the reaſon why the Romiſh Prelates hauehave corrected the Goſpell, and will hauehave the bread to be broken after the wordes pronounced. For whereas they will hauehave the breaking to be an action of the Sacrifice, they ſay well, that ſhould they breake the bread after the words pronounced, as our Sauiour did, they could not ſay that they doe ſacrifice Ieſus Chriſt, and then their ſacrifice propitiatory ſhould bee a p. 230ſacrifice of bread: thirdly, Therefore can they not finde in the inſtitution of the Euchariſt, which is in the Goſpell, this fraction which the Prieſt vſeth after the wordes; which they would hauehave to be an action of a propitiatory ſacrifice: neyther can they finde in their Maſſe that breaking of bread, which Chriſt vſed. The chiefe point is, that when we deſire our Maſters to tell vsus what it is that the Prieſt breaketh in the Maſſe, they are blancke: for tell me M^r. Doctors, doth the Prieſt breake bread in the Maſſe? They anſwere no; for it is no more bread when he breakes it. Doth he breake the Lords body? No neyther; for that is impaſſible, and cannot be broken; it is wholy in eueryevery part, in eueryevery crum of the Hoſte: what then? What is there left for him to breake? They ſay, the accidents of the bread, which ſoone after they call the formes: that is to ſay, the length and breadth of the bread, but not the bread: And as Pope Innocent the third ſayth, and with him the whole Church of Rome,Innocent. 3. l. 4. de Myſterijs Miſſae cap. 11. Eſt enim hic color & ſapor quantitas & qualitas, cum nihil alterutro ſit coloratum aut ſapidum, quantum aut quale. it is of the length, not of the thing that is long: of the colour, not of the thing coloured. Let vsus leaue this monſtrous Philoſophy, and let vsus only bring their doctrine to the ſcale: They ſaid that which was broken in the Maſſe is ſacrificed. Now the accidents, colours, and dimenſions of bread, without bread are broken in the Maſſe, and conſequently, theſe accidents are ſacrificed and offered for our redemption. O ſpirite of ſlumber that runnes headlong into impiety! And here obſerue the fruite of theſe ſubtilities: fiftly, for to ſay that Chriſts body p. 231is broken vnderunder the accidents, and yet continues whole, is all one as to ſay, that it is broken, and not broken. Againe, we doe not aske of them vnderunder what it is broken, but onelyonly whether or no it bee broken: for that which is broken vnderunder another thing, is broken neuertheleſſe: ſixtly, Which error of theirs is new in the phraſe of Scripture, wherein the breaking of bread, is not an action of ſacrifice, but a ſigne of charity, and pledge of vnity. See Eſay 58.7. Lament. 4.14. Yea, and S. Paul doth expreſly tell vsus, that this is the end of breaking bread in the Sacrament, 1. Cor. 10.6. The bread which we breake, is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? inaſmuch as we which are many, are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of one bread. It was alſo the manner of our Sauiour, at his ordinary times of meate, to begin with bleſſing and breaking of bread, Mar. 6.41. Luc. 24.30.31. And this I beleeue, doth ſufficiently refute this fraction, which they make an action of ſacrifice.

Of the Conſecration.The conſecration which they ſay is performed by pronouncing theſe wordes, This is my body, cannot be ſaid to be eyther an action of ſacrifice, or the eſſence thereof: firſt, for they hold that the Pope cannot erre; and Pope Innocent the third, in the ſixth chapter of the fourth booke of the Myſteries of the Maſſe, holdeth, that Ieſus Chriſt was not conſecrated by theſe wordes, This is my body, but that he was conſecrated before by the power of his Diuinity. And all the auncients do maintaine,In the booke of the Apology for the holy Supper, cap. 7. that p. 232where declared, by a great number of places.

2 Let vsus hereunto adde, that the eſſence of a ſacrifice conſiſteth in the offering of ſome oblation vntounto God: Now by theſe wordes, This is my body, which they ſay are the conſecrating wordes, there is not any thing offered vntounto God; therefore the conſecrating wordes are not of the eſſence of the ſacrifice: And that there is nothing offered vntounto God by theſe wordes, it is plaine: for Chriſt in ſpeaking them doth not addreſſe himſelfe vntounto God, but ſpeakes, and offers that which he holdes to his Apoſtles, ſaying, Take, eate, this is my body:

3 And if conſecration doe neceſſarily import ſacrificing, then ſhall it follow that the conſecration of veſſels, and of the Temple was a ſacrifice.

4 To proceede, it is certaine that in the Maſſe there can be no conſecration becauſe there is nothing conſecrated: for the bread is not conſecrated, becauſe it is no more bread: alſo Chriſt is not conſecrated, for men cannot conſecrate him, but it is he that doth conſecrate men vntounto God. Some Sophiſter wil tel you, that the conſecration is done vponupon the bread; but wil not tell you what it is that is conſecrated. Now we doe not aske them whereupon the conſecration is done, but what it is that is conſecrated: and there they champe vponupon the bit, and know not what to anſwere.

Of the Eating.As great or greater an abſurdity is it to ſay that the Sacrifice conſiſteth in the eating: 1. For it is a thing vnheard of that to eate, ſhould be to ſacrifice Ieſus Chriſt for a ſacrifice propitiatory: ſecondly p. 233And if eating doe, why ſhould not drinking import the ſame? thirdly, Againe, to ſacrifice is to offer and preſent, but to eate is to receiue: ſo that there is aſmuch difference between ſacrificing and eating, as betweene giuing and taking, betweene offering and receiuing: for to reconcile theſe things, is to make contrary things to be the ſame, as if one ſhould ſay, the right hand is the left, and white is blacke: fourthly, If to eate were to ſacrifice Ieſus Chriſt, the lay people celebrating their Paſſeouer ſhould hauehave beene ſacrificers as well as the Prieſts: fiftly, We know alſo that the Iſraelites did often eate things ſacrificed in their priuate houſes: as the woman mentioned, Prou. 7. I hauehave with me ſacrifices of proſperity, I hauehave paide my vowes: Whence I gather, that if eating be ſacrificing, it muſt follow that women did ſacrifice in their houſes: which is contrary to the law, and without example.

The ſacrifice of the Maſſe being built on no foundation, and being an Altar erected againſt the onelyonly Altar, which is the Croſſe of our Sauiour: an Altar newly built vponupon the ruines of the Goſpell: yea being the croſſe of the Croſſe of Chriſt, and an annihilating of his death; it hath not come to paſſe without the iuſt iudgement of God, that they themſelues hauehave let fall the price thereof ſo low; employing it for the healing of Horſes, the preſeruing of Sheepe, for blaſted corne, and for froſt-bitten Vines, as a general ſalue for eueryevery ſore. But Chriſt Ieſus inſtituted the Supper for a memoriall of himſelfe, and to ſhew forth his death till p. 234he come. There is alſo good reaſon, why ſo many Maſſes are required to free one ſingle ſoule out of Purgatory; and why they make this ſacrifice ſo infinitely inferiour in vertue to that of the Croſſe: which yet ſhould not be ſo, if it be the ſame ſacrifice, and conſequently the ſame price of a redemption: neyther doth it ſerue the turne to ſay, that the ſacrifice of the Croſſe is of more efficacy, becauſe Chriſt Ieſus did immediately offer it, wheras this is offered by the myniſtery of a Prieſt: for a payment or ranſome, whether I doe immediately pay it my ſelfe, or ſend another to carry, or tell the money, is of like validity.

I do alſo exceedingly wonder, that the Church of Rome eſtabliſhing in the Euchariſt both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice, which are made one action, that yet it makes ſo great a difference betweene them both in vertue and efficacy, greatly vnderunder valuing the efficacy of the Sacrament, ſaying, that it ſerues onelyonly for petty ſinnes, which they terme veniall, and of which a mans conſcience is already diſcharged: that is to ſay, it is a plaſter for wounds perfectly healed,Bellar. l. 4. de Euchariſt. cap. 17. & 18. a remedy for euils paſſed, & a diſcharge of burdens already vnloaded. But touching the ſacrifice of the Maſſe, the Councel of Trent Seſsion 22. cap. 2. ſaith, that by this Sacrifice the moſt hey nous ſinnes are remitted: And this Sacrifice is profitably offered for them that are abſent, yea for the dead, yea for them that make a mocke of it; for Maſſes are ſung for Infidels and prophane perſons: and this ſacrifice is of force (ſay they) Ex opere opera p. 235to, the diſpoſition of the partie for whom the Maſſe is ſaid, not being neceſſarily required thereunto. To what end is all this but to debaſe the power of a Sacrament inſtituted by God, and to enhance the vertue of a ſacrifice inuented by man? And becauſe the Sacrament cannot be beſtowed vponupon the dead, but Maſſes are ſolde both for the dead, and for the liuing? And out of what paſſage of Scripture hauehave they extracted ſo nice a difference between the efficacy of he one and of the other?

But this is ſufficient for ſouldiers that forſake the fielde: for Bellarmine and his aſſociates lighting vponupon this ſubiect, they wander in large impertinent queſtions, which make nothing to the point in controuerſie: they winde vp long Diſcourſes, to proue that the death of Ieſus Chriſt is a ſacrifice; a point denyed not by any, & that the Euchariſt is a ſacrifice, which is true; but it is a ſacrifice Euchariſticall, that is to ſay, a giuing of thankes, and as it is called in the Maſſe, Sacrificium laudis, a Sacrifice of praiſe. Againe they bring the ſacrifice of Melchiſedech, and the figure of the Paſſeouer, and the ſacrifices of the law, which (they ſay) prefigured the ſacrifice of the new Teſtament: with diuers places of the Prophets, eſpecially that of Malachy, which foretell the ſacrifice of the New Teſtament, with many ſuch like things, wherein howbeit they deliuer the truth, yet doe they not helpe themſelues thereby, becauſe it is all beſide the purpoſe, and comes not neere the point that is controuerted: for although the Maſſe were the ſacrifice of Melchiſedech, p. 236and the ſacrifice foreſpoken of by Malachy, and prefigured by the Paſſeouer, yet is it not proued thereby that Chriſt ought to be really ſacrificed vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, nor that the ſacrifice of the Maſſe is propitiatory for the redemption of ſoules. Reade Bellarmine, who hath compiled two great Bookes of the Maſſe, wherein he is copious in impertinent proofes; but you ſhall not finde in him any anſwere to the Arguments which I hauehave formerly alleadged, which are the very ſinewes of the body of this diſputation, & the armor of proofe of the holy truth: for none among them could euer yet ſatisfie theſe obiections.

And out of him is it that Coeffeteau hath collected a number of the Fathers, whereof ſome make againſt him ſome are vntrue, and others impertinent. It makes againſt him which hee alleadgeth out of Iuſtin Martyr againſt Tryphon, ſaying, Malachy ſpeaketh prophetically of the Sacrifices which we offer, Suis diſcipulis dans conſilium primitias Deo offerre ex ſuis creaturis, non queſi indigenti ſed vt ipſi nec infructuoſi nec ingrati ſint: Noui Teſtamenti nouam doeuit oblationemq, uā Eccleſia ab Apoſtolis accipiens in … niuerſ… mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praeſtat primitias ſuoram munerū.namely the bread and wine in the Euchariſt. Surely if this be a ſacrifice of bread and wine, then is it no ſacrifice propitiatory, wherein Ieſus Chriſt is really ſacrificed.

The ſecond place is out of Irenaeus, lib. 4. cap. 32. which Coeffeteau by his ſhamefull wrangling hath falſified. Irenaeus ſaith, Chriſt counſelling his Diſciples to offer vntounto God the first fruites of his creatures, not becauſe he hath any neede of them, but that they might not be vnthankefull, or vnfruitfull, tooke bread among the creatures which are common amongst vsus, and gaue thankes, ſaying, This is my body; and likewiſe p. 237tooke the cup among the creatures which are common among vsus, and ſaid, it was his blood, and hath taught a new offering of the new Teſtament: which the Church hauing receiued of the Apostles, doth throughout the world offer vntounto God, which beſtoweth vponupon vsus the first fruites of his gifts. From this place doth Coeffeteau cut off the three firſt lines, which ſay, that this ſacrifice is an offering of the firſt fruites of his creatures, that is to ſay, of bread and wine; and the laſt line which affirmeth the ſame; for we ſhall ſee hereafter, that the manner of the auncients was for the people to come, and offer bread and wine, and fruit vponupon the Table of the holy Supper, which offering was called the ſacrifice of the Euchariſt: that is, a giuing of thankes.

Concerning the other places which ſay, that Ieſus Chriſt is offered and preſented, we doe readily embrace them, for it is true in ſundry reſpects: whether they will that he offered himſelfe vntounto the Communicants, or that they vnderſtand that Chriſt is offered vntounto God ſacramentally, and in the ſigne, or for that in the Euchariſt we offer vntounto God the merite of his death, in that we do beſeech him to accept, and receiue the merite of his Sonnes death for our redemption.

The laſt place which he alleadgeth is out of the Councell of Epheſus, wherin I wiſh that Coeffeteau had carried himſelfe with greater credite: for firſt, it is falſe that S. Cyrill doth ſpeake there in the name of the Councell of Epheſus, but it is a peece of a Letter taken out of the Councell of Alexandria: p. 238which is indeed a declaration of the eleuenth curſe of Cyrill againſt Neſtorius, as Coeffeteau ſaith; but he hath concealed the expoſition wh…ch Cyrill himſelfe addeth,Tom 1. of the Councels of the Colen Edition, pag. 683. Num hominis comeſtionē noſtrum hoc Sacramentum pronuncias? Et irreligioſe ad craſſas cogitationes vrges eorum qui crediderunt mentem? & attentas humanis cogitationibus tractare quae ſolâ pura & inexquiſita fide accipiuntur. Ariſtophanes Acharnanenſibus agens de Lac… daemonijs. foreign. Cur …lias a…s hahent Chriſtiani, nulla templa, nulla nota ſimulacra? Quid ergoſacrifi…ia cenſ…is nulla emn…no eſſe fac…nda? Reſpon. Nulla. Doſt thou pronounce that our Sacrament is a humane eating? and dost thou irreligiouſty vrge the vnderſtanding of thoſe that hauehave beleeued too groſſe imaginations? Doſt thou preſume to handle with humane thoughts, things which are onelyonly receiued with a pure and vnſearchable faith?

Now to giuegive light in this matter to the Stile, and purpoſe of the Fathers, calling the holy ſupper a ſacrifice; we muſt obſerue that in the firſt ages after Chriſt, the Chriſtians laboured by all meanes to draw the Heathens vntounto Chriſtianitie: but the heathen were offended …t this, that in the Chriſtian Religion they ſaw neither Altars, nor ſacrifices, nor Images, without which they thought there was no Religion: whence the olde prouerbe comes, VntoUnto the Altars; that is to ſay, as farre as Religion and conſcience: excluſiuely, as if there were no religion without an Altar. Celſus the Pagan reproacheth Chriſtians That they hauehave neyther Altars, nor Images nor Temples. In the eighth booke of Origen againſt Celſus: and in the Dialogue of Minutius Faelix, Caecilius the Pagan ſpeakes thus: Whence comes it, that the Chriſtians hauehave no Altars, nor Temples, nor Images to be ſeene? And in the beginning of the ſeuenth booke of Arnobius, the Heathen ſpeake thus vntounto the Chriſtians; Doe you thinke then that there are no Sacrifices to be made? Whereunto the Chriſtians make anſwere, Not any. To be then without Altars p. 239and Sacrifices did offend the Heathen, and made Chriſtianity odious.

This is then the reaſon why they ordinarily vſed theſe wordes of the Table of the Lord, and the holy ſupper and the Euchariſt, whereof there are infinite examples: And yet to remoue offence, and allure the Heathen by little and little, they vſed to call the Table an Altar, and the holy Sacrament by the name of a ſacrifice. And this was diſcretion grounded on reaſon: for ſeeing the holy Scripture doth call our prayers, and almes, and our Religious ſeruice by the name of Sacrifices,Hebr. 13.16. Phil. 4.18.Heb 13:16Phil 4:18 they hauehave for the ſame reaſon called the holy Supper a Sacrifice; wherein we doe not onelyonly offer our ſelues vntounto God, but doe alſo offer Chriſt Ieſus vntounto him, that is, we doe beſeech God to accept the ſactifice of his death, for our redemption. And this ſerued to draw the Iewes, for whoſe farther content, the Deacons were called Leuites, and the day of the reſurrection of Chriſt was called the Paſſeouer. But that which did eſpecially confirme this word Sacrifice, was the cuſtome of the faithfull, which was before the holy Supper, to bring vntounto the Table offerings of bread, and wine, and fruites, whereof ſuch a portion was ſet aſide; as might ſerue for the whole aſſembly to communicate in the two kindes, and the reſt was for the poore: which gifts, and offerings and almes in the old Teſtament, yea and ſometimes in the new,Heb. 13.16. Phil. 4.18.Heb 13:16Phil 4:18 are called ſacrifices and oblations. Yet whereas they doe ordinarily call the Sacrament, the Euchariſt, and the p. 240Sacrifice of the Euchariſt, that is to ſay, a giuing of thankes, they giuegive ſufficient teſtimony, that they meant not to make a ſacrifice propitiatory, or really to ſacrifice Chriſt Ieſus for our redemption.

Now that the Almes, Gifts and Offerings of the faithfull were called ſacrifices and oblations, none can be ignorant, that is any whit verſed in the Fathers. The Apoſtles Canons (howſoeuer ſuppoſititous, yet are auncient) doe in the fourth Canon forbid to offer any thing beſide eares of Corne, Incenſe, &c. S. Cyprian, lib. 1 Epiſt. 9 commaundeth the Clergy,Locuples & Diues Domnicum celebrare te credis quae corbonam non reſpicis quae in Dominicum ſine ſacrificio venis, quae partem de ſacrificio quod pauper obtulit ſumis Hypodiaconi oblatione, in templo Domini a fidelibus ipſi ſuſcipiant. That receiuing offerings of the peoples contributions, they goe not from the Altar, and the ſacrifices: And in his Sermon of Almes: Thou a rich woman, who thinkest to celebrate the Lords Supper, that regardeſt not to bring an offering, that commeſt to the Supper of the Lord without a ſacrifice, that takeſt a part of the Sacrifice which the poore offereth. So in the one and twentieth Diſtinction, in the Canon Cleros, taken out of Iſidore, Let the Subdeacons themſelues receiue the offerings of the Faithfull. Obſerue this cuſtome very plainely ſet downe in Theodoret, in the third booke of his Hiſtory, chap. 12. and in the fourth booke, chap 19.

The Paſtor of the Church hauing before him vponupon the Table all the preſents in great quantity, made prayer vntounto God to accept thoſe Giftes, Preſents and immaculate Sacrifices: that he would accept them as ſometimes he did the ſacrifices of Abel and of Abraham; that the Angels might carry p. 241them into heauen before God: giftes created by God, bleſſed and ſanctified for euer by Ieſus Chriſt, &c. Wordes which continue to this day in the Canon of the Maſſe, and which were good and holy when they were ſaid ouer the Almes and Offerings of the people. But which are now become ridiculous, and vngodly, foraſmuch as the Prieſt doth ſay them vponupon an Hoſt, which he thinketh to be Ieſus Chriſt: for to call Ieſus Chriſt by the name of gifts and offerings, is to ſpeake againſt the common ſenſe. To pray, that God would accept this ſacrifice, as well as that of Abel, is to make the ſacrifice of Ieſus Chriſt no better then the ſacrifice of a beaſt. To pray that the Angels may carry Ieſus Chriſt, and preſent him vntounto God, is not to know, that Ieſus Chriſt doth not employ any creature to be preſented vntounto his Father: to call Chriſt by the name of good things, yea of things which God createth, and doth alwayes bleſſe and ſanctifie; this is to mocke Ieſus Chriſt, who cannot bee called by the name of good things, that God createth not, nor alwaies ſanctifieth: And yet to offer theſe things by Ieſus Chriſt, that is to ſay, to offer Chriſt by Chriſt, is to be vtterly voyde of all ſenſe.

Now to know what the Fathers beleeued in this point, we muſt ſearch the places, where they doe expreſly ſpeake thereof. The nineteenth chapter of S. Auſtines booke of faith, ad Petrum Diaconum, handles no other matter, where thus he ſaith, The Vniuerſall Church throughout the world ceaſeth p. 242not to offer a Sacrifice of bread and wine in faith, and charity: In iſto autem ſacrificio gratiarū actio at que commemoratio eſt carnis Chriſti quam pro nobis obtulit, & ſanguinis quem pro nobis idem Deus effudit.for in the carnall Sacrifices (of the old Testament) there was a repreſentation of the fleſh of Chriſt, which he himſelfe being without ſinne, was to offer for our ſinnes, and of the blood which he was to ſhed for the remiſsion of our ſinnes. But in this Sacrifice (of the Euchariſt) there is a giuing of thankes and a commemoration of the fleſh of Chriſt, which he hath offered for vsus, and of the blood which the ſame God hath ſhed for vsus. Obſerue that he ſaith, that this is a ſacrifice of bread and wine, therefore not a ſacrifice, where the fleſh of Chriſt is really ſacrificed. Aboue all, this word of Wine is full of force: for the bloud of the Lord was neuer called Wine: Againe, he ſaith that it is a ſacrifice of thankeſgiuing, and of commemoration: but not of propitiation, or redemption,

The ſame Father in the three and twentieth Epiſtle to Boniface, ſaith, When Eaſter approacheth, we ſay thus, to morrow, or after is the paſsion of the Lord: howbeit he ſuffered ſo many yeares ſince, and that this paſsion was but once: indeede vponupon the Saboath we ſay to day the Lord roſe againe, although ſo many yeares be paſt ſince the reſurrection. Why is there no body ſo vaine, is to reproue vsus for lying, when we ſpeake thus? But becauſe we name thoſe dayes according to the reſemblance which they hauehave with the daies, wherin theſe things were done? ſo that this day is called the ſame day, which is not the ſame, but reſembling the ſame by the reuolution of time? Was not Chriſt once ſacrificed by himſelfe? and yet is he ſacrificed vntounto the people in a p. 243ſacred ſigne, not onelyonly at eueryevery ſolemnity of Eaſter, but alſo eueryevery day: neyther doth he lie, who being asked makes anſwere, that he is ſacrificed. For if the Sacraments hauehave not ſome reſemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments, they ſhould be no Sacraments. Now becauſe of this reſemblance they doe moſt commonly take the names of the thinges themſelues. This place ought very heedfully to be conſidered. He ſheweth how Ieſus Chriſt is ſacrificed in the Sacrament, and doth illuſtrate the ſame by two examples, to wit, that it is all one, as when we ſay two daies before Eaſter, to day is the paſſion of Ieſus Chriſt; and when vponupon the Saboath we ſay, to day is the reſurrection of Ieſus Chriſt; not that it is ſo indeede, but becauſe of the reſemblance and commemoration: for that the Sacraments take the names of the things ſignified.

Agreeable whereunto is the Canon Hoc eſt, taken out of S. Auſtin in the ſecond Diſtinction of the conſecration;Non rei veritate ſed ſignificante myſterio. the offering of the fleſh which is done by the handes of the Prieſt is called the paſsion, the death and crucifixion, NOT IN TRVTH, BVT IN A SIGNIFYING MYSTERIE; In like manner as the Sacrament of faith, by which we vnderſtand baptiſme is the faith.

The ſame Doctor in the booke of Sentences, gathered by Proſper, alleadged in the ſame Diſtinction, ſaith, that Ieſus Chriſt hath beene ſacrificed but once by himſelfe, and yet he is continually ſacrificed in a holy ſigne. He is not then ſacrificed by himſelfe, or in his owne perſon in the Euchariſt. For ſtronger p. 244confirmation whereof, the auncient Gloſſes of the Church of Rome, doe adde this marginall note, Chriſtus immolatur, id eſt eius immolatio repreſentatur, & fit memoria paſsionis. Chriſt is ſactificed, that is, his ſacrifice is repreſented, and the commemoration of his paſsion is ſolemnized

Cryſoſtome in the ſeuenteenth Homily vponupon the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes,foreign after hee hath ſaid that that which we offer is a figure of the ſacrifice, addeth theſe decyding wordes of that difference; We alwaies offer the ſame ſacrifice, or rather, we make a commemoration of that Sacrifice.

Herein doth it eſpecially appeare that the auncients beleeued not, that the body of Chriſt was really ſacrificed, included vnderunder the formes, foraſmuch as their opinion was, that the ſacrifice was ſanctified by the offerers; & that it was pure according to the purity of the perſons that offered. Now Ieſus Chriſt is neyther ſanctified nor purified by men. S. Auſtin againſt Petilian, lib. 2. cap. 52. Such as eueryevery one is that commeth to commenicate, Tale cuiuſq, ſacrificium quale eſt is qui accedit vt ſumat. omnia munda mundisſuch is his ſacrifice: to the pure all things are pure.

The firſt that directly handled this queſtion at large, was Lombard, lib. 4. Diſt. 12. in the letter G. where he reſolues this queſtion by the wordes of S. Auſtin and S. Ambroſe, in theſe words: If any aske whether that which the Prieſt doth, he properly called a ſacrifice▪ or an offering, or whether Chriſt be continually ſacrificed, or hath beene ſacrificed but once: whereunto we may ſhortly anſwere, that that which is offered and conſecrated by the Prieſt is called a Sacrifice, and an oblation, p. 245becauſe it is the memory and repreſentation of the true ſacrifice, and of the offering made vponupon the Altar of the Croſſe: Chriſt died once vponupon the Croſſe, and hath beene once ſacrificed in perſon, but he is continually ſacrificed in the Sacrament, becauſe in the Sacrament there is a commemoration made of that which is once done Wherefore Auſtin ſaith, that we are ſure that Chriſt being raiſed from the dead, dieth no more, yet for feare that we ſhould forget, that which was done but once, it is done eueryevery yeare for our remembrance, to wit, at all times, and as often as Eaſter is celebrated: is Chriſt therefore ſlaine ſo often? No, BVT ONELYONLY the anniuerſary commemoration repreſenteth that which is already done. Obſerue this word OnelyOnly, that none doe ſay, the Euchariſt is indeede the commemoration of the ſacrifice of the Croſſe, but becauſe Chriſt ceaſeth to be really ſacrificed. Beſides, it is not compatible that a thing ſhould be a repreſentation of it ſelfe, and that in the ſame action there ſhould be both the ſigne and the thing ſignified.

He there alleadgeth alſo S. Ambroſe, who ſaith,2. de Conſecrat. Can. In Chriſto: ex Ambroſio in Epiſt. ad Hebr. We continually offer: & this is done in remembrance of his death: this is one ſelfe Sacrifice, and not many: how is it onelyonly one, and not many? Becauſe Ieſus Chriſt hath beene ſacrificed onelyonly once: but this ſacrifice is done for example of that other.

Thom as Aquinas hath followed Lombard, and decided this queſtion, tertia parte Summae, Quaeſt. 83. art. 1. where he ſaith, that the celebration of the Sacrament is called a Sacrifice for two reaſons; firſt, becauſe according to S. Auſtin, the ſignes are called by the name p. 246of the things ſignified: ſecondly, becauſe by the Sacrament we are made partakers of the death of Chriſt. He forgot the reaſon, which now they ſay is the principall, to wit, that it is becauſe that Ieſus Chriſt is really ſacrificed vnderunder the formes of bread for a ſacrifice truely propitiatory.