Popery Anatomized, Section 10
SECTION X. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Maſs.
Master Gilbert Brown.
WE have only in our Church that heavenly action and ſacrifice, which we call the bleſſed Maſs, that our Savior did at his latter Supper, and was(a)Levit. 2. per totum. & 6.20. prefigured by the Law of Moſes, and fore-ſpoken by the(b)Mal. 1.10. 11. Iſai. 19.19.21. and 56.7. Prophets. For Chriſt being the chief Prieſt of all Prieſts, according to the order of(c)Geneſ. 14.18. Pſal. 109.4. Heb. 7.3.17. Melchiſedec in this action, & according to the order of(d)Heb. 9.12.13.14. Aaron upon the Croſs, took(e)Matth. 26.26.27. bread and wine, and having given(f)Luke 22.19. thanks to his Father of heaven,(g)Mark 14.22. bleſſed the ſame; by the which(h)1. Cor. 10.16. bleſſing, and heavenly words, he made them his body and blood, as I ſaid before, and(i)Luke 22.29. gave, or offered himſelf then for them, that is, for his. And laſt of all, gave the ſame body and blood to his Apoſtles to be eaten, which we call to(k)1. Cor 10.16. communicat. And when he had done the ſame, he commanded his Apoſtles, and by them the lawful Paſtors of the Church till the worlds end, to do the ſame, for the(l)Luke 22.19. remembrance of him. And ſeeing that our Prieſts do the ſame, as our Savior did, how can M. John ſay, that our Religion, in this, was not inſtituted by Chriſt?
Maſter John Welſch his Reply.
I come to another point of your doctrine concerning the ſacrifice of the Maſs: which ſuppoſe ye call bleſſed, yet is it moſt abominable idolatry, as by the grace of God, ſhal be made manifeſt. And firſt concerning the word it ſelf MASS, you are of ſuch variety of opinions among your, ſelves concerning it, that(a)As Doctor Bellarmin in his anſwer to Dupleſſis Mornay de Eucharist. lib. 11. cap. 1. & Genebrard. in Liturg. S. Denis from the word MISSAH, Deut. 16.10. that properly ſignifieth ſufficiency, but Bellarmin refutes this, lib. 1. de Miſſa, cap. 1. ſome of you ſaith, it is taken from the Hebrew; ſome(b)Bulinger ibidem from foreign, that ſignifies a ſecret ſanctificatiō, from the which comes myſtery. from the Greek, ſome(c)As Bellarmin ibidem, and ſundry others from mitto, miſſio, or dimiſſio. from the Latin: and(d)Some becauſe the ſacrifice and prayers is ſent to God in the ſame, as Hugo de S. Victor de ſacram. lib. 2. part. 8. cap. ult. ſome ſaith, it is called the Maſs for one cauſe, and(e)Some becauſe an angel, as they ſay, is ſent unto the ſame; as Lombard. in 4. ſent. diſt. 13. & Thomas part. 3. quaeſt. 83. And ſome becauſe the people is diſmiſſed, and ſent forth, as Bellar. lib. 1. de Miſſa, cap. 1. ſome for another. I will only ſpeak this of it, that it is uſually taken by the ancient Writers, for the diſmiſſion, or skailing, as we call it, of the Church, after the publick ſervice was done to God, as Bellarmin grants, in the firſt acception of this word Maſs. And therefore in the end of your Maſs, the Deacon crys, Ite miſſa eſt; that is, Go your way, the Congregation is diſmiſſed. But now the Papiſts takes not the word in this ſenſe, for the skailing of the Church, or diſmiſſion of the people, after the ſervice of preaching, prayer, and ſo forth: but for that abominable ſacrifice of theirs, wherein, as they ſuppone, they offer up Chriſt his very body and blood in a ſacrifice for the quick and the dead, as M. Gilbert doth here. And for this cauſe they call this ſacrifice, the Maſs, that is; firſt, ſent from the Father to us, that Chriſt his body and blood might be with us: next, ſent from us to the Father, that he may interceed, and may be for us with the Father, as Durandus lib. 4. ration. divin. teſtifieth. But how can he be ſent from them to heaven, ſeeing he deſcends in the mouth, ſtomack and belly of the Prieſt, for to be ſent down to the belly of the Prieſt, & to be ſent up to heavē, are things contrary. So by this ſtile of the Maſs, as they take it, it is plain, that either Chriſt deſcends from heaven in the earth dayly in the Maſs, which ſome of them grants alſo. Turrian. 1 tract. cap. 11 fol. 59. which is contrary to an article of our faith, That he ſits at the right hand of h…s Father, whom the heavens muſt contain until the time that all things be reſtored, Acts 3.21. or elſe their Maſs-Prieſts, duſt and aſhes, are the creators of their Creator, which is a blaſphemy.
Thus much now for the name of the Maſs, which all Chriſtians ſhould abhor, according to that of David, That he would not take the name of falſe Gods in his mouth, Pſal. 16 4. For that word which is proponed by men for an Article of our Faith, which is not found in the Scripture, neither in proper terms, nor yet in ſubſtance, and by neceſſary conſequence out of the ſame, ſhould be rejected by the Church of God, as a profane and a baſtard word. But the Maſs is ſuch: For it is proponed by the Church of Rome as an Article of our Faith: and yet it is neither found in proper termes, nor in ſubſtance, nor by any neceſſary conſequence out of the Scripture: Therefore it ſhould be rejected, as profane and idolatrous, by the Church of God.
This for the name: Now to the matter. This is one of the greateſt controverſies betwixt you and us, concerning your ſacrifice of the Maſs: which, as ye account it moſt heavenly, ſo we account it moſt abominable, as that which injures the Son of God, which derogats from his death and paſſion, which is injurious to his everlaſting Prieſthood, which is idolatrous, vain, needleſs, and fruitleſs; which hinders and overthrows the true ſervice of God: all which ſhal be made plain of it, by Gods grace.
The matter of our controverſie therefore is: Whither Jeſus Chriſt, God and man, his body and blood be perſonally and corporally offered up in your ſacrifice of the Maſs? as ye call it. And whither this your ſacrifice be a propiciatory ſacrifice for the ſins of the quick and the dead? This your Church affirms and holds, and this we deny. Now let us ſee your reaſons firſt, and then we will ſet down what reaſons we have for us out of the Word of God to the contrary.
As to yours. Firſt, ye ſay it way prefigured by the Law of Moſes: Next, propheſied of by the Prophets. And thirdly, done and inſtituted by Chriſt our Savior, and commanded by him to be done to the end of the world.
As to the firſt, This ſacrifice was prefigured by the ſacrifices of the Old Teſtament, for the which purpoſe ye quote Levit. 2. and 6.20. Unto the which I anſwer, That the ſacrifices of the Old Teſtament were figures and ſhadows of that great and bloody ſacrifice of Chriſt Jeſus, ones offered up, upon the croſs, never to be offered up again, as the Apoſtle ſaith, Heb. 9.25.26.27.28. and of our ſpiritual ſacrifices, and ſervice to God, whereof the Apoſtle ſpeaks in theſe places here cited, Rom. 12.1. Heb. 13.15.16. The which alſo were fulfilled in that one and only ſacrifice of himſelf upon the croſs, for the ſins of the world; and are fulfilled in our ſpiritual ſacrifices of our ſelves, and of the calves of out lips continually. But that theſe were figures of your abominable ſacrifice in the Maſs, there is not a ſyllable in the whole Scripture to prove the ſame: For that which was prefigured in the Old Teſtament, was, and is fulfilled in the New Teſtament. But the New Teſtament hath not ſo much as one ſyllable of your ſacrifice of the Maſs: therefore it could not be prefigured in the Old Teſtament. For if it were prefigured by the ſacrifices of the Old Teſtament, it behoved either to be one with the ſpiritual ſacrifice of all Chriſtians, or elſe one with the bloody ſacrifice of Chriſt upon the croſs: for only theſe two ſorts of ſacrifices are prefigured in the Old Teſtament, & recorded to be fulfilled in the New Teſtament: but your ſacrifice of the Maſs, is one with neither of them: for it is not one with the firſt ſort, for they are ſpiritual, & you will have it external: neither is it one with the other of Chriſts ſacrifice upon the croſs, for there he died, & there he ſhed his blood, and there he ſuffered the torments of Gods wrath, and indignation for our ſins: and there he ſatisfied the juſtice of God, and merited an everlaſting redemption to us. But in your ſacrifice of the Maſs, your ſelves grants, that neither is he crucified, nor is his blood ſhed, nor ſuffers he the wrath of God for our ſins, nor ſatisfies properly the juſtice of God for the ſame, nor properly merits remiſſion of our ſins in the Maſs, Bellarm. lib. 2. de miſſa, cap. 4. therefore it is not one with that ſacrifice of Chriſt upon the croſs. For two ſeveral actions which have two different forms, and are done in divers times and places, for divers ends, cannot be one only, and the ſelf ſame ſacrifice: for it is the form that gives a thing to be, and diſtinguiſhes it from all other things. But Chriſt his offering up of himſelf upon the croſs, and your ſacrifice of the Maſs have different forms, are done in divers places and times, and for diverſe ends, therefore they cannot be both one. Further, if they were both one, then it ſhould follow, that as the ſacrifice of Chriſt upon the croſs is of an infinit valor, ſo the ſacrifice of the Maſs ſhould be of the ſame valor. But Bellarmin ſaith, lib. 2. de miſſa, cap. 4 fol. 740. That the ſacrifice of the Maſs, is but of a finit valor, and the ſacrifice of the croſs of an infinit valor. Therefore they cannot be both one and the ſelf ſame ſacrifice: Therefore this ſacrifice of your Maſs, ſeeing it is not one with neither of theſe two ſorts of ſacrifices, is not prefigured in the Old Teſtament.
As for the ſecond, that it was fore-told by the Prophets: It is as true as the former: for all the ſacrifices which were fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Teſtament, are fulfilled in the New Teſtament. But the New Teſtament, as hath been ſaid, makes only mention of theſe two ſorts of ſacrifices, Chriſts on the croſs, and our ſpiritual ſacrifices: and not a ſyllable or the ſacrifice of the Maſs: Therefore it is not fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Teſtament. As for theſe Scriptures which ye quote, Malac. 1.10.11.12. Iſai. 19.19.21. and 56.7. they ſpeak of the ſpiritual worſhip of God, and of the ſpiritual ſacrifices, which the Gentils being called, ſhould offer up unto God, under the Goſpel, whereof mention is made in theſe places, Heb. 13.15.16. 1. Pet. 2.5. Rom. 12.1. and 15.16. For either they ſpeak properly and literally, or elſe figuratively. But if you ſay they ſpeak properly of external ſacrifices, then they ſpeak here of that legal and ceremonial worſhip of the Jewes, and ſo theſe places doth not appertain to the New Teſtament. Or, if you will ſay, they ſpeak figuratively; then, I ſay, they make nothing for your external ſacrifice in the Maſs, which you will have to be a ſacrifice, not figuratively, but properly. So howſoever ye expone them, they can no wayes make for your external ſacrifice in the Maſs. Either therefore muſt ye prove this ſacrifice of your Maſs in the New Teſtament firſt (which ye will never be able to do) or elſe the figures and propheſies in the Old Teſtament, will never prove it, ſeeing there is nothing either prefigured, or fore-told in the Old Teſtament, but that which in the New Teſtament is fulfilled. Let us ſee therefore what you can alledge for this your ſacrifice in the New Teſtament. You ſay, that Chriſt the chief Prieſt (according to the order of Melchiſedeck in this action, and according to the order of Aaron) upon the croſs inſtituted it, Matth. 26.26. Luke 22.19 Mark 14 22. and commanded to be obſerved to the end of the world. Before I come to the inſtitution, there are two things to be examined, which you have written here. The firſt, that you ſay, that Chriſt, according to the order of Aaron, did offer up himſelf upon the croſs. Unto the which I anſwer: firſt, that you gain-ſay here, two great Papiſts, Alanus and Bellarmin, whereof the one ſaith, that Chriſt never ſacrificed Aaronicè, that is, according to the order of Aaron, Alanus de Euchariſt. lib 2. cap. 9. The other ſaith, that Chriſt his ſacrifice upon the croſs, was neither according to the order of Melchiſedeck, nor yet according to the order of Aaron, Bellarm. de Miſſa, lib. 1. cap. 6 fol. 626. And not only he affirmes it, that it is not according to the order of Aaron, but alſo he affirmes, that this ſhould be certain to all the faithful. So, if you be of the faithful, and his doctrine be true which the Pope your head hath priviledged to be printed, this ſhould alſo have been certain to you, and ſo you ſhould not have gain-ſaid it. You had need to beware of this, M. Gilbert, to contradict ſo openly the learned Fathers and Maiſters of your Catholick faith; for by this doing, ye will both bewray your ſelves that you have no unity and concord one with another, and alſo ye will bring your ſelf in ſuſpicion with your head, that ye are not a defender of the Catholick faith, ſeeing you ſo openly contradict the maiſters and defenders thereof. Mark this, Reader, what concord theſe men have among themſelves, ſome ſaying one thing, ſome another. Next, I ſay, if you refer this alſo to his perſon, that as this action was according to Aaron, ſo himſelf was a Prieſt according to his order, in his ſacrifice. Then I ſay, you both gain-ſay the plain Scriptures of God. Heb. 5.6.10. and 7.11. and alſo the learnedſt of your Church, Bellar. lib. 1. de miſſa, cap. 6. For, ſuppoſe it be true, that this ſacrifice of his upon the croſs, did accompliſh all the ſacrifices of Aaron, and put an end unto them, according as he ſaid, It is finiſhed: Yet he offered up this ſacrifice, not as he was a Prieſt according to Aaron, (for he was not a Prieſt according to his order at all) but as he was a Prieſt, according to the order of Melchiſedeck: and therefore the Scripture joyns both together, Heb. 5.6.7.10. to aſſure us that he offered up himſelf upon the croſs, as he was Prieſt, not according to Aaron, but according to Melchiſedeck.
The ſecond thing is, that you ſay, Chriſt according to the order of Melchiſedeck in this action, which you mean the Maſs, did offer up his body and blood under the formes of bread and wine. It is true indeed, that Chriſt, according to the order of Melchiſedeck, is an high-Prieſt, and not according to the order of Aaron: but yet neither is it certain out of the Scripture, that Melchiſedeck did offer up bread and wine, in an external ſacrifice. For the Scripture ſaith only, he brought it forth. For this is the proper ſignification of the Hebrew word Hotzſi, as in ſundry places of Scripture, Ezech. 22. Pſal. 135. Exod. 8. Num. 30. and ſo the Chaldaick Paraphraſt, Amena, which is, to bring forth: and the Greek foreign; and ſo Cyprian. Epiſt. ad Caecil. & Chryſoſt hom. 35. in cap. 14. Geneſ. & Joſeph. lib. 1. cap. 19. & Ambroſ. upon the 7. cap. Epiſt. ad Heb. he brought forth for to refreſh Abraham, &c. And Cardinal Cajetan ſaith the ſame upon the 14 of Gen. There is nothing written there of a ſacrifice or oblation; but a bringing forth of bread and wine to refreſh the victors, ſaith he, which is not to ſacrifice. And it is certain that he gave it to Abraham and his company to refreſh them with, after the ſlaughter of theſe Kings. And the Apoſtle, Heb 7 whereas he ſets down theſe things wherein Melchiſedeck was a type of Chriſt, he doth not ſo much as give any inkling of this: For there he compares Melchiſedeck with Chriſt. Firſt, that as Melchiſedeck was both King and Prieſt, ſo was Chriſt. Next, as Melchiſedeck was without father and mother, beginning and ending, the Scripture not mentioning of it, ſo was Chriſt. Thirdly, as Melchiſedeck was greater then Aaron, and had a more excellent Prieſthood then the Levitical Prieſthood, ſo was Chriſts. But never a word here of a ſacrifice of bread and wine, wherein Melchiſedeck ſhould have reſembled the ſacrifice of your Maſs, as ye ſuppoſe. So you find out here, that which the Spirit of God found not out: and ſo ye make your ſelf wiſer then the holy Ghoſt in his Epiſtle. But we will learn not to be wiſe above that which is written, and to ſearch no further then the Spirit of God hath found out already. And ſuppoſe it were granted to you (which ye are never able to prove) that Melchiſedeck did offer up bread and wine, yet what to do hath this with your deviliſh abomination of your Maſs, wherein ye ſay the ſubſtance of bread and wine is gone away, only the formes remaining. For if your ſacrifice in the Maſs be like the ſacrifice of Melchiſedeck, then the ſubſtance of bread and wine ſhould remain, as it did in the ſacrifice of Melchiſedeck, and the bread and wine ſhould be offered up, and not Chriſts body and blood, as bread and wine only were offered up in Melchiſedeck his ſacrifice. So then, either Melchiſedeck his ſacrifice is not a type of your ſacrifice in the Maſs, or elſe true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament, and not Chriſt his body and blood which is offered up. Chooſe you then, whither you will deny your ſacrifice to be according to the order of Melchiſedeck, or elſe will you let go your real preſence, your tranſubſtantiation, and your perſonal offering up of Chriſt Jeſus in your abominable Maſs, for one you muſt do.
Thirdly, if Chriſt offered up ſuch a ſacrifice at his Supper, as was prefigured by Melchiſedeck, which you affirm here, then muſt it follow that Chriſt fulfilled that figure perfectly; and ſo the ſame ſacrifice needs no more to be offered up again, and ſo here will follow the deſolation of your Maſs-Prieſts, whoſe work is chiefly in repeating of this ſacrifice again.
Fourthly, I would ask you, whither is this ſacrifice which ye ſay he offered up according to the order of Melchiſedeck in his laſt Supper, one with that ſacrifice which he offered up upon the croſs, or not? If it be one, then I ſay as he died and ſhed his blood on the croſs, and purchaſed an everlaſting redemption by the ſame: ſo this ſacrifice of your Maſs muſt be joyned with his death, and ſhedding of his blood, and muſt have the like vertue and effect to redeem us, and ſo two abſurdities will follow. The one, that Chriſt not only ſhould twiſe have died, once in the Supper, and afterward upon the croſs: but alſo dies, and is crucified continually, in your Maſs, and yet the Scripture ſaith, he died but once. The other, that that ſacrifice of his upon the croſs is ſuperfluous: for what needed him to die again to redeem mankind, ſince the firſt offering of himſelf in the Supper was a ſufficient redemption? For if his ſacrifice upon the croſs was a ſufficient redemption, which you cannot deny: and if the ſacrifice of him in the Supper be one with that, of neceſſity it muſt follow, that as his ſacrifice upon the croſs was a ſufficient redemption: even ſo his ſacrifice in the Supper muſt be a ſufficient redemption for mankind. And therefore Alanus, a great defender of your Catholick faith, ſaith, according to the judgement of the Council of Trent, That the new Covenant is founded on the blood of Chriſt offered up in the Supper, before he was crucified: and that Chriſt was truly our paſſover the day before he ſuffered: and he ſaith, This is the foundation of all Christian doctrine, according to the judgement of the Council, Alanus de Euchar. lib. 2 cap. 28. Now if this be true, that he was our Paſſover, before he died, and the covenant was founded in his blood which he offered up in the Supper: then, certainly, Chriſt died in vain, which is more then blaſphemous: and ſo blaſphemous muſt that doctrine of your Maſs be, which carries with it ſuch a blaſphemie. And if you will ſay, it is not the ſame with that ſacrifice upon the croſs: then, I ſay, Firſt, you are contrary to your own Church in this, who ſaith, it is one with that ſacrifice of the croſs. Next, Chriſt his body and blood is not offered then in the Supper: for his body and blood was offered up upon the croſs, and ſo your Maſs is gone, or elſe make two Chriſts, one in the Supper under the forms of bread and wine, which the Diſciples ſaw not: and another who was offered up upon the croſs, which was ſeen of all. So whither will ye go, and unto what ſide will ye turn you, M. Gilbert, for the uphold of your Maſs? For there are rocks and ſand-beds on every ſide. So neither did Chriſt offer up himſelf in a ſacrifice at all in his laſt Supper, neither did he it according to the order of Melchiſedeck. But now let us ſee how ye prove this ſacrifice out of the inſtitution. And ſeeing this point of doctrine is ſuch a weighty point, as whereupon the ſalvation and damnation of ſouls doth hing: therefore, I pray thee, Chriſtian Reader, deceive not thine own ſoul to thy everlaſting perdition, but take good heed what ground is in the inſtitution for this their ſacrifice; for if they prove it not here, it will never be proved by the Scripture. You ſay therefore, that Christ took bread and wine; we grant that, yet here is no ſacrifice. What then? He gave thanks: yet here is no ſacrifice. What next? He bleſſed it. Yet here is no ſacrifice. And whereas ye ſay, that by this bleſſing, and his heavenly words, the bread and wine is changed in the body and blood of Chriſt: that I have ſufficiently (as I hope) overthrown already. But to return to the words of the inſtitution: after the bleſſing of the bread, which Luke expones by giving of thanks: the text ſaith, He gave. What gave he but that which he took, and had bleſſed? And what took he, and bleſſed he but the bread? And therefore the Apoſtle ſaith, 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we bleſs, &c. So then it was bread which he gave, and not his own body and blood corporally. And unto whom gave he it? The text ſaith, unto his diſciples, both in Matthew, Mark and Luke, all with one conſent. Now that which was given to his Diſciples, was not properly offered up in a ſacrifice: for a ſacrifice is an offering to God. And the text ſaith here, He gave it to his Diſciples. So there is not a ſyllable in the inſtitution, that can make for your pretended ſacrifice. You here corrupt the word of Jeſus Chriſt wonderfully: For firſt, you expone by giving, offering up in a ſacrifice. Next, whereas the Scripture in Matthew, Mark and Luke have but giving once, & refers this giving, not to God, but to the Diſciples: And he gave it to the Diſciples: you alledge here two givings: the one to God, which is your own invention, whereof the Scripture makes no mention: the other to the Diſciples, which is the form of a Sacrament, and not of a ſacrifice: for a Sacrament is given to us, a ſacrifice to God. So all the grounds of your ſacrifice of the Maſs is two: the one is, your deviſed tranſubſtantiation: ſo one error leans upon another: the other is, not the words of Chriſt, And he gave it to his Diſciples, but your own words, and your own expoſition only, And he gave, or offered up himſelf then for them. Theſe are your own words, and not the words of the holy Ghoſt. So this ſacrifice of your Maſs, hath not the words of Jeſus Chriſt, as Matthew, Mark and Luke have ſet them down, to be the ground of it: but only your own words, and your own interpretation. For how dare ye be ſo impudent as to affirm that Chriſt gave it twiſe: once in an offering for his Diſciples, and another time in a Sacrament to his Diſciples, ſeeing we will believe Matthew, Mark and Luke, the ſworn pen-men of the holy Ghoſt, who ſay only he gave it to his Diſciples as a Sacrament, and makes no mention at all that he gave it to God as a ſacrifice. Do you think the Lord will never take an account of you for ſuch a manifeſt lie of the Son of God, of his Scripture, of his Apoſtles, and holy Writers who writ it, they all ſaying, He gave it to his Diſciples; and you affirming beſide that giving to them, that he gave it, that is, offered it up for them? O ſinful man! Who will venter the ſalvation of his ſoul upon ſo ſmal a threed; yea, upon ſo impudent a lie, as ye make of the Son of God. O repent, or elſe you ſhal one day feel the fierceneſs of the Lords hot wrath and indignation upon your ſoul and carcaſs for evermore. Leave off therefore to be the cauſe of the damnation of ſouls, for you deceive them, and makes them believe that this monſtrous abomination of your Maſs, hath Jeſus Chriſt to be the Author of it, while it hath not ſo much as a ſyllable in the whole inſtitution that gives ſo much as an inkling of it. Are you wiſer then the wiſeſt of your generation: Bellarmin, who for all the arguments that he brings, never ſo much as once gives an inkling of this your argument. For he thought it was too plain a lie to affirm a double giving here out of the words of the inſtitution: and too abſurd an expoſition to expone, He gave, that is, he offered it up. And therefore he hath no ſuch reaſoning for his ſacrifice of the Maſs. Yea, that which ye think is plain out of the inſtitution, that Chriſt offered up his body and his blood in the Supper, he ſaith, That the action of offering cannot be eaſily diſtinguiſhed and ſeparated from the other actions which was done joyntly there together by the words of the institution, Bellar. lib. 1. de miſſa, cap. 12. fol. 669. And more plainly, he ſaith, That the Evangeliſts have not expreſly ſaid, that Chriſt offered up himſelf unto the Father in the Supper, lib. 1. de miſſa, cap. 24. fol. 706. This is a plain ſpeaking. Now your ſacrifice of the Maſs hath no expreſs warrant out of the inſtitution of Chriſt, if you will believe him, whoſe controverſies are allowed by the Pope to be printed. But it may be ye thought that this your doctrine would have been ſwallowed up without further tryal, & therefore you regarded not what you writ. You have ſtoln your ſelf in ſuch credit with the ſimple among you, who are deceived and blinded by your lies, that ye are not aſhamed to be plain enough in ſpeaking untruths & lies of the Word of God. But the Lord will recōpence this one day. But now to return to the reſt of the words of the inſtitution, as ye rehearſe them. And laſt of all, ye ſay, He gave his body and blood to his Diſciples to be eaten He gave it ſpiritually, and they did eat it ſpiritually: and he gave them Sacraments of his body and blood, the bread and wine corporally to them, and they did eat them corporally, ſuppoſe for a ſpiritual uſe and end. For that which he gave, they did eat: he gave the bread and wine, therefore it was bread and wine which they did eat and drink. And therefore the Apoſtle ſaith plainly, For whoſoever ſhal eat of this bread, &c. 1. Cor. 11. He calls it bread that is eaten. And our Savior ſaith, Verily, verily, from henceforth ſhal I not drink of the fruit of this vine with you, Matth. 26.29. That which he gave his Apoſtles to drink corporally in the latter Supper, was the fruit of the vine, ſo the Evangeliſts ſaith. But Chriſts blood was not the fruit of the vine: therefore it was not his his blood which they corporally drank, but wine, which was the fruit of the vine-tree. I go forward. And when he had done this, ye ſay, He cōmanded his Diſciples, that is, the lawful Paſtors of the Church to do the ſame for the remembrance of him to the end of the world. That is true, that which he did here, he commanded to be done by his Diſciples to the end of the world: but never a ſyllable here that he offered up his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine in the Supper, in a propiciatory ſacrifice for the quick and the dead: Therefore he commanded not this ſacrifice of your Maſs to be done to the end of the world. And whereas ye reſtrict this commandment, Do this, only to the Paſtors, ye have to underſtand that as there is ſomething here which Chriſt did, which is proper to them, as to be the diſpenſers of theſe heavenly myſteries; ſo there is ſome actions here, which is common alſo with them to the people, as to receive, to eat, to drink theſe Sacraments of his body and blood in his remembrance. Seeing therefore this commandment, Do this, is to be referred to the whole actions of the Supper: & ſeeing there is ſome actions in the ſame, which the other Chriſtians ſhould do alſo: therefore this commandment, Do this, is not to be reſtricted to the office of the Paſtors only, (which ye do) but common with them to the actions of the people. Now to your concluſion: Seeing, ſay ye, your Prieſts do the ſame in this ſacrifice, which our Savior did: how can I ſay that your Religion in this, was not inſtituted by Chriſt. If you do the ſame that he did, indeed I will grant you it. But ye do not the ſame which our Savior did: Therefore your Religion in this is not inſtituted by Jeſus Chriſt.
The which I prove. Firſt, Chriſt took bread and wine in this Sacrament, and gave it to be eaten and drunken; and bread was eaten, and wine was drunken by his Diſciples. But your Prieſt takes bread and wine, and conjures the ſubſtance Of it away by your tranſubſtantiation, and only remains the forms of the bread and wine behind: therefore you do not the thing which Chriſt did.
Secondly, Chriſt took bread and brake it: you take bread, and hangs it up, and keeps it in a box, to carry to the ſick, and in proceſſions. Thirdly, Chriſt took bread and gave it to his Apoſtles: your Prieſts like gluttons in the ſacrifice of your Maſs, eats it up every whit himſelf alone. Fourthly, Chriſt gave a Sacrament to ſtrengthen mens faith: but your Prieſts gives a ſacrifice to redeem mens ſouls. Fifthly, Chriſt gave it to be eaten, your Prieſts gives it to be worſhipped. Sixthly, Chriſt gave bread: your Prieſts ſay they give God. Seventhly, Chriſt gave the cup to his Diſciples, ſaying, Drink ye all of this: your Prieſt drinks all himſelf, and takes away the cup from the people, both in your ſacrifice and Sacrament. Eightly, Chriſt inſtituted the Supper, and commanded the Church to celebrat the ſame, as he had inſtituted it: but the Maſs hath been clamped up by many ſundry Popes: one made the Confiteor, another the Introit, another the Kyrieeleiſon, another the Gloria in excelſis and ſo forth of the reſt, as ſhal be proved afterward. Ninthly, Chriſt intending to celebrat his Supper, changeth not his garment: but the Prieſt going to ſay his Maſs, doth nought but clothe and unclothe, and every garment carrying a great myſtery. The Prieſt ſaying Maſs, muſt have his head and beard ſhaven, and upon his head a circle of hair, which they call a crown; imitating the Prieſts of the Gentils in this, Baruch chap. 6. v. 30. and not Chriſt, and his Apoſtles. Tenthly, Chriſt in the Supper uſed common bread: but the Popiſh Prieſt muſt expreſly uſe other manner of bread, baken betwixt two irons, which is properly, Wafers. Eleventhly, Chriſt made his Supper upon a table: the Popiſh Prieſt muſt have a conſecrat Altar, with ſome pieces of relicks put in the hole of it; or elſe a marble ſtone, in the borders whereof are little pieces of cloth, which they call Corporales, to ſay his Maſs on. Twefthly, Chriſt in the celebrating of the Supper, preached and taught his Apoſtles: the Popiſh Prieſt mumbleth betwixt his teeth certain prayers: he turneth to and from the Altar, one while his back, another while his face to the people: now goeth he from one ſide of the Altar unto another: now he ſingeth with an high voice, now with a low voice: now he lifts up his arms, now he caſteth them down. Briefly, he ſeemeth to be a man wholly mad, not knowing what countenance for to uſe. Thirteenthly, Chriſt in the Supper ſpake in a vulgar tongue, that all might underſtand: the Popiſh Prieſt in their Maſſes ſpeaks in a ſtrange tongue, which the moſt part of themſelves underſtands not. Fourteenthly, Chriſt firſt brake the bread. and then gave it to his Apoſtles: the profane Prieſt firſt ſpeaketh certain words over the bread in his Maſs, and then breaketh it (or the accidents of it, as they ſay) at their pleaſure. Fifteenthly, Chriſt after he had broken the bread, ſaith, This is my body: the Popiſh Prieſt ſpeaks the words, without breaking of the bread; and not content with the words of Chriſt, he addeth this word enim, unto them. Therefore you cannot, M. Gilbert, but ſpeak againſt the light of your own conſcience, when you ſay that your Prieſts doth the ſame in their Maſs, that Chriſt did in the Supper: And here I appeal your conſcience before the terrible and everliving God, and before Jeſus Chriſt; that ſhal judge the quick and the dead, whither ye do not ſpeak in this againſt the light of your own conſcience, or not? And whether your Prieſts in your Maſs, do the ſame which Chriſt did in the Supper, or not? Think you not that you muſt ſtand before the living God, and give a reckoning of theſe things? Repent in time, and ceaſe to deceive the ſouls of your Countrey-men any more. But to conclud this: What ado hath your Maſs with the Supper of Chriſt? What likeneſs is there between the one and the other? In the Supper which Chriſt inſtituted in the Scripture, we are remembred of his death and paſſion upon the croſs, whereby he appeaſed the wrath of God for our ſins, and of our duty towards him; whereby we acknowledge in our conſciences that we are obliged to die to ſin, ſeeing it behoved the eternal Son of God, by his death upon the croſs, to redeem us from the ſame: upon the which ariſes an earneſt thankſgiving in the hearts and mouthes of every true Chriſtian, for ſo great a ſalvation, purchaſed ſo wonderfully, as by the death of the eternal Son of God. In your ſacrifice of the Maſs, is there any ſuch thing? Is there any remembrance of his death & ſuffering there? Is his death ſhown to the people in a known language, that they may underſtand it? Is there any acknowledging of any duty there for his death? Is there any true thankſgiving there? No, none. But in ſtead of theſe, a heap of words in an unknown language, and a diverſity of apiſh geſtures, and Moriſh and Juglers tricks, to feed the eyes of the poor people, which neither the people, nor yet many of your ſelves do underſtand. In the Supper we are alſo admoniſhed of our ſpiritual conjunction with our neighbor, and of our duty towards him, in that we are all partakers of one bread made of many grains, and of one wine made of many grapes; to ſignifie unto us that we are all renewed and redeemed by one blood, members of one body, living by one Spirit, drawing life, motion and feeling, all from one Head, being one with him, and ſo one with others, whereby follows our mutual duties one toward another. In your Maſs there is no communion of the bread made of many grains, and of the wine made of many grapes, to ſignifie this conjunction and communion, either with Chriſt our Head, or among our ſelves, the Prieſt eating and drinking all himſelf. In the Supper, according to Chriſt his inſtitution, by giving, taking, eating, and drinking of the bread and wine by all the Diſciples, whereby our bodily life is nowriſhed and ſtrengthened, is not only ſignified and repreſented our ſpiritual growth in that ſpiritual communion with him, whereon our ſpiritual life depends: but alſo in the ſame, all the faithful doth truly by faith eat and drink ſpiritually his fleſh and blood, whereby they are made one with himſelf, fleſh of his fleſh, & bone of his bones, whereby they are ſtrengthned in that ſpiritual life, and confirmed in the hope of that glory. But is there any ſuch thing in your Papiſtical ſacrifice? Is there any giving and taking, eating and drinking, of bread and wine by the faithful, either to repreſent our communion with Chriſt, & among our ſelves, or to ſtrengthen us in that ſpiritual life through his conjunction? Do the poor people eat or drink, either bodily, or ſpiritually in your Maſs? Is there any action there to ſtir up their conſcience? Or any inſtruction to increaſe their knowledge? Are they ought but idle beholders of a pretended myſtery, which is both dumb and deaf, and of a Prieſt that eats and drinks all himſelf alone? So that in ſtead of theſe heavenly diſhes, which our loving Father doth propine unto us, upon his table in the Supper, what is there in your abominable ſacrifices, but a feeding with husks, an apiſh game, and Juglers tricks, to feed the fantaſies of the poor people, that ſees but underſtands not; that hears, but they know not what. So that in truth there is as great likeneſs betwixt Chriſts Supper, and your Maſs, as is between the table of the Lord, and the table of Devils, and light with darkneſs. Seeing therefore there is ſuch a difference betwixt your ſacrifice in the Maſs, and Chriſt his Supper, as hath been ſeen: therefore your Prieſts doth not the ſame in the Maſs, which our Savior did in the laſt Supper. And therefore how can ye ſay, that your Religion in this is inſtituted by Chriſt? And this is ſo evident, that ſome of your own Doctors and learned Writers, have been forced to confeſs the ſame. As Petrus a Soto in his book againſt Brentius, and Lindanus, lib. 4. Panopl. confeſſes, that the ſacrifice of the Maſs, with many other points of their Religion, is an unwritten tradition, which hath neither the beginning nor author of it in the Scriptures of God. And Gerſon a Papiſt, and exponer of the Maſs, ſaith, in Floretum, that the office of the Maſs was ordained by Saint James and Baſile the Biſhop of Ceſarea; but the Sacrament of the Supper was inſtituted by Jeſus Chriſt. And he alledges the Canon Law, De conſ. diſt. 1. Canon Jacobus, for him. So firſt there is three hundred years betwixt Baſile and James, which are the compoſers of the Maſs. Secondly, he diſtinguiſhes betwixt the Supper and the Maſs, and he ſaith, The Supper is instituted by Christ, and the office of the Maſs by S. James and S. Baſile. So if he ſpeak true, the Maſs and the Supper, is not both one; and the Maſs is not inſtituted by Chriſt, as the Supper is. And ſo out of your own mouthes, your Maſs is confeſſed not to be inſtituted by Chriſt in the Scripture. Shameleſs therefore and impudent, M. Gilbert, are ye in affirming that your Religion in this is inſtituted by Chriſt.
Maſter Gilbert Brown.
There are five chief things wherein the inſtruction of Jeſus Chriſt conſiſts, as I have ſhewed before. Of theſe five, the Miniſters wants three of the chiefeſt in their communion. Firſt, a lawful Prieſt or Miniſter. Secondly, thankſgiving. Thirdly, bleſſing. Fourthly, giving, or offering. Fifthly, communicating. Firſt, a lawful Miniſter, as after I ſhal ſhow. Secondly, the bleſſing of the bread & wine, which they have blotted out of their Scots Bibles, and put in thankſgiving for the ſame, as if both were one: not the leſs, that both the Greck and Latin is againſt them, and ſignifies two diverſe actions, both done and ſaid in S. Mark 14.22.23. at his Supper, foreign, benedicens, bleſſed, and foreign, gratias agens, giving thanks. And thirdly, giving or offering of his bleſſed body and blood to his Father for his faithful, which properly is to ſacrifice, as the holy Fathers writes upon the ſame. And as for their thankſgiving, it is but an invention of their own head, as may be ſeen in their Pſalm books: and their communicating is but of bread and wine, but ours is of the body and blood of Chriſt. So we only have the true inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt, and not they, and that by the tryal of the touch-ſtone.
Maſter John Welſch his Reply.
As for the five chief things wherein ye ſay the inſtitution of Chriſt conſiſts; to wit, a lawful Miniſter. 2. Thankſgiving. 3. Bleſſing. 4 Giving, or offering. 5 Communicating. We grant that a lawful Miniſter is required, but not a ſacrificing Prieſt here, becauſe there is no external and outward ſacrifice here, as ye ſuppone, and as hath been proved. And ſeeing your Prieſts are ſacrificing Prieſts, of a ſacrifice that hath not a ſyllable in the Word of God to bear witneſs unto it, and ſeeing their authority depends of the authority of the Pope, which in Antichriſtian, as ſhal be proved hereafter: and ſeeing the moſt part of your Prieſts are admitted without the due tryal and examination of gifts and manners, and the moſt part cannot preach the Goſpel, as experience teacheth; therefore in your communion, or rather abominable ſacrifice of your Maſs, (for how can it be called a Communion, where the Prieſt only eats and drinks up all?) there is no lawful Miniſter: and ſeeing our offices is lawful; to wit, the preaching of the Goſpel, the adminiſtration of Sacraments, and Diſcipline: and ſeeing our entry to the offices is lawful alſo, by due examination of life and doctrine: and ſeeing the authority of our calling is from God, who enables whom he calls with gifts meet to diſcharge the calling, and from his Church, examining, trying, teſtifying, approving, ordaining, and conſenting unto the ſame: Therefore in the adminiſtration of our Communion, there are lawful Miniſters. As to the ſecond, thankſgiving; we grant alſo it is compriſed in the inſtitution of Chriſt his Sacrament, and is required in the celebration of the ſame: But you ſay, our thankſgiving which we uſe, is but an invention of our own heads, as may be ſeen in our Pſalm books. Whereunto I anſwer: If ye reſpect the matter contained in our thankſgiving, it hath the warrant of the Scripture, and ſo in that reſpect it is not our own invention. If ye reſpect the authority, we are taught and commanded by our Savior, both by his example, for he gave thanks: and alſo by his commandment, Do this, to do the ſame. And ſo in that reſpect it is not our own invention. If you reſpect the end, it is Gods glory, which is the proper end of all thankſgiving. If ye will reſpect the form of this thankſgiving; to wit, the words and order wherein it is conceived: I ſay, it is left indifferent to the Church of God to form their prayers and thankſgiving; ſo being the matter, end, and authority of the uſing of them publickly, have their warrant out of the Word of God So ſeeing the authority to give thanks, and the matter alſo of our thankſgiving, and end thereof is ſet down in the Word; and ſeeing the Lord hath left it free to the Church of God, concerning the outward form of the ſame, the Scriptures not determining it, which your ſelf, I hope, will not deny. For your Canon hath many forms of prayers, and thankſgiving in your Maſs, which after that form and order is not ſet down in the Word of God. Therefore, you injury the Lords Spirit and his Church, who calls our thankſgiving our own invention.
As to the third concerning bleſſing, which you diſtinguiſh from thankſgiving, and ſaith, we have blotted it out of our Scots Bibles, and put thankſgiving in the room thereof: and ſo you ſay, we want that part. Firſt then, I will ask you, Did not Luke and the Apoſtle Paul ſet down the whole form and the chief points of the inſtitution of that Sacrament? I ſuppoſe you will not deny it, for it were too plain an impiety for you to ſay, that either Luke, the ſworn pen-man of Gods Spirit, or Paul, who ſaid, I have received of the Lord, that which alſo I have delivered unto you, 1. Cor. 11.23. that either of theſe had omitted the hiſtory of the inſtitution of this Sacrament, a principal point thereof: but either this bleſſing is one with thanksgiving, or elſe they have omitted a principal point thereof, for neither of them makes mention in theſe places of bleſſing, but only of thanksgiving: therefore it is one with thankſgiving.
Secondly, I ſay, either the whole three Evangeliſts, and the Apoſtle Paul, in ſetting down the inſtitution of the Sacrament of the Supper, omits a chief thing: to wit, the bleſſing of the cup (which I ſuppoſe ye will not ſay) or elſe the bleſſing of the cup is one with thankſgiving: for the Apoſtles Paul & Luke makes no mention at all of bleſſing, but only of thankſgiving: and the two Evangeliſts Matthew and Mark, makes no mention of the bleſſing of the cup: but ſaith, that after, or alſo he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, &c. therefore they are one.
Thirdly, if ye will credit one Evangeliſt exponing another, whereas Matthew and Mark have this word, and he bleſſed: Luke and Paul have theſe words, And he gave thanks. And whereas Matthew and Mark have this word, bleſſing, after he took the bread, they uſe the word thanksgiving, after he took the cup, to ſignifie that they are both one. And therefore if ye will believe Scripture exponing Scripture, they are both one. Yea, what will you ſay to Bellarmin, who ſaith, lib. 1. de ſacram. Euchar. cap. 10 That ſome Catholicks contends, that both the words (to bleſs) and to (give thanks) in the Scripture, ſignifies one thing? and therefore they interpret thanksgiving, bleſſing. So if you will credit your own Catholicks, they are both one here.
And whereas you ſay, that both in the Greek and Latin, they ſignifie diverſe things. I anſwer: Indeed it is true that ſometimes they ſignifie diverſe actions; as bleſſing, Numb. 6. for the petition of a bleſſing. But yet ſometimes alſo, bleſſing is taken in the Scripture for thankſgiving, as both I have proved in theſe places; as alſo, if ye will deny, there is many places in the Scripture for the contrary, as Luke 1.65. Eph. 1.3. 1. Pet. 1.3. And whereas you ſay, that in Mark they ſignifie two diſtinct actions, I have proved before, they are both one.
And laſt of all, I ſay if by bleſſing you mean the words of the conſecration, this is my body which is broken for you, &c. as Bellarmin affirms, lib. 4. de ſacram Euch. cap. 13 that the Roman catechiſt ſo expones it, and the Theologues commonly teaches the ſame: then I ſay, we want not that chief point, for we rehearſe the words of the inſtitution. So howſoever the word (bleſſing) be taken, either for thankſgiving, or for the ſanctification of theſe elements to an holy uſe, by prayer, which is comprehended in the thankſgiving, or for the words (as ye call them) of the conſecration, we have always this bleſſing in our cōmunion. And as for your hovering and blowing of the words of Chriſt over the bread and calice, with your croſſing and charming them, after the manner of Sorcerers, with a ſet number and order of words and ſigns, your hiding it, your rubbing of your fingers for fear of crums, your firſt thortering, and then lifting up of your arms, your joining and disjoyning of thumb and fore-finger, and ſundry other vain and ſuperfluous ceremonies and curioſities, which you uſe in bleſſing of the elements, they have neither command, nor example of Chriſts inſtitution and action, and the Apoſtles doctrine and doing in the Scriptures of God.
Now as to the fourth, giving, or offering up of the body and blood of Chriſt to his Father, by the faithful: We confeſs a giving to his Diſciples, which you call afterward a communicating. But for another giving, that is (as you expone it) an offering up of his body and blood to his Father, we utterly deny it, as a thing not ſo much as once mentioned in the whole inſtitution, but contrary to the ſame, and Antichriſtian: and therefore we utterly abhor it, and deteſt it, as an invention of your own, as Antichriſtian, as idolatry, as abomination, as that which derogates from that bleſſed & only one ſacrifice, whereby he offered up himſelf once upon the croſs, never to be offered up again, as the Scripture teſtifies, Heb. 25. And Bellarmin ſaith plainly, lib. 1. de miſſa, cap. 12. & 24. That this offering up is not expreſly ſet down in the words of the institution, and that it cannot be eaſily diſcerned.
And as for the fifth, a communicating, we have it, and that not only of the bread and wine, as ye here imagine, but of Jeſus Chriſt, God and Man, his very fleſh and blood, and all his bleſſings by faith ſpiritually: ſeeing therefore we have all theſe points which are requiſit in the inſtitution, a lawful Miniſter, thankſgiving, bleſſing, giving, and communicating: therefore we have the true inſtitution of Chriſt in the Sacrament. And becauſe in this your abominable ſacrifice of the Maſs (as hath been ſaid) there is no communion: For the Prieſt takes all: And becauſe you affirm the perſonal and corporal preſence of Chriſts fleſh and blood in your ſacrifice, and the corporal eating and drinking of it, which is Capernaitical and more then carnal, contrary to the Scripture, contrary the nature of a Sacrament, contrary the truth of Chriſt his humanity, and contrary the Articles of our Faith, of his aſcenſion, ſitting at his right hand, and there remaining, till his returning in the laſt day: all which your ſacrifice of the Maſs, and tranſubſtantiation in your communion overthroweth: Therefore you have not the true inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt, according to the Scripture.
I might end here, but becauſe ye account the ſacrifice of your Maſs moſt heavenly, and the principal part of the worſhip of God. and we account it a moſt abominable idolatry: therefore I will ſet down ſome arguments againſt the ſame; whereby, if you will, you may perceive the abomination of it.
Firſt, I ſay, all lawful ſacrifices have the expreſs teſtimonies of the Scripture to warrant the inſtitution of them to be of God. But your ſacrifice of the Maſs hath no expreſs teſtimony of the Scripture, whereby it may be made manifeſt that it is inſtituted of God: therefore it is not lawful, What now will you ſay to this? The propoſition you cannot deny, for our Savior ſaith, In vain worſhip ye me teaching for doctrine mens commandments, Matth. 15.9. And Jeremie reproves the Jewes, that they would not walk according as the Lord commanded them, but according to their own will, Jer. 7 24. And the Apoſtle condemns all voluntary Religion, Col. 2.23. Therefore this is moſt certain, that that Religion or ſacrifice which hath not expreſs Scripture, whereby it may be made plain that it is inſtituted of God, is not lawful: For all that is done without faith, is ſin, Rom. 14.23. and faith hath only the Word of God to lean to, Rom. 10.17. And dare the creature be ſo bold as to appoint a mean to worſhip God, without the warrant of his will in his Word? Now to the aſſumption, what can you ſay to it? Bring me an expreſs teſtimony out of the Scripture, that God hath inſtituted your Maſs, and take it to you. Yea, if it be inſtituted in any place of the Scripture, it is inſtituted in the laſt Supper (for this you grant your ſelves:) But there is not a ſyllable in the whole inſtitution, that Chriſt offered up himſelf in a ſacrifice in the ſame, as hath been proved: and Bellarmin the learnedeſt of your Church confeſſes plainly, that the Evangeliſts have not ſaid expreſly that Christ offered up himſelf in the Supper in a ſacrifice, Bellarm. lib. 1. de miſſa, cap. 24. And therefore others of your own Religion, Petrus a Soto, in his book againſt Brentius, Lindanus lib. 4. Panopliae, Papiſts of great name, have reckoned the ſacrifice of the Maſs among the traditions, which have not their beginning nor author in the Scriptures. So then by your own confeſſion, the ſacrifice of the Maſs hath not expreſs Scripture to warrant it: yea, it is a tradition, which hath neither the beginning nor author of it in the Scriptures of God. And I would ask this queſtion of you: What can be the cauſe wherefore the typical ſacrifices, and all the rites and ceremonies thereof, is ſo expreſly ſet down in the Scripture of the Old Teſtament (which you will not deny) and this ſacrifice of yours, which ye account more excellent then all theſe, not to have been expreſly ſet down in the New Teſtament, neither the ſacrifice, nor the rites and ceremonies thereof, yea not ſo much as the very name of it? Is the New Teſtament, think ye, more obſcure then the Old Teſtament? which is abſurd to ſay. Shal the Old Teſtament be clear in ſetting down the ſacrifices, and all the rites thereof, which is but the ſhadow? And ſhould not the New Teſtament have been at the leaſt, as clear in ſetting down the ſacrifice of the New Teſtament, which ye affirm to be the Maſs, if it were ſuch? What an abſurd thing is this? Chriſtian Reader, aſſure thy ſelf, the Lord Jeſus would have dealt as lovingly and plainly with thee, in ſetting down the ſacrifice of the Maſs in the New Teſtament (if ever he had inſtituted ſuch a ſacrifice) as he was in ſetting down the ſacrifices of the Old Teſtament. But thou may aſſure thy ſelf, and thy conſcience may lean unto it, ſince he hath not ſo much as once expreſſed it in all the New Teſtament, therefore he hath never appointed it.
Secondly, I ſay, in all the places of Scripture whereſoever the Apoſtles ſpeaks of the ſacrifices which Chriſtians ſhould offer up, they ever ſpeak of ſpiritual ſacrifices, and never ſpeak of this external ſacrifice of the Maſs. They never remember of this their ſacrifice of the offering up of Chriſt in the Maſs. Look throughout the whole New Teſtament, and thou ſhalt not find this, as namely in theſe places, Rom. 12. Heb. 1…. Phil. 4. Rom. 15.1. Pet. 2. Rev. 5. Are you and your Maſs Prieſts more wiſe then the Apoſtles are? Whither ſhould we then think and ſpeak as they ſpake and thought, or as ye would have us? They never ſpake of your ſacrifice of the Maſs, and bring one inſtance, if ye can: therefore neither ſhould we. We will believe them rather then you.
Thirdly, that doctrine which is expreſly gain-ſaid by the Scripture, muſt be falſe: This you cannot deny. But this your doctrine concerning the often and dayly offering up of Jeſus Chriſt his body and blood in ſacrifice in your Maſs, is expreſly gain-ſaid by the Scripture: For the Scripture ſaith in ſundry places, That he hath once offered up himſelf, never to offer up himſelf again, Heb. 10.10. By the which will we are ſanctified, even by the offering up of Jeſus Christ once made. 11. And every Prieſt ſtandeth dayly miniſtring, and oft times offereth one manner of offering, which cannot take away ſin. 12. But this man, after he had offered one ſacrifice for ſin, ſitteth for ever at the right hand of God. 10. For with one offering hath he conſecrated for ever them that are ſanctified. Heb. 9.24. Chriſt hath entred into the very heaven, to appear now in the ſight of God for us; not that he ſhould offer himſelf often, &c. 28. So Chriſt was once offered to take away the ſins of many. Heb. 7.27. Chriſt died once, when he offered up himſelf. Seeing the Scripture therefore affirms ſo plainly, that Chriſt once offered up himſelf, and you affirm that in your abominable ſacrifice he offers up himſelf often, ſince the Scripture ſaith, the offering up of Chriſt is once only, & ye ſay it is often in your Maſs: therefore this doctrine of yours is plain againſt the expreſs ſayings of the Scripture. For ſuppoſe ye will have an unbloody offering up of Chriſt, yet the Scripture only acknowledges this bloody offering up of himſelf upon the croſs.
Fourthly, I will ask you, to what purpoſe ſerves the perſonal ſacrifice of Chriſt in your Maſs? It muſt be for one of two; to wit, either to ſatisfie for our ſins, (and therefore ye call it a propiciatory ſacrifice) or elſe to apply that ſatisfaction once made by his death upon the croſs unto us, the which ye affirm alſo of it: But for neither of theſe is Jeſus Chriſt to be offered up again: therefore for no cauſe is he to be ſacrificed in your Maſs. Not for the firſt, to ſatisfie for our ſins, becauſe the Scripture ſaith plainly, that he hath ſatisfied for our ſins, by his once oblation upon the croſs, never to die again, and therefore our Savior ſaith upon the croſs, It is finiſhed. And our redemption and ſatisfaction is aſcribed only to his death once made, and his blood once ſhed, Heb. 1. & 6. & 10. John 19 28. And your ſelves will not deny this, but the death of Chriſt is a ſufficient ranſom and ſatisfaction for all the ſins of the world, and therefore Bellarmine lib. 1. de Miſſa, cap. 25. grants this, That the vertue of his once offering up upon the croſs, is infinit and everlasting, to ſanctifie us, ſo that there needs not another ſacrifice of the croſs, or the repetition of the ſame. And the truth of this is manifeſt: for if Chriſt muſt be offered up in the Maſs to ſatisfie for our ſins, he muſt die again, and ſuffer again. For what is it to ſatisfie God, but to pay to God that which we ow? And what ow we unto him for our ſins, but death: for death is the ſtipend of ſin? So that to ſatisfie God for our ſins, is to die for our ſins: & therefore we ſay, Chriſt hath once ſatisfied for our ſins, becauſe he hath once payed our debt, which is death: that is, he hath once died for our ſins. So then either Chriſt hath not fully ſatisfied for our ſins, by his once death upon the croſs (which is impiety to think) or elſe the Lord craves a debt already payed, over again: (which is blaſphemy) or elſe Chriſt needs not to be offered up in your Maſs, to ſatisfie for our ſins. And ſo your ſacrifice of the Maſs avails not for to ſatisfie for our ſins.
Let us come to the next: If ye will ſay, He is offered up in the Maſs for to apply the vertue of the death of Chriſt unto us, (which your Church alſo ſayes.) Firſt, I ſay, Chriſt is applyed to us, when he is offered, not to God in a ſacrifice, but to us in the Word and Sacraments: therefore he ſhould not be offered up to God in a ſacrifice, but offered to us in his Word and Sacraments, that he may be applied to us: for it is the Word and Sacraments which outwardly applyes Chriſt and his death to us, and not a ſacrifice: for in a ſacrifice, the thing which is ſacrificed, is offered to God, and not applyed to us. Next, I ſay, if your ſacrifice ſerves but to apply the vertue of Chriſt his ſatisfaction unto us: then it is manifeſt, the ſatisfaction is already made: For firſt, the ſalve muſt be made, before it can be applyed. So your Church here errs, which ſaith, Your ſacrifice of the Maſs is propiciatory to appeaſe the wrath of God, and alſo applicatory to apply the ſame to us. I ſay, thirdly, if Chriſt ſhould be ſacrificed again, that the vertue of his death may be made effectual in us, then alſo ſhould he be conceived again in the womb of the Virgin, born again, die again, and riſe again; that the vertue of his incarnation, birth, death, and reſurrection, ſhould be applyed unto us: for will you ſay… That he muſt be ſacrificed again to apply the vertue of his ſacrifice upon the croſs unto us? and what reaſon then can ye pretend for you wherefore he ſhould not be incarnat again, die again, and riſe again, that the vertue of theſe may be applyed to us? Do you think this abſurd? What is the cauſe then that ye will not bluſh at the other? Fourthly, I ſay, if your ſacrifice of the Maſs be an application of Chriſt his ſacrifice, then it is not the ſacrifice it ſelf: for the applying of the ſalve, is not the ſalve itſelf: and therefore ſince you ſay that it is the applying of Chriſt his ſacrifice, wherefore ſhould ye ſay that Chriſt is ſacrificed in it: for theſe two cannot ſtand together? Fifthly, in Baptiſm, the ſacrifice of Chriſt, and the vertue of his death is truly applyed unto us: and yet ye will confeſs that Chriſt is not ſacrificed in Baptiſm. Wherefore then may not the vertue of his death and ſacrifice be applyed to us in the Sacrament of the Supper, and yet he not ſacrificed again in it? And laſt of all, neither you, neither any creature, ſhould appoint or make mo means of the applying of Chriſt and his death to us, then is ſet down in his Word: But his Word only ſets down the inward operation of Gods Spirit applying it to us, and faith upon our part apprehending it: and the Word, the Sacraments and Diſcipline proponing and confirming the ſame unto us. But never a ſyllable in the whole Scripture, that the Lord hath appointed your ſacrifice of the Maſs to apply the death of Chriſt unto us. Seeing therefore your ſacrifice of the Maſs neither ſatisfies for our ſins (for Chriſt by his death hath done that ſufficiently) nor yet applyes the ſatisfaction once made by the death of Chriſt unto us (for that is done by the Spirit and faith inwardly, and by the Word, Sacraments, and diſcipline outwardly, and that ſufficiently:) Therefore your ſacrifice of the Maſs is needleſs, and ſerves to no uſe in the earth.
Fifthly, the Scripture ever conjoins With the ſacrifice of Chriſt, his death: ſo that he cannot be ſacrificed but by dying, as the Scripture plainly teſtifies, Heb. 9.25.26. Not that he ſhould offer up himſelf often, for then muſt he have often ſuffered from the foundation of the world. The ſame may be ſeen alſo in ſundry other places, whereof I have quoted a few, Heb. 7.27. and 9.14. So the Scripture ſaith, if he muſt be often offered up, he muſt often ſuffer. And Bellarmin lib. 1. de miſſa, fol. 725. ſaith, That if there he not a true and a real ſlaughter of Chriſt in the Maſs, then the Maſs is not a true and real ſacrifice. But the Scripture ſaith plainly, that he hath but once died; and I ſuppoſe you will not ſay that he is to die again: Therefore ſeeing he cannot die again, he cannot be offered up again: For the Scripture acknowledgeth no ſacrifice of Chriſt, but that which is joined with his death.
Sixthly, Bellarmin grants, that in all external ſacrifices, the ſacrifice muſt be changed, lib. 1. de miſſa, cap. 2. fol. 693. & 604. It is alſo required, ſaith he, in a true ſacrifice, that that which is to be ſacrificed be utterly deſtroyed. And in another place, cap. 27. lib. de Miſſa, fol. 726. cap. 2. fol. 604. That which is offered is ordained to a true, real, and voluntar deſtruction. But Chriſt now being glorified, cannot be changed and utterly deſtroyed: therefore he cannot be ſacrificed, if your ſelves ſpeak true: or elſe as oft as he is ſacrificed in your Maſs, he is utterly deſtroyed: which is blaſphemy.
Seventhly, the Scripture ſaith, Where there is remiſſion of ſins, there is no more offering, Heb. 10.18. That is, all external propiciatory ſacrifice ceaſes: but remiſſion of ſins is already obtained by the death of Chriſt, as the Scripture teſtifieth, Heb. 1.3. and your ſelves will not deny. Therefore there needs no more oblation of Chriſt in your Maſs for the ſame.
Eightly, the Scripture ſaith, That without ſhedding of blood, there is no remiſſion. Heb. 9 22 But in your ſacrifice of the Maſs, there is no ſhedding of blood, as your ſelves grants; For ye call it an unbloody ſacrifice: therefore by your ſacrifice of the Maſs, there is no remiſſion of ſin.
Further, the Scripture acknowledges no other Prieſt of the New Teſtament, but Chriſt only: Theſe Prieſts, ſaith the Apoſtle to the Hebrews 5. and 7. ſpeaking of the Prieſts of the Old Teſtament, were many, becauſe death hindered them to indure: but he (ſpeaking of Chriſt) becauſe he abides for ever, hath an everlaſting Prieſthood, which cannot paſs from one to another. So Chriſt is the only Prieſt of the New Teſtament. Now if it be true which you ſay, that Chriſt is offered up in your Maſs, and that by your Maſs-Prieſts, then are there mo Prieſts of the New Teſtament then Chriſt, which is plain againſt the Scriptures. What will you ſay to this? That Chriſt is the principal Prieſt of the New Teſtament, and yours are ſecondary Prieſts, and under him, by whoſe miniſtery he offereth up himſelf to God. But, firſt, was not the Prieſts of the Old Teſtame…t only ſecondary Prieſts? This you will not deny, ſeeing their ſacrifices were figurs of his, and their Prieſthood figurs of his Prieſthood But the Apoſtle oppones the Prieſthood of Chriſt, not to another principal Prieſthood, but to the Prieſthood of men, which was but ſecondary, and ſaith, it cannot ſtand with that ſecondary Prieſthood in the Old Teſtament: therefore it cannot ſtand with your Prieſthood of the New Teſtament. And the reaſon which the Apoſtle alledges, will not only ſerve to exclud the Prieſts of the Old Teſtament, that was but ſecundary Prieſts alſo: but alſo all other ſacrificing Prieſts whatſoever, of the propiciatory ſacrifice of the New Teſtament. For the reaſon is, becauſe he bides for ever, and hath a Priesthood which cannot paſs from one to another; which will ſerve as well againſt your Maſs-Prieſts, as againſt them: For they are mortal, as the Prieſts of the Old Teſtament were: and his Prieſthood cannot paſs from one to another, as it might have done among the Prieſts of the Old Teſtament, and alſo doth among your Prieſts. For to what purpoſe ſhould your Prieſthood and ſacrifice ſerve, ſeeing Chriſt his ſacrifice hath fulfilled all the types of all the ſacrifices of the Old Teſtament? If you ſay, to ſignifie Chriſt his ſacrifice to come, as theirs did: then that is falſe, for he is ſacrificed already. But if you ſay, to ſignifie and repreſent his ſacrifice already done: then I ſay, what needs him to be ſacrificed again for that purpoſe? For the Word and Sacraments doth repreſent him ſufficiently: and ſo your Maſs needs not to repreſent his ſacrifice. And if you ſay it repreſents his ſacrifice: then I ſay, it is not one with that ſacrifice of his upon the croſs, which you will be loath to grant: For your Church ſaith, that it is one with that in ſubſtance. And I ſay further, if your will ſay with Bellarmin lib. 1. de Miſſa, cap. 25. That this place of the Apoſtle only excluds abſolutly the multiplication of Priests, in the ſame dignity and power with Chriſt: that then they exclud yours alſo. For if you offer up the ſame ſacrifice which he offered up, then you have the ſame power and dignity which he had. But this you ſay you do: For it is no matter of the difference of the manner, ſince the ſacrifice is one. Seeing therefore Chriſt, God and Man, which ye ſay ye offer up in your Maſs, is of that ſame dignity which he was of, when he was offered up upon the croſs: and ſeeing the equal dignity of the ſacrifice, makes the equal dignity of the Prieſt that offers it up: therefore ſacrilegious are your Maſs-Prieſts, and excluded here by the Apoſtle. And thirdly, I ſay, this is a vain diſtinction of yours, of principal and chief Prieſt, and ſecondary Prieſts: For this is the nature of this ſacrifice of Chriſt, that it cannot be offered up by none, but by himſelf. And fourthly, if your Maſs-Prieſts be but Miniſters in this ſacrifice, and Chriſt the principal, as you ſay, who offers up himſelf by you: then I ſay, as ye offer up Chriſt, as inſtruments for your ſins, and the ſins of the people; it ſhould follow that Chriſt offers up himſelf in your Maſs by you, for his own ſins, and the ſins of the people: But this is blaſphemy, and expreſly gain-ſaid by the Scripture, Heb. 7.27. And laſt of all, I ſay, ſeeing (as your Church ſaith) Chriſt his ſacrifice in the Maſs is one with that ſacrifice upon the croſs: therefore as Chriſt offered himſelf upon the croſs, without the miniſtery of ſecondary Prieſts, ſo ſhould he be offered up in your Maſs without the miniſtery of the ſame, or elſe it is not one with that. So your Maſs-Prieſts are no wayes to be called ſecondary Prieſts to Chriſt, except in that reſpect that Judas with the band of men of war, and hie-Prieſts, were the inſtruments and miniſters of Chriſt his taking, death, and crucifying: even ſo you are the inſtruments and miniſters of the crucifying of Chriſt dayly in your Maſs, ſo far as in you lyes: and in this reſpect keep ye your ſtyle of Maſs-Prieſts.
And becauſe they have a common diſtinction in their mouthes, of a bloody and an unbloody ſacrifice: For they affirm that ſacrifice of Chriſt upon the croſs to be bloody, and that ſacrifice of him in the Maſs to be unbloody: Therefore I will take away this refuge and vain ſtarting-hole from them. And firſt, I ſay, this diſtinction of theirs of a bloody and unbloody ſacrifice, of the ſelf ſame thing that is ſacrificed, wants all warrant in the Word of God. For there is not ſo much in the whole New Teſtament as a ſyllable, that tells us that there is a proper ſacrifice of Chriſt which is unbloody: and you are never able to bring one inſtance to the contrary.
Secondly, I ſay, it is repugnant to the Scripture, Heb. 10.10. 11.12.14. for the Scripture only acknowledges ſuch a ſacrifice of Chriſt as is joined with his death, as hath been proved before. See Heb. 9.24.25. Not that he ſhould offer himſelf often, for then ſhould he have ſuffered often ſince the beginning of the world. Now if the Apoſtle his argument be true, that Chriſt cannot be offered up often, becauſe then he muſt die often: then this doctrine of yours is againſt the Scripture, that ſaith, Chriſt may be offered up often, and yet not die often. But if you will ſay, this is ſpoken of that bloody ſacrifice: I grant that: and I ſay the Apoſtle knew not, nor never ſpake of another ſacrifice: and therefore your doctrine is vain, that would have another ſacrifice, then ever the Apoſtles in the whole Scripture have made mention of.
And I ſay, thirdly, this diſtinction of yours cannot ſtand with your own doctrine: for if there be a true ſacrifice of Chriſt properly in your Maſs, as ye ſay, then his blood muſt be truly ſhed, and he muſt truly die, for this is the nature of all ſuch ſacrifices for ſin, as Bellarmin grants it, lib. 1. de miſſa, fol. 725 ſaying, If there be not a true and real ſlaughter of Chriſt in the Maſs, then is not the Maſs a true and real ſacrifice. And alſo, In all true, real, & external ſacrifices, the ſacrifice muſt be a thing ſenſible, and muſt be made holy of a prophane thing, as Bellarmin confeſſes: and theſe conditions he requires in the definition of the ſame: but this, I hope, ye will not ſay of Chriſt: for he is holy always, and is inſenſible in your ſacrifice, and cannot be ſlain again: therefore properly there can be no true ſacrifice of Chriſt in your Maſs, by your own doctrine.
To conclud this then: For theſe cauſes we reject this abomination of your Maſs. Firſt, becauſe Chriſt cannot be offered up in a ſacrifice, but he muſt die alſo, as hath been proved, and the Scripture teſtifies that he hath once died, and all Chriſtians confeſſes it. Secondly, becauſe the death of Chriſt is a ſufficient ſatisfaction for our ſins, and ſo we need not that he ſhould be offered up again to ſatisfie for the ſame. Thirdly, becauſe the Spirit of Chriſt and faith, by the outward means of the Word and Sacraments and cenſures, is a ſufficient mean to apply him to us, and ſo we need not the ſacrifice of the Maſs for that end. Fourthly, becauſe Chriſt only is the Prieſt of the New Teſtament, who hath no ſucceſſors, and whoſe Prieſthood cannot paſs from one to another, becauſe he lives for evermore, and he only can be ſacrificed by himſelf, and therefore he only can offer up himſelf, which he hath once done upon the croſs. Fifthly, becauſe the ſacrifice of Chriſt upon the croſs is perfect, and the vertue of it indures for ever; and it cannot, nor ſhould not be reiterat. Sixthly, becauſe the Scripture propones Chriſt now ſitting in glory at the right hand of his Majeſty, and not under the forms of bread and wine in your ſacrifice. And ſeventhly, becauſe it is but the deviſe of man, wanting God to bear witneſs to it in the Scripture, repugnant to that only one ſacrifice of his upon the croſs, aboliſhing the fruits of his death and paſſion, turning the Sacrament of the Supper in abominable idolatry, cauſing men to worſhip a bit of bread, as the Son of God. And laſt, becauſe it ſpoils men of the fruit of the Sacrament. Therefore in all theſe reſpects it is abominable, to be deteſted, and in no ſort to be communicated with.
Unto this I will adjoin ſome teſtimonies of ſome of the ancient Fathers, whereby it is manifeſt what their doctrine and judgement was concerning this point. Clemens Alexandrinus lib. 1. Paedagog. cap. 2. & in ſtrom. who was near the Apoſtles days ſaith, We ſacrifice not at all unto God, meaning with a real and external ſacrifice, but we glorifie him who was ſacrificed for us. And then he ſubjoins what kind of ſacrifices they offered up to God; to wit, a ſacrifice ſpiritual of themſelves, of prayer, and of righteouſneſs: And upon what altar; to wit, upon the altar of our ſouls, with the parfume of their prayers. Juſtinus Martyr ſaith, in Tryphon. & in expoſ. fidei, I dare, ſaith he, affirm, that there is no other ſacrifice perfect and acceptable to God, but ſupplications and thanksgiving. And he ſaith, That Chriſtians have learned to offer up theſe ſacrifices only. Tertullian ſaith, adverſ. Judaeos, That it behoves us to ſacrifice unto God, not earthly, but ſpiritual things: ſo we read, as it is written, A contrit heart is a ſacrifice to God. Origen ſaith, in Epist. ad Rom. & in homil. 2. in Cant. & lib. 8. contra Celſum. The blood of Christ is only ſufficient for the redemption of all men; what need then hath the Church of any other propiciatory ſacrifice? And as for the ſacrifice of Chriſtians, he ſaith, They are their prayers and ſupplications. It was a common reproach wherewith the Chriſtians were charged by the Pagans three hundred years after Chriſt, that they had no altars; unto the which their common anſwer was, That their altars were a holy ſoul, not corruptible altars, but immortal altars. If then the Chriſtians had no material altars the firſt three hundred years after Chriſt, as Clemens Alexandrius lib. 7. Strom. Origen ibid. contra Celſum. Minutius Foelix lib. 2. & 4. and Arnobius, do teſtifie: therefore it muſt follow they had no external ſacrifices nor Maſſes all that time: ſo there was no Maſſes the firſt three hundred years after Chriſt, ſeeing there was no altars. Epiphanius ſaith, contra Marc. haereſ. 42. & 55. That God by the coming of Christ, hath taken away all the uſe of ſacrifice, by that one ſacrifice of Chriſt. Athanaſius ſaith, in orat. 3. contra Arrianum… That the ſacrifice of Christ once offered up, hath accompliſhed all things, and remains for ever, and that he is a Prieſt without ſucceſſion. The ſame ſaith Baſile in Iſaiae, cap. 1. And he ſaith further, There is no more queſtion of a continual ſacrifice: for there is but one ſacrifice which is Chriſt, and the mortification of his Saints. Becauſe it were over longſome to ſet down the ſentences of the reſt, therefore I will only quote them, Irenaeus lib. 4. cap 34. Cyprianus de baptiſmo Chriſti. Athenag. in Apolog. pro Chriſtianis. Lactant. lib. 6. cap. 26. Euſeb. de demonſt. lib. 1. cap. 6. & lib. 3. cap. 4. Greg. Nazianz. in Paſch. orat. 2. Euſeb. Niſſen. de coena Domini, Chryſoſt. adverſ Judaeos, orat. 4. & in Joh. homil. 17. & ad Heb. homil. 13. & homil. de cruce, & ſpirit. 3. & in Matth. hom. 83. & ad Heb. hom. 26 & hom. 17 & hom. 7. Cyrillus lib. 1. contra Julianum, & ad Hebraeos, homil. 11. Ambroſius ad Heb… cap. 10. & ad Theod. Epiſt. 28. & in Epiſt. ad Rom. cap. 12. Hieronymus in Iſaiam, cap. 1. & in Pſal. 26 & 49 & 50. Auguſtinus de fide ad Petrum Diacon. cap. 2. & de Trinitate, lib. 4 cap. 1. & 14. & in Pſal. 49. & de civitate Dei, lib. 10. cap. 4. & 6 Idem de tempore. I would deſire M. Gilbert to read the ſame. And if he will believe them, I am ſure he will leave off to be a Maſs-Prieſt any longer: for they all agree in this, that the ſacrifice of Chriſt upon the croſs hath accompliſhed all the ſacrifices of the Old Law: and that the vertue of it is everlaſting, and therefore ſhould not be reiterat: and that the ſacrifice of Chriſtians are not propiciatory, but only ſpiritual.
Seeing therefore the ſacrifice of the Maſs was ſo long unknown to the Church of Chriſt, it remains now that we ſhow by what degrees it crap in: For as after the going down of the Sun, darkneſs comes not in immediatly, but there is a twi-light before the darkneſs come: even ſo after the bright ſtars of the primitive Church had ended their courſe, in proceſs of time, and piece and piece; firſt, the third part of the Sun, Moon and Stars were darkened: till at the laſt, the bottomleſs pit was opened, and that great darkneſs came up, as the ſmoak of a great furnace, that darkened both the Sun and the air. Out of the which this great abomination of the ſacrifice of the Maſs did proceed. For Bertram who lived between the 800. and 900. years after Chriſt, ſaith, Our Savior hath done it once in offering up himſelf: for he hath once offered up himſelf for the ſins of the people: and this oblation is always celebrat every day, but in a myſtery. And he ſaith, That once oblation of Chriſt is handled every day by the celebration of theſe myſteries or Sacraments, in the remembrance of his Paſſion, Bertram. de corp. & ſang. Dom. in Heb. 7. There he oppones a real ſacrifice to a myſtery, and Chriſts ſacrifice once made, to a dayly commemoration or remembrance of his ſuffering. Haymo ſuch like, reckoning out the ſacrifices of Chriſtians, he calls there, The praiſes of the believers, the penitence of ſinners, the tears of ſupplications, their prayers and alms, Haymo in cap. 5. Oſe. & in cap. 2. Abac. & Malac. 1. Theophilact who lived in the 900. year after Chriſt, he ſaith, in Joan. cap 81. That there is but one ſacrifice, and not many; becauſe Chriſt hath offered up himſelf once. And he ſaith in another place, ab Heb. cap. 10. Chriſt hath offered up himſelf once, a ſufficient ſacrifice for ever, and we have need of no other ſacrifice, to wit, propiciatory. And Anſelm who lived in the thouſand year of God, and after, he ſaith, That which we offer every day, is the remembrance of the death of Chriſt, and that there is but one ſacrifice, not many: for it hath been once only offered up. And again, Our Lord, ſaith he, bade take, eat, not ſacrifice… and offer up to God. Anſelm… in Epiſt. ad Heb. cap. 10. So this was the doctrine of the moſt learned, who lived a thouſand years after Chriſt, that Chriſt offers up himſelf but once, and that ſacrifice was ſufficient and everlaſting, and the ſacrifices of Chriſtians are ſpiritual: and the Sacrament (which they called ſometimes a ſacrifice) was a commemoration of Chriſts one ſacrifice once offered up upon the croſs. But from thence unto this time, this abuſe and ſacrifice of their Maſs crap in, but by diverſe degrees, and by the concurrence of many cauſes.