Answer to a Popish Pamphlet Called the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel, Part 2 · Subpart 41 – Subpart 43
41 THat ther is not in the church a true and propitiatorie Sacrifice of the Maſſe.
VVHichWhich he ſayeth is contrarie to Malach. 1. 11. where the Lord ſayeth, That in every place incenſe ſhall be offered to his Name & a pure offering To which I anſwer, 1. That Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 20. and Tertullian lib. 4. adv. Marcion. As alſo Theodoret on this place, expoaes this pure offering to be the ſpirituall ſacrifices of prayer & thanksgiving. 2. Hugo Cardinalis▪ as alſo their own lyra, ſhowes that the Lord would heerby give the jewiſh prieſts to know that ſpirituall ſacrifices were to ſucceed thereto which were carnall and in particular devote prayer is this pure offering (ſayeth Lyra.)
The ſecond place is, Pſal. 110. 4. wher Chriſt is called A Prieſt after the order of Melchiſedek, whoſe ſacrifice was made in bread and wine (ſaith he) as the Maſſe is now. To whom I anſwer, 1. That Melchiſedecks ſacrifice was not in bread and wine, for that was the refreſhment onlie which he brought furth to Abraham and his followers, as Clemens Alexandrinus witneſſeth, & therefore their owne vulgar hath the word protulit. he brought furth. and not the word, obtulit▪ he offered up▪ 2. Cardinall Cajetan (and with him Andradius) ſayeth, there is nothing in that ſtorie (Gen. 14. 18.) of any ſacrifice or oblation that Melchiſedek-offered up to God (ſayeth he) but that be cauſed bring furth bread and wine (as Ioſep…us reporteth) for the refreſhment of the victors. And therafter, when hee cometh to theſe words (And he bleſſed him) behold heer (ſayth he) is his Prieſtlie action, according to Numb. 6. 23. which therefore the Apoſtle mentioneth Heb. 7. 1. and proveth him therby to bee greater nor Abraham, and conſequentlie his Prieſthood to be greater nor Levi's who was then in Abarhams loines, becauſe at that time Levi was both tythed and bleſſed by him.
The third place is, Luke 22. 19. This is my bodie which was given for you. To which I anſwere, That of theſe words I hauehave already ſpoken, by which heere they would make Chriſt to hauehave bene a Maſſe-prieſt, and to hauehave ſacrificed himſelf the night before he was ſacrificed on the Croſſe. And ſo, (contrarie to Heb. 10. 14. That by one onlie offering hee hath not perfected for ever them who are ſanctified,) but contrar to Heb. 7. 27.) That Hee offered himſelf up twiſe, whereas it was neceſſarie (ſayth Paull Heb. 9. 25.) That he ſhould not offer himſelf up ofter than once, for then (as he ſayth) hee muſt hauehave ſuffered ofter than once. which the Apoſtle counteth a moſt groſſe abſurditie.
As for the teſtimonies of Fathers which hee bringeth, who calleth that which Chriſt inſtituted at his laſt ſupper, An unbloodie & myſticall venerable ſacrifice. I anſwere in the words of Lombard their Maſter of ſentences, (lib. 4. diſt. 12. q. ſi ſit) who ſhoweth in what ſenſe the fathers ſo calleth it, ſaying, That which is offered and conſecrated, is called a ſacrifice and oblation becauſe it is the remembrance and repreſentation of that true ſacrifice and holy reall oblation which was made on the Altar of the Croſs, which only was bloodie. In likmanner ſayeth Aquinas (part. 3. q. 83. art. 1.) It is called a ſacrifice, both becauſe the celebration of this ſacrament is an image and repreſentatiō of the ſacrifice of Chriſt, as alſo becauſe by this ſacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords paſſion & ſacrifice on the Croſs. So alſo ſpeakes Gabriel Biel on the canon of the Maſſe, lect. 85. calling the Euchariſt a ſacrifice becauſe it is a repreſentation and memoriall (ſayeth he) of that true and holy ſacrifice offered on the Croſs. And ſubjoyneth this reaſon, for as Augustin (ſayeth hee) writteth to Simplician. the Images of things uſeth to be called by their names whereof they are images. as we ſay this is Cicero, when it is but Cicero's picture (ſayeth he) So in likmanner ſpeaketh Lyra on Heb. 10. and many more Romaniſts. So that it is falſe that Bellarmin ſayth lib. 1. de Miſſa cap. 2. That neither the ſcripture nor the fathers calleth that a ſacrifice, which is only a repreſentation & remembrance of a ſacrifice. And becauſe this is their Idoll of the Maſſe, which they adore, therfore I will labour to overthrow this Dagon by ſome few arguments furniſhed by themſelves, as 1. A ſacrifice and Priesthood are relatives (ſayeth Bellarmin, lib. 1. de Miſſa. cap. 2.) ſo that to a ſacrifice properly ſo called, a Prieſthood alſo properlie called muſt be correspondent (ſayeth he) whence it will follow, that if the Maſſe be a ſacrifice properly ſo called, the Prieſt muſt be a Prieſt alſo properlie ſo called, and if this bee, he muſt be either after the order of Aaron, which hath ceaſed, or after the order of Melchiſedeck, & this he cannot be, becauſe Chriſt living, and being a Prieſt for ever after that order, he hath no ſucceſſour therein, as we are taught, Heb. 7. 23. 24. Next (ſayeth Bellar. in the ſame chapter §. neque) Melchiſedecks ſacrifice was bread and wine, & ſo ſayth this Pamphleter, whēce it will follow that in the Maſſe in likmanner that which is offered up by the Prieſt (giving that he were after the order of Melchiſedeck) muſt be bread and wine only, and conſequently not the fleſh & blood of Chriſt by tranſſubſtantiation 3. If they will ſay that it is notwithſtanding Chriſts owne bodie and blood that is offered up. then out of Bellar. in the ſame place §. 6. I reaſon thus, in a ſacrifice properlie ſo called there muſt be ſome ſenſible thing that is offered (ſayeth he) but this cannot bee Chriſts bodie, becauſe by none of the ſenſes, as ſight, taſt, or touch, can it be diſcerned to be there, and as for the accidents of the bread, as ſhape, colour and taſte. I hope they will not ſay that this is the ſenſible thing which they offer up as a ſacrifice. 4. (Saieth Bellar. in the ſame place §. 8.) To a true ſacrifice is required, that the thing which is offered be in the ſubſtance thereof deſtroyed, that is, that it be ſo changed (ſayth he) that it ceaſe to be what it was before. Which to affirme of Chriſts bodie offered up in the Maſſe, wer moſt horrid blaſphemie.
42 THat ſacramentall unction is not to be uſed to the ſick.
VVHichWhich he ſayeth is contrarie to Iam. 5. 14. where the anointing of the ſick with oyle is cōmanded. To which I anſwere in Cardinall Cajetans words on this place, ſaying, Neither by theſe words themſelves, nor by the effects, doth theſe words ſpeake of ſacramentall extreame unction, but rather of that unction (ſaieth he) which the Lord Ieſus did inſtitute in the goſpell to be exerciſed on the ſick, for the Text ſayeth not, if any be ſick unto death, b…t abſolutlie, if any bee ſick (ſayeth he) and further the effect is the raiſing up of the ſick, wheras extreame unction is not given but at the point of death (ſayeth hee) beſids this Iames biddeth call many elders, and many anointers to one ſick perſon, which is altogether diſagreable to the manner of extreame unction (ſayeth hee)
The ſecond place is Mark 6. 13. And they anointed many with oyle who were ſick, and healed them. wherunto the ſame Cardinall anſwereth thus, This unction (ſayeth he) was not ſacramentall, for it is evident that they uſed oyle heer, for healing, not for miniſtring any ſacrament (ſayeth he) as alſo it is cleare that thereupon followed health, otherwiſe the vertue of healing oyle (which was miraculous) had not been known, & this effect is not found by extreame unction (ſayth he) And of this ſame judgement with Cajetan were Ruardus, Ianſenius, & Dominicꝰ a Soto with others, as witneſſeth Bellarmin, de extrema unctione lib. 1. cap. 2. who alſo confirmeth their opinion by diverſe arguments.
The third place is Mark, 16. 18. They ſhall lay hands on the ſick & they ſhall recover. To which I anſwer, 1. That there is no mention heer of any unction. And 2. The effect of the laying on of the Apoſtles hands was recoverie, which is not the effect (as Cajetan ſpeaketh) of extreame unction.
As for the fathers whom he onlie citeth, but ſetteth not down their words, none of them maketh for his purpoſe, and ſome of them are both looſlie cited and judged by Eraſmus counterfit, as Augustin in ſpeculo: for therein are inſert ſome verſes of Boetius, who was long after Auguſtin.
43 THat no inward grace is given by impoſitiō of hands, in holie orders, & that ordinarie vocation & miſſion of Paſtors is not neceſſarie in the Church,
FOr anſwere 1. The laſt of theſe Aſſertions, That ordinarie vocations and miſſion of Miniſters is not neceſſarie in the Church, is ſo impudent & groſ…e a calumnie, as I cannot enough wonder how he could vent or invent ſuch a lie. Seing both in our Confeſſion of faith 1581. art. 22. and in our later 1647. the contrary thereof may be ſeene. And as for the firſt which he ſayeth is contrarie to 2. Tim. 4. 6. where it is ſaid, Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou ſtirre up the gift of GOD which is in thee by putting on of my hands. and 1. Tim. 4. 14. wher it is …d, Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecie, and laying on of the hands of the preſbytrie. I anſwere, 1. There is heere a gift ſpoken of (as Cardinal Cajetan acknowledgeth) but not an inward grace, or if grace, an edifying grace for others, Epheſ. 4. 11. 12. 2. This gift is expounded by Aquinas to be The talent or gift of knowledge wherwith he was endued to gaine ſoules, or the Epiſcopall order or degree whereunto for that end hee was called and advanced, as Cajetan and …ombard alſo expoundeth. Their late Eſtius alſo expoundeth this gift to be That abilitie that was given him of God to execute his charge of teaching, exhorting & convincing &c. not that hee received the gift of all and ſindrie of theſe upon a ſudden, when he was ordained (ſayth he) for he ought not to hauehave beene ordained a Biſhop, except hee had beene endued with theſe gifts before (ſayeth he) or that by this impoſition of hands (ſayeth Aquinas) Miniſtri dant gratiam, The Miniſters or preſbyters cōferres grace on him that is ordained, but that this ſignified onlie the grace that was conferred upon him before by Chriſt. And wherby (ſayeth the ordinar gloſſe) was confirmed to him that authoritie which he did receive, to wit, of the publick exerciſe of the holy Miniſtrie.
As for his citation of ſome Fathers, the ſame is either ſo looſlie, as Auguſtin l. 4. queſt. ſuper num. but telles not what queſtiō, wheras ther ar 65. queſtions on that book, orelſe he citeth them who maketh nowiſe for him, as Cyprian who ſpeaketh nothing in that Epiſtle of ordination. He citeth alſo Optatus, but no book, whereas he write ſeven. alſo Tertullian de praeſcrip. but no chapter, whereas there are 53. in that book.