Consecration And that Then as we see now done among us it was Invocated upon even plainly after Consecration saith your Durantus also and indeed almost who not But doe you first if you please admire the wit of your Cardinall in so framing his Consequence and after abhor his will to decive you when you have done for he applyeth the words spoken by Basil of an Invocation before Consecration when as yet by your owne Doctrine Christ is not present as spoken of an Invocation of the Eucharist after Consecration for proofe of a Corporall Presence of Christ therein and the Divine Adoration thereof as will most evidently appeare For first it is not unknowne to you that the Greeke Church differeth from your Roman in the forme of Consecration at this day they consecrating in words of prayer and Invocation and you in the repetition of Christs words This is my Body wherein there is no Invocation at all And Basil was of the Greeke Church Secondly your Archbishop of Cesarea for proofe that Invocation by prayers was a forme of Consecration used primitively in the Greeke Church citeth the two most ancient Fathers Tertullian and Irenaeus and of the Greeke he alleageth Iustine Cyril Damascen Theophilus Alex. yea and by your leave Basil himselfe too and that Basil was an Orthodox Greeke Father you will not deny Thirdly therefore to come home unto you we shall be directed by the objected words of Basil himselfe appealing herein to your owne consciences For your Lindanus was in the estimation of your Church the strongest Champion in his time for your Roman Cause he to prove that the forme of Consecration of the Eucharist standeth not in any prescribed words in the Gospell but in words of Invocation by prayer as hath beene confirmed by a Torrent of Ancient Fathers saith That the same is illustrated by these words of Basil saying What Father hath left unto us in writing the words of Invocation when the Bread is shewne unto us adding That no man of sound Braines can require any more for the clearing of the point concerning the forme of Consecration So then Invocation was an Invocation by Prayer unto God for the Consecration of the Bread set before them and not an Invocation of Adoration unto the Eucharist as already consecrated which your Cardinall unconscionably we will not say unlearnedly hath enforced Looke upon the Text againe for your better satisfaction It speaketh expresly of an Invocation when Bread is shewne but you deny that Bread is Invocated upon untill after Consecration And Basil demanding What Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocation is in true and genuine sence as if he had expresly said what Father before us hath left in writing the words of Invocating God by Prayer of Consecration of Bread to make it a Sacrament as both the Testimonies of Fathers above confessed manifest and your objected Greeke Missals doe ratifie unto us For in the Liturgie ascribed to Saint Iames the Apostle the Consecration is by Invocating and praying thus Holy Lord who dwellest in holiest c. The Liturgie of Chrysostome invocateth by praying We beseech thee O Lord to send thy Spirit upon these Gifts prepared before us c. The Liturgie under the name of Basil consecrateth by this Invocation when the Priest lifteth up the Bread Looke downe O Lord Iesu our God from thy holy habitation and vouchsafe c. All these therefore were according to the Example of Christ Invocations that is Prayers of Consecrating the Sacrament and therefore could not be Invocations and Adorations of the same Sacrament And as for any expresse or prescribed forme or prayer to be used of All well might Basil say Who hath set it downe in writing that is It was never delivered either in Scripture or in the Bookes of any Author of former Antiquity and this is that which is testified in your owne Bookes of Augustine out of Basil saying that No writing hath delivered in what words the forme of Consecration was made Now then guesse you what was in the braines of your Disputers in objecting this Testimony of Basil contrary to the evident Sence and accordingly judge of the weaknesse of your Cause which hath no better supports than such fond false and ridiculous Objections to relye upon Such as is also that your Cardinall his objecting the words of Origen concerning the receiving of this Sacrament saying Lord I am not worthy thou shouldest come under the roofe of my mouth which hath beene confuted as unworthy the mention in this case If you would have some Examples of Adoring Christ with divine worship in the Mystery of the Eucharist by celebrating the manner of his death as Hierom may be said to have adored at Ierusalem Christ in his Crach or as every Christian doth in the Mystery of Baptisme we could store you with multitudes but of Adoring the Eucharist with a proper Invocation of Christ himselfe therein we have not as yet received from you any one CHAP. IV. That the Divine Adoration of the Sacrament is thrice Repugnant to the Iudgement of Antiquity First by their Silence SECT I. YOV are not to require of us that we produce the expresse Sentences of ancient Fathers condemning the Ascribing of Divine honour to the Sacrament seeing that this Romish Doctrine was neither in Opinion nor Practice in their times It ought to satisfie you that your owne most zealous indefatigable subtill and skilfull Miners digging and searching into all the Volumes of Antiquity which have beene extant in the Christian world for the space of six or seven hundred yeares after Christ yet have not beene able to extract from them any proofe of a Divine honour as due to this Sacrament either in expresse words or practice insomuch that you are enforced to obtrude onely such Sentences and Acts which equally extend to the honouring of the Sacrament of Baptisme and other sacred things whereunto even according to your owne Romish Profession Divine honour cannot be attributed without grosse Idolatry and never ther the lesse have your Disputers not spared to call such their Objections Cleare Arguments piercing and unsoluble We therefore make bold hereupon to knocke at the Consistory dore of the conscience of every man indued with any small glimpse of Reason and to entreat him for Christ's sake whose Cause it is to judge betweene Rome and Vs after he hath heard the case which standeth thus Divine Adoration of the Host is held to be in the Romish Profession the principall practique part of Christian Religion Next the ancient Fathers of the Church were the faithfull Registers of Catholike Truth in all necessary points of Christian Faith and Divine Worship They in their writings manifoldly instructed their Readers by Exhortations Admonitions Perswasions Precepts how they are to demeane themselves in the receiving of this Sacrament not omitting any Act whereby to set forth the true Dignity and Reverence
mans infirmity to descend raw through the Body into the Draught which in other meates is knowne sometime to be certaine you falling into this speculation tell us concerning the Egestion that it is held Probable that the Body of Christ doth not passe with the formes into the Draught in that Case So you affirming this to be but onely Probable whereas whosoever shall teach that the Body of Christ is not severed from the forme of Bread so long as it is uncorrupt which is your generall Tenet they must hold that the same Body in the like case of mans bodily infirmity doth passe by Egestion in like sort into the seege For if as you do also say the same Body of Christ hath beene once hidden in a Dunghill why may you not as wickedly beleeve that it may passe into the Draught That the Romish foresaid Indignities are contrary to holy Scriptures and iudgement of Ancient Fathers SECT III. HOly Writ teacheth us that there is as great difference betweene the humiliation of Christ when he was on earth and his now Exaltation in glory in Heauen as there is betweene Shame and Glory it being now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Body of Glory Now for you to believe and professe the personall burning devouring regorging yea and the hiding of that glorious Body of Christ in a dung hill and the like are such execrable speeches as that we stand astonished with horrour to heare them thinking that we have heard in these the scoffes reproaches and blasphemies of some Pagans against Christian Religion rather than the opinion of any that take to themselves one syllable of the name of Christians If this had beene the ancient Faith some Fathers doubtlesse upon some occasion by some one sentence or other would have revealed their Iudgement therein from whose diuerse and copious Volumes neither doe you alleage nor we reade any one word of mans spewing up or Mice eating or so much as the winde blowing away the Body of Christ much lesse of the other basenesse spoken of But contrariwise Origen and Cyrill distinguishing betweene the spirituall Bread which is the Reall Body of Christ and the Bread Sacramentall say That not that Body but this Bread goeth into the Draught Which to affirme of Christs Body were an Assertion abhominable That the Romish Answeres for defence of this their vile and beastly Opinion are but false and fond SECT IV. IT was said of Philosophers of old that nothing was so absurd but some one or other of them would take in hand to defend it the like may be said of our Romish Opposites whereof wee have given you divers Instances throughout this whole Treatise as in the most particulars so for the point now in Question And although many of your Disputers have for modesties sake passed by it yet have two among you as it were putting on Vizards on their faces come in with two fanaticall Answeres Both which are taken from the condition of Christ his humane Body whilest he was in the world Many saith your Cardinall can scarce endure to heare that Christ is included in a Boxe fallen to the earth burnt or eaten of beasts as though we doe not read that Christ was included in the wombe of the Virgin lay upon the earth and might without any miracle have beene eaten of beasts why may not such things now happen unto him but sine laesione without any hurt at all So he Ioyne with this the Determination of your Schoole That the substance of Christ his Body remaineth still although the Hoast be eaten with Dogs But Master Brerely more cunningly that he might not disguise your opinions but also make Protestants odious if it might be for their exceptions against them doth readily tell us that Pagans Iewes and Heretiques conceived Indignities against some mysteries of Christian Religion as against Christ his Incarnation and his Crucifying So he Both which Answeres are but meere tergiversations by confounding the two most different conditions of Christ That then in the state of his humiliation with This which is Now in the highest exaltation of Glory Wee therefore reioyne as followeth Your Disputers have so answered as if Christ his Incarnation in the wombe of a Virgin his Conversation upon earth and his Passion upon the Crosse were not obiects of Indignity notwithstanding the Spirit of God hath blazed them to the world to have beene the Indignities of all Indignities Thus Who being in the forme of God and thinking it no robbery to be equall with God yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made himselfe of no reputation but tooke upon him the forme of a servant such was his Incarnation and became obedient to death even spoken for aggravating the Indignity thereof The shamefull death of the Crosse Than which never any thing could make more either for the magnifying of Gods grace and mercy or for the dignifying of Christ his merit for man as it is written God so loved the world that he sent his Sonne namely to suffer that whosoever should believe in him should not perish but have life everlasting How could your Answerers but know that it was not the observation of the indignities which Christ suffered that wrought to the condemnation of Pagans Iewes and Heretikes but their faithlessenesse in taking such scandall thereat as to deprive themselves by their Infidelitie of all hope of life by Christ crucified Hearken furthermore That the state of Christ his Humanity cannot be now obnoxious to bodily Indignities and that the comparing both the Estates in your answering is unworthy the learning of very Catechumenists and Petties in Christian Religion SECT V. THis Disproportion betweene Christ his estate in the dayes of his flesh in this world and his now present Condition at the right hand of God is as extreamely disproportionable as is Mortality and Immortality Shame and Glory Misery and Blessednes Earth and Heaven that being his state of humiliation and this contrariwise of his exaltation as all Christians know and professe And although the Body of Christ now in eternall Maiesty be not obnoxious to Corporall iniuries yet may Morall and Spirituall abasements be offered unto Christ as well in the Opinion as in the Practice of men Of the opinion wee have an Example in the Capernaites concerning Christ whensoever he should give his flesh to be eaten carnally for the Practice you may set before you the Corinthians who abusing the Sacrament of the Lord did thereby contemne him and were made guilty of high Prophanation against the glorious Body of Christ And what else soundeth that Relative iniury against Christ by murthering his Saints on earth complained off by his voice from Heaven Saul Saul why persecutest thou me Your Cardinall in answere to the Obiection of Indignity offered to Christ by putting him in a Boxe and of being Eaten with Wormes and the like opposed as you have heard saying Why may not such things
the Father Iesus Christ the righteous and he is what The Propitiation for our sinnes The which every faithfull Christian doth apply by faith unto himselfe as often as he prayeth to God in Christ's name for the remission of sinnes saying Through Iesus Christ our Lord. How therefore can this his function of Priest-hood without extreme sacrilege be held Insufficient to his Church for obtaining pardon immediatly from God who seeth not As for other your ordinary Objections taken from two sentences of the Apostle speaking of the Examples of things celestiall and of Purging sinnes now with better Sacrifices you should not have troubled us with them knowing them to be satisfied by your owne Authors Ribera and Aquinas long-ago That the former Romish Sacrilegious Derogation from Christ's Priestly function in Heaven is contradicted by ancient Fathers first inrespect of Place or Altar and Function SECT VIII THeodoret is alleaged by you as denying that Christ now offereth any thing by himselfe but only in the Church albeit he saith not so simply but that he offereth not in the Church personally which all confesse for otherwise Theodoret presently after expresseth that Christ exerciseth his Priest-hood still as man As for the Church his words are not that She offereth the Body and Blood of Christ in Sacrifice but The Symbols of his Body and Blood Therefore is this his Testimony unworthily and unconscionably objected But we will consult with the direct speeches of Antiquity 1. If you aske of the Offering Ambrose answereth you that The offering of Christ here below is but in an image but his offering with the Father is in truth If of the Priest Augustine telleth you The Priest is to be sought for in heaven even Hee who on earth suffered Death for thee There is some difference then sure As little reason have your Disputers to object that one and onely Testimony of Augustine Presbyteri propriè Sacerdotes which hoâ—pake not absolutely but comparatively namely in respect of Lay-Christians who in Scripture are otherwise called Priests As your owne Catechisme distinguisheth calling the former the Inward which only the Faithfull have by the Sacrament of Baptisme the other Outward by the Sacrament of Orders And with the like liberty doth Saint Augustine call the Sacrifice of the old Testament although most proper but a Signe in respect of the Spirituall Sacrifice of this worke of mercy which he calleth True namely in the Truth of Excellency although not of propriety as you may see And lastly here you have urged one than whom there is scarcely found among Protestants a greater Adversary to your fundamentall Article of your Sacrifice which is the Corporall existence of Christ in the Eucharist All which notwithstanding the dignity of our Evangelicall function is nothing lessened but much more amplified by this comparison If furthermore we speake of the Altar you will have it to be rather on earth below and to that end you object that Scripture Heb. 13. 10. We have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is an Altar saith the Apostle whereof they have no right to eat that serve at the Tabernacle This some of you greedily catch at for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse and are presently repulsed by your Aquinas expounding the place to signifie Either his Altar upon the Crosse or else his Body as his Altar in Heaven mentioned Apoc. 8. and called The golden Altar If wee our selves should tell you how some one affirmeth that This Altar spoken of by the Apostle is the Body of Christ himselfe in Heaven upon which and by which all Christians are to offer up their spirituall Sacrifices of Faith Devotion Thankfulnesse Hope and Charity you would presently answer that This one certainly is some Lutheran or Calvinist the words are so contradictory to your Romish Garbe notwithstanding you may finde all this in the Antididagma of the Divines of Collen And your Argument drawne from the word Altar in this Scripture is so feeble and lame a Souldier that your Cardinall was content to leave it behind him because Many Catholikes saith he interpret it otherwise But we are cited to consult with the Antient Fathers be it so If then we shall demand where our high Priest Christ Iesus is to whom a man in fasting must repaire Origen resolveth us saying He is not to be sought here on earth at all but in Heaven If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution that he cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on earth Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him as he did himselfe saying I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these Altars are but signes a better Altar to be beholden with the eyes of my mind theye will I offer up my oblations as great a Difference doubtlesse as betweene Signes and Things This could not he have said of those Altars if the Sacrifices on them both were as you pretend subjectively and corporally the same If we would know how what and where the thing is which a Christian man ought to contemplate upon when he is exercised in this our Eucharisticall Sacrifice Chrysostome is ready to instruct him Not to play the Chough or Iay in fixing his thoughts here below but as the Eagle to ascend thither where the Body is namely for so he saith in Heaven According to that of the Apostle Heb. 10. Christ sitting at the right hand of God V. 12. What therefore Therefore let us draw neere with an Assurance of faith V. 22. If we would understand wherein the difference of the Iewish Religion and Christian Profession especially consisteth in respect of Priest-hood Augustine telleth us that They have no Priest-hood and the Priest-hood of Christ is eternall in Heaven And the holy Fathers give us some Reasons for these and the like Resolutions For if any would know the Reason why we must have our Confidence in the Celestiall Priest Sacrifice and Altar Oecumenius and Ambrose will shew us that it is because Here below there is nothing visible neither Temple ours being in Heaven nor Priest our being Christ nor Sacrifice ours being his Body nor yet Altar saith the other Heare your owne Canus Christ offereth an unbloody Oblation in Heaven Thus in respect of the place of Residence of Christ our high Priest and his Function which hath beene already confirmed by the Fathers of the first Councell of Nice And thus farre of the place of this Altar the Throne of Grace something would be spoken in respect of Time That the former Sacrilegious Derogation from Christs Priestly Function in Heaven is contradicted by Scriptures and Fathers in respect of the Time of the execution thereof SECT IX CHrist his bodily existence in Heaven as we have heard is set out by the Apostle in these termes He abideth a Priest for us He continueth a Priest He having a continuall Priest-hood He without intermission appeareth
Praise and Thanksgiving to be a Sacrifice Eucharisticall And also to use the words of Calvin Latreuticall and Sebasticall that is a Sacrifice of Worship and Veneration which every Christian may and must professe who hath either eyes in his head or faith in his heart the Celebration of this Sacrament in Remembrance of his absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption being the Service of all Services that we can performe to God Now wherein and in what respect we may furthermore be said to offer to God a Sacrifice propitiatory improperly will after appeare when we consider Christ's Body as the Object herein That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Body and Blood of Christ which was Sacrificed on the Crosse as the Object of Remembrance and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption SECT IV. NOw we are come to the last most true and necessary point which is the Body and Blood as the Object of our Commemoration Still still doe you urge the saying of Fathers where they affirme that we offer unto God The same Body and Blood of Christ on this Altar even the same which was sacrificed on the Crosse which therefore you interpret as being the same subject matter of our Commemoration As is a King acting himselfe upon a Stage as hath beene shewen We as instantly and more truly proclaime that we offer Commemoratively the same undoubtedly the very same Body and Blood of Christ his All sufficient Sacrifice on the Crosse although not as the subject of his proper Sacrifice but yet as the only adequate Object of our Commemoration as when the same murther of the Emperour Mauritius is represented in a Stage-play in some manner of Resemblance wherein we cannot possibly erre having Truth it selfe for our Guide who said Doe this in remembrance of me namely of the same Mee meaning Christ as crucified on the Crosse as the Apostle commenteth saying Hereby you shew the Lords Death till he come even the Same Body as the Same Death whereunto beare all the Fathers witnesse thorowout this Treatise Whereby it will be easie for us to discerne the subject Sacrifice of Christ from ours his being the Reall Sacrifice on the Crosse ours only the Sacramentall Representation Commemoration and Application thereof CHAP. VIII Of the Second Principall part of this Controversie which concerneth the Romish Sacrifice is as it is called Properly Propitiatory THis part is divided into an 1. Explication of that which you call Propitiatory 2. Application thereof for Remission of Sinnes The State of the Question of Propitiatory what it is SECT I. THe whole Difference standeth upon this whether the subject matter of our Representation in the hands of the Priest be properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice or no. Now Propitiatory is either that which pacifieth the wrath of God and pleaseth him by it's owne virtue and efficacy which as all confesse is only the Sacrifice of Christ in his owne selfe or else a thing is said to be Propitiatory and pleasing to God by God's gracious acceptance and indulgence The Romish professe the Sacrifice of their Masse to be such in the proper Virtue of that which the Priest handleth For the Tridentine faith concerning your Propitiatory Sacrifice is this viz. It is that whereby God being pacified doth pardon sinnes And least that there might be any ambiguity how it doth pacifie God whether by his gracious Acceptance or the Efficacie of offering your generall Romane Catechisme authorized both by your Councell of Trent and the then Pope Pius the fourth for the direction of your whole Church instructeth you all concerning your Sacrifice of the Masse that As it is a Sacrifice it hath an Efficacy and Virtue not onely of merit but also of satisfaction So they as truly setting downe the true nature of a Propitiatory Sacrifice as they doe falsly assume and apply it unto the Sacrifice of your Masse which Protestants abhor and impugne as a Doctrine most Sacrilegious and only grant the Celebration to be Propitiatory Improperly by God's Complacency and favourable acceptance wherewith he vouchsafeth to admit of the holy Actions and Affections of his faithfull Triall of all this is to be made by Scriptures Fathers by your owne Romish Principles and by the Doctrine of Protestants In the Interim be it knowne that our Church of England in her 31. Article faith of your Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse as it is taught by you that it is A Blasphemous Fable and Dangerous Deceit That the Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice hath no foundation in the Institution of Christ SECT II. YOur onely Objection is that Christ in the words of his first Institution said Take this is the new Testament in my Blood shed for you and for many for the Remission of sinnes Heare your Cardinall These words doe most evidently teach that Christ now in his Supper offered up his Blood for the sinnes of his Apostles So he But if this his Exposition of Christ's words be most evident alas what a number of other blinde Guides of great estimation among you hath your Church favoured pampered privileged and authorized who could see nothing in the words of Christ but the flat contrary namely that they were spoken in the Present Tense Tropically for the future not that it was then shed but that it was to be shed on the Crosse immediatly after among whom have beene reckoned Gregory de Valentia Salmeron Barradas three prime Iesuits your Bishop Iansenius yea and the Author of your Vulgar Translation And that you may the better discerne how hard the foreheads of your Cardinall of your Rhemists of Mr. Breerley and of such others are who have made that Objection you have beene likewise advertized that in the very tenor of your owne Romish Masse it selfe the word is expresly Effundetur It shall be shed We say in the Tenor of your Romish Masse published by the Authority of Pope Pius the fifth repeated by every one of your selves you being Romish Priests and accordingly beleeved of all the Professors of your Romish Religion Which Interpretation was furthermore confirmed by Fathers and by Scripture in the places objected and by a Reason taken from your owne Confession granting that Christ his Blood was not really shed in his last Supper This is that which we had to oppose unto that your Cardinal 's Most evident Argument as Sun-shine to Moone-light That many things are said to pacifie and please God which are not properly Propitiatorie by their owne Virtue according to Scriptures and your owne Confessions SECT III. IN Scripture our Mortification of the flesh is called a Sacrifice well-pleasing to God Rom. 12. 1. Almes Workes of Charity are likewise called Sacrifices wherewith God is delighted Heb. 13. 16. Comforting and cherishing the Ministers of God is called A Sacrifice acceptable and well pleasing to God Phil. 4. 18. So the Scripture And that Spirituall Sacrifices are more pleasing unto God than all the Hecatombs of Corporals could be is
death But the Fathers doe no where call Baptisme a Sacrifice So he Another Cardinall thus Who can so much as suspect that the Fathers spake abusively in calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice seeing this is the only Sacrament which they call a Sacrifice and no other Next take your learned'st Iesuit with you who would be loth to come behind any in vehemency and boldnesse thus Antient Fathers never called Baptisme or the Ministry thereof a Sacrifice albeit they might have so called it Metaphorically which we note saith he because of the Heretikes who pervert the speeches of the Fathers as if they had called the Eucharist a Sacrifice Metaphorically and improperly So they to omit Others Now then if there be any sap or sense in these your Objectors it is as much as if they had reasoned against us thus If you Heretikes for so they call Protestants could sâ—ew that the Antient Fathers did any where name the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice which we confesse to be only a Representation of Christ's death then should we need no other Reason to perswade us that the Fathers called the Sacrament of the Eucharist a Sacrifice also Improperly only because it representeth the Body and Blood of Christ Sacrificed on the Crossè Thus for the Consequence confessed by your chiefest Advocates The Assumption lyeth upon us to prove to wit that the Fathers called Baptisme a Sacrifice even from the words of the Apostle Heb. 10. 20. where speaking of Baptisme he saith To them that sinne voluntarily there remaineth no Sacrifice for sinne Saint Augustine testifieth of the Doctors of the Church Catholike before his time that They who more diligently handled this Text understood it of the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion which every one then offereth when he is baptized into the faith of Christ So that holy Father who is a Witnesse without all Exception yet if peradventure we should need any testimony out of your owne Schooles the witnesse of your Canus may be sufficient confessing and saving That most of the Fathers by Sacrifice in this place understood Baptisme which they so called Metaphorically because by it the Sacrifice of the â—rosse is applied unto us So he Is not this enough for the understanding of the Dialect and of the speech of Antient Fathers both in calling Baptisme a Sacrifice and of the Reason thereof to wit for Representation sake onely and Consequently that the Body and Blood of Christ are not the representing Subject but the represented Object of his Sacrifice What better satisfaction can the greatest Adversary desire than to be as now your Disputers are answered according to their owne Demands The tenth Demonstration Because the Fathers called the Eucharist a Sacrifice in respect of divers such Acts as are excluded by the Romish Doctors out of the Definition of a Proper Sacrifice SECT XIV THE Acts excluded by your Cardinall out of the number of Proper Sacrifices are Oblations or Offerings of any thing thing that is not Consecrated by the Priest such as is the Offerings of Bread and Wine by the People before it be Consecrated Next All workes of Vertue are unproperly called Sacrifices All workes which consist in Action being transient as bowing singing of Psalmes or the sole Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse together with all such Acts performed to God which otherwise are yeelded to man as the Gesture of Vncovering the head in Gods service Bowing the knee and all outward signes of Reverence yea and all inward and invisible Acts of man in his will and understanding All these spirituall Acts are esteemed by him to be unproperly called Sacrifices But that all these kindes of Acts so farre forth as they are exercised in the holy worship of God are called Sacrifices by the Ancient Fathers can never be denyed by any that ever was acquainted with their Writings Now our Demonstration is this that most of these Acts which are here confessed to be Vnproper Sacrifices being used in the Celebration of the Supper of our Lord occasioned the Fathers to call the Eucharist it selfe a Sacrifice and therefore they meant thereby no Proper Sacrifice As first by your owne Confession that the Fathers called The oblations of Bread and Wine made by the people before Consecration Sacrifices the Almes and Collections for the poore Sacrifices Our Praises and Thanksgiving to God whereof the Eucharist hath it's name Sacrifice and that many other Circumstantiall Acts are called Sacrifices even the Sole Act of our Commemoration as will appeare in our last Examination concerning the Doctrine of Protestants Our Eleventh Demonstration because the Relatives of Sacrifice which are Altar and Priest objected as properly taken are used Vnproperly of Antient Fathers SECT XV. YOur Cardinall his Objection is this that Priest Altar and Sacrifice are Relatives and have mutuall and unseparable Dependance one of each other So he and truly But you ought to take with you a necessary Caution observed by the same Cardinall that An unproper Sacrifice cannot infer a proper Priest-hood nor an unproper Priest-hood a proper Sacrifice c. otherwise your Iesuit can tell you of a Sacrifice without an Altar and your Bishop can point you out an Altar without a Sacrifice Now to take one of these improperly and the other properly were as wilde Sophistrie as from a woodden leg to infer a Body of Flesh Now what if we shall say of this point of Appellations that It was not so from the beginning Hereunto we claime but your owne common Confessions viz. That the Apostles did willingly abstaine from the words of Sacrifice Priest and Altar So your Cardinall and Durantus the great Advocates for your Romane Masse whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish Disputers who have sought a proofe of a proper Sacrifice in your Masse from the word Altar used by the Apostle Paul Heb. 13. but also themselves who from Saint Luke Act. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concluded a proper Sacrifice As if the Apostles had both abstained and not abstained from the words of Priest and Sacrifice But the Apostles did indeed forbeare such termes in their speeches concerning Christian worship whereof these your forenamed Disputers can give us a Reason Least that say they the Iewish Priest-hood being as yet in force Christians might seeme by using Iewish Termes to innovate Iewish rites Which is enough to shew you are perswaded they abstained from the use of these words for some reason Yet that this could not be the Reason you may be sufficiently instructed in the word Baptisme this being as fully Iewish as was either the word Priest Altar or Temple and yet used of the Apostle without danger of Innovation of Iewish manner of Baptismes yea and if the Apostles had thought the Altar Priest Sacrifices to be essentiall parts of Christian Religion they neither would nor ought to have concealed the words and names least
thereby they might have seemed to have abhorred the proper Characters of our Christian Profession We descend to the Fathers It is not unknowne unto you how the Fathers delighted themselves in all their Treatises with Iewish Ceremoniall Termes onely by Allegoricall allusions as they did with the word Synagogue applying it to any Christian assembly as Arke to the Church Holocaust to Mortification Levite to Deacons Incense to Prayers and Praises and the word Pascha to the day of the Resurrection of Christ But if any should say that these Fathers used any of these words in a proper signification he should wrong both the common sense of these Fathers and his owne Conscience It were superfluous to urge many Instances where one will serve The word Altar applyed to the Table of the Lord which anciently stood in the Middest of the Chancell so that they might compasse it round was farre more rarely called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greekes or Altare of the Latines than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mensa that is Table which they would not have done if Altar had carried in it the true and absolute property of an Altar no but they used therein the like liberty as they used to doe in applying the name Altar to Gods people and to a Christian man's Faith and Heart Will you suffer us to come home to you The Father Gregory Nazianzen for his soundnesse of Iudgement surnamed the Divine comparing this Inferiour Altar and Sacrifice on earth with the Body of Christ seated in Heaven saith that the Sacrifices which he offereth in his Contemplation at the Altar in Heaven are More acceptable than the Sacrifices which are offered at the Altar below as much as Truth is more excellent than the Shadow So he Therefore say we the Sacrifice of Christ his Body and Blood are subjectively in Heaven but objectively here in the Eucharist here Representative only as in a shadow but in Heaven presentatively in his bodily presence So vainly your Disputers hitherto whilst that we required Materials have objected against us bare words phrases and very shadowes Lastly Cyril of Alexandria made an Answer to the Objections then published by Iulian the Apostate against the Truth of Christian Religion By this conflict betweene these two wits as it were by the clashing of a Stone and Steele together such a flash of lightning will appeare as may sufficiently illuminate every Reader for the understanding of the judgement of Antiquity thorowout the whole Clause concerning Bodily Sacrifice The Apostate objecteth See the Margent as an exception against Christians that they are not Circumcised that they use no Azymes nor keepe the Passeover of the Iewes albeit Gain Abel and Abraham before the Law and the Israelites under the Law and Heathenish Grecians alwaies without that Law offered Sacrifices unto God But they saith Iulian writing of Christians erect no Altars unto God offer no such Sacrifices as were of old nor invent any new but say that Christ was once offered for them This Objection you see is pertinent to our Cause in hand and as consonant will the Answer of the holy Patriarch Cyril be who to the other points held it Satisfaction enough to say see againe the Marginals That we Christians have the spirituall Circumcision of the heart That we observe the Spirituall Azymes of Syncerity and Truth And as for the Passeover Christ our Passeover was offered up namely upon the Crosse for so is it answerable to the words objected by Iulian. And to the Objection of not erecting Altars Cyril saith not a word But what for the point of Sacrifice Hearken we pray you Although saith he the Iewes Sacrificed to fulfill God's precepts in shadowes yet we doing that which is right meaning the Truth opposite to Shadowes performe a spirituall and mentall worship as namely Honesty and an holy Conversation And againe The Iewes offered in Sacrifice Bulls and Sheepe first fruits of the Earth Cakes and Frankincense but wee offer that which is spirituall to wit Faith Hope Charity and Praises because an unbodily Sacrifice is fit for God And yet againe We Sacrifice to God spiritually and mentally the perfumes of vertues This is the Summe of Saint Cyril his Answer void of all mention of any Offering of the Body of Christ as either Corporally present in the Eucharist to be Sacrificed by the Priest or yet of any Corporall Touch thereof by eating with the Bodies of Communicants no nor any intimation of any Proper Sacrifice professed by Christians Here will be no place for your Answer to tell us that the Question was of Bloody and not of Vnbloody Sacrifices No for Cyril in his Answer handleth as well the unbloody Sacrifice of Cain as the bloody Oblation of Abel and expresseth as fully the unbloody Sacrifice of Cakes and Frankincense as he doth the Bloody of Sheepe and Oxen. Neverthelesse we should confute our selves by objecting this Testimony seeing that the Custome of the Primitive Church being then professedly not to reveale the Mystery of the Sacrament of Baptisme or of the Eucharist either to Infidels or Catechumenists and therefore this silence of Cyril in not so much as mentioning the Sacrifice of the Masse might seeme to have beene purposely done to conceale it from both Iulian the Patron of Heathenish worship and all Infidels So indeed we should have thought but that then Iulian and Cyril both would as readily confute us Iulian because he himselfe had beene more than a Catechumenist in the Church of Christ even as namely Gregory Nazienzene witnesseth once A Reader of Scriptures to the people not thinking it any Derogation unto him so to doe therefore was he not ignorant of the then Christian Doctrine concerning the Eucharist And which is a point as observable when he objecteth against Christians want of Sacrifices by and by as if Christians had nothing to say for themselves but that Christ gave up himselfe once he expresseth this their Answer as that which hee held not to be sufficient And Cyril also would controll us who in his whole Answer opposing Spirituall to Corporall defendeth no Sacrifice at all among Christians but that which he calleth Spirituall and mentall as for example Godly Conversation Faith Hope Charity Praises c. All which are excluded out of your Definition of Proper Sacrifice The Case then is plaine If that the now Romish Doctrine of a Proper Bodily Sacrifice of Christ's Body offered up in the hands of the Priest by an Elevation and after in Consummating the same by eating it with his mouth which you call a Sacrificing Act had beene Catholike learning in that Age then assuredly could neither Iulian have challenged Christians for no Sacrifice nor Cyril have defended them by confessing indeed no Sacrifice among Christians but only Spirituall and Mentall CHAP. VI. Our third Examination which concerneth your Profession of the Romish Masse by your Romish Principles The State of the Question WELL have you discerned