themselves upon the Sabbath on which they were commanded so strictly to rest it was both necessity and the reason of the Law which made this justifiable and not any Tradition or any sentence of the Sanhedrim and our Saviour when he blames their superstitious observance of the Sabbath does not reprove them for keeping it as it was commanded or otherwise than Tradition had explained it but contrary to the true reason and meaning of it and to the true mind and will of the Lawgiver As to the Christians changing the Sabbath into the first Day of the Week this was not done by Tradition but by the Apostolical Authority and whatever obligation there may be antecedent to the Law of Moses for observing one day in seven it can neither be proved that the Jews observed exactly the Seventh day from the Creation much less that the Christians are under any such obligation now or I may adde if they were that Tradition would excuse them from a Divine Law. All the instances which Monsieur de Meaux heaps up are very short of proving that and though I have examined every one of them except that pretended Jewish Tradition of Praying for the Dead which is both false and to no purpose yet it was not because there was any strength in them to the maintaining his sinking Cause but that I might take away every slender prop by which he endeavours in vain to keep it up and drive him out of every little hole in which he strives with so much labour to Earth himself when after all his turnings and windings he finds he must be run down If any instance could be found by de Meaux or others of any Tradition or any Practice of a Church contrary to a Divine Institution and to a plain Law of God they would deserve no other answer to be returned to it but what Christ gave to the Pharisees in the like case Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition ‖ Mar. 15.3 Our Saviour did not put the matter upon this issue Whether the Tradition by which they explained the Law so as to make it of none effect was truly ancient and authentic and derived to them from their fore-Fathers but he thought it sufficient to tell them that it made void and was contrary to a Divine Law. There is no Tradition nor no Church which has ever broke so plain a Law and so shamefully violated a Divine Institution as that which has set up Communion in One Kind the true reason why it did so was not Tradition no that was not so much as pretended at first for the doing of it but onely some imaginary dangers and inconveniencies which brought in a new custom contrary to ancient Tradition These were the onely things insisted on in its defence at first the danger of spilling the Wine and the difficulty of getting it in some places and the undecency of Laymens dipping their Beards in it These were the mighty reasons which Gerson brought of old against the Heresie as he calls it of Communicating in both Kinds †Tractatus Magistri Johannis de Gerson contra haeresin de communionae Laicorum sub utraque specie as if it were a new Heresie to believe that Wine might be spilt or that men wore Beards or as if the Sacrament were appointed only for those Countreys where there were Vines growing De Meaux was very sensible of the weakness and folly of those pretences though they are the pericula and the scandala meant by the Council of Constance and therefore he takes very little notice of them and indeed he has quite taken away all their arguments against the particular use of the Wine because he all along pleades for either of the Species and owns it to be indifferent which of them so ever is used in the Sacrament But I have shewn that both of them are necessary to make a true Sacrament because both are commanded and both instituted and both of them equally belong to the matter of the Sacrament and so to the essence of it and both are ordinarily necessary to the receiving the inward Grace and Vertue of the Sacrament because that is annext to both by the Institution and cannot warrantably be expected without both To conclude therefore Communion in One Kind is both contrary to the Institution and to the Command of Christ and to the Tradition and Practice of the Primitive Church grounded upon that Command and is no less in it self than a sacrilegious dividing and mangling of the most sacred Mystery of Christianity a destroying the very Nature of the Sacrament which is to represent the Death of Christ and his Blood separated from his Body a lessening the signification and reception of our compleat and entire spiritual Nourishment whereby we are Sacramentally to eat Christ's Body and drink his Bloud an unjust depriving the People of that most pretious Legacy which Christ left to all of them to wit His Sacrificial Bloud which was shed for us and which it is the peculiar priviledge of Christians thus mystically to partake of and lastly a robbing them of that Grace and Vertue and Benefit of the Sacrament which belongs not to any part but to the whole of it and cannot ordinarily be received without both kinds O that God would therefore put it into the hearts of those who are most concerned not to do so much injury to Christians and to Christianity and not to suffer any longer that Divine Majesty which is the great Foundation of all Spiritual Grace and Life to be tainted and poysoned with so many corruptions as we find it is above all other parts of Christianity And O that that blessed Sacrament which was designed by Christ to be the very Bond of Peace and the Cement of Unity among all Christians and to make them all one Bread and one Body may not by the perversness of men and the craft of the Devil be made a means to divide and separate them from each other and to break that Unity and Charity which it ought to preserve FINIS A CATALOGUE of some Discourses sold by Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil 1. A Perswasive to an Ingenuous Tryal of Opinions in Religion 2. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of the Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 3. A Discourse about the Charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith being an Answer to Three Questions I. How far we must depend on the Authority of the Church for the true Sence of Scripture II. Whether a vissible Succession from Christ to this day makes a Church which has this vissible Succession an Infallible Interpreter of Scripture and whether no Church which has not this visible Succession can teach the true
is certainly as easie to know what Christ instituted and what he commanded as to know this and consequently what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament without which it would not be such a Sacrament as Christ celebrated and appointed as to know what it is to eat and to drink and yet Monsieur de Meaux is pleased to make this the great difficulty P. 239 257 349. To know what belongs to the essence of the Sacrament and what does not and to distinguish what is essential in it from what is not And by this means he endeavour to darken what is as clear as the light and so to avoid the plainest Institution and the clearest Command The Institution says he does not suffice since the question always returns to know what appertains to the essence of the Institution Jesus Christ not having distinguisht them Jesus Christ instituted this Sacrament in the evening at the beginning of the night in which he was to be delivered it was at this time he would leave us his Body given for us Does the time or the hour then belong to the Institution does this appertain to the essence of it and is it not as plainly and evidently a circumstance as night or noon is a circumstance to eating and drinking Does the command of Christ Do this belong to that or to the other circumstances of doing it when the same thing the same Sacramental action may be done without them is not this a plain rule to make a distinction between the act it self and the circumstances of performing it Because there were a great many things done by Jesus Christ in this Mystery which we do not believe our selves obliged to do such as being in an upper Room lying upon a Bed and the like which are not properly things done by Christ so much as circumstances of doing it for the thing done was taking Bread and Wine and blessing and distributing them does therefore Christ's command Do this belong no more to eating and drinking than it does to those other things or rather circumstances with which he performed those is drinking as much a circumstance as doing it after supper if it be eating may be so too Monsieur de Meaux is ashamed to say this but yet 't is what he aims at for else the Cup will necessarily appear to belong to the Sacrament as an essential and consequently an indispensible part of it and this may be plainly known to be so from the words of Christ and from Scripture without the help of Tradition though that also as I have shewn does fully agree with those but they are so plain as not to need it in this case Eating and drinking are so plainly the essential part of the Sacrament and so clearly distinguisht from the other circumstances in Scripture that St. Paul always speaks of those without any regard to the other The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ the Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ * 1 Cor. 10.16 For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come †11.26 27 28 29. Whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup for he that eateth and drinketh So that he must be wilfully blind who cannot see from Scripture what is essential to this Sacrament from what is not But Monsieur de Meaux thinks to find more advantage in the other Sacrament of Baptism and therefore he chiefly insists upon that under this head and his design is to make out that immersion or plunging under Water is meant and signified by the word Baptize in which he tells us the whole World agree ‖ P. 168. and that this is the onely manner of Baptizing we read of the Scriptures and that he can shew by the Acts of Councils and by ancient Rituals that for thirteen hundred years the whole Church Baptized after this manner as much as it was possible * P. 171. If it be so than it seems there is not only Scripture but Tradition for it which is the great principle he takes so much pains to establish And what then shall we have to say to the Anabaptists to whom de Meaux seems to have given up that cause that he may defend the other of Communion in one kind for his aim in all this is to make immersion as essential to Baptism as eating and drinking to the Lord's Supper and if Scripture and Tradition be both so fully for it I know not what can be against it P. 299. but de Meaux knows some Gentlemen who answer things as best pleases them the present difficulty transports them and being pressed by the objection they say at that moment what seems most to disentangle them from it without much reflecting whether it agree I do not say with truth but with their own thoughts The Institution of the Eucharist in Bread and Wine and the command to do this which belonged to both eating and drinking lay very heavy upon him and to ease himself of those which he could not do if it were always necessary to observe what Christ instituted and commanded he was willing to make Baptism by dipping to be as much commanded and instituted as this though it be not now observed as necessary either by those of the Church of Rome or the Reformed and besides his arguments to prove that from Scripture he makes an universal Tradition of the Church which he pretends all along in his Book is against Communion in both kinds and which is the great thing he goes upon yet to be for this sort of Baptism no less than 1300 years So that neither the law in Scripture nor Tradition as it explains that law is always it seems to be observed which is the thing ought openly to be said for Communion in one kind The Cause it self demands this and we must not expect that an errour can be defended after a consequent manner ‖ Ib. But is Scripture and Tradition both for Baptism by immersion Surely not the word Baptize in which the command is given signifies only to wash in general and not to plung all over as I have already shewn in this Treatise †P. 21. and as all Writers against the Anabaptists do sufficiently make out to whom I shall refer the Reader for further satisfaction in that Controversie which it is not my business to consider at present and so much is de Meaux out about Tradition being so wholly and universally for Baptism by immersion that Tertullian plainly speaks of it by intinction ‖ Omne praeterea cunctationis tergiversationis erga paenitentiam vitium praesumtio intinctionis importat Tertul. de paenir Cap. 6. and by sprinkling * Quis enim tibi tam infidae paenitentiae
Sence of Scripture III. Whether the Church of England can make out such a visible Succession 5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith with Respect especially to the Romish pretence of the Necessity of such a one as is Infallible 6. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be Received and what Tradition is to be Rejected 7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church maintained in the Church of England 8. A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with Respect to the Errours and Corruptions of the Church of Rome In two Parts 9. A Discourse concerning the Object of Religious Worship or a Scripture-Proof of the Unlawfulness of giving any Religious Worship to any other Being besides the one Supream God. 10. A Discourse against Transubstantiation 11. A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host as it is Taught and Practised in the Church of Rome Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. on that Subject and to Monsieur Bocleau's late Book de Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. 12. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints 13. A Discourse concerning the Devotions of the Church of Rome 14. A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue 15. A Discourse concerning Auricular Confession as it is Prescribed by the Council of Trent and Practised in the Church of Rome With a Postscript on occasion of a Book lately printed in France called Historia Confessionis Auricularis 16. A Discourse concerning the Worship of the Blessed Virgin and the Saints with an Account of the Beginnings and Rise of it amongst Christians In Answer to Monsieur de Meaux's Appeal to the Fourth Age in his Exposition and his Pastoral Letter 17. A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux's Treatise of Communion under both Species Lately Translated into English A DISCOURSE OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS Imprimatur Guil. Needham October 24. 1687. LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil M DC LXXXVIII The CONTENTS THE charge of the Church of England against the sacrifice of the Mass page 2 3. Sect. 1. The sacrifice of the Mass founded upon two great Errors the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Opinion that Christ offered up himself to God at his last Supper p. 5 to 11. Sect. 2. No Scripture ground for the sacrifice of the Mass p. 11 to 41 Melchisedec's offering Bread and Wine Gen. 14.18 considered p. 13 Of the Melchisedecian Priesthood p. 16 The figure of the Paschal Lamb Examined p. 19 The prophesie of Malachy Examined p. 22 Other places out of the Old Testament Answered p. 25 An Answer to the places out of the New Testament p. 28 Plain places of Scripture against the Mass-sacrifice out of the Epistle to the Hebrews p. 33 Their Evasions to them Refuted p. 35 Sect. 3. The sacrifice of the Mass has no just claim to Antiquity p. 41 to 70 The Eucharist called a sacrifice by the Ancients upon account 1. Of the Oblations there made p. 44 2. Of the Religious Acts there performed p. 47 3. As it is Commemorative and Representative of the Crosssacrifice p. 49 Christ is offered mentally by every Communicant p. 52 How the Minister may be said to offer Christ to God in the Eucharist p. 53 General Remarks out of Antiquity to prove the Eucharist no proper sacrifice p. 54 to 70 1. From the Christian Apologists p. 54 2. From the Epithets they give to it when they call it a sacrifice p. 58 3. From the Novelty of private Masses which are a consequence of this Doctrine p. 60 4. From the Canon of the Mass it self p. 63 5. From the new form of Ordination in the R. C. p. 67 Sect. 4. The Mass-sacrifice in it self Vnreasonable and Absurd and has a great many Errors involved in it p. 70 to 95 1. It makes an external visible sacrifice of what is perfectly invisible p. 70 2. It makes a proper sacrifice without a proper sacrificing Act. p. 71 Their differences about the Essence of the sacrifice p. 73 3. It makes a living Body a sacrifice p. 76 4. The making it truly propitiatory is a great Error and inconsistent with it self p. 77 5. How it is Impetratory p. 80 6. The making it a sacrifice truly Propitiatory and yet only Applicatory of another is a great Absurdity p. 82 7. The making it the same sacrifice with That of the Cross and yet not to have the same vertue and efficacy is strange and unaccountable p. 84 8. Making Christ as they do the true offerer of this sacrifice hath great Absurdities p. 87 9. The Offering this sacrifice to Redeem Souls out of Purgatory one of the greatest Errors and Abuses that belong to it p. 88 Of the Ancient Oblations for the Dead p. 90 to 95 10. The sacrifice of the Mass must be either unnecessary or else must reflect on the sacrifice of the Cross p. 95 The Conclusion and the Reason why no more of the Errors belonging to it are added ERRATA PAge 12. line â antepenult for desire read derive PAge 39. Line 8. for the read that PAge 68. To Concil Carthag in margin add 4. PAge 72. Line 8. for Maunday-Thursday read Good-Fryday A DISCOURSE OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS THE Sacrifice of the Mass is the most considerable part of Worship in the Roman Church It is their Juge sacrificium their dayly and continual Offering and the principal Thing in which their Religion does consist It is they tell us of the greatest profit and advantage to all persons and I am sure their Priests make it so to themselves for by this alone a great number of them get their Livings by making merchandise of the Holy Sacrament and by selling the Blood of Christ at a dearer rate then Judas once did The saying of Masses keeps the Church of Rome more Priests in pay then any Prince in Christendom can maintain Souldiers and it has raised more Money by them then the richest Bank or Exchequer in the World was ever owner of 't is indeed the truest Patrimony of their Church and has enricht it more then any thing else it was that which founded their greatest Monasteries and their Richest Abbies and it had well nigh brought all the Estates of this Kingdom into the Church had not the Statutes of Mortmain put a check to it The Donation of Constantine were it never so true and the Grants of Charles and Pepin were they never so large and the Gifts of all their Benefactors put together are infinitely outdone by it the Gain of it has been so manifestly great that one cannot but upon that account a little suspect its Godliness but yet if it could fairly be made out to be a true part of Religion it were by no means to be rejected for that accidental though shameful abuse of it It is accounted by them the greatest
are all insignificant and to no purpose for if they did mention this either by way of Prophecy or of History yet if it be no where instituted this will not do the business for the Institution ought not to be supposed but clearly proved and made out and if that cannot be every thing else that is to support it as a collateral evidence falls to the ground What will it signifie if Melchisedec did offer Bread and Wine not to Abraham only but to God and as a Priest did sacrifice them rather then make an hospitable entertainment with them is this any foundation for the sacrifice of the Mass If Christ did not institute that at his last Supper with his Disciples Melchisedec I hope did not institute it with Abraham and his Souldiers If the Prophet Malachi speaks never so much of a pure offering yet if Christ did not offer up himself in the Sacrament nor command the Apostles to offer him up there Malachi's Prophesie will not make the Eucharist to be a sacrifice or a pure offering if Christ did not make it so nor will the Priests I suppos desire their power of sacrificing either from Melchisedecs act or Malachi's prediction without Christs Institution it is not only a presumption but a demonstration that those Scriptures which they bring do not really mean or truly speak of any such thing as The sacrifice of the Mass when there is no such thing any where instituted or appointed by Christ and without such an institution there cannot as they confess be any ground for it All their little scattered forces therefore which they rally and pick up here and there out of Scripture and which against their will they press into the service of the Mass-sacrifice are hereby wholly cut off and utterly defeated by having their main strength without which they can do nothing of themselves taken away from them and I shall examine them only to show the weakness of them which they being very sensible of themselves endeavour to make up their want of strength by the greatness of their number and surely never were so many places brought out of Scripture to so little purpose as what they produce for the sacrifice of the Mass First then they go back as far as Genesis for it and it is very strange they should find it there this will make it very primitive and ancient indeed but where-ever they meet with bread and Wine which are things of very great Antiquity they resolve to make a sacrifice of them especially if there be but a Priest by who has the power of Consecrating for they suppose he must presently fall to his office and put on his habit if bread and wine be before him and that he cannot like other men eat and drink them as his ordinary food or entertain his friends and others with them except he not only Religiously bless them by Prayer and Thanksgiving which every good man ought to do and it was the custom even of the Heathens to do this before they ate but he must sacrifice and offer them up to God. This they will needs have Melchisedec do in the 14. of Gen. 18. verse Melchisedec King of Salem brought forth bread and wine and he was the Priest of the most High God. What is there here to show that Melchisedec offered bread and wine as a sacrifice to God the very word in their own vulgar Latin answering to the Hebrew is protulit he brought forth not obtulit he offered and if it were the latter could not he offer bread and wine to Abraham and his Company upon a Table but must it necessarily be to God upon an Altar Abraham with his Three Hundred and Eighteen Trained Servants Ver. 14 15. had been by night pursuing those who had taken away his brother Lot Captive and when they were thus weary and hungry Melchisedec hospitably and kindly entertained them with provision to refresh them and brought forth bread and wine to them thus it lyes in the Sacred History and Context and thus Josephus (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 1. c. 11. relates it and there is not the least mention or intimation of any sacrifice as Cajetan (b) Nihil hic scribitur de sacrificio sed de prolatione seu extractione quam Josephus dicit factam ad reficiendos victores Cajetan in Gen. 14. owns upon the place and so do many of their own Authors whom Possevine (c) Biblioth l. 4. c. 13. the Jesuit takes upon him to correct for it Bellarmine indeed as if he had been by at the entertainment and been one of Abraham's Souldiers tells us they had ate and drank very well before and therefore desires Melchisedec to excuse them for they had no need of his Bread and Wine at that time (d,) Quid igitur opus erat pane vino ijs qui spoliis abundabant paulo ante comederant biberant Bellarm. de Miss l. 1. c. 6. D. and yet in the same place owns that these were given to Abraham and his Companions for food (e,) At nos non negamus data illa in cibum Abrahae sociis sed dicimus fuisse prius Deo oblata consecrata tum data hominibus ut de sacrificio participarent Ib. but that they were first offered to God and then given to them to partake of them as of a sacrifice But why were they given as Food if they had no need of Food Did Melchisedec know they had eaten Or does the Scripture say so Or might not he treat them as a King though they had victuals of their own How does Bellarmine know they were first sacrificed when there is not the least word of that Ay but it is said that he was the Priest of the most high God therefore it is likely he sacrificed why else should that be added It was added because he was so or because as it immediately follows he blessed Abraham Ver. 19.20 and Abraham gave him Tithes of all his spoils this is more likely than because he sacrificed for there is no mention of that as of the other and 't is not said he brought forth bread and wine because he was the Priest of the high God 't is only a conjunctive particle and he was not a causal for It is said also in the same place that he was King of Salem and why might not his entertaining Abraham be as he was a King because he is said there to be a King as well as a Priest and yet I suppose a Priest may be said to treat his Friends as another man without officiating then as a Priest though he be called a Priest Why Bellarmine should cite any Fathers for his Opinion I cannot imagine since the oldest of them are I suppose so much latter and at so great a distance from the times of Melchisedec that they could no more know what Melchisedec did at that time then we can now and they are
Scripture proofs for this sacrifice but it can be at most but a collateral evidence for if Christ did not in fact institute any such sacrifice as I have proved he did not this is a much better argument to show there was none such foretold then it can be to prove he did institute it because it was foretold Predictions are best understood by the completion of them and if no such thing was done as is pretended from this prediction this demonstrates that no such thing was intended or meant by it so that by taking away that first ground of the Mass-sacrifice I have taken away all these little underprops and supporters of it but let us see what seeming assistance this place of Malachi will afford them God having reproved the Jews for their undue and unfit offerings tells them that better and purer offerings shall be made him every where by the Gentiles For from the rising of the Sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name and a pure offering for my name shall be great among the Heathen saith the Lord of Hosts * Malac. 1.11 Thus it is both in the Hebrew and Greek Copies as Bellarmine owns but it is something different from both those in the Vulgar Latin where it is In every place is sacrificed and is offered to my name a pure Oblation * In omni loco sacrifiâ—atur offertur nomini meo para oblatio They are so in love with the Word sacrifice that they choose to use that above any other as if where-ever they meet with that in Scripture it must be meant properly and of an external sacrifice and of no other but the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass Tho the word here Mincha from which some of our Adversaries are so foolish as to derive the Latin word Missa that signifies only a dismission of the Catechumens and penitents before the Office of the Eucharist does not signifie a propitiatory sacrifice but only a meat-offering which was merely Eucharistic and whereas nothing is more commonly meant by sacrifice in Scripture then the spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and prayer and the like when a pious and devout Soul offers unto God Thanksgiving and pays its vows unto the most high * Psal 50.14 when the prayer of the Righteous is set forth as incense and the lifting up of his hands as an evening sacrifice †Psal 141.2 And this is the incense and pure oblation which the Fathers generally understand to be meant in that place to wit glorifying and blessing God and Praise and Hymns (a,) In Ecclesiis benedicite Dominum Deum Psal 57. ut pariter concurreret Malachiae prophetia in omni loco sacrificium mundum Gloriae sc relatio â—â— benedictio laus hymni Tertull contra Marcion l. 3. as Tertullian in so many words explains this place and again a pure offering as Malachi speaks is an honest prayer from a pure Conscience (b,) Dicente Malachia sacrificium mundum sc simplex Oratio de consciencia pura Ib. l. 4. and so in other places (c) Adversus Judaeos Ib. he explains it altogether of spiritual sacrifices Eusebius calls this pure offering of Malachi the incense of Prayers (d.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Demonstrat l. 1. c. 6. St. Hierom upon the place says the prophet teaches that the prayers of holy men should be offered to the Lord not only in the single Province of Judaea to which the Jewish sacrifice were confined but in every place (e) Docet orationes sanctorum Domino offerendas esse non in unâ orbis provinciâ Judaeâ sed in omni loco Hieron in Malach 1. There can be no sacrifice more acceptable to God no offering with which he is so well pleased no incense that is of so sweet a savour as the prayers and praises of a devout mind and a pure and unblemisht Conscience and especially when these are kindled and enflamed to the highest degrees and ardors at the blessed Sacrament when the soul truly sensible of the Love of God and the infinite kindness of its dying Saviour when it has the symbol and representation of his death before it shall pour out its grateful and hearty resentments and thereby offer up a more pure and pretious sacrifice then thousands of Rams or ten thousand rivers of Oyl This is that incense and that pure offering of Christians which is foretold by the prophet and this especially offered in the most sacred office of our Religion the blessed Eucharist and therefore some of the Fathers Justin Martyr Irenaeus and St. Austin apply this place to the blessed Sacrament not as any proper sacrifice is there offered but only such divine and spiritual ones as these and in what sense they call that a sacrifice and we own it be so I shall show afterwards Why should our Adversaries then charge us with having no sacrifice and therefore as they charitably tell us no Religion when we have the best and the noblest sacrifice that can be that which will please the Lord much better then an Ox or a Bullock that hath horns and hoofs * Psal 69.31 and 40.6 Isai 1.11 God was never pleased with those external sacrifices for themselves but he often refuses and disregards them even under the Jewish dispensation and they were all to cease with that and instead of such mean sacrifices and external oblations which were to be offered then but in one place there should in every place under Christianity be offered the more pure and spiritual sacrifices the incense of prayer and the pure oblation of praise and thanksgiving and such like Christian sacrifices as are often mentioned in Scripture and which are meant in this prophecy of Malachi of which we shall have further occasion to speak by and by 'T is a sort of Judaism then and a returning back to that less perfect and less spiritual state to make the Religion of the Gospel consist in any visible and external sacrifice which our Adversaries so earnestly contend for rather in those sacrifices which are more spiritual and therefore more truly Christian and more agreeable to the spiritual Worship and the spiritual Oeconomy of the Gospel There are some other places of the old Testament brought by Bellarmine and other defenders of the sacrifice of the Mass which are so weak and impertinent that they only serve to expose it and therefore they are not at all mentioned in the Council of Trent or in the Roman Catechism such is that saying of the prophet to Eli 2 Sam. 2.35 That God would raise up a faithful priest that shall do according to that which is in my heart and in my mind and I will build him a sure house and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever This new priest that was to succeed Eli was very
were which was the thing our Saviour here designed The greatest part of the publick Jewish Worship was fixt to the Temple and to Jerusalem their Tithes and First-fruits and Firstlings and Festivals as well as their sacrifices and there may be divine Worship without sacrifice as well as with it and whatever the Worship be which our Saviour here says was to be spiritual it was not like the Jewish to be fixt to one place which is the true scope of those words to the Samaritan Woman in answer to her question v. 20. whether mount Gerizim or Jerusalem was the true place of Worship which was the great dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans our Saviour determines for neither but puts an end to the question and says that now under the Gospel the Worship of God was not local and as to the manner of it that it was spiritual The second and principal Argument for the sacrifice of the Mass is from Christs institution and first celebration of the Eucharist with his Disciples and here indeed is the true place to find it if there be any such thing but I have already shown ‖ pag. 8 9 10. that Christ did neither then sacrifice himself nor command his Disciples to do so and have taken away that which is the very Foundation of the Mass-sacrifice and without which every thing else that can be said for it falls to the ground There are but two other and those very weak ones behind the one out of the 13th of the Acts where it is said of Saul and Barnabus and the prophets and Teachers of the Church at Antioch that they ministered unto the Lord but could not they minister and perform the divine office and service without sacrificing it must be first proved that that was part of the religious office before it can appear that it was mâ—â—nt here it is said they fasted and prayed in that probably their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ministry consisted or as St. Chrysostom ‖ Homil. 37. in Act. and after him Oecumenius explain it in preaching but that they sacrificed there is not the least evidence The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie to sacrifice but to perform any proper function and therefore it is attributed in the Scripture both to the Angels who are called ministring spirits †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1.14 and to the Magistrates who are called the Ministers of God ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 13.6 and yet sacrificing I suppose belongs to neither of them nor does their own vulgar Latin so Translate it here The last is out of the 1 Cor. 10. for Bellarmine gives up that out of the Hebrews 13. We have an altar of which they have no right to eat who serve the Tabernacle though 't is as much to his purpose in my mind as any of the rest but some Catholick Writers he says do by altar mean there either the Cross or Christ himself †Quia non desunt ex Catholicis qui eo loco per altare intelligunt crucem aut ipsum Christum non urgeo ipsum locum Bellarm. de Mis c. 14. but if it were meant of the Eucharist that is but an Altar in an improper sense as the sacrifice offered on it is but improper and metaphorical as we shall prove but in the place to the Corinthians the Apostle Commands them not to eat of things offered to Idols for to eat of them was to partake of things sacrificed to Devils and so to have communion with Devils which was very unfit for those who were partakers of the Lords Table and therein truly communicated of the Body and Blood of Christ as those who are of the Jewish sacrifices were partakers of the Jewish Altar Now what is here of the sacrifice of the Mass or any way serviceable to it Why yes the Apostle compares the Table of the Lord with the Table of Devils and eating of the Lords supper with eating the Jewish and the Heathen sacrifices therefore the Christians ought to have an Altar as well as the Jews and what they fed on ought to be sacrificed as well as the Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Apostle says nothing of this nor makes any such comparison between them but only shows the unfitness of Christians eating of the Heathen sacrifices who partook of the Lords Table he does not call the Lords Table an Altar nor the Eucharist a sacrifice nor was there any danger that the Christians should go to eat in the Idol Temples but he would not have them eat of their sacrifices brought home and the whole comparison lyes here the eating the Lords Supper did make them true partakers of the Lords body and blood sacrificed upon the Cross as eating of the Jewish sacrifices did make the Jews partakers of the Jewish Altar and as eating of things offered to Idols was having fellowship with Devils so that they who partook of such holy food as Christians did should not communicate of such execrable and diabolical food as the Heathen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If indeed Christians could not partake of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist unless they first made a proper sacrifice and oblation of them then the Apostles discourse would necessarily suppose and imply them to be thus offered as the Jewish and Heathen sacrifices were before they were eaten but since Christs body and blood being once offered upon the Cross is a sufficient sacrifice and oblation of them and the Eucharist is a religious and Sacramental Feast upon the sacrifice of Christ once offered this is sufficient for the Apostles scope and design in that place where there is no other comparison made between the Table of the Lord and the Table of Devils but that one makes us to be partakers of the body and blood of Christ and the other to have Fellowship with Devils and as to the Jewish Altar the Antithesis does not lye here as Bellarmine would have it between that and the Table of the Lord that both have proper sacrifices offered upon them which are eaten after they are sacrificed but the Cross of Christ rather is the Antithesis to the Jewish Altar on which sacrifices were really and properly slain which are not on the Christian Altar and the feeding and partaking of those sacrifices so offered whereby they were made partakers of the Altar this answers to the sacramental feeding upon Christs body and blood in the Christian Altar whereby we are made partakers of the Cross of Christ and have the vertue and merit of his sacrifice communicated to us Thus I have considered and fully answered whatever our Adversaries can bring out of Scripture for their sacrifice of the Mass I shall now offer some places of Scripture that are directly contrary to it and do perfectly overthrow it and though their cause must necessarily sink if the Scripture be not for it because without a Scriptural Foundation there can be