A reformed Catholike: or, A declaration shewing how neere we may come to the present Church of Rome in sundrie points of religion: and vvherein we must for euer depart from them with an advertisment to all fauourers of the Romane religion, shewing that the said religion is against the Catholike principles and grounds of the catechisme.

The eleuenth point. Of the sacrifice in the Lords Supper, which the Papists call the sacrifice of the Masse.

Touching this point, first I will set downe what must be vnderstoode by the name Sa∣crifice. A sacrifice is taken properly, or im∣properly. Properly it is a sacred or solemne action, in which man offereth and consecra∣teth some outward bodily thing vnto God for this end, to please and honour him there∣by. Thus al the sacrifices of the old testament, and the oblation of Christ vpon the crosse in the new Testament are sacrifices. Impro∣perly, that is, onely by the way of resem∣blance, the duties of the morall lawe are cal∣led sacrifices. And in handling this question, I vnderstande a sacrifice both properly and

improperly by way of resemblance.

Our consent.

Our consent I propound in two conclusi∣ons. Conclus. I. That the supper of the Lord is a sacrifice, and may truly be so called as it hath bin in former ages; & that in three re∣spects. I. Because it is a memoriall of the reall sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse, and con∣taines withall a thanksgiuing to God for the same, which thanksgiuing is the sacrifice and calves of our lips. Hebr. 13. 15. II. Because e∣uery communicant doth there present him∣selfe bodie and soule a liuing, holy, and accep∣table sacrifice vnto God. For as in this sa∣crament God giues vnto vs Christ, with his benefits; so we answerable giue vp our selues vnto God as seruants to walk in the practise of all dutifull obedience. III. It is called a sa∣crifice in respect of that which was ioyned with the sacrament, namely the Almes giuen to the poore as a testimonie of our thanke∣fulnes vnto God. And in this regard also, the ancient Fathers haue called the sacrament, an vnbloodie sacrifice: and the table, an altar; &

the ministers priests: and the whole action an oblation not to God but to the congregation, & not by the priest alone but by the people. A Canon of a certaine Council saith, We de∣cree that euery Lords day the oblation of the altar be offered of euery man and woman both for bread and wine. And Augustine saith, that vvomen offer a sacrifice at the altar of the Lord, that it might be offered by the priest to God. And vsually in ancient writers the com∣munion of the whole bodie of the congre∣gation is called the sacrifice or oblation.

Conclus. II. That the very bodie of Christ is offered in the Lordes Supper. For as we take the bread to be the bodie of Christ sa∣cramentally by resemblance and no other∣wise: so the breaking of bread is sacramen∣tally the sacrificing or offering of Christ vp∣on the crosse. And thus the fathers haue tear∣med the Eucharist an immolation of Christ, because it is a cōmemoration of his sacrifice vpon the crosse. Aug. Epist. 23. Neither doth he lie which saith Christ was offered. For if sacraments had not the resemblāce of things whereof they are sacraments, they should in

no vvise be sacraments: but from a resem∣blance, they often take their names. Againe Christ is sacrificed in the last supper, in re∣gard of the faith of the cōmmunicants, which makes a thing past and done as present. Au∣gustine saith, When we beleeue in Christ, he is offered for vs daily. And, Christ is then slaine for euery one, vvhen he beleeues that he is slaine for him▪ Ambrose saith, Christ is sacri∣ficed daily in the mindes of beleeuers, as vpon an altar. Hierome saith, He is alwaies offe∣red to the beleeuers.

II. The difference.

They make the Eucharist to be a reall, ex∣ternall, or bodily sacrifice offered vnto God: holding and teaching, that the minister is a priest properly: and that in this sacrament he offers Christs bodie and blood to God the father really and properly vnder the formes of bread and wine. We acknow∣ledge no reall, outward, or bodily sacrifice for the remission of sinnes, but onely Christs oblation on the crosse once offered. Here is the maine difference betweene vs, touching

this point: and it is of that waight and mo∣ment, that they stiffely maintaining their o∣pinion (as they doe) can be no Church of God. For this point raseth the foundation to the very bottom. And that it may the better appeare that we auouch the truth, first I will confirme our doctrine by scripture, and se∣condly confute the reasōs which they bring for themselues.

III. Our reasons.

Reason. I. Heb. 9. v. 15. and 26: and cap. 10. v. 10. The holy ghost saith, Christ offered himselfe but once. Therefore not often: and thus there can be no reall or bodily offering of his bodie and blood in the sacrament of his supper: the text is plaine. The Papists an∣swer thus. The sacrifice of Christ (say they) is one for substāce, yet in regard of the man∣ner of offering it is either bloodie or vn∣bloodie, and the holy ghost speakes onely of the bloodie sacrifice of Christ: which was indeede offered but once. Ans. But the au∣thor of this epistle takes it for graunted, that the sacrifice of Christ is onely one, and that

bloodie sacrifice. For he saith, Heb. 9. v. 25. Christ did not offer himselfe often, as the high priests did. & v. 26. For thē he must haue oftē suffered since the foundatiō of the world: but now in the end he hath appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe. and v. 22. VVITHOVT SHEDDING OF BLOOD is NO remission of sinne. By these wordes it is plaine, that the scripture neuer knewe the two fold maner of sacrificing of Christ. And euery distinction in Diuinitie not founded in the written worde, is but a forgerie of mans braine. And if this distinction be good, how shall the reason of the Apostle stand▪ He did not offer himselfe but once, because he suffered but once.

Reason II. The Romish Church holdes that the sacrifice in the Lordes Supper is all one for substance, with the sacrifice which he offered on the crosse: if that be so, then the sacrifice in the Eucharist, must either be a cō∣tinuance of that sacrifice which was begun on the crosse, or els an iteration or repetition of it. Now let them choose of these twaine which they wil: if they say it is a continuance

of the sacrifice on the crosse, Christ being but the beginner and the Priest the finisher thereof, they make it imperfect: for to con∣tinue a thing till it be accomplished, is to bring perfection vnto it: but Christs sacrifice on the crosse was then fully perfected, as by his owne testimony appeares, when he said, consummatum est, it is finished. Againe, if they say, it is a repetition of Christs sacrifice, thus also they make it imperfect, for that is the reason, which the holy ghost vseth, to prooue that the sacrifices of the old testamēt were imperfect, because they were repea∣ted.

Reason III. A reall and outward sacri∣fice in a sacrament, is against the nature of a sacrament and especially the supper of the Lord: for one end thereof is to keepe in me∣mory the sacrifice of Christ. Nowe euery remembrance must be of a thing absent past and done: and if Christ be daily and really sa∣crificed, the sacrament is no fit memoriall of his sacrifice. Againe the principall ende for which the sacrament was ordained, is that God might giue & we receiue Christ with

his benefits: and therfore to giue and take, to eate & drink are here the principal actiōs. Now in a reall sacrifice God doth not giue Christ & the priest receiue him of God; but contrariwise he giues & offers Christ vnto God, and God receiues some thing of vs. To helpe the matter they say, that this sacrifice serues not properly to make any satisfaction to God, but rather to apply vnto vs the sa∣tisfaction of Christ beeing already made. But this answere still maketh against the nature of a sacrament, in which God giues Christ vnto vs: whereas in a sacrifice God receiues from man, and man giues something to god: a sacrifice therefore is no fit meanes to apply any thing vnto vs, that is giuen of God.

Reason IV. Heb. 7. 24. 25. The Holy Ghost makes a difference betweene Christ the high priest of the newe testament, and all Leuiticall priests in this, that they were ma∣ny, one succeeding another: but he is onely one, hauing an eternall priesthood, which cannot passe from him to any other. Nowe if this difference be good, then Christ alone in his owne very person must be the priest

of the new testament, and no other with, or, vnder him: otherwise in the new testament their should be more priests in number then in the old. If they say, that the whole action remaines in the person of Christ, and that the priest is but an instrument vnder him (as they say) I say againe it is false; because the whole oblatiō is acted or done by the priest himselfe; and he which doth all, is more then a bare instrument.

Reason V. If the priest doe offer to God Christs reall bodie and blood for the pardon of our sinnes, then man is become a media∣tour betweene God and Christ. Now the Church of Rome saith, that the priest in his masse is a priest properly, and his sacrifice a reall sacrifice differing onely in the manner of offering from the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse: and in the very Canon of the masse they insinuate thus much, when they request God to accept their giftes and offe∣rings, namely Christ himselfe offered, as he did the sacrifices of Abel and Noe. Now it is absurd, to thinke that any creature should be a mediatour betweene Christ and God.

Therefore Christ cannot possibly be offered by any creature vnto God.

Reason VI. The iudgement of the aun∣cient Church. A certaine Counsell held at Toledo in Spaine reprooueth the Ministers that they offered sacrifice often the same day without the holy communion. The wordes of the Canon are these. Relation is made vn∣to vs that certaine priests doe not so many times receiue the grace of the holy communi∣on, as they offer sacrifices in one daie: but in one day, if they offer many sacrifices to God, in ALL THE OBLATIONS, THEY SVSPEND THEM∣SELVES FROM THE COMMVNION—. Here marke, that the sacrifices in auncient Masses were nothing else but formes of diuine ser∣uice; because none did communicate, no not the priest himselfe. And in an other Counsell the name of the Masse is put onely for a forme of prayer. It hath pleased vs, that praiers, supplications, Masses, which shall be alowed in the Councel—, be vsed. And in this sense it is taken when speach is vsed of the making or compounding of Masses: for the sacrifice propitiatorie of the bodie

& blood of Christ admits no composition. Abbat Paschasius saith, because we sinn daily Christ is sacrificed for vs MYSTICALLY, and his Passion is giuen in mysterie. These his words are against the reall sacrifice: but yet he expounds himselfe more plainly, cap. 10. The blood is drunke IN MYSTERIE SPIRITV∣ALLY: and, it is all SPIRITVAL which we eate. and c. 12. The priest—, distributes to euery one not as much as the outward sight giueth, but as much as FAITH RECEIVETH. c. 13. The FVL similitude is outwardly, and the immacu∣late flesh of the lambe is FAITH INVVARDLY—, that the truth be not wāting to the sa∣crament, and it be not ridiculous to Pagans that we drinke the blood of a killed man. c. 6. One eates the flesh of Christ spiritually and drinkes his bloode, another seemes to receiue not so much as a mor sell of bread from the hand of the priest: his reason is, because they come vnprepared. Now then considering in all these places he makes no receiuing but spirituall, neither doth he make any sacrifice but spirituall.

IV. Obiections of Papists.

I. Gen. 14. v. 18. When Abraham was comming from the slaughter of the Kings, Melchizedek mette him, and brought forth bread and wine; and he was a priest of the most high God. Now this bread and wine (say they) he brought forth to offer for a sa∣crifice; because it is said he was a priest of the most high God: and they reason thus. Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek: therefore as Melchizedek offered breade and wine, so Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine offers himselfe in sacrifice vnto God. Ans. Melchizedek was no type of Christ in regard of the acte of sacrificing, but in regard of his person, and things per∣taining thereto, which are all fully expoun∣ded, Hebr. 7. the summe whereof is this. I. Melchizedek was both king and priest: so was Christ. II. He was a prince of peace and righteousnes: so was Christ. III. He had neither father nor mother: because the Scripture in setting down his historie makes no mention either of beginning or ending

of his daies: and so Christ had neither father nor mother: no father, as he was man; no mother, as he was God. IV. Melchizedek beeing greater then Abraham blessed him, and Christ by vertue of his priesthood bles∣seth, that is, iustifieth and sanctifieth all those that be of the faith of Abraham. In these things onely stands the resemblance and not in the offering of bread and wine. Again the ende of bringing forth the breade and wine, was not to make a sacrisice, but to refresh A∣braham and his seruants, that came from the slaughter of the Kings. And he is called here a priest of the most high God, not in regard of any sacrifice; but in consideration of his blessing of Abraham, as the order of the wordes teacheth, And he was the priest of the most high God, and therefore he blessed him. Thirdly, though it were graunted, that he brought forth breade and wine to offer in sacrifice, yet will it not follow, that in the sacrament Christ himselfe is to be offered vnto God vnder the naked formes of bread and wine. Melchizedeks bread & wine were absurd types of no-bread and no-wine, or,

of formes of bread and wine in the Sacramēt.

II. Obiect. The paschall lambe was both a sacrifice and a sacrament: now the Eucha∣rist comes in roome thereof. Ansvv. The paschal lambe was a sacrament, but no sacri∣fice. Indeede Christ saith to his disciples, Goe and prepare a place to sacrifice the Passeover in, Mark. 14. 12. but the words to offer, or to sacrifice, doe often signifie no more but to kill. As when Iacob and Laban made a co∣venant; it is saide, Iacob sacrificed beasts, and called his brethren to eate bread, Gen. 31. 54. which wordes, must not be vnderstoode of killing for sacrifice, but of killing for a feast: because he could not in a good conscience inuite them to his sacrifice, that were out of the couenant, beeing (as they were) of ano∣ther religion: secondly, it may be called a sa∣crifice, because it was killed after the manner of a sacrifice. Thirdly, when Saul sought his fathers asses, and asked for the Seer, a maide bids him goe vp in hast: for (saith shee) there is an offering of the people this day in the high place, 1. Sam. 9. 12. where the feast that was kept in Rama, is called a sacrifice; in all

likelihood because at the beginning thereof, the priest offered a sacrifice to God: and so the Passeouer may be called a sacrifice, be∣cause sacrifices were offered within the cō∣passe of the appointed feast or solemnitie of the passeouer: & yet the thing it selfe was no more a sacrifice then the feast in Rama was. Againe, if it were graunted that the Passouer was both, it will not make much against vs: for the supper of the Lord succeedes the Passeouer onely in regard of the maine ende thereof, which is the increase of our com∣munion with Christ.

III. Obiect. Malac. I. II. The prophet foretelleth of a cleane sacrifice that shall be in the new testament: and that (say they) is the sacrifice of the Masse. Ans. This place must be vnderstoode of a spirituall sacrifice, as we shall plainely perceiue if we compare it with 1. Tim. 2. 8. where the meaning of the pro∣phet is fitly expounded. I will (saith Paul) that men pray in all places, LIFTING VP PVRE HANDS, without wrath or doubting. And this is the cleane sacrifice of the Gentiles. Thus Iustin Martyr saith, That supplications and

thanksgiuings are the ONELY perfect sacrifi∣ces pleasing God, and that Christians haue learned to OFFER THEM ALONE. And Tertul∣lian saith, We sacrifice for the health of the Emperour—: as God hath commaunded with pure praier. And Ireneus saith, that this cleane offering to be offered in euery place, is the praiers of the Saints.

Obiect. IV. Hebr. 13. 10. We haue an al∣tar, whereof they may not eate, vvhich serue in the tabernacle. Now (say they) if we haue an altar then wee must needes haue a priest: and also a reall sacrifice. Ans. Here is meant not a bodily, but a spirituall altar; because the altar is opposed to the materiall Tabernacle: and what is meant thereby is expressed in the next verse, in which he prooues that we haue an altar. The bodies of the beasts, whose blood was brought into the holy place by the high priest for sinne, were burnt without the campe; so Christ Iesus, that he might sancti∣fie the people with his ovvne blood, suffered vvithout the gate. Now lay the reason or proofe to the thing that is prooued, and we must needes vnderstande Christ himselfe,

who was both the altar, the priest, and the sa∣crifice.

Obiect. V. Lastly, they say, where alteration is both of law & couenant: there must needs be a new priest and a new sacrifice. But in the new testament there is alteration both of law and couenant: and therfore there is both new priest and new sacrifice. Ans. Al may be granted: in the new testament, there is both new priest and sacrifice: yet not any popish priest, but onely Christ himselfe both God and man. The sacrifice also is Christ as he is man: and the altar, Christ as he is God, who in the new testament offered himselfe a sa∣crifice to his Father for the sinnes of the world. For though he were the lambe of God slaine from the beginning of the world, in regard of the purpose of God, in regard of the value of his merit, and in regard of faith which maketh things to come as present, yet was he not actually offered till the fulnes of time came; and once offering of himselfe, he remaineth a priest for euer, & al other priests beside him, are superfluous: his one offering once offered, beeing all-sufficient.

Notes

• Concil. Ma∣••iscon. 2. c. 4.
• Epist. 122.
• Lib. 2. quaest. vet. & Nov. Test. Ad Rom.
• Lib. 2 de Virg.
• Ad Damas.
• Tolet. Con∣cil. 12. c. 5.
• Mileue•• Cap. 12.
• Concil Tolet 4. c. 12. &c▪ Iacob. de consecr. dip••▪
• d Lib. de cor∣por. & sang▪ dom. cap. 9.
• Deutr. 16. 2.
• Dialog. eum Triph.
• Ad Scapu, lam.
• Lib. 4. c. 3••.