Of the institution of the sacrament of the blessed bodie and blood of Christ, (by some called) the masse of Christ eight bookes; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abominations of the Romish masse. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By the R. Father in God Thomas L. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield.

CHAP. V.

Of our Second Examination of this Controversie, by the Iudgment of Ancient Fathers, shewing that they never called the Eucharist a Sacrifice properly.

Our generall Proposition.

The ancient Fathers never called the Eucharist properly a Sacri∣fice: proved by many Demonstraations.

THE Demonstrations, which we are to speake of, are many; some taken from the proper, and some from the pretended Subject of the Eucharist; some from the paritie of like spee∣ches of Fathers, as well in other Sacraments, Acts, and Adjuncts, as in these which are be∣longing to the Eucharist.

The first Demonstration is, That the Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice; as being the Subject matter of the Eucharist, but Vnproperly.

SECT. I.

THat Antient Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice, even before Consecration, we have it confessed asseverantly by your owne a 1.1 Iesuit, where he will have you furthermore to ob∣serve, that Bread and Wine, before Consecration, is called an Im∣maculate Sacrifice, even in your Roman Masse. And that the Pri∣mitive Fathers called Bread and Wine, Sacrifice, after Consecration also, we have likewise proved in two full * 1.2 Sections: which your Cardinall is bound to acknowledge, who, to prove that Melchize∣dech Sacrificed Bread and Wine, produced the Testimonies of Am∣brose, Augustine, Chrysostome, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, to conclude them to have beene Figures of the Eucharist, which we desire you to cary still in minde, untill we end this Section.

Hereupon we demand, whether you think that Bread and Wine, in the Eucharist, can be called of Christians a Sacrifice properly,

either before, or after Consecration? No (saith one b 1.3 Iesuit) Be∣cause it is not agreeable to our Priest-hood. No (saith a c 1.4 Second) be∣cause it were most absurd that the Church of Christ should have a life∣lesse Sacrifice, and consequently more vile than was the Iewish. No, (d 1.5 saith a Third) because it were an heinous impiety now, after the abrogation of the terrene Sacrifices of the Iewes, to beleeve that the Church of God should professe an Offering of Corporall and earthly Sacrifices. No (e 1.6 saith a Fourth) for it is the judgement of all Chri∣stians, that there is no Sacrifice in Christian Religion, but the Body and Blood of Christ: because otherwise the Act of Sacrificing thereof, being a Divine Worship, should be exercized upon Bread and Wine. So they. Wee would be glad to take the Apostle of Christ to be our Guide, for our better security, he (as is likewise f 1.7 confessed) teacheth, that God now is not to be worshipped, by way of Sacri∣fice, with any outward thing.

Oh that your Divines would exercise their quils in publishing such sound Truths as this is, we then would wish them Good speed in all their Writings. Notwithstanding, upon consideration of the Premises, we are inforced to complaine of the Vnconsciona∣blenesse of your Cardinall, who, to prove a proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, did (as you may remember) produce the Testimonies of five Fathers, wherein that, which they called a Sacrifice, they expressed to be Bread and Wine; which by the joynt and conso∣nant Confession of the Cardinall himselfe, and other prime Iesu∣ites of his owne society, cannot be held to be proper Sacrifices without Absurdity and Impiety. And the like obliquity of Iudge∣ment you may finde in your Romish Divines, in alleaging the Testimonies of Irenaeus, for proofe of the Sacrifice of your Masse, which your Iesuit Maldonat hath truly observed to have beene spoken of Bread and Wine, even * 1.8 before Consecration.

One word more. By this you may perceive another proofe of the Idiome of Ancient Fathers, in Extending the word [Sacri∣fice] beyond it's literall sense: which (beside the former) the last annexed Testimony of g 1.9 Augustine confirmeth, shewing, that now there is in this our Sacrifice no other Subject but Bread and Wine. This may serve for the present, concerning the true and proper Subject of the Eucharist, Bread and Wine. We in the next place are to examine the pretended Subject, which your Church will have to be the Body and Blood of Christ. * 1.10

Our Second Demonstration is, that the Ancient Fathers held not the Body and Blood of Christ to be the proper Subject matter of the Eucharist, in calling it a Sacrifice.

SECT. II.

HOw commeth the Body and Blood of Christ to be a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist? Your Cardinall will tell us, to wit, Bread and Wine are consecrated, and by Consecration made the Body and Blood of Christ: so that now a 1.11 Not Bread (saith he) but the Body of Christ is the Thing sacrificed. This is plaine dealing, and as much as if he had said, If there be in the Eucharist no Transubstan∣tiation of the Bread into Christ's Body, by Consecration, then can∣not Christ's Body be a proper Sacrifice. But that there is no such Transubstantiation or Corporall Presence of Christ's Body in the Sa∣crament, hath beene proved to be the Iudgement of Ancient Fa∣thers, by many Demonstrations thorow-out the third and fourth Bookes. A stronger Argument there needeth not.

Our Third Demonstration is, because the objected places of Anti∣quity, for proofe of a Representative Sacrifice, properly so cal∣led, doe not point out any where the Body of Christ as the proper Subject, but only as the Object of the Sacrifice spoken of.

SECT. III.

The necessary use of this Distinction.

OVr Distinction is this. These words, The Body and Blood of Christ, as they are applyed to the Eucharist, in the name of Sacrifice, may admit of a double Acception; one is to take them subjectively, as being the proper Materiall Subject of this Sacra∣ment, the other is to understand them objectively: that is, to ac∣compt the Body and Blood of Christ, as they were the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse, to be only the proper Object of a Christi∣an Celebration, according to the Direction and Institution of Christ, saying, Doe this in remembrance of me. Your Romish Church professeth the Body and Blood to be the proper Subject; we nay, but the proper Object of our Celebration. This Distin∣ction, well learned, will be unto our Reader as an Ariadne's thred, to winde him out of the Labyrinth of all Obscurities, and seeming Repugnancies of Ancient Fathers; out of all the confused Subtil∣ties and equivocall Resolutions of your Romish Disputers; and out of the Perplexities wherewith some Protestants also may seeme (in some sort) to have beene intangled.

The Demonstration it selfe is, Because the Eucharist, being only Com∣memorative and Representative, cannot be a proper Sacrifice: answering the Romish Objection taken from the Sacrifices under the Law.

SECT. IV.

THat it cannot be called properly a Sacrifice, which is onely for Commemoration and Representation, is the Conclusion of your owne a 1.12 Cardinall; although it cannot be denied, but that Improperly it may be called, as well as you may call the Image of Christ crucified, the Crucifix. But, to come to your Obje∣ction, your b 1.13 Romish Divines and Romish Cardinall are very earnest and instant in proving that because the Iewish Sacrifices, being Representations of the passion of Christ, were notwithstan∣ding true and proper Sacrifices: Therefore the being Representative, can be no hindrance that the Eucharist should be a proper Sacrifice. So they. But yet so, as if they had meant to say nothing to the purpose, because the Iewish Sacrifices, albeit they were Represen∣tations of Christs Passion, yet were they not only Representations thereof, as the Eucharist is, but were also beside that Sacrifices in themselves, and so ordained to be by God; first in their matter, as Bulls, Sheepe, Goats; next in their Sacrificing Act, which was de∣structive, as to be slaine; and lastly, in their proper and peculiar end, which was (as your c 1.14 Cardinall witnesseth) for expiation of le∣gall Pollutions, and remission of temporall punishments. Each one of these may satisfie your Objection.

The Confirmation of the former Demonstration out of the Fathers first Explaining of themselves.

SECT. V.

SAint Ambrose setting forth two kinde of Offerings of Christ, here on earth, and above in Heaven, he saith that a 1.15 Christ here is offered as one suffering, and above he himselfe Offereth himselfe an Advocate with the Father for us. And this our offering of him he calleth but an Image; and that above he calleth the Truth. Clear∣ly shewing, that we have in our Offering Christ's Body only, as it is Crucified, which is the Object of our Commemoration; But the

same Body, as it is now the personall subject of a present Time, and Place, they behold it in Heaven; even the same Body, which was once offered on the Crosse by his Passion, now offered up by himselfe to God, by Presentation in Heaven; here in the Church only by our Representation Sacramentally on earth.

Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us, where distingui∣shing three States of Offerings up to Christ, he b 1.16 saith first, that under the Law Christ was promised In the similitude of their Sa∣crifices: meaning, his bloody death was prefigured by those bloo∣dy Sacrifices. Secondly, in the offering at his Passion he was De∣livered up in truth, or proper Sacrifice, this was on the Crosse. And thirdly, after his Ascension, The memory of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament, or Sacramentall Representation. So he. For although the Sacrifices of the Iewes were true Sacrifices, yet were they not truly the Sacrificings of Christ. Note you this Assertion. A∣gaine, speaking of his owne Time, when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was daily celebrated, he saith, That Christ was once sa∣crified (namely upon the Crosse) and Is now daily sacrificed in the Sacrament; nor shall he lie (saith he) that saith Christ is sacrificed. So he.

No, holy Augustine, shall he not lye, who saith that Christ, as the personall Subject of this Sacrament, is a proper Sacrifice in the literall Sense? (for, whether Proper or Vnproper, are the two Seales of this Controversie.) Now interpose your Catholike Resolution. Say first, why is it called a Sacrament? tell us; * 1.17 If Sacraments had not a similitude of things, which they represent, they were no Sacra∣ments, from which similitude they have their Appellation and name of the things (to wit) The Sacrament of the Body of Christ is called his Body, as Baptisme is called a Buriall. Be so good as to explaine this by another, which may illuminate even a man, in the point of Sacrifice also, although otherwise blinded with prejudice. c 1.18 As when the day of Christ's Passion (faith he) being to morrow, or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one; we use to say of the former, To morrow is Christ's Passion; and of the other, when it com∣meth, it is Christ's Resurrection, yet will none be so absurd as to say, we lye in so saying, because we speake it by way of Similitude: even so when we say, this is sacrificed, &c. So Saint Augustine.

Who now seeth not, that as the Buriall of Christ is not the Sub∣ject matter of Baptisme, but only the Representative Object there∣of; and as Good Fryday, and Easter-day, are not properly the daies of Christ his Passion or Resurrection, but Anniversary, and Repre∣sensative, or Commemorative Resemblances of them: So this Sa∣crifice is a Similitude of the Sacrifice of Christ's on the Crosse, and not materially the same. We omit Testimonies of other Fathers, which are dispersed in this and other Sections. Although this one Explanation might satisfie, yet shall we adjoyne others, which may satiate even the greediest Appetite.

The fourth Demonstration, from the Fathers Explanation of their meaning, by a kinde of Correction.

SECT. VI.

ANcient Fathers in good number call that, which is repre∣sented in the Eucharist, and which we are said to offer, The same Host, not many; the same Oblation, no other; the same Sacri∣fice, and none but it: but they adde by a Figure 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, a Correction of the excesse of their speech, or rather for Caution∣sake, (least their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly pres••nt) saying in this manner; We offer the same Sacrifice, or Rather the Remembrance thereof; alluding some∣time expresly to the Institution of Christ, [Doe this in remembrance of me.] The Fathers are these, viz. a 1.19 Chrysostome, b 1.20 Theophylact, c 1.21 Thodoret, d 1.22 Ambrose, e 1.23 Eusebius, and f 1.24 Primasius.

Your only Answer is, that their Exception, here used, was not to note that it is not the same Body of Christ here Corporally pre∣sent, which was offered upon the Crosse, but that it is not offered in the same manner by effusion of Blood, as that was; which is indeed a Part, but not the whole Truth. For survay the Margi∣nals, and then tell us; If that your Sacrifice were the same Body of Christ Corporally present, why should Theophylact apply h••s qualification not to the manner, whether Bloody or Vnbloody, but to the person of Christ, saying,▪ We offer the same Christ, who was once offered, or rather a Memoriall of his Oblation? And Theodo∣ret applying it directly to the thing, [Non aliud] We offer not ano∣ther Sacrifice, but a memoriall thereof? why Eusebius, Wee offer a Memoriall in stead of a Sacrifice? plainly notifying unto tis, that they meant the same very Body, which was the Subject of the Sa∣crifice on the Crosse, to be the now proper Object of our Remem∣brance in the Eucharist, but not the Subject therein.

Which agreeth with that which in the former Section was said by Ambrose, Our offering up of Christ in an Image; and Augustine his celebrating of this Sacrament of Remembrance. Semblably, as Hierome speakes of the Priest, who is said to take the Person of Christ in this Sacrament, so that, He (saith g 1.25 Hierome) be a a true Priest, or rather an Imitator of him. But a Priest and an Imitator is

not Identically the same that is represented. Master Breeley is not Christ. Lastly, The same (said Primasius) in all places, which was borne of the Virgin, and not now great, and now lesse. So he. But have we not heard you number your many Hoasts on one Altar, at one Time? and yet the Fathers say, We offer not many, but the same, which must needs be the same one, as Object; else shew us where ever any Father denied but that upon divers Altars were divers Breads; or that but, according to their outward Demensions, they were now greater, now lesse; which no way agreeth with the Body of Christ, as hath beene proved in discussing the * 1.26 Canon of the Councell of Nice.

The fifth Demonstration: Because the Body and Blood of Christ, as they are pretended by the Romish Church to be in this Sacra∣ment, cannot be the Representative Sacrifice spoken of by Ancient Fathers; against your vaine Instance in a Stage-play.

SECT. VII.

THat the Subject matter of this Sacrament (by you called the same Sacrifice, which Christ offered up upon the Crosse) ought to be Representative, and fit to resemble the same Sacrifice of his Passion, is a matter unquestionable among all. In which respect the Fathers have so often called it a Sacrifice of Commemoration, Representation, and Remembrance; and that the thing to be repre∣sented is his Body crucified, and his Blood shed in that Sacrifice of his Passion, is a point as questionlesse, which accordeth both to the words of Christ his Institution [Doe this in remembrance of me,] and to the Exposition of Saint Paul, to be a [shewing fo••th of the Lords death untill he come:] yea and is also consonant to the last mentioned Doctrine of the Fathers, calling it A Sacrifice of Christ, or rather a Remembrance thereof.

The only Question will be, how This, which you call The same Sacrifice, meaning the Body of Christ subjectively in the Eucha∣rist, being invisible, can be said to represent, figure, and resemble the same Body, as it was the Sacrifice on the Crosse? We yeelding unto you a possibility, that one thing, in some respects, may be a Representation of it selfe. Your Tridentine Fathers to this purpose say, that a 1.27 Christ left this visible Sacrifice to his Church, whereby his Body sacrified upon the Crosse should be represented. So they. From whom (it may seeme) your Rhemists learned that lesson, which they taught Others, that b 1.28 Christ's Body, once visibly sacrificed upon the Crosse, In and By the selfe same Body is immolated and sacrificed under the shapes of Bread & Wine, and is most perfectly thereby resem∣bled: and therefore i•• most properly Commemorative; being called the same Sacrifice by the Ancient Fathers. And againe, This nearely and lively resembleth that. So they. But this we utterly deny, be∣cause

although a thing may in some sort be represented by it selfe, yet (say we) there is no Representative quality of any Body and Blood of Christ (as it is said by you to be in the Eucharist) of his Body and Blood Sacrificed upon the Crosse. And upon the Truth or Vntruth of this our Assertion dependeth the gaining or losing of the whole Cause, concerning the Question of Sacrifice, now controverted betweene us.

Two of yout Iesuits have undertaken to manifest your Repre∣sentation (by a more fit example than doe your Rhemists) thus; c 1.29 Even as a King (say They) having got a Victory, should represent himselfe, after his warre, in a Stage-play in sight, &c. So they, even in earnest, which hath beene as earnestly, yet easily; confuted by us * 1.30 already; although, indeed, the Play deserveth but laughter: and that so much the rather, because the Representative part (as your Councell of * 1.31 Trent hath defined) is in your Masse a visible Sacrifice, whereby the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse might be represented, as you have heard.

CHALLENGE.

YOu (except you will be Players, and not Disputers) must tell us, where ever it was seene or heard of a King, as Conquerour; or yet of any other, of what condition soever, acting himselfe, and that visibly, perfectly, and truly (as you have said) yea or else any way semblably representing himselfe, when as yet the same King, or party, was to all the Spectators altogether Invisible? If you can, then shew where this was acted, whether it were not in Vtopia? and who was the Actor, if not 〈◊〉〈◊〉? and of what disposi∣tion the Spectators were, whether not like the man of Argos, who is said daily to have frequented the Theater and Stage alone, void of all Actors, yet seeming to himselfe to see all Varie∣ties of Actions, occasioning him to laugh, and applaud at that which he saw represented to himselfe onely in his owne phantasti∣call braine?

Now have you nothing else to answer, but (which you have al∣ready said) that The Body and Blood in the Eucharist are visible, by the visible shapes of Bread and Wine. Whereas it had beene much better you had answered, indeed, nothing at all, rather than not only to contradict that, which was said by your Fathers of Trent, (decreeing the Representation to be made By the Sacrifice on the Al∣tar it selfe; and more expresly by your * 1.32 Rhemists, In and by the same Body in the Eucharist:) but also to expose your selves to the reproofe of your Adversaries, and Scorne of any man of Com∣mon sence; as if you would perswade him his money is Visible to any that will use his eyes, which he hath therefore locked up close

in his Coffer, least any man might see it. But this we have dis∣cussed sufficiently in the 2. Booke, and 2. Chapter, §. 6.

The sixth Demonstration of the no-Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, because divers Epithets objected, as given by Fathers to this Sacrifice, are used also by them where there is no Proper Sacrifice.

SECT. VIII.

IT is objected by your Cardinall, that Ancient Fathers gave certaine Epithets, and Attributes to the Eucharist, 1. Some cal∣ling it a Full and pure; 2. some terrible Service; 3. some termed it in the plurall number Sacrifices and Victimes; and 4. some Anun∣bloody Sacrifice. So hee, a 1.33 concluding from each of these, that they meant thereby a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist. We en∣counter all these foure kinde of Instances with like Epithets given by the same b 1.34 Fathers to other Things (in your owne judgement) improperly called Sacrifices; as namely to Prayers, Praises, giving Thankes, and Hymnes, instiled True, Pure, and Cleane, and the only perfect Sacrifices, by Primitive Fathers. Secondly, they are as zealous concerning the second c 1.35 point, in terming holy Scriptures Terrible; the Rules touching Baptisme, Terrible words, and Horri∣ble Canons; and the Christian, duly considering the nature of Bap∣tisme, One compassed about with Horror and Astonishment. Where∣of more * 1.36 hereafter. And indeed what is there, whereby we have any apprehension of Gods Majesty, and Divine Attributes, which doth not worke a holy Dread in the hearts of the Godly?

And the third Instance is as idle as any of the rest, because the holy d 1.37 Fathers named Prayers, Giving of Thankes, and other holy Actions, Sacrifices, and Hoasts, in the plurall number. And is not there in the Eucharist, Prayers, Hymnes, and Thanksgivings? nay, but know, that in as much as the Fathers have called the Eucha∣rist in the plurall number Hoasts, and Sacrifices, it proveth that they were not of your Romish Beleefe of Concomitancy, to thinke (with you) that Bread being changed into Christ's Body, and Wine into his Blood, make but one Sacrifice; for there can be no Identity in Plurality. The Answer to the fourth Epithete followeth.

The seventh Demonstration of no-Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist: Because the principall Epithet of Vnbloody Sacrifice, used by the Fathers, and most urgently objected by your Do∣ctors, for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice, doth evince the Contrary.

SECT. IX.

IT hath beene some paines unto us, to collect the objected Te∣stimonies of Fathers, for this point, out of your divers Writers, which you may peruse now in the Margent, with more ease, and presently percelve, both what maketh not for you, and what against you; but certainly for you just nothing at all. For what can it helpe your cause, that the Celebration of the Eucharist is often called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, An unbloody Sacrifice, a Reasonable & unbloody Service or Worship?

In the first place three b 1.38 Liturgies, or (if you will) Masses are objected, to prove that by unbloody Sacrifice, and Reasonable and unbloody worship, is betokened the Sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in the Masse; one of Basil, another of Chrysostome, and (by some others) the Masse of Saint Iames of Ierusalem. In which Epithet of Vnbloody (say we) could not be signified Christ's body. Our reasons: because (as the Margent sheweth) the word Vn∣bloody hath sometime Relation unto the Bread and Wine (both un∣bloody) before Consecration, called in Saint Iames his Liturgy, Gods gifts of the first fruit of the ground: who also reckoneth Hymnes among unbloody Sacrifices: (But Christ's Body is the fruit of the wombe) or else sometime is it referred to the Acts of Celebration, in Supplication, Thanksgiving, and Worship of God (all unbloody) naming that Areasonable and unbloody Service, which they had termed an unbloody Sacrifice, as Lindan your Parisian Doctor hath truly observed. Which Chrysostome also stiled Spirituall (marke you) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Service, or Worship. Was ever Christ called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who is himselfe rather the person to be worshipped?

Secondly, Reasonable, could this point out Christ's Body in the sence of the objected Fathers? suffer Chrysostome to resolve us. c 1.39 Reasonable Service (saith he) is that which is performed with the minde, without Bodily helpe.

Thirdly, The vnbloody Sacrifice is called Spirituall (as you heare) how shall this be properly applyed to the Body of Christ? You will say, not in it's naturall Essence, but in the manner of being Invi∣sible,

Impalpable, and the like. But we demand; the same head of a mans Body, is it more Spirituall in the darke than in the light?

Lastly, all these termes in these Liturgies of Vnbloody Sacrifice, Reasonable Service, and Spirituall, are spoken before Consecration, when the Body of Christ, even in your owne Faith, as yet can have no being in the Eucharist; and therefore cannot be the Vnbloody Sacrifice here meant by you. Will you have the full substance of all these Reasons? The word, Vnbloody, whether it point out Bread and Wine, or the Act of outward worship in this celebration, cal∣led a Reasonable Service, and Spirituall Sacrifice, it must betoken a thing void of Blood, which no Christian Professor dare attribute to the Body of Christ. We proceed.

Eusebius saith indeed, g 1.40 We offer an unbloody Sacrifice; but what he meant thereby, he doth not expresse, whether the Signes of Bread & Wine, which he elsewhere with others (as you have heard) called Sacrifices: or whether, as Basil and Chrysostome have done, he un∣derstood together the publike Service in celebrating the Memory of Christ's Death. This then concludeth not for an Existence of the Body of Christ, as of the Vnbloody Subject herein. But whereas furthermore you may observe that Eusebius (objected) calleth h 1.41 Godly Actions a pure Sacrifice, and opposeth this against Bloody Sacrifices; and also termeth i 1.42 Holy Prayers [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, without Materiall Substance, as he did the Celebration of the Sacrament [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] that is, Vnbloody: These shew that Eusebius meant a Sa∣crifice void of Blood; which neither the word of God will permit us; nor your Councell of Trent will suffer you to impute to the Body of Christ, and therefore must needs wound your Roman Ob∣lation of Body and Blood to the very heart.

Nazianzene (objected) is as directly opposite to your Masse, as East is to West, and will strike the matter dead, calling it k 1.43 The unbloody Sacrifice, whereby (saith he) we communicate with Christ: Flatly differencing the unbloody Sacrifice, whereby, from Christ him∣selfe, with whom the Faithfull doe communicate in this Sacrament.

Ambrose (objected) prayeth to God, l 1.44 To accept of this imma∣culate, and unbloody Hoast, which are the very words of your Ro∣man m 1.45 Masse, and which your Cardinall seeketh to justifie by S. Am∣brose. But this he cannot doe, except their meaning be both the same. Let then your Cardinall but tell us the meaning of the Canon of your Masse, and you will soone apprehend the Iudge∣ment of Saint Ambrose. In our Masse (saith your n 1.46 Cardinall) it

is said, Receive, holy Father, this immaculate▪ Hoast; where the Pronoune This (saith he) doth demo astrate Bread and Wine, because spoken before Consecration. So he. And the Body and Blood of Christ (you know) are not Bread and Wine. Let Athanasius put Per••od to this Section, who saith that o 1.47 Melchizedech) in giving ••read and Wine, was the first Type of an unbloody Sacrifice. But Melchi∣zedech's was Vnbloody, negatively, having no Blood at all in it. So was never the Body of Christ since his Resurrection, according to our Christian Beleefe.

CHALLENGE.

WHat a faire peece of service (doe you thinke) have these Objecters done, for the patronizing of your Romane Sa∣crifice, out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers? whilest they, alleaging their words, citing their Bookes, and quoting their Chapters, have so handled the matter, as if they had meant, by prevaricating in their owne Cause, to betray it: seeing that it is apparant, that they have delivered unto us the worship, in stead of the thing worshipped, out of the Councell of Ephesus, Basil, Chry∣sostome, and Eusebius: Next by the word, Vnbloody, being spoken before Consecration (and therefore concerneth not the Vnbloody Body of Christ) they have obtruded the thing, Distinguished from Christ, instead of Christ, in the Testimony of Nazianzene. But especiaily, because in the * 1.48 most, of the Sentences, the word, Vn∣bloody, must needs be taken negatively for want, or absence of of Blood: and so you may bid your Corporall Presence adi••u▪ All which may be strong Arguments unto us, both of the deplorable Consciences of your Doctors, and of the desperatenesse of your Cause. Other Testimonies, wherein there is mention of Christ's Body and Blood, come now to be discussed.

A Confirmation of the former Demonstration, from the use of the word, Vnbloody, in the objected Sentences, wherein the Fathers make mention of the Body and Blood of Christ.

SECT. X.

THis Objection seemeth to be of better moment than the for∣mer: but only seemeth. Clemens Bishop of Rome, the first of that name, calleth (indeed) the Eucharisticall Celebration a 1.49 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unbloody Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. In which sen∣tence the Vnbloody Sacrifice is plainly distinguished from the Bo∣dy and Blood, whereof it is a Sacrifice; even as both the Act▪ and Service of Commemoration have beene oftentimes above, and are hereafter called of the Fathers a Sacrifice, in respect of the Object

thereof, which is the Body and Blood of Christ on the Crosse. This is manifest by two especiall Reasons; the first, because that which he calleth Vnbloody, he termeth also a Reasonable Service.

Secondly, Clemens calleth the same Vnbloody Sacrifice the Signe and Type of Christ's Body and Blood, thereby distinguishing them from that Body and Blood whereof they are but Types. You will then aske, what is this Body and Blood, whereof they are said to be Types? Yea marry, This being known will set all straight. And Clemens telleth you, that it is his Precious Body, and his Blood shed, which (properly taken) all Christians professe to be Proper to his Body crucified, and Blood shed on the Crosse, for the proper object of our Typicall Remembrance, as we have formerly proved, and you your selves confessed already.

c 1.50 Cyril of Hierusalem doth attend upon Pope Clemens, and in a sort treadeth in his steps. The manner of our Celebrating the memory of Christ's death, he calleth a Spirituall Sacrifice, and an Vnbloody worship; wherein, against the Iewish Sacrifice, he op∣poseth Spirituall against Corporall, as he doth Vnbloody against Bloody. But by, Spirituall, he meant that which wanteth a Body. Therefore by, Vnbloody, he meant that which was properly void of Blood. So farre was Cyril from signifying thereby the Vnbloody Body of Christ, as the subject matter in the Eucharist. As for the Body and Blood of Christ it selfe, which hee calleth Propitiation, Cyril expoundeth himselfe to meane (for so he nameth it) Christ slaine for our sinnes, which still wee say, and you cannot deny, is only the Object of our whole spirituall service of Remembrance and Commemoration. Both these former Witnesses have delivered their Testimonies, as spoken under a forme of Prayer, whereunto whether You or Protestants may more justly say Amen, judge you.

The eighth Demonstration of the no-Proper Sacrifice of the Masse; Because the Ancient Fathers called the Eucharist a Bloody Sacrifice, which all you will confesse to be Vn∣properly spoken.

SECT. XI.

TAke but unto you your owne Allegations (set downe in the a 1.51 Margent) of the Sentences of Antiquit••, and you shall finde how the Ancient Fathers doubted not to say that Christ suf∣fereth, is slaine, slayeth himselfe, suffereth often in this Sacrament: and that His Passion and bloody Sacrifice is offered herein. Sayings of the highest Accent, as you see, and of no fewer nor meaner Fathers than these, Alexander, & Gregory both Popes, Chrysostome, Cyprian, Hierome, Cyril of Ierusalem, Hesychius, Pascatius. What

thinke you of such sayings? Can Christ be said properly to be Dead in this Sacrament? b 1.52 Never any Catholike said so (saith your Iesuit Ribera.) What then could be the meaning of such words? If you should be ignorant, your Cardinall Alan would teach you, and he would have you c 1.53 Observe what he saith: Christ is said by the Fathers to suffer (saith he) and to die in this Sacrament only so farre as his Death and Passion is commemorated and represented here∣in. And so speaketh also your Roman d 1.54 Glosse.

What now hindreth but that whensoever we heare the same Fathers affirming that the same Body and Blood of Christ are Sa∣crificed in the Eucharist, we understand them in the same impro∣priety of speech, that they meant onely Representatively? especi∣ally when as we see your other grand Cardinall comming some∣what home towards us, and to confesse as followeth; e 1.55 If Catho∣likes should say that Christ doth truly die in this Sacrament, this Ar∣gument might be of some force: but they say he dieth not; but in a Sa∣crament and Signe representing. So he; which yet alas is too little a Crevase for so great a Doctor to creepe out at. First, because there is as well a Figurative, as there is a literall Truth; for, If I should say of Easter day (said * 1.56 Augustine) it is the day of Christ's Resurre∣ction, I should not lie, and yet it is but the Anniversary day, betoke∣ning the other. When Christ said of one part of this Sacrament, [This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood] he spake by a double figure, said your Iesuit * 1.57 Salmeron, yet truly.

Secondly Christ, who is Truth it selfe, in saying of Bread, This is my Body, or Flesh, spake a Truth, as you all professe; and was it not likewise a Truth, when he called his Flesh Bread? yea, and also * 1.58 The true Bread.

Thirdly, the Fathers, as they said that Christ is dead, & suffereth (as you now object) in this Sacrament in a Mysterie: so have They also said of his Body, in respect of the Eucharist, It is sacrificed in an * 1.59 Image, in a Sacrament, or Mysterie, according to that their generall Qualification, saying, It is the same Sacrifice which Christ offered, or * 1.60 Rather a Remembrance thereof.

And lastly, the Fathers, who named Baptisme a Sacrifice as well as the Eucharist▪ doubted not to stretch Baptisme up to as high a note as they have done the Eucharist, saying, f 1.61 Baptisme is the passion of Christ: and g 1.62 In Baptisme we crucifie Christ. To signifie, that the Body of Christ is the Represented Object, and not the Re∣presentative Subject of this Sacrament.

An Elucidation of the Premises, by a Similitude of a Stage-play, manifesting how the same Vnproper Sacrifice might further∣more have beene called both Bloody and Vnbloody, by Antient Fathers.

SECT. XII.

A Similitude, for explanation sake, would be had; give us leave to borrow one from the Stage-play, for manifesting a Truth, as well as * 1.63 you have done another from thence, for palli∣ating a Falshood. You may recognize with us that Tragicall end of the Emperour Mauritius, by the command of one Phocas, (once his slave) that grand Patrone of the Popedome, by privi∣leging the Church of Rome, to be the Head of all Churches, as divers of your owne Historians doe relate. But to the point. By the commandment of this Phocas (as you * 1.64 know) were slaine two of Mauritius his sonnes, three daughters, and his wife, and all these before his owne eyes, and at last the Emperour Mauri∣tius himselfe was also murthered.

Were now this dolefull Spectacle acted on a Stage, might not any Spectator say (at the horrid sight thereof) This is a bloody Tragedie, namely, in respect of the Object represented herein? And might he not also say as truly, This is an Vnbloody Tragedie? to wit, in respect of the representative Subject, Action, & Commemora∣tion it selfe, wherein there is not shed any one drop of mans Blood? And from the same Evidence it will be easie to perceive, that the Greeke Fathers used to terme the Eucharist [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and the Latines Tremendum, that is, a Terrible and Dreadfull Sacrifice, (namely) for the Semblance-sake, and Analogie it hath with Christ's Death: even as one would call the Act, representing the cruell Butchering of the Emperour Mauritius, an horrible and lamentable Spectacle. This is a cleare glasse, wherein any may dis∣cerne the open visage of Truth, from the fained Vizard of Error.

The ninth Demonstration, Because Antient Fathers likewise called the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice, for the Representa∣tion-sake which it hath of Christ's Death; which is Argumentum à paribus.

SECT. XIII.

WE shall not urge the Antecedent of this Argument, taken from Baptisme, before that we have made knowne the force of the Consequence thereof. First one of your Cardinalls thus, a 1.65 If the Fathers had held the Eucharist onely a Sacrament, and

not also a Sacrifice, there had beene no cause why they should not have called Baptisme a Sacrifice, it being a Representation of Christ's death: But the Fathers doe no where call Baptisme a Sacrifice. So he. Ano∣ther Cardinall thus, b 1.66 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; c 1.67 Antient Fathers never called Baptisme or the Ministry thereof a Sacrifice; albeit they might have so called it Metaphorically: which we note (saith he) be∣cause of the Heretikes, who pervert the speeches of the Fathers, as if they had called the Eucharist a Sacrifice Metaphorically, and impro∣perly. So they, to omit * 1.68 Others. Now then if there be any sap or sense in these your Objectors, it is as much as if they had rea∣soned against us thus; If you Heretikes (for so they call Prote∣stants) could s••ew that the Antient Fathers did any where name the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice, which we confesse to be on∣ly 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 represen∣teth 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 Fa∣thers called Baptisme a Sacrifice, even from the words of the Apo∣stle, 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, be∣fore his time, that d 1.69 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, confes∣sing and saving, e 1.70 That most of the Fathers by Sacrifice in this place understood Baptisme, which they so called Metaphorically, because by it the Sacrifice of the ••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 Conse∣quently, that the Body and Blood of Christ are not the representing Subject, but the represented Object of his Sacrifice? What bet∣ter satisfaction can the greatest Adversary desire, than to be (as now your Disputers are) answered according to their owne De∣mands?

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 a 1.71 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 b 1.72 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 yeel∣ded 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 Ce∣lebration 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 c 1.73 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 (where∣of 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 concer∣ning 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 De∣pendance one of each other. So he, and truly. But you ought to take with you a necessary Caution, observed by the same a 1.74 Car∣dinall, 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 b 1.75 Sacrifice without an Altar, and your c 1.76 Bi∣shop 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 com∣mon Confessions, viz. d 1.77 That the Apostles did willingly abstaine from the words of Sacrifice, Priest, and Altar. So your Cardinall, and e 1.78 Durantus, the great Advocates for your Romane Masse: whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish Di∣sputers, who x 1.79 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. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] x 1.80 concluded a proper Sacrifice. As if the Apostles had both ab∣stained and not abstained from the words of Priest and Sacrifice.

But the Apostles did indeed forbeare such termes in their spee∣ches, concerning Christian worship, whereof these your forena∣med Disputers can give us a Reason, f 1.81 Least that (say they) the Iew∣ish 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 man∣ner 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 pro∣per 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 g 1.82 Middest of the Chancell, so that they might compasse it round) was farre more rarely called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Greekes, or Altare of the Latines, than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Mensa, that is, Table; which they would not have done, if Altar had carried in it the true and absolute proper∣ty of an Altar: no, but they used therein the like liberty, as they used to doe in h 1.83 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 Di∣vine, 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 i 1.84 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 presentative∣ly, 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 k 1.85 made an Answer to the Objecti∣ons 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 Anti∣quity

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 Sa∣crifices 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 offe∣red 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 op∣posite 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 Sacri∣ficed 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 Que∣stion 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 un∣bloody 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 Sacra∣ment of Baptisme, or of the Eucharist, either to Infidels or Cate∣chumenists, 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 l 1.86 A Reader of Scriptures to the peo∣ple, 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 ob∣jecteth against Christians want of Sacrifices, by and by, as if Chri∣stians 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) defen∣deth no Sacrifice at all among Christians, but that which he cal∣leth Spirituall and mentall; as for example, Godly Conversation, Faith, Hope, Charity, Praises, &c. All which are * 1.87 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 Cy∣ril have defended them, by confessing indeed no Sacrifice among Christians, but only Spirituall and Mentall.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Maldon••••. Ob. Ire∣n••um lib. 4. cap. 32, & 34. Scribit Christia∣nos Deo offerre pri∣••itias creaturatum panem & vinum—Dicebatur etiam sa∣crificare homo profa∣nus, qui Sacerdoti tradebat victimam, ut eam pro se sacrifica∣ret: non quòd illa traditio esset Sacrifi∣cium. Ita ••ocuti sunt etiam Christiani an∣tiqui, ut constat ex verbis Cypriani in Serm. de Eleemof. Locuples matrona fi∣ne Sacrificio in Dominicum veniens. Nec necesse est (ut Irenaeus ••oquitur) de proprio Sacrificio, quia nefas est credere Ecclesiam obtuli••••e rem ullam corpoream & ••errestrem Deo post abrogata omnia hujus•…•…d, Sacrificia terrena. Maldonat. loco ci••at••. Accipiendo Sacrificium pro re, quae sacrificatur, negati non debet, panem & vinum aliquo modo in Missa offerri, & pr••inde pertmere ad rem praesentem: na•• cùm ante Consecrationem dicimus [Suscipe, Sancte Pater, hanc tuam immacula••am Hostiam] certè pronomen, Hanc, demonstrat ad sensum id quod tunc manibus tenemus, id autem panis est. Et similes sunt in Liturgia non paucae sententiae, quae panem offerri apertè sanè demonstrant. Denique veteres Patres passim idem tradunt, Iren. lib. 4. cap 32. dicit Ecclesiam of∣ferre Sacrific••••m ex creaturi••. Et Cypr. lib. 2. Ep. 3. Christum obtulisse Calicem vino & aqua mixtam. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Re••pondeo ut.
• * 1.2

  See above Chap. 3. Sect. 2.
• b 1.3

  Valent. Ies. obj ci∣enti Melchizedechum o••tuli••••e panem & vinum ca••ùm. Resp. Sacerdotium Christi secundùm ordinem Melchizedech—E∣tiam ratione rei obla∣tae, non quatenus ob∣latione illius substan∣tiae determinatae, se∣panis & vini exerce∣batur. Lib. 1. de Misse, cap. 4.
• c 1.4

  Bellarm. respondens quaestioni. An cum so∣lus Panis muta••ur, si propriè sacrificare∣tur? Inquit, Id absur∣dissimum esset: tùm haberet Ecclesia Sa∣crificium inanimum, & vilius multò quàm habuerint olim He∣braei. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Sed haec.
• d 1.5

  Nefas est, crede∣re Ecclesiam obtulisse rem ullam corpoream & terrestrem Deo post abrogata omnia hujusmodi Sacrificia terrena. Maldon. lib. de 7. Sacram. Tom. 1. de Euch. part. 3. §. Pri∣mum Argumentum.
• e 1.6

  Salmeron. Com∣munis sensus est om∣nium Christianorum, non esse aliud Sacri∣ficium quàm Corpus & Sanguinem Chri∣sti—At si panis esset Sacrificium, se∣queretur, quòd res inanimata sacrificarē∣tur——Et quòd summa Latria esset circa panem & vi∣num. Tom. 9. Tract. 29. §. Quinta.
• f 1.7

  Bellarm. Aposto∣lus declarat, non esse terrenú aliquid quod offert Christus, si esset super terrain, ex Heb. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4. Etostendit nunc mellores hostias offerri. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. §. Resp. quid.
• * 1.8

  Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22. 19.
• g 1.9

  To these former, we adde another objected Testimony of Augustine. Lib. de fide ad Pet. Diac. cap. 19. Nullatenus dubites unigenitum Dei filium obtulisse hostiam Deo pro nobis, cui nunc cum Patre & Spiritu Sanct•• offerimus Sacrificium panis & vini, in fide & charitate, in Catholica Ecclesia per uni∣versum mundum.
• * 1.10

  (*) See above at (a).
• a 1.11

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 27. §. His igi∣tur.—In Missa Sacrificio requiritur ut res prophana sit sa∣cra: sic hic, ubi panis convertitur in corpus Christi—§. Respon∣deo, &c. Non panis sed quod ••x pane fa∣ctum propriè sacri••••∣catur. [For still the Question is that of Lom∣ba••ds; Quae••••tur si quod gerit Sacerdos, sit propriè Sacrificiū. Lib. 4. Dist. 12. li••. G.]
• a 1.12

  Bellar. Si sola re∣praesentatio Sacrificii crucis, tùm non po∣test di••i oblatio in hunc modum: Offero tibi Pater, &c. ac à Patribus oblatio dici∣tur. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 15. § Quartò.
• b 1.13

  Rhemists Annotat. in L••c. 22. and Bellar. Finis ••rat Sacrificio∣rum praecedentium reptae••entare Sacrifi∣cium Crucis, ut futu∣rum, Et ficut veter•• Sacrificia non amit∣••ebant verans & pro∣priam rationem Sa∣crificii, ex co quòd es∣sent representativa•• ita nec Sacrificium Eucharistiae amittit propriam Sacrificii rationem, propter Commemoratione••. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 12. §. Quod verò.
• c 1.14

  Bellarm. Sacrificia illa Levitica non culpam & poenam aeternam, sed immunditiem legalem, & poenam temporalem explabant.—Patet ex Dei promissione de remissione pecca∣torum; ex mensura Sacrificii majori•• & minoris pro majore & minore delicto. Levit. 6. & 4, & 5. At pro pecca∣tis gravioribus, ut blasphemia, homicidio, &c. nulla videmus instituta Sacrificia. Lib. 4. de Poenitent. cap. 15. §. Respondeo. & §. Ex his. Non quoad culpam & poenam Gehennae, nisi quatenus figna erant protestantia fidem in Christuum, ut docent communiter Theologi. Idem lib. 2. de effect. Sacram. cap. 17. Et omnia illa erant Sacri∣fieia vera, & signa••ula promissionis Christ•• venturi & morituri. Idem lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 24.
• a 1.15

  Ambros. Vmbra in Lege, imago in Evan∣gelio, veritas in coe∣lestibus: antè agnas offerebatur▪ nunc Christus offertur qua∣si Homo, quasi reci∣piens passionem, & offert sese ipse quasi Sacerdos, ut peccata nostra dimittat, hîc in imagine, ibi in veritate, ubi apud Pattem pro nobis quasi Advocatu•• intervenit. Lib. 1. de offic. cap. 48.
• b 1.16

  August. H••jus Sa∣crific•• caro & sanguis antè adventum Chri∣sti per victimas simi∣litudinum promitte∣batur; in passione Domini per ipsam Veritatem: post A∣scensum per Sacra∣mentum memoriae celebratur. Con. Fau••••. lib. 20. cap. 21. Tom 6. Nonne semel immo∣latus est Christus, & tamen in Sacramen∣to quot: diè immola∣tur? Hee addeth, Nec tamen mentitur, qui dicit Christum immo∣lari: si enim Sacra∣menta non haberent similitudinem rerum ipsarum, quas reprae∣sentant, non essent Sacramenta. Ex qua similitudine nomina corum accipiunt. Aug. lib. Epist. 23. S•••• of this above, Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. Andye•• againe more plainly in his 20. Booke against Fau••tus, Cap. 21. it followeth; Vt Baptismus dicitur sepulchrum; sic, H••c est corpus meum.
• * 1.17

  See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 8. out of his Epist. 23. ad Bonifa∣cium.
• c 1.18

  Epist. 23. ad Boni∣fac. Paulò ante verba superiora, nempè, Pa∣scha Appropinquan∣te saepè dicimus cra∣stinam Domini passi∣onem, cum ille ant•• multos 〈◊〉〈◊〉 passus fit, nec omninò nisi semelista passio facta 〈◊〉〈◊〉, nempè isto die: (dicin us) Christus resurrexit, cum ex quo resurrexit tot Anni transierunt, cum nemo ita ineptus sit qui nos ita loquentes arg••at nos esee men∣••••tos—ut dicatur ipse Dies, quia non est ipse, sed similis—nonne semel immolatus est Chri∣stus? &c.
• a 1.19

  Chrysost. in Heb. 10. Hom. 17. pag. 1171. [Christus semper suo sanguine intrat] Ipse Sacrificium Sacer∣dos, & Hostia: si hoc non esset, multa oportebat etiam Sa∣crificia offerri, saep. ùs oportebat crucifigi.—Eandem ipsam Hostiam, quam Chri∣stus immolabat, offe∣rimus, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] vel potiùs Recordationem ipsi∣sius, &c.
• b 1.20

  Theophylact. in Heb. 10. pag 885, 886. Nunc & ipsi sine san∣guine immolamus? Ita quidē, Sed Christi tunc reminiscimur o∣bitus: & una nobis est immolatio, non multae, quandoquidē & ille semel immola∣tus est. Eundem sem∣per offerimus, quin po•…•…s Oblationis il∣lius memoriam faci∣mus, perinde ac si es∣set hoc tempore im∣molatus. Quocirca u∣num effe hoc nost••um Sacrificium constat.—Vnicum est & semel oblatum—nam & unus est san∣guis, & semel fosus.
• c 1.21

  Theod. in Hebr. cap. 8. Cumeffecitur alia Sacrificia non essent necessaria, cur novi Testamenti Sacerdotes mysticam Liturgiam seu Sacrificio•••• pera∣gant? sed clarum est iis, qui sunt in rebu•• divini•• eruditi, nos non aliud Sacrificium offerre, sed unius illius sal••∣taris memoriam peragere—Dixit enim, Hoe facite in memoriam mei.
• d 1.22

  Ambros. in Heb. 10 Offeri∣mus quidem, sed Recordationem salutaris mortis ejus, & una haec Hostia, non multae.
• e 1.23

  Euseb. Demonst. Evan∣gelic. lib. 1. cap. 10. Sacrificamus & incendim••is, a••••âs autem magni Sacrificii illius memoriam, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f 1.24

  Primasius in Heb. cap. 10. Quod Deus &c. Offer•••••• quidem Sacer••••••es nostri, sed ad reco••dationem mortis ejus—sicut ipse dixit, Hoc facit•• in Commemo rationem 〈◊〉〈◊〉—Vn•• hostia, non mul∣tae—Corpus unum cum illo, quod suscepit in utero virginali, non autem multa Corpora, nec nunc qui∣dem aliud magnum, aliud minu••.
• g 1.25

  Hier. Tom. 5. lib. 13. Com. in Ezech. cap. 44. Qui offerat Deo Sacrificium, ita ut verus Sacerdos sit, imò Imitator ejus, qui est Sacer ••o•• secundum ordinem Mele••izedech. Idem Tom. 9. lib. 4. cap. 26. in Match. Sicut Melchizedech panem & vinum offerem, ipse quo que veritatem corporis & sanguinis sui repraesentet.
• * 1.26

  See above Booke 4. cap. 9. Sect. 4.
• a 1.27

  Co•…•…. Trid. Chri∣stum reliquisse Sacri∣ficium Ecclesiae suae visibil••, quo cruentum illud in cruce pera∣gendum repraesenta∣retur. Sess. 22. cap. 1.
• b 1.28

  Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22.
• c 1.29

  Barradas Ies. Eri tibi stupendam Dei adinventionem no∣tam facimus. Animo concipiamus Regem aliquem post reporta∣tam de Hostibus Vi∣ctoriam, &c. Sic Christi corpus veluti in scena per••onatur, i. e. speciebus panis & vini velatur, &c. Tom. 4 Concord. Evang. lib. 3. cap. 13. §. Opti∣mus. And Bellarmine.
• * 1.30

  [See above 2. Booke, Chap. 2. Sect. 6. there answered.] Corpus & sanguis Domini sub specie panis & vini signa sunt corporis ejus passi, & sanguinis effusi, &c. See above also in the same place, Cha. 3.
• * 1.31

  See hereafter, Cha. 6. Sect. 1.
• * 1.32

  See above, at (b)
• a 1.33

  Bellom. lib. 5. de Miss, cap. 5 § Quin∣tò—Partes ad no∣men Sacrificii Epi∣theta ••ae, è addunt, quae soli vero Sacrifi∣cio conveniunt, & quae ineptè dicerent de ••ola •••• praesentati∣one. Cyp. li. 2. Epist. 3. Plenum & verum Sa∣crificium. Chrysost. Hom. ad pop. Anti∣och & omnes Graeci, Passion terribile Sa∣crificium & horroris plenum. Aug. lib. ••0. de Civit. Dei, cap. 20. Summum verumque Sacrificium. Euseb. lib. 1. Demonst. E∣vang. cap. ult. Sacri∣crificium Deo plenū. [This last is not undoub∣tedly spoken of the Eu∣charist.] Ibid. §. Se∣cundo.—Si Patres putâssent Sacrificium Eucharistiae non esse Sacrificium nisi re∣praesentativum, nun∣quam dixissent in nu∣mero multitudinis offe: ri Deo Victin as, & Sacrificia. Of the Epithete (Unbloody) in the next Section.
• b 1.34

  August. de Civitat. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 6. Ve∣rum Sacrificium om∣ne opus bonum, ut Deo adhaereamus, factum. Tertull. In omni loco Sacrificium mundum, gloriae scilicer & rogatio, benedictio, laus, hymni Lib. 3. advers. Marcionem. Rursus, Sacrificium mundum oratio simplex de purâ Conscientia. Ibid. lib. 4. paulò post〈…〉〈…〉um. Iustin. Dialog. cum Tryphon. Preces & Gratiarum actiones, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.35

  Cyrill. Apol. Lectio Scripturatum terribilium. Teste I well•• art. 17. Chrysost. in 1. Corinth. M••m. 40. De Baptismate pauld post initi••••, post pronunciationem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.36

  See Booke 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 1.
• d 1.37

  E••seb. lib. 1 Demonst Evang cap. 10. Po••••ò has rursus incorporeas & intelligentia praeditas hostias pro∣phetica nunciant orac••la. Immola Deo Sacrificium laudis & Orationes sanctas, &c. Iust. Martyr. Dialog. cum Try∣phon. pag. 269. Supplicationes & gratiarum actiones solas esse charas Victimas Deo.
• b 1.38

  Basil. in his Masse, ob. by Salmero 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Tom. 9. Tract. 30. §. Sed contu∣tans: and by Lindanus Panop. lib. 4. cap. 53. Nos app••opinquantes Altari tuo sulcipere, & dignissimos offerre hanc 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (Lindanus, non car∣nis, sed mentis) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Salme∣ron Ies. Absque sangui∣ne hostiam: & ad∣mitte 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [And not till long aster the words of Consecration, begin∣ning at [Respice, Do∣mine.] Missa Chrysost. Ob. abe••sdem qo suprà. Hanc nostram suppli∣cationem, tanquàm ad Altare, admittere non recuses, & ••ac nos idoncos qui Tibi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nostris pro¦p••••••atis offeramus. Idem Sa••neron. Offe∣rimus Tibi rationa∣bile & incruencum obs quium. [Which words are in the body of your Liturgies put be∣fore the words of Conse∣cration (Edit. Aatuer••. ex officina Plantin. 1960. cum privilegio Regis.) but which Lin∣dan will have to be s••t after Consecration.] The Liturgie of S. ••ames: Pro oblatis, sanctificatis, pretiosis, immaculatis donis divinis oremus Dominum—acceptis eis in supercoe∣leste, mentale, spirituale Altare, in odorem spiritualis fragrantiae, &c. Paulò post: Deus Pater, qui oblata tibi do∣na mera, frugum oblationes accepisti in odorem suavitatis. [And after followeth the words of Consecration: Sancto, qui in Sanctis, &c.—Suscipe incorruptum Hymnum in sanctis & incruentis Sacrificiistuis.]
• c 1.39

  Chrysost. Hom. 11. Quid est rationabile obsequium? quod per animam, quod secundùm Spiritum offerrur: quicquid non indige•• corpore, quicquid non indiget instrumentis, neque locis, in quibus ipse quidem est Pontifex, ut mansue∣tudo, patientia, &c. Sacrificium laudis, justitiae, spiritus contribula••i.
• g 1.40

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. Caesar. l. 4. de vita Constant. c. 45. de Euth. Al••i sacras literas interpretātur: Alii 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & myst•…•…s consecra∣tionibus diuinum nu∣men placabant, & supplices preces pro communi pace offe∣rebant. Et Demonst. lib. 1. cap. 6. Sacrifi∣cium mundum.
• h 1.41

  Non per cruores, sed per quas actiones summo Deo offeren∣das. After, there ••ol∣loneth an Oration of Constant ne, Ad San∣ctorum coetum. Tale Sacrificium peragi∣tur, vacuum langui∣ne, & ab omni vio∣len iâ. As ••ob. Dad•…•…us D••ctor Paris. transta∣teth it.
• i 1.42

  Againe, Demonst. Evang. lib. 1. cap. 10. Has rursus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] i. e. materiae expertia Sacrificia, in∣telligentiâ praeditas hostias, Prophetica nunciant oracula? Immola Deo Sacrifi∣cium laudis—Hym∣nos & sanctas Orati∣ones celebrantes.
• k 1.43

  Nazianz. Invect. 1. adversus Iulian. ante med. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] i. e. Ve ab incruento Sacrificio manus elueret, per quod nos Christo, ip∣siusque passionibus, & divinitate communi∣camus. [Marke, In∣cruentum, per quod, is distinguished from, Christo, therefore was not Christ the Incruentum, objected by the Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22. 19.]
• l 1.44

  Ambros. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. Sacerdos dicit, Ergò memores glorios••ssimae ejus passionis, offerimus Tibi immaculatam hanc Hostiam incru∣entam, & hunc panem sanctum, & hanc oblationem salutis aeternae.
• m 1.45

  Suseipias in sublimi Al•…•…i tuo, per manus Angelorum, sicut accipere dignatus ••s munera Abel, &c.] To be expounded, as Bellarmine doth almost the same words in the Romane Masse.
• n 1.46

  Accipiendo Sacrificium pro re, quae sacrificatur, negari non debet panem & vi∣num aliquo modo in Missa offerri, ac proinde pertinere ad rem, quae sacrificatur. Nam cùm antè Consecratio∣nem dicimus [Suscipe, Pater, hanc immaculatam Hostiam] certè Pronomen, Hanc, demonstrat ad sensum id quod manibus tenemus, id autem panis est. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Respondeo ut. [Because the Cardinall doth often in this and other Chapters justifie the Romane terme of Masse, by the like in Ambrose.]
• o 1.47

  Athanes. Melchi∣zedech dedit Abraha∣mo vinum meracum addito panis (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) frusto—hic typus fuit offerendi Sacrificium [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] meruentum san∣•…•… oblationem. Hist. de Melchizedeth. ad si∣nem. Tom. 2.
• * 1.48

  [Doe but examine the places againe, and you shall finde Basil to have spoken of Service before Consecration? Chrysost. Of Blood 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Wine, before Conse∣cration: Eusebius in one place is inter preted (by your owne Doctor and Translator) to have spoken of a Sacrifice void of Blood; Na∣zianzene speaketh of something in the Eucha∣rist, differing from Christ: to whom you may joyne Athanasius.]
• a 1.49

  Clemens Rom. Const. lib. 6. cap. 2••. Pro Sa∣crifieio c••uento, Ra∣tionale & incruen∣tum; ac illud mysti∣cum Sactificium cor∣poris & sanguinis Christ••, quod insym∣bolum mor•…•… ejus c•…•… lib. ••∣Const. cap. 26. Adhuc agimus Tibi gratias, Pater nost••r, pro pretioso corpore & san•…•… cuj•…•… A•…•…ty∣pa celebramus, ut mortem ejus denuntiaremus, per ipsum enim Tibl glori••. Athen.
• c 1.50

  Cyril. Hierosol. My∣••••ag. 5. Postquàm con∣fec••mus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Aliquant•• p••st, Obsecramus Deum pro &c. Et Christum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] Ob. à Salme••on•• Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 30.
• a 1.51

  Salmeron. Tom. 9. Tract. 29. pag. 225. He∣sychius lib. 2. cap. 8. in Levit. Dicit Chri∣stum cum coenaret se∣ipsu•• occidisse. Chry∣so••t. in 1 Cor. hom. 24. In Eucharistia Chri∣stùm pati & occidi. R••rs•••• Tract. 31. pag. 238. Alii docent in Eucharistia offerri cruentum Sacrificium. Alexander Papa Epist. 1. Cypr. lib. 2. Epist. 3. Passio Domini est Sa∣crificium quod offerimus. Hieron. in Dialog. advers. Luci••er▪ Christum plu••ies passum confitemur, Paschatius de Corpore & Sanguine Domini. Sacrificium Crucis interatur.
• b 1.52

  Quis unquàm Catholicus dixit Christum rursùs mo∣r••? R••bera Ies. Com. in Heb. 10. num. 25.
• c 1.53

  Observandum est Christum ••icet modo impassibili existat in Sacramento, tamen dici à Pat•• ibus mor∣talem, imò mortuum & pass••m in Sacra∣mento, eatenus qui∣dem, quatenus ex modo Consecratio∣nis, ipsaque vi signi∣ficationis Sacramen∣talis mors, & passio Domini commemo∣rantur atque reprae∣sentantur. Alan. Card. lib. 1. de Euch. cap. 38. sub finem.
• d 1.54

  Gloss•• de Consecrat. Dist. 2. Quid sir. Hoc est, ejus Mors reprae∣sentatur.
• e 1.55

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 25. §. Re∣spondeo si, &c. Si Catholici dicerent in Sacrificio Missae verè Christum mori, ar∣gumentum Calvini haberet aliquid viriū: sed cum dicunt om∣nes eum non mori, nisi in Sacramento & signo repraesentante mortem ejus, quam aliquando obiir, tan∣tùm abest, ut Missa obliteret Christi mor∣tem, ut potiùs efficiat ut nunquam oblite∣retur.
• * 1.56

  See above, chap. 5. Sect. 3.
• * 1.57

  Booke 2. chap. 2. Sect. 4.
• * 1.58

  Io••. 6.
• * 1.59

  Ambrose, August. above, Chap. 5. Sect. 5.
• * 1.60

  Above, Chap. 5. Sect. 6.
• f 1.61

  Chrys••••t. in Epist. ad Heb. Hom. 16. Baptismus est passio Christi.
• g 1.62

  Ambros. de P••••nitent. lib. 2. cap. 1. In Baptismo crucifigimus in nobis filium Dei.
• * 1.63

  Bo••ke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 7.
• * 1.64

  See Baren. Anno ••02. &c.
• a 1.65

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 15. Si Pa∣tres existima••unt Eu∣charistiam solùm ••sse Sacrament••••, & non etiam Sacrifici••, nul∣la esset causa cur ali∣ter loquerētur de Eu∣charistia, quàm de Baptismo. Nusquam autem Patres Baptismum vocant Sacrificium, nec dicunt▪ Baptizare esse Sacrificare, vel immolare. Quo modo igitur possible est Patres in modo l••quendi nobiscum; in sententia cum Adversariis conve∣ni••••e? §. Hic igitur. Ru••sùs, Baptismus est Sacramentum Repraesentationis mortis Christi, Rom. 6. Et tamen nulli veterum baptismum Sacrificium Deo oblatum unquam appellaverunt: non igitur sola repraesentatio causa esse po••uit, cur actio coenae Sacrificium appellaretur. Ibid. §. Tert. bapt.
• b 1.66

  Card. Alan. Patres a••usos esse nomine Sacrificii—quis pos∣sit cum Haereticis vel tenuiter suspicari, cum hoc solum eo no∣mine app••llent, nec alteri ferè Sacramen∣to unquam tribuunt? Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14.
• c 1.67

  Suarez Ies. In mu••tis Conc. vocatur hoc Sacrificium in∣cruentum—Solum est observandum, pro∣pter Hae••eticos, qui hoc etiam ad meta∣phoram detorquenr nomen, Sacrificium. Sanctos Patres nun∣quam vocâsse Mini∣sterium Baptismi, aut alterius Sacramenti nomine Sacrificii, cum tamen Sacrificiū M••taphoricè sumptū in eo conveniet. Cum ergo Eucharistiam simpliciter & absolu∣tissimè Sacrificium vocant, signum est ••os propriè de Sacri∣ficio loqui. Tom. 3. Disp. 74. Sect. 2. p. 952.
• * 1.68

  M. Fisher, ••or one.
• d 1.69

  H. b. 10 26. [Vo∣luntariè pecc••ntibus non relinquitur Sa∣crificiū pro peccato] Qui diligentiùs per∣tiactant hunc locum Apostoli, intelligunt de Holocausto Do∣minicae passionis, quod eo tempore of∣fert qui••que pro pec∣catis suis, quo ejus∣dem passionis fide baptizatus: Vt sit sensus, [Non relin∣quitur Sacrificium pro peccaris] hoc est, non potest denuò baptizando purgari. August. Tom. 4. Expos. ad Rom. Col. 1185, 1186, 1187.
• e 1.70

  Melchi••r Canus. Quaeris quid Causae pleris{que} Antiquorum fuerit, ut Baptismum Hostiam appellaverint, ideoque dixerint non superesse Hostiam pro peccato? (Heb. 10.) quia Baptismus repeti non potest—Et quia per Baptismum applicatur nobis Hostia cr••cis. Hinc illi Baptisma translatitiè Hostiam nuncuparunt. Loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. pag. 424.
• a 1.71

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Sed omissa. Omne Sacri∣ficium est oblatio, sed non omnis oblatio Sacrificium, hoc fit cùm r••s oblata consu∣mitur.
• b 1.72

  Bellarm. Opera virtutum non sunt propriè dicta Sacrifi∣cia. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Haec. Non quae in sola actione consistant, ut Psal∣modia, genuflexio, & opus quodlibet ad honorem Dei factum. Ib. §. Secundum. Non quae in sola oblatione fita, ut aurum, argen∣tum, &c. Ibid. §. Se∣cundò. Non decimae aut primitiae. §. Sed in. Nec Patres appellant Sacrificium, id quod solum est figura, & commemoratio Sa∣crificii. §. Tertiò. Non pia voluntas, quia in∣visibilis. §. Secundò. Non Eleemosynae, quia non soli Deo oblatae §. Tertiò. Nul∣la reverentia externa, ut genuflexiones, pre∣ces, quia actiones transeuntes. §. Sexto. Passiones Martyrum, & alia omnia bona opera, largo modo—non autem propriè & in rigore, Sacrificia dici possunt. Ibid. cap. 3. §. Resp. Martyrum.
• c 1.73

  Cassand. Liturg. cap. 22. Ordo celebrandi Missam, secundùm Romanos, celebrante Pontifice, extractus ex variis libellis—Ibid. cap. 27. Populus dat Elcemosynas suas, i. e. panem & vinum, tàm masculi quàm foeminae. Ibid. De veteri ritu oblationis panis & vini, I••en. lib. 4. cap. 32. Primitias creaturarum offerentes—Hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola pura offert Fabricatori, offerens cum gratiarum actione. Ibid. In expositione ordinis. R••∣mani, exscriptis Greg. Papae. Oblationes fidelium fuisse tantùm panem & vinum—Et Collectae in usum Paupe∣rum, veltestitutionem Ecclesiarum, opportuno tempore, non inter solennia Missarum,—quae populi dona∣ria, non certè Sacrificia—Sacrificium autem, ficut Isidorus, dictum quasi sacrum factum, quià prece mystica consecratur. Cassand. ibid. Non ignoramus veteres Theologes appellâsse Eucharistiam Sacrificium laudis. Malde∣nas. lib. de 7. Sacram. Tom. 1. part. 3. §. Praeter haec. pag. 322.
• a 1.74

  Bellarm.—Sunt Relata, ità ut Sacri∣ficium propriè 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sacerdotio propriè dicto: & Sacrificio impropriè dicto im∣propriè dictum sacer∣dotium respondeant. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Quintum.
• b 1.75

  Maldonat. Ies. Ser∣pens aeneus fuit Sa∣crificium commemo∣rativum futuri Sacri∣ficii Christi, sed ta∣men non habuit al∣tare. Lib. de 7. Sa∣cram. Tom. 1. de Euch. §. Quintum genus.
• c 1.76

  Abulens. in Ios. 22. Altare hoc non fue∣rat ad Sacrificium of∣ferendum. Quaest. 9.
• d 1.77

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 17. §. Ne∣que.—Ne{que} obstat quod Ministri Eccle∣siastici non diceban∣tur Sacerdotes, aut utebantur nominibus Templi, Sacrificii, Al∣taris, & similibus, quia tempore Apostolorū, vigebat Sacerdorium Judaicum, ideo absti∣nebant ab iisdem vo∣cibus, ne viderentur cosdem illos ritus in∣novare.
• e 1.78

  Eodem modo Du∣rantus de Ritibus, lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cap. 1. num. 7.
• x 1.79

  See above, Chap. 3. Sect. 8.
• x 1.80

  See above, Chap. 2. Sect. 1.
• f 1.81

  See the former Te∣stimonie at (d.)
• g 1.82

  Euseb. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 4. Sanctuario hoc modo absoluto, Alta∣rique tanquàm San∣cto Sanctorum in medio Sanctuarii si∣to; ne à plebe eò pos∣sit accedi, cancellis ex ligno fabrifactus circumclusit. Coccius Tom. 2. Tract. de Altari, in vita Antonii. Altare à multitudine cir∣cumdatum. Chrysost. de visione Angelorum, lib. 6. de Sacerdotio.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & D••oxys. Hierarch. Eccles. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. [These Testimonies verifie the same Assertion of D^t. Fulke against Greg. Martin, cap. 17. The Table stood so, that men might stand round about it.]
• h 1.83

  Aug. quast. super Exod. lib. 2. cap. 9. Al∣tare est populus Dei. Lib. 1. de Serm. in mon∣ie. Altare in interiore Dei templo, i. e. fides. Lib. 10. de Civitat. Dei, cap. 4. Ejus est Altare cor nostrum. And other Fathers ordinarily.
• i 1.84

  Nazian. Orat. 28.—Esto, ego pellor ab Altari in Ecclesia: at novi aliud Altare mentis & contemplationis in coelo, ibi adstabo, & Deo offerani Sacrificia, quae sunt tanto accep∣tiora, quàm ea quae offerimus ad Altare, quantò pretiosior est veritas quàm umbra.
• k 1.85

  Cyril Alex. cont. Iulian. lib. 9. (Iulian. Ob.) Judaei sacrificant,—vos autem invento novo Sacrificio—quarè non sacrificatis?—illud commune nobiscum habent, etiam Templa, Altaria, &c. (Resp. Cyril. multò post.) Vitae honestas, & ad me∣liora propensio est Sacrificium fragrantissimum—Et Paulus hortatur nos exhibere corpora nostra Sa∣crificium sanctum, rationalem cultum nostrum Deo.—Igitur etsi Judaei sacrificarent, ut in umbris praecepta implerent, nos tamen larâ viâ cuntes, ad id quod rectum est veniemus, nempè spiritualem & immortalem cultum proficientes. (Iulian.) Mosi dicitur, septem diebus azymis vescemini: vobis parum est abstulisse. (Cyril. Resp.) Im∣pletur Lex à nobis in Azymis, maximè fide justificatis in Spiritu, mentalemque cultum praeponentibus tali modo.—Undè scribit. D. Paulus, ut diem agamus in Azymis synceritatis & veritatis. (Rursus Iulian. ibid. lib. 10.) Offerre Sacra in Altari, & sacrificare cavetis. (Resp. Cyril.) Adnibemus Sacrificia spiritualia, sc. & mentalia: nam illi ex sanguine offerebant boves, & oves,—Et ex fructibus similam, eleas, &c. nos tamen tam crasso ministe∣rio relicto tenue & subtile, at spirituale perficimus: offerimus enim in odorem suavitatis fidem, spem, charitatem, justitiam, laudes. Sacrificium enim secundùm naturam incorporeum decet Deum. (Iulian.) Et Cain obtulit Sa∣crificium de fructibus terrae: Abel de carnalibus. (Cyril. Resp.) Offerimus mel〈…〉〈…〉oddam quàm illi—Sacri∣ficamus enim mentalitèr & spiritualitèr virtutum fragrantias. (R••••sus Iulian. Ob.) Non circumcidimini, non Azy∣ma, non Pascha servatis. Non possumus, inquiunt, (viz. Christiani:) pro nobis enim sen el immolatus est Chri∣stus, & prohibuit Azyma—non Abraham imitantes Altaria erigitis Deo, nec sacrificatoria aedificatis. (Resp. Cyrill.) Circumcisionem habemus Spiritus—In Azymis spiritualia quae habemus. (Et ad Pascha Resp.) Affulsit veritas, Immolatus est pro nobis Christus Agnus verus.
• l 1.86

  Greg. Nazian. O∣rat. 3. advers. Iulian. (De Gallo & Iulian••.) Quinetiam in Cle∣rum seipsos ascripse∣runt, ut divinos quo∣que libros plebi lecti∣tarent: non minus id sibi amplum & hono∣rificum existimantes quàm aliud quidvis, &c.
• * 1.87

  S•• hereafter, Chap. 4. Sect. 3.