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.

THE SIXTH BOOKE,

Entreating of the fourth Romish Consequence, which concerneth the pretended proper Propitiatorie Sa∣crifice in the Romish Masse, arising from the depraved Sence of the former words of Christ; [THIS IS MY BODY:] and confuted by the true Sense of the words following, [IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE.]

The State of the Controversie.

WHosoever shall deny it (say your Fathers of a 1.1 Trent) to be a true and proper Sa∣crifice: or that it is Propitiatorie, Let him be Anathema, or Accursed. Which one Canon hath begot two Controversies (as you b 1.2 know) One, Whether the Sacrifice in the Masse be a proper Sacrifice. 2. Whether it be truly Propitiatorie. Your Trent-Synode hath affirmed both; Protestants deny both; so that, Proper, and Improper, are the distinct Borders of both Controversies. And now whether the Affirmers or Denyers, that is, the Cursers, or the parties so Cursed deserve rather the Curse of God, we are forthwith to examine. We begin with the Sacri∣fice, as it is called Proper.

This Examination hath foure Trials:

• 1. By the Scripture.
• 2. By the Iudgement of Antient Fathers.
• 3. By Romish Principles; and
• 4. By Comparison betweene this your Masse, and the Protestants Sacrifice, in the Celebration of the holy Eucharist.

CHAP. I.

Our Examination by Scripture.

SCriptures alleaged by your Disputers, for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice, are partly out of the new Testa∣ment, and partly out of the old. In the new, some Objections are collected out of the Gospell of Christ, and some out of other places. Wee begin∣ning at the Gospell, assuredly affirme that if there were in it any note of a Proper Sacrifice, it must necessarily appeare either from some speciall word, or else from some Sacrificing Act of Christ, at the first Institution.

First of Christs words.

That there is no one word, in Christ his first Institution, which can probably inferre a Proper Sacrifice; not the first and principall words of Luc. 22. [HOC FACITF: DOE THIS.]

SECT. I.

WHen we call upon you for a Proofe, by the words of Christ, wee exact not the verie word Offering, or Sacrifice, in the same Syllables, but shall bee content with any Phrase of equiva∣lencie, amounting to the sense or meaning of a Sacrifice. In the first place you object those words of Christ, [Hoc facite, Doe this,] from which your Councell of a 1.3 Trent hath collected the Sacrifi∣cing of the Body of Christ: which your Cardinall avoucheth with his b 1.4 Certum est, as a Truth without all exception; as if [Doe this,] in the literall sense, were all one with [Doe you Sacrifice.] But why? because, forsooth, the same word in the Hebrew Originall, and in the Greeke Translation is so used, Levit. 15. for Doe, or Make, spoken of the Turtle-dove prepared for an Holocaust, or Sacrifice: and 1 Kings 18. 23. where Elias (speaking of the Priests of Baal, and telling them that he meant to have a Sacrifice,) said, Doe, or Make. So he, together with some other Iesuites. But vainely, ri∣diculously, and injuriously.

I. Vainely, because the word, Doe, in those Scriptures did not simply in it selfe import a Sacrifice, but only consequently (to wit) by reason of the matter subject then spoken of, which was a mat∣ter of Sacrifice: and are so explaned by just circumstances, as may appeare in the places objected, Levit. 15. where was speech of a Turtle-dove appointed for a Sacrifice. And so likewise in 1. Kings 18. 23. was there mention of a Bullocke to be ordained for a Sacrifice. Whosoever, having spoken of his Riding, shall com∣mand one servant, saying, Make ready: and after, being an hun∣grie,

and having spoken of meat, shall command another, saying likewise, Make ready, None can bee so simple as to confound the different sences of the same word Make, but knoweth right well that the Significations are to bee distinguished by the different subjects of Speech; the first relating to his horse, and the other to his meat, and the like, wherein the different Circumstances doe di∣versifie the sence of the same word.

II. Ridiculously. For if the Hebrew and Greeke c 1.5 Editions, which signifie Doe this, doe necessarily argue a sacrificing act or Sacrifice, then shall you be compelled to admit of strange and od kindes of Sacrifices; one in Gedeon his destroying of the Altar of Baal: another in Moses his Putting off of his shooes. A third in Christs washing of his Disciples feet. A fourth (to goe no further) in the Mans Loosing of his Colt. In all which Instances there are the same originall words now objected, by interpretation, Doe, or Make.

III. Injuriously. First, to the Text of Christ, wherein the word is not indefinite, Doe, but determinate, [Doe this.] Next, Injurious to your owne many Authors: for the words, [Doe this] (by the * 1.6 confessions of your owne Iesuites and others) have refe∣rence to all the former Acts of Christ his Celebration, then spe∣cified; as namely, Blessing, Breaking, Eating, &c. Yea and, if your Cardinalls Answer were held so Certaine among your selves, then would not your Iesuite Maldonate have so farre slighted it, as to say, d 1.7 I will not contend, that in this place the word [Doe] signifieth the same with, Doe sacrifice. Next, Injurious to antiqui∣tie, which (as is confessed) e 1.8 called Doing Masse the Celebration of the Sacrament. Besides, Injurious to your owne Masse, in the Ca∣non inserted by f 1.9 Alexander Pope and Martyr, of the Primitive age, in these words; [Doe this as often] that is, Blesse it, Breake it, Distribute it, &c. A plaine and direct Interpretation of the words [Doe this.] Lastly, Injurious to S. Paul, who, in his Comment upon the words of Christ his Institution, doth put the matter out of question, 1. Cor. 11. where, after the words [Doe this, as often as you doe it, in remembrance of mee,] vers. 25. immediately ex∣pounding what was meant by Doing, expresseth the Acts of Doing, thus: As often as you shall eat this Bread, and drinke this Cup, &c. Which his Command of Doing, by Eating and Drinking, was spoken generally to all the faithfull in Corinth; that you may not imagine it was wholly restrained to the sacrificing Priests.

Other Romish Doctors also, if they had beene so sure of the force of the word [FACITE,] as your Cardinall seemeth to be, then surely would they not have sought to prove it from Virgils Calfe, where it is said; Cùm faciam Vitulâ—and were there∣fore noted by Calvin and Chemnitius of bold Ignorance. But these two Protestants, for so saying, have beene since branded by your g 1.10 Cardinall with a marke of Imposture, as if they had falsly taxed

your Romish Authors of such fondnesse. But now what shall wee say to such a Gnostick, who, as though he had knowen what all the Doctors in the Church of Rome had then written and ••ented, durst thus engage his word for everie one? It may bee, hee presu∣med, that none of them could bee so absurd. But your Iansenius will quit the report of Calvine and Chemnitius from the suspicion of Falshood, who witnesseth, concerning some Romish Authors of his time, sa••ing; h 1.11 There are some who endeavour to prove the word [Facere] to be put for [Sacrificare] by that saying of Virgil,—Cùm faciam vitula. So he. And why might not they have beene as absurd, as some others that came after, yea (by your leave) i 1.12 Ie∣suites themselves, of your Bellarmines owne Societie, who in like manner have consulted with the Poet Virgil about his Calfe; but as wisely (according to our Proverb) as Walton's Calfe, which went &c. For the matter subject of the Poets Sacrifice is there expres∣sed to have beene Vitula, a Calfe. You have failed in your first Objection.

That a Proper Sacrifice cannot be collected out of any of these words of Christs Institution; Is GIVEN, Is BROKEN, Is SHED.

SECT. II.

THe Text is Luc. 22. 20. [Which Is broken, Is given, Is shed] in the Present Tense; and This Is the Cup of the new Testament in my Bloud; wherein, according to the Greeke, there is a varying of the Case: whereupon your Disputers, as if they had cried 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are commonly more Instant in this Objection than in any other: some of them spending eight full leaves in pressing this Text, by two Arguments, one in respect of the Case, and another in regard of the Time.

Of the Grammar point, concerning the Case.

This is the new Testament in my Bloud:] Now what of this? a 1.13 It is not said (saith your Cardinall) This is the Blood shed for you, but, This is the Cup shed for you: Therefore is hereby meant The Bloud, which was in the Chalice, because wine could not be said to bee shed for us for remission of sinnes. But how gather you this? Because in the b 1.14 Greeke (saith M. c 1.15 Breerly) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 varieth the Case from the word [Sanguine,] and the Genus from the word [Testamentum,] and agreeth evidently with Calix: which drive Beza unto a strange An∣swer, saying that this is a Soloe cophanes, or Incongruitie of speech. So he; which Objection he learned, peradventure, of the d 1.16 Rhemists, who are vehement in pressing the same; their Conclusion is: This proveth the Sacrifice of Christ's Blood in the Chalice. In which one Collection they labour upon many ignorances. 1. As if a Soloe co∣phanes

were a prophanation of Scripture by Incongruitie of speech; which (as one e 1.17 Protestant hath proved) is used as an Elegancie of speech by the two Princes of Orators, Demosthenes for the Greeke, and Tully for the Latine; and by the two Parents of Poets, among the Greekes Homer, and by Virgil among the La∣tines.

2. As though these our Adversaries were fit men to upbraid Beza with one Soloecophanes, which is but a Seeming Incongruitie, like a Seeming Limping, who themselves confesse f 1.18 Ingeniously that in their Vulgar Latine Translation (which is decreed by the Councell of Trent to be Authenticall) there are meere Solecismes, and Barbarismes, and other faults, which wee may call, in point of Grammar, down right halting. 3. As if a Truth might not be deli∣vered in a Barbarous speech, or that this could be denied by them, who defend Solecismes, and Barbarismes, which had crept into the Translation of Scriptures, saying that g 1.19 Ancient Fathers, and Do∣ctors have had such a religious care of former Translations, that they would not change their Babarismes of the Vulgar Latine Text, [as nubent, & nubentur] and the like. 4. As if there were not the like Soloecophanes of Relatives not agreeing with their Antece∣dents in case, whereof you have received from h 1.20 D. Fulke divers * 1.21 Examples. 5. As if this Soloecophanes now objected were not justifiable, which is defended by the Myrrour of Grammarians i 1.22 Ioseph Scaliger by a figure Antiptôsis, and explaned anciently by k 1.23 Basil a perfect Greeke Father: referring the Participle [Shed] unto the word Blood, and not unto the Chalice; which marreth your Market quite. And that this is an undeniable Truth, will appeare in our Answer to the next Objection of Time; for if by Given, Broken, and Shed is meant the time future, then these words Shed for you, for remission of sinnes, flatly conclude that hereby is not meant any proper Sacrifice of Christs Blood in the Cup, but on the Crosse. Let us proceed therefore to that point.

Of the Time signified by the Participles Given, Broken, Shed.

These words being of the Present time, Therefore it plainly follow∣eth that Breaking, Giving Christ's Body, and shedding his Blood is in the Supper, and not on the Crosse: So your l 1.24 Cardinall: most invin∣cibly say your m 1.25 Rhemists, and M. Breerly, as dancing merily after their Pipes; n 1.26 This point (saith hee) is cleerely determined by the Evangelists themselves in their owne origin all writings, Broken, Gi∣ven, Shed. And o 1.27 The Evasions, which our Adversaries seeke, whereby to avoid this, are enforced, racked, and miserable shifts. And againe, for corroboration sake. p 1.28 The word Broken also, spoken in regard of the outward formes, which are in time of Sacrificing, is more forcible, because not meant of the Crosse: for when they saw hee was dead, fulfilling the Prophecie [A Bone of him shall not be Broken]

they brake not his legs. Ioh. 19. 33. So hee, and so they. Alas! what huge Anakims, and Gyants have wee to deale withall, no Argument can proceed from them but most Evident, Forcible, and Invincible; yet may we not despaire of due Resistance, especially being supported by your owne Brethren, as well the Sonnes of Anak, as were the other: besides some better aid both from Fa∣thers, and Scriptures, for proofe that these words Broken, Given, Shed, spoken in the Present time, doe signifie the Future time of Christs Body being Broken, and Bloodshed; and both Given up as a Sacrifice instantly after upon the Crosse.

What Authors on your side may satisfie you? whether your Two * 1.29 choyse Iesuites, Salmeron and Valentia? or will you be di∣rected by most voices, whereby it is confessed (namely) that q 1.30 By Blood shed, is commonly understood of it shed upon the Crosse. But what need have wee of the severall members, when as the whole Body of your Romish Church is for us, rendring the word shed, in the Future Tense [Fundetur,] shal be shed, as referred to the Crosse? What thinke you by this? say M. Breerly. * 1.31 Our Adversaries are in great straights, when they are glad to appeale from the Originall Greeke Text which they call Authenticall, unto the Latine Vulgar Translation, which they call old, rotten, and full of corruptions. This were well objected, indeed, if that Protestants should alledge your Vulgar Latine Edition, as a purer Translation, and not as a true Translation of the words of the Text▪ to teach you that it is meant of the Future Time: and that this were urged by them, as a ground of Perswasion to themselves, and not rather (as it were by the Law of Armes) an Opposition, and indeed Conviction upon their Adversaries, who, by the Decree of your Councell of Trent, are bound * 1.32 Not to reject it upon any pretence whatsoever. And to have this your owne Authenticall Translation to make against you, is to be in straights indeed, because all the Decrees of that Councell, by the Bull of Pope Pius 4. are put upon you to bee beleeved under the bond of an Oath.

Is it possible for you to shake off these shackles? Yes, M. Breerly can, by an admirable Tricke of wit: r 1.33 Neverthelesse (saith hee) I answer in behalfe of the Vulgar Interpreter, that as hee translateth in the Future Tense, [which shall bee shed] so doth hee use the Present Tense in the other words Given, and Broken, to signifie that it was then given in the Sacrament, and afterwards to bee given upon the Crosse, both together. As if you should tell us in plaine English that your Church in her Vulgar Latine Text doth equivocate, tea∣ching that It shall be shed, in the Future, doth signifie also the Pre∣sent Tense Is shed, that is, It is, shall be. A fit man (forsooth) to inveigh against a Soloecophanes. But how then can Protestants in∣terpret the Present to signifie the Future? Wee tell you, because you have in Scriptures, and other Authors thousands of Examples of the Present Tense put for the Future, to signifie the certaintie or

instancie of that which is spoken: but was it never heard nor read, that the Future Tense was taken for the Present Tense, because there is no Course, nor Progresse to the time past. And if Shed bee ta∣ken not in true sence, then shall it be lawfull for everie pettie Ro∣mish Priest at every Masse-saving to correct your Romish Missall, authorized by the same Tridentine Fathers, which hath it s 1.34 Shall be shed.

One word more with M. Breerly, only desirous to know of him, if hee allow of the Tense either Present or Future, whether it was straightnesse, or loosenesse, that occasioned him to deliver it in the Preterimperfect Tense t 1.35 Was shed. But he will expect that wee an∣swer his Reason.

Hee urged the word, Broken, that because this could not be meant of Broken on the Crosse, for that His Legs were not there Bro∣ken (according as it was prophesied) therefore it must inferre it to have beene Broken at his Supper, when hee uttered the word Bro∣ken; which is like his other manner of Reasons, blunt, and broken at the point, as it became one not much conversant in Scripture: else might he have answered himselfe by another Prophecie, tea∣ching that the word Broken is taken Metaphorically by the Prophet Esay, chap. 53. speaking of the crucifying and Agonies of Christ, and saying, Hee was Broken for our iniquities: (namely, as two of your u 1.36 Iesuites acknowledge) By nailes, speare, and whips; and is to be applyed to the Breaking of his sinewes, nerves, and veines, as your x 1.37 Cardinall confesseth.

That the words of Christ, [Given, Broken, Shed,] are taken for the Future Time; proved by the same Text of Scripture, and consent of An∣tient Fathers.

SECT. III.

AS for our selves, we, before all other Reasons, and against all opposition whatsoever, take our light from the same Scrip∣ture (immediately after the Text objected) wherein it is said of Iudas, * 1.38 He that betrayeth me; and againe, Christ of himselfe, * 1.39 I goe my way, both in the Present Tense, but both betokening the Fu∣ture: because neither Iudas at that instant practised any thing, nor did Christ move any whit out of his place. Lastly, if ancient Fa∣thers may be held for indifferent and competent a 1.40 Expositors, we have Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, Theodoret, Isi∣dore, Pope Alexander, and Chrysostome, All for the Future Tense, by their Confringetur, Tradetur, Effundetur. What, my Masters, is there no learning but under your Romish caps?

That the objected words of Christ, and the whole Text, doe utterly overthrow the pretended Sacrifice in the Romish Masse.

SECT. IV.

AMong the words of Institution, the first which offereth it selfe to our use, is the formerly-objected word, BROKEN; which word (said your Iesuite * 1.41 Suares) is taken unproperly, be∣cause in the proper and exact acception it should signifie a dividing of the body of Christ into parts. So he, and that truly. Else why (wee pray you) is it, that your Roman Church hath left out of her Masse the same word [Broken] used by Christ in the words, which you terme words of Consecration?

Although you (peradventure) would be silent, yet your Bishop a 1.42 Iansenius will not forbeare to tell us, that It was left out, lest that any man might conceive so fondly, as to thinke the body of Christ to be truly broken. So hee. It is well.

The word, [Shed] is the next, which properly signifieth the is∣suing of blood out of the veines of Christ; But, That Blood of Christ (saith your b 1.43 Cardinall, speaking of the first Institution) did not passe out of his Body. Even as * 1.44 Aquinas had said before him. But most emphatically your Alphonsus. c 1.45 Christ his Bloud was once shed upon the Crosse, never to be shed againe after his resurre∣ction, which cannot be perfectly separated from his Body. And accor∣dingly your Iesuite d 1.46 Coster; The true effusion of his Blood, which is by separating it from the Body, was only on the Crosse. So they.

Hearken now. These words, Blood shed, and Body broken, were spoken then by Christ, and are now recited by your Priest either in the proper sence of shedding, or they are not. If in a proper sence, then is it properly separated from his Body, (against your former Confession, and Profession of all Christians;) But if it be said to be shed unproperly, then are your Objectors of a proper Sence of Christ his words to be properly called deceitfull Sophisters, as men who speake not from conscience, but for contention: who being defeated in their first skirmish, about Christs words, doe flie for refuge to his Acts, and Deeds; whither wee further pur∣sue them.

That there was no Sacrificing Act in the whole Institution of Christ, which the Romish Church can justly pretend for defence of her Proper Sacrifice; proved by your owne Confessions.

SECT. V.

THere are six Acts of Christ, which your Proctors, who plead for a proper Sacrifice, do pretend for proofe thereof, as being ascribable to the Institution of Christ, and are as readily and round∣ly confuted by their owne fellowes, as they were by others fre∣quently and diligently fought out, or vehemently objected: which the Marginals will manifest unto you, in everie particular▪ to be no essentiall Acts of a proper Sacrifice. 1. Not a 1.47 Elevation, because it was not instituted by Christ. 2. Not the b 1.48 Breaking of Bread, because (you say) it is not necessarie. 3. Not Consecration, although it be held, by c 1.49 your Cardinall Alan, The only essentiall Act; yet (as * 1.50 Some thinke) Is it not of the Essence of a Sacrifice. And why should not they so judge? (say wee,) for many things are Sacrata, that is, Consecrated, which are not Sacrificata, that is, Sacrificed. Else what will you say of Water in Baptisme, yea of your Holy-water-sprinckle? of your Pots, Bells, Vestments? which, be∣ing held by you as Sacred, are notwithstanding not so much as Sa∣cramentals. Besides, if Consecration made the Sacrifice, then Bread being only consecrated, it alone should be the Sacrifice in your Masse. 4. d 1.51 Not Oblation, whether before, or e 1.52 after Consecration. 5. f 1.53 Not dipping of the Hoast in the Chalice. 6. (Although your g 1.54 Cardinall preferred this before all others) h 1.55 Not the Consumption of the Hoast by the Priests eating it. Which your Iesuite Salmeron, and Cardinall Alan, together with your Iesuite i 1.56 Suarez, accom∣panied with with seven other of your Schoole-men doe gaine-say; because this is Rather proper to a Sacrament, than to a Sacrifice. And for that also (if it were essentiall) the People might be held Sacri∣ficers, aswell as Priests. So they, of these Particulars; whereof some are more largely discussed afterwards. * 1.57

CHALLENGE.

COnsider now (wee pray you) that (as you All k 1.58 confesse) The whole Essence of a Sacrifice dependeth upon the Institution of Christ. And that l 1.59 It is not in the power of the Church to ordaine a Sacrifice. Next, that if any Sacrifice had beene instituted, it must have appeared either by some word, or Act of Christ, neither of which can be found, or yet any shaddow thereof. What then (we pray you) can make more both for the justifying of your owne Bi∣shop of Bitontum, who feared not to publish in your Councell of Trent, before all their Father-hoods, m 1.60 That Christ in his last Sup∣per did not offer up any proper Sacrifice? As also for the condem∣ning of your owne Romish Church for a Sacrilegious Depravati∣on of the Sacrament of Christ? Vpon this their Exigence whi∣ther will they now? To other Scriptures of the new Testament, and then of the old. Out of the new are the two that follow.

CHAP. II.

That the other objected Scriptures, out of the new Testament, make not for any Proper Sacrifice among Christians, to witt, not Acts 13. 2. of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.]

SECT. I.

ACTS 13. 2. S. Luke reporting the publike Ministe∣rie, wherein the Apostles with other devout Chri∣stians were ••ow exercised, saith [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] which two of your a 1.61 Cardinalls translate, They sa∣crificing. But why Sacrificing, say we, and not some other ministeriall Function, as preaching, or administring the Sa∣crament, seeing that the words may beare it? They answer us, be∣cause 1. This Ministerie is said to be done To the Lord, so is not Preaching. 2. For that the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] whensoever it is ap∣plyed to sacred Ministerie and used absolutely, it is alwayes taken for the Act of Sacrificing. So they. When we should have answered this Objection, wee found our selves prevented by one, who for Greeke-learning hath sca•…•… had his equall in this our age, name∣ly, that b 1.62 Phenix M. Isaac Casaubon. Looke upon the Margent,

where you may finde the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to have been used Eccle∣siastically for whatsoever religious ministration, (even for sole Pray∣ing, where there is no note or occasion of Sacrifice) and he instan∣ceth in the Fathers, mentioning the Morning and Evening 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Church. But you will not say (wee thinke) that there was any proper Evening Sacrifice in use in those times.

What can you say for your Cardinall his former lavish asserti∣on, who is thus largely confuted? Nay, how shall you justifie your selves, who are bound by Oath not to gain-say in your Disputati∣ons the Vulgar Latine Translation, which hath rendred the same Greeke words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] Ministrantibus eis, that is, They ministring, and not, They sacrificing? which might be said as well of preaching, praying, administring the Sacrament; all which (to me••t with your other Objection) being done according to the will of God, and belonging to his worship and service, might be properly said to have beene done unto God.

That the Second objected place out of the new Testament, to witt, 1 Cor. 10. cannot inferre any Proper Sacrifice.

SECT. II.

1. Cor. 10. 18. BEhold Israel—are not they who cat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar? then vers. 20, 21, 22. But that which the Gentiles offer they offer to Devills, and not unto God, and I would not have you partakers with Devills: yee cannot drinke of the Cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devills: you cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and the table of Devills. Hence Bellarmine; a 1.63 Here (saith hee) the Table of the Lord is com∣pared with the Altar of the Gentiles: Therefore is the Table of the Lord certainly an Altar, and therefore it hath a Sacrifice. 2. Because the Eucharist is so offered, as were the Sacrifices of the Iewes. And 3. Because he that eateth the Eucharist is said so to be partaker of the Lord's Altar, as the Heathen of things sacrificed to Idolls are said to be partakers of the Idolls Altar. So hee; following only his owne sence, and not regarding the voyce or judgement of any other. If we should say, in Answer to his first Objection, that your Cardi∣nall wanted his spectacles, in reading of the Text, when hee said that the Apostle compareth the Table of the Lord, whereon the Eu∣charist is placed▪ with the Altar of the Gentiles (which was the Altar of Devills) it were a friendly answer in his behalfe▪ for the words of the Text expressely relate a Comparison of the Table of the Lord with the Table of Gentiles, and Devills; and not with their Altar. And although the Heathen had their Altars, yet (which crosseth all the former Objections) their common Eating of things sacrificed unto Idolls was not upon Altars, but upon Tables, in

feasting and partaking of the Idolothytes, and not in Sacrificing, as did also the * 1.64 Gentiles.

The whole scope of the Apostle is to dehort all Christians from communicating with the Heathen in their Idoll Solemnities whatsoever; and the summe of his Argument is, that whosoever is Partaker of any Ceremony, made essentiall to any worship pro∣fessed, hee maketh himselfe a partaker of the profession it selfe, whether it be Christian, vers. 16. or Iewish, vers. 18. or Heathe∣nish and Devillish, vers. 20. And againe; the Apostle's Argu∣ment doth aswell agree with a Religious Table, as with an Altar; with a Sacrament, as with a Sacrifice, and so it seemeth your b 1.65 Aquinas thought, who paraphraseth thus upon the Text; You cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, in respect of the Sacrament of the Lords Body, and of the table of Devills. To an Objector, who avoucheth no Father for his Assertion, it may be sufficient for us to oppose, albeit but any one. Primasius therefore, expounding this Scripture, maketh the Comparison to stand thus: * 1.66 As our Sa∣viour said; Hee that eateth my flesh abideth in mee, so the eating of the Bread of Idols is to be partakers of the Devills. But this partici∣pation of Devills must needs be spirituall, and not corporall; you know the Consequence.

CHAP. III.

That no Scripture in the old Testament hath been justly pro∣duced, for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist.

THe Places of Scripture, selected by your Disputers, are partly Typicall, and partly Propheticall.

That the first objected Typicall Scripture, concerning Melchi∣sedech, maketh not for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist.

SECT. I.

The State of the Question.

WEE are loth to trouble you with Dispute about the end of Melchisedech his ministring Bread and Wine to Abraham, and his Company; whether it were as a matter of Sacrifice unto God, or (as Divers have thought) only of refreshing the wearie Souldiers of Abraham; because the Question is brought to be tried by the judgement of such Fathers, who have called it a Sa∣crifice. Wherefore we yeeld unto you the full scope, and suppose (with your * 1.67 Cardinall) that the Bread and Wine brought forth had

beene sacrificed by Melchisedech to God, and not as a Sacrifice admi∣nistred by him to his Guests. Now, because whatsoever shal be ob∣jected will concerne either the matter of Sacrifice, or else the Priest-hood & office of the Sacrificer, we are orderly to handle them both.

That the Testimonies of the Fathers, for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, from the Type of Melchisedech's Sacri∣fice, are Sophistically, and unconscionably objected out of Psalm. 110. and Heb. 5.

SECT. II.

SOme of the objected Testimonies (See the a 1.68 Margent) com∣paring the Sacrifice of Melchisedech to the Eucharist, in the name of a Sacrifice, doe relate no further than Bread and Wine, cal∣ling these Materials, The Sacrifice of Christians: such are the Te∣stimonies of Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostome, Theophylact, O••cu∣menius, and Cassiodore, together with two Iewish Rabbins; promi∣sing that at the comming of Christ all Sacrifices should cease, Ex∣cept the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist. This is your first Collection, for proofe that the Eucharist is a Proper Visible Sacrifice. But first Vnconscionably, knowing and * 1.69 confessing it to be no better than a Iewish Conceit, to thinke the Bread and Wine to be properly a Sacrifice of the new Testament. Wherefore, to labour to prove a Proper Sacrifice, in that which you know and ac∣knowledge to be no Proper Sacrifice, doe you not blush? How much better had it becomne you to have understood the Fathers to have used the word Sacrifice in a large sence, as it might signifie any sacred ministration, as Isidore doth instruct you? Who, if you aske what it is, which Christ••ans doe now offer after the order of Melchisedech? he will say, that it is Bread and Wine. b 1.70 That is (saith he) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood. Even as Ierome long be∣fore him; c 1.71 Melchisedech in Bread and Wine did dedicate the Sacra∣ment of Christ: distinguishing both the Sacrament from a Proper Sacrifice, and naming the thing, that is said in a sort to be offered, Not to be the Body and Blood of Christ, but the Sacrament of both.

Your second kinde of objected Sentences of Fathers doe indeed compare the Bread and Wine of Melchisedech with the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. In this Rancke wee reckon the d 1.72 Testimonies of Cyprian, Hierome, Eusebius, and Eucherius, saying

that Melchisedech himselfe offered up the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrifice: which Body and Blood of Christ you will All sweare (we dare say) was not the proper Subject matter of the Sa∣crifice of Melchisedech, who performed his Sacrifice many thou∣sands of yeares before our Lord Christ was incarnate in the flesh, to take unto him either Body, or Blood. And therefore could not the Fathers understand, by the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, any thing but the Type of Christ his Body and Blood; these being then the Object of Melchisedech's faith, as the cited Sentences of Hierome and Eusebius doe declare. Which is a second proofe of the unconscionable dealing of your Disputers, by inforcing Testimo∣nies against common sence.

But will you see furthermore the Vnluckinesse of your game, and that three manner of wayes? First, your ordinarie guize is to object the word Sacrifice out of the Fathers, as properly used, whereas your Allegations tell us that they used it in a greater lati∣tude, and at libertie. Secondly, and more principally, whereso∣ever you heare the Fathers naming Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ, ô then behold Transubstantiation of Bread into Christ his Body; and behold it's Corporall presence, and that most evidently! this is your common shout. And yet behold in your owne objected Sentences of Fathers, that which was most really Bread and Wine of Melchisedech, was notwithstanding by the fore-named Fathers called the Body and Blood of Christ: A most evident Argument that the Fathers understood Christ's words, in calling Bread his Body, figuratively.

That the Apostle to the Hebrewes, in comparing Melchisedech with Christ, did not intimate any Analogie betweene the Sacrifice of Melchisedech, and of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

SECT. III.

BVt, a 1.73 you pre-occupate, viz. The Apostle, speaking of Melchi∣sedech, saith, [Of whom I had much to say, and that which is un∣interpretable, because you are dull of hearing.] Chap. 5. vers. 11. Whence it may seeme (saith vour Cardinall) a thing undeniable, that the Apostle meant thereby the mysterie of the Eucharist, because it was above their capacitie, and therefore hee purposely forbare to mention either Bread or Wine. So your Answerer. To whom you may take, for a Reply as in our behalfe, the Confession of your much-estee∣med Iesuite Ribera, who telleth you that b 1.74 The Apostle naming it a

thing Inexplicable, and calling them Dull, meant not thereby to con∣ceale the matter implyed (which was so pertinent to that hee had in hand) from them, because of the want of their Capacitie: but did, in so saying, rather excite them to a greater Attention; shewing thereby that he did not dispaire, but that they were capable of that which hee would say; at least the learned among them, by whom others might have learned by little and little. So hee, proving the same out of those words of the Apostle, [Passing by the Rudiments, &c. Let us goe on unto perfection:] that is, (saith he) Doe your diligence in hea∣ring, that you may attaine unto the understanding of these things, which are delivered unto those that are perfect. This is the Briefe of his large Comment hereupon. Notwithstanding, what our Op∣posites faile of, in the point of Sacrifice, They intend to gaine from the Title of Priesthood.

Of the Priesthood of Melchisedech, as it is compared with the pretended Romish Priesthood, out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes.

SECT. IV.

The State of the Question.

Aarons Priesthood (said your a 1.75 Cardinall) is transla••ed into the Priesthood of Melchizedech, and this into the Priesthood of Christ, [A Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech:] which, because it is perpetuall and eternall, cannot be performed properly by Christ himselfe, and therefore must be executed by his Ministers, ••s Vicars on earth. So he, accordingly as your b 1.76 Councell of Trent hath decreed. Insomuch that M. Sanders will have the whole Ministe∣rie of the new Testament to issue c 1.77 Originally from Melchizedech. This is a matter of great moment, as will appeare; which we shall resolve by o••rtaine Positions.

The foundation of all the Doctrine, concerning Christ and Mel∣chizedech, is set downe in the Epistle to the Hebrewes.

That the Analogie betweene Melchizedech his Priesthood, and the eternall Priesthood of Christ in himselfe, is most perfect, and so declared to be, Heb. 5, 6, 7, Chapp.

SECT. V.

THe holy Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrewes, comparing the Type Melchizedech with the Arch-Type Christ Iesus, in one order of Priesthood, sheweth betweene Both an absolute Ana∣logie, although not in equalitie of Excellence, yet in similitude of qualities and offices. As first in Royaltie, Melchizedech is cal∣led The King of Iustice and Peace. So Christ (but infinitely more) is called Our Iustice and Peace. Secondly, Melchizedech, in respect of Generation, was without Generation from Father or Mother (ac∣cording to the formalitie of Sacred Storie:) so Christ, according to the veritie of his Humanitie, without Father; and, in his divine nature, without Mother: of whom also it is written, Who shall de∣clare his Generation? Thirdly, in Time, Melchizedech a Priest for ever, having neither beginning nor end of Dayes (according to the same Historicall Tenure:) so Christ an eternall Priest, Chap. 5, 6. Fourthly, in Number, only One, who had no Predecessor, nor Suc∣cessor. So Christ, who acknowledged no such Priest before him, nor shall finde any other after him for ever. Fifthly, Christ was Vniversally King and Priest, as the Apostle noted, Chap. 7. 4. say∣ing, That the Priesthood was changed from Aaron and Levi to Christ, in Iuda. That is, that Christ's Power might be both Regall, and Sacerdotall, saith a 1.78 Chrysostome; which was a singular dignity, as your Iesuite well observeth.

That the nature of everie other Priesthood (be it of your Romish High-Priest) dissenteth as much from the Priesthood of Melchizdech, as the Priesthood of Mel∣chizedech agreeth with the Priest-hood of Christ.

SECT. VI.

IF Comparison might be made of Priesthood, whom would you rather that we should instance in, than in your intituled Summus Pontifex, that is, the High Priest, your Pope: who notwithstanding cannot be said to be a King, as Melchizedech, much lesse as Christ, a 1.79 Everlasting. Secondly, Much lesse a King of Peace, who hath beene reproved by Antiquitie for being b 1.80 A Troubler of the Peace of Christ's Church: And generally complained of by others, as

being c 1.81 Nothing lesse than the Vicar of the God of Peace, because of his raising hostile wars against Princes of the same Nation, Blood, and Faith: And for d 1.82 Distracting the Estates of Princedome and Priest∣dome. Thirdly, not King of Iustice, because some Popes have exci∣ted Subjects and Sonnes to rebell against their Leige Soveraignes and Parents. Fourthly, not Originally without Generation, by ei∣ther Father or Mother; some of them having beene borne in law∣full wedlocke, and of knowne honest Parents: albeit of other-some the mothers side hath beene much the surer.

It will be no Answer to say, as Pope e 1.83 Leo in effect did, viz. that, as Priests, you are not as were the Leviticall; by naturall pro∣pagation; but by a spirituall ordination: because a spirituall Pro∣pagation is no proper, but a metaphoricall Generation. Fifthly, not without Succession; seeing that Succession, as from Saint Peter, is the chiefe tenure of your Priest-hood. Nor will that of Epiphanius helpe you, in this Case, to say that f 1.84 You had no Succession by the seed of Aaron: because although this may exempt you from the Leviticall Priest-hood, yet will not it associate you with the Priest-hood of Melchizedech, or of Christ, whose Characters of Priest-hood was to be Priests soly, individually, and absolutely in them∣selves.

As little can your ordinary Answer availe, telling us that you are not g 1.85 Successors, but Vicars of Christ, and Successors of Peter; because, whilest you claime that the Visible Priest-hood and Sacri∣fice of Christ is still in the Church, which is perpetuated by Suc∣cession, you must bid farewell to the Priest-hood of Melchizedech. But if indeed you disclaime all Succession of Christ, why is your Iesuit licensed to say, that your h 1.86 Roman Popes doe succeed Christ in their Pastorship over the Church, although not in their Priest-hood by offering Sacrifices, expiating sinnes by their owne virtue? Are not the titles of Pastor and Priest equally transcendent in Christ? Sixthly, not in respect of the no-necessity of a Succession, which was Immortality, because the Popes shewed themselves to be sufficiently mortall, insomuch that one Pope maligning ano∣ther, after death hath dragged the Carcasse of his Predecessor out of his i 1.87 Grave; to omit their other like barbarous outrages. Seventh∣ly, not Personall Sanctity, * 1.88 Holy; impolluted, and separated from sinnes. For whosoever, being meerely man, shall arrogate to himselfe to be without sinne, the holy Ghost will give him the * 1.89 Lie. As for your Popes, we wish you to make choice of whatsoever Hi∣storians you please, and we doubt not but you shall finde upon record, that many of them are noted to have beene as impious and mischievous in their lives, and in their deaths as infamous and cursed, as they were contrarily Bonifaces, Innocents, or Bene∣dicts in their names. Can there be then any Analogie betweene your high Roman Priest and Christ, the Prototype to Melchize∣dech, in so manifold Repugnances? Yet notwithstanding, every * 1.90

one of you must be (forsooth) a Priest after the order of Mel∣chizedeck.

Nay, but (not to multiply many words) the Novelty of your Pretence doth bewray it selfe from k 1.91 Peter Lombard, Master of the Romish Schoole, who Anno 1145. taught (how truly looke you to that) that every Priest at his Ordination, in taking the Chalice with wine, and platter with the Hoast, should understand that his power of sacrificing was from The order of Aaron. Nor may you thinke that this was his private opinion, for He (saith your l 1.92 Cardinall of him) collected the sentences of Divines, and de∣served to be called the Master of Schoolmen. Thus farre of the Person of Christ, as Priest; in the next place we are to enquire into his Priestly function.

Of the Function of Christ his Priest-hood, now after his Ascension into Heaven; and your Cardinall his Do∣ctrine sacrilegiously detracting from it.

SECT. VII.

BY the doctrine of your Cardinall, in the name of your Church, a 1.93 The old Priest-hood of Aaron was translated into the Priest-hood of Christ: Every Priest (saith the Apostle) must have some thing to offer, else he were no Priest. Thus his Priest-hood is called Eternall, and must have a perpetuall offering, which was not that upon the Crosse. Nor can that suffice, which the Protestants say, That his Preist-hood is perpetuall, because of the perpetuall virtue of his sa∣crifice upon the Crosse; or because of his perpetuall Act of Intercession, as Priest in Heaven; or of presenting his passion to his Father in Heaven, whither his Priest-hood was translated. No, but it is cer∣taine that Christ cannot now properly sacrifice by himselfe, He doth it by his Ministers in the Eucharist, Because the sacrifice of the Crosse, in respect of Christians, is now invisible, and seene onely by Faith: which although it be a more true sacrifice, yet it is not, as our Adver∣saries say, the onely sacrifice of Christian Religion, nor sufficient for the Conservation thereof. And againe, His sacrificing of himselfe in the Sacrament, by his Ministers, is that by which only ••e is said to have a perpetuall Priest-hood. Accordingly your Cardinall b 1.94 Alan; Christ (saith he) performeth no Priestly function in Heaven, but with relation to our Ministery here on earth, whereby he offereth. So they for the dignifying of their Romish Masse, as did also c 1.95 your Rhe∣mists;

but with what Ecclipse of Iudgement and good Consci∣ence, is now to be declared.

If we take the Sacrifice of Christ for the proper Act of Sacrifi∣cing, which is destructive; so was Christ his Sacrifice but One, and Once, Heb. 7. and 8. But understanding it as the subject mat∣ter of the same Sacrifice, once so offered to God upon the Crosse, and after his Ascension entred into Heaven, and so is it a perpe∣tuall Sacrifice presentative before God. For as the high-Priest of the Law, after the Sacrifice was killed, entred into the holy place once a yeare, but not without Blood, Heb. 9. 7. so Christ having purchased an eternall redemption, by his Death upon the Crosse, went into the holy place (of Heaven) with the same his owne blood. V. 12. To what end? Alwaies living to make supplication for us. Ch. 7. V. 3. and 25.

Hence followeth the continuall use, which the soules of the faithfull have, of his immediate function in Heaven: Having a perpetuall Priest-hood, he is able continually to save them that come to God by him. V. 24, 25. Whence issueth our boldnesse and all∣confidence, alwaies to addresse our prayers to him, or by him unto God: We having an high Priest over the house of God, let us draw neare with a true heart, infull assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinckled from an evill Conscience. Ch. 10. 22. The evidence of these Scriptures hath drawne from your Iesuit Ribera (even then, when he professeth himselfe an earnest defender of your Romane Masse) these Acknowledgements following d 1.96 viz. upon the Ch. 7. 23. That Christ is a true Priest, and all other doe partake of his Priest-hood, in offering sacrifice, onely in remembrance of his Sacri∣fice: And that he did not performe the office of Priest-hood onely upon earth, but even now also in heaven: which function he now dischar∣geth by the virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse. He proceedeth. No man (saith he) will deny this Position (namely) that Christ now ever exercizeth the office of a Priest, by presenting himselfe for us. So he.

This is still Christ's function of Priest-hood, whereunto this Apostle exhorteth all Christians, at all times of need to make their addresse; which Saint Iohn propoundeth as the only Anchor-hold of Faith in his Propitiation, 1. Iohn 2. If any sinne, we have an Ad∣vocate with the Father, Iesus Christ the righteous, and he is (what?) The Propitiation for our sinnes. The which every faithfull Christi∣an doth apply, by faith, unto himselfe, as often as he prayeth to God, in Christ's name, for the remission of sinnes, saying, Through Iesus Christ our Lord. How therefore can this his function of Priest-hood, without extreme sacrilege, be held Insufficient to his Church, for obtaining pardon immediatly from God, who seeth not? As for other your ordinary Objections, taken from two sentences of the Apostle, speaking of the Examples of things celestiall, and of Purging sinnes now with better Sacrifices, you should not have trou∣bled

us with them, knowing them to be satisfied by your owne Authors e 1.97 Ribera, and f 1.98 Aquinas long-ago.

That the former Romish Sacrilegious Derogation, from Christ's Priestly function in Heaven, is contradicted by ancient Fathers; first inrespect of Place, or Altar, and Function.

SECT. VIII.

THeodoret is a 1.99 alleaged by you, as denying that Christ now of∣fereth any thing by himselfe, but only in the Church: albeit he saith not so, simply; but, that he offereth not in the Church personally, which all confesse: for otherwise Theodoret presently after b 1.100 expresseth, that Christ exerciseth his Priest-hood still as man. As for the Church, his words are not, that She offereth the Body and Blood of Christ in Sacrifice, but, The Symbols of his Body and Blood. Therefore is this his Testimony unworthily and unconsci∣onably objected. But we will consult with the direct speeches of Antiquity. 1. If you aske of the Offering, Ambrose answereth you, that c 1.101 The offering of Christ here below is but in an image: but his offering with the Father is in truth. If of the Priest, Augu∣stine telleth you, d 1.102 The Priest is to be sought for in heaven, even Hee, who on earth suffered Death for thee. There is some difference then sure.

As little reason have your Disputers to object that one and onely Testimony of Augustine, f 1.103 Presbyteri propriè Sacerdotes: which ho••pake not absolutely, but comparatively (namely) in respect of Lay-Christians, who in Scripture are otherwise called Priests. (As your owne * 1.104 Catechisme distinguisheth, calling the former the Inward, which only the Faithfull have by the Sacra∣ment of Baptisme; the other Outward, by the Sacrament of Or∣ders.) And with the like liberty doth Saint Augustine call the Sacrifice of the old Testament (although most proper) but a Signe, in respect of the Spirituall Sacrifice of this worke of mercy;

which he g 1.105 calleth True, namely in the Truth of Excellency, al∣though not of propriety, as you may see. And lastly, here you have urged one, than whom there is scarcely found among Prote∣stants a greater Adversary to your fundamentall Article of your Sacrifice, which is the Corporall existence of Christ in the Eu∣charist. All which notwithstanding, the dignity of our Evange∣licall function is nothing lessened, but much more amplified by this comparison.

If furthermore we speake of the Altar, you will have it to be rather on earth below, and to that end you object that Scripture, Heb. 13. 10. We have [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, an Altar (saith the Apo∣stle) whereof they have no right to eat, that serve at the Tabernacle. This h 1.106 some of you greedily catch at, for proofe of a proper Sa∣crifice in the Masse, and are presently repulsed by your i 1.107 Aquinas, expounding the place to signifie Either his Altar upon the Crosse, or else his Body, as his Altar in Heaven: mentioned Apoc. 8. and called The golden Altar. If wee our selves should tell you, how some one affirmeth that This Altar, spoken of by the Apostle, is the Body of Christ himselfe in Heaven, upon which, and by which all Christians are to offer up their spirituall Sacrifices of Faith, De∣votion, Thankfulnesse, Hope, and Charity; you would presently an∣swer, that This one certainly is some Lutheran or Calvinist, the words are so contradictory to your Romish Garbe: notwithstan∣ding you may finde all this in the k 1.108 Antididagma of the Divines of Collen. And your Argument drawne from the word Altar, in this Scripture, is so feeble and lame a Souldier, that your l 1.109 Cardinall was content to leave it behind him, because Many Catholikes (saith he) interpret it otherwise.

But we are cited to consult with the Antient Fathers, be it so. If then we shall demand where our high Priest Christ Iesus is, to whom a man in fasting must repaire, m 1.110 Origen resolveth us, saying, He is not to be sought here on earth at all, but in Heaven. If a Bi∣shop be so utterly hindred by persecution, that he cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on earth, Gregory Nazianzen will for∣tifie him, as he did himselfe, saying, n 1.111 I have another Altar in Heaven, whereof these (Altars) are but signes; a better Altar, to be beholden with the eyes of my mind, theye will I offer up my oblations: as great a Difference (doubtlesse) as betweene Signes and Things.

This could not he have said of those Altars, if the Sacrifices on them both were, as you pretend, subjectively and corporally the same. If we would know how, what, and where the thing is, which a Christian man ought to contemplate upon, when he is exercised in this our Eucharisticall Sacrifice? o 1.112 Chrysostome is ready to instruct him, Not to play the Chough or Iay, in fixing his thoughts here below, but as the Eagle to ascend thither where the Body is, namely (for so he saith) in Heaven. According to that of the Apostle, Heb. 10. Christ sitting at the right hand of God. V. 12. What therefore? Therefore let us draw neere with an Assurance of faith. V. 22.

If we would understand wherein the difference of the Iewish Religion and Christian Profession especially consisteth, in respect of Priest-hood, p 1.113 Augustine telleth us that They have no Priest-hood; and the Priest-hood of Christ is eternall in Heaven. And the holy Fathers give us some Reasons for these and the like Resolutions. For if any would know the Reason why we must have our Con∣fidence in the Celestiall Priest, Sacrifice, and Altar; q 1.114 Oecume∣nius and r 1.115 Ambrose will shew us that it is because Here below there is nothing visible; neither Temple, ours being in Heaven; nor Priest, our being Christ; nor Sacrifice, ours being his Body; nor yet Altar, saith the other. Heare your owne Canus: s 1.116 Christ offereth an unbloody Oblation in Heaven. Thus in respect of the place of Residence of Christ our high Priest, and his Function, which hath beene al∣ready confirmed by the Fathers of the first Councell of Nice. And thus farre of the place of this Altar the Throne of Grace; something would be spoken in respect of Time.

That the former Sacrilegious Derogation, from Christs Priestly Function in Heaven, is contradicted by Scriptures and Fathers, in respect of the Time of the execution thereof.

SECT. IX.

CHrist his bodily existence in Heaven (as we have * 1.117 heard) is set out by the Apostle in these termes: He abideth a Priest for us. He continueth a Priest. He having a continuall Priest-hood. He, without intermission, appeareth before God for us. Thus the Apostle. But what of this, will you say? Doe but marke. Are you not All heard still proclaiming, as with one voice, that your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse is the onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and a 1.118 Iuge

Sacrificium, that is, the Continuall Sacrifice; Continually offered: Whereof the [Iuge] and Continuall Sacrifice of the Law was a signe. So you. But it were strange that the Iuge Sacrificium of the Law, continuing both Morning and Evening, should be a figure of your Masse-Sacrifice, which is but only offered in the Morning. As if you would make a picture, having two hands, for to represent a Per∣son that hath but one. But, not to deny that the Celebration of the Eucharist, may be called a Iuge Sacrificium (for so some Fa∣thers have termed it:) Yet, they no otherwise call it Iuge, or Continuall, than they call it a Sacrifice, that is, Vnproperly; be∣cause it cannot possibly be compared for Continuance of Time to that Celestiall of Christ in the highest Heaven, where Christ of∣fereth himselfe to God for us day and night, without Inter∣mission.

Whereupon it is that Irenaeus exhorteth men to pray often by Christ at his Altar, b 1.119 Which Altar (saith he) is in Heaven, and the Temple open. Apoc. 11. 19. c 1.120 Where (saith Pope Gregory) our Saviour Christ offereth up his burnt Sacrifices for us without inter∣mission: And whereupon your Iesuit Coster, out of Ambrose, affir∣meth, that d 1.121 Christ exhibiteth his Body wounded upon the Crosse, and slaine, as a [Iuge Sacrificium] that is, a Continuall Sacrifice, perpetually unto his Father for us. And to this purpose serve the fore-cited Testimonies of Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Chrysostome, and Oecumenius; some pointing out the Altar in Heaven, as the Truth, Some by Exhortations, and Some by their Examples instructing us to make our Continuall Approach unto the Celestiall Altar.

CHALLENGE.

NOw you, who so fix the hearts and minds of the Spectators of your Masse, upon your sublunary Altars and Hoasts, and appropriate the Iuge Sacrificium thereunto (in respect of Time) during onely the houres of your Priestly Sacrificing; allow your attention but a moment of Time, and you will easily see the Im∣piety of that your Profession.

The Iuge Sacrificium of Christ, as it is presented to God by him in Heaven, hath beene described to be Continuall, without Intermission, Alwayes (that is) without any Interruption of any moment of Time: to the end that all sorts of Penitents and faith∣full Suters, solliciting God by him, might finde (as the Apostle saith) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Helpe at any time of need. The gates of this Temple, Heaven, being ever open: the matter of this Sa∣crifice, which is the Body of Christ, being there ever present. The

Priest, who is Christ himselfe, ever executing his Function. Whereas, contrarily, (you will confesse, we dare say) that the Doores of your Churches may happen to be all locked, or interdi∣cted; your Sacrifice shut up in a Box, or lurched, and carried away by Mice; your Priest taken up with sport, or repast, or journey, or sleepe: yea, and even when he is acting a Sacrifice, may possibly nullifie all his Priestly Sacrificing Act, by reason of (* 1.122 Confessed) Almost infinite Defects.

Therefore the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Doctrine of your Masse is thus farre manifested, in as much that your owne Ministeriall Priest-hood doth so prejudice the personall Priest-hood of Christ, as it is in Heaven, as the Moone doth by her interposition ecclipse the glory of the Sunne: by confounding things distinct, that is, (as we have learned from the Fathers) Image with Truth; The state of Wicked Partakers with the Godly; Matters Visible with In∣visible; Signes with Things; Worse with Better; Iayes with Eagles; and the like.

Of the second Typicall Scripture, which is the Passeover: shewing the weaknesse of the Argument taken from thence, for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse.

SECT. X.

FIrst it is meet we heare your Objector speake, even your a 1.123 Car∣dinall, who albeit he confesseth the Paschall Lamb to have been the figure of Christ on the Crosse, yet did it in the Ceremonies thereof (saith he) more immediatly and principally prefigure the Eucharist than the Passion, which is proved by Scripture, 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passeover is offered up, therefore let us feast it in the Azymes of Sincerity and Truth.] Which offering up was not fulfilled on the Crosse; but it is evident that the Apostle did eat this true Paschall Lambe, the flesh of Christ, at his Supper: and this Apostle exhor∣teth us to this Feast, in saying, [Let us therefore keepe our feast, &c.] So hee, bestowing a large Chapter of Arguments, wherewith to bleare our eyes, lest that we should see in this Scripture [Our Passeover is offered up] Rather the Immolation of Christ on the Crosse, than in the Eucharist. We willingly yeeld unto his allea∣ged Testimonies of Ancient Fathers, who by way of Allusion, or Analogie, doe all call the Eucharist a Paschall Sacrifice. But yet that the words of this Scripture should more properly and principally meane the Eucharisticall Sacrifice (as if the Iewish Passeover did rather prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ in the Masse, than on the Crosse) not one.

It were a tedious worke to sift out all the Drosse of his Argu∣mentations; Neverthelesse, because he putteth Protestants unto it, saying us followeth, b 1.124 But our Adversaries (saith he) will say, that the Apostle, in saying our Passeover is offered up, speaketh of Christ's Sacrifice offered upon the Crosse, but we will prove that this figure was properly fulfilled at his S••pper: (So he) We will now shew you that other Adversaries, than Protestants, are ready to encoun∣ter this your Champion.

First, the choisest Chieftaine of his owne side, armed with the Authority of Christ himselfe, Ioh. 13. 1. [Before the day of the Passeover, Iesus knowing that his howre was come, that he must passe out of the world unto the Father.] Now when was this spo∣ken? Even then, saith c 1.125 Tolet, your Cardinall and Iesuit, When he came to the celebrating of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, that is, at his last Supper. But what was meant hereby? namely, Christ alluded unto the Iewish Passeover (saith he) in signification of his owne passing over by death to his Father. So he. So also your Iesuit d 1.126 Pererius, out of Augustine.

A second Scripture is the objected Text 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passe∣over is offered up, Christ:] that is, As the figurative paschall Lambe was offered up for the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt, so Christ was offered up to death for the Redemption of his people, and so passed by his passion to his Father. So your e 1.127 Aquinas. [Our Passe∣over.] Namely, by his Sacrifice in shedding his Blood on the Crosse. So your Iesuit f 1.128 Becanus. And, By this his Passeover on the Crosse was the Passeover of the Iewes fulfilled. So your Bishop g 1.129 Iansenius, as flat diameter to your Cardinal's Objection as can be.

A third Scripture we finde, Ioh. 19. [They broke not his legs, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled which is written, A bone of him shall not be broken:] which your h 1.130 Cardinall himselfe confesseth to relate only to Christ's Sacrifice on the Crosse; and notwithstan∣ding dare immediatly oppose, saying, Neverthelesse the Ceremony of the Paschall Lambe did more immediatly and properly prefigure the Eucharist than Christs passion: wherein, whether he will or no, he must be an Adversary to himselfe. For there is no Ceremony more principall in any Sacrifice than are these two, viz. The mat∣ter of Sacrifice, and the Sacrificing Act thereof. Now the matter of the Sacrifice was a Lambe, the Sacrificing Act was the killing thereof, and offering it up killed unto God. Whether therefore the Paschall Lambe did more principally prefigure the visible Body of Christ on the Crosse, or your imagined Invisible in your Masse, whe∣ther

the slaine Paschall Lambe bleeding to death, did more pro∣perly and immediatly prefigure and represent a living and perfect Body of Christ, than that his Body wounded to death, and blood∣shed, Common sense may stand for Iudge.

The Ancient Fathers, when they speake of the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion, in a precise propriety of speech, doe de∣clare themselves accordingly. If in generall, then as i 1.131 Origen: All those other Sacrifices (saith hee) were prefigurations of this our perfect Sacrifice. If more particularly, then as k 1.132 Chrysostome, from the objected Text of the Apostle. 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passeover is offered up, Christ, Let us therefore keepe our feast, &c.] Dost thou see (saith he) in beholding the Crosse, the joy which we have from it? for Christ is offered upon the Crosse, and where there is an Immola∣tion, there is Reconciliation with God: this was a new Sacrifice, for in this the flesh of Christ was the thing sacrificed, his Spirit the Priest and Sacrificer, and the Crosse his Altar. In so much that, else-where he teacheth every Christian how, as a spirituall Priest, he may l 1.133 Alwaies keepe the Passeover of Christ. What greater plainenesse can be desired? and yet behold, if it bee possible, a greater from m 1.134 Origen, calling the Sacrifice on the Crosse the the Onely true Passeover. Which saying his Reporter Socrates im∣braceth, as a Divine Contemplation. From Typicall Scriptures we descend to Propheticall.

CHAP. IV.

That the objected Propheticall Scriptures of the old Testa∣ment are by your Disputers violently wrested, for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Masse.

The first Text is Malachy chap. 5. vers. 1.

THE Texts are two. The first, which is, Mal. 5. 1. is objected by your Cardinall in this manner: [From the rising of the Sunne to the going downe of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place shall Sacrifice, and Oblation be offered to my name.] This, saith your Cardinall, * 1.135 Is a notable Te∣stimony for the Sacrifice of the Masse.

The State of the Question.

BE so good, as to set downe the State of the Controversie your selves, a 1.136 The whole Controversie is, whether this Scrip∣ture spake of a Sacrifice properly so called, or of an Vnproper Sacri∣fice, such as are Prayers and Thanksgiving, &c. So you. You con∣tend for a Proper Sacrifice, and We deny it: and how that we are to grapple together, we shall first charge you with alleaging a corrupt Tr••nslation, as the ground of your false Interpretation.

That the Romish Objection is grounded upon a false Text, which is in your Romish Vulgar Translation; even by the judgement of Ancient Fathers.

SECT. I.

YOur Romish Vulgar Translation (which was decreed in the Councell of Trent to be the only Authenticall, and which there∣upon you are injoyned to use in all your Disputations; and not this only, but bound also thereunto by an Oath in the Bull of Pius Quartus, not to transgresse that Decree) doth deliver us this Text [In every place is sacrificed and offered to my name a pure Ob∣lation, &c.] without any mention of the word Incense at all: whereas (which your Cardinall b 1.137 confesseth) Both the Hebrew and Greeke Text hath it thus: [Incense is offered in my name; and a pure offering, &c.] and that More plainly, saith your c 1.138 Valentia. Which warranteth us to call your Vulgar Translation false, as we shall now prove, and you perceive, without any farre Digression. For we meddle not now with the generall Controversie, about this Translation, but insist only upon this Particular, that as A Lion is knowne by his claw, so your vulgar Translation may be discer∣ned by this one Clause, wherein the word, Incense, is omitted quite.

If ye will permit us, without being prejudicated by your Fa∣thers of Trent, to try the Cause by impartiall Iudges, which are the ancient Fathers of Primitive Times; especially now, when you your selves are so urgent in pressing us with multitudes of their Testimonies, for Defence of your Romish Sacrifice, even in their

Expositions of this Text of Malachy: Looke then upon the d 1.139 Mar∣ginals, and you shall finde mention of the word Incense (according to the Hebrew and Greeke Texts) in the very same objected Te∣stimonies of Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hierom, Chrysostome, Eusebius, and Augustine. Notwithstanding, we should not be so vehement, in condemning your Romish Translation in this point, if the mat∣ter, now in hand, did not challenge us thereunto: the word, In∣cense, being sufficient in it selfe to satisfie all your Objections ta∣ken from the Sentences of Fathers, and vrged by virtue of the word, Sacrifice, and Oblation, as will appeare.

That the Text of Malachy doth not imply a proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, by the Expositions of ancient Fathers.

SECT. II.

TWo words we finde in this Prophet, concerning the new Te∣stament: One is, Incense, in the Text now alleaged; the other is the word, Levites. The first in Chap. 1. vers. 3. [In every place there shall be an Offering of Incense, and a Sacrifice, &c.] You All affirme of Prayers, Praises, and holy Actions, that they are Spiri∣tuall, and no proper Sacrifices. But the Fathers, by you objected, (to wit, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hierome, Chrysostome, Eusebius, and Augustine) doe * 1.140 Expound Incense to signifie these Spirituall Du∣ties, which are unproperly called Incense. Therefore may we as justly conceive, that the word, Sacrifice, used by them, and ap∣plied to the service of God in the new Testament, was meant Improperly; and that so much the rather, because your Cardi∣nall hath no Objection out of the Fathers for his advantage in the word, Sacrifice, which he looseth not by the word Incense, from point to point.

For the first Objection we oppose, saying, The word Incense, is likewise used without a 1.141 Addition. To the second, We according∣ly say, Incense was meant also to be Pure: for you will not ima∣gine, that God would promise to his faithfull in Christ Impure things. To the third; It is as well said concerning Incense, as of Sacrifice (against the Iewes, vers. 10.) I will not receive any offe∣rings at your hands: * 1.142 Incense is an abominination unto mee. To the fourth, The same Godlesse Iewes did joyntly contemne Gods worship made by Incense, as by Sacrifice; except you shall thinke it credible, that the same men should be both devout and pro∣fane in one prescribed Service of God. To the last, Malachy in the same sentence (and as it were with the same breath) equally taketh exceptions to the Iewish Priests, in both Sacrifice, and In∣cense.

Therefore as the word, Incense, so accordingly the word, Sacrifice, was used improperly of the Fathers. Doe you not now see what reason your Cardinall had, to make choise of a cor∣rupt Text, wanting the word Incense? which he peradventure foresaw would prove as bitter as Coloquintida in his Pottage.

The second word in Malachy is [Levite,] I will purge the sonnes of Levi; which was spoken (as your Cardinall b 1.143 confesseth) of the Ministers of the new Testament. Well then, did the Prophet call the Ministery & service of the new Testament, Pure Sacrifice? And did he not in the like manner call the Ministers of the new Testa∣ment Purged Levites? as also some of the Ancient * 1.144 Fathers (you know) used to doe: And as your Church, in degrading of Arch-Bishop Cranmer from his order of c 1.145 Deaconship once did. There∣fore both alike were used Improperly, in imitation of this Pro∣phet, and also of that in * 1.146 Isaiah, I will send them Priests and Levites.

That the Text of the Prophet Malachy doth confute the Romish Pretence of Sacrifice, even by the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers.

SECT. III.

PErmit you us, for brevity sake, to contrive this Section into Ob. and Sol. your Cardinal's Objections, and our Solutions or Answers. 1. Ob. Sacrifice is called pure, Ergo, Christs Body. Sol. And Chrysost. (who is a 1.147 objected) termeth Prayers, Pure Incense. 2. Ob. The word, Sacrifice, signifieth not Prayers, Praises, or Pious Actions, for these are improperly called Sacrifices, Ergo, &c. Sol. First, b 1.148 Tertullian (objected) expounded the word Sa∣crifice, to signifie Benedictions, and Praises. And secondly, c 1.149 Euse∣bius (objected) calleth this Pure Sacrifice, Pious Actions and Pray∣ers. Which your Cardinall could not Answer, but with a mar∣vellous and miserable Illusion. 3. Ob. By the word, d 1.150 Sacrifice, were not meant Spirituall Sacrifices, &c. Sol. Yet e 1.151 Hierome (ob∣jected) expresly nameth the Sacrifice, in Malachy, Spirituall.

To come to your Cardinals principall Reason. 4. Ob. The Iewish Sacrifices were called Vncleane, not in respect of the Offerers, but of the Offerings; intimating thereby, that this Offering in the new Testament can be no lesse than the very Body of Christ. Sol. I∣renaeus (objected) plainly putteth the difference to be made, by Malachy, betweene the Sacrifices, as they were the Offerings of the wicked Iewes, and the Sacrifices of godly Christians; and he giveth this Reason, because f 1.152 The Iewes (saith he) offered up their Oblations with wicked hearts, but the Christians performe theirs with pure Consciences. And that the Iewish Sacrifices were not rejected for themselves, but for the impiety of their Sacrificers; your owne Iesuit g 1.153 Ribera confirmeth both by the Constitutions of Pope Clement, and also by this Testimony of Irenaeus. A Truth so evident to your Divines of Collen, that they presume h 1.154 None to be ignorant; for that the Sacrifices of the old Testament were all cleane and pure, because God hath ordained them, and they became impure by the wicked hearts of the Offerers. And Tertullian giveth the same Observation for the Reason, why God, in rejecting them, said, i 1.155 I will no more of your Sacrifice, and not of my Sacrifice.

But you will say, Some of the Fathers spake directly of the Proper Sacrifice of the new Testament. We answer, that as they ap∣ply it to the Eucharist, they meant no proper Sacrifice, as the Sub∣ject, but onely as the Object therein, which was that of the Crosse. In which respect k 1.156 Chrysostome (objected) calleth it that Sacrifice, whereof Saint Paul writeth, saying, [Christ gave himselfe up a Sacrifice for his Church.] Eph. 5. Lastly, Cyprian (objected) cal∣leth it the l 1.157 New Sacrifice of Praise: which is, you know, a Spiri∣tuall, and no Corporall or Proper Sacrifice. The first Propheticall Text is finished.

The second Propheticall Text (as is pretended) is Psal. 72. 16. concerning an [Handfull of Corne in the Top of the Mountaines:] objected to proue a Sacrifice in the Romish Masse; but yet as very Romishly, as were the rest.

SECT. IV.

OF this Corne your a 1.158 Disputers Coccius, Duraeus, Sanctesius, Genebrard, out of Galatinus, and He out of the Chaldee Tran∣slation, and other his supposed Iewish Rabbins, have observed a Cake on the top of the Mountaines. But what of this? This Cake, forsooth, was by their Doctrine a Propheticall prediction of the Romish Wafer-Cake, which is heaved up over the head of the Priest for, a Sacrifice. And this is called, by Master Breerly, b 1.159 A most strong Argument, in behalfe of the said Doctrine. But wee must tell you, that your Galatinus is too credulous, and that his Rabbi∣nicall Abstracts are no better than the Gibeonites old torne shooes, and mooldy bread, seeming to have come from farre, even from old Rabbins, when as they were invented and brought from their lat∣ter Rabbins and Glozers, as it were from the next bordering Countries: because your Author Galatinus (who produceth the foresaid Rabbinish prediction of that Cake) is branded, for such like his Conceipts, with the marke of a Vaine man, by your judicious c 1.160 Senensis. And the Chaldee Paraphrase, which talketh of your Sacrificed Cake, is rejected, as being a corrupt Puddle of Iewish Fa∣bles, (and fabulous in this very point) by your great Romane Dictator d 1.161 Bellarmine.

Which we speake not, as being offended to heare any Rabbi calling that, which is in the hand of your Priest, and above his head, A Cake, which in your Romish Phrase is called a Wafer-cake: for if it be indeed & truly a Cake, then is not it Accidents only, but hath still in it the substance of Bread. And so farewell your Helena of Trent, called Transubstantiation. Now because the Sacrifice can be no better than the matter thereof will permit it, it followeth that the Sacrifice is not properly the Body of Christ, but the Ele∣ment of Bread. And thus your Authors (after their laborious knea∣ding and moulding, their greedy longing, and their sweetly chew∣ing hereof) are at length in a manner choaked with their owne Cake.

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 1.162 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 * 1.163 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 1.164 Iesuit) Be∣cause it is not agreeable to our Priest-hood. No (saith a c 1.165 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 1.166 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 1.167 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 1.168 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 * 1.169 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 1.170 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. * 1.171

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 1.172 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 1.173 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 1.174 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 1.175 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 1.176 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 1.177 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; * 1.178 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 1.179 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 1.180 Chrysostome, b 1.181 Theophylact, c 1.182 Thodoret, d 1.183 Ambrose, e 1.184 Eusebius, and f 1.185 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 1.186 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 * 1.187 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 1.188 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 1.189 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 1.190 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 * 1.191 already; although, indeed, the Play deserveth but laughter: and that so much the rather, because the Representative part (as your Councell of * 1.192 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 * 1.193 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 1.194 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 1.195 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 1.196 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 * 1.197 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 1.198 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 1.199 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 1.200 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 1.201 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 1.202 Godly Actions a pure Sacrifice, and opposeth this against Bloody Sacrifices; and also termeth i 1.203 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 1.204 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 1.205 To accept of this imma∣culate, and unbloody Hoast, which are the very words of your Ro∣man m 1.206 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 1.207 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 1.208 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 * 1.209 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 1.210 〈◊〉〈◊〉 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 1.211 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 1.212 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 1.213 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 1.214 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 1.215 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 1.216 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 * 1.217 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 * 1.218 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 * 1.219 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 * 1.220 Image, in a Sacrament, or Mysterie, according to that their generall Qualification, saying, It is the same Sacrifice which Christ offered, or * 1.221 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 1.222 Baptisme is the passion of Christ: and g 1.223 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 * 1.224 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 * 1.225 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 1.226 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 1.227 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 1.228 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 * 1.229 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 1.230 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 1.231 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 1.232 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 1.233 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 1.234 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 1.235 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 1.236 Sacrifice without an Altar, and your c 1.237 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 1.238 That the Apostles did willingly abstaine from the words of Sacrifice, Priest, and Altar. So your Cardinall, and e 1.239 Durantus, the great Advocates for your Romane Masse: whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish Di∣sputers, who x 1.240 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 1.241 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 1.242 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 1.243 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 1.244 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 1.245 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 1.246 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 1.247 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 * 1.248 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.

CHAP. VI.

Our third Examination, which concerneth your Professi∣on of the Romish Masse, by your Romish Principles.

The State of the Question.

WELL have you discerned of the two-fold accep∣tion of a Proper Sacrifice, which (as a 1.249 you say) Is sometime taken for the thing sacrificed, and also for the proper sacrificing Act. So your Cardinall: and indeed, both these are necessary in a proper Sacrifice, yet neither of these can possibly be found in your pre∣tended Sacrifice of your Romish Masse.

That the Thing, pretended to be Sacrificed, is not properly in the Romane Masse.

SECT. I.

THe things, which your Romish Beleefe professeth to be Sa∣crificed in your Masse, is the Body and Blood of Christ, cor∣porally

extant therein, as the proper Subject thereof. But that there is no Corporall existence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, was the Conclusion of our second, third, and fourth Bookes. And that the same Body and Blood of Christ is not the proper subject matter of the Sacrifice, used in your Masse, is our Conclusion tho∣row out this whole Booke. Of both which you may have a Synop∣sis and generall view in the last Booke. Thus of the thing Sacri∣ficed, now that which followeth, concerning your Romish Sacri∣ficing Act, is a point briefly expedited by two Propositions.

I. That no Act now used in the Romane Masse can truly bee called a proper Sacrificing Act: proved by your owne Principles.

SECT. II.

WHatsoever Sacrificing Act your Advocates have held, as Proper to a Sacrifice; and assumed, as belonging to the Sacrifice of your Masse, have each one beene * 1.250 Confuted by Do∣ctors of your owne Church, of singular estimation; and rejected, as utterly insufficient to prove any proper Sacrificing Act in the Institution of Christ: to wit, not Elevation, not Fraction, not Ob∣lation, not Consecration, and lastly, not Consumption of the Eucha∣rist by the mouth of the Priest: Non licet actum agere, said one, and Non libet, say we. But now are we to discusse such Properties as are yet awanting in your Romish Execution.

II. That that which is properly a Sacrificing Act, is wanting in the Romane Masse; proved by your owne Principles.

SECT. III.

THree properties are required of you, as necessary to a pro∣perly Sacrificing Act, the first is, that the Action be exerci∣sed upon a thing a 1.251 Visible. Secondly, that the thing sacrificed be of b 1.252 Prophane, made sacred by the Act of Consecration. Thirdly, that the Act be a c 1.253 Destructive Act, whereby the thing offered be truly destroyed, and cease to be in substance that which it was. Ac∣cording to your owne objected words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifying a Consumption; and therein answerable to the Sacrifices of the old Law, all which suffered Destruction; things living by slaughter,

things without life, if solid, by burning; if liquid, by powring out, and shedding, &c. So you in Thesi, wee descend to the Hypothesis.

But before we enter into this Disquisition, we shall desire you to take unto you the spirits of reasonable men, whilest we reason the matter with you in few words. First, it cannot be called Pro∣perly Visible, which is not Visible in it selfe. But the Body of Christ, which you call the thing sacrificed, is not Visible in it selfe, but only (as your Councell of d 1.254 Trent hath taught) In the forme of Bread; and then, how invisible it is, only blinde men can be ignorant. Nor will we thinke All, among you, to be so blinde, seeing that we heare one (and that a Iesuite) acknowledging his eye-sight, and plainly, without Parables, saying, that e 1.255 Christ in the Eucharist is invisible. So he. Therefore the first Property of a proper Sa∣crificing Subject is wanting in Roman Masse.

Secondly, we will not judge any of you so blasphemous, as to say, that the Body of Christ, by your Consecration, is of a Profane thing made sacred, which we are sure your Ancient Romish Schoole did deny; which concluded that f 1.256 It is not Christ that is made sa∣cred, by benediction of the Priest, but that which the Priest first taketh in his hands to blesse. And so your Act of Consecration, by defect of the second property, is no proper Sacrificing Act of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Thirdly, it will be as incredible in your owne Iudgements, that the Body of Christ should be properly Destroyed. We say, in your owne Iudgements, who therefore are constrained to say, g 1.257 That the Body of Christ indeed suffereth not herein any naturall Destru∣ction, but onely Sacramentall, that is, Metaphoricall. Ergo, your Romish Masse is destitute of the proper Sacrificing Act of De∣struction. And againe, whereas the word Immolation is taken of h 1.258 Lombard for being Slaine, or suffering by Death; It was most tru∣ly said by him (saith your Cardinall) that Christ is not immolated, meaning not slaine, but only in Representation.

Well then, the State of the Question, as your Cardinall him∣selfe hath set it downe, is (seeing that every Proper Sacrifice requi∣reth a Proper Destruction, and, if it be a living Sacrifice, a Destructi∣on by death) Whether Christ bee properly Sacrificed, or no. Marke, we pray you, your Cardinal's Resolution. His bloody Sa∣crifice was but once truly and properly done, but now it is properly done but by Representation. O Vertigo! For, that which is but once onely properly offered, can never be said to be againe properly offe∣red; and that which is a Bloody Oblation, by your owne learning, cannot be Vnbloody.

And as great an Intoxication is to be seene in your Disputers, in respect of the other part of the Sacrament touching the Cup: For your Cardinall Alan defendeth a Reall Destruction in this

manner; i 1.259 In creatures living (saith he) the thing sacrificed must be slaine, and in this slaying by the separation of blood from the Body doth consist all force and virtue of this Mystery, because Christ is here∣in, after the manner of Sacrifice, taking upon him the manner of Sa∣crificing, which he had in offering himselfe upon the Crosse, by sepa∣ration of his Blood. So he. All which doth inferre a Reall and Pro∣per separation and effusion of Blood; yet immediatly after stan∣deth he to the Defence of Concomitancy, which teacheth an Vnion of Body and Blood together, in as full a manner as it was in Christ his most perfect estate. But Blood Separated, and Vnited, are as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 contrary as can be. How much better would it beseeme you to confesse plainly and truly with your Costerus, that k 1.260 Christ is not offered here with effusion of Blood, but by a representation thereof.

CHALLENGE.

A Syllogisme will quit the Businesse; as for Example. Every proper Sacrifice is properly Visible, of Prophane is made Sacred, and properly suffereth Destruction. (This is your owne Proposition in each part.)

But the Body of Christ, in the Eucharist, is neither properly Visi∣ble, nor properly of Prophane made Sacred, nor suffereth any proper Destruction. (This is also your owne Assumption.)

Therefore the Body of Christ, in this Sacrament, is not a proper Sacrifice, nor properly Sacrificed. This (except men have lost their braines) must needs be every mans Conclusion. And that so much the rather, because it cannot be sufficient, that Christ's Body be present in the Eucharist, to make it a Sacrifice, without some Sa∣crificing Act. A Sheepe is no Sacrifice whilst it remaineth in the fold, nor can every Action serve the turne, except it be a destru∣ctive Act: for the Sheepe doth not become therefore a Sacrifice because it is shorne, nor yet can any destructive Act be held Sacri∣ficing, which is not prescribed by Divine Authority; which onely can ordaine a Sacrifice, as hath beene confessed. But no such divine ordinance hath hitherto beene proved.

Is it not then a miserable case which you are in, to suffer your selves to be deceived by such Mountebankes, who pretend to di∣rect mens Consciences in the Mysteries of Christian Faith, and particularly concerning this high point of Proper Sacrifice? and in the end give no other satisfaction than by meere Riddles of a Vi∣sible, not Visible, Consecrated, not Consecrated, Destroyed, and not Destroyed, with Blood separated, and not separated from the Body; and each one spoken of the same Body of Christ. Our last point concerning a proper Sacrifice followeth.

CHAP. VII.

Our Fourth Examination is of the Doctrine of PROTE∣STANTS, in the point of Sacrifice.

IN discussion whereof, we are to consider first the Acts, which are incident unto the Celebration of this Sacrament: and then the Object thereof which is the true and reall Body of Christ, as it was Sacrificed upon the Crosse. In respect of the Acts we say,

I. That Spirituall Sacrifices, albeit Vnproper, are in one respect more true, and doe farre excell all merely Corporall Sacrifices according to Scripture.

SECT. I.

WHen Christ called himselfe the True Vine, the True light, the True Bread; in respect of the naturall Vine, Light, and Bread; He taught us to distinguish betweene a Truth of Excel∣lency, and a Truth of propriety, by their different Effects. That which hath the naturall property of Bread (although Manna) pre∣serveth but the temporall life, for * 1.261 They are Manna, and died: But the Bread of Excellency, which is Christ's Body, preserveth to * 1.262 Immortalitie. It is a good Observation, which your Canus hath, that a 1.263 Many spirituall things are called Sacrifices, in Scrip∣ture, because they were prefigured by the outward bodily Sacrifices of the Lambe: as the killing of Beasts were signes of mortification, which is a killing of sinne. So he. And the Thing prefigured (you know) is alwaies held more excellent than the figure thereof.

First, the Sacrifice of Contrition, Psal. 51. 17. The Sacrifice of God is a Contrite heart. Secondly, of Righteousnesse, by Mortifi∣cation. Psal. 4. 5. Offer the Sacrifice of Righteousnesse. And Rom. 12. 1. Present your Bodies a living Sacrifice, holy and acceptable un∣to God, which is your reasonable Service. Thirdly, the Sacrifice of Prayer and Praise, Hosea 14. 2. We will render the Calves of our lips. Fourthly, of Almes-workes, Heb. 13. 16. With such Sacri∣fices God is well pleased. Fifthly, Sacrifice of Preaching, Rom. 15. 16. That I ministring the Gospell, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the holy Ghost. Sixthly, the Sacrifice of Martyrdome, Phil. 2. 17. Yea, and if I be offered up upon the Sacrifice and Service of your faith, &c. Next we say.

II. That all these Spirituall Acts, although improperly called Sa∣crifices, yet are they more excellent than all merely Corpo∣porall and proper Sacrifices; in the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers.

SECT. II.

VPon this Contemplation Ancient Fathers have breathed out many divine Ejaculations, for the expressing of the ex∣cellent Prerogatives of Spirituall Sacrifices, in respect of Corpo∣rall. Of the Sacrifice of Contrition, thus: a 1.264 Gods wrath is to be ap∣peased with Spirituall Sacrifices. And b 1.265 They were then Sacrifices for sinne, which are now Sacrifices of Repentance for sinne. And c 1.266 God sheweth he will not have the Sacrifice of a slaine beast, but of a contrite breast. Of the Sacrifice of Righteousnesse thus, d 1.267 He that dieth to the world is for himselfe a Sacrifice. And e 1.268 Then were creatures slaine to cleanse mens bodies: but now are men to mortifie their vices: f 1.269 Every one being made a Priest over his owne body, to over-rule vi∣ces. And g 1.270 They offered those grosse bodies of sheepe: but we the more subtile and pure of vertues, because unbloody things best agree with God. And h 1.271 This is a new and admirable Sacrifice. And i 1.272 The best Sacrifice is to have a pure minde, and a chaste Body.

Of the spirituall Sacrifice of Prayer and Praises unto God, thus; k 1.273 These are most perfect and onely Sacrifices acceptable to God. Of Preaching the word of God thus, l 1.274 We stay vices with the sword of the word. And of The Function Evangelicall, m 1.275 It is a pure Sacrifice, and immaculate. And n 1.276 A Sacrifice sweeter than all Spices. Of Almes∣workes thus, o 1.277 These God testifieth to be more pleasant unto him, than all the Sacrifices. And p 1.278 This is a true Sacrifice, whereof the other Sacrifices are but Signes. Of Martyrdome thus, r 1.279 We are God's Temple, our hearts his Altars: we then offer up our bloody Sacrifice, when we contend for the truth with our blood. In briefe, s 1.280 Every good worke done, to the end that we may enjoy God, is a true Sacrifice. Hi∣therto of our Proposition, by the Determination of holy Fathers: In the next place we say, for the Assumption,

III. That Protestants professe in their Celebration divers Sacrifices of chiefe Excellency.

SECT. III.

COrporall and Spirituall Sacrifices are by you distinguished, calling the first, Proper, and the other, Improper; but the spi∣rituall excelleth by infinite Degrees, as you have heard. In which kinde, Protestants, in their Celebration, professe foure sorts of Sacrifices. For proofe hereof, we may instance in our Church of a 1.281 England, most happily reformed and established. First, the Sacrifice of Mortification in Act, and of Martyrdome in Vow, saying, We offer unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our soules, and bodies, to be an holy, lively, and reasonable Sacrifice unto thee. Next, a Sacrifice Eucharisticall, saying, We desire thy fatherly goodnesse mercifully to accept of our Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving. And why may we not, with the Scripture, call this a Sacrifice? seeing that your Bishop Iansenius held it for an Argument of proving Christ to have offered a Sacrifice, even b 1.282 Because he gave Thanks: giving of Thankes being a kinde of Sacrifice. So he. Thirdly, a Sa∣crifice Latreuticall, that is, of Divine worship, saying, And al∣though we be unworthy to offer up any Sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept of our bounden duty and service, &c. This performance of our Bounden Service is that which * 1.283 Ancient Fathers called an Vnbloody Sacrifice.

Nor is our Church of England alone in this Profession. This Truth we refer unto the Report of your c 1.284 Cardinall, and of d 1.285 Ca∣nus, by whom you may understand the agreement betweene them, whom you name Lutherans, in their Augustane Confession, and of Calvin; by acknowledging not some one Act, but the whole worke of this Celebration (according to the Institution of Christ) both in Communication, Commemoration, and Representation of his Death, with Praise and Thanksgiving, to be a Sacrifice Eucharisti∣call: And also (to use the words of Calvin) Latreuticall, and Se∣basticall, that is, a Sacrifice of Worship and Veneration, which eve∣ry Christian may and must professe, who hath either eyes in his head, or faith in his heart: the Celebration of this Sacrament, in Remembrance of his absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption, being the Service of all Services that we can performe to God. Now wherein, and in what respect we may furthermore be said to offer to God a Sacrifice propitiatory, improperly, will after appeare when we consider Christ's Body as the Object herein.

That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Body and Blood of Christ, which was Sacrificed on the Crosse, as the Object of Remembrance, and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption.

SECT. IV.

NOw we are come to the last, most true, and necessary point: which is the Body and Blood, as the Object of our Commemo∣ration. Still, still doe you urge the saying of Fathers, where they affirme that we offer unto God The same Body and Blood of Christ, on this Altar, even the same which was sacrificed on the Crosse; which therefore you interpret as being the same subject matter of our Commemoration, As is a King acting himselfe upon a Stage, as hath beene * 1.286 shewen.

We as instantly, and more truly, proclaime that we offer (Com∣memoratively) the same, undoubtedly the very same Body and Blood of Christ his All sufficient Sacrifice on the Crosse, although not as the subject of his proper Sacrifice, but yet as the only ade∣quate Object of our Commemoration; as when the same murther of the Emperour Mauritius is represented in a Stage-play in some manner of Resemblance: wherein we cannot possibly erre, having Truth it selfe for our Guide, who said, Doe this in remembrance of me, namely, of the same [Mee] meaning Christ as crucified on the Crosse, as the Apostle commenteth, saying, Hereby you shew the Lords Death till he come, even the Same Body, as the Same Death; whereunto beare all the Fathers witnesse, thorowout this Treatise. Whereby it will be easie for us to discerne the subject Sacrifice of Christ from ours, his being the Reall Sacrifice on the Crosse, ours only the Sacramentall Representation, Commemoration, and Application thereof.

CHAP. VIII.

Of the Second Principall part of this Controversie, which concerneth the Romish Sacrifice, is as it is called Pro∣perly Propitiatory.

THis part is divi∣ded into an 1. Explication of that which you call Propitiatory. 2. Application thereof, for Remission of Sinnes.

The State of the Question of Propitiatory, what it is.

SECT. I.

THe whole Difference standeth upon this, whether the sub∣ject matter of our Representation in the hands of the Priest be properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice, or no. Now Propitiatory is ei∣ther that which pacifieth the wrath of God, and pleaseth him by it's owne virtue and efficacy, which (as all confesse) is only the Sacrifice of Christ in his owne selfe; or else a thing is said to be Propitiatory and pleasing to God, by God's gracious acceptance and indulgence. The Romish professe the Sacrifice of their Masse to be such, in the proper Virtue of that which the Priest handleth. For the Tridentine faith, concerning your Propitiatory Sacrifice, is this, viz. a 1.287 It is that whereby God being pacified doth pardon sinnes.

And least that there might be any ambiguity, how it doth paci∣fie God, whether by his gracious Acceptance, or the Efficacie of offe∣ring, your generall Romane Catechisme authorized both by your Councell of Trent, and the then Pope Pius the fourth, for the dire∣ction of your whole Church, instructeth you all, concerning your Sacrifice of the Masse, that b 1.288 As it is a Sacrifice, it hath an Efficacy and Virtue, not onely of merit, but also of satisfaction. So they, as truly setting downe the true nature of a Propitiatory Sa∣crifice, as they doe falsly assume and apply it unto the Sacrifice of your Masse; which Protestants abhor and impugne as a Doctrine most Sacrilegious; and only grant the Celebration to be Propi∣tiatory (Improperly) by God's Complacency and favourable accep∣tance, wherewith he vouchsafeth to admit of the holy Actions and Affections of his faithfull.

Triall of all this is to be made by Scriptures, Fathers, by your owne Romish Principles, and by the Doctrine of Protestants. In the Interim, be it knowne that our Church of England, in her 31. Article, faith of your Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Masse, as it is taught by you, that it is A Blasphemous Fable, and Dangerous Deceit.

That the Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice hath no foundation in the Institution of Christ.

SECT. II.

YOur onely Objection is, that Christ, in the words of his first Institution, said, Take, this is the new Testament in my Blood, shed for you and for many, for the Remission of sinnes. Heare your Cardinall, a 1.289 These words doe most evidently teach, that Christ now in his Supper offered up his Blood for the sinnes of his Apostles. So he. But if this his Exposition of Christ's words be most evident, a∣las! what a number of other blinde Guides, of great estimation

among you, hath your Church favoured, pampered, privileged, and authorized, who could see nothing in the words of Christ, but the flat contrary? (namely) that they were spoken in the Pre∣sent Tense (Tropically) for the future, not that it was then shed, but that it was to be shed on the Crosse immediatly after; among whom have * 1.290 beene reckoned Gregory de Valentia, Salmeron, Barradas, three prime Iesuits, your Bishop Iansenius, yea and the Author of your Vulgar Translation.

And that you may the better discerne, how hard the foreheads of your Cardinall, of your Rhemists, of M^r. Breerley, and of such others are, who have made that Objection, you have beene like∣wise advertized, that in the very tenor of your owne Romish Masse it selfe, the word is expresly [* 1.291 Effundetur] It shall be shed: We say in the Tenor of your Romish Masse, published by the Autho∣rity of Pope Pius the fifth, repeated by every one of your selves (you being Romish Priests) and accordingly beleeved of all the Professors of your Romish Religion. Which Interpretation was furthermore confirmed by * 1.292 Fathers, and by Scripture (in the pla∣ces objected) and by a Reason taken from your owne Confession, granting that Christ his Blood was not really shed in his last Supper. This is that which we had to oppose unto that your Cardinal's Most evident Argument, as Sun-shine to Moone-light.

That many things are said to pacifie and please God, which are not properly Propitiatorie, by their owne Virtue, according to Scriptures and your owne Confessions.

SECT. III.

IN Scripture, our Mortification of the flesh is called a Sacrifice well-pleasing to God. Rom. 12. 1. Almes, Workes of Charity, are likewise called Sacrifices, wherewith God is delighted, Heb. 13. 16. Comforting, and cherishing the Ministers of God, is called A Sacrifice acceptable, and well pleasing to God, Phil. 4. 18. So the Scripture.

And that Spirituall Sacrifices are more pleasing unto God, than all the Hecatombs of Corporals could be, is a Confession, which we will take from the quill of Valentia the Iesuite, saying that a 1.293 All right and just Actions may be said, in some sort, to be Propiti∣atory, and to pacifie God. As likewise of Prayer; Scripture (saith he) attributeth a Propitiatory force unto Prayers, so farre forth as we obtaine many Blessings of God, through his mercy, by them. So he. Which confirmeth our former Distinction of Propitiatory, by the mercifull Acceptation of God, distinct from your Propitiatory, which is of meritorious Satisfaction by its owne virtue: which mere man must let alone for ever. Thus of our Examination from Scripture.

The Doctrine of Ancient Fathers, concerning a Propitiatory Sacrifice.

SECT. IV.

ALbeit our Premises in the former part of this Controversie touching Sacrifice, and proving both by Scripture and an∣cient Fathers, that the Eucharist is not properly a Sacrifice, might give a Supersedeas to all your further contending by their Autho∣rity, for Defence of a Sacrifice properly propitiatory; because that which is not properly a Sacrifice, can no more be a Sacrifice pro∣perly Propitiatory, than that which is not properly a stone can be properly called a Mil-stone: Notwithstanding, we would be loth to be indebted unto you for an Answer to your objected Fathers, in this point also. The Objections, which you use and urge, are of two kinds: some, wherein there is no mention of the Body and Blood of Christ at all; and the other sort such, wherein they both are named and expressed.

CHAP. IX.

That the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers might well be understood to call the Celebration of the Eucharist A Propitiatory Sacrifice, in respect of divers Spiritu∣all Acts therein, without any Conceit of a Proper Vir∣tue of Propititiation it selfe.

SECT. I.

A Propitiatory in God's mercifull acceptance we de∣fend, but not in Equivalency of valour and Vir∣tue in it selfe. First, as it is an Act commanded by Christ, in which sence your Iesuit * 1.294 Valentia saith, that Every right Act is in a sort Propitiatory. Secondly, as it is a godly Act, whereby we doe affiance our soule * 1.295 to God, Every good worke, which is done that we may adhere unto * 1.296 God, is a True Sacrifice. Thirdly, as it is an Act serving peculiar∣ly to Gods worship, for Religiousnesse is that (said Chrysostome) wherewith God testifieth himselfe to be well pleased. Fourthly, as it is an Act of Commemoration and Representation of that only pro∣perly Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse, wee must grant to your Cardinall, that Commemoration alone hath not any Propitious Efficacy in it selfe: But yet by the Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ, resembled thereby, God vouchsafeth to be Propitious unto us; in which respect a 1.297 Origen exhorting Christians to resort

unto Christ, whom God hath made a Propitiation through faith in his blood, and also to reflect upon the Commemoration which was com∣manded by Christ, saying, Doc this in remembrance of mee: This (saith Origen) is the onely Commemoration which maketh God propitious.

If any would say, how then shall we not make Commemoration to be Propitiatory in it selfe? We answer, as a man holding in his hand a pretious Iewell, which is inclosed in a Ring of gold, and putting it on his finger to preserve him from a Convulsion, the Preservative Virtue is not attributed to the Ring, but to the Iew∣ell; and yet we say, the Ring is the onely meanes to us, which maketh the finger capable of that Virtue. So say we, Christ his owne Sacrifice, which was the onely precious subject matter of our Redemption, is made now, by our Remembring, the Object of our Commemoration, and Application of it, for our Remission and Iustification.

Nor is Origen alone in this, but all they (who were * 1.298 many) whom you have heard saying that Christs Death and Passion, yea his Bloody Body is offered herein. Your owne Iesuite Salmeron is witnesse unto us (for the Councell of Ephesus, Eusebius, and Saint Augustine) that b 1.299 They declared us to have expiation of our sins by this Sacrifice, because the bloody Sacrifice of Christ is remembred and commemorated herein.

That we say nothing of our Supplications and Prayers, by which through the same Virtue of Christ's Propitiation, we obtaine par∣don and Remission of sinnes (whether for Quicke and Dead, be∣longeth not to this Dispute, because whether so or so, they are but Supplications still) together with many other saying Blessings from God. Nor of the Act of Thanksgiving, (from which this Sacrament is called the Eucharist) because this is the destinate end of our Celebration, and therefore of all our spirituall Sacri∣fices most acceptable unto God, for which cause * 1.300 Iustine Martyr called it, by the way of Excellency, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, The onely gratefull Sacrifices. Lastly, in respect of our Applica∣tion it selfe, whereof in the next Section.

That the Ancient Fathers called it a Propitiatory Sacrifice Obje∣ctively, for the Application of the Properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Crosse, made of the faithfull in Celebration of the Memory thereof.

SECT. II.

WHen it was asked why the Ancient Fathers called Bap∣tisme a Sacrifice, it was answered, * 1.301 Because the Sacrifice of Christ's Death was applied unto us thereby. Yet that Death, truly and onely properly propitious, is but onely objectively offered in Baptisme. The same may be said of the Eucharist, whereof

your owne great Schoole-man, and Bishop a 1.302 Canus saith, that It is sufficient that the Eucharist be called a proper and true Sacrifice, because the Death of Christ is applyed thereby, as if he were now dead. Marke, As if he were now dead, which can be but Objectively only, and which (as you all know) is not your Priestly Sacrifice.

As for the Ancient Fathers, who in their objected Testimo∣nies talked of Christ b 1.303 Suffering, being slaine, and dying in the Eu∣charist; We Protestants subscribe to their Iudgements with a full faith, in acknowledgement that Christ's Death, the proper worke of our Propitiation, is the only Object of our Remembrance and faith: which sayings of the Fathers (saith your c 1.304 Iesuit) must be understood Sacramentally, to signifie the reall slaughter of Christ offe∣red by him upon the Crosse. So he. Which againe proveth our Conclusion, that they understood a Propitiatory Sacrifice onely Objectively in the Eucharist. We will end with the objected Te∣stimony of Ambrose, thus, d 1.305 Here is an Image offered [Quasi, that is] as it were a man, as it were suffering a Passion, offering himselfe as it were a Priest, that he may forgive our sinnes. And of his now be∣ing * 1.306 elsewhere he saith, The truth is in Heaven, there is He in truth with the Father. So he. Whereby is confuted your Con∣clusion of a Subjective Body of Christ present herein, from [Quasi homo offertur:] for this any one may perceive to be but a Quasi Argument for a Corporall presence, and to make fully for our Di∣stinction and Defence thereby. Enough of the Iudgement of Antiquity. Our third Examination followeth.

CHAP. X.

Of the pretended Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice, confu∣ted by Romish Principles, as destitute of foure Proper∣ties of Propitiation.

THE first is the Imperfection of the Sacrificer. The next, the no-proper Destruction of the thing sacrificed. The third, the Vnbloodinesse of the same. And the last, the but-finite Virtue and value, which you attri∣bute unto it.

I. Confutation, from the confessed Imperfection of the Sacrifice.

SECT. I.

FIrst the Reason, why you account your Propitiatory Sacrifice to be but of finite Virtue, is a 1.307 Because it is not immediatly offe∣red up by Christ himselfe, as that was of the Crosse; but by his Mi∣nister. And the Reason of this, you say, is, b 1.308 Because the Vniver∣sall Cause worketh according to the limitation of the second Causes. So you. Vnderstanding, by Sacrifice, not the Object of your Re∣membrance, which is the Body of Christ, as crucified; but the subject matter, in the hand of the Priest. From whence this Con∣sequence must issue, whether you will or no, (namely) that Per∣fection of the Sacrifice being a necessary property of a true Propi∣tiatory Virtue and efficacy in prevailing with God for man, it is impossible for any of your Priests (because All are imperfect) to offer up properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice unto God.

None may hereupon oppose unto us the Propitiatory Sacrifices under the Law, because they also were twice imperfect; once in respect of the Sacrificer, who was but a mere man: and secondly, in respect of the matter of Sacrifice it selfe, which was some un∣reasonable beast, and had no Virtue of Propitiation in it selfe, for remission either of guilt, or of the eternall punishment of sinne, as hath beene * 1.309 Confessed; and therefore not properly Propitia∣tory, but fiuratively; only as Types of the Sacrifice of Christ.

II. Confutation from the Romish Definition of a Propitiatory Sacrifice.

SECT. II.

SEcondly, in your c 1.310 Romish definition, it is required that the Thing propitiatorily sacrificed suffer a Reall Destruction, (so that it cease to be in the substance thereof) and a Bodily Consump∣tion. Notwithstanding you are absolutely free from the Blasphe∣my, to say that Christ his Body doth in the Eucharist suffer pro∣perly a reall Destruction. Ergo, say we, by your owne Principle there cannot be herein a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory.

III. Confutation from the Apostle's Position, against the Vnbloodinesse thereof.

SECT. III.

THe Apostles Position is this, that Without the shedding of Blood there is no Remission, Heb. 9. 22. Your Romish As∣sumption is; The Sacrifice of the Romish Masse is unbloody. Our Conclusion necessarily followeth, which is this; Ergo, say we,

your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be properly Propitiatory. Your Car∣dinall, in Answering first that the d 1.311 Apostle spake this of the Sacri∣fice of the old Law, onely standeth twice convicted of a foule Ter∣giversation; first, by the Apostles Explication of himselfe, who although he spake from the observation of the old Testament, Heb. 9. 22. yet doth he apply it to the state of the new Testament, in the same Chapter, vers 13, 14. But much more by his owne Conscience, who having spent some Chapters, in proving that the Sacrifices of the Law were Types of the Sacrifice in the Masse, doth now deny that this Proposition of [No Remission of sinnes without shedding of Blood] is to be applyed to the Eucharist. He is glad therefore to adde a second Answer, given by your Maldo∣donate, who finding no security in the former Refuge, betaketh himselfe to another, saying that e 1.312 Remission of sinnes is not now for any present effusion of Blood, but for that effusion which had beene. Which Answer (if we may so interpret it) is a plaine Prevarica∣tion. The Reason may be this; first, because there was never Bloody Sacrifice (Christ on the Crosse excepted, which only was of infinite virtue, as well to times past, as to come) but it was alwaies actually by the effusion of Blood at the time of Sacrificing. These kinds of so ordinary Doubtings and Turnings, which your Disputers use, as men in a maze, doe plainly Demonstrate either their irresolute Iudgements, or else their dissolute Consciences; and in either of both their desperate Cause.

We have not done yet, but give you further to understand, that as you could finde no proper Sacrificing Act, to make your Masse properly a Sacrifice, so neither can ye shew any propitiating Act, to make it properly a Sacrifice propitiatory. This we prove out of your Councell of Colen, which f 1.313 Concludeth, that your Masse-Sa∣crifice cannot be called Propitiatory in respect of any Act of Oblation of the Priest, or accommodation of the Communicants, or yet of the Church: but onely of the Oblation once made by Christ himselfe on the Crosse. Which oblation how absent it is, who seeth not, that is present with himselfe? Thus were those Divines driven to an Objective Act of Oblation.

IV. Confutation from the Romish Disvaluation of that which they call Christ's Sacrifice.

SECT. IV.

THe last is in respect of the value, for Christ's Sacrifice on the Crosse you doe Christianly esteeme to have beene of a 1.314 Infinite merit and Satisfaction, because it was offered by himselfe: and that otherwise b 1.315 He could not have made Satisfaction to an Infi∣nite and Divine Majestie. So you. But of the Sacrifice of the

Masse, what? The common opinion of our Church (saith your c 1.316 Car∣dinall) is that it is but of finite value. So he. Notwithstanding it be impossible for any thing of finite virtue to have power in it selfe of remission of an infinite guilt against an infinite Ma∣jesty.

CHALLENGE.

A More palpable betraying therefore of a Cause there cannot be, than (as you have hitherto done) by defending Positi∣ons repugnant to your owne Definition, and by obtruding things as proper, which are void of all due Properties. This being all one, as if you, in the Case of Miracles, would deliver unto us a Iannes and Iambres, instead of Moses; in Art, Sophistrie for Lo∣gique; in Commerce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, adulterate Coine for cur∣rent; and in warlike stratagems, instead of a naturall, a Trojane Horse. Oh what a misery it is to reason with such unreasonable (to speake mildly) men! Thus much of your Romish Sacrifice, according to your owne Explanations thereof.

CHAP. XI.

Of the Romish Application of their Sacrifice.

The State of the Question.

THat the Eucharist was ordained of Christ, for the Application of remission of sinnes Sacra∣mentally to all Communicants, is the profession of all Protestants. That the Sacrifice of Christ's Crosse is therein offered up Objectively, by Commemoration and Supplication, for all Con∣ditions of men, hath an universall Consent among them, with∣out Exception. But that any substantiall Body, as subjectively contained in the Masse, can be the Sacrifice of applying the me∣rits of Christ for remission of sinnes, (which is your a 1.317 Tridentine faith) hath beene hitherto impugned and infringed thorowout our whole former Dispute. Furthermore our present Opposition is threefold: first, concerning the sinnes that are said to be remit∣ted. Secondly, touching the parties, who have Remission. Third∣ly, in regard of your Priests, by whom Application of Remission of sinne is made.

I. That the Church of Rome is not yet resolved of the Extent of the Virtue of her Sacrifice of the Masse, for remission of sinnes or Punishment.

SECT. I.

NEver can there be any true Application of the Passion of Christ for remission of sinnes (say we) which is not absolute, but onely partiall. Your Iesuit b 1.318 Ribera seemeth to come on round∣ly towards us, and friendly to joyne hands with us in this point of Application of an absolute Remission of sinnes, pretending that this was Decreed in the Councell of Trent, as indeed it seemeth to have beene, and that from the Authority of Scripture; and he ad∣deth, that Protestants (whom he is pleased to grace with the name of * 1.319 Heretikes) doe not deny this manifest Truth. So he. Doe you marke? a Truth, a manifest Truth, a Truth said to be confirmed by your last Councell, and a Truth consented unto by the Heretikes, as being a manifest Truth.

Who would not now looke for a Truth universally professed in your Church without all exception? But behold (even since that Councell of Trent) your greatly approved Melchior Canus steppeth forth with a peremptory Contradiction, saying, that to hold c 1.320 All mortall sinnes to be remitted by the Application of the Sacri∣fice in the Masse, is false, except all Divines be deceived. So he, speaking of the Divines of the Romish Church.

Your Iesuit Valentia noteth, among you, another sort of Do∣ctors, maintaining that your Masse-Application serveth onely for d 1.321 Remission of such temporall punishment, the guilt whereof was for∣merly pardoned. So he.

CHALLENGE.

IF any shall but recollect the Contradictions of your owne Do∣ctors, thorowout out all these former points of Controversie already handled, he will thinke himselfe to be among the people called Andabatae, who first blind-folding themselves fell a buf∣feting one another, not knowing whom they hitt; therefore wee leave them in their broiles, and our selves will consult with An∣tiquity.

That the Ancient Fathers never taught any Application of Christ's Passion, but that which is for a Plenary Remission of sinnes.

SECT. II.

CArdinall a 1.322 Alan hath put into our hands a consent of some Fathers, for proofe of an Application for remission of all sinnes, for which Christ died. The Fathers, whom he produ∣ceth, are these, Chrysostome, Theophylact, Cyprian, and Origen. If these will not suffice, you may take unto you these b 1.323 other, Iulius Pope of Rome, Iustin Martyr, Augustine, Cyril, and Basil. Doe you require any more? What needeth it? seeing that the same Cardinall further saith, There is found no Father to the contrary. Thus much of the Application, which is to be made by this Sacra∣ment, the next is, For whom.

That the Romish Vse of a singular Application of the Sacrifice of the Masse to Non-Communicants, because of their present Attendance, is repugnant to the Doctrine of Antiquity.

SECT. III.

THE Greeke and Latine Churches anciently made up the whole Catholike Church. The Greeke pronounced an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Be-gone, to all Non-Communicants: the Latine Church also ordained, that the Deacon should proclaime all Not-Commu∣nicants to Depart. From which Custome afterwards the word Masse had it's Orginall; namely from the words, [Ite, missa est] as * 1.324 hath beene confessed. But now the Case is so altered, that if any Non-Communicant being present shall in Devotion apply himselfe to your Romish Masse, your c 1.325 Canon of the Masse pro∣uideth that Application of your Sacrifice be made unto him for Remission of sinnes. And that, as your Iesuit teacheth, d 1.326 The fruit of the Sacrifice [Ex opere operato] redoundeth unto him; and not this only, but also to be e 1.327 Spiritually refreshed by the mouth of the Priest.

Be you therefore intreated to lend your Attention, but for an Instant of time, and then tell us whether we speake Reason unto

you, or no. All Antiquity Catholike (as hath beene generally * 1.328 confessed by your selves) never admitted to that part of the Masse, which you call a Sacrifice, any but such as were prepared to Communicate, in receiving the Sacrament, but shut all others out of Doores; which, we say, they neither would nor could law∣fully have done, if they had beene of your now Romish faith, to beleeve that it is a Sacrifice Propitiatory for all such as devontly attend to behold it. For, wheresoever there was a Sacrifice of Ex∣piation among the Iewes, under the Law, all persons had li∣berty to partake thereof. We thinke that this Argument stick∣eth fast in the Bowels of this Cause.

That the Romish Church lesseneth the due estimation of Christ's Passion, in her Applying of it to others, for the increasing of falsly-devised and unjust Gaine in behalfe of the Priest; without all warrant of Antiquity.

SECT. IV.

HItherto we have expected some Reasons, which might move your Church so to lessen the proportion of Christ's Passion, in the Application thereof for remission either of sinnes or pu∣nishments. And now at length your Iesuit Salmeron commeth to resolve us, saying, a 1.329 If the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood were of infinite value, then one Masse being said for all the soules in the Dungeon of Purgatory would evacuate and empty the whole place, and then should it be in vaine to say many Masses for one soule. So he. We may not so farre digresse, as to enter into this Con∣troversie of Purgatory, because we are to finish that which wee have now in hand. Else were it easie to shew, that the infinite gaine, which your Alchemists worke out of your forge of Purga∣tory-fire, hath occasioned this Heterodoxe and gracelesse Do∣ctrine of disannulling the infinite efficacy of Christ's Blood: which is so utterly forlorne of all approbation from Antiquity, that your Disputers have not alleaged so much as one Iota, out of any Fa∣ther, for warrant thereof.

Next, in the Sacrifice of your Masse, there is (say b 1.330 you) a Por∣tion thereof appropriated to the Priest alone, which is a power to apply, by his Memento, the same Sacrifice to whom he will, so farre forth that he extend his Memento upon any one, to whom he shall be pleased to intend it, upon Condition to receive money therfore: in so much that It will be more availeable for that one, than if it were extended to many. So you. Very well, but by what Law came your Priests to this peculiar power of dispensing a Portion for their owne advantage? Cardinall c 1.331 Alan (your Advocate) is ready

to answer for you, and we are attentive to heare what he saith; There is not either any Scripture (saith he) or Father shewing any such thing for such a manner of esteeming the fruit of Christ's Sa∣crifice. So he.

In the third place, whiles we are in this speculation, we heare one of you putting this Case. If the Priest shall receive a stipend of Peter, upon Condition that he shall apply his Memento and Intention upon the soule of Iohn, departed this life, and he not∣withstanding doth apply it unto the good of the soule of Paul, whether now the Priests Memento should worke for the good of the soule of Iohn, according to the Priest's Obligation upon the Condition made with Peter, or else for the good of the soule of Paul, according to the Priest's immediate Intention. Here, al∣though some of you stand for the justice of the d 1.332 Priest's Obligati∣on, yet some others Resolution is, that the Priest's intention (albeit unjust) must stand for good. We have done.

CHALLENGE.

WHereas it is now evident, that your Romish Masse serveth so well for your no small gaine, by appropriating of a Priestly portion to be dispensed for some one or other soule for money, as it were the Cookes fee, and that but onely for the paines of a Spiri∣tuall Intention; yea, though it be to the Injury of the Purchaser: It can be no marvell, that we heare so often, and as loud shouts for your magnifying of the Romane Masse, as ever Demetrius, and his fellow Crafts-mates made for Diana, the Goddesse of the E∣phesians.

It remaineth, that we deliver unto you a Synopsis of the Abomi∣nations of your Romish Sacrifice, which we have reserved to be discovered in the eighth Booke. We hasten to the last Exami∣nation, which is of Protestants.

CHAP. XII.

That the Protestants, in their Celebration, offer to God a Spirituall Sacrifice, which is Propitiatory, by way of Complacency.

SECT. I.

CAll but to minde our former * 1.333 Distinction of a double kinde of Propitiousnesse; one of Complacency, and Acceptation, and the other of Merit, and Equiva∣lency; and joyne hereunto your owne definition of Propitiousnesse by way of gracious acceptance, when you confesse that Every religious Act, whereby man in devo∣tion adhereth intirely unto God, in acknowledgement of his Sove∣raignty, mercy, and bounty, is propitious unto God. Now then, Pro∣testants celebrating the Eucharist with Faith in the Sonne of God, and offering up to God the Commemoration of his death, and man's Redemption thereby (a worke farre exceeding in worth the Creation, if it so were, of a thousand Thousand worlds) and thereby powring out their whole spirit of Thankfulnesse unto God (in which respect this Sacrament hath obtained a more singular name than any other, to be called Eucharistia, that is, A Giving of Thankes, and that most worthily, for as much as the end and efficacy of Christ's Passion is no lesse than our Redempti∣on from the eternall paines of hell, and purchase of our everla∣sting salvation:) All these (I say) and other Duties of holy devo∣tion being performed not according to Mans Invention, as yours; but to that direct, and expresse Prescript, and ordinance of Christ himselfe [Doe this,] It is not possible, but that their whole com∣plementall Act of Celebration must needs be through Gods fa∣vour propitious, and well-pleasing in his sight. Take unto you our last Proposition, concerning the second kinde of Propitiousnesse.

That the Protestants may more truly be said to offer to God a meritoriously Propitiatory Sacrifice for Remission of Sinne than the Romish doe.

SECT. II.

BEfore we resolve any thing, we are willing to heare your Car∣dinals Determination. The Death of Christ (saith a 1.334 he) is a proper, and most perfect Sacrifice. So he, most Christianly: But after noting the Profession of Protestants, to hold that the same Most perfect Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is the only proper Sa∣crifice of Christian Religion, he denieth this, because (saith he)

b 1.335 This is common to all true Religions, and being but once done, ceaseth to be any more, but onely in the virtue and efficacy thereof. And all this he doth for establishing of another properly Propitiatory Sa∣crifice of the Romish Masse, by the hands of the Priest.

But we, beleeving that That Sacrifice of Christ's death was but once offered as (according to our other distinction) the only subje∣ctive, meritorious, and properly Propitiatory Sacrifice, therefore it ceaseth to be so any more; but yet is still objectively perpetuall in the Church of God, as the object of our Remembrance of his Death, Representatively and Commemoratively, both in our Acts of Celebration, and in our Prayers and Praises offered up to God in the true apprehension of the Efficacy and Virtue thereof. In which respect (as Christian Beleefe professeth) Christ is called * 1.336 The Lambe s••aine from the beginning of the world: so is he the same still, and ever will be untill the end thereof; for which Cause our Celebration is called of the Apostle A shewing of the Lord's Death till he come. So that as by the Bodily Eye, beholding the * 1.337 Serpent on a pole in the Wildernesse, they that were stung with the dead∣ly poison of fiery Serpents were healed: even so All, who by Faith, the Eye of the soule, behold the Sonne of God lift upon the Crosse, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

But what is that Propitiousnesse of the Sacrifice of Christ's Body (will you say) which you Protestants will be said to offer more truly to God, than that we Romanists doe, and wherein doth the dif∣ference consist? Be you as willing to heare as to aske, and then know, that first although the whole Act of our Celebration, in Commemoration of Christ's Death, as proceeding from us, be a Sacrifice propitious, as other holy Acts of Devotion, only by God's Complacency and Acceptance; Yet the object of our Commemora∣tion being the Death and Passion of Christ, in his Body and Blood, is to us, by the efficacy thereof, a truly and properly propiatory Sa∣crifice, and Satisfaction, for a perfect remission of all sinnes. Thus concerning Protestants. As for you, if we consider your owne out∣ward Acts of Celebration, (where in Ten Circumstances we finde Ten Transgressions of the Institution of Christ, and therefore pro∣vocatory to stir up Gods displeasure) we thinke not that it can be Propitiatory so much as by way of God's Acceptance.

Next, when we dive into the mystery of your Masse, to seeke out the subject matter of your Sacrifice in the hands of your Priest, which according to the faith of your Church is called a Proper propitiatory Sacrifice in it selfe; it hath beene found (besides our proofes from Scriptures, and your owne Principles) by * 1.338 Ten Demonstrations out of Ancient Fathers to be Sacramentall Bread and Wine, and not the Body and Blood of Christ. Wherefore the Subject of your Sacrifice can be no more properly (that is, Satis∣factorily) in it selfe Propitiatory, than naturall Bread can be Christ.

Lastly, in examining the End of the Propitiation by the Masse,

We perceive your Doctors in suspense among themselves, whe∣ther you be capable of Propitiation for Remission of sinnes, or else of Temporall Punishments due to such Sinners; or if of Sinnes, whether of mortall sinnes, or else of venall sinnes onely: to wit, such as you thinke may be washed away by your owne Holy-water sprinckle. Marke now, we pray you, these three: First, what you offer, namely not to Christ, but his Sacrament. Secondly, by what Acts of Celebration, to wit, most whereof are not Acts of Obe∣dience, but of Transgression. Thirdly, to what End, viz. not for a Faithfull, but for a doubtfull; not for an absolute, but for a par∣tiall Remission, and that also you know not whether of sinnes, or of punishments: and then must you necessarily acknowledge the happinesse of our Protestants profession, concerning the Ce∣lebration of the Eucharist, in comparison of your Ro∣mish. How much more, when you shall see discovered the Idolatry thereof, which is our next Taske.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Si quis dixerit, non offerri Deo ve∣rum & proprium Sa∣crificium, aut non esse Propitiatorium, Anathema fit. Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. Con. 1. & 3. Visibile. cap. 1. Sacramentum verè propitiatorium. cap. 2.
• b 1.2

  Prima Contro∣versia est, sit nè Missa verè & propriè di∣ctum Sacrificium. Se∣cunda, sit nè Propi∣tiatorium. Bellar. Praef. ante Tract. de Missa.
• a 1.3

  [Hoc facite] Tunc, ut à Sancta Sy∣nodo definitum est, Christus Sacerdotes instituit, praecepit{que} ut & ipsi & qui suc∣cessuri cis essent, cor∣pus ejus immolarent. Catechis. Trid. de Euch. num. 58.
• b 1.4

  Certum est, pro∣bari Sacrificium Mis∣sae his verbis [Hoc fa∣cite] &c. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 12.
• c 1.5

  Gnaschah, Heb: the same in Greeke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Latine, Fa∣cio. Iud. 6. 29. Ios. 5. vers. ult. Ioh. 13. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Marc. 11. 3. Si quis dixerit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;
• * 1.6

  See above Booke 5. Chap. 2. §. 2.
• d 1.7

  Maldon. Non quòd contendam il∣lud verbum [Facite] illo loco significare idem quod sacrifica∣re. Lib. 7. de Sacram. Tom. 1. part. 3. de Eu∣charist.
• e 1.8

  Quod olim dici∣mus, Missas facere, Veteres quo{que} dixe∣runt Divine mysteria celebrare. Hilar. &c. Ex Cassand. Liturg. cap. 16.
• f 1.9

  Alexander Papa & Martyr, Passionem Domini inserens Ca∣noni Missae, ait, [Hoc quotie scunque fece∣ritis,] Id est, Bene∣dixeritis, Fregeritis, Distribueritis, &c. Id. Cassander ibid. cap. ••9.
• g 1.10

  Operae-pretium erit imposturam Ad∣versariorum refuta∣re. Calvinus fingit Catholicos ••irà pro∣bare Propositionem nostri argumenti ex Virgilii verbis, Cùm faciam vitula, &c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Kemnitius ridet Ca∣tholicos.—sed er∣rant, nec bon•• fide referunt argumenta Catholicorum. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, c. 12.
• h 1.11

  Sunt qui ex ver∣bo [Facite] Sacrifi∣cium ostendere co∣••antur, quia al••quan∣dò accipitur pro Sa∣crificare, ut cum Vir∣gilius dicit—Cùm faciam vitula pro fru∣gibus ipse veni••o. Ianse•…•…. ••oncord▪ in eum locum. cap. ••31. p. 904.
• i 1.12

  Et Poeta, Cum faciam vitulâ, &c. Va∣lent. Ies. lib. 1. de Sacrif. Missae, c. 4. §. Faten∣tur. p. 519. Eam vim habet verbū Facien∣di, ut cum Poeta di∣cit, Cùm faciam Vi∣tulâ, &c. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 27. pag. 205. §. Septimo.
• a 1.13

  Bellarm. de Missa, lib. 1. cap. 1, 2. In Grae∣co Textu 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dicit, Calix qui fun∣ditur, non hic est san∣guis qui funditur: itaque indicant san∣gu•…•…em fundi, ut erat in Calice.
• b 1.14

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.15

  M. Breely Liturg. tra••••. 3. c. 3. subd. 2.
• d 1.16

  Rhemists A•…•…. upon Luc. 22. 20.
• e 1.17

  Rodolph. Goclenius Professor Marpurg. Pro∣blem. Gram. lib. 5. De∣mosthenes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—pro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cic. 2. de Orat. Benedicere au∣tem, quod est peritè loqui, non habet defi∣nitā aliquā regionē, cujus terminis septa teneatur. Vox [Sep∣ta] non congruit cum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Benedicere, sed referenda est ad vo∣cem Eloquentiae. Hee observeth the like in Plato, Virgil, Homer, pag. 232, 233, 261, 262.
• f 1.18

  Sixtus Sen••••sis Biblioth. lib. 8. pag. ult. Nos ingenuè fa•…•… nonnullas mendas in hac nostra editione inveniri, etiam Soloe∣cismos, & Barbaris∣mos, hyperbata, &c.
• g 1.19

  Rhemists Preface before the New Testa∣ment.
• h 1.20

  D. Fulke against Greg. Martin.
• * 1.21

  Apoc. 1. 4. & 8. 9. & 3. 12. &c.
• i 1.22

  Ioseph. Scaligeri No∣tae in novum Testamen∣tum. Luc. 22. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Mera est An∣tiptosis, pro, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• k 1.23

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Basil. Reg. Moral. 21.
• l 1.24

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Miss. cap. 12. Datur, Frangitur, Funditur, in Praesenti tempore, docet apertissimè nō fusum esse in Cruc•• sanguinem, sed in Coena.
• m 1.25

  Rhemists upon Luc. 22. 20.
• n 1.26

  M. Breerly, Liturg. Tract. 3. §. 3. subd. 1. p. 319.
• o 1.27

  Ibid. subd. 3. p. 319.
• p 1.28

  Ibid. subd. 1. p. 317.
• * 1.29

  See above. chap. 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4.
• q 1.30

  Iansenius referring it to the Cup, yet saith: [Qui effunditur] communiter intelli∣gitur de effusione fa∣ctâ in Cruce, & rectè. Concord. 131.
• * 1.31

  Liturg. Tract. 3. §. 3. subd. 1.
• * 1.32

  See hereafter Booke 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• r 1.33

  Liturg. in the place above cited.
• s 1.34

  Missale Rom. Ca∣lix Sanguinis—qui effundetur.
• t 1.35

  Liturg. Tract. 3. c. 3. subd. 3. p. 145.
• u 1.36

  Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 3. c. 3. p. 90. Frangitur, i. e. Cla∣vis, Lanceâ, Flagellis laniandum est. Barra∣das Tom. 4. in Concord. c. 4. è Chrysost. in 1 Cor. hom. 24. quod fiangi∣tur, hoc est, quod Cla∣vis frangitur.
• x 1.37

  Bellarm. Vtcun{que} possit fractio, &c. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 12. §. Ad quartum.
• * 1.38

  Luc. 22. 21.
• * 1.39

  Vers. 22.
• a 1.40

  Origen. Hom. 9. in Levit. [Effundetur] Teste Bellarm. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 8. Tertull. l. 3. in Marc. [Tradetur] Teste Bellarm. ibid. c. 7. Ambros. lib. 4. de Sa∣cram. c. 5. [Confrin∣getur.] Athanas. in 1 Cor. 11. [Tradetur.] Missa Basilii [Effundetur.] Isidor. Com. in Exod. 1. 50. [Effundetur.] Theodoret, in eundem locum, [Tradetur.] Alexand. Epist. 1. Decret. [Tradetur, Fundetur.] Teste Greg. Valent. Ies. l. 2. de Sacrific. Missae. c. 5. p. 627. Chrysost. Dabitur. in 1 Cor. 11.
• * 1.41

  See above Book•• 2. Chap. 2.
• a 1.42

  Ex qua intellige, ••a verba [Quod pro∣vobis frangitur] non esse ad Consecratio∣nem necessaria: sed consultò à Latinis praetermissa, ne esset locus absurdae intelli∣gentiae, quâ quis exi∣stimare possit verè frangi corpus Christi. Iansen. Concord. cap. 131. in Matth. 26.
• b 1.43

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 12. §. Ad secundum. Sanguis Christi reipsa non e∣•…•… de Corpore.
• * 1.44

  See above Booke 4. Chap. 2. Sect. 3.
• c 1.45

  Alfo••sus lib. 6. ad∣versus Haeres. Tit. Eu∣charistia, ••••res. ult. Cum Sanguinem p••o nobis semel in ara Crucis e••••usum, post resurrectionem nun∣quam eum fu••urus sit: convincitur inde eti∣am, nunquam sangui∣nem verum il•…•…s in∣tegrè alicubi e••••e ••ine ejus corpore vero.—Sol. Ob. Quamvis sub specie vini totus Christus lateat, non tamen species illae to∣tum Christum signifi∣cant, sed solùm san∣guinem e••••usum in Cruce, & à corpore separatum.
• d 1.46

  Coster. Euchirid. cap. 9. de Sacrificio. §. Ex quibus. Christus veram sanguinis effusionem passus in cruce, san∣guine ipso à corpore separato. Hic vero tantum illius mortis repraesentatio.
• a 1.47

  Sotus cum ali•••• hanc Elevationem ut Oblationem pertine∣re aliquo modo ad substantiam hujus Sa∣crific•••• existimant. Sed dico, esse tantum Ceremonialem actio∣nem, ab Ecclesia in∣stitutam, nec semper fuisse in Ecclesia. Sua∣rez Ies. Tom. 3. disp. 75. §. 3. Per hanc pri∣mā actionem negan∣dum est Christum sa∣crifica••e. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27, & 29. Elevatio & vocalis oblatio non ad essen∣tiam pertinent. Alan. de Euch. lib. 2. cap. 15. & Alii.
• b 1.48

  Non consistit in fractione, quia nō est haec necessaria. Sal∣mer••n Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 29. p. 222, 223.
• c 1.49

  Pro sola Conse∣cratione facit ••mni•• nostra superior Expli∣catio. Alan. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15.
• * 1.50

  Quorundam opi∣nio est, non esse d•• es∣sentia hujus Sacrifi∣ci•• ipsam Consecrati∣onem. Suarez quo sup∣p. 966.
• d 1.51

  Post Consecrati∣onem oblatio vocalis, his verbis, [Memento Domine.]—Alii di••unt esse de essentia. Sed dico, tam cer••um esse hanc oblationem non esse de Essentia, quam illam alteram Oblationem ante Consecrationem,—〈◊〉〈◊〉. quia Christus non adhib••it eam in coena. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Quia non constat Ecclesiam ••••m semper adhibuisse: nec est de Institu∣tione Christi, sed Ecclesiae. Suarez Ies. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. sup. pag. 964. Non est de ••ssentia, quòd Dominus nec Apostoli in prin∣cip••o ••â ••si sunt, nec sit in persona Christi, sed Ministri & Ecclesiae. Bellarm. lib. 1. de M••ss••, cap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. §. Quinta Prop.
• e 1.52

  Oblatio prae••••den•• Consecrationem non pertine•• ad essentiam: n•••• oblatio quae consequitur. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa▪ cap. 27. §. Q••arta, & Quinta.
• f 1.53

  Immersio in calice—Hanc tenuit Canus. Sed constat Christum, pe•…•… •…•…llam actionem non sacrificari. Suarez. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. sup.
• g 1.54

  Consumptio utriusque speciei per os Sacerdotis, quatenus est immolatio victimae obla••ae. Bellarm. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. sup.
• h 1.55

  Consumptio non videtur pertinere ad E••••entiam, quia Scriptura discernit inter Sacrificium & participationem ipsius▪ 1 Cor. 10. Nonnē qui edunt ho∣stias, parti••ipe•• sunt Altaris? Salme•…•… T••m. 9. Tra••••. 29. pag. 23••.
• i 1.56

  Non in Consumptione, quia aliud est Immolare, aliud de Immolatis participa••e, & ratio••••m p••tius habet Sacramenti quàm Sacrificii.—Et fre∣quenter reses v•…•… Populi communionem, non esse perfectè sacrificatas, vel saltem tùm, quando conceduntur à p••p••lo sacrificari. Alan. lib. 2. de E••••h. cap. 17.
• * 1.57

  (i) Suarez. Sumptionem Sacerdo••alem non esse de Essenti••, t•…•… Tho••as, Bonaventur••, Major, & ex modernis Alan, Ca••••alius, Cath••rinus▪ Palacius, Turrian. In 3. Thom▪ disp. 75. Sect. 5. And Suarez himselfe: Sola consecratio est sufficiens, ut in qua tota essentia constar. Ibid.
• k 1.58

  Tota Essentia Sa∣crificii pendet ex In∣stitutione Christi. Sua••••z, & Salme••on suprà.
• l 1.59

  Non est in pote∣state Ecclesiae insti∣tuere Sac••••ficium. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 28. p. ••19. Idem al••bi, v••de supra at (h)
• m 1.60

  Quidam biton∣tinus Episcopus in Conc. Trid. (ut Ca∣nus & Alii re••erunt) tentavit defendere, Christum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 n••cte Coenae non obtulisse Sacrificium. Suarez q. s••p. disp. 74. Sect. 2. p. 949.
• a 1.61

  Bar•…•… in An••. 44. nu••. ••3. Mini∣strantibus, Graecè est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, id est, Sacrificantibu••. Bel∣larm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 13. Hac voce Sa∣crificium proba••ur, quia non significat publicu m••••us, quia non potest significare ministerium Verbi, aut Sacramentorum, quia haec non exhi∣bentur Deo; at hîc ministrantibus & Do∣mino; & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, eum ad sacra accom∣modatur & absolutè ponitur in Scripturis semper acci••••tur pro ministerio Sacrificii. Vt Lu••. 1. de Zacharia. Et Cl•…•… de Sanctes pr••f in •…•…ssas Graecorum.
• b 1.62

  Casa••box Exercit••t. 16. cap. 41. Vocem hanc 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 usus Ecclesiae aptavit ministerio & cultui Dei pub••ico, sed dive••••imodè. Apud Dionys•…•… Ar••op. Diac oni dicuntur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: in patrum libris ••••t mentio Liturgrae ma∣tutinae & vespertinae, & in Actis Concil. Ephes. notat Balsa••on Liturgiam constare ••ola oratione ••ine ulla Sacra∣mentorum administratione, peculiarite•• •…•…dum ad celebration•••• Eucharistiae, cujus p••rtes duae sunt, Recita∣tio Scripturarum, & Administratio Coenae. Jus••••niani novella 7. Quod Bellarm. ait, quoties haec vox ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a••∣co••••odatur, & absolu••è pouitur, pro ministerio sacrificii s•…•…, infig••is est error, nam in exemplo quod sub∣jungit Luc 1. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nen est Sacrificium, sed vox generalis omnia ministeria sacer•…•… & Levitica com∣plectitur. Zachariae autem, ut Lucas ait, contigera•• sors soffitus offerendi, non ••ute•• sacrificandi—Ne•• mi∣nus errat, quod s•…•…cet vix a•…•… hanc vocem a Patribus ac••••pi, quàm promi••isterio Sacri•…•…i, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 observatio quàm sit aliena, satis ex dictis constat.
• a 1.63

  Postremum Ar∣gumentum ex Scrip∣turis habetur, 1 Cor. 10. Ubi primò Men∣sa Domini compara∣tur cum Altari Gen∣tilium. Ergo, Mensa Domini est quoddam Altare, & proinde Eucharistia Sacrifici∣um. 2. Ita vult Sacri∣ficium Deo oblatum in Eucharistia, sicut sunt Sacrificia à Iu∣daeis Deo, vel à Gen∣tilibus Daemonibus suis oblata. 3. Docet ita manducantē Eu∣charistiam partici∣pem esse Altaris Do∣minici, ut manducans Idolothyta particeps ••rat Altaris Idolo∣rum, per Sacrificia. Ergo Eucharistia est Sacrificium. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 14.
• * 1.64

  Aenaeid. 8. p••st Sa∣crificium Aenaeas invi∣tat•…•… estad Epulas.
• b 1.65

  Aquinas. Non po∣testis Calicem Domi∣ni bibere & Daemo∣niorum •…•…ul.] Quo∣ad Sacramentum san∣guinis. Non potestis mensae Domini parti∣cipes esse, quoad Sa∣cramentum corporis, & mensae Daemonio∣rum. In 1 Cor. 10.
• * 1.66

  See above Booke 5. Chap. 8. Sect. 3. at the letter (i).
• * 1.67

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6.
• a 1.68

  Bellar. lib. 1. de Mis∣sa, cap. 6. ex Ambro∣sio. Panem & Vinum obtulit. De Sacram. lib. 5. cap. 1. Quod to••o orbe celebratur. lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. & 6. August. lib. 17. de Civit. Dei, cap. 17. & alibi. Primum appa∣ruit Sacrificiū, quod nunc offertur Deo to••o orbe terrarum, quod protulit Mel∣chisedech. Et Epist. 95. ad Innocent. Pro∣lato Sacramēco men∣sae Dominicae. Chry∣sost. Hom. 36. in Gen. Panem & Vinum at∣tulit. Primas. in cap. 5. ad Heb. Panem of∣ferens Deo, non lauta animalia. Similiter Cassiod, in Ps••l. 109. & Occum. in 5. ad Heb. Theophyl. in 5. ad Hebr. Hic solus Melchisedech, in mo∣rem illius, Pane & Vino sacrificabat. Rabbi Samuel, Sacri∣ficans panem, & vi∣num sacrificans. Rab∣bi Phinëes, Tempore Messiae omnia Sacri∣ficia cessabunt, sed Sacrificium panis & vini non cessabit. Haec Bellarm. lo••o supracita∣to. M. Breerly citeth Aug. de C••vit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 19. Visibile Sacrificium. In his Liturgie, Tract. 3.
• * 1.69

  See hereafter Chap. 5. Sect. 1.
• b 1.70

  Isidor. Victimas jam, non q••ales Judaei, sed quales Melchisedech offerunt credentes: Id est, Panem & Vinum. i. e. corporis & sanguinis Sacramen••um. Lib de Vocat. Gent. cap. 26.
• c 1.71

  Hieron. Epist. ad Evag. Pane & vino sim∣plice, puroque Sacrificio Christo dedicaverit Sacramentum.
• d 1.72

  Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 3. ad Cecil. Christus idem quod Melchisedech panem & vi••um, idem sc. suum Corpus & Sanguinem. Euseb. Caesar. lib. 5. Demonstr. cap. 3. Sacerdotes v••no & pane, & Corporis & Sanguinis ejus mysteria repraesentant, quae sanè mysteria Melchi∣sedech tanto ante Sp•…•… divino cognoverat. Hieron. Epist. ad Marcell. Melchisedech in Typo Christi Panem & Vinumobtulit, & Mysterium Christianum in Salvator••s sangume & Corpore dedicavit. Et Quaest. in Genes. Melchisedech obl••to pane & vino, i. e. Corpore & Sanguine Domini Jesu. Eucher. Lugdun. lib. 2. c. 18. in Gen. Vt O••lationem Panis & Vini, i. e. Corporis & Sanguinis ejus Sacramentum in Sacrificium Christus inst••r illus [Melchiz.] offerens, panem & vinum, carnem viz. & sanguinem suum. H••c Bellarm. lib. 1. de M••ssa, cap. 6.
• a 1.73

  Bellarm. Non vi∣detur po••se negari, &c. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. §. Acc••dit.
• b 1.74

  Ribera Jes. Id non ideò dixerat, quod sermonem illum ta∣cere vellet, erat enim id, id quod in hac E∣pistola agit, valdè ac∣commodatum, sed ut magis illos excitaret studio audiendi, & intentiores redderet—Non desperat Paulus quae scripturus est posse ab illis percipi, si animum attendant, aut certè à nonnullis eorum, qui eruditiores erant, per quos coeteri etiam paulatim intelligerent. Com. in Heb. 6. num. 1. Where also he hath these words: Cum ••llorum & imbecillitatem & tarditatem accusat, ideirco facit, ut pudo∣re ad melius intelligenda incitarentur: [Missa nunc faciamus rudimenta, & ad perfectionem feramur.] Hoc est, Date operam ut mecum intelligatis, quae perfectis dici solent.
• a 1.75

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. ex Epi∣p••anio. Sacrificium crucis peractum est, ergo aliud Sacrifici∣um esse oportet, quod jugiter offeratur—Ig•…•…ur necesse est in Ecclesia veram Sacri∣ficandi actionem ad∣mittere; quae Christo summo Sacerdoti per Ministros suos tribua∣tut, qualis actio nulla erit, si Missae Sacrifi∣cium auferatur. Ibid. §. Est etiam. Ad ae∣ternum Christi Sa∣cerdotium necesse est ut Christus saepiùs offerat per se, vel per suos Ministros, jam quidem ciuentè, &c. Ibid. §. Respondeo quod.—Sacerdos verè & propriè non est, qui Sacrificium proprium offerre non potest. Ibid. §. Respondeo autem. Propriè tamen non dicitur Sacrificium aeternum, quod semel ••actum est, nec dicitur aeter∣num Sacerdotium cum non jugiter sacrificatur. Ibid. §. Secunda Causa.
• b 1.76

  Conc. Trid. Sess. 22. C. 1. Christus Sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech; & si semel obtulit in cruce, ut aeternam redemptionem operaretur: quia tamen p••r mortem ejus Sacerdotium extinguendum non erat &c.
• c 1.77

  Novi Testamenti ministerium jam inde à Melchizedech petitum, jam & Christus voluit secundum ejus ordinem dic••▪ Sacerdos, & Presbyteri sunt Ministri Christi, i. e. ejus, qui fuit Sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchizedech. Sand. de Visi••. Monar••••. lib. 1. pag. 20. §. Quae cùm.
• a 1.78

  Mutatum Sacer∣dotium de Sacerdota∣li in Regalem, ut ea∣dem ipsa sit Regalis & Sacerdotalis. Chry∣sost in Heb. 7. Horn. 13. Fuit in Melchize∣dech singularis digni∣tas, quòd Sacerdoti∣um administrabatur per Regem. Teste Greg. Valent. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 4.
• a 1.79

  Bellarm. Regnum spirituale Christo proprium:—item Regnum divinum u∣niversale, ratione Hy∣postaticae Vnionis; item gloriae in Beatitudine: Temporale terrenum Christo conveniebat. Lib. Recog. pag. 28.
• b 1.80

  Victor, Pacis perturbator. Irenam apud ••useb. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 24.
• c 1.81

  Non tantum con∣tra Barbaros, sed etiā ejusdem patriae, san∣guinis, & fidei Prin∣cipes Domini nostri Dei pacis minus paci∣fici Vicarii. Esp••nc. in 1. Tim. digress. lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 273.
• d 1.82

  Leodiens. Epist. ad Paulum 2. de Greg. Sep∣timo; Novello schis∣mate Regnum & Sa∣cerdotium scindeba••. Teste Espencaeo q•• sup.
• e 1.83

  Non secundum ordinem Aaron, cu∣jus Sacerdotium per propaginem sui semi∣nis in ministerio tem∣porali fuit, & cum Ve∣teris Testamenti Le∣ge cessavit: sed se∣cundū ordinem Mel∣chizedech, in quo ae∣torni Pontificis for∣ma praecessit. Leo Pa∣pa Serm. 2. in. Annivers. die Assumpt. ad Pontif.
• f 1.84

  Nunc sanè non amplius semen secun∣dum successionem e∣ligitur, sed forma jux∣ta virtutem quaeritur. Epiphaa. cont. H••r••s. 55.
• g 1.85

  Salmeron Ies. Nos in Christo Sacerdo∣tes sumus tanquam Vicarii—Satis est nobis illum Princi∣pem semper vivere. Com. in Heb. cap. 10. Disp. 19.
• h 1.86

  Ribera. Successor quidem Christo Pe∣trus, & reliqui post cum Pontifices in of∣ficio gubernandi Ec∣clesiam, & pascendi oves Christi Verbo praedicationis, & Sa∣cramentorum Admi∣nistratione. At non successit in officio re∣demptionis, & Ponti∣ficis per se Deum ira∣tum placantis—in quo non sunt Succes∣sores, sed Ministri Christi. In Heb. 10. num. 8.
• i 1.87

  Platina in Vitis Sergii 3. Formos••, Ste∣phans, Christopheri.
• * 1.88

  Heb. 7. 23.
• * 1.89

  Heb. 7. 26.
• * 1.90

  (*) 1 Io••. 1. 8.
• k 1.91

  Lombard. de Ordi∣nat. Pr••sb. Accipiunt etiam calicem cum vino, & patinam cum Hostiis, ut sciant se accipisse potestatem placabiles Deo hostias offerendi. Hic ordo à filiis Aaron sumpsit initium. &c. Lib. 4. Distinct. 24. lit. 1.
• l 1.92

  P. Lombardus collegit sententias Theologorum, & Ma∣gister Theologorum scholasticorum dici meruit. Lib. de Script. Eccles. T••t. Petrus Lombardus.
• a 1.93

  Bellarm. Crucis Sacrificium non est perpetuum, sed effe∣ctum ejus—nec di∣citur aeternum quòd non jugiter sacrifica∣tur—non in coe∣lis jam Sacerdos per solam orationem, nec mediante oblatione Victimae, quià tùm necesse est eum sem∣per offerre.—Ergo Eucharistia & Sacri∣ficium quod jugiter offertur—Obla∣tio in coelis non est propriè dictum Sa∣crificium—ergò non est verè ac pro∣priè Sacerdos, cùm verum ac proprium Sacrificium offerre non potest. Lib. 1. de Missa, c. 6. sparsim. And,—Christus non sacrificat nunc per se visibiliter, nisi in Eu∣charistia. Bellar. ibid. cap. 25. §. Quod au∣tem. And, Sacrificium crucis, respecte Chri∣sti•• norum. Ibid. cap. 20. And, Per Ministros suos perpetuò sacrificat seipsum in Eucharistia: hoc enim solummodo perpetuū habet Sacer∣dotium. Bellarm. ibid. cap. cod. ad finem.
• b 1.94

  Alan. Christus in ipso coelo non aliquid Sacerdotale facit, nisi re∣spectu nostri Sacramenti, quod ipse per nostrum ministerium efficit continuò & offert. Lib. 2. de Euchar. cap. 8. §. Reliqua.
• c 1.95

  Rhemists. Christ his Priesthood consisteth in the perpetuall offering of Christ his Body and Blood in the Church. Annot. in Heb. 7. 17.
• d 1.96

  Ribera Ies. in his Comment upon the pla∣ces alleaged, Chap. 7. 23. Chap. 8. 2, & 3. Chap. 9. 23. His Booke is familiar with you, where you may peruse the places.
• e 1.97

  Ribera Ies. Tho∣mas Expositionem a•…•…fe••••, nem∣pè pe•• [Coel•…•…stia] ap∣•…•…psum coelum, cujus figura erat tabernaculum. Etemundari dicitur, quia homines per Christum emundari sunt, qu•…•…llud ingredientur. Thomam sequutus est Lyranus.—Mihi etsi Emundatio ista non placet, •…•…men [Coelestia] appellari coelum ipsum, quià ita Vocabulum propriè accipitur. Et cogit quod sequitur, 〈…〉〈…〉 enim in manufac••a ••ancta Iesus est ingressus, sed in exemplaria verorum:] nempè, Coeli, quod cap. 8. dici∣•…•… Tabernaculum verum, quod Deus fixit & non homo. Etiam coelum polluebatur ab hominibus. In eum locum.
• f 1.98

  Aqumas. [M••horibus hossiis] Id est, meliori sanguine. Ob. Illa erat una hostia. Resp. Licet non sit in se, tamen ploribus hostus veteris Legis figurabatur. In Heb. 9. [Meaning, that the Apostle used the plurall number, be∣cause he was now in Speech of Multitudes of Sacrifices.]
• a 1.99

  Th••••d in Psal. 109. Sacerdos nunc est Christus, non ipse ali∣quid •…•…ens, sed vo∣ca ur Caput Offeren∣tium, quando quidem corpus ••••ū Ecclesiam vocat. Objected by Bel∣larm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6.
• b 1.100

  His words imme∣diately following are these: Et proptereà Sacerdotio fungitus ut homo: recipit au∣tem ea quae offerun∣tur ut Dens. Offert autem Ecclesia Cor∣poris & ejus sanguinis symbola. So Theod.
• c 1.101

  Ambros. Nunc Christus offertur, hic in Imagine, ibi in ve∣ritate, ubi apud Pa∣tr•…•… Auvocatus p••o Nobis. Lib. 1. d••offic. cap. 48. sub fi••em.
• d 1.102

  Aug. in Psal 94. Impo•…•…us in ara Sacrificium, quando Deum laudamus: at verò Sacerdotem si requiras, super coelos est, interpellat p••o te, qu•…•… terris mortuus est pro te.
• f 1.103

  Aug. lib. 20. de Civit. cap. 10. Episcopi & Presbyterr (inquit) sunt propriè Sacerdotes. Bellarm. obji••it. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 17
• * 1.104

  Duplex Sacerdotium, alterum Interius, omnium fidelium, qui aquâ salutari abluti sunt, Apoc. 1. 16.—alterum Exterius tantùm eorum, qui externo Sacramento ordinis ad aliquod proprium, sacrumque ministerium as•…•…untur. Catechis. Rom. par. 2. de Ordine, num. 22.
• g 1.105

  Aug. ibid. In A∣po••. 20. 6. [Sed erunt Sacerdotes Christi, & regnabunt cum Eo, &c.] Non utique de solis Episcopis aut Presbyteris dictum est, qui propriè jam vocantur in Ecclesia Sacerdotes: sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter my∣sticum Chrisma, sic omnes Sacerdotes, quià membra unius Sacerdotis, &c. [For there is a double Reason of naming Christians Priests; one is in ge∣nerall, because of their offering up spirituall Sacrifices of Praiers, and Praises to God, 1 Pet. 2. 5. And another is in speciall, by pub∣lique Function, com∣mending the same spiri∣tuall Sa•…•…es, in pub∣lique Service, in the name of the Church. And s••, according to the s•…•… e•…•… of terming them properly Priests, wherewith before (as you have heard) in com∣paring Almes with the Iew••sh Sacrifice, hee called Almes the true Sacrifice, and the other but The signe of it•…•… notwithstanding the bo∣dily Sacrifice of the Iewes was, in proprietie of Speech, The true Sacrifice, other but Analogicall.]
• h 1.106

  •…•…s in their A••••otat. upon the place: and M. Breerly in his Booke of the Liturgie Tract. 3. Sect. 3. Subd 4.
• i 1.107

  Aquinas. Istud al∣tare ve•• est crux Christi, in quâ Chri∣stus immolatus est, vel ipse Christus in quo, & per quem preces nostras offerimus: & hoc est Altare a•…•…um, de quo Apoc. 8. Com. in hunc locum.
• k 1.108

  Antididag. Coloniens. de Missae Sacrificio. §. P••sthac.—[Habemus Altare] Heb. 13. & Apoc. 8. [Aureum altare,] in q••o, & pe•• quod omnes Christiani universa Sacrificia spiritual••a fidei, de∣votionis, gratiarum actionis, spei, & charitatis Deo Patri debent osterre.—Atque ità fit, ut Christus sit altare, Sacerdos, & Sacrificium. August. lib. 10. de Trinitate.
• l 1.109

  Bellarm. Quia non desunt ex Catholicis, qui inter∣pretantur hunc locum vel de Cruce, vel de Christo ipso; non urgeo eum. Lib. 1. de Misso, cap. 14.
• m 1.110

  Origen. Jejunans debes adire Pontificem tuum Christum, qui utique non in terris quaerendus est, sed in coelis: Et per Ipsum debes offerre Hostiam Deo. In Levit. cap. 16. Hom. 10.
• n 1.111

  Greg. Nazian. Si ab his Al•…•…bus me ar••••∣bunt, at aliud habeo, cujus figurae sunt ea, quae nec oculis cernimus, super q••od nec as••ia▪ nec manus asc•…•…, nec ullum Artificum instiumentum auditum est; sed men••is hoc opus est, huic que per contemplationem astabo, in hoc gratum immolabo Sacrificium, oblationes & Holocausta, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] tantò praestantiora, quantò Veritas un brâ. Oral. 28. pag. 484.
• o 1.112

  Chris••st. in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. ••••ud sa∣nè tremenuum Sacri∣ficium, ut cum con∣cordia ad illud ac••••∣damus, ut Aquilae sa∣cti ad ipsum coelum evolemus: ubi enim cadaver, ibi aquilae. Cadaver Domini cor∣pus, propter mortem: Aquilas autem non oportet ad inferiora trahi aut repere, sed ad superiora volare, & solem justuiae intuer•• oculo mentis acutissi∣mo. Aq•…•…ilarum enim haec men••a est, non Graculorum.
• p 1.113

  Aug. adversus Iu∣daeos, cap. 9. Nam & Aäron & Sacerdotiū jam nullum est, in ali∣quo templo, & Chri∣sti Sacerdotium est aeternum in coelo.
• q 1.114

  Oecumen. in Heb. 10. super haec verba, [Cum certitudine fi∣dei.] Cum deinceps nihil visibile supersit, ne{que} Templum, hoc est coelum; neque Pontifex, id est, Chri∣stus; neque Hostia, quae Corpus illius est, fide deinceps opus est.
• r 1.115

  Ambros. in Heb. 10. Cum fiducia, ait Apostolus: nihil enim hic visibile, neque Sacerdos, neque Sacrificium, neque Altare.
• s 1.116

  Canus loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. Oblatio, quam Christus in coelis incruentum fecit. pag. 421.
• * 1.117

  See above Chap. 3. Sect. 9.
• a 1.118

  Barredas. Quod singulis diebus Chri∣stus offert incruentè, Hoc juge Sacrificium est Ecclesiae. Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap. 15. Salmeron. E••••usio sanguinis semel facta semper prodest, modò jugiter offeratut. In Heb. 10. Disp. 19. Becanus. Juge Sacrificium Veteris Testamenti fuit figura Missae in novo, ratione determina∣tionis temporis: sicut ille offerebatur mane & vespere, ita Christus à principio mundi usque ad finem. Apoc. 13. Agnus occisus—Lib. de Analog. utriusque Testam. cap. 13. num. 14.
• b 1.119

  Irenaeus. Nos quo∣que Victimas offerre ad altare frequenter. Est ergò Altare in coelis, illuc etiam pre∣c••s nostrae & oratio∣nes dirigendae; & templum—ut ex A∣poc. apertum est. Lib. 4. cap. 34.
• c 1.120

  Greg. Sine inter∣missione pro nobis Holocaustum Re∣demptor immolat, qui sine cessatione Patri suam pro nobis inear∣nationē demonstrat. Moral. lib. 1. cap. 24. in Iob.
• d 1.121

  Coster En•…•…irid. contro. cap. 9. Solut. ad Object. 1. ex Ambros. Sicut in coelis Christus corpus suum, olim in cruce vulneratum & occisum, tanquam juge Sacrificium paternis oculis perpetuò pro nobis exhibet: ità hîc in terris per Ministerium Sacerdotum idem Corpus in specie mortui & exanguis offert. [That is objectively; for it is the Bloody Body, that is presented by us in the Eucharist.]
• * 1.122

  See hereafter Booke 7. Chap. 5. Sect. 5.
• a 1.123

  Bellarm. Immo∣latio Agni Paschalis potest quidem dici fi∣gura Passionis: nam fi Agnus ille fuit figu∣ra Eucharistiae, Eu∣charistia autem figu∣ra Passionis, quis ne∣gat Agnum istum fi∣guram fuisse & Re∣praesentationem Pas∣sionis? Quarè Joh. 19. Videmus Evange∣listam reddere can∣sam, cur non fuerant crura Christi confra∣cta in Passione, quia scriptum est de Agno Paschali, [Os non comminuetis ex eo.] Tamen magis imme∣diatè & principaliter Ceremonia Agni Pa∣schalis potiùs fuit fi∣gura Eucharistiae, quàm Passionis. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 7. §. Il∣lud.—Quod cele∣bratio Agni Paschalis fuit figura celebrationis Eucharistiae, probatur ex Scripturis, 1. Cor. 5. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus, itaque epulcmur in azymis Veritatis—Dicent Adversarii impletum fuisse hoc in Cruce—At constat Apostolos in coena manducasse carnem Christi,—Verum Agnum Paschalem, ad cujus epulum nos hortatur Apostolus. 1. Cor. 5. Epulemur, &c. Bellarm. ibid. §. Quod igitur, & §. Dicent.
• b 1.124

  Bellarm. q•• suprà §. Dicent &c. Dicent Adversarii Apostolum loqui de Immolatio∣ne in cruce facta: at nos probabimus figu∣ram illam propriè im∣pletam fuisse in c••••∣na.
• c 1.125

  Job. 13. 1. [Antè diem Paschae sciens Iesus, quia venit ho∣ra, ut transiret ex hoe mundo ad Patrem.] Hîc mortem Transi∣tum vocat.—Allu∣dit ad Pascha, ac fi Latinè diceret, Antè diem festum Transi∣tûs, sciens quia venit hora ut transiret ipse: Ipse enim Pascha no∣strum immolatus est Christus—Opti∣mus autem terminus, Transitus ejus ex hoc mundo ad Patrem. Tolet. Ies. Com. in ••um locum.
• d 1.126

  August. in Psal. 68. Cum venit Dominus ad Sacramentum san∣guinis & corporis sui, ità loquitur, [Sciens quod ho••a venit, ut transiret ad Patrem de mundo.] Quibus verbis expressit trans∣itum Paschae Teste Pe∣rerio Ies. in Exod. cap. 12. Disp. 8.
• e 1.127

  1. Cor. 5. Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus, ergò E∣pulemur Azymis sin∣ceritatis, & veritatis. [Aquinas assign••t Rati∣onem, quare fideles de∣bent esse Azym••: quae quidem Ratio sumitut ex my•…•… Passionis]—Sicut Agnus figuralis immolatus est à fil••s Israel. ut populus li∣beraretur—it à Christus occisus ab Israëlitis, ut populus liberaretur à servitute Diaboli. Christus enim per passionem trans••t ex mundo ad Patrem. Joh. 13. Haec Aquin. Com. in 1. Cor. 5. And Tollet in his Testimony before cited. So Becanus Ies.
• f 1.128

  [Pascha nostrum. 1. Cor. 5] Nempè per immolationem in cruce, & effusionem sanguinis illius, liberatum est genus huma••um. Analog. utrius••u•• Testam. cap. 13. pag. 313.
• g 1.129

  Impleta erat figura Paschalis, quando ••e∣rum nostrum Pascha est immolatus Christus Iesus, & nos per ejus sanguinem liberati eramur. Iansen. Concord. 〈◊〉〈◊〉∣vang. c••p. 131. pag. 895
• h 1.130

  Joh. 19 [Cruta non confregerant, ut imple••e••ur quod scriptum est, Osnon com∣minuetis ex eo.] Bellarm. q•• sup. yet gaine-saith with his. Tamen &c. §. Illud.
• i 1.131

  Origen. Sacrifi∣cium, pro quo haec omnia Sacrificia in typo & figura praeces∣serunt, unum & per∣fectum immolatus est C••ristus. Hujus Sa∣crificii carnem quis∣quis tetigerit, sancti∣ficabitur. In Levit. cap. 6. Hom. 4.
• k 1.132

  Chrysost••mus de Cruce & Latrone. 1. Cor. 5. Pascha nostrū immolatus est Chri∣stus: ••estivitas ergò &c. Vides crucis ••n∣tuitu perceptam lae∣titiam? in cruce enim immolatus est Chri∣stus: Ubi immolatio, amputatio peccato∣rum; ubi amputatio peccatorum, reconci∣liatio Domini—novū Sacrificium—nam ipse Sacrificium erat, & Sacerdos; Sacrificiū secundum carnem, Sacerdos secundum Spiritū, offerebat secundum Spiritū▪ offereba∣tur secundum carnem—& altare Crux fuit. Chrys••st. T••••. 3. pag. 826.
• l 1.133

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Idem. Tom. 5. Serm. 88. Edit. Savil. pag. 602.
• m 1.134

  Sacrates Hist. lib. 5. cap. 22. Origenes Doctor valdè sapiens cum animad∣verteret Legis Mosaicae praecepta ad literam non posse intelligi, praeceptum de Paschate ad divinam contemplati∣onem traduxit: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.135

  See the Testimony fol∣lowing.
• a 1.136

  Insigne testimo∣nium pro Sacrificio Missae, Mal. 5. 1. in his verbis [Ab ortu solis usque ad occasum magnum est nomen meum in Gentibus, & in omni loco sacri∣ficatur & offertur no∣mini meo Oblatio munda: quià magnum est nomen meum in Gentibus, dicit Dominus. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. Tota controversia est, An Malachias loquatur de Sacrificio propriè dicto, quale est in Ecclesia Eucharistia, an verò de Sacrificio impropriè dicto, quales sint laudes & Orationes, &c. Bellarm. Ibid. Argum. 1. Propheta utitur voce Minhhah, quod est Sacrificium absolutè, absque adjuncto, ut cum dicitur, Sacrificium laudis, &c. Argum. 2. Vox [Munda] opponitur immundis oblationibus Judaeornm, quae non dicuntur immundae ex parte offerentium tantum, quia opponit illis oblationem: non enim Munda diceretur in omni loco, cum in pluribus sint mali Ministri. Argum. 3. Dicitur, [Non accipiam munus à manibus vestris.] Hinc colligimus, non solùm mundam esse hanc nostram, sed & novam.—Argum. 4. Ex Antithesi. Contemptus Hebraeorum erat in publicis Sacrificiis, non in privato cultu tantùm. Ergò gloria Oblationum apud Christianos erit in publico Sacrificio. Argum. 5. Opponit Mala∣chias non omni populo, sed Sacerdotibus tantùm veteris Legis, non omnes Christianos, sed certos homines, qu•• Sacerdotibas succedunt. Ergò non loquitur de spirituali, sed de Sacrificio propriè dicto.
• b 1.137

  Bellarm. In He∣braea, & Graeca Edi∣tione sic leg••mus [In∣censum offertur no∣mini meo, & Sacrifi∣cium mundum.] Quo supra.
• c 1.138

  Septuaginta A∣pertiùs. Valent. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 4. p. 526.
• d 1.139

  Bellarm. Vocem illam [Incensum] in∣terpretatur Tertull. Orationem, ut & an∣te eum Iren. lib. 4. cont. Haeres. cap. 33. Incensa autem Iohan∣nes vocat orationes Sanctorum. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. §. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 al∣tero.—Hieron. Thy∣miama, i. e. Sancto∣rum orationes Deo offerendas. In Mal. 1. Chrysost. in Psalm. 95. Thymiama purum vocat Preces, quae post Hostiam offeruntur, ut Psal. 140. Oratio mea dirigatur tanquam In∣censum, &c. Euseb. Caesar. demonstr. Evang. lib. 1. cap. ult. De Orationibus Propheta: Oratio mea fiat Incensum, Psal. 140. Aug. In omni loco Incensum nomini meo, Graecè, Thymiama. Apoc. Orationes. Lib. 1. contr. Advers. Legis & Prophet. cap. 20.
• * 1.140

  See the preceding Marginalls.
• a 1.141

  See in the Testimo∣nies above cited, for it is called absolutely In∣cense, and not Incense of Prayer, &c.
• * 1.142

  Isaiah 1. 13.
• b 1.143

  Bellar. Postquam dixerat Malachias [offertur nomini meo oblatio munda] Ex∣ponit cap. 3. à quibus offerenda sit munda oblatio: Purgabit, in∣quit, filios Levi: Vbi, per Filios Levi, non possunt intelligi Levi∣t•…•… veteris Testamen∣ti—sed nostri Sa∣cerdotes. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. §. Quintum.
• * 1.144

  Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, Leo.
• c 1.145

  M. Foxe Act. Monument. pag. 2117. Levitico ordine te privamus.
• * 1.146

  Isa. 66.
• a 1.147

  Chrysost. in Psal. 95. (objected) Malachias appellat Thymiama purum, sacras preces.
• b 1.148

  Tertull. ob. by Bel∣larm. lib. 3. cont. Mar∣cion. ex Psalm. 57. In Ecclesiis benedicite Dominum Deum, ut pariter concurreret Malachiae prophetia, In omni loco Sacrifi∣cium mundum: Glo∣riae sc. relatio, & Be∣nedictio, & Laus, & Hymni. [Which words Bellarmine restraineth to Prayers and Prai∣ses only, in the Masse; whereas Tertullian speaketh of Prayers in generall.] Againe, Lib. 4. advers. Marc. a little after the begiuning. Dicente Ma∣lachia, Sacrificium mundū, s••-simplex oratio de conscientia pura. [Where he expoundeth Pure Sacrifice to be Praier.]
• c 1.149

  Euseb. Demonst. lib. 1. cap. 6. In omni loco Incensum & Sacrificium, &c.] Quid aliud significat quàm orationis Incensum, & Sacrificium, quod [mundum] dicitur? est enim non per cruores, sed per pias actiones summo Deo offerendum.
• d 1.150

  Bellarm. Resp. Non quasi Oratio sit ipsum Incensum, seu Sacrificium, sed illud quod per Ora∣rationem, i. e. per verba Consecrationis perficitur. Solent enim Patres verba Consecrationis orationes, sen my∣sticas preces interpretari. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. [First sondly, for the words of Consecration containe in them no terme of Prayer: And secondly falsly, for the Fathers did not call these words Prayer. Both which have beene amply discussed.]
• e 1.151

  Hieron. (objected) Mal. 1. Vt sciant Judaei carnalibus Victimis spirituales successuras. Thymiama, hoc est, O∣rationes Sanctorum offerendas, Oblationem mundam, ut est in Ceremoniis Christianorū. Bellar. Licet per Incen∣sum intelligat Orationem, tamen per Sacrificium intelligit Eucharistiam: dicit enim offerri in Ceremoniis Chri∣stianorum. [Be it so, but the Question is, whether the Action of the Eucharist be not called spirituall, that is (as is confes∣sed) an Vnproper Sacrifice.
• f 1.152

  Irenaeus (••b.) ad∣vers. Haeres. lib. 4. cap. 34. speaking as well of Sacrifices in Judaico populo, as in Ecclesia, saith; Non Sacrificia sanctificant hominē, sed Conscientia pu••a ejus, qui offert &c. Then of Eleemosynae, which the Apostle cal∣leth Hostiam accep∣tabilem: Oportet nos oblationem Deo fa∣cere in sententia pu∣ra. And then, Ecclesia offert oblationē hanc Fabricatori puram, offerens ei cum grati∣arum Actione ex cre∣atura ejus. Judaei au∣tem non offerunt, quia manus eorum plenae sanguine &c.
• g 1.153

  Ribcra Ies. Ad lo∣ca Scripturae adducta respondere Apostoli. Apud S. Clementem lib. 6. Const. Apost. C. 22. in hunc modū. Recusabat Deus po∣puli Sacrificia saepe∣numero in eum pec∣cantis, atque existimantis Sacrificiis eum, & non poenitentiâ placatum iri. Idem docet Irenaeus, lib. 4. cap. 33. In Hos. 6. num. 24.
• h 1.154

  Antididag. Colon. Tract. de Sacrif. Missae, §. De Consecratione. Quis ignorat vetera Pa∣trum Sacrificia, quae Christum figurabant, vel ob id quod Deus ea praecepisset, per se munda fuisse? Nihilominus tamen frequentius immunda vocantur in Scripturis, non ratione sui, sed propter malam voluntatem offerentium.
• i 1.155

  Tertull. lib. 3. advers. Marcionem. Sacrificia rejecta, qui à non secundum Dei religionem celebranda, sua jam, non Dei fecerant. pag. 160. And, Sacrificia spiritualia accepta, which hee nameth above, Cor contribulatum, lau∣dem, &c. Lib. adversus Iudaeos.
• k 1.156

  Chrysost. (objected) in Psal. 95. Ex hostia prima mensa mystica coeleste Sa∣crificium, summeque venerandum. Est autem in nobis varia differentia: Lex multas habet Hostias, Gratia no∣va unam—Vis scire Victimas, quas Ecclesia habet?—quando fit Sacrificium mundum & immacu∣latum? audi Scripturam Tibi palàm exponentem hanc differentiam. Et Sacrificium, quod antea dixi spirituale, illud mysticum donum, in q^o Apostolus Ephes. 5. Christus tradidit se ipsum pro Nobis Deo Sacrificium.
• l 1.157

  Cypr. (ob.) ex lib. 1. cont. Iudaos, cap. 16. Novum Sacrificium, Sacrificium Laudis.
• a 1.158

  Psalm. 72. juxta Heb. [Et erit pugillus frumenti in summita∣tibus montium] vulg. Lat. [Et erit firma∣mentum in terra in summis Montium.] Galatinus de Arcanis Cath. Veritat••, lib. 10. cap. 5. Hoc est, dicit Chaldaea Translatio Rabbi Jonathae, Et e••t Sacrificium panis in summis montium—Cum ergo ait, E∣rit placenta frumenti in terra, in capité montium, vult dice∣re, quod placenta pa∣nis fiet Sacrificium in Capitibus Sacerdorū, qui sunt Ecclesia. Haec ibi—Nec mi∣rum de sapientibus antiquis Judaeorum Messiam placentam trumenti, & frustum panis iuturum dixisse. The same hath Coccius Thesaur. Cath. lib. 6. Art. 4. pag. 679. He ad∣deth other Authors, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 witt, P. Galatinus, Claud. Sanctesius, & Genebrard. in hunc Psal. Coc•…•…i••s▪ ibid. Art. 16. pag. 763.
• b 1.159

  M. B••eerly in his Protestants Apol. no∣ting Duraeus the Iesuite to have urged the same out of Galatini•…•….
• c 1.160

  Senensis Biblioth. lib. 2. §. Traditiones. Non possum satis mi∣rari studium Petri Galatini, qui—in eam Vanitatem devenit, ut doceret opera Thalmudica in Latinum verti oporrere, & publicè in Scholis Christianorum explicari.
• d 1.161

  Bellarm. in Psal. 71. vers. 16▪ Scio quod Paulus Burgensis ex Paraphrasi Chaldaica adferat ad probandum hoc in loco Sacrificium Missae: sed scio etiam quam multis fabulis Judaicis Pharaphrasis illa scateat, ideò piget ex lacunis Expositionum Judaicarum hau•…•…, &c.
• a 1.162

  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.
• * 1.163

  See above Chap. 3. Sect. 2.
• b 1.164

  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 1.165

  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 1.166

  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 1.167

  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 1.168

  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.
• * 1.169

  Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22. 19.
• g 1.170

  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.
• * 1.171

  (*) See above at (a).
• a 1.172

  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 1.173

  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 1.174

  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 1.175

  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 1.176

  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 1.177

  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.
• * 1.178

  See above Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 8. out of his Epist. 23. ad Bonifa∣cium.
• c 1.179

  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 1.180

  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 1.181

  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 1.182

  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 1.183

  Ambros. in Heb. 10 Offeri∣mus quidem, sed Recordationem salutaris mortis ejus, & una haec Hostia, non multae.
• e 1.184

  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 1.185

  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 1.186

  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.
• * 1.187

  See above Booke 4. cap. 9. Sect. 4.
• a 1.188

  Co•…•…. Trid. Chri∣stum reliquisse Sacri∣ficium Ecclesiae suae visibil••, quo cruentum illud in cruce pera∣gendum repraesenta∣retur. Sess. 22. cap. 1.
• b 1.189

  Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22.
• c 1.190

  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.
• * 1.191

  [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.
• * 1.192

  See hereafter, Cha. 6. Sect. 1.
• * 1.193

  See above, at (b)
• a 1.194

  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 1.195

  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 1.196

  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 〉.
• * 1.197

  See Booke 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 1.
• d 1.198

  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 1.199

  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 1.200

  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 1.201

  〈 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 1.202

  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 1.203

  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 1.204

  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 1.205

  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 1.206

  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 1.207

  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 1.208

  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.
• * 1.209

  [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 1.210

  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 1.211

  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 1.212

  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 1.213

  Quis unquàm Catholicus dixit Christum rursùs mo∣r••? R••bera Ies. Com. in Heb. 10. num. 25.
• c 1.214

  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 1.215

  Gloss•• de Consecrat. Dist. 2. Quid sir. Hoc est, ejus Mors reprae∣sentatur.
• e 1.216

  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.
• * 1.217

  See above, chap. 5. Sect. 3.
• * 1.218

  Booke 2. chap. 2. Sect. 4.
• * 1.219

  Io••. 6.
• * 1.220

  Ambrose, August. above, Chap. 5. Sect. 5.
• * 1.221

  Above, Chap. 5. Sect. 6.
• f 1.222

  Chrys••••t. in Epist. ad Heb. Hom. 16. Baptismus est passio Christi.
• g 1.223

  Ambros. de P••••nitent. lib. 2. cap. 1. In Baptismo crucifigimus in nobis filium Dei.
• * 1.224

  Bo••ke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 7.
• * 1.225

  See Baren. Anno ••02. &c.
• a 1.226

  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 1.227

  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 1.228

  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.
• * 1.229

  M. Fisher, ••or one.
• d 1.230

  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 1.231

  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 1.232

  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 1.233

  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 1.234

  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 1.235

  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 1.236

  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 1.237

  Abulens. in Ios. 22. Altare hoc non fue∣rat ad Sacrificium of∣ferendum. Quaest. 9.
• d 1.238

  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 1.239

  Eodem modo Du∣rantus de Ritibus, lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cap. 1. num. 7.
• x 1.240

  See above, Chap. 3. Sect. 8.
• x 1.241

  See above, Chap. 2. Sect. 1.
• f 1.242

  See the former Te∣stimonie at (d.)
• g 1.243

  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 1.244

  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 1.245

  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 1.246

  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 1.247

  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.
• * 1.248

  S•• hereafter, Chap. 4. Sect. 3.
• a 1.249

  Bellarm. Sacrifi∣cium Missae accipitur propriè pro re, quae sacrificatur: & etiam accipitur propriè pro actione sacrificandi. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Resp. ut.
• * 1.250

  See above, Chap. 1. Sect. 5.
• a 1.251

  Conc. Trid. Chri∣stus tradebat visibile Sacramentum sub specie panis & vini. Sess. 22. & Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Secundo.
• b 1.252

  Septimò, ritu mystico consecratur: nam debet res illa, quae Deo offertur, ex profanâ fieri sacra. Idem significat Sacrificare, quod sacrum facere. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2.
• c 1.253

  Bellarm. Octavò, transmutatur, quid ad verum Sacrificium requiritur, ut id, quod offertur Deo, planè destruatur, i. e. it•• mutetur, ut desinat esse id qod antè erat, In quo differt à simplici oblatione, quae interdum mystico ritu elevabatur coram Deo, sed non destruebatur, nisi quando verè sacrificabatur. Ratio duplex, 1. ••b significationem mortis Christi. 2. ad protestationem subjectionis nostrae coràm Deo—Ideò requiritur, ut non solum usus, sed etiam substantia consumatur.—Sacrificium requirit Consumptionem. Pater, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, est à 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mactare. Matth. 22. Altilia di••unt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 occisa, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Exhalario, in quo differt ab oblatione; Item 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicitur à 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, consumo. Probatur ex Scriptura, ubi omnia Sacrificia destruenda erant, si viventia, per occisio∣nem; si inanimata solida, per combustionem; si liquida, per effusionem. Ex inanimis solidis per immolationes, sic dictas à mola, vel molendo, quamvis vox, Immolare, pro sacrificare sumatur. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. per totum. Et idem ibid. cap. 4. §. Nunc.
• d 1.254

  Conc. Trid. a••d Bellarm. above cited, §. 3. at a.
• e 1.255

  Salmeron. Chri∣stus cruentus, & in∣cruentus, non diffe∣runt, sed quod ille vi∣sibilis, hic invisibilis. Tom. 9. Tract. 29. §. Jam do.
• f 1.256

  Aquinas. Béne∣dictio sacerdotalis fertur super terminum à quo, non super ter∣minum ad quem, i. e. super corpus Christi. In 1. Cor. 10.
• g 1.257

  Bellarm. Corpus Christi per consecra∣tionem accepit for∣mam cibi, & ad co∣mestionem & destru∣ctionem ordinatur: & licet nullam laesionem patiatur in se, neque amittit suum esse na∣turale sed amitrit Sa∣cramentale Esse, & proinde desinit esse realiter in altari, & de∣finit esse cibus sensi∣bilis. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Tertiò.
• h 1.258

  Lombardus cum quaeritat quid Sacer∣dos gerit fit dicendū Sacrificium aut Im∣molatio, accipit no∣men. Immolationis pro occisione, respon∣det autem ••ect••ssi∣mè, Christum sem••l tantùm immolatum, i. e. occisum su∣isse, non autem im∣molari, i. e. occidi in Sacramento & re∣praesentatione. Rursus paulò sup•…•…. §. Ad hanc. Cruenta Immolatio semel tantùm verè & propriè facta est, nunc autem propriè, sed per Repraesentatio∣nem. Lib. 4. Dist. 12. §. Post haec.
• i 1.259

  Alanus de Eucha∣rist. lib. 2. cap. 13. In carn••s & sanguinis se∣paratione (undè pro∣priè in animalibus r••actatio) consistit vis hujus mysterii, ut in eo solo cernatur di∣vinae mortis reprae∣sentatio—sequitur Christum esse prae∣sentem modò immo∣latio—quod fundi∣tur in remissione pee∣catorum: e••go per modū Victimae prae∣sens est, imò Christus hîc praesens induit eum modum, quem habuit ut se offerens in Sacrificio Ciucis. (Aliquantò post haec) Propter concomitantiam de qua superius diximus in seipso non mori∣tur.
• k 1.260

  Costerus Christian. In stitutionum, lib. 1. cap. 10. Christus in cruce solus scipsum obtulit per veram sanguinis effusionem & mortem: hîc per Sacerdotem, tanquain ministrum, se offert sine Sanguinis Effusione & morte, sed per utriusque repraesentationem.
• * 1.261

  Iohn 6.
• * 1.262

  Ibid.
• a 1.263

  Canus. Quià per Sacrificia legis exter∣na res quaedā spiritu∣ales potiores praefig∣nabantur, has omni∣nò res Sacrificia, ho∣locausta, hostias sa∣crae literae appellant: ut mactationes bru∣torum animalium fi∣gurae erant mortifica∣tionis. Loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. In se∣cundo.
• a 1.264

  Non terrenis, sed spiritualibus est Deo litandum. Tertull. ad∣versus Iud. eos.
• b 1.265

  Erant tum Sacri∣ficia pro delicto, quae nunc sunt Sacrificia poenitentiae de deli∣cto. Ambros. lib. 3. E∣pist. 28.
• c 1.266

  Spiritus contri∣bulatus.—Ostendit Deus, se velle Sacri∣ficium, non trucidati pecoris, sed contriti pectoris. Aug. de Ci∣vit. Dei. lib. 10. cap. 5.
• d 1.267

  Mundo moriens, ipse est Sacrificium. Idem.
• e 1.268

  Tunc corpora pro corporibus; nunc non corpora, sed vi∣tia corporis perimen∣da. Arnob. c••nt. Gen••es.
• f 1.269

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Isid. Pelus lib. 3. Epist. 75.
• g 1.270

  Illi offerebant o∣ves & boves: nos tàm craffo praeteriro Sa∣crifici•• subtile offeri∣mus, virtutes omni∣genas: Sacrificium enim minimè carna∣le, secundùm naturam incorpoream, decet Deum. Ambros. [The same which hee hath translated word for word out of Cyril. Alex. cont. Iulian. See above, towards the end of Chap. 5.]
• h 1.271

  Chrys••st. in Gen. Hom. 60. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• i 1.272

  Pe••usiota. lib. 3. Epist. 75. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• k 1.273

  Prae∣ces & Gratiarum actiones factae Deo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Iustin. Dial. cum Tryphone Iudaeo. And another upon that Psal. 68. of David [Canticum laudis plus placet Deo quam novella] observeth in the Hebrew an elegant Allusion, as if it had beene said, Deomagis placet Schir, quàm Schior, id est Canti∣cum, quàm vitulus. Bellarm. ibid.
• l 1.274

  Gladio verbi mactans vitia. Hieron. & rursus in Psal. 26. Hostia jubilatio∣nis, hostia praedicationis.
• m 1.275

  Chrysost. in Psal. 95. Munus Evangelicum Sacrificium mundum & immaculatum.
• n 1.276

  Sacrificium praedicationis omnibus aromatibus praestantius. Aug.
• o 1.277

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicunt, vel quòd eâ Deus prae Sacrificiis placere sibi testatur: haec sancta vestis aromata Sanctorum est. Chrysost.
• p 1.278

  Vbi scriptum est, [Mi∣sericordiam magis volo quàm Sacrificium] nihil aliud quàm Sacrificium Sacrificio praelatum intelligi oportet: quoniam quod ab hominibus appellatur Sacrificium, fignum est veri Sacrificii. August. lib. 10. de Civitat. cap. 5.
• r 1.279

  Nos templum Dei sumus omnes, cor nostrum akare Dei, cruentas victimas ca dimus, quandò usque ad san∣guinem pro veritate certamus. August. ibid. cap. 4.
• s 1.280

  Verum Sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur, ut Deo in sancta societate haereamus: relatumque ad illum finem, ut beati esse possimus. Idem. lib. 10. de Civit. cap. 6.
• a 1.281

  In the Engl••sh Li∣turgie.
• b 1.282

  Iansen. Christum in coena Sacrificium obtulisse, primum quidem satis est signi∣ficatum, cùm dicitur Gratias egisse: Gra∣tiarum enim actio est quoddam Sacrificiū, à qua Christi actione Sacramentum corpo∣ris & sanguinis Do∣mini nomen illud ab initio Ecclesia acce∣pit. Con••ord. cap. 131.
• * 1.283

  See above, Chap. 3. Sect. 5.
• c 1.284

  Bellarm. Melan∣cthon Eucharistiam Sacrificium esse vult,—& Calvinus non solum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 esse vult, sed etiam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Ac primum, & § Expendamus.
• d 1.285

  Canus. Lutherani in Apologia Augusta∣na perperam Sacrifi∣cium definiebant esse opus à nobis Deo redditum, ut eum ho∣nore afficiamus. Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. Quibus rebus. Bel larm. Melancthon, di∣cit, Missam dici posse Sacrificium, quatenùs sumptio Eucharistiae fieri potest ad laudem Dei, sicut coetera bona opera. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Ac primum. Et Calvinus dicit, Sacrificium generaliter acceptum complectitur quic∣quid Deo offertur. Ibid. §. Expendamus. Kemnitius dicit, Sacrificium à Patribus dici Oblationem, Immolatio∣nem, & Sacrificium, quia est commemoratio & repraesentatio veri Sacrifici•• Christi. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 15. §. Aker modus.
• * 1.286

  See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 7.
• a 1.287

  Synod. Trident. Sacrificium verè pro∣pitiatorium—Hu∣jus oblatione placatur Deus, gratiam & donū poenitentiae conce∣dens dimittit pecca∣ta, una enim eadem∣que hostia est, idem nam offerens Sacer∣dotum ministerio, qui seipsum in cruce ob∣tulit. Sess. 22. cap. 2.
• b 1.288

  Catechis. Rom. (jussu C••ns. Trident. & Pii Quarti Pont. editus.) Vt Sacrificium est, non solum merendi, sed & satisfaciendi quo{que} efficaciam ha∣bet. De Luth. num. 55. Osorius Ies. Conc. Tom. 4. de Missae Sacrificio in Psalm. 4. [Sacrificate Sacrificium.] Vnicum hoc Sacrificium est Sacrificium laudis, gratiarum actionis, expiatoriū & satisfa∣ctorium pro peccatis, & impetratorium pro vivis & defunctis. Ità tradit Conc. Tri••.
• a 1.289

  Bellarm. Secun∣dum Argumentum su∣mitur ex his verbis Institutionis, quae a∣pertissimè docent Christum obtulisse in coena pro peccatis Apostolorum. Lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Se∣cundum.
• * 1.290

  See above, Chap. 1. Sect. 2.
• * 1.291

  In the fore-cited place.
• * 1.292

  See above, Chap. 1. Sect. 3.
• a 1.293

  Valent. Omne's actiones 〈◊〉〈◊〉 rectè propi•…•… Deum ali∣quâ ratione censeri debent. Lib. 2. de Miss••, cap. 5. Ide••m. Pe•…•… ratione Precibus pro∣pi•…•… vis in Scrip∣tura tribuitur, quate∣rius beneficia divina ex misericor•…•… Dei, per illas impetra••••us. Ibid.
• * 1.294

  See above, Chap. 8. Sect. 3.
• * 1.295

  August. See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 2.
• * 1.296

  Chrysost. Ibid.
• a 1.297

  Origen. in Levit. H••m. 13. Siredeas ad illum que•••• Deus pro∣posuit Propitiatorem per fidem, & fi respi∣cias ad illam comme∣morationem, de qua dicit Dominus, Hoc facite in commemo∣rationem mei; ista est sola commemoratio, quae propitium facit hominibus Deum.
• * 1.298

  See Cha. 5. Sect. 11.
• b 1.299

  Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 31. 9. Postre∣mò supe••est. pag. 238. Quidam Patres judi∣cant inprimis hac hostia expiari pecca∣ta, quòd cruentum memoret Sacrificiū. Hanc dicendi ratio∣nem sequitur Concil. Ephes. in Ep. ad Ne∣storem. Euseb. in De∣monst. Evang. lib. 1. cap. 10. August. in Psal. 75.
• * 1.300

  See above, Chap. 8. Sect. 2.
• * 1.301

  See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 13. at the letter (c).
• a 1.302

  Canus. Satis est ut verè & propriè sit Sa∣crificium, quòd mors Christi ita nunc ad peccati remissionem applicetur, ac si nunc ipse Christus morere∣tur, id quod Scripto∣rum veterum testi∣moniis confirmatur.—August. Semel immolatus in seipso Christus, & tamen quotidiè immolatur in Sacramento. Pa∣schatius: Quotidiè Christus mysticè pro nobis immolatur, & passio ejus in myste∣rio traditur. Et Cy∣rillus in Conc. Ephes. Athanas. ad Antioch. Theophyl. in Hebr. cap. 10. Greg. demum Nazian. (ut coeteros omittam) hanc incru∣entam Immolati••nē vocant. L••c. theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. Illud. pag. 422.
• b 1.303

  Cyrill. Mys••ag. 5. Christum mactatum offerimus, ut Deum propitium reddamus. Ob. per Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 2. Greg. Nyssen. orat. 1. de Resur. & Theophyl. in Matth. Dicunt mactationem esse in hac oblatione, &c.
• c 1.304

  Salmeron. Quod benignè interpretandum—nimirùm, mactationem antiquam Christi in cruce inveniri, non novam & realem ab e•• distinctam. Si in coena mactatus erat, quomodo ad nonam horam diei usque sequentis vixit? absurda haec sunt, & aliena à veritate. Tom. 9. Tract. 31. §. Quartò.
• d 1.305

  Ambros. Hîc imago, veritas in coelestibus, nunc Chri∣stus offertur, sed offertur quasi homo, quasi recipiens passionem. O••fert se ipse, quasi Sacerdos, ut peccata nostra dimittat, hîc in imagine, ibi in veritate ubi apud Patrem. Lib. 1. de offic. cap. 48.
• * 1.306

  See above, Chap. 3. Sect. 8. at the letter (c).
• a 1.307

  Bellar. Ratio 2. quare Sacri•…•…ciū Cru∣cis sit tanti valoris, hoc autem finiti, su∣mitur ex parte offe∣rentis: nam Sacrifi∣cio Crucis ipse offe∣rens est filius Dei per se; at in Sacrificio Miss•• est ipse offe∣rens per Ministrum—Illa actio immedi∣atè producta à divino supposito, ipsa ab hu∣mano. Lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 4.
• b 1.308

  Salmeron. Ies. Modò Christus in Eucharistia personā induit re•• oblatae: & quamvis Christus of∣ferat per Sacerdotes, ut Administros ejus, tamen virtus & causa universalis pro ratio∣ne causae secundariae operatur. Sacerdos igitur ejus nomine induit personam offe∣rentis. Tom. 9. Tract. 33. pag. 266. de Missis privatis.
• * 1.309

  See above, Chap. 5 Sect. 4.
• c 1.310

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 3.
• d 1.311

  Loquitur Aposto∣lus de Sacrifici••s ve∣teris Legis,—Po∣test etiam absolutè & generatim accipi, quod quotiescunque fit remissio, fit sangui∣nis effusio: sed non nisi virtute effusionis sive nunc facta, sive post futura. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 25. §. Ad illud.
• e 1.312

  Si accommode∣mus ad Evangelium, dicendum est, pecca∣ta nunc remitti, non propter praesentem effusionem, sed per praeteritam. Maldon. Ies. lib. de 7. Sacram. Tract. de Euch. imme∣diatè antè exitum Tom. 1.
• f 1.313

  Si respicimus corpus Christi, quod continetur in Euch. quis negat esse pro∣pitiatorium, non ra∣tione oblationis, quā Sacerdos facit, sed ra∣tione Oblationis fa∣ctae in cruce? Conc. Provinc. Colon. de Mis∣sa, fol. 105. And a little after. Non propitia∣••orium, ratione Sa∣crificii, quod est situm in actione Sacerdotis, seu Missae communi∣cantium, aut Eccle∣siae: sed ratione Sa∣crificii, quod in cruce oblatum.
• a 1.314

  Mirum non est, si cùm Christus infi∣nitus extitit, ejus ho∣stia fuit infiniti meriti & satisfactionis. Sal∣meron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 33. pag. 265, 266.
• b 1.315

  Erat infiniti valoris: nec enim aliter potuit compensari injuria Deo facta. Ribera Ies. in Heb. 10. num. 19.
• c 1.316

  Valor Sacrificii Missae est finitus. Haec est communis senten∣tia Theologorum: in quo distinguitur à Sacrificio Crucis—quod infinitae virtutis erat, & nunquàm re∣petitur. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 4. §. Quarta P••op. [And yet it is knowen that Card. Cajetane, C••nus, and Scotus were of a contrary opinion.] To this last testimony of Ballarmine adde also Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 5. Tract. 33. §. Tertiò.
• a 1.317

  Conc. Trid. Ut vi∣sibile Sacrificium—quo cruenti Sacrificii virtus in remissionem peccatorum applica∣retur. Sess. 22. cap. 1.
• b 1.318

  Ribera Ies. Quo∣niam quotidiè pecca∣mus, quotidiè vi••tu∣tem passionis Christi participamus, quod Conc. Trid. docuit, quo cruentum illud, semel in cruce pera∣gendum, repraesenta∣retur, atque salutaris ejus virtus in remissi∣onem peccatorum eo∣rum, quae quotidiè à nobis committuntur, applicaretur. Et hoc Catholicis quidem hominibus manife∣stissimum est, Haere∣tici negare non pos∣sunt, quoniam Scrip∣turae verbis apertissi∣mè comprobatur de virtute passionis, ad omnia peccata tol∣lenda. Rom. 3. & 5. Apoc. 1. 1. Joh. 2. Com. in Heb. 1. 10. num. 16.
• * 1.319

  See the last Testi∣mony.
• c 1.320

  Opinio prima. Omnes culpas mor∣tales, & omnia pecca∣ta (post Baptismum commissa) per Sacrificium Altaris—sic vult Catharinus—Haec opinio non vera, nisi omnes Theologi fallantur. Ca•••••• loc. theol. lib. 12. pag. 432, 433.
• d 1.321

  Vale••t. Ies. Itaque sunt, qui censeant hoc Sacrificium valere tantùm ad relaxationem poenarum, quarum culpa prius condonata fuit. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 5. §. Itaque sunt. pag. 542. Remittuntur venialia. Costerus Christien. iustitut. lib. 1. cap. 8.
• a 1.322

  Alan. Card. Pro iis peccatis, pro qui∣bus Christus mortuus est. Lib. 2. de Euchar. cap. 35. [Wherein hee bringeth the Testimo∣nies of Chrysostome, Cyprian, Theophy∣lact, and Origen, ex∣pounding them of all sinnes, adding also;] Ego verò nunquam invenio hujus Sacri∣ficii usum à Patribus ad pauciora restringi peccata, quàm ipsa immolatio crucis. Ibid. pag. 626.
• b 1.323

  Calix—sive medicamentum & holocaustum ad sanandas infirmitates, & purgandas iniquitates. Cypr. de coena Domini. Vt cum Deo acceptum fuerit peccata dimittantur. August. de Civit. lib. 20. cap. 25. Omnis nocumenti est reparatio, omnis sortis purgatio. Da••asc. lib. 4. defide, cap. 14. Omne crimen. Jul. Papa apud Gratian. de Consecratione. Dist. 2. Vt peccata nostra dimittat. Ambros. lib. 1. de Offic. cap. 48. [There might be added Justine Martyr, Dial. cum Tryphone, Chrysost. Hom. 13. in Ephes. Orig. Hom. 13. in Levit. besides the Liturgies of Basil, and others that are extant.]
• * 1.324

  See above, Book•• 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9.
• c 1.325

  Canon Missa (De Applicatione)—& omnium Circumstan∣stantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est, & nota devotio, pro qui∣bus Tibi offerimus, &c.
• d 1.326

  Hinc Suarez Ies. Quia oblatio hujus Sacrificii est fructuosa ex opere operato: ergò rationi consen∣taneum est, ut omnes, qui ad illam verè concurrunt, vel per proprium actum, se•• concursum moralem participent hujusmodi fructum talis oblationis. I•• 3. Thom. qu. 83. Art. 1. Disp. 79. §. 8.
• e 1.327

  Costerus Christian. Institutionum, lib. 1. cap. 8. de sacro Missae officio quotidiè audiendo. Quotquot adsunt & dign•• •…•…arant, spiritualiter corpore Domini reficiuntur per o•• Sacerdotis.
• * 1.328

  Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9.
• a 1.329

  Salmeron Ies. Si hoc esset infiniti valo∣ris, & celebrata esset Missa pro redemptio∣ne omnium animarū, quae in Expiatorio carcere continentur, totum evacuaret Pur∣gatorium: quod non est credendum, quia frustrà tot Missae pro u••o defuncto celebra∣rentur. Tom. 9. Tract. 33. pag. 268. De Missis privatis.
• b 1.330

  Valent. Ies. Quae∣dam portio remissio∣nis competit Sacer∣doti ministranti, quae∣dam ei, cui Sacerdos vult peculiari inten∣tione applicare—Quae intentio non tantùm valet pro pluribus, ac si pro uno solo celebretur. Lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de Missa, cap. ••l••. §. Ac primum. & Alan. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. Vt qui Sacrificium pro Petro offert, ratione stipendii. Suarez Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 79. §. 9. pag. 1021.
• c 1.331

  Alan. In certarū personarum Caus•…•… certam Sacrificii aestimationem, ac fructus quantitatem definite non tàm certa loquimur, quià ad ista particula∣ria nec Scripturae, nec Patres quicquam conferunt. Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. pag. 635.
• d 1.332

  Inquiri potest, an tenetur Sacerdos ex justitiâ applicare Sacrificium Petro, ra∣tione ab eo accepti stipendii; nihilomi∣nus applicat Paulo: vel cum jubetur offerre Sacrificium pro tali Defuncto, offert pro se. Quidam dicunt Sacrificium operati in hu∣jusmodi casibus non secundùm voluntatem Ministri, sed secundùm obligationem, quâ tenetur pro hoc vel illo of∣ferre. Alii volunt obligationem tenere—Sed operatur secundum intentionem Ministri, quatenùs est Chri∣sti Minister▪ Suarez q^o supra. [But your Cardinall,] Sed injustè facere. Alan q^o sup. cap. 35. pag. 640.
• * 1.333

  See above, Chap. 1.
• a 1.334

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 3. Mora Christi est Sacrificiū propriè dictum, & perfectiffimum.
• b 1.335

  Bellarm. ibid. cap. 20. §. Probatur. Sub∣lato Sacrificio Mis∣sae, nullum restat in Ecclesia Sacrificium propriè dictum. Nam si ullum esset, id esset Sacrificium Crucis, illud enim unum Ad∣versarii assignant u∣nicum esse Christia∣nae religionis Sacrifi∣cium. At hoc com∣mune omnibus veris religionibus, sed se∣mel peractum manet, quoad effectum, & virtutem.
• * 1.336

  Apoc. 5. 12.
• * 1.337

  Iohn 3.
• * 1.338

  See a Synops•• hereof, Booke 8.