The Lords Supper or, A vindication of the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ according to its primitive institution. In eight books; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abomination of the Romish Master. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By Thomas Morton B.D. Bp. of Duresme.

THE [ 10] SIXTH BOOKE, Entreating of the fourth Romish Consequence, which concerneth the pretended proper Propitiatorie Sa∣crifice in the Romish Masse, arising from the depraved Sense of the former words of Christ; [THIS IS MY BODY:] and confuted by the true Sense of the words following, [IN REMEMBRANCE OF MEE.]

[ 20] The State of the Controversie.

WHo soever shall deny it (say your Fathers ofa 1.1 Trent) to bee a true and proper Sa∣crifice, or that it is Propitiatory: Let him bee Anatherna, or Accisrsed. Which one Canon hath begot two Contro∣versies (as youb 1.2 know.) One, Whe∣ther [ 30] the Sacrifice in the Masse be a pro∣per Sacrifice. 2. Whether it bee truly Propitiatory 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 Deni∣ers, that is, the Cursers, or the parties so Cursed deserve rather the Curse of God, wee are forthwith to examine. Wee begin with the Sacrifice, as it is called Proper.

This Examination hath foure Trials: [ 40]

• 1. By the Scripture.
• 2. By the Judgement of Ancient 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 our 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. We begin∣ning [ 10] 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 his 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 [ 20] FACITE: DOE THIS.] SECT. I.

WHen wee call upon you for a Proofe, by the words of Christ, we exact not the very word Offering, or Sacrifice, in the same Syllables, but shall bee content with any Phrase of equivalencie, 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 ofa 1.3 Trent hath collected the Sacrificing of the Body of Christ: which your Cardinall avouch∣eth [ 30] with hisb 1.4 Certum est, as a truth without all exception; as if [Doe this] in the literall sense, were all one with [Doe you Sacri∣fice,] But why? because, forsooth, the same word in the Hebrew Originall, and in the Greeke Translation is elsewhere so used, Levit. 15. for Doe, nor Make, spoken of the Turtle-dove prepared for an Holocaust, or Sacrifice: and 1 King. 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 vainly, ridiculously, and injuriously.

I. Vainly, because the word, Doe, in those Scriptures did not [ 40] simply in it selfe import a Sacrifice, but only consequently (to wit) by reason of the matter subject then spoken of, which was a matter of Sacrifice: and are so explained by just circumstances, as may appeare in the places objected, Lev. 15. where was speech of a Turtle-dove, appointed for a Sacrifice. And so likewise in 1 King. 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 hungry,

and having spoken of meat, shall command another, saying like∣wise, Make ready, None can be so simple as to confound the dif∣ferent senses of the same word Make, but knoweth right well that the Significations are to be 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 diversifie the sense of the same word.

II. Ridiculously. For if the Hebrew and Greekec 1.5 Editions, which signifie Doe this, doe necessarily argue a sacrificing act or [ 10] Sacrifice, then shall you be compelled to admit of strange and odde kinds of Sacrifices; one in Gideon his destroying of the Altar of Baal: another in Moses his Putting off his shooes. A third in Christs washing 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. Even as it was also in Christs words to Iudas, then, when that Monster was plotting that heinous Treason, saying. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] That which thou doest, doe quickly. Can your Alchymists possibly extract a dramme of Sacrifice, as offered by Iudas, either [ 20] from the word, Doe, or Doest, in that place?

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 re∣ference to all the former Acts of Christ his Celebration, then specified; as namely, Blessing, Breaking, Eating, &c. Yea, and if your Cardinals 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] signifi∣eth [ 30] the same with, Doe sacrifice. {fleur-de-lys} If you thinke this be not oppo∣site enough, then behold your Iesuite Estius flatly contending against it.1 1.8 The word [Facere] saith he, is not the same with [Sacrificare,] as some doe expound it, besides the meaning of Scrip∣ture {fleur-de-lys}. Next, Injurious to antiquity, which (as is confessed) e 1.9 called Doing Masse the Celebration of the Sacrament. Besides, In∣jurious to your owne Masse, in the Canon inserted byf 1.10 Alexan∣der Pope and Martyr, of the Primitive age, in these words; [Doe this as often] that is, Blesseit, Breakeit, Distributeit, &c. A plaine and direct Interpretation of the words [Doe this.] Lastly, Injuri∣ous [ 40] 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 remem∣brance of mee,] vers. 25. immediately expounding what was meant by Doing, expresseth the Acts of Doing, thus; As often as ye 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 1.11 Cardinall with a marke of Imposture, as if they had falsly taxed your Romish Authors of such fondnesse. But now what shall we say to such a Gnostick, who, as though he had known what all the Doctors in the Church of Rome had then written and vented, [ 10] durst thus engage his word for every one? It may be, hee presu∣med, that none of them could be so absurd. But your Iansenius will quit the report of Calvin and Chemnitius from the suspicion of Falshood, who witnesseth, concerning some Romish Authors of his time, saying;h 1.12 There are some who endevour to prove the word [Facere] to be put for [Sacrificare] by that saying of Virgil,—Cùm faciam vitulâ. So he. And why might not they have beene as ab∣surd, as some others that came after, yea (by your leave)i 1.13 Ie∣suites themselves, of your Bellarmines owne Society, who in like maner have consulted with the Poet Virgil about his Calfe; but [ 20] as wisely (according to our Proverb) as Walton's Calfe, which went &c. For the matter Subject of the Poets Sacrifice is there ex∣pressed 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.

[ 30]

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 Blood; wherein, according to the Greeke, there is a vary∣ing of the Case: whereupon your Disputers, as if they had cryed 〈 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. [ 40]

Of the Grammer point, concerning the Case.

This is the new Testament in my Blood:•• Now what of this? a 1.14 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 Blood, 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 1.15 Greeke (saith M.c 1.16 Brerely) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, This Cup shed for you, varieth the Case from the word [Sanguine] and the Genus from the word [Testamentum,] and agreeth evidently with Calix: so that the Cup being said to be shed, proveth the Blood spoken of to bee shed ve∣rily in the Cup: which drives Beza unto a strange Answer, saying that this is a Soloe cophanes, or Incongruity of speech. So he; which Objection he learned peradventure of thed 1.17 Rhemists, who are vehement in pressing the same: their Conclusion is, This proveth the Sacri∣fice of Christ's blood in the Chalice; as also your Iesuite2 1.18 Gordon hath [ 10] done. In which one Collection they labour upon many igno∣rances. 1. As if a Soloecophanes were a prophanation of Scrip∣ture, by Incongruity of speech; which (as onee 1.19 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 Greeks Homer, and by Virgil among the Latines.

2. As though these our Adversaries were fit men to upbraid Beza with one Soloecophanes, which is but a Seeming Incongruity, like a Seeming Limping, who themselves confessef 1.20 Ingenuously, [ 20] 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, downe right halting. 3. As if a Truth might not be delivered 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 thatg 1.21 Ancient Fathers and Doctors have had such a religious care of former Translations, that they would not change their Barbarisines of the Vulgar Latine Text, [as unbent, & unbentur] and the like. 4. As if there were not the [ 30] like Soloecophanes of Relatives not agreeing with their Antece∣dents in case, whereof you have received fromh 1.22 D. Fulke divers * 1.23 Examples. 5. As if this Soloecophanes now objected were not justifiable, which is defended by the Mirrour of Grammarians i 1.24 Ioseph Scaliger, by a figure Antiptôsis; and Beza (saith hee) doth truly expound it. Besides it is explained anciently byk 1.25 Basil a per∣fect Greek Father: referring the Participle [Shed] unto the word Blood, and not unto the Chalice; which marteth 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, [ 40] 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.

{fleur-de-lys} Lastly, if wee shall answer, that the Cup, indeed, is ta∣ken for the Liquor in the Cup, which is called Christs Blood, per Metonymiain, that is, Figuratively, the signo for the name of the thing Signified (whereof you have heard plentifull examples thorowout the second Book) you shall never be able to make any Reply. One word more. Seeing that it is the universall

Confession of all your Doctors, yea, even of the Objectors themselves, that* 1.26 Christs blood is not perfectly shed in the Eucharist, how then can it stand with common modesty, to pretenda Proper Sacrifice in the word [Shed? {fleur-de-lys}] Let us proceed there∣fore to that point, that you may know that Beza needed not a Soloecophanes, to assoile this doubt.

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

[ 10]

These words being of the Present time, Therefore it plainly followeth that Breaking, Giving Christs Body, and shedding his Bloud, is in the Supper, and not on the Crosse: So yourl 1.27 Cardinall: most invincibly say yourm 1.28 Rhemists, and M^r Breerly, as dancing merrily after their Pipes;n 1.29 This point (saith hee) is clearly determined by the Evangelists themselves, in their owne originall writings, Broken, Gi∣ven, Shed. Ando 1.30 The Evasions, which our Adversaries seeke, whereby to avoid this, are enforced, racked and miserable shifts. And againe, for corroboration-sake.p 1.31 The word Broken also, spoken in regard of the outward formes, which are in time of Sacrificing, is more forci∣ble, [ 20] 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 legges, Ioh. 19. 33. {fleur-de-lys} And will you see your Iesuite Gordon, frisking and keeping the same measure; urging the present-Tense of the word, Broken, Given, Shed; calling this the Chiefe reason, and most evident for proofe of a Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Masse? and censuring Protestants for saying that in the same words the Present Tense is put for the Future; and that Broken doth signifie the Renting of Christs flesh with whips and nailes: which he termeth a seeking of refuge in Tropes [ 30] and Figures, as that which cannot bee proved by any Scrip∣ture. So he, with these others, most ostentatively, as you have heard {fleur-de-lys}. Alas! what huge Anakims and Giants have we 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: be∣sides, some better aid, both from Fathers and Scriptures, for proofe that these words Broken, Given, Shed, spoken in the Pre∣sent time doe signifie the Future time of Christs body being [ 40] Broken, and Bloudshed; and both Given up as a Sacrifice instantly after upon the Crosse.

What Authors on your side may satisfie you? whether your * 1.32 choice Iesuites, Salmeron, Valentia, {fleur-de-lys} Suarez, Vasquez Barradas, and our Country-man Sà; together with3 1.33 Maldonate, [Shed] (saith he) may be properly rendred, Shall be Shed {fleur-de-lys}; or will you

be directed by most voices, whereby it is confessed (namely) thatq 1.34 By Bloud-shed is commonly understood of it shed upon the Crosse. But what need have we 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] shall be shed, as refer∣red to the Crosse? What thinke you by this? say M. Breerly. * 1.35 Our Adversaries are in great straits, 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 cor∣ruptions. [ 10] This were well objected indeed, if that Protestants should alleage your Vulgar Latine Edition, as a purer Translation, and not as a true Interpretation 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 Oppositi∣on, and indeed conviction upon their Adversaries, who by the Decree of your Councell of Trent, are bound* 1.36 Not to reject it up∣on any pretence whatsoever. And to have this your owne Authenti∣call Translation to make against you, is to be in straits indeed, [ 20] because all the Decrees of that Councell, by the Bull of Pope Pius 4. are put upon you to be 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 wi:r 1.37 Neverthelesse (saith hee) I answer in behalfe of the Vulgar Interpreter, that as he translateth in the Future Tense, [which shall be 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 be 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, teaching [ 30] that It shall be shed, in the Future, doth signifie also the Present Tense, Is shed, that is, It is, shall be, both together. A fit man (for∣sooth) to inveigh against a Soloecophanes. {fleur-de-lys} Your Iesuite Vasquez doubtlesse would have laughed at the ridiculousnesse of this mans defence of the Vulgar Translation,4 1.38 who contrariwise, that he might prove the Vulgar, in using the Present Tense in [Datur, Is given] to understand thereby the Future Tense, [Dabitur, shall be given] doth observe with us, that the same Vulgar Translation useth the Future Tense not onely concer∣ning the Blood, in [Fundetur,] but also concerning the Body, [ 40] in [Tradetur. {fleur-de-lys}] But how then can Protestants interpret the Present to signifie the Future? We tell you, because you have in Scriptures, and other Authours, thousands of Examples of the Present tense put for the Future, to signifie the certainty or instan∣cie of that which is spoken: but it was 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, be taken not in true sense, then shall it be lawfull for every pettie Romish Priest at every Masse-saying to correct your Romish Missall,

authorized by the same Tridentine Fathers, which hath it,s 1.39 Shall be Shed. {fleur-de-lys} If this will not serve, we refer you to your owne other 5 1.40 Iesuites, Vasquez, and Barradas, both contending as abso∣lutely for the sense of the Future Tense, by both reasons and Fathers, and out of them confuting the opinion of Bellarmine by name. Each one of which our Premises might be suffici∣ent to free us out, and to ensnare you in the [Great Straits] which your Brother M. Breerly, pleasantly talks of. {fleur-de-lys}

One word more with M. Breerly, as only desirous to know of him, if he allow of the Tense either Present or Future, whether it [ 10] was straitnesse or loosnesse, that occasioned him to deliver it in the Preterimperfect Tense,t 1.41 Was shed. But he will expect that wee answer his reason. He urged the word, Broken, that because this could not be meant of Broken on the Crosse, for that His Legs were not there broken, (according as it was prophesied) therefore it must inferre it to have beene Broken at his Supper, when he utte∣red the word Broken. Which is like his other maner of Reasons, blunt, and broken at the point, as it became one not much con∣versant in Scripture: else might he have answered himselfe by another Prophecie, teaching that the word, Broken, is taken Me∣taphorically [ 20] by the Prophet Esay, Chap. 53. speaking of the cruci∣fying and Agonies of Christ, and saying, He was Broken for our iniquities▪ (namely, as two of youru 1.42 Iesuites acknowledge) By nailes, speare, and whips; and is to bee applied to the Breaking of his sinewes, nerves, and veines, as yourx 1.43 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 Ancient Fathers. SECT. III.

AS for our selves, we, before all other Reasons, and against all opposition whatsoeuer, take our light from the same [ 40] Scripture (immediately after the Text objected) wherein it is said of Iudas,* 1.44 He that betrayeth me; and againe, Christ of himselfe, * 1.45 I goe my way, both in the Present Tense, but both betokening the Futur••: because neither Iudas, at that instant, being then pre∣sent, practised any thing, nor did Christ move any whit out of his place. Even as Christ, speaking of his Passion long before this, had said in the Present Tense,* 1.46 I lay downe my life, Ioh. 10. 17. spoken of the Future Time of his death. Lastly, if ancient Fa∣thers

may be held for indifferent and competenta 1.47 Expositors, we have Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, Theodoret, Isidore, 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, do [ 10] 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* 1.48 Suarez) is taken unproperly, be∣cause in the proper and exact acception it should signifie a dividing of the Body of Christ into parts. So hee, and that truely. Else [ 20] why (wee pray you) is it, that your Romane Church hath left out of her Masse the same word [Broken] used by Christ in the words, which you terme Words of Consecration? But although you (peradventure) would be silent, yet your Bishopa 1.49 Ian∣senius 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 issuing of blood out of the veines of Christ; But, That Blood of Christ (saith yourb 1.50 Cardinall, speaking of the first Institu∣tion) [ 30] did not passe out of his Body. Even as* 1.51 Aquinas had said before him. But most emphatically your Alphonsus.c 1.52 Christ his Blood was once Shed upon the Crosse, never to be Shed againe after his Resurrection, which cannot be perfectly separated from his Body. And accordingly your Jesuited 1.53 Coster; The true effusion of his Blood, which is by separating it from the Body, was onely 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 ei∣ther in the proper Sense of Shedding, or they are not. If in a pro∣per [ 40] Sense, 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 Sense of Christ his words to be properly called deceit∣full Sophisters, as men who speak not from conscience, but for contention: who being defeated in their first skirmish, about Christs words, do flie for refuge to his Acts, and Deedes, whi∣ther wee further pursue them.

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

THere are sixe Acts, 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 roundly confuted by their owne fellowes, as they were by o∣thers frequently and diligently sought out, or vehemently ob∣jected: which the Marginals will manifest unto you, in every particular, to be no essentiall Acts of a proper Sacrifice. 1. Not a 1.54 Elevation, because it was not instituted by Christ. 2. Not theb 1.55 Breaking of Bread, because (you say) it is not necessary. 3. Not Consecration, although it be held, byc 1.56 your Cardinall Alan, The only essentiall Act; yet (as* 1.57 Some thinke) It is 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, Sacrifised. Else what will you [ 10] say of Water in Baptisme, yea of your Holy-water sprinckle? of your Pots, Bells, Vestments? which being held by you as Sacred, are notwithstanding not so much as Sacramentals. Be∣sides, if Consecration made the Sacrifice, then Bread and Wine being only consecrated, they alone should be the Sacrifice in your Masse, against your former Assertions. 4.d 1.58 Not Oblation, whether before, ore 1.59 after Consecration. 5.f 1.60 Not dipping of the Hoast in the Chalice. 6. Yea and (although yourg 1.61 Cardinall preferred this before all others)h 1.62 Not the Consumption of the Hoast by the Priests eating it. Which your Iesuite Salmeron, [ 30] Cardinalli 1.63 Alan, together with your Iesuitk 1.64 Suarez, who is

accompanied with his fellow-Iesuite Conincks, and seven other of your Schoole-men do gaine-say; because this is Rather pro∣per to a Sacrament, than to a Sacrifice. And for that also (if it were essentiall) the People might be held Sacrficers as well as Priests.

{fleur-de-lys} If you shall give your Iesuite6 1.65 Vasquez but leave to [ 30] crowd into this Presse of Opinators, hee will shoulder them all out; not only those, who stand for Fraction, Oblation, or Consumption, or any thing else, excepting the Sole Act of Con∣secration: [ 10] but hee will also exempt the Explications of all Others, hee himselfe standing wholly for his owne opinion of Sole Consecration: who ordereth the different sorts of Expositors (whom hee calleth Moderne Divines) into foure Rankes, proving all their Expositions to be Absurd. The first so Absurd, as to make that the Sacrifice, which is not now Sacrificed, but only about to be Sacrificed. The second so, as if Wood, changed into a Sheepe, should be therefore held a Sacrifice. The fourth so, as if they would make Bread, and not Christ, a Sacrifice. The last so, as if the Cha∣lice [ 20] should be therefore accounted a Sacrifice, because it is Consecrated. And having thus as it were, cashiered all his fellow-Souldiers, that stood in his way hee placeth insteed of all other the whole and sole Act in Consecration, by way of Representation. So they of these Particulars, which are afterward discussed at large. {fleur-de-lys}

CHALLENGE.

COnsider now, wee pray you, that (as you Allk 1.66 confesse) [ 40] The whole Essence of a Sacrifice dependeth upon the Institution of Christ. And thatl 1.67 It is not in the power of the Church to or∣daine a Sacrifice. Next, that if any Sacrifice had beene insti∣tued, it must have appeared either by some Word, or Act of Christ, neither of which can be found, or yet any shadow thereof. What then (wee pray you) can make more both for the justifying of your owne Bishop of Bitontum, who feared not to publish in your Councell of Trent, before all their Father-hoods,

m 1.68 That Christ in his last Supper did not offer up any proper Sacrifice? As also for the condemning of your owne Romish Church for a Sacrilegious Depravation of the Sacrament of Christ? Vpon this their Exigence whither 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. [ 10]

That the other objected Scriptures, out of the new Testa∣ment, 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. Saint Luke reporting the publike Mi∣nisterie, wherein the Apostles with other devout [ 20] Christians were now exercised, saith [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] which two of youra 1.69 Cardinals translate, They sacrificing. But why Sacrificing, say wee, not some other ministerial Function, as Preaching (in which re∣spect S. Paul called himself 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rom. 15. 16.) or administring the Sacrament, seeing that the words may bear it? They answer us, because 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 〉] when∣soever it is applyed to sacred Ministerie and used absolutely, it is alwayes taken for the Act of Sacrificing. So they. When wee [ 30] should have answered this Objection, wee found our selves prevented by one, who for Greeke-learning hath scarce had his equall in this our age, namely, thatb 1.70 Phenix M. Isaac Ca∣saubon. Looke upon the Margin, where you may find the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to have beene used Ecclesiastically for whatso∣ever religious ministration, (even for sole Praying, where there is no note or occasion of Sacrifice) and he instanceth in the Fa∣thers, 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. [ 40]

What can you say for your Cardinall his former lavish asser∣tion, who is thus largely confuted? Nay, how shall you justi∣fie your selves, who are bound by Oath not to gain-say in your Disputations the Vulgar Latine Translation, which hath ren∣dred the same Greeke words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Ministranti∣bus eis, that is, They ministring, and not, They sacrificing? which might be said as well of preaching, praying, admini∣string the Sacrament; all which (to meet with your other Objection) being done according to the will of God, and be∣longing [ 10] to his worship and service, might be properly said to have beene done unto God. {fleur-de-lys} Even as well as it might be said of him, that eateth his common food with Giving God thanks, that hee Eateth to the Lord, Rom. 14. 6. else was Chrysostome farre wide, when hee, commenting upon the same words [Ministring to the Lord,] to the question, What is meant there by [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] answereth;1 1.71 Prea∣ching. {fleur-de-lys}

That the Second objected place out of the new Testament, [ 20] to witt, 1. Cor. 10. cannot inferre any Proper Sacrifice. SECT. II.

1. Cor. 10. 18. BEhold Israel—are not they who eat 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 [ 30] Cup of Devills: you cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord, and the Table of Devills. Hence Bellarmine;a 1.72 Here (saith hee) the Table of the Lord is compared with the Altar of the Gentiles: Therefore is the Table of the Lord certainely an Altar, and there∣fore it hath a Sacrifice. 2. Because the Eucharist is so offered, as were the Sacrifices of the Iewes. And 3. Because hee 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 sense, and not regarding the voyce or judgement of any other. If wee [ 40] 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 Eucharist is placed, with the Altar of the Gentiles (which was the Altar of Devills) it were a friendly answer in his be∣halfe; for the words of the Text expressely relate a Compari∣son of the Table of the Lord with the Table of Gentiles, and De∣vills; and not with their Altar.

{fleur-de-lys} Can you then guesse what Spirit it was that moved your Cardinall thus to falsifie the sacred Text, to the end that hee might conclude the Romish Sacrifice from the Altar of De∣vils? Even that wherewith the Fathers of the Councell 2 1.73 of Trent, when they (although to the Confutation of Bellarmines errour) acknowledged the words of the Apostle to be, Table of the Lord, and Table of Devils, yet doe they impose upon you a Beliefe, that The Apostle doth in both, by Table, understand Altar, thereby turning a Table into an Al∣tar; albeit these two differed no lesse than Offering (which [ 10] was onely upon the Altar) and Eating of things offered, which was never but upon a Table; and as much as Priest, (who only did minister at the Altar) differeth from Com∣mon people, who did joyntly communicate of Idolothytes by eating them upon a Table, as will be more fully mani∣fested, in Chap. 5. Sect. 15. {fleur-de-lys} And although the Hea∣then had their Altars, yet (which crosseth all the former Obje∣ctions) their common Eating of things sacrificed unto Idols was not upon Altars, but upon Tables, in feasting and partaking of the Idolothytes, and not in Sacrificing, as did also the* 1.74 Gentiles, [ 20] as is to be seene* 1.75 hereafter.

The whole scope of the Apostle is to dehort all Christians from communicating with the Heathen in their Idol-solemni∣ties whatsoever; and the summe of his Argument is, that whosoever is Partaker of any Ceremonie, made essentiall to any worship professed, hee maketh himselfe a Partaker of the profession it selfe, whether it be Christian, vers. 16. or Iewish, vers. 18. or Heathenish and Devillish, vers. 20. And againe, the Apostle's Argument doth as well agree with a Religious Table, as with an Altar; with a Sacrament, as with a Sacri∣fice, [ 30] and so it seemeth yourb 1.76 Aquinas thought, who para∣phraseth thus upon the Text; You cannot bee partakers of the Table of the Lord, in respect of the Sacrament of the Lords Body, and of the table of Devils. To an Objector, who avoucheth no Father for his Assertion, it may be sufficient for us to op∣pose, albeit but any one. Primasius therefore, expounding this Scripture, maketh the Comparison to stand thus:* 1.77 As our Saviour said; Hee that eateth my flesh abideth in mee, so the ea∣ting of the Bread of Idols is to be partakers of the Devils. But this participation of Devills must needs be spirituall, and not [ 40] corporall; you know the Consequence.

CHAP. III.

That no Scripture in the old Testament hath beene justly produced, for proofe of a Pro∣per Sacrifice in the Eucharist. [ 10]

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. [ 20] SECT. I. The State of the Question.

VVEE 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 (as1 1.78 Divers have thought) only for re∣freshing [ 30] the wearie Souldiers of Abraham; because the Question is brought to be tried by the judgement of such Fathers, who have called it a Sacrifice. Wherefore wee yeeld unto you the full scope, and suppose (with your* 1.79 Cardinall) that the Bread and Wine brought forth had beene sacrificed by Melchisedech to God, and not as a Sacrifice administred by him to his Guests. Now, because whatsoever shall be objected will concerne either the matter of Sacrifice, or else the Priest-hood and office of the Sacrificer, wee are orderly to handle them both. [ 40]

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

SOme of the objected Testimonies (See thea 1.80 Margin) com∣paring the Sacrifice of Melchisedech to the Eucharist, in the name of a Sacrifice, do relate no further than Bread and Wine, [ 10] calling these Materialls, The Sacrifice of Christians: such are the Testimonies of Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostome, Theophy∣lact, Oecumenius, and Cassidore, together with two Iewish Rab∣bins; promising that at the coming of Christ all Sacri∣fices should cease, Except 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* 1.81 confessing it to be no better than a Iewish Con∣ceipt, to thinke the Bread and Wine to be properly a Sacrifice of the new Testament. Wherefore, to labour to prove a Pro∣per [ 20] Sacrifice, in that which you know and acknowledge to be no Proper Sacrifice, do you not blush? How much better had it becomne you to have understood the Fathers to have used the word Sacrifice in a large sense, as it might signifie any sacred ministration, as Isidore doth instruct you? Who, if you aske him what it is, which Christians do now offer after the order of Melchisedech? he will say, that it is Bread and Wine.b 1.82 That is (saith hee) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood. Even as Hierome long before him;c 1.83 Melchisedech in plaine Bread and Wine did dedicate the Sacrament of Christ: distinguishing both the Sa∣crament from a Proper Sacrifice, and naming the thing, that is [ 30] sayd in a sort to be offered, Not to be the Body and Blood of Christ, but the Sacrament of both. {fleur-de-lys} And as well might you have produced Augustine, who is as expresse as any, teaching that the Church now, as well as Melchisedech then, 2 1.84 Offereth the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. {fleur-de-lys}

Your second kinde of objected Sentences of Fathers do in∣deed compare the Bread and Wine of Melchisedech with the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. In this Ranke wee [ 40]

reckon thed 1.85 Testimonies of Cyprian and Hierome, as also of Eusebius, who doth onely make an Analogie betweene the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, and the Bread and Wine, which Melchisedech brought forth, and wherein Hee, as in Types, saw the Mysteries of Christs Body and Blood. Eucherius and Pri∣masius both say, that Christ offered Bread and Wine, that is, his Body and Blood, like as Melchisedech did, or according to the order of Melchisedech. which Body and Blood of Christ you will All sweare (wee dare say) was not the proper Subject mat∣ter [ 10] of the Sacrifice of Melchisedech, who performed his Sacri∣fice many thousands of yeares before our Lord Christ was in∣carnate in the flesh, to take unto him either Body, or Blood. And therefore could not the Fathers understand, by the Sacri∣fice of Christs Body and Blood, any thing but the Type of Christ his Body and Blood; these being then the Object of Melchise∣dech's faith, as the cited Sentences of Hierome and Eusebius do declare. Which is a second proofe of the unconscionable dea∣ling of your Disputers, by inforcing Testimonies against com∣mon sense.

[ 20] But will you see furthermore the Vnluckinesse of your game, and that three maner of wayes? First, your ordinary 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 latitude, and at liberty. Secondly, and more princi∣pally, wheresoever you heare the Fathers naming Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ, ô then behold Transubstanti∣ation 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, [ 30] that which was most really Bread and Wine of Melchisedech, was notwithstanding by the forenamed Fathers called the Bo∣dy and Blood of Christ. A most evident Argument that the Fa∣thers understood Christ's words, in calling Bread his Body, figuratively.

{fleur-de-lys} A Vindication of the Truth of my former Allegations, against a Calumnious Romanist.

MY Lord of Durham (saith hee) cryes out against Bel∣larmine, that his former Testimonies are unconsc••onably [ 40] alleaged; and yet halfe of them hee skippeth over without any shew of Answer. To the rest he answereth two things; First, that some of their Testimonies relate no further then to Bread and Wine, making these Materials the Sacrifice of Christians. To this purpose hee quoteth many Testimonies, whereof no one doth justifie his Pretence, but many of them doe plainely confute and directly contra∣dict it.

Answer.

To have cryed out of Vnconscionablenesse against any man, without just Cause, had beene Injurious; To have skipped over any Testimony, which might be thought not sufficiently answered in the Confutation of the other Testimonies cited, had beene Diffidence; To have quoted them, and not to the purpose, had beene meere Childishnesse. But so to have quoted them, that they should contradict my purpose, had [ 10] beene starke madnesse.

The first point of my Vindication must be, to set downe the other Testimonies, which (hee saith) have beene skipped over. This is now3 1.86 performed in the Margin.

The next Exception is, that they make nothing to my pur∣pose, my purpose being to shew that the Testimonies obje∣cted speake not of Christ's. Body and Blood, but only of the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. These are fully to this pur∣pose, how then do they Contradict this Pretence? Give you mee but leave to Appeale to the Testimonies them∣selves, which are here (and in the former Section) cited out of [ 20] your owne Cardinall, visible before you in the Margin, and I shall desire no other Iudge than the most partiall among your Romish Priests, to determine whether these Testimonies goe any further than was alleged, to wit, Mel∣chisedech offered Bread and Wine, which is now offered. Item, He sacrifised in Bread and Wine, wherein hee dedicated this Sacrament of Christ. (But yet in Bread and Wine.) Item, In Bread and Wine, which the whole world now celebrateth. Item, In the same Bread and Wine now celebrated in the Eucha∣rist, [ 30] and the like. And in the last place I made good my Outcry against Bellarmine and other Objectors, for their Vn∣conscionablenesse in concluding a Proper Sacrifice in the Eu∣charist, from the Testimonies of Fathers,* 1.87 which menti∣oned onely the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine herein; which Sacrifice of Bread and Wine the Romish Objectours them∣selves do absolutely deny to be any Proper Sacrifice. Than which maner of Arguing, what can be more Vnconsciona∣ble, and lesse to the purpose? [ 40]

A second Vindication of my second kinde of Allegations and Exceptions, against the Calumnies of the same Romish Seducer.

Heare your Romanist. His second Pretence is, that the other of the Fathers Testimonies say that Melchi∣sedech offered the Body and Blood of Christ, which yet

is not said to be offered or continued by any of them, but only by Saint Cyprian and Saint Hierome.

So hee.

Answer.

There needeth no more, for my discharge, than to apply the Sentences of the Fathers above-cited to the point in Question. Christ (saith Cyprian) offered up the same which Melchisedech offered, to wit, his Body and Blood. Plaine. [ 10] Againe, Bellarmine in his Chapter concerning Melchisedech produceth Hierome saying of this Bread and Wine offered, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ. This is as Plaine. Eucherius and Primasius do both say, that Christ offered Bread and Wine, that is the Body and Blood of Christ, even as did Melchisedech. As plaine as the former. Now for any Ro∣manist to reprove all this, without any Proofe to the Con∣trary, bewrayeth both Impotencie in not effecting, and Im∣pudencie in attempting his pretended Confutation. {fleur-de-lys}

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

BVt,a 1.88 you pre-occupate, viz. The Apostle, speaking of Melchisedech, saith, [Of whom I had much to say, and that [ 30] which is uninterpretable, because you are dull of hearing.] Chap. 5. vers. 11. Whence it may seeme (saith your Cardinall) a thing undeniable, that the Apostle meant thereby the Mysterie of the Eu∣charist, because it was above their capacity, and therefore hee purposely forbare to mention either Bread or Wine. So your An∣swerer. To whom you may take, for a Reply as in our behalfe, the Confession of your much-esteemed Jesuite Ribera, who telleth you thatb 1.89 The Apostle naming it a thing Inexplicable, and calling them Dull, meant not thereby to conceale the matter implyed (which was so pertinent to that hee had in hand) from [ 40] them, because of the want of their Capacity: but did, in so saying, rather excite them to a greater Attention; shewing thereby that hee did not despaire, 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 hee) Do your dili∣gence in hearing, 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.

{fleur-de-lys} Wee may here take up the Argument commonly used by all Protestants, to prove that although Christ be, in many respects, resemblable to Melchisedech, in his Priesthood most properly; yet that in the maner of his Sacrifice not so: because [ 10] then the Proper Sacrifice of Christ and Christians should be in Bread and Wine, as was that of Melchisedech. But the Sa∣crifice of Christ and Christians is not offering Bread and Wine. Therefore cannot Christ be resembled to Melchi∣sedech in the matter and nature of the Sacrifice.

This Argument wee formerly forbare to urge, because wee wanted the Assent of any of your Romish Doctors herein. But now wee have found, among your Jesuites, one confirming our Consequence, and saying, that Christ being considered to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, in [ 20] respect of the matter of the Sacrifice,4 1.90 It is necessary that Christ, besides his bloody Sacrifice on the Crosse, should of∣fer an unbloody Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. Nor can you justly oppose against our Assumption, which is, that the Proper Sacrifice of Christ and Christians is not the offering of Bread and Wine; because this is the universall, absolute, and constant Consequence of your Romish Doctors, judging and censuring the Contrary Assertion of this Jesuite to be Iewish and Absurd, as you may finde in the fift Chapter fol∣lowing, Sect. 1. {fleur-de-lys} Notwithstanding, what our Opposites faile of, in the point of Sacrifice, they intend to gaine from the [ 30] 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 youra 1.91 Cardinall) is translated into the Priesthood of Melchisedech, and this into the Priesthood [ 40]

of Christ, [A Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech:] which, because it is perpetuall and eternall, cannot be performed properly by Christ himselfe, and therefore must be executed by his Ministers, as Vicars on earth. So hee, accordingly as your b 1.92 Councell of Trent hath decreed. Insomuch that Master Sanders will have the whole Ministery of the new Testament to issuec 1.93 Originally from Melchisedech. This is a matter of great moment, as will appeare; which wee shall resolve by cer∣taine Positions.

[ 10] The foundation of all the Doctrine, concerning Christ and Melchisedech, is set downe in the Epistle to the Hebrewes.

That the Analogie betweene Melchisedech his Priesthood, and the eternall Priesthood of Christ in himselfe, is most perfect, and so declared to be, [ 20] Heb. 5, 6, 7, Chapp. SECT. V.

THe holy Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrewes, compa∣ring the Type Melchisedech with the Arch-Type Christ Ie∣sus, in one order of Priesthood, sheweth betweene Both an ab∣solute Analogie, although not in equality of Excellence, yet in similitude of qualities and offices. As first in Royalty, Melchisedech is called* 1.94 The King of Iustice and Peace. So [ 30] Christ (but infinitely more) is called* 1.95 Our Iustice and Peace. Se∣condly, Melchisedech, in respect of Generation, was without Generation from Father or Mother (according to the formality of Sacred Story:) so Christ, according to the verity of his Huma∣nity, without Father; and, in his divine nature, without Mother: of whom also it is written, Who shall declare his Generation? Thirdly, in Time, Melchisedech 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, onely One, who had no Predecessor, nor Succes∣sor. [ 40] 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. saying, That the Priesthood was changed from Aaron and Levi to Christ, in Iuda. That is, that Christs Power might be both Re∣gall, and Sacerdotall, saitha 1.96 Chrysostome, which was a sin∣gular dignity, as your Jesuite well observeth.

That the nature of every other Priesthood (be it of your Romish High-Priest) dissenteth as much from the Priesthood of Melchisedech, as the Priesthood of Melchise∣dech agreeth with the Priesthood of Christ. SECT. VI. [ 10]

IF Comparison might be made of Priesthood, whom would you rather that wee should instance in, than in your intituled Summus Pontifex, that is, the High-Priest, your Pope: who not∣withstanding cannot be sayd to be a King, as Melchisedech, much lesse as Christ,a 1.97 Everlasting. Secondly, much lesse a King of Peace, who hath beene reproved by Antiquity for be∣ing b 1.98 A Troubler of the Peace of Christs Church: And gene∣rally complained of by others, as beingc 1.99 Nothing lesse than the Vicar of the God of Peace, because of his raising hostile warres against Princes of the same Nation, Blood, and Faith: And for [ 20] d 1.100 Distracting the Estates of Princedome and Priestdome. Third∣ly, not King of Iustice, because some Popes have excited Sub∣jects and Sonnes to rebell against their Liege Soveraigns and Pa∣rents. Fourthly, not Originally without Generation, by either Father or Mother; some of them having beene borne in lawfull 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 Popee 1.101 Leo in effect did, viz. that, as Priests, you are not as were the Leviticall, by naturall Propagation; but by a Spirituall ordination: because a Spiri∣tuall [ 30] propagation is no proper, but a metaphoricall Generation. Fifthly, not without Succession; seeing that Succession, as from S. Peter, is the chief tenure of your Priesthood. Nor will that of Epiphanius help you, in this Case, to say thatf 1.102 You had no Suc∣cession by the seed of Aaron: because although this may exempt you from the Leviticall Priesthood, yet will not it associate you with the Priesthood of Melchisedech, or of Christ, whose Chara∣cters of Priesthood was to be Priests soly, individually, and abso∣lutely in themselues, without Succession by another. And this [ 40] the words of the Apostle [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, Christ had an Intransmissible Priest-hood, do fully signifie.

As little can your ordinary Answer availe, telling us that you are notg 1.103 Successors, but Vicars of Christ, and Successors of

Peter; because, whilest you claime that the Visible Priest-hood and Sacrifice of Christ is still in the Church, which is perpe∣tuated by Succession, you must bid farewell to the Priest-hood of Melchisedech. But if indeed you disclaime all Succession of Christ, why is your Jesuite licensed to say, that yourh 1.104 Ro∣man Popes do succeed Christ in their Pastorsh••p over the Church, al∣though not in their Priesthood, by offering Sacrifices, expiating sinnes by their owne virtue? Are not the Titles of Pastor and Priest equally transcendent in Christ? Againe, if you be Vicars of Christ, then are you not after the Order of Melchisedech, [ 10] who is read to have had no more any Vicar, than that hee had either Father or Mother.

Sixtly, not in respect of the no-necessity of a Succession, which was* 1.105 Immortality, because the Popes shewed themselves to be sufficiently mortall, insomuch that one Pope maligning another, after death hath dragged the Carcasse of his Prede∣cessor out of hisi 1.106 Grave; to omit their other like barbarous out∣rages. {fleur-de-lys} In respect of which Mortality, Athanasius is as con∣tradictory to your Romish Doctrine as can be who resolveth, [ 20] saying;5 1.107 Aaron indeed had Successors, and in the Legall Priest-hood, in processe of time, by reason of death one succeeded another: but our Lord had a Priesthood without Transition and Succession, being himselfe alwayes a faithfull High-Priest.

From the same law of Mortality Theodoret concludeth likewise that Christ in the New Testament6 1.108 Transmit∣teth not his Priesthood to any other. Wherein wee may say, that Theodoret was Scholler to Chrysostome,7 1.109 who like∣wise maketh the excellencie of the New Testament, in com∣parison of the Old, to consist in this, that they had many [ 30] Priests successively, for that (by reason of Mortality) they were but men: in the New Testament, wee have Christ a Priest. So hee. This one Observation might satisfie any reasona∣ble man, for the confutation of your Romish Doctrine of Proper Priesthood; the rather because you were never able to prove, out of any Father, that Distinction of yours, to wit, of one being the Vicar, albeit the Successor of Christ. No, no this Distinction, now after a thousand yeares since Christ his Incarnation, hath beene the adulterate Coyne of your owne Romish forge. {fleur-de-lys}

[ 40] Seventhly, not Personall Sanctity,* 1.110 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* 1.111 Lie. As for your Popes, wee wish you to make choice of whatsoever Historians you please, and wee

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 Benedicts in their names. Can there be then any Analogie betweene your High Romane Priest and Christ, the Prototype to Melchisedech, in so mani∣fold Repugnancies? yet notwithstanding, every one of you must be (forsooth) a Priest after the order of Melchisedech.

Nay, but (not to multiply many words) the Novelty of your Pretence doth bewray it selfe fromk 1.112 Peter Lombard, [ 10] 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 Hee (saith yourl 1.113 Cardinall of him) collected the Sentences of Divines, and deserved to be called the Master of Schoolemen. Thus farre of the Person of Christ, as Priest; in the next place wee are to enquire into his Priestly Function.

[ 20]

Of the Function of Christ his Priesthood, now after his Ascension into Heaven; and your Cardinall his Doctrine Sacri∣legiously detracting from it. SECT. VII.

BY the Doctrine of your Cardinall, in the name of your Church,a 1.114 The old Priesthood of Aaron was translated in∣to the Priesthood of Christ: Every Priest (saith the Apostle) must have something to offer, else hee were no Priest. Thus his Priest∣hood [ 30] is called Eternall, and must have a perpetuall offering, which was not that upon the Crosse. Nor can that suffice, which the Pro∣testants say, That his Priesthood is perpetuall, because of the per∣petuall virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse; or bicause of his perpetuall Act of Intercession, as Priest in Heaven; or of presen∣ting his passion to his Father in Heaven, whither his Priesthood was translated. No, but it is certaine that Christ cannot now pro∣perly sacrifice by himselfe, Hee doth it by his Ministers in the Eu∣charist, Because the Sacrifice of the Crosse, in respect of Christians, is now invisible, and seene onely by Faith: which although it be [ 40] a more true Sacrifice, yet it is not, as our Adversaries say, the only Sacrifice of Christian Religion, nor sufficient for the Conservation thereof. And againe, His sacrificing of himselfe in the Sacra∣ment, by his Ministers, is that by which onely hee is said to have

a perpetuall Priesthood. Accordingly your Cardinallb 1.115 Alan; Christ (saith hee) performeth no Priestly Function in Heaven, but with relation to our Ministery here on earth, whereby hee offereth. So they, for the dignifying of their Romish Masse, as did also c 1.116 your Rhemists; but with what Ecclipse of Iudgement and good Conscience, is now to be declared.

If wee take the Sacrifice of Christ for the proper Act of Sa∣crificing, which is destructive; so was Christ his Sacrifice but One, and Once, Heb. 7. and 8. But understanding it as the sub∣ject [ 10] matter of the same Sacrifice, once so offered to God upon the Crosse, and after his Ascension entred into Heaven, and so is it a perpetuall 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. Vers. 12. To what end? Al∣wayes living to make supplication for us. Chapt. 7. Vers. 3. and 25.

[ 20] Hence followeth the continuall use, which the soules of the faithfull have, of his immediate Function in Heaven: Having a perpetuall Priesthood, hee is able continually to save them that come to God by him. Vers. 24, 25. Whence issueth our bold∣nesse and all-confidence, alwayes to addresse our prayers to him, or by him unto God: Wee having an High-Priest over the house of God, let us draw nere with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinckled from an evill Conscience. Chap. 10. 22. The evidence of these Scriptures hath drawne from your Iesuite Ribera (even then, when hee professeth him∣selfe [ 30] an earnest defender of your Romane Masse) these Ac∣knowledgements followingd 1.117 viz. upon the Chap. 7. 23. That Christ is a true Priest, and all other do partake of his Priest∣hood, in offering Sacrifice, only in remembrance of his Sacrifice: And that hee did not performe the office of Priesthood onely upon earth, but even now also in heaven: which Function hee now dis∣chargeth by the virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse. Hee pro∣ceedeth. No man (saith hee) will deny this Position (namely) that Christ now ever exerciseth the office of a Priest, by presenting himselfe for us. So hee.

[ 40] Another Theologicall Professour, of Bellarmines owne Society, in the place where hee noteth Bellarmine to walke in his owne opinion alone, procedeth further,8 1.118 affirming

that Christ needeth not a Sacrifice to continue to the ends of the world, to the intent hee should become a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech; because hee is to continue a Priest for ever, even after the end of the world, when hee shall not have any proper Sacrifice at all. Yet lest this Iesuite might seeme but to lispe it, by mentioning an Eternity of the Priesthood of Christ, onely in respect of his person, your Iesuite Estius cometh off roundly,9 1.119 confessing a Priesthood of Christ both in Person, Office, and Effect, from the Con∣currence of the Text, as followeth. From all these wee [ 10] may understand (saith he) that Christ is called a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedech, First in respect of his Person, because there is none to succede him. Secondly in respect of his Office, by making supplication in heaven for us. Nor doth hee want an Oblation, which is the presenting of his Body that suffered to the Father for our Salvation. And thirdly in respect of the Effect, being made for us, by his Sacrifice of the Crosse, the cause of our Redemption. So hee, as just Protestantiall as can be. {fleur-de-lys}

This is still Christs Function of Priesthood, whereunto this Apostle exhorteth all Christians, at all times of need, to make [ 20] their addresse; which Saint Iohn propoundeth as the onely Anchor-hold of Faith in his Propitiation, 1. Iohn 2. If any sinne, wee have an Advocate with the Father, Iesus Christ the righteous, and hee is (what?) The Propitiation for our sinnes. The which every faithfull Christian doth apply, by faith, unto himselfe, as often as hee prayeth to God, in Christs name, for the remission of sinnes, saying, Through Iesus Christ our Lord. How therefore can this his Function of Priesthood, with∣out extreme sacrilege, be held Insufficient to his Church, for obtaining pardon immediatly from God, who seeth not? As [ 30] for other your ordinary Objections, taken from two sentences of the Apostle, speaking of the Examples of things celestiall, and of Purging sinnes now with better Sacrifices, you should not have troubled us with them, knowing them to be satisfyed by your owne Authorse 1.120 Ribera, andf 1.121 Aquinas long∣agoe. [ 40]

That the former Romish Sacrilegious Derogation, from Christs Priestly Function in Heaven, is contradicted by an∣cient Fathers; first in respect of Place, or Altar, and Function. SECT. VIII.

THeodoret isa 1.122 alleged by you, as denying that Christ now offereth any thing by himselfe, but onely in the Church: [ 10] albeit hee saith not so, simply; but, that hee offereth not in the Church personally, which all confesse: for otherwise The∣odoret presently afterb 1.123 expresseth, that Christ exerciseth his Priesthood still as man. As for the Church, his words are not, that Shee offereth the Body and Blood of Christ in Sacrifice, but, The Symbols of his Body and Blood: Therfore is this his Testimony unworthily and unconscionably objected. But wee will con∣sult with the direct speeches of Antiquity. First if you aske the Offering, Ambrose answereth you, thatc 1.124 The offering of Christ here below is but in an image: but his offering with the [ 20] Father is in truth. If of the Priest, Augustine telleth you, d 1.125 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 1.126 Presbyteri propriè Sacer∣dotes: which hee spake not absolutely, but comparatively (namely) in respect of Lay-Christians, who in Scripture are otherwise called Priests. (As your owne* 1.127 Bellarmine, and Ro∣mane Catechisme distinguish, calling the former the Inward, [ 30] which onely the Faithfull have by the Sacrament of Baptisme; the other Outward, by the Sacrament of Orders.) And with the like liberty doth Saint Augustine call the Sacrifice of the Old Testament (although most proper) but a Signe, in respect of the Spirituall Sacrifice of this worke of mercie; which heeg 1.128 calleth True, namely in the Truth of Excellencie, al∣though

though not of Propriety, as you may see. And lastly, here you have urged one, than whom there is scarcely found among Protestants a greater Adversary to your fundamentall Article of your Sacrifice, which is the Corporall existence of Christ in the Eucharist. All which notwithstanding, the dignity of our Evangelicall Function is nothing lessened, but much more amplifyed by this Comparison.

If furthermore wee speake of the Altar, you will have it to be rather on earth below, and to that end you object that Scripture, Hebr. 13. 10. Wee have [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, an [ 10] Altar (saith the Apostle) whereof they have no right to eat, that serve at the Tabernacle. Thish 1.129 some of you greedily catch at, for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse, and are presently repulsed by youri 1.130 Aquinas, expounding the place to signifie Either his Altar upon the Crosse, or else his Body, as his Altar in Heaven: mentioned Apocal. 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, [ 20] Devotion, Thankefulnesse, Hope, and Charity; you would pre∣sently answer, that This one certainely is some Lutheran or Calvinist, the words are so contradictory to your Romish Garbe: notwithstanding you may finde all this in thek 1.131 An∣tididagma of the Divines of Collen. Besides your Argument drawne from the word Altar, in this Scripture, is so feeble and lame a Souldier, that yourl 1.132 Cardinall was content to leave it behinde him, because Many Catholikes (saith hee) in∣terpret it otherwise.

{fleur-de-lys} And, indeed, who is of so shallow a braine, as not to [ 30] discerne the notorious unconscionablenesse of your Dispu∣ters; who confessing that the Apostles, in their times, did * 1.133 Abstaine from the words Sacrifice, Priest, and Altar, do notwithstanding allege the word, Altar, in the Text to the Hebrewes, for proofe of a proper Altar in the Masse? Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your Iesuite Estius?10 1.134 Hee adhereth to the Interpretation of Aquinas, which is, that here, by Al∣tar, [ 40]

is meant the Crosse of Christs sufferings: which hee collecteth out of the Text of the Apostle, where hee saith of the Oblation of Christs Passion, that It was without the gate; and observeth, for Confirmation-sake, that the Apo∣stle often, of purpose, opposeth the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament, so farre, as never to make mention of the Sacrifice of the New Testa∣ment. So hee. What is, if this be not our Protestantiall profession, concerning this word, Altar, to prove it to be ta∣ken [ 10] Improperly for the Altar of Christs Crosse; and not for your pretended proper Altar of the Masse? {fleur-de-lys}

But wee are cited to consult with the Ancient Fathers, be it so. If then wee shall demand where our High-Priest Christ Iesus is, to whom a man in Fasting must repaire,m 1.135 Origen re∣solveth us, saying, Hee is not to be sought here on earth at all, but in Heaven. If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution, that hee cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on earth, Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him, as hee did himselfe, say∣ing, n 1.136 I have another Altar in Heaven, whereof these (Al∣tars) [ 20] are but Signes; a better Altar, to be beholden with the eyes of my mind, there will I offer up my Oblations: as great a Dif∣ference (doubtlesse) as betweene Signes and Things. This could not hee have sayd of those Altars, if the Sacrifices on them both were, as you pretend, subjectively and corpo∣rally the same. If wee would know how, what, and where the thing is, which a Christian man ought to contēplate upon, when hee is exercised in this our Eucharisticall Sacrifice?o 1.137 Chry∣sostome 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 [ 30] where the Body is, namely (for so hee saith) in Heaven. Accor∣ding to that of the Apostle, Heb. 10. Christ sitting at the right hand of God. Vers. 12. What therefore? Therefore let us draw neere with an Assurance of faith. Vers. 22.

If wee would understand wherein the difference of the Iew∣ish Religion and Christian Profession especially consisteth, in respect of Priesthood,p 1.138 Augustine telleth us that They have no Priesthood; and the Priesthood 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 wee [ 40] must have our Confidence in the Celestiall Priest, Sacrifice, and Altar;q 1.139 Oecumenius andr 1.140 Ambrose will shew us

that it is because Here below there is nothing visible; neither Temple, ours being in Heaven; nor Priest, ours being Christ; nor Sacrifice, ours being his Body; nor yet Altar, saith the other. Heare your owne Canus:f 1.141 Christs offereth an unbloody Oblation in Heaven.

{fleur-de-lys} Chrysostome will not be behind his disciple Oecumenius, in expressions, who differenceth our Christian Religion from the Iewish, for that11 1.142 Our Sanctuary, Priest, and Sa∣crifices [ 10] is in Heaven. And if Christians intend any other Sacri∣fice than that, hee admonisheth that they may be such, which may be accepted of in the Heavenly Sanctuarie; as namely The Sacrifice of Iustice, Praise, and of a Contrite Spirit, and the like, all meerely Spirituall (as you confesse) and there∣fore but Metaphorically called Sacrifices: And12 1.143 Saint Hierome, also inviteth us To Celebrate our Passeover with him above. {fleur-de-lys} Thus in respect of the place of Residence of Christ our High-Priest, and his Function, which hath beene already confirmed by the Fathers of the first Councell of Nice. And [ 20] thus farre of the place of this Altar, the Throne of Grace; some∣thing 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. [ 30] SECT. IX.

CHrist his Bodily existence in Heaven (as wee have* 1.144 heard) is set out by the Apostle in these termes: Hee abideth a Priest for us. Hee continueth a Priest. Hee having a continuall Priesthood. Hee, without intermission, appeareth before God for us. Thus the Apostle. But what of this, will you say? Do 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 〉, anda 1.145 Iuge Sacrificium, that is, the Continuall Sacrifice; Continually offered: Whereof the [Iuge] and Conti∣nuall [ 40] 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-Sacri∣fice, which is but onely offered in the Morning. As if you would make a picture, having two hands, for to represent a person that hath but one. But, not to deny that the Celebration of the Eucharist may be called a Iuge Sacrificium (for so some Fathers have termed it:) Yet, they no otherwise call it Iuge, or Continual, than they call it a Sacrifice, that is, Vnproperly; because it cannot possibly be compared for Continuance of Time to that Celestiall of Christ in the highest Heaven, where Christ offereth himselfe [ 10] to God for us day and night, without Intermission.

Whereupon it is that Irenaeus exhorteth men to pray often by Christ at his Altar,b 1.146 Which Altar (saith hee) is in Hea∣ven, and the Temple open. Apocaly p. 11. 19.c 1.147 Where (saith Pope Gregory) our Saviour Christ offereth up his burnt Sa∣crifice for us without Intermission: And whereupon your Ie∣suite Coster, out of Ambrose, affirmeth, thatd 1.148 Christ exhibi∣teth his Body wounded upon the Crosse, and slaine, as a [Iuge Sa∣crificium] that is, a Continuall Sacrifice, perpetually unto his Father for us. And to this purpose serve the fore-cited Testi∣monies [ 20] of Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Chryso∣stome, and Occumenius; some pointing out the Altar in Hea∣ven, as the Truth; some by Exhortations, and some by their Examples instructing us to make our Continuall Approach unto the Celestiall Altar.

CHALLENGE. [ 30]

NOw you, who so fixe the hearts and minds of the Specta∣tors of your Masse upon your sublunary Altars and Hoasts, and appropriate the Iuge Sacrificium thereunto (in re∣spect of Time) during onely the houres of your Priestly Sacri∣ficing; allow your attention but a moment of Time, and you will easily see the Impiety 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 [ 40] Intermission, Alwayes (that is) without any Interruption of any moment of Time: to the end that all sorts of Penitents and faithfull 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 mat∣ter of this Sacrifice, which is the Body of Christ, being there ever present; The Priest, who is Christ himselfe, ever exe∣cuting his Function. Whereas, contrarily, you will confesse,

(wee dare say) that the Doores of your Churches may happen to be all locked, or interdicted; your Sacrifice shut up in a Boxe, or lurched, and carryed away by Mice; your Priest taken up with sport, or repast, or journey, or sleepe: yea, and even when hee is acting a Sacrifice, may possibly nullifie all his Priestly Sacrificing Act, by reason of (* 1.149 Confessed) Almost infinite Defects.

Therefore the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Doctrine of your Masse is thus farre manifested, in as much that your owne Ministeriall Priesthood doth so prejudice the personall Priest∣hood [ 10] of Christ, as it is in Heaven, as the Moone doth by her interposition ecclipse the glory of the Sunne: by confoun∣ding things distinct, that is, (as wee have* 1.150 learned from the Fathers) Image with Truth; The state of Wicked Parta∣kers with the Godly; Matters Visible with Invisible; Signes with Things; Worse with Better; Iayes with Eagles, and the like.

A SECOND CHALLENGE, [ 20] {fleur-de-lys} Against your Cardinall Bellarmine his principall Grounds; out of the Confession of your owne Iesuit, both from Scriptures, and from ancient Fathers.

CHrist (saith the Apostle) is a Priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. This [for ever] your Cardi∣nall 13 1.151 Bellarmine restraineth to the time of Mortality, on∣ly to the end of the world, and that Christs Priesthood can [ 30] have no further Extent; concluding thereupon, that (for the preserving of the Priesthood of Christ) Hee, either by him∣selfe, or by some other, must necessarily offer some sacrifice unto the end of the world, because it cannot bee that that, which was but once done, can ever againe bee repeated, namely, his bloody Sacrifice upon the Crosse. So hee, Concluding it must there∣fore bee the unbloudy Sacrifice in your Romish Masse.

Although this Argument deserve no other Confutation, than what hath been given out of the Confessions of your own Iesuit. Yet because another of the same Society, and of [ 40] singular estimation in your Church, namely Vasquez (who often expresseth his reading of the works of Bellarmine) may seeme as it were to offer his service unto us, as being desi∣rous to oppose against the Iudgement of your Cardinall, wee may not deny him our due Attention. He both out of Scriptures and ancient Fathers (alleged in the Margin) con∣cludeth.

14 1.152 that Christ is called a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, not in respect onely of the time, to the end of the world, but everlastingly beyond all worlds: and this not onely in respect of any Sacrifice to bee made heereafter, but of that his Bloody Sacrifice once and onely offered upon the Crosse. Professing, that the contrary Assertion is repugnant to Scrip∣ture, even By the Exposition of ancient Fathers, expresly teach∣ing, that Christ's Priesthood is called Eternall, because it reach∣eth beyond all mortalitie.

[ 10] And your Cardinall objected that out of Hebr. 5. Every Priest must have something to offer: Ergo, Christ, being a Priest, must not bee without a present and continuall Sacrifice, which can bee no other than that in the Eucharist. Against which the same Jesuit replyeth; But all the Greeke Fathers upon this Text (saith hee) and some of the Latine Fathers also, interpret this not of the unbloody, but of the bloody Sacrifice of Christ: which may bee sufficient for his eternall Priesthood, by reason of the unitie of his Humanitie and Divinitie, which is eternall. Nor is there any one (saith hee) of all the Fathers, [ 20] whom wee have cited in Confutation of Heretikes, that expound that Scripture to exclude the Sacrifice of the Crosse. So hee, and much more, in the place quoted against the particular and petty Reasons objected to the contrarie. What Confutation can be more convincent then that, which is warranted and fortified by the confessed Evidences of Scriptures, and Testi∣monies of Ancient Fathers? {fleur-de-lys} [ 30] [ 40]

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 wee heare your Objector speake, even your a 1.153 Cardinall, who albeit hee confesseth the Paschall Lambe to have been the figure of Christ on the Crosse, yet did it in the [ 10] Ceremonies thereof (saith hee) more immediatly and principally prefigure the Eucharist than the Passion, which is proved by Scrip∣ture, 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passeover is offered up, therefore let us feast it in the Azymes of Syncerity 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 A∣postle exhorteth us to this Feast, in saying, [Let us therefore keepe our Feast, &c.] So hee, bestowing a large Chapter of Argu∣ments, wherewith to bleare our eyes, lest that wee should see in this Scripture [Our Passeover is offered up] Rather the Immola∣tion [ 20] of Christ on the Crosse, than in the Eucharist. We willing∣ly yeeld unto his alleged Testimonies of ancient Fathers, who by way of Allusion, or Analogie, do all call the Eucharist a Paschal Sacrifice. But yet that the words of this Scripture should more properly and principally meane the Eucharisticall Sacrifice (as if the Jewish 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 as followeth,b 1.154 But our Adversaries (saith hee) will say, [ 30] that the Apostle, in saying our Passeover is offered up, speaketh of Christ's Sacrifice offered upon the Crosse: but wee will prove that this figure was properly fulfilled at his Supper. (So he.) Wee will now shew you, that other Adversaries, than Protestants, are rea∣dy to encounter this your Champion.

First, the choisest Chieftaine of his owne side, armed with the Authoritie of Christ himselfe▪ Joh. 13. 1. [Before the day of the Passeover, Iesus knowing that his hower was come, that he must passe out of the world unto the Father.] Now when was this spo∣ken? Even then, saithc 1.155 Tolet your Cardinall & Jesuit, When he [ 40] 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 hee) in signification of his owne passing over by death to his Father. So he. So also your Je∣suit d 1.156 Pererius, out of Augustine.

Secondarily, to the Scripture objected, 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 youre 1.157 A∣quinus. [Our Passeover.] Namely, By his Sacrifice in shedding [ 10] his Blood on the Crosse. So your Jesuit.f 1.158 Becanus. And, By this his Passeover on the Crosse was the Passeover of the Iewes fulfilled. So your Bishopg 1.159 Iansenius, as flat diameter to your Cardinal••s Objection as can be.

A third Scripture wee find, Joh. 19. [They broke not his legs, that the Scripture might bee fulfilled which is written, A bone of him shall not be broken:] which yourh 1.160 Cardinall himselfe con∣fesseth to relate onely to Christ's Sacrifice on the Crosse; and notwithstanding dare immediatly oppose, saying, Neverthe∣lesse the Ceremony of the Paschall Lambe did more immediatly [ 20] and properly prefigure the Eucharist than Christ's passion: where∣in, 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 matter 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, whether the slaine Pas∣chall Lambe bleeding to death, did more properly and immediat∣ly [ 30] prefigure and represent a living and perfect Body of Christ, than that his Body wounded to death, and blood-shed, Com∣mon sense may stand for Judge.

The Ancient Fathers, when they speake of the Sacrifice of Christ's passion, in a precise proprietie of speech, do declare themselves accordingly. If in generall, then asi 1.161 Origen: All those other Sacrifices (saith hee) were perfigurations of this our perfect Sacrifice. If more particularly, then ask 1.162 Chrysostome, from the objected Text of the Apostle. 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passe∣over is offered up, Christ, Let us therefore keepe our Feast, &c.] [ 40] Dost thou see (saith hee) in beholding the Crosse, the joy which wee

have from it? for Christ is offered upon the Crosse, and where there is an Immolation, there is Reconciliation with God: this was a new Sacrifice, for in this the flesh of Christ was the thing sa∣crificed, his Spirit the Priest and Sacrificer, and the Crosse his Al∣tar. Insomuch, that else-where hee teacheth every Christian how, as a spirituall Priest, hee mayl 1.163 Alwaies keepe the Passeo∣ver of Christ. {fleur-de-lys} And yet againe the same Father, as if hee had thought this point deserved to be got by heart of every Christian:{fleur-de-lys}* 1.164 That wee may speake of Christs Passion (saith hee) what saith the Figure? [Take unto you a Lambe:] but Christ [ 10] commandeth no such thing, for hee himselfe (namely at his Passion) offered up himselfe to the Father. So hee. {fleur-de-lys} What greater plainenesse can be desired? and yet behold, if it be possible, a greater fromm 1.165 Origen, calling the Sacrifice on the Crosse, the Onely true Passeover. Which saying his Reporter Socrates imbraceth, as a Divine Contemplation.

{fleur-de-lys} That the third objected Typicall Scripture out of Exod. 24. [The Blood of the Testament] is not justly objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice [ 20] in the Masse. SECT. XI.

THis Text Exod. 24. speaking of the Sacrifice of the Old Testament [This is the Blood of the Testament] being so consonant to the words of Christ, delivered in his Institu∣tion of the Eucharist [This is the Blood of the New Testament] in the Gospell, seemeth to your Cardinall to be an Argu∣ment of great force, and therefore doth hee dart it against [ 30] us with all his strength of Arguing, saying;15 1.166 The Blood of the Old Testament was the Blood of an Hoast truly sacrifised; Therefore the Blood of the New Testament mentioned in the Eu∣charist (whereof the other was a figure) must needs be the Blood of Christ properly sacrifised therein. So hee, heaping up Reason upon Reason, as it were to make a mountaine; and presently after his much working and heaving, cometh one of his owne family of the Iesuites, Vasquez by name, and kicketh all downe with his heeles, as it had beene but a Mole-hill, saying;16 1.167 That it is called [The Blood of the [ 40] New Testament] by Christ, not as it is in this Sacrament, but as it referreth to the Sacrifice of Christes Passion. Which hee confirmeth by the most Authenticall kinde of proofe, even from the Scripture, out of one Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrewes, in severall places. One from these words [A Te∣stament is confirmed in men dead.] The next, Heb. 9. [Where a Testament is, there doth necessarily intervene the death of the

Testator.] And againe; [Christ was once, sacrifised to take away the death of many.] He might have added a fourth vers. 15. Christ is the mediator of the New Testament, that death coming betweene, for Redemption. &c.

Each one of these pointing out Christs Bloody Sacrifice on the Crosse, teacheth us to deale with you, by law of Retor∣tion thus: The Old Testament was confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of the Creature sacrifised: And so (accor∣ding to the Apostles Comparison) was the New Testament [ 10] confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of Christ our Te∣stator. Therefore could not the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament be a Figure of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice in the New. [ 20]

That your Cardinall Bellarmine hath Contradicted the Do∣ctrine of the Ancient Church of Rome, taught by Pope Leo the First. SECT. XII.

POpe Leo is hee, whom the Church of Rome will be thought to esteeme as equall with the best of Popes, and [ 30] therefore, hath honoured him with the singular Title of Magnus, (Ob insignem sanctitatem, doctrinam & eloquentiam, saith your Iesuit* 1.168 Possevin) who lived above a thousand yeares since. Him doth your17 1.169 Cardinall object for proofe of the Sacrifice of the Masse, from the Signe of the Paschall Lambe, in a Sentence, which in it selfe is sufficient to tell us what was the Faith of the Church of Rome in his dayes; and to direct you in the point now in Question: in manifesting that your Cardinall hath egregiously abused his Testimony, for proofe of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice of Christs [ 40] Body in the Eucharist; which Leo spake so evidently and expresly of the Sacrifice of his Passion, that your Iesuite Vasquez was enforced to18 1.170 confesse thus much, even then, when hee sought to defend the Romish Sacrifice of the Eucharist.

The words of Leo are generall. All those things which were performed, concerning the Sacrificing of the Lambe by Moyses, from Gods command, were prophesied of Christ,

and did properly declare the Slaying of Christ. So hee. Ergo hee spake of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bloody Sacrifice. And if these Prefigu∣rations of the Old Law, in the Sacrifice of the Lambe, do properly point at the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ, then were they not properly Types of any Sacrifice in the Masse. And lest you might thinke that Leo was singular In this Opinion, your Iesuit will have you know that Chrysostome hath also the same words. Now whether you are bound rather to be∣lieve [ 10] an Ancient Romane Pope, or a late Romane Cardinall; judge you. In the last place wee are to remove an Ob∣jection. [ 20]

An Objection taken from the Comparison between the figure of the Old Testament, and the thing figured in the New; ear∣nestly insisted upon, and as easily refuted. SECT. XIII.

THe Briefe of your Reason is this.19 1.171 Figures are ne∣cessarily [ 30] inferiour unto the Things prefigured. But, In the Old Testament, the Bread of Melchisedech, the Shew-bread, the Bread of Manna, and the Paschall Lambe were figures of the Eucharist in the New Testament; Therefore the matter in the Eucharist is not simply Bread, but the Body of Christ. Thus your Cardinall. Your D^r. Heskins also playeth his descant upon this Base, and runneth voluntary in a large discourse from the20 1.172 Brazen Serpent on a Pole, the figure of Christ Crucified: From Ionas in the Belly of the Whale, a figure of Christ's Resurrection; and from the Paschall Lambe, a figure of Christ offered in the Eucharist. Now the Thing being better [ 40] than the Signe, therefore Christ herein offered is better than the Lambe: But if (as the Sacramentaries say) the Eucharist be but a Signe, then was the Paschall Lambe but the figure of a Piece of Bread, wherewith there is no Similitude. But that the things prefigured are more excellent than their Signes, is proved out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes, in preferring the

New Testament before the Old. Whereby I may Conclude (saith hee) that the Paschall Lambe being a Signe of this Sacrament, this is not Bread, but the Body of Christ. So hee. The An∣swer is easie, by a Distinction of Things prefigured. Some are Figures Principall, which are called Arche-types, and some lesse principall, called onely Antitypes. We shall make the matter plaine by Authenticall Examples, 1. Cor. 10. 2. Wee are Baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. Hence all Expositors (aswell as your21 1.173 Aquinas) teach that The Sea, thorow which the Iraelites passed under Moses, was [ 10] a Signe of Baptisme: by which Baptisme wee are buryed in∣to Christs death, Rom. 6. This Exposition standeth firme without any Contradiction. Whereby you may perceive, that the Archetypon, or thing Principally prefigured by that Sea, is Christ's buriall: and Water in Baptisme, is but as the Antitype, or thing lesse principally prefigured thereby.

If then you shall compare the Type, or Figure, with the Thing prefigured, as Archetype, or Principall thing figured or prefigured, wee are bound by Christian verity to believe [ 20] your Proposition to be most true, (to wit) Christ's buriall is infinitely more excellent than either the Type in the Old Testament, which was the Sea they passed thorow; or yet than Water in Baptisme in the New Testament, as the Anti∣type thereof. But if you compare the Type of the Old Te∣stament with the Antitype or figure of the New, then can nothing be more false than is this your generall Proposition, affirming that Figures and Signes are inferiour to the thing prefigured, as you may see in the Apostles Example. The Sea under Moses, a figure of Baptisme under Christ.22 1.174 For [ 30] as the Sea was there (saith Athanasius) so is Water here. Yet was not the Element of Water in the Sea of lesse worth in Substance, than is the Element of Water in the Font of Baptisme; both having equally in them the Substantiall Properties of Water.

Our next Example, in the same Chapter, is this: They (to wit, the Jewes) ate of the same spirituall meate, and dranke of the same spirituall drinke; (namely) Christ's Body and Blood; the one whereof was prefigured by Manna, the other by the Water out of the Rocke in the Old Testa∣ment. [ 40] Even as the same Body of Christ is configured by Bread; and his Blood by Wine in the Eucharist, which is the Sacrament of the New Testament; as hath beene proved from Fathers, and Others, in a full* 1.175 Section. And for this cause Gregorie Nazianzen,23 1.176 I dare say (saith hee) that the Legall Passeover was a Figure of a figure; but somewhat more obscure. So hee. Which scarce any of your Doctors dare say, lest that the Eucharisticall Oblation should be

judged a Figure of Christ's Sacrifice, and not the Proper Sa∣crificing of Christ. Now then, Compare Manna and Bread with Christ's Body; and the Water of the Rocke, and Water of Baptisme, with his Blood, and your Consequence is most Di∣vine: viz. The Thing prefigured excelleth, beyond all Compa∣rison, the Signes thereof. But yet againe Compare the Signes and Antitypes, viz. Manna with Bread, and the Water of the Rocke with Wine in the Cup: and in their Natures and Sub∣stances, the one doth not exceed the other.

You will then aske, If the Sacraments of both Testaments [ 10] were in this maner joynt Antitypes, that is, Correspondent Signes of the same Body and Blood of Christ; wherein then consisteth the Excellencie of the Sacraments of the New, if it be not in respect of their naturall and substantiall proper∣ties? Wee were about to tell you, namely, that Although these former Sacraments of both Testaments be but Cor∣porall food, and drinke; yet have the Sacraments of the Gospell a threefold Privilege above the other. The First is in respect of the Efficacie of the Signification. Signes of the Old being Propheticall, and darkly promising Christ's Body [ 20] and Blood to come. But, Signes of the New are Historicall, poynting out, unto life, Christ already come, and crucified in his Body, and his Blood shed. The Second, in respect of the Efficacie of Application, and Exhibition of both these, arising from the former Ground. For Saint Paul said more effectually, Christ, who dyed for mee, and gave himselfe for mee; than any Israelite under the Law could say, Christ, who shall dye for mee, and shall give himselfe for mee. The Third is the Excellencie of Duration, for those Signes as Shadowes, had an end long since: Whereas the Evangelicall [ 30] Symbols, as Images, are to be perpetuall to the end of the world, as Saint Paul did intimate in his speech of the Eu∣charist, You shew the Lord's death untill his coming againe, 1 Cor. 11. Now then that you see what is, indeed, the Bet∣ternesse betweene the figure and thing figured, may you not say it had beene better that your Disputers had forborne their Objection? From Typicall Scriptures wee descend to Propheticall. {fleur-de-lys} [ 40]

CHAP. IV.

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

[ 10] The first Text is Malachy chap. 5. vers. 1.

THe first, Mal. 5. 1. is objected by your Cardi∣nall in this maner: [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,* 1.177 Is a notable Testi∣mony for the Sacrifice of the Masse.

[ 20] The State of the Question.

BE so good, as to set downe the State of the Controversie your selves,a 1.178 The whole Controversie is, whether this Scrip∣ture spake of a Sacrifice properly so called, or of an Vnproper Sa∣crifice, such as are Prayers and Thanksgiving, &c. So you. You contend for a Proper Sacrifice, and Wee denye it: and now that wee are to grapple together, wee shall first charge you with alleging a corrupt Translation, as the ground of your false In∣terpretation. [ 30]

[ 40] 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 onely Authenticall, and which

thereupon 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 Oblation, &c.] without any mention of the word Incense at all: whereas (which your Cardinallb 1.179 confesseth) Both the Hebrew and Greeke Text hath it thus; [Incense is offered in my name, and a pure offering, &c.] and that More plainely, saith yourc 1.180 Valenta. Which warranteth us to call your Vulgar Translation false, as wee shall now prove, and you perceive, [ 10] without any farre Digression. For wee meddle not now with the generall Controversie, about this Translation, but insist onely upon this Particular, that as A Lion is knowne by his claw, so your Vulgar Translation may be discerned by this one Clause, wherein the word, Incense, is omitted quite.

If yee will permit us, without being prejudicated by your Fathers of Trent, to try the Cause by impartiall Iudges, which are the Ancient Fathers of Primitive Times; especially now, when you yourselves are so urgent in pressing us with multi∣tudes of their Testimonies, for Defence of your Romish Sa∣crifice, [ 20] even in their Expositions of this Text of Malachy: Looke then upon thed 1.181 Marginalls, and you shall find men∣tion of the word, Incense, (according to the Hebrew and Greeke Texts) in the very same objected Testimonies of Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hierome, Chrysostome, Eusebius, and Augustine. Not∣withstanding, wee should not be so vehement, in condemning your Romish Translation in this point, if the matter, now in hand, did not challenge us thereunto: the word, Incense, being sufficient in it selfe to satisfie all your Objections taken from the Sentences of Fathers, and urged by virtue of the word, [ 30] 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 wee finde in this Prophet, concerning the new Testament: One is, Incense, in the Text now alleged; the other is the word, Levites. The first in Chap. 1. vers. 3. [ 40] [In every place there shall be an Offering of Incense, and a Sacri∣fice, &c.] You All affirme of Prayers, Praises, and holy Actions, that they are Spiritual, and no proper Sacrifices. But the Fathers, by you objected, (to wit, Tertull. Irenaeus, Hierome, Chrysostome, Eusebius, and Augustine) do* 1.182 Expound Incense to signifie these Spirituall Duties, which are unproperly called Incense. There∣fore may wee as justly conceive, that the word, Sacrifice, used

by them, and applyed to the service of God in the New Te∣stament, was meant Improperly; and that so much the rather, because your Cardinall hath no Objection out of the Fathers for his advantage in the word, Sacrifice, which hee loseth not by the word Incense, from point to point.

For to the first Objection wee oppose, saying, The word Incense, is likewise used withouta 1.183 Addition. To the second, Wee accordingly say, Incense was meant also to be Pure: for you will not imagine, that God would promise to his faithfull [ 10] in Christ Impure things. To the third, It is as well said concer∣ning Incense, as of Sacrifice (against the Iewes, vers 10.) I will not receive any offerings at your hands:* 1.184 Incense is an abomina∣tion unto mee. To the fourth, The same Godlesse Iewes did joyntly contemne Gods worship made by Incense, as by Sacri∣fice, except you shall thinke it credible, that the same men should be both devout and profane 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 Incense. Therefore, as [ 20] the word, Incense, so accordingly the word, Sacrifice, was used Improperly of the Fathers. Do you not now see what reason your Cardinall had, to make choise of a corrupt Text, wanting the word Incense? which hee 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 Cardinallb 1.185 con∣fesseth) of the Ministers of the New Testament. Well then, did the Prophet call the Ministerie and Service of the New Testa∣ment, Pure Sacrifice? And did hee not in the like maner call [ 30] the Ministers of the New Testament Purged Levites? as also some of the Ancient* 1.186 Fathers (you know) used to do: and as your Church, in degrading of Arch-Bishop Cranmer from his order ofc 1.187 Deaconship once did. Therefore both alike were used Improperly, in imitation of this Prophet, and also of that in* 1.188 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 [ 40] of Ancient Fathers. SECT. III.

PErmit you us, for brevity-sake, to contrive this Section into Ob. and Sol. your Cardinalls Objections, and our Solutions or Answers. I. Ob. Sacrifice is called pure alwayes, and in all places, Ergo, Christs Body. Sol. And Chrysostome (who is a 1.189 obiected) termeth Prayers, Pure Incense (meaning when, or

wheresoever.) II. Ob. The word, Sacrificè, is spoken of in Ma∣lachy, without an Adjunct, as to say the Sacrifice of praise, &c. for these are improperly called Sacrifices, Ergo, &c. Sol. Yet First,b 1.190 Tertullian (objected) expounded the same word, Sa∣crifice, to signifie Benedictions, and Praises. And Secondly, c 1.191 Eusebius (objected) calleth this Pure Sacrifice, Pious Actions and Prayers. Which your Cardinall could not Answer, but with a marvellous and miserable Illusion. III. Ob. By the word, d 1.192 Sacrifice, were not meant Spirituall Sacrifices, &c. Sol. Yet e 1.193 Hierome (objected) expresly nameth the Sacrifice, in Mala∣chy, Spirituall. [ 10]

To come to your Cardinals principall Reason. IV. Ob. The Iewish Sacrifices were called Vncleane, not in respect of the Offerers onely, but of the Offerings; intimating thereby, that this Offering in the new Testament can be no lesse than the very Body of Christ. Sol. Irenaeus (objected) plainely put∣teth the difference to be made, by Malachy, betweene the Sa∣crifices, as they were the Offerings of the wicked Iewes, and the Sacrifices of godly Christians; and hee giveth this Rea∣son, becausef 1.194 The Iewes (saith hee) offered up their Oblations [ 20] with wicked hearts, but the Christians performe theirs with pure Consciences. And that the Iewish Sacrifices were not re∣jected for themselves, but for the impiety of their Sacrificers; your owne Iesuitg 1.195 Ribera confirmeth both by the Constitu∣tions of Pope Clement, and also by this Testimony of Irenaeus. A Truth so evident to your Divines of Collen, that they pre∣sume h 1.196 None to be ignorant, 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 Offe∣rers. And Tertullian giveth the same Observation for the Rea∣son, [ 30] why God, in rejecting them, said,i 1.197 I will no more of [your] Sacrifice, and not of [my] Sacrifice. [ 40]

But you will say, Some of the Fathers spake directly of the Proper Sacrifice of the new Testament. Wee answer, that as they apply it to the Eucharist, they meant no proper Sacrifice, as the Subject, but onely as the Object therein, which was that of the Crosse. In which respectk 1.198 Chrysostome (objected) calleth it that Sacrifice, whereof Saint Paul writeth, saying, [Christ gave himselfe up a Sacrifice for his Church.] Ephes. 5. Lastly, Cyprian (objected) calleth it thel 1.199 New Sacrifice of Praise: which is, you know, a Spirituall, and no Corporall or Proper Sacrifice. [ 10]

The second Propheticall Text (as is pretended) is Psal. 72. 16. concerning a [Handfull of Corne in the Top of the Mountaines:] objected to prove a Sacrifice in the Romish Masse; but yet as very [ 20] Romishly, as were the rest. SECT. IV.

OF this Corne youra 1.200 Disputers Coccius, Duraeus, Sancte∣sius, Genebrard, out of Galatinus, and Hee out of the Chal∣dee Translation, 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 pre∣diction of the Romish Wafer-Cake, which is heaved up over the [ 30] head of the Priest for a Sacrifice. And this is called, by Master Brerely,b 1.201 A most strong Argument, in behalfe of the said Doctrine. {fleur-de-lys} Yea, and your Jesuite1 1.202 Suarez seemeth to like this Cake, for hee also will needs have a licke at it. {fleur-de-lys} But wee must tell you, that your Galatinus is too credulous, and that his Rabbinicall Abstracts are no better than the Gibeonites old torne Shooes, and mouldy Bread, seeming to have come from farre, even from old Rabbins, when as they were invented and brought from their latter Rabbins and Glozers, as it were from the next bordering Countries: because your Author Galatinus [ 40] (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 judiciousc 1.203 Senensis. And the Chaldee

Paraphrase, which talketh of your Sacrificed Cake, is rejected, as being a Corrupt Puddle of Iewish Fables; and fabulous in this very Point, by your great Romane Dictatord 1.204 Bel∣larmine.

Which wee speake not, as being offended to heare any Rab∣bi calling that, which is in the hand of your Priest, and above his head, A Cake, which in your Romish Phrase is called, a Wa∣fer-Cake: for if it be indeed and truly a Cake, then is not it [ 10] Accidents onely, but hath still in it the Substance of Bread. And so farewell your Helena of Trent, called Transubstan∣tiation. 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 Element of Bread. And thus your Authors (after their laborious kneading and moulding, their greedy longing, and their sweetly chewing hereof) are at length in a maner choaked with their owne Cake.

CHALLENGE, [ 20] {fleur-de-lys} By way of Vindication of the truth of our Allegation of the words of Master Brerely; against a late slanderous Romish Traducer. SECT. V.

A Bold Romanist of late, as it seemeth, not well disge∣sting this Cake, hath in his dispersed* 1.205 Papers divulged me in this maner:

MY Lord of Durham saith of the for∣mer Reason, that it is called of Master Brerely a [Most [ 30] strong Argument;] but is most untruly said, as will appeare to any one that reades the Protestants Apology. Pag. 156.

So hee. Flatly and sharply, as you see, charging mee with a palpable untruth, and for Tryall referring himselfe to the Booke it selfe; and I Subscribe, saying, Sit Liber Iudex. The Booke is Master Brerely his Apology in his Treatise 1. Sect. 4. Subd. 12. Pag. (as the Romish Seducer himselfe hath truly quoted it) 156. where Master Brereley his words (for I hope they are not flowne out of the Booke since) are expressely these: This therefore so plaine foresaid Predi∣ction, made by the ancient Rabbins before Christs time in be∣halfe [ 40] of Catholike Doctrine, concerning Reall presence, demon∣strating it selfe so evidently to have proceeded, not from any Se∣condary cause, but onely from a Divine instinct; yeeldeth here∣by a [MOST STRONG ARGVMENT] in behalfe of the said Doctrines. So hee.

Therefore do not I know what to impute unto this Ro∣manist,

because of his denyall of these words, A most strong Argument, rather than the spirit of a Strong Delusion, is∣suing from the worst kinde of malice, whereof the Adage speaketh, Veritas Odium parit. Yet shall this piece of Falshood be accounted scarce a Venial Sin among you, being spoken to the disgrace of a Protestant, and in Defence of a Romish Priest. The best is, that the Seducer seemeth to be ashamed of the Absurdity of this your Rabbinish Objection, which hee was so loath to acknowledge. [ 10]

A Second Vindication, against another Sinister Romish De∣traction; shewing that the other Scriptures, which are said to be Propheticall, are not Iudicially ob∣jected by your Cardinall. SECT. VI.

YOur Cardinall hath2 1.206 collected divers Texts of the Old Testament, which the Fathers apply to the Eucha∣rist [ 20] under the name of Sacrifice, thereby concluding, that they judged the Encharist to be a Proper Sacrifice. These places have beene thought to an importunate Romanist worthy the Answering, which I purposely passed by, as superfluous, and such as were effectually enough satisfied in the Confutation of your other Objections, made out of the Figure and Type of Melchisedeth, and Prophecie of Malachy.

Now our Taske must be, to shew the Injudiciousnesse of your Cardinall, in urging such Testimonies of the Fathers, [ 30] as if they were necessarily Concludent, for a Proper Sacri∣fice; who considered not, that most of such like Applica∣tions, used by the Fathers, as Proper Interpretations, were no other than Allegoricall Allusions, and Assimulations. Where∣in wee durst Appeale to your Cardinall himselfe, who if hee had thought these kinds of Applications to be Argumen∣tative, might have made five moe Chapters of the like Al∣lusions. This our Answer may be exemplified and illustra∣ted by the like liberty and liberality of Speech used by the same Fathers in their Witty and Elegant Allusions to Bap∣tisme, [ 40] whereof your owne Lauretus3 1.207 giveth you divers Instances from the testimonies of Ten Fathers, applying

the Water of Marah, Exod. 15. The Water which tooke men up to the Anckles, Ezek. 24. The Water in a Bason, Iud. 6. The Waters of Contradiction, Psalm. 80. The Waters wher∣in the dust of the Golden Calfe was throwne, Exod. 32. Each one of which Waters they apply unto Baptisme. And, being not contented with these, hee referreth you unto above Forty places moe of the Old Testament, which may have the like Relation to Baptisme; none whereof can be pro∣perly called a Literall Explication, but onely an Allegoricall Application of Scriptures. [ 10]

The Second Argument of his Injudiciousnesse is discerna∣ble in this, that all that is alleged proveth no more than that which Protestants confesse, to wit, that the Eucharist may be called a Sacrifice, either Eucharisticall, or Latreuticall, in a Spirituall Sense, as the Fathers do after expound themselves.

Thirdly, to come to that wherein your Cardinall is most peremptory, saying that the [Iuge Sacrificium, that is, Conti∣nuall Sacrifice] prophecied of, should be taken away by An∣tichrist, cannot meane any Spirituall and improper Sacri∣fice. [ 20] but the Reall and Proper Sacrifice of the Masse. But wee say that the Fathers understood it of the proper Spirituall worship of Christians. Now whom would you wish to be Moderator betweene us? Wee guesse some Romish Doctor should be the man; and above all, some one out of the Schoole of the Iesuites; and of these, such an one must be most fit, who is knowne to be of a more moderate Temper than the most of them. Behold the man, even your Iesuite 4 1.208 Pererius, who coming to explaine this [Iuge Sacrifi∣cium] [ 30] out of the Fathers, granteth that indeed these Fathers, Hierome, and Theodoret, understood thereby the Divine wor∣ship of Christians, in generall. And that Pope Gregory ex∣poundeth it of the Christian Conversation of Life, which shall be interrupted by Antichrist. So hee. But yet the same Je∣suite, perceiving that this reached not home to the Sacrifice of your Masse, straineth courtesie with the Fathers, and without any their Authority, or rather against it, cometh in with his [QVANQVAM:] Notwithstanding (saith hee) this name of, Continuall Sacrifice, may be referred to the Sacrifice of the Masse, because that is not as the Sacrifice of the Iewes; in one [ 40] place onely, or at morne and night, but continually in all places, and at all times. So hee. Which any Iew (if hee heard it)

would thinke were unadvisedly spoken, saying of their Iewish Continuall Sacrifice, that it Continued to be offered both in their Morning and Evening worship; whereas the time of your Romish is prefixed but in the Morning Service onely, and therefore cannot be so justly called [Iuge] or Continuall, as the Jewish was; because nothing can be cal∣led [Iuge] in respect of Place, but onely in respect of Time. {fleur-de-lys}. [ 10]

CHAP. V.

Of our Second Examination of this Controversie, by the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers, shewing [ 20] 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 Demonstrations.

[ 30] THe Demonstrations, which wee are to speak of, are many; some taken from the proper, and some from the pretended Subject of the Eucha∣rist; some from the parity of like speeches of Fathers, as well in other Sacraments, Acts, and Adjuncts, as in these which are belonging to the Eucharist.

The first Demonstration, [ 40] That the Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice; (but Improperly) as being the Subject matter of the Eucharist. SECT. I.

THat Ancient Fathers called Bread and Wine a Sacrifice, even before Consecration, wee have it confessed asseverantly by

your ownea 1.209 Iesuite, where hee will have you furthermore to observe, that Bread and Wine, before Consecration, is called an Immaculate Sacrifice, even in your Romane Masse. And that the Primitive Fathers called Bread and Wine, Sacrifice, after Consecration also, wee have likewise proved in two full* 1.210 Se∣ctions: which your Cardinall is bound to acknowledge, who, to prove that Melchisedech Sacrificed Bread & Wine, produced the Testimonies of Ambrose, August. Chrysost. Oecumenius, and Theophylact, to conclude them to have beene Figures of the Eu∣charist, which wee desire you to carry still in minde, untill wee [ 10] end this Section.

Hereupon wee demand, whether you thinke that Bread and Wine, in the Eucharist, can be called of Christians a Sacrifice Properly, either before, or after Consecration? No (saith one b 1.211 Iesuite) because it is not agreeable to our Priesthood. No (saith a c 1.212 Second) because it were most absurd that the Church of Christ should have a livelesse Sacrifice, and consequently more vile than was the Iewish. No (saith ad 1.213 Third) because it were an heinous impiety now, after the abrogation of the terrene Sacrifices of the [ 20] Iewes, to believe that the Church of God should professe an Offering of Corporall and earthly Sacrifices. No (saith ae 1.214 Fourth) for it is the judgement of all Christians, that there is no Sacrifice in Chri∣stian Religion, but the Body and Blood of Christ: because other∣wise the Act of Sacrificing thereof, being a Divine worship, should be exercised upon Bread and Wine. So they. Wee would be glad to take the Apostle of Christ to be our Guide, for our better security, hee (as is likewisef 1.215 confessed) teacheth, that God now is not to be worshipped, by way of Sacrifice, with any out∣ward thing.

Oh that your Divines would exercise their quils in publishing [ 30] such sound Truths as this is, wee then would wish them Good speed in all their Writings. Notwithstanding, upon considera∣tion of the Premises, wee are inforced to complaine of the Vn∣conscionablenesse of your Cardinal, who, to prove a proper Sa∣crifice 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 consonant Confession of the Cardinall him∣selfe, and other prime Iesuites of his owne society, cannot be held to be Proper Sacrifices, without Absurdity and Impiety. And the like obliquity of Iudgement you may finde in your Rhemish Divines, in* 1.216 alleging the Testimonies of Irenaeus, for proofe of the Sacrifice of your Masse, which your Iesuite Maldonate hath truly observed to have beene spoken of Bread [ 10] and Wine, even* 1.217 before Consecration.

One word more. By this you may perceive another proofe of the Idiome of Ancient Fathers, in Extending the word [Sacrifice] beyond it's literall sense: which (beside the for∣mer) the last annexed Testimonie ofg 1.218 Augustine confirmeth, shewing, that now there is in this our Sacrifice no other Subject but Bread and Wine. This may serve for the present, concer∣ning the true and proper Subject of the Eucharist, Bread and Wine. Wee in the next place are to examine the pretended Subject, which your Church will have to be the Body and Blood [ 20] of Christ.

Our Second Demonstration, That the Ancient Fathers held not the Body and Blood of Christ to be the proper Subject matter of the [ 30] Eucharist, in calling it a Sacrifice. SECT. II.

HOw cometh 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 nowa 1.219 Not Bread (saith hee) but the Body of Christ is the thing sacrificed. This is plaine dealing, and as much as if hee had said, If there be in the Eu∣charist no Transubstantiation of the Bread into Christs Body, by [ 40] Consecration, then cannot Christs Body be a proper Sacrifice. But that there is no such Transubstantiation, or Corporal Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament, hath beene proved to be the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers, by many Demonstrations tho∣row-out the third and fourth Bookes. A stronger Argument there needeth not.

Our Third Demonstration is, Because the objected places of Antiquity, for proofe of a Repre∣sentative Sacrifice, Properly so called, do 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. [ 10] 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 Sacrament; the other is to understand them Objective∣ly, that is, to accompt the Body and Blood of Christ, as they were the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse, to be onely the [ 20] proper Object of a Christian Celebration, according to the Direction and Institution of Christ, saying, Do this in remem∣brance of mee. Your Romish Church professeth the Body and Blood to be the proper Subject; Wee nay, but the proper Ob∣ject of our Celebration. This Distinction, well learned, will be unto our Reader as an Ariadne's thred, to winde him out of the Labyrinth of all Obscurities, and seeming Repugnan∣cies of Ancient Fathers; out of all the confused Subtilties, and equivocall Resolutions of your Romish Disputers; and out of the Perplexities, wherewith some Protestants also may [ 30] seeme (in some sort) to have beene intangled.

The Demonstration it selfe, Because the Eucharist, being onely Commemorative and Re∣presentative, cannot be a Proper Sacrifice: answe∣ring the Romish Objection taken from the Sacrifices under the Law. SECT. IV. [ 40]

THat it cannot be called properly a Sacrifice, which is onely for Commemoration and Representation, is the Conclusion of your ownea 1.220 Cardinall; although it cannot be denyed, but that Improperly it may be so called, aswell as you may call the Image of Christ crucified, the Crucifix. But, to come to

your Objection, yourb 1.221 Rhemish Divines and Romish Car∣dinall are very earnest and instant in proving, that because the Iewish Sacrifices, being Representations of the Passion of Christ, were notwithstanding 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 Sacri∣fices, albeit they were Representations of Christs Passion, yet were they not onely Representations thereof, as the Eucharist [ 10] is, but were also, beside that, Sacrifices in themselves, and so ordained to be by God; first in their matter, as Bulls, Sheepe, Goates; next in their Sacrificing Act, which was Destructive, as to be slaine; and lastly, in their proper and peculiar end, which was (as yourc 1.222 Cardinall witnesseth) For expiation of le∣gall Pollutions, and remission of temporall Punishments. Each one of these may satisfie your Objection: {fleur-de-lys} And (as your 1 1.223 Vasquez will say) for The acknoledgment of Gods Sove∣raigntie [ 20] over life and death.{fleur-de-lys}

The Confirmation of the former Demonstration out of the Fathers; first Explaining of themselves. [ 30] SECT. V.

SAint Ambrose setting forth two kinde of Offerings of Christ, here on Earth, and above in Heaven, hee saith that a 1.224 Christ here is offered as one suffering, and above hee himselfe Offereth himselfe an Advocate with the Father for us. And this our offering of him hee calleth but an Image; and that above hee calleth the Truth. Clearly shewing that wee have, in our [ 40] Offering, Christ's Body onely 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 onely by our Representation Sacramentally on earth.

Saint Augustine dealeth as plainly with us, where distin∣guishing

three States of Offerings up of Christ, heeb 1.225 saith first, that under the Law Christ was promised In the Similitude of their Sacrifices: meaning, his bloody death was prefigured by those bloody Sacrifices. Secondly, in the offering at his Passion hee was Delivered up in Truth, or proper Sacrifice, this was on the Crosse. And Thirdly, after his Ascension, The memorie of Him is celebrated by a Sacrament, or Sacramentall Representation. So hee. For although the Sacrifices of the Iewes were true Sacrifices, yet were they not truly the Sacri∣ficings of Christ. Note you this Assertion. Againe, speaking [ 10] of his owne Time, when the Sacrament of the Eucharist was daily celebrated, hee saith, That Christ was once sacrificed (namely upon the Crosse) and is now daily sacrificed in the Sa∣crament; nor shall hee lye (saith hee) that saith Christ is sacrifi∣ced. So hee.

No, holy Augustine, shall hee 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 Vn∣proper, are the two Seales of this Controversie.) Now inter∣pose your Catholike Resolution. Say first, why is it called a [ 20] Sacrament? tell us;* 1.226 If Sacraments had not a similitude of things, which they represent, they were no Sacraments, from which si∣militude 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 every man, in the point of Sa∣crifice also, although otherwise blinded with prejudice. c 1.227 As when the day of Christs Passion (saith hee) being to mor∣row, or the day of his Resurrection about to be the next day but one; wee use to say of the former, To morrow is Christ's Passio; and of [ 30] the other, when it cometh, it is Christ's Resurrection, yet will none be so absurd as to say, wee lye in so saying, because wee speake it by way of Similitude: even so when wee say, this is sacrificed, &c. So Saint Augustine.

Who now seeth not, that as the Buriall of Christ is not the Subject matter of Baptisme, but onely the Representative Ob∣ject thereof; and as Good-Friday, and Easter-day, are not properly the dayes of Christ his Passion, or Resurrection, but Anniversarie, and Represensative, or Commemorative Re∣semblances of them: So this Sacrifice is a Similitude of the [ 40] Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse, and not materially the same. {fleur-de-lys} Lastly heare Augustine againe:2 1.228 The death of Christ (saith hee) is the onely true Sacrifice. {fleur-de-lys} Wee omit Testi∣monies of other Fathers, which are dispersed in other Sections. Although this one Explanation might satisfie, yet shall wee ad∣joyne

others, which may satiate even the greediest Appetite in the Demonstrations following.

The fourth Demonstration, From the Fathers Explanation of their meaning, by a kinde of Correction. [ 10] SECT. VI.

ANcient Fathers in good number call that, which is repre∣sented in the Eucharist, and which wee are said to offer, The same Host, not many; the same Oblation, no other; the same Sacrifice, 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, (lest their Readers might conceive of the same Sacrifice herein as properly present) saying in this maner; Wee offer the same Sacrifice, or rather the Remembrance thereof; allu∣ding sometime expresly to the Institution of Christ, [Do this [ 20] in remembrance of mee.] The Fathers are these, viz.a 1.229 Chryso∣stome, b 1.230 Theophylact,c 1.231 Theodoret,d 1.232 Ambrose,e 1.233 Eusebius, and f 1.234 Primasius.

Your onely Answer is, that their Exception, here used, was not to note that it is not the same Body of Christ here Corporally present, which was offered upon the Crosse; but that it is not offered in the same maner by effusion of Blood, as that was; which is indeed a Part, but not the whole Truth. For survey the Marginalls, and then tell us! If that your Sacrifice were the same Body of Christ Corporally present, why should The∣ophylact [ 30] apply his qualification not to the maner, whether Bloody or Vnbloody, but to the person of Christ? saying, Wee offer the same Christ, who was once offered, or rather a Memoriall of his Oblation. And Theodoret applying it directly to the thing, [Non aliud] Wee offer not another Sacrifice, but a memoriall therof. Why Eusebius? Wee offer a Memoriall in stead of a Sacrifice. Why Chrysostome? The same Sacrifice or rather a Commemoration of it: every one directly requiring that the Thing, which wee offer, be the same crucifyed Bloody Sacrifice of Christs Death, (which S. Augustine but even now named The onely true Sa∣crifice [ 40]

of Christ, (in the former Section) but that they plainly notifyed unto us, that they meant the same very Body, which was the Subject of the Sacrifice on the Crosse, to be the now proper Object of our Remembrance 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 Au∣gustine his celebrating of this Sacrament of Remembrance. Sem∣blably, [ 10] as Hierome speakes of the Priest, who is said to take the Person of Christ in this Sacrament, so that, He (saithg 1.235 Hierome) be a true Priest, or rather an Imitator of him. But a Priest, and an Imitator, is not Identically the same that is represented. Master Brerely is not Christ.

{fleur-de-lys} Yea, and Saint Hierome will speake as directly of the Differences of the two Sacrifices, as hee doth of the two Priests; for distinguishing betweene them,3 1.236 In this Sa∣crifice (saith hee) which is marveilously done in commemora∣tion of Christ, one may eat: but that which hee offered of him∣self [ 20] upon the Crosse, no man may eat. Where hee noteth two Sacrifices, One Here, and another on the Crosse: the first offered by Another, and the second by Himselfe. And hee separateth them (in respect of the Subject) as THIS, from THAT; which if they were subjectively, really, and perso∣nally the same, then the Eating of the one should be the Eating of the other, which S. Hierome denyeth: Of THIS one may eat, (saith hee) but not of THAT. {fleur-de-lys}

Lastly, The same (said* 1.237 Primasius) in all places, which was born of the Virgin, & not now great, & now lesse. So he. But have wee not heard you number your many Hosts on one Altar, at one Time? [ 30] and yet the Fathers say, Wee offer not many, but the same, which must needs be the same one, as Object; else shew us where ever any Father denyed but that upon diverse Altars were di∣verse Breads; or that but, according to their outward Dimen∣sions, they were now greater, now lesse; which no way agreeth with the Body of Christ, as hath beene proved in discussing the * 1.238 Canon of the Councell of Nice. [ 40]

The fifth Demonstration, Because the Body and Blood of Christ, as they are pretended by the Romish Church to be in this Sacrament, cannot be the Representative Sacrifice spoken of by Ancient Fathers; against your vaine Instance in a Stage-play, being the last refuge of your desperate Disputers wherein their whole Defense [ 10] consisteth. 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 Sacri∣fice 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 [ 20] the thing to be represented is his Body crucifyed, 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 [Do this in remembrance of mee,] and to the Exposition of Saint Paul, to be a [shewing forth of the Lords death untill hee come:] yea and is also consonant to the last mentioned Do∣ctrine of the Fathers, calling it A Sacrifice of Christ, or rather a Remembrance thereof.

The onely Question will be, how This, which you call The same Sacrifice, meaning the Body of Christ, subjectively in the [ 30] Eucharist, being invisible, can be said to represent, figure, and resemble the same Body, as it was the Sacrifice on the Crosse? Wee yielding unto you a possibility, that one thing, in some respects, may be a Representation of it selfe. Your Triden∣tine Fathers to this purpose say, thata 1.239 Christ left this visible Sacrifice to his Church, whereby his Body sacrificed on the Crosse should be represented. So they. From whom (it may seeme) your Rhemists learned that Lesson, which they taught others, thatb 1.240 Christs Body, once visibly sacrificed upon the Crosse, In and By the selfe same Body is immolated and Sacrificed under the [ 40] shapes of Bread and Wine, and is most perfectly thereby resem∣bled: and therefore is most properly Commemorative; being cal∣led the same Sacrifice by the Ancient Fathers. And againe, This neerely and lively resembleth that. So they. But this wee ut∣terly deny, because although a thing may in some sort be re∣presented by it selfe, yet (say wee) 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, con∣cerning the Question of Sacrifice, now controverted be∣tweene Vs.

Two of your Iesuites have undertaken to manifest your Re∣presentation (by a more fit example than do your Rhemists) thus;c 1.241 Even as a King (say they) having got a victory, should represent himselfe, after his warre, in a Stage-play in fight, &c. [ 10]

{fleur-de-lys} Or as your Cardinall Peron is said to have fancied; As David might have represented his owne Combate with Goliah in a Theater. {fleur-de-lys} So they, even in earnest, which hath beene as earnestly, yet easily, confuted by us* 1.242 already; although, indeed, the Play deserveth but laughter. And that so much the rather, because the Representative part (as your Councell of * 1.243 Trent hath defined) is in your Masse a visible Sacrifice, whereby the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse might be repre∣sented, as you have heard. {fleur-de-lys} For here is no visibly-re∣presented person, but the Priest; no visily-represented, or [ 20] crucified Body, but the Bread Broken. But no more is the Bread Christ's Body, than the Breaking thereof is his Cruci∣fying; or yet the Priest, Christ. {fleur-de-lys}

CHALLENGE.

Displaying furthermore the Stollidity of this your onely Ro∣mish Defence, concerning an Vnbloody Representa∣tive [ 30] Sacrifice of Christ's Body sacrificed on the Crosse; from another Romish Principle, and from the Absurdity of the Defence it selfe.

ALl Christians, be they Protestants, or Romanists, whensoever they allow of the name of Sacrifice, whether in a large and common, or in a strict and proper Sense, they evermore professe it to be the Representative and Commemorative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse. But how it is Representative, is become the maine hinge of the whole Controversie. Protestants hold and teach this to [ 40] consist onely in the Analogie betweene the Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine, and the use thereof in the Eu∣charist; and the Body and Blood of Christ on the Crosse. But you Romish maintaine a Representation of Christs Sacrifice on the Crosse by Analogie with his Body and Blood, as it is in this Sacrament. The Analogie of Representation, held by

Protestants, is such as your owne Doctors will grant to be true in every part and point.

First, for the End of the Celebration of the Eucharist, it is confessed, that4 1.244 The end thereof is to represent the Sa∣crifice on the Crosse. Secondly, Nor will any of you deny, but the formes of Bread and Wine do Represent the Body and Blood of Christ. Nor (thirdly) will you gaine-say, that the Separation of Bread from the Wine, in the Eucharist, doth represent the Separation of Christ's Body and Blood on [ 10] the Crosse. Which are the three Summarie Points of Repre∣sentation, held by Vs, contrarie to your professed Represen∣tation made (as you have said) by Christ's Body and Blood, in the Eucharist, of the same his Body and Blood separated on the Crosse, as it were in a Stage-play. {fleur-de-lys}

You therefore (except you will be Players, and not Dispu∣ters) 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 him∣selfe, [ 20] 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? and of what Disposition 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 hee saw represented to himselfe onely in his owne phan∣tasticall Braine?

[ 30] Now have you nothing else to Answer, but (which you have already 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 onely to contradict that, which was said by your Fathers of Trent, (decreeing the Representation to be made By the Sacrifice on the Altar it selfe; and more expresse∣ly by your* 1.245 Rhemists, In and by the same Body in the Eucharist:) but also to expose your selves to the reproofe of your Adver∣saries, and Scorne of any man of common Sense; as if you [ 40] would perswade him his money is Visible to any that will use his eyes, which hee hath therefore locked close up in his Coffer, lest any man might see it.

{fleur-de-lys} Besides, this your Romish Principle and Doctrine of Concomitancie is not unknowne unto you, which is, that not∣withstanding whatsoever Consecration of Bread severally from the Wine, yet the Body and Blood of Christ are con∣tinually in the Eucharist, as Veseparably united together; his

Blood being in the veines of the same Body, as verily as it was before his Passion. Hence wee argue, that this Inse∣paration of Christ's Blood from his Body, which you be∣lieve to be in this Sacrament, can no more possibly repre∣sent the Separation and Shedding of Christ's Blood from his Body (which all Christians believe to have beene in his Sa∣crifice on the Crosse) than Crookednesse can resemble Straightnesse; or Light, Darknesse. Therefore is not the Romish Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, Repre∣sentative of his Body and Blood on the Crosse, notwithstan∣ding [ 10] that (as hath beene confessed) this Representation be the end of the Celebration of the Eucharist. {fleur-de-lys}

The Sixth Demonstration Of the No-Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist, because divers Epithets objected, as given by Fathers to this Sa∣crifice, are used also by them where there is no Proper Sacrifice. SECT. VIII. [ 20]

IT is objected by your Cardinall, that Ancient Fathers gave certaine Epithets, and Attributes to the Eucharist. I. Some calling it a Full & Pure; II. Some, Terrible Sacrifice; III. Some termed it in the Plurall number Sacrifices and Victimes. His Argument (in the Margin) is this: If the Fathers had held the Sacrifice of the Eucharist to be but onely Representative, They would not have called them in the Plurall number Sacrifices. So hee,a 1.246 concluding from each of these, that they meant [ 30] thereby a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist. Wee encounter all these foure kinde of Instances with like Epithets given by the sameb 1.247 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 onely perfect Sacrifices, by Primitive Fathers. Second∣ly, they are as zealous concerning the secondc 1.248 Point, in terming holy Scriptures Terrible; the Rules touching Bap∣tisme, Terrible Words, and Horrible Canons; and the Christian, duly considering the nature of Baptisme, One compassed about [ 40]

with Horror and Astonishment. Whereof more* 1.249 hereafter. And indeed what is there, whereby wee have any apprehen∣sion 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 holyd 1.250 Fathers named Prayers, Giving of Thankes, and other holy Actions and Commemorations themselves, Sacrifices and Hoasts, in the Plurall number. And is not there in the Eucharist Prayers, Hymnes, and Thanksgivings? Nay, but know, that inasmuch as the Fathers have called the Eucharist in the Plu∣rall number Hoasts, and Sacrifices, it proveth that they were not of your Romish Beliefe of Concomitancie, to thinke (with you) [ 10] 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.

{fleur-de-lys} A Vindication of the Truth of an Answer, concerning the objected Testimonie of Eusebius, against a Romish Seducer.

EVsebius is objected (in the Margin) as naming the Eucha∣rist, Sacrificium Deo plenum. My Answer there is, that [ 20] these three words Are not undoubtedly spoken of the Eucharist. Which a Romish Seducer of late traduced, as untruly an∣swered: but yet giveth no Reason of his Exception; but as blindly as bluntly telleth mee that my Answer is False. But if I be mistaken, then hath Eusebius himselfe seduced mee, who, before the same words, speaketh of [Hostias in∣corporeas, & intelligentiâ praeditas:] specifying the Sacrifice of a contrite heart, and Sacrifice of Prayse. And againe im∣mediately after; [At Sacrificium Deo spiritus contritus.] Then, after this hee adjoyneth [Memoriam magni illius Sacrificij;] The Memoriall of that great Sacrifice; Meaning, the Eucha∣risticall [ 30] Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Crosse, as any that looketh not a-squint upon the place will easily perceive. Besides, all the Sacrifices of the New Testament, by him mentioned, hee calleth Incorporeall, and indued with Vnder∣standing. But you do as truly grant the Eucharist to be a Corporall Substance, as you wickedly* 1.251 say, that Christ's Body therein is Without Vnderstanding.

[ 40] A Second Vindication of the Truth of our Answers to the former objected* 1.252 Epithets, out of Ancient Fathers, against the said late Calumnious Ro∣mish Seducer.

His words are these:

Bellarmine lib. 1. de Missa, Cap. 15. To prove that the Fathers, when they called the Eucharist

a Sacrifice, meant a Proper Sacrifice, useth eight usuall Epithets, which the Fathers in this Case give to the word Sacrifice. My* 1.253 Lord of Durham undertakes to encounter him with the like, given to the word Sacrifice, when they manifestly speake of improper Sacrifices. This hee under∣takes, but performes nothing, for hee allegeth no saying of any Father, where any thing of this nature is called [Sa∣crificium Terribile, Plenum Horroris, Sacrificium Sum∣mum, Sacrificium Verissimum, Sacrificium Singulare, Sa∣crificium Deo Plenum.]

So hee. [ 10]

That which should have been performed by mee, in this Treatise, was to shew that there were none of these Attributes, which Bellarmine collected out of the Fathers, as proper to your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse, but have beene as effectually applyed by Ancient Fathers unto Prayers, Praises, Baptisme, and other the like holy and pious Actions. Which the same your Bellarmine himselfe confes∣seth to be No proper Sacrifice. Notwithstanding have I lately beene Challenged by one, who saith (as becomes an egregious Seducer) that I have performed hereof nothing [ 20] at all. Do you heare? Flatly, Nothing at all: Meaning, that none of the Epithets, above-mentioned by Bellarmine (out of the Fathers) were at any time attributed by them to any other thing but to your Sacrifice of the Masse.

But what? Nothing at all? I. Not the Epithet [Terrible?] False. For I proved that the Fathers called Baptisme a 5 1.254 Sacrifice, and inscribed it [6 1.255 Terible] II. Not the Epi∣thet [Summum] that is, Chiefe? False. For the Father 7 1.256 Pelusiota is alleged, naming a Pure mind and chaste Body the Best Sacrifice. III. Not the Epithet [Truest?] False. For [ 30] there is produced Saint8 1.257 Augustine not onely enstiling Every pious worke a True Sacrifice (& Vero nihil verius, saith the Philosopher) but also nothing that, Where God saith, I will have Mercie, and not Sacrifice; Mercie (saith hee) is a Sacrifice most Excellent, and whereof the other are but Signes. IV. Not the Epithet [Deo Plenum?] False. For it was proved effectually enough, in that the Preaching of the word, which is called of the Apostle, The Power of God unto Salvation, is termed of9 1.258 Chrysostome, a Pure and im∣mortall Sacrifice; And what would you say to your Divines [ 40] of Collen10 1.259 who will have you observe Cyprian naming the Church of Christ, as his Mysticall Body, consecrated to God, a pure and full Sacrifice?

Lastly, Not the last Epithet, which is [Singulare Sacri∣ficium?] whereof your Romish Seducer boastingly saith as followeth:

[Singular Sacrificium, a Singular Sacrifice] which is the most convincing Epithet of all the rest, proveth

the Eucharist not onely to be a Sacrifice, but also to be the onely Sacrifice of the Church; whereas there be many im∣proper Sacrifices. This the Lord Bishop passeth over with Silence, and shutteth out for a Wrangler.

So hee. Who might thinke it hapned well to himselfe, if hee should be but onely Shut out for a Wrangler, and not called in Question for a false and presumptuous Traducer and Seducer, for de∣nying that to be performed at all, which I did discharge with an Advantage, alleging that Ancient Father11 1.260 Iu∣stine [ 10] naming Prayers, and Thanksgivings [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: The perfect and onely Sacrifices well pleasing unto God.] Can there be any thing more Singular than that which is Onely? The voice of Saint Augustine is full as loud, for the Sacrifice of Christ's Passion: The Death of Christ (saith12 1.261 hee) is the onely Sacrifice, which being the onely true Sacrifice must necessarily exclude the Hoast in your Masse from the property of a true Sacrifice. If therefore this Epithet be an Argument most convincing above all the rest, (as is here objected) then must it follow that Bellarmine thus [ 20] amply confuted, in this one, is in effect convinced of Rash∣nesse and Weaknesse in his arguing; aswell as this Seducer is of Falshood and Malice in his detracting in all the Rest.{fleur-de-lys}

The Seventh Demonstration, Of No-Proper Sacrifice in the Euchrist: Because the Principall Epithet, of Vnbloody Sacrifice, used by the Fathers, and most urgently objected by your Doctors, for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice, doth evince [ 30] the Contrarie. SECT. IX.

IT hath beene some paines unto us, to collect the objected Testimonies of Fathers, for this Point, out of your divers Writers, which you may peruse now in the Margin with more ease, and presently perceive, 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 [ 40] of the Eucharist is often called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, An unbloody Sacrifice, a Reasonable and unbloody Service or Worship?

In the first place threeb 1.262 Liturgies, (or if you will Missals) are objected, to prove that by Vnbloody Sacrifice, and Reasona∣ble and unbloody Worship, is betokened the Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood in the Masse; one of Basil, another of Chryso∣stome, and (by some others) the Masse of Saint Iames of Ierusa∣lem.

In which Epithet of Vnbloody (say wee) could not be sig∣nified Christ's Body. Our Reasons; because (as the Margin sheweth) the word, Vnbloody, hath sometime Relation unto the Bread and Wine (both unbloody) before Consecration, called in Saint Iames his Liturgie, Gods gifts of the first fruit of the Ground: who also reckoneth Hymnes among Vnbloody Sacri∣fices; (But Christ's Body is the fruit of the Wombe) or else some∣time it is referred to the Acts of Celebration, in Supplication, Thanksgiving, and Worship of God (all Vnbloody) naming that A Reasonable and Vnbloody Service, which they had termed an Vnbloody Sacrifice, as Lindan your Parisian Doctor hath truly [ 10] 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 Sense of the objected Fathers? Suffer Chrysostome to re∣solve us.c 1.263 Reasonable Service, (saith hee) is that which is performed with the minde, without Bodily helpe. {fleur-de-lys} The which Athanasius attributeth to Baptisme:13 1.264 This (saith hee) is a Reasonable and living Worship; whereof the A∣postle [ 20] saith, Yield up your Bodies an holy lively Sacrifice, &c.{fleur-de-lys}

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 maner of being Invisible, Impalpable, and the like. But wee 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 Sacri∣fice, Reasonable Service, and Spirituall, are spoken before Con∣secration, [ 30] when the Body of Christ, even in your owne Faith, as yet can have no being in the Eucharist; and therefore can∣not be the Vnbloody Sacrifice here meant by you. Will you have the full substance of all these Reasons? The word, Vn∣bloody, whether it point out Bread and Wine, or the Act of out∣ward Worship in this celebration, called 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. Wee proceed.

Eusebius saith indeed,g 1.265 Wee offer an Vnbloody Sacrifice; [ 40]

but what hee meant thereby, hee doth not expresse, whether the Signes of Bread and Wine, which hee elsewhere, with others, (as you have heard) called Sacrifices: or whether, as Basil and Chrysostome have done, hee understood 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 your may observe, that Eusebius (objected) callethh 1.266 Godly Actions a pure Sacrifice, and opposeth this against Bloody Sacrifices; and [ 10] also termethi 1.267 Holy Prayers [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, Without Materiall Substance, as hee did the Celebration of the Sacrament [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, Vnbloody: And yet againe of this Sacrament; A Me∣moriall, saith hee, instead of a Sacrifice. These shew that Eu∣sebius meant a Sacrifice 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 Romane Oblation of Body and Blood to the very heart.

Nazianzen (objected) is as directly opposite to your Masse, as East is to West, and will strike the matter dead, calling it [ 20] k 1.268 The unbloody Sacrifice, whereby (saith hee) wee Communicate with Christ. Flatly differencing the unbloody Sacrifice, whereby, from Christ himselfe, with whom the Faithfull docommunicate in this Sacrament.

Ambrose (objected) prayeth to God,l 1.269 To accept of this immaculate, and unbloody Hoast, which are the very words of your Romanem 1.270 Masse, and which your Cardinall seeketh to justifie by Saint Ambrose. But this hee cannot do, except their meaning be both the same. Let then your Cardinall but tell us the meaning of the Canon of your Masse, and you [ 30] will soone apprehend the Iudgement of Saint Ambrose. In our Masse (saith yourn 1.271 Cardinall) it is sayd, Receive, holy Father, this immaculate Hoast; where the Pronounce This (saith hee) doth domonstrate Bread and Wine, because spoken before Consecration. So hee. And the Body and Blood of Christ (you know, are not Bread and Wine. Let Athanasius put a Pe∣riod to this Section, who saith thato 1.272 Melchisedech, in gi∣ving Bread and Wine, was the first Type of an unbloudy Sacrifice. But Melahisedechs was Vnbloody, negatively, having no Blood [ 40] at all in it. So was never the Body of Christ; since his Resur∣rection, according to our Christian Beliefe.

CHALLENGE.

WHat a faire piece of service (do you thinke) have these Objectors done, for the patronizing of your Romane Sacrifice, out of the Sentences of Ancient Fathers? whilest they, alleging 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: see∣ing that it is apparent, that they have delivered unto us the [ 10] worship, in stead of the thing worshipped, out of the Councell of Ephesus, Basil, Chrysostome, and Eusebius. Next by the word, Vnbloody, being spoken before Consecration (and therefore con∣cerneth not the Vnbloody Body of Christ) they have obtruded the thing, Distinguished from Christ, in stead of Christ, in the Testimony of Nazianzen. But especially, because in the most of the* 1.273 Sentences, the word Vnbloody, must needs be taken nega∣tively for want, or absence of Blood: and so you may bid your Corporall Presence adieu. All which may be strong Arguments unto us, both of the deplorable Consciences of your Doctors, [ 20] and of the desperatenesse of your Cause. Other Testimonies, wherein there is mention of Christs 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.

[ 30]

THis Objection seemeth to be of better moment than the former; but onely seemeth. Clemens Bishop of Rome, the first of that name, calleth (indeed) the Eucharisticall Celebra∣tion a 1.274 An unbloody Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. In which sentence the Vnbloody Sacrifice is plainly distinguished from the Body 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 re∣spect of the Object thereof, which is the Body and Blood of [ 40] Christ on the Crosse. This is manifest by two especiall Reasons; the first, because that which hee calleth Vnbloody, hee termeth also a Reasonable Service.

Secondly, Clemens calleth the same Vnbloody Sacrifice the Signe and Type of Christs Body and Blood, thereby distinguish∣ing them from that Body and Blood whereof they are but Types. You will then aske, what is this Body and Blood, whereof they

are sayd to be Types? Yea marry, This being knowne 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 crucifyed, and Blood shed on the Crosse, for the proper Object of our Typicall Remembrance, as wee have formerly* 1.275 proved, and you your selves have confessed already.

c 1.276 Cyril of Hierusalem doth attend upon Pope Clemens, and in a sort treadeth in his steps. The maner of our Celebrating the memory of Christs death, hee calleth a Spirituall Sacrifice, and an Vnbloody worship; wherein, against the Iewish Sacrifice, hee opposeth Spirituall against Corporall, as hee doth Vnbloody [ 10] against Bloody. But, by Spirituall, hee meant that which wan∣teth a Body. Therefore, by Vnbloody, hee meant that which was properly voyd 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 & Blood of Christ it selfe, which hee calleth Propitiation, Cyril expoundeth himselfe to meane (for so hee nameth it) Christ slaine for our sinnes, which still wee say, and you cannot deny, is onely the Object of our whole Spirituall service of Remembrance and Commemoration. Both these former Witnesses have delivered their Testimonies, as [ 20] spoken under a forme of Prayer, whereunto whether You or Protestants may more justly say Amen, judge you. Cyril Patri∣arch of Alexandria accordingly* 1.277 acknowledgeth a Sacrifice Vn∣bloody, Spirituall, and Mentall.

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 Vnproperly spoken. [ 30] SECT. XI.

TAke but unto you your owne Allegations (set downe in the a 1.278 Margin) of the Sentences of Antiquity, and you shall finde how the Ancient Fathers doubted not to say that Christ suffereth, is slaine, slayeth himselfe, suffereth often in this Sacra∣ment: and that His Passion and Bloody Sacrifice is offered herein. {fleur-de-lys} And againe; As often as Christ is offered on the Altar, so often is hee slaine and eaten of the faithfull. Do you marke 〈◊〉〈◊〉 [ 40] even so eaten, as hee is slaine, but onely so, as slaine;

which no living man will say, can be spoken Properly of Christs Body, after his Resurrection. {fleur-de-lys} These are Sayings of the highest Accent, as you see, and of no fewer nor meaner Fathers than these, Alexander, Chrysostome, Cyprian, Hierome, Cyril of Hierusalem, Hesychius, Pascasins, and Eusebius Emis∣senus. {fleur-de-lys} Vnto this holy Assembly Gregory Nyssen joyneth himselfe, who, although last in place, yet will appeare to be as forward in sense as the formost. Hee speaking of the Body of Christ, as it was a Sacrifice eaten of his Disciples in his last Supper, held the Crucifyed Body of Christ to have [ 10] beene even then so necessary an Object for his Disciples Ea∣ting thereof, that hee saith:14 1.279 It was even then eaten as a perfect Sacrifice of Christ. But how? to wit, saith hee, as slaine. His Reason; for a Body having life (saith hee) cannot be fit to be eaten. So hee. Than which nothing can make more against your Eating of Christs Body, as Corporally Pre∣sent; or yet against a Proper Sacrifice therein. {fleur-de-lys}

What thinke you of such Sayings? Can Christ be said pro∣perly to be Dead in this Sacrament?b 1.280 Never any Catholike said so (saith your Iesuite Ribera.) What then could be the [ 20] meaning of such words? If you should be ignorant, your Cardinall Alan would teach you, & he would have youc 1.281 Ob∣serve what hee saith: Christ is said by the Fathers to suffer (saith hee) and to dye in this Sacrament onely so farre as his Death and Passion is commemorated and represented herein. And so speaketh also your Romaned 1.282 Glosse.

What now hindreth but that whensoever wee heare the same Fathers affirming that the same Body and Blood of Christ are Sacrificed in the Eucharist, wee understand them in the same impropriety of Speech, that they meant onely Repre∣sentatively? [ 30] especially when as wee see your other Grand Cardinall coming somewhat home towards us, and to confesse as followeth;e 1.283 If Catholikes should say that Christ doth truly dye in this Sacrament, this Argument might be of some force: but they say hee dyeth not, but in Sacrament and Signe representing. So hee; which yet alas is too little a crevase for so great a Doctor to creepe out at. First, because there is aswell a Figurative, as there is a Literall Truth; for, If I should say of Easter day (said* 1.284 Augustine) it is the day of Christ's Resurrection, I should not lye, and yet it is but the Anniversa∣rie [ 40] day, betokening the other. When Christ said of one part of this Sacrament, [This Cup is the New Testament in my

Blood] hee spake by a double Figure, said your Iesuite* 1.285 Salme∣ron, 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 hee called his Flesh Bread? yea, and also* 1.286 The true Bread.

Thirdly, the Fathers, as they said that Christ is Dead, and suffereth (as you now object) in this Sacrament in a Mysterie: so have they also said of his Body, in respect of the Eucharist, [ 10] It is Sacrificed in an* 1.287 Image, in a Sacrament, or Mysterie; ac∣cording to that their generall Qualification, saying, It is the same Sacrifice which Christ offered, or* 1.288 rather a Remembrance thereof.

And Lastly, the Fathers, who named Baptisme a Sacrifice aswell as the Eucharist, doubted not to stretch Baptisme up to as high a note as they have done the Eucharist, saying, f 1.289 Baptisme is the Passion of Christ: andg 1.290 In Baptisme wee crucifie Christ. To signifie, that the Body of Christ is the Represented Object, and not the Representative Subject of this [ 20] Sacrament.

An Elucidation of the Premises, by a Similitude of a Stage-play, manifesting how the same Vnproper Sacrifice might fur∣thermore have beene called both Bloody and Vn∣bloody, by Ancient Fathers. SECT. XII.

A Similitude, for explanation-sake, would be had; give [ 30] us leave to borrow one from the Stage-Play, for manife∣sting a Truth, aswell as* 1.291 you have done another from thence, for palliating a Falshood. You may recognize with us that Tragicall end of the Emperour Mauritius, by the command of one Phoca••, (once his Slave) that Grand Patrone of the Popedome, by Privileging the Church of Rome, to be the Head of all Churches, as divers of your owne Historians do re∣late. But to the Point. By the commandement of this Phocas (as you* 1.292 know) were slaine two of Mauritius his Sons, three Daughters, and his Wife; and all these before his owne [ 40] eyes, and at last the Emperour Mauritius 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 hee not also say as truly, This is an Vn∣bloody Tragedie? to wit, in respect of the Representative Sub∣ject, Action, and Commemoration it selfe, seeing that there is

not here shed any one drop of mans Blood? And from the same Evidence it will be easie to perceive, that the Greeke Fa∣thers used to terme the Eucharist [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and the Latines Tre∣mendum, 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 discerne the open visage of Truth, from the feigned Vizard of Errour. [ 10]

The ninth Demonstration, Because Ancient Fathers likewise called the Sacrament of Bap∣tisme a Sacrifice, for the Representation-sake which it hath of Christ's Death; which is Argu∣mentum à paribus. SECT. XIII. [ 20]

WEe shall not urge the Antecedent of this Argument, ta∣ken from Baptisme, before that wee have made knowne the force of the Consequence thereof. First one of your Car∣dinals thus;a 1.293 If the Fathers had held the Eucharist to be only a Sacrament, and not also a Sacrifice, there had beene no cause why they should not have called Baptisme a Sacrifice, it being a Repre∣sentation of Christs death: But the Fathers do no where call Bap∣tisme a Sacrifice. So hee. Another Cardinall thus,b 1.294 Who can so much as suspect that the Fathers spake abusively, in calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice, seeing this is the onely Sacrament, which [ 30] they call a Sacrifice, and no other. Next, take your learned'st Iesuite with you, who would be loth to come behinde any in vehemencie and boldnesse, thus;c 1.295 Ancient Fathers ne∣ver called Baptisme or the Ministery thereof a Sacrifice; albeit they might have so called it Metaphorically: which wee note (saith hee) because of the Heretickes, who pervert the speeches of the Fa∣thers, as if they had called the Eucharist a Sacrifice Metaphori∣cally, and Improperly. So they, to omit* 1.296 Others. Now then if there be any sap or sense in these your Objectors, it is as much as if they had reasoned against us thus; If you Heretikes [ 40]

(for so they call Protestants) could shew that the Ancient Fa∣thers did any where name the Sacrament of Baptisme a Sacrifice, which wee confesse to be onely but a Representation of Christs death, then should wee need no other Reason to perswade us that the Fathers called the Sacrament of the Eucharist a Sacri∣fice also, Improperly, onely because it representeth the Body and Blood of Christ sacrificed on the Crosse. Thus for the Conse∣quence confessed by your owne chiefest Advocates.

The Assumption lyeth upon us to prove, to wit, that the Fa∣thers [ 10] called Baptisme a Sacrifice, even from the words of the Apostle, Hebr. 10. 20. where, speaking of Baptisme, he saith; To them that sinne voluntarily, there remaineth no Sacrifice for sinne. Saint Augustine testifyeth of the Doctors of the Church Catholike, before his time, thatd 1.297 They, who more diligently handled this Text, understood it of the Sacrifice of Christs Passion, which every one then offereth, when hee is baptized into the faith of Christ. So that holy Father, who is a Witnesse without all Exception; yet if, peradventure, wee should need any testimo∣ny our of your owne Schooles, the witnesse of your Canus [ 20] may be sufficient, confessing and saying,e 1.298 That most of the Fathers, by Sacrifice, in this place understood Baptisme, which they so called Metaphorically, because by it the Sacrifice of the Crosse is applyed unto us. So hee. Is not this enough for the understan∣ding of the Dialect, and of the speech of Ancient Fathers; both in calling Baptisme a Sacrifice, and of the Reason thereof, to wit, for Representation and Application-sake onely; and Con∣sequently, that the Body and Blood of Christ are not the repre∣senting Subject, but the represented Object of his Sacrifice? What better satisfaction can the greatest Adversary desire, than [ 30] to be (as now your Disputers are) answered according to their owne Demands?

The tenth Demonstration, Because the Fathers called the Eucharist a Sacrifice, in respect of divers such Acts as are excluded by the Romish Doctors out [ 40] of the Definition of a Proper Sacrifice. SECT. XIV.

THe Acts excluded by your Cardinall out of the number of Proper Sacrifices, area 1.299 Oblations, or Offerings of

any thing that is not Consecrated by the Priest, such as is the Offerings of Bread and Wine by the People, before it be Con∣secrated. Nextb 1.300 All workes of Virtue are unproperly called Sacrifices. All workes which consist in Action, being transient, as Bowing, singing of Psalmes, or the sole Commemoration of the Sa∣crifice of the Crosse: together with all such Acts performed to God, which otherwise are yielded 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 [ 10] are esteemed by him to be unproperly called Sacrifices. But that all these kinde of Acts, so farre forth as they are exer∣cised in the holy worship of God, are called Sacrifices by the Ancient Fathers, can never be denyed by any that ever was ac∣quainted with their Writings.

Now our Demonstration is this, that most of these Acts, which are here confessed to be Vnproper Sacrifices, being used in the Celebration of the Supper of our Lord, occasioned the Fathers to call the Eucharist it selfe a Sacrifice; and therefore they meant thereby no Proper Sacrifice. As first (by your [ 20] ownec 1.301 Who can so much as suspect that the Fathers spake abusively, in calling the Eucharist a Sacrifice, seeing this is the onely Sacrament, which [ 30] they call a Sacrifice, and no other. Next, take your learned'st Iesuite with you, who would be loth to come behinde any in vehemencie and boldnesse, thus;c 1.302 Confession) that the Fathers called The Oblations of Bread and Wine, made by the People before Consecration, Sacrifices; the Almes, and Collections for the poore, Sacrifices; Our Praises and Thanksgiving to God (whereof the Eucharist hath it's name) Sacrifice: and that many other Circumstantiall Acts are called Sacrifices, even the Sole Act of our Commemoration, as will ap∣peare in our last Examination concerning the Doctrine of Pro∣testants. {fleur-de-lys} But yet some of you (among others your Pa∣melius) are so greedie of a Sacrifice in the Masse, that they will force Tertullian to speake for it, even where (as is con∣fessed [ 30] and proved) hee speaketh of such Offerings, which belonged to the15 1.303 Reliefe of the poore; and which was to be ministred by a Woman the Wife of a Christian. {fleur-de-lys} [ 40]

Our Eleventh Demonstration, Because the Relatives of Sacrifice, which are Altar and Priest, Objected as Properly taken, are used Vnproperly of Ancient Fathers. SECT. XV.

[ 10] YOur Cardinall his Objection is this; that Priest, Altar, and Sacrifice, are Relatives, and have mutuall and unseparable Dependance one of each other. So hee, and truly. But you ought to take with you a necessary Caution, observed by the samea 1.304 Cardinall, that An unproper Sacrifice cannot inferre a proper Priest-hood: nor an unproper Priest-hood a proper Sacri∣fice, &c. otherwise, your Iesuite can tell you of ab 1.305 Sacri∣fice without an Altar, and yourc 1.306 Bishop can point you out an Altar without a Sacrifice. Wherefore to take one of these improperly, and the other properly, were as wilde Sophistrie, [ 20] as from a wooden Leg to inferre a body of Flesh. Now what if wee shall say of this Point of Appellations, that It was not so from the Beginning? Hereunto wee claime but your owne common Confessions, viz,d 1.307 That the Apostles did willingly abstaine from the words of Sacrifice, [Sacerdos,] and Al∣tar. So your Cardinall, ande 1.308 Durantus, the great Advo∣cates for your Romane Masse: whereby they have con∣demned not onely other your Romish Disputers, who* 1.309 have sought a Proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in your Masse from the word Altar, used by the Apostle Paul, Heb. 13. but also them∣selves, [ 30] who from Saint Luke, Act. 3. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]* 1.310 conclu∣ded a Proper Sacrifice. As if the Apostles had both abstained and not abstained from the words of Priest and Sacrifice. {fleur-de-lys} And againe your Iesuite Lorinus;16 1.311 The New Testa∣ment (saith hee) abstained from the word [* 1.312 Sacerdos] as from that which is more Proper to the Old Testament. So hee. Wherefore this and the English word, Priest, having a dif∣ferent Relation, one to a Sacrificing Minister (which is pro∣per to the Old Testament) the other as it is derived from [ 40] the word [* 1.313 Presbyter,] in the New Testament, which is Senior, and hath no Relation to any Sacrificing Function: It must follow, that your Disputers seeking to urge the Sig∣nification of a Sacrificing Office, proper to the Old Testa∣ment, for Proofe of a Sacrificing Act, proper to the New, performe as fond and fruitlesse a labour, as is the patching of old Vestments with new pieces, whereby the rent is made worse. {fleur-de-lys}

But the Apostles did indeed forbeare such termes in their

speeches, concerning Christian worship, whereof these your forenamed Disputers can give us a Reason,f 1.314 Lest that (say they) the Iewish Priest-hood being as yet in force, Christians might seeme, by using Iewish Termes, to innovate Iewish Rites. Which is enough to shew, that 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 the Iewish maner of Baptismes. [ 10] Yea, and if the Apostles had thought the Altar, Priest, Sacri∣fices, to be essentiall parts of Christian Religion, they neither would nor ought to have concealed the words and names, lest thereby they might have seemed to have abhorred the proper Characters of our Christian Profession.

Wee 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 Al∣lusions, as they did with the word Synagogue, applying it to [ 20] 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, hee 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 theg 1.315 Midst of the Chancell; so that They might compasse it round) was more rarely called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of [ 30] the Greekes, or Altare of the Latines, than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Men∣sa, that is, Table; which they would not have done, if (Altar) had carryed in it the true and absolute property of an Altar: nay but they used therein the like liberty, as they used to do in h 1.316 applying the name, Altar, to Gods People, and to a Christian man's Faith and Heart.

{fleur-de-lys} All this notwithstanding, you are not to thinke that wee do hereby oppugne the Appellation of Priest and Al∣tar, or yet the now Situation thereof in our Church, for use as Convenient, and for order more Decent; but onely the [ 40] Romish Opinion and Doctrine, whereby you hold them, in the verie proprietie of words, and not as the Fathers did, onely by way of Allusion. For your better Apprehension

of this Truth, if you will be pleased to observe that Christ, in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sa∣crament, propounded it, in the place where hee, with his Disciples, gave it unto them to be Eaten and Drunken; then tell us where it was ever knowne, that any Altar was ordai∣ned for Eating and Drinking? In Gods Booke wee find, Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation On, but, Besides the Altar. Neither may you thinke it any Derogation to this Sacrament, that the place, whereon it is Celebrated, is not called an Al∣tar of the Lord, seeing the Spirit of God, by his Apostle, [ 10] hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes; for the A∣postle, as hee called this Sacred Banquet purposely The Supper of the Lord, and the Vessell prepared for the Liquid, The Cup of the Lord; so did hee name the place whereon it was set, The Table of the Lord, and the Contemners thereof, Guiltie of the Body and Blood of the Lord; and thereupon did denounce the Vengeance and Plague, which fell upon prophane Communicants, The Iudgement of the Lord: and all these in one Chapter, 1. Cor. 11. The like Difference may be discerned betweene your maner of Reverence, in [ 20] Bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist onely: and ours in Bowing aswell when there is no Eucha∣rist on the Table, as when there is, which is not to the Table of the Lord, but to the Lord of the Table, to testifie the Com∣munion of all the Faithfull Communicants thereat; even as the People of God did, in Adoring him before the Arke his Footstoole, Psal. 99. 5. and 1. Chron. 28. 2. as Daniels Bowing at Prayer in Chaldea, looking towards the Tem∣ple of Ierusalem, where the Temple of Gods Worship was, Dan. 6. 10. And as David would be knowne to have done, saying, Psal. 5. 7. I will Worship towards thy holy Tem∣ple:

[ 30] Will you suffer us to come home to you? The Father Gre∣gory Nazianzen, for his soundnesse of Iudgement Sirnamed the Divine, comparing this Inferiour Altar, and Sacrifice on earth, with the Body of Christ seated in Heaven, faith that the Sacrifices, which hee offereth in his Contemplation at the Altar in Heaven, arei 1.317 More acceptable than the Sacrifices, which are offered at the Altar Below, as much as Truth is more excel∣lent than the Shadow. So hee. Therefore (say wee) the Sa∣crifice [ 40] of Christ his Body and Blood are subjectively in Heaven, but objectively here in the Eucharist; here Representative only, as in a Shadow, but in Heaven presentatively, in his Bodily pre∣sence. So vainly your Disputers hitherto (whilst that wee re∣quired Materials) have objected against us bare words, phrases, and very shadowes.

Lastly, Cyril of Alexandriak 1.318 made an Answer to the Objections, then published by Iulian the Apostate, against the Truth of Christian Religion. By this conflict betweene these two wits, as it were by the clashing of a Stone and Steele toge∣ther, such a flash of lightning will appeare, as may sufficiently illuminate every Reader, for the understanding of the Iudge∣ment of Antiquity throughout the whole Cause, concerning Bodily Sacrifice.

The Apostate objecteth (See the Margin) as an Exception against Christians, that they are not Circumcised, that they use [ 10] no Azymes, nor keepe the Passeover of the Iewes: albeit, Cain, Abel, and Abraham before the Law, and the Israelites under the Law, and Heathenish Grecians alwayes without that Law, offered Sacrifices unto God. But they (saith Iulian, writing of Christians) erect no Altars unto God, offer no such Sacrifices as were of old, nor invent any new, but say that Christ was once offe∣red 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 Satisfacti∣on enough to say (see againe the Marginalls) That wee Christi∣ans [ 20] have the spirituall Circumcision of the heart: That wee ob∣serve the spirituall Azymes of Syncerity and Truth: And as for the Passeover, Christ our Passeover was offered up, namely upon the Crosse (for so is it answerable to the words objected by Iulian.) And to the Objection of not erecting Altars, Cyril saith not a word.

But what for the point of Sacrifice? Hearken, (wee pray you) Although (saith hee) the Iewes Sacrificed to fulfill Gods Precepts in shadowes, yet wee doing that which is right (meaning the Truth [ 30] opposite to Shadowes) performe a spirituall, and mentall worship, as namely, Honesty, and an holy Conversation. And againe, The Iewes offered in Sacrifice Bulls and Sheep, 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, Wee Sacrifice to God spiritually, and mentally, the perfumes of virtues. This is the summe of Saint Cyril his Answer, voyd of all mention of any Offering of the Body of Christ, as either Corporally present in the Eucharist to be Sacrificed by the Priest, or yet of any Cor∣porall [ 40] Touch thereof (by eating) with the Bodies of Commu∣nicants;

no nor any intimation of any Proper Sacrifice profes∣sed by Christians.

Here will be no place for your Answer, to tell us that the Question was of Bloody, and not of Vnbloody Sacrifices: No, for Cyril in his Answer handleth as well the unbloody Sacri∣fice of Cain, as the Bloody Oblation of Abel; and expresseth as fully the unbloody Sacrifice of Cakes and Frankincense, as hee doth the Bloody of Sheepe, and Oxen.

Neverthelesse, wee should confute our selves, for objecting [ 10] this Testimony, seeing that the Custome of the Primitive Church being then professedly not to reveale the Mystery of the Sacrament of Baptisme, or of the Eucharist, either to in∣fidels or Catechumenists, and therefore this silence of Cyril, in not so much as mentioning the Sacrifice of the Masse, might seeme to have beene purposely done, to conceale it from Iulian, the Patron of Heathenish worship. So indeed wee should have thought, but that then Iulian and Cyril both would as readily confute us; Iulian, because hee himselfe had beene more than a Catechumenist in the Church of Christ, even (as namely Gre∣gory [ 20] Nazianzene witnesseth) oncel 1.319 A Reader of Scriptures to the people, not thinking it any Derogation unto him so to do; there∣fore was hee not ignorant of the (then) Christian Doctrine, concerning the Eucharist. And (which is a point as observable) when hee objecteth against Christians want of Sacrifices, by and by, as if Christians had nothing to say for themselves, but that Christ gave up himselfe once; hee expresseth this their An∣swer, as that which hee held not to be sufficient. And Cyril also would controll us, who in his whole Answer (opposing Spirituall to Corporall) defendeth no Sacrifice at all among [ 30] Christians, but that which hee called Spirituall and Mentall; as for Example, Godly Conversation, Faith, Hope, Charitie, Praises, &c. All which are* 1.320 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 Consum∣mating 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 [ 40] Christians for No Sacrifice, nor Cyril have defended them, by confessing indeed No Sacrifice among Christians, but onely Spirituall and Mentall. {fleur-de-lys} And undoubtedly if Materiall Altars (properly so called) had beene in use in Christianitie at that time, the holy Fathers would not have then concea∣led this, especially when as the want of Altars was objected against them, as a note of17 1.321 Atheisme.{fleur-de-lys}

CHAP. VI.

Our third Examination, which concerneth your Pro∣fession of the Romish Masse, by your Romish Principles.

The State of the Question. [ 10]

WEll have you discerned of the two-fold acception of a Proper Sacrifice, which (asa 1.322 you say) Is some∣time taken for the thing sacrificed, and also for the proper sacrificing Act. So your Cardinall: and indeed, both these are necessary in a Proper Sacri∣fice, yet neither of these can possibly be found in your preten∣ded Sacrifice of your Romish Masse.

That the Thing, pretended to be Sacrificed, is not Pro∣perly [ 20] in the Romane Masse. SECT. I.

THe things, which your Romish Beliefe professeth to be Sacrificed in your Masse, is the Body and Blood of Christ, corporally extant therein, as the proper Subject thereof. But that there is no Corporall Existence of Christ's Body in the Eu∣charist, was the Conclusion of our second, third, and fourth Bookes. And that the same Body and Blood of Christ is not the [ 30] proper subject matter of the Sacrifice, used in your Masse, is our Conclusion throughout this whole Booke. Of both which you may have a Synopsis and generall view in the last Booke. Thus of the thing Sacrificed, now that which followeth, concerning your Romish Sacrificing Act, is a Point briefly ex∣pedited by two Propositions.

I. That no Act, now used in the Romane Masse, can truly be called a proper Sacrificing Act: proved by [ 40] your owne Principles. SECT. II.

VVHatsoever 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* 1.323 Confuted by Doctors 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 Oblation, not Consecration, and lastly, not Con∣sumption of the Eucharist by the mouth of the Priest. Non li∣cet actum agere, said one, and Non libet, say wee. But now are wee to discusse such Properties, as are yet awanting in your Ro∣mish Execution.

II. That that, which is properly a Sacrificing Act, is wanting [ 10] in the Romane Masse; proved by your owne Principles. SECT. III.

THree Properties are required of you, as necessary to a properly Sacrificing Act, the first is, that the Action be exercised upon a thinga 1.324 Visible. Secondly, that the thing sacrificed be ofb 1.325 Prophane, made sacred by the Act of Con∣secration. [ 20] Thirdly, that the Act be ac 1.326 Destructive Act, whereby the thing offered be truly destroyed, and cease to be in sub∣stance that which it was. According 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 wee enter into this Disquisition, wee shall desire you to take unto you the spirits of reasonable men, whilest wee [ 30] reason the matter with you in few words. First, it cannot be called Properly Visible, which is not Visible in it selfe. But the Body of Christ, which you call the thing sacrificed, is not Visi∣ble in it selfe, but onely (as your Councell ofd 1.327 Trent hath taught) In the forme of Bread; and then, how invisible it is, onely blinde men can be ignorant. Nor will wee thinke All, among you, to be so blinde, seeing that wee heare one (and that a Iesuite) acknowledging his eye-sight, and plainly, without Parables, saying, thate 1.328 Christ in the Eucharist is in∣visible. [ 40]

So hee. Therefore the first Property of a proper Sacri∣ficing Subject is wanting in your Romane Masse.

Secondly, wee will not judge any of you so blasphemous, as to say, that the Body of Christ, by your Consecration, is of a Prophane thing made sacred, which wee are sure your ancient Romish Schoole did deny; which concluded thatf 1.329 It is not Christ that is made sacred, 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 [ 10] Christ.

Thirdly, it will be as incredible even in your owne Iudge∣ments, that the Body of Christ should be properly Destroyed. Wee say, in your owne Iudgements, who therefore are con∣strained to say,g 1.330 that The Body of Christ indeed suffereth not herein any naturall Destruction, but onely Sacramentall, that is, Metaphoricall. Ergo, your Romish Masse is destitute of the pro∣per Sacrificing Act of Destruction. And againe, whereas the word, Immolation, is taken ofh 1.331 Lombard for being Slaine, or suffering by Death; It was most truly said by him (saith your [ 20] Cardinall) that Christ is not properly immolated, meaning not slaine, but onely in Representation.

Well then, the State of the Question, as your Cardinall himselfe hath set it downe, is (seeing that every Proper Sacri∣fice requireth a Proper Destruction, and, if it be a living Sacri∣fice, a Destruction by death) Whether Christ be properly Sacrificed, or no. Marke, wee pray you, your Cardinal's Re∣solution. His bloody Sacrifice was but once truly and properly done, but now it is not properly done, but by Representation. O Spirit of Contradiction! For, that which is but once onely properly [ 30] offered, can never be said to be againe properly offered; 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 Dispu∣ters, in respect of the other part of the Sacrament touching the Cup: For your Cardinall Alan defendeth a Reall Destruction in this maner;i 1.332 In creatures living (saith hee) the thing sa∣crificed must be slaine, and in this slaying by the separation of blood from the Body doth consist all force and virtue of this Mystery, be∣cause Christ is herein, after the maner of Sacrifice, taking upon [ 40] him the maner of Sacrificing, which hee had in offering himselfe upon the Crosse, by separation of his Blood. So hee. All which

doth inferre a Reall and Proper separation and effusion of Blood; yet immediatly after standeth hee to the Defence of Concomi∣tancie, which teacheth an Vnion of Body and Blood together, in as full a maner as it was in Christ his most perfect estate. But Blood Separated, and Vnited, are as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 contrarie as can be. How much better would it beseeme you to confesse plain∣ly and truly with your Costerus, thatk 1.333 Christ is not offered herewith effusion of Blood, but by a representation thereof. Thus still wee see your owne Doctors come in your most controver∣ted [ 10] points towards us, albeit as Rowers, looking backwards to their owne purposes and conclusions.

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 [ 20] Visible, 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 Christs Body be present in the Eucharist, to make it a Sacrifice, without some Sacrificing Act. A Sheepe is no Sa∣crifice whil'st it remaineth in the Fold, nor can every Action [ 30] serve the turne, except it be a Destructive Act: for the Sheep doth not become therefore a Sacrifice, because it is shorne, nor yet can any Destructive Act be held Sacrificing, which is not prescribed by Divine Authority; which onely cun ordaine a Sacrifice, as hath beene confessed. But no such divine ordi∣nance 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 direct mens Consciences in the Mysteries of Christian Faith, and particularly concerning this high point of Proper Sacrifice? [ 40] and in the end give no other satisfaction than by meere Riddles of a Visible, 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 PRO∣TESTANTS, in the point of Sacrifice.

IN discussion whereof, wee are to consider first the Acts, which are incident unto the Celebration of this Sacrament: and then the Object thereof, which is [ 10] the true and reall Body of Christ, as it was Sacrificed upon the Crosse. In respect of the Acts wee say,

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

WHen Christ called himselfe the True Vine, the True [ 20] light, the True Bread; in respect of the Naturall Vine, Light, and Bread; Hee taught us to distinguish betweene a Truth of Excellencie, and a Truth of Propriety, by their different Effects. That which hath the naturall property of Bread (al∣though Manna) preserveth but the temporall life, for* 1.334 They ate Manna, and dyed: but the Bread of Excellencie, which is Christs Body, preserveth to* 1.335 Immortality. It is a good Ob∣servation, which your Canus hath, thata 1.336 Many spirituall things are called Sacrifices, in Scriptur, because they were prefigu∣red by the outward bodily Sacrifices of the Lambe: as the killing [ 30] of Beasts were signes of mortification, which is a killing of sinne. So hee. And the thing Archetypally prefigured (you know) is alwayes held more excellent than the figure thereof.

First, the Sacrifice of Contrition, Psalm. 51. 17. The Sacri∣fice of God is a Contrite heart. Secondly, of Righteousnesse, Psalm. 4. 5. Offer the Sacrifice of Righteousnesse. And Rom. 12. 1. by Mortification and Vivification, Present your Bodies a living Sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable Service. Thirdly, the Sacrifice of Prayer and Praise, Hosea 14. 2. Wee will render the Calves of our lips. [ 40] Fourthly, of Almes-workes, Heb. 13. 16. With such Sacri∣fices God is well pleased. Fifthly, Sacrifice the fruite of Prea∣ching, Rom. 15. 16. That I ministring the Gospell, that the offe∣ring up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctifyed 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 wee say,

II. That all these Spirituall Acts, although Improperly called Sa∣crifices, yet are they more excellent than all meerely Cor∣porall and Proper Sacrifices; in the Iudgement of Ancient Fathers. SECT. II.

VPon this Contemplation Ancient Fathers have breathed [ 10] out many divine Ejaculations, for the expressing of the ex∣cellent Prerogatives of Spirituall Sacrifices, in respect of Cor∣porall. Of the Sacrifice of Contritition, thus:a 1.337 Gods wrath is to be appeased with Spirituall Sacrifices. Andb 1.338 They were then Sacrifices for sinne, which are now Sacrifices of Repentance for sinne. Andc 1.339 God sheweth hee will not have the Sacrifice of a slaine beast, but of a contrite breast. Of the Sacrifice of Righteous∣nesse, thus;d 1.340 Hee that dyeth to the world, is for himselfe a Sa∣crifice. Ande 1.341 Then were Creatures slaine to cleanse mens Bo∣dies: but now are men to mortifie their vices:f 1.342 Every one [ 20] being made a Priest over his owne Body, to over-rule vices. And g 1.343 They offered those grosse Bodies of sheepe: but wee the more subtile and pure of virtues, because unbloody things best agree with God. Andh 1.344 This is a new and admirable Sacrifice. And i 1.345 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 1.346 These are most perfect and onely Sacrifices acceptable to God. Of Preaching the Word of God, thus;l 1.347 Wee slay vi∣ces with the sword of the Word. And of The Function Evange∣licall, [ 30] m 1.348 It is a pure Sacrifice, and immaculate. Andn 1.349 A Sacrifice sweeter than all Spices. Of Almesworkes, thus;o 1.350 These God testifieth to be more pleasant unto him, than all the Sacrifices. Andp 1.351 This is a true Sacrifice, whereof the other Sacrifices are but Signes. Of Martyrdome, thus;r 1.352 Wee are Gods Temple, our hearts his Altars: wee then offer up our bloody Sacrifice, when wee contend for the Truth with our Blood. In briefe,s 1.353 Every [ 40]

good worke done, to the end that wee may enjoy God, is a true Sa∣crifice. {fleur-de-lys} Your Cardinall Bellarmine lighting on this Sen∣tence, wherein Saint Augustine defineth a Sacrifice to be every good worke wrought, that wee may in an holy Societie ad∣here unto God:1 1.354 This Saint Augustine spoke (saith your Cardinall) not properly, according to the essence of a Sacrifice, but in respect of the dignitie and effects of every such worke. So hee. {fleur-de-lys} Hitherto of our Proposition, by the Deter∣mination of holy Fathers. In the next place wee say, for the Assumption, [ 10]

III. That Protestants professe, in their Celebration, divers Sacrifices of chiefe Excellencie. SECT. III.

COrporall and Spirituall Sacrifices are by you distinguished, [ 20] calling the first, Proper, and the other Improper; but the Spirituall excelleth by infinite Degrees, as you have heard. In which kinde Protestants, in their Celebration, professe foure sorts of Sacrifices. For proofe hereof, wee may instance in our Church ofa 1.355 England, most happily reformed and establi∣shed. First, the Sacrifice of Mortification in Act, and of Martyr∣dome in Vow, saying, [Wee offer unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our soules, and bodies, to be an holy, lively, and reasonable Sacrifice un∣to thee.] Next, a Sacrifice Eucharisticall, saying, [Wee desire thy fatherly goodnesse mercifully to accept of our Sacrifice of Praise [ 30] and Thanksgiving.] And why may wee not, with the Scrip∣ture, call this a Sacrifice? seeing that your Bishop Iansenius held it for an Argument of proving Christ to have offered a Sacrifice, evenb 1.356 Because hee gave Thanks: giving of Thanks being a kinde of Sacrifice. So hee. Thirdly, a Sacrifice Latreu∣ticall, that is, of Divine worship, saying, [And although wee be unworthy to offer up any Sacrifice, yet wee beseech thee to accept of our bounden duty and service, &c.] This performance of our Bounden Service is that, which* 1.357 Ancient Fathers called an Vnbloody Sacrifice. [ 40]

Nor is our Church of England alone in this Profession: this Truth wee referre unto the Report of yourc 1.358 Cardinall, and ofd 1.359 Canus, by whom you may understand the agreement

betweene them, whom you name Lutherans, in their Augu∣stane 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, Commemora∣tion, and Representation of his Death, with Praise and Thanksgi∣ving, to be a Sacrifice Eucharisticall: And also (to use the words of Calvin) Latreuticall, and Sebasticall, that is, a Sacri∣fice of Worship and Veneration; which every Christian may and must professe, who hath either eyes in his head, or faith [ 10] in his heart: the Celebration of this Sacrament, in Remem∣brance of his absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption, being the Service of all Services that wee can performe to God. Now wherein, and in what respect wee may furthermore be said to offer to God a Sacrifice propitiatory, improperly, will after appeare, when wee consider Christ's Body as the Object heerein.

That Protestants in their Commemoration offer up the same Bo∣dy and Blood of Christ, which was Sacrificed on the Crosse, [ 20] as the Object of Remembrance, and most absolute Sacrifice of our Redemption: which is partly justified by the Romish Masse it selfe. SECT. IV.

NOw wee are come to the last, most true, and necessary Point, which is the Body and Blood, as the Object of our Commemoration. Still, still do you urge the Sayings of Fathers, where they affirme that wee offer unto God The same Body and [ 30] Blood of Christ, on this Altar, even the same which was sacri∣ficed 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* 1.360 shewen.

Wee as instantly, and more truly, proclame that wee offer (Commemoratively) the same, undoubtedly the very same Body and Blood of Christ his All-sufficient Sacrifice on the Crosse, al∣though not as the Subject of his Proper Sacrifice, but yet as the only adequate Object of our Commemoration; (as the Emperour Mauritius is sayd to be represented in a Stage-play) wherein [ 40] wee cannot possibly erre, having Truth it selfe for our Guide, who said, Do this in remembrance of mee, namely, of the same [Mee;] meaning Christ, as crucified on the Crosse, as the Apo∣stle commenteth, saying, Hereby you shew the Lords Death till hee come, even the Same Body, as the Same Death; whereunto beare all the Fathers witnesse, throughout this Treatise. Wee say againe, for your better Observation, the Same Body, as the Same Death: but it cannot be the Same Death, but objectively onely.

Ergò, can it not be the Same Body, but onely Objectively. 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 onely the Sacramentall Representation, Commemoration, and Application thereof.

{fleur-de-lys} For your better satisfaction, Wee exhibit unto you the ancient Practise of your Romish Church, in the Service of the Masse, celebrated every Saturday in the Passion-weeke; where∣in (as your2 1.361 Cardinall doth certifie you and us) the Priest, in your Missall, Prayeth twice to God to receive [His Sacrifice:] [ 10] although it be, properly, but onely a Sacrament, the whole Action thereof being called a Sacrifice. So hee, even as di∣rectly for our purpose, as wee could wish; hereby justi∣fying our Calling the Whole Celebration of the Eucharist (albeit Properly a Sacrament onely) a Sacrifice, in a Large and qualified Sense, according to the Practise of ancient Fathers; as wee have proved throughout the whole Sixt Booke, by Eleven Demonstrations.{fleur-de-lys} [ 20]

CHAP. VIII.

Of the Second Principall part of this Controversie, which concerneth the Romish Sacrifice, is as it is cal∣led Properly Propitiatory.

THis part is divi∣ded into an

• 1. Explication of that which you call Propitiatory. [ 30]
• 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 [ 40] be Properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice, or no. Now Propitiatory is either that which pacifieth the wrath of God, and pleaseth him by it's owne virtue and efficacie, which (as all confesse) is onely 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 1.362 It is that whereby God being pacified doth pardon sinnes.

And least that there might be any ambiguity, how it doth pacifie God, whether by his gracious Acceptance, or the Efficacie of offering, your generall Romane Chatechisme, authorized both by your Councell of Trent, and the then Pope Pius the fift, for the direction of your whole Church, instructeth you all, con∣cerning your Sacrifice of the Masse, thatb 1.363 As it is a Sacri∣fice, it hath an Efficacie and Virtue, not onely of merit, but also of satisfaction. So they, as truly setting downe the true nature of a Propitiatory Sacrifice, as they do falsly assume and apply it unto the Sacrifice of your Masse; which Protestants abhorre [ 10] and impugne as a Doctrine most Sacrilegious; and onely grant the Celebration to be Propitiatory (Improperly) by God's Complacencie and favourable acceptance, wherewith hee vouchsafeth to admit of the holy Actions and Affections of his faithfull.

Tryall of all this is to be made by Scriptures, and Fathers, by your owne Romish Principles, and by the Doctrine of Prote∣stants. In the Interim, be it knowne that our Church of Eng∣land in her 31. Article, saith of your Propitiatory Sacrifice of [ 20] 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 1.364 These words do most evidently teach, [ 30] that Christ now in his Supper offered up his Blood for the sinnes of his Apostles. So hee. But if this his Exposition of Christ's word's be most evident, alas! what a number of other blinde Guides, of great estimation among you, hath your Church fa∣voured, pampered; privileged, and authorized, who could see nothing in the words of Christ, but the flat contrary▪ (namely) that they were Spoken in the Present Tense (Tropical∣ly) For the Future, not that it was then shed, but that it was to be [ 40] shed on the Crosse immediately after; among whom have* 1.365 beene reckoned Gregory de Valentia, Salmeron, Barradas, Vasquez, and Suarez, five prime Iesuites, your Bishop Iansenius, yea and the Author of your Vulgar Translation, and the Authori∣zers thereof.

And that you may the better discerne, how hard the fore∣heads

heads of your Cardinall, of your Rhemists, of Master Brerely, and of such others are, who have made that Objection, you have beene likewise advertised, that in the very tenour of your owne Romish Masse it selfe, the word is expresly [* 1.366 Effundetur] It shall be shed: Wee say in the Tenour of your Romish Masse, published by the Authority of Pope Pius the fift, repeated by every one of your selves, (you being Romish Priests) and ac∣cordingly believed of all the Professors of your Romish Reli∣gion. Which Interpretation was furthermore confirmed by * 1.367 Fathers, and by Scripture (in the places objected) and by a [ 10] Reason taken from your owne Generall Confession, granting that Christ his Blood was not Really shed in his last Supper. This is that which wee had to oppose unto that your Cardinals Most evident Argument, as Sun-shine to Moone-light.

That many things are said to pacifie and please God, which are not properly Propitiatory, by their owne Virtue, according to criptures and your owne Confessions. SECT. III. [ 20]

IN Scripture, our Mortification of the flesh is called a Sacri∣fice well-pleasing to God. Rom. 12. 1. Almes, Workes of Charity, are likewise called Sacrifices, wherewith God is deligh∣ted, 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 wee will take from the quill of Valentia the Jesuite, [ 30] saying thata 1.368 All right and just Actions may be said, in some sort, to bee Propitiatory, and to pacifie God. As likewise of Prayer; Scripture (saith hee) attributeth a Propitiatory force un∣to Prayers, so farre forth as wee obtaine many Blessings of God, through his mercie, by them. So hee. Which confirmeth our former Distinction of Propitiatory, by the mercifull Accepta∣tion of God, distinct from your Propitiatory, which is of me∣ritorious Satisfaction by its owne virtue: which meere man must let alone for ever. Thus of our Examination from Scrip∣ture. [ 40]

The Doctrine of Ancient Fathers, concerning a Propitiatory Sacrifice. SECT. IV.

ALbeit our Premises in the former part of this Controver∣sie touching Sacrifice, and proving both by Scripture and

ancient Fathers, that the Eucharist is not properly a Sacrifice, might give a Supersedeas to all your further contending by their Authority, for Defence of a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory; be∣cause that which is not properly a Sacrifice, can no more be a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory, than that which is not properly a stone can be properly called a Mil-stone: Notwithstanding, wee would be loath 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 kindes: some, wherein [ 10] there is no mention of the Body and Blood of Christ at all; and the other sort such, wherein they both are named and ex∣pressed.

CHAP. IX.

That the objected Testimonies of Ancient Fathers might [ 20] well be understood to call the Celebration of the Eucha∣rist A Propitiatory Sacrifice, in respect of divers Spirituall Acts therin, without any Conceit of a Proper Virtue of Propitiation it selfe. SECT. I.

[ 30] A Propitiatory in Gods mercifull acceptance wee de∣fend, but not in Equivalencie of Valour and Vir∣tue in it selfe. First, as it is an Act commanded by Christ, in which sense your Iesuite* 1.369 Valentia saith, that Every right Act is in a sort Propitiatory. Secondly, as it is a godly Act, wherby wee do affiance our soule to God, Every good worke, (as* 1.370 Augustine saith) which is done that wee may adhere unto God, is a True Sacrifice. Thirdly, as it is an Act serving peculiarly to Gods worship, for Religiousnesse is that (said* 1.371 Chrysostome) wherewith God testifieth himselfe to be well pleased. Fourthly as it is an Act of Commemoration and [ 40] Representation of that onely properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse, wee must grant to your Cardinall, that Commemoration alone hath not any Propitious Efficacie in it selfe: But yet by the Propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ, resembled thereby, God vouchsafeth to be Propitious unto us; in which respecta 1.372 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 commanded by Christ, saying, Do this in remembrance of mee:

This (saith Origen) is the only Commemoration which maketh God propitious.

If any would say, how then shall wee not make Commemora∣tion to be Propitiatory in it selfe? Wee answer, as a man hol∣ding in his hand a precious 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 Iewell; and yet wee say, the Ring is the only meanes to us, which maketh the finger capable of that Virtue. So say wee, Christ his owne Sacrifice, which was the onely precious Subject matter of our Redemption, is made now, by [ 10] our Remembring, the Object of our Commemoration and Appli∣cation of it, for our Remission and Iustification.

Nor is Origen alone in this, but all they (who were* 1.373 many) whom you have heard saying that Christs Death and Passion, yea his Bloody Body is offered herein. Your owne Iesuit Salme∣ron is witnesse unto us (for the Councel of Ephesus, Eusebius, and Saint Augustine) thatb 1.374 They declared us to have expiation of our sinnes by this Sacrifice, because the bloody Sacrifice of Christ is remembred and commemorated herein.

That wee say nothing of our Supplications and Prayers, by [ 20] which, through the same Virtue of Christs Propitiation, wee obtaine pardon and Remission of sinnes (whether for Quicke and Dead, belongeth not to this Dispute, because whether so or so, they are but Supplicatious still) together with many other saving 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 spiritual Sacrifices most acceptable unto God, for which cause* 1.375 Iustine Martyr called it, by the way of Excellencie, [ 30] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, The onely gratefull Sacrifices. Last∣ly, in respect of our Application 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 by the faithfull in Celebration of the Memory thereof. SECT. II. [ 40]

WHen it was asked, why the Ancient Fathers called Bap∣tisme a Sacrifice, it was answered,* 1.376 Because the Sacri∣fice of Christs 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 Bishopa 1.377 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 hee were now dead, which can be but Objectively onely, and which (as you all know) is not your Priestly Sacrifice.

As for the Ancient Fathers, who in their objected Testi∣monies talked of Christb 1.378 Suffering, being slaine, and dying in the Eucharist; Wee Protestants subscribe to their Iudgements [ 10] with a full faith, in acknowledgement that Christs Death, the proper worke of our Propitiation, is the onely Object of our Remembrance and Faith: which sayings of the Fathers (saith yourc 1.379 Iesuite) must be understood Sacramentally, to signifie the reall slaughter of Christ offered by him upon the Crosse. So hee. Which againe proveth our Conclusion, that they understood a Propitiatory Sacrifice onely objectively in the Eucharist. Wee will end with the objected Testimony of Ambrose, thus, d 1.380 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, [ 20] that he may forgive our sinnes. And of his now being* 1.381 elsewhere hee saith, The truth is in Heaven, there is Hee in truth with the Father. So hee. Whereby is confuted your Conclusion of a Subjective Body of Christ present herein, from [Quasi homo offertur:] for this any one may perceive to be but a Quasi Ar∣gument 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. [ 30]

CHAP. X.

Of the pretended Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice, confu∣ted [ 40] by Romish Principles, as destitute of foure Properties of Propitiation.

THe first is the Imperfection of the Sacrificer. The next, the no-proper Destruction of the thing sa∣crificed. The third, the Vnbloodinesse of the same. And the last, the but-finite Virtue and va∣lue, which you attribute 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, isa 1.382 Because it is not immediate∣ly offered up by Christ himselfe, as that was of the Crosse, but by his Minister. And the Reason of this, you say, is,b 1.383 Because [ 10] the Vniversall Cause worketh according to the limitation of the second Causes. So you. Vnderstanding, by Sacrifice, not the Object of your Remembrance, which is the Body of Christ, as cru∣cified; but the Subject matter, in the hand of the Priest. From whence this Consequence must issue, whether you will or no, (namely) that Perfection of the Sacrifice being a necessary pro∣pertie of a true Propitiatory Virtue and efficacie, 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 Sacrifi∣ces [ 20] under the Law, because they also were twice imperfect; once in respect of the Sacrificer, who was but a meere man: and se∣condly, in respect of the matter of Sacrifice it selfe, which was some unreasonable beast, and had no Virtue of Propitiation in it selfe, for remission either of guilt, or of the eternall punish∣ment of sinne, as hath beene* 1.384 Confessed; and therefore not Properly Propitiatory, but Figuratively; onely as Types of the Sacrifice of Christ.

II. Confutation, from the Romish Definition of a [ 30] Propitiatory Sacrifice. SECT. II.

SEcondly, in yourc 1.385 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 Consumption. Notwithstanding you are absolutely free from the Blasphemy, to say that Christ his Body doth in the Eucharist [ 40] suffer properly a Reall Destruction. Ergo, say wee, by your owne Principle there cannot be herein a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory.

III. Confutation, from the Apostles 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 wee, your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be properly Propitiatory. Your Cardinall, in Answering first that thed 1.386 Apostle spake [ 10] this of the Sacrifice of the Old Law onely, standeth twice con∣victed of a foule Tergiversarion; first, by the Apostles Ex∣plication of himselfe, who although hee spake from the obser∣vation 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 sheedding of Blood] is to be applyed to the Eucharist. Hee is glad therefore [ 20] to adde a second Answer, given by your Maldonate, who finding no security in the former Refuge, betaketh himselfe to another, saying thate 1.387 Remission of sinnes is not now for any present effusion of Blood, but for that effusion which had been. Which Answer (if wee may so interpret it) is a plaine Preva∣rication. The Reason may be this; because there was never Bloody Sacrifice (Christ on the Crosse excepted, which onely was of infinite virtue, as well to times past, as to come) but it was alwayes actually by the Effusion of Blood at the time of Sacrificing. These kindes of so ordinary Doublings and Tur∣nings, which your Disputers use, as men in a maze, do plainly Demonstrate either their irresolute Iudgements, or else their [ 30] dissolute Consciences; and in either of both their despe∣rate Cause.

Wee 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 propi∣tiating Act, to make it properly a Sacrifice propitiatory. This wee prove out of your Councel of Colen, whichf 1.388 Conclu∣deth, that your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be called Propitiatory, in [ 40] 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 ob∣lation how absent it is, who seeth not, that is present with him∣selfe? 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 do Christianly esteeme to have beene of a 1.389 Infinite merit and satisfaction, because it was offered by him∣selfe, [ 10] God and man: and that otherwiseb 1.390 Hee could not have made satisfaction to an Infinite and Divine Majestie. So you. But of the Sacrifice of the Masse, what▪ The common opinion of our Church (saith yourc 1.391 Cardinall) is that it is but of finite value. So hee. Notwithstanding it be impossible for any thing of finite virtue to have power in it selfe of remission of an infi∣nite guilt against an infinite Majesty. [ 20]

CHALLENGE.

A More palpable betraying therefore of a Cause there can∣not be, than (as you have hitherto done) by defending Positions repugnant to your owne Definition, and by obtru∣ding [ 30] things as proper, which are voyd of all due Properties. This being all one, as if you, in the Case of Miracles, would deliver unto us a Iannes and Iambres, in stead of Moses; in Art, Sophistry for Logike; in Commerce, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, adulterate Coine for current; and in warlike stratagems, instead of a na∣turall, 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. [ 40]

CHAP. XI.

Of the Romish Application of their Sacrifice. The State of the Question.

[ 10] THat the Eucharist was ordained of Christ, for the Application of remission of sinnes Sacramen∣tally to all Communicants, is the profession of all Protestants. That the Sacrifice of Christs 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 merits of Christ for remission of sinnes, (which is youra 1.392 Tri∣dentine faith) hath beene hitherto impugned and infringed tho∣rowout [ 20] our whole former Dispute. Furthermore our present Opposition is three-fold; First, concerning the sinnes that are said to be remitted. Secondly, touching the parties, who have Remission. Thirdly, in regard of your Priests, by whom Ap∣plication 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. [ 30] SECT. I.

NEver can there be any true Application of the Passion of Christ for remission of sinnes (say wee) which is not abso∣lute, but onely partiall. Your Iesuitb 1.393 Ribera seemeth to come on roundly towards us, and friendly to joyne hands with us in this point of Application of an absolute Remiss••on of sinnes, pretending that this was decreed in the Councell of Trent, as in∣deed it seemeth to have beene, and that from the Authority of [ 40] Scripture; and hee addeth, that Protestant•• (whom hee is plea∣sed to grace with the name of* 1.394 Heretikes) do not deny this ma∣nifest Truth. So hee. Do you marke? a Truth, a manifest Truth, a Truth said to be confirmed by your last Councel, and a Truth con∣sented 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 holdc 1.395 All mortall sinnes to be remitted by the Application of the Sacrifice in the Masse, is false, except all Divines be deceived. So hee, speaking of the Divines of the Romish Church. And so may every Papist receive as much remission of his sinnes by holy Water sprinckled at the Church doore, as hee can by the Sacrifice at your Masse.

Your Iesuit Valentia noteth, among you, another sort of Do∣ctors, [ 10] maintaining that your Masse-Application serveth onely ford 1.396 Remission of such temporall punishment, the guilt whereof was formerly pardoned. So hee.

CHALLENGE.

IF any shall but recollect the Contradictions of your owne [ 20] Doctors, thorowout all these former points of Controversie already handled, hee will thinke himselfe to be among the Fen∣cers called Andabatae, who first blind-folding themselves fell a slashing one another, not knowing whom they hitt; therfore wee leave them in their broiles, and our selves will consult with Antiquity.

That the Ancient Fathers never taught any Application of Christs Passion, but that which is for a Plenary [ 30] Remission of sinnes. SECT. II.

CArdinalla 1.397 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 hee produceth, are these, Chrysostome, Theophylact, Cyprian, and Origen. If these will not suffise, you may take unto you these b 1.398 other, Iulius Pope of Rome, Iustine Martyr, Augustine, [ 40] Cyril, and Basil. Do 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 Sacrament; 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. [ 10] 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 Proclame all Not-Com∣municants to Depart. From which Custome afterwards the [ 20] word Masse had it's Originall; namely from the words, [Ite, missa est] as* 1.399 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 1.400 Canon of the Masse provideth that Application of your Sacrifice be made unto him for Remission of sinnes. And that, as your Iesuite teacheth,d 1.401 The Fruit of the Sacri∣fice [Ex opere operato] redoundeth unto him; and not this onely, but also to bee 1.402 Spiritually refreshed by the mouth of the Priest.

[ 30] Be you therefore intreated to lend your Attention, but for an Instant of time, and then tell us whether wee speake Reason unto you▪ or no. All Antiquity Catholike (as hath beene ge∣nerally * 1.403 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, by receiving the Sacrament, but shut all others out of Doores; which, wee say, they neither would nor could lawfully have done, if they had beene of your now Romish Faith, to believe that it is a Sacrifice Pro∣pitiatory [ 40] for all such as devoutly attend to behold it. For, wheresoever there was a Sacrifice of Expiation among the Iewes, under the Law, all persons had liberty to partake thereof. Wee thinke that this Argument sticketh 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 wee have expected some Reasons, which might [ 10] move your Church so to lessen the proportion of Christ's Passion, in the Application therof for Remission either of sinnes or punishments. And now at length your Iesuite Sal∣meron cometh to resolve us, saying,a 1.404 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 hee. Wee may not so farre digresse, as to enter into this Controversie of Purgatory, because wee are to finish that which wee have now in hand. [ 20] Else were it easie to shew, that the infinite gaine, which your Alchemists worke out of your forge of Purgatory-fire, hath occasioned this Heterodoxe and graceles Doctrine of disannul∣ling the infinite efficacie of Christ's Blood: which is so utter∣ly forlorne of all Approbation from Antiquity, that your Disputers have not alleged so much as one Iota, out of any Fa∣ther, for warrant thereof.

Next, in the Sacrifice of your Masse, there is (sayb 1.405 you) a Portion thereof appropriated to the Priest alone, which is a power to apply, by his Memento, the same Sacrifice to whom [ 30] hee will, so farre forth that hee extend his Memento upon any one, to whom hee shall be pleased to intend it, upon Condition to receive money therefore: insomuch, 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? Cardinallc 1.406 Alan (your Advocate) is ready to answer for you, and wee are attentive to heare what he saith; There is not either any Scripture (saith hee) or Father shewing any such thing, for such a maner of esteeming the fruit of Christ's Sa∣crifice. [ 40] So hee.

In the third place, whiles wee are in this speculation, wee heare one of you putting this Case. If the Priest shall receive a stipend of Peter, upon Condition that hee shall apply his Memento and Intention upon the soule of Iohn, departed this life, and hee notwithstanding 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 Priests Obligation upon the Condition made with Peter, or else for the good of the soule of Paul, according to the Priests immediate Intention. Here, although some of you stand for the justice of thed 1.407 Priests Obligation, yet some others Resolution is, that the Priests intention (albeit unjust) must stand for good. Wee have done. [ 10]

CHALLENGE.

VVHereas it is now evident, that your Romish Masse ser∣veth 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 Spirituall intention; yea, though it be to the Injury of the Purchaser: It can be no marvell, that wee heare so often, [ 20] and as loud shouts for your magnifying of the Romane Masse, as ever Demetrius, and his fellow Craft-mates made for Diana, the Goddesse of the Ephesians.

It remaineth, that wee deliver unto you a Synopsis of the Abominations of your Romish Sacrifice, which wee have reser∣ved to be discovered in the eighth Booke. Wee hasten to the last Examination, which is of Pro••estants.

CHAP. XII.

[ 30] That the Protestants, in their Celebration, offer to God a Spirituall Sacrifice, which is Propitiatory, by way of Complacencie. SECT. I.

[ 40] CAll but to mind our former* 1.408 Distinction of a dou∣ble kinde of Propitiousnesse; one of Complacencie, and Acceptation, and the other of Merit, and Equivulencie; and ioyne hereunto your owne de∣finition of Propitiousnesse by way of gracious ac∣ceptance, when you confesse that Every religious Act, where∣by man in devotion adhereth intirely unto God, in acknowledge∣ment

of his Soveraigntie, mercie, and bountie, is propitious unto God. Now then, Protestants celebrating the Eucharist with Faith in the Sonne of God, and offering up to God the Com∣memoration of his death, and mans 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, forasmuch as the end and efficacie of Christ's Passion is no lesse than our Redemption from the eter∣nall [ 10] paines of hell, and purchase of our everlasting salvation:) All these (I say) and other essentiall Duties of holy Devotion being performed not according to Mans Invention, as yours; but to that direct, and expresse Prescript, and ordinance of Christ himselfe [Do this,] It is not possible, but that their whole complementall Act of Celebration must needs be through Gods favour Propitious, and well-pleasing in his sight. Take unto you our last Proposition, concerning the second kinde of Propitiousnesse. [ 20]

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

BEfore wee resolve any thing, wee are willing to heare your [ 30] Cardinals Determination. The Death of Christ (saitha 1.409 hee) is a proper, and most perfect Sacrifice. So hee, most Christianly: But after noting the Profession of Protestants, to hold that the same Most perfect Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is the onely proper Sacrifice of Christian Religion, hee denyeth this, because (saithb 1.410 hee) This is common to all true Religions, and being but once done, ceaseth to be any more, but onely in the virtue and effi∣cacie thereof. And all this hee doth for establishing of another properly Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Romish Masse, by the hands [ 40] of the Priest.

But wee, believing that That Sacrifice of Christ's death was but once offered as (according to our other distinction) the one∣ly subjective, meritorious, and properly-Propitiatory Sacrifice, therefore it ceaseth to be so any more; but yet is still objective∣ly perpetuall in the Church of God, as the object of our Re∣membrance of his Death, Representatively and Commemorative∣ly,

both in our Acts of Celebration, and in our Prayers and Prai∣ses offered up to God, in the true apprehension of the Efficacie and Virtue thereof. In which respect (as Christian Beliefe professeth) Christ is called* 1.411 The Lambe slaine from the begin∣ning of the world: so is hee the same still, and ever will be un∣till the end thereof; for which cause our Celebration is called of the Apostle A shewing of the Lords Death till hee come. So that as by the Bodily Eye, beholding the* 1.412 Serpent on a pole in the Wildernesse, they that were stung with the [ 10] deadly poyson 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 ever∣lasting 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 wee Romanists do, and wherein doth the difference 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 procee∣ding [ 20] from us, be a Sacrifice propitious, as other holy Acts of Devotion, onely by Gods Complacencie and Acceptance; Yet the object of our Commemoration being the Death and Passion of Christ, in his Body and Blood, is to us, by the efficacie therof, a truly and properly propitiatory Sacrifice, and Satisfaction, for a perfect Remission of all sinnes. Thus concerning Protestants. As for you, if wee consider your owne outward Acts of Cele∣bration, (wherein in Ten Circumstances wee ••inde Ten Transgres∣sions of the Institution of Christ, and therefore provocatory to stir up Gods displeasure) wee thinke not that it can be Propitiato∣ry [ 30] so much as by way of Gods Acceptance.

Next, when we dive into the mysterie 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 (be∣sides our Proofes from Scriptures, and your owne Principles) by* 1.413 Ten Demonstrations out of Ancient Fathers to be Sacra∣mentall Bread and Wine, and not the Body and Blood of Christ. Wherefore the Subject of your Sacrifice can be no more properly [ 40] (that is, Satisfactorily) in it selfe Propitiatory, than substantiall Bread can be Christ.

Lastly, in examining the End of the Propitiation by the Masse, Wee perceive your Doctors in suspense among themselves, whether you be capable of Propitiation for Remission of sinnes, or else of Temporall Punishments due to such Sinners; or if of Sins, whether of Mortall sinnes, or else of Veniall sinnes only: to wit, such as you thinke may be washed away by your owne

Holy-water-sprinckle. Marke now, wee pray you, these three: First, what you offer, namely not Christ, but his Sacrament. Secondly, by what Acts of Celebration, to wit, most whereof are not Acts of Obedience, but of Transgression. Thirdly, to what End, viz, not for a Faithfull, but for a doubtfull; not for an absolute, but for a partiall 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 Celebration of the Eucharist, in comparison of your Ro∣mish. [ 10] How much more, when you shall see discovered the Idolatry there∣of, which is our next Taske. [ 20] [ 30] [ 40]

A Vindication of certaine Testimonies, alleged in the II. III. IV. and V. Bookes of the preceding Treatise; against the Vnjust Imputations of one (whosoever). Popishly inspired: To the greater Disadvantage of the Romish Cause, wherein hee hath so much laboured.

THese kinde of Vindications ought not to seeme unne∣cessary [ 10] to any Reader, who would wish either estimati∣on to the Author, or just advantage to the Cause, when he shal perceive extreme diligence joined with an unstanchable malignancie, in sifting every corner, and weighing every grane. Howbeit that these Exceptions (such as they are) may worke both for the Correction of the Print, where it is requisite, and further Confutation of Romish Cavillers; yet I must say un∣to this Objector (as unto others of his kin) Etiamsi gratiae cau∣sâ nihil facis, omnia tamen grata sunt quae facis. Only I wish these his Exceptions had come in due time to my hands, (before the fift, and part of the sixt Booke had beene reprinted, in this se∣cond [ 20] Edition) that my Answers unto them might have bene in∣serted in their proper places. But now to the objected Testimo∣nies, of which (that in Epiphanius being altered in this second * 1.414 Edition) Wee will take the rest in due order.

The first Passage concer∣neth a Testimony of S. EPIPHANIVS. Alleged in the* 1.415 Pag. 120. of this second Edition.

[ 30] TO leave the Objectors verball Exceptions, because (now) satisfyed in the second Edition; and to try that which hee thinketh materiall.

His OB. Bellarmine cannot be guilty of that falsity which you im∣pute unto him, of adding to Epiphanius, and making him say: This is to be believed, although it be repugnant to our Senses: for these words [Although they be repugnant to our Senses] hee allegeth not as the words of Epiphanius, because hee hath them in a different Character.

ANSW. It will be sufficient to set downe the words of Bellar∣mine his owne, thus; ETIAM ADDIT, (Epiph.) ID ESS•• CRE∣DENDVM, LICET SENSVS REPVGNENT; that is, HEE (spea∣king [ 40] of Epiphanius) ALSO ADDETH, THAT IT IS TO BE BELIEVED, ALTHOVGH IT BE REPVGNANT TO OVR SEN∣SES. How then can it be denyed that Bellarmine delivered those words, REPVGNANT TO OVR SENSES, as the words of Epiphanius, hearing Bellarmine himselfe affirming that they were ADDED by Epiphanius? If I had denyed this, I would have given my Objector leave to say, I had beene out of my Senses.

The Second Passage. Book. 2.* 1.416 Pag. 129. TERTVLLIAN.

OB. I.

THe words of Tertullian are these; [Christum corporis sui figuram panis dedisse;] you, instead of [Panis] have Panem, for your Advantage, contrary to the faith of that Edition which you follow of Laur. de la Barre, pag. 180.

ANSVV. A sore Taxation, which pincheth upon my Fidelity; I shall then give a summarie Answer, after that I have received my full Charge. [ 10]

O••. II.

Bellar. lib. 2. de Enchar. cap. 7. argueth against Protestants for the words of Tertullian thus; [Those words, saith hee, do not sig∣nifie that Christ gave a Signe of his Body, and not his Body it selfe.] otherwise he would not have said that Christ [Corporis sui figuram pa∣nis dedisse.]

How then should it have beene, I pray you? OB. III.

It should have beene [Panis,] or rather [Pani,] as Pamelius (upon that place) hath it.

ANSVV. So then the Objector hath chosen Pamelius, a lear∣ned Commentator, upon the same words of Tertullian, and Romishly professed, for his Arbitrator; and I shall not gain-say his owne choice. Pamelius therefore in the very* 1.417 Edition and [ 20] page cited by the Objector, ingenuously confesseth saying; TERTVLLIANVS DICENS CHRISTVM CORPORIS SVI FI∣GVRAM PANIS DEDISSE; SVBAVDIT, MORE SVO, ACCVSA∣TIVUM.

By which words of Pamelius wee have gained fowre Advan∣tages. I. A Iustification of the sense of the Accusative [PA∣NEM,] as Pamelius sheweth. II. A Condemnation of the Ob∣jector his Falsehood, who said that Pamelius had it [PANI.] III. A Consutation of Bellarmine, who, because the word was [ 30] PANIS, and not PANEM, would needs inferre that Christ gave not onely a Signe of his Body, but the Body it selfe; whereas Tertullian (saith Pamelius) used the Genitive-case, PANIS, in∣stead of the Accusative, PANEM; how? MORE SVO; that is, AS TERTVLLIAN, VSED To Do: which plainly sheweth that Bellarmine was either ignorant of the style of Tertullian, or ra∣ther (if hee knew it) guilty of Dissimulation herein, namely, More suo. The Last is a Manifestation of an egregious fond∣nesse in them Both, by insisting upon Tertullian's style so rigid∣ly, in the Genitive-case, which in English must needs stand thus: [ 40] Christ to have given a Signe of his owne Body of Bread; which is plainly a Non-sense, as any may perceive; so that I may well conclude, ô felix error! of changing the word, PANIS, into PANEM; although it were but by chance, and onely to make true Latine, according to ordinary Construction. By occasion whereof, so much Ignorance and Perversnesse of the Adver∣sary hath beene displayed.

The Third Passage. Book. 3.* 1.418 pag. 151. CARD. BELLARMINE.

IT was affirmed that the first Imposition that Bellarmine could find of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as a matter of Faith, was about the yeare 1073. by Pope Gregory the Seventh.

OB.

Bellarmine said that he would prove against Scotus, that the Fa∣thers taught the same Doctrine.

ANSVV. Were his proofe as faisible, as I hold it Impossible, [ 10] yet was my Assertion, notwithstanding, most true, because I onely spake of the Imposition of this Doctrine of Transubstan∣tiation, as an Article of Faith, upon mens Consciences, not to have beene before that forenamed Pope Gregory the Seventh. The Contrary whereof neither hee, nor any for him, can shew out of any Ancient Father. The Advantage hee giveth us, is the bewraying of his owne Precipitancie.

The Fourth Passage. Book. 3.* 1.419 Pag. 162. N. CABASILAS.

[ 20]

THe Greeke Archbishop Cabasilas hath told us, that the La∣tines of the Romish Church would not indure the Greeks to call the Eucharist, after the Romish Consecration, Bread.

The OB.

Romane Catholikes do commonly allow that it be called Bread, after Consecration.

ANSVV. I proved from Cabasilas, that they will not indure it: hee telleth mee, without any proofe at all, they do. But if hee should eat no bread, untill hee could finde in Romish wri∣ters the Commonly naming of the Eucharist Bread, after their [ 30] Consecration thereof, hee within a short time, would be found felo de se. After this the Objector telleth me (which I had taught him before in the first Booke) that Cabasilas and the Greekes hold that the words of Christs Institution, to wit [HOC EST CORPVS MEVM] are not words of Consecration, and therfore called the Romish Eucharist Bread; and Con••ludeth,

OB. Therefore doth not Cabasila's Testimonie availe you.

ANSW. It proveth as much as I there assumed to prove: That the Romish would not allow their Eucharist to be called Bread after their Consecration. Our Advantage is to observe [ 40] your pronesse to quarrell, you know not for what.

The Fifth Passage. Book. 3.* 1.420 pag. 177.IRENAEVS.

OB. I.

YOu translate it [Even as] to make it a Similitude.

ANSW. When I was but a Boy, I then learned to translate SICVT, SIC (which are the words of Irenaeus) EVEN As, So.

OB. II.

But the Similitude is onely for the Change, and not for the maner of the Change.

ANSW. Can there be a Change with a SICVT, EVEN As, without a maner of Similitude of Change?

One Advantage herein may be this our further Observation, that Irenaeus, as hee said of the BREAD Consecrated, that it is NO MORE A COMMON THING, BVT CHANGED INTO AN EVCHARIST (a Sacrament:) saith likewise of the other part of the Similitude, that THE BODIES OF THE COMMVNI∣CANTS ARE INCORRVPTIBLE IN HOPE OF RESVRRECTION: meaning, that they are therefore not to be esteemed of in the [ 10] common Condition of naturall Bodies.

Our other Advantage will be, to learne the language of the Fathers, as here of Irenaeus, calling the Bodies of the Faithfull INCORRVPTIBLE; even here in this life, but meaning, because of the hope of their future Resurrection, when they shall be changed indeed, yet not in Substance, but onely in Qualities, from Incorruptibility and Basenesse. Even as hee meant of the change of this Sacrament, consisting of an Earthly, and an Hea∣venly part; the Earthly being the Bread Naturall; and the Hea∣venly being the same Sacramentall, as betokening and signify∣ing [ 20] the Body of Christ.

The Sixth Passage. Book. 3.* 1.421 pag. 178. S. AMBROSE.

OB. I.

IN citing of Ambrose, you joyne both his Sentences in one.

ANSW. Which is no more Advantage to my Cause, than if I should give this Objector two Sixpences for one Shil∣ling.

OB. II.

You adde [Even as] to make it a Similitude.

ANSW. This needed not to have beene added, because Am∣brose [ 30] his words cannot be understood of any Reader, but as im∣plying a Similitude.

OB. III.

Bat your Translation is this [Things changed, remaine what they were before:] whereas they should have been rendered ver∣batim, thus: That those things, which were, be still, and changed into another thing.

ANSW. I call for an Oedipus to unriddle this, to say that there is a differencet sense betweene THE THINGS THAT WERE BE STILL; AND THEY BE STILL THAT WHICH THEY WERE BEFORE, ALTHOVGH CHANGED INTO ANOTHER THING. [ 40] That is to say, Of Common Elements made Sacred and Sa∣cramentall.

The Seventh Passage. Book. 3.* 1.422 pag. 190 S. AMBROSE.

OB.

ETiam, A word of great Asseveration, omitted.

ANSW. What needed any more Asseveration than

the words set downe, IPSA NATVRA MVTATVR, which I un∣derstand to be as asseverantly spoken, as if hee had sworne them.

OB. II. You say that Ambrose interpreteth his naming of Bread, Christ's Body; by saying afterwards, Corpus Christi Significatur, which is long after.

ANSW. It is in the same Chapter, and not long after neither. But this man is as good an Objector as hee is an Observer; who doth not know that which is common to all Writers, that what the Author hath spoken somewhat more obscurely before, hee [ 10] explaineth it with words more intelligible, albeit long after.

OB. III. But Ambrose said elswhere [Panis dicitur, sed Corpus ap∣pellatur;] It is said to be Bread, but it is called the Body of Christ. So saith hee here, Before Consecration it is named Bread, but after Conse∣cration the Body of Christ is signified; here [Significatur] is the same with [Nuncupatur;] Signified is the same with named, or called.

ANSW. NAMED AND CALLED are onely Appellations of the outward words, whereas [SIGNIFICATA] alwayes import the sense of the same words, whether spoken or read; so that I shal need, for Confutation, no more but to appeale unto the Ob∣jector himself to distinguish the office of his cares & eyes, where∣by [ 20] hee apprehendeth onely words, from the Function of his Brain-pan, in judging of their sense and signification.

A further Advantage upon this occasion may be had first from another Allegation, of the Objector himselfe, out of Saint Am∣brose lib. 5. de Sacrament. cap. 4. Dixi ante verba Christi panis dicitur; post deprompta Christi verba, non panis dicitur, sed corpus appellatur. Wee heare that Saint Ambrose proveth, that that, which is called the Body of Christ, was before Consecration that which was called Bread: so that [Hoc] in Christ's speech, must [ 30] signifie Bread, which marreth and dasheth your Romi••h and li∣terall Exposition of Christ's words (the foundation of all your other errours, concerning Corporall Presence:) to note in Saint Ambrose his Iudgement, that [Hoc] in Christ's speech beto∣kened Bread, which, in the universall Iudgement of all Romish Doctors, cannot be attributed to Christ's Body in a literall sense. And Secondly to recognize the Art of Bellarmine (See Book. 2. pag. 125.) in his misalleging the same words of Ambrose, thus; [Post Consecrationem corpus Christi est,] instead of [CORPVS CHRISTI SIGNIFICATVR.] If that there were no more force [ 40] in the word [SIGNIFICATVR] than in NOMINATVR, why did your Cardinall bogle and startle at it, and utterly dash it out?

The Eighth Passage. Book. 3.* 1.423 pag. 191. S. CYPRIAN.

OB.

[NOn effigie sed] is not set downe in the Latine sentence of Cy∣prian, and [Caro Factus est] is left out in the English: both of purpose, as will be thought.

ANSW. Neither, I dare sweare, on purpose, because both of them are alleged: the first [NON EFFIGIE, SED] translated in the English, and [CARO FACTVS EST] expressed in the Latine. Our Advantage now is this, to call to our Readers Remem∣brance, that hee must interpret these words of Cyprian by that his other Saying; namely, that Things signifying are called by the same names, by which things signified are called.

The Ninth Passage. Book. 3.* 1.424 pag. 191. M. BRERELY.

[ 10]

CYprian said: Things Indifferent change their nature after they be commanded.

OB. Hee meant not simply, but after a sort, as the Testimonies shew, which hee alleged.

ANSW. He meant as simply as any Protestant can do, saying a little before the words, A thing of Indifferencie, being determi∣nated by the Church, if it be violated, is a sinne. What is, if this be not a Change of the Nature, to become (by reason of the Churches Decree) of a thing Indifferent and not sinfull, a thing sinfull, and therefore not Indifferent. [ 20]

The Tenth Passage. Book. 3.* 1.425 pag. 194.IVSTINE MARTYR.

OB.

YOu make Iustine say, that hee called the Eucharist therefore no common Bread, because it was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] that is, Sanctified meate.

ANSW. And that, I say, millions of Popish Doctors, at the first hearing, would sweare, to wit, that the Church of Rome accounteth the matter of the Eucharist, COMMON BREAD, and WINE, before it be Consecrated. [ 30]

Our Advantage is, that the Objector hath brought an whole house, the Church of Rome it selfe (which you call the house of God) upon his head, by this Exception.

The Eleventh Passage. Book. 3.* 1.426 pag. 195. S. CYRIL. of HIERVSALEM.

OB.

BEllarmine is taxed of Vnconscionablenesse for concluding out of Cyril that the Sacrament is not to be judged by sense; when as the words of Cyril, in the same place, are expressely saying, [It is the Body of Christ; although thy sense tell thee not so, yet let thy [ 40] faith confirme thee, &c.]

ANSW. I have taxed him most justly, not for any mistaking of the words of Cyril, but for wresting and abusing his meaning, Bellarmine believing it was so sayd of Cyril, as absolutely de∣nying that there can be any tryall of the naturall Substance of Bread, after Consecration, by the verdict of any of mans sen∣ses; whereas Cyril spake onely of the Sacramentall nature

thereof. This was evidently proved out of Cyril, who affir∣ming Sacred Oile to be no more Bare Oile, after Consecration, as he said of the Eucharist, It was no more meere Wine after it be Consecrated; thereby taught us to judge of both alike. E∣ven as wee may say, upon the same reason, that the water of Baptisme is, during the use thereof, no meere Water. But why? even because it is Sacramentall; and that accordingly wee are not to beleeve our Senses, when wee are in Contemplation of this Sacrament, to thinke it now to be mere Water, but beleeve it to be of another nature: else our naturall eyes and senses shall [ 10] deceive our Spirituall sight of Faith, in discerning the Spiritu∣all and Mysticall meanings thereof. Yea, and in this respect I might have taxed Bellarmine, for inferring from such speeches an absolute denying of the tryall, by sense, of the natural part of the Sacrament, because hee might have beene instructed▪ By the * 1.427 Councell of Nice, of the meaning of such speeches of the Fa∣thers; that Councell saying as much of Baptisme, thus, Bap∣tisme is not to be considered with the eyes of our Bodies, but of our Mindes. All which is to abstract the thoughts of Christian [ 20] men from all Earthly conceipts, when they are conversant in the Celebration of such sacred Mysteries. This wee have no∣ted, Book. 3. pag. 207.

This also hath occasioned another Advantage against your Romane Faith, by observing in the same place of Cyril ano∣ther Sentence concerning this Sacrament: Coelestiall Bread (saith hee) sanctifying both Body and Soule. But how both? it follow∣eth, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:] As the Bread is congruous to the Body, so is the word (meaning Christ in his Body) convenient for the soule. What other can be meant [ 30] hereby, but that calling the Sacrament [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] after Conse∣cration, hee acknowledged not any Substantiall change there∣of; and more demonstrably, because of the Comparison hee hath of the Sacramentall applying of the Body of Christ to the food of the Soule, as hee doth the Sacramentall Bread to the nutriment of the Body, and Sanctification thereof, in hope of Resurrection to life, as the Fathers have Commented.

The Twelfth Passage. Book. 3.* 1.428 pag. 298. S. CHRYSOSTOME.

[ 40]

OB.

CHrysostome is said to be placed in the front of the host of Bellar∣mines Fathers, whereas Bellarmine in his Catalogue of Fathers De Euchar. lib. 2. citeth twenty Fathers before him.

ANSW. If Bellarmine have had other Treatises, in his Con∣troversies against K. IAMES of blessed memory, wherein Chry∣sostome was made the Champion, was this fondnesse in mee to say as I have sayd, and not rather rashnesse in this Objector, in thus gain-saying?

OB. II. But you have furthermore omitted the words of Chryso∣stome, which in English should be these [Although these things exceed our sense and reason, yet let us hold them without doubting.]

ANSW. Hee telleth mee what was omitted, looking directly upon that, but forgot to acknowledge what was expressed out of Chrysostome, looking askew and asquint at it. My Translation out of Chrysostome delivered his words, in the first part, thus; [ALTHOVGH THE SPEECH OF CHRIST MAY 〈◊〉〈◊〉 STRANGE TO SENSE AND REASON:) which is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to that which is omitted; Christ's speech exceeds our sense and rea∣son. [ 10] In the other part was set downe these words of Chrysostome, [YET LET VS BELIEVE HIS WORDS;] Fully equivalent with those which were omitted, [YET LET VS RECEIVE CHRIST'S WORDS WITHOVT DOVBTING;] except the Pa∣pists will thinke us to be of their degenerate Faith, Of Believing with doubting. Where you may perceive that your Objector con∣sidered not how easie it had been for me (by not omitting some words) to have beene superfluous.

The Thirteenth Passage. Book. 3.* 1.429 pag. 199. SIXTVS SENENSIS. [ 20]

OB.

IT is alleged out of Senensis, that hee maketh Chrysostome to have beene the most frequent in Hyperbolizing of all the Fathers; But Senensis onely saith, that Chrysostome did [Interdum] use Hyper∣bole's.

ANSW. And I say, Aliquando [seu, INTERDVM] dormitat Ho∣merus: Esto igitur, [INTERDVM:] Although I made it good in the same Section, that hee often Hyperbolized, yea even in this very point of the Eucharist.

OB. II. Elswhere Senensis, you say, giveth us a caution against Chry∣sostome's [ 30] Rhet••ricke in this point.

ANSW. It is certaine that Senensis doth there most especially and by name note Chrysostome to Hyperbolize, and his Caution being generall, to take heed of his Hyperbole's, may be justly applyed as wel to this, as to that point, there specified in Senensis, according to the Law of Schooles; where Generall rules are ap∣plyable to other examples, besides that which is in the Author specified and adjoyned to the same Rule. But this man had ra∣ther cavill inordinately, by the example of Romish Adversaries, than to be regulated by any rule of reason and moderation. [ 40]

OB. III. Behold you mention Bellarmine, saying that our senses are not deceived in their proper sensible objects; But you forbeare to shew the many Limitations which hee giveth.

ANSW. I never held it seasonable to shew a man any thing when he would not see it; otherwise the Objector, who hath sought into every corner of all my Sayings, with purpose to traduce them, could not but have found the same Limitations of Bellarmine punctually set downe. Book. 3. cap. 3. Sect. 7.

The Fourteenth Passage. Book. 3.* 1.430 pag. 200. S. CHRYSOSTOME.

OB.

TO the words of Chrysostome, [As in Baptisme, Regeneration, the thing Intelligible, is given by water, the thing Sen∣sible] you adde these words, [The Substance of Water remaining] which are not in the Text; whereof your Lordship is conscious, and ther∣fore most unsufferable.

ANSW. I must first say, mala mens, malus animus; or as it is [ 10] in the English, As you muse, so you use: else would not this Ob∣jector have accused mee to be Conscious of this, whereas any might have thought, that the words should have beene (if the Printer had not mistaken) in a different Character, to distin∣guish them from the words of Chrysostome; because, in the Margin, hee was directed to another place, where the full Text of Chrysostome was perfectly alleged, without that Addition now objected.

ANSW. II. Yet there is no reasonable man, pondering the words of Chrysostome, but must justifie the Addition of [ 20] those words of to be most consonant to the meaning of Chry∣sostome (there) speaking of the Water of Baptisme. For is there any one of sound braines, that will deny the Water of Baptisme, after Consecration, to remaine in Substance the same? Besides there hath beene produced another Testimonie, as out of Chrysostome, that Bread, even in the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist, after Consecration, remaineth in Substance the same. These should the Objector have ruminated upon, before hee layd downe this Accusation, but that hee found they were not [ 30] for his distemperate palate.

The Fifteenth Passage. Book. 3.* 1.431 pag. 201. EVSEBIVS EMISSENVS.

OB.

YOu referre vs to Master Brerely his Liturgie, Tract. 2. Sect. 2. Subd. 2. in the Margin, curtailing the words which should make for Transubstantiation; and making him argue from these words, [Post verba Christi, est Corpus Christi:] And putting upon him so weake an Argument, when as hee doth there but onely mention the name of Eusebius, referring us to a fuller Sentence, which hee citeth out of Eu∣sebius [ 40] in some few pages following.

ANSW. If the Objector had beene so curteous as to have lookt back to Master Brerely's Allegation of the said Testimony of Eusebius, some few leaves before, pag. 160. as hee was cu∣rious for (Contention-sake) to urge the words following in some pages after, which hee saith are omitted, and concerne Transubstantiation, hee might have found that Allegation of Master Brerely as I delivered it, Tract. 2. Sect. 2. Subd. 2. [SVBSTANTIA PANIS POST VERBA CHRISTI EST CORPVS

CHRISTI.] As for the words following, which corcerne Conversion of Bread, it was beyond the scope which I had then in hand, which concerned onely the Enunciative Speeches of Christ (namely of calling Bread his Body) and not the maner of Change thereof; which point notwithstanding is afterwards handled at full in the same Section.

Our Advantage from this mans Cavillation is this: That hee calleth this maner of Arguing out of the Sentences of the Fa∣thers, Bread after Consecration is the Body of Christ: Ergo, it is meant to be really and Substantially Christs Body, as it was in the [ 10] Manger, to be but a [WEAK ARGVMENT,] to the Confutation, and (if the Person of the Objector were of sufficient Authority) to the Confusion of all the Doctors of the Church of Rome, who have held their Arguments taken from the words of Christ, after his taking Bread saying [THIS IS MY BODY] to be the foundation of all their Arguments, for proofe of Transub∣stantiation.

ANSW. II. Yet I was much to blame, I confesse, in not An∣swering at all to the objected Testimony of that so bastardly a Book of Homilies, attributed to Eusebius, which the Romish Do∣ctors [ 20] themselves, of best judgement and estimation, could not untill this day tell upon whom to Father it: All confessing that it was not the Book of that Euseb. whose name it beareth: Some affirming, that the Author was Faustus the French-man; Some Caesarius; Some Eucherius. And as for the Booke it selfe, they have likewise put upon it the brands of two great Heresies, Ari∣anisme & Pelagianisme. Which taxation and hallucination of our Adversaries may be to themselves, without our Answer, their owne Satisfaction, not to thinke it worthy of Answering. [ 30]

The Sixteenth Passage. Book. 3.* 1.432 pag. 202. GREG. NYSSEN.

A Summary Answer to this Objection, out of the Testimony of Gregory Nyssen. Although Bellarmine doth not produce the words of Nyssen, yet doth hee direct his Reader to Nyssens Treatise of Manna, where the Sentence is, which is alleged by others. Nor can hee be excusable, in that, having read the Testimony now objected, hee did not thereby perceive that the Fathers Sacramentall speeches are not to be taken in the rigidi∣ty of the words. Our Advantage upon this occasion is, that, [ 40] our Objectors referring us to the Arguments of Bellarmine, out Greg. Nyssen, it hath caused us to light upon and to examine this which followeth, urged by your Cardinall, for Transubstanti∣ation; where speaking of the [Bread which came downe from hea∣ven, and was prepared for us without seed, without tilling, without mans worke: Th••s (saith Nyssen) is signifyed in this Mysterie, nor is this an uncorporeall and unbodily thing: for how can a thing

uncorporeall and without a Body, be food unto a Body; But that thing which is not uncorporeall, is altogether a Body] Now let us but trie the Romish Faith by this Lydian Stone, and wee shall finde it to be meerely counterfeit and base. For aske any of the Ro∣mish Disputers, what it is, which in this Sacrament is knowne to nourish, whether man or mouse? And they answer us that the Accidents of Bread, voyd of the substance of Bread, is that which is Nutritive. But Greg. Nyssen saith just the ••lat Contra∣ry, [NOTHING CAN NOVRISH A BODY BVT THAT WHICH [ 10] IS A CORPOREAL SVBSTANCE,] which being so spoken, in re∣spect of the Eucharist, proveth infallibly that the Substance of Bread remaineth in this Sacrament after Consecration; if so, then, in the universall judgement of all the Doctors of the Church of Rome, there can be no Transubstantiation.

The Seventeenth Passage. Book. 4.* 1.433 pag. 212. TERTVLLIAN.

OB. I.

THe word [Bread] is added.

[ 20] ANSW. No, but truly related, and that by the Authority of Tertullian himselfe, whose former words are, Christ distributed [PANEM, BREAD,] to his Disciples, faciens [ILLVM, that is, making IT, his BODY, THAT IS, A FIGVRE of his BODY.] There is no Schoole-boy, that knoweth his Grammar, which will not say that the Relative, IT, must be referred to the Antecedent, BREAD. And of this, IT, do de∣pend all the words following.

OB. II.

The words of Tertullian being these [Christ sayd▪ This is my Body, that is, a figure of my Body:] you put in, [IS,] saying That is,

It [IS] a figure of my Body, which will be complayned of.

[ 30] ANSW. I answer therefore, not to trouble his braines with Grammar-learning, which teacheth the Particle [IS] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to agree with that which followeth; but to deale with him by an example, to make his fondnesse more palpable. Can any man at the first sight of an Ivy-bush, say, This is a Taverne, THAT IS, A Signe of a Taverne, and not meane that it [IS A SIGNE] of a Taverne?

OB. III.

Your Adversaries will complaine of this, seeing they are perswaded that this is not spoken of a figure actually present, but perfectly past.

[ 40] ANSW. God send mee alwayes such Adversaries, who in their greatest subtilties bewray their extremest ••o••tishnesse, in complaining of my [IS] in the Present-••ense, and in requiring the sense of the time perfectly past; as if Tertullia•• had said thus, Christ sayd this is my Body, [THAT IS, IT WAS] a figure of my Body. Here have wee just reason to reflect upon this Ob∣jector with that Saying, Risum teneatis amici? Yet the Objector (lest we might thinke him not to Insanire cum ratione) yieldeth

this Reason, why it should be meant of the time passed, before the coming of Christ.

OB. IV.

Because of the words immediatly following, [Figura autem non fuisset, nisi esset veritatis corpus:] shew that the word, [Figure,] was not taken representatively,

but Typically.

ANSW. When Tertullian spake onely narratively, by repea∣ting the words of Christ, he must needs speak in the tense and time when Christ uttered them, when hee sayd [IT IS MY BODY, THAT IS, IS A FIGVRE OF MY BODY,] But after spea∣king Enunciatively, with the Relation from his owne time [ 10] when hee wrot, to the time of Christs Speech, which was the distance of three hundred yeares, hee could not but use the time perfectly past, saying, [It had not beene a figure] namely, when Christ called it his Body, [except, &c.] The Argu∣ment of Tertullian, taken from those words of Christ, stands thus: Christ in the Sacrament gave a figure of his Body; But a figure is not a figure of a figure, therefore Christ gave a figure of a True Body. Let us consult againe with Tertullians words of Exposition, [IT HAD NOT BEENE A FIGVRE, EXCEPT THERE HAD BEENE THE TRVTH OF HIS BODY:] But [ 20] Christs Body had no TRVTH of BEING before his Incarnation and time of his existence in the Flesh; and therfore [FVISSET] extended not unto any Type, which had beene before Christs being on earth. Wherefore this [HAD] of Tertullian, I hope, will put this Objector to his Non putabam, or Had I wist.

Our Advantages occasioned by this Accusation are great, and divers: One is to discerne more clearly the then-Catholike Do∣ctrine in the dayes of Tertullian. Next to observe the stupid insatuation of our Romish Adversaries. The Last will be to display an Heresie in the Article of the Church of Rome, that [ 30] teacheth an absolute absence of the Substance of Bread in this Sacrament. For if it were condemned by Tertullian, in the Marcionites, to teach that Christ had no true, but a Fantasticall Body, notwithstanding all the Demonstrances of sense, Eating, Weeping, Sleeping, Bleeding; and of the Apostles feeling him: How shall not the Romish Doctrine of a No-Existence of Bread in the Eucharist, notwithstanding the Contradiction of Smel∣ling, Seeing, Feeling, and Tasting it, be a welcome Patro∣nage and Skonce to the former Heresie [ 40] of denying the Verity of Christs Body?

Notes

• a 1.1

  Si quie dixerit. non offerri Deo ve∣rum & proprium Sa∣crificium, aut non es••t Propitiatorium, A••a∣thema sit. cone. Tri•• Sess. 22. Cap. 1. & 3. Vi∣sibile. cap. 1. Sacramen∣tum verè propitiatori∣um. cap. 2.
• b 1.2

  Prima Controver∣sia est, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Missa ve∣rè & propriè dictum Sacrificium. Se••und••, sit nè Propitiatorium. Bellar. Praf•••••••• Tract. de Missa.
• a 1.3

  [Hoc facite] Tunc, utà Sancto Sy∣nodo definitum est, Christus Sacerdotes instituit, praecepirgue ut & ipsi & qui 〈…〉〈…〉 eis essent, corpus ejus immolarent. Ca∣techis. Trid. de Euch. Num. 58.
• b 1.4

  Cerium 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. ull. Iob. 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 Book. ••. Chap. 2. §. 1.
• d 1.7

  Maldon. Non quòd contendam illud ver∣bum [Facite] illo lo∣co significare idem quod sacrificare. Lib. 7 de Sacra. Tom. 1. part. 3. de Eucharist.
• 1 1.8

  Estius Ies Com in 1 Cor. 11 vers. 24. Non quòd verbū [Facere] sit idem quod [Sacri∣ficare] quomodò non∣nulli interpretati sunt, praeter mentem Scrip∣turae.
• e 1.9

  Qùod olim dici∣mus, Missas facere, Ve∣teres quo{que} dixerunt Divina mysteria cele∣brare. Hilar. &c. Ex Cassand. Liturg cap. 16.
• f 1.10

  Alexander Papa & Martyr, Passionem Domini inserens Ca∣noni Missae, ait, [Hoc quoticscunque fece∣ritis,] Id est, Bene∣dixeritis, Fregeritis, Distribueritis, &c. Id. Cassander ibid. cap. 29.
• g 1.11

  Operae-pretium erit imposturam Ad∣versariorum refutate. Calvinus fingit Ca∣tholicos ità probare Propositionem nostri argumenti ex Virgilii verbis, Cùm faciam vitulâ, &c. Et Kem∣nitius ridet Catholi∣cos.—sed errant, nee bonâfide referunt argumenta Catholi∣corum. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 12.
• h 1.12

  Sunt qui ex verbo [Facite] Sacrificium ostendere conantur, quia aliquandò acci∣pitur pro Sacrificare, ut cum Vitgilius dicit—Cùm faciam Vitulâ profrugibus, ipse ve∣nito. Iansen Concor. in cum locum cap. 131. p. 904.
• i 1.13

  Et Poeta, Cùm faciam vitulâ, &c. Va∣lent. Ies. lib. 1. de Sacrif. Missa, c. 4. §. Fatentur. p. 519. Eam vim ha∣bet verbum Faciendi, ut cum Poeta dicit, Cùm faciam Vitulà, &c. Salmer. Ies. Tim. 9. Tract. 27. pag. 205. §. Septi••••.
• a 1.14

  Bellarm. de Missa, lib. 3. cap. 12. In Graeco Textu 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, di∣cit, Calix qui fundi∣tur, non hic est sanguis qui funditur: itaque indicant sanguinem fundi, ut erat in Calice.
• b 1.15

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.16

  M. Breerly Liturg. tract. ••. c. 3. subd. 2.
• d 1.17

  Rhemists Annot. upon Luc. 22. 20.
• 2 1.18

  Gordonus Scotus Ies. l. 1. Controvers. 3. c. 12. nu. 6. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] est nominativi casus necessariò referendū ad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, non da∣tivi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ut pertineatad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.19

  Rodolph. Goclenius Professor Marpurg Pro∣blem. Gram. lib ••. De∣mosthenes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—Pro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Cic. 2. de Orat. Bene dicere an∣tem, quod est perite loqui, non habet defi∣nitam aliquam regid∣nem, cujus terminis septa teneatur. Vo•• [Septa] non congruit cum •••• Bene dicete, sed referenda est ad voccm Eloquentiae Ne observeth the like in Plato, Virgil, Homer, pag. 232, 233, 261, 262.
• f 1.20

  Sixtus Senensis Bi∣blioth. lib. 8. pag. ult. Nos ingenuè fatemur nonnullas mendas in hac nostra editlona inveniri, etiam Soloe∣cismos, & Barbaris∣mos, hyperbata, &c.
• g 1.21

  Rhemists Preface before the New Testa∣ment.
• h 1.22

  D. Fulke against Greg. Martin.
• * 1.23

  Apoc. l. 4 & 8. 9. & 3. 12, &c.
• i 1.24

  Ioseph. Sciligeri No∣ta in novum Testamen∣tum. Luc. 22. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Mera est An∣tiptósis, pro 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Beza re∣ctè exponit, & ait du∣plicem esse Metony∣miam.
• k 1.25

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Basil. Reg. Moral. 21.
• * 1.26

  See Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and in this Sect. in their owne words.
• l 1.27

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de ••••iss. cap. 12. Datur, Frangitur, Funditur, in Praesenti tempore, docet apertissimè non fusum esse in Cruce sanguinem, sed in Coena.
• m 1.28

  Rhemists upon Luc. 22. 20.
• n 1.29

  M. Breerly, Liturg. Tract. 3. §. 3. subd. 1. p. 319.
• o 1.30

  Ibid. subd. 3. p. 319.
• p 1.31

  Ibid. subd. 1. p. 317.
• * 1.32

  See above Book. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4. and the rest in our Additionals to this Section.
• 3 1.33

  Also Maldonate de Sacram. Euch. Sect. Primi generis Argumentorum, Institutio Sacramenti. pag. 230. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] Fusum, at propriè verti poterit, Fundendum. {fleur-de-lys}
• q 1.34

  Iansenius referring it to the Cup, yet saith: [Qui effunditur] com∣muniter intelligitur de effusione factâ in Cru∣ce, & rect••. Concord 131▪
• * 1.35

  Liturg. Tract. ••. §. 3. subd. 1.
• * 1.36

  See hereafter Book. ••.
• r 1.37

  Li••urg. in the place above cited.
• 4 1.38

  Vasquez Ies in 3. Thom. Quest. 78. Disp. 199. Cap. 1. Art. 3. In Vul∣gata noster Interpres semper utitur verbo Futuri, cum de effu∣sione sanguinis est ser∣mo.—Et quoties de corpore loquitur, uti∣tur praesenti [Datur] tamen in Paulo utitur verbo Futuri, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 [Quod pro Vobis ••••••∣detur.] Nempè quòd putaret Praesens pro Futuro sumi. Sà Ies. Annot. in Mat. ••6. [Ef∣fundetur in 〈◊〉〈◊〉.]
• s 1.39

  Missale Rom. Ca∣li•• Sanguinis—qui effundetur.
• 5 1.40

  Vasqu. Ies. in 3. Thom. Quest. 78. Art. 3. Disp. 199. Cap. 2. [Ef∣fundetur] Effusionem in Cruce significat—Adde quod dicitur [In remissionem peccato∣rum] quod idem est atque in redemptio∣nem: Redemptio au∣tem non est nisi in cruento sacrificio Cru∣cis.—Optimè confirmatur testimo∣nio Chrysost. in 1 Cor. 11 [Effundetur] ostendit passionem.—Et Cap. 3. Frangi dicitur in Cruce, quia clavis confixus est. Refortur reverand Calicem, Re∣lativum Qui: Verùm quia effusio non pro∣priè convenit Calici, Ideir••ò estratione san∣guinis, qui effundetur in Cruce, Barradas Ies. Tom. 4. in Evang. lib. 3. cap. 5. [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Adjoyning a second opi∣ni••n in confuting this. De effusione in Eucha∣ristia interpretantur Iansenius, Bellarminus, Maldonasus. Verum (Ob. Sol.) Cali•• effunditur: Continens pro contento sanguine, qui ef∣fundebatur in cruce. Ob. Pro multis, dicit, & pro vobis. Sol. Omnes multi sunt, ut Ent••ymius, & Theophylactus ex Mat. 10.
• t 1.41

  Liturg. Tract. 3. c. 3. subd. •• p. 145.
• u 1.42

  Sa••••••ron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 3. c. 3. p. 90. Frangituri. •• Clavis, Lanc••â, Flagellis ••aniandum est. Barradas Tom. 4. in Concord c. 4. è Chrysost. in 1 Cor. hom. 24. Quod frangitur, hoc est, quod Cla∣vis frangitur.
• x 1.43

  Bellarm. V••cunque possit fractio, &c. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 12. §. Ad quartum. [ 30]
• * 1.44

  Luc. 22. 2••.
• * 1.45

  Vers. 22.
• * 1.46

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 it is in the Greeke Text, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 rendred by your Iesuites Maldonate and Tolet, upon that 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.47

  Origen. Hom. 9. in Levit. [Effundetur.] Teste Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 8. Tertull. l. 5. in Marc. [Tradetur] Teste Bellar. ibid. c. 7. Ambros. lib. 4. de Sa∣cram. c. 5. [Confringetur.] Athanas. in 1. Cor. 11. [Tradetur.] Missa Basilj [Effundetur.] Isidor. Comment. in Exod. 1, 50 [Effundetur.] Theodoret. in eundem locum, [Tradetur.] Alexand. Epist. 1. Decret. [Tradetur], Fundetur.] Teste Greg. Valent. Ies. lib. 2. de Sacrific. Missae, c. 5. p. 627. Chrysost. [Dabitur.] in 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.48

  See above Booke 2. Chap. 2.
• a 1.49

  Ex qua intelli∣ge, ea verba [Quod pro vobis frangitur] non esse ad Conse∣crationem necessaria: sed consultò a Lati∣nis praetermissa, ne esset locus absurda•• intelligentiae, quà quis existimare pos∣sit vere frangi Corpus Christi. Ians. Concord. c. 131. in Matth. 26.
• b 1.50

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa; c. 12. §. Ad secundum. Sanguis Christi reipsa non e∣greditur de Corpore.
• * 1.51

  See above Booke 4. Chap. 2. Sect. 3.
• c 1.52

  Alfonsus lib 6 adversus Haeres. Tit. Eucharistia. haeres ult. Cum Sanguinem pro nobis semel in ara Crucis effusum, post resurrectionem nun∣qū eum fu••urus sit: convincitur inde eti∣am, nunquā sangui∣nem verum illius in∣tegrè alicubi esse sine ejus corpore vero.—Sol. Ob. Quamvis sub specie vini totus Christus lateat, non tamen species illae totum Christum sig∣nificant, sed solùm sangumem effusum in Cruce, & à cor∣pore separatum.
• d 1.53

  Coste••. Enchi∣rid c. 9. de Sacrificio. §. Ex quibus. Christus veram sanguinis effu∣sionem passus in cru∣ce, sanguine ipso à Corpore separato. Hic vero tantum il∣lius mortis repraesen∣tatio.
• a 1.54

  Sotus cum alijs hanc Elevationem ut Oblationem pertine∣te aliquo modo ad substantiam hujus Sacrificij existimant. Sed dico, esse tantùm Ceremonialem act∣onem, ab Ecclesia in∣stitutam, nec semper fuisse in Ecclesia. Sua∣rez Ies. tom. 3. disp 75. §. 3. Per hanc pri∣mam actionem ne∣gandum est Christum sacrificare. Bellarmin. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 27. & 29. Elevatio & vocalis oblatio non ad essentiam perti∣nent. Alan. de Euch. lib. 2. cap. 15. & Alij.
• b 1.55

  Non consistit in fractione, quia non est haec neces∣saria. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 29. pag. 222, 223.
• c 1.56

  Pro sola Con∣secratione facit om∣nis nostra superior Explicatio Alan. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 15. And Lessius. Ies. Opus••. var. l. 12. c. 13. Consistit Sacrificium in Con∣secratione—& juxta hunc modum pera∣gitur hoc Sacrificium, non gladio materia. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sed gladio verbi.
• * 1.57

  Quorundam opi∣nio est, non esse de essentia hujus Sacri∣ficij ipsam Consecra∣tionem. Suarez. quosupr. pag. 966. Ioseph. Angles ••lor. Theol. Quaest. 6. Art. 4. Ne{que} Hostiae Consecratio est de ratione Sacrificij, ne{que} sanguinis sumptio: quia in seria sexta majoris Hebd. non sumitur sanguis, sed hostia.
• d 1.58

  Post Consecrationem oblatio vocalis, his verbis, [Memento Dom••ne.]—Alij dicunt esse de essentia. Sed dieo, tam certum esse hanc oblationem non esse de essentia, quam il∣lam alteram Oblationem ante Consecrationem,—I. quia Christus non adhibuit eam in coena. II. Quia non constat Ecclesiam eam semper adhibuisse: nec est de Institutione Christi, sed Ecclesiae. Suarez. Ies. quo sup. p. 964. Non est de essentia, quòd Dominus nec Apostoli in principio eâ usi sunt, nec sit in persona Christi, sed Ministri & Ecclesiae. Bellar. lib. 1 de Missa. cap. ult. §. Quinta Prop.
• e 1.59

  Oblatio praecedens Con∣secrationem non pertinet ad essentiam: nec oblatio quae consequitur. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 27. §. Quar∣ta, & Quinta.
• f 1.60

  Immersio in calice—Hanc tenuit Canus. Sed constat Christum, per illam actionem non sacrificari. Suarez quo sup.
• g 1.61

  Consumptio utrius{que} speciei per o•• Sacerdotis, quatenus est immolatio victimae [ 40] oblatae. Bellar. quo sup.
• h 1.62

  Consumptio non videtur pertinere ad Essentiam, quia Scriptura discernit inter Sa∣crificium & participationem ipsius. 1. Cor. 10 Nonne qui edunt hostia•• participes sunt Al••aris? Salmer. Tom. 9. Tract. 29. p. 233.
• i 1.63

  Non in Consumptione, quia aliud est Immolare, aliud de Immolatis participare, & rati∣onem potiùs habet Sacramenti quàm Sacrificij.—Et frequenter reservatas ad populi communionem, non esse perfectè sacrificatas, vel saltem tum, quando conc••luntur à populo sacrificari. Alan. l. 2. de Euch. c. 17.
• k 1.64

  Sua∣rez. Sumptionem Sacerdotalem non esse de essentia, tenent Thomas, Bonaventura, Major, & ex modernis Alan, Cassalius, Catharinus, Palacius, Turrian, In 3. Thom Disp 75. §. 5. And Suarez himselfe: Sola Consecratio esst sufficiens, ut in qua tota essentia constat. Ibid. {fleur-de-lys} Aegid. Conincks Ies. de Sacram. qu. 83. art. 1. num. 90. Con∣sumptio Hostiae facta non est pars essentialis Sacrificij—quia Sacerdos in Ordinatione nullam talem pote∣statem directam accipit,—quia consumendo nihil Deo offerimus. Num. 92 {fleur-de-lys}
• 6 1.65

  Vasquez Ies. in 3 Th••••. qu•••• 83. 〈…〉〈…〉 Immolandi Opinio prima corum, qui vo∣lu•••• consiste•• in ob∣latione—qui non dicunt eam in Con∣secratione esse 〈◊〉〈◊〉, q••••a haec tan∣•••••• praeparatio ad ••••••••ficium.—At non in oblatione, ••••st Consecrationē;—〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christus non potest affirmari, tum se obtulisse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cap. 2. Opinio secunda, In fractione.—At fractio ante Conse∣crationem non perti∣net ad Sacrificium post: per Christum 〈…〉〈…〉 3. Op••n 3. Con∣tump••ione facta à Sa∣cerdo••e. Et 〈◊〉〈◊〉 non minus istud consu∣munt, quam Sacer∣dotes. Cap. 4.—Et sequeretur tunc hoc Sacrificium fieri non in Altari, sed in Stomacho Sacerdotis domi, fort••ssis ad mensam. Cap. 5. Op. 4. In sola Consecratione tota Sacrificij estentia est posita—non unius solù sed utriusque spe∣ciei Cap. 6. Sed eorum, qui hanc Opinionem sequuntur, Alij aliter ea explicant Expl. 1. Quatenùs mutatur pa∣nts in caruem—At ita Corpus non esset jam sacrific•• tum, sed sacrificandum—Contra Explic. 2. quasi si 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in ovem converteretur, verè sacrificium esse••. Explic. 3. Ideò, quia Panis mutatio fit in corpus Christi. At contra, sic non tam Christus quam panis Sacrificium erit, Quod est Absurdum. Explic. 4 Quia ex••re profana 〈◊〉〈◊〉. sacra. Contra, sic Calicis Consecratio erit Sácrificium. Tandem in Cap. 7. Eatenus solùm in Consecratione esse posicam estentiam Sacrificij, quatenus Sacrificium Crucis in ea repraesentatur cùm verâ Christi praesentiâ ibi contenti, testimonijs Patrum ostenditur.
• k 1.66

  Tota Essentia Sacrificij pendet ex Institutione Christi. Suarez & Salmeron supra.
• l 1.67

  Non est in po∣testate Ecclesiae in∣stituere Sacrificium. Salmeron Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 28. pag. 2••9. Idem alibi, vide sup. at (h)
• m 1.68

  Quidam Bi∣tontinus Episcopus in Conc. Trid. (ut Ca∣nus & alij referunt) tentavit defendere, Christum in nocte Coe••ae non obtulisse Sacrificium. Suarez quo supra Disp. 74. Sect. 2. pag. 949.
• a 1.69

  Baronius in An. 44. num. 83. Mi∣nistrantibus, Graecè est, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 id est, Sacrificanti∣bus. Bellarmin. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 13. Hac voce Sacrifici∣um probatur, quia non significat publi∣cum munus, quia non potest significare mi∣nisterium Verbi, aut Sacramentorum, quia haec non exhibentur Deo; at hic mini∣strantibus & Domi∣no; & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cum ad sacra accom∣modatur & absolutè ponitur in Scripturis semper accipitur pro ministerio Sacrificij. Vt Luc. 1. de Zacha∣ria. Et Claudius de Sanctes praef. in missas Graecorum.
• b 1.70

  Casaubon Ex••er∣citat. 16. cap. 41. Vo∣cem hanc 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 usus Ecclesiae aptavit ministerio & cultui Dei publico, sed diversimodè. Apud Dionysium Areop, Diaconi dicun∣tur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: in patrum libris fit mentio Liturgiae matutinae & vespert••ae••: & in Actis Concilij Ephes notat Balsamon Liturgiam constare sola oratione sine ulla Sacramentorum administratione, peculiariter interdum ad celebrationem Eucharistiae, cujus Partes duae sunt, Recitatio Scripturarum, & Administratio Coenae. Iustiniani novella 7. Quod Bellarminus ait, quoties haec vox ad sacra accommodarur, & absolute ponitur, pro ministerio sacrificij sumitur, insignis est error, nam in exemplo quod subjungit Luc. 1. 23 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non est Sacrificium, sed vox generalis omnia ministeria Sacerdotalia & Levitica complectitur. Zachariae autem, ut Lucas ait, con∣tigerat sors suffitus offerendi, non autem sacrificandi—Nec minus errat, quod scilicet vix aliter hanc vo∣cem à Patribus accipi, quàm pro ministerio sacrificij, quae observatio quàm sit aliena, satis ex dictis constat.
• 1 1.71

  Chrysost. in Act: 13. Hom. 27. Quid est [Ministran∣tibus?]—Praedi∣cantibus.
• a 1.72

  Postremum Argumentū ex Scri••∣turis habetur, 1. Cor. 10. Vbi primò men∣sa Domini compara∣tur cum Altari Gen∣tilium. Ergo, Mensa Domini est quod∣dam Altare, & pro∣inde Eucharistia Sa∣crificium. ••. Ita vult Sacrificium Deo ob∣••••tum in Eucharistia, sicut sunt Sacrificia à Iudaeis Deo, vel à Gentilibus Daemo∣nibus suis oblata. 3. Dece••••ita mandu∣cantem Eucharistiam participem esse. Alta∣ris Dominici, ut manducans Idolo∣thyta particeps erat Altaris Idolorum, per Sacrificia. Ergo Eucharistia est Sacri∣ficium. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 14.
• 2 1.73

  Conc. Trident. Sess. 22. cap. 1. Quam oblationem non ob∣scurè innuit Aposto∣lus Paulus Corinthi∣is scribens, cum di∣cit: non posse eos, qui participatione mensae Daemonio∣rum polluti sunt, mensae Domini par∣ticipes fieri: per mensam, Altare u∣trobique intelligens.
• * 1.74

  Aenaeid. 8. post Sacrificium Ae∣naeas invitatus est ad Epulas.
• * 1.75

  Chap. 5. Sect. 15.
• b 1.76

  Aquinas. Non potestis Cali∣cem Domini bibere & Daemoniorum si∣mul.] Quoad sacra∣mentum fanguinis, Non potestis mensae Domini participes es∣se: quoad Sacramen∣tum corporis, & mē∣sae Daemoniorum. In 1. Cor. ••0.
• * 1.77

  See above Booke 5 Chap. 8 Sect. ••. at the letter (••).
• 1 1.78

  {fleur-de-lys} Others have beene alleged for this Exposition, viz. Io∣sephus and Cajetan in Gen. 14. & some Fa∣thers, who in the very phrase of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and, obtulit, said that it was offered to Abraham. Epiphan. Hom. 55. August. in Quaest. utriusque Te∣stam. Tom. 4. Am∣bros. de Sacram. lib. 4. Cap. 3. Tertull. adversus Iudaeos Cap. 3. But [obtulit ei] which was to Abraham, in the proper acception of Sacrificing, had beene Sacrilegious, as you very well know. {fleur-de-lys}
• * 1.79

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6.
• a 1.80

  Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. ex Ambrosio. Panem & Vinum obtulit. De Sacram. lib. 5. cap. 1. Quod toto orbe ce∣lebratur. lib. 4. de Sa∣cram. cap. 4. & 6. Au∣gust. lib. 17. de Civit. Dei, cap. 17. & alibi. Primum apparuit Sa∣crificium, quod nunc offertur Deo toto or∣be terrarum, quod protulit Melchise∣dech. Et Epist. 95. ad Innocent. Prolato Sacramento mensae Dominicae. Chry∣sost. Hom. 36. in Gen. Panem & Vi∣num attulit. Primas. in cap. 5. ad Heb. Pa∣nem offerens Deo, non lauta animalia. Similiter. Cassiod. in Psal. 109. & Oecum. in 5. ad Heb. Theo∣phyl. in 5. ad Hebr. Hic solus Melchise∣dech, in morem illi∣us, Pane & Vino sacrificabat. Rabbi Samuel, Sacrificans Panem, & Vinum sacrificans. Rabbi Phinëes, Tempore Messiae omnia Sacri∣ficia cessabunt, sed Sacrificium Panis & Vini non cessabit. Haec Bell. loco supra citato. M. Brereley citeth August. de Ci∣vit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 19. Visibile Sacrifi∣cium. In his Liturgie, Tract. 3.
• * 1.81

  See hereafter Chap. 5. Sect. 1.
• b 1.82

  Isidor. Victimas jam, non qua∣les Iudaei, sed quales Melchisedech offerunt credentes: id est, Panem & Vinum. id est, Corporis & Sangui∣nis Sacramentum. Lib. de Vocat. Gent. cap. 26.
• c 1.83

  Hiero. Epist. ad Evag. Pane & Vino simplice, puro{que} Sacrificio Christo dedicaverit Sacramentum.
• 2 1.84

  Aug. contr. Advers. Leg. & Proph. lib. 3. cap. 20. Tom. 6. Noverunt, qui legunt, quid protulit Melchizedech, quando benedixit Abraham: & jam hic participes e∣jus vident tale Sacrificium nunc offerri Deo toto orbe terrarum. Idem de fide ad Petrum cap. 19. Tom. 3. Sa∣crificium Panis & Vini Ecclesia per universum orbem nunc offerre non cessat. Et Tom. 4. Quaest. 83. & quaest. 61. Christus obtulit holocaustum pro peccatis nostris, & ejus Sacrificij similitudinem celebrandam in suae pas∣sionis memoriam commendavit, ut illud quod Melchizedech obtulit Deo, jam per totum orbem terrarum in Christi Ecclesia videamus offerri.
• d 1.85

  Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 3 ad Cecil. Christus idem obtu∣lit quod Melchise∣dech Panem & Vi∣num, se. suum Cor∣pus & Sanguinem. Euseb. Caesar. lib. 5. Demonst••. cap 3. Sa∣cerdotes Vino & Pa∣ne, & Corporis & Sanguinis ejus my∣steria repraerentant, quae 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mysteria Melchisedech tanto ante Spiritu divino cognoverat. Hieron. Ep•••• ad Marcel. Mel∣chisedech in Typo Christi Panem & Vi∣num obtulit, & My∣sterium Christianum in Salvatoris Sangui∣ne & Corpore dedi∣cavit Et Quaest. in Genes. Melchisedech oblato Pane & Vi∣no, i.e. Corpore & Sanguine Domini. Iesu. Eucher. Lugdun lib. 2 cap. 18. in Gen. Vt oblationem Pa∣nis & Vini, i.e Cor∣poris & Sanguinis e∣jus Sacramentum in Sacrificiū offeramus. Primasius. Christus instar illius [Mel∣chiz.] offerens Pa∣nem & Vinu••, Car∣nem viz. & Sangui∣nem suum. Haec Bel∣larm. lib. 1 de Missa, cap. 6.
• 3 1.86

  Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. Theod. in Psal. 109. Inveni∣mus Melchisedech offerentem Deo Sa∣crificia non ratione carentia, sed Panem & Vinum. Arnobi∣us in Psalm. 109. Christus per mysteri∣um Panis & Vini, factus est Sacerdos in aeternum. Eusebius Emissenus de Pascha∣te. Melchisedech in oblatione Panis & Vini, hoc nimirum quod in Eucharistia celebratur, Christi Sacrificium figuravit. Cassiodorus in Psalm. 109 Quem ordinem (inquit) Melchise∣dech per mysticam similitudinem institu∣it, quando Panis & Vini fructus obtulit. Remigius & Euthy∣mius non dissimi∣lia scribunt. As they are cited by Bellar∣mine.
• * 1.87

  See this Trea∣tise of the Masse, Booke 6. Chap. 5. §. 1
• a 1.88

  Bellar. Non videtur posse negari, &c. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. § Accedit.
• b 1.89

  Ribera Ies. Id non ideò dixerat, quod sermonem illū tracere vellet, erat e∣nim id, id quod in hac Epistol•• agit, valdè accommoda∣tum, sed ut magis il∣los excitatet studio audiendi, & intenti∣ores redderet—Non desperat Paulus quae scripturus est posse ab illis percipi, si animū attendant, aut certè à nonnullis eorum, qui eruditio∣res erant, per quos caeteri etiam paula∣tim intelligerent. Cā. in Heb. 6. num. 1. Where also hee hath these words: Cum illorum & imbecilli∣tatem & tarditatem accusat, idcirco facit, ut pudore ad melius intelligenda incitarentur: [Missa nunc faciamus rudimenta, & ad perfectionem seramur.] H••c est, Date operam ut mecum intelligatis, quae perfectis dici solent.
• 4 1.90

  Iac. Gordon. Scot Ies. Contro∣vers. Contr. 9. Cap. 3. num. 1. Melchisedech non solùm erat typus Christi, sed etiam Christus ipse fuit ve∣rè Sacerdos secun∣d••u ordinem Mel∣chisedech, non se∣cunduùm ordinem A∣aron. Neces••e igitur est ut Christus, prae∣ter illud cruentum sacrificium, quod in cruce obtulit, obtule rit etiam incru••••••••m Panis & Vini in ipsa ultima coena; alio∣qui non fuisset Sacer∣dos secundùm ordi∣nem Melchisedech.
• a 1.91

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. ex Epiphanio. Sacrifici∣um crucis peractum est, ergo aliud Sacrificium esse opportet, quod jugiter offeratur—Igitur necesse est in Ecclesia veram Sacrifi∣candi actionem admittere, quae Christo summo Sacerdoti per Ministros suos tribuatur, qualis actio nulla erit, si Missae Sacrificium auferutur. Ibid §. Est etiam. Ad aeternum Christi Sacerdotium necesse est ut Christus saepiùs offerat per se, vel per suos Ministros, jam quidem cruentè, &c. Ibid §. Respondeo quod—Sacerdos verè & propriè non est, qui Sacrificium proprium offerre non potest. Ibid. §. Respondeo autem. Propriè ta∣men non dicitur Sacrificium aeternum, quod semel factum est, nec dicitur aeternum Sacerdotium cum non ju∣giter sacrificatur. Ibid. §. Secunda Causa.
• b 1.92

  Concil. Tri∣dent. Sess. 22. Ca. 1. Christus Sacerdos se∣cund•• ordinē Mel∣chisedech; & si se∣mel obtulic in cruce, ut aeternam redemp∣tionem operaretur: quia tamen per mor∣tem ejus Sacerdoti∣um estinguendum non erat &c
• c 1.93

  Novi Testamenti ministerium jam unde à Melchisedech petitum, jam & Christus volu∣it secundum ejus ordinem dici Sacerdos, & Presbyteri sunt Minist•••• Christi, i.e. ejus, qui 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sacerdos se∣cundùm ordinem Melchisedech. Sand. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Monarch. lib. 1. pag 20 §. Quae 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.94

  Hebr. 7. 2.
• * 1.95

  Rom. 3. 26.
• a 1.96

  Mutatum Sa∣cerdotiu•••• de Sacer∣dotali an Regalem, ut eadem ipsa sit Re∣galis & Sacerdotalis. Chrysost. in Heb. 7. Hom. 13 Fuit in Melchisedech singu∣laris dignitas, quod Sacerdotium admi∣nistrabatur per Re∣gem. Tes••e Greg. Valent. l. 1. de Missa. cap. 4.
• a 1.97

  Bellar. Reg∣num spirituale Chri∣sto proprium:—item Regnum divi∣num universale, rati∣one Hypostaticae V∣nionis; item gloriae in Beatitudine. Tē∣porale terrenū Chri∣sto conveniebat. Lib. Recog. pag. 28.
• b 1.98

  Victor, Pa∣cis perturbator. Ire¦naeus apud Euseb. hist. lib 5 cap. 24.
• c 1.99

  Non tantùm contra Barbaros, sed etiam ejusdem pa∣triae, sanguinis, & fi∣dei principes Domini nostri Dei pacis mi∣nus pacifici Vicarij. Espenc. in 1. Tim. di∣gress. lib. 2. cap 6 pag. 273.
• d 1.100

  Leodiens. E∣pist. ad Paulum 2. de Greg. Septimo; No∣vello schismate Reg¦num & Sacerdotium scindebat. Teste E∣spencaeo quo supra.
• e 1.101

  Non secun∣dùm c••dinē Aaron, cujus Sacerdotiū per propaginem sui se∣minis in ministerio temporali fuit, & cum Veteris Testa∣menti Lege cessavit: sed secundùm ordi∣nem Melchisedech, in quo aeterni Pon∣tificis forma praeces∣sit. Leo papa Serm. 2. in Annivers. die Assumpt. ad Pontif.
• f 1.102

  Nunc sanè non amplius semen secun∣dùm successionem eligitur, sed forma juxta virtutem quaeritur. Epiphan. cont. Haeres. 55.
• g 1.103

  Salmeron. Ies. Nos in Christo Sacerdotes sumus tanquam Vicarij—Satis est nobis illum Principem semper vivere. Com. in Heb. cap. 10. Disp 19.
• h 1.104

  Ribera. Suc∣cessor quidem Chri∣sto Petrus, & reli∣qui post eum Ponti∣fices in officio guber∣nandi Ecclesiam, & p••scendi oves Chri∣sti Verbo praedicati∣nis, & Sacramento∣rum administratio∣ne. At non successit in officio redemptio∣nis, & Pontificis per se Deum ir••t••m pla∣cantis,—in quo non sunt Successores, sed Ministri Christi. In Heb. 10. num. 8.
• * 1.105

  Heb 7. 23.
• i 1.106

  Platin•••• in Vi∣tis Sergij 3. Formosi, ••tephani, Christopho∣ri.
• 5 1.107

  Athanas. con. Arian. Orat. 3. pag. 380. Aaroni quidem Successores dati, & omninò legale Sa∣cerdotium mortis & temporis progressu a∣lios atque alios Sa∣cerdotes accepit: Do∣minus autem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 6 1.108

  Theod. in Heb. 7. Quemadmodum non habuerit Mel∣chisedech Successo∣res, ità nec hic ipsum ad alios transmittit.—Item. Qui ex le∣ge Sacerdotes sunt, quia mo••talem ha∣bent naturam, eâ de Causâ habent filios Successores: hic au∣tem quia immortalis non transmitur ad a∣lium munus Sacerdo∣••••j.
• 7 1.109

  Chrysost. in Hebr. 7. Hom 13. Quia semper vivit, non habet Successorem. Ostendit novum Testamentum praestantius esse Veteri, inductâ comparatione de Sacerdotibus: quod illud quidem homines habuit Sacerdotes: hoc autem Christum.
• * 1.110

  Heb. 7. 26.
• * 1.111

  1. Iohn 1. 8.
• k 1.112

  Lambard. de Ordinat. Presb. Ac∣cipiunt etiam calicem cum vino, & patinam cum Hostijs, ut sciant se accepisse potesta∣tem placabiles Deo hostias offerendi Hic ordo à filijs Aaron sumpsit initium, &c. Lib. 4. Distinct. 24. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I.
• l 1.113

  Pet. Lom∣bardus collegit sen∣tentias Theologo∣orum, & Magister Theologotum scho∣lasticorum dici me∣ruit. Lib. de Script. Eccles. Tit. Petrus Lombardus.
• a 1.114

  Bellar. Cru∣cis Sacrificium non est perpetuum, sed effectum ejus—nec dicitur aeternū quod non jugiter sacrifica∣tur—non in cae∣lis jam Sacerdos per solam orationē, nec mediante oblatione Victimae, quià tun. necesse est eum sem∣per offerre:—Ergo Eucharistia & Sacri∣ficium quod jugiter offertur—Ob∣latio in coelis non est propriè dictum Sacri∣ficium—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 Eucharistia. Bell. ibid c. 25. § Quod autem. And, Sacrificium c••••cis, respectu Christianorum. ••b. c. 20. And, Per Ministros suos perpetuò sacri∣ficat seipsum in Eucharistia: hoc enim solummodo perpetuum habet Sacerdotium. Bellar. ibid. cap. eod. ad finem.
• b 1.115

  Alan. Chri∣stus in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 coelo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 aliquid Sacerdotal•• facit. nisi respectu nostri Sacramenti, quod ipse per nostrū ministerium efficit continuò & offert. Lib. 2. •• Euchar. ca. 8 §. Reliqua.
• c 1.116

  Rhemists. Christ his Priest∣hood consisteth in the perpetuall offring of Christ his Body and Blood in the Church. Annot. in Heb. 7. 17.
• d 1.117

  Ribera. Ies. in his Comment upon the places. alleged, Chap. 7. 23. Chap. 8. 2. & 3. Chap. 9. 23. His Book is familitar with you, where you may peruse the places.
• 8 1.118

  Vasquez. Ies. in 3. Thom Disp. 225. c. 2. Nullus quic em ex Doctoribus, quos recentiores Theolo∣gi pro hac sententia allegarunt, praeter nostrum Bellarminum, qui expressè asserit Christum esse principalem offerentem in hoc Sa∣cramento—Dicunt Patres Cyprian. Ambros. & alij, Nos Sacrificia offerre vice Christi—Signifi∣tant nos esse Christi Ministros in hoc Sacrificio, non quod Christus hoc Sacramentum offerat—Vt Christus verè dicatur Sacerdos secundùm ordinem Melchisedech, non indiget Sacrificio usque ad finem mundi, siquidem post mundi finem remanebit Sacerdos, & tamen nullum propriè dictum sactificum ha∣bebit.
• 9 1.119

  Estius Ies. Com. in Heb. cap. 7. vers. 17. Ex quibus omnibus intelligitur, Christum vocari Sa∣cerdotem in Aeter∣num ratione Perso∣nae, ratione Officij, & ratione Effectus. Personae quidem ra∣tione, quoniam nul∣lus ei Successurus. Officij ratione, quià semper in coelis in∣terpellat pro nobis, quod est Sacerdotis Officium. Nec ca∣ret hoc Sacrificium sua oblatione, qulà seipsum hominem, & vulnerum signa, quae passus est, exhibet, & offert Patri pro salu∣te Electorum. De∣nique ratione Effe∣ctus, quià per Sacri∣ficium pro nobis ob∣latum factus est no∣bis Causa redempti∣onis & salutis aeter∣nae.
• e 1.120

  Ribera Ies. Thomas Expositio∣nem alteram prae∣fert, nempè per [Coe∣lestia] appellari ip∣sum coelum, cujus ••i∣gura erat tabernacu∣lum. Et emundari di∣citur, quia homines per Christum emun∣dati sunt, qui in illud ingredientur. Thomam sequutus est Lyranus.—Mihi etsi Emundatio ista non placet, placet tamen [Coelestia] appellari coelum ipsum, quià ita Vocabulum propriè accipitur. Et cogit quod sequitur, [Non enim in manufacta sancta Iesus est ingressus, sed in exemplaria verorum:] nempè, Coeli, quod cap. 8. dicitur Tabernaculum verum, quod Deus fixit & non homo. Etiam coelum polluebatur ab hominibus. In eum locum.
• f 1.121

  Aquinas. [Melioribus hostijs] Id est, meliori sanguine. Ob. Illa erat, una hostia. Resp. Licet non sit in se, tamen pluribus hostijs veteris Legis ••igurabatur. In Heb. 9. [〈◊〉〈◊〉, that the Apostle used the Plurall number, because he was now in Speech of Multitudes of Sacrifices.]
• a 1.122

  Theod. in Psal. 109. Sacerdos nunc est Christus, non ip∣se aliquid offerens, sed vocatur Caput Offerentium, quan∣doquidèm corpus su∣um Ecclesiam voca••. Objected by Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6.
• b 1.123

  His words im∣mediately following are these: Et prop∣terea Sacerdotio fu••∣gitur ut homo: reci∣pit autem ea quae of∣feruntur ut Deus. Offert autem Eccle∣sia Corporis & ejus sanguinis symbola. So Theod.
• c 1.124

  Ambros. Nunc Christus offertur, hî•• in Imagine, ibi in ve∣ritate, ubi apud Pa∣trem Advocatus pro Nobis. Lib. 1 de offic. cap. 48. sub finem.
• d 1.125

  Aug. in Psal. 94. Imponimus in a∣••a Sacrificium, quan∣do Deum laudamus•• at verò Sacerdotem si requiras, super coelos est, inter pellat pro te, qui in terris mor∣tuus est pro te.
• f 1.126

  Aug. lib. 20. de Civit. cap. 10. Epis∣copi & Presbyteri (inquit) sunt propriè Sacerdotes. Bellarm. obijcit. lib. 1. de Missa, cap 17. Sed erunt omnes Sacerdotes Dei & Christi, & regnabunt cum eo mille annis. Apoc. 20. Non utique de solis Episcopis & Presbyteris dictum, qui propriè jam Vocantur Sacerdotes: sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus, propter mysticum Chrisma: sic omnes Sacerdotes, quoniam membra sunt unius illius Sacerdotis.
• * 1.127

  Duplex Sacerdotium, alterum Inte∣rius, omnium fidelium, qui aquâ salutari abluti sunt, Apoc. 1. 16.—alterum Exterius tantùm eorum, qui externo Sacramento ordinis ad aliquod proprium sacrumque ministerium ascribuntur. Catechis. Rom. par. 2. de Ordine, num. 22.
• g 1.128

  Aug. ibid. in Apoc. 20. 6. [Sed erunt Sacerdotes Christi, & regnabunt cum Eo, &c.] Non utique de solis Episcopis aut Presbyteris dictum est, qui propriê jam vocantur in Ecclesia Sacerdo∣tes: sed sicut omnes Christianos dicimus propter mysticum Chrisma, sic omnes Sacerdotes, quià membra unius Sacerdotis, &c. [For there is a double Reason of naming Christians Priests; one is in generall, because of their offering up spirituall Sacrifices of prayers and Praises to God, 1 Pet. 2. 5. And another is in speciall, by publike Fun∣ction, commending the same spirituall Sacrifices, in publike Service, in the name of the Church. •• And so, according to the same libertie of terming them properly Priests, wherewith before (as you have heard) in comparing Almes with the Iewish Sacrifice, he called Almes the true Sacrifice, and the other but The signe of it; notwithstanding the bodily Sacrifice of the Iewes was, in proprietie of Speech, The true Sacrifice, and the other but Analogicall.]
• h 1.129

  Rhemists in their Annot. upon the Place: and M. Bre∣erly in his Booke of the Liturgie Tract. 3. Sect. 3. Subd. 4.
• i 1.130

  Aquinas. I∣stud altare vel est crux Christi, in quâ Christus immolatus est, vel ipse Christus in quo, & per quem prèces nostras offe∣rimus: & hoc est Altare aureum, de quo Apoc. 8. Com. in hunc locum.
• k 1.131

  Antididag. Coloniens. de Missae Sacrificio. §. Post∣hac—[Habemùs Altare] Heb. 13. & Apoc. 8. [Aureum altare,] in quo, & per quod omnes Christiani universa Sacrificia spiritualia fidei, devotionis, gra∣tiatum actionis, spei, & charitatis Deo Patri debent offerre.—Atque ità sit, ut Christus sit alta∣re, Sacerdos, & Sa∣crificium. August. lib. 10. de Trinitate:
• l 1.132

  Bellarm. Quia non desunt ex Catholicis, qui interpretantur hunc locum vel de Cruce, vel de Christo ipso, non urgeo eum. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 14.
• * 1.133

  See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 15.
• 10 1.134

  Estius Comment. in 13. ad Hebr. [Habemus Altate.] Thomas Altare hoc interpretatur Crucem Christi, vel ipsum Christum, de quo edere, inquit, est fructum passionis percipere, & ipsi tanquam Capiti incorpocari. Crucem Christi pro∣prie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est. Vnde Ecclesia vocat Aram Crucis—Arbitror Expositionem Thomae magis esse germanam, quam innuit Apostolous, cum paulo post dicit [Iesum extra portam passum esse,] i.e. in ara Crucis oblatum. Vt taceam, quod toties in hac Epistola, atque ex instituto per Antithesim comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernaculo, cum Christo seipsum offerente in Cruce.—Sanè cum nullam facere voluerit mentionem Sacrificij incruenti novae legis, non multum verisimile est, eum nunc ali∣ud agentem, velut ex abrupto voluisse de Sacrificio incruento sermonem jungere; Sed potius cruenti in cruce oblati memoriam ex antedictis renovare.—Huc pertinet quod Corpus Christi in Cruce oblatum, Pa∣nis vocatur, fide manducandus. Vt Ioh. 6. Pan••s quem ego dabo.
• m 1.135

  Origen. I••∣junans debes adire Pontificem tu•••• Christum, qul utique non in terris quaeren∣dus est, sed in coelis: Et per ipsum debes offerre Hostiam Deo. In Levit. Cap. 16. Homil. 10.
• n 1.136

  Gregor. Na∣zianzen. Si ab his Al∣taribus me arcebunt, at aliud habeo, cu∣jus figurae sunt ea, quae nec oculis cer∣mmus, super quod nec ascia, nec manus ascendat, nec ullum Artificum instrumē∣tum auditum est: sed mentis totum hoc opus est, huic∣que per contempla∣tionem astabo, in hoc gratū immolabo Sa∣crificiū, oblationes & Holocausta, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] tantò praestantiora, quantò Veritas um∣brâ. Orat. 28. pag. 4••4.
• o 1.137

  Chrysostom. in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. Illud sanè tre∣mendum Sacrifici∣um, ut cum concordia ad illud accedamus, ut Aquilae facti ad ipsum coelum evolemus: ubi enim cadaver, ibi aquilae. Cadaver Domini corpus, propter mortem: Aquilas autem non oportet ad inseriora trahi aut repere, sed ad superiora volare, & Solem Iustitiae intueri oculo mentis acutissimo. Aquilarum enim haec mensa est, non Graculorum.
• p 1.138

  Aug. advers. Iudaeos, ca. 9. Nam & Aaron & Sacerdotium jam nullum est in aliquo tem∣plo, & Christi Sacerdotium est aeternum in coelo.
• q 1.139

  Oecumen. in Heb. 10. super haec verba, [Cum certitu∣dine ••idei.] Cum deinceps nihil visible supersit, ne{que} Templum, hoc est coelum; ne{que} Pontifex, id est, Christus; ne{que} Hostia, quae Corpus illius est, fido deinceps opus est.
• r 1.140

  Ambros. in Heb. 10. Cum ••iducio, nit Aposto∣lus: nihil enim hic visible, neque Sacerdos, neque Sacrificium, neque Altare.
• f 1.141

  Canus loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. Oblatio, quam Chri∣stus in coelis incruen∣tum fecit. pag. 421.
• 11 1.142

  Chrysost. in Hebr. Hom. 11. in Moral. Quantum est inter Aaron & Chri∣stum, tantum est in∣ter Iudaeos & nos: quippe nos habemus Sacrarium in Coelis, Sacerdotem in coe∣lis, & hostiam, &c. Talia igitur nos of∣feramus Sacrificia, quae in illo Sanctuario possunt offerri. And then explaining what they were, viz. Sacrifi∣cium laudis, justitiae, Spiritus contribulati; haec sacrificia offeramus.
• 12 1.143

  Hierom. in Epist. ad Hebdeb. quaest. 2. Ascendamus igitur cum Domino coenaculum magnum stratum, & accipiamus ab eo sursum Calicem novi Testamenti, ibique cum eo Pascha celebremus, inebriantes inebriemur ab eo Vino Sobrietatis.
• * 1.144

  See above Chap. 3. Sect. 9.
• a 1.145

  Barradas. Quod singulis diebus Christus offert in∣currentè. Hoc judge Sa∣crificium est Eccle∣siae. Tom. 4. lib. 3. cap. 15. Salmer. Ef∣fusio sanguinis semel facta semper prodest, modo jugiter offeratur. In Heb. 10. Disp. 19. Beccanus. Iuge Sacri∣ficium Veteris Testamenti fuit figura Missae in novo, ratione determinationis temporis: sicut ille offerreba∣tur mane & vespere, ita Christus à principio mundi usque ad finem. Apoc. 13. Agnus occisus—Lib. de a∣nalog. utriusque Testam. cap. 13. num. 14.
• b 1.146

  Irenaeus. Nos quoque victimas of∣ferre ad altare fre∣quenter. Est ergò Altare in coelis, il∣luc etiam preces no∣strae & orationes di∣rigendae; & tem∣plum—ut ex A∣poc. apertum est. Li. 4. cap. 34.
• c 1.147

  Greg. Sine intermissione pro nobis Holocaustum Redemptor immo∣lat, qui sine cessati∣one Patri suam pro nobis incarnationem demonstrat. Moral. lib 1. cap. 24. in Iob.
• d 1.148

  Coster. En∣chirid. contro. cap. 9. Solut. ad Object. 1. ex Ambros. Sicut in coelis Christus corpus suum, olim in cruce vulne∣ratum, & occisum, tanquam juge Sacrificium paternis oculis perpetuò pro nobis exhibet: ità hîc in terris per Ministerium Sacerdotum idem Corpus in specie mortur & exanguis offert. [That is objectively; for it is the Bloo∣dy Body, that is presented by us in the Eucharist.]
• * 1.149

  See hereafter Book 7. Cha. 5. Sect. 5.
• * 1.150

  In the two former Sections.
• 13 1.151

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, Cap. 6. Quod si Sacerdo∣tium Christi durat usque ad consum∣mationem mundi (id enim Scriptura aeter∣num vocat) certè Sa∣crificij ritus durate debet—at Sa∣crificium Crucis se∣mel tantùm peractū est, nec repeti potest, ergò aliud esse debet quod jugiter offera∣tur. Et post aliquot paginas Quod ad ae∣ternum Christi Sa∣cerdotium attinet, necesse est ut saepius offerat, vel per se, vel per Ministros, vel per Ministros, non quidem cruentè, sed aliquo alio mo∣do. Idem Paulus do∣cet, cum dicit: Om∣nis Pontifex ad of∣ferendū hostias con∣stituitur—nec dicitur aeternum Sacerdotium, quod non jugiter Sacrificatur: nec sufficit aeternum quoad effe∣ctum. So he, [His other Reasons have been alleged in the former Sections.]
• 14 1.152

  Vasquez. Ies. in 5. Thom. Disp. 85. cap. 1 num. 1. Thomas non al••o modo explicuit per∣petuitatem Sacerdo∣tij quàm ratione ef∣fectus, nempe Re∣demptionis nostrae, qui est permansurus in aeternum. Post.—Quod autem dicunt praedicti The∣ologi, non posse esse aeternum Sacerdoti∣um, quod non habet Iuge Sacrificium, fal∣sum est, ostendemus enim mansurum Sa∣cerdotium sine ullo Sacrificio. Num. 5.—Modus, quo recen∣tiores expliant ae∣ternitatem Sacrificij, mihi nunquàm pla∣cuit, atque non so∣lium Scriptura, sed e∣tiam manifestâ rati∣one refelli potest: in primis autem ex illo ad Hebr. 7. ubi Paulus de Christo, [Hic autem eo quod maneat in aeternum, perpetuum habet Sa∣cerdotium] vers. 24. Vnde Chrysostom. Homil. 13. Sacerdotium verè esse sine fine, eo quòd Christus manet immortalis in aeternum—Pontifex, sicut alij multi quia mortales, ita hic unus quia immortalis. Eadem verba habet Ambrosius in eum locum—Clariùs Theophylactus. Videas quemadmodum legis Sacerdotes hic praestat, quantum quod mortale est im∣mortale—praedicti Patres exponunt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 utroque modo in commutabile & successione carens. Post. cap. 2. Sacerdotium Christi aeternum dici, quia Vnio naturae humanae cum verbo in sempiternum dura∣bit—Est omne Sacerdotium non quidem nudum ministerium, sed etiam potestas Sacrificij offerendi: nam et qui dormit Sacerdos esse potest. Num. 27. Illud Ob. Apostoli [Omnis Pontifex ad offerendum mu∣nera & hostias] quod quidem non videtur ad aliud referri posse, quam ad Missae Sacrificium, ut diximus, & ita adhuc in Coelis aliquid esse quod offerat. Resp. Verùm Graeci omnes Patres in cum locum, & ex Latinis Am∣brosius & Anselmus, non de Sacrificio incruento, sed de cruento, quod in Cruce oblatum est intelligunt—Quare ad Ob. Resp. Satis esse Christo unum assignare Sacrificium cruentum, hoc ipso quod est Sacerdos, quia ad hunc finem facta est Vnio—neque opus est aliquid denuo offerre—quod autem offertur in Missa per Ministros se offerat incruento modo, non ideò est quod indigeat hac functione, ut permaneat Sacerdos, sed ut meritum universale Sacrificij cruenti applicetur—Num. 35. Disp. 86. Ex Patribus, quos nos contra Haere∣ticos supra adduximus, nullus est qui asserat, ex eo solum dici Christum Sacerdotem secundùm ordinem Mechil∣sedech, quòd in coena Sacrificium Corporis sub speciebus Panis & Vini obulit.—Num. 38. Si attente con∣sideremus modum loquendi Scripturae, nunquam inveniemus dictum Sacrificium Christi, vel secundùm ordi∣nem Melchisedech, vel secundùm ordinem Aaron, quod sit in perpetuum Sacerdos—qui una oblatione con∣summavit, &c.
• a 1.153

  Bellarm. Im∣molatio Agni Pas∣chalis potest quidem dici figura Passionis: nam si Agnus ille fu∣it figura Eucharistiae, Eucharistia autem fi∣gura Passionis, quis negat Agnum istum figuram fuisse & Re∣praesentationem Pas∣sionis? Quarè Ioh. 19. Videmus Evan∣gelistam reddere cau∣sam, cur non fuerant crura Christi confra∣cta in Passione, quia scriptum est de Ag∣no Paschali, [Os non comminuetis ex eo.] Tamen magis immediatè & princi∣paliter Ceremonia Agni Paschalis potiùs fuit figura Euchari∣stiae, quam Passionis. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 7. §. Illud.—Quod celebratio Agni Pas∣chalis fuit figura ce∣lebrationis Euchari∣stiae, probatur ex Scripturis, 1. Cor. 5. Pascha nostrum im∣molatus est Chri∣stus: ita{que} epulemur in Azymis Veritatis.—Dicent Adver∣sarij impletum fuisse hoc in Cruce—At constat Apostolos in coena manducasse carnem Christi,—Verum Agnum Pas∣chalem, ad cujus e∣pulum nos hortatur Apostolus. 1. Cor. 5. Epulemur, &c Bel∣larm. ibid. §. Quod igitur, & §. Dicent.
• b 1.154

  Bellar. quo supr•• §. Dicent &c. Dicent Adversarij Apostolum loqui de Immolatione in cruce facta: at nos probabimus ••iguram illam propriè impletam fuisse in coena.
• c 1.155

  Ioh. 13. 1. [Antè diem Paschae sciens Iesus quia venit hora, ut transiret ex hoc mundo ad Patrem.] Hic mortem Transitum vocat.—Allu∣dit ad Pascha, ac si Latinè disceret, Antè diem festum Transitûs, sciens quia venit hora ut transiret ipse: Ipse enim Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus.—Optimus autem terminus, Transitus ejus ex hoc mundo ad Patrem. Tolet. Ies. Com. in cum locum.
• d 1.156

  August. in Psalm. 68. Cum Ve∣nit Dominus ad Sa∣cranientum Sangoi∣nis & Corporis sui, 〈…〉〈…〉 venit, ut 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad Patrem d••mundo.] Q••bus ve••bis express•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Paschae. Teste∣p••rerio Ies. in Exod. cap. 12 Disp. 8.
• e 1.157

  1. Cor. 6. Pascha nostrum im∣molatus est Chri∣stus, orgò epulemur Azymis 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & veritatis! [Aqui∣nas assignat 〈◊〉〈◊〉, quare fideles 〈◊〉〈◊〉 esse Azymi: quae qui∣dem Ratio sumitu•• ex mysterio Passionis••]—Sicut Agnus figuralis i••mola••us est 〈…〉〈…〉 Israel, ut populus li∣beraretur—ità Christus occisus ab Israëlitis, ut populus liberare••••r à servitu∣te Diaboli, Chri∣stus enim per passio∣nem trans••it ex mun∣do ad patrem. Ioh. 13. Haec Aquin. Com. in 1. Cor. 5. And Tollet in his Testimo∣nie before cited. So Becanus Ies.
• f 1.158

  [Pascha no∣strum. 1. Cor. 5.] Nempè per immo∣lationem in cruce, & effusionem san∣guinis illius, libera∣tum est genus huma∣num. Analog. utri∣usque Testam. cap. 13. pag. 313.
• g 1.159

  Impleta e∣rat figura Paschalis, quando verū nostrū Pascha est immola∣tus Christus Iesus, & hos per ejus sangui∣nem liberat••••eramus. I••••sen. Concord. Evang. cap. 13••. pag. 895.
• h 1.160

  Ioh. 19. [Crura non confregerant, ut impleretur quod scriptum est, Os non comminuetis ex eo.] Bellar. quo supra, yet gaine saith with his, Ta∣men, &c. §. Illud.
• i 1.161

  Origen Sacrificium, pro quo haec omnia Sacrificia in typo & figura praecesserunt, unum & perfectum immolatus est Christus. Hujus Sacrificij carnem quisquis tetigerit, sanctificabitur. In Levit. cap. 6. Hom. 4.
• k 1.162

  Chrysostomus de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & Latrone 1. Cor. 5. Pascha ••ostrum immolatus est Christus: se∣stivitas ergò, &c. Vide crucis intuitu porceptam laetitiam? in cruce enim immolatus est Christus: Vbi immo∣latiòtiò, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 peccatorum; ubi ampucatio peccatorum, reconciliatio Domini—novum Sacrificium—nam ipse Sacrificium erat, & Sacerdos; Sacrificium secundùm carnem, Sacerdos secundùm Spiritum, offerebat secundùm Spiritum, offereb••tur secundùm carnem—& Altare Crux fuit. Chrysost. Tom. 3. pag. 826.
• l 1.163

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Idem. Tom. 5. Ser. 88. Edi••. Savil. pag. 602.
• {fleur-de-lys}* 1.164

  Idem in Ioh. ••. Homil. 13. Vt de passione incipia∣mus, quid dicit figu∣ra? Sacrificate Ag∣num Christus autem nihil hujusmodi prae∣cipit, sed ipse sactus est Sacrificium, & oblationem offereos seipsum.{fleur-de-lys}
• m 1.165

  Socrat. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 22. Orige∣nes Doctor valdè sa∣piens cum animad∣verteret Legis Mo∣saicae praecepta ad li∣teram non posse in∣telligi, praeceptum de paschate ad divinam contemplationē tra∣ducit: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 15 1.166

  Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 8. Ter∣rium nostrum Argu∣mentum sumitur ex Exod. 24. et Heb. Hic est sanguis Te∣stamenti, quod man∣davit ad vos Deus. De quo Marc. 14. Hic est sanguis Novi Testamenti—Sic ar∣gumētamur. Sanguis Testamenti veteris erat sanguis victimae jam immolate et ve∣rè sacrificatae, Exod. 24. Ergò sanguis no∣vi Testamenti apud Christum est sanguis victimae verè & pro∣priè sacrificatae: Est autem sanguis ille Christi, ut ipse dicit, Hic est sanguis me∣us, Ergo ipse fuit vi∣ctima in coena im∣molata et sacrificata.
• 16 1.167

  Vasquez. Ies. in 3. Tho. Disp. 190. num. 15. [Novum Testamentū in san∣guine meo] apud E∣vangelistas & Pau∣lum, in sanguine Christi, prout est in hoc sacramento, non convenit. Nam quā∣vis sacramentum Eu∣charistiae sit sacra∣mentum Novi Te∣stamenti, & hac ra∣tione dici posset No∣vi Testamenti—ta∣men longè alio sensu dicitur Novi Testa∣menti, aut Novum Testamentum, quòd sit confirmatio & consummatio Novi Testamenti, hoc est, gratiae, quam Chri∣stus promeruit generi humano; de quo Hebr. 9. [Testamentum in mortuis confirmatum est] hoc est morte Testatoris,—undè sequitur [neque vetus Testamentum sine sanguine dedicatur] iude colligit, Novum sanguine Christi confirmari—Et rursus, [ubi Testamentum ibi mors intercedat Testatoris necesse est] & tandem sic concludit Caput Apostolus: [sic Christus semel oblatus est, ad multorum exhaurienda pec∣cata] constat igitur sanguinem Testamenti dici eatenus, quatenus est effusus in confirmatione illius, sicut hac ratione sanguis hircorum & vitulorum essusus est. Exod. 24. [hic est sanguis Testamenti] nam sacrifi∣cium incruentum in Eucharistia non erat causa universalis Redemptionis—illud ergo [Effundetur in Re∣missionem peccatorum] significat futuram Effusionem in Passione.
• * 1.168

  Possevin. Appa∣rat. Tit. Leo.
• 17 1.169

  Bellar Lib. 1. de Missa, Cap. 7. Leo Sermone 7. de Passi∣one Domini. Vt um∣brae cederent Corpo∣ri, & ce••••arent imagi∣nes sub praesentia ve∣ritatis, antiqua ob∣servantia novo tol∣litur Sacramento, hostia in hostiam transit, sanguinem sanguis excludit, & legalis festivitas dum mutatur, Impletur. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 infra de sacramenti institutione loquens, vetus Testamentum consummabat, & Novum Pascha con∣debat.
• 18 1.170

  Leo Papa de Passione Domini, Serm. 7. In solemni∣tate Pasch li exer∣cendi furoris sui Iu∣daei acciperent pote∣statem! Opportebat enim, ut manifesto implerentur effectu, quae diu fuerant figu∣rato promissa myste∣rio: ut ovem signifi∣cativam ••vis vera re∣moveret, & ut uno explere••ur Sacrifi••ro varsarunt differentia victimarum. Nam omnia illa, quae de Immolatione agni divini••us per Moysen fuerant praestituta, Christum prophetarunt, & Christi occisionem propriè nunciarunt. Vt ergo umbrae cederent corpori, & cessarent imagines sub praesentia veritatis, antiqua observantia novo tollitur sacramento, hostia in hostiam transit, & sanguinem sanguis excludit, & legalis festivitas dùm mutatur, impletur. Teste Vasquez Ies. in 3. Tho. Disp. 223. Quest. 83. Cap. 6. Againe. Solet ex Leone probari Missae sacrificium unicum esse ex Sermone 7. de Paschate. Opportebat, &c. Verùm ibi loquitur de sacrificio cruento Christi, subdit enim [omnia illa Christi occisionem pronuneiârant] per occisionem planè intelligit cruentum sacrificum. Eadem ferè verba hab••t Chrysostomus in Psalm. 95. [Lest the word, [Sacrament] in the Sentence of Leo, may move any to conceive that it is spoken of the Eucharist, or yet of any other Sacrament of the Church of Rome, It is to bee observed, that nothing is more familiar with Leo, than to call every Mysterie and Christian Article, Sacramen∣tum. As for Example, in the beginning of this Sermon, hee calleth the Feast of Easter, Sacramentum Sa∣lutis. De Festo Nativitatis Serm. 2. Reparator nobis salutis nostrae annua revolutione Sacramentum. Et Serm. 16. De voce Christi, [Transeat Calix iste]—quod non sit exaudita, magna est Expo∣sitio Sacramenti.]
• 19 1.171

  Bellar. lib. 1. de Euch. c. 3. [De fi∣guris veteris Testa∣menti.] Sumitur hoc Argumentum—Fi∣gurae necessario infe∣riores esse debent re∣bus figuraris—Sed veteris Testamenti Sacramenta, panis Melchisedech, panis Propositionū—Ag∣nus Paschalis, Man∣na, erant figurae Eu∣charistiae simplici pa∣ni aequales, vel prae∣stantiotes. Ergo Eu∣charistianon est sim∣plex panis, significans corpus Christi, sed et ipsum corpus Christi Majorem et Minorē probam ex Patribus.
• 20 1.172

  Dr. Heskins in his parlam. lib. 3. chap. 14.
• 21 1.173

  Aquinas upon the same place.
• 22 1.174

  Athanasius Interpret. Parabol. de Baptismo post quaest. 103. Tom. 2. Baptis∣ma secundum erat Mare rubrum. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.175

  See above B. 5. Chap. 2. Sect. 2.
• 23 1.176

  Greg. Na∣zian. Orat. 42. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.177

  See the Testi∣mony following.
• a 1.178

  Insigne te∣stimonium pro Sa∣crificio Missae, Mal. 5. 1. in his verbis [Ab ortu solis usque ad occasum magnum est nomen meum in Gentibus, & in om∣ni loco sacrificatur & offertur nomini 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 absolute, absque adjuncto, ut cum dicitur, Sacrificium laudis, &c. Argum. 2. Vox [Mun∣da] opponitur immundis oblationibus Iudaeorum, quae non dicuntur immundae ex parte offerentium tantùm, quià opponit illis oblationem: non enim Munda diceretur in omni loco, cum in pluribus sint mali Ministri. Ar∣gum. 3. Dicitur [Non acciptiam munus a manibus vestris.] Hinc colligimus, non solùm mundam esse hanc nostram, sed & novam—Argum, 4. ex antithesi. Contemptus Hebraeorum erat in publicis Sacrificijs, non in privato cultu tantùm. Ergò gloria oblationum apud Christianos erit in publico Sacrificio. Argum. 5. Opponit Malachias non omni populo, sed Sacerdotibus tantùm veteris Legis, non omnes Christianos, sed certos homines, qui Sacerdotibus succedunt. Ergò non loquitur de spirituali, sed de Sacrificio proprie dicto.
• b 1.179

  Bellarm. In Hebraea, & Graeca Editione sic Legimus [Incensum offertur nomini meo, & Sa∣crificium mundum.] Quo supra.
• c 1.180

  Septuaginta apertiùs. Valent. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 4. pag. 526.
• d 1.181

  Bellar. Vo∣cem illam [Incen∣sum] interpretatur Tertull. Orationem, ut & ante eum Iren. lib. 4. cont. Haeres. cap. 33. Incensa au∣tem Iohannes vocat orationes Sanctorū. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. §. In altero.—Hieron. Thymiama, i.e. Sanctorum ora∣tiones Deo offeren∣das. In Mal. 1. Chry∣sost. in Psal. 95. Thy∣miama putum vocat Preces, quae post Ho∣stiam offeruntur, ut Psalm. 140. Oratio mea dirigatur tan∣quam Incensum, &c. Euseb. Caesar. demōst. Evang. lib. 1. cap. ult. De Orationibus Pro∣pheta: Oratio mea fiat incensum, Psal. 140. Aug. In omni loco Incensum no∣mini meo, Graecè Thymiama. Apoc. Orationes L. 1. contr. Advers. Legis & Prophet. cap. 20.
• * 1.182

  See the pre∣ceding Marginalls.
• a 1.183

  See in the Te∣stimonies above cited, for it is called abso∣lutely Incense, and not Incense of Pray∣er, &c.
• * 1.184

  Isaiah 1. 13.
• b 1.185

  Bellar. Post∣quam dixerat Mala∣chias [Offertur no∣mini meo oblatio munda] Exponit ca. 3. à quibus offeren∣da sit munda obla∣tio: Purgabit, inquit, F••lios Levi: ubi, per Filios Levi, non pos∣sunt intelligi Levi∣tae veteris Testa∣menti—sed nostri Sacerdotes. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. §. Quintum.
• * 1.186

  Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, Leo.
• c 1.187

  Mr. Foxe Acts and Monuments pag. 2117. Levitico ordine te privamus.
• * 1.188

  Isa. 66.
• a 1.189

  Chrysost. in Psal. 95. (objected) Malachias appellat Thymiama ••urum, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pieces.
• b 1.190

  Tertul. Ob. by Bellarm. lib. 3. contr. Marcion. ex Psalm. 57. In Eccle∣sijs benedicite Do∣minum Deum, ut pa∣riter cōcurreret Ma∣lachiae prophetia, In omni loco Sacrifici∣um mundum: Glo∣riae silicet relatio, & Benedictio, & Laus, & hymni. [Which words Bellarmine re∣straineth to Prayers and Prayses onely, in the Masse, whereas Tertullian speaketh of Prayers in gene∣rall.] Againe, Lib. 4. advers. Marc. a little after the beginning. Dicente Malachia, Sacrificium mundū, scilicet, simplex ora∣tio de conscientia pu∣ra. [Where hee ex∣poundeth Pure Sacri¦fice to be Praier.]
• c 1.191

  Euseb. De∣monst lib. 1. cap 6. [In omni loco Incensum & Sacrificium, &c.] Quid aliud significat quàm orationis In∣censum, & Sacrifici∣um, quod [mundum] dicitur? est enim non per cruores, sed per pias actiones summo D••o offerendum.
• d 1.192

  Bellar. Resp. Non quasi Oratio sit ipsum Incensum, seu Sacrificium, sed illud quod per Orationem, id est, per verba Consecrationis perficitur. Solent enim Patres verba Consecrationis orationes, seu mysticas preces interpretati. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 10. [First, fondly, for the words of Consecration containe in them no terme of Prayer: And secondly, falsely, for the Fathers did not call these words Prayer. Both which have beene amply discussed.]
• e 1.193

  Hieron. (obje∣cted) Malach. 1. Vt sciant Iudaei carnalibus Victimis spitituales successuras. Thymiama, hoc est, Orationes Sanctorum offerendas, Oblationem mundam, ut est in ceremonijs Christianorum. Bellar. Licet per Incensum intelligat orationem, tamen per Sacrificium intelligit Eucharistiam: dicit enim offerri in Ceremonijs Chri∣stianorum. [Be it so, but the Question is, whether the Action of the Eucharist be not called spirituall, that is (as is confessed) an Vnproper Sacrifice.]
• f 1.194

  Irenaeus (ob.) advers. Haeres lib 4. cap. 34 speaking as well of Sacri∣fices in Iudaico populo, as in Ecclesia, saith; Non Sacrificia sanctificant hominem, sed Conscientia pura ejus, qui offert, &c.] Then of Eleemosynae, Which the Apostle calleth Hostiam acceptabilem▪ [Opportet nos obla∣tionem Deo facere in sententia pura. And then, Ecclesia offert oblationem hanc Fabricatori puram, offerens ei cum gratiarum Actione ex creatura ejus. Iudaei autem non offerunt, quia manus eorum plenae sanguine, &c.
• g 1.195

  Ribera Ies. Ad loca Scripturae adducta respondere Apostoli. Apud S. Clementem. lib. 6. Const. Apost. C. 22. in hunc modum. Recusabat Deus populi Sacrificia saepenumero in eum peccantis, at{que} existimantis Sacri∣ficijs ••um, & non p••enitentiâ placatum i••i. Idem docet Iraeneus lib. 4. c. 33. In Hos. 6. num. 24.
• h 1.196

  Antididag. Colon. Tract. de Sacrif. Missae §. De Consecratione. Quis ignorat vetera Patrum Sacrificia, quae Christum sigu∣rabant, vel ob id quod Deus ea praecepisset, per se munda fuisse? Nihilominus tamen frequentius immunda vo∣cantur in Scripturis, non ratione sui, sed propter malam voluntatem offerentium.
• i 1.197

  Tetull. li. 3. advers Ma••∣cion. Sacrificia rejecta, quià non secundùm Dei religionem celebranda, sua jam, non Dei secerant. pag. 160. And, Sacrifica spiritualia accepta, which he nameth above, Cor contribulatum, laudem, &c. Lib. adversus Iudaeos.
• k 1.198

  Chrysost. (ob∣jected) in Psal. 95. Ex hostia prima mensa mystica coeleste Sa∣crificium, summéque venerandum. Est au∣tē in nobis varia dif∣ferentia: Lex multas habet Hostias, Gra∣tia nova unam—Vis scire Victimas, quas Ecclesia habet?—quando fit Sacrificium mundum & immaculatum? audi Scripturam Tibi palàm exponen∣tem hanc differentiam. Et Sacrificium, quod antea dixi spirituale, illud mysticum donum, in quo Apostolus Ephes. 5. Christus tradidit se ipsum pro Nobis Deo Sacrificium.
• l 1.199

  Cypr. (object:) ex ••ib. 1. cont. Iudaeos cap. 16. Novum Sacrificium, Sacrificium Laudis.
• a 1.200

  Psal 7••. juxta Heb. [Et erit pugillus frumenti in summi∣tatibus montium] vulg. Lat [Et erit fit∣mamentū in terra in summis Montium.] Galatinus de Arcani•• Cath. Veritatis, li. 10. cap. 5. Hoc est, dicit Chaldae a Translatio Rabbi Ionathae, Et erit sacrificium panis in summis montium.—Cum ergo ait, E∣rit placenta frumenti in terra, in capite montium, vult dicere, quod placenta panis ••••et Sacrificium in ca∣pitibus Sacerdotum, qui sunt Ecclesia. Haec ibi—Nec mi∣rum de sapientibus an iquis Judaeorum Messiam placentam frumentï, & frustum panis futurum dixisse. The same hath Cocciu•• Thesaur. Cath. lib. 6. Art. 4. pag. 679. He addeth other Authors, to wit, P. Galatinus, Claud. Sanctesius, & Genebrard. in hunc Psal. Coccius ibid Art. 16. pa. 763.
• b 1.201

  Master Brerely in his Protestants Apol. noting Duraeus the Iesuit to have urged the same out of Galatinus.
• 1 1.202

  Suarez in 3. Thom. Disp. 74. § 2. Adduci solent verba illa Psalmi 71, ut in Hebr. erit Placenta—qui Psalmus fine dubio de Messia scriptus est.
• c 1.203

  Senensis Biblioth. lib. 2. §. Traditiones. Non possum satis mirari stu∣dium Petri Galatini, qui—in eam Vanitatem devenit, ut doceret opera Thalmudica in Latinum ver••i opo••∣••••re, & public•• in Scholis Christianorum explica••i.
• d 1.204

  Bellar. in Psal. 71. ver. 16. Scio quod Paulus Burgensis ex Paraphrasi Chaldai∣ca adferat ad proban∣dum hoc in loco Sa∣crificium Missae: sed scio etiam quā mul∣tis fabulis Iudaicis Pharaphrasis illa sca∣teat, ideò piget ex lacunis Expositionū Iudaicarum haurire, &c.
• * 1.205

  As I recei∣ved it from a Right Honourable Person, the Lord C••••:
• 2 1.206

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 9. In 1. Reg. cap. 2. Sa∣crificium successurum Aäronico, interpre∣tatur Sacerdotio & Sacrificio Christia∣norum. Prov. 9. Sa∣pientia posuit hosti∣as, miscuit Vinum, De Sacrificio Domi∣ni. Isaiae 19. Aegyp∣tij colent Deum in hostijs, id est, Gen∣tiles vero Deo Sacri∣ficia offerent. Isaiae 66. Assumam ex eis Sacerdotes & Levi∣tas; de Sacerdotibus Christianis: & Iere. 33. De Sacerdotibus & Levitis. Dan. 8. 12. Vbi Antichristus tol∣let juge Sacrificium, de Antiocho, ut ge∣rebat figuram Anti∣christi, qui Apoc. 13. Kemnitius respond. Intelligi posse de Sa∣crificio Spirituall, & praedicatione verbi, & administratione Sacramentorum. Sed ista omnia vanissima sunt. Scriptura nusquàm appellat Sacrificium absolutè, & praesertim in numero singulari, quod non est propriè dictum Sacrificium. Quarè Daniel cum vocat Iuge Sacrificium, loquitur de vero & propriè dicto Sa∣crificio.
• 3 1.207

  Hieron. Lauretus Sylva Allegoriarum Tit. Aqua. Citeth ten Fathers. Aquae Marah, quae per Lignum factae sunt dulces. Exod. 15. Baptismus. Aquae usque talos. Ezek. 47. Baptismus mundans 〈◊〉〈◊〉. A∣qua in pelvi. Iud. 6. Baptismi gratia. Aqua contradictionis. Psalm. 80. Est Baptismus ijs, qui fictè accedunt. Aqua, in quam missi sunt pulveres vituli, Exod. 32. Est Baptismus, ubi omne peccatum conteritur. Potest etiam Aqua significare Baptismum, & Spiritualia dona gratiae. [And he citeth above 40. Texts in the old Testament.]
• 4 1.208

  Pererius Ies. in Dan. 12. Anti-Christus tollet Iuge Sacrificium, vel, ut est Graecè, Endele∣chismum, quod vo∣cabulum sonat Con∣tinuitatem, nimirum Divini cultus, qui in Ecclesia Dei omni tempore exhibetur: sic enim interpreta∣tur Hieronymus, Theodoretus. Et hunc Dei continuum cultū appellavit An∣gelus Iuge Sacrifici∣um—QVANQVAM id nominis praecipuè refersi potest ad san∣ctissimum Missae Sacrificium—& hoc r••tè nominatur Sacrificium juge. Nam non uno duntaxat in loco, nec bis tantum per singulos dies, manè & vesperi, ut illud Iudaicum, sed in omni loco & omni tempore Deo offertur. Idem Lib. 9 in Dan. Cap. 8. Gregorius tricesimo Moralium, Cap. 12. Omnia verba, de Antiocho, explicamus de Anti-Christo—Iuge Sacrificium tollit, quià studium sanctae conversationis Ecclesiae in eis quos caeperit, interrumpit.
• a 1.209

  Maldonat. Ob. Irenaeum lib 4. cap. 32. & 34. Scribit Chri∣stianos Deo offerre primitias creaturarū 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 locuti sunt etiam Christiani an∣tiqui, ut constat ex verbis Cypriani in Serm. de Eleemos. Locuples matrona si∣ne Sacrificio in Do∣minicum venien••. Nec necesse est (ut Irenaeus loquitur) de proprio Sacrificio, quia nefas est credere Ecclesiam obtulisse rem ullam corpore∣am & terrestr••m Deo post abrogata omnia hujusmodi Sacrificia terrena. Maldon. loco citato. Accipiendo Sacrificium pro re, quae sacrificatur, ne∣gari non debet, pa∣nem & vinum aliquo modo in Missa offer∣ri, & proinde perti∣nere ad rem praesen∣tem: nam cùm ante Consecrationem di∣cimus [Suscipe, San∣cte Pater, hanc tuam immaculatam Hosti∣am] certè pronomen, Hanc, de monstrat 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 offerre Sacrificium ex creaturis. Et Cyprian. lib. 2. Ep. 3. Christum obtulisse Calicem vino & aqua mixtàm. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Respon∣deo ut.
• * 1.210

  See above Chap. 3. Sect. 2.
• b 1.211

  Valent. Ies. objicienti Melchisedechum obtulisse panem & vi∣num tantùm. Resp. Sacerdotium Christi secundum ordinem, Melchisedech—Etiam ratione rui obla∣tae, non quatenus oblatione illius substantiae determinatae, scilicet panis & vini, exercebatur. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 4.
• c 1.212

  Bellarmin. respondens quaestioni; An cum solus Panis mutatur, si propri•• sacrifica••etur? Inquit, Id absurdissimum esset: tum haberet Ecclesia Sacrificium inanimum, & vilius multo quàm habue∣rint olim. Hebraei. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Sed haec.
• d 1.213

  Nefas est, cr••dere Ecclesiam obtulisse rem ullam corpoream & terrestrem Deo post abrogata omnia hujusmodi Sacrificia terrena. Maldonat. Lib. de 7. Sacram. Tom. 1. de Eucharist. part. 3. §. Primum Argumentum.
• e 1.214

  Salmeron. Communis sensus est omnium Christianorum, non esse aliud Sacrificium quàm Corpus & Sanguinem Christi—At si pa∣nis esset Sacrificium, sequeretur, quòd res inanimata sacrificaretur—Et quòd summa Lattia esset circa panem & vinum. Tom. 9. Tract. 12. § Quinta.
• f 1.215

  Bellarmin. Apostolus declarat, non esse terre∣num aliquid quod offert Christus, si esset super terram, ex Heb. 8. 4. Et ostendit nunc meliores hostias offerr•• Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 6. sect;. Resp. quid. [See above Chap. 3. Sect. 2.]
• * 1.216

  Rhemists An∣not. in Luc. 22. 19.
• * 1.217

  See above at (a.)
• g 1.218

  To these for∣mer, wee add another objected Testimony of Augustine, Lib. de side ad Pet. Diac. cap. 19. Null••tenus dubites unigenitum Dei fili∣um obtulisse hostiam Deo pro nobis, cui nunc cum Patre & Spiritu Sancto offerimus Sacrificium panis & vini, in side & charitate, in Catholica Ecclesia per universum mundum.
• a 1.219

  Bellarm. lib. 1 de Missa, cap. 27. §. His igitur—In Missae Sacrificio re∣quiritur ut res profa∣na sit sacra: sic hic, ubi panis convertitur in corpus Christi—§. Respondeo, &c. Non panis, sed quod expane factum pro∣priè sacrificatur. [For still the Question is that of Lombards; Quaeritur si quod ge∣rit Sacerdos, sit pro∣priè sacrificium. Lom∣bard. lib. 4. Dist. 12. lit. G.
• a 1.220

  Bellarm. Si sola repraesentatio Sacrificij crucis, tùm non potest dici obla∣tio in hunc modum: Offero tibi Pater, &c. ac à Patribus Ob∣latio dicitur. Lib 1. de Missa, cap. 15. §. Quartò.
• b 1.221

  Rhemists A••∣notat. in Luke 22•• and Bellarm. Finis e∣rat Sacrificiorū prae∣cedentium repraesen∣tare Sacrificium Cru∣cis, ut futurum, & si∣cut vetera Sacrificia non amittebant ve∣ram & propriam ra∣tionem Sacrificij, ex eo quòd essent re∣praesentativa: ita nec Sacrificum Euchari∣stiae, amittit propri∣am Sacrificij rationē, propter Commemo∣rationem. Lib. 1. de M••ssa. cap. 12. §. Q••od verò.
• c 1.222

  Bellarm. Sa∣crificia illa Levitica non culpam. & poe∣nam aeternam, sed immunditiem lega∣lem, & poenam tem∣poralem expiabant.—Patet ex Dei promissione de remissione peccatorum; ex mensura Sacrificij majoris & minoris pro majore & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 delicto. Levit. 6. & 4, & 5. At pro peccatis gravioribus, ut blasphemia, homici∣dio, &c. nulla videmus instituta Sacrificia. Lib. 4. de poeaitent. cap. 15. §. Respondeo. & §. Ex his. Non quoad culpam & poe••am Gehennae, nisi quatenus signa erant protestantia fidem in Christum, ut docent communiter Theologi. Idem l. 2. de effect. Sacram. c. 17. Et omnia illa erant Sacrificia vera, & signacula promissionis Chri∣sti venturi & morituri. Idem lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 24.
• 1 1.223

  Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp. 222. cap. 8. Discrimen inter Reprae sentationem mortis Christi in hoc Sacramento, & in Sacrificijs antiquae legis est, quod illa non erant ideo Sacrifica, quia mortē Christi repraesentabant; sed quia Immolatione Rei oblatae denotabant Deum, authorem vitae & mortis.
• a 1.224

  Ambr. Vmbra in Lege, imago in E∣vangelio, veritas in coelestibus: antè ag∣nus offerebatur, nunc Christ▪ offertur qua∣si Homo, quasi reci∣piens passionem, & offert sese ipse quasi Sacérdos, ut peccata nostra dimittat, hîc in imagine, ibi in ve∣ritate, ubi apud Pa∣trem pro nobis quasi Advocatus interve∣nit. Lib. 1. de Offic. Cap. 48.
• b 1.225

  August. Hujus Sacrificij caro & san∣guis antè adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum pro∣mittebatur; in passi∣one Domini per ip∣sam Veritatem: post Ascensum per Sacra∣mentū memoriae ce∣lebratur. Cont. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21. Tom. 6. Nōne semel immo∣latus est Christus, & tamen in Sacramen∣to quotidiè immola∣tur? He addeth, Nec tamen mentitur, qui dicit Christum im∣molari: si enim Sa∣cramenta non habe∣rent similitudinem rerum ipsarum, quas repraesentant, non essent Sacramenta. Ex qua similitudine nomina eorum acci∣piunt. Aug. lib. Epist. 23. [See of this above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 5. And yet againe, more plainely in his 20 Book against Fau∣st••••, cap. 21. it follow∣eth;] Vt Baptismus dicitur sepulchrū; sic, Hoc est corpus me∣um.
• * 1.226

  See above Book 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 8. out of his Epist. 23. ad Bonifacium.
• c 1.227

  Epist. 23. ad Bo∣nifac. Paulò ante ver∣ba superiora, nem∣pè, Pascha appropin∣quante, saepè dicimus crastinam Domini passionem, cum ille ante multos annos passus sit, nec omni∣nö nisi semel ista pas∣sio facta sit, nempè isto die: (dicimus) Christus resurrexit, cum ex quo resurre∣xit tot Anni transie∣runt, cum nemo ita ••eptus sit qui nos ita Ioquentes arguat nos esse mentitos—ut di∣catur ipse Dies, quia non est ipse, sed si∣milis—none semel immolatus est Christus? &c.
• 2 1.228

  Aug. lib. 1. Con. advers. Leg. & Proph. cap. 18. Mors Christi unum & unicum verum Sacrificium.
• a 1.229

  Chrys. ••••. Heb. 10. ••om. 17. pa. 1171. [Christus semper suo sanguine intra••] Ipse Sacrificium, Sacer∣dos, & Hostia: si hoc non esset, multa oportebat etiam Sa∣crificia offerri, saèpiùs oportebat crucifigi.—Eandem ipsam Hostiam, quā Chri∣stus immolabat, offe∣rimus, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:] vel potiùs Recordationem ipsi∣us, &c.
• b 1.230

  Theophylact in Heb. 10. pa. 885. 886. Nunc & ipsi sine san∣guine immolamus? Ita quidē, Sed Chri∣sti tunc reminiscimur obitus: & una nobis est immolatio, non multae, quandoquidē & ille semel immo∣latus est. Eundē sem∣pe•• offerimus, quin potiùs Oblationis il∣lius memoriam faci∣mus, perinde a••si es∣set hoc tempore im∣molatus. Quocirca u∣num esse hoc nostrū Sacrificium constar.—Vnicum est & semel oblatum—nam & unus est sanguis, & semel fusus.
• c 1.231

  Theod. in Heb cap. 8. Cum essecit ut alia Sacrificia non essent necessaria, cur novi Testamenti Sacerdotes mysticam Liturg••••m seu Sacrificium peragant? sed clarum est ijs, qui sunt in rebus divinis cruditi, nos non aliud Sacrificium offerre, sed unius illius salutaris memoriam per∣agere—Dixit enim, Hoc facite in memoriam mei.
• d 1.232

  Ambros. in Hebr. ••0. Osterimus quidem, sed Recordationem salutaris mortis ejus, & una haec Hostia, non multae.
• e 1.233

  Euseb. Demonst. Evangelic. lib. 1 cap. 10. Sacrificamus & incendimus, aliâs autem magni Sacrificij illius memoriam, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f 1.234

  Primasius in Heb. cap. 10. Quod Deus &c. Offerunt quidem S••cerdotes nost••i, sed ad recordationem mortis ejus—sicut ipse dixit, Hoc facite in Commemorationem mei.—Vna hostia, non mul∣tae—Corpus unum cum illo, quod suscepit in utero virginali, non autem multa Corpora, nec nunc qui∣dem aliud magnum, aliud minus.
• g 1.235

  Hier. Tom. 5. lib. 13. Com. in Ezec. cap. 44. Qui offerat Deo Sacrificium, ita ut verus Sacerdos sit, imò Imitator ejus, qui est Sacerdos se∣cundùm ordinē Mel∣chisedech. Idem Tom. 9. lib. 4. cap. 26. in Matth. Sicut Melchi∣sedech panem & vi∣num offerens, ipse quoque veritatē cor∣poris & sanguinis sui repraesentat.
• 3 1.236

  Hier. in Levit. & extat in Decret. de Consec. dist. 2. Can. De hac—De hac qui∣dem hostia, quae in Christi commemora∣tionem mirabiliter fit, edere licet: de illa verò, quam Chri∣stus in ara crucis ob∣tulit secundùm se, nulli edere licet.
• * 1.237

  See the former Marginalls at the let∣ter (f.)
• * 1.238

  See above B. 4. Chap ••••. Sect. 5.
• a 1.239

  Concil. Trident. Christum reliquisse Sacrificium Ecclesiae suae visibile, quo cru∣entum istud in Cru∣ce peragendum re∣praesentaretur. Ses. 22. ca. 1.
• b 1.240

  Rhemists Annot. in Luc. 22.
• c 1.241

  Barradas Ies. En tibi stupendam Dei adinventionem no∣tam facimus. Animo concipiamus Regem aliquem post repor∣tatam de Hostibus Victoriam, &c. Sic Christi corpus veluti in scena personatur, id est, speciebus panis & vini velatur, &c. Tom. 4. Concord. Evang lib. 3. cap. 13. §. Optimus. And Bel∣larmine.
• * 1.242

  See above Book. 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. there answered.] Corpus & sanguis Domini sub specie panis & vi∣ni signa sunt corporis ejus passi, & sanguinis effusi, &c. See above also in the same place, Chap. 3.
• * 1.243

  See here∣after, Chap. 6. Sect. 1.
• 4 1.244

  Vasquez Ies. in 3. Thom. Disp. 220. Vt finis Sacrificij ve∣teris legis erat reprae∣sentare Sacrificium Crucis, ut futurum: sic finis est Sacrificij Eucharistiae reprae∣sentare Sacrificium Crucis, up praeteritum.
• * 1.245

  See above at (••)
• a 1.246

  Bellar. lib. 1. de Miss. cap 15. §. Quin∣tò—Patres ad no∣men Sacrificij Epi∣theta saepè addunt, quae soli vero Sacri∣ficio conveniunt, & quae ineptè dicerent de sola repraesentati∣one Cyp. l. 2. Epist. 3. Plenum & verum Sa∣crificium. Chrysost. Hom. ad Pop. Anti∣och. et omnes Graeci, Passim terribile Sa∣crificium & horroris plenum. Aug. lib. 10. de Civit. Dei, cap. 20. Summum verumque Sacrificium. Euseb. lib. 1. Demonst. E∣vang. cap. ult Sacri∣ficium Deo plenum. [This last is not undoubtedly spoken of the Eucharist.] Ibid. §. Secondo.—Si Patres putâssent Sacrificium Eucharistiae non esse Sacrificium nisi epraesentativum, nunquam dixissent in numero multitudims offeri Deo Victimas, & Sacrificia.
• b 1.247

  August. de Civit Dei, lib. 10. cap. 6 Verum Sacrificium omne opus bonum, ut Deo adhaereamus, factum. Tertull. In omni loco Sacrificium mundum, gloriae scilicet & rogatio, benedicto, laus, hymni. Lib. 3. advers. Marcionem. Rursus, Sacrificium mundum oratio simplex de purâ Conscientiâ Ibid. lib. 4. paulò post initium. Iustin. Dialog. cum Tryphon. Preces & Gratiarum actiones, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.248

  Cyril. Apol. Lectio Scripturarum terribilium. Testae Iewello, art. 17. Chrysost. in 1. Corinth Hom. 40 De Baptismate paulò post initium, Post pronunciationem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.249

  See Booke 7. Chap. 2. Sect. 1.
• d 1.250

  Euseb. lib. 1. Demonst. Evang. cap. 10. Porrò has rursus incorporeas & intel∣ligentia praeditas ho∣stias prophetica nun∣ciant oracula. Im∣mola Deo Sacrifici∣um laudis, & Oratio∣nes sanctas, &c. Iust. Martyr. Dialog. cum Triphon. pag. 269. Suppicationes & gra∣tiarum actiones so∣las esse charas Victi∣mas Deo.
• * 1.251

  See above Booke 4. c. 9. §. 2
• * 1.252

  See above in this 8. Sect.
• * 1.253

  Treatise of the Masse, Booke. 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 8.
• 5 1.254

  Treatise of the Masse, Booke 6. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 3.
• 6 1.255

  Ibid. Sect. 8.
• 7 1.256

  See Booke 6. Chap. 7. Sect. 2.
• 8 1.257

  August. See Booke 6. cha. 7. Sect. 2
• 9 1.258

  Chrysost. See oke. 6. Chap. 7. Sect. 2. Bo
• 10 1.259

  Enchiridi∣on Coloniens. fol. 107. Hic Ecclesia (quae Corpus Christi my∣sticum est) se totam Deo consecrat, adeò ut Cyprianus tale Sacrificium, verum, et plenum Sacrifi••∣um non dubitaverit appellare.
• 11 1.260

  See Booke 6 Chap. 7. Sect. 2.
• 12 1.261

  August. See 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Chap. 5. & Sect. 5.
• b 1.262

  Basil in his Masse, ob. by Salme∣ron, Tom. 9. Tractat. 30. §. Sed confu∣tans: and by Lindanu•• Panop. lib. 4. cap. 53. Nos appropinquan∣tes Altari tuo susci∣pere, & dignissimos offerre hanc 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (Lindanus, non carnis, sed men∣tis) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Salmeron Ies. Absque sanguine hostiam: & admittee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉[And not till long after the words of Consecrati∣on, beginning at [Re∣spice, Domine.] Missa Chrysost. Ob. ab eisdem quo supra. Hanc nostram sup∣plicationem, tanquā ad altare, admittere non recuses, & fac nos idoneos qui Ti∣bi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 no∣stris pro peccatis of∣ferimus. Idem Sal∣meron. Offetimus Tibi rationabile & incruentum obsequi∣um. [Which words are in the body of your Liturgies put before the words of Conse∣cration (Edit. An∣tuerp. ex offici••a Plan∣tin. 1560. cum pri vilegio Regis) but which Lindan will have to be set after Consecration.] The Liturgie of S. Iames: Pro oblatis, sanctisi∣catis, pretiosis, im∣maculatis donis di∣vinis oremus Do∣minum—ac∣ceptis eis in super∣coeleste, mentale, spi∣rituale Altare, in o∣dorem spiritualis fr••∣grantiae, &c. Paulo post: Deus Pater, qui oblata tibi dona mera, frugum obla∣tiones accepisti in o∣dorem suavitatis. [And after follow the words of Conse∣cration: Sancto, qui in Sanctis, &c.—Suscipe incorruptum Hymnum in sanctis & incruentis Sacrificijs tuis.]—
• c 1.263

  Chrysost. Hom. 11. Quid est rationabile obsequium? quod per animam, quod secundùm Spiritum offertur: quicquid non indiget corpore; quicquid non indiget instrumentis, neque locis, in quibus ipse quidem est Pontifex, ut mansuetudo, pationtia, &c. Sacrificium laudis, justitiae, spiritus contribulati.
• 13 1.264

  Athanas. cont. Macedon. Dial. 1. de Baptismo. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• g 1.265

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. Caesar. lib. 4. De Vita Constant. cap. 45. de Euchar. Alij sacras literas interpretantur: Alij 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & mysticis con∣secrationibus divinum numen placabant, & supplices preces pro communi pace offerebant. Et Demonst. Lib. 1. Cap. 6. Sacrificium mundum.
• h 1.266

  Non per cruo∣res, sed per quas acti∣ones summo Deo of∣ferendas. After, there followeth an Oration of Constantine, Ad Sanctorum coetum. Tale Sacrificiū per∣agitur, vacuum san∣guine, & ab omni violentiâ. [As 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Dadraeus Doctor Pa∣ris•• translateth it.]
• i 1.267

  Againe, De∣monst. Evang. li. 1. ca. 10 Has rursus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] i. e. ma∣teriae expertia Sacri∣ficia, intelligē••••â prae∣ditas hostias, Pro∣phetica nuntiant ••∣racula? Immola Deo Sacrificium laudis—Hymnos & sanct•••• Orationes celebran∣tes, And again; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. E••∣od. lib.
• k 1.268

  Nazian. Invect. 1. advers, Iulian. ante med [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] i. e. Vt ab incruento Sa∣crificio man{us} elueret, per quod nos Chri∣sto, ipsius{que} passioni∣bus, & divinitate cō∣municamus. [Marke, Incruentū, per quod, is distinguished from, Christo, therfore was not Christ the Incru∣entum, objected by the Rhemists, Angotat. in Luc. 22. 19.]
• l 1.269

  Ambr. lib. 4. de Sacram. cap. 6. Sacer∣dos dicit, Ergo me∣mores gloriosissimae ejus passions, offeri∣m̄us. Tibi immacu∣latam hanc hostiam incruentani, & hunc panem sanctum, & hanc oblationem salutis aeternae.
• m 1.270

  Suscipias in sublimi Altari••uo perimentis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lorum, sicut accipere dignatus es munera Abel, &c. [To be expounded, as Bellarmine doth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the same words in the Roman Masse]
• n 1.271

  Accipiendo sacrificium pro re, quae sacrificatur, negari non 〈…〉〈…〉 & 〈…〉〈…〉 in Missa offerri, ac proinde, pertinere ad rem, quae sacrificatur. Nam cùm autè Constrationem dicimus [Suscipe, Pater, haue immacu••••tam Hostiam] certè Pronomen, Hanc, demonstrat ad sensum id quod manibus tenemus, id au∣tem panis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bellarm. 〈…〉〈…〉 de Missa cap. 27. §. Respondeo it. [Because the Cardinall doth often in this and other Chapters justifie the Romane terme of Masse, by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Ambras••••]
• o 1.272

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Melchisedech dedit, Abrahamo 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 〉] incruentum, sanctam oblationem. Hist. de Melchizedech. ad sinem. Tom. 2.
• * 1.273

  [Do but exa∣mine the places a∣gaine, and you shall find Basil to have spo∣ken of Seruice before Consecration: Chry∣sest. Of Blood and Wine, before Con∣secration: Eusebius in one place is inter∣preted (by your owne Doctor and Transla∣tor) to have spoken of a Sacrifice void of Blood; Nazianzene speaketh of something in the Eucharist, dif∣fering from Christ: to whom you may joyn Athanasius.]
• a 1.274

  Clemens Rom. Const. lib. 6. cap. 23. Pro Sacrificio cruen∣to, Rationale & in∣cruentum ac illud mysticum Sacrificium corporis & sanguinis Christi, quod in sym∣bolum mortis ejus celebratur. Et lib. 7. Co••••••. cap. 26. Adhuc agimus tibi grarias, Pater noster, pro prer••oso corpore & sanguine effuso, cu∣jus haec Antitypa ce∣lebramus, ut mor∣tem ejus denunciare∣mus, per ipsum enim tibi gloria. Amen.
• * 1.275

  See B. 2. Ch. 2. § 4 and this B. 6. Ch. 1. § 2.
• c 1.276

  Cyril. Hierosol. Mystag. 5. Postquàm consecimus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Ali∣quanto post, Obsecra∣mus Deum pro, &c. Et Christū [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Ob. •• Salmerone Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 30.
• * 1.277

  See below Sect. 15
• a 1.278

  Sa••mer. Tom. 9. Tract. 29, pag. 225. Hesychius lib. 2. c. 8. in Levit. Dicit Chri∣stum, cum coenaret, seipsum occidisse. Chrysost. in 1. Cor. Hom 24. In Eucha∣ristia Christū pa••i & occidi? Rursus Tract. 31. pag. 238. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 decent in Eucharistia offenri eruentum Sa∣crificium. Alexander Papa. Epist. 1. Cy••r. lib. 2. Epist. 3. Passio Domini est Sacrificium quod offerimus. Hieron. in Dialog. advers. Lucifer. Christum pluries passum confite∣mur. Pascasius de ••orpore & Sanguine Domini: Sacrificium Crucis iteratur. {fleur-de-lys} Euseb. Emissen. Sabba••o post Domin. 2. To ties tamen occiditur, & à fidelibus comeditur, quoties in hoc Altaris Sacramento 〈◊〉〈◊〉.{fleur-de-lys}
• 14 1.279

  Greg. Nyssen. Orat. 1. de Resurrect. Christi. Pro ineffabi∣li arcanoque, & qui ab hominibus cerni nequit, Sacrificij mo∣do suâ dispositione & administratione prae∣occupat impetum vi∣olentum, ac sese ob∣lationē ac victimam offert pro nobis Sa∣cerdos simul & ag∣nus Dei, qui tol∣lit peccatum mundi. Quando hoc accidit? Cùm corpus suum ad comedendum, & san∣guinem bibendum praebuit. Cuilibet e∣nim hoc perspicuum est, quòd ore vesci homo non potest, nisi comestionem macta∣tio praecesserit. Qui igitur dedit Discipulis suis corpus suum ad comedendum, apertè demonstrat jam per∣fectam agni immo∣lationem. Non enim ad edendum idone∣um esset corpus ani∣matum.
• b 1.280

  Quis unquàm Catholic{us} dixit Chri∣stum rursùs mori? Ribera. Ies. Com. in Heb. 10. num. 25.
• c 1.281

  Observandum est, Christum licet modo impassibili ex∣istat in Sacramento, tamen dici à Patri∣bus mortalem, imo∣mortuum & passum in Sacramento, eate∣nus quidem, quate∣nùs ox modo Con∣secrationis, ipsaque vi significationis Sa∣cramentalis mors, & passio Domini com∣memorantus atque repraesentantur. Alan. Card. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 38. sub finem.
• d 1.282

  Glossa de Consecrat. Dist. ••. Quid fit. Hoc est, ejus Mors repraesentatur.
• e 1.283

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 29. §. Respondeo si, &c. Si Catholici dicerent in Sacrificio Missae vere Christum mori, argumentum Calvini haberet aliquid vi∣rum; sed cum dicunt omnes eum non mori, nisi in Sacramento, & signo repraesentante mortem ejus, quam uliquando obij••, tantùm abest, ut Missa obl••••eret Christi mortem, ut potiùs efficiat ut nunquam obliteretur.
• * 1.284

  See above Chap. 5. Sect. 5.
• * 1.285

  Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 4.
• * 1.286

  Ioh. 6.
• * 1.287

  Ambrose, Aug. above, Chap. 5. Sect. 5.
• * 1.288

  Above, Chap. 5. Sect. 6.
• f 1.289

  Chrysost. in Epist. ad Heb. Hom. 16. Baptismus est passio Christi.
• g 1.290

  Ambros. de Poenitent. lib. 2. cap. 1. In Baptismo cru∣cifigimus in nobis fi∣lium Dei.
• * 1.291

  Booke 2. Chap. 2. Sect. 6. and Booke 6. Chap. 5. Sect. 7.
• * 1.292

  See Baron. Anno 602. &c.
• a 1.293

  Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 15. Si Pa∣tres existimarunt Eu∣charistiam solùm esse Sacramentum, & non etiam Sacrificium, nulla esset causa cur aliter loquerentur de Eucharistia, quàm de Baptismo. Nusquam autem Patres Baptis∣mum vocant Sacrifi∣cium, nec dicunt Bap∣tizare esse Sacrificare, vel immolare. Quo modo igitur possibile est Patres in modo loquendi nobiscum, in sententia cum Ad∣versarijs convenisse? §. Hic igitur. Rursus Baptismus est Sacra∣mentum Repraesen∣tationis mortis Chri∣sti, Rom. 6. Et tamen nulli veterum Baptismum Sacrificium Deo oblatum unquam appellaverunt: non igitur sola repraesentatio causa esse potuit, cur actio Coenae Sacrificium appellaretur. Ibid. §. Tert. bapt.
• b 1.294

  Card. Alan. Patres abusos esse nomine Sacrificij—quis possit cum Haereticis vel tenuiter suspicari, cum hoc solum eo nomine appellent, nec alteri fetè Sacramento unquam tribuunt? Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 14.
• c 1.295

  Suarez Ies. In multis Conc. vocatur hoc Sacrificium incruentum—Solum est observandum, propter Haereticos, qui hoc etiam ad me∣taphoram detorquent nomen, Sacrificium. Sanctos Patres nunquam vocâsse Ministerium Baptismi, aut alte∣rius Sacramenti nomine Sacrificij, cum tamen Sacrificium Metaphoricè sumptum in eo conveniet. Cum ergo Eucharistiam simpliciter & absolutissimè Sacrificium vocant, signum est eos propriè de Sacrificio loqui. Tom. 3. D••sp 74. Sect. 2. pag. 952.
• * 1.296

  M. Fisher, for one.
• d 1.297

  Hebr. 10. 26. [Voluntariè peccan∣tibus non relinqu••••ur Sacrificium pro pec∣cato.] Qui dili, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pertractant hunc lo∣cum Apostoli, intel∣ligunt de Holocausio Dominicae passionis, quod eo tempore of∣fert quisque pro pec∣catis suis, quo ejus∣dem passionis fide baptizatus. Vt sit sensus, [Non relin∣quitur Sacrificium pro peccatis] hoc est, non potest denuò bapti∣zando purgari. Au∣gust. Tom. 4. Expos. ad Rom. Col. 1185, 1186, 1187.
• e 1.298

  Milchior Canus. Quaeris quid Causae pleris{que} Antiquorum fuerit, ut Baptismum Hostiam appellave∣rint, ideo{que} dixerint non superesse Hostiam pro peccato? (Heb. 10.) quia Baptismus repeti non potest—Et quia per Baptismum applicatur nobis Hostia crucis. Hinc illi Baptisma translatitiè hostiam nuncuparunt. Loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. pag. 424.
• a 1.299

  Bellarmin. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Sed omissa.—Omne Sacrificium est Oblatio, sed non omnis Oblatio Sacrificium, hoc fit cùm 〈◊〉〈◊〉 oblata consumitur.
• b 1.300

  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. Ibid. §. Secundum. Non quae in sola oblatione sita, ut au∣rum, argentum, &c. Ibid. §. Secundo. Non Non decimae aut pri∣mitiae. §. Sed in. Nec Patres appellant Sa∣crificium, id quod so∣lum est figura, & commemoiatio Sa∣crificij. §. Tertio. Non pia voluntas, quia invisibilis. §. Se∣cundò. Non Elee∣mosynae, quia non soli Deo oblatae §. Tertiò. Nulla re∣verentia externa, ut genuflexiones, precs, quia actiones transe∣untes. §. Sextò Pas∣siones Martyrum, & alia omnia bona ope∣ra; largo modo—non autem propriè & in rigore, Sacrificia dici possunt. Ibid. cap. 3 §. Resp. Martyrum.
• c 1.301

  Cassand. Li∣turg. cap. 22. Ordo celebrandi Missam, secundùm Romanos, celebrante Pontifice, extractus ex varijs li∣bellis—Ibid. cap. 27. Populus dat Eleemosynas suas, id est, Panem & vinum, tam masculi quàm foemi∣nae. Ibid. De veteri ritu oblationis panis & vini. I Euch. cap. 14.
• c 1.302

  Suarez Ies. In multis Conc. vocatur hoc Sacrificium incruentum—Solum est observandum, propter Haereticos, qt Isidorus, dictum quasi sacrum factum, quia prece mysticâ consecratur. Cassand. ibid. Non ignoramus veteres Theologos appel∣lâsse Eucharistiam Sacrificium laudis: Moldonat: lib. de 7. Sacrament. Tom. 1. part. 3. §. Praeter haec. pag. 322.
• 15 1.303

  Gabriel. Episcop. Albispin. Not. in Tertull. lib. ad Vxorem, cap. 9. Sacrificia sine serupùlo, &c. Pame∣lius exponit de Missae Sacrificio—At patiantur me liberè dicere, haec ad Sacrificium Missae non pertinere, sed de his mielligi, quae in Ecclesia, sive in Pauperum, sive in Sacerdotum alimenta: cum enim Vxores sine consensu Maritorum non possunt erogare, ait maritatam Christiano sine scrupulo liberalem esse posse, quòd maribus illud concedat.
• a 1.304

  Bellarm.—Sunt Relata, ità ut Sacrifi∣cium propriè dictum Sacerdotio propriè dicto; & Sacrificio impropriè dicto im∣propriè dictum sacer∣dotium respondeant. Lib. 1. de Missa, ca. 2. §. Quintum.
• b 1.305

  Maldonat. Ies. Serpens aeneus suit Sacrificium comme∣morativum futuri Sa∣crificij Christi, sed tamen non habuit altare. Lib. de 7. Sa∣crā. Tom. 1. de Euch. §. Quintum genus.
• c 1.306

  Abulens. in Ios. 22. Altare hoc non fuerat ad Sacrificium offerendum. Quaest. 9.
• d 1.307

  Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 17. § Ne∣que.—Ne{que} obstat quod Ministri Eccle∣siastici non diceban∣tur Sacerdotes, aut u∣tebantur nominibus templi, sacrificij. Al∣taris, & similib, quia tempore Apostolorū vigebat Sacerdotium Iudaicum, ideò absti∣nebant abijsdem vo∣cibus, ne viderentur eosdem illos ritus in∣novare.
• e 1.308

  Eodem modo Durantus de Ritibus, lib. 1. cap. 1. num. 7.
• * 1.309

  See above Cha. 3. Sect. 8.
• * 1.310

  See above Chap. 2. Sect. 1.
• 16 1.311

  Lorin. Ies. in Act. 14. 22. de Sa∣cerdote. Ab hoc ab∣stinet novum Testa∣mentum, ut magis proprio antiqui legis Sacrificij, vel Idolo∣rum, concedo.
• * 1.312

  Graecè, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.313

  Graecè 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• f 1.314

  See the former Testimony at (d.)
• g 1.315

  Euseb. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 4. Ex O∣rat. Danegyr. Pauli∣no Tyriorum Episco∣po dedicata, qui Basi∣licam ibi construxit. Sanctuario hoc modo absoluto & perfecto, sellisque quibusdam in, altissimo loco ad Praesidum Ecclesiae honorem collocatis, & subsellijs ordine dispensatis—Al∣tarique denique tan∣quàm Sancto San∣ctorum (Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) in medio San∣ctuarij sito, &c. Coc∣clus Tom. 2. Tract. de Altari, & Atha∣nasio in vita Antonij. Altare Domini mul∣torum multitudine circumdatum. Chry∣sost. (de visione An∣gelorum) lib. 6. de Sa∣erdotio.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. & Dionys. Hierarch. Ec∣cles. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. August. de Verbis Dom. Serm. 46. de eo quod scriptum, [Qui mandueat.] Christus quotidie pascit: mensa Ipsius est illa in medio constituta. [These Testimonies verifie the same Assertion of Doctor Falke against Gregory Martin, cap. 17. The Table stood so, that men might stand round aboue it.]
• h 1.316

  August. quaest. super Exod. lib. 2. cap. 9. Altare est populus Dei. Lib. 1. de Serm. in monte. Altare in interiore Dei templò, id est, fides. Lib. 10. de Civitat. Dei, cap. 4. Ejus est Altare cor nostrum. And other Fathers ordinarily.
• i 1.317

  Nazian. orat. 28.—Esto, ego pel∣lor ab. Altari in Ec∣clesia: at novi aliud Altare mentis & contemplationis in coelo, ibi adstabo, & Deo offeram Sacrifi∣cia, quae sunt tanto acceptiora, quàm ea quae offerimus ad Al∣tare, quanto pretio∣sior est veritas quàm umbra.
• k 1.318

  Cyril. Alexand. cont. Iulian. lib. 9 (Iu∣lian. Ob.) Iudaei sa∣crificant,—vos autem invento novo Sacrificio—quare non sacrificatis?—illud commune no∣biscum habent, etiam Templa, Altaria, &c. (Resp. Cyril multò post,) Vitae honestas, & ad meliora pro∣pensio est Sacrificium fragrantissimum—Et Paulus hortatur nos exhibere corpora nostra Sacrificium sanctum, rationalem cultum nostrum Deo.—Igitur etsi Iudaei sacrificarent, ut in umbris praecep∣ta implerent, nos ta∣men latâ viâ euntes, ad id quod rectum est veniemus, nempè spiritualem & im∣mortalem cultum proficientes. (Iulian.) Mosi dicitur, septem diebus azymis vesce∣mini: vobis parum est abstulisse. (Cyril. Resp.) Impletur Lex à nobis in azymis, maximè fide justifi∣catis in Spiritu, men∣talem{que} cultum prae∣ponentibus tali mo∣do.—Vnde scribit D. Paulus, ut diem agamus in azymis sinceritatis & verita∣tis. (Rursus, Iulian. ibid. lib. 10) Offerre Sacra in Altari, & sacrificare cavetis. (Resp. Cyril.) Adhi∣bemus Sacrificia spi∣ritualia, scilicet, & mentalia: nam illi ex sanguine offere∣bant boves, & oves,—Et ex fructibus si∣milam, ol••as, &c. hos tamen tam crasso ministerio relicto renue & subril••, at spirituale perficimus: offerimus enim in odorem suavitatis fidem, spem, charitatem, justitiam, laudes, Sacrificium enim secundùm naturam incorporèum de∣cet Deum. (Iulian.) Et Cain obtu••••t Sacrificium de fructibus terrae? Abel de carnalibus. (Cyril. Resp.) Offe∣rimus melius quoddam quàm illi—Sacrificamus enim mentaliter & spiritualiter virtutum fragran∣tias. (Rursus Iulian. Ob.) Non circumcidimini, non Azyma, non Pascha servatis. Non possumus, inquiunt, (viz. Christiani:) pro nobis enim semel immolatus est Christus, & prohibuit Azyma—non Abraham imitantes Altaria etigitis Deo, nec Sacrificatoria aedificatis. (Resp. Cyril.) Circumcisionem habemus Spiri∣tos—In A••ymis spiritual••a quae habemus. (Et ad pascha Resp.) Affulsit veritas, Immolatus est pro nobis Christus A••nus verus.
• l 1.319

  Greg. Nazian. Orat. 3. advers. Iulian. (De Gallo et Iuliano) Quinetiam in Cle∣rum seipsos ascripse∣runt, ut divinós quo∣que libros plebi lecti∣tarent: non minus id sibi amplum & ho∣norificum existiman∣tes quàm aliud quid∣vis, &c.
• * 1.320

  See Chap. 5. Sect. 14
• 17 1.321

  Origen. cont. Celsum. lib. 7. Ob. Celsi. Non sustinent Altaria Scythae, ne{que} Seres 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Arnob. lib. 6. Consuestis cri∣men nobis maximum impietatis affigere—quòd non Altaria fa∣bricemus, non Aras. See also Arnobius, lib. 6. contra Gentes.
• a 1.322

  Bellarm. Sa∣crificium Missae acci∣pitur proprie pro••re, quae sacrificatur: & etiam accipitur pro∣priè pro actione sa∣crificandi. Lib. 1. de Missa, Cap. 27. §. Resp. ut.
• * 1.323

  See above Chap. 1. Sect. 5.
• a 1.324

  Concil. Trid. Christus tradebat vi∣sibile Sacramentum sub specie panis & vini. Sess. 22. et Bel∣larm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 27. §. Secundo.
• b 1.325

  Septimò, ritu mystico consecratur: nam debet res illa, quae Deo offertur, ex profanà fieri sacra. Idem significat Sa∣crificare, quod sacrum facere. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. {fleur-de-lys} Maldonat. de Eu∣charist. pa. 353. No∣stra Sententia est. In eo tantum consistit Sacrificium, quod ex re prophana fiat sa∣cra. {fleur-de-lys}
• c 1.326

  Bellar. Octa∣vò, trāsmutatur, quià ad verum Sacrificium requiritur, ut id, quod offertur Deo, plane destruatur, id est, ita mutetur, ut desinat esse id quod antè e∣rat. I•• quo differt à simplici oblatione, quae interdum mysti∣co ritu elevabatur co∣ram Deo, sed non de∣struebatur, nisi quando verè sacrificabatur. Ratio duplex, 1. ob significationē mortis Christi. 2. ad protestationē subjectionis nostrae corùm Deo—Ideò requiritur, ut non solum usus, sed etiam substantia consumatur.—Sacri∣ficium requir••••. Consumptionem. Patet, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 à 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mactare, Math. 22. Altilia dicuntor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 occisa, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Exlialatio, in quo diffent ab oblatione: Item 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, consumo. Probatur ex Scriptura, ubi omnia Sacrificia destruenda erant, si viventia, per occisionem; si inanimata Tolida, per combustio∣nem; si liquida, per effusionem. Ex inanimis solidis per immolationes, sic dictas à mola, vel molendo, quamvis vox, Immoltare, pro sacrificare suma••ur. Lib. ••. de Missa, ca. 2. per totum. Et idem ibid. cap. 4. § Nunc. {fleur-de-lys} Gor∣don. Ies••••. Controv. 9. cap. 1. nu 25. In Sacrificio propriè dictò necesse est ut adsit res visibilis & permanens, quae offeratur. Et post num. 26. Requirit etiam Interitum & destructionem ejus rei, quae Deo offertur, ut post Thomam bene notat Bellarminus. {fleur-de-lys}
• d 1.327

  Conc. Trid. and Bellarm above cited, §. 3. at (a.)
• e 1.328

  Sal∣meron. Christus cruentus, & incruentus, non differunt, sed quod ille visibilis, hic invisibills. Tom 9 Tract. 29. § Iam de.
• f 1.329

  Aquinas. Be∣nedictio sacerdotalis fertur super terminū à quo, non super ter∣minum ad quem, i. e. super corpus Christi. In 1. Cor. 10.
• g 1.330

  Bellar. Cor∣pus Christi per con∣secrationem accepit formam cibi, & ad comestionem & de∣structionem ordina∣tur: & licet nullam laesionem patiatur in se, neque amittit suum esse naturale, sed amittit. Sacra∣mentale Esse, & pro∣inde desinit esse rea∣liter in Altari, & desinit esse cibus sen∣sibilis. Lib. 1. de Mis∣sa. Cap. 27. §. Ter∣tiò.
• h 1.331

  Lombardus cum quaeritat, quid Sacerdos gerit, sit dicendum Sacrifici∣um aut Immolatio, accipit nomen Im∣molationis pro oc∣cisione: respondet autem rectissimè, Christum semel tan∣tùm immolatum, id est, occisum fuis∣se, non autem im∣molari, id est, oc∣cidi in Sacramento & repraesentatione. Bellorm. lib. 1. de Missa. cap. 15. Rur∣sus paulò superius. § Ad hanc.—Cruenta Immolatio semel tantùm verè & pro∣priè facta est, nunc autem non propriè, sed p••r Repraesentationem. Lib. 4. Dist. 12. §. Post haec.
• i 1.332

  Alanus de Eucharist. lib. 2 cap. 13. In carnis & sanguinis separatione (undè propriè in animalibus mactatio) consistit vis hujus mysterij, ut in eo solo cernatur divinae mortis repraesentatio—sequitur Christum esse praesentem, modò immolatio—quod sunditur in remissione peccatorum: ergo per modum Victimae praesens est, imò Christus hic praesens in∣duit eum modum, quem habuit ut se offerens in Sacrificio Crucis. (Aliquantò post haec.) Propter concomitan∣tiam, de qua superius diximus, in seipso non moritur.
• k 1.333

  Costerus Chri∣stian. Institut. lib. 1. cap. 10. Christus in cruce solus seipsum obtulit per verā san∣guinis effusionem & mortem: hic per Sa∣cerdotem, tanquam ministrum, se offert sine Sanguinis effusi∣one & morte, sed per utr••usque repraesen∣tationem.
• * 1.334

  Iohn 6. See above Booke 5. Sect. 6.
• * 1.335

  Ibid.
• a 1.336

  Canus. Quià per Sacrificia legis externae res quaedam spirituales potiores praesignabantur, has omninò res, Sacrifi∣cia, holocausta, hosti∣as sacrae literae ap∣pellant: ut mactatio∣nes brutorum anima∣lium figurae erant mortificationis. Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. In secundo.
• a 1.337

  Non terrenis, sed spiritualibus est Deo litandum. Tertull. ad∣versus Iudaeos.
• b 1.338

  Erant tum Sa∣crificia pro delicto, quae nunc sunt Sacri∣ficia poenitentiae de delicto. Ambros. lib. 3. Epist. 28.
• c 1.339

  Spiritus contri∣bulatus.—Ostendit Deus, se velle Sacri∣ficium, non trucidati pecoris, sed contriti pectoris. Aug. de Ci∣vit. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 5.
• d 1.340

  Mundo moriens, ipse est Sacrificium. Idem.
• e 1.341

  Tunc corpora pro corporibus; nunc non corpora, sed vitia corporis perimenda. Arnob. cont. Gentes.
• f 1.342

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Isid. Pelus. lib. 3. Epist. 75.
• g 1.343

  Illi offerebant oves & boves: nos tam crasso praeterito Sacrificio subtile of∣ferimus, virtutes om∣nigenas: Sacrificium enim minimè carna∣le, secundùm natu∣ram 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 1.344

  Chrysost. in Gen. Hom. 60. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• i 1.345

  Pelusiota. lib. 3. Ep. 75. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• k 1.346

  Preces & 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 been sayd, Deo magis placet Schir, quàm Schior, id est, Canticum, quàm vitulus. Bellar. ibid.
• l 1.347

  Gladio verbi mactans vltia. Hier & rursus in Psal. 26. Hostia jubilati∣onis, hostia praedicationis.
• m 1.348

  Chrys. in Psal. 95. Munus Evangelicum Sacrificium mundum & immaculatum.
• n 1.349

  Sacrificium praedicationis omnibus aromatibus praestantius. Aug.
• o 1.350

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dicunt, vel quòd eâ Deus prae Sacrificijs placere sibi testatur: haec sancta vestis aromata Sactorum est. Chrysost.
• p 1.351

  Vbi scriptum est, [Misericordiam magis volo quàm Sacrificium] nihil aliud quàm Sacrificiū Sacrificio praelatum intelligi oppor∣tet: quoniam quod ab hominibus appellatur Sacrificium, signum est veri Sacrificij. Aug. lib. 10. de Civit. cap. 5.
• r 1.352

  Nos templum Dei sumus omnes, cor nostrum altare Dei, cruentas victimas caedimus, quando usque ad san∣guinem pro veritate certamus. Aug. ibid. cap. 4.
• s 1.353

  Verum Sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur, ut Deo in sancta societate haereamus: relatumque ad illum sinem, ut beati esse possimus, Idem. lib. 10. de Civit. cap. ••.
• 1 1.354

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Vnum.—Sanctus Aug. lib. 10. de Ci∣vit. Dei, cap. 6. Sic definit Sacrificium: Sacrificium (inquit) est opus omne quod agitur, ut sanctâ so∣cietate inhaereatur Deo, relatum ad illum sinem, ut beati esse possimus. Respondeo, Vocat Opus tale Sacri∣ficium verum, ratione dignitatis & effectus, quod sit praestantius: non ratione formae & essentiae Sacrificij propriè dicti.
• a 1.355

  In the English Liturgia.
• b 1.356

  Iansen. Christū in coena Sacrificium obtuli••••e, primū qui∣dem satis est signifi∣catum, cum dicitur Gratias egisse: Gra∣tiarum enim actio est quoddam Sacrificium, à qua Christi actione Sacramentum corpo∣ris & sanguinis Do∣mini nomen illud ab initio Ecclesia acce∣pit. Concord. cap. 131.
• * 1.357

  See above Chap. 3. Sect. 5
• c 1.358

  Bellarm. Melan∣cthon Eucharistiam Sacrificium esse vult,—& Calvinus non solùm 〈 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, & §. Expen∣damus.
• d 1.359

  Canus. Lutherani in Apologia Augusta∣na perperam Sacrifi∣cium definiebant esse opus à nobis Deo redditum, ut cum ho∣nore afficiamus. Loc. Theolog. lib. 12. ca. 12. §. Quibus rebus. Bellar. Melancthon dicit, Missam dici posse Sacri∣ficium, quaetenùs sumptio Eucharistiae fieri potest ad laudem Dei, sicut caetera bona opera. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Ac primum. Et Calvinus dicit, Sacrificium generaliter acceptum complectitur quicquid Deo offertur. Ibid. §. Expendamus. Kemnitius dicit, Sacrificium à Patribus dici Oblationem, Immolationem, & Sacrificium, quia est commemoratio & repraesentatio veri Sacrificij Christi. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 15. §. Alter modus.
• * 1.360

  See above Chap. 5. Sect. 7.
• 2 1.361

  Bellar. Recog. Librorum de Missa. Feriâ sextâ majoris hebdomadae non ce∣lebratur Missae sacri∣ficium: quāvis in illa Actione dicat Sacer∣dos, [Orate, Fratres, ut et meum et vestrū Sacrificium &c.] Et paulò antè; [Sic fiat Sacrificium nostrū in conspectu tuo, ut pla∣ceat Tibi, Domine Deus.] In his duobus lotis vox, Sacrificiū, non videtur propriè accipienda, sed largo modo pro tota ista Actione. Et quòd in ista feria Missa non propriè celebretur, le∣gimus in Ordine Ro∣mano antiquissimo. &c.
• a 1.362

  Synod. Trid. Sacrificium verè pro∣pitiatorium—Hu∣jus oblatione placa∣tur Deus, gratiam & donum poenitentiae concedens dimittit peccata, una enim eademque hostia est, idem nam offerens Sacerdotum mini∣sterio, qui seipsum in cruce obtulit. Sess. 22. cap. 2.
• b 1.363

  Catechis. Rom. (Jussu Conc. Trident. & Pij Quinti Pont. editus.) Vt Sacrifi∣cium est, non solum merendi, sed & sa∣tisfaciendi quo{que} ef∣ficaciam habet. De Euch. num. 55. Oseri∣us Ies. Conc. Tom. 4. de Missae Sacrificio, in Psalm. 4. [Sacrificare Sacrificium.] Vnicum hoc Sacrificiū est Sa∣crificium laudis, gra∣tiarum actionis, ex∣piatorium & satisfa∣ctorium pro peccatis, & impetratorium pro vivis & defunctis Ita tradit Conc. Trid.
• a 1.364

  Bellarm. Se∣cundum Argumentū sumitur ex his verbis Institutionis, quae a∣pertissimè docent, Christum obtulisse in coena pro peccatis A∣postolorum Lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 2. §. Secun∣dum.
• * 1.365

  See above. Chap. 1. Sect. 2.
• * 1.366

  In the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 place.
• * 1.367

  See above, 1. Sect. 3.
• a 1.368

  Valent. Om∣nes actiones rectae rectè propitiare De∣um aliquâ ratione censeri debent. Lib. 2 de Missa, cap. 5. Idem. Peculiari ratione Pre∣cibus propitiandi vis in Scriptura tribuitur, quaten{us} beneficia di∣vina ex misericordia Dei, per illas impe∣tramus. Ibid.
• * 1.369

  See above, Chap. 8. Sect. 3.
• * 1.370

  August. See above, Cha. 5. Sect. 8.
• * 1.371

  Chrysost. ibid.
• a 1.372

  Origen. in Le∣vit. Hom. 13. Si re∣deas ad illum quem Deus proposuit Pro∣pitiatorem per fidē, & si respicias ad illā commemorationem, de qua dicit Domin{us}, Hoc facite in com∣memorationem mei; ista est sola comme∣moratio, quae propi∣tium facit hominibus Deum.
• * 1.373

  See Chap. 5. Sect. 11.
• b 1.374

  Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 31. §. Postremò superest. pa. 238. Quidā Patres judicant inprimis hâc hostiâ expiari pecca∣ta, quòd cruentū me∣moret Sacrificium. 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.
• * 1.375

  See above Chap. 5. Sect. 8
• * 1.376

  See above Chap. 5. Sect. 13. at the Letter (c).
• a 1.377

  Canus. Satis est ut vere & propriè sit Sacrificium, quod mois Christi ita nunc ad peccati re∣missionē applicetur, ac si nunc ipse Chri∣stus moreretur, id quod Scriptorum ve∣terum testimonijs cō∣firmatur.—August. Semel immolatus in seipso Christus, & ta∣men quotidiè immo∣latur in Sacramento. Paschasius: 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. demū Nazian. (ut caeteros omittam) hanc in∣cruentam Immolati∣onem vocant. Loc. Theol. lib. 12. cap. 12. §. Illud. pag. 422.
• b 1.378

  Cyril. My∣stag. 5. Christum ma∣ctatum offerimus, ut Deum propitiū red∣damus. Ob. per Bel∣larm. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 2. Greg. Nyssen. orat. 1. de Resur. & Theoph. in Matth. Dicunt inactationem esse in hac oblatione, &c.
• c 1.379

  Salmeron. Quod benignè interpretan∣dum—nimirùm, mactationem antiquam Christi in cruce inveniri, non novam & realem ab eâ distinctam. Si in coena mactatus erat, quomodo ad nonam horam diei usque sequentis vixit? absurda haec sunt, & aliena à ve∣ritate. Tom. 9. Tract. 31. §. Quartò.
• d 1.380

  Ambros. Hic imago, veritas in coelestibus, nunc Christus offertur, sed offertur quasi homo, quasi recipiens passionem. Offert se ipse, quasi Sacerdos, ut peccata nostra dimittat, hic in imagine, ibi in veritate ubi apud Patrem. Lib. 1. de offic. cap. 48.
• * 1.381

  See above, Cha. 3. Sect. 8. at the letter (c).
• a 1.382

  Bellar. Ratio 2. Quare Sacrificium Crucis sit tanti valo∣ris, hoc autem siniti, sumitur ex parte of∣ferentis: nam Sacri∣ficio Crucis ipse oste∣rens est fillus Dei per se 3 at in Sacrificio Missae est ipse offe∣rens per Ministrum.—Illa actio imme∣diatè producta à di∣vino supposito, ipsa ab humano. Lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 4.
• b 1.383

  Salmeron. Ies. Modò Christus in Eucharistia personā induit rei 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 of∣ferentis. Tom. 9. Tract. 33. pag 266. de Missis privatis.
• * 1.384

  See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 4.
• c 1.385

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. See above, Chap. 6. Sect. 3.
• d 1.386

  Loquitur Apo∣stolus de Sacrificijs veteris Legis,—Po∣test etiam absolutè & genetatim ••ccipi, quod quotiescunque fit remissio; fit san∣gumis effusio: sed non nisi virture effu∣sionis sive nunc fa∣cta, sive post futura. Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 25. §. Ad illud.
• e 1.387

  Si accommode∣mus ad Evangelium, dicendum est, pecca∣ta nunc remitti, non propter praesentem effusionem, sed per prae eritam. Maldon. Ies. lib. de 7. Sacram. Tract. de Euch. im∣mediatè ante exitum. Tom. 1.
• f 1.388

  Si respicimus corpus Christi, quod continetur in Euch. quis negat esse propi∣tiatorium, non ratio∣ne oblationis, quam Sacerdos facit, sed ratione Oblationis factae in cruce? Conc. provinc. Colon. de Missa. fol. 105. And a little after, Non propitiatorium, rati∣one Sacrificij, quod est situm in actione Sacerdoris, seu Mislae communicātum, aut Ecclesiae: sed ratione Sacrificij, quod in cruce oblatum.
• a 1.389

  Mi••um non est, si cum Christus infinitus extitit, ejus hostia suit infiniti meriti & satisfactio∣nis. Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 33. pag. 265, 266.
• b 1.390

  Erat infini∣ti valoris: nec enim aliter potui•• compen∣sari injuria Deo fa∣cta. Ribera Ies. in Heb. 10. num. 19.
• c 1.391

  Valor Sacrificij Missae est ••initus. Haec est communis sen∣tentia Theologorum: in quo distinguitur à Sacrificio Crucis—quod infinitae virtutis erat, & nun∣quam rep••titur. Bellarm. Lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 4. §. Quarta Prop. [And yet it is knowne that Cardinall C••••jetane, Canus, and Scotus were of a contrarie opinion:] To this last Testimony of Bellarm••••e adde also Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 33. §. Tertiò.
• a 1.392

  Conc. Trid. Vt visibile Sacrifici∣um—quo cr••enti Sacrificij virtus in re∣missionem peccato∣rum applicaretur. Sess. 22. cap. 1.
• b 1.393

  Ribera. Ies. Quoniam quotidiè peccamus, quotidiè virtutem passionis Christi participa∣mus, quod Conc. Trid. docuit, quo cruentum illud, se∣mel in cruce peragen∣dum, repraesentare∣tur, atque saluta••is ejus virtus in remissi∣onem peccatorum ••∣orum, quae quotidrè à nobis committuntur, applica••etur. Et h••c Catholicis quidem hominibus manifestissimum est, Haeretici negare non possunt, quoniam Scripturae v••rbis a∣pertissimè comptobatur de virtute passionis, ad omnia peccata tollenda, Rom. 3. & 5. [Apoc. 1 1. Ioh. 2. Com. in Heb. 1. 10. num. 16.
• * 1.394

  See the last Testimony.
• c 1.395

  Opinio pri∣ma. Omnes culpas mortales, & omnia peccata (post Baptis∣mum commissa) per Sacrificium Altaris—sic vult Catharinus—Haec opinio non vera, nisi omnes Theologi fallantur. Canus loc. Theol. lib. 12. pag. 432. 433.
• d 1.396

  Valent. Ies. Itaque sunt, qui cen∣seant hoc Sacrificium valere tantùm ad relaxationem poenarum, quarum culpa prius condonata ••uit. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 5. §. Itaque sunt. pag. 542. Remittuntur ve••alia. Costerus Christian. Institut. lib. 1. cap. 8.
• a 1.397

  Alan. Card. Pro••ijs peccatis, pro quib{us} Christus mor∣tuus est. Lib. 2. de Eucharist. cap. 35. [Wherein he bringeth the Testimonies of Chrysost. Cyprian, Theoph. and Origen, expounding them of all sins, adding also;] Ego ver•• nunquam invenio hujus Sacrificij usum à Patribus ad pauciora restringi peccata, quam ipsa immolatio crucis. Ibid. pag. 626.
• b 1.398

  Calix—sive medicamentum & holocaustum ad sanandas infirmitates, & purgandas ini∣quitates. Cyprian. de Coena Domini. Vt cum Deo acceptum fuerit peccata dimittantur. August. de Civi••. lib. 20. cap. 25. Omnis nocumenti est reparatio, omnis sortis purgatio. Damasc. lib. 4. de ••ide, cap. 14. Omne cri∣men Iu••. Papa apu•• Gratian de Consecrat.▪ Dist. 2. Vt peccata nostra dimittat. Ambros. lib. 1. de O••••ic. cap. 48. [There might be added ••ustine Martyr, Dial. cum Triphone, Chrysost. Hom. 13. in Ephes. Orig. Hom. 13. in Levit. besides the Liturgies of Basil, and others that are extant.]
• * 1.399

  See above Booke 1. Chap. ••. Sect. ••. ••.
• c 1.400

  Canon Mis∣sae (De Applicatione)—& omnium Cir∣cumstantium, quo∣rum tibi fides cogni∣ta est, & nota devo∣tio, pro quibus Tibi offerimus &c.
• d 1.401

  Hinc. Suarez Ies. Quia oblatio hu∣jus Sacrificij est fru∣ctuosa ex opere ope∣rato: ergò rationi consentaneum est, ut omnes, qui ad illum verè concurrunt, vel per proprium actum, seu concursum mora∣lem, participent hu∣jusmodi fructum ta∣lis oblationis. In 3. Thom. qu. 83. Art. 1. Disp. 79. §. ••.
• e 1.402

  Costerus Chri∣stian. Institut. lib. 1. cap▪ 8▪ de sacro Missae officio quotidi•• audi∣endo. Quotquot ad∣sunt & dignè se parāt, spiritualiter corpore Domini reficiuntur per os Sacerdotis.
• * 1.403

  See Booke 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 9.
• a 1.404

  Salmeron Ies. Si hoc esset infiniti valoris, & celebrata esset Missa pro re∣demptione omniū a∣nimarum, quae in ex∣piatorio carcere con∣tiuentur, totum eva∣cuaret Purgatorium: quod non est creden∣dum, quia frustrà tot Missae pr••o uno defun∣cto celebrarentur. Tom. 9. Tract. 33. pa. 268. De Missis pri∣vatis.
• b 1.405

  Valent. Ies. Quaedam portio re∣missionis competit Sacerdoti ministran∣ti, quaedam ei, cui Sacerdos vult pecu∣liari intentione ap∣plicare—Quae inten∣tio non tantum valet pro pluribus, ac si pro uno solo celebretur. Lib. 1. de Missa, cap. ult. §. Ac primum. Et Alan. lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. Vt qui Sacrificium pro Pe∣tro o••••eit, ratione sti∣pendij. Suarez. Ies. Tom. 3. Disp. 79. §. 9. pag. 1021.
• c 1.406

  Alan. In cer∣tarum personarum Causis certam Sacri∣ficij aestimationem, ••c fructus quantitatem desinire, non tam cer∣ta loquimur, quia ad ista particularia nec Scripturae, nec Patres quicquam conferunt. Lib. 2. de Euch. cap. 34. pag. 635.
• d 1.407

  Inquiri po∣test, an tenetur Sa∣cerdos ex justitia ap∣plicare Sacrificium Petro, ratione ab eo accepti stipen••ij; nihilominus applicat Paulo: vel cum jubetur offerre Sacrificium pro tali Defuncto, offert pro se. Quidam dicunt Sacrificium operari in hujusmodi casibus non secundùm voluntatem Ministri, sed secundùm obligationem, quâ tenetur pro hoc vel illo offerre. Ali•• volunt obligationem tenere—Sed operatur se∣cundùm intentionem Ministri, quatenùs est Christi Minister. Suarez. quo supra. [But your Cardinall,] Sed injustè facere. Alan. quo supra, cap. 35. pag. 640.
• * 1.408

  See above Chap. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• a 1.409

  Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 3. Mors Christi est Sa∣crificium prop iè di∣ctum, & perfectissi∣mum.
• b 1.410

  Bellarm. Ibid. cap. 20. §. Probatur.—Sublato Sacrificio Missae, nullum restat in Ecclesia Sacrifici∣um propriè dictum. Nam si ullum esset, id esset Sacrificium 〈◊〉〈◊〉, illud enim u∣num▪ Adversarij as∣signant unicum esse Christianae religionis Sacrificium. At hoc commune omnibus veris Religionibus, sed semel poractum mane••, quoad esse∣ctum, & virtutem.
• * 1.411

  Apoc. 5. 12.
• * 1.412

  Iohn 3.
• * 1.413

  See a Sy••opsis hereof, Booke 8.
• * 1.414

  Pag. 121.
• * 1.415

  Edit. 1. pag. 92.
• * 1.416

  Edit. 1. pag. 95.
• * 1.417

  Edit. Paris. 1580.
• * 1.418

  Edit. 1. pag. 107.
• * 1.419

  Edit. 1. pag. 113.
• * 1.420

  Edit. 1. pag. 125.
• * 1.421

  Edit. 1. pag. 124.
• * 1.422

  Edit. 1. pag. 134.
• * 1.423

  Edit. 1. pag. 135.
• * 1.424

  Edit. 1. pag. 135.
• * 1.425

  Edit. 1. pag. 136.
• * 1.426

  Edit. 1. pag. 136.
• * 1.427

  See Booke 2. cap. 1. Sect. 7.
• * 1.428

  Edit. 1. pag 132.
• * 1.429

  Edit. 1. pag. 140.
• * 1.430

  Edit. 1. pag. 141.
• * 1.431

  Edit. 1. pag. 14••.
• * 1.432

  Edit. 1. pag. 143.
• * 1.433

  Edit. 1. pag. 149.