S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 1. YOur Discourse of true and Proper Sacrifice, consisting of a triple autho­rity from Cyprian, Eusebius, and S. Augustine, I have lately received, but without title to your pains su­perscribed, without name subscribed, and without any convenient and helpfull divisions of the same, into which (by way of Chapters) I am forced to branch both that and mine own papers. Something I must call you, and because I know not which letters of the Alphabet will fit you best, I am resolved to give you all, by way of A. B. C. &c. I will follow you presso pede, not wandring from you, but keeping in full chace, which will be more evident by my producing all that you have sent, as it was sent, literally. And thus I begin.

A. B. C.

§. 2. FOrasmuch as it was required that I would produce some few clear and undoubted testimonies of the Fathers of the first 400. years after Christ, or within the time of the first [Page 6] foure generall Councels, for proof of two points of Catholick Doctrine denied by Protestants, to wit, That there is a true and proper Sacrifice in the Church instituted by Christ, and to con­tinue after his time: And that S. Peter had the Primacy over the whole Church, with continuance thereof to his Successours: though this labour may seem superfluous, the thing being so completely performed already, and by so many, especially in this last age; yet for satisfaction of a Gentleman, who thinks it is not to be done, and for discharge of my promise, I have here set down some such places, beginning with that of The Sa­crifice.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 3. Upon request of a friend of mine (but then a disciple of your own) you came unto me, not as was at first expected and desired, to a fore-designed confe­rence, but rather like an occasionall traveller. Being with me, you made choice rather to write then to con­ferre with an able scholar whom I should name. And you demanded on what Theam. I gave you then the same two points which had troubled your follower ( Mr. Edward Beuin) and which were by him (as being indeed very materiall) presented unto me: Concern­ing Proper Sacrifice, and the Papall Supremacy.

I confesse you took them not in writing, wherefore I cannot so much (as then I might) blame you, for sending me my questions back in a different state from that which you received from me. Mine were thus:

This is the true state of your Romish tenet, and al­though you have drawn the difference into a narrower compasse, yet will you not be able to fill the circle you have made. Concerning the Popes Supremacy, you have respited that Theam, and in three times the time expected have finished but half your work. Concern­ing Sacrifice, leaving out the point of propitiation for the absent, and for the dead, you say but this;

There is a true and proper Sacrifice in the Church, insti­tuted by Christ, and to continue after his time. I take the last clause (of Continuance) in the best sense: and in your question, by you thus stated, I do find two propo­sitions which you are bound to maintain: First, That Christ did institute a Sacrifice. Secondly, The Sacrifice by Christ instituted is a Sacrifice proper, or properly so called. The more completely and the more plentifully these Theams have been argued by other men, the easier for you, and the stronger for your cause your work may be.

A. B. C.

§. 1. THe first shall be S. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, famous for his learning, life, and martyrdome: who writing a long Epistle against the errour of such as did use onely water in calice Dominico sanctificando, in sanctifying, [Page 8] hallowing, or consecrating, the chalice of our Lord, contrary to what Jesus Christ our Lord and God, Sacrificii hujus autor & doctor, saith he, the authour or beginner and teacher of this Sacrifice, did do and teach, towards the end hath these words, Si Jesus Christus Dominus & Deus noster, ipse est summus Cyprian Epist 63. sacerdos Dei Patris, sacrificium Patri primus obtulit, & hoc fieri in sui commemorationem praecepit; utique ille Sacerdos vi­ce Christi veré fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur: & Sacrificium verum & plenum tunc offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat offerre, secundùm quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse: If Jesus Christ our Lord and God be himself the high Priest of God the Father, he did offer sacrifice first, and commanded this to be done in remembrance of him; veri­ly that Priest doth truly perform the place (or execute the of­fice) of Christ (for fungi vice is a word of authority) who doth imitate that which Christ did do: and doth then offer a true and full Sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, if he begin so to offer, according to what he seeth Christ himself to have offered. By which it is clear that our Saviour did then offer a perfect Sacrifice (for why else is his Priesthood so ex­pressely mentioned?) at that time when he commanded his disciples to do the same in remembrance of him: and that by that command he gave power not onely to his Apostles, but al­so to Priests of succeeding▪ times, to offer a true and full Sacri­fice in imitation of him.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 2. You have concluded that our Saviour did then offer a perfect Sacrifice when he commanded his disci­ples to do the same in remembrance of him: you do not here conclude the question. For, first, you have stated your question, that Christ did institute a Sacrifice, but you say, He did offer; this is matter of fact, the other of precept: great difference between his own offering (if [Page 9] he had done so in that sense you suppose) and institu­ting that others should offer. In the next place, the doubt is of a proper Sacrifice, and your Conclusion is, That our Saviour did offer a perfect Sacrifice. Who ever denied but that our Saviours Sacrifice upon the Crosse was both proper and perfect? and who deni­eth but that some other Sacrifices are perfect also in their kinds, which neverthelesse cannot be called proper? Psal. 4. 6. [...], Offer the sacrifice of righ­teousnesse: a sacrifice wherewith God is well pleased; sure­ly therefore a perfect sacrifice, yet not a sacrifice properly so called: Psal. 51. 19. [...] This is another Sacrifice, a broken spirit, and certainly a right perfect one, Psal. 51. 17. for God will not despise it: yet is it but a metaphoricall sacrifice. The Apostle calleth almes, Philip. 4. 18. Heb. 13. 16 [...], a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God: yet are almes but Sacrifice impro­perly so called, you may therefore yield that when you conclude for perfect Sacrifice, you conclude not the point in question.

Yet I will look back into your premisses, and for re­verence to that good and great Pope Cyprian of Car­thage peruse what you from him alledge.

But before I weigh your arguments let us agree up­on the scales to try them by: you shall be fairly offer­ed: you and I in this Controversie will be shut up with­in the same bounds wherewith your learned Cardinall hath enwalled this contention. Which being stated into the very point of difference between us is thus: Whether our Saviour at his last supper did institute an ex­ternall, visible, and proper Sacrifice? for the clear un­derstanding [Page 10] whereof, I will out of your Cardinal bor­row these seven Aphorismes;

1. First, we differ not upon the word Sacrifice, you may believe your Cardinall; Bell. de M [...]. lib. 2. c [...]. 1. Adversarii facilè con­cedunt missam esse Sacrificium [...] & [...], non quidem quòd velint esse Sacrificium propriè dictum, sed impropriè & largo modo: Our Adversaries do easily grant that the The word Masse is h [...]re and with Pa­pists fre­quently ta­k [...]n for the whole act of cel [...]bra­tion of the Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per. Masse is a Sacrifice of thanksgiving, and of Divine worship, not that thereby they would allow it to be a Sacrifice properly so called, but improperly and in a large sense And again, Lib. 1. c. 5. Fatentur—Melanchthon—Kemnitius—Brentius, & alii, Missam, sive sacram coenam, multis modis Sacrificium dici posse: They confesse that the Masse or holy Supper may be many w [...]yes called a Sacrifice.

2. Next, Bellarmine saith, That in [...]v [...]ry Sacrifice properly so called there is an oblation or offering which is both externall and visible; De Miss. lib. 1 cap. 2. Necessariò requiritur ad Sacrificium propriè dictum, ut sit oblatio externa: It is necessarily required unto a Sacrifice properly so called, that there be an externall oblation. And, Nomen & ratio Sa­crifici [...] propriè non convenit invisibili oblationi, sed solùm visibili & externae: The name and nature of a Sacrifice pro­perly doth not agree unto an invisible oblation, but onely to a visible and externall.

3. Thirdly, there must be a change in the thing of­fered, even such a change as may be found by our sen­ses; Lib. 1. c. 27 Sensibilis immutatio rei quae [...]ffertur—ad rationem externi Sacrificii omnino pertinere videtur: A sensible change of the thing which is offered—doth altogether seem to appertain to the nature of an externall Sacrifice.

4. Fourthly, This change [...]ust be a reall destructi­on of the thing offered; Lib. 1. [...]. 27 Verum & reale sacrificium [Page 11] veram & realem mortem aut destructionem rei immolatae desiderat: A true and reall sacrifice doth require a true and reall death or destruction of the thing sacrificed: and this destruction is not onely in the change of the use of a thing offered, but also in the consuming of the sub­stance offered. In sacrificio—non solùm usus rei Deo of­feratur, sed ipsa etiam substantia consumatur: In sacrifice not onely the use of the thing ought to be offered to God, but also the very substance: and therefore not onely the use but the substance is to be consumed.

5. Fifthly▪ by the necessary rule of Relatives, if you plead for proper Sacrifice, you must prove Altars properly so called; Bellar. de cul [...] l. [...]. c. 4 Sine Altari non potest sacrificari: Without an Altar there can be no sacrificing. De Miss. lib. 1. c. 14. Nunquam altare propriè dictum [...]rigitur, nisi ad sacrifici [...] propriè dicta: An altar properly so called is never erected, [...]a [...] un­to sacrifices properly so called.

6. Sixthly, by the same rule you must prove a pro­priety of Priesthood among you; Lib. 1. c. 2 Sacrificium & Sacer­dotium relativa sunt, ità u [...] sacrifici [...] propriè dicto, sacer­dotium propriè dictum, & sacrifici [...] impropriè dicto, sacer­dotium impropriè dictum respondea [...]: Sacrifice & Priesthood are relatives, so that unto sacrifice properly so called, [...] priest­hood properly so called doth answer; and un [...]o sacrifice im­properly so called, a priesthood improperly so called.

7. Seventhly, unlesse you maintain your Transub­stantiation you lose your sacrifice: for if you onely of­fered bread, Lib. 1. c. 27 Haberet Ecclesia sacrificium i [...]animum: The Church should have a sacrifice without a soul: where­fore he fixeth this Canon upon his supposed Transub­stantiation; Ibid. Corpus & sanguis Domini sunt id sacrifi­cium, quod in Missa propriè offertur & sacrificatur: The [Page 12] body and bloud of our Lord are that sacrifice, which in the Masse properly is offered and sacrificed.

The first of these seven sheweth how much we yield, the other six how much you claim: all together shew wherein we differ, and consequently what you ought to prove; which may be thus recapitulated, 1. No proof out of any Father will conclude for you upon his affirming that in and at the holy Supper of our Lord, there is a Sacrifice; or upon his saying that the Action and Celebration of the Eucharist is or may be called a Sacrifice. For, as Bellarmine tells you, we con­fesse that it may be called multis modis, many wayes, a Sacrifice: but all of them improperly and metaphorically. 2. You are to prove, that Christ did institute an oblati­on or offering externall and visible. 3. In which offer­ing may be found a sensible change of the thing offered. 4. Which Change must be either the very death, or the reall destruction of the thing offered. 5. All which must be upon an Altar properly so called. 6. And by a Sacrificing Priest properly called a Priest. Lastly, all this is nothing worth unlesse your bread be transubstantia­ted, for the bodie and bloud of our Lord must be that you offer: otherwise you say you do Sacrifice, inani­mum Sacrificium, a dead, a livelesse Sacrifice, a Sacrifice that hath not a soul in it, which is much more vile (saith your Cardinall) then the Jewish Sacrifices were.

Thus have you enough to do: your shoulders (good Atlas) will be too weak for this weight. And if you fail in any of this, you forfeit your proper Sa­crifice.

That the word Sacrifice may not, by the doubtfull sense of it, retard our progresse take two passages out of [Page 13] S. Augustine, and as many out of your greatest Do­ctours of the School. We professe, with S. Augu­stine, that De civit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 6. Every good work is a true Sacrifice; Verum Sacrificium est omne opus, quod agitur ut sanctâ societate inhaereamus Deo. That the Sacrament is indeed and properly a Sacrifice we deny, but that it may be so cal­led a Sacrifice, we will confesse with S. Augustine; Epist. 23 Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso, & tamen in Sacramento, non solùm per omnes paschae solennitates, sed omni die populis immolatur? Nec utique mentitur qui interrogatus, [...]um responderit immolari. Si enim Sacra­menta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sa­cramenta sunt non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent: ex hâc autem similitudine, plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt: Was not (saith he) Christ once sacrificed (or offered) in himself, and yet in the Sacrament, not onely upon all paschall solemnities, but every day is sacrificed (or offered) to the people? Neither yet doth he lie who, being asked, shall answer that sacrificed (or offered) he is. For if the Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments, they were not Sacraments at all. Now by this similitude they oftentimes receive names of the things themselves. Therefore thus in ano­ther place saith S. Augustine, Ad Sim­plic. lib. 2. qu. 3. The phantasme and ima­ginarie illusion which appeared unto Saul, is in the Scripture called by the name of Samuel: Quia solent ima­gines, &c. as you shall heare anon. Thus the death of our Saviour being a Sacrifice, and that Sacrifice by way of Similitude being represented by the Sacrament, in the opinion of S. Augustine the Sacrament it self is thereupon called a Sacrifice. Answer it when you can: and by the way tell me what is meant by populis immo­latur, [Page 14] is sacrificed or offered to the people, when as the sa­crifice you contend for, is the offering up of the natu­rall body and soul of Jesus Christ unto God the Fa­ther.

Your Master of the sentences affirmeth, [...] 1 Dist. 12. § 7. Illud quod offertur & consecratur à sacerdote vocari Sacrificium & oblationem: Wherefore? because it is the true body of Christ? No: quia memoria est & repraesentatio veri sa­crificii & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis: That which is offered and consecrated by the preist is called a Sa­crifice and oblation, because it is a memory and representati­on of the true Sacrifice and holy offering made upon the Al­tar of the Crosse. I need not wish for plainer language, yet methinketh your Ang [...]licall Doctour argueth more fully against you. His question is, Whether in the blessed Sacrament, Christ be offered up or not? To which he an­swereth; It. 3. qu [...] 7 [...]. ar [...]. 1. Dupliciratione celebratio hujus Sacramenti di­citur immolatio Christi: primò quidem; quia sicut dicit Augustinus ad It should have been ad Simpli­cianum. Simplicium, solent imagines earum re­rum nominibus appellari, quarum imagines sunt: sicut cùm intuentes tabulam aut parietem pictum, dicimus, Ille Cicero est, & ille Salustius: Celebratio autem huius Sacra­menti imago quaedam est repraesentativa passionis Christi, quae est vera ejus immolatio: & ideo celebratio hujus Sacra­menti dicitur Christi immolati [...] ▪—Alio modo quan­tum ad effectum passionis Christi: quia scilicet per hoc sa­cramentum participes efficimur Dominicae passionis: The celebration of this Sacrament is by a twofold reason called the Sacrifice of Christ: First because, as S. Augustine saith unto Simplician, Images use to be called by the names of those things whereof they are images: even as when behold­ing a painted picture we say, That is Cicero, This is Salust: [Page 15] The celebration indeed of this Sacrament is a certain re­presentative image of the passion of Christ, which is his true Sacrifice. In another kind (it is called a Sacrifice) in regard of the effect of our Saviours passion: because indeed by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the Lords passion. Here wanteth a third way for your turn, and it may be strange that so Sainted a Doctour in so vast a summe of all Divinity should forget your highest mysterie of a proper Sacrifice, even there where he is treating of the Sacrament, and how it may be called a Sacrifice. You may take his conclusion, which is but this, Hu­jus Sacramenti celebratio—convenienter dicitur Christi immolatio, the celebration of this Sacrament is conveni­ently called the Sacrifice of Christ. He doth not say it is so really, properly, but it is conveniently called so, so I go on to your testimony out of S. Cyprian.

§. 3. This ancient Father arguing the right cele­bration of the Lords supper from the example of our Saviour the Authour thereof, who onely is herein to be followed, doth proceed to these words by you al­ledged; Si Jesus Christus, &c. If Jesus Christ our Lord and God, be himself the high preist of God the fa­ther, he did offer Sacrifice first, and commanded this to be done in remembrance of him: verily that preist doth tru­ly perform the place of Christ who doth imitate that which Christ did do: and doth then offer a true and fall Sacri­fice in the Church to God the father, if he begin so to offer according to what he seeth Christ himself to have offered. What of this? here are the words Sacrifice and Preist. I know no quarrel between us upon these words; nor would there be any, if you did not adde your sense of propriety to them both. Cyprian here calleth either [Page 16] our Saviours death upon the crosse, or els the remem­brance thereof, the Lords supper (which was insti­tuted to shew the Lords death) or both of them a Sa­crifice. [...] 1. Cor. 11. 26. Be it so. What can be from hence inferred more, then that which in the first of my seaven infe­rences before was by anticipation prevented? We confesse the name of Sacrifice, Preist, and Altar, to be frequent with the ancient Fathers, but ever in a bor­rowed and tropicall sense, never properly. Here the preist is said to imitate that which Christ did: so the Ministers properly, but Preists improper­ly. Preists and Ministers (call them which you will) in the reformed Church. This imitation is called a true and full Sacrifice, but not a proper Sacrifice: You saw before (§. 2.) that I shewed you perfect sacrifices which were not proper sacrifices; of which you may also see a whole Chapter in S. Augustine, de vero per­fectóque sacrificio, and yet no word of your Missall sacrifice.

§. 4. If you will go no further then these Fathers and Doctours, I will go with you. Call the signe by the name of the thing signified; call the representation, as you do the thing resembled; call the picture by the name of the person, whose it is, who will quarrel? unlesse for the Consequence being dangerous, or for fear of scandall. Call the image of your Pope the Pope, your self well knows, that then you speak im­properly, yet who will argue you of falshood? When you see the picture of King Charles, if you say this is the King, who will lay treason to your charge? But think not that a few forced places, picked and chosen out of the voluminous labours of the holy Fathers, can make your phansie substantiall. When in ancient [Page 17] Churchmen you papists do find the word Sacrifice, straightway your ears are up, and you flatter your selves, that the chime strikes the same tune that runs in your head, like the mad Athenian, who will not be Thrasilau [...] in Athen. De ip. nos. l. 12. perswaded, but that all the ships in the harbour are his.

If one or two Fathers in their zeal to God, and for honour to the pretious and venerable sacrament, should in the extollment of it passe an earnest word, thereby more deeply to imprint the passion of our Lord into the minds of Christians, and to raise up our devotion and reverence to this holy and heavenly Communion (calling it [...], a dreadfull, secret, fearfull, terrible, most formidable, unspeakable, venerable, honourable, divine, holy, imma­culate, immortall, celestiall, supercelestiall, above the world, life-giving mystery) yet will you never find any word sentence or sense in them whereby to approve your proper sacrifice; but thousands of places that cannot well consist with such a construction: whereof you shall have some after▪ I have runne through these your allegations.

I have been the more plentifull in this first part, be­cause the grounds here laid, the authorities here vouch­ed, and the clear truth of our orthodox belief in point of Sacrifice, being thus presented, these very reasons and authorities may well serve to answer all or almost all that is remaining: in discussion whereof I will endea­vour brevity.

§. 5. Let me return unto your Cyprian; for Cypri­an and I will passe to another chapter. Look in his e­pistle [Page 18] to nine pious Christians (whom he calleth his fellow-Bishops and Martyrs condemned in chains unto the mines) and there you shall find that having named unto them an humble and a contrite spirit, he presently addeth, L. 3. Ep. 2 [...]. Pamel. Ep. 77. Hoc vos sacrificium Deo offertis, hoc sacr [...]ficium sine intermissione die & nocte celebratis, hostiae facti deo, & vosmet ipsos sanctas atque immaculatas vi­ctimas exhibentes—Hoc est quod praecipuè Deo placeat: This sacrifice you offer unto God, th [...]s sacrifice without in­termission day and night you celebrate; you being made sacrifices to God▪ & presenting your selves holy and unspotted offerings. This is that which principally may please God. This is daily sacrifice with S. Cyprian, to offer up one self; & he concludeth, that this doth principally please God. Principally, that is, above all other Sacrifices in this world. Did not Cyprian here forget your Missal sacrifice?

§. 6. Secondly, in this very Epistle by you cited he saith, Sanguis Christi non aqua est utique, sed vinum, the bloud of Christ is not water verily, but wine: Is our Saviours bloud wine? very true it is so, and he him­self, as Cyprian there voucheth, vitis vera, a true vine: But this is true in a comfortable metaphor, not by conversion of substances: for the bloud of our Savi­our is not really transubstantiated into wine: no man ever thought so. And why then should you obtrude, that because the sacramentall wine is called his bloud, it is therefore, without all figure and metaphor, his very bloud by the conversion of the very substance of wine into the substance of his bloud. Nec potest videri sanguis ejus (quo redempti & vivificati sumus) esse in calice, quando vinum desit calici quo Christi san­guis ostenditur: neither can his bloud (wherewith we are [Page 19] redeemed and quickened) be seen to be in the Chalice, when wine is not in the chalice whereby the bloud of Christ is shewen. From hence I argue, that S. Cyprian knew not your Transubstantiation. For allowing the Sacramentall wine to be the bloud of Christ (and so we confesse it) he saith, There is no bloud to be seen, when the wine is gone: but with you there is no bloud at all, untill the wine be gone. If you say, that indeed the substance of wine is gone, but the species or ac­cidents of colour, &c. are there; I reply, that Cyprian would no more call those accidents wine, then you do now, had he been either a Philosopher of your schools, or a Divine of your Religion. But mark the last words, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur: By the wine Christ his bloud is shewen. He saith not, that the wine is bloud, or turned into bloud, but the bloud is shewen by the wine: yet the bloud with you is seen without wine. Again, Miror satis unde—aqua offeratur in Dominico calice, qu [...] sola Christi sanguinem non possit exprimere: I wonder enough from whence water should be offered in the Lords Chalice, which cannot alone expresse the bloud of Christ. Was the bloud of Christ then to be expressed and signified? it seems S. Cypri­an did forget that the bloud it self was there to ex­presse and signifie it self: Or rather he was unacquaint­ed with your late faith of Transubstantiation. But you will say, I am now in another theam, what is this to sacrifice? Yes, as a foundation to a building. This be­ing gone your work is down; for you say, that you do not sacrifice bread but the body of Christ made of bread, Bell. de. Miss. l. 1. c. 27. Corpus Domini ex pane confectum. If then no Transubstantiation, it follows in your Doctrine by con­sequence no Sacrifice.

[Page 20]§. 7. Lastly, I observe also that Cyprian doth call the bread a Sacrifice, and that before any consecration thereof. He taxing a rich dame for eating the conse­crated bread, which poorer persons (as was customary there) had presented, and not bringing of her own to be consecrated, hath this reprehension: Matrona locu­ples & dives—quae in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis? quae partem de sacrificio quod pauper obtulit sumis? Are you a rich and wealthy matrone who come into the Lords house without a sacrifice? who take part of that sacrifice which some poore body hath offered? Here is Sacrifice, and that before consecration, and that offered by the poore, and expected from a woman.

These places do evidently conclude, that figurative and metaphoricall sacrifices were all that were known unto S. Cyprian, in whom your self cannot find one passage whereby to evince your proper sacrifice.

§. 8. To return, and in a word more to shut you quite from all authority out of Cyprian, let any man with heed and judgement reade this Epistle, written onely against the errour of the Aquarians, who mini­stred the holy Communion in water onely without wine, and he may easily find what Cyprian drives at: and if he be sensible, he will offer to conclude no more then Cyprian himself did undertake to prove. This ho­ly Martyr with much earnestnesse in severall places of this Epistle doth presse the example of our Saviour, as our all-sufficient rule and guide herein. In this very period, whence you take this passage (which is the eleventh in this Epistle) he saith, Non nisi Christus se­quendus—solus Christus audiendus—quid Christus prior fecerit, &c. Wherein? In what point is this ex­ample [Page 21] urged? even in those things (ad ipsum Domini­cae passionis, & nostrae redemptionis Sacramentum perti­nentia) which concern the sacrament: so comes he to your words, that the Priest should imita [...]e Christ, and if he will offer a true and full sacrifice, he must offer, how? Secundùm quod, according to that he seeth Christ himself to have offered. According to that! How so? what is secundùm quod, but (as before) according to the example of Christ? His example! what example and wherein doth Cyprian here mean? plainly against the Aquarians; who in the administration of the Cup used water, and therein did not imitate Christ, by whose ex­ample we are taught to celebrate in wine. And this I will abide by, to be the true, plain, and full scope and sense of this Father in this your choice alledged place.

A. B. C.

HEre I might as well have followed the Edition of Pame­lius, which saith, Sacrificium Patri seipsum primus obtu­lit, He offered himself a sacrifice first, as that of Erasmus, which leaves out the word seipsum, but onely to avoid all ex­ception, and the rather for that the sense is clearly enough the same without that word, at least for my purpose; which is to shew, that Christ did institute a proper Sacrifice, which was to continue in his Church.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

Since that you inferre nothing out of the differencie of Editions, I have therefore no cause of answer to this [Page 22] piece. But if you had vouched that of Pamelius, and argued upon his seipsum, you knew well that I have the much elder Edition by Erasmus, which is enough to controll Pamelius.

A. B. C.

ANd besides, S. Cyprian in this same Epistle had said the same thing, and in a manner the same words: for proving his intent by the example of Melchisedec his Sacrifice, he saith thus: Quis magis sacerdos Dei summi quàm Dominus noster Jesus Christus, qui Sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit, & obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedec obtulerat, id est, panem & vinum, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem? Who is more the priest of the most high God, then our Lord Jesus Christ, who did offer a Sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the same which Melchisedec had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his body and bloud. Now to offer his body and bloud is the same as to offer himself: and in this place I find no varie­ty of readings; so as here again it is clear, that our Saviour did offer a proper Sacrifice such as Melthisedecs. But lest any man should think our Saviours bread and wine to be no more then Melchisedecs, [...]e explicateth himself, that our Saviours bread and wine was his body and bloud, and a little after com­pareth them together, calling the sacrifice of Melehisedec the image and resemblance of the other: and that this resemblance did consist in bread and wine, imago Sacrificii (saith he) in pane & vino constituta▪ and that our Saviour did perfect and fulfill the same when he offered bread and wine, which was the night before his passion, when he took bread and blessed it, and gave it to his Disciples, and the rest, as followeth in the Gospel.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

The place needs no variety of readings: it is plain enough except for your interpretation wherewith you do obscure it, by inferring more then you have ground for. You conclude for your advantage, but you want proof for your Conclusion. You say our Saviour did offer a proper sacrifice: Who ever denied it? You say this Sacrifice was himself: It is confessed. But this, that the Sacramentall bread and wine, being converted into our Saviours body and bloud, was sacrificed (which I see you intend in the last words, He offered bread and wine) when will you prove it? or rather why do you disprove it? For whilest you say he offered bread and wine, you do (against your will) conclude, that he did not as your Priests do, who have nor bread nor wine in your Sacrifice.

But you argue out of Cyprian, who saith, that in Ge­nesi per Melchisedec—Imago sacrificii Christi in pane & vino constituta, &c. The bread and wine of Melchisedec wherewith he refreshed Abraham, was an image of that bread and wine, wherewith our Saviour refresheth the faithfull. Be it so: but you will say that Cyprian calleth here the Sacramentall bread and wine Sacrificium Chri­sti, Christs sacrifice, that is no news: you have it confes­sed and allowed before, that the Eucharist may be said Chap. 2. §. 4▪ to be sacrificall multis modis, but when will you prove it to be so properly? This is that which you have under­taken, and is indeed the onely question.

Concerning this and the rest of Cyprians authorities here alledged, it must be remembred (as was said be­fore) [Page 24] that his intendment is to prove that the Sacra­ment ought to be celebrated in wine, not in water alone, this is his whole intention through this Epistle, without dream or thought of your then unknown and unheard of Transubstantiated presence. Concerning Melchisedec and his offering, I shall have fuller cause to close with you anon.

A. B. C.

WHich point of the time when our Saviour did so offer, as also of his offering of bread & wine as aforesaid in Sacri­fice is expressely averred by S. Cyprian, in the words following, to wit, that the holy Ghost did by Solomon foreshew a type of our Lords Sacrifice ( Typum Dominici Sacrificii) making mention of an immolated host (or Sacrifice) and of bread and of wine, and also of an altar, and of the Apostles. They are all S. Cyprians words, who citing the place of the 9. of the Pro­verbs, taketh hold of the last words ( Bibite vinum quod mis­cui vobis, Drink the wine which I have mingled for you) thus, he declareth the wine to be mingled, that is, he doth foretell pro­phetically that our Saviours chalice was to be mingled with water and wine, that it may appear that that was done in the passion of our Lord (that is, at the time, or beginning of our Saviours passion) which was foretold. Here you see again a clear proof of our Saviours sacrifice, whereof Solomons bread and wine was a type or figure, and likewise of the practice of the Church in offering both water and wine in the Chalice.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

Every proof of our Saviours Sacrifice shall passe for clear, whether it be such or not; because whether you do mean his propitiatory and proper Sacrifice of the Crosse, or the Eucharisticall Sacrifice or Commemo­ration of a sacrifice, instituted in his last supper, both wayes we confesse Christs Sacrifice: what need you therefore prove that which is not denied? But I espie another aim in your last line: you would inferre the antiquity of your practice of celebrating in your min­gled wine and water. This is no more incident to your theam, then water is necessary to the wine. These [...] shall passe by me without trouble; yet let me ask you what your faith is, in this point? when the substance of wine is turned into the substance of Christs bloud (as you believe) what then becomes of the substance of wa­ter which you beforehand did mingle with the wine?

A. B. C.

ANd lastly, to conclude with S. Cyprian in this matter, an­swering an objection made, or which might be made, out of the practice of some who formerly did think that water onely was to be offered in the Chalice, he rejects that practice, saying, In Sacrificio quod Christus obtulit non nisi Christus sequen­dus est: In the Sacrifice which Christ offered no man is to be followed but Christ. So as nothing can be more clear then that in his opinion Christ did institute and offer a true and [Page 26] proper Sacrifice in his last supper: and that of his own body and bloud, under the forms of bread and wine▪ and that he did ordain that the Apostles and other preists suceeding them should do the same: and that the Church did so practice and teach in S. Cyprians time. Nor do I see what can be said against the authoritie of his person or work by me cited, or the edition or reading, or what doubt can be made of the sense or his meaning.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

Your close of every period comes roundly off. You know what you would have, and you are sure to call for it in every conclusion, though nothing be in the premises from whence to inferre it. I will represent unto you Cyprians argument and your own. Thus S. Cyprian: In sacrificio quod, &c.

In the Sacrifice which Christ did offer, no man is to be followed but Christ:

Therefore no Sacrifice or celebration of the Lords supper without wine.

Your Argument runnes thus: In Sacrificio quod, &c.

In the Sacrifice which Christ did offer no man is to be followed but Christ:

Therefore it is clear, that Christ did institute a true and proper Sacrifice.

Cyprians argument is good, yours is no argument at all.

A. B. C.

THe next is Eusebius Caesariensis in his work de Demon­stratione Evangelica, lib. 1. cap. 10. The title whereof is this, [...]; (that is) Why was it not delivered unto us to offer incense and Sacrifice to God things of the earth as the ancients, or those of former times (that is, the Jews) did? and discoursing largely of the reason why they did offer beasts in Sacrifice, he saith, That they were signes or shadows of that great Sacrifice which was to be offered for expiation of the sinnes of the whole world, which was Christ, of whom he saith that the proph [...]ts did foretell, that he was to be led to the slaughter like a sheep and like an innocent lambe, who being so offered and thereby paying the ransome due for the sinnes of the whole world, both Jews and Grecians or gentiles, With great reason, saith he, his words are these, [...]. (that is) With great reason we daily celebrating the remembrance of his body and bloud, and being made worthy of a better Sacrifice, and preistly function, then that of our ancestours cannot deem it fit to fall back to the former and weak elements, which were but signes, or shadows, not containing the truth it self, or the substance. Of which I may say, that almost every word is a pregnant proof of what I intend, that is, of the truth and property of our Sacrifice, for first, &c.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 2. Almost every word a proof! and that a pregnant one also! How dull am I that cannot find and feel this quicknesse! In the mean time I observe, that although the word priestly (priestly function) be like to do you no service here at all, yet to make a shew you have helped that into your English which you cannot find a fair and full authority for in the Greek: of which anon. The brief and true sense of Eusebius, here argu­ing against the Jews, is this; The celebrating of the remembrance of our Saviours death and passion is a better Sacrifice and celebration, then that we should fall back to their weak elements which were but signes and shadows. More I see not here, yet since you offer to instruct me further, I hearken.

A. B. C.

§. 3. For first, here is expresse mention of the body and bloud of our Saviour daily offered in remembrance of him.

S ^r. EDWAD DERING.

§. 4. Give me leave to say, that this is either will­full fraud, or grosse mistaking. What? expresse men­tion? then the words are too plain to be disputed of. You say that Eusebius doth expressely mention the body and bloud of our Saviour daily offered in remembrance of him. Quo fronte? Qua fide? Do not your own words here before vouched [...], &c. Daily celebrating the remembrance of his body and bloud, [Page 29] confute your fraud? what a crafty Metathesis of words is this? you chop in the word offer, and shift the place of the rest: and presently cry out [...], you have found your late Romane faith in old Eusebius. But your legerdemain is not so fine a conveyance: you are espied; and therefore place the words as you found them, Daily celebrating the remembrance of his bo­dy and bloud: out of which you can never draw any other, but the same faith which the Primitive Church and our present Church do both conspire in.

A. B. C.

§. 5. For the word [...] is a word properly pertaining to the action or function of sacrificing.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 6. The Grammarians must now be judge who argues aright in Divinity. This word [...] (say you) doth properly appertain to the act of sacrificing. This is gratis dictum, so let it be gratis auditum: said without proof, heard without belief. Suidas his [...] will not force [...] properly to signifie any more then to finish, to perform, or to perfect. It is also to celebrate or solemnly to perform, for that is to celebrate. But never is it to sacrifice, unlesse the word following do so rule the sense, as in Plutarch, [...], to celebrate or perform sacrifice. But in this place it can­not relate to sacrifice, unlesse you can make us believe that [...], &c. celebrating or per­forming the remembrance, ought rather to be in English [Page 30] sacrificing the remembrance of the body and bloud of Christ. Lib. 2. Herodian saith, [...] He did not perform what he promised. Eutropius speaking of the younger Scipio, saith, that Asdrubal was afraid to deal with him, Lib. 4. [...], &c. as being a man ready to perform his work. Our Saviour saith, Luk. 13. 32. [...] I perfect cures this day and to morrow. S. Paul speaking of Moses hath, ^d [...] to finish the Tabernacle: (thus your Rhe­mist do translate) he saith not to sacrifice the Tabernacle, nor will these or any other places bear this propriety of sense which you pretend. Do not marre a good transla­tion with a bad comment: for you have well translated in this place [...] as again do you the tenth chapter, [...] celebrating the memorie or remembrance.

A. B. C.

§. 7. And the article [...], when he saith [...], shew­eth the remembrance here spoken of not to be a bare or empty remembrance, by words onely or some slight action at any mans pleasure, but a solid, substantiall, and speciall remembrance, that is, by some publick and solemn action instituted and ordain­ed for that purpose; such as was that of our Saviour at his last Supper, whereto it is evident here that Eusebius alludeth.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 8. Your inference here is (in all likelihood) more then was intended by Eusebius in that so common arti­cle [Page 31] [...], yet since a solid, substantiall, and speciall remem­brance, is all that here you conclude for, I am ready for so much to joyn and consent with you in this period.

A. B. C.

§. 9. Secondly, here is expresse mention of a proper sacrifice and priesthood, or priestly function. For though the word pro­per be not here, yet the words [...] and [...] do by their own proper signification, signifie a proper Sacrifice and Priest­hood.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 10. I see you know the point in difference: and it is enough for me that you confesse the word proper is not in this authority: neither indeed is it in any other authority that you have brought or can bring. But (say you) the originall Greek doth signifie a proper sacrifice and Priesthood. Boldly asserted. How weak was Bellar­mine (and all the rest of your Writers) who never knew before the full force of these words [...] and [...]? Bellarmine will not say that [...] must signifie a proper Sacrifice, though indeed he say thus near it, that it doth properly signifie a sacrifice. But if so be that originally this should be their proper sense; yet you are still to prove, that without a Metaphor such is their sense in this place; and lastly, that the Sacrifice here meant is as yours of the Masse. May not this better Sacrifice, here spoken of, be that [...], the truth of types, our Saviours passion? and what is this then unto your Missall Sacrifice?

Surely you are too adventurous. Is it necessary to [Page 32] take [...] for a sacrifice proper? I wonder then that this dispute was ever raised, or being raised maintained so long. But I have been taught that [...] comes [...], from mactare, to slay: and so your De Miss. lib. 1. cap. 2. Cardinall confirms me, Joh. 10. 10 [...] you will not translate this that the Thief comes to sacrifice: your Rhemist have rendred it, The theif cometh not but to steal and kill: Again, Matth. 22. 24. [...], my beeves and fatlings are killed: you translate not sacrificed. Therefore if you will have your [...] to be a proper sacrifice (as you pretend) you must make it appear in what part of your Masse this mactatio, this death (or killing, properly so called) doth consist: which I am bold to say is more then Bellarmine could or you can perform.

§. 11. In the next place you would have me to swal­low your construction of [...], and to believe it pro­perly to signifie Priesthood. The sense of the place doth not admit your sense, nor hath the word any such pro­priety.

For the place, it is plain that Eusebius doth preferre the Christian Sacrifice, or to speak properly Christs Sa­crifice, or in the words of Eusebius, [...], &c. The remembrance of Christs body and bloud, (the cele­bration whereof he there calleth [...]) before all the typicall shadows among the Jews. This is all that Eusebius hath or intendeth here.

For the word [...], you will strangely impone up­on the ignorant, when you can perswade that it signifi­eth [Page 33] proper priesthood. The truth is, that [...] is gene­rally any manner of service and ministration of holy things. De Miss. lib. 1. c. 15. Bellarmine doth controll Kemnitius for saying that [...] is to sacrifice: He sayes, indeed, it is sa­crum facere, but not sacrificare, to do or perform some sa­cred work, but not properly to sacrifice: and then tells you that [...] is in Dionysius, sacrum ministerium, not sa­crificium, a holy ministery or function, or holy operation, not a sacrifice. Mark how S. Paul useth the word: Rom. 15. 16. [...], which your Rhe­mist call sanctifying (not sacrificing) the Gospel of God. Like as your Masses of Basil and S. Chrysostome, where you have [...], which is no more then holy service or operation (or at the most as there it is rendred consecra­tion) of this ministeriall and unbloudy sacrifice.

Where, when, and with whom it ever was constru­ed or taken for proper priesthood, I do expect from you who have affirmed it.

A. B. C.

§. 12. But besides the very comparison of our Sacrifice and Priesthood, and preferring them before those of the Jews which were true and proper, shews ours to be much more true and proper. For if the signes and shadows be true and proper, much more the truth and substance it self. And this very difference or comparison which he makes, shews plainly the reality of Christs presence in this Sacrifice: for otherwise our bread and wine would be but weak Elements or shadows as well, or more then those ancient sacrifices of the Jews, whereof yet he saith the contrary, to wit, that theirs were but weak elements and sha­dows, and ours the truth it self.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 13. The comparison here instituted by Eusebius, is evident by that attribute [...] to consist in the meliority or betternesse, not in the propriety of the severall Sacrifices. Although, indeed, the comparison may here hold well in both kinds. For i [...] is most clear by this whole page in Eusebius, that the Sacrifice here by him preferred before all other, is that of our Savi­our on the Crosse, not that of your Masse on your Al­tar. Whereby (saith he) all former prophesies were fullfilled, even by him, who gave himself [...] The great and precious ransome for the Jews and Gentiles: that ex­piation for the whole world: that soul for all souls of men, &c. and a little before this, to stop all exception, and to destroy all your collection, he plainly telleth you what this better sacrifice and truer Hierurgy is, where he saith, that the former things (which here he calleth the former and weak elements▪) were now all abolished, [...] By this better and true holy service: This is the Christ of God. Is not this plain enough? Why then would you transferre unto your erroneous Masse all this which by Eusebius is spoken peculiarly, and onely of our blessed Saviour? Eusebius (in the mean time) being as ignorant of your popish Masse, and fleshly presence therein, as he was that you would tran­slate his Greek [...] into your English Priesthood.

A. B. C.

§. 14. Thirdly, this Sacrifice and Preisthood did not cease with Christ, but the exercise, nay the dayly exercise thereof did then continue in Eusebius time, which was 300 year after Christ.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 15. Are you not ashamed with these poore rea­sons, so pittifully to beg the cause in question: you flourish out this peice of Eusebius into three pretended arguments. This is the last. Thirdly, this Sacrifice and Preisthood did not cease, &c.

As for Preisthood, it is not once named here, either in the Greek or Latine: But yet you can in your En­glish turn holy celebration of a remembrance into a pro­per Preisthood. This is done with the same fidelity, as another Anonymus Eremi [...] v. the 4 car­dinall vir­tues of a Carmelite Fryer, pag. 26. Anonymus of your tribe: who producing that of S. Matthew, (5. 23.) If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, turns it thus, If thou offer thy host at the Altar. The Latine in both places both for him and you is munus, which he calles h [...]st or Sacrifice, and you call Preisthood, neither truly: nor ever so rendred by any other man, unlesse with purpose to deceive. You are not like to want proofs, who can create authorities for what you say your selves.

§. 16. As for the word Sacrifice, it is confessed that Eusebius hath it here. But as before S. Augustine, Tho. Aquinas, &c. do allow a Sacrament to be called by the name of what is thereby represented, can you think us so unwise as from hence to grant you your dayly▪ Sa­crifice? when your own English doth say, We dayly ce­lebrate [Page 36] the remembrance of his body and bloud? The dif­ference between your dayly Sacrifice, and Eusebius his dayly remembrance is as much as between your person and your picture.

§. 17. You promised us a few strong arguments in this cause, instead of such (which ought to be quick, open, clear, and convincing) you bring a few weak inferen­ces stretched by your own phansie, upon a few imper­tinent vouchers. For not one of these comes near your Roman sense, of sacrificing up by you the sonne of God in his entire flesh both body and soul, as you most desperately and most grosly do teach, and yet with these you do miserably beg the cause: nay you brag beforehand as if you had it already. Cap. 2. It is clear (say you) Cap. 4. Again it is clear. Cap 5. Expresly averred—and a clear proof. Cap. 6. Nothing can be more clear—nor do I see what can be said against. Cap. 7. Almost every word is a pregnant proof of what I intend. These bold assertions, and many other in the following chapters, may passe for true with them who are so shallow as to be led by the noise and sound of your braveries, and are not solid enough to pierce the sense of your authorities.

A. B. C.

§. 1. WHich is further confirmed in the ensuing discourse where he saith that these of ancient times of whom he spake, wanting better, did make use of those figures or shadows: but that we having received the truth and substance, [Page 37] [...], by the greatly misterious dis­pensation of Christ shall not need theirs. And then explicating wherein this dispensation he spake of consisteth, and how God did lay the punishment due for our sinnes upon our Saviour, as chains, reproches, contumelies and scourges, making him a trophie or spectacle of execration, he saith thus, [...]. That is, After all offering unto his father a wonderfull and most excellent Sacrifice for the salvation of us all, and delivering unto us also a remembranc [...] to offer to God by a continuall course in Sacrifice. So as here again he makes expresse mention of a Sacrifice to be offered continually, that is, dayly or without intermission (for so [...] also signifieth) in remembrance of the Sacrifice which our Sa­viour Christ himself did offer.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 2. Must I alway watch your translations? Your cause is bad and you would fain forge evidence to mend it. Eusebius hath [...], which you say is A remembrance by a Sacrifice. This (you know) would make plainly for you. Christs sacrifice to be re­membred by a dayly Sacrifice. That were Romish Doctrine indeed. But give Eusebius true English for his true Greek, and then it is A continnall remembrance instead of Sacrifice. And this is plain for us.

[...] is For, instead of, in the room, in the place of another person or thing. Luc. 1 [...]. 11. [...]; will he for a fish give him a serpent? Archelaus did reigne in Judea Matt. 2. 22. [...] in the room of his [Page 38] father Herod. So Christ gave his life Matt. 20. 28. Mar. 10. 45. [...] a ransome for many. Thus your dayly and continuall Sacrifice is reduced to Eusebius his dayly remembrance, in the stead, or in the room of Sacrifice: so your con­firmation from hence hath weakned your cause.

A. B. C.

§. 3. Which he goeth on confirming thus— [...], &c. that is, Being instructed by tradition to perform the memory of that Sacrifice upon the table, by the signes of his body and bloud according to the Laws of the new testament, we are taught by David the prophet to say, Thou hast prepared, &c.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 4. How comes this word tradition, out of this Greek? But to the question. Here is a memory to be performed: and that upon a table: and that by the signes of his body and bloud. You plead well for us: if you had not brought this place, I had (anon) pro­duced it against you.

A. B. C.

§. 5. Thou hast prepared a table for me against those that afflict me, thou hast anointed my h [...]ad with oyle, and how ex­cellent is my chalice? which place of the Psalme Eusebius ex­poundeth thus to our purpose, [...], [Page 39] [...]: In this is manifestly signified, the mysticall unction, and the venerable or dreadfull Sacrifices of Christs Table, by which, exercising a most high office of priesthood, we are taught by the most high priest of all Priests, to offer unto the God of all, unbloudy, and reasonable, and in that respect most pleasing Sacrifices throughout the whole course of our life. Thus he: manifestly teaching what we intend, and proving the same by the testimony of the holy prophet David. First, he makes mention of our Saviours body and bloud upon the Table, in memory of that great Sacrifice upon the Crosse: Then to shew that this is a Sacrifice, he useth the proper words of a Sacrifice, which are [...] and [...] and to shew that the Table he speaks of is an altar he joyns it with the word [...] thus, [...]. Then he useth the word [...], which is a most proper word signifying the exercise of Priest­hood in a singular manner: and the words [...] joyned with [...], which is as properly said as can be of offering a pro­per Sacrifice. Lastly, he saith that the Sacrifice or thing offer­ed is unbloudy and reasonable, and therefore most pleasing to God, which no man can understand otherwise then of our Sa­viour offered in Sacrifice in an unbloudy manner, and so as that he enjoyeth the free use and exercise of his reason and ra­tionall faculties even then when he is offered.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 6. Eusebius doth indeed speak of unbloudy and reasonable sacrifices: but in your Masse, you offer (as you say) the absolute naturall body and soul of Jesus Christ the eternall sonne of God. How then? do you sacrifice corpus exsangue; a bloudlosse body? No, you professe that your Sacrifice is [...], unbloude­ed, [Page 40] that is, no gushing, issuing, or appearing of bloud: but you dare not with Eusebius here say that it is [...], that is, without bloud, deprived, destitute, utterly void of bloud, as the word [...] doth plainly signifie; a privation or utter absence of bloud. If you do, then farwell your doctrine of Concomitancy in the bread, and of Transubstantiation in the wine. If otherwise you will hold them; and that whole Christ (body & bones, bloud and soul) is under the species of bread; How then are you of Eusebius faith, who doth here plead for sa­crifices without bloud, [...]? and to take off all doubt of such sense as you would impose, within very few lines, he calleth these [...], unbodied sacrifices: So that in Eusebius time the Christian sacri­fices had neither body nor bloud, but were void of both. A strange blindnesse, or a blind boldnesse in you, to produce authorities so strong against your own cause.

§. 7. Again, you affirm here the reasonable soul of Christ to be in your Sacrifice, which can never be if you confesse with Eusebius [...], a bloudlesse sacrifice, for when you speak of Rationall faculties, I am sure that [...] where no bloud is there is no life: You would pretend proof out of the word reasonable sacrifice; but you must be put in mind that Eusebius hath [...] not [...], reasona­ble, not living sacrifices. No man (say you) can under­stand this otherwise. Did not S. Paul teach otherwise? or do you think that Eusebius had not read S. Paul? if he had, why may not Eusebius allude unto that of S. Paul, where speaking of a Rom. 12. 1 living sacrifice, he tel­leth [Page 41] us, it is our reasonable service, [...]. So that Reasonable service in S. Paul, is Reasonable sacrifice in Eusebius.

§. 8. Every man doth abhorre them who are [...], men-eaters, Cannibals. Yet you think it no impiety to be [...], God-devourers: nor any im­possibility to be [...], Soul-eaters. Forbear, for­bear this carnall barbarisme of eating our Saviours body thus Capernaitically: or else shew how his body and the free use and exercise of his reason, and ratio­nall faculties, can be between your teeth without a sen­sible soul also to feel what you tear with them.

§. 9. You make too much of [...] when you construe it, exercising a most high office of Preisthood. [...] is no more then prospera sacra facere, to per­form holy things happily. So [...] is to work well, or to perform a fair or good work. In a second sense [...] may be to sacrifice, and then it signifies to sa­crifice well, and that is all. For indeed the word is more generall then to be restrained, among holy acti­ons, onely to the particular act of sacrificing; it signi­fieth the performance of all manner of sacred service. So Lib. 2. sub Severo. Herodian hath [...], and Lib. 5. s [...]b Helioga­balo. [...]. Therefore how I may find in this word all that sense of exercising a most high office of Preisthood, as you have Englished it, and where I may find that it is a most proper word signifying the exercise of Preisthood in a sin­gular manner, I pray instruct me by your next. In the mean time I wish you would force Eusebius to speak [Page 42] no more in English then in his own language. But (alas) something you must say, and your timber is so crooked that it cannot be measured by a streight line.

§. 10. Lastly, There is one word more in this voucher from Eusebius, which I must not passe over. Bellarmine (as before alledged) will assist me, if I put you in mind that Altar and Sacrifice are relatives, proper to proper, and improper to improper. Inso­much that he fixeth this De cultu Sanctorum, l. 3. cap. 4. sine Altari non potest sacrifi­cari: No Altar, no Sacrifice. So your Canon law, De consec. dist. 1. c. 11 Sa­crificia non nisi super Altare—offerantur: Let not sacri­fice be offered but upon an Altar. Ledesma, De eucha­ristia c. 20. Missa est veri & proprii nominis sacrificium, er [...]ò necessariò requirit altare super quod offeratur: The Masse is a Sacrifice of a true and proper name, therefore it necessarily requireth an Altar whereon to be offered. So Paludanus S [...]t [...], and all of you that I have heard. From hence I observe that a Table proper and a Sacrifice proper cannot relate, why then did not you avoid this place of Eusebius, where [...], the sacrifices of Christs ta­ble, do unavoidably conclude that your authour did mean such Sacrifices as were performable at a Table, which yours are not? for you can never prove that Sacrifices properly so called were ever celebrated at a Table properly so called.

A. B. C.

§. 1. ALl which he goeth proving thus out of other places of Scripture, and particularly out of Malachias the Pro­phet where Almighty God rejecting the sacrifices of Moses, saith, that from the rising to the setting of the sunne his name is great among the Gentiles, and that in all places incense is offered to his name, and a clean sacrifice. And to shew that this prophesie is fulfilled, he saith thus, [...], We sa­crifice therefore to God a sacrifice of praise: we offer a sacri­fice in which God is (for so signifies [...]) a most venerable a dreadfull and most holy sacrifice: we sacrifice in a new man­ner, according to the new Testament a clean sacrifice. All which words do signifie a proper Sacrifice: and that in the singular number, and with a speciall emphasis expressed by the articles [...] and [...], more then can be in English: save onely that one word of sacrifice of praise, which a Protestant will detort to a metaphoricall sacrifice. But I shall shew by and by out of this man and afterward out of S. Augustine that they mean by that proper Sacrifice, to wit, the holy Eucharist, which other Fathers (as well they may) because by it God is more praised and honoured then by all other sacrifices in heaven and earth.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 2. This place of Malachy is beyond all sense so boastingly produced by most of your Writers, as if alone it might confute us all: when as the Fathers make perpetuall use of it, to prove our Sacrifices contrary to [Page 44] those of the Jews, (and contrary to yours also) to be in themselves spirituall: and in the Circumstance of ce­lebration, tied to no place or places, and that in qualitie they are pure and clean, and that in the persons celebra­ting they are universall, Mal. 1. 11. From the rising of the sunne even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offer­ed to my name, and a pure offering. This offering or sacri­fice here meant, is to be celebrated [...], in every place: but yours onely where an Altar is, and that prepared with many circumstances, as Ledesma delivers. Yours is tied to a morning exercise, this free at all times and seasons, as before you alledged [...], throughout all ones life.

§. 3 But to shorten (as much as I can) the trouble which you multiply more by weak impertinencies then by any strength of proof, let Eusebius who vouch­ed Malachy expound him. He saith that Malachies [...], in every place, is as much as not at Jeru­salem (which was then their sole place for sacrifice) [...], neither definitively (saith he) in this or that place: but yours is defined to the Altar. This [...], which you call clean sacrifice, and our translation pure offering, is there by him affirmed to be [...], the incense of prayers, and a sacrifice not by bloud, [...], but by religious works and duties.

Again, in this very place by you alledged, assoon as ever he hath repeated the words out of Malachy, head­deth what you have drawn out, [...], &c. Therefore [Page 45] we sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise. Thus Eusebi­us expoundeth Malachy, and is not this an improper sacri­fice? if it be not, tell me what you mean by your proper sacrifice, if there be none improper?

§. 4. You will say, that being a Protestant I do de­tort the sense from a reall to a Metaphoricall Sacrifice. Is it possible that men should be so mad for superstition that they will detort this text to a proper sacrifice? and wilfully will not see, that it is impossible for the Pro­phet or for Eusebius to mean so? Are not the very next words in Eusebius (after this by you avouched) plain words for a spirituall and improper Sacrifice? and doth he not conclude this chapter, and this whole book in a few lines after? wherein, as if he would crown this text of Malachy with an ample Commentary, he rec­koneth up all these severall sacrifices in a few lines: A broken spirit: an humble and contrite heart: the sweet-smel­ling fruit of all virtue and divinity: the incense of prayer: the remembrance of that great sacrifice, according to the my­steries delivered to us: thanksgivings for our salvation: offerings of religious hymns and holy prayers: and conse­crating our selves to God and Christ in soul and body, a chast body, and a refined soul. Thus Eusebius doth magnifie our Christian duties, dignifying all with the high title of Sacrifices; yet in all this not once dreaming of a car­nall presence as you do: which if he had believed, how could he have omitted that which he rather would have gloried in? nay, how could he have confined himself so short, as to call it but [...], the memory of that great Sacrifice? if so be Christ him­self were bodily present?

§. 5. Yet you rave for a proper Sacrifice, and if a [Page 46] Protestant do shew with Eusebius that which cannot be other then a Metaphoricall Sacrifice, you will slander him beforehand with det [...]rtion of Eusebius. Was Bel­larmine a Protestant? I would he had been (unhappy man! how great pains he took to misse his way? and with how much learning he unlearned his own salvati­on!) He your great Achilles, even upon occasion of this very text of Malachy doth affirm, that prayers, prayses, good works, &c. De Miss. lib. 1. c. 10. are sacrifices improperly so called, which is the same as to say they are Metaphori­call. He saith again, De Miss. lib. 1 cap. 2. Nomen & ratio Sacrificii propriè non convenit invisibili oblationi: The name and nature of a Sacrifice properly doth not belong to an invisible offering. Now I (poore Protestant) do take prayers and praises to be invisible oblations: yet you promise here by and by to detort this sacrifice of praise, and to shew that it doth mean a proper sacrifice. And when that is done, perhaps you will shew that Christs Table (before spo­ken of) is a proper Altar also. But when you go about it do not endeavour to detort both the sense and words of your Authour, and then prove what you can.

§. 6. In the mean time here is a word detorted, if I be not much mistaken: you construe [...], a sacrifice in which God is. The Latine hath no such sense, though printed within these ten or twelve years at Paris, nor hath any other man (I believe) beside your self ever translated it so. I deny not but that God is all in all, and in that extent he is in our prayers, prayses, Sacraments, virtually, powerfully, spiritually: but you will have him in your sacrifice circumscriptivè, confi­ned and limited in all and every fragment of your Host. [Page 47] How else, and in what manner, do you mean that God is in your sacrifice more then in our Sacrament? The meaning of Eusebius was no more, but that our Sacri­fice is a Divine Sacrifice, and the common English and Latine of [...] is Divine. Aristotle faith of Poetry, 3. Rhet. [...], Poetry is a Divine thing: so Suidas, [...], Divinely to determine.

A. B. C.

§. 1. BUt to shew that Eusebius here meaneth a proper Sacrifice, he speaketh presently of an improper Sacrifice, such as David speaks of, a contrite heart▪ and he saith we offer this also, but he calleth this offering of uncense: nor doth he use the word [...], as before; but the word [...] we offer the propheticall in­cense, and explicateth himself of Prayer. But to conclude, he distinguisheth them both most perfectly in these ensuing words, [...] that is, Therefore we do both offer Sacrifice, and incense; one while indeed celebrating the memory of that great Sacrifice, according to the mysteries by him delivered, and offering the Eucharist for our salvation to God with devout hymns and prayers: Another while wholy dedicating our selves, and ca­sting our selves prostrate, body and soul, to him and to his high Priest the Word. Where it is evident to any man that under­standeth Greek, that by the particles [...], and [...], the former part of the sentence, where he speaketh of celebrating the memorie [Page 48] of that great sacrifice, and offering the Eucharist, hath reference to the former word [...], which doth properly signifie sacri­ficing; and the latter part of the sentence to the latter word [...], which signifies offering of incense: which is as much as if he had said, We then offer Sacrifice when we celebrate the memory of that great Sacrifice, and offer the Eucharist: and we then offer incense, when we dedicate our selves wholly and pro­strate our selves both body and soul to God. And this will be yet more evident, if we consider that when he had explained the place of Malachy, of offering a clean Sacrifice according to the new Testament, he makes as it were an objection to him­self, that a contrite spirit is called a Sacrifice by holy David, as if that might be thought to be the clean Sacrifice, which he spoke of out of the Prophet Malachy; and answers it by say­ing, That we do also offer that kind of Sacrifice, calling it not by the name of Sacrifice, but incense: and this he saith we of­fer by holy conversation and prayer; and thereupon immedi­ately concludeth his discourse with this sentence by the now al­ledged, wherein (as I said) he doth most perfectly distinguish these two kinds of sacrifices, proper and improper, externall and internall; or indeed, to use his own words, Sacrifice and In­cense. So as this may satisfie any reasonable man for as much as concerneth Eusebius.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 2. [...]. Good Bellerophon who wrote this for you, and made you believe it would help your cause? Surely you have gotten some protestant to write this paragraph, for this place of Eusebius is quick and pregnant against your bodied Sa­crifice. Belike you foresaw that having produced some peices of this treatise in Eusebius (distant enough from what you would prove) in way of answer this would [Page 49] have been returned to you: and therefore by way of a strange anticipation you would seem first to own it, though it carrie a direct adverse sense to your Romish carnalty of presence. But the seaven Aphorismes out of Bellarmine, and the formerly vouched sentences of S. Augustine, Lombard, and Aquinas, do turne aside any impression which you can make upon our faith (though you should argue much stronger then hitherto) yet this pretensed argument must also have an answer.

§. 3. Eusebius (say you) doth most perfectly distin­guish these two kinds of Sacrifices, proper and improper, externall and internall. Most perfectly! yet here is no mention at all of proper, improper, externall nor inter­nall: surely then, this is most imperfectly said by you. But Eusebius (you say) doth mention Sacrifice and in­cense: so doth all the world, multis modis, many wayes; we sacrifice, but never once in your Romish sense. Eu­sebius doth indeed pursue the text of Malachy, and the prophet speaking of both ( In every place incense and a clean Sacrifice) the Sacrifice (saith Eusebius immediately upon the words of Malachy) is a Sacrifice of praise: A Sa­crifice of a contrite Spirit, of an humble and broken heart. Will this serve for your proper and externall Sacrifice? we do also (saith Eusebius following the same Meta­phor) burn incense, offering the sweet-smelling fruit of Theologicall virtues, and prayers, &c. What saith Euse­bius in all this, but absolutely different from the faith of your Sacrifice? which had he believed, now was his time to have come forward, and have told the Jews, that in stead of their one altar we have many altars: In place of their annuall Sacrifice, we have daily: In room of their Paschall lambe, we do Sacrifice the [Page 50] lambe of God, the very Sonne of God in his flesh.

In which piece of all this passage in Eusebius do you find your proper Sacrifice? you have fixed upon these words, Celebrating the memory of that great Sacrifice. What make these words for you? doth not our Church celebrate the memory of that great sacrifice of our Savi­our on the crosse? You know we do. If it be a cele­bration of a memory, how can it be the sacrifice it self? If it were (as you affirm) the proper Sacrifice it self, how then were it a celebration of a memory? This is too weak on your side to help your cause: This is so strong on our side that you can never answer it, untill you can prove a favour and the remembrance of that favour, a conquest and the story of that conquest, Ce­sar and Cesars picture, to be all one.

A. B. C.

§. 1. YEt I will adde one place more out of his 5. book 3. chapter, where discoursing of the 109. Psalme, and of that place where our Saviour is said to be a Preist according to the order of Melchisedec he saith thus, [...]. That is, And the fullfilling of the prophesie [Page 51] is admirable to one that considereth how our Saviour Jesus the anointed of God, doth to this very day, according to the rite of Melchisedec perform the office of Preisthood among men by his ministers. For even as he (that is, Melchisedec) being a Preist of the Gentiles, is no where found to have used corporall Sacrifices (that is to say of beasts) but onely blessing Abraham with bread and wine, so after the same manner our Saviour and Lord himself indeed first, then the preists coming from him, over all nations exersicing the spirituall Preisthood ac­cording to the Ecclesiasticall laws (or rites of the Church) by bread and wine do obscurely represent the mysteries of his bo­dy Saving bloud you should say, [...]. and bloud, Melchisedec foreseeing them by the Divine spi­rit, and using before-hand the figures of what was to come af­ter. What can be more clear? The prophesie of David ful­filled by the exercise of Christs preistly function offering You of­fer (as you teach) no bread nor wine. bread and wine, first by himself in his own person, then by his Preists succeeding him. And this among all nations, this Preisthood and Sacrifice being prefigured in the person and sa­crifice of Melchisedec: His sacrifice being bread and wine, and ours the body and bloud of our Saviour contained under the accidents of bread and wine, for so doth the word [...] signifie, which is here used. It is therefore evident by this, that Christ did at his last supper offer and institute the proper Sacri­fice and Preisthood of the new Testament. Nor can any man with reason doubt thereof: yet because I see that unwillingnesse to believe the truth makes men stick at toyes many times, I reflect upon two words which perhaps a man may take hold of to misunderstand Eusebius. The one is where he saith Mel­chisedec did not use Corporall Sacrifices, the other where he calleth our Saviours Preisthood spirituall. But his meaning is clear, that by Corporall Sacrifices he understandeth sacrifices of beasts: such as Aarons were: which therefore a little before he called [...] according to the property of the greek word [...]. And it is clear that he speaks in this sense, for he affirmeth that Melchisedec used bread and wine: from whence may be gathered the meaning of that other word spirituall [Page 52] preisthood, to wit, that it is clean another kind from that of Aaron, which was a carnall and bloudy preisthood, and of the same kind with Melchisedecs, which was in some sort spiritu­all: But our Saviours is much more spirituall, for his sacrifice was not bare bread and wine as Melchisedecs was, but his body and bloud, which had and hath a spirituall manner of being under the accidents of bread and wine; not using any corporall sense or facultie, but onely those of his soul: as I signified before when I shewed why Eusebius called our sa­crifice [...], that is, a reasonable or intelligent sacrifice: for so ours is indeed. And so though it be a reasonable or in­telligent sacrifice, and spirituall also, for the spirituall manner of being which our Saviour hath there; yet it is a true and proper Sacrifice, as I have made it clearly appear by Eusebius his whole discourse, with whom having now done—

S ^r. EDWAD DERING.

§. 2. You have a worse fate then Bellerophon, he but once did carry his own condemnatory letters, you severall times do make your own rods. I could pitty you, if you were not of age, to see what your self do doe: And yet as you are I am sorry for you, not that you bring this (which otherwise I had produced a­gainst you) but because you flatter your own miscon­ceit so farre, as to imagine this authority to stand on your side, which is indeed unanswerably against you, you find your self pinched, and do strive to pull out the thorns which your self have stuck in your own sides. You bring in Eusebius saying thus,

§. 3. Even as Melchisedec is no where found to have used corporall sacrifices, but blessed Abraham with bread and wine: so our Saviour and all preists by him exercising [Page 53] [...], a spirituall preisthood, (say you) do by bread and wine obscurely represent the mysteries of his body and bloud. What a strange encouragement and a strong confirmation is this unto a protestant, that he [...] finds his adversary slain with a sword of his own un­sheathing? what strange self-flattery and a strong self­abusing is this in you, that when you lie groveling and wounded, yet you will bragge as if for victory? im­mediately upon these words of Eusebius, you make your usuall flourishes: what can be more clear? It is evident: No man can with reason doubt, &c. Examine your self (man) whether you be not on the prote­stant side, you plead so well for us.

§. 4. You say that Melchisedecs sacrifice was bare bread and wine, yours is more then so: so is ours; not a bare or empty remembrance, by words onely, or some slight action, but a solid, substantiall, and speciall remembrance. You say, that Aarons was a carnall and bloudy preist­hood? why so, because (I trow) he sacrificed bodies of flesh and bloud. But yours (say you) is spirituall, for the spirituall manner of being which our Saviour hath there: and so say we. Take heed you have no blame for this, or rather stand fast unto it, and reap the joy comfort and credit of yielding to truth which is too strong for you.

§. 5. As before I gave Cyprian for Cyprian, so Chap. 2. §. 5, 6, & 7. would I now render you Eusebius for Eusebius. But you having brought nothing of weight out of him to fortifie your own opinion, nay most of that you bring being clear enough against you; I may spare that care: and the rather because I have already given you some passages of Eusebius in way of explanation of those [Page 54] pieces which you have brought: yet you shall not passe without a retort of somewhat out of him also, though but little.

As first where he saith, that unto Jesus Christ the Lib. 1. c. 6. onely Lord, an Altar [...], of bloud­lesse and reasonable sacrifices, is erected according as the new mysteries of the new Testament do require: here he nameth sacrifices in the plurall number, and all of them (as before observed) [...], void of bloud, whenas, on the other side, you preach that all yours are but one, and that the very bloud of our Saviours naturall body is really therein.

After this he saith that God is not to be sought i [...] a corner of the world, nor in the mountains, [...], or in any temples made with hands, or with Sa­crifices, but [...], in a most pure understanding and clean mind, with tem­perance, and a life according to virtue, and with right and religious opinions. But you say with proper Sacrifices, unto which you must necessarily have Temples and Al­tars made with hands.

Thirdly, having again mentioned [...], Lib 1. c. 10. Sacrifices without bloud and rationall (which are every where of every man taken for spirituall and im­proper) he proceedeth saying, The oracles of the Pro­phets do declare [...], these unbodied, and intellectuall sacrifices to be the sacrifice of praise, invocation, lifting up of our hands, a contrite spi­rit: [Page 55] All which being Divinely foretold, are a [...] present per­formed by all the world as the truth of that prophesie doth shew—saying, From the rising of the sunne, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles: and in every place incense shall be offered to my name and a pure offering. Therefore we do sacrifice unto God the sacrifice of praise, &c. Thus Eusebius, and thus he bringeth in, and thus pursueth the text of Malachy, without once imagining or reflecting upon a Mal. 1. 11. proper Sacrifice: which had he believed he could as well totidem syllabis in expresse words have called it a proper sacrifice, as in that place by you alledged, he called our Saviour [...], the Lord properly so Lib. 5. c. 3. named.

Lastly, because you find Melchisedec a preist in ho­ly Record, and that he being a preist brought forth bread and wine, wherewith saith Eusebius (as you al­so have vouched him) he blessed Abraham, therefore somewhat too rashly you conclude, that the sacrificed bread and wine, whenas the comparison between Mel­chisedec and our Saviour holdeth, as Eusebius giveth it, in that neither of them did celebrate [...], with corporall Sacrifices, but both of them [...], performing a spiritual holy fun­ction: which kind of service Eusebius calleth (as many other Fathers do) [...], Sacrifices ra­tionall & intellectuall, without body & without bloud: yours are not such. The cōparison in Eusebius holdeth further also, that as Melchisedec the priest of the most high God did Gen. 14. 1 [...]. Rom. 4. refresh Abraham the father of the faithfull with bread and [Page 56] wine, [...], blessing him, as Eusebius hath it out of the text: so our Saviour [...], the Su­preme high preist of all, and God himself, doth blesse and refresh all his faithfull children (who being in successi­on of the same faith are spiritually the Sonnes of Abra­ham) with bread and wine consecrated to a most high mysterious and holy use: wherefore his ministers or priests (call them which you will) for their office is here (in your last voucher) limited to a spirituall fun­ction, they (I say) in Eusebius words, [...], do by bread and wine obscurely represent the myste­ries of his body and saving bloud. Thus farre of the com­parison between the two priesthoods of our Saviour and Melchisedec: thus pursued by Eusebius, and no fur­ther.

As for that which your Romane Religion would from hence establish, and you plainly shoot at, it is in­consistant both with the comparison made by Eusebius and with holy Writ. The comparison being both in holy David, S. Paul, and Eusebius, made between their Priesthoods, not between their Sacrifices. Melchise­decs c. 11. §. 1. you say was bare bread and wine, you dare not say your own is so, nay you dare not say it hath any bread or wine therein: you say (but the text is silent) what Melchisedec did offer: Eusebius saith he never used any bodily sacrifice, [...], which you would wipe away as if he meant of beasts to be sacrificed. Come back to your Logick, or rather come forward in Divinity, and remember that bread and corn are and [Page 57] have bodies, unlesse you will deny S. Paul, saying, Thou 1. Cor. 3. 7. sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. But Eusebius doth mean that Melchisedec did neither sacrifice any kind of body, nor any bodily thing, for the English of [...] is bodily: which he accounted bread and wine to be as well as oyl, which in a few lines before he calleth [...], bodily oyl, meaning because it hath a bodily substance. And in that respect Eusebius who said that Melchisedec used no kind of bodily sacrifices, saith expressely, that he used no other sacrifices at all but (as in the place by you alledged) spirituall, for his words are in the same Chapter, [...], He exercised priesthood to the most high God, neither by Sacrifices nor by immolations; that is, he then neither sa­crificed by mactation or killing of beasts, for that is [...], nor so much as by offering up any liquid thing, for that is [...], libare vino, lacte, aut simili liquore: to sacrifice with wine, milk, or such liquor.

You may find the word often in the Septuagint [...], for which your Doway Bible hath liba­ments, Lev. 23. 13. our English much better and more intelligible, the drink offering. So (beside divers other places) you may read in Jeremy, where the women answer the Pro­phet, that they will poure out their drink-offerings to the Jer. 44. 17, 18, 19. Queen of Heaven, &c. which your Doway books call offering of libaments, the Septuagint [...], libare libamina, saith your Vulgar Latine: that is, to [Page 58] offer liquid offerings, which were for the most part wine, and these kind of sacrifices are called liba [...]ions or drink offerings: as is most clear in the song of Moses, Deut. 32. 38. Where are their gods? their rock in whom they trusted, which did eat the fat of their sacrifices? [...], and drank the wine of their drink-offerings? or as your darker Translation, and drink the wine of their libament? So that plainly [...] was on offering onely of liquid things, and that chiefly of wine.

Clemens of Alexandria speaking of a Sacerdotall Strom l 6. officer among the Egyptian ritualls, saith that he carri­ed [...], Calicem ad libandum, the Cup, or Cha­lice, Achareuses. for the liquid Sacrifice. Aristophanes hath, Haec libo, haec eadem ebi [...]o: These I offer, and the same I drinke of. The words are [...].

Wherefore laying together these pieces of Eusebius which all follow one another, you will find that Melchisedec here did neither kill nor offer in sacri­fice any solid nor any fluid substance nor any bodily thing, not so much as bare bread and wine, he did neither sacrificare, immolari, nor libare: [...], but exercised a sprituall Priesthood, agree­able to the holy Text, which saith protulit, not obtulit, [...], he brought forth, not he offered, bread and wine, and that was also to his own inferiour Abraham: whom the text saith he blessed, [...], which is all the exercise of Priesthood in this story expressed.

A. B. C.

§. 1.—WIth whom having now done, I come to S. Augustine, with whom I must be a lit­tle the larger because his authority is acknowledged undeniable. This holy Father and Doctour therefore is so clear in this point, treating it so often, and upon so many severall occasions, that I am content to let the decision of the controversie rest wholy upon his authoritie.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 2. S. Augustine (say you) is acknowledged undeniable, and you will put the full Decision of this controversie un­to his authoritie. Is S. Augustine undeniable? How farre do you mean? Undeniable with us, with you, or with both? Do we, or do you Jur are in verba? take faith upon his credite? Augustine was a great and most pious Father. And if we judge by his undoubted works, the freest from errour and stain of any father among them all. Amicus Plato, &c. Plato is my friend, &c. So say I of S. Augustine, He is a Father of great authority, but Truth is a better friend: by truth I mean the word of Truth, the holy Scripture, and I must also have leave to prize, Multorum atque magnorum cons [...]en [...]es si [...] vinc. lir. cap. 3 [...]. sententias Magist [...]rum, the concurring judgement of many great ones before any one, even S. Augustine.

We on our side cannot admit his division of the ten commandments, whereby the two first are joyned in­to one, and the last preposterously is parted into two: [Page 60] which yet you follow, and do exceed by using most audacious sacriledge, in cutting off (as you call it) parts of severall commandments, but indeed expunging one entire precept.

You on your side, believing that the Saints do know your wants, and heare your prayers, cannot admit S. Augustine where thus he saith, Ibi sunt Spiritus de­functorum, Decur [...] pro [...]ort. c. 13 ubi non vident quaecunque aguntur aut event­unt in istâ vit [...] hominibus: The spirits of men departed are there where they do not see those things which are done, or do happen unto men in this life. Neither you nor we can passe for undeniable, where S. Augustine doth speak of certain secret receptacles and hidden closures of souls untill the generall resurrection, which cannot be your purgatory because he saith they rest and sleep, which purgatory doth not admit. In the next place, you offer to put the whole decision of this controver­sie unto the single Authority of S. Augustine. Are you so brave? I accept your challenge: and am resolved to tax you to your word: look you maintain your offer.

A. B. C.

§. 1. FIrst in his confessions ( lib. 9. cap. 11.) he tells how his mother in her last sicknesse coming out of a trance, and telling him and his brother, they should lay their mother there, bid them lay her body where they pleased, onely she de­sired that wheresoever they should be, they would remember her at the altar of our Lord.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 2. The commemoration of Saints departed is neither against the Doctrine of our Church, nor is this our theam. As for the bare name of altar it presseth us not, as before I shewed.

A. B. C.

§. 3. And ( Chap. 12.) he telleth how he contained his tears at her buriall, during the time of his prayers. Which he said, whilst the Sacrifice of our price was offered for her: his words are these, Neque in eis precibus, quas tibi fundimus cùm tibi offeretur pro ea Sacrificium pretii nostri, juxta Se­pulchrum posito cadavere priusquam deponeretur sicut illic fieri solet, nec in [...]is precibus ego flevi: I did not weep in those prayers which I poured forth to thee when the Sacrifice of our price was offered for her, the body being set beside the grave before it was buried as the custome is there.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 4. I presume you bring this for three words Sa­crificium pretii nostri, The Sacrifice of our price. If S. Au­gustine do call the blessed Sacrament a Sacrifice, you have it acknowledged before to be so multis modis, ma­ny In the di­gression under the second chap. wayes, and you have S. Augustine before, who gives you good reason why the Sacrament is so called. To confirm this, you may find in the very next Chapter to this by you alledged, that S. Augustine there calleth Sacramentum pretii nostri, the Sacrament of our price, which here he nameth the Sacrifice of our price. But re­member your undertaking, which is not to prove Sa­crifice [Page 62] at large, which never was denied, but Sacrifice properly so called, and so instituted by Christ our Saviour: Chap 1 §. 2 as your self before have stated it.

A. B. C.

§. 5. The chap. 13. which is a long prayer for his mother, speaking to God, how at her death she did not take care to have her body embalmed, nor to have a choice monument, nor to be buried in her own countrey.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 6. You have not day enough to finish your jour­ney, yet you will step out of the way to see a friend. Your journeys end is at proper Sacrifice▪ which it seems you dispair to arrive at before you be taken, and there­fore you make an out-leap into prayer for the dead, thereby to stay me in my pursu [...]t. Good Hippomenes I will no stay my course to take up the balls you cast: yet for the present I may step so farre, as to tell you that this Long prayer and speaking to God in this chapter is as all the whole thirteen books of his confessions are, one entire continued speaking to God. But pardon me, I will not be drawn again out of my line of Sacrifice.

A. B. C.

§. 7. He saith thus: Non ista mandavit nobis, s [...]d tantum­modo memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit, cui nulli­us di [...]i praetermissione servierat, und [...] sciret dispensari victi­mam Sanctam▪ quâ deletum est chirographum quod erat con­trarium nobis, qud triumphatus est hostis: She gave us not [Page 63] charge of these things, but onely desired she might b [...] remem­bred at thy altar, at which she had attended without omitting a day, from whence she knew that holy victim [...] (or Sacrifice; for victima is materiall Sacrifice) to be dispensed (or distri­buted) by which was cancelled the hand-writing which was against us, by which the enemie was overcome. Which are the very words of S. Paul (Coloss. 2.) speaking of Christ upon the Crosse. So as here is clear mention not onely of an Altar, but also of a Sacrifice offered for the dead, and a sacrifice daily offered, and the very same which was offered upon the Crosse for the redeeming of the world.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 8. The Myndians made their gates too big for their city, but your postern is wider then their gates: your conclusion is ever too full beyond all proportion of your premisses. Some friend had need to help your conclusion after you, as the Arabian shepherds do their Herodot. sheeps tayls, for it is too heavy for your own carriage.

Here (you say) is clear mention of an Altar. Be it so: If the bare mention of an Altar and Sacrifice be an ar­gument for reall and proper Sacrifice, you have the cause. Here (say you) sacrifice is offered for the dead: Quid ad Rhombum? Shoot at the mark, man. Here is daily sacrifice! Yet you are wide. Here is the very same which was offered upon the Crosse for the redeeming of the world. I, this is to the purpose indeed. But what if this be not here now? I find here dispensari victimam, &c. that there is a dispensation or distribution of that saving Sacrifice of the Crosse, which in the same sense, but in other words by S. Paul is called, The Communion 1 Cor. 10. 16▪ of the body and bloud of Christ: but this Communion is between Christ and his members: this dispensation and [Page 64] distribution is to the people: and what may that be to your dispensing of your sacrifice up to God in heaven? and that in such a bodily sense as you must prove, or else confesse your undertakings vain.

All that Monica required of her sonnes was, Tantùm illud—memineritis mei, and tantummodo memoriam— Cap. 11. & 13. fieri, &c. A better carver then Polycletus or Pyrgoteles can fashion no more out of this stuff: so long as tantùm and tantummodo are not cut away. And then for a me­mory of Saints departed, and a loving commemorati­on of them, and their piety and virtue, and a thanks­giving for them, we do not quarrel, nor is it to the Theam of your adventure.

A. B. C.

§ 1. ANother place maybe out of his work against the adver­sary of the Law and Prophets, ( l. 1. c. 20.) where speak­ing of the Church he saith, Haec quippe ecclesia est Israel se­cundùm spiritum, that is, This Church is Israel according to the spirit: from which is distinguished that Israel according to the flesh (that is, the Synagogue) which did serve in the sha­dows of sacrifices, by which was signified the singular sacrifice which Israel according to the spirit (that is, the spirituall Israel) doth now offer, singulare sacrificium quod nunc offert Israel secundùm spiritum. And a little after again, Iste immolat, &c. This Israel offereth to God a sacrifice of praise, not ac­cording to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedec—They kn [...]w that they have read what Melchi­sedec brought forth when he blessed Abraham, and are now [Page 65] partakers of it: they see such a sacrifice to be now offered to God over the whole world. And here he explicateth the place of Malachy the Prophet ( c. 1. v. 11.) of this Sacrifice, and useth the same discourse also elsewhere, De Civit. Dei, lib. 18. There is nothing of any such discourse. cap. 19. Here then according to S. Augustine, is a Sacrifice, and that a singular or speciall sacrifice, signified by the shadows of the sacrifices of the Old Law: and this Sacrifice is now of­fered, that is, in S. Augustines time, 400. years after Christ, and after the Sacrifice of the Crosse was passed. A Sacrifice not according to the order of Aaron (that is, bloudy and of beasts) but according to the order of Melchisedec, and of such things as he offered, viz. bread and wine. And now, that is, in the time of S. Augustines writing, they see such a sacrifice offered over all the world, and they are partakers thereof. All which is so clear as nothing can be more clear.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 2. All is so clear as nothing can be more clear: Your arguments please your self, but satisfie no man else. When will you come to the point? Your self have stated the question, That Christ did institute a sacrifice: Cap. 1. and that the sacrifice by Christ instituted is a proper sa­crifice. Let any Reader judge whether in this of S. Au­gustine, or in any other voucher throughout your whole Treatise, you have one argument or authority that comes home to the point in controversie.

Here you bring that spirituall Israel doth offer a sin­gular sacrifice. If you had found that spirituall Israel had offered a corporall or bodily sacrifice (yours is such you say) then you had come something near the question. We are Israel according to the spirit, and we have a most spirituall and a singular sacrifice to offer, which S. Augustine (here by you alledged) calleth Sa­crificium [Page 66] [...]dis, a sacrifice of praise. Or if you will [...]ake S. Augustine en [...]ire, and let one Chapter (as it ought) help to expound another, you shall easily find that this singulare sacrificium is in S. Augustines sense very sin­gular indeed: Cap. 18. Ʋnum verum & singulare sacrificium multis est antea sacrificiorum significatum figuris—singu­lare & solum verum sacrificium pro nobis Christi sanguis effusus est: The one, true, and singular sacrifice, is before signified by many figures of sacrifices—the singular and onely true sacrifice, is Christs bloud shed for us And thus proceeding by degrees unto that here cited, he saith, Cap. 20▪ Ecclesia immolat Deo in corpore Christi sacrificium lau­dis—Haec quippe ecclesia est Israel secundum spiritum, &c The Church doth offer to God in the body of Christ the sacri­fice of praise. Take here in corpore Christi, the body of Christ, either for the Church which is his body mysti­call, or for the Sacrament and sacramental bread which is his representative body, still S. Augustines sacrifice is but Sacrificium laudis, the Sacrifice of praise. For (saith he) this Church which is Israel according to the spirit—doth offer a singular sacrifice. Wherein? in what kind? what sacrifice doth this spirituall Israel of­fer? Iste (saith he) immolat Deo sacrificium laudis: This (that is, this Israel) doth offer to God the sacrifice of praise, not according to the order of Aaron, but accor­ding to the order of Melchisedec. Who can fashion your proper sacrifice, your bloudy sacrifice out of all this?

As for your last clause concerning Melchisedec, that will never make for you, untill you can turn his protulit, he brought forth, into obtulit, he offered: And whilst you confesse his was bread and wine, but say that yours is [Page 67] neither: and unlesse you can find a proportion between one so great as Melchisedec, deriving down a blessing unto Abraham, and such wretches as your selves, who impudently and irreligiously affirm, that you offer up a greater then Melchisedec to God the Father. Beside, that which Melchisedec brought forth was at the most the Sacrament of a Sacrament; for so S. Augustine cal­leth it, Epist. 95. Sacramentum mensae Dominicae.

A. B. C.

§. 3. But by the way, I observe herd that which I did before in the testimony of Eusebius, of a Sacrifice of praise, which by this place is evidently to be understood of a true and proper, not a Metaphoricall sacrifice: for the sacrifices with which S. Au­gustine doth joyn it, though differently, saying that it is like one, but not like the other, are true and proper sacrifices▪ to wit▪ those of Aaron and that of Melchisedec: And this is yet more evident by the words immediately going before the place here cited, which are these; Ecclesia ab Aposto [...]orum tempo­ribus per Episcoporum successiones certissim [...], usque ad nostra & dernoeps tempora perseverat, & immolat D [...] in corpor [...] Christi sacrificium la [...]dis: that is▪ The Church from the A­postles times, by most certain successions of Bishops even to ours and to after-times, doth persev [...]re and sacrifice to God in the body of Christ, a Sacrifice of praise. [...]o here the sacrifice of praise (which he speaks of) is that which the Church doth con­tinue to offer, by offering the body of Christ.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 4. Your last words, offering the body of Christ, are your own: indeed the coynage of your own brain without shadow or colour for any such inference out of S. Augustine, unto whose Sacrifice of praise I sub­scribe: [Page 68] not regarding what you boldly and without ground do affirm: for I do professe my faith as agreea­ble to S. Augustines, as it is different from yours.

A. B. C.

§. 1. A Third place may be that, De civitate Dei, lib. 17. cap. 17. where he shews Christs Priesthood, out of the Psalme 109. thus, Juravit Dominus, &c. Almighty God swore, and he will not repent himself: by which words he signi­fieth that that which he addeth shall be immutable; Thou art a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec. See­ing that now there is no where either Priesthood or Sacrifice according to the order of Aaron, and every where that is offer­ed under the Priest Christ, which Melchisedec brought forth when he blessed Abraham; who can doubt of whom this is spoken? By which it is clear, that the exercise of Christs Priest­hood did and was to continue; and that in place of Aarons sa­crifices, a sacrifice like to Melchisedecs was offered; not by Christ himself; for he was not then on earth, but sub sacerdote Christo, under Christ, that is, by Priests under him, and by his authority and appointment.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 2. Little to your purpose. That is offered which Melchisedec brought forth (say you:) but he brought Cap. 11. §. 1 not forth the body and bloud of Christ, but bare bread and wine: Therefore your doctrine will never be con­cluded by the example of Melchisedec.

A. B. C.

§. 1. ANd to make it manifest that this sacrifice which S. Augustine so often speaks of, is a true, visible, and proper sacrifice, and not an invisible, spirituall, or meta­phoricall sacrifice, I will here alledge his discourse in his tenth book, De civit. Dei, cap. 19, & 20. where distinguishing these two kinds of sacrifice, he saith, That as in prayers and praise we direct signifying words to him to whom we offer the things themselves in our hearts which we signifie; so in sacrifi­cing we are not to offer visible sacrifice to any, but to him to whom in our hearts we our selves must be the invisible sacrifice. And chap. 20. having said, that though Christ as God did with his Father receive sacrifice, yet as man he did rather choose to be a sacrifice, then to receive sacrifice, lest by that occasion any man might think that sacrifice might be offered to a creature, he concludeth thus, Per hoc & Sacerdos est ipse offerens, & ipse oblatio, cujus rei sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Eccle­siae sacrificium, &c. that is, By this he is both Priest offering, and also the oblation or thing offered, whereof he would have the sacrifice of the Church to be a daily Sacrament (or similitude) seeing he is the head of her the body, and she the body of him the head. She is wont to be offered by him, as well as he by her. And then he concludeth, That all the ancient sacrifices were signes of this true sacrifice. So as here you see a visible sacri­fice distinguished not onely from prayer and praise, both out­ward and inward; but also from the invisible sacrifice whereby we are to offer our selves as a sacrifice in our hearts to God, the outward sacrifice being a signe of the inward, as words are of our inward thoughts and affections. You see Christ is the Priest and the sacrifice: that there is a visible sacrifice in the Church, as a daily sacrament, signe, or memory of that which Christ offered upon the Crosse: that Christ is wont to offer his [Page 70] Church as she doth him, that is, he being there invisibly offer­eth her invisibly, and the offering him visibly by sacrifice doth also offer her self by him: And lastly, you see he calleth this a true sacrifice, adding, To this most high and true sacrifice all the false sacrifices have given place.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 2. In the first two lines of this chapter, you pro­mise us out of S. Augustine proof for a true visible and proper Sacrifice, yet in the close you will shuffle the cause away invisiblie. For you say, that Christ is wont to offer his Church as she doth him. How is that? you tell us presently. He being there invisibly offereth [...]r invisibly. Thus you promise to prove visible Sacrifice, yet you conclude for invisible.

The words in S. Augustine are of Christ: Et▪ Sacerdos De civit. l. 10. c. 20. est ipse offerens, ipse & oblatio, cujus rei Sacramentum quatid [...]anum esse voluit ecclesiae Sacrificium: quae cùm ip­siu [...] capitis corpus sit, se ipsam per ipsum dicit offerre. He is the prtest, he the offerer and he the offering, the daily Sa­crament, whereof he willed to be unto the Church a sacrifice: which (the Church) being the body▪ of him the head, saith that she offereth her self by him; that is▪ offereth her self to God through Christ.

What is here for you or against us? As for your wide inferences whereby you w [...]nder both from the question of Christs institution and from the authorities themselves which you produce (as I told you before) I intend not to pursue them.

As for your last period where you bring in as from S. Augustine the word true Sacrifice, which you would have to be understood to be the body of Christ under [Page 71] the shew of bread (as you teach:) If you remember the title of this chapter in S. Augustine, the Sacrifice by him meant is Christ himself the mediatour of God and men, not your unseen Christ in a wafer. And if you remember the text in S. Augustine, it is Christ him­self in forma servi, in the form of a servant, not Christ counterfeited by you in the shape of bread▪ and there­fore nothing to what you are to prove.

A. B. C.

§. 1. A Fifth place may may be lib. 8. De Civit. cup. 27. where he saith, that we do not erect Churches, priesthoods, Sacrifices, &c. to the Martyrs; for saith he, who did at any time hear the priest as he stood at the altar, though built over the holy body of the Martyr, for the honour and worship of God, say in the prayers, I offer Sacrifice to thee O Peter; Paul, or Cyprian, seeing it is offered to God, at their memories (or places of buriall?) And whereas there was a cu­stome in some places to bring meat and drink, and to feast at the tombes of the Martyrs, he saith, Any man knows these not to be the sacrifices of the Martyrs who knows the one (or one­ly) sacrifice of Christians which is there offered to God.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 2. What is in this for the proprietie of Sacrifice, or concerning the institution of our Saviour.

A. B. C.

§. 1. ANd that this sacrifice is the body of Christ, is appa­rent by this holy Father, in his 22. book De Civit. cap. 10. which discourse I cannot here omit. Having therefore said that the Pagans did build Temples, erect altars, appoint priests and sacrifices to their gods, who were but dead men, he shews that we do not so to our Martyrs: We (saith he) do not build temples to our Martyrs as to gods, but memories as to dead men, whose souls do live with God (that is, churches in memory of them) nor do we there raise altars on which to sa­crifice to the Martyrs, but we offer sacrifice uni Deo Marty­rum & nostro, to the one God both of the Martyrs and of us: at which sacrifice they are named in their place and rank, as men of God, who in confession of him have overcome the world, but they are not [...]nvocated by him that offers the sacri­fice: for he sacrificeth to God and not to them. And the Sacri­fice it self is the body of Christ, which is not offered to them, for they are also his body. These are his very words, so plain for proof of a proper Sacrifice, as (I think) no man can denie it. But because a man that is unwilling to see this truth may catch at two little words by the by in this discourse, to wit, that the Martyrs are not invocated, and that they are the body of Christ, I must explain his meaning; which is nothing in the former place, but that the priest in offering Sacrifice doth not say, I offer sacrifice to thee Peter, Paul, Cyprian (as he saith in many places) but that they may be prayed unto, is insinua­ted even here, and expressed plainly by him in Joh. tract. 84. where speaking of this sacrifice he saith, that we do commemo­rate the Martyrs or name them, not as we do others who rest in peace, so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us, that we may follow their footsteps. His meaning in the latter word is nothing but by way of allusion from the true bo­dy [Page 73] of Christ, to his mysticall body, to them that the sacrifice which is Christs bodie, cannot be offered to the Martyrs: for they are also his bodie, to wit, his mysticall bodie or members (as he saith truly, and as he said before) of the Church.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 2. You have brought forth this place of S. Au­gustine: you have declined it, and indeed answered it against your self. These two little words which you say a man may catch at in this discourse are both of them materiall, the first against invocation of Saints depart­ed, which being nothing to our theam I passe by: the other is a plain convincing evidence to prove what was herein the sense of S. Augustine. His words are, De civit. lib. 22. c. 10 Ipsum Sacrificium corpus est Christi, quod non offertur ipsis, quia hoc sunt & ipsi: The Sacrifice it self is the body of Christ: This you make much of, but take the whole period: which body (saith S. Augustine) is not offered to the Martyrs, because even they are this bodie. So then it is evident that the body of Christ in this place is (as you find it) his mysticall body, that is, the Church Universall: which being part militant, part triumphant (as the martyrs are) is honoured with the title of Christs body: Just as S. Paul (to the faithfull at Co­rinth) 1. Cor. 12. 27. ye are the body of Christ: and to the Romanes, Rom. 12. 5 we being many are one body in Christ.

Thus it appears that nothing of this at all belong­eth to your missall sacrifice of Christs naturall bodie under the shape of bread to be offered as you dream, and as you would prove if you could: but belongeth to his mysticall body the Church (as your self do find it) which body (the Church) is not the Sacrifice that you contend for.

A. B. C.

§. 1. ALL which places though they make the matter of a proper sacrifice evident, and that therefore I need not say any more thereof, yet not onely to satisfie an indifferent man, but even to convince a refractory, I have thought good to set down S. Augustines discourse in his 20. book contra Faustum Manichaeum, where he handleth this point largely and particularly, the hereticks discourse requiring it, which I must also set down briefly for the better understanding of S. Augustines answer, thus;

§. 2. Faustus then to shew that the Manichees were not Pa­gans, nor a schisme of the Gentiles, that is, agreeing with them in belief, as he faith was said of them (though falsely, as S. Augu­stine answereth, for it was said onely that they had some like­nesse with the Pagans, in regard they made more gods then one) Faustus, I say, takes occasion for his better clearing to set down a brief summe of his belief, or rather of his ph [...]enzie, saying; That the Father dwelleth in inaccessible light, the Sonne on the sunne and moon, the holy Ghost or third▪ Majestie, as he calleth him, dwelleth or hath his seat in the whole circuit of the aire, and that by his force and spirituall profusion the earth be­getteth patibilem Jesum, passible Jesus, who hangs (as he saith) on every tree▪ that is, as S. Augustine afterwards more largely explicateth, Jesus according to their belief is in all fruits and herbs which grow out of the earth, and saith Faustus, we bear the same reverence or religion to all things as you do towards the bread and chalice: his words arr there, Nobis circa univer­sa & vobis similiter erga panem & calicem par religio est. Then he sheweth how farre they differ from the Pagans in se­verall things, of which one is this, That, as he saith, the Pagans deem that God is to be worshipped with altars, temples, ima­ges, [Page 75] sacrifices and incense, wherein he professeth to go a very different way from them: for (saith he) I think my self, if I be worthy, the reasonable temple of God; I receive or take Christ for the living image of the living Majesty, the altar a mind en­dued with good arts and disciplines; I place divine honours and sacrifices in onely prayers, and those pure and simple: Ho­nores quoque divines ac sacrificia in solis orationibus & ipsis puris ac simplicibus pone. And a little after, shewing us to dif­fer little from the Pagans, he saith, that we have turned their sacrifices into Agapes, or feasts wont to be kept at the martyrs combes: their idoles into martyrs: that the Jews our predeces­sours, in like manner departed but a little from the Gentiles, lea­ving onely their idoles and retaining their temples, their sacri­fices, their altars and priesthoods. And so Faustus concludes both the one and other, that is, the Catholicks and the Jews, to be a schisme or near of kin to the Pagans, and his own profes­sion to be a sect, that is as he accounteth it, very farre differing f [...]om Paganisme. This is the substance of so much of this here­ticks discourse as is for our purpose, that is, to give light to so much of S. Augustine as is needfull to be here alledged.

§. 3. This holy Father then having confuted all their vain and fabulous belief of the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost▪ as also that of the earth bringing forth Jesus; he comes to that of our bread and chalice, saying thus▪ Cur autem Fau­stus arbitretur parem nobis esse religionem circa panem & calicem nescio, cum Manichaeis vinum gustare non religio sed sacrilegium sit▪ I know▪ not why faustus should think that he and we have the same religion (that is, belief and reverence, for so religion signifies in this place) of the bread and cup, see­ing with the Manichees it is not religion but sacriledge to cast wine: and then deriding them for it thus, That they acknow­ledge their god in the grape, but not in the vessel, as if by being troden upon (that is, when wine is made out of the grape) and included or shut up in the vessel, he did offend them, he saith thus, Noster autem panis & calix non quilibet, quasi propter Christū in spicis & in sarment is ligatum sicut illi desipi [...]t, sed [Page 76] certá consecratione mysticus sit nobis non nascitur▪ or as ano­ther edition hath it, sit nobis corpus Christi, non nascitur: But our bread and chalice not any, as it were in regard of Christ being bound or tyed up in the eares of corn and branches of the vine as they foolishly imagine, but by certain consecration is made mystical unto us, doth not grow, or is not so by nature; or as the other reading saith, The chalice and bread by consecra­tion mystical, is made the body of Christ, is not born so, or is not so of it own nature; and then he inferreth, that what is not so made, though it be bread and a chalice, it is alimentum refe­ctionis, non sacramentum religionis; a food of refection, not a Sacrament of religion▪ but onely that we blesse and give thanks to God for all his gifts, not onely spirituall but also corporall. These are the words of S. Augustine, plain and pregnant for the reall presence and change of the bread and wine into Christs body, whichsoever of the two readings a man take. For though the latter be the plainer by reason of the very words Corpus Christi, the body of Christ; yet because a Protestant will except against it for that very reason, though we should bring never so good authority for that reading, as they do in a like case of a place of S. Cyprians, for the authority of Peters chair, to take away all exception I will wave it, and follow the former read­ing, being the very same in sense, and clear enough. For there it is said, that by consecration, and consequently not by saith, the bread and cup becomes mystical, that is, it is made some­thing which is not seen, and that the nature thereof is changed, sit non nascitur, it is made another thing by consecration then it was by nature; and this consecration is certain, that is, a spe­ciall consecration, different, and of greater force and efficacy then the ordinary blessing and thanksgiving used in other bread and wine; and that which is so consecrated is a Sacra­ment of religion, not corporall food: all which doth clearly de­monstrate what we teach of Christs presence in this holy Sa­crament. But the discourse it self makes it yet more evident; for Faustus saying, that Christ is in every creature growing out of the earth, as we acknowledge him in our bread and chalice, [Page 77] (whereby it is manifest by his very testimony, that Catholicks did then believe the reality of Christs presence in this Sacra­ment as we do now) S. Augustine first confuting and deriding that vanity of Christs presence in all things which Faustus spoke of, acknowledgeth it of such bread and wine as is duely consecrated, and explicateth how it comes, to wit, by consecra­tion, not according to the vain imagination of the Manichees, as if Christ were tied and bound up in all their meats: Vobis per fabulam vestram, saith he, in escis omnibus Christus liga­tus apponitur: Christ by your fable is set before you tied up in all your meats; and thereupon he denieth our belief to be the same with theirs, and addeth, that in so saying he sheweth him­self more foolish then some, qui nos propter panem & calicem Cererem & Liberum colere existimant, who in regard of the bread and chalice think that we worship Ceres (the goddesse of corn) and Bacchus (the god of wine;) which is a proof no lesse pregnant for the truth and property of our Sacrifice, then that of the Manichees for the reall presence: the practise there­of being such in S. Augustines time, as that the very Pagans took notice thereof: For sacrifice was the worship which they gave to their gods: and unlesse they had known that we did of­fer bread and wine in sacrifice, they could have no shew of rea­son to imagine how we should thereby worship Ceres and Bacchus.

§. 4. Now for that Faustus speaks against the altars and sacrifices of the Pagans, and in commendation of his own spi­rituall and improper temple, altar, &c. and his onely Sacrifice of prayers; S. Augustine having confuted him, and shewed the falshood of what he said of his being the temple of God, his mind the altar, his prayers pure and simple or sincere, he convinceth him of absurdity in acknowledging these things and denying a true sacrifice, asking this question, Volo mihi dica­tis, I would have you tell me from whence you have the names of these things which you praise in your selves, as temple, altar, Sacrifice? for if unto the true God these true things (that is, a true and proper temple, altar and Sacrifice be not due, why [Page 78] are they laudably spoken of in a true Religion? But if to the true God a true Sacrifice be due (from whence also they are rightly termed divine honours?) other things which are cal­led Sacrifices are done after the similitude of a certain true Sa­crifice. Lo here S. Augustine counteth it an absurdity in the Manichees to acknowledge these things metaphorically and denie a true proper Sacrifice. And why may not we say the same to Protestants? But to go on with S. Augustine, he sheweth that all the sacrifices of the Gentiles and Jews had some relation to the true sacrifice, which is due to the true God onely, and wherewith Christ alone did fill his altar. The sa­crifices of the Gentiles were the imitations of false and deceit­full gods, that is to say, of the devils, proudly chalenging from such as they deceived that honour which was due to God one­ly, the sacrifice being not to be blamed but the offering of it to the devil. The Jews by their sacrifices of beasts did by way of prophecy foreshew the future sacrifice which Christ offered. Wherefore Christians do now celebrate the memory of the same sacrifice, as being passed by the most holy oblation and participation of the body and bloud of Christ. But the Mani­cheans not knowing what was to be condemned in the sacri­fices of the Gentiles, nor what to be understood in the sacrifices of the Jews, nor what to be believed or observed in the Sacri­fice of the Christians, do offer their own vanity in sacrifice to the devils. S. Augustines Latine words of the latter part of this discourse in which the chief force consisteth are these, speaking of Christs sacrifice of the Crosse: Unde jam Christiani per acti ejusdem Sacrificii memoriam celebrant Sacrosanctâ oblatione & participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi. Manichaei verò nescientes quid da [...]nandum sit in Sacrificiis gentium, & quid intelligendum in Sacrificiis Hebraeorum, & quid tenen­dum vel observandum in Sacrificio Christianorum, vanitatem suam sacrum offerunt diabolo. Then which, what can be more clearly spoken for proof of a true visible and proper sacrifice? for having in the beginning of this discourse (or rather imme­diately before he entred into it) rejected that absurdity of the [Page 79] Manichees in [...]knowledging a metaphoricall sacrifice of prayer, and denying a tr [...]e or proper sacrifice▪ he comes to speak of proper sacrifices; of which he maketh foure sorts: The first is that of the Gentiles which he disallows in regard of the persons to whom it was offered, to wit, the devils. The second is that of the Jews, and their sacrifices many and se­verall, were figures of the third sort of sacrifice, which was that which Christ himself offered. The fourth is the sacrifice of the Christians in the singular number also, as that of Christ himself, which they offer in remembrance of his sacrifice, and this they do by the oblation and participation of the body and bloud of Christ. Who can now say that the body and bloud of Christ is not truely and properly offered in sacrifice in the Ca­tholick Church?

§. 5. To that which Faustus saith of our changing the sacrifices of the Gentils into our Agapes, or feasts, and of their idols in­to our Martyrs, S. Augustine answereth thus, Populus Chri­stianus memori [...] martyr [...]m, &c. The Christian people doth celebrate the memories of the Martyrs with religious solem­nity to stirre themselves [...]p to their imitation, to be partakers of their merits, and helped by their prayers: So that we do not sacrifice to any of the Martyrs though we build altars for memories of the Martyrs. For what Bishop standing at the altar in the place where the holy bodies lie did ever say, I offer sacri­fice to thee, O Peter, P [...]l, or Cyprian? but what is offered is of­fered to God, who crowned the Martyrs though at the memo­ries (o [...] places of b [...]ll) of the Martyrs, whom he crowned▪ that the very place putting us in mind, our affection may in­crease to wh [...] out charity▪ both towards them whom we may imitate, and towards him by whose help we may be able to imi­tate them. We do therefore worship the Martyrs with that worship of love and fellowship wherewith the holy men of God are worshiped in this life, whose hearts we know to be prepared to suffer in like manner for the truth of the Gospel▪ But we worship those (that is, the Martyrs) more devoutly and more securely, after having overcome all uncertainty, and [Page 80] we praise them with more confidence being conquerours in that more happy life then those which are yet here fighting. But with that worship which in Greek is called [...], and in Latine cannot be expressed in one word, being a certain servitude (or subjection) particularly due unto Divinity (or Deity) we nei­ther do worship, nor teach that any can be worshipped but God alone. And seeing that to this worship belongeth the of­fering of Sacrifice, from whence idolatry is attributed to them who do this (that is, offer Sacrifice) to idols, we offer no such thing nor command it to be offered to any, either Martyr, or holy soul or Angel, &c. And a little after again S. Augustine answereth an objection that some make themselves drunk at those feasts which were called Agapes, condemning the thing, yet so, that he saith, it is a lesse sinne for a man to come drunk from the Martyrs, then fasting to sacrifice to the Martyrs: and lest any man should mistake him he explaineth himself thus▪ Sacrificare martyribus dixi, non dixi sacrificare Deo in me­moriis martyrum, quod frequentissimè facimus, illo duntaxat ritu quo sibi sacrificari novi Testamenti manifestatione prae­cepit, quod pertinet ad illum cultum quae [...] dicitur & uni Deo debetur. That is, I said to sacrifice to the Martyrs, I did not say to sacrifice to God at the memories of the Martyrs which we do very often; but according to that manner onely by which he gave command that Sacrifice should be offered unto him in the manifestation of the new Testament, which belong­eth to that worship which is called [...], and is due onely to God. And he goeth on immediately asking a question thus, But what shall I do, and when shall I be able to demonstrate to that so great blindnesse of these Hereticks (that is, when shall I be able to make them understand) what force that hath which is sung in the Psalmes, The Sacrifice of praise shall glo­rifie me? and there is the way where I shall shew him my Sa­viour? Salutare meum. The flesh and bloud of this Sacrifice before the coming of Christ was promised by sacrifices of like­nesse; in the passion of Christ it was delivered by the truth it self; after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by the sacra­ment [Page 81] of remembrance. The Latine words of the latter part are these, Hujus Sacrificii caro & sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur; in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur; post ascensum Christi per Sa­cramentum memoriae celebratur.

§. 6. This is the discourse of S. Augustine at large, which I could not prevail with my self to break off sooner, being so clear and full to the present purpose, and containing so many excellent points besides, as the honour due to the Saints, the help we have by their prayers, the distinction of that worship which we give to them from that which we give to God, that worship of [...] which our Divines ac­cording to S. Augustines doctrine do give to God alone, that this worship of [...] is exercised by sacrifice, so as we cannot be justly charged with idolatry by Protestants for doing honour to the Saints in their reliques and pictures, see­ing we do not offer sacrifice unto them. And for the point here principally intended which is of a proper Sacrifice there can be nothing more plain, being so often, so plainly, and so distinctly set down. Christ himself did not onely offer sacrifice but did al­so institute a certain form of sacrific [...], and gave command that sacrifice should be offered in such a manner, and when even at that time when he did manifest the new Testament; and when was that but at his last supper, when giving the Chalice to his Apostles, he said, hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, This is my bloud of the new Testament, according to S. Mat­thew and S. Mark; and according to S. Luke, hic est calix novum testamentum in meo sanguine, This is the Chalice, the new Testament in my bloud? For when or where else doth he manifest or even make any mention of the new Testament? and that no man may make any manner of doubt but that he meaneth a true and proper sacrifice throughout all this discourse, and even then when he spoke of the sacrifice appointed to be offered, and the right whereby it was to be offered, in the mani­festation of the new Testament, he saith there, That it belong­eth to that worship of [...] which consists in offering of sacri­fice, [Page 82] and which is due to God alone. He calleth the Manichees Hereticks for denying it, and complains of their blindesse, that he cannot make them understand that place of Scripture, Sa­crificium laudis honorisicabit me, the Sacrifice of praise shall glorifie me, of this Sacrifice. And how long (may I say) would it be before we should be able to make Protestants un­derstand the same? The flesh and bloud of this Sacrifice was prefigured and promised by the ancient sacrifices delivered by Christ himself in his passion, and after his ascention celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance; that is, this sacrifice is a signification, representation, or memory of the sacrifice upon the crosse, according to the place before alledged out of his tenth book de Civit. Dei cap. 20. and according to another place in his Confessions, where he calleth the same thing Sacra­mentum pretii nostri which he called a little before Sacrificium pretii nostri: and this is that sacrifice which S. Augustine saith we do very often offer at the memories or altars dedicated to God in memory of the Martyrs, their bodies lying there buried.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 7. You in the beginning here do pretend to bring enough to convince a refractory man. Parturi­unt montes—The little substance of this long dis­course is divided into six paragraphs and easily an­swered.

The first is not discoursive, but onely a flourishing bravado, not to be answered.

The second (being taken out of the foure first Chapters) doth contain an impertinency of the erro­neous folly of Faustus.

The third (out of the thirteenth Chapter) is a bre­viate of S. Augustines answer to that impertinency of Faustus: wherein is nothing to the Theam for proof [Page 83] of a proper Sacrifice, or of Christs institution.

The fourth (taken out of 15, 16, 17, and 18 Chap­ters) doth bring in Faustus again and S. Augustine pur­suing him, wherein you cogge in the word proper (a true and proper Temple Altar and Sacrifice) which seems to runne like the language of S. Augustine, who hath it not.

In the fifth you do expatiate farre and wide (upon the 21 chapter) and repeating what was argued by S. Augustine nothing to our theam, but one small sen­tence, which amazeth me to hear produced by you, it being absolutely destructive to your reall, visible, and proper Sacrifice. Whereupon I may justly say to you as S. Augustine there to Faustus, maledicendi cupidita­te Cont. Faust. lib. 20. c. 21. A. B. C. quid profiteretur oblitus est. The place is famous, full against you, and shall be repeated anon.

Your sixth and last part of this chapter is another vain flourish: there you call for victory, proclaiming your cited authorities to be clear and full to the present purpose—For proper Sacrifice there can be nothing more plain, being so often so plainly and so distinctly set down. You would work well if you had a good Theam to work upon: but your stuff is naught. Sometime that which is in substance little you dresse and trim forth into a pretty shew: sometime that which is clear a­gainst you (either to shew your art, or for want of better helps) you take, and then with a colourable flou­rish of your own, you strive to winne upon the easie belief of others; whenas (for my part) I cannot ob­tain so much of my self by all that you produce, as to think that you are so partiall, as not to see that you have proved (in some of your choice authorities) [Page 84] plain truth against your self. Thus— Quos perdere vult Jupiter hos dementat.

As for your other [...], those excellent points (as you call them) they are neither proved here, nor pertinent to your or mine undertaking.

You help me in the last inference with a most fit re­ply unto you. We do of you, as S. Augustine com­plained of the Manichees, wonder, that we cannot make you understand that place of Scripture, Sacrificium lau­dis, &c. The Sacrifice of praise shall glorifie me. Now if you take praise for a proper Sacrifice, you stand alone; Bellarmine, and all writers else, and common sense a­gainst you. But if praise be a sacrifice improper, and that there never was flesh and bloud in Christian sa­crifice, (unlesse in that of Christ himself on the Crosse) How long, may I say, (in your own language) would it be before we should be able to make Papists under­stand the same? The flesh and bloud of this sacrifice was prefigured and promised by the ancient Sacrifices, deli­vered by Christ himself in his passion, and after his ascension celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance.

A. B. C.

§. 1. I Might alledge other authorities without number; but these I suppose will serve the turn, if any will. The pla­ces being many, clear, and full; the authority undoubted both for the persons, and for the works here alledged: nor can I imagine what objection may be made against them.

S ^r. EDWARD DERING.

§. 2. The authorities (as above is shown) are some against you, others make nothing for you in the point controverted, which is propriety of your Sacrifice, and our Saviours institution for it. So that not one place is (as you pretend) clear and full.

A. B. C.

§. 3. As for the other point of S. Peters and his Successours authority, I must desire a little further respite. And this one point may serve for this time.

S ^r. EDWAD DERING.

§. 4. For proof of this other point you desire a lit­tle further respite. If you had really intended any thing therein, or could perform what you have undertaken, three sheets of paper require not so much time but that they might well have come along with this: if not ready then, yet you will not say but that I might have received them from you before I could dispatch this unto you. But that point as it is the main essentiall point of Popery, (with and without which a man is a Papist, or no Papist) so is it also of that difficulty to be proved, that you do wisely to decline that which you know you can never make good.

§. 5. In the last place, as before I gave you Cyprian for Cyprian, and Eusebius for Eusebius, so here also I will return S. Augustine for S. Augustine. And so much the rather and more plentifully, because you say you are content to let the decision of the controversie rest wholly up­on his authority.

[Page 86]First then answer (if you can) what you last brought Contr. Fau­stum, l. 20. cap. 21. and I shall first object: Hujus Sacrificii caro & sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promit­tebatur: in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur: post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur: Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and bloud of this sa­crifice was promised by victimes of similitude: in the pas­sion of Christ, it was delivered by the Truth it self: after the ascension of Christ, it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance. I need not do by this, as you by your imperfect authorities, flourish it out in shew for want of strength. It carries it own quicknesse with it: It is pregnant and pungent. He doth not say that our cele­bration is by a proper sacrifice▪ but by a Sacrament of Re­membrance.

Secondly, if S. Augustine had credited your daily Missall Sacrifice of the very body and bloud of Christ, he could not have said, Praeclarissimum atque optimum De civit. Dei, l. 19. cap. 2 [...]. Sacrificium nos ipsi sumus, we our selves are the most ex­cellent and the best sacrifice. For although he say in ano­ther place, that Tota redempta civitas is universale sacri­ficium, Ibid lib. 10. cap. 6. the whole city of the redeemed is an universall sacri­fice; yet this being but the body is not of that excel­lency and acceptation, as is that sacrifice of the Head, Christ himself: from and by whom she (the Church) in her severall members and in her self entire, hath both value and acceptation. Therefore (I say) S. Augustine could not have called us the best and most excellent sacri­fice, if beside that of our Saviours Passion he had also credited the reall bodily presence and proper sacrifice of the Masse.

Thirdly, if S. Augustine had believed your daily sa­crifice [Page 87] continually renewable, he could not say▪ unicum Con. ad­vers. Leg. & Proph. lib. 1. c. 18. sacrificium—unum—singulare & solum verum sacrifici­um pro nobis Christi sanguis effusus est: The onely sacrifice, the one, singular and alone true sacrifice is Christs bloud shed for us.

Fourthly, such as is the altar such the sacrifice, but neither of them proper, visible, or externall in the lan­guage of S. Augustine; Ejus est altare cor nostrum, our heart is his altar: whereupon he proceedeth, saying, Ei De civit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 4. dona ejus in nobis, nósque ipsos vovemus, & reddimus ei beneficiorum ejus solennitatibus festis & diebus statutis di­camus, sacramúsque memoriam, nè volumine temporum ingrata subrepat oblivio. Ei sacrificamus hostiam humili­tatis & laudis, in ara cordis igne fervida charitatis: Ʋnto him we vow and return our selves, and his own gifts in us. To him upon festivall solemnities and dayes appointed we do dedicate and consecrate the memory of his benefits, lest an ungratefull oblivion through the course of time should creep upon us. To him we sacrifice a sacrifice of humility and praise, in the altar of our heart, by the fire of fervent chari­ty: Whereby it appears that S. Augustine either did not believe, or else (in his very Chapter intitled Of sacrifice to God) he did forget the highest mysterie of your Reli­gion: for here is no more materiall proper sacrifice, then that fire (here spoken of) is materiall proper fire.

Fifthly, S. Augustine in his next Chapter saith, Il­lud Lib. 10. c. 5. quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificii: That which of all men is called Sacri­fice, is a signe of a true sacrifice: which follows well after that which in this very chapter he had said a little above, Sacrificium visibile invisibilis sacrificii Sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est: visible sa­crifice [Page 88] is the Sacrament, that is, a holy signe of invisible sa­crifice. If then visible sacrifices (with S. Augustine) are sacraments or holy signes of invisible sacrifices, surely then they were not, in his Religion, externall and pro­per sacrifices: for the signe visible, and the thing signed invisible, are contradistinguished.

Sixthly, a Table cannot be a Relative to a sacrifice proper▪ but S. Augustine hath, Advers. Judaeos, c. 9 Mensa Dominica ad Chri­sti sacrificium pertinens; the Lords table appertaining to Christs sacrifice.

Seventhly, Ibid. Manibus non efferimus carnem, sed corde & ore offerimus laudem: We do not with our hands offer flesh, but with heart and mouth we offer praise.

Eighthly, Sacrifice, Priest, and Altar, are relatives, and do meet together all or none; But the Priesthood of Christ is not on earth: Ibid. Christi sacerdotium in aeter­num per severat in coelo: the Priesthood of Christ doth for ever continue in heaven: Therefore his sacrifice also is there with him: for where the Priest is, there the sacri­fice must also be. And this is plain by your Greek Li­turgies, where they (as S. Augustine here of Christs Priesthood) do affirm our Altar to be in heaven, as in that attributed to S. James, [...] so also in that of Chrysostome: and [...] in that of S. Mark. Lib. 4. c. 35 Irenaeus, Altare in coelis, Our Altar is in heaven. So S. Chrysostome calleth our Saviour In epist. ad Hebr. cap. 6. hom. 11. [...], The Altar above. Epiphanius saith of Christ, Advers. Haer. lib. 2. com. 1. [...], He the sacrifice, he the Priest, he the Altar. Thus Orat. 28. Nazi­anzen comforts himself with [...], an­other [Page 89] Altar in heaven. But I must proceed with S. Au­gustine.

Ninthly, that which is after a sort, or in a certain manner, is not to be said really and properly to be such, but S. Augustine saith plainly and expressely of the Sa­crament; Epist. 23. Secundùm quendam modum sacramentum corpo­ris Christi corpus Christi est: The Sacrament of Christs bo­dy is after a kind of sort the body of Christ; from whence by consequence it followeth, that your sacrifice is (at the most) but after a kind of sort a sacrifice, certainly then not a proper sacrifice.

Tenthly, S. Augustine plainly calleth the blessed Sa­crament of the Lords Supper, In Psal. 3. Convivium, in quo cor­poris & sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit & tradidit: A banquet wherein he (our Saviour) did unto his disciples commend and deliver the figure of his bodie. But you affirm that you do offer the substance, and so you must say, or by your own principles forfeit your cause: for with you in your faith it is a consequence un­deniable, If no Transubstantiation, then no proper Sacri­fice.

In the eleventh place, in the person of Christ, com­forting his disciples upon the hardnesse of that speech in S. John, Except ye eat my flesh, &c. he saith, In Psal. 98 Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramen­tum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos: & si necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, opertet tamen invisibiliter intelligi: You are not to eat this body which you see, or drink that bloud which they shall spill who will crucifie me. I have commended unto you a certain Sacrament; It being spiritually understood will quicken [Page 90] you: and though of necessity it must visibly be celebrated, yet it must be invisibly understood

Twelfthly, he saith, Contr. A­dimantum, cap. 12. Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cùm signum daret corporis sui: Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave the signe of his body.

In the last place, S. Augustine in his Treatise of Lib. 3. c. 16 Christian doctrine, where he discourseth plentifully of the right understanding of the holy Scriptures, and what danger it is to take such places figuratively which are properly spoken (or contrariwise) he gives this Canon of direction; Si praeceptiva locutio est, aut flagi­tium aut facinus v [...]tans, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens, non est figurata: si autem flagitium aut facinus vide­tur jubere, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare▪ figurata est: that is, If there be a preceptive speech, either forbidding a mischievous deed or a villanous act, or commanding com­modity or a good turn, it is not figurative: But if it seem to command a hainous deed or villanous act, it is figurative. This is S. Augustine, and this is undisputable. I would unto this Proposition have subjoyned an Assumption, such as would have fitted you, and forced you to a Conclusion on our behalf: but that S. Augustine hath already framed it. S. Augustine hath made this infe­rence for us, and hath instanced thus in the next fol­lowing words: Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis: faci­nus, vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figura est ergò pr [...]cipi­ens passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter at (que) utiliter recondendum in memoria, quòd pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa & vulnerata sit: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son Jo [...]. 6. 53. of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He [Page 91] seemeth (saith S. Augustine) to command a villanous or mischievous act: therefore it is a figure commanding us to communicate with the passion of our Lord, and sweetly and profitably to lay up in memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. I could present you more out of this excellent Father, as in his 150. Treatise upon. S. John: his Epistle to Dardanus, and elsewhere: but these already will serve to shew you, that out of Cypri­an, Eusebius, and S. Augustine you have more to answer, then from them you have objected. And now let a so­ber Christian judge whether any of these (especially S. Augustine) be like to decide the controversie on your side or on ours. And thus have I closed my answer to your Treatise, which if in some places it may seem thinne and barren, I must have leave to suit it to your objections, which must be answered such as they were. And therefore I borrow a sentence from a learned Scholar, who said, Meus adversarius tam jejunè de rebus gravissimis plerumque disserit, ut valdè etiam jejunafutu­ra esset responsio.

Catastrophe.

THus have you what my little leisure and lesse learning can afford: wherein I might have shortned my pains, and with one line have answered all: for in all these six sheets of paper you never come near the proof of what you assumed: Viz. That Christ Jesus did institute a sacrifice, and that this sacrifice by him in­stituted [Page 92] is a sacrifice properly so named. This proprietie and this institution (I say) you have not in any autho­rity by you alledged once touched, and are therefore farre from proof of your cause.

Your masse is the highest act in your Religion: your sacrifice is Brerely [...]itur. tract. 3. §. 2. that point wherein consisteth the very es­sence of the masse: wherein (saith your Jesuite Caussin) Holy court. part 1. l. 3. §. 13. The life of a Saviour is sacrificed; yet for this highest point the very essence of your masse, the sovereigne act of your faith, devotion and Religion, you have not one text throughout the whole Law of Christian Religi­on either convincing or pregnant, nay you have not one probable deduction whereby to prove your deter­mined errour.

Two places you grasp hard hold by, but both in the old Testament. First that of Malachy, which you will Mal. 1. 11. take for your externall, visible, and proper sacrifice, con­trary to the plain sense of the place, and contrary to the frequent exposition of the Fathers: who receive it as of internall, visible, and improper sacrifice, as Eusebius Demonstr. Evang. l. 1. c▪ 6, and l. 2▪ c. and l. 1. c. ult. Justin Martyr Dial. cum Tryphone. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 32. Ter­tull. cont. Marcion. l. 3. c. 22. & l. 4. c. 1. advers. Judeos in [...]ine cap. 5. & initio cap. 6. Chrysostom. in Psalm. 95. and advers. Judaeos Hom. 2. Hieron. in Malach. 1. 11. Au­gustin. cont. advers. Leg. & proph. l. 1. c. 20. de civitate Dei▪ l. 18. c. 35. & l. 19. c. 23. & contra Judeos c. 9.

The other place is that of Melchisedec where he both a priest & a King doth exercise both dignities. As a priest he blesseth Abraham, as a King he feasteth him and his army, and this is the plain truth of that story, so much and so impertinently by Papists drawn over to their Missall sacrifice.

Antistrophe.

§. 1. I Was minded to have cast anchor here, and not to have whetted a disputation sharp already, yet since that in matter of Religion, one side is never to be blamed though it do proceed Disputationis serram reciprocando (for truth must not be deserted because her adversaries bark at her) I am therefore resolved to change my style and to proceed.

Semper ego auditor tantum? nunquâmne reponam? Yes the defendants buckler having warded your blows, let me now take the assailants sword, and be you respon­dent another while: wherein I am well content to be concluded within three sheets of paper, as you promi­sed and did undertake.

You have produced three Fathers, who all have an­swered themselves: yet (omitting many other) I think fit to give you three for three. First John Bi­shop of the Patriarchall sea of Constantinople, for his eloquence surnamed Chrysostome. The next Cyrill who held the famous Patriarchate of Alexandria, whom In Hod [...]go. cap. 7. Anastasius saluteth with the title of most clear light of the Fathers. Thirdly, S. Ambrose of Millan the ghostly father of S. Augustine. And thus I begin with S. Chry­sostome.

First having produced that of Malachy, He clearly Mal. 1. 11. Advers. Ju­d [...]s Hom. 36. delivers himself, what this pure offering is: [...] [Page 94] [...]. It is not offered (saith he) by fume and smoke, neither by bloud (mark it) and ransome, but by the grace of the spirit. And that our Christian sacrifice is not tyed to any place, (as yours to your altars) he saith that every man sitting at his own home shall worship God. And for the manner he telleth you, that our Saviour Christ did bring in [...], a more sublime and spi­rituall kind of worship. But of a bodily sacrifice no word.

Secondly, Chrysostome in another place doth number Homil. in 95. ps. up tenne severall sorts of sacrifices in the Christian Church, yet as if he were ignorant of all proper exter­nall and visible sacrifice, they are all of them metapho­ricall and spirituall. The place is full and copious, I must contract it. The first is imitation of Christ or cha­rity, 2. Martyrdome, 3. Prayer, 4. Psalmes, or Hymnes, 5. Righteousnesse, 6. Almes, 7. Praise, 8. compunction or contrition of heart, 9. Humility, 10. Preaching. Is it not pity that you or some body for you was not at this an­cient Fathers elbow, to jog him, and to put him in mind of your Popish sacrifice. But alas your present Romish faith, or rather folly, was then unborn.

Thirdly, speaking of Christ he saith, Hom. 17. in Epist. ad Heb. 9. [...], He is both sacrifice and preist (as Epiphanius before alledged) whence I inferre, that if the body of Christ be really present in your sacrifice by conversion of the substance of bread into the substance of his body, then also (since relatives do alway stand and fall together, and that Chrysostome in that place saith, that he is offer­ed [...], by himself) it must follow, that your [Page 95] priest also (as well as your sacrifice) is Christ really and properly, by the like conversion or transubstantiati­on of persons. For Chrysostome and other Fathers do affirm that Christ is both our sacrifice and our priest: and in all relatives if you will take one of them proper­ly, you must take the other properly also. You may be­lieve Cardinall Bellarmine cited before in my sixth Aphorisme, cap. 6.

Fourthly, in the same Homily we do not (saith he) Hom. 17. i [...] Epist. ad Heb. cap. 9. perform another but the same sacrifice, whereupon (as if he had been adventurous in this expression, which happily might incurre a misconstruction) the immedi­ate words following do seem to retrench that latitude of sense, thus, [...], or rather (saith he) we do perform a remembrance of a sa­crifice.

Fifthly, upon these words in S. John, Except ye eat the Hom. 46. in Joan. John 6. 33. flesh of the sonne of man and drink his bloud, ye have no life in you, and (vers. 63.) It is the spirit that quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. [...] All these things are carnall, and which ought to be understood mystically and spiritual­ly—for (saith he) if any man take them [...], fleshly, he will gain nothing by them. But you take (say you) the very flesh of Christ, and look to gain thereby: Therefore S. Chrysostome and you are of two religions.

Sixthly, in the Liturgie ascribed to S. Chrysostome, which on your side is called S. Chrysostomes masse, after the consecration there is a prayer, [...] [Page 96] [...]. Send down thy holy Spirit upon us, and upon these gifts here placed before thee: which evidently convinceth, that Christ is not bodily present: if he be, we need not pray for the holy Ghost upon him. And if he be not there, you must confesse (as your Cardinall before) that you have no proper Sacrifice.

Seventhly and lastly, [...] Hom 11. in E [...]ist. ad Heb. c. [...]. Behold (saith he) we have the victime above, we have the priest above, we have the sacrifice above. Let us offer these sacrifices which may be offered upon that altar: No longer sheep and oxen, no longer bloud and smoak, all these things are abolished, and in room of these ( [...] mark that) is introduced a rationall worship. But what is this rationall worship? These things which are by the soul, which are by the spirit,—which have no need of a body, which have no need of Organs, or members of in­struments, or places. But your sacrifice is here below: but your sacrifice hath a body, the naturall body of Christ: But your sacrifice (hath partes organicas) doth contain the flesh and bones, and other parts and members of the body, as by naturall concomitancy Ledesmade sacram eu­char. c. 7. they are really uni­ted to Christs humane body. But your sacrifice is in places, [Page 97] as well tyed to your altars, as circumscribed within the accidents of bread and wine, and the ambient place that roundeth them, as by expresse words Ledesma granteth, where he speaks of that which is contained under the species of bread. Therefore S. Chrysostome Ibid. cap. 5. and you are of two religions.

Cyril of Alexandria is the next, who tells you that God in his wisdome did permit unto his people sacrifi­ces, and did so order them Contr. Ju­lianum l. 9. [...] That they might in them­selves make way for the form of spirituall worship: which he plentifully shews to be the Christian Sacrifice.

Secondly, Julian having objected unto Cyril, that the Christians had no sacrifice; Cyril declining and thereby denying all externall, visible, or proper sacri­fice, is copious in metaphoricall and spirituall sacrifices: which in way of answer for the Christian Religion, he calleth Ibid. lib. 9. & 10. [...], an intellectuall and (I may say) unsubstantiall worship, or a service void of materialls, and [...], reasonable sacrifices: [...], a service or worship thinne or not grosse, exact, in­tellectuall, and spirituall: and gives this reason for his as­sertion, [...] For (saith he) a most immateriall sa­crifice doth become, or is fit for God, who is in his nature pure and immateriall. Now then prove that your sacri­fice is immateriall, and then you and we will shake hands with this learned Father.

S. Hex [...]r [...]m▪ l. 5. c. 19. Ambrose is the third I promised you, who saith, [Page 98] Hoc est verum Christi sacrificium, p [...]dicitia corporalis & gratia spiritualis: This is the true sacrifice of Christ, bo­dily chastity, and spirituall grace.

Secondly, whereas you teach that yours is idem sa­crificium cum P [...]ssione Dominica: The same sacrifice with the passion of our Lord▪ (as Cardinall De Euch. sacrif l. 2. c. 1 [...]. Allan and others affirm) saying, Recordatio ac exemplar sic constituitur in nostro sacrificio, ut tamen sit prorsus unum idémque cum immolatione in cruce: The Remembrance or copie is so or­dained in our sacrifice, that it is notwithstanding altogether one and the same with the sacrifice on the Crosse. And that Ibid. 552. & Ledesma de Euchar. c. 17. one and the same substance is in your severall hosts, and the same also in that of the Crosse. Now howsoever you would hereby avoid the severall varieties of many severall sacrifices, yet can you never decline this, that (even by the ground of your own positions and princi­ples) you do repeat one and the same substantiall and very sacrifice often. But S. Ambrose will deny you both variety of Sacrifices, and also your daily repeti­tion of that one and the same sacrifice once offered up­on the Crosse: mark what he saith upon the words of S. Paul, (Heb. 7. 27.) Magnitud nem sacrificii ostendit, Si sit Am­bros. quamuis enim illudunum fuerit, semel oblatum, sufficit ta­men in sempiternum—Nec hoc pro populo quotidie offe­rendum erat, sed tantae sanctitatis & honoris apud Deum fu­it hoc sacrificium, ut semel oblatum in aeternum profuerit populo Dei: He sheweth the greatnesse of this sacrifice, for although it were but one, once offered, yet it sufficeth for ever—Neither was this to be daily offered for the people, but this sacrifice was of so great sanctity and honour with God, that it will be profitable for ever to the people of God. De offic. lib. 1. cap. 48.

Thirdly, S. Ambrose did believe but a figure or [Page 99] image of Christ to be now here on earth, and the truth of his presence to continue onely in heaven. Hîc um­bra, hîc imago, illic veritas: umbra in Lege, imago in E­vangelio, veritas in coelestibus. Antè agnus of [...]erebatur—nunc Christus offertur, sed offertur quasi hom [...]—hîc in imagine, ibi in veritate—Here is the shadow, here the si­militude, there (in heaven) is the truth: The shadow in the Law, the similitude in the Gospel, the truth in heavenly places: heretofore the lambe was offered—now Christ is of­fered, but is offered as man—here in similitude, there (that is, in heaven) in truth.

Fourthly, S. Ambrose sheweth how he sacrificeth, not by actuall exhibition of Christs body to God, but by recordation and due remembring of our Saviours Pas­sion. The place is expressely parallel to that of S. Chry­sostome In epist. ad Hebr. 10. 4. published on your side as for Ambr. touched before. The words are, Nonne per sin­gulos dies offerimus? offerimus quidem, sed recordationem facientes mortis ejus—Non aliud sacrificium sicut ponti­fex, sed idipsum semper offerimus: magis autem recordati­onem sacrificii operamur: Do not we offer every day? we offer indeed, but making remembrance of his death—we do not as the Priest, offer another sacrifice, but alway the same: or rather we perform a remembrance of a sacrifice. If then S. Ambrose did rather perform a remembrance of a sacrifice then a sacrifice indeed, you ought also to do the like, and no more.

Fifthly and lastly, nothing can be plainer for spiritu­all and onely spirituall sacrifices then the words of this Father, inviting us (as the Text did lead him) to draw near unto Christ (look Epist. to the Hebrews, cap. 10. 21. & 22.) Accedamus▪—In quo accedamus? sanctitate, fide, & spirituali culturâ in veraci corde, sine simulatione, [Page 100] in plenitudine fidei, quia nihil est visibile horum, neque sa­cerdos, neque sacrificium, neque altare: Let us draw near (saith the Apostle)— Wherein (saith S. Ambrose) shall we draw near? in holinesse, faith, and spirituall wor­ship, in truth of heart, without guile, in fulnesse of faith, because none of these things are visible, neither Priest, nor sacrifice, nor altar. I need not tell you that invisible sa­crifice, priest, and altar, are improper sacrifice, priest, and altar. But these authorities being clear and con­vincing in themselves, need not (as yours have) flourishes longer then themselves. Beside, my three sheets are just filled, and three authorities are now in your hand. To which I onely adde this line, That the faith of a reall bodily presence, being so much young­er then the times wherein these Fathers wrote; it may be wondred that so many pieces (out of these and others) can be found, wherewith to oppose your long since devised errour.

Epiphonema.

YOu promised me that beyond the Theams then by you undertaken, I should receive an overplus (an auctuarium as you called it.) Now because I would not be in debt, I will pay before you lend it. Take therefore this that follows as a surplusage above weight and measure, [...]. The disposal of it is very brief, and thus;

I will present unto you three authorities out of your [Page 101] own eminent Doctours, inconsistant (as I think) with your proper Sacrifice of the naturall body and bloud of Jesus Christ. And in the last place, three rationall syl­logisticall arguments, and so good night.

1. Petrus de Ledesma Professour of Divinity at Sala­manca, De▪ Euch. cap. 7. having varied his discourse into many schola­stick subtilties, concerning the manner how Christ is in the Sacrament: As first, That all and whole Christ is there, next that the whole body of Christ, with all the parts and members thereof, is contained under the shews of bread and wine. And with this body his rea­sonable soul by concomitancy, and his deity also by reall union with the body, and the whole Trinity is there, though not properly and in the rigour of speech; and this body thus there, is there immovable by it self, but moveable as the sacramentall species may be mo­ved. After all which Mataeotechny, his sixth conclusi­on is very good Protestantisme. Corpus Christi non est in hoc sacramento sicut in loco ut alia corpora naturalia, sed modo quodam ineffabili, quem Theologi Sacramentalem voc [...]nt,—The body of Christ is not in this sacrament as in a place like as other naturall bodies are; but by an unspeak­able manner, which Divines do call a Sacramentall man­ner.—Is all this stirre then to prove our Saviours bo­dy to be there in the Sacrament in an ineffable and sa­cramentall manner? away then with your premisses, we grant your conclusion, and from thence do inferre, That if Christs body be there but sacramentally, your sacrifice can then be no proper, but a sacramentall sacri­fice, that is, sacrum signum sacrificii, a holy signe of a sa­crifice, which we deny not, as in the words of S. Au­gustine Cap. 20. §. 5▪ before alledged: Visibile Sacrificium, invi­sibilis [Page 102] sacrificii sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est: Visible sacrifice is the Sacrament, that is, the holy signe of invisible sacrifice. Now the Sacrament, or holy signe, cannot be properly the sacrifice and thing signified.

2. Peter Lombard, the famous Master of the senten­ces, Lib. 4. dist. 12. Quaeritur (saith he) si quod gerit Sacerdos PRO­PRIE dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio: &, si Christus quotidie immoletur, vel semel tantùm immolatus sit: ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur & consecratur à sacerdote, VOCARI sacrificium & oblationem: quia MEMORIA est, & repraesentatio veri Sacrificii & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis. Having discoursed be­fore of accidents and substances, and of two wayes of Lib. [...]. dist. 9 eating Christ, one sacramentall performed both by the good and bad, the other spirituall onely by the good: he cometh to these words above, viz. It is a question whether that which the priest doth perform may be PRO­PERLY called a sacrifice or immolation: and, whether Christ be daily offered, or be offered but once onely▪ unto this it may be breifly answered; That which is offered and conse­crated by the Priest, is CALLED a sacrifice and offering: be­cause (mark his question, his answer, and his reason) it is the MEMORY and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation performed on the Altar of the Crosse. He doth not say that it is called a sacrifice, because it pro­perly is so, nor because the naturall body and bloud is offered up, but because it is the memory and representati­on of the true sacrifice, &c.

3. My third authority that I borrow from your side Decret. part 3. de con­ser. dist. 2. cap. 48. Hoc est▪— is out of the corps of your Canon Law, made irrefra­gable by the unerring bull of Pope Gregory the 13. where speaking of the sacramentall bread which he [Page 103] there calls heavenly bread, he saith, Suo modo VOCA­TUR corpus Christi, cùm revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet, quod visibile, palpabile, mortale in cruce est suspensum: vocatúrque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi Passio, mors, crucifixio, NON REI VERITATE, sed significante mysterie: After it own manner it is CALLED the body of Christ, when as in truth it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ, that is to say, of that body which visible, palpable, mortall, was hanged on the Crosse: and that immolation of flesh, which is done by the hands of the Priest, is CALLED the passion, death, crucifixion of Christ, not in the TRUTH of the thing, but in a signifying mystery.

The Glosse hereupon is suitably orthodox: Coeleste Ibid. Sacramentum, quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem, dici­tur corpus Christi, sed IMPROPRIE (mark that word) unde dicitur suo modo, sed non rei veritate, sed significat [...] mysterio, ut sit sensus, vocatur Christi corpus, id est, signi­ficat: that is, The heavenly Sacrament which doth truely represent the flesh of Christ: It is called the body of Christ, but IMPROPERLY: whereupon it is said, (SUO MODO) after it own manner, yet not in the truth of the thing, but in the mystery of the thing signified, that the sense is, It is called Heb. 2. [...] the body of Christ, that is, it so signifies. This is so plain, that he that runs may read it.