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 quâ— 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 z Corpus Domini ex pane confectum If then no Transubstantiation it follows in your Doctrine by consequence no Sacrifice 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 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 imitaâ—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 CHAP. III. 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 Sr. EDWARD DERING Since that you inferre nothing out of the differencie of Editions I have therefore no cause of answer to this 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 CHAP. IIII. 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 quà m 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 â—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 Sr. 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
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 Sr. 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. Daily celebrating the remembrance of his body and bloud 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is a word properly pertaining to the action or function of sacrificing Sr. EDWARD DERING 6. The Grammarians must now be judge who argues aright in Divinity This word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} will not force {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to celebrate or perform sacrifice But in this place it cannot relate to sacrifice unlesse you can make us believe that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. celebrating or performing the remembrance ought rather to be in English sacrificing the remembrance of the body and bloud of Christ a Herodian saith {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} He did not perform what he promised Eutropius speaking of the younger Scipio saith that Asdrubal was afraid to deal with him b {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. as being a man ready to perform his work Our Saviour saith c {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} I perfect cures this day and to morrow S. Paul speaking of Moses hath d {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as again do you the tenth chapter {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} celebrating the memorie or remembrance A. B. C. 7. And the article {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} when he saith {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 Sr. EDWARD DERING 8. Your inference here is in all likelihood more then was intended by Eusebius in that so common article {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} do by their own proper signification signifie a proper Sacrifice and Priesthood Sr. 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Bellarmine will not say that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 take {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} comes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from mactare to slay and so your a Cardinall confirms me b {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 c {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} my beeves and fatlings are killed you translate not sacrificed Therefore if you will have your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. The remembrance of Christs body and bloud the celebration whereof he there calleth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} before all the typicall shadows among the Jews This is all that Eusebius hath or intendeth here For the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} you will strangely impone upon the ignorant when you can perswade that it signifieth proper priesthood The truth is that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is generally any manner of service and ministration of holy things d Bellarmine doth controll Kemnitius for saying that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 e {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which your Rhemist call sanctifying not sacrificing the Gospel of God Like as your Masses of Basil and S. Chrysostome where you have {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 Sr. EDWARD DERING 13. The comparison here instituted by Eusebius is evident by that attribute {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 iâ— 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 Sr. 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 a 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 hâ—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 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 a It is clear say you b Again it is clear c Expresly averred and a clear proof d Nothing can be more clear nor do I see what can be said against 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 CHAP. VIII 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 remembrancâ— 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} also signifieth in remembrance of the Sacrifice which our Saviour Christ himself did offer Sr. EDWARD DERING 2. Must I alway watch your translations Your cause is bad and you would fain forge evidence to mend it Eusebius hath {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is For instead of in the room in the place of another person or thing a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} will he for a fish give him a serpent Archelaus did reigne in Judea b {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the room of his father Herod So Christ gave his life {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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. Sr. 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 hâ—ad with oyle and how excellent is my chalice which place of the Psalme Eusebius expoundeth thus to our purpose {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and to shew that the Table he speaks of is an altar he joyns it with the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} thus {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Then he useth the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which is a most proper word signifying the exercise of Priesthood in a singular manner and the words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} joyned with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 Sr. 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} unbloudeed that is no gushing issuing or appearing of bloud but you dare not with Eusebius here say that it is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is without bloud deprived destitute utterly void of bloud as the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and to take off all doubt of such sense as you would impose within very few lines he calleth these {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a bloudlesse sacrifice for when you speak of Rationall faculties I am sure that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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
Eusebius distant enough from what you would prove in way of answer this would 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 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 CHAP. XI 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} That is And the fullfilling of the prophesie 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 a 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 b 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} according to the property of the greek word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 Sr. 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
in the Eucharist is not properly sacrificed CHAP. XXV THus good A. B. C. be content with this name or send me a better you have enough not onely to satisfie an indifferent man but even to convince a refractory Nor can I see what can be said against the authorities or works by me cited Nor can I imagine what objection may be made against them Refute them clearly fairly and fully and through all impediments whatever can arise I will follow you to Rome For magna est veritas great is Truth prâ—vâ—lebit it will it shall prevail with me If you cannot make a solid and sure reply then suffer Truth to prevail with you remembring that Christ is Truth Remember also that this is one of the most principall points of your Religion for sacrifice is the very essence of your Masse How capitall how deadly then is this errour which being once admitted doth unavoidably lead you from superstition to an idolatrous adoration You promised a friendly conference which I shall be glad to heare that you would perform as well upon this Theam if this be not here enough as upon that other of the Papall Supremacy wherein I do desire that one of my acquaintance may be satisfied quietly and privately But alas except your cause were better you must not come to an equall triall By way of farwell at this time I will take the language of an eminent learned Priest who by command of the Emperour Charles the Great did write of that subject with which your proper Sacrifice must stand or fall that is of the bodily presence of Christ in the Masse Bertram therefore who wrote 800. yeares since hath these words Panis ille vinúmque FIGURATE Christi corpus sanguis exsistit est quidem corpus Christi sed non corporale sed spirituale est sanguis Christi sed non corporalis sed spiritualis Nihil igitur hîc corporaliter sed spiritualiter sentiendum corpus Christi est sed non corporaliter sanguis Christi est sed non corporaliter that is This bread and wine is FIGURATIVELY the body and bloud of Christ It is indeed the body of Christ but not corporall but spirituall It is the bloud of Christ but not corporall but spirituall Therefore nothing here is to be understood bodily but spiritually It is the body of Christ but not bodily It is the bloud of Christ but not bodily If your late word and name of Transubstantiation had then been coyned he who denieth the doctrine would also in expresse terms have said It is the body of Christ but not transubstantially Away then with your new coyned faith of Trent for I am confident in this That a Papist living in that Creed who doth or may know the purer truth of the Gospel of God is to say no more in a desperate hazard of Salvation FINIS Hinc lucem pocula sacra {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Academicum * Simeâ—n Cabisilas in episâ—ola ad Martin Crusium * Dion Long â— 3. a Pers. Saâ— â— b Antonin {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} lib. 6. §. 17. c Antonin {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} lib. 6. §. 17. d Wolflus King James his speech in Parl. 1605. f Iob. 4. 〈…〉 c. 76. g Ibid. h cap. 78. i cap. 81. k cap. 83. l Lib. 6. cap. 38. m Ibid. cap. 194. n lib. 4. c 78 o cap. 80. p cap. 82. q lib. 5. c. 19. r lib. 6. cap. 192. Å¿ cap. 194. t cap. 195. â—yprian de â—nâ— aâ—e Ecclesiae Rev. 17. 4 5 x De vanitate scient. cap. 17. y Psal. 45. â—3 14. Martiall I. II. Sermon 7. pag. 90. Sermon 34. pag. 485. III. Heb. 10. 21. So Heb. 4. 14. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Heb. 9. 28. Heb. 12. 14. Heb. 3. 14. IIII. V. VI Lib. 4. cap. 34. Altare Christ pag. 9 pag. 27. pag. 39. pag. 116. pag 85. pag. 175. VII pag 92. pag 105. Coal from Altar pag. 34 35. Coal p. 41. pag. 86. n. 2. pag. 26. n. â— viz. Heylins Coaâ— and Antidotum And â—ocklingtonâ— Altar and Sabbath VIII pag. 10. pag. 15. pag. 18. IX pag 33. pag. 71. pag. 219. X. Luke 3. 34. Revel. 19. 20. and 22. 9. Calvin Instit lâ—â— â— cap. 17. 1. Cor. 11. 24. Helat Confess p. 293. Upon 1. Cor. 11. 24. XII Psal. 119. 62. Psal. 149. 5 XIII pag. 8. pag. 10. pag. 17. XIV Appendix pag. 6. XV XVI XVII XVIII pag. 375. XIX XX 1. Cor. 4. 9. Max. Tyr. dâ—ffert 30. Damascen Virg. Buc. 1. Aeneid 7. Aeneid 7. 9. Ovid Horat. lib. 1. Od. 2. Max. Tyr. dissert. 4. Damascen Aeneid 2. a Herod lib. 4. b 1 Cor. 3. 15. c Joh. 21. 15. d Matth. 26. 25. e Heâ— 13. 10. * So your brother Anonymus as in my treatise of his cardinall virtues pag. 18. c f Conc. Trid. Sesâ— 22. Can. 1. Cyprian Epist 63. a Psal. 4. 6. b Psal. 51. 19. c Psal. 51. 17. d Philip 4. 18. Heb. 13. 16 e Bell. de Mâ—â—â— lib. 2. câ—â— 1. * The word Masse is hâ—re and with Papists frequently takâ—n for the whole act of celâ—bration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper f Lib. 1. c. 5. g De Miss. lib. 1 cap. 2. h Lib. 1. c. 27 i Lib. 1. â— 27 k Bellar. de culâ— l. â— c. 4 l De Miss. lib. 1. c. 14. m Lib. 1. c. 2 n Lib. 1. c. 27 o Ibid. p De civit Dei lib. 10. cap. 6. q Epist. 23 r Ad Simplic lib. 2. qu. 3. â— 1 Dist. 12. 7. t It. 3. quâ— 7â— arâ— 1. * It should have been ad Simplicianum â— 1. Cor. 11. 26. x Ministers properly but Preists improperly Thrasilauâ— in Athen. De ip. nos l. 12. y L. 3. Ep. 2â— Pamel Ep. 77. z Bell. de Miss. l. 1. c. 27. Chap. 2. §. 4 a Lib. 2. b Lib. 4. c Luk. 13. 32. a De Miss. lib. 1. cap. 2. b Joh. 10. 10 c Matth. 22. 24. d De Miss. lib. 1. c. 15. e Rom. 15. 16. a Anonymus Eremiâ—â— v. the 4 cardinall virtues of a Carmelite Fryer pag. 26. a Cap. 2. b Cap. 4. c Cap 5. d Cap. 6. Cap. 7. a Luc. 1â—â— 11. b Matt. 2. 22. Matt. 20. 28. Mar. 10. 45. a Rom. 12. 1 b Lib. 2. sub Severo c Lib. 5. sâ—b Heliogabalo d De cultu Sanctorum l. 3. cap. 4. e De consec dist. 1. c. 11 f De eucharistia c. 20. a Mal. 1. 11. b De Miss. lib. 1. c. 10. c De Miss. lib. 1 cap. 2. d 3. Rhet. a Saving bloud you should say {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} b You offer as you teach no bread nor wine 〈…〉 Chap. 2. §. 5 6 7. Lib. 1. c. 6. Lib 1. c. 10. Mal. 1. 11. Lib. 5. c. 3. Gen. 14. 1â— Rom. 4. c. 11. §. 1. 1. Cor. 3. 7. Lev. 23. 13. Jer. 44. 17 18 19. Deut. 32. 38. Strom l 6. Achareuses vinc lir cap. 3â— Decurâ— pro â—ort c. 13 In the digression under the second chap. Chap 1 §. 2 Herodot. 1 Cor. 10. 16 Cap. 11. 13. There is nothing of any such discourse Cap. 1. a Cap. 18. b Cap. 20 c Epist. 95. Cap. 11. §. 1 De civit l. 10. c. 20. a De civit lib. 22. c. 10 b 1. Cor. 12. 27. c Rom. 12. 5 Cont. Faust lib. 20. c. 21. Contr. Faustum l. 20. cap. 21. De civit Dei l. 19. cap. 2â— Ibid lib. 10. cap. 6. Con. advers. Leg. Proph. lib. 1. c. 18. De civit Dei lib. 10. cap. 4. Lib. 10. c. 5. a Advers. Judaeos c. 9 b Ibid. c Ibid. d Lib. 4. c. 35 e In epist. ad Hebr. cap. 6. hom 11. f Advers. Haer. lib. 2. com 1. g Orat. 28. b Epist. 23. c In Psal. 3. a In Psal. 98 b Contr. Adimantum cap. 12. Lib. 3. c. 16 Joâ—. 6. 53. a Brerely â—itur tract. 3. §. 2. b Holy court part 1. l. 3. §. 13. Mal. 1. 11. In Hodâ—go cap. 7. Mal. 1. 11. Advers. Judâ—â—s Hom. 36. Homil. in 95. ps. a Hom. 17. in Epist. ad Heb. 9. Hom. 17. iâ— Epist. ad Heb. cap. 9. Hom. 46. in Joan. John 6. 33. Hom 11. in Eâ—ist ad Heb. c. â— a Ledesmade sacram euchar c. 7. Ibid. cap. 5. b Contr. Julianum l. 9. c Ibid. lib. 9. 10. Hexâ—râ—m l. 5. c. 19. b De Euch. sacrif l. 2. c. 1â— c Ibid. 552. Ledesma de Euchar. c. 17. Si sit Ambros. De offic. lib. 1. cap. 48. In epist. ad Hebr. 10. 4. published on your side as for Ambr. De Euch. cap. 7. Cap. 20. §. 5 Lib. 4. dist. 12. Lib. â— dist. 9 Decret. part 3. de conser. dist. 2. cap. 48. Hoc est Ibid. Heb. 2. â— a Nomen ratio sacrificii propriè non convenit invisibili oblationi sed soâ—ùm visibili externae De Missa lib. 1. c. 2. §. Secundo b Sacrificii veri realis ratio consistit in tribus primùm res prosana â—it sacra De Missa lib. 1. cap. 27. §. His igitur c Ad verum sacrificium requiritur ut id quod offertur Deo in sacrificium planè destruatur De Missa lib. 1. cap. 2. §. Octavo Sacrificium requirit ut non solùm usus rei Deo offeratur sed ipsa â—tjam substantia ideò non solùm usus sed substantia consumatur Ibid. Sensibilis immutatio rei quae offertur ad rationem externi sacrificii omnino pertinere videtur De Missa lib. 1. cap. 27. §. In consecratione Verum reale sacrificium veram realem mortem aut destructionem rei immolaâ—ae desiderat De Missa lib. 1 cap. 27. §. Haec sententia Cap. 19. §. 1 Cap. 6. Cap. 20.
by Pocklington the reason whereof I take to be because his devotion and the piety of those times were growing into kindred together Heylin more a courtier then divine would have the direction of the King in sacred matters to be a law Nay then let us ransome our spirituall liberty by subjecting rather our temporall condition to his Arbitrary power But the King desires it not In his Antidotum rather toxicum he saith that the Altar is a lively representation of the Crosse of Christ The papist do not say so much unlesse when they mean the Altar with the whole Masse appertaining I cannot part with Dr Heylin untill he as kind as Dr Pocklington do lend my Jesuite if not an argument yet his vote and consent for Idolatry He is alive and may hear what I say I will thank him if he will let me know a good meaning of these lines 2. Not an improper Altar and improper Sacrifice as you idly dream of for Sacrifices Priests and Altars being Relatives must needs inferre that our priesthood is improper also and that is very true for you are but an unproper priest good Heylin prove your self more if you can These two pieces of the same leaven with those two of Pocklington were attested by Dr Baker one Cum utilitate imprimatur and the other in quo nihil reperio sanae Doctrinae contrarium I wonder we have not the recantation of Baker as well as Bray for of the two I ever held Dr Bray the more moderate man and these of Heylin are as pestilentiall as those of Pocklington Both these Authours by the title of moderate Protestants are voucâ— against me by a Carmelite Fryer an old Anonymus of Rome to maintain proper materiall Altars who brought with him a Sermon preached at Cambridge by Sparrow printed 1637. and throwing it down unto me on the table There saith he is as much as we can say for Confession but you will not come to the practise of it licensed by Mr Baker where I find that he pleads for plenary Confession of all sinnes using and admitting the distinction of sinnes mortall and sinnes veniall He finds fault with that opinion which holds the priests power barely declarative he would fain have us to auricular confession his words are Confession in private in the ear is out of use malè aboletur saith a devout Bishop it is almost quite lost the more the pitty The dangerous devotions of the Popish Bishop Francis Sales are englished by one John Yakesley and which I wonder at licensed by Dr Haywood where for confession the penitent is thus directed Thou must seek out the best Confessour that can be found it seems some have a better art or greater power in absolution then others For invocation of Saints I find this precept Implore the assistance of the holy Saints For transubstantiation thus The venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist containeth really and verily the flesh and bloud of our Saviour It were fit the Dr. did explain the word containeth The whole book is a whole series of Popery and yet the licenser could say Non reperio aliquid sanae doctrinae contrarium and publicâ cum utilitate imprimatur Archbishop Laud in his Starre-chamber speech 1637. takes the words which Hâ—… his Scoutmaster had found passable the year before and tells us there is no danger at all in the Altar name and thing what can fix a proper Altar if these words cannot And if a proper Altar he must then have a proper Sacrifice as will be manifested anon Here is the Altar now but where is the Sacrifice Stay a while we dare not speak out yet but we will shew it you one very near What is the meaning of this where he tells the Lords of that Court that the altar is the greatest place of Gods residence upon earth what is then the heart of a sanctified Christian and then he inferres that the Altar is the throne where his body the body of Christ is usually present My Jesuite will say no more of his Altar O. M. was wont to be attributed unto God-almighty rarely given to some heathen Emperours and yet the Chancellour of Oxford was flattered with it by letters from that Universitie dated 28. May 1635. and to bring it the more smoothly to him they have conjoyned the King with the Bishop Circumspicere nobis jubes si quid effectum velimus ab Optimis Maximisque in terra Rege Te. It is said of our blessed Saviour that God gave him not the spirit by measure But the Oxonian complements grow up close to this How near to blasphemy do these adorers creep who in their prodigall flattery do say that He even Dr. Laud is Divini Spiritûs effusissimè plenus most overflowingly full of the holy Ghost I omit the superlative adulation to him in the style of Rome Sanctissime But there is another letter to him about a week after this Parliament began wherein methinks their Rhetorick is more profane Venerandissimus ille quo rectior non stat regula quo prior est corrigenda Religio He the most reverend then whom the rule it self that is or should be the holy word of God stands not more streight then whom religion it self must be first reformed Again he is equally conjoyned with the Church The words are without the Church without Thee Salvation or for modesty sake let it be Safety we cannot hope for Comfort we will not have Sine Ecclesia sine Te Salutem sperare non possumus Solatium nolumus How would it have become this great Patriarch upon these horrid adorings to have checkt them as the Angel did S. John with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} See thou do it not I am your fellow-servant I should bring the desperate extravagancies of Bishop Mountague and Bishop Manwaring to wait upon the Metropolitan but they are elder then my septennary examination which is confined between 1633 and 1640. I am willing to wade no further But I shall wrong many if I touch no more yet I hold it fit onely to touch them and so to leave them upon the question First then I ask of Dr Lawrence who in his Sermon 1637. pressing with too much learning and too little argument the severall partitions in a Church the severall postures and the severall degrees of sanctity in severall places makes a voucher out of Sands relat pag. 173. I find it pag. 238. saying The very Grecians themselves have their tables inclosed with GREAT MYSTERY from the people at this day But why is not the Doctour as candid as the Relatour in expressing the GREAT MYSTERY would the Doctour have it so or not so the reason given by the Relatour is That the ARCANA of their ineffable crossings and convertings may not be prostituted and polluted by unsanctified view I hope the Doctour would not have the enclosure made for such a
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 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 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 CHAP. V. 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 Sr. 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 CHAP. VI 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 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 Sr. 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 CHAP. VII A. B. C. THe next is Eusebius Caesariensis in his work de Demonstratione Evangelica lib. 1. cap. 10. The title whereof is this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 prophâ—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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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. Sr. 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
may not Eusebius allude unto that of S. Paul where speaking of a a living sacrifice he telleth us it is our reasonable service {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} So that Reasonable service in S. Paul is Reasonable sacrifice in Eusebius 8. Every man doth abhorre them who are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} men-eaters Cannibals Yet you think it no impiety to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} God-devourers nor any impossibility to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} when you construe it exercising a most high office of Preisthood {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is no more then prospera sacra facere to perform holy things happily So {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is to work well or to perform a fair or good work In a second sense {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 b Herodian hath {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and c {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 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 d sine Altari non potest sacrificari No Altar no Sacrifice So your Canon law e Sacrificia non nisi super Altare offerantur Let not sacrifice be offered but upon an Altar Ledesma f Missa est veri proprii nominis sacrificium erâ—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 Sâ—tâ— 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 CHAP. IX 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} We sacrifice therefore to God a sacrifice of praise we offer a sacrifice in which God is for so signifies {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 Sr. 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 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 a 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in every place is as much as not at Jerusalem which was then their sole place for sacrifice {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} neither definitively saith he in this or that place but yours is defined to the Altar This {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which you call clean sacrifice and our translation pure offering is there by him affirmed to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the incense of prayers and a sacrifice not by bloud {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. Therefore we sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise Thus Eusebius expoundeth Malachy
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which our Divines according to S. Augustines doctrine do give to God alone that this worship of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which consists in offering of sacrifice 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 Sr. 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 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
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 CHAP. XXIII 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} The disposal of it is very brief and thus I will present unto you three authorities out of your 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 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 vocâ—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 before alledged Visibile Sacrificium invisibilis 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 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 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 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 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 Sacramentum quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem dicitur corpus Christi sed IMPROPRIE mark that word unde dicitur suo modo sed non rei veritate sed significatâ— 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 the body of Christ that is it so signifies This is so plain that he that runs may read it CHAP. XXIIII TO keep the number by you begun of three I will now in the last place briefly salute you with three Syllogismes Each Major of each Syllogisme is Bellarmines First a Every thing that is properly sacrificed is a thing properly visible and externall But the body of Christ in the Eucharist is neither properly external nor properly visible Therefore the body of Christ in the Eucharist is not properly sacrificed Secondly b Whatsoever is by the Priest properly sacrificed is made a thing sacred of the same thing before profane But the body of Christ is not made a thing sacred of the same thing before profane Therefore the body of Christ is not by the Priest properly sacrificed Thirdly c Every thing that is properly sacrificed doth suffer a reall proper and sensible death destruction or consumption But the body of our Saviour in the Eucharist doth not suffer any reall proper or visible death destruction or consumption Therefore the body of our Saviour