doctrine or saying of the Iewes Now this being so it is plainely certaine that our aduersaries of all the anciēt Fathers haue not as much as one S. Hierome vndoubtedly in fauor of their Canon but onely the authoritie of the Iewes Secōdly our aduersaries cānot haue recourse to the spirit for the approbatiō of the Canō of the old Testament first because if they relie vpon this they ought to proue it before to be the true spirit of God which moueth them to beleeue their Canon to be of infallible authoritie that either by some other Canonicall scripture or by some other conuincent reason or motiue as by miracles sanctitie or by other externall testimonie otherwise they them selues can neither safely relie vpon it nor we can iustely giue credit vnto it for that it is manifestly declared in the authenticall scriptures them selues that ther be euill spirits as well as good by which men ar moued yea that same spirit which seemes good is often tymes discouered knowne to be the spirit of the common animie who the more easily coulerably to deceiue delude doth transforme him selfe in to an Angell of leight notobstanding he is darkenes it selfe Finally that spirit by which the defenders of the Iudaicall canō for so our aduersaries suppose theirs to bee proue the authoritie of it is contrarie as well in other points of faith as in this to the spirit of the most visible florishing Church in all ages neither is it common generall conformable to the greater parte of Christians but extrauagant singular priuate particular to them selues as I haue shewed in my precedent argument consequently it can not be the spirit of God but an ill spirit a familiar a bee in a box to which who soeuer doth obey followe will doubtlesse be led at the length in to a laberinth of errors wher he will perish without redemption More ouer for as much as concerneth the Canon of the new Testament for our aduersaries to say they haue it from vs is a verie pore shift considering the want of authoritie which they hould to be in our Church as being in their opinion of no credit in other matters of faith yea plainely erroneous Antichristian it doth thence manifestly follow vpon their Principles that their Canon can not possible haue infallible certainetie in regarde that the whole grounde on which such certaintie depende this supposed to be the authoritie of our Church which they neuerthesse peremptorily auerre not onely to besubiect to error but also to haue alreadie erred in diuers points of faith Frome whence from the rest which hath ben inculcated in the proofe of the minor of my second silogisme the consequence both of it my first silogisme doth inauoydably followe to wit that the Religion of England is plainely false as not hauing anie certaine infallible rule wherby to know the true Canonicall scriptures of the old new Testament THE THIRD PRINGIPAL ARGVMENT MY third principall argument against the English Religiō I frame in this manner That Religion is false which hath not the true interpretation sense of scriptures But the English Religion hath not the true interpretation fense of scriptures Ergo the English Religion is a false Religion The maior can not be denyed by our aduersaries The minor in which onely the question consisteth I proue first on t of their translations of the Bible in to the English tongue of which that most famous defender of the new English faith King Iames of great Britanie in the publike assembly had by his authoritie as Hampton Courte the yeare 1604. sitting as President Cathedratically pronoūced that he had neuer yet seene anie Bible qnid adhuc egemus testibus reightly translated into the English tongue And altho' the same King Iames for that reasō caused an other newe translation to be made in which some thing which were in the former editions are amended corrected yet I find by one of them which I haue my selfe printed at london the yeare 1608. that it containeth still diuers of the same errors which were in the first trāslations of which the King himself did cōplaine as appeareth by the second chapter of the Acts. Vers 27. Wher for the wordes non relinques animam meam in inferno that is in plaine English thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell the foresaid Bible hath thou will not leaue my soule in graue vsing also the verie same translation vpon the wordes of the 16. psalme out of which they ar cited by the author of the Acts of the Apostles That which is done by the professors of the English Religion for no other end then that those who please may freely defend their negatiue positiō of the reall discent of Christ in to hell as Beza ingenuonsly confesseth in his annotation vpon this place the affirmatiue of which neuerthelesse the Apostolicall Creed doth expressely teach vs. In which passage our aduersaries shewe both extreame great partiallitie great impudencie in regarde that in the Greeke text which they them selues most superstitiously professe to follow hath the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place which by the septuagint is put commonly for the worde sheol in Hebrew as it is also by them selues translated in other places of scripture as S. Hierome doth in like manner turne the same worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in to infernus in Latin in English hell throu ' the whole Bible And altho' Daniell Chamier in his booke vpon Christs descent in to hell not daring to deme this manner of translatiō to haue ben made by the septuagint S. Hierome Tom. 2. Pantrat l. 5. cap 5. doth somat◠murmure grumble at them for the same as if they did often times detorte the Greeke Latin wordes to the sense of the Hebrew with neglect of the propertie of the language yet this is but one Doctors opinion if he had more to alledge of his owne sect it were no great matter for that by the common iudgement of the whole Christian world those twoe sacred Translaters farre surpasse in knowledge of the scriptures all the Doctors that euer were or will be of his faction tho' they esteeme thēselues neuer so wise learned And suppose the Septuagint S. Hierome doe in deed frequently followe the sense rather then the propertie of the Hebrewe words what offence commit they in that Nay then what commendation doe they not rather deserue in respect it is a generally knowne rule of the best Trāslators not to tye themselues to the wordes but to the sense As on the contrarie what reprehēsion is not due to thē whose cheefe studie is with neglect of that sense which those anciēt expositors who haue gone before them both in time virtue learning to inuent violently drawe newe interpretations of Scripture out of the Etymologies first imposition of wordes according to the verbal sounde
in the page following he saith in his owne name in the name of his brother Puritās We hold not fasting to be a worke pleasing to God And yet in his page 609. he grautes that to fast religiously at some time is Gods cōmaundemēt And pag. 611. that lent fast is partely religious ordered by the Church for religious endes bindeth the cōscience mediately which larring positions of this grand Doctor I am not able to recōcile And yet for a parte of twelfe dayes deuotiō he putteth the paymēt of tithes which indeed is a deuotiō far more profitable to himself then pleasing to others All which particulars doe manifestly declare that whatsoeuer apish imitation these fellowes vse in writing some fewe bookes of deuotion prayer yet is their spirit quite contrarie to the common spirit of the vniuersall Church wholely vertigenous extrauagant peculiar to themselues And to this the like may be added of their Church seruice forme of administration of Sacraments as may be seeme in their booke of common prayer which as it manifest to them that read it doth notably differ from all the Lyturgies publike formes of prayers pastorals that euer were vsed in the Church before the preachings of Luther not onely in the manner of administrating the Sacraments and seruice but also in some substantiall points of them both Their being not anie mentiō in the booke of common prayer of either annointing with Chrisme in Baptisme or of extreme vnctiō of the sicke nor of consecrariō of the Eucharist or absolute commaunde to receiue it but onely with condition or rather with expresse order or precept that ther be a whole congregation that is some persons more disposed to communicate with the infirme partie besides himselfe that otherwise he must haue patiēce take his iourney to an other world without his Viaticum Neither is it ther ordained directly that that the Communicants shall vse the homologesis or Sacramēt of Pennance cōsisting of contrition confession satisfaction as a necessarie preparation to the communion except onely in in case they finde their cōsciences troubled with anie weightie matter that when they are at the point of death contenting themselues at all other times of their receiuing the Lords supper with a generall confession onely made either by one of the communicants or by the ministerin the name of the rest The contrarie of all which particulars are neuerthelesse found in all Lythurgies Missals Directories of former times in all places of the Christian world as may be seene in the Ierarchie of Sainct Denis the Roman Order of which euen the newer of the twoe was practiced in the Church at the least 80◠yeares agoe But now to conclude hauing passed throu all the seuerall kindes of vniuersalitie that can be imagined with an exact discussion of the nature properties of the same finding none of them in the Religion now publikely professed in England besides this it being certaine both according to the doctrine of the ancient Doctors of the Church moderne diuines that the worde Catholike is the same that vniuersall Lib. 2. c. 38. generall or cōmon as is apparent by S. Augustins responsion to Petilianus wher he saith that the name Caetholicū signifies secundū totum Lib. 2. c. 2. as also against the epistle of Gaudentius Teacing that the Church therfore is called Catholike of the Greeke worde because it is extēded throu ' the whole world This I say being infallibly true it doth by necessarie conclusion follow of the premisses that the English Relilion is not Catholike but a priuate conuenticle or Congregation in which true faith is not founde in which by consequence no saluation can be hoped or expected for such as obstinately seperating themselues from the vnitie and vniuersalitie of the most vniuersally receiued Religion liue and die in it And this may suffice for the declaration confirmation of my first ptincipall argument or demonstration THE SECOND PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT MY second principal argument which proueth the falsitie of the English Religion is this That Religion is false which hath a false or at the least an vncertaine Canon of scripture But the Religion of England hath a false or at the least an vncertaine Canon of scripture Ergo the Religion of England is a false Religion The Maior doubtlesse is graunted by our aduersaries The minor which they denie I proue And for the proofe of it I suppose that the true Canon of scripture can not be knowne but by some externall authoritie or meanes distinct from it selfe whether it be the iudgement of euerie faithfull person assisted by the diuine spirit as manie of our aduersaries affirme or whether it be the declaration of the Church assisted by diuine inspiration of which it shall be disputed in an other place More ouer these meanes or this authoritie must be infallible otherwise it can ingender no such certainetie in the myndes of the beleeuers touching the matter in question but they would remaine still doubtfull of the same And the reasō for which this externall authoritie is thus required to the knowledge of the iuste quantitie of the written worde of God for the distinguishing of the true partes of the same from the Apochrypha doubtfull is because that as the scriptures doe in no places affirme declare them selues either in totallitie 〈◊〉 parte reflectiuely to be the true worde of God deliuered by Christ his Apostles so they much lesse auerre these determinate bookes or partes of the Bible no other to be the onely true authenticall scriptures This being now supposed as certaine on both sides I proue the foresaie minor to wit that the Church of England hath a false or at least an vncertaine Canon of scripture by an other silogisme in this manner That Canon of scripture is false or at the least vncertaine which disagreeth from all other Canons that euer were in anie Christian Church before the dayes of Luther But the Canon of scripture vsed nowe in England is disagreeable to all other Canons that euer were in anie Christian Church before the dayes of Luther Ergo the Canon of scripture vsed nowe in the Church of England is a false or at the least an vncertaine Canon In the Maior of this silogisme ther is no doubt The minor I proue by comparing the Canon of England with those seuerall Canons which according to the diuersitie of opinions in that point among some of the ancient Fathers in former tymes ar founde to be three in number howbeit of those three ther was one which was euer more commonly receiued then the rest to wit that Canon which in the Councels of Florence Trent was defined to be infallible is that same which at this present the Roman Church vseth reiecting all other for Apochryphall inauthenticall Now the first of those three Canons or Orders of diuine volumes consisteth of those bookes of which
and not according to the common acception of them which yet is the common practice of the Nouelists of these our dayes as is most apparent euen by that particular passage which I haue in hād that is the place aboue cited in the second chapter of the Acts thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell Lib. 5. de descen Christ c. ◠n. Aboute which Daniel Chamier hauing turned himselfe euerie way tossed all the dictionaries he could finde for his purpose yet could he not finde one author more ancient then Iohn Caluin his great master and first founder of his Religion whoe teacheth that either in this place or in anie other place of scripture according to the proper ordinarie vse the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie the bodie carcasse or life the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the graue as he his fellow partners will needs haue thē to signifie as they vsually translate them in their Bibles excepting onely Arias Montanus if he be truely cited by Chamier In Idiotismis He◠braeis how be it himselfe grauntes that in the cited place of the 16. psalme the Hebrewe wordes in steed of which the Septuagint putteth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe signifie the soule hell which is all that we can desire For if the Hebrewe text be the foūtaine of all true translations as all the Nouelists will haue it neither can their translation of this place be true nor ours false for that theirs according to our aduersarie Chamiers dissents from the Hebrewe ours agrees Diuers other places of the English Nouelists corrupted translations might be produced as that of the 26. of S. Mathewe wher for Hymno dicto in the Latin hymnizantes in the Greeke they translate when they had sung a psalme In the 28. of the Acts ouerseers for Bishops And in the ninte chapter of the first to the Corinthians Haue we not power to lead about a wife where they put a wife for a woman as if all woman were wiues And in the first chapter of the second epistle of S. Peter they leaue out the wordes by good workes which neuerthelesse are founde in diuers Greeke copies yea Caluin himselfe grauntes that if they be not expressed in the text yet they are subintellected or vnderstood And to this may be added by the way that altho' it is not ill of it selfe to translate the Bible into vulgar languages if it be done truely sincerely by the authoritie of the Church or her cheefe Pastor yet by these few examples we may learne how greately the word of God is abused by false translations how farre the trueth is preiudicated by such partiall proceeding supposing that all the foresaid places as they are by them turned in to the English tongue doe fauore diuers points of their new doctrine wheras on the contrarie they expressely make against it if they be truely trāflated And particularly those wordes of their sixtineth psalme thou wilt not leaue my soule in graue are so absurdely contrarie to sense so extrauagāt in the phrase manner of speech as the like is not to be found in anie translation that euer was extant euer since the scriptures were first published in vulgar tongues euen among the pretended reformers themselues But now this may suffice for examples of false translation of the scriptures vsed by our aduersaries for the first proofe of the Minor of my silogisme aboue framed Which I further proue secondly for as much as concerneth the exposition of the scriptures because the manner of interpretation which both our English professors also the rest of the pretensiue reformers vse is scarce in anie thing coformable to the expositiō of the anciēt Fathers Doctors of the precedent ages as it ought to be according to the rule of S. Augustin in his second booke against Iulian where in the begining he faith the Christian people ought rather to adhere to the Fathers then vnto those which teach the contrarie towards the end of the same booke he addeth thus that which they to wit the Fathers found in the church they hold that which they had frō their Fathers they deliuered to their sonnes But our newe interpreters as they are in their positions so are they in their expositions of the worde of God singular full of affected apish imitation of the Iewish glosses neither doe they scarce euer alledge anie other expositions or constructions then those of Rabbi Salomon Rabbi Kimchi Aben Ezra the rest of that rabble Notobstanding they cannot be ignorant but that some of them were either Scribes Phariseis or Saduceis if not all of whome it may be presumed with reason that they frame their expositions more commonly according to their owne false traditions thē according to the true sense meaning of the lawe By which proceeding the reader may consider how impossible it is for our aduersaries to satisfie their consciences in the deliuerie of such doctrine as dependes vpon so vncertaine fayleable groūdes in how miserable a case that flock is which hath his instruction in matters of saluatiō from such Pastors as partely out of the writings of those profane Iewes enimies of Christ partely also by their owne industrie coine new sense out of the old obstruse decayed significations of wordes which they find in pedantik humanists Lexicōs Dictonaries neglecting the commō current acceptions Ecclesiasticall vse of the same By all which the conclusion of my proposed argument doth appeare true sound which is that the Professors of the English faith haue no certaine and infallible interpretation sense of the diuine scriptures consequently their Religion must needs be voyde of trueth THE FOVRTH PRINCIPAL ARGVMENT MY fourth principall argument I propoūd in the forme following That Religion is false which hath a false rule of faith But the English Religion hath a false rule of faith Ergo the English Religiō is a false Religion The maior is not denyed by our aduersaries therefore it needs no proofe And it they should be so refractorie as to denie it It is cōuinced by the verie leight of naturall reason which teacheth that the ruled followes the nature of the rule so that it cannot possible be streighter then the rule it selfe no more then a boton can be round if the moulde be square Now that the English Religion hath a false rule of faith which is the Minor of my silogisme I demonstrate thus by an other silogisme The Religion of England hath for the rule of faith scriptures interpreted expounded by euerie particular member of their Church But the scriptures interpreted expounded by euerie particular member of their Church is a false rule of faith Therefore the Religion of England hath a false rule of faith That the scriptures expounded by euerie particular member of the Church is a false rule of faith I euidently proue because the
other places of scripture it doth particularlie the 22. of Genesis where Abraham preparing to sacrifice is sonne saith to his seruants Expect here with the asse I the boy makeing haste thither after we haue adored will returne vnto you Where it is cleare that the worde adore cannot signifie anie other adoration then that which Abraham was aboute that is the sacrifice of his sonne The likeplace you haue Iohn the 12. of certaine Gentils who ascended in to the temple to adore in the feast day And the Eunuch come to adore in Ierusalem the 8. of the Acts. In comment Malach. 1. In fine according to the iudgement of Theodoret Rupert this place of sainct Iohn alludes to that other of Malachie aboue cited discussed hath the like sense Which perhaps these two authors receiued from Eusebius who affirmes the same in his first booke of his Euang. demonst sixt chapter thence it is consequent that this place is vnderstanded of the Eucharist as the place of the Prophet is that is in a proper signification of sacrifice And other principall proofe of a proper sacrifice in the newe Testament is deduced from the institution of the Eucharist the 28. of sainct Mathew the 14. of sainct Marke the 22. of S. Luke the 11. chapter of the first to the Corinthians in this manner forme of Sylogisme A proper sacrifice is an externall oblation of some sensible permanent creature consecrated changed by mysticall ryte or Ceremonie by a lawfull Preist for the a knowledgement of the diuine maiestie supreme power dominion of God But Christ in his last supper made such an oblation when he instituted the Eucharist Ergo Christ in his laft supper offered a proper sacrifice when he instituted the Eucharist In the maior there is no controuersie betwixt vs our aduersaries as I suppose or at the least I persuade my selfe they will not much stand vpon it The minor I proue by an other Sylogisme Christ in his laste supper being a lawfull Preist according to the Order of Melchisadech offered his owne bodie bloude to his eternall Father vnder the sensible formes of bread wine commaunding his Apostles to doe the same But this is a true proper sacrifice Therefore Christ offered commaunded his Apostles to offer a true proper sacrifice in his last supper The maior of this latter Sylogisme I proue because except Christ had not offered in this manner in his last supper he had neuer performed the function of a true Preist according to the Order of Melchisadec Neither had he properlie verified fulfilled the figure of the Pasquall lambe Nor could he haue truelie affirmed his bloud in his last supper to be the bloud of the new testament if he had not offered then both bodie bloud in sacrifice Moreouer the Euanglist S. Luke relating the institution of the Eucharist vnder the forme of wine affirmes our sauior to haue vsed these wordes This chalis is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you Iuc 22. In which wordes both the worde shed which is the present tense as also the relatiue which which according to the Greek text which our aduersaries most esteme followe must of necessitie haue relation to the present sheding of the cup or chalis like wise those wordes for you manifestly conclude that our sauiour did then in that solemne action of his last supper sacrifice his bloud the same is of his bodie of which the same S. Luke saith in the present tense which is giuen for you yea I say all the circumstances plainely demonstrate to all vnobstinate mindes that Christ did truely properly sacrifice his bodie bloud when he instituted deliuered the Eucharist to his Apostles with an expresse commaundement to doe the same And hence it necessarily followes that tho Eucharist is a true proper sacrifice of the new Testamēt as often as it is celebrated by Preists according to the institutiō precept of Christ An other argument to proue that the Eucharist is a proper sacrifice I frame thus That is a proper sacrifice in which a victime or hoaste is receiued as a thing offered of giuen for the receiuers in honor of God But in the Eucharist the victime or hoast of Christs bodie bloud is receiued as a thing offered or giuen for the receiuers in honor of God Ergo the Eucharist is a proper sacrifice In the maior there is no doubt as I conceiue The Minor in which the controuersie standes I proue first because S. Luke affirmes Christ to haue said This is my bodie which is giuen for you Cap 22. And the like he saith of the chalis in the manner aboue declared according to the phrase of the Greeke text And according to this sense of the Euangelist S. Augustin in the 9. booke 13. chapters of his confessions relates that his mother day lie serued the Altar in which she did knowe the holie victime or hoaste to be dispensed or ministred Now that ther is oblation in the Eucharist the verie nature of the matter doth plainely argue for that where a victime or hoaste is ther of necessitie must be immolation as being correlatiues the one in respect of the other yea and immolation necessarily includes oblatiō for the sanie reason of correlation moreouer both these are included in consecration which by the power of Gods worde maketh present the bodie and bloud of Christ in such a manner as they may be decently conueniently consummated by participation of the Sacrament And in this sorte the Eucharist included all those conditions which a proper sacrifice euen according to our aduersaries at least the Lutherans ought to haue First the substance of the hoaste or victim Secondly a certaine ryte or action of offering prescribed by God which is the celebration of the Eucharist instituted by Christ in the forme described by the Euangelists the Apostle S. Paule 1. Cor. 1. Thirdly the person offering deputed by God to that function which is the Preist Fourthly The same intention of offering or the same end which is appointed by God in his worde that is to the honor of God for the representation of the passion of Christ Neyther is it necessarie that all these particulars be contained in the Institution in expresse wordes but it is sufficient that they be included in it in some intelligible manner Otherwises it followes that the passion of Christ had ben no true proper sacrifice because he vsed not the wordes offer or sacrifice when he suffered vpon the Crosse which sequele I am persuaded our aduersaries will not graunte Diuers other places of scripture ar alledged by Bellarmin other diuines for the proofe of this point but for the auoy dance of prolixitie I will conclude with that onely of the 13. chapter of the Acts. Where for the ordination of S. Paule S. Bernabe it is
related that the Apostles were ministing to our lord fasting Now to minister to our lord can not consist either in prayer onely or in singing uf psalmes which needed no Kynde of ministration more then opening their mouthes hartes wher as yet the worde ministere doth necessarily include some externall ryte more theÌ„ that as the Greke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth clearely denote signifie And therfore Erasmus a great fauorit of the Nouellists doubted not plainely to translate for the wordes ministantibus Domino sacrificeing to God To the authoritie of scriptures I will here adde such testimonies of ancient Fathers as I haue not yet cited such as being within the compasse of the fiue priuatiue ages clearly testifie the Eucharist to be a sacrifice S. Cyprian saith thus who is more Preist Dei summi of the cheefe God thâ— our Lord Iesus Christ Lib 2. ep 3. who offered sacrifice to God the Father offered that same which Melchisedech offered to wit bread wine that is his bodie bloud Which wordes ar so plaine that they forced the Centurists to confesse of this Father That he affirmed the Preist to performe the office of Christ offer sacrifice to God the Father Now if according to S. Cyprian the Preist performes the office of Christ offers sacrifice as the Centurians confesse of S. Centur. 3. col 83. Cyprian doubtlesse it is no other but the Eucharist which he offereth Vice Christi fungi Magdeburg Centur. 3. or 4. The glorious martyr S. Hypotelicus in his oratioÌ„ of Antichrist introduceth Christ saying to the Prests of he newe Testament in the day of Iudgement come you Rashops Preist who dayly immolatedor facrificed my pretions bodie bloud in the world S. Ambrose vpon the psalme we did se saith he the Paince of Preists coming vnto vs. Wi did se him heare him offering for vs his bloud Let vs Preists followe him that we may offer sacrifice vnto him for altho' we be infirme or weake in merit yet ar we honorable in sacrifice for altho' Christ doth not at the leaste as they conceiue now seeme to offer yet he is offered on earth when Christs boilie is offered Yea he is manifested to offer in vs whose wordedoth sanctifie the sacrifice which is offered S. Gregorie nyssene in his first oration vpon the Resurrection hath these memorable wordes For inthat ineffable secret to men inuisible manner of sacrifice by his diuine ordinance he doth prcoccupate the violent brunt offers him selfe for vs being both victim oblation both Preist lambe of God When did this happen when he exhibited his bodie to be eaten his bloud to be drunken by his familiar freindes S. Chrysostome in his 24. Hom. 2. in postertorem Epist ad Tim. Circa fine homilie vpon the first to the Corinthians speaking of Christ saith that he commaunded himselfe to be offered iusteed of brute beastes And in another place he speaketh thus The sacred oblation it selfe whether Peter or Paul or of what merit soeuer the Preist is who offers it is the same which Christ himselfe gaue to his disciples which now also Preists dâ—e make this hath nothing lesse them that Why so because men doe not sacrifice this but Christ who had consecrated it before S. Augustin in diuers places of his workes but most clearely in his second sermon vpon the psalme 33. of our sauior saith thus in plaine termes He Christ instituted a sacrifice of his bodie bloud according to the order of Melchisadech Nostrum sacrificium non solum Euangelicis sed etiam Propheticis libris demonstratuÌ„ est And conformable to this the same S. Augustin in his 49. epistle affirmes the sacrifice of vs Catholike Christians to be demonstrated not onely by the Euangelicall but also by the Propheticall bookes Also in his 20. chapter of his 17. bookes of the Citie of God he hath most expresse wordes to the same purpose which because they are somat large otherwise well knowne I omit them to be viewed by the reader if he please S. Leo the great also one of the writers of the fift age in his seuenth sermon of the Passion teaches that the sacrifices of the old lawe yealded or gaue place to the sacrifice of the Eucharist as the shadow to the bodie His wordes at these Wherfore to the end that the shadowes should yeald to the bodie images to the presence of veritie or truth the ancient obseruance is taken a way with a newe sacrament one hoaste is changed in to an other bloud doth exclude bloud the legall sestinitie while it is changed is fulfilled And some lines after he addes but Iesus knowing certainely his counsell being vndaunted in the ordinance of has Father did consuÌ„mate the old Testament instituted the newe Pasque for his disciples being set to eate the mysticall supper when in the Courte of Carphas it was consulted how Christ should be put to death he ordaiding the sacrament of his bodie bloud did teach in what manner an hoaste was to be offered to God Epist 81 Ad Discorum And the same Father in an other place ordaining that more Masses then one be celebrated in one the same Church when one doth not serue by reason of the multitude of the pleople saith thus Our will is that when the solemnitie of afeast hath drawne such a multitude of faithfull persons together as the Church can not receiue let then the oblation of the sacrifice be vndoubtedly reiterated or repeated since it is a thing full of pietie reason that so often as the Church is filled with newe people so often an other following sacrifice be offered For it must needs be that some parte of the people be depriued of their deuotioÌ„ if the custome of celebrating one onely Masse obserued they onely that come first may offer the sacrifice Thus this ancient graue Father in whose wordes oblation sacrifice of the Masse ar three seuerall tymes repeated Isichius or Hesichius who liued aboute the same tyme hath these wordes touching the same matter Lib. 2. in Leuit. c. 8. Our lord being at supper with his disciples first with the figuratiue lambe afterwardes offered his owne sacrifice Lib. 2. in Exod c. 6. Rupert in like manner speaketh of the same sacrifice saying Our lord being in the agome of his Passion first immolated or sacrificed him selfe to God the Father with his owne proper bandes taking bread c. Now to coÌ„clude since the testimonies of these Fathers doctors of the primatiue Church ar both most ancient as being all included in the circle of the first fiue hundreth yeares next succeeding to the time of Christ his Apostles Et quidem ipsaÌ„ actioneÌ„ canae Dominica quidem ipsum corpus sanguiÌ„no in cana à veteribuâ— vocari saâ—risicium o blationem hostiam victimam c. Kemnit pag. 788. also