JAMES Earl of DERBY.    

UNMASKING OF the Masse-Priest, WITH A DUE AND DIligent examination of their holy Sacrifice.  
By C. A.  
SHOWING HOW THEY PARTAKE with all the ancient Heretics, in their profane, impious, and Idolatrous worship.  
LONDON, Printed for RICHARD WHITTAKER, and are to be sold at his shop in Paul's Churchyard, at the King's head.  
1624.   

TO THE RIGHT NOBLE, AND TRAVELY Religious, JAMES Lord STRANGE, Heir to the Right Honourable WILLIAM Earl of Derby: I. L. wisheth increase of blessings Internal, external, Eternal.  
RIGHT HONOURABLE:  
AS the God of Nature hath Decked that Great Man the World with diverse ornaments, it being in nothing more admirable then in variety; so hath the same God enriched that little World Man, with sundry endowments, he being in nothing more profitable to the Church, then in Diversity: For to some he hath given to be Apostles, to others to 
Ephes. 4. 11, 〈◊〉  be Prophets, to others to be Teachers; and all this for the gathering together of the Saints, for the works of the Ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ. So that wherein one is Defective, another is Excellent, that the Church of Christ may be perfectly instructed in all things, by the mutual labours of each fellow member.  
Hence it comes to pass that some men abound with variety of Tongues; others with interpretation of Languages, some with the smoothness of Doctrine, and others are acquainted with the knotty study of polemical Theology: there being nothing commodious for that Mystical body of Christ, which cannot be supplied by one member or other. And albeit this renowned Kingdom of great Britain flows with multitudes of most pregnant wits, (as once did Canaan with 〈◊〉 and Honey) who are far more powerfully able to buckle with our Adversaries, than myself; yet (being confident in the Almighty) I 〈◊〉 with little David adventured to encounter with this great 〈◊〉 of Gath, the Romish 〈◊〉, hoping my labours (albeit unpollished with Eligancy of style) shall not be altogether unprofitable to the Church. The insolency of the Romish Foxes, (as in all places of this Land, so more especially) in those parts, where your 〈◊〉 hath Command and Mansion, and myself Residence and Employment, hath forced me to the search of this subject. The settling of weak, and confirmation of sound Protestants, hath pressed it to the Press. The bonds of Respect and Duty, wherein I am obliged unto your Honour, bind both myself, and it unto your Noble Self; unto whose Patronage I Commend it, and under whose Name I commit it to the wide World.  
The Motives that induce me to Dedicate this small Treatise to your Honour, are.  
First the external Nobility of your Birth, being so Noble a Branch, equally springing from two Illustrious Stems. Secondly, the Internal Nobility of your Grace, manifested by your so sincere affection to Religion, wherein with Timothy, your Honour hath been instructed from your Childhood; and to the true Professors whereof, your Lordship hath vouchsafed always a gracious countenance. Thirdly, your purpose to visit other Kingdoms abroad; where doubtless occasion will be offered unto your Lordship, to maintain that Truth wherein you have been bred, and to oppose that Falsehood which you cannot but detest. 〈◊〉 I presumed to prefer this part of my studies, unto your Honourable Patronage, that it might remain with your Honour as an Antidote against the Poison of Popery, and Infection of the Romish Locusts. Lastly, that hereby I might render unto your Honour some testimony of thankfulness, for those many undeserved Favours, which Your Lordship hath been pleased to confer upon me; that as I remain bound unto Your Honour for ever: So hereby I might free myself from the stain of Ingratitude.  
Accept therefore, (I most humbly beseech your Honour) this pledge of his unfeigned thankfulness, who shall continually pray to God to bless your Lordship with abundance of Honour, Wealth, Grace, Prosperity in this World, and the full Fruition of Eternal Glory in the World to come,  
Your Honours in all service to be Commanded. JOHN LEWIS.   

To the Christian Reader.  
CHristian Reader, the audacious and frequent practice of the Masspriests, in offering their blasphemous Sacrifice; with the unsufferable impudence of the Romish Laity, both in conference to justify, and by presence to communicate therein; (more especially in our Northern parts, where I am Resident) hath constrained me to wade into this abstruse Mystery, not intending to make it the World's common object; (as may appear by the style,) but rather to furnish myself with Defensive and Offensive armour; matter of answer and opposition in case of encounter. What intention had vowed mine own, entreaty of Friends, and desire of the Common good, hath made thine. If thou know the Author, censure not his youth (seeing the scantiness of years is supplied by the largeness of Industry) but if thou find any fruit worth gathering, taste it thankfully, rendering God the glory, me thy Prayers. The solidity of the matter I hope, thou canst not impeach; the plainness used in Penning, with the Faults escaped in Printing, I hope thou wilt wink at, judge me  
Thine in any Christian service: 〈◊〉 LEWIS.   

In Blasphemiam Sacrificorum.  

Priest's make Christ, Body, and Soul, you must not doubt,  
They 〈◊〉, drink, box him up, and bear about:  
One's too little; Bread and Wine.  
Hold him several; so we dine,  
Thou with thy Christ, I with mine.   

Is thy mouth the Virgin's Womb? Is bread her Seed?  
Are thy Words the Holy Ghost? Is this our Creed?  
Oh presumptuous undertaker!  
Never Cake could make a Baker,  
Yet the Priest can make his Maker.   

What's become of all those Christ's the Priests have made?  
Do those hosts of Hosts abide? or do they fade?  
One Christ abides, but all those fly;  
One Christ lives, but all those die;  
One is true, the rest a lie.    

MELCHIZEDECHS' Antitype. Or The eternal Priesthood and All sufficient sacrifice of Christ.  Hebr- 10. 12. But he having offered one Sacrifice for sin, sitteth for ever at the right hand of God. 
THe Author of this Epistle writing 
Caluine in the argument of this Epistle.  unto the believing jews which had received the doctrine of Christ, intends not to persuade them that jesus was the Messiah foretold by the Prophets to be the Saviour of the world, for of this they were already satisfied: but his scope and intent is rather more fully to inform them concerning the offices of Christ, which he proves largely and exactly to be three: Prophetical, Kingly, and Priestly. These he lays down generally in the three first verses of this Epistle. For 
Chap. 1. 〈◊〉. 1, 2.  first he shows that whereas the Lord had spoken obscurely and umbratically by his Prophets touching the Christ, yet now he spoke personally by his Son, who was the Messiah himself and the great Prophet of his Church. Secondly, he shows that 
Vers. 2. 3.  jesus was our Lord and King appointed by his father as heir of all things, by whom he made the world; in whom alone the glory and majesty of the father is to be contemplated, who sustaineth all things by his mighty word, each creature obeying his command. Thirdly, that the same jesus the son of God was the Priest which offered that all-sufficient sacrifice 
Vers. 3.  for remission of the sins of all that believe in him.  
Thus the Author having laid the ground work of his subsequent matter doth in the sequel of the Epistle polish every particular part with sundry arguments, still building upon that foundation which he had laid. But because the jews thought it strange that the Gospel should take place, and be preferred before the Law, therefore the Author first declares 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the excellency of jesus Christ showing him to be not only man but God, far above all Angels, and consequently worthy of a great deal more honour than Moses.  
Having handled his Prophetical and Regal offices, he comes in the fourteenth verse of the fourth 
The difference between Christ and 〈◊〉.  chapter to his Priestly office; and comparing him with Aaron, lays down diverse differences between Christ and Aaron; who differed:  
First in person, the one being only man, the other as well God as man.  
Secondly in quality, the one being sinful, offered sacrifice, not only for others but for himself also; the other being Choris hamartias, without sin offered himself for us.  
Thirdly in order; the one being of the Leviticall order; the other after the order of Melchisedech; and consequently the one was temporary; the other eternal.  
Fourthly in the manner of sacrificing; Aaron offered the blood of beasts, but Christ offered himself, yea his own blood.  
Fiftly in efficacy; the sacrifices of Aaron being in themselves of no virtue, not able to cleanse sin: but the sacrifice of Christ was effectual purging all believers from all their sins.  
Sixthly in the reiteration; for Aaron and his sons were bound to reiterate their sacrifices every day: Christ offered once for all.  
Seaventhly, Aaron entered into an earthly tabernacle without the people, but Christ into a heavenly with all his faithful members.  
Then the Apostle shows what Analogy and proportion 
The agreement between Christ and Aaron.  there was between the Priesthood of Christ, and that of Aaron; which agreed.  
First in election, for as the Leviticall Priests were elected to their office: so was Christ ordained of his Father.  
Secondly, they did offer sacrifice with blood, so did Christ.  
Thirdly, they did it in behalf of the people, so did Christ.  
Fourthly, they prayed for the people, so did Christ.  
Last'y, they entered into the Sanctum Sanctorum, Holy of Holyes; so did Christ.  
The Author in the ninth chapter having compared the carnal rites with the spiritual; the 〈◊〉 Tabernacle which was corruptible; with the glorious tabernacle of Christ's humane nature which was and is incorruptible; the blood of beasts with the blood of Christ; showing that these were but the shadows, whereof Christ was the substance, in whom we enjoy all things spiritually, and by whose blood all things are sanctified unto us: in this chapter he shows the insufficiency of the Leviticall oblations to be employed by their frequent reiteration, and the perfection of Christ's sacrifice by the single act: wherefore the Hebrews should not rest in the Leviticall sacrifices, which being types of Christ had their perfection in him, who having offered one sacrifice for sin, sitteth for ever at the right hand of God.  
This text doth divide itself into two parts. 
The text divided.   
An Agent and his Actions.  
The Agent in this relative pronoun, Autos, Herald  
His Actions are two. The first done and passed. The second present and in doing. The first, he offered one sacrifice for sin, where we have.  
First the subject of his action, He offered a sacrifice.  
Secondly, the singularity of this subject. One sacrifice.  
Thirdly, the end of both; for fin.  
His second action is expressed by three predicaments.  
Situs. His gesture He sitteth.  
Vbi, His place, at the right hand of God.  
Quando. His time; how long, for ever.  
In the first is intimated his Majesty; in that he sitteth.  
In the second his Omnipotency, at the right hand of God.  
In the third his Eternity; in that he sitteth for ever.  
In the first action you have Christ in the state of humiliation. In the second in the state of exaltation. In the first he is dying for sin; in the second 〈◊〉 over sin. And first of the first, He having offered one sacrifice for sin.  
In the handling of which words this Method shall be observed.  
First I shall show who was the Priest that offered. Secondly, what was the sacrifice which was offered. Thirdly, the scope and end whereunto it was directed.  
This Priest was Christ, the eternal son of God, one with the Father, 〈◊〉 of all things, and by whom all things do subsist, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, a perfect man without sin, full of grace and truth. He it was that took upon him this function to be a Priest, and to offer an all-sufficient sacrifice to expiate for the sins of the elect. And herein did Christ 〈◊〉 mainly differ from the Leviticall Priests in that they were only the persons offering sacrifice, and not the sacrifice itself; but Christ was both the 
Christ both Priest and sacrifice.  Priest and Sacrifice: for there could no sufficient sacrifice be found for the sin of man, but only Christ; and none worthy to offer the son of God, but only himself.  
But seeing Christ in the unity of his person had entertained a duality of natures, consisting of Deity and Humanity, hence arises a question.  
Whether the Priestly office of Christ belong unto 
Quest. Answ.  his Godhead or to his manhood, or to both? The answer is, that Christ is this Priest according to neither nature separately or divided, but according to both natures jointly, as he was both God and man. See this confirmed, How much more shall the blood of 
Heb. 9 14.  Christ who by the eternal spirit, offered himself to God, purge our consciences from dead works to serve the living God. By which eternal spirit we are to understand his eternal Godhead, concurring with his manhood to make him a perfect Priest. 
Why Christ as Priest was to be God end man.   
The reasons why the Priestly office of Christ did require that he should be both God and man are these. First as he was a Priest, so was he to be a Mediator; but he could not be a Mediator except he were God and man; for Opera Christi Mediatoris sunt The andrica: The works of Christ which concern his Mediatorship 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  proceed from both natures.  
Secondly, because he was to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, so that he must be apator and 
〈◊〉  ametor, without father, without mother, as Melchisedech was. Now he was not without father but as he was man, nor without mother but as he was God.  
Thirdly, because he must be both God and man that reconciled in one God unto man, and man unto God.  
Lastly, because no creature could satisfy God's 〈◊〉 but only God, none ought but only man; wherefore the Godhead of Christ did give unto his manhood efficacy and merit to deserve at God's hands remission of our sins: for the manhood of itself without the Godhead hath no virtue or efficacy to be meritorious; So it appears that Christ jesus was the High Priest for his elect, according to both natures:  
Concerning the Priesthood of Christ there are three things observable.  
First, that albeit Christ was a Priest, yet he did not arise out of the Priestly stock of Aaron, he was not of the tribe of Levi, but of the Princely stock of 
Why Christ did not arise out of the Priestly stock of Aaron.  David, being borne of the tribe of judah, and that for these two reasons.  
First, to show that he was not a Priest after the order of Aaron, but of a new order differing from the Leviticall as the Anti-type from the Type, the true Priesthood from the figurative.  
Secondly, he arose of the Regal tribe of judah, that so like Melchisedech he might be not only a Priest but a King, Yet notwithstanding in the priesthood of Aaron there were many resemblances of Christ's Priesthood 1. In that the high Priest was anointed with oil, so was Christ spiritually: God 
Psal 45. 7.  even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 2. In the sumptuous apparel which the high Priest put on: a type of the rich and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. In the special parts of the high Priests attire; as the Ephod, the shoulders whereof had two Onyx stones whereon were engraven the names of the twelve tribes; to represent Christ's carrying all the elect on his shoulders; supporting them in this life against the world, the flesh, and the devil. Next the breastplate of judgement wherein were set twelve stones having engraven on them the names of the 12. tribes of Israel; and with these did he appear before God in the Sanctuary; representing thereby that jesus our High Priest being in his heavenly Sanctuary, bears in memory all the elect before God; and upon this ground the Church in the Canticles prays that she 
〈◊〉 8.6.  might be set as a seal upon his heart, and as a seal upon his arm. Then the Vrim and Thummim; the first whereof signifies Lights, the second Perfections; 
Col. 23.  representing in Christ. 1. The light of wisdom, for in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 2. His perfection, wherein he excelleth all creatures. Lastly, the Priest had a plate on his forehead whereon was engraven Holiness to jehovah; representing the holiness of Christ wherewith he doth appear before his father for the redemption of his people.  
In the second place we are to observe the eternity 
Christ's priesthood how 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 110.4.  of Christ's Priesthood; for it is said, Thou art Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. Now the Priesthood of Christ is said to be eternal, not that Christ shall for ever offer sacrifice for the sins of his people; but that the virtue and efficacy of his sacrifice doth extend itself unto eternity in the salvation of all believers: in that by the merit of this oblation of his death and passion he hath purchased for all his members eternal glory. So that the eternity of Christ's Priesthood consists not in the continuation of his Sacerdotal acts, but in the eternal effect of his sacrifice upon the elect. For when Christ shall at the last day judge the world, and shall invest the souls and bodies of all his Saints with glory and immortality, then shall cease the Prophetical, and Priestly offices of Christ, and only his Regal or Kingly office shall remain: for the Saints in glory shall have perfect knowledge, and shall need no information from him as a Prophet; nor shall need the sacrifice or intercession of Christ as a Priest, but shall yield all obedience in thought, word, and deed unto him as their King.  
Quest. But how can the sacrifice of Christ being (but finite and temporary) be of infinite and eternal merit?  
Ans. The act of Christ upon the orosse, offering himself a sacrifice for the sins of his Saints was a finite act, and temporary, lasting but some certain hours, and so consequently could not be of itself of 〈◊〉 and eternal virtue: but if we consider that with his manhood there was inseparably united his Godhead which was of eternal and infinite efficacy; and Christ's sacrifice was accepted of his father, not 
Math. 3 17.  only as the sacrifice of the son of man, but also as the sacrifice of the Son of God his only begotten Son, than we mustneedes confess the sacrifice of Christ to be of infinite and eternal merit. Here then is the solution of this doubt. Albeit the Manhood of Christ only was the sacrifice for our fins which did satisfy God's wrath, yet the Manhood of Christ alone was not sufficient: for the Deity must concur (though not in suffering) yet in giving virtue, power, and officacie to merit eternal life at the hands of God.  
Thirdly, we are to observe the parts of Christ's Priesthood which are two.  
First, Satisfaction or Expiation for our sins, 
 whereby Christ hath paid the price for our iniquities, and hath given himself an all-sufficient ransom for us. From which satisfaction ariseth our reconciliation whereby God is well pleased with us in his 〈◊〉, and we in Christ are made the Sons of God.  
Secondly, 〈◊〉, and that consists of two 
 things.  
First, in that he makes request for us before his father, not that he doth kneel before him to pray for 
 us, but that he doth continually and incessantly appear before him by the merit of his righteousness making intercession for us: for as Christ did unite his eternal righteousness unto his humane nature at his birth, and continued it until his death; so his humane nature endued with perfect righteousness appears before God the Father in heaven after an ineffable manner making request for us.  
Secondly, in that he doth offer our prayers and thanks givings to God, making them acceptable in 
 himself, Christ is that Angel spoken of by S. john, The golden altar is his Godhead, signifying Purity and Merit, his incense is his righteousness, which being an offering of a sweet smelling savour in the nostrils of his Father, makes the prayers of the Saints acceptable to the father.  
These things being thus made plain touching the 
〈◊〉  Priesthood of Christ, the Thesis or point of Doctrine follows, That there never was, nor ever shall be any Priest that could or shall hereafter offer a perfect satisfactory sacrifice for the sins of the redeemed, but only Christ jesus the son of God. For if any creatures could have satisfied for the sin of man, and reconciled him unto God, he would never have laid so heavy a burden upon his only Son, as to endure the shame of cursed jews, and (which was ten thousand times more) the infinite wrath of his heavenly Father for the transgressions of mankind. And indeed Christ only was sufficient for this office if we consider these particulars.  
First, he that was to offer such a sacrifice must be 
Reas. 1.  God and man, after the order of Melchizedech, without father, without mother; which should be King of Salem, and author of eternal peace; who was so but only Christ?  
Secondly, he that offered such a sacrifice was of 
Reas. 2.  no less worth, merit, and dignity with God than the sacrifice itself; seeing (as Ireneus speaks) The sacrifice receives its efficacy and value from the Priest that offers it.  
Wherefore the sacrifice that was offered for the sins of man, being of infinite worth and excellency, according as the sin of man was of infinite deformity, and deserved infinite punishment; so must the Priest likewise be of infinite desert at the hands of God that must offer so great a sacrifice. Hereupon it follows that the humane nature of Christ being perfectly holy of itself, yet not infinitely holy, could never have been a sufficient sacrifice for our sins, had not the Deity been united to it, so to make him an infinite Priest, that he might give infinite merit and efficacy to his oblation. But a creature of infinite desert could not be found. Not Angels who are finite in being, and whose holiness is but derived from God, his Sanctity being the fountain and theirs the streams. 〈◊〉 man for he had corrupted his ways, and was become abominable, and had need of a Mediator to stand between God and himself. None there for was sufficient for this function, none worthy of this Priesthood but Christ jesus the Son of God.  
By the ground of this reason, we may observe a 
Differences between a sacrifice and a Sacrament. 〈◊〉 in 5. cap. 〈 ◊〉 〈◊〉.  main difference between a Sacrifice and a Sacrament: a Sacrament doth not receive it efficacy and virtue from the minister, but may be administered effectually to a believer, albeit it be by a wicked Minister; but a sacrifice is either accepted or rejected for the worthiness or unworthiness of the person 〈◊〉. As appears evidently in Cain and Abel, their 
〈◊〉. 4.  sacrifices both sufficient for matter, but God embraced Abel's, because he offered with a righteous heart, and abhominated cain's, because he was wicked. The people of 〈◊〉 and judah because their 〈◊〉 was full 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  of blood, and their hearts full of 〈◊〉, therefore were 〈◊〉 sacrifices an abomination unto the Lord, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and for their wickedness did the Lord 〈◊〉 his own ordinances.  
The third reason why Christ only is that Priest who can offer a perfect propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of mankind, is because he that offered that oblation 
〈◊〉. 7. 3.  was to have neither archen emeron, nor zoes teloes, beginning of days, nor end of life; but what creature is there which was not framed in time by the God of eternity; seeing in the beginning God made the 
Gen. 1. 1.  heaven and the earth, and all things therein, where then shall we find any Priest to parallel eternity, but only Christ jesus the Son of God.  
Fourthly, there was and is but one Mediator between 
 God and man, which was the office of the Priest, but this Mediator is only Christ jesus. For albeit there be appointed ministers of Gods holy word to present the prayers of the faithful before God, and to impetrate for them, yet this is not for the worthiness of their own persons and in their own names, but in the name and for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ do they make request for the whole Church of Christ. And to this purpose Saint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in these words, If the Apostle had 〈◊〉 These 
 things have I written unto you, that you should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but if any man sin you have me for a Mediator, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by my prayer obtain pardon for your sins (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placeth the Bishop to be a Mediator between God and the people) what good or faithful Christian 〈◊〉 abide him, who would behold him as the Apostle of Christ, and not rather as Antichrist? By which words of Saint Augustine, it appears to be a point of 〈◊〉 to place any creature as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and man, but only he who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and man Christ jesus.  
Fiftly and lastly there is but one that could offer this Sacrifice, because as the Priesthood was peculiar to Christ alone, so the act of offering this sacrifice according to the order of that Priesthood did properly and personally appertain to Christ. Now Christ had such a Priesthood as no creature was capable of, and therefore the Apostle calls it aparabaton ierosunen, 
 such a priesthood as could not pass from him to any other creature, no not to the father or the holy Ghost; therefore was it translated from Aaron's order to Christ, where it resteth, and from whom it cannot be translated or removed by succession, or any other ways; and seeing he hath translated the Leviticall Priesthood, and bound it to his own person, he hath thereby made the new Testament unalterable, and his priesthood unchangeable. Wherefore seeing there is but one only that is God and man, after the order of Melchisedech, without father, without mother, king of Salem and Prince of Peace. Seeing there is but one that is of equal dignity, with this all-sufficient sacrifice. Seeing there is but one that hath neither beginning nor end of days. Seeing there is but one Mediator between God and man. And seeing the priesthood was tied to one particular person, and all these agree only unto Christ; it follows therefore that there is but one only priest who was worthy and able to offer this perfect satisfactory sacrifice; and that was jesus Christ.  
The first use of this point is for confutation of the 
 doctrine of the Church of Rome; for you have heard that Christ is Priest not according to his humane nature only but also according to his divine, which the papists veterly deny; making him to be a 
Fulke on the 5. Heb ver. 6.  priest only as he was man; but altogether unjustly; for in the office of priesthood there are two things necessary. Ministry and Authority. In respect of the Ministerial part Christ performed that office as man; but in respect of Authority of entering into the Holy of Holyes, and presenting us before God and reconciling us unto him, which was the principal part of his priesthood, he did perform it as the Son of God; as the second person in the Trinity, co-worker with the Father in the creation of the world: wherefore that he might be a priest able and worthy to make atonement with God he was God; that his reconciliation might extend to men, he was man; and so being God and man he is a perfect mediator between God and man; and an high Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech.  
But the Papists hold Christ to be a Priest only in 
Object.  his humane nature, because they think that only in his humane nature he was anointed.  
I answer, that if this anointing be only taken for 
〈◊〉  the collation of the gifts and graces of the Spirit; it is true, only the humane nature of Christ was anointed. But by this anointing is also understood the ordaining of Christ to be the Mediator and Saviour of the world, and in this sense not only his humane nature but also his divine was anointed to this end. For the humane nature of Christ albeit it was pure and spotless, yet could it never have wrought our redemption without the assistance of his Godhead, for as he was man, so he was borne, he fasted, he suffered, he died; but to rise from the grave, to ascend into heaven, to reconcile us to God, this he could not do but by the power, might, and efficacy of his Godhead. And to this purpose are the words of Bernard, Singula 〈◊〉 opera ad 〈◊〉 sive illam necesse est pertinere naturam: ad 〈◊〉 scilicet miseria, ad illam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All the works of Christ do appertain either to one nature or other; to the humane nature belongs his misery; to his 〈◊〉 nature, his power.  
divers authorities of the Fathers are alleged by the Rhemists for the proving of their opinion, which you shall find sufficiently answered by learned 〈◊〉 upon the fifth chapter of the Hebrews, vers. 6.  
Secondly, seeing Christ only is that Priest that can offer an all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of his 
Use 2.  elect, this then demonstrateth the sacrilegious blasphemy of the Romish Priesthood, that they dare presume to arrogate that office to themselves, which is only peculiar to jesus Christ How dare such presumptuous priests once undertake to offer a sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead, seeing the offering of that sacrifice caused the Son of God to sweat clods of water and blood, to endure the infinite wrath of his infinite father, and had he not been corroborated by the deity, his body had been vanquished by death, and captivated by the power of the grave; if the Son of God could not do it but with so much difficulty; proud are the sons of 〈◊〉 the Priests of Rome, who seem to do it with such facility. But I would argue Socratically with them by demanding some questions.  
1. First, he that was to offer this sacrifice was to be God and man without sin: I demand whether any of them be God and man; if not then they cannot offer this satisfactory sacrifice, neither are they after the order of Melchizedech. If they say that every one of their priests is God and man, oh how do they blaspheme? how do they proclaim themselves of the spawn of Antichrist? who takes upon him to be God, and exalts himself above all that are 
2. 〈◊〉. 2. 4.  called Gods.  
2. Secondly, the Angel told Daniel, Dan. 9 that Christ should take away sin by his sacrifice, and the 
Eph. 5. 2.  holy Apostle says, Christ offered himself an oblation and sacrifice to God of a sweet smelling savour. So that this sacrifice could be offered of none but Christ. Are they so many Christ's?  
3. Thirdly, there was but one high Priest at once among the jews, to signify that there was but one high Priest that could take away our sins by offering a satisfactory sacrifice. But are not they innumerable?  
4. Fourthly, he that offered this sacrifice was to be of no less dignity and worth than the sacrifice itself, seeing a sacrifice is accepted for his sake that offers it. But dares the mass priest say he is himself of equal dignity with the sacrifice he offers: or that it is accepted for his sake? No not for his ears.  
Lastly the sacrifice that the Priest offers in the mass, either is the same that Christ offered or another; if it be another, than it is not propitiatory, seeing the true satisfactory sacrifice was but one according to the text, having offered one sacrifice. If it be the same, why then do they make the sacrifice of Christ imperfect and weak by their so often reiteration; yea, why do they make the Scripture false which says,, Having offered one sacrifice once for all. And as the Leviticall sacrifices being so frequently repeated did show that they were in themselves imperfect, and could never 
Heb. 10. 1.  make the comers hereunto perfect; so doth the often repetition of the sacrifice of Christ argue the imbecility thereof.  
Object. But the factors of the Church of Rome will say, that Christ may have deputies on earth in his stead to offer sacrifice.  
Ans. I answer hereunto two ways. First, I say Christ is not bound to offer any more sacrifice at all; for the oblation of himself upon the cross did consummate man's redemption, and put an end 〈◊〉 all typical sacrifices of the law, and to his sacrifice which he was to offer for man's reconciliation? wherefore seeing Christ is not to offer any more sacrifice, what needs he a deputy to offer sacrifices, where neither service is required nor expected, what need is there of a substitute?  
2. I answer by the way of admission; let us grant that Christ is yet to offer sacrifice, or to continue his begun sacrifice, which is most erroneous. Yet we must consider Christ two ways. 1. as God. 2. as a Mediator. As he is God with the Father, and the holy Ghost, he hath Kings and Magistrates to be his deputies on earth: therefore they are called Elohim Gods. But as he is a Mediator he hath neither deputy nor vicegerent, neither king to rule over his Church, nor priest to offer sacrifice for him.  
Quest. If they ask what we do then with Ministers in the Church of England?  
Answ. I answer, we make them not Mediators and sacrificing priests (as Parmenian the heretic and the papists do) but we have them for such purposes as Christ hath commanded, namely, to administer the word and sacraments, to use prayer and discipline in the Church, which is no part of the office of Christ's eternal priesthood, or chief sacrificers dignity,  
Plainly then do appear unto us the blasphemy and sacrilege of the Priests of Rome in establishing their massing priesthood, for while they seek to maintain their own glory, they rob Christ of his; endeavouring to confirm the multiplicity of their priests, they overthrow the singular priesthood of 〈◊〉 Christ.  
Quest. But here may be demanded a question whether the title priest may properly be assigned to a Minister of the new Testament?  
Answ. I answer, howsoever it be crept into the Church, yet (as learned Fulke) it is not a proper title for the ministers of the Gospel, in regard, that we have but one Priest jesus Christ; for the office of the Priest is to offer sacrifice which doth not appertain to the ministers of Christ jesus, neither is the name priest any where in the new Testament ascribed unto the Ministers in respect of their office.  
But how then shall we answer to that place of Paul, 
Rom. 15. 16.  That I should be the Minister of jesus Christ, to the Gentiles ministering the Gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified through the Holy Ghost. Where the word 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉; ministering the Gospel, signifies as much as sacrificing the Gospel; and so Erasmus translates it, explained by the word following, namely, that the offering of the Gentiles; where it appears that a sacerdotal action is attributed unto Paul, being a minister of the Gospel; and therefore that the title priest may as lawfully and conveniently be ascribed to him. So Origen, Sacrificale opus est 〈◊〉 Euangelium, It is a sacrifical work to preach the Gospel. 
Origen, in epist. ad Rom. lib. 16. 〈◊〉.  I answer unto the place alleged out of the Romans (as Calvin on the place) that the Apostle speaks there Metaphorical alluding to the priesthood of Aaron and the Leviticall oblations, that as the priest did offer the oblation that was brought unto him unto the Lord: so Paul had a careful desire by the preaching of the Gospel to subdue the affections of the Gentiles, and so to offer them (as it were) a pure and acceptable sacrifice unto God. So Origen and other of the father's term the preaching of the Gospel a priestly or sacrifical work; not absolutely but comparatively and by way of similitude.  
Object. But here may be objected these testimonies of Scripture, 1. Pet. 2. 5. 9 Reu. 1. 6. Reu. 20. 6. by which place it appears that there are priests of the new Testament which ought still to offer sacrifice unto God.  
Answ. Unto these places I answer, that if you consider who these are that are here spoken of, you shall find them not to be only the Clergy, but all faithful Christians which have not a material or external priesthood but a spiritual and an internal, and so they do offer spiritual sacrifices as I shall show when I come to speak of the sacrifice that Christ offered. So that these places of scripture do prove the 〈◊〉 priesthood not to be lawful, nor the title of priest properly to appertain to the ministers of the Gospel, but only that all Christians should be spiritual priests to offer spiritual sacrifice to God.  
The third and last use of this point, is that which 
Use 3.  the Apostle makes, Seeing we have not a high Priest, which cannot be touched with the feeling of our in 〈◊〉: but was in all points tempted like as we are, without sin: let us therefore come boldly unto the throne 
Hebt 4. 15. 16. Heb. 10. 19 20. 21. 〈◊〉.  of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need: and again, Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of jesus; By a new and lining way which he hath consecrated for us, through the rail, that is to say, His flesh: And having an high Priest over the house of God: Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Seeing Christ jesus whom the Father had decreed from all eternity, did from everlasting give himself a Sacrifice for our transgressions, and when the fullness of time was come, by virtue of his priesthood did offer up himself and offering of a sweet smelling savour unto God for us; Oh then let us with wonder admire the infinite one of God that spared not his own son; the infinite compassion of his Son, that spared not his own life, but shed his blood plentifully for our salvation. Let us with boldness, confidence, and assurance fly unto our high Priest Christ jesus, who is entered into the Sanctum 〈◊〉, there presenting his 〈◊〉 before his father & making request for us. The children of God therefore ought with much alacrity to cherish themselves in all their worldly troubles and affliction, seeing they have such a high Priest as hath overcome the gates of hell, the strength of the grave, and the power of sin, that they shall never prevail against his elect. Let not Satan terrify thee, for our Samson hath slain the devouring Lion; he that is the strongest of all hath bound that strong man, and spoilt him of his weapons. Let not death cause thee to startle, for Christ triumpheth over the grave, Oh death where is thy sting, oh grave where is thy victory? 
1. Cor. 15. 55. 1. 〈◊〉. 2. 1.  Let not the multitude of thy sins affright thee, for if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father jesus Christ the righteous. But let us be assured, that the head being entered into the most holy place, will at length draw all the members after it, to make them partakers with it of glory and immortality. Thus much for the first part who was the Priest.  
Now follows the second, what was the sacrifice? In the declaration whereof for our better understanding I shall propound to myself this Method.  
First, to speak somewhat of a sacrifice in general, and of the kinds of sacrifices.  
2. To show what this particular sacrifice was.  
3. To show the necessity of this sacrifice.  
First to speak of sacrifices in general.  
Sacrifice was instituted by God for the use of man after his fall; for it is thought that if man had not sinned, there had never been any institution of sacrifice. The persons employed in sacrificing were men; for as the Apostle under the Gospel, would at 
1. Cor. 14. 34. 1. Tim 2. 12.  no hand permit a woman to execute the public misteriall function, because she was not first in creation, though first in transgression; so from the beginning in the Church of God the act of sacrificing hath been practised only by men; for the better shadowing forth of Christ the Messiah whom in that action they represented. The action of sacrificing was accounted so sacred and so honourable, that before the promulgation of the law the chiefest persons were employed in it, and under the law only those who were separated from the people and set a part for that end and purpose. Yea among the Infidels (who did apishly imitate, and heathenishly abuse that sacred ceremony) sacrifice was offered only by some choice persons; yea pleraque sacra a solis regibus 〈◊〉 consueta, 
〈◊〉. de sacerd. Rom. ca 〈◊〉  the most of their sacrifices were offered of 〈◊〉 kings alone. And of that judgement was Clemens Alexandrinus, who says, that the Egyptians (who exceeded all the heathen in abundance and variety of sacrifices) did not commit their mysteries to every one amougst them, etc. but to those only which ne'er to come to the government of their kingdom; and to the Priests, of such as were approved for education, learning, and lineage. 
Rex idem hominum Phoebique sacerdos.  And so the word Cohen signifies both a Prince and a Priest; to intimate that the priestly office did not 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 was king of Salem, and 〈◊〉 of the most high God. Thus much in a word of the 〈◊〉 employed in the act of sacrificing. Now what a sacrifice is. By a sacrifice is sometime in 
What a Sacrifice 〈◊〉.  scripture understood the act of sacrificing; sometimes the thing ordained to be sacrificed; and 〈◊〉 both these concur to the making of a sacrifice; it may therefore be thus defined.  
A sacrifice is a sacred and religious action instituted 
〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 4 de cultu Dei 〈◊〉 pag. 425. & 475.  by God whereby we offer some external thing unto the true God, which we know will be acceptable unto him. I called it a sacred religious action instituted by God, because it was a part of God's worship prescribed unto the Fathers before the writing of the law in Sinai, and taught by them unto their children from age to age, and after the delivering of the law commanded expressly to the people of Israel. Again, it was a sacred and religious action, because it was to be performed holily and religiously to God's glory, the edification of the Church, and the salvation of the person offering. Again, I say it is the offering of some external thing: as Abel of the firstlings of his flock, etc. 
Gen. 4. 4.  For it must be some outward visible thing animate or inavimate. I speak of the sacrifices of the law, and not of the Gospel, which I shall show to be as well internal as external. I say moreover that it must be offered to the true God; and therefore all sacrifices offered by the Heathens unto their Idols and feigned gods are improperly called sacrifices, in regard that it can never be called sacred which tends to the dishonour of the true God. Furthermore I say there must be joined with this, Knowledge; for there can be no acceptable sacrifice unto God, which is done ignorantly, without the knowledge of God's holy will, the Apostle says whatsoever is not of faith is sin. And without faith it is impossible to please God; 
Rom. 14. 23.  now faith cannot subsist without the knowledge of that which we do believe. Lastly I say it must be a thing acceptable to God. Therefore the price of a whore, the price of blood, a dog's head, swine's blood, and the like, though they were offered yet are they abominable, because they are forbidden, yea whatsoever is unseemly or undecent is not acceptable.  
The Leviticall sacrifices were of two sorts Ilastika 
The levitical sacrifices of two sorts.  expiatory, or Eucharistika Gratulatory. In the expiatory, propitiatory, or satisfactory sacrifice (for these different titles belong all to one thing) the jews had respect unto their sins, and by the laying their hand on the beast, and slaying it before the Lord, they did in act confess that they themselves had deserved death eternal for their sins, but by the blood of jesus Christ the immaculate lamb who was to dye for mankind, they were assured to receive remission of their sins, and freedom from eternal death. This sacrifice was called Catat, that is sin, or a sacrifice for sin. So Paul alluding hereunto saith, that God 
Zanch. de sacrificiis Iùdeorum. 1. Cor. 5. 〈◊〉.  hath made him sin for us who knew no sin, that is to say, God made him a sacrifice for sin. It is also called Ilastikon, or expiatory from the end for the which it was instituted, namely to represent the sacrifice which should expiate and satisfy for our sins, which was Christ himself. So that this sacrifice was called Expiatory, not properly but Metonymically, as having relation to the Messiah. Unto his sacrifice were referred that offering which was called 〈◊〉 of Olon and chavo, because it was allburnt in the fire, and the priests had no part of it; or else it was so called 
* Or Gnolab.  of Holah, which signifies to ascend, because it being wholly consumed in the fire, did ascend up unto God in the smoke. Unto this Expiatory sacrifice were also referred those oblations which were offered for the cleansing of lepers, for the purification of women after childbirth, for touching of dead bodies, for the sanctifying of Priests for all these pollutions had respect to the pollution of sins.  
The other sacrifices were Eucharistica; or offerings of thanksgiving, whereby they did testify their thankfulness for benefits temporal or spiritual; this kind of sacrifice was called Zebach Schelamim, 〈◊〉 pacificorum; a peace offering, because it was offered by them that had (being reconciled to God by the former sacrifice) received remission of their sins, and were at peace with God: as also because thereby they testified their gratitude to God for all his favours, which the Hebrews did comprise under the word Peace.  
And to this sacrifice were referred the meat offerings and drink offerings, the first fruits and the tenths all which were testimonies of their thankfulness.  
And indeed all sacrifices may be reduced to these two heads. Either Ilastika, or Eucharistika, Expiatory, or gratulatory. For according unto God's affection towards man, such were men's 〈◊〉 towards God. Now God is either angry with us and so punisheth us; or is well pleased and so blesseth us; and all the effects of God upon every man are either blessings or cursings; when he is angry, he sends cursings; when he is well pleased, he sends blessings; wherefore having stirred him up to wrath by sins, the jews offered Ilasticke sacrifices to appease his wrath; having appeased his anger and pleasing him by obeying his commandments, they obtained his blessings and favours to their bodies and souls, wherefore they offered Eucharisticke sacrifices to testify their thankfulness to the Lord.  
Now in both these kinds of sacrifices had the jews respect unto the Messiah, fixing the eye of their faith upon Christ that was to come, both in him expecting salvation by the satisfactory sacrifice of his death, and in him rendering thanks unto jehovah for all his blessings, which they were made partakers of through the Messiah.  
Thus much of a sacrifice in general, and of the kind of sacrifices among the Jews.  
The second thing I propounded is to show you what this particular sacrifice is which Christ offered for fin.  
As there was under the law a double sacrifice Ilasticum 
Christ offered a double sacrifice.  and Eucharisticum, Expiatory and Gratulatory: So is there under the Gospel this double sacrifice offered by Christ: for when he had finished his Prophetical office here on earth, he then entered upon his Pontifical or Priestly office, which was to offer sacrifice for all believers. And albeit this expiatory sacrifice was first in order of nature, as making way for the Eucharistical, whereby it might be acceptable to God, having satisfied for sin by his death, and so reconciling God and man: yet in time his Eucharistical sacrifice was offered before his Expiatory; and the reason hereof is alleged by a most famous Divine, whose words are these, Although the 
〈◊〉. de 〈◊〉 Dei externo.  Father was first to be appeased by the Ilasticall sacrifice of Christ 〈◊〉 the cross, and so forgiveness of sin, and of punishment being obtained, then should have followed the sacrifice of thanksgiving for all benefits obtained by Christ's death and passion; yet Christ offers his sacrifice of thanksgiving, as if he were already crucified. For so he was indeed in God's decree and in his determination; and in this respect he is 
〈◊〉 13. 8.  〈◊〉, The lamb slain from the beginning of the world.  
This Eucharistical sacrifice of Christ was in the Lord's Supper, which was not unworthily ever after 
Why the Lords Supper was called by the Fathers the Eucharist.  in the Church of God by the Fathers termed by the name of the Eucharist. Yet understand me; I do not say that the bread and the cup were this Eucharistical sacrifice that Christ offered, but the thanksgiving which he offered to his father. For before he broke the bread and gave the cup to his Disciples; it is the opinion of all ancient and modern writers, that lifting up his eyes unto heaven, in the name of all the elect that were, are and ever shall be in the world, he gave thanks to his heavenly Father for all his blessings of nature, grace and glory, but especially for that remission of 〈◊〉 and redemption from eternal death purchased by that sacrifice of his body upon the cross. So that in these two sacrifices of Christ all the Leviticall sacrifices had their full perfection and accomplishment. Therefore the Apostle says (〈◊〉. 5.2.) that Christ gave himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an oblation and a sacrifice: by an oblation understanding a gratulatory offering, and by sacrifice an expiatory host for sin. And that the 〈◊〉 sacrifices had their consummation in Christ appears in that figurative casting the open and doves out of the Temple, as Theophylact. on the 21. chapter of Math. observeth, saying, jesus eiiciendo boves & columbas, praesignavit non ultra opus esse animalium sacrificio, sed oratione, 〈◊〉 casting the oxen and doves out of the Temple, signified that there should no longer need the sacrifice of beast, but of prayer.  
But it is demanded, Which of these two sacrifices it is that the Apostle speaks of? The text itself clears this doubt, you heard before that the Eucharistical sacrifices were for mercies and blessings received, and the Ilasticke or Expiatory sacrifices were for sins committed; so that when the Apostle says, this sacrifice was for sin, it plainly appears that hereby is meant the Expiatory sacrifice of Christ offered to appease his Father's wrath.  
This sacrifice is no other than Christ himself, dying upon the cross for the transgressions of mankind. Origen speaking of Christ, says, Ipse est hostia Sancta Sanctorum. He is the most holy sacrifice for his holy ones. Which the Apostle Saint Peter confirms. 
1. Pet 1. 18 19 Ephes. 5. 2.  saying, For so much as ye know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold: But by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish or without spot. Christ himself was this sacrifice, who so loved us, that he gave himself for us an offering and sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour.  
But according to which nature was Christ the safice 
〈◊〉.  for sins?  
Only according to his humane nature, as appears, 
Answ 〈◊〉 1. 0. 10.  By which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉; by which words (the body of Christ) we are to understand the whole humane nature of Christ, for there the part is put for the whole; so that Christ the man consisting of body and soul was the sacrifice for our sins, and as we in soul and body had transgressed against God, so Christ both in soul and body was to suffer punishment, and to make satisfaction for our offences. Compare 
The whole manhood of Christ thy sacrifice. 〈◊〉. 53. 10.  this place of the Hebrews with the words of the Prophet Esa. and you shall easily discover this truth, Yet it pleased God to bruise him, he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. What the Prophetical Apostle Paul attributes to the body, the evangelical Prophet Esa. attributes to the soul; so that both these being essential parts of man, make the whole humanity of Christ to be the sacrifice for our sins. And as the Tree of life did represent the Godhead of the Messiah: so did the Animate sacrifices 
Why the manhood of Christ must be 〈◊〉 sacrifice. Reas. 1.  of the Leviticall law shadow out his Manhood.  
And the reasons why this sacrifice that Christ offered should be his manhood are these.  
1. Because that in the same nature the offence was made, in the same nature was the sacrifice to be offered, and the satisfaction to be performed, for otherwise God's justice could not be appeased: but in the nature of man was a transgression committed, therefore in man's nature must a sacrifice be offered and satisfaction made. And for this reason the Angels that fell from God had no benefit by the Incarnation of Christ, nor by his death and passion, because he took not upon him their nature, neither in their nature did he offer sacrifice.  
2. Secondly, the death of the beasts in the Ceremonial law did figure out the death of that sacrifice which the Son of God was to offer unto his Father for man's Redemption. So that in that nature wherein Christ died, in that nature he was to sacrifice: but Christ as he was God could not dye; for the Godhead is apathes, and cannot suffer; but according to his humanity he died truly, and not fantastically, and in show only, as Martion and the Manichees heretically thought. And indeed considering Gods eternal decree of sending his Son to be 〈◊〉 flesh, it was necessarily required that he should dye and shed his blood to appease his Father's wrath, and to procure forgiveness of sins for all believers: for 
Heb. 9 22.  according to the words of the Apostle, choris haimatekchusias ou ginetai aphesis, without blood shedding is no remission. So it appears, that the humane nature of Christ consisting of soul and body was the Alsufficient sacrifice for the sins of all believers.  
3. The third thing propounded is the necessity 
The necessity of the 〈◊〉 of Christ.  of this sacrifice. Adam being seduced by his wife, and eating the forbidden fruit brought upon himself and all his posterity three evils.  
First, he was by his transgression guilty of 〈◊〉 before God.  
Secondly, he was deprived of all his grace of integrity and righteousness which God had conferred upon him in his creation.  
Thirdly, he was driven out of Paradise, to signify his banishment from the celestial Paradise. Wherefore it was necessary that there should be a sacrifice offered for man.  
First, that his sins might be remitted whereby he was turned from God.  
Secondly, that he might be restored again to the state of grace.  
Thirdly, that he might be reunited and reconciled unto God, and inherit eternal life.  
These three were effected by the sacrifice of Christ.  
For first by this Sacrifice our sins are pardoned, and the guilt of all our iniquities is washed away by the blood of jesus: he was that promised fountain which should be set open for judah and jerusalem to 
Zachar. 13. 1. Rom. 4. 25.  wash in. This appears by the words of Paul, Traditus est in mortem propter offensas nostras, He was delivered to death for our offences.  
Secondly, by this sacrifice we are made partakers of his grace, whereby we are comely in the eyes of God the Father, for he thereby imputed his righteousness unto us, and communicated that life of grace which was radically in himself the head, unto all his faithful members: for by him it is that we all receive grace for grace.  
Thirdly, hereby are we entitled again unto the kingdom of heaven lost by our first parents: for 
2. Cor. 5. 1.  when this earthly tabernacle is dissolved, we are put inro possession of that building of God not made with hands which endures for ever in heaven. All these three are contained in one verse. Christ jesus is made unto 
1. Cor. 1. 30.  unto us of God, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Righteousness in the forgiveness of our sins, 〈◊〉 in the communication of his grace; and Redemption in the salvation of our souls and bodies. By this that hath been spoken we may note that the beginning, middle, and end of man's happiness is from the sacrifice of Christ; by him we are delivered from the bondage of sin; by him we are in the liberty of grace, by him are we estated in glory.  
By him we have our fetters knocked off, and our filthy rags cast away; by him we are arrayed with rich apparel of holiness and innocence; by him we are brought into his father's presence and are accepted of God Almighty. Through him we have our justification; through him we have our Sanctification; through him we have our Glorification.  
Seeing then the salvation of all believers is perfectly wrought and consummated by the sacrifice of Christ, here may arise a question.  
Quest. Whether there be any sacrifices to be offered by Christians under the Gospel or no?  
Answ. I answer, there are not any Ilasticke or propitiatory sacrifices to be offered for atonement with God; for to that end Christ hath offered himself once for all. But as you have heard that all Christians are spiritual Priests, so they have spiritual sacrifices to offer still unto God; which sacrifices are these.  
First, a broken and a contrite heart, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart 
Spiritual sacrifices. Psal. 51. 17.  oh Lord thou wilt not despise, without this sacrifice all others are abominable in the sight of God.  
Secondly the offering up of believers per leitourgian ministrornm, by the service of God's ministers; of this Paul speaks, That I should be the minister of jesus Christ to the Gentiles ministering the Gospel's 〈◊〉 God, that 
Rom. 15. 6.  the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, 〈◊〉 sanctified by the Holy Ghost.  
Thirdly, all manner of prayer and supplication. Let 
Psal 141. 2.  my prayers be directed before thee as 〈◊〉 incense, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.  
Fourthly, all praise and thanksgining which we 
Heb. 13 15.  give unto God. By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God 〈◊〉, that is, the fruits of our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thanks to his name. This sacrifice of 〈◊〉 Orthodox fathers called an in ton thou sian, an unbloody sacrifice, as 〈◊〉 in his embassage for the Christians to the Emperor's Antonius and 〈◊〉. And Eusebius, Offerant illi logikas kai 
Lib. 〈◊〉. demonst.  anaimous thou sias. Let them offer 〈◊〉 and unbloody sacrifices So Cyrill, Oecumenicus, justine Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, fathers of great 〈◊〉, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haleluiahs' of Angels, and the holy hymns of the Saints acceptable 〈◊〉 sacrifices.  
Fiftly, our alms and relief of the poor, are spiritual 
Heb. 13. 16.  sacrifices, To do good and to distribute forget not for with such sacrifices God is well 〈◊〉. And Paul calls the benevolence of the Philippians sent by Ep phroditus, an odor of a sweet smell, and a sacrifice 
Phil. 4. 18.  acceptable well pleasing to God.  
Sixtly there is the sacrifice of righteousness or justice, Offer to God the sacrifices of right 〈◊〉: 
Psal 4. 5. Psal. 51. 19  and again, Then shalt thoube pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness.  
〈◊〉 there is the slaying of our sins, and offering them up dead unto the Lord with there signation of ourselves to God's service, I beseech you therefore 〈◊〉 by the mercies of God that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.  
Eighthly, the bodily death of the Martyrs inflicted on them by bloody tyrants is a spiritual sacrifice. Thus Paul calls himself a Sacrifice. Yea if I be offered up a sacrifice for the service of your faith. And I take it in this sense, it is the Prophet David speaks 
Phil. 2. 17. Psal. 116. 15. 〈◊〉. lib. 4. c. 15  saying. Precious in the sight of God is the death of his Saints. Thus did that holy Polycarpe the Disciple of Saint john, call his death which he endured for the 
Ang. tom. 5. lib. 22. cap. 10. de civitate Dei.  testimony of jesus a Sacrifice. And so Saint Augustine speaking of the Martyrs hath these words. The Gentiles dedicated Temples, consecrated Priests, erected altars, and offered sacrifices to their gods. We Christians dedicate Temples to our Martyrs, not as to Gods, but to their memories as to dead men; whose spirits live with the Lord. Neither do we erect alvars whereon we sacrifice to the Martyrs, but to one God theirs and ours. We offer sacrifice, at which sacrifices those Martyrs as men of God are named in their place and order; nor are they 〈◊〉 by him that offers the sacrifice, for the sacrifice is not made to them but to God, although it be in the remembrance of them, for he is the minister of God and not theirs; and the sacrifice is the body of Christ, which is not offered unto them, for they themselves are that body. In the latter end of which words Saint Augustine shows that the whole Church which is the mystical body of Christ (whereof the Martyrs are a part) is a grateful sacrifice acceptable unto God.  
Lastly, the sacrament of the Lords supper is a sacrifice (but not after the manner of the Papists) but only figuratively. So the bread and cup are called 
Dial. cum 〈◊〉 judeo, p. 201. & 269. edit. Comel.  the sacrifices of Christians by justine Martyr; because they represent the sacrifice of Christ, and were instituted in remembrance of it. So Dyonisius calls it Sumbolike ierourgia ☐ Symbolicum Sacrificium. Eccles. Hiera. cap. 30. a Symbolical sacrifice. So Saint Augustine, Quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est veri 
Aug. lib. 10. 〈◊〉. 5. de civitat. 〈◊〉  〈◊〉. That which by all men is called a sacrifice, is but a sign of the true sacrifice. And that immolation which is in the hands of the Priest, is called the passion, death, and crucifixion of Christ: not that it is so indeed and in truth, but only by the way of remembrance. So that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be called Sacrificium 〈◊〉, a Recordatory Sacrifice, wherein using the signs and symbols of his body and blood, with true faith, and thankful hearts we celebrate the memorial of the death and sacrifice of our Saviour jesus Christ. Wherefore the Fathers called it an unbloody sacrifice, because it was not a proper sacrifice, but only mystical and figurative.  
And indeed this makes it not to be properly a sacrifice; because in a sacrifice we give unto God, but in a Sacrament we receive from God; but in the Lord's Supper we give not the body and blood of Christ unto God, but receive it from the minister as from Christ for the confirmation of our faith, which makes it to be properly and truly a sacrament: but a sacrifice it is called improperly and by representation. Thus you see what was the sacrifice offered by Christ, and what are the spiritual sacrifices of every Christian.  
Now follows the third branch of this first part 
The end of Christ's sacrifice.  of the text. Namely, the cause why Christ offered this sacrifice, or the end whereunto this sacrifice was directed, which is said here to be for sin.  
But this man having offered one sacrifice for sin.  
Here we are to note that albeit the Angels had sinned 
Note.  as well as man, yet it was not for their sin that Christ offered sacrifice (for they had no benefit by his incarnation, death, or passion) but for the sins of mankind; and withal we are to observe that albeit Christ was a man endued with true humane nature, yet in regard he was not a sinful man but a lamb without blemish and without spot, a lamb for his innocence 
1. Pet. 1. 19  of nature, and without blemish for integrity of conversation, therefore he needed no sacrifice to be offered for him to purge his sin, as all men else do, but only offered in behalf of all believers.  
Therefore we may safely affirm that Christ received no benefit by his own sacrifice in respect of remission 
Christ teceived no benefit by his own sacrifice.  of his sins; for seeing he was without sin, he needed no sacrifice to be offered for himself. Wherefore the active obedience of Christ to the law did appertain both to the elect, and to himself: to the elect that the law might be fulfilled by Christ for them, to himself, for as he was a creature after the image of God, so was he bound to obey the law of his creator: but his passive obedience appertaineth only to the faithful, seeing he had not sinned: therefore he deserved no punishment, and having not 〈◊〉 needed no sacrifice to be offered for himself. This appears by the word of the Angel Gabriel unto Daniel. And after threescore and two 
〈◊〉. 9 26.  weeks the Messiah shall be 〈◊〉, but not for himself. Thereupon worthily did the Council of Ephesus establish this Canon, Si quis dic it Christum pro se obtulisse 
Concilium Ephe sinum.  sacrificium, & non magis pro nobis solum; Anathema 〈◊〉. If any man shall say that Christ did offer an oblation for himself, and not rather for us alone, let him be accursed.  
For us than it is that Christ offered sacrifice and for our sin.  
Quest. But what sin?  
Answ. All sins of the elect, original and actual, of omission and commission; of weakness and wilfulness; before their conversion, and since their conversion; whatsoever is anomia, a transgression of the law, is by this sacrifice of Christ expiated; yea the sin against the Holy Ghost albeit it be not at any time actually pardoned, yet there is so much merit and worth in this sacrifice as to deserve the pardon of it, if the party committing it could come to repentance. Not that that sin can be or is at any time pardoned, because of the incredulity and impenitency of the sinner, but that the sin in itself considered cannot be so great, but the mercy of God is able to pardon it; and the merits of Christ in this sacrifice are of such sufficiency as to deserve remission and give satisfaction for it.  
Now whereas it is said to be a sacrifice for sin, it offers to our observation three things.  
First, the heinousness and abhominablenesse of 
Obser. 1.  sin; every sin be it never so small is both so odious in the eyes of God and injurious to his divine law, that nothing can expiate it but the death and sacrifice of the Son of God: why then shall any Christian take pleasure in sin, which drew Christ jesus from his 〈◊〉 one of Majesty, and fastened him to the cross, which caused him to shed his precious blood, and to give his life as a ransom for the sons of men. As the burden of our sins were well nigh unto Christ 〈◊〉, so let the practice of them be unto us detestable. Let us neither extenuate their number nor their nature; for the smallest sin though but once done is committed against a God of an 〈◊〉 majesty, and deserves an infinite punishment, and could not be satisfied for, but by the infinite sacrifice of the Son of God Christ jesus.  
Secondly, we may observe here the insufficiency of all other sacrifices both before and under the law, 
〈◊〉. 2.  for they were not able to 〈◊〉 the sins of the 〈◊〉 and therefore to speak properly there was 〈◊〉 but one true Ilasticke and propitiatory sacrifice for sin, which Christ jesus offered when he gave his body upon the cross for our redemption. And therefore doth the Apostle 〈◊〉 this sacrifice of Christ 〈◊〉 exochen above all others thusian to theo, is 〈◊〉 evodias, a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling 〈◊〉. Thereby intimating that this sacrifice being most grateful to God, in it alone was God well pleased.  
Object. But here may be objected, Noah after the waters were abated off the earth, and that at God's 
Gen. 9 21.  command he was come forth of the Ark; he took of every clean beast, and of every clean foul, and 〈◊〉 burnt offerings on the altar, and the Lord smelled a 
〈◊〉, 20. 18.  sweet savour. And again, Exod. 29. 18. The offerings that are made for the consecration of the Priests are called sweet savours unto the Lord.  
Answ. I answer, these sacrifices are to be considered two ways, either in themselves, or as they have relation to Christ. As they were considered in themselves, 
Amos 5. 21. 〈◊〉. Isa. 1. 13. 14. 〈◊〉 66. 3  so they had no sweet savour in the nostrils of God; because they were but earthly things, and of a finite virtue; and therefore doth the Lord often complain against those that reposed confidence only in the outward ceremony of sacrificing, whose oblations were an abomination to him. But as these offerings had relation to the sacrifice of Christ, and were offered by faith in his sacrifice, so they were acceptable unto God, and God did smell a sweet savour in them; not for themselves but for the Antitype Christ jesus who was figured by them; and therefore it is said that By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice 
〈◊〉 6. 6.  than Cain. Not but that cain's might in value equal Abel's, but because Abel offered by faith in Christ, and Cain without faith: And as the Leviticall sacrifices of the law were only accepted in Christ, so and no otherwise are our spiritual sacrifices of the Gospel, ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy Presthood to offer up spiritual 
Heb. 11. 4.  sacrifice, acceptable to God by jesus Christ. By which it appears that all our sacrifices and services are to be presented before God, only in the perfection of this all-sufficient sacrifice of jesus Christ.  
Thirdly, observe we here the perfection of this sacrifice, 
Obser. 3.  in that there was nothing in sin, but the contrary might be found in this sacrifice. In sin there is imperfection, in this sacrifice perfection; in sin disobedience, in this sacrifice obedience; in sin carnal delight and pleasure, in this sacrifice unspeakable torture and torment; in sin pride, in this sacrifice humility; in sin envy, in this sacrifice love; in sin man's destruction, in this sacrifice man's restauration; in sin death, in this sacrifice life. So that wheresoever sin had made a breach, this sacrifice of Christ makes it up, giving full satisfaction for every default.  
Quest. But here will arise a great question which of late hath troubled the Church of God, and it is this. Seeing here it is 〈◊〉 down indefinitely that Christ offered one sacrifice for sin; Whether did Christ offer a propitiatory sacrifice to satisfy for the sins of all men; as well reprobates as elects.  
Answ. The Arminians are of opinion that Christ 
〈◊〉 Molin. Anatom. 〈◊〉.  by the sacrifice of his death obtained remission of sins, reconciliation and salvation for all and particular men. Nor do they doubt to say, that by the death of Christ, reconciliation was obtained for Cain, Pharaoh, Saul and judas, not as they were reprobates but as they were sinners: for God (say they) doth equally intend and desire the salvation of all men; and the incredulity of man is the cause that remission and reconciliation is not applied to all. They hold moreover that the end which God propounded to himself in delivering his Son to death was not to apply the benefit of remission to some particular men; nor do they 〈◊〉 that Christ was appointed to death by his Father before God thought of saving men. One of them says, That reconciliation being obtained, 
〈◊〉, pag. 21.  there was yet no necessity of application; that is, after salvation and reconciliation for alms was obtained, there was no necessity that any one should be saved; because he will have the decree of sending Christ in order to go before the Decree of saving those that believe; therefore that God intended to send his Son, when as yet he had not intended to save them that believe. And the 〈◊〉 would have this to be the end why God sent his Son, namely, to make the salvation of men possible, and to lay open a way to himself whereby he might save sinners, without any prejudice to his justice; (by this means say they) God hath gotten power of saving man, because without the death of Christ, by which the justice of God was satisfied, God could not be willing to save man.  
But the Truth bids us be of another opinion. We do acknowledge that Christ died for all men; but we deny that by the death of Christ salvation and forgiveness of 〈◊〉 is obtained for all men: or that reconciliation is made for Cain, 〈◊〉, Saul, jud 〈◊〉. Neither do we think that remission of sins is obtained for any one whose sins are not remitted; or that salvation was purchased for him whom God from eternity hath decreed to condemn. We deny that election is after the death of Christ, seeing Christ doth every where affirm that he died for his sheep, and for those whom his Father gave him.  
And when we say that Christ died for all, we take it thus, that the death of Christ is sufficient to save 〈◊〉 do 〈◊〉; 〈◊〉 and that it is sufficient to save all men that ever were, are, or 〈◊〉 be if they did believe in him; and that the cause why all men are not saved is not the insufficiency of the death of Christ, but the incredulity of man.  
Whosoever therefore shall say that Christ offered his body an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of every particular man, as of pharaoh, Cain and judas; he doth by this doctrine openly mock God: for Christ is imagined to obtain that from his Father which he knew would never profit; as if God should grant to his Son the salvation of that man, which from eternity he decreed to condemn: for if Christ obtained reconciliation and remission of sins for Cain or judas, whether considered as reprobates or as sinners, yet he knew this reconciliation and remission should never be applied unto them; and therefore their doctrine is as if Christ should say unto his Father, I pray thee receive to 〈◊〉 those whom I know thou 〈◊〉 never receive into 〈◊〉, and whom I know certainly to be condemned. For Christ as God knew full well the secrets of election.  
Surely these men do their endeavour that Christian Religion should be made a mocking stock. Can God at one and the same time love and hate a man? Love him because he giveth his Son for him, and would have reconciliation obtained for him: hate him because from eternity he decreed to condemn him. Can God be so unjust as to punish one offence twice? For once Christ (as the Arminians teach) sustained the punishment of 〈◊〉 and judas, and for them made satisfaction upon the cross, yet for the same sins do the same persons suffer eternal death.  
Object. To strengthen their tottering and declining cause they allege scripture, God so loved the 
joh. 3. 16.  world, etc. which place they rest to prove Christ's dying for all men, whereas indeed by the world Christ understandeth the noblest and most worthy creatures as in the sequel of the verse, That all those that believe in him might not perish 〈◊〉 have everlasting lise. Where what was obscure by the general term of the world is explained by its restriction only unto the faithful; and in this sense is the word World 〈◊〉. joh. 6. 33. 
joh. 6. 33.  But albeit we grant that by the world is understood mankind in general, yet it will not follow that Christ purchased salvation for all particular men, but that he came to save the whole nature of man, though not all 〈◊〉, for in that he redeemed some men; it doth abundantly testify the love of God to mankind.  
Object. 2. They assault us with the words of 〈◊〉 
joh. 1. 29.  john Baptist, Behold the lamb of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 away the sins of the world: but hereby we are to understand that in the whole world no man's sins are remitted but by Christ: as in the same sense Saint 
1. 〈◊〉. 15. 22.  〈◊〉 speaks, In Christ all men are made alive, because no man is made aline but by him. If a man say that 〈◊〉 taught all Greece and Italy Physic; he doth not say that all particular men, each several person in Greece or Italy learned of him; but that no man learned 〈◊〉 but from him.  
Not to trouble you with many arguments, the Thesis or true Position of this 〈◊〉 is this: That 
〈◊〉.  Christ 〈◊〉 fus offere a not his body upon the cross to be a propitiatory or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the sins of any reprobate, but only for the sins of the elect, which have in times past, do at this present, and shall hereafter, believe in Christ and attain to true repentance. This 
Rom. 3 25.  benefit then of Christ's sacrifice is only confined to believers, as the Apostle manifests, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood; whereby it appears that there is no propitiation without faith, and consequently no obtaining of reconciliation.  
And the same Apostle in the same epistle affordeth 
Rom. 8. 33. 34.  a strong testimony for the confirmation of this point, for he says, who shall lay any thing to the charge, etc. which place tells us, that they for whom Christ died cannot be condemned, nor can any thing be laid to their charge: but the reprobates are condemned, and something is laid to their charge; therefore Christ died not for them: neither did he make satisfaction for their sins; but only for such as believe in him; and for these alone doth he also make intercession, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou 
joh. 17. 9  hast given me. So that the Ocean of Christ's love in offering of sacrifice and applying it, is bounded within the shore of believers, not extending itself unto any reprobate; wherefore the Scripture, which is the best expositor of itself, shows that when it says, 
1. joh 2. 2.  Christ was a propitiation for the sins of the whole world; means not of all men in general, but makes it plain by restraining it to some only, This is my blood which is shed for many for remission of sins, and 
Math. 26. 28.  the son of man 〈◊〉, that he might give his life a redemption for many, and he was offered once for the sins 
Heb. 9 〈◊〉.  of many. By this it is plain that all men have not benefit by Christ's sacrifice, neither is the guilt of every man's sins washed away by the 〈◊〉 of this lamb of God, but only of the elect in Christ who have, do, and shall believe in his holy name. Away then with the erroneous innovation of the Arminians, teaching satisfaction for each particular man. And away with that 〈◊〉 conceit of most common people, concerning 〈◊〉 Redemption, whereby they are apt to say, that all men shall be saved, and God forbid that any man should go to hell; thus out of 〈◊〉 charity they judge contrary to the Canon of God's word; for the judgement of charity is not always the judgement of verity.  
The 〈◊〉 and Sacrifice of Christ with the end of both of them being thus largely and sufficiently explained, I shall think it necessary now to draw all that hath been formerly spoken to this Corrolary which I will lay down as a general doctrine collected out of the three parts of the first branch of the text, and it is this: That jesus Christ the eternal 
The Corrolary or general doctrine.  Son of the everliving God, as God and man was the only Priest that offered on the cross his whole humane nature, soul and body, a true and perfect Expiatory sacrifice to satisfy for all the fins of all true 〈◊〉; where by he wrought their perfect reconciliation with God, and obtained full remission for all their offences. The which position in every particular hath been so fully proved that it needs no further confirmation; wherefore it shall be necessary to make some application to ourselves. The uses to be made of this doctrine are diverse.  
Use 1. First, it teacheth us to consider the true and proper nature of sin, which is so contrary to the 〈◊〉 essence of God, so opposire unto his sacred law, so odious and abominable in his eyes, so noxious and dangerous to the soul of man, that all the creatures in the world, men and angels, gold and precious jewels, could not appease the wrath of God, or be a propitiatory sacrifice for the atonement and reconciliation of mankind, but only 〈◊〉 Christ, God and man, the eternal Son of his Father. Oh then how are most men too blame that esteem their 〈◊〉 as things not worthy regarding, not worthy excepting against; and how are all men to be condemned, that either for a little gain, or a small deal of perishing pleasure, will make no scruple to pollute, 〈◊〉 to wound and slay their souls with wilful and known wickedness? Alas, alas, sin is so heinous in God's account that all the world is not able to satisfy for it; but only the eternal Son of God, and that by being a sacrifice, and pouring forth his precious blood. Well then did sin draw Christ from the bosom of his father? Did sin cause him to take our nature upon him? Did sin nail him to the cross, piercing his hands, his feet, his side? Did 〈◊〉 take away his blood, and with his blood, his life? Did sin make him a sacrifice, burning in the flames of his father's wrath, and crying, Eli, Eli, 〈◊〉, My God, my God, why 〈◊〉 thou for saken me? was sin the procuring cause of all this his 〈◊〉? Cursed then be that man that shall either 〈◊〉 and delight in sin, or shall extenuate and lessen his sin, esteeming it 〈◊〉 or slender cause why God should cast a man into hell; or (as sin 〈◊〉 the heart of Christ shall not be pricked and pierced at the heart with sorrow and repentance. Put thy sin in one balance and the price that was paid for it in the other; and thou shalt soon find the one to be of infinite weight to press thee down to hell, and the other to be of infinite preciousness to recover thee to heaven. This is the first use of this point for information to teach us that if Christ were offered a sacrifice for our sins; sin then is not to be 〈◊〉 as a slight and slender thing.  
Use 2. The second use of this point is for instruction, to teach us what love God the Father hath expressed unto us mortals in that he sent his Son to be a sacrifice for mankind. God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died 
Rom. 5. 8.  for us.  
Great, yea infinite surely was the love of God, in that when we had rejected him, and given heed to the enticements of the Serpent, when we had razed forth his image out of our whole man, and instead thereof had imprinted therein the feature of the Devil; when we had rebelled against our maker, trampling his law under our feet, destroying our own souls, yet that there should remain within his bosom a more than fatherly affection towards us, insomuch that he gave his only son, that every one 
〈◊〉. 3. 〈◊〉.  that 〈◊〉 in him might not perish, but have everlasting life; this is love indeed, far transcending the love of any creature, which ought to beget in us true thankfulness and a holy retorsion of love again. For, but that God had so much compassion on Adam, as to make unto him, that promise of the blessed seed, he and we in him, had been hopeless and helpless, not 〈◊〉 to get forth of that pit into which we were plunged: so that the Lord may say 
〈◊〉. 13. 9  unto Adam, Perditio tua ex te o Adam, saluatio ex me, Oh Adam thy destruction proceeds from thyself, thy salvation only from me and from my love. Should not the consideration of this love of God plentifully poured out upon us, without any desert on our part, provoke us to love him with all our hearts, withal our strength, withal our power. Why do men love riches more than God? why do men love pleasure more than God? why do men rejoice more in temporal honour, then in God? Because they call not to mind the love that God hath showed to mankind, in sending his son into the world to be a sacrifice for our sins. Hath God so manifested his love, and shall it be so buried in oblivion? 
Psal. 50. 22.  O consider this ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver you.  
Here as God the father hath manifested his compassion, so God the Son jesus Christ hath declared his prompt and ready affection to us poor sinners, in that sponte of his own freewill, he was pleased to take upon him that arduous and painful office of priesthood, and to effect that stupendious work of our redemption. That he that was verbum increatum, the Word increate, should become verbum incarnatum, the Word incarnate: Here was love without parallel, without compare: Especially if we consider that he could not take upon him the shape of a servant, but he must infinitely humble himself; and in humbling himself he must die for us, and in dying for us, he must die not for the righteous but for sinners; and if the words of Christ be true, that greater love there cannot be then that a man should lay 
〈◊〉 14. 15.  down his life for his friend; how great then is that love when God shall lay down his life for his enemies? If Christ hath thus loved us, let us labour to love him again, and if we will give an evident demonstration of our love to Christ, let us express it by this, even by our care to keep his commandments; for so says Christ, If ye love me, keep my commandments. Thus so often as we meditate on the Priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, whereby we receive remission of sins, and reconciliation, we should in them as in a glass behold the incomprehensible compassion of God our father, and the unspeakable love of Christ our Saviour.  
The third use of this point is for consolation unto 
Use 3.  all Gods elect, who are sanctified with the grace of Christ, having the eyes of their understandings illuminated, and being renewed in the spirit of their minds, are become new creatures; for to them hath he made an atonement and reconciliation, by his sacrifice and oblation which he offered upon the cross, once for all.  
Whosoever thou art therefore, that fearest the Lord, and art begotten again to a 〈◊〉 hope: albeit, thou findest in thyself many failings and infirmities, and that the burden of those 〈◊〉 which thou didst commit in the days of thy unregeneration, and non-conuersion do so oppress thee, as that thou art weary and heavy laden; yet lift up the eyes of thy faith unto Christ, he was the Priest that offered up his humane nature, an all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of all that believe in him; he felt the sharp wrath of God against him, but it was for thy sins, that thou mightest be freed from the wrath to come, he hath borne thine infirmities, he was broken for thy transgressions; the chastisement of thy peace was laid upon him, and by his stripes thou art healed; he put himself in thy room, and by the punishment of his soul and body, did free thy soul and body from eternal damnation.  
If therefore thou be stung with sin, Christ is the brazen Serpent exalted on the cross: list up the eyes of faith unto him, and thou shalt be restored. It was for thy sake that Christ jesus was made a Holocaust or sacrifice, that he might abandon all enmity, and consummate a perfect peace between thee and God. Wherefore fear not thy sins, but rejoice in thy Christ; and let thy soul be joyful within thee, say unto thy soul as David did, Praise the Lord, o my soul, and all that is within me, praise his holy Name; because he hath of his tender compassion, on thee conferred the riches of his mercy, and incorporated thee into the mystical body of his son Christ jesus, by whose most holy sacrifice God is so appeased that I dare run boldly unto the Throne of Grace, and with confidence in his name assure myself of eternal life.  
But unto all wicked men, which live without fear, and die without repentance, (albeit their outward profession be more glorious in show, than was the profession of the most strict Pharisie, but doing good works in hypocrisy and dissimulation) I will say concerning the benefit of Christ's Sacrifice, as Peter said to Simon Magus touching the gifts of 
〈◊〉. 8. 21. 22, 23  the Holy Ghost, You have neither part, nor lot in this matter; (that is in the sacrifice of Christ,) for your hearts are not right in the sight of God. Repent 〈◊〉 of your wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thoughts of your hearts may be forgiven you: for I 〈◊〉 you are in the gall of bitterness and band of 〈◊〉.  
Oh you wicked and ungodly men, 〈◊〉 not your souls, feed not yourselves with vain hopes, and dreaming expectations of future happiness, for unto heaven can you not come, but by the sacrifice of Christ, and till you leave your sins by 〈◊〉 and reformation, and be changed from your miserable state of nature, to the comfortable state of grace, you can have no part norportion in Christ's sacrifice; for that was only offered for them that were elected before all time, and shall be called in time to the saving knowledge of the Lord Icsus Christ.  
Wherefore if any man desire to come to heaven, and there to enjoy the felicity of God's glorious Kingdom, let him then by a true 〈◊〉 faith apply the sacrifice of Christ unto himself, Let the 〈◊〉 for sake-his ways, and the unrighteous his 
〈◊〉 55. 7.  thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God for he will abundantly pardon. 
Use 4.   
The last use of this point is for consutation of that most blasphemous doctrine; and damnable heresy of the Church of Rome, concerning the sacrisice of the Mass established by Canons in the cursed Council of Trent, and is now taught, and believed by all Papists. The words of which Canons are 
.  these, If any man shall say that in the Mass, there is not offered unto God a true and proper Propitiatory Sacrifice under the forms of bread and wine: or shall deny that by this sacrifice is effected, that those which come unto God with a true heart and upright conscience, do obtain mercy, let him be accursed.  
The other Canon hath these words, If any man shall say, the sacrifice of the mass to be only a sacrifice of praise and 〈◊〉, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, and not propitiatory; or shall say that it is profitable only for him that 〈◊〉 it, and not both for the quick and the dead; for their sins, punishments, and satisfactions, let him be accursed. This devilish and most heretical doctrine as it hath been already confuted by the Scriptures (which are as the ancients style them the touchstone of truth, the pillar of faith, a strong army against heretics) so shall it also appear to be unknown to the Fathers of the Primitive Church, and gainsaid by diverse of then own Writers.  
Now if in this 〈◊〉 we shall somewhat more than ordinarily rely upon the 〈◊〉 of Writers, it is to be borne with, in regard that it is the best course (〈◊〉 like owls they 〈◊〉 the light of 
Heretici 〈◊〉 lucifugae scripturarum. 〈◊〉. cont. 〈◊〉.  the Scripture) to deal with them, which so much stand upon antiquity, by the 〈◊〉 of antiquity, and the testimony of their 〈◊〉 men.  
And the 〈◊〉 shall I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it falls so patte in the way, that I must either remove it, or leap over it; as also, because herein consisteth the most principal part of Divine Service in the Church of Rome; and unto them it is the badge and cognizance to distinguish between the good and evil Christian; and in going thereunto, or not going, a man works his own salvation or damnation; as also because it compriseth in it the doctrine or the practice of the most points of controversy between them and us.  
The Method which I shall follow in this ensuing confutation shall be this.  
First, I shall show that the pretended sacrifice of the Mass hath no foundation either in the Scriptures or practise of the Apostles, or was known to the Fathers of the first six hundred years after Christ.  
Secondly, I shall show how the Mass got entrance, increase, and continuance in the Church of Rome from the time of Gregory the great, until these 〈◊〉 days.  
Thirdly, I shall answer unto the Objections of our Adversaries.  
Lastly, I shall lay down arguments confuting them, and establishing the Doctrine now taught in the Church of England.  
And for the first of these.  
If this sacrifice of the Mass have any ground in Scripture, the Papists will be sure to allege whatsoever may seem to make for their purpose. Let us then lay in the balance of the Sanctuary their wrested Scriptures, and see how they prove the matter in hand.  
First, they allege the words of our Saviour to 
Allegat. 1. joh. 4. 23.  the woman of Samaria: The hour cometh that you shall not worship the father neither in this mountain nor at jerusalem, but the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth. What prove they from hence? to adore, say they, is to sacrifice; which 
Answ.  sacrifice, say they, is the sacrifice of the Mass. But who can be so blind as not plainly to discern, that by worship is meant all spiritual service, and that after the material sacrifices the spiritual sacrifices shall succeed. And Saint Augustine understands it of inward 
Aug, tract. 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉.  and spiritual prayer. wouldst thou pray in a Temple? pray within thyself (saith he) changing this outward and material Service to inward and spiritual. Chrysostome expounds Christ to 〈◊〉 of the spiritual 
In johan. Hom. 32.  sacrifice of ourselves, which the Apostle mentions, Rom. 12. 1. And 〈◊〉 their own Cardinal thus expounds this place. In spirit, that is to say, not in the mountain, not at 〈◊〉, not in 〈◊〉 one 〈◊〉 place, not with a temporal Service, but with an inward and spiritual. Ferus likewise one of their own, though nor so corrupt as now they are, says, In spirit, in as much as they shall have received the Spirit of 〈◊〉, crying in him, Abba, Father: in truth, in as much as they shall call upon him in his Son, who is Truth itself. Offering (saith he afterwards) no more any quick and living creatures, but their own bodies in sacrifice a holy oblation and offering. Thus neither by the Fathers nor by some of their own Writers expounding this Scripture, can it appear that Christ speaks in this 
Allegat. 2, De 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. cath. cap. 3 〈◊〉 1. & 〈◊〉.  place concerning the sacrifice of the Mass.  
Secondly, the falsehood of johannes 〈◊〉 Durantus is palpable when he saith, That it is perspicuous by the testimonies of Christ himself, and of Paul the Apostle, and of the ancient Fathers, that Christ instituted the sacrifice of the Mass, and was the Author thereof. Wherefore having recited the institution of the Sacrament out of the 22. chapter of Luke, and the first of the Corinth. the eleventh, upon these words: Do this in remembrance of me; he concludeth, that by those words Christ gave commandment to sacrifice; for to do signifies to sacrifice according to that of Virgil.  
Quum faciam vitulam pro frugibus, etc.  
Answ. I answer, Facere in the latin signifies sometimes to sacrifice; but it is only a Poetical phrase feldome read, and never but when it is joined with the thing to be sacrificed. And the greek language wherein the Evangelist Luke, and the Apostle Paul writ, useth not the word Poiein to sacrifice. Wherefore Christ instituting there not a Sacrifice but a 〈◊〉 enjoineth us to do the same that he hath done, namely, to bless the bread, to eat the bread, to bless the cup, to drink of the cup, to distribute them both, and to receive them both.  
Thirdly, a great Papist of late years, seeing himself thrust out of this place, flieth to another, and 
Allegat. 3. Genebrard.  will needs prove that the Apostles said Mass by that place of the Acts. Leitourgountôn ae autôn kai 
Acts 13. 2. Rhem. 〈◊〉. in locum.  nestevontôn. As they ministered unto the Lord and fasted. This word Leitourgountôn as they ministered, he will have to signify as they were saying Mass.  
Answ. I answer, the word properly signifies, to 〈◊〉 one's duty, or to serve: and therefore is to be translated as they were serving the Lord. I know in the greek Church the Lord's Supper was called leitourgia, a liturgy or service, but that is kat exochen, because it is the clearest badge of our Christian profession, and a special work of God's service. So the Apostle calls the alms of the Saints leitourgia, a liturgy or service, in both which places the word is used 
Rom. 〈◊〉 2. Cor 〈◊〉.  which they would have to signify, to say Mass in the place before alleged. They may as well prove that the Angels said Mass: for the same Epitheton is attributed to them; They are called leitourgika pneumata, 
Heb. 1. 14.  ministering spirits. It were strange to translate it Massing spirits.  
But what is the meaning of the former place. Leitourgounton, As they were ministering, Oecumenius tells us, Truly the same that (〈◊〉) they were preaching. 
Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  The Syriac and the Arabian: As they were at prayers. Their old translation as they were executing their office and ministry. And the Gloss addeth, in good works every man according to his order and degree.  
Nicholas de Lyra, and Caietan two of their own 
Nich. Lyra in locum.  men; the first says, As they served God every one according to his degree, fasting to the end, that their spirits might be so much the more raised and lifted up to 〈◊〉 and divine things.  
The second says, He speaketh nothing of what kind 
Caietan. in loc.  their ministering was, but in as much as he had spoken before of Prophets and teachers, he would in finuate unto us, that they served God in teaching and prophesying. Among these and all ancient expositors there is not one can be found that did ever dream of finding the Mass in this place of Scripture. But let us further grant that the word doth signify that they were celebrating the holy Sacrament: yet what can they from thence collect to prove the sacrifice of the Mass? yea but, say they, Leitourgein signifies to sacrifice.  
Nay, but properly to execute a public charge either in spiritual or temporal affairs. Wherefore Suidas calls Leitourgia, he demosia huperesia, a public office or charge; and so is called quasi ta leita ergazein; to 
Rom. 15. 16.  do some public work for the people; or suppose we should yield they were sacrificing, why not sacrificing the Gospel according to that place which formerly I have quoted and expounded to be nothing else, but by preaching the Gospel to make the sacrifice of Christ to be known to their hearers; and by the sword of the spirit the word of God to kill and slay men's sinful lusts, that so they may be offered up to God a pure and unspotted sacrifice.  
Fourthly, they tell us of the Mass of Saint Peter, 
Allegat. 4.  S. Mark, S. Matthew, S. Andrew, S. Dennis, S. Clement. These are nothing but forged fables: of which we may say as Augustine touching that false book of the Acts of the Apostles, which the Manichees falsely pretended, that hereby the enemies of the Gospel endeavour to weaken the strength of the scriptures, and to strengthen the arm of falsehood; and therefore I may say of them as Leo the first said of those writings; That these pretended writings of the Apostles which under their names, contain the seeds of many false doctrines, 〈◊〉 not only to be forbidden in the Church but quite banished and burned. Forged they are as appears.  
First by this, that they abound so with errors which in the purer ages of the Church, were not hatched.  
Secondly, in that none of them were ever mentioned by any of the Fathers that lived 500 years after Christ. Lastly, in that in the mass of St. james many sentences, yea whole clauses of Paul's Epistles are woven in and inserted, albeit St. james was beheaded before Paul writ any Epistles.  
Fiftly, they allege for the maintenance of their 
Allegat. 5.  blasphemous sacrifice, that Epistle which quite kills it, and huntes it out of the world. We have an 
Hebr. 13. 10.  altar, whereof they have no power to eat which serve in the Tabernacle. Now say they, if they had an altar, than had they also a sacrifice, and if a Sacrifice, what, but that of the Mass?  
Ans. I answer, let us learn what this Altar is, and we shall soon know what the sacrifice is. The scope and meaning of the Author is to prove that as the beasts were burned without the camp which were offered for sinne-offerings for the people; so Christ suffered without the gates, being made a sinne-offering for his elect; and as the Priest that served in the Tabernacle had no part of that sin offering, so they that trusted in the ceremonies of the levitical Law, and thought to be made perfect by legal sacrifices; they had no part in Christ, and that because they did make frustrate the Cross of Christ, which was the visible Altar, whereon he was offered without the gate.  
And thus, and no otherwise, hath their own 
〈◊〉.  gloss understood it, saying, We have an 〈◊〉 that is the Cross upon which Christ was offered, of which  
Christ's sacrifice. And (saith he) according to this second manner, it is proper to this sacrament that Christ is immolated or sacrificed therein. Thus these great and learned Doctors, pillars I may call them of the Church of Rome confess the same with us, that Christ is not really, properly, and truly sacrificed in the Eucharist, but Metonymically; because therein is a representation of the death of Christ, and a commemoration of his passion; and an application to every particular believer of the benefits of Christ's redemption unto himself by faith.  
And here we are to take notice of the reason, why the Fathers termed the Sacrament by the name of a Sacrifice; and why they called it an unbloody Sacrifice.  
Seeing the whole outward service both of the jews and Gentiles consisted principally in sacrifices, it seemed hard and harsh to those that were converted either from the one side or other, and like to give much offence, if the Church should wholly abolish all sacrifices; because these Prosolites newly converted to Christianity did not believe that religion could subsist without sacrifices. Lest therefore they might exasperate or provoke either the one or the other, the Christians applied themselves both to hear and speak of altars and sacrifices; and for that the Apostles had taught them that all external sacrifices had their end in Christ, they therefore durst not give any approbation to the continuance of jewish sacrifices, much less to Heathenish: therefore they called the Lords Supper, their prayers, their service, their alms, and well-nigh every religious actions a Sacrifice, the Table of the Lord, an Altar, the Bishops, and Pastors, Priests. And thus the Fathers called the Supper of the Lord, the true Sacrifice of Christ, because of the truth of representation, and truth of the effect thereof to the faithful, because also 
August. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deil. 10. c. 20.  that the Church doth therein truly offer herself to God, as August. de civet. Dei. lib. 10. cap. 20.  
Thus the Lords Table was called by the Fathers an Altar, not properly, but by a sign and allusion; 
Auth. libr. de cultur. agr. Dom. in August:  and hereupon sometimes it is called an Altar, sometimes a Table. The Table of thy spouse hath holy bread and an 〈◊〉 Cup. And Augustine, None say so 〈◊〉 such as receive life from the Lords Table. Again he calls 
August. cont. lit. Petil. lib. 2. c. 47  it an Altar (Ad Bonifa. Epist. 90.) saying They rushed in upon him with horrible 〈◊〉, and furious cruelty with clubs, and such like weapons, as he stood at the Altar, breaking down the wood of the Altar most barbarously. And some of the Fathers deny that they have any Altar properly; which doubtless they would never have done, had they acknowledged a Propitiatory sacrifice in the Sacrament. Our Altar is an earthly gathering together of such as do apply themselves to prayers. 
Clem. Alexan. Strom. 7. Arnob. lib. 6. cont. gentes.   
Arnobius saith, The heathen did accuse the Christians, because they did not build them Altars. About the 400. year Altars began, not for sacrifice, but for the honour and memory of the Martyrs; as the Council of Carthage doth record, cap. 11. 
Concil. 5. Carth.   
Now how do the Fathers call it an unbloody sacrifice? In two respects, first thereby to distinguish between this representative Sacrifice of the Sacrament, and the bloody sacrifices of the law, and the bloody Sacrifice offered by Christ himself upon the Cross; by which very distinction it appears that 
Zanch. de cultu. 〈◊〉.  the Fathers dreamt not of Transubstantiation or the presence of any humane or 〈◊〉 blood, in the Sacrament, for then doubtless they would never have used that distinction. And me thinks that distinction being admitted by the Church of Rome, 〈◊〉 and overturneth the reality of a Propitiatory 〈◊〉: For Christ cannot be sacrificed except he be slain, and he cannot be slain without shedding of blood, and if his blood be shed really upon the Table after a corporal manner, then how is it an unbloody Sacrifice: wherefore it is first called an unbloody Sacrifice to distinguish between the bloody sacrifices of the jews, and of Christ himself; it being not a resacrificing of Christ, but only a figurative representation and a mystical commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ.  
Secondly, it was called an unbloody Sacrifice, because it was Eucharistical and a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, as for all blessings in general, so especially for the work of our redemption by Christ. And this is manifested by a notable saying of Saint 
In tem. 3. ex lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Petr. 〈◊〉 cap. 19  Augustine, Hold it firmly, and doubt not that the only begotten son of God, which was made flesh for us, offered himself for us a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour unto God, to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost, in the time of the ancient Law, living sacrifices were offered; and to whom now with the Father and the holy Ghost, one only God, the holy Church dotb not cease to offer bread and wine throughout the whole world. For in those carnal sacrifices there is a figuring of the flesh of Christ, which he was to offer for our sins, and of the blood which he was to shed for the remission of sins: but in this sacrifice there is a commemoration and thanksgiving for the flesh of Christ which he hath offered, and of the blood which he poured out for us. Observe here, first he calleth it bread and wine which is offered: Secondly, he shows the end, only for commemoration and thanksgiving.  
So that none of the Fathers did term the Eucharist or Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in that sense which the Papists do, to be an unbloody sacrifice; because Christ without shedding of 〈◊〉 was really, properly, and personally offered; but because it was both a representation of that substantial and great sacrifice which Christ offered on the Cross; as also because it was a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, and commemoration.  
And hereupon some of the learned Papists as Gropperus and others being ashamed of this gross 
Gropperus.  and 〈◊〉 opinion of the Romanists, have confessed the Mass to be nothing but, Only a remembrance of the passion of Christ, in a public congregation of Christians, where there is a general thanksgiving for the benefit of our redemption; but that Sacrify of Christ upon the Cross, to be offered to God, and to remain in the presence of God in the time of the Supper, that when a man despairs of his own worth, he may apprehend the price of our redemption (to wit) the body of Christ by faith, and offer it to God, between the wrath of God and his sins, for the obtaining of that pardon which Christ hath both merited and procured.  
Thus have we at length, brought this first part of our confutation to an end, in which is plainly proved, that the Popish Sacrifice of the Mass, hath no foundation either in the Scriptures, or Apostolical constitutions; or was either known unto, or named by the Fathers for the space of 600. years after Christ; as also that the Fathers used the word Sacrifice in a far different sense from that of the Church of Rome.  
The second part follows wherein we shall demonstrate 
The second general part.  how, and by what degrees the Mass was brought into the Church, and how it increased; and first shall I show the meaning of the word Mass, and how it was used in the Ancient Church. The Papists 
〈◊〉. lib. 5. Epist. 33.  themselves are not certain of the antiquity of the word Missa, the Mass; yet they find it no ancienter than Pope Leo, and Saint Ambrose his time; so their 
Azorius jesuit institut. moral. part 3. lib. 10. cap. 18. As also Massonius 〈◊〉. 2. de 〈◊〉. Rom. titul Leo primus.  own Jesuits confess; Bellarmine and others. But the word Missa when it is used by the Fathers, signifies nothing but a public meeting to the Communion, and prayers; or a dismission of the assembly, or the form of their religious worship: For the first of these it 〈◊〉 an 〈◊〉 gathered together, to serve God publicly (as Georg. Cassan. praefat. in preces suas, confesseth) which the greeks signified by the word sunagein, to meet together, sunaxeis poiein, to make congregations; ekklesiazein to gather together, which words they for the establishing of their heretical doctrine, have absurdly translated, to make Mass, or to go to Mass.  
Secondly, the word Mass was used for the form of religious service used by, and in the Church, and signified the same with 〈◊〉 or hierourgia. The Melevitan Counsel taketh prayers and Masses both for one thing; and to this purpose Saint Augustine 
Council. 〈◊〉. c. 12. Aug. Serm. de Temp. 251.  in a Sermon (if it be his) saith, There are some, and chiefly great men in the world, when they come unto the Church, are not devoutly affected to celebrate the Praises of God, Sed cogunt presbiterum ut abreuiet Missam; but compel the Minister to make short the Mass.  
here the word Mass signifieth the whole Liturgy, reading of Scriptures, singing of Psalms, Prayers, and praisings of God.  
Thirdly, it signified the dismission of some of the 
Hug. de 〈◊〉. victe. Thom. Aquin. 3. part. quest. 83. 〈◊〉 4.  congregation; as we shall show immediately. The Papists derive it diversely, some a missione. Quia oblatio & preces ad Deum mitttantur; because an I oblation and prayers are sent up to God, or Quia Angelus a Deo mittatur, qui sacrificio 〈◊〉, because an Angel is sent from God to assist the Sacrifice. Some 
〈◊〉. de litourg. sancti Dionys.  of the word Missath used (Deutr. 16. 10.) or Masah which signified a free gift, or Elevation, but certainly there are no words now used in the Church of the Latins, or which were used formerly derived of the Hebrews, but they were first used by the Greek Church and Fathers: but this word Missa or Missath was never used by any of the Fathers of the Greek Church to signify, either the assembling or service, or Sacrifice of the Church.  
And therefore is rather to be thought to be derived a missione, and that two ways, either a donis missis, from the gifts that were sent by such as were of ability, at the celebration of the Sacrament, both for the furnishing of the Lords Table, as also for 
Salmaron jesuit epist. ad 〈◊〉 de nomine 〈◊〉. Azor. jesuit. Institut. moral. par 〈◊〉. l. 10. c. 18. 〈◊〉 Tom. 3. contion. p. 110.  the relief of the poor. Or else it was called 〈◊〉, a dimissione populi (as Cyprian calls, remissam peccatorum, for remissionem) when the Deacon cries, Ite missa est: Leave is granted, you may depart. And it is not unlikely, that the same custom was used by the Greek Church, when the Minister cried, Aphesis laois; dismission to the people.  
This dismission was twofold.  
The first was called Missa 〈◊〉 when the Catechumeni (that is) such as being converted to Christianity, but not sufficiently 〈◊〉 in the principles of religion, and therefore were not as yet baptised, were caused to depart; as 〈◊〉 with them the Penitents who for some open and scandalous crime did do public penance in the congregation; 
〈◊〉. Maurus Institut l. 1. c. 32 Innocen. de sacr. Altaris myster. l. 6. cap. 12. Beat us Rhenanus in lib. quar. Tert. 〈◊〉. Martion.  and the Energoumenoi (that is,) such as were excommunicate (who were so called, because being delivered up unto Satan, they were supposed to be vexed with wicked spirits) These three sorts of people were permitted to be present both at the prayers, service, and Sermon; but when the Lords Supper began to be administered, they were to depart; wherefore the Deacon cried with a loud voice, Ite missa est Leave is given, you must depart. A custom not unlike 
 that of the jews, which was, not to permit any Leprouse or infected person to be present at their sacrifices; and the 〈◊〉 of the Heathens, who would have present at their sacrifices and augurations, neither enemy, nor conquered, nor woman, nor virgin, nor any profane person; wherefore the Priest was wont to ask 'tis têde? who is there? and the answer was returned, Kaloi k'agathoi; none but such as are good and honest.  
The second, was Missa Fidelium, the Mass of the Faithful, which was the whole ceremony and celebration of the Lords Supper: Then all things being finished, they had liberty to depart.  
Thus it appears that the word Mass is not so ancient as our adversaries plead, Jerome who was the Pastor of Rome, and of no small credit with them, never uses the words; Ambrose once only; Augustine but twice, and neither of these in that sense in which the Papists use it. And whereas they object that place of Jerome one the 11. chapter of the Proverbes, it is not thought to be his, because therein is mentioned Gregory, who lived about 200. years after Jerome; but the best learned do ascribe it to Bede, as they do the Sermon of Saint Augustine de tempore, to Ambrose or Hugo de Sancto Victore.  
But from the name, let us proceed to the thing itself.  
Albeit, that about the time of Saint Gregory, there happened such an alteration of the Canon of the Mass; of the manner of service; of vestments; of the bread; of private Masses; of prayers unto Saints; and so continued till Charles the great, insomuch that the Church of Rome had cast off her ancient simplicity, and Matron-like habit, and became like a garish Courtesan, yet this sacrifice of the Mass was not as yet allowed of generally in the Church. Not in Gregory's time, for Bellarmine himself confesseth he could find nothing in his writings for confirmation of this their sacrifice. For the corporal reality of this sacrifice, which our adversaries defend upon an imagination of a Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ, seems to be sufficiently 
Greg. tom. 1. Moral. l. 14. c. 31.  confuted by that disputation held by Gregory against Eutiches the Heretic, who denied that Christ had a true humane body, against whom Gregory objected 〈◊〉 saying of our Saviour to his Disciples, who after his resurrection made a doubt of that which 〈◊〉 spared not to maintain, namely, that it was not the same body wherein he was cruified, but only a shadow of a body, and so his humanity was but kata Phantasian, not really, but only in appearance; But Gregory objects the words of Christ. Handle me, and see for a spirit hath not flesh 
Luke 24. 39  and bones, as you see me have; behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself.  
By the same testimony of sense, may Christians now discern bread to be bread after consecration, by which the Disciples discerned Christ's flesh to be flesh after resurrection; they were to believe because they did see and feel it to be the flesh of Christ, we have the benefit of four senses, seeing, handling, 
〈◊〉 Sermone saxon. legend in Fest Pascbatis to be seen in the Library at Oxford, and other Cathedral Churches.  tasting, smelling, to prove us to receive not flesh, but bread.  
And here we may note what was the faith of the Church of England about those times of St. Gregory, by an ancient Homily written in the Saxon tongue, and appointed to be preached throughout England in every Church upon Easter day.  
Part where of runs thus.  
In the holy sont we see two things in that one creature; after the true nature, the water is corruptible water, and yet after 〈◊〉 mystery 〈◊〉 hath hallowing might. So also we behold the holy housel, it is bread, after bodily understanding, than we see it is a body 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉; but if we acknowledge therein a spiritual might, then understand we that life is therein, and it giveth 〈◊〉 to them that 〈◊〉 it with 〈◊〉. Much difference there is between the invisible might of the holy 〈◊〉, and the visible shape of the proper nature. It is naturally corruptible bread and corruptible wine; and it is by the might of Christ's word, truly 〈◊〉 body and his blood, not so notwithstanding bodily, but spiritually, much difference is there between the body that Christ suffered 〈◊〉; and the body that is hallowed to housel; the body 〈◊〉 Christ suffered in, was borne of the flesh of Mary with blood, and with bone, with skin, with 〈◊〉 in humane limbs, with a reasonable soul 〈◊〉; and his spiritual body, which we call the 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 thered of many corns without blood and bone, without limb, without soul, and therefore nothing therein is to be understood 〈◊〉; but all is spiritually to be understood. By these words 〈◊〉 appears that the ancient Christians in England held not that gross transubstantiation maintained now by the Romish Church, which is the mother of the Massing sacrifice, for take away 〈◊〉 and of necessity you lay the honour of their sacrifice in the dust.  
For the space of 〈◊〉 years after Gregory, this Sacrifice of the Mass began to gather strength, and to be taught, and 〈◊〉, though not generally in the Church of Rome. 
Pasca. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. ap. 9 & 10.   
〈◊〉 Abbot of Corby in 〈◊〉 hath these words. Because we sin daily, Christ is Sacrificed for us Mystically, and his Passion given in Mystery. Again, The blood is drunken in Mystery spiritually, and it is all spiritual which we eat. And, The full similitude is 〈◊〉, and the flesh of the imacculate Lamb is faith inwardly; that the truth he not wanting to the Sacrament, and it be not ridiculous to Pagans, that we drink the blood of a 〈◊〉 man. Note here, that he would 〈◊〉 the outward 〈◊〉, and the inward substance represented by the sign, to subsist in the Sacrament, otherwise it takes away the truth of the Sacrament; and he would not have the 〈◊〉 think, the 〈◊〉 to be so absurd, as to drink the real and substantial blood of Christ with their bodily mouths, but only Sacramentally, and in a Mystery.  
Bertram 〈◊〉 lived about the 900. year of 
Bertram. de Corp & Sang. Dons.  Christ, in the time of Charles the 〈◊〉, whose words agree directly with the Doctrine of the Church of England, and are these. Our Lord hath done this at once, even in offering himself (〈◊〉 is to say, sacrificing himself for us:) For he was once offered for the fins of the people; and this 〈◊〉 notwithstanding is daily celebrated by the 〈◊〉, but in a mystery: to the end that what hath been accomplished by our Lord lesus in offering himself once, might be handled 〈◊〉 day, by the celebrating of the Mysteries, of the 〈◊〉 of the memory of his passion. Where is to be noted how he opposeth the mystical 〈◊〉, to the real receiving, and the daily 〈◊〉 of the remembrance, to the once offering of the 〈◊〉. Again, He which is daily offered by the faithful, in the mystery of his body and his blood, namely, that whosoever will draw near unto him, may know that he must 〈◊〉 part in his sufferings; the image and representation whereof is exhibited in the holy Mysteries.  
About the 1000 year lived 
* Neither doth it appear by the writings of Bede, of 〈◊〉 in cap. 5. Osea. etc. 2. Habbae. etc. 1. Malac. of Rcmigius in Psal. 51. of Raban de Instit. Cleric. l. 1. c. 32. Of 〈◊〉 in c. 10. epist. 〈◊〉. Heb. All which lived between the time of Gre gory the Great and the Lateran Council. Add unto these 〈◊〉 Deane of 〈◊〉. Maurice in Angeires the wonder of 〈◊〉 for allearning: He lived between the 1100. and 1200 years or about the 〈◊〉: according to 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 an Archbishop in France, denied the real presence as 〈◊〉 reports, An 1004. num. 5. Add unto the former Almaricus, a Doctor of Paris, 〈◊〉 for this opinion, about the year 1190. of whom Bernardus Lutzenburg. and Gaguinus, a French Historian make mention. These latter directly withstood transubstantiation, before the Lateran Council.  Theophilact who seems 
Theophil. in c. 8 〈◊〉.  to deny this Propitiatory Sacrifice; in these words, The medicines which are effectual and forcible do heal at the first time, being administered, but those which need to be taken again and again, do sufficiently argue their weakness by that only note: even so it fareth betweenethe Legal Sacrifices, and the Sacrifice of Christ. But here ariseth a question, Whether we also do offer sacrifices without shedding of blood? unto which we answer affirmatively; but it is that we do renew the Memory of the death of the Lord; and yet in the mean time it is but one Sacrifice not many, because it hath been offered but only once: We offer then 〈◊〉 himself, or rather the Remembrance of this oblation, by which he did offer himself. And in another place he hath these words, Where there is remission of sins, there needs not any more sacrifices: but Christ hath offered a Sacrifice serving and standing sufficient for ever; and therefore we have no need of any other second sacrifice.  
About the 1000 year they began to ordain Priests, with these words, Accipe potestatem missas celebrandi, & sacrificium offerrendi pro vivis & mortuis. Take power to celebrate Masses, and to offer Sacrifice sor the quick and the dead. Then had private Mass gotten some life, wherein the Priest alone did communicate for himself, and for those who had paid him a good price to be remembered when he received the Sacrament, that intentionally the virtue of his communicating might profit them to salvation. Then began the circumgestation; or carrying about of the host with the adoration or worshipping of it. Then began they to ascribe to it the power of healing, and working of miracles.  
And about this time did the Church of Rome give unto the Sacrament that great and as yet unrecovered name of taking away the cup of the Lords Supper from the Laity, that is, like Arithmeticians they had liberally studied addition, making many things essential to the Sacrament of the Supper, which were not; so now they might put in practice Substraction by withholding the one half of the Elements (wherewith Christ institutes and the Apostles and Primitive Church celebrated the Lords Supper) from the lay people.  
Let every man judge here whose religion is new, or who are the Innovators, they or we. 
Them succeeded the 〈◊〉 & the 〈◊〉 about the year 〈◊〉.   
Among diverse other additions unto the ceremonies of the Mass, in the year 1065. was joined the blessing of the incense wherein there is mention made of a propitiatory sacrifice. But this doctrine was not generally established in the Church till within 
〈◊〉 de Villa nova 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the year 1243 as 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. Cent. 13 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. Cap. 11.  this 408 years; for as one of their greatest Schoolmen 〈◊〉, Ante Concilium Lataranense hoc dogma non suit. Before the Council of Lateran this opinion, namely of 〈◊〉 was not, that is, generally approved and maintained.  
And Cornalius Musso a Bishop of Bitrutum (so famous for his learning as Sixtus Senensis writeth, that he was a Preacher at twelve years old, and all Italy ran after him) did defend in the Council of Trent; that Christ at his last Supper did offer no sacrifice 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. d 74. sect. 2. pag. 9 49. 〈◊〉. & 〈◊〉 26. 28.  at all; meaning no true Propitiatory sacrifice. For (as he urgeth) if he offered himself to his Father in his last Supper, then should he not have perfected his sacrifice with one oblation made, as Saint Paul teacheth, but with a double oblation twice made, once in the Supper, and once upon the cross, which were most repuguant to the holy Scripture.  
But from the time of the Lateran Council, this doctrine of the Mass took such root, and spread itself so far and so fast that the greatest part of Europe is darkened with the dark shade thereof; growing by degrees from an action of thanksgiving to an Eucharistical Sacrifice, and from thence to a Propitiatory sacrifice by way of Mystery and Commendation; and from thence to a true, proper, and real Propitiatory sacrifice, equal with, nay far more effectual than the sacrifice that Christ himself offered upon the cross. And this dangerous and blasphemous doctrine crept in the more easily by the ignorance of these latter ages both in the Church and Commonwealth, caused by the troubles of the Church of Rome; as also by the corruption of languages, which was in this last thousand years, occasioned by the mixture of diverse nations together in several kingdoms, and especially Italy; and this heresy being crept into the Church was fostered and nourished by the coldness of men's devotion, the covetousness of the Priests, and the 〈◊〉 of the Bishops. The coldness of men's devotion was such, that whereas in the fervent zeal of the Christian Church, the Supper of the Lord was celebrated every Lord's day, yea in some Churches every day, and great multitudes resorted and thronged thereunto, yet in process of time, men began so to neglect the Lords Table, that there was this law enacted to compel them to a more careful respect of communicating, That such lay people as did not communicate at the least every feast of the Nativity, Easter and Whitsuntide should be held for Infidels.  
This law was afterward ratified by Charles the 
Carol. Mag. lib. 1. cap. 138. 182. 167.  Great; and urged upon the people.  
But hereby it came to pass that the profits of the Priests were much curtalled, because the people brought not so many offerings as in former times; wherefore the Clergy thought to use a speedy remedy for this disease; and therefore began to teach them, that the Sacrament was not only profitable for the salvation of the Communicants, but also for all their friends, and kindred living and dead, which the Priest should remember secretly with himself at the time of celebration; and this they called Vim 〈◊〉, the force & efficacy of the Mass. This brought in store of gain to the Priest's purse, as Diana did to Demetrius and his companions; and as the Pythonisse did unto her 
Act. 10. 25. Act. 16. 16.  masters; no marvel then if they stand to maintain that which maintains them.  
This doctrine of the Massing sacrifice they cunningly built upon two foundations, which were laid both at this time, the better to keep the people in awe, and to cause the more respect unto their sacrifice.  
The first was Transubstantion; for after it was taught that the bread and wine was changed substantially into the body and blood of Christ, then what reverence was too great for this sacrifice? who could doubt that it was Propitiatory?  
The second was Purgatory; for then (might the people argue) if our friends departed out of this world do abide the scorching flames of Purgatory; and that we ourselves must thither too; and if the holy sacrifice of the Mass hath such virtue as to ease the souls therein; then let us out of charity to our friends pay some portion of money to the Priest, for the cessation of their pains; and out of love to ourselves when we die, let us leave grounds and goods to the Church that Mass may be said for us when we are dead. Thus you see how the sacrifice of the Mass got footing: upon what ground it stood, and so continues.  
But God that still provideth for his Church, will, and hath caused light to break out of darkness, that albeit the darkness of Fgypt be palpable, yet light shall shine clearly in Goshen; and to this end hath sent diverse of his servants to deliver truth out of prison, and to manifest the light there of unto his people.  
Their own tongues are against them; and some of their own brood hatched about the time of the Lateran Council, disclaim this point. As you have heard Aquinas speaking in this case, pag. 71. so hear whether he be not still the same, who says, It 
Aquin. in Sum. part. 13. q. 73. art. 6.  behooneth that there evermore should remain some representation of the passion of our Lord. In the old teament this principal sacrament was the Paschall lamb; whereupon the Apostle says, Christ our Paschall Lamb was offered. And in place thereof hath succeeded the Eucharist in the new Testament, which is a Memorial of his passion past and suffered, as the other was a prefigurer and 〈◊〉 of his passion to come.  
Petrus Alphonsus at the same time did acknowledge 
Petr. Alph. l. 2. 〈◊〉  the Mass or Eucharist for no other thing then a Sacrifice of praise. And this was at that time one of the questions disputed by the Albigenses and Petrus Brutis, who was burnt at Tholosa where he taught 
〈◊〉 dialog. tit. 12.  publicly that it was not a Propitiatory. All these sacrifices (saith he) which were used under the law, were nothing but 〈◊〉 of this great sacrifice, which was to destroy sin, But since the coming of Christ we use not any other Sacrifice, but that of bread and wine which he hath ordained, & is like unto that which Moses in the law called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sacrifice of praise; for therein we praise God for the benefit he hath bestowed upon us, saving us by his only Son, etc.  
Alexander Hales seems to cross the Mass in diverse 
Alex. Hales.  of his assertions: for he speaks thus, jesus Christ hath offered a double sacrifice, a spiritual and corporal, the spiritual that is a sacrifice of devotion, and love towards mankind, which he hath offered in spirit; the corporal, the sacrifice of the death which he underwent upon the cross, which is represented in the sacrament. (Mark he confesseth no reality of a sacrifice, any otherwise then by 〈◊〉). The spiritual figured by the incense and perfume which was made upon the inner 〈◊〉; the corporal which he offered in his flesh, two ways, that is to say, sensibly upon the cross, and insensibly upon the altar. (Observe he terms it an insensible offering, not gross under the forms of bread and wine.) That sensible sort being shadowed out by the sacrifices of beasts; but the insensible by the sacrificing of things that are insensible, as fruits, bread and wine, both the one, and the other upon the utter altar.  
Here he maketh one Propitiatory, for such were the sacrifices wherein beasts were offered with the shedding of their blood for sin; figuring out the singular sacrifice upon the cross offered by the Messiah the Lord jesus Christ. The other Eucharistical only, for such properly were those of fruits, bread, etc.  
Lyra also that Catholic interpreter of the whole 
Nic. Lyran. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Heb. c. 10  scripture seems not much to descent from the former; for writing of the Sacrifice of Christ that it is not to be iterated, preoccupates an objection thus. You will say the sacrament of the altar is every day offered up in the Church. But the answer hereto is, that this is no reiterating of the sacrifice, but an ordinary remembering and calling to mind of the only Sacrifice offered upon the cross, wherefore it is said, Math. 26. Do this in remembrance of me.  
That most learned Arrias Montanus, upon Luk. 22. 
Arrias 〈◊〉 in Luc. 22.  thus writes, This is my body: that is, My body is sacramentally contained in this sacrament of bread: and strait way he adds (like another Nicodemus Christ's nightly disciple) The secret and most mystical manner whereof, God will once vouchsafe more clearly to unfold unto his Church.  
Thus hath the light of truth appeared from the beginning of the Primitive Church until these our days, albeit (till within this hundred and odd years) it hath from the time of Gregory shined more dimmely, and since the Lateran Council seemed well nigh to be quite extinct,  
But at last the Sun of righteousness communicated his light unto these 〈◊〉, which have illuminated our Horizon, such as Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Caluine, Beza, jewel, and many famous Martyrs in queen mary's days as Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Bradford, Philpot, etc. which (albeit it pleaseth the Romish Factors to brand them with the title of Heretics) have so dispelled the darkness of superstition, and discovered the Mystery of Antichrist, that all the world may point out which is the purple and scarlet Whore, Babylon the great, the mother 
Reu. 17. 5.  of harlots and abominations of the earth; whose shame, her children, lovers and friends would sane conceal, but God hath laid it open, and will daily more and more, before men and angels, till the time come, when she shall be cast down, burnt with fire, and made desolate for evermore.  
Thus have I let you see briefly (and I doubt more briefly than so ample a matter doth require) how the sacrifice of the Mass crept into the Church, and how it hath continued.  
How first it was celebrated in a most plain and simple manner.  
Secondly, it began to admit some increase of ceremonies, especially the offerings for the dead, which was but a gratulation and thanksgiving for them, until 200. years after 〈◊〉.  
Thirdly, prayers for the dead, got entrance into the Supper about 400. years; then came in Purgatory and redemption of souls thence by Masses, though not generally taught nor authorized by any Council.  
About the 780. year Gregoryes Mass was publicly taken up in the Churches of Italy, whereas before Ambrose his Mass was of more general use.  
Fourthly, the disputations of Transubstantiation began about the year 840., but were not fully concluded till the Council of Lateran by Innocent the third, anno 1216. After which came in the offering of the body and blood of Christ upon the altar. And after that, there followed the enclosing carrying about and adoration of them. Thus grew the Church of Rome from evil to worse, till it came to that miserable state wherein it now is.  
And as the Romanists are Innovatours in respect of the Sacrifice of the Mass, so are they also in respect both of the Canon & of the Ceremonies of the Mass: for whereas they boast that the form of the Mass in respect of the Canon is so ancient, as that they deduce it from the Apostles, and to this end allege the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dionysius, some of their own writers do question the verity and antiquity of that book, doubting whether it be spurious or no; and that the Canon hath admitted diverse additions by several and sundry Popes appears by their own Polidore Virgil, whose words be these. 
Polid. Virgil. de invent. rerum. l. 5. ca 11.  All the Mysteries were delivered by Christ to his Apostles barely and plainly, savouring more of piety then outward show; for Peter was went only to consecrate by saying the Lords prayer; after this these 〈◊〉 were enlarged by Saint james, by Saint Basill; Celestine 
Anno 423.  added the entrance of the Mass, beginning with this 〈◊〉, judge me oh Lord. Damasus added the 
Anno 577.  confession which is made by the Priest before he ascend unto the Altar; some ascribe it to Pontianus; Gregory 
Anno 600.  added the 〈◊〉 which followeth the Entrance; and that Lord have mercy upon us, should be repeated ninetimes, with the antiphony after the Epistle, Gospel, and communion. Telesphorus added the hymn of 
Anno 129.  glory to God on high. Gelasius added the conclusions of 
Anno 493.  the prayers [as upon Christmas day, because thou didst give thine only Son, etc. as is set down in the book of Common prayer and used at the administration of the Communion by the Church of England] jerom added the Epistle and Gospel, and that all men should stand up at the reading of the Gospel; 〈◊〉 they borrowed from the Church of 〈◊〉; the singing of 
Anno 336.  the Creed was added by Pope Mark the first? which Damasus afterward renewed; Gelasius added the Antiphony which they call Tractum, with the hymns and prefaces which go before the Canon, which are nine in number; the tenth to the honour of the Virgin Mary the mother of God Pope Vrbane added. Aaron first burned frankincense on the Altar according as God commanded Moses; and Pope Leo the third commanded the same to be used in the Church, which also the 
Anno 800.  Heathens did use. The washing of the hands was a ceremony taken from the custom of the jews, and from the Gentiles, whose use was to wash their hands when they sacrificed. Xystus the first appointed that in the preface, 
Anno 170.  Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabbath, should be sung. Whereby it appears that the Canon of the Mass was neither all composed by one man, nor was digested into that form wherein now it is. Which appears by this that Pope Alexander the first who 〈◊〉 ccclx years 
Anno 109  before Gelasius and Syricius in memory of the passion of Christ caused these words to be added, who the day before he suffered, unto these words, this is my body; whereby it is 〈◊〉 that that was the beginning of the Canon. Leo'1. afterwards added, therefore this 〈◊〉; 
Anno 440.  and this holy sacrifice and immaculate host; Gregory annexed three prayers which are these, Dispose our days in thy peace, and deliver us from eternal damnation; and cause us to be numbered among thine elect. So others added other things; after the Canon is ended, then is said the peace of God; then was appointed that the Priests should kiss one another by Innocent the first, 
Anno 408.  and that the people should kiss the pax by Leo the second. 
Anno 682.   
Now for the ceremonies of the Mass, most of them were borrowed from the jews and ancient Idolatry of the Romans instituted by Numa Pompilius their second King about 700. years before the incarnation of Christ.  
As their shaving of Priests, which the ancient Idolatrous Romans used after the form of the Babylonians, or of the Herculean Priests, called for the same cause Stephanophores, as bearing a crown upon their heads; these were by the Heathenish Romans 
Curio saeerdoes qui in sua cura, id est in sua parocbia sacris 〈◊〉, Tit. Liu l. 1. dec. 〈◊〉.  termed Curiones, from whence our Romish Priesthood have borrowed the name of Curate. Next the vestment of the Priest, which Numa Pompilius ordained to be White, called by the Latins Alba, and with the Vestment hath continued to this day, wherein the Priest celebrateth Mass.  
But our Romanists scorning to be beholding to 
〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 de exposit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gab. 〈◊〉 in lib. 〈◊〉 exposit. Miss.  their Idolatrous Predecessors will have this Aulbe to figure the conversation of Christ in his flesh, or the purity of his body incarnate in the womb of the Virgin. Others interpret the white colour to signify chastity and continency. Others signify by the Aulbe, the White garment presented by Herod unto Christ, when he was sent back as a fool to Pilate.  
Above this, the old Roman Idolators used an ornament 
Alexand. ab Alexan 〈◊〉 4. c. 17 Super tunicam pectori tegumen Tit. Liu. l. 1. decade. 1. Purpureo velare comas adopertus amictu, etc. Virgil. 〈◊〉. 3.  for the breast of brass or copper, which is by the Church of Rome now turned into gold or silver, termed the Cheasuble. They used also a veil to cover their heads, called an Amice first invented by AEneas; which also our Mass Priests use; and they will have it to represent the veil wherewith Christ was covered, when the jews mocked him in the house of Caiphas. Or the Divinity of Christ hid under the humanity.  
Add unto these the Stole, the Manuple, and the Zone: which three (saith one) do represent the three cords wherewith Christ was bound, and led before the High Priest. Or by the Zone (saith Biel) were figured the rods wherewith Christ was whipped; by the Stole laid a cross, the cross that Christ carried on his shoulders; The Manuple carried on the left arm represents the band of love wherewith Christ was holden.  
Another interpreteth the Zone or Girdle wherewith the Aulbe is trussed or tied together, to signify the band of the charity of God.  
The Stole put upon the Amice on the neck of the Priest in form of the cross to figure the obedience of jesus Christ unto the death of the Crosse.  
The Manuple carried upon the left hand to figure the eternal felicity of jesus Christ.  
Another saith the Amice figureth Faith; the Stole humility of obedience; and the Manuple the watchful and hearty devotion of the Massing Sacrificer. Thus are they uncertain among themselves of the figurative representations of their sacrifical Vestments.  
The next ceremony was Holywater borrowed from the ancient Idolaters of Rome, and invented by Numa, who ordained that the people should be 
Proc. in l. de 〈◊〉. & Gag. Procl. Plarenicatu. Eius aquae aspersione, peccata praesertim periuria mendatiaque delui credebant. Blond. li. de Roman. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fast. 〈◊〉 3.  sprinkled with sea, or salt water, because that salt was of a fiery nature which is apt to purify; hereby they purged and cleansed the faults of the people, especially lying and perjury.  
Pope Alexander the first of that name, and one of the first corrupters of the holy sacraments, following the Idolatry of Pompilius, commanded this conjuring and consecrating of holy water, to drive away devils. But to colour this 〈◊〉 he useth this comparison. If it be so (saith Pope Alexander) that 
Si cinis 〈◊〉 aspersus 〈◊〉 judeorum, & e. 〈◊〉.  the ashes of a red cow, offered up in sacrifices, mingled with water of the fountain purified the people of the jews; by greater reason the water sprinkled with salt should purify Christians and chase away 〈◊〉. Thus have they continued that Idolatrous use of Holy 
Hist. 〈◊〉. lib 6. cap. 35.  water still in the Church of Rome, which the Heathens did use 360. years after Christ, as appears by that story of Valentinian.  
After the sprinkling of Holywater follows the Procession which Platina ascribes to Agapetus, Bishop of Rome; but I find it well nigh a 1000 years before 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  him practised by the ancient Idolatrous Romans called Supplication.  
The order of Procession instituted by Numa: either 
Supplicationes quas nos processiones vocamus, 〈◊〉 circa delubra fanaque & 〈◊〉, in quibus honos dijs dabatur, praecedentibus pueris 〈◊〉, & sacerdotibus coronatis, ac Lauream tenentibus manu, ac voce modulata canentibus carmen, subsequent Maximo 〈◊〉, vel curionc, deinde sequentibus patricijs 〈◊〉 cum coniugibus 〈◊〉 tiberis 〈◊〉 corenatis. Apul. lib. 11. de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Blond. de Rom. 〈◊〉. 2. 〈 ◊〉 〈◊〉 Alexandre. lib. 5. cap. 27.  to appease the wrath of their gods, or to obtain peace, or the fruits of the earth was this.  
First, before the Procession went young children, than the Priests clad in white Vestments, singing hymns, praises, and songs unto their gods; after followed the High Bishop (called by them Pontifex Maximus) which title was after given to all the Emperors of Rome that were not Christians (as appears by their coins and Sculptures) than the ancient Senators of Rome, and their wives and children, with crowns on their heads.  
In the Procession was carried commonly the pageant or shrine of jupiter or Anubis oy some of the Priests clad in white Vestments, their heads being shaved, and having a crown upon their heads. This crown was in such repute, that the Emperor Antonius Commodus himself being the High Bishop caused his head to be shaved, and to be crowned to bear the shrine of the god Anubis.  
Before the shrine went a Torchbearer, carrying a taper light in his hand: when Procession did pass through the streets, there were appointed certain places for station; during which solemnity, the Temples were set open, the Altars and Images perfumed with Incense; the shops being shut, the Halles of justice closed, and the prisoners unchained. What more exact Analogy and proportion can there be then between the Procession of the Idolatrous Romans, and that which is now in use among the Idolatrous Romanists?  
After the sprinkling of Holywater, and the procession were finished, Numa instituted the sacrificer 
Ouid. lib. 4. 〈◊〉.  should celebrate the sacrifice, being clothed with his Aulbe, and Chasuale, his head crowned, and his beard shaved, who approached to the Altar, with a Taper light, which commonly was of Tede, or 
Plut. in Numa.  Pinetree; He ordained also that the Priest should turn himself to the Altar, toward the East; which Porpherius the Heretic did not only continue, but ordained also the porches, and images to be turned toward the East, that those that entered into the 
〈◊〉. ab 〈◊〉 lib. 4. c. 17.  Temples in bowing themselves before them, might address their prayers toward the East; as the 〈◊〉 worship the Sun in the East.  
Wherefore our adversaries must needs 〈◊〉 that there Altars erected toward the East their lamps and wax candles, their Images reverenced, nay worshipped in their Missal sacrifice, to have taken their original, not from the Law of God, but from the ancient Roman Idolaters.  
Moreover it was ordained of Numa, that the 
Rem 〈◊〉 facturus ad 〈◊〉 levandam culpam se in primis reum dicere debebat, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ac fateri admissum, vultumque submittere. Alex ab Alexand. l. 4. c. 17. Blond. l. 1. de Rom. Trump.  Priest being thus completely attired, the Altar being furnished with lights, and Images, should before all things make his Confiteor, and 〈◊〉 This offences, and ask pardon of the gods, and goddesses, As Pythagor as affirms 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 Verses, and Orpheus in his Hymns: For 〈◊〉 judged the Priest to be well purged by his 〈◊〉, but without this Confiteor the Sacrifice could not be well celebrated. Which was revived by Damasus and Pontianus Bishops of Rome.  
Next unto these the turnings, toss, crowching, kiss, were to be used by the Pompilian Priest, for 
Hae sunt vertigines in sacris a Numa institutae dextram ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & see in orbem circumagere. 〈◊〉 de Rom. Trium. Macrob. in Saturnal.  Numa supposed great holiness to consist therein. Which are also in use among the Masspriests; for as Titleman affirmeth the Priest in traversing the Altar maketh seven Curtsies or Congees unto the assistants in his Sacrifice, that he may drive away the seven deadly sins, by the seven fold graces of the Spirit of God.  
Unto these we may add, the perfuming the Altar with Incense, for the Ancient Roman Idolaters were wont to use in their Sacrifices, perfume of Incense, 
〈◊〉. lib. 1. de Rom. Triam. Alexan. ab. Ale. lib. 4 cap. 17.  which they caused to be kept in a little vessel called Acerra, a Censor; with which incense the Sacrificer did perfume the Altar, Images, Hosts, especially the 〈◊〉 of the god janus and the goddess Vesta, which took pleasure in incense, and wine offered to them; for in the time of the Trotanes 
〈◊〉 veteres non thure, sed 〈◊〉 & citri 〈◊〉 Deos a 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. Til. Livius l. 3. 〈◊〉 3.  Cedar and Citron were used for perfume. That the romans did use Incense in their Sacrifices, appears by the word Thus, which signifieth Incense being 〈◊〉 of the Greoke Word Thuo, which signifies to sacrifice.  
This 〈◊〉 was brought into the Church by Loo Bishop of Rome borrowing it from the Heathenish practice of the ancient Idolatours; by which Incense now 〈◊〉 Tittleman is signified the prayer of the Priest, which doth mount up into Heaven in a 〈◊〉 of sweetness, as the smoke of Incense and the Censor doth signify the grace of the Holy Ghost. Biel interprets the Incense to signify Marry magdalen's anointing of Christ, and because Christ was twice anointed, therefore the incense must be twice offered in the Missal Sacrifice.  
Unto these add in the next place the Offertory of 
Blond. 〈◊〉. 2. 〈◊〉 Trium. Rom.  their first fruits to the honour of their gods and goddesses, and these the Sacrificer might carry to his own house for the nourishment of himself, and 
〈◊〉 siue benesicibrun duo 〈◊〉 genera, unum quorum collatio ad rempub. aut principem, aut ad 〈◊〉 collegium spectabat, alteram quorum collatio ad aliquam familiam eiusque successores pertinebat; quae beneficia viris patronatus censebatur. Blond. de Rom. Trium. l. 2.  his family. For when Numa had instituted diverse orders of Sacrificers; as Bishops, Augurs, Sauliens, Feciaux, Curious and others, he ordained also means for their maintenance, and commanded out of the common treasury, means for their provision; and many private persons following his example did the like; so that benefices became rich by foundations; some of which benefices were at the bestowing of the Prince or the Commonwealth, or of the College of Bishops: Others were at the presentation of some private Patrons, and their Successors, by whom they were first founded. They had beside these, that which was offered at the Altar; and the first fruits when any of these benefices were void; they had also Annuals, Legacies, and Bequests which were given by the dead that the Priest might pray for them, as appears this day by the ancient monuments of the Heathen Idolators.  
They had also amerciaments, fines, confiscations, 
Cicer. in orat. pro domo sua ad Pontifices.  as the house of Cicero when he was banished, was confiscate to the College of the Priests, and dedicated specially to the sacrifices celebrated in the Temple of the Goddess Liberty. By which it appears that the Idolatries and Superstitious ceremonies of the Church of Rome, are not new in themselves but borrowed from the old Idolators of Heathenish Rome, practised before the incarnation of our Saviour Christ.  
Neither can I here omit the ancient custom of the Romans, which being paralleled with this of our adverfaries differs nothing from that used in the now Romish Church. For in the time of Numa Pompilius 
Mysteries 〈◊〉, qui sacris intererant, rotundis 〈◊〉 quos in honorem Deorum adhibebant, stantes vescebantur. Alex. ab Alex. l. 4. ap. 17.  the Idolatrous Romans, (after the mysteries of their worship were finished) did communicate within the Temple little Cakes consecrated to the honour of their Gods to whom they did offer their sacrifices.  
These little round cakes or hosts were eaten by the Sacrificer and the assistants, standing and not sitting.  
The Flower whereof they were made, was called Mola; from whence is derived this word Immolare to Sacrifice.  
These little cakes were diverse according unto the diversity of their gods and goddesses, and had on them the Images of those gods or goddesses, to whom they were dedicated. From whom our superstitious Adversaries have been bold to borrow their Idolatrous practice of offering a wafer cake with the Picture of Christ upon the Cross, which cake is no longer or it was, but (as they teach) is really transubstantiated into the very body of Christ.  
Nor must I here forget to set before the eyes of the Christian Reader, the behaviour of the Masse-Priest, while he is offering his sacrifice. First he makes three crosses upon the round host to signify the threefold Doctrine of Christ, by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; in pronouncing these words, Haec dona, hoec munera, hoec sancta sacrificia illibata. Other Mass Glossers interpret the third Cross to signify the treason of judas. Then follows five crosses more to figure the five days of respite between Palme-Sunday, and Good-Friday. Or otherwise the five wounds of Christ.  
Of which five crosses, the three first are made to signify the delivering of Christ unto the high Priest, Or to figure the price which Christ was sold for, to wit, three times ten which make thirty.  
The other two crosses are made separately the one upon the host, the other upon the chalice alone, to play the two persons of Christ and judas, than he stretcheth out his arms to figure Christ stretched on the cross. Which done he maketh three crosses to represent the threefold estate of such as have benefit by that sacrifice, namely, those in Heaven, on earth, in purgatory.  
He smiteth afterwards his breast, to play the part of the Publican repenting in the Temple: But this smiting must be with the three hinder-most fingers; for the thumb and the forefinger are reserved to consecrate and transubstantiate the Host into the body of Christ; moreover he smiteth his breast three times, to figure the threefold offence of thought, word, and deed. Then he elevateth the host to be adored. Then he lifteth up his voice to represent the person of the thief, or the Centurion which confessed Christ in his passion.  
Six other crosses are again made, three upon the chalice covered, to represent the three hours that Christ hanged on the cross alive; and the other three on the chalice uncovered (with the round host lifted up again) to figure the three hours that Christ hanged on the cross dead. Then he kisseth the chalice, and maketh two crosses to figure the water and blood that issued out of the side of Christ.  
Then the Priest must take the covering cloth off from the chalice, and cover it with the patyne, to figure the breaking of the veil of the Temple in the midst at the death of Christ. This done, the host is put from above the chalice and is couched under the corporas to figure the burying of Christ.  
The Priest having thus acted the parts of Christ, of the holy Thief, of judas, then acteth the person of the Centurion in singing the Pater Noster, by the seven petitions whereof Durandus would signify the seven weep of the Virgin Mary, or the seven graces of the Holy Ghost, or the seven Beatitudes, or the seven deadly sins. This song finished, the Priest keepeth silence to signify the silence, or rest of Christ in the Sepulchre.  
Who sees not here a Mass of fopperies, and will-worship in this sacrifice of the Mass? shall not God say unto our Masse-mungers, as he did unto the Israelites. 
 Who required these things at your hands? where hath Christ either given precept or example to make such representations of his passion by external mummeries, and histrionical gestures? 
〈◊〉.   
But these things are of great antiquity, and have been of long use in the Church, and why should we now become Innovatours.  
Answer. I answer we are not Innovatours because we abolish these Popish Idolatries, and keep ourselves to the practice of the Primitive Church, but they are Innovatours, that have brought these superstitions into the Church.  
And 〈◊〉 as they plead Antiquity; I answer, first Antiquity or continuance of an evil is no ground for a toleration, and idolatry in religion is not to be permitted though never so ancient; for by the same argument may the Turks 〈◊〉 their Mahometan Alcoran, which they have possessed about 900 years; under the which law they have subdued nations, conquered Realms and Empires.  
By the same reason might the Israelites justify the sacrificing of their children unto Moloch in the valley of Tophet, a most detestable Idolatry, yet pactised well nigh the space of 1200 years, till it was quite abolished by that good King josiah.  
The Brazen Serpent, a thing commanded by God himself, possessed by the Israelites for the space of 
2 Kings 18. 4.  900. years, unto which the people had burnt incense from time to time; yet neither the long continuance, nor the general practice of such an Idolatry could prevail with Hezechiah for toleration. Could the people of Israel be excused for committing 〈◊〉 by the two calves of Dan, and Bethel 
1 Kings 12. 〈◊〉  erected by 〈◊〉, and worshipped for the space of three or four hundred years? No, the long practice of an evil, can afford no ground for permission; but Idolatry though never so aged is to be extirpated; as Theodosius the Emperor answered unto the Senators of Rome, when they pressed him with the antiquity of their Pompilian religion, which they had observed for the space of 1000 years.  
Again, the Mass is not so ancient as our adversaries pretend, neither in respect of the Canon, nor in respect of the Ceremonies, lest of all in respect of the Sacrifice. The Canon being patched together by sundry Popes, who have added their parts and parcels at several times. The Ceremonies as the diverse garments, holy-water, wax-tapers, the Offertory Prayer for the dead, Procession, & the like, crept in also by degrees, one after another as their own Histories declare sufficiently. And the sacrifice not acknowledged by any till within these 400 and odd years, about the time of the Lateran Council, under Innocent the third.  
Now let the indifferent Reader judge of the impudency of our Adversaries who brag so much of antiquity, endeavouring to deduce their Mass from the Apostles time, against their own consciences, and the credit of all histories. For hereby clearly is declared the induction not only of the Ceremonies but also of the very Canon of the Mass; all which do not savour only of Innovation, but also of judaism and Gentilism; the badges of a false and superstitious Sacrifice.  
The third part of this confutation follows, wherein 
The third general part, of 〈◊〉 confutation.  we shall give answer unto some of the main and principal arguments wherewith they endeavour to establish their battered and shaken imposture, and to oppugn the invincible truth of God and his Church. So that wilfully they overturn the very principles of nature, the order of all things, the humanity of their Saviour, the truth of the Sacrament, the truth of Scripture, the foundations of all 〈◊〉; confusedly jumbling heaven and earth together, rather than they will admit of a tropical speech in our Saviour's consecration.  
And first for the maintaining of the sacrifice of the 
Argum. 1. Psal. 110. 4. Heb. 5. 6. Rhem. annot. Heb. 7 sect. 8. Bellar. cap. 6. Hoffmeist. asser. sacrif. Missae.  Mass they allege. That Christ is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedech; but the proper act of Melchizedechs' Priesthood did consist in sacrificing under the forms of bread and wine. Ergo. The eternity of Christ's Priesthood standeth in the sacrificing of his body and blood in those forms by those Priests whom he hath promised to continue in his Church till the world's end. Rhemist. annot. Heb. 7. sest. 8. Bellar. cap 6. Hoffmeyst. assert. sacrific. missae.  
And that Melchizedechs' Priesthood consisted in oblation of bread and wine, they would prove by these Reasons.  
First, from the word, He brought forth. The Hebrew 
Bellar. c. 6. Translators of Douai. pag. 56. annot. on Gen. 14. & pag. 57  word is properly applied to the bringing forth of a sacrifice; as Gen. 4. The like word is used to signify Cain and Abel's sacrifice.  
Secondly, because Abraham had no need of bread and wine to refresh himself, being returned with so great spoil from his enemies, and so having sufficient to refresh himself with, it is likely Melchizedech brought them forth to offer to God.  
Thirdly, as Melchizedech is said to be the Priest of the High God, so it was requisite that the Scripture 
Bellar. cap. 〈◊〉.  also should make mention of his sacrifice; but this sacrifice is not mentioned elsewhere.  
Fourthly, from the phrase of the words, Melchizedech brought forth bread and wine, for he was the Priest of the most high God; the scripture alleging this as a reason of his bringing forth bread and wine, 
Bellar. 〈◊〉.  because he was a Priest, and did it to sacrifice.  
Fiftly, Christ is said to be a Priest for ever: but this Priesthood cannot remain, except his sacrifice remain: therefore seeing the sacrifice of Christ on 
Bellar. ibidem.  the cross is done, he must have another sacrifice daily to be offered in the Church, and that is the sacrifice of Melchisedech in bread and wine.  
Unto these we answer severally.  
First, concerning the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jaza or jaksa, which they say signifies properly to bring forth a sacrifice; this is false, for it properly employs as much as proffer, 
Zanch. de cultu dei externo. Exod. 3. 10. Exod 8. 18. Psal. 135. 7.  to bring forth; as if he should say, Exire feeit & adferri panem, he made bread and wine to be brought forth, and the word is used in this sense most commonly: as, That thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel forth of Egypt. So the bringing forth of louse. Exod. 8 18. The bringing forth of the winds, Psal. 135. 7. The bringing forth of water out of the rock, and the like. And where it hath any relation to a sacrifice, there it is joined either with the word sacrifice or oblation, restraining the general signification thereof to the special act of offering or sacrificing.  
Wherefore whereas many of them read it obtulit, he suffered: they corrupt the text, for it is protulit, he brought forth; and unto this have we the consent of all the Fathers, who note that it was rather a Munificent act of his Regal office proceeding from his bounty and liberality, than any sacrificial act of his Priestly function.  
Therefore Jerome translates it Melchizedeck proferens panem & vinum; and Cyprian, protulit panem. And 
〈◊〉 Gen. Cyp. ad Caecil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  thus doth Rabbi Solomon expound this place, saying, that Melchizedech did testify by this gift and good handsel, that he took it not in ill part that his posterity were slain by Abraham.  
Thus also Tertullian and Epiphanius render it, with whom consent some of their own Writers. Caietan 
Caietan. in Gen. 14. Sic Lyra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  saith, Nihil hic dictum est, etc. Nothing is here said of sacrifice or oblation, but of bringing forth, which josephus saith was done to the refection of them that had gotten 
Andrad. defensfidel. Trid. lib. 4.  the victory, Andradius also doth herein forsake his friends, and acknowledgeth this to be the true exposition; for in the defence of the Council of Trent against Chemnitius, he hath these words. We need not Chemnitius to strive about the word offering; seeing that both in the best corrected Latin copies, and also in the holy Fathers, which apply this place unto the holy Eucharist, It is proferens brought forth, and I in judgement agree with them which say that Melchizedech refreshed Abraham's soldiers, wearied and fainted with long fight.  
Unto this doth the Romish translation consonantly accord, where the word is Proferens, bringing forth, and not offerens offering; which 〈◊〉 the Papists are bound by the Council of Trent-sess. 4. not to reject upon what pretence soever.  
The Chaldee Paraphrast saith, he brought, or caused to be brought; and the Greek hexenegae, he 
Ambr. in ep. Hebr. c. 7.  brought forth. Ambrose, 〈◊〉 in refectionem; and Hugo Cardinalis seems to hold himself satisfied with that sense, affirming that the Hebrew Doctors had so expounded it. And thus also Erasmus and Sigonius do take it: for which they are reproved by Possevine 
Posseu in. biblio. Select. l. 4. c. 14.  the jesuit.  
And it is to be observed, that when any of the Fathers translate it obtulat, he offered, they refer it to 
〈◊〉. cont. jud Amb. de Sacrament. l. 4. c. 3. Chrys. in Ps. 110.  Abraham, and not to God; Tertullian saith, Abrahamo revertenti de praelio obtulit panem & vinum; and so Ambrose. Occurrit Melchizedech & obtulit Abrahamo panem & vinum. Melchizedech 〈◊〉 Abraham, returning from the war, and offered unto him bread and wine. They say not that he offered to God, but to Abraham, and it had been idolatry in Melchizedech to have offered to Abraham religiously: wherefore he offered only civilly; that is, he made proffer of bread and wine to refresh himself and his soldiers.  
Secondly, whereas they say Abraham had no need thereof, in regard he had taken a greet spoil from the enemies, etc.  
I answer, it appears not that Abraham had refreshed himself by the spoil taken from the kings, because in the refusal of the proffer made unto him by the king of Sodom, he protests that he would not take any thing, save only that which the young men had 
Gen. 14. 23.  eaten; where he rejects all the goods, excepting only what the young men had eaten; whereas doubtless had he tasted any refreshing in the spoil, he would have mentioned it, as being a thing properly taken by him; and therefore (as a late Divine observes) 
〈◊〉. Synops. 〈◊〉.  it was God's providence to send Melchizedech that he should be refreshed rather at his hands, then by the king of Sodom a wicked Infidel.  
But suppose Abraham had refreshed himself and his soldiers with the spoil, yet what knew Melchizedech that; wherefore in courtesy, and to express his inward a acrity, he declares it by his outward liberality and bounty; and thus much may be collected out of the words of josephus, who says, That Melchizedech ministered to Abraham and his host victuals 
Lib. 1. Antiquil. c. 11.  and great abundance of things necessary; and after the feast began to praise him and bless God who had subdued his enemies unto him.  
Thirdly, whereas they say, that Melchizedech being the Priest of the high God, it was necessary that his sacrifice should be mentioned, but no sacrifice is mentioned but his bread and wine.  
I answer there is mention made of his sacrifice implicitly, for in that he is said to be a Priest, it presupposes his offering of sacrifice; neither is it of necessity that his sacrifice should be mentioned, seeing he might be a Priest, albeit the matter of his sacrifice be not nominated; and doubtless many things concerning Melchizedechs' Priesthood were concealed according to the saying of Paul. Of whom we have many things to say, which are hard to be uttered, because ye are dull of hearing; yet Paul shows whereby he 
Heb. 5 11.  declared himself to be a 〈◊〉, namely, in blessing Abraham, and receiving tithes of him.  
But suppose the matter of his sacrifice be not specified, must it therefore needs follow that he sacrificed bread and wine?  
Fourthly, they ground upon the phrase (for he was) alleging it as a reason why he offered bread and wine, for he was (say they) because he was the Priest of the high God.  
But herein they discover their own ignorance; for the Hebrew saith (and he was) or (but he was); So the Greek hen de iereus tou theou; and the Chaldee 
〈◊〉. in Gen. 14.  Paraphrast; Et erat minister coram Deo, And he was a minister before God, whereunto Cajetan assenteth, saying, And where as it followeth in the vulgar translation; for he was the Priest, as though this were the cause of the offering, which is not in the Hebrews (ut causa sed ut separata clausula) as a cause, but as a disiunctine participle; as if he would say, Melchizedech was a king, which appears by this plentiful feasting of Abraham and his soldiers; and he was not only a King, but also the Priest of the high God; so that in this one verse is comprised both the Regal and Sacerdotiall office of Melchizedech; and unto each of them is ascribed his proper act; for having named King of Salem, he says immediately brought forth bread and wine, noting therein his Regal 〈◊〉. Then mentioning his Priesthood he says, and he was the Priest of the most High God; and immediately showing wherein he declares his Priestly office says, and be blessed him; in the former is expressed his Kingly, in the latter his Priestly function.  
Fiftly they say, the Priesthood of Christ cannot be eternal except there remain a sacrifice, and there remains no sacrifice but of bread and wine, because the sacrifice upon the cross was finished at Christ's death.  
Unto this we answer by denying the falsehood of this argument in diverse points.  
First, we say the Priesthood of Christ may remain eternal, though the Sacrifice remain not eternally in sacrificing; for (as I have showed formerly) the eternity of Christ's sacrifice is not to be judged by the eternity of the act of sacrificing, but by the virtue and efficacy of the Priest and Sacrifice, which are so 
Heb. 10. 14.  meritorious as to procure eternal salvation unto all believers for whom it was offered; and in this sense the Priesthood of Christ is said to be eternal.  
Again, we affirm that the Sacrifice of Christ shall remain for ever; not in offering, but as having 
Heb 7. 24.  been offered; so the humane nature of Christ which was our Sacrifice shall for ever remain hypostatically united to the Deity.  
Again, it is not necessary that Christ should have an external Priesthood here on earth that should offer bread and wine, and be after the order of Melchizedech; for in the time of the law there was an external Priesthood after the order of Melchizedech, yet even then was Christ a Priest after the order 
〈◊〉. Synops, papis.  of Melchizedech; and as he had a sacrifice in fore, so now hath he in fuisse.  
But we demand here, if the proper act of Melchisedechs' sacrifice consist in bread and wine, why doth not Paul mention it: for in the historical relation of Melchizedechs' meeting of Abraham. Heb. 7. 1. he mentions 
Pareu, in 7. cap. ad Hebr.  those things wherein he was a type of Christ, but never so much as names the bringing forth of bread and wine, as nothing appertaining to his Priesthood.  
And if the Church should continue a sacrifice after Melchizedechs' order, and have no direction from Christ or his Apostles, it may soon err in the main point of Christian religion. Ho sius and after him Bellarmine saith, That this mystery was too great for the Hebrews to conceive; but by their leave, the Apostle tells them of things as strange in a manner; of a man without Father, without Mother, without beginning or end of days. And if there had been any difficulty, of whom might they have been more clearly and plainly instructed then of the Apostles? and why were not the Hebrews as capable of this doctrine as any nation among the Gentiles?  
And doubtless had the substance of the Eucharist consisted in the offering up of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, both our Saviour and his Apostles would have spoken clearly of it, for as Saint Augustine to this purpose. Let no man allege unto me the 
cont. litter. Petil. c. 16 d. 9  things that are spoken darkly or figuratively, faith must be builded upon that which is clear, and not subject unto diverse interpretations.  
I will conclude this answer with showing two things.  
First, wherein Melchizedech was a type of Christ; and in what respect Christ is said to be a Priest after 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ not kata pantoes, but kata 〈◊〉.  the order of Melchizedech.  
Secondly, the absurdities which will ensue upon their doctrine.  
1. He was a type of Christ in his name Melchizedech, which signifies king of righteousness; so was 
Isay 9 6.  Christ.  
2. In that he was king of Salem, that is, King of peace, so is Christ the Prince of peace.  
3. In regard of his double office exercising publicly the sacred functions both of King and Priest; so did Christ.  
4. In that he is said to be apator, and ametor, without father, without mother; so Christ was without father as man, without mother as God.  
5. In the eternity and continuance of his office, for there is no mention made of his death, that therein he might be a type of the eternity of Christ's priesthood.  
6. In the excellency of his person, being greater than the Patriarch Abraham; which appears in blessing him. So is Christ above all men in regard of his humane nature, it being perfectly sanctified by the Godhead, and made the head of the Church. So that the bringing forth of bread and wine was no type of the Priesthood of Christ, albeit I deny not but it was a type of his Regal bounty and munificence, typifying the spiritual refection which Christ our King affords to all that war against the enemies of their salvation.  
Secondly, observe here the absurdities that will follow hereupon.  
They say the order of Melchizedechs' sacrifice consists 
Vbique offertur sub sacerdote Christo, quod protulit Melchizedech quando benedixit Abraham. Aug. de civet. 〈◊〉. li. 17. cap. 17.  properly in sacrificing bread and wine; & their Priests offer after the order of Melchizedech: hereupon it will follow that either Melchizedech offered up the body of Christ under the forms of bread and wine, as they do; which no man ever affirmed; or they offer only bread and wine as he did, and that they will never confess; or else the sacrifice of Melchisedech, and of the Romanists being different, they must needs be of different orders; and thus they wound themselves with their own weapons; for if they will ground their sacrifice upon Melchizedechs' offering bread and wine, they must needs then confess that in the Mass is offered nothing but bread and wine; and indeed the Fathers typically applying Melchizedechs' bringing forth bread and wine to refresh Abraham and his soldiers returning from the slaughter of the kings, unto the Sacrament of the Eucharist, make an apt and fit comparison; for so Christ by the bread and wine in the Sacrament (being eaten with faith in the thing represented) nourisheth all believers, refreshing them in the skirmish against their spiritual enemies.  
But Bellarmine thinks to shake us off, and to make us loosen our hold by telling us, That the sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacrifice of Melchizedech agree in the outward symbols and forms, though not in the substance, and that is sufficient; for the representation is in the accidents not in the substance, and that was but the type or Symbol, and therefore the substance may be diverse.  
What hath Bellarmine advantaged himself by this excuse? hereupon it will follow, that they who consecreate bread and wine only do more properly imitate Melchisedechs' sacrifice, than the Masspriests who say they consecreate flesh and blood under the forms of bread and wine. In the one there is the form and substance of Melchizedechs' sacrifice; in the other the accidents alone.  
Again, if Melchisedechs' sacrifice doth represent the sacrifice of the Mass, it must represent it as a sacrifice; but the Mass is no sacrifice but in respect of the inward substance, for the outward forms are not the sacrifice, but the body of Christ under those forms: ergo Melchizedeches sacrifice must represent the Mass in the substance which is the body of Christ.  
Thirdly, types and shadows differ from the body in outward symbols only, but agree in substance, as St. Paul shows, Christ to be the same spiritual 
1. Cor. 10. 4.  meat and drink to the Israelites and us, but to be sundryly represented by diverse Sacraments or representations; wherefore the sacrifice of Melchizedech and that of the Mass, (if it were a true resemblance of Christ's sacrifice) should differ in external form, but agree in substance.  
Again, if Melchizedechs' Priesthood be eternal by the offering of the body of Christ by the Priests of Rome, than it would follow, that either these Priests shall say Mass and offer this sacrifice after the consummation of this world, and the day of judgement; or else Christ shall make choice of some others, who may offer this sacrifice in Heaven, or else this sacrifice must cease, and so not be eternal; any of which no man of a sound mind or firm judgement will admit.  
Lastly, if Melchizedechs' Sacrifice of bread and wine, were a type of the Mass, then should it be (as the Church of Rome holds the Mass to be) a true propitiatory 〈◊〉 for the sins of the quick and the dead, otherwise why should they so much labour to reduce their sacrifice to the sacrifice of Melchizedech, and so to make it more excellent than the Leviticall sacrifices, the excellency whereof cannot consist in the resemblance of the forms of Melchizedechs' offering, but also in the virtue and efficacy. But no man ever said that Melchizedech offered a true Propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead.  
Thus much shall serve for answer unto their first Argument.  
The second Argument is taken from the Paschall 
Argum. 2. 〈◊〉. cap. 7. Douai 〈◊〉. page 190.  Lamb; and it stands thus. The Paschall Lamb was a figure of the Eucharist; but the Paschall Lamb was first sacrificed, ergo in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is a sacrifice.  
We answer, what if we should grant them the whole argument, they cannot glory much in their purchase, for what would be concluded, but what is already granted, namely, that in the Eucharist, there is a sacrifice, to wit, Eucharistical, or at most 〈◊〉 by way of representation or recordation. But let us grapple with our adversaries a little more closely.  
First we do confess the Paschall Lamb and the Eucharist to have some analogy and similitude; as that they both represent Christ crucified; as also they were both to be eaten; the one with sour herbs, the other with sorrow and repentance; thirdly in the end, for remembrance of deliverance, the one corporal, the other spiritual. But again, there were many dissimilitudes, the Passeover was eaten with blood, the Eucharist without material blood. The Passeover was eaten at Even, the Eucharist is administered in the Morning; of the Passeover nothing was left, but of the Eucharist, is left and reserved by the Papists; the Passeover was eaten in their houses, the Eucharist in the Church; seeing then they agree not in all things; why may they not disagree in the matter of a sacrifice.  
But to speak precisely, we cannot grant the Paschall Lamb to be a Type of the Eucharist, albeit this succeeded in the room of the other; but properly and 
〈◊〉. adversmissae sacrif. c. 4. john 19 372  directly to be a Type of Christ; according to the Evangelist, That the Scripture should be fulfilled, not a bone of him should be broken; and if the Typical Passeover was fulfilled in Christ, we are not to seek any other Antitype, wherein it should be accomplished. Furthermore it was not a Type of Christ in all things; for then as Zanchius observes 
Zanch. de cult. Dei extern.  Christ should have been flayed, and had his skin pulled off, scorched in the fire, and his bones burnt, after the Jews had eaten his natural flesh, as they did with the Paschall Lamb; but as the Lamb was sacrificed, and eaten in remembrance of their deliverance out of Egypt, so Christ was sacrificed on the Cross, and eaten in the Sacrament for a remembrance of our eternal redemption by his meritorious Sacrifice.  
Unto the assumption we answer: It is not probable that the Paschall Lamb was sacrificed; because sacrifices were brought unto the Priest, and offered by none but a Priest on the Altar; but the passover was slain by the householder and all his family (as 
Lib. 1. 〈 ◊〉 〈◊〉.  Philo judeus affirms) without any Altar; now if our adversaries will have such an exact correspondency, why then should it not be as lawful for a lay person to consecrate the host, as for a master of every family to slay, dress, and eat the Paschall Lamb; or for a multitude to consecrate and not one Priest alone.  
Again, it was not lawful for an unclean person to offer sacrifice till he had separated himself for some certain season, according to the prescribed time of the ceremonial Law; but no man's uncleanness ought to exclude him from he 〈◊〉. Numbers 9 10. Ergo the Paschall Lamb was no sacrifice.  
Again, the jews after the edifying of the Temple sacrificed not out of jerusalem; yet were they accustomed in all their remove from place to place, to eat the Paschall Lamb in the month appointed; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Miss. sacrif. c. 4. Exodus 8. 26. Exodus 12.  And Moses, when Pharaoh permitted him to sacrifice in Egypt, refusing said, It was not-meete, yet refused he not to celebrate the Passeover there; whereby it appeareth to be no sacrifice.  
But Bellarmine to prove the Passeover allegeth 
Mark 14. 12.  Mark 14. 12. When they sacrifice the Passeover. But we must observe that it is called a sacrifice Katati, after a sort, because it was slain as the other sacrifices; and because it was a spiritual sacrifice: for the word Zebach which signifies a sacrifice killed, is often used about the ceremony of the Paschall Lamb, because it was killed as other sacrifices; and is used also sometimes largely for a spiritual sacrifice, as 
Psalm 〈◊〉. 17.  The Sacrifices of God are a broken spirit.  
But let it be granted that the Paschall Lamb was a Sacrifice, yet no otherwise then Eucharistical for the remembrance of the great and admirable deliverance of the jews out of Egypt. Yea, if we grant it to be propitiatory it helps them not, but rather disaduantageth them in their practice; for if they will have the Paschall Lamb to be a figure of the Mass, how comes it to pass that the former was offered with blood, this without, the one by the whole family, the other only by the Priest; of the former nothing was to be reserved, but they reserve the host to be kept in the pyx; the former was not to be carried forth of the house; but the host is carried about in the streets to be worshipped and adored.  
Neither do the father's compare the Paschall Lamb to the Eucharist or Lords Supper but only in these three respects; first, that as the jews did eat the one, so do Christians the other. Secondly as the Paschall Lamb did represent Christum moriturum, Christ which was to die; so the Lords Supper doth represent Christum mortuum, Christ which hath died. Thirdly, as the one was in commemoration of the bodily deliverance of Israel out of Egypt; so is the other in commemoration of our spiritual redemption out of the jaws of Satan.  
Touching the first, namely, the eating of the Paschall Lamb, and the feeding on Christ in the Sacrament; Chrysostome speaks, Hoc mysterium tradidit, etc. 
Chrys. hom. 83. in Math.  He delivereth this mystery, when the Law was to cease, and he dissolveth their principal solemnity, to wit, of the Paschall Lamb; and calls them to a terrible Table, saying, Take eat, this is my body. Where note that he calls it a Table to be trembled at, not because of the real presence of Christ there, as the Papists expound it, but because of worthy or unworthy communicating. 
〈◊〉 cap. 25. Math lib. 4.  So Jerome, Our Passeover is sacrificed, provided that we eat it with 〈◊〉 bread of sincerity and truth: Basil saith, Let us celebrate the Passeover not in 
In cap. 1. Es 1.  the leaven of malice & wickedness, but in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, seeing Christ who is the true Lamb is offered in the evening, that is in the end of the world, whose flesh is meat indeed.  
Secondly, they compare it to the Eucharist in representing Christ. Tertullian, Our Lord having declared that he desired to eat his Passeover (for it was indignity 
Cont. Martion lib. 4.  for the Lord to desire any thing but his own) gave and distributed it to his Disciples, and made it his body, saying, this is my body, that is a figure of my body. Thomas their own Angelical Doctor saith, Seeing Christ our Passeover is offered let us feast, feeding 
Thom. in 1. Cor. cap. 5.  on Christ not only Sacramentally, according to that of St. john, If you eat the flesh of the son of man, etc. but also spiritually by enjoying his wisdom.  
Lastly, they are compared, in respect of commemoration. 
Lyra. Exod. c. 12.  So Lyra. All whatsoever Moses hath written hath relation to Christ, and therefore in the sacrificing of the Lamb there is a double sense; the one is the state of the people coming out of Egypt, & this is the literal and first sense; the other is the foreshowing and shadowing out of Christ, who was to be crucified; and this is the first in intention, though last in accomplishment. By which allegations, it appears plainly, that the ancients seldom or never call the Paschall Lamb a sacrifice, and in what respects they compare it to the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper.  
And thus much for answer unto the second argument.  
The third argument which is alleged by the Romanists, 
Argum. 3.  and whereupon they most depend is grounded on the prophecy of Malachy, chap. 1. 11. For from the rising of the Sunue, to 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; for my name shall be great among the Heathen, saith the Lord of Hosts. Seeing the sacrifice of the Mass is so generally offered among all Gentiles: therefore it must needs be that pure oblation foretold by the Prophet Malachy. And that this Sacrifice may the better appear, Bellarmine allegeth these reasons.  
First, from the signification of the Hebrew word Mincha, which properly betokeneth an external 
Bellar. cap. 10.  Sacrifice made with oil and incense, and therefore cannot be understood of Spiritual and internal sacrifices.  
Secondly, it is called a pure offering, such as cannot be polluted; but prayers may be polluted, only the sacrifice of the Mass cannot be defiled by the illness of the Minister.  
Thirdly, the Prophet speaketh of such an offering as was not in use among the jews, saying, I will not accept any offering at your hands, but spiritual sacrifices 
Verse 10.  were in use among them.  
Fourthly, the Prophet speaketh directly to the Priests, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts unto you, oh ye Priests; and reprooving their sacrifices, bringeth in a 
Verse 6.  new kind of offering, which a new Priesthood should offer to God, which cannot be meant of spiritual sacrifices.  
To these we answer: That the intent of the Lord by the Prophet is to oppose the Gentiles against the 
Answer.  jews, and show the difference between the Leviticall sacrifices which they defiled, and the spiritual sacrifices which should be offered not by one nation only, but by every people under the new Testament. Wherefore the Prophet doth comprehend the whole 
〈◊〉. de 〈◊〉 Dei externo.  service of the Christian Church under these three heads.  
1. The knowledge of God by the preaching of the Gospel.  
2. Invocation or calling upon the name of the Lord by prayer.  
3. Liberality towards the poor in works of charity.  
The first is showed in these words, From the rising of the Sun to the setting of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles.  
The second in these words, and in every place incense shall be offered to my name.  
The third is signified by the word Mincha, or a pure oblation; for as Zanchius observes by the names 
Ibid.  of bread and wine all beneficence and liberality is signified in the Scripture. So jacob calls the Present, he 
Gen. 33. 11. 1. Sam 25.27.  sent his brother Esau Mincha; and Abigail the present she brought to David by the same name. But I tie not myself precisely to this exposition of Zanchius understanding by Mincha, Beneficence, or Liberality.  
Therefore I answer to Bellarmin that if he will have Mincha understood properly and not 〈◊〉, than it would follow that the Prophet did speak in that place of the jewish ceremonies which should beused among Christians, but with more purity then among the jews: but the Papists confess that he speaketh not of jewish sacrifices, but of the sacrifices of Christians.  
Again, if he will have Mincha to be understood Metaphorically, than the Mass is but figuratively a sacrifice, and not properly; at most it will be but flower or bread without any Transubstantiation, as Mincha was. And whereas Bellarmine inferreth that because Mincha signifieth properly an offering of flower or bread with oil and incense: therefore it cannot be understood of the spiritual sacrifices of Christians, how unschollerlike (and therefore how unlike himself) doth he argue? Who knows not that many things are spoken figuratively, being applied improperly from their native significations to signify things which indeed they are not, I am a door (saith Christ) I am the vine; if these things be understood literally and not Metaphorically, we shall make but a bad construction. But an example like this of the Prophet Malachy, may be that of the Prophet Esay, where speaking of the Church of Christ among the Gentiles he faith, And they shall bring all your brethren 
Esay 66.20.  for an offering to the Lord out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, upon mules, and upon swift beasts, unto my holy mountain jerusalem saith the Lord; as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. What must all Christians be properly slain and offered as sacrifices to the Lord or figuratively? or must they be brought to the terrestrial, or to the spiritual and celestial jerusalem?  
But Bellarmine urges that the Prophet speaks of a pure offering which cannot be polluted, but spiritual sacrifices may be defiled by the offerer.  
I answer, No holy action, as prayer, preaching, mortification, praises, Almsdeeds, and the like, are sacrifices but only as they are offered in and through jesus Christ, so that in respect as they proceed from us simply, they may be defiled by our inherent corruptions, yet being offered through Christ they are pure and holy; for as our Saviour telleth us, it is the 
〈◊〉. 23.19.  Altar that sanctifieth the gift. So in Christ are all our sacrifices offered, and he is the altar that sanctifieth them; and therefore saith the Apostle, By him (that is by Christ jesus spoken of in the former verse) let us offer the sacrifice of 〈◊〉 to God continually. So the 
Heb 13.15. 〈◊〉 Pet. 〈◊〉. 5.  Apostle Peter calls the faithful, An holy Priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices by jesus Christ. So that our spiritual sacrifices being offered on Christ our Altar cannot be contaminated by our sins.  
Thirdly, whereas Bellarmine would persuade us that the Prophet speaketh of such an oblation as was not in use among the jews; we deny it, for he speaketh not of any new kind of oblation, but makes a difference between the impurity of the jewish sacrifices, and the pure offerings of Christians, the one being offered with disdain, the other with true faith in Christ. And it appears that the Prophet's reproof extendeth itself as well unto the people as to the Priests, verse 14. Cursed be he that 〈◊〉 in his flock a male, and 
〈◊〉  voweth, and sacrificeth to the Lord a corrupt thing. Thus the people were blamed for bringing polluted bread, for offering the blind, the lame, and the sick for oblations to God; and the Priests were blamed for accepting of such impure sacrifices.  
They allege the judgements of the Fathers, as 
Iren. l. 4. c. 3 2. justin. dial. cum Tryphone 〈◊〉. 125. 〈◊〉. cont. 〈◊〉 & proph. li. 1. c. 〈◊〉.  of Ireneus, justine Martyr, and Augustine, who have applied this place unto the bread and the cup in the Eucharist or Lords Supper.  
We deny not that it may be applied unto the Sacrament of the Supper, but therefore it follows not, that thereby is given sufficient ground for the instituon of a Sacrament; and yet admit this were a sufficient foundation whereon to build the institution of the Eucharist, yet not therefore of the sacrifice of the Mass, seeing (as I shall hereafter show) there is irreconcilable difference between the holy Supper of our Lord Christ, and the blasphemous sacrifice of the Idolatrous Mass; and doubtless these Fathers that applied this place unto the Eucharist, never dreamt of any true real Propitiatory sacrifice which should be offered by the Minister in the administration of the Sacrament, as appears sufficiently by all their writings.  
Moreover (as one well observed) if our adversaries 
Sadeel deuni. Christi sacrif.  will have this place understood literally, then must the Priests of Rome not be after the order of Melchizedech, but after the order of Aaron; for the Prophet speaking of the same sacrifice, chap. 3. vers. 3. says that Christ at his coming shall purify the sons of Levi, they shall be Leviticall, but only purified: but they will not grant themselves to be after the order of Aaron, but they are there called Levites by the way of allusion (say they) assimulating them unto the priests of the Law: but if they admit of a figurative 〈◊〉 in the persons offering, why not as well in the sacrifice offered?  
I will conclude this answer with laying before your eyes the common consent first of the Prophet David, and the Evangelist S. john the Divine, and the Apostle Paul; then of the Fathers of the Church in succeeding ages.  
David understands it of prayer and supplications, Let my prayers come before thee as the incense, and the 
Psal 141. 2.  lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice, where the Prophet useth the same word Mincha, which is used by Malachy; the one place giving most clear light unto the other; for by incense is plainly meant prayer, and by the pure oblation the lifting up of the hands.  
Thus the beloved Disciple of Christ expounds what is meant by this incense: And another Angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer, and there was given to him much incense, that he might offer 
Reu. 8. 3.  it with the prayers of the Saints upon the golden Altar. This Angel is Christ (as is showed formerly) the censer is his humanity, the incense is his righteousness, whereby our spiritual sacrifices of prayer and praises have their acceptance in the eyes of God. This place of Malachy may also seem to be expounded by that of Paul. 
1. Tim. 2. 8.  I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up pure hands without wrath and doubting.  
Thus have we the consent of Scripture; let us see also the agreement of Fathers. Tertullian citing this 
Tertul. con. 〈◊〉, peg 124.  place expounds it of spiritual sacrifices, which being pure, he opposeth to the impure sacrifices of the jews; and in his book against Martion, he expounds it of glorifying, and praising God, and of prayer proceeding 
Contra Marc. l. 3. pag. 212. & l. 4. pag. 223. 〈◊〉. in 1. Mal.  from a pure conscience. Hierome on this 1. of Malachy hath these words; Dicit, orationes sanctorum Domino offerendas esse non in una orbis provincia judea, said in omni loco: The Prophet here saith that the prayers of the Saints shall be offered, not in that one Province of judea, but in every place. Chrysostom 
Chrys. tom. 2. in Mat. hom. 17. colum. 1183. 〈◊〉 tom. 5. in orat. 2. 〈◊〉. judeos. col. 1107 Euseb. li. 1. de demonst. Euang. cap. 6.  understands it of the spiritual worship of God. Eusebius understands it of prayer, lib. 1. de demonstratione Euangelica, c. 6. Malachias nihil aliud significat, etc. The Prophet Malachy signifies nothing hereby, but that neither definitively at jerusalem nor any other place, but in every region, the Gentiles shall offer the incense and sacrifice of prayer (to di, euchôn thumiama) unto God which is called a clean sacrifice, not by blood, 
Tertul. advers. judeos.  but by godly actions. Tertullian also expounds it of the preaching of the Gospel among all nations. And so 
Hier. in Esa. ca 52.  Hieronim. upon Esay saith, The sound of the Apostles is gone throughout all the ends of the world, every where there is sacrifice offered to God: And herein is accomplished the word of the Prophet, namely in this, that God is purely preached, and purely called upon in every place. Theodoret expounds it of the abolishing the jewish 
Theod. in 1. Malipiero  sacrifices, and of the serving of God in spirit and truth, as our Saviour of firmeth in his speech unto the woman of Samaria.  
And whereas they object some Fathers who have understood it of the Eucharist, we have alleged both the same Fathers and others with them expounding it otherwise.  
Again, if those places be well considered, we shall find the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this place to the Lords Supper not for proof of any Propitiatory sacrifice, but only for a sacrifice Eucharistical and of thanksgiving: 
〈◊〉. cont. hear. Valent. l. 〈◊〉. c. 32.  as first. They object Ireneus, l. 4. c. 32. whose words are these, Christus suis discipulis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis, (non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nee infructuosi, nec ingrati sint;) eum qui ex creatura panis est accipit, etc. Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem: quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in universo mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat, primitias suorum munerum in novo Testamento, 
Idem cap. 33.  de quo Malachias praesignificavit. Et paulo post. In omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, & Sacrificium purum; incensum Ioannes in Apocalypsi orationes 
Idem cap. 34. Haec loca Irenei 〈◊〉 torquet 〈◊〉. in assert. sacrif. Missae.  esse ait Sanctorum. Et capite sequenti. Quoniam igitur cum simplicitate Ecclesia offered just munus eius, purum sacrificium apud Deum reputatum est, quemadmodum Paulus Philippensibus ait. Repletus sum acceptis ab Epaphrodito, etc. Oportet enim nos oblationem Deo facere & in omnibus gratos inveniri. Atque ibidem. Offerimus non quasi indigenti sed gratias agentes donationi eius, & Sanctificantes creaturam; quemadmodum enim Deus non indiget eorum quae a nobis sunt; sic nos indigemus 〈◊〉 offer Deo, sicut Salomon ait, qui miseretur pauperis foeneratur Deo. Christ giving counsel unto his Disciples to offer unto God the first fruits of his creatures, not as of any necessity in God, but that they might not be unfruitful or ungrateful, took that which by creation is bread, and gave thanks, saying, This is my body, etc. teaching that in the new Testament, there is a new oblation; which the Church taking from the Apostles offereth throughout the whole world unto God, the first fruits of his gifts in the new Testament, to him that giveth whatsoever food and nourishment we have, which Malachi foretold.  
There is no question but Ireneus here speaks of the Lords Supper: but is there one word which can intimate any Propitiatory sacrifice? No, he calls it an offering in two respects.  
First, that we might not seem ungrateful unto God, but should offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.  
Secondly, that we should not be unfruitful, and therefore should offer unto God our first fruits, according unto the ancient Custom of the Christians, who were wont at the celebration of the Lords Supper to send their offering, whereof part was taken to furnish the table with bread and wine; a second part was distributed to the poor; and a third part went to provide necessaries for the Church: so that here is mention made of an Eucharistical, but not of a Propitiatory sacrifice; of the offering of fruits and things without life, and not of the real offering of our Lord jesus Christ; of a solemn thanksgiving for good things received, and not of any atonement or pacification of God's wrath for sins committed. And what this incense is whereof Malachi speaketh, Ireneus 〈◊〉, saying, Every where incense and pure sacrifices 
c. 33.  are offered to my name; Saint john in the 〈◊〉 hath called the prayers of the Saints, the offering of incense.  
And again, In as much as the Church offereth in 〈◊〉 
c. 34.  and singleness of heart, her offering unto God is by good right reputed a pure and undefiled sacrifice, as Saint Paul saith to the Philippians, I was filled having received of Epaphroditus the things which you sent, an odour of a sweet smell a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God, for it behooveth that we offer up 〈◊〉 sacrifices to God, that 〈◊〉 all things we may be found thankful. And this offering he further makes plain by that which follows, saying, We offer unto him, not because he standeth in 〈◊〉, but that we may be thankful unto him for his gifts, and so by this means sanctifying the creature: for as God hath no need of any thing proceeding from 〈◊〉, so hau we need to offer unto him, according to that which Solomon saith, He that 〈◊〉 the poor, dareth to the Lord.  
Now in all this place which they make so sure a ground for their sacrifice of the Mass, where is one word of sacrificing Christ, or of any Propitiatory host? yea rather doth not Ireneus directly specify a sacrifice of thank 〈◊〉, and of charity, in as much as that which is given to God, is given to the use of our neighbour, and that which is given to the poor is sacrificed to God.  
Secondly, they 〈◊〉 that of justine Martyr, 
〈◊〉 Martyr 〈◊〉. cum Trip.  where he calleth the bread and wine the sacrifices of the Eucharist. His words are these, We are truly made the Priests of God, according to that which he witnesseth himself, because that throughout the whole world there are offered unto him pure and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He adds, Praecepit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eucharistiam in memoriam 〈◊〉, He took bread to make the Eucharist in remembrance of his passion. But to what end? To offer for a propitiatory sacrifice? No, but he declares the reason, Vt gratias agamas Deo tum pro eo quod mundum cum omnibus, hominis gratia condidit: tum ob id 〈◊〉 quod ab omni in qua fuimus malitia nos liberavit, ac principatus potestatesque perfecta occiderit occidione, per eum qui de consilio & voluntate eius factus est patibilis, That we should render than kesunto God, as well for that he that created the world, and 〈◊〉 that is therein, for the use and benefit of man: as also for that he hath delivered us from all the malice whereunto we stood subject, and hath slain with a perfect slaughter the principalities and powers which did oppress us, by him who by his will and counsel was made to suffer.  
Out of which words the most subtle Papist is not able to prove either directly or by consequence that justine alloweth in the Eucharist any Propitiatory sacrifice, but only Eucharistical and of thanksgiving. And therefore Langus is condemned by the 
Index expurg. pag. 75.  Council of Trent to be razed, because he hath not expounded this place after their manner.  
Thirdly, they 〈◊〉 that Augustine expoundeth 
Cont. advers. leg & proph. l. 1. c. 20.  this place of the sacrifice of Melchizedech, and applieth it to the Eucharist. We grant it. But the words following declare that both the sacrifice of Melchizedech (if it may be granted that he sacrificed bread and wine) and the Lords Supper are both but sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, his words be these. Ecclesia immolat Deu in corpore Christi sacrificium laudis, etc. The Church sacrificeth to God in the body of Christ the sacrifice of praise, seeing the God of Gods having 〈◊〉, hath called the earth from the sun rising unto the setting thereof: for this Church is the spiritual Israel, 〈◊〉 from the carnal Israel, which served God in the shadows of sacrifices, in which was signified and 〈◊〉 forth this singular sacrifice, which Israel according to the spirit now offereth. Out of the house of this Israel he hath not taken any calves; for in it are offered, and sacrificed unto God the sacrifice of praise.  
Where we see manifestly that Augustine showing the difference between the sacrifices of the jews, and of the Christians declares the jews to have only the shadows of the sacrifice of Christ, but us to have the true sacrifice, which we celebrate with praise and thanksgiving. And he addeth afterward, saying, In every place incense is offered to my name; And Saint john expoundeth it in the Apocalyps, the prayers of the Saints. 
Ibid.   
Thus have we hunted them out of their chiefest starting hole, even this place of Malachi, clearing it from all pretence of the sacrifice of the Mass both by consent of Scripture and of the Fathers; as also freeing the objected testimonies of the Ancients from their corrupt expositions.  
The fourth argument follows. And it is Bellarmine's, 
Argum. 4.  who argues thus against us for the maintaining of his Sacrifice. If the Fathers had thought that the Eucharist 
Bellar. l. 1. de 〈◊〉. c. 15.  were a Sacrament only and not a sacrifice also (meaning Propitiatory) they could not have spoken otherwise of the Eucharist then of Baptism; but the Fathers never call baptism a sacrifice, or say, that to baptise is to sacrifice. Therefore the word Sacrifice was used by the Fathers in a proper sense.  
Whereby he doth clearly grant that the word Sacrifice attributed by the ancient Fathers unto the Eucharist, may be interpreted Metaphorically, if once it could be showed, that the same Fathers have applied the same word Sacrifice unto the Sacrament of Baptism. Otherwise their jesuit Suarez, would not so 
Suarez 〈◊〉 tom. 3. disp. 74. Sect. 2.  urgently have moved his Reader principally to Observe against Heretics (so he calleth Protestants) that the holy Fathers of 〈◊〉 times did never call the Ministry of baptism by the name of a sacrifice, although Metaphorically it might be so termed, therefore it is a sign that when they term the Eacharist a 〈◊〉, they name it so properly.  
Seeing then the parallel of Baptism may give our adversaries their demanded satisfaction, we desire 
August. tom. 4. expos. ad Rom. pag. 1185.. usq ad 1187.  them first to consult with St. Augustine, who expounding that place to the Hebrews, chap. 10. Unto them that sin voluntarily, after they have obtained the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, saith, Illud ad Hebreos diligentius qui pertractant, sic intelligunt, ut non de sacrificio contribulati per paenitentiam cordis accipiendum sit quod dictum est (non adhuc pro peccatis relinquitur Sacrificium:) sed de Sacrificio de quo tunc loquebatur Apostolus, id est, Holocausto dominicae passionis; quod eo tempore offert quisque pro peccatis suis, quo eiusdem passionis fide dedicatur, et Christianorum fidelium nomine baptizatus imbuitur, ut hoc significaret Apostolus, nempè, non posse deinceps eum qui peccaver it, iterum baptizando purgari., etc. That it is not to be understood of a sacrifice of a troubled spirit by repentance, but of that sacrifice whereof the Apostle spoke, that is, that the Holocaust or burnt offering of the Lords Passion, which every one offers at that time for his sins, when he is dedicated by faith in the same passion, and being baptised is endued with the name of a faithful Christian, that the Apostle might signify thus much; That he that sinned, could not afterward by baptism be purged. And let 
Sal. les. in Heb. 10. disp. 19  them look upon their jesuit Salmaron, who doth not utterly reject that interpretation.  
And to the end they may rest sufficiently satisfied, they may be contented to consult with their learned Reader of Spain, who renders the reason why most of the fathers did call Baptism a sacrifice; which they did (saith he) Metaphorically, that is, figuratively his 
〈◊〉 Canus loc. Theol. l. 12. § Quid igitur fol 424.  words are these: Sed quaeris quid causae plerisque antiquorum fuerit, ut Baptismum hostiam appellaverint, ideoque 〈◊〉 non superesse hostiam 〈◊〉, quiae Baptismus repeti non potest; Sanè quia Baptismo commorimur & per hoc Sacramentum applicatur nobis hostia crucis ad plenam peccati remissionem: Hinc illi per Eaptisu un 〈◊〉 hostiam nuncupârunt, & post baptisma semel acceptum nullam hostiam esse reliquam 〈◊〉 sunt, quia baptismus secundus non est. Neither may we thinke that the calling Baptism a Sacrifice is a solecism in Divinity, seeing the Apostle speaking of rebaptising, calls it a recrusifying of Christ; as Salmaron observes rightly out of Pope Clemens; and their jesuit Ribera consirmes it out of Chrysostome, Theophilact, Oecumenius, and Damascene. And how could our adversary's doubt that the fathers 
Riber jesu. come. in Heb. 6.  would call Baptism a sacrifice, who have so usually called it the Passion slaying and crucifying of 
Chrys. 〈◊〉 Heb. hom 16. 〈◊〉. de bapt.  Christ. Baptisma estpassio Christi, says Chrysostome, Baptism is the passion of Christ. Tingimur in passione Christi, saith Tertullian, We are dipped in the passion of Christ. But how is it called a sacrifice or the Passion of Christ, properly or figuratively? Let 
〈◊〉.  their own I esuite answer for us in this point. It is named a crucifying of Christ (saith he) because it is a similitude of Christ's Passion.  
Wherefore by this Analogy between these two Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, we may conclude out of the testimony of St. Augustine, recorded 
Aug. 〈◊〉 simpli. refereate 〈◊〉. par. 3. q. 83. art. 1  by their ancient Schoolman Aquinas, That names of things are given to the signs of the same things which are represented; as for example, the paintea image of Cicero we use to call Cicero; and so the celebration of this Sacrament, (namely of the Lords Supper) which is a representation of the Passion of Christ the true sacrificing, is called an immolation. Where we see their own Doctor agreeing with Augustine, and we consent with them both in this that the Eucharist may be called a sacrifice, as a Picture may be called by the name of the thing which it representeth.  
A 〈◊〉 Argument which they allege follows, 
Argum. 5. Esay 61. 6. and 66. 21. & 56. 7.  and it is grounded on the words of Esay, But ye shall be named the Priests of God. Again, And I will also take of them for Priests, and for Levites saith the Lord. And, Them will I bring unto my Holy mountain and make them joyful in the house of Prayer, their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shallbe accepted upon mine Altar. This (say they) must be understood of the Christian Church, wherein the Prophet Esaias foretelleth, that there shallbe external Priests, Altars, and Sacrifices, whereby must needs be understood the sacrifice of the Mass.  
We answer, first by denial of the consequence; for, because the Prophet saith, there shall be in the Church of Christ, Priests, Altars, Sacrifices, therefore it must be an external Priesthood, material Altars, proper sacrifices; this is a plain Non sequitur. For who sees not that the Prophet expressing the Worship of God under the Gospel alludes unto the ceremonies of the Law; and by an external Legal Priesthood, and sacrifice, figuratively intimates that which is Spiritual and evangelical.  
Now from things that are spoken Metaphorically and allusively, to infer a proper and direct conclusion is no good form of arguing: For it is the opinion of their greatest Schoolman, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Thom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 5. 1. 1.  non esse argumentativam. That Symbolical, Metaphorical, or Allegorical testimonies prove nothing. And if we will not understand these and the like speeches figuratively, but literally, then must all Christian Churches be razed down, and we must be constrained to build jerusalem again, to re-edify the Temple, to erect a new Altar, to seek Priests out of the Lineage of Levi, according unto the words of the Prophets, and so there should not in every place be offered a pure oblation, (according to that of Malachi) but only at jerusalem; nor of any of the Gentiles, but only of the jews. Wherefore when Esaias saith, Ye shall be called the Priests of God, He means not the Masspriests of Rome; but he speaks of the godly whom Peter calls a Royal 
1 Peter 2. 9  Priesthood.  
And it is to be observed that all those who are not Priests in this sense, the Prophet calls them strangers, and accounts them as the sons of Foreigners: For all that are not holy to the Lord, being called to the sacred Priesthood of the new covenant, are deemed but as men without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth 
Eph. 2. 12.  of Israel, Strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and being without God in the world; but this our adversaries note not.  
Again, the Prophet doth not establish the jewish rites and ceremonies, but by them shadows 
Esay 19 19  forth the Christian worship. So Esay prophesied that there should be an Altar in the midst of Egypt, and a public profession of true Religion, but it cannot be spoken of the Romish Altars, or Massing-Sacrifice. So prophesying of the spiritual worship of the Church of Christ, he says, All the flocks of Cedar shallbe gathered together unto thee, the Rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee, they shall come up with acceptance upon mine Altar, and I will glorify the 
Esay 60. 7.  house of my glory. Who is so ignorant as once to judge, that these things are properly spoken, and literally to be understood? or once to think that that there should be any bloody sacrifices of beasts and cattle in the Church of Christ? St. john in his Apocalyps mentions in Heaven, an Altar, Incense, Censers, Temple, Ark of the Covenant.  
What sound Christian abhors not from so gross an interpretation, as to think these things to be material, and so to be literally understood? and not rather that the Prophet, Apostle, and Evangelist speak allusively, both in the names and things, comparing, the spiritual worship of the Church Militant, and the glorious state of the Church Triumphant unto the ceremonial worship of the Leviticall Priesthood. And that the former places are thus to be interpreted the consent of the Fathers will manifestly declare.  
Cyprian says, All Christians do offer unto God a 
.  daily sacrifice, being ordained Priests of holiness; where note he excludes no Christian from the office of this spiritual Priesthood, nor from offering a daily sacrifice; and what the Romanists will have only to be understood of the Clergy, he will have also 
Orig. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9  applied to the Laity. With him assents Origen saying, All such as are anointed with the holy unction, that is, with the Spirit of Christ, are made Priests. All the rest of the Ancients agreeing hereunto in the exposition of the former places; so that from them the Papists can collect no pretence for either sacrifice or Priesthood.  
In the next place they assault us with those proofs 
Argum. 6.  of Daniel chapt. 8. 11. and chapt. 11. 31. and chap. 12. 11. where the Prophet (say they) foretelleth that Antichrist shall cause the daily sacrifice to cease which (say they) is the sacrifice of the Mass.  
Hereunto we answer by showing two errors in this Argument.  
First, in that they apply the places to the times of Antichrist.  
Secondly, that they by a false consequence will have this judge sacrificium, daily sacrifice, to be the sacrifice of the Mass.  
For the first, he who should cause the daily sacrifice to cease is not Antichrist, but was understood of Antiochus Epiphanes, he was that little horn foretold chap. 8. 9 who came of the stock of Seleucus 
.  Nicanor, who was one of those to whom the fourth part of Alexander's mighty Monarchy was divided. For the Goat spoken of in this Chapter, is the Grecian Monarchy; that one horn was Great Alexander, which horn, being broken by death, there arose four horns: the Monarchy was divided into four parts, whereof Seleucus Nicanor had one, (of whose stock came forth this little horn, Antiochus Epiphanes) he reigned in Syria; Ptolemeus another, who was created King of Egypt. Antigonus had the Kingdoms of Asia; and Cassander commanded Greece, and Macedony.  
And that Antiochus Epiphanes was of the stock of Seuleucus Nicanor, appears by his pedigree, for he was the son of Antiochus the Great, who was the son of Seleucus Callinicus, who was the son of Antiochus Theos, who was the son of Antiochus Soter, who was the son of Seleucus Nicanor; and he is called a Little-horne, because he was the youngest of his brethren, and so most unlikely to attain the Kingdom, but being left a pledge unto the Romans at Rome he escaped thence, and returned into Syria, where (his brother Seleucus surnamed Philopator being unfit for the government) he obtained the Kingdom.  
In his second expedition against jerusalem, having taken the City, he caused the books of the Scriptures to be burnt, the daily sacrifice to cease for the space of two thousand and three hundred days, which make six years, three months and a half, and caused an Idol of the Gentiles to be set up in the Temple, and worshipped of the jews, which was the abomination of desolation prophesied by Daniel; which Idol stood in the Temple a thousand two hundred and ninety days; which make three years six months, and odd days; so that he began his reign in the 137. year of the Grecian Monarchy (the beginning whereof was reckoned from the 
〈◊〉 10. 〈◊〉. Chron. 〈◊〉. 4. ver. 5.  death of Alexander the Great) and in the 143 year he entered into the Sanctuary and profaned it, and in the 145 year on the fifteenth day of the month Casleu which is our November he caused the Idol of abomination to be set up in the Temple of the Lord; and in the 148 year in the month of Zanthicus which is our April, the King gave liberty for the purging of the Temple, and on the 25 of the month Casleu was it cleansed and sanctified again. This was in the 348 year after the Babylonian captivity, and 152 years before the nativity of Christ. And this is sufficient to clear this place of Scripture from the misinterpretation of our adversaries, who against all reason would have it applied to the times of Antichrist.  
josephus thus expounds it, affirming that whatsoever touching this matter was foretold, the jewish nation 
joseph. de antiq. 〈◊〉. 10. cap. 14.  suffered by Antiochus Epiphanes.  
Thus also doth Chrysostome expound it, saying, The custom of the jews was to offer a sacrifice evening & morning, and every day, and they called this sacrifice, (entelechismon) a continual action; now Antiochus at his coming took away the same. And with him doth join Nicolas Lyra, referring both the eight and 
〈◊〉 in 8. & 11. Dan.  eleventh of Daniel, unto the days of Antiochus. Many of the ancients expound this place of the rooting out of the jewish Priesthood, fulfilled in the utter Catastraphe and ruin of jerusalem by Titus Vespasianus;, where unto Christ jesus the true expounder of the Law and the Prophets, hath referred this place, saying, When you shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the Prophet set in the holy place, etc. And thus doth Origen expound it 
Matthew 24. 15. Orig. in Matth. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉.  saying. Daniel doth signify and note out unto us, the seventy years after the coming of our Lord; for this week doth confirm and ratify the testament, etc. And in the midst thereof the sacrifice of the 〈◊〉 was taken away even in the 35 year, and so was accomplished that which had been written: In the midst of the week, etc. Then also was the abomination of desolation, etc. When they saw jerusalem be siedged.  
I do not deny but that Antiochus was a type of Antichrist, for as the former set up an Idol in the Temple, so this latter sets up images in the Church; the one burned the Scriptures, the other conceals them from the lay people; the first hindered the daily sacrifice, and this latter hath converted the great sacrifice of Christ into an abomination, in that the Priest must offer a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead, greater abomination than this was not in the days of Antiochus.  
Secondly, let us grant that this prophecy is to be fulfilled in the days of Antichrist; yet how shall it be proved that this juge sacrificium, daily sacrifice, is the sacrifice of the Mass? Let this be first proved, and we shall soon yield the cause. In the original there is no mention made of a sacrifice, but the word judge, daily, without any substantive; must there needs be understood sacrifice? why then doth Jerome call it jugem cultum, the daily Worship of 
〈◊〉. in 〈◊〉  God; and Theodoret Ecclesiasticum cnltum, the Ecclsiasticall worship or service of God? yet both of these restrain this prophecy to the time of Antichrist. So Tremellius translates it. Why may it not be 〈◊〉 of the preaching of the Gospel, which shall be much hindered by Antichrist, seeing that is Metaphorically a sacrificing work; Origen calls it 
Tremel. in loca. Danielis. Ori. in 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. Chrys. in 〈◊〉. hom. 29.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sacrificing work; and Ch ysostom; Sacerdotium meum est praedicare Euangelium, My priesthood is to preach the Gospel. But let us grant it is to be understood of the Eucharist, and that this is called a sacrifice; but how any other then Eucharistical, or of thanksgiving? but let it be granted to be understood of the Lords Supper, and it is called a Propitiatory sacrifice: how any otherwise then by representation? how any otherwise then of commemoration? Thus the ground whereon they build, shrinks from them, as refusing to become a foundation for such a tottering fabric.  
But against this interpretation of our Antagonists, let us oppose Socratically, and by the way of interrogation, desiring them to answer to these demands.  
First, why doth not the Apostle Saint Paul. 2. The. 2. and Saint john the Apostle and Evangelist. 1. joh. 4. 3. Reuel. 17. and 18. in their description of Antichrist, make mention of this place of Daniel, or of taking away for a time this judge sacrificium, daily sacrifice; or hindering the sacrifice of the Mass? Doubtless, had Daniel spoken of Antichrists taking away the sacrifice of the Mass, the Apostles would not have either forgotten, or wilfully pretermitted so great a matter. But by their forgetfulness, we may conceive the Mass not to be worth remembering; or by their voluntary omission, we may judge it indigne and unworthy to be spoken of.  
Secondly, I demand how Christ is ever with his Church unto the end of the world? Turrian answers for all the rest, Christ is with us in the mystery of the 
Turrian cap. 2. tract. de Missa. Vega de Missa. this. 45.  Mass; but then I require again, whether Antichrist shall take away the Mass for a thousand two hundred and ninety days? Turrian and with him Vega answer, saying, Gabriel that cannot lie, saith that Antichr ist shall abolish and put down the continual sacrifice; and what other thing is that but the Mass, say they. See now how our subtle adversaries have entangled themselves; for how can Christ be ever with his Church in the sacrifice of the Mass, when the sacrifice itself of the Mass (by their own confession) shall be abolished by Antichrist for the space of three years and six months?  
Thirdly, I demand whether that judge sacrificium, daily sacrifice be meant properly or Metaphorically? if properly, than the sacrifice of the Mass is judaical; then ought it to be offered only in one place, and that every day, morning and evening, which our Romish Priests observe not. If Metaphorically, why then do they urge the verity and reality of a Hilasticke or Propitiatory sacrifice? or why do we not agree and consent that it is Propitiatory by resemblance?  
Lastly, if Antichrist shall abolish the sacrifice of the Mass for the space of three years and six months, than I demand, how shall there remain in the Church of Rome a continual and constant succession never to be interrupted? Seeing by their own concessions, he shall make interruption both of sacrifice and Priesthood.  
Herein are our adversary's contrary to themselves, as they are always contrary to the truth.  
divers other arguments are alleged by them, but these are the principal; and seeing their strongest testimonies are so infirm and weak, I think it will be supervacaneous and unnecessary to trouble myself in giving answer to those which are more frivolous, having the less pretence and show of reason.  
Wherefore thus much shall serve for the third part of this confutation, namely the answering of their objections.  

Argument. 1.  
The fourth and last part now follows, wherein we shall lay down arguments sufficiently proving our own opinion, that in the Mass there is not a true real Propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead, and therefore not lawful to be used in the Church of God. And this is proved.  
First, that sacrifice which is almighty, all-sufficient, and absolutely perfect, in respect of the desired end cannot be reiterated by men; But the sacrifice of the the immaculate Lamb jesus Christ upon the cross was almighty, all-sufficient, and absolutely perfect in respect of the desired end which is the salvation of the faithful. Ergo. The all-sufficient and perfect sacrifice of Christ cannot be reiterated in the Mass.  
The Mayor is confirmed by the words of the Apostle, The law which had a shadow of good things to come, 
Heb. 10. 1. 2.  and not the very image of the things, can never, with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect; for then, should they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged, should have had no more conscience of sins. What doth the Apostle conclude here? He opposeth the Gospel to the law; our Sovereign Priest Christ jesus, against the Priests of Aaron; his sacrifice which had no need to be renewed, against their sacrifices repeated every day; the holiness and effectual sanctifying power which was in his sacrifice, against their weakness and disability to sanctify. 
Verse 9  Hereupon he concludeth, He taketh away the former to establish the latter, the sacrifices of the law, to establish his own sacrifice.  
Now how could this conclusion be good, if this sacrifice should be reiterated? seeing the often repetition argues weakness and impotency: therefore the Apostle so often uses these words once offered, to note the all-sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice in the single and unrepeated act of offering; he having annihilated, and disannulled all other sacrifices whatsoever.  
Wherefore the blood of Christ shed personally by himself, being of sufficient virtue and merit to purify, cleanse, and redeem all believers, it must necessarily follow, that there needs no reiteration, but we may content ourselves with that only sacrifice offered upon the cross.  
The Minor is so plain and Orthodox that he deserves not the name of a Christian that shall deny it.   

Argument. 2.  
Secondly, he that offereth a true Propitiatory sacrifice for sin must be of more value than the sacrifice itself; but the Priest is not of more value than the body of Christ. Ergo, the Priest in the Mass cannot offer the body of Christ.  
The Mayor is true for the gift is not accepted for itself, but for the worthiness of him that offers it, as Ireneus affirms; wherefore albeit cain's sacrifice was not of less worth in itself then abels, yet the person of Cain being unworthy, because of the wickedness of his heart, his offering was rejected, but Abel being more worthy than his oblation in regard of his faith, the Lord had respect unto him and to his offering; so Christ as Priest was God and man, and therefore of more merit and efficacy than his humane nature which was the only sacrifice; for without the merit of the Godhead by which the humanity was offered, the sacrifice of Christ could not have been of infinite value and desert.  
Wherefore he that presumes to offer the body of Christ truly and really unto God the Father for a Propitiatory sacrifice for sin; blasphemously says in effect, that he is of more value, worth and merit then the sacrifice he offers.   

Argument. 3.  
Thirdly, 〈◊〉 lawful sacrifice is grounded upon express words of Scripture, whereby it may appear that God hath instituted such a sacrifice: but there is no command in scripture for the sacrifice of the Mass. Ergo. The sacrifice of the Masle is not lawful.  
The Mayor proposition is proved by the words of Christ, Invaine do they worship me, teaching for doctrines 
Math. 15. 9  the commandments of men. Where our Saviour sharply reprehendeth the Scribes and 〈◊〉 for teaching those things to belong to the worship of God, which were of their own invention, and not by God's express command; for this is a true Thesis. Nothing ought to be accounted of the substance or essence of God's worship, but what God himself hath expressly commanded in his word. And for this very thing did God reprove the jews; because they worshipped in Tophet, offering such kind of sacrifices as he never appointed; for I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them forth of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices; but 
jer. 7. 30. 31. Verse 22. 23.  this I said commanding them, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, etc.  
Where first God condemned them for doing what they were not commanded, as offering their children unto Molech in the valley of Tophet.  
Secondly, God shows them wherein he will be worshipped, namely in that which he expressly commandeth.  
Therefore albeit God had commanded the sacred action of sacrificing as a part of divine worship, yet because the Gentiles in their sacrifices did not follow the prescript form of the law of God, therefore were their sacrifices abominable, and no other than I dolatrous.  
The Minor proposition is perspicuous; for let all the Gospels and writings of the Apostles be strictly surveyed, and there can neither the name, nor sacrifice of the Mass be found; for the sacrifices of the law had their precise and prescript form enjoined; why then if God would have an external sacrifice to remain under the Gospel, hath he not left us directions for the manner? And whereas our adversaries pretend a command in these words Do this; hereunto we have already answered page 56.  
Wherefore the sacrifice of the Mass having no ground in the new Testament, we must needs account it fictitious, a humane invention, and therefore to be rejected.   

Argument. 4.  
Fourthly, that sacrifice wherein there is no shedding of blood cannot be Propitiatory. But in the Mass there is no shedding of blood. Ergo, the sacrifice of the Mass is no Propitiatory sacrifice.  
The Mayor proposition is grounded upon the words of the Apostle, Without blood shedding there can be no remission of sins; and in the legal sacrifices, all that were Propitiatory were living creatures, which were slain by the Priests.  
The minor is true according to the common consent of our adversaries, who make the Mass to be sacrificium incruentum an unbloody sacrifice, and albeit the blood of Christ be poured out, yet it is not shed for them, in behalf of whom it is offered, wherein they do directly contradict themselves.   

Argument. 5.  
Fiftly, that doctrine which is contrary to itself is not to be embraced in the Church. But the doctrine of our adversary's touching the sacrifice of the Mass is contrary to itself. Ergo, it is not to be embraced.  
The Mayor neither Protestant nor Papist will deny.  
The Minor is proved.  
For our adversaries teach that the body of Christ in the Mass is an external sacrifice, and is truly offered unto God the Father under the forms of bread and wine. And yet they teach the body of Christ to be invisible in the sacrifice; wherein they are contrary to themselves; for no external sacrifice is an invisible sacrifice; neither can a sacrifice be visible (which they affirm of their sacrifice) when the thing offered is invisible.  
Wherefore if they will make it an external offering, the sacrifice itself must be visible, but here is nothing visible (according to their Tenent) but the Altar, the Priest his ceremonial and mimical actions, his many hundred cross, the accidents and outward forms; which are no part of the sacrifice. Here then their doctrine implies a contradiction to make it a visible sacrifice, and yet the sacrifice is invisible, it is an external oblation, yet the matter offered is internal and cannot be discerned. Howsoever though no man can perceive the matter of their sacrifice, yet every man may perceive the manner of their juggling.   

Argument. 6.  
Sixtly, if the sacrifice of Christ was perfectly finished upon the Cross, then is it unlawful for any Priest to presume to offer again this sacrifice. But the offering of the sacrifice of Christ was perfectly finished upon the cross. Ergo, it is unlawful to presume to offer this sacrifice again in the Mass.  
The consequence is evident. For he that goes about to offer that sacrifice which was perfectly finished upon the cross, cannot but by his reiteration prejudice, and call in question the perfection thereof; for as Chrysostome speaketh, he that hath a sovereign medicine, which by once applying is perfectly able to cure a disease, and shall often apply the same, doth derogate from the virtue thereof: so he that shall reiterate the all-saving sacrifice upon the cross, by the frequent reiteration, charges it with impotency, and imbecility.  
Wherefore whatsoever pretence our adversaries may use, they by their Massing sacrifice, do no less then rob the all-sufficient sacrifice of the Cross, and with irreligious blasphemy derogate from it, the meritorious power to save all that believe.  
The Minor is manifest by the words of our Saviour, he cried Consummatum est, It is finished. What 
joh 19 30.  is finished? The Ceremonial law was abrogated; the Moral law was fulfilled; the sacrifice of Christ was perfected; the salvation of mankind accomplished. And God forbid that against so many evidences of scripture any man should affirm the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross not to be perfectly finished; as though he had left any part to be supplied by the Masspriests, which he himself was not able to effect.  
Wherefore if Christ hath on his cross canceled the hand writing which was against us; if he by his cross hath reconciled us unto his father; if he on the cross did once sacrifice himself for all believers, than God forbid any man should 〈◊〉 in aught save the cross of Christ, God forbid any Christian should seek for a Propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist, which hath no virtue in it to procure pardon for sin unto any soul; but only faithfully received to seal the remission purchased by the bloody sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.  
But our subtle Antagonists think to avoid the 
Sadeel. advers. miss. sacrif. c. 3.  force of our argument by this cunning distinction; There is say they two degrees of remission of sins.  
The first that God would for his part, and as much as in him lies, be reconciled to men.  
Secondly, that he would receive them into favour, they working by faith and repentance.  
The first degree (say they) is in the sacrifice of Christ's death on the cross.  
The second is in the sacrifice of the Mass; and for the confirmation of this distinction they adduce 
2. Cor. 5. 19  the saying of the Apostle, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But our adversaries, by this distinction thinking to avoid us, have given us the greater advantage. For this latter degree of remission of sins is nothing else but the application of the sacrifice of Christ unto all men; as if they should say, that, then are we made partakers of that great benefit of Christ's sacrifice, when we do receive him with a true faith. And for this end was the sacrifice of the Mass instituted:  
Vt cruenti sacrificij salutaris virtus, in remissionem 
Synod. Trid.  corum, quae quotidie committuntur a nobis, peccatorum 〈◊〉; That the saving virtue of the bloody sacrifice may be applied unto us, for the remission of those sins which are daily committed by us.  
From hence I conclude, that if the application of a Propitiatory sacrifice be not the sacrifice itself, (for he that confounds the thing and the application of that thing, shows but weakness of judgement) and that in the Mass there is an application of the great Propitiatory sacrifice offered by Christ, it must needs follow, that in the Mass there is no Propitiatory sacrifice itself, true, and real, but only an application of the great and all-sufficient sacrifice offered by Christ. Therefore the Apostle says, that God hath committed to us (his ministers) the ministry of reconciliation.  
From which words I collect these two observations:  
First that the Pastors of the Church of Christ are Ministers of application of Christ's sacrifice; but not of sacrificing Christ himself.  
Secondly, that this application is made not by sacrificing of Christ, (as our Romanists dream) but by teaching, admonishing, and exhorting, with the administration of the Sacrament according to the institution of Christ.   

Argument 7.  
Seaventhly, if Christ be truly and really offered in the Mass, then in the Mass he is really slain: But in the Mass he is not truly and really slain, ergo in the Mass Christ is not real offered.  
The Consequence appears by this, that the offering of Christ, and the slaying of Christ are never separated in the holy Scripture: For it was not with Christ, as with the beast under the Law, which were first slain and then offered upon the Altar; but Christ, in the instant of his death was offered a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour to his Heavenly Father.  
Let the Scriptures be examined, and judge whether ever they speak of the Sacrifice of Christ, but thereby is meant his death. For this he did once when he offered himself: How much more the blood of Christ, which by the eternal spirit offered himself without spot 
Heb. 7. 27. Heb. 9 14. 28.  to God, So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. These and all other places of the new Testament which speak of the offering of Christ are to be interpreted of his death: Wherefore to say Christus 〈◊〉 est, Christ is offered, is nothing else but to say, Christus mortuus est, Christ is dead, or Christ is slain, Wherefore if Christ be truly and really offered in the Mass, he must be truly and really slain.  
Our adversary's answer. That there is a Sacramental immolation of Christ in the Mass, because by the power and virtue of Transubstantiation the body of Christ is consecrated and made to subsist by itself, and the blood of Christ is consecrated and made to subsist by itself, and so though they are separated locally and in appearance, yet they are not separated propter concomitantiam; by concomitance they are both joined together.  
By this their distinction they think to up hold their Mass by which they overturn it. For first, in that they say it is a Sacramental immolation, herein they speak more truly than they are aware. wherein we consent with them; for if it be Sacramental it cannot be proper, real, and external, seeing that which is Sacramental, is so relative having reference unto that substance, whereof it is a shadow or resemblance. Again, for the body and the blood to be framed separately, and yet by concommitance not to be separated; who hears not a contradiction in these words?  
The Minor our adversaries themselves confess; they will not say Christ is slain really and truly in the Mass, lest their Priests should, become Christochthonoi, Christ Killers. Yet how can they avoid the suspicion of treason against the life of Christ, when they separate his real body from his blood; for it is greatly to be feared that they who power out his lively blood, and break his real and substantial body are guilty of the death of our Lord and Saviour.   

Argument. 8.  
Eighly, If Christ be daily sacrificed in the Mass, than Christ doth daily satisfy for our sins; but Christ doth not daily satisfy for our sins, ergo Christ is not daily sacrificed in the Mass.  
The consequence is plain by evidence of Scripture; for wheresoever and whensoever Christ was to be sacrificed, it was for the satisfaction of his Father's wrath for sin. Who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time. He was delinered to death 
1. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 6. Rom. 4. 〈◊〉 Eph. 5. 2. Rom. 4. 18. Gal. 1. 4.  for our offences. Who loved us, and gave himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, of a sweet smelling savour. If when we were enemies, we were reconciled unto God by the death of his son, etc. Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world. By these and diverse other places of holy Scripture, it is plainly proved that satisfaction for our sins is the end of Christ's sacrifice, and in naming the one: we suppose the other.  
The Minor is proved because Christ did perfectly satisfy for the sins of all the elect, appeasing fully the wrath of God by his sacrifice upon the Cross; and now ceasing from making any further satisfaction, he only sitting at the right hand of God, maketh intercession for us. For to satisfy the wrath of God is, to do that for us which we should have done, and to suffer that which we had deserved, namely death; and so Christ should again yield obedience to the Law, and suffer death again; but the Apostle saith, Christ being once dead, dyeth no more; neither is Almighty God so unjust, as to require satisfaction of him that hath perfectly satisfied already.  
But our adversaries say that Christ is sacrificed in the Mass to apply unto us the satisfaction which Christ hath given for us on the Crosse. But so in applying satisfaction he makes satisfaction; for Christ cannot be sacrificed truly, but he must truly die, and he cannot die, but to make satisfaction. Again, if Christ ought to be sacrificed again, that the fruit of his sacrifice may be applied unto us, than ought he as well to be incarnate again, in the womb of the Virgin, that the fruit of his incarnation may be applied unto us; to die, to be buried, to rise again, that so the fruit of his death, Sepulture, and resurrection may be applied unto us.  
Lastly, the application of the benefit of Christ's sacrifice, by reiteration of his sacrifice is not found in Scripture. But there is a double means, one internal, and that is the efficacy of the Spirit of God, which powerful applies 〈◊〉 us the virtue of Christ's sacrifice; the other is external, namely, the Preaching of the word and the Sacraments, which two concurring together, beget faith in the soul, which particularly applies the benefit of Christ's oblation to the believer.  
In a word, let them consider what applicari, to be applied signifies, and they shall easily perceive that the sacrifice of Christ is applied unto us, when Christ is offered, not to God (as in the Mass) but to us, as in the holy Eucharist; Christ freely giving his body to be eaten, his blood to be drunk, and that spiritually by faith.   

Argument. 9  
Ninthly, if in the Mass Christ be offered unto God by the Priests of Rome, than he is not the only Priest of the new Testament.  
But Christ is the only Priest of the New Testament.  
Ergo, he is not offered by the Priests of Rome, in the sacrifice of the Mass.  
The consequence is true, for if there be a true and real sacrifice in the Mass, there must needs follow a true and real Priesthood which offereth this sacrifice, and so Christ is not the only Priest of the new Testament.  
The Minor is denied by our adversaries, but is proved by us.  
First, there is no other proper external Priesthood under the Gospel, but that which is after the order of Melchizedech; of which order there is no man worthy, but only Christ, as is sufficiently declared.  
And whereas our adversaries vainly boast their Priesthood to be after the order of Melchizedech, herein they are contrary to Scripture, which makes this not to be a common Priesthood, as Aaron's was, but personal, belonging only unto Christ; wherefore the Apostle says, that Christ because he continueth for ever, hath [Aparabaton Hierosunen] such a 
Heb. 7. 24.  Priesthood as cannot pass from one to another. Where the Apostle plainly shows that such as were mortal, and consequently not eternal, were uncapable of that order of Melchizedech; such are the Priests of Rome, mortal as those of Aaron were, and thereof unto them cannot this Priesthood be divolued.  
They think to cut us off with this distinction: Christ is the primary or principal Priest; but men may be secundary and less principal, by whose ministry Christ may offer himself unto God. I demand then, was not Christ even under the Law a Priest after the order of Melchizedech? and were not the Priests of Aaron being compared to Christ that was to come Secundary Priests? were they not therefore Types and figures of the Priesthood of Christ? wherefore when the primary or superior Priest was come, the Priesthood of Aaron vanished, and the Apostle would have no legal Priesthood to remain. But where hath he substituted any other secundary Priests instead of the former? Certes the Scripture hath not appointed any.  
Again, by the same reason that the Apostle disanulles the legal Priesthood, hath he also excluded all other external Priesthood under the Gospel, for he opposeth him that is immortal against those that are mortal, God and man, against those who are mere men: Now if the Priests of Rome be no freer from mortality, or fuller of deity than the Priests of Levy, they are then by the same reason both excluded, for Cui ratio & perfectum medium conclusionis convenit, eidem ipsa convenit conclusio. To whom the true reason and perfect medium of a conclusion doth agree, to the same also the conclusion itself may be applied.  
Again, Christ is plainly manifested to be the only Priest of the New Testament, (and so alone able to offer the sacrifice of propitiaton for our sins,) by that figurative entering alone of the high Priest once a year into the Tabernacle.  
Again, he that offers a true propitiatory sacrifice, effectual in itself to procure pardon for 〈◊〉, must needs be a Mediator of the new Testament, therefore 
Heb 9 7. Heb. 8. 6.  is it said of Christ, But now hath he obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is made a Mediator of a better covenanant. And for this cause he is the 〈◊〉 
Heb. 9 15.  of the new Testament, that by means of death, etc.  
By which places and the like it is evident, that he that was to be the Priest of the new Covenant was also to be the Mediator between God and man; and that there is no Mediator but only Christ appears 
1 Tim. 2. 5.  by the words of Saint Paul; For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man jesus Christ.  
Wherefore if they say they are Priests of the new Testament, they may as well say, they are Mediators, and if Mediators, than Redeemers of the Church.   

Argument. 10.  
Tenthly, if Christ in the Sacrament be given unto us to be received with truth, faith, and humble reverence, than Christ is not offered unto his Father by the Priest in the Eucharist, much less in the Mass. But he is offered unto us in the Eucharist.  
Ergo. Christ is not offered by the Priest unto his Father.  
The hypothetical connexion appears by the nature of those things which are opposite, for the end of Christ's institution of the Supper was to exhibit himself unto all believers Spiritually, to be received Sacramentally, for the sealing and confirmation of their faith; and not to be offered up by any mortal unto his Father.  
And whereas they object that God gave unto the Israelites sacrifices which they should offer unto God. We answer that this exception is plain heterogenes of another nature; for their sacrifices were corporal and external, ours spiritual and internal.  
The assumption is proved by the words of Christ, Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you. Taking 
Math. 26. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 10. 16.  doth presuppose a giving; it is called The Communion of the body and blood of Christ. That is the communicating, and distributing of the blessed body and blood of Christ, whereof all believers in common are made partakers.  
They affirm the Eucharist to be not only a Sacrament, out also a Propitiatory sacrifice; were deny it upon this ground; because all expiatory sacrifices properly so called have their compliment in the most perfect and absolute sacrifice of Christ jesus, which he offered himself upon the cross.  
But say they, Christ sacrificed himself in the Eucharist, which appears by these words, Datur, frangitur, effunditur; is given, is broken, is poured out; where our Saviour speaks in the present tense, and not, shall be broken, shall be given, shall be poured out.  
We answer, first some of their own writers have denied that Christ offered any Propitiatory sacrifice when he instituted and distributed the Eucharist, see p. 84. And he himself says that his time was not fully come; namely, wherein he should be offered.  
Again, their own translation hath tradetur, effundetur, shall be given, shall be poured out; which Lyra 
〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. Math. 26. & 〈◊〉 Cor. 11.  following, doth so render, and so is it in the Canon of the Mass.  
Moreover, our Saviour might so speak not to signify a present sacrifice, but to intimate that his body 
Canon 〈◊〉  was already broken, and his blood shed in God's determination, and his own resolution, in which sense he is called, Agnus ab origine mundi occisus, The lamb slain from the beginning of the world, because God had appointed him from the beginning to be the Saviour of the world. And why might not Christ speak in the present tense, having respect unto their 〈◊〉, whose property is to make things past, and to come to be truly present.  
But the direct answer is, that in the words of Christ there is an Enallage temporis, the present time being set for the future; and this kind of speech is frequent in the scripture: as, Woe unto that man by whom the Son 
Math. 26. 24. Esay 9 6.  of man is betrayed; for shall be betrayed. Unto us a son and borne of, etc.  
And thus their own Cardinal expounds it, saying. Euangelistae in voce praesentis effunditur; & Paulus 
Caietan in. 1. Cor. 11.  in frangitur, futuram in cruse effusionem & carnis frnctionem significarunt, etc. The Evangelists in the word (is poured out) being of the present tense; and Paul by the word (is broken) did signify the suture effusion of his blood, and the breaking of his flesh upon the cross. And so Gregory de Valentia upon these words 
Greg. de Valen. jesuit. lib. 2. de sacr. Missae. c. 3. Hug. Cardinal. in Math. 26.  [This is my body which is given for you] saith, That is,, which shall be offered by me slain upon the cross. So Hugo Cardinalis upon Math. 26. Fregit, id est, frangendum in cruse signavit, He broke (that is) he signified it to be broken upon the cross.  
Now who sees not the blasphemy of our perverse adversaries, who against the light of holy scripture, and (I think I may safely say against the light of their own conscience, dare affirm that Christ in the Lord's Supper offered his transubstantiated body unto his Father an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of the elect, how can they reconcile this doctrine, and the words of the Apostle, Christ offered himself once for all? which they can never effect, till they prove 
Heb 9 28.  the action which Christ performed in the night before he was betrayed to be eadem numero, the same individual action which he did the day following; for if he offered himself for sin in the Sacrament, and offered himself for the same sins upon the cross; How can this be true, He offered himself once for all? who sees not by their doctrine a double offering of Christ? Who perceives not double dealing in the matter?   

Argument. 11.  
The eleventh argument. That sacrifice which is not of divine institution is not lawful in the Church. But the sacrifice of the Mass is not of divine institution.  
Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass is not lawful.  
The Mayor is proved by the confession of their own jesuit, who says that the Church cannot institute 
〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 3. disp. 74. sect. 4.  any new sacrifice or sacrament; for the ordinance of such essential parts of God's worship must be of divine institution; (and as he affirmeth 〈◊〉. 7.) Sacrificia veteris legis omnia fuerunt a Deo immediate instituta, licet erant a Mose promulgata; Sacrificij autem 〈◊〉 gis solus Christus Deus & homo author est. God was the author of all the sacrifices of the old Law, albeit they were promulgated by Moses: and Christ God and Man is the author of the sacrifice of the new Testament. Therefore hath Solomon their jesuit justly taxed a Great Scholar of their own Church, for saying, the 
〈◊〉. 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 18. pag. 〈◊〉.  Church had authority to institute a new sacrifice if Christ himself had instituted none.  
The Minor is true; for as Martin Luther exacteth of our adversaries a demonstration of their sacrifice from the institution of Christ, wherein (as he observeth) We read that Christ did distribute this sacrament unto his disciples, but that he offered it up in form of a sacrifice we cannot find.  
Hereunto their Cardinal Bellarmine answereth, That this manner of argument from scripture 〈◊〉 
Bellar. l. 1. de missa. c. 24.  (as thus it is not expressly set down is scripture. Ergo it was not done) is ridiculous among schoolboys.  
But if he would take the advice of Suarez, or stand to his own answer, which elsewhere he himself hath delivered, he would not so slightly reject that form ofarguing.  
For first Suarez a jesuit of his own society, that he might prove the receiving of the bread and the wine in the Eucharist not to be any essential part of this sacrifice reasoneth negatively from Christ his institution thus. It is very likely that Christ instituting this sacrifice did not make it of the essence of this sacrifice 
Suar. jesuit. tom 3. 〈◊〉. 75. sect. 5. pag. 971.  for the Priest to receive, for the Evangelists negative authority proones it; it being probable that they relating the history of so great a mystery would not have pretermitted so essential a rite thereof; who do expressly signify that Christ did consecrate the Eucharist, but that he himself did take it they do not report; and immediately he adds, If the Priests receiving of the bread and wine be of the essence of the Eucharist, it ought to have been clearly and plainly delivered by the Evangelist.  
From hence may be collected thus much. That wbosoever is not expressly related by the Evangelist concerning the institution of this sacrament is not essential or absolutely necessary thereunto.  
This is Suarez his confession, and as much as Luther and we desire, for if the Evangelists have not laid down any institution of a sacrifice, nor so much as named a a sacrifice in the Eucharist, we ought not to embrace it; this therefore argues the malice of our adversary Bellarmine, who calls this a ridiculous manner of reasoning in us, which is used by a Doctor of his own order not inferior to himself in learning and judgement.  
Secondly, let us appeal unto the judgement of the Cardinal himself, who answers in another case after the same manner; for he reciteth the Liturgies that pass under the name of Saint james, because all things (saith he) contained in those liturgies, and in the 
Bellar. de Euch. l. 4. c. 13.  liturgies of other Fathers, are not taken from the example or precept of Christ.  
Thus doth the Cardinal's argument frame itself: whatsoever in the service of God is not by prescript precept, or direct example of Christ confirmed, is not lawful or warrantable; see now the partiality and philautia of the Cardinal; for what he thinks commendable in himself, he accounts ridiculous in another.  
The Liturgy of Saint james is not lawful, because it contains many things not taken either from the example or commandment of Christ, yet we may not say, that the Mass is unlawful because it cannot be proved by either example or commandment of Christ. Note here the Cardinal requires greater authority for the confirmation of a Liturgy then of their Massing sacrifice.  
Wherefore, when they urge the lawfulness of this their sacrifice, let us reply Orthodoxally in the Cardinals own words, Show us either example or commandment from Christ, and it shall 〈◊〉.  
For in this tempestuous night of opposition and contention, we have nothing to steer our course by; but by the compass of Scripture, and the Lodestar Christ, in whom we are to observe dicta & facta, his words and his actions in his institution.  
It is not untrue that some Romanists have thought that Christ did name the word sacrifice or oblation 
Suar. jesuit. 〈◊〉 13. desp. 57 sect. 2. p. 902.  when he spoke unto his father, albeit it be not mentioned by the Evangelist, for they thought it necessary in consecration that Christ should have used the words offering or sacrificing. But that had been strange forgetfulness in the 〈◊〉 to have omitted, the main thing which must authorise this sacrifice; and how did the spirit of the truth, lead them into all truth; if this were omitted which is the main part of God's service, and the chief solace of a Christian soul?  
But we will not 〈◊〉 them to so strict a task as to find in the institution of Christ, the very words of a sacrifice or oblation; it shall avail them to prove any word tending to that purpose. Bellarmine brags of the probate of the point, and useth this argument. Christ offered himself under the form of 
Bella. l. 1. de missa cap. 12.  bread and wine unto his father, and bid his Apostles do this in remembrance of him, therefore the Church may offer a sacrifice propitiatory according to Christ's command, laying, Do this.  
Who sees not here a Paralogism, or petitio principij? For he takes that for granted, which is the life of the cause; and he supposes that Christ offered himself under the forms of bread and wine, which can never be proved, and therefore is unlikely to be granted by us, for if it can appear that Christ at the institution of the Eucharist or Lords Supper did 〈◊〉 his body into the bread and wine, and so did offer it unto his father, we shall soon yield, and the controversy shall have end. But can any man believe that Christ carried his whole body in own of his hands? that he gave it to be eaten to his Disciples, which saw him present at the Table, and heard him speaking to them, both while they were eating him, and afterward? that the same son of man should at once both 〈◊〉 his own body and 〈◊〉 intine and whole at Table? That a true natural body should be in many places at once? Unless, he were as Tursellian reports of St. Xanier one of Loyala's 
Tursellian.  brood, who was seen in a boat and ship both at once, like Plautus his Amphitruo.  
Sealiger lays down his Axiom, The numerical 
〈◊〉. Scal. exer. in Cordan.  unity of a finite thing cannot stand without continuity. But Bellarmine saith, The very places, wherein Christ's body is, are discontinued; yea, and the very body of Christ itself, is 〈◊〉 from itself 〈◊〉 respect of place, though not in respect of substance and quantity. As though there could be any division of a material substance, but by bounds of place; or as if quantity were not both bounded and measured by place alone: Or as if that sinite body, which is in two places at once, were not first divided in itself.  
So that we demand of Bellarmine, as once Paul did in another case, Is Christ divided? The Papists do 
1 Cor. 1. 13.  not say as once of old, Behold here is Christ, or there: but which is much worse, Behold Christ is both here and there, and every where, in his true humane nature; thus they blush not to teach impossibilities, that the self same body should be all here, and all not here; all visible and all invisible; all upon the Table, and all in Heaven; all eaten and all uneaten; all in England and all at Rome.  
Who sees not these impostures to be most palpable? And for that Bellarmine will have these words 
Bell. lib. 1. de missa. c. 12.  Do this, to signify as much as to sacrifice, thereby to establish their great Diana, the sacrifice of the Mass, he allegeth not one of the whole Catalogue of the Fathers who hath so interpreted those words: Insomuch that his brother Cardinal despairing of the proof of the Mass, by these words is fain to confess: Vt vel hoc ex loco, vel aliis scripturae 
Transen. concor. c. 131. pag. 904.  locis essicaciter probari non possit, hoc esse sacrificium: tamen ex eccle siae traditione idefficaciter probatur. That albeit this sacrifice cannot be proved by this text, Do this, or by other places of Scripture; yet it is effectually proved by the tradition of the Church. Which may make us justly admire the vain 〈◊〉 of our adversaries, who boasting of nothing more than Scripture, are yet fain wholly to relinquish it, and to build upon the tradition of the Church; but an answer 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 afore.  
And for these words, (Is given, broken, shed for you.) they interpret to be a present giving in the Eucharist by way of sacrifice; but this is sufficiently answered in the former 〈◊〉.  
Now seeing the words of Christ's institution do make their sacrifice to be a mere non Ens, let ve examine his actions, and see if any of them will breathe any life into this their sacrifice. The actions of Christ the Scripture mentions to be four, He took bread, He blessed it, He broke it, He gave it. Not any one of 
Suar. 〈◊〉. 3. a sp. 75. sect. 2.  these can seem to import a sacrifice. And whereas our adversaries have divided their sacrifice into fix actions, in the which of them, this sacrifice should consist, Suarez makes it doubtful.  
The first action is the taking of the bread, before consecration and the heaving it up which they call the Elevation of the host; this is not essential to the 
Suar. ibidem. Bellar. de missa. l. 1. c. 27.  sacrifice by the Jesuits own confession, because it cannot be proved neither by Scripture nor the tradition of the Church that Christ did use it. Albeit herein he dissents from Sotus a learned Doctor who with others thought it to be used by Christ, and in some sort to 〈◊〉 to the substance of this sacrifice.  
The second action is the Consecration of the Host in the words of Christ, Hoc est corpus meum, This is 
Suar. ibidem 64.  my body. This Suarez 〈◊〉 to be intrinsical and essential to this sacrifice, and to be the sacrificing action; and yet tells us that it was the opinion of many learned men, That consecration was but only an antecedent 
Ibidem.  unto the sacrifice, but properly neither to be of the essence, nor yet any part of this sacrifice. And how can the Papists confidently build their sacrifice upon those words, This is my body? when their own Bishop hath proved from the testimonies of the 
Episc. Caesari ensis tracts. vary de necess. correct. Theolog. scholasti. l. 1 〈◊〉. 5. See Bishop Mortons' Protest. appeal. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 § 21. p. 117.  most ancient Fathers, that those are not the words of consecration; but that the words of consecration were before those words, when Christ prayed and blessed the bread, and the cup; and therefore he allegeth the perpetual practice of the Church, from the age of the Apostles whose custom was to consecrate by prayer or benediction; as also the Liturgies of St. james, Clement, Basil, Chrysostome, do declare the same, being backed with the judgement of many learned Schoolmen, to whom he adjoins the Divines of Colein, all agreeing consecration rather to be in the prayer or blessing of Christ, then in these words, This is my body; which he rather accounts to be the institution than the consecration of the Sacrament.  
The third action after the words of consecration is the Oblation used by the lifting up of the Host, in these words, Be mindful, o Lord, etc. Concerning 
Suar. 〈◊〉. 3. disp. 75. sect. 3. p. 964 Bellar. de missa l. 1. c. ult.  which, there is great 〈◊〉: some great Doctors have placed the whole essence of this sacrifice in this Oblation or Elevation as Ecchius, 〈◊〉, Ruardus. Others say, it is of the essence, but not the whole essence, as Scotus, Gabriel Biel, Soto, Canus: these Suarez quoteth but differing from them all, for he affirms it to be no essential part of the sacrifice, with whom agrees Bellarmine, because say they, it is not expressed in the Scripture, neither yet is it probable other ways, that this kind of elevation, or lifting up was used by Christ in the institution; only herein these Jesuits differ: Suirez will have this elevation to be an Ecclesiastical rite, but Bellarmine to be Apostolical.  
The fourth action is the dipping of the consecrated Host into the cup; which Canus makes to be of the substance of this sacrifice; which Suarez again 
Suar. 〈◊〉.  one the same ground disanulls, because that it appears not that Christ did use any such action.  
The fifth action is the distribution of the 〈◊〉 according unto the example of Christ, who gave it unto his Disciples: which (saith the jesuit) some Catholic Doctors have judged to be the full compliment and perfection of this sacrifice. But (as learned 
Suar. ibid. sect. 2. 3.  Morton observes) first they must show unto us where the essence of this sacrifice is to be found, 
Protestants appeal l. 2. c. 7. 〈◊〉. 11. num. 41.  lest they tell us of the perfection of a sacrifice, before their sacrifice appear to be Ens, or to have any being.  
The last action is the Priests consuming the consecrated forms by eating and drinking; some make this to be the substance of the sacrifice and the very essence 
Suar. ibidem. 〈◊〉. 75. 〈◊〉. 5. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. tom 9 tract. 29 pa. 223  of it; as the Modern Thomists, Ledesima, Canus, and Bellarmine; who are again contradicted by other great Doctors of the Roman Church, as Thomas Aquinas, 〈◊〉, Mayor, Alan: Cassalus, Catharinus Turrianus, Palacius; with whom Salmeron doth consent: all which do deny that this consumption of the Host doth belong to the essence of this sacrifice.  
Thus have you seen what 〈◊〉 war our adversaries do maintain among themselves; 〈◊〉 against Manasses, and Manasses against Ephraim, but both against judah. 〈◊〉 war in their own camp, yet they all conspire against the truth.  
Now let the Reader judge, where is unity or consent in doctrine, when their greatest Doctors in the main point of religion, are at variance directly contradicting one another with, est & non est, it is and it is not.  
They unjustly upbraid us with dissensions, when alas ours is no dissension if compared with theirs, we only differing in the fringe, they in the garment; we alone in the ceremonies, they in the substance and very soul of religion.  
Thus have we largely and sufficiently proved by the testimonies of our adversaries that the sacrifice of the Mass was not instituted by Christ, and therefore (by the confession of their own Jesuits) not to be admitted into the Church.   

Argument. 12.  
The twelfth argument is grounded upon Bellarmine's 
Suarez and Bellar. Bellar. l. 〈◊〉. de missa. c. 2 sect. 8.  own ssertion, which is this: Ad verum sacrificium requiritur ut quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sacrificium plane destruatur, id 〈◊〉, ita mutetur ut desinat esse id quod erat. To a true sacrifice is required, that that which is offered unto God in sacrifice be wholly destroyed: that is, 
L. 1. de missa cap. 〈◊〉.  be so changed, that it cease to be that which it was.  
And again, Verum & real sacrificium veram & realem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A true and a real sacrifice requireth a true and real death, or destruction of the thing sacrificed.  
Which assertion is true in all Propitiatory sacrifices, wherein there was always a destruction of the offering or sacrifice, and that by death and shedding of blood; that therein they might be perfect figures of the great sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, wherein his body did shed blood, suffered death, sustained destruction, though not total and perpetual, yet partial and for a season, in so much, that although he was not consumed, yet there was in him for a time a cessation or ceasing to be a living man as he was before.  
Our adversary then having vouchsafed us this ground work, we will make bold thus to build upon it.  
Every thing really and properly sacrificed for propitiation doth suffer a real destruction of the substance; But the body of Christ doth not in the sacrifice of the. Mass suffer a real destruction.  
Ergo. In the sacrifice of the Mass the body of Christ is not really and properly offered.  
The Mayor being granted by the Cardinal, the Minor proves itself thus.  
If the body of Christ doth in the Mass suffer destruction (which to say were blasphemy) it must either be in whole or in part; if in whole, how come we to find the same Christ, the same body and blood the next morning again in the Mass? If but in part, or for a time (as it was during his being in the grave) then would follow that the Church for a time hath no Christ perfect God and perfect man.  
Now Bellarmine affirms that the Priests eating of the consecrated elements (which are made the body of Christ) is the destruction of the sacrifice; his words are these, Consumptio seu manducatio, quae fit a sacer dote quôd fit essentialis pars 〈◊〉, inde probatur, quia in tota actione missae nulla est alia realis destructio 
Bellar. de missa. l. 1. c, ult. prop. 〈◊〉.  victimae praeter istam: requiri autem realem destructionem supra probatum est, The Priests consumptionor eating of the Host is proved to be of the essence of the sacrifice; for in the whole action of the Mass there is no destruction of the sacrifice but only this; and that there must be a real destruction of the sacrifice I have already proved.  
But herein how is he constant to himself, who says, The substance of the sacrifice must suffer destruction: and yet hold again, that the Priest consumes not the body of Christ by eating it, for it suffers no diminution, but only the forms of bread and wine.  
Who sees not here a most palpable contradiction? for he will have the body of Christ to be the substance of this sacrifice, and this sust ance must be consumed, or else it is no sacrifice; and yet when it comes to the push, the body of Christ suffers not destruction but only the forms. Is not this to make quidlibet ex quolibet? Is not this to make it a sacrifice and no sacrifice? Is not this to say the body of Christ is the substance of this oblation and not the substance, because it is not consumed?  
Again, if a Propitiatory sacrifice be as Bellarmine defines it: That which doth pacify the wrath of God for the remission of sins.  
I demand then how remission of sins is procured? mental presence of the Lords body and blood there is a true, real, and actual application of his death (quo ad meritum, in regard of the merit of it) to all that receive with faith. But the jesui te will have a proper death of Christ in the Eucharist, even as he is truly, really, substantially and corporally present; and yet see how he thwarts and crosses himself in the last words, saying, Christ in the Eucharist dies not.  
Hence we may frame this Argument. After the same manner that Christ is in the Eucharist, after the same manner he dies in the same [for an actual and corporal presence requires an actual and corporal death as a sacramental presence, a sacramental death only] But in the Eucharist (by our adversaries own confession) Christ dies not properly, actually, or bodily.  
Ergo, in the Eucharist, he is not properly, actually, or bodily present.  
Thirdly, note how contrary this doctrine is unto itself. The body of Christ (saith he) and the blood of Christ are consecrated apart and severally, yet they do not subsist apart, lest there should be an actual, and real effusion of the blood of Christ.  
But I demand, if it be so that they are consecrated and made apart, then when the Priest hath consecrated the body of Christ first (for he cannot consecrate both in an instant) doth not that body subsist without blood, till he hath made and consecrated the blood also? This is strange in the sacrament that the body of Christ and his blood should admit for a time, such an actual separation as is between that which hath a being, and that which hath no being.  
Lastly, note how enigmatically he tells us of those things which are separated by consecration, and yet are indivisibly conjoined, that they cannot be separated; contrary to the institution of Christ, who took the bread, and the cup severally, consecrating them asunder, to figure unto us that actual and real separation of the body and blood of Christ upon the cross.   

Argument. 13.  
The thirteenth Argument is this. That which is a 
Bellar. de missa l. 2. c. 1.  Propitiatory sacrifice for sin, must appease and pacify the wrath of God (this Bellarmine affirmeth.) But the sacrifice of the Mass doth not appease the wrath of God.  
Ergo, The sacrifice of the Mass is not Propitiatory.  
The Minor is thus proved.  
That which doth appease God's wrath must be of infinite value. But the sacrifice of the Mass is not of infinite value.  
Ergo, The sacrifice of the Mass cannot appease God's wrath.  
The Mayor is proved: because the wrath of God for sin being infinite, cannot be pacified but by that which is of infinite merit and desert, and this is confessed 
〈◊〉 jes. coming Heb. 10. num. 19 in baec verba. Alia qui cessásset offerri  by their own jesuit in these words, Si Aaron, aut 〈◊〉 Pontifex, hostiam obtulisset, quae visua tolleret peccata, non esset necesse alteram offerri, 〈◊〉 iam peccata per illam deletaerant. Dices, illa hostia delebat peccata usque ad illam oblationem commissa, sed quum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nova peccata, quid obstat alteram offerri? frustra id fieret, 〈◊〉 si 〈◊〉 sua tollebat peccata, infiniti valoris erat, non enim aliter poterat tolli peccatum & compensari iniuria Deo facta. If Aaron, or any other high Priest had offered a sacrifice, which by it own virtue had taken away sin, there had been no need to have offered any more, because all sins were already taken away by the former. Thou wilt say that sacrifice did take away those sins which were committed before it was offered, but when afterward new sins were committed, why may not new sacrifices be offered? No, that were but in vain, for if by it own proper virtue it did take away sins, it was then of infinite value and merit, for otherwise sin could not be taken away, nor the injury done unto God recompensed.  
First, here he disableth the Leviticall sacrifices, because of their often repetition and reiteration.  
Secondly, he proves our Mayor Proposition, that nothing can appease the infinite wrath of God, and so satisfy his justice, but that which is of infinite merit and desert; therefore all the Angels in heaven could not have wrought man's redemption by satisfying for the sin of Adam, but Christ himself: nor he, had he been mere man and not Theanthropos, God and man, for no finite creature can be of infinite desert before God; wherefore it was necessary that the Deity of Christ should give efficacy, virtue, and desert unto the humanity by the Hypostatical union: which desert should be infinite, even as the Godhead of Christ was.  
The Minor appears that the sacrifice of the Mass is not of infinite value or desert, by the testimony of 
〈◊〉. de missa, l. 2. c. 4. sect. Quarta propos.  our great adversary Bellarmine, whose words be these, Valour sacrificij Missae est finitus; haec est communis sententia Theologorum, & probatur apertissimè ex usu Ecclesiae; nam si Missae valor infinitus esset, frustra multae missae, praesertim ad rem eandem, offerrentur: si enim infiniti valoris est, certè ad omnia impetranda sufficeret, quorsum igitur aliae. Et confirmatur ex sacrificio crucis, quod ideo non repetitur, quia illud unum infiniti valoris fuit, & pretium 〈◊〉 pro omnibus peccatis praeteritis & futuris remittendis; The virtue of the sacrifice of the Mass is finite; this is the common opinion of Divines; and it is proved plainly by the use of the Church, for if the virtue or value of the Mass were infinite, it were in vain to offer many Masses, especially for one thing; and if it were of infinite value, surely it would be sufficient to procure pardon for all sins, and then what needs any more Masses. And it is confirmed by the sacrifice of the cross, which is not reiterated, because that it alone 〈◊〉 of infinite valour or merit, and procured satisfaction for all our sins past, and to come  
In these words, the 〈◊〉 pleads our cause; for herein I note especially two things.  
First, that the often repetition of the sacrifice of the Mass, argues that it is but of finite value and merit.  
Secondly, that the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, was only of infinite value, desert, and merit to make satisfaction, and to procure pardon for all sins past and to come.  
We may demand then in the Cardinals own words, Quorsum igitur missae? What need have we of Masses? Seeing Christ hath accomplished our redemption by offering himself once for all.  
But whence proceeds this insufficiency of the mass? if it be the same body, and consequently the same sacrifice (as they teach) how hath it lost its virtue, that it should not be infinite in the Mass, as well as on the cross? Bellarmine allegeth three reasons hereof, but so weak and infirm, as can no way beseem a man of so great learning.  
The first is taken from the sacrifice itself which is offered; for in the sacrifice of the cross the very natural being of Christ in his humane body was destroyed; 
Bellar. de missa l. 2. c. 4.  but in the sacrifice of the Mass, the sacramental being of Christ only is destroyed. But this he affirmeth himself to be no cause why the one should be finite and the other infinite.  
The second is taken from the person offering; for in the sacrifice of the cross, the person offering is the Son of God immediately by himself; but in the sacrifice of the Mass, the person offering, is the Son of God, by the hand of the Priest. As though a mortal man could by his infirmity disable the sacrifice of Christ, and diminish the extent of that infinite oblation.  
The third reason is taken from the will of Christ; for albeit he could by one oblation obtain all things of God for all men, yet he would not, but the benefits of his passion, should be obtained in a certain measure; and if any man desire a reason hereof, it is not for us curiously to search into it; but his will is a sufficient reason.  
These grounds, alas, how weak are they for a Christian to build his faith upon?  
How shall a man be established by such tottering foundations?  
As touching diverse other most material points of Religion, so also concerning this, our grand Captains 
Caiet. q. 79. art. 5. & tom. 2. Oputract. 3. q. 2. Canus loc. 〈◊〉. l. 12. c. 19 Soto in 4. dist. 11. q. 2. Thom. in 4. aistinct. 45.  of Rome are together by the ears, and in open hostility against one another: Cajetan, Canus, Soto, these defend the virtue and valour of the sacrifice of the Mass to be infinite: on the other side contend Thomas Aquinas, 〈◊〉, Mayor, Gabriel, with whom Bellarmine takes part, confidently maintaining the virtue, merit, and desert of the sacrifice of the Mass to be absolutely finite in itself.   

Argument 14.  
The foureteenth Argument is taken from the end of a propitiatory sacrifice, and it is thus framed. A true propitiatory sacrifice doth procure remission of sins.  
But the sacrifice of the Mass doth not procure remission of sins.  
Ergo, The sacrifice of the Mass, is no true propitiatory sacrifice.  
The Mayor is by Bellarmine himself affirmed, in 
Bellar. l. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1.  his definition of a Propitiatory sacrifice, Propitiatorium est, cuius finis praeter Dei cultum, est 〈◊〉 Dei propitiatio, & peccatorum 〈◊〉. Where he makes the end of a propitiatory sacrifice next unto God 〈◊〉, to be the appeasing of God's wrath, and the remission of sins. And unto this the typical sacrifices of propitiation in the ceremonial Law had respect; for thereby, through faith in the 〈◊〉, who was the Antitype, they hoped for condonation, and were assured of remission of sins.  
The first proposition, then having the common consent of all men, we must prove our assumption. Which our Romanists think a Herculean work, Hic labour, hoc opus est.  
Now to prove the sacrifice of the Mass, not to be available to procure the pardon of sin, we allege first the testimonies of our adversaries, that so there own tongues may fall upon them, as the 
As Suarez relateth 〈◊〉. 3. disp. 79. sect. 3. Referente 〈◊〉 loc. Theolag. l. 12 〈◊〉. Val. jes. de 〈◊〉 l. 1. c. 5. Canus loc. Theol. l. 12.  Psalmist speaks of the enemies of God's Church. Some of the Church of Rome maintained that, The sacrifices of the Mass by virtue of the deed done, did immediately confer the infusion of habitual grace. Others directly affirmed the contrary, some hold the obtaining of this grace to be infallible; Others again, that it is uncertain, as Durand, Canus, Corduba. Some maintain it to be available for the remission of mortal sins. Others, to be available only for the remission of venial 〈◊〉, (as Gregory of 〈◊〉 reporteth) which (say they) may be pardoned without grace. Others again are of opinion, that it is not efficatious for the pardon of any sin, but only, to gain release of 〈◊〉 punishments, the guilt whereof had been formerly pardoned. Some think this is wrought by the virtue of impetration and prayer; others by the power of satisfaction and redemption. 〈◊〉 is there found confusion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Camps of our enemies, for every man's hand is against his fellow, as once was in the army of the Midiaenites.  
How then can this sacrifice be thought fit to be used in the Church, which is so lacerated, and 〈◊〉 in pieces, by the several opinions of so many Doctors of great repute, who contend so stoutly for it?  
Again, the Apostles speaks plainly hereof, Heb. 10. 18. saying, Where remission of sins is, there needs 
Heb. 10. 18.  no more sacrifice for sins. But who dares deny that absolute and perfect remission of offences, was purchased unto all believers by the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross once for all? Our adversaries themselves dare not, nor do not deny it, yet will they not relinquish their sacrifice of the Mass.   

Argument. 15.  
The fifteenth Argument. The Apostle says that Christ needs not to offer himself often, but now once 
Heb. 9 26.  in the end of the world he hath appeared to put away 
Heb. 10. 14.  sin by the sacrifice of himself; and again, By one offering he hath perfected for ever, them that are sanctified; From these testimonies of Scripture, I frame this Syllogism; If Christ once in the end of the world was sacrificed to put away sin; and by one offering hath perfected them that are 〈◊〉, than he is not offered in the Mass. But Christ once in the end of the world was sacrificed to put away sin, and by one offering of himself once for all hath perfected them that are sanctified. Ergo, Christ is not offered in the Mass.  
Bellarmine answers, that the Apostle there speaketh 
Bellar. l. 1. c. 〈◊〉. de missa.  of the bloody and painful sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross which was sufficient once to be done; but this taketh not away the unbloody sacrifice, which is but a continuance of the former, whereby the fruit and efficacy of the former oblation is applied unto us.  
But we are to observe, that the Apostle by these words, excludes and cuts of all iterations of the sacrifice of Christ; for otherwise, if Christ should now be often sacrificed really, though after any manner, the difference of the Apostle could never stand, between the Leviticall sacrifices which were often repeated, and the sacrifice of Christ, which was once offered.  
Secondly, that is but a false distinction of a bloody and an unbloody sacrifice, as they understand it, otherwise then the fathers did; for there can be no proper unbloody sacrifice of Christ; neither could he be offered up otherwise then by dying: Therefore he is not offered up in the Eucharist because therein he dyeth not.  
Thirdly, we need not invent a new kind of sacrifice, which may apply unto us the efficacy of Christ's death, seeing to that end Christ hath appointed the preaching of the word, and the administration of the Sacraments.  
Bellarmine replieth: first though the death of Christ be applied by the Preaching of the word, and 
Ibid. resp. ad 〈◊〉. 2.  administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; yet it may be applied also by the sacrifice of the Mass, which in this behalf is not superfluous, no more than Baptism is, by which also Christ's death is applied. Secondly, that the Apostle speaketh of the bloody, and painful sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, it appeareth by the words following, For than he must have often suffered.  
But we cut off Bellarmine's answer, by affirming; That albeit both the Eucharist and Baptism do apply the death of Christ unto us, yet is not Baptism superfluous, because it is of Christ's institution, so is not the Mass. Again, they apply Christ's death diversely; baptism as the seal of our regeneration; the Eucharist as a sign of our redemption; the one signifies our sanctification by the washing of Christ's blood; the other our justification by the sufferings of the same Christ our Saviour; the one for our initiation into the Church; the other for our confirmation: so that neither of them are superfluous; but the sacrifice of the Mass is superfluous, because the remembrance and showing forth of Christ's death is sufficiently performed without a sacrifice. Wherefore the comparison holds not, that the Mass may as well be used to apply the virtue of Christ's death, albeit the Eucharist doth the same, as baptism, seeing baptism is of Christ's institution, the Mass is not; and baptism, and the Lords Supper, though they both apply the death of Christ, yet in diverse manners, and for diverse ends.  
But the Papists pretend the same to be the end of the Mass, which is of the Lords Supper.  
And whereas Bellarmine saith, the Apostle speaks of the bloody sacrifice of Christ, it is true, for he never once dreamt of an unbloody sacrifice which could never have any existence, in rerum natura. For if you mark the Apostles words, he quite knocks this unbloody sacrifice of the Papists on the head, saying, Not that he should offer himself often, etc. 
Heb. 9 25. 26.  For than must 〈◊〉 often have suffered. Intimating that there can be no proper offering, or real sacrificing of Christ, but by death and suffering. Wherefore where there is no actual death of Christ, nor real suffering, there can be no true and proper offering; and Christ having but once died really, he could but once be really offered.   

Argument. 16.  
The sixteenth Argument is taken from the words of Christ, who being on the Cross cried out, Consummatum est, It is finished. Give us leave to demand, 
john 19 30. Ferus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. cap. 19  what was finished? Let one of their own friends speak. Why, now was finished, whatsoever God had determined, whatsoever he had commanded, whatsoever the Law and the Prophets had foretold concerning Christ; whatsoever was necessary and conducible for man's salvation; the oblation was offered; the types fulfilled, the shadows abolished, the Scriptures were verified, and the great sacrifice, [quo solo Deus placari potuit] by which only the 〈◊〉 of God was pacified, is now perfected.  
In which words observe, first, that whatsoever was necessary for man's faluation was now accomplished; what need then have we of Masses? Secondly, that Ferus says, The sacrifice of Christ was finished. How dares any man than renew it in the Mass? Thirdly, he says, The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, only could 〈◊〉 God's wrath. How then comes the sacrifice of the Mass to be propitiatory?  
Bellarmine answers, that these words, It is finished, 
Bellar l. 1. c. 25. de 〈◊〉.  are to be understood of the Prophecies of his passion, not that all things were done necessary to man's salvation: For then the Sacraments and all Doctrine should be 〈◊〉. But this answer will not serve the turn; for the prophecies were not all fulfilled, when he spoke these words; for after this time two prophecies were fulfilled: First the not 
Exod. 12. 46. Zach 12. 10.  breaking of aboue foretold, Exod. 12. 46. Secondly, the piercing of him with a spear, prophesied Zach. 12. 10.  
But let us admit for good Ferus his words, Quoniam fuit in opere consummationis, ideo dixit consummatum est, because they were in the act of consummation, or ready to be consummated, therefore he said, It is finished. And let us admit for good the first part of Bellarmine's answer, that the prophecies were fulfilled; yet let us a little pause before we grant the second.  
For whereas he says, All things necessary to man's salvation, were not finished; it is true if he mean some special acts 〈◊〉 did concern Christ's person, as his resurrection, and ascension, without which our redemption could not be perfectly consummated. Again, if he understand it of some individual actions of religion, which were to be performed for the salvation of such particular persons as should believe afterward, it is true, they were not finished, because the persons whom God had appointed, and decreed to use as means for the conversion of others, were to live in future ages, and had not as yet being, and consequently could not at that time finish those acts, whereunto they were destined of God; but if he understand by these words, [All things necessary for man's salvation, are not finished] all the specifical acts of religion, as Prayer, Preaching, Administration of the Sacraments, etc. and whatsoever of that kind which is necessary to man's salvation is not finished; this is false, for that they had their institution from Christ before his death, and so in the species they were finished. Or if thereby the sacrifice of Christ was not finished; this is false; for both it, and the salvation of man by it was finished; as appears by the Apostles using the same words, saying, With one offering, teteleioken, consummavit, he hath consummated for ever such as are sanctified. 
Heb. 16. 14.  And whereas he says that if all things necessary for man's salvation were consummated, than the sacraments and all doctrine should be superfluous; this is false for the institution of them might be consummated, although the exercise of them in future ages were not finished.  
Again, the perfection of Christ's sacrifice abolisheth not the use of doctrine and Sacraments, which do represent unto us the death and sacrifice of Christ, but it abolisheth all other sacrifices of Propitiation; for if they be but memorials of Christ's death they are superfluous; the word and sacraments being sufficient to that end; and if they be more than memorials, as available to forgive sins, they are blasphemous, and make Christ's sacrifice imperfect.   

Argument. 17.  
The seaventeenth argument is taken from the falsehood of the Canon of the Mass, and it is thus framed. Such as is the Canon, such is the sacrifice. But the Canon of the Mass is false.  
Ergo, the sacrifice is false, and consequently not Propitiatory. The falsehood of the Mass appears in diverse things.  
1. In the ancient Church when the Lords Supper was celebrated, the Christians used to bring their agapai, which were the bread and wine for the relief of the poor, and the maintenance of the Ministry; and when they had laid down these oblations (which were never accounted a Propitiatory sacrifice) they prayed for the prosperity and preservation of the Church: which in the Canon before the consecration is applied unto the bread and wine, and the bread and wine is offered unto God the Father for the happiness of the Church.  
Secondly, in the Canon, They pray unto God that he would accept that pure sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, as he accepted the sacrifices of Abel and Melchizedech. In which words they become intercessors unto God the Father to accept his Son jesus Christ, as though he were not worthy to be accepted of himself. And how absurd is it to compare the most precious sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ (if it were so really and truly) unto the sacrifice of Abel, which was but a lamb or a goat.  
And how unwisely do they pray that God would accept the sacrifice of his Son as he did accept the sacrifice of Melchizedech, whereas it cannot appear (as is formerly proved) by the holy scripture, that Melchizedech offered bread and wine; how absurd is it then to compare the sacrifice of Christ with that sacrifice which neither was, is, nor shall be?  
Thirdly, the Canon saith, that the Priest offereth unto God the heavenly Father the bread of life. But where are they commanded to offer the bread of life, seeing in the scripture there is mention made of eating the bread of life, but not of offering?  
Fourthly, the Canon overthrows the article of ascension; for it commands the Angels to carry that unspotted sacrifice to the high Altar of heaven, and to present it before God the Father. What? Is not Christ ascended, and fitteth for ever at the right hand of God? and hath he now more need of the help of Anglls then when he first ascended by the whole power of his Godhead? and cannot he appear before his Father, but by the assistants of Angels?  
But let me be bold to demand three questions of our adversaries grounded upon these words of the Canon, Supplices te rogamus omnipotens Deus, iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli, etc. We humbly beseech thee, O Omnipotent God; that tbou wouldst command 
Heb. 10. 12.  this sacrifice to be carried by the hands of the holy Angel, unto thy high Altar in the sight of thy divine Majesty, etc.  
First, if they understand it of the bread and wine transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, how comes it to pass, that they are not taken by the Angel, and carried immediately into heaven according to the prayer of the Church?  
Secondly, I demand, if their doctrine be true of their Multipresence, that the true humane body and blood of Christ be both in heaven, and in many thousand places upon the earth at one time, what need then the Angel to carry the body of Christ into heaven, where it is already before his heavenly Father?  
Thirdly, (if it be so as they say, that Christ in the night when he instituted the Lords Supper, did offer himself, his natural body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, a true Propitiatory sacrifice to his heavenly Father) I demand whether the Angel did carry this sacrifice into heaven, or whether it did 〈◊〉 before his Father in heaven, or no? If they say no; how then was the sacrifice accepted? or how comes the Church to pray for that privilege, of having this sacrifice carried into heaven, which was not vouchsafed to the sacrifice offered immediately by Christ himself? If they affirm that it was carried into heaven, it would then follow, that Christ's body was in heaven before his passion, resurrection, or ascension; and when he in his humane nature ascended into heaven from his Disciples, he found his humane body and blood before his Father, and to have been there before it came thither.  
Thus they make Christ to have two bodies, and consequently two souls; and so Christ is not one, but two; but many; but innumerable. These absurdities do directly result, and arise from their blasphemous Canon; which is so gross and palpable, as deserves to be hissed out of the Church.  
Lastly, the Canon in diverse places overturns the Mediation of Christ, in that they pray to Saints and Angels making them to be intercessors; it also establishes Purgatory and prayer for the dead, doctrines so dissonant from the truth of the Scriptures, as when we see them authorized in the Church of Rome, we may justly call in question the virtue of their massing sacrifice.   

Argument. 18.  
The eighteenth Argument is taken from the effect of the Mass; thus. That which destroyeth the true nature of the Lords Supper cannot be a true Propitiatory sacrifice for the 〈◊〉 of the quick and the dead. But the pretended sacrifice of the Mass doth subvert and destroy the nature of the Lords Supper.  
Ergo, the pretended sacrifice of the Mass is not Propitiatory for the sins of the quick and the dead.  
The Mayor is not denied by our adversaries.  
The Minor is thus proved. Augustine saith, Sacramentum est visibile signum invisibilis gratiae; a visible sign of invisible grace; so that in every sacrament there is signum & signatum, the sign and the thing signified, both which abide whole and entire, in such sort as it is not possible that the one can be the other, or any part of the other. But the sacrifice of the Mass destroyeth the nature of a sacrament, for it taketh away the substance of the bread, which is the sign and seal of his body; it taketh away the substance of the wine, which is the symbol of his blood; and that by 〈◊〉 and altering them, as some of them hold, or else by annihilating them, as others say; or by reducing them into their first matter; from substances into accidents, contrary unto all nature, yea contrary to the things signified; for there aught to be resemblance between the sign and the thing signified; as Manna did represent the bread of life which came down from heaven; in baptism, water which washeth away corporal spots, the blood of Christ which cleanseth our spiritual pollutions; bread and wine which nourish our natural life, the body and blood of Christ, which sustain and feed us unto eternal life. But roundness, whiteness, moistness, and redness, which they give us for signs, what analogy or proportion have they with our spiritual nourishment? These accidents of bread and wine have no power or virtue to feed the body, but the substance of bread and wine; they leave those, and take away this; where then is the sacrament when the sign is abolished.  
Again, the sacrifice of the Mass taketh away the thing signified in the Lord's Supper. What's that? It is the body and blood of Christ, yea Christ himself. For the very body and blood of Christ was given only for them which 〈◊〉 in him and abide in him; for them (saith the Apostle) which dwell in him by faith; and in whose hearts he dwelleth: for them (saith Saint Augustine) which are his members; and therefore the same Father saith a man may eat panem Domini, the bread of the Lord; and yet not eat panem Dominum, the Lord the bread; making a difference between the bread in the sacrament, and that life-giving bread which is Christ himself represented by the symbols in the Eucharist. But oh what injury is offered by the Papists in their sacrifice unto the body and blood of Christ, which is the food of eternal life, when dogs and swine, that is reprobates and hypocrites shall be made partakers of it; nay, and these ex opere operato, by virtue of the very act of receiving do merit remission of sins and relaxation of punishment; nay a Mouse, or a Dog may eat the precious body of our Lord jesus Christ (which doth so 〈◊〉 their greatest Doctors, that if it be demanded; Whether if a Dog or a Mouse do eat the 〈◊〉 Host, they do 〈◊〉 the very body of Christ? they are at a non plus, and know not what to answer).  
We affirm and dare justify; That the sign of the Sacrament may be received of all that are of competent age in the Church; But, Res Sacramenti, the thing signified in the Sacrament, can only be received by the faithful, which are rightly of the Church: for, so saith Origen; Of this true and very meat of this 
Orig. in Mat. cap. 11.  Word made flesh, no wicked or ungodly man can eat, because it is the Word and Bread of life; because he that eateth of this bread liveth for ever. And S. Augustine speaks plainly to this purpose, saying; The Signs are 
Aug. tract. 26. in johan. & De 〈◊〉. dei. l. 21. 6. 25.  common to the good and 〈◊〉, but the thing proper to the faithful alone: therefore the Apostles did eat, Panem Dominum, The bread which was the Lord; but judas only, Panem Domini, the Bread of the Lord, against the Lord. Doth not this take away Christ himself, when the Church shall give unto wicked men, and unbelievers, and they themselves shall receive the very substantial Body of Christ.  
Again, they destroy the humanity of Christ, for the which, the Fathers of the Church have so mightily contended against diverse Heretics: for, when without warrant of God's word, they ascribe unto this body, a property of being in a thousand places at once, how do they not destroy the nature of a true Humane body, which can be but in one place at one time? as is proved, Pag. 198. Nay, doth not this Sacrifice make Christ a dead Christ, in that they do really separate his body from his blood, making them in consecration, and after consecration, to subsist apart; which separation was the very death of Christ?  
And whereas Christ saith; I am with you unto the end of the world. And; Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I will be in the midst of them. These and the like speeches, are to be understood of the Divinity of Christ, which filleth all places: as these Speeches; You shall not have me always with you; It is expedient for you, that I go away. The heavens must contain him, until the restauration of all things, are to be understood of his Humanity, which is circumscriptively, only in one place at once. And so the Fathers understand these places. Origen saith; 
Orig. in Mat. Tract. 33.  It is not the man which is every where; Where two or three be gathered together in his name; Or, yet is always with us until the end of the world; Or, which is in every place where the faithful are assembled; but, it is the Divine power which is in jesus. And so Saint Augustine; 
Aug. in 〈◊〉. tract. 50.  [You have the poor always with you, etc.] Let not good men be troubled, in respect of his majesty, providence, grace, etc. It is fulfilled which he said; I am always with you. In respect of the flesh, which the Word took upon it, it is the same which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; You shall not have me always. The Church enjoyed him but a few days, in respect of his bodily presence; but, now it possesseth him by faith, and seeth him no more with these bodily eyes, etc. And in another place, upon 〈◊〉 
In johan. tract. 78.  words; Vado, & venio ad aos. He went as men, he stayed behind as God: He went, in as much as he was but in one place; he stayed and abode still, in as much as he was every where. By which words of S. Augustine it appears, that he conceived the Humane body of Christ to reside in one place, and not to be in many places at once. And in another of his writings he 
De verb. Dom. Ser. 60 & de 〈◊〉. Ser. 40.  hath these words; [It is expedient for you that I go.] Although that he be always with us by his Divinity: but, if he had not gone away from us corporally, we should have seen him daily with these carnal eyes, and should never have believed in him spiritually, etc. And for this cause he hath absented himself in body from all the Church, to the end, that faith may be edified and builded up.  
And to this purpose, S. Cyrill. It is meet, that all the faithful believe, that howsoever our Lord be absent 
Cyr. Alex. in joh. l. 9 c. 21. & l. 10 c. 39  in body, yet he is present by his power to all them that love him, etc. And reciprocally, no man doubteth, seeing he ascended into heaven, that he is absent in the flesh, though present in the spirit. What is it then? I will not leave you comfortless; that is, how that after he is ascended 
Lib. de incarn. c. 21.  into heaven, he is in us by his Spirit. And again; He is absent according to his Humanity; but, present according to his Divinity. Vigilius, Bishop of Trent, dissenteth not from the former, saying; The Son of 
Vigil. l. 1. cont. 〈◊〉 ch.  God had a beginning, as concerning the nature of his 〈◊〉; but, he had not any, if you consider the nature of his Divinity; in regard of that, he is a creature, but in regard of this the Creator: in respect of that, he is a subject to be contained in one place; but, in respect of this it is not possible for him to be contained in any place. And this is the Catholic faith, & confession, which the Apostles have delivered unto us, etc. Beda saith; Christ ascending up into heaven, after the resurrection, left his 
Bed. in 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉.  Disciples corporally, howbeit, the presence of his Divine Majesty did never leave them. I will conclude these testimonies with the saying of Bernard; I go from you, saith the Lord, according to my humanity; but, I do not 
Bern. Ser. 15. de caen. 〈◊〉.  go away from you according to my Divinity: I leave you with my corporal presence, but I aid and assist you with the presence of my Spirit.  
But, it may be said, that the body of Christ, being now a glorified body, may be in diverse places at once. No, so long as the humanity of Christ continues to be a Creature, so long is it limited to one place. Theodoret speaks to this purpose; It is glorified with divine grace, adored of the celestial powers; but notwithstanding, a body, subject to that limitation that it was before. And Augustine saith; The Lord is 
Aug. de diver. quaest. q. 83.  on high, but the Lord which is verity and truth (that is to say, in as much as he is God) is here also: it must needs be, that the body wherein he rose again, should continue in one place, albeit, that his truth be dispersed abroad every where. With whom doth consent Gregory Nazianzen; We teach the same Christ, consisting of a circumscriptible 
Greg. Nazian. ad Theod, dial. 〈◊〉  body, and of an incircumscriptible spirit: of a body which may be contained in a place; and a spirit which no place is able to contain. Now, against such a cloud of witnesses, with one consent agreeing, that the body of Christ is finite, and so limited to one place, and cannot be in many places at once, doth the Church of Rome contest, to maintain this their Sacrifice, like the Ubiquitaries in ancient times, who would have the body of Christ to fill all places.  
But, they object, That Christ is God, and therefore 
Objection.  omnipotent, and consequently can do all things; Why then, can he not make his body to exist in many places at once? I answer; A posse ad velle non valet 
Answer.  consequentia; Christ will not do all he can. And yet, I think, I may be bold to say, that Christ as God, cannot do all things, not that this implies any weakness in Christ; for, not to be able to do some things, argues his perfection; as, Christ cannot lie, cannot deceive, cannot sin; for, so says S. Augustine; 
Aug. de trin. l. 15. c. 14.  If God could do these things, it were an 〈◊〉, and want of power in him; for, great is the power of the Word, in that it cannot lie; for that, therein cannot be any contradiction, as, it is, and it is not. Nay, some things in the creature God cannot do, 
Thom. 1. p. Sum. q. 25. art 3. & 4. & 〈◊〉. Gentil. l 1. c. 4  for, as Aquinas speaks; God is not Almighty, in respect of the things wherein there is 〈◊〉, because they cannot be accounted of as possible things; as, he cannot make an 〈◊〉 man; nor, a Triangle without three angles, & their lines. For, this is to make a thing, to be, and not to be. Neither can he (as I suppose) make a natural body without quantity, or quantity without dimensions; or, that which hath dimension, to be in diverse places at once, and yet to remain entire in both places; for, that were ro make a contradiction true, that the whole body of Christ should be here, and the whole body of Christ should not be here.  
Wherefore, when the Papists ascribe unto the body of Christ, multipresence; or, virtue to be in a thousand places at one instant, what is this, but to suppose an impossibility, and to take from the natural properties of a true humane body: and thus, as they destroy the sign in the Sacrament, so by their sacrifice do they subvert the very substance of the thing signified.   

Argument. 19  
The last Argument is taken from the uncertainty of this Sacrifice, and is thus framed; That which is a true propitiatory Sacrifice for sin, gives assurance unto him for whom it is offered, of remission of his sin. But, the Sacrifice of the Mass gives not aslurance of remission of sin:  
Ergo, The Sacrifice of the Mass, is not propitiatory.  
The Minor is thus proved; That which dependeth not upon the institution of the Sacrament, nor upon the sacramental words (as the Papists term them,) but, upon the intention of the Priest, can give no assurance of remission: For, if the Priest intent not with his mind, albeit he speaketh the words with his mouth, yet (according to their own doctrine) he consecrateth not, and so the body of Christ is not really in the Sacrament, and consequently, it cannot be a proper Sacrifice.  
And thus they tie the grace of God, not to his institution, accompanied with his holy Spirit; but, to the intention of the consecrating Priest; and the Son of God shall not be ours, that is, the life which is in him shall not distribute itself unto the faithful, further than the discretion of this intention shall extend. And it shall be in the power of the Priest to frustrate and send away empty, a whole Assembly of Christians, gathered together with desire to receive salvation by this Sacrifice. Yea, howsoever the people are apt to depart without any benefit to their souls, for, if the intention of the Priest be not to consecrate, or that in the act of consecration his mind be otherwise busied in thinking of other matters, than the body of Christ are not under the forms of Bread and Wine; neither is it a real Sacrifice. And nevertheless, if he do consecrate, yet the people do not communicate therein, because they are not assured of the Priest's intention, and therefore cannot be assuied of the Real presence of the body of Christ. Now, where there is not assurance in the communicating, there can be no comfortable, or saving receiving, 
Rom. 14. 23.  but rather sinful, for so S. Paul says; Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin. And they themseluer are of judgement that he receives not the body of Christ, who doth not believe that he receives it: like Magic charms, wherein strong imagination and beleese works the effect.  
And yet observe here, how contrary again they are unto themselves, when they teach; that, Opus operatum, The work wrought, is sufficient to merit. What difference then is between the godly and the wicked? Or, what privilege hath the righteous more than the profane? seeing both good and bad receive the same consecrated Christ; perform the same work of communicating? And for all men (that can pay well) without difference is the Sacrifice of the Mass offered.  
Or, what comfort can the Laity of the Roman Church find in the Sacrament, when that which should give life to their faith, breedeth in them nothing but doubting, and uncertainty? seeing, that after they have prepared themselves, they know not what they receive, because they are not assured of the intention of the consecration.  
But here I demand of the Romanists; If the consecration of the body and blood of Christ depend upon the intention of the Priest, so that if he intent not in the act of consecration, the Body of Christ is not then present, neither is the Bread or Wine transubstantiated. How then can the Doctors of the Church of Rome free the people from the sin of Idolatry, which worship the creature in stead of the Creator, the vnconsecrated Elements, in stead of the true and substantial Body and Blood of Christ? For, they worship the bread, supposing it to be the Body of Christ, when, through either the negligence, or wilfulness of the Priest, in not intending consecration, it remains in its own proper substance.  
They think to falue this sore with a nice distinction, they tell us it is material Idolatry, but not formal; as though Idolatry, masked under a covert, were not a sin: and, because it is not voluntary, or intentional, therefore it were tolerable.  
The Idolatry of Israel was never so gross, as to worship any graven Images in stead of God; but (as our Papists plead) to worship God, in or through their Images: yet, this provoked God unto jealousy, and drew down his vengeance upon these Idolaters. Is not this more palpable Idolatry, where the Bread and Wine, which are but creatures, are worshipped with Latreia, adoration which themselues ascribe unto God alone? And to manifest, that they ascribe unto this Sacrifice, the same divine worship which they ascribe unto God, let but the Christian Reader examine the last general Council, held by the Church of Rome, namely, the Council of Trent, where he shall find this blasphemous Canon; Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento, Christum unigenitum 
〈◊〉. Triden. c. 5. de Euch. cap. 6.  Dei filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum, venerandum; neque processionibus secundum laudabilem & universalem Ecclesiae sanctae ritum & consuetudinem & solemniter, circumg estandum, vel non publicè ut adoretur, populo proponendum, & eius adoratores esse Idololatras, Anathema sit: If any man shall say, that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with external divine worship in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and that it is not solemnly to be carried about in Procession, according to the laudable, and universal rites and custom of holy Church, and that it is not publicly to be showed to the people that they may adore it, and that the worshippers thereof are Idolaters, let him be accursed. And in the beginning of the same Chapter there are these words; Nullus 〈◊〉 dubitandi locus relinquitur, cum omnis Christi fidelis, pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto latriae cultum, qui 〈◊〉 Deo 〈◊〉, huic 〈◊〉 sacramento in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: There is now no place of doubting left, seeing all the faithful of Christ, according to the custom which was always 〈◊〉 in adoration may give unto this sacred Sacrament that worship of Latria, which is belonging to the true God. This is a doctrine of Devils; commanding most 〈◊〉 Idolatry, and yet not to be contradicted under pain of his Holiness curse. But let us admit, that Christ is to be worshipped in the Eucharist, yet how can the people 〈◊〉 the sin of Idolatry, when albeit the Priest fail in his intention, and consequently consecreate not, yet they worship the 〈◊〉 and wine with adoration.  
But I will not here enter into the discussion of this point, whether the Eucharist is to 〈◊〉 with Divine worship? Lest I should too much enlarge this Treatise, which hath already transcended the limits of my intention.  
Thus having sufficiently satisfied (as I hope) the indifferent and impartial Reader, concerning the propounded parts of this controversy; as namely, that the pretended sacrifice of the Mass hath no ground in the Doctrine of the Scriptures, practise of the Apostles, or writings of the ancient Fathers: as secondly touching the original increase and continuance of the Mass: Thirdly, of the imbecility and weakness of their objected Arguments: Lastly, of the firm and solid grounds of our dislike and opposition. I shall in fine lay before the eyes of all men a brief enumeration of all the impieties and blasphemies of this abominable Idol, and so shall conclude all with a serious dissuasion, from all, or any participation in that superstitious worship.  
The Impieties of this Sacrifice are these.  
First, it is not only diverse from the institution of Christ, but quite overthrows it, as appears by these particulars. 1. First, Christ instituted a Sacrament wherein he freely offereth himself to be received of all believers, by faith, and to be eaten spiritually. They turn it into a sacrifice, which is offered unto God the Father, not being distributed to the people, but devoured by the Priest, and that 〈◊〉, really, and materially: So that whereas the Church should have been thankful for that God hath given his only son for her salvation, she strives to make God her debtor by offering unto him a sacrifice; but such a sacrifice as he never desired, expected or commanded. 2. Christ in the Sacrament consecrated bread, and wine, which remained as signs, and symbols of the body and blood of Christ. In the Mass they consecreate the real and substantial body of Christ, taking away the Sacrament in that they take away the signs. 3. In the Sacrament, the virtue and efficacy is in the power of God, making it operative by the grace of the Spirit. In the Mass the deed done deserves pardon; and the Priest hath a portion of remission of sins, which may be bestowed on whom he will. 4. The Sacrament is only profitable for the living, but the Mass for the quick and the dead. 5. The Sacrament was instituted to manifest the Communion of Saints, therefore called the Communion figured by the bread: framed of many corns, and made into one lose, and the wine made of many grapes; so all 〈◊〉 are one body: but in private Mass, the Priest consumes all the host himself, as though he alone had right unto Christ, the Laity gazing on him appearing rather to be excommunicate persons, then to have any communion in the body of Christ, as also the Communion of Saints is abolished by the Mass, seeing any notorious sinner, who can pay for a Mass, shall have as much relaxation of pains, as a 〈◊〉 man. 6. In the administration of the Sacrament the Laity did partake of the cup as well as the clergy. But in the Mass, the Sacrament is maimed by taking away the cup from the Lay people. 7. Christ instituted, the Sacrament in remembrance of himself, saying, Do this in remembrance of me. The Priest says Mass in remembrance of the dead. Again, hereby they destroy the remembrance of Christ's death. For as a Testament doth suppose the death of the Testator, so the alteration of that Testament supposeth that the Testator is not yet dead: wherefore the Mass being so much altered from the institution of Christ, which he bequeathed as a Testament unto his Church, doth by consequence deny the death of Christ: For it being sufficiently proved to be another pretended Testament, differing from the first institution, doth 〈◊〉 require again, that Christ should dye, recrucisying the Son of God; for as Paul saith, Where a Testament is, there must necessarily follow the death of the Testator. Moreover if Christ be offered 〈◊〉 day how is this not rather to institute a new sacrifice, then to Do it in remembrance of his great sacrifice upon the Crosse. 8. Christ instituted the Sacrament, to be reverently distributed unto the people. But the Mass is reserved in the Pix, is carried about the Cities and Towns like a may-game. 9 Christ gave bread and wine to his Disciples. The Priest 〈◊〉 God unto the people, he being the maker of his Maker, and they eating God with their bodily mouths, to Christ instituted the Sacrament to confirm our Faith; they say Mass to redeem men's souls, to cure diseases, to work miracles.  
The second impiety of the Mass. It commandeth and practiseth things directly contrary to God's word, 〈◊〉 invocation of Saints, and Angels, Prayer for the dead, Adoration of creatures, Purgatory, etc.  
Thirdly, it by consequence affirmeth that Christ is out of the favour of his Heavenly Father, and therefore had need of an earthly Mediator, which is the Priest, who may offer the body of Christ unto his Father, and pray that God would accept him as the sacrifice of Abel.  
Fourthly, the Mass hindereth the service of God; for God willbe served in spirit and truth, with an inward and entire affection; but the Mass causeth a man to rest in the outward service of God, as hearing, seeing, gazing, stooping, kneeling, knocking, etc. Which things of themselves are meritorious by the work wrought; and because the Mass alone is sufficient, therefore it makes needless all holy exercises as Preaching, Prayer, etc. Working presumption in wicked men, who albeit they have spent their days in wickedness, yet if they have a Mass, or can get the Priest to say Mass for them, they doubt not but to be saved.  
Fiftly, it blasphemeth the Deity of Christ, in that whereas God alone is to be worshipped with Divine worship, they ascribe and yield that which is due unto God alone, unto the creature, worshipping it instead of God, as the bread and the wine in the Eucharist; and doubtless their Artolatreia is nothing else but Tololatreia.  
Sixtly, it derogateth from the virtue of Christ's death, making it ineffectual, and his sacrifice imperfect, overturning the Cross of Christ, by erecting an Altar, and reiterating that perfect and all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ, which was offered once for all, whereby he sanctified for ever, them that were perfect, having obtained eternal redemption for us. And as the reiteration of the Leviticall sacrifices argued the imperfection of them, so the repetition of the Mass argues an insufficiency in the sacrifice of Christ.  
Seventhly, it falsifies the word of Christ. We usually observe the last speeches of dying men, as oracles, but Christ dying upon the Cross, shut up all with this speech, It is finished, that is, Man's salvation is finished by this my sacrifice. And yet the Massedenies it: What is this but to make Christ a liar?  
Eightly, it denies the Article of Christ's humanity, in that it a scribes not unto him those properties which are competent to all 〈◊〉 bodies, and without which a real body cannot subsist, as to be locally in one place at once, to be circumscriptible, to have true dimensions, etc.  
Ninthly, it 〈◊〉 the article of Christ's session, at the right hand of God: Who enjoying a true material body, if he be present in the Mass, cannot sit as a man at the right hand of his Father for ever.  
Tenthly, it is the ground of all diffidence and distrust, the Sacrament increaseth our faith, while thereby we apprehend Christ bodily absent to be spiritually present: but the Mass depending on the intention of the Priest cannot but beget distrust in the minds of the people.  
Eleventh, the Mass robs us of the fruit of Christ's death, for the fruit of Christ's death is remission of sins, which is sealed unto us in the Lord's Supper. But the Mass (by the consent of some of their greatest Doctors) is not available for the remission of sins.  
twelvely, it opens the mouth of the Common Adversary, who despises both the persons and religions of all Christians, because the Church of Rome worshippeth a breaden God.  
The thirteenth impiety of the Mass is this, it destroyeth the eternity of Christ's Priesthood, who was consecrated of his father a Priest not for a time, but for ever, after the order of Melchizedech, which order was not temporal, as the Priesthood of Rome, but eternal, not external and visible after his ascension, but spiritual and invisible, such as could neither be supplied by substitutes or successors. But by offering the sacrifice of the Mass, they make themselves after the order of Melchizedech, which order at the end of the world shall cease: what then shall become of Christ's eternal Priesthood?  
The fourteenth impiety of the Mass. It maketh the Priest of more desert than Christ himself. For the sacrifice is not accepted for itself, but for the worthiness of the person offering. Cain's sacrifice was as good as Abel's, when yet it was rejected for the wickedness of him that offered, Abel's being accepted for the worthiness of the sacrificer, so the humane nature of Christ being our sacrifice, was meritorious by the virtue of the Godhead, whereby it was offered unto his Father. But if the Priests do offer the body of Christ unto his Father, he must needs be of more desert than the sacrifice itself.  
The fifteenth impiety of the Mass. It overthroweth the Doctrine of grace and justification, which teacheth that in this life alone man hath time to work his salvation, and to procure the favour of God, and pardon for sin. But the Mass is profitable for the dead, yea both to mitigate the pains, and totally to liberate out of Purgatory.  
The sixteenth impiety of the Mass is. It subverteth God's decree of Reprobation, for it is available for whomsoever the Priest shall offer it, both for remission of sin and liberation from punishment; who doubts not but then many a Reprobate for whom Mass is said, is 〈◊〉 from eternal damnation?  
The seaventeenth impiety of the Mass is. It robs God of his right; for whereas it is a prerogative royal belonging to the Regal Crown of Heaven, to institute Sacraments and Sacrifices, the Church of Rome hath usurped that power, instituting this sacrifice which God never commanded them, neither came it into his mind; but they like Antiochus Ephiphanes, have exalted their Idol upon the Lord's Table: what audacious boldness was this in any man, to invent without God's command, a sacrifice to appease and pacify the wrath of God? And what is it but an Ethelothrescta, a 〈◊〉 divised of their own carnal and corrupt wills and affections?  
The eighteenth impiety in the Mass. It establisheth the doctrine of merit, and overthroweth the satisfaction of Christ; for if a man may merit by the sacrifice of the Mass, what injustice was it in God to lay the burden of man's wickedness upon Christ, causing him to satisfy by death, when men may merit by hearing or saying Mass, by offering or receiving this sacrifice.  
The nineteenth impiety is. Their jesuit Salmeron is permitted to write, That the oblation of Christ 
Salmeron. 〈◊〉. tom. 9 tract. 3. 〈◊〉 247. margin.  in his last Supper (which the Romanists hold to be satisfactory and Propitiatory) received no efficacy or virtue from the sacrifice upon the cross. Which all Orthodox Christians cannot but judge to be an impious Paradox. Seeing both the Sacrament of Baptism and of the Eucharist, have their foundation in, and virtue, and operation, from the great and all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ offered upon the cross.  
The twentieth impiety is in the manner of celebrating this sacrifice. In that it is performed in an unknown tongue, directly contrary to the Apostolical injunction of Saint Paul, who willeth every man that prayeth to pray in that language, which the common 
1 Cor. 14. 14. 15, 16.  people understand, that the Church may be edified.  
Secondly, in regard of the gesture of the Priest, which is so changeable, so ridiculous, so affected, more like a Player then a Sacrificer; for the Priest varieth and changeth his gesture, at least forty or fifty times during the time of the Mass.  
First, he boweth his body, than he raiseth himself and kisseth the Altar on the right side: he boweth again, and looketh toward the host, he joineth his hands, wipeth his 〈◊〉, listeth up the host: then he listeth up his eyes and boweth himself, and lifteth up his eyes again: he boweth again and lifteth up the host above his forehead, uncovereth the Chalice, and holdeth it between his hands, keeping his thumb and forefinger together: then he boweth and lifteth up the cup a little, then to his breast, or above his head, he setteth it down again, wipeth his fingers: then he spreads his arms a cross; he boweth his body; then rising kisseth the Altar on the right side, after this he smiteth his breast: then he uncovereth the Chalice again, and maketh five crosses with the host, beyond the Chalice, on each side, under it and before it: then he layeth his hands upon the Altar: the Deacon than reacheth the Priest the Paten; which he putteth to his right eye, then to his left, and maketh a cross beyond his head with it, kisseth it, and layeth it down; then he breaketh the host in three parts, holding two pieces in his left hand; the other part in his right hand over the Chalice, which with a cross, he letteth fall into it; the Priest than kisseth the Corporas: the Deacon taketh the Pax from the Priest, giveth it to the subdeacon, and he to the Queer; then humbling himself, he first taketh the body, than the blood; so he goeth to the right horn of the Altar; then the Subdeacon poureth in wine, and the Priest rinseth the cup, and washeth his hands; he turneth himself to the people, cometh again to the Altar, and turneth to the people the second time: then bowing his body and closing his hands he prayeth to himself: he riseth again, making the sign of the cross, and bowing again, so goeth to the Altar: insomuch that 
* 〈◊〉 missa 〈◊〉 homo vestitu indutus 〈◊〉 prophanae potius quam 〈◊〉 sanctae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dicit 〈◊〉, imotantum 〈◊〉 Polan. 〈◊〉 tom 2. l. 6. c. 56. page 471.  Roscius-like he seems rather an Actor than a priest: the Mass itself being stuffed full of ceremonies borrowed from the sacrifices of both jews and gentiles, as Innocent the third, and Baronius themselves confess.  
The one and twentieth impiety, That the only accidents of bread and wine can nourish the body, without their proper substance.  
The two and twentieth impiety. That the body and blood of Christ may be made poisonous, for Bernar 
Platiu. darite Victor. 〈◊〉.  dus de monte Politiano de Domcastro, a Monk of the jacobines order, poisoned with the Host Henry the seaventh Emperor of Germany; and Victor, Pope of Rome was poisoned with the wine he took in the Mass.  
The three and twentieth impiety. That the body and blood of Christ do subsist apart separated one from another, both in the act of consecration and afterward.  
The four and twentieth impiety. That Christ is now in the Eucharist, not a living but a dead Christ, in regard that albeit (as they affirm) the bread be changed into his body, and the wine into his blood, yet neither of these (according to their own tenant) can be transubstantiated into his soul, which is a spiritual and an immaterial substance; how then shall his soul be united to his body, seeing when by these words, This is my body, he changed the elements into his body and blood, yet he makes no mention of his soul? Wherefore the body subsisting without a soul must be but inanimate, a dead corpse.  
The twenty five impiety. Christ had two bodies, one visible wherewith he sat at Table, another invisible, which he distributed to his Disciples under the forms of consecrated bread and wine.  
The six and twentieth impiety. They say Christ at his last Supper gave his natural body to be eaten of his Disciples; but by their doctrine would follow, that Christ gave his mortal body, as it was before his passion unto his Disciples; but unto his Church he gives now his glorified body, such as it is sitting at the right hand of God.  
The seven and twentieth impiety. That the body of Christ doth daily ascend into heaven, and descend from heaven, as jaecobs' Angels, and is contained in the hands of the Priest, is crashed in his teeth, his bones being broken.  
The eight and twentieth impiety. That the body of Christ being kept a long time in any vessel, will corrupt and putrify, and worms will be generated of it; as Alphonsus Magnus the king of Arragon found by experience.  
The twenty nine impiety. That Christ jesus the Son of God was not incarnate for us, suffered not, died not, rose not again, ascended not 〈◊〉 heaven for us, but only bread and wine did all these things in our behalf.  
Or which is the last impiety. The body of Christ was not of the seed of David, said exsemine triticeo, of the seed of wheat, was sowed in the earth, grinded in the mill, baked in the oven, and at last torn a pieces with men's teeth.  
Thus have I laid open unto thee (Christian Reader) a just survey and trial of the sacrifice of the 〈◊〉 Mass, which (I doubt not) appears to thee, as it is in it own nature, a Mass of impiety, and that Mystery of iniquity foretold by Saint Paul; which albeit it pretend the greatest honour and worship to Christ of any Ecclesiastical service; yet is there not a greater enemy unto our King and Saviour the Lord jesus; nor a more hellish traitor unto his crown and dignity; wherein (if ever) The devil hath transformed 
〈◊〉 Thes. 2. 7.  himself into an Angel of light; covering his poisonous and deadly hook with the bait of religion; the most prevalent Stratagem that ever Satan put in practice to hinder and oppugn the kingdom of Christ: yet this is the Diana for which Demetrius and his companions are so importunate: because by this Craft they get their gain. It may well be styled a Craft, because it is a Mystery of iniquity, whereby the Church of Rome is swollen so big with devouring the gold, treasure, and inheritance of the Laity that the guts of it are well nigh bursten.  
This is that Helena, for which the adversaries of the truth do so fiercely encounter, which hath made 
〈◊〉 19 28.  the Kings of the earth drunken with the cup of her fornication.  
This they labour so much to uphold, which is the Pillar that upholds them; and for it they fight (as the ancient Romans were wont) tanquam pro focis & aris; while on it depends their rich offerings upon their Altars, and the fatness of their kitchen. Take but away this one Pillar and their house will fall; and the fall of it will be great; for it will slay all the Lords of the Philistims.  
Now if any true Orthodox Christian, or soundmember 
Quest.  of the Catholic Church, demand of me whether it be lawful for him to be present at Mass, albeit he pretend that so he keeps his heart to God?  
I answer: No, for 〈◊〉 the Mass is full of so 
〈◊〉.  many impieties, and abominable blasphemies, against the blessed person of the Son of God, overthrowiug both the Word and Sacraments of our Lord jesus Christ, it is therefore utterly unlawful for any Christian to be present, at it, or to communicate in that service. Argument of Ridley and Bradford.  
Secondly, we cannot be partakers of God's religion and Antichrist service, whereof the Mass is a principal limb; a man cannot be a member of the Church of Christ, and of the Church of Rome, as it now stands. But he that frequenteth their Idolatrous assemblies makes himself a member thereof. And therefore cutteth himself off from being a member of the Church of Christ. Argument of Bradford.  
Thirdly, to dissemble and halt in matters belonging to God's glory, is impious and ungodly; but they who are present at Mass, both hearing the name of God blasphemed, and seeing many abominations, and yet hold their peace, do notably dissemble; Ergo, They sin egregiously against God. Argument of Bradford.  
Fourthly, 〈◊〉 of the Mass impugneth diverse petitions of the Lords Prayer; and so the practice of such is contrary to the daily prayer they use. How can we say, Thy Kingdom come, when nothing in the earth doth more destroy the Kingdom of Christ then the Mass? How can we pray, Thy will be done, when we do our own wills, and the wills of Idolaters, flat against the will of God? How can we pray, Hallowed be thy name, when we seem to approve the Mass which is nothing but blasphemy against the whole Trinity? How can we pray, Deliver us from evil, which knowing the Mass to be evil, do run into it? wherefore if we mean as we pray, we must not partake in the Mass, lest we approve of that in our practice which we condemn in our prayer. Argument of Bradford.  
Fiftly, whatsoever gives occasion to the wicked to be more obfirmed, and to the weak to stumble and fall, is to be abhorred: But Protestants going to Mass, and by their presence giving allowance to it, do occasion the obstinate to be more intractable, the weak Papists to be more resolute, the wavering Protestant quite to fall. Bradfords Argument.  
Sixtly, Daniel refused to be filled with the King's meats, which were polluted by Idolatry. And so 
Dan. 1. 8. 〈◊〉 12.  judeth likewise. The Maccabees manfully gave their lives in defence of the Ceremonies of the Law. Ergo, we ought much more to endure and suffer all things for the maintenance of the pure word of God, and holy Sacraments. Bishop Ridleyes' Argument.  
Seaventhly, God commanded his people Israel, by the mouth of his Prophet Amos, Not to seek Bethel, 
Amos 5. 5. Heb. 10. 38. 1 Cor. 3. 17.  nor to enter into Gilgall, where Idolatry was used. And again, My soul hath no pleasure in those, that withdraw themselves, saith the Lord, If any man profane the Temple of the Lord, him will God destroy, for the Temple of God is holy, which ye are. All strange worship is counted whoredom by the Lord, and they that follow it, go a whoring. But they that go to Mass, enter into Bethel, and Gilgal, that is places of Idolatry, they withdraw themselves from the faith in their outward behaviour; they profane their bodies, which are Gods Temples, being present at 〈◊〉 service, they go a whoring after a strange religion.  
Ergo; Protestants, going to Mass, disobey God's command, procure his displeasure,, will cause God to destroy them, and divorce themselves from God and his Church. Philpots' Argument.  
Eightly, The Apostle directly forbids all participation with such as are Idolaters, in the eating of meat sacrificed to Idols, showing, that thereby the weak 
1 Cor. 8. 9, 10, 11, 12. 1 Cor. 10. 14, 15, 16, 20, 〈◊〉  brethren are offended, and the partakers make themselves Communicants at the Table of Devils: now a man cannot be partaker at the Lords Table, and the table of Devils. But, the Mass is an Idolatrous service, a superstitious worship, and the Altar thereof is the Table of Devils, howsoever it is to be hallowed with the invocation of God the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost; Angels, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Saints, and painted over with the lustre of religion, whereas it is indeed, nothing but a painted jezabel, a deceitful Strumpet with a false complexion.  
Ninthly, God is the Creator both of soul and body, therefore he is to be worshipped both in soul 
1 Cor. 6. 〈◊〉 21.  and body; Know 〈◊〉 not that your body is the Temple of the holy Ghost, therefore glorify God in your body and spirit which are Gods: whereas God hath given both, so he requires the service of both. And Paul will not give a toleration to any man to dishonour 
Rom. 12. 1.  God by his body: I beseech you brethren by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God.  
God will not be content with reserving the soul to him, when men bestow the worship of their bodies upon Idols. The soul and body make one man, and God will be worshipped in the whole entire man; he will not divide stakes with the Mass; for, as he requireth the whole heart, which is the soul; so he also commandeth the whole strength, which is the body. Again, the soul cannot be in heaven, if the body be in hell; neither can he bow the knee of his soul to God, that bows the knee of his body to the Devil. The Ark and Dagon cannot rest under one roof: 
〈◊〉 Sam. 5. 4.  one man cannot be the temple of God and of Idols.  
Tenthly, Christ would not fall down and worship 
Mat. 4. 10.  the Tempter, albeit he might have reserved his heart to God. And in Eliah his time, God accounted none for his 〈◊〉, but such as had not bowed 
〈◊〉 King. 19 18.  the 〈◊〉 unto Baal: so God accounts none for his servants that give outward worship to the Idol of the Mass, by bowing unto it in token of adoration, by kissing the Pax, by creeping to the Cross, by being sprinkled with holy water. Will a husband, finding his wife committing Adultery with another, admit this as a lawful and reasonable excuse, that her heart was with her husband? No more will Christ allow our bodily presence at the Mass, although our hearts be not consenting to it. Bradfords Answer.  
And indeed, this is the difference between the Church of God, and the Synagogue of Satan, that the one is a chaste wife and Spouse of Christ, & keeps her to her husband alone, and doth not admit others to the use of her faith; the other plays the harlot with many lovers, and keeps not her faith nor worship to God alone.  
Elevently, if we must avoid an Heretic, then much more an Idolater: But an Heretic is to be 
Tit. 3. 10. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 3. c. 3.  avoided, A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; as S. john fled from 〈◊〉, and Policarpe from Martion.  
Ergo, An I do later is to be avoided, and by consequence, 
〈◊〉. Hist. Eccles. 〈◊〉. 3. c. 25. & l. 4. c. 15.  the participation in Idolatrous service. For, if S. john would not abide under the roof, nor have any civil society with Cerinthus an Heretic, how can a Christian join in divine worship with such as are Idolaters?  
Lastly, the Apostle charges us to avoid all appearance of evil. 1 Thes. 5. 22. But how do Christians avoid the appearance of evil, when they associate themselves with Idolaters, partaking with them in their abomination, and consenting to their dishonouring of God by superstitions, which in the Mass is done in a high degree: whereby it appears evidently that it is altogether unlawful for an Orthodox Christian, a true protestant, a sound member of the Church of Christ, to be present at the Idolatrous sacrifice of the Mass, albeit with a pretence of keeping his heart to God.  
Thus, having laid down sound and solid reasons for our non conformity unto that Idolatrous worship, neither in body nor soul. I shall think it expedient to take away all excuses of such as desire to haut between God and Baal; approving the reformed religion of the Church of England, yet, shall either for fear, favour, or hope of gain, at any time be brought to join with the Romanists in hearing or seeing of Mass.  
First they plead; That albeit there be some faults 
Plea 1.  in the Mass, which may be mended; yet, if they do not consent thereunto, what need they trouble themselves; for, S. Augustine saith; Communion in the Sacraments the fileth not a man, but consent of deeds.  
If there were but some small faults, or indifferent 
Answer.  matters, or tolerable abuses in the Mass, rather showing imperfection, then tending to open impiety, they might, for the common Peace sake, be somewhat borne with. But now, seeing it is stuffed full of blasphemies, and spotted with foul Idolatry, manifestly oppugning Christ's sacred Gospel, and most Divine institution of the Lords Supper; no man can therefore with good conscience give consent thereunto. And Augustine's meaning is (as appears by the precedent and subsequent words) that the badness of the Minister, or wickedness of the Receivers pollute not the Sacraments, nor such as receive with faith and due preparation; but, with either wicked Minister, or Receivers, to commit ungodly actions is that which defiles a man. He saith not, that men ought to refrain from Idolatrous worship, for fear of pollution. Bishop Ridlies' answer.  
Secondly, they plead the examples of the Prophets 
Plea 2.  of Christ, of the Apostles; for, Eliah stood by when Baal's Priests offered Sacrifice: And a Prophet 
1 King. 18. 〈◊〉 King. 13. 1.  came unto the Altar, where jeroboam was offering incense unto the golden Calf, which he had erected at Bethel. Christ himself refused not the Temple, albeit the Priests were grown very profane, corrupt, and superstitious. And Paul also came into the Gentiles Temple, where he saw an Altar dedicated to the Unknown God. 
Act. 17. 13.   
By these examples they judge themselves privileged to go to Mass.  
I answer; These examples do not patronise such 
Answer.  as partake in the Idolatrous Service of the Mass. For, first Eliah, when he stood by the Priests of Baal, it was not to partake with them, but to convince them of their Idolatry, and to discover unto the people who was the true God. The Prophet that came to the Altar of Bethel, was sent of God to prophesy against it: neither did either of these Prophets communicate with these Idolaters, or vouchsafed the least reverence unto their Idols, or superstitious service. So Christ and the Apostles frequented the Temple, and joined with the jews in those lawful ceremonies which God had commanded them by the mouth of Moses; but for their hypocrisy they did openly 〈◊〉 it, not imitating them in their superstitious traditions. And for Paul, it appears not that he entered into the Idols Temple, or went on purpose to behold their worship, but saw it accidentally, for so he says; As I passed by and beheld your devotions, I saw an Altar with this inscription; To the unknown God. And it is to be observed, that Paul gave no honour to their Idolatry, but took hereby a just occasion to reveal unto them the true God, and to preach unto them, jesus Christ. So, that these examples, rather make against such as go to Mass, professing the contrary religion, seeing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his Apostles, and Prophets, rather did by their 〈◊〉, condemn such Idolatry and superstition, than any way seem to give any approation of it. But such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Protestant's as 〈◊〉 resort to hear Mass, do by their presence yield allowance and approbation of that Idolatrous service.  
Thirdly, they plead, that except they go to Mass, they lose their lands, livings, and wealth, they are 
Plea 3.  driven to fly their Country, to forsake both favour and society of their parents, kindred, friends, or acquaintance, and thereby themselves, their wives and children are brought to beggary.  
I answer in the words of our Saviour; He that loveth father, or mother, or friends, houses, lands, riches, wife, or children more than Christ, is not worthy of him. And whosoever shall for fear of the loss of any of these, revolt away from God and his truth, is not worthy of the name of a Christian, seeing he appears, rather to be a lover of himself then of Christ, preferring his own temporal profit, before spiritual gain; the favour of men, before the love of God; the satisfying of friends, before the honour of his Saviour; the enjoying of an earthly habitation, before the purchasing of an earthly kingdom. Wherefore it is better to lose these, and win Christ; then to attain these by apostasy and Idolatry, and loose Christ: Yea, What would it been fit thee to gain the whole world, by going to Mass, and to lose thine own soul? But albeit, in the days of persecution, the Martyrs of Christ have been so violently pursued with cruelty, as that they were constrained to sacrifice 〈◊〉 to God in the fire, because they would not forsake Christ jesus, and join with the Romish Idolaters in their blasphemous Mass; witness Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Bradford, Philpot, Bilney, with many more: yet (thanks be to God) in these our days the Gospel flourisheth, the Sacraments are purely administered, according to Christ's institution; and there is freedom by the laws of the Realm, given to all sound Protestants, to serve God, according to the doctrine now established in the Church of England. And if it be not lawful for a man to go to Mass by eompulsion, but that he ought rather to suffer the spoiling of his goods, the loss of friends, or to lay down his life for Christ and his truth, then to participate with them in their blasphemous service, and impious Sacrifice: Then cursed shall that man be, that being a Protestant, a professor of the true Catholic faith (howsoever our Adversaries of Rome challenge the title) shall voluntarily, and without 〈◊〉, either for flattery, fashion, present gain, or future hopes, or the favour of great Personages be drawn to deny his Christ, and to cleave unto Antichrist, forsaking the Church of God, and becoming one of the Synagogue of Satan, foregoing Zion, for Babylon; jerusalem, for Bethel and Samaria: refusing the waters of Siloam, which run 
〈◊〉. 8. 6.  softly, and cleaving unto Resin, and Remeliahs' Son: rejecting the Communion of Saints, in the participation of the Word and Sacraments, taught and administered in the Protestant Church, now established in England, and associating himself unto the Sons of Belial, participating with them in their abominable sacrifice of the Mass. He that shall thus do, is much more unworthy of Christ, than such as shall be constrained, or by fear forced to consent unto their Idolatry; and doubtless shall find such horror in his conscience, and feel such a hell in his soul, as that if God make him not a spectacle of shame and misery in this world, yet he shall surely do it before men and Angels in the world to come.  
Fourthly, they plead the example of Daniel, who, 
Plea 4.  say they, was present, and worshipped the golden Image, which appears by this, that he was not cast into the Furnace, with the three Children his Companions.  
I answer, that either Daniel was not present, which 
Answer.  is most probable, or else he was not accused unto the King: or if he were accused, it may be the King would not hear his accusation, or put him to death for the great favour and affection which he bore unto him for the great service he did in his kingdom. And doubtless Daniel, that would rather be a prey unto the Lions, than not pray unto his God; had rather have tried the heat of the fiery Furnace, then have vouchsafed so much countenance to Idolatry, as to worship the golden Image.  
Fiftly, they plead the example of jehu, who openly 
Plea 5.  professed the religion of Baal, yet he dissembled and meant nothing less, and the Lord commends him for his diligent Execution of that which was right 
〈◊〉 King. 10. 18.  in his eyes. Vers. 30.  
Our answer is, jehu is commended, not for his dissembling, 
Answer.  but for his diligence in destroying ahab's house, with the Priests, and religion of Baal, and all that belonged thereunto; for, in other matters belonging to the service of God, he departed not from the sins of jeroboam, the Son of Nebat, that made Israel to sin: wherefore this can be no excuse for going to Mass, seeing God never approved of dissimulation.  
Sixtly, they plead the command of the Magistrate, 
Plea 6.  thus; We are commanded to obey our Magistrates though they be wicked, and therefore, if they enjoin us to go to Mass, we see not how we can do otherwise for fear of contempt and disobedience.  
We are bound indeed to obey wicked governors, 
Answer.  but so long only as they command nothing contrary to God's word, their wickedness cannot release us, or give a dispensation for disobedience, but if they command any thing contrary to God's word; especially to partake in the Mass, a superstitious service, so directly blaspheming Christ and his service, so plainly opposing the doctrine of the Gospel, and so fundamentally everting the institution of the Lords Supper: in this case obedience is a sin; for, what say the Apostles of jesus? their answer is; Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. And our Saviour teacheth us, to Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is Gods. As we perform our lawful duties to men, so must we not for their sakes, neglect our duties to God, or do any thing whereby he is dishonoured.  
Seventhly and lastly, they plead the example of Naman 
Plea 7.  the Syrian, who being converted to the true worship of the God of Israel, desired to be dispensed with when he should go with the King his Master into the house of Rimon an Idol, and bow himself there, and that herein, God would be merciful unto him; unto whom the Prophet Elisha answered; Go in peace; as liking of his motion, and yielding to it. 
2 King. 18. 19   
We answer; the opinions of Divines, touching 
Answer.  this thing are diverse; some think he spoke only of civil and politic presence, that his Master the King might lean upon him before his Idol; and not of Religious, for he makes open protestation, that he 
Zanch. in Eph. 5 Perkins on the 2 Commandment.  would never worship other God than the God of Israel; to the which the Prophet condescendeth. But howsoever, the gesture itself is indifferent, to stand when the King stands, or bow when the King boweth: yet this gesture being clothed with such circumstances, seems not to be approved. That he should do this.  
First, in a Temple.  
Secondly, before an Idol.  
Thirdly, in the time of public service.  
Fourthly, by one professing the true God;  
This seems not so probable. And both those famous 
As appears Zanc. l. de redemptione. And Perk. Case of Conscience, Book. 2. ch. 12.  Divines departed from this answer, cleaving unto that which was more sound in their latter works.  
Others think, he speaketh of the time past; as if he should say; Herein, that I have bowed in the house of Rimmon, etc. The Lord be merciful unto me: using the future, for the time past.  
Others (and that more truly) expound the words of Naaman thus; That Naaman professed it a sin to go in to bow with his Master in the house of Rimmon, and therefore prayeth twice for mercy for it, professing, he will never worship any but the true God: neither doth he only pray for sin past, but in the sense of his own weakness desireth mercy that 〈◊〉 may not be drawn from his purpose, and withsll stirreth up the Prophet to pray for him that God would give him grace and strength, and for pardon if at any time he should against his purpose be drawn into his former sin: and in this sense the Prophet bids him go in peace: as if he should say, I will pray that God would keep thee in thy godly resolution, and for mercy and pardon if thou shouldest be drawn aside, and so farewell.  
The words of the Prophet Elisha, Go in peace: are 
Willet. 〈◊〉.  also diverssy expounded. Some think the Prophet's words 〈◊〉 no grant made unto his petition, but rather a prohibition, not to trouble himself about those matters; as if he should have said, Content thyself, require no such thing, it would trouble thy conscience, but go in peace, keep a good conscience, and labour 
Polan. Syntag. tom. 2. l. 9 c. 30.  for the peacetherof; (& so as Polan. observes) the words of the Prophet are, Tantum dimittentis abeuntem, non concedentis postulatum; only a valediction, and not any concession or granting of his request.  
Again, it appears not by the words of the Prophet that he gave any toleration or dispensation unto Naaman: for Naaman makes in one verse two petitions; one for permission to go into Rimmons' Temple; the other for two mules load of earth to carry home with him to offer sacrifice upon, unto the Lord.  
Now the Prophet makes the same answer unto both, and therefore doth either condescend to both or deny both: but grant them both he did not, for the one was clean contrary to the law, to give Naaman leave to sacrifice in Syria who was not a Priest, whose office it was alone to offer sacrifice; and moreover jerusalem was the only place appointed for that action. This request therefore the Prophet can by no means be thought to have granted.  
Ergo, nor the other. And unto this sense I do adhere, for that the Prophet neither could nor durst give any liberty to Naaman to be present at the Idolatrous worship of the Syrian Rimmon.  
I am not ignorant of the opinion of some that the Prophet answers dispensando, by the way of dispensation, 
AsPaulus Burgensis.  though not generally, yet in that case, only to go into the Idols Temple, and to be present at 
Nichbls. Lyra in locum.  their Idolatry. But Lyranus will have it declarando, by declaring it to be lawful for Naaman to be present in the Temple of Rimmon at Idolatrous service and sacrifice, so it were only for civil respect unto the king his Master; and of this opinion seems 〈◊〉 
Tert. l. de Idolat.  to be; who allows a man to be present by reason of some civil office, so he yield not to the least show of Idolatry; but I should rather commend the practice of the Protestant Princesat Augusta, who brought Charles the fifth their Emperor, along as he was going to the Mass, but left him at the Church door; as also of Valentinian who brought julian to the Temple 
Histor. Tripart. l. 6. c. 35.  of his Idols, and when the doorkeeper sprinkled his gown with the Idols water, as the Pagans used, Valentinian forthwith gave him a blow on the ear.   

Conclusion.  
Thus having sufficiently refelled their strongest arguments, and given answer to their chiefest pleas, the conclusion shall be this. Seeing the Romish Mass hath quite overthrown, and thrust the Supper of the Lord out of the Church; (the holy Supper being an assembly, a body of the faithful, united and knit together in one spirit; strengthening our faith, 〈◊〉 our charity, kindling our zeal; wherein is celebrated the memory of the death and passion of our Lord by a plain and open rehearsal of the cause, manner, and benefits of the same; whereby the faithful are taught to acknowledge and call to mind the greatness of their sins, and to admire and magnify the great and unspeakable mercies of God; whereby they are stirred up to renounce and forsake themselves, to give themselves wholly unto God, to dye unto their lusts, and concupiscences, and to live unto Christ, who having once delivered himself to the death of the cross for to give them life, did yet further vouchsafe to give himself to them in this sacrament, as spiritual meat and drink to feed their souls unto eternal life; and herein all the faithful do communicate together in the bread and in the cup; in the body and in the blood of our Lord, being taught thereby that they are diverse members of one mystical body, whereof Christ is the head; being quickened, moved, and governed by one Spirit, even the Spirit of Christ, living one life, and having their hearts united one to another by love.  
Herein we are seriously admonished of our bond and obligation to God the Father for sending his Son, and God the Son fulfilling the will of his Father; the remembrance of whose death we show forth till he come; who (as verily as the Minister giveth us the bread and wine to be received with our hands, which being eaten and drunken, are converted into our substances and become nourishments of our bodies) giveth us his body and 〈◊〉 to be received with faith, that we may eat and drink them spiritually, and that they may be turned into the life and substance of our souls, making us one with Christ, and Christ one with us.  
This was the holy Supper of the faithful in the ancient Church, and this is ours; with the rest of the reformed Churches. But in the Mass there are no footsteps of the holy Supper; but all things are so changed, as if the Lords Supper were abolished, and the Mass were come in the stead thereof; for in the Mass there is a Prieft in a strange garment, his face fixed upon an Altar, with a Clerk standing behind him, muttering in a strange language, interlarded with signs, lifting up a wafer in an affected and ceremonial superstitious sort; causing it to be worshipped; dipping it in the wine, eating it alone, persuading the people, that by thus much as hath been done, being at their request, and bought with somepiece of money, he hath sacrificed Christ for them. What showing forth of the Lords death is there till he come? Nay is there not an abolishing of the perfection, value and efficacy of Christ's death and sacrifice? Is their not 〈◊〉 in robbing the lay-people of the cup? Is not the Mass full of abominable blasphemies and gross impieties? Are not the deaths and sufferings of Saints and Martyrs rather reckoned up then the death of Christ represented? Is there not rather a breach of charity than any Symbol of love, when the Priest eats all himself, the common people being excluded from it? where is there any communion between the members, (or signification of our engrafting into Christ?) The scriptures neither authorising, nor the Primitive and Apostolical Church practising, nor the Fathers in the first 600. years acknowledging any such Propitiatory sacrifice, as the Church of Rome both offereth and adoreth; but in turbulent ages it grew from a Sacrament to a sacrifice; from a Sacrifice of praise to a Propitiatory sacrifice by way of representation; from thence in times of ignorance, carelessness, and Political contentions to a real and proper Propitiatory Sacrifice.  
And seeing God our heavenly Father hath spread a table for us in this wilderness, while others starve for food, let every true Christian say with the Prodigal son, I will arise and go to my Father; Let us all 
Luk. 15. 18  remember that exuberant and superaboundant refreshing, which we shall receive from the table of God our Father, where Christ himself is the refection and sustenance of our souls, that our souls being nourished by faith in our Mediator and sacrifice, Christ the Lord, both soul and body may be saved by him in the day of judgement,  
Oh that God would open the blind eyes of such as are ensnared with the allurements of the Romish Church, and deceived with the false complexion of that painted jesabel, being poisoned with the cup of her fornications; that so (if they belong unto the 〈◊〉 of grace) they may escape out of Babylon, and be saved.  
And for us that have been borne of the Church, and brought up in her bosom, unto whom God hath revealed the purity of his word, and exhibited his holy Sacraments without maim or alteration; let us never disclaim our Spiritual mother, making ourselves bastards by becoming the children of a Scarlet coloured Whore; let us never become Apostates from the truth, staining 〈◊〉 souls, and wounding our consciences by Idolatry.  
If we be jews, that is, the Israel of God; let not us pollute ourselves with Romish Samaritans'; Let us not communicate with them in their impious Mystery or Mystical impiety, of their Massing Sacrifice; lest we run upon our own ruin and destruction.  
But let us abhor it, as being Antichristian; let us renounce it as most blasphemous against God, and against his Christ.  
Let neirher prosperity, nor adversity, hope of profit, or fear of loss draw us to partake in that Idolatrous service, lest while we seek the world we lose our souls; and while we fear the face of man, we bereave ourselves of the favour of God.  
〈◊〉 our adversaries persevere in their superstition, they are blind leaders of the blind; but let every Christian joshua, say courageously, I and mine will fear, will serve, will worship the Lord of heaven and earth, and not make to myself 
* As Auerroes upbraided the Christians.  a breaden god, or adore the creature in stead of the Creator.  
Let us not for fear of the Pope's anathemas excommunicate ourselves from the society of God's Saints: but rather to say with undaunted resolution in the words of Paul. We are ready not only to be bound, but die at Rome for the name of the Lord jesus. And albeit these are the days wherein the enemies of the Gospel think to prevail, yet fortify yourselves with courage in your profession, start not a fide like a broken Bow; forsake not Christ to take part with his Adversaries, but stand for your Saviour, as he hath stood for you, fight for your Saviour as he hath fought for you, die for your Saviour, as he hath died for you, that you may receive the reward of immortality with the rest of the holy Saints and Martyrs in the kingdom of heaven for the infinite merit of our eternal Priest, and all-sufficient Sacrifice jesus Christ the righteous. To whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost, three distinct persons, but one glorious and everliving God be ascribed Honour, Majesty, Power and Dominion for ever.  
Amen.    

Faults escaped.  
PAg. 12. l. 28, hand, r. hands. p. 20. l. 24. for place, r. places. p. 21. l. 22. for deered, r. decreed. p. 23. l. 22. for near, r. were, p. 24. l. 18. for inavimate, r. inanimate, p. 25. l. 6. for Ilastica, r. Hilastica, which fault escaped in diverse other places, p. 25. l. 26. for his r. this. p. 28. l. 28. for phusian, r. thusian, p. 28. l. 32. for open, read oxen, p. 30. l. 12. for fin, r. sin, p. 42. l. 3. for alms, read all men. p. 84. l. 32. for Bitrutum, r. Bitentum, p. 85. l. 18. for commendation, r. commemoration, p. 88 l. 18. for and, r. a. p. 106. l. 29, for suffered, r. offered, p. 107. l. 31. for hexenegae, r. exenenke, p. 109. for host r. host, p. 1 10. for hen, r. en. ibid. l 1 1. for Hebrews, r. Hebrew, ibid. l. 13. for participle, r, particle, p. 111. l, 20. for an, r. no, p. 195. l. 30. for men, r. man, p. 198. l. 16. for their, read three, p. 206. l. 29, for 〈◊〉, r. Idololatreta.  
FINIS.   

ALPHABETUM GRAECUM. Litterae apud Graecos sunt quatuor & Viginti.  
Figura Nomen. Pronuntiatio. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alpha a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beta b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gamma g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Delta d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epsilon etenue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zeta z (densum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eta e longum vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theta th' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jota i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cappa c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lambda l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nigh n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Xi x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omicron oparuum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pi P 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rho r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sigma s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tau t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ypsilon y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phi ph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chi ch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psi. ps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omega omagnum,  
Finis Alphabeti.   

DE GRAMMATICA ET EIUS PARTIBUS.  
GRAMMATICA, EST recte scribendi atque loquendi ars.  
Grammaticae quatuor sunt partes:  
Orthographia,  
Etymológia,  
Syntaxis,  
Prosodia.  

De Orthographia.  
ORTHOGRAPHIA, est rectè scribendi ratio, qua docemur, quibus quaeque dictio sit formanda literis: ut Lectio, non lexio: ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rectus, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scriptura.  

DE LITERIS.  
Ex viginti duabus literis, quinque sunt vocales: 
Vocales.  a, e, i, o, u, nam y Graeca est.  
Ex quibus variè dispositis, coalescunt diphthongi 
Diphthongi.  quinque:  
ae ut Musae. Reliquae literae Consonantes 
Consonantes Muta.  appellantur, quarum 〈◊〉 sunt Mutae: b, c, d, f, g, k, p, q, t. au Audio. oe Coelum. ei Hei. eu Euge.  
Septem autem semiuocales: L, m, n, r, s, x, z. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
Ex quibus quatuor vocantur etiam liquidae: L, m, n, r.  
S, verò suae cuiusdam potestatis litera est, quae interdum etiam liquescit. X & Z, duplices sunt 
X & Z.  consonantes, atque etiam I, inter duas vocales.  
Adduntur etiam consonantibus I & V, quando 
I & V consonantes aliquando.  sibi vel aliis vocalibus in eadem syllaba praeponuntur: ut juno, Iouis, voluntas, vultus.  
K, Y, & Z, Latinis dictionibus nunquam admiscentur. 
K, Y, Z.   
H, propriè quidem litera non est, sed aspirationis 
H. aspiratio.  nota.  
Apud Poëtas autem interdum consonantis vim obtinet.  
Praeponitur autem vocalibus omnibus: ut Hamus, hebenus, hiatus, homo, humus, hymnus. Consonantibus verò nullis:  
Rectè itaque enunciamus, Hiulcus, trissyllaba. Hieronymus, trissyllaba. Hiacchus, pentasillaba Hieremias, pentasillaba  
At in Latinis dictionibus interdum H postponitur C: ut Charus, charitas. Pulcher, pulchritudo.  
Bifariam pinguuntur literae, maiusculis scilicet characteribus, & minusculis. Maiusculis inchoantur sententie: ut Deum time. Regem honora. & propria nomina: ut Henricus, Anglia.  
Diligenter obseruari oportebit, quae dictiones dipthongis 〈◊〉, nam hae quidem vel scribi omni.  
nò, vel signari debent: ut Musae, vel Musae, Praesunt, vel Praesunt  
Literae maiusculae, cum solae ac paucae scribuntur, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  aliquando significant Praenomen, aliquando numerum:  
ut A. Aulus. C. Caius. D. Decius. G. Gaius. L. Lucius. M. Marcus. P. Publius. P. Populus. R. Romanus. ut P. C. Patres conscripti. Q. Quint. Quaest Quirites. R. P. Respublica. Sp. Spurius. Sex. Sextus. S. P. Q. R. Senat. populusque Romanus. T. Titus. T. C. Tua clementia. & eius generis infinita.  

In numeris verò significat.  I. Vnum. V. Quinque. IX. Nouem. X. Decem. XL. Quadraginta L. Quinquaginta. XC. Nonaginta. C. Centum. D. Quingenta. M. Mille.   

DE SYLLABARUM DISTINCTIONIBUS.  
REctè scripturo, discendum est in primis syllabas inter scribendum aptè distinguere atque connectere. In simplicibus vocibus, bd, vocali sequenti adhaerent: A bdomen, a bdera.  
Quam quidem rationem 〈◊〉 & ista:  
ct ut Do-ctus, San-ctus, ps Scri-psi, Sum-psi, sc Pi-scis, Di-sco, 〈◊〉 E-tna. gm ut 〈◊〉, gn I-gnis, st Ve-ster, Magi-ster x An-xius, Di-xi, & 〈◊〉  
Interm & n, non interseritur p. Malè igitur pingerctur Sompnus, pro somnus: Columpna, pro columna.  
Post x, non seribiturs: ut excribo, exoluo, non exscribo, exsoluo. In compositis cum 〈◊〉, auribus & euphoniae seruiendum est: ut Occurro, potius quam Obcurro, Officio, Obficio, Aufero, Abfero. Et contrà, Abstineo, non autem Austineo, Obtineo, Ottineo, Obrepo, Orrepo.  
Atque huius rei gratia, etiam consonantes in compositione aliquando interseruntur: ut Redamo, redeo: ambigo, ambio.    

DE ORTHOEPIA.  
ORthographiae 〈◊〉 est Orthoepia, 〈◊〉 est, emendatè recteque loquendi ratio. Ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rectus, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verbum.  
Hic in primis curandum est, ut praeceptores tenera ac balbutientia puerorum ora sic effingant & figurent, ne vel continua linguae volubilitate ita sermonem praecipitent, ut nusquam, nisi ubi spiritus deficit, orationemclaudant: vel contrà, ad singulas quasque voces longa interspiratione consilescant, ructu, risu, singultu, screatu, vel tussi, sermonis tenorem inepte dirimentes.  
Caeterum ante omnia deterrendi sunt pueri ab iis vitijs, quae nostro vulgo penè propria esse videntur, cuiusmodi sunt, jotacismus, Lambdacismus, Ischnotes, Traulismus, 〈◊〉, & similia.  
jotacismus dicitur quando I litera, pleniore sono, 
〈◊〉.  & supra iustum decorem extenditur: quo vitio ex nostratibus maxime laborant Angli 〈◊〉.  
Lambdacismus, est ubi quis L nimis operosè sonat: 
Lambdacismus.  ut Ellucet, pro elucet. Sauluus, pro saluus. Nostrati vulgo diversum vitium impingitur, nempe quòd hanc literam pinguiùs iusto pronunciant, dum  
pro Multus, auditur Moultus Mollis, Moolis. Falsus, Faulsus.  
Ischnotes, est quaedam loquendi exilitas, quoties 
〈◊〉  syllabas aliquas exiliùs & graciliùs enunciamus quam per est: ut cum  
pro Nunc, proferimus, Nync, Tunc, Tync, Aliquis, Eliquis, Alius, Elius.  
Traulismus, est haesitantia quaedam aut titubantia 
〈◊〉.  oris, quando eadem syllaba saepiùs repetitur; ut Cacacanit, pro canit. Tututullius, pro Tullius.  
Huic vitio ut foedissimo, ita & periculosissimo, sic succurrendum putat Fabius: si exigatur à pueris, ut nomina & versus affectatae difficultatis, ex plurimis & asperrimis inter se coëuntibus syllabis concatenatis, ac velut confragosis, quam citissimè voluant: ut Arx, tridens, rostris, sphinx, praester, torrida, seps, strix.  

- postquam discordia 〈◊〉  
Belli ferratos postes, portasque refregit.   
Plateasmus, est quando crassiùs & voce plusquàm 
Plateasmus.  virili loqu nitimur: ut cum  
pro Montes, efferimus, Mountes, Fontes, Fountes, Pontes, Pountes.  
Vt etiam pro Ergo, efferimus, Argo, Sperma, Sparma, Perago, Parago.  
Sunt & alibi apud nostrates, qui pro V consonante sonant F: & contrà, V pro F: ut  
Folo, pro Volo, Fis, Vis, Folui, Volui, Felle, Velle.  
Et rursum, Vero, pro Fero, Vers, Fers, Verre, Ferre.  
S, verò mediam inter duas vocales corruptè sonant 
S.  nonnulli,  
pro Laesus, pronunciantes, Laezus. Visus, Vizus. Risus, Rizus.  
H, in initio dictionis leniùs, in medio asperiùs 
H.  enunciari volunt: malè ergò  
pro Homo, efferimus, Omo, Hamus, Amus, Humus, Vmus, Christus, Cristus, Crihsma, Crisma, Chremes, Cremes. Thus, Tus, Diphthongus, Diptongus, Sphaera, Spaera.  
Foedè quoque erratur à nostris, ubi t, & d, tanquam aspiratas pronunciant:  
ut Amath, pro Amat, Caputh, Caput, Apuch, Apud.  
At innumera penè sunt huius generis vitia, quae bonarum literarum candidatis, & praeceptorum diligentiae emendanda relinquimus.  

DE SENTENTIARUM PUNCTIS.  
NEque exigua Orthographiae pars in scriptura rectè distinguenda consistere videtur: Proinde de clausularum distinctionibus paucula annotasse, non fuerit superuacaneum.  
Puncta ergò sive notae, quibus in scribendo utuntur 
Puncta 〈◊〉  eruditi, Latinis dicuntur,  
Subdistinctio, Graecis, Comma, Media distinctio, Colon, Plena ac perfecta distinctio. Periodus  
Subdistinctio seu comma, est silentij nota, seu potius respirandi locus, utpote qua pronunciationis terminus, sensu 〈◊〉, ita suspenditur, ut quod sequitur, continuò succedere debeat.  
Notatur autem puncto deorsum caudato, ad hunc modum (,) 

Ouidius. Vtendum est aetate, cito pede praeterit aetas:  
Nec bona 〈◊〉 sequitur, quam bona prima fuit.    
Hacitem nota distinguuntur orationum singulae partes: ut 

Iwenal. Grammaticus, Rhetor, Geometres, pictor, aliptes.  
Graeculus esuriens, in coelum iusseris, ibit.   Media distinctio, seu colon, est ubi tantum ferè de 
Colon.  sententia restat, quantum iam dictum est, & est perfecta periodi pars, notaturque duobus punctis, sic (:) Quemadmodum horologij umbram progressam sentimus, progredientem non cernimus: & fruticem aut herbam crevisse apparet, crescere autem nulli videtur: ita & ingeniorum profectus, quoniam minutis constat auctibus, ex interuallo sentitur.  
Plena distinctio, quae & Periodus dicitur, ponitur 
Periodus.  post perfectam Sententiam, quae & puncto plano notatur, hoc modo (.)  

〈◊〉 mihi musa virum, captae post tempora Troiae.  
Qui mores hominum multorum vidit & urbes.   
Huc annumerari solent Parenthesis, & Interrogatio. Parenthesis, est sententia duabus semilunulis inclusa, 
Parenthesis.  qua remota, sermo tamen manet integer: vt-princeps (quia bella minantur Hostes) militibus urbes praemunit, & armis.  
Interrogatio, signatur duobus punctis ac superiore 
Interrogatio.  sursum caudato, sic (?) ut Et quae tanta fuit Romam, tibi causa videndi?    

DE ETYMOLOGIA.  
ETymologia, versatur in primis circa investigandas dictionum origines: ut num coelebs dicatur, quasi coelestem vitam agens: num lepus, quasi levipes.  
Caeterum Etymologia, quatenus hoc loco de 〈◊〉 disserimus: est ratio cognoscendi casuum discrimina: ut Fortis, fortiter: Lego, legit, omnesque orationis partes complectitur. Cicero notationem seu veriloquium vocat. Componitur autem ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verus, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sermo.  

De octo partibus orationis.  

Partes orationis sunt octo:  Nomen, Declinabiles. Aduerbium, 〈◊〉. Pronomen, Contunctio, Verbum, Praepositio, Participium, Interiectio.    

NOMEN.  
NOmen, est pars orationis, quae rem significat, sine ulla temporis aut personae differentia.  
Nomen dupliciter dicitur, Substantiwm, & Adiectiwm.  
Substantiwm, est quod nihil addi 
Nomen Substans.  postulat ad suam significationem exprimendam.  
Est autem Substantiwm duplex, Appellatiwm, & Proprium.  
Appellatiwm, est quod rem multis communem 
Appellasiwm.  significat: ut homo, lapis, iustitia, bonitas.  
Proprium, est quod rem uni individuo propriam 
Proprium.  significat: ut jesus, Maria, Londinum, Thamesis. Proprij nominis tria sunt genera.  
Praenomen, quod vel differentiae causa, vel veteri 
Praenomen.  ritu praeponitur: ut Lucius, Publius, Aulus, Marcus.  
Nomen, quod suum est cuique: ut Petrus, Paulus, 
Nomen.  Cato, Tullius.  
Cognomen, quod vel à cognatione impositum est: 
Cognomen.  ut Gracchus, Fabius, Scipio, Cicero. Vel ab eventu aliquo: ut Africanus, Macedonicas, Germanicus.  
Adiectiwm, est quod substantivo indiget, cui in 
Nomen adiectiwm.  oratione adhaereat: ut Piger, alacris, candidus, clemens. Adiectiwm est duplex, Commune, & Proprium.  
Commune, est quod affectionem multis communem 
Commune.  significat: ut Bonus, malus, solers, satur.  
Proprium, est quod affectionem uni individuo 
Proprium.  〈◊〉 significat: ut Gradiws Marti, Quirinus Romulo.  

DE ACCIDENTIBUS NOMINI.  
Nomini accidunt septem:  
Species, Figura, Numerus, Casus, Genus, Declinatio Comparatio.