D●s Edoardus Dering in Comitatu Kancij pro Comitatu praedicto Aᵒ Dni ● Surenden-Dering miles et Baronettus, et miles ad Parliamentum. 1640.    

A DISCOURSE of PROPER SACRIFICE, IN WAY OF ANSWER to A. B. C. JESVITE, another Anonymus of Rome: Whereunto the reason of the now Publication, and many observable passages relating to these times are prefixed by way of Preface: by Sr. EDWARD DERING KNIGHT and BARONET.  Augustin. de Doctrina Christiana. 
Cum audierit Sacrificium, non excedit cogitatione illud quod fieri de victimis pecorum, terrenisque fructibus solet. Ea demum est miserabilis animae servitus: signa pro rebus accipere—  Bellarmin. de Miss. lib. 1. cap. 17. 
Apostoli (Domino inspirante) non utebantur nominibus Sacerdotii, Sacrificii, Templi, Altaris.  Plaut. in Poenul. 
— Semper Sacruficas, nec unquam Litas.  
CAMBRIDGE, Printed for FRANCIS EGLESFIELD, and are to be sold at the sign of the Marigold in paul's-churchyard. 1644.   

ALMAE MATRI CANTABRIGIAE VOTA SVA: Suus Alumnus EDOARDUS DERING de Morinis.  
QVin haud possum non ambire: equidem & haec Ambitio pium filium decet, quâ se erga Matrem optimam, officii adhuc debiti, & beneficii olim recepti, memorem testetur. Itaque salve Academia inter inclytas celeberrima: inter orthodoxas purissima: inter omnes optima. Qui● quid bonarum literarum h●usi, uberibus debetur tuis: quòd non ulteriùs & penitiùs hausi, illud ingeni●li mei debetur stricto ●ngiporto. Tu interim omnigenae scientiae non exantlandus Oceanus: Tibi literaturae Antistites tributarios suos fontes acceptos debent: & in justum homagium solvunt. Post hos Antesignanos, ordine meo (hoc est, infimo) agnoscas (oro) alumnum tuum, ad tuam lucem facem meam accensurum, 
— Hinc lucem & pocula sacra: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Academicum.  & tuis poculis sacris utpote irrigatum.  
Nec me tibi debeo unicum, quippe Magna parens nobis, totam familiam stirpémque Deringanam successivis aetatibus ab olim atque etiamnum enutriisti. Seniorem filium meum nuper Sidniensem, modò Emmanuelensem, in Maternitatis vestrae tutelam genui, sed apud Batavos jam Lugdunensem tutiùs elocavi. Ego almum lac Magdalenensis hausi, sed pro captu meo, non pro ●oto atque ubere Matris. Pater meus è collegio Christi; Auus Petrensis; Proavus Clarensis fuêre. unum adhuc (pro-tritavum) Penbrochianum narravit mihi patruus meus Georgius Dering vobiscum apud Jesuanos socius. Caeteri omnes vel Cantabrigienses erant, aut Musas non salutârant. Sed quorsum haec? nempe ut vester, vestrum favorem quasi haereditario adire poterim qui novo merito non valeo.  
Inter jam undique tot clades, & fragores cruentissimi civilis belli Deus O. M. sospitet Cantabrigias. Nec unquam, quod hodie de Athenis Atticis, dicatur de Anglicis: Scilicet inter 70. per totam Graeciam dialectos, omnium pessimam esse Athenarum: 
* Sime●n Cabisilas in epis●ola ad Martin. Crusium.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Interim, lamentis vix ejulare possum, quàm penitus mihi animus ingemit, de aetate hâc nimis ferreâ, quâ insula florentissima, pessum itura, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} peritura est: & territae Musae Athenas suas nesciturae sunt: Quippe flagrante diutiûs bello, aut morituras, aut abituras vereor.  
Sed gentem suam sat acriter eventilatam, tandem quasi postliminiò sub alarum tutelâ iterum est recepturus Deus noster, Deus misericordiarum. Et tunc unusquisque novatorum nuperus ductor (sub cujus regimine calamitates nostrae enatae sunt) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} factus sibi ipsi despicatui erit. Ostensurus quid sit {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} atque pati. Interea tamen si Reverentia Academica, si dignitas, salus, & quies vestra ad incitas reductae fuerint, ut Parnassiacae laurus proximam brontiam perferre non poterint, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} tamen: quia fidenter dico non deerit tibi aliquis & in illâ tempestate Lysander, qui regni Angliaci alterum oculum eruendum negabit: ergò {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
Frigidis hisce notationibus, Te patronam tantam invocare, non est verecundiae nostrae: Non defendas ut protectrix, sat erit si indulgeas condonatrix. Quippe Academicam majestatem decebunt Hermogenis {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, aut Longini {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Grandiloquentia, & sublime dicendi genus quod poterit {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}▪ Sed oratio nostra (
* Dion▪ Long. ●. 3.  sic●t illa Timaei) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, atque {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
Accipe tamen (Alma) observantiam meam, non quâ debitum solvam, sed quâ Tu (Mater) accipiendo nova officia {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} merearis de  
Alumnorum tuorum 
 observantissimo 
 ED. DERING. Surendenâ Deringorum 
 mense Junio. Ann. 1644. 
 & civilium furorum 3.   

¶ PREFACE.  
Reader,  
§. 1. THe date of Midsummer 1640. was birthday to the manuscript whereof the press is now delivered 1644. Shortly after the issue of it from my hand, my country having put upon me the honour of their trust unto this Parliament, time was then no more mine own, nor any rest of mind or body since. I have unhappily traveled; but now at last being returned into the Parliament quarters, and by their clemency suffered to draw breath here, where (unto me) it is the sweetest air in the land, I find both liberty and leisure: and have therefore yielded to their loving importunity, who wish a publication of that, which is not dressed forth with such industry as I would have used, if at first I had intended so public exposure.  
§. 2. Upon my present reperusal of it, some alterations in some expressions I would willingly make, not varying the sense and scope between the priest and me: but he hath a copy, and this must therefore be verbatim, lest he take advantage to quarrel at circumstances, who will not (it seems) reply to the substance.  
§. 3. The occasion of this discourse was thus: From the illuding fallacies of Romish superstition, God with mercy was working the deliverance of a friend and neighbour of mine, who by a divine blessing upon my weak endeavours was in time won home from the shadows and the darkness of Roman idolatry, into the bright sunshine of the Gospel of Christ: and with him his eldest son, a sober, hopeful young man was converted also. Before this work was effected, my friend with caution and good discretion, did desire to hear a conference between one whom then he highly trusted and myself, to which end he brought unto my house two strangers, indeed stout champions for Babel. But God by the inward motions of his spirit did gently (yet powerfully) outwork all their art. The Jesuit still pretended great confidence, and did undertake upon two several points in controversy (1. Proper Sacrifice. 2. Papal Supremacy) to maintain the Romish assertion; wherein he promised to confine his pen within three sheets for each point, but borrowing one fortnight and taking six months, he sent at last six sheets of one, and not one line of the other theme. His Argument and my Answer are both subjoined, word for word.  
§. 4. But some will intercept me with a question: What? have you been so long in the Court and in the Camp, now in stead of some great Court▪ controversy, to disclose a stale contest with a Jesuit? Is this a work for these times, whilst two sides do bloodily strive in the rage and fury of a civil war? Is Church and State almost gasping, and can a leisure be found for pen-work? I answer: First, it is indeed the present issue of thunder and tempest, but was begotten in a quiet serene. Next, it is a part of the present work in hand, for all our difficulties are created, or enlarged, or both, by the servitors of Rome: and then to strike with a pen is as necessary as with the pike. Here is a sad breach between a good King, and good people, and a sad curse will be upon their hearts who have contrived, and who do foment it: But the crafty Papist, at this time, is wise enough to take his own interest into consideration; and who can show any argument to induce me to think, that a Papist (quà Papist) can contribute assistance, but to enlarge this breach, and to mature our ruin? All the Roman party in the world doth look upon this Parliament, and upon Scotland, as upon such opposites to them, so contradictoriall, so deadly, that one must fall; both cannot stand and thrive together: The Religion of Rome, and the Reformation of England, can never henceforward dwell together in this Island. And now our woeful experience hath discovered, that our wise complying Clergy have been but foolish builders. They who thought to tie all together have failed of their project; and (Poor inconsiderate men) with pains and care have made the breach far wider.  
§. 5. These men will (as formerly) murmur at my honest endeavours: for many there are among them who do really distaste that any man's pen should travel abroad, unless it be one of their own wing. What makes a lay man to step within their sevenfold {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}? Why should a Gentleman salute the Scholars Muses? We allow him to be a Master of Art in hawking, hunting, and horsematches: but from academic studies, especially from theological considerations, O away,  
— procul, o procul ite profani:  
This was made plain unto me when I went to choose a college and a tutor for my eldest son: There wanted not some in the university, kindly, but with a covert meaning to forewarn me of the charge; more plainly they expressed themselves, that scholarship is a detriment to elder Brothers. Indeed the Piety of the times did then work high, and I do confidently believe, that a part of the mystery then in working was to draw us all into an indisputed blind obedience: but first into ignorance as the sure way thereto. If (said a Parish-Minister) the Gentry were ignorant enough, than the clergy would be rich enough. Another, Let us get the laity to Confession, & the Clergy power will then be great enough. As for soul-feeding (the least part of their care) my once neighbour-Vicar shall speak for himself, and I hope there are no more of so reprobate a badness: in a dispute upon the allotting of some number of parishioners which he claimed, it was argued that his Parish-church could not contain half the souls which he demanded: Why (said the Vicar) what is that to you? Let them be laid to my parish, let them pay me their tithes, and then let them go to the devil to Church if they will. This was made known to Archbishop Laud (whose Curate the Vicar was) but yet the Vicar was thought honest enough, because he would read the book of sports, and would yield to all that came upon him in the name of authority:  
a Pers. Sa●. ●▪  
O curvae in terris animae & coelestium inanes!  
§. 6. These things, and many other of the like nature, made me heartily endeavour to put that fatal Archbishop on toward his trial: which (as the great affairs give time) will shortly have it's deserved issue: and I doubt not but as Justice is sacred, so also will the care of his great Judges be. I forbear to say in how dear esteem I was with many thousands upon that endeavour of mine: I remember (and I feel some bitterness of mind to remember) how I lost that esteem. It is true that I ever reputed the common praise of common people to be but 
b Antonin. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. lib. 6. §. 17.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a certain noise of tongues: yet I have since found more cause to acknowledge, that God hath a hand even in their mouths, and that there is (sometimes) a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, somewhat Divine, even in the great unity of popular concurrences.  
§. 7. In May, 1642. the public affairs did seem every day to grow into danger: I began sadly with myself to weigh whither we were going. I saw the Divisions would shortly draw out into parties. I lay private in a most happy obscurity, and then by some of my most inward friends did try if I could beg peace and protection of the Parliament: so unwilling was I to have been opposite to the great Senate of the land, that I had nothing in my thoughts before a readmission to their favour, as some special friends can testify: but for an active concurrent assistance, for entering into real service with either of them, truth to confess, I did not then like one side or the other so well, as to join myself with either. A composing third way was my wish, and my prayer. Thus in my weak understanding, I was bold in frequent argument to oppose either side whilst I resolved to assist neither. All my care was, not to trespass against my inward thoughts, and I hope I have in no one action been guilty thereof. Yet even he that watcheth the light of reason to be ruled by it, and is careful to observe and follow the inward dictates of his conscience, shall to others seem changed, when being constant and the same man, he still followeth one and the same warrantable guide. And therefore, with the good Emperor, I say, 
c Antonin. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. lib. 6. §. 17.  If once I be convinced that I think or do amiss, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, rejoicingly I will change my opinion: for I follow Truth: which whosoever really doth, may unto others seem to change often, and yet be constant still.  
§. 8. Of la●e I am come into the Parliaments protection; since when my thoughts have often insisted upon the strangeness of the quarrel between the King and the two Houses▪ The Professions, Declarations, and Protests, are on both sides the same, or so near that reason can hardly find the point in quarrel: Protestant Religion, Laws, Liberty, privileges, &c. Why do they differ? Why are they not agreed? may not a great part of the cause be, that the King divideth from the Parliament? Oh but he had great cause so to do. But what if one should say, the King had mo●e cause to go away then he hath now to stay away? If it be admitted, that the King went away upon great cause, may it not be argued, that there is now greater cause to return? perhaps it will be granted, but withal replied, that his personal danger, will make the advice of his return a sinful counsel. If I did not love his person well, I durst not thus express myself. But upon that ground I say, that he may be personally as safe or safer at Westminster, then at Oxford. That he may have the same ample splendour of a Court, or greater: That he may have all the same Officers, or some of them better. I know that at Oxford they say, if the King come hither his life (which God preserve) is like to be the forfeiture of that rashness, or else, as Damascen relateth that the Mosyni do in Asia, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, so these will shut him up and feed him in the Tower. Good men cannot do so: nay good men can not say so, or think so. No: King-killing never was but among papists, it was first allowed by a Pope, and hath continued with his successors.  
§. 9 The first Regicide among Christians allowed, was that of the Emperor Mauritius. This was severely inveighed against and that publicly by the Patriarch of Constantinople. But pride and covetousness (the Saints which the Bishop of Rome then served) taught the crafty murderer Phocas to please the Pope in both his lusts: for his pride he gives him the title of universal Bishop, and feeds his covetousness with rich bribes: so the bloody parricide is blessed by a holy father. Maurice had before given the ecumenical title to John of Constantinople, & now Phocas withdraws it thence, and placeth it upon Boniface of Rome. It is observed by Historians that both these Emperors, so overforward to grace Bishops, with unallowable & Anchristian titles, died miserably: 
d Wolflus.  quod & mysterio non caret, as one says.  
§. 10. The last of massacred Kings were the famous Henry's of France. Henry the third stabbed in the belly by a Jacobin friar, encouraged by the Prior of his covent, and by Commolet and other Jesuits. In less than 4. years after this, Peter Barrier of Orleans came to Melun (where our Queen's father than was) with a sharp two-edged knife purposely resolved to have killed the King, as he had formerly confessed to one Aubrey a priest, and to father Varade then rector of the Jesuits: who confirmed him in his purpose, and assured him that if he died for it he should have a martyr's crown in heaven for reward. Within four months after this in the King's chamber at the Lovure, a young fellow (John Chastel) a Novice of the Jesuits, encouraged by them, did aim the stab of his knife into the King's belly, but (by God's providence) the King at that instant stooping down to receive the Lords of Ragny and Montiguy the knife ran into his upper lip and mouth, and breaking out a tooth missed his life, the villain had his deserved execution, and the order of Jesuits thereupon banished out of France.  
§. 11. But unhappy Henry readmitted them, and founded a college for the bloodsuckers, and appointed his heart to be buried with them; which relic they longed for with such impatiency that they would not stay till it was cold, but sent the devil Ravillack to take out life and all. Ravillack confessed his intended parricide to father Aubigny of that Order, and showed him the knife prepared, and at execution he confessed that the book of Mariana the Spanish Jesuit was the motive to his villainy, only giving this reason of the fact, because the King did tolerate two religions in France. And thus by two Jesuited knives, the last of the line of Valois, and the first of Bourbon were both brought to their bloody winding-sheets. But I must not forget to note one {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a high pitch of papal villainy in the story of Henry 3. more than in that of Henry 4: which is to prove Boniface the second and Sixtus Quintus (Size-Cinque as the best of Queens called him) both to be of the same race of bloody Judas: He in selling the life of the Lord Anointed, these in applauding the deaths of the Anointed of the Lord; for Boniface approves the murder of the Emperor Maurice, and Pope Sixtus in a solemn Oration extolled the friar that massacred the King of France.  
§ 12. And now, my sacrificing Jesuit, stand forth and let us occasionally here try a veny. Good Antagonist, what say you to your bloody brethren of the black robe? King's have been murdered before, but where was the doctrine of King-killing before there were Jesuits? Where may we find the commendatory Orations for parricides but among Popes, Papists, and Jesuits? 
King James his speech in Parl. 1605.  No sect of heretics, no Turk, Jew, or Pagan, no, nor even those of Calicute, who adore the devil, did ever maintain by the grounds of their religion, that it was lawful to murder Prince or people, for quarrel of Religion.  
§. 13. But because you have not made good your undertaking in the second point (viz. for papal Supremacy) you see I have courteously argued it for you, by confessing that 1000 years since (good prescription) Phocas gave your great Master the Pope that great title of universal Bishop: you have the story wherefore he gave it, it was the price of blood: and it is withal a mark of Antichrist: Will you believe a Pope herein? You do acknowledge Gregory the great to be as much a Pope as Vrban the eighth, and to be as infallible as any: I will acknowledge with you that he was as good as any successor of his these thousand years: dare you be tried by the unerring chair whilst he held it? or is your faith changed? Mark what he says, answer it if you can. Thus he writes to the Emperor Mauritius upon occasion that John of Constantinople did use that title of universal Bishop: 
f Iob. 4. 〈…〉 c. 76.  Ipsa Domini nostri Jesu Christi mandata superbi atque pompatici cujusdam sermonis inventione turbantur: the very commands of our Lord Jesus Christ are broken by the invention of a certain proud and pompous appellation. 
g Ibid.  Absit à cordi●us Christianorum nomen istud blasphemiae: far be it from the hearts of Christians this name of blasphemy. 
h cap. 78.  In hac ejus superbia quid aliud nisi propin qua jam Antichristi esse tempora designatur? In this pride of his what is there else designed, but that the times of Antichrist are near at hand? And unto John of Constantinople thus he expostulates, 
i cap. 81.  Quis (rego) in hoc tam per verso vocabulo, nisi ille ad imitandu● proponitur, qui despectis Ang●lorum legionibus, secum socialiter constitutis, ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere: ut & nulli subesse, & solus omnibus praeesse videretur? Who (I pray) is made the pattern for imitation in this so perverse a title, but he, who despising the legions of Angels that were placed in fellowship with him, strived to break forth into the top of singularity, that so he might be subject unto none, and might alone be above all. You see the first pattern for this title, was (as Pope Gregory says) in Lucifer. Speaking of John the Constantinopolitan unto Anianus the Deacon there. 
k cap. 83.  S● (saith he) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Patriarcham nominat— In iste scelest● vocabulo consentire, nihil est aliud quàm fidem perdere: He names himself the ecumenical Patriarch— to consent unto which wicked title, is nothing else but to destroy the saith. 
l Lib. 6. cap. 38.  Superstitiosi & superbi vo●abul●— ●lati●— quam primus Apostata invenit: The lifting up of a superstitious and proud title which the first Apostate hath invented. After all these he writes again to the Emperor in these words: 
m Ibid. cap. 194.  Ego fidenter dico, quia quisquis se Vniversalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in ●latione sua Antichristum praecurrit: I speak this confidently, that whosoever calleth himself the universal priest, or desireth so to be called, in his exalting of himself he is a forerunner of Antichrist: do you see what a cross is set upon the door of the Pope? Here is one hath marked him in the forehead for Antichrist: and one whom you cannot disclaim from.  
§. 14. This Bishop (Gregory) dying in the year 603. his successor Sabinian sat less than a year and an half: he endeavoured to burn all the writings of Gregory, perhaps because by his abnegation of the universality, he had (as it were) precluded the access thereto from his successors; yet B●niface the third, immediate successor to Sabinian (anno 6●6.) obtained this bloody title of the bloody tyrant Phocas, and hath entailed it even to Vrban. And here was now the beginning of your Papacy. The successors of Boniface ever ascribing to themselves that which Gregory the first called 
n lib. 4. c 78  per versum vocabulum▪ 
o cap. 80.  profanum vocabulum, malum superbi● & confusionis, venenum sermonis, diabolicam usurpationem, 
p cap. 82.  nefandum ac profanum tumorem, stultum ac profanum vocabulum, temerarium nomen, nefandum elationis vocabulum, 
q lib. 5. c. 19  nefandi appellationem nominis, 
r lib. 6. cap. 192.  verbum superbi●, 
s cap. 194.  superbum ac profanum vocabulum, 
t cap. 195.  profanum nomen, stultum nomen, &c. and as before is vouched, nomen blasphemiae, designatio temporum Antichristi, per versum vocabulum, scelestum vocabulum, supers●●tiosum & superbum vocabulum, &c. And yet A. B. C. would have proved this title due by divine right, if the times had not disproved his arguments before they were made.  
§. 15. Thus the doctrines and thus the practices: the doctrines of pride among the papist. They not content to have a Bishop among Bishops as S. Peter was among the Apostles, where they all were equal, 
●yprian de ●n● a●e Ecclesiae.  Hoc erant unique & caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio pr●diti & honoris & potestatis: The rest of the Apostles verily were the same as was Peter, endued with equal fellowship of honour and of power. This parity among Bishops will not satisfy the pride of Rome whose Priest swells up to be universal Bishop of Bishops. And thus (as before is instanced) were the King-killing practises of that bloody religion for a thousand years, that so Rome might be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, twice died, to make Her purple fit for the mother of harlots. The God of 
Rev. 17. 4, 5  Kings give our King the spirit of wisdom to discern these wolves, and never to trust them among our sheep.  
§. 16. It is said at Oxford, that here at London a pretenced slander is raised, and forged on purpose to draw the King into disaffection among his Commons, by saying that he is in heart a Papist: it were a devilship of mind to forge such report on purpose; but for as much as I can observe ●ince I came into these quarters, the report which lives here is not so much grounded with many upon a will and a desire of slander, as unhappily fearfully and unwillingly entertained by many good men, and really doubted and feared by some whose hearts are in good affection to his majesty: I know not what to say or wish, nor how the mistake may be removed. The King may please to think on some course worthy of the cause: In the mean time: I dare wish that he would make less value of such men (both lay and clergy) who by running on the Canterbury pace, have made our breaches so wide: And take less delight in the specious way of cathedral devotions, which have made much distraction by too much pomp, and are liable to scorn (in many places) by the baseness of some persons assisting. Concerning these proud fastuous ways of humility, this noiseful piety, and these merry devotions, I can but repeat the bold and free expressions of an eminent Papist, which I made use of in my late Declaration, but the transcriber (for haste) omitted one line, whereby the true author was defrauded, and the words were left upon me as mine, which made some to ask me, how my fancy wrought itself into that odd piece of Latin in the midst of my english. They are the words of the learned Knight 
x De vanitate scient. cap. 17.  Henry Cornelius Agrippa, who thus taxeth the church-musicks': ubi (saith he) belluinis strepitibus cantillant: dum hinniunt discantum pueri, mugiunt alii tenorem, alii latrant contrapunctum, alii boant altum, alii frendent bassum, faciuntque ut sonorum plurimum quidem audiatur, verborum & orationis intelligatur nihil: Where they chant it with belluine noises: whilst children neigh forth the descant, others do lough forth the tenor, others bark the countertenor, others roar the Altus, others groan forth the Base: and all do this, that much of noise is heard, but nothing at all is understood of the words and of prayer. So that learned Papist Agrippa. And herein what argument soever can be framed for use of music in the hymnall part of Service, yet none can be (for aught I ever heard) for using it in the precatory part of our devotions: A man may possibly set our praises to a tune, but no man can make his solemn prayers in a tune, but that he must make them not like prayers: although I acknowledge that in hymns and Psalms ejaculatory passages, and some sentences of prayer, are warranted by divine example. Our active clergy were of late very fierce in their endeavour for outward splendour, beauty, and ornament: they were earnest to put our Church into a 
y Psal. 45. ●3, 14.  clothing of wrought gold, and would have brought her to the King in raiment of needlework▪ but were nothing careful to make the King's Daughter all glorious within. For at that time exterior form was commendable, but inward devotion by some not tolerable. More liberty than piety:  
Omnia cùm liceant, non licet ●sse pium.  
§. 17. Having said this now, I find myself engaged to make proof by way of some instances that I slander not those pious times. Let us then look into a few of those publications which were allowed and licenced by the Bishops: for I must call the Chaplains imprimatur, the Bishop's imperat●r. I may know his lordship's diet by his Cook. His Chaplain durst no● dish forth these Roman quelque choses, if he had not the right temper of his Master's taste:  
Namque cocus domini debet habere ●ulam. 
martial.   
I will not step far back, nor trouble my Reader with the Pandects of all the impiety of the times. The Aera for my computation shall be Ab anno translationis, from the archiepiscopacy of Dr Laud, and the period shall be at the summons of this Parliament: Nor do I intend to gather together all, no nor the tithe of these infectious pieces: that were a labour for a greater patience than mine: nor have I seen them all by many. Take these that are here as they come to hand, for I study no method in so ill a work.  
§. 18. Sr Anthony Hungerford Knight (father to my 
I.  truly honoured and beloved friend S●Edward Hungerford, Knight of the Bath) being a real convert from popery, did write a treatise entitled the advice of a son to his Mother, and the memorial of a father to his sons, wherein he piously doth render the cause of his conversion, and religiously doth woo his Mother, and direct his children: This treatise was denied publication by Dr Bray, and his reason assigned, was a distaste of the last lines in the treatise, which are these,  
I was withal persuaded in my conscience, and so rest yet, that this transcendent power and usurpation of the Roman Bishop in the spiritual and civil regiment of the world is so far a stranger to the Church of God, as that it could be no other, but the kingdom of that MAN OF sin, which agreeably to the prediction of the holy Ghost, was to be raised in the bosom of the Church, for the last, the most powerful, the most dangerous delusion of the Christian world. For which words the whole treatise was shut up in the dark, a part of that mystery which then wrought very powerfully in this Island.  
Dr Featly, a worthy and learned Divine, and one to 
II.  whom the Church of England for his excellent Labours in public (both in polemic and Homiliti●k Divinity) is much indebted: one who lived a man of noted learning when Mr Bray was under the feruler: yet Mr Bray being now my new Lord's young Chaplain, he thinks good to show his authority with the forfeit of his discretion, and of truth: and therefore thus (in two or three instances for several scores) he controls the Dr. whose books he was not worthy to carry, unless with purpose to open, and to learn by them.  
Clavis Mystica (so the good Dr. calleth his 70. Sermons in one volume) underwent a great deal of sponge. The whole 58. Sermon (preached in Parise and) entitled Old and new Idolatry parallelled, as if it were a false ward against the key, is filed quite away▪ and for aught I can guess by reading of it, because he there strongly argueth against all kind of Image-worship.  
The Sermon is since abroad but was expunged, together with so many passages in the other Sermons all against Arminianism and Popery, as that the altering of them cost the Stationer near thirty pounds, yet by the happiness of this Parliament many copies of these printed Sermons are recured: whereby the reader need not wonder to find me to instance him with some passages dashed out, which in some of the printed copies he may now find.  
In the late Archbishop's chapel at Lambeth, before the High Commissioners there, the stout doctor durst then preach these words:  
What are the great foxes but the priests and Jesuits? 
Sermon 7. pag. 90.  what are the little foxes but the Demi-pelagian cubbes? which will spoil our fairest clusters, the colleges of both universities, if in time they be not looked into; as they have done already in our neighbour vine, the Low countries. This that then was preached might not in the new▪ no-grace his time be repeated, and therefore Mr Bray doth blot it out.  
The Dr preached that on the house top, publicly 
Sermon 34. pag. 485.  in S. Paul's church, which the chaplain would stifle in a corner: and therefore dasheth out this prayer. I pray God we may never have cause to complain that the severity of our Laws and Canons should fall upon straying Doves, silly seduced persons, without any gall at all, whilst the black birds of Antichrist are let alone. If chaste Lydia be silenced for her indiscreet zeal, let not Jesebels be suffered to teach and to deceive God's servants.  
The honest labours of Dr Jones in his Commentary 
III.  upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, was altered from the words and sense of the author by additions, and by subtractions, to the number of above 500 lines by Mr Baker, who by his Roman Plagiary did make the books unvendible, having taken out the life and vigour of the book, and (as it were) picked out the eyes of it▪ The old Dr lived to see, and wept to see his issue thus deformed. All the alterations (which are many) are express to the advantage of our Roman adversaries. I will give a taste of two or three.  
The text calleth our Saviour {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a great priest▪ our English translation an High priest over the house of 
Heb. 10. 21. So Heb. 4. 14. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  God. Here the doctor observeth that the Holy Ghost thinks it sufficient to call Christ a great priest: But this ●ill not content the Pope: he must be Sacerdos maximus. Christ hath but the Positive degree, and he must have the Superlative degree. A Proud prelate, that Antichrist, that exalteth himself above God. The purgatory doctor wipes out the whole period, lest you should think the Clergy were without a Sacerdos maximus in this world.  
These words are also blotted out, being arguments against transubstantiation, Heaven must contain the body 
Heb. 9 28.  of Christ till all things be fulfilled, ergò, it cannot be on the earth. If the bread that Christ gave to his Disciples were turned into his body, he must of necessity have two bodies: the one held in the hand of the other. I do desire Mr Baker to tell me wherein the doctor hath offended, that his supercilious pen must dash out these valuable arguments: He dares not say, he did it because they make against the Idolatrous artolatry of Rome.  
Another dispunction tells me plainly that the very height of popery was the height of some designers, wherefore else should this line be blotted out? Be at 
Heb. 12. 14.  peace with a papist, but not with his Popery and Idolatry. Dr Jones said thus, we have begun in sound and pure Religion, 
Heb. 3. 14.  let us not end in Popery. It seems my young licencer would end there: and therefore he cannot let pass this counsel, Let us not end in popery: but changeth it thus, Let us not end in profaneness: and so it is printed: he durst not (it seems) pass it to the press with a plain wish, not to end in popery.  
Mr Ward, another good man and industrious divine, 
iv.  hath issued forth an ample volume of Questions, Observations, and essays upon the Gospel of S. Matthew. This work hath undergone the severity of the same masters: I had the Catalogue of their adulterated clauses, by the advantage of my being trusted with the Chair, for what had been ill hindered from the press, and what had been worse thrust abroad by the press: but I (very lately) parted with those notes to a worthy member of the House, and most of my other notes are▪ rotted in their damp lodging whilst I was away, and some of them otherways lost.  
Mr Birkbeck wrote a learned laborious piece called 
V.  the Protestants evidence, but Dr Haywood rejected it back from publication, because Mr Birckbeck took occasion to commend Wicliff, a man who considering the age he lived in did deserve (I may justly say) as well as Martin Luther or Mr Calvin: though for my part I do reverence Calvin equal with any the best of the ancient Fathers, and do think he hath according to the quantity of his writings as little vain, and less erratic, than any one among them.  
This above may serve for instance, how sedulous 
VI.  our ill guides were to hinder the publication of good doctrines. If I should collect together all the passages of ill doctrines which with the same care they have issued forth, more than all the money I have now would not buy paper to write them down in: But some you shall have. And first I will begin with one who labours himself out of breath and sense to prove the very point which in my subsequent treatise I have disapproved. Like a friendly adversary I will lend some arrows to my Jesuit, taken out of Dr Pocklinton's quiver, and yet touch none of the passages recanted by Dr Bray. 11. April 1641.  
He voucheth a passage in Iren●us and so proceedeth: 
Lib. 4. cap. 34. Altare Christ. pag. 9▪  Deus nos vult offerre munus ad Altare frequenter sine intermissione. And this (he saith) was not an alleg●ricall and improper Altar— but a true proper Christian Altar, both name and thing— So that we have an earthly Altar here on earth— a material Altar, of wood, stone, silver, or gold— And miserable was their case for whom the Priest made no offering at God's visible Altar. Thus he more bold and false than my Jesuit: and in Popery as absolutely gross; for yield as he doth, that proper Altars are necessary in the Church of Christ, and proper Sacrifice will come in whether you will or no. But the base intent of a delusion appears in this: He makes Irenaeus a foundation to his fraud, by cutting off Irenaeus before he hath spoken out. The words by Pocklington vouched are there: Deus nos vult offerre munus ad Altare frequenter sine intermissione: God willeth that we should offer gifts at the Altar frequently, without intermission: This may in some sense be drawn over to serve him and the Jesuit: But take the very next words in the same line of Irenaeus, and the sense is clear with us against them both: Est ergò Altare in coelis, &c. our Altar then is in heaven, &c. Now Pocklington, where is your visible, material, earthly Altar in Irenaeus?  
He is as bold and false to say, that The holiness of 
pag. 27.  the blessed Eucharist, was on the holiness of Altars, and could not else where be consecrated.  
There hath been and yet remains a great controversy, whether S. Peter ever were at Rome; but this bold Roman can tell you (I think) what chamber he lay in there, the first night he came: I would he had told us, what night or (with probable evidence) what year he came thither: but believe him upon his credit, his words are S. Peter's first lodging there was in 
pag. 39  the Lady Claudias house. We poor ignorant and despised Laity must be kept far off from the mysteries of our Religion wherein we are to be saved: The celebration of the holy Supper must be in one place, we in another: He tells us that Pope Boniface the second 
pag. 116.  did no more than his duty, in dividing the people from the clergy when the Sacrament was celebrated: a good argument for Rails: nor must we see what the Priest doth: for he saith, that none of all the holy offices, belonging 
pag 85.  only to priests, were performed in the body of the Church, where every one might be present, and see what was done.  
When he hath argued for his material Altar: when he hath pleaded the partition of it from the rest of the Church, he then would have it reverenced, and if the piety of those times had gone on, he would have plainly expounded with what kind of Reverence. He tells us of the honour and reverence which of right belongs unto 
pag. 175.  the Altar, in regard of the presence of our Saviour, whose chair of state it is upon earth. Where (pag. 108.) Christ is most truly and really present in the blessed Sacrament: an offensive expression, and unsuitable to our Church: I would he had expounded what he meant by in the Sacrament: and how much Christ is in the sacramental wine of the Eucharist, more than he is in the sacramental water of baptism.  
These and some other I observe not recanted among the 24. points by Dr Bray; who being under the protection of the titular great Grace durst give attestation to this pestilent author with a Perlegi— and nihil reperio sanae Doctrinae contrarium, quo minùs summa cum utilitate imprimatur.  
But Pocklington then bragged of the piety of the 
VII.  times, and the holy endeavours of the governors of the 
pag▪ 92.  Church. The same song which Peter Heylin did sing a 
pag▪ 105.  year before him. He very highly sets forth and commends the piety of the times as if he would fell them. He tells us there is a good work now in hand. Anno 1636. 
Coal from Altar.  And in his Coal from the Altar he affirmeth that we have a Sacrifice, and an Altar, and a Sacrament of the Altar. I believe he will be ashamed to explain now what he shamed not to affirm then. I think the times were impious, if it were but for this, that Heylin and Pocklington by licence from Bray and Baker should dare to slight and cast disregard upon pious, reverend, and admirable Bishop Jewel and Calvin: one of them doth it in his Altar, pag. 89. and the other in his Coal,§. 15. but though they slight a good man, yet I can in one of them find the great commendations of Cardinal 
pag. 34, 35.  Borromaeus (a man of violent superstition) who is highly applauded by Pocklington, the reason whereof I take to be, because his devotion, and the piety of those times, were growing into kindred together.  
Heylin (more a courtier then divine) would have the direction of the King in sacred matters to be a law: 
Coal p. 41.  Nay then let us ransom our spiritual liberty by subjecting rather our temporal condition to his Arbitrary power. But the King desires it not.  
In his Antidotum (rather toxicum) he saith, that the Altar is a lively representation of the cross of Christ: 
pag. 86. n. 2.  The papist do not say so much, unless when they mean the Altar with the whole mass appertaining.  
I cannot part with Dr Heylin until he (as kind as Dr Pocklington) do lend my Jesuit if not an argument, yet his vote and consent for Idolatry. He is alive, and may hear what I say. I will thank him if he will let me know a good meaning of these lines:§. 2. Not an improper Altar and improper Sacrifice, as you idly 
pag. 26. n. ●▪  dream of: for Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars being Relatives must needs infer, that our priesthood is improper also: and that is very true, for you are but an unproper priest, good Heylin: prove yourself more if you can. 
viz. Heylins Coa● and Antidotum, And ●ocklington● Altar and Sabbath.  These two pieces of the same leaven with those two of Pocklington were attested by Dr Baker, one Cum utilitate imprimatur, and the other in quo nihil reperio sanae Doctrinae contrarium. I wonder we have not the recantation of Baker as well as Bray: for of the two I ever held Dr Bray the more moderate man: and these of Heylin are as pestilential as those of Pocklington.  
Both these authors by the title of moderate Protestants 
VIII.  are vouc● against me by a Carmelite friar, an old Anonymus of Rome, to maintain proper material Altars: who brought with him a Sermon preached at Cambridge, by Sparrow, printed 1637. and throwing it down unto me on the table; There (saith he) is as much as we can say for Confession, but you will not come to the practice of it: licenced by Mr Baker: where I find that he pleads for plenary Confession of all sins, using and admitting the distinction of sins mortal▪ and sins venial. He finds fault with that opinion 
pag. 10.  which holds the priest's power barely declarative: he 
pag. 15.  would fain have us to auricular confession, his words are, Confession in private, in the ear, is out of use; malè aboletur 
pag. 18.  saith a devout Bishop, it is almost quite lost, the more the pity.  
The dangerous devotions of the Popish Bishop 
ix..  Francis Sales, are englished by one John Yakesley, and (which I wonder at) licenced by Dr Haywood, where for confession the penitent is thus directed: Thou must 
pag▪ 33.  seek out the best confessor that can be found: it seems some have a better art or greater power in absolution than others. For invocation of Saints I find this precept: 
pag. 71.  Implore the assistance of the holy Saints. For transubstantiation thus: The venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist, 
pag. 219.  containeth really and verily the flesh and blood of our Saviour. It were fit the Dr. did explain the word containeth. The whole book is a whole series of Popery, and yet the licenser could say, Non reperio aliquid sanae doctrinae contrarium, and publicâ cum utilitate imprimatur.  
Archbishop Laud in his star-chamber speech 
X.  1637. takes the words which H●… (his Scoutmaster) had found passable the year before, and tells us, there is no danger at all in the Altar, name and thing: what can fix a proper Altar, if these words cannot? And if a proper Altar, he must then have a proper Sacrifice, as will be manifested anon. Here is the Altar now, but where is the Sacrifice? Stay a while, we dare not speak out yet, but we will show it you, one very near: What is the meaning of this where he tells the Lords of that Court, that the altar is the greatest place of God's residence upon earth? what is then the heart of a sanctified Christian? and then he infers, that the Altar is the throne where his body (the body of Christ) is usually present. My Jesuit will say no more of his Altar.  
O. M. was wont to be attributed unto God-almighty: rarely given to some heathen Emperors, and yet the chancellor of Oxford was flattered with it by letters from that university, dated 28. May 1635. and to bring it the more smoothly to him, they have conjoined the King with the Bishop: Circumspicere nobis jubes, si quid effectum velimus ab Optimis Maximisque in terra Rege & Te. It is said of our blessed Saviour, that God gave him not the spirit by measure: But the 
Luke 3. 34.  Oxonian compliments grow up close to this: How near to blasphemy do these adorers creep, who in their prodigal flattery do say that He (even Dr. Laud) is Divini Spiritûs effusissimè plenus, most overflowingly full of the holy Ghost. I omit the superlative adulation to him, in the style of Rome, Sanctissime. But there is another letter to him about a week after this Parliament began, wherein (methinks) their rhetoric is more profane. Venerandissimus ille, quo rectior non stat regula, quo prior est corrigenda Religio: He the most reverend, than whom the rule itself (that is or should be the holy word of God,) stands not more straight: than whom religion itself must be first reformed. Again, he is equally conjoined with the Church: The words are, without the Church, without Thee, Salvation (or for modesty sake let it be Safety) we cannot hope for, Comfort we will not have: Sine Ecclesia, sine Te, Salutem sperare non possumus, Solatium nolumus. How would it have become this great Patriarch, upon these horrid adorings, to have checked them as the Angel did S. John with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. See thou do it not: 
Revel. 19 20. and 22. 9  I am your fellow-servant.  
I should bring the desperate extravagancies of Bishop Montague and Bishop Manwaring, to wait upon the Metropolitan, but they are elder than my septennary examination, which is confined between 1633, and 1640.  
I am willing to wade no further: But I shall wrong many if I touch no more: yet I hold it fit only to touch them, and so to leave them upon the question.  
First than I ask of Dr Lawrence, who in his Sermon 1637. pressing with too much learning and too little argument the several partitions in a Church, the several postures, and the several degrees of sanctity in several places, makes a voucher out of Sands relat: pag. 173. (I find it pag. 238.) saying, The very Grecians themselves have their tables enclosed with GREAT MYSTERY from the people at this day: But why is not the doctor as candid as the relator in expressing the GREAT MYSTERY? would the doctor have it so, or not so? the reason given by the relator is, That the ARCANA of their ineffable crossings and convertings may not be prostituted and polluted by unsanctified view. I hope the doctor would not have the enclosure made for such a Mystery.  
Speaking of the B. Sacrament of the Lord's supper, he tells us, that Christ, S. Paul, and the Church of England, all say that his body is there: and that (saith he) truly and substantially, &c. At this word substantially I do stick, and cannot well make it into an Orthodox sense. I remember the Archbishop professeth to believe the true substantial presence of Christ. This must be taken with great caution, because the words will bear the sense of our adversaries, and why delight we to walk upon the edge of a knife? Is it good Divinity to say, that Christ's body is there? yes it is: but where? in the holy communion: true, but in what part? in the whole action, or in the symbols, and elements? Take heed, you will be at Rome before you are aware. How then shall I take the doctors substantially? and the Bishops substantial presence? They make mysteries or rather riddles: and why should they press my faith with such expressions, as without a deal of interpretation are unsound? I can find no substantial presence but by Faith, and so (by Faith) I receive the very Deity of Christ, and of God the Father. So then Christ's body is there, and Christ's body is not there; in different acceptations. The substance of his natural body is not there at all: but a real communication of the substance of Christ both body and soul is there solemnly signed and sealed unto us. This my Faith discerns, and the not discerning of this, makes the wicked guilty of eating and drinking unworthily. In this participation of Christ by a living faith, in this spiritual way of communicating, I can admit of all your adventurous expressions, taking them san● modo: but with what honesty do you put us off the ignorant Laity, in your Sermons, upon such desperate precipices. Yourselves do know the brink before you come at it, and so take up, and make a fixed stand to save yourselves: but in recompense of many Ignorants, who by this ill conduct topple down into the abyss of error, may not Justice one day thrust you also into an abyss, as being the woeful offence and stumbling-block whereat they fell? Beside I can more easily avoid Bellarmine, Cardinal Alan, Stapleton, Suarez (I know them a great way off by their skins) than I can in sheep's clothing, Bishop Laud, Bishop Montague, Dr Heylin, Dr Lawrence, &c.  
But the Archbishop (as before) asserted a true substantial presence, he unjustly voucheth reverend Calvin for it, yet honestly he doth put Calvin's words in the margin: where I find Substantialis Communicatio. Calvin was in the right, a true, real, and substantial Communion, not an airy phantasm without a truth of participation. Neque enim fallax est Deus qui figmentis inanibus 
Calvin: Instit l●●. ●. cap. 17.  nos lactet. So he hath, participes substantiae ejus facti; made partners or partakers of his substance. Great difference (in my understanding) between the Bishops substantial Presence, and Calvin's substantial Communion: as between a true Presence of body, and a true Communion of his body. We can and do with excellent 
1. Cor. 11. 24.  Calvin say, Realiter, hoc est verè, nobis in Coena datur Christi corpus: The body of Christ is really, that is truly, given to us in the Supper. And Christus verè exhibetur fid●libus: Christ is truly given unto the faithful. But we cannot say with Dr. Lawrence, that his body is there; nor can we with Bishop Laud falsify good Calvin by 
Helat. Confess. p. 293.  obtruding upon him, that he affirmeth, the true and real body of Christ (not only to be received in the Eucharist, 
Upon 1. Cor. 11. 24.  but) to be there. When as Calvin teacheth, Christum in coelo manentem à nobis recipi: that we here receive Christ, who remains in heaven. Therefore he bids us to leave unto Christ the true nature of his flesh. Sine ut in coelesti suâ gloriâ maneat, & illuc aspira, ut indè se tibi communicet: Be content that Christ remain in his celestial glory, and aspire thou thither, that from thence he may communicate himself unto thee. So that, for aught I see, Calvin saw no true real body of Christ in the Sacrament, though he did see, and all faithful do feel, a true real Communion of his body in that holy celebration. Is it all one to have Communion with the body of Christ really and truly, and to have his body in the Eucharist really and truly? If it may be qualified and excused into a sound sense, yet it can never be construed into a safe sense. And therefore when you will use any dark, doubtful, dangerous term, let it not be a trouble to you to explain and expound it, lest some poor soul misuse the knife which carelessly you threw about.  
In a word, the body of Christ is there, and the body of Christ is not there: it is there by spiritual communion; it is not there in any other construction: for representation, and commemoration (though real) are still spiritual ways of his being there. Much of this Mystery is cleared by this expression: Christ is represented and really offered unto all the Receivers, but Christ is really exhibited only to the true believers. And thus much occasionally upon the adventurous expressions of Dr. Lawrence.  
There is a sermon forth by one Mr. Wats, licenced 
XII.  by Mr. Baker, 1637. I would gladly learn of the author whether he will in plain English abide by it, That king David did constantly observe all canonical hours. He voucheth that of the royal Psalmist, At midnight will I rise to give thanks unto thee. And 
Psal. 119. 62.  then infers, Mark here that he praised not God lying, but used to rise to do it: At other hours, the Saints may sing aloud upon their beds— but when a canonical hour comes (of which midnight was one) David will rise to his devotion.— The morning watch was another canonical hour. And this David was so careful to observe, 
Psal. 149. 5  that he ofttimes waked before it.  
In the next place I ask of Richard Tedder, upon his 
XIII.  visitation sermon preached before, and dedicated unto Bishop Wren, How far he would have this allowed. It is (saith he) the Consecration that makes our Churches holy, and makes God esteem them so.— They receive by 
pag. 8.  their consecration a spiritual power, whereby they are made fit for divine service. And being consecrated, there is no danger in ascribing a holiness unto them. Now the reason why this sanctity is thus pleaded for, is to be read about a leaf forwarder, where he delivers, that the 
pag. 10.  Priest hath no way to maintain his own honour but by keeping up the honour of the Temple: for if there be no reverence to the Temple, there will be no reverence to the Priest. Doth not this man preach himself, and not Christ Jesus?  
To shut out any light that may be useful in God's 
pag. 17.  house, is with the Jews to make it a den: as they would do, that would shut out the Ceremonies out of the Church: for, take away Ceremonies out of the Church, and take away the light that is in it. Surely this is spoken in Ceremony, by way of compliment to his Bishop, that great Thesmophilist: Have we no other candle in our candlestick but ceremony?  
There are two Treatises, and a Sermon set forth 
XIV.  by John Swan, I will (at this time) only look into the first: Profano-mastix licenced by Dr. Wykes: and printed 1639. wherein I read a distinguishment of our Sacrifices from the Jewish, but none at all from the Popish. The words do serve for Rome as well as if Alan, Stapleton, Cotton, Parsons, or any other English Jesuit, or Priest, had put them together. If a sacrifice and an 
Appendix, pag. 6.  Altar, than also a Priest to officiate, both in and at the same: but with a difference still from both Sacrifices and Priests of Old. For as they were bloody sacrifices and looked at Christ to come: so this is an unbloudy one, and looketh at Christ already come: and as their Priests were according to the order of Aaron: so are our Priests according to that Order which Christ himself is, a Priest for ever: to wit, according to the order of Melchisedec. What Protestant Writer did ever admit the term of unbloudy Sacrifice? as well for the word sake, as because it is the known distinctive expression, whereby the Papist have and do excuse and palliate their corporal presence. Englishmen have been scoffed at enough for apish imitation of foreign fashions, but will our Divines be dangerous imitators in the dresses of our Religion? We have above the distinction of mortal and venial sins, and here is one admitteth the distinction of bloody and unbloudy Sacrifices. The Pope was to be suddenly entertained here, or else these nuntios had not appeared for harbingers. I will look no further in Mr. Swan, for I hasten.  
Whether by way of Sermon or of a Treatise, a text 
XV.  (Heb. 7. 8.) is laid down by one who writeth himself Jo. Carter, Diacon. wherein he pleadeth with great endeavour for the Divinity of his Tithes: perhaps he would lay his parishioners salvation upon it: as I have heard one in a pulpit to do, when he would have had me to think that yet he preached Christ.  
Give me leave here in a word to say, that many of our ministers, lately grown mad for Priestship, Sacrifice and Altar, did for support of their greatness in power, pride, and profit, write and preach with non-concludent arguments for divinity of two points, which they never came near the proof of. One was the Divinity of episcopacy, the other the Divinity of Tithes. But God in his justice hath suffered them to betray themselves, and justly to sink in their asspiring to a wrong power, pride, and profit. Here is one (Mr. Carter) who angry at the interpretation by much his betters, who would have the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} given by Abraham to Melchisedec, to be the tithe of all the spoils: or as others translate it, Decima● de praecipuis; he comes to this language, which if not profane, yet is neither reverend, modest, nor civil. He (that is, He that will confess Abraham to have paid no other tithes then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Heb. 7. 4.) delivers to the world, Abraham to Godward, to have been piteously penurious▪ That of his dues to Religion he was a niggardly Micher: That he was an Abraham clunchfisted, (this is carterly language) and all that this way went he thought it only wast: that the good child Judas, that he did, he did learn of his Father Abraham, Quorsum perditio haec? Is not this profane, to put reprobate Judas (though in Scommate) as a good child under the father of the faithful? but animus in patinis, his mind was upon covetousness, not upon conscience.  
There is a piece of poetic prose, written as he styleth 
XVI.  himself by J. H. Esquire. The Title is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or Dod●na's grove, printed 1640. and then I doubt not but licenced. The book hath wit and salt enough, but the author would seem a malignant unto the Parliament, if some man had the moralising of his fable. I will only instance in a copy of the commendatory verses before his stage of trees. They are directed to the common Reader without naming the author whose wicked Muse it is. I like not the rude impiety of these four lines;  
Sometimes the Father differs from the son,  
As doth the Gospel from the Alcharon.  
Or Loyola from Calvin; which two brands  
In strange combustions hurl fair Europe's lands.  
If Protestants be his judges they must conclude the author a Papist, though not a Jesuit. The two first are fitter for a Turk then for M. Howels book. The two later cast equal blame upon Ignatius Loyola, the father of the Jesuits, and upon reverend Calvin.  
There is a book put out Anno 1640. I cannot say, 
XVII.  nor do I think, it was unlicensed, though both the licenser and the author (whose name is Lupton) are both ashamed to have their names published therewith. It is entitled The lives of the Primitive Fathers. Among whom he is careful to give Saintship, where few Protestants do profess it, as S. Damascen, S. Nicephorus; and that sullen Archbishop S. Anselm, who had— Pelidis stomachum— flectere nescii. I wish that in his Catalogue he had put S. Philo Judaeus, and S. Josephus, which he might as well have done, as to have begun his Primitive Fathers with these two, who were no Christians. And to conclude with men of yesterday, Schoolmen instead of Fathers, and calendar them in for Primitive Fathers also. Such as Peter Lombard, in the time of our King Stephan. Alexander Hales, at the middle of Hen. 3. Bonaventure, at the latter end of Hen. 3. and Aquinas (with whom he concludes) under whose picture there he is styled S. Thomas Aquinas.  
There is another Anonymus hath put forth the 
XVIII.  Lives of all the Roman Emperors in a little English book printed by Nich. and John Okes 1636. I must needs transcribe his villainous Encomium of that factious conventicle at Trent, which hath proved the (yet) irreconcilable rupture and distraction of Christendom. Speaking of the Emperor Ferdinand, brother to Charles the 5. he saith: In the time of his imperial 
pag. 375.  government, the council of Trent was held, which was so commodious and profitable to the general good of the world, that it may serve for a certain rule both of government of states, and a norm of good life. Must these things pass in our Protestant Church? Was there any {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, overseer, in the Land then? Surely all our Bishops were blind seers, in suffering the flock to be poisoned plainly, desperately, and publicly, Cum privilegio.  
One Anthony Stafford gent. (Anno 1635.) issued 
XIX.  forth a strange superstitious compliment to the virgin Mary: entitled by him, The female Glory; where I like not this poetry,  
Great Queen of Queens, cause all our joy,  
Whose cheerful look our sadness doth destroy.  
Pag. 310. He tells us that the Assumption of our Lady, by many of the Fathers, all of the Romish Church, and some of the reformed, is held for an undoubted truth. It would trouble Mr. Stafford to prove this, or to prove her as he is pleased to language his panegyric, Mother of our creator: and in his verses, God's widow. These are unhallowed devotions.  
The Latin translation of the Bible by Tremellius and 
XX.  Beza was reprinted 1640. by Robert Young stationer, who had one William Warrenner to correct the press. With this Bible there is printed an Index Biblicus, full of scandal and of danger. As these instances do fully evidence: Doctrina Apostolica scripta & non scripta firmiter tenenda. Eucharistia sub altera tantùm, nimirum panis specie, data à Christo, ab Apostolis. In Eucharistia non remanet substantia panis post consecrationem. Liberum arbitrium etiam post lapsum in homine mansit. Ordinis sacramentum, &c. 5000 of this dangerous popish Index were composed and printed by Warenner and Young: which fraud however acted by mean inconfiderate hands, might have proved as desperate infection to young Students in Divinity as any one design that was laid. The rather, because the front-page speaks the publication in plain language to be Cum privilegio.  
These are enough (too many) and I proceed no further. But thus we find that the Papist shall not need to send their emissaries, their seminary priests, over, nor their deceiving treatises to poison the Religion of England, our own men can do it, and pass through commendations to preferment for it.  
§. 19 By these exorbitancies the frame of our Church is disjointed: and now, Aceldama from Jewry, and from Germany is brought over into England: England of late in her peace the envy of Christendom: but now Spectaculum facti sumus mundo, & angelis, 
1. Cor. 4. 9  & hominibus. If this active part of the Clergy, these strict Tithers of mint and commin, had prevailed, we should in short time have lost the weightier matters of the Law: if they had gone on to set the clock of this kingdom, it should have chimed nothing but plain tyranny and popery. For my part, in portu navigo, I am in the harbour, and (as in my Declaration) I am anchored at the Parliament: where those public persons will discharge a public trust, and yield to nothing but what shall make for the public behoof, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. It 
Max. Tyr. d●ffert. 30.  shall not be obtained, if you desire any thing that stands not with the safety of the whole. And that this Senate might have been more entire, I wish the worthy Gentlemen at Oxford had stayed on their seats at Westminster: for I have no satisfaction why they could not hold their places there, as well as many other, who at several times do without danger vote, I and No, different from the major party. I do fear that their meeting there (at Oxford) will make the breach wider, and past all close. If they advise well, yet no man is bound by it, for they were never elected or trusted thither: If they advise ill (and by the event they shall be judged) I wish them the reward of evil counsellors among the Mosyni: where, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. 
Damascen.  If any man prove an evil counsellor, they starve him to death. And this they will deserve if they confer any assistance or advise but to peace. The best counsel they can give the King (I am confident) is to persuade his speedy repair to Whitehall: That kindness would overcome these arms. It is not impossible to contrive it in a way honourable for his majesty. This would save the kingdom: I do not see any other way how to wade out of above seven years' blood in war:  
— En quo discordia cives 
Virg. Buc. 1.   
Perduxit miseros!—  
Saevit amor ferri, & scelerata insania belli. 
Aeneid. 7.   
§. 20. The most rich and most populous parts of England (and Kent with them) are all resolved to save their fortunes with their lives: and their lives with their swords. Take heed then lest at last the soldiers, like the janissaries of the Turk, and the Praetorian Cohorts of the Roman, do give the law both to the King and the Senate. They may, many of them on each side do, grow to love their trade too well, by being too long acquainted and too much delighted with the easy gain of taking what they find:  
Convectare juvat praedas, & vivere rapt●. 
Aeneid. 7. & 9   
Soldier's will learn, and love, to live by rapine.  
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
But yet unplundered goods that come on God's name, are far the better. And so all extortioners will find it at their last audit,  
Non habet eventus sordida praedabonos▪ 
Ovid.   
Wicked advantages will have woeful events.  
O Lord look down from Heaven: Visit and relieve this thy sick Nation. Cure the state: Reform the Church: And save the King, here and hereafter:  
Serus in coelum redeat, diúque 
Horat. lib. 1. Od. 2.   
Intersit populo precanti.  
Let neither enemy nor flatterer come near unto him. 
Max. Tyr. dissert. 4.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. A Tyrant hath no friend: and a King no flatterer. Let him remember King Antigonus and (with him) say unto his 
Damascen.  son, the Prince of our hopes, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; Dost thou not know (O son) that our kingship is but a glorious servitude? Let him in person return unto his Parliament, for of his absence I may justly say,  
Hoc Ithacus velit, & magno mercentur Atrida: 
Aeneid. 2.  That fox Ulysses of Rome, and the two Atridae, Agamemnon of Spain, and Menelaus of France, would buy his absence at any rate.  
Renew a right understanding (O Lord) between Him and his great council the Parliament: put an end to this undoing anger, to this fatal difference, that thy enemies, and such as have evil will unto the King and kingdom, may not please themselves in our utter ruin. But we are so blind that we know not what we pray, when we pray according to our own understanding, and therefore  
Thy will be done.  
AMEN.   

The author upon his revisal desires these Alterations.  

Page 11. line 6. after substantia: add this, & ideo non solum usus, sed substantia—  
Page 39 line 1. for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} read {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
Page 47. cap. X. line 12. inter verbum {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} add {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}—  
Page 81. line 22. and when even. read and when? even—  
Page 97. line 8. his people sacrifices. read his people (the Jews) sacrifices—    


¶ TO A PAPIST.  
IF you like not this title, you must help me to a better name for yourself. I received from you on the 27. of April six sheets of paper fair and close written, to which I am engaged by promise to make answer, and would direct it to the author of that pains, if I knew how to salute him. But he and his pains are nameless. The 
a Herod. lib. 4.  Atlantes beyond Garamas were a people without use of names: Call yourself somewhat lest I call you Atlantiades, which yet being one of the names of Mercury, you cannot take in ill part, especially your Religion being very mercurial: For you strive to make Quidlibet ex quolibet, and in spite of the Latin Proverb, you will make your Mercury ex quolibet ligno. If the Apostle speak of 
b 1 Cor. 3. 15.  fire, you can thence frame Purgatory. If our Saviour charge Peter thrice, 
c Joh. 21. 15.  Pasce oves, you can thence carve the triple-crowned Pope. If he say, 
d Matth. 26. 25.  Hoc est corpus meum, you can add, it is his natural body. If S. Paul say, 
e He●. 13. 10.  Habemus Altare, (which is but one, and that a spiritual Altar) 
* So your brother Anonymus, as in my treatise of his Cardinal virtues, pag. 18. etc  you can like subtle chemists, dealing with Mercury, extract a hundred, a thousand, nay a million of Altars, and all of them material Altars. Nay, though the name of Priest be not once attributed to any minister of the Gospel throughout the whole New Testament, yet you can prove them such, and properly so called. In this Treatise, not content to have Sacrifice in a general sense, you will, with all the Mercury you have, invent some forced arguments for your 
f Conc. Trid. Ses●. 22. Can. 1.  proper missal sacrifice; never known and determined to be such for fifteen hundred years after our Saviour.  
True it is, that among many Writers in matter of controversy, some for ill purposes, some for good and weighty causes, have silenced their names. But in this late free age for pen and press, few have sent forth so blank a piece as not to add two letters either for their own, or for a borrowed name: That at least, when we cannot name you right, we may yet miscall you to your own liking; but you subscribe not so much as a letter. What freedom, and what distance may this be? Yourself in person have slept in my house, and yet two letters (instead of a name) may not come in the bottom of your Treatise. You will say you fear danger: what, in an A. B. C.? The common practice on your side doth show, that there is no danger in subscribing with letters either true or false. Witness N. N. the deserving author of the Triple Cord. S. N. against Bishop Bilson. A. B. his forged Will for that worthy and Reverend Bishop of London D. King. F. T. or rather T. F. against Bishop Andrews. C. R. instead of R. C. against Bishop Moreton. A. C. against the Archbishop. The whole Alphabet is safe and free.  
Nay further, they who have subscribed neither name nor letters have yet prescribed a Title, that so we might be able to call the Writing by a name though not the author, witness your prudential balance, your Charity mistaken, &c. But your pleasure is, that your Treatise be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and yourself both {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Be it so. But may I take boldness with so great a stranger as to ask, Why you raised our expectations so high by so procrastinated a delay? Our Christmas hope was not answered until after Easter, and then but half of it. Not one sheet for every month in all that time. Did you not think Mr. Bevin worth your care? or did you imagine that you had made him so deaf, that he could not be charmed out of your circle? God be blessed who hath enlightened his eyes, and touched his heart beyond your wish. If it please his Goodness, he can also touch your heart: And if it may be for his glory, so he will. And that it may be, He grant for the merits of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. This is heartily prayed for by  
Your assured friend, 
 Edward DERING. Surenden-Dering, 
 JUN. 24. 1640.   

CHAP. I.  

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

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 3. Upon request of a friend of mine (but then a disciple of your own) you came unto me, not as was at first expected and desired, to a fore-designed conference, but rather like an occasional traveller. Being with me, you made choice rather to write then to confer with an able scholar whom I should name. And you demanded on what theme. I gave you then the same two points which had troubled your follower (Mr. Edward Bevin) and which were by him (as being indeed very material) presented unto me: Concerning Proper Sacrifice, and the papal Supremacy.  
I confess you took them not in writing, wherefore I cannot so much (as then I might) blame you, for sending me my questions back in a different state from that which you received from me. Mine were thus:  
I. The Pope by Divine right hath a supremacy of power in matters spiritual, which ought to be universally believed and obeyed as of faith.  
II. The Romish mass is a Sacrifice both proper and propitiatory: for the present and absent, for the quick and the dead.  
This is the true state of your Romish tenet, and although you have drawn the difference into a narrower compass, yet will you not be able to fill the circle you have made. Concerning the Pope's Supremacy, you have respited that theme, and in three times the time expected have finished but half your work. Concerning Sacrifice, leaving out the point of propitiation for the absent, and for the dead, you say but this;  
There is a true and proper Sacrifice in the Church, instituted by Christ, and to continue after his time. I take the last clause (of Continuance) in the best sense: and in your question, by you thus stated, I do find two propositions which you are bound to maintain: First, That Christ did institute a Sacrifice. Secondly, The Sacrifice by Christ instituted is a Sacrifice proper, or properly so called. The more completely and the more plentifully these themes have been argued by other men, the easier for you, and the stronger for your cause your work may be.    

CHAP. II.  

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 2. You have concluded that our Saviour did then offer a perfect Sacrifice when he commanded his disciples to do the same in remembrance of him: you do not here conclude the question. For, first, you have stated your question, that Christ did institute a Sacrifice, but you say, He did offer; this is matter of fact, the other of precept: great difference between his own offering (if he had done so in that sense you suppose) and instituting that others should offer. In the next place, the doubt is of a proper Sacrifice, and your Conclusion is, That our Saviour did offer a perfect Sacrifice. Who ever denied but that our saviour's Sacrifice upon the cross was both proper and perfect? and who denieth but that some other Sacrifices are perfect also in their kinds, which nevertheless cannot be called proper? 
a Psal. 4. 6.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Offer the sacrifice of righteousness: a sacrifice wherewith God is well pleased; surely therefore a perfect sacrifice, yet not a sacrifice properly so called: 
b Psal. 51. 19  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} This is another Sacrifice, a broken spirit, and certainly a right perfect one, 
c Psal. 51. 17.  for God will not despise it: yet is it but a metaphorical sacrifice. The Apostle calleth alms, 
d Philip. 4. 18. Heb. 13. 16  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God: yet are alms but Sacrifice improperly so called, you may therefore yield that when you conclude for perfect Sacrifice, you conclude not the point in question.  
Yet I will look back into your premises, and for reverence to that good and great Pope Cyprian of Carthage peruse what you from him allege.  
But before I weigh your arguments let us agree upon the scales to try them by: you shall be fairly offered: you and I in this controversy will be shut up within the same bounds wherewith your learned Cardinal hath enwalled this contention. Which being stated into the very point of difference between us is thus: Whether our Saviour at his last supper did institute an external, visible, and proper Sacrifice? for the clear understanding whereof, I will out of your Cardinal borrow these seven aphorisms;  
1. First, we differ not upon the word Sacrifice, you may believe your Cardinal; 
e Bell. de M●●●. lib. 2. c●●. 1.  Adversarii facilè concedunt missam esse Sacrificium {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, non quidem quòd velint esse Sacrificium propriè dictum, sed impropriè & largo modo: Our Adversaries do easily grant that the 
* The word mass is h●re and with Papists frequently tak●n for the whole act of cel●bration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  mass is a Sacrifice of thanksgiving, and of Divine worship, not that thereby they would allow it to be a Sacrifice properly so called, but improperly and in a large sense And again, 
f Lib. 1. c. 5.  Fatentur— Melanchthon— Kemnitius— Brentius, & alii, Missam, sive sacram coenam, multis modis Sacrificium dici posse: They confess that the mass or holy Supper may be many w●yes called a Sacrifice.  
2. Next, Bellarmine saith, That in ●v●ry Sacrifice properly so called there is an oblation or offering which is both external and visible; 
g De Miss. lib. 1 cap. 2.  Necessariò requiritur ad Sacrificium propriè dictum, ut sit oblatio externa: It is necessarily required unto a Sacrifice properly so called, that there be an external oblation. And, Nomen & ratio Sacrifici● propriè non convenit invisibili oblationi, sed solùm visibili & externae: The name and nature of a Sacrifice properly doth not agree unto an invisible oblation, but only to a visible and external.  
3. Thirdly, there must be a change in the thing offered, even such a change as may be found by our senses; 
h Lib. 1. c. 27  Sensibilis immutatio rei quae ●ffertur— ad rationem externi Sacrificii omnino pertinere videtur: A sensible change of the thing which is offered— doth altogether seem to appertain to the nature of an external Sacrifice.  
4. Fourthly, This change ●ust be a real destruction of the thing offered; 
i Lib. 1. ●. 27  Verum & reale sacrificium veram & realem mortem aut destructionem rei immolatae desiderat: A true and real sacrifice doth require a true and real death or destruction of the thing sacrificed: and this destruction is not only in the change of the use of a thing offered, but also in the consuming of the substance offered. In sacrificio— non solùm usus rei Deo offeratur, sed ipsa etiam substantia consumatur: In sacrifice not only the use of the thing ought to be offered to God, but also the very substance: and therefore not only the use but the substance is to be consumed.  
5. Fifthly▪ by the necessary rule of Relatives, if you plead for proper Sacrifice, you must prove Altars properly so called; 
k Bellar. de cul● l. ●. c. 4  Sine Altari non potest sacrificari: Without an Altar there can be no sacrificing. 
l De Miss. lib. 1. c. 14.  Nunquam altare propriè dictum ●rigitur, nisi ad sacrifici● propriè dicta: An altar properly so called is never erected, ●a● unto sacrifices properly so called.  
6. Sixthly, by the same rule you must prove a propriety of Priesthood among you; 
m Lib. 1. c. 2  Sacrificium & Sacerdotium relativa sunt, ità u● sacrifici● propriè dicto, sacerdotium propriè dictum, & sacrifici● impropriè dicto, sacerdotium impropriè dictum respondea●: Sacrifice & Priesthood are relatives, so that unto sacrifice properly so called, ● priesthood properly so called doth answer; and un●o sacrifice improperly so called, a priesthood improperly so called.  
7. Seventhly, unless you maintain your Transubstantiation you lose your sacrifice: for if you only offered bread, 
n Lib. 1. c. 27  Haberet Ecclesia sacrificium i●animum: The Church should have a sacrifice without a soul: wherefore he fixeth this Canon upon his supposed Transubstantiation; 
o Ibid.  Corpus & sanguis Domini sunt id sacrificium, quod in Missa propriè offertur & sacrificatur: The body and blood of our Lord are that sacrifice, which in the mass properly is offered and sacrificed.  
The first of these seven showeth how much we yield, the other six how much you claim: all together show wherein we differ, and consequently what you ought to prove; which may be thus recapitulated, 1. No proof out of any Father will conclude for you upon his affirming that in and at the holy Supper of our Lord, there is a Sacrifice; or upon his saying that the Action and Celebration of the Eucharist is or may be called a Sacrifice. For, as Bellarmine tells you, we confess that it may be called multis modis, many ways, a Sacrifice: but all of them improperly and metaphorically. 2. You are to prove, that Christ did institute an oblation or offering external and visible. 3. In which offering may be found a sensible change of the thing offered. 4. Which Change must be either the very death, or the real destruction of the thing offered. 5. All which must be upon an Altar properly so called. 6. And by a Sacrificing Priest properly called a Priest. Lastly, all this is nothing worth unless your bread be transubstantiated, for the body and blood of our Lord must be that you offer: otherwise you say you do Sacrifice, inanimum Sacrificium, a dead, a liveless Sacrifice, a Sacrifice that hath not a soul in it, which is much more vile (saith your Cardinal) than the Jewish Sacrifices were.  
Thus have you enough to do: your shoulders (good Atlas) will be too weak for this weight. And if you fail in any of this, you forfeit your proper Sacrifice.  
That the word Sacrifice may not, by the doubtful sense of it, retard our progress take two passages out of S. Augustine, and as many out of your greatest doctors of the School. We profess, with S. Augustine, that 
p De civit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 6.  Every good work is a true Sacrifice; Verum Sacrificium est omne opus, quod agitur ut sanctâ societate inhaereamus Deo. That the Sacrament is indeed and properly a Sacrifice we deny, but that it may be so called a Sacrifice, we will confess with S. Augustine; 
q Epist. 23  Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso, & tamen in Sacramento, non solùm per omnes paschae solennitates, sed omni die populis immolatur? Nec utique mentitur qui interrogatus, ●um responderit immolari. Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent: ex hâc autem similitudine, plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt: Was not (saith he) Christ once sacrificed (or offered) in himself, and yet in the Sacrament, not only upon all paschal solemnities, but every day is sacrificed (or offered) to the people? Neither yet doth he lie who, being asked, shall answer that sacrificed (or offered) he is. For if the Sacraments had not a certain similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments, they were not Sacraments at all. Now by this similitude they oftentimes receive names of the things themselves. Therefore thus in another place saith S. Augustine, 
r Ad Simplic. lib. 2. qu. 3.  The phantasm and imaginary illusion which appeared unto Saul, is in the Scripture called by the name of Samuel: Quia solent imagines, &c. as you shall hear anon. Thus the death of our Saviour being a Sacrifice, and that Sacrifice by way of Similitude being represented by the Sacrament, in the opinion of S. Augustine the Sacrament itself is thereupon called a Sacrifice. Answer it when you can: and by the way tell me what is meant by populis immolatur, is sacrificed or offered to the people, when as the sacrifice you contend for, is the offering up of the natural body and soul of Jesus Christ unto God the Father.  
Your Master of the sentences affirmeth, 
● 1 Dist. 12.§ 7.  Illud quod offertur & consecratur à sacerdote vocari Sacrificium & oblationem: Wherefore? because it is the true body of Christ? No: quia memoria est & repraesentatio veri sacrificii & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis: That which is offered and consecrated by the priest is called a Sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory and representation of the true Sacrifice and holy offering made upon the Altar of the cross. I need not wish for plainer language, yet methinketh your Ang●licall doctor argueth more fully against you. His question is, Whether in the blessed Sacrament, Christ be offered up or not? To which he answereth; 
t It. 3. qu● 7●. ar●. 1.  Dupliciratione celebratio hujus Sacramenti dicitur immolatio Christi: primò quidem; quia sicut dicit Augustinus ad 
* It should have been ad Simplicianum.  Simplicium, solent imagines earum rerum nominibus appellari, quarum imagines sunt: sicut cùm intuentes tabulam aut parietem pictum, dicimus, Ille Cicero est, & ille Salustius: Celebratio autem huius Sacramenti imago quaedam est repraesentativa passionis Christi, quae est vera ejus immolatio: & ideo celebratio hujus Sacramenti dicitur Christi immolati●▪— Alio modo quantum ad effectum passionis Christi: quia scilicet per hoc sacramentum participes efficimur Dominicae passionis: The celebration of this Sacrament is by a twofold reason called the Sacrifice of Christ: First because, as S. Augustine saith unto Simplician, Images use to be called by the names of those things whereof they are images: even as when beholding a painted picture we say, That is Cicero, This is Sallust: The celebration indeed of this Sacrament is a certain representative image of the passion of Christ, which is his true Sacrifice. In another kind (it is called a Sacrifice) in regard of the effect of our saviour's passion: because indeed by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the Lord's passion. Here wanteth a third way for your turn, and it may be strange that so Sainted a doctor in so vast a sum of all Divinity should forget your highest mystery of a proper Sacrifice, even there where he is treating of the Sacrament, and how it may be called a Sacrifice. You may take his conclusion, which is but this, Hujus Sacramenti celebratio— convenienter dicitur Christi immolatio, the celebration of this Sacrament is conveniently called the Sacrifice of Christ. He doth not say it is so really, properly, but it is conveniently called so, so I go on to your testimony out of S. Cyprian.  
§. 3. This ancient Father arguing the right celebration of the Lord's supper from the example of our Saviour the author thereof, who only is herein to be followed, doth proceed to these words by you alleged; Si Jesus Christus, &c. If Jesus Christ our Lord and God, be himself the high priest of God the father, he did offer Sacrifice first, and commanded this to be done in remembrance of him: verily that priest doth truly perform the place of Christ who doth imitate that which Christ did do: and doth then offer a true and fall Sacrifice in the Church to God the father, if he begin so to offer according to what he seeth Christ himself to have offered. What of this? here are the words Sacrifice and priest. I know no quarrel between us upon these words; nor would there be any, if you did not add your sense of propriety to them both. Cyprian here calleth either our saviour's death upon the cross, or else the remembrance thereof, the Lord's supper (which was instituted to show the Lord's death) or both of them a Sacrifice. 
● 1. Cor. 11. 26.  Be it so. What can be from hence inferred more, then that which in the first of my seven inferences before was by anticipation prevented? We confess the name of Sacrifice, priest, and Altar, to be frequent with the ancient Fathers, but ever in a borrowed and tropical sense, never properly. Here the priest is said to imitate that which Christ did: so the 
x Ministers properly, but priests improperly.  priests and Ministers (call them which you will) in the reformed Church. This imitation is called a true and full Sacrifice, but not a proper Sacrifice: You saw before (§. 2.) that I showed you perfect sacrifices which were not proper sacrifices; of which you may also see a whole Chapter in S. Augustine, de vero perfectóque sacrificio, and yet no word of your missal sacrifice.  
§. 4. If you will go no further than these Fathers and doctors, I will go with you. Call the sign by the name of the thing signified; call the representation, as you do the thing resembled; call the picture by the name of the person, whose it is, who will quarrel? unless for the Consequence being dangerous, or for fear of scandal. Call the image of your Pope the Pope, yourself well knows, that then you speak improperly, yet who will argue you of falsehood? When you see the picture of King Charles, if you say this is the King, who will lay treason to your charge? But think not that a few forced places, picked and chosen out of the voluminous labours of the holy Fathers, can make your fancy substantial. When in ancient Churchmen you papists do find the word Sacrifice, straightway your ears are up, and you flatter yourselves, that the chime strikes the same tune that runs in your head, like the mad Athenian, who will not be 
Thrasilau● in Athen. De ip.. nos. l. 12.  persuaded, but that all the ships in the harbour are his.  
If one or two Fathers in their zeal to God, and for honour to the precious and venerable sacrament, should in the extollment of it pass an earnest word, thereby more deeply to imprint the passion of our Lord into the minds of Christians, and to raise up our devotion and reverence to this holy and heavenly Communion (calling it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a dreadful, secret, fearful, terrible, most formidable, unspeakable, venerable, honourable, divine, holy, immaculate, immortal, celestial, supercelestial, above the world, life-giving mystery) yet will you never find any word sentence or sense in them whereby to approve your proper sacrifice; but thousands of places that cannot well consist with such a construction: whereof you shall have some after▪ I have run through these your allegations.  
I have been the more plentiful in this first part, because the grounds here laid, the authorities here vouched, and the clear truth of our orthodox belief in point of Sacrifice, being thus presented, these very reasons and authorities may well serve to answer all or almost all that is remaining: in discussion whereof I will endeavour brevity.  
§. 5. Let me return unto your Cyprian; for Cyprian and I will pass to another chapter. Look in his epistle to nine pious Christians (whom he calleth his fellow-Bishops and Martyrs condemned in chains unto the mines) and there you shall find that having named unto them an humble and a contrite spirit, he presently addeth, 
y L. 3. Ep. 2●. Pamel. Ep. 77.  Hoc vos sacrificium Deo offertis, hoc sacr●ficium sine intermissione die & nocte celebratis, hostiae facti deo, & vosmet ipsos sanctas atque immaculatas victimas exhibentes— Hoc est quod praecipuè Deo placeat: This sacrifice you offer unto God, this sacrifice without intermission day and night you celebrate; you being made sacrifices to God▪ & presenting yourselves holy and unspotted offerings. This is that which principally may please God. This is daily sacrifice with S. Cyprian, to offer up one self; & he concludeth, that this doth principally please God. Principally, that is, above all other Sacrifices in this world. Did not Cyprian here forget your Missal sacrifice?  
§. 6. Secondly, in this very Epistle by you cited he saith, Sanguis Christi non aqua est utique, sed vinum, the blood of Christ is not water verily, but wine: Is our saviour's blood wine? very true it is so, and he himself, as Cyprian there voucheth, vitis vera, a true vine: But this is true in a comfortable metaphor, not by conversion of substances: for the blood of our Saviour is not really transubstantiated into wine: no man ever thought so. And why then should you obtrude, that because the sacramental wine is called his blood, it is therefore, without all figure and metaphor, his very blood by the conversion of the very substance of wine into the substance of his blood. Nec potest videri sanguis ejus (quo redempti & vivificati sumus) esse in calice, quando vinum desit calici quo Christi sanguis ostenditur: neither can his blood (wherewith we are redeemed and quickened) be seen to be in the Chalice, when wine is not in the chalice whereby the blood of Christ is shown. From hence I argue, that S. Cyprian knew not your Transubstantiation. For allowing the sacramental wine to be the blood of Christ (and so we confess it) he saith, There is no blood to be seen, when the wine is gone: but with you there is no blood at all, until the wine be gone. If you say, that indeed the substance of wine is gone, but the species or accidents of colour, &c. are there; I reply, that Cyprian would no more call those accidents wine, than you do now, had he been either a Philosopher of your schools, or a Divine of your Religion. But mark the last words, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur: By the wine Christ his blood is shown. He saith not, that the wine is blood, or turned into blood, but the blood is shown by the wine: yet the blood with you is seen without wine. Again, Miror satis unde— aqua offeratur in Dominico calice, qu● sola Christi sanguinem non possit exprimere: I wonder enough from whence water should be offered in the Lord's Chalice, which cannot alone express the blood of Christ. Was the blood of Christ then to be expressed and signified? it seems S. Cyprian did forget that the blood itself was there to express and signify itself: Or rather he was unacquainted with your late faith of Transubstantiation. But you will say, I am now in another theme, what is this to sacrifice? Yes, as a foundation to a building. This being gone your work is down; for you say, that you do not sacrifice bread but the body of Christ made of bread, 
z Bell. de. Miss. l. 1. c. 27.  Corpus Domini ex pane confectum. If then no Transubstantiation, it follows in your Doctrine by consequence no Sacrifice.  
§. 7. Lastly, I observe also that Cyprian doth call the bread a Sacrifice, and that before any consecration thereof. He taxing a rich dame for eating the consecrated bread, which poorer persons (as was customary there) had presented, and not bringing of her own to be consecrated, hath this reprehension: Matrona locuples & dives— quae in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis? quae partem de sacrificio quod pauper obtulit sumis? Are you a rich and wealthy matron who come into the Lord's house without a sacrifice? who take part of that sacrifice which some poor body hath offered? Here is Sacrifice, and that before consecration, and that offered by the poor, and expected from a woman.  
These places do evidently conclude, that figurative and metaphorical sacrifices were all that were known unto S. Cyprian, in whom yourself cannot find one passage whereby to evince your proper sacrifice.  
§. 8. To return, and in a word more to shut you quite from all authority out of Cyprian, let any man with heed and judgement read this Epistle, written only against the error of the Aquarians, who ministered the holy Communion in water only without wine, and he may easily find what Cyprian drives at: and if he be sensible, he will offer to conclude no more than Cyprian himself did undertake to prove. This holy Martyr with much earnestness in several places of this Epistle doth press the example of our Saviour, as our all-sufficient rule and guide herein. In this very period, whence you take this passage (which is the eleventh in this Epistle) he saith, Non nisi Christus sequendus— solus Christus audiendus— quid Christus prior fecerit, &c. Wherein? In what point is this example urged? even in those things (ad ipsum Dominicae passionis, & nostrae redemptionis Sacramentum pertinentia) which concern the sacrament: so comes he to your words, that the Priest should imita●e Christ, and if he will offer a true and full sacrifice, he must offer, how? Secundùm quod, according to that he seeth Christ himself to have offered. According to that! How so? what is secundùm quod, but (as before) according to the example of Christ? His example! what example and wherein doth Cyprian here mean? plainly against the Aquarians; who in the administration of the Cup used water, and therein did not imitate Christ, by whose example we are taught to celebrate in wine. And this I will abide by, to be the true, plain, and full scope and sense of this Father in this your choice alleged place.    

CHAP. III.  

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
Since that you infer nothing out of the differency of Editions, I have therefore no cause of answer to this piece. But if you had vouched that of Pamelius, and argued upon his seipsum, you knew well that I have the much elder Edition by Erasmus, which is enough to control Pamelius.    

CHAP. iv.  

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
The place needs no variety of readings: it is plain enough except for your interpretation wherewith you do obscure it, by inferring more than you have ground for. You conclude for your advantage, but you want proof for your Conclusion. You say our Saviour did offer a proper sacrifice: Who ever denied it? You say this Sacrifice was himself: It is confessed. But this, that the sacramental bread and wine, being converted into our saviour's body and blood, was sacrificed (which I see you intend in the last words, He offered bread and wine) when will you prove it? or rather why do you disprove it? For whilst you say he offered bread and wine, you do (against your will) conclude, that he did not as your Priests do, who have nor bread nor wine in your Sacrifice.  
But you argue out of Cyprian, who saith, that in Genesi per Melchisedec— Imago sacrificii Christi in pane & vino constituta, &c. The bread and wine of Melchisedec wherewith he refreshed Abraham, was an image of that bread and wine, wherewith our Saviour refresheth the faithful. Be it so: but you will say that Cyprian calleth here the sacramental bread and wine Sacrificium Christi, Christ's sacrifice, that is no news: you have it confessed and allowed before, that the Eucharist may be said 
Chap. 2. §. 4▪  to be sacrifical multis modis, but when will you prove it to be so properly? This is that which you have undertaken, and is indeed the only question.  
Concerning this and the rest of Cyprians authorities here alleged, it must be remembered (as was said before) that his intendment is to prove that the Sacrament ought to be celebrated in wine, not in water alone, this is his whole intention through this Epistle, without dream or thought of your then unknown and unheard of Transubstantiated presence. Concerning Melchisedec and his offering, I shall have fuller cause to close with you anon.    

CHAP. V.  

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
Every proof of our saviour's Sacrifice shall pass for clear, whether it be such or not; because whether you do mean his propitiatory and proper Sacrifice of the cross, or the eucharistical Sacrifice or Commemoration of a sacrifice, instituted in his last supper, both ways we confess Christ's Sacrifice: what need you therefore prove that which is not denied? But I espy another aim in your last line: you would infer the antiquity of your practice of celebrating in your mingled wine and water. This is no more incident to your theme, than water is necessary to the wine. These {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} shall pass by me without trouble; yet let me ask you what your faith is, in this point? when the substance of wine is turned into the substance of Christ's blood (as you believe) what then becomes of the substance of water which you beforehand did mingle with the wine?    

CHAP. VI.  

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
Your close of every period comes roundly off. You know what you would have, and you are sure to call for it in every conclusion, though nothing be in the premises from whence to infer it. I will represent unto you Cyprians argument and your own. Thus S. Cyprian: In sacrificio quod, &c.  
In the Sacrifice which Christ did offer, no man is to be followed but Christ:  
Therefore no Sacrifice or celebration of the Lord's supper without wine.  
Your Argument runs thus: In Sacrificio quod, &c.  
In the Sacrifice which Christ did offer no man is to be followed but Christ:  
Therefore it is clear, that Christ did institute a true and proper Sacrifice.  
Cyprians argument is good, yours is no argument at all.    

CHAP. VII.  

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

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

A. B. C.  
§. 3. For first, here is express mention of the body and blood of our Saviour daily offered in remembrance of him.   

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

A. B. C.  
§. 5. For the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is a word properly pertaining to the action or function of sacrificing.   

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

A. B. C.  
§. 7. And the article {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, when he saith {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, showeth the remembrance here spoken of not to be a bare or empty remembrance, by words only or some slight action at any man's pleasure, but a solid, substantial, and special remembrance, that is, by some public and solemn action instituted and ordained for that purpose; such as was that of our Saviour at his last Supper, whereto it is evident here that Eusebius alludeth.   

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 8. Your inference here is (in all likelihood) more than was intended by Eusebius in that so common article {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, yet since a solid, substantial, and special remembrance, is all that here you conclude for, I am ready for so much to join and consent with you in this period.   

A. B. C.  
§. 9 Secondly, here is express mention of a proper sacrifice and priesthood, or priestly function. For though the word proper be not here, yet the words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} do by their own proper signification, signify a proper Sacrifice and Priesthood.   

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 10. I see you know the point in difference: and it is enough for me that you confess the word proper is not in this authority: neither indeed is it in any other authority that you have brought or can bring. But (say you) the original Greek doth signify a proper sacrifice and Priesthood. Boldly asserted. How weak was Bellarmine (and all the rest of your Writers) who never knew before the full force of these words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}? Bellarmine will not say that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} must signify a proper Sacrifice, though indeed he say thus near it, that it doth properly signify a sacrifice. But if so be that originally this should be their proper sense; yet you are still to prove, that without a Metaphor such is their sense in this place; and lastly, that the Sacrifice here meant is as yours of the mass. May not this better Sacrifice, here spoken of, be that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the truth of types, our saviour's passion? and what is this then unto your missal Sacrifice?  
Surely you are too adventurous. Is it necessary to take {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} for a sacrifice proper? I wonder then that this dispute was ever raised, or being raised maintained so long. But I have been taught that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} comes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, from mactare, to slay: and so your 
a De Miss. lib. 1. cap. 2.  Cardinal confirms me, 
b Joh. 10. 10  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} you will not translate this that the Thief comes to sacrifice: your Rhemist have rendered it, The thief cometh not but to steal and kill: Again, 
c Matth. 22. 24.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, my beeves and fatlings are killed: you translate not sacrificed. Therefore if you will have your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to be a proper sacrifice (as you pretend) you must make it appear in what part of your mass this mactatio, this death (or killing, properly so called) doth consist: which I am bold to say is more than Bellarmine could or you can perform.  
§. 11. In the next place you would have me to swallow your construction of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and to believe it properly to signify Priesthood. The sense of the place doth not admit your sense, nor hath the word any such propriety.  
For the place, it is plain that Eusebius doth prefer the Christian Sacrifice, or to speak properly Christ's Sacrifice, or in the words of Eusebius, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. The remembrance of Christ's body and blood, (the celebration whereof he there calleth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) before all the typical shadows among the Jews. This is all that Eusebius hath or intendeth here.  
For the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, you will strangely impone upon the ignorant, when you can persuade that it signifieth proper priesthood. The truth is, that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is generally any manner of service and ministration of holy things. 
d De Miss. lib. 1. c. 15.  Bellarmine doth control Kemnitius for saying that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is to sacrifice: He says, indeed, it is sacrum facere, but not sacrificare, to do or perform some sacred work, but not properly to sacrifice: and then tells you that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is in Dionysius, sacrum ministerium, not sacrificium, a holy ministry or function, or holy operation, not a sacrifice. Mark how S. Paul useth the word: 
e Rom. 15. 16.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which your Rhemist call sanctifying (not sacrificing) the Gospel of God. Like as your Masses of Basil and S. Chrysostom, where you have {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which is no more than holy service or operation (or at the most as there it is rendered consecration) of this ministerial and unbloudy sacrifice.  
Where, when, and with whom it ever was construed or taken for proper priesthood, I do expect from you who have affirmed it.   

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

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

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 15. Are you not ashamed with these poor reasons, so pitifully to beg the cause in question: you flourish out this piece of Eusebius into three pretended arguments. This is the last. Thirdly, this Sacrifice and priesthood did not cease, &c.  
As for priesthood, it is not once named here, either in the Greek or Latin: But yet you can in your English turn holy celebration of a remembrance into a proper priesthood. This is done with the same fidelity, as another 
a Anonymus Eremi●● v. the 4 Cardinal virtues of a Carmelite friar, pag. 26.  Anonymus of your tribe: who producing that of S. Matthew, (5. 23.) If thou bring thy gift to the Altar, turns it thus, If thou offer thy host at the Altar. The Latin in both places both for him and you is munus, which he calls h●st or Sacrifice, and you call priesthood, neither truly: nor ever so rendered by any other man, unless with purpose to deceive. You are not like to want proofs, who can create authorities for what you say yourselves.  
§. 16. As for the word Sacrifice, it is confessed that Eusebius hath it here. But as before S. Augustine, Tho. Aquinas, &c. do allow a Sacrament to be called by the name of what is thereby represented, can you think us so unwise as from hence to grant you your daily▪ Sacrifice? when your own English doth say, We daily celebrate the remembrance of his body and blood? The difference between your daily Sacrifice, and Eusebius his daily remembrance is as much as between your person and your picture.  
§. 17. You promised us a few strong arguments in this cause, instead of such (which ought to be quick, open, clear, and convincing) you bring a few weak inferences stretched by your own fancy, upon a few impertinent vouchers. For not one of these comes near your Roman sense, of sacrificing up by you the son of God in his entire flesh both body and soul, as you most desperately and most grossly do teach, and yet with these you do miserably beg the cause: nay you brag beforehand as if you had it already. 
a Cap. 2.  It is clear (say you) 
b Cap. 4.  Again it is clear. 
c Cap 5.  expressly averred— and a clear proof. 
d Cap. 6.  Nothing can be more clear— nor do I see what can be said against. 
Cap. 7.  Almost every word is a pregnant proof of what I intend. These bold assertions, and many other in the following chapters, may pass for true with them who are so shallow as to be led by the noise and sound of your braveries, and are not solid enough to pierce the sense of your authorities.    

CHAP. VIII.  

A. B. C.  
§. 1. WHich is further confirmed in the ensuing discourse where he saith that these of ancient times of whom he spoke, wanting better, did make use of those figures or shadows: but that we having received the truth and substance, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, by the greatly mysterious dispensation of Christ shall not need theirs. And then explicating wherein this dispensation he spoke of consisteth, and how God did lay the punishment due for our sins upon our Saviour, as chains, reproaches, contumelies and scourges, making him a trophy or spectacle of execration, he saith thus, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. That is, After all offering unto his father a wonderful and most excellent Sacrifice for the salvation of us all, and delivering unto us also a remembranc● to offer to God by a continual course in Sacrifice. So as here again he makes express mention of a Sacrifice to be offered continually, that is, daily or without intermission (for so {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} also signifieth) in remembrance of the Sacrifice which our Saviour Christ himself did offer.   

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 2. Must I always watch your translations? Your cause is bad and you would fain forge evidence to mend it. Eusebius hath {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which you say is A remembrance by a Sacrifice. This (you know) would make plainly for you. Christ's sacrifice to be remembered by a daily Sacrifice. That were Romish Doctrine indeed. But give Eusebius true English for his true Greek, and then it is A continnal remembrance instead of Sacrifice. And this is plain for us.  
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is For, instead of, in the room, in the place of another person or thing. 
a Luc. 1●●. 11.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; will he for a fish give him a serpent? Archelaus did reign in Judea 
b Matt. 2. 22.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the room of his father Herod. So Christ gave his life 
Matt. 20. 28. Mar. 10. 45.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a ransom for many. Thus your daily and continual Sacrifice is reduced to Eusebius his daily remembrance, in the stead, or in the room of Sacrifice: so your confirmation from hence hath weakened your cause.   

A. B. C.  
§. 3. Which he goeth on confirming thus— {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. that is, Being instructed by tradition to perform the memory of that Sacrifice upon the table, by the signs of his body and blood according to the Laws of the new testament, we are taught by David the prophet to say, Thou hast prepared, &c.   

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

A. B. C.  
§. 5. Thou hast prepared a table for me against those that afflict me, thou hast anointed my h●ad with oil, and how excellent is my chalice? which place of the psalm Eusebius expoundeth thus to our purpose, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}: In this is manifestly signified, the mystical unction, and the venerable or dreadful Sacrifices of Christ's Table, by which, exercising a most high office of priesthood, we are taught by the most high priest of all Priests, to offer unto the God of all, unbloudy, and reasonable, and in that respect most pleasing Sacrifices throughout the whole course of our life. Thus he: manifestly teaching what we intend, and proving the same by the testimony of the holy prophet David. First, he makes mention of our saviour's body and blood upon the Table, in memory of that great Sacrifice upon the cross: Then to show that this is a Sacrifice, he useth the proper words of a Sacrifice, which are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and to show that the Table he speaks of is an altar he joins it with the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} thus, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Then he useth the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which is a most proper word signifying the exercise of Priesthood in a singular manner: and the words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} joined with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which is as properly said as can be of offering a proper Sacrifice. Lastly, he saith that the Sacrifice or thing offered is unbloudy and reasonable, and therefore most pleasing to God, which no man can understand otherwise then of our Saviour offered in Sacrifice in an unbloudy manner, and so as that he enjoyeth the free use and exercise of his reason and rational faculties even then when he is offered.   

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 6. Eusebius doth indeed speak of unbloudy and reasonable sacrifices: but in your mass, you offer (as you say) the absolute natural body and soul of Jesus Christ the eternal son of God. How then? do you sacrifice corpus exsangue; a bloudlosse body? No, you profess that your Sacrifice is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, unbloudeed, that is, no gushing, issuing, or appearing of blood: but you dare not with Eusebius here say that it is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that is, without blood, deprived, destitute, utterly void of blood, as the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} doth plainly signify; a privation or utter absence of blood. If you do, then farewell your doctrine of Concomitancy in the bread, and of Transubstantiation in the wine. If otherwise you will hold them; and that whole Christ (body & bones, blood and soul) is under the species of bread; How then are you of Eusebius faith, who doth here plead for sacrifices without blood, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}? and to take off all doubt of such sense as you would impose, within very few lines, he calleth these {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, unbodied sacrifices: So that in Eusebius time the Christian sacrifices had neither body nor blood, but were void of both. A strange blindness, or a blind boldness in you, to produce authorities so strong against your own cause.  
§. 7. Again, you affirm here the reasonable soul of Christ to be in your Sacrifice, which can never be if you confess with Eusebius {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a bloodless sacrifice, for when you speak of rational faculties, I am sure that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} where no blood is there is no life: You would pretend proof out of the word reasonable sacrifice; but you must be put in mind that Eusebius hath {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, reasonable, not living sacrifices. No man (say you) can understand this otherwise. Did not S. Paul teach otherwise? or do you think that Eusebius had not read S. Paul? if he had, why may not Eusebius allude unto that of S. Paul, where speaking of a 
a Rom. 12. 1  living sacrifice, he telleth us, it is our reasonable service, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. So that Reasonable service in S. Paul, is Reasonable sacrifice in Eusebius.  
§. 8. Every man doth abhor them who are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, men-eaters, Cannibals. Yet you think it no impiety to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, God-devourers: nor any impossibility to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Soul-eaters. Forbear, forbear this carnal barbarism of eating our saviour's body thus Capernaitically: or else show how his body and the free use and exercise of his reason, and rational faculties, can be between your teeth without a sensible soul also to feel what you tear with them.  
§. 9 You make too much of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} when you construe it, exercising a most high office of priesthood. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is no more than prospera sacra facere, to perform holy things happily. So {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is to work well, or to perform a fair or good work. In a second sense {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} may be to sacrifice, and then it signifies to sacrifice well, and that is all. For indeed the word is more general than to be restrained, among holy actions, only to the particular act of sacrificing; it signifieth the performance of all manner of sacred service. So 
b Lib. 2. sub Severo.  Herodian hath {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and 
c Lib. 5. s●b Heliogabalo.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Therefore how I may find in this word all that sense of exercising a most high office of priesthood, as you have Englished it, and where I may find that it is a most proper word signifying the exercise of priesthood in a singular manner, I pray instruct me by your next. In the mean time I wish you would force Eusebius to speak no more in English then in his own language. But (alas) something you must say, and your timber is so crooked that it cannot be measured by a straight line.  
§. 10. Lastly, There is one word more in this voucher from Eusebius, which I must not pass over. Bellarmine (as before alleged) will assist me, if I put you in mind that Altar and Sacrifice are relatives, proper to proper, and improper to improper. Insomuch that he fixeth this 
d De cultu Sanctorum, l. 3. cap. 4.  sine Altari non potest sacrificari: No Altar, no Sacrifice. So your Canon law, 
e De consec. dist. 1. c. 11  Sacrificia non nisi super Altare— offerantur: Let not sacrifice be offered but upon an Altar. Ledesma, 
f De eucharistia c. 20.  Missa est veri & proprii nominis sacrificium, er●ò necessariò requirit altare super quod offeratur: The mass is a Sacrifice of a true and proper name, therefore it necessarily requireth an Altar whereon to be offered. So Paludanus S●t●, and all of you that I have heard. From hence I observe that a Table proper and a Sacrifice proper cannot relate, why then did not you avoid this place of Eusebius, where {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the sacrifices of Christ's table, do unavoidably conclude that your author did mean such Sacrifices as were performable at a Table, which yours are not? for you can never prove that Sacrifices properly so called were ever celebrated at a Table properly so called.    

CHAP. ix..  

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 2. This place of Malachy is beyond all sense so boastingly produced by most of your Writers, as if alone it might confute us all: when as the Fathers make perpetual use of it, to prove our Sacrifices contrary to those of the Jews, (and contrary to yours also) to be in themselves spiritual: and in the Circumstance of celebration, tied to no place or places, and that in quality they are pure and clean, and that in the persons celebrating they are universal, 
a Mal. 1. 11.  From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering. This offering or sacrifice here meant, is to be celebrated {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in every place: but yours only where an Altar is, and that prepared with many circumstances, as Ledesma delivers. Yours is tied to a morning exercise, this free at all times and seasons, as before you alleged {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, throughout all one's life.  
§. 3 But to shorten (as much as I can) the trouble which you multiply more by weak impertinencies then by any strength of proof, let Eusebius who vouched Malachy expound him. He saith that Malachy's {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in every place, is as much as not at Jerusalem (which was then their sole place for sacrifice) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, neither definitively (saith he) in this or that place: but yours is defined to the Altar. This {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which you call clean sacrifice, and our translation pure offering, is there by him affirmed to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the incense of prayers, and a sacrifice not by blood, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, but by religious works and duties.  
Again, in this very place by you alleged, as soon as ever he hath repeated the words out of Malachy, headdeth what you have drawn out, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. Therefore we sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise. Thus Eusebius expoundeth Malachy, and is not this an improper sacrifice? if it be not, tell me what you mean by your proper sacrifice, if there be none improper?  
§. 4. You will say, that being a Protestant I do detort the sense from a real to a metaphorical Sacrifice. Is it possible that men should be so mad for superstition that they will detort this text to a proper sacrifice? and wilfully will not see, that it is impossible for the Prophet or for Eusebius to mean so? Are not the very next words in Eusebius (after this by you avouched) plain words for a spiritual and improper Sacrifice? and doth he not conclude this chapter, and this whole book in a few lines after? wherein, as if he would crown this text of Malachy with an ample Commentary, he reckoneth up all these several sacrifices in a few lines: A broken spirit: an humble and contrite heart: the sweet-smelling fruit of all virtue and divinity: the incense of prayer: the remembrance of that great sacrifice, according to the mysteries delivered to us: thanksgivings for our salvation: offerings of religious hymns and holy prayers: and consecrating ourselves to God and Christ in soul and body, a chaste body, and a refined soul. Thus Eusebius doth magnify our Christian duties, dignifying all with the high title of Sacrifices; yet in all this not once dreaming of a carnal presence as you do: which if he had believed, how could he have omitted that which he rather would have gloried in? nay, how could he have confined himself so short, as to call it but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the memory of that great Sacrifice? if so be Christ himself were bodily present?  
§. 5. Yet you rave for a proper Sacrifice, and if a Protestant do show with Eusebius that which cannot be other than a metaphorical Sacrifice, you will slander him beforehand with det●rtion of Eusebius. Was Bellarmine a Protestant? I would he had been (unhappy man! how great pains he took to miss his way? and with how much learning he unlearned his own salvation!) He your great Achilles, even upon occasion of this very text of Malachy doth affirm, that prayers, praises, good works, &c. 
b De Miss. lib. 1. c. 10.  are sacrifices improperly so called, which is the same as to say they are metaphorical. He saith again, 
c De Miss. lib. 1 cap. 2.  Nomen & ratio Sacrificii propriè non convenit invisibili oblationi: The name and nature of a Sacrifice properly doth not belong to an invisible offering. Now I (Poor Protestant) do take prayers and praises to be invisible oblations: yet you promise here by and by to detort this sacrifice of praise, and to show that it doth mean a proper sacrifice. And when that is done, perhaps you will show that Christ's Table (before spoken of) is a proper Altar also. But when you go about it do not endeavour to detort both the sense and words of your author, and then prove what you can.  
§. 6. In the mean time here is a word detorted, if I be not much mistaken: you construe {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a sacrifice in which God is. The Latin hath no such sense, though printed within these ten or twelve years at Paris, nor hath any other man (I believe) beside yourself ever translated it so. I deny not but that God is all in all, and in that extent he is in our prayers, praises, Sacraments, virtually, powerfully, spiritually: but you will have him in your sacrifice circumscriptiuè, confined and limited in all and every fragment of your Host. How else, and in what manner, do you mean that God is in your sacrifice more than in our Sacrament? The meaning of Eusebius was no more, but that our Sacrifice is a Divine Sacrifice, and the common English and Latin of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is Divine. Aristotle faith of Poetry, 
d 3. Rhet.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Poetry is a Divine thing: so Suidas, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Divinely to determine.    

CHAP. X.  

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 2. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Good Bellerophon who wrote this for you, and made you believe it would help your cause? Surely you have gotten some protestant to write this paragraph, for this place of Eusebius is quick and pregnant against your bodied Sacrifice. Belike you foresaw that having produced some pieces of this treatise in Eusebius (distant enough from what you would prove) in way of answer this would have been returned to you: and therefore by way of a strange anticipation you would seem first to own it, though it carry a direct adverse sense to your Romish carnalty of presence. But the seven aphorisms out of Bellarmine, and the formerly vouched sentences of S. Augustine, Lombard, and Aquinas, do turn aside any impression which you can make upon our faith (though you should argue much stronger than hitherto) yet this pretenced argument must also have an answer.  
§. 3. Eusebius (say you) doth most perfectly distinguish these two kinds of Sacrifices, proper and improper, external and internal. Most perfectly! yet here is no mention at all of proper, improper, external nor internal: surely then, this is most imperfectly said by you. But Eusebius (you say) doth mention Sacrifice and incense: so doth all the world, multis modis, many ways; we sacrifice, but never once in your Romish sense. Eusebius doth indeed pursue the text of Malachy, and the prophet speaking of both (In every place incense and a clean Sacrifice) the Sacrifice (saith Eusebius immediately upon the words of Malachy) is a Sacrifice of praise: A Sacrifice of a contrite Spirit, of an humble and broken heart. Will this serve for your proper and external Sacrifice? we do also (saith Eusebius following the same Metaphor) burn incense, offering the sweet-smelling fruit of theological virtues, and prayers, &c. What saith Eusebius in all this, but absolutely different from the faith of your Sacrifice? which had he believed, now was his time to have come forward, and have told the Jews, that in stead of their one altar we have many altars: In place of their annual Sacrifice, we have daily: In room of their Paschall lamb, we do Sacrifice the lamb of God, the very son of God in his flesh.  
In which piece of all this passage in Eusebius do you find your proper Sacrifice? you have fixed upon these words, Celebrating the memory of that great Sacrifice. What make these words for you? doth not our Church celebrate the memory of that great sacrifice of our Saviour on the cross? You know we do. If it be a celebration of a memory, how can it be the sacrifice itself? If it were (as you affirm) the proper Sacrifice itself, how then were it a celebration of a memory? This is too weak on your side to help your cause: This is so strong on our side that you can never answer it, until you can prove a favour and the remembrance of that favour, a conquest and the story of that conquest, Cesar and Caesar's picture, to be all one.    

CHAP. XI.  

A. B. C.  
§. 1. YEt I will add one place more out of his 5. book 3. chapter, where discoursing of the 109. Psalm, and of that place where our Saviour is said to be a priest according to the order of Melchisedec he saith thus, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. That is, And the fullfilling of the prophecy is admirable to one that considereth how our Saviour Jesus the anointed of God, doth to this very day, according to the rite of Melchisedec perform the office of priesthood among men by his ministers. For even as he (that is, Melchisedec) being a priest of the Gentiles, is nowhere found to have used corporal Sacrifices (that is to say of beasts) but only blessing Abraham with bread and wine, so after the same manner our Saviour and Lord himself indeed first, than the priests coming from him, over all nations exersicing the spiritual priesthood according to the ecclesiastical laws (or rites of the Church) by bread and wine do obscurely represent the mysteries of his body 
a Saving blood you should say, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  and blood, Melchisedec foreseeing them by the Divine spirit, and using beforehand the figures of what was to come after. What can be more clear? The prophecy of David fulfilled by the exercise of Christ's priestly function offering 
b You offer (as you teach) no bread nor wine.  bread and wine, first by himself in his own person, then by his priests succeeding him. And this among all nations, this priesthood and Sacrifice being prefigured in the person and sacrifice of Melchisedec: His sacrifice being bread and wine, and ours the body and blood of our Saviour contained under the accidents of bread and wine, for so doth the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signify, which is here used. It is therefore evident by this, that Christ did at his last supper offer and institute the proper Sacrifice and priesthood of the new Testament. Nor can any man with reason doubt thereof: yet because I see that unwillingness to believe the truth makes men stick at toys many times, I reflect upon two words which perhaps a man may take hold of to misunderstand Eusebius. The one is where he saith Melchisedec did not use corporal Sacrifices, the other where he calleth our saviour's priesthood spiritual. But his meaning is clear, that by corporal Sacrifices he understandeth sacrifices of beasts: such as Aaron's were: which therefore a little before he called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} according to the property of the greek word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. And it is clear that he speaks in this sense, for he affirmeth that Melchisedec used bread and wine: from whence may be gathered the meaning of that other word spiritual priesthood, to wit, that it is clean another kind from that of Aaron, which was a carnal and bloody priesthood, and of the same kind with Melchisedec's, which was in some sort spiritual: But our saviour's is much more spiritual, for his sacrifice was not bare bread and wine as Melchisedec's was, but his body and blood, which had and hath a spiritual manner of being under the accidents of bread and wine; not using any corporal sense or faculty, but only those of his soul: as I signified before when I showed why Eusebius called our sacrifice {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that is, a reasonable or intelligent sacrifice: for so ours is indeed. And so though it be a reasonable or intelligent sacrifice, and spiritual also, for the spiritual manner of being which our Saviour hath there; yet it is a true and proper Sacrifice, as I have made it clearly appear by Eusebius his whole discourse, with whom having now done—   

Sr. EDWAD DERING.  
§. 2. You have a worse fate than Bellerophon, he but once did carry his own condemnatory letters, you several times do make your own rods. I could pity you, if you were not of age, to see what yourself do do: And yet as you are I am sorry for you, not that you bring this (which otherwise I had produced against you) but because you flatter your own misconceit so far, as to imagine this authority to stand on your side, which is indeed unanswerably against you, you find yourself pinched, and do strive to pull out the thorns which yourself have stuck in your own sides. You bring in Eusebius saying thus,  
§. 3. Even as Melchisedec is nowhere found to have used corporal sacrifices, but blessed Abraham with bread and wine: so our Saviour and all priests by him exercising {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a spiritual priesthood, (say you) do by bread and wine obscurely represent the mysteries of his body and blood. What a strange encouragement and a strong confirmation is this unto a protestant, that he 
〈…〉  finds his adversary slain with a sword of his own unsheathing? what strange self-flattery and a strong self-abusing is this in you, that when you lie grovelling and wounded, yet you will brag as if for victory? immediately upon these words of Eusebius, you make your usual flourishes: what can be more clear? It is evident: No man can with reason doubt, &c. Examine yourself (man) whether you be not on the protestant side, you plead so well for us.  
§. 4. You say that Melchisedec's sacrifice was bare bread and wine, yours is more than so: so is ours; not a bare or empty remembrance, by words only, or some slight action, but a solid, substantial, and special remembrance. You say, that Aaron's was a carnal and bloody priesthood? why so, because (I trow) he sacrificed bodies of flesh and blood. But yours (say you) is spiritual, for the spiritual manner of being which our Saviour hath there: and so say we. Take heed you have no blame for this, or rather stand fast unto it, and reap the joy comfort and credit of yielding to truth which is too strong for you.  
§. 5. As before I gave Cyprian for Cyprian, so 
Chap. 2. §. 5, 6, & 7.  would I now render you Eusebius for Eusebius. But you having brought nothing of weight out of him to fortify your own opinion, nay most of that you bring being clear enough against you; I may spare that care: and the rather because I have already given you some passages of Eusebius in way of explanation of those pieces which you have brought: yet you shall not pass without a retort of somewhat out of him also, though but little.  
As first where he saith, that unto Jesus Christ the 
Lib. 1. c. 6.  only Lord, an Altar {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, of bloodless and reasonable sacrifices, is erected according as the new mysteries of the new Testament do require: here he nameth sacrifices in the plural number, and all of them (as before observed) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, void of blood, whenas, on the other side, you preach that all yours are but one, and that the very blood of our saviour's natural body is really therein.  
After this he saith that God is not to be sought i● a corner of the world, nor in the mountains, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or in any temples made with hands, or with Sacrifices, but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in a most pure understanding and clean mind, with temperance, and a life according to virtue, and with right and religious opinions. But you say with proper Sacrifices, unto which you must necessarily have Temples and Altars made with hands.  
Thirdly, having again mentioned {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 
Lib 1. c. 10.  Sacrifices without blood and rational (which are everywhere of every man taken for spiritual and improper) he proceedeth saying, The oracles of the Prophets do declare {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, these unbodied, and intellectual sacrifices to be the sacrifice of praise, invocation, lifting up of our hands, a contrite spirit: All which being Divinely foretold, are a● present performed by all the world as the truth of that prophecy doth show— saying, From the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles: and in every place incense shall be offered to my name and a pure offering. Therefore we do sacrifice unto God the sacrifice of praise, &c. Thus Eusebius, and thus he bringeth in, and thus pursueth the text of Malachy, without once imagining or reflecting upon a 
Mal. 1. 11.  proper Sacrifice: which had he believed he could as well totidem syllabis in express words have called it a proper sacrifice, as in that place by you alleged, he called our Saviour {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the Lord properly so 
Lib. 5. c. 3.  named.  
Lastly, because you find Melchisedec a priest in holy Record, and that he being a priest brought forth bread and wine, wherewith saith Eusebius (as you also have vouched him) he blessed Abraham, therefore somewhat too rashly you conclude, that the sacrificed bread and wine, whenas the comparison between Melchisedec and our Saviour holdeth, as Eusebius giveth it, in that neither of them did celebrate {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, with corporal Sacrifices, but both of them {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, performing a spiritual holy function: which kind of service Eusebius calleth (as many other Fathers do) {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Sacrifices rational & intellectual, without body & without blood: yours are not such. The comparison in Eusebius holdeth further also, that as Melchisedec the priest of the most high God did 
Gen. 14. 1●. Rom. 4.  refresh Abraham the father of the faithful with bread and wine, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, blessing him, as Eusebius hath it out of the text: so our Saviour {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the Supreme high priest of all, and God himself, doth bless and refresh all his faithful children (who being in succession of the same faith are spiritually the sons of Abraham) with bread and wine consecrated to a most high mysterious and holy use: wherefore his ministers or priests (call them which you will) for their office is here (in your last voucher) limited to a spiritual function, they (I say) in Eusebius words, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, do by bread and wine obscurely represent the mysteries of his body and saving blood. Thus far of the comparison between the two priesthoods of our Saviour and Melchisedec: thus pursued by Eusebius, and no further.  
As for that which your Roman Religion would from hence establish, and you plainly shoot at, it is inconsistent both with the comparison made by Eusebius and with holy Writ. The comparison being both in holy David, S. Paul, and Eusebius, made between their Priesthoods, not between their Sacrifices. Melchisedec's 
c. 11. §. 1.  you say was bare bread and wine, you dare not say your own is so, nay you dare not say it hath any bread or wine therein: you say (but the text is silent) what Melchisedec did offer: Eusebius saith he never used any bodily sacrifice, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which you would wipe away as if he meant of beasts to be sacrificed. Come back to your logic, or rather come forward in Divinity, and remember that bread and corn are and have bodies, unless you will deny S. Paul, saying, Thou 
1. Cor. 3. 7.  sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. But Eusebius doth mean that Melchisedec did neither sacrifice any kind of body, nor any bodily thing, for the English of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is bodily: which he accounted bread and wine to be as well as oil, which in a few lines before he calleth {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, bodily oil, meaning because it hath a bodily substance. And in that respect Eusebius who said that Melchisedec used no kind of bodily sacrifices, saith expressly, that he used no other sacrifices at all but (as in the place by you alleged) spiritual, for his words are in the same Chapter, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, He exercised priesthood to the most high God, neither by Sacrifices nor by immolations; that is, he then neither sacrificed by mactation or killing of beasts, for that is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, nor so much as by offering up any liquid thing, for that is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, libare vino, lacte, aut simili liquore: to sacrifice with wine, milk, or such liquour.  
You may find the word often in the Septuagint {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, for which your Douai Bible hath libaments, 
Lev. 23. 13.  our English much better and more intelligible, the drink offering. So (beside divers other places) you may read in Jeremy, where the women answer the Prophet, that they will pour out their drink-offerings to the 
Jer. 44. 17, 18, 19  Queen of Heaven, &c. which your Douai books call offering of libaments, the Septuagint {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, libare libamina, saith your Vulgar Latin: that is, to offer liquid offerings, which were for the most part wine, and these kind of sacrifices are called liba●ions or drink offerings: as is most clear in the song of Moses, 
Deut. 32. 38.  Where are their gods? their rock in whom they trusted, which did eat the fat of their sacrifices? {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and drank the wine of their drink-offerings? or as your darker Translation, and drink the wine of their libament? So that plainly {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was on offering only of liquid things, and that chiefly of wine.  
Clemens of Alexandria speaking of a sacerdotal 
Strom l 6.  officer among the Egyptian rituals, saith that he carried {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Calicem ad libandum, the Cup, or Chalice, 
Achareuses.  for the liquid Sacrifice. Aristophanes hath, Haec libo, haec eadem ebi●o: These I offer, and the same I drink of. The words are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
Wherefore laying together these pieces of Eusebius which all follow one another, you will find that Melchisedec here did neither kill nor offer in sacrifice any solid nor any fluid substance nor any bodily thing, not so much as bare bread and wine, he did neither sacrificare, immolari, nor libare: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, but exercised a spiritual Priesthood, agreeable to the holy Text, which saith protulit, not obtulit, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, he brought forth, not he offered, bread and wine, and that was also to his own inferior Abraham: whom the text saith he blessed, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which is all the exercise of Priesthood in this story expressed.    

CHAP. XII.  

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 2. S. Augustine (say you) is acknowledged undeniable, and you will put the full Decision of this controversy unto his authority. Is S. Augustine undeniable? How far do you mean? Undeniable with us, with you, or with both? Do we, or do you Jurare in verba? take faith upon his credit? Augustine was a great and most pious Father. And if we judge by his undoubted works, the freest from error and stain of any father among them all. Amicus Plato, &c. Plato is my friend, &c. So say I of S. Augustine, He is a Father of great authority, but Truth is a better friend: by truth I mean the word of Truth, the holy Scripture, and I must also have leave to prize, Multorum atque magnorum cons●…en●es si●● 
vinc. lir. cap. 3●.  sententias Magist●●rum, the concurring judgement of many great ones before any one, even S. Augustine.  
We on our side cannot admit his division of the ten commandments, whereby the two first are joined into one, and the last preposterously is parted into two: which yet you follow, and do exceed by using most audacious sacrilege, in cutting off (as you call it) parts of several commandments, but indeed expunging one entire precept.  
You on your side, believing that the Saints do know your wants, and hear your prayers, cannot admit S. Augustine where thus he saith, Ibi sunt Spiritus defunctorum, 
Decur● pro ●ort. c. 13  ubi non vident quaecunque aguntur aut eventunt in istâ vit● hominibus: The spirits of men departed are there where they do not see those things which are done, or do happen unto men in this life. Neither you nor we can pass for undeniable, where S. Augustine doth speak of certain secret receptacles and hidden closures of souls until the general resurrection, which cannot be your purgatory because he saith they rest and sleep, which purgatory doth not admit. In the next place, you offer to put the whole decision of this controversy unto the single Authority of S. Augustine. Are you so brave? I accept your challenge: and am resolved to tax you to your word: look you maintain your offer.    

CHAP. XIII.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 8. The Myndians made their gates too big for their city, but your postern is wider than their gates: your conclusion is ever too full beyond all proportion of your premises. Some friend had need to help your conclusion after you, as the Arabian shepherds do their 
Herodot.  sheep's tails, for it is too heavy for your own carriage.  
Here (you say) is clear mention of an Altar. Be it so: If the bare mention of an Altar and Sacrifice be an argument for real and proper Sacrifice, you have the cause. Here (say you) sacrifice is offered for the dead: Quid ad Rhombum? Shoot at the mark, man. Here is daily sacrifice! Yet you are wide. Here is the very same which was offered upon the cross for the redeeming of the world. ay, this is to the purpose indeed. But what if this be not here now? I find here dispensari victimam, &c. that there is a dispensation or distribution of that saving Sacrifice of the cross, which in the same sense, but in other words by S. Paul is called, The Communion 
1 Cor. 10. 16▪  of the body and blood of Christ: but this Communion is between Christ and his members: this dispensation and distribution is to the people: and what may that be to your dispensing of your sacrifice up to God in heaven? and that in such a bodily sense as you must prove, or else confess your undertakings vain.  
All that Monica required of her sons was, Tantùm illud— memineritis mei, and tantummodo memoriam— 
Cap. 11. & 13.  fieri, &c. A better carver than Polycletus or Pyrgoteles can fashion no more out of this stuff: so long as tantùm and tantummodo are not cut away. And then for a memory of Saints departed, and a loving commemoration of them, and their piety and virtue, and a thanksgiving for them, we do not quarrel, nor is it to the theme of your adventure.    

CHAP. XIIII.  

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 2. All is so clear as nothing can be more clear: Your arguments please yourself, but satisfy no man else. When will you come to the point? Yourself have stated the question, That Christ did institute a sacrifice: 
Cap. 1.  and that the sacrifice by Christ instituted is a proper sacrifice. Let any Reader judge whether in this of S. Augustine, or in any other voucher throughout your whole Treatise, you have one argument or authority that comes home to the point in controversy.  
Here you bring that spiritual Israel doth offer a singular sacrifice. If you had found that spiritual Israel had offered a corporal or bodily sacrifice (yours is such you say) than you had come something near the question. We are Israel according to the spirit, and we have a most spiritual and a singular sacrifice to offer, which S. Augustine (here by you alleged) calleth Sacrificium ●●●dis, a sacrifice of praise. Or if you will ●ake S. Augustine en●ire, and let one Chapter (as it ought) help to expound another, you shall easily find that this singulare sacrificium is in S. Augustine's sense very singular indeed: 
a Cap. 18.  unum verum & singulare sacrificium multis est antea sacrificiorum significatum figuris— singulare & solum verum sacrificium pro nobis Christi sanguis effusus est: The one, true, and singular sacrifice, is before signified by many figures of sacrifices— the singular and only true sacrifice, is Christ's blood shed for us And thus proceeding by degrees unto that here cited, he saith, 
b Cap. 20▪  Ecclesia immolat Deo in corpore Christi sacrificium laudis— Haec quippe ecclesia est Israel secundum spiritum, etc The Church doth offer to God in the body of Christ the sacrifice of praise. Take here in corpore Christi, the body of Christ, either for the Church which is his body mystical, or for the Sacrament and sacramental bread which is his representative body, still S. Augustine's sacrifice is but Sacrificium laudis, the Sacrifice of praise. For (saith he) this Church which is Israel according to the spirit— doth offer a singular sacrifice. Wherein? in what kind? what sacrifice doth this spiritual Israel offer? Iste (saith he) immolat Deo sacrificium laudis: This (that is, this Israel) doth offer to God the sacrifice of praise, not according to the order of Aaron, but according to the order of Melchisedec. Who can fashion your proper sacrifice, your bloody sacrifice out of all this?  
As for your last clause concerning Melchisedec, that will never make for you, until you can turn his protulit, he brought forth, into obtulit, he offered: And whilst you confess his was bread and wine, but say that yours is neither: and unless you can find a proportion between one so great as Melchisedec, deriving down a blessing unto Abraham, and such wretches as yourselves, who impudently and irreligiously affirm, that you offer up a greater than Melchisedec to God the Father. Beside, that which Melchisedec brought forth was at the most the Sacrament of a Sacrament; for so S. Augustine calleth it, 
c Epist. 95.  Sacramentum mensae Dominicae.   

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 4. Your last words, offering the body of Christ, are your own: indeed the coinage of your own brain without shadow or colour for any such inference out of S. Augustine, unto whose Sacrifice of praise I subscribe: not regarding what you boldly and without ground do affirm: for I do profess my faith as agreeable to S. Augustine's, as it is different from yours.    

CHAP. XV.  

A. B. C.  
§. 1. A Third place may be that, De civitate Dei, lib. 17. cap. 17. where he shows Christ's Priesthood, out of the psalm 109. thus, Juravit Dominus, &c. Almighty God swore, and he will not repent himself: by which words he signifieth that that which he addeth shall be immutable; Thou art a Priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedec. Seeing that now there is nowhere either Priesthood or Sacrifice according to the order of Aaron, and everywhere that is offered under the Priest Christ, which Melchisedec brought forth when he blessed Abraham; who can doubt of whom this is spoken? By which it is clear, that the exercise of Christ's Priesthood did and was to continue; and that in place of Aaron's sacrifices, a sacrifice like to Melchisedec's was offered; not by Christ himself; for he was not then on earth, but sub sacerdote Christo, under Christ, that is, by Priests under him, and by his authority and appointment.   

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

CHAP. XVI.  

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 2. In the first two lines of this chapter, you promise us out of S. Augustine proof for a true visible and proper Sacrifice, yet in the close you will shuffle the cause away invisibly. For you say, that Christ is wont to offer his Church as she doth him. How is that? you tell us presently. He being there invisibly offereth ●●r invisibly. Thus you promise to prove visible Sacrifice, yet you conclude for invisible.  
The words in S. Augustine are of Christ: Et▪ Sacerdos 
De civit. l. 10. c. 20.  est ipse offerens, ipse & oblatio, cujus rei Sacramentum quatid●anum esse voluit ecclesiae Sacrificium: quae cùm ipsiu● capitis corpus sit, se ipsam per ipsum dicit offerre. He is the priest, he the offerer and he the offering, the daily Sacrament, whereof he willed to be unto the Church a sacrifice: which (the Church) being the body▪ of him the head, saith that she offereth herself by him; that is▪ offereth herself to God through Christ.  
What is here for you or against us? As for your wide inferences whereby you w●nder both from the question of Christ's institution and from the authorities themselves which you produce (as I told you before) I intend not to pursue them.  
As for your last period where you bring in as from S. Augustine the word true Sacrifice, which you would have to be understood to be the body of Christ under the show of bread (as you teach:) If you remember the title of this chapter in S. Augustine, the Sacrifice by him meant is Christ himself the mediator of God and men, not your unseen Christ in a wafer. And if you remember the text in S. Augustine, it is Christ himself in forma servi, in the form of a servant, not Christ counterfeited by you in the shape of bread▪ and therefore nothing to what you are to prove.    

CHAP. XVII.  

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 2. What is in this for the propriety of Sacrifice, or concerning the institution of our Saviour.    

CHAP. XVIII.  

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

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 2. You have brought forth this place of S. Augustine: you have declined it, and indeed answered it against yourself. These two little words which you say a man may catch at in this discourse are both of them material, the first against invocation of Saints departed, which being nothing to our theme I pass by: the other is a plain convincing evidence to prove what was herein the sense of S. Augustine. His words are, 
a De civit. lib. 22. c. 10  Ipsum Sacrificium corpus est Christi, quod non offertur ipsis, quia hoc sunt & ipsi: The Sacrifice itself is the body of Christ: This you make much of, but take the whole period: which body (saith S. Augustine) is not offered to the Martyrs, because even they are this body. So than it is evident that the body of Christ in this place is (as you find it) his mystical body, that is, the Church universal: which being part militant, part triumphant (as the martyrs are) is honoured with the title of Christ's body: Just as S. Paul (to the faithful at Corinth) 
b 1. Cor. 12. 27.  ye are the body of Christ: and to the Romans, 
c Rom. 12. 5  we being many are one body in Christ.  
Thus it appears that nothing of this at all belongeth to your missal sacrifice of Christ's natural body under the shape of bread to be offered as you dream, and as you would prove if you could: but belongeth to his mystical body the Church (as yourself do find it) which body (the Church) is not the Sacrifice that you contend for.    

CHAP. XIX.  

A. B. C.  
§. 1. ALL which places though they make the matter of a proper sacrifice evident, and that therefore I need not say any more thereof, yet not only to satisfy an indifferent man, but even to convince a refractory, I have thought good to set down S. Augustine's discourse in his 20. book contra Faustum Manichaeum, where he handleth this point largely and particularly, the heretic's discourse requiring it, which I must also set down briefly for the better understanding of S. Augustine's answer, thus;  
§. 2. Faustus then to show that the Manichees were not Pagans, nor a schism of the Gentiles, that is, agreeing with them in belief, as he faith was said of them (though falsely, as S. Augustine answereth, for it was said only that they had some likeness with the Pagans, in regard they made more gods than one) Faustus, I say, takes occasion for his better clearing to set down a brief sum of his belief, or rather of his ph●enzie, saying; That the Father dwelleth in inaccessible light, the son on the sun and moon, the holy Ghost or third▪ majesty, as he calleth him, dwelleth or hath his seat in the whole circuit of the air, and that by his force and spiritual profusion the earth begetteth patibilem Jesum, passable Jesus, who hangs (as he saith) on every tree▪ that is, as S. Augustine afterwards more largely explicateth, Jesus according to their belief is in all fruits and herbs which grow out of the earth, and saith Faustus, we bear the same reverence or religion to all things as you do towards the bread and chalice: his words are there, Nobis circa universa & vobis similiter erga panem & calicem par religio est. Then he showeth how far they differ from the Pagans in several things, of which one is this, That, as he saith, the Pagans deem that God is to be worshipped with altars, temples, images, sacrifices and incense, wherein he professeth to go a very different way from them: for (saith he) I think myself, if I be worthy, the reasonable temple of God; I receive or take Christ for the living image of the living Majesty, the altar a mind endued with good arts and disciplines; I place divine honours and sacrifices in only prayers, and those pure and simple: honours quoque divines ac sacrificia in solis orationibus & ipsis puris ac simplicibus pone. And a little after, showing us to differ little from the Pagans, he saith, that we have turned their sacrifices into Agapes, or feasts wont to be kept at the martyrs' combs: their idols into martyrs: that the Jews our predecessors, in like manner departed but a little from the Gentiles, leaving only their idols and retaining their temples, their sacrifices, their altars and priesthoods. And so Faustus concludes both the one and other, that is, the Catholics and the Jews, to be a schism or near of kin to the Pagans, and his own profession to be a sect, that is as he accounteth it, very far differing f●om paganism. This is the substance of so much of this heretic's discourse as is for our purpose, that is, to give light to so much of S. Augustine as is needful to be here alleged.  
§. 3. This holy Father then having confuted all their vain and fabulous belief of the Father, the son, and the holy Ghost▪ as also that of the earth bringing forth Jesus; he comes to that of our bread and chalice, saying thus▪ Cur autem Faustus arbitretur parem nobis esse religionem circa panem & calicem nescio, cum Manichaeis vinum gustare non religio sed sacrilegium sit▪ I know▪ not why faustus should think that he and we have the same religion (that is, belief and reverence, for so religion signifies in this place) of the bread and cup, seeing with the Manichees it is not religion but sacrilege to cast wine: and then deriding them for it thus, That they acknowledge their god in the grape, but not in the vessel, as if by being trodden upon (that is, when wine is made out of the grape) and included or shut up in the vessel, he did offend them, he saith thus, Noster autem panis & calix non quilibet, quasi propter Christum in spicis & in sarment is ligatum sicut illi desipi●●t, sed certá consecratione mysticus sit nobis non nascitur▪ or as another edition hath it, sit nobis corpus Christi, non nascitur: But our bread and chalice not any, as it were in regard of Christ being bound or tied up in the ears of corn and branches of the vine as they foolishly imagine, but by certain consecration is made mystical unto us, doth not grow, or is not so by nature; or as the other reading saith, The chalice and bread by consecration mystical, is made the body of Christ, is not born so, or is not so of it own nature; and then he inferreth, that what is not so made, though it be bread and a chalice, it is alimentum refectionis, non sacramentum religionis; a food of refection, not a Sacrament of religion▪ but only that we bless and give thanks to God for all his gifts, not only spiritual but also corporal. These are the words of S. Augustine, plain and pregnant for the real presence and change of the bread and wine into Christ's body, whichsoever of the two readings a man take. For though the latter be the plainer by reason of the very words Corpus Christi, the body of Christ; yet because a Protestant will except against it for that very reason, though we should bring never so good authority for that reading, as they do in a like case of a place of S. Cyprians, for the authority of Peter's chair, to take away all exception I will wave it, and follow the former reading, being the very same in sense, and clear enough. For there it is said, that by consecration, and consequently not by saith, the bread and cup becomes mystical, that is, it is made something which is not seen, and that the nature thereof is changed, sit non nascitur, it is made another thing by consecration than it was by nature; and this consecration is certain, that is, a special consecration, different, and of greater force and efficacy than the ordinary blessing and thanksgiving used in other bread and wine; and that which is so consecrated is a Sacrament of religion, not corporal food: all which doth clearly demonstrate what we teach of Christ's presence in this holy Sacrament. But the discourse itself makes it yet more evident; for Faustus saying, that Christ is in every creature growing out of the earth, as we acknowledge him in our bread and chalice, (whereby it is manifest by his very testimony, that Catholics did then believe the reality of Christ's presence in this Sacrament as we do now) S. Augustine first confuting and deriding that vanity of Christ's presence in all things which Faustus spoke of, acknowledgeth it of such bread and wine as is duly consecrated, and explicateth how it comes, to wit, by consecration, not according to the vain imagination of the Manichees, as if Christ were tied and bound up in all their meats: Vobis per fabulam vestram, saith he, in escis omnibus Christus ligatus apponitur: Christ by your fable is set before you tied up in all your meats; and thereupon he denieth our belief to be the same with theirs, and addeth, that in so saying he showeth himself more foolish than some, qui nos propter panem & calicem Cererem & Liberum colere existimant, who in regard of the bread and chalice think that we worship Ceres (the goddess of corn) and Bacchus (the god of wine;) which is a proof no less pregnant for the truth and property of our Sacrifice, then that of the Manichees for the real presence: the practice thereof being such in S. Augustine's time, as that the very Pagans took notice thereof: For sacrifice was the worship which they gave to their gods: and unless they had known that we did offer bread and wine in sacrifice, they could have no show of reason to imagine how we should thereby worship Ceres and Bacchus.  
§. 4. Now for that Faustus speaks against the altars and sacrifices of the Pagans, and in commendation of his own spiritual and improper temple, altar, &c. and his only Sacrifice of prayers; S. Augustine having confuted him, and showed the falsehood of what he said of his being the temple of God, his mind the altar, his prayers pure and simple or sincere, he convinceth him of absurdity in acknowledging these things and denying a true sacrifice, asking this question, Volo mihi dicatis, I would have you tell me from whence you have the names of these things which you praise in yourselves, as temple, altar, Sacrifice? for if unto the true God these true things (that is, a true and proper temple, altar and Sacrifice be not due, why are they laudably spoken of in a true Religion? But if to the true God a true Sacrifice be due (from whence also they are rightly termed divine honours?) other things which are called Sacrifices are done after the similitude of a certain true Sacrifice. Lo here S. Augustine counteth it an absurdity in the Manichees to acknowledge these things metaphorically and deny a true proper Sacrifice. And why may not we say the same to Protestants? But to go on with S. Augustine, he showeth that all the sacrifices of the Gentiles and Jews had some relation to the true sacrifice, which is due to the true God only, and wherewith Christ alone did fill his altar. The sacrifices of the Gentiles were the imitations of false and deceitful gods, that is to say, of the devils, proudly challenging from such as they deceived that honour which was due to God only, the sacrifice being not to be blamed but the offering of it to the devil. The Jews by their sacrifices of beasts did by way of prophecy foreshow the future sacrifice which Christ offered. Wherefore Christians do now celebrate the memory of the same sacrifice, as being passed by the most holy oblation and participation of the body and blood of Christ. But the Manicheans not knowing what was to be condemned in the sacrifices of the Gentiles, nor what to be understood in the sacrifices of the Jews, nor what to be believed or observed in the Sacrifice of the Christians, do offer their own vanity in sacrifice to the devils. S. Augustine's Latin words of the latter part of this discourse in which the chief force consisteth are these, speaking of Christ's sacrifice of the cross: Unde jam Christiani per acti ejusdem Sacrificii memoriam celebrant Sacrosanctâ oblatione & participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi. Manichaei verò nescientes quid da●●nandum sit in Sacrificiis gentium, & quid intelligendum in Sacrificiis Hebraeorum, & quid tenendum vel observandum in Sacrificio Christianorum, vanitatem suam sacrum offerunt diabolo. Then which, what can be more clearly spoken for proof of a true visible and proper sacrifice? for having in the beginning of this discourse (or rather immediately before he entered into it) rejected that absurdity of the Manichees in ●●knowledging a metaphorical sacrifice of prayer, and denying a tr●e or proper sacrifice▪ he comes to speak of proper sacrifices; of which he maketh four sorts: The first is that of the Gentiles which he disallows in regard of the persons to whom it was offered, to wit, the devils. The second is that of the Jews, and their sacrifices many and several, were figures of the third sort of sacrifice, which was that which Christ himself offered. The fourth is the sacrifice of the Christians in the singular number also, as that of Christ himself, which they offer in remembrance of his sacrifice, and this they do by the oblation and participation of the body and blood of Christ. Who can now say that the body and blood of Christ is not truly and properly offered in sacrifice in the Catholic Church?  
§. 5. To that which Faustus saith of our changing the sacrifices of the gentiles into our Agapes, or feasts, and of their idols into our Martyrs, S. Augustine answereth thus, Populus Christianus memori●● martyr●m, &c. The Christian people doth celebrate the memories of the Martyrs with religious solemnity to stir themselves ●p to their imitation, to be partakers of their merits, and helped by their prayers: So that we do not sacrifice to any of the Martyrs though we build altars for memories of the Martyrs. For what Bishop standing at the altar in the place where the holy bodies lie did ever say, I offer sacrifice to thee, O Peter, P●●l, or Cyprian? but what is offered is offered to God, who crowned the Martyrs though at the memories (o● places of b●●●●ll) of the Martyrs, whom he crowned▪ that the very place putting us in mind, our affection may increase to wh●● out charity▪ both towards them whom we may imitate, and towards him by whose help we may be able to imitate them. We do therefore worship the Martyrs with that worship of love and fellowship wherewith the holy men of God are worshipped in this life, whose hearts we know to be prepared to suffer in like manner for the truth of the Gospel▪ But we worship those (that is, the Martyrs) more devoutly and more securely, after having overcome all uncertainty, and we praise them with more confidence being conquerors in that more happy life than those which are yet here fighting. But with that worship which in Greek is called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and in Latin cannot be expressed in one word, being a certain servitude (or subjection) particularly due unto Divinity (or Deity) we neither do worship, nor teach that any can be worshipped but God alone. And seeing that to this worship belongeth the offering of Sacrifice, from whence idolatry is attributed to them who do this (that is, offer Sacrifice) to idols, we offer no such thing nor command it to be offered to any, either Martyr, or holy soul or Angel, &c. And a little after again S. Augustine answereth an objection that some make themselves drunk at those feasts which were called Agapes, condemning the thing, yet so, that he saith, it is a less sin for a man to come drunk from the Martyrs, then fasting to sacrifice to the Martyrs: and lest any man should mistake him he explaineth himself thus▪ Sacrificare martyribus dixi, non dixi sacrificare Deo in memoriis martyrum, quod frequentissimè facimus, illo duntaxat ritu quo sibi sacrificari novi Testamenti manifestatione praecepit, quod pertinet ad illum cultum quae {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} dicitur & uni Deo debetur. That is, I said to sacrifice to the Martyrs, I did not say to sacrifice to God at the memories of the Martyrs which we do very often; but according to that manner only by which he gave command that Sacrifice should be offered unto him in the manifestation of the new Testament, which belongeth to that worship which is called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and is due only to God. And he goeth on immediately asking a question thus, But what shall I do, and when shall I be able to demonstrate to that so great blindness of these heretics (that is, when shall I be able to make them understand) what force that hath which is sung in the psalms, The Sacrifice of praise shall glorify me? and there is the way where I shall show him my Saviour? Salutare meum. The flesh and blood of this Sacrifice before the coming of Christ was promised by sacrifices of likeness; in the passion of Christ it was delivered by the truth itself; after the ascension of Christ it is celebrated by the sacrament of remembrance. The Latin words of the latter part are these, Hujus Sacrificii caro & sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur; in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur; post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur.  
§. 6. This is the discourse of S. Augustine at large, which I could not prevail with myself to break off sooner, being so clear and full to the present purpose, and containing so many excellent points besides, as the honour due to the Saints, the help we have by their prayers, the distinction of that worship which we give to them from that which we give to God, that worship of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which our Divines according to S. Augustine's doctrine do give to God alone, that this worship of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is exercised by sacrifice, so as we cannot be justly charged with idolatry by Protestants for doing honour to the Saints in their relics and pictures, seeing we do not offer sacrifice unto them. And for the point here principally intended which is of a proper Sacrifice there can be nothing more plain, being so often, so plainly, and so distinctly set down. Christ himself did not only offer sacrifice but did also institute a certain form of sacrific●, and gave command that sacrifice should be offered in such a manner, and when even at that time when he did manifest the new Testament; and when was that but at his last supper, when giving the Chalice to his Apostles, he said, hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, This is my blood of the new Testament, according to S. Matthew and S. Mark; and according to S. Luke, hic est calix novum testamentum in meo sanguine, This is the Chalice, the new Testament in my blood? For when or where else doth he manifest or even make any mention of the new Testament? and that no man may make any manner of doubt but that he meaneth a true and proper sacrifice throughout all this discourse, and even then when he spoke of the sacrifice appointed to be offered, and the right whereby it was to be offered, in the manifestation of the new Testament, he saith there, That it belongeth to that worship of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which consists in offering of sacrifice, and which is due to God alone. He calleth the Manichees heretics for denying it, and complains of their blindness, that he cannot make them understand that place of Scripture, Sacrificium laudis honorisicabit me, the Sacrifice of praise shall glorify me, of this Sacrifice. And how long (may I say) would it be before we should be able to make Protestants understand the same? The flesh and blood of this Sacrifice was prefigured and promised by the ancient sacrifices delivered by Christ himself in his passion, and after his ascension celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance; that is, this sacrifice is a signification, representation, or memory of the sacrifice upon the cross, according to the place before alleged out of his tenth book de Civit. Dei cap. 20. and according to another place in his Confessions, where he calleth the same thing Sacramentum pretii nostri which he called a little before Sacrificium pretii nostri: and this is that sacrifice which S. Augustine saith we do very often offer at the memories or altars dedicated to God in memory of the Martyrs, their bodies lying there buried.   

Sr. EDWARD DERING.  
§. 7. You in the beginning here do pretend to bring enough to convince a refractory man. Parturiunt montes— The little substance of this long discourse is divided into six paragraphs and easily answered.  
The first is not discursive, but only a flourishing bravado, not to be answered.  
The second (being taken out of the four first Chapters) doth contain an impertinency of the erroneous folly of Faustus.  
The third (out of the thirteenth Chapter) is a breviate of S. Augustine's answer to that impertinency of Faustus: wherein is nothing to the theme for proof of a proper Sacrifice, or of Christ's institution.  
The fourth (taken out of 15, 16, 17, and 18 Chapters) doth bring in Faustus again and S. Augustine pursuing him, wherein you cog in the word proper (a true and proper Temple Altar and Sacrifice) which seems to run like the language of S. Augustine, who hath it not.  
In the fifth you do expatiate far and wide (upon the 21 chapter) and repeating what was argued by S. Augustine nothing to our theme, but one small sentence, which amazeth me to hear produced by you, it being absolutely destructive to your real, visible, and proper Sacrifice. Whereupon I may justly say to you as S. Augustine there to Faustus, maledicendi cupiditate 
Cont. Faust. lib. 20. c. 21.  A. B. C. quid profiteretur oblitus est. The place is famous, full against you, and shall be repeated anon.  
Your sixth and last part of this chapter is another vain flourish: there you call for victory, proclaiming your cited authorities to be clear and full to the present purpose— For proper Sacrifice there can be nothing more plain, being so often so plainly and so distinctly set down. You would work well if you had a good theme to work upon: but your stuff is nought. Sometime that which is in substance little you dress and trim forth into a pretty show: sometime that which is clear against you (either to show your art, or for want of better helps) you take, and then with a colourable flourish of your own, you strive to win upon the easy belief of others; whenas (for my part) I cannot obtain so much of myself by all that you produce, as to think that you are so partial, as not to see that you have proved (in some of your choice authorities) plain truth against yourself. Thus— Quos perdere vult Jupiter hos dementat.  
As for your other {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, those excellent points (as you call them) they are neither proved here, nor pertinent to your or mine undertaking.  
You help me in the last inference with a most fit reply unto you. We do of you, as S. Augustine complained of the Manichees, wonder, that we cannot make you understand that place of Scripture, Sacrificium laudis, &c. The Sacrifice of praise shall glorify me. Now if you take praise for a proper Sacrifice, you stand alone; Bellarmine, and all writers else, and common sense against you. But if praise be a sacrifice improper, and that there never was flesh and blood in Christian sacrifice, (Unless in that of Christ himself on the cross) How long, may I say, (in your own language) would it be before we should be able to make Papists understand the same? The flesh and blood of this sacrifice was prefigured and promised by the ancient Sacrifices, delivered by Christ himself in his passion, and after his ascension celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance.    

CHAP. XX.  

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

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

A. B. C.  
§. 3. As for the other point of S. Peter's and his successors authority, I must desire a little further respite. And this one point may serve for this time.   

Sr. EDWAD DERING.  
§. 4. For proof of this other point you desire a little further respite. If you had really intended any thing therein, or could perform what you have undertaken, three sheets of paper require not so much time but that they might well have come along with this: if not ready then, yet you will not say but that I might have received them from you before I could dispatch this unto you. But that point as it is the main essential point of Popery, (with and without which a man is a Papist, or no Papist) so is it also of that difficulty to be proved, that you do wisely to decline that which you know you can never make good.  
§. 5. In the last place, as before I gave you Cyprian for Cyprian, and Eusebius for Eusebius, so here also I will return S. Augustine for S. Augustine. And so much the rather and more plentifully, because you say you are content to let the decision of the controversy rest wholly upon his authority.  
First then answer (if you can) what you last brought 
Contr. Faustum, l. 20. cap. 21.  and I shall first object: Hujus Sacrificii caro & sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur: in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur: post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur: Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was promised by victims of similitude: in the passion of Christ, it was delivered by the Truth itself: after the ascension of Christ, it is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance. I need not do by this, as you by your imperfect authorities, flourish it out in show for want of strength. It carries it own quickness with it: It is pregnant and pungent. He doth not say that our celebration is by a proper sacrifice▪ but by a Sacrament of Remembrance.  
Secondly, if S. Augustine had credited your daily missal Sacrifice of the very body and blood of Christ, he could not have said, Praeclarissimum atque optimum 
De civit. Dei, l. 19 cap. 2●.  Sacrificium nos ipsi sumus, we ourselves are the most excellent and the best sacrifice. For although he say in another place, that Tota redempta civitas is universale sacrificium, 
Ibid lib. 10. cap. 6.  the whole city of the redeemed is an universal sacrifice; yet this being but the body is not of that excellency and acceptation, as is that sacrifice of the Head, Christ himself: from and by whom she (the Church) in her several members and in herself entire, hath both value and acceptation. Therefore (I say) S. Augustine could not have called us the best and most excellent sacrifice, if beside that of our saviour's Passion he had also credited the real bodily presence and proper sacrifice of the mass.  
Thirdly, if S. Augustine had believed your daily sacrifice continually renewable, he could not say▪ unicum 
Con. advers. Leg. & Proph. lib. 1. c. 18.  sacrificium— unum— singulare & solum verum sacrificium pro nobis Christi sanguis effusus est: The only sacrifice, the one, singular and alone true sacrifice is Christ's blood shed for us.  
Fourthly, such as is the altar such the sacrifice, but neither of them proper, visible, or external in the language of S. Augustine; Ejus est altare cor nostrum, our heart is his altar: whereupon he proceedeth, saying, Ei 
De civit. Dei, lib. 10. cap. 4.  dona ejus in nobis, nósque ipsos vovemus, & reddimus ei beneficiorum ejus solennitatibus festis & diebus statutis dicamus, sacramúsque memoriam, nè volumine temporum ingrata subrepat oblivio. Ei sacrificamus hostiam humilitatis & laudis, in ara cordis igne fervida charitatis: unto him we vow and return ourselves, and his own gifts in us. To him upon festival solemnities and days appointed we do dedicate and consecrate the memory of his benefits, lest an ungrateful oblivion through the course of time should creep upon us. To him we sacrifice a sacrifice of humility and praise, in the altar of our heart, by the fire of fervent charity: Whereby it appears that S. Augustine either did not believe, or else (in his very Chapter entitled Of sacrifice to God) he did forget the highest mystery of your Religion: for here is no more material proper sacrifice, than that fire (here spoken of) is material proper fire.  
Fifthly, S. Augustine in his next Chapter saith, Illud 
Lib. 10. c. 5.  quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificii: That which of all men is called Sacrifice, is a sign of a true sacrifice: which follows well after that which in this very chapter he had said a little above, Sacrificium visibile invisibilis sacrificii Sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est: visible sacrifice is the Sacrament, that is, a holy sign of invisible sacrifice. If then visible sacrifices (with S. Augustine) are sacraments or holy signs of invisible sacrifices, surely than they were not, in his Religion, external and proper sacrifices: for the sign visible, and the thing signed invisible, are contradistinguished.  
Sixthly, a Table cannot be a Relative to a sacrifice proper▪ but S. Augustine hath, 
a Advers. Judaeos, c. 9  Mensa Dominica ad Christi sacrificium pertinens; the Lord's table appertaining to Christ's sacrifice.  
Seventhly, 
b Ibid.  Manibus non efferimus carnem, sed corde & ore offerimus laudem: We do not with our hands offer flesh, but with heart and mouth we offer praise.  
Eighthly, Sacrifice, Priest, and Altar, are relatives, and do meet together all or none; But the Priesthood of Christ is not on earth: 
c Ibid.  Christi sacerdotium in aeternum per severat in coelo: the Priesthood of Christ doth for ever continue in heaven: Therefore his sacrifice also is there with him: for where the Priest is, there the sacrifice must also be. And this is plain by your Greek Liturgies, where they (as S. Augustine here of Christ's Priesthood) do affirm our Altar to be in heaven, as in that attributed to S. James, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} so also in that of Chrysostom: and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in that of S. Mark. 
d Lib. 4. c. 35  Irenaeus, Altare in coelis, Our Altar is in heaven. So S. Chrysostom calleth our Saviour 
e In epist. ad Hebr. cap. 6. hom. 11.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, The Altar above. Epiphanius saith of Christ, 
f Advers. Haer. lib. 2. come. 1.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, He the sacrifice, he the Priest, he the Altar. Thus 
g Orat. 28.  Nazianzen comforts himself with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, another Altar in heaven. But I must proceed with S. Augustine.  
Ninthly, that which is after a sort, or in a certain manner, is not to be said really and properly to be such, but S. Augustine saith plainly and expressly of the Sacrament; 
b Epist. 23.  Secundùm quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est: The Sacrament of Christ's body is after a kind of sort the body of Christ; from whence by consequence it followeth, that your sacrifice is (at the most) but after a kind of sort a sacrifice, certainly than not a proper sacrifice.  
Tenthly, S. Augustine plainly calleth the blessed Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, 
c In Psal. 3.  Convivium, in quo corporis & sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit & tradidit: A banquet wherein he (our Saviour) did unto his disciples commend and deliver the figure of his body. But you affirm that you do offer the substance, and so you must say, or by your own principles forfeit your cause: for with you in your faith it is a consequence undeniable, If no Transubstantiation, than no proper Sacrifice.  
In the eleventh place, in the person of Christ, comforting his disciples upon the hardness of that speech in S. John, Except ye eat my flesh, &c. he saith, 
a In Psal. 98  Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos: & si necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, opertet tamen invisibiliter intelligi: You are not to eat this body which you see, or drink that blood which they shall spill who will crucify me. I have commended unto you a certain Sacrament; It being spiritually understood will quicken you: and though of necessity it must visibly be celebrated, yet it must be invisibly understood  
Twelfthly, he saith, 
b Contr. Adimantum, cap. 12.  Non dubitavit Dominus dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cùm signum daret corporis sui: Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body.  
In the last place, S. Augustine in his Treatise of 
Lib. 3. c. 16  Christian doctrine, where he discourseth plentifully of the right understanding of the holy Scriptures, and what danger it is to take such places figuratively which are properly spoken (or contrariwise) he gives this Canon of direction; Si praeceptiva locutio est, aut flagitium aut facinus v●tans, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens, non est figurata: si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare▪ figurata est: that is, If there be a preceptive speech, either forbidding a mischievous deed or a villainous act, or commanding commodity or a good turn, it is not figurative: But if it seem to command a heinous deed or villainous act, it is figurative. This is S. Augustine, and this is undisputable. I would unto this Proposition have subjoined an Assumption, such as would have fitted you, and forced you to a Conclusion on our behalf: but that S. Augustine hath already framed it. S. Augustine hath made this inference for us, and hath instanced thus in the next following words: Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis: facinus, vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figura est ergò pr●cipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria, quòd pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa & vulnerata sit: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son 
Jo●. 6. 53.  of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He seemeth (saith S. Augustine) to command a villainous or mischievous act: therefore it is a figure commanding us to communicate with the passion of our Lord, and sweetly and profitably to lay up in memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. I could present you more out of this excellent Father, as in his 150. Treatise upon. S. John: his Epistle to Dardanus, and elsewhere: but these already will serve to show you, that out of Cyprian, Eusebius, and S. Augustine you have more to answer, then from them you have objected. And now let a sober Christian judge whether any of these (especially S. Augustine) be like to decide the controversy on your side or on ours. And thus have I closed my answer to your Treatise, which if in some places it may seem thin and barren, I must have leave to suit it to your objections, which must be answered such as they were. And therefore I borrow a sentence from a learned Scholar, who said, Meus adversarius tam jejunè de rebus gravissimis plerumque disserit, ut valdè etiam jejunafutura esset responsio.    

CHAP. XXI.  

Catastrophe.  
THus have you what my little leisure and less learning can afford: wherein I might have shortened my pains, and with one line have answered all: for in all these six sheets of paper you never come near the proof of what you assumed: Viz. That Christ Jesus did institute a sacrifice, and that this sacrifice by him instituted is a sacrifice properly so named. This propriety and this institution (I say) you have not in any authority by you alleged once touched, and are therefore far from proof of your cause.  
Your mass is the highest act in your Religion: your sacrifice is 
a Brerely ●itur. tract. 3. §. 2.  that point wherein consisteth the very essence of the mass: wherein (saith your Jesuit Caussin) 
b Holy court. part 1. l. 3. §. 13.  The life of a Saviour is sacrificed; yet for this highest point the very essence of your mass, the sovereign act of your faith, devotion and Religion, you have not one text throughout the whole Law of Christian Religion either convincing or pregnant, nay you have not one probable deduction whereby to prove your determined error.  
Two places you grasp hard hold by, but both in the old Testament. First that of Malachy, which you will 
Mal. 1. 11.  take for your external, visible, and proper sacrifice, contrary to the plain sense of the place, and contrary to the frequent exposition of the Fathers: who receive it as of internal, visible, and improper sacrifice, as Eusebius Demonstr. Evang. l. 1. c▪ 6, and l. 2▪ c. and l. 1. c. ult. Justin Martyr Dial. cum Tryphone. Irenaeus l. 4. c. 32. Tertull. cont. Martion. l. 3. c. 22. & l. 4. c. 1. advers. Judeos in ●ine cap. 5. & initio cap. 6. Chrysostom. in Psalm. 95. and advers. Judaeos Hom. 2. Hieron. in Malach. 1. 11. Augustin. cont. advers. Leg. & proph. l. 1. c. 20. de civitate Dei▪ l. 18. c. 35. & l. 19 c. 23. & contra Judeos c. 9  
The other place is that of Melchisedec where he both a priest & a King doth exercise both dignities. As a priest he blesseth Abraham, as a King he feasteth him and his army, and this is the plain truth of that story, so much and so impertinently by Papists drawn over to their missal sacrifice.    

CHAP. XXII.  

Antistrophe.  
§. 1. I Was minded to have cast anchor here, and not to have whetted a disputation sharp already, yet since that in matter of Religion, one side is never to be blamed though it do proceed Disputationis serram reciprocando (for truth must not be deserted because her adversaries bark at her) I am therefore resolved to change my style and to proceed.  
Semper ego auditor tantum? nunquâmne reponam? Yes the defendants buckler having warded your blows, let me now take the assailants sword, and be you respondent another while: wherein I am well content to be concluded within three sheets of paper, as you promised and did undertake.  
You have produced three Fathers, who all have answered themselves: yet (omitting many other) I think fit to give you three for three. First John Bishop of the patriarchal sea of Constantinople, for his eloquence surnamed Chrysostom. The next Cyrill who held the famous Patriarchate of Alexandria, whom 
In Hod●go. cap. 7.  Anastasius saluteth with the title of most clear light of the Fathers. Thirdly, S. Ambrose of Milan the ghostly father of S. Augustine. And thus I begin with S. Chrysostom.  
First having produced that of Malachy, He clearly 
Mal. 1. 11. Advers. Jud●●s Hom. 36.  delivers himself, what this pure offering is: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. It is not offered (saith he) by fume and smoke, neither by blood (mark it) and ransom, but by the grace of the spirit. And that our Christian sacrifice is not tied to any place, (as yours to your altars) he saith that every man sitting at his own home shall worship God. And for the manner he telleth you, that our Saviour Christ did bring in {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a more sublime and spiritual kind of worship. But of a bodily sacrifice no word.  
Secondly, Chrysostom in another place doth number 
Homil. in 95. ps.  up ten several sorts of sacrifices in the Christian Church, yet as if he were ignorant of all proper external and visible sacrifice, they are all of them metaphorical and spiritual. The place is full and copious, I must contract it. The first is imitation of Christ or charity, 2. martyrdom, 3. Prayer, 4. Psalms, or hymns, 5. Righteousness, 6. Alms, 7. Praise, 8. compunction or contrition of heart, 9 Humility, 10. Preaching. Is it not pity that you or some body for you was not at this ancient father's elbow, to jog him, and to put him in mind of your Popish sacrifice. But alas your present Romish faith, or rather folly, was then unborn.  
Thirdly, speaking of Christ he saith, 
a Hom. 17. in Epist. ad Heb. 9  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, He is both sacrifice and priest (as Epiphanius before alleged) whence I infer, that if the body of Christ be really present in your sacrifice by conversion of the substance of bread into the substance of his body, than also (since relatives do always stand and fall together, and that Chrysostom in that place saith, that he is offered {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, by himself) it must follow, that your priest also (as well as your sacrifice) is Christ really and properly, by the like conversion or transubstantiation of persons. For Chrysostom and other Fathers do affirm that Christ is both our sacrifice and our priest: and in all relatives if you will take one of them properly, you must take the other properly also. You may believe Cardinal Bellarmine cited before in my sixth aphorism, cap. 6.  
Fourthly, in the same Homily we do not (saith he) 
Hom. 17. i● Epist. ad Heb. cap. 9  perform another but the same sacrifice, whereupon (as if he had been adventurous in this expression, which happily might incur a misconstruction) the immediate words following do seem to retrench that latitude of sense, thus, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or rather (saith he) we do perform a remembrance of a sacrifice.  
Fifthly, upon these words in S. John, Except ye eat the 
Hom. 46. in Joan. John 6. 33.  flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, and (vers. 63.) It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} All these things are carnal, and which ought to be understood mystically and spiritually— for (saith he) if any man take them {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, fleshly, he will gain nothing by them. But you take (say you) the very flesh of Christ, and look to gain thereby: Therefore S. Chrysostom and you are of two religions.  
Sixthly, in the liturgy ascribed to S. Chrysostom, which on your side is called S. Chrysostom's mass, after the consecration there is a prayer, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Send down thy holy Spirit upon us, and upon these gifts here placed before thee: which evidently convinceth, that Christ is not bodily present: if he be, we need not pray for the holy Ghost upon him. And if he be not there, you must confess (as your Cardinal before) that you have no proper Sacrifice.  
Seventhly and lastly, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 
Hom 11. in E●ist. ad Heb. c. ●.  Behold (saith he) we have the victim above, we have the priest above, we have the sacrifice above. Let us offer these sacrifices which may be offered upon that altar: No longer sheep and oxen, no longer blood and smoke, all these things are abolished, and in room of these ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} mark that) is introduced a rational worship. But what is this rational worship? These things which are by the soul, which are by the spirit,— which have no need of a body, which have no need of Organs, or members of instruments, or places. But your sacrifice is here below: but your sacrifice hath a body, the natural body of Christ: But your sacrifice (hath partes organicas) doth contain the flesh and bones, and other parts and members of the body, as by natural concomitancy 
a Ledesmade sacram euchar. c. 7.  they are really united to Christ's human body. But your sacrifice is in places, as well tied to your altars, as circumscribed within the accidents of bread and wine, and the ambient place that roundeth them, as by express words Ledesma granteth, where he speaks of that which is contained under the species of bread. Therefore S. Chrysostom 
Ibid. cap. 5.  and you are of two religions.  
Cyril of Alexandria is the next, who tells you that God in his wisdom did permit unto his people sacrifices, and did so order them 
b Contr. Julianum l. 9  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} That they might in themselves make way for the form of spiritual worship: which he plentifully shows to be the Christian Sacrifice.  
Secondly, Julian having objected unto Cyril, that the Christians had no sacrifice; Cyril declining and thereby denying all external, visible, or proper sacrifice, is copious in metaphorical and spiritual sacrifices: which in way of answer for the Christian Religion, he calleth 
c Ibid. lib. 9 & 10.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, an intellectual and (I may say) unsubstantial worship, or a service void of materials, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, reasonable sacrifices: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, a service or worship thin or not gross, exact, intellectual, and spiritual: and gives this reason for his assertion, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} For (saith he) a most immaterial sacrifice doth become, or is fit for God, who is in his nature pure and immaterial. Now then prove that your sacrifice is immaterial, and then you and we will shake hands with this learned Father.  
S. 
Hex●r●m▪ l. 5. c. 19  Ambrose is the third I promised you, who saith, Hoc est verum Christi sacrificium, p●dicitia corporalis & gratia spiritualis: This is the true sacrifice of Christ, bodily chastity, and spiritual grace.  
Secondly, whereas you teach that yours is idem sacrificium cum P●ssione Dominica: The same sacrifice with the passion of our Lord▪ (as Cardinal 
b De Euch. sacrif l. 2. c. 1●.  Allan and others affirm) saying, Recordatio ac exemplar sic constituitur in nostro sacrificio, ut tamen sit prorsus unum idémque cum immolatione in cruce: The Remembrance or copy is so ordained in our sacrifice, that it is notwithstanding altogether one and the same with the sacrifice on the cross. And that 
c Ibid. 552. & Ledesma de Euchar. c. 17.  one and the same substance is in your several hosts, and the same also in that of the cross. Now howsoever you would hereby avoid the several varieties of many several sacrifices, yet can you never decline this, that (even by the ground of your own positions and principles) you do repeat one and the same substantial and very sacrifice often. But S. Ambrose will deny you both variety of Sacrifices, and also your daily repetition of that one and the same sacrifice once offered upon the cross: mark what he saith upon the words of S. Paul, (Heb. 7. 27.) Magnitud nem sacrificii ostendit, 
Si sit Ambros.  quamuis enim illudunum fuerit, semel oblatum, sufficit tamen in sempiternum— Nec hoc pro populo quotidie offerendum erat, sed tantae sanctitatis & honoris apud Deum fuit hoc sacrificium, ut semel oblatum in aeternum profuerit populo Dei: He showeth the greatness of this sacrifice, for although it were but one, once offered, yet it sufficeth for ever— Neither was this to be daily offered for the people, but this sacrifice was of so great sanctity and honour with God, that it will be profitable for ever to the people of God. 
De offic. lib. 1. cap. 48.   
Thirdly, S. Ambrose did believe but a figure or image of Christ to be now here on earth, and the truth of his presence to continue only in heaven. Hîc umbra, hîc imago, illic veritas: umbra in Lege, imago in Evangelio, veritas in coelestibus. Antè agnus of●erebatur— nunc Christus offertur, sed offertur quasi hom●— hîc in imagine, ibi in veritate— Here is the shadow, here the similitude, there (in heaven) is the truth: The shadow in the Law, the similitude in the Gospel, the truth in heavenly places: heretofore the lamb was offered— now Christ is offered, but is offered as man— here in similitude, there (that is, in heaven) in truth.  
Fourthly, S. Ambrose showeth how he sacrificeth, not by actual exhibition of Christ's body to God, but by recordation and due remembering of our saviour's Passion. The place is expressly parallel to that of S. Chrysostom 
In epist. ad Hebr. 10. 4. published on your side as for Ambr.  touched before. The words are, Nonne per singulos dies offerimus? offerimus quidem, sed recordationem facientes mortis ejus— Non aliud sacrificium sicut pontifex, sed idipsum semper offerimus: magis autem recordationem sacrificii operamur: Do not we offer every day? we offer indeed, but making remembrance of his death— we do not as the Priest, offer another sacrifice, but always the same: or rather we perform a remembrance of a sacrifice. If then S. Ambrose did rather perform a remembrance of a sacrifice then a sacrifice indeed, you ought also to do the like, and no more.  
Fifthly and lastly, nothing can be plainer for spiritual and only spiritual sacrifices than the words of this Father, inviting us (as the Text did lead him) to draw near unto Christ (look Epist. to the Hebrews, cap. 10. 21. & 22.) Accedamus▪— In quo accedamus? sanctitate, fide, & spirituali culturâ in veraci corde, sine simulatione, in plenitudine fidei, quia nihil est visibile horum, neque sacerdos, neque sacrificium, neque altare: Let us draw near (saith the Apostle)— Wherein (saith S. Ambrose) shall we draw near? in holiness, faith, and spiritual worship, in truth of heart, without guile, in fullness of faith, because none of these things are visible, neither Priest, nor sacrifice, nor altar. I need not tell you that invisible sacrifice, priest, and altar, are improper sacrifice, priest, and altar. But these authorities being clear and convincing in themselves, need not (as yours have) flourishes longer than themselves. Beside, my three sheets are just filled, and three authorities are now in your hand. To which I only add this line, That the faith of a real bodily presence, being so much younger than the times wherein these Fathers wrote; it may be wondered that so many pieces (out of these and others) can be found, wherewith to oppose your long since devised error.    

CHAP. XXIII.  

Epiphonema.  
YOu promised me that beyond the themes then by you undertaken, I should receive an overplus (an auctuarium as you called it.) Now because I would not be in debt, I will pay before you lend it. Take therefore this that follows as a surplusage above weight and measure, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. The disposal of it is very brief, and thus;  
I will present unto you three authorities out of your own eminent doctors, inconsistent (as I think) with your proper Sacrifice of the natural body and blood of Jesus Christ. And in the last place, three rational syllogistical arguments, and so good night.  
1. Petrus de Ledesma professor of Divinity at Salamanca, 
De▪ Euch. cap. 7.  having varied his discourse into many scholastic subtleties, concerning the manner how Christ is in the Sacrament: As first, That all and whole Christ is there, next that the whole body of Christ, with all the parts and members thereof, is contained under the shows of bread and wine. And with this body his reasonable soul by concomitancy, and his deity also by real union with the body, and the whole Trinity is there, though not properly and in the rigour of speech; and this body thus there, is there immovable by itself, but movable as the sacramental species may be moved. After all which Mataeotechny, his sixth conclusion is very good Protestantism. Corpus Christi non est in hoc sacramento sicut in loco ut alia corpora naturalia, sed modo quodam ineffabili, quem Theologi Sacramentalem voc●nt,— The body of Christ is not in this sacrament as in a place like as other natural bodies are; but by an unspeakable manner, which Divines do call a sacramental manner.— Is all this stir then to prove our saviour's body to be there in the Sacrament in an ineffable and sacramental manner? away then with your premises, we grant your conclusion, and from thence do infer, That if Christ's body be there but sacramentally, your sacrifice can then be no proper, but a sacramental sacrifice, that is, sacrum signum sacrificii, a holy sign of a sacrifice, which we deny not, as in the words of S. Augustine 
Cap. 20. §. 5▪  before alleged: Visibile Sacrificium, invisibilis sacrificii sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est: Visible sacrifice is the Sacrament, that is, the holy sign of invisible sacrifice. Now the Sacrament, or holy sign, cannot be properly the sacrifice and thing signified.  
2. Peter Lombard, the famous Master of the sentences, 
Lib. 4. dist. 12.  Quaeritur (saith he) si quod gerit Sacerdos PROPRIE dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio: &, si Christus quotidie immoletur, vel semel tantùm immolatus sit: ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur & consecratur à sacerdote, VOCARI sacrificium & oblationem: quia MEMORIA est, & repraesentatio veri Sacrificii & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis. Having discoursed before of accidents and substances, and of two ways of 
Lib. ●. dist. 9  eating Christ, one sacramental performed both by the good and bad, the other spiritual only by the good: he cometh to these words above, viz. It is a question whether that which the priest doth perform may be PROPERLY called a sacrifice or immolation: and, whether Christ be daily offered, or be offered but once only▪ unto this it may be briefly answered; That which is offered and consecrated by the Priest, is CALLED a sacrifice and offering: because (mark his question, his answer, and his reason) it is the MEMORY and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation performed on the Altar of the cross. He doth not say that it is called a sacrifice, because it properly is so, nor because the natural body and blood is offered up, but because it is the memory and representation of the true sacrifice, &c.  
3. My third authority that I borrow from your side 
Decret. part 3. de conser. dist. 2. cap. 48. Hoc est▪—  is out of the corpse of your Canon Law, made irrefragable by the unerring bull of Pope Gregory the 13. where speaking of the sacramental bread which he there calls heavenly bread, he saith, Suo modo VOCATUR corpus Christi, cùm revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet, quod visibile, palpabile, mortale in cruce est suspensum: vocatúrque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit Christi Passio, mors, crucifixio, NON REI VERITATE, sed significante mystery: After it own manner it is CALLED the body of Christ, when as in truth it is the Sacrament of the body of Christ, that is to say, of that body which visible, palpable, mortal, was hanged on the cross: and that immolation of flesh, which is done by the hands of the Priest, is CALLED the passion, death, crucifixion of Christ, not in the TRUTH of the thing, but in a signifying mystery.  
The gloss hereupon is suitably orthodox: Coeleste 
Ibid.  Sacramentum, quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed IMPROPRIE (mark that word) unde dicitur suo modo, sed non rei veritate, sed significat● mysterio, ut sit sensus, vocatur Christi corpus, id est, significat: that is, The heavenly Sacrament which doth truly represent the flesh of Christ: It is called the body of Christ, but IMPROPERLY: whereupon it is said, (SUO MODO) after it own manner, yet not in the truth of the thing, but in the mystery of the thing signified, that the sense is, It is called 
Heb. 2. ●  the body of Christ, that is, it so signifies. This is so plain, that he that runs may read it.    

CHAP. XXIIII.  
TO keep the number by you begun of three, I will now in the last place briefly salute you with three syllogisms. Each Major of each syllogism is Bellarmine's.  
First, 
a Nomen & ratio sacrificii propriè non convenit invisibili oblationi, sed so●ùm visibili & externae. De Missa, lib. 1. c. 2. §. Secundo—  Every thing that is properly sacrificed, is a thing properly visible and external:  
But the body of Christ in the Eucharist is neither properly external, nor properly visible  
Therefore the body of Christ in the Eucharist is not properly sacrificed.  
Secondly, 
b Sacrificii veri & realis ratio consistit in tribus: primùm, res prosana ●it sacra. De Missa, lib. 1. cap. 27. §. His igitur—  Whatsoever is by the Priest properly sacrificed, is made a thing sacred of the same thing before profane:  
But the body of Christ is not made a thing sacred of the same thing before profane:  
Therefore the body of Christ is not by the Priest properly sacrificed.  
Thirdly, 
c Ad verum sacrificium requiritur, ut id quod offertur Deo in sacrificium planè destruatur. De Missa, lib. 1. cap. 2. §. Octavo— Sacrificium— requirit, ut non solùm usus rei Deo offeratur, sed ipsa ●tjam substantia: & ideò non solùm usus, sed substantia consumatur. Ibid. Sensibilis immutatio rei quae offertur— ad rationem externi sacrificii omnino pertinere videtur. De Missa, lib. 1. cap. 27. §. In consecratione— Verum & reale sacrificium, veram & realem mortem, aut destructionem rei immola●ae desiderat. De Missa, lib. 1 cap. 27. §. Haec sententia—  Every thing that is properly sacrificed, doth suffer a real, proper, and sensible death, destruction, or consumption:  
But the body of our Saviour in the Eucharist doth not suffer any real, proper, or visible death, destruction or consumption.  
Therefore the body of our Saviour in the Eucharist is not properly sacrificed.   

CHAP. XXV.  
THus good A. B. C. (be content with this name or send me a better) you have enough not only to satisfy 
Cap. 19 §. 1  an indifferent man, but even to convince a refractory. Nor can I see what can be said against the authorities or 
Cap. 6. Cap. 20.  works by me cited. Nor can I imagine what objection may be made against them. Refute them clearly, fairly, and fully, and through all impediments whatever can arise, I will follow you to Rome.  
For, magna est veritas: great is Truth, & pr●v●lebit, it will, it shall prevail with me. If you cannot make a solid and sure reply, then suffer Truth to prevail with you, remembering that Christ is Truth. Remember also that this is one of the most principal points of your Religion: for sacrifice is the very essence of your mass. How capital, how deadly then is this error, which being once admitted doth unavoidably lead you from superstition to an idolatrous adoration.  
You promised a friendly conference, which I shall be glad to hear that you would perform: as well upon this theme (if this be not here enough) as upon that other of the papal Supremacy, wherein I do desire that one of my acquaintance may be satisfied quietly and privately: But alas, except your cause were better, you must not come to an equal trial.  
By way of farewell (at this time) I will take the language of an eminent learned Priest, who by command of the Emperor Charles the Great, did write of that subject with which your proper Sacrifice must stand or fall, that is, of the bodily presence of Christ in the mass. Bertram therefore who wrote 800. years since hath these words: Panis ille vinúmque FIGURATE Christi corpus & sanguis exsistit— est quidem corpus Christi, sed non corporale sed spirituale: est sanguis Christi, sed non corporalis, sed spiritualis. Nihil igitur hîc corporaliter, sed spiritualiter sentiendum: corpus Christi est sed non corporaliter, & sanguis Christi est sed non corporaliter: that is, This bread and wine is FIGURATIVELY the body and blood of Christ— It is indeed the body of Christ, but not corporal, but spiritual: It is the blood of Christ, but not corporal but spiritual. Therefore nothing here is to be understood bodily but spiritually. It is the body of Christ, but not bodily. It is the blood of Christ, but not bodily. If your late word and name of Transubstantiation had then been coined, he who denieth the doctrine, would also in express terms have said, It is the body of Christ, but not transubstantially.  
Away then with your new coined faith of Trent, for I am confident in this, That a Papist living in that Creed (who doth or may know the purer truth of the Gospel of God) is (to say no more) in a desperate hazard of Salvation.   
FINIS.