A DISSERTATION WITH Dr. Heylyn Touching The pretended SACRIFICE in the EUCHARIST By George Hakewill Doctor in Divinity and Archdeacon of Surrey Published by Authority LONDON Printed by J. R. for George Thomason and Octavian Pullen and are to be sold at the Rose in Pauls Church-yard 1641. A DISSERTATION WITH Dr HEYLYN WHETHER THE EUCHARIST be a Sacrifice Properly so termed and that according to the doctrine and practise of the Church of England now in force THis the Doctor that he may the better defend the situation of the Lords Table Altarwise confidently maintaineth in sundry places of his Antidotum Lincolniense Nay so farre he goeth in the maintenance hereof as if without this nothing else but ruine and confusion were to be expected in the Church of God And on the other side I am as confident that he is the first of the reformed Churches who ever published this Doctrine nay all Divines of those Churches as well forraign as our own whom I have read on that Subject with one generall consent constantly maintain the clean contrary as I trust I shall make it evidently appear in this ensuing Treatise wherein I will first shew the defects which I conceive to be in the Doctors discourse secondly I will endeavour to answer his arguments and thirdly I will produce such testimonies drawn from the writings of our Divines as make against him CHAP. I. Of the defects of the Doctors discourse of this Subject TWo things me thinks I finde wanting in this his discourse whereof the one is the definition of a Sacrifice Properly so called the other is how it can properly be termed a Sacrifice and yet be onely commemorative or representative as he cals it Touching the first of these unlesse the thing be first defined whereof men dispute all their disputation must needs prove fruitlesse in the end this then because the Doctor hath omitted I will indeavour to finde out the definition of a Sacrifice Properly so called Saint Augustine in his 10. Book de Civit. Dei and 6. cap. teacheth that Verum sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo relatum scilicet ad illum finem boni quo veraciter beati esse possimus Where by verum I do not beleeve that he understands a truth of propriety but of excellency and so much I think will easily appear by those words of his in the Chapter going before Illud quod ab hominibus appellatur Sacrificium signum est veri Sacrificii where undoubtedly by the true Sacrifice he understands either the inward Sacrifice of the heart or the Sacrifice of religious actions flowing from thence which he makes to be the true Sacrifice in regard of excellency though improperly so called and the outward Sacrifice to be but a signe of this though Properly so called In which regard Bellarmine in his first Book de Missa and second Chapter rejects this definition or rather description as not agreeing to a Sacrifice Properly so called which he proves by many reasons and thereupon brings another of his own which is this Sacrificium est oblatio externa facta soli Dea qua ad agnitionem humanae infirmitatis professionem divinae majestatis à legitimo ministrores aliqua sensibilis permanens ritu mystico consecratur transmutatur The particular parts of this definition he afterwards explicates and tels us that the last word transmutatur is therefore added Quia ad verum Sacrificium requiritur ut id quod offertur Deoin Sacrifiâ—ium planè destruatur id est ita mutetur ut desinat esse id quod antea erat And least we should mistake him within a while after he repeats the same in effect again giving us a double reason thereof whereof the latter is quia Sacrificium est summa protestatio Subjectionis nostrae ad Deum summa autem illa protestatio requirit ut non usus rei Deo offeratur sed ipsa etiam substantia ideo non solum usus sed substantia consumatur And this condition in a Sacrifice properly so called is likewise required by our own men as namely by Doctor Field in his Appendix to his third Book of the Church If we will Sacrifice a thing unto God saith he we must not onely present it unto him but consume it also Thus in the Leviticall law things sacrificed that had life were killed things without life if they were solid were burnt if liquid powred forth and spilt Now this ground being thus laid I would willingly learn of the Doctor what sensible thing it is in his Sacrifice which is thus destroyed or consumed in regard of the being or substance thereof a He must of necessity answer as I conceive that either it is the elements of bread and wine or the sacred Body and Bloud of Christ but how the bread and wine may be said to be consumed in regard of their substance without admitting transubstantiation I cannot imagine unlesse perchance he will say that it is by eating the one and drinking the other but these being acts common to the people with the Priest if the essence and perfection of the Sacrifice should consist in this he will be forced to admit of so many Sacrificers as there are Communicants which I presume he will not acknowledge And if he will have it stand in the eating and drinking of the Priest alone in case he should put it up again before it be consumed the Sacrifice must needs be frustrated and if he keep it within him and so consume it by digestion the Altar will rather be his stomack then the Lords Table Besides the Sacrifice of Christians properly so called being but one and that by many degrees more noble and excellent then any either before or under the law b if Bread and Wine were the Subject matter thereof it would both overthrow the unity of the Sacrifice in as much as both these are often renewed and in it self be of lesse valew and dignity then many of the Jewish Sacrifices which I think the Doctor will not grant But happily he will say that those elements though in themselves they be of no great value yet in regard of mysticall signification they farre excell the Sacrifices of the Jews Whereunto I answer that those of the Jews besides that they were Sacrifices indeed properly so called in themselves they had the same signification and were chiefly to that end ordained by the Author of them the main difference being that they looked unto Christ to come but we unto the same Christ already come by meanes whereof our happinesse is that that now by Gods blessing we need no Sacrifices properly so called but rest onely and wholly upon that all-sufficient Sacrifice which he once for all offred up for us It remaines then that if the Bread and Wine be not the Subject matter of this Sacrifice the Body and Bloud of Christ must be and that not symbolically but properly
otherwise the Sacrifice it self cannot be proper which assertion will of necessity inferre either the transubstantiation of the Pontisicians or the c consubstantiation of the Ubiquitaries And again If the Body and Bloud of Christ be the subject matter of the Sacrifice it must be visibly and sensibly there according to Bellarmines own definition before laid down Neither will it suffice to say as he doth that it is visible under the species of Bread and Wine for so it may be visible to the faith of those that beleeve it but to the sense which is the thing he requires as a necessary condition in a Sacrifice properly so called it is not visible Neither can that be said properly visible which is not so in it self but in another thing for then the soul might be said to be visible though it be onely seen in the body and not in it self nay the soul might better be said to be seen in the body then the body of Christ in the bread in as much as the soul is the essentiall form of the body but I trust they will not say that the Body of Christ is so in regard of the accidents of bread Lastly how the Body and Bloud of Christ may be truely and properly said so to be consumed ut planè destruatur ut desinat esse id quod ante erat ut substantia consumatur which the Cardinall likewise requires in his Sacrifice properly so called d for my part I must professe I cannot possibly understand for to say as he doth that the Body of Christ is consumed in the Sacrifice not secundum esse naturale but Sacramentale cannot reach to his phrase of planè destruitur substantia consumitur as any weak Scholler may easily discern and in truth he doth in the explication of this point touching the essence of this Sacrifice wherein it consists and the manner of consuming the Body of Christ therein so double and stagger as a man may well see he was much perplexed therein wandring up and down in a labarynth not knowing which way to get out and so e I leave him The other defect which I finde in the Doctors discourse touching this point is that he doth not shew us how a commemorative or representative Sacrifice as he every where termes it is a Sacrifice properly so called This proposition that the Eucharist is a commemorative Sacrifice properly so called I shall easily grant if the Word properly be referred to the adjunct not to the Subject Commemorative it is properly called but improperly a Sacrifice And herein I think do all writers agree as well Romish as Reformed I mean that it is a Sacrifice Commemorative and therefore Bellarmine disputes the point in no lesse then 27. Chapters of his first Book de Missa against the Reformed Divines to prove that it is a Sacrifice properly so called and yet acknowledgeth that his adversaries confesse it to be a Sacrifice Commemorative but himself and his adherents though together with the Protestants they acknowledge it to be a Sacrifice Commemorative yet they rest not in that because they knew full well it was not sufficient to denominate it a proper Sacrifice And in very truth it stands with great reason that the Commemoration or representation of a thing should be both in nature and propriety of speech distinct from the thing it commemorates or represents As for the purpose he who represents a King upon the stagef is commonly called a King yet in propriety of speech he cannot be so tearmed unlesse he likewise be a King in his own person And therefore it is that we confesse the Jewish Sacrifices to be properly so termed because they were not onely prefigurative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse but were really and absolutely so in themselves and if this could once be soundly demonstrated of the Eucharist the controversie would soon be at an end but till then in saying we have a representative Sacrifice can no more prove it to be a Sacrifice properly so called then the prefiguration of the Jewish Sacrifices without any further addition could prove them so to be which I presume no Divine will take upon him to maintain Now that which confirmes me herein is that both the master of the Sentences and Aquinas the two great leaders of the Schoolemen terming the Eucharist a commemorative withall they held it to be an improper Sacrifice and to this purpose they both alleage the authorities of the Fathers which makes me beleeve that they conceived the Fathers who in their writings frequently call it a Sacrifice to be understood and interpreted in that sense The former of them in his 4. Book and 12. destinction makes the question Quaeritur si quod gerit sacerdos propriè dicatur Sacrificium vel immolatio si Christus quotidiè immoletur vel semel tantum immolatus sit to which he briefly answers Illud quod offertur consecratur à sacerdote vocari Sacrificium oblationem quia memoria repraesentatio veri Sacrificii sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis which is as much in effect as if he had said it is a commemoration of the true and proper Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse but in it self improperly so called and that this is indeed his meaning it sufficiently appears throughout that distinction With Lombard doth Aquinas herein likewise accord Parte 3. quaest. 73. art 4. in conclusione Eucharistiae Sacramentum ut est dominicae passionis commemorativum Sacrificium nominatur Where it is observable that he saith not Sacrificium est but onely nominatur and what his meaning therein was appears of that Article which is this Hostia videtur idem esse quod Sacrificium sicut ergo non proprie dicitur Sacrificium ita nec proprie dicitur hostia Which though it be an objection yet he takes it as granted that it is Sacrificium improprie dictum at leastwise as it is commemorativum or representativum and therefore to that objection doth he shape this answer Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc Sacramentum dicitur Sacrificium in quantum repraesentat ipsam passionem Christi c. dicitur autem hostia in quantum continet ipsum Christum qui est hostia salutaris CHAP. II. Of the Sacrifice pretended to be due by the light of nature FRom the defects in the Doctors discourse we now come to his arguments drawn from the light of nature from the institution of the Eucharist from the authority of the Fathers from the doctrine and practise of the Church of England and lastly from the testimony of the Writers thereof I will follow him step by step and begin first with the light of nature with which he begins his fifth Chapter It is saith he the observation of Eusebius that the Fathers which preceded Moses and were quite ignorant of his law disposed their wayes according to a voluntary kinde of piety {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}
of Iohannes a Lovanio whose opinion Bellarmine confesseth to be very probable that which followeth in the same place I take to be his own Et praeterea idem planum fieri potest ex instituto proposito B. Pauli nam Apostolus eo loco emendabat errorem Corinthiorum Corinthii autem non errabant in consecratione sed in Sumptione quia non dâ—bita reverentia sumebant quare accommodat ca verba ad suum usum ac docet Christum praecepisse ut actio caenae celebraretur in memoriam passionis ideo attente reverenter sumenda esse tanta mysteria By all which it appears that neither the words of institution Hoc facite are sufficient to ground the Priesthood and power of Sacrificing upon them nor yet that they are to be restrained to the Clergy as the Doctor would have it Nay those words of the Apostle which he brings as a commentary upon the words of institution to clear the point do indeed prove the contrary And if we should grant that which he demands that Hoc facite were to be referred onely to the actions of Christ himself and directed onely to the Apostles and their Successours yet it must first be proved that Christ himself in the institution of the Sacrament did withall offer a Sacrifice properly so called which for any thing that appeares in the text cannot be gathered from any speech which he then uttered or action which he did or gesture which he used That he consecrated the Elements of Bread and Wine to a mysticall use as also that he left the power of consecration onely to his Apostles and their Successours we willingly grant but that at his last Supper he either offered Sacrifice himself or gave them commission so to do that as yet rests to be proved Neither do I yet see what the Doctor will make to be the Subject of his Sacrifice either Bread and Wine or his own Body and Bloud if the former he will for any thing I know stand single if the latter in a proper sense he will be forced to joyn hands with Rome and so fall into a world of absurdities Lastly whereas the Doctor disputes wholly for a commemorative Sacrifice that if our Saviour could not be so in as much as Commemoration implies a calling to remembrance of a thing past but his Sacrifice upon the Crosse which we now commemorate was then to come Prefigurative it might be Commemorative it could not be The Doctor goes on and confidently assures us that S. Paul in whom we finde both the Priest and the Sacrifice will help us to an Altar also and to that purpose referres us to the last to the Hebrews Habemus Altare We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat that serve the Tabernacle An Altar saith he in relation to the Sacrifice which is there commemorated But his passage of the Apostle Bellarmine himself hath so little confidence in and so weak authority to back it as he forbears to presse it And truely I think had the Doctor himself read on and well considered the next verses he would never have urged it to that purpose which here he doth Aquinas his exposition in his commentaries upon the place is in my judgement boâ—h easie and pertinent Istud Altare vel est crux Christi in qua Christus immolatus est vel ipse Christus in quo per quem preces nostras offerimus hoc est Altare aureum de quo Apoc. 8. To him doth Estius the Jesuite strongly incline and to him do the Divines of Collen in their Antididagma firmly adhere which notwithstanding some there are I confesse who understand the words of the Apostle to be meant of the Lords Table which I grant may be called an Altar but whether in a proper sense it be so called by the Apostle in the passage h alleaged that is the question and I have not yet met with any who in full and round terms hath so expressed himself And till that be sufficiently proved the Apostles Altar cannot certainly prove a Priesthood and Sacrifice properly so called CHAP. IV. Whether the Authority of the Fathers alleaged by the Doctor prove the Eucharist a Sacrifice properly so called THe Doctor from the Scriptures where in my poor judgement he hath found very little help for the maintenance of his cause comes in the next place to the authority of the Fathers some of which are Counterfeits and the greatest part by him vouched as by him they are alleaged speak onely of Sacrifices Priests and Altars but in what sense it appears not whereas the question is not of the name but of the nature of these Now among those Fathers whom he names two there are and but two who speak home to the nature thereof Irenaeus and Euscbius yet both of them speak even by the Doctors pen in such sort as a man may thereby discern they intended noâ— a Sacrifice properly so called I will take them in their order First then for Irenaeus look on him saith the Doctor and he will tell you that there were Sacrifices in the Jewish Church and Sacrifices in the Christian Church and that the kinde or species was onely altered The kinde or nature of which Christian Sacrifice he tels us of in the same Chapter viz. that it is an Eucharist a tender of our gratitude to Almighty God for all his blessings and a sanctifying of the Creature to spirituall uses Offerimus ei non quasi indigenti sed gratias agentes donatione eâ—us Sanctificantes Creaturam In this we have the severall and distinct offices which before we spake of Sanctificatio Creaturae a blessing of the Bread for Bread it is he speaks of for holy uses which is the office of the Priest no man ever doubted it and then a Gratiarum actio a giving of thanks unto the Lord for his marvellous benefits which is the office both of Priest and people the sanctifying of the Creature and glorifying of the Creator do both relate unto Offerimus and that unto the Sacrifices which are therein treated of by that holy Father Hitherto the Doctor in his allegation of Irenaeus But is any man so weak as from hence to inferre a Sacrifice properly so called The sanctifying or blessing or consecrating of the Breâ—d to holy uses we all grant to be the proper office of the Priest or Presbyter and the giving of thanks common to him and the people but that either of these is a Sacrifice properly so called that we deny and i desire to see proved The other of the two before named is Eusebius upon whose testimony the Doctor largely insists for that we cannot take saith he a better and more perfect view thereof then from him who hath been more exact herein then any other of the ancients And having culled out from Eusebius what he conceived most advantageous for his own purpose in conclusion he
must be reiterated it cannot be now reiteration it is which makes it a Sacrifice properly so called not a bare commemoration or representation as hath already been shewed And besides the Doctor might have found another Article touching the Supper of the Lord where it is called a Sacrament of our redemption by Christs death but of any Sacrifice not a word though there had been the proper place to have spoken of it had our Church conceived that any such had been properly so termed but on the other side Transubstantiation is there condemned as being repugnant to Scriptures overthrowing the nature of a Sacrament giving occasion to many superstitions yet how a Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ properly so termed can be admitted without the admission of Transubstantiation together with it I must confesse for mine own part I am yet to seek and shall be willing to learn from any that can farther instruct me But the Doctor reposing little confidence it should seem in the Articles refers us to the Homilies to them let us go and truely if I be not much mistaken he will finde as little help from these as from the Articles That which he alleageth is taken from the first words of the Homily Sacrament the words are as followeth The great love of our Saviour Christ to mankinde doth not onely appear in that dear bought benefit of our redemption and satisfaction by his death and passion but also that he hath kindly provided that the same most mercifull work might be had in continuall remembrance amongst the which means is the publike celebration of the memory of his pretious death at the Lords Table our Saviour having ordained and established the remembrance of his great mercy expressed in his passion in the institution of his heavenly Supper Here saith the Doctor is a commemoration of that blessed Sacrifice which Christ once offred a publike celebration of the memory thereof and a continuall remembrance of it by himself ordained Yea but that which the Doctor from these words picked here and there in the Homily should have inferred and concluded is a Sacrifice in it self properly so called not a memory a remembrance a commemoration of a Sacrifice And besides he who attentively reads that part of the Homily will easily finde that it there speaks of the commemoration thereof not so much by the Priest as by the People neither doth it so much as once name any Sacrifice at all save onely in disavowing and disallowing it as may be seen in the Page there following part wherof the Doctor taketh for his own purpose as namely That the Lords Supper is in such sort to be done and Ministred as our Lord and Saviour did and commanded it to be done as his holy Apostles used it and the good Fathers in the primitive Church frequented it So that saith he what ever hath been proved to be the purpose of institution the practise of the holy Apostles and usage of the ancient Fathers will fall within the meaning and intention of the Church of England Doubtlesse it will but that a Sacrifice properly so called hath been proved to be either the purpose of the institution or the practise of the Apostles or the usage of the ancient Fathers that I utterly deny And surely it should seem that the Church of England denies it too by the words there following within a few lines We must take heed saith the Homily least of the memory it be made a Sacrifice least of a Communion it be made a private eating least of two parts we have but one least applying it to the dead we loose the fruit that be alive Let us rather in these matters follow the advice of Cyprian in like cases that is cleave fast to the first beginning hold fast the Lords tradition do that in the Lords Commemoration which he himself did he himself commanded and his Apostles confirmed Whereby it should seem they held the purpose of our Saviours institution and the practise of his Apostles to have been not a Sacrifice properly so termed but onely a Commemoration of his death and passion And this to have been indeed their meaning farther appears toward the latter end of the same part of the Homily where speaking of the death of Christ and the efficacy thereof to the worthy Receiver they thus go on Herein thou needst no other mans help no other Sacrifice or oblation no Sacrificing Priest no Masse no means established by mans invention By which it is evident that they held all other Sacrifices beside that of Christ himself on the Crosse and all other Sacrificing Priests beside Christ himself to be established by mans invention and how the Doctor professing that he offers up a Sacrifice properly so called can possibly free himself from the title and office of a Sacrificing Priest I must professe is beyond the compasse of my brain All which considered I think his safer way had been not to have touched upon the Homily specially considering that the Lords Table is there named above or about twenty times but is not so much as once called an Altar But perchance he will finde some better help from the Liturgy which comes now to be examined We will next saith he look into the agenda the publike Liturgy of this Church where first we finde it granted that Christ our Saviour is the very Paschall Lamb that was offred for us and hath taken away the sinnes of the world that suffering death upon the crosse for our redemption he made there of his own oblation of himself once offred a full perfect and sufficient Sacrifice oblation and satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole world and to the end that we should alwayes remember the exceeding great love of our Master and onely Saviour Jesus Christ thus dying for us and the innumerable benefits which by his pretious bloudshedding he hath obtained to us he hath instituted and ordained holy Mysteries as pledges of his love and continuall remembrance of his death to our great and endlesse comfort instituting and in his holy Gospel commanding us to continue a perpetuall memory of that his pretious death till his coming again In which words I do not see what it is that makes for the Doctors purpose but somewhat I see which makes against him as namely The Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is full perfect and sufficient in it self which being so surely there needs no more Sacrifices no more Priests no more Altars properly so called And for the memory or remembrance there mentioned if I be not much mistaken he will never be able thence to inferre such a Sacrifice and surely I think the Church never intended he should In the next place he instanceth in the consecration Then followeth saith he the consecration of the Creatures of Bread and Wine for a remembrance of his death and Passion in the same words and phrases which Christ our Saviour recommended unto his Apostles and his Apostles
it be made both by the Priest and people as the Doctor voucheth him at leastwise for the latter there can be no question of his opinion therein Let us go on then to my Lord of Duresme Who saith the Doctor doth call the Eucharist a representative and commemorative Sacrifice in as plain Language â—s the Doctor himself although he doth deny it to be a proper Sacrifice Deny it why he doth not onely deny it but strongly proves it against Bellarmine and other Romish Writers in two entire Chapters taking up no lesse then seven leaves in Folio so strongly as I verily beleeve I shall never see a full and sufficient answer thereunto The last testimony produced by the Doctor is from my Lord of Chichesters appeal whom the Doctor thus makes to speak unto his iâ—formers I have so good opinion of your understanding though weak that you will conceive the blessed Sacrament of the Altar or the Communion Table which you please to be a Sacrifice And the Doctor having a while infisted upon these words in answer to his adversary goes on out of the Bishops Book Walk you at random and at rovers in your bypaths if you please I have used the name of Altar for the Communion Table according to the manner of antiquity and am like enough sometimes to use it stil nor will I abstain notwithstanding your oggannition to follow the steps and practice of antiquity in using the words Sacrifice and Priesthood also Finally saith the Doctor he brings in Bishop Morton professing thus That he beleeveth no such Sacrifice of the Altar as the Church of Rome doth and that he fancieth no such Altars as they imploy though he professed a Sacrifice and an Altar Now for answer to this testimony he that will be pleased but to peruse that chapter will I presume desire no farther satisfaction the Bishop having therein so clearly and fully unfolded himself as if the Doctor will stand to his judgement in the point he will undoubtedly be cast To the first allegation then where the Doctor makes a stop the Bishop thus goes on Not propitiatory as they call it I will use this word call it lest you challenge me upon Popery for using propitiatory for the living and the dead not an externall visible true and proper Sacrifice but onely representative commemorative spirituall Sacrifice where the Bishop as we see in downright and direct tearms denies the Euchâ—ist to be a Sacrifice properly so called and for this immediatly he voucheth the testimony of Doctor Rainolds and Bishop Morton Doctor Rainolds saith he and Bishop Morton have granted that though we have no proper Altar yet Altar and Sacrifice have a mutuall relation and dependance one upon another And herein doth the Bishop professe himself fully to accord with them To the second allegation The Bishop between the words vouched by the Doctor brings in these Saint Paul calleth the Pagan Altars which were indeed and truely Altars Tables and why may not we name the Lords Table an Altar whereby it appears that he held the Lords Table an Altar in none other sense than as the Pagan Altars were Tables that is both improperly To the third allegation touching Bishop Morton he thus brings him in not farre from the beginning of that chapter But I rather choose saith he to speak in our Bishop Mortons words apologizing for Protestants against Papists It may be I have taken licence in use of tearms but no errour in Doctrine can you finde for to put off your imputation from farther fastning I beleeve no such sacrifice of the Altar as the Church of Rome doth I fancy no such Altars as they imploy though I professe a Sacrifice and an Altar In the same Reverend Bishops words the Lords Table being called improperly an Altar can no more conclude a Sacrifice understood properly than when as Saint Paul calling Titus his sonne according to the faith which is improperly a man may contend Saint Paul was his naturall father according to the flesh In which words we have both the Bishops and those excellently learned in terminis terminantibus directly opposite to the Doctors opinion though by him alleadged in maintenance thereof CHAP. VIII Containing the Testimonies of other Reverend Prelates and great Divines of our Church who have likewise opposed the proper Sacrifice maintained by the Doctor VVIth forraigne Divines of the Reformed Churches I will not meddle there being not so much as one of them I thinke of what partie soever who in this point sides with the Doctor I will content my selfe with the suffrages of our owne Divines for learning and dignity the most eminent in our Church and consequently the fittest interpreters of her meaning Doctor White Lord Bishop of Ely in his reply to Fisher pag. 465. The New Testament acknowledgeth no proper sacrificing Priests but Christ Jesus only Heb. 7. 23. 27 28. cap. 10. 21. Neither is there any word or sentence in our Saviours doctrine concerning any reall Sacrifice but onely of himself upon the Crosse neither was any Altar used and ordained by Christ and his Apostles And if in all reall Sacrifices the matter of the Oblation must be really destroyed and changed and no physicall destruction or change is made in the Body of Christ or in the elements of bread and wine by Transubstantiation then Romanists have devised a reall Sacrifice in the new Testament which hath no Divine Institution Doctor Davenant Lord Bishop of Sarisbury Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Cambridge in his determinations qu. 13. Missa Pontificia non est Sacrificium propitiatorium pro vivis mortuis Pontificii in hoc suo missatico negotio tres gravissimes errores nobis obtrudunt Esse nimirum in missa reale externum propriè dictum Sacrificium Esse inihi Sacerdotem qui actionem Sacrificandi propriè dictam exercet Esse denique potestatem huic Sacerdoti pro voluntate intentione sua applicandi tam vivis quam mortuis praedicti Sacrificii efficaciam salutarem Nos è contra asserimus primo in missa nihil posse nominari aut ostendi quod sit Sacrificabile aut quod rationem essentiam realis externi propriè dicti Sacrificii quamvis quae adhiberi in eadem solent preces eleemosynae gratiarum actiones spiritualium Sacrificiorum nomen sortiantur quamvis etiam ipsa representatio fracti corporis Christi fusi sanguinis figuratè Sacrificium à veteribus saepenumero vocetur Secundo Contendunt Pontificii Presbyteros suos esse secundarios quosdam novi Testamenti Sacerdotes in missa sua actionem Sacrificandi propriè dictam praestare Sed nobis Iesus Christus est solus aeternus neque successorum neque vicariorum indigus novi Testamenti Sacerdos Quaero enim cui bono alii Sacerdotes substituerentur ipsi Christo non ut Sacrificium ejus adumbrent tanquam futurum est enim olim Deo exhibitum non hodie