Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	authority_n	church_n	holy_a	3,363	5	4.8968	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86378	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.	Hakewill, George, 1578-1649.	1641 (1641)	Wing H208; Thomason E157_5; ESTC R19900	30,122	57

thus epitomizeth him So that we see saith he that in this Sacrifice prescribed the Christian Church by our Lord and Saviour there were two proper and distinct actions the first is to celebrate the memoriall of our Saviours Sacrifice which he intituleth the commemoration of his Body and Bloud once offred or the memory of that his Sacrifice that is as he doth clearly expound himself that we should offer {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} This our Commemoration for a Sacrifice The second that we should offer to him the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which is the reasonable Sacrifice of a Christian man and to him most acceptable finally he joynes both together in the conclusion of that Book and therein doth at full describe the nature of this Sacrifice which is this as followeth Therefore saith he we Sacrifice and offer as it were with incense the memory of that great Sacrifice celebrating the same according to the mysteries by him given unto us and giving thanks to him for our salvation with godly Hymnes and Prayers to the Lord our God as also offering our whole selves both soul and body and to his High Priest which is the Word S●e here saith the Doctor Eusebius doth not call it onely the memory or Commemoration of Christs Sacrifice but makes the very memory and Commemoration in and of it self to be a Sacrifice which instar omnium for and in the place of all other Sacrifices we are to offer to our God and offer with the incense of our Prayers and praises In this discourse out of Eusebius the Doctor foreseeing that what he had alleaged did not reach home to his purpose endeavours to make it up by the addition of this last clause as if Eusebius made the memory or commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ to be in and of it felf a Sacrifice and this he would collect from these words of his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which he translates for and as a Sacrifice whereas both Bishop Bilson and Doctor Raynolds and others of our best learned Divines translate it insteed of a Sacrifice Now that which is insteed of a Sacrifice cannot be indeed and of it self properly so called And besides how we should be said to offer up our Commemoration for a Sacrifice as the Doctor affirmeth I cannot understand since k Commemoration is an action and being so it cannot as I conceive in propriety of speech be the thing Sacrificed which must of necessity be a substance as it stands in opposition to accidents so that if neither the sanctification of the Creature nor the Commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ nor the offering up of our selves or praise and thanksgiving can amount to a Sacrifice properly so called surely the Doctor hath not yet found it in the Fathers but will be forced to make a new search for the finding of it CHAP. V. Whether the Eucharist be a Sacrifice properly so called by the Doctrine and practise of the Church of England and first by the Book of Ordination THis the Doctor undertakes to prove from the Book of Ordination from the Book of Articles from the Book of Homilies and lastly from the Common-prayer Book His proof from the Book of Ordination is that he who is admitted to holy orders is there cal'd a Priest as also in the Liturgy and Rubricks of it For answer whereunto we grant that he is so called indeed but had it been intended that he were properly so called no doubt but in the same Book we should have found a power of Sacrificing conferred upon him And in very truth a stronger argument there cannot be that our Church admits not of any Sacrifice or Priesthood properly so called for that we finde not in tha● Book any power of sacrificing conferred upon him who receives the order of Priesthood no nor so much as the name of any Sacrifice in any sense therein once mentioned Read t●orow the admonition the interrogations the prayers the benediction but above all the form it self in the collation of that sacred order and not a word is there to be seen of Sacrificing or Offring or Altar or any such matter The form it self of Ordination runnes thus Receive the holy Ghost whose sinnes thou doest forgive they are forgiven and whose sinnes thou doest retain they are retained and be thou a faithfull dispencer of the Word of God and his holy Sacraments In the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Amen Then the Bishop shall deliver to every one of them the Bible in his hand saying Take thou authority to preach the Word of God and to Minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation where thou shalt be appointed Here we have a power given him of forgiving and retaining of sinnes of preaching of the Word and administring the holy Sacraments but of any Sacrificing power not so much as the least syllable which had been a very strange and unpardonable ne●lect had the Church intended by the form expressed in that Book to make them Priests properly so called This indeed the Romanists quarrell at as being a main defect in our Church but the learned Champion of it and our holy orders hath in my judgement fully answered that crimination of theirs and withall clearly opened the point in what sense we are in that Book of Ordination called Priests If you mean saith he no more by Priest then the holy Ghost doth by Presbyter that is a Minister of the New Testament then we professe and are ready to prove that we are Priests as we are called in the Book of Common-prayer and the form of ordering because we receive in our ordination authority to preach the Word of God and to Minister his holy Sacraments Secondly if by Priests you mean Sacrificing Priests and would expound your selves of spirituall Sacrifices then as this name belongeth to all Christians so it may be applyed by an excellency to the Ministers of the Gospel Thirdly although in this name you have relation to bodily Sacrifices yet even so we be called Priests by way of allusion For as Deacons are not of the Tribe of Levi yet the ancient Fathers do commonly call them Levites alluding to their office because they come in place of Levites so the Ministers of the New Testament may be called Sacrificers because they succeed the sonnes of Aaron and come in place of Sacrificers Fourthly for as much as we have authority to Minister the Sacraments and consequently the Eucharist which is a representation of the Sacrifice of Christ therefore we may be said to offer Christ in a Mystery and to Sacrifice him objectively by way of Commemoration In all these respects we may rightly and truely be called Priests as also because to us it belongeth and to us alone to consecrate the Bread and Wine to holy uses to offer up the prayers of the people and to blesse them yet in all these respects the speech is but

unto the Fathers of the Primitive times which now as then is to be done onely by the Priest Then the Priest standing up shall say as followeth to whom it properly belongeth and upon whom his ordination doth conferre a power of ministring the S●crament not given to any other order in the holy Ministry Had the Book said Then shall the Priest stand up and offer Sacrifice it had been to the Doctors purpose but then shall the Priest stand up and say makes little for him unlesse he had been injoyned to say somewhat which had implyed a Sacrifice which I do not yet finde words indeed of consecration I finde and those proper to the Priest but any words of Sacrificing in that act I finde not yet had our Church conceived that to have been a Sacrifice there indeed had been the proper place to have expressed her self That the ordination appointed by our Church conferreth upon the person so ordained a power of ministring the Sacrament not given to any order in the Ministry I shall easily grant but that his ordination giveth him not any power of Sacrificing which is the point in question hath already out of the form it self established by authority been clearly shewed From the words of consecration the Doctor goes on to the prayer after the Communion and here indeed he findes a Sacrifice but such a one as all things considered he hath very little reason to triumph therein The memory or Commemoration of Christs death saith he thus celebrated is called a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving a Sacrifice representative of that one and onely expiatory Sacrifice which Christ once offred for us all the whole Communicants beseeching God to grant that by the merits and death of his Sonne Jesus Christ and through faith in his bloud they and the whole Church may obtain remission of their sinnes and all other benefits of his Passion Neither stay they there saith he but forthwith offer and present unto the Lord themselves their soules and bodies to be a reasonable holy and lively Sacrifice unto him And howsoever as they most humbly do acknowledge they are unworthy through their manifold sinnes to offer to him any Sacrifice yet they beseech him to accept that their bounden duety and service In which last words that present service which they do to Almighty God according to their bounden duties in celebrating the perpetuall memory of Christs pretious death and the oblation of themselves and with themselves the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in due acknowledgement of the benefits and comforts by him received is humbly offred unto God for and as a Sacrifice and publikely avowed for such as from the tenour and coherence of the words doth appear most plainly Hitherto the Doctor as if now he had spoken home and full to the point indeed whereas if we take a review of that which hath been said we shall soon finde it to vanish into smoak That prayer then af●er the Communion beginning in this manner O Lord and heavenly Father we thy humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodnesse mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving I would demand of the Doctor first of what kind this Sacrifice of thanksgiving is and then by whom it is offred for mine own part I never heard that the Eucharisticall Sacrifice of Christians was other then spirituall improperly termed a Sacrifice and I presume the Doctor himself will not stick to grant as much as he doth that the people joyn with the Priest in this prayer From whence it will infallibly follow That either the people together with the Priest offer unto God a S●crifice properly so called or that the Sacrifice thus offred by them both ●s so called improperly let him take which he please of the two and then tell me what he can make of this Sacrifice Now that which hath been said of this Eucharisticall Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is likewise to be understood of the obedientiall Sacrifice if I may so call it which follows after consisting in their offring to the Lord their selves their souls and bodies as a reasonable holy and lively Sacrifice unto him And in truth I cannot but wonder that the Doctor should insist upon this considering he requires a materiall Altar for his Sacrifice derives his Priesthood from Melchisedech appropriates it to the Apostles and their Successors makes it stand in commemoration or representation and lastly every where with scorn enough excludes the people from any right thereunto but thus we see how a weak cause is driven by all kinde of means be they never so poor to fortifie it self And yet as if now he had made a full and finall conquest he concludes this argument drawn from the authority of our Church Put all together saith he which hath been here delivered from the Book of Articles the Homilies and publike Liturgy and tell me if you ever found a more excellent concord then this between Eusebius and the Church of England in this present businesse And then goes on to parallell the words of Eusebius with those of our Liturgy which I confesse agree very well but neither the one nor the other speak home to his purpose or mention any Sacrifice properly so called to be offred in the Church of Christ as he hath been sufficiently shewed CHAP. VII Of the Testimony of some Writers of our Church alleaged by the Doctor WIll you be pleased saith he to look upon those worthies of the Church which are best able to expound and unfold her meaning We will begin saith he with Bishop Andrews and tell you what he saith as concerning Sacrifices The Eucharist saith Bishop Andrews ever was and is by us considered both as a Sacrament and as a Sacrifice A Sacrifice is proper and applyable onely to Divine worship The Sacrifice of Christs death did succeed to the Sacrifices of the Old Testament which being prefigured in those Sacrifices before his coming hath since his coming been celebrated per Sacramentum memoria by a Sacrament of memory as Saint Augustine calls it Thus also in his answer to Cardinall Bellarmine Tollite de missa transubstantiationem vestram nec diu nobiscum lis erit de Sacrificio The memory of a Sacrifice we acknowledge willingly and the King grants the name of Sacrifice to have been frequent with the Fathers for Altars next if we agree saith he about the matter of the Sacrifice there will be no difference about the Altar The holy Eucharist being considered as a Sacrifice in the representation of breaking the Bread and powring forth the Cup the same is fitly called an Altar which again is as fitly called a Table the Eucharist being considered as a Sacrament which is nothing else but a distribution and application of the Sacrifice to the severall receivers so that the matter of Altars make no difference in the face of our Church Thus farre the Doctor out of Bishop Andrews For answer whereunto if we

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}