figurative and consequently our Priesthood and Sacrifices cannot be proper Now for the Liturgy it is true that the Minister is there likewise sometimes called a Priest and as true it is that sometimes also he hath the name of a Minister there given him but the Lords Table though it be there often named is never called an Altar nor the Sacrament in which he represents and commemorates the death of Christ is in that respect so much as once called a Sacrifice muchlesse properly so termed as will appear when we come to examine the Doctors arguments for a Sacrifice drawn from that Book In the mean time I must professe I cannot but wonder that the Doctor should derive our Priesthood from Melchisedech I had thought the Priesthood which we have had been derived from the high Priest of the New Testament who indeed is called a Priest after the order of Melchisedech not because he derived it from Melchisedech God forbid we should so conceive but because of the resemblances which he had to and with Melchisedech as that he was not onely a Priest but a King a King first of righteousnesse then of peace without Father without Mother having neither beginning of dayes nor end of life Thus was our Saviour a Priest after the order of Melchisedech as his own Apostle interprets it so as if we will challenge to our selves a Priesthood after his order we must likewise be Kings as he was without Father without Mother without beginning of daies or end of life as he was which will prove I doubt too hard a task for any man to make good The Romanists indeed assume to themselves a Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech though from Melchisedech I do not finde that they derive it but that any of the reformed Churches besides our Doctor hath done either of these I do not yet finde nor I dare say the Doctor himself will ever be able to finde it I will conclude this point touching the Priesthood of our Church with the observable words of profound Hooker who was well known to be no enemy thereunto Because saith he the most eminent part both of Heathenish and Jewish service did consist in Sacrifice when learned men declare what the word Priest doth properly signifie according to the minde of the first imposer of the name their ordinary Scholies do well expound it to imply Sacrifice seeing then that Sacrifice is now no part of the Church Ministry how should the name of Priesthood be thereunto rightly applyed Surely even as S. Paul applyeth the name of flesh unto that very substance of fishes which hath a proportionable correspondence to flesh although it be in nature another thing whereupon when Philosophers will speak warily they make a difference betwixt flesh in one sort of living creatures and that other substance in the rest which hath but a kinde of Analogy to flesh The Apostle contrariwise having matter of greater importance whereof to speak nameth them indifferently both flesh The Fathers of the Church with like security of speech call usually the Ministery of the Gospel Priesthood in regard of that which the Gospel hath proportionable to ancient Sacrifices namely the Communion of the blessed Body and Bloud of Christ although it have properly now no Sacrifice As for the People when they hear the name it draweth no more their mindes to any cogitation of Sacrifice then the name of a Senator or of an Alderman causeth them to think upon old age or to imagine that every one so termed must needs be ancient because yeers were respected in the first nomination of both Wherefore to passe by the name let them use what dialect they will whether we call it a Priesthood or a Presbytership or a Ministery it skilleth not although in truth the word Presbyter doth seeme more fit and in propriety of speech more agreeable then Priest with the drift of the whole Gospel of Jâ—sus Christ for what are they that imbrace the Gospel but Sonnes of God What are Churches but his families Seeing then we receive the adoption and state of Sonnes by their Ministery whom God hath chosen out for that purpose seeing also that when we are the Sonnes of God our continuance is still under their care which were our Progenitors what better title could there be given them then the reverend name of Presbyters or fatherly guides The holy Ghost throughout the Body of the New Testament making so much mention of them doth not anywhere call them Priests The Prophet Isaiah I grant doth but in such sort as the ancient Fathers by way of Analogy A Presbyter according to the proper meaning of the New Testament is he unto whom our Saviour hath committed the power of spirituall procreation By which learned discourse of this venerable man and as the Doctor himself somewhere calls him incomparable now a blessed Saint in Heaven it evidently appears that he held both a Sacrifice and a Priesthood in the Church but neither of them in a proper signification and consequently in his opinion the Doctor hath gained little to his purpose from the Book of ordination and surely as little I presume will he gain from that which follows and comes now to be examined CHAP. VI Whether the Book of Articles the Book of Homilies or the Common-prayer Book afford the Doctor such proofes as he pretends TWo wayes there are saith he by which the Church declares her self in the present businesse first positively in the Book of Articles and that of Homilies and practically in the Book of Common prayers First in the Book of Articles the offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption propitiation and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world both originall and actuall and there is no other satisfaction for sin but that alone This Sacrifice or oblation once for ever made and never more to be repeated was by our Saviours own appointment to be commemorated and represented to us for the better quickening of our Faith whereof if there be nothing said in the Book of Articles it is because the Articles râ—lated chiefly to points in controversie but in the Book of Homilies c. Thus the Doctor Why but he had told us before that the Church declares her self positively in the Book of Articles touching this present businesse and now when we expected the declaration to be made good he puts us over to the Book of Homilies and yet had he gone on in that very Article by him alleaged he should there have found somewhat against Popish Sacrifices which that Article calls or rather our Church by that Article blasphemous Fables and dangerous deceits Nay the very first words vouched by the Doctor out of the Article are in my judgement sufficient to cut the throat of any other Sacrifice of Christ or any Christian Sacrifice properly so called For if the offring of Christ once made be perfect it cannot be again reiterated commemorated it may be and
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 Sâ—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 thaâ— 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 tâ—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 neâ—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
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}
uncivilized nations from acts flowing from the light of nature such as he makes the use of Sacrificing to be unlesse withall he will exclude them from the use of reason And surely were the use of Sacrifices grounded upon the light of nature not upon Divine precept I do not see why the Jews should be tyed to offer them onely at Ierusalem nor yet why the Mahometans who farre exceed the Christians in number and in civility are little inferiour to many of them should use no Sacrifice at all Lastly for the Grecians Romans and other nations who used Sacrifices as the principall act of their religion it may well be that they borrowed it from the Church of God by an apish imitation or that they received by tradition from their predecessors who were sometimes of the Church of God which are the conjectures of the Doctor himself either of which might serve without deriving it from the light of nature CHAP. III. Of the institution of the Eucharist whether it imply a Sacrifice and of the Altar mentioned by St Paul Hebrews 13. THe Doctor bears us in hand that our Saviour instituted a Sacrifice perpetually to remain in his Church and a new Priesthood properly so called when he ordained the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and to this purpose he brings the words of Irenaeus Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblatâ—onem But that Irenaeus intended not a Sacrifice properly so called the learned Zanchius in his first Book de cultu Dei externo hath made it as clear as the noon-day and to him I referre both the Doctor and the Reader who desires satisfaction therein From the testimony of Irenaeus the Doctor comes to the words of institution recorded by Saint Paul 1 Cor. 11. And indeed here should in all likelyhood have been the place to lay the foundation for a new Sacrifice and Priesthood if any such properly so called had been intended by our Saviour under the Gospell but neither there nor in the Evangelists do we finde any mention at all of either of these which the Doctor perceiving well enough goes on from the words of institution Vers 23 24 25. and tels us that if they expresse not plain enough the nature of this Sacrifice to be commemorative we may take those that follow by way of commentary Vers 26. For as often as ye cate this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come Which words are doubtlesse directed to all the faithfull in the Church of Corinth and in them to all Christians so as the Doctor will be forced either to prove his Sacrificing from eating and drinking and withall to admit all Christians to do Sacrifice against both which in the same leaf he solemnly protests or to seek out some other place to prove it But for the Priesthood he pretends to have found that in the words of our Saviour Hoc faite for the Apostles saith he and their Successours in the Priesthood there is an edite and bibite as private men of no orders in the Church but there is an Hoc facite belonging to them onely as they are Priests under and of the Gospell Hoc faecite is for the Priest who hath power to consecrate Hoc edite both for the Priest and people who are admitted to communicate And again within a while after The people being prepared may edere and bibere but they must not facere that belongs onely to the Priests who claim that power from the Apostles on them conferred by their redeemer Thus he as if facere and Sacrificare were all one which indeed some of the Romanists endeavour to prove but so vainly so ridiculously so injuriously to the text as my Lord of Duresme hath learnedly shewed as it appears to be a foundation too sandy to lay such a building upon it But will the Doctor be pleased to hear Bishop Iewells opinion of these words whom he seemeth in some places to reverence That incomparable Bishop then in his defence of his 17â—h Article thus writes thereof Neither did Christ by these words Do ye this in remembrance of me erect any new succession of Sacrificers to offer him up really unto his Father nor ever did any ancient learned Father so expound it Christs meaning is clear by the words that follow for he saith not onely do ye this but he addeth also in my remembrance which doing pertaineth not onely to the Apostles and their Successors as Mr Harding imagineth but to the whole congregation of Corinth As often as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew forth the Lords death untill he come Likewise Saint Chrysostome saith he applyeth the same not onely to the Clergy but also to the whole people of his Church at Antioch And truely I think this Doctor is the first of the reformed Churches that ever restrained those words of our Saviour to the Clergy alone or grounded the Priesthood upon them Nay the Romanists themselves finde this ground to be so feeble as by the evidence of truth it self they are beaten from it and even forced to forsake it Iansenius Bishop of Gant in his Commentaries on the Gospels Cap. 131. Sunt qui Sacramentum illud esse Sacrificium ostendere conantur ex verbo Facite quia illud aliquando accipitur pro Sacrificare at hoc argumentum parum est firmum Alanas Cardinalis lib. de Eucharistia c. 10. p. 255. Hoc facite pertinet ad totam actionem Eucharisticam à Christo factam tam a Presbyteris quam à plebe faciendam Hoc probat ex Cyril lib. 12. in Ioh. ca. 58. ex Basilio lib. regularum moralium regul. 21. cap. 3. Maldonatus l. 7. de Sacram. tom. 1. part 3. de Eucharistia Non quod contendam illud verbum facere illo loco sign ficare idem quod Sacrificare Estius Comment in 2. ad Cor. 11. v. 24. Non quod verbum facere sit idem quod Sacrificare quomodo nonnulli interpretati sunt praeter mentem Scripturae And howsoever Bellarmine where it makes for his purpose come in with his certum est It is certain that upon the word Facite is grounded the Priesthood and power of Sacrificing yet in another place when it made not so much for his purpose he tels us another tale Videtur sententia Iohannis à Lovanio valde probabilis qui docet verba domini apud Lucam ad omnia referri id est ad id quod fecit Christus id quod fecerunt Apostoli ut sensus sit Id quod nunc agimus ego dum consecro porrigo vos dum accipitis comeditis frequentate deinceps usque ad mundi consummationem And within a while after Paulum autem idem Author docet potissimum referre ad actionem discipulorum id quod ex verbis sequentibus colligitur Quotiescunque enim manducabitis panem hunc calicem bibetis mortem domini annuntiabetis Thus farre the words