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 Sâ—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 afâ—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 Sâ—crifice properly so called or that the Sacrifice thus offred by them both â—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
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
exhibendum non ut significent tanquam factum nam repraesentare illud ut factum est Sacramentum celebrare non SacrificiuÌ„ offerre Non denique ut agant quod actum fuit ab ipso Christo seipsum offerente nam hoc mutile esset si fieret plane impossibile est ut fiat Hactenus igitur in missa Pontificia neque Sacrificium propriè dictum nequeSacerdotem neque actionem ipsam Sacrificandi vel ipsi missarum opifices ostendere potuerunt Doctor Hall Lord Bishop of Exeter in his Book intituled No peace with Rome Sect. 9. What opposition is there betwixt the order of Melchisedech and Aaron betwixt Christ and the Priests of the old Law if this office do equally passe and descend in a long pedigree of mortall successors or why were the legall Sacrifices of the Jewish Synagogue so oft repeated but because they were not perfect And how can or why should that which is most absolutely perfect be reiterated What can either be spoken or conceived more plainly then those words of God Once offred One Sacrifice One oblation And yet these popish shavelings devout men take upon them to Crucifie and Sacrifice Christ again We will remember the holy Sacrifice of Christ as Cassander well advises and celebrate it with a thankfull heart we will not repeat it We will gladly receive our Saviour offred by himself to his father and offred to us by his father we will not offer him to his father which one point whilest we stick at as we needs must we are straight stricken with the thunderbolt of the Anathema of Trent Here can be therefore no possibility of peace Doctor Abbot late Lord Bishop of Sarisbury and publike Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Oxford in his Counterproof against Doctor Bishops reproof of the defence of the Reformed Catholike Cap. 14. pag. 364. It is truely said by Cyprian that the Passion of Christ is the Sacrifice which we offer and because the Passion of Christ is not now really acted therefore the Sacrifice which we offer is no true and reall Sacrifice Now therefore the oblation of the Altar of which S. Augustine speaketh hath no reference to the Masse which they hold to be a proper and reall Sacrifice But now strange it should seem that the Apostle in those words should be thought to have any intention of the Sacrifice of the Masse who in the Epistle to the Hebrews if it were he whilest he destroyeth the Jewish Priesthood for the advancing of the Priesthood of Christ argueth impregnably to the disavowing of all reall Sacrifice thenceforth in the Church of Christ Whilest he affirmeth but one Priest in the New Testament insteed of many in the old he absolutely taketh away all the ranke and succession of popish Priests Doctor Bilson late Lord Bishop of Winchester in his Book of the true difference between Christian subjection and unchristian rebellion the 4 Part. P. 691. If the death of Christ be the Sacrifice which the Church offreth it is evident that Christ is not onely Sacrificed at this Table but also crucified and crufied in the self same sort and sense that he is Sacrificed but no man is so mad to defend that Christ is really put to death in these Mysteries Ergo neither is he really Sacrificed under the formes of Bread and Wine His reasons why we do not use the word Sâ—crifice so often as the Fathers did Pag. 702. There are reasons why we do not think our selves bound to take up the freqâ—ent use of their terms in that point as we see you do for first they be such words as Christ and his Apostles did forbear and therefore our faith may stand without them Next they be dark and obscure speeches wholly depending on the nature and signification of Sacraments Thirdly we finde by experience before our eyes how their phrases have entangled your senses whiles you greedily pursued the words and omitted the rules which should have mollified and directed the letter These causes make us the waryer and the willinger to keep us to the words of the holy Ghost though the Fathers applications if you there withall take their expositions do but in other terms teach that which we receive and confesse to be true Bishop Jewell the Iewell of Bishops in defence of his 17. Article which Book is by publique authority to be kept in every Church Even so S. Ambrose saith Christ is offred here on earth not really and indeed as Master Harding saith but in like sort and sense as S. Iohn saith the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world that is not substantially or in reall manner but in signification in a Mystery and in a figure As Christ is neither daily borne of the Virgin Mary nor daily crucified nor daily slain nor daily riseth from the dead nor daily suffereth nor daily dyeth but onely in a certain manner of speech not verily and indeed even so Christ is daily Sacrificed onely in a certain manner of speech and in a Mystery but really verily and indeed he is not Sacrificed Archiepiscopus Spalatensis while he was ours that is while he was himself de rep. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 6. Nobis satis est apud Chrysostomum Eucharistiam in se continere Sacrificium quoddam commemorativum ac consequenter in ea non fieri verum Sacrificium Confirmat haec omnia Bellarminus ex eo quod in Ecclesia antiquus sit usus nomen altarium altare vero Sacrificium sunt correlativa Respondeo quale Sacrificium tale Altare Sacrificium impropriè Altare impropriè Esse verum Sacrificium nunquam usque ad postrema cor rupta saecula invenio aut dictum aut cogitatum aut traditum aut practicatum in Ecclesia Doctor Rainolds professor of Divinity extraordinary in the University of Oxford in his Conference with Hart. c. 8. divis 4. Sith the Sacrifice offered in the Masse is a true and proper Sacrifice as you define it and that of the Fathers is not a true Sacrifice but called so improperly it remaineth to be concluded that the Fathers neither said Masse nor were Masse Priests Laurence Humphrey Doctor of the Chair in Oxford in his answer to Campian de conciliis P. 424. Quale est Sacrificium talis est sacerdos qualis sacerdos tale esse debet Altaere sive de Christo propriè loquamur sive de nobis Christianis impropriè De Sacrarum literarum sententia Pag. 155. Sacramentum propriè ab omnibus metaphoricè à nonnullis Patribus Sacrificium nuncupatur Doctor Field Dean of Glocester in his Appendix to his third Book of the Church Pag. 207. Christ was Sacrificed on the Crosse when he was Crucified and cruelly put to death of the Jews but how he should now be really Sacrificed Sacrificing implying in it a destruction of the thing Sacrificed it is very hard to conceive Doctor Crakanthorp in his answer to Spalatâ—nsis
Cap. 74. Sed nec omnino vâ—â—um propriè dictum Sacrificium in Missa ullum est Doctor Whitaker publike professor of Divinity in Cambridge in his answer to Mr Rainolds cap. 4. p. 76. You cannot pull in sunder these two offices but it you will needs be Priests and that properly according to the order of Melchisedech then seeing that order of Priesthood hath a Kingdome inseperably annexed to it it must necessarily follow that you are also Kings and that properly which were a very proper thing indeed and greatly to be accounted of Doctor Fulke in his answer to the Rhemists on Heb. 7. vers 12. Neither doth any ancient Father speak of a Sacrifice in the form of bread and wine although many do call the Sacrament which is celebrated in bread and wine a Sacrifice unproperly because it is a remembrance of the one onely Sacrifice of Christs death and because the spirituall Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is offered therein not by the Minister onely but by the whole Church that is partaker thereof Again the same Author in Hebr. 13. vers. 10. The Apostle meaneth Christ to be this Altar who is our Priest Sacrifice and Altar and not the Table whereon the Lords Supper is ministred which is called an Altar but improperly as the Sacrament is called a Sacrifice Doctor Willet in his Synopsis Controv. 13. Quaest 2. If there remain still in the Church a read externall Sacrifice then there must be also a reall and externall Priesthood and so a multitude of sacrificing Priests but this iâ— contrary to the Scripture that maketh this difference between the Law and the Gospel that then there were many Priests because they were not suffered to endure by reason of death but now Christ hath an everlasting Priesthood Heb. 7. 23 24. 50. so that he is the onely Priest of the Gospel ergo there being no more sacrificing Priests there is no such Sacrifice for it were a derogation to the everlasting Priesthood of Christ to ordain other Priests beside Master Perkins in his Reformed Catholique 11. point of the Sacrifice of the Lords Supper Heb. 7. 24 25. The holy Ghost makes a difference betwixt Christ the High Priest of the new Testament and all Leviticall Priests in this That they were many one succeeding another but he is the onely one having an eternall Priesthood which cannot passe from him to another Now if this difference be good then Christ alone in his own very person must be the Priest of the new Testament and no other with or under him otherwise in the new Testament there should be more Priests in number than in the old Alexander Nowell Dean of Pauls in his Catechism ordained for publique use and so allowed in our Church M. An fuit instituta a Christo coena ut Deo Patri hostia pro peccatis expiandis immolaretur A. Minimè nam Christus mortem in cruce occumbens unicum illud sempiternum Sacrificium semel in perpetuum pro nostra salute obtulit nobis vero unum hoc tantum reliquum esse voluit ut maximum utilitatis fructum quem sempiternum illud Sacrificium nobis praebet grati ac memores percipiamus quod quidem in caenae dominica praecipuè praestared bemus Thus have we seen that neither by the light of nature nor by the definition of a Sacrifice nor by the Institution of our Saviour nor by the practice of his Apostles nor by the suffrage of the Primitive Fathers nor by the authority of our Church nor by the testimony of the most eminent Writers therein it yet appears either that our Ministers are properly called Priests or our Sacrament of the Eucharist properly a Sacrifice or our Communion-Table properly an Altar but rather the contrary that they are all improperly so called Which being so whether the proper situation thereof should in congruity be either Table-wise for the administring of a Sacrament or Altar-wise for the offering of a Sacrifice I leave that to the prudent Governours of our Church and better judgements than mine own to consider and determine of FINIS Cap. 5. p. 26. cap 6. pag. 44. 67. Pag. 207. Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 27. Ioh. 8 56. â—om 14. 23. 〈◊〉 11 6 22. Qu. 85. aâ— 3. Heb 11. 4. Lib. 1. de Mâ—ss cap 2. Lib. â— ca. 32. Cap. 16. Of the Sacrament lib. 6. ca. 1. De Sacâ—am Eucharist lib. 4. cap. 25. in sinc Lib. 1. de Missi cap. 14. Com. in locum De Missâ— Sacrificio Lib. 4. cap. 34. De demonst. Evingel liâ— 1. Fr. Mason of the consecration of Bishops in the Church of England 〈◊〉 5. p 6. Heb â— Heb. 7. Lib 5 cap. 78. Art 28. Part. 1 Pag. 198. Answ to Pâ—rron c. 6. Reâ—p ad Card Beâ—l cap. 8. Answ to Perron cap. 7. L De civitate Dei lib. 17. cap. 20. M Eâ—ist ad Card. Perron Defence of his fisth Book against Gardiner Cap. 29. Pag. 365. Pag. 424. Pag. 427. Pag. 204. Pag. 280. Pag 281. Reas. 4.
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
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
take the passage at large as it is quoted by that truely reverend Bishop out of S. Augustine it will suffice to shew both his and the Bishops judgement herein The words then are these Hujus Sacrificii caro sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur post adventum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur Now had he conceived the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice properly so called in all likelyhood he would have termed it Sacrificium memoriae in relation to the Sacrifices as well before the death of Christ as the Sacrifice it self of his death Sacramentum memoriae then is that saith the Bishop which with S. Augustine we hold and no Christian I think will deny nay more then so we may safely with the Bishop grant that it is not onely a Sacrament but a Sacrifice but whether in a proper signification that is the question and this the Doctor doth not clear out of the Bishop but rather the Bishop the contrary out of S. Augustine The next passage quoted by the Doctor out of this learned Bishop is taken from his answer to Bellarmâ—ne which he lived to publish himself and thus begins it Credunt nostri institutam à domino Eucharistiam in sui commemorationem etiam Sacrificii sui vel si ita loqui liceat in Sacrificium commemorativum See the modesty of this deep Divine making doubt whether he might give it the name of Sacrificium commemorativum or no which doubtlesse he would never have done had he thought it had been a Sacrifice properly so called Neither would he so often in that Page have taken up Vocem Sacrificii rather then Sacrificium Nihil ea de Voce Rex Sacrificii Vocem scit patribus usurpatam nec à Voce vel Sacrificii vel oblationis abborremus placeret loca videre quae citat nisi Vocem propter quam citat videret Lector nobis non displicere Surely so weary and so wise a man would never have repeated Vocem so often had he beleeved the thing To the words by the Doctor stood upon Tollite de missa transubstantiationem nec diu nobiscum lis erit de Sacrificio it may be replyed in the Bishops own words immediately following which may well serve as a commentary upon these going before Memoriam ibi fieri Sacrificii damus non inviti so as his meaning seems to be lis non erit de Sacrificio conditionally that by Sacrificium they understand memoriam Sacrificii as we do neither in truth do I see how the crutch of Tranfubstantiation being taken away a Sacrifice properly so called can well stand upon its own feete From the Bishops answer to the Italian Cardinall the Doctor leads us back again to his answer to the French Cardinall and there hath found an Altar suteable to his Sacrifice If we agree about the matter of the Sacrifice saith the Bishop there will be no difference about the Altar but about the former sure I am we agree not as yet nor I doubt ever shall agree they making that the Subject which we make onely the object of this Sacrifice and consequently the difference is like still to remain about the Altar That the Lords Table may fitly be called an Altar the Bishop indeed affirmeth but that it may properly be so called that he affirmeth not nor as farre as we may conjecture by his words ever intended it Fitly I grant it may be so called and yet figuratively too That Christ was fitly called a Lamb we all willingly yeild yet withall that he was not properly but figuratively so called no man I presume will deny The Altar saith the Bishop in the same Chapter in the Old Testament is by Malachy called Mensa domini and of the Table in the New it is said Habemus Altare as then the Altar is by the Prâ—phet improperly called a Table in the Old so likewise is the Lords Table by the Apostle improperly called an Altar in the New Testament Neither indeed can the Bishop as I conceive be otherwise understood the Sacrifice which he allows consisting by his own description thereof in the same place in representation by the breaking of the Bread and powring forth of the Cup which may objectively that is improperly be called a Sacrifice in relation to the al-sufficient Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crâ—sse but subjectively that is properly it cannot be so called As Bishop Andrews wrote at King Iames his motion against Carâ—inall Bellarmine saith the Doctor so Isaac Casaubon writ King Iames his minde to Cardinall Perron and in expressing his minde affirmeth Veteres Ecclesiae patres c. That the ancient Fathers did acknowledge one onely Sacrifice in the Christian Church which did succeed in place of all those Sacrifices in the law of Moses that he conceived the said Sacrifice to be nothing else Nisi commemorationem ejus quod semel in cruce Christus Patri suo obtulit That oftentimes the Church of England hath professed she will not strive about the Word which she expressely useth in her publike Liturgy Yea but if Casaubon or the King by Casaubons pen expressed himself that he conceived the Christian Sacrifice now in use to be nothing else but the commemoration of Christs Sacrifice offred to his Father upon the Crosse surely they could not withall conceive it to be a Sacrifice properly so called and in saying that the Church of England will not strive about the Word what is it but as if they had said she will strive about the thing as it is most aparent that she doth as well in her doctrine as practise Nay one thing more That learned Writer hath or rather that learned King by the hand of that Writer which the Doctor hath omitted though he take the words both before and after perchance because they made little to his purpose Quare beatus Chrysostomus quo frequentius nemo hujus Sacrificii meminit in nonum caput epistolae ad Hebraeos postquam {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nominasset continuo subjungit sive explicationis sive correctionis leco {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which words whether they be taken by way of explication or corrections evidently shew that S. Chrysostome held not the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice properly so called and that herein both the King and Casaubon adhered to S. Chrysostome the best interpreter of Scripture among the Greek Fathers The next testimony is taken from Archbishop Cranmer who saith the Doctor distinguisheth most clearly between the Sacrifice propitiatory made by Christ himself onely and the Sacrifice commemorative and gratulatory made by the Priest and people This I easily beleeve though the Book it self I have not now by me but that the Archbishop anywhere affirmeth either the commemorative or the gratulatory Sacrifice to be properly so called that I very much doubt and surely if