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}
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
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
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
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.