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
of Iohannes a Lovanio whose opinion Bellarmine confesseth to be very probable that which followeth in the same place I take to be his own Et praeterea idem planum fieri potest ex instituto proposito B. Pauli nam Apostolus eo loco emendabat errorem Corinthiorum Corinthii autem non errabant in consecratione sed in Sumptione quia non dâ—bita reverentia sumebant quare accommodat ca verba ad suum usum ac docet Christum praecepisse ut actio caenae celebraretur in memoriam passionis ideo attente reverenter sumenda esse tanta mysteria By all which it appears that neither the words of institution Hoc facite are sufficient to ground the Priesthood and power of Sacrificing upon them nor yet that they are to be restrained to the Clergy as the Doctor would have it Nay those words of the Apostle which he brings as a commentary upon the words of institution to clear the point do indeed prove the contrary And if we should grant that which he demands that Hoc facite were to be referred onely to the actions of Christ himself and directed onely to the Apostles and their Successours yet it must first be proved that Christ himself in the institution of the Sacrament did withall offer a Sacrifice properly so called which for any thing that appeares in the text cannot be gathered from any speech which he then uttered or action which he did or gesture which he used That he consecrated the Elements of Bread and Wine to a mysticall use as also that he left the power of consecration onely to his Apostles and their Successours we willingly grant but that at his last Supper he either offered Sacrifice himself or gave them commission so to do that as yet rests to be proved Neither do I yet see what the Doctor will make to be the Subject of his Sacrifice either Bread and Wine or his own Body and Bloud if the former he will for any thing I know stand single if the latter in a proper sense he will be forced to joyn hands with Rome and so fall into a world of absurdities Lastly whereas the Doctor disputes wholly for a commemorative Sacrifice that if our Saviour could not be so in as much as Commemoration implies a calling to remembrance of a thing past but his Sacrifice upon the Crosse which we now commemorate was then to come Prefigurative it might be Commemorative it could not be The Doctor goes on and confidently assures us that S. Paul in whom we finde both the Priest and the Sacrifice will help us to an Altar also and to that purpose referres us to the last to the Hebrews Habemus Altare We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat that serve the Tabernacle An Altar saith he in relation to the Sacrifice which is there commemorated But his passage of the Apostle Bellarmine himself hath so little confidence in and so weak authority to back it as he forbears to presse it And truely I think had the Doctor himself read on and well considered the next verses he would never have urged it to that purpose which here he doth Aquinas his exposition in his commentaries upon the place is in my judgement boâ—h easie and pertinent Istud Altare vel est crux Christi in qua Christus immolatus est vel ipse Christus in quo per quem preces nostras offerimus hoc est Altare aureum de quo Apoc. 8. To him doth Estius the Jesuite strongly incline and to him do the Divines of Collen in their Antididagma firmly adhere which notwithstanding some there are I confesse who understand the words of the Apostle to be meant of the Lords Table which I grant may be called an Altar but whether in a proper sense it be so called by the Apostle in the passage h alleaged that is the question and I have not yet met with any who in full and round terms hath so expressed himself And till that be sufficiently proved the Apostles Altar cannot certainly prove a Priesthood and Sacrifice properly so called CHAP. IV. Whether the Authority of the Fathers alleaged by the Doctor prove the Eucharist a Sacrifice properly so called THe Doctor from the Scriptures where in my poor judgement he hath found very little help for the maintenance of his cause comes in the next place to the authority of the Fathers some of which are Counterfeits and the greatest part by him vouched as by him they are alleaged speak onely of Sacrifices Priests and Altars but in what sense it appears not whereas the question is not of the name but of the nature of these Now among those Fathers whom he names two there are and but two who speak home to the nature thereof Irenaeus and Euscbius yet both of them speak even by the Doctors pen in such sort as a man may thereby discern they intended noâ— a Sacrifice properly so called I will take them in their order First then for Irenaeus look on him saith the Doctor and he will tell you that there were Sacrifices in the Jewish Church and Sacrifices in the Christian Church and that the kinde or species was onely altered The kinde or nature of which Christian Sacrifice he tels us of in the same Chapter viz. that it is an Eucharist a tender of our gratitude to Almighty God for all his blessings and a sanctifying of the Creature to spirituall uses Offerimus ei non quasi indigenti sed gratias agentes donatione eâ—us Sanctificantes Creaturam In this we have the severall and distinct offices which before we spake of Sanctificatio Creaturae a blessing of the Bread for Bread it is he speaks of for holy uses which is the office of the Priest no man ever doubted it and then a Gratiarum actio a giving of thanks unto the Lord for his marvellous benefits which is the office both of Priest and people the sanctifying of the Creature and glorifying of the Creator do both relate unto Offerimus and that unto the Sacrifices which are therein treated of by that holy Father Hitherto the Doctor in his allegation of Irenaeus But is any man so weak as from hence to inferre a Sacrifice properly so called The sanctifying or blessing or consecrating of the Breâ—d to holy uses we all grant to be the proper office of the Priest or Presbyter and the giving of thanks common to him and the people but that either of these is a Sacrifice properly so called that we deny and i desire to see proved The other of the two before named is Eusebius upon whose testimony the Doctor largely insists for that we cannot take saith he a better and more perfect view thereof then from him who hath been more exact herein then any other of the ancients And having culled out from Eusebius what he conceived most advantageous for his own purpose in conclusion he
must be reiterated it cannot be now reiteration it is which makes it a Sacrifice properly so called not a bare commemoration or representation as hath already been shewed And besides the Doctor might have found another Article touching the Supper of the Lord where it is called a Sacrament of our redemption by Christs death but of any Sacrifice not a word though there had been the proper place to have spoken of it had our Church conceived that any such had been properly so termed but on the other side Transubstantiation is there condemned as being repugnant to Scriptures overthrowing the nature of a Sacrament giving occasion to many superstitions yet how a Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ properly so termed can be admitted without the admission of Transubstantiation together with it I must confesse for mine own part I am yet to seek and shall be willing to learn from any that can farther instruct me But the Doctor reposing little confidence it should seem in the Articles refers us to the Homilies to them let us go and truely if I be not much mistaken he will finde as little help from these as from the Articles That which he alleageth is taken from the first words of the Homily Sacrament the words are as followeth The great love of our Saviour Christ to mankinde doth not onely appear in that dear bought benefit of our redemption and satisfaction by his death and passion but also that he hath kindly provided that the same most mercifull work might be had in continuall remembrance amongst the which means is the publike celebration of the memory of his pretious death at the Lords Table our Saviour having ordained and established the remembrance of his great mercy expressed in his passion in the institution of his heavenly Supper Here saith the Doctor is a commemoration of that blessed Sacrifice which Christ once offred a publike celebration of the memory thereof and a continuall remembrance of it by himself ordained Yea but that which the Doctor from these words picked here and there in the Homily should have inferred and concluded is a Sacrifice in it self properly so called not a memory a remembrance a commemoration of a Sacrifice And besides he who attentively reads that part of the Homily will easily finde that it there speaks of the commemoration thereof not so much by the Priest as by the People neither doth it so much as once name any Sacrifice at all save onely in disavowing and disallowing it as may be seen in the Page there following part wherof the Doctor taketh for his own purpose as namely That the Lords Supper is in such sort to be done and Ministred as our Lord and Saviour did and commanded it to be done as his holy Apostles used it and the good Fathers in the primitive Church frequented it So that saith he what ever hath been proved to be the purpose of institution the practise of the holy Apostles and usage of the ancient Fathers will fall within the meaning and intention of the Church of England Doubtlesse it will but that a Sacrifice properly so called hath been proved to be either the purpose of the institution or the practise of the Apostles or the usage of the ancient Fathers that I utterly deny And surely it should seem that the Church of England denies it too by the words there following within a few lines We must take heed saith the Homily least of the memory it be made a Sacrifice least of a Communion it be made a private eating least of two parts we have but one least applying it to the dead we loose the fruit that be alive Let us rather in these matters follow the advice of Cyprian in like cases that is cleave fast to the first beginning hold fast the Lords tradition do that in the Lords Commemoration which he himself did he himself commanded and his Apostles confirmed Whereby it should seem they held the purpose of our Saviours institution and the practise of his Apostles to have been not a Sacrifice properly so termed but onely a Commemoration of his death and passion And this to have been indeed their meaning farther appears toward the latter end of the same part of the Homily where speaking of the death of Christ and the efficacy thereof to the worthy Receiver they thus go on Herein thou needst no other mans help no other Sacrifice or oblation no Sacrificing Priest no Masse no means established by mans invention By which it is evident that they held all other Sacrifices beside that of Christ himself on the Crosse and all other Sacrificing Priests beside Christ himself to be established by mans invention and how the Doctor professing that he offers up a Sacrifice properly so called can possibly free himself from the title and office of a Sacrificing Priest I must professe is beyond the compasse of my brain All which considered I think his safer way had been not to have touched upon the Homily specially considering that the Lords Table is there named above or about twenty times but is not so much as once called an Altar But perchance he will finde some better help from the Liturgy which comes now to be examined We will next saith he look into the agenda the publike Liturgy of this Church where first we finde it granted that Christ our Saviour is the very Paschall Lamb that was offred for us and hath taken away the sinnes of the world that suffering death upon the crosse for our redemption he made there of his own oblation of himself once offred a full perfect and sufficient Sacrifice oblation and satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole world and to the end that we should alwayes remember the exceeding great love of our Master and onely Saviour Jesus Christ thus dying for us and the innumerable benefits which by his pretious bloudshedding he hath obtained to us he hath instituted and ordained holy Mysteries as pledges of his love and continuall remembrance of his death to our great and endlesse comfort instituting and in his holy Gospel commanding us to continue a perpetuall memory of that his pretious death till his coming again In which words I do not see what it is that makes for the Doctors purpose but somewhat I see which makes against him as namely The Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse is full perfect and sufficient in it self which being so surely there needs no more Sacrifices no more Priests no more Altars properly so called And for the memory or remembrance there mentioned if I be not much mistaken he will never be able thence to inferre such a Sacrifice and surely I think the Church never intended he should In the next place he instanceth in the consecration Then followeth saith he the consecration of the Creatures of Bread and Wine for a remembrance of his death and Passion in the same words and phrases which Christ our Saviour recommended unto his Apostles and his Apostles
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.