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
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
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
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