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
it be made both by the Priest and people as the Doctor voucheth him at leastwise for the latter there can be no question of his opinion therein Let us go on then to my Lord of Duresme Who saith the Doctor doth call the Eucharist a representative and commemorative Sacrifice in as plain Language â—s the Doctor himself although he doth deny it to be a proper Sacrifice Deny it why he doth not onely deny it but strongly proves it against Bellarmine and other Romish Writers in two entire Chapters taking up no lesse then seven leaves in Folio so strongly as I verily beleeve I shall never see a full and sufficient answer thereunto The last testimony produced by the Doctor is from my Lord of Chichesters appeal whom the Doctor thus makes to speak unto his iâ—formers I have so good opinion of your understanding though weak that you will conceive the blessed Sacrament of the Altar or the Communion Table which you please to be a Sacrifice And the Doctor having a while infisted upon these words in answer to his adversary goes on out of the Bishops Book Walk you at random and at rovers in your bypaths if you please I have used the name of Altar for the Communion Table according to the manner of antiquity and am like enough sometimes to use it stil nor will I abstain notwithstanding your oggannition to follow the steps and practice of antiquity in using the words Sacrifice and Priesthood also Finally saith the Doctor he brings in Bishop Morton professing thus That he beleeveth no such Sacrifice of the Altar as the Church of Rome doth and that he fancieth no such Altars as they imploy though he professed a Sacrifice and an Altar Now for answer to this testimony he that will be pleased but to peruse that chapter will I presume desire no farther satisfaction the Bishop having therein so clearly and fully unfolded himself as if the Doctor will stand to his judgement in the point he will undoubtedly be cast To the first allegation then where the Doctor makes a stop the Bishop thus goes on Not propitiatory as they call it I will use this word call it lest you challenge me upon Popery for using propitiatory for the living and the dead not an externall visible true and proper Sacrifice but onely representative commemorative spirituall Sacrifice where the Bishop as we see in downright and direct tearms denies the Euchâ—ist to be a Sacrifice properly so called and for this immediatly he voucheth the testimony of Doctor Rainolds and Bishop Morton Doctor Rainolds saith he and Bishop Morton have granted that though we have no proper Altar yet Altar and Sacrifice have a mutuall relation and dependance one upon another And herein doth the Bishop professe himself fully to accord with them To the second allegation The Bishop between the words vouched by the Doctor brings in these Saint Paul calleth the Pagan Altars which were indeed and truely Altars Tables and why may not we name the Lords Table an Altar whereby it appears that he held the Lords Table an Altar in none other sense than as the Pagan Altars were Tables that is both improperly To the third allegation touching Bishop Morton he thus brings him in not farre from the beginning of that chapter But I rather choose saith he to speak in our Bishop Mortons words apologizing for Protestants against Papists It may be I have taken licence in use of tearms but no errour in Doctrine can you finde for to put off your imputation from farther fastning I beleeve no such sacrifice of the Altar as the Church of Rome doth I fancy no such Altars as they imploy though I professe a Sacrifice and an Altar In the same Reverend Bishops words the Lords Table being called improperly an Altar can no more conclude a Sacrifice understood properly than when as Saint Paul calling Titus his sonne according to the faith which is improperly a man may contend Saint Paul was his naturall father according to the flesh In which words we have both the Bishops and those excellently learned in terminis terminantibus directly opposite to the Doctors opinion though by him alleadged in maintenance thereof CHAP. VIII Containing the Testimonies of other Reverend Prelates and great Divines of our Church who have likewise opposed the proper Sacrifice maintained by the Doctor VVIth forraigne Divines of the Reformed Churches I will not meddle there being not so much as one of them I thinke of what partie soever who in this point sides with the Doctor I will content my selfe with the suffrages of our owne Divines for learning and dignity the most eminent in our Church and consequently the fittest interpreters of her meaning Doctor White Lord Bishop of Ely in his reply to Fisher pag. 465. The New Testament acknowledgeth no proper sacrificing Priests but Christ Jesus only Heb. 7. 23. 27 28. cap. 10. 21. Neither is there any word or sentence in our Saviours doctrine concerning any reall Sacrifice but onely of himself upon the Crosse neither was any Altar used and ordained by Christ and his Apostles And if in all reall Sacrifices the matter of the Oblation must be really destroyed and changed and no physicall destruction or change is made in the Body of Christ or in the elements of bread and wine by Transubstantiation then Romanists have devised a reall Sacrifice in the new Testament which hath no Divine Institution Doctor Davenant Lord Bishop of Sarisbury Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Cambridge in his determinations qu. 13. Missa Pontificia non est Sacrificium propitiatorium pro vivis mortuis Pontificii in hoc suo missatico negotio tres gravissimes errores nobis obtrudunt Esse nimirum in missa reale externum propriè dictum Sacrificium Esse inihi Sacerdotem qui actionem Sacrificandi propriè dictam exercet Esse denique potestatem huic Sacerdoti pro voluntate intentione sua applicandi tam vivis quam mortuis praedicti Sacrificii efficaciam salutarem Nos è contra asserimus primo in missa nihil posse nominari aut ostendi quod sit Sacrificabile aut quod rationem essentiam realis externi propriè dicti Sacrificii quamvis quae adhiberi in eadem solent preces eleemosynae gratiarum actiones spiritualium Sacrificiorum nomen sortiantur quamvis etiam ipsa representatio fracti corporis Christi fusi sanguinis figuratè Sacrificium à veteribus saepenumero vocetur Secundo Contendunt Pontificii Presbyteros suos esse secundarios quosdam novi Testamenti Sacerdotes in missa sua actionem Sacrificandi propriè dictam praestare Sed nobis Iesus Christus est solus aeternus neque successorum neque vicariorum indigus novi Testamenti Sacerdos Quaero enim cui bono alii Sacerdotes substituerentur ipsi Christo non ut Sacrificium ejus adumbrent tanquam futurum est enim olim Deo exhibitum non hodie
uncivilized nations from acts flowing from the light of nature such as he makes the use of Sacrificing to be unlesse withall he will exclude them from the use of reason And surely were the use of Sacrifices grounded upon the light of nature not upon Divine precept I do not see why the Jews should be tyed to offer them onely at Ierusalem nor yet why the Mahometans who farre exceed the Christians in number and in civility are little inferiour to many of them should use no Sacrifice at all Lastly for the Grecians Romans and other nations who used Sacrifices as the principall act of their religion it may well be that they borrowed it from the Church of God by an apish imitation or that they received by tradition from their predecessors who were sometimes of the Church of God which are the conjectures of the Doctor himself either of which might serve without deriving it from the light of nature CHAP. III. Of the institution of the Eucharist whether it imply a Sacrifice and of the Altar mentioned by St Paul Hebrews 13. THe Doctor bears us in hand that our Saviour instituted a Sacrifice perpetually to remain in his Church and a new Priesthood properly so called when he ordained the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and to this purpose he brings the words of Irenaeus Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblatâ—onem But that Irenaeus intended not a Sacrifice properly so called the learned Zanchius in his first Book de cultu Dei externo hath made it as clear as the noon-day and to him I referre both the Doctor and the Reader who desires satisfaction therein From the testimony of Irenaeus the Doctor comes to the words of institution recorded by Saint Paul 1 Cor. 11. And indeed here should in all likelyhood have been the place to lay the foundation for a new Sacrifice and Priesthood if any such properly so called had been intended by our Saviour under the Gospell but neither there nor in the Evangelists do we finde any mention at all of either of these which the Doctor perceiving well enough goes on from the words of institution Vers 23 24 25. and tels us that if they expresse not plain enough the nature of this Sacrifice to be commemorative we may take those that follow by way of commentary Vers 26. For as often as ye cate this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come Which words are doubtlesse directed to all the faithfull in the Church of Corinth and in them to all Christians so as the Doctor will be forced either to prove his Sacrificing from eating and drinking and withall to admit all Christians to do Sacrifice against both which in the same leaf he solemnly protests or to seek out some other place to prove it But for the Priesthood he pretends to have found that in the words of our Saviour Hoc faite for the Apostles saith he and their Successours in the Priesthood there is an edite and bibite as private men of no orders in the Church but there is an Hoc facite belonging to them onely as they are Priests under and of the Gospell Hoc faecite is for the Priest who hath power to consecrate Hoc edite both for the Priest and people who are admitted to communicate And again within a while after The people being prepared may edere and bibere but they must not facere that belongs onely to the Priests who claim that power from the Apostles on them conferred by their redeemer Thus he as if facere and Sacrificare were all one which indeed some of the Romanists endeavour to prove but so vainly so ridiculously so injuriously to the text as my Lord of Duresme hath learnedly shewed as it appears to be a foundation too sandy to lay such a building upon it But will the Doctor be pleased to hear Bishop Iewells opinion of these words whom he seemeth in some places to reverence That incomparable Bishop then in his defence of his 17â—h Article thus writes thereof Neither did Christ by these words Do ye this in remembrance of me erect any new succession of Sacrificers to offer him up really unto his Father nor ever did any ancient learned Father so expound it Christs meaning is clear by the words that follow for he saith not onely do ye this but he addeth also in my remembrance which doing pertaineth not onely to the Apostles and their Successors as Mr Harding imagineth but to the whole congregation of Corinth As often as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew forth the Lords death untill he come Likewise Saint Chrysostome saith he applyeth the same not onely to the Clergy but also to the whole people of his Church at Antioch And truely I think this Doctor is the first of the reformed Churches that ever restrained those words of our Saviour to the Clergy alone or grounded the Priesthood upon them Nay the Romanists themselves finde this ground to be so feeble as by the evidence of truth it self they are beaten from it and even forced to forsake it Iansenius Bishop of Gant in his Commentaries on the Gospels Cap. 131. Sunt qui Sacramentum illud esse Sacrificium ostendere conantur ex verbo Facite quia illud aliquando accipitur pro Sacrificare at hoc argumentum parum est firmum Alanas Cardinalis lib. de Eucharistia c. 10. p. 255. Hoc facite pertinet ad totam actionem Eucharisticam à Christo factam tam a Presbyteris quam à plebe faciendam Hoc probat ex Cyril lib. 12. in Ioh. ca. 58. ex Basilio lib. regularum moralium regul. 21. cap. 3. Maldonatus l. 7. de Sacram. tom. 1. part 3. de Eucharistia Non quod contendam illud verbum facere illo loco sign ficare idem quod Sacrificare Estius Comment in 2. ad Cor. 11. v. 24. Non quod verbum facere sit idem quod Sacrificare quomodo nonnulli interpretati sunt praeter mentem Scripturae And howsoever Bellarmine where it makes for his purpose come in with his certum est It is certain that upon the word Facite is grounded the Priesthood and power of Sacrificing yet in another place when it made not so much for his purpose he tels us another tale Videtur sententia Iohannis à Lovanio valde probabilis qui docet verba domini apud Lucam ad omnia referri id est ad id quod fecit Christus id quod fecerunt Apostoli ut sensus sit Id quod nunc agimus ego dum consecro porrigo vos dum accipitis comeditis frequentate deinceps usque ad mundi consummationem And within a while after Paulum autem idem Author docet potissimum referre ad actionem discipulorum id quod ex verbis sequentibus colligitur Quotiescunque enim manducabitis panem hunc calicem bibetis mortem domini annuntiabetis Thus farre the words
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
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
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