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. Cap. 5. p. 26. cap 6. pag. 44. & 67. 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 [Page 4] 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.

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 [Page 5] 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 Sacrifi [...]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.Pag. 207. If we will Sacrifice a thing unto God (saith he) we must not onely present it unto him, but consume it also. Thus in th [...] Leviticall law, things sacrificed that had life were killed, [Page 6] 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 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 B 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 [Page 7] 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.C 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 [Page 8] 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 D 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,Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 27. wandring up and down in a laba­rynth, not knowing which way to get out, and so e 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 [Page 9] 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 F 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 [Page 10] 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, [Page 11] 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.

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, [...] framing their lives and actions according to the law of nature. Which Words (saith the Doctor) relate not onely to their morall conversation as good men, but to their carriage in respect of Gods publike worship as religious men.’ But by this glosse I doubt he corrupts the text of the Author, sure I am, the words he alleageth [Page 12] out of him do not reach home to his interpretation, neither do I think it can be maintained, or that it was the minde of Eusebius, that the Patriarchs be­fore Moses worshipped God, according to a voluntary kinde of piety. Which is by the Apostle in expresse terms condemned, Col. 2. 23. and if their worship had relation to the Messias that was to come (where­in all Divines I presume agree) I do not see how he can affirm that they framed their religion according to the light of nature, which without the help of a supernaturall illumination could not direct them to the Messias. Ioh. 8, 56. It is indeed said of Abraham, that he saw the day of Christ and rejoyced, no doubt but the same might as truly be verefied of all the other beleeving Patriarcks, as well before, as after him; But that either he or they saw Christs day by the light of nature, that shall I never beleeve, and I think the Doctor cannot produce me so much as one good Author who ever affirmed it; but on the other side with one consent they teach, that as in morall actions they lived according to the light of nature, so in religious they were in a speciall manner inspi­red and directed by God himself. If that of the Apostle be true. [...]om 14. 23. [...]. 11 6 That whatsoever is not of faith is sin; and again, that without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith being grounded upon the Commandements, and promises of God, it cannot be that their wor­ship should be acceptable unto him without speciall command from him.

From the worship of God in generall the Doctor descends to the particular by way of Sacrifice, affir­ming that it is likewise grounded upon the light of nature; which if it be so, undoubtedly it binds all [Page 13] men, the law of nature being common to all, and consequently to us Christians, as well as to the Patriarcks before Moses. Now that some kinde of Sacrifice is f [...]om all men due unto Almighty God, I do not deny, but that outward Sacrifice, proper­ly so called (which is the point in controversie) should be from all men due unto him by the light of nature; that I very much doubt. It is the conclusi­on of Aqu [...]nas. 22. Qu. 85. a [...]. 3. Omnes tenentur aliquod interius Sacrifi­cium Deo offerre, devotam videlicet mentem, & exterius Sacrificium eorum ad quae ex praecepto tenentur, sive sint v [...]rtutum actus sive certae & d [...]term [...]natae oblationes; and farther for mine own part I dare not go.

The Doctor instanceth in the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel, which he seemeth to say were offred by the light of nature, whereas of Abel we read, that by faith he offered unto God a more excellent Sacrifice then Cain. Heb 11. 4. Now faith there cannot be without obedience, nor true obedience without a precept, and if per­chance it be said that the excellency of the Sacri­fice was from faith, not the Sacrifice it self, for then Cain should not have offered at all, I thereunto an­swer that although Cain did not offer by faith, or inspiration from God, yet it may well be that he did it by instruction from his Father, who was in­spired from God. And besides his Sacrifices being of the fruits of the earth might rather be called an offring (as in the Text it is) then a Sacrifice properly so termed according to Bellarmines definition. And for Abel it is the resolution of the same Bellarmine (which for mine own part,Lib. 1. de M [...]ss. cap 2. I take to be sound) Deus qui primus sine dubio inspiravit Abeli & aliis sanctis viris usum Sacrificiorum voluit per ea Sacrificia, Sacrificin̄ omniū [Page 14] ficiorum praestantissimum adumbrari.

The Doctors next instance is Noahs Sacrifice, touching which the same may be said as formerly of Abels, neither indeed can we with reason ima­gine that God should in other matters by divine inspiration, so particularly instruct him, and leave him onely to the light of Nature, in the worship of himself, or that Adam in the state of incorrupt nature was instructed by God in the duties of his service, and his posterity therein left to the light of corrupt nature.

Besides this, somethings there are by the Doctor affirmed of this Sacrifice, not so justifiable I doubt as were to be wished; as first that it was an Eucha­risticall Sacrifice, not typicall, whereas all Divines that I have seen, make all the Sacrifices commanded by God, as well before the law, as under the law to have been typicall. That is some way significant of Christ to come, they being all as so many visible Sermons of that all s [...]fficient Sacrifice, through which God is onely well pleased with those which worship him. And again, the text making it by the Doctors own confession an Holocaust or burnt offring which Noah offred, I see not how he can onely make it Eucharisticall, in as much as Philo the Jew (who should know what belonged to the distin­ction of Sacrifices) in his Book purposely written of that Subject, thus writes of them. Sacrificia omnia ad tria redegit legislator, Holocaustum, pacifica sive salutare, & Sacrificium pro peccatis. Noahs Sacrifice then being a burnt offring, it could not be meerely Eucharisti­call, but I rather beleeve it might participate some­what of all three kindes, and as little doubt but [Page 15] that it was in all three respects significative of Christ to come.

The Doctors third instance, is in Melchisedech, who indeed is said to have been a Priest of the most high God, and that being a Priest, he offred Sacrifice, I make no doubt, but very much doubt whether he offred Sacrifice, or were a Priest by the light of nature, especially considering that Christ himself was a Priest after the order of Melchisedech.

Now whereas the Doctor confidently makes Sem to have been the eldest sonne of Noah, he hath there­in against him, not onely the learned Iunius, but Lyranus, Tostatus, Genebrard, and the Hebrew Doctors. And again, whereas he seemes to follow the com­mon opinion heretofore received, that Melchisedech was Sem; I think he cannot be ignorant that both Paraeus and Pererius have proved the contrary by so invincible arguments, as there needs no further doubt to be made thereof.

The Doctors conclusion of this argument drawn from the light of Nature is this, That there was never any nation, but had some religion, nor any re­ligion (if men civilized) but had Altars, Priests, and Sacrifices as a part thereof, or dependents thereupon. The former part of which position I will not examine, though our planters in Virginia and New-England, can not (as they report) finde any acts of religion exercised by the natives of those Countries, but for the latter part thereof, I know not why he should exclude the 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 [Page 16] 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.

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 G 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, Lib. [...]. ca. 32. Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblat [...]onem; But that Irenaeus intended not a Sacrifice properly so cal­led, the learned Zanchius in his first Book de cultu Dei externo, Cap. 16. 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 [Page 17] 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 [Page 16] [...] [Page 17] [...] [Page 18] 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.Of the Sa­crament, lib. 6. ca. 1.

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 17•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.

[Page 19] 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; De Sac [...]am. Eucharist. lib. 4. cap. 25. in sinc. 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 of Iohannes a Lova­nio, whose opinion Bellarmine confesseth to be very [Page 20] 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 d [...]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 [Page 21] 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;Lib. 1. de Missi. cap. 14. 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, bo [...]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,Com. in locum. and [Page 22] to him do the Divines of Collen in their Antididagma firmly adhere; De Miss [...] Sacrificio. 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 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.

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 no [...] a Sacrifice properly so called. I will take them in their order.

‘First then for Irenaeus, Lib. 4. cap. 34. look on him (saith the Doctor, and he will tell you, that there were Sa­crifices in the Jewish Church, and Sacrifices in the [Page 23] 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 e [...]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 Bre [...]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. I

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.’ De demonst. Evingel. li [...]. 1. And having culled out from Eusebius what [Page 24] he conceived most advantageous for his own pur­pose in conclusion, he 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 [...]. 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. S [...]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.’

[Page 25] 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 [...], 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.

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, [Page 26] 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 tha [...] 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 t [...]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 [Page 27] Sacrificing power, not so much as the least syllable: which had been a very strange and unpardonable ne [...]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;Fr. Mason of the con­secration of Bishops in the Church of England. 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 [Page 28] 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; [...]. 5. p 6. 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,Heb [...]. a King first of righteousnesse, then of [Page 29] 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;Heb. 7. 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, Lib 5 cap. 78. 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, [Page 30] 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 J [...]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 [Page 31] Ghost throughout the Body of the New Testa­ment, making so much mention of them, doth not any where 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.

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, [Page 32] 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 r [...]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 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,Art. 28. 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 [Page 33] 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:Part. 1 ‘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, [Page 34] 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,Pag. 198. 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 [Page 35] 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 [Page 36] 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 [Page 37] 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 S [...]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, [Page 38] 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 af [...]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 [Page 39] 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 S [...]crifice properly so called, or that the Sacrifice thus offred by them, both [...]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 [Page 40] 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.

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,Answ. to P [...]rron c. 6. 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. Re [...]p. ad Card Be [...]l. cap. 8. 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 [Page 41] agree (saith he) about the matter of the Sacrifice,Answ. to Perron. cap. 7. 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 theL De civitate Dei lib. 17. cap. 20. 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 [Page 42] learned Bishop, is taken from his answer to Bellar­m [...]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 [Page 43] 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, M as then the Altar is by the Pr [...]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 Cr [...]sse, but subjective­ly, that is properly, it cannot be so called.

‘As Bishop Andrews wrote at King Iames his mo­tion, against Car [...]inall Bellarmine (saith the Doctor) so Isaac Casaubon, writ King Iames his minde to Cardinall Perron, and in expressing his minde [Page 44] affirmeth,E [...]ist. ad Card. Per­ron. 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 [...] nominasset, continuo subjungit, sive explicationis, sive correctionis leco [...] 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 [Page 45] interpreter of Scripture among the Greek Fathers.

‘The next testimony is taken from Archbishop Cranmer, Defence of his fisth Book a­gainst Gar­diner. 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 any where 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, [...]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 i [...]formers;Cap. 29. 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 [Page 46] 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 an swer 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 Euch [...]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 [Page 47] 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.

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.

[Page 49] 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 deni (que) 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 1 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 2 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 exhibendum, non ut significent tanquam factum, nam repraesentare illud ut factum est Sacramentum celebrare non Sacrificiū offerre. Non denique ut agant quod actum fuit ab ipso Christo seip­sum offerente, nam hoc & mutile esset si fieret, & plane im­possibile est ut fiat. Hactenus igitur in missa Pontificia, neque Sacrificium propriè dictum, ne (que) Sacerdotem, ne (que) actionem ipsam Sacrificandi, vel ipsi missarum opifices osten­dere potuerunt.

Doctor Hall Lord Bishop of Exeter in his Book, intituled No peace with Rome. Sect. 9.

What opposition is there betwixt the order of Melchisedech and Aaron, betwixt Christ and the Priests of the old Law, if this office do equally passe and descend in a long pedigree of mortall suc­cessors? or why were the legall Sacrifices of the Jewish Synagogue so oft repeated, but because they were not perfect? And how can or why should that which is most absolutely perfect, be reiterated?

What can either be spoken or conceived more plainly then those words of God. Once offred, One Sacrifice, One oblation, And yet these popish shave­lings (devout men) take upon them to Crucifie and Sacrifice Christ again.

We will remember the holy Sacrifice of Christ (as Cassander well advises) and celebrate it with a thankfull heart, we will not repeat it; We will gladly receive our Saviour offred by himself to his father, and offred to us by his father, we will not offer him to his father; which one point, whilest we stick at (as we needs must) we are straight stricken with the thunderbolt of the Anathema of Trent; Here can be therefore no possibility of peace.

Doctor Abbot late Lord Bishop of Sarisbury, and publike Professor of Divinity, in the Vniversity of Oxford in his Counterproof, against Doctor Bishops reproof of the defence of the Reformed Catholike. Cap. 14. pag. 364.

It is truely said by Cyprian, that the Passion of Christ is the Sacrifice which we offer, and because the Passion of Christ is not now really acted, there­fore the Sacrifice which we offer, is no true and reall Sacrifice. Now therefore the oblation of the Altar, [Page 51] of which S. Augustine speaketh hath no reference to the Masse, which they hold to be a proper and reall Sacrifice.

But now strange it should seem,Pag. 365. that the Apostle in those words should be thought to have any inten­tion of the Sacrifice of the Masse, who in the Epi­stle to the Hebrews (if it were he) whilest he destroy­eth the Jewish Priesthood, for the advancing of the Priesthood of Christ, argueth impregnably to the disavowing of all reall Sacrifice thenceforth in the Church of Christ. Whilest he affirmeth but one Priest in the New Testament, insteed of many in the old, he absolutely taketh away all the ranke and succession of popish Priests.

Doctor Bilson late Lord Bishop of Winchester in his Book of the true difference between Christian subjection, and unchristian rebellion, the 4 Part. P. 691.

If the death of Christ be the Sacrifice which the Church offreth, it is evident that Christ is not onely Sacrificed at this Table, but also crucified, and cru­fied in the self same sort and sense that he is Sacri­ficed, but no man is so mad to defend, that Christ is really put to death in these Mysteries, Ergo nei­ther is he really Sacrificed under the formes of Bread and Wine.

His reasons why we do not use the word S [...]crifice so often as the Fathers did, Pag. 702.

There are reasons why we do not think our selves bound, to take up the freq [...]ent use of their terms in that point, as we see you do, for first they be such words as Christ and his Apostles did forbear, and therefore our faith may stand without them. Next they be dark, and obscure speeches, wholly depen­ding [Page 52] on the nature and signification of Sacraments. Thirdly, we finde by experience before our eyes how their phrases have entangled your senses, whiles you greedily pursued the words, and omitted the rules which should have mollified and directed the letter: These causes make us the waryer, and the willinger to keep us to the words of the holy Ghost, though the Fathers applications, if you there with­all take their expositions, do but in other terms teach that which we receive and confesse to be true.

Bishop Jewell the Iewell of Bishops, in defence of his 17. Article, which Book is by publique authority to be kept in every Church.

Even so S. Ambrose saith Christ is offred here on earth,Pag. 424. (not really and indeed, as Master Harding saith) but in like sort and sense, as S. Iohn saith, the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world that is, not substantially, or in reall manner, but in significati­on in a Mystery, and in a figure.

As Christ is neither daily borne of the Virgin Mary, Pag. 427. nor daily crucified, nor daily slain, nor daily riseth from the dead, nor daily suffereth, nor daily dyeth, but onely in a certain manner of speech, not verily and indeed, even so Christ is daily Sacrificed onely in a certain manner of speech, and in a My­stery, but really, verily, and indeed, he is not Sacrificed.

Archiepiscopus Spalatensis, while he was ours, that is while he was himself, de rep. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 6.

Nobis satis est apud Chrysostomum,Pag. 204. Eucharistiam in se continere Sacrificium quoddam commemorativum, ac conse­quenter in ea non fieri verum Sacrificium.

Confirmat haec omnia Bellarminus ex eo quod in EcclesiaPag. 280. [Page 53] antiquus sit usus & nomen altarium altare vero & Sacrifici­um sunt correlativa.] Respondeo quale Sacrificium tale Al­tare, Sacrificium impropriè, Altare impropriè.

Esse verum Sacrificium nunquam usque ad postrema cor rupta saecula invenio aut dictum,Pag 281. aut cogitatum, aut traditum aut practicatum in Ecclesia.

Doctor Rainolds, professor of Divinity, extraor­dinary in the University of Oxford, in his Conference with Hart. c. 8. divis. 4.

Sith the Sacrifice offered in the Masse, is a true and proper Sacrifice (as you define it) and that of the Fathers is not a true Sacrifice, but called so im­properly, it remaineth to be concluded that the Fa­thers, neither said Masse, nor were Masse Priests.

Laurence Humphrey, Doctor of the Chair in Oxford in his answer to Campian de conciliis, P. 424.

Quale est Sacrificium, talis est sacerdos, qualis sacerdos tale esse debet Altaere, sive de Christo propriè loquamur, sive de nobis Christianis impropriè.

De Sacrarum literarum sententia, Pag. 155.

Sacramentum propriè ab omnibus, metaphoricè à nonnullis Patribus Sacrificium nuncupatur.

Doctor Field Dean of Glocester in his Appendix to his third Book of the Church. Pag. 207.

Christ was Sacrificed on the Crosse, when he was Crucified and cruelly put to death of the Jews; but how he should now be really Sacrificed, Sacrificing implying in it a destruction of the thing Sacrificed, it is very hard to conceive.

Doctor Crakanthorp in his answer to Spa­lat [...]nsis. Cap. 74.

Sed nec omnino v [...]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 i [...] contrary to the Scripture, that ma­keth this difference between the Law and the Go­spel, that then there were many Priests, because they [Page 55] 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,Reas. 4. 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 [Page 56] 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.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.