CHAP. I. Of the defects of the Doctors diſcourſe, of this Subject.

TWo things me thinks I finde wanting in this his diſcourſe, whereof the one is the definition of a Sacrifice, Properly ſo called, the other is how it can properly be termed a Sacrifice, and yet be onely commemorative, or repreſentative as he cals it.

Touching the firſt of theſe, unleſſe the thing be firſt defined, whereof men diſpute, all their diſputation muſt needs prove fruitleſſe in the end, this then becauſe the Doctor hath omitted, I will indeavour to finde out the definition of a Sacrifice Properly ſo called. Saint Auguſtine in his 10. Book de Civit. Dei and 6. cap. teacheth that, Verum ſacrificium eſt omne opus quod agitur ut ſancta ſocietate inhaereamus Deo relatum ſcilicet ad illum finem boni, quo veraciter beati eſſe poſsimus. Where by verum I do not beleeve that he underſtands a truth of propriety, but of excellency, and ſo much I think will eaſily appear by thoſe words of his in the Chapter going before. Illud quod ab hominibus appellatur Sacrificium, ſignum eſt veri Sacrificii, where undoubtedly by the true Sacrifice he underſtands either the inward Sacrifice of the heart, or the Sacrifice of religious actions flowing from thence, which he makes to be the true Sacrifice in regard of excellency, though improperly ſo called, and the outward Sacrifice to be but a ſigne of this, though Properly ſo called; In which regard Bellarmine in his firſt Book de Miſſa, and ſecond Chapter rejects this definition, or rather deſcription, as not agreeing to a Sacrifice Properly ſo called, which he proves by many reaſons, and thereupon brings another of his own which is this, Sacrificium eſt oblatio externa facta ſoli Dea, qua ad agnitionem humanae infirmitatis & profeſsionem divinae majeſtatis à legitimo miniſtrores aliqua ſenſibilis & permanens ritu myſtico conſecratur & tranſmutatur. The particular parts of this definition he afterwards explicates, and tels us that the laſt word tranſmutatur is therefore added, Quia ad verum Sacrificium requiritur, ut id quod offertur Deoin 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, things without life, if they were ſolid, were burnt, if liquid, powred forth and ſpilt.

Now this ground being thus laid, I would willingly learn of the Doctor what ſenſible thing it is in his Sacrifice, which is thus deſtroyed or conſumed in regard of the being or ſubſtance thereof.

a He muſt of neceſſity anſwer (as I conceive) that either it is the elements of bread and wine, or the ſacred Body and Bloud of Chriſt; but how the bread and wine may be ſaid to be conſumed in regard of their ſubſtance, without admitting tranſubſtantiation I cannot imagine, unleſſe perchance he will ſay that it is by eating the one, and drinking the other; but theſe being acts common to the people, with the Prieſt, if the eſſence and perfection of the Sacrifice ſhould conſiſt in this, he will be forced to admit of ſo many Sacrificers, as there are Communicants, which I preſume he will not acknowledge. And if he will have it ſtand in the eating and drinking of the Prieſt alone, in caſe he ſhould put it up again before it be conſumed, the Sacrifice muſt needs be fruſtrated, and if he keep it within him, and ſo conſume it by digeſtion, the Altar will rather be his ſtomack, then the Lords Table.

Beſides, the Sacrifice of Chriſtians properly ſo called, being but one, and that by many degrees more noble and excellent then any, either before or under the law, b if Bread and Wine were the Subject matter thereof, it would both overthrow the unity of the Sacrifice, in as much as both theſe are often renewed, and in it ſelf be of leſſe valew and dignity then many of the Jewiſh Sacrifices, which I think the Doctor will not grant. But happily he will ſay that thoſe elements, though in themſelves they be of no great value, yet in regard of myſticall ſignification, they farre excell the Sacrifices of the Jews. Whereunto I anſwer, that thoſe of the Jews beſides, that they were Sacrifices indeed properly ſo called, in themſelves they had the ſame ſignification, and were chiefly to that end ordained by the Author of them, the main difference being, that they looked unto Chriſt to come, but we unto the ſame Chriſt already come, by meanes whereof our happineſſe is that, that now by Gods bleſſing we need no Sacrifices properly ſo called, but reſt onely and wholly upon that all-ſufficient Sacrifice which he once for all offred up for us.

It remaines then that if the Bread and Wine be not the Subject matter of this Sacrifice, the Body and Bloud of Chriſt muſt be, and that not ſymbolically, but properly, otherwiſe the Sacrifice it ſelf cannot be proper, which aſſertion will of neceſſity inferre either the tranſubſtantiation of the Pontiſicians or the c conſubſtantiation of the Ubiquitaries. And again, If the Body and Bloud of Chriſt be the ſubject matter of the Sacrifice, it muſt be viſibly and ſenſibly there, according to Bellarmines own definition before laid down; Neither will it ſuffice to ſay (as he doth) that it is viſible under the ſpecies of Bread and Wine, for ſo it may be viſible to the faith of thoſe that beleeve it, but to the ſenſe (which is the thing he requires as a neceſſary condition in a Sacrifice properly ſo called) it is not viſible. Neither can that be ſaid properly viſible, which is not ſo in it ſelf, but in another thing, for then the ſoul might be ſaid to be viſible, though it be onely ſeen in the body, and not in it ſelf; nay, the ſoul might better be ſaid to be ſeen in the body, then the body of Chriſt in the bread, in as much as the ſoul is the eſſentiall form of the body, but I truſt they will not ſay, that the Body of Chriſt is ſo in regard of the accidents of bread.

Laſtly, how the Body and Bloud of Chriſt may be truely, and properly ſaid ſo to be conſumed, ut planè deſtruatur, ut deſinat eſſe id quod ante erat, ut ſubſtantia conſumatur, (which the Cardinall likewiſe requires in his Sacrifice properly ſo called)d for my part I muſt profeſſe, I cannot poſſibly underſtand, for to ſay as he doth, that the Body of Chriſt is conſumed in the Sacrifice not ſecundum eſſe naturale, but Sacramentale, cannot reach to his phraſe of planè deſtruitur, ſubſtantia conſumitur, as any weak Scholler may eaſily diſcern, and in truth he doth in the explication of this point (touching the eſſence of this Sacrifice, wherein it conſiſts, and the manner of conſuming the Body of Chriſt therein) ſo double and ſtagger as a man may well ſee he was much perplexed therein,Lib. 1. de Miſsa cap. 27. wandring up and down in a labarynth, not knowing which way to get out, and ſo e I leave him.

The other defect which I finde in the Doctors diſcourſe, touching this point is, that he doth not ſhew us how a commemorative, or repreſentative Sacrifice (as he every where termes it) is a Sacrifice properly ſo called. This propoſition that the Euchariſt is a commemorative Sacrifice properly ſo called, I ſhall eaſily grant if the Word properly be referred to the adjunct not to the Subject. Commemorative it is properly called, but improperly a Sacrifice. And herein I think do all writers agree, as well Romiſh as Reformed (I mean that it is a Sacrifice Commemorative) and therefore Bellarmine diſputes the point in no leſſe then 27. Chapters of his firſt Book de Miſſa, againſt the Reformed Divines to prove that it is a Sacrifice properly ſo called, and yet acknowledgeth that his adverſaries confeſſe it to be a Sacrifice Commemorative, but himſelf and his adherents, though together with the Proteſtants they acknowledge it to be a Sacrifice Commemorative, yet they reſt not in that, becauſe they knew full well, it was not ſufficient to denominate it a proper Sacrifice. And in very truth it ſtands with great reaſon that the Commemoration or repreſentation of a thing ſhould be both in nature and propriety of ſpeech diſtinct from the thing it commemorates or repreſents; As for the purpoſe, he who repreſents a King upon the ſtagef, is commonly called a King, yet in propriety of ſpeech he cannot be ſo tearmed, unleſſe he likewiſe be a King in his own perſon; And therefore it is that we confeſſe the Jewiſh Sacrifices to be properly ſo termed, becauſe they were not onely prefigurative of the Sacrifice of Chriſt upon the Croſſe, but were really and abſolutely ſo in themſelves, and if this could once be ſoundly demonſtrated of the Euchariſt, the controverſie would ſoon be at an end, but till then in ſaying we have a repreſentative Sacrifice can no more prove it to be a Sacrifice properly ſo called, then the prefiguration of the Jewiſh Sacrifices without any further addition could prove them ſo to be, which I preſume no Divine will take upon him to maintain.

Now that which confirmes me herein is that both the maſter of the Sentences, and Aquinas, the two great leaders of the Schoolemen terming the Euchariſt a commemorative, withall they held it to be an improper Sacrifice, and to this purpoſe they both alleage the authorities of the Fathers; which makes me beleeve that they conceived the Fathers, who in their writings frequently call it a Sacrifice to be underſtood and interpreted in that ſenſe; The former of them in his 4. Book and 12. deſtinction makes the queſtion, Quaeritur ſi quod gerit ſacerdos propriè dicatur Sacrificium vel immolatio, & ſi Chriſtus quotidiè immoletur vel ſemel tantum immolatus ſit, to which he briefly anſwers, Illud quod offertur & conſecratur à ſacerdote vocari Sacrificium & oblationem, quia memoria & repraeſentatio veri Sacrificii & ſanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis; which is as much in effect as if he had ſaid it is a commemoration of the true and proper Sacrifice of Chriſt upon the Croſſe, but in it ſelf improperly ſo called, and that this is indeed his meaning it ſufficiently appears throughout that diſtinction.

With Lombard doth Aquinas herein likewiſe accord, Parte. 3. quaeſt. 73. art. 4. in concluſione Euchariſtiae Sacramentum ut eſt dominicae paſsionis commemorativum, Sacrificium nominatur. Where it is obſervable that he ſaith not Sacrificium eſt, but onely nominatur, and what his meaning therein was, appears of that Article which is this. Hostia videtur idem eſſe quod Sacrificium, ſicut ergo non proprie dicitur Sacrificium ita nec proprie dicitur hoſtia. Which though it be an objection, yet he takes it as granted that it is Sacrificium improprie dictum, at leaſtwiſe as it is commemorativum or repreſentativum; and therefore to that objection doth he ſhape this anſwer, Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc Sacramentum dicitur Sacrificium in quantum repraeſentat ipſam paſsionem Chriſti, &c. dicitur autem hoſtia in quantum continet ipſum Chriſtum qui eſt hoſtia ſalutaris.

CHAP. II. Of the Sacrifice pretended to be due by the light of nature.

FRom the defects in the Doctors diſcourſe, we now come to his arguments drawn from the light of nature, from the inſtitution of the Euchariſt, from the authority of the Fathers, from the doctrine and practiſe of the Church of England, and laſtly from the teſtimony of the Writers thereof, I will follow him ſtep by ſtep, and begin firſt with the light of nature, with which he begins his fifth Chapter.

It is (ſaith he) the obſervation of Euſebius, that the Fathers which preceded Moſes, and were quite ignorant of his law, diſpoſed their wayes according to a voluntary kinde of piety, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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.

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 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 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 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 alleaged, that is the queſtion, and I have not yet met with any, who in full and round terms hath ſo expreſſed himſelf; And till that be ſufficiently proved, the Apoſtles Altar cannot certainly prove a Prieſthood, and Sacrifice properly ſo called.

CHAP. IV. Whether the Authority of the Fathers alleaged by the Doctor, prove the Euchariſt, a Sacrifice properly ſo called.

THe Doctor from the Scriptures (where in my poor judgement he hath found very little help for the maintenance of his cauſe) comes in the next place to the authority of the Fathers, ſome of which are Counterfeits, and the greateſt part by him vouched (as by him they are alleaged) ſpeak onely of Sacrifices, Prieſts, and Altars, but in what ſenſe it appears not, whereas the queſtion is not of the name, but of the nature of theſe. Now among thoſe Fathers whom he names, two there are and but two, who ſpeak home to the nature thereof Irenaeus and Euſcbius, yet both of them ſpeak even by the Doctors pen in ſuch ſort, as a man may thereby diſcern they intended 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 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.

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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

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 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 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, 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 himſelf did, he himſelf commanded, and his Apoſtles confirmed. Whereby it ſhould ſeem they held the purpoſe of our Saviours inſtitution, and the practiſe of his Apoſtles to have been, not a Sacrifice properly ſo termed, but onely a Commemoration of his death and paſſion. And this to have been indeed their meaning farther appears toward the latter end of the ſame part of the Homily, where ſpeaking of the death of Chriſt, and the efficacy thereof to the worthy Receiver, they thus go on. Herein thou needſt no other mans help, no other Sacrifice, or oblation, no Sacrificing Prieſt, no Maſſe, no means eſtabliſhed by mans invention. By which it is evident, that they held all other Sacrifices, beſide that of Chriſt himſelf on the Croſſe, and all other Sacrificing Prieſts, beſide Chriſt himſelf to be eſtabliſhed by mans invention, and how the Doctor profeſſing that he offers up a Sacrifice properly ſo called, can poſſibly free himſelf from the title and office of a Sacrificing Prieſt, I muſt profeſſe is beyond the compaſſe of my brain. All which conſidered, I think his ſafer way had been not to have touched upon the Homily, ſpecially conſidering that the Lords Table is there named above or about twenty times, but is not ſo much as once called an Altar. But perchance he will finde ſome better help from the Liturgy, which comes now to be examined.

We will next (ſaith he) look into the agenda, the publike Liturgy of this Church▪ where firſt we finde it granted, that Chriſt our Saviour is the very Paſchall Lamb that was offred for us, and hath taken away the ſinnes of the world, that ſuffering death upon the croſſe for our redemption, he made there of his own oblation of himſelf once offred, a full, perfect and ſufficient Sacrifice, oblation and ſatisfaction, for the ſinnes of the whole world; and to the end that we ſhould alwayes remember the exceeding great love of our Maſter, and onely Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, thus dying for us, and the innumerable benefits which by his pretious bloudſhedding he hath obtained to us, he hath inſtituted and ordained holy Myſteries as pledges of his love, and continuall remembrance of his death, to our great and endleſſe comfort inſtituting, and in his holy Goſpel commanding us to continue a perpetuall memory of that his pretious death, till his coming again.

In which words I do not ſee, what it is that makes for the Doctors purpoſe, but ſomewhat I ſee which makes againſt him; as namely, The Sacrifice of Chriſt upon the Croſſe is full, perfect and ſufficient in it ſelf, which being ſo, ſurely there needs no more Sacrifices, no more Prieſts, no more Altars, properly ſo called; And for the memory or remembrance there mentioned (if I be not much miſtaken) he will never be able thence to inferre ſuch a Sacrifice; and ſurely I think the Church never intended he ſhould.

In the next place he inſtanceth in the conſecration. Then followeth (ſaith he) the conſecration of the Creatures of Bread and Wine, for a remembrance of his death and Paſſion, in the ſame words and phraſes which Chriſt our Saviour recommended unto his Apoſtles, and his Apoſtles, unto the Fathers of the Primitive times, which now as then is to be done onely by the Prieſt, [Then the Prieſt ſtanding up, ſhall ſay as followeth] to whom it properly belongeth, and upon whom his ordination doth conferre a power of miniſtring the 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, 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 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 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,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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nominaſſet, continuo ſubjungit, ſive explicationis, ſive correctionis leco 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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. 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 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 nature, nor by the definition of a Sacrifice, nor by the Inſtitution of our Saviour, nor by the practice of his Apoſtles, nor by the ſuffrage of the Primitive Fathers, nor by the authority of our Church, nor by the teſtimony of the moſt eminent Writers therein, it yet appears, either that our Miniſters are properly called Prieſts, or our Sacrament of the Euchariſt properly a Sacrifice, or our Communion-Table properly an Altar, but rather the contrary that they are all improperly ſo called. Which being ſo, whether the proper ſituation thereof ſhould in congruity be either Table-wiſe for the adminiſtring of a Sacrament, or Altar-wiſe for the offering of a Sacrifice, I leave that to the prudent Governours of our Church, and better judgements than mine own to conſider and determine of.

FINIS.