thus epitomizeth him So that we see saith he that in this Sacrifice prescribed the Christian Church by our Lord and Saviour there were two proper and distinct actions the first is to celebrate the memoriall of our Saviours Sacrifice which he intituleth the commemoration of his Body and Bloud once offred or the memory of that his Sacrifice that is as he doth clearly expound himself that we should offer {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} This our Commemoration for a Sacrifice The second that we should offer to him the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which is the reasonable Sacrifice of a Christian man and to him most acceptable finally he joynes both together in the conclusion of that Book and therein doth at full describe the nature of this Sacrifice which is this as followeth Therefore saith he we Sacrifice and offer as it were with incense the memory of that great Sacrifice celebrating the same according to the mysteries by him given unto us and giving thanks to him for our salvation with godly Hymnes and Prayers to the Lord our God as also offering our whole selves both soul and body and to his High Priest which is the Word Sâ—e here saith the Doctor Eusebius doth not call it onely the memory or Commemoration of Christs Sacrifice but makes the very memory and Commemoration in and of it self to be a Sacrifice which instar omnium for and in the place of all other Sacrifices we are to offer to our God and offer with the incense of our Prayers and praises In this discourse out of Eusebius the Doctor foreseeing that what he had alleaged did not reach home to his purpose endeavours to make it up by the addition of this last clause as if Eusebius made the memory or commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ to be in and of it felf a Sacrifice and this he would collect from these words of his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which he translates for and as a Sacrifice whereas both Bishop Bilson and Doctor Raynolds and others of our best learned Divines translate it insteed of a Sacrifice Now that which is insteed of a Sacrifice cannot be indeed and of it self properly so called And besides how we should be said to offer up our Commemoration for a Sacrifice as the Doctor affirmeth I cannot understand since k Commemoration is an action and being so it cannot as I conceive in propriety of speech be the thing Sacrificed which must of necessity be a substance as it stands in opposition to accidents so that if neither the sanctification of the Creature nor the Commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ nor the offering up of our selves or praise and thanksgiving can amount to a Sacrifice properly so called surely the Doctor hath not yet found it in the Fathers but will be forced to make a new search for the finding of it CHAP. V. Whether the Eucharist be a Sacrifice properly so called by the Doctrine and practise of the Church of England and first by the Book of Ordination THis the Doctor undertakes to prove from the Book of Ordination from the Book of Articles from the Book of Homilies and lastly from the Common-prayer Book His proof from the Book of Ordination is that he who is admitted to holy orders is there cal'd a Priest as also in the Liturgy and Rubricks of it For answer whereunto we grant that he is so called indeed but had it been intended that he were properly so called no doubt but in the same Book we should have found a power of Sacrificing conferred upon him And in very truth a stronger argument there cannot be that our Church admits not of any Sacrifice or Priesthood properly so called for that we finde not in thaâ— Book any power of sacrificing conferred upon him who receives the order of Priesthood no nor so much as the name of any Sacrifice in any sense therein once mentioned Read tâ—orow the admonition the interrogations the prayers the benediction but above all the form it self in the collation of that sacred order and not a word is there to be seen of Sacrificing or Offring or Altar or any such matter The form it self of Ordination runnes thus Receive the holy Ghost whose sinnes thou doest forgive they are forgiven and whose sinnes thou doest retain they are retained and be thou a faithfull dispencer of the Word of God and his holy Sacraments In the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Amen Then the Bishop shall deliver to every one of them the Bible in his hand saying Take thou authority to preach the Word of God and to Minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation where thou shalt be appointed Here we have a power given him of forgiving and retaining of sinnes of preaching of the Word and administring the holy Sacraments but of any Sacrificing power not so much as the least syllable which had been a very strange and unpardonable neâ—lect had the Church intended by the form expressed in that Book to make them Priests properly so called This indeed the Romanists quarrell at as being a main defect in our Church but the learned Champion of it and our holy orders hath in my judgement fully answered that crimination of theirs and withall clearly opened the point in what sense we are in that Book of Ordination called Priests If you mean saith he no more by Priest then the holy Ghost doth by Presbyter that is a Minister of the New Testament then we professe and are ready to prove that we are Priests as we are called in the Book of Common-prayer and the form of ordering because we receive in our ordination authority to preach the Word of God and to Minister his holy Sacraments Secondly if by Priests you mean Sacrificing Priests and would expound your selves of spirituall Sacrifices then as this name belongeth to all Christians so it may be applyed by an excellency to the Ministers of the Gospel Thirdly although in this name you have relation to bodily Sacrifices yet even so we be called Priests by way of allusion For as Deacons are not of the Tribe of Levi yet the ancient Fathers do commonly call them Levites alluding to their office because they come in place of Levites so the Ministers of the New Testament may be called Sacrificers because they succeed the sonnes of Aaron and come in place of Sacrificers Fourthly for as much as we have authority to Minister the Sacraments and consequently the Eucharist which is a representation of the Sacrifice of Christ therefore we may be said to offer Christ in a Mystery and to Sacrifice him objectively by way of Commemoration In all these respects we may rightly and truely be called Priests as also because to us it belongeth and to us alone to consecrate the Bread and Wine to holy uses to offer up the prayers of the people and to blesse them yet in all these respects the speech is but
figurative and consequently our Priesthood and Sacrifices cannot be proper Now for the Liturgy it is true that the Minister is there likewise sometimes called a Priest and as true it is that sometimes also he hath the name of a Minister there given him but the Lords Table though it be there often named is never called an Altar nor the Sacrament in which he represents and commemorates the death of Christ is in that respect so much as once called a Sacrifice muchlesse properly so termed as will appear when we come to examine the Doctors arguments for a Sacrifice drawn from that Book In the mean time I must professe I cannot but wonder that the Doctor should derive our Priesthood from Melchisedech I had thought the Priesthood which we have had been derived from the high Priest of the New Testament who indeed is called a Priest after the order of Melchisedech not because he derived it from Melchisedech God forbid we should so conceive but because of the resemblances which he had to and with Melchisedech as that he was not onely a Priest but a King a King first of righteousnesse then of peace without Father without Mother having neither beginning of dayes nor end of life Thus was our Saviour a Priest after the order of Melchisedech as his own Apostle interprets it so as if we will challenge to our selves a Priesthood after his order we must likewise be Kings as he was without Father without Mother without beginning of daies or end of life as he was which will prove I doubt too hard a task for any man to make good The Romanists indeed assume to themselves a Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech though from Melchisedech I do not finde that they derive it but that any of the reformed Churches besides our Doctor hath done either of these I do not yet finde nor I dare say the Doctor himself will ever be able to finde it I will conclude this point touching the Priesthood of our Church with the observable words of profound Hooker who was well known to be no enemy thereunto Because saith he the most eminent part both of Heathenish and Jewish service did consist in Sacrifice when learned men declare what the word Priest doth properly signifie according to the minde of the first imposer of the name their ordinary Scholies do well expound it to imply Sacrifice seeing then that Sacrifice is now no part of the Church Ministry how should the name of Priesthood be thereunto rightly applyed Surely even as S. Paul applyeth the name of flesh unto that very substance of fishes which hath a proportionable correspondence to flesh although it be in nature another thing whereupon when Philosophers will speak warily they make a difference betwixt flesh in one sort of living creatures and that other substance in the rest which hath but a kinde of Analogy to flesh The Apostle contrariwise having matter of greater importance whereof to speak nameth them indifferently both flesh The Fathers of the Church with like security of speech call usually the Ministery of the Gospel Priesthood in regard of that which the Gospel hath proportionable to ancient Sacrifices namely the Communion of the blessed Body and Bloud of Christ although it have properly now no Sacrifice As for the People when they hear the name it draweth no more their mindes to any cogitation of Sacrifice then the name of a Senator or of an Alderman causeth them to think upon old age or to imagine that every one so termed must needs be ancient because yeers were respected in the first nomination of both Wherefore to passe by the name let them use what dialect they will whether we call it a Priesthood or a Presbytership or a Ministery it skilleth not although in truth the word Presbyter doth seeme more fit and in propriety of speech more agreeable then Priest with the drift of the whole Gospel of Jâ—sus Christ for what are they that imbrace the Gospel but Sonnes of God What are Churches but his families Seeing then we receive the adoption and state of Sonnes by their Ministery whom God hath chosen out for that purpose seeing also that when we are the Sonnes of God our continuance is still under their care which were our Progenitors what better title could there be given them then the reverend name of Presbyters or fatherly guides The holy Ghost throughout the Body of the New Testament making so much mention of them doth not anywhere call them Priests The Prophet Isaiah I grant doth but in such sort as the ancient Fathers by way of Analogy A Presbyter according to the proper meaning of the New Testament is he unto whom our Saviour hath committed the power of spirituall procreation By which learned discourse of this venerable man and as the Doctor himself somewhere calls him incomparable now a blessed Saint in Heaven it evidently appears that he held both a Sacrifice and a Priesthood in the Church but neither of them in a proper signification and consequently in his opinion the Doctor hath gained little to his purpose from the Book of ordination and surely as little I presume will he gain from that which follows and comes now to be examined CHAP. VI Whether the Book of Articles the Book of Homilies or the Common-prayer Book afford the Doctor such proofes as he pretends TWo wayes there are saith he by which the Church declares her self in the present businesse first positively in the Book of Articles and that of Homilies and practically in the Book of Common prayers First in the Book of Articles the offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption propitiation and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world both originall and actuall and there is no other satisfaction for sin but that alone This Sacrifice or oblation once for ever made and never more to be repeated was by our Saviours own appointment to be commemorated and represented to us for the better quickening of our Faith whereof if there be nothing said in the Book of Articles it is because the Articles râ—lated chiefly to points in controversie but in the Book of Homilies c. Thus the Doctor Why but he had told us before that the Church declares her self positively in the Book of Articles touching this present businesse and now when we expected the declaration to be made good he puts us over to the Book of Homilies and yet had he gone on in that very Article by him alleaged he should there have found somewhat against Popish Sacrifices which that Article calls or rather our Church by that Article blasphemous Fables and dangerous deceits Nay the very first words vouched by the Doctor out of the Article are in my judgement sufficient to cut the throat of any other Sacrifice of Christ or any Christian Sacrifice properly so called For if the offring of Christ once made be perfect it cannot be again reiterated commemorated it may be and
exhibendum non ut significent tanquam factum nam repraesentare illud ut factum est Sacramentum celebrare non SacrificiuÌ„ 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 nequeSacerdotem neque 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 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 Sâ—crifice so often as the Fathers did Pag. 702. There are reasons why we do not think our selves bound to take up the freqâ—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 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 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 Eucharistiam in se continere Sacrificium quoddam commemorativum ac consequenter in ea non fieri verum Sacrificium Confirmat haec omnia Bellarminus ex eo quod in Ecclesia 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 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 Spalatâ—nsis
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 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}
of Iohannes a Lovanio whose opinion Bellarmine confesseth to be very probable that which followeth in the same place I take to be his own Et praeterea idem planum fieri potest ex instituto proposito B. Pauli nam Apostolus eo loco emendabat errorem Corinthiorum Corinthii autem non errabant in consecratione sed in Sumptione quia non dâ—bita reverentia sumebant quare accommodat ca verba ad suum usum ac docet Christum praecepisse ut actio caenae celebraretur in memoriam passionis ideo attente reverenter sumenda esse tanta mysteria By all which it appears that neither the words of institution Hoc facite are sufficient to ground the Priesthood and power of Sacrificing upon them nor yet that they are to be restrained to the Clergy as the Doctor would have it Nay those words of the Apostle which he brings as a commentary upon the words of institution to clear the point do indeed prove the contrary And if we should grant that which he demands that Hoc facite were to be referred onely to the actions of Christ himself and directed onely to the Apostles and their Successours yet it must first be proved that Christ himself in the institution of the Sacrament did withall offer a Sacrifice properly so called which for any thing that appeares in the text cannot be gathered from any speech which he then uttered or action which he did or gesture which he used That he consecrated the Elements of Bread and Wine to a mysticall use as also that he left the power of consecration onely to his Apostles and their Successours we willingly grant but that at his last Supper he either offered Sacrifice himself or gave them commission so to do that as yet rests to be proved Neither do I yet see what the Doctor will make to be the Subject of his Sacrifice either Bread and Wine or his own Body and Bloud if the former he will for any thing I know stand single if the latter in a proper sense he will be forced to joyn hands with Rome and so fall into a world of absurdities Lastly whereas the Doctor disputes wholly for a commemorative Sacrifice that if our Saviour could not be so in as much as Commemoration implies a calling to remembrance of a thing past but his Sacrifice upon the Crosse which we now commemorate was then to come Prefigurative it might be Commemorative it could not be The Doctor goes on and confidently assures us that S. Paul in whom we finde both the Priest and the Sacrifice will help us to an Altar also and to that purpose referres us to the last to the Hebrews Habemus Altare We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat that serve the Tabernacle An Altar saith he in relation to the Sacrifice which is there commemorated But his passage of the Apostle Bellarmine himself hath so little confidence in and so weak authority to back it as he forbears to presse it And truely I think had the Doctor himself read on and well considered the next verses he would never have urged it to that purpose which here he doth Aquinas his exposition in his commentaries upon the place is in my judgement boâ—h easie and pertinent Istud Altare vel est crux Christi in qua Christus immolatus est vel ipse Christus in quo per quem preces nostras offerimus hoc est Altare aureum de quo Apoc. 8. To him doth Estius the Jesuite strongly incline and to him do the Divines of Collen in their Antididagma firmly adhere which notwithstanding some there are I confesse who understand the words of the Apostle to be meant of the Lords Table which I grant may be called an Altar but whether in a proper sense it be so called by the Apostle in the passage h alleaged that is the question and I have not yet met with any who in full and round terms hath so expressed himself And till that be sufficiently proved the Apostles Altar cannot certainly prove a Priesthood and Sacrifice properly so called CHAP. IV. Whether the Authority of the Fathers alleaged by the Doctor prove the Eucharist a Sacrifice properly so called THe Doctor from the Scriptures where in my poor judgement he hath found very little help for the maintenance of his cause comes in the next place to the authority of the Fathers some of which are Counterfeits and the greatest part by him vouched as by him they are alleaged speak onely of Sacrifices Priests and Altars but in what sense it appears not whereas the question is not of the name but of the nature of these Now among those Fathers whom he names two there are and but two who speak home to the nature thereof Irenaeus and Euscbius yet both of them speak even by the Doctors pen in such sort as a man may thereby discern they intended noâ— a Sacrifice properly so called I will take them in their order First then for Irenaeus look on him saith the Doctor and he will tell you that there were Sacrifices in the Jewish Church and Sacrifices in the Christian Church and that the kinde or species was onely altered The kinde or nature of which Christian Sacrifice he tels us of in the same Chapter viz. that it is an Eucharist a tender of our gratitude to Almighty God for all his blessings and a sanctifying of the Creature to spirituall uses Offerimus ei non quasi indigenti sed gratias agentes donatione eâ—us Sanctificantes Creaturam In this we have the severall and distinct offices which before we spake of Sanctificatio Creaturae a blessing of the Bread for Bread it is he speaks of for holy uses which is the office of the Priest no man ever doubted it and then a Gratiarum actio a giving of thanks unto the Lord for his marvellous benefits which is the office both of Priest and people the sanctifying of the Creature and glorifying of the Creator do both relate unto Offerimus and that unto the Sacrifices which are therein treated of by that holy Father Hitherto the Doctor in his allegation of Irenaeus But is any man so weak as from hence to inferre a Sacrifice properly so called The sanctifying or blessing or consecrating of the Breâ—d to holy uses we all grant to be the proper office of the Priest or Presbyter and the giving of thanks common to him and the people but that either of these is a Sacrifice properly so called that we deny and i desire to see proved The other of the two before named is Eusebius upon whose testimony the Doctor largely insists for that we cannot take saith he a better and more perfect view thereof then from him who hath been more exact herein then any other of the ancients And having culled out from Eusebius what he conceived most advantageous for his own purpose in conclusion he
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 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 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 fâ—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 Aquâ—nas Omnes tenentur aliquod interius Sacrificium Deo offerre devotam videlicet mentem exterius Sacrificium eorum ad quae ex praecepto tenentur sive sint vâ—rtutum actus sive certae dâ—termâ—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 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 I take to be sound Deus qui primus sine dubio inspiravit Abeli aliis sanctis viris usum Sacrificiorum voluit per ea Sacrificia SacrificinÌ„ omniuÌ„ 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 sâ—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