A DISSERTATION WITH Dr. Heylyn: Touching The pretended SACRIFICE in the EUCHARIST, By George Hakewill, Doctor in Divinity, and Archdeacon of Surrey.  
Published by Authority.  
LONDON, Printed by J. R. for George Thomason, and Octavian Pullen, and are to be sold at the Rose in Paul's churchyard. 1641.   

A DISSERTATION WITH Dr HEYLYN, WHETHER THE EUCHARIST be a Sacrifice, Properly so termed, and that according to the doctrine and practice of the Church of England now in force.  
THis the Doctor, that he may the better defend the situation of the Lord's Table Altarwise, confidently maintaineth in sundry places of his Antidotum Lincolniense. 
Cap. 5. p. 26. cap 6. pag. 44. & 67.  Nay so far he goeth in the maintenance hereof, as if without this nothing else but ruin and confusion, were to be expected in the Church of God. And on the other side I am as confident, that he is the first of the reformed Churches who ever published this Doctrine; nay all Divines of those Churches, as well foreign as our own (whom I have read on that Subject) with one general consent constantly maintain the clean contrary, as I trust I shall make it evidently appear in this ensuing Treatise, wherein I will first show the defects, which I conceive to be in the doctor's discourse, secondly I will endeavour to answer his arguments, and thirdly I will produce such testimonies drawn from the writings of our Divines as make against him.  

CHAP. I.  
Of the defects of the doctor's discourse, of this Subject.  
TWo things methinks I find 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 only commemorative, or representative as he calls it.  
Touching the first of these, unless the thing be first defined, whereof men dispute, all their disputation must needs prove fruitless in the end, this then because the Doctor hath omitted, I will endeavour to find 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 believe 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 sign 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 tells 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 lest 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 only present it unto him, but consume it also. Thus in the levitical law, things sacrificed that had life were killed, things without life, if they were solid, were burnt, if liquid, poured forth and spilled.  
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 blood 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, unless 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 stomach, than the Lord's Table.  
Besides, the Sacrifice of Christians properly so called, being but one, and that by many degrees more noble and excellent than 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 itself be of less value and dignity than 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 mystical signification, they far excel 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 means whereof our happiness is that, that now by God's blessing we need no Sacrifices properly so called, but rest only and wholly upon that all-sufficient Sacrifice which he once for all offered up for us.  
It remains then that if the Bread and Wine be not the Subject matter of this Sacrifice, the Body and blood of Christ must be, and that not symbolically, but properly, otherwise the Sacrifice itself cannot be proper, which assertion will of necessity infer either the transubstantiation of the Pontisicians or the c consubstantiation of the Ubiquitaries. And again, If the Body and blood of Christ be the subject matter of the Sacrifice, it must be visibly and sensibly there, according to Bellarmine's 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 believe 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 itself, but in another thing, for then the soul might be said to be visible, though it be only seen in the body, and not in itself; nay, the soul might better be said to be seen in the body, than the body of Christ in the bread, in as much as the soul is the essential 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 blood of Christ may be truly, and properly said so to be consumed, ut planè destruatur, ut desinat esse id quod ante erat, ut substantia consumatur, (which the Cardinal likewise requires in his Sacrifice properly so called) d for my part I must profess, 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 scholar 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.  wandering up and down in a labyrinth, not knowing which way to get out, and so e I leave him.  
The other defect which I find in the doctor's discourse, touching this point is, that he doth not show us how a commemorative, or representative Sacrifice (as he everywhere terms 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 less than 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 confess 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 termed, unless he likewise be a King in his own person; And therefore it is that we confess the Jewish Sacrifices to be properly so termed, because they were not only prefigurative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, but were really and absolutely so in themselves, and if this could once be soundly demonstrated of the Eucharist, the controversy 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, than 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 confirms me herein is that both the master of the Sentences, and Aquinas, the two great leaders of the schoolmen terming the Eucharist a commemorative, withal they held it to be an improper Sacrifice, and to this purpose they both allege the authorities of the Fathers; which makes me believe 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. distinction 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 cross, but in itself 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 only 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 doctor's 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 practice 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 ways according to a voluntary kind of piety, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} framing their lives and actions according to the law of nature. Which Words (saith the Doctor) relate not only to their moral conversation as good men, but to their carriage in respect of God's public worship as religious men. But by this gloss I doubt he corrupts the text of the Author, sure I am, the words he allegeth out of him do not reach home to his interpretation, neither do I think it can be maintained, or that it was the mind of Eusebius, that the Patriarchs before Moses worshipped God, according to a voluntary kind of piety. Which is by the Apostle in express terms condemned, Col. 2. 23. and if their worship had relation to the Messiah 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 supernatural illumination could not direct them to the Messiah. 
Ioh. 8, 56.  It is indeed said of Abraham, that he saw the day of Christ and rejoiced, no doubt but the same might as truly be verified of all the other believing patriarchs, as well before, as after him; But that either he or they saw Christ's day by the light of nature, that shall I never believe, 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 moral actions they lived according to the light of nature, so in religious they were in a special 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 commandments, and promises of God, it cannot be that their worship should be acceptable unto him without special command from him.  
From the worship of God in general 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 patriarchs before Moses. Now that some kind 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 controversy) 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 offered by the light of nature, whereas of Abel we read, that by faith he offered unto God a more excellent Sacrifice than 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 itself, 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 offering (as in the Text it is) than a Sacrifice properly so termed according to Bellarmine's 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, sacrificin omnium ficiorum praestantissimum adumbrari.  
The Doctors next instance is Noah's Sacrifice, touching which the same may be said as formerly of Abel's, neither indeed can we with reason imagine that God should in other matters by divine inspiration, so particularly instruct him, and leave him only 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 eucharistical Sacrifice, not typical, 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 typical. 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 only well pleased with those which worship him. And again, the text making it by the Doctors own confession an Holocaust or burnt offering which Noah offered, I see not how he can only make it eucharistical, 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. Noah's Sacrifice then being a burnt offering, it could not be merely eucharistical, but I rather believe it might participate somewhat of all three kinds, 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 offered Sacrifice, I make no doubt, but very much doubt whether he offered 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 son of Noah, he hath therein against him, not only the learned Junius, but Lyranus, Tostatus, Genebrard, and the Hebrew Doctors. And again, whereas he seems 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 doctor's 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 civilised) but had Altars, Priests, and Sacrifices as a part thereof, or dependants thereupon. The former part of which position I will not examine, though our planters in Virginia and New-England, can not (as they report) find 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, unless withal 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 tied to offer them only at Jerusalem; nor yet why the Mahometans (who far exceed the Christians in number, and in civility are little inferior to many of them) should use no Sacrifice at all.  
Lastly for the Grecians, Romans, and other nations, who used Sacrifices as the principal 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 Lord's 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 noonday, and to him I refer 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 likelihood 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 gospel, but neither there, nor in the Evangelists do we find any mention at all of either of these; which the Doctor perceiving well enough, goes on from the words of institution, verse. 23, 24, 25. and tells us that if they express 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 eate this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Which words are doubtless directed to all the faithful 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 withal 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 successors 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 only as they are Priests under and of the gospel. 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 only to the Priests who claim that power from the Apostles, on them conferred by their redeemer. Thus he, as if facere and Sacrificare were all one, which indeed some of the Romanists endeavour to prove, but so vainly, so ridiculously, so injuriously to the text, (as my Lord of Duresme hath learnedly showed) 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 jewels 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. Christ's meaning is clear by the words that follow, for he saith not only, do ye this, but he addeth also in my remembrance, which doing pertaineth not only 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 show forth the Lord's death until he come. Likewise Saint Chrysostom (saith he) applieth the same, not only to the Clergy, but also to the whole people of his Church at Antioch.  
And truly 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 find this ground to be so feeble, as by the evidence of truth itself, they are beaten from it, and even forced to forsake it.  
Jansenius 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 tells 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 far the words of Johannes 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 only to the actions of Christ himself, and directed only to the Apostles and their successors, yet it must first be proved that Christ himself in the institution of the Sacrament, did withal offer a Sacrifice properly so called; which for any thing that appears 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 mystical use, as also that he left the power of consecration only to his Apostles and their successors 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 blood; if the former, he will (for any thing I know) stand single; if the latter, in a proper sense, he will be forced to join 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 cross, 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 find both the Priest and the Sacrifice, will help us to an Altar also, and to that purpose refers 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 press it; 
Lib. 1. de Missi. cap. 14.  And truly 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 easy, 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 Jesuit 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 confess, who understand the words of the Apostle to be meant of the Lord's 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 alleged, 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 alleged 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 alleged) speak only 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 doctor's 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 kind or species was only altered, The kind or nature of which Christian Sacrifice, he tells 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 spiritual uses. Offerimus ei non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes donatione e●us, & Sanctificantes Creaturam. In this we have the several and distinct offices, which before we spoke 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 than 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 infer 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 memorial of our saviour's Sacrifice, which he entitleth the commemoration of his Body and blood once offered, 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 joins 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 hymns 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 only the memory or Commemoration of Christ's Sacrifice, but makes the very memory and Commemoration in and of itself 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 alleged, 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 self 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 instead of a Sacrifice. Now that which is instead of a Sacrifice, cannot be indeed, and of itself 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 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 ourselves, 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 practice 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 commonprayer Book.  
His proof from the Book of Ordination, is that he who is admitted to holy orders, is there called a Priest, as also in the Liturgy, and rubrics 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 find 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 itself in the collation of that sacred order, and not a word is there to be seen of Sacrificing, or offering, or Altar, or any such matter; The form itself of Ordination runs thus [Receive the holy Ghost, whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained, and be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and his holy Sacraments, In the name of the Father, and of the son, 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 sins, of preaching of the Word and administering 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 quarrel 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 withal 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, than the holy Ghost doth by Presbyter, that is a Minister of the New Testament, than we profess, and are ready to prove that we are Priests, as we are called in the Book of commonprayer, 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 yourselves of spiritual Sacrifices, then as this name belongeth to all Christians, so it may be applied 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 sons 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 truly 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 bless 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 Lord's 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, much less properly so termed, as will appear when we come to examine the doctor's arguments for a Sacrifice drawn from that Book. In the mean time I must profess 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 only a Priest but a King, 
Heb ●.  a King first of righteousness, then of peace, without Father, without Mother, having neither beginning of days, 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 ourselves a Priesthood after his order, we must likewise be Kings as he was, without Father, without Mother, without beginning of days, 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 find that they derive it) but that any of the reformed Churches; besides our Doctor hath done either of these, I do not yet find, nor I dare say the Doctor himself will ever be able to find 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 signify according to the mind 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 applied? Surely even as S. Paul applieth 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 kind 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 ministry of the Gospel, Priesthood in regard of that which the Gospel hath proportionable to ancient Sacrifices, namely the Communion of the blessed Body and blood of Christ, although it have properly now no Sacrifice. As for the People, when they hear the name, it draweth no more their minds to any cogitation of Sacrifice, than 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 years were respected in the first nomination of both. Wherefore to pass by the name, let them use what dialect they will, whether we call it a Priesthood, or a Presbytership, or a ministry; it skilleth not, although in truth the word Presbyter doth seem more fit, and in propriety of speech more agreeable than Priest, with the drift of the whole Gospel of J●sus Christ, for what are they that embrace the Gospel, but sons of God? What are Churches, but his families? Seeing then we receive the adoption and state of sons by their ministry, whom God hath chosen out for that purpose, seeing also that when we are the sons of God, our continuance is still under their care which were our Progenitors, what better title could there be given them, than 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 spiritual 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 commonprayer Book afford the Doctor such proofs as he pretends.  
TWo ways there are (saith he) by which the Church declares herself in the present business; 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 sins of the whole world both original and actual, 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 saviour's 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 controversy, but in the Book of Homilies, &c. Thus the Doctor.  
Why, but he had told us before, that the Church declares herself positively in the Book of Articles, touching this present business, 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 alleged, 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 offering 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 showed. 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 Christ's 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 blood of Christ properly so termed, can be admitted without the admission of Transubstantiation together with it, I must confess 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 truly, if I be not much mistaken, he will find as little help from these, as from the Articles: That which he allegeth, 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 mankind doth not only 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 merciful work, might be had in continual remembrance, amongst the which means is the public celebration of the memory of his precious death at the Lord's 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 offered, a public celebration of the memory thereof, and a continual 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 itself 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 find 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 only in disavowing, and disallowing it, as may be seen in the Page there following, 
Pag. 198.  part whereof the Doctor taketh for his own purpose, as namely, That the Lord's Supper is in such sort to be done and ministered, 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 practice of the holy Apostles, and usage of the ancient Fathers, will fall within the meaning, and intention of the Church of England. doubtless it will, but that a Sacrifice properly so called, hath been proved to be either the purpose of the institution, or the practice 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) lest of the memory it be made a Sacrifice, lest of a Communion it be made a private eating, lest of two parts, we have but one, least applying it to the dead, we lose 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 Lord's tradition, do that in the Lord's Commemoration, which he himself did, he himself commanded, and his Apostles confirmed. Whereby it should seem they held the purpose of our saviour's institution, and the practice of his Apostles to have been, not a Sacrifice properly so termed, but only 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 man's help, no other Sacrifice, or oblation, no Sacrificing Priest, no mass, no means established by man's invention. By which it is evident, that they held all other Sacrifices, beside that of Christ himself on the cross, and all other Sacrificing Priests, beside Christ himself to be established by man's 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 profess is beyond the compass of my brain. All which considered, I think his safer way had been not to have touched upon the Homily, specially considering that the Lord's Table is there named above or about twenty times, but is not so much as once called an Altar. But perchance he will find some better help from the Liturgy, which comes now to be examined.  
We will next (saith he) look into the agenda, the public Liturgy of this Church▪ where first we find it granted, that Christ our Saviour is the very Paschall Lamb that was offered for us, and hath taken away the sins of the world, that suffering death upon the cross for our redemption, he made there of his own oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect and sufficient Sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and to the end that we should always remember the exceeding great love of our Master, and only Saviour Jesus Christ, thus dying for us, and the innumerable benefits which by his precious bloodshedding he hath obtained to us, he hath instituted and ordained holy Mysteries as pledges of his love, and continual remembrance of his death, to our great and endless comfort instituting, and in his holy Gospel commanding us to continue a perpetual memory of that his precious death, till his coming again.  
In which words I do not see, what it is that makes for the doctor's purpose, but somewhat I see which makes against him; as namely, The Sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is full, perfect and sufficient in itself, 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 infer 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 only by the Priest, [Then the Priest standing up, shall say as followeth] to whom it properly belongeth, and upon whom his ordination doth confer a power of ministering 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 doctor's purpose; but than shall the Priest stand up and say, makes little for him, unless he had been enjoined to say somewhat, which had employed a Sacrifice which I do not yet find; words indeed of consecration I find, and those proper to the Priest, but any words of Sacrificing in that act, I find not, yet had our Church conceived, that to have been a Sacrifice there, indeed had been the proper place to have expressed herself. That the ordination appointed by our Church, conferreth upon the person▪ so ordained, a power of ministering 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 itself established by authority been clearly showed.  
From the words of consecration, the Doctor goes on to the prayer, after the Communion, and here indeed he finds a Sacrifice, but such a one as (all things considered, he hath very little reason to triumph therein. The memory or Commemoration of Christ's death (saith he) thus celebrated, is called a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, a Sacrifice representative of that one and only expiatory Sacrifice, which Christ once offered for us, all the whole Communicants, beseeching God to grant that by the merits and death of his son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, they and the whole Church may obtain remission of their sins, and all other benefits of his Passion; Neither stay they there (saith he) but forthwith offer, and present unto the Lord themselves, their souls 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 sins, to offer to him any Sacrifice, yet they beseech him to accept, that their bounden duty and service; In which last words, that present service which they do to Almighty God, according to their bounden duties, in celebrating the perpetual memory of Christ's precious 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 offered unto God for, and as a Sacrifice, and publicly avowed for such, as from the tenor 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 find it to vanish into smoke.  
That prayer then after the Communion, beginning in this manner. O Lord and heavenly Father we thy humble servants, entirely desire, thy fatherly goodness, 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 offered; for mine own part I never heard that the eucharistical Sacrifice of Christians, was other then spiritual, improperly termed a Sacrifice; and I presume the Doctor himself will not stick to grant as much as he doth, that the people join 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 offered 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 eucharistical Sacrifice, of praise and thanksgiving, is likewise to be understood of the obediential Sacrifice (if I may so call it) which follows after, consisting in their offering 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 material 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, everywhere with scorn enough, excludes the people from any right thereunto, but thus we see how a weak cause is driven by all kind of means, be they never so poor to fortify itself: And yet, as if now he had made a full, and final 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 public Liturgy, and tell me if you ever found a more excellent concord than this, between Eusebius, and the Church of England, in this present business; And then goes on to parallel the words of Eusebius with those of our Liturgy, which I confess agree very well, but neither the one, nor the other speak home to his purpose, or mention any Sacrifice properly so called, to be offered in the Church of Christ, as he hath been sufficiently showed.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of the Testimony of some Writers of our Church alleged 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 appliable, only to Divine worship. The Sacrifice of Christ's 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 Cardinal 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 pouring 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 several receivers, so that the matter of Altars make no difference in the face of our Church. Thus far the Doctor out of Bishop Andrews.  
For answer whereunto, if we take the passage at large, as it is quoted by that truly reverend Bishop out of S. Augustine, it will suffice to show both his, and the 
L De civitate Dei lib. 17. cap. 20.  Bishop's judgement herein. The words than 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 likelihood, he would have termed it Sacrificium memoriae in relation to the Sacrifices as well before the death of Christ, as the Sacrifice itself 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 than so, we may safely with the Bishop grant, that it is not only 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 doubtless 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 than 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 believed the thing. To the words by the Doctor stood upon, Tollite de missa transubstantiationem nec diu nobiscum lis erit de Sacrificio; it may be replied 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 feet.  
From the Bishops answer to the Italian Cardinal, the Doctor leads us back again to his answer to the French Cardinal, and there hath found an Altar suitable 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 only the object of this Sacrifice) and consequently the difference is like still to remain about the Altar. That the Lord's 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 far 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 yield, yet withal 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 Lord's 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 pouring forth of the Cup) which may objectively, that is improperly be called a Sacrifice in relation to the all-sufficient Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cr●sse, but subjectively, that is properly, it cannot be so called.  
As Bishop Andrews wrote at King James his motion, against Car●inall Bellarmine (saith the Doctor) so Isaac Casaubon, writ King James his mind to Cardinal Perron, and in expressing his mind affirmeth, 
E●ist. ad Card. Perron.  Veteres Ecclesiae patres &c. That the ancient Fathers did acknowledge one only 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 expressly useth in her public 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 Christ's Sacrifice offered to his Father upon the cross, surely they could not withal conceive it to be a Sacrifice properly so called, and in saying that the Church of England will not strive about the Word, what is it but as if they had said, she will strive about the thing, as it is most aparent that she doth, as well in her doctrine as practise. Nay one thing more, That learned Writer hath, or rather that learned King, by the hand of that Writer, which the Doctor hath omitted, though he take the words both before and after, perchance because they made little to his purpose. Quare beatus Chrysostomus, quo frequentius nemo hujus Sacrificii meminit, in nonum caput epistolae ad Hebraeos, postquam {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nominasset, continuo subjungit, sive explicationis, sive correctionis leco {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which words, whether they be taken by way of explication or corrections evidently show, that S. Chrysostom held not the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice properly so called, and that herein both the King, and Casaubon adhered to S. Chrysostom 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 only, and the Sacrifice commemorative, and gratulatory, made by the Priest and people.] This I easily believe, though the Book itself, I have not now by me, but that the Archbishop anywhere affirmeth either the commemorative or the gratulatory Sacrifice to be properly so called, that I very much doubt, and surely if it be made both by the Priest and people, as the Doctor voucheth him, at leastwise for the latter there can be no question of his opinion therein.  
Let us go on then to my Lord of Duresme, Who (saith the Doctor) doth call the Eucharist a representative and commemorative Sacrifice, in as plain Language, ●s the Doctor himself, although he doth deny it to be a proper Sacrifice.] Deny it? why he doth not only deny it, but strongly proves it against Bellarmine and other Romish Writers, in two entire Chapters taking up no less than seven leaves in Folio, so strongly, as I verily believe, 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 informers; 
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 Bishop's Book. Walk you at random, and at rovers in your by-paths 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 still; 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 believeth no such Sacrifice of the Altar as the Church of Rome doth, and that he fancieth no such Altars as they employ, though he professed a Sacrifice and an Altar.) Now for answer to this testimony, he that will be pleased but to peruse that chapter, will I presume, desire no farther satisfaction, the Bishop having therein so clearly and fully unfolded himself, as if the Doctor will stand to his judgement in the point, he will undoubtedly be cast.  
To the first allegation then, where the Doctor makes a stop, the Bishop thus goes on. Not propitiatory, as they call it (I will use this word. call it, lest you challenge me upon Popery for using propitiatory) for the living and the dead, not an external, visible, true, and proper Sacrifice, but only representative, commemorative, spiritual Sacrifice; where the Bishop as we see in downright and direct terms denies the Euch●ist to be a Sacrifice properly so called, and for this immediately 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 mutual relation and dependence one upon another. And herein doth the Bishop profess 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 truly Altars) Tables, and why may not we name the Lord's Table an Altar? whereby it appears, that he held the Lord's 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 far from the beginning of that chapter: But I rather choose (saith he) to speak in our Bishop Morton's words, apologizing for Protestants against Papists; It may be I have taken licence in use of terms, but no error in Doctrine can you find, for to put off your imputation, from farther fastening, I believe no such sacrifice of the Altar, as the Church of Rome doth, I fancy no such Altars as they employ, though I profess a Sacrifice and an Altar.] In the same Reverend Bishop's words, the Lord's Table being called improperly an Altar, can no more conclude a Sacrifice understood properly, than when as Saint Paul calling Titus his son according to the faith, which is improperly, a man may contend Saint Paul was his natural father, according to the flesh.] In which words we have both the Bishops, and those excellently learned in terminis terminantibus, directly opposite to the doctor's opinion, though by him alleged 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.  
With foreign Divines of the Reformed Churches I will not meddle, there being not so much as one of them, I think, of what party soever, who in this point sides with the Doctor, I will content myself with the suffrages of our own 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 saviour's doctrine concerning any real Sacrifice, but only of himself upon the cross, neither was any Altar used and ordained by Christ and his Apostles; And if in all real Sacrifices the matter of the Oblation must be really destroyed and changed, and no physical destruction or change is made in the Body of Christ, or in the elements of bread and wine by Transubstantiation, than Romanists have devised a real Sacrifice in the new Testament, which hath no Divine Institution.   

Doctor Davenant, Lord Bishop of Sarisbury, Professor of Divinity in the university of Cambridge, in his determinations, qu. 13. Missa Pontificia non est Sacrificium propitiatorium pro vivis & mortuis.  
Pontificii in hoc suo missatico negotio tres gravissimes errores nobis obtrudunt. Esse nimirum in missa reale, externum & propriè dictum Sacrificium. Esse inihi Sacerdotem qui actionem Sacrificandi propriè dictam exercet; Esse denique potestatem huic Sacerdoti pro voluntate & intentione sua applicandi tam vivis quam mortuis praedicti Sacrificii efficaciam salutarem.  
Nos è contra asserimus, primo in missa nihil posse nominari aut ostendi quod sit Sacrificabile aut quod rationem & essentiam realis, externi & propriè dicti Sacrificii, quamvis quae adhiberi in eadem solent preces, eleemosynae, gratiarum actiones, spiritualium Sacrificiorum nomen sortiantur; quamvis etiam ipsa representatio fracti corporis Christi & fusi sanguinis figuratè Sacrificium à veteribus saepenumero vocetur.  
Secundo Contendunt Pontificii Presbyteros suos esse secundarios quosdam novi Testamenti Sacerdotes, & in missa sua actionem Sacrificandi propriè dictam praestare.  
Sed nobis Iesus Christus est solus & aeternus, neque successorum, neque vicariorum indigus novi Testamenti Sacerdos. Quaero enim cui bono alii Sacerdotes substituerentur ipsi Christo, non ut Sacrificium ejus adumbrent, tanquam futurum est enim olim Deo exhibitum, non hodie exhibendum, non ut significent tanquam factum, nam repraesentare illud ut factum est Sacramentum celebrare non sacrificium 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, entitled 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 pass and descend in a long pedigree of mortal successors? or why were the legal 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 than those words of God. Once offered, One Sacrifice, One oblation, And yet these popish shavelings (devout men) take upon them to crucify and Sacrifice Christ again.  
We will remember the holy Sacrifice of Christ (as Cassander well advises) and celebrate it with a thankful heart, we will not repeat it; We will gladly receive our Saviour offered by himself to his father, and offered to us by his father, we will not offer him to his father; which one point, whilst 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 public Professor of Divinity, in the university of Oxford in his Counterproof, against Doctor Bishop's reproof of the defence of the Reformed Catholic. Cap. 14. pag. 364.  
It is truly 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 real Sacrifice. Now therefore the oblation of the Altar, of which S. Augustine speaketh hath no reference to the mass, which they hold to be a proper and real 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 mass, who in the Epistle to the Hebrews (if it were he) whilst he destroyeth the Jewish Priesthood, for the advancing of the Priesthood of Christ, argueth impregnably to the disavowing of all real Sacrifice thenceforth in the Church of Christ. Whilst he affirmeth but one Priest in the New Testament, instead of many in the old, he absolutely taketh away all the rank 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 offereth, it is evident that Christ is not only 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 forms 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 ourselves 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 find 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 father's applications, if you there withal take their expositions, do but in other terms teach that which we receive and confess to be true.   

Bishop Jewel the jewel of Bishops, in defence of his 17. Article, which Book is by public authority to be kept in every Church.  
Even so S. Ambrose saith Christ is offered here on earth, 
Pag. 424.  (not really and indeed, as Master Harding saith) but in like sort and sense, as S. John saith, the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world that is, not substantially, or in real 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 only in a certain manner of speech, not verily and indeed, even so Christ is daily Sacrificed only 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 Ecclesia 
Pag. 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 mass, 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 mass, nor were mass 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 Gloucester in his Appendix to his third Book of the Church. Pag. 207.  
Christ was Sacrificed on the cross, 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 public 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 kingdom inseparably 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 only Sacrifice of Christ's death, and because the spiritual Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is offered therein, not by the Minister only, 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 Lord's Supper is ministered, 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, external Sacrifice, than there must be also a real and external 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 only 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 Catholic. 11. point of the Sacrifice of the Lord's Supper.  
Heb. 7. 24, 25. The holy Ghost makes a difference betwixt Christ the High Priest of the new Testament, 
Reas. 4.  and all levitical Priests in this, That they were many, one succeeding another, but he is the only one, having an eternal Priesthood, which cannot pass from him to another. Now if this difference be good, than 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 Paul's, in his Catechism, ordained for public 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 administering of a Sacrament, or altarwise for the offering of a Sacrifice, I leave that to the prudent governors of our Church, and better judgements than mine own to consider and determine of.  
FINIS.