tóry way in which he has quoted the following passage from Perkins. The ancient Fathers used to call the supper of the Lord, or the whole action of the supper, a sacrifice; and that for divers reasons . . . Because it is a commemoration and also a representation unto God the Father of the sacrifice of Christ offered upon the cross . . In this sense the faithful, in their prayers, do offer Christ as a sacrifice unto God the Father for their sins, in being wholly carried away in their minds and affections unto that only and true sacrifice, thereby to procure and obtain God's favour to them;" to which Mede adds, "That which every Christian doth mentally and vocally, when he commends his prayers to God the Father, through Jesus Christ, making mention of his death and satisfaction; that in the public service of the Church was done by that rite, which our Saviour commanded to be used in commemoration of him." By which he evidently means that it is done in the public service, not by the priest merely, but by all present; not as if this sacrifice was a propitiatory sacrifice to be offered only by the priest, to obtain remission of sins for the people, distinct from the communion to be participated in by the people. The doctrine of Mede, therefore, is at least very different to that of the Tractators on the subject. Accordingly we find that our opponents' friend and chosen witness, Dr. Brett, very distinctly charges the Church of England with a vital omission in her eucharistic service. I will transcribe some of his observations on this matter, and commend his fair and open dealing to the attention and imitation of the Tractators. "I wish," says Dr. Brett, "where he [i. e. Johnson] could have shewed us where the Church of England has appointed such an oblation of the sacramental body and blood of Christ as he speaks of, . . . . or that she has not wilfully and designedly omitted it. That it is omitted in the communion office of the Church of England, is evident to all that are acquainted with that Liturgy; and that it was not casually, but wilfully, left out there, is no less evident, because not only in the Roman Canon . . . but also in the first reformed Liturgy of King Edward V1. there was such an oblation immediately following the words of institution .. but in the second Liturgy of King Edward, and ever since, this prayer (that is, what the second Reformers thought fit to leave of it) has been removed to the post-communion, that it might not be used till after the elements were distributed and consumed.... The words 'to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thansgiving'. . as they are now placed in the post-communion, can by no means be applied to the material elements. 1 Mede's Works, pp. 365, 366. For it is absurd to pretend that we may offer to God that which is not, or present to him that which we have eaten and consumed. . . . . This omission and transposition could not be made otherwise than with design. Consequently, the Church of England has wilfully and designedly omitted to make the oblation of the sacramental body and blood of Christ; and therefore, according to what Mr. Johnson says, she is without excuse as to this matter. . . . . If it be but a very great defect, it ought to be corrected; and if it is an essential one, it is of fatal consequence. And surely it is essential if it be what our Saviour did and commanded us to do, as Mr. Johnson has proved it is, and the very words of institution teach us, and the practice of the whole Church, from the Apostles' days to the Reformation, has been agreeable thereto."1 How far our opponents agree in reality in these views, may be seen in Mr. Froude's Remains, Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Fausset, and Mr. Keble's Preface to Hooker. By Mr. Froude it is said that our present communion service is "a judgment on the Church," and that there would be gain in "replacing it by a good translation of the Liturgy of St. Peter" (a euphemism for the mass book); by Mr. Newman, that our reformers, in not adopting the "the Canon of the mass," which is called a "sacred and most precious monument of the Apostles," "mutilated the tradition of 1500 years," and that "our present condition is a judgment on us for what they did :" and by Mr. Keble, that our reformers, in their revision of the Prayer Book, have "given up altogether the ecclesiastical tradition regarding certain very material points in the celebration, if not in the doctrine, of the Holy Eucharist." And yet, notwithstanding this, they publish a Tract, in which they endeavour to prove that our communion service may be explained so as to be consistent with their views, and claim all the best of our English divines as supporters of them! I now proceed to the question whether the doctrine of our opponents on this point, is that of the Scriptures or the primitive Church. In this doctrine are contained the four following propositions:1st. That the bread and wine, after consecration, are to be offered up to God by the minister, as a sacrifice commemorative of the sacrifice of the cross. 2dly. That the minister performs this act in a strictly sacerdotal character. 1 Brett's Collection of ancient Liturgies. Dissert. pp. 119-22. 2 Newman's Lett. to Dr. Fausset, 2nd ed. pp. 46, 7. 3 Pref. to Hooker, p. 62. 3dly. That by this sacrifice so offered by a priest, remission of sins is obtained for the whole Church. 4thly. That by this sacrifice so offered an additional refreshment is obtained for the souls of the dead in the intermediate state. All these four propositions, then, we maintain to be contrary to the testimony of Scripture and the earliest Fathers. 1st. That the bread and wine, after consecration, are to be offered up to God by the minister, as a sacrifice commemorative of the sacrifice of the cross. Whether there is any intrinsic evil in such an oblation of the elements, is not here the question. That the bread and wine, after that they have obtained by consecration a peculiar character, as things set apart as emblems of Christ's body and blood, should be solemnly offered up to God as a memorial, as it were, to God of the sacrifice of the cross, may not be in itself an improper act. And by this act, the body and blood of Christ might be said to be offered up, that is figuratively and symbolically, which is the only way in which they could be offered up by elements which, as the Fathers testify, are still bread and wine. And this was perhaps done by some in the fourth century, but was done simultaneously and correspondently, as far as the succession of time would admit, with that act of the heart by which the true body and blood of Christ-the true sacrifice of the cross-were spiritually offered up to the Father in prayers and praises, as the only propitiation for our sins; which spiritual sacrifice is that which at all times is, as it were, the soul of the service, and that upon which its value altogether depends. But though the offering up of the consecrated symbols may not be in itself improper, yet there are objections to it, and our Church has thus judged. We have not either the testimony of Scripture, or of the primitive Church, in its favour. And there is no inconsiderable danger, as I think facts teach us, that this external of fering made through the hands of the minister, may be substituted for that spiritual offering up of the sacrifice of the cross upon, the altar of the heart of each individual, upon which the value of the service to the individual communicant wholly depends. Nay more; as we have no authority for so doing, it is an act which appears to savour strongly of presumption. First, as it respects Scripture. The Tractator tells us that the Fathers declare " that it [the sacrifice] was enjoined by our Lord in the words Do this for a memorial of me." " I suppose he means Father Bellarmine and such like, for he will find, I suspect, no others; nor is it necessary to do more than place before him the observations of his own witness, Bishop Morton, not far from the passage he has quoted L* on this point. "To this purpose, he [i. e. Bellarmine], as others, insisteth upon the same words, hoc facite, saying, that Christ offered a sacrifice and commanded it to be offered certainly in these words, hoc facite, do this, where the word hoc, this, doth demonstrate that which Christ did in the supper, viz., to sacrifice himself.' Which is so empty and pithless a proof that their own Jansenius, as it were, despairing of the issue, doth say that 'notwithstanding this sacrifice cannot be effectually proved by this text of hoc facite, yet may it be proved by tradition. Which causeth us to admire our adversaries' vain pretences who profess to expound Scriptures according to the consent of antient Fathers, and yet now their greatest doctor, Cardinal Bellarmine, when he contendeth for their great Diana, the Romish sacrifice of the Mass, and would prove it out of the words hoc facite, doth not out of all the catalogue of antient Fathers, cite any one that we find who interpreteth facite to be sacrificate. Neither indeed can it be so enforced: for as their Cardinal Jansenius truly noteth, the pronoun hoc, this, is to be referred not only to the taking of the eucharist, but unto all those particulars which Christ is said forthwith to have done; as namely, the taking bread, giving of thanks, blessing, and breaking, &c.'"1 "The plea from hoc facite," says Dr. Waterland," when first set up, was abundantly answered by a very learned Romanist; I mean the excellent Picherell, who wrote about 1562, and died 1 Morton's Catholic Appeal, ii. 7. §§ 10, 11. pp. 177, 8. I would commend the whole of this chapter to the attention of the reader, and also his Treatise "Of the Institution of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ," or as it was styled in the second and enlarged edition of 1652, " Of the Lord's Supper;" for though, from his controversy being with those who held the doctrine of Transubstantiation, his observations are not all strictly applicable to our present subject, yet they evidently include a defence of the view for which we are here contending. "As for the Protestants," he says, "they, in their divine and public service, do profess Christ the Son of God to be the only true priest of the New Testament; who, being God and man, was only able to work in himself propitiation with God for man; and his sacrifice once offered upon the cross to be the all and only sufficient sacrifice for the remission of sins; WHICH [i. e. which sacrifice of the cross] by an eucharistical and thankful commemoration (according unto the acknowledged tenour of antient Liturgies, for all the faithful, whether martyrs, patriarchs, prophets, or Apostles, and all saints) they present unto God as an effectual propitiation, both for the quick and the dead; by the which PRAYERS [so that the prayers offered by the heart are the commemoration outwardly betokened by the bread and wine] they apply the same propitiatory sacrifice unto the good of all that are capable." (Cath. App. ii. 7. § 18. p. 188.) Here, then, we clearly see that the true altar recognized by Bishop Morton, is the altar of the heart, from which, in the sacrifices of prayer and praise, Christ is offered up to the Father as an effectual propitiation, and his effectual propitiation is offered up by the communicants not only for themselves, but for the whole Church, including also even the dead, so far as to intercede for their future happy resurrection and possession of the promised inheritance, the only prayers for them which, as Bishop Morton himself tells us, in the following chapter, (§ 2. p. 190,) pure antiquity sanctions. in 1590. Protestants also1 have often confuted it, and the Papists themselves, several of them, have long ago given it up. The other boasted plea drawn from the use of the present tense, in the words of the institution, has been so often refuted and exposed, that I cannot think it needful to call that matter over again in an age of so much light and learning."a So that in these words at least we have no intimation of any such sacrifice. That" the early Church" held that the Eucharist was “alluded to when our Lord or St. Paul speak of a Christian altar (St. Matt. v. 23: Heb. xiii. 10)," cannot be proved by anything bearing the appearance of patristical consent, so that even Bellarmine himself admits that it cannot be so urged, and affirms that the Apostles and writers of the New Testament, by the special guidance of the Holy Ghost, purposely forbore to insert in their writings the name of an altar; and the passage in the Hebrews is generally interpreted as referring to the altar of the cross, a phrase which Waterland has shown to have been in common use with the Fathers. But even if it could, (and some of the Fathers have given that interpretation,) we reply with their own witness on this subject, Bishop Morton, "Grant that altar doth as naturally and necessarily infer a sacrifice as a shrine doth a saint, a father a son; yet so, as to distinguish when these things are properly and when improperly so called; knowing that the table of the Lord being called improperly an altar can no more conclude a sacrifice properly understood, than when as St. Paul calleth Titus, his son according to the faith, (which is improperly,) a man may contend that St. Paul was his proper and natural father, which is, according to the flesh."7 Now, we grant that the Lord's table may be called improperly an altar, on several accounts, and therefore, the mere use of the word proves nothing in favour of the doctrine of our opponents. For though it may be quite true that according to their notion the altar is only improperly an altar, yet it is also true in our view of the subject, and therefore, the mere name proves no more for their view than for ours. And we readily admit that these words, altar, priest, sacrifice, were used in the Church at a very early period, though not perhaps, at the earliest. Bellarmine 1 J. Forbes, p. 616. Morn. p. 212. Salmas. contr. Grot. p. 444. Albertin. p. 498, 509. Morton, b. vi. c. 1. p. 390. Townson, p. 276. Brevint, Depth and myst. p. 128. Payne, p. 9. &s. Pfaff. p. 186, 220, 259, 269. 2 Picherell, p. 62, 138. Spalatens. p. 278. Mason, p. 614. 1. p. 394. Albertin. p. 74, 76, 78, 119, J. Forbes, p. 617. Kidder & Payne. Pfaff. p. 232, 233. Morton, b. vi. c. Brevint, p. 128. 3 Appendix to Christian Sacrifice. Works, vol. 8. pp. 194, 5. |