Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

the use of the poor; the former called poopopaì, " oblations," in the Council of Laodicea, the other, kapropopia, in that of Gangra; and proportionably, the repository for the first called Sacrarium, in the fourth Council of Carthage, can. 93. (and by Possidonius, in the life of St. Augustine, Secretarium unde altari necessaria inferuntur," where those things are laid, and from whence fetched, which are necessary to the altar,") the other gazophylacium, or treasury :—the first St. Cyprian calls Sacrificia, "Sacrifices;" the second, Eleemosynæ, “ Alms,” parallel to those which we find both together mentioned, Acts xxiv. 17.-"I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings." This, saith Justin Martyr, is our Christian Sacrifice; which will more appear to him that considers, that the feasting of the people, their partaking of the Sacrifice, having their roμàs and μɛpidas, was always annexed to Sacrifices, both among Jews and Heathens, which the Apostle calls "partaking of the Altar;" and, consequently, that the Sacrifice and the feast together, the Sacrifice in the Offertory, the Feast in the eating and drinking there, do complete and make up the whole business of this Sacrament, as far as the people are concerned in it; and all this blessed by the Priest, and God blessed and praised by Priest and people, and so the title of Eucharist belongs to it. Thus after Justin, Irenæus . . . So Tertullian ... Much more might be said of this out of ancient Constitutions and Canons, if 'twere not for my desire of brevity. pp. 374, 5.

ID.-Preface to "Dispatcher dispatched."

As for his other way of charging the schism upon us, from a supposed "separation betwixt us in necessary points of Divine worship, viz. in Sacrifice and Sacrament," if he and I, being both Englishmen, speak the same language, and there lie not some undiscovered ambiguity in the words "Sacrifice" and "Sacrament," I should hope, when the Universal Pastorship by Divine right were discarded, and only the Primacy of Order taken in its stead, the issue would be brief....

What controversies are now risen, and waged among us on these heads, he hath in part truly enumerated; though, as

he omits the two principal, concerning their private masses, and denying the cup, their no-communion and their half-communion, . . . . . . so I must confess, I should not have begun the list as he doth, that "all Roman Catholics believe and reverence the Sacrifice of the Mass, as the most substantial and essential act of their religion, all Protestants condemn and abhor it." When 'tis visible that the Protestants of the Church of England believe and reverence, as much as any, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, as the most substantial and essential act of our religion; and doubt not, but the word Missa, "Mass," has fitly been used by the Western Church to signify it; and herein abhor and condemn nothing, but the corruptions and mutilations which the Church of Rome, without care of conforming themselves to the Universal, have admitted in the celebration.-Vol. ii. p. 164.

BARLOW, BISHOP'.

"ALMIGHTY GOD, our heavenly FATHER," &c. Hear us, O merciful FATHER, we most humbly beseech Thee, (through the operation of the HOLY GHOST sanctifying both us and these (c e2) gifts, and exalting them above their ordinary use, importance, and conception, &c.

THORNDIKE, PRESBYTER.-Epilogue, book iii. chap. v.

I come now to the question of the Sacrifice, the resolution whereof must needs proceed according to that which hath been determined in the point now dispatched. For, having showed the presence of the Body and Blood of CHRIST in the Eucharist, because it is appointed that in it the faithful may feast upon the Sacrifice of the Cross, we have already showed, by the Scrip

1 Addition to the Prayer of Consecration, in a copy of the Book of Common Prayer, habitually used by Bishop Barlow, with very copious extracts from the Fathers and ancient Liturgies on the doctrine of the Oblation. This volume is preserved in the Bodleian Library, Arch. C. 9.

* The letters c e refer to the two marginal directions to the Priest to "lay his hand upon all the Bread," and "upon every vessel in which there is any Wine to be consecrated."

tures, that it is the Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross, in the same sense, and to the same effect, as it containeth the Body and Blood of CHRIST, which it representeth, that is, mystically and spiritually, and sacramentally (that is, as in and by a Sacrament) tendereth and exhibiteth. For, seeing the Eucharist not only tendereth the Flesh and Blood of CHRIST, but separated one from the other, under and by several elements, as His Blood was parted from His Body by the violence of the Cross; it must of necessity be as well the Sacrifice, as the Sacrament of CHRIST upon the Cross. p. 38.

But, for the same reason, and, by the same correspondence between the Sacrifices of the Law and that of CHRIST's Cross, it may be evident, that it is not, nor can be any disparagement to the Sacrifice of our LORD CHRIST upon the Cross, to the full and perfect satisfaction and propitiation for the sins of the world which it hath made, that the Eucharist should be counted the Sacrifice of CHRIST crucified, mystically, and, as in a Sacrament, represented to, and feasted upon by His people. The Apostle saith, that "CHRIST is gone into no holy place made with hands," &c. Heb. ix. 24-28. But have I said anything to cause any man to imagine, that I suppose CHRIST to be crucified again, as often as the Eucharist is celebrated? . . Certainly, I will speak freely, neither can they that hold Transubstantiation be truly said to stand obliged to any such consequence, so long as they acknowledge, with all Christians, that the Covenant of Grace is for once settled by the one Sacrifice of our LORD upon the Cross. Why? because, though they believe the natural Flesh and Blood of CHRIST, as crucified, to be there, yet not naturally but sacramentally, (that is, in their sense, under the accidents of bread and wine, which is, indeed, and in the sense of the Church, under the species or kinds): which difference is so great an abatement of that common and usual sense, in which all Christians understand that CHRIST was sacrificed upon the Cross, that all that know it to be their profession (which all must know, that will not speak of they know not what) must acknowledge that the repeating of the Sacrifice of CHRIST crucified by the Eucharist, is not the repeating of that Sacrifice by which mankind was redeemed, otherwise

than as a Sacrament is said to be that whereof it is a Sacrament. What ground and advantage this gives me, and any man of my opinion, to argue from those things which themselves acknowledge, that there is no cause why they should insist upon the abolishing of the substance of the elements in the Eucharist, I leave to them that shall think fit to consider the premises, to judge. But for me, who demand no more than this, that, inasmuch as the Body and Blood of CHRIST is in the Eucharist, insomuch it is the Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross, I cannot foresee what occasion slander can have to pick any such consequence out of my sayings. Certainly, the Sacrifices of the old Law ceased not to be Sacrifices, because they were figures and prophecies of that one Sacrifice upon the Cross, which mankind was redeemed with. And why should the commemoration and representation (in that sense of this word representation which I determined afore) of that one Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross, which mankind was redeemed with, be less properly a Sacrifice, in dependence upon and denomination from that one which the name of Sacrifice upon the Cross was first used to signify? For all conceit of legal Sacrifice is quite shut out, by supposing the Sacrifice past, which the Sacrifice of the Eucharist represents and commemorates; whereas, all Sacrifices of the Old Law are essentially (at least to Christians) figurative of the one Sacrifice of CHRIST to come.

Indeed, by that which I have said, concerning the nature of a Sacrifice in the Eucharist, as it is intended for Christians to feast upon, it is evident that this commemorative and representative Sacrifice is of the nature and kind of Peace-offerings, which, by the Law, those that offered were to feast upon. "I will take the cup of salvation," &c. . . saith the Psalm cxvi. 12, 13. And that, in answer to the question made, "What reward shall I give unto the LORD for all the benefits that He hath done unto me?" At feasting upon the parts, or remains of peace-offerings, the master of the Sacrifice began the cup of thanksgiving for deliverance received, in consideration whereof he pays his vows; and the Sacrifices which he pays are called owrnpia or "Sacrifices of thanksgiving for deliverance received." Is not this the same that

Christians do, in celebrating the Eucharist, setting aside the difference between Jews and Christians? Wherefore I have showed, that it is celebrated, and is to be celebrated, with commemoration of, and thanksgiving for the benefits of God, especially that of CHRIST Crucified. Which thanksgiving, as it tends to the consecrating thereof, so, inasmuch as the consecration tends to the receiving of it, another thanksgiving, at the receiving of it, becomes also due, as at feasting upon peace-offerings. And hereupon I have showed, that it is called by the Apostle "the Sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to GoD:" and that, having showed that Jews have no right to it as a propitiatory Sacrifice, that is, not to it, because not to the propitiatory Sacrifice which it representeth; but therefore, that Christians have right to feast upon it, as the Jews upon their peace-offerings. But if it be true, as I have showed, that the celebration of the Eucharist is the renewing of the Covenant of Grace, which supposeth propitiation made for the sin of mankind, by that one Sacrifice which it commemorateth and representeth; the celebration thereof being commanded, as a condition to be performed on our part, to qualify us for the promise, which it tendereth to those that are qualified as it requireth; shall it be a breach of Christianity, to say also, that it is such a Sacrifice whereby we make GoD propitious to us, and obtain at His hands the blessings of Grace, which the Covenant of Grace tendereth?-pp. 39-41.

In as much, then, as I have showed that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice, in so much, and for that very reason, that which Christians offer to God for the celebration of the Eucharist, is no otherwise a Sacrifice than those things which were appropriated to the Altar under the Law were Sacrifices, from the time that they were dedicated to that purpose; saving always the difference between Sacrifices figurative of the Sacrifice of CHRIST upon the Cross, (such as Christianity supposeth all the Sacrifices of the Old Law to be) and the commemoration and representation of the same past, which I have showed that the Eucharist pretendeth. And truly, having showed that this representative and commemorative Sacrifice is of the nature and kind of peaceofferings, in as much as it is celebrated on purpose to commu

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »