sacrificial terms in the account of the Institution. OF THIRD 21 hood to Himself, but was made a Priest by the Father, and ACCOUNT being made man for us, and offering a spiritual sacrifice to His God and Father, commanded us also [alone?] to do (or offer) the same; and after His assumption, we offering a pure and unbloody sacrifice, according to His command," &c., as in this passage above cited. And it is not to be imagined, that in the consecration of the elements the Christian priests of the ancient Church should tell God the Father, that they offered them unto Him through Jesus Christ, according to His ordinance, unless they believed that He offered them Himself in the institution of this blessed Sacrament. But thirdly, it is not true, that there is no speech or action in the text of the institution, from whence it may be gathered that He offered the bread and cup, and by consequence a sacrifice properly so called, unto His Father. For I have shewed at large that TоÛTO TOLEÛTE, " do this," is a sacrificial phrase; and so λαβὼν or ἔλαβε τὸν ἄρτον, “ He took bread,” is a sacrificial speech and imports a sacrificial action, as in Gen. xxii. 13, it is said of Abraham, xaì ëλaße Tòv Kρiòv, "that he took the ram, and offered him for a burnt-offering;" so Levit. iv. 30, καὶ λήψεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος, “ and the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar;” so ver. 34, cài ra Bài ở icpeis a trò Tou καὶ ἱερεὺς τοῦ aluatos, "and the priest shall take of the blood of the sinoffering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the 'authenticus pontifex Dei patris.' [Opp. p. 451, D.] et lib. v. cap. 9. 'Christus proprius et legitimus Dei Antistes.' [p. 472, C.] Non quidem per divinitatem, proprie loquendo: quod Arianice ab Eusebio [Dem. Evang., lib. v. cap. iii. p. 223.] post Origenem asseritur, Ca tholice negatur ab auctore [incerto quodam, post quintum sæculum. edd. Ben. p. 402.] Sermonis de uno legislatore, tom. vi. B. Chrysostomi: sed per carnem, ut ait idem scriptor. [S. Chrys. opp., tom. vi. p. 412, A, B.] secutus S. Athanasium in majore Oratione de fide apud Theodoritum, Dialogo 2. [op., tom. iv. p. 92.] Dixi proprie loquendo: quia latius acceptum nomen pontificis, Verbo Dei non impie tribuetur, et Christo nondum incarnato, ut charismatum paternorum, donorum Dei universali distributori. 'Catholicum Patris Sacerdotem' appellat Tertullianus lib. iv. citati operis cap. [p. 18. f, lib. viii. c. 46. p. 512, A.] 22 P. Lombard and Aquinas alleged by Hakewill; ACCOUNT altar." And so our Saviour may be supposed to have taken OF THIRD EDITION. bread from, or of, or out of, the portion of bread upon the table, to offer it unto His Father in blessing it or giving thanks; and since the words will fairly bear this sacrificial sense, and the ancient Church understood the text in the same sense, that He took the bread and cup and offered them up to His Father, it is a sufficient proof that He offered a sacrifice properly so called, and that it was for want of thorough conversation with the ancient fathers in their writings, or rather great pique and prejudice against Dr. Heylin, that occasioned Dr. Hakewill to assert, that there was no speech which our Saviour uttered, nor any action that He did, from whence it might be gathered that He offered a sacrifice in the holy Eucharist properly so called. But he saith, that which confirms him in his opinion that the Eucharist is not a proper sacrifice, is that both Lombard', and Aquinas, who termed the Eucharist a commemorative, yet held it to be an improper sacrifices; Lombard's sentences I have not by me, and therefore shall only consider the words he produces out of Aquinas', which are these: Quæritur, si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium, vel immolatio, et si Christus quotidie immoletur, vel semel tantum immolatus sit? To which he answers, Illud, quod offertur et consecratur a sacerdote vocari sacrificium et oblationem, quia memoria est et repræsentatio veri sacrificii, et sanctæ immolationis facta in ara crucis. Here the question Thomas proposes is, whether the bread and wine, quod gerit sacerdos, or 6 detur esse idem 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 'repræsentativum ;' and therefore to that objection doth he shape this answer, 'Ad tertium dicendum, quod hoc Sacramentum dicitur Sacrificium, in quantum repræsentat ipsam passionem Christi. Dicitur autem hostia, in quantum continet ipsum Christum, qui est hostia salutaris: (ut dicitur Ephes. v. 2.)'" (S. Thom. Summa Theologiæ, par. iii. quæst. 73. art. 4. p. 161. Duaci, 1614.) Diss. ibid.] in what sense it is a 'proper' sacrifice. 23 OF THIRD illud quod offertur et consecratur, may be properly called a ACCOUNT sacrifice, as sacrifice signifies immolatio, a sacrifice by blood and slaughter, as that of Christ was upon the cross; and by consequence, whether Christ is daily thus sacrificed in the Eucharist, or once only upon the cross? To which he answers, illud quod offertur, et consecratur, the bread and wine, which are offered and consecrated, are called a sacrifice, in this sense of immolation, because they are the commemoration and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation of Christ made upon the altar of the cross. Here therefore the question is not, whether there is a proper, external, material oblation of bread and wine in the Eucharist; for that Aquinas supposes by those words, istud quod gerit sacerdos, and istud quod offertur et consecratur, but whether that oblation be a sacrifice, as sacrifice signifies immolation, and whether Christ is so sacrificed in the Eucharist as He was upon the cross. But in this sense none of our writers take it for a real, true, or proper, but only for a mystical and spiritual sacrifice and immolation of Christ upon the cross, as it is a solemn commemoration and representation thereof. The word therefore 'proper,' in relation to the holy Sacrament, hath two senses: one, as 'proper' is opposed to metaphorical and allusive; and the other, as it is opposed to the immolation or bloody sacrifice of Christ upon the cross; which two senses our adversaries always confound together. When therefore we assert the Eucharist to be a 'proper' sacrifice or oblation, we take the word purely in the first sense, meaning no more thereby, than that the bread and cup, like other material and external sacrifices, are really offered unto God in the Eucharistical service, to be the sacramental representation and commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, or the mystical sacrifice of His body. and blood. These two different senses of the word 'proper' are also more carefully to be observed, because many of our writers, who believe the Eucharist to be a 'proper' oblation in the first sense, yet often speak of it, without premising any distinction, as an 'improper' sacrifice, only meaning in the second, as Aquinas doth in the passage now examined. And to shew Dr. Hakewill's error more abundantly, I will here demonstrate from other passages, in quæst. 83. OF THIRD EDITION. 24 The doctrines maintained not peculiar ; ACCOUNT art. 4", that he believed the holy Sacrament to be a proper sacrifice in the first sense: Sic igitur populo præparato et instructo, consequenter acceditur ad celebrationem mysterii, quod quidem offertur ut sacrificium, et consecratur, et sumitur ut sacramentum... Deinde sacerdos secreto commemorat primo quidem pro quibus hoc sacrificium offertur, scilicet pro universali Ecclesia. Tertio, petitionem concludit cum dicit, ut hæc oblatio sit illis pro quibus offertur salutaris. Deinde ac·cedit ad ipsam consecrationem in qua... quarto, petit hoc sacrificium peractum, esse acceptum Deo. . . Quinto petit hujus sacrificii et sacramenti effectum. ... The reader may perceive from these observations I have made, in answer to Dr. Hakewill's Dissertation, that Dr. Heylin had reason to write of it, as in the margin, and I have been induced to examine it so particularly, not only for the sake of the bishop of Norwich, but of some others, who, as I am told, said they wondered I would write for the Eucharistical sacrifice, if I had read that dissertation. I must therefore add in behalf of myself, and all others of the Church of England who have written to prove the Eucharist to be a sacrifice, that we have written nothing in the main of our own fancies, or from the particular notions of two or three fathers; but from the general doctrine of them all, and the practice of all the Christian world, in primitive as well as later times, before the Reformation. "The opinions and usages we maintain" are not "particular" but catholic colniense, &c., which he entitled by the name of A Dissertation with Dr. Heylin whether the Eucharist be a sacrifice properly so termed, &c.,' one of which books being brought to the respondent, as soon as it was come from the press, he found it no such knotty piece, but that it might have been easily cleft asunder without wedge or beetle, and had returned an answer to it, if some of Dr. Hakewill's friends, seeing how weakly it was penned, and how unseasonably it was published, had not took order to suppress it; and they suppressed it with such care and friendly diligence, that within three or four days after the first coming of it out, there was not a book of them to be had for love or money."-[Part ii. Appendix, p. 18. London, 1659.] OF THIRD and general; neither have we "engaged ourselves to main- ACCOUNT tain them" out of "party," but for the love of truth; much less are they our "fancies," but real notions verified by doctrine and practice, which we have not "set up for Shibboleths to distinguish ourselves"," but with the most noble and charitable and rewardable design of restoring the holy Sacrament to its complete and adequate notion and ministration, as it was taught, and practised in the primitive Church. Now as to the other reflections of this author, upon this doctrine, and the maintainers of it, they are silly, false, and spiteful; first silly, in ascribing the divisions of the Church to them, whereas if the doctrine of the Eucharistical sacrifice be the truth, the primitive truth, then the divisions of the Church are to be charged upon those who will not embrace, but oppose this truth; for truth can never be the true, but only the accidental cause, or mere occasion of divisions, for which they are answerable to God and man, that oppose truth. Another may after the Doctor's example ascribe the divisions of the Church to the maintaining of episcopacy, which hath accidentally occasioned more and more violent divisions, than the doctrine of the Eucharistical sacrifice; and therefore it was, in the second place, both false and spiteful to ascribe "the miseries of the civil war" (which he might have called a rebellion) "not to the separatists, and sectaries, .... but to the quarrels and differences of the Church of England men themselves;" that is, as his meaning must be interpreted, to that part of them, who wrote for the Christian sacrifice, and it may be for other high doctrines, as episcopacy, and non-resistance, which have also caused, that is, accidentally caused, many divisions in the Church, and the miseries consequent thereupon. But to confirm his unjust reflections, he asserts, contrary to all history, that "the separatists and sectaries were brooded after the civil war in Cromwell's army." But were there no Brownists, no Dr. Nicholls' Preface to his [Com. ment on the] Common Prayer-Book. [The passage referred to above is this, "I know it has been the practice of several persons, to extend some expressions of it (the Book of Common Prayer) to an unusual meaning; thereby to countenance some particular opinions and usages, which they have en gaged themselves to maintain. |