ART. fruits of the earth in a sacrifice to God. Both Justin XXXI. Martyr, Irenæus, the Constitutions, and all the ancient liturgies, have very express words relating to this. Another respect, in which the eucharist is called a sacrifice, is, because it is a commemoration, and a representation to God of the sacrifice that Christ offered for us on the cross: in which we claim to that, as to our expiation, and feast upon it, as our peace-offering, according to that ancient notion, that covenants were confirmed by a sacrifice, and were concluded in a feast on the sacrifice. Upon these accounts we do not deny but that the eucharist may be well called a sacrifice: but still it is a commemorative sacrifice, and not propitiatory: that is, we do not distinguish the sacrifice from the sacrament; as if the priest's consecrating and consuming the elements, were in an especial manner a sacrifice any other way, than as the communicating of others with him is one: nor do we think that the consecrating and consuming the elements is an act that does reconcile God to the quick and the dead :' we consider it only as a federal act of professing our belief in the death of Christ, and of renewing our baptismal covenant with him. The virtue or effects of this are not general; they are limited to those who go about this piece of worship sincerely and devoutly; they, and they only, are concerned in it, who go about it: and there is no special propitiation made by this service. It is only an act of devotion and obedience in those that eat and drink worthily;' and though in it they ought to pray for the whole body of the church, yet those their prayers do only prevail with God, as they are devout intercessions, but not by any peculiar virtue in this action.

6

On the other hand, the doctrine of the church of Rome is, that the eucharist is the highest act of homage and honour that creatures can offer up to the Creator, as being an oblation of the Son to the Father; so that whosoever procures a mass to be said, procures a new piece of honour to be done to God, with which he is highly pleased; and for the sake of which he will be reconciled to all that are concerned in the procuring such masses to be said; whether they be still on earth, or if they are now in purgatory: and that the priest, in offering and consuming this sacrifice, performs a true act of priesthood by reconciling sinners to God. Somewhat was already said of this on the head of purgatory.

It seems very plain, by the institution, that our Saviour, as he blessed the sacrament, said, 'Take, eat :' St. Paul calls it a 'communion of the body and blood of the Lord; and a partaking of the Lord's table and he, through his whole discourse of it, speaks of it as an action of the church and of all Christians; but does not so much as by a hint intimate any thing peculiar to the priest: so that all that the scripture has delivered to us concerning it, represents it as an action of the whole body, in which the priest has no special share but

that of officiating. In the Epistle to the Hebrews there is a ART. very long discourse concerning sacrifices and priests, in order XXXI. to the explaining of Christ's being both priest and sacrifice. There a priest stands for a person called and consecrated to offer some living sacrifice, and to slay it, and to make reconciliation of sinners to God, by the shedding, offering, or sprinkling, the blood of the sacrifice. This was the notion that the Jews had of a priest; and the apostle, designing to prove that the death of Christ was a true sacrifice, brings this for an argument, that there was to be another priesthood after the order of Melchisedec. He begins the fifth chapter with settling the notion of a priest, according to the Jewish ideas: and then he goes on to prove that Christ was such a priest, 'called of God and consecrated.' But in this sense he appro- Heb. v. 10. priates the priesthood of the new dispensation singly to Christ, in opposition to the many priests of the Levitical law:

man,

24.

and they truly were many priests,' because they were not ch. vii. 23, suffered to continue, by reason of death: but this because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.'

It is clear from the whole thread of that discourse, that, in the strictest sense of the word, Christ himself is the only Priest under the gospel; and it is also no less evident that his death is the only sacrifice, in opposition to the many oblations that were under the Mosaical law, to take away sin; which appears very plain from these words, Who needeth ver. 27. not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people; for this he did once, when he offered up himself. He opposes that to the annual expiation made by the Jewish high priest, Christ entered in once to the holy place, having obtained redemption for us by his own blood and having laid down that general maxim, that without shedding of blood there was no remission,' he ch. ix. 12. says, 'Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many he 22. ver. 28. puts a question to shew that all sacrifices were now to cease; When the worshippers are once purged, then would not sa- Heb. x. 2. crifices cease to be offered?' and he ends with this, as a full conclusion to that part of his discourse: 'Every priest stands ver. 11,12. daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sin: but this man, after he had offered up one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.' Here are not general words, ambiguous expressions, or remote hints, but a thread of a full and clear discourse, to shew that, in the strict sense of the words, we have but one Priest, and likewise but one Sacrifice, under the gospel; therefore how largely soever those words of

* The Epistle to the Hebrews (ch. x. 14.) tells us, that Christ ought to be but once offered, because by that one offering he has fully satisfied for our sins, and has perfected for ever them that are sanctified. If therefore by that first offering he hath fully satisfied for our sins, then is there no more need of any offering for sin ·

ART. priest or sacrifice may have been used; yet, according to the XXXI. true idea of a propitiatory sacrifice, and of a priest that reconciles sinners to God, they cannot be applied to any acts of our worship, or to any order of men upon earth. Nor can the value and virtue of any instituted act of religion be carried, by any inferences or reasonings, beyond that which is put in them by the institution: and therefore since the institution of this sacrament has nothing in it that gives us this idea of it, we cannot set any such value upon it: and since the reconciling sinners to God, and the pardoning of sin, are free acts of his grace, it is therefore a high presumption in any man to imagine they can do this by any act of theirs, without powers and warrants for it from scripture. Nor can this be pretended to without assuming a most sacrilegious sort of power over the attributes of God: therefore all the virtue that can be in the sacrament is, that we do therein gratefully commemorate the sacrifice of Christ's death, and, by renewed acts of faith, present that to God as our sacrifice, in the memorial of it, which he himself has appointed: by so doing we renew our covenant with God, and share in the effects of that death which he suffered for us. All the ancient liturgies have this as a main part of the office, that being mindful of the death of Christ, or commemorating it, they offered up the gifts.

This is the language of Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and of all the following writers. They do compare this sacrifice to that of Melchisedec, who offered bread and wine and though the text imports only his giving bread and wine to Abraham and his followers, yet they applied that generally to the oblation of bread and wine that was made on the altar: but this shews that they did not think of any sacrifice made by the offering up of Christ. It was the bread and the wine only which they thought the priests of the Christian religion did offer to God. And therefore it is remarkable, that when the fathers answer the reproach of the

If by that first sacrifice he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, the mass certainly must be altogether needless to make any addition to that which is already perfect. In a word, if the sacrifices of the law were therefore repeated, as this Epistle tells us, because they were imperfect; and had they been otherwise, they should have ceased to have been offered; what can we conclude, but the church of Rome then, in every mass she offers, does violence to the cross of Christ; and in more than one sense, crucifies to herself the Lord of glory?

་

Lastly, the council of Trent declares, that because there is a new and proper sacrifice to be offered, it was necessary that our Saviour Christ should institute a new and proper priesthood to offer it. And so they say he did, after the order of Melchisedec, in opposition to that after the order of Aaron under the law. Now certainly nothing can be more contrary to this Epistle than such an assertion: both whose description of this priesthood shews it can agree only to our blessed Lord; and which indeed in express terms declares it to be peculiar to him. It calls it an unchangeable priesthood, that passes not to any other, as that of Aaron did from father to son, but continues in him only, because that he also himself continues for evermore.' Wake.-[ED.]

Minut. in

sum.

Clem.

heathens, who charged them with irreligion and impiety for ART. having no sacrifices among them, they never answer it by XXXI. saying, that they offered up a sacrifice of inestimable value to God; which must have been the first answer that could have occurred to a man possessed with the ideas of the church of Rome. On the contrary, Justin Martyr, in his Apol. 2. Apology, says, They had no other sacrifices but prayers and praises: and in his Dialogue with Trypho he confesses, that Christians offer to God oblations, according to Malachi's prophecy, when they celebrate the eucharist, in which they commemorate the Lord's death. Both Athenagoras and Mi- Leg, pro nutius Felix justify the Christians for having no other sacri- Christ. fices but pure hearts, clean consciences, and a steadfast faith. Octav. Origen and Tertullian refute the same objection in the same lib. viii. manner: they set the prayers of Christians in opposition to con. Celall the sacrifices that were among the heathens. Clemens of Tert. Apol. Alexandria and Arnobius write in the same strain; and they c. 30. do all make use of one topic, to justify their offering no Strom.l.vii. sacrifices, that God, who made all things, and to whom all Arnob. things do belong, needs nothing from his creatures. To mul- lib. vii. tiply no more quotations on this head, Julian in his time objected the same thing to the Christians, which shews that there was then no idea of a sacrifice among them; otherwise he, who knew their doctrine and rites, had either not denied so positively as he did their having sacrifices; or at least he had shewed how improperly the eucharist was called one. When Cyril of Alexandria, towards the middle of the fifth Cyr. Al. century, came to answer this, he insists only upon the inward and spiritual sacrifices that were offered by Christians; which were suitable to a pure and spiritual essence, such as the Divinity was, to take pleasure in; and therefore he sets that in opposition to the sacrifices of beasts, birds, and of all other things whatsoever: nor does he so much as mention, even in a hint, the sacrifice of the eucharist; which shews that he did not consider that as a sacrifice that was propitiatory.

These things do so plainly set before us the ideas that the first ages had of this sacrament, that to one who considers them duly, they do not leave so much as a doubt in this matter. All that they may say in homilies, or treatises of piety, concerning the pure-offering that, according to Malachi, all Christians offered to God in the sacrament, concerning the sacrifice, and the unbloody sacrifice of Christians, must be understood to relate to the prayers and thanksgivings that accompanied it, to the commemoration that was made in it of the sacrifice offered once upon the cross, and finally to the oblation of the bread and wine, which they so often compare both to Abel's sacrifice, and to Melchisedec's offering bread and wine.

lib. x.

cont. Jul.

ART.

It were easy to enlarge further on this head, and from all XXXI. the rituals of the ancients to shew, that they had none of those ideas that are now in the Roman church. They had but one altar in a church, and probably but one in a city : they had but one communion in a day at that altar: so far were they from the many altars in every church, and the many masses at every altar, that are now in the Roman church. They did not know what solitary masses were, without a communion. All the liturgies and all the writings of the ancients are as express in this matter as is possible. The whole constitution of their worship and discipline shews it. Their worship concluded always with the eucharist: such as were not capable of it, as the catechumens, and those who were doing public penance for their sins, assisted at the more general parts of the worship; and so much of it was called their mass, because they were dismissed at the conclusion of it. When that was done, then the faithful stayed, and did partake of the eucharist; and at the conclusion of it they were likewise dismissed; from whence it came to be called the mass of the faithful. The great rigour of penance was thought to consist chiefly in this, that such penitents might not stay with the faithful to communicate. And though this seems to be a practice begun in the third century, yet, both from Justin Martyr and Tertullian, it is evident that all the faithful did constantly communicate. There is a canon, among those which go under the name of the Apostles', against such as came and assisted in the other parts of the Con. An- service, and did not partake of the eucharist; the same tioch. A.D. thing was decreed by the council of Antioch; and it appears Const. A by the Constitutions, that a deacon was appointed to see that post. 1. viii. no man should go out, and a subdeacon was to see that no cap. 11. woman should go out, during the oblation. The fathers do Ep. ad frequently allude to the word communion, to shew that the Eph. cap.i. sacrament was to be common to all. It is true, in St. Chrysostom's time, the zeal that the Christians of the former ages had to communicate often, began to slacken; so that they had thin communions, and few communicants: against which that father raises himself with his pathetic eloquence, in words which do shew that he had no notion of solitary masses, or of the lawfulness of them: and it is very evident, that the neglect of the sacrament in those who came not to it, and the profanation of it by those who came unworthily, both which grew very scandalous at that time, set that holy and zealous bishop to many eloquent and sublime strains concerning it, which cannot be understood, without making those abatements that are due to a copious and Asiatic style, when much inflamed by devotion.

Can. 9. A post.

341.can.2.

Hom. 3. in

In the succeeding ages we find great care was taken to suffer none that did not communicate to stay in the church,