that holy solemnity: the priest is their mouth in doing it, their conductor, or principal, authorized by God so to be. This great man said nothing of proper or improper: all the three sacrifices may be understood to be proper, but spiritual. What he believed, as to each, is not easy to say. If we explain his commemorative sacrifice by Bishop Buckeridge's account of the same thing, it could be no more than figurative, in that relative view; for we cannot properly sacrifice Christ himself: but the commemorative service, being of the same nature with hymns and praises, may be considered in the absolute view, as a proper sacrifice of ours, of the eucharistical and spiritual kind; and that perhaps was what that great Prelate might have in his thoughts. It is certain that Bishop Montague, of that time, understood the whole action, or memorial service, to be a true and real sacrifice of praise. And as he was a great admirer of antiquity, he had no regard to the new definitions, but referred the novelists to St. Austin for correction and better instruction ". The very learned Dr. Hammond was, undoubtedly, in the same way of thinking: the whole eucharistical action both of priest and people, the memorial service jointly performed, that was the sacrifice in his account. Bishop Taylor P, Archbishop Bramhall, Hamon l'Estrange', appear to have been in the like sentiments. Dr. Patrick, who wrote in 1659, more plainly followed the ancient way of thinking and speaking, such as had been in use before the new definitions came in. Duties and services were his sacrifice, a spiritual sacrifice. He pleads, that such services justly deserve the namet; that even the Pagan Platonists (as well as Scripture and Fathers) had so used the name of sacrifice; and that the appellation was very proper", taking in not only mental, or vocal praises, but manual also; that is, as he expresses it, m Montacut. Origin. tom. ii. p. 301 -304. Compare his Antidiatribe, p. 143, 144. where he takes in our self-sacrifice, calling it the sacrifice of Christ's mystical body. n Montacut. ibid. p. 358. o Hammond, Practical Catechism, lib. vi. sect. 4. vol. i. p. 174. Compare View of New Direct. p. 154. and vol. ii. Dispatch, p. 164. vol. iii. p. 769. The notion of the whole action being the sacrifice, was not new it appears in the Fathers of old; the eucharistical actions". Upon these principles, he tells the Papists, that "we are sacrificers as well as they:" which was the right turn, copied from what the ancient Fathers had said in answer to the like charge of having no sacrifice, and as justly pleaded by Protestants now, as by Christians then, against their injurious accusers. Bishop Lany, after the Restoration, (A. D. 1663.) a very learned Divine, and of great acumen, scrupled not to call the whole eucharistical service true and proper sacrifice, proper without a metaphor, as being the fittest gift or present that could be offered to the Divine Majestyy. So little did he regard the frivolous distinctions of the Trent Council, or the new definitions invented to support them. Nine years after appeared Dr. Brevint". He was well read in the eucharistic sacrifice: no man understood it better; which may appear sufficiently from two tracts of his upon the subject, small ones both, but extremely fine. He stood upon the ancient ground, looked upon evangelical duties as the true oblations and sacrifices, resolved the sacrifice of the Eucharist, actively considered, solely into themb; and he explained the practical uses of that doctrine in so clear, so lively, and so affecting a way, that one shall scarce meet with any thing on the subject that can be justly thought to exceed it, or even to come up to it c. So that I could heartily join my wishes with a late learned writer, that that "excellent little book, entitled, The Christian Sacrament "and Sacrifice, might be reprinted, for the honour of God, and "the benefit of the Church d." It is worth the noting, how w Ibid. p. 36. compare p. 19. x Ibid. p. 37. compare p. 38, 40. N.B. I have omitted Mr. Thorndike, because his notion plainly resolves into the passive sense, viz. into the grand sacrifice itself, as contained in the Eucharist, because represented, applied, and participated in it. The Lutherans, generally, resolve it the same way, only differing as to the point of real or local presence. Vide Brochmand, tom. iii. p. 2072, 3052. y Bishop Lany's Sermon on Hebr. xiii. 15. p. 16, 32. Compare my Review, vol. iv. p. 735, 736. z In 1672, Dr. Brevint wrote the Depth and Mystery of the Roman Mass reprinted 1673. In 1673, he published the Christian Sacrament : acutely Dr. Brevint distinguished between the sacramental sacrifice of Christ, and the real or actual sacrifice of ourselves. We cannot properly sacrifice Christ: we can only do it in signs and figures, that is, improperly, or commemoratively: but we may properly offer up ourselves to God; and that is, in strict propriety of speech, our sacrifice, our spiritual sacrifice. Dr. Brevint rejected, with disdain, any thought of a material sacrifice, a bread offering, or a wine offering; tartly ridiculing the pretences commonly made for it. But I have dwelt long enough upon the Divines of the first class; who standing upon the old principles, and disregarding the new definitions, continued to call the Eucharist a true sacrifice, or a proper sacrifice, (meaning eucharistical and spiritual,) or forbore, at least, to call it improper, or metaphorical. 2. I may now look back to other Divines, who used a different language in this article. 66 At the head of themf stands the celebrated Mr. Hooker, who wrote in 1597, and who feared not to say, that "sacrifice is now no part of the Church ministry," and that we have, "properly, "now no sacrifice 5." I presume he meant by proper sacrifice, propitiatory, according to the sense of the Trent Council, or of the new definitions. In such a sense as that, he might justly say, that sacrifice is no part of the Church ministry, or that the Christian Church has no sacrifice. But I commend not the use of such new language, be the meaning ever so right: the Fathers never used it h. 66 66 and proper, inasmuch as they allowed only of spiritual sacrifices, which, in the Romish account, were not true or proper sacrifices. See Rainoldes against Harte, p. 472, 535, 536, 539That kind of arguing first led the way to such sort of language as Mr. Hooker made use of; but was not precisely the same with it, not running in the like absolute terms. Dr. Francis White, in the year 1617, (he was afterwards e "Now among these magnificent "wonders of Christ's law, bread and "wine can be reputed but of little importance; which you may find as well or better among the obla"tions of Aaron, and thus far be"longing better to his order; because "he is often commanded to offer "bread, which Priest Melchizedek is "not. Therefore, if offering bread "and wine makes an order, Aaron "will be more certainly a priest after "the order of Melchizedek, than was "either Melchizedek or Christ him"self." Brevint, Depth and Mystery, p. 116. See p. 117. f Dr. Rainoldes, in 1584, had in the way of arguing ad hominem shewn, that the Fathers were no friends to the mass-sacrifice, considered as true g Hooker, Eccl. Polity, vol. ii. lib. 5. sect. 78. p. 439. Oxf. edit. h Once Clemens Alexandrinus, (Str. vii. p. 836.) and once Arnobius, (lib. vii.) has said, that the Christians had no sacrifices; meaning such as the Pagans had boasted of: but that did not amount to saying, that the Church had no proper sacrifices, or properly no sacrifice. Bishop of Ely,) observed, that the name of sacrifice doth not in a proper and univocal sense belong to the Eucharist, but in a large acceptation of the word, and in a figurative meaning; because it is a representation of the real sacrifice of Christ once offered upon the crossi. He was so far right, in making a representation of Christ's sacrifice to be but figuratively that sacrifice but he forgot, that the Eucharist contains many spiritual services, which are truly sacrifices in the Scripture language, and that even the memorial service, though it is but metonymically Christ's sacrifice, is yet really our sacrifice, our spiritual sacrifice. From hence, however, may be seen how and by what degrees Protestant Divines came to leave off calling the Eucharist a sacrifice, or called it so with the epithet of improper, or figurative. It was chiefly owing to a partial conception of it: they considered it barely in its representative or relative view, and too hastily concluded, that since it was not the sacrifice represented, (as the Romanists pretended it was,) it was no sacrifice at all in propriety of speech. Spalatensis, of that time, made no scruple of saying, over and over, that the Eucharist is "not a true sacrifice.' In a certain place, he expressed himself in such a manner as might be apt to surprise a man at the first reading: he says, that the name of true sacrifice was never given to the Eucharist, never thought on, before the very latest and the most corrupt ages'. But he meant it, I suppose, according to that sense of true sacrifice, which the Trent Council and the Popish writers had lately affixed to the name. The Divinity chairs in both universities, about that time, concurred in denying the Eucharist to be a true, real, or proper sacrifice which appears from Dr. Abbot in, afterwards Bishop of Sarum; and from Dr. Davenant", afterwards Bishop of the : i White, Orthodox Faith and Way, P. 339. Antonius de Dominis, lib. v. c. 6. p. 82, 265, 269, 271, 278. 1 Esse verum sacrificium, nunquam ad postrema corrupta sæcula invenio, aut dictum, aut cogitatum, aut traditum, aut practicatum in Ecclesia. Antonius de Dominis, ibid. p. 281. : m"The passion of Christ is the "sacrifice which we offer and be"cause the passion of Christ is not now really acted, therefore the sa"crifice which we offer is no true 66 "and real sacrifice." Abbot, Counterproof against Dr. Bishop, ch. xiv. p. 364. N.B. Here was the like partial conception of the thing as I before noted in Dr. White. n Nos asserimus, in missa nihil posse nominari aut ostendi quod sit sacrificabile, aut quod rationem et essentiam habeat realis, externi et proprie dicti sacrificii: quamvis quæ adhiberi in eadem solent preces, eleemosyna, gratiarum actiones, spiritualium sacrificiorum nomen sortiantur; quamvis etiam ipsa repræsentatio same see. Both of them seemed to take their estimate of true and proper sacrifice from the new definitions; allowing them for argument sake, and joining issue with the Romanists upon their own terms. The like may be said of Mr. Mason, who frequently allows, or declares, that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice properly so called. But Dr. Crakanthorp (about A.D. 1624.) may serve for a good comment upon all the rest: for when he denied the Eucharist to be either a true sacrifice, or a sacrifice properly so called, he cautiously guarded what he had said, by restraining it to such a sense as the Trent Council and Romish divines had affixed to the phrases of true sacrifice, and sacrifice properly so called P. That restriction, or salvo, was often forgot, and came, by degrees, to be more and more omitted; and so the most prevailing doctrine ran in absolute terms, that the Eucharist is no true sacrifice, or no proper sacrifice, or in short, no sacrifice. Bishop Morton, being sensible how much it tended to disparage the holy Eucharist, and how contradictory it was to ancient language, to say that the Eucharist is not a true or not a proper sacrifice, endeavoured to help the matter by a distinction between truth of excellency and truth of propriety; allowing the Eucharist to be true sacrifice, as to excellency of nature, but not as to propriety of speech: as if the new definitions were a better rule of propriety, than all that had prevailed for fifteen hundred years before. His distinction was a good one, in the main, but was not justly applied in this particular, where truth of excellency and truth of propriety are really coincident, and resolve both into one. However, so the vogue ran, as I have before said, and fracti corporis Christi et fusi sanguinis, figurate sacrificium a veteribus sæpenumero vocetur. Davenant. Determinat. q. 13. o Mason. de Minist. Anglic. p. 549, 550, 551, 555, 627, 628. P Sacrificium missæ non est vere sacrificium propitiatorium, ut concilium Tridentinum definit, vestrique docent; sed Eucharisticum tantummodo et commemorativum.-Sed nec omnino verum et proprie dictum sacrificium in missa ullum est; non quale Tridentinum concilium definivit, et vestri uno ore profitentur. Crakanthorp. contr. Spalatens. c. lxxiv. P. 574. Morton's Institut. of the Sacram. book vi. chap. 3. p. 415. chap. 7. |