place after their consecration. For had it been so, this would have been more especially and peculiarly that part of the office which had the sacrificial character, as our opponents (justly according to their view) represent it to be, whereas Irenæus expressly represents the sacrificial part of it, as far as concerns any sacrifice of the elements themselves, to consist in the oblation of the bread and wine As the firstfruits of God's creatures, in order that they may be applied to the purposes of the eucharist, and speaks of this as the sacrifice of the New Testament referred to by Malachi; while Justin Martyr and Tertullian overlooking generally any material sacrifice in the eucharist, place the sacrifice wholly in the prayers and thanksgivings that are offered up, even that offering up of the true sacrifice of the cross to God upon the altar of the heart, which is presented by every faithful worshipper when receiving the outward memorials of that sacrifice.

The breaking of the bread and the pouring out of the wine that take place in the communion are a commemoration of the sacrifice of the cross, and this act of commemoration, in which every communicant partakes, when accompanied with faithful thanksgivings for the sacrifice it represents, is an acceptable sacrifice to God. We deny not, therefore, be it observed, that there is a sacrifice offered to God in this part of the service, but it is a sacrifice of personal service, not of the elements, and performed by every communicant, and although that personal service consists partly in outward actions, its far more important and essential part is in the feelings of the heart towards God.

A better statement of the whole question can hardly perhaps be found than is given by our opponents' own witness Bishop White. "Touching the name and title of sacrifice, our Church giveth the same to the holy eucharist; and that not only in respect of certain pious actions annexed unto it, to wit, prayer, thanksgiving, alms, &c.-Rom. xii. 1. 1 Pet. ii. 5.-but in regard of the eucharist itself; wherein first the outward elements

of bread and wine receiving the calling of God (Iren. 1. 4. c. 34.) are made sacred and appointed to divine worship, 1 Cor. xi. 26, and become instruments of grace to men. Secondly, the body and blood of Christ, PRESENT TO THE SOUL, are, by THE FAITH AND DEVOTION of the pastor and people which receive these mysteries, presented and tendered to God, with request that he will vouchsafe for the merit thereof to bestow grace and remission of sins, and other benefits upon them." 1

That any argument should be derived by our opponents from the word sacrifice being used with reference to the eucharist is on the face of it absurd, because the word is constantly used by the Fathers in a sense wholly spiritual, and signifying only prayers or offerings of the heart. This we have already seen in several instances, which are the more pertinent to our present subject, as having an especial reference to the eucharist, but of general instances it would be easy to add many more. "We sacrifice," says Tertullian, "for the safety of the Emperor, but to our God and his, and in the manner in which God hath di

rected, namely, with pure prayers." "A good spirit, a pure mind, a sincere conscience . . . these," says Minucius Felix, "are our sacrifices, these are God's sacred offerings." And so indeed is the word frequently used by the Apostles in the New Testament. +

And Bishop Morton has shown that this word is also used with respect to baptism, adding, "Wherefore by this analogy between these two sacraments of baptism and the eucharist, we may conclude out of the testimony of St. Augustine, recorded by their antient schoolman Aquinas,

'F. White's Orthodox Faith and Way to the true Church explained. With Works of John White, p. 158.

2 Sacrificamus pro salute Imperatoris, sed Deo nostro et ipsius, sed quomodo præcepit Deus, pura prece. Ad. Scap. c. 2. p. 69. See also his Apologet c. 30.

3 Bonus animus et pura mens et sincera conscientia . . . . hæc nostra sacrificia, hæc Dei sacra sunt. Min. Fel. De idol. vanit. ed. Oxon. 1678. p. 95. See Rom. xii, 1. Phil. iv. 18. Heb. xiii. 15, 16. 1 Pet. ii. 5.

'that signs are called by the names of those things which they do represent, as for example, of the painted image of Cicero we use to say, this is Cicero. And so the celebration of this sacrament which is a representation of Christ's passion, the true immolation or sacrificing, is called an immolation." 1

The application, therefore, of this word sacrifice to the eucharist by the Fathers proves nothing in favour of our opponents.

If, then, the testimony of Scripture, and of the earliest Fathers, is opposed to the notion of such a sacrifice as our opponents contend for in the eucharist, the other three propositions are answered in this.

But we must not pass them over without notice, for in them lies the poison of the whole doctrine. That there should be such a sacrifice made in the eucharist, is a matter which, though far from unimportant, is comparatively of little moment. That such a doctrine as that of our opponents should be held respecting it, is a matter of vast moment, embracing as it does some of the worst errors of the Romish system.

It is maintained, then, secondly, that the minister performs this act in a strictly sacerdotal character.

This notion has been already completely overthrown by the testimonies of Tertullian and Justin Martyr, adduced in a former page, to which I refer the reader. In these passages Tertullian and Justin Martyr assert, with particular respect to the sacrifice of the eucharist, that ALL Christians are priests to God. It thence clearly follows, that in the eucharist the minister is but the guide and leader of the devotions of the people. It is worthy of observation, that the word used to describe the Levitical priests, (iepevc,) is never used in the New Testament for the ministers of Christ, but wherever it is used it is ap

Cath. App. ii. 7. § 8. pp. 173, 4, and see his Treatise of the Lord's Supper, ed. 1652. See pp. 52, 54, above.

plied generally to the whole body of believers.1 Nor is the term so applied by the Apostolical Fathers or Justin Martyr. One passage only occurs in their genuine remains that has ever been thought of as an instance, namely, in Ignatius, where Pearson, Smith, and Markland understand it of Levitical priests, and in Jacobson's view rightly.

2

I know not, indeed, how any man can read the Epistle to the Hebrews, and persevere in maintaining such a notion as that which we are here opposing.

The Apostle in that Epistle seems with studied assiduity to impress upon our minds the fact, that with us there is but one sacrifice and one priest, a sacrifice all prevalent for the full remission of sins, and a priest who, being eternal, for ever liveth to present it, and make intercession for us; and that, consequently, every true Christian has, at all times, a sacrifice and a priest to present it for him to God, without the intervention of any other person or thing whatever.3 And the service of the eucharist differs only (as far as the act of worship in it is concerned) from the private services of the Christian in his closet, from its being accompanied by certain external acts, indicative and expressive of our thankful remembrance of and faith in the sacrifice of the cross, in which the minister does nothing but as the hand and voice of the whole assembly, as all pure antiquity bears witness.

And further, we may remark, that St. Paul, when speaking of the ministers of the Old and New Testament, describes the former as "they which wait at the altar," and the latter as "they which preach the gospel," a distinction very different to what he would have drawn had he held the views of the Tractators.

And so far is Hooker, whom our opponents have quoted as a maintainer of their views, from supporting

Rev. i. 6; v. 10; and see 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9.

2 Καλοι και οἱ ἱερεις. Ad Philad. § 9.

See particularly Heb. vii. 23-28. viii. 1, 6. x. 19-22.

41 Cor. ix. 13, 14.

them in this, that he distinctly says, (as already quoted,) "In truth the word presbyter doth seem more fit, and in propriety of speech more agreeable, than priest, with the drift of the whole gospel of Jesus Christ," which he never would have said had he held our opponents' views, but merely drawn the distinction which they draw between the Levitical priest and the Christian priest, as the one offering bloody and the other unbloody sacrifices, and not have given up the appellation altogether, and substituted presbyter for it.

Not, indeed, as I have already intimated, that the use of such a word is a matter of any great moment, because we hold, with Hooker, that there is no reason why "the very name of altar, of priest, of sacrifice itself, should be banished out of the world."" For," adds that judicious writer," though God do now hate sacrifice, whether it be heathenish or Jewish, so that we cannot have the same things which they had but with impiety; yet unless there be some greater let than the only evacuation of the Law of Moses, the names themselves may (I hope) be retained without sin, in respect of that proportion which things established by our Saviour have unto them which by him are abrogated; and so throughout all the writings of the antient Fathers we see that the words which were do continue; the only difference is, that whereas before they had a literal they now have a metaphorical use, and are as so many notes of remembrance unto us, that what they did signify in the letter is accomplished in the truth."2

And we say with Archbishop Whitgift,-" I am not greatly delighted with the name, [i. e. priest,] nor so desirous to maintain it; but yet a truth is to be defended. I read in the old Fathers, that these two names, Sacerdos and Presbyter, be confounded. I see, also, that the learned and the best of our English writers, such, I mean, as write in these our days, translate the word Presbyter

1 See pp. 141, 2, above.

2 Eccl. Pol. bk. iv. c. 11.