our sins, and all other benefits of His passion."] Whereby all "the whole Church" is to be understood as well those who have been heretofore, and those who shall be hereafter, as those that are now the present members of it. And hereupon my Lord of Winchester, Bishop Andrews, propounded his answer to Cardinal Perron, when he said, "We have and offer this Sacrifice both for the living and for the dead: as well for them that are absent, as those that be present;" or words to this purpose, for I have not the book now by me. . . .

So that the virtue of this Sacrifice (which is here in this Prayer of Oblation commemorated and represented) doth not only extend itself to the living, and those that are present, but likewise to them that are absent, and them that are already departed, or shall in time to come live and die in the faith of CHRIST: Which thing being observed, several expressions of the ancients, concerning the Sacrifice and Oblation of the Church for the living and the dead, (which otherways at first view may seem difficult) may be cleared up and easily explained; for they thought of nothing less than of the "opus operatum" of the popish mass, and a Sacrifice so called, which the Romish priests (not the reformed) pretend and boast, though without ground, "toties quoties," to offer up. But we, with the ancient Fathers, assert and teach, that in the Sacrament of the LORD's Supper, among the ancients, there was no other oblation made for the living and the dead, but only that the priest or presbyter, standing before the holy table, prayed to God for them for the sake of CHRIST, and CHRIST's Passion and death.

Therefore we do not depart from the tradition of antiquity, and the custom of the universal Church in this matter.

"To offer unto Thee any Sacrifice."] The celebration of this Sacrament may for divers reasons be called a Sacrifice; and we do acknowledge, that by the ancient Church it was so called; but yet we deny that there is any reason why it should be called a "true Sacrifice," and "properly so called," or ought to be so; for when we call any thing a true Sacrifice, we have regard to the formal reason of a Sacrifice, and not the final. For the end is to pay worship and obedience to God, and to do what God approves

and accounts acceptable to Him. For whatsoever work is of this kind, is by S. Austin called a true Sacrifice. ...

So that by the ancients and us, the celebration of this Sacrament is called a Sacrifice, yea, a true Sacrifice, in the manner we have explained it in. First, because it is a sensible rite, supplying the place of sensible things. Secondly, because, when it is celebrated, those things are wont to be offered, which were used in Sacrifices, or at least went to the use of the ministers of the Church, or the poor, which in scriptural phrase are called "Sacrifices acceptable to God." Thirdly, because therein thanks are given to GOD, and prayers are poured out, which in Scripture are styled by the name of "Sacrifice." Fourthly, because by these prayers the Passion, Death, and Merits of CHRIST, are offered up to Gon the FATHER by commemoration and representation. As we showed before that S. Austin spoke.—pp. 49-51.

ID.-Paper concerning the Differences, &c.1

The Differences.

5. That the priests offer up our SAVIOUR in the mass, as a real, proper, and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead; and that whosoever believes it not is eternally damned.

Our Agreements.

7. In commemorating at the Eucharist the Sacrifice of CHRIST'S Body and Blood once truly offered for us.

HEYLYN, PRESBYTER AND CONFESSOR.-Antidotum Lincolniense.

For when our blessed LORD and SAVIOUR had, by that one offering of Himself once for all," perfected for ever all them that are sanctified," and "by His own blood entered into the holy place" and "obtained eternal redemption for us," there was forthwith an end of all those sacrifices in the law, by which this one of His had been prefigured.... Yet did not CHRIST deprive His Church for ever of all manner of Sacrifices, but only abrogated

1 A Paper concerning the Differences in the chief points of Religion betwixt the Church of Rome and the Church of England, written to the late Countess Peterborough. Hickes's Controversial Letters, vol. i. Appendix, Paper i.

those which had been before; which, if continued, might have been a strong presumption of His not coming in the flesh; in which respect, those, and all other ceremonies of the Jews, are by the Fathers said to be, not only dangerous, but deadly, to us Christian men. The Passion of our SAVIOUR, as, by the LORD's own ordinance, it was prefigured to the Jews in the legal Sacrifices à parte ante; so by CHRIST's institution, it is to be commemorated by us Christians in the holy Supper, à parte post. A Sacrifice it was in figure, a Sacrifice in fact, and so, by consequence, a Sacrifice in the commemorations, or upon the post-fact. A Sacrifice there was among the Jews, showing forth CHRIST's death unto them, before His coming in the flesh: a Sacrifice there must be amongst the Christians, to show forth the LORD's death, till He come in judgment. And if a Sacrifice there must be, there must be also Priests to do, and Altars wereupon to do it; because, without a Priest and Altar, there can be no Sacrifice yet so that the precedent Sacrifice was of a different nature from the subsequent ; and so are also both the Priest and Altar from those before; a bloody Sacrifice then, an unbloody now; a Priest derived from Aaron then, from Melchisedec now; an Altar for Mosaical Sacrifices then, for Evangelical now;-the Sacrifice prescribed by CHRIST, qui novi testamenti, &c. ["who taught the new oblation of the New Testament," saith Irenæus, l. iv. c. 32. "Who the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, &c. drink it, in remembrance of me.” not plain enough the nature of the Sacrifice to be commemorative, we may take those that follow by way of commentary; often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the LORD's death till He come."-pp. 137-139.

....

. . . . Do this, as often as you Which words, if they express

"for as

Of any expiatory Sacrifice, of any offering up of CHRIST for the quick and dead, more than had been done by Him once, and once for all, those blessed ages never dreamt. And howsoever some of the ancient Fathers did amplify, with the choicest of their rhetoric, the dignity and nature of this holy Sacrament, the better to influence the people with a lively zeal, at their partaking of the same; yet they meant nothing less, than to give any

opportunity to the future ages, of making that an expiatory Sacrifice, which they did only teach to be commemorative or representative of our SAVIOUR'S Passion. A Sacrifice they did confess it, Altars and Priests they did allow of, as necessary thereunto; not thinking fit to change those terms, which had been recommended to them from pure antiquity. Those blessed spirits were not λoyoμáxo, contentious about words and forms of speech, in which there was not manifest impiety. The Supper of the LORD they called sometimes a Sacrifice, and sometimes a memorial of the Sacrifice, and so St. Chrysostom on the 9th chapter to the Hebrews, sometimes a Sacrifice, and sometimes a Sacrament, and so St. Austin for example; for in his book de civitate Dei, he calleth it a Sacrifice; and saith, that it succeeded in the place of those legal Sacrifices, mentioned in the Old Testament. The same St. Austin, as you tell us, doth in the same book call it a Sacrament of memory; . . and I am sure, that in the very same book it is called "the Sacrament of the Altar :" which was a very common appellation among the Fathers, as was acknowledged by the Martyrs in queen Mary's time. So for the Minister thereof, they called him sometimes Presbyter, and sometimes Sacerdos, Elder, or Priest, indifferently, without doubt or scruple . . . The Table, or the Altar, were to them such indifferent words, that they used them both equally. . . So that, in all this search into antiquity, we find a general consent in the Church of GOD, touching the business now in hand: the Sacrament of the LORD's Supper being confessed to be a Sacrifice; the Minister therein, entitled by the name of Priest; that on which the Priest did consecrate, being as usually called by the name of Altar, as by that of Table.... Not an improper Altar, and an improper Sacrifice, as you idly dream of: for Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars being relatives, as yourself confesseth, the Sacrifice and the altar being improper, must needs infer that even our Priesthood is improper also; and we may speak in proper and significant terms, as the Fathers did, without approving either the Popish mass, or the Jewish sacrifice.-pp. 155-8.

It were an infinite labour to sum up all places of and in the Rubrics, wherein the Minister is called by the name of Priest;

...

which being so, as so it is, and that your own self hath told us that Altar, Priest, and Sacrifice are relatives, the Church of England, keeping still as well the office of Priesthood, as the name of Priest, must needs admit of Altars, and of Sacrifices, as things peculiar to the Priesthood. But not to trust so great a matter to your rules of logic, we will next see, what is the judgment of the Church in the point of Sacrifice. Two ways there are by which the Church declares herself in the present business: first, positively, in the book of Articles and that of Homilies; and practically, in the Book of Common Prayer. First, in the Articles; (Art. xxxi.) "The offering of CHRIST once made," &c. . . . This Sacrifice or oblation, once for ever made, and never more to be repeated, was, by our SAVIOUR's own appointment, to be commemorated and represented to us, for the better quickening of our faith whereof, if there be nothing said in the Book of Articles, it is because the Articles related chiefly unto points in controversy; but in the Book of Homilies, which do relate unto the Articles, as confirmed in them, and are (though not dogmatical, but rather popular discourses,) a comment, as it were, on those points of doctrine, which are determined of elsewhere, we find it thus: (Hom. of the Sacrament, Part ii. p. 197.) "That the great love of our SAVIOUR CHRIST to mankind doth not only appear, in that dear bought benefit of our redemption, and satisfaction by His death and Passion, but also in that He hath so kindly provided that the same most merciful work might be had in continual remembrance. Amongst the which means is the public celebration of the memory of His precious death at the LORD's table: our SAVIOUR having ordained and established the remembrance of His great mercy expressed in His Passion, in the institution of His heavenly Supper." Here is a commemoration of the blessed Sacrifice which CHRIST once offered, a public celebration of the memory thereof, and a continual remembrance of it by Himself ordained. Which, if it seem not full enough for the commemorative Sacrifice, in the Church observed, the Homily will tell us further; that this LORD's Supper is in such wise to be done and ministered, as our LORD and SAVIOUR did, and commanded it to be done; as His holy Apostles used it; and