was a Priest;" and not thus," and he was a Priest, and blessed Abraham;" for, both in the Hebrew and Greek, there is a full point after these words, " and," or "for he was a priest;") if, I say, Melchisedec be frequently and truly called a Priest, who had no other offering, that we read of, but "bread and wine," why may not they, whose office is to bless the people as Melchisedec did, and, besides that, to offer that holy bread and wine, the Body and Blood of CHRIST, of which his bread and wine, at the most, was but a type, be as truly and without offence called "Priest" also?-pp. 337-339.

FERNE, BISHOP.--Certain Considerations, &c.

His last exception against the calling of our Bishops, ever since the beginning of the Queen's time, is, because they were not veri Sacerdotes, truly made Priests; which, saith he, is such an essential defect, that it renders their episcopal ordination altogether invalid. cap. 17. We grant it of veri Presbyteri; those that are not truly-made Presbyters first, cannot be true and complete Bishops. But for his veri Sacerdotes, we say, as there are no such Priests under the Gospel, so is there no need that Bishops should first be made such; for Priests, in the Romish sense, are such as, in their ordination, "receive a power of sacrificing for the quick and the dead," i, e. a real offering up again the Son of GOD to His FATHER...

I do not mean to follow Champny here step by step, for he runs into the controversy of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, heaping up the sayings of the Fathers, usually alleged by their writers, and as often answered and cleared by ours. I shall not examine those sayings particularly, but stay upon some generals, which may in brief show the meaning of that manner of speech the Fathers commonly used in and about the celebration of the Eucharist, the high presumption of the Romanists in taking to themselves such a power of sacrificing, and their vanity in reproaching us for not assuming it.

First, it is true that some Fathers seem to say, CHRIST offered Himself up in His last supper; but it is evident they meant it not really and properly, (for how could it be so, when there was

no real effusion of His Blood, no real occision or death?) but mystically, or, as St. Augustine sometimes expresseth it, significante mysterio, in a mystery or Sacrament, signifying or representing His Sacrifice, or offering on the cross, presently to follow; that Sacramentum Dominici Sacrificii, Sacrament of the LORD's Sacrifice, as St. Cyprian calls it, Ep. 63. ad Cæcil...

Champny, endeavouring to clear the relation which the Sacrifice of the Eucharist hath to that of the Cross, is forced to make a wide difference between them, and indeed to come to that which we allow in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament, without placing such a Sacrifice in it as they vainly contend for. "The Sacrifice of the Cross (saith he, p. 704), is absolute and independent, which hath his effect, ex propria sua efficacia, valore, et virtute," from his own efficacy, value, and virtue: but the Sacrifice of the Eucharist" is respectivum, dependens, et applicativum," relative" to that Sacrifice on the Cross," depending" on it, and borrowing totam suam propitiandi vim a Sacrificio Crucis, all the propitiatory force it hath from that on the Cross; lastly, it is "applicative" of the Sacrifice. of the Cross, applicando nobis Crucis merita et valorem; "it applies," saith he, " unto us the merits of that Sacrifice."

Now, in all this, we may observe what a wide difference is made between the Sacrifice in the Eucharist and on the Cross; and, thereupon, how impossible it is to make them one and the same; also... we may further observe, how the Romanists, after all their contending for a real, proper, and propitiatory Sacrifice, are fain to make it but "applicative ;" and that is it which we ascribe to the Eucharist, as it is a Sacrament appointed for this end and purpose, that by it the Sacrifice of the Cross may be applied to us. Secondly, it is true that the Fathers often speak of the Eucharist as of a Sacrifice...

Thirdly. However the Fathers used, for the most part, to speak of this mystery of the Eucharist mystically and obscurely, under the properties of the things signified, rather than of the external symbols, and therefore seeming to imply a real conversion, or transubstantiation of the symbols into the Body and Blood of CHRIST, and a real sacrifice, or offering up of that Body and Blood again in the Eucharist, yet do they sometimes punctually and positively express their meaning by the "memorial," "repre

sentation," and "showing" in the Sacrament what was done upon the Cross; and this they learn from St. Paul, who tells us (1 Cor. xi. 26) to "do this" is to "remember" and "to show" the LORD's death .... Now for this explication of this manner of speech used by the Fathers, I shall instance only in three of them.

First, in Chrysostom. . . . . . . Hom. 17 in Heb. . . . . Next, St.

......

...

Augustine, Ep. 23. . . . . lib. 20. contra Faustum, cap. 21. . . . . Lastly, let Eusebius (sub. cit.) speak, who, in his first book, de Demonstr. Evang. cap. 10, accurately sets down and clears this whole business of the Eucharist'. . .

All that the Romanists have to reply unto the evidence of these and other Fathers, speaking properly of that respect and relation the Eucharist hath to the Sacrifice on the Cross, comes to this; that the placing of a remembrance or representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross in the Eucharist, doth not hinder it to be a true and proper Sacrifice also: no more, saith Champny, page 699, than the respect which the sacrifices of the law had to CHRIST'S Sacrifice, hindered them to be true and real sacrifices. But all this is very impertinent: for if the Fathers had barely said, there was a remembrance in the Eucharist of CHRIST's Sacrifice' it had not excluded a real Sacrifice; but when, in explaining themselves (why they call the Eucharist a Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, and why they say CHRIST is there offered up) they give it for the reason of their so speaking, because that Sacrifice once offered by our SAVIOUR is there remembered, shown, and represented, it is most plain they did not think that which is done in the Eucharist to be a real sacrificing of CHRIST. Their instance also of the legal sacrifices is as impertinent, for they were real sacrifices in regard of the beasts really slain and offered. Now if the Romanists will have the bread and wine (which represent the Body and Blood which was really offered) to be the real Sacrifice in the Eucharist, then indeed the remembrance or representation of CHRIST's Sacrifice there doth not hinder, but there may be also an external oblation (and so many Fathers accounted the bread and wine to be, as they were brought and offered to that holy use and service). But the Romanists will not say the bread and wine is the Sacrifice they 1 Vid. sup. cit. pp. 63. 66, 7. 88, &c.

contend for, but that it is the very Body and Blood which is offered up; which Body and Blood being the same which was offered up upon the Cross, their real Sacrifice cannot have help by their instance of the legal sacrifices of the bodies and blood of beasts, but stands excluded by the Fathers saying, CHRIST is offered up in the Eucharist by a mystical signification," by a "remembrance," by "representation," as above said. It is very remarkable what Peter Lombard saith to this purpose'... The sum of all is this. The Fathers usually expressed the celebration or work of the Eucharist, by the words of Sacrifice, or offering up the Body of CHRIST, for themselves and others, because, there was a representing of the real Sacrifice of the Cross, and a presenting (as we may say) of it again to God, for the impetration or obtaining of the benefits thereof for themselves, and for all those, they remembered in the celebration of the Eucharist.

Fourthly, it is true that the ancient Fathers speak of offering this Sacrifice for the dead, but far from the popish sense, according to which Romish Priests, in their ordination are said to receive "power to offer Sacrifice for the quick and dead:" for that offering for the dead, which the ancients speak of, in the celebration of the Eucharist, had the same extent, purpose, and meaning, that their prayers there for the dead had; and these anciently were made for those whom they judged to be in bliss, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Holy Bishops, &c. ..... And it is plain, by the writers of those times, that this remembering of the dead, thus in the celebration of the Eucharist (which was the representation of CHRIST's Sacrifice), was that which the ancients called "offering for them," or, as in St. Augustine's time, "offering the Sacrifice of the Altar," or the "Sacrifice of our SAVIOUR" for them; i. e. an acknowledging of, and thanksgiving for their sleeping (pro dormitione, as St. Cyprian and others) in the LORD, and their saving by the merits of His death; and an impetration (by His Sacrifice then represented) of all that mercy, redemption, and glory, which was yet behind. Thus St. Augustine, in his Confessions, speaks of offering for his mother

1 Vid. sup. cit. p. 68.

Monica (whom he doubted not to be in bliss); i. e. remembering the like respects.

her upon

The Romanists have applied all prayers and offering for the dead to the souls in purgatory ..... so contrary doth the Church of Rome now run to antiquity, which offered for and prayed for the saints, and both in the honour of CHRIST and His Sacrifice. Now the offering of their mass, and the prayers for the dead, are made for the souls in purgatory; and in regard of them only, it is that the Romish Priests "receive power to offer Sacrifice for the dead." . . .

Now to conclude. By all that hath been said, it appears how groundless, unwarrantable, and presumptuous this power is which the Romish Priests pretend to; and how that power which our Priests or Presbyters receive in ordination, and use in celebrating the Eucharist, is warranted by the express word, and doth the whole work of the Sacraments sufficiently, according to all purposes that our SAVIOUR intended it for, when He said, "Do this," and according to the true and proper meaning of the Fathers, speaking usually of a Sacrifice in it. ... Bellarm. lib. 3. de Pontif. Rom. c. 19. writing of Antichrist, and answering to this as a piece of Antichristianism charged upon the Church of Rome, dare not simply affirm that the Priest offers up CHRIST, but that CHRIST offers up Himself, per manus Sacerdotis, by the hands of the Priest. Whether Bellarmine mend or mar his business here, it is hard to say; this we know, that CHRIST, our High Priest (according to the Apostle, Heb. vii. 25. and ix. 24), is in heaven, at Gon's right hand, executing His eternal Priesthood, by interceding for us, and in that representing still what He hath done and suffered for us. And we know, and we have warrant and His appointment to do the like sacramentally here below, i. e. in the celebration of the Eucharist, to remember His death and passion, and represent His own oblation upon the Cross, and by it to beg and impetrate what we or the Church stand in need of . . . . . Yea, the Priest saith directly, in order of their Mass: Suscipe, Pater, hanc hostiam, quam ego indignus servus tuus offero tibi. "Receive, O FATHER, this Sacrifice, which I, thine unworthy servant, do offer unto Thee." They that composed this