Paragraph 31.1

The Offering of Christ once made, is that perfect Redemption, Propitiation and Satisfaction for all the Sins of the whole World both Original and Actual; and there is none other Satisfaction for Sin but that alone: Wherefore in the Sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of Pain and Guilt, were blasphemous Fables and dangerous Deceits.

It were a mere question of Words to dispute concerning the term Sacrifice, to consider the Extent of that Word, and the many various respects in which the Eucharist may be called a Sacrifice. In general, all Acts of Religious Worship may be called Sacrifices, because somewhat is in them offered up to God: Let my Prayer be set forth before thee as Incense, and the lifting up of my Hands as the evening Sacrifice.¹ The Sacrifices of God are a broken Spirit: A broken and a contrite Heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. These shew how largely this Word was used in the Old Testament: So in the New we are exhorted by him (that is, by Christ) to offer the Sacrifice of Praise to God continually, that is, the Fruit of our Lips, giving Thanks to his Name. A Christian’s dedicating himself to the Service of God,² is also expressed by the same Word of presenting our Bodies a living Sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God: All Acts of Charity are also called Sacrifices, an odour of a sweet smell,³ a Sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God. So in this large Sense we do not deny that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving: And our Church calls it so in the Office of the Communion. In two other respects it may be also more strictly called a Sacrifice. One is, because there is an Oblation of Bread and Wine made in it, which being sanctified are consumed in an Act of Religion. To this many passages in the Writings of the Fathers do relate. This was the Oblation made at the Altar by the People: And though at first the Christians were reproached, as having a strange sort of a Religion in which they had neither Temples, Altars nor Sacrifices, because they had not those things in so gross a manner as the Heathens had, yet both Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and all the succeeding Writers of the Church, do frequently mention the Oblations that they made: And in the Antient Liturgies they did with particular Prayers offer the Bread and Wine to God, as the Great Creator of all things: Those were called the Gifts or Offerings which were offered to God in imitation of Abel, who offered the Fruits of the Earth, in a Sacrifice to God. Both Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Constitutions and all the antient 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 antient 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 Priests 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 Cstrist, 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.

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 very long Discourse concerning Sacrifices and Priests, in order 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,⁴ 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 appropriates the Priesthood of the New Dispensation singly to Christ, in opposition to the many Priests of the Levitical Law; And they truly were many Priests, because they were not suffered to continue, by reason of Death: But this Man,⁵ 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 not daily as those High-Priests to offer up Sacrifice,⁶ 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 entred in once to the Holy Place, having made Redemption for us by his own Blood. And having laid down that general Maxim,⁷ that without shedding of Blood there was no Remission, he says, Christ was offered once to bear the Sins of many. He puts a Question to shew that all Sacrifices were now to cease; When the Worshippers are once purged, then would not Sacrifices cease to be offered?⁸ And he ends with this, as a full Conclusion to that Part of his Discourse:⁹ Every Priest stands daily ministring 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 Priest or Sacrifice may have been used, yet according to the true Idea of a propitiatory Sacrifice, and of a Priest that reconciles Sinners to God, they cannot be applyed 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 imagin they can do this by an 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 antient 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, Irenaeus, 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 Heathens, who charged them with Irreligion and Impiety for having no Sacrifices among them, they never answer it by 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 Apology says, They had no other Sacrifices but Prayers and Praises:¹⁰ And in his Dialogue with Trypho he confesses, That Christians offer to God Oblations, according to Malachi’s Prophecy, when they celebrate the Eucharist,¹¹ in which they commemorate the Lord’s Death. Both Athenagoras and Minutius Felix justify the Christians for having no other Sacrifices but pure Hearts, clean Consciences, and a stedfast Faith. Origen and Tertullian refute the same Objection in the same manner: They set the Prayers of Christians in opposition to all the Sacrifices that were among the Heathens. Clemens of Alexandria, and Arnobius, write in the same strain; and they do all make use of one Topick, to justify their offering no Sacrifices, That God who made all things, and to whom all things do belong, needs nothing from his Creatures. To multiply 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 Century came to answer this,¹² he insists only upon the inward and spiritual Sacrifices that were offered by Christians; which were sutable 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.

It were easy to enlarge further on this Head; and from all the Rituals of the Antients 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 Antients 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 capabl e of it, as the Catechumens, and those who were doing Publick 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 staid, 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 Rigor 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,¹³ against such as came and assisted in the other parts of the Service, and did not partake of the Eucharist: The same thing was decreed by the Council of Antioch:¹⁴ And it appears by the Constitutions, That a Deacon was appointed to see that no man should go out, and a Subdeacon was to see that no Woman should go out during the Oblation. The Fathers do frequently allude to the Word Communion, to shew that the 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 Pathetick 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 Prophanation 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 Asiatick stile, when much inflamed by Devotion.

In the succeeding Ages we find great Care was taken to suffer none that did not communicate, to stay in the Church, and to see the Mysteries. There is a Rubrick for this in the Office mentioned by Gregory the Great.¹⁵ The Writers of the Ninth Century go on in the same Strain. It was decreed by the Council of Mentz in the end of Charles the Great’s Reign, That no Priest should say Mass alone; for how could he say, The Lord be with you, or, Lift up your hearts, if there was no other Person there besides himself? This shews that the practice of Solitary Masses was then begun, but that it was disliked. Walafridus Strabus says, That to a lawful Mass it was necessary that there should be a Priest,¹⁶ together with one to answer, one to offer, and one to communicate. And the Author of Micrologus, who is believed to have writ about the End of the Eleventh Century, does condemn Solitary Communions as contrary both to the Practice of the Antients, and to the several parts of the Office: So that till the Twelfth Century it was never allowed of in the Roman Church; as to this day it is not practised in any other Communion.

But then with the Doctrine of Purgatory and Transubstantiation mixt together, the saying of Masses for other Persons, whether alive or dead, grew to be considered as a very meritorious thing, and of great Efficacy: Thereupon great Endowments were made, and it became a Trade. Masses were sold, and a small Piece of Money became their Price: So that a prophane sort of Simony was set up, and the holiest of all the Institutions of the Christian Religion was exposed to Sale. Therefore we, in cutting off all this, and in bringing the Sacrament to be according to its first Institution, a Communion, have followed the Words of our Saviour, and the constant Practice of the whole Church for the first Ten Centuries.

So far all the Articles that relate to this Sacrament have been considered. The variety of the Matter, and the Important Controversies that have arisen out of it, has made it necessary to enlarge with some Copiousness upon the several Branches of it. Next to the Infallibility of the Church, this is the dearest piece of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; and is that in which both Priests and People are better instructed, than in any other Point whatsoever; and therefore this ought to be studied on our side with a Care proportioned to the Importance of it: That so we may govern both our selves and our People aright, in a matter of such Consequence; avoiding with great Caution the Extremes on both hands, both of excessive Superstition on the one hand, and of Prophane Neglect on the other: For the nature of Man is so moulded, that it is not easy to avoid the one, without falling into the other. We are now visibly under the Extreme of Neglect, and therefore we ought to study by all means possible to inspire our People with a just Respect for this Holy Institution, and to animate them to desire earnestly to partake often of it; and in order to that, to prepare themselves seriously to set about it with the Reverence and Devotion, and with those Holy Purposes and Solemn Vows that ought to accompany it.

Footnotes

1. Psal. 141.2. Psal. 51.17. ↩

2. Hebr. 13.15. Rom. 12.1. ↩

3. Phil. 4.10. ↩

4. Heb. 5.10. ↩

5. Heb. 7.24. ↩

6. v. 27. ↩

7. 9. ch. 22. v. 28.
   ↩
8. 10. ch. v. 11.
   ↩

9. v. 12. ↩

10. Apol. 2. ↩

11. Leg. pro Christ. Minut. in Octav. Lib. 8. con. Celsum. Tert. A.-pol. c. 30. Clem. Strom. l. 7. Arnob. lib. 7. ↩

12. Cyr. Al. lib. 10. cont. Jul. ↩

13. Can. 9. Apost. ↩

14. Con. Antioch. Can. 2. Const. Apost. l. 8. cap. 11. Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Eph Lib. 2. ↩

15. Dialog. Conc. Mogunt. Can. 43. ↩

16. Walaf. Strab. de rebus Eccles. c. 22. ↩