BX 5149 .C5 P79 1894 Prynne, George Rundle. The truth and reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice Shelf. THE TRUTH AND REALITY OF Cfie aEucftatistic Sacrifice a " Gather My saints together unto Me ; those that have made a covenant with Me, with sacrifice." — Psalm 1. 5. THE TRUTH AND REALITY OF Proved from Holy Scripture, the Teaching of the Primitive Church, and the Book of Common Prayer GEORGE RUNDLE PRYNNE, M.A. VICAR OF ST. Peter's, Plymouth, and late proctor in convocation AUTHOR OF "the eucharistic manual," "parochial and plain SERMONS," etc. LONDON LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. AND NEW YORK : 15 EAST i6th STREET 1894 All rights reserved TO VISCOUNT HALIFAX THESE PAGES ARE INSCRIBED, WITH FEELINGS OF ESTEEM AND ATTACHMENT AND SINCERE APrRECIATION OF HIS ABLE AND CONSISTENT EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN THE PRINCIPLES AND SPIRITUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/truthrealityofeuOOpryn PREFACE The object of this treatise is to bring together, in a concise form, some of the most salient facts and arguments which have been adduced by learned divines, in support of the truth and reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and to answer some popular objections which have been raised against the teaching of the Church on this subject. It is, of course, impossible in a short space to do this with any degree of com- pleteness, and I have therefore selected only such evidence and arguments as seemed to my own mind most conclusive. viii PREFACE. I have been encouraged by several laymen who have read most of this treatise, to believe that the evidence, even as here briefly stated, may prove useful to some who have not got time or oppor- tunity to go into this subject as fully as its importance demands. That very great ignorance and misconception exists among our people on the doctrine of the Eucha- ristic Sacrifice, admits of no doubt, and, as a consequence, much prejudice against its advocacy. How far this ignorance and prejudice is owing to the reserve of the clergy in proclaiming this great Catholic and Evan- gelical truth is a matter on which, perhaps, it scarcely becomes me to speak. My own firm conviction, after more than fifty years' experience as a priest of PREFACE. ix the Church of England, is, that we shall never gain the enthusiastic love of our people for their Mother Church, or secure their fidelity to her, until we bring them to realize that the Catholic Church is God's own creation for the promotion of His greater accidental glory and the salva- tion of souls — that the Holy Eucharist is Christ's own appointed act of worship and means of close com.munion with Him, and that this divinely ordained service can only be rightly and duly celebrated in God's spiritual Sion, His Holy Catholic Church, by those who have received authority from Him to act as His ambas- sadors and the stewards of His mysteries. It is because our people have lost their grasp of these great truths that they are so easily alienated from the Church, and X PREFACE. become a too ready prey to every new thing, in the way of religion, which the cunning craftiness of man may invent. Much has of late been written, and well written, on the continuity of the Church of England, and her consequent right to the endowments which she has inherited from the gifts of her children in past generations. The proof of this continuity as regards the hierarchy, and of the out- ward and legal succession of prelates, is indeed absolutely conclusive.^ But there are other points of essential continuity which have not, perhaps, been sufficiently dwelt on, viz. continuity in the exercise of those spiritual and supernatural gifts of grace with which the great Head of ^ See, opa. 74 ^, PAUL'S JVORDS IN Himself testifieth saying, that we ' in every place among the Gentiles offer' up unto Him pure and acceptable sacrifices." Irenaeus also speaks of the Eucharist as that Sacrifice by which the same prophet foretold "God should be glorified among the Gentiles." ^ Similar quotations might be adduced from the Apostolic Constitutions, and from many early Fathers, to show that in the Primitive Church by " the Offering of the Gentiles " was universally understood the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Once more, there is a distinct allusion to the rite of .the Holy Eucharist in the concluding words, "being sanctified by the Holy Ghost." It was universally held in the Primitive Church that the elements in the Holy Eucharist were consecrated by the power of the Holy Ghost, and hence nothing is more common in the ancient Liturgies than the prayers of the priest to God to send down the Holy Spirit upon himself, the communicants, and the oblations. Without the ' S. Irenceus, Adv. Heres., lib. iv. cap. 32. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 75 especial presence of the Holy Ghost, S. Cyprian thought the bread and wine could not be con- secrated into the Body and Blood of Christ. ^ As to the form of the petition, one example out of many may suffice. It is taken from the Liturgy of S. Basil, " We who minister at Thy Altar pray and beseech Thee that Thy Holy Spirit may come upon us, and upon these gifts which lie before Thee, and sanctify them, the Body and Blood of Christ." Such a prayer was in the First Prayer-book of Edward VI. It has been restored in the American Prayer-book and in the Scotch Com- munion Office, and will, we hope, before long appear again in the English Office. This Primitive view of the action of the Holy Ghost in the consecration of the sacred elements in the Holy Eucharist in no way conflicts with the statement already made and supported by the words of S. Chrysostom, that Jesus Christ is the real Consecrator in every Eucharist, because ' Episl. Ixv. ad Epistetum. 76 ^. PAUL'S WORDS IN nothing is clearer in Holy Scripture than the co- operation of the Holy Ghost with our Lord Jesus Christ in the work of man's redemption. When our Lord, of His own free will, took our nature upon Him, He "was conceived by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made Man ; " and we are expressly told in the Epistle to the Hebrews,^ that "through the Eternal Spirit Christ offered Himself to God."^ But whilst it is certain from the writings of the early Fathers, and from the Primitive Liturgies, that the Holy Eucharist was ever regarded in the Primitive Church as the "pure Offering" which the prophet Malachi foretold should be offered among the Gentiles in every place,^ and that it would therefore be consistent with primitive teaching to regard S. Paul's words as referring directly to the Holy Eu- charist when he speaks of the " offering up of the Gentiles," yet I do not urge this as S. Paul's ' Heb. ix. 14. ' Nicene Creed. ' Mai. i. xi. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 77 meaning in this passage. The general opinion of learned writers, ancient and modern, is that he means the sacrifice of the converted Gentiles was offered up by him, as an Evangelical priest, to God, and he prays that it may be acceptable to Him, being not like the legal sacrifices of beasts seasoned with salt, but like the Evan- gelical Offering of the Holy Eucharist, sanctified by the Holy Ghost. I venture to submit, however, that taken in connection with the language of the Christian writers of the second century, and with the terms used in the ancient Liturgies, it is clear that S. Paul is using a metaphor well under- stood by his readers, as borrowed from the prayers and rites of the Holy Eucharist then in use (Acts ii. 42), "the prayers" seeming to indicate an early authorized form. Interpreted in this light, the passage seems strong and reasonable ; but divested of all allusion to the sacrificial offering in the Holy Eucharist it seems to lose all its force. 78 S. PAUnS WORDS. To say that S. Paul is only comparing him- self with Levitical priests, and his offering with their bloody sacrifices, cannot be regarded as a satisfactory or probable interpretation. The comments of Dr. Hickes, a learned Anglican theologian of the seventeenth century, are well worth quoting. "Wherefore, as the Apostle's allusion to the Christian Offering, which was sanctified or made holy by the descent of the Holy Ghost, obliged him to call the converted Gentiles an Offering or Sacrifice, and himself a ' priest of the Gospel " in that respect ; so it proves the Holy Eucharist to which that allusion was made to be a proper Sacrifice, and the ministers who offer it to be proper sacrificing priests." ^ ' Dr. Hickes, vol. ii. p. loi, Anglo-Cath. Lib., Oxford. IX. S. PAUL'S WORDS IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS ON THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. The inspired Apostle, in writing to his Hebrew converts, makes the plain and distinct assertion, " We have an Altar." ^ These words, if taken in their simple, literal, and most obvious sense — and the context affords not the slightest ground for taking them in any other — form a fitting climax to the Scriptural arguments in support of the truth and reality of the Eu- charistic Sacrifice. As has been stated, altar, sacrifice, and priest are co-relative terms ; and therefore, if we have one, we must, as a matter of course, have the other two also. Accept what has ever been the teaching of the Catholic ' Heb. xiii. lo. 8o S. PAULS WORDS IN Church in all nations and in all ages, that we Christians have an Altar of which it is our unspeakable privilege to be allowed to partake, and S. Paul's words seem simple and easy to be understood. Deny these truths, and we are driven either to deny the express words of S. Paul, "We have an Altar," or explain the statement away in some forced and non-natural manner. The two favourite interpretations of the Apostle's words adopted by those who say that we Christians have not an Altar are these. First, that S. Paul is speaking metaphorically when he says, "We have an Altar ; " that he does not mean a proper material Altar upon which an Offering or Sacrifice is made, but an improper and metaphorical altar by way of allusion and similitude. And might not persons who thus try to hide a plain statement of Holy Scripture in a fog of words, say with equal reason, that when the same S. Paul says in another part of this same Epistle, " We have a great High THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 8i Priest Who is passed into the heavens ; " " we have not an high priest who cannot be touched Avith the feeling of our infirmities;" "we have such an High Priest Who is set at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty of the heavens," the Apostle only meant an improper metaphorical high priest. The words which make up the terms of the assertion are precisely similar, "We have an Altar," "We have a great High Priest." If one statement is to be called metaphorical, and thus explained away, why not the other } What limits, short of the denial of all Scripture which does not har- monize with our own peculiar views, can we put to such treatment of the sacred text ? Well may we here again refer to the great Hooker's rule, that in interpreting Holy Scrip- ture the most literal interpretation is commonly the best, and the furthest from the literal the worst. A more literal statement than this we cannot well put together, " We have an Altar." It is quite as plain as, " We have a great High G 82 ^. PAULS WORDS IN Priest." If we take the latter literally, why not the former? We dare not, as Christians, deny that Christ, our great High Priest, is a more proper High Priest than the Jewish, who was but His shadow. Why, then, should the Christian Altar be less a real and proper one than the Jewish ? Why, rather, should it not be more real and proper than the Jewish, just as the real Victim is more real and proper than the victims which only prefigured Him ? But further, if a metaphorical sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving only is here treated of by S. Paul, what can he mean by saying that Jews, as such, have no right to eat of it. A metaphorical sacrifice of praise and prayer is not eatable, neither would such a sacrifice require any altar. Yet S. Paul plainly speaks of the Altar, which he says we Christians have, in the same sense as the Jewish, with which he compares it. If the one was a real altar, the argument requires that the other should be so also. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 83 Another interpretation which has been put upon these words of S. Paul by those who refuse to believe in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, is this. " The altar of which the Apostle speaks," say they, " means the Cross of Christ ; and by eating, the Apostle means believing in Him." Now doubtless, to the eyes of faith, the Cross may be regarded as an Altar, as being the structure on which our blessed Lord, the one saving Victim, freely offered Himself and suffered death "for us men and for our salva- tion." But the Apostle cannot be speaking of the Cross on which our Lord died, in the passage under our consideration ; otherwise we are driven to the extraordinary conclusion that the priests who serve the tabernacle have no right to believe in Christ ! There seems to be no possible escape from the conclusion, if we admit the premises. If the Apostle means to say that the Altar which we Christians have is the Cross of Christ, and eating of this Altar means believing in Him, then the remainder of 84 S. PAUL'S WORDS IN the verse can have no other meaning than that above stated, viz. that they who serve the tabernacle, i.e. continue to trust in and observe the Mosaic law, have no right to believe in Christ. But who would dare to maintain such a position ? It is simply untrue, and therefore could not be S. Paul's meaning. The Jewish priests and people had the full right, privilege, and power of believing in Christ. The announcement of the Gospel was first made to them. They were the first who were invited to share in all its blessings and privileges. Our Lord sometimes almost speaks as if He had no mission to the Gentiles until He had first ful- filled a message of mercy to His own people. " I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel," He says on one occasion. The Apostles, as we read, first laboured with exceeding zeal to gather God's ancient people into His kingdom before they went to the Gentiles. " It was necessary," said THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 85 S. Paul, "that the word of God should first have been spoken unto you ; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo ! we turn to the Gentiles." The Jews, then, not only had a right, but the first ofifer of the right and privilege of believing in Christ. S. Paul's words must not, therefore, be so interpreted as to put such a statement into His mouth as that the Jewish priests who served the tabernacle had no right to believe in Christ. The only rational interpretation of S. Paul's words is that which is the plainest and simplest. When he says, " We have an Altar," he means the Christian Altar, on which the Holy Eucharist is offered. The statement which follows, that those who serve tabernacles, i.e. who cling to the law of Moses, after Christ, the true Sacrifice of expiation had been offered, had no right to partake of the Christian Altar, thus becomes intelligible and reasonable. It simply comes to this : No one has a right to partake of 86 S. PAUUS WORDS ly the Holy Eucharist who does not show such faith in the true Sin Offering therein offered, as to give up all other sacrifices whatever as grounds of acceptance, and place his whole trust and confidence, his every hope of pardon and acceptance, in the Sacrifice of Christ alone. The testimony of Theodoret, one of the early Fathers, as expressing the interpretation which the Primitive Church put upon S. Paul's words, is so sharp and clear that I here quote them. Commenting on S. Paul's words, he says, " We have an Altar much more excellent than the old one under the law, for that was but the shadow of this. That was an altar for sacrifices void of reason ; but this is an Altar for spiritual and Divine Sacrifice, of which none of the Jewish priests could partake unless they were first converted to faith in our Lord." ^ There is one other interpretation of S. Paul's words which has been seriously put forward, ' Theodoret, in Heb. xiii. lo. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 87 which is so weak and shallow as to require but a few words for its refutation. We are told that when the Apostle says, " We have an Altar," he means Christ ; and the expression is therefore equivalent to "We have Christ." ^ Now an altar is that special structure, whether of wood or stone, on which a sacrifice is offered. When Christ was stretched upon the Cross, enduring the agony of the death to which He had devoted Himself to make an atonement for the sins of the world, then the Cross on which He endured the death-stage of His self-sacrifice may be regarded as an Altar ; but surely Christ was not that wooden cross. He was a Priest, because He offered Himself as a Sacrifice to the Eternal Father; for He had, as He tells us, power to lay down His life and power to take it again ; and I need not bring forward arguments to prove that He was a Sacrifice, even the one only pure and meritorious Sacrifice. But surely He was ' This interpretation was put forward by the late Dr. Cumming. 88 S. PAWS WORDS IN not also the Cross on which He suffered. The assertion seems absurd. But again, if this were true, that Christ was and is (for the Apostle speaks in the present tense) an Altar, and that Altar the Cross, then the converse must also be true — that the Altar or Cross on which Christ suffered, is Christ. We are often called upon by our holy religion to believe things which are above reason ; but never anything which is contrary to reason. The assertion that when S. Paul says, " We have an Altar," by the word Altar he means Christ, involves conclusions which are contrary to reason, and therefore has no claim to our serious consideration. No, the straits to which men are driven who try to explain away the force of S. Paul's words, only deepens our conviction that there is no possible way of interpreting them consistently with right reason and honesty, except in their plain, natural, straightforward, and grammatical meaning, which is, that when he says, "We have an THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 89 Altar," he means exactly what he says, viz. that we Christians have an Altar as well as the Jews, that we have a Sacrifice which we offer on our Altar as well as they, but that those who trust in Jewish sacrifices for pardon and acceptance, now that the one true Sacrifice — Christ — has been offered, have no right to partake of the Christian Sacrifice as long as they thus continue to serve the tabernacle. As it is the object of this treatise to keep the arguments in favour of the reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice within very moderate limits, many passages of Holy Scripture bearing on the subject and illustrating it have been omitted, and especially is this true as regards expres- sions and incidental allusions in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, all pointing to a strong under-current of belief in the minds of the writers, that they were still living under a system as truly sacrificial as were the Jews of old. But, however imperfect and incomplete this 90 S. PAUL'S WORDS IN HEBREWS. thesis may appear, yet the distinct cumulative character of the arguments taken from Holy Scripture bearing on this subject are as strong and clear as can be brought forward in support of any Christian doctrine whatever — even that of the Incarnation itself. It is well to add that no private interpreta- tion has been given of any passage of Holy Scripture which has been adduced in these pages, but that they are interpreted in close harmony with the meaning put upon them by the greatest saints and keenest intellects who adorned the Primitive Church, and also, we are thankful to add, by the most learned and saintly writers who have, in these latter days, lived and died in communion with that portion of Christ's one Holy Catholic Church, commonly called the Church of England. X. THE WITNESS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH TO THE SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. On few subjects has the testimony of the Primitive Church and the ancient Fathers been more clearly expressed than on the truth and reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. This has been shown, to some extent, in the preceding pages, by quotations showing the interpretation put upon certain passages of Holy Scripture in primitive times. The im- portance of this testimony, as bearing on the doctrine and practice of the Church of England, will be shown in a subsequent chapter. The early Fathers, it may be well to state, are here quoted simply as witnesses of the 92 WITNESS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH doctrine held and taught in the Primitive Church, and as certainly expressing the mind of that Church, on points on which they all agree. Now there is one most important fact which has a very direct bearing on the subject before us, on which all learned liturgical writers agree, viz. that in the very earliest ages of the Church the word "Altar" was universally used to designate the structure, whether of wood or stone, on which the Holy Eucharist was offered. The learned Mede, quoted by Bingham in his " Antiquities of the Christian Church," says it was called " Altar " for the first two centuries, and that the term "Table" is not to be found in any author of those ages now remaining. The martyr S. Ignatius, the zealous convert and disciple of S. John the Evangelist, and also the friend of S. Peter and S. Paul,^ uses only ' S. Gregory tells us (i. 4, Ep. 37) that he was a disciple of S. Peter. The Apostolic Constitutions add also of S. Paul (i. 7, c. 46). We are assured by S. Chrysostom (Horn, in S. Ignat.) and Theoderet (Dial. i. p. 33) that he was made bishop TO THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. the name Altar ^ in his genuine epistles. S. Ireneus, Tertullian, and Origen, always use the same name. Mr. Wheatly, in his well-known Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer, writes thus : " Altar was the name by which the Holy Board was constantly distinguished for the first three hundred years after Christ ; during all which time it does not appear it was above once called table, and that was in a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to Xystus of Rome. And when, in the fourth century, Athanasius called it a table, he thought himself obliged to explain the word, to let the people know that by table he meant altar, that being then the constant and familiar name. Afterwards, indeed, both names come to be promiscuously used ; the one having re- spect to the Oblation of the Eucharist, the other by the direction of the Apostles, and by the imposition of their hands. S. Chrysostom says that S. Peter appointed him bishop to govern the see of Antioch when he quitted it Iiiniself (see note in Butler's '• Lives of the .Saints "). ' 0i/(rio(rTi7f)ioi-. 94 WITNESS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH to the participation ; but it was always placed altar-wise in the most sacred part of the Church, and fenced in with rails to secure it from irreverence and disrespect." ^ This universal use of the name " Altar " in the earliest ages of the Church shows how completely the minds of the Primitive Chris- tians were saturated with the idea of sacrificial worship ; for the very meaning of the word " altar " is a structure on which a sacrifice is offered. But we are not left in doubt on this point. Passages plainly asserting or clearly implying a firm belief in the Eucharistic Sacrifice are found in the writings of most of the early Fathers, including some even of the Apostolic age.^ ' ''A Rational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer," by Charles \Vheatly, M.A. Quoted by Mr. Humphrey, Ex- amining Chaplain to the Bishop of London, in liis historical explanation of the same book. Wheatly's Commentary was commonly recommended by bishops to candidates for Holy Orders some years ago. See also Johnson's " Unbloody Sacrifice," vol. i. ch. 2, s. 3. ^ S. Clement, contemporary of Apostles, and probably a.d. TO THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 95 To quote largely from these Fathers would exceed the limits assigned to this treatise, and a catena of passages from various writers, teaching the same truth and often expressed in very similar words, would be wearisome to ordinary readers. In addition, therefore, to quotations already given a few samples only are selected from some of the most eminent of the Fathers. S. Cyprian, bishop and martyr, a.D. 250, writes : " If Jesus Christ our Lord is Himself the Chief Priest of God the Father, and has first offered up Himself a Sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that priest truly discharges the office of Christ who imitates what Christ did ; and he then offers a full and true sacrifice in the Church to God 80 ; S. Ignatius, bishop and martyr, A.D. \oo ; S. Justin Martyr, A.D. 163 ; S. Irenteus, A.D. 180; Tertullian, A.D. 200; Origen, A.D. 230; S. Cyprian, A.D. 250; S. Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 350; S. Ambrose, A.D. 376; S. Jerome, A.D. 378; S. Augustine, A.D. 396 ; S. Chrysostom, A u. 398. 96 WITNESS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH the Father when he proceeds to offer it accord- ing to what he sees Christ Himself to have offered. "And because we make mention of His Passion in all sacrifices (for the Lord's is the Sacrifice which we offer), we ought to do nothing else than what He did. For Scripture saith, ' For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, ye do shew forth the Lord's death till He come.' As often, therefore, as we offer the Cup in commemoration of the Lord and of His Pas- sion, let us do what is known the Lord did." ^ The words of Theodoret on Heb. xiii. lo, " We have an Altar," have been already quoted. S. Cyril, of Jerusalem, A.D. 350: "Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we call upon the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him ; that He may make the bread the Body of Christ, and the wine the Blood of Christ ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has ' EpLstle Ixii. to Caecilius. TO THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 97 touched is sanctified and changed. Then after the spiritual Sacrifice is completed, the blood- less service upon that Sacrifice of Propitiation, we entreat God for the common peace of the Church, for the tranquillity of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted, and, in a word, for all who stand in need of succour, we all supplicate and offer this Sacrifice." ^ S. Augustine, A.D. 396, speaking of the Holy Eucharist, says : " For this Sacrifice succeeded all those sacrifices of the Old Testament which were immolated also as a shadow of that to come, of which we understand that voice of the same Mediator speaking through the prophecy of the 39th Psalm." ^ " Sacrifice and offering ' Catechetical Lectures {Ox. Trans ), p. 275. ' In the Septuagint from which S. Augustine quoted, as in the Vulgate, Ps. xl. in our English Version is numbered xxxix. and the latter part of the passage is rendered "a body hast Thou prepared Me," instead of "Mine ears hast Thou opened," as in our English Version. S. Paul also quotes from the Septuagint, Heb, x. 3, and thus gives inspired authority for that interpretation. H 98 WITNESS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH Thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou pre- pared me ; because for all those sacrifices and oblations His body is offered, and is ministered to the communicants." ^ Very many passages might be cited from the writings of this great saint and bishop affirm- ing the same truth. S. Chrysostom, A.D. 396. This great bishop and confessor, eminent alike for his saintliness and eloquence, has so many passages in his writings asserting in the strongest terms the reality and greatness of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, that it is difficult to make the most appropriate selection. There is one passage, often quoted by the Reformers and others, which sets forth the teaching of the Primitive Church so fully and clearly as to claim special attention. " What, then," asks this great saint, " do we not offer every day ? Certainly we do ; but to make a memorial of His death. And this me- morial is one, and not many. How can it be ' "De Civ. Dei," xvii. 20. TO THE EVCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. one, and not many ? Because it has been offered once for all, not like that sacrifice which was carried into the Holy of Holies. For that Jewish sacrifice had a relation to that on the Cross, and the Eucharist has a relation to it. For we offer always the same ; we do not offer one sheep to-day and another to-morrow ; we offer always the same, so that it is one Sacrifice. Otherwise, since the Sacrifice is offered in many places, there must be many Christs. But this is not the case ; but there is one Christ every- where, whole Christ here and whole Christ there — one Body. As, therefore, He is one Body, though offered in many places, and not many bodies, so likewise is there one Sacrifice. It is that High Priest of ours who has offered the Sacrifice which cleanses us. And we offer, even now, that Sacrifice which was then, too, offered — the inexhaustible Sacrifice. This happens in memory of that which then took place, for ' Do this,' He says, ' in memory of Me.' It is not a different Sacrifice as the High lOO WITNESS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. Priest presented in former times ; but we offer always the same ; or, rather, we perform a memorial of that Sacrifice." Other passages, equally clear and forcible, might be quoted from the writings of other early Fathers ; but these I have selected suffi- ciently indicate what was the universal faith of the Primitive Church on the subject. I proceed to show further how completely this faith was embodied in the Primitive Liturgies. XI. THE WITNESS OF THE PRIMITIVE LITURGIES TO THE TRUTH AND REALITY OF THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. The prevailing belief of the Primitive Church as to the truth and reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is nowhere more clearly expressed than in the Liturgies or Ofifices of Holy Com- munion which they used. I. " These Liturgies," says the learned Dr. Neale, alluding to those of S. James, S. Mark, S. Clement, S. Basil, and S. Chrysostom, " though not composed by the Apostles and Fathers whose names they bear, were the legitimate development of their unwritten traditions re- specting the Christian Sacrifice — the words, probably, in the most important parts ; the general tenor in all portions descending un- changed from the Apostolic authors. 102 WITNESS OF THE PRIMITIVE LITURGIES 2. " That the Liturgy of S. James is of earlier date as to its main fabric than A.D. 200 ; that the Clementine Office ^ is at least not later than A.D. 260 ; that the Liturgy of S. Mark is nearly coeval to that of S. James ; while those of S. Basil and S. Chrysostom are to be referred respectively to the saints by whom they pur- port to be composed." ^ Now, in all these Liturgies, the sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist is most clearly expressed. A sample taken from one of the earliest of them, that of S. James, may suffice to show this, and expressions equally strong may be found in the others. "When the hour was come that He Who had no sin was to suffer a voluntary and life- giving death upon the Cross for us sinners, ill the same night that He was offisred, or rather ' Most liturgical writers consider the Liturgy of S. Clement as the earliest committed to writing, and regard it as the norm on which the others were based, and as, in fact, embodying the traditional usage of the Church from the Apostolic age. - Neale's "History of the Holy Eastern Church," vol. i. P-3I9- TO ITS TRUTH AND REALITY. 103 offered up Himself, for the life and salvation of the world : " Then the Priest taking the Bread into his hands, says — "Taking Bread into His holy, immaculate, pure, and immortal hands, looking up to heaven and presenting it unto Thee, His God and Father, He gave thanks, sanctified and brake it, and gave it to His disciples and Apostles, saying — " The deacons say : For the remission of sins and for life everlasting. " Then He says with a land voice : ^ Take, eat ; this is My Body which is broken and given for the remission of sins. " The people : Amen. " Then he takes the Cnp, and says — ' This shows that in the Primitive Church the words of Consecration were said in an audible voice, so that the people might know when to show their concurrence in the great act by their loud " Amen." By this solemn "Amen," alluded to in I Cor. xiv. 2 and by Justin Martyr, the people claim their part in offering the Holy Sacrifice, and thus give evidence of their being a sacerdotal race. 104 ^yiTNESS OF THE PRIMITIVE LITURGIES " Likewise after supper He took the Cup and mixed it with wine and water, and looking up to heaven and presenting it to Thee, His God and Father, He gave thanks, sanctified and blessed it, and filled it with the Holy Ghost, and gave it to His disciples, saying, Drink ye all of this. This is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed and given for you and for many for the remission of sins. " T/ie people : Amen. " Tke priest : Do this in remembrance of ' Me,' for as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew forth the death of the Son of Man and confess His Resurrection until His coming again, " T/ie people : O Lord, we shew forth Thy Death and confess Thy Resurrection. " T/ie priest: Wherefore having in remem- brance His life-giving Passion, salutary Cross, Death, Burial, and Resurrection on the third day from the dead, and His Ascension into Heaven and sitting at the Right Hand of Thee, TO ITS TRUTH AND REALITY. 105 His God and Father ; and His second bright and terrible appearance when He shall come with glory to judge the living and the dead, and shall render to every man according to His works ; we sinners offer to Thee, O Lord, this tremendous and unbloody Sacrifice, beseeching Thee, not to deal with us after our sins, nor reward us according to our iniquities ; but ac- cording to Thy clemency and unspeakable love to mankind, overlook and blot out the hand- writing that was against us Thy servants, and grant us Thine heavenly and eternal rewards, such as eye hath not seen nor ear heard, nor hath entered into the heart of man, even such as Thou hast prepared for them that love Thee." Expressions equally strong, attesting the sac- rificial character of the Holy Eucharist, are to be found in the other Primitive Liturgies named above ; e.g. in the Liturgy of S. Mark we read : — " The priest signs the elements with the sign of the Cross, saying — " Heaven and earth are indeed full of Thy io6 WITNESS OF THE PRIMITIVE LITURGIES glory, by the manifestation of our Lord, our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ ; sanctify also, O God, this Sacrifice with Thy heavenly Benediction, by the descent of Thy Holy Spirit upon it." And, again, in the Clementine Liturgy, the probable norm of all Primitive Liturgies, we read : — " We offer to Thee, our King and our God, according to His Institution, this Bread and this Cup, giving thanks to Thee through Him, that Thou hast thought us worthy to stand before Thee and to sacrifice unto Thee." Now, considering that these Liturgies repre- sent the most ancient forms of worship used in the Christian Church — that the points in which all agree in portions of the Church, founded by the Apostles, but widely separated from each other, must almost certainly have had Apostolic authority,^ and that they were ' "Since it can hardly be doubted, says Archbishop Wake, but that those holy Apostles and Evangelists did give some directions for the administration of the Blessed Eucharist in those churches ; it may reasonably be presumed that some of TO ITS TRUTH AND REALITY. 107 all in existence much in their present form before the last of the first four General Councils, A.D. 451, can there remain a doubt in the minds of unprejudiced persons that the Holy Eucharist was regarded in the Primitive Church as a great and Holy Sacrifice offered to God the Father as a memorial of the Death and Passion of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and as a means of re-presenting and pleading that all-prevailing Sacrifice for the remission of our sins and all other benefits of His Passion, even as our adorable Lord, as our great High Priest is ever re-presenting and pleading His finished but ever-enduring Sacrifice before the throne on high ? those orders are still remaining in those liturgies which have been brought down to us under their names; and that those prayers wherein they all agree (in sense at least, if not in words) were first prescribed in the same or like terms by those Apostles and Evangelists ; nor would it be difficult to make a further proof of this conjecture from the writings of the ancient Fathers, if it were needful in this place to insist upon it." Introduction to the translation of the Apostolic Fathers liy Archbishop Wake. XII. THE WITNESS OF THE COUNCIL OF NIC^A TO THE TRUTH AND REALITY OF THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. If the promises of our adorable Lord, that " the gates of hell should never prevail against His Church," and that the Holy Spirit " should abide with her for ever, to guide her into all truth," ever receive their full accomplishment, it surely must be when the undivided Church speaks with the authority which her Lord has given her as "the pillar and ground of the truth." That the first General Council of the then undivided Church was truly Ecumenical is un- disputed. The voice which came from Nicsea is the voice of the Catholic Church throughout the world. To that Council we owe the defence of WITNESS TO ITS TRUTH AND REALITY. 109 our blessed Lord's divinity from the blasphemous assaults of Arianism ; and the Creed drawn up by that Council has been ringing out its solemn words of dogmatic truth through all the ages and in all parts of the Catholic Church. It is our precious treasure to-day, and one of our greatest safeguards against old or new heresies. The question before us, however, is — has this great Council of Nicaea spoken on the Eucharis- tic Sacrifice in any way which supports the doctrine advocated in this treatise? If it has — " causa finita est " — the decision is conclusive to all Catholic Christians. Let us examine the point. In Canon V., relating to the convening of Synods, these words occur : " Let our Synod be held before Lent, that so all petty mindedness being removed, the pure Gift may be offered to God." ^ Who can fail to see that by the pure Gift offered to God, allusion is made to the pure Offering which Malachi foretold should be ' TO Supou Kadapov ■7rpoaopas. TO ITS TRUTH AND REALITY. iii of the Holy and Sacied Synod that in certain places and cities, deacons administer the Eucharist to priests, although it is contrary to the Canons and to custom to have the Body of Christ distributed to those who offer the Sacrifice by those who cannot offer it." ^ Van Espin, said by Dr. Neale to be the greatest Canonist of his own or any other age, remarks with truth that this Canon of discipline proves the belief of the Council of Nicaea in three great dogmatic truths. 1. The Council of Nicaea saw in the Eucha- rist the Body of Christ. 2. It called the Eucharistic Service a Sacri- fice.^ 3. It concedes to bishops and priests alone the power of consecrating. It is evident, therefore, that the Catholic Church has, in the first great Council, admitted ' This Canon is found in the Corpus Jures Canonici. Vide Hefele's " Christian Councils," translated by Prebendary Clarke. ^ Tlpo(r(pepeiv. 1 12 WITNESS TO ITS TRUTH AND REALITY. by all to be truly Ecumenical, distinctly affirmed the truth and reality of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Thus the faith of the Primitive Church as to the sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist, so clearly and emphatically borne witness to by the unanimous testimony of the early Fathers, and enshrined in the solemn Liturgies which they used, is confirmed by the language of a truly Ecumenical Council, and comes to us therefore with an authority which it would surely be presumptuous in us to resist.-^ ' The second General Council confirmed the Decrees and Canons of the Nicene Council, XIII. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ON THE SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. The Catholic Church in England, commonly called the Church of England, is bound by the decisions of the universal Church of Christ as set forth in a truly Ecumenical Council. It is on the authority of the Council of Nice, supplemented by the Article on the Holy Ghost in the second General Council held at Con- stantinople, A.D. 381, that we accept the most perfect standard of our Christian faith — the Niccne Creed. When the Reformers of the Church of Eng- land, in the sixteenth century, protested against certain teaching and practices which they I 114 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH conceived to be erroneous^ they did so on the express grounds that they were contrary to the doctrines and practices of the Primitive Church, and they appealed from papal de- cisions, representing, of course, only one portion of the Catholic Church, to a true General Council. Such professions and appeals would have been sheer hypocrisy had they not been pre- pared to accept the decisions of such a Council when duly promulged. Special emphasis has, however, been laid in these pages upon the faith and practice of the Primitive Church, because the Church in Eng- land has so repeatedly and emphatically claimed, both in her authorized formularies, and in the writings of her leading divines, that the Primi- tive Church is the standard on which she has modelled her own teaching and services — that, in short, the principles of the Primitive Church were the principles of the Reformation. This principle is laid down in the very ON ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER. 115 forefront of the Book of Common Prayer — the Preface, where reference is made to the " godly and decent order of the ancient Fathers ; " and the Book is recommended, not only on the ground of its own merits, but also " as much agreeable to the mind and purpose of the old Fathers." The Book of Homilies, set forth in 1562, breathes the same spirit and professes the same deference to the authority of the Primitive Church and the ancient Fathers, " when religion was most pure — the old Primitive Church, which was most uncorrupt and pure." A few years later, in the Canons passed by Convocation in 1571, it is enacted that "first and foremost preachers shall be careful not to preach aught to be religiously held and believed by the people, except what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and what the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have gathered out of that very doctrine." ^ ' Walker's "Concilia," ix. 267, and Sparrow's " Collections," Ii6 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH In Canon XXX., passed in 1603, touching the sign of the cross, we read, " This use of the sign of the cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church, as well by the Greeks as by the Latins, with one consent and great ap- plause." Again, in the same Canon, " The Church of England hath retained still the sign of it in Baptism, following therein the Primitive Apostolical Churches." Canon XXXI., of the same date, begins : " Forasmuch as the ancient Fathers of the Church, led by the example of the Apostles, appointed prayers and fasts to be used at the solemn ordering of ministers ; we, following their holy and religious example, do constitute and decree," etc. ^ And to bring this profession of principle down to our own generation, we find these words in the closing address of the Pan Anglican Synod in 1867, at which seventy- six bishops v>'ere present : " Lastly, we do here solemnly record our conviction that union will ' Canon XXXI., a d. 1633. ON ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER. 117 be most effectually promoted by maintaining the faith in its purity and integrity as taught in Holy Scripture, held by the Primitive Church, summed up in the Creeds, and affirmed by the undisputed General Councils." The Acts of Uniformity strongly assert the same principle : " Having eye and respect to the most syncere and pure Christian Religion taught by the Scriptures as to the usages of the Primitive Church."^ "A very godly order, agreable to the Word of God and the Primitive Church." 2 " Agreable to the Word of God, and usage of the Primitive Church,"^ If, then, we find, on clear and sufficient evi- dence, that the sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist was universally held in the Primitive Church and advocated by the ancient Fathers ; and if, further, we find that this great truth was endorsed by a General Council, it surely must lead us, if we are consistent to our ' Act of Uniformity, 1549. ^ Ibid., 1552. ' Ibid., 1661. il8 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH principles, to accept that doctrine as absolutely true, and as a most important part of the faith once delivered unto the saints, and a portion of our heritage as members of the Catholic Church located in England. But in spite of what, to many of us, seems overwhelming evidence in favour of the sacri- ficial character of the Holy Eucharist by God's two great witnesses for truth, the Bible and the Church, yet we cannot ignore the fact that there are many members of the Church of England who deny this truth, and say that it is inconsistent with the teaching contained in the Book of Common Prayer. Let us proceed to investigate this point, and in doing so we naturally turn to the Com- munion Office itself. Is there anything in that Office inconsistent with the doctrine that we therein offer to God the Father a Sacrifice, in which we commemorate the Passion and Death of His beloved Son, and re-present that ever-enduring Sacrifice in the ON ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER. 119 Church on earth, even as Jesus Christ, as our great High Priest, is ever re-presenting it before the Father in heaven ? In order to answer this question it is neces- sary to inquire in what the essential act of Sacrifice consists. " The Church of Rome," says Scudamore,^ " ascribes the consecration of the elements solely to the recital by the priest of the words of our Lord, ' This is My Body,' and * This is the cup of My Blood of the New and Eternal Testament ; the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.' " These formularies are, in the rubrics of the Missal, expressly called the "Words of Con- secration." The Catechism of Trent also teaches that these are the forma consecrationis, and even suggests that the utterance of these words at the institution was the blessing of the elements of which S. Matthew speaks : As if He had ' See " Notitia Eucharistica," p. 505. I20 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH said, Taking bread He blessed it, saying, " This is My Body." The Greeks and Orientals, how- ever, though carefully preserving the primitive commemoration of the institution, ascribe the consecration rather to the Prayer of Invocation by which God is besought to make the elements the Body and Blood of Christ. Our Church, wisely avoiding everything that might " minister questions rather than godly edifying," has com- bined both the invocation and the words of institution in one solemn " Prayer of Conse- cration." ^ However much, then, a Roman Catholic priest ' There is no question, says the well-known Roman Catholic writer and archaeologist, Welby Pugio, that in the abstract the Book of Common Prayer is exceedingly Catholic, and that the rites of the Church of England, when solemnly adminis- tered, are close approximations to the ancient service ; and all theologians will admit the old priests, who used the present Communion Service, 7uiih intention, consecrated most truly ; and consequently, that Mass was celebrated under the new form in hundreds of parochial and other churches long after the accession of Elizabeth.^ ' "Earnest Address by Welby Pugin, 1851. ON ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER. 121 might find fault with our Liturgy, and deem it inferior to his own, yet he could not, I imagine, on the special ground of its not con- taining the essential act of Sacrifice, object to its validity. Of course, on the ground of its lack of authorization by the Pope, he could not use it ; but on the supposition that that difficulty were removed, and the use of the Office left open to him, there is nothing in the service itself which need jar upon his con- science as far as the doctrine of Sacrifice is concerned. As bearing on this point. Bishop Cosin says : " We have first the recitation of Christ's com- mand to have His Death and Passion remem- bered, and then we have prayer to perform it as we ought to do. After that we have the words of Consecration, as fully and amply as any priest whatsoever can or may use them. The Mass-book hath no more than we have here ; so that to make a controversy here be- twixt us, where none is, sounds more of the 122 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH. evil spirit — the desire of contradiction — than of the good spirit — desire of peace and unity." ^ I use this illustration simply to show that so far from our Communion Office being incon- sistent with the idea of sacrifice, it would be possible for persons holding the very strongest doctrine on this point, to use our Office con- sistently with his own convictions, believing, as he would, that the essence of the sacrificial act is contained in what is called the Canon, or Rule, wherein God is invoked to grant that the elements of bread and wine may become the Body and Blood of Christ, and our Lord's own words and acts are repeated in obedience to the express command which He gave when He said, " Do this for a memorial of Me." Thus, whatever ambiguity there may be in other parts of our English Communion Office, as bearing on this particular doctrine of the Commemorative Sacrifice — and I freely admit ' Bishop Cosin's " Notes on Book of Common Prayer," NichoU's Collection. ON ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER. 123 that changes were made between 1549 and 1552, under the influence of foreign Protestants, who unfortunately infested England at that time, which did tend to obscure the doctrine ; yet happily, God, in His providence, prevented them from so tampering with the Liturgy as to destroy its essential sacrificial character. Archbishop Cranmer describes these foreigners as " glorious and unquiet spirits, which can like nothing but that is after their own fancy, and cease not to make trouble when things be most quiet and in good order. If such men should be heard, although the Book were made every year anew, yet it should not lack faults in their opinion." Under the influence, however, of these foreigners, and some English puritanical mal- contents, the First English Prayer-book of 1549, which was declared in the Act which authorized its use to have been composed by the aid of the Holy Ghost, was altered, and the comparatively poor and imperfect Book of 124 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH 1552 was the result. I am not aware of any evidence to show that this latter Book, in its original form, was ever sanctioned by Convo- cation or generally used.^ It had scarcely been printed, and partially circulated, before the death of Edward VI. and the accession of Mary led to the restoration of the old Latin Service Books.^ On the accession of Elizabeth to the throne, in 1558, it was resolved to restore the English Services, and the question naturally arose as to which Liturgy should be used — that of I549> or that of 1552. A sort of compromise was effected. The Second Book was taken as the ' The Second Prayer-book of Edward VI. was in partial use from Nov. i, 1552, to July, 1553, when Edward died. In a letter to Bishop Skinner, in 1806, Bishop Horsley said, "The alterations which were made in the Communion Service as it stood in First Book of Edward VI., to humour the Calvinists, were, in my opinion, much for the worse. Never- theless, I think our present Office is very good j our form of consecration of the elements is sufficient. I mean, that the elements are consecrated by it, and made the Body and Blood of Christ in the sense in which our Lord Himself said the bread and wine were His Body and Blood." ON ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER. 125 basis, and alterations made in it, which, in several important respects, made it more like the First.^ One alteration, bearing on our subject, is, that the Eucharistic vestments, as ordered in the First Prayer-book of Edward VI., and set aside in the Second, were restored, and the Prayer-book, thus altered, was annexed to the Act of Uniformity.^ The Prayer-book, thus amended, was willingly received throughout ' It has sometimes been objected that the alterations made in the Book of Common Prayer, in the early years of Elizabeth's reign, were made without the authority of Convocation. It must be borne in mind, however, that nothing was re-intro- duced at that period which had not previously been sanctioned by Convocation, either in the Prayer-book of 1549 or 1552. In the first year of Queen Mary's reign, the use of these English Service Books was abolished simply by Act of Parlia- ment, without any reference to Church authority whatever, not even the Pope's, for the servile Act of submission and conse- quent reconciliation came later. To reverse the Act which prohibited the use of the Prayer-book of 1552 by the same authority which passed it, that of Parliament alone, was a measure, not even in form derogatory to the independent spiritual rights of the Church of England."" It was simply undoing by the State what the State alone had done. ^ I Eliz. cap. 2. * See Lord Selbome's "Defence of the Church of England," pp. 62, 63. 126 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH the country, even by the vast majority of the Romanist laity, and, as appears from the report of the commissioners, out of 9400 clergy who had ministered during the reign of Queen Mary, only 189 refused to conform. Pope Pius IV., who succeeded Paul IV. in 1559, sent his nuncio to the Queen, announcing his approval and willingness to accept the newly arranged Prayer-book as well as the Communion in both kinds, if only the Queen would acknowledge his supremacy.^ These facts are sufficient proof that even the ' Lord Coke vouches for this as an undoubted fact. " Pope Pius," he says, "wrote a letter to the Queen, in which he did allow the Bible and Book of Divine Service as it is now used among us to be authentic and not repugnant to truth . . . tliat he would also allow it unto us without changing any part so as her Majesty would acknowledge to receive it from him, the Pope, and by his allowance ; which her Majesty denying to do, she was then presently, by the same Pope, excommunicated. And this is the truth concerning Pope Pius Quartus, as / have often- times heard avowed by the Queen herself, her own words . . . and I have conferred with some lords that were of greatest reckon- ing in the State, zuho had seen and read the letters which the Pope had sent to that effect.'''' — Speech and charge given at the Assizes holden at Norwich, Aug. 4, 1606. ON ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER. 127 Romanists regarded the new Book as sound in all essential points, and therefore not incon- sistent with the sacrificial character of the Holy- Eucharist. The Puritans were as usual dissatisfied, because of the more distinct recognition of sacramental doctrine in this revised Book ; but it remained in use until the Puritans succeeded in overturning Church and King in the time of the great Rebellion. On the accession of James I., in 1604, a new attempt to conciliate the Puritans at the Hampton Court Conference, failed, owing to their arrogant demands for further alterations. During the fifteen years of Puritan sway, the use of the English Prayer-book was made penal under very severe penalties, for few persecutors were ever more relentless and cruel than these fanatical Puritans when they had the power. After the restoration of the monarchy, in 1660, another attempt was made to conciliate these Puritans at the Savoy Conference, which again 128 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH failed, owing to their ignorant and unreasonable demands. In the following year the Prayer-book, as it now stands, was passed by both Houses of Convocation, and the Act of Uniformity, pre- scribing its use, was passed by both Houses of Parliament and received the Royal Assent. As was to be expected from the character of the really learned liturgical scholars who took the most prominent part in this revision, the most eminent of whom was Bishop Cosin, the alterations made were all in a Catholic direction, and tended to the re-assertion of truths which had been obscured by the less learned re- visionists of the previous century. As bearing on our present subject, one very important addition was made in this revision of 1662 — an addition all the more significant from the views which we know were entertained by the divines who introduced it. The word " oblations " in the Prayer for the Church Militant in the Communion Office ON ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER. 129 omitted in the Ofifice of 1552, was restored in 1662. It was in accordance with a very general, though not universal custom of ancient liturgies, that the elements which were the materials of the Sacrifice about to be offered to God, should be solemnly presented before their consecration. In the Prayer-book of the Church in Scotland, which furnished many hints to our revisers, we find a direction introduced into the rubric that the presbyter shall offer up the bread and wine. There can be little doubt but that the word "oblations" was introduced by our great reformers in 1662, with the distinct intention of bringing out more clearly the sacrificial aspect of the Holy Eucharist. Again, one of the exceptions taken by the Puritans at the Savoy Conference was to what we call the Ornaments Rubric, which prescribes what are commonly termed the sacrificial vest- ments. " Forasmuch," said the Puritans of that day, K I30 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH " as this rubric seemeth to bring back the cope, albe, etc., and other vestments forbidden by the Common Prayer-book, 5 and 6 Edward VI., we desire it may be left out." The request was refused, and so the " sacri- ficial vestments " were retained. The displacement of the Oblation of the ele- ments after consecration from the place it held in the Service Book of 1549, where it stood immediately after the Prayer of Consecration, was a great mistake, and contrary to the usage of all primitive liturgies. Bishop Cosin ^ suggests that it might have arisen from the negligence of the printer, and says that it was the practice of Bishop Overall ^ to use the prayer in the Post Communion Office between the consecration and the * See Nicholls, Collection of Notes. ^ Bishop Overall drew up the sacramental portion of the Catechism, wherein is so plainly set forth the doctrine of the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and also its sacrificial character as a standing memorial of the Sacrifice and of the death of Christ. ON ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER. 131 administering. On this Bishop Jolly ^ remarks that he must have thought it no breach of the Act of Uniformity. " The Prayer of Oblation," says Wheatly, "was mangled and displaced at the review of 1552, being half laid aside, and the rest of it thrown into an improper place : as being enjoined to be said in that part of the Office which is to be used after the people have communicated ; whereas it was always the practice of the primitive Christians to use it during the act of consecration. For the Holy Eucharist was, from the very first institution, esteemed and received as a proper Sacrifice, and solemnly offered to God upon the Altar, before it was received and partaken of by the com- municants." ^ I need scarcely remind those who are con- versant with Liturgical Offices that the words, "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," which ' Bishop Jolly on the Eucharist. ^ Wheatly's " Rational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer." 132 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH occur in this Prayer of Oblation, are simply a rendering of the Latin, " Sacrificium Eucha- risticum," and allude, not to any expressions of praise in the service, such as the sanctus, but to the whole action of celebrating the Holy Eucharist itself A very favourite argument used by those who deny the sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist, is that the word " Altar," as applied to the structure on which Holy Communion is celebrated, does not occur in our present Prayer-book, and that therefore, by implica- tion, its sacrificial character is also excluded. This objection is a fair one, and should be fairly met. It must be admitted that the Church of England does not set forth the sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist with that distinctive clearness with which it was most undoubtedly set forth in the Primitive Church. She does not make it so prominent a part of her teaching. I believe one reason to be, that in a great reaction against some ON ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER. 133 false notions which seemed common in the early part of the sixteenth century — as, for instance, that the Sacrifice of Calvary was literally repeated at every Mass — an error, of course, utterly repudiated by every portion of the Catholic Church ; also probably from the fact that the people communicated very rarely, it was thought wise to dwell more strongly on the Holy Eucharist as a Communion than as a Sacrifice — the Office was therefore named " Holy Communion," and the structure on which the sacred elements were consecrated "the Lord's Table." And so it is "the Lord's Table." We wish not to do away with that most honourable name, for it is one which is used in Holy Scripture and the Primitive Church. But does the use of this name prove that we, in the Church of England, have no Altar God forbid ! Such an admission would indeed be to uproot and destroy our position as a true branch of Christ's Holy Catholic Church. That structure on which God's priests offer the Holy 134 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH Eucharist is both an Altar and a Table — an Altar, because of the Sacrifice offered thereon ; a Table, because of the Feast which Christians are allowed to have upon that Sacrifice. S. Paul, in a passage which I have already quoted, speaks of the heathen altar as a table of devils. It was an altar, because they offered sacrifices upon it ; a table, because they feasted upon the things offered. So again, the great altar at Jerusalem, on which, as we know, sacri- fices were daily offered, is called repeatedly in the Bible a table, because of the feast which was made upon the victims offered. In Ezek. xli. 22 we have the two words used in speaking of the same thing. " The altar of wood" it is said, " was three cubits high , . . and he said unto me, This is the table that is before the Lord." Again, in Mai. i. 7, the Prophet says, " Ye say the table of the Lord is con- temptible." And again in verse 12 of the same chapter, " The table of the Lord is polluted ; and the fruit thereof, even His meat, is ON ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER. 135 contemptible." And in the early Church both words are used by Christian writers. For instance, S. Gregory Nyssen says, "This Holy Altar at which we stand is by nature a common stone ; but after it is consecrated to the worship of God, and received the blessing, it becomes an Holy Table, an unpollutable Altar, not to be. touched by every one, but only by the priests, and such priests as fear God." S. Jerome says, " We pollute the Bread of God, i.e. the Body of Christ, when we come unworthily to the Altar ; and we declare the Table of the Lord to be contemptible when, being impure, we drink Pure Blood." S. Chrysostom, writing an account of S. Lucian the Martyr, whom the heathen tempted to eat of what was offered unto idols, by keeping him without food until he was almost dying, relates, that in that extremity of hunger the fear of God withheld the martyr's hand and made him forget nature ; for while he beheld that polluted and execrable table, he remembered the other tremendous table 136 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH which was full of the Spirit, and was so enflamed that he chose to endure and suffer all things rather than taste of these unhallowed meats." We see, then, that the Lord's Table was another name for the Holy Altar, both in the Jewish and in the early Christian Church. The preference shown by the Church of England for the former name no more proves that she wishes us to think we have no Altar, than the use of the expression by Malachi of the " Lord's Table," in reference to the great Altar in the Temple at Jerusalem, proves that he wished to teach the Jews that they had no altar, which we are sure he did not. Viewing the Holy Eucharist as a Communion, we properly speak of a Holy Table, or the Lord's Table, from which we receive the Food of immortality; but, on the other hand, looking upon it as a Sacrifice, which it also is, we properly speak of the Altar. Bishop Sparrow's remarks on this point are important, because he was one of the appointed ON ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER. 137 revisers who helped to mould our Liturgy into its present form. He says, " Now that no man take offence at the word ' Altar,' let him know that anciently both these names, 'Altar,' or ' Holy Table,' were used for the same thing, though most frequently the Fathers and Councils use the word ' Altar.' And both are fit names for that holy thing, for the Holy Eucharist, being considered as a Sacrifice in the representation of the breaking of the Bread and pouring forth the Cup, doing that to the holy symbols which was done to Christ's Body and Blood, and so showing forth and commemorating the Lord's death and offering upon it the same Sacrifice that was offered upon the Cross, or ' rather the commemoration of that Sacrifice,' it may fitly be called an Altar which again is as fitly called an Holy Table, the Eucharist being considered as a Sacrament which is nothing also but a distri- bution and application of the Sacrifice to the several receivers." I have already quoted, on the authority of 138 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH Wheatly and others, a fact which has not, I believe, been seriously questioned, that the Holy Board was hardly ever called Table for the first three hundred years of Christianity. In after ages the names were used indifferently ; but if our Puritanical friends of the present day will push this argument respecting the name "Altar" to undue limits, they will probably prove more than they wish or intend. It must come to this, that the word "Altar" having been used, almost without exception, during the first three hundred years after Christ, the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice must have been believed in and taught during all that period, when as one of the Homilies says, " religion was most pure, and nothing so corrupt as it hath been of late days ; " and that afterwards, when, as they contend, mediaeval corruption began to creep in, the word "Table" being used the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice was obscured. The logical conclusion, therefore, of this argument would be, that a doctrine which its opponents ON ITS SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER. 139 hold to be untrue was held by the Church in the Apostoh'c age, and the ages immediately following the Apostles, " when religion was most pure," and that true doctrine began to prevail when, on the other theory, mediaeval corruption began to creep in, which, of course, lands us in an absurdity. Bishop Cosin's remarks on this subject are ne- cessarily of great value, because he, perhaps, more than any other man, was instrumental in giving us our Prayer-book as we now have it. " In King Edward's First Prayer-book," he says, " the word 'Altar' was permitted to stand as being the name that Christians for many hundred years had been acquainted withal. Therefore, when there was such a pulling down of Altars, and setting up of Tables at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, she was fain to make an injunction to restrain such ungodly fury (for which, S. Chrysos- tom says, the Christians in his time would have stoned a man to death that should have but laid his hands upon an Altar to destroy it). For the 140 THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH word ' Table ' here stands not exclusively as if it might not be called an Altar, but to show the indifference and liberty of the name ; as of old it was called Mensa Domini, as well as Altare Domini {i.e. the Table of the Lord, or the Altar of the Lord.)" ^ In more recent times, John Wesley states the case thus : " To man it is a sacred Table, where ' Some rather weak-minded persons of our day, imitating the conduct of the Puritans, have moved the Altar from its usual position into the body of the Church, thinking thus to change it from an Altar into a Table. It is the t