Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

1. Jewell.

2. Bilson.

3. Hooker.

4. Overall.

5. Field.

6. Buckeridge. 7. Morton.

8. Andrews. 9. Mason.

10. White.

11. Laud.

12. Hall.

13. Montagu.

14. Forbes.

15. Mede.

16. Duppa.

List of Authors cited.

17. Compilers of the Scotch Prayer Book.

18. Nicholson.

19. Bramhall.

20. Cosin.

21. Heylyn.

22. Sparrow.
23. Ferne.
24. Hammond.
25. Barlow.

26. Thorndike.

27. Taylor. 28. Brevint. 29. Sancroft.

30. Scrivener.

31. Fell.

32. Patrick.

33. Towerson.

34. Bull.

35. Stillingfleet.
36. Smith.

37. Beveridge.
38. Hooper.
39. Dodwell.
40. Hickes.
41. Sharp.
42. Comber.
43. Leslie.

44. Scrandret.

45. Collier.

46. Nelson.

47. Wake.

48. Johnson.

49. Wilson.
50. Sherlock.
51. Grabe.

52. Brett.

53. Bennet.

54. Potter.

55. Hughes.
56. Laurence.
57. Law.
58. Wheatly.

59. Ridley.

60. Compilers of the American Prayer Book.

61. Jones.

62. Horsley.

63. Daubeny.

64. Jolly.

65. Philpotts.

The above list, although enlarged beyond what was thought necessary in the other catenæ, is by no means intended to comprise all who might be adduced. On the contrary, such are omitted (although of repute in their generation,) as belonged to the one

or other school, e. g. that of Archbishop Laud, and so were hardly independent witnesses. There is also a set of writers who, perhaps, can scarcely be brought under one head, who appear to have held implicitly the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, although the circumstances of the age in which they lived, or their own habits of mind, may have prevented their declaring it so explicitly as to enable one to place them in the primary list of witnesses. Of some (as Archbishop Sharp', Bishop Cleaver, Dr. John Scott, Pelling, and others,) the language seemed almost definite enough to entitle them to be ranked in that list; yet it seemed best to omit them, in order to avoid all appearance of anxiety to press their words beyond their true meaning, or to make our Anglican Church look more primitive than she has really been. The real point of difference between the primitive Church and modern views, is whether there be in this oblation a mystery or no; and this, doubtless, many have believed, who, from the unfavourable circumstances of their times, had scarcely developed that belief even to themselves. All however, even those who held the doctrine in its lowest degree, are witnesses thus far, that they who held it most deeply would not have held it thus deeply, or have been formed in that depth, in a Church which had not held the doctrine, or so referred her sons to primitive antiquity, and they whose tenure of it seems almost questionable, obviously would not have held it at all. A mere Protestant body could not have given rise even to the lowest statements of this last set. The doctrine must exist; otherwise they would never have been compelled to receive it into their mind, in whatever degree they did entertain it. Their having to weigh it, prove it, even their labouring to adjust it to their own minds, in as far as they did conform their own minds to it, is a fact and a testimony, independent of the conclusions, often very undecided, floating between the higher and the lower view of the doctrine, at which they ultimately arrived. It bears witness to the real substantial existence of the doctrine, offering and proposing itself and seeking entrance, even though, by many, it may, at last, have been inadequately admitted.

1 Archbishop Sharp's name has since been inserted; all doubt as to his views having been removed by a statement of his son.-See in the Catena. [ed. 2.]

JEWELL, BISHOP.-Defence of the Apology. Part II.

But you Protestants (ye say) have no external Sacrifice, and therefore ye have no Church at all. It pitieth me, M. Harding, to see the vanity of your dealing. Have we no external Sacrifice, say you? I beseech you, what Sacrifice did CHRIST or His Apostles ever command that we have refused? Leave your misty clouds, and generalities of words, and speak it plainly, that ye may seem to say some truth.

We have the Sacrifice of Prayer, the Sacrifice of Alms-deeds, the Sacrifice of Praise, the Sacrifice of Thanksgiving, and the Sacrifice of the Death of CHRIST. We are taught to present our own bodies, as a pure, and a holy, and a well pleasing Sacrifice unto God, and to offer up unto Him the burning oblation of our lips. These (saith St. Paul) are the Sacrifices wherewith God is pleased. These be the Sacrifices of the Church of GOD. Whosoever hath these, we cannot say he is void of Sacrifice. Howbeit, if we speak of a Sacrifice propitiatory for the satisfaction of sins, we have none other but only CHRIST JESUS, the Son of GoD upon His Cross. "He is that sacrificed Lamb of God, that hath

taken away the sins of the world."

You will say, ye offer not up CHRIST really unto God His FATHER. NO, M. Harding, neither we nor you can so offer Him: nor did CHRIST ever give you commission to make such Sacrifice. And this is it, wherewith you so foully beguile the simple. CHRIST offereth and presenteth us unto His FATHER. "For by Him we have access to the throne of grace." But no creature is able to offer Him. CHRIST JESUS upon His cross was a Priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedeck. "As for our part," St. Augustine saith, "Christ hath given us to celebrate in His Church, an image or token of that Sacrifice for the remembrance of His Passion." Again he saith, "After CHRIST'S ascension into heaven, the Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice is continued by a Sacrament of remembrance." Eusebius saith, "We burn a Sacrifice unto God, the remembrance of that great Sacrifice upon the Cross, and CHRIST commanded us to offer up a remembrance of His death, instead of a Sacrifice." It were an

infinite labour to report all that may be said. To be short, St. Hierome saith, turning himself unto CHRIST: "Then shalt Thou, O CHRIST, receive Sacrifice, either when Thou offerest up Thyself for us unto Thy Father," (which was only upon the cross,) “or else, when Thou receivest of us praises and thanksgiving."

All these things are true, M. Harding: you cannot deny them.... GoD's name be blessed for ever, we want neither Church nor Priesthood, nor any kind of Sacrifice, that CHRIST hath left unto His faithful.—pp. 130, 1.

St. Cyprian saith, "We offer our LORD's cup mixed with wine." But he saith not as you say, "We offer up the Son of GOD substantially and really unto His FATHER." Take away only that blasphemy wherewith you have deceived the world: and then talk of mingling the cup, and of the Sacrifice, while ye list. St. Cyprian saith, "We offer the LORD's cup," meaning thereby, the wine contained in the cup. So likewise St. Augustine saith: "The Church offereth up the Sacrifice of bread and wine." If there be any darkness in this manner of speech, both St. Cyprian and St. Augustine have plainly expounded their meaning. St. Cyprian, in the same Epistle before alleged, saith thus: "The cup is offered in remembrance of CHRIST; by the wine CHRIST'S Blood is showed, or signified: therefore wine is used, that by wine we may understand the LORD's Blood: water only without wine, cannot express the Blood of CHRIST in the water we understand the people in the wine CHRIST's Blood is represented: in all our Sacrifices, we work the memory of CHRIST's passion: the Sacrifice that we offer, is the Passion of our LORD." Thus much St. Cyprian in the same epistle. St. Augustine saith, " In this Sacrifice is a Thanksgiving, and a remembrance of the Flesh of CHRIST, that He hath offered for us, and of the Blood of CHRIST that He shed for us." Thus saith St. Cyprian: thus saith St. Augustine: thus say the old godly learned fathers of the Church of CHRIST. p. 140.

ID.-Replie unto M. Harding's Answer.

But M. Harding saith: "The Sacrifice of the Church is not thanksgiving, as our new masters teach us." Certainly our Sacrifice is the very Body of CHRIST, and that for ever, according to the order of Melchizedeck, evermore standing in God's presence, and evermore obtaining pardon for us: not offered up by us, but offering us up unto God the FATHER. For the same, it is our part to offer unto GoD our Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. And this is the doctrine, not only of them whom it liketh M. Harding to call new masters, but also of the oldest and most Catholic Doctors of the Church. And to allege one instead of many, St. Augustine hereof writeth thus: "In these fleshly Sacrifices (of the Jews) there was a figure of the Flesh, that CHRIST afterward would offer but in this Sacrifice of the Church, there is a thanksgiving, and a remembrance of that Flesh, which CHRIST hath already offered for us." If M. Harding will happily refuse St. Augustine, as mistrusted for one of these new masters, yet he may not well refuse his own Mass Book. There he himself even at his Mass is taught to say: "We that do offer up to Thee this Sacrifice of praise."-p. 267.

True it is, the ministration of the holy Communion is oftentimes of the old learned fathers called a Sacrifice: not for that they thought the Priest had authority to sacrifice the Son of GOD, but for that therein we offer up unto God thanks and praises for the great Sacrifice once made upon the cross. So saith St. Augustine: "In this Sacrifice is a thanksgiving, and a remembrance of the flesh of CHRIST, which He hath offered for us." So Nazianzenus calleth the holy Communion, "A Figure of that great mystery of the death of CHRIST." This it is that Eusebius calleth, “The Sacrifice of the LORD's table:" which also he calleth: "The Sacrifice of praise."-pp. 415, 6.

Chrysostom showeth in what sense other ancient fathers used this word, Sacrifice, and also utterly overthroweth M. Harding's whole purpose touching the same. For, as he saith, "we offer up the same Sacrifice that CHRIST offered," so in most plain wise, and by sundry words, he removeth all doubt, and declareth in what sort and meaning we offer it. He saith not, as M. Harding saith, "We offer up the Son of God unto His FATHER, and that verily and indeed:" but contrariwise thus he saith, "We offer

« НазадПродовжити »