teries of the Church, takes notice, among other things, of his instructing his votaries to baptize and to celebrate the oblation of breads: as much as to say, that they also had their Eucharist in their way; oblation being here the name for the whole service. In another place, he uses the single word offer, for the whole action of administering and receiving the Communiont. Elsewhere he makes mention of oblations for the dead; and at the anniversaries of the martyrs u: and by oblations he could intend nothing but the Eucharistical solemnities celebrated on those days *

We have seen proofs sufficient of the name of oblation for the two first centuries. But it is observable, that all this time we meet only with oblation of gifts, or first fruits, or of bread, wine, or the like: no oblation of Christ's body, or blood, or of Christ absolutely, as we shall find afterwards. Hence it is, that some very learned men have thought that, according to the ancients, the oblation was considered always as previous to consecration, and that the elements were offered in order to be consecratedy: which indeed is true according to that sense of oblation which obtained for two centuries and a half: but a new sense, or new application of the word, or name, came in soon after, and so it will bere be necessary to distinguish times.


Tinguit et ipse quosdam- -celebrat et panis oblationem. Tertull, de Præscript. c. xl. p. 216.

t Ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacerdos es tibi solus. Tertull. de Exhort. Cast, c. vii, p. 522. Conf. de Veland. Virg. c. ix. p. 178.

u Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die facimus. Tertull. de Coron. c. iii. p. 102. Conf. de Exhort. Cast. c. xi. p. 523.

* See Bingham, book xxiii. ch. 3. sect. 12, 13. Deylingius, Observat. Miscellan, p. 95.

y“ It is manifest, that it is called an oblation, or sacrifice, in all litur“gies, according to the style of the most ancient Church-writers, not as consecrated, but as presented, and offered (whether by the people, as the cus“.tom was, to him that ministered, or by him that ministered, to God) to be consecrated.Thorndike, Relig. Assembl. p. 379.

Consecrationi autem oblationem præpositam olim fuisse, adeo perspicuum ex veterum dictis, liturgiisque antiquissimis, maxime Græcis, esse arbitramur, ut nihil clarius esse possit. Pfuf'. Fragm. Iren. in præfat.

I shall now pass on to Cyprian, to show how this matter stood, upon the change of language introduced in his time. We shall find him plainly speaking of the offering Christ's body and bloodz. This must be understood of an oblation subsequent to consecration, not in order to it: for Christ's body and blood, whether real or symbolical, are holy, and could want no sanctification or consecration. He further seems to speak of offering Christ himselfa, in this Sacrament, unto God, but under the symbols of consecrated bread and wine. That may be his meaning: and the meaning is good, when rightly apprehended; for there was nothing new in it but the language, or the manner of expression. What the elder Fathers would have called, and did call, the commemorating of Christ, or the commemorating his passion, his body broken, or blood shed; that Cyprian calls the offering of Christ, or of his passion, &c. because, in a large sense, even commemorating is offering, as it is presenting the thing or the person so commemorated, in the



prayer and thanksgiving, before God. I do not invent this account for the clearing a difficulty, but I take it from Cyprian himself, whose own words show that the Eucharistical commemoration was all the while in his mind , and that that was all he meant by the oblation which he there speaks of,

: Obtulit (Dominus] hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est panem et vinum, suum scilicet corpus et sanguinem. Cyprian. Ep. Ixiii. p. 105. edit. Bened. Unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici &c. p. 107.

a Nam si Jesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster ipse est summus sacerdos Dei Patris, et sacrificium Patri seipsum primus obtulit, et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem præcepit, utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit, imitatur, et sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse. Ibid. p. 109. Quia passionis ejus mentionem in sacrificiis omnibus facimus (passio est enim Domini, sacrificium quod offerimus) nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit, facere debemus, p. 109.

b Calix qui in commemorationem (alias commemoratione) ejus offertur, p. 104. Quotiescunque ergo calicem in commemorationem Domini et passionis ejus offerimus, id quod constat Dominum fecisse, faciamus, p. 109.


using a new name for an old thing. I shall show in due time, that the later Fathers who followed Cyprian's language in this particular, and who admitted this third oblation (as some have called it) as well as he, yet when they came to explain, interpreted it to mean no more than a solemn commemoration, such as I have mentioned.

I must farther observe, that though Cyprian sometimes advances this new kind of language, yet elsewhere he follows the more ancient way of speaking, and understands oblation as other Fathers before him had done. Thus, when he speaks of the sacrifice offered in the Eucharist by the poorc, he means it of the lay oblation which was previous to consecration; as also when he speaks of the clergy's presenting the oblations of the people d, he is to be understood of the first and second oblations, both of them previous to consecration. And when he observes, that an oblation cannot be sanctified where the Spirit is not givene, he uses the word oblation for what was antecedent; and it amounts to the same as if he had said, that such an oblation could not be consecrated, could not be made the body and blood of Christ. But enough hath been said of the name of oblation in this place: the thing will be more distinctly considered hereafter.

A. D. 104. Sacrament. The name of Sacrament, as applied to the Eucharist, though no Scripture name, yet certainly is of great antiquity. The younger Pliny, in his Letter to the Emperor Trajan, will afford us a good argument of it, in what he reports of the Christians, and from the Christians, as meeting on a certain day (the Lord's Day) and binding themselves by a sacrament to commit no wickedness, but to lead good lives f. As Pliny there reported what the Christians had told him, it is reasonable to judge, that they had made use of the word sacrament to him, which they understood in the Christian sense, however Pliny or Trajan might take it: and so this testimony will amount to a probable proof of the use of the name of sacrament among the Christians of that time. That the name, as there used, is to be understood of the Eucharist, is a very clear case, from all the circumstances of the account. I know not how a late learned and judicious writer came to understand it of the sacrament of Baptism 8. The generality of the best learned men interpret it of the Eucharist, and with very good reason: for the account refers to what the whole assembly were wont to do, at the same time; they could not at all come to receive Baptism, though they might to receive the Eucharist. Then the mention of the Sacrament, as taken in the Antelucan meetings, tallies exactly with Tertullian's account of the Eucharist, as we shall see presently: besides that the hint given of the love-feast, as following soon after, confirms the same thing i.

c Partem de sacrificio quod pauper obtulerit, sumis. Cypr. de Op. et Eleem. p. 242.

Qui communicando cum lapsis, et offerendo oblationes eorum &c. Ep. xxviii. p. 38.

• Nec oblatio illic sanctificari possit, ubi Spiritus Sanctus non est. Ep. Ixiv. p. 112.

I go on then to Tertullian, who makes express mention of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as received in his time, but with some difference, as to the circumstances, from the original Eucharist of our Lord's own celebrating k.

f Adfirmabant autem, hanc fuisse summam vel culpæ suæ, vel erroris, quod essent soliti, stato die, ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem : seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati abnegarent: quibus peractis, morem sibi discedendi fuisse, rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium. Plin. Epist. xcvii. lib. x. p. 819. ed. Amstel. Conf. Tertullian. Apol. c. ii. p. 24, 25. Lugd.

8 Dr. Wall, Inf. Bapt. part ii. chap. ix. p. 396. third edit.

h Vid. Bevereg. Vindic. Can. p. 199. Tentzel. Exercit. Select. part. ii. p. 127. Vitringa, de Vet. Synagog. p. 1116. Renaudotius Liturg. Orient. tom. i. p. 5, 6. Bingbam xv. 7, 8.

i See Bingham, book xv. c. 7. sect. 8. k Eucharistiæ Sacramentum, et in tempore victus, et omnibus mandatum

For that (he observes) was after supper, this before daylight, fasting : in that, the company helped one another, or every man took his part from the table; in this, the Bishop or Presbyter in person gave the bread and cup to each communicant. But what I have principally to take notice of here is the use of the phrase, Sacrament of the Eucharist, conformable to the like phrases, which the same author makes use of to denote Baptism, calling it the Sacrament of water m, and Sacrament of sanctificationn. In the same century, Cyprian calls the Eucharist the Sacrament of the cupo; and elsewhere, the Sacrament of the Lord's passion and of our redemption P.

If it should now be asked, in what precise meaning the name of sacrament was thus anciently applied to the Eucharist ; as the word sucrament is of great latitude, and capable of various significations, (some stricter and some larger,) I know of no certain way of determining the precise meaning of the name, as here applied, but by considering what was meant by the thing. Gerard Vossius 9 has perhaps given as clear and accurate an account of the word sacrament, as one shall any where meet with: but after all, I am of opinion, that it is not the name which can here add any light to the thing, but the thing itself must be first rightly understood, in order to settle the true and full import of the name. When it is applied to Baptism and the Eucharist, it must be explained by their common nature, being a general name for such a certain number of ideas as go to make up their general nature or notion. A collection of those several ideas is put together in the definition given in our Church Catechism. The

a Domino; etiam Antelucanis cætibus, nec de aliorum manu quam præsidentium sumimus. Tertull. de Coron. c. iii. p. 102. | Luke xxii. 17. See Archbishop Potter on Ch. G. p. 259. edit. 3d. m Sacramentum aquæ. Tertull. de Bapt. c. i. p. 224. c. xii. p. 229. n Sacramentum sanctificationis. Ibid. c. iv. p. 225. • Sacramentum calicis. Cyprian. de Lapsis, p. 189.

P Sacramentum Dominicæ passionis, et redemptionis nostræ. Cyprian. Ep. 63. 4 Vossius de Sacramn. Vi et Efficacia. Opp. tom. vi. p. 247, &c. VOL. VII.


« VorigeDoorgaan »