would it answer the purposes intended by it? It is very certain, that good Christians are endowed with infused and inherent graces. Now, supposing that the elements have the same, (which however is a wild supposition,) yet that could only make the elements, so far, equal to every good Christian. But still the good Christian, though equal only in that view, will be as much a nobler sacrifice than the elements, as man, the living image of God, is better than a dead loaf. Why then so much earnestness for a dead sacrifice, (were it really any,) in preference to so many better living ones? Or what sense or consistency can there be in proclaiming, that such dead sacrifice, and offered by man, is the most sublime and Divine sacrifice that men or angels can offer z; especially considering, that the value of the sacrifice can never rise higher than the value of the sacrificera? Ꮓ Shall we at length say (which appears to be the last refuge) that the sacred elements are the most perfect and consummate representatives of the natural body and blood, answering to the originals as completely, as exemplified copies do to charters, or to letters patents? Such words are easily thrown out: but what sense do they bear, or what Scripture or Fathers have ever used them b? Or to what purpose can it be, to make use of swelling and magnificent phrases, without any coherent or determinate ideas? Besides that even the original body and blood do not operate efficiently, as the elements are supposed to do, but meri not inhering in them; or else, it is to be interpreted of the whole sacramental solemnity, in which God bears his part and then it is no more than saying, that God is in the Sacraments, as he really is, and operates in both, as he really does. It may be justly said, that the abiding virtue of Baptism, (not the inherent virtue of water, which is none,) operates as long as a man lives. See Review, vol. iv. p. 646. That is, God applies and continues the graces and privileges of that seal, and his work is sure and lasting. And if God operated with the consecrated elements reserved in the Church, or in private houses, for many days or weeks after; it was not because the elements retained any inherent virtues, but because God is true and constant to his own covenants or ordinances. 67, 141. Compare my Appendix, p. 156, 157. a See my Christian Sacrifice explained. p. 146. Pet. Martyr. Comment. ad 1 Cor. p. 48, 65. Žanchius, tom. vi. p. 212, 215. alias ad Ephes. p. 424. Benedict. Aretius, Loc. Comm. p. 394. Pet. du Moulin, Buckler of Faith, p. 416. Anatome Missæ, p. 168. Rivet. Summ. Controv. tom. ii. p. 108. Animadv. ad Cassand. p. 28. b Cardinal Perron made use of that vaunting plea, that affected and foreign similitude, and was thus answered: Stupenda prorsus est hominis audacia, veteribus tribuentis id de quo ne per somnium quidem cogitarunt. Quis enim illorum unquam observavit, aut tantillum subinnuit, eucharistiam hoc sensu antitypum appellari? Nullus, nemo. Albertin. p. 277. z Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 60, Conf. p. 437, 443, 471. toriously, and that by means of the Divinity which personally resided and resides in them: therefore, unless the elements have the same Divinity personally united with them, they can be no such consummate proxy as hath been pretended. Upon the whole, this account must either at length resolve into a personal union of the elements with the Logos, or amount to nothing. I have endeavoured to turn and try this matter every way, in order to guard the more strongly against a common failing, viz. the resting in a string of unmeaning words, which really carry in them no certain or no consistent ideas. For so it is, that false systems generally have been kept up by such as intend not to deceive others, but are really deceived themselves: and it is difficult to persuade them to call over their ideas, or to examine their terms with due care. : 2. To what has been said, I shall only add, that it is worth considering, that many true and sound principles of our own Church, and of the ancient churches also, (as may be understood from what has been hinted,) must be given up, before we could admit the bread-sacrifice; and that when it is brought in, it can never find rest, till it thrusts out the sacrifice of the cross, as I have shewn elsewhere". Some perhaps might modestly resolve to stop in the midway; but they would be the less consistent in doing it for the natural, necessary, unavoidable consequence of the other principle, regularly pursued, must at length terminate in rejecting the cross-sacrifice. If our Eucharist is a sacrifice of the elements, so was our Lord's also; or else ours and his will not tally: and he must have sacrificed himself at the same time; or else other accounts will not answer e. And if such was the case, the sacrifice of the cross was effectually precluded, since our Lord was to make a sacrifice of himself but once f. The sacrifice of the cross cannot, in this way, be considered as a continuation of the sacrifice of the original Eucharist, for these reasons: 1. The subject-matter could not be the same : for neither bread nor wine could have any place in the oblation of the cross. 2. The number could not be one; for in the original Eucharist are supposed two sacrifices, the elemental and personal, whereas upon the cross there could be no more than c Agnoscimus carnem vere vivificare, quatenus oblata fuit Deotanquam causa meritoria, sed non vivificare corporibus nostris receptam. Rivet. tom. ii. p. 138. d Appendix, chap. iv. p. 172, &c. the personal. 3. The form of the sacrifice could not be the same, but different as bloody and unbloody. 4. The priesthood (which is most material) could not be the same: for it is denied that Christ offered at the cross a Melchizedekian sacrifice, or offered as a Melchizedekian priest 5. 5. Lastly, the value could not be the same for two must be supposed better than one, if each of them has its respective value; or if not, why was not one of them spared? And a Melchizedekian sacrifice must be supposed the most honourable and the most valuable of any, and so of course must supersede all other. In short, the cross-sacrifice, in this way, must either be excluded, or else grievously disparaged, by being brought in as second, and inferior to the higher sacrifice before made in the Eucharist. Some learned persons, ancient and modern, have reasonably conceived three several parts or views of one continued oblation of Christ our Lordh: but then they have conceived it in quite another sense, and upon very different principles, nothing at all akin to the notion of the breadsacrifice. They might, in their way, consistently maintain one continued oblation; which others cannot, for the reasons just mentioned. Therefore, though it is a very great error to reject the sacrifice of the cross, yet since it is but the necessary consequence of the principle before mentioned, and is no more than arguing right from wrong premises; it seems that the first or greatest fault lies in retaining the principle, after it is clearly seen what company it must go with, and what precipices it leads to. I forbear to press these matters further, and should have been glad to have had no occasion for pressing them so far. May God give a blessing to what is sincerely intended for the service of truth and godliness: and may that Divine Spirit which accompanies the word and sacraments, and dwells in all the faithful, grant us a sound judgment and a right understanding in all things. See Appendix, p. 166, &c. 173. h See Review, vol. iv. p. 752、 DISTINCTIONS OF SACRIFICE: SET FORTH IN A CHARGE DELIVERED IN PART TO THE CLERGY OF MIDDLESEX, At the Easter Visitation, 1740. Nos panem et vinum, in usu sacræ Cœnæ, sanctificari concedimus: sacrificari nunquam dabimus. Mason. de Minister. Anglican. p. 575. |