A Golden Chain, Section 11
The eleuenth point. Of the sacrifice in the Lords Supper, which the Papists call the sacrifice of the Masse.
Touching this point, first I will set downe what must bee vnderstood by the name Sacrifice. A sacrifice is taken properly, or improperly. Properly it is a sacred or solemne action, in which man offereth and consecrateth some outward bodily thing vntounto God for this end, to please and honour him thereby. Thus all the sacrifices of the old testament, and the oblation of Christ vponupon the crosse in the new testament are sacrifices. Improperly, that is, onelyonly by the way of resemblance, the duties of the morall lawe are called sacrifices. And in handling this question; I vnderstand a sacrifice both properly and improperly by way of resemblance.
Our Consent.
Our consent I propound in two conclusions. Conclus. I. That the supper of the Lord is a sacrifice, and may truly be so called as it hath beene in former ages; and that in three respects. I. Because it is a memoriall of the reall sacrifice of Christ vponupon the crosse, and containes withall a thanksgiuing to God for the same, which thanksgiuing is the sacrifice and calues of our lips. Heb. 13.15. II. Because eueryevery communicant doth there present himselfe bodie and soule a liuing, holy, and acceptable sacrifice vntounto God. For as in this sacrament god giues vntounto vsus Christ, with his benefits: so we answerable giuegive vp our selues vntounto God as seruants to walke in the practise of all dutifull obedience. III. It is called a sacrifice in respect of that which was ioyned with the sacrament, namely the almes giuen to the poore as a testimonie of our thankefulnes vntounto God. And in this regard also, the ancient fathers hauehave called the sacrament, an vnbloodie sacrifice: & the table, an altar, & the ministers priests: & the whole action an oblation not to God but to the congregation, and not by the priest alone but by the people. A canon of a certaine Councell saith. Wee decree that eueryevery Lords daie the oblation of the altar be offered of eueryevery man and woman both for bread and wine. And Augustine saith,Concil. Matiscon. 2. c. 4. Epist. 122. that women offer a sacrifice at the altar of the Lord, that it might be offered by the priest to God. And vsually in auncient writers the communion of the whole bodie of the congregation is called the sacrifice or oblation.
Conclus. II. That the very bodie of Christ is offered in the Lords supper For as wee take the bread to be the body of Christ sacramentally by resemblance and no otherwise: so the breaking of bread is sacramentally the sacrificing or offering of Christ vponupon the crosse. And thus the fathers hauehave termed the Eucharist an immolation of Chrtst, because it is a commemoration of his sacrifice vponupon the crosse. Aug. Epist. 23. Neither doeth he he which saith Christ was offered. For if sacraments had not the resemblance of things whereof they are sacraments, they should in no wise be sacraments: but from a resemblance, they often take their names. Againe Christ is sacrificed in the last supper, in regard of the faith of the communicants, which makes a thing past and done as present. Augustine saith, When we beleeue in Christ he is offered for vsus daily. And,Lib. 2. quaest. vet. & Nou. Test. Ad Rom. Lib. 2. de Virg. Ad Damas. Christ is then slaine for eueryevery one, when hee beleeues that he is slaine for him. Ambrose saith, Christ is sacrificed daily in the mindes of beleeuers, as vponupon an altar. Hierome saith, He is alwaies offered to the beleeuers.
II. The difference.
They make the Eucharist to be a reall, externall, or bodily sacrifice offered vntounto God: holding and teaching, that the minister is a priest properly: & that in this sacrament he offers Christs bodie and blood to God the father really and properly vnderunder the formes of bread and wine. We acknowledge no real, outward, or bodily sacrifice for the remission of sinnes, but onelyonly Christs oblation on the crosse once offered. Here is the maine difference between vsus, touching this point and it is of that waight and moment, that they stifly maintaining their opinion (as they doe) can be no Church of God. For this point raseth the foundation to the very bottom. And that it may the better appeare that we auouch the trueth, first I will confirme our doctrine by scripture, and secondly confute the reasons which they bring for themselues.
III. Our reasons.
Reason I. Heb. 9,15. and 26. and c. 10.10. The holy Ghost saith, Christ offered himselfe but once. Therefore not often: and thus there can be no reall or bodily offering of his bodie and blood in the sacrament of his supper: the text is plaine. The Papists answer thus. The sacrifice of Christ (say they) is one for substance, yet in regard of the manner of offering it is either bloody or vnbloodie, and the holy ghost speakes onelyonly of the bloodie sacrifice of Christ: which was indeede offered but once. Ans. But the author of this epistle takes it for graunted, that the sacrifice of Christ is onelyonly one, and that bloodie sacrifice. For he saith, Heb. 9.25. Christ did not offer himselfe often, as the high priests did. and v. 26. For then he must hauehave often suffered since the foundation of the world: but nowe in the ende he hath appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe. and v. 22. without shedding of blood is no remission of sinnes. By these words it is plaine, that the scripture neuer knewe the twofold manner of sacrificing of Christ. And eueryevery distinction in diuinity not founded in the written word, is but a forgerie of mans braine. And this distinction be good, how shal the reason of the Apostle stand. He did not offer himselfe but once, because he suffered but once.
Reason II. The Romish Church holds that the sacrifice in the Lords supper is all one for substance, with the sacrifice which hee offered on the crosse: if that be so, then the sacrifice in the Eucharist, must either be a continuance of that sacrifice which was begun on the crosse, or els an alteration or repitition of it. Now let them choose of these twaine which they will: if they say it is a continuance of the sacrifice on the crosse, Christ beeing but the beginner and the priest the finisher thereof, they make it imperfect: for to continue a thing till it be accomplished, is to bring perfection vntounto it: but Christs sacrifice on the crosse was then fully perfected, as by his owne testimonie appeares, when he saide, Consummatum est, it is finished. Againe, if they say, it is a repetition of Christs sacrifice, thus also they make it imperfect: for that is the reason which the holy Ghost vseth to prooue that the sacrifices of the old testament were imperfect, because they were repeated.
Reason III. A reall and outward sacrifice in a sacrament, is against the nature of a sacrament and especially the supper of the Lord: for one ende thereof is to keepe in memorie the sacrifice of Christ. Now eueryevery remembrance must be of a thing absent, past, and done: and if Christ be daily and really sacrificed, the sacrament is no fit memoriall of his sacrifice. Againe the principal ende for which the sacrament was ordained, is that God might giuegive and we receiue Christ with his benefits: and therefore to giuegive and take, to eate and drinke, are here the principall actions. Now in a reall sacrifice God doth not giuegive Christ & the priest receiue him of God; but cōtrariwise he giues & offers Christ vntounto God, and God receiues some thing of vsus. To helpe the matter they say, that this sacrifice serues not properly to make any satisfaction to God, but rather to applie vntounto vsus the satisfaction of Christ beeing alreadie made. But this answer s…ill maketh against the nature of a sacrament, in which God giues Christ vntounto vsus: whereas in a sacrifice God receiues from man, and man giues something to God: a sacrifice therefore is no fit meanes to applie any thing vntounto vsus, that is giuen of God.
Reason IV. Hebr. 7.24,25. The holy Ghost makes a difference betweene Christ the high priest of the new testament, and all Leuiticall priests in this, that they were many, one succeeding another: but he is onelyonly one, hauing an eternall priesthood, which cannot passe from him to any other. Now if this difference be good, then Christ alone in his owne very person must be the priest of the new testament, and no other with, or, vnderunder him: otherwise in the new testament there should be more priests in number then in the old. If they say, that the whole action remaines in the person of Christ, and that the priest is but an instrument vnderunder him (as they say) I say againe it is false; because the whole oblation is acted or done by the priest himselfe: and he which doth all, is more then a bare instrument.
Reason V. If the priest doe offer to God Christs reall bodie and bloode for the pardon of our sinnes, then man is become a mediatour betweene God and Christ. Now the Church of Rome saith, that the priest in his masse is a priest properly, and his sacrifice a reall sacrifice, differing onelyonly in the manner of offering from the sacrifice of Christ vponupon the crosse: and in the very canon of the masse they insinuate thus much, when they request God to accept their gifts and offerings, namely Christ himselfe offered, as he did the sac…ifices of Abel and Noe. Now it is absurd, to thinke that any creature should be a mediatour betweene Christ and God. Therefore Christ can not possibly be offered by any creature vntounto God.
Reason VI. The iudgement of the auncient Church. A certaine Councill held at Toledo in Spaine, reprooueth the Ministers that they offered sacrifice often the same day without the holy communion.Tolet. Concil. 12. c. 5. The wordes of the Canon are these: Relation is made vntounto vsus that certaine priests doe not so many times receiue the grace of the holy communion, as they offer sacrifices in one day: but in one day, if they offer many sacrifices to God, in all the oblations, they suspend themselues from the communion —. Here marke, that the sacrifices in auncient Masses were nothing else but formes of diuine seruice; because none did communicate, no not the priest himselfe. And in an other Councill the name of the Masse is put onelyonly for a forme of praier. It hath pleased vsus, that prayers, supplications, Masses, which shall be allowed in the Councill—, be vsed. A…d in this sense it is taken when speach is vsed of the making or compounding of Masses: for the sacrifice propitiatorie of the bodie and blood of Christ admits no composition. Abbat Paschasius saith,Milevet. cap. 12. Concil. Tol. 4. c. 12. &c. Iacob. de cōsecr. dip. 1. Lib. de corpor. & sang. dom. cap. 9. Because we sinne daily Christ is sacrificed for vsus mystically, and his Passion is giuen in mysterie. These his wordes are against the reall sacrifice: but yet he expoundes himselfe more plainely, cap. 10. The blood is drunke in mysterie spiritually: and, it is all spirituall which we eate. &c. 12. The priest —, distributes to eueryevery one not as much as the outward …ight giueth, but as much as faith receiueth. cap. 13. The full similitude is outwardly, and the immaculate flesh of the lambe is faith inwardly—, that the truth be not wanting to the sacrament, and it be not ridiculous to Pagans that we drinke the blood of a killed man. cap. 6. One eates the flesh of Christ spiritually and drinkes his blood, another seemes to receiue not so much as a morsell of bread from the hand of the priest: his reason is, because they come vnprepared. Now then considering in all these places he makes no receiuing but spirituall, neither doth he make any sacrifice but spirituall.
IV. Obiections of Papists.
I. Gen. 14. v. 18. When Abraham was comming from the slaughter of the Kings, Melchizedech mette him, and brought forth bread and wine: and he was a priest of the most high God. Now this bread and wine (say they) he brought forth to offer for a sacrifice; because it is said he was a priest of the most high God: and they reason thus. Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek: therefore as Melchizedek offered bread and wine, so Christ vnderunder the formes of bread and wine offers himselfe in sacrifice vntounto God. Ans. Melchizedek was no type of Christ in regard of the acte of sacrificing, but in regard of his person, and things pertaining thereto, which all are fully expounded, Hebr. 7. the summe whereof is this. I. Melchizedeck was both king and priest: so was Christ. II. He was a prince of peace and righteousnesse: so was Christ. III. He had neither father nor mother: because the scripture in setting downe his history makes no mention either of beginning or ending of his daies: and so Christ had neither father nor mother: no father, as he was man: no mother, as he was God. IV. Melchizedek being greater thē Abraham blessed him, & Christ by vertue of his priesthood blesseth, that is, iustifieth & sanctifieth all those that be of the faith of Abrahā. In these things onelyonly standes the resemblance and not in the offering of bread and wine. Againe the ende of bringing forth the bread and wine, was not to make a sacrifice, but to refresh Abraham and his seruants, that came from the slaughter of the Kings. And he is called here a priest of the most high God, not in regard of any sacrifice: but in consideration of his blessing of Abraham, as the order of the words teacheth, And he was the priest of the most high God, and therefore he blessed him. Thirdly, though it were graunted, that he brought forth bread and wine to offer in sacrifice, yet will it not follow, that in the sacrament Christ himselfe is to be offered vntounto God vnderunder the naked formes of bread and & wine. Melchizedeks bread and wine were absurd types of no-bread and no-wine, or of formes of bread and wine in the Sacrament.
II. Obiect. The paschall lambe was both a sacrifice and a sacrament: now the Eucharist comes in roome thereof. Ans. The paschall lambe was a sacrament, but no sacrifice. Indeede Christ saith to his disciples, Goe and prepare a place to sacrifice the Passeouer in, Mark, 14.12. but the words to offer, or to sacrifice, doe often signifie no more but to kill. As when Iacob and Laban made a couenant, it is saide, Iacob sacrificed beasts, and called his brethren to eate bread, Gen. 31.54. Which words must not be vnderstood of killing for sacrifice, but of killing for a feast: because he could not in good conscience inuite them to his sacrifice, that were out of the couenant, beeing (as they were) of another religion: secondly, it may be called a sacrifice, because it was killed after the maner of a sacrifice. Thirdly, when Saul sought his fathers asses, and asked for the Seer, a maide bids him goe vp in hast: for (saith shee) there is an offering of the people this day in the high place, 1. Sam. 9. 12. where the feast that was kept in Rama, is called a sacrifice: in all likelihood because at the beginning thereof, the priest offered a sacrifice to God: and so the Passeouer may be called a sacrifice,Deut. 16.2. because sacrifices were offered within the compasse of the appointed feast or solemnitie of the Passeouer: and yet the thing it selfe was no more a sacrifice then the feast in Rama was. Againe, if it were graunted that the Passeouer was both, it will not make much against vsus: for the supper of the Lord succeedes the Passeouer onelyonly in regard of the maine ende thereof, which is the increase of our communion with Christ.
III. Obiect. Malac. I.II. The prophet foretelleth of a cleane sacrifice that shall be in the new testament: and that (say they) is the sacrifice of the Masse. Ans. This place must be vnderstood of a spirituall sacrifice, as we shall plainely perceiue if we compare it with 1. Tim. 2.8. where the meaning of the prophet is fitly expounded. I will (saith Paul) that men pray in all places, lifting vp pure hands, without wrath or doubting. And this is the cleane sacrifice of the Gētiles. Thus Iustin Martyr saith,Dialog. cum Triph. Ad Scapulam. Lib. 4. c. 35. That supplicatiōs and thanksgiuings are the onelyonly perfect sacrifices pleasing God, and that Christians hauehave learned to offer them alone. And Tertullian saith, We sacrifice for the health of the Emperour—: as God hath commanded with pure praier. And Ireneus saith, that this cleane offering to be offered in eueryevery place, is the praiers of the Saints.
IV. Obiect. Hebr. 13.10. We hauehave an altar, whereof they may not eate… which serue in the tabernacle. Now (say they) if we hauehave an altar, then we must needes hauehave a priest; and also a reall sacrifice. Ans. Here is meant not a bodily, but a spirituall altar; because the altar is opposed to the materiall Tabernacle; and what is meant thereby is expressed in the next verse, i… which he prooues that we hauehave an altar. The bodies of the beasts, whose blood was brought into the holy place by the high priest for sinne, were burnt without the campe: so Christ Iesus, that he might sanctifie the people with his owne blood, suffered without the gate. Now lay the reason or proofe to the thing that is prooued, and we must needes vnderstand Christ himselfe, who was both the altar, the priest, and the sacrifice.
V. Obiect. Lastly, they say, where alteration is both of law and couenant, there must needes be a new priest and a new sacrifice. But in the new testament there is alteration both of law and couenant: and therfore there is both new priest and new sacrifice. Ans. All may be graunted: in the new testamēt, there is both new priest and sacrifice: yet not any popish priest, but onelyonly Christ himselfe both God and man. The sacrifice also is Christ as he is man: and the altar, Christ as he is God, who in the new testament offered himselfe a sacrifice to his Father for the sinnes of the world. For though he were the lambe of God slaine from the beginning of the world, in regard of the purpose of God, in regard of the value of his merit, and in regard of faith which maketh things to come as present, yet was he not actually offered till the fulnes of time came; and once offering of himselfe, he remaineth a priest for euer, and all other priests beside him, are superfluous: his one offering once offered, beeing all-sufficient.