Faith Grounded Upon the Holy Scriptures Against the New Methodists, Part 3 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. That the pretended Sacrifice of the Maſs is not taught in the Scriptures.
FIrſt, To prove that the Euchariſt is a Sacrifice truly propitiatory for the ſins of men, they alledge, that Melchizedek the Type of Jeſus Chriſt offered bread and wine. Geu. 14.18.But what appearance is there in this Conſequence? Firſt, the Sacred Text both in the *foreignOriginal, and in their own †Proferens.Verſion, ſignifieth, that Melchiſedek produced bread, and brought out wine, and not that he offered it; and all theſe circumſtances lead us to believe that it was for the refreſhment of Abraham and his men being weary with fighting, 2 Kings (Hebr. 2 Sam.) 17.28.and with the Journey; by a humanity like to that which Berzillai the Gileadite hath ſince uſed to David and thoſe who were with him. Secondly, though Moſes did ſay that Melchiſedek offered bread and wine, not to refreſh Abraham, but in Sacrifice to God, how can they prove that it was a propitiatory Sacrifice, and not rather an action of thanks; ſince under the Old Teſtament all the propitiatory Sacrifices had with them an effuſion of blood? Heb. 9.22.And in a word, ſuppoſe that this pretended Oblation of Melchiſedek had been a Sacrifice realy propitiatory, how can they prove that it figured the Euchariſt, which is never called Sacrifice in the New Teſtament; and not rather the death of Jeſus Chriſt, acknowledged for a true Sacrifice through out all the Scriptures, and by all Chriſtians, where the Lord, the true bread of life, deſcended from Heaven, hath been offered to the Father, for the expiation of the ſins of humanekinde?
Secondly, They produce Malachy, Mal. 1.11.who propheſying the times of the New Teſtament, ſaith, that in every place they ſhall offer to the Lord an oblation pure, or clean: that is (ſay they) the Euchariſt. But firſt, although it ſhould be ſo, how could they conclude from thence that the Euchariſt is a Sacrifice truly and properly expiatory? The thanks which accompanies this action, and gives it the name of Euchariſt, that is to ſay, of an Action of Thankſgiving, may be called a pure Oblation, which one preſents to the Lord for his goodneſs to us, without being a propitiatory Sacrifice, any more, than Alms, Prayers, and the Preaching of the Goſpel, which are named alſo Sacrifices. Secondly, What neceſſity is there to aſſert that this pure Oblation predicted by Malachy ſhould preciſely be the Euchariſt? Heb. 13.15, 16. Rom. 15.16.it's aim evidently enough is to fignifie, that the Service of God ſhould be no more as formerly tied to the Mountain of Zion, but ſhould be done in all places, from the riſing to the going down of the Sun, not to the people of Iſrael only, but communicated to all Nations. For theſe Divine Authors very often employ the terms and things of the Church of their times, to ſignifie the ſtate and things of the Church to come; as when Eſaiah ſaith, Eſa. 2.3.that the nations ſhall go up to the Mountain and Temple of the Lord, to ſignifie that they ſhall make profeſſion of his knowledge, and ſhall ſerve him: And when the Lord himſelf repreſents the eſtate of the Church to the Age to come, in ſaying, Mat. 8.11.that we ſhall be ſet at the Table with Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, terms which agree properly to the preſent Church. Malachy in the ſame manner uſed the word Oblation, which is properly a part of the Service which had place in the Church of his time, to denote the Evangelical Service which ſucceeded him under the New Teſtament; and to ſignifie it more particularly, he called it, a pure Oblation; no more carnal and groſs, conſiſting of Fat and Oyl, in Flower, and in the blood of Beaſts, as heretofore, but wholly ſpiritual and true; this is the ſervice St. Paul underſtands where making oppoſition of the Chriſtians with the Jews, he ſayeth, Phil. 3.3. Rom. 1.9.that we ſhould ſerve God in ſpirit; and ſpeaking of himſelf, he ſaith, that he ſerved God in his Spirit; and ſheweth elſewhere, that his preaching was part of it, where he ſaith, Rom. 15.16.he applied himſelf to the Sacrifice of the Goſpel of God, to the end that the oblation of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being ſanctified by the Holy Ghoſt. He deſcribes it ſo in general in the 12th of the Romans, That our ſervice (which he calls reaſonable, for the ſame Reaſons for which Malachy names it pure) is that we ſhould preſent our bodies as a living Sacrifice, holy and pleaſing to God. Rom. 12.1Jeſus Chriſt a long time ſince Malachy, foretold exactly the ſame thing, at the time of his complement. John 4.20, 23.The hour cometh (ſaith he) that the true worſhippers ſhall worſhip the Father in Spirit and in truth; no more in the mountain of Gerezim as the Patriarchs did, nor in Jeruſalem as the Jews, but in every place, as the Prophet ſaid. By comparing of theſe paſſages 'tis eaſie to finde out that the pure oblation of Malachy is nothing elſe but the worſhipping in Spirit and truth, which our Lord ſaith, and the oblation of our bodies as a living Sacrifice, as St. Paul ſpeaks and our ſervice in Spirit, as he ſaith, and ſo conſequently not the Maſs.
Thirdly, But they alledge from the New Teſtament that Jeſus Chriſt in celebrating the Euchariſt, ſaid to his Diſciples, Do this; now to do, ſignifieth ſometimes to ſacrifice: but what neceſſity is there to take it ſo in this place? Who ſeeth not that, do this, ſignifieth an action of which the Lord had ſpoken. Now he had ſaid nothing of ſacrificing (he ſpake not one word of that) but of eating and drinking. For after having given them the ſanctified bread to eat, & the ſanctified Cup to drink, he adds, do this in remembrance of me. Wherefore then ſhall not we take theſe words, do this, to ſignifie, to eat this Bread, and drink of this Chalice? St. Paul explains it clearly ſo, when after having rehearſed theſe words of the Lord, Do this every time, and as oft as you drink of it in remembrance of me, he adds, for every time and as oft as you eat of this bread and drink of this Cup, you ſignifie the Lords death till he come. 2 Cor. 12.25, 26.The connection of this Verſe with the precedent evidently ſheweth, that to do this, fignifieth eating of this bread, and drinking of this Cup.
Fourthly, They produced alſo, that our Lord in the 22 of St. Luke ſpeaking of the Cup of the Euchariſt, ſaith, Luke 22.20.that it is ſhed for us; from whence they conclude, that it is then an expiatory Sacrifice for our ſins. But I ſay, firſt, that although the words of the Lord in Saint Luke cannot be taken otherwiſe than in ſaying that the Holy Cup is ſhed for us; nevertheleſs it doth not follow that the Euchariſt is, to ſpeak properly, a propitiatory Sacrifice. What? is not the Water of the Holy Baptiſm ſpilled for thoſe who receive it? Do you conclude from hence that Baptiſm is a propitiatory Sacrifice? Many things make for us which nevertheleſs are not Sacrifices. The Chalice of the Euchariſt is it not uſeful and wholſome for us? Is it not given us to communicate to us the blood of the Lord, Grace, and the remiſſion of our fins? It is enough to ſay truly that it is ſhed for us, there being no need to change it into Sacrifice to explain this manner of ſpeaking. But without coming to this one may juſtifie this otherwiſe. For ſince the Cup is the Sacrament of the blood of Chriſt, which hath been truly ſhed as a Sacrifice on the Croſs, to merit the remiſſion of our ſins; and ſince it is the cuſtom to give to the Sacraments the qualities and attributions of the things of which they are Sacraments, none ought to think it more ſtrange that the Cup ſhould be ſaid to be ſhed for us, than that which St. 1 Cor. …0.4Paul ſaith, that the Rock in the Deſart was Chriſt. Secondly, I ſay, that it is not neceſſary to take the words of St. Luke in that ſenſe which they produce them. On the contrary it ſeemeth that their Belief, and their Latin Interpretation licenſed by the Council of Trent, Council of Trent, Seſſ. 4.doth not permit them to take them ſo. Their Belief. For if the Cup of the Euchariſt is ſhed for us, ſince by the Cup they underſtand the blood of Jeſus Chriſt contained in the Cup they muſt ſay that the blood of Chriſt is ſhed for us in the Euchariſt, which is directly contrary both to what they confeſs of the glorious and impaſſible ſtate of the body of the Lord, and to that which they expreſly aſſert, that the Euchariſt is a Sacrifice not bloody, and that Chriſt is offered there without the effuſion of blood. Their Interpreter. For thus he tranſlates theſe words: This Chalice is the New Teſtament in my blood which ſhall be ſhed for you, Concil. Trid. Seſſ. 22. c. 2.ſhewing evidently by the Future-Tenſe in which he puts the Verb, which ſhall be ſhed; that he attributes this effuſion, not to the Cup, but to the blood of Chriſt, which was ſhed ſome time after; whereas the Chalice was ſhed at that very hour. He ought then to apply the effuſion to the blood of Chriſt, and not to the Cup; and to tranſlate this paſſage thus, This Cup is the New Teſtament in my blood which is ſhed for you. And they ought not to alledge that the Participle foreign, which is, ſpilt, is in another caſe, as foreign, my Blood; the firſt being in the Nominative, and the other in the Dative, as the Grammarians ſpeak. For though this ſort of Conſtruction be extraordinary in the Greek, nevertheleſs 'tis in uſe in the Books of the New Teſtament, as in the 8th Chapter of the Revelation, Revel. 8.9. foreign Rev. 1.5.the third part of the Creatures which were in the Sea and had life, died; where the Participle having foreign, doth not agree with the Noun of Creatures in this Caſe foreign to which nevertheleſs it it is clearly applied; one being in the Genetive and the other in the Nominative; and in the firſt Chapter of the ſame Book, foreign, by Jeſus Chriſt, the faithful Witneſs; where theſe words foreign, faithful Witneſs, which are in the nominative, are applied clearly to the Name of our Lord, foreign, Jeſus Christ, though it be in the Genetive, as all Interpreters acknowledg. Thoſe who underſtand the Greek tongue, may remark other paſſages where, theſe Divine Authors do conſtrue alike the words different in Caſe and in number, Luke 5.9. & 9.53. John 21.12. 1 John 4.3. Mark 12.38, 40. Apoc. 3.12, 21. 1 Tim. 4.1, 2. One may here then likewiſe without ſtaying ones ſelf ſo ſcrupulouſly to the Grammar, conſtrue the word, ſhed with the blood, and not with the Cup; and tranſlate, This Cup is the New Teſtament in my Blood which is ſhed for you; Bazil. Ethic. definit. 21.and 'tis juſt ſo that the holy Bazel reads it, ancienter than us, more than 1256 years, where he mentions it in his Morals.
5. But they make ſhew likewiſe to ſtand upon the words of St. 1 Cor. 10.17, 18, 21.Paul in the 10th of the firſt to the Corinthians, comparing the Table of the Lord with the Altar of the antient Hebrews, and with the prophane Altars of the Pagans. For in doing this (ſay they) doth he not give us to underderſtand that the Euchariſt is a true and properly named Sacrifice, as thoſe which they offered upon the Altars of the Hebrews, and the Gentiles. But if this muſt be thus urged, I will then conclude that the Euchariſt is a bloody Sacrifice, ſince thoſe of the Jews & Pagans, with whom they pretend that it is compared, were of the ſame nature. Who ſeeth not that the Apoſtle in all theſe places doth not compare the action of the Hebrew and Gentile Sacrificers offering their Sacrifices with the action of Evangelical Miniſters, bleſſing the Euchariſt: But the action of the Hebrews and Gentiles every one eating the bread, and drinking the Chalice of the Supper? And that he compares them only in this point, that as one was a publike proteſtation which the Hebrews and Gentiles did to participate with the Altars upon which had been ſacrificed the fleſh whereof they eat, and to the Divinity to which they had ſacrificed them; ſo alſo the ſecond was a ſolemn and authentique act the Communion of which the faithful have with Jeſus Chriſt, and of the part which they pretend in his fleſh and in his blood? So that ſince 'tis impoſſible to have Communion with Jeſus Chriſt, and with the Devils together; the Apoſtle concluding that to eat meats ſacrificed to the Devil is a thing inconſiſtent with the marks and profeſſion of Chriſtianity: behold how far he deſigne of the Apoſtle extends, and no farther.
6. Laſtly, They endeavour to eſtabliſh their pretended Sacrifice upon this Divine Altar which we have (ſaith the Author of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews) and of which thoſe who ſerve at the Tabernacle have no power to eat. Heb. 13.10.But the circumſtances of the paſſage, and even the moſt celebrous Writers amongſt *Nic. de Lyra, Thomas. and others upon this paſſage.our Adverſaries teach us, that the holy Apoſtle ſpake in that place of the myſtical Altar of the Church, Jeſus, our Prieſt, our Victim, and our Altar; the vertue and life of which thoſe who are yet under the ſhadow of Moſes and the Service of his earthly Sanctuary, have no part in; as aforetime under the Old Teſtament, Lev. 16.27the Miniſters of the Moſaical Tabernacle eat not of the fleſh of the Victims ſacrificed for ſin.