The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 10 – Controversy 11
Tenth Controverſie, OF THE SEVENTH BOOK. Of the SACRIFICE Of the EUCHARIST.
CHAP. 1. State of the Queſtion. How M. du Perron doth not touch it, but wanders about uſeles diſcourſes.
CArdinal du Perron employeth five Chapters of his fourth Book to treat of the Sacrifice of the Euchariſt, and to prove that the Fathers have underſtood that it is truly and properly a Safice. That whole diſpute is uſeleſs, both becauſe he alleadgeth not one ſyllable of Gods Word, without whoſe Authority that ſacrifice cannot ſubſiſt; and becauſe he toucheth not the queſtion, and expatiates about things of no uſe. For the queſtion is not, Whether the Lords Supper be called a Sacrifice, properly or improperly? but, Whether the body of Chriſt be really ſacrificed in it? Alſo, Whether it be a propitiatory ſacrifice? and, Whether by it our ſouls be redeemed, and God reconciled with us? What is it to us, if the Communion is called a ſacrifice properly or improperly, while this truth remains firm, that Chriſt is not really ſacrificed in it? and that there is no other propitiatory and redemptory ſacrifice, but the death of Chriſt?
He committs another fault. For the diſpute about the proper or improper ſignification of the word Sacrifice, cannot be decided but by ſetting down a definition of ſacrifice. It being certain that the Euchariſt cannot be a true ſacrifice, if the definition of a ſacrifice be not proper to it.
But he hath purpoſely omitted that definition, finding no way how to make it ſquare with the nature of the Euchariſt. Is not that an abuſing the Reader, to make long diſcourſes, to prove that the Euchariſt is a true ſacrifice, and yet never ſay what a thing a ſacrifice is? Now every lawful ſacrifice is a religious action, inſtituted by God, whereby a viſible offering is conſecrated and offered unto God by a lawful Prieſt, and deſtroyed for the propitiation of ſins, or for thankſgiving. For the definition and eſſence of a ſacrifice, properly ſo called, includeth theſe ſix things. 1. That it be a religious action inſtituted by God. 2. That there be a viſible offering. 3. That the thing offered be conſecrated to God by him that ſacrificeth. 4. That it be deſtroyed by the perſon that celebrates the ſacrifice. 5. That it be offered by a lawful Prieſt inſtituted by God. 6. That if it be a ſacrifice truly and really propitiatory, the price of our redemption muſt be really offered and ſacrificed in it. Hence it appears, that it is utterly impoſſible that the Maſs in which they pretend to ſacrifice Chriſt, can be truly and properly a ſacrifice. 1. Seeing, that Chriſt did not command us to ſacrifice Chriſt. 2. That the offering pretended to be offered in the Maſs, which is Chriſt, is not viſible there, and is not perceived. 3. That it is not conſecrated to God by him that ſacrificeth, ſeeing that Chriſt cannot be conſecrated by men. 4. That in the Maſs Chriſt is not deſtroyed, and ſuffereth nothing in it, neither in effect nor in ſhew. 5. That God hath not inſtituted in his Church, ſacrificers of his Sons body. 6. And that the Maſs cannot be in effect a propitiatory ſacrifice, ſince it is not the death of Chriſt which is the only price of our redemption. All this, which is the principal point of the difference, the Cardinal toucheth not at all, and labours only to ſhew in what ſenſe the Fathers have called the Euchariſt a ſacrifice; Which is an unſeleſs diſpute. For although all the Fathers with one conſent ſhould ſay, that the Euchariſt is truly and properly a ſacrifice, it would not follow that Chriſt was really ſacrificed in it as a propitiatory ſacrifice. Beſides, we muſt alwayes begin with the divine inſtitution, without which all authority falls, and all our diſcourſes come to nothing. But of that divine inſtitution, the Cardinal ſpeaks not one word. Wherefore it is neceſſary for us to begin there.
CHAP. 2. That the Sacrifice of the Maſs was not inſtituted by Chriſt. And of the fruit and efficacy of the ſacrifice of the Maſs.
THe Council of Trent in the XXII. Seſſion, in the II. Canon, to prove that the Euchariſt is the true ſacrifice of Chriſts body, alleadgeth for all the proof theſe words of Chriſt, Do this in remembrance of me; and denounceth an anathema to all that will deny, that by theſe words Chriſt hath conferred the Order of Prieſthood, and commanded to ſacrifice really the body of Chriſt. There cannot be a more certain proof of an ill cauſe, then to be reduced to ſuch proofs. Can there be any interpretation of Gods Word more conſtrained or more extravagant then this? Do this in remembrance of me; that is, I inſtitute you to be Prieſts to ſacrifice my body, to be a propitiatory ſacrifice for the living and the dead. But(a)1 Cor. 11.26. the Apoſtle Paul expounds theſe words otherwiſe; For after theſe words, Do this in remembrance of me, he addeth, As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do ſhew the Lords death. So then, Doing this in remembrance of Chriſt, is eating the bread and drinking the cup of the Lords Supper, to announce and celebrate the memory of his death.
It is very conſiderable, that Saint Matthew and Saint Mark Matth. 26.26. Mark 14.22.relating the words of the inſtitution of this Sacrament, have left out theſe words, Do this, which they had not done, had they believed that they are the formal words whereby this pretended Sacrifice is inſtitued.
Wherefore alſo, in the whole inſtitution and action of Chriſt, no mention is made of ſacrificing the Lords body, no elevation of the Hoſt, no offering unto God, no prayer to God that he accept the offering.
Neither doth the Chriſtian Faith acknowledge any other ſacrifice of redemption, but the death of the Redeemer, nor any other price for the redemption of ſouls. Now in the Maſs Chriſt dyeth not. And our very Adverſaries(c)Bellar. lib. 2. de Miſſa, c. 4. ſect. Secundo. Chriſtus nunc nec mereri, nec ſatisfacere poteſt. acknowledge that Chriſt is no more in the condition of meriting, or ſatisfying, but only of impetrating. It is not then a ſacrifice pro redemptione animarum, for the redemption of ſouls, as it is ſaid in the Canon of the Maſs. It is not convenient that a Sacrifice where Chriſt ſuffereth nothing, be the price of our redemption. For ſince his ſufferings are the payment for our ſins, an action where he ſuffereth nothing cannot be that payment.
If they ſay that the Maſs is the ſacrifice of Chriſt, and that he is really ſacrificed in it for our redemption, becauſe the ſacrifice of his death is thereby applyed to us, and the memory of his death announced: By the ſame reaſon Baptiſm and the preaching of the Goſpel, are ſacrifices properly ſo called, and propitiatory ſacrifices, becauſe in them Chriſts death is applyed to us, and brought to our remembrance. To apply the ſacrifice of Chriſt to us, muſt we ſacrifice him again? By the ſame reaſon he ſhould be put to death again, to apply his death to us.
The Apoſtle to the Hebrews is very expreſs upon this queſtion. He ſpends moſt part of his Epiſtle about the Prieſthood, and the Sacrifice of the Chriſtian Church. Yet in the whole Epiſtle, he ſpeaks not one word of the Euchariſt or the Lords Supper, in which only they will have the ſacrifice of the Chriſtian Church to conſiſt. Muſt we ſay then, that the Apoſtle hath done as he that would write a Book of the Art of Navigation, without ſpeaking of Ships; or of the Art of Reigning, without ſpeaking of King or Prince? Certainly the Apoſtle brings us ſtraight to the death of Chriſt, and acknowledgeth no other, but that only Sacrifice. In chap. 10. v. 14. he ſaith, that Chriſt by one offering hath perfected for ever them that are ſanctified. And v. 10. We are ſanctified through the offering of the body of Jeſus Chriſt once for all. Here is then one only oblation, and that for ever. And in chap. 9. v. 26. having ſaid that Chriſt hath not often ſuffered from the foundation of the world; he addeth, v. 27, 28. As it is appointed unto men once to dye, but after this the judgement. So Chriſt was once offered to bear the ſins of many, and unto them that look for him, ſhall he appear the ſecond time, &c. Thereby he excludeth all reiteration. For a mans death is not at all reiterated.
Neither indeed doth Scripture ſpeak of any unbloody ſacrifice of Chriſt; and that very text which our Adverſaries bring for the unbloody ſacrifice, ſpeaks of ſhedding of blood. For they make uſe of theſe words, Mat. 26.28. This is my blood of the New Teſtament which is ſhed for many. Hardly can a text ſpeaking of blood-ſhed, ſerve to eſtabliſh a ſacrifice where no blood is ſhed.
And ſince the Apoſtle, Heb. 9.22. ſaith that without ſhedding of blood there is no remiſsion; how can the Maſs, where the blood of Chriſt is not ſhed, really be a ſacrifice for the remiſſion of ſins? Or how ſhall we ſay that the blood of Chriſt is really ſhed in the Sacrament, ſeeing it doth not come out of his veins? Or how can ſhedding of blood be without any motion?
The ſame Apoſtle, Heb. 10.17, 18. having ſaid, that God hath promiſed to remember our ſins no more; addeth, Now where the remiſsion of theſe is, there is no more offering for ſin. Since then by the death of Chriſt, and by faith in him, we have remiſſion of our ſins, what need we more to make oblations and ſacrifices for ſins?
In chap. 7. v. 27. he compareth the Prieſts of the Law with Chriſt, in that they offered every day ſacrifices for ſins: But this (ſaith he) he did once, foreign, once only, when he offered up himſelf. This word foreign, cannot be otherwiſe tranſlated, but by ſemel, or once only, both becauſe it is the ſignification of the word, and becauſe by this word the Apoſtle oppoſeth Chriſt to the Prieſts of the Law, who offered ſacrifices often. Thus Heb. 9.27. he ſaith, that it is appointed unto men foreign, ſemel mori, once to dye. That man ſhould want common ſenſe, that ſhould find fault with tranſlating that text in this manner, It is appointed unto men to die once only: No more ſhould any find fault with us for tranſlating the following verſe, foreign, Chriſtus ſemel oblatus, Chriſt being offered once only. And ſo Heb. 10.10. Through the offering of the body of Jeſus Chriſt once for all; for there alſo the word foreign is found. And that ſacrifice once made, he oppoſeth to the reiteration of the ſacrifices of the Law, which were done every day.
In every ſacrifice, properly ſo called, there muſt be an offering conſecrated. How then can the Maſs be properly called a ſacrifice, ſeeing that there is nothing conſecrated in it? Not the bread, not the wine, for it is pretended that they are no more bread and wine after the conſecration. Not the accidents, for colours and lines are not an offering; Not the body of Chriſt, for it cannot be conſecrated by men. Here is then a ſacrifice, where nothing is conſecrated.
As for the vertue of that ſacrifice of propitiation, or redemption, when our Adverſaries go about to declare it, they bring it to nothing. In the Canon of the Maſs, the Prieſt ſaith, that he offereth(d)Sacrificium laudis pro redemptione animarum. a ſacrifice of praiſes for the redemption of ſouls. Truly praiſes are no payments. A debtor by exalting his creditors, with praiſes to the third Heaven, ſhall never pay his debts.
(e)Bellar. lib 2. de Miſſa, cap. 4. ſect. Secundo. Chriſtus nunc nec mereri, nec ſatisfacere poteſt, ſed tantum impetrare. Igitur impetratio propria eſt hujus ſacrificii vis & obedientia. Et paulo poſt. Sacrificium ad impetrationem tendit, & ſimile eſt orationi.Here Bellarmine is for us, for he inſiſteth much to prove, that the ſacrifice of the Maſs is only impetratory, ſuch as are prayers, but cannot be ſatisfactory nor expiatory; becauſe Chriſt is no more in a condition to ſatisfie or merit. It was never heard that an impetration by prayers without ſatisfaction, or without payment, was taken for redemption.
There was no need to ſacrifice Chriſt again, to apply to us the ſacrifice of his death, ſince the Euchariſt, as it is a Sacrament applyeth his death. The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Chriſt, 1 Cor. 10.16.
Wherefore the Roman Church diminiſheth to her power, the efficacy of that Sacrament, teaching that the ſacrifice of the Maſs(f)Vide Bellarm. lib. 4. de Sacram. Euchar. cap. 17, 18. ſerveth only to remit the temporal pain of ſins already pardoned. Which appeareth, in that no man receiveth the Eaſter Communion in the Roman Church, but after the abſolution by the Prieſt. Alſo in that Maſſes are ſung for the ſouls in Purgatory, of whom the ſins are pardoned, and the fault wholly blotted out, and which are lyable only to the temporal pain.(g)Cap. de Sacram. altaris. Euchariſtia tantum abſtergit minora peccata. The Catechiſm of the Council of Trent ſaith, that the Sacrament of the Euchariſt blotteth out ſmall ſins only; it hath then no vertue againſt great ſins.
Yet it would be ſome comfort, if a Maſs did impetrate the remiſſion of the whole temporal pain: But it hath not that vertue. For ten thouſand Maſſes are ſung to fetch one ſoul out of Purgatory. Eſpecially if it be the ſoul of one that hath founded Obits and Anniverſaries, which are not ſaid for thoſe that have given nothing.
It is not without reaſon, that a doubt is made of the vertue and efficacy of Maſſes. For many pay Maſſes for their cure, or for the cure of their ſick friends, who die nothing the leſs. Whereas many are cured, for whom no Maſſes were ſung. Which makes it doubtful, whether Maſſes ſung for the dead, bring them any eaſe.
Our Adverſaries increaſe that doubt, by ſaying that in the Croſs, Chriſts natural being was deſtroyed; but in the Maſs his Sacramental being only is deſtroyed, that is, his ſignificative or repreſentative being, as if one gave the picture of money only, which is a payment ſomewhat light; for indeed that Sacramental being is not the price of our redemption.
They that are contemptuouſly called Hereticks, are ſo unfortunate, that whereas Maſſes are ſaid for Pagans and Infidels, and for ſick horſes and ſheep, none are ſaid for them. For beaſts, Maſſes are ſaid for money: For Infidels, ſome are ſung upon civil conſiderations: But for Hereticks none are ſaid. And there is reaſon for it; for not only they will ſpend no money for Maſſes, but they would give money that no more Maſſes were ſung.
CHAP. 3. Examination of the Cardinals reaſons, to prove that the Fathers call the Euchariſt a Sacrifice in a proper, not in a Metaphorical ſenſe.
THis queſtion, which the Cardinal is ſo buſie about, is altogether uſeleſs. For though we had granted that all the Fathers hold the Euchariſt to be a true ſacrifice, it would not follow that Chriſt is really ſacrificed in it. Beſides, all the old and late Doctors are not agreed about the definition of a ſacrifice, which M. du Perron ſhould have ſet down in the beginning, to build his proofs upon them, for without that, his proofs are to no end.
Auſtin, in the tenth Book of the City of God, chap. 5. calls Alms or Mercy a true ſacrifice. And in the ſixth chapter he defines a ſacrifice, ſaying that(a)Verum ſacriſicium eſt omne opus, quod agitur, ut ſancta ſocietate inhaereamus Deo. every action which is done to adhere unto God, is a true ſacrifice. According to that definition, we muſt not wonder that the Euchariſt is called a true ſacrifice. Yet let us ſee what reaſons the Cardinal brings.
He affirmeth that the Fathers ſay, and that his Majeſty of Great Britain acknowledgeth, that the Euchariſt is the only ſacrifice of Chriſtians, and the only one that hath ſucceeded all the ſacrifices of the antient Law. Had he brought teſtimonies of the Fathers that ſpeak ſo, the Reader might have ſeen that the Fathers ſpeak of the ſacrifice of Chriſts death, which indeed hath ſucceeded the ſacrifices of Aaron; and to this moſt part of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews is imployed. For the end of the Apoſtle, is to ſhew that Chriſts Prieſthood hath ſucceeded Aarons Prieſthood: Which Prieſthood of Chriſt, he makes to conſiſt in his death only. For in the whole Epiſtle, he ſpeaks not at all of the Euchariſt. Or if any Father ſaith, that the Lords Supper ſucceeds alone the ſacrifices of the Law, he ſaith that with reſpect to Chriſts death, which is repreſented in the holy Communion, in which we offer unto God the death of his Son, beſeeching him to accept it for our Redemption. As if he ſaid, that the only thing that we can offer unto God, is Chriſts death, which is celebrated in the Lords Supper.
Thus the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 5.7. ſaith, that Chriſt our Paſsover is ſacrificed for us, giving to Chriſts death the name of the Sacrament that repreſents it, by reaſon of the reſemblance, and the relation that is betwixt both, and together ſhewing that Chriſts death is the true ſacrifice, which hath ſucceeded the Paſsover of the Law.
Auſtin in the Book of the 83. Queſtions, in the 61. Queſtion ſpeaks thus,(b)Se ipſum obtulit in holocauſtum pro peccatis noſtris, & ejus ſacrificii ſimilitudinem celebrandam in ſuae paſſionis memoriam commendavit. Chriſt hath offered himſelf a burnt-offering for our ſins, and hath inſtituted that the repreſentation of that ſacrifice be celebrated in memory of his paſſion. And in the ſame place,(c)Holocauſti ejus imaginem ad memoriam ſuae paſſionis in Eccleſia celebrandam decrevit. He hath inſtituted that the image of this ſacrifice be celebrated in the Church, in memory of his paſſion.
The Cardinal addeth, Beſides, that which the ſame Fathers teach us, that it cannot be offered, but by thoſe that have the character of Prieſthood, ſheweth manifeſtly that they ſpeak of the ſacrifice taken in the proper and preciſe ſignification. The abſurdity of that reaſon appears, by bringing it into a Syllogiſticall form. This is his argument, That which cannot be done but by them that have the character of Prieſthood, is a true and proper ſacrifice. Now the Euchariſt, &c. That propoſition is falſe. For the preaching of the Goſpel likewiſe, cannot be done but by thoſe that have that character. By the ſame reaſon, the Sacrament of Penitence of the Roman Church, and Confirmation, ſhall be ſacrifices properly ſo called, ſince they cannot be conferred but by Prieſts and Biſhops. The Cardinal ſhould have remembred alſo, that in the Roman Church the immolation of the Paſchal Lamb by the ſeveral families of Iſrael, is held to have been a true ſacrifice, which yet was done by the heads of Families, before the tribe of Levi was choſen by God to exerciſe the Prieſthood. And ſince that choice, hardly was there a Levite for every Family where the Paſchal Lamb was eaten. When Chriſt celebrated the Paſsover with his Diſciples, there was none. The great defect of that argument is, that it was made to prove that the Euchariſt is a true ſacrifice, not to prove that Chriſt is really ſacrificed in it, which is the point in queſtion.
He goeth about to prove the ſame thing, becauſe the Fathers uſe the word Altar, preſuppoſing that no other ſacrifices can be done upon an Altar, but ſuch as are properly ſo called. Indeed, that which the Apoſtle 1 Cor. 10. calls the Table of the Lord, is ſometimes called an Altar by the antient Fathers, although more frequently they call it a Table. But the Fathers to draw the Jews and the Pagans, make uſe of terms uſual among them, calling the Table of the Lord an Altar, in the ſame manner that the Deacons are called Levites, and the offerings which the people ſet upon the table victims and ſacrifices. In effect, the Cardinals maxime is falſe, that all that is done upon an Altar, is truly and properly a ſacrifice. For as the immolation of the Paſchal Lamb was not done upon an Altar, ſo on the other ſide, offerings of fruits and perfumes, which the holy Scripture calls not ſacrifices, were laid upon the Altar.
To the ſame end he addeth, Since the Fathers held that the prophecies of the abolition of Judaical ſacrifices, and of the ſubſtitution of a new ſacrifice were accompliſhed in the oblation of the Euchariſt; when they ſpake of a ſacrifice, they meant the proper, not the Metaphorical ſacrifice.
I anſwer, that Chriſt ſaying in his death, All is fulfilled, taught us that in his death was the fulfilling of propheſies and figures. And the Apoſtle to the Hebrews finds in the death of Chriſt the fulfilling of the ſacrifices of the Law, not in the Lords Supper, of which he makes not any mention. Saint John agreeth to this, chap. 19. ver. 36. where he gives a reaſon why the bones of Chriſt were left unbroken on the Croſs, namely, becauſe it was forbidden to break the bones of the Paſchal Lamb. He will have us then to find in the death of Chriſt, the fulfilling of the Paſchal Lamb. Beſides, the Cardinals maxime is falſe, that the thing in which the fulfilling of the ſacrifices is found, is a true and proper ſacrifice. By that reaſon, the fulfilling of propheſies ſhould be alſo a propheſie, and the fulfilling of legal waſhings and purifications, ſhould be alſo a real waſhing: Now every one knows that remiſſion of ſins figured by theſe waſhings, cannot be called waſhing, but Metaphorically, and in an Allegorical ſenſe. If then ſome Fathers have ſaid, that in the Euchariſt we have the fulfilling of Judaical figures, they ſay it becauſe in the Euchariſt the death of Chriſt is repreſented, and offered unto God for our ſins. It is eſpecially to be noted, that this argument tends to prove that the Euchariſt is a true ſacrifice, not that Chriſt is ſacrificed in it.
The reaſon which he adds is of no greater ſtrength,Pag. 911. That the Fathers expounding Daniels propheſie about the ceſſation of the ſacrifice of the Euchariſt, ſhew ſufficiently, that by the ſacrifice of the Euchariſt, they underſtand a true and proper ſacrifice. But nothing hinders but that Daniel ſpeaks of the ſacred actions of the Chriſtian Church in figurative terms, uſual in the Old Teſtament. It is the ſtile of the Prophets and Apoſtles, to call our prayers perfumes, and our bodies temples, and our thankſgivings the calves of our lips and ſacrifices. But to look to Daniels true meaning, he is propheſying of the ceſſation of the continual ſacrifice which was to happen under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. And if ſome of the Antients take Antiochus for a figure of Antichriſt, they do not reſtrain the abolition of the continual ſacrifice, to the only abolition of the Euchariſt, but they underſtand thereby the ceſſation of the divine Service, of which the Euchariſt makes a great part: For it is ordinary to take a part for the whole. He that ſaith that Antichriſt muſt aboliſh the Lords Supper, thereby underſtands that he will aboliſh the whole outward exerciſe of Chriſtian Religion, which never was without this holy Sacrament.
Of the ſame ſtuff is the reaſon which he addeth, that the Fathers diſtinguiſh the inward ſacrifices, that is, the mental commemoration, from the outward ſacrifice of the Church. He preſuppoſeth that all that is diſtinct or different from the mental ſacrifice, and every outward ſacrifice, is a true and proper ſacrifice. By this reaſon, the oral prayer and alms which Scripture calls a ſacrifice, muſt be a true and proper ſacrifice. For they are external, and different from the internal ſacrifices, conſiſting in the thought. After all, What ſtrength hath this to prove that Chriſt is ſacrificed in the Euchariſt?
He goeth on, and ſaith that the Fathers diſtinguiſh the ſacrifice of Melchiſedeck from that of Aaron, by the inſtitution of the Euchariſt; and thence he inferreth, that the Fathers believed that the Euchariſt is truly and properly a ſacrifice. This is a reaſon without reaſon. For two Prieſts may differ in actions, which are improperly called ſacrifices. But the Fathers make not the difference between Melchiſedeck and Aaron to conſiſt in that only, ſeeing that the Apoſtle to the Hebrews giveth us ſo many other differences between them, in the ſeventh chapter, without ſpeaking one word of the Euchariſt. As in that Melchiſedeck is repreſented as a Prieſt for ever, having neither beginning of dayes nor end of life, being both King and Prieſt, taking tythes from Abraham as greater then he, and by conſequent then Levi, and giving to Abraham his bleſſing.
He addeth that the Fathers by theſe words, We offer unto thee, meant real offerings. That's true. But all real offerings are not ſacrifices properly ſo called, nor propitiatory ſacrifices, leſs yet ſacrifices of Chriſts body. The offerings which the Chriſtian people uſed to offer upon the holy Table were real oblations, but our Adverſaries hold them not to have been properly ſacrifices, nor effectual for propitiation. Thus the Apoſtle ſaith, Heb. 13.15. Let us offer unto God ſacrifices of praiſes▪ Where he ſpeaks of real offerings which are improperly called ſacrifices.
The reaſon that follows is ſuch another: He proveth that the Fathers acknowledge the Euchariſt for a true and proper ſacrifice, becauſe they aſcribe to it the ſervice of latria. Never was a man more unfortunate in argumenting, then this Prelate. He preſuppoſeth, that all wherein the ſervice of latria conſiſteth, is a true and proper ſacrifice. By that reckoning, the Lords Prayer is a true and proper ſacrifice: For it is part of the Soveraign ſervice which we preſent unto God. Can one build a more abſurd reaſoning then this? The Lords Supper belongs to the Soveraign ſervice which we yield unto God, Ergo, it is a true Sacrifice? To prop that impertinent argument,Chap. 1. he employeth the reſt of his chapter. Thus all the Cardinals reaſons fall with blowing upon: And all the texts of the Fathers, which he alleadgeth are found uſeleſs, ſince he draws falſe conſequences from them, grounded upon falſe maxims.
CHAP. 4. That the Fathers call the Lords Supper a Sacrifice, becauſe it is the commemoration of the Sacrifice of Chriſts death.
THe Fathers following the ſtile of Scripture, uſe to give unto ſigns the name of the thing ſignified.
The Lords Supper then being a ſign and a Sacrament of Chriſts ſacrifice offered to God on the Croſs, may with good reaſon be called Chriſts ſacrifice, and the ſacrifice of our price and redemption, and the ſacrifice of his death and paſſion: This is fully repreſented by Auſtin, in the 23. Epiſtle to Bonifacius, Many times we ſpeak thus, when Eaſter draweth near, To morrow or the next day is the Lords paſsion, although it happened ſo many years ago, and though that paſsion happened but once. Thus we ſay upon the Lords day, This day the Lord is riſen again, although ſo many years are paſt ſince his reſurrection. Why is nobody ſo ſilly as to tax us of untruth when we ſpeak ſo? but becauſe this day is called the ſame day, which is not the ſame, but is like it by revolution of times? Was not Chriſt once ſacrificed in himſelf? And yet he is ſacrificed before the people in a ſacred ſign, not only upon every ſolemnity of Eaſter, but alſo every day; And yet that man lyeth not who being asked anſwereth that Chriſt is ſacrificed. For had not the Sacraments ſome reſemblance with the things of which they are Sacraments, they ſhould not be Sacraments. But becauſe of that reſemblance many times they take the name of the things themſelves. In this remarkable place of Auſtin three things eſpecially are to be obſerved. 1. That Chriſt at Eaſter, and in the ordinary celebration of the Euchariſt did not ſacrifice himſelf but in a ſacrament or ſacred ſign. 2. That Chriſtians ſay that in the Euchariſt, Chriſt is Sacrificed, in the ſame manner as we ſay upon the Lords day, this day is Chriſts reſurrection; Not that Chriſt in effect riſeth again upon every Lords day, but becauſe the memory of his reſurrection is celebrated every Lords day. 3. That when we ſay that Chriſt is ſacrificed in the Euchariſt, we give unto the ſign the name of the thing ſignified. The ſame he ſaith in the tenth book of the City of God, ch. 5.(a)Aug. de Civit. l. 10. c. 5. Sacrificium viſibile inviſibilis ſacrificii ſacramentum, id eſt, ſacrum ſignum eſt. Et paulo poſt, Illud quod ab hominibus appellatur ſacrificium, ſignum eſt veri ſacrificii. The viſible ſacrifice is a Sacrament, that is, a ſacred ſign of the true ſacrifice; And a little after. That which men call ſacrifice is a ſign of the true ſacrifice. He could not ſay more expreſly that the Euchariſt is no true ſacrifice.
The other Fathers ſpeak the ſame. Juſtin Martyr in his Dialogue againſt Tryphon, (b)foreign.The offering of meal for thoſe whom they purged from the leproſie, was a figure of the bread of the Euchariſt, which our Lord Jeſus Chriſt commanded us to do in remembrance of his paſſion.
The ſixth book of the Apoſtolick Conſtitutions of Clement, ch. 3, ſpeaks thus,(c)Pro ſacrificio cruento rationale & incruentum ac myſticum ſacrificium inſtituit, quod in mortem Domini per ſymbola corporis & ſanguinis ſui celebratur. The Lord inſtead of a bloody ſacrifice hath inſtituted a reaſonable, unbloody, and myſtical ſacrifice, which is celebrated in conſideration of the Lords death, by the ſignes of his body and blood.
The antient ſervice of the Church of Milan had theſe words, Fac nobis hanc oblationem aſcriptam rationabilem acceptabilem, quod eſt figura corporis & ſanguinis Domini. As Ambroſe ſaith in the fourth book of Sacraments ch. 5. Let this offering be put to our account reaſonable and acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of the Lord.
Gregory Nazianzen in the Oration upon his return from the countrey complaining of the hard dealing, which he had from thoſe of whom he expected ſupport,(d)foreign, &c. foreign. Shall they bar me (ſaith he) from the altars? [ſo he calls the table of the Lords ſupper] But I know an altar of which the things that are now ſeen are figures, &c. the whole is the work of the underſtanding, and the aſcent to it is by contemplation. To this altar I will approach, upon this I will ſacrifice an acceptable ſacrifice and offering, and whole burnt offerings, ſo much better then thoſe that are now offered, as the truth is better then the ſhadow. Had this Father believed that the body of Chriſt was really ſacrificed upon the Altar, he would never have ſaid that his prayers and meditations are better then that which is offered upon the Altar in the Church. He would never have called the Euchariſt a ſhadow. He had not been ſo bold as to deny that we have the truth in that holy Sacrament.
Procopius Gazaeus upon Gen. 49. ſaith, that Chriſt hath given to his Diſciples the image or figure, and type of his body receiving no more the bloody ſacrifies of the law.
Ambroſe in the firſt book of Offices, ch. 48. compareth the ceremonies of the Law, and the Sacrments of the New Teſtament, with the truth which is in Chriſt Jeſus.(e)Hic umbra, hic imago eſt, illic veritas: Umbra in Lege, imago in Evangelio, veritas in coeleſtibus, &c. Quarum recipiens paſſionem, & offert ſe ipſe quaſi ſacerdos ut peccata noſtra dimittat; hic in imagine, ibi in veritate, ibi apud Patrem pro nobis intervenit. Here (ſaith he) is the ſhadow and image, there the truth is in heavenly places. And a little after, Here Chriſt is offered in image, but there in truth.
Euſebius in ch. 3. of the firſt book of Evangelical Demonſtration.(f)foreign. We celebrate with juſt reaſon every day the memory of his body and blood. And a little after,(g)foreign. The Lord having offered a ſacrifice, and an excellent victim to his Father for the ſalvation of us all, hath commanded us to offer continually the commemoration thereof inſtead of a ſacrifice. (h)foreign.And in the ſame place, We have received the memorial of that ſacrifice to celebrate it in his table by the ſignes of his body and of his ſaving blood, according to the inſtitution of the new Teſtament.
In the chapter before, we brought teſtimonies of Auſtin in the book of the eighty three Queſtions ſaying twice in the ſeventy ninth Queſtion, That the holy Communion is the image and reſemblance of the ſacrifice of Chriſts death. And in ch. 5. of the tenth book of the City of God, Illud quod ab hominibus appellatur ſacrificium, ſignum eſt veri ſacrificii, That which men call a ſacrifice, is the ſign of a true ſacrifice. He could not ſpeak more plainly. Note that he ſaith that men call it a ſacrifice, not that God calls it ſo.
It muſt not be found ſtrange, that the Fathers call the Lords Supper the ſacrifice of Chriſt, ſeeing that they ſay alſo that the ſacrifice of the Euchariſt is Chriſts death.
Cyprian in the ſixty third Epiſtle, Becauſe in all ſacrifices we make mention of his paſſion (for the Lords paſſion is the ſacrifice which we offer) we muſt not do any other thing but what he did himſelf. Upon which place Pamelius in his Notes freely acknowledgeth, that(k)Simile eſt, quod Chryſoſtomus, Theoplylactus & Oecumenius verba illa, quod pro vobis frangitur, ita interpretantur, ut in ſacrificio Miſſae Chriſtum pati & frangi & immutari dicant. Chryſoſtom, Theophylact, and Oecumenius interpret ſo theſe words, which is broken for you, that they ſay that in the ſacrifice of the Maſs Chriſt ſuffereth, and is broken and changed. Wherein he ſaith true, but that this word Maſs is not found in theſe Fathers.
The Lords Supper then is in the ſame manner the ſacrifice of Chriſt, as it is the death of Chriſt. Now the Lords Supper is not really the death of Chriſt; Then it is not really the ſacrifice of Chriſt,(i)Quia paſſionis ejus mentionem in ſacrificiis omnibus facimus (paſſio eſt enim Domini ſacrificium quod offerimus) nihil aliud quam quod ille fecit facere debemus. but by commemoration. So Chryſoſtom ſpeaks,(l)foreign. While that death is a doing, that dread ſacrifice, thoſe unſpeakable myſteries. This Father is he that ſpeaks in the moſt lofty terms of this ſacrifice among all the antient writers, and ſaith often, that Chriſt is ſacrificed in the myſteries. In his twenty fourth Sermon upon 1 Cor. 10. he ſpeaks thus,(m)foreign. When this ſacrifice is brought forth, Chriſt ſacrificed, the Lordly ſheep; When thou heareſt theſe words, Let us pray all in common; When thou ſeeſt the double curtaines drawn, think that heaven is opening from above, and Angels are deſcending. But there is no better interpreter of Chryſoſtom then Chryſoſtom. So be ſpeaks in the ſeventeenth Homily upon the Epiſtle to the Hebrews.(n)foreign, &c. What then? Do we not not offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a memorial of his death. And that ſacrifice is one, not many. How is that ſacrifice one and not many? becauſe that ſacrifice was offered once. He was carried into the holieſt of holies (that is, into heaven) This is a figure of that ſacrifice. And in the ſame place,(o)foreign. This is done in memory of that which was done then; For he ſaith, Do this in remembrance of me. We do not another ſacrifice, as the High Prieſt [of the Law] but we do alwayes the ſame; Yea rather we celebrate the remembrance of the ſame ſacrifice. Theſe words Yea rather are very expreſs, and grieve our adverſaries very much.
Auſtin calls alſo very often the Lords ſupper a ſacrifice. But he expounds himſelf in the twentieth book againſt Fauſtus the Manichean, ch. 21. in theſe words,(p)Hujus ſacrificii caro & ſanguis ante adventum Chriſti per victimarum ſimilitudinem promittebatur; In paſſione Chriſti per ipſam veritatem reddebatur; Poſt aſcenſum Chriſti per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur. Of this ſacrifice the fleſh and blood before Chriſts coming was promiſed by the reſemblance of ſacrifices. In Chriſts paſſion it was exhibited in truth. After Chriſts Aſcenſion it is celebrated by the Sacrament of commemoration. Could he ſay more plainly that the body of Chriſt is not exhibited, not ſacrificed in truth in the Sacrament, then by ſaying that in his death it was exhibited in truth, but in the Sacrament it is exhibited by commemoration? This ſo expreſs teſtimony is depraved and abuſed by Cardinal du Perron with an incredible licentiouſneſs; for he ſoweth up a taile to it by way of interpretation. Auſtin ſaith. The fleſh and blood of this ſacrifice is promiſt before the coming of Chriſt by the victims, that is,(q)Pag. 916. (if we muſt believe the Cardinal) this fleſh and blood is promiſt in a diſtinſt and ſeparate being. But Auſtin ſpeaks not there at all of that ſeparation, but of the figure and reſemblance oppoſed to the truth. Of this Sacrifice (ſaith he) the fleſh and blood was promiſed before Chriſts coming by the reſemblance of ſacrifices, but in the paſſion it is exhibited in truth. But to what end is this ſhift, ſince Auſtin teacheth us in this place, that in the Sacrament the body of the Lord is not exhibited in truth but by commemoration? To that the Cardinal gives no anſwer.
The ſame Auſtin in ch. 17. of the ſeventeenth book againſt Fauſtus Manichean, (r)Manducare pan…m in Novo Teſtamento eſt ſacrificium Chriſtianorum.To eat bread, in the New Teſtament is the ſacrifice of Chriſtians. So much indeed is not ſacrificing Chriſt really. And in another place,(s)Lib. 83. q. 61. Se ipſum obtulit in holocauſtum pro peccatis noſtris, & ejus ſacrificii ſimilitudinem celebrandam in ſuae paſſionis memoriam commendavit. Chriſt offered up himſelf in ſacrifice for our ſins, and hath inſtituted that the reſemblance of that ſacrifice be celebrated in memory of his paſſion.
The book of Faith to Petrus Diaconus, which is rather of Fulgentius then Auſtin, ſpeaks thus in ch. 19.(t)Sacrificium panis & vini in fide & charitate Sancta Eccleſia Catholica per univerſum orbem terrae offerre non ceſſat. In illis enim carnalibus victimis figuratio fu…t carnis Chriſti quam pro peccatis noſtris ipſe ſine peccato fuerat oblaturus & ſanguinis quem effuſurus erat in remiſſionem peccatorum. In iſto autem Sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio eſt carnis Chriſti quam pro nobis obtulit, &c. The univerſal Church over all the world ceaſeth not to offer a Sacrifice of bread and wine, in faith and charity. For in theſe carnal victims [of the old Teſtament] there was a repreſentation of the fleſh of Chriſt, which himſelf being free from ſin was to offer for our ſins, and of the blood which he was to ſhed for the remiſsion of ſins. But in this ſacrifice [of the Euchariſt] there is a thanksgiving and a commemoration of the fleſh of Chriſt which be offered for us, and of the blood which the ſame God hath ſhed for us. It is obſervable that he ſaith that in the Euchariſt there is a ſacrifice of bread and wine, and that, in commemoration of the fleſh of Chriſt. Then he did not believe that the fleſh of Chriſt was really ſacrificed in it.
In the tenth book againſt Fauſtus ch. 18.(u)Chriſtiani peracti ejuſdem ſacrificii memoriam celebrant, &c. Chriſtians celebrate the memory of this ſame Sacrifice already done, by the holy oblation and participation of the body and blood of Chriſt.
The words of the Canon Hoc eſt, are moſt expreſs in the ſecond Diſtinction of the Conſecration, which Canon is aſcribed to Proſper by Alger and Gratian, (*)Vocatur ipſa immolatio carnis quae ſacerdotis manibus fit, Chriſti paſſio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritare ſed ſignificante myſterio.The immolation of the fleſh which is done by the hands of the Prieſt is called the paſſion, death and crucifying, not in truth but by a ſignificant myſtery. In the ſame manner as the Sacrament of faith by which we underſtand Baptiſm, is faith. Can we find it ſtrang that the Lords Supper is called by the Antients the Sacrifice of Chriſt, ſeeing that they call it alſo the death and Paſſion of Chriſt? The Grammarian Suidas, upon the word Eccleſia ſpeaks thus,(x)foreign. The Church offereth up the ſignes of the body of Chriſt, ſanctifying the whole lump by the firſt fruits. And the Maſs calls that which the Prieſt offereth, gifts and preſents which God bleſſeth and ſanctifieth and createth every day. Which are not terms convenient to the body of Chriſt. Hence theſe expreſſions which are found in ſome Councils and Penitential Canons alleadged by Burchard in the fifth book,(y)Ex paenitentiali Theodori & Romano. If any vomit the ſacrifice, and it be eaten by the dogs, let him do a years penance, (z)Concil. Aurelian. c. 5.Again, Let every ſacrifice grown mouldy with age be burnt. Again, If one hath not well kept the ſacrifice, and a mouſe or ſome other creature hath eaten it, let him do forty dayes penance. Which words ſhould be impious, if by the word ſacrifice the body of Chriſt were underſtood.
See Lombard the Father of the School of the Roman Church in the fourth of the Sentences Diſt. 12. lit. G. where he ſheweth by teſtimonies of Ambroſe and Auſtin, that the Euchariſt is called the ſacrifice of Chriſt, becauſe it is the commemoration of the ſacrifice of the Croſs, and brings no other reaſon for it. The place of Ambroſe which he alleadgeth is this,(a)In Chriſto ſemel oblato eſt hoſtia ad ſalutem ſempiternam potens. Quid ergo nos? nonne ſingulos dies offerimus? ſed ad recordationem mortis ejus, &c. Quod nos facimus, in commemorationem fit ejus, quod factum eſt. 2. De Conſecrat. Can. in Chriſto ex Ambroſ. in Ep. ad Hebraeos. We offer every day; and that is done in memory of his death. He is the ſame victim, not many. How is it one, and not many? Becauſe Chriſt was ſacrificed once only; But this ſacrifice is done after the example of that, &c. That which we do, is done in commemoration of that which was done.
(b)Thom. 3. Parte Summae q. 83. Art. 1. Dicendum, quod duplici ratione celebratio hujus Sacramenti dicitur immolatio Chriſti. Primo quia ſicut dicit Auguſtinus ad Simplicium q. 3. Solent imagines earum rerum nominibus appellari, quarum imagines ſunt, ſicut cum intuentes tabulam aut parietem pictum dicimus, ille Cicero eſt, ille Saluſtius. Celebratio autem hujus ſacramenti imago quaedam eſt repraſentativa paſſionis Chriſti, quae vere eſt ejus immolatio, &c. Alio modo quantum ad effectum paſſionis Chriſti, quia ſcilicet per hoc ſacramentum participes efficimur fructus Dominica paſſionis.Thomas ſpeaks the ſame language. The celebration of the Sacrament is called the ſacrifice or immolation of Chriſt for two reaſons; Firſt becauſe, as Auſtin ſaith to Simplicius, Images are called by the name of the things of which they are images, &c. Secondly, becauſe by the Sacraments, we are made partakers of the death of Chriſt. He brings no other reaſon for it. Himſelf in the expoſition of St. John. ch. 6. Leſſon 6.(c)Nihil eſt hoc ſacramentum quam applicatio Dominicae paſſionis ad nos. This Sacrament is nothing elſe but the application which is made unto us of the Lords paſſion.
What more? Cardinal du Perron himſelf in an Aſſembly which was held in the Convent of the Dominicans of Paris made no difficulty to ſay, that the Euchariſt was a ſacrifice of religion inſtituted to apply and commemorate the ſacrifice of the death of Chriſt, as himſelf acknowledgeth in ch. 6.(d)Pag. 926. At which many were offended, expecting that he would have ſaid rather, that the Euchariſt was a ſacrifice of redemption where Chriſt was really ſacrifice for our redemption; and they ſaid that he kept that tenet ſtill from his father who was Miniſter of Gods word.
CHAP. 5. Examination of the Cardinals ſhifts.
THe Cardinal in ch. 2. acknowledgeth, that the Fathers call the holy Euchariſt a ſacrifice of commemoration. But (ſaith he) it was not as for the eſſence but as for the end; Meaning that the Fathers underſtood not that commemoration was of the eſſence of that ſacrifice, but that they ſpake ſo to expreſs the end thereof. This Prelat knew not that the end many times is of the eſſence of things. Thus ſeeing is the end of the eye, and yet it is of the eſſence of it, for it enters into the definition of the eye. And cutting is the end of a knife, and yet that fitneſs to cut is of the eſſence of the knife, for it is that which makes it to be a knife. This eſpecially is found in the Sacraments. For the end of Baptiſm is the waſhing of our ſins, and yet that end is of the eſſence of Baptiſm.
Yet let us receive that diſtinction, as abſurd as it is. For if the end of an action is not of the eſſence of the action, at leaſt that end muſt be agreeable with the eſſence and nature of the action. Now they give us here an end which is imcompatible with the eſſence and nature of Chriſts ſacrifice. For to ſacrifice Chriſt, and to make a commemoration of his ſacrifice, are things ill agreeing together. Muſt we ſacrifice Chriſt that we may celebrate the memory of the ſacrifice of his death? By the ſame reaſon to remember Chriſts death, we muſt put him to death again.
The ſame I ſay of the application. For to apply Chriſts ſacrifice to our ſelves we need not ſacrifice him, as to apply a payment to us, we need not to pay the ſecond time, and to apply a plaiſter to us, we need not have another plaiſter, much leſs do we need another plaiſter of a contrary or different nature. For that the ſacrifice of the Maſs and the ſacrifice of the death of Chriſt are different, yea diſagreeing ſacrifices, it appears, becauſe the Maſs is not the death of Chriſt, and Chriſt ſuffereth nothing in it, and payeth nothing in it for us. The death of Chriſt happened but once, for it is ſufficient to redeem us. But the Maſs is celebrated every day, and Maſſes without number are ſung. Many of them go to the redeeming of a ſoul from Purgatory. Then in the croſs God viſibly offered up himſelf; But in the Maſs they ſay, that he offereth himſelf inviſibly by the hands of the Prieſt under the ſpecies of bread. M. du Perron acknowledgeth that difference in ch. 6. of which the title is this, Of the difference of the Sacrifice of Redemption made in the Croſs, and of the Sacrifice of Religion made in the Euchariſt. The one then is a ſacrifice of redemption, the other is not. But becauſe herein he contradicteth the Maſs, and the Council of Trent, which affirm that the Maſs is a ſacrifice of redemption, he goeth about to heal that wound by making two ſorts of redemption, the one original, the other applicative, and fancying a ſacrifice of original redemption which is the death of Chriſt, and a ſacrifice of applicative redemption which is the Maſs, which he ſaith to be a perpetual ſalve of redemption, not original, but applicative, there was need of new words for a new Divinity. I paſs by the main fault, that he ſaith this without the word of God, which acknowledgeth but one redemption; for among theſe Prelates, Scripture hath loſt her authority. But I think not that this doctrine can be tolerated in the Roman Church, which holds that the Maſs of it ſelf, and of its nature, not by application only, is a ſacrifice of redemption. By the ſame reaſon then both the Goſpel and Baptiſm ſhould be an applicative redemption, ſince by them Chriſts redemption is applyed unto us. Beſides who ſo will attentively conſider this expreſſion of applicative redemption, ſhall find that it is a Chimera, and a piece of gibbriſh without common ſenſe. For redemption ſignifieth buying again, or a ranſome and payment to redeem a perſon. How ridiculous then ſhould that man be that would ſay, that to redeem a man, there is need of two payments, the one original, the other applicative, as if the application of payment were another payment? When the Prelat ſpake thus, I ſuppoſe he was not in earneſt, or that the ſtrength of truth had ſet him on the rack, and extorted from him theſe dark and ridiculous words to hide himſelf in obſcurity. For theſe words neceſſarily imply that the Euchariſt is not at all a ſacrifice of redemption, ſince by it redemption is applyed to us. Neither indeed is there any other redemption, but that which he calls original, even the death of Chriſt, unleſs we will forge another Goſpel. And when we have turned theſe words every way, no other ſenſe can be drawn out of them, but that which he impugneth, the doctrine our Churches, that the Lords ſupper is a ſacrifice of thanksgiving, in which a commemoration is made of our redemption by the ſacrifice of Chriſts death, and whereby the benefit of the ſame is applyed unto us. Which he makes evident by ſaying,(a)Pag. 929. that Chriſt in the Euchariſt is not in a condition of paſſion and merit. This is clearly to ſay, that the Euchariſt is not a ſacrifice of redemption. It was not then without cauſe, that many that heard him ſpeak ſo in the Aſſembly in the Convent of the Dominicans, murmured, ſaying that this doctrine had ſtill a reliſh of the old leaven, and of the ſtock whence he was deſcended.
I paſs by divers faults into which the Cardinal falls by the way, as his ſaying in pag. 929. that the ſacrifices of the Law did not confer any grace ex opere operato, from the work wrought, but only ex opere operantis, from the work of the worker; that is, (as he addeth) that of themſelves they were of no value, and of no price or vertue, but that their whole vertue depended upon the diſpoſition of the perſons that were partakers of them. Certainly, ſince God had inſtituted theſe ſacrifices, we make no doubt but that God gave them a ſalutary vertue, which proceeded not from the vertue of thoſe that were partakers of the ſacrifices, but from Gods bleſſing. If that doctrine of the Cardinal be true, we muſt ſay that the Sacraments of the Old Teſtament, inſtituted by God, were of no value by their nature, but that they became good and ſalutary by the vertue of men, not by Gods Inſtitution.
But I cannot paſs by a notorious falſification, which he committeth in the fifth chapter of the Treatiſe of the Sacrifice, pag. 925. where he alleadgeth the 29. Canon of the third Council of Carthage, in theſe words, If any recommendation of the dead muſt be made in the afternoon, whether they be Biſhops or Clarks, or others, let it be done by prayers only; if it be found that they that make it, be no more faſting, reſerving to the morning only the recommendations made by oblation. This laſt clauſe, reſerving to the morning only the recommendations made by oblation, is of the Cardinals addition, and is not found in that 29. Canon.
CHAP. 6. Other reaſons for which the Fathers called the Lords Supper a Sacrifice.
BEſides the foreſaid reaſon, Why the Lords Supper is called a Sacrifice, namely, Becauſe it is a ſign and a commemoration of Chriſts ſacrifice; and beſides the reaſons for which the prayers, the alms, the repentance, the ſufferings for Chriſt, and generally every good work is called in Scripture a Sacrifice, and for which prayer is called(a)Orig. contra Celſum, lib. 8. foreign. an unbloody ſacrifice by the Fathers: there are particular reaſons why the Euchariſt was ſo called by the Antient. Firſt becauſe in the holy Communion we offer unto God the ſacrifice of Chriſt, beſeeching him to accept the merit of his death for our ſins.
Alſo the holy Communion is a ſacrifice of thankſgiving, which the Fathers have ſhewed enough, by calling it the Euchariſt, and by conſequent an Euchariſtical ſacrifice, that is, a ſacrifice of thankſgiving. The ſame is confirmed by the Canon of the Maſs, which calls the ſacrifice, that the Prieſt offereth, ſacrificium laudis, a ſacrifice of praiſes.
Then the offerings(b)Cypr. Ep. 9. lib. 1. & Serm. de Eleemoſyna. Theodoret. Hiſt. lib. 3. cap. 12. & lib. 4. c. 19. which Gods people brought in the very action of the Communion upon the holy Table, to be employed for the Lords Supper, and for the Agapes, and to feed the poor and the Clarks, being called ſacrifices by the Antients, that name paſt to the whole action of the Communion. That expreſſion remaineth in the Maſs, in which the bread and wine not conſecrated, are called a ſacrifice, and an immaculate victim. For theſe are the words of the offertory,(c)Suſcipe hanc immaculatam hoſtiam, quam ego indignus famulus tuus offero tibi Deo meo vivo pro innumerabilibus peccatis, &c. Receive this immaculate victim, which I thine unworthy ſervant offer unto thee my living God for my numberleſs ſins, &c. This is ſaid before the Conſecration. Thus bread not conſecrated, is offered for ſins in the Maſs. Which Bellarmine acknowledgeth in the firſt Book of the Maſs, chap. 27. ſaying, It muſt not be denyed, that the bread and the wine are in ſome manner offered in the Maſs. This appeareth firſt by the Liturgy. For when we ſay before the Conſecration, Receive Holy Father this immaculate victim: Certainly the Pronown this, ſenſibly ſheweth that which we hold at that time in our hands. And he ſheweth that Ireneus and other Fathers ſpake ſo, and called the bread not conſecrated a ſacrifice.
Alſo the deſire of drawing the(d)Ariſtoph. Acharnanenſib loquens de impiis. foreign. Pagans (who eſteemed that no Religion could be without a ſacrifice; and upbraided the Chriſtians that they had neither Altars nor ſacrifices) made many of the Antients the more willing to call the holy Communion a ſacrifice. This reproach, put upon the Chriſtians by the Pagans, is ſeen in the eighth Book of(e)Origen. in Celſ. li. 8. foreign. Origen againſt Celſus, and in the Dialogue of(f)Minut. Felix in Octavio. Cur nullas aras habent Chriſtiani, templa nulla, nota nulla ſimulachra? Minutius Felix, and in(g)Arnob. lib. 6. Conſueſtis nobis impietatis maximum crimen affingere quod non altaria fabricamus, non aras. Et lib. 7. Quid ergo ſacrificia cenſetis nulla omnino facienda? Reſp. Nulla. Arnobius, as we ſhewed in another place.
Had the Fathers believed, that they really ſacrificed Chriſt, they would have adored the Sacrament, which they never did: No more then the Apoſtles, who remained ſitting or leaning at the Table. They did indeed venerate the ſigns and ſymbols, as Theodoret ſaith in the ſecond Dialogue.(h)foreign. And they worſhipped Chriſt in the Euchariſt, but they worſhipped not the Euchariſt. Wherefore they ſaid, Surſum corda; Lift up your hearts on high; that the people might lift up their hearts to Chriſt reſiding in heaven, and not ſtay upon the Sacrament preſent to them, as if Chriſt had been incloſed within it. They would have made an elevation of the hoſt, whereas only they drew(i)Chryſoſt. in 1 Cor. 10. foreign. Et Hom. 3. in Epiſt. ad Epheſ. curtains that were ſpread before the Table, when they would ſhew to the people the Sacrament ſet upon the Table. They would not have given to women the Sacrament in their hand, and would not have ſuffered them to carry it to their homes. They would not have burnt or given to children returning from the School the remnant of the bread of the Euchariſt; which were the antient cuſtoms, as we proved in another place, and will ſay more of it in the following controverſie.
But ſtill the ſafeſt courſe, is to ſtick cloſe to the Word of God, and to follow the ſtile of the Apoſtle, who calls this Sacrament the Lords Supper. For from an impropriety in the language, the Church will paſs inſenſibly to an errour in the Faith.