Answer to Book by Romish Priests, Doctrine 41
XLI. That there is not in the Church a true and proper Sacrifice; and that the Maſs is not a Sacrifice.
Anſwer.
HE began to ſpeak ſome truth in this Propoſition, but could not hold out till he came to the end. Falſhood is ſo natural to them, that it will not let them declare the whole truth, when that which they ſaid already, would directly lead them to it. For having ſaid, we do not believe there is a true and proper Sacrifice in the Church, why did he not conclude, that we deny the Maſs to be a proper Sacrifice? This had been honeſt; for it is the very thing we have conſtantly ſaid: becauſe proper ſacrificing is a deſtructive Act; by which that which is offered to God, is plainly deſtroyed; That is, ſo changed, that it ceaſes to be, what before it was. This they themſelves confeſs: and it is from this principle (among others) that we conclude, there is no proper Sacrifice in the Sacrament.
Malachy I. 11. It is manifeſt,Mal. I. 17. from the current Conſent of the Ancient Interpreters, ſpeaks of an improper Sacrifice; viz. prayer and thanksgiving, repreſented by the Incenſe. So Irenaeus, Tertullian, Euſebius, Chryſoſtome, and divers others. His reaſoning upon this place therefore, is very childiſh: for the Offering here ſpoken of, is neither Chriſt ſacrificed on the Croſs, nor Chriſt in the Sacrament; for he cannot be often ſacrificed. But if we will apply it to the Sacrament, it is the Commemorative Sacrifice which is there made of the Sacrifice of Chriſt; with the ſacrifice of Prayer, Praiſes, Thangsgivings, and the oblation of our ſelves, Souls and Bodies to him. Such a Sacrifice we acknowledge is offered in the Holy Communion.
The Pſalmiſt in CX. Pſam 4.Pſal. CX. 4. ſpeaks of the Prieſthood of Chriſt, which endures for ever in Heaven (not of any Sacrificing Prieſt here on Earth) where he preſents himſelf to God, in the moſt holy place not made with hands. Nothing can be more contrary to the Scripture, than to ſay Melchiſedeck ſacrificed Bread and Wine: unleſs we will make his offering them to Abraham (unto whom he brought them forth, as ſeveral of the Fathers conſent) to be a proper Sacrifice. But what dare not ſuch men ſay, when he affirms, that Chriſt exerciſes an eternal Prieſthood upon Earth, tho the Apoſtle expreſly tells us the contrary, VIII. Heb. 4? Some of the Fathers indeed make an Analogy between the Bread and Wine in the Euchariſt, and that which Melchiſedeck brought forth: but this is againſt the Popiſh Notion, who will not have Bread and Wine to be ſacrificed in the Euchariſt, though the Fathers expreſly ſay they are.
His Argument from XXII. Luke 19. is very idle. For when Chriſt ſaith, This is my Body which is given for you; the meaning is, which I have offered to be a Sacrifice to God (X. John 17.) and am about actually to give in Sacrifice for you. And ſo their own Vulgar Interpreter underſtood it, and tranſlates this word, 1 Cor. XI. 24. tradetur, not which was then given, but was to be given, viz. to die. And ſo he conſtantly interprets the other part, not is ſhed, but ſhall be ſhed. And if he ſpake here in the next words (XXII. Luke 20. of what was given to the Apoſtles in the Sacrament, it would prove that the Blood of Chriſt is ſhed in the Sacrament: which is directy contrary to their own Doctrine, which makes it an unbloody Sacrifice.
All the other Scriptures ſpeak of the Prieſthood of Chriſt: which none can exerciſe but Chriſt himſelf. See them who will, he will find this true.
Not one of his Fathers have a word of a proper Sacrifice; much leſs of a Propitiatory; but of a reaſonable, unbloody, myſtical, heavenly Sacriſtce: which proves the contrary to what they would have. As the Fathers do alſo, when they ſay it is a Sacrifice; and then immediately correct themſelves in ſome ſuch words as theſe, or rather, a Commemoration of a Sacrifice (viz. of Chriſt on the Croſs) a Memorial, inſtead of a Sacrifice: And thus Aquinas himſelf underſtood it.