« AnteriorContinuar »
more eminent way; not more a sacrifice, but a more excellent sacrifice, as I before distinguished in another case. I thought it necessary to be thus minute and explicit in this article, for the removing vulgar prejudices, and for the preventing common mistakes.
I shall mention but one distinction more, (if it may be called a distinction,) and that is, between sacrifice real and nominal, between sacrifice truly such, and sacrifice in name only. It may sound oddly, to distinguish sacrifice into sacrifice and no sacrifice, which is really the case here: but it is necessary, for the preventing confusion, and for the obviating mistakes which frequently arise from a figurative or catachrestical use of names. This distinction of nominal and real is of large extent, comprehending under it several subdivisions; as instrumental and real, symbolical and real, verbal and real, and lastly, commemorative and real: of which in their order, as follows.
1. The first I call instrumental and real; as when the instrument of a sacrifice (whether for brevity or for any other reason) bears the name of sacrifice or oblation. Thus,
point against the Romanists, (who first denied it,) that spiritual sacrifices are proper sacrifices, that is, properly so called; which might be particularly proved from their standing definitions. See Christian Sacrif. expl. p. 149, 150. I shall only add here the testimony of an adversary, who, speaking of the Protestants, says,
Putant actum contritionis, laudationis, gratiarum actionis pertinere ad sacrificia proprie dicta, ex Davide, Psal. 1. et ex illo D. Augustini, lib. x. cap. 6. Cæterum toto cœlo errant, &c. Johan. Puteanus, q. lxxxiii. Dub. 2. p. 299. A. D. 1624. He goes on to argue the point: a bye-point, which Allen, in 1576, and Bellarmine, about twelve or twenty years after, had insisted upon, for the sake of perplexing a cause, and for the turning a reader off from the main point in dispute. For whatever becomes of the question about proper and improper sacrifice, (a strife about a name only,) one thing is certain, that spiritual services are the only true and acceptable services under the Gospel; and that material sacrifices, however proper, in respect of diction, or use of language, are now out of date, and are rejected of God, and are therefore so far from being properly worship, that they are more properly sacrilege and profanation. See my Christian Sacrif. expl. p. 147-152, 156, 157. The Romish sacrifice is neither true nor proper; but they apply that epithet to a mere fiction and idol of their own.
for instance, jewels of gold, chains, bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, were called an oblation for the Lord, to make an atonement for souls, before the Lords, as if they had really been sacrifices: but it is certain, that those offerings were no more than instruments subservient to sacrifices; and that appears to have been the ground and foundation of the way of speakingh.
By the like figure of speech, by a metonymy of instrument for principal, we sometimes find the Fathers giving the name of sacrifice to the altar-offerings, to the bread and wine; which were the instruments of the benevolent acts, as also of the memorial services, that is, of the real sacrifices. Cypriani, certainly, so uses the word sacrifice; and probably Tertullian before himk; and others after'. Such expressions were very innocent in ancient times, while Christians were too wise and too well instructed to make any such gross mistakes as the ignorance of later times introduced. The Fathers could not then suspect, that such figures of speech should ever come to be interpreted with rigour, and up to the letter, while sufficiently
8 Numb. xxxi. 50.
h Aurum offerri dicitur ad expiationem pro animabus. At qui tandem auro aut fiat aut figuretur expiatio, nisi mediate et instrumenti modo? Dum scilicet suffimentis sacris, et ignitis subservit oblationibus: adeo ut nihil sit aliud ad expiationem offerri, quam ad usum eorum quæ expiando. Mede, Dissertat. Triga, p. 28.
i Locuples et dives es, et Dominicum celebrare te credis, quæ corban omnino non respicis, quæ in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis, quæ partem de sacrificio quod pauper, obtulit, sumis? Cyprian de Opere et Eleemos. p. 242. ed. Bened.
k De stationum diebus non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum, &c.Accepto corpore Domini et conservato, utrumque salvum est, participatio sacrificii, et executio officii. Tertull. de Orat. cap. xiv. p. 135, 136.
Dum sacris altaribus nullam admovent hostiam. Propterea decernimus, ut omnibus Dominicis diebus, altaris oblatio ab omnibus viris et mulieribus offeratur tam panis quam vini; ut per has immolationes, et peccatorum fascibus careant, et cum Abel vel cæteris juste offerentibus promereantur esse consortes. Concil. Matiscons. ii. Can. 4. Conf. Bona. Rer. Liturg. p. 436. A. D. 585. Apostol. Constit. lib. ii. cap. 27.
Ille bonus Christianus est, qui-oblationem quæ offeratur Deo, in altari exhibet. Eligius Noviomens, apud Bonam, ibid. p. 436. A. D. 640.
guarded by the well known standing doctrine of spiritual sacrifices. 2. By a like figure of speech, the sign or symbol of a sacrifice often bore the name of sacrifice; that is to say, by a metonymy of the sign for the thing signified m. Our blessed Lord had used the like figure in the very institution of the Eucharist, as it were, giving the names of body and blood to the elemental signs and symbols of them. And what wonder is it, if the Fathers, considering that the real body and blood were a sacrifice upon the cross, should sometimes call the elements by the name of sacrifice; which was but following the like figure, and saying the same thing that our Lord had said, only in equivalent terms? If any one should doubt of this solution, with respect to the name of sacrifice, sometimes (though rarely in comparison) given to the elements; let him say, what other solution can be justly given for their being much more frequently called by the name of body and blood, yea and of Christ slain, or simply Christ, or Lord, or God, or the like. Instances out of antiquity might be here given in great numbers: but I shall content myself with a single passage of St. Ambrose, wherein the elements appear to be denominated Christ, and Christ's body, and sacrifice, all in the compass of a few lines P, and all by the same metonymy of sign for thing signified, exhibited, participated. He uses the word offer in a lax sense, for com
m How usual a figure this is, in Scripture itself, with relation especially to exhibitive signs, see proved at large, in Review, vol. vii. chap. 7. p. 146-158. And compare St. Austin, Epist. xcviii. p. 286. tom. ii. In Levit. q. lvii. p. 516. tom. iii.
n Ad summam, regula hæc tenenda est, Patres quo sensu intellexerunt corpus et sanguinem Christi adesse in cœna, panemque esse ipsum corpus Christi, eodem etiam senserunt in cœna offerri Christum, cœnamque ipsam esse sacrificium hilasticum, sed incruentum; nempe in mysterio, in figura, et imagine. Zanchius, ad Ephes. v. p. 422.
• Pene quidem Sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt. Augustin. Serm. cccliv. p. 1375. tom. v.
P Etsi nunc Christus non videtur offerre, tamen ipse offertur in terris, quando Christi corpus offertur: imo ipse offerre manifestatur in nobis, cujus sermo sanctificat sacrificium quod offertur. Ambros. in Psal. xxxviii. p. 853. ed. Bened.
memorating, or presenting to Divine consideration: for it cannot be supposed that he thought of literally sacrificing Christ, either above or below. Indeed, he explains his sense of that matter elsewhere 9, by Christ's presenting himself as intercessor above, in virtue of his blood shed, and by our representing the same thing below, in a kind of imagery, made of the symbols of bread and wine. Christ's offering himself above, is rather commemorating a sacrifice, than sacrificing: and our doing the like below, is but an imitation even of that; so far is it from sacrificing either the signs or the things. But as the bread and wine represent the real body and blood, which were a real sacrifice, so they have the names of body, and blood, and sacrifices: and there is no more room for arguing, barely from the name of sacrifice, to real sacrifice in the one case, than there is for arguing, barely from the names of body and blood, to real body and blood, (that is to say, to transubstantiation,) in the other case. The argument proves too much to prove any thing.
It may be said perhaps, that the ancients, while they call the elements body and blood, do yet by some additional words give us to understand, that they meant not the real body and blood; but where do they give us to understand, that when they called the elements a sacrifice, they did not
Umbra in lege, imago in Evangelio, veritas in cœlestibus. Ante agnus offerebatur, offerebatur vitulus; nunc Christus offertur. Et offert se ipse quasi sacerdos, ut peccata nostra dimittat. Hic in imagine, ibi in veritate, ubi apud Patrem pro nobis quasi advocatus intervenit. Ambros. de Offic. lib. i. cap. 48.
Vid. Grotius de Satisfact. in fine. Compare Review, vol. vii. p. 77. "As Christ is a Priest in heaven for ever, and yet does not sacrifice "himself afresh, (nor yet without sacrifice could he be a Priest,) but by a 66 daily ministration and intercession represents his sacrifice to God, and
offers himself as sacrificed; so he does upon earth, by the ministry of his "servants. He is offered to God: that is, he is, by prayers and the Sacra"ment, represented or offered up to God as sacrificed; which, in effect, is a "celebration of his death, by a ministry like to his in heaven." Taylor, Great Exempl. p. 407. Conf. Grotius, Opp. tom. iv. p. 620, 643, 660. Field, p. 204, 205. Hospinian. Histor. Sacram. p. 580, &c. Bucer. contr. Latom. p. 147, 175, 249. Brevint on the Mass, p. 74.
believe them to be a real sacrificet? I answer, they do it in hundreds of places: by what they say of extrinsic and intrinsic sacrifice: by what they say of visible and invisible by what they say of material and immaterial: by what they teach of bloody and unbloody, of smoky and unsmoky, of false and true, of old and new, of literal and spiritual; and in short, by the whole tenor of their doctrine concerning spiritual sacrifices, for six whole centuries together. Could we suppose, that they made the elements themselves a proper sacrifice, they would be all over perplexity, confusion, and self-contradiction: but allow only, that they made use of the same easy and common figure when they called them sacrifice, as when they called them body and blood, and Christ slain, or the like ", and then their whole doctrine is consistent, uniform, and clear, all the way through, and without embarrassments? But I proceed.
3. To the head of nominal and real, I refer verbal and real. The Latin name sacrificium, through the unskilfulness of declining ages, came to be used as equivalent to the word sacramentum: so that when the Church writers of those times called the elements a sacrifice, they really meant no more than a sacrament, that is, sign of a sacrifice. The idea remained the same as before; but there was a change in the terms, a confusion in words or names. This is plain from the odd definition of sacrifice given by
* See Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 455.
"It may be noted that Vasquez (who admits not the elements to be a sacrifice) assigns three reasons why the Fathers might so call them: the first of the three is adapted to the Romish principles: but the second and third are good.
1. Quia sunt materia, quæ transit in id quod in sacrificium offertur.
3. Quia proponuntur Deo consecranda: latius autem patet oblatio quam sacrificium. Vasquez, Opp. tom. iii. p. 414.
Alia ratione dici potest panis et vinum Deo offerri, si non addatur in sacrificium: quia hoc ipso quod proponitur coram Deo consecrandum, Deo offertur; latius enim patet oblatio quam sacrificium: et hoc modo explicari possent aliquæ orationes Ecclesiæ in officio missæ, in quibus dicitur panis et vinum offerri, vel illorum propositio dicitur oblatio. Vasquez, ibid.