« AnteriorContinuar »
ed sacrifices without any scruple, and without any selfcorrections.
Some have thought, that the very phrase of commemorative sacrifice, as applied to the Eucharist, imports, that the Eucharist is a sacrifice: but that is a very great mistake. It neither implies it nor contradicts it, but abstracts from it, expressing no more than this, that the Eucharist is a commemoration of a sacrifice, namely, of the grand sacrifice. It is a contracted, compendious form of speech, which, drawn out at full length, expresses a sacrament commemorative of a sacrifice; as appears from Aquinash, who may be allowed to be a good interpreter of a scholastic phrase. That sense passed current, and was not only admitted by Calvin and other Protestants, but contended for, when the Romanists began to give a new sense and new turn to it. Cardinal Allen was not pleased with the Schools for speaking the plain truth, nor with the Protestants for following them in that just sense of the phrase : so he endeavoured to warp it to a new and foreign meaningk. He pleaded that a commemorative sacrifice may consistently be proper also: which was no part of the question. The question was, whether any certain conclusion could be drawn from the name of sacrifice, sometimes given to the elements by the ancients, when those very ancients declared their own meaning in such instances to be, that the Eucharist, so considered, was a commemoration of a sacrifice, rather than a sacrifice. But I pass on.
8 It has been observed by some, that the spiritual sacrifices, among the Fathers, often go under metaphorical names, such as odour of suavity, and the like: and it has been nirged, as of moment, that if a sacrifice of the heart is not an odour of suavity in a proper sense, why must it be thought a sacrifice in a proper sense? The argument is wrong, because it proves too much. Our Lord, as a sacrifice, is called our Passover, and the Lamb of God, and likewise an odour of suavity, Ephes. v. 2. Might it not therefore as well be pleaded against his sacrifice, that since he is not a lamb, por a passover, nor an odour, in a proper sense, why must he be a sacrifice in a proper sense? The truth is, proper sacrifices may often have metaphorical names : but they are proper sacrifices notwithstanding, if they fall within the general reason and definition of sacrifice. The sacrifices called zebachim, for instance, in Hebrew, or Juríes in Greek, or hostiæ in Latin, or victime, were not therefore sacrifices merely because so culled, or because they were of such a particular kind, but because they were considered as presents to God, and as expressions of worship and homage offered to the Divine Majesty.
† Sucramentum hoc est commemorativum Dominicæ passionis, quæ fuit verum sacrificium, et sic nominatur sacrificium. Aquin. Summ. part. iii. qu. 73. art. 4.
Successit autem ei (paschati] in Novo Testamento Eucharistia, sacra. mentum quod est rememorativum præteritæ passionis, sicut et illud erat prefigurativum futuræ. Aquin. ibid. art. 5. Conf. Lombard. lib. iv, distinct. 12. lit. G.
i Alanus de Eucharistia, p. 551.
The phrase of commemorative sacrifice, in such a sense as Aquinas used it in, and as signifying a sacrament commemorative of a sacrifice, has been admitted by the best learned Protestants all along, without any scruple. The sum is, that a commemorative sacrifice, in the relative sense of the phrase, is the same as a nominal sacrifice, opposed to a real one ; a sign opposed to the thing signified; a memorial of a sacrifice, not that sacrifice. Such was the original, such has been the customary use of the phrase, from the time it first came in : and the question is not, whether a commemorative sacrifice may not also, in an absolute view, be a distinct sacrifice; but whether that phrase ordinarily had expressed both? It is certain, that it had not; but, among the Schoolmen formerly, and among the best learned Protestants since, it expressed no more commonly than a sacramental commemoration or memorial of a sacrifice, namely of the grand sacrifice. In this sense, our present most learned Metropolitan admits of it. His words are : “ In the Christian “ Church, there is only one proper sacrifice, which our “ Lord offered upon the cross; and consequently Chris“ tians cannot partake of any sacrifice in a literal and strict sense, without allowing transubstantiation," p. 262. The Lord's Supper is “ a commemorative sacrifice, or " the memorial of our Lord offered
k Majores certe nostri cum Eucharistiæ confectionem appellarunt nonpunquam commemorativum sacrificium-non ita dicebant, quod judicarent hæc vocabula non consistere cum sacrificio vero, ut propterea non esset proprie dictum sacrificium, quia esset commemorativum. Alanus de Eu.. charistia, p. 547.
| Cranmer against Gardiner, book v. p. 43. R. Jacobi Epist. ad Perron. p.52. Andrews, Resp. ad Bellarm. p. 184. Spalatensis, lib. v. p. 82, 83, 149, 204,882, 911. Buckeridge, p. 4. See my Christian Sacrifice, p. 164. Morton, book v. p. 440. alias 35, 38. Field, p. 205. Laud. conf. p. 305, 306. Towerson on the Sacraments, p. 169. Payne on the Sacrifice of the Mass, p. 49, 51, 53, 75. Patrick, Mens. Myst. p. 15, 16. Brevint on the Mass, p. 23.
the cross; which “ is first dedicated to God by prayer and thanksgiving, “ and afterwards eaten by the faithful,” &c. p. 267. When it is said, that Christians cannot partake of any sacrifice in a literal sense, and that there is but one proper sacrifice for Christians to partake of; the meaning, I presume, of those few, chosen words is this : we may indeed partake of Christ's sacrifice, a proper sacrifice, but not in a literal sense ; for the participation is spiritual: we may literally partake of the elements; but then they are not a proper sacrifice, but symbolical, and commemorative m, being that they are memorial signs of the sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself. Therefore, upon the whole, we have no sacrifice to partake of in a literal sense; for either the sacrifice we partake of is not literal and proper, or else the participation, at least, is not literal and proper : so stands the case.
And what is this but very plainly declaring, that the elements are not a proper sacrifice? Well, but is it not as plainly declaring, that spiritual sacrifices are no proper sacrifices, since we have but one proper sacrifice ? No, it is not declaring any such thing: for, observe the words, Christians cannot partake of any sacrifice; it is not said, cannot offer, but the thought entirely runs upon a sacrifice of participation n. So there is room left to say,
m “ The elements are made the symbols of his body and blood; the par. “ taking whereof is all one to the receivers, and does as much assure them “ of the favour of God, as if they should eat and drink the real body and “ blood of Christ offered upon the cross," p. 263. “To eat of the Lord's “ Supper, is to partake of the sacrifice of Christ, which is there commemo“ rated and represented.” Abp. Potter on Church Government, p. 264.
Accordingly, these words are added : “ Hence it is manifest, that to “ eat of the Lord's Supper is to partake of the sacrifice of Christ, which is “ there commemorated and represented.” Ibid. p. 264.
that we offer proper sacrifices, namely, spiritual sacrifices. But will there not also be room left for saying, that we offer the elements as a proper sacrifice? No: for if they are not a proper sacrifice when participated, they could not be such when offeredo: if the feeding barely upon, them amounts not to a feast upon a proper sacrifice, they never were a proper sacrifice at all. The words are so exactly chosen, as plainly to exclude the elements from being a proper sacrifice, and at the same time not to exclude our religious services from really being so. This, I presume to say, (without his Grace's leave or knowledge,) appears to be his sense, and his whole sense; no way favouring the material hypothesis, but the contrary; however some may have misconstrued his words, for want of considering them with due attention.
As to the name memorial, it may be noted, that it is capable of a twofold meaning, according as it may be applied. Apply it to the elements, and so it means a memorial sign, no sacrifice at all: apply it to the prayers, praises, and eucharistical actions P, and then it means a memorial service, and is a sacrifice, a spiritual sacrifice. But it is time to take leave.
I have now run through the most considerable distinctions of sacrifice, which have fallen within the compass of my observation; and I am willing to hope, that the explications here given may be of use, as spreading some
Sacrifice is here taken in the passive view, as participated, according to Dr. Cudworth's notion of a symbolical feast upon a sacrifice. See my Review, vol. vii. p. 325, &c.
Offered here means offered for consecration : “ To consecrate the Lord's “ Supper is so constantly called a gropigsıv in Greek, and offerre in Latin, " that it is needless to cite any testimonies for them.” Ibid.
N. B. The offering for consecration, means no more than presenting them to God, in order to have them consecrated into memorial signs, or symbols of Christ's sacrifice, that is, into a commemorative, not reul, sacrifice.
p Recordatio ergo, seu commemoratio, ponitur- -in rebus sensibilibus. Omnia enim memorialia, seu monumenta, sunt sensibilia et patentia sensui : ac propterea benedictio illa sensibilis, fractio, distributio, comestio panis sacramentalis, nobis est memoriale passionis Christi, &c. Spalatens. p. 83.
further light upon the subject. Had the difference lain in words only 9, (ideas remaining the same,) it would not have deserved one moment's care or thought: but as this question had been lately managed, it is too plain, that the true idea both of the sacrament and sacrifice had been changed into quite another thing; and that such a change could not be supported, without making other very considerable changes in the whole system of theology, and in points of high consequence both to truth and godliness. Wherefore it appeared as necessary to endeavour, with all Christian mildness, to set these matters right, as it was
contend earnestly for the faith once delivered unto " the saints.”
Faxit Deus omnipotens, ut uni Christi sacrificio vere innitamur, ac illi rursum rependamus sacrificia nostra gratiarum actionis, laudis, confessionis nominis sui, veræ resipiscentiæ, pænitentiæ, beneficentiæ erga proximos, aliorumque omnium pietatis officiorum: talibus enim sacrificiis, exhibebimus nos nec Deo ingratos, nec Christi sacrificio indignos".
a Pfaffius, in the view he took it, and with respect to one learned writer, looked upon the dispute as a kind of logomachy, p. 53, 344. and pref. p. 7. which I noted in Review, vol. vii. p. 345. adding, that there was a good deal of truth in what Pfaffius had said, and that a great part of the debate was chiefly about names. I have since noted, that the original scheme of a principal writer in that cause appeared to me to be little more. Christian Sacrifice explained, above, p. 177. But I was well aware, that some writers had carried matters a great deal farther. Where a road first divides, two travellers may almost shake hands : but if one goes on here, and another there, as far as the diverging roads will lead them, they may at length be found at a very wide distance from each other : so it is here. An equivocal word, perhaps, or phrase, in which both parties agree, first strikes out two very different ideas; and those two ideas, having their different trains or connections, do at length carry the two parties off, wide and far from each other, into very opposite systems.
Cranmer in Collier's Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. Collection of Records, p. 84.