Beveridge on Article XXXI: Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross

and bothers. And amongst the rest, Albertus Magnus saith expressly, i ‘‘ Because the use of the faithful and the unity of the mystical body is not perfectly signified and caused, but only under a double sign; therefore in the virtue of the sacrament both ought to be had.” And thus we see, how from our Saviour’s time, for thirteen or fourteen hundred years together, the cup was administered as well as the bread to all: and therefore, we may well conclude, it ought to be denied to none.

h VY. Durand. 1. 4. rational. div. { Quia non perfecte signatur, et

offic. c. 42. Richard. de Med. vill. [p. 146. vol. IV.] et Petrum de Tarant. 4. sent. dist. 11. Petrum de Palude, ibid. dist. 21. Biel. ibid. dist. 12.

[…]

The offering of Christ once made is that perfect re- demption propitiation and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there 1s none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of masses, in the which tt was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous decetts.

HAT we from the scripture call the Lord’s supper the Papists from tradition think good to call the Mass or Missa, though they cannot agree about the etymo- logy of the worda, some deducing it from the Greek, bothers

a Quidam existimant esse vocem Grecam: ut Covarruias, [c. 4. 1. 4. vol. I.] Suarez. in p. 3. Tho, disp. Genebrand saith it is Awd ris juy- ges, paucis mutatis, Liturg. ec. 3; but this etymology is rejected by most of them as too far-fetched both for sense and sound.

b Nomen missa ex Hebraica vel Chaldaica nomenclatura acceptum esse videtur, quod enim in nostra vulgata legitur Deut. xvi. spontanea oblatio Hebraice ac Chaldaice dicitur Missah. Baron. in an. 34. n. 59. [vol. I.] Nec dictio missz est nove, ut nonnulli aiunt, ficta, sed deducta olim ex Hebrzeo a patribus et Chal-

dzeo Missach, Deut. xvi., quod ob- lationem spontaneam significat, Na- var. Manual. c. 25. num. 111. [p. 240. vol. III.| But against this ety- mology they may note, 1. that the place they quote, Deut. xvi. 10. is otherwise expounded by the most ancient translations, Et facies solen- nitatem hebdomadarum Domino Deo tuo ynnN WR JI N27 non, sufficientiam spontis manus tue qued dabis, as Pagninus translates it; and so the LXX. Kaéds 7 xeip gov icyver; and the Arabic also

Nd arte he Say, ie. pro ratione vel mensura facultatis manus

Arr. XX XI,

Of the one Oblation of Christ &c.

from the Hebrew, but © others, and that more properly, from

the Latin tongue.

But howsoever they disagree in the word,

they still agree in the thing, avouching that in this mass they offer up a ¢ true and perfect sacrifice to God, ¢ propitiatory for

tue. Syr. erel? lis;em Amd, pro modo separationis manuum tua- rum, i, e. quantum manus tuz sepa- raverint: where we may observe how the Syriac retains the Hebrew word AmSo ND». And therefore we may guess at the signification of the word in Hebrew by its use in Syriac. Now in the Syriac it plainly signifies sufficientia, as Ss? [Aw mx2,

cum usu sufficientiz nostre, 1 Tim. vi. 6. And according to these an- cient translations, though our trans- lators expounded it a ¢ribute in the text, they put sufficiency into the margin. And according to this most ancient, and certainly truest exposition of the word, all the force of their argument from this place must needs fall. 2. Suppose, ac- cording to their vulgar translation, it should signify oblatio, yet it could not signify such an oblation as their missa is; for this, by their own ac- knowledgment, can be offered by none but the priest, whereas that was to be offered by the people. 3. If it should be an Hebrew word, how comes it about that the Hebrew, Greek, Syriac primitive churches, never made use of it, as any that is conversant amongst them cannot but observe, which is the argument that Bellarmine makes use of to prove it to be no Hebrew word: de miss. Lic. 7.

¢ Missa dicitur quia missa est hostia, cujus commemoratio fit in illo officio, unde dicitur, Ite, missa est, i. e. Sequimini hostiam que missa est, ad ccelestia tendentes post eam. [Lombard.] Magist. sent. 4. dist. 24. [fin.] Dicitur missa quod ceelestis missus, i.e. angelus adve- niat ad consecrandum, non ut con- secret, sed ut sacerdoti consecranti assistat. Richard. de Med. vill. 4. sent. dist. 13. [p. 171. vol. [V.] and

Bandin. dist. [13. p. 3470.] Vel missa, ut Isidorus dicit, dicta est ab emittendo: tempore enim quo sacer- dos incipit consecrare corpus Domi- nicum, dicendum est a diacono post evangelium : Si quis catechumenus est procedat foras: et quia tunc emittuntur catechumeni ab ecclesia, qui non debent interesse sacris mys- teriis. Alcuin. de divin. offic. [c. go. p- 1095.] Officium dividitur in mis- sam catechumenorum et fidelium missam. Missa catechumenorum est ab introitu usque post offerto- rium: et dicitur missa ab emit- tendo; quia, tempore quo sacerdos incipit eucharistiam consecrare, ca- techumeni foras de ecclesia emit- tuntur. Missa fidelium est ab offer- torio usque post communionem : et dicitur missa a dimittendo; quia tune ad propria fidelis quisque di- mittitur. Innocent. tert. de offic. miss, 1.6. c.12. And this is the most probable opinion, and the most received, as we may see, Bellarm. {vol. III.] de miss. 1.1. c.1r. Cassand. in consult. art. 24. de miss.

e Si quis dixerit missze sacrificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum ac- tionis, aut nudam commemorationem sacrificli in cruce peracti, non pro- pitiatorium, vel soli prodesse su- menti, neque pro vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, penis, satisfactionibus,

506 Of the one Oblation of Christ Art,

the sins of the people, even as Christ did when he offered up himself to God as a propitiation for our sins. This, 1 say, is that which the church of Rome confidently affirms, and which our church in this article doth as confidently deny. And that,

First, because it is contrary to the scriptures; for the scriptures plainly hold forth Christ only as offering up him- self, and that once for all ; for this he did once, when he offered up himself, Heb. vii. 27. ix. 28. Whereas in the sacrifice of the mass they make as if the priest sacrificed Christ too, and that as often as himself sees good. The scriptures say that by one offering Christ hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. x. 14; but according to this doctrine they are so far from being perfected by one offering, that they still need from day to day to have fresh offerings made for them.

Nay, and the scriptures say expressly that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, Heb. ix. 22; but ac- cording to this doctrine there is remission of sins without shedding of blood, themselves acknowledging there is no shedding of blood in this sacrifice, and yet averring sins are pardoned by it.

And as this doctrine is contrary to scripture, so is it repugnant to reason too, there being so vast a difference betwixt a sacrament and a sacrifice: for in a sacrament God offereth something to man, but in a sacrifice man offers some- thing to God. What is offered in a sacrifice is wholly or in part destroyed, but what is offered in a sacrament still re- maineth. And there being so great a difference betwixt the one and the other, if it be a sacrament it is not a sacrifice, and if it be a sacrifice it is not a sacrament, it being impos- sible it should be both a sacrament and a sacrifice too. To which we might also add, that, according to this opinion, Christ offered up himself before he offered up himself; 1 mean he offered up himself in the sacrament before he

et aliis necessitatibus offerri debere, ut id quod offertur Deo in sacrifi- anathema sit. Concil. Trident. sess. cium plane destruatur. Bellarm. de 22. can. 3. [ Ibid. | miss. ]. 1. c. [2. ibid.]

f Ad verum sacrificium requiritur,

XXXI. Jinished upon the Cross. 507

offered up himself on the cross ; which offering up himself in the sacrament was either a perfect or an imperfect. sacrifice or oblation. To say that Christ should offer up an imperfect sacrifice to God is the next door to blasphemy ; but yet a per- fect one that sacrifice could not be, for then it need not have been repeated again upon the cross. But I need not heap up more arguments to pluck down that fabric, the foundation whereof is already destroyed. It is transubstantiation that is the ground of this fond opinion, therefore do they say the body of Christ is really offered up to God, because the bread is first really turned into the body of Christ ; but now it being proved before that the bread is bread still after, as well as before consecration, and not the very body of Christ, though the bread be consecrated by man, the very body of Christ cannot be offered to God in the sacrament ; and therefore, if they will still call it a sacrifice, they must acknowledge it is such a sacrifice wherein there is nothing but bread and wine offered to God, and by consequence no propitiatory sacrifice ; for, as we have seen, without shedding of blood there is no re- mission, and in the breaking and pouring forth of bread and wine there is no shedding of blood, and not, therefore, any remission of sin.

But neither is this doctrine contrary to scripture and reason only, but to the Fathers also. Origen saith, ¢ “ Christ offered one only, and a perfect sacrifice, for which all these sacrifices went before in types and figures; the flesh of which sacrifice if any one touch he is presently sanctified, if he be unclean he is cleansed, if diseased he is cured.” And if Christ offered but one, and that a perfect sacrifice, what need we any of the missatical sacrifices? And St. Chrysostome speaks plain: » “ This therefore intimates to us the greatness of the sacrifice here spoken of, which being but one, and but once offered, was sufficient or able to do that which all the

& Sacrificium, pro quo hec omnia sacrificia in typo et figura przecesse- rant, unum et perfectum immolatus

[…]

est Christus. Hujus sacrificii car- nem si quis tetigerit continuo sanc- tificatur, si immundus est munda- tur, si in plaga est sanatur. Orig. in

[…]

Art.

508 Of the one Oblation of Christ

other could not :” so that the sacrifice of Christ was but once offered, either by himself or any one else.

To this purpose makes that of Eusebius Emissenus: *“ Be- cause he was about to take his body from our eyes, and carry it up to heaven, it was needful that in the day of the supper he should consecrate for us the sacrament of his body and blood; that that might be continually worshipped by the mystery which was once offered for a price.” And St. Au- gustine : k “Christ died once, the just for the unjust; death hath no more power over him; but lest you should forget what was once done, it is brought into our minds every year, as oft as the passover is celebrated. And is Christ slain so oft? No, but the anniversary commemoration of it repre- senteth what was long ago done, and makes us to be moved so as if we saw the Lord present upon the cross.” So that in the sacrament there is not any offering made by the priest, but only Christ’s offering up himself once to God is here still represented and signified to us. And the same Father else- where: !“ Wherefore Christians do still celebrate the memory of that sacrifice then made in the holy offering and partici- pation of the body and blood of Christ.” And St. Ambrose : m<“ The sacrifice effectual for our eternal salvation was once offered in Christ.” And presently, ”“ What we do is done in commemoration of that which was then done, for, Do this, saith he, in remembrance of me.” And therefore saith Lom-

i Quia corpus assumptum abla- turus erat ab oculis nostris, et illa- turus sideribus; necessarium erat ut die coenze sacramentum nobis cor-

poris et sanguinis consecraret ; ut

coleretur jugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in pretium. Euseb. Emissen. apud Gratian. de conse- crat. dist. 2, can. Quia corpus, [/p.

“oe

k Semel Christus mortuus est justus pro injustis; &c. mors illi ultro non dominatur ; tamen ne ob- liviscamini quod semel factum est, in memoria nostra fit; omni anno quoties pascha celebratur, nunquid toties Christus occiditur? Non, sed anniversaria recordatio «reprasentat

quod olim factum est, et sic nos facit moveri tanquam videamus pre- sentem Dominum in cruce. Aug. ibid. can. Semel Christus, p. [1897. ]

[…]

m In Christo semel oblata est hostia ad salutem sempiternam po- tens. Gratian. can. In Christo, dist. 2. de consecr. ex Ambros. [p. 1898. ]

XXXI. Jinished upon the Cross. 509

bard also, °“ That that which is offered and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice or oblation, because it is the remembrance or representation of the true sacrifice upon the cross.” And by this we may see in what sense the ancients called the eucharist a sacrifice; not as if it was a true or proper sacrifice itself, but only the commemoration or repre- sentation of that one and only true and proper sacrifice offered up by Christ himself: and so all the sacrifices of mass are at the best but dangerous deceits.

© Tilud quod offertur et consecrapreesentatio veri sacrificii in ara cru- tur a sacerdote vocari sacrifictum et cis. Lomb. 1. 4. dist. 12. [G.] oblationem, quia memoria est et re-

Notes

• Si quis dixerit in missa non of- ferri Deo verum et proprium sacri- ficium ; aut quod offerri non sit aliud, quam nobis Christum ad man- ducandum dari, anathema sit. Con- cil. Trident. sess. 22. can. 1. [vol. X.] Catholici scriptores, qui hoc nostro seculo de sacrificio miss scripserunt, omnes in eo potissimum laborant, ut ostendant, in missa of- ferri Deo vere ac proprie corpus ac sanguinem Domini, sub specie visi- bili panis et vini. Bellarm. [ibid.] de TOISS yl lie Cee
• Quod nos facimus in comme- morationem fit ejus quod factum est, Hoc enim facite, ait, in meam com- memorationem. Ibid.