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

[…]

The ExPosiTio n. .•

HE Author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews tells us, rhap. x. lo. that we are fan^itfied through the Suffering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all. St. Ignatius tells us f, that the Suffering of Christ is our Refurrec^lion. Irenceus §, that ‘tis one and the fame Jesus Christ, the Son of God^

f EpiiL ad Smyr, §• Lib. 3.’ c. 18.

who

Thirty-Nine Articles. 675

who by his Paflion hath reconciled us to God ; Art. xxxt.

[…]

that for this Cause Christ died, that the Tetla-

ment of the Gospel being open to, and read by

the whole World, might first make those free

who were in Bondage, and afterwards make them

Heirs of such Things as were his ||.

Since then the Oflfering which Christ made upon the Cross was sufficient, what Occasion is there for any more } And indeed, the Author of the Epiftle to the Hebrews^ in the 26th Vcrfe of the Chapter before-mentioned, ipeaking of Apoftates from Christianity, fiith, that there remained no further Sacrifice for Sin\ after they had renounced the great Sacrifice he had been ipeaking of.

And further. If Chrifl himself be truly offered in the Mass, it follows, that he is also fiain again, which is shocking and absurd to iuppofe : For then miift he often have fttffered since the Foundation of the World 5 but now once in the End of the IVorld hath he appeared to put away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself Heb. ix. 26. ‘Tis likewise a necel fary Consequence of this DocTtrine, that the Blood of Christ is often shed, which is likewise shocking to fuppofe 3 for we are told, ver. 22. of this Chapter, that without fljedding of Blood there is no Kemtffion, St. Cyprian hath indeed these Words, ” We make mention of his ” (Christ’s) PafTion in all our Sacrifices ; for the Paffion of the Lord is the Sacrifice that we offer.” And we do not deny, but that in

I) Lib. f. c. 9. * Epift. 63,

U u 2 a large

Art.XXXI.

Jn Expofitioii 072 the

a large Sense, the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper may be called a Sacrifice ; as the Bread and Wine may be called the Body and Blood of Christ. But that this Sacrament is a true and proper Sacrifice, as those of the Church of Rome define the Mass to be, is altogether false and blafphemous, because it afcribes that to a Priest, which the Scriptures have ascribed to Christ alone , and dangerous, because it tends to make Men believe that Christ is often offered, and dies daily, and that he is offered by a Priest : Which Proportions are, as I have fhewn, diredtly contrary to Scripture.

I N fbort, the Mass, or Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, is nothing elfe but a perpetual, Iblemn, and sacred Memorial of Christ’s dying for us • that as often as we come to the Lord’s Table, and there join in the Celebration of this Holy Sacrament, we might be moved, by what is there done, at once both to call to our Remem- brance all the Paffages of his Paflion (to con- fider him as there iet forth crucified before our Eyes) and to meditate upon the Love of Christ thus dying for us, and upon the mighty Bene- fits and Advantages which have accrued to us thereby • and have our Hearts affeded after a f jitable manner towards him. *

Article

A N

Thirty - First Article.

H E Sacrifice of the Mass is fb Appendix to material a Pare of the Romljh ’ ’• Religion, and carries with it a ‘Vci/ Notion, fo pleasing to the cor- rupt Inclinations of Men, and is withal, a Means to procure an immense, and constantly increafmg Treasure, for the Support and Maintenance of the Cler- gy of that Communion, that there is no Error whatsoever, that can reasonably be fuppofed to be retained with more Obftinacy, and given lap with greater Unwillingness than this. And therefore it may not be improper to consider and answer, what our Adversaries bring from

Scrip-

ii An Exposition on the

‘Appendix Scripture for the Sacrifice of the Mass, con” Art. XXXI ” proper Sacrifice, as well as /ys’ to offer those Places of Scripture that are di- rectly contrary to it, and do, in our Judgment, perfectly overthrow it. First, then they go back as far as Genesis for it, and if they can find it there, they will prove it to be very primitive and ancient indeed but where ever they meet with Bread and Wine, which are Things of very great Antiquity, they resolve to make a Sacrifice of them especially, if there be but a Priest by, who hath the Power of Confecrating, for they fuppofe, he must presently fall to his Office, and put on his f-Ja- ’ bit, if Bread and Wine beb?forehim i, and that he cannot, like other Men, eat and drink them as his ordinary Food, or entertain his Friends and others with them except, he not only religiously bless them by Prayer and Thanks- givirg, vhich every good Man ought to do, and it was the Custom even of the Heathens to do this before Eating, but he mufl sacrifice and offer them up to God. This they will needs have Melchifedeck do in the fourteenth Chap- ter of Genesis and the eighteenth Verse, Mel- chifedeclij King of SaUm brought forth Bread and Wine and he was a Prlefi- of the mofl high God. What is there here to fhew, that Melchifedeck offered Bread and Wine, as a Sacrifice to God ? The very Word in their own vulgar Latin an- fwering to the Hebrew is Frotulity he brought forthy not Ohtulity he offered *, and if it were the latter, could not he offer Bread and Wine to Abraham and his Company upon a Table, but must it necefrarily be to God upon an Altar? Abraham with his Three hundred and eighteen trained Servants, had been by iight pursuing those, who had taken away his Brother Lot

Captive,

Thirty-Nme Articles. iii

Captive, and when they were thus very weary Appendix and hungry, Melchlfedecky holpitably and lind- * xr ly entertained them with Provision to refrelh i/-vr’ them, and Ivought forth Bread and Wine to them thus it lies in the sacred History and Context, and thus Jofephus relates it, and there is not the least mention or Intimation - of any Sacrifice, as Cajetan f owns upon the Place, and fo do many of their own Authors, whom Poftevine the Jesuit takes upon him to correO: for it. Bellarmine indeed, as if he had been by at the Entertainment, and been one of Abraham’s Soldiers ; tells us, they had eaten and drank very well before and therefore de- lires Melchlfedeck to excuse them, for they had no need of his Bread and Wine at that Tim $, and yet in the fame Place owns, that thele were given to Abraham and his Companions for Food I, but that they were just offered to God, and then given to them to partake of them as of a Sacrifice : But why were they given as Food, if they had no need of Food Did Adelchifedeck know they had eaten ? Or does the Scripture fay fo ? Or might not he treat them as a King, tho* they had Yiduals of their own? How does Bellarmine know they were first sacrificed, when there is not the least Word of that ? Why, it is said that he was a Priefl of the mofb high God, therefore it is likely he sacrificed, why elfe ihould that be added ? It was added because it was Ic), or because, as it immediately follows, he blejfed

f Nihil hie icribitur de Sacrilicio. Cajetaa. in Gen. xiv.

§ Bellarm. de MifT.l. i.e. 6. D.

4 Ibidem.

[ ^ ] Ahraham’^

iv An Exposition on the

Appendix Abraham. and Ahrahayn gave him tythes of all Art. xxXv.” Sfo’ds ver. 19,20. This is more likely than \jry becauie he facriliced, for there is no mention of that as of the other, and ‘tis not laid he Wcaght forth Bread and Wine, becauie he was the Priest of the high God, ‘tis only a coi)janO:ive Particle, andy he was, and not a Causal/or. It is said also in the fame Place, that he was King of Salem, and why might not his Entertainment of Abraham, be as he was a King, because he is said there to be a King, as well as a Priest and yet, I fuppofe, a Priest may be said to treat hJs Friends, as another Man without officiating then as a Priest, tho’ lie b3 called a Priest. Why Bcllarmlne ikouli cite any Fathers for his Opinion, I cannot imagine, ftnce the oldest of them are at fo great a Distance from the Times of Melchlfe- decJi, that they could no more know what Mel- chifedeck did at that Time, than we can now, and they are very improper WitnefTes of a Matter of Fact that was fo long ago, which nothing but the Scripture Iliftory can give us any Account of, to which it is not only pre- carious, but rash to add any of our own Gue-ffes and ConjeO:ures •, however, tho’ fome of the Fathers do by Way of Figure and AI- lufion, make this Bread and Wine of Melchi fedecky to relate to the facramental Bread and Wine, as they make Manna, and several other Things, which were not Sacrifices, yet none apply it to the Sacrifice of the Maf, nor could they well do it, ftnce they believed no such Thing in the Sense which we are now opposing. But not to enter into fo large a Field of Controversy as this is, in which, considering the Bulk which this Treatise is alieady swelled to, I m.ay peihaps tire both

the

Thirty-Nine Articles. v

the Reader and ray self before we can find our Appendix- Way out of it \ let us fuppofe, that AJeUhl- , ^^

------ - Art. X>

[…]

vice will this do to the Sacrifice ot the Mass ? The Priests do not there lacrifice Bread and Wine according to this mystical Type, nor did Melchifedeck sure cffar up Chrifi’s Body and Blood under the Species of his Bread and Wine *, if we allow all that can be begged and desired, that Melchifedeck did sacrifice, and that this his Sacrifice was a Type and Figure of another Sacrifice, why may not that be of the Sacrifice of the Cross, which is the true and only proper Christian Sacrifice, when Christ the Bread of Life was offered up unto God for us So that there is no NeceiTity to bring in the Sacrifice of the Mass, to cora- pleat and answer this Figure, were there any Thing in it besides Guess and Fancy, v/hich I fee no Manner of Reason to believe there is, - ” iince there is nothing to countenance it in the New Tefiament and ‘tis very prefumptuous and ungrounded to make any thing a true Type, or to have a typical Meaning farther than God’s Spirit, which alone could know this, hath given us Warrant to do it by P.evelation. Yet with- out any such Ground doth BelUrmine , and the Council of Trent f , make this to be the Notion of Chrifl’s being a Prie/l, after the Order of Melchifedec’ky that he was to offer up a visible and unbloody Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, and to appoint others to do this for ever whereas the Scripture makes Christ to be a Priest after the Order of Melchifedeck noC

[ 2 2 ] upon

vi An Expofitioii on the

Appendix upon any such Account : For the Author to the Hebrews makes not the lead mention of JXSP- this in his large Difcourfe of this Matter * but in his having no PredeceiTor, nor no Suc- ceifor in his Priesthood, as Melckfedeck is re- presented in Scripture, without any Account of his Family or Genealogy, without Father, without Mother, without Descent, Heb. vii. 3. And in the Excellency of that in general, above the imerediuaronical Triefthood and in the Eternity and Immutability oi: it, because he continueth for ever, and hath an unchange- able Priesthood, ver, 24. How little the Mel- chifedehan Prielthood of Christ, upon which they lay fo much Stress, will serve the Pur- pose of the Mass-Sacrifice, nay, how contrary ‘tis to it, I iliall endeavour to manifefl in a few Particulars.

First then, Christ, it is plain, did offer up to God not an unbloody, but a bloody Sacri- fice upon the Cross •, I ask whether he did this according to his Melchlfedelian Priesthood If he did, then Melchifedeck probably a Priest of the High God, might offer the bloody Sa- crifices of living Creatures •, and if he were Shenij the eldest Son of Noahj as is fairly con- jectured by learned Men, he might learn this of his Frthei-, who after the Flood, built an jiltar unto the Lord and took of every clean Beafiy and of every dean Fowl and offered burnt Offerings on the Altar Gen. viii. 20. But then, how will this be reconciled with what our Adversaries pretend, that it was the Power and peculiar Office of Melchifcdcck to offer the pure and

4 Keb. V. 7.

unbloody

Tbirty-Nme Articles. vii

unbloody Sacrifice of Bread and Wine ? And Appendix that according to that, the Roman Priests are ^^

to do that, and that Christ did that at hisS* last Supper. Christ’s Prieflhood was the fame”’ at his Supper and upon the Cross if he a£]:- ed therefore as a Prieil: oi Mdchifedecl in one, he did fo in both. Secondly, The Scripture mentions no Ad: or Office of Melchlfe deck’s Priesthood but in bleiling Abraham Gen. xiv. 1 8, 19. Melchijedecky King of Salem j brought forth Bread and WIne and he was the Priefi of the mo(I- high Gody and he hie (fed him, and f aid Bleffcd he. Abraham of the mo ft- high Gody which hath delivered thine Enemies into thine Hand. And this the Author to the Hebrews takes particular Islotice of, cha, viuver, I. and this answers to what St. Peter says of Christ after his Refurredion, God having raised up his Son fefus fsnt him to hlefs ycuy Atlsm. 25. Which general Word of Blef- fmg may include in it whatever is done for us by Christ’s Priesthood after his Pve(urre£lion, particularly his praying and interceding to God for us. Had it. been any Part of Christ’s Melchifedehan Priesthood to offer up Bread and Wine, much more had it wholly confifted in this \ *tis strange the Apostle, in a fet and large Difcourfe of this, ftiould not fpek one Word, nor take the least Is’otice olr it. Third- ly, Christ is to have none to succeed him in his Melchifedehan Priesthood, but he was him- self to remain a Priest for ever the Author to the Hebrews makes this Diilerence between the Aaromcal Priests and Christ, that tney were to llicceed one another, and they tru- ly were many Priests, because they were not suffered to continue by Reason of Death. Heb. vii. 23. but Christ was an immortal, and fo a perpetual Priest but this Man, because he continueth ever, h?th an unchangegible [ 3 ] Priesthood,

viii An Eipofition Q7i the

Appendix prleflhood, mr. 24. dTet.aivy hfeomvm, a Priefl:- Ar xxxi pafTes net to others, but is ever iy”\is7 fixM and appropriate to his own Perlon, and he is made a Priefi: after the Power of an endless Life, ‘ver. id. That which belongs then to Chri/1”, as he is an immortal Priest, and con- tinueth ever, and hath none to succeed him, that it is which constitutes his Melchifedekian Priefihood and what that is the Apostle plain- ly informs us ii the very next Verse to those I have quoted, feeing he ever Iheth to make Inter- cejfior/for us, ver. 24. Christ’s interceding with God by Yertue of his Sacriiice upon the Cross, and ?tppearing in Pleaven in the Presence of God lor lis, and there presenting his Sacri- fice to his Father, and powerfully mediating on our Behalf th’s is the proper unchangea- ble, eternal, intranfitive Melchifedekian Priefl- hood, and ‘tis great Arrogance for any to pre- tend to fliare with him, or to ilicceed him, therefore, in his proper Prieflhood, and to call themselves, as the Romanifts do, Priests after the Order of Melchifedeck when none but Chrifl is ib. This his Prieithood is not committed to any upon Earth, but is to be for ever executed in Heaven by himfeif, and he hath left none to be proper Priests in this Sense, but only to be Ministers of this great High Priest, in performing fome lelTer, tho’ peculiar Offices proper to them, as the Levites under the Jewilh Difpenfation had their proper Work, tho’ they were not proper Priests,

The next Thing they produce out of Scripture for the Sacrifice of the Mass, is, the Pafchal Lamb, which they will needs have to be a Fi- gure of the Eucharifl, and fnice that was a Sa- crifice, therefore the Eucharist, which was fi- gured by it, ought to be lb too : Now these figu- rative

Thirty -Wine x^r tides. ix

rative Arguments, tho^ they help to make fome Appendix Show, as they are dreft out by Fancy, yet they vv-vt

have generally this Fault, that they P/’oe either too much or too little, and fo either ihoot over the Mark, or fall a great deal Jhort of it, but seldom hit it. The Pafchal Lamb, and the Eucharist, the Chriilian Paf- fever, do agree in this, that they are both solemn and religious Rites, commemorative of a great Deliverance, and that they are both flicred and mystical Feafts, wherein fome- thing is to be eaten with Joy and Thank ful- ness, and our Saviour inftltuted one to fuc- ceed and take Place of the other *, in these Particulars they fuit, and have an agreeable Analogy with one another but Figures are like Circles, which may touch one another in fome Points, but not in all, for if we go any farther, they will neceiTarily divide and differ. The Pafchal Lamb was to be eaten but once a Year, the Eucharist much oftener ; thM was a Feast of vilible and solid Flesh, the Eucharist only of Bread and Wine or if there be any Flesh, ‘tis inviiible, and as like Bread and Aine as can be •, however, this is the Flesh, according to our Adversaries of a living Man, that of a dead and roafced Lamb, this is not to be slain, but eaten whole and alive, the other was and therefore why may v/e not add, to go no further, this is no proper Sacrifice, that pro- bably was, for it is not pafl: Qu eft ion, whe- ther it was or no ; but yet such a Sacrifice as was offered without a Priest by every Ma- fter of a Family ? And if the Eucharifl were to agree with it in this, the Priests would Icfe a great deal of their Design in making it a Sacrifice, for then, without their Affiftance, every House-keeper would offer it himself [ 4 ] beiideSj

to Art. XXXI.

An Exposition on the

Appendix befideSj the Pafchal Lamb was not a propi- tiatory Sacrifice, I presume for the Quick and Dead, fo then, in Correspondence to that, nei- ther is the Sacrifice of the Mass, but only an Eucharilick one but af:er all, the Pafchal Lamb was not truly a Type and Figure of the Eucharist, but of Christ crucified, fo fiith St. Pjiul exprefly, Chrifi our Tajfo’ver is /acrifi&ed for iiSy I Cor, V. 7, and that not, I fuppofe, in the Sacrament, but upon the Cross, the Pafchal Fl- gure was fulfilled says their own JanfenluSy when our true PaiTover Christ was immola- ted . And to fhew how exad a Figure he then bare of the Pafchal Lamb, a Bone of him was mt to he broken ’-, as it was not likewise of that Exod. xii. 46. and this exprefly remarked, that the Scripture might be fulfilled . The Sa- crifice of the Pafchal Lamb, and theother Jewish Sacrifices, wherein Atonement was made for Sin by shedding of Blood, without which, under the Law, there was to be no Remiilion, were all, as the Apofile says. Shadows of good Things to corne §, and Types of the more per- fed Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crols, who was the Lamb fain in Types and Figures j as well as in Design and. Intent ion from the Beginning of the World. And 1 cannot but think, that from hence arose the univerlal Custom of sacrificing in all Religions over all the World, from au original Tradition of the Sacrifice of Chrifr, and out of a primary Regard and Refped to that •, for I cannot imagine what elfe ihould

[…]

be

Art. XXXr.

Thtrty-Nme Articles. xi

be the Reafbn, or give Rife to expiatory Sacri- Appendix fices, and be the true Cause of lb general a Pradice. But that any of rhele Sacrifices had Relation to the Eucharist, or were intended as Figures of that, is very precarious and un- grounded : ThofeEuchariftical Sacrifices indeed, in which, Part ofwhat was offered, was eaten by the Offerers, or in Holocaufts, when the whole was consumed, where a Peace-Offering was joined with them, which the Sacrificers uled to feast and partake of, as a Toke:i of their Peace and Reconciliation with God these may fairly relate and have fome Refpet to, or at least Resemblance with the Eucharifl-, which is a Kind of sacrificial Feast, or facra- mental Feeding upon an Ohlatumy Christ’s Body and Blood offered for us upon the Cross but that they were Types of this, is more than we can be allured of for a Type is a Sign or Figure appointed and designed by God, to fig- nify and mark out such a Thing, and we cannot know that God appoints or deiigns any such Thing, further than we have fbme Ground from Scripture and Revelation, and therefore we must restrain typical Matters within those Bounds, and must not let Fancy loose, to make what Types it pieafes. There may be fome Similitude and Likeness, by which one Thing may be compared with another, without its being a Type or a Figure of it, as Ju(lln Martyr in his Dialogue with Tryfho the Jew, calls the Meat-Offering of fine Flower, which ” the Leper was to bring for his cleansing, ** Lev. iv. lo. an Image or Likeness of the *’ Euchariftical Bread, which Christ our Lord appointed to be brought in Remembrance ’ of his Paliion, whereby our Souls are clean - [ led from Sin and Wickednefs, and that we

” may %

xii An Exposition on the

Appendix *^ may hereby give Thanks to God the Crea-

XXXI * ” ’ - makes the Eucharist to Jyr%’ answer the Analogy of that Meat -Offering in three Things, in the Oblation of Bread, and this in Commemoration of Christ’s Pailion, whereby we are delivered from Sin, and as a Thanksgiving to God and in all these it doth very well correspond with it, tho’ that it was ftridly a Type of this, and fo intended byjGod, is still to be questioned • and he that is acquainted with the Fathers, and their alle- gorical Way of explaining Scripture, and ap- plying all Things in the Old Testament to Matters in the New, will have great Reason to doubt, whether they did not give too much Scope to their Fancy in many Things, and whether solid Arguments may be drawn from all their allegorical Difcourfes and Applica- tions \ but yet none of them, that I know of, do make any of the antient propitiatory Sacri- fices, to be Types and Figures of the Eucha- rift, but of the Sacrifice of the Cross ; how- ever, if they ihould do this by lome remote Allufion, and partial Resemblance, yet not as it is a proper Sacrifice or truly propitiatory, therefore not at all to the Purpose of the Sa- crifice of the Mass.

The Prophecy of Mdachl is one of the great Scripture-Proofs for this Sacrifice, but it can be at mofl but a collateral Evidence ^ for if Christ d’d not, in Fa^l, institute any such Sacri- fice, as I have proved he did not, this is a much better Argument to fiiew there was none such foretold, than it can be to prove he did institute

jullin Martyr. Dialog, cum Tryph. p. i6o. Par.

it

Jhirty-Wtne Articles. xiii

It because it was foretold : Predictions are best Appendix understood by the Completion of them,\nd if no fach thing was done as is pretended from ’•,.P’ this Prediftion, this demonflrates that no such """ thing was intended or meant by it, fo that by taking away that first Ground of the Mass- Sacrifice, 1 have taken away all these little Under-props aad Supporters of it. But let us fee what seeming Ailiftance this Place of Ma- Uchl will afford them : God having reproved the Jews for their undue and unfit Offerings, tells them, that better and purer Oiferings shall be made him every where by the Gemllcs \ For from the fifing of the Sun eveti nnto the goirifr down of the fame my Nmne Jhall he great anions the Gentiles and in every Place hicenfe fiiall he offered unto my Name and a ftire Offeri?ig for my Name fljall he great among the Heathen faith the Lord of Hofis Mai. i. 1 1. Thus it is both in the Hehrew and Greek Copies, as Bcllarmine owns but it is something diiferent from both those ia the vulgar Latin where it is, In every Place is facrificedy and is offered to my Name a pure Oblation, They are fo in love with the Word Sacriiice, that they choose to ufe that above any other, as if where-ever they meet with that in Scrip- ture, it must be meant properly, and of an ex- ternal Sacrifice, and of no other but the pro- pitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass. Thouih the Word Mincha, which is here made ufe of, from which feme of our Adverlaries are fo fool- ifh as to derive the Latin Word Mi fa, that figv nifies only a Difmiillon of the Catechumens and Penitents before the Office of the EuchariO- does not signify a propitiatory Sacrifice, but only a Meat-Offering, which was merely Eu- chariftical and whereas nothing is more com- monly meant by Sacrifice in Scripture, than

the

to Art, XXXI.

xiv Jn Expofitioii on the

Appendix the Spiritual Sacrifice of Praise and Thanks- giving, and Prayer, and the like, when a pious and devout Soul cjfers unto God Thankfg’ving and says its Jorvs unto the mo ft- High PtaJ. 1. 14 5 when the Prayer of the Righteous is fet forth as Incense and the lifting np of his Hands as an ‘Evening Sacrifice Pial. cxli. 2. And this is the Incenle and pure Oblation which the Fathers generally understand to be meant in that Place, to wit, Glorifying and hUffmg God and Praise and Hymns as Tertullian in lo many Words ex- plains this Place , and again, A pure Offerings as Malachi Ipeaks, is an honefi Prayer from a pure Confctence f ; and fo in other Places 4: he explains it altogether of Spiritual Sacrifices, Eufehius calls this sure Offering of Malachi the Incense of Pray- ers II . Su’ferom upon the Place says. The Pro- fhet teaches that the Prayers of Holy Men fiould be offered to the Lord not only in the fmqle Province of Judda, to which the Jewish Sacrifices were confined, but in every Place . There can be no Sacrifice more acceptable to God, no Offering with which he is fo well pleased, no Incenle that is of fo lAveet a Savour, as the Prayers and Praises of a devout Mind, andapureunblemifh’d Conscience, and especially when these are kindled and inilamed to the higheit Degrees and Ardors at the Blelfed Sacrament, when the Soul is truly fenfible of the Love of God, and the infinite Kindness of its dying Saviour ; when it hath the Symbol and Representation of his Death before it, and ihall pour out its

f Ibid. lib. 4.

^; Adverf. Judceos, Ibid=

|! Eufeb. Demonftrat. lib. i. cap. <S.

§ Hieron. in Malach. i.

grateful

Thirty-lShie Articles.^ xv

grateful and hearty Refentments, and thereby Appendix offer up a more pure and precious Sacrifice, . than Thoufandt of Rams or Ten thousand Rivers of i/V’s OyL This is that Incense, and that pure Of- fering of Christians, which is foretold by the Prophet, and this especially offered in the mofl sacred Office of our Religion, the blelled Eu- chnrii ; and therefore fome of the Fathers, Justin Martyr J Irenms and St. Auftln apply this Place to the bleffed bacrament, not as any pro- per Sacrifice is there offered, but only such diviie and spiritual ones as these. Why should our .Adveriliries then charge us with having no Sacrifice, and therefore, as they charitably tell us, no Religion, when we have the best and the noblefl Sacrifice that can be, that which mil fleafe the Lord much better than an Ox or a Bullock that hath Horns and Hoofs Vfal, Ixix. 3 1, and xl. 6, Ifai. i. it. ? God was never pleased with those external Sacrifices for them- f elves, but he often refuses and difregards them, even under the Jewish Difpenfation, and they were all to cease with that, and infiead of such mean Sacrifices and external Oblations, which were to be offered then but in one Place, there ihould in every Place, under Chriftia- nity, be offered the more pure and spiritual Sacrifices, the Incense of Prayer, and the pure Oblation of Fraife and Thanksgiving, and such like Christian Sacrifices as are often mentioned in Scripture, and which are meant in this Pro- phecy of Malach’u ‘Tis a fort of Judaism then, and a returning back to that less perfe.t and •less spiritual Stae, to make the Religion of the Gospel confift in any visible and external Sacr-fice, which our Adveifaries fo earneflly contend for, rather than in those Sacrifices which are more spiritual, and therefore more

truly

xvi Jn Exposition on the

Appendix truly cliriftian, and more agreeable to the fpi- ritual Worship, ai.d the fpirii-ual OEconomy of the Go/pel.

to Art. XXXI.

There are feme other Places which Bellar- mine and other Defenders of the Sacrifice of the Mass produce out of the Old Teflament, which are fo weakly and impertinently al- ledged, that they only serve to expose it, and therefore they are not at all mentioned in the Council of Trent or in the Roman Catechifm, such is that Saying of the Prophet to £//, 2 Sam. n. 35. That Gcd would raise up a faithful Priett that ihould do according to that which was in his Heart, and in his Mind, and that he would build him a sure House, and he ihould walk before his Anointed tor ever. This new Priell that was to succeed Eli. \v2ls very pro- bably, to be a iacriiicing Pried but that he was to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, I leave those who bring this Place for it to prove , for without doubt this was fulfilled long before Chrifi:, \nSamuelj ivho succeeded£//, and in Zadoch who came in the room of yhiathar„ who was of the Family of £//, and who was thrvfl out by Solomon from hewg Pyiefi nmo the Lord that he might fulfil the Word of the Lord, which he ffah concerning the House of Eli in Shiloy 1 Kings ii. 27. as the Scripture observes ; and to make this figurative or prophetical of the Christian Friefthood’s succeeding the Aaronical is great Streneth of Fancy, but a very weak Argument, however, for the Sacrifice of the Mass, unless that were the Work’ of the Christian Priest- hood, which is hard to be made out. The fe- cond is that out of Tfalm Ixxii. z’er. \6. There jloall be an Handful of Corn in the Earth upon the Top of the Mountains. This Handful of Corn is hy Galatitius and others of the fame Rabbinical

Stampj

Thirty-Nine Articles. xvii

Stamp, made into a Cake or VUcenta and that Appendix must needs be the Wafer Cake, which being upon the Top of the Mountains, must be heaved j? and elevated over the Head of the Priests. Whatever Feafts or Dainties the ews might exped, as foretold by this V[dm to be received in the Days of the Meffiah, and whatever they were willing to mean by this Handful of Corn on the Top of the Mountains, that they never dreamt of the Sacrifice of the Mass, is what I ihall not be fo vainly prodigal of my Time, as to endeavour to difprove.

The next is that of Proverbs chap. ix. ver. 2. Wisdom hath killed her Beafis, flie hath mingled her Wine fie hath also furmfljed her Table but I am sure ihe never made this Argument for the Sa- crament of the Mass : I will improve this Argu- ment, if they please, for the Proof of other Things, as of Priests Celibacy, because in the next Words ‘tis said, Wifdorn hath [ent out her Maidens J ver* 4. Of the Church o Rome\ being the House that was built by Wisdom, because ‘tis said in the first Verse, jlw hath hewn out her seven Pillars which are as undoubtedly the ihven Hills of Romey as this allegorical Banquet is the Sacrifice of the Mass. Oar Ad- verfaries, sure, could not be very serious and in good earnef, when they produced such Places as these, and therefore they mufl excuse us for not being Co in answering them. I fliall mention but one more, which if it be not as ridiculous, yet it is as impertinent as the other, and that is out o Daniel chap. viii. ver. ir. where it is said, the daily Sacrifice was taken away by a great Prince that is there propheticallv described. It is plain, that by the daily Sacri- fice there is meant that of the Jews aid by

the

xviu

Appendix to Art. XXXI.

Jn Exposition on the

the Prince that fliould take it away, Antlochus’ who did literally perform this by destroying the yn?//?; VVorihip, and horribly profaning the Temple if by him was allegorically and pro- phetically meant the Christian Antichrifl if I may fo ipeak, spoken of by St. Vaul 2 Iheff. ii. and by St. ohn Rev, xiii. described as a Beast, having leven Heads and ten Horns, as Bellarmine will have it *, then whether this Mark belongs not to him that fets up the Sa- crifice of the Mass, and destroys, as far as he hath Power, and tcikes away all the purer Wor- ihip of Christ, and harh a great many other Chara£lers upon him that look very fuipicious, will be a great Queflion, for which, I dare fay, there are a great many more Probabilities, than that by the daily Sacrifice here is meant the Sacrifice of the Mass.

T COME now to the Kew Testament, where, if there be any Proofs for the Sacrifice of the Mass, it is more likely to find them, than in the Old, yet they produce twice as many, such as they are, out of that than this, and, like fome other People, are more beholden to dark Types and obscure Prophecies of the Old Tellament to make out their Prin- ciples, tiian to the clear Light of the Gospel, and to any plain Places in the New ; and yet if any such Dodrine as this were to be received by Christians, and if any such wonderful and elfential Part of Woriliip were appointed by Christ, or taught and praftifed by the Apo^ liles, we fliould surely have it more plainly fet down in the Kew Testament than they are able to fliew it. The first Place they urge from thence belongs no more to the Sacrifice of the

Chap. 9. dcMiir. lib. i,

Mass,

Art. XXXI.

Thirty-Nine Articles. xix

Mass, than the First Commandment does in Appendix the Decalogue, and they had as good have _ % quoted our Saviour’s Words to the Devil, Thou jhalt worjJnp the Lord thy God and fo have proved from thence, that God ought to be worshipped hy the Sacrifice of the Mass, as those to the Woman of Samaria which BelUrmine brings to this Purpose out of John iv. 21, 23. The Hour Cometh when ye jloall neither in this Mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worjliip the Father for the Hour Cometh and now is when the true Worfluffers jliall worpjip the Father in Spirit and in Truth. From whence he infers, that they mult worihip him hy Sacrifice, and that this mufi: be the Sacrifice of the Mass, and that this is to worship him in Spirit and in Truth. If this be not all Evidence and Demonllration, there is none in Euclid and if we may not here cry out, lopny, the Mass is found, we are blind and obftinate. But I fee very little more for it here than from the other Places which I named before, but ra- ther something against it, for to worihip God in Spirit and Truth, and that because he is a Spirit, as our Saviour there adds, ver, 24. is not to worship him by an External, Visible, Typi- cal Sacrifice as the Mass is, and as those of the Jews were, but by a more pure and spiritual Worihip of Praise and Thanksgiving,andPrayer, such as that of Chriflians is to be, as more fuit- able to the spiritual Nature of God \ and thele spiritual Sacrifices ofChriftians are not to be ty’d to one Place, as those more gross and carnal ones of the Jews were, which was the thing our Saviour here designed. The greatest Part of the publick Jewii Worihip was fix’d to the Temple and to Jerusalem- their Tythes, and Firit-fruits, and Firftlings, and Feltivals, as well as their Sacrifices, and there may be Di-

^ ^3 vine

xx Jn Exposition on the

Appendix vine Worihip without Sacrifice as well as with Art. xxxf ” ” whatever the Worihip be, which our .lXV% Saviour here says was to be spiritual, it was not like thejewijh to be fix’d to one Place, which is the true Scope of those Words to the Samari- tan Woman, in answer to her Question, ver. 20. Whether Mount Geridm or Jerusalem was the true Place of Worship, which was the great Dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans \ our Saviour determines for neither, but puts an End to the Question, and says. That now under the Gofpely the Wornf of God was not local and as to the manner of it that it was spiritual. The fe- cond and principal Arg jment for the Sacrifice of the Mass, is from Christ’s Institution and first Celebration of the Eucharist with his Dif- ciple% and here, indeed, is the true Place to find it, if there be any such thing, but I hope to lh?w that Christ did neither then sacrifice himself, nor command his Disciples to do fo, and thereby to take away that which is the very Foundation of the Mass-ficrifice, and without which every thing elfe that can be said for it, falls to the Ground.

Let us therefore erqulreinto the Truth of this Doftrine, That our BlelTed Saviour did, at his lafl Supper, when he celebrated the Communion with his Disciples, offer up his Body and Blood to his Father, as a true pro- pitiatory Sacrifice, before he offer’d it as such upon the Cross. Is there any the least Colour or Shadow of any such thing in any of the Accounts that is given of this in the three Evangelifts, or in St. Paul ? Tlhe Lord Jesus the fame Night in which he was betrayed, took Bread and gave Thanh or blejfed it and brake ity a?td gave it to his Disciples fK Take, eat this is my Body which is given for you this do in Remembrance of

Thirty-Wine Articles^ xxi

me J after the fame manner also he tool the Cup and Appendix gave Thanh y and gave it to them^ saying^ Drinl ye %^yX

all of this, for this is my Blood of the New 7/?- rJ-J trjent ivhith is shed for you and for many, for the Re- miffion of Sins, Is here any Mention or any In- timation of offering up any thing to God : Was not the Bread and the Cup, and what he called his Body and his Blood, given to his DiscipleS to be eaten and drank by them ? And was any thing elfe done with them ? Is there any thing like an Offering or a Sacrificing of them ? Yes, fay they, Christ there calls it his Body which is broken, and his Blood which is flied, in. the Present Tense therefore the one mull be then broken and the other ihed. So indeed it is in the Original Greek, though in the vulgar Latin it is in the Future Tense, and fo it is also put in their Miffal Sanguis cjui ejfundcttir. This is my Blood which shall bepied’ and is it not usual to put the Present Tense instead of the Future, when that is fo near and certain ? Does not our Saviour do it more than once at other Times ? 77? Son of Man is betrayed into the Hands of Sin- ners, \l&e.\Jbf). Mat. xxvi. 45. before he was fo, though “judas was then nigh and coming about it. So John X. 17. / lay down my Life, tilit 4;Sv, when he was ready to do fo •, as he was to have his Body broken and his Blood ihed, when he was prepared as a Vi£lim, to be offered the next Day, fo St. Paul says, ‘£7 nJ ffTTiv/bfMi, I now offer up myself, 2 Tim, iv. 6* when, as we translate it, he was ready to he cffered. That Christ here used the Present Tense for the Fu-’ ture is owned by Cardinal Cajetav, on Luke xxii. and other learned Men of the Church of Rome, and Janfenius says,. The pouring out of the Blood is rightly understood of the pouring if: out upon the Cross, Concord. 131. Christ’s Body was not broke, nor his Blood poured out ‘till the rext Day, nor did he ofler up himlelf as [**2] a

to Apt, XXXI.

xxii Jn Exposition on the

Appendix a Sacrifice to his Father ‘till then, Christ did not then command his Apostles to offer him up in the Eucharist, when he bad them do this •, hoc facite does not signify to sacrifice, nor will it be fuppofed, I hope, that our Saviour did then ufe the vulgar Latin. The Phrase in Virgily Cum faciam vitula which is always quoted to this Purpose, fhews it only to be fo meant when the Occalion or Subject Matter does re- quire it \ but in our Saviour’s Words it plainly refers to those Ats of taking Bread and break- ing it, and taking Wine and bleiling it, and then giving or diflributing of them, as he had done just before, and as he commanded them to do in Remembrance of him and that it does not relate to Sacrificing is plain, from St. Fauly who applies it particularly to drinking the Cup, Do this as oft as ye drink it in Bememhrance of me J I Cor. xi. 25. That the Apostles were made Priests by Christ at his iaft Supper, by those Words hoc facite do thisy is fo pre- carious and fenfelefs an Opinion, that it only ihews what wonderful Streights and Extremities our Adversaries are driven to, who are forced to efpoufe this to support their ill-framed Hypothesis about the holy Eucharist, in those two Doftrines, of the Communion in one Idndy and the Sacrifice of the Mass, There is not one Father or ancient Interpre- ter, that gives any the least Countenance to it, and many of their own Authors are aftiam- ed of it, fo that I ihall fay no more of it 9 but that if those Words make the Apostles Priests, it makes them fo twice, for they are twice repeated by our Saviour after giving the Cup, as well as after giving the Bread, as St. P/// witnefTes, i C(?r. xi. 25. and fo the Cha- rader of Prieflhood must be double, and they must be twice ordained at the fame Time, when there is nothing appears like an Ordina- tion

Thirty-lSlme Articles. xxiii

tion at all but if they were then made Appendix Priests, they were not made fo *to facritice Christ’s Body and Blood, or to do more than JX’ he did at that Time and fo this is nothing to the Purpose, if he himself did not then truly offer and sacrifice himself, which is the plaineft Thing in the World he did not. And what ihould make any Man imagine that Christ’s Body was broke, and his Blood Hied at his last Supper, or that he then sacrificed and offered up himself, I cannot conceive : Had he been no otherwise sacrificed, nor his Body any otherwise broken, nor his Blood in any other Way Ihed, besides this, the Jews had been liable to much less Guilt, but Mankind had been in a more wretched Condition ; Christ had not redeemed them, had he not died for them upon the Cross. If the Sacri- fice of Christ at his last Supper, the Night before his Crucifixion, was a true and proper propitiatory Sacrifice, what needed he to have luffered the next Day ? If that was of the fame Nature and Value with the other, as they fay, and did truly propitiate God, and procure Pardon and Remiilion of Sins for Mankind, what need was there of the Cross of Christ ? It was hereby mxade void and of no Effe, or at least of no Neceftity. If Christ had done the Work without it, his Sa- crifice upon the Altar or the Table, might have excused his Sacrifice upon the Cross and thus the bitter Cup might have pasTed from him, and he might have been crucified only in Effigie, and slain myftically and fa- cramentallyj and his Body might have been thus broken, and his Blood shed, and yet the one have been still whole, and the other in his Veins. For these Reasons one of their own Bishops at the Council of Trenty denied openly, That Christ olfered up any proper

• Sacrifice

XXIV

Appendix

to

Art. XXXI.

An Expofitlon on the

Sacrifice at his last Supper , But if he did nor, then there was no Ground for them ever to offer any in the Eucharist, and therefore the Council was forced to declare he did, tho’ no such Thing appears in the Evange- lical History, nor could any colled it from thence but it was a necelfary After-thought, and a groundlefs Suppofal, to help out and eftabliili the Sacrifice of the Mass. There are but two other Proofs, and those very weak ones behind, the one out of the 13th of the Als where it is said of Sml and Barnahasy and the Prophets and Teachers of the Church at Am loch that they miniflered unto the Lord ; but could they not minister, and perform the Divine Office and Service without facriftcing ? It must be proved, that that was Part of the religious Office, before it can appear that it was meant here it is said they faded and prayed, and in that probably their Mn\ityitL or Ministry confifted, or as St. Chryfoftom in his 37rh Homily upon the AB;sy and after him Oecumenkus explain it in Preaching •, but that they sacrificed, there is not the least Evidence. The Word huTydv, doth not signify to facri- fice, but to perform any proper Fun8:ion, and therefore it is attributed in the Scripture, both to the Angels who are called MiTayiK vrvii’iAATdL, Mi nift ring Spirits, Heb. i.l. and to the Magift rates, who are called the Alinlfters of Gody uTuft Qiv, Rom. xiii. (5. and yet facri- ficing I fuppofe, belongs to neither of them, nor does their own vulgar Latin fo translate it here. The lafl is out of i Cor, 10. for Bel- larmine gives up that out of Heh, xiii. We have an Altar of rthich they have no Right to eaty wha ferz’e the Tabernacle tho’ ‘tis as much to his

Purpose,

ThWty-‘N’me Articles. xxv

Purpose, in my Mind, as any of the rest *, but Appendix fome Catholick Writers, he says, do by Altar xxxT

mean there either the Cross or Chrifl himjelf’-jm,,’ but if ic were meant of the Eucharist, that is but an Altar in an improper Sense, as the Sacrifice offered on it, is but improper and metaphorical, as we shall prove *, but in the Place to the Corinthians the Apofile commands them not to eat of Things offered to Idols, for to eat of them, was to partake of Things facriiiced to Devils, and (o to have Commu- mon with Devils, which was very unfit for those who were Partakers of the Lord’s Ta- ble, and therein, truly commun-cated of the Body and Blood of Christ, as those who are of the JevviJh Sacrifices, were Partakers of the Jevvifh Altar. Now what is there here of the Sacrifice of the Mass, or any Way service- able to it ? Why, yes, the Apostle compares the Table of the Lord, with the Table of Devils, and eating of the Lord’s Supper, with eating the Jewish and the heathen Sacrifices ; there- fore the Christians ought to have an Altar as well as the Jews, and what they fed on ought to be sacrificed as well as the Heathen s/cAyAo3v7, but the Apostle says nothing of this, nor makes any such Comparison between them, but only fhews the Unfitnefs of Chrifcians eat- ing of the heathen Sacrifices, who partook of the Lord’s Table *, he does not call the Lord’s Table an Altar, nor the Eucharist a Sacrifice, nor was there any Danger that the Christians ihould go to eat in the Idol Temples ; but he would not have them eat of their Sacrifices brought Home, and the whole Comparison lies here, the eating of the Lord’s Supper, did make them true Partakers of the Lord’s Body and Blood sacrificed upon the Cross, as eating of the Jewish Sacrifices did make the Jews

Partakers

XXVI

Appendix to Art. XXXI.

J?2 Exposition on the

Partakers of the Jewish Altars, and as eating of Things offered to Idols, was to have Fel- lowihip with Devils, fo that they who par- took of such holy Food as Christians did, ihould not communicate of such execrable and diabolical Food, as the Heathen i/JJyAo3v7«. If indeed Christians could not partake of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist, unless they first made a proper Sacrifice and Oblation of them, then the Apostle’s Difcourfe would ne- ceffarily fuppofe and imply them to be thus offered, as the jewish and Heathen Sacrifices were before they were eaten, but lince Christ’s Body and Blood being once offered upon the Cross, is a sufficient Sacrifice and Oblation of them, and the Eucharist is a religious and facramental Feast upon the Sacrifice of Christ once offered ^ this is sufficient for the Apostle’s Scope and Defjgn in that Place, where there is no other Comparison made be- tween the Table of the Lord, and the Table of the Devils, but that one makes us to be Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ, and the other to have Fellowlhip with Devils ; and as to the JewiOi Altar, the Antithefis does not lie here, as BelUrmine would have it, be- tween that and the Table of the Lord, that both have proper Sacrifices offered upon them, “which are eaten after they are sacrificed ; but the Cross of Christ rather is the Antithefis to the Jewish Altar, on which Sacrifices were real- ly and properly slain, which are not on the Christian Altar, and the feeding and partaking of those Sacrifices fo offered, whereby they were made Partakers of the Altar •, this an- jRvers to the facramental feeding upon Christ’s Body and Blood in the Christian Altar, where- by we are made Partakers of the Cross oi Christ, and have the Vertue and Merit of his Sacrifice communicated to us.

Article

Thirty ‘Nine Articles.

Notes

• Sec Archbp. F/akes Exposition on the Church Catechifm, §* 46. Norveili Cat. p. iji, 15-;. Ma/on de Mm. Ang.l, lib. 5*. Vottcr of Church Government, c. j*. §• 4. JerpeVs Reply, Art. XVII. Frulemx Fafc. Cont. c. 6. q. 6. Biifai of Chriilian Subj. Part IV. p, yoy. Jieid of the Church. Append, to the 3d Book, p. 203, 33^-. Btukmdge of Kneel- ing r»t the Communion, p. 47.
• : Biblioth. L. 4* c. 13.
• DeMifH L. I. c,6, t Seir.(>. c. I.
• Tertull. contra Marc ion. lib. 3»
• De MisT. lib. i . cap. 1 1 .
• Cornelius Epiicopus Bitontinus in Concilio apud Tri- dentum, — qui dixerit Chridum in cosnu non ilium Corpus & Sanguinem obtulilur. Canus in Loc. TheoL Lib. li.
• Bcllariia. dc MilT. c. 14.