Page images

place of a proper sacrifice. Here is no mention of sacrificing priests, but express mention of prophets and doctors. They are said to be ministering to the Lord, or to Christ, as it is probable the words import; but that sense will not agree with offering to him the sacrifice of himself. The fasting also that follows agrees well with prayer, but not with a proper sacrifice, which was generally attended with a feast or banquet upon it.

The next argument from scripture for the sacrifice of the mass, produced by cardinal Bellarmine, is taken from 1 Cor. x. 14-21. Flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men ; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. From these words Bellarmine collects three arguments for the sacrifice of the mass.

First, From this, that St. Paul compares the Lord's table with the altars of the Gentiles and of the Jews; whence he infers, that the Lord's table is an altar, and consequently that the eucharist is a sacrifice.

Secondly, Because the apostle compares the eucharist with the sacrifices of the heathens and of the Jews; and thence he infers that the eucharist must be a sacrifice.

Thirdly, Because he compares the communion of them who receive the eucharist, with that communion which the Gentiles have with their idols in partaking with their altars; whence he infers that the eucharist must be a sacrifice.

To this I answer,

First, That St. Paul does not compare the Lord's table with the altars, but with the tables of the Jews and of the

e De Missa, 1. 1. c. 14.

heathens, where they did eat the remainder of the sacrifices which were offered at the altar. It is certain that the Jews had but one altar for sacrifices, and that not built after a table fashion, and so placed, that the Jewish people might not be admitted to it to eat upon it. And for the Gentiles, it is certain that St. Paul speaks here of the tables on which they eat the remainder of their sacrifices; Ye cannot, says he, be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. This Lord's table is nowhere called an altar, nor the eucharist a sacrifice in any part of scripture. And though Haymo and other grave authors think the Lord's table called an altars, yet the cardinal is so wise as not to urge it, as he tells us, when he mentions their opinion. And though it should be compared with an altar, it follows not hence that it was an altar, no more than it follows that the gospel is leaven, or the church a woman, or Jesus a vine, because compared with such things.

Secondly, For the second comparison between the eucharist with the sacrifices of the Jews and Gentiles, it will not serve the cardinal's purpose. For be it so, that we receive from the Lord's table the body and blood of Christ, as the Jews received their victims, and the heathens their idolothyta from their altars or tables; this will not infer the sacrifice of the mass. It is confessed, that they that eat the eucharist have communion with the body and blood of Christ, as those Jews who did eat the sacrifice did partake of the altar, and the heathens that did eat the idolothyta had communion with devils. But shall we conclude from hence, that the Jews did eat up the altar, and the pagans did eat up the devils? For so we may, as well as we do infer, that Christians sacrifice the very body of Christ, because the bread which we break is said to be the communion, or communication of the body of Christ.

Thirdly, That allowing that St. Paul compares the communion we have with Christ by the eucharist, with the communion the heathens had with devils by eating the idolothyta, it follows not thence, that the eucharist is a sacrifice in that sense which the Romanists contend for: this should have been proved by the cardinal.

Upon the whole matter, these words of St. Paul are so far

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small]

from proving the sacrifice of the mass, as taught in the Romish church, that they afford arguments against it; viz.

1. Be it that the communion the faithful have with God in the eucharist be compared with that communion which the Jews have with the altar, and the heathens with devils; this will be so far from proving the Romish doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, that it makes against it. For with the same reason the cardinal does from this comparison conclude the eucharist to be a sacrifice, I may infer also, that it is not a proper one, and that the natural flesh and blood are not in it. The other communions with the altar and with devils are not to be understood corporeally and substantially; and why then should the communion of Christ's body and blood be understood in so gross a sense? The Jew that partook of the altar did not eat the very altar; the heathen that eat the idolothyta, with conscience of the idol, had fellowship with the Devil; but this is still to be understood in a moral and spiritual sense. The Jew received of the benefits of the altar, and did, by his partaking, declare himself of the Jewish religion. The heathen did also, by partaking, do an act of worship, and thereby acknowledge himself a worshipper of the Devil. And he that eats the eucharist does thereby profess himself a Christian, and reap the benefits of Christ's death and suffering.

2. The eating of the eucharist is expressed by partaking of the bread, ver. 17. That expression makes against the Romish doctrine, which teacheth that the natural substance is changed; besides, that in the other manducations there is no transubstantiation; none where the Jew is said, when he did eat the sacrifice, to partake of the altar; nor yet when the heathen is said to have fellowship with devils, when he partakes of their tables: and therefore there is no reason that we should here fancy a transubstantiation, nor consequently the sacrifice of the mass.

It is expressly said, that what we eat and drink in the eucharist is bread and wine; and if it be so, this destroys the Romish doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass. In the institution our Lord is said to have taken bread, &c. : hence the eucharist is expressed by breaking of bread, Acts ii. 42, 46; chap. xx. 7. And in this chapter it is so called three times, ver. 16, 17, and in the following it is so called three times, 1 Cor. xi. 26-28:

and, which is very remarkable, when the apostle reproves their irreverent and indevout partaking of the eucharist, and where he had the fairest occasion of acquainting them with the mystery of transubstantiation, had that doctrine been true. Once indeed our Saviour said, This is my body, and but once but it is expressly called bread nine or ten times. The bread which we break, says St. Paul. The natural body of Christ is not broken, and to interpret breaking by immolation is without authority and reason. It is bread still, if we believe our sense or the scripture, where it is frequently so called after consecration, and where we are said to partake of that one bread, ver. 17, and to eat this bread, 1 Cor. xi. 26–28.

3. It appears that the apostle here does not compare the eucharist with the Jewish or Gentile sacrifices, (upon which supposition the cardinal grounds his second argument,) but with the feasts or banquets which they made upon the remainder of the sacrifice. Hence it is that he calls it the Lord's table, not altar; and the table, not altar of devils, ver. 21. The sacrifice was offered by a priest, and upon an altar; the feast upon it was eaten by the people, and on a table. The Corinthians knew it was not lawful to sacrifice to devils; all the question was, whether they might not eat of the remainder of those sacrifices. The apostle here dissuades them from it, from the eucharist, and the relation that hath to our Lord Jesus Christ, that from that they might judge of the relation which the table of devils hath to devils. Hence they might learn, that as they who partake of the Lord's table have fellowship with Christ, so they who partake of the devils' table have fellowship with devils.

He also makes use of another argument, and that was a parallel rite among the Jews. h Behold Israel after the flesh, are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? For the more fully comprehending this whole matter, it is to be considered to my present purpose, that among, the Jews there were three sorts of sacrifices.

First, some which no man was permitted to eat any part of, such were the holocaust, and those sin offerings, the blood whereof was to be carried into the holy place. The fat, kidneys, and caul of these were burnt on the altar of brass, h Levit. i. 9; 1 Sam. vii. 9. i Levit. i. 4; ch. vi. 30; x. 28; xvi. 27.

the skin and flesh without the camp, and when the temple was These were types of Christ, who

built, without the city. suffered without the gate. The adherers to that law, all the legal eaters, are excluded from partaking of him according to the principles of their own law, the people not being permitted to partake of such sacrifices.

Secondly, some the priests did only eat of1, and that they were not permitted to do every where, but in an holy place. These sacrifices were called most holy.

Thirdly, some were less holy these the priests were not only permitted to eat of, but their children and servants, and the offerers were also permitted to eat part of them too; such were the peace offerings m: these were sometimes to be eaten the same day they were offered; and therefore not to be eaten by the offerer alone", but by him and his friends or kindred, or whomsoever of the same religion he thought fit to invite to the feast or banquet, which was made of the remainder of the sacrifice. This eating part of the sacrifice is frequently mentioned as a rite belonging to that service, and an acknowledgment of that religion which was professed where that rite obtained: Exod. xxiv. 15; Numbers xxv. 2; Psalm cvi. 28; Exod. xviii. 12. and chap. xxxii; 1 Sam. iii. Of the remainders of these sacrifices the apostle must be understood, ver. 18. The people were admitted to no other; it was never lawful for them to sacrifice; what they eat was no more but a feast upon a sacrifice. This which they were admitted to eat, they did not offer anew to God; it was a meal or feast, a portion allowed them out of what they had brought. This will be far enough from proving the sacrifice of the mass, though it helps us to understand the nature of the eucharist, as it is a feast upon a sacrifice, and the efficacy of the sacrifice of the cross, of which the eucharist is the memorial.

Moses required expiatory sacrifices, interdicted the offerer to eat any part of it, and forbad blood to all Israel. This spake the imperfection of these sacrifices, and that they were not to be relied upon; they were consumed on the altar to the Divine justice and will, no portion was allowed to the offerer

k Heb. xiii. 10.

1 Levit. vi. 26; x. 17; vii. 6.
m Levit. xxii. 10, 11; ch. x. 14.

n Deut. xxvii. 7; 1 Sam. xi. 15;

ch. i. 4.

o Levit. vii. 15. and xxii. 29.

« PreviousContinue »