« VorigeDoorgaan »
cross cannot, in this
be considered as a continuation of the sacrifice of the original Eucharist, for these reasons: 1. The subject-matter could not be the same : for neither bread nor wine could have any place in the oblation of the
2. The number could not be one ; for in the original Eucharist are supposed two sacrifices, the elemental and personal, whereas upon the cross there could be no more than the personal. 3. The form of the sacrifice could not be the same, but different as bloody and unbloody. 4. The priesthood (which is most material) could not be the same : for it is denied that Christ offered at the cross a Melchizedekian sacrifice, or offered as a Melchizedekian priest 8. 5. Lastly, the value could not be the same : for two must be supposed better than one, if each of them has its respective value; or if not, why was not one of them spared ? And a Melchizedekian sacrifice must be supposed the most honourable and the most valuable of
any, of course must supersede all other. In short, the crosssacrifice, in this way, must either be excluded, or else grievously disparaged, by being brought in as second, and inferior to the higher sacrifice before made in the Eucharist. Some learned persons, ancient and modern, have reasonably conceived three several parts or views of one continued oblation of Christ our Lord h: but then they have conceived it in quite another sense, and upon very different principles, nothing at all akin to the notion of the breadsacrifice. They might, in their way, consistently maintain one continued oblation ; which others cannot, for the reasons just mentioned. Therefore, though it is a very great error to reject the sacrifice of the cross, yet since it is but the necessary consequence of the principle before mentioned, and is no more than arguing right from wrong premises; it seems that the first or greatest fault lies in retaining the principle, after it is clearly seen what company it must go with, and what precipices it leads to. I forbear to press these matters farther, and should have been glad to have had no occasion for pressing them so far. May God give a blessing to what is sincerely intended for the service of truth and godliness: and may that Divine Spirit which accompanies the word and sacraments, and dwells in all the faithful, grant us a sound judgment and a right understanding in all things.
& See Appendix, p. 200, &c. 208.
h Sce Review, vol. vii. p. 376.
DISTINCTIONS OF SACRIFICE:
BET FORTH IN
DELIVERED IN PART TO
THE CLERGY OF MIDDLESEX,
At the Easter Visitation, 1740.
Nos panem et vivum, in usu sacræ Cænæ, sanctificari concedi
mns : sacrificari nunquam dabimus. Mason. de Minister. Anglican. p. 575.