Reverend Brethren, HE Sacrament of the Eucharift has for fome Time been the Subject of Debate amongst us, and appears to be fo ftill, in fome Measure; particularly with regard to the facrificial Part of it. As it is a federal Rite between God and Man, so it must be fuppofed to carry in it fomething that God gives to us, and something alfo that we give, or prefent, to God. These are, as it were, the two integral Parts of that Holy Ceremony: The former may properly be called the facramental Part, and the latter, the facrificial. Any great Miftake concerning either, may be of very ill Confequence to the main Thing: For, if we either mistake the nature of God's engagements towards us, or the nature of our engagements towards God, in that facred Solemnity, we fo far defeat the great Ends and Ufes of it, and prejudice ourselves in fo doing. A 2 A Que A Question was unhappily raised amongst us, about an Hundred Years ago, Whether the material Elements of the Eucharist were properly the Chriftian Sacrifice. From thence arofe fome Debate; which however lafted not long, nor fpread very far. But at the Beginning of this prefent Century, the fame Queftion was again brought up, and the Debate revived, with fome warmth; and it is not altogether extinct even at this Day. Those who fhall look narrowly into the Heart of that Difpute, may fee reason to judge, bas ang to that a great Part of it arofe from fome Confufion of Ideas, or Ambiguity of Terms; more particularly, to the want of fettling the Definitions of Sacrifice by certain Rules, fuch as might fatisfy reafonable Men on Both Sides. How that Confufion at first arose, may per haps be learned, by looking back as far as to Bellarmine about 1590, or however as far as to the Council of Trent, about Thirty Years higher. Before that Time, things were much clearer fo far as concerned this Article. No body almost doubted but that the old Definitions of Sacrifice were right, and that Spiritual Sacrifice was true and proper Sacrifice, yea the most proper of Any. Spiritual Sacrifice is St. Peter's Phrafea: And it agrees with St. Paul's Phrafe of reasonable Service b: And both of them fall in with our Lord's own Phrafe, of worshipping God in Spi 1 Pet. ii. 5: rit rit and in Truth. It is ferving God in newnefs of Spirit, not in the oldness of the Letter d It is offering him true Sacrifice, and direct Homage, as opposed to legal and typical, in order to come at true and direct Expiation, without the previous Covers or Shadows of legal and typical Expiations, which reached only to the purifying of the Flesh, not to the purging of the Confcience. This kind of Sacrifice called fpiritual, does not mean mental Service only, but takes in mental, vocal, and manual, the Service of the Heart, Mouth, and Hand; all true and direct Service, Bodily f Service, as well as any other, fince we ought to ferve God with our Bodies, as well as our Souls. Such is the nature and quality of what Scripture and the Antients call fpiritual Sacrifice, as oppofed to the outward Letter. Such Services have obtained. the name of Sacrifice ever fince David's time s, warranted by God himself, under the old Teftament, and new. The Jews before Chrift and fince h, have frequently ufed the name of Sacrifice in the fame fpiritual Senfe. The very Pagans were proud to borrow the fame way A 3 of John iv. 23. See Dodwell on Inftrum. Mufick, p. 31. Stile ling fleet, Serm. 39. p. 60z. Scot, Vol. iv. Serm. 4. Rom. vii. 6. e Heb. ix. 13, 14, 9. f Rom. xii. 1. 1 Cor. vi. 20. They are emphatically styled Sacrifices of God (Pfal. li. 17.) as being the fittest Prefents, or Gifts to him, the most acceptable Offerings. h Vid. Vitringa de vet. Synag. in Proleg. p. 40, 41. Philo paflim. Juftin Mart. dial. p. 387. of fpeaking i from Jews and Christians: So that Custom of Language has not run altogether on the Side of material Sacrifice. It may rather be faid, that the Custom of Chriftian Language, not only in the new Testament, but also, in the Church-Writers, has run on the Side of Spiritual Sacrifice, without giving the least Hint that it was not true Sacrifice, or not Sacrifice properly fo called. St. Auftin's Definition of true and Christian Sacrifice k is well known, and need not here be repeated. He spoke the Sense of the Churches before him: And the Schools, after him, followed him in the fame. Aquinas, at the Head of the Schoolmen, may here fpeak for the reft: He determines, that a Sacrifice, properly, is any thing performed for God's fole and due Honour, in order to appease him. He plainly makes i Porphyrius de Abstin. L. ii. Sect. 34. conf. Eufeb. præp. Evangel. L. iv. c. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. xiii. c. 13. Clem. Alex Strom. v. p. 686. ed: ox. Even Plato, long before Christianity, had defined Sacrifice to mean a Present to the Divine Majefty; not confining it, fo far as appears, to material, but leaving it at large, fo as to comprehend either material or Spiritual. See my Review. p. 474. * Verum Sacrificium eft omne opus quod agitur ut fancta focietate inhæreamus deo, relatum fcilicet ad illum Finem Boni quo veraciter beati effe poffimus. Auguftin. de civit. dei. L. x. c. 6. p. 242. Tom. vii. Ed. Bened. Compare my Review. p. 472. 1 Dicendum, quod Sacrificium propriè dicitur: Aliquid factum in bonorem proprie deo debitum ad eum placandum. Et inde eft quod Auguftinus dicit, verum Sacrificium eft, &c. Chriftus autem, ut ibidem fubditur, feipfum obtulit in paffione pro nobis. Et boc ipfum opus, quod voluntarie paffionem fuftinuit, deo maxime acceptum fuit, utpote ex Charitate maxime proveniens: Unde manifeftum eft, quod Paffio Chrifti fuerit verum Sacrificium. Aquin. Summ. par. iii. Q.48. |