Wendelin's "Christian Theology": Doctrine of the Lord's Supper, Part 6

[A fundraising update: We are 30% of the way to our fundraising goal 25 new $100/month subscribers! Thanks be to God. If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

THESIS XXIV:  Hitherto the cause of the Lord’s Supper.  The effect follows, which is the confirmation of our faith concerning our spiritual union with Christ, and participation of the benefits acquired for us by His death; which sort are justification, sanctification, and glorification or eternal life.

EXPLANATION:  I.  On account of this effect of the Lord’s Supper there ought to be a more frequent use of it:  for which let these arguments be observed:

(1.)  Because a precept of indefinite time, Do this, does not admit any other limitation than a want of occasion or other just impediment.

(2.)  Because we ought as frequently as possible to feed upon Christ and His benefits.

(3.)  Because the profession of faith that is made in the use of the Lord’s Supper is a duty that ought to be rendered promptly and on all just occasions.

(4.)  Because our infirmity requires frequent renewal of the covenant, and stirring of the mind and heart.

(5.)  Because in the primitive Church the Lord’s Supper was celebrated each Lord’s Day.[1]

II.  The Pope-worshippers transmuted the Lord’s Supper into the sacrifice of the Mass.  They define the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, whereby Christ, made from the bread transubstantiated by the words, This is my body, by the hands of the priest is offered to God for the living and the dead, to obtain the remission of sins and benefits of every sort.

That this idol of the Mass is contrary to the Lord’s Supper, we prove:

(1.)  Because the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament:  the Mass is feigned to be a sacrifice; but a sacrament and a sacrifice are far different.

(2.)  Because in the Lord’s Supper there is true bread and true wine:  In the Mass is feigned to be only an accidental appearance of bread and wine.

(3.)  Because in the Lord’s Supper Christ is exhibited to be eaten by us, who was born of the Virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit:  in the Mass, who was created out of bread and wine by a sacrificing priest:  as the Papists blasphemously teach.

(4.)  The Lord’s Supper testifies, that we have full remission of sins, because of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished once for all on the cross:  the Mass denies, that the living and the dead have the remission of sins, unless Christ is daily offered by the sacrificing priests of the Papal party.

(5.)  The Lord’s Supper teaches that Christ in His body is now absent from the earth, and is going to return at length just before the final judgment:  the Mass feigns that He is now on the earth in innumerable places.

(6.)  The Lord’s Supper was instituted only for the living:  the Papists celebrate the Mass for the dead also.

(7.)  In the administration of His Supper, Christ commands all to eat and to drink.  In the Mass, the sacrificing priest divides the host into three parts, one of which he himself eats, dipping the second in the cup, and retaining the third.  And so in the place of the sacred feast he merely exhibits an inane spectacle to those present.

(8.)  The Supper only seals the goods promised in the Gospel and acquired by the death of Christ:  the Mass is feigned to be apt and efficacious in the procuring of whatever corporal goods simply by the performance of the rite.

III.  That the idol of the Mass is not a true sacrifice, properly so called and divine, we prove against the Papists by the following arguments:

(1.)  The sacrifice of the Mass does not rest upon the express words of Scripture, whereby it is evident that it was not instituted by God.

Therefore, it is not a true and divine sacrifice.  The truth of the antecedent shall be illustrated by setting forth the more illustrious passages, upon which the Pope-worshippers think this sacrifice to rest.

(2.)  The Mass does not have an external and visible victim, which in suffering is offered:  which sort was in all divine sacrifices properly so called:  Therefore.

The antecedent is proven:  Because the body and blood of Christ, which they say is the victim of this sacrifice, in the Mass neither is nor appears, nor is at this time able to suffer.

(3.)  The Mass is insulting to God.

Therefore, it is not a divine sacrifice.

The antecedent is proven:  Because in it by an impure sacrificing priest God is petitioned through Christ, to receive His offered Son, hold His victim as pleasing to Himself and bless Him, and so a wretched man intercedes before God on behalf of the Son of God.

(4.)  In the Mass Christ presently glorious is not substituted:

Therefore, it is not a true and external sacrifice properly so called.

The rationale of the consequence:  because Scripture describes for us no external, and properly so called, sacrifice, in which the host/victim is not substituted.

Let there be a consideration of the passages in Exodus 29; Leviticus 1-3.

(5.)  Christ is not offered in the Mass, either so that He might satisfy for our sins, or so that His satisfaction, once rendered on the cross, might be applied to us.

Therefore, He is clearly not offered.

The rationale of the Consequence:  because no third reason is able to be given, on account of which it was needful for Him to be offered.  The former part of the antecedent concerning His satisfaction is manifest from the Scriptures:  seeing that once on the cross, and indeed with complete perfection, He made satisfaction for all our sins, and in the resurrection He triumphed over sin completely expiated.

And let this reason also be observed:  If Christ by the sacrifice of the Mass even now satisfies for us, certainly He would yet suffer and die.  But this is false.

The rationale of the hypothetical:  because to satisfy for someone is to render and to suffer what the other is bound to render and to suffer.  But we are condemned to death because of our sin.

The latter part concerning the application of His satisfaction is readily convicted of falsehood and vanity:  against which, because it is wont to be urged by the Papists, let the following arguments be observed:

1.  If then the sacrifice of Christ has to be repeated more frequently, so that its fruit might be applied to us:  it follows, that His incarnation and resurrections would have to be repeated more frequently, so that the fruit of it might be applied to us.

But the consequent is false; therefore also the antecedent.

2.  If the Mass is the application of the sacrifice of Christ:

Then it is not Christ’s sacrifice itself.  For application is one thing; which is applied is another.

3.  In the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist the fruit of the sacrifice of Christ is truly applied to us.

Therefore, a peculiar sacrifice is not needed for this matter:  which the Papists teach to be essentially distinct from the Eucharist.  Becanus, Theologiæ Scholasticæ, de sacramentis in specie, chapter 25, question 8, § 2.

4.  No external means of applying the fruit of the sacrifice of Christ to us is expressed in Scripture, except the word of God, and the seals of the word, namely, the sacraments.  There are also only two effectual internal means, the Holy Spirit and faith.

(6.)  Scripture, between the sacrifice once accomplished on the cross and His coming for final judgment, mentions no intermediate sacrifice; but it teaches only one New Testament priest intercedes for us.  Therefore, the sacrifice of the Mass is human and fictitious.

(7.)  In the New Testament there are no priests properly so called, except Christ.

Therefore, neither is there a sacrifice, except that which was once accomplished on the cross.

The antecedent is proven:  Because this is the rationale of the priesthood in the New Testament, that one and the same might be the priest and the sacrifice:  But I do not believe that the Papal sacrificing priests want to be sacrifices.

(8.)  If the Mass were to be considered as a sacrifice properly so called, thence it would undoubtedly be the case, that Christ sacrificed Himself in the first institution of the Eucharist, and offered Himself as sacrificial victim.

But the consequent is false:  Therefore also the antecedent.

The minor is proven:

1.  Because the words of institution convey not even the slightest suspicion of a sacrifice properly so called, offered by Christ in the first Eucharist.

2.  Because Christ is said to have suffered only once, and His offering is said to be one, Hebrews 9:25, 28; 10:12, 14.

3.  Because the oblation of Christ, true and properly so called, consists in His death, which was after the Eucharist.

4.  Because that sacrifice would have been either imperfect or perfect:  It is not able to be called imperfect without blasphemy:  If it was perfect, why was it repeated afterwards?  Of old there was no other reason to repeat sacrifices, except their imperfection, Hebrews 10:11.

IV.  The following are the arguments of the Pope-worshippers in favor of the sacrifice of the Mass:

(1.)  In the Old Testament it was foretold, that there was going to be some sacrifice, true and properly so called, in the Church of Christ.

Therefore, it is the sacrifice of the Mass.

The antecedent is proven by the citation of a few prophets:  Proverbs 9:1, 2, Wisdom hath sacrificed her victims, hath mingled her wine, hath furnished her table.  Isaiah 19:21, The Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall worship Him in sacrifice and gifts.  Jeremiah 33:17, 18, David shall not want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; neither shall the Priests and Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings and to slay victims continually.  In Daniel 12:11, it is said that a certain king is going to take away the continual sacrifice:  which they interpret as the sacrifice of the Mass.  Malachi 1:11, 12, in which God, speaking of the glory of the New Testament, says:  In every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure gift.

Response:  1.  The consequence is denied.  Sacrifice, properly so called, in the Church of Christ is one, which Christ Himself offered on the altar of the cross:  and this was fulfilled in the Old Testament, especially in Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9:26.

2.  The prophecies alleged do not prove the antecedent:  for, either they speak of legal sacrifices:  or of sacrifices improperly so called.

The passage in Daniel 12 is to be taken of legal sacrifices, which the Prophet foretells are going to be interrupted by Antiochus Epiphanes.[2]

All the remaining passages are taken of sacrifices improperly so called.  Where it is to be observed, that in Prophetic style spiritual things are described metaphorically through external legal rites.

Now, those sacrifices of the New Testament are spiritual and improperly so called, either the nations themselves converted to God and offered to God through faith:  or the Faith, Hope, and Love of the converted Gentiles.  If the passage in Jeremiah 33 were to be taken properly, even now under the New Testament burnt offerings properly so called would have to be offered, and victims slaughtered daily.

(2.)  Christ is priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Therefore, He instituted a sacrifice under the species of bread and wine, which pertains to the Mass.

The antecedent is proven, Hebrews 7:11.  The rationale of the consequence:  because Melchisedec offered bread and wine, Genesis 14:18, which was a type of the sacrifice to be instituted by Christ.

Response:  The consequence is denied:  the proof [partly false] is partly inconsequent.  It is false, that bread and wine were sacrificed by Melchisedec:  he did not sacrifice, but rather offered, bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his servants and soldiers:  and, if he had certainly sacrificed bread and wine, yet it would not necessarily follow, that a sacrifice of this sort was also to be instituted by Christ:  seeing that by the ancient sacrifices only the one sacrifice of Christ offered upon the cross is adumbrated.

Now, Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedec, not of Aaron, for many other reasons, which are expressed in Hebrews 7, and especially for this reason, that He is a priest forever, and has no successor, as Aaron had, Hebrews 7:17, 23, 24.

(3.)  In the mystery of the Eucharist are all things required for sacrifice.

Therefore, in this there is a sacrifice properly so called, and that divine.

The antecedent is proven:  1.  there is a priest, who offers; 2.  there is a host/ victim, that is offered, namely, Christ; 3.  there is a God, to whom it is offered; 4.  there is a Church, for which it is offered; 5.  there is an altar, upon which it is offered; 6.  there is the act of sacrificing.

Response:  The antecedent is false:  the proof is partly insufficient, partly false and inconsequent.  Insufficient:  because divine institution is omitted, without which no sacrifice is divine.  False:  at this time, besides Christ, under the New Testament there is no priest properly so called:  there is no host/victim to be offered again:  there is no altar, no act of sacrificing.  Inconsequent:  because it does not immediately follow, that there is a divine sacrifice properly so called, if there is a God, to whom it is able to be offered, and a Church, for which it is able to be offered.

V.  That the sacrifice of the Mass is insulting to Christ, who is the only priest of the New Testament, is proven:

(1.)  Because it argues the imperfection of the sacrifice of Christ, when it blasphemously affirms that, unless it be daily repeated, it is not sufficient for the remission of sins.

(2.)  Because it joins innumerable priests with Christ.

But the priest of the New Testament is only one, Hebrews 7:23, 24.

They take exception:  That the primary priest of the New Testament is only one:  but this does not prevent there from being many secondary priests, by whose ministry Christ offers Himself to the Father.

Response:  1.  In this way the New Testament would not be distinguished from the Old.  For also in the Old the primary priest was not the only priest:  the remaining were secondary.

2.  Scripture knows of no secondary priests under the New Testament, and commends to us only one sacrifice of the New Testament:  and that offered once and for all, never to be repeated:  because it was only needful that Christ suffer once, Hebrews 9:25, 26.

(3.)  Because by feigning the corporal presence of Christ on earth, it denies that He is priest.  For if He were yet on earth, He would not be a priest, Hebrews 8:4.

(4.)  Because in the Mass the sacrificing priest blasphemously feigns that he is the creator of his creator.  Whence that dreadful statement:  Who created me without me, He is now created with me mediating.

VI.  That the sacrifice of the Mass is not expiatory, or propitiatory, that is, that sins are not expiated by or because of the Mass, we prove:

(1.)  Because there is no truly expiatory sacrifice without the destruction of the victim:  as it is evident from an induction of all the particulars, and from the confession of Bellarmine himself.  But, that the body of Christ is destroyed in the Mass, the Papists dare not assert.

(2.)  Because there is no expiation of sin without the shedding of blood, Hebrews 9:22.  But in the Mass the Pope-worshippers deny that the blood of Christ is shed, whence they called the sacrifice of the Mass bloodless, not without contradiction, seeing that an expiatory sacrifice is always bloody.

(3.)  Because there is no expiatory sacrifice, unless the victim is visible, external, and corporally present.  But there is no such victim in the Mass.

(4.)  Because Scripture commends to us only one expiatory sacrifice, namely, that which was performed once and for all on the cross.

[1] See Didache, chapter 14, section 1; Justin Martyr’s First Apology, chapter 67.

[2] Antiochus Epiphanes was the King of the Seleucid Empire from 175-164 BC.  He is remembered for his attempt to abolish Jewish religious rites, leading to the Maccabean revolt.