Warfield on the Eucharist as Sacrifice

Liam Beadle has some striking quotations from B B Warfield (a hot Prot!) on the Supper as a Sacrifice.

I've added some bleeding chunks on Warfield to the comments which I reproduce here.

On Warfield's doctrine of the Lord's Supper, see further:

Selected Shorter Writings, ed. Meeter, John E., vol 1, (Nutley, NJ, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970) 37. 'The Fundamental Significance of the Lord’s Supper' (p332ff).

Warfield argues that: The Lord’s Supper is the Christian Passover, a perpetual sacrificial feast in which the sacrifice of our Lord is not repeated but applied, not merely commemorated. (p336)

“All who partake of this bread and (p336) wine, the appointed symbols of his body and blood, therefore, are symbolically partaking of the victim offered on the altar of the cross, and are by this act professing themselves offerers of the sacrifice and seeking to become beneficiaries of it. This is the fundamental significance of the Lord’s Supper. Whenever the Lord’s Supper is spread before us we are invited to take our place at the sacrificial feast, the substance of which is the flesh and blood of the victim which has been sacrificed once for all at Calvary; and as we eat of these in their symbols, we are – certainly not repeating his sacrifice, nor yet prolonging it – but continuing that solemn festival upon it instituted by Christ, by which we testify our “participation in the altar” and claim our part in the benefits bought by the offering immolated on it. The sacrificial feast is not the sacrifice, in the sense of the thing offered, that is eaten in it: and therefore it is presuppositive of the sacrifice in the sense of the act of offering and implies that this offering has already been performed. The Lord’s Supper as a sacrificial feast is accordingly not the sacrifice, that is, the act of offering up Christ’s body and blood: it is however, the sacrifice, that is the body and blood of Christ that were offered, which is eaten in it: and therefore it is presuppositive of the sacrifice as an act of offering and implies that this act has already been performed once for all.” (p337)

His only other comments on the Supper I know of are in 23. 'The Posture of Recipients at the Lord’s Supper: A Footnote to the History of Reformed Usages' (p351ff)

“The fundamental fact, determinative of all such questions for the Reformed, is that the Supper is a feast and is to be administered at a table.” (p351)
“From the very beginning of their existence, the Reformed churches had insisted that the Supper is s meal and is to be administered at a table.” (p352)
Our Lord recumbent recipients (p352)
In antiquity elements received standing, the typical posture for prayer and praise (p353)
Leeuwaarden church in Frisia receive elements walking to suggest readiness for service (p353)
Seated usual reformed position (p353)
Kneeling suggests humility (p353) – Romanists, many German Protestants, C of E, Bohemians
Normally receive in their places – going up to altar a Laudian innovation (p358)
Scots would “sit at the table as guests at the festival of the Lord” (p359)
Gillespie says that “the nature of a feast requireth that the guests be set at table, and that all the guests be set about it, for the use of a table is not for some, but for all the guests, else no table is necessary but a cupboard.” Sub-committee of Westminster Assembly on Directory of Public Worship, Miscellany Questions, XVIII (p360)
The debate on communicating at the table at the Assembly took three weeks (p363)

I'd love to be pointed to more.