makes it a Work, or Service, not a material Thing: And by that very Rule, he determin'd, that the Sacrifice of the Cross was a true Sacrifice; which Expreffion implies both proper and acceptable. This Notion of Sacrifice prevailed in that Century, and in the Centuries following, and was admitted by the early Reformers m; and even by Romanifts alfo, as low as the Year 1556, or yet lower. Alphonfus a Caftro, of that Time, a zealous Romanist, in a famous Book (which between 1534 and 1556, had gone thro' ten or more Editions) declared his full Agreement with Calvin, fo far as concerned the Definition of true Sacrifice, conformable to St. Auftin's". Even Bellarmine acknowledged, above Thirty Years after, that fome noted Do&tor of the Roman Church ftill adhered to the fame Definition °. So that fpiritual Sacrifice was not yet entirely excluded as improper, metaphorical, and nominal, among the Romanifts themselves; neither was it hitherto a ruled Point amongst them, that material Thing was effential to the Nature, Notion, or Definition of true and proper Sacrifice. How that came about afterwards, we fhall fee presently. m Vid. Melanahon. de Miffa. p. 195. In Malachi, p. 545. Tom. ii. Chemnit: Examen. part: ii; p. 197 " After reciting Auftin's Definition, he proceeds; Hæc Auguftinus, ex quibus verbis aperte colligitur omne opus bonum quod deo offertur, effe verum Sacrificium, & hanc definitionem ipfemet Calvinus admittit ex cujus verbis conftat, inter nos & illum de veri facrificii definitione convenire. Alphonf. a Caftro. Adv. Hæref. L. x. p. 75. Edit. 1565. • Bellarmin: de Miff. L. 1. c. 2. p. 710. The Romanists, wanting Arguments to fupport their Mafs-Sacrifice, thought of this Pretence, among others, that either their Mas must be the Sacrifice of the Church, or the Church had really none: And fo if the Proteftants refolved to throw off the Mass, they would be left without a Sacrifice, without an Altar, without a Priesthood, and be no longer a Church P. The Proteftants had two very just Answers to make, which were much the fame with what the primitive Chriftians had before made to the Pagans, when the like had been objected to them. The first was, that Chrift himself was the Church's Sacrifice, confidered in a paffive Senfe, as commemorated, applied, and participated in the Eucharift. The second was, that they had Sacrifices befides, in the Active Senfe, Sacrifices of their own to offer, vifibly, publickly, and by facerdotal Hands, in the Eucharift: Which Sacrifices were their Prayers, and Praifes, and Commemorations; EuchariStick Alphonf. a Caftro. L. x. p. 74. Conf. Bellarmin: de Miffa. L. 1. c. 20. 9 Vid. Clem. Alex. p. 688, 836. Ed. Ox. Eufeb. Demonftr. Evan. p. 38. Auguftin. Tom. iv. p. 1462. Ed. Bened. Cyrill. Alex. contr. Jul. L. ix. Justin Martyr p. 14, 19, 387, 389. Ed. Thirlb. Clem Alex. 686, 835, 848, 849, 850, 860. Ed. Ox. Ed. Bened. Eufeb. Dem. Evang. p. 20, 21, 23. Bafil. flick Sacrifices, properly, tho' propitiatory alfo in a qualified Senfe. The Council of Trent, in 1562, endeavoured to obviate both thofe Anfwers And Bellarmine, afterwards undertook formally to confute them. The Romanists had no way left but to affirm ftoutly, and to endeayour weakly to prove, that the two Things which the Proteftants infifted upon, did neither fingly, nor both together amount to true and proper Sacrifice. Here began all the Subtillties, and thorny Perplexities, which have darkened the Subject ever fince; and which muft, I conceive, be thrown off, (together with the new and falfe Definitions, which came in with them) if ever we hope to clear the Subject effectually, and to fet it upon its true and antient Bafis. I shall pass over Bellarmine's trifling Exceptions to the Proteftant Sacrifice, (meaning the grand Sacrifice) confidered in the paffive Senfe. It is felf-evident, that while we have Chrift, we want neither Sacrifice, Altar, nor Prieft; for, in him we have all: And if he is the Head, Bafil. Tom. iii. p. 52. Ed. Bened. Chryfoftom. Tom. v. 231, 316, 503. Ed. Bened. Hieronym. Tom. ii. 186, 250, 254. Tom. iii. 15, 1122, 1420. Ed. Bened. Auguftin. Tom. ii. 439. iv. 14, 473, 455, 527, 498, 1026, 1113. vii. 240. Bened. And compare my Review, c. xii. * Si quis dixerit in Miffa non offerri deo verum & proprium Sacrificium, aut quod offerri non fit aliud quam nobis Chriftum ad manducandum dari, Anathema fit.Si quis dixerit Mille Sacrificium tantum effe Laudis & Gratiarum Actionis, aut nudam Commemorationem Sacrificii in cruce peracti, non autem propitiatorium, Anathema fit. Concil. Trid, Seff. 22. Can. 1. 3. Head, and we the Body, there is the Church. Had we no active Sacrifice at all, yet fo long as we are empowered, by divine Commiffion, to convey the Bleffingst of the great Sacrifice to as many as are worthy, we therein exercise an honourable Priesthood ", and may be faid to magnify our Office. But waving that Confideration at prefent, for the fake of Brevity, I shall proceed to examine what Bellarmine has objected to our Sacrifices confidered in the active Senfe, and to enquire by what kind of Logick he attempted to discard all fpiritual Sacrifices, under the Notion of improper, metaphorical, nominal Sacrifices, or, in fhort, no Sacrifices. 1. He pleads, that Scripture opposes good Works to Sacrifice; as particularly in Hofea vi. 6. I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice: Therefore good Works are not Sacrifice properly fo called . But St. Austin long before had fufficiently obviated that Pretence, by obferving, that Scripture, in fuch Inftances, had only oppofed one kind of Sacrifice to another kind, fymbolical to real, typical to true, Shadow to Sub Bleffing was a confiderable Part of the facerdotal Office in the Aaronical Priesthood. Numb. vi. 23-27. Deut. x. 8. xxi. 5. "Some of the elder Romanifts acknowledged this to be fufficient. Satis eft, ut vere & proprie fit Sacrificium, quod mors Chrifti ita nunc ad peccati Remiffionem applicetur, ac fi nunc Ipfe Chriftus moreretur. Canus, Loc. Theol. L. xii. c. 12. 3 * Bellarmin: de Miffa. L.i. c. 2. p. 710. Subftance Y. God rejected the Sign, which had almost engroffed the Name, and pointed out the Thing fignified; which more juftly deserved to be called Sacrifice. So, it was not oppofing Sacrifice to no Sacrifice, but legal Sacrifice to Evangelical. Such was St. Auftin's Solution of the objected Difficulty: And it appears to be very juft and folid, fufficiently confirmed both by the old Teftament and new. 2. Bellarmine's next Pretence is, that in every Sacrifice, properly fo called, there must be fome fenfible Thing offered; because St. Paul has intimated, that a Priest must have fomewhat to offer. Heb. viii. 3. But St. Paul fays fomewhat, not fome fenfible Thing. And certainly, if a Man offers Prayers, Lauds, good Works, &c. he offers fomewhat, yea and fomewhat fenfible too: For publick Prayers, efpecially, are open to the Sense of Hearing, and publick Performances to more Senfes than one. Therefore the Service may be the Sacrifice, not the material Things: 7 Per hoc ubi fcriptum eft, Mifericordiam volo quam Sacrificiam, nihil aliud quam Sacrificio Sacrificium prælatum oportet intelligi: Quoniam illud quod ab omnibus appellatur Sacrificium Signum eft veri Sacrificii. Porro autem Mifericordia est verum Sacrificium. Auguftin de Civ. Dei. L. x. c. 5. N. B. In Explication of what Auftin fays, quod ab omnibus, &c. it may be noted, that he did not take the vulgar Language for the beft, or the only Rule of Propriety: He obferves elsewhere (de verb. dom. Serm. 53.) that almost all call the Sacrament, (that is, Sign of the Body) the Body. Pene quidem Sacramentum emnes corpus ejus dicunt. And yet he did not think that the Sign was more properly the Body, than the Body itself, but quite other wife. 2 Bellarmin: ibid. p. 711. |