To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Of the pretended Romish Propitiatory Sacrifice, confu∣ted by Romish Principles, as destitute of foure Proper∣ties of Propitiation.
THE first is the Imperfection of the Sacrificer. The next, the no-proper Destruction of the thing sacrificed. The third, the Vnbloodinesse of the same. And the last, the but-finite Virtue and value, which you attri∣bute unto it.
I. Confutation, from the confessed Imperfection of the Sacrifice.
FIrst the Reason, why you account your Propitiatory Sacrifice to be but of finite Virtue, is a 1.1 Because it is not immediatly offe∣red up by Christ himselfe, as that was of the Crosse; but by his Mi∣nister. And the Reason of this, you say, is, b 1.2 Because the Vniver∣sall Cause worketh according to the limitation of the second Causes. So you. Vnderstanding, by Sacrifice, not the Object of your Re∣membrance, which is the Body of Christ, as crucified; but the subject matter, in the hand of the Priest. From whence this Con∣sequence must issue, whether you will or no, (namely) that Per∣fection of the Sacrifice being a necessary property of a true Propi∣tiatory Virtue and efficacy in prevailing with God for man, it is impossible for any of your Priests (because All are imperfect) to offer up properly a Propitiatory Sacrifice unto God.
None may hereupon oppose unto us the Propitiatory Sacrifices under the Law, because they also were twice imperfect; once in respect of the Sacrificer, who was but a mere man: and secondly, in respect of the matter of Sacrifice it selfe, which was some un∣reasonable beast, and had no Virtue of Propitiation in it selfe, for remission either of guilt, or of the eternall punishment of sinne, as hath beene * 1.3 Confessed; and therefore not properly Propitia∣tory, but fiuratively; only as Types of the Sacrifice of Christ.
II. Confutation from the Romish Definition of a Propitiatory Sacrifice.
SEcondly, in your c 1.4 Romish definition, it is required that the Thing propitiatorily sacrificed suffer a Reall Destruction, (so that it cease to be in the substance thereof) and a Bodily Consump∣tion. Notwithstanding you are absolutely free from the Blasphe∣my, to say that Christ his Body doth in the Eucharist suffer pro∣perly a reall Destruction. Ergo, say we, by your owne Principle there cannot be herein a Sacrifice properly Propitiatory.
III. Confutation from the Apostle's Position, against the Vnbloodinesse thereof.
THe Apostles Position is this, that Without the shedding of Blood there is no Remission, Heb. 9. 22. Your Romish As∣sumption is; The Sacrifice of the Romish Masse is unbloody. Our Conclusion necessarily followeth, which is this; Ergo, say we,
your Masse-Sacrifice cannot be properly Propitiatory. Your Car∣dinall, in Answering first that the d 1.5 Apostle spake this of the Sacri∣fice of the old Law, onely standeth twice convicted of a foule Ter∣giversation; first, by the Apostles Explication of himselfe, who although he spake from the observation of the old Testament, Heb. 9. 22. yet doth he apply it to the state of the new Testament, in the same Chapter, vers 13, 14. But much more by his owne Conscience, who having spent some Chapters, in proving that the Sacrifices of the Law were Types of the Sacrifice in the Masse, doth now deny that this Proposition of [No Remission of sinnes without shedding of Blood] is to be applyed to the Eucharist. He is glad therefore to adde a second Answer, given by your Maldo∣donate, who finding no security in the former Refuge, betaketh himselfe to another, saying that e 1.6 Remission of sinnes is not now for any present effusion of Blood, but for that effusion which had beene. Which Answer (if we may so interpret it) is a plaine Prevarica∣tion. The Reason may be this; first, because there was never Bloody Sacrifice (Christ on the Crosse excepted, which only was of infinite virtue, as well to times past, as to come) but it was alwaies actually by the effusion of Blood at the time of Sacrificing. These kinds of so ordinary Doubtings and Turnings, which your Disputers use, as men in a maze, doe plainly Demonstrate either their irresolute Iudgements, or else their dissolute Consciences; and in either of both their desperate Cause.
We have not done yet, but give you further to understand, that as you could finde no proper Sacrificing Act, to make your Masse properly a Sacrifice, so neither can ye shew any propitiating Act, to make it properly a Sacrifice propitiatory. This we prove out of your Councell of Colen, which f 1.7 Concludeth, that your Masse-Sa∣crifice cannot be called Propitiatory in respect of any Act of Oblation of the Priest, or accommodation of the Communicants, or yet of the Church: but onely of the Oblation once made by Christ himselfe on the Crosse. Which oblation how absent it is, who seeth not, that is present with himselfe? Thus were those Divines driven to an Objective Act of Oblation.
IV. Confutation from the Romish Disvaluation of that which they call Christ's Sacrifice.
THe last is in respect of the value, for Christ's Sacrifice on the Crosse you doe Christianly esteeme to have beene of a 1.8 Infinite merit and Satisfaction, because it was offered by himselfe: and that otherwise b 1.9 He could not have made Satisfaction to an Infi∣nite and Divine Majestie. So you. But of the Sacrifice of the
Masse, what? The common opinion of our Church (saith your c 1.10 Car∣dinall) is that it is but of finite value. So he. Notwithstanding it be impossible for any thing of finite virtue to have power in it selfe of remission of an infinite guilt against an infinite Ma∣jesty.
A More palpable betraying therefore of a Cause there cannot be, than (as you have hitherto done) by defending Positi∣ons repugnant to your owne Definition, and by obtruding things as proper, which are void of all due Properties. This being all one, as if you, in the Case of Miracles, would deliver unto us a Iannes and Iambres, instead of Moses; in Art, Sophistrie for Lo∣gique; in Commerce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, adulterate Coine for cur∣rent; and in warlike stratagems, instead of a naturall, a Trojane Horse. Oh what a misery it is to reason with such unreasonable (to speake mildly) men! Thus much of your Romish Sacrifice, according to your owne Explanations thereof.
Bellar. Ratio 2. quare Sacri•…•…ciū Cru∣cis sit tanti valoris, hoc autem finiti, su∣mitur ex parte offe∣rentis: nam Sacrifi∣cio Crucis ipse offe∣rens est filius Dei per se; at in Sacrificio Miss•• est ipse offe∣rens per Ministrum—Illa actio immedi∣atè producta à divino supposito, ipsa ab hu∣mano. Lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 4.
Salmeron. Ies. Modò Christus in Eucharistia personā induit re•• oblatae: & quamvis Christus of∣ferat per Sacerdotes, ut Administros ejus, tamen virtus & causa universalis pro ratio∣ne causae secundariae operatur. Sacerdos igitur ejus nomine induit personam offe∣rentis. Tom. 9. Tract. 33. pag. 266. de Missis privatis.
See above, Chap. 5 Sect. 4.
Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 2. See above, Chap. 5. Sect. 3.
Loquitur Aposto∣lus de Sacrifici••s ve∣teris Legis,—Po∣test etiam absolutè & generatim accipi, quod quotiescunque fit remissio, fit sangui∣nis effusio: sed non nisi virtute effusionis sive nunc facta, sive post futura. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa, cap. 25. §. Ad illud.
Si accommode∣mus ad Evangelium, dicendum est, pecca∣ta nunc remitti, non propter praesentem effusionem, sed per praeteritam. Maldon. Ies. lib. de 7. Sacram. Tract. de Euch. imme∣diatè antè exitum Tom. 1.
Si respicimus corpus Christi, quod continetur in Euch. quis negat esse pro∣pitiatorium, non ra∣tione oblationis, quā Sacerdos facit, sed ra∣tione Oblationis fa∣ctae in cruce? Conc. Provinc. Colon. de Mis∣sa, fol. 105. And a little after. Non propitia∣••orium, ratione Sa∣crificii, quod est situm in actione Sacerdotis, seu Missae communi∣cantium, aut Eccle∣siae: sed ratione Sa∣crificii, quod in cruce oblatum.
Mirum non est, si cùm Christus infi∣nitus extitit, ejus ho∣stia fuit infiniti meriti & satisfactionis. Sal∣meron. Ies. Tom. 9. Tract. 33. pag. 265, 266.
Erat infiniti valoris: nec enim aliter potuit compensari injuria Deo facta. Ribera Ies. in Heb. 10. num. 19.
Valor Sacrificii Missae est finitus. Haec est communis senten∣tia Theologorum: in quo distinguitur à Sacrificio Crucis—quod infinitae virtutis erat, & nunquàm re∣petitur. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Missa, cap. 4. §. Quarta P••op. [And yet it is knowen that Card. Cajetane, C••nus, and Scotus were of a contrary opinion.] To this last testimony of Ballarmine adde also Salmeron. Ies. Tom. 5. Tract. 33. §. Tertiò.