through ten or more editions) declared his full agreement with Calvin, so far as concerned the definition of true sacrifice, conformable to St. Austin's ". Even Bellarmine acknowledged, above thirty years after, that some noted Doctor of the Roman Church still adhered to the same definition. So that spiritual sacrifice was not yet entirely excluded as improper, metaphorical, and nominal, among the Romanists themselves; neither was it hitherto a ruled point amongst them, that material thing was essential to the nature, notion, or definition of true and proper sacrifice. How that came about afterwards, we shall see presently.

The Romanists, wanting arguments to support their mass sacrifice, thought of this pretence, among others, that either their mass must be the sacrifice of the Church, or the Church had really none: and so if the Protestants resolved 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 Protestants had two very just answers to make, which were much the same with what the primitive Christians had before made to the Pagans, when the like had been objected to them. The first was, that Christ himself was the Church's sacrifice 9, considered in a passive sense, as commemorated, applied, and participated in the Eucharist. The second was, that they had sacrifices besides, in the active sense, sacrifices of their own to offer, visibly, publicly, and by sacerdotal hands, in the Eucharist: which sacrifices were their prayers, and praises,

" After reciting Austin's definition, he proceeds; Hæc Augustinus, ex quibus verbis aperte colligitur omne opus bonum quod Deo offertur, esse verum sacrificium, et hanc definitionem ipsemet Calvinus admittit- —ex cujus verbis constat, inter nos et illum de veri sacrificii definitione convenire. Alphons. a Castro, adv. Hæres. lib. x. p. 75. edit. 1565.

• Bellarmin. de Miss. lib. i. cap. 2. p. 710.

P Alphons. a Castro, lib. x. p. 74. Conf. Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. I. cap. 20.

¶ Vid. Clem. Alex. p. 688, 836. ed. Ox. Euseb. Demonstr. Evan. p. 38. Augustin. tom. iv. p. 1462. ed. Bened. Gregorius M. tom. ii. p. 472. ed. Bened. Cyrill. Alex. contr. Jul. lib. ix.

and commemorations; eucharistic sacrifices, properly, though propitiatory also in a qualified sense. The Council of Trent, in 1562, endeavoured to obviate both those answers and Bellarmine afterwards undertook formally to confute them. The Romanists had no way left but to affirm stoutly, and to endeavour weakly to prove, that the two things which the Protestants insisted upon did neither singly, nor both together, amount to true and proper sacrifice. Here began all the subtilties and thorny perplexities which have darkened the subject ever since; and which must, I conceive, be thrown off, (together with the new and false definitions, which came in with them,) if ever we hope to clear the subject effectually, and to set it upon its true and ancient basis.

I shall pass over Bellarmine's trifling exceptions to the Protestant sacrifice, (meaning the grand sacrifice,) considered in the passive sense. It is self-evident, that while we have Christ, we want neither sacrifice, altar, nor priest; for in him we have all: and if he is the head, and we the body, there is the Church. Had we no active sacrifice at all, yet so long as we are empowered, by Divine commission, to convey the blessings of the great sacrifice to as many as are worthy, we therein exercise an honour

* Justin Martyr, p. 14, 19, 387, 389. ed. Thirlb. Clem. Alex. 686, 836, 848, 849, 850, 860. edit. Ox. Origen. tom. ii. p. 210, 311, 191, 205, 243, 363, 418, 563. ed. Bened. Euseb. Dem. Evang. p. 20, 21, 23. Tertullian, p. 69, 188, 330. Rigalt. Cyprian, Ep. lxxvii. p. 159. ed. Bened. Hilarius, Pictav. p. 154, 228, 535. Basil. tom. iii. p. 52. ed. Bened. Chrysostom, tom. v. p. 231, 316, 503. ed. Bened. Hieronym. tom. ii. p. 186, 250, 254. tom. iii. p. 15, 1122, 1420. ed. Bened. Augustin. tom. ii. p. 439. iv. p. 14, 473, 455, 527, 498, 1026, 1113. vii. p. 240. Bened. and compare my Review, vol. vii. cap. 12.

• Si quis dixerit in missa non offerri Deo verum et proprium sacrificium, aut quod offerri non sit aliud quam nobis Christum ad manducandum duri, anathema sit.- -Si quis dixerit missæ sacrificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum actionis, aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce peracti, non autem propitiatorium, anathema sit. Concil. Trid. sess. xxii. can. 1, 3. t Blessing was a considerable part of the sacerdotal office in the Aaronical priesthood. Numb. vi. 23-27. Deut. x. 8. xxi. 5.

able priesthood", and may be said to magnify our office. But waving that consideration at present, for the sake of brevity, I shall proceed to examine what Bellarmine has objected to our sacrifices considered in the active sense, and to inquire by what kind of logic he attempted to discard all spiritual sacrifices, under the notion of improper, metaphorical, nominal sacrifices, or, in short, no sacrifices.

1. He pleads, that Scripture opposes good works to sacrifice; as particularly in Hosea vi. 6. "I will have mercy, " and not sacrifice:" therefore good works are not sacrifice properly so called. But St. Austin long before had sufficiently obviated that pretence, by observing, that Scripture, in such instances, had only opposed one kind of sacrifice to another kind, symbolical to real, typical to true, shadow to substancey. God rejected the sign, which had almost engrossed the name, and pointed out the thing signified; which more justly deserved to be called sacrifice. So it was not opposing sacrifice to no sacrifice, but legal sacrifice to evangelical. Such was St. Austin's solution of the objected difficulty: and it appears to be very just and solid, sufficiently confirmed both by the Old Testament and New.

u Some of the elder Romanists acknowledged this to be sufficient. Satis est, ut vere et proprie sit sacrificium, quod mors 'Christi ita nunc ad peccati remissionem applicetur, ac si nunc ipse Christus moreretur. Canus, Loc. Theol. lib. xii. cap. 12.

× Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 2. p. 710.

y Per hoc ubi scriptum est, Misericordiam volo quam sacrificium, nihil aliud quam sacrificio sacrificium prælatum oportet intelligi: quoniam illud quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium signum est veri sacrificii. Porro autem misericordia est verum sacrificium. Augustin. de Civ. Dei, lib. x. cap. 5.

be

N. B. In explication of what Austin says, quod ab omnibus, &c. it may noted, that he did not take the vulgar language for the best, or the only rule of propriety: he observes elsewhere (de Verb. Dom. Serm. liii.) that almost all call the Sacrament, (that is, sign of the body,) the body. Pene quidem sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt. And yet he did not think that the sign was more properly the body, than the body itself, but quite otherwise.

2. Bellarmine's next pretence is, that in every sacrifice, properly so called, there must be some sensible thing offered; because St. Paul has intimated, that a priest must have somewhat to offer. Heb. viii. 32. But St. Paul says somewhat, not some sensible thing. And certainly, if a man offers prayers, lauds, good works, &c. he offers somewhat, yea and somewhat sensible too: for public prayers, especially, are open to the sense of hearing, and public performances to more senses than one. Therefore the service may be the sacrifice, not the material things: and such service being evangelical, (not legal or typical,) is spiritual sacrifice.

3. The Cardinal has a third argument about elicit acts; which being highly metaphysical and fanciful, I choose rather to pass it off without further answer, than to offend your ears with it.

4. A fourth pretence is, that the sacrifice of the Church being but one, the spiritual sacrifices, which are many, cannot be that one sacrifice. Here he quotes Austin, Popè Leo, and Chrysostom, to prove that the Church's sacrifice is but one, and that one the Eucharist. He might have spared the labour, because the same Fathers assert the sacrifice of the Eucharist to be both one and many, diversly considered: one complicated sacrifice, taking in the whole action; many sacrifices, if distinctly viewed under the several particulars. And though the Eucharist might by common use come to be called emphatically, the sacrifice, as being most observable, or most excellent, or as comprehending more sacrifices in one, than any other service did, yet it does not from thence follow that the other less observable or less considerable sacrifices were not properly sacrifices. For has not the same Eucharist, in vulgar speech, and by custom, come to be emphatically called, the Sacrament, as if there were no other Sacrament? And yet certain it is, that Baptism is as properly a Sacrament as the other. Emphatical appellations therefore are rather marks of the

2 Bellarmin. ibid. p. 711.

■ Ibid. p. 712.

excellency or notoriety of a thing, than of strict propriety of speech. But I return to Bellarmine.

5. A fifth pretence is, that spiritual sacrifices, being common both to clergy and laity, require no proper priesthood, and therefore cannot be justly esteemed proper sacrifices for proper sacrifice and proper priesthood, being relatives, must stand or fall together". To which it may be answered, that even lay Christians, considered as offering spiritual sacrifices, are so far priests, according to the doctrine of the New Testament, confirmed by Catholic antiquity. But waving that nicety, (as some may call it,) yet certainly when spiritual sacrifices are offered up by priests, divinely commissioned, and in the face of a Christian congregation, they are then as proper sacrifices as any other are, or can be: and this is sufficient to our purpose. Let the Eucharist therefore, duly administered by sacerdotal officers, be admitted as a sacrifice properly so called, but of the spiritual kind, and we desire nothing further. If a sacerdotal oblation of the people's loaf and wine, can be thought sufficient to convert them into proper sacrifices, though they had nothing at all of a sacrificial nature in them before such oblation; surely the like sacerdotal oblation may much more convert the people's prayers, praises, and devout services (which previously had something of a sacrificial nature in them) into real and proper sacrifices, yea the properest of anyd. Why then must our spiritual offerings be set aside as of no account in respect of proper sacrifice, only to take in other things of much lower account than they? Why should we take in those meaner

b Bellarmin. ibid. p. 712.

c See my Review, vol. vii. p. 390. d This matter is briefly and accurately expressed by our very learned and judicious Bp. Montague.

In lege Christi sunt sacerdotes, non tantum illa laxa significatione, qua quotquot Jesu Christi sumus izvvμos, (Christiani nominati,) sumus etiam et dicimur sacerdotes, sed et illa magis stricta, qua qui populo acquisitionis præsunt ἐν νόμῳ Θεοῦ, καὶ εἰς Θεόν, Dei sunt et populi μεσίται.—Habemus autem et altare, ad quod offerimus oblationes et sacrificia commemorationis, laudationis, orationis, nos, nostra Deo, per sacerdotem. Montacut. Orig. tom. ii. p. 313.