feared that it is not accepted by God or else it need not be so often tendered and paid again and again so many several times but as Bellarmine says both the sacrifice it self and Christ who then offers it are infinitely acceptable to God * Ipsa hostia offerens Christus infinito modo sunt Deo grata Ib. What account then can be given of this He is the most miserably put to 't that ever good guesser was at this unaccountable thing and with a salvo to better judgment †Videntur mihi salvo meliore judicio tres esse causae hujus rei Bellarm. de Miss l. 2. c. 4. F. which is a squeamish piece of modesty that he is seldom guilty of at other times he offers at three reasons though he owns the cause of it is not certain †Causa non est adeo certa Ib. The first is in respect of the sacrifice it self which is offered in the sacrifice of the cross says he Christ in his very natural being and human form was destroyed but 't is only his sacramental being is so in the Eucharist * Prima sumitur ex parte hostiae quae offertur nam in sacrificio destruebatur ad honorem Dei ipsum esse naturale Christi in formâ humanâ in sacrificio Missae destruitur tantum esse sacramentale Ib. but Christ I hope is as much in his natural being in the Eucharist as he was upon the cross else what becomes of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and he is offered as truly to God in his natural being there why should not then his natural being be as valuable in the one as in the other if his natural beings not being destroyed there makes it to be no true sacrifice as one would think he had it here in his thoughts then indeed he gives a good and a true reason why the one is not a sacrifice nor upon that account so valuable as the other but for fear of that he quits this reason and goes to the next which is * Secunda sumitur ex parte offerentis nam in sacrificio crucis offerens est ipsa persona filii Dei per se at in sacrificio Missae offerens est filius Dei per ministrum Ib. in respect of the offerer because in the one the offerer is the very person of the Son of God by himself but in the other the offerer is the Son of God by his Minister but surely if the oblation be the same of the same worth and value the offerer will by no means lessen and diminish it and how often do they tell us that Christ himself is the offerer of the sacrifice of the Mass when we charge them with the great boldness and presumption of having a mortal man offer up Christ and so consequently purchase our Redemption and make propitiation for sin which none but Christ can do to avoid this the Bishop of Meaux says That Christ being present upon the Table offers up himself to God for us in the Eucharist * Exposition of the doctrine of the Catholick Church So that the Priest is only to set him upon the Table according to him by the words of consecration and then Christ offers up himself to God and Christ being present upon the holy Table under this figure of Death intercedes for us and represents continually to his Father that death which he has suffered for his Church * Ib. And the Council of Trent says It is the same offerer as well as the same sacrifice that was upon the cross and the difference between that and the sacrifice of the Mass is not at all upon the account of the offerer but only the manner of offering †Vna eademque hostia idemque offerens sola offerendi raetione diversâ Conc. Trid. Sess 6. c. 2. This therefore can be no true reason of the different value of the two sacrifices and oblations The Third is taken from the will of Christ for though Christ (c) Tertia ratio sumitur ex ipsâ Christi voluntate nam etiamsi possit Christus per unam oblationem sacrificii incruenti sive per se sive per ministrum oblati quaelib◠à Deo pro quiouscunque impetrare tamen noluit petere nec impetrare nisi ut pro singulis oblationibus applicetur certa mensura fructûs passionis suae sive ad peccati remissionem sive ad alia beneficia quibus in hâc vitâ indigemus Bella. de Miss l. 2. c. 4. H. could by one oblation offered either by himself or his minister obtain any thing or for any person yet he would not otherwise desire or impetrate this but only that in every oblation a certain measure of the fruit of his passion be applyed either to Remission of sin or to other benesits which we want in this Life but where does this will of Christ appear Christ may dispose of his merits and the fruits of his passion as he pleaseth but how do they know that he intends thus to parcel them out and to distribute them in such small measures and scantlings as they think fit and as serves only for their purpose If the sacrifice and oblation be the same it ought to be without doubt of the same infinite value with that upon the Cross and though it be very bold and precarious to guesse at Christs will without some declaration of it from himself yet I cannot see how it was possible that it should be Christs will to have it the same sacrifice and yet not have the same vertue which is as if a Physician should have an Universal Midicine that by once taking would certainly cure all Diseases whatever and yet should for some reasons so order the matter that the very same Medicine should if he pleased have only a limited vertue cure but one Disease at a time or only some lesser smaller illnesses and that even for those it must be often taken This would certainly bring a suspicion either upon his Medicine or himself and no body but would doubt either that it had not such a vertue in it at first or that it was not the same afterwards nor made truly by him as he pretended 8. They make the Priest in the Mass-sacrifice to do all in the name of Christ and to act as his Agent and Deputy and so they say 't is the same Priest who offers as well as the same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross and that he pronounces those words of Consecration This is my Body in Christs name not by an Historical reciting of them but as speaking authoritatively in the Person of Christ himself and that this makes the Sacrifice great and valuable as it is thus offered to God by Christ himself I ask then whether all the sacrificial Acts in the Mass are performed by Christ Does Christ consecrate his own Body for Consecration is the most principal part of the sacrificing Action
very fairly to give up the question and surrender the cause for he owns it is not properly propitiatory and gives a very good reason for it because Christ in his immortal state cannot merit or satisfie or be a true propitiation for us the Bishop of Meaux was aware of this and therefore he makes Christs presence upon the Altar to be not a propitiation but a powerful Intercession before God for all mankind according to the saying of the Apostle that Jesus Christ presents himself and appears for us before the face of God Heb. 9.24 So that Christ being present upon the holy Table under this figure of death intercedes for us and represents continually to his Father that death which he has suffered for his Church †Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church But how comes this Intercession of Christ to be upon Earth Is it not to be in heaven and is not Christ there to appear in the presence of God for us Is not Christ entered into the heavens for that purpose as the High Priest went into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the great sacrifice of Atonement after that was offered upon the Altar Does not the Apostle thus represent it in that place in allusion and with relation to that Jewish Oeconomy and could any but Monsieur de Meaux have brought that place to show that Christ intercedes for us by being present upon the Altar when the Apostles discourse is as directly contrary to that as can be and makes him to appear only in Heaven or in the presence of God for us and there present himself and his sacrifice to God as the Jewish High Priest carried the blood of the Anniversary sacrifice of Expiation into the Holy of Holies and there sprinkled it before the Mercy-seat Christ is not entred into the holy place made with hands which are the figures of the true but into Heaven it self now to appear in the presence of God for us Christ therefore making Intercession for us only in heaven and propitiation only upon the Cross how the sacrifice of the Mass should be either Intercessory which is a new way of de Meaux's or propitiatory as the Council of Trent has determined it I cannot understand Some of them tell us it is propitiatory only relatively and by application as it relates and applyes to us the propitiatory vertue of the sacrifice of the Cross but this it may do as a Sacrament and then it is not propitiatory in it self for sins for punishments and for satisfactions as the Council declares it and as propitiatory sacrifices used to be which were in themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 satisfactory payments and prices for sins and for the punishments due to them Bellarmin having owned it not to be properly propitiatory he says * Cum autem dicitur propitiatorium vel satisfactorium id est intelligendum ratione rei quae impetratur dicitur enim propitiatorium quia impetrat remissionem culpae satisfactorium quia impetrat remissionem poenae Bellarm. de Miss l. 2. c. 4. C. When it is called propitiatory or satisfactory this is to be understood by reason of the thing which is impetrated by it for it is said to be Propitiatory because it impetrates Remission of sin Satisfactory because it impetrates Remission of punishment But thus our Prayers may be said to be propitiatory because by them we beg and obtain Mercy and Pardon at the hands of God but a propitiatory sacrifice is to do this not only by way of petition and impetration but by way of price and payment and satisfaction so that after all this improper sacrifice of the Mass is but very improperly propitiatory and when they come closely to consider it they are forced to confess so and cannot tell how to make out their Councils Doctrine that 't is truly propitiatory for sins and for punishments 5. Let us consider next how it is impetratory if they mean only that it is so upon the account of those Prayers which are there made and which are more efficacious in that solemn office of Religion as the Eucharist has relation to the Cross and the sacrifice of Christ upon it which is the foundation of all our Prayers and by vertue of which we hope to have them heard and answered by God so in that solemn Religious and express memorial of it we may suppose them to have a greater vertue and efficacy if this be all they mean who will deny it and why may not this be without the Eucharist's being a sacrifice 't is only Christs sacrifice and offering upon the Cross that gives vertue and power to our prayers at that time when we are devoutly celebrating the remembrance of it and 't is not any offering of him up then any otherwise then by Faith and the inward devotion of our Mind that makes our prayers the more powerful either for our selves or others We are to make Prayers and Supplications for all men and for theirs and our own wants and necessities in this solemn and publick office of our Religion and so did the first Christians pray then for Kings and all that were in Authority as the Apostle commands and as we find they did at large in St. Cyril * Catech. Mystag 5. and the Apostolick Constitutions †l. 8. c. 12. and it was in the Sacrament they used their Litanies or general Supplications for all men and for all things as is evident beyond all dispute from those places where they prayed not only for the Church and the Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and all the faithful but for the King or the Emperor where they lived for the City and all its inhabitants for the sick for the Captives and banished for all that Travelled by Sea or by Land and so for all things for the peace of the Church and for the quiet of the Empire and for all temporal mercies as well as spiritual for the fruits of the Earth and for the temperature of the Air and for all things they stood in need of Now they did not think the Eucharist did as a sacrifice impetrate all this or as a real instead of a verbal prayer as Bellarmine represents it to be * Ipsa enim oblatio tacita quaedam sed officacissima est invocatio Bellarm. de Miss l. 2. c. 8. B. but they made particular and express prayers for these in the Eucharist and did not think that was to supply the place of prayer or be a prayer in action or in dumb signs instead of words neither did the primitive Church ever say a Mass for to quench a fire or stay an Earthquake much less to cure the Murrain in Cattle or to recover a Sheep or a Cow or Horse when they were sick as is scandalously and shamefully done by those who ascribe such an impetratory power to it that it shall do the work in all cases 6. To make it a sacrifice truly propitiatory in its
because 't is not the res sacrificii which makes the sacrifice though that were never so truly present but the sacrificing Act or the Actual sacrificing it for as Bellarmine says * Nam non res illa sedgei illius oblatio proprie est sacrificium sacrificium enim est actio non res permanens Bellarm de Miss l. 2. c. 4. D. A sacrifice is an action not a permanent thing and 't is not the thing it self but the offering it is properly the sacrifice So that though Christs natural Body and Blood were never so much present in the Eucharist even according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self yet so long as there is no proper action there to sacrifice it or no sacrificing act it would signifie nothing to the making it a sacrifice 3. This Doctrine of the Mass makes a living body a sacrifice which requires it should be dead and yet at the same represents it dead when it supposes it present in a state of life which is as odd a jumble as making a man to be by at his own funeral and at the same time bringing in the person alive yet dressing up his picture to remember him dead and in the habit of death it self The Eucharist is to remember and represent Christ in a state of death his body and blood as separated from one another and the one broken and the other poured out and the words of consecration are the spiritual sword as the Bishop of Meaux calls them that are to do this and so to constitute the sacrifice but whilst this is a doing nay by the very doing this thing the same spiritual sword becomes a spiritual word and raises the same body living and sets it in that state upon the Altar so that by this means it destroys the sacrifice a great deal more then it made it before for it makes it be then truly living whereas it only represented it before as dead So that 't is at the same time a dead representative sacrifice and a living proper sacrifice which is in truth no sacrifice at all for a living sacrifice is just as much sense as a dead Ammal that is 't is a contradiction and one of the Terms destroys the other If a Jewish Priest had knockt down the Oxe with one hand and raised him up with the other or restored him to life after he had slew him this would have made but a very odde sacrifice and to make Christ dead by the sacramental signs and to sacrifice him thus in Effigie and to make him alive again under the sacramental signs and so to sacrifice him truly this is a strange and unaccountable riddle I would ask whether the consecrated species of Bread and Wine by which Christs blood is shed mystically and death intervenes only by representation as the Bishop of Meaux phrases it whether these would make a real sacrifice without Christs living body under them if not 't is not this mystical representation of death makes the sacrifice Or whether Christs living body without those species and signs of his death would be a sacrifice If not then 't is not the placing that upon the Altar and so a real Oblation of it there makes the sacrifice and then what is it that does so Is it not very odd that the same person must be there seemingly dead and yet really alive at the same time to make up this sacrifice 4. The making it truly propitiatory is a very great Error and inconsistent with it self All our Religious Duties and all our vertuous actions may in a large and improper sense be said to be propitiatory as they are said also in Scripture to be sacrifices for no doubt but they make God kind and propitious to us and incline him to have Mercy upon us and the blessed Eucharist as it exhibits to us all the graces and benefits which Christ hath by his death purchased for us whereof Pardon and Remission of sin which is hereby sealed to us is a very great one so far may be called propitiatory and it may be instituted for the Remission of sin so far as it is to apply to us the vertue of Christs body and blood and make us partakers of his sacrifice upon the Cross but this it may do as it is a Sacrament without being any sacrifice much less without being a propitiatory one as the Council of Trent hath determined it to be truly propitiatory (b) Vere propitiatorium esse Injus quippe oblatione placatus Dominus Concil Trident. Sess 6. c. 2. by the oblation of which God is appeased and this in opposition to a sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving (c) Si quis dixoit Missae sacrisicium tantum esse laudis gratiarum actionis non autem propitiatorium Ib. Can. 3. Now as it is a sacrifice of Praise and spiritual Devotion it is no doubt in the Bishop of Meaux's words acceptable to God and makes him look upon us with a more propitious eye (d) Exposition of the Doctrine of the Cathotick Charch p. 35. Is this then all the meaning of its being propitiatory Did ever any Protestant deny it to be thus And is not this to explain away the true meaning of the word and to give up the Controversie The true notion of a propitiatory sacrifice is this that it suffers a vicarious punishment in anothersstead that by it the punishment is transferr'd from the offender to that and so he is discharged from it and God is pleased for the sake of that not to be angry but kind and propitious to him this I think cannot be denyed and let us see if this will fit to the Eucharist If Christ be really present there yet does he saffer any punishment there in our stead does he pay any price there for our sins If not there cannot be any true propitiation then made nor can the sacrifice be truly propitiatory Christ did once upon the Cross where he suffered as our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vicarious punishment for our sins by his one oblation of himself once offered make a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole World * Prav◠of Consent at in Commun Serv. and Bellarmine is forced to own That 't is the sacrifice of the Cross is properly meritorious and satisfactory because Christ when he was then mortal could merit and satisfie but the sacrifice of the Mass is properly only impetratory for Christ being now immortal can neither merit nor satisfie * Nam sacrificium crucis fait meritorium satisfactorium impetratorium verè propriè quia Christus tunc mortalis erat mereri ac satisfacere poterat sacrificium Missae propriè salum est Impetratorium quia Chrisius nunc immortalis nec mereri nec satisfacere potest Bellarm. de Missa l. 2. c. 4. C. Thus truth will out at last though there be never so much art used to stifle and conceal it and this is