St. Auftin, moft undoubtedly, intended, under the word true, to take in all Chriftian, all Evangelical, all Salutary or Acceptable, yea all Allowable Sacrifices: And what can it fignify to talk of any proper Sacrifice (Jewish, fuppofe, or Pagan) as oppofed to true, fo long as fuch proper Sacrifice is no Sacrifice at all in Chriftian account, but a Sacrilege rather, or a Profanation? But I anfwer farther, that there is no reason to imagine that St. Auftin did not intend to include proper under the word true. It would not have been fufficient to his purpose to have faid proper Sacrifice, because Jewish and Pagan Sacrifices might come under the fame Appellation: But he chose the word true, as carrying in it more than proper, and as expreffing proper and falutary, or authorized, both in one. true Religion implies both proper and authorized Religion, and as true Worship implies the like; fo true Sacrifice implies both propriety as to the Name, and Truth as to the Thing k. As The Point may be farther argued from hence, that the ancient Fathers did not only call fpiritual Sacrifices real and true 1, but they looked upon B In this Senfe St. Auftin called our Lord's Sacrifice true: Contr. Fauft. L. xx. c. 18. xxii. 17. contr. adverf. Leg. &c. L. i. c. 18. Juftin. Dial. p. 389. Ed. Thirlb. Irenæus. L. iv. c. 17. p. 248. Ed. Bened Origen. Tom. ii. p. 362. Ed. Bened. Clem. Alex. P. 686. Ed. Ox. Lactant. Epit. 169, 204, 205. Edit. Dav. Philaftrius. Hær. c. 109. p. 221. Ed. Fabr. Hieronym. in Amos, c. v. p. 1420. Ed. Bened. Auguftin. Tom. x. p. 94, 242, 243, 256. Ed. Bened. Gregor. Magn. Dial. L. iv. c. 59. p. 472. Ed. Bened. upon them as the best, the nobleft, the most perfect Sacrifices, the most fuitable and proper Gifts, or Presents that could be offered to the divine Majestym: And they never dropped any Hints of their being either improper or metaphorical. The Romanifts knew this very well; and it may be useful to obferve their exquifite Subtilty in this Argument. For, after they have exploded, with a kind of popular Clamour, all that the Fathers ever called true Sacrifice, under the opprobrious Name of improper and metaphorical, and have raised an Odium against Protestants for admitting no other, then, (as if they had forgot all that they had been before doing) they fetch a Round, and come upon us with the high and emphatical Expreffions of the Fathers, afking, how we can be fo dull as to understand them of metaphorical, nominal Sacrifices? Yet we are very certain, that all those high Expreffions of the Fathers belong'd only m Juftin. Dial. p. 387. Athenagoras. p. 48, 49. Ed. Ox. Clem. Alex. p. 836, 848, 849, 860. Tertullian. Apol. C. 30. De Orat. c. 27, 28. Minuc. Felix. Sect. 32. p. 183. Cyprian. Ep. 77. p. 159. Ed. Bened. Lactantius. Epit. c. 58. de vero cultu. L. vi. c. 24, 25. Eufebius. Demonftr. p. 40. Hilarius. Pitav. p. 154. Ed. Bened. Bafil. Tom. iii. p. 207. Ed. Bened. Nazianzen. Tom. i. p. 38, 484. to Chryfoftom. Tom. v. 20, 231, 316, 503. vii. 216. Ed. Auguftin. Tom. v. 268. de Civit. Dei. L. x. C. 20. L. xix, C. 23. Ifidorus. Peluf. L. iii. Ep. 75. Vide Suarez. Tom. iii. p. 886, 891, 892, 893, 896. • Vide Petavius. Eccl. Dogm. Tom. iii. p. 130. to fpiritual Sacrifices; the very fame that. Bellarmine and the reft difcard as improper, and metaphorical. But they here play faft and loofe with us: First, pretending that the true and noble Sacrifices of the Ancients did not mean proper ones, in order to discard the old Definitions; and then again, (to ferve another turn) pretending that thofe very Sacrifices must have been proper (not metaphorical) because the Fathers fo highly efteemed them, and fpake fo honourably of them. In fhort, the whole Artifice terminates in this, that the felf-fame Sacrifices as admitted by Proteftants fhall be called metaphorical, in order to disgrace the Proteftant Cause, but shall be called proper and true as admitted by the Fathers, in order to keep up fome Shew of Agreement in this Article with Antiquity. But I return to the Cardinal, whom I left difabling all the old Definitions, in order to introduce a new one of his own, a very strange one'; fitted indeed to throw out fpiritual Sacrifice most effectually, (which was what he chiefly aimed at) but at the fame time alfo overthrowing, undefignedly, both the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Sacrifice of the Cross. 1. As to the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Subject of it is fuppofed to be our Lord's natural Body, invifible in the Eucharift; and yet, by B 2 the PA Definition of one kind of Sacrifice (Jewish, as it feems) rather than of Sacrifice in general, or of Chriftian in particular. It is giving us a Species for the Genus, like the making a Defini- Calling tion of Man, and then all it a Definition of Animal, Tulgentine, no. the Definition, the Sacrifice fhould be Res fenfibilis, fomething vifible, obvious to one or more of the Senfes. Again, our Lord's Body is not liable any more to Destruction; and, yet by the Definition, the Sacrifice fhould be destroy'd. But I fhall infift no longer upon the Cardinal's Inconfiftencies in that Article, because he has often been called to account for them, by learned Proteftants. 2. The second Article, relating to the Sacrifice of the Cross, has been lefs taken notice of: But it is certain, that Bellarmine's Definition is no more friendly to That, than to the other. If our Lord's Soul was any Part of his Offering, (as Scripture feems to intimate,s and as the Fathers plainly teach, and the Reason of the Thing perfuades) or if his Life was an Offering, which Scripture plainly, and more than once teftifies"; then Res aliqua fenfibilis, fome fenfible Sacrificium eft oblatio externa, facta foli Deo, qua ad Agnitionem humanæ infirmitatis, & Profeffionem divinæ majeftatis, a legitimo miniftro Res aliqua fenfibilis & permanens, in ritu myftico, confecratur, & tranfmutatur, ita ut plane deftruatur. Bellarm. p. 715, 717. r Johann. Forbefius. p. 615. Montacutius. Orig. Tom. ii. 302, 357: Bishop Morton. B. vi. C. 6. p. 467, 468, &c. Brevint. Depth and Mystery, &c. p. 133, 144. Payne on the Sacrifice of the Mafs. p. 70. Bishop Kidder. p. 316, 415. Ifa. liii. 10, 11, 12. Pfalm xvi. 10. Luke xxiii. 46. t Clem. Roman. C. 49. Irenæus. P. 292. Ed. Bened. 1 rafimund. L: 1. Compare Bishop Biljon. Full Redemption, &c. P. 83, &c. Hieronym. Tom. ii. Part 2. p. 167, 173. Ed. Bened. ▪ Matt. xx. 28. Mark x. 45. John x. 11, 15, 17. xv. 13.1 John iii. 16. fenfible Thing is not the true Notion of proper Sacrifice, neither is it effential to the Definition of it; unless the Life which our Lord gave upon the Cross was no proper Sacrifice. Perhaps, in ftrictness of Notion, his Obedience unto Death ", his amazing Act of Philanthropy (fo highly extolled in the new Teftament) was properly the acceptable Sacrifice. So Aquinas ftates that Matter as I before noted: And Bellarmine was aware of it, in another Chapter, wherein he undertakes to prove, that our Lord's Death was a proper Sacrifice w. There he was obliged to fay, tho' he fays it coldly, that Acts of Charity are quoddam Sacrificium, a kind of Sacrifice. But the Question was about proper Sacrifice, and about our Lord's Philanthropy: Was that only quoddam Sacrificium, or was it not proper? Here the Cardinal was non-pluis'd, and had no way to extricate himself, but by admitting (faintly however and tacitely, as confcious of felf-contradiction) that spiritual Sacrifice may be proper Sacrifice, and is not always metaphorical: Otherwife, the very brighteft Part of our Lord's own Sacrifice, the very Flower and Perfection of it, his most stupendous Work of Philanthropy, must have been thrown off, under the low and difparaging Names of me taphorical, improper, nominal Sacrifice, Having feen how the ableft Champion of the Romish Caufe failed in his Attempts against Spiritual Sacrifices, failed in not proving his B 3 Phil. ii. 8. Hebr. v. 8. Point, |