Слике страница
PDF
ePub

"

need he fhould expiate them again on the Crofs. To this I add, that St. Paul, (Ephef. iv. mentions the Offices which JESUS CHRIST left his Church when he ascended into Heaven, in thefe Words. He, gave fome, Apoftles: And fome, Prophets: Andfome, Evangelists: And fome, Paftors and Teachers; But makes no Mention at all of the Sacrificers of Chrift's Body and Blood: Nor in 1 Tim. nor in the Epistle to Titus, when he defcribes the Duty to Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons ; without the least mention of this facrificing of Chrift's Body and Blood.

3. THE fecond ARGUMENT is drawn from the Definition of a Sacrifice, as it is given us by our Adverfaries. Card. Bellarmine (in Book 1.of the Mafs, Chap. 2. ) defines it thus: A Sacrifice is an external Oblation made to GOD alone, whereby (in Acknowledgment of humane Infirmity, and the Divine Majefty, (the lawful Minifter confecrates by a mystical Ceremony, and deStroys Something fenfible and permanent. From these last Words,[viz. That the lawful Minifter deftroys fomething sensible and permanent ;] I form two Arguments which deftroy the Sacrifice of the Mass.

THE Firft is this. In every Sacrifice the Thing facrificed must fall under our Senfes; for our Adverfaries fay it is a fenfible Thing. But the Body and Blood of Chrift, which are pretended to be facrificed in the Mafs, under the Accidents of Bread and Wine; do not fall under our Senfes, as we

find by Experience. Therefore the Body and Blood of Chrift, which are pretended to be under the Accidents of the Bread and Wine, are not the Thing facrificed.

THE fecond ARGUMENT is this. In every true Sacrifice the Thing facrificed muft . be utterly deftroy'd: That is, it must be fo changed, that it must cease to be what it was before; as Bellarmine faith in exprefs Terms in the Place above cited. But in the pretended Sacrifice of the Mafs, Chrift's Body and Blood are not destroyed. For JESUS CHRIST dieth no more. Rom. vi. Therefore in the pretended Sacrifice of the Mafs, the Body and Blood of Christ are not the Thing facrificed.

4. To thele two ARGUMENTS Bellarmine (in Book 1. of the Mass, Ch. 27.) and other Romif Doctors, anfwer, that Chrift's Body fimply is not the Thing facrificed in the Mafs; but it is Chrift's Body, as it is under the Species of Bread And that it is in Reference to the Species of the Bread, that Chrift's Body is fenfible and vifible.

Secondly, They anfwer, That in the Sacrifice of the Mafs, Chrift's Body is destroy'd in refpect of its facramental Being, but not in refpect of its natural Being. For when it is eaten in the Sacrament, it ceafeth to be under the Species of the Bread.

5. To thefe Anfwers I reply, First, That Chrift's Body is not vifible by the Species of the Bread: Becaufe (as our Adverfaries. fay,) that hides it from us, and hinders us

from feeing it. And although a Subftance may be visible, and cognizable by its Accidents, yet it is never fo by the Accidents of another Substance: And confequently JESUS CHRIST may be faid to be vifible by his own Accidents, and not by the Accidents of the Bread, which is juft alike both in the confecrated and unconfecrated Hofts. And 'tis a ridiculous Shift, to fay that Chrift's Body is vifible under the Species of Bread, becaufe that Species is vifible. For as we cannot fee Wine that is in a Hogfhead, be caufe we fee the Hogfhead; and we cannot fee Money that is in a Purfe closed, because we fee the Purse: So neither can we see the Body under the Species of the Bread, because we fee the Bread; for our Adversaries fay, that Species hinder us from feeing it.

6. Secondly, I fay, That by the facramental Being, is understood only an accidental Being, of JESUS CHIRST; (for Example, his Prefence in the Sacrament;) or elfe, befides that, is understood his fubftantial Being too. If his fubftantial Being alfo be understood, (fince the fubftantial Being of a Thing, is nothing elfe but its Subftance and Nature;) then it will follow, that if JESUS CHRIST be destroyed in the Sacrament of the Eucharift, in refpect of his fubftantial Being; he must also be destroyed in refpect of his natural Being: Which is contrary to what the Apostle faith, Rom. xvi. JESUS CHRIST dieth no more. If an accidental Being of Jz

SUS

SUS CHRIST be only understood, (for Example, his Prefence in the Sacrament;) then thefe Abfurdities will follow,. viz.

First, THAT that the Sacrifice of the Mafs will be the Sacrifice of an Accident only, and not of JESUS CHRIST: Because the Prefence of JESUS CHRIST, is not JESUS CHRIST himself, but an Accident of him..

Secondly, IT will follow, That the Sacrifice of the Mafs, and that of the Crofs, will not be the fame Sacrifice, in reference to the Thing facrificed: (becaufe JESUS CHRIST and his Prefence are not the fame Thing; JESUS CHRIST being a Substance, and his Prefence an Accident :) Which is contrary to the Decifion of the Council of Trent, which has determined that the Sacrifice of the Mafs, and that of the Crofs, are the fame, in Reference to the Thing facrificed.

Thirdly, I will follow, That the Thing which is deftroyed in the Sacrament, is not the fame with that which is produced there; because there's only an Accident deftroyed, whereas a Subftance was produced by Tranfubftantiation, which is a fubftantial Converfion, as hath been fufficiently proved.

Fourthly, Ir will follow, That the Sacrifice of the Mafs will be offered in the Priest's Stomach only; because this Prefence is not deftroyed till the Prieft hath eaten the Host: And confequently the Sacrifice of the Mafs, will be offered after the Mafs; for this Prefence is only deftroyed by the Deftruction of I 2

the

the Accidents, and commonly thefe Accidents are not deftroyed till after Mafs is faid.

Fifthly, Ir will follow, That the Justice of GOD will ceafe to be the fame. For whereas heretofore it could not be fatisfied but by the Death of Chrift, and by the Deftruction of his natural Being: Now GOD is appeafed, our Sins expiated, and GOD's Juftice fatif fied, by the Deftruction of his Sacramental Being only. For they will have it, that the Sacrifice of the Mafs is propitiatory for the Sins of the Living and the Dead

7. THE Third ARGUMENT is drawn from thefe Words of the Apoftle, Heb. 9. [ ver. xxii. xxiii. Almost all Things are by the Law purged with Blood, and without shedding of Blood is no Remiffion. It was therefore neceflary that the Patterns of Things in the Heavens, fhould be purified with these: But the Heavenly Things themselves, with better Sacrifices than thefe. From which I form this ARGUMENT. There is no Propitiation or Remiffion of Sins, without fhedding of Blood; as the Apoftle faith: But in the Mafs there is no fhedding of Blood; for it is called an unbloody Sacrifice. Therefore in the Mafs there is no Propitiation, or Remiffion of Sins; and confequently no propitiatory Sacrifice for Sin. This Argument may be thus confirmed: Under the Old Teftament there was no Propitiation, or Purification, without fhedding of Blood: And Heavenly Things being reprefented by the legal Types, muft be purified by a more excellent

« ПретходнаНастави »