Aft. 13. 2.

of the Mafs. There are others of the Church of Rome who, it seems, have not kept to the Text religiously, as thefe pretend to do. Erafmus could not fay he did it, when he used the word facrificing. Menochius the Je- Menoch. in fuit did not keep the Text, when he interprets the Greek word by facrificantibus. And the Publishers of the Mons Teftament did boldly turn as they lift, and flee its Sacrifoient. N. Teft. from one Language to another for the advantage of their à Mons 1672. Caufe, when they render as they facrificed.

Sacr. Miff. 1. 1. c. 13.

Non videtur

Sacrificium &

But I return to Cardinal Bellarmine, and fum up what he hath to fay from this Text for the proof of the Bellarm. de Sacrifice of the Mafs. And thus it is: That the Miniftry or Service exhibited to the Lord here, does not feem poffible to be any thing else than a Sacrifice, and the aliud effe poSacrifice of the Mafs; and that because there is this Sa- tuiffe quàm crifice in the Church, or there is none at all. He en- Sacrificiuma deavours to confirm what he says, 1. From the Greek Missa. word which (he fays) is granted to import a publick (not private) Miniftry, and therefore an external. Nor can it fignify the Miniftry of the Word and Sacraments, becaufe that Service, tho publick, yet is not performed unto God, to whom we neither preach nor difpenfe the Sacraments: For tho these things may be faid to be for the Honour of God; yet if for that reafon St. Luke had thus expreffed himself, he would not have added, and fafted. For fafting in that fenfe is for the Honour of God; Rom.14.6. 2. Because the Greek word Area, tho it may be accommodated to facred and profane Services, yet, when 'tis applied to facred, and abfolutely used in the Scriptures, it is always taken for the Service rendred by Sacrifice. For proof of this he refers the Reader to Luke 1. and Heb. 11. 8, 9, 10. To this he adds the Verfion of Erafmus, and that the Greeks call the Celebration of the Mafs λειτεργίαν.

Before

autem illis V. L.

Before I answer thefe Pretences of the Cardinal's, I fhall premise two things.

Firft, That the Cardinal is not of the mind of the Rhemifts; he thinks it very convenient to flee from one Language to another for the advantage of his Caufe. He lays not the ftrefs upon the Latin, but Greek word; in which he fhewed much greater Judgment than is to be found in the Rhemift's Annotation.

Secondly, As to the importance of the Greek word, there is a great difference between the Rhemist's and the Cardinal. They fay they might have tranflated the Greek word facrificing, or faying Mafs: The firft, they fay, the word fignifies; the latter was practifed here. But who told them that the Greek word fignifies to facrifice? Their Vulgar Latin renders it by miniftring. Miniftrantibus 'Twould have been fome fupport to their Caufe, or they would have thought it fo, had it been in that ancient Verfion rendred by facrificing. To pretend that the Greek word fignifies to facrifice, is an Argument of great Impudence, or Ignorance. We have Arapy, another account from thofe who well understand this мохатка ба Age. Hefy matter. They tell us that it fignifies to toil, and to ferve, and denotes fome publick Ministry or Service. Λειτεργία και But Cardinal Bellarmine hath more Modefty and Learndanda ing than to pretend to affirm, that the word fignifies to facrifice. That it imports a publick Miniftry or Service, he and we are agreed in. He fays of Erafmus, vertere aufus eft, that he was fo hardy as to turn the Greek word by the Latin fignifying facrificing. But he commends him not for it, and mentions it as an Argument ad hominem, against thofe Men who had an efteem for him. I now proceed to anfwer the Cardinal.

chius.

ets,

Suid.

First, There is no need that we understand this miniftring of a proper Sacrifice, or elfe of the Miniftry of the Word and Sacraments. Because it may be underftood of the publick Prayers of the Church. Thus the Syriac Verfion does. And Prayer and Fafting are often joined together: And in the very next words 'tis faid, And when they had fafted and prayed, &c. (ver. 3.) Prayers are offered to God, and, admitting this fenfe, the Cardinal's way of arguing is fpoiled. For tho we do not preach or minifter the Sacraments to God, yet we offer our Prayers to him.

τετέςι κήρυτ

τον τον

Secondly, That preaching the Word however is not by this excluded: It may well be called miniftring to the Lord. He that does it, exerciseth his Charge and Fun- Ti is t ction, and helps to prepare and make ready a People ; for the Lord. Both Chryfoftom and Theophylact on this place, expound what we render miniftring by preach`ing. And Cardinal Cajetan upon the place fpeaks to Cajetan. in the fame purpose: The kind of Miniftry is not explained A&. 13. 2. (fays he) but because Doctors and Prophets are mentioned, it is infinuated that they miniftred to the Lord, docendo & prophetando. i. e. by teaching and prophefying.

Thirdly, That for the Import of the Greek word, we are contented to be determined by the Scripture ufe of it in the Old Teftament, where the LXXII make ufe of it, and in the New. In the New Testament 'tis far from being reftrained to facrificing: Their Vulgar Latin (as hath been obferved) renders it by miniflrantibus, i. e. miniftring in this place. And elsewhere it reprefents the Miniftry of Princes, Rom. 13.6. and that of Angels, Heb. 1. 14. and that of Alms-giving to the poor (which is but improperly a Sacrifice) 2 Cor. 9. 12. And when 'tis applied to Sa crifice, it appears from the fubject matter fo to be. For

the

De Miffa 1. 1. 6.14.

the Old Teftament, it is by the LXXII made ufe of frequently; and 'tis used to interpret the Hebrew nay, which fignifies Service or Miniftry in general, and is accordingly rendred by the Vulgar Latin Minifterium & Officium: And it is fo far from being reftrained to the Office of facrificing Priefts, that it is ufed very commonly and frequently to exprefs the Office or Miniftry of the Levites. For the Truth of which, I refer the Reader to the following Texts in the LXXII Interpreters: Numb.4.24,28. & 7. 5. & 8.22,25. & 16. 9. & 18.6. 1 Chron. 6.32.

Fourthly, Nor is there any fhadow for understanding this place of a proper Sacrifice. Here's no mention of facrificing Priests, but express mention of Prophets and Doctors. They are faid to be miniftring to the Lord, or to Chrift, as 'tis probable the words import, but that Sense will not agree with offering to him the Sacrifice of himself. The Fafting alfo that follows agrees well with Prayer, but not with a proper Sacrifice which was generally attended with a Feaft or Banquet upon it.

The next Argument from Scripture for the Sacrifice of the Mafs, produced by Cardinal Bellarmine, is taken from I Cor. X. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. Flee from Idolatry. I speak as to wife Men: judg ye what I Jay. The Cup of Bleffing which we blefs, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Chrift? The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Chrift? For we being many, are one Bread, and one Body: for we are all partakers of that one Pread. Behold Ifrael after the Flefb: are not they which eat of the Sacrifices, partakers of the Altar? What fay I then? that the Idol is any thing; or that which is offered in Sacrifice to Idols is

any

any thing? But I fay, that the things which the Gentiles facrifice, they facrifice to Devils and not unto God: and I would not that ye fhould have Fellowship with Devils. Te cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of Devils ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table, and of the Table of Devils. From these words Bellarmine collects three Arguments for the Sacrifice of the Mass.

First, From this, that St. Paul compares the Lord's Table with the Altars of the Gentiles and of the Jews, whence he infers, that the Lord's Table is an Altar, and confequently that the Eucharift is a Sacrifice.

Secondly, Because the Apostle compares the Eucharift with the Sacrifices of the Heathens and of the Jews, and thence he infers that the Eucharift must be a Sacrifice.

Thirdly, Because he compares the Communion of them who receive the Eucharift, with that Communion which the Gentiles have with their Idols in partaking with their Altars, whence he infers that the Eucharift must be a Sacrifice.

To this I anfwer;

First, That St. Paul does not compare the Lord's Table with the Altars, but with the Tables of the Jews and of the Heathens, where they did eat the remainder of the Sacrifices which were offered at the Altar. 'Tis certain that the Jews had but one Altar for Sacrifices, and that not built after a Table fashion, and fo placed, that the Jewish People might not be admitted to it to eat upon it. And for the Gentiles, 'tis certain that St. Paul speaks here of the Tables on which':

they