equality of the manner and necessity of both, charges all Christians indifferently, Probet seipsum, Let every man examine himself, &c. and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup; 1 Cor. xi. 28.

SECT. 3.

Half-Communion against Reason.

In this practice, Reason is no less their enemy.

Though it be but a man's testament; yet, if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth it, saith St. Paul; Gal. iii. 15. How much less shall flesh and blood presume to alter the last will of the Son of God; and that, in so material a point, as utterly destroys the institution! For, as our learned Bishop of Carlisle argues truly P, half a man is no man, half a sacrament is no

sacrament.

And, as well might they take away the bread as the cup: both depend upon the same ordination. It is only the command of Christ that makes the bread necessary: the same command of Christ equally enjoins the cup: both do either stand or fall, upon the same ground.

The pretence of concomitancy is so poor a shift, that it hurts them rather: for if, by virtue thereof, the Body of Christ is no less in the wine than the Blood is in the bread, it will necessarily follow, that they might as well hold back the bread and give the cup, as hold back the cup and give the bread.

And could this mystery be hid from the eyes of the Blessed Author of this Sacrament? Will these men be wiser, than the Wisdom of his Father? If he knew this, and saw the wine yet useful, who dares abrogate it; and if he had not seen it useful, why did he not then spare the labour and cost of so needless an element?

Lastly, the Blood, that is here offered unto us, is that, which was shed for us: that, which was shed from the Body, is not in the Body in vain, therefore, is concomitancy pleaded for a separated Blood.

Shortly, then, this mutilation of the sacrament, being both confessedly late and extremely injurious to God and his people, and contrary to Scripture and Reason, is justly abandoned by and we, for abandoning it, unjustly censured.

us;

P Doct. White contra Fisher.

CHAP. V.

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

SECT. 1.

The Newness of the Missal Sacrifice.

It sounds not more prodigiously, that a Priest should every day make his God, than that he should SACRIFICE him.

Antiquity would have as much abhorred the sense, as it hath allowed the word. Nothing is more ordinary with the Fathers, than to call God's table an Altar; the holy elements, an Oblation; the act of celebration, an Immolation; the actor a Priest.

St. Chrysostom reckons ten kinds of sacrifice; and, at last, as having forgotten it, adds the eleventh all which we well allow. And, indeed many sacrifices are offered to God, in this one: but, "a true, proper, propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead," which the Tridentine Fathers' would force upon our belief, would have seemed no less strange a solecism to the ears of the Ancients, than it doth to ours.

St. Augustin' calls it a Designation of Christ's Offering upon the Cross; St. Chrysostom", and Theophylact after him, a Remembrance of his Sacrifice; Emissenus, a Daily Celebration in Mystery of that which was once offered in payment; and Lombard himself, a Memorial and Representation of the True Sacrifice upon the Cross.

That, which Cassander cites from St. Ambrose or Chrysostom, may be instead of all. "In Christ, is the sacrifice once offered, able to give salvation. What do we, therefore? Do we not offer every day? Surely, if we offer daily, it is done for a recordation of his death."

This is the language and meaning of Antiquity: the very same which the Tridentine Synod condemneth in us": "If any

Macarium in altare insultasse, mensam Domini evertisse. Socr. I. i. c. 10.
Chrys. in Ps. xcv.

Conc. Trid. sess. 6. c. 2. can. 1. Verum, proprium, propitiatorium, &c.
In lib. Sent. Prosp.

u Hom. 17. ad Hebr.

Prece mysticâ consecratur nobis, in memoriá Dominicæ passionis. Lomb. Sent. 1. iv. d. 12.

y Cassand. Consult. de Sacrificio. Et ibid. Hoc autem sacrificium exemplar est illius. Chryst. ubi suprà.

2 Si quis dixerit, Missa Sacrificium tantùm esse laudis et gratiarum actionis, &c.

Sess. 6. c. 9.

man shall say, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice offered upon the Cross, let him be accursed."

SECT. 2.

The Sacrifice of the Mass against Scripture.

a

How plain is the Scripture, while it tells us, that our High Priest needeth not daily, as those high priests, under the Law, to offer up sacrifice; first for his own sins, then for the people: for this he did once, when he offered up himself! Heb. vii. 27. The contradiction of the Trent Fathers is here very remarkable. "Christ," say they, "who, on the altar of the cross, offered himself in a bloody sacrifice, is now this true propitiatory Sacrifice in the Mass, made by himself. He is one and the same sacrifice; and one and the same offerer of that sacrifice, by the ministry of his Priests, who then offered himself on the cross." So then, they say, that Christ offered up that sacrifice then, and this now; St. Paul says he offerred up that sacrifice, and no more. St. Paul says our High Priest needs not to offer daily sacrifice: they say these daily sacrifices must be offered by him. St. Paul says, that he offered himself but once for the sins of the people: they say he offers himself daily for the sins of quick and dead. And, if the Apostle, in the spirit of prophecy, foresaw this error, and would purposely forestall it, he could not speak more directly, than when he saith, We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all. And every high priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies are made his footstool. For, by one offering he hath perfected for ever them, that are sanctified; Heb. x. 10-14.

Now, let the vain heads of men seek subtle evasions, in the different manner of this offering"; bloody, then, unbloody, now. The Holy Ghost speaks, punctually, of the very substance of the act; and tells us absolutely, there is but one sacrifice, once offered by him, in any kind: else, the opposition, that is there made betwixt the Legal Priesthood and his, should not hold; if, as they, so he, had often properly and truly sacrificed.

That I may not say they build herein what they destroy; for an unbloody sacrifice, in this sense, can be no other than figura

a Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 2.

b Sold offerendi ratione diversa. Ibid. Conc. Trid.

tive and commemorative; is it really propitiatory? Without shedding of blood there is no remission; Heb. ix. 22. If, therefore, sins be remitted by this sacrifice, it must be in relation to that blood, which was shed in his true personal sacrifice upon the cross: and what relation can be betwixt this and that, but of representation and remembrance? in which their moderate Cassander fully resteth".

SECT. 3.

The Missal Sacrifice, against Reason.

IN Reason, there must be in every sacrifice, as Cardinal Bellarmin grants, a destruction of the thing offered: and shall we say, that they make their Saviour, to crucify him again? No; but to eat him: for, Consumptio seu manducatio, quæ fit à Sacerdote, &c.: "The consumption or manducation, which is done of the Priest, is an essential part of this sacrifice;" saith the same author: "for, in the whole action of the Mass, there is," saith he, "no other real destruction, but this."

Suppose we, then, the true human flesh, blood, and bone of Christ, God and Man, really and corporally made such by this transubstantiation, whether is more horrible, to crucify or to eat it?

By this rule, it is the Priest's teeth, and not his tongue, that makes Christ's Body a sacrifice.

By this rule, it shall he hostia, "a host," when it is not a sacrifice; and a reserved host is no sacrifice, howsoever consecrated. And what if a mouse, or other vermin, should eat the host (it is a case put by themselves) who then sacrificeth?

To stop all mouths, Laics eat as well as the Priest: there is no difference in their manducation: but Laics sacrifice not. And, as Salmeron urges, the Scripture distinguisheth, betwixt the sacrifice and the participation of it: Are not they, which eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar? 1 Cor. x. 18. And, in the very Canon of the Mass; Ut quotquot &c.: the Prayer is, "That all we, which, in the participation of the altar, have taken the Sacred Body and Blood of thy Son, &c. "Wherein it is plain," saith he, "that there is a distinction, betwixt the host and the eating of the host."

Lastly, Sacrificing is an act done to God: if, then, eating be sacrificing, the Priest eats his God to his God: Quorum Deus

venler.

c Cassand. Consult. de Sacrif.

d Bell. 1. i. de Missâ. c. 2.

e Jo. de Burg. 4. partis c. 8. de Ministrat. Euch.-Salmer. Tom. 9. Tract. 29. An Euchar. sit propriè sacrificium.

While they, in vain, study to reconcile this new-made sacrifice of Christ already in heaven, with Jube hæc perferri &c. "Command these to be carried by the hands of thy holy angels to thy high altar in heaven, in the sight of thy Divine Majesty:" we conclude, that this proper and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, as a new, unholy, unreasonable sacrifice, is justly abhorred by us; and we, for abhorring it, unjustly ejected.

CHAP. VI.

ON THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES.

SECT. I.

The Newness of Image-Worship.

As for the setting up and WORSHIPPING OF IMAGES, we shall not need to climb so high as Arnobius; or Origen; or the Council of Eliberis, Anno 305; or to that fact and history of Epiphanius, (whose famous Epistle is honoured by the translation of Jerome) of the picture found by him in the church of the village of Anablatha, though out of his own diocese: how he tore it, in a holy zeal; and wrote to the Bishop of the place, beseeching him, that no such pictures may be hanged up, contrary to our religions: though, by the way, who can but blush at Mr. Fisher's evasion, that it was sure the picture of some profane Pagan; when as, Epiphanius himself there says it had Imaginem quasi Christi, vel Sancti cujusdam, "The image as it were of Christ, or some Saint?" surely, therefore, the image went for Christ's, or for some noted Saint's: neither doth he find fault with their resemblance; but with the image, as such.

h

That of Agobardus is sufficient for us: Nullus antiquorum Catholicorum &c.: "None of the ancient Catholics ever thought, that Images were to be worshipped or adored. They had them, indeed; but for history's sake: to remember the Saints by; not to worship them."

f Ep. Epiphan. Inter Opera Hieron.

Que contra religionem nostram veniunt, &c.

h Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 9.