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 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."

* 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.

Hom. 17. ad Hebr.

Prece mysticú consecratur nobis, in memoriá Dominice passionis. Lomb,

Sent. l. iv. d. 12.

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

++ Si quis dixerit, Missæ Sacrificium tantùm esse laudis et gratiarum actionis, &c. Sess. 6. c. 9.

SECT. 2.

The Sacrifice of the Mass, against Scripture.

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 offered 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 figurative 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 ‡.

*Conc. Trid. Sess. 6. c. 2.

+ Sola offerendi ratione diversa. Ibid. Conc. Trid.

Cassand, Consult, de Sacrif.

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 be 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 venter. 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.

*Bell. 1. i. de Missâ. c. 2.

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

CHAP. VI.

ON THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES.

SECT. 1.

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 religion +: 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.

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.”

The decision of Gregory the Great §, some six hundred years after Christ, which he gave to Serenus Bishop of Massilia, is famous in every man's mouth and pen: Et, quidem, quia eas adorari vetuisses, &c: "We commend you," saith he, "that you forbad those Images to be worshipped; but we reprove your breaking of them:" adding the reason of both, "For that they were only retained for history, not for adoration." Which ingenuous Cassander so comments upon |, as that he shews this to be a sufficient declaration of the judgment of the Roman Church in those times: Videlicet, ideo haberi picturas &c: "That Images are kept, not to be adored and worshipped; but that the ignorant, by beholding those pictures, might, as by written records, be put in mind of what hath been formerly done, and be thereupon stirred up to piety."

And the same author tells us, that Sanioribus scholasticis displicet

* Ep. Epiphan. Inter Opera Hieron.

† Que contra religionem nostram veniunt, &c.

Biblioth. Patr. Tom. 9. § Greg. Ep. 1. ix. Ep. 9. Indict. 4. || Cassand. Consult. 21. Artic. de Cultu Imag.

&c: "the sounder Schoolmen disliked that opinion of Thomas Aquine, who held, that the Image is to be worshipped with the same adoration, which is due to the thing represented by it;" reckoning up Durand, Holcot, Biel.

Not to spend many words, in a clear case: what the judgment and practice of our ancestors in this island was concerning this point, appears sufficiently by the relation of Roger Hoveden, our historian; who tells us, that, in the year 792, Charles, the King of France, sent into this isle a Synodal Book directed unto him from Constantinople, wherein there were divers offensive passages; but especially this one, that, by the unanimous consent of all the Doctors of the East and no fewer than three hundred Bishops, it was decreed, that images should be worshipped: quod Ecclesia Dei execratur, saith he; which the Church of God abhors." "Against which error, Albinus," saith he, "wrote an Epistle, marvellously confirmed by authority of Divine Scriptures; and, in the person of our Bishops and Princes, exhibited it, together with the said book, unto the French King." This was the settled resolution of our predecessors and if, since that time, prevailing superstition have encroached upon the ensuing succession of the Church, τà apxuĩa, Let the old rules stand, as those Fathers determined away with novelties.

But, Good Lord, how apt men are to raise or believe lies, for their own advantages! Urspergensis, and other friends + of idolatry, tell us of a Council held at London, in the days of Pope Constantine, Anno 714: wherein the Worship of Images was publicly decreed. The occasion whereof was this: Egwin, the Monk, after made Bishop, had a vision from God, wherein he was admonished, to set up the Mother of God in his church: the matter was debated; and brought before the Pope, in his See Apostolic: there, Egwin was sworn to the truth of his vision: thereupon, Pope Constantine sent his Legate Boniface into England, who called a Council at London; wherein, after proof made of Egwin's visions, there was an act made for Image-Worship. A figment so gross, that even their Baronius and Binius fall foul upon it, with a facilè inducimur, &c. "we are easily induced to believe it to be a lie." Their ground is, that it is destitute of all testimony of Antiquity; and, besides, that it doth directly cross the report of Beda, who tells us that our English, together with the Gospel received the use of images from their Apostle Augustin, and therefore needed not any new vision for the entertainment thereof. Let us enquire then a little into the words of Beda 1. At illi, "but they," (Augustin and his fellows) non demoniaca &c. " came armed, not with the power of devils, but of God; bearing a silver cross for their standard, and the Image of our Lord and Saviour painted in a table; and singing Litanies, both for the salvation of themselves and of them whom they came to convert." Thus he. This shews, indeed, that Augustin and his fel

Rog. Hoveden. Part. Annal. i. anno 792. fol. 3. + Vid. Binium in Vitâ Const. P.

Beda Eccles. Hist. Angl. l. i. c. 25, &c.