And this, and all other Sacrifices of the Church, external and spiritual, must be offered up and accepted per Ipsum, in, by, and through CHRIST. St. Paul saith not, Ipsum offeramus, let us offer Him (that is), CHRIST; but let us offer and sacrifice per Ipsum, by Him, in whom only we and our Sacrifices are accepted....

So, likewise, the Church, which is CHRIST's mystical body, offers not CHRIST's natural body, it hath no power to offer the natural body... And there is no such thing in Scripture, nor I presume can easily be showed out of any of the probable and undoubted Fathers, but the Church offers corpus mysticum, CHRIST'S mystical body (that is, itself) to God in her daily Sacrifice. pp. 1-3.

MORTON, BISHOP.-Catholic Appeal, ii. 7.

May not all these sufficiently justify the objected exception? yes verily, especially seeing it is. . . . only a large extension of the text, to signify a Sacrifice in the Eucharist, although in a sense orthodoxal, and (if they shall permit us so to speak,) plainly protestantial, signifying, (according unto St. Augustine's exposition,) "the commemorative representation of the sacrifice of CHRIST's body crucified upon the Cross.".

-p. 166.

After the contention about the word Sacrifice, which, in respect of the superstitious apprehension of corruptive times, hath been judged dangerous and incommodious, we descend to the question of doctrine, concerning the true nature of a Sacrifice; which is by the Romanists, in their Council of Trent, propounded as a doctrine of faith, and is by them defined to be "the same Sacrifice, truly propitiatory, now offered by the ministry of the Priest, which was offered by CHRIST Himself on the cross :" so fully the same (saith their Cardinal,) that as the substance of CHRIST, which is really in the Host, differeth not from the substance of His Body in heaven, so the immolation and sacrificing of Him in the forms of bread, and His sacrificing upon the cross, is the very same." But "Protestants, (saith the same, our greatest adversary) although they allow this to be a Sacrifice of thanksgiving, and of divine worship to God, yet do they not esteem it to have the

proper nature of a Sacrifice, but to be so called after a large and improper manner of speech :" in the which large acceptation Protestants may account it "propitiatory" also. So that the controversy is only concerning the proper and improper signification of terms, and compriseth two questions: first, whether the Eucharist be a true essential Sacrifice; secondly, whether it be properly propitiatory, and available in itself for remission of sins, or no. Both which, we wish, may be decided by the verdict of ancient Fathers, by the tenor of CHRIST's institution, and by the principles of the Romish Church, and in every of these by the confessions of our learned adversaries. pp. 168, 9.

As for the Protestants, they, in their divine and public service, do profess CHRIST the Son of GOD, to be the only true Priest of the New Testament; who, being GOD and man, was only able to work in Himself propitiation with God for man; and His Sacrifice once offered upon the cross, to be the all and only sufficient Sacrifice for the remission of sins; which, by an Eucharistical and thankful commemoration, (according unto the acknowledged tenor of ancient Liturgies, "for all the faithful, whether Martyrs, Patriarchs, Prophets, or Apostles," and all Saints) they present unto God, as an effectual propitiation both for the quick and the dead; by the which prayers they apply the same propitiatory Sacrifice unto the good of all that are capable:but what? not the Body as it is glorified, but as then freshly bleeding on the cross; which doth, not by a casual or deceivable intention of the priest, but according unto the faith of the believer, nor by a finite virtue of that sacrifice, but by an infinite, work a full remission, not only of venial, but also of mortal sins, according unto the tenor of holy writ ["If any"]', excluding no penitent and sinner, and ["from all"]' excepting no sin; and by the same virtue doth redeem us not so much from temporal punishment, as from eternal:-building this their doctrine not upon uncertain conjectures, but as it becometh the heirs of truth, upon the written will of our testator JESUS: and finally defend the same not with the inconstancy of innumerable contradictions, but with the strength of an universal consent. All which do perfect

1 John ii. If any man sin, &c.

21 John i. The Blood of CHRIST doth purge from all our sins.

this our appeal, and we conclude in the sentence of St. Augustine, "A Sacrifice (saith he, using the word in a large sense), when it is offered unto God, according to His inspiration and doctrine, it is true religion; but if it want that direction, it is a pestilent and contagious superstition."-pp. 188, 9.

ANDREWS, BISHOP AND DOCTOR.-Sermon of the worshipping of Imaginations.

Imaginations touching the "breaking of bread :"... Concerning which, as the Church of Rome hath her imaginations: first, in that she many times celebrateth this mystery sine fractione, without any "breaking" at all. Whereas (as heretofore hath been shewed out of 1 Cor. x. 18.), it is of the nature of an Eucharist or Peace-offering: which was never offered but it was eaten, that both these might be a representation of the memory of that Sacrifice, and together an application to each person by partaking it. And secondly, in that she hath indeed no "breaking of bread" at all. . . . . As these are their imaginations, so we want not ours. For many among us fancy only a Sacrament in this action, and look strange at the mention of a Sacrifice: whereas, we not only use it as a nourishment spiritual (as that it is too), but a mean also to renew a covenant with God, by virtue of that Sacrifice, as the Psalmist speaketh, (Psalm 1. 5.) So our Saviour CHRIST in the institution telleth us, (Luke xxii. 10.) And the Apostle, (Heb. xiii. 10.) And the old writers use no less the word "Sacrifice," than "Sacrament;" "altar," than "table;" offer," than "eat;" but both indifferently, to shew there is both. -Sermons, Appendix, p. 35.

ID.-Responsio ad Apologiam Card. Bellarmini, cap. viii.

And this it is whereat they of our side do "marvel," not that whereat the Cardinal there feigneth that they marvel. For they "believe that the Eucharist was instituted by our LORD" for the commemoration of Him; even of His Sacrifice; or, if we may so speak, (si ita loqui liceat) for a commemorative Sacrifice: and not only for a "Sacrament," or "spiritual food." This, however, though

they admit, yet they deny that these two uses, (thus instituted by the LORD at the same time and conjointly,) can be rent asunder by man, or be broken off the one from the other, either by reason of the negligence of the people, or the avarice of the priests. (They hold) that the Sacrifice which is there, is eucharistic or which Sacrifice it is the law that he who offereth it partake of it: and partake of it by taking and eating (as our SAVIOUR COMmanded.) For "to partake impetrando" is a modern and novel kind of partaking: even much more than the private mass itself.

And from what I have now said (concerning the commemoration there made of the Sacrifice, or the commemorative Sacrifice), it may be seen that that is all to no purpose which the Cardinal (without any occasion, however,) putteth in touching the "antiquity" of this word. For the King said nothing touching that word. . . . But do ye take away from the Mass your Transubstantiation, and there will not be long any controversy with us concerning the Sacrifice. That a memory is there made of the Sacrifice, we grant willingly. That your CHRIST made of bread is sacrificed there, we will never grant. The word "Sacrifice" the King knoweth is used by the Fathers, nor doth he "put it amongst novelties:" but that of your "Sacrifice in the Mass" he both "dareth" and doth so "put."—pp. 183, 4.

ID.-Sermons Of the Resurrection. No. 7.

Thus CHRIST is a passover . . . But, above all, His death, His offering was it. . . there, our sins passed from us to Him. Then and there passed the destroyer over us. . . Of which passing our sins to Him, and God's wrath over us, this day, and the action of this day, is a memorial. . . . “Therefore let us keep a feast."

...

'Eoprawμer the word is one, but two ways it is turned. Some read Celebremus, some other Epulemur. But well for first, it is kindly, when we keep a feast, we make a feast. But this, this feast is not celebrated sine hoc epulo. If CHRIST be a propitiatory sacrifice, a Peace-offering, I see not how we can avoid but the flesh of our peace-offering must be eaten in this feast by us, or else we evacuate the offering utterly, and lose the

fruit of it and was there a Passover heard of and the lamb not eaten?... No Celebremus without Epulemur in it.

Celebremus and epulemur. There be, that refer celebremus to the day epulemur to the action: and so it may, well both day and action have interest in this text. ...

But the Fathers usually refer both to the action. Their reason because (in truth) the Eucharist now, in the Gospel, is that the Passover was under the Law: the antitype answering to their type of the Paschal Lamb. It is plain, by the immediate passage of it from the one to the other: that no sooner done, than this began. Look how soon the Paschal Lamb eaten, presently the holy Eucharist instituted, to succeed in the place of it for ever. And yet more plain, that this very Scripture of my text was thought so pertinent, and so proper to this action, as it was always said or sung at it. And I know no cause, but it might be so still. Two things CHRIST there gave us in charge ȧváμvnois (chap. xi. 25.) " remembering," and As (chap. xi. 24.) "receiving :" the same two, St. Paul (but, in other terms) karayyɛλía "shewing forth;" kovovía "communicating." Of which, "remembering" and "showing forth" refer to celebremus; "receiving" and "communicating," to epulemur here.

The first in remembrance of Him, CHRIST what of Him? mortem Domini, His death, (saith St. Paul:) to "shew forth the LORD's death." Remember Him, that we will, and stay at home; think of Him there: nay, shew Him forth ye must. That we will, by a Sermon of Him: nay, it must be Hoc facite. It is not mental thinking, or verbal speaking: there must be actually somewhat done to celebrate this memory. That done to the holy symbols, that was done to Him, to His body, and His blood, in the Passover break the one, pour out the other; to represent κλώμενον how His sacred Body was broken; and ἐκχυνόμενον, how His precious Blood was shed. And in corpus fractum, and sanguis fusus there is immolatus. This is it, in the Eucharist, that answereth to the Sacrifice in the Passover: the memorial, to the figure. To them it was, Hoc facite in Mei præfigurationem, Do this in prefiguration of Me: to us it is, Do this, in commemoration of Me. To them, prænuntiare: to us annuntiare: there is the difference. By the same rules that theirs was, by the same