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 showed 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 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 show there is both. -Sermons, Appendix, p. 35.

ours.

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 commemo ration there made of the Sacrifice, or the commemorative Sacri fice), it may be seen that it 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 im mediate 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 åváμrnois (chap. xi. 25.) “remembering," and Ac (chap. xi. 24.) "receiving :" the same two, St. Paul (but, in other terms) karayyeλía " showing forth;" Kowvwvia "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 "show forth the LORD's death." Remember Him, that we will, and stay at home;. think of Him there: nay, show 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

may ours be termed a Sacrifice. In rigour of speech, neither of them; for (to speak after the exact manner of Divinity) there is but one only Sacrifice, veri nominis, properly so called: that is CHRIST's death. And that Sacrifice but once actually performed, at His death but ever before represented, in figure, from the beginning; and ever since repeated, in memory, to the world's end. That only absolute; all else relative to it, representative of it, operative by it. The Lamb, but once actually slain, in the fulness of time: but virtually, was from the beginning, is, and shall be, to the end of the world. That, the centre, in which, their lines and ours, their types and our antitypes do meet. While yet this offering was not, the hope of it was kept alive, by the prefiguration of it, in theirs. And after it is past, the memory of it still kept fresh in mind, by the commemoration of it, in ours. So it was the will of God; that so, there might be with them a continual foreshowing, and with us a continual showing forth the LORD's death till He come again. Hence it is, that what names their's carried, our's do the like, and the Fathers make no scruple at it; no more need we. The Apostle (in the tenth chapter) compareth this of ours to the immolata of the Heathen: and (to the Hebrews) Habemus aram matcheth it with the sacrifice of the Jews. And we know the rule of comparisons: they must be ejusdem generis.

Neither do we stay here, but proceed to the other [Epulemur]. For, there is another thing yet to be done, which doth present to us that which celebremus doth represent. From the Sacrament, is the applying the Sacrifice. The Sacrifice, in general, pro omnibus. The Sacrament, in particular, to each several receiver, pro singulis. Wherein, that is offered to us, that was offered for us; that which is common to all, made proper to each one, while each taketh his part of it; and made proper by a communion, and union, like that of meat and drink, which is most nearly and inwardly made ours, and is inseparable for ever. . .

Will ye mark one thing more: that epulemur doth here refer to immolatus. To CHRIST, not every way considered, but as when He was offered. CHRIST's body that now is; true but not CHRIST's body as now it is, but as then it was, which was offered, VOL. IV. 81.

H

rent, and slain, and sacrificed for us.

Not as now He is glo

rified; for so, He is not, so He cannot be immolatus; for He is

He was, when He suf-
Then, in His passible

immortal, and impassible. But as then fered death (that is) passible and mortal. estate, did He institute this of ours, to be a memorial of His passibile, and passio, both. And we are, in this action, not only carried up to CHRIST (sursum corda) but, we are also carried back to CHRIST; as He was at the very instant, and in the very act of His offering. So, and no otherwise, doth this text teach. So, and no otherwise, do we represent Him.-pp. 451-454.

Now, then, this is our conclusion: come we must, and Itaque celebremus. ...The Apostle binds us to do it: the time to do it, now. For, if this follow, CHRIST is offered, therefore we are to come to His feast: this will follow as strongly, CHRIST is now offered, therefore let us now come . . . . . .... And indeed, if at any time we will do it, Quando Pascha, nisi in Pascha, what time is the Passover so proper as at the Feast of the Passover ? . . . . When the day cometh, to remember what was done on the day; and so, what we to do, on that day. Pascha quod celebramus, to put us in mind of Pascha quod epulamur. For, tell me, will the Sacrifice commemorative, or the Sacrament communicative, ever fall more fit than when that was offered, which we are to commemorate, and to communicate withal.—p. 457.

ID.-Answer to Cardinal Perron.

The Eucharist a Sacrifice.

1. The Eucharist ever was, and by us is considered, both as a Sacrament and as a Sacrifice. 2. A Sacrifice is proper and appliable only to divine worship. 3. The Sacrifice of CHRIST's death did succeed to the Sacrifices of the Old Testament. 4. The Sacrifice of CHRIST's death is available for present, absent, living, dead (yea, for them that are yet unborn). 5. When we say the dead, we mean it is available for the Apostles, Martyrs, and Confessors, and all (because we are all members of one body): these no man will deny.

In a word, we hold with St. Augustine, in the very same chapter which the Cardinal citeth, Quod hujus Sacrificii caro et