'MISSARUM SACRIFICIA' 
 
 
 
 N. D I MOCK 
 
i3 
 
 936 
 
 15^ 
 
 in tixe ©its of g-^w^ ^^rU 
 
 1901 
 
TESTIMONIES OF ENGLISH DIVINES. 
 
'MISS AHUM SACIilFICI A 
 
 I IM'.I 1/ 
 
 TESTIMONIES 
 
 e:nglish divi:nes 
 
 IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF THE 
 
 'MASSING-PBIESTS' 
 
 TO OFFER CHRIST FOR THE QUICK AND THE DEAD 
 TO HAVE REMISSION OF PAIN OR GUILT ; 
 
 WITH AN INTRODUCTION 
 
 BY THE 
 
 EEV. N. DIMOCK, A.M. 
 
 txM;^ 
 
 LONDON : 
 ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.G. 
 
 1896. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Inteoduction ------ 1 
 
 Supplemental Postsckipt - - - - 43 
 
 Testimonies of English Divines - - - 73 
 
 Appendix .--... 225 
 
 note a. on the publication of ^lfkic's 
 
 homily by archbishop parker - - 225 
 
 note b. on the two distinct senses of the 
 
 verb ' to offer ' - - - - ' 228 
 
 note c. on the mass-doctrine of salmeron - 236 
 
 Index -.-..-- 243 
 
 3?.S?zLt; 
 
TESTIMONIES OF ENGLISH DIVINES 
 (Tonccrnino tbc nDase^^Sacrifice. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The purpose of the following compilation is to 
 show the contrast between the tradition of the 
 Enarlish Reformed Church and the doctrine which 
 is unhappily being loudly proclaimed by some in 
 her name. 
 
 There are those among us who are learning to 
 think and to say, ' There has always in the 
 Church of England been a party opposed to 
 Puritanism. Why should we not be willing to 
 welcome such a party now ? We cannot make 
 nice distinctions.' 
 
 But it is confidentl}' believed that this publica- 
 tion wall suffice to show that it needs no eye for 
 nice distinctions to see a chasm deep and broad 
 
 1 
 
2 Introduction 
 
 separating between the doctrines taught by 
 esteemed divines of all sections in the English 
 Church aforetime, and the views propounded by 
 some modern innovators who would willingly seek 
 shelter for themselves under their great names. 
 
 Some little pains has been taken to give pro- 
 minence to writers of the Laudian and non- 
 juring schools of thought. And some divines 
 have been quoted for whose opinions the com- 
 piler would not desire to hold a brief 
 
 But we have here nothing to do with ques- 
 tions (however important) at issue between 
 differing schools within the comprehension of 
 the Church of England. 
 
 We are looking at a doctrine of the Eucharistic 
 sacrifice, which (as I believe has been shown 
 in ' Dangerous Deceits ') seems fir outside the 
 boundaries of that comprehension, as defined by 
 our Articles in their fair and obvious and only 
 natural interpretation. And my desire has been 
 to give evidence tending to demonstrate that no 
 school of Eno'lish divines ever took their stand 
 on the Romish side of the chasm which, since 
 the Reformation, has separated us from the 
 doctrine of the Romish Mass. 
 
Introduction 3 
 
 It would of course be impossible, without a 
 perfectly exhaustive list (which this does not 
 pretend to be), to prove a ' quod semper, quod 
 ubique, quod ab omnibus,' as applied to the 
 theology of the English Church. But it is 
 believed that no name of any weight and eminence 
 can be produced which can fairly be regarded as 
 an exception to what is here shown to be the 
 rule amono- our Enolish divines. 
 
 In No. 8 1 of ' Tracts for the Times,' there 
 was given a catena of writers who were cited in 
 support of a new doctrine of the Eucharistic 
 Sacrifice, But not one of these, I believe, will 
 be found to stand on the side of our new teachers. 
 
 In saying this, I take no account of the 
 passages quoted as from Bishop Overall, because 
 they are certainly none of his. * 
 
 * See ' Eucharistic Presence,' pp. 296-298. And it is 
 not easy to believe that they are Cosin's {ibid., p. 297). It 
 must be admitted, I think, even by those who are not fully 
 convinced, that the evidence adduced by Canon Meyrick 
 goes a good way towards proving that they are rather to be 
 attributed to Overall's nephew, J. Hay ward. See Foreign 
 Church Chronicle, September, 1886, p. 160. See also Mr, 
 Kennion's letter in Guardian of October 23, 1889, and 
 especially Canon Meyrick's cogent letters in Guardian of 
 October 23, and November 20, 1889, to which may be added 
 his letter in Guardian of December 4, 1889. 
 
4 Introduction 
 
 In years that are past, English Churchmen 
 and representative High Churchmen have not 
 hesitated to denounce the corruptions of 
 Rome, have given assurances for the Protest- 
 antism of England's Church, and pledged them- 
 selves as supporters of England's Reformation. 
 What would these men say of the doctrines 
 of some who sometimes now make use of their 
 names ? 
 
 What would the judicious Hooker say, who 
 testified, ' That which they call schism, we 
 know to be our reasonable service unto God 
 and obedience to His voice, which crieth 
 shrill in our ears, " Go out of Babylon, My 
 people, that ye be not j^^-i'takers of her sins, 
 and that ye receive not of her plagues" '? 
 (Sermon on Jude, Works, vol. iii., p. 6 75. 
 Edit. Keble.) 
 
 What would be said b}' the bishops and 
 clergy in the time of King James I. ? 
 
 Perhaps some may be startled at seeing what 
 they did say in the Convocation of IGOfi. 'If 
 any man shall affirm, under colour of anything 
 that is in the Scriptures, or that can be truh' 
 grounded upon natural reason or philosophy, that 
 
Introduction 5 
 
 our Saviour Christ should have showed Himself 
 to have had no discretion, except He had left 
 one chief bishop to have governed all the Churches 
 in the world .... or that the intolerable pride 
 of the Bishop of Rome, for the time still being, 
 through the advancement of himself, by many 
 sleights, stratagems, and false miracles, over the 
 Catholic Church (the temple of God), as if he 
 were God Himself, doth not argue him plainly 
 to be the man of sin mentioned by the Apostle ; 
 or that every national Church, planted according 
 to the Apostles' platform, may not, by the means 
 which Christ hath ordained, as well subsist of 
 itself, without one universal bishop, as every 
 kingdom may do under the government of their 
 several kings, without one general monarch ; he 
 doth greatly err '^^ (Cardwell's ' Synodalia,' pp. 
 377, 379). 
 
 What would Bishop Overall say, who has too 
 
 * Compare the words of Archbishop Parker : ' It is the 
 pride, covetousness, and usurpation of the Bishop of Eome, 
 and of his predecessors, which hath made the princes of 
 the earth to defend their territories and their privileges 
 from that wicked Babylon and her bishop. . . . Thus doth 
 our Eeformation detest your Eomish errors and heinous 
 presumption. . . . Because ye be so earnest with us of the 
 Reformed Church of these her Majesty's dominions, for 
 
6 Introduction 
 
 often been appealed to, by a strange misappre- 
 hension, in support of quasi-Romish error, but 
 who wrote ' Mahomedam sive Turcani, et Papam 
 Romanum simul constituere Anti-Christum 
 est verisimile ' ? (See ' Eucharistic Presence,' 
 p. 2 9 8.)* 
 
 What would have been thought by the very 
 learned Joseph Mede, of whom it was said by 
 John Johnson that he ' was not more remark- 
 
 subjection to foreign tribunals, to confute you and your 
 errors, pray bebold and see how we of the Church of 
 England, reformed by our late King Edward and his clergy, 
 and now by her Majesty and hers reviving the same, have 
 but imitated and followed the examples of the ancient and 
 worthy fathers ' ('Correspondence,' P.S. edit., pp. 109-111). 
 Similar language concerning the Church of Kome was used 
 by Archbishop Whitgift. See his Works, vol. ii., p. 182, 
 P.S. edit. 
 
 On the Canons of 1606 (Overall's ' Convocation Book '), 
 see Cardwell's ' Synodaha,' pp. 330-332. They never had the 
 Eoyal Assent, the King not liking ' a Convocation entering 
 into such a theory of politics.' But they were passed by 
 both Houses of Convocation. 
 
 * See also his words as quoted in p. 302 : ' Touching 
 many of which superstitious errors, even the chiefest of 
 them (the same being controverted betwixt us and the 
 Church of Eome), they are discussed in the books ensuing 
 [i.e., the works of Jewel] : and our doctrine is therein 
 justified against the Papists by the certain testimonies of 
 the fathers and constant judgment of antiquity ' (in Jewel's 
 Works, P.S. edit., iv., p. 1309). 
 
Introduction 7 
 
 able for his industiy in asserting the Christian 
 sacrifice, than in liis laborious proofs that the 
 Church of Rome is the Anti-Christian Church '? 
 (See Tract No. 81, p. 310.) 
 
 What would good Bishop Bedell have said ? 
 He was a man of most irenical tendencies (see 
 Carr's ' Life of Ussher, p. 227), yet this was 
 his exhortation : 'Intreat them to beware lest they 
 make themselves extremely culpable, not only of 
 partaking with the former idolatries . . . but 
 the new detestable doctrines, Derogatory to the 
 Blood of Christ, which moderate men even of 
 her ow^n subjects detest : but which she [the 
 Boman Babylon], for fear it should discontent 
 her own creatures and devoted darlings, will not 
 disavow. O if they would fear the plagues of 
 Babylon, and that of all others the fearfulest, 
 Blindness of mind, and strong delusions to believe 
 lies' (Burnet's 'Life of Bedell,' pp. 167, 168. 
 London, 1685). 
 
 What would Bishop Andrewes say ? Hear 
 what he did say : ' Vere autem a Torto dicitur. 
 Bomara Christiaiiani perditam non iri. Non certe, 
 sed Ulani quce inehriata est Sanctorum sanguine, 
 et Martyrum Jesu Christi, Antichristianam 
 
8 Introduction 
 
 scilicet. Ea enini perdenda est, cujtis in Jronte 
 scriptum nomen hlasphe7nice . . . Christi nomen 
 deleri opqrtuit prius, et deletum est, quam 
 hlasphemia, ibi scriberetiir. Postquam autem 
 ibi scripta hlasphemia, turn demum vere Babylon 
 fuit, vere est' (' Tortura Torti,' pp. 220-222, 
 A.C.L.). 
 
 What would Bishop Sanderson say, who, 
 speaking of * the doctrinal errors of the Church 
 of Rome,' says, ' the imposing of these errors 
 upon the consciences of men, to be believed as 
 of necessity, is damnable, and doth not only 
 justify a separation already made, but also 
 bindeth sub mortali all true Christians to such 
 a separation' (Works, vol. v., pp. 246, 247. 
 Oxford, 1854); and again, * Corollaria nunnulla 
 inferam, sed pauca et paucis, merito exosam esse 
 debere cuilibet Christiano Romani Pontificis 
 conjunctam cum summo fastu non ferendam 
 tyrannidem^. . . . Et proinde agnoscendam esse 
 cum omni grati animi significatione summam et 
 singularem Dei Optimi Maximi in nos bonitatem 
 et misericordiam, qui nos patresque nostros et 
 
 * Compare Sanderson's letter in D'Oyly's ' Life of San- 
 croft,' vol. i., p. 442. 
 
Introduction 9 
 
 Ecclcsiain Ant^'lieaiiaiu taiii inicjua tyrannide 
 duduiii exemerit, et justse libertati quasi post- 
 liminio restituerit ' ? (Vol. iv., pp. 62, 63.) 
 
 What would Dr. Hammond say ? He wrote, 
 ' I should think all men that have covenanted 
 to reform according to the example of the best 
 reformed Churches, indispensably obliged to con- 
 form to the King Edward or Queen Elizabeth 
 English Reformation, the most perfect regular 
 pattern that Europe yieldeth ' (Works, vol. i., 
 p. 360. Edit. 1684).* 
 
 What would Bishop Jeremy Taylor say ? He 
 declared, ' If we will not call them [our Re- 
 formers] martyrs, it is clear we have changed 
 our religion since then ; and then it should be 
 considered whither we are fallen.' And he adds 
 (in view of Puritan excesses), ' It will be sad to 
 live in an age that should disavow King Edward's 
 and Queen Elizabeth's religion and manner of 
 worshipping God, and in an age that shall do 
 as did Queen Mary's bishops, reject and condemn 
 
 * It hardly needs to be said that this was written against 
 the purposes of tliose who desired that the Church of 
 England might be reformed after the model of what they 
 regarded as the ' best reformed ' Churches on the Continent. 
 
^ Introduction 
 
 the Book of ComiiioD Prayer, and the religion 
 contained in it' (Works, vol. v., p. 249. Edit. 
 Eden. See ' Papers on Eucharistic Presence/ 
 p. 512). 
 
 What would Bishop Bull say, who assures 
 us ' Popery was born and bred in ignorant and 
 unlearned ages ; and as soon as learning revived, 
 popery began to decline, till at last the happy 
 Reformation ensued, which we now enjoy ' 
 (Works, vol. i., p. 257. Oxford, 1846); and 
 again declares, ' These excellent men, our first 
 reformers, took care to retain and j^resorve what 
 was primitive and good in the liturgies of other 
 churches, and to pare off all excrescences and 
 adventitious corruptions of after times. . . . We 
 have an entire sacrament, the cup of blessing in 
 the holy Eucharist, which, was sacrilegiously taken 
 from us by the Church of Rome, being happily 
 restored to us. The ridiculous pageantry and 
 fopjDeries of that Church arc laid aside, and we 
 have the Holy Sacrament purely, reverently, and 
 decently administered. Let us bless and praise 
 God for these His great mercies, and make a 
 good use of them ' ? [Ihul., p. 344.) 
 
 What would Archbishop Sancroft say ? He 
 
Introduction 1 1 
 
 desired that the clergy * take all opportunities 
 of assuring and convincing them [the Protestant 
 Dissenters] that the bishops of this Church are 
 real]}'- and sincerely irreconcilable enemies to 
 the errors, superstitions, idolatries, and tyrannies 
 of the Church of Rome, and that the very un- 
 kind jealousies which some have had of us to the 
 contrary were altogether groundless. And in 
 the last place, that they warmly and most affec- 
 tionately exhort them to join with us in daily 
 fervent prayer to the God of Peace for a 
 universal blessed union of all reformed Churches, 
 both at home*' and abroad, aofainst our common 
 enemies, and that all they who do confess the 
 Holy Name of our dear Lord, and do agree in 
 the truth of His Holy Word, may also meet in 
 one Holy Communion and live in perfect unity 
 
 * On Sancroft's ' Scheme of Comprehension,' see D'Oyly's 
 ' Life of Sancroft,' vol. i., pp. 325-330. London : 1821. 
 
 In 1678 Sancroft, in conjunction with Bishop Morley, of 
 Winchester, delivered an address to the Duke of York (the 
 design having originated with the bishops) which concluded 
 with these words : ' That Church which teacheth and prac- 
 tiseth the doctrines destructive of salvation is to be relin- 
 quished. But the Church of Rome teacheth and practiseth 
 doctrines destructive of salvation. Therefore the Church of 
 Rome is to be relinquished.' See D'Oyly's ' Life,' vol. i., 
 p. 176. 
 
1 2 Introduction 
 
 and godly l(jve ' (see ' Papers on Euoharistic 
 Presence,' p. 3 75). 
 
 What would the learned Dr. William Clagett 
 say ? He was cut off in the prime of life, but 
 not before he had won for himself a name and 
 authority inferior to that of very few of his day. 
 He is ranked by Bishop Burnet {' Own Time,' 
 p. 307. London, 1857) among those who 'were 
 indeed an honour, both to the Church and to the 
 age in which they lived.' And thus he wrote, 
 * If the corruptions of the Roman Church (which 
 God forbid) should ever come to be established 
 in this Church of England again by the same 
 authority that has abolished them, it were not 
 only lawful, but a necessary duty to separate 
 from the communion of this Church in that 
 case' (Enchirid. Theol. Anti-R, pp. 692, 093). 
 And again, ' We say that they who in Queen 
 Mary's days chose to lay down their lives rather 
 than return to the communion of the Roman 
 Church, were so far from being schismatics, that 
 they were God's martyrs in so doing ' {ihid., 
 p. 694). 
 
 What would the estimable and learned Bishop 
 George Hooper, the friend and successor of the 
 
Introduction 1 3 
 
 saintly Bishop Ken,* say? This is what he did 
 saj^ : ' Who wouhl not stand amazed to hear that 
 Church styled popish, the purity of whose faith 
 has been declared so expressly, so illustriously 
 attested and spoken of through all the world ? . . . . 
 What a new wonder must this be to the world, 
 to hear the Church constituted by Cranmer and 
 Ridley accused of popery ! the faith and worship 
 suspected to be unreformed, which was delivered 
 to us by those great martyrs ! . . . . If this 
 Church and these men, after the declaration 
 made in our Articles, after repeated subscrip- 
 tions and abrenunciations, after all this zealous 
 opposition of popery, must yet be suspected of 
 popery ; as well, on the other side, may the 
 decrees of Trent be said to comply with the 
 Reformation, and the Pope himself be thought 
 to be a Protestant. One would imagine, from 
 the suspicions of these men that traduce us, that 
 there was some small inconsiderable difference 
 betwixt the papists and us, something that 
 
 * As to Ken's own views, see Dean Plumptre's ' Life of 
 Ken,' vol. i., p. 236, and especially Goode on ' Eucharist,* 
 ii., pp. 706-710 and 892-890. See also 'Eucharistic Presence,* 
 pp. 155, 156. 
 
1 4 Introduction 
 
 might easily be reconciled ; not that we differ 
 as much from them, in all necessary points, as 
 those very persons they pretend to follow. For 
 let all the harmony of Protestant confessions be 
 consulted, and see if we are not of the harmony, 
 and our Articles do not conspire with theirs ; if 
 ours are not as express and as directly opposite 
 to the Roman Church ; if there can be any hopes 
 of reconcilinof us sooner than of reconcilino- them ' 
 (Works, vol. i., pp. ?>, 4. Oxford, 1855). 
 
 Assuredly such Churchmen as these w^ould 
 have had little sympathy with efforts to emas- 
 culate the Protestantism of our formularies, to 
 stifle the witness of our Prayer-book against the 
 errors of the Church of Rome, and to turn aside 
 the arrow of our Articles' condemnation — aimed 
 straiofht at the sacrifices of Masses — to strike 
 only an obscure, an insignificant and preposterous 
 delusion, in order that the sacrifice of the Mass 
 may be again defended, upheld, and established. 
 Surely we may venture to ask our friends wdio 
 are in danger of being misled by specious argu- 
 ments to pause and consider whither they are 
 tending. 
 
 Are we prepared to stand u]3 and charge our 
 
Introduction 1 5 
 
 great English divines with heresy ? Are we 
 ready to gird on new weapons of warfare and 
 light under an ahen banner in defence of doctrines 
 which they so strenuously opposed ? 
 
 At least, let us first bring the controversy 
 afresh into the light of God's truth, and see 
 whether they were not right in insisting that 
 the sacrifices of Masses were blasphemous fables 
 and dangerous deceits. 
 
 To what shall we attribute the use of such 
 plain speaking and such strong language as 
 applied by these divines to the Church of Rome ? 
 
 Doubtless, those who have been able to per- 
 suade themselves that the doctrine of the Mass 
 is a true doctrine, and that our Article XXXI. 
 has nothing to say concerning the teaching of 
 Rome, may consistently set it down to the 
 account of an unhappy persistence of the evil 
 feeling engendered by what they regard as the 
 heats and mistakes and hasty proceedings of the 
 Reformation period. It is not to be wondered 
 at if in the ears of such it has a sound as of 
 ' bitterness and wrath, and anger and clamour, 
 and evil speaking,' which should be put awa}'- 
 from us with all malice. 
 
1 6 Introduction 
 
 But it cannot be so accounted for by those 
 whose sacred convictions have led them to see in 
 our Article XXXT. a faithful witness against 
 something more serious than mediaeval super- 
 stition, and are fully persuaded that the Church 
 of Kome hath erred not only in their living and 
 manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of 
 faith. 
 
 If the teaching of our Article XXXI. is a true 
 teaching, to stand clearly, in this matter, on the 
 side of the Reformation is a solemn duty. 
 
 If the testimonies alleged in this compilation 
 against the sacrifice of the Mass are not all and 
 altogether founded on error, it is the part of 
 Christian charity to bear true and faithful wit- 
 ness against the errors and corruptions of Rome, 
 and to speak out in no doubtful language against 
 specious invitations to re-union with a system 
 which ' by consequent ' is antagonistic to the 
 simplicity of the Gospel. 
 
 Certainly such faithful witness is not to be 
 attributed to any lack of true charity or true 
 wisdom. 
 
 In a note on his essay on ' Union with Rome ' 
 the late Bishop C. Wordsworth of Lincoln wrote 
 
Introduction 1 7 
 
 (p. 74) : * Some most eminent for charity and 
 wisdom, in the present age, have set the example 
 of reviving the language of Hooker and Bishop 
 Andrewes on this point. In a conversation which 
 the author of this essay had with a prelate dis- 
 tinguished alike by learning and mildness, our 
 late revered primate, Archbishop Howley, his 
 grace adverted to this subject, and declared, as 
 his own opinion, that " as long as the Seven Hills 
 of Rome are standinaf, so lono: will it be clear to 
 all who reflect, that the Church of Rome is the 
 Babylon of St. John.'" 
 
 In the same essay Bishop) Wordsworth says : 
 * It has been shown in those vindications [of our 
 own divines] that it is the bounden duty of all 
 Churches to avoid strife, and to seeh 'peace, and 
 ensue it. But it was also demonstrated, no less 
 clearly, that unity in erro7' is not true unity, but 
 is rather to be called a conspiracy against the 
 God of unity and truth' (p. 78). 
 
 * Doubtless [he adds] there is a unity when 
 everything in nature is wrapped in the gloom of 
 night, and bound with the chains of sleep. 
 Doubtless there is a unity when the earth is 
 congealed by frost and mantled in a robe of 
 
 2 
 
1 8 Introduction 
 
 snow. Doubtless there is a unity when the 
 human voice is still, the hand motionless, the 
 breath suspended, and the human frame is locked 
 in the iron grasp of death. And doubtless there 
 is a unity when men surrender their reason, 
 and sacrifice their liberty, and stifle their con- 
 science, and seal up Scrij^ture, and deliver them- 
 selves captives, bound hand and foot, to the 
 dominion of the Church of Rome. But this is 
 not the unity of vigilance and light ; it is the 
 unity of sleep and gloom. It is not the unity 
 of warmth and life ; it is the unity of cold and 
 death. It is not true unity, for it is not unity 
 in the truth ' (pp. 78, 79). 
 
 A little further on, speaking of the Apocalypse, 
 the bishop says : ' In this divine book the Spirit 
 of God has portraj^ed the Church of Rome such 
 as none but He could have foreseen she would 
 become, and such as, w^onderful and lamentable 
 to say, she has become. He has thus broken 
 her magic spells ; He has taken the wand of 
 enchantment from the hand of this spiritual 
 Circe ; He has lifted the mask from her face ; 
 and with His Divine finger He has written her 
 true character in large letters, and has planted 
 
I^'TRODucTIO^• 1 9 
 
 her title on her forehead, to be seen and read 
 
 by all " MYSTERY, BABYLON' THK CREAT, THE 
 
 MOTHER OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH " ' 
 (pp. 81, 82). 
 
 Let me add from the same learned divme the 
 following statement written at a time when he 
 was drawing nearer to the close of this life : 
 ' After a careful meditation for many years upon 
 these prophecies concerning the Apocalyptic 
 Babylon, the present writer here solemnly, in 
 the presence of the Omniscient Searcher of 
 hearts, who dictated these awful predictions, 
 records this as his deliberate judgment upon 
 them, probably for the last time ' (' Commentary 
 on Rev. xvii,,' p. 24 6). 
 
 But in view of the testimonies against the 
 Romish Mass doctrine which are here brought 
 together, the question will probably be asked, 
 What is the true value of any such collection ? 
 Has not the very name of catena been brought 
 into contempt by the facility with which theo- 
 logical writings may be cited (and too often 
 have been cited) in support of views which the 
 writers themselves never held '. And may not 
 other quotations from English divines be multi- 
 
20 Introduction 
 
 plied to discredit the argument which these 
 testimonies are alleged to support I 
 
 In answer to all such questions, those who 
 would desire truly to study and examine the 
 matter should be asked to see clearly a distinction 
 which very really exists between ambiguous 
 language cited in support of a positive doctrine 
 and clear statements of the negation and re- 
 jection of any such doctrine. 
 
 Archbishop Longle}', in his ' Posthumous 
 Charge ' (p. 29), well and truly said : 'A single 
 disclaimer of a meaning which might be attributed 
 to his language, a single explanation on his part 
 of what might otherwise be doubtful, a single 
 correction of a phrase which might otherwise 
 mislead, surely serves as a general interpretation 
 of an author's meaning in other passages where 
 the like correction or explanation does not 
 occur.' 
 
 A quotation may be made as in support of a 
 doctrine connnonly known by such or such a 
 name — a name which in its ambiguities also 
 admits another — a secondary sense. And the 
 very context may show clearly tliat the writer is 
 using the term not in the sense which it is 
 
Introduction 2 1 
 
 alleged to defend. And the force of the quota- 
 tion may obviously thus be utterly evacuated 
 by simply showing that the writer repudiated 
 the doctrine in support of wliich he was called 
 as a witness. 
 
 We know what serious mistakes have thus 
 been made through the ambiguity of the term 
 ' real presence.' 
 
 But it is clearly quite otherwise with the 
 unambiguous language by which a doctrine is 
 clearly and distinctly rejected and negatived. 
 
 This distinction may easily be illustrated by 
 applying it to the matter before us. It will be 
 seen that there is a certain sense in which English 
 divines have safely used the word ' offer '; some- 
 times have defended the language which speaks 
 of offering Christ for the living and tlie dead, yet 
 with explanatory limitations w4iich have made 
 evident that the words are not to be understood 
 in the ordinary sense in which they are used b}'' 
 Romish divines. (See below, Appendix B.) 
 
 But the language of these same English 
 divines, in which they deny and repudiate the 
 Romish doctrine of the Mass, can never be 
 bi'ought to nought by any special pleadings or 
 
22 Imkoduction 
 
 .s]>ecious arguments derived fr(Mii the ambiguities 
 of lanouaofe. 
 
 The statements of doctrinal assertion may be 
 often misunderstood. The statements of doctrinal 
 negation arc commonh' unmistakable. 
 
 If the question be asked, Are there, then, no 
 quotations which may fairly be made from Eng- 
 lish divines to support the Romish view of the 
 Eucharistic Sacrifice ? I answer that I know 
 none. If I am in error I shall be thankful to 
 be corrected, but I am not aware that any 
 divine of esteem can be cited M'hose testimon}^ 
 can be fairly set to weigh in the opposite scale 
 to that of the testimonies which are here 
 collected. 
 
 In his explanatory letter to Dr. Jelf, pub- 
 lished in the year 1841, Newman replied to the 
 charge that Tract 90 asserted that the Thirty- 
 nine Articles ' do not contain any condemnation 
 of the doctrines of Purgatory, Pardons, Wor- 
 shipping and Adoration of Images and Relics, 
 the Invocation of Saints, and the Mass, as they 
 are taught authoritatively in the Church of Pome, 
 but only of certain absurd practices and opinions, 
 which intelligent Romanists repudiate as much 
 
Introduction 23 
 
 as we do ;' and he declared, ' On the contrary, 
 I consider that they do contain a condemnation 
 of the authoritative teachino- of the Church of 
 
 o 
 
 Rome on these points ; I only say that, whereas 
 they were written before the decrees of Trent, 
 they were not directed against those decrees ' 
 (p. 4). 
 
 Yet we have the assurance of Newman him- 
 self (given in the year 1879) that 'although 
 the Ninetieth " Tract for the Times " did not even 
 o-o so far as to advocate the Sacerdotium in the 
 Catholic sense, but only the possibility of inter- 
 preting the Thirty-first Article in a sense short 
 of its denial, Dr. Routh told the Bishop of 
 Oxford, who consulted him on the point, that 
 such interpretations generally as those advocated 
 in the Tract were a simple novelty in Anglican 
 history' (Preface to Hutton's 'Anglican Ministry,' 
 p. xvi). 
 
 It will be readily admitted, I suppose, by 
 all, that very few men indeed could speak on 
 such a point with greater authority than 
 Dr. Routh. 
 
 And his authority may well be appealed to in 
 confirmation of the persuasion that no support 
 
'24 Introduction 
 
 will be found from any esteemed divine of the 
 English Church for the Mass doctrine as now by 
 some reintroduced among us. But let me not 
 be misunderstood. 
 
 I do not mean that there are no testimonies 
 of divines of the English Church, which, at 
 first sight, might well appear to be in 
 •opposition to the testimonies which are here 
 collected. 
 
 Bishop Forbes (of Edinburgh), in his ' Con- 
 siderationes Modest?©,' manifests a most irenical 
 tendency. Bishop Burnet says of him : ' I do 
 not deny but his earnest desire of general peace 
 and union among all Christians made him too 
 favourable to many of the corruptions of the 
 Church of Rome ' (in Preface to ' Life of Bishop 
 Bedell '). But it is clear that he deals with the 
 minimized view of the Romish doctrine, and 
 relies much on quotations from pre-Tridentine 
 writers, whose views are not those of post- 
 Tridentine Romanism. And he bears true wit- 
 ness against what goes beyond this. More- 
 over, he nowhere (I believe) aims at anything 
 like evacuating the natural meaning of our 
 Article XXXI. by a})plying it to any such 
 
Introduction 2 5 
 
 doctrine as that attributed to Catharinus (see his 
 Works, vol. ii., pp. 58 1-0 1:), A.C.L.*). 
 
 It is true that quotations may be made from 
 some English divines which, viewed in their 
 isolation, might seem to make small account of 
 the distinction — ([uoad sacrifice — between the 
 theology of England and that of Rome. But 
 this will be found to be the result of the incon- 
 sistencies of the Romish doctrine, and the 
 tendency of Romish divines to present in con- 
 troversy the minimized view of the sacrifice and 
 propitiation to be dealt with by their opponents 
 (see * Romish Mass and English Church,' 
 pp. 26-2 9, 44). 
 
 It was well for English divines to attempt to 
 hold their adversaries to this view — and to say, 
 * We are with you so far as sacrificial remem- 
 brance and representation aiid application — and 
 you can't go a step beyond this without 
 blasphemy.' ' Speak distinctly, and we cannot 
 tell what you desire more than we hold ' (see 
 
 * As to the language of Andre wes and Laud, and Cosin 
 and Bramhall, see ' The Theology of Bishop Andrewes,' 
 pp. 17, 18, 25, 26 ; ' The Eeal Presence of the Laudian 
 Theology,' pp. 49-52 ; ' Papers on the Eucharistic Presence,' 
 pp. 538, 563. 
 
2 6 Introduction 
 
 Br.'imhall, as quoted below, pp. 1.53-155, and 
 Works, vol. i., pp. 54, 5 5, A.C.L.). 
 
 But it would obviously be a mistake to suppose 
 that, therefore, these English divines were blind 
 to the fiict that Romish doctrine did not ' speak 
 distinctly,' and could not teach consistently such 
 a view as alone could be defended, and did (in 
 its other aspect — as seen from another side) 
 go beyond the boundary into the region of 
 blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits (see 
 again Bramhall, as quoted below, pp. 153-155, 
 and in ' Eucharistic Presence,' p. 53 8). How 
 could it be otherwise, so long as the sacrifices of 
 Masses were made to rest for their foundation 
 on the real presence of transubstantiation, and 
 their efficacy was made to depend, not merety 
 on any remembrance or representation, but upon 
 a real offering of Christ by the priest for the 
 quick and the dead ? 
 
 And so it should be observed that in dealing 
 with Bomish objections to our orders, bearing on 
 the omission of the power of sacrificing, our 
 divines of former generations (even those of 
 Laudian tendencies) never pleaded in answer, 
 ' We hold and teach as vou do the sacrifice of 
 
Introduction 2 7 
 
 the Mass, and claim for our priests the same 
 power of offering Christ for the Hving and the 
 dead ; our objection is only to abuses of your 
 doctrine.' But the position the}^ maintained 
 and defended Avas this : ' We, of the Church 
 of England, acknowledge a representation, com- 
 memoration, application of the sacrifice of the 
 Cross in the Eucharist.' ' And further than this 
 you dare not go — cannofc go without blasjjhemy ' 
 (see Bishop Cosin, as quoted below, pp. 1 62-1 6G). 
 
 But it is certain that their opponents never 
 consented to be content with this. Post- 
 Tridentine theology too plainly refused to be 
 restrained by any such limitations. 
 
 It was truly said by the non-juror Spinckes, 
 ' This will not suffice, for the Council of Trent 
 anathematizes such as proceed no further ' 
 (' Answer to Proposal for Catholic Communion,' 
 p. 142. London, 1705. See ' Komish Mass 
 and Enghsh Church,' pp. 2 8, 29). 
 
 If perhaps one or two of these English divines 
 may seem to have entertained a thought of the 
 possibility of explanatory concessions on the 
 Romish side (in the better understanding of the 
 subject on both sides ; see Bramhall's Works, 
 
2 8 Introduction 
 
 vol. ii., p. 5 82, A.C.L.) by which her doctrine 
 might be made consistent, and her language 
 speak distinctly according to the teaching of the 
 Reformed (see Bramhall's Works, vol. i., pp. 8 0, 
 81, 279), it will never (I believe) be found that 
 any one of these showed any disposition to 
 deduct anything from the teaching of our Article 
 as understood in its natural and obvious sense, 
 and as applied to the Romish doctrine of 
 Masses. 
 
 Probably the most doubtful case is that of 
 Bishop Montague (see Prynne's ' Canterbury's 
 Doom,' p. 352. London, 164G). But it must 
 not be supposed that in Bishop Montague's 
 projects for union (see Perry's ' History of the 
 Church of England,' vol. i., p. 347) there was 
 no difficulty felt as to points of doctrine, and 
 especially as to the Eucharist (see Berington's 
 'Memoirs of Panzani,' pp. 238, 242). Other 
 pacificators (in ' The Pope's Nuncios ') insisted 
 on some concessions in doctrine, ' otherwise no 
 accord could be ' (see ' Real Presence of Laudian 
 Theology,' p. 54, note). 
 
 However unfavourable may be the impression 
 of Montague's action conveyed by the history, it 
 
Introduction 29 
 
 is fair to take our view of his doctrine from his 
 own writings (see Hallam's * Const. Hist.,' vol. ii., 
 pp. 69-74, and Nicholls, ' Def.Eccl. Angl.,'p. 139.) 
 And httle account may be taken of what he 
 may have said to Panzani concerning the 
 bishops (see Panzani's ' own report to the Pope,' 
 as quoted by Hallam, p. 6 8, note). Hallani says 
 (p. 70) : 'It appears almost certain that 
 Montao'ue made too free with the name of the 
 
 o 
 
 archbishop, and probably of many others ; and 
 it is well worthy of remark, that the })opish 
 party did not entertain any sanguine hopes of 
 the King's conversion.' 
 
 It should be observed that Panzani had 
 orders ' not to touch upon ^particulars, nor give 
 encouragement that there should be any relaxa- 
 tion on the Catholic side, as to the credenda 
 or fundamentals of religion ' (see Berington's 
 ' Memoirs of Panzani,' p. 242). 
 
 If it were so that Bishop Montague was at 
 any time led on by his vanity (p. 241) into 
 something like playing a double part (which we 
 may be slow to believe till we have other 
 evidence than that of Panzani's * Memoirs,' 
 p. 248), the character of others ought not to be 
 
3 Introduction 
 
 compromised. But we are told, ' The truth is, 
 Panzani was apprehensive, the bishop still 
 entertained some opinions inconsistent with the 
 fundamentals of the Roman Catholic relisfion ' 
 ('Memoirs,' p. 242). And it is clear that he 
 had made himself responsible for such opinions 
 on the Eucharistic Presence and the Mass 
 Sacrifice (see ' Answer to Gag,' pp. 252, 263, 
 265, and ' Apello Csesarem,' pp. 294, 287). 
 And, indeed, it is very observable that among 
 the opinions imputed to him by Pym's Com- 
 mittee as ' contrary to the book of homilies and 
 the Thirty-nine Articles ' (see Neale's ' History 
 of Puritans,' vol. i., p. 507), there is not found 
 any one pertaining to the doctrine of the Mass, 
 or the teaching of Article XXXI. 
 
 It is unhappily not to be denied that Laud 
 had tendencies which led him to take the most 
 favourable view of Romish doctrine, a view far 
 more favourable than that of the reformers. 
 His natural temper, his surroundings, and the 
 difficulties of his position, and his desire to win 
 the English papists (see ' Cyprianus Anglicus,' 
 p. 417), all tended to draw him towards an assi- 
 milation (in externals at least) to the Romish 
 
Introduction -i I 
 
 system. But this very fact, ami the knowledge 
 of the temptations which were set before hin],* 
 make it all the more evident that the sense of 
 doctrinal differences made reconciliation with the 
 Romish Church, in his view, impossible, without. 
 doctrinalt concessions on the side of Rome (see 
 Heylyn's 'Cyprianus Anglicus,'pp. 414, 416, 419). 
 We might gather this even from ' The Pope's 
 Nuncios,' if we accepted as unquestionable all 
 that is contained in that singular publication (see 
 Goode's ' Rome's Tactics,' pp. 3 4, ;3 5. Nisbet, 
 18 93). And the testimony of Laud's writings 
 undoubtedly suffices to make it evident that 
 amonof these doctrinal differences Rome's teach- 
 
 * In his speech on the impeachment, Laud said : ' It 
 cannot be imagined by any reasonable man, but that, if I 
 could have complied with Eome, I should not have wanted 
 either honour or profit ' (Hook's ' Life of Laud,' p. 362). 
 And he appeals to ' the number of those persons whom, by 
 God's blessing upon my labours, I have settled in the true 
 Protestant religion established in England ' {ibid., p. 363). 
 
 t It is, indeed, passing strange that Heylyn (who admits 
 that ' no such reconcilation was upon the anvil ' — ' Cyprianus 
 Anghcus,' p. 417) should have thought a reconcihation with 
 Eome possible upon terms such as these : ' The bishops of 
 England to be independent of the Popes of Eome ; the 
 clergy to be permitted the use of marriage ; the people to 
 receive the Communion in both kinds, and all divine offices 
 officiated in the English tongue ; no innovation made in 
 
 DOCTEINE ' (p. 416). 
 
32 Introduction 
 
 ing concerning the Eucharist held a prominent 
 place.* On this point the teaching of Laud, 
 and of the Laudian school, misrepresented as it 
 has been, is not open to the charge of unfaithful- 
 ness. I believe I have given good and sufficient 
 evidence of this elsewhere (see ' The Real Pre- 
 sence of Laudian Theology,' especially p. 5 0). 
 Here it must suffice to appeal to the quotations 
 made from Laud's writings in the present com- 
 pilation, and especially to the distinct assertion of 
 his bosom friend, and devoted admirer, his alter 
 ego, Peter Heylyn. 
 
 Whatever error Heylyn may have fallen into 
 (and the reader is not asked to be an admirer of 
 the man or his writings) he can hardl}^ be charged 
 with teaching anything like the Romish doctrine 
 of the Mass. Witness the following- : * The 
 Article . . . determineth positively that the 
 sacrifices of Masses, in the whicli it ivas commonly 
 said that the Priests did offer Christ for the 
 
 * So Heylyn, ' next to the point of the supremacy, 
 esteemed the principal Article of religion in the Church of 
 Eome {" primus et priecipuus Komanensis fidei articulus ") as 
 is affirmed in the " History of the Council of Trent," the 
 most material differences betwixt them and us relate to the 
 Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the natural efficacy of 
 good works ' (' Cyprianus Anglicus,' p. 21), 
 
Introduction 33 
 
 quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or 
 guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous 
 
 deceits. And therefore had the Vicar of Gr 
 
 erected, or intended to erect, an altar for such a 
 sacrifice, he had not only sacrificed his discretion 
 on it, but also his religion, and been no longer 
 ivorthy to be called a so7i of the Church of Eng- 
 land' ('Coal from the Altar,' Sect. I., p. 7. 
 London, 1636). See further quotations from 
 Heylyn below, pp. 149-152. 
 
 At least, then, we should hesitate to lay a 
 denial of the natural sense of our Article XXXI. 
 to the charge of Laud or his followers. We may^ 
 some of us, have our dislikes and suspicions as 
 regards many of Laud's doings and sayings. We 
 may contrast unfavourably Laudian theology 
 with the theology of the Reformation ; but in 
 justice we are bound not to accuse it of teaching 
 the Romish doctrine of the Mass. 
 
 But I may reasonably be expected to make 
 some special reference to No. 8 1 of ' Tracts for 
 the Times.' 
 
 That tract contains a catena of * Testimony 
 of writers of the later English Church to the 
 doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.' The date 
 
 3 
 
34 Introduction 
 
 of this is November 1, 183 7 (see Pusey's 'Life,' 
 vol. iii., ]). 479). At this date Pusey's view 
 of the sacrifice (though differing doubtless from 
 that of the Reformers) appears to have fallen far 
 ^^hort of what is now maintained by some extreme 
 teachers among us. He acknowledges that ' the 
 Churcli of Rome had connected with the true 
 doctrine ' ' blas^ihemous fables and dangerous de- 
 ceits ' (p. 2) ; that ' Iter doctrine of the sacrifice 
 interfered with that of the one sacrifice on the 
 Cross ' (p. 4). He says, ' The Romish Church 
 corrupted and marred the Apostolic doctrine in 
 two ways : 1st, by the error of transubstantia- 
 tion ; 2nd, by that of ])urgatory. And in both 
 there occurs that })eculiar corruption of the ad- 
 ministrators of the Romish Church, that they 
 countenance so much more of profitable error 
 than in their abstract system they acknowledge ' 
 (p. 7). He speaks of ' the Romish error, "that 
 Christ was offered for the quick and dead'" (p. 11), 
 and of ' the false doctrine,' that ' in the Mass, 
 the priest did offer Christ for the quick and 
 dead' (p. 13). 
 
 It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that the 
 authorities quoted give no support to the Romish 
 
Introduction 35 
 
 doctrine, and make no attempt to ex})laiii away 
 the natural meaning of our Article XXXI., 
 though some of them show a disposition to mini- 
 mize the errors of Rome. They do not maintain 
 any hypostatical oblation of Christ. Those who 
 speak of the offering of the body and blood of 
 Christ, give us to understand that the offering 
 is to be understood as in mystery, or representa- 
 tion, or conunemoration. And though some use 
 the word ' propitiatory,' it is in the secondary 
 sense, which is separated by a wide gulf indeed 
 from its primary and stricter sense, or, to use the 
 words of Pusey, ' in no other sense than Cranmer 
 calls " gratificatory " . . . i.e., such a sacrifice 
 as doth not reconcile us to God, but is made of 
 them as be reconciled' (p. 51), or which Water- 
 land calls ' propitiatory in a sober qualified 
 sense '* (p. 52 ; see especially Works, vol. v., 
 
 * We need hardly wonder at what is related concerning 
 I. Casaubon by Barclay : ' " Nihil," inquit Casaubonus, 
 " opus est ut labores ; sponte profiteor, et ex Ecclesiae 
 antiquaB ritibus constare contendo, lilucharistian esse 
 sacrificium : Nee sacrificium modo laudis, ut plurimi nostri 
 volunt, sed sacrificium propitiatorium, sacrificium Ikau-TLKov." 
 Hcfic ipsius verba fuere.' On this his son replies : ' ^lulta 
 possent responderi (ne de Barclaii fide dubitem) ex Patrum 
 sententia, quae non sunt hujus loci ' (quoted from Forbes, 
 ' Considerationes Modestoe,' vol. ii., p. 602, A.C.L.). His 
 
36 Introduction 
 
 p. 281), ' in which large acceptation (i.e., after a 
 large and improper manner of speech '), says 
 Bishop Morton, ' Protestants may account it 
 'propitiatory also' (p. 93. See Cranmer 'On 
 Lord's Supper,' p. 30 1.) 
 
 One of these writers (H. Thorndike), whose 
 incautious language it is sometimes difficult to up- 
 hold or defend, regards ' the profession of Chris- 
 tianity ' to be propitiatory (p. 172); and of the 
 language of Rome, ' Quod in Missa Christus incru- 
 ente immolatur,' he says, ' If it be meant properly, 
 it is a contradiction ; for that which hath blood 
 is not sacrificed but by the shedding of the blood 
 of it ; if figuratively, it signifies no more than 
 tliat which I have said, that it is represented, 
 commemorated, and offered as slain ' (p. 18 0). 
 
 Another (Dr. G. Hickes, following the writer 
 
 language may well be understood in the sense of Amandus 
 Polanus, ' Propitiatorium vero aliquo modo, quatenus unici 
 illius sacrificii vere propitiatorii memoriam in eo serio 
 frequentare jubemur, quod Filius Dei a Patre Missus ipse 
 in propria persona semel pro nobis obtulit ' (ibid., p. 604). 
 
 That Casaubon did not use the word in the Eomish sense 
 may be fairly argued from the following : ' Aliquando 
 Eucharistia appellatur to SiZpov, eandem ob causam, propter 
 quain dicitur et sacrilicium ; quia videlicet est commemora- 
 tio sacrificii semel a Christo oblati ' (' Exercitationes ad 
 Annales Eccles. Barouii,' xvi., § li., p. 576. London, 1614). 
 
Introduction 37 
 
 mistaken for Overall — see p. 74), says of prayer, 
 * That is propitiator}!^ too' (see 'Papers on Euchar- 
 istie Presence,' p. 5 38) ; and elsewhere he says : 
 ' The ancient notion of this holy sacrament being 
 a commemorative sacrifice, in which we represent 
 before God the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, 
 perfectly secures the holy mystery from that 
 corrupt and absurd notion [i.e., '' the popish 
 notion of it "], it being impossible that a solemn 
 commemoration of a fact or thing should be the 
 fact or thing itself (quoted in Tract 81, p. 274). 
 Another (following the example of St. 
 Augustin — see Waterland's Works, vol. v., 
 p. 2 83) speaks of each Christian as in baptism 
 ' offering the sacrifice of Christ's Passion for his 
 sins ' (ibid., p. 8 6). 
 
 Another, whose views were regarded as very 
 eccentric and extreme, the author of ' The Un- 
 bloody Sacrifice,' separated his own sacrificial 
 doctrine most clearly and distinctly from what he 
 regarded as ' so abominable corruption ' as ' the 
 sacrifice of the Mass' (see Tract 81, p. 310, and 
 * The Eucharist considered in its Sacrificial 
 Aspect,' p. 10), and contended that the conse- 
 crated elements ' may therefore be called a sacri- 
 
38 Introduction 
 
 fice, as a representation may justly be called by the 
 name of its principal ' (quoted in Tract 8 1 , p. 313). 
 
 The doctrine for which the most extreme of 
 these erratic writers (many of them nonjurors) 
 contended may be fairly expressed in the words 
 of Brett, * That our Blessed Saviour did leave 
 His own supper as a commemorative, eucharisti- 
 cal, material sacrifice, a sacrifice of impetration, 
 as well as gratulatory, showing forth our Saviour's 
 death, presenting it before God as our all-sufficient 
 propitiation, and as being an especial means of 
 obtaining the benefits of it for us ; and, in a 
 word, that it is propitiatory ' (Tract 81, p. 384). 
 
 We may think the language of some of these 
 writers likely to lead to much confusion of 
 thought, and capable of leading to serious error 
 of belief We may question some of their state- 
 ments. We may dispute some of their argu- 
 ments. We may think that Waterland did well 
 to oppose what was novel and peculiar in some 
 of their doctrines. We may condemn with him 
 their 'unwarrantable excesses' (Works, vol. v., 
 p. 14 5). We may diflfer from them, as we may 
 think they differed from the more Scriptural 
 teaching of our earlier theology (see Van Mildert 
 
Introduction 39 
 
 in Waterland's Works, vol. i., }3p. 204-210. 
 Oxford, 18 43). Some among us may, perhaps, 
 feel strongly that there was a dangerous mistake 
 in their teachinof. But in fairness it must be 
 acknowledged that their doctrine stands separate 
 by a great and impassable gulf from the Romish 
 doctrine of the Mass, a doctrine which they were 
 as ready to repudiate and condemn as any of our 
 divines who had gone before them. 
 
 Indeed, Father Davenport (after his laboured 
 endeavour to explain away the sense of our 
 Article) wrote, in 165 5, 'Even they who are 
 most temperate unanimously deny Sacerdotem 
 offerre Christum, which destroys the very life of 
 our Christian sacrifice ' (see Hutton's ' AngUcan 
 Ministry,' p. 370). 
 
 And Smith, in his ' Epistolary Dissertation,' 
 says truly (see Lathbury's 'History of Non- 
 jurors,' p. 379), 'Our doctrine of the sacrifice 
 was, in the dispute between the late Dr. Hickes 
 and his opponents, formerly cried down as popish. 
 Of this imputation Dr. Waterland has been so 
 just as to clear it, for which we cannot but return 
 him our thanks ; because it is evident it is 
 entirely inconsistent with the popish, and over- 
 
40 Introduction 
 
 throws it, there being as much difference be- 
 tween it and the Romish as between the sub- 
 stance of bread and wine, and the substance of 
 our Blessed Saviour's body and blood.' 
 
 As regards the teaching of Tract 8 1 , it was 
 said by Dean Goode, * The writer of this Tract 
 (if at least he is as learned as the professions of 
 the Tractators would lead us to supjDOse) must 
 have been perfectly aware that many of the 
 authors whom he has here quoted would have 
 utterly repudiated and reprobated the views of 
 which he here quotes them as supporters ' 
 (' Divine Rule,' vol. ii., p. 3 5 5). 
 
 But I think it may be questioned whether, in 
 passing so severe a censure, Dean Goode was 
 fully taking into account the uncertainties of the 
 writer's own doctrinal position at that date, and 
 the limitations with which he seems to have sur- 
 rounded its ambiguities.* 
 
 His doctrine is clearly separated from the 
 Romish Mass doctrine, against which his state- 
 ments are strong and severe. Witness the fol- 
 
 * Since writing the above, I find that Newman, in his 
 * Via Media,' speaking of Dr. Pusey's teaching in this Tract, 
 declares, ' His antagonism in it to the Cathohc dogma is 
 unequivocal (vol. ii., p. 352). 
 
Introduction 4 1 
 
 lowino- : ' When it was believed that Christ was 
 " truly and indeed, in respect of His very body 
 and blood, offered up to the Father under the 
 form of bread and wine, in the daily sacrifice of 
 the Church," nothing else, however abstractedly 
 it might be allowed to be of use, could in com- 
 parison be of any moment. The corruptions, 
 occasions of avarice, superstition, and ^^rofaneness, 
 thence ensuing, exceeded all bounds' (pp. 8, 9). 
 
 Again : * With Courayer's endeavours to ex- 
 tricate himself and his Church from the decrees 
 of the Council of Trent, which fixed this lan- 
 guage, we have nothing to do ; certainly, the 
 language of the Council on the sacrifice is in 
 itself capable of a good interpretation, were it 
 not that terms employed in it must be explained 
 with reference to that Church's acknowledged 
 doctrine of transubstantiation and purgatory. 
 
 And THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRIFICE CANNOT BE 
 THE SAME, WHERE TRANSUBSTANTIATION IS HELD AND 
 
 WHERE IT IS NOT. ... If " truc and proper " means 
 "physical, corporeal, substantial,' i.e., implies 
 " transubstantiation," we reject it' (pp. 46, 47). 
 Again : ' These writers ' [Courayer and Nicole] 
 * make the sacrifice both the same (as that on the 
 
42 Introduction 
 
 Cross) and distinct ; through transubstantiation 
 the same, and yet, in act, distinct' (p. 8). 
 
 But, while a doubt may be felt as to the doc- 
 trine which Dr. Pusey was then advocating, there 
 can hardly be a question that the authors quoted 
 in the Tract would have utterl}^ rejected the 
 Mass doctrine as now taught by some among us. 
 
 For further important evidence of this sub- 
 ject the reader may be referred to a note on 
 ' Eucharistic Doctrine of the Non-juring School,' 
 in Bishop Dowden's * Historical Account of the 
 Scottish Communion Office.' pp. 329-33 8. 
 
 In conclusion, I will only venture to say that 
 while I cannot doubt that in these days contro- 
 versy on this important subject is a duty, I trust 
 that on both sides of the controversy those who 
 are called to engage in it may earnestly desire, 
 and endeavour, and pray that they may be ever, 
 
 in the sight of God, aXr^OevovreQ i> ayairij. 
 
 May God's Holy Spirit of truth guide us into 
 the whole truth as it is in Jesus, and reveal to our 
 admiring and adoring hearts the full truth, in its 
 exceeding blessedness and saving power, of His 
 one, full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, 
 and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world ! 
 
SUPPLEMENTAL POSTSCKIPT. 
 
 But, after all, it is impossible not to recognise the 
 fact — and indeed to some extent it may be re- 
 cognised with thankfulness — that there is some- 
 thing in the tendency and temper of our times 
 which can hardly fail to blunt the edge of an^^ 
 argument from the traditional teaching of a 
 National Church. 
 
 Thoughts such as these will doubtless find 
 avenues of influence, if not of exjiression : ' These 
 are days when men feel the galling of traditional 
 chains, and are obliged to turn a blind eye upon 
 confessions of faith. And it is an anachronism 
 to expect that much weight will be given to the 
 testimonies of fallible men, who, in former days, 
 have doubtless been well content to follow the 
 lead of those who had gone before them, and 
 who, in their turn, had been blindly led by in- 
 
44 Supplemental Postscript 
 
 herited prejudices. Some allowance must be 
 made for our living in days quite different from 
 those which these writers represent. Men's 
 thoughts are no longer to be restrained by tra- 
 dition, and men's faith should be set free from 
 the binding of Articles of Religion. Other 
 sciences are using their liberty to make wonder- 
 ful advances. Why should not theology also be 
 free to go forward ?' 
 
 We may be very loath to strain tight what 
 equity and charity may incline us (as far as may 
 be) to make elastic. But we must ask — Will 
 such pleadings as these avail to discharge the 
 securities which (in defence of what she regards 
 as^ God's truth on a most important subject) the 
 Church of England has thought right to take of 
 those whom she admits to minister in her courts ? 
 Will they be able to countervail the fact of 
 Articles subscribed, of doctrines accepted as the 
 teaching of the Church of England, of doctrines 
 rejected as (by a general consensus of our divines) 
 the dangerous deceits of the Church of Rome ? 
 
 I can hardly believe that it will be so with 
 those, who — however they may value the pro- 
 gress of theological science, and desire its advance 
 
Supplemental Postscript 45 
 
 — have been taught to know that tho one faith, 
 once for all delivered to the saints, is unchanging 
 as its Divine Author, * Jesus Christ, the same 
 yesterday, and to-day and for ever,' always the 
 same saving and enlightening truth, which is hid 
 from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto 
 babes. 
 
 In truth, it is no light matter to presume upon 
 the confidences which belong to the traditions of 
 any society whatever. 
 
 Much more is it a very serious matter to 
 violate the trusts which belong to the sacred 
 traditions — recognised and accepted as such — of a 
 great National Church, and a mother of Churches. 
 
 All doubtless are agreed that to decline to 
 accept anything merely because our fathers before 
 us believed it is right. A poor and miserable 
 thing, indeed, is the Churchmanship of a merely 
 traditional Christianity. The faith of the Chris- 
 tian Church rests not on the word of man, but 
 on the word of God ; and it is tauo-ht to human 
 hearts not by the tradition of men, but by the 
 power of God. 
 
 But all will probably be agreed also in this — 
 that human tradition has its place in the divine 
 
4 Supplemental Postscript 
 
 economy of Revelation ; and that to refuse assent 
 to anything because it was the faith of our 
 ancestors is certainly wrong. 
 
 We must, of course, decline to accept as the 
 major premiss for faith's syllogism, * All that 
 comes to us recommended by authority and tra- 
 dition must needs be true.' Our own responsi- 
 bilities may not thus be put aside. 
 
 But we may surely be right, and not wrong, 
 in lookinsf at the faith of our forefathers with a 
 presumption rather in favour of its truth than 
 with a settled prejudice against it. 
 
 And assuredly we cannot give ourselves to 
 the ministry of the one faith as received in the 
 Reformed Church of England, if, in defiance of the 
 traditional teaching of all her eminent divines, we 
 can only say our ' Yea ' to a teaching — the teach- 
 ing of a dangerous deceit — to wiiich she solemnly 
 charges us to say * Nay.' 
 
 The tendency to ignore and discredit traditional 
 beliefs has indeed shown itself abundantly among 
 neologians, not only in England, but in America 
 also, and on the Continent of Europe. 
 
 But this impatience of all control and guidance 
 from inherited types of religious teaching is not 
 
Supplemental Postscript 47 
 
 to be looked upon as peculiar to a rationalistic 
 school of thought. 
 
 Dr. Pusey appears to have regarded the 
 * Catholic ' interpretation of our Articles as that 
 which alone brought out their natural sense, and 
 the Protestant sense as simply the result of a 
 mistaken but persistent tradition. Thus he 
 wrote in 18 6 6: ' We had all been educated in a 
 traditional S3^stem which had practically imported 
 into the Articles a good many principles which 
 were not contained in them nor suggested by 
 them, yet which were habitually identified with 
 them ' (Revised Preface to rejDrint of Tract 9 0, 
 p. v.). And again : ' We proposed no system 
 to ourselves, but laid aside, piece by piece, the 
 system of ultra-Protestant interpretation, which 
 had encrusted round the Articles ' (p. vi.). And 
 again : ' I vindicated it [Tract 9 0] in my letter 
 to Dr. Jelf as the natural grammatical interpre- 
 tation of the Articles' (' Eirenicon,' p. 31). 
 
 It is no wonder, then, that the so-called Catholic 
 school should be found fretting under the teaching 
 of what, in their view, is a traditional misunder- 
 standing and an inherited misrepresentation of 
 the teachino- of our Articles. 
 
48 Supplemental Postscript 
 
 If they are right in their view that their sense 
 is the natural sense, they do well to be in re- 
 bellion against the traditional perversions of that 
 sense. 
 
 But are they right ? Have we not rather 
 here an example of that which has too often 
 shown itself in the history of the Christian 
 Church — a presuming on the power of dialectical 
 subtleties, and the authority of theological learn- 
 ing to put out the eyes of common-sense ? 
 
 Surely the history of the English Reformation 
 has something to say on this matter.* 
 
 Can we be quite wrong in thinking that the 
 fires around the stakes to which our martyred 
 forefathers were bound are casting a lurid light 
 
 "^ Bishop Bull says (' Vindication of the Church of 
 England,' xxv.) our Thirty-nine Articles are mainly directed 
 against ' the errors and corruptions of the Church of Eome.' 
 Does anyone question the historical truth of this assertion ? 
 Yet, because some who have subscribed the Articles have 
 come to think and feel very differently of Eomish doctrine, 
 therefore now, first, the Articles are made to pass through 
 a cruel rack of torture, out of which it is hoped their sense 
 may come so crushed and flexible as easily to adapt them- 
 selves to a position of substantial agreement with Rome : 
 and then, because certain hard joints are found too firm to 
 yield to the severest pressure and the most ingenious devices 
 of this unnatural process, therefore our Articles are con- 
 demned, and threatened with utter destruction. 
 
Supplemental Postscript 49 
 
 on the only true and natural sense of our English 
 Articles ? (see 'Dangerous Deceits,' }3p. 43-50). 
 
 Nay. Can we not make appeal to utterances 
 even of Anglican ' Catholic ' writers themselves, 
 testifying that the ' Catholic ' sense is certainly 
 not the natural sense of our Articles of Reli- 
 gion ? 
 
 An article in the ' Christian Remembrancer, 
 of 18G6, declares it * impossible to deny that they 
 i^i.e. the Thirty-nine Articles) contain statements 
 or implications that are verbally false, and others 
 that are very difficult to reconcile with truth.' 
 It ventures therefore to go a step beyond any 
 suggestion in Dr. Pusey's ' Eirenicon,' and boldly 
 proclaims its opinion, that before union with 
 Rome can be effected, the Articles must be 
 wholly withdrawn"* (January, 1866, p. 188 ; see 
 also p. 16 8). 
 
 * Who can wonder at the words of one who has separated 
 himself from the influence of such teaching? ' Not one,' he 
 says, ' of us but must own it ; not one but has writhed under 
 the torture of doubting, whether on the threshold of this 
 system, which he embraces to make him holy, there rests 
 not the stain and semblance of a lie. Is this too harsh a 
 term ?' And again, * Wonderful sophistry ! Most solid 
 ground of faith ! Excellent school for guilelessness and 
 sincerity ! admirable preparation for making men holy, and 
 good, and saintly, and everything that is Christian ! except 
 
 4 
 
50 Supplemental Postscript 
 
 Surely the very novelty'"' of the elaiiii for such 
 a * Catholic ' interpretation to be accepted as 
 
 perhaps making them true !' (' Morality of Tractarianism,' 
 pp. 8, 19). I have liesitated to transcribe such hard words. 
 They are not mine. But as applied to tJie sijstcvi, how are 
 they to be gainsaid ? 
 
 We may regret, but we can hardly wonder, that Arch- 
 bishop Whateley should have spoken of Tract 90 as ' an 
 example of hair-splitting and wire-drawing, of shuffling equi- 
 vocations and dishonest garbling of quotations ' (' Cautions 
 for the Times,' p. 351). 
 
 We may regret, but we cannot condemn, such words of 
 indignation as these : ' The more the matter is inquired into 
 the more wall the public mind perceive the disingenuousness 
 and Jesuitism that have characterized the Tractarian move- 
 ment ' (Dean Goode's ' Tract 90 Historically Refuted.' See 
 Saville's ' Dr. Pusey,' p. 60). 
 
 It was well said by Bishop Phillpotts of Exeter : ' As this 
 [Tract 90] is by far the most daring attempt ever yet made 
 by a minister of the Church of England to neutralize the 
 distinctive doctrines of our Church, and to make us sym- 
 bolize with Eome, I shall be excused if I detain you for a 
 few minutes in unravelling the web of sophistry which has 
 been laboriously woven to cover it. It rests mainly ... on 
 the allegation that the Articles were of a date anterior to the 
 Decrees of Trent — an allegation having just that measure of 
 truth which will enable it most effectually to deceive' ('Letters 
 to Butler,' p. 319; see ' Dangerous Deceits,' pp. 60-71). 
 
 These are strong words, no doubt. But let it be noted 
 that the Bishop says further on : ' I have done with the 
 Tract. Let me only add, that I wash and hope that the 
 intention of the writer, as declared by himself, maj' protect 
 him from the severity of censure which the Tract itself 
 deserves ' (p 321), 
 
 * Though Sancta Clara hoped that by looking through 
 his glasses Eomanists miprht see Article XXXI. ' uou adeo 
 
Supplemental Postscript 5 1 
 
 the natural sense is its own sufficient condemna- 
 tion. 
 
 Who will be persuaded to believe that the 
 natural sense of our Articles was unheard of and 
 unknown for three centuries, and then brought 
 to lioht bv one who never claimed for it to be 
 the natural sense, and who not long after became 
 convinced of his untenable position, and seceded to 
 
 veritati discordem,' yet he did not maintain that the sense 
 he gave to it was the true and natural sense. On the con- 
 trary, he begins by saying, ' Totus hie articulus durissimus 
 videtur.' And in his ' Encliiridion of Faith,' pubhshed in 
 1655, he speaks of the English as denying the power of 
 sacrificing the true body of Christ, and declaring such sacri- 
 fice a pcrnicioiis impoHure. And he regards the doctrine 
 even of the Laudian divines as destroying the very life of 
 the Christian sacrifice (see Hutton's ' Anglican Ministry,' 
 pp. 369, 370). 
 
 It is well to observe how the influence of Tract 90 is 
 regarded in ' Catholic ' circles. ' What could not be put out 
 then [Tract No. 90] without a storm of abuse following is 
 received now with acquiescence by one party, and with 
 admiration by another ; whilst the third great party into 
 which we are divided is too feeble to put out any united 
 efforts to destroy what it abominates ' (' Christian Eemem- 
 brancer,' January, 1866, p. 164). ' The principle of Pro- 
 testantism is extinguished. That of Catholicism is trium- 
 phant ' {ihicl., p. 167). ' The Church of England has made 
 wonderful strides in the direction of Catholicism during the 
 last twenty-five years. The acceptance of the Catholic in- 
 terpretation of the Articles is the chief preliminary step ' 
 {ibid., p. 168). Since this was written what advances have 
 been made ! And what wisdom displayed in the progress ! 
 
:j'z 
 
 Supplemental PosTscPtiPx 
 
 the communion of the Church against whose errors 
 the teaching of our Articles was mainly directed.* 
 
 I find it then very hard to believe that there 
 is really any question as to the natural meaning 
 of our Article XXXI. But if a question must 
 be made of it, I venture to think that the testi- 
 monies alleged in this book must have something 
 material, something important, and something 
 conclusive to say on that question. 
 
 I am not desiring to add anything from tradi- 
 tion to its natural sense, I am but aj)pealing to 
 tradition to bear witness against an unnatural 
 attempt to spoil it of its only natural sense, and 
 
 * And it should be observed that, after his secession from 
 the Church of England, Newman saw clearly how untenable 
 had been his position as regards the interpretation of 
 Article XXXI. In ' Via Media ' (Longmans, 1891) he 
 wrote : ' There is no denying then that these audacious 
 words [" blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits "] apply 
 to the doctrinal teaching as well as to the popular belief of 
 Catholics. What was " commonly said " was also formally 
 enunciated by the CEcumenical Hierarchy in Council as- 
 sembled ' (p. 352). Again : ' What then the Thirty-first 
 Article repudiates is undeniably the central and most sacred 
 doctrine of the Catholic religion ; and so its wording has 
 ever been read since it was drawn up ' (ibid). 
 
 It may seem strange, therefore, that in 1865 Newman 
 should have written to Dr. Pusey, ' You are now republishing 
 it (Tract 90) with my cordial concurrence ' (see Holland's 
 ' Cardinal Newman,' p. 12). 
 
Supplemental Postscript 5 3 
 
 to leave in its utterance little more than the 
 needless and uncalled for repetition of a truth 
 which had alread}^ been distinctly affirmed in an 
 earlier Article (Article II.). 
 
 But, further, I venture to ask that the value 
 of these testimonies should be estimated mainly 
 in view of what seems by some to be regarded as 
 a very important discovery of the close of the 
 nineteenth century as bearing on the interpreta- 
 tion of our Thirty-first Article. That Article, we 
 are now asked to believe, was aimed only at some 
 such monstrous corruption of the Mass-doctrine 
 as was spoken of by some as ' the error of 
 Thomas,' and denounced by others as ' the deli- 
 ratio of Catharinus ' — a heresy which Rome 
 would be as ready to reject as any of the Re- 
 formers — a notion which was never really main- 
 tained by Albertus or Aquinas or Catharinus, 
 though deriving some support from some mis- 
 leading language in their works (see ' Dangerous 
 Deceits,' Appendix, notes D, E, and G). 
 
 Now, I ask, — Is it likely, is it conceivable, that 
 this could be so, and the whole succession of 
 our divines, from the Reformation downwards, 
 be utterly ignorant of it ( Is it likely — is it 
 
54 Supplemental Postscript 
 
 possible, that this should be so, and our divines 
 (and divines of the Church of Rome also) continu- 
 ally testifying to our rejection of the doctrine, 
 not of Catharinus, but of Rome ? 
 
 Here, then, I venture to think, is (for the 
 time present) one chief value of these testimonies. 
 I do not desire to over-estimate their importance 
 as the opinions of individual men, however 
 learned, and pious, and highly esteemed in their 
 S-enerations. But I believe their united witness 
 to the real matter in controversy is flital to the 
 interpretation of the Article which has recently 
 been commended to us. 
 
 So far as it is allowed that these testimonies 
 give good witness to the tradition of the English 
 Church, I believe it nmst be allowed that they 
 close the door against the novel theory of a 
 simply anti-Catharine aim in the teaching of our 
 Article. 
 
 Let me be allowed to ask some special atten- 
 tion to this point. As it seems to me, it may 
 not be lightly passed over. 
 
 It is surely an important fact to be observed 
 that the doctrine of this Article was the subject 
 of continual controversies between the learned 
 
Supplemental Postscript 5 5 
 
 divines of England and of Rome in the sixteenth 
 and seventeenth centuries ; and that (so far at 
 least as I am aware) on neither side of the con- 
 troversy was the Article ever supposed to be at 
 all alluding to the alleged doctrine of Albertus 
 or ' the error of Thomas,' or ' the madness of 
 Catharinus.' On neither side was it ever (I 
 believe) even questioned that the matter in dis- 
 pute between the Churches was the very doctrine 
 of the Mass itself, and nothing else. And even 
 those writers on the Romish side, who, for reasons 
 of their own, were anxious to make an easy path- 
 way (or a pathway as easy as might be) from our 
 side to theirs, and therefore to strain the language 
 of our Articles into something like forced con- 
 formity with their own doctrines, never (I believe) 
 ventured to explain away the sense of our Thirty- 
 hrst Article by maintaining or suggesting that 
 its condemnation was intended for the very pecu- 
 liar and pernicious error attributed to the Arch- 
 bisho^J of Conza. 
 
 Sancta Clara (C. Davenport), indeed, would 
 get over the difficulty b}^ supposing that the 
 Article may be understood, sohrie, as levelled 
 against a commonly received opinion (' Contra 
 
5G Supplemental Postscript 
 
 vulgarem et vulgatam opinioneiii,' p. 74. Edit. 
 Lee) of a sacrificial efficacy independent of the 
 sacrifice of the Cross (' independenter a Crucis 
 sacrificio,' p. 74). And he maintains (ob hunc 
 Articnlum) that the sacrifice of the Cross is pro- 
 pitiatory ^)myzo, the sacrifice of the Mass secundo 
 (' Hcet bene per se, et quasi secundo,' p. 75).* 
 
 * It must be observed that by a singular mistake (doubt- 
 less a misprint) Dr. F. G. Lee's translation, ' It must not be 
 said that this sacrifice is of itself propitiatory ' (p. 76), is the 
 distinct negation of Sancta Clara's Latin, ' Dicendum tamen 
 (ut dixi) esse etiam per se propitiatorium.' The difference 
 is most important. (See below, Appendix, note B.) Sancta 
 Clara goes on to argue that this must be allowed by our divines 
 * Cum enim ipsi fateantur in Ecclesia esse Sacerdotes, esse 
 etiam sacrificia propitiatoria, fateantur necesse est. Nam 
 ad Hebr. v. : Omnis sacerdos coyistitnitur, ut offerat dona 
 et sacrificia pro peccatis.' And thus he thinks to reconcile 
 our Article with ' the sacrifice of Masses '! But where is 
 the distinction between the primo and secundo in our 
 Article ? And where is the room to be found for the sacrifice 
 which is ' 'propitiatoriuvi secundo,' and 'etiam per se propi- 
 tiatorium "? 
 
 Laud declared in his defence, ' Some friends of his [Sancta 
 Clara] brought him to me. His suit then was that he might 
 print that book [" Deus, Natura, Gratia "] here. Upon speech 
 with him I found the scope of his book to be such as that 
 the Church of England would have little cause to thank him 
 for it : and so absolutely denied it ' (Laud's Works, vol. iv., 
 p. 326, A.C.L.) 
 
 Davenport's book ' was much talked against by the Jesuits, 
 who by all means would have it burnt, but being soon after 
 licensed in Rome, gave a stop to any farther rumour of it. 
 ... In a letter also from Mr. Middleton (then chaplain to 
 
Supplemental Postscript 57 
 
 It must be asked, in view of this assertion of 
 this notion (this vulfjata opinio) of an independent 
 sacrificial efficacy of the Mass, — Was such an 
 opinion ever prevalent ? Was it upheld by the 
 teaching of divines ? 
 
 We may be sure Bisho]3 Thirlwall did not 
 speak hastily or unadvisedly when he said : ' To 
 view the Mass as independent of the sacrifice of 
 the Cross would indeed be a very gross error ; 
 but until I see some proof, I shall continue utterly 
 to disbeheve that it is one into which any wor- 
 shipper at the Mass, even in the darkest ages, 
 ever fell. But though not independent of, it 
 might be viewed as distinct from, the sacrifice 
 of the Cross ; and so it is viewed, not by the 
 ignorant and vulgar only, but by the Church 
 of Kome' (Charge of 1866, p. 140). 
 
 Yet it may, perhaps, be argued fairly, that to 
 
 Basil Lord Fielding, ambassador) to Archbishop Laud, 
 dated at Venice in December, 1635, I find these passages, 
 that the book of S. Clara relished not well with the Catholics, 
 and that there was a consultation about it, and some did 
 extrevia suadcre, and cried ad ignem. Father Tho. Talbot^ 
 a Jesuit of Paris, told him so by letter, who, talking with 
 the Pope's nuncio at Paris about it, he told him 'twas the 
 best course to let it die of itself, to which the nuncio, a 
 moderate man, was inclinable' (Wood's ' Athenae Oxonien- 
 ses,' vol. iii., c. 1224. Edit. Bliss). 
 
5 8 Supplemental Postscript 
 
 view the sacrifice as distinct might lead so natur- 
 ally to the view of the Mass as independent,* that 
 it is scarcely likely that among ' the ignorant 
 and the vulgar ' no ' worshipper at the Mass ' 
 was ever in dano-er of fallinp* into some such 
 error, or some such like misconceptions. 
 
 It can hardly be doubted that the tendency of 
 nmch in the teaching of the monks was to lead 
 the unlearned to look much rather to what the 
 priest could now do for them in Jiis sacrifice on 
 the alta]-, than to what Christ had once done for 
 them in His sacrifice on the Cross.t 
 
 * In Tract 90 Newman, shielding the Church of Eome 
 from the aim of om' Article, says : ' It is conceived then 
 that the Article before us neither speaks against the Mass 
 in itself, nor against its being an offering for the quick and 
 the dead for the remission of sin ; but against its being 
 viewed ... as independent of, or distinct^rom, the sacrifice 
 on the Cross, wliich is blasphemy' (' Via Media,' vol. ii., 
 p. 326). This shows how at that date Newman himself 
 could hardly have distinguished clearly between independence 
 and distinction, and further that he must then have sup- 
 posed that according to the doctrine of Rome, the oblation 
 of the Mass was not distinct from the sacrifice of the Cross. 
 For evidence of the distinction, according to the teaching of 
 Eomish divines, see ' Dangerous Deceits,' Appendix, Note A. 
 
 Bishop Thirlwall has given evidence from the Council of 
 Trent, and the Romish Missal in his Charge of 1866, pp. 
 Ul-143. 
 
 f Bishop Thirlwall well says (p. 141) : ' The sacrifice of 
 the Mass might not the less practically supersede that of 
 
Supplemental Postscuipt 5 9 
 
 And it" only the view of tlio relation of the one 
 sacrifice to the other were dim, or hazy, or latent 
 (as it was surely not very unlikely to have been 
 sometimes), then, I ask — Would it have been a 
 very unnatural result if practically the sacrifice 
 of the Mass were regarded as independent ? 
 
 It is a matter on which Ave must expect to be 
 guided mainly by arguments of probability. 
 
 But perhaps the opinion may be ventured 
 without presumption, that what little help we 
 have from occasional and dim sidelights of 
 history seems rather to confirm the probability 
 that in the darkness of ignorant times there may 
 have been those in the lower grades of darkness 
 and ignorance who had little apprehension of the 
 teaching (though the very canon of the Mass 
 should have taught it) that all the efficacy of the 
 sacrifice of the altar was derived from the sacrifice 
 of the Cross. 
 
 But this is an inquiry, the determination of 
 which is of no great importance, because no one, 
 
 the Cross, if conceived as " distinct from," though not " in- 
 dependent of," this. And it is so conceived, not by the 
 vulgar only, but by the Church of Eome, speaking through 
 her most accredited doctors, and in her most sacred formu- 
 laries.' 
 
GO Supplemental Postscript 
 
 it may be supposed, will tliiiik of contending that 
 our Articles were intended to concern themselv^es 
 with such possible misconceptions of doctrine as 
 might tind place in the gross superstitions pre- 
 vailing in the lowest depths of degraded ignorance. 
 And as regards the better instructed classes there 
 is no question to be made of the correctness of 
 the Bishop's conclusion. 
 
 Among the more intelligent portion of the 
 population there is very good evidence for the 
 assurance that the notion of a really indej^endent 
 efficacy in the sacrifice of the Mass would have 
 been regarded as inconsistent with the belief of 
 the first elements of Christianity (see ' Dangerous 
 Deceits,' pp. 2 7-39). And the idea of the sacri- 
 fice of the Cross beino- a satisfaction for oriofinal 
 sin, while the sacrifice of the Mass was ordained 
 for the taking away of actual sin, was an error 
 the imputation of which was regarded as an 
 insult to the educated mind of Christendom (ibid., 
 p. 36). 
 
 But the more important question is this, — Was 
 such an opinion ever distinctl}^ and consistently 
 maintained by mediaeval or Romish divines of 
 any repute ? Till more conclusive evidence is 
 
Supplemental Postscript 61 
 
 found than lias yet been adduced, this may indeed 
 be very well doubted. I believe it has been 
 shown in ' Dangerous Deceits ' that such an 
 opinion cannot fairly be set down to the account of 
 Albertus, or Aquinas, or Catharinus. Certainly 
 the scholastics, as a rule, knew nothing of it (see 
 ' Romish Mass and Eng. Ch.,' pp. 50-54). But 
 probably the most questionable language on the 
 subject may be found in the writings of Salmeron 
 the Jesuit. His words are indeed sufficiently 
 startling : * Sola tamen actio qua se obtulit in 
 coena, et qua se obtulit in cruce, non tantum 
 est oblatio, sed etiam sacrificium . . . et ita 
 sacrijicium cwnce non accipit ah illo crucis. 
 Deinde utraque oblatio in ccena, et in cruce ex 
 eadem radice, i.e., charitate et persona Verbi 
 vim atque efficaciam habent. Illud coense in- 
 finiti valoris fuit, et unum infinitum non est 
 majus alio.' 
 
 And it is, perhaps, even more surprising to 
 read the words he has set in the margin as the 
 summary of this teaching : ' Simplici ratione 
 planum fit Christi oblationem in coena nequa- 
 quam ab oblatione in cruce facta vim suam et 
 potestatem mutuari ' (' Comment, in Evangel. 
 
62 Supplemental Postscript 
 
 Hist.; Tom. ix., Tract. 31, p. 247. Colon. 
 Agrip., 1G12). 
 
 It is not for me to attempt an explanation of 
 this language. It is sufficient for my purpose to 
 observe that in this very same chapter Salmeron 
 insists on the derivative character of the Mass- 
 sacrifice."^ 
 
 '■'•' Compare the following from Aliphauus, spoken in the 
 Council of Trent : ' Christus obtulit se in coena expiatorie et 
 propitiatorie, et ejusdem virtutis fuit illud sacrificium ac 
 illud crucis . . . uon minus fuit expiatoria oblatio ccenae, 
 quam crucis . . . et illud Christi sacrificium non habuit 
 eflicaciam a cruce ; sed a seipso, cum Christus de per se 
 efficax sit, sicut et sacramentum in raissa ex se eflficaciam 
 habet, quia et ibi Christus, sed nisi oblatio Crucis facta 
 fuisset, non potuisset nobis applicari ' (see Theiner, ' Acta 
 Cone. Trid.,' Tom. ii., pp. 93, 94). And the following from 
 Leriensis : * Necesse est dicere, quod verum sacrificium 
 obtulerit et fuit propitiatoriura per modum hostice oblatse in 
 cruce. . . . Non autem dicunt, quod unum sit expiatorium, 
 et aliud non. . . . Et nostrum sacrificium habet efficaciam 
 in virtute pruateriti Christi sacrificii ' {ibid., p. 84). 
 
 It should be remembered that when the minds of those 
 in the Council were intensely exercised on the question 
 whether or not it should be asserted that in His supper 
 Christ offered Himself in sacrifice to God, and when it 
 appeared that the Fathers and divines were nearly equally 
 divided, it was Salmeron who made himself conspicuous by 
 his earnestness in pressing for the affirmation. He occupied 
 the whole space of one congregation with his own speech 
 (see Mendham's ' Memoirs,' p. 226). We are told by Sarpi 
 that ' Father Salmeron was the principal man to persuade 
 the affirmative. He went to the houses of those men who 
 
Sltplemental Postscript 6 3 
 
 To me the teaching of Sahneron a})pears re- 
 markably to illustrate the inconsistencies of the 
 Romish Mass-doctrine. Certainly his words 
 cannot fairly be alleged as evidencing that he 
 distinctly and consistently taught that the efficacy 
 of the Mass-sacrifice was independent of the 
 sacrifice of the Cross. And I question whether 
 any Romish divines now will be found to main- 
 tain that SalmeroM meant to teach a doctrine so 
 alien from the authoritative teaching of the 
 Romish Church. 
 
 But even if he had, his teaching could cer- 
 tainly not have been identified with the error we 
 have in view. The so-called ' Error of Thomas/ 
 if indeed it involved the independence of the 
 Mass (which may well be accounted as doubtful), 
 certainly went far beyond it. The doctrine so- 
 
 were of the other opinion, especially those who had not 
 given their voices, persuading them to be silent, or, at the 
 least, to speak remissly ' (' History of Council of Trent,' pp. 
 518, 519 ; Brett's translation). 
 
 It is much to be observed, however, that in the doctrine 
 decreed the word ' propitiation ' (as applied to the last 
 supper) was designedly omitted, while (as applied to the 
 Mass) it was distinctly asserted. So that now the Church 
 of Rome teaches clearly that the priest does more than she 
 has dared to say that Christ did (see ' Romish Mass and 
 English Church,' p. 7). 
 
64 Supplemental Postscript 
 
 called of Catharinus had its own peculiar features, 
 of which not a trace is to be seen in the daring 
 language of Salmeron. 
 
 I will make bold, then, to ask those who 
 would now have us read this Ante-Catharine 
 sense into the Article, whether they can produce 
 any one saying from any one of the writings of 
 anyone among the divines of any authority, on 
 either side of the controversy, which can fairly 
 be said to give any solid support to their view, 
 or bear witness to the fact of such a restraint of 
 the sense of the Article having been regarded as 
 admissible in the century to which the language 
 of the Article belongs ? 
 
 Let such be humbly requested to look into this 
 matter carefully for themselves, and see whether 
 their present contention be not indeed but an 
 after-thought of yesterday, conceived, as a last 
 resort, to look something like a fair defence of a 
 position which is really untenable and indefen- 
 sible. 
 
 And if it l)e so that their sense of the Article 
 is a novelty, and an unnatural novelty — a novelty 
 necessitated by the teaching of a new doctrine, 
 the doctrine of a new school of a new theology 
 
Supplemental Postscript 65 
 
 among us — a novelty alien from, and distinctly 
 opposed to, the teaching of the Reformed Church 
 of England — then may not the question well be 
 asked — Can it be fair — can it be right for our 
 new teachers to take an Article of the Church 
 of England which was set up as a bulwark of oak 
 and a strong fence firmly staked to exclude for 
 ever the teaching of a certain doctrine of Rome, 
 and out of it to make a plank, sawn out of it in 
 their own mill, and fitted with their own tools 
 (not of English manufacture), by which to slide 
 in ag-ain amono- us that very doctrine which the 
 Church of England certainly meant by this Article 
 to teach us v/as a thing to be shut out, to be re- 
 pudiated by all faithful men and rejected with 
 holy indignation, as nothing less than a blasphe- 
 mous fable and a dangerous deceit ?* 
 
 * The authors of ' De Hierarchia Anglicana ' would appa- 
 rently have us regard Article XXXI. not only as containing 
 no denial of the Mass-doctrine, but as being intended for its 
 defence. ' Liquet igitur per hunc Articulum potius defendi 
 quam carpi veritatem Sacrificii Eucharistici, quod Christus 
 Dominus, tanquam perpetuam sui oblationein, Ipse per 
 Ministros Sacerdotes usque ad speculum consummatum in 
 singulis oblationibus continenter facit ' (p. 132). 
 
 ' Doctrinam igitur catholicam de sacrificio Missae tantum 
 abest ut Ecclesia Anglicana repudiaverit, ut earn contra per- 
 niciosum quemdam errorem defenderit ' (ibid.). 
 
 Another writer has more recently declared that ' Our 
 
 5 
 
C(l Sui'l'LEMENTAL POSTSCRIPT 
 
 I am m)t (Icsiriiig to use laiiouage which may 
 give needless offence to any. I am sincerely 
 sorrv if I have written that which may cause 
 unnecessary pain to anyone desiring to be a 
 follower of Christ and to walk in the light of 
 His truth, even though he may seem to me as 
 yet to have some scales upon his eyes. 
 
 Let the case be stated clearly and fairly, 
 calmly and dis])assi(mately, w^ithout bitterness 
 and with all loving kindness. 
 
 Fifty 3^ears ago an attempt was made to show 
 that our Protestant Articles might be signed in 
 a so-called ' Catholic ' sense — a sense admittedly 
 quite different from, and in some points (especially 
 in the matter of this Article XXXI.) quite con- 
 trary to the sense they were intended to convey. 
 
 It was urofed, ' We have no duties towards 
 their framers ' (' Apologia pro Vita Sua,' p. L:U). 
 ' The Articles are received not in the sense of 
 the framers, but (as far as the wording will admit 
 or any ambiguity requires it) in the one Catholic 
 sense ' [ih/d). 
 
 Thirty-first Article had for its object the defence of Catholic 
 doctrine' {Anglican Chjirch Magazine, November, 1S95, 
 p. 77). 
 
Supplemental Postscript 67 
 
 Newman felt, and — to his honour I say it — 
 confessed (as I understand him) that, in o2)posin]uf 
 and condemning him, the authorities of the Uni- 
 versity were simply doing their duty to the 
 traditional religion of ."300 years, i.e., to the 
 religious principles of our Reformation, which 
 they were called to defend and maintain. 
 
 Is less than this implied in the following 
 words :" ' I cannot disguise from myself that my 
 preaching is not calculated to defend that system 
 of religion which has been received for 300 
 years, and of which the heads of houses are the 
 legitimate maintainers in this place' (ibuJ., p. 13. "3). 
 ' I fear I must allow that, whether I will or no, 
 I am disposing them (the minds of young men) 
 towards Rome' {il)i(L). 
 
 And now the seed which Newman was sowing 
 then appears to be bearing fruit, which, if allowed 
 to ripen, promises a result such as his prescience 
 seems to liave anticipated when he wrote : ' I do 
 not think that we have yet made fair trial how 
 nuich the English Church will bear. * I know it 
 is a hazardous experiment, like proving cannon. 
 Yet we must not take it for granted that the 
 metal will burst in the operation. It has borne 
 
08 Supplemental Postscript 
 
 at various times, not to say at this time, a great 
 infusion of Catholic truth without damage. As 
 to the result, viz., whether this process will not 
 approximate the whole English CJivrch, as a hodij, 
 to Rome, that is notlnmj to us. For what we 
 know, it may be the providential means of unitin<j 
 tlte whole Church in one, without fresh schisma- 
 tizing or use of private judgment ' (ihid., p. 135). 
 And is it not then a solemn duty — would 
 not Cardinal Newman himself have confessed 
 that it is the duty of those who are ' the legi- 
 timate maintainers ' — and something more than 
 the legitimate maintainers — of the traditional 
 doctrine of the Reformed Church of England, of 
 the doctrine taught in our Articles as naturalty 
 understood and maintained by the succession of 
 our divines — to oppose themselves to the rein- 
 troduction of those mediaeval errors which our 
 Church cast aside when conforming herself to 
 the doctrine of Primitive Christianity, and the 
 faith once for all delivered unto the saints ? 
 
 In view of Rome's obvious additions to the 
 fiiith, and the invitation to us to submit our- 
 selves to the one supreme and infallible head of 
 Christ's Church upon earth, is it nothing to us 
 
Supplemental Postscript 69 
 
 tliat we have pledged ourselves to teach nothing, 
 as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but 
 that which we shall be persuaded may be con- 
 cluded and proved by the Scripture ? 
 
 Is it nothing to us, in view of a call to put a 
 sense on our formularies w^hich this Church and 
 realm confessedly hath not received, that we 
 have solemnly bound ourselves to give faithful 
 diligence always so to minister the doctrine and 
 sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the 
 Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and 
 realm liatli received the same ? 
 
 Is it nothing to us, in the face of attempts to 
 bring in again among us the sacrifices of Masses, 
 which our Article declares to be blasphemous 
 fables and dangerous deceits— that, at our ordi- 
 nation we vowed to be ready, with all faithful 
 diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous 
 and strange doctrines contrary to God's word ? 
 
 One thing at least is certain. The old sense 
 — the traditional sense of -300 years — the sense 
 in which our Reformers and our g^reat divines 
 upheld it — the old sense of our Thirty-first 
 Article, can never live in peace with the new 
 sense. To the new the old is heresy. To the 
 
70 SUPI'LEMENTAL PoSTSUKII'T 
 
 old the now is blasphemy. All the less and the 
 less will the tiro viars be able to dwell together 
 in unity (except as enfeebled by sloth, or stricken 
 with paralysis), just in proportion as those who 
 hold the old and those who hold the new learn 
 more and more to love one another. 
 
 And another thino- oua-ht to be reg-arded as 
 equally certain — the new wine of the novel sense 
 can never be put in the old bottles of our English 
 formularies without bursting them. 
 
 And yet one other thing is (as I am persuaded) 
 not less true. No one having truly tasted the 
 old wine — the wine of the traditional sense — the 
 wine of the simple, ancient, apostolic faith — no 
 one having drunk the old wine of the Gospel of 
 Christ, and found it to be the power of God unto 
 salvation, will straightway desire the new wine 
 of novel doctrines, for he will say, ' The old is 
 better.' 
 
 But, alas ! it is too true that in upholding the 
 doctrines of the Reformation we have man}" 
 times been sadly content to know little of their 
 power. Too often we have contended for the 
 truth of the Gospel, while showing little of the 
 2'low of its liofht and its love ! 
 
Supplemental Postscript 71 
 
 het us thank God that lunv He is moving the 
 hearts of many to cry earnestly and mightily to 
 Him for a quickening and reviving of the Holy 
 Spirit's work in testifying of Clirist — for showers 
 of blessing on the testimony of missionaries 
 abroad and faithful ministers at home, and espe- 
 cially for a great revival of the truth and power 
 ,of the Gos})el in our English universities. 
 
 He will hear, and He will answer. 
 
 He only doeth great wonders, for His mercy 
 endureth for ever. 
 
 What a blessing to our land it will be when 
 ' Dominus illuminatio mea ' shall be graven on 
 the heart of our universities, to be known and 
 read of all men, and the darkness of superstition 
 and the o-loom of asfnosticism shall be scattered 
 before the light of the knowledge of the glory of 
 God in the face of Jesus Christ ! 
 
 ' Now, unto Him that is able to do exceeding- 
 abundantly, above all that we ask or think, ac- 
 cording to the power that worketh in us, unto 
 Him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus 
 throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.' 
 
72 Supplemental Postscript 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 It has not been desired to multiply quotations without 
 sufficient cause. 
 
 It has been judged superfluous to insert quotations — 
 however valuable — from Puritan writers generally, seeing 
 that their decided testimony against Romish error, and 
 especially their strong denunciation of the Mass, is too 
 notorious to be questioned. 
 
 If scant testimony has been given from the Reformers, it 
 is because their writings are pretty well known to abound 
 with it. 
 
 As regards others, one or two quotations, as a rule, have 
 been thought to be sufficient when they have been directly 
 to the point. But in some few cases exceptions have been 
 made, the reason for which will probably be apparent to the 
 reader. 
 
 I shall be thankful for the correction of any errors which 
 may be found in the quotations, especially of any which may 
 seem capable of conveying anything like a misapprehension. 
 
 Exception may probably be taken (and perhaps justly) to 
 the inclusion of some of the later writers quoted among 
 divines of the Church of England. But it was thought very 
 desirable to show by some prominent examples that after the 
 nonjurors had felt themselves compelled to secede from the 
 Church of their fathers, and take their eccentric (and, in 
 some cases, extravagant) views into a separate communion 
 of their own, they still taught a doctrine of the Eucharistic 
 sacrifice which was clearly and widely separate from the 
 Tridentine teaching, and as distinctly and strongly as ever 
 opposed to the Romish Mass (see Lathbury's ' History of 
 the Nonjurors,' pp. 94-103, 360). 
 
TESTIMONIES OF ENGLISH DIVINES. 
 
 Tyndale. 
 
 ' AxD when he saith, " The priest ofFereth, or 
 saciificeth, Christ's body," I answer, " Christ was 
 offered once for all," as it is to see in the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews. . . . 
 
 * Let no man beguile you with his juggling 
 sophistry. Our offering of Christ is to believe 
 in Him, and to come with a repenting heart unto 
 the remembrance of His passion ; and to desire 
 God the Father for the breaking of Christ's body 
 on the Cross, and shedding of His blood, and for 
 His death, and all His passions, to be merciful 
 unto us, and to forgive us, according to His tes- 
 tament and promise ; and so we receive forgive- 
 ness of our sins. And other offering or sacrificing 
 of Christ is there none. Walk in the open light 
 and feeling ; and let not yourselves be led with 
 
74 Tkstimomks 
 
 juggling- words, as mules and asses, in which there 
 is none understanding ' (Answer to Sir Thomas 
 More, eh. x., p. 149. P.S. edit.). 
 
 Bishop Geste. 
 
 T. 
 
 ' Paul saith not with a manifold or renewed 
 but with one offering hath Christ made perfect 
 for ever the sanctified, in consideration whereof 
 they be foul deceived who avouch Christ's sacrifice 
 ought to be revived and multiplied to the full 
 pardon and contentation of our sin otherwise un- 
 pardonable, and therefore repeat the said sacrifice 
 day by day to the same effect, for why that, that is 
 oft offered cannot justly be recounted to be offered 
 but once, by reason a repeated and renewed 
 sacrifice is not merely single and one, but manifold 
 and diverse ' ('Against the Privy Mass,' ])p. 77, 
 78. 1548. In Dugdale's 'Life of Geste,' p. 88). 
 
 TT. 
 
 ' The next entretable matter is that the said 
 sacrifice is nothing available either for the quick 
 or the dead. Our Catholics contend it is profit- 
 able for them both ' [ibid., p. !)()). 
 
AGAIN8T THE Ma8S 75 
 
 III. 
 
 ' To attempt to oft'er Christ as it is an enter- 
 prise too bold and presumptuous, so unsuft'erable 
 and blasphemous' (ibid., p. TOO). 
 
 IV. 
 
 ' I have argued (I suppose forcibly) the priest- 
 sacrifice to be neither propitiatory nor available, 
 neither godly nor approvable, but sinfvj and un- 
 sufferahle ' {ibkl, p. 103). 
 
 V. 
 
 ' The true Mass, otherwise named the Com- 
 munion, which cannot be so highly esteemed and 
 so often frequented, as of necessity it ought, 
 without the priest-mass be hated and detested, for 
 both it and the ctnnnmnion cannot be jointly 
 regarded. Whoso loveth the one must needs 
 hate the other, for why, they be mere contraries ' 
 {ibid., pp. 139, 140). 
 
 Ckanmer. 
 
 I. 
 ' The offering of the priest in the Mass, or the 
 appointing of his ministration at his pleasure, to 
 
7 6 Testimonies 
 
 them that be (|uick or dead, cannot merit or 
 deserve, neither to himself nor to them for whom 
 he singeth or saith, the remission of their sins 
 . . . such popish doctrine is contrary to the 
 doctrine of the Gospel, and injurious to the 
 sacrifice of Christ. For if only the death of 
 Christ be the oblation, sacrifice, and price where- 
 fore our sins be pardoned, then the act or minis- 
 tration of the priest cannot have the same office. 
 Wherefore it is an abominable hlaspliemy to give 
 that office or dignity to a priest, which pertaineth 
 only to Christ' (on the 'Lord's Supper,' P.S., 
 p. .34 8). 
 
 II. 
 ' The rest is but branches and leaves, the 
 cutting away whereof is but like topping and 
 lopping of a tree, or cutting down of weeds, 
 leaving the body standing, and the roots in the 
 ground ; but the very body of the tree, or rather 
 the roots of the weeds, is the popish doctrine of 
 transubstantiation, and of the real presence of 
 Christ's flesh and blood in the sacrament of the 
 altar (as they call it), and of the sacrifice and 
 oblation of Christ, made by the priest for the 
 salvation of the quick and the dead, which roots. 
 
AGAINST THE MasS 77 
 
 if they be suft'ered to grow in tlie Lord's vine- 
 yard, they will overspread all the ground again 
 with the old errors and superstitions ' (Preface to 
 ' Lord's Supper,' 15 50). 
 
 Ridley. 
 
 I. 
 ' They pluck away the honour from the only 
 sacrifice of Christ, whilst the sacramental and 
 Mass sacrifice is believed to be propitiatory, and 
 such a one as purgeth the souls, both of the quick 
 and the dead' (Works, P.S., p. 107). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' Is set up a new and hlasphemous kind of 
 sacrifice ... to the oreat and intolerable con- 
 tumely of Christ our Saviour, His death, and 
 passion' (ihicL, p. 52). 
 
 Hutchinson. 
 
 ' Christ's everlasting priesthood hath made an 
 end of all the Levites' priesthood ; yea, and of 
 all other priesthood, save only that which be- 
 lonofeth to all Christian men. The oblation of 
 
78 Testimonies 
 
 His body once for all upon the altar of the Cross, 
 which was a slain sacrifice for our sins, abolisheth 
 all other. . . . That the Lord's su]3per, which 
 men call the Mass, is not a sacrifice for sin, St. 
 Paul declareth plainly, saying, " Sine sangitinis 
 effusio7ie" etc. . . . The parable of the thieves 
 teacheth us that Christ's coniino- hath disannulled 
 all such priesthood as is called saccrdotiwn ; but 
 preshyteriuni remaineth ' (Works, P.S... pp. 4(5, 
 48, 49). 
 
 Bishop Hooper. 
 
 * Exempluni vero neotericoruni inipietatis aliud 
 non qua^ram (juam hoc, quo dicunt Christum 
 quotidie in illorum missis ac illorum opera pro 
 peccatis vivorum et inortuorum oiferri. Joannes 
 dicet quod Christus emundat nos ab omni peccato. 
 Ergo totum redemptionis onuiium peccatorum 
 nostrorum pretium sanguini Christi super crucem 
 efFuso assignat ; et sacrificulis nullam partem re- 
 linquit. ... Si neoteri easdem offerunt in missis 
 hostias, nempe corpus, sanguinem et aniinam 
 qu£e Christus in cruce obtulit, Christi hostiam 
 
A(;ainst the Mass / 9 
 
 imiiioLitioiiciii intinnitatis arguunt : quod est 
 omniuo satanicuin et inipium ' (Later Writings, 
 P.S., p. 513). 
 
 II. 
 ' Coena Doiiiine (quod imjna missfc non est) 
 etiaiii sacrificium Christianoruiii vocatur, non re 
 ipsa, sed noniinis comniunicatione et participa- 
 tione ; quia recordatio et niemoria sit veri sacri- 
 ficii Christi semel in cruce oblati ' (Later 
 Writings, P.S. edit., p. 3 94). 
 
 Haddox. 
 
 ' Ubi Christus in ecena un({uani sacrificium 
 instituit sui corporis ^ ... Ubi tensis ad coelum 
 brachiis, hostiani ad placanduni Patrem obtulit ? 
 . . . Quid Apostoli ? ... Ubi pro vivis ac 
 defunctis litabant ':'... Breviter tota hiGc ac- 
 tionis vestra^ institutio quantum a ])rimis iVposto- 
 lorum vestigiis dissiliat, quam nihil commune 
 cum communione Christi, niliil cum sacra ilhus 
 ccena conjunctum praj se ferat, vel orbis Chris- 
 tianorum judicet . . . Sacramentum primum 
 vertistis in sacrihcium, mensam in aram commu- 
 tastis, Mysteria in Missas, coenationem in adora- 
 
80 Testimonies 
 
 tionem transtulistis, communioneiii in cultum, 
 epulum in spectaculum. . . . Denique eh rem 
 produxistis, ut ne coense quidem ulla vel species, 
 aut nomen in templis permaneat ' (' Contra Oso- 
 rium/ lib. iii., fol. 358a, London, 1577). 
 
 Jewel. 
 
 ' They did tell us that in their Mass they were 
 able to make Christ the Son of God, and to oft'er 
 Him unto God His Father for our sins. O 
 hlasi^hemous speecli, and )nost injurious to the 
 glorious work of our redemption. . . . Such 
 kind of sacrifice we have not. ... It is the 
 blood of Jesus Christ which cleanseth us from all 
 sin. This is our sacrifice, this is our propitiation, 
 this is the propitiation and sacrifice for the whole 
 world. How, then, saith Pope Pius we have no 
 sacrifice V {' View of Seditious Bull,' Works, P.S. 
 Defence, etc., pp. 1139, 1140). 
 
 COVERDALE. 
 
 ' Let us look, wherefore they call it a sacrifice. 
 Even because, say they, that in the Mass Christ 
 the Son is offered up unto God His Father. 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 8 1 
 
 Oh, what a great hlaspJiemy is this ; yea, to be 
 abhorred of all virtuous men 1' (' Remains,' P.S. 
 edit., p. 470). 
 
 The Archbishops, Bishops, and Ministers 
 OF 1560. 
 
 * Missa, ut consuevit a Sacerdotibus dici, non 
 erat a Christo instituta, sed a multis Romanis 
 Pontificibus eonsarcinata. Nee est sacrificium 
 projjitiatorium pro vivis et defunctis ' (' Articles 
 of the Principal Heads of Religion ').* 
 
 The Archbishops and Bishops of 15 60. 
 
 ' The doctrine that maintaineth the Mass to 
 be a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the 
 dead, and a means to deliver souls out of purga- 
 tory, is neither agreeable to Christ's ordinance, 
 nor grounded upon doctrine apostolic. But con- 
 trariwise, most ungodly and most injurious to the 
 
 * To these Articles the ministers were to subscribe iu the 
 following form : ' Haec omnia vera esse et publics docenda 
 profitemur .... Hancque nostram confessionem manuum 
 nostrarum subscriptionibus testificamur, contrariamque 
 doctrinam abolendam esse judicamus, et detestamur ' (see 
 Strype's ' Annals,' vol. i., ch. xvii., p. 217). 
 
 6 
 
8 2 Testimonies 
 
 precious redemption of our Saviour Christ, and 
 His only-sufficient sacrifice offered once for ever 
 upon the altar of the Cross ' (' Declaration . . . 
 for the Unity of Doctrine,' to be read publicly 
 by all ministers upon their first coming into their 
 benefices).* 
 
 Bishop T. Cooper (of AVinchester). 
 
 I. 
 'I will . , show you out of your own 
 authors, what I take your private Mass to be. 
 It is a sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, 
 used in the Church in the place of the Lord's 
 Supper, by one priest alone offered to God the 
 Father for the sins of quick and dead ' (' Defence 
 of the Truth,' pp. 57, 58, P.S. edit). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' The priest (say you) is bound to offer up the 
 daily sacrifice for himself and for the people. 
 This is the root of all the abuses of the Lord's 
 
 * See Strype's ' Annals,' vol. i., ch. xvii., p. 219. London, 
 1725. This declaration went forth in the general name of 
 both Metropolitans and all the bishops ; but (according to 
 Strype, Parker's ' Life,' p. 92) seems to have been chiefly 
 the work of Parker. 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 83 
 
 Supper that ye have brought into the Church 
 of Christ' {ihkl., p. 87). 
 
 III. 
 ' The Lord's Supper is a remembrance of one 
 perfect sacrifice, whereby we were once sufficiently 
 purged from sin, and continually are revived by 
 the same ; your sacrifice is a daily offering up of 
 Christ for our sins, as though it had not been 
 perfectly done at the first' {ibid., p. 98). 
 
 IV. 
 
 ' So much difference is there between the 
 sacrament by Christ appointed, and the sacrifice 
 of the Mass by you devised' {ihid., p. 99). 
 
 The Archbishops and Bishops in the Realm 
 OF Ireland and others in 15 66. 
 
 * The doctrine which maintaineth the Mass to 
 be a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the 
 dead, and a mean to deliver souls from purgatory, 
 is neither agreeable to Christ's ordinance, nor 
 grounded upon doctrine Apostolic, but con- 
 trariwise most ungodly and most injurious to 
 the precious redemption of our Saviour Christ 
 
84 Testimonies 
 
 and His only sufficient sacrifice offered once for 
 ever upon the altar of the Cross ' (see Ussher's 
 Works, Elrington's edit., vol. i., p. xxviii.). 
 
 Archbishop Parker and other Bishops between 
 1566 and 1570.^ 
 
 ' In this sermon here published some things 
 be spoken not consonant to sound doctrine, but 
 rather to such corruption of great ignorance and 
 superstition, as hath taken root in the Church 
 of long time, being overmuch combered with 
 monckery. As when it speaketh of tlie Mass to 
 he profitable to the quick and dead ' (+ Preface 
 to ' Homily of ^Ifric,' signed not only by Parker, 
 but by the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of 
 London, and twelve other bishops). 
 
 Bishop Pilkington. 
 
 ' For their sacrifice of the Mass, that he so 
 much laments to be defaced, and all good con- 
 sciences rejoice that God of His undeserved 
 
 * See Introduction in Thomson's edit. (pp. iii., iv.) of 
 the 'Testimony of Antiquity.' 
 t See Appendix, note A. 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 8 5 
 
 goodness has overthrown it, I refer all men to 
 the fifth and last book that the blessed souls 
 now living with God, Bishops Cranmer and 
 Ridley, wrote of the sacrament, whose bodies 
 they cruelly tormented therefor' (Works, P.S. 
 edit., pp. 547, 54 8). 
 
 Dean No well. 
 
 ' M. An fuit instituta a Christo coena, ut 
 Deo Patri hostia pro ^jecca^?*-s- expiandis immo- 
 laretur ? 
 
 ' A. Minime : nam Christus mortem in cruce 
 occumbens, unicum illud sempiternum sacrificium 
 semel in perpetuum ^^Y0 nostra salute obtulit ' 
 (Christianfe pietatis prima institutio, ad usum 
 Scholarum Greece et Latine Scripta.* London, 
 1577. 'Cum Gratia et Privilegio,' fol. 101 h). 
 
 * This is Nowell's ' Middle Catechism,' concerning which 
 see Churton's ' Life of Nowell,' pp. 188, sqq. It had a very 
 extensive circulation in the reign of Elizabeth, and continued 
 to be used in schools for a century or more. In the reign of 
 Queen Anne an English edition was published, for which 
 Mr. Nelson had readily consented to write a commendatory 
 preface. But his lamented death prevented him from ful- 
 filling his design. See Churton's ' Life,' pp. 193, 194. The 
 teaching of the smaller Catechism is equally strong. See 
 ibid., p. 419. 
 
86 Testimonies 
 
 Archbishop Grindal. 
 
 I. 
 ' Christ gave a sacrament to strengthen men's 
 faith ; the priest giveth a sacrifice to redeem 
 men's souls. Christ gave it to be eaten ; the 
 priest giveth it to be worshipped. . . . Thus 
 you may see that the Massing-priest receiveth 
 the sacrament of Christ's body far otherwise 
 than ever Christ minded ; and so, therefore, un- 
 worthily and to his condemnation ' (' Remains,' 
 P.S. edit., pp. 57, 58). 
 
 II. 
 ' The Mass is forbidden in the Scripture, as 
 thus : It was thought to be meritorious, it did 
 take away free justification, it was made an idol, 
 and idolatry is forbidden in the Scriptures ' (ibid., 
 pp. 211, 212). 
 
 Archbishop Sandys. 
 
 I. 
 * In the Scriptures, wherein is contained all 
 that is good, and all that which God requireth 
 or accepteth of, we find no mention either of the 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 87 
 
 name or of the thing of the Mass . . . either 
 any such popish trash' ('Sermons,' P.S. edit., 
 p. 223). 
 
 II. 
 ' Where the popish priesthood taketh footing, 
 in what ground the foundation thereof is laid, I 
 cannot find in the Scriptures. Anti-Christ is 
 the author of that priesthood. . . . The priest, 
 accordinof to the order of Melchizedeck, hath 
 offered the sacrifice of His own flesh, acceptable 
 even for the worthiness of it, and by the virtue 
 which is in it forcible and more than sufficient to 
 wash away all sin. . . . He did it perfectly. 
 . . . Where full remission of sin is, there 
 needeth no further sacrifice for sin ; and the 
 Holy Ghost beareth us record that we have full 
 remission of all our sins. ... " The blood of 
 Jesus cleanseth us from all sin " ; the blood of 
 Jesus 07ice shed, the offering of the body of Jesus 
 Christ once. So that there remaineth no other 
 sacrifice to be daily offered, but the sacrifice of 
 " righteousness," which we must all offer ' [ibid., 
 pp. 411, 412). 
 
88 Testimonies 
 
 FULKE. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' The word priest, by popish abuse, is com- 
 monly taken for a sacrificer. . . . But the 
 Holy Ghost never calleth the ministers of the 
 word and sacraments of the New Testament 
 lipeiQ or sacerdotes. . . . The name of priest, 
 according to the original derivation from presbyter, 
 we do not refuse ; but according to the common 
 acception for a sacrijicer we cannot take it, when 
 it is spoken of the ministry of the New Testa- 
 ment '^ ('Defence of Translation,' P.S. edit., 
 
 p. 119). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' In denying the blasphemous sacrifice of the 
 
 popish Mass, with the altar and priesthood that 
 
 thereto belongeth, we use no wil}^ policy, but 
 
 with open mouth at all times, and in all places, 
 
 we cry oiit up)on it ' {ibid., p. 241). 
 
 * This distinction will be found constantly recurring in the 
 writings of ]^]nglish divines. Bishop King (in the reign of 
 James I.), of London, acknowledging that we 'allow no 
 other priesthood nor other priest but Christ ' (in his dealing 
 with John Almond), and answering ' No,' to the Benedictine 
 Scott's question, ' Are you a priest ?' explained himself 
 thus : ' I am a priest, but not a Massing-priest ' (see 
 Hutton's ' Anghcan Ministry,' pp. 515, 516). 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 89 
 
 Whitaker. 
 
 * Hoc sacrificiuiu . . . semel oblatum Deo 
 Patri f)ro j)eccatis nostris cumulatissime satis- 
 fecit : ergo non opus est ut repetatur, et qui 
 repeti volunt Christo summam eontumeliam 
 faciunt, quasi non prsestiterit, quod in se 
 susceperit. At Papistica Ecclesia hoc sacri- 
 ficiuni S8epe rependendum esse statuit. Sic 
 Concilium Tridentinum, sess. 22, cap. i. Quare 
 manifestuni est, Papistas Christum Ejusque 
 sacrificium longe augustissimum homryidd con- 
 tumelid afficere ' (' Praelectiones,' pp. 475, 47G. 
 Cambridge, 159 9). 
 
 Bishop Alley. 
 
 I. 
 ' We cannot well grant that they, in their 
 masking Mass, offer any such sacrifice, for 
 they boast that they offer reale corpus, et realerii 
 sanguinem, as they term it. The holy Father 
 Irenseus doth write, that the thino- that is 
 offered receiveth his dignity and worthiness of 
 him that doth offer, and that the sacrifice is 
 accepted of God, because he that offereth it is 
 
90 Testimonies 
 
 accepted of God. Upon this I make argument : 
 Every person that doth offer is of more worthi- 
 ness than the thing which he offereth. The 
 priest doth offer the body of Christ : ergo, the 
 priest is of more worthiness than the body of 
 Christ. O blasphemy intolerable!' [UTio^of-iovaHov. 
 'The Poor Man's Library,' tom. i., fol. 218 a. 
 Edit. Day, 1565). 
 
 II. 
 ' We shall not find in the Holy Scriptures 
 that the ministers of the New Testament be 
 called either Sacerdotes or Sacrifici. For that 
 is attributed wholly and only unto Christ' {ihicL, 
 tom. ii., fol. 3 6 h). 
 
 Archbishop Whitgift. 
 
 I. 
 
 * St. Augustine . . . speaketh against such as, 
 professing Christianity, did, notwithstanding, 
 resort to the temples of the Pagans at their 
 solemnities and feasts . . . much like unto those 
 that think it sufficient to serve God in heart, 
 though in body they be present at the Mass and 
 idolatrous service. ... It was in St. Augus- 
 tine's time, as it is in some places at this day, 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 91 
 
 where in some one city there be churches both 
 for the Gospel, and for tlie Mass also : it is not 
 meet that such as profess the Gospel should 
 resort to the Mass ; for besides that they offend 
 God in being present at idolcttrous service, they 
 also give occasion to the papists to think better 
 of their Mass ' (' Defence of Answer to Admoni- 
 tion,' Tract vii., ch. v., div. 3. Works, P.S., 
 vol, ii., p. 34). 
 
 11. 
 
 * As for the name of priest, as they took it 
 [i.e., as sacrificers], he did likewise condemn in 
 our ministers, neither did they ascribe it to them- 
 selves. And that, therefore, the libeller in these 
 points writ like himself (Strype, 'Life of 
 Whitgift,' p. 305. London, 1718). 
 
 III. 
 
 * The very word [priest] itself, as it is used in 
 our English tongue, soundeth the word presbyter. 
 As heretofore use hath made it to be taken for a 
 sacrificer, so will use now alter that signification, 
 and make it to be taken for a minister of the 
 Gospel' (Works, P.S., vol. iii., p. 3 51. See 
 'Eucharistic Presence,' pp. 30, 31). 
 
92 Testimonies 
 
 Hooker. 
 
 I. 
 ' He which saith, " Depart out of Babylon, 
 lest ye be partakers of her sins," sheweth plainly 
 that He meaneth such sins, as except we separate 
 ourselves, we have no power in the world to 
 avoid such impieties as by law they have es- 
 tablished. . . . As for example, in the Church 
 of Rome it is maintained . . . that the bread in 
 the Eucharist is transubstantiated into Christ ; 
 that it is to be adored, and to he offered up unto 
 God as a sacrifice propitiatory for quick and 
 dead ' ('Discourse of Justification,' § 11, Works, 
 vol. iii., pp. 497, 498. Edit. Keble). 
 
 II. 
 ' Tell not us . . . that ye will read our Scrip- 
 tures, if we will listen to your traditions ; that if 
 ye may have a Mass by permission, we shall 
 have a Communion with good leave and liking. 
 . . . Solomon took it (as well he might) for an 
 evident proof that she did not bear a motherly 
 affection to her child which yielded to have it 
 cut in divers parts. He cannot love the Lord 
 Jesus with his heart, which lendeth one ear to 
 His apostles and another to false apostles ; which 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 93 
 
 can brook to see a mingle-mangle of religion and 
 superstition, ministers and massing-priests, light 
 and darkness, truth and error, traditions and 
 Scriptures. No, we have no lord but Jesus, no 
 doctrine but the Gospel, no teachers but His 
 apostles ' (* Sermon on St. Jude's Ej)istle,' Works, 
 vol. iii., p. 666. Edit. Keble). 
 
 III. 
 ' Touching the ministry of the Gospel of Jesus 
 Christ ; the whole body of the Church being 
 divided into laity and clergy, the clergy are 
 either presbyters or deacons. I rather term the 
 one sort iJreshyters than priests, because in a 
 matter of so small moment I would not willingly 
 offend their ears to whom the name of priesthood 
 is odious, though without cause. . . . Howbeit, 
 because the most eminent part both of heathenish 
 and Jewish service did consist in sacrifice, when 
 learned men declare that the word pynest doth 
 properly signify according to the mind of the 
 first imposer of that name, their ordinary scholics 
 do well expound it to imply sacrijice. Seeing* 
 then that sacinjice is noiv no part of the Church 
 
 * On this statement see ' Eucharistic Presence,' pp. 31, 32. 
 
94 Testimonies 
 
 ministry, how sliould the name of priesthood be 
 thereunto rightly apphed ? Surely, even as St. 
 Paul applieth the name of flesh unto that very 
 substance of flshes which hath a proportionable 
 correspondence to flesh, although it be in nature 
 another thing . . . the word presbyter doth 
 seem more fit, and in propriety of speech more 
 agreeable than priest with the drift of the whole 
 Gospel of Jesus Christ. . . . The Holy Ghost 
 throughout the body of the New Testament 
 making no such mention of them doth not any- 
 where call them priests. The prophet Esay I 
 grant doth, but in such sort as the ancient fathers, 
 by way of analogy' (* Eccl. Pol.,' Book Y., ch. 
 Ixxviii., § 2, 3. Works, vol. ii., pp. 469-472. 
 Edit. Keble). 
 
 Archbishop Bancroft. 
 I. 
 * Out of these books [of pretended Reformers], 
 because some might otherwise charge the pre- 
 mises herein with slander of the godly brethren, 
 I have thought it very convenient to lay down 
 before you, particularly, some most lewd and 
 wicked speeches. 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 95 
 
 ' Some of their consistorial sayings, as touching 
 our rehgion, Communion-book, sacraments and 
 ceremonies. . . . Tliey eat not the Lord's SivppeVy 
 hut play « ^:>a^ea?i^ of their own, to blind the 
 people, and keep them still in superstition : to 
 make the silly soids believe that they have an 
 English Mass : and so put no difference betivixt 
 truth and falsehood, betwixt Christ cifid Anti- 
 christ' ('Dangerous Positions,' pp. 46, 47, 50, 
 56. London, 1593). 
 
 ' Their especial drift in their said raihng 
 speeches, as outrageously published, as if they 
 were mere Jesuits, and peradventure to as dan- 
 gerous a purpose' [ibid., p. 61). 
 
 II. 
 * They [the Papists] forbid the reading of the 
 Scriptures ; and the better to be obeyed, they 
 will not permit the Scriptures in the vulgar 
 tongue. . . . [The people therefore are drawn] 
 from the sure trust and confidence in His Death 
 to Masses, pardons, and I know not what intoler- 
 able superstition and idolatry' ('Sermon,' 1588, 
 p. 36. See Lathbury's 'Hist, of Convocation/ 
 p. 254). 
 
S) 6 Testimonies 
 
 Dean Field. 
 
 I. 
 
 * The very form and words of the Liturgy 
 condemn the abuse of private masses and half- 
 communion, and make nothing of that propitia- 
 tory sacrifice whereof the papists fable, which 
 are those greatest mysteries of Romish religion 
 that they insist upon in their Mass ' ('Of the 
 Church,' Book III., Appendix, vol. ii., p. 22, 
 
 E.H.S.) 
 
 II. 
 
 ' The best and principal men that then (i.e., 
 
 before Luther) lived, taught peremptorily that 
 
 Christ is not newly offered any otherwise than in 
 
 that He is offered to the view* of God, nor any 
 
 * Field's language concerning ' offering ' has led to so 
 much misunderstanding (see, e.g., Canon T. T. Carter in 
 * Correspondence with Marriott,' p. 92) that it seems 
 desirable to quote the following passage, which may serve as 
 an explanation not only of his own words, but of similar 
 language used by other writers : ' Touching the manner of 
 offering Christ's body and blood, we must consider that there 
 is a double offering of a thing to God. First, so as men are 
 wont to do that give something to God out of that they 
 possess, professing that they will no longer be owners of it, 
 but that it shall be His, and serve for such uses and employ- 
 ments as He shall convert it to. Secondly, a man may be 
 said to offer a thing to God in that he bringeth it to His 
 presence, setteth it before His eyes and offercth it to His 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 97 
 
 otherwise sacrificed than in that His sacrifice on 
 the Cross is commemorated and represented ' (' Of 
 the Church,' Book III., Appendix, vol. ii., p. 72, 
 
 E.H.S.). 
 
 III. 
 
 ' Wherefore, from this point of Romish rehgion 
 
 . . . let us come to the next, which is the pro- 
 
 pitiatcny sacrifice for the quick and the dead. . . . 
 
 I will make it appear that the Canon of the Mass 
 
 im]3orteth no such sacrifice, and ... I will show 
 
 at large, that neither before nor after Luther's 
 
 vieio, to incline Him to do something by the sight of it and 
 respect had to it. In this sort Christ offereth Himself and 
 His body once crucified daily in heaven, and so intercedeth 
 for us ; not as giving it in the nature of a gift or present, for 
 He gave Himself to God once, to be holy unto Him for ever; 
 nor in the nature of a sacrifice, for He died once for sin, and 
 rose again never to die any more ; but in that He setteth it 
 before the eyes of God His Father, representing it unto Him, 
 and so offering it to His vieio to obtain grace and mercy for 
 us. And in this sort vfe also offer Him daily on the altar, 
 in that, commemorating His death and lively representing 
 His bitter passion endured in His body upon the Cross, tue 
 offer Him that was once crucified and sacrificed for us on the 
 Cross, and all His sufferings, to tlie vieiu and gracious con- 
 sideration of the Almighty, earnestly desiring and assuredly 
 hoping that He will incline to pity us and show mercy unto 
 us, for this His dearest Son's sake, who in our nature, for 
 us, to satisfy His displeasure and to procure us acceptation, 
 endured such and so grievous things ' (' Of the Church,' 
 Book III., Appendix, vol. ii., p. G2, E.H.S.). See below. 
 Appendix, note B. 
 
 7 
 
9 8 Testimonies 
 
 appearing, the Church believed, nor knew any 
 such new real sacrificing of Christ, as is now 
 imagined' {' Of the Church,' Book III., Appendix, 
 vol. ii., p. 5 9, E.H.S.). 
 
 IV. 
 
 ' I say briefly . . . that we have altars in 
 some sort as the Fathers had, though we have 
 thrown down popish altars ; that w^e admit the 
 Eucharist to be rightly named a sacrifice, though 
 we detest the blasphemous construction the papists 
 make of it ' (ibid., p. 8 3). 
 
 V. 
 
 ' It is made clear and evident, that the best 
 and worthiest amongst the guides of God's 
 Church before Luther's time taught, as we do, 
 that the sacrifice of the altar is only the sacrifice 
 of praise and thanksgiving, and a mere represen- 
 tation and commemoration of the sacrifice once 
 offered on the Cross ; and consequently are all 
 put under the curse, and anathematized by the 
 Tridentine Council ' (' Of the Church,' Book III., 
 Appendix, vol. ii., p. 94, E.H.S.). 
 
'AGAINST THE MaSS 99 
 
 Rogers. 
 
 ' We are to note, first, blasphemous fables. 
 For it is a fable that the Mass is a sacrifice, and 
 that propitiatory ... a fable that one and the 
 same sacrifice is offered in the Mass which was 
 offered on the Cross ; a fable, that the said Mass 
 is any whit profitable for the quick, much less for 
 the dead. Next, dangerous deceits. For hereby 
 men are taught to believe that creatures may be 
 adored ; contrary to God's Word. Christ is often 
 offered ; contrary to the Scrij)ture. The jjriest 
 ofifereth up Christ ; contrary to the Scripture. 
 . . . All which their fables and deceits do tend 
 to the utter abolishing of true religion. There- 
 fore justly have we and our godly brethren 
 abandoned the Mass ' (' The Faith, Doctrine and 
 Religion professed and protected in the Realm 
 of England. . . . Perused, and by the lawful 
 authority of the Church of England allowed to 
 be public. 1607.' P.S. edit., pp. 300, 301). 
 
 WiLLET. 
 I. 
 
 ' We deny not, but that the sacrament may be 
 called a sacrifice, that is, a spiritual oblation of 
 
100 Testimonies 
 
 praise and thanksgiving ; but that there is a 
 proper and external sacrifice, as in the law of 
 goats and bullocks, upon the Cross of the Body 
 of Christ ; so in the Eucharist, of the same Body 
 and Flesh of Christ, we do hold it for a great 
 hlasphemy and heresy ' (Willet's ' Synopsis Pa- 
 pismi,' vol. v., p. 3 5 2. London, 18 52). 
 
 II. 
 ' We hold it to be a great hlaspliemy to say 
 that the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ upon 
 the Cross is not that sacrifice or priesthood into 
 the which the old sacrifice and priesthood was 
 translated and changed' {ibid., p. 364). 
 
 III. 
 
 ' Concerning the name of priests in their sense, 
 as it implieth an authority of sacrificing, we utterly 
 ablior. ... To conclude, this word priest, as it 
 is the English of sacerdos, we do not approve ; 
 but as it giveth the sense of 'preshyter, from 
 whence it is derived, we condemn it not' (ihid., 
 p. 365). 
 
 IV. 
 
 ' They hlasphemou.sly affirm that it is a sacrifice 
 propitiatory' {ibid., p. 3 6 8). 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 101 
 
 Bishop Bilson. 
 
 I. 
 ' You will have a real, corporal, and local prof- 
 ferinor of Christ's flesh to God the Father under 
 the forms of bread and wine made by the priest's 
 external actions and o-estures for the sins of such 
 as he list : this is, we say, a iviched and hlas- 
 ■phemous mockery. His passion is the true obla- 
 tion of the Church ; His flesh wounded and blood 
 shed are the only sacrifices for sin ' (' True Dif- 
 ference,' p. 700. Oxford, 1585). 
 
 II. 
 
 ^Philander [Jesuit].— As though the ancient 
 Fathers did not also say that Christ is daily 
 offered in the Church. 
 
 ^Tlieophilus [Christian]. — Not in the substance, 
 which is your error, but in signification, which is 
 their doctrine and ours. Take their interpreta- 
 tion with their words, and they make nothing 
 for your local and external offering of Christ. 
 . . . The Catholic Fathers I can assure you say, 
 Christ is offered and Christ is crucified in the 
 Lord's supper indifferently' [ihid., pp. 690, 691). 
 
102 Testimonies 
 
 BiSHOF Robert Abbott. 
 
 I. 
 
 * Singulari et solo vera sacrificio Christi ^?"o 
 nobis sanguis effusus est, sanguis innocens, quo 
 nocentium omnia peccata delevit (Aug.). Quare 
 unum verum sacerdotem agnoscimus, mediatorem 
 Dei et hominum, qui altar e Dei vero sacrificio 
 solus implevit (Aug.), nee prceter ipsum alteri 
 cuipiam homi7ii sive sacerdotii nomen, sive rem 
 ipsam ascrihimus (Cyril. Ep. 10 ad Nestor.). 
 Tale enim est Christi sacerdotium, ut ad alium 
 transire non possit. . . . Blasphemia est ergo 
 quod sacrificiuni Missse nuncupatur, et ccena 
 Domini non proprie sacrificium, sed magis recor- 
 datio sacrificii interpretanda est, nee vere ibi 
 Christus offertur, magis autem oblationis illius 
 memoriam facimus, perinde ac esset (reipsa ergo 
 non est) hoe tempore immolatus (Theophylact. in 
 Heb. X.). Passio est enim. Christi sacrificium 
 quod offerimus (Cyprian). Qualis ergo ibi passio, 
 tale sacrificium : passio tantummodo figurata est ; 
 non aliud ergo sacrificium. Verum nainque et 
 reale sacrificiiun veram et realem mortem aut 
 destructionem rei immolatce. desiderat (Bellarm. 
 De Missa, Lib. I., c. 27). Quia ergo in Eucha- 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 103 
 
 ristia vera et realis mors vel destructio Christi 
 esse non potest (quo iioclo solvendo Bellarminus 
 se plane ridendum dat) idcirco in Eucharistia 
 veruni et reale Christi sacrificium affirmari non 
 debet. Supplicationes ergo et (jratiarwn actiones 
 sol(B nunc Deo cliarcB victimcB, et has solas Chris- 
 tiani Jacere dedicerunt, etiam in ilia qum alimento 
 sicco et humido (panis et vini) perjicitur coinme- 
 moratione, in qua passionis Filii Dei memoria 
 servatur (Justin Mart.)' (' Antilogia adv. Apolo- 
 giam pro Garneto,' p. 70. London, 1613). 
 
 II. 
 ' For that propitiatory sacrifice which he 
 driveth at is beyond God's device ; God never 
 taught it, Christ never ordained it, the Primitive 
 Church never intended it ; there is no reason at 
 all for it, because the blood of Christ once shed 
 for us is a sufficient propitiation and atonement 
 for all our sins. And because by once offeriyiy 
 of Himself He hath ijurged our sins, and made 
 us 2)^1 feci for ever, therefore it is no despite to 
 God's true worship, but a just assertion thereof, 
 to hold that the pretence of any further sacrifice 
 for sin is an imjnous and blasphemous derogation 
 
104 Testimonies 
 
 to the Cross of Christ ' {' Defence of Reformed 
 CathoHc,' part iii., p. 171. London, 1609). 
 
 III. 
 
 ' The 7>a.s'.yioii. of Christ is the sacrifice which 
 we offer ; and because the pasf<ion of Christ is 
 not now really acted, therefore the sacrifice which 
 we offer is no true and real sacrifice ' (' Counter- 
 proof against Dr. Bishop,' c. xiv., p. 364. See 
 Waterland's Works, vol. v., p. 141). 
 
 Bishop Babington. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' It is finished, and w^hy are we feared ? . . . 
 See, see their sin that devise a daily sacrifice for 
 sin, either adding unto this most perfect redemp- 
 tion as if it wanted, or else vainly doing by a 
 work of will what already is fully done by pre- 
 script of God. . . . The virtue, power, and effi- 
 cacy of this sacrifice is perpetual, being once 
 made, and needeth but by faith to be taken hold 
 of and applied ' (' Exposition of Lord's Prayer,' 
 Petition I., p. 2 6. London, 1615). 
 
 II. 
 ' The Mass casteth upon our Saviour this re- 
 proach, that He is not the only Priest of the 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 105 
 
 New Testament. ... It overthroweth the merit 
 of His death and passion. . . . The errors and 
 hlasj^hemies that are to be found in the Canon of 
 the Mass show how trul}'' detestable it is and 
 ouofht to be to all faithful men and women ever ' 
 ('Exposition of Catholic Faith,' pp. 2 5 5, 2 5 6. 
 London, 1615). 
 
 Archdeacon Mason. 
 
 I. 
 
 *Vos aliud cerebri vestri figmentum adjecitis, 
 jDotestatem scilicet offerendi sacrificium propria 
 dictum, et proprie propitiatoriwn pro vivis et 
 defunctis. In qua fieri non potest, ut vos Apos- 
 tolis succedatis, cum nee ipsi (ut postea liquebit) 
 tales fuerint sacerdotes, nee ullum unquam istius- 
 modi sacerdotium posteris tradiderint ' (' Vindicise 
 Ecclesige Anglicanse,'* Lib. II., c. i., p. 59. Lon- 
 don, 162 5). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' Docet Concilium Tridentinum in Missa, offerri 
 Deo verum et proprium Sacrificium. . . . Eccle- 
 
 * On Bishop Overall's connection with this work, see 
 ' Papers on Eucharistic Presence,' p. 303. 
 
106 Testimonies 
 
 sia Anglicana longe rectius docet. . . . Missas 
 pro vivis et defunctis hlasphemas esse fahulas, et 
 pericidosas vinposturas. Hujusmodi igitur sacri- 
 ficium missaticum, ad Ministros Evangelicos 
 spectare non agnoscimus ' {ibid., Lib. V., c. i., p. 
 545). 
 
 III. 
 
 ' Nos . . . Sacerdotium vestrum missificum, 
 non modo humanum esse commentum, sed etiam 
 in conspectu ipsius Dei viventis sacrilegum, et 
 ahominandum probavimus ' {ibid., p. 6 60). 
 
 Bishop William Cowper (of Galloway). 
 
 ' I pray you mark how hlasphemous and de- 
 ceitful a thing their Mass is. First, is not this 
 a mockery of God the Father, to desire Him to 
 accept His own Son ? Is Christ out of the 
 favour of His Father ? Said He not, He is My 
 Son, in whom I am well pleased ? Shall a 
 mortal and miserable sinful priest be a mediator 
 or peacemaker between the Father and the 
 Son, praying the Father that He would accept 
 His Son, and send down an angel to take up 
 His body into heaven ? 
 
AGAINST THE MasS 107 
 
 ' R. Fie ii[)on it. It is a cilc Iddsplicmii. 
 
 ' C. Secondly, see you not how it inverts 
 God's ordinance l for where He hath ordained a 
 sacrament, wherein God offers and gives His 
 Son to us, they have changed it into a sacrifice, 
 wherein they offer up the Son to the Father. 
 
 ' R. I see that also. 
 
 ' C. Thirdly, is it not an injurious thing to 
 Christ to say that any can offer Him up to God 
 but Himself? 
 
 ' R. It is indeed ; for as no other sacrifice 
 can satisfy God's justice, so no other sacrificer 
 can be worthy to offer Him but Himself, as is 
 clear out of your former testimonies. 
 
 ' C. Fourthly, is it not a deceiving of the 
 people to say, that an unbloody sacrifice (such as 
 they say the Mass is) can be propitiatory to 
 obtain remission of sins ? 
 
 * R. It is, indeed ; and expressly against the 
 Word of God you have alleged. Without shedding 
 of hlood there is no remission. They grant 
 themselves, that in the Mass there is no shedding 
 of blood, and how then can it give pardon or 
 remission of sins V (' Seven Days' Conference, 
 Day 6,' Works, pp. 673, 674. London, 162 9.) 
 
108 Testimonies 
 
 King James I. 
 
 I. 
 ' Veteris Ecclesise Patres sacrificium in religione 
 Christiana unum agnovisse, quod in locum succes- 
 sissit omnium legis Mosaicse sacrificiorum, neque 
 ignorat Rex, neque negat. Sed hoc sacrificium 
 nihil esse aliud contendit, nisi commemorationem 
 ejus, quod semel in cruce Christus Patri suo 
 obtulit ' (' Pesponsio ad Epist. Card. Perronii, 
 ab Isaaco Casaubano, sereniss. Pege dictante, 
 scripta,' obs. v. In ' Jacobi Pegis AngUce Op. 
 Peg.,' p. 188. Francofurti ad Moenum, 16 89). 
 
 ♦ II. 
 ' Eucharistise celebrationem sine communican- 
 tibus, et universam illam privatarum missarum 
 nundinationem, multis etiam vestrorum theologis 
 damnatam, certum est a perversa doctrina de hoc 
 sacrificio originem habuisse. Quod autem ad 
 extrahendas Defunctorum animas e fiammis Pur- 
 gatorii sacrificia missarum exiguntur, et quidem 
 saepe repetita ; otiosorum hominum et simpUcitate 
 populorum ad quasstum suum impie abutentium, 
 diUrium esse, Pex non dubitat. Tollantur hi et 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 109 
 
 similes his alii cnissi foedique abusus, qui apud 
 vos obtiiient'* {Ibul, pp. 188, 189). 
 
 Bishop Andrewes. 
 
 ' Hoc est quod mirantur nostri homines : non 
 
 quod mirari ibi eos fingit Cardinalis. Credunt 
 
 enim, institutam a Domino Eucharistiam in sui 
 
 commemorationem ; etiam sacrificii sui, vel (si 
 
 ita loqui'liceat) in sacrijicmmi commemorativvvi ; 
 
 non autem in sacramentum modo, vel alimoniam 
 
 spiritualem. Hoc quidem etsi admittant, negant 
 
 tamen utrumque usum hunc (sic a Domino simul 
 
 et conjunctim institutum) divelli posse ab homine, 
 
 aut propter vel pojmli negligentiam, vel sacer- 
 
 dotum avaritiam, alteruni ab altero abrumpi. 
 
 Sacrificium, quod ibi est, Eucharisticum esse : 
 
 cujus sacrificii ea lex, ut qui illud offerat, de eo 
 
 participet : participet autem accipiendo et come- 
 
 dendo (uti jusset Servator). Nam participare 
 
 impetrando, nwperum id quidem et novitium par- 
 
 ticipandi genus ; ac multo enim magis quam 
 
 Missa ilia privata. ... At vos tollite de Missa 
 
 Transubstantiationem vestram ; nee diu nobiscum 
 
 * Compare below, p. 116, seePattison's ' Isaac Casaubon,' 
 pp. 322, 347, 348 ; and compare Casaubon's ' Exercitationes,' 
 pp. 575, 576, 580. London, 1614. 
 
1 1 Testimonies 
 
 lis erit de sacrificio. Mcmoriam ibi fieri sacrijiciij 
 damus non inviti. Sacrijlcari ihi Christum 
 vesh'V/m de 2><^^ne factimi, nunquam daturi. Sacri- 
 Jicii vocem scit [Rex] Patribus usurpatam, nee 
 ponit inter res novas : at vestrii7i Missd saerijicii, 
 et audet, et ponit ' {' Ad Bellarm. Responsio,' 
 pp. 2 5 0, 251, A.C.L., p. 184 of previous edi- 
 tion). 
 
 Bishop Buckeridge. 
 
 I. 
 ' De sacrificio item commemorativo, sive re^we- 
 sentativo, quo Christus ipse qui in cruce pro nobis 
 immolatus est, per viam representationis et com- 
 memorationis a nobis etiam quodammodo off'crri 
 dicitur, lis non magna est ; in Baptismo enim 
 ofFertur sacrificium Christi, uti Augustinus,' etc. 
 {' De Potest. Papse in prsef.,' quoted from Water- 
 land, Works, vol. v., p. 137. Oxford, 1843). 
 
 II. 
 ' The only sacrifice, one in itself, and once only 
 offered. . . . And the true sacrifice . . . this 
 only hath power to appease God's wrath. . . And 
 the proper sacrifice . . . He took flesh of ours 
 that He mio-ht offer for us. . . . He cannot be 
 offered again no more than He can be dead again 
 
AGAINST THE MasS 111 
 
 . . . and therefore, though in the Cross and the 
 Eucharist there be idem saci'lficatum, " the same 
 sacrificed thing," that is, the body and blood of 
 Christ offered by Christ to His Father on the 
 Cross, and received and participated by the com- 
 municants in the sacrifice of the altar, yet idem 
 sacrijicium quoad actionein sacrijicii, or sac7'iji- 
 candi, it is impossible there should be the same 
 sacrifice, understanding by sacrifice the action of 
 the sacrifice. For then the action of Christ's 
 sacrifice, which is long since jmst, should continue 
 as long as the Eucharist shall endure, even unto 
 the world's end, and His consummatum est is not 
 yet finished ; and dying and not dying, shedding 
 of blood and not shedding of blood, and suffering 
 and not suffering, cannot 'possibly he one action ; 
 and the representation of an action cannot be the 
 action itself (see Andre wes's Works, vol. v., 
 p. 260, A.C.L.). 
 
 III. 
 ' When he saith it is a representative or com- 
 memorative sacrifice, respectu prceteriti, " in 
 resj^ect of that which is past," that is, the passion 
 of Christ which was the true sacrifice, he doth 
 deny by consequent that it is the true sacrifice 
 
112 Testimonies 
 
 itself which is past. And if Christ be sacrificed 
 
 daily in the Eucharist, according to the action of 
 
 sacrifice, and it be one and the same sacrifice 
 
 offered by Christ on the Cross and the j)riest at 
 
 the altar^ then can it not be a representation of 
 
 that sacrifice which is past, because it is one and 
 
 the same sacrifice and action present ' (ibid., 
 
 p. 262). 
 
 Crakanthorp. 
 
 I. 
 ' Ex his quae jam de Transubstantiatione vestra 
 declaravimus, prseter multa aha duo consequuntur. 
 Prius est, Sacrijicium Missce nan esse saciijicium 
 joropitiatorium, ut Concihum Tridentinum definit, 
 vestrique docent. . . . Sacrificium tale nullum 
 vel unquam fuit, vel erit, prseter unmu Christum, 
 corpus suum et sanguinem in cruce Deo offe- 
 rentem. . . . Christus in Eucharistia corporaliter 
 non est, ut jam demonstravimus : ideoque corpus 
 ejus ac sanguis, nisi tyjnce, et per inochuii com- 
 rtiemorationis ; offerri non potest. Quare quod 
 in Missa realiter, et e manibus sacrifici oftertur, 
 vere ac projDrie sacrijicium propitiatorium esse 
 non potest. 2. Sed nee omnino vernm ac j^ro- 
 prie dictum sacrificium in Missa ullum est : non 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS I 1 3 
 
 quale Tridentinum Concilium detinivit, et vestri 
 uno ore profitentur ' (' Defen.sio Eccles. Angl.,' 
 c. Ixxiv., p. 536, A.C.L.). 
 
 II. 
 ' Quid igitur ? An Christi Corpus, an Ejus 
 substantia in Missa consumitur ? An Christus 
 (qui vivens est cum ofFertur) vere et realiter occi- 
 ditur ? An desinit id esse quod prius erat ? Quam 
 hsec impia et hlasphema /' {ihid., p. 5 3 7, A.C.L.). 
 
 Bishop Field. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' The Fathers most ordinarily, when they 
 
 make mention of the supper of the Lord, do 
 
 term it a sacrifice. . . . Whereupon (by wrested 
 
 and wrong interpretations) the Papists do build 
 
 their sacrifice of the Mass : wherein the priest 
 
 doth, as they say, offer to God the sacrifice of 
 
 Christ's body and blood, i^ro vivis et defunctis 
 
 . . . and as a propitiatioyi for sins,' etc. 
 
 (' Parasceve Paschse,' pp. 206, 207. London, 
 
 1624). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' Sfc. Augustin saith : '* Turn immolatum fuisse 
 Christum pro nobis, cum in Eum credimus. . . ." 
 
114 Testimonies 
 
 And again : " Tn/ni pro unoquoque mortuus est 
 Christus, quando pro se mortuum esse ilium certo 
 persuasus est. ..." So that . . . the Lord's 
 Supper is not sacrificium, IXanriKov, sed sv^afHUTiKov 
 {ihicl, pp. 211, 212). 
 
 III. 
 ' Xot to dwell longer upon these sacrilegious 
 absurdities of the Papists' (ibid., p. 218). 
 
 Dr. T. James. 
 ' The Papists in the Council of Trent make it 
 a sacrijice both for the living and the dead. 
 Admit it be a sacrifice (which cannot be well 
 denied, being well understood) ; yet is it neither 
 satisfactory, nor expiatory, but remorative ; so 
 Schoepperus : that is, not prop>erly a sacrifice, 
 but a memo-rial of a sacrifice, so Erasmus. Arias 
 Montanus giveth the reason of both : For ice do 
 not offer that sacrifice again: but p^roff^er, and 
 represent it to the memory after an unbloody 
 manner, ivhich ivas offered up once in blood ; a 
 sacrifice ivithout the matter of a sacrifice, to speak 
 in Cyril's terms. Neither will it avail the Papists 
 to say that Melchisedec sacrificed. . . . Vetablus 
 affirmeth of Melchisedec in special, that he re- 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 115 
 
 lieved or refreshed Ahrahanis men, <ind so sacri- 
 ficed not at alV (' Manuduction,' p. 96, Oxford, 
 1625). 
 
 Dean Sutcliffe. 
 I. 
 
 * Ubi de sacrificio agitur, prsecipua est ilia 
 controversia, quaiii diximas ; Utrum Christi 
 corpus et sayiguis sub specieJms panis et vini vere 
 et proprie Deo Patri q^'eratur. Hoc ille asse- 
 runt, hoc nos voce quantum possumus maxima 
 negamus ' ('Adv. Missse Pap. Sacrificium, Lib. 
 iii., c. i., fol. 2-20 h. London, 160;3). 
 
 II. 
 ' Hoc proprium est Christi officium, offerre 
 Corpus et sanguinem suum, et satisfacere pro 
 peccatis. . . . Insaniunt ergo sacrifici synagogae 
 Rom. qui putant se corpus et sanguinem Christi 
 proprie ofFerre. Prseterea hlasphemant, qui se 
 mediatores constituunt inter Deum et homines, 
 et suis sacrificiis commentitiis peccata tolli do- 
 cent ' (ibid., c. xi,, fol. 249 h). 
 
 III. 
 
 * Sine sanguinis effusione, inquit apostolus, 7wn 
 Jit remissio. . . . Respondet [Bellarminus] . . . 
 sanguinem sub specie vini fundi, dum ojj'ertur et 
 
116 Testimonies 
 
 donatur Deo in sacrijicium. At si sub specie 
 aliena fundi, sit vere fundi ; tunc sacrificium 
 missee erit cruentum. Si vero non vere fundatur, 
 tunc non erit sacrificium missse vere propitiato- 
 rium. Interim vero, observandum est, hunc 
 modum loquendi de effusione sanguinis in aliena 
 specie, novum esse et ahsurdum. Qua enim 
 ratione potest sanguis fundi in aliena specie V 
 {ibid., c. xvi., fol. 308). 
 
 Bishop Forbes (of Edixbukgh). 
 
 I. 
 ' Quod autem ad extrahendas defunctoruni 
 animas e flammis purgatorii sacrificia missarum 
 exiguntur, et quidem ssepe repetita ; otiosorum 
 hominum et simplicitate populorum ad qusestum 
 male abutentium, commentum* est ' (' Considera- 
 tiones Modestse,' Lib. III., De Euch.,^ 15, vol. ii., 
 pp. 608, 610, A.C.L.). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' Quotquot Romanenses defendunt, in Missa 
 
 vere et propre Corpus Christi sacrificari, niiruni 
 
 quam ipsis aqua haereat, et inter se pugnantibus 
 
 sententiis concertent' (ihid., § 12, p. 5 78). 
 
 * Compare the words of King James, as quoted above, p. 108. 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 117 
 
 BisHoi' Lake. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' The act was but once done, and that only 
 upon the cross, but the efficacy thereof continueth 
 for ever . . . and this cutteth up the very roots 
 from whence springeth the Mass, and all attend- 
 ants thereupon ' (Sermons, ' De Tempore,' p. 170. 
 London, 1629). 
 
 II. 
 
 * The most yiotorious corruption of these words 
 [of Institution] is, that they are made a part of 
 the priest's ordination ; as if they did give him 
 power to sacrifice both for quick and dead ; for 
 from these words do they derive that part of the 
 priesthood ; yea, upon these words they build 
 the Mass also, as if Hoc facite were as much as 
 sacrifice, and immolate Christ unbloodily. But I 
 will not stand to refute them' [ibid., p. 175). 
 
 Bishop Lewis Bayly. 
 
 I. 
 ' Christ never ordained in the New Testament 
 any order of srAcriJicing priests. . . . Neither is 
 there any real priest in the New Testament but 
 
118 Testimonies 
 
 07dy Christ' ('Practice of Piety,'* p. 614. Lon- 
 don, 166 8). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' There is as much difference between such a 
 communion [the communion of the sick] and the 
 anti- Christian idol of a private Mass, as there is 
 betwixt heaven and hell ' i^ihid., p. 617). 
 
 Bishop Morton. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' They believe their Mass to be a proper visible 
 sacrifice, thsX is, a true sacrificing of Christ Himself 
 to His Father, though ivithout bloodshed, by the 
 hands of the priest : a sacrfice of itself proiJerly 
 ptropitiatory for the sins of so many, as the priest, 
 by his memento, extendeth it unto. But we, 
 yielding the all-sufficiency of meritorious propitia- 
 tion unto Christ's bodily sacrilice upon the altar 
 of the Cross, do acknowledge that the offerture of 
 Christ in the Eucharist is not that corporal obla- 
 tion, but, according to the tenor of all ancients, 
 a memorial and commemoration thereof Agree- 
 able unto the writings which our adversaries 
 
 * This book was dedicated to Charles, Prince of Wales, 
 and was highly esteemed in the seventeenth century. 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 119 
 
 attribute to S. Gregory, wherein it is said that 
 Christ is so offered in this sacrifice, that although 
 He die no more, yet hy it He is mystically sacri- 
 ficed : expounding it thus : that this sacrifice is 
 an imitation of His j^cission : adding that Christ 
 doth suffer agaiyi for us in this mystery [" pro 
 nobis iterum patitur "]. Christ suffer again f 
 This word is more than our Romanists will main- 
 tain in the proper and literal signification, and 
 therefore must be contented to expound that 
 Christ is in the Eucharist, so said by S. Gregory 
 to have been sacrificed, as He is said therein to 
 have suffered ; which is not by any corporal 
 passion, but by a mystical representation, which 
 will appear to have been the universal doctrine 
 of the elder Church ' {' Catholic Appeal,' Lib. I., 
 c. ii., § 12, p. 10. London, 1610). 
 
 II. 
 ' Lest that there might be any ambiguity, how 
 it doth pacify God, whether by His gracious ac- 
 ceptance, or the efficacy of offering, your General 
 Roman Catechism, authorized both by your 
 Council of Trent, and the then Pope Pius V., 
 from the direction of your whole Church, in- 
 
120 Testimonies 
 
 structetli you all, concerning your sacrifice of the 
 Mass, that, as it is a sacrifice, it hath an efficacy 
 and virtue, not only of merit, hut also of satisfac- 
 tion. So they, as truly setting down the true 
 nature of a jyroj^itiatory sacrifice. . . . Be it 
 known that our Church of England, in her 
 Thirty-first Article, saith of your propitiatory 
 sacrifice of the Mass, as it is taught by you, that 
 it is a blasphemous fable, and dangerous deceit ' 
 (Bishop Morton, ' Of the Institution of the Sacra- 
 ment,' Book VI., c. viii., p. 475. London, 1G35). 
 
 Meyer. 
 
 ' How absurd it is to hold the sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper to be a sacrifice propitiatory 
 for the quick and the dead, seeing it is only a 
 remembrance of a sacrifice . , . and yet so im- 
 ])udent have some been, as that they not only 
 affirm it to be a sacrifice, but more available than 
 the very sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. . . . 
 No mao-nifier of the Mass durst have sung so 
 high a note, but in a church where the true re- 
 membrance of Christ's death is so obscured and 
 falsified by the bastard Mass' (' Enghsh Cate- 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 121 
 
 chism Explained,' p. 519. London, 1623.'*^ 
 ' Published by Command '). 
 
 Mede. 
 
 I. 
 [The Churches of the Roman Communion] 
 ' have for many ages disused this oblation of 
 bread and wine, and brought in, in lieu thereof, 
 a real Hypostatical Oblation of Christ Himself. 
 This hlasphemoiis oblation we have taken away, 
 and justly ' (Mede, ' The Christian Sacrifice,' 
 Book II., c. viii.. Works, p. 376. London, 1677). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' Though the Eucharist be a sacrifice (that is, 
 an oblation wherein the offerer banquets with 
 God), yet is Christ in this sacrifice no otherwise 
 offered than by way of commemoration oyily of 
 His sacrifice once offered upon the Cross ' {ibid., 
 Book II., c. ix., p. 376). 
 
 * In the fifth edition, 1635, this will be found in p. 55. 
 This edition was ' published by command ' after the 
 accession of Archbishop Laud to the primacy. And it 
 contains some changes which may be supposed to be due to 
 his censorship or influence (see Goode on ' Eucharist,' vol. ii., 
 p. 697). But no change was made in the quotation here 
 given. 
 
122 Testimonies 
 
 III. 
 ' Well, then, Christ is offered in this sacred 
 supper, not hypostatically , as the Papists would 
 have Him (for so He was but once offered), but 
 commemoratively only' (ibid., p. S7C)). 
 
 Bishop Bedell. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' As for the other power to sacrifice, if it be 
 any otherwise than the celebrating the comme- 
 moration of Christ's sacrifice once offered on the 
 Cross, it is no part of the priesthood or ministry 
 of the New Testament, but a superstitious addi- 
 tion thereunto ' (Burnet's ' Life of Bedell,' p. 
 
 164). 
 
 II. 
 
 * You may openly profess your not doubting 
 
 of any Article of the Catholic faith . . . but 
 
 that you consent not to certain opinions, which 
 
 are no points of faith, which have been brought 
 
 into common belief, without warrant of Scriptures, 
 
 or pure antiquity, as, namely . . . that the 
 
 bread in the Lord's Supper is transubstantiated 
 
 into His body ; that He is there sacrificed for 
 
 the quick and the dead' (ihid., p. 199). 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 12 3 
 
 III. 
 
 ' If you consider well the words of the Master 
 of the sentences . . . how that luhat is conse- 
 crated by the priest is called a sacrifice and obla- 
 tion, because it is a memorial and representation 
 of the true sacrifice and holy ofifering made on 
 the altar of the Cross, and join thereto that of the 
 Apostle, that by that one offering Christ hath 
 perfected for ever them that are sanctified, and as 
 he saith in another place, through that blood of 
 His Cross reconciled unto God cdl things tvhether 
 in earth or in heaven ; you shall perceive that 
 we do offer sacrifice for the quick and dead,"^ 
 remembering, representing and mystically offering 
 that sole sacrifice for the quick and dead, by the 
 which all their sins are meritoriously expiated, 
 and desiring that by the same, ive and all the 
 CJiurch may obtain remission of sins, and all 
 other benefits of Christ's passion ' (ibid., p. 479). 
 
 Bishop Davenant. 
 
 ' Statuunt Papistse, hoc quod somniarunt sacri- 
 ficium, pro intentione sacerdotis offerentis posse 
 
 * See Appendix, note B. 
 
124 Testimonies 
 
 ad quos vis homines particulares, sive vivos sive 
 mortuos, applicari ; ita ut ex ipso opere operato 
 consequantur remissionem apoenis et culpis,aliaque 
 spiritualia et temporalia beneficia. . . . Per opus 
 autein operatum . . . posse illud vivificum sacri- 
 ficium applicari . . . soli audent asserere qui 
 frontem habent ferream ; soli possunt credere, 
 qui cor habent plumbeum. . . . Sed tsedet me 
 e)-rores tarn crassos prolixe refellere. Concludo. 
 . . . Missam Pontificiam non esse sacrificium 
 propitiatorium pro vivis et mortuis, fied foedissi- 
 mum lucri aucupium ex vivis et mortuis ' (' De- 
 terminationes Qusestionum,' Qu. xiii., pp. 64, 6 5. 
 Cambridge, 1634). 
 
 Featley. 
 
 I. 
 ' This resemblance between them satisfieth not 
 our adversaries; they strain this text to draw 
 blood from it, even the blood of Christ sacrificed 
 in the Mass. If (say they) Christ be a priest 
 for ever after the order of Melchizedek, then He 
 must daily offer a sacrifice unto God under the 
 forms of bread and wine, as also did Melchizedek. 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 125 
 
 And this is tliu fairest evidence they bring out 
 of Scripture for the sacrifice of the Mass. Against 
 which we object' (' Clavis Mystica,' p. 562. 
 London, 1G3G). 
 
 II. 
 ' I demand, then, after what order our Popish 
 priests are made ? Whether after the order of 
 Aaron or Melchizedek ? If after the order of 
 Aaron, then are they to offer bloody sacrifices, 
 and perform other carnal rites, long ago abrogated ; 
 if after the order of Melchizedek, then they are 
 very happy. For then they are to be kings and 
 priests, then they are not to succeed any other, 
 nor any other them ; then, as hath been shewed, 
 they are singular, everlasting, and royal jDriests ' 
 {ibid., pp. 5 64, 5 6 5). 
 
 III. 
 
 * From idolatry in the second acception they 
 can never clear themselves, but by changing their 
 tenets, and reforming their practice. . . . What 
 is Popery almost else but an addition of human 
 traditions to God's commandments and His pure 
 worship ? What is their offering of Christ in the 
 Mass for a propitiatory sacrifice for the living 
 
126 Testimonies 
 
 and the dead ? their elevation of the host ? . . . 
 but rehgious, or rather irreUgious, rites brought 
 in by the Church without any command or war- 
 rant from God's Word ^ (ibid., pp. 786, 787. 
 London, 1636). 
 
 IV. 
 
 ' It was unlawful for them (the Corinthians) 
 to sit at the same table with idolaters when they 
 kept their solemn feast. Can it be lawful for us 
 to stand at the same altar with them V (ibid., 
 p. 796). 
 
 J. Forbes (of Corse). 
 
 I. 
 ' Non enim in eo consistet perpetuitas Sacer- 
 dotii Christi, ut semper fiat Ejus vera immolatio, 
 per Sacerdotes, ac si necesse esset Sacerdotium 
 Ejus per mortem extingui, nisi fierent istse iteratae 
 sacrificationes in Missis : ut impie, et contra 
 Scripturas, tradiderunt Tridentini, sess. 22. Sed 
 constat in perpetuo vigore illius unicse immola- 
 tionis in passione semel factse, et perpetua inter- 
 cessione pro nobis, ad dextram Patris ' (' Inst. 
 Hist. Theol.,' Lib. XI., c. xx., Op., tom. ii., 
 p. 5 75. Amsterdam, 1702). 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 127 
 
 II. 
 
 * Neque opus est alia Oblatione propitiator!^, 
 neque ei locus esse potest : nisi (quod cogitatu 
 hlasphemum est) dicatur Christum ilia sui uiiica 
 oblatione non obtinuisse aiternam redemptionem 
 credentibus ' [ibid., p. 571). 
 
 Bishop Griffith Williams. 
 
 * Sacrificium ikaariKov, the propitiatory sacrifice 
 for our sins is twofold : 1. Cruentiim, bloody. 
 2. Incrucntum, unbloody. 
 
 * First, the bloody sacrifice for our sins is that 
 which our Saviour Christ once oflfered upon the 
 altar of His Cross, to appease His Father's 
 wrath, and to make satisfaction for the sins of 
 the whole world. . . . And of this invaluable 
 sacrifice, and of the unity, necessity, efficacy, and 
 perpetuity of the same, the Author of the Epistle 
 unto the Hebrews doth most excellently and 
 abundantly treat. 
 
 * Secondly, the unbloody sacrifice for our sins 
 is likewise twofold : 
 
 * First, the commemoration of that bloody 
 sacrifice which Christ offered for us, which we 
 always make, as often as we receive the sacra- 
 
128 Testimonies 
 
 ment of the Lord's supper ; not that we offer 
 Christ herein unto the Father, as newly tendered 
 for our sins, for tlien must He often suffer (as the 
 Apostle saith) ; but that we desire God, as often 
 as we receive this sacrament, to accept that sacri- 
 fice which Christ hath once offered, to be a 
 plenary satisfaction for all sins. 
 
 ' Secondly, repentance for our sins. . . . Of 
 this sacrifice the Prophet David speaketh, saying, 
 The sacrifice of God is a troubled spirit ' (' The 
 True Church,' Lib. II., c. 15, p. 207. London, 
 1629). 
 
 Archbishop Laud. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' As Christ offered up Himself once for all, a 
 full and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sin of the 
 whole world, so did He institute and com- 
 mand a memory of this sacrifice in a sacrament, 
 even till His cominsf ag-ain. ... It is safest for 
 a man to believe the commemorative, the praising, 
 and the performing sacrifice, and to offer them 
 duly to God, and to leave the Church of Rome 
 in this particular to her superstitions, that I may 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 129 
 
 say no more ' (' Conference with Fisher,' § 35, 
 part 3, pp. 257, 258. Oxford, 1839). 
 
 II. 
 * By the Book of Common Prayer and Ordi- 
 nations, they are called and made preshyten, 
 priests, =**= as appears thereby. And as touching 
 the function of sacrificing, whereby, they say, a 
 true and proi^er sacrifice is to be made for the 
 sins of the quick and the dead, and an oblation 
 of the very body and blood of Christ. We say, 
 that forasmuch as our priests have authority to 
 minister the sacraments, and consequently the 
 Eucharist, which is a representation of the sacri- 
 fice of Christ ; therefore they may be said to 
 oiFert Christ in a mystery, and to sacrifice Him 
 by way of commemoration '+ (' Objections against 
 Lawfulness of Bishops,' c. 5, p. 4 8). 
 
 * So in p. 32 of the saine Introduction, we have (from 
 Hutton, see p. 26) 'The Holy Ghost giving the name 
 7rpeo-/3uTepos to our ministers, which in the original (whence 
 priest is derived) gives no other name but what the Com- 
 munion Book calls them by.' 
 
 t See Appendix, Note B. 
 
 + This is from an appendix to Dr. Nicholl's • On the 
 Common Prayer ' (London, 1712), entitled ' An Introduction 
 to the Liturgy of the Church of England, written by way of 
 Preface before Archbishop Laud's Collection of Various 
 
 9 
 
1 3 Testimonies 
 
 III. 
 ' Far the deacons assisting the priest in saying 
 Mass and sacrificing ; we hold it a profane usage, 
 neither lawful for the priest to do nor the deacon 
 to assist in' (ihid., p. 4 8). 
 
 IV. 
 
 ' Our Church by the Articles of 1.5 62, Article 
 XXXI., teacheth that the offering of Christ 
 once made is sufficient and perfect, and that there 
 needs no other satisfaction for sins, and conse- 
 quently condemns the Mass for the quick and the 
 dead as hlasjjhemous. And by the place of 
 Acts xiii. 2, there cannot be anything thence 
 inferred to prove that their ministering at that 
 time may warrant the Popish Massing, in these 
 times, as now it is used' {ibid., p. 48). 
 
 V. 
 
 ' 'Tis one thing to offer up His body, and 
 another to offer up the memorial of His body 
 with our praise and thanks for that infinite bless- 
 
 Keadings out of the several Ancient Common-Prayer Books.' 
 It may probably be presumed to be expressive of the Arch- 
 bishop's vievrs, or, at least, of views which he accepted and 
 approved. 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 131 
 
 ing ; so that ... I do not see how any Popish 
 meayiing . . . can be fastened upon it [i.e., the 
 inverting the order of the communion in the 
 Scotch Liturgy] ' (' Troubles and Trials,' p. 
 115. See Works, vol. iii., p. 34 5, A.C.L.). 
 
 VI. 
 
 ' If Bellarmine . . . mean, that the priest 
 offers up that which Christ Himself did, and not 
 a commemoration of it only, he is erroneous in 
 that, and can never make it good ' (ibid., vol. iii., 
 pp. 358, 359). 
 
 Montague. 
 
 ' You well confess the blessed sacrament of the 
 altar, or communion table, whether you please, 
 to be a sacrifice. Not p)^^opitiatory , as they call 
 it (I will use the word *' call it," lest you chal- 
 lenge me upon Popery, for using '' propitiatory ") 
 for the living and dead. Not an external, visible, 
 true, and proper sacrifice, but only representative, 
 remorative, and spiritual sacrifice '* (' Appeal to 
 Caesar,' p. 287. 162 5). 
 
 * Waterland, referring to his ' Origines Ecclesiasticae ' 
 and to his ' Antidiatribe,' says : ' It is certain that Bishop 
 Montague, of that time, understood the whole Action, or 
 
132 Testimonies 
 
 VlNDICI^ ECCLESLE AnGLICAN.E, BY W. T. 
 
 ' The Church of Rome hath transfigured this 
 sacrament into a sacrifice propitiatory for the 
 sins of the Hving, and of the dead. And to this 
 end they have brought into the Church of Christ, 
 contrary to His Word, a priest, and an altar, . , . 
 Of offering a sacrifice propitiatory to take away 
 our sins, and that daily, and by the priest, there 
 is no word in the Scripture for it. Contrariwise 
 the Scriptures teach directly the contrary', and 
 declare this doctrine to be full of error and hlas- 
 phemy' (p. 51. London, 163 0). 
 
 Canons of 1640. 
 ' Albeit at the time of reformino- this Church 
 from that gross superstition of Popery, it was 
 carefull}^ provided that all means should be used 
 to root out of the minds of the people, both the 
 inclination thereunto, and the memory thereof ; 
 especially of the idolatry committed in the Mass, 
 for which cause all popish altars were demolished. 
 
 Memorial Service, to be a true and real sacrifice of praise ' 
 (Works, vol. v., p. 138. Oxford, 1843). 
 
 On the subject of Montague's intercourse with Panzani 
 see above, Introduction, pp. 28, 29. 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 133 
 
 Yet notwithstanding it was then ordered by the 
 injunctions and advertisements of Queen Ehza- 
 beth, of blessed memory, that the holy tables 
 should stand where the altars stood, and accord- 
 ingly have been continued in the royal chapels 
 of three famous and pious princes, and in most 
 cathedral and some parochial churches, which 
 doth sufficiently acquit the manner of placing the 
 said tables from any illegality, or just suspicion 
 of popish superstition or innovation . . . We 
 declare that this situation of the holy table doth 
 not imply that it is, or ought to be, esteemed a 
 true, and iwoi:>ev altar, whereon Christ is again 
 really sacrificed : but it is and may be called an 
 altar by us, in that sense in which the primitive 
 Church called it an altar, and in no other' 
 (Canon VII. See Cardwell's ' Synodalia,' vol. i., 
 pp. 404, 405).* 
 
 * These Canons are only cited here as expressing the 
 views of the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation of this date. 
 For this purpose they have unquestionably much value. 
 On the history of this Convocation see Neal's ' Hist, of 
 Puritans,' vol. i., pp. 625 sqq. On the question of the 
 authority of the Canons see Cardwell's ' Synodaha,' vol. i , 
 pp. 380 sqq. The Canons were ' freely and unanimously 
 subscribed' (see Laud's Works, vol. iii., p. 291, A.C.L., and 
 Heylyn's ' Cyprianus Anglicus,' pp. 446. London, 1668). 
 
134 Testimonies 
 
 Archbishop Ussher. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' So it is in this ministry of the blessed sacra- 
 ment ; the service is first presented unto God 
 (from which, as from a most principal part of the 
 duty, the sacrament is called the Eucharist, 
 because therein we offer a special sacrifice of 
 praise and thanksgiving always unto God) and 
 then communicated unto the use of God's people. 
 . . . They did not distinguish the sacrifice from 
 
 They were afterwards subscribed by the Convocation of 
 York. 
 
 In the same Canon is repudiated ' any opinion of a corporal 
 presence of the body of Jesus Christ on the holy table, or in 
 mystical elements.' The sixth Canon imposes ' the Et Ccetera 
 oath,' in which it is declared ' I will not endeavour by myself 
 or any other, directly or indirectly, to bring in any popish 
 doctrine contrary to that which is so estabhshed ; nor will 
 I ever give my consent .... ever to subject it [this Church] 
 to the usurpations and superstitions of the See of Eome.' 
 
 To these Canons one Bishop refused at first to subscribe 
 (scrupling ' some passages about the corporal Presence.' 
 See Fuller, vol. iii., p. 409. London, 1837), and was there- 
 fore suspended by Laud. This was Goodman of Gloucester, 
 who had been guilty of simony (see Laud's Works, vol. vii., 
 p. 62 note, A.C.L.), and had already secretly consented to 
 become a papist. (See Laud's Works, vol. iii., pp. 287-289, 
 A.C.L., and Heylyn's ' Cyprianus Anghcus,' pp. 446, 447. 
 See also Lathbury's 'Hist, of Convocation,' p. 250, and 
 Perry's ' Hist, of Church of England,' pp. 610, 611.) 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 1-^5 
 
 the sacrament, as the Romanists do nowadays. 
 . . . Whereby it doth appear that the sacrifice 
 of the elder times was not Hke unto the new 
 Mass of the Romanists, wherein the priest alone 
 doth all, but unto our communion ' ('Of the 
 Religion Professed by the Ancient Irish,' c. iv.. 
 Works, vol. iv.,pp. 277, 27 8. Edit. Ebrington, 
 Dublin, 1847). 
 
 II. 
 ' It appeareth that an honourable commemo- 
 ration of the dead was herein intended, and a 
 sacrifice of thanksgiving for their salvation rather 
 than of propitiation for their sins' (ibid., c. iii., 
 p. 269). 
 
 III. 
 •' The Rhemists indeed tell us that when the 
 Church doth offer and sacrifice Christ daily, " He 
 in mystery and sacrament dieth." Further than 
 this they durst not go, for if they had said He 
 died really, they should thereby not only make 
 themselves daily killers of Christ, but also directly 
 cross that principle of the Apostle, " Christ being 
 raised from the dead dieth no more." If then 
 the body of Christ in the administrations of the 
 
136 Testimonies 
 
 Eucharist be propounded as dead (as hath been 
 shewed) — and die it cannot really, but only in 
 mystery and sacrament — how can it be thought 
 to be contained under the outward element, other- 
 wise than in sacrament and mystery ? And such 
 as in times past were said to have received the 
 sacrifice from the hand of the priest, what other 
 body and blood could they expect to receive 
 therein but such as was suitable to the nature of 
 that sacrifice, to wit, mystical and sacramental ?' 
 (ibid., c. iv.. Works, vol. iv., p. 282). 
 
 Bishop Hall. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' That in this Sacred Supper there is a Sacrifice 
 in that sense wherein the Fathers spake, none of 
 us ever doubted. . . . But for any propitiatory 
 sacrifice, unless it be, as the gloss interprets it, 
 representatively, I find none. . . . What can 
 either be spoken or conceived more plain than 
 those words of God, once offered, one Sacrifice, 
 one Oblation ? . . . While they solemnly oflfer the 
 Son of God up unto His Father, they humbly 
 beseech Him, in a religious blasphemy, that He 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 137 
 
 would be pleased to bless and accept that obla- 
 tion. . . . We will gladly receive our Saviour, 
 offered by Himself to His Father, and offered to 
 us by His Father : we will not offer Him to His 
 Father. Which one point, while we stick at, as 
 we needs must, we are strait stricken with the 
 thunderbolt of the Anathema of Trent ' (Bishop 
 Hall, ' No Peace with Rome,' Works, vol. ix., 
 pp. 6 6, 67. London, 1808). 
 
 II. 
 ' The contradiction of the Trent Fathers is 
 here very remarkable. . . . 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, that He offered Him- 
 self 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," ' 
 etc. (Works, vol, ix., p. 2 5 9). 
 
138 Testimonies 
 
 Bishop Prideaux (1578-1650). 
 ' Altare Metonymicum pro Christo substi- 
 tuere, atque inde conficto relationis sophismate 
 sacerdotium et sacrificiuiii astruere, est Jigmentmn 
 hlaspliemum et idololatricum : sed hoc faciunt 
 Romanenses in Missa. . . . Christus unica obla- 
 tion e in cruce consummavit in perpetuum eos qui 
 sanctificantur, Heb. x. 14. . . . Ubi autem est 
 remissio peccatorum, ibi non est amplius ohlatio, 
 prsesertim expiatoria pro peccatis (ibid., x. 18). 
 Ergo aliud obtrudere sacrificium (ut fit in Missa) 
 est prorsus idololatricum ' (' Fasciculus Contro- 
 versiarum '; De Sacramentis, Qusest. vi., pp. 295, 
 296. Oxford, 1649). 
 
 Archbishop John Williams. 
 ' The Thirty-first Article having taken away 
 the Popish Lamb (for the which that old altar 
 had been erected) as a hlasphemous figment and 
 pernicious imposture ; the Homily had commanded 
 us to take heed, we should look to find it in the 
 blessed sacrament of the Lord's SujDper, for there 
 it was not ; there was indeed in the sacrament a 
 memory of a sacrifice, but sacrifice there was 
 none. And we must take heed of quillets and 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 139 
 
 distinctions, that may bring us back again to the 
 old error reformed in the Church. . . . Our 
 truly learned men do set down precisely that a 
 commemorative sacrijice is not pro2)erly a sacrifice, 
 but (as K. James took it rightly) com.memoratio 
 sacrificii, a commemoration only of a sacrifice ' 
 (' Holy Table, Name and Thing,' pp. 102-105. 
 1637). 
 
 Bishop White. 
 I. 
 
 * The things which we simply condemn in the 
 Popish Mass are these : 1. That Christ existing 
 in earth, covered with forms of bread and wine, 
 is in His very substance offered to God His 
 Father. 2. We reject private Masses, in which 
 the priest eateth alone, and undertaketh for a 
 fee to apply the fruit thereof to particular per- 
 sons. ... 5. That it saveth ex opere operaAo, 
 for temporal punishment. 6. And is beneficial 
 to the defunct as well as to the living ' (' Ortho- 
 dox Faith,' Untruth 2 6, p. 340 ; see Pockling- 
 ton's * Altare Christianum,' p. 132). 
 
 II. 
 
 * The New Testament acknowledgeth no proper 
 
140 Testimonies 
 
 sacrificing priests, but Clirijst Jesus only. . . 
 Neither is there any word or sentence in our 
 Saviour's doctrine concerning any real sacrifice, 
 but only of Himself upon the Cross ; neither 
 was any altar used and ordained by Christ and 
 His Apostles. And if in all real sacrifices the 
 matter of the oblation must be really destroyed 
 and changed, and no physical destruction or 
 change is made in the body of Christ, or in the 
 elements of bread and wine by transubstantiation I 
 then Romists have devised a real sacrifice in the 
 New Testament, which hath no Divine institution' 
 ('Reply to Fisher,' p. 465. London, 1624). 
 
 POCKLINGTON. 
 I. 
 
 ' Bishop Montague, speaking (as he saith him- 
 self) in Bishop Morton's words, saith thus : "I 
 believe no such sacrifice of the altar, as the 
 Church of Rome doth. I fancy no such altars, 
 as they employ, though I profess a sacrifice, and 
 an altar. ... It appeareth plainly from hence, 
 that our Church doth not condemn the sacrifice 
 of the altar, mentioned in the Holy Fathers, for 
 blasphemous figments and dangerous deceits, but 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 141 
 
 the sacrifice of Masses ; because the common 
 opinion of them was that they were propitiatory, 
 external, visible, true and proper sacrifices for 
 the quick and the dead. For had they been 
 commonly held to be no more, but representative, 
 remorative, and spiritual sacrifices, our Church 
 would not then, doth not now, find any fault 
 with them'" (' Altare Christianum,' pp. 130, 131. 
 London, 1637). 
 
 II. 
 * To what purpose else is this confused blend- 
 ing and jumbling of these things (which the 
 Vicar innocently desired) with that other oblation 
 which the Papists were wont to offer upon their 
 altars, but to make the simple deluded people 
 believe that all these are alike blasphemous fig- 
 ments and pernicious impostures ? And that 
 the Church that now is, is become an utter 
 enemy to that it was in '62, and altogether de- 
 parted from the faith and Articles of Religion 
 then held ; therefore such priests and priesthood 
 ought to be cast out, and their altars or tables 
 set altar-wise, and their oblations to be had in 
 like abomination, with that other oblation which 
 
142 Testimonies 
 
 the Papists were wont to offer on their altars ; all 
 which are blasphemous figments and i^ernicious 
 mipostures f (ibid., pp. 136, 137). 
 
 BiRKBEK. 
 
 ' Come to another main point, the lyroper and 
 'pro'pitiatori) sacrifice for the quick and dead, and 
 see whether at Luther's ap^^earing, before and 
 after, all that used that Liturofv had such an 
 opinion of a sacrifice. 
 
 ' St. Ambrose and St. Chrysostom, by way 
 of correction, say, ive offer the same sacrifice, or 
 rather tJie remembrance thereof. 
 
 ' Peter Lombard proposing the question, 
 Whether that which the priest doth, may 
 properly be named a sacrifice, or immolation, 
 answereth, that CJwist ivas only once truly 
 offered in sacrifice ; and tliat He is not p)i^operly 
 immolated or sacrificed, hut in sacrament and 
 representation only. 
 
 ' Lyra saith, that, If thou say the sacrifice of 
 the altar is daily offered in the Church, it must 
 he answered, that there is no reiteration of the 
 sacrifice, hut a daily commemoration of that 
 sacrifice that was once offered on the Cross. 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 143 
 
 ' Georgius Wicelius, a man much honoured 
 by the Emperors Ferdinand and MaximiHan, 
 defines the Mass to be a sacrifice rememorative, 
 and of }) raise and thanksgiving, ivhere many give 
 thanks for the 2^^'ice of their redemption. 
 
 ' By that which hath been said, it is clear 
 that the best and worthiest guides of God's 
 Church, both before and after Luther's time, 
 taught not any new real offering of Christ to 
 God the Father as a propitiatory sacrifice to take 
 away sins, but in effect as we do' ('Protest. 
 Evidence,' Cent, xvi., p. 431. London, 1657). 
 
 Ferne. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' For his veri sacerdotes, we say, as there are 
 
 no such priests under the Gospel, so is there no 
 
 need that Bishops should first be made such ; for 
 
 priests, in the Romish sense, are such as, in their 
 
 ordination, " receive a power of sacrificing for 
 
 the quick and the dead," i.e., a real offering up 
 
 again the Son of God to His Father ' (see Tract 
 
 81, p. 154). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' All this considered, we see how needless, un- 
 warrantable, and presumptuous a thing this, their 
 
144 Testimonies 
 
 sacrifice of the Mass ; and that such also is the 
 power of sacrificing given to their priests ' (ibid., 
 p. 159). 
 
 Bishop Sanderson. 
 I. 
 ' If, together with this true religion of faith, 
 repentance and obedience, they [many of our 
 forefathers] embraced also your additions, as their 
 blind guides then led them ; prayed to our Lady, 
 kneeled to an Image, crept to a Cross, flocked to 
 a Mass, as you now do, these were their spots 
 and their blemishes, these were their hay and 
 their stubble, these were their errors and their 
 ignorances. . . . And upon the same ground 
 we have cause also to hope charitably of many 
 thousand poor souls in Italy, Spain, and other 
 parts of the Christian world at this day, that by 
 the same blessed means they may obtain mercy 
 and salvation in the end, although in the mean- 
 time, through ignorance, they defile themselves 
 with much foul idolatry, and many gross super- 
 stitions. . . . But I do not so excuse the idolatry 
 of our forefathers, as if it were not in itself a sin, 
 and that, without repentance, damnable ' (Works, 
 vol. iii., pp. 228, 229. Oxford, 1854). 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 145 
 
 11. 
 
 ' Considered foriiicdly, in regard of those points 
 which are j)roperly of Popery [the Church of 
 Rome] is become a false and corrupt Church, 
 and is indeed an Antichristian svnao-ogfue, and 
 not a true Christian Church, taking truth in the 
 second sense. . . . The doctrinal errors of the 
 Church of Rome do not directly and inniiediately 
 overthrow the foundation of faith, as the heresy 
 of the Arian Churches did ; but mediately and by 
 necessary consequence they do. As in the })oints 
 of Merits, Mass, Transubstantiation, etc. . . . The 
 imposing these errors upon the consciences of 
 men, to be believed as of necessity, is damnable, 
 and doth not only justify a separation already 
 made, but also bindeth siih mortcdi all true 
 Christians to such a separation ' {ibid., vol. v., 
 pp. 246, 247). 
 
 Hammond, 
 
 I. 
 
 * The breaking and eating of the bread is a 
 communication of the Body of Christ, a sacrifice 
 commemorative of Christ's offering up His body 
 for us, and a making us partakers, or comniu- 
 
 10 
 
1 4 () Testimonies 
 
 nicating to us the benefits of that Bread of Life ' 
 (' Practical Catechism,' Lib. VI., § iv., Works, 
 vol. i., p. 129. London, If) 8 4). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' I will now give you a compendium or brief 
 of the main substantial ])art of this sacrament. 
 And that consists only of two branches, one on 
 our parts performed to God, the other on God's 
 part performed to us. That on our part is com- 
 memorating the goodness of God in all, but espe- 
 ciall}' that His great bounty of giving His Son 
 to die for us : and this commemoration hath two 
 branches, one of praise and thanksgiving to Him 
 for this mercy, the other of annunciation or 
 showing forth, not only first to men, but secondly, 
 and especially, to God, this sacrifice of Christ's 
 ofltering up His body upon the Cross for us. 
 That which respecteth or looks towards men, is 
 a professing of our faith in the death of Christ ; 
 that wliich looks towards God, is our pleading 
 before Him that sacrifice of His own Son, and, 
 through that, humbly and with affiance requiring 
 the benefits thereof, grace and pardon, to be 
 bestowed u{)on us. And then God's part is the 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 147 
 
 accepting of this our bounden duty, bestowing 
 that body and blood of Christ upon us, not by 
 sending it down locally for our bodies to feed on, 
 but really for our souls to be strengthened and 
 refreshed by it : as when the sun is communi- 
 cated to us, the whole bulk and body of the sun 
 is not removed out of its sphere, but the ra3^s 
 and beams of it, and with them the light and 
 warmth and influences, are really and verily 
 bestowed or darted out upon us ' (ih'id., p. 12 9). 
 
 III. 
 ' S. The first question the)i is [Why the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's Supper was ordained ?]. And 
 t/ie answer [For the continual remembrance of 
 the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and of the 
 benefits which we receive thereb}^]. What is the 
 meaning of that ansiver f 
 
 ' C. Dissolve the words, and you shall see 
 most clearly. First, Christ died. Secondly, 
 this death of His was a sacrifice for us, an obla- 
 tion once for all offered to the Father for us weak 
 sinful men. Thirdly, by this sacrifice we that 
 are true Christians receive unspeakable benefits ; 
 as strength to repair our weakness, and enable 
 
148 Testimonies 
 
 us to do what God in His son will accept ; and 
 reconciliation, or pardon for us miserable sinners. 
 And fourthly, the end of Christ's instituting this 
 sacrament was on purpose that we might, at set 
 times, frequently and constantly returning (for 
 this Is the meaning of continual, parallel to the 
 use of [without ceasing] applied to the sacrifice 
 among the Jews, and the duty of prayer among 
 Christians) remember and commemorate before 
 God and man this sacrifice of the death of Christ ' 
 (ihicl, p. 130). 
 
 IV. 
 
 ' He omits the two principal [controversies] 
 concerning their private Masses, and denying the 
 cup, their no-communion and their half-com- 
 munion. . . . 'Tis visible that the Protestants 
 of the Church of England believe and reverence, 
 as much as any, the sacrifice of the Eucharist, as 
 the most substantial and essential act of our 
 religion ; and doubt nob but the word Missa, 
 " Mass," has fitly been used by the Western 
 Church to signify it ; and herein ablior and con- 
 demn nothing, but the corruptions and nrutilct- 
 tions which the Cliurch of Rome, without care 
 of conforming themsolves to the Universal, have 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 149 
 
 admitted in the celebration ' (Preface to ' Dis- 
 patcher Dispatched/ quoted from No. 8 1 of 
 ' Tracts for the Times,' p. 1(35). 
 
 Heylyn. 
 I. 
 
 ' Which sacrifice he [Bishop Andrewes] some- 
 times calls commemorationem sam'ificii, and some- 
 times sac7'ijicium commemorativum, a commemo- 
 rative sacrifice. The like we find in Bishop 
 Morton, who in his book of the " Roman Sacri- 
 fice," 1. 6, c. 5, called the Eucharist a representa- 
 tive and commemorative sacrifice, in as plain 
 terms as can be spoken. But what need any- 
 thing have been said for the proof hereof, when 
 the most Reverend Archbishop Cranmer, one 
 (and the chief) of the compilers of the public 
 liturgy, and one who suffered death for opposing 
 tlie sacrifice of the Mass, distinguisheth most 
 plainly between the sacrifice propitiatory, made 
 by Christ Himself only, and the sacrifice com- 
 memorative and gratulatory, made by priests and 
 people?' (Cyprianus Anglicus,' p. 23.) 
 
 II. 
 ' When by the Articles of Religion agreed 
 upon in Convocation, Anno 15 62, the sacrifice 
 
150 Testimonies 
 
 of the Mass was declared to be a pernicioiis im- 
 posture, a hlaspliemo'us figment, and that tran sub- 
 stantiation was declared to be repugnant to the 
 plain words of Holy Scripture, to overthrow the 
 nature of a sacrament, and to have given occa- 
 sion to many superstitions ; yet still the doctrine 
 of a real presence"* was maintained as formerly ' 
 {ihicl, p. 24). 
 
 III. 
 ' The Article . . . determineth positively that 
 the sacrifice of Masses, in the tvhich it was com- 
 monly said that the priests did offer Christ for 
 the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain 
 or guilt, ivere blasphemous fables, and p)ernicioiis 
 deceits. And therefore had the Vicar of Gr. 
 erected or intended to erect an altar for such a 
 sacrifice, he had not only sacrificed his discretion 
 on it, but also his religion ; and been no longer 
 worthy to he called a son of the CJnirch of Eng- 
 land ' (' Coal from the Altar,' § 1, p. 7. London, 
 1636). 
 
 ■'■ The context folio-wing makes it clear that the phrase 
 ' Eea] PrestDce' is used in the Eefo}med sense. Fee 
 ' Theology of Bishop Andrewes,' pp. 9-17, and ' Eeal 
 Presence of the Laudian Theology,' pp. 55-68. 
 
AGAINST THE MasS 151 
 
 IV. 
 
 ' We may speak in proper and significant 
 terms, as the Fathers did, without apj)roving 
 either the Pojnsh Mass or the Jewish sacrifice. 
 . . . Two ways there are by which the Church 
 declares herself in the present business. . . . 
 First, in the Articles (Article XXXI.), '' The 
 offering of Christ once made," etc. This sacrifice 
 or oblation, once for ever made, and never more 
 to be repeated, was by our Saviour's own ap- 
 pointment to be commemorated and represented 
 to us, for the better quickening of our faith : 
 whereof, if there be nothing said in the Book of 
 Articles, it is because the Articles related chiefly 
 unto points in controversy ' {ihid., pp. 26, 28). 
 
 v. 
 
 ' Of any expiatory sacrifice, of any offering up 
 of Christ for the quick and dead, more than 
 what had been done by Him once, and once for 
 all, those blessed ages never dreamt. . . . They 
 meant nothing less than to give any opportunity 
 to the future ages of making that an expiatory 
 sacrifice, which they did only teach to be com- 
 
152 Testimonies 
 
 memorative, or representative of our Saviour's 
 passion ' (' Antidotuni Lincolniense,' § 2, c. v., 
 p. 24. London, 163 7). 
 
 Bishop Gauden. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' To tell you further, how undigestible to sober 
 Christians (because Preter-Scriptural and Anti- 
 Scriptural) the Roman practice and opinion is 
 . . . Add to these, their profitable and popular 
 imaginations of Purgatory, they applying not 
 only prayers, but Masses and Oblations . . . 
 to those that are dead as well as to the living ' 
 (' Ecclesise Anglicanse Suspiria,' Book III., 
 c. xvi., p. 309. London, 1659). 
 
 II. 
 ' As for the English Liturgies symbolizing 
 with the Popish Missal ... it doth no more, 
 than our Communion or Lord's Supper cele- 
 brated in England, doth with the Afass at 
 Rome ; or our doctrine about the Eucharist 
 doth with theirs about Tran substantiation. . . . 
 In all which particulars, how much the Church 
 of England differed both in doctrine and devo- 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 153 
 
 tioii from that of Rome, no man that is intelli- 
 gent and honest can either deny or dissemble. 
 I am sure we differ as much as Enoflisli doth 
 from Latin, truth from error, true antiquity 
 from novelty, completeness from defect, sanctity 
 from sacrilege ... as much as Divine faith 
 doth from human fancy ' (ihid., Book I., c. xii., 
 p. 88). 
 
 III. 
 ' Contrary to which [that word of God], some 
 of their tenets, injunctions, and practices, seem 
 to us either to rob God of His peculiar honour 
 ... or to rob Christ of the glory of His only 
 merit, mediation, satisfliction, and intercession 
 for us' (ibid., Book III., c. xv., p. 305). 
 
 Archbishop Bramhall. 
 
 I. 
 ' For any other sacrifice, distinct from that 
 which is propitiatory, meritorious, and satis- 
 factory, by its own proper virtue and power, the 
 Scriptures do not authorize, the fathers did not 
 believe, the Protestants do not receive any such. 
 This is a certain truth, that the passion of Christ 
 
154 Testimonies 
 
 is the only ransom and propitiation for sin ' 
 (Works, vol. v., p. 213, A.C.L. ; see also 
 p. 188, and vol. i., p. 5 4). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' Let him that dare go one step further than 
 we do ; and say that it is a suppletory sacrifice, 
 to supply the defects of the Sacrifice of the 
 Cross' {ibid., vol. ii., p. 276). 
 
 III. 
 ' We have a meritorious sacrifice, that is, the 
 Sacrifice of the Cross ; we have a commemora- 
 tive and applicative sacrifice, or a commemora- 
 tion and application of that sacrifice, in the 
 Holy Eucharist. A suppletory sacrifice, to 
 supply any want or defects in that sacrifice, he 
 dare not own ; and unless he do own it, he 
 saith no more than we say ' (ibid., p. 642). 
 
 IV. 
 
 * He cannot go one step further than we do 
 in that cause without tumbling into direct 
 blasphemy' {ibid., p. 582). 'I have challenged 
 
AGAINST THE MaS8 155 
 
 them to go one stej) further into it than I do, 
 and they dare not ; or, rather, they cannot witJi- 
 out hlasphe^ny ' {ihid., p. 633). 
 
 V. 
 
 ' They are not the Protestants then, but the 
 Romanists, who pa?'e off the _^9iVA of Christ's 
 heavenly piiesthood, who daily make as many 
 distinct j^i^oj^itiatory sacrifices as there are 
 Masses in the world ' (Works, vol. v., p. 220, 
 A.C.L.). 
 
 VI. 
 
 ' The Protestants dare not say that the holy 
 Eucharist is a sacrifice propitiatory in itself, by 
 its own* proj^er virtue and expiatory efficacy ' 
 {ibid., p. 221). 
 
 J. Elis. 
 
 [Blasphema figmenta, et perniciosse fuerunt 
 imposturse.] 
 
 * Ohjicitur. Ohlationern Christi factam in 
 crnce, repine sentandam esse in coend. 
 
 ' Resp. Oblatio Christi cruenta reprsesen- 
 tanda est, non per aliam oblationen incruentam, 
 sed per panis fractionem et vini efiusionera. 
 
1 5 (') Testimonies 
 
 ' Objicitur. Missain esse sacrijicii Christi 
 applicationem. 
 
 ' Resp. Sacrificium Christi sola fide ap])li- 
 catur. 
 
 ' Objicitur. Prophetas prcBdixisse sacnticivrn 
 fufarum esse in Ecclesia, Mai. i. 11; Esa. Ixvi. 
 23. 
 
 ' Resp. Sacrificia Ecclesise Novi Testamenti, 
 sunt Eucharistica, et Spiritualia, quae duratura 
 sunt. 
 
 ' Objicitur. Christum dixisse, Hoc facite in 
 Mei commemorationem, id est, hoc sacrificate. . . . 
 
 ' Resp. . . . facere autem hoc loco non 
 sigiiificat sacrificare, quia refertur ad actiones 
 Christi, de quibus non proprie dicitur, quod sunt 
 sacrificandEe ' (Art. XXXIX. ; ' Eccl. Angl. De- 
 fensio,' pp. 110, 112. Amstelod., 1700). 
 
 L'ESTRANGE. 
 
 ' " Here ive offer and p)resent" etc. This high 
 and eminent place looketh big upon all those 
 false clamours that our service is extracted from 
 the Mass, challenging the authors thereof to 
 exhibit where it is found in the canon of the 
 Mass. No, to the utter shame of the Romish 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 157 
 
 part}^ our Church upbraideth them, that 
 whereas they contend so much for the propriety 
 of the sacrifice of their Mass, the whole canon 
 of that Mass hath not one syllable of this most 
 proper sacrifice, this a^iepiarocj Ovaia, " indivisible 
 sacrifice," of both bodies and souls, a sacrifice 
 enjoined by Apostolical precept (Rom, xii. 1 ) ; 
 and which did, in the primitive times, constitute 
 an illustrious part of the Eucharistical office ' 
 ('Alliance of Divine Offices,' p. 325. Edit. 
 A.C.L.). 
 
 Bishop Wren. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' He saith, that he was ever so far from 
 having any thought or intention of resembling 
 the popish manner of altars, that he believeth 
 that he never did, by any words of his own, so 
 much as name the word altar in any of his 
 articles or directions' (' Parentalia,' p. 76). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' In the popish Church the use is, that the 
 priest after consecration, elevating the bread and 
 the chalice, does it so as not to be seen over 
 
158 Testimonies 
 
 his shoulders only, but holds it up over his 
 head, meaning that then he does sacrifice 
 Christ's Body, which there he hath transub- 
 stantiated, and therefore to that end elevates it, 
 that the people beholding may fall down and 
 adore it : this defendant is ready, according to 
 the decisions in such cases used in ancient 
 councils, to pronounce Anatlieina to any super- 
 stitious or idolatrous usages, or intentions by him 
 in that kind ever had, and to profess that he doth 
 faithfully and totally adhere to the Article of the 
 Church of England' {ihicl, p. 104). 
 
 Bishop Jeremy Taylor. 
 I. 
 * Christ is but once immolated or sacrificed 
 in Himself, but every day in the sacrament ; 
 that properly, this in figure ; that in substance, 
 this in similitude ; that naturally, this sacra- 
 mentally and spiritually. But therefore we call 
 this mystery a sacrifice, as we call the sacra- 
 ment Christ's body, viz.,, by way of similitude 
 or after a certain manner, for upon this account 
 the names of the things are imputed to their 
 very figures. This is St. Austin's sense, which 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 159 
 
 indeed he frequently so expresses' ('Of Tran- 
 
 substantiation,' § 3, Works, vol. vi., p. 590. 
 
 Edit. Eden). 
 
 II. 
 
 * Be sure we think as ill of your errors as 
 
 you can suppose of our Articles ' (' Letter to a 
 
 Gentlewoman,' ibid., p. 6 5 8). 
 
 Bishop Hacket. 
 
 I. 
 ' We have no real and external sacrifice of 
 Christ's body and l:>lood ; b}^ Himself He did 
 once offer a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice 
 for the sins of the whole world ; therefore to 
 erect a real altar without a fiocurative construe- 
 tion is to overthrow the Cross of Christ. . . . Our 
 own Church, since it renounced the o]:)inion of 
 an external propitiatory sacrifice in the Mass, 
 yet in the first Liturgies, set forth by public 
 authority in the reign of Edward VL, the name 
 of altar is throughout retained, to com])ly with 
 the figurative phrase of good antiquity ; and the 
 next edition of Liturgies, to keep an wholesome 
 form of words, as St. Paul says, and to give 
 no place to misconstruction, doth everywhere 
 
160 Testimonies 
 
 throughout call it the Lord's table. . . . We 
 neither dare nor will speak after the sense of 
 the Roman novelty. . . . These are not times 
 to offer sacrifice . . . but only to commemorate 
 that sacrifice, after which all true sacrifices 
 ceased, and all properly-called altars fell to the 
 ui-round ' ('Century of Sermons,' ])p. 791, 792. 
 London, 1675). 
 
 II, 
 ' The alteration of words [table for altar] 
 came in . . . partly to give this evidence among 
 others, that we had renounced the sacrifice of 
 the Mass, the very offering up of our Saviour 
 in an unbloody oblation, not again, but by one 
 and the same act with which He offered uj) 
 Himself on the Cross, a cJn/rncpra which is not 
 intelligible to any mortal man. . . . This was 
 our Bishop's mind ; and, I take it, the same 
 was and is in all our learned men, that in that 
 holy sacrament there is a spectacle of the 
 sacrifice of Christ's Body, as it suffered on the 
 Cross, represented by breaking the bread, and 
 pouring out the wine, by eating the one and 
 drinking the other ; that there is a commemora- 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 161 
 
 tioii of that sacrifice in the repetition of the 
 words of institution ; that there is an applica- 
 tion of that sacrifice to their souls, that partake 
 by faith ; and that all this makes properly a 
 sacrament, improperly and figuratively a sacri- 
 fice ' (' Memorial of Archbishop Williams,' Part 
 II., p. 106. London, 1693). 
 
 Bishop Nicholson. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' It must be the Son of God only that must 
 be the sacrifice, or else there could be no satis- 
 faction. His blood the price, or else nothing 
 bought ; His life the ransom, or else nothing 
 redeemed. But this sacrifice being ojffered, His 
 blood being shed. His life laid down, then there 
 was XvTpov, a full ransom ; then there was 
 ai'TiXvTpoi', a sufficient commutation ; then there 
 was iXaanog, a pacification made for the sins of 
 the whole world. His person was the only 
 sacrifice that God would accept ; His blood the 
 only price that God would esteem ; His death 
 the sole ransom that God would receive for the 
 transgressors ' {* Exposition of the Catechism,' 
 pp. 212, 213. Oxford, 1865). 
 
 11 
 
162 Testimonies 
 
 II. 
 
 ' In the flesh sin was condemned ... by the 
 sacrifice of Himself once ofl'ered ' (ibid., p. 213). 
 
 III. 
 * Both must be conceived with his proper 
 attribute ; the body with crucifixion, the blood 
 with effusion ; the body as given for us, the 
 blood as shed for us. Without which reflexion 
 they will have little comfort and heart in them. 
 Christ's flesh and blood are the true causes of 
 eternal life, which yet they are not by the bare 
 force of their own substance, but through the 
 dignity and worth of His person, which offered 
 them up by way of sacrifice, for the life of the 
 whole world ; of which sacrifice we have in this 
 sacrament a lively representation and memorial ' 
 (ibid., p. 221 ; see also pp. 218, 220). 
 
 Bishop Cosin. 
 
 I. 
 ' Christ can be no more offered, as the doctors 
 and priests of the Roman party fancy Him to 
 be, and vainly think that every time they say 
 Mass they offer up and sacrifice Christ anew, 
 as properly and truly as He ofl'ered up Himself 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 163 
 
 in His sacrifice upon the Cross. And this is 
 one of the points of doctrine, and the chief one 
 whereof the popish Mass consisteth, abrogated, 
 and reformed here by the Church of England, 
 according to the express word of God ' (Bishop 
 Cosin, • Notes on P. B.,' 2nd Series, Works, 
 voh v., p. 333, A.C.L.). 
 
 II. 
 ' A true, real, proper, and propitiatory sacri- 
 ficing of Christ . . . which is the popish 
 doctrine . . . we hold not, believinof it to be a 
 false and blasphemous doctrine ' {ibid., p. 336). 
 
 III. 
 ' A power to consecrate the sacrament, and 
 to make a memorial of the sacrifice, we grant 
 him : a power to transubstantiate, and really to 
 sacrifice Christ upon the altar for the quick 
 and the dead, we shall never grant him, that 
 being a new doctrine which the Catholic Church 
 never taught us ' (Works, A.C.L., vol. iv., pp. 
 277, 278). 
 
 IV. 
 
 ' There is no example of Christ followed, if 
 your priests have a jjower (as truly they have 
 
164 Testimonies 
 
 none) given them to offer Christ's body in the 
 Mass, as a real and propitiatory sacrifice to God 
 the Father' {ibid., p. 280). 
 
 V. 
 
 ' As concerning their pretended power of 
 really sacrificing the true body of Christ for the 
 quick and the dead, there was never yet priest 
 that had it, but Himself, nor shall ever have it 
 to the world's end' {ibid., p. 2 80). 
 
 VI. 
 
 ' That there be any such in the Church of 
 England (unless they be in it, and are not of 
 it) who believe our Saviour hath left to His 
 priests any such power of real sacrificing His 
 body, etc., I am sure Dr. C. believes not ' 
 {ibid., p. 2 84). 
 
 VII. 
 
 ' The word Missa, as it is used at present 
 among the papists, for a true and proper sacri- 
 fice of Christ oftered in every celebration for 
 the living and the dead is never used among the 
 ancients. And for this reason the name of 
 Missa or Mass is rejected by the Church of 
 England, which having exploded the opinion of 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 165 
 
 the sacrifice of the Mass, does disclaim the use 
 of the word Missa in modern, though not in the 
 ancient sense' {ibid., vol. v., pp. 301, 302). 
 
 VIII. 
 
 * I told him [the prior of the English Bene- 
 dictines] that (excluding their pretended and 
 vain sense of transubstantiating the bread and 
 wine, of a true and proper' altar, and of a real 
 sacrificing of the body of Christ : all which we 
 KEJECTED as uTisound and uncatholic doctrine) we 
 had ... a power to offer the sacrifice of the 
 Eucharist, which is a sacrifice of praise and 
 thanksgiving, made in the name of the Church, 
 for the sacrifice that Christ made of Himself, 
 and offered upon the altar of His cross once for 
 slV [ibid., vol. iv., p. 247). 
 
 IX. 
 
 ' No one is so blind, as not to see the differ- 
 ence between a " proper offering," which was 
 once performed by His death upon the Cross, 
 and between an *' improper offering " which is 
 now made either in heaven, by that His appear- 
 ance on our behalf, or here on earth, by prayers 
 
166 Testimonies 
 
 and representation, or obtestation, or commemo- 
 ration, there being only the .same common 
 name for these, but a very wide difference in 
 the things themselves ' (quoted from Vogan's 
 'True Doctrine,' p. 455). 
 
 Dr. Isaac Barrow. 
 
 * The nature of the Lord's Supper doth imply 
 communion and company; but they forbid any 
 man to say that a priest may not communicate 
 alone ; so establishing the belief of nonsense 
 and contradiction. 
 
 * The Holy Scripture teacheth us that our 
 Lord hath departed, and is absent from us in 
 body. . . . But the Pope with his Lateran and 
 Tridentine Complices draw Him down from 
 heaven, and make Him corporally present every 
 day, in numberless places here. . . . The Scrip- 
 ture teacheth that our Lord was once offered 
 for expiation of our sins ; but they pretend 
 every day to offer Him up as a ^jrop^^mto?^^/ 
 sacrifice. These devices without other founda- 
 tion than a figurative expression . . . they with 
 all violence and fierceness obtrude upon the 
 belief as one of the most necessary and funda- 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 167 
 
 mental articles of the Christian religion ' (' On 
 Pope's Supremacy,' pp. 2 85, 286. London, 
 1683). 
 
 Thorndike. 
 
 I. 
 ' The Council of Trent enjoineth to believe 
 that Christ instituted a new passover to be 
 sacrificed as well as represented, commemorated 
 and offered in the Eucharist, cle Saci^ificio Misses, 
 Cap. l,ivhich is false' (see Tract Ixxxi., p. 180). 
 
 II. 
 ' Thouofh the fathers divers times call the 
 celebrating of the Eucharist the death and 
 passion of our Lord, which it commemorates, and 
 the sacrifice of His Cross. . . . Yet the addi- 
 tion of the words which they use, of "reason- 
 able," and " unbloody," of " commemorative," of 
 " symbolical," of " sign," and " image," are 
 necessary evidence of an abatement in the pro- 
 perty of the words according to their meaning ' 
 (' Laws of the Church,' ch. v., § 32, Works, 
 vol. iv., par. i., pp. 126, 127, A.C.L.). 
 
168 Testimonies 
 
 III. 
 
 * It is well enough known, what pretences 
 have been made, and what consequences drawn, 
 from the speculation of the sacrifice of Christ 
 upon the Cross repeated or represented by this 
 sacrament to persuade Christendom that the 
 benefit thereof in remission of sins and infusion 
 of grace and all the effects of Christ's passion 
 is derived upon God's people by virtue of the 
 mere act of assisting at the sacrifice, which hath 
 been called opus operatum, or the very external 
 work done, without consideration, without know- 
 ledge, without any intention of doing that which 
 he is to do in it ; that is, of concurring every 
 one for his share to the doing of the same : 
 supposing always, that this sacrifice consists in 
 substituting the body and blood of Christ to 
 be bodily present under the accidents of the 
 elements, the substance of them being abolished 
 and ceasing to be there any more ; and not in 
 offering and presenting the sacrifice of Christ 
 crucified, here now represented by this sacra- 
 ment, unto God, for obtaining the benefits of 
 His passion in behalf of His Church' {ibid., 
 ch. xxiv., § 11, vol. iv., par. ii., p. 567). 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 169 
 
 Bishop Reynolds. 
 
 'The papists, that they may have something 
 to build the iclolatr}^ of their Mass upon, make 
 Melchizedek to sacrifice bread and wine, as a 
 type of the Eucharist. . . . The priesthood of 
 Melchizedek as type, and of Christ as the sub- 
 stance, was a-wapafiaTOQ, a priesthood, which could 
 not pass unto any other . . . but the papists 
 make themselves priests, by human and ecclesi- 
 astical ordination, to offer that which (they say) 
 Melchizedek offered . . . and so most sacri- 
 legiously rob Him of that honour, which He 
 hath assumed to Himself as His peculiar office ' 
 (Explication of Ps. CX., Works, vol. ii., pp. 412, 
 413. London, 1826). 
 
 Bishop Laney. 
 
 * For the sacrifice ... it is, I confess, a 
 word of offence, because there goes under the 
 name of a Christian sacrifice, that which our 
 Church calls a blasphemous fable and dangerous 
 deceit. . . . That which the Article speaks of 
 is the sacrifice of the Mass, wherein the priests 
 of that sacrifice say, That Christ Himself is 
 
170 Testimonies 
 
 really sacrificed for the quick and dead ' 
 ('Two Sermons Preached at Whitehall,' pp. 1, 
 2. London, 1668). 
 
 SCRIVINER. 
 
 ' The question . . . must be stated concern- 
 ing the sacrifice . . . whether it really and 
 properly be predicated of the matter of the 
 sacrament : and that in as proper a sense -as 
 Christ's body was offered upon the Cross : this 
 ive deny . . . Thus is the Host a sacrifice, but 
 not essentially as the sacrifices of the law, or 
 Christ's offering Himself; but analogically and 
 metonymically, by virtue of the sacrifice of 
 Christ' (quoted from Tract Ixxxi., pp. 205, 206). 
 
 Archbishop Leighton. 
 ' The priesthood of the law represented Him 
 as the Great High Priest, that offered up Him- 
 self for our sins, and that is altogether in- 
 communicable ; neither is there any peculiar 
 office of priesthood for offering sacrifice in 
 the Christian Church, but His alone who is 
 Head of it. But this dignity that is here 
 mentioned of a spiritual priesthood, offering 
 spiritual sacrifices, is common to all those that 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 17 1 
 
 are in Christ' ('On First Ep. of Peter, ch. ii., 
 verses 4, 5,' Works, vol. i., p. 231. London, 
 1818). 
 
 Bishop Sparrow. 
 I. 
 'This done [i.e., the reception and the saying 
 the Lord's Prayer] the priest offers up the 
 sacrifice of the holy Eucharist, or the sacrifice 
 of praise and thanksgiving for the whole Church, 
 as in all old Liturgies is appointed : and to- 
 gether with that is offered up that most accept- 
 able sacrifice of ourselves, souls and bodies, 
 devoted to God's service ' {' Kationale on Com- 
 mon Prayer,' Part IV., pp. 180, 181. London, 
 
 1722). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' Showing forth and commemorating the Lord's 
 
 death, and offering upon it [the altar] the same 
 
 sacrifice that was offered upon the Cross, or 
 
 rather the commemoration of that sacrifice, St. 
 
 Chrysostom in Heb. x. 9 ' (ibid., p. 243). 
 
 III. 
 
 ' But how shall the people he able to know 
 which truths ai^e so generally delivered from the 
 
172 Testimonies 
 
 first ages till now f . . . I answer, you may 
 find and know these necessary truths, hy the 
 public doctrine of our oivn Church, delivered in 
 her Liturgy and Articles of religion, by the 
 unanimous consent of all your spiritual guides. 
 Acquaint yourselves throughly wdth that public 
 doctrine, and adhere to that ; and if your own 
 teacher teaches otherwise, believe him not ' 
 (* Caution against False Doctrines,' ibid., p. 295). 
 Bishop Morley. 
 I. 
 * Quod vero dicit in praecedenti Capite sacri- 
 ficium pretii 7iostri pro ed [Monica] p>ost mortem 
 oblatum esse, intelligi non potest ac si offerretur 
 pro expiatione peccatorum ejus, utpote quae jam 
 (ut ipse dicit) credebatur expiata ; sed ut inter 
 ofFerendum memoria ejus fieret inter alios qui 
 in Domino in fide Dominici Sacrificii pro peccatis 
 expiandis, obdormierunt. . . . Adeo ut supposita 
 hac consuetudine pro defunctis orandi et offer- 
 endi, in hoc sensu a veteribus usurpata, nihil 
 inde auctoramenti aut argumenti pro hodiernis 
 Missis precibusque pro mortuis, in Pontificiorum 
 sensu celebratis, possit colligi' (* Epistolaris 
 Dissertatio,' pp. 17, 18. London, 1683). 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 173 
 
 II. 
 
 ' That which was not lawful and counted a 
 profanation of this holy mystery in the primi- 
 tive Church, is now in the Romish not only 
 counted lawful but meritorious ; I mean the 
 standing by, and looking on the celebration of 
 the Lord's Supper or the Mass (as they call it) 
 without receiving of it ' (' Vindication of Argu- 
 ment from Sense,' p. 18. London, 1683). 
 
 CUDWORTH. 
 
 I. 
 ' This I think is the case of that grand error 
 of the papists concerning the Lord's Supper 
 being a sacrifice ; which perhaps at first did 
 rise by degeneration of a primitive truth, 
 whereof the very obliquity of this error yet 
 may bear some dark and obscure intimation ' 
 (' True Notion of Lord's Supper,' Introduction, 
 p. 2. London, 1676). 
 
 II. 
 ' We see then how that theological contro- 
 versy which hath cost so many disputes, whether 
 the Lord's Supper be a sacrifice, is already de- 
 cided : for it is . . . not . . . ohlatio sacrificii, but, 
 
174 Testimonies 
 
 as Tertullian excellently speaks, Farticipatio 
 sacrificii . . . Therefore, keeping the same 
 analogy, he [St. Paul] must needs call the 
 communion-table by the name of the Lord's 
 table, i.e., the table upon which God's meat is 
 eaten ; not His altar, upon which it is offered. 
 . . . There is a sacrifice in the Lord's Supper 
 symbolically, but not there as offered up to God, 
 but feasted on by us ; and so not a sacrifice, but 
 a sacrificial feast : which began too soon to be 
 misunderstood' {ihicl, ch. v., pp. 27, 2 8). 
 
 Dr. T. Puller. 
 I. 
 * Nor doth our Church hold any true pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice for dead, or living, to be 
 oflfered up in the Mass ; because that would 
 derogate from the sufficiency of Christ's priest- 
 hood ; neither doth it define its priesthood by the 
 action only of such a sacrifice, as doth the Council 
 of Trent' ('Moderation of the Church of Eng- 
 land,' pp. 1 96, 197. Edit. Eden. London, 1870). 
 
 II. 
 ' So exceedingly moderate and prudent was 
 the Church, that in the seventh Canon, 1640, 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 175 
 
 it abundantly cautions, lest those words [priest 
 and altar] be used otherwise than in a meta- 
 phorical and improper attribution'* (ihid., 
 p. 172). 
 
 TOWERSON. 
 
 ' Let us go on to inquire . . . whether he who 
 administers this sacrament is obliged by the 
 words of the institution or otherwise, to make 
 an " offering to God of Christ's body and blood," 
 ... the Council of Trent, as is well known, 
 avowing that to be the importance of the words, 
 " Do this in remembrance of Me " ; and that 
 the Apostles were, by the same words, appointed 
 priests to offer them. ... So httle is there in 
 the words themselves, how favourably soever 
 considered, to oblige us to understand them of 
 such an offering as the Church of Rome ad- 
 vanceth. And we shall find them to signify 
 as little, though we take in the sense of the 
 Catholic Church upon them. . . . Which [quo- 
 tation from Justin Martyr] shows him not to 
 
 * In the same page Puller quotes from Eivet : * In 
 Liturgia Anglicana habemus quidem sacrificii nomen, 
 offerendi nomen, etiam hostiae mentionem, sed nihil magis 
 adversatur Missatico sacrificio quam tota haec oratio.' 
 
176 Testimonies 
 
 have thought in the least of our being com- 
 manded to offer Christ's body and blood, under 
 the species of bread, or indeed of any other 
 sacrifice, than a commemorative or Eucharistical 
 one ' (' Exphcation of Catechism,' Part IV., 
 pp. 274, 276, 277). 
 
 Barbon. 
 ' The word Priest is not Jewish, for Priest is 
 the English of Presbyter, and not of Sacerdos, 
 there being, in our tongue, no word in use for 
 Sacerdos ; Priest, which we use for both, being 
 improperly used for a Sacrijicer, as Sacerdos 
 signifies, but naturally expressing a Presbyter, 
 the name whereby the Apostles call themselves, 
 and those which succeed them, in their charge . . . 
 Concerning the word sacrifice. Bishop Andrewes 
 accounts it an imagination or fancy to take 
 umbrage at the word. ... I aver that even 
 missa or mass is not Popish (far ancienter than 
 Popery), it signifying antiently, the worship 
 
 of God' (' AfiTOup-yta 0ttoT£pa epyta,' pp. 65, 66. 
 
 Oxford, 16 62). 
 
 Archbishop Tillotson. 
 ' The next instance is tlie rejyetition of Ch)-ist's 
 Projntiatory Sacrifice in the Mass, so often as 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 177 
 
 til at is celebrated. ... It is directly contrary 
 to the main scope of a great part of this Epistle 
 to the Hebrews. . . . There cannot be plainer 
 texts for anything in the Bible than that this 
 propitiatory sacrifice was never to be repeated. 
 And whereas they say that the sacrifice of the 
 Mass is an unbloody sacrifice ; this, instead of 
 bringing them off, doth but entangle the matter 
 more. For if blood be offered in the sacrifice 
 of the Mass, how is it an unbloody sacrifice .'' 
 What can be more bloody than blood ? And 
 if blood be not offered, how is it propitiatory ? 
 Since the Apostle lays it down for a certain 
 rule, that without shedding of hlood there is no 
 remission of sins, i.e., there can be no propitia- 
 tion for the sins of the living or the dead, which 
 the Church of Rome affirms there is' (Works, 
 vol. i., p. 42. London, 1712). 
 
 Kettle WELL. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' Question. — If the death and sacrifice of Christ 
 were so full a satisfaction at first, there is no 
 more now to be paid, and it need never be re- 
 peated ? 
 
 12 
 
178 Testimonies 
 
 ' Answer. — No, nor ever must it. The Jewish 
 sacrifices needed constantly to be repeated, because 
 being of little worth, and very iiu})erfect, their 
 virtue was soon spent, so that year hy year they 
 tvere continually offered. . . . But His, being 
 full and perfect from the first, and leaving nothing 
 to be added. He is not to he offered often, hut at 
 once hath He jnit away sin hy the sacrijice of 
 Himself. But although His sacrifice is no more 
 to be really acted, as it needs not, the whole 
 effect of it beinof as fresh and full now as it was 
 at first ; yet is it daily still commemorated, and 
 the virtue thereof applied, in every good prayer, 
 but especially in every sacrament ' (Works, vol. i., 
 p. G12. London, 1719). 
 
 II. 
 
 * There can be no receiving of the Sacrament, 
 without worshi})])ing it, in the Church of Rome. 
 . . . And these are such hindrances of com- 
 municating with that Church in the Mass, which 
 are not to be urged in bar of communion, under 
 all immoral mixtures of worshi}) and devotions ' 
 (ihid., vol. ii., p. G4 8). 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 179 
 
 Payne. 
 
 ' The sacrifice of the Mass ... is the great 
 lake into which most of the Popish errors empty 
 themselves. . . . The Mass-sacrifice contains in 
 it a whole legion of errors, but it is only the 
 ])rincipal one which I have endeavoured by this 
 discourse to cast out, and that is, its being a 
 proper and truly propitiatory sacrifice, which 
 I have shown to be founded upon two monstrous 
 errors, to have no true foundation in Scripture, 
 nor no just claim to antiquity, but to be j^lainly 
 contrary to both these, and to be in itself very 
 absurd and unreasonable ' (in Gibson's ' Preserva- 
 tive,' vol. vi., pp. 291, 292. London, 1848). 
 
 HORNECK. 
 I, 
 
 * The Church of Rome at this day makes 
 strange work w ith consecration of the elements 
 in the Supper of the Lord ' (' Crucified Jesus,' 
 p. 93. London, 1727). 
 
 II. 
 ' As the word " Eucharist " imports praise, so 
 thanksgiving is one of the principal actions and 
 
180 Testimonies 
 
 offices in this sacrament. The Church of Kome 
 will have it called a sacrifice, because in the 
 primitive Church it went by that name. We 
 deny it not, but then they meant by it a sacrifice 
 of praise, and this sacrifice we exhort every one 
 of you to offer' [ibid., p. 103). 
 
 Dean Brevint. 
 
 ( CJ-i 
 
 St. Chrysostom is full and eloquent to this 
 purpose . . . to he ojfered more tlian once is an 
 evidence of iveahness against the ohlation itself , 
 etc. So Roman Mass is a reproach to the 
 infinite value of Christ's oblation, being visibly 
 grounded on this plain blasphemy, that Christ's 
 oblation on the Cross was defective ' (' Roman 
 Mass,' p. 40. Oxford, 1673). 
 
 II. 
 •' How could the Apostle, with any either 
 discretion or candour, absolutely deny that Christ 
 was ever offered more than once, reserving in 
 his own breast these limitations which no man 
 could have guessed at, viz., in his own shape, or 
 with effusion of blood, or to redeem, if he be as 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 181 
 
 really offered every day a thousand times at 
 Mass?' (ibid., pp. 37, 38). 
 
 III. 
 ' It appears by these impieties, thus generally 
 diffused through all the veins of Roman worship, 
 how far that Church is a true Church. And 
 to this purpose I advise all, whosoever will not 
 be seduced with vain words and empty titles, to 
 lay by what Kome hath been heretofore, and 
 then impartially to look into what she is in 
 these present times. And lest they should 
 reject a Church for some particular abuse (which 
 were not better than to cut off a tree because 
 of some few withered leaves), let them look into 
 what Rome is, by what Mass is, which is no 
 leaf, or branch, but the main stem and bulk of 
 that tree' {ibid., pp. 243, 244). 
 
 IV. 
 
 ' Christians before the Sacrament offered their 
 gifts, and after it offered their prayers, their 
 praises, and themselves. And this was the 
 constant and solemn oblation of the Church 
 until dark and stupid ages, which by degrees 
 
182 Testimonies 
 
 have hatched transubstantiation in the bosom 
 of the Roman Church, have at last improved 
 it to this horrid direful service, which mainly 
 aims at this, to offer upon an altar not the 
 bread and wine as before, but the very Body 
 and Blood of Christ' {ibid., c. vi., pp. 57, 58. 
 Oxford, 1673). 
 
 Stillingfleet. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' I do not think any two or three men, though 
 never so learned, make the Church of England ; 
 her sense is to be seen in the public acts and 
 offices belonging to it. And in the Articles . . . 
 your sacrifices on the altar are called Blasphemous 
 Figments and Daiigerous Impostures ' (Works, 
 vol. vi., p. 179. London, 1710). 
 
 II. 
 ' But suppose the Son of God were to be 
 made a true and proper sacrifice for sins on the 
 altar, how comes it into your hands to offer Him 
 up to the Father, since the great sacrifice of 
 propitiation was not to be offered by any ordinary 
 priests, but by the high priest himself, who was 
 
A(iAIi\8T THK MaSS 183 
 
 to carry the blood into the Holy of Holies, and 
 there to make intercession for the people ? Are 
 3^ou the high priests of the Gospel, to offer unto 
 God the great sacrifice of Atonement ? Is not 
 the great High Priest of our profession entered 
 within the veil, and is there making intercession, 
 by virtue of His sacrifice on the Cross ? What 
 need, then, of your offering Him up again for 
 propitiation, who offered Himself once on the 
 Cross for a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, 
 oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole 
 world ? We have all the reason in the world 
 to commemorate, with great thankfulness and 
 devotion, that invaluable sacrifice of the Cross ; 
 and if you will call the whole Eucharistical office 
 a commemorative sacrifice, as the ancients did, 
 I shall never quarrel with you about it. But 
 how the sacrifice of the Mass comes to be pro- 
 pitiatory, as the sacrifice on the Cross was, I 
 understand not ; nor how it should be the same 
 with the sacrifice of the Cross, and yet of so 
 much less value than it, the one being said by 
 you to be infinite, and the other finite ; nor how 
 the destruction of His sacramental, and of His 
 natural being, should be the same thing ; nor 
 
184 Testimonies 
 
 how this sacrifice should be propitiatory only for 
 one sort of sins, and not for another ; nor how 
 the Son of God can be made a true and proper 
 sacrifice for sin, under the species of bread and 
 wine ; nor what consumptive change that is in 
 Him which, according to yourselves, is necessary 
 to make Him a sacrifice. Is He slain again in 
 the Mass ? If He be, I can tell who is the 
 Judas that betrays Him, and who are the Jews 
 that crucify Him. If not, how comes a pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice, without shedding of blood ? 
 If the consumptive change be only in the 
 elements, then the elements are sacrificed, and 
 not Christ. If it be only a sacramental change, 
 what is that to a sacrifice of propitiation ? And 
 suppose all the other absurdities to be removed, 
 and that the sacrifice of the Mass is a true, real, 
 proper, and propitiatory sacrifice of the Son of 
 God, body and soul, upon the altar, yet how 
 at last comes this to be giving God thanks for 
 the graces of His saints ? I thought such a 
 sacrifice had been much rather for the exjjiation 
 of their sins' (' Conferences concerning the Idolatry 
 of the Church of Rome,' Works, vol. vi., p. 170). 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 185 
 
 Ellis. 
 
 * Here is in this Sacrament no sacrificing of 
 Christ, but a solemn commemoration of His 
 sacrifice by this sacred rite commanded to be 
 made in His Church. We do not herein, as 
 is pretended to be done in the Komish Church, 
 and in their Mass, off'er up our Saviour a pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead. We 
 only, according to Christ's own institution, com- 
 memorate that sacrifice which He Himself once 
 offered for sin. . . . He was once offered to 
 bear the sins of many, . . . That idol, therefore, 
 of the papists, which the Church of Kome per- 
 suades the people so much to confide in and to 
 pay so dear for, is a mere nothing. It is a vain 
 and impious fiction to bring the priests into 
 veneration with the ignorant and blindfolded 
 people, who are taught to believe that a Mass- 
 priest by muttering three or four Latin words 
 can turn bread into God, and then can sacrifice 
 Him again, and by devouring the whole sacrifice 
 himself obtain remission of sins both for the 
 quick and dead. O bless God . . . that you may 
 not be . . . taught to believe such hlaspliemous 
 
186 Testimonies 
 
 absurdities as these ' (' Scripture Catechist,' 
 pp. 435, 436. London, 1738). 
 
 Bishop Kidder. 
 * What our Church holds is best learned from 
 her declaration in her Articles. . . . She declares 
 against " the sacrifices of Masses, in which," 
 etc. . . . Whence it is evident that she rejects 
 the doctrine of the Trent Council that the 
 sacrifice of the Mass is a true and proper 
 sacrifice propitiatory for the quick and dead. 
 This we deny ' (in Gibson's ' Preservative,' 
 vol. vi., p. 296. London, 1848). 
 
 Bishop Patrick. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' The Church of Rome binds all her members, 
 under pain of eternal damnation, to believe both 
 that the very same body and the very same 
 blood which were once offered by Christ upon 
 the Cross are daily offered up to God by the 
 Mass-priest, and likewise (as if this were not 
 enough) that every such offering made bj^ the 
 priest is a propitiatory sacrifice — nay, makes 
 atonement as well for the dead as for the living ' 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 187 
 
 (Sermon XV., Works, vol. viii., p. 244. Oxford, 
 
 1858). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' This miofht serve for a short confutation of 
 
 the sacrifices of the Mass, as they are commonly 
 
 called ; but that you may see that our Church 
 
 was not rash in that sentence it hath pronounced 
 
 against these sacrifices, as " hiasphemoits fables, 
 
 and dangerous deceits," I shall a little more 
 
 distinctly unfold how contradictory they are 
 
 to the doctrine of the Apostle ' i^ihid., p. 24 5). 
 
 III. 
 ' There are no such priests in the Church 
 as can offer propitiatory sacrifices to God, for 
 this belong-s to Christ alone, who is the sole 
 priest of the New Testament. ... It is directly 
 against Christ's order — nay, against His office — 
 for any man to go about to offer a proper 
 sacrifice for sin ' {i.hid., p. 246). 
 
 Bishop Bull. 
 ' This proposition [" that in the Mass there 
 is offered to God a true, jn-oper, and propitiatory 
 sacrifice for the living and the dead "] having 
 
1 8 8 Testimonies 
 
 that other of the " substantial presence of the 
 body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist " 
 immediately annexed to it, the meaning of it 
 must necessarily be this — that in the Eucharist 
 the very body and blood of Christ are again 
 offered up to God as a propitiatory sacrifice for 
 the sins of men. Which is an imjnous proposi- 
 tion, derogatory to the one full satisfaction of 
 Christ made by His death on the Cross, and 
 contrary to express Scripture ' (' Corruptions of 
 the Church of Rome,' § 3. Works, vol. ii., p. 2 51. 
 Oxford, 1846). 
 
 Bishop Beveridge. 
 
 I. 
 ' His death was not only a true and proper 
 sacrifice, but the only true and proper sacrifice 
 for sin that was evei- offered up in the world. 
 For His being offered up for the sins of the 
 whole world, there was no sin for which any 
 other need or could be offered. . . . The Sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's Supper is now ordained by 
 Him, to set forth and commemorate the same 
 sacrifice as now already offered up for the sins 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 189 
 
 of mankind' ('Church Catechism Explained,' pj). 
 19G, 197. London, 1704). 
 
 II. 
 ' Tiiey all agree in the thing, avouching that 
 in the Mass they offer up a true and perfect 
 sacrifice to God, propitiatory for the sins of the 
 people, even as Christ did when He offered up 
 Himself to God as a propitiation for our sins. 
 This, I say, is that which the Church of Rome 
 confidently affirms, and which our Church in 
 this Article doth as confidently deny ' (Beveridge, 
 ' On Articles,' pp. 5 06, 5 07. Oxford, 1846). 
 
 III. 
 ' All the sacrifices of Mass are at the best 
 but dangerous deceits ' [ihid., p. 5 09). 
 
 Dr. John Patrick. 
 * If they [the words of the canon] mean (as 
 he that made the prayer did) that God would 
 accept this oblation of bread and wine as He 
 did of Abel and Melchizedeh (which latter was 
 indeed bread and wine), this had been very 
 proper. But to make that which v/e offer to 
 
190 Testimonies 
 
 be Christ Himself (as they that beheve in 
 transubstantiation must expound it), and to desire 
 God to look propitiously and benignly upon Hiui 
 , . . this sense can never be agreeable to the 
 prayer' ('Full View,' p. 171. London, 1688). 
 
 Dean Sherlock. 
 
 ' It is evident to a demonstration that the 
 Church of Rome has overthrown the death and 
 sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, considered 
 as an argument of a holy life, by setting up 
 the sacrifice of the Mass, human penances,' etc. 
 (' Preservative Against Popery,' § 3. In Gibson's 
 'Preservative,' vol. xi., p. 241. London, 1848). 
 
 Answer to ' A Papist Misrepresented and 
 Represented.'* 
 
 ' The Council of Trent not only affirms a true 
 proper propitiatory sacrijice to he there offered 
 up> for the quick and the dead, but denounces 
 anathemas against those that deny it. So that 
 the question is not. Whether the Eucharist may 
 
 * This book was published anonymously in 1686, but is 
 acknowledged to be the work of Dr. Stillingfleet, and will be 
 found in vol. vi. of his collected works, London, 1710. 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 191 
 
 not in the sense of antiquity be allowed to be 
 a commemorative sacrifice, as it takes in the 
 whole action ; but whether in the AIccss there 
 be such a representation made to God of Christ's 
 sacrifice as to be itself a true and propitiatory 
 sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead ?' 
 {' Doctrines and Practices of the Church of 
 Rome truly Represented,' p. 79. London, 168 6. 
 With the Imjyrimatuv of H. Maurice, Chaplain 
 to the Archbishop of Canterbury.) 
 
 DODWELL. 
 
 I. 
 * In Eucharistical sacrifices no expiation was 
 intended to be made, but only a return of 
 acknowledgments for favours received ' (' One 
 Altar,' p. 303. London, 1683). 
 
 IT. 
 
 ' Our writers, and our Church, too, do usually 
 grant as much as I am concerned for, that it is 
 indeed an Eucharistical sacrifice, and that this 
 is the true sense of those passages of antiquity 
 which are produced for this purpose. And I 
 have shown that their principles of reasoning 
 
192 Testimonies 
 
 were against rej.jctition of iwopitiatory sacrifice, 
 which is that which is denied by our writers ' 
 {ibid., pp. 311, 312). 
 
 * Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants.' 
 
 I. 
 
 * We charge them with making the Sacrament 
 of the Lord's Supper (as the Council of Trent 
 defines) a true proiier propitiatory sacrifice for 
 the quick and the dead. And this, we say, 
 infers an insufficiency in the sacrifice made by 
 Christ upon the Cross ' (' Reply to Reflections,' 
 § xxii., p. 2 6 . London, 16 86. With the Impri- 
 matur of C. Alston, Chaplain to the Bishop 
 
 of London). 
 
 II. 
 
 * We do not charge them with helieviyig an 
 insufficiency in the sacrifice made by Christ on 
 the Cross. Much less do we say that they are 
 taught wholly to rely on the sacrifice of the 
 Mass, and to neglect the passion of Christ, and 
 to put no hopes in His merits, and the work 
 of our redemption. The first is a consequence 
 which we charge upon their doctrine and practice, 
 but do not charge them with believing it. The 
 
AGAINST THH MasS 19:5 
 
 second was never charofed on them that I know 
 of before. So that if there be any misrepresen- 
 tation here, it must be in charg-inof them that 
 they beheve the sacrifice of the Mass to be a 
 true proper propitiatoru sacrijiee for tlie quick 
 and dead. But this is the very definition 
 of tlieir council ' (iJ}id., pp. 20, 27). 
 
 Bishop John Williams, of Chichester. 
 
 ' There are Articles which the two Churches 
 do in whole or in part so diflfer in, that the 
 doctrine of the Church of England cannot be 
 the doctrine of the Church of Kome, nor the 
 doctrine of the Church of Borne be the doctrine 
 of the Church of England. Such are most, if 
 not all, of the following Articles, viz. : Article VI. 
 Of the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for 
 salvation. . . . Article XXXI. Of the ohlation 
 of Christ upon the Cross. . . . These, besides 
 several others which our Articles do not expressly 
 mention (but are commonly the received principles 
 of our Church), are the irreconcilable points, 
 and which all the wit and charity in the world 
 can no more thoroughly reconcile than light and 
 
 13 
 
194 Testimonies 
 
 darkness. ... It will be evident that there is 
 no possibility of agreement between them [the 
 Churches] in matters of religion, of making one 
 Church of what are so manifestly two'* (' The 
 Difference between the Church of England and 
 the Church of Rome.' In Gibson's ' Preserva- 
 tive,' vol. xiii., p. IGl. London, 1848). 
 
 Grabe. 
 I. 
 
 ' Christ accordingly, in tlie first Eucharist, 
 gave thanks to God the Father, not only for 
 
 * See pp. 189 and 205, where ' the Opposition ' in the 
 matter of our Article XXXI. is shown by settiog side by side 
 the words of the Article, and the teaching of the Council of 
 Trent. This work was published in answer to a book 
 written in the interests of the Papacy, and entitled, ' The 
 Agreement between the Church of England and the Church 
 of Eome,' the writer of which confined himself to 'govern- 
 ment and worship.' He followed R. H., i.e., Abraham 
 Woodhead, who (while desiring to minimize the difference 
 between the Churches as to ' Real Presence,' — ' Rational 
 Account,' pp. 65-68, 2nd edit., 1673) went no further in 
 the matter of the sacrifice than to state that ' Learned 
 Protestants, together with the whole Greek and Latin 
 Church, grant the Eucharist to be the Christian or 
 Evangelical sacrifice, not only in respect of the action in 
 it of praise and thanksgiving, but also in respect of the 
 oblation to God of the mysteries in the consecration, as a 
 cominemorative or representative of the body and blood 
 of Christ offered on the Cross ' {ibid., p. 268). 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 19 5 
 
 creation, but chiefly for redemption, the memorial 
 Sacrament whereof He was then instituting, and 
 by His example and precept appointed the same 
 to be done now also by priests ' (MSS. Adver- 
 saria ; quoted from Tract 81, p. 377). 
 
 II. 
 
 * The English divines teach that in the holy 
 Eucharist the body and blood of Christ, under 
 the species, that is, the signs, of bread and wine, 
 are* offered to God, and become a representa- 
 tion of the sacrifice of Christ once made upon 
 the Cross, whereby God may be rendered pro- 
 pitious '+ (' Distinctions of the English Church,' 
 etc. In Tract 81, p. 3 79). 
 
 III. 
 
 ' Of the use of it [" First Liturgy of Ed- 
 ward VI.," republished], namely, to show how 
 near the first reformers of the Church of England 
 kept to the primitive institution of Jesus Christ, 
 and the practice of His immediate followers, the 
 
 * See below, Appendix, Note B. 
 
 t See above, Introduction, p. 35, 36. 
 
196 Testimonies 
 
 holy Apostles and the ancient Christians, although 
 they laid aside the later Popish abuses ' (Preface 
 to ' Edward VI. 's First Liturgy.' In Tract 81, 
 pp. 379, 380). 
 
 IV. 
 
 * Not to mention the elevation of the conse- 
 crated elements to be worshipped by priest and 
 all people, as Jesus Christ Himself, both God 
 and man in person, whom the Church of Rome 
 believeth to be substantially and wholly ])resent 
 under the outward figures of bread and wine, 
 nor to speak of some other faults of less moment, 
 our reformers justly redressed that grievous and 
 grand sacrilege ' (ibid., p. 381). 
 
 ' Our English bishops were wiser, and although 
 they left the Church or Court of Rome upon 
 the account of their intolerable abuses,* yet as 
 
 * For a clearing of some misconceptions concerning 
 Grabe's doctrine, see Waterland, Works, vol. iv., pp. 726, 
 727. Waterland says, p. 727 : ' The complaint [of Deylingius] 
 now is, not that Dr. Grabe asserted the sacrifice of the Mass 
 (which he heartily abhorred), but that he rejected the real, 
 local, or corporal presence, such as the Papists or Lutherans 
 contend for : in which most certainly he judged right.' 
 
AGAINST THK MaSS 11' 7 
 
 the}' duly kept up their holy order and episco[)al 
 dignity, so did they likewise retain the substance 
 of the ancient liturgy ' (ibid., p. 381). 
 
 Archbishop Sharp. 
 
 I. 
 ' The Romanists have invented a new sacrifice, 
 which Christ never instituted, which the Apostles 
 never dreamt of, which the primitive Christians 
 would have abhorred, and which we, if we will 
 be followers of them, ought never to join in ' 
 (Works, vol. v., p. 197. Oxford, 1829). 
 
 II. 
 ' This is the Romish doctrine concerning the 
 sacrifice of the Mass. But how groundless, how 
 false, how absurd — nay, how impious — it is, I 
 now come ... to show' (ibid., p. 198). 
 
 Leslie. 
 ' The Papists see their idol of transubstantia- 
 tion broken to pieces, not from the nicety and 
 criticism of a word, but from the nature of the 
 
198 Testimonies 
 
 thing, for a representative and commemorative 
 sacrifice must be a different thing- from, but 
 bearing a great resemblance to, the archetypal 
 sacrifice it represents' (quoted from Tract 81, 
 p. 292). 
 
 John Johnson. 
 I. 
 ' If any have asserted the sacrifice of the 
 Mass, I would readily grant that no reproaches 
 are too hard, no censures too severe, against 
 them who were guilty of attempting to introduce 
 so < tbo'minahle a corruption ' (Johnson's Works, 
 A.C.L., vol. i., p. 5). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' The Papists hold that in the sacrifice of the 
 Mass the whole Christ, God and man, is ofifered 
 hypostatically to the Father in the Eucharist, 
 and is to be worshipped there by men under 
 the species of bread and wine. This doctrine 
 is utterly renounced by all Protestants, by those 
 who assert the Eucharistic oblation, as well as 
 by those who deny it. 
 
 ' The Papists assert the substantial presence 
 of Christ's body and blood under the species 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 199 
 
 of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist, 
 and that the sacrifice of the Cross and 
 altar are substantially the same ; but this is 
 peremptorily denied by those who declare for 
 the oblation of the Eucharist in the Church of 
 EnQ^land. 
 
 ' The Papists do maintain that the sacrifice 
 of the Mass is available for remission of sins 
 to the dead as well as to the living*. And as 
 this is not asserted by any of our Church, so 
 it is heartily detested by the author of this 
 treatise. 
 
 ' The Papists have private Masses, in which 
 the Priest pretends to make the oblation without 
 distributing either the body or blood to the 
 people — nay, without any people attending — 
 and they have many hundred such Masses to 
 one Communion, and all this is expressly justified 
 by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII., c. vi.), 
 though it be contrary to Scripture, and the 
 practice of the primitive Church, and to several 
 expressions even in their own Mass-book, which 
 suppose the people to be present. All tliis is 
 condemned by those who defend the Eucharistical 
 oblation here in England. 
 
200 Testimonies 
 
 ' I need not tell the learned reader that the 
 opinions here renounced are they which render 
 the Mass a sacrijice so odious in the sight 
 of God, and of all well-iiifoi'ined Christians' 
 (' Propitiatory Oblation in the Holy Eucharist,' 
 pp. 5, G ; quoted from Tract 8 1, pp. 810, 311). 
 
 III. 
 ' I never elevated the elements after consecra- 
 tion — nay, I believe it horrible superstition in 
 those that do it, if any such there l)e — and I 
 do further solemnly declare it to be my senti- 
 ment, that to elevate and adore the Sacrament, 
 according to the practice of the Church of Rome, 
 is downright idolatry '* (Works, A.C.L., vol. ii., 
 p. 25). 
 
 N. Spinckes. 
 
 ' It is acknowledged on all hands that this 
 Sacrament is a commemoration of our Saviour's 
 
 * For explanation of Johnson's view of ' propitiation and 
 expiation,' see Works, A.C.L., vol. i., p. 384, and for 
 censure of the ' unwarrantable excesses ' of his system, see 
 Waterland's Works, vol. v., pp. 150-181. See also vol. i., 
 p. 167. 
 
A(!A1NST THK MaSS 201 
 
 otterino- Himself upon the Cross . . . and so 
 has been figuratively called a sacrifice, a com- 
 memorative . . . and Eucharistical sacrifice . . . 
 But this will not suffice, for the Council of Trent 
 anathematizes such as proceed no further. . . . 
 If truly and pro})erly a propitiatory sacrifice, 
 as the Council, Catechism, and Creed teach, how 
 will he be able to reconcile this with the Apostle's 
 doctrine — ^yhere remission of sins is, there is no 
 more offering for them ? If no more offering, 
 then not a new, daily, proper and propitiatory 
 sacrifice, such as their Church teaches this to 
 be . . . such a sacrifice as the Scripture knows 
 nothing of, nor any one of the ancient fathers 
 ever described it to be ' (' Essay towards 
 Proposal for Catholic Communion answered 
 Chapter by Chapter,' pp. 142, 143. London, 
 1705). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' The Church of Rome requiring more is 
 guilty of the schism that comes by refusing it ' 
 {ibid., p. 145). 
 
202 Testimonies 
 
 HiCKES. 
 
 I. 
 ' The Bishop of Sarum on Article XXXI. 
 writes of the holy Eucharist ..." Upon these 
 accounts we do not deny but that the Eucharist 
 may be called a sacrifice. But still it is a 
 commemorative sacrifice, and not propitiatory. 
 . . ." The bishop means not propitiatory in 
 itself, or by its own virtue, a,s the Papists assert 
 their sacrifice of the Mass to be ' (Quoted from 
 Tract 81, p. 275). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' The right understanding of the commemora- 
 tive and representative sacrifice in the Eucharist 
 is so far from reducing us to the sacrifice of the 
 Mass that it secures us as a bulwark against 
 it. . . . There is a very plain and intelligible 
 difference between the Eucharist's being the 
 sacrifice of the real body and blood of Christ, 
 and its being a real sacrifice of His mystical 
 body and blood. . . . Mystical and real dilier 
 as much as the substance and the shadow, the 
 verity and its type, or a thing of any sort or 
 kind from the thing that is its image. All this 
 
AGAINST THE MasS 203 
 
 is comprehended in the distinction between 
 " mystical " and " real," the one as I have said 
 is a contradiction and bar to the other, and 
 therefore great must be their ignorance or 
 prejudice who cannot distinguish the pure 
 primitive from tlie Popish doctrine oj the 
 Eucharist' {ihicl, pp. 2 83, 2 84). 
 
 HI. 
 
 ' I am confident were he [Baxter] now alive 
 he would not so severely and unjustly censure 
 us as the doctor doth, nor would suggest as 
 if we wrote with an evil intention to introduce 
 the Popish sacrifice of the Mass, as some others 
 lately have done, against all reason and charity : 
 first, because, as Dr. Hakewell truly observes, 
 " the commemoration or representation of a thing 
 must be both in nature and propriety of speech 
 distinct from the thing it commemorates or 
 represents ;" and, secondly, because most of the 
 writers for the Eucharistical sacrifice have also 
 been most eminent writers against the Church 
 of Rome in defence of the Church of England ' 
 (Treatises, A.C.L., vol. i., p. 26). 
 
204 Testimonies 
 
 Brett. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' Those who charge the doctrine of the 
 Eucharistical sacrifice as savouring of Popery 
 either know not what Poper\' is, or have no 
 right notion of the Eucharist itself, for nothing 
 can be more directly opposite to the doctrine 
 of transubstantiation, or to " the sacrifices of 
 Masses, in the which it was commonly said that 
 the priests did offer Christ for the quick and 
 the dead," than this doctrine of the repre- 
 sentative sacrifice of the Eucharist ' (Tract 8 1 , 
 p. 3 8 6).^^ 
 
 II. 
 
 ' When we show our people the true nature 
 of this sacrifice, that it is not the individual 
 sacrifice of Christ Himself (for that was offered 
 " once for all "), but only the memorial or 
 representation of that sacrifice, they will see 
 
 * It is not a little remarkable that a uon- juror of such 
 extreme views as Dr. Brett (see papers on ' Eucharistic 
 Presence,' p. 458), should have spoken of the rubrics of the 
 Eoman missal as ' corrupt, dangerous, superstitious, 
 abominably idolatrous, theatrical, and utterly unworthy the 
 gravity of so sacred an institution ' (see Hutton's ' Anglican 
 Ministry,' p. 60). 
 
AGAINST THK MaSS 205 
 
 clearly that the Poj>is/i stfcr/ficc of tJic Mass, 
 wherein they pretend to offer Chi'ist " for the 
 quick and the dead," has no foundation in the 
 Scri])ture or the ancient fathers, but is clearly 
 opposite to tlieni ; forasmuch as the j^icture 
 cannot be the man whose picture it is, nor the 
 representative the person he represents ' {)hi<l., 
 p. 387). 
 
 Wake. 
 
 I. 
 
 * A third consequence of the corporeal presence 
 of Christ in the holy Eucharist is the sacrifice 
 of the Mass, in which we ought to proceed with 
 all the caution such a point requires, as both 
 makes up the chiefest part of the Popish 
 w^orship, and is justly esteemed one of the 
 greatest and most dangerous errors that offend us. 
 
 ' Monsieur de Meux has represented it to us 
 with so much tenderness, that except, perhaps, 
 it be his foundation of the corporeal 23resence 
 on which he builds, and his consequence that 
 this service is a true and real j)''^opitiatory 
 sacrifice, which his manner of expounding it 
 we are persuaded triU never hear, there is little 
 
20C) Testimonies 
 
 in it besides but what we could readily assent 
 to ' (' Doctrine of the Church of England,' 
 Article XXI. In Gibson's ' Preservative,' vol. xii., 
 p. 12 5. London, 184 8). 
 
 II. 
 
 ' Let us conjure our brethren of the Church 
 of Rome seriously to consider these things, and 
 into what desperate consequences this great error 
 of the corporeal presence has insensibly led 
 them. . . , For our parts we must profess that 
 these things give us not only a scandal, but 
 a horror for their religion. Monsieur de Meux 
 had certainly reason to say that this is the 
 chiefest and most important of all our con- 
 troversies, and wherein we are at farthest 
 distance from one another' [ibid., Article XXIII., 
 pp. 130, 131). 
 
 III. 
 
 ' Let the Church of Rome . . . raise their 
 anathemas out of their councils, and banish 
 their Masses and adorations out of their churches. 
 . . . Till then in vain does Monsieur de Meux 
 exhort us to consider the ways of Providence 
 to bring us to a union, which God knows we 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 207 
 
 could be glad to have on any terms but the 
 loss of truth ' (ibid., p. 132). 
 
 IV. 
 
 * That it is necessary to the evangehcal priest- 
 hood that they should have power to offer u]) 
 Christ truly and properly as the Council of 
 Trent defines. This we deny, and shall have 
 reason to do so till it can be proved to us 
 that their Mass is indeed such a sacrifice as 
 they pretend, and that our Saviour left it as 
 an essential part of their priesthood to offer it. 
 For the rest, if with the Council of Trent he 
 indeed believes the Mass to be a true and 
 proper sacrifice, he ought not to blame us for 
 taking it in that sense in which they themselves 
 understand it, for certainly it is impossible for 
 words to represent a sacrifice more strictly and 
 properly than the Council of Trent has defined 
 this ' (' Defence of Exposition,' Article XIX. 
 In Gibson's 'Preservative,' vol. xii., p. 212). 
 
 V. 
 
 ' If I affirmed the sacrifice of the Mass to 
 be one of those errors that most offends us, I 
 said no more than what the Church of England 
 
208 Testimonies 
 
 has always thought of it ' (' Defence of Exposi- 
 tion,' p. ()7. London, 1086), 
 
 VI. 
 
 * To talk of an expiatory sacrifice for sin 
 without suffering is not only contrary to 
 Scripture, but is in the nature of the thing 
 itself absurd. . . . The Apostle . . . concludes 
 that Christ could not be more than once offered, 
 because He could but once suffer. But to 
 suppose that Christ in His present glorified state 
 can suffer is such a contradiction to all the 
 principles of our religion that the Papists them- 
 selves are ashamed to assert it. . . . We do not 
 deny but that in a large sense this sacrament 
 may be called a sacrifice, as the bread and wine 
 may be called the body and blood of Christ. 
 But that this sacrament should be a true and 
 proper sacrifice, as they define the sacrifice of 
 the Mass to be, it is altogether false and impious 
 to assert' ('Principles of Christian Religion, ' 
 pp. 157, 15 8. London, 1731). 
 
 Lawrence (Non-Juring Bishop). 
 ' And 'tis only for this reason that the Article 
 condemns the sacrifices of Masses for " hlas- 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 209 
 
 phenious Jahles and doiu/crous deceits,'^ because 
 the Romanists pretended that Christ is again 
 really offered to God in those sacrifices, tliat 
 His very body and blood are substantial!}^ (and 
 not representatively) then present at their altars, 
 and offered to God daily b}^ the priests for the 
 sins of the world, making thereby these their 
 pretended sacrifices of Christ's real body and 
 blood equal in worth and value to His own 
 oblation of Himself, which He offered but once 
 upon the altar of the Cross. This is Idasplunny 
 with a witness, but what has all this to do with 
 the doctrine of that sacrifice, of real bread 
 and wine, which has been lately revived, anc[ 
 convincingly taught and proved by the exc^^llent 
 writers of our Church V (' The Bishop of Oxford's 
 Charge Considered,' quoted from Tract 8 1 , 
 p. 409). 
 
 Bingham. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' Which [Christian priesthood] is not, as some 
 
 imagine, a power to offer Christ's body and 
 
 blood really upon the altar as a propitiatory 
 
 sacrifice for the quick and dead (which is such 
 
 14 
 
210 Testimonies 
 
 a notion of the Christian priesthood as no ancient 
 author or ritual ever mentions), but it consists 
 in a power and authority to minister pubHcly 
 according to God's appointment in holy things ' 
 (Ant., Book II., c. xix., § xv., vol, i., p. 269. 
 London, 1843). 
 
 II. 
 ' That we call " solitary Mass," where the 
 priest receives alone without any other com 
 municants, and sometimes says the office alone 
 without any assistance ; such are all those 
 private and solitary Masses in the Roman 
 Church, which are said at their private altars 
 in the corners of their Churches without the 
 presence of any but the priest alone, and all 
 those public Masses where none but the priest 
 receives, though there be many spectators of 
 the action. As there is no agreement of either 
 of these with the institution of Clirist, but a 
 direct opposition to it ... so there is not the 
 least footstep of any such practice in the primitive 
 Church' (Ant., Book XY., c. iv., § iv., vol. v., 
 pp. 15 9, 1(30). 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 211 
 
 Bishop Hooper, of Bath and Wells. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' This article [of infallibility] so fundamental 
 must have some very extraordinary support itself, 
 not onlv sufficient to bear its own weiyfht, but 
 all that vast additional load that rests upon it. 
 As, for example, whether these are articles of 
 faith, and necessary to salvation : . . . " That 
 in the Mass there is a true and proper sacrifice 
 offered." " That it is a propitiatory sacrifice, 
 and to be oftered not only for the living, but for 
 the dead, in purgatory." " That the priest may 
 and does well to communicate (as they call it) 
 alone. ..." these are so many single joropositions 
 highly questionable, and much easier to be 
 asserted by the Church of Rome than proved ' 
 (Works, vol. i., pp. 99, 100. Oxford, 185 5). 
 
 II. 
 ' It sufficiently appears, I presume, that the 
 sacrament of the Bod}^ and Blood of our Lord 
 was understood by the ancient Christians to be 
 in the nature of an Eucharistical (not of a pro- 
 pitiatory) sacrifice with the Jews. But further, 
 
2 1 2 Testimonies 
 
 that this kind of sacrifice only should remain, 
 when all the rest should cease ; this also is 
 consonant to the tradition of the Jews, as Kimchi 
 tells us. For upon this saying of the ])rophet 
 [Jeremiah xxxiii. 11] . . . he comments on the 
 last words in this manner : " The prophet says 
 not that they shall bring sin offerings, or trespass 
 offerings, because in that dav there would be 
 no wicked nor sinners among them, for (as he 
 before told them) they should all hwiv the Lord. 
 And so have our masters of blessed memory told 
 us, that in the time to come all sacrifices should 
 cease, except the sacrifice of thanksgiving." This 
 saying of the masters of Israel is a great truth, 
 and better understood by Christians who know 
 the Lord, and themselves so well, as to know 
 that the sacrifices for sin are not ceased by the 
 ceasing of sin, but superseded by the sacrifice 
 made for them by their Lord and High Priest, 
 and that tlie soo'fice of tlianl-sfjiving they are 
 thenceforth to make is the commemoration their 
 Lord has instituted for that their most oracious 
 redemption' (Works, vol. i., pp. 45(1, 457. 
 Oxford, 185 5). 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 213 
 
 Dk, William Nicholls. 
 I. 
 * As for the name Lord's Supper (which name 
 the Papists cannot endure to have this sacrament 
 called by, because it destroys their notion of a 
 propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, 
 and their use of private Mass), we find this name 
 given to it, as the proper one belonging to it in 
 the Apostle's time, by St. Paul himself (* Com- 
 mentaiy on Common Prayer : Order of Admini- 
 stration of Lord's Supper,' p. 1. London, 1712). 
 
 II. 
 ' Nostri, uti vocamus, Articuli, sive Fidei Con- 
 fessio . . . extra omnem dubitationem evincunt 
 tantum Nostram Peligionem a Pontificia, quantum 
 Coelum a Terra distare ' (' Defensio EcclesisB 
 Anglicanse,' Pars I., p. 135. London, 1707). 
 
 Welchman. 
 I. 
 ' Since the offering of Christ, which was once 
 made upon the Cross, is sufficient, there is no 
 occasion for any other ; and since it is j^erfect, 
 it ought not to be repeated. . . . See also St. 
 Cyprian : " We make mention of His passion 
 
214 Testimonies 
 
 in all our sacrifices, for the passion of* our Lord 
 is the sacrifice which we olier." Where note, 
 that though the passion of our Lord be a 
 sacrifice, yet there cannot be a true sacrifice 
 in the Mass unless our Lord truly suffered in 
 the Mass, which to affirm is very shocking and 
 absurd. . . . But if He is only offered mystically — 
 that is, if in the Mass that one only Sacrifice, 
 which was offered upon the Cross, is again 
 represented u]3on the altar, then there is not 
 in the Mass a true, proper, and ^propitiatory 
 sacrifice as the Romanists believe, but only a 
 commemoration of a true, proper, and j^ropitiatory 
 sacrifice, as the Reformed believe ' (' Notes on 
 the Articles,' pp. 9 5, 9 6. English translation, 
 S.P.C.K.). 
 
 II. 
 ' By what bands can these men be bound, 
 such double dealers, and of so slippery a faith, 
 that, according to them, one might subscribe 
 the creed of Pius IV. or the Koran of Mahomet ? 
 . . . The man who with a different sense sub- 
 scribes is guilty of a solemn falsehood ; acts the 
 part not of an honest Christian, but of a dis- 
 honest Jesuit' (ibid., Preface, p. ix,). 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 215 
 
 Waterland. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' That the sacrament of the Eucharist, in 
 whole or in part, in a sense proper or improper, 
 is a sacrifice of the Christian Church, is a point 
 agreed upon among all knowing and sober 
 divines, Popish, Lutheran, or Reformed. But 
 the Romanists have so often and so grievously 
 abused the once innocent names of oblation, 
 sacrifice, propitiation, etc., perverting them to 
 an ill-sense, and grafting false doctrine and false 
 worship upon them, that the Protestants have 
 been justly jealous of admitting those names, 
 or scrupulously wary and reserved in the use 
 of them ' (' Review of the Doctrine of the 
 Eucharist,' c. xii.. Works, vol. iv., p. 72 5. 
 Oxford, 1843). 
 
 II. 
 
 The Romanists, wanting arguments to support 
 their Mass sacrifice, thought of this pretence, 
 among others — that either their Mass must be 
 the sacrifice of the Church, or the Church had 
 really none ; and so if the Protestants resolved 
 to throw oft' the Mass, they would be left 
 
216 Testimonies 
 
 without a sacrifice, without an altar, without a 
 priestliood, and be no longer a Church. ... I 
 shall pass over Bellarmine's trifling exceptions 
 to the Protestant sacrifice (meaning the grand 
 sacnjicv considered in the passive sense). It is 
 self-evident, that while we have Christ we want 
 neither sacrifice, altar, nor j^riest, for in Him 
 we have all ; and if He is the liead and we the 
 body, there is the Church ' (' Christian Sacrifice 
 Explained,' Works, vol. v., pp. 125, 126. Oxford, 
 1843). 
 
 III. 
 '■ Even lay Christians, considered as offering 
 spiritual sacrifices, are so far _/9rie.!>f6', according 
 to the doctrine of the New Testament, confirmed 
 b}^ Catholic antiquity. But waving that nicety 
 (as some may call it), yet certainly when spiritual 
 sacrifices are offered up by j:»;7(?i'f6-, divinely com- 
 missioned, and in the face of a Christian congre- 
 gation, they are then as proper sacrifices as any 
 other are or can be' {ihicl., p. 12 8). 
 
 IV. 
 
 ' It is of some moment that the current opinion 
 before the Council of Trent was against the first 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 217 
 
 Eucharist's being an e.cpiato^'y sacrifice, and that 
 the Divines of Trent were almost equally divided 
 upon that question, and that it was chiefly fear 
 of the consequences, obvious to Protestants, 
 which obliged the Council to controvert the 
 then current persuasion. It is not without its 
 weight that Jansenius, Bishop of Ghent, who 
 died fourteen years after, was content to take 
 in sjDiritual sacrifice, in order to make out some 
 sacrifice in the first Eucharist, as to which he 
 judged very right, for undoubtedly our Lord 
 so sacrificed in the Eucharist, and we do it 
 now. But no proof has been given, nor ever 
 can be given, of our Lord's sacrificing the 
 elements. He might — yea. He did — offer the 
 elements for consecration (which is very different 
 from sacrificing, being done also in baptism), or 
 He might present them as signs and figures of 
 a real sacrifice, being also signs and figures of 
 real body and blood ; but as they were not the 
 real body and blood which they represented, so 
 neither were they the real sacrifice, neither can 
 it be made appear that they were any sacrifice 
 at all ' (Appendix to ' Christian Sacrifice,' Works, 
 vol. v., p. 16 3). 
 
218 Testimonies 
 
 V. 
 
 * From the third century and downwards altar 
 of the Cross has been the current language, one 
 certain argument among many, that the sacrifice 
 was supjDOsed to be made upon the Cross ' 
 (Works, voh v., p. 175). 
 
 VI. 
 
 ' Scripture speaks often of Christ's offering 
 Himself, but never once of His offering in 
 sacrifice the symbols ' (Works, vol. v., p. 180). 
 
 VII. 
 
 ' Our Lord, according to the accounts of the 
 New Testament, sacrificed Himself but once, 
 therefore either He did it not in the Eucharist, 
 or not upon the Cross' (Works, vol. v., p. 180). 
 
 Ford. 
 
 ' Si Christus ipse in Missa vere offertur in 
 remissionem, vere occiditur, et sanguis Ejus vere 
 effunditur ; nam sine Sanguinis effusione nulla 
 est remissio. Hoc certe si quid aliud, blas- 
 phemum est figmentum. Si mystice tantum 
 offertur, h.e. si in Missa sacrificium illud unicum 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 219 
 
 in cruce oblatum, denuo in altare repraesentetur 
 in Missa, non est veruni, proprium, et pro]:)itia- 
 torium, sacrificiuni, ut credunt Romanenses ; sed 
 tantum veri, proprii, et propitiatorii sacrificii 
 commemoratio, uti credunt Reformati '* (' Chris- 
 tian Religion,' p. 308. London, 172 0). 
 
 Veneer. 
 
 ' That this sacrament is a' true and proper 
 sacrifice, as those of the Church of Rome define 
 the Mass to be, is altogether false and hJas- 
 jyhemous, because it ascribes that to the priest 
 which the Scriptures have ascribed to Christ 
 alone' (' Exposition of Articles,' vol. ii., p. 076. 
 London, 1730). 
 
 Archbishop Potter. 
 
 I. 
 
 ' In the Christian Church there is only one 
 
 proper sacrifice which our Lord offered upon the 
 
 Cross, and consequently cannot partake of any 
 
 sacrifice in a literal and strict sense without 
 
 allowing transubstantiation' ('Discourse of Church 
 
 Government,' quoted from Tract 81, p. 403). 
 
 * Compare Welchman as quoted, p. 214. 
 
220 Testimonies 
 
 II. 
 
 ' It is not to be wondered that those of the 
 
 Reformed rehgion have either wholty abstained 
 
 from the names of sacrifice and oblation, or 
 
 mentioned them with caution and reserve, in 
 
 explaining this sacrament, which were used by 
 
 the primitive fathers in a veiy true and pious 
 
 sense, since they have been so grossly abused 
 
 by the Papists in their doctrine of transubstan- 
 
 tiation, which is the daily occasion of many su})er- 
 
 stitious and idolatrous practices, and has for 
 
 several at^res criven infinite scandal both to Jews 
 
 and Gentiles, and to the Church of God ' (ibid., 
 
 p. 405). 
 
 Law. 
 
 ' The reason why this Sacrament is said in one 
 respect to be a* '' propitiatory " or " commemora- 
 tive " sacrifice is onl}^ this — because you there t 
 offer, present, and plead before God such things as 
 are by Christ Himself said to be His " body " 
 and " blood given for you '' ; but if that which is 
 thus offered, presented, and pleaded before God is 
 offered and pleaded before Him only for this 
 reason, because it signifies and represents, both to 
 
 God and angels and men, the great Sacrifice for all 
 * See Introduction, p. 35. f See Appendix, Note B. 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 221 
 
 the world, is there not sufficient reason to consider 
 this service as trul}^ a sacrifice ?' ('Demonstration 
 of the Gross and Fundamental Errors of a Late 
 Book,' quoted from Tract 81, p. 412). 
 
 Archbishop Secker. 
 
 * Indeed, every act, both of worship and 
 obedience, is in some sense a sacrifice to God, 
 humbly offered up to Him for his acceptance. 
 And this sacrament in particular, being a 
 memorial and representation of the sacrifice of 
 Christ solemnly and religiously made, may well 
 enough be called, in a figurative way of speaking, 
 by the same name with what it commemorates 
 and represents. But that He should be really 
 and literally offered up in it is the directest 
 contradiction that can be, not only to common 
 sense, but also to Scripture. . . . This ordinance 
 then was appointed, not to repeat, but to com- 
 memorate, the sacrifice of Christ ' (' Lectures on 
 Catechism,' vol. ii., p. 240. London, 1769). 
 
 Bishop Warburtox. 
 
 ' As it [the Last Supper] was contrived to 
 declare the real nature of Christ's death, so it 
 
222 Testimonies 
 
 likewise served this further purpose, a purpose 
 of great importance, to declare the Abolition 
 
 OF SACRIFICES IN REVEALED RELKJION. For if in 
 
 the most solemn act of worship, where a sacrifice 
 always took place, a commemoration only of a 
 sacrifice is celebrated, it is plain all sacrificial 
 rites are excluded from that religion, and (if that 
 religion be the completion of God's religious 
 dispensations) consequently abolished ' (' Dis- 
 course on the Lord's Supper, Works, vol. x., 
 pp. 349, 350. London, 1811). 
 
 Professor Hey, 
 ' As to all the sacrifices of the Mass and the 
 sacrifice of Christ making but one, that seems 
 quite a gratis dictum and no argument. 
 Hebrews v. 3, compared with vii. 24-2 8, shows 
 that no man can be a priest in the room of 
 Christ to offer up the Christian sacrifice. Read 
 1 Peter iii. 1 8 : Whatsoever completes types 
 makes a conclusion, that therefore did Christ. 
 On 1 Peter i. 20 we observe, that as Christ 
 was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the 
 world. He must be the only j^ropitiatory Sacrifice 
 for the sins of all mankind. According to 
 Hebrews x. 2, 3, whatever sacrifice is repeated 
 
AGAINST THE MaSS 223 
 
 cannot take away sin. Either Christ *?(//(^r.s- in 
 the sacrifice of the Mass, or he does not ; if He 
 suffers He must be ever suffering (against Phil. ii. 
 9 ; Heb. ix. 26), if not it is no real sacrifice; 
 add Heb. ix. 22 : I will not detain you with 
 producing more authorities in so plain a case. 
 Private Masses are against 1 Cor. x. 17 ; 
 xii. 13, etc. 
 
 ' Masses may be called blasp/ternons as de- 
 grading Christ, dragging Him, as it were, down 
 from heaven for a few soui^ — merely to describe 
 the thing seems a sort of blasphemy, a poor priest 
 lahonring with a wafer in the occupation and 
 craft of offering up our blessed Lord ! treating 
 a happy and glorious Being '' crowned with 
 glor}^ and honour " (Heb. ii. 9) as wretched and 
 despicable — nay, numberless priests doing this at 
 the same time, and muttering at numberless altars. 
 Books of travels which relate these facts must be 
 shocking to every serious reader ' {' Lectures in 
 Divinity,' vol. ii., pp. 5 80, 5 81. Cambridge, 
 
 1841). 
 
 Bishop Tomline. 
 
 ' The principle upon which the Popish Masses 
 are founded is not authorized by Scripture. . . . 
 The sacrifices of Masses may therefore justly 
 
224 Testimonies against the Mass 
 
 be called "fables" since they have no authority 
 in Scripture ; and they are " hlas/jhcmons," inas- 
 much as they derogate from the sufficiency of 
 the death and passion of Christ as an expiation 
 for the sins of mankind ' (' Exposition of 
 XXXIX. Articles,' pp. 4 83, 4 84. London, 
 1835). 
 
 Bishop Cleaver. 
 ' *•' Every priest," says this Apostle, " appeareth 
 dailv ministerino", and ofttimes offereth one 
 manner of offering, which can never take away sins. 
 But this man, after He had offered one Sacrifice 
 for sins, sitteth for ever at the right hand of 
 God "... The sacrifices of the Mosaic law were 
 therefore to be repeated so often as the acts 
 or omissions producing legal uncleanness render 
 them needful. But a full remission of the sins 
 of mankind being promised as the privilege of the 
 covenant purchased by the sacrifice of Christ's 
 death, for it is said " their sins and iniquities 
 will I remember no more," there remaineth, to 
 use the Apostle's words, '^ no more offering for 
 sins." To attribute therefore atonement or expia- 
 tion to any subsequent rite is to eontrailiet tJie whole 
 sense of Scriptnre'" ' ('Sermon before University 
 of Oxford, Nov. 28, 1790.' Oxford, 1791). 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 NOTE A. (See p. 84.) 
 
 On the Publication of ^lfric's Homily by Archbishop 
 
 Parker. 
 
 Strype tells us, in his life of Archbishop Parker : ' Among 
 the ancient books and treatises which our prelate, greatly 
 studious of antiquity, occasionally set forth, I make little 
 doubt to add that Saxon sermon (which as near as I can 
 guess about this year [1566] appeared abroad) of the Paschal 
 Lamb, and of the Sacramental body and blood of Christ, 
 written in the old Saxon tongue before the Conquest, and 
 appointed in the reign of the Saxons to be pronounced to 
 the people before they should receive the Communion on 
 Easter Day, which sermon speaks of that Sacrament plainly 
 and evidently contrary to the novel doctrine of the Papal 
 transubstantiation. The book is intituled, A testimony of 
 antiquity, shetoing the ancient faith of the Church of England, 
 touching the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord 
 here iniblicly preached, and also received, in the Saxon time, 
 above 700 years ago.' 
 
 No doubt the special point for which this ' Testimony ' 
 was published was its witness to the significant sense in 
 which the words of institution had then been understood. 
 ' The Apostle Paul sayth, that the Israelites did eat the 
 
 15 
 
226 Appendix 
 
 same ghostly meat, and drink the same ghostly drink : 
 because the heavenly meate that fedde them fourtye yeares, 
 and the water which from the stone did flowe, had significa- 
 tion of Christ's bodye, and his bloude, that now be offered 
 daylye in God's Churche. It was the same which we now 
 offer : not bodely, but ghostly ' (Thomson's edition, p. 31). 
 
 This was an echo of that teaching of St. Augustin, of 
 which Rupert of Deutz had declared that if an angel from 
 heaven should proclaim it, it must not be received (see 
 ' Lectures on Lord's Supper,' p. 64). And it was clearly 
 as contradictory to the Eomish doctrine of the Real Presence 
 as it was to the augmentation conception of Rupert. 
 
 Yet the fact of this homily being published by the 
 authority of the Bishops was afterwards appealed to by an 
 anonymous (and somewhat scurrilous) writer as evidence 
 ' For the Mass's being a sacrifice for the living and the 
 dead.' ' So Abbot ^Ifrike ... an author, the rather to 
 be esteemed, as having had no less than the two Archbishops, 
 and thirteen of Queen Elizabeth's Bishops at once for his 
 vouchers upon his first publication ' (extract of the ' First 
 Liturgy of King Edward VI. . . . showing how far it was 
 Popishly affected,' p. 22). 
 
 And this writer's example has recently been followed, 
 unwittingly and unwillingly (we may be sure), by two able 
 and learned Presbyters of the Church of England. 
 
 No doubt, by a singular inadvertence, the authors of 
 ' De Hierarchia Anglican;! ' have alleged this edition of 
 iElfric's homily as witnessing to the views of the English 
 Reformed Church on the doctrine of the Mass. 
 
 Thus they have written : ' MatthcEus enim Parker, jam 
 Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis, cum homiliam ab antecessors 
 suo iElfrico conscriptam typis mandavissit, plane docuit, 
 " Ipsum quidem Christum semel passum, nee minus 
 passionem Ejus in Missa per mysterium S. Eucharistiae 
 
Appendix 227 
 
 quotidie reuovatam esse." Neque id merum erat antiqui- 
 tatis testimonium, quindecim enim Episcopi hujus libelli 
 doctrinam subscriptis nominibus conGrmarunt. Multi, 
 fatemur, coutra dixerunt ; noa illi quidem veri Ecclesiaj 
 Anglicanae defensores, sed potius lues Calviniana, qui in 
 Ecclesia demorabantur, benelicia corripiebaut, dignitates 
 sibi arrogabant.' 
 
 The words of yElfric's homily are these : ' Once suffered 
 Christ by Himself, but yet, nevertheless. His suffering is 
 daily renewed at the Mass through mystery of the holy 
 housel. Therefore the holy Mass is profitable both to the 
 living and to the dead ' (p. 36, Thomson's edition, 1849). 
 
 If the prefatory certificate had not unhappily escaped the 
 notice of the authors of ' De Hierarchia Anglicana,' they 
 would surely have seen that the Archbishops and Bishops 
 who signed it (so far as they are responsible for the pub- 
 lication) must no longer take a place among those whom 
 they regard as the * veri Ecclesia? Anglicange defensores,' 
 but must be classed among those whom they designate as 
 ' lues Calviniana,' seeing that this doctrine of iElfric's lies 
 at the root of the very first point to which the Archbishops 
 and Bishops take exception as ' not consonant to sound 
 doctrine.' The homily is not allowed to go forth without 
 a disclaimer of the doctrine of a Mass-sacrifice profitable 
 to the quick and dead (cf. p. 81 above). 
 
 On the subject of this homily and its publication by 
 Parker, see Strype's 'Life of Parker,' book iii., c. xv., 
 pp. 237 sqq. See also Soames' ' Bampton Lectures,' pp. 
 384-389 and 421 sqq. Also papers on ' Eucharistic Pre- 
 sence,' p. 652. 
 
 If it were possible to restrict the subscriptions of the other 
 Bishops to the mere certification (see Perry's ' Declaration 
 on Kneeling,' p. 218), Parker's name would remain re- 
 sponsible for the doctrinal statement. 
 
22 8 Appendix 
 
 Much of the homily, as Archbishop Ussher has shown, 
 was taken from the Book of Eatramn, and (as Dr. Moule 
 truly states) ' the passages which corresponded were just 
 those which were supposed by the Eomanists in the sixteenth 
 century to be the forgery of the Eeformers ' (Eidley's ' Brief 
 Declaration,' p. 210). 
 
 The doctrinal statement is in full accord with w'hat we 
 know of Parker's doctrinal views. See ' Papers on Eucharistic 
 Presence,' pp. 633-653. See also Parker's ' De Antiquitate 
 Britannicee Ecclesiae,' pp. 508, 512. London, 1729. It is 
 a strange mistake, indeed, by which Parker has been re- 
 presented as one of very different views. He was regarded 
 by Eeformers of his own day as a man ' teres atque rotuudus 
 et sincerge religionis assertor vehemens' (see Cox, in ' Zurich 
 Letters,' i., p. 187). 
 
 Fuller wrote : ' He [Parker] confuted the character which 
 one gives of antiquaries, "that generally they are either 
 superstitious or supercilious," his skill in antiquity being 
 attended with soundness of doctrine and humility of 
 manners' (Fuller's 'History,' vol. ii., p. 285. Edition 
 Oxford, 1845). 
 
 NOTE B. (See p. 123 ; see also pp. 21, 96, 97, 195.) 
 On the Two Distinct Senses of the Vekb ' to Offer.' 
 
 It will be noted that Bishop Bedell acknowledges ' we 
 do offer sacrifice for the quick and dead,' the statement 
 being immediately guarded against misinterpretation by 
 qualifying explanation. 
 
 So the Cologne Council of 1536, under Archbishop Her- 
 mann, had said : ' Immolamus hostiam pro vivis et defunctis, 
 dum pro illis Patrem per Filii mortem deprecamur ' 
 (cap. xxvii., fol. xxix a. Col., 1538). 
 
Appendix 229 
 
 And so Jewel : • Thus we offer up Christ, that is to say, 
 an example,* a commemoration, a remembrance of the 
 death of Christ. This kind of sacrifice was never denied, 
 but M. Harding's real sacrifice was yet never proved ' 
 (Works, P.S., ii., p. 729). 
 
 So also Brevint : ' We must also celebrate, and in a 
 maimer offer to God, and expose and lay before Him the 
 holy memorials of that great Sacrifice on the Cross. . . . 
 But that we should offer also Christ Himself, our Lord and 
 our God, to whom we must offer ourselves ; it is a piece 
 of devotion never heard of among men, till the Mass came 
 in to bring such news ' (' Depth and Mystery,' p. 30). 
 
 So, too, Bishop Buckeridge : ' Though these be not idem 
 sacrificium . . . yet it is idem sacrificatum . . . Christ 
 crucified, that is, represented to God, and communicated 
 to us. . . . In Baptism, in like manner ... we do as it 
 were, offer up Christ crucified by way of representation ' 
 (quoted in Tract 81, p. 86). 
 
 And so Archbishop Wake (in even stronger language) : 
 ' Whilst thus with faith we represent to God the death of 
 His Son for the pardon of our sins, we are persuaded that 
 we incline His mercy the more readily to forgive them. 
 We do not, therefore, doubt but that this presenting to God 
 Almighty this sacrifice of our blessed Lord is a most effectual 
 manner of applying His merits to us ' (' Exposition of the 
 Doctrine of the Church of England,' p. 63. London, 1687). 
 
 But the language of Bishop Bedell should be specially 
 compared with the words of Eidley (spoken in reply to the 
 statement that ' a council says that the priest doth offer an 
 unbloody sacrifice of the body of Christ '). ' I say it is well 
 said, if it be rightly understood. ... It is called unbloody, 
 and is offered after a certain manner and in a mystery, and 
 
 * Referi'ing to quotation just made from Chrysostom, ' Hoc sacri- 
 ficium examplar illius est.' 
 
23 Appendix 
 
 as a representation of that bloody sacrifice, and he doth not 
 lie who saith Christ to be offered ' (see Moule's edition of 
 ' Brief Declaration,' p. 289). It is important to mark clearly 
 the distinction between two senses of the verb to offer as 
 employed by divines in this relation. (1) In the one sense 
 it is used to signify ' the offering symholically to vieiv,' and 
 is, therefore, nearly equivalent to pleading — pleading in the 
 sacramental remembering, and showing forth the Lord's 
 death. It indicates the mystical and representative pleading 
 of the One Sacrifice once for all sacrificially offered and 
 accepted for the remission of sins (see Goode, ' Divine Eule,' 
 vol. ii., pp. 364, 365, 382, 398, 404). In this sense (however 
 in prevalent use among the Fathers, after the time of Cyprian) 
 it is not found in holy Scripture (nor in the Book of Common 
 Prayer), but (with explanation and caution that it should 
 be ' rightly understood ') it has been frequently allowed and 
 accepted by English divines as consonant with Protestant 
 doctrine (see Waterland, Works, vol. v., p. 286, and especially 
 pp. 129 and 183 ; and vol. i., p. 206). 
 
 In this sense it was admitted by the Puritan Perkins, who 
 wrote : ' In this sense the faithful, in their prayers, do offer 
 Christ as a sacrifice unto God the Father for their sins, in 
 being wholly carried away in their minds and affections 
 unto that only and true Sacrifice, thereby to procure and 
 obtain God's greater favour unto them ' (' Demonstration 
 of the Problem ; Sacrifice of the Mass,' Works, vol. ii., 
 p. 551. London, 1617). 
 
 In this sense it was accepted and used even by Baxter, 
 who wrote : ' He hath ordained . . . that by faith and 
 prayer they might, as it were, offer Him up to God — that 
 is, might show the Father that sacrifice, once made for sin, 
 in which they trust' ('Christian Directory,' Part II., 
 c. xxiv., § 2 ; Works, vol. iv., p. 316. London, 1830). And 
 in some such unsacrificial sense Bossuet would apparently 
 
Appendix 231 
 
 desire to explain Christ's offering Himself up in the 
 Eucharist, ' according to the expression of the holy Fathers 
 of the Church ' (' Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church,' p. 146 ; see also pp. 141, 135. Paris, 1672). But 
 this is certainly not ' according to the expression ' of the 
 Council of Trent, nor of his own language (in its natural 
 acceptation) as found in p. 137. It is, in fact, just explain- 
 ing away what he there calls ' a most true and real 
 sacrifice.' 
 
 Bossuet's book was never approved by the doctors of the 
 Sorbonne, and was condemned as scandalous and pernicious 
 by the University of Louvain (see ' Eomish Mass and English 
 Church,' p. 26). 
 
 (2) In the other sense it is used to signify the real 
 sacrificial oblation of the hostia to God the Father on the 
 visible altar by the action (in some sort) of the priest then 
 and there. And this it is which (notwithstanding all 
 minimizing explanations of its relation to the sacrifice of the 
 Cross in the past) our Divines have so constantly and con- 
 sistently regarded as the blasphemy of the Mass (see 
 especially Calixtus, as quoted in Cosin's Works, vol. v., 
 pp. 350, 351, A.C.L.). 
 
 It is important also to observe that the first sense naturally 
 implies the Eeal Absence, and the second sense requires the 
 Eeal Presence (in the Eomish sense) sub speciebus. It is of 
 the very essence of the Mass that in it is the hypos tatical 
 oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ. This is strongly 
 insisted upon even by Bossuet (pp. 140, 149). It needed 
 no special insight into the Eomish doctrine to see clearly 
 (with Bishop Andrewes) that with transubstantiation taken 
 away the sacrifice of the Mass must fall to pieces. Nothing 
 but commemoration remains when the Corporal Presence 
 is gone. 
 
 It was what Eomish divines constantly insisted on, that 
 
232 Appendix 
 
 their teaching of the sacrifice was held together by, and was 
 built upon, the doctrine of the Corporal Presence. Indeed, 
 in Bellarmine's teaching the Presence is for the very purpose 
 of the sacrifice. He says : ' Eucharistia potuisset vere et 
 proprie sacramentum esse, etiamsi Christi Corpus reipsa 
 non contineret. Quae igitur causa est cur debuerit neces- 
 sario Eucharistia Christi Corpus reipsa continere, nisi ut 
 posset vere, et proprie Deo Patri a nobis offerri, et proinde 
 sacrificium esse vere ac proprie dictum ?' (' De Missa,' Lib. I., 
 cap. xxii., c. 1021 ; see ' Eomish Mass and Enghsh Church,' 
 p. 89; and ' Eucharistic Worship,' pp. 177, 178). 
 
 But it may be asked — Do all Eoman Catholic divines 
 accept the teaching of Bellarmine ? and do not some beside 
 Bossuet speak of the offering in the first sense ? And it may 
 be answered, that undoubtedly some do so use the word 
 offer in the sense of offering to view the One Sacrifice perfected 
 in the past, i.e., and apparently in the sense which should 
 naturally imply the Eeal Absence, and this in connection 
 with the minimized sense of propitiation (see ' Dangerous 
 Deceits,' p. 72) ; but that they all (as their position 
 demands), with very few exceptions, have something to set 
 ia front of this — something which faith is to look to in the 
 very offering (in the other sense) of the priest on the altar — 
 something which (however dependent) is really distinct 
 from the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and which requires 
 and depends upon the Eeal Presence of Christ's body and 
 blood sub speciebus (see Dean Field as quoted above, pp. 96, 
 97 ; and Cosin as quoted, pp. 165, 166). 
 
 This strange inconsistency may be very well illustrated 
 by a reference to the teaching of the Presbyter Cardinal 
 Franzelin. 
 
 It is impossible to conceive or desire anything more 
 satisfactory than Franzelin's teaching of the one atonement 
 by the one perfect sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, made 
 
V Appendix 233 
 
 by Christ on the Cross (see his ' De S. S. Eucharistia,' 
 Part II. ; Theses v. vi. vii., pp. 326-335). It is impossible 
 to read it without thankfulness for his faithful testimony 
 to this truth. Indeed, so far it might well be desired that 
 all Protestant theologians had given by their trumpets as 
 certain a sound. 
 
 And consistently with this we find him speaking of the 
 Eucharistic offering as the offering in representation and 
 exhibition of the perfect sacrifice once offered. Thus he 
 writes : ' Sistet et offert se Christus in hoc incruento sacrificio 
 ut victimam, formaliter quatenus meritum nostras redemp- 
 tionis et satisfactionem pro nostris peccatis complevit in 
 sacrificio cruento, et sub formali ratione hujus meriti et 
 satisfactionis completee hie jugiter se offert, ac proinde 
 totura illud meritum consummatum continue renovata 
 oblatione Deo Patri reprsesentat et exhibet ' (p. 871). 
 
 Again : ' Satisfactio intelligitur objective ipsum opus quo 
 satisfit pro injuria illata, impetratio autem et interpellatio 
 potest dici etiam meriti olim consummati repraesentatio, ut 
 vi illius beneficia concedantur ' (p. 372). And again he 
 speaks of the ' sacrificium, quo satisfactio in cruce con- 
 summata pro determinatis peccatoribus diviuo conspectui 
 exhibetur ' (p. 376). 
 
 So far Franzelin might almost seem to take his part 
 among those followers of Yasquez who are accused by 
 Cardinal Cienfuegos of reducing the sacrifice of the altar to 
 a ' nuda commemoratio sacrificii in cruce peracti,' and whose 
 view was thought to commend itself for this ' quod sit 
 facilior et ea admissa Protestantes jam nihil habeant, cur 
 in Missa verum sacrificium oiferri negent ' (pp. 392, 393, see 
 Forbes, ' Considerationes Modestse,' vol. ii., p. 580, A.C.L.). 
 
 But he cannot allow himself to be classed with such, nor 
 with the followers of Lessius, who only add to the com- 
 memoration the vera separatio vi verhoriim. And, therefore, 
 
234 Appendix 
 
 while desiring to shield Yasquez from the charge of Cien- 
 fuegos and the anathema of Trent, he has his own way 
 (following de Lugo, UUoa, Viva, and others, pp. 402, 403) 
 of making the Eucharist in itself a true and proper sacrifice 
 (' verum sacrificium in se,' pp. 394, 395). It is by the 
 ' exinanitio ' in which Christ reduces Himself in the Eucharist 
 ' quod manens in sua plenitudine ac perfectione ad dexteram 
 Patris, simul induerit in altaribus Ecclesiae militantibus 
 modum existendi sacramentalem ac statum cibi et potus ' 
 (p. 402, see p. 397). ' Talis " exinanitio " ad exprimendam 
 majestatem absoluti dominii Dei et satisfactionem pro 
 reatibus nostris morte completam non solum satis intelligitur 
 ut vere et proprie sacrificalis ; sed etiam, excepto sacrificio 
 cruento in cruce, nullam sublimiorem ac profundiorem 
 rationem veri et proprii sacrificii concipere possumus ' 
 (p. 405). 
 
 ' Sicut enim Christus Eedemptor sacrificatus est per 
 oblationem corporis sui semel, et semel intravit in sancta 
 per proprium sanguinem ; ita quotidie se offert ministerio 
 sacerdotum sese constituens per corpus et sanguinem 
 suam in statu cibi et potus sub speciebus panis et vini ' 
 (p. 413). 
 
 So then from a representative offering, or presenting 
 representatively to view the finished and perfect oblation 
 of the Cross, we are brought back again to a real (not 
 representative) offering of a real (not commemorative) 
 sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, which is not the 
 sacrifice of the Cross, though almost as sublime as that, and 
 which is not 'one' nor 'once,' but daily multiplied and 
 repeated (see p. 370, and especially note in p. 387). And 
 the language of the Fathers is translated from the region 
 of representation to that of reality — such language as this : 
 ' In Sacramento omni die populis immolatur ' — ' Pro nobis 
 iterum in hoc mysterio immolatur ' (p. 399). And this 
 
Appendix 235 
 
 sacrifice has its efficacy not only ' ex opere operantis,' but 
 also ' ex opere operato ' (p. 368). 
 
 And that this sacrifice is relative deducts (in his teaching) 
 nothing from its reality. He says : ' Esse sacrificium 
 relativum duo significat, esse scilicet in se verum et proprium 
 sacrificium . . . et insuper habere relationem ad alium 
 sacrificium ' (p. 3cS9). 
 
 And so he expounds the words of institution of real blood 
 in the sacred Supper as well as of the future blood-shedding 
 on the Cross : ' Hie est Sanguis mens, qui pro multis 
 effunditur sacrificio reali sed effusione mystica (represen- 
 tante) ; qui pro multis effundetur sacrificio et effusione reali 
 ac per presens sacrificium representata ' (pp. 386, 387). 
 
 ' Divinus Eedemptor in ipsa institutione banc distinctam 
 positionem corporis et sanguinis sub speciebus panis et 
 vini declarat esse " effusionem sanguinis." Dum scilicet 
 habet prae oculis effusionem realem in cruce, et sacrificium 
 prsesens corporis et sanguinis distinctim sub speciebus panis 
 et vini tanquam realem representationem illius, eodem 
 nomine complectitur sacrificium reprsesentans et sacrificium 
 repraesentatum ' (p. 386). 
 
 All this, I trust, may help to show how impossible it is 
 for Eoman Catholic theologians to rest in that sense of offer 
 which alone has been approved by English divines, and 
 which alone can be made to harmonize with the teaching 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews. How can such a sense 
 satisfy the requirements of the Canons of Trent or the 
 creed of Pope Pius ? 
 
 And how can any other sense escape the just condemna- 
 tion of our Article XXXI. ? 
 
 The offering (in the sense allowed) is no re-presenting of 
 any redemptive sacrifice (though it may be allowed to 
 include a representation of it), but it may rather be com- 
 pared (of course with an imperfect comparison) to the 
 
236 Appendix 
 
 showing of the receipt for a ransom price already paid (see 
 ' Eeceut Teachings Concerning the Eucharistic Sacrifice,' 
 p. 24). 
 
 We may shrink from using comparisons which may seem 
 to bring truths of Divine wisdom down to anything Uke 
 the level of human and earthly transactions. But if it is 
 important to make clear the distinction between the two 
 senses of offering, I think we may safely say (with reverent 
 caution) that the offering of the sacrifice to view is no more 
 a sacrificial offering than the displaying of the voucher of 
 an account paid is the same thing as the settling of the 
 account by payment. 
 
 It is no jxvrjixoa-vvov to be placed on an altar, and requires 
 the service of no sacerdotiwn, save the royal priesthood of 
 thankful believers. 
 
 It was excellently said in the Privy Council Judgment in 
 the Bennett case : ' The distinction between an act by which 
 a satisfaction for sin is made, and a devotional rite by which 
 the satisfaction so made is represented and pleaded before 
 God, is clear, though it is liable to be obscured, not only 
 in the apprehension of the ignorant, but by the tendency of 
 theologians to exalt the importance of the rite till the 
 distinction well-nigh disappears ' (p. 299, edit. Stephens). 
 
 NOTE C. (See p. 62 ; see also pp. 121. 183, 192, 202.) 
 
 On the Mass-Doctrine of Salmeron, and on the De- 
 pendent Character of the Mass-Sacrifice. 
 
 If I rightly understand the language of Salmeron (about 
 which I would not speak too confidently), there are in his 
 view two sacrifices, viz., that of the Supper, and that of 
 the Cross, both of infinite value, each distinct and (in some 
 
Appendix 2 37 
 
 sense) independent* (see quotations in text, p. Gl, and below, 
 No. 1), yet so connected that the one is (in some sense) 
 conducive to the other, and that in such sort that (in a 
 manner) the opus operatum of the other is dependent upon 
 it (see quotations, Nos. 6 and 10, below). 
 
 In contradistinction to these two infinite sacrifices is the 
 sacrifice of the Mass, the value and efficacy of which is 
 finite (see quotation. No. 8, below), and which, therefore, is 
 to be daily renewed, repeated, and iterated (see quotations, 
 Nos. 8, 11, and 12, below), and that as a provision for the 
 expiation of daily post-baptismal sins (see quotation, No. 3, 
 below). Each Mass is a distinct oblation (see quotation, 
 No. 8, below), distinct from that of the two infinite sacrifices, 
 and from that of every other finite Mass-sacrifice. But all 
 the distinct Mass-sacrifices (though true and propitiatory 
 sacrifices in themselves, see quotations, Nos. 3 and 12, 
 below) are dependent for their efficacy on one or other, 
 or both, of the two infinite sacrifices (see quotations, Nos. 8 
 and 11, below). Sometimes they are represented as de- 
 pendent on the sacrifice of the Supper (see quotations, 
 Nos. 4 and 11, below), sometimes on that of the Cross 
 (see quotations, Nos. 2, 5, and 9, below). And this de- 
 pendence is in such sort that the ixiany distinct finite 
 sacrifices become so included or contained in the infinite, 
 that they lose (in some sort) their plurality (see quotation, 
 No. 12, below) in this unifying connection (see quotation. 
 No. 5, below). The efficacy of the finite sacrifices consists 
 in the application of the infinite sacrifices (see quotation, 
 No. 4, below). 
 
 * Inasmuch as one does not borrow sacrificial efficacy from the 
 other, but each derives its value immediately from the Person and 
 perfections (more conspicuously than from the redeeming work or 
 merit, the view of which is not to be confined to the Death) of 
 Christ. See quotations, Nos. 1 and 7. 
 
2 3 8 Appendix 
 
 The following quotations are here given to assist the 
 reader in forming his own judgment on this matter. They 
 are taken from the ' Comment, in Evangelicam Historiam,' 
 torn, ix., edit. Coloniaa Agrippinae, 1602-1604: : 
 
 (1) ' Quanquam omnes actiones suas Christus Patri pro 
 nobis obtulerit, et propterea dici possint oblationes ; non 
 tamen omnes sunt sacrificia, sed duse tantum, nempe oblatio 
 sui ipsius in coena, et oblatio sui ipsius in cruce : quia illis 
 duabus tantum accessit actio mystica. Quae, ut exemplo 
 aliquo illustrentur, sit v. g. vitis viginti palmitibus praedita 
 producentibus uvas albas, quorum nullus accipiat virtutem 
 productivam ab aliquo alio palmite, sed quivis a vite ipsa 
 immediate. Ponamus deinde, duos palmites supremos uvas 
 tam nigras, quam albas proferre. Ad hunc modum, omnes 
 Christi actiones a persona Verbi, et charitate humanitatis 
 Christi in infinitum promerendi vim habent, et ob id expiandi 
 peccata, et satisfaciendi apud Deum ' (Tract. 31, p. 247). 
 
 (2) ' Ut maxime demus non esse sacrificium sine macta- 
 tione, in sacrificio Missae asserimus illam praecedere : eadem 
 enim est hostia, et oblatio hscc atque ilia qutc in cruce : 
 cumque ilia mactatio infiniti fuit valoris, non eget nova 
 mactatione ut repetatur, quia satis est illam semel factam 
 repraesentari. Etsi igitur hostia nostra viva sit, et incruenta 
 in seipsa : repraesentatione tamen ac recordatione cruenta 
 est, ac mortua ' (Tract. 31, p. 242). 
 
 (3) ' Eatio enim peccati, et fiducial in Deo collocandae 
 exigebat, post Baptismum aliquod institui sacrificium. Nam 
 ubicunque est expiatio peccati, ibi est hostia, et sacrificium, 
 in quo omnia Sacramenta nostra valent. . . . Si igitur talem 
 ac tantam, expiandi peccata ac scelera, rationem in hoc 
 sacrificio incruento sitam videmus, merito iugentes Deo 
 gratias agere debemus, qui nostras fragilitati sublevandiE, 
 atque confirmaudae tantum antidotum pra3paravit' (Tract. 31, 
 pp. 248, 249). 
 
Appendix 239 
 
 (4) ' Ut oratio Christi applicatur nobis per nostras 
 orationes, ita Christi oblatio, sive in coena, sive in cruce, 
 per earn quam f aciunt Sacerdotes oblationem in Eucharistia, 
 nobis communicantur ' (Tract. 31, p. 244 i). 
 
 (5) ' Nee sunt plures oblationes : quoniam omnes illae 
 referuutur ad illani crucis, et in ea virtute contineutur ' 
 (Tract. 31, p. 244 i). 
 
 (6) ' Non igitur derogat sacrificium Christi in ccsna 
 cruento crucis sacrificio, sicut nee fluvius irrigans terram, 
 derogat ipsi mari, quia mare est, quod tacite mittit aquas 
 fluvio, ut possit irrigare, et in virtute ejus irrigat : atque 
 in hunc modum opus operatum hujus sacrificii a cruce 
 pendet' (Tract. 31, p. 248&). 
 
 (7) ' Quod autem cruenta hostia, id est, pessio, sive mors 
 Christi non excludat, imo includat alias praccedentes 
 actiones, probatur efficaciter . . . tunc autem non coepit 
 obedientia Christi, sed ab incarnatione, et per totam vitam 
 usque ad mortem protensa est, et per earn meruit esse 
 mundi Salvator ' (Tract. 31, p. 247/>). 
 
 (8) ' Quod ergo certus, et finitus sit gratiae fructus, qui 
 ex vi sacrificii, et institutione Christi colHgitur, probatur. 
 Primo, quia minus est meritum oblationis Christi in sacrificio 
 Missae, quam fuerit sacrificii meritum in cruce peracti. 
 Nam ibi oblata sunt Deo passio FiHi Ejus, realis, et 
 ignominiosa pariter, et afflictione plena mors, quam ex 
 obedientia, et charitate sastinuit : quare meritum satis- 
 factionis illius hostioe suo jure debuit esse infinitum. At 
 in Misste sacrificio commemoratio, et reprsesentatio illius 
 passionis, et mortis, in vero tamen Christi corpore, et 
 sanguine sub panis, et vini speciebus ofi'ertur. . . . Christus, 
 qui summa sapientia est, et cum ratione cuncta operatur, 
 non posuit tantum fructum in repraesentatione suae mortis, 
 quantum in sua hostia cruenta sibi comparavit : in cujus 
 rei signum passionem suam, utpote iufiniti fructus, et pro- 
 
240 Appendix 
 
 pitiationis, non repetivit : Hostiae vero incruenta oblationem 
 quotidie repeti voluit, quod finitus est, et in dies singulos 
 colligendus. Habet prasterea aliud discrimen haec hostia 
 ab ilia cruenta, quod illara, cum viator esset, et tempore 
 quo mereri poterat, obtulit : at in Eucharistia Christus non 
 habet uUum novum meritum, cum beatus, et comprehensor, 
 extraque tempus omne merendi existat. Si quis ergo 
 fructus est meriti, aut satisfactionis in hac hostia incruenta, 
 ad antiquum meritum in cruce comparatum referendum 
 est' (Tract. 33, p. 265 &). 
 
 (9) ' Nee est novum Missam offerre aut pro peccatis, aut 
 pro satisfactionibus quo3 pro peccatis debentur : cum Passio 
 Christi sit, quae offertur in ea ' (Tract. 33, p. 260 i). 
 
 (10) ' Ees contentos in hoc Sacramento, sunt infiniti 
 meriti, et satisfactionis, et in infinitum Deo per se gratae, 
 nempe Corpus et Sanguis Jesu Christi, qui Deus, et homo 
 est, qui propter Crucis obedientiam meritum sibi infinitum 
 apud Patrem comparavit, ut possit pro omnium peccatis 
 satisfacere, eosque Patri reconciliare ' (Tract. 33, p. 264 a). 
 
 (11) ' Ista consequentia non valet, Christus obtulit in 
 coena cum infinite merito, ergo non est quod nos offeramus 
 incruentam hostiam Deo ; irao ob id obtulit, ut id offerre 
 non tantum verbis, set etiam factis doceret, et ut sua ilia 
 infiniti pretii oblatione in coena celebrata efficaciam et 
 virtutem tribueret omnibus nostris incruenti sacrificii 
 oblationibus, quas in Novo Testamento propter Christi 
 praBceptum iteramus ' (Tract. 33, p. 267 a). 
 
 (12) ' Iteratur ergo haec hostia, ut Christi praecepto 
 pareamus, et ut remissionem uovi alicujus peccati in dies 
 admissi, quod antea expiatum non erat, impetramus , . . 
 denique ut unum, et idem donum hoc sacrificio pluries 
 oblato efficacius a Deo obtinere valeamus ' (Tract. 31, 
 p. 267 6). 
 
 In maintaining the finite efficacy of the Mass, Sahneron 
 
Appendix 241 
 
 was, of course, agreeing with most other Romish divines 
 of note. It seems strange that he should have failed to 
 see that his argument against an infinite value in the Mass 
 might (in the main) be applied also against the infinite 
 character of the sacrifice in ccena. 
 
 It is believed that these quotations will at least suffice 
 to make it evident that Salmeron was far enough from 
 consistently attributing anything like an independent 
 character to the efficacy of the Mass-sacrifice. 
 
 On the other hand, the fact that complaints were made 
 to the Pope by the Queen-mother of Francis II., of France, 
 of the teaching that the sacrifice of the Mass-priest was 
 more available than the very sacrifice of Christ upon the 
 Cross (see Meyer, ' Catechism Explained,' p. 519. London, 
 1623), may fairly be taken as evidence tending to confirm 
 the opinion expressed in the text (p. 58) that in the darkness 
 of extreme superstition among ' the ignorant and vulgar ' 
 there may have been a tendency to regard the Mass-sacrifice 
 as practically independent, or, at any rate, to disregard, if 
 not to lose sight of, its dependent character. If the possi- 
 bility of such an error had been altogether out of the 
 question, the friar would hardly have dared to preach such 
 a doctrine, and if he had, there would have been no need 
 for any alarm at the consequence of such teaching. ' No 
 magnifier of the Mass ' (says Meyer) ' durst have sung so 
 high a note but in a Church where the true remembrance 
 of Christ's death is so obscured and falsified by the bastard 
 Mass ' (see above, p. 120). 
 
 In the view of the sacrifice of the Mass as of more avail 
 than that of the Cross, it is difficult to suppose that the 
 greater efficacy was regarded as dependent on the less. 
 
 The same conclusion might, I believe, probably be drawn 
 from the words of Gardiner, ' When men add unto the Mass 
 an opinion of satisfaction or of a new redemption, then do they 
 
 16 
 
242 Appendix. 
 
 put it to another use than it was ordained for.' (Dixon, 
 III., 264. See 'Church Quarterly Review,' April, 1896, 
 p. 41.) Gardiner would hardly have so spoken if anythino; 
 like such a notion had been an unheard-of thing. Neither 
 would Luther have said, ' Cur jam aperte concionentur pro 
 peccatis post Baptismum com missis Christum non satis- 
 fecisse sed tantum pro culpa originali ' ('Conciones ad 
 16 Joan,' ibid.). 
 
 Other sayings of Reformers can hardly fail, I think, to 
 leave the impression that the teaching of the monks did 
 tend sometimes to produce some such notions among the 
 ignorant. See 'Dangerous Deceits,' p. 41. 
 
INDEX (3F AUTHORITIES 
 
 QUOTED AND EEFEEEED TO. 
 
 Abbott, Bishop Eobert, 101- 
 103 
 
 ^Ifric, 84, 225 
 
 Aliphanus, 62 
 
 Alley, Bishop, 89, 90 
 
 Andrewes, Bishop, 7, 8, 108, 
 109 
 
 Answer to ' Papist Misrepre- 
 sented,' 190 
 
 Babington, Bishop, 103, 104 
 
 Bancroft, Archbishop, 94, 95 
 
 Barbon, 176 
 
 Barclay, 35 
 
 Barrow, Dr. Isaac, 166 
 
 Baxter, 280 
 
 Bayly, Bishop, 117, 118 
 
 Bedell, Bishop, 7, 122, 123 
 
 Bellarmine, 232 
 
 Berington, ' Memoirs of Pan- 
 
 zani,' 28 
 Beveridge, Bishop, 188, 189 
 Bilson, Bishop, 100, 101 
 Bingham, 209, 210 
 Birkbek, 142, 143 
 Bossuet, 231 
 Bramhall, Archbishop, 26- 
 
 28, 153-155 
 Brett, 38, 204 
 
 Brevint, 180, 181, 229 
 Buckeridge, Bishop, 109-111, 
 
 229 
 Bull, Bishop, 10, 48, 187, 
 
 188 
 Burnet, Bishop, 7, 12 
 
 Callixtus, 231 
 
 Canons of 1640, 132, 133 
 
 Cardwell's ' Synodalia,' 6 
 
 Carr's ' Life of Ussher,' 7 
 
 Carter, Canon T. T., 96 
 
 Casaubon, i., 35 
 
 ' Christian Eemembrancer,' 
 
 49,51 
 Churton, 85 
 Cienfuegos, 233 
 Clagett, Dr. Wm., 12 
 Cleaver, Bishop. 224 
 Cooper, Bishop T., 82, 88 
 Cosin, Bishop, 162-166 
 Courayer, 41 
 Coverdale, 80, 81 
 Cowper, Bishop William (of 
 
 Galloway), 106, 107 
 Crakanthorp, 112, 113 
 Cranmer, 75, 76 
 Cudworth, 173 
 Cyprianus Anglicus, 30, 31 
 
244 
 
 Index of Authorities 
 
 Davenant, Bishop, 123, 124 
 Davenport (Sancta Clara), 
 
 39, 56 
 De Hierarchia Anglicana, 63, 
 
 226 
 De Lugo, 234 
 Dodwell, 191, 192 
 Dowden, Bishop, 42 
 D'Oyly's 'Life of Sanderson,' 
 
 8, 11 
 
 Ehs, J., 155, 156 
 Ellis, 185 ■ 
 
 Enchiridion Theologicuui 
 Anti-Eomanum, 12 
 
 Featley, 124-126 
 
 Feme, 143 
 
 Field, Bishop, 113, 114 
 
 Field, Dean, 95-98 
 
 Forbes, Bishop (Edinburgh), 
 
 24, 116, 233 
 Forbes, J. (of Corse), 126, 
 
 127 
 Ford, 218 
 
 Franzelin, 232, 233 
 Fulke, 88 
 Fuller, 134 
 
 Gauden, Bishop, 152, 153 
 Geste, 74, 75 
 Goode, Dean, 31, 40, 50 
 Goode on ' Eucharist,' 13 
 Grabe, 195-197 
 Grendal, Archbishop, 86 
 
 Hacket, Bishop, 159, 160 
 
 Haddon, 79 
 
 Hall, Bishop, 136, 137 
 
 Hallam, 29 
 
 Hammond, 9, 145.148 
 
 Hay ward, J., 3 
 
 Hermann, Archbishop, 228 
 
 Hey, 222, 223 
 
 Heylyn, 31-33, 134, 149-152 
 
 Hickes, Dr. G., 36, 37, 202, 
 
 203 
 Hook, Dean, 31 
 Hooker, 4, 92-94 
 Hooper, Bishop, 78, 79 
 Hooper, Bishop George, 12- 
 
 14, 211, 212 
 Horneck, 179, 180 
 Howley, Archbishop, 17 
 Hutchinson, 77 
 Hutton's 'x\uglicanMinistry,' 
 
 39, 51, 88 
 
 James I., King, 107, 108 
 James, Dr. T., 114 
 Jewell, Bishop, 80, 229 
 Johnson, John, 6, 37, 198, 
 199 
 
 Ken, Bishop, 13 
 Ke union, 3 
 Kettlewell, 177, 178 
 Kidder, Bishop, 186 
 
 Lake, Bishop, 117 
 
 Laney, Bishop, 169 
 
 Lathbury, ' History of Non- 
 jurors,' 39, 72, 134 
 
 Lathbury, ' History of Con- 
 vocation,' 134 
 
 Laud, Archbishop, 30, 31, 
 56, 128-131 
 
 Law, 220 
 
 Lawrence, 208 
 
 Lee, Dr. F. G., 56 
 
 Leighton, 170 
 
 Leriensis, 62 
 
 Leslie, 198 
 
 Lessius, 233 
 
 L'Estrange, 156, 157 
 
 Longley, Archbishop, 20 
 
 Mason, 104, 105 
 
 Mede, Joseph, 6, 121, 122 
 
 Mendham, 62 
 
Index of Authoritiks 
 
 245 
 
 Meyer, 120, 241 
 May rick, Canon, 8 
 Montague, Bishop, 28, 30, 
 
 131 
 Morality of Tractarianism, 
 
 50 
 Morley, Bishop, 11, 172,173 
 Morton, Bishop, 118, 119 
 Moule, 228 
 
 Neale's ' History of Puri- 
 tans,' 30 
 
 Newman, Cardinal, 22, 23, 
 52, 58, 66-68 
 
 Nicholls, 213 
 
 Nicholson, Bishop, 161, 162 
 
 Nicole, 41 
 
 Nowell, Dean, 85 
 
 Nuncios, The Pope's, 28, 31 
 
 Overall, 3-6 
 
 Overall's Convocation Book, 
 4, 5 
 
 ' Panzani Memoirs,' 28-30 
 • Papists not misrepresented,' 
 
 192 
 Parker, Archbishop, 5, 6, 84, 
 
 225, 228 
 Patrick, Bishop, 186, 187 
 Patrick, Dr. John, 189, 190 
 Payne, 179 
 Perkins, 230 
 Perry's ' History of Church 
 
 of England,' 28, 134 
 Perry's ' Declaration on 
 
 Kneeling,' 227 
 Piaillpotts, Bishop, 50 
 Pilkington, 84, 85 
 Plumptre's ' Life of Ken,' 13 
 Pocklington, 140, 141 
 Potter, Archbishop, 219, 220 
 Prideaux, Bishop, 138 
 Prynn's 'Canterbury's 
 
 Doom,' 28 
 
 Puller, 174 
 
 Pusey, Dr., 34, 35,40,41,47 
 
 Eeynolds, Bishop, 169 
 Eidley, 77, 228 
 Rogers, 98, 99 
 Eouth, Dr., 23 
 
 Salmeron, 61, 236-240 
 Sancta Clara, 50, 55, 56 
 Sancroft, Archbishop, 10, 11 
 Sanderson, Bishop, 8, 144, 
 
 145 
 Sandys, Archbishop, 86, 87 
 Sarpi, 62 
 Scriviner, 170 
 Seeker, Archbishop, 221 
 Sharp, Archbishop, 197 
 Sherlock, Dean, 190 
 Smith (Non-juror), 39 
 Soames, 227 
 Sparrow, Bishop, 171 
 Spinkes, 27, 201 
 StilUngfieet, 182-184, 190, 
 
 191 
 Strype, 81, 82, 225 
 Sutchffe, 115 
 
 Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, 9, 
 
 10, 158, 159 
 ' Testimony of Antiquity,' 84, 
 
 225 
 Theiner, 62 
 
 Thirlwall, Bishop, 57-59 
 Tiiorndike, H., 36, 167, 168 
 Tillotson, Archbishop, 176, 
 
 177 
 TomHne, Bishop, 223, 224 
 Towersou, 175 
 ' Tracts for the Times,' No. 
 
 81, 3, 7, 33, 35-37 
 Tyndale, 73 
 
 Ussher, Archbishop, 7, 134, 
 135, 228 
 
246 
 
 Index of Authorities 
 
 Vasquez, 233 
 
 Veneer, 219 
 
 ' Vendiciae Ecclesiae Angli- 
 
 canse,' by W. T., 132 
 Viva, 234 
 
 Wake, 205-208, 229 
 Warburton, 222 [218 
 
 Waterland, 38. 39, 131, 215- 
 Welchman, 213, 214 
 Whateley, Archbishop, 50 
 Whitaker, 89 
 White, Bishop, 139, 140 
 Whitgift, 6, 90, 91 
 
 Willet, 99, 100 
 
 Williams, Archbishop John, 
 
 138, 139 
 WiUiams, Bishop Griffith, 
 
 127, 128 
 Williams, Bishop John, 193 
 Wood's ' Athenae Oxonien- 
 
 ses,' o7 
 Wordsworth, Bishop C, 16- 
 
 19 
 Wren, Bishop, 157, 158 
 W. T., 132 
 
 Zurich Letters, 228 
 
 COEEIGENDA. 
 
 Page 27, line 10, add ' See also below, pp. 100, 105, 106, 117, 122, 129, 
 143, 144, 154, 155, 163-165, 187, 207.' 
 
 „ 30, „ 9, /or 'Apello' m«Z 'Appello.' 
 
 ,, 49, ,, 9 from bottom (note), /o;- 'himself rearZ 'herself,' 
 and for ' he ' read ' she.' 
 
 „ 62, „ 2, for ' 1612 ' read ' 1602 ' and add ' See Appendix, 
 Note C 
 
 „ 63, Note, line 6 from bottom, /o;- ' propitiation' read 'pro- 
 pitiatory.' 
 
 ,, 64, line 5, /or ' Ante' read ' Anti.' 
 
 „ 93, „ 3 from bottom, /o;- 'scholics' /-eaii ' scholies.' 
 
 „ 131, „ 4, /or ' Trials ' read ' Trial.' 
 
 „ 135, „ 7, for ' Ebrington ' read ' Elrington.' 
 
 „ 163, „ 3 from bottom add ' See also j.p. 282, 289, 290.' 
 
 THE END, 
 
 Elliot Stoili-, &2. PatKvnoster Roic, London. 
 
Price '6s. (jd. net. 
 
 ' DANGEROUS DECEITS :' 
 
 AN EXAMINATION OF THE TEACHING 
 OF OUR ARTICLE XXXL 
 
 By Rkv. N. DIMOCK, A.M. 
 
 • Mr. Dimock . . . has recently discussed the whole question with much ability 
 and moderation.'— 5(V(op of Worcester's Charge. 
 
 ' A very able vindication of the statement of our Thirty-first Article, that "the 
 S.acritices of Masses . . . were' blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." . . . We 
 admire the wisdom and charity displayed in this treatise.' — Record. 
 
 ' No one is better qualified than Mr. Dimock, by an exact and full knowledge of 
 the Eucharistic controversy, to vindicate the meaning of " our Article. " . . . The 
 appearance of his vindication is most timely, and the task has been accomplished with 
 marked ability. The book should henceforth form part of the library of every pro 
 fessional teacher who claims an acquaintance with the cui-rent errors of his own day. 
 — Church Intelligeacer. 
 
 ' Mr. Elliot Stock publishes " Dangerous Deceits," an examination of the Thirty-first 
 Church of England Article by Rev. N. Dimock, A.M., in which the author with unusual 
 learning expounds the Protestant attitude towards the Mass.' — Expositor. 
 
 ' Mr. Dimock goes thoroughly into the verbal and historical evidence, and has most 
 industriously collected numerous quotations to illustrate his argument. Among the 
 points on which the results of his labour can be examined with advantage ai e the 
 precarious natuie of the contention that " the doctrine of masses " and " the doctrine 
 of the Mass " are widely different, the bearing of the dates of the Articles and the 
 decrees of Trent, not only on the relation of the Articles to the Council of Trent in 
 general, and the useful catena of the statements of English divines in the appendix.' 
 Guaniion. 
 
 ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTEE ROW. 
 
BY THE SAME AU Til OIL 
 
 CUTITOSITIES OF PATRISTIC AND 
 MEDIEVAL LITERATURE. Nos. I. and II. 
 
 Price 3fZ. each. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEATH 
 OF CHRIST. 
 
 Price Is. 6d. 
 
 THE HOUR OF HOLY COMMUNION. 
 
 Price 6d. 
 
 THE EUCHARIST CONSIDERED IN ITS 
 SACRIFICIAL ASPECT. 
 
 Price Sd. 
 
 I / 
 
 SOME RECENT TEACHINGS CONCERNING 
 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 
 
 A REVIEW. 
 
 Price 6d. 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS AND THE 
 CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. 
 
 A REVIEW. 
 
 Price 3d. 
 
 THE THEOLOGY OF BISHOP ANDREWES. 
 
 Price Sd. 
 
 ELLIOT STOCK, C2, PATERNOSTEE EOW. 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER 
 TWO LECTURES WITK APPENDIX ON 
 THE AUGMENTATION THEORY. 
 
 Price 2s. 6d. 
 ELLIOT STOCK. 
 
 THE 'EGO BERENGARIUS; IN RELATION 
 
 TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 
 
 DOCTRINE OF THE EUCHARIST. 
 
 Price 2s. 
 ELLIOT STOCK. 
 
 THE ROMISH MASS AND THE 
 ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 Price 2s. 6d. In cloth, 3s. 6d. 
 
 ON EUCHARISTIC WORSHIP IN THE 
 ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 Price 6s. 6d. 
 
 ON ARTICLE XXIX., DEALING WITH THE 
 LETTERS OF GUESTE AND CECIL. 
 
 Price Is. 
 [Note. — This is No. 8 of the following.] 
 
 PAPERS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE 
 
 ENGLISH CHURCH CONCERNING 
 
 THE EUCHARISTIC PRESENCE. 
 
 Price 7s. 6d. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS IN 
 RELATION TO THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE. 
 
 Price 5s. 6d. 
 
 MAIDSTONE: VIVISH. EASTBOURNE: PULSFORD. 
 Post free on application. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 r r 
 
 
 
 rj.-. 
 
 
 
 
 PFR! 8 
 
 '^nfti 
 
 
 
 r lD X • 
 
 ilUUJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 QAYLORD 
 
 
 
 rP«<TED(NUSA 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 0027038459 
 
 MAY 21 1902 
 
 '^^on^c,