The Anatomy of the Mass, Book 1 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Foure and thirty contrarieties between the Lords holy Supper and the Maſſe; and how farre the Church of Rome is departed from the Inſtitution of the Lord.
NOne can deny but that our Lord Jeſus did inſtitute the holy Supper aright and as it ought: And it were an impiety to find fault with his inſtitution. Therefore the ſhorteſt way, yea the only meanes to end all our differences, would be to come back to Chriſts inſtitution, and to ſpeake as he ſpake, and to doe as he did. That is the thing which we deſire and beg with ſo much earneſtneſſe, and whereunto the Church of Rome can by no meanes agree. For the Councell of Trent in the XXII Seſſion denounceth Anathema on all thoſe that ſhall ſay that in the Canon of the Maſſe there is any errour. Yet nevertheleſſe it is evident that the Maſſe is nothing elſe but a changing and a diſfiguring of the Lords Inſtitution. Whereof we will give ſome examples.
1. Chriſt inſtituting the holy Supper among his Diſciples, ſpake in a knowne and intelligible tongue to the aſſiſtants. On the contrary, the Prieſt in the Maſſe ſpeaketh in a tongue which the people underſtand not.
2. Chriſt preſenting the Cup to his Diſciples, ſaid, Drinke ye all of it. And St. Paul in the 1 to the Cor. Chap. 11. verſ. 28. bids the people of Corinth to drink of the cup, ſaying, Let a man examine himſelfe, and ſo let him eate of that bread, and drink of that cup. And in the 10. Chap. 17. Verſe, We are all partakers of one bread, and of one cup: according to the Verſion of the Romane Church, ſolely authoriſed by the Councell of Trent.
3. Chriſt in celebrating the Euchariſt, ſpake not of ſacrificing his body, and made no offering unto God his Father. On the contrary, the Prieſt in the Maſſe pretends to ſacrifice Chriſts body, and offereth him up to God in ſacrifice propitiatory for the quick and for the dead, without a warrant, and without Gods command.
4. Chriſt in the holy Supper made no elevation of the hoſte, as likewiſe the Apoſtle worſhipped not the Sacrament, but ſat ſtill at the Table. On the contrarie, the Prieſt in the Maſſe lifts up the hoſte, and maketh the people to worſhip it.
5. Chriſt did not cauſe any bones nor reliques of Saints to be put under the ſacred table, and did not aske of God the remiſſion of ſinnes through the merits of thoſe Saints whoſe reliques were under the table. On the contrary, the Prieſt in the Maſſe, kiſſing the Altar, ſpeakes thus to God,aOramus te, Domine, per merita Sanctorum tuorum, quorum reliquiae hic ſunt, & omnium Sanctorum; ut indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea We pray thee, Lord, through the merits of thy Saints, whoſe reliques are here, that thou wilt vouchſafe to pardon me all my ſinnes.
6. Chriſt ſaid to his Apoſtles, Take, eate. On the contrary, in the Romane Church, a great number of private Maſſes are ſayd, at the intention of ſuch as pay for them, without communicants and without aſſiſtants, in which the Prieſt ſaith, Take, eate: but there is no body either for to take or for to eate. Yea even in publick Maſſes, the Prieſt oftentimes eateth and drinketh alone.
7. Three Evangeliſts, viz. S. Matth. in the 26 chapter, S. Marke in the 14. Chap. and S. Luke in the 22. and S. Paul in the eleventh chapter of the firſt to the Corinthians, teſtifie that Chriſt gave bread to his Diſciples, ſaying, He tooke bread, and brake it, and gave it. Now the Sacrament is not given but after the conſecration. Chriſt therefore gave bread after the conſecration. And Saint Paul, 1 to the Corinth. Chap. 11. Verſe 26.27. and 28. ſaith three ſeverall times that we eate bread. And in the 10 Chap. Verſe 16. he ſaith that wee breake bread. And in the 20 Chap. of the Acts, Verſe 7. it is ſaid that the Diſciples came together to breake bread. On the contrary, the Church of Rome teacheth, that in the Euchariſt no bread is eaten, and that the bread is not broken: but that which the Prieſt breakes in the Maſſe, is the body of Chriſt, which nevertheleſſe cannot be broken.
8. Chriſt giving that bread, ſaid, This is my body, declaring that the bread that he gave, was his body. On the contrary, the Romane Church teacheth that the bread is not the body of Chriſt: But that the bread is no more bread: and that it is tranſubſtantiated into Chriſts body, Now how the bread is Chriſts body, himſelfe teaches it, when he adds that it is his commemoration. Even as in the next line following he ſaith that the Cup is the New Teſtament, becauſe it is the ſigne and commemoration of it: according to the ſtile of the Scripture, that giveth to the ſignes and memorials the name of the thing which they doe ſignifie and repreſent.
9. Chriſt called that which was in the cup the fruit of the Vine, ſaying, I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine. On the contrary, the Church of Rome teacheth that that which is in the cup, is not the fruit of the Vine, but blood. And ſaith that in the Cup is not onelyonly the very blood of Chriſt, but alſo that his Body, and his Soule and his Divinity is there: and that the Body is whole in every drop of the Chalice. Whereupon it followeth (and the Roman Church beleeves it ſo) that Chriſt dranke his fleſh, and ſwallowed downe his owne ſoule and body, and ate himſelfe, and had his head in his mouth.
10. The Evangeliſts doe record that Chriſt having taken bread, bleſſed it. But according to the Church of Romes doctrine, which aboliſheth the ſubſtance of the bread in the Euchariſt, Chriſt did not bleſſe the bread; for, to deſtroy a thing and reduce it to nought, is not to bleſſe it.
11. Chriſt diſtributing the bread and breaking it, ſpake in the preſent tenſe, ſaying,bforeign quod frangitur. This is my body which is broken for you. Whereby it appeareth that by his body, he meant the Sacrament or commemoration of his body. For Chriſts naturall body cannot be broken. To ſhun the force of this argument, the Latin Verſion of the Romane Church hath corrupted this place, and in ſtead of theſe words, Which is broken for you, hath turned Which ſhall bee delivered for you, 1. Cor. 11.14. Quod pro vobis tradetur.putting delivering for breaking, and the future for the preſent. And indeed our Adverſaries are mightily peſtered to tell us what it is that the Prieſt breaketh in the Maſſe. Doth he breake bread? But they ſay that it is no more bread. Doth he breake Chriſts body? But it cannot be broken, and they themſelves ſay that it is whole and entire in the leaſt crum of the hoſte, as big and as large as it was upon the croſſe. Doth he breake the Accidents of bread which moſt fraudulouſly they call ſpecies, viz. the taſte, the colour, and roundneſſe of the hoſte? But theſe things cannot bee broken. Can a man make peeces of taſte, or of whiteneſſe? None but bodies can bee broken.
12. The Apoſtle Saint Paul conforming himſelfe to the Lords inſtitution, ſaith in the 10 chapter of the 1… to the Corinthians, 16 Verſe, that the bread which we breake, is the communion of the body of Chriſt. The Church of Rome gaine ſays and contradicteth every word of this ſentence. The Apoſtle ſaith that it is bread. The Church of Rome on the contrary ſaith that it is not bread. The Apoſtle ſaith that it is bread which we breake. On the contrary, the Church of Rome ſaith, that it is fleſh which we doe not breake. The Apoſtle ſaith that this bread is the communion of the body of Chriſt. On the contrary, the Church of of Rome ſaith, that this bread is Chriſts body it ſelfe. Behold then a cleare and a plaine expoſition of theſe words, This is my body: given by the Apoſtle, to wit, The bread which I breake, is the communion of my body, and not that which the Church of Rome giveth, viz. That which is under theſe ſpecies, is tranſubſtantiated into my body.
13. It is very conſiderable that the ſame Apoſtle, in the ſame chapter and 21 verſe, maketh an oppoſition between the Lords table and the table of devils, ſaving, Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table and of the table of Devils. The reaſon of the oppoſition ſheweth plainely, that as to be partaker of the table of Devils, is not to eate Devils*But to be partaker of the meat conſec…ated to Devils.: So to be partaker of Chriſts Table, is not to ea… Chriſt, but to be partaker of the mea… conſecrated by Chriſt, in remembrane of Chriſt and of his death.
14. Chriſt in diſtributing the brea… and the cup, ſaid, Doe this in remembran… of me. Theſe words ſhew manifeſtly tha… the Prieſt maketh not Chriſt in the Maſſe, and ſacrificeth him not. For it is impoſſible to make Chriſt in remembrance of Chriſt. It is impoſſible to ſacrifice Chriſt in remembrance of Chriſt. Can a man build a houſe in remembrance of that houſe? Did Aaron ſacrifice a Lamb in remembrance of that Lambe? Beſides that the remembrance is but of things abſent and paſt, as Saint Auſtin ſaith upon the 37 Pſalme, Nemo recordatur niſi quod in praeſentia non eſt poſitum: No remembrance can be had but of things that are not preſent. The councell of Trent declareth indeed that Chriſt by theſe words, Doe this, commanded that he ſhould be ſacrificed in the Maſſe: But beſides that Chriſt cannot be ſacrificed in remembrance of Chriſt, the Apoſtle Saint Paul preſently after theſe words, Doe this in remembrance of mee, addeth the explication, ſaying, For as often as ye eate of this bread, and drinke of this cup, ye doe ſhew the Lords death till he come. Will we therefore know what is to Doe this? Saint Paul teacheth us that it is to eate this bread and drinke of this cup, for to ſhew and declare the remembrance of Chriſt his death.
15. Our Lord Jeſus brake the bread before he pronounced the words which they call the words of conſecration. He tooke the bread, and bleſſed it, and brake it, and gave it, ſaying, This is my body which is broken for you. Whereby it followeth by the doctrine of the Roman Church, that he brake bread unconſecrated and untranſubſtantiated. On the contrary, in the Roman Church the Prieſt breaks the hoſte after the words of conſecration: to the end the people may beleeve that he breaketh and ſacrificeth the very body of Chriſt. Our adverſaries then confeſſe that the Prieſt breaketh an other thing than Chriſt brake.
Some, for to arme themſelves againſt the Apoſtle, which ſaith that the bread that we breake, is the communion of the body of Chriſt, tell us that Saint Paul ſaith that we breake bread, becauſe that when he did miniſter this holy Sacrament, he did break afore he conſecrated, following Chriſts example, and conſequentl… did breake unconſecrated bread. Br… thoſe that ſpeake ſo, contradict the R… man Church, which doth not belee… that the fraction of the unconſecrated bread, is the communion of the body of Chriſt.
16. The ſame Apoſtle, 1. Cor. 11.28. ſaith, Let a man examine himſelfe, and ſ… let him eate OF this bread: Which is the ſame kind of ſpeech uſed by Chriſt, ſaying Bibite ex eo omnes, foreign.Drinke yee all OF it. The Apoſtle commands us to eate OF this bread: that is to ſay, to take every one his part and portion of it: and Chriſt ſaying Drinke ye all of it, bids the Communicants to take their ſhare of the cup. This manner of ſpeaking is become abſurd in the Roman Church, who by this bread, underſtand Chriſt himſelfe. For they would eſteeme that man to be mad, or a mocker, that ſhould ſay that we eate every one his portion of Chriſt body.
17. Chriſt preſenting the cup to his Diſciples, ſaid in the preſent tenſe that it was his blood which is ſhed for many. Where manifeſtly he ſpeaketh of a Sacramentall, and not of a reall effuſion. For our adverſaries confeſſe that in the Maſſe the blood of Chriſt is not ſhed out of the body, and goeth not out of the Veines. He therefore ſpeaketh of a Sacramentall effuſion, which is reſpective to the real effuſion made upon the croſſe. We aske then, whether the Prieſt in the Maſſe drinketh that blood of Chriſt which came out of his ſide and wounds upon the croſſe. If they anſwer that the Prieſt drinks not that blood of the Lord which iſſued forth of his body upon the croſſe, but that blood which remained in the body, and is there ſtill: thereby they confeſſe that the Prieſt drinks not the ſame blood which Chriſt will have us to drink. For he commands us expreſſly to drinke the blood ſhed for us. But if they anſwer, that the Prieſt drinketh the ſame blood which the Lord ſhed upon the croſſe, then they preſuppoſe raſhly, and without word of God, that that blood which came out of the Lords body, is gotten in againe. All this abuſe comes for lack of conſidering that in the holy Supper, Chriſts body is repreſented unto us, and preſented to our faith, as ſuffering, and broken, and dying, and dead for us, and his blood as ſhed and iſſued out of his body. Whereas on the contrary, the Romane Church hath a conceit, that ſhe receive the ſpirituall & glorious body of Chriſt and his blood encloſed within the body and within the veines.
18. The Apoſtle Saint Paul, 1. Cor. 1… And Saint Luke chap. 22. record th… Chriſt ſaid, This cup is the New Teſtame… in my blood. If by this word of cup th… blood muſt be underſtood, the ſence … theſe words ſhall be, This blood is th… New Teſtament in my blood. By that meanes, loe here two kinds of blood of Chriſt, whereof the one ſhall be within the other.
19. Chriſt in celebrating the holy Supper, ſaid, Doe this in remembrance of me. And Saint Paul hath told us here above, that in earing this bread we doe ſhew his death. On the contrary, the Prieſt in the Maſſe ſaith, that he celebrateth, In the firſt place, the remembrance of the Virgin Mary; ſaying, Communicantes & memoriam venerantes in primis glorioſae ſemperque Virginis Mariae: Communicating and ſolemnizing in the firſt place the remembrance of the glorious Virgin Mary, leaving Chriſt behind. As Gabriel Biell ſaith in the 32 Leſſon of the Canon of the Maſſe, Firſt and principally the remembrance is made of the moſt bleſſed Virgin Mary, becauſe (ſaith he) ſhe is the most ſafe ſanctuary of our calamities, and hath beene the adminiſtratrix and diſpenſatrix of this ſacrifice, and all the reaſon of our hope.
20. In the whole inſtitution of the Euchariſt, there is no mention made of the Saints, neither is there any command to pray unto Saints: No word of the interceſſion of Angels. On the contrary, the Prieſt in the Confiteor of the Maſſe, prayes Michael the Archangel, and John the Baptiſt, and all the Saints, to pray for him. There are ſome Maſſes in which the Letany is rehearſed, which is but a long chaine of prayers unto Saints. In the Maſſe, they bleſſe the Encenſe through the interceſſion of Michael the Archangell. The Prieſt askes of God, that he would be pleaſed to command his Angell to take the conſecrated hoſte, and to carry it up to heaven. And for an exceſſe of abuſes, at the offertory of the Maſſe, the Prieſt ſaith he makes that oblation in honour of the Virgin Mary and of the Saints: As if the holy Supper were inſtituted in honour of the creatures. That, truely, is to put the creatures above Chriſt. As when a man gives almes in Gods honour, he preſuppoſeth that God is more excellent than the Alme.
21. S. John in the 13 chapter, and 2 verſe, witneſſeth, that in the action o… the holy Supper, the Divel entred int… Judas. But our adverſaries, with moſ… of the Fathers, hold, that Judas was pertaker of the Euchariſt, with the reſt o… the Diſciples. They will therefore tha… both Chriſt and the Divel have entre… together into Judas. So they give unto Chriſt a very unſutable companion; and truely, the Sonne of God, and the Divel, had been very ill lodged together.
22. We agree in this point with ou… adverſaries, that Chriſt ate and dranke with his Diſciples, and was partaker of the holy Sacrament. He ſheweth it himſelfe ſufficiently, when after he had delivered the cup, he ſaid, I will drinke no more of this fruit of the Vine. Whereby it followeth, that after the doctrine of the Romane Church, Chriſt did eate himſelf, and ſwallowed his owne body and ſoule, and had his whole body in his mouth, and in his ſtomacke. By this meanes Chriſts paſſible body, devoured the impaſſible body. Whereupon it were good to know, what Chriſts body did within the body of Chriſt, and how Chriſts ſoule could enter into Chriſts body, ſeeing that it was in already. And ſince that that which containeth, and that which is contained, are ſeverall things, and that nothing containeth it ſelfe: by this doctrine it is evident that they make Chriſt to have two bodies, the one of which was contained within the other. And ſince that to eat ones ſelfe, is a more admirable thing than the Creation of the World, it is not credible that Chriſt did eat himſelf, without ſome great profit ſhould come thereby for our ſalvation. Yet our adverſaries produce none at al.
For to prop ſo extravagant a doctrin, and which expoſeth the Chriſtian Religion to laughter, our adverſaries alledge a place out of S. Auſtin upon the 33 Pſal. where he ſaith, that in this Sacrament, Chriſt did cary himſelf in his own hands But Auſtin ſaith not only that he did cary himſelf in his own hands: But he ſaith, Ipſe ſe portabat quodam mode cum diceret, Hoc est corpus meum: he did carry himſelf in a manner when he ſaid, This is my body. So a man that carries his owne picture in his hands, carries himſelf in a maner. Even as it would be a ſenceleſſe ſpeech to ſay that the Moon is the Moon in a manner: ſo i… that which Chriſt carried in his hands, was his true body, it would be a fooliſh thing to ſay that it was his body in ſome kinde. For concerning the ſenſe of theſe words, This is my body, S. Auſtin expounds them plainely enough in the 12 chapter againſt Adimantus, ſaying, The Lord made no difficulty to ſay, This is my body, when he gave the ſigne of his body.
23 Chriſt our Lord was ſitting at the table, his face turn'd towards the Aſſiſtants. Whereas the Prieſt, in the Maſſe, ſtandeth before an Altar, turning hi… tayle to the people.
24 Chriſt gave to every one of the aſſiſtants, a piece of the bread he had broken with his hands, which bread his Diſciples received with their owne hands As alſo in the ancient Church both me… and women received with their hand the Sacrament under both kinds: The contrary of all that is practiſed in the Maſſe, in which the Prieſt chops into the mouthes of the Communicants cound wafer unbroken. If a woman ha… touched with her hand, I doe not ſay th… hoſte, but onelyonly the clothes, or the patine, or the chalice, that would be thought a hainous offence, and a profanation of ſacred things.
25 Our Lord Jeſus inſtituted this Sacrament for the remiſſion of ſinnes,Mar. 26.28 1. Cor. 11.16. and for to ſhew his death. But in the Roman Church they ſing Maſſes for the eaſing of ſicke people, for preſerving of the vines from a white froſt, for the healing of a horſe, &c. In all theſe the prieſt makes a gaine. For that man at whoſe intention the Maſſe is ſaid, is to pay for it.
26 The Apoſtle S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.12. calleth this Sacrament, the Lords Supper. Whereof we finde but of one ſort. But the Romane Church hath invented a thouſand ſorts of Maſſes. There is the Maſſe of the Holy Ghoſt. The Maſſe of S. Giles. That of Linus Pope. That of S. Francis, &c. There are amongſt other Maſſes, that of S. Catherine, and that of S. Margaret, which are Saints that never were in the World, no more than S. Ʋrſula, S. Longis, S. Chriſtopher, and many others, which they have placed in heaven, though they were never upon earth. Item there are Loud Maſſes and Lowe Maſſes. Great Maſſes and Small Maſſes. Dry Maſſes. Epiſcopall Maſſes. Maſſes in White, and others in Greene, and others in Violet colour.
27 Chriſt in the holy Supper made no prayer for the dead. On the contrary there is in the Maſſe a prayer for the dead,Qui dormiunt in ſomno pacis. by which the Prieſt prayeth for the deceaſed which ſleepe in the ſleepe of peace. A thing which is to be carefully obſerved. For it ſheweth that when this prayer was added to the Maſſe, they did not then beleeve the Purgatory. For thoſe that burne for many ages in a hott burning Fornace, ſleepe not peaceably.
28. Item, the confeſſion which the Prieſt maketh at the Maſſe, in the Confiteor, is very farre from the Lords inſtitution. For in it the Prieſt confeſſeth his finnes unto God, and to the Virgin Mary, and to John the Baptiſt, and to Peter and Paul, and to all the Saints. None is there left out but Chriſt.
29. In the Maſſe of the Friday before Eaſter, they worſhip the image of the Croſſe with the higheſt adoration, called by them Latria, which is due to God alone, ſaying, Behold the wood of the Croſſe, Come, let us worſhip. There likewiſe is ſung the Antheme which ſaith, We doe worſhip thy Croſſe O Lord. And ſpeaking to the Croſſe, Faithfull Croſſe, the onelyonly noble among the trees, &c. That is to ſpeake to an ſenceleſſe thing, and which underſtandeth not.
30. VponUpon the Altar there be Images, as alſo in all places of the Churches, that are commanded to be worſhipped, under the penalty of a curſe, by the ſecond councell of Nice, and by the councell of Conſtantinople, which they tearme the Eighth generall Councell, and by many Popes, and generally taught by the Jeſuites.
31. Chriſt celebrated the holy Supper with all ſimplicity. But the Prieſts of the Roman Church, ſing Maſſe with allegoricall habits, and full of myſteries, with a thouſand turnes and undecent geſticulations, unbeſeeming the holineſſe of that action. They buſie the eyes of the people, becauſe their eares are of no uſe unto them.
32. In the Canon of the Maſſe there is an evident untruth. For the Prieſt ſaith, that the Lord when he had taken the Chalice into his hands, ſaid, This is the Chalice of my blood of the new and eternall Teſtament myſterie of the Faith. Contrary to the teſtimony of the Evangeliſts, in which theſe words are not to be found. Pope Innocent in the chapter Cum Marthae de celebratione Miſſarum, ſaith, that the Church holdeth that from the Tradition. Which he will have men to beleeve, though it be contrary unto the Goſpell.
33. All that Chriſt ſaid, in celebrating this Sacrament, he pronounced it with a loude and intelligible Voice; he did not mutter in ſecret the words which are called the words of conſecration, as the now Roman Church doth, which in this point as in many others, differs from the Greeke and Eaſterne Churches, which pronounce the words of conſecration with a loud voyce. The Pope Innocent the third, in the third booke of the Myſteries of the Maſſe, chapter firſt: And Durant in the fourth Booke of his Rationals, Chap. 35. renders the reaſon of this change: To wit, that one day it came to paſſe that certaine Shepheards having learned the words of conſecration, pronounced them upon the bread of their ordinary meale, which was inſtantly turned into fleſh; Wherewith God being angry, ſent downe fire from heaven that conſumed them. Nevertheleſſe, they vary in the recitall of this fable, and doe not tell where, and when that came to paſſe, neither doe they bring any witneſſe, nor doe agree one with another in the relation of that ſtory.
34. After that the Diſciples of the Lord had taken the Sacrament, Chriſt did not command that the remainders of the bread ſhould be lockt up in a box, and kept for to be carried in pompe up and downe the ſtreets, as the Roman Church doth on Corpus Chriſti-day, and in its Octaves. Binius Notis in Concilia in vita Vrbani IV. Idque ex Molane & Petro Premonſtratē ſi. Vide Scrarium de Proceſlib. 2. c. 9. & Epiſtolam Vrbani IV. ad Evan.This holy day was inſtituted by Pope Ʋrbanus the fourth, in the yeare of our Lord 1264. as Pope Clement the fifth his ſucceſſor doth teſtifie in the third booke of his Clementines. Tit. 16. where Ʋrbans Epiſtle by which he did inſtitute this holy day, is inſerted, wherein he ſaith he was moved ſo to doe By a Revelation made unto ſome Catholick perſons. By which Catholick perſons hee meaneth a Nunne of Leodium called Eva, whom he had knowne when he was Arch-Deacon of the ſame place. This woman ſaid that God had revealed unto her that he did not like well that every Saint had his holy day, and hee none. Nevertheleſſe, this feaſt had been extinguiſhed, if Clement the fifth had not inſtituted it againe ſome Forty yeares after.