A Parallel Comparison of the Liturgy with the Mass Book, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Concerning the Canon of the Maſſe, Conſecration, tranſubſtantiation and adoration, &c.
The ordinary Prefaces.VVEE are now come to the Canon, a part of the Maſſe, whereupon the Papiſts fond love, and the Proteſtants juſt hatred is chiefely ſpent, take Bellarmine for a witneſſe of theſe contrary affections, de Miſſa, Lib. 2. c. 17. Sacrum canonem ut ſumma reverentiâ ſemper Catholici retinuerunt, ita incredibili furore haeretici hujus temporis lacerant.
This member of the Maſſe conſiſts of Prayers and prefaces: The Prefaces are either extraordinary for high times or ordinary for common Maſſes, the ordinary prefaces we have word by word, for ſo reades the Miſſall: Hic dicit ſacerdos ſurſumcorda, reſpondet chorus, habemus ad Domi num, ſacerdos gratias agamus Domino noſtro. Reſp. dignum & justum eſt, ſacerdos verè dignum & juſtum est, aequum & ſalutare nos tibi ſemper & ubique gratias agere Domine ſancte pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus, & ideo cum Angelis & Archangelis, cum thronis, & dominationibus & cum omnibus militiae caeleſtis exercitibus hymnum gloriae tuae canimus ſine fine dicentes, ſanctus, ſanctus, ſanctus Dominus Deus Saboth, pleni ſunt coeli & terrae gloria tua, hoſanna in excelſis: Our Booke turneth it thus, [After which the Presbyter ſhall ſay, lift up your hearts. Anſwer. We have them up unto God, the Presbyter, let us give thankes, &c.] ſaying all the preface to a letter, the end of theſe words is according to Bellarmine, to make way to the great ſacrifice that then is drawing neere, dicitur praefatio quia est excitatio populi ad illam actionem in qua propriè ſacrificium conſiſtit de Miſſ. Lib. 2. c. 17. or as Heigham. p. 282. [The preface ſerves to diſpoſe Chriſtians to devotion while the Prieſt addreſſeth himſelfe to recite the holy Canon which containeth the moſt ineffable & incomprehenſible myſterie of the conſecration of the body and blood of our Saviour] what myſteries are hid in every one of theſe words, yea in ſome letters beſides the words, eſpecially what vaine imaginations are drawne from the orders of Angels, ſee who hath leaſure in all the Rationaliſts for in theſe conceats all of them agree to vage.
As for the Authors who put in theſe patches to the Maſſe, ſo ſayes Innocent, Gelaſius Papa ſacramentorum praefationes dictavit, Sixtus autem, hymnum ſanctus, ſanctus, ſanctus cantari instituit, Lib. 2. c. 61. So likewiſe Durand with him; the firſt words ſurſum corda were in the ancient times uſed in the Sacrament, but all the following are but late patches, yea the firſt words were ſome ages agoe abuſed to the furthering of the blaſphemous ſacrifice: heare Alcuin de divinis officijs cap. de celebratione Miſſae, ſurſum corda hortatur ſacerdos populum tanquam dicat corda veſtra à terrenis curis ſurſum ad Dominum dirigite ut ſacrificium Deo offerendum quod mihi obtulistis dignè offerre valeam exhortationē quaeſequitur verè dign…m &c. Gelaſius compoſuiſſe dicitur. Amalarius, Lib. 3. c. 21. Hymnus Sanctus, &c. a Sixto Papa additus eſt ut in geſtis Pontificalibus invenitur, the reaſon why he might have beene moved to this act, we have from Gabriel Biel in Heigham, a boy in the time of an earthquake at Conſtantinople, being raviſhed up to the heavens after an houres ſtay reported that hee heard the Angels ſing the hymne of Sanctus, & was commanded to deſire the people to ſing the ſame, which when they did, the earthquake ceaſed: For the compoſition of the Preface we may heare Honorius in Gemma animae, Lib. 1. c. 89. Leo Papa praefationes compoſuit ſurſum corda de Ieremia, gratias agamus Deo de Apostolo ſumptum eſt, ſed Gelaſius Papa ad Miſſas cantari inſtituit Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Sixtus Papa dimidium de Eſaia, dimidium de Evangelio compoſuit, & ad Miſſam cantari statuit.
Extraordinary Prefaces.As for the extraordinary prefaces, of old they were many, but thereafter the Popes did canonize ten, which we may ſee extant this day in the Miſſall: Thus ſpeakes Durand. Notandum quod licet olim innumerae eſſent praefationes, hodie decem tantùm ſunt canonizatae, &c. Lib. 4. fol. 84. This Bellarmine reckons out from him, de Miſſa. Lib. 2. c. 17. and both from the Canon Law, diſt. 79. Et de conſecratione diſt. 1. Of theſe ten our Booke makes uſe of five, in the 1. of Chriſtmaſſe a little of the Maſſe Preface is changed in our Booke, but it is done both needleſly and to the worſe, for ſo ſaies the Miſſall: Quando per incarnati Verbi myſterium nova mentis nostra oculis lux tuae claritatis infulſit ut cum viſibiliter Deum cognoſcimus, per hunc in inviſibilium amorem rapiamur. This is in nothing worſe then our preface, yea in our Preface is matter of more quarrell for it ſayes that Chriſt was borne on that day which to ſome breedes no ſmall ſcruple.
In the ſecond of Eaſter, there is no change at all, for thus ſay they in the Maſſe, Et te quidem omni tempore, ſed hac potiſſimum die glorioſius praedicare, cum Paſcha noſtrum immolatus eſt Chriſtus, ipſe enim verus eſt agnus Dei, qui abſtulit peccata mundi, qui mortem noſtram moriendo deſtruxit, & vitam reſurgendo reparavit, & ideo cum Angelis, &c. Our booke does but turne theſe in Engliſh.
The third, on the Aſcention day our Booke takes almoſt word by word out of the Maſſe per Chriſtum Dominum noſtrum qui poſt reſurrectionem ſuam omnibus diſcipulis ſuis manifeſtus apparuit, & ipſis cernentibus est elevatus in coelum ut nos divinitatis ſuae ribueret teſſe participes, & ideo cum Angelis, &c.
The fourth Preface of Pentecoſt the Miſſall ſets down thus, Per Chriſtum Dominum noſtrum, qui aſcendens ſuper omnes coelos, ſedenſ que ad dextram tuam promiſſum Spiritum Sanctum hodierna die in filios adoptionis effudit, quapropter profuſis gaudijs totus terrarum orbis exultat, ſed & ſupernae virtutes, at que Angelicae poteſtates hymnum gloriae tuae concinunt ſine fine dicentes; What here our Book changes is of their meere pleaſure without any neceſſity.
So in the fift Preface of the Trinitie, there is no materiall change; Thus hath the Miſſall, Aeterne Deus qui cum unigenito filio & Spiritu Sancto unus es Dominus non in unius ſingularitate perſonae, ſed in unius trinitate ſubſtantiae, quod enim tua gloria revelante de te credimus, hoc de filio tuo, hoc de S. Sancto ſine differentia diſtractionis ſentimus: we repeat the ſame.
The other five canonized Prefaces are for the ſolemnities of the Epiphanie, of the firſt day of Lent, of the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts dayes, of the feaſts of the Virgin Mary, of the feaſts of the Croce; all theſe ſolemnities our Authors doe keepe but the laſt, and the laſt may be injoyned to be obſerved according to their grounds, when ever it ſhall come in their will to command ſo: What ever is ſaid in any of theſe five Prefaces they imbrace it all, onelyonly ſome doubt might be made of ſome ambiguous words in the feaſts of the Apoſtles, but that they digeſt them and more hard pills wee ſhall ſhew at once, ſo that our want of theſe five Prefaces, and our poſſeſſion of the other five, depends allanerly upon the ſame ground, to wit, the ſole pleaſure of our Book-makers who were content at this time to put in the one, and hold out the other, for the demonſtration of their free-will in the exerciſe of this act.
The Canon it ſelfe is but late traſh.After the Prefaces follow the Prayers, theſe altogether goe under the name of the Canon, the action, the ſecret; our adverſaries brag much of the antiquity and holineſſe of theſe prayers, but the more adviſed of them as yee may ſee in Field, Append. ad lib. 3. c. 1. doe aſtrict the ſpiration of antiquitie and holineſſe, but to a ſmall part of theſe, for how ever the Jeſuits pleaſe to magnifie to the skies this Canon, yet they which underſtand it much better then the beſt of them, confeſſe that it is but patched like a beggars pall of a number of clouts by diverſe hands oft without diſcretion, Pope Innocent, l. 3. c. 9. and Durand from him, Secreta quae ſecundum diverſos & canon & actio nominatur non tota ſimul ab uno, ſed paulatim à pluribus ex eo quo que perpenditur fuiſſe compoſita, quod ter in ea ſanctorum commemoratio repetitur, in ſecunda quippe commemoratione ſupplentur qui de primitivis Sanctis deeſſe videbantur in prima: And in the next Chapter, Traditur quod Gelaſius Papa quinquageſimus primus à B. Petro qui fuit poſt Sylveſtrum per 160. annos Canonem principaliter ordinavit, herewith does Honorius in gemma Animae c. 90. agree: Canonem Gelaſius Papa compoſuit, &c. ſubjoyning the names of a number of Popes, who put to their proper additions to this cento, this ſame doth Walafrid. cap. 22. and divers of the old Rationaliſts. All the Canon as it lies in the Maſſe our Book does not borrow, neither was it neceſſary, for the kinde mother Church of Rome can well diſpence with ſome difference, yea with a greater varietie than is betwixt our Book and theirs, in this part take Bellarmines caution for this benignitie, de Miſſa, l. 2. c. 18. Ne que negamus verba Canonis diverſa fuiſſe & etiam hodie eſſe apud Graecos, & apud quaſdam Latinorum Eccleſias, ne que cogit Romana Eccleſia, ut Chemnitius mentitur, ut omnes Canonem Miſſae Romanae tanquam neceſſarium, omnino ad Euchariſtiam conſecrandam ſervent, nam & in ipſa urbe Roma, & alibi per Italiam videmus Romano Pontifice conſentiente à Graecis retineri Liturgiam Baſilij & Chryſoſtomi & Ambroſianam Mediolani & quam dicunt Moſarabam Toleti in Hiſpania. Our men take in expreſly the principall members of this portion, theſe things which the Papiſts doe moſt love and the Proteſtants moſt abhorre, and what they omit they ſhew their good liking of it all, without balking any one line. For the demonſtration whereof conſider that the prayers of the Canon uſe to be divided in a number of parts, in five, ſix, ſeven, eleven, twelve, in moe or fewer, as Authors are pleaſed diverſly to conceive, we ſhall take them up in ſix parts.
The worſt parts of the Canon are in our Book.The third and fourth onelyonly are the principall, even thoſe pieces whereby alone the conſecration and oblation of the great ſacrifice is performed, for here alone it is Ʋbi ſacerdos accedit ad Dominici corporis conſecrationem, according to Durand, l. 4. fol. 73. Of theſe parts it is that Innocent exclaimes, l. 4. c. 1. Ecce nunc ad ſummum ſacramenti verticem accedentes, ad ipſum cor divini ſacrificij penetramus. Theſe parts he calls the heart of that wicked body of the Maſſe, this unhappy heart the Engliſh had pulled out, that the Serpent might never againe revive among them; but our men with an high hand and open face profeſſe the reſtoring of the life and putting in again the heart in the body of that dead hydra: They put up in capitall Letters their prayer of conſecration and memoriall of oblation, and ſet down at the back of the ſame Rubrick the ſame words which the Miſſall uſes for their tranſubſtantiation; and to the other the ſame words which they uſe in offering up their unbloody propitiatory Sacrifice, who ever can cleare our Booke of theſe abhominations, muſt cleare the Miſſall of them, for theſe places of the Miſſall whence alone, or at leaſt farre moſt directly and principally the Papiſts do inferre theſe their capitall errours, the ſame places are expreſly ſet downe in our Book without any circumlocution.
Wee have borrowed the Popiſh conſecration.A Rubrick for conſecration alone without any further addition in theſe dayes had been obnoxious to ſuſpicion of an evill intent, our Book-men knew that however the tearme of conſecration uſes not ſo much to be ſtood upon, yet that the Romiſh Church does uſe it in no other ſenſe than to demurmurate a number of words on the elements for their tranſubſtantiation into the body and blood of Chriſt, and not as we doe for the ſanctifying of the Elements, or applying them to the holy and ſacramentall uſe by reciting …he words of Chriſts inſtitution to the people, not to the dead elements: Durands doctrine is this day common among our Adverſaries, Dicimus illud non conſecrari ſed ſanctificari, differt autem inter haec, nam conſecrare eſt conſecratione tranſubſtantiare, ſanctificare eſt ſanctum & reverendum efficere ut patet in aqua benedicta.
Wee are injoyned in conſecrating to turn our backs to the people, and ſo by conſequent to whiſper in what language we will.A Rubrick for conſecration alone then had been ſuſpicious, eſpecially here where the Engliſh, yea no reformed Liturgie had any formes of conſecration, but now while to their conſecration they will adde a clauſe of the Miniſters poſture in this act, commanding him during the time of conſecration to leave the former ſtance he was injoyned in the firſt Rubricks to keep at the North end of the Table, to come to ſuch a part of the Table where he may with more eaſe and decency uſe both his hands, the world will not get them cleared of a vile and wicked purpoſe. The Papiſts will have their conſecration kept altogether cloſe from the eares of the people for many reaſons, eſpecially that by ignorance of their words reverence may be conciliate to them, and the people may not be able to get them by heart and to profane them, which ſome Shepheards once did to their great hurt, for they pronounced the words of conſecration on the bread of their dinner in the fields, with intention to doe what they did ſee oft the Prieſt to doe in the Temple by this pronunciation, their bread before their eyes was tranſubſtantiate into fleſh, and fire from heaven came downe which deſtroyed that fleſh and them, at leaſt ſtroke them dead for a time; whereupon it was decreed that the whole Canon thereafter not onelyonly ſhould be in a tongue unknowne to the people, but alſo ſhould be whiſpered ſo ſecretly that no man but the Prieſt alone ſhould heare one word of it: This hiſtory is ſet downe in ſuch a number of the Popiſh writers that I need make no citations, onelyonly the reformed Church counts the ſecret murmuration of their Canon, and words of conſecration, a very vile and wicked practice againſt nature, reaſon, and all antiquitie; ſo that we muſt take it in a very evill part to be brought towards it by our Book, for when our Table is brought to the Eaſt end of the Quire, ſo neer the wall as it can ſtand, and the Miniſter brought from the end of it to the bread-ſide with his face to the Eaſt and his back to the people, what he ſpeaks may be Hebrew for them, he may ſpeake ſo low as he will or what he will, for were his face to the people & his voice never ſo extended, yet in ſo great a diſtance he could not be heard, but now being ſet in the furtheſt diſtance that is poſſible, and being commanded not onelyonly to turne his ſhoulder, as he was by his North ſtance in all the former action, but his very back by his new change of place and not being injoined to extend his voice as ſome where he is, what can we conceive but it is their plain mind to have the conſecration made in that ſilence which the Romiſh Rubrick in this place injoines: Whereupon Durand from Innocent and others thus comments; Canon ſecretâ voce celebratur ne ſacro ſancta verba vileſcant, fertur enim quod cum antiquitus publicè et alta voce Canon diceretur omnes penè per uſum illum ſciebant, & in plateis & in vicis decantabant, unde cum quidam paſtores illum in agro cantarent & panem ſuper lapidem poſuiſſent ad verborum ipſorum prolationem panis in carnem converſus eſt, & illi ipſi divinô judicio igne coelitus miſſo percuſſi ſunt, propter quod ſancti Patres ſtatuerunt verba illa ſub ſilentio dici, inhibentes ſub anathemate ne proferantur niſi à ſacerdotibus ſuper altare & in miſſa & cum veſtibus ſacris. This injunction wee are directed to keepe while we are not only injoyned to goe ſo far from the people, as the remoteſt wall and Table will permit, but to uſe ſuch a poſture that our back muſt be turned to them, that ſo our ſpeech may be directed to the elements alone, & that in what language you pleaſe, and no wayes to the people from whom we have gone away, and on whom we have turned our back.
This is Bellarmines maine prop of celebrating the Sacrament in an unknowne tongue, de Miſſa, L. 2. c. 11. Verba conſecrationis non dicuntur ad inſtruendos auditores, ſed ad elementum conſecrandum, elementum autem nullam linguam intelligit, quare impertinens eſt ad oblationem, utrum Miſſa dicatur lingua vulgari aut non vulgari. For this wicked practice of ſilence and going from the people Bellarmines great argument is, the practice of the Jewiſh Prieſts in theſe words, c. 12. Habemus exempla ſacrificiorum veteris Legis, nam Levit. 16. deſcribitur ſolenne ſacrificium incenſi ac jubetur ſolus ſacerdos intra velum ingredi & ſacrificare & orare pro ſe & populo, omnibus alijs foris exſpectantibus & non modo non audientibus, ſed nec videntibus ſacerdotem quo etiam ritu ſacrificaſſe Zachariam patrem praecurſoris, Luc. 1. Yea as the Jewiſh Prieſt to be more hid from the people in ſome ſolemne ſacrifices went within the vaile, ſo the Popiſh Prieſt will have the vailes and curtaines of their Altars drawne about him while he is uttering his Canon and ſecret conſecration; this wee have from Durand, Lib. 4. fol. 72. Ad quod repraeſentandum in quibuſdam Eccleſiis ſacerdos ſecretam intrans quibuſdam cortinis, quae ſunt in utro que latere altaris, quae tunc extenduntur, quaſi tegitur & velatur. Is it not to this that here our Book-men lead us, my L. of Canterbury is not content in his Sermon before K. James 1621. to avow it is expedient that the ſubſtantiall Church now ſhould goe beyond the typick Church of old in the ſumptuous magnificence of many ceremonies, but approves of late his man Dr. Poklington in his Altare Chriſtianum a little after the beginning to praiſe their zeale, who made their altars of gold, or ſilver, and conſecrated them, laying on them carpets and corporalls, and incloſing them not onelyonly with railes of timber, but vailes and curtaines of cloth, yea to uſe expreſly the preſent argument of Bellarmine for cloſing up the Prieſt in his ſacrificing, or making his conſecration, ſo that not onelyonly his words may be removed from the eares, but his perſon from the eyes of the people, for ſo ſpeaks the Doctor there with Canterburies good leave after the midſt of his Book [As the people were excluded from the altar of incenſe, they ſtood without all the time that he was praying or burning incenſe within, Luk. 1. So in like manner the altar built by Paulinus was in medio conſtituta, ſet in the midſt of the holy place (which practice he is urging to be reſtored in the Church of England, and defending where it is already ſet up) which did repreſent the Sanctuary from which the people were all utterly excluded, the people might ſee the Prieſt going into the Sanctuary, might heare his bels, but himſelfe within, his geſtures, his actions they ſaw not.]
When our Book hath profeſſed a conſecration and at ſuch a place of the Church, and with ſuch a poſture of the Prieſt, that it muſt of neceſſitie be ſo ſecret from the people, as the Prieſt may ſay it in what language he will, and in ſo quiet ſilence as he pleaſes, for who can challenge him when he is in his Sanctuary divided by his vailes and railes from the people, when the prayer which ſtood here in the Engliſh Liturgie is ſome impediment in their way oppoſing their Popiſh conſecration, they have removed it to another place fitter for their deſignes, when our Booke and theſe men whom we have reaſon to take for good Commentators to it avow ſo much, who can blame us to be grieved? but when they goe yet further to bring back the very words of the Maſſe for their conſecration and oblation, the worſt words, I ſay, that the Maſſe hath for that end, how ſhall we not be deſperate of any good from their hands?
The very words whereupon the Papiſts build tranſubſtantiation, our Book takes from the Miſſall.The Popiſh prayer in Conſecration ſtands thus in the Maſſe: Quam oblationem tu Deus omnipotens in omnibus quaeſumus benedictam, aſcriptam, ratam, rationabilem acceptabilem que facere digneris, ut nobis corpus & ſanguis fiat dilectiſſimi filij tui Domini noſtri I. Chriſti qui pridie quam pateretur accepit panem in ſanctas & venerabiles manus ſuas, & elevatis oculis in coelum ad te Deum ſuum patrem omnipotentem, tibi gratias agens benedixit, fregit, (a rubrick interlaced hic frangit hoſtiam) dedit que diſcipulis ſuis, dicens accipite & manducate ex hoc omnes, hoc eſt enim corpus meum (a rubrick here alſo poſt haec verba inclinet ſe ſacerdos ad hoſtiam, & poſtea elevet eam ſupra frontē ut poſſit à populo videri) ſimili modo poſtquam coenatum eſt accipiens & hunc praeclarum calicem in ſanctas & venerabiles manus ſuas itidem tibi gratias agens benedixit, dedit que diſcipulis ſuis dicens accipite & bibite ex eo omnes (the rubrick hic elevet ſacerdos calicem, as before, hic inclinet ſe) hic eſt enim calix ſanguinis m…i novi Teſtamenti myſterium fidei qui pro vobis & multis effundetur in remiſſionem peccatorum, haec quotieſcun que feceritis in mei memoriam facietis.
This Romiſh prayer the latter parts of it are ſaid by them to have been compoſed by Pope Alexander, ſo Durand, L. 4. fol. 74. Haec verba qui pridie uſ que ad hoc eſt corpus meum, Alexander Papa primus canoni addidiſſe dicitur, as for the former part which is the prayer formally ſaid by them on their hoſtie, wee heard before how Innocent aſcribes its compoſition to Gregories Scholaſticus, albeit no wayes as it ſtands in the Miſſall and our Book, for in that Scholaſticus time the words did run clearly againſt tranſſubſtantiation, ſee how they are ſet downe in the fourth Book de Sacramentis, c. 5. among Ambroſe works, but poſterior to his dayes, Accipe quae ſunt verba; dicit ſacerdos, fac nobis hanc oblationem aſcriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem que quod eſt figura corporis & ſanguinis Domini noſtri I. Chriſti qui pridie quam pateretur in ſanctis manibus ſuis accepit panem, reſpexit ad coelum ad te ſancte pater omnipotens aeterne Deus gratias agens, benedixit, fregit, fractum que Apoſtolis ſuis & diſcipulis tradidit dicens accipite & edite ex hoc omnes, hoc enim eſt corpus meum quod pro vobis confringetur, ſimiliter etiam & calicem &c. This prayer compoſed by whomſoever yet as it ſtands this day in the Miſſall and in our Book from it, is the maine ground they have in the Maſſe for their conſecration, tranſubſtantiation, and adoration of the Hoſte, they do controvert among themſelves about the words of conſecration, the Arch-biſhop of Caeſarea de capite fontium a French Preacher of late hath made much adoe to have the conſecration made by the words of the prayers, as the Greeke Church ever did think, but the current of their Doctors ſtrives to have the power of conſecration placed alone in the five words, for this is my body, &c. This queſtion is taken up and agreed by the Miſſall and our Book, aſcribing the conſecration to the prayer and words of the Inſtitution conjunctly without any prerogative to the prayer facere digneris ut nobis fiat, above the narration qui pridie, or to this narration above the prayer.
As for tranſubſtantiation, there is no Papiſt this day but will avow that from the clauſe ut fiat nobis corpus & ſanguis being expurged of the gloſſe which it bare of old figura corporis & ſanguis, from this clauſe, I ſay, all Papiſts think their Tranſubſtantiation clearly to flow, if not as from the words which makes the converſion yet as from the words, which evidently preſuppoſes the converſion preſently to be made by the words which in the Miſſall and our book immediately followes, I grant that ſome of the old Schoolemen put ſuch Commentaries upon this paſſage that we may deny to the Papiſts the flowing of their traſubſtantiation therfrom, for Aquinas. p. 3. qu. 83. art. 4. ad ſeptimū. Non tamen videtur ibi ſacerdos orare ut conſecratio impleritur, ſed ut nobis fiat fructuoſa, unde ſignanter dicit ut nobis corpus & ſanguis fiat & hoc ſignificant verba quae praemittit dicens hanc oblationem facere digneris benedictam, id eſt, per quam benedicamur, ſcilicet per gratiam: aſcriptam, id eſt per quam in caelo aſcribamur, ratam id eſt per quam de viſceribus Chriſti eſſe cenſeamur, rationabilem, id eſt per quam a bestiali ſenſu exuamur, acceptabilem ut qui nobis ipſis diſplicemus per hanc acceptabiles ejus unico filio ſimus, but what ever one or two of old may be found to ſpeak, yet the current of their writers even of old, & all of them I know this day doe avow that their monſtruous tranſubſtantiation by cleare inference is deduced from this paſſage, Innocent the third, the moſt nocent father of this monſter, ſo doth expound it, Lib. 3. cap. 12. petimus ut hanc oblationem Deus faciat benedictam, ut eam conſecret in rationabilem hoſtiam, & acceptabile ſacrificium ut ita nobis, id eſt, ad noſtram ſalutem panis fiat corpus & vinum ſanguis dilectiſſimi filij Dei: ſo Bellarmine de Miſſa, lib. 2. c. 23. Non oramus pro Euchariſtia conſecrata, ſed pro pane & vino conſecrando, neque petimus ut Deus benedicat & ſanctificet corpus & ſanguinem Chriſti; ſed ut benedicat & ſanctificet panem & vinum, ut per eam benedictionē & ſanctificationem fiat corpus & ſanguis Domini Heigam whom the Doctors of Doway of late have given to the Engliſh nation for an approven expoſitor of the Maſſe, c. 48. p. 242. on our words. [Heere beginnes the principall part of all the holy Canon which is the conſecration where the Prieſt beſeecheth almighty God that the creatures of bread & wine may be ſanctified and bleſſed, yea changed and converted into the precious body and blood of our Saviour, worthilie is this word (fiat) added in this place, becauſe there is required the ſame Almighty power in this converſion which was in the creation of all the world, and in the incarnation of the Almighty, for God ſaid, when he was to create the world, fiat lux, and our Lady ſaid to the Angell when Chriſt our Lord was to bee incarnate, fiat mihi, ſo the Prieſt in this place, fiat corpus;] I know no Popiſh writer who this day takes this paſſage in any other ſenſe.
Great appeareance that our men intend to have their words expounded popiſhly.That our Bookemen deſire us to take it in any other meaning, there is no appearance, they have let no clauſe fall from their pen which rejects tranſubſtantiation or at leſt a corporall preſence, theſe which in the Engliſh book did croſſe it are now put out, at the delivery of the elements, the Engliſh hath two ſentences which are againſt the coporall preſence in the elements: This our booke hath ſcored out as impertinent, their Rubrieke gave leave for the Miniſter to carry home the relikes of the elements to be imployed as he thought meet in common uſes, this our Book doth ſtrictly diſcharge: no conſecrate bread may be carried out of the holy place but as the Papiſts injoyne all the relickes of the H…ſtie and wine even theſe that ſtucke on the Prieſts fingers to be gathered together and conſumed in the holy place by the Prieſt or Deacon, or elſe burnt, and the aſhes to bee put in a holy veſſell, ſo all the remaines of our holy elements muſt be eaten by the Prieſt himſelfe or theſe Communicants that day which the Prieſt counts moſt fit, and they muſt be eaten with great reverence, and that onelyonly in the holy place And to the end that all dangers may bee eſchewed which may befall on the unreverent eating of theſe elements for we know what adoe the Papiſts make if a crumme of the conſecrate bread, or a drop of the conſecrate wine ſhould fall to the ground, or upon the beard of a laick, for eſchewing of ſuch greevous inconvenients, we are ordained to conſecrate, & ever to cōſecrate as little as may be, yea far rather to bee ſhort of neceſſaries, though it ſhould be ſupplyed with new proviſion, & that to be conſecrate over againe, beginning at ſuch a part of the canon as the Rubricke of the Maſſe doth preſcribe than to have any to leave about the conſumption wherof, the devote minde might bee perplexed: yea as if they would avow manifeſtly their beliefe, and their commanding of our ſoules to beleeve with them their tranſubſtatiation,Se Canterb. Selfe-conviction. c. 6. and Sup. c. 2. at leaſt their reall preſence of the body within the elements, they will have the linnen cloathes which cover the conſecrat elements to bee called a very coporall, the world knowes that corporalls were never heard of in this Sacrament till tranſubſtantiation was borne.
All theſe changes, tranſpoſitions, additions, parings of the Engliſh Liturgy here, our men among their friends profeſſe are made propter ſacramentarios. Mr. Mitchels Epiſtles are knowne counting not us alone in the Scottiſh, French, Fleemes, Switz, and other Churches as ever they did Zuinglian and Sacramentarian hereticks, but even the body of the Engliſh Church, which loves not to adde to their old Liturgie. We have the more reaſon to bee affraid for their humour of novation when wee ſee what ſundry of that faction have lately printed on this ſubject, that they agree with Lutherans and Papiſts, and with them have no controverſie at all about the matter it ſelfe of the reall preſence of Chriſts body in the Sacrament, that all the queſtion is about the manner of the preſence, which queſtion they pronounce to be needleſſe, as being about a mode which is not neceſſary to know, yea which is impoſſible to be determined, being a myſterie imperceptible, yea that none heere will make any controverſie but deviliſh Puritans and Ieſuits, whom an evill Spirit poſſeſſeth to the maintenance of factions and ſchiſmes in the Chriſtian Churches, which without their unhappie humours would eaſily agree, yea to facilitate the agreement; they are come further to the very mode of the Popiſh preſence, or at leaſt ſo neere as is poſſible, without the open avowing of it in terminis, profeſſing ſuch a preſence of the body in the very elements, and upon the Altar, that for it the Altar it ſelfe as the chaire or throne wherein it ſits muſt be adored and worſhipped, not onelyonly the elements which are farre nearer to it. For all this there are paſſages brought in the Selfeconviction from Montagu, Pocklington, Canterburie, and others of that faction: heere I will not repeate, onelyonly heare one paſſage of D. Laurence Sermon, I like S. Ambroſe, Lombard, Bucer, Roffenſis and Harding, who advice in this argument to forbeare the determination of the manner of preſence, but to cloath our fancy with indefinit and generall expreſſions, as I like not thoſe that ſay hee is bodily there, ſo I like not thoſe that ſay his body is not there, becauſe Chriſt ſayes it is there, & S. Paul ſaies it is there, and the Church of England ſayes it is there, & the Church of God ever ſaid it is there, and that truely, ſubſtantially, eſſentially, not only by way of repreſentation or commemoration and yet without either, con, ſub, or trans, which the ancient Church ſaid not but by a reall, and nevertheleſſe ſpirituall, myſticall, and ſupernaturall preſentation and exhibition, we muſt beleeve it is there, we muſt not know how it is there: It is a myſterie they all ſay, and it were not a myſterie if it were knowne. The preſence they determine yet the manner of his preſence they determine not, they ſaid he is there, but they ſaid, the Lord knowes how. pag. 71. 18.
They are for bread worſhip and Altar worſhip.As for the adoration of the Hoſtie, and ſo the vileſt Idolatry that wee chalenge this day in the Church of Rome, it is builded upon the forenamed Rubrickes, directing the Prieſt in the conſecration to take the Hoſtie in his hand, to lift it up, to bow before it, and the people then to proſtrate: how neere are wee brought to this in the conſecration, wee are directed to take the patine and chalice in our hand, they needed not have abſtained from the word hoſtie, the latine Maſſe words of patine and chalice are as unkoth to us, yea Pocklington with Canterburies leave as hee delights to bring in uſe the words of officiating Prieſts with patine and chalice and corporals, carpets and vailes, ſo likewiſe the words of Hoſtie and Sacrifice, yea Montagu ſhowes his contentment of the words Maſſe and Tranſubſtantiation, alwaies we are directed to take in our hands the chalice and the patine with the hoſtie not for eat king of it, or diſtribution of it, nor any ſuch end: to ſay that the end of this taking in our hands is that ſame for which the Papiſts uſe elevation, to wit, the Prieſts inclination and the peoples proſtration ſee if any charity does hinder theſe ſuſpicions, it is now the daily practice of that faction not onelyonly at the conſecration to lift up the conſecrat elements that the people may ſee them (as one of our chiefe Biſhops profeſſed to my ſelfe, it had beene his cuſtome to doe theſe many yeares bygone if my memory be good) but alſo to bow before them, both at their taking up and laying downe, ſo that at leaſt they may be perceaved to give foure inclinations to the elements before the act of receiving: As for the people, there proſtration we cannot be far from it, when we ſee their head and Prince my Lord of Canterbury complaining in print of the laxnes of authority that urges not all to bow, proſtrate, and adore not onelyonly at, but to the very Altar, for the relation it hath to the body which uſually ſits thereon; muſt authority urge all to adore the Altar for the Sacrament that is but ſome times upon it? And ſhall it permit people to bee ſo profane? for to this vice Canterbury gives no better name, yea a farre more ſcurrile epithet) as to neglect adoration to the conſecrate Hoſte which brings all that reſpect to the Altar whereupon it is laid.
Our feares of ſuch intentions are increaſed, when we ſee that in diſcourſes & printed books they are not aſhamed to cleare and free the Papiſts of all Idolatry in theſe acts wherein all our reformed Divines put their very Idolomanie and madneſſe upon Idoles: D. Montague whoſe late writtes M. Dow by Canterburies licence, pronounces to be moſt orthodox and antipapiſticall, and Peter Heylen when from Canterbury, and as he ſayes from the ſtate he anſwers Burton, abſolves with a great elogie from all errour and diſſonance from the Church of England, taking as I thinke the Canterburian faction for the Church by a great miſtake. D. Montague I ſay thus approven of late in his apparatus ſhowes us how Papiſts are not Idolaters, for he tells that no Chriſtian who is a member of the Catholike Church can be an Idolater, how conſonant to himſelf a little therafter, I do not ſay, only thus he ſpeakes p. 1. Et certè quamdiu palam non deficiunt à pietate & cultu Dei proprio ad idolatriam etiam moribus impij, vita contaminati tolerantur in Eccleſia non minus quam miluus & corvus immunda animalia erant in arca Eccleſiae prototypo ſingulari at nullus erat in arca foreign, nec in Eccleſiae ſocietate quià foreign pietatem Chriſtianam quatenus Chriſtianam execratur. Now that the Papiſts are members of the true Church neither hereticks nor ſchiſmatickes, but members of the ſame Body, burgeſſes of the ſame citie, ſonnes of the ſame Father with us Proteſtants, and though they maintaine ſtiffely to death all their popiſh tenets, yet that they ought in peace and love to be tolerated, and that Divines who denie this are but mad, ſee pag. 283. ſectam & haereſin non faciunt ij qui conſtanter retinent doctrinam traditam, neque enim ille haereticus dicetur qui per omnia Romanam fidem integerrimam profitetur, & p. 347. Haec eſt illa Helena quae nomen jamdiu Chriſtianum partibus & factîonibus diſtractum in mutuas caedes concitavit impiè & crudeliter inter ejuſdem Eccleſiae membra, ejuſdem cives civitatis, ejuſdem patris filios, odijs, convitijs, maledictis, ferro ſ…ammâque ſaevitur in rebus plerumque non tam fidei, quam curioſitatis, ſcimus autem ait Cyprianus, quoſdam id quod ſemel imbiberunt nolle deponere, nec propoſitum ſuum facile mutare, ſed ſalvo pacis & charitatis vinculo quaedam propria quae ſemel uſurpata ſunt apud ſe retinere, nolebant illi à ſuis opinionibuus dimoveri, facile tamen patiebantur diſſentientes, at alia nunc ſunt tempora, diverſi mores, quicquid factioſo alicui aut furioſo Theologo, &c. Yea in his Origines hee gives to the putters downe of the Popiſh Idols in the Church of England no better ſtyle than furioſi iconoclastae, p. 162. and religioſi nebulones, 174. yea p. 40. hee proclaimes the diſtinction of latria and dulia, and avowes that no Papiſt ever gave to any creature the worſhip of latria, and all the queſtion wee and they have long tinkled on for the worſhipping of Saints, Relicts, Images, or any other conſecrate things with dulia is but vaine and for a ſhadow: That we have been but toying upon ambiguous and obſcure words; yea that to thoſe holy things a religious reverence and worſhip of dulia is truly due if ſo it bee not a divine latreia which no Papiſt will give them more nor we, martyrum reliquias, foreign, depoſita, foreign, ſi quae nanciſci potuerimus genuina nec fucata libenter ſuſcipimus, & veneratione ſua debita ac congrua hcnoramus, (non foreign as hee ſpake before) deveneratione autem debita hoc eſt modo & menſura diſquirendum, inprimis Dei cultum foreign quem appellant nec poſſumus alicui creaturae nec debemus ſive humanae ſive Angelicae quamvis excellentiſſimae impendere, hoc fatebitur Bullingerus & tota ſchola non inſanientium foreign nolunt enim illi quovis modo cuicunque creaturae latrian ne quidem cultu relativo exhiberi, ſed non conſtat quis ſit ille cultus latriae ſoli Deo praecisè & peculiariter debitus, quibus terminis circumſcribatur quis ille qui ſolis debetur creaturis, quis modus, gradus, menſura, partes, conditio, limitatio, omnia vacillant, vel ignorantur nec illud agitur ut conſtare poſſint, luſum eſt diu in hac quaeſtione & illuſum per ambiguitates, è privatis nempe vel contendendi vel diteſcendi reſpectibus, conſtet autē hoc & facilè conveniet inter nos de ſanctorum reliquijs venerandis; magnam certe gratiam ab Eccleſia Chriſti & partibus inter ſe contendentibus inierit is vel ille qui doceant quouſque progredi in hoc Sanctorum cultu, & foreign poſſumus. Interim quod pueri ſolent in hac re ut in multis foreign.
The other authour I ſpake of is D. Laurence, Chaplaine in ordinary in his Sermon Preached lately before the King ſubſcribed by Canterburies Chaplaine and printed (as the booke ſaies) by the Kings ſpeciall command, he makes idolatry the giving of Divine honour to a creture, and ſo purges the Church of God of this damnable crime: even as Schelford in his laſt Sermon notes that images become not idols till they be worſhipped with divine worſhip, and that as Gods, yet Laurence preaches that religious worſhip and adoration may bee given to creatures eſpecially to the Altars for the ſingular preſence of Chriſts Body, yea that divine worſhip which he calls foreign (expreſly diſtinguiſhed from religious veneration and proſtration belonging to Creatures) may bee given to the Altar but not terminativè, onelyonly tranſitivè for it is for the reſpect of God who is there, yea farther he will have the Creator & the creature adored with one conjunct divine adoration without any diſtinction as Chriſts Godhead and manhood without any abſtraction are adored with a divine adoration, ſo Chriſts body and the Altar (much more the elements) are without any abſtraction to be adored with one and the ſelfe ſame honour, heare the Doctors words, [As Chriſtians diſtinguiſhed their oratories into an Atrium a Church-yard, a Sanctum a Church, a ſanctum Sanctorum a Chancell, ſo did they conceave a greater degree of ſanctitie in one of them than another, and a greater degree of the preſence of God: as that diſtinction of holy places continued after Chriſt, ſo did the reaſon of that diſtinction, the whole is the houſe of God becauſe that although the Lord be without theſe walls, yet is he more within, as we are not preſumed to be ſo much abroad as at home, as the Church conceived him to be in all the parts of his houſe yet it conceived him to be more preſent in one part of it than another, which was the reaſon that the conſecration of the Sacrament was in one place, albeit the diſtribution was in another, where our Liturgy hath enjoyned alſo the ſecond ſervice to be read, and after childbirth the preſentation of thankeſgiving and oblations, and all theſe in reſpect of that peculiar diſpenſation of Gods preſence in this diviſion of the Church, as within the vaile in their diviſion of the temple, having an Altar heere anſwerable to the mercy-ſeate there, as alſo in reſpect of the union betwixt this place and Chriſts humane nature from 12. to 16. p. a different holineſſe of places there is confeſſed, and this ariſeth frō a different preſenee of God in theſe places, and there muſt follow alſo a different reſpect toward theſe places, elſe were there not a ſuteableneſſe betwixt honour and merit, which naturall juſtice requires: wee reade of civill reſpect, not onelyonly to the perſons of great men, but to their portraitures, their chaire of eſtate, their chamber of preſence; and wee reade of reverentiall reſpects to the Tabernacle, to the Temple, to the croſſe and Goſpels of Chriſt, for as perſons and things have beene in a religious or civill eſtate, ſo have religious and civill perſons ever eſteemed of them, nor is all this to inſinuate the derivation of Gods honour on any beſide God; God divert that damnable idolatry as farre from me as hee hath done from the Church of God: Some things have a civill reſpect, others a religious, but the Lord onelyonly a divine, this religious reſpect is called by Damaſcen, foreign. Reverentia vel honor religioſus debetur omnibus quae propriè ſpectant ad cultum; this honour is religious not only quia imperatur à religione, but alſo quia fundamentum habet in relatione rei vel perſonae alicujus ad religionem et cultum ſacrum, pag, 25. we find in Ignatius, foreign, a honour due to the Altar, & adgeniculari aris a kneeling to the Altars in Tertullian, and foreign, an adoration of the Altar, in the fift Councell, & reverentiam altaribus exhibendam in the Synodals of Odo, foreign, in Damaſcen, yea divina altaria, and in the Greek Liturgies, an humble proſtration before the Altar, and in Damaſcens life of Mary the Egyptian, foreign, although they gave a religious reverence to theſe places, yet they terminate that religious reverence in God, not in the places; the throne is honoured for the King, he that reſpects the houſe for the owners ſake, reſpects not the houſe but him: although the humane nature of Chriſt receive all from the divine, yet we adore the whole ſuppoſitum in groſſe, which conſiſts of the humane as well as of the divine, ſo becauſe of Gods perſonall preſence in the place, wee adore him without abſtraction of his perſon from the place, p. 39.] I doubt if the groſſeſt of the Jeſuits have ſpoken ſo plaine language, for the adoration with religious reverence of the mind, and proſtration of the body, not onelyonly before but unto the Chancel, the Altar, the Croſſe, and by good conſequent, as I thinke, much more unto the elements, which in all reſpects are nearer that body, which makes by its preſence all the reſt to be ſo adored.
The Popiſh courſing about the Altar, and croſſings approved.Many other poynts of agreement might an acurate paralleler find betwixt the Maſſe and our Booke, in the preſent paſſage I poynt but at other three, to wit, in courſing and in croſſing, in neglect of breaking and intention to conſecrate: wee reprove in the Papiſts their folly to courſe from one nook of their altar to another, from the North to the South, from the right horne to the left, from the end to the midſt, and from it to the end again; for theſe myſterious reaſons we may reade in the Rationaliſts. What other thing does our Rubrick import, bidding us leave our North ſtanding, where we were in our Preface, and come to another part of the Altar during the time of conſecration, that when it is ended we may returne againe to the North end? Alſo that the end of our comming to another place in the conſecration is the more eaſe to uſe both our hands, what uſe here of both the hands is poſſible, but that which the Romiſh Rubricks at this place doe injoyne, the multiplication of croſſes, whiles with the right, whiles with the left hand, whiles with both the armes extended ſo far as they may be; this could not be done if we ſtood at the North end of the Table, for then the Eaſt wall of the Church would hinder us to extend our left arme, and ſo to make the image of Chriſts extenſion on the croſſe perfectly. The Papiſts to recompence the want which the people have in their eare by the Prieſts ſilence & turning of his back upon them during the time of conſecration, as our Book ſpeaks, they thinke meet to fill their eyes with dumb ſhewes, not onelyonly to ſet up the crucifix on the Altar, on the Pillars, on the Tapeſtry, on the Eaſt glaſſe window, where it may be moſt conſpicuous to the eye, but chiefly to cauſe the Prieſt at the altar to make a world of croſſes and geſtures, all which muſt have a deep ſpirituall ſenſe. Will not the preſent Rubrick give us leave to entertaine our people with the ſame ſhews, the crucifixes are already ſet upon the Altar, on the Tapeſtry, on the walls, on the glaſſe windowes in faire and large figures. The lawfulneſſe of croſſing not only in Baptiſme, but in the Supper and any where is avowed, as in the Self-conviction is ſhewen, what other barre is left us to receive all the croſſings that are in the Maſſe, but the ſole pleaſure of our Prelates who when they will, may practiſe that which they maintaine and force us to the particular uſe of theſe things which they have already put in our Book in generall termes.The breaking of the bread unneceſſary.
Againe, we challenge in the Papiſts that in their forme of conſecration they have put out not onelyonly the forenamed ſentence, Quod eſt figura corporis & ſanguinis, but alſo that other ſentence, which for a long time ſtood in the old Liturgies, Quod pro vobis confringetur, that by the razing out of theſe words, they might put away the breaking of the bread in the diſtribution to the people, they have indeed a breaking of the bread after the conſecration into three parts, all which are eaten by the Prieſt for very abſurd ends; but when they diſtribute on Paſche day to the people, they will not break but provide to every one a round Wafer to be put in their mouth, for if they did breake there would be great danger that ſome little crummes of the bread in breaking ſhould fall off, and that ſo many bodies of Chriſt as in theſe are broken mites of bread, ſhould fall to the ground, and be trod on or loſt, for this cauſe when they breake the hoſtie into their three portions, it is done with great circumſpection above the cup, that all the crums may fall in the blood and be drunken down with it by the Prieſt, but no breaking muſt be of the bread wch is given to the people: With this practice our Book does agree, for it ſayes not which was broken for you, but which was given for you, no direction in any of our Rubricks for breaking of the bread, yea one Rubrick pronounces that Wafers ſhall be lawfull to give to the people, albeit uſuall bread may ſuffice.
The Prieſts intention avowed.Farther all know what great diſputes we have with the Papiſts about their intention to conſecrate, and what fearfull perplexities they are put in, both Prieſt and people, by their Rubrick which will have the Prieſts intention abſolutely neceſſary for the conſecration, as we may ſee in theſe two cautels of the Maſſe: Proferendo verba conſecrationis circa quamlibet materiam ſacerdos ſemper intendat conficere id quod Christus inſtituit & Eccleſia facit: The other, Si autem per nimiam diſtractionem habitualis intentio cum actuali tolleretur, videtur quod deberet verba conſecrationis cum actuali intentione reſumere, ſic tamen quod nollet conſecrare ſi conſecratio facta eſſet; this intention to conſecrate our Book avowes in the Rubrick in hand, [let him lay his hands on ſo much as he intends to conſecrate.]
Thus much for our prayer of conſecration, borrowing from the Maſſe theſe ſentences word by word, whereupon they build their conſecration, tranſubſtantiation, and adoration, whereby they put away the breaking, and take in the courſing, and manifold croſſings, with the Prieſts intention to conſecrate; the reſt of the words of the Romiſh conſecration may all be eaſilier digeſted than any one of theſe corruptions wee profeſſe to borrow, yea our men avow plainly their approving of this part of the Maſſe as it ſtands in the Canon without any change, ſee the appendix aſcribed to D. Field after his death, L. 3. c. 1. [In this ſenſe ſayes he it is which we find in the Canon, where the Church deſires almightie God to accept theſe oblations of bread & wine which ſhee preſents unto him, and make them to become unto the faithfull Communicants the body & blood of Chriſt, who the night before he was betrayed, tooke bread into his ſacred hands, lifted up his eyes to heaven, gave thanks, bleſſed it, and gave it to his Diſciples, ſaying, Take yee all of this, for this is my body: And in like manner after the Supper, &c.] nothing is in this part of the Maſſe, but all there is juſtified.