Baillie’s Parallel. Chapter V.

CHAP. V.

Concerning the Canon of the Mass, Consecration, transubstantiation and adoration, &c.

---

The ordinary Prefaces.

WE are now come to the Canon, a part of the Mass, whereupon the Papists fond love, and the Protestants just hatred is chiefly spent, take Bellarmine for a witness of these contrary affections, de Missa, Lib. 2. c. 17. Sacrum canonem ut summa reverentia semper Catholici retinuerunt, ita incredibili furore hæretici hujus temporis lacerant [As Catholics have always retained the sacred canon with the highest reverence, so the heretics of this time tear it apart with incredible fury].

This member of the Mass 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 reads the Missal: Hic dicit sacerdos sursum corda, respondet chorus, habemus ad Dominum, sacerdos gratias agamus Domino nostro. Resp. dignum & justum est, sacerdos verè dignum et justum est, æquum & salutare nos tibi semper & ubique gratias agere Domine sancte pater omnipotens, æterne Deus, & ideo cum Angelis & Archangelis, cum thronis & dominationibus & cum omnibus militia cælestis exercitibus hymnum gloriæ tuæ canimus sine fine dicen-

(39)

tes, sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Dominus Deus Saboth, pleni sunt cæli & terræ gloria tua, hosanna in excelsis [Here the priest says, “Lift up your hearts.” The choir responds, “We have them unto the Lord.” The priest says, “Let us give thanks to our Lord God.” Response: “It is meet and just.” The priest says, “It is truly meet and just, right and salutary, that we should always and everywhere give thanks unto thee, O holy Lord, Father almighty, eternal God. And therefore with angels and archangels, with thrones and dominions, and with all the armies of the heavenly host, we sing the hymn of thy glory, saying without end: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth; heaven and earth are full of thy glory; Hosanna in the highest”]. Our Book 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 thanks, &c.] laying 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 near, dicitur præfatio quia est excitatio populi ad illam actionem in qua propriè sacrificium consistit de Miss [It is called the Preface because it is an arousing of the people to that action in which the sacrifice of the Mass properly consists]. Lib. 2. c. 17. or as Heigham. p. 282. [The preface serves to dispose Christians to devotion while the Priest addresseth himself to recite the holy Canon which containeth the most ineffable & incomprehensible mystery 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 vain imaginations are drawn from the orders of Angels, see who hath leisure in all the Rationalists for in these conceits all of them agree to rage.

As for the Authors who put in these patches to the Mass, so says Innocent, Gelasius Papa sacramentorium præfationes dicitur, Sixtus autem, hymnum sanctus, sanctus, sanctus cantari instituit [Pope Gelasius is said to have composed the Sacramentary Prefaces; but Sixtus instituted that the hymn “Holy, holy, holy” should be sung], 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 ago abused to the furthering of the blasphemous sacrifice, hear Alcuin de divinis officijs cap. de celebratione Missæ, sursum corda hortatur sacerdos populum tanquam dicat corda vestra a terrenis curis sursum ad Dominum dirigite, ut sacrificium Deo offerendum quod mihi obtulistis digne offerre valeam exhortatione quæ sequitur verè dignum &c. Gelasius composuisse dicitur [Alcuin, On the Divine Offices, in the chapter on the celebration of the Mass: “Lift up your hearts”: the priest exhorts the people, as though he were saying, “Direct your hearts upward to the Lord, away from earthly cares, so that I may be able worthily to offer to God the sacrifice to be offered, which you have presented to me.” The exhortation which follows, “It is truly meet,” etc., is said to have been composed by Gelasius]. Amalarius, Lib. 3. c. 21. Hymnus sanctus, &c. a Sixto Papa additus est ut in gestis Pontificalibus invenitur [The hymn “Holy, holy,” etc., was added by Pope Sixtus, as is found in the Pontifical Acts], the reason why he might have been 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 hours stay reported that he heard the Angels sing the hymn of Sanctus, & was comman-

(40)

ded to desire the people to sing the same; which when they did, the earthquake ceased: For the composition of the Preface we may hear Honorius in Gemma animæ, Lib. 1. c. 89. Leo Papa præfationes composuit sursum corda de Ieremias, 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 [Pope Leo composed the Prefaces. “Lift up your hearts” is taken from Jeremiah; “Let us give thanks to God” is taken from the Apostle. But Pope Gelasius instituted that “Holy, Holy, Holy” should be sung at Mass. Pope Sixtus composed half from Isaiah and half from the Gospel, and appointed it to be sung at Mass].

The 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 Missal: Thus speaks Durand. Notandum quod licet olim innumeræ essent præfationes, hodie decem tantum sunt canonizatæ [It is to be noted that although formerly there were innumerable Prefaces, today only ten have been canonized], &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 Book makes use of five, in the 1. of Christmas a little of the Mass Preface is changed in our Book, but it is done both needlessly and to the worse, for so says the Missal: Quando per incarnati Verbi mysterium nova mentis nostræ oculis lux tuæ claritatis infulsit ut cum visibiliter Deum cognoscimus, per hunc in invisibilium amorem rapiamur [When, through the mystery of the incarnate Word, a new light of thy brightness shone upon the eyes of our mind, so that, while we know God visibly, through him we may be carried away into the love of invisible things]. This is in nothing worse than our preface, yea in our Preface is matter of more quarrel for it says that Christ was born on that day which to some breeds no small scruple.

In the second of Easter, there is no change at all, for thus say they in the Mass, Et te quidem omni tempore, sed hac potissimum die gloriosius prædicare, 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 [And indeed at all times, but most especially on this day, to proclaim thee more gloriously, when Christ our Passover was sacrificed. For he is the true Lamb of God, who took away the sins of the world, who by dying destroyed our death, and by rising again restored life; and therefore with the Angels], &c. Our book does but turn these in English.

The third, on the Ascension day our Book takes almost word by word out of the Mass per Christum Dominum nostrum qui post resurrectionem suam omnibus discipulis suis manifestus apparuit, & ipsis cernentibus est elevatus in cœlum ut nos divinitatis suæ ribueret tesse [tribueret esse; ED.] participes, & ideo cum Angelis [Through Christ our Lord, who after his resurrection appeared manifestly to all his disciples, and, while they looked on, was lifted up into heaven, that he might grant us to be partakers of his divinity; and therefore with the Angels], &c.

(41)

The fourth Preface of Pentecost the Missal sets down thus, Per Christum Dominum nostrum, qui ascendens super omnes cœlos, sedensq; ad dextram tuam promissum Spiritum Sanctum hodierna die in filios adoptionis effudit, quapropter profusis gaudijs totus terrarum orbis exultat, sed & supernæ virtutes, atq; Angelicæ potestates hymnum gloriæ tuæ concinunt sine fine dicentes [Through Christ our Lord, who, ascending above all the heavens and sitting at thy right hand, on this day poured out the promised Holy Spirit upon the children of adoption. Wherefore, with overflowing joys, the whole world exults; and the heavenly virtues also, and the angelic powers, sing together the hymn of thy glory, saying without end]; What here our Book changes is of their mere pleasure without any necessity.

So in the fifth Preface of the Trinity, there is no material change; Thus hath the Missal, Æterne Deus qui cum unigenito filio & Spiritu Sancto unus es Dominus non in unius singularitate personæ, sed in unius trinitate substantiæ, quod enim tua gloria revelante de te credimus, hoc de filio tuo, hoc de S. Sancto sine differentia discretionis sentimus [Eternal God, who with thine only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit art one Lord, not in the singularity of one person, but in the Trinity of one substance; for what, by the revelation of thy glory, we believe concerning thee, this also we perceive concerning thy Son, this also concerning the Holy Spirit, without difference of distinction]: we repeat the same.

The other five canonized Prefaces are for the solemnities of the Epiphany, of the first day of Lent, of the Apostles and Evangelists days, of the feasts of the Virgin Mary, of the feasts of the Croce; all these solemnities our Authors do keep but the last, and the last may be enjoined 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 embrace it all, only some doubt might be made of some ambiguous words in the feasts of the Apostles, but that they digest them and more hard pills we shall shew at once, so that our want of these five Prefaces, and our possession of the other five, depends allanely [solely] 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 self is but late trash.

After the Prefaces follow the Prayers, these altogether go under the name of the Canon, the action, the secret; our adversaries brag much of the antiquity and holiness of these prayers, but the more advised of them as ye may see in Field, Append. ad lib. 3. c. 1. do restrict the aspiration of antiquity and holiness, but to a small part of these, for how ever the Jesuits please to magnify to

G

(42)

the skies this Canon, yet they which understand it much better than the best of them, confess that it is but patched like a beggars pall of a number of clouts by diverse hands of without discretion, Pope Innocent, l. 3. c. 9. and Durand from him, Secreta quæ secundum diversos & canon & actio nominatur non tota simul ab uno, sed paulatim à pluribus ex eo quoq;; perpenditur fuisse composita, quod ter in ea sanctorum commemoratio repetitur, in secunda quippe commemoratione suppletur quæ de primitivis Sanctis deesse videbantur in prima [The Secret, which according to different writers is called both the Canon and the Action, is judged also from this to have been composed not all at once by one man, but gradually by several: namely, because in it the commemoration of the saints is repeated three times. For in the second commemoration those things are supplied which seemed to be lacking in the first concerning the primitive saints]. And in the next Chapter, Traditur quod Gelasius Papa quinquagesimus primus à B. Petro qui fuit post Sylvestrum per 160. annos Canonem principaliter ordinavit [It is handed down that Pope Gelasius, the fifty-first from blessed Peter, who lived 160 years after Sylvester, principally arranged the Canon], herewith does Honorius in gemma Animæ c. 90. agree: Canonem Gelasius Papa composuit [Pope Gelasius composed the Canon], &c. subjoining the names of a number of Popes, who put to their proper additions to this centô [patchwork], this same doth Walafrid. cap. 22. and divers of the old Rationalists. All the Canon as it lies in the Mass our Book does not borrow, neither was it necessary, for the kind mother Church of Rome can well dispense with some difference, yea with a greater variety than is betwixt our Book and theirs, in this part take Bellarmine caution for this benignity, de Missa, l. 2. c. 18. Neq; negamus verba Canonis diversa fuisse & etiam hodie esse apud Græcos, & apud quasdam Latinorum Ecclesias, neq; cogit Romana Ecclesia, ut Chemnitius mentitur, ut omnes Canonem Missæ Romanæ tanquam necessarium, omnino ad Eucharistiam consecrandam servent, nam & in ipsa urbe Romæ, & alibi per Italiam videmus Romano Pontifice consentiente à Græcis retineri Liturgiam Basilij & Chrysostomi & Ambrosianam Mediolani & quam dicunt Mosarabam Toleti in Hispania [Nor do we deny that the words of the Canon have been different, and even today are different among the Greeks and among certain Latin churches; nor does the Roman Church compel, as Chemnitz falsely says, that all should observe the Canon of the Roman Mass as absolutely necessary for consecrating the Eucharist. For both in the very city of Rome itself, and elsewhere throughout Italy, we see that, with the Roman Pontiff’s consent, the Liturgy of Basil and Chrysostom is retained by the Greeks, and the Ambrosian at Milan, and that which they call the Mozarabic at Toledo in Spain]. Our men take in expressly the principal members of this portion, these things which the Papists do most love and the Protestants most abhor, 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, twelve, in more or fewer, as Authors are pleased diversly to conceive, we shall take them up in six parts.

(43)

The worst parts of the Canon are in our Book.

The third and fourth only are the principal, even those pieces whereby alone the consecration and oblation of the great sacrifice is performed, for here alone it is Ubi sacerdos accedit ad Dominici corporis consecrationem [Where the priest approaches the consecration of the Lord’s body], according to Durand, l. 4. fol. 73. Of these parts it is that Innocent exclaims, l. 4. c. 1. Ecce nunc ad summum sacramenti verticem accedentes, ad ipsum cor divini sacrificij penetravimus [Behold, now, approaching the highest summit of the sacrament, we have penetrated to the very heart of the divine sacrifice]. These parts he calls the heart of that wicked body of the Mass, this unhappy heart the English had pulled out, that the Serpent might never again revive among them; but our men with an high hand and open face profess the restoring of the life and putting in again the heart in the body of that dead hydra: They put up in capital Letters their prayer of consecration and memorial of oblation, and set down at the back of the same Rubric the same words which the Missal uses for their transubstantiation; and to the other the same words which they use in offering up their unbloody propitiatory Sacrifice, who ever can clear our Book of these abominations, must clear the Missal of them, for these places of the Missal whence alone, or at least far most directly and principally the Papists do infer these their capital errours, the same places are expressly set down in our Book without any circumlocution.

We have borrowed the Popish consecration.

A Rubric for consecration alone without any further addition in these days had been obnoxious to suspicion of an evil intent, our Book-men knew that however the term 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 [mutter] a number of words on the elements for their transubstantiation into the body and blood of Christ, and not as we do for the sanctifying of the Elements, or applying them to the holy and sacramental use by reciting the words of Christ’s institution to the people, not to the dead elements: Durand’s doctrine is this day common among our Adversaries, Dicimus illud non consecrari sed sanctificari, differt autem inter hoc, nam consecrare est consecratione transubstantiare sanctificare est sanctum & reverendum efficere ut patet in aqua benedicta [We say that it is not consecrated but sanctified. There is, however, a difference between these: to consecrate is, by consecration, to transubstantiate; to sanctify is to make something holy and reverend, as is evident in blessed water].

(44)

We are enjoined in consecrating to turn our backs to the people, and to by consequent to whisper in what language we will.

A Rubric for consecration alone then had been suspicious, especially here where the English, yea no reformed Liturgy had any form of consecration, but now whilst to their consecration they will add a clause of the Ministers posture in this act, commanding him during the time of consecration to leave the former stance he was enjoined in the first Rubrics 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 ears 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 Shepherds 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 do what they did see oft the Priest to do in the Temple by this pronunciation, their bread before their eyes was transubstantiate into flesh, and fire from heaven came down which destroyed that flesh and them, at least stroke them dead for a time; whereupon it was decreed that the whole Canon thereafter not only should be in a tongue unknown to the people, but also should be whispered so secretly that no man but the Priest alone should hear one word of it. This history is set down in such a number of the Popish writers that I need make no citations, only 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 antiquity; so that we must take it in a very evil part to be brought towards it by our Book, for when our Table is brought to the East end of the Quire [i.e., Choir], so near 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 speak so low as he will or what he will, for were his face to the people & his voice

(45)

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 only to turn 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 enjoined 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 Rubric in this place enjoins: Whereupon Durand from Innocent and others thus comments; Canon secreta voce celebratur ne sacrosancta verba vilescant, fertur enim quod cum antiquitus publicè et alta voce Canon diceretur omnes pene 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 divino judicio igne cœlitus 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 [The Canon is celebrated in a secret voice, lest the most holy words become cheapened. For it is reported that, when in ancient times the Canon was said publicly and in a loud voice, almost everyone came to know it through that usage, and they would chant it in the streets and lanes. Hence, when certain shepherds were singing it in a field and had placed bread upon a stone, at the utterance of those very words the bread was changed into flesh; and those same men, by divine judgment, were struck down by fire sent from heaven. For this reason the holy Fathers decreed that those words should be said in silence, forbidding under anathema that they be pronounced except by priests, over the altar, in the Mass, and with the sacred vestments]. This injunction we are directed to keep while we are not only enjoined to go 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 ways to the people from whom we have gone away, and on whom we have turned our back.

This is Bellarmine main prop of celebrating the Sacrament in an unknown tongue, de Missa, L. 2. c. 11. Verba consecrationis non dicuntur ad instruendoes auditores, sed ad elementorum consecrandum, elementum autem nullam linguam intelligit, quare impertinens est ad oblationem, utrum Missa dicatur lingua vulgari aut non vulgari [The words of consecration are not spoken to instruct the Hearers, but to consecrate the elements; and an element understands no language. Therefore it is irrelevant to the oblation whether the Mass is said in the common tongue or in a non-common tongue]. For this wicked practice of silence and going from the people Bellarmine great argument is, the practice of the Jewish Priests in these words, c. 12. Habemus exempla sacrificiorum veteris Legis, nam Levit. 16. describitur solemne sacrificium incensi ac iubetur solus sacerdos intra velum ingredi & sacrificare ac orare pro se & populo, omnibus alijs foris expectante-

(46)

bus & non modo non audientibus, sed nec videntibus sacerdotem quo etiam ritu sacrificasse Zachariam patrem præcursoris Luc. 1 [We have examples from the sacrifices of the old Law; for in Leviticus 16 the solemn sacrifice of incense is described, and the priest alone is commanded to enter within the veil, and to sacrifice and pray for himself and for the people, all others waiting outside, and not only not hearing, but not even seeing the priest. By this rite also Zacharias, the father of the Forerunner, sacrificed in Luke 1]. Yea as the Jewish Priest to be more hid from the people in some solemn sacrifices went within the vail, so the Popish Priest will have the vails and curtains of their Altars drawn about him while he is uttering his Canon and secret consecration; this we have from Durand, Lib. 4. fol. 72. Ad quod repræsentandum in quibusdam Ecclesijs sacerdos secretam intrans quibusdam cortinis, quæ sunt in utroq; latere altaris, quæ tunc extenduntur, quasi tegitur & velatur [To represent this, in certain churches the priest, entering the secret place, is as it were covered and veiled by certain curtains which are on either side of the altar and are then drawn out]. Is it not to this that here our Book-men lead us, my L[ord]. of Canterbury [i.e., the Archbishop] is not content in his Sermon before K[ing]. James 1621. to avow it is expedient that the substantial Church [i.e., the NT church] now should go beyond the typic[al] Church of old [i.e., the OT church] in the sumptuous magnificence of many ceremonies, but approves of late his man Dr. Pocklington in his Altare Christianum a little after the beginning to praise their zeal, who made their altars of gold, or silver, and consecrated them, laying on them carpets and corporals, and inclosing them not only with rails of timber, but vails and curtains of cloth, yea to use expressly the present argument of Bellarmine for closing up the Priest in his sacrificing or making his consecration, so that not only his words may be removed from the ears, 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 [Paulinus was placed in the midst], 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 hear his bells, but himself 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

(47)

Priest, that it must of necessity 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 vails and rails from the people, when the prayer which stood here in the English Liturgy some impediment in their way opposing their Popish consecration, they have removed it to another place fitter for their designs, when our Book 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 go yet further to bring back the very words of the Mass for their consecration and oblation, the worst words, I say, that the Mass 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 Missal.

The Popish prayer in Consecration stands thus in the Mass: Quam oblationem tu Deus omnipotens in omnibus quæsumus benedictam, ascriptam, ratam, rationabilem acceptabilemq; 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 cœlum ad te Deum suum patrem omnipotentem, tibi gratias agens benedixit, fregit [Which oblation do thou, O almighty God, we beseech thee, deign to make in all things blessed, enrolled, ratified, reasonable, and acceptable, that it may become for us the body and blood of thy most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; who, the day before he suffered, took bread into his holy and venerable hands, and with his eyes lifted up to heaven unto thee, God, his almighty Father, giving thanks to thee, blessed it, broke it], (a rubric interlaced hic frangit hostiam [Here he breaks the host]) deditq; discipulis suis, dicens accipite & manducate ex hoc omnes, hoc est enim corpus meum [and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat ye all of this; for this is my body”] (a rubric here also post hæc verba inclinet se sacerdos ad hostiam, & postea elevet eam supra frontem ut possit à populo videri [After these words, let the priest bow himself toward the host, and afterward lift it above his forehead, so that it may be seen by the people]) simili modo postquam cænatum est accipiens & hunc præclarum calicem in sanctas & venerabiles manus suas itidem tibi gratias agens benedixit, deditq; discipulis suis dicens accipite & bibite ex eo omnes [In like manner, after supper was ended, taking also this excellent chalice into his holy and venerable hands, likewise giving thanks to thee, he blessed it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and drink ye all of it”] (the rubric hic elevet sacerdos calicem [Here let the priest elevate the chalice]) hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi Testamenti mysterium fidei qui pro vobis & multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum, hæc quotiescunq; feceritis in mei memoriam facietis [For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new Testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins. As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of me].

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. Hæc verba qui pridie &c. ad hæc est corpus meum, Alexander Papa primus canoni addidisse dicitur [These words, “who, the day before,” etc., down to “this is my body,” are said to have been added to the Canon by Pope Alexander I], as for

(48)

the former part which is the prayer formally said by them on their hostie, we heard before how Innocent ascribes its composition to Gregories Scholasticus, albeit no ways as it stands in the Missal and our Book, for in that Scholasticus time the words did run clearly against transubstantiation, see how they are set down in the fourth Book de Sacramentis, c. 5. among Ambrose works, but posterior to his days, Accipe quæ sunt verba; dicit sacerdos, fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilemq; quod est figura corporis & sanguinis Domini nostri I. Christi qui pridie quam pateretur in sanctis manibus suis accepit panem, respexit ad cœlum ad te sancte pater omnipotens æterne Deus gratias agens, benedixit, fregit, fractumq; Apostolis suis & discipulis tradidit dicens accipite & edite ex hoc omnes, hoc enim est corpus meum quod pro vobis confringetur similiter etiam & calicem [Take note what the words are. The priest says: “Make this oblation for us ascribed, reasonable, and acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; who, on the day before he suffered, took bread into his holy hands, looked up to heaven, to you, holy Father, almighty and eternal God, and giving thanks, blessed it, broke it, and, having broken it, gave it to his Apostles and disciples, saying: Take and eat of this, all of you; for this is my body, which shall be broken for you. In like manner also the cup] &c. This prayer composed by whomsoever yet as it stands this day in the Missal and in our Book from it, is the main ground they have in the Mass for their consecration, transubstantiation, and adoration of the Hoste, they do controvert among themselves about the words of consecration, the Arch-bishop of Cesarea de capite fontium [Caesarea “the head of the springs”] a French Preacher of late hath made much ado to have the consecration made by the words of the prayers, as the Greek 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 Missal 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 [“deign to make, that it may become for us”; i.e., the petition asking God to make the oblation become Christ’s body and blood], above the narration qui pridie [“who, the day before”; i.e., Christ the day before his betrayal], 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 [that it may become for us the body and blood] being expunged of the gloss which it bare of old figura corporis & sanguis [figure of the body and blood], 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

(49)

presently to be made by the words which in the Missal and our book immediately follows. I grant that some of the old Schoolmen put such Commentaries upon this passage that we may deny to the Papists the flowing of their transubstantiation therefrom, so Aquinas p. 3. qu. 83. art. 4. ad septimum. 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 quæ præmittit dicens hanc oblationem facere digneris benedictam, id est, per quam benedicamur, scilicet per gratiam: ascriptam, id est per quam in cœlo 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 [Yet the priest does not seem there to pray that the consecration may be completed, but that it may become fruitful for us. Hence he says pointedly, “that it may become for us the body and blood.” And this is signified by the words which he premises, saying: “Be pleased to make this oblation blessed,” that is, one by which we may be blessed, namely by grace; “ascribed,” that is, one by which we may be enrolled in heaven; “ratified,” that is, one by which we may be reckoned to be of the bowels of Christ; “reasonable,” that is, one by which we may be stripped of beastly sense; “acceptable,” so that we who are displeasing to ourselves may through this be acceptable to his only Son], but whatever 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 do avow that their monstrous transubstantiation by clear 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 benedictionem & sanctificationem fiat corpus & sanguis Domini [We ask that God make this oblation blessed, that he consecrate it into a reasonable host and an acceptable sacrifice, so that thus for us, that is, for our salvation, the bread may become the body, and the wine the blood, of the most beloved Son of God. So Bellarmine, On the Mass, book 2, chapter 23: “We do not pray for the consecrated Eucharist, but for the bread and wine to be consecrated; nor do we ask that God bless and sanctify the body and blood of Christ, but that he bless and sanctify the bread and wine, so that by that blessing and sanctification it may become the body and blood of the Lord.”]. Heigams whom the Doctors of Doway [Douay; i.e., of the Douay-Rheims Bible] of late have given to the English nation for an approven expositor of the Mass, c. 48. p. 242. on our words. [Here begins the principal 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, worthily 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 Al-

(50)

mighty, for God said, when he was to create the world, fiat lux (Let there be light), and our Lady said to the Angel when Christ our Lord was to be incarnate, fiat mihi (Let it be unto me), so the Priest in this place, fiat corpus (Let it become the body),] I know no Popish writer who this day takes this passage in any other sense.

Great appearance that our men intend to have their words expounded popishly.

That our Bookmen desire us to take it in any other meaning, there is no appearance, they have let no clause fall from their pen which respects transubstantiation or at lest a corporal presence, these which in the English book did cross it are now put out, at the delivery of the elements, the English hath two sentences which are against the corporal presence in the elements: This our Book hath scored out as impertinent, their Rubric gave leave for the Minister to carry home the relics of the elements to be employed 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 enjoin all the relics of the Hostie and wine even these that stuck on the Priest’s fingers to be gathered together and consumed in the holy place by the Priest or Deacon, or else burnt, and the ashes to be put in a holy well, so all the remains of our holy elements must be eaten by the Priest himself or these Communicants that day which the Priest counts most fit, and they must be eaten with great reverence, and that only in the holy place. And to the end that all dangers may be eschewed which may befall on the unreverent eating of these elements, for we know what ado the Papists make, if a crumb of the consecrate bread, or a drop of the consecrate wine should fall to the ground, or upon the beard of a laic, for eschewing of such grievous inconvenients, we are ordained to consecrate, & ever to consecrate as little as may be, yea far rather to be short of necessaries, though it should be supplied with new provision, & that to be consecrate over again, beginning at such a part of the canon as the Rubric of the Mass doth prescribe than to have any to leave about the consumption whereof the devote mind might be perplexed: yea as if they would avow manifestly their beliefs, and their comman-

(51)

ding of our souls to believe with them their transubstantiation, at least their real presence of the body within the elements, they will have the linen clothes which cover the consecrate elements to be called a very corporal, the world knows that corporals were never heard of in this Sacrament till transubstantiation was born. [See Canterb. Self-conviction c. 6. and sup. c. 2.]

All these changes, transpositions, additions, parings of the English Liturgy here, our men among their friends profess are made propter sacramentarios [on account of the sacramentarians]. Mr. Michel’s Epistles are known counting not us alone in the Scottish, French, Fleemes, Spitz, and other Churches as ever they did Zuinglian and Sacramentarian heretics, but even the body of the English Church, which loves not to add to their old Liturgy. We have the more reason to be afraid for their humour of novation when we see what sundry of that faction have lately printed on this subject, that they agree with Lutherans and Papists, and with them have no controversy at all about the matter it self of the real presence of Christ’s body in the Sacrament, that all the question is about the manner of the presence, which question they pronounce to be needless, as being about a mode which is not necessary to know, yea which is impossible to be determined, being a mystery imperceptible, yea that none here will make any controversy but devilish Puritans and Jesuits, whom an evil Spirit possesseth to the maintenance of factions and schisms in the Christian Churches, which without their unhappy 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 near as is possible, without the open avowing of it in terminis [in the terms themselves], professing such a presence of the body in the very elements, and upon the Altar; that for it the Altar it self as the chair or throne wherein it sits must be adored and worshipped, not only the elements which are far nearer to it. For all this there are passages brought in the Self-conviction from Montagu, Pocklington, Canterbury, and others of that faction; here I will not repeat, only hear one passage of D. Lawrence Sermon, I like S. Ambrose, Lom-

(52)

bard, Bucer, Rossensis and Harding, who advice in this argument to forbear the determination of the manner of presence, but to cloth our fancy with indefinite and general expressions, as I like not those that say he is bodily there, so I like not those that say his body is not there, because Christ says it is there, & S. Paul says it is there, and the Church of England says it is there, & the Church of God ever said it is there, and that truly, 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 real, and nevertheless spiritual, mystical, and supernatural presentation and exhibition, we must believe it is there, we must not know how it is there. It is a mystery they all say, and it were not a mystery if it were known. The presence they determine yet the manner of his presence they determine not, they said he is there, but they said, the Lord knows 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 we challenge this day in the Church of Rome, it is builded upon the forenamed Rubrics, 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 near are we brought to this in the consecration, we are directed to take the paten and chalice in our hand, they needed not have abstained from the word hostie, the Latin Mass words of paten and chalice are as uncouth to us, yea Pocklington with Canterbury’s leave as he delights to bring in use the words of officiating Priests with paten and chalice and corporals, carpets and vails, so likewise the words of Hostie and Sacrifice, yea Montagu shows his contentment of the words Mass and Transubstantiation, always we are directed to take in our hands the chalice and the paten with the hostie not for eating 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 Priest’s inclination and the people’s prostration, see if any charity does hinder these suspicions, it is now

(53)

the daily practice of that faction not only at the consecration to lift up the consecrate elements that the people may see them (as one of our chief Bishops professed to my self, it had been his custom to do these many years by gone if my memory be good) but also to bow before them, both at their taking up and laying down, so that at least they may be perceived to give four inclinations to the elements before the act of receiving: As for the people’s prostration we cannot be far from it, when we see their head and Prince my Lord of Canterbury complaining in print of the laxness of authority that urges not all to bow, prostrate, and adore not only 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 sometimes upon it? And shall it permit people to be so profane? for to this vice Canterbury gives no better name, yea a far more scurrile epithet) as to neglect adoration to the consecrate Host which brings all that respect to the Altar whereupon it is laid.

Our fears of such intentions are increased, when we see that in discourses & printed books they are not ashamed to clear and free the Papists of all Idolatry in these acts wherein all our reformed Divines put their very Idolomania and madness upon Idols: D. Montague whose late writs M. Dow by Canterbury’s licence, pronounces to be most orthodox and antipapistical, and Peter Heylen when from Canterbury, and as he says from the state he answers Burton, absolves with a great elegy from all errour and dissonance from the Church of England, taking as I think the Canterburian faction for the Church by a great mistake. D. Montague I say thus approven of late in his apparatus shows us how Papists are not Idolaters, for he tells that no Christian who is a member of the Catholic Church can be an Idolater, how consonant to himself a little thereafter I do not say, only thus he speaks p. 1. Et certe quamdiu palam non deficiunt a pietate & cultu Dei proprio ad idolatriam etiam moribus impij, vita contaminati tolerantur in Ecclesia non minus quam miluus &

(54)

corvus, imunanda animalia erant in arca Ecclesiæ prototypo singulari at nullus erat in arca εἰδωλο λάτρης in Ecclesiæ societate quid εἰδωλολάτρης pietatem Christianam quatenus Christianam execratur [And certainly, so long as they do not openly fall away from piety and the proper worship of God into idolatry, even men impious in morals and polluted in life are tolerated in the Church; no less than the kite and the raven, unclean animals, were in the ark, that singular prototype of the Church. But no εἰδωλολάτρης [idol-worshipper] was in the ark, in the society of the Church, who, as an εἰδωλολάτρης [idolater], abhors Christian piety precisely as Christian]. Now that the Papists are members of the true Church neither heretics nor schismatics, but members of the same Body, burgesses of the same city, sons of the same Father with us Protestants, and though they maintain stiffly to death all their popish tenets, yet that they ought in peace and love to be tolerated, and that Divines who deny this are but mad, see pag. 283. sectam & hæresin non faciunt ij qui constanter retinent doctrinam traditam, neque enim ille hæreticus dicetur qui per omnia Romanam fidem integerrimam profitetur, & p. 347. Hæc est illa Helena quæ nomen jamdiu Christianum partibus & factionibus distractum in mutuas cædes concitavit impie & crudeliter inter ejusdem Ecclesiæ membra, ejusdem cives civitatis, ejusdem patris filios, odijs, convitijs, maledictis, ferro flammaque sævitum 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 quædam propria quæ semel usurpata sunt apud se retinere, nolebant illi a suis opinionibuus dimoveri, facile tamen patiebantur dissentientes, at alia nunc sunt tempora, diversi mores, quicquid factioso alicui aut furioso Theologo [Those who steadfastly retain the doctrine handed down do not make a sect or heresy; for he will not be called a heretic who in all things professes the most entire Roman faith. p. 347. This is that Helen which has long since stirred up the Christian name, distracted into parties and factions, to mutual slaughters—impiously and cruelly—among members of the same Church, citizens of the same city, sons of the same father. With hatreds, revilings, curses, sword and flame, men have raged in matters often not so much of faith as of curiosity. But we know, says Cyprian, that some are unwilling to lay aside what they have once imbibed, nor do they easily change their settled purpose; but, while preserving the bond of peace and charity, they retain among themselves certain peculiar things which they have once adopted. They were unwilling to be moved from their own opinions, yet they readily tolerated those who dissented. But now the times are different, the manners are different: whatever pleases some factious or furious theologian], &c. Yea in his Origines he gives to the putters down of the Popish Idols in the Church of England no better style than furiosi iconoclastæ [furious iconoclasts], p. 162. and religiosi nebulones [religious scoundrels], 174. yea p. 40. he proclaims the distinction of latria and dulia, and avows that no Papist ever gave to any creature the worship of latria, and all the question we and they have long tinkled on for the worshipping of Saints, Relicts, Images, or any other consecrate things with dulia is but vain and for a shadow. That we have been put 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 be not a divine latreia which no Papist will give them more now, martyrum reliquias, λείψανα, deposita, κειμηλια, si quæ nancisci potuerimus genuina nec fucata libenter suscipimus, & veneratione sua de-

(55)

bita ac congrua honoramus (non λατρευτικῶς as he spake before) de veneratione autem debita hoc est modo & mensura disquirendum, imprimis Dei cultum λατρειαν quem appellant nec possumus alicui creaturæ nec debemus sive humanæ sive Angelicæ quamvis excellentissimæ impendere, hoc fatebitur Bullingerus & tota schola non insanientium τῶν εξεναντίας nolunt enim illi quovis modo cuicunque creaturæ latriam ne quidem cultu relativo exhiberi, sed non constat quis sit ille cultus latriæ soli Deo præcise & 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, usum est diu in hac quæstione & illusum per ambiguitates, e privatis nempe vel contendendi vel ditescendi respectibus, constet autem hoc & facile conveniet inter nos de sanctorum reliquiis venerandis; magnam certe gratiam ab Ecclesia Christi & partibus inter se contendentibus inierit is vel ille qui doceant quousque progredi in hoc Sanctorum cultu, & λειψανοδουλεία possumus. Interim quod pueri solent in hac re ut in multis σκιομαχοῦμεν [The relics of the martyrs, λείψανα (remains/relics), deposits, κειμήλια (precious keepsakes/treasures), if we can obtain any that are genuine and not counterfeit, we gladly receive, and we honor them with their own due and fitting veneration—not λατρευτικῶς (with divine worship), as he said before. But concerning due veneration—that is, concerning its manner and measure—inquiry must be made. First of all, the worship of God, which they call λατρείαν (latria/divine worship), we neither can nor ought to render to any creature, whether human or angelic, however excellent. Bullinger will confess this, and so will the whole school of the sane among the opponents, τῶν ἐξ ἐναντίας (those on the opposite side). For they are unwilling that latria should be shown in any way to any creature whatever, not even by relative worship. But it is not agreed what that worship of latria is which is precisely and peculiarly due to God alone; by what limits it is bounded; what worship is due only to creatures; what its mode, degree, measure, parts, condition, and limitation are. All things waver, or are unknown; nor is the matter so handled that they can be made settled. This question has long been used and abused through ambiguities, namely from private considerations either of contention or of enrichment. But let this be established, and agreement will easily be reached between us concerning the veneration of the relics of the saints. Certainly, whoever teaches how far we may proceed in this cult of the saints and in λειψανοδουλεία (relic-service) will earn great favor from the Church of Christ and from the parties contending with one another. Meanwhile, as boys are wont to do in this matter, as in many others, σκιομαχοῦμεν (we fight with shadows; i.e., shadow-boxing)].

The other authour I spake of is D[octor]. Lawrence, Chaplain in ordinary in his Sermon Preached lately before the King subscribed by Canterbury’s Chaplain and printed (as the Book says) by the King’s special command, he makes idolatry the giving of Divine honour to a creature, 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 Lawrence preaches that religious worship and adoration may be given to creatures especially to the Altars for the singular presence of Christ’s Body, yea that divine worship which he calls Absolute (expressly distinguished from religious veneration and prostration belonging to Creatures) may be given to the Altar but not terminative, only transitive, 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 Christ’s Godhead and manhood without any abstraction are adored with a divine adoration, so Christ’s body and

(56)

the Altar (much more the elements) are without any abstraction to be adored with one and the self same honour, hear the Doctor’s words, [As Christians distinguished their oratories into an Atrium a Church-yard, a Sanctum a Church, a sanctum Sanctorum a Chancel, so did they conceive a greater degree of sanctity 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 enjoined also the second service to be read, and after childbirth the presentation of thanksgiving and oblations; and all these in respect of that peculiar dispensation of God’s presence in this division of the Church, as within the vail in their division of the temple, having an Altar here answerable to the mercy-seat there, as also in respect of the union betwixt this place and Christ’s human nature from 12. to 16. p. a different holiness of places there is confessed, and this ariseth from a different presence of God in these places, and there must follow also a different respect toward these places, else were there not a suitableness betwixt honour and merit, which natural justice requires: we read of civil respect, not only to the persons of great men, but to their portraitures, their chare of estate, their chamber of presence; and we read of reverential respects to the Tabernacle, to the Temple, to the cross and Gospels of Christ, for as persons and things have been in a religious or civil estate, so have religious and civil persons ever esteemed of them, nor is all this to insinuate the derivation of God’s honour on any beside God; God divert that damnable idolatry as far from me as he hath done from the Church of God: Some

(57)

things have a civil respect, others a religious, but the Lord only a divine, this religious respect is called by Damascen, σέβας, πάντα τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀνακείμενα προσκυνοῦμεν, αὐτῷ δὲ τὸ σέβας προσάγοντες [Reverence: we venerate all things dedicated to God, while bringing the reverence itself to him]. Reverentia vel honor religiosus debetur omnibus quæ proprie spectant ad cultum [Religious reverence or honor is owed to all things which properly pertain to worship], this honour is religious not only quia imperatur à religione [because it is commanded by religion], but also quia fundamentum habet in relatione rei vel personæ alicujus ad religionem et cultum sacrum [because it has its foundation in the relation of some thing or person to religion and sacred worship], pag. 25. we find in Ignatius, τιμὴν θυσιαστηρίου [the honor of the altar], a honour due to the Altar, & adgeniculari aris [to kneel before altars] a kneeling to the Altars in Tertullian, and προσκύνησιν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου [the bowing/prostration before the altar], an adoration of the Altar, in the first Council, & reverentiam altaribus exhibendam [reverence to be shown to altars] in the Synodals of Odo, σέβας τραπέζης [reverence of the table], in Damascen, yea divina altaria [divine altars], and in the Greek Liturgies, an humble prostration before the Altar, and in Damascen’s life of Mary the Egyptian, ῥίψασα ἐμαυτὴν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὸ ἅγιον προσκυνήσασα τὸ ἔδαφος [I threw myself upon the ground and reverenced the holy pavement], 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 human nature of Christ receive all from the divine, yet we adore the whole suppositum [that which is supposed] in gross, which consists of the human as well as of the divine, so because of God’s personal presence in the place, we adore him without abstraction of his person from the place, p. 39.] I doubt if the grossest of the Jesuits have spoken so plain language, for the adoration with religious reverence of the mind, and prostration of the body, not only before but unto the Chancel, the Altar, the Cross, and by good consequent, as I think, 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 points of agreement might an accurate paralleler find betwixt the Mass and our Book, in the present passage I point but at other three, to wit, in coursing and in crossing, in neglect of breaking and intention to consecrate: we 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 horn to the left,

(58)

from the end to the midst, and from it to the end again; for these mysterious reasons we may read in the Rationalists. What other thing does our Rubric 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 return again to the North end? Also that the end of our coming 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 Rubrics at this place do enjoin, the multiplication of crosses, whiles with the right, whiles with the left hand, whiles with both the arms 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 Christ’s extension on the cross perfectly. The Papists to recompence the want which the people have in their ear by the Priest’s silence & turning of his back upon them during the time of consecration, as our Book speaks, they think meet to fill their eyes with dumb shews, not only to set up the crucifix on the Altar, on the Pillars, on the Tapestry, on the East glass 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 spiritual sense. Will not the present Rubric give us leave to entertain our people with the same shews, the crucifixes are already set upon the Altars, on the Tapestry, on the walls, on the glass windows in fair and large figures. The lawfulness of crossing not only in Baptism, but in the Supper and any where is avowed, as in the Self-conviction is shewn; what other barre is left us to receive all the crossings that are in the Mass, but the sole pleasure of our Prelates who when they will, may practise that which they maintain and force us to the particular use of these things which they have already put in our Book in general terms.

The breaking of the bread unnecessary.

Again, we challenge in the Papists that in their form

(59)

of consecration they have put out not only the forenamed sentence, Quod est figura corporis & sanguinis [Which is a figure of the body and blood], but also that other sentence which for a long time stood in the old Liturgies, Quod pro vobis confringetur [Which shall be broken for you], 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 break there would be great danger that some little crumbs 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 break the hostie into their three portions, it is done with great circumspection above the cup, that all the crumbs may fall in the blood and be drunken down with it by the Priest, but no breaking must be of the bread which is given to the people. With this practice our Book does agree, for it says not which was broken for you, but which was given for you, no direction in any of our Rubrics for breaking of the bread, yea one Rubric pronounces that Wafers shall be lawful to give to the people, albeit usual bread may suffice.

The Priest’s intention avowed.

Farther all know what great disputes we have with the Papists about their intention to consecrate, and what fearful perplexities they are put in both Priest and people, by their Rubric which will have the Priest’s intention absolutely necessary for the consecration, as we may see in these two cautels [clever tricks] of the Mass: Proferendo verba consecrationis circa quamlibet materiam sacerdos semper intendat conficere, id quod Christus instituit & Ecclesia facit [In pronouncing the words of consecration over each matter, the priest should always intend to effect that which Christ instituted and which the Church performs]. 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 [But if, through excessive distraction, the habitual intention together with the actual intention were taken away, it seems that he ought to resume the words of consecration with actual intention, yet in such a way that he would not wish to consecrate if the consecration had already been effected], this intention to consecrate our Book avows in the Rubric in hand,

(60)

[let him lay his hands on so much as he intends to consecrate]

Thus much for our prayer of consecration, borrowing from the Mass 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 crossing, with the Priest’s intention to consecrate; the rest of the words of the Romish consecration may all be easilier [more easily] digested than any one of these corruptions we profess to borrow, yea our men avow plainly their approving of this part of the Mass 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 says he it is which we find in the Canon, where the Church desires almighty God to accept these oblations of bread & wine which she presents unto him, and make them to become unto the faithful Communicants the body & blood of Christ, who the night before he was betrayed, took bread into his sacred hands, lifted up his eyes to heaven, gave thanks, blessed it, and gave it to his Disciples, saying, Take ye all of this, for this is my body. And in like manner after the Supper, &c.] nothing is in this part of the Mass, but all there is justified.

NEXT