Baillie’s Parallel. Chapter VII.
James Dodson
CHAP. VII.
Concerning the last two parts of the Mass, the Communion and Post Communion.
Being now somewhat weary with the former collection, I am forced to draw what follows into short bounds: After the consecration and oblation and the rest of the Canon, follows in the Mass before the Communion some preparatory prayers, according to the Rule which Durand in these words sets down, L. 4. fol. 92. Hoc autem breviter notandum est, quod sacerdos ante perceptionem corporis & sanguinis Christi debet dicere orationes à sanctis patribus institutas [But this should be briefly noted: that before receiving the body and blood of Christ, the priest ought to say the prayers appointed by the holy Fathers].
Our Pater noster in this place borrowed from the Mass.
Of these Prayers which stand at the back of the Canon, the first is the Pater Noster, however we shew before that some of the ancients did avow the Apostles and their followers for a time to have used no other set form of prayer at the Communion, but only this of our Lord, yet the putting of this prayer at the back of the consecration & Canon, was but a late invention of Pope Gregory, as himself and all the Rationalists from him declare; take it in Innocents words, Lib. 5. c. 28. Beatus
(75)
Gregorius Orationem Dominicam propter Canonem super hostiam censuit recitari [Blessed Gregory judged that the Lord’s Prayer should be recited over the host because of the Canon]: This in him was counted a novelty, and therefore in his Epistles it behooved him to use Apologies for it, and to set before it a Preface to make the reciting of it in this place of the Mass to be taken in good part, being said sometimes before in that same action: Præceptis salutaribus moniti, & divinâ institutione formati dicimus Pater noster [Admonished by saving precepts, and formed by divine institution, we say: Our Father]. To this Preface of Gregory the formers of the Missal thereafter put to the word audemus [we are bold], and as ye heard from Pope Innocent, this is all said super hostiam [over the host], for their boldness to call God their Father in this place, and that with bold, loud, and high voice, while as in the whole Canon they scarce durst peep, but muttered all in great silence: This their boldness now comes from the consecration and oblation whereby they have Christ the Son of God corporally present in their hands, and have offered him in a propitiatory sacrifice to the Father: When this is perfectly done, they are bold to say their Pater Noster. For this hear Heigam, p. 30.5. The Priest having gotten as it were a good opportunity, having now before him the Lord and maker of heaven and earth, and that according to his corporal presence, he exhorteth all the people heartily to pray, saying, Oremus Pater noster [Let us pray, Our Father]. The English avoids all these superstitions, they say the Lord’s prayer after the Communion, but Gregory’s Preface, Præceptis salutaribus moniti [Admonished by saving precepts], &c. And the latter addition audemus dicere [we are bold to day], they scrape out. Innocent’s rule to say it on the consecrate hostie they abhor, and put the prayer in a place where it cannot be possibly so abused, but here we leave the English Novalists, these Sacramentaries, and put our Pater noster in that same place with the same Prefaces, with the same boldness of speech which the good old order of Sarum prescribed before the Sacramentaries of England or their Patrons were borne.
Also our Prayers of humble access.
The other prayers which the Priest uses before the Communion are diverse, one or more of them to be said according to his good pleasure, all of them run on two
(76)
points, confession of unworthiness to come to God’s table, and a prayer, by the Sacrament to be profited in Soule and Body; so ye may see in the prayer, Deus qui de indignis dignos facis, & de peccatoribus justos, & de immundis mundos [O God, who makes the unworthy worthy, sinners righteous, and the unclean clean]: And in that prayer, Domine, non sum dignus, qui intres sub tectum meum [Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof]: Our prayer of humble access is found plainly out of this, yea it speaks in grosser terms than any of the Mass prayers of this place, for the most common of the Priest’s prayers of access is thus; Corporis & sanguinis tui Domine Iesu Christi Sacramentum quod licet indignus accipio, non sit mihi judicio & condemnationi, sed tua prosit pietate corporis mei & animæ saluti, Amen [May the sacrament of your body and blood, O Lord Jesus Christ, which I, though unworthy, receive, not be to me for judgment and condemnation, but by your mercy profit the salvation of my body and soul. Amen]. What they call the taking of the Sacrament of Christ’s body and blood, we call the eating of Christ’s body and drinking of his blood, they desire that the receiving of the Sacrament may be profitable to the salvation of their soul and body, we pray that our Bodies may be cleansed by his Body, and Souls washed by his blood. The English have indeed this our prayer word by word, but in a place that puts it out of all suspicion, to wit, before the consecration, but we will have it in the proper place where the Mass requires it, and that with a Preface, that its our prayer of access to the Communion. In this place being so transposed and Prefaced, it may well serve the turn of those who profess their design in changing the English Book in these places to cure the diseased mind of Sacramentary Puritans.
There is also in the Mass before the Communion some ceremonies used, as the breaking of the Host, the putting of one part of it in the cup, the giving of the Pax and some prayers joined with these actions; some of them, as the Agnus Dei, we have word by word in our Morning prayer, the rest have naught in them that our men will make any scruple of, only there is in the exposition of the last clause of the Pater noster [Our Father], Libera nos quaesumus [Deliver us, we beseech you], &c. mention made of the intercession of the blessed Virgin and Apostles: but how well they like of such intercession, Montague shews us, and if he cannot be tru-
(77)
sted, as it seems he ought to be, for since B[ishop]. White is removed, he is the principal Writer of that faction we have to do with; or if Schefford likewise have no credit in his avowing that the keeper of the Saints day obtains thereby the intercession of that Saint, and the neglecter of that solemnity receives a great spiritual loss, even the deprivation of the heavenly prayers of the neglected Saint: If we can believe neither of these take a third, D[octor]. Andrews in his Strictura, who must be above all exceptions, especially when he is presented to the world after his death by my L[ord]. of Canterbury: These are his words in the midst of that little Treatise [We celebrate the memories and keep the feasts of the blessed Martyrs, as well for imitation, as that we may be partakers of their intercession:] Is not this a clear enough text put by my Lord of Canterbury in Montague and in Shefford’s hands, which may uphold all the Commentar[ie]s and deductions that they have made upon it.
The worst ceremonies of the Mass avowed.
As for the Ceremonies themselves of breaking the Host, of putting part of it in the Chalice, and taking them out again for the representing of Christ’s burial and resurrection, of their giving their Pax to the people, of their kisses and crosses, and bowings, none of all these things in reason can trouble our men, for they defend the Church’s power in making so many significant rites as she thinks expedient: All these named and many more particulars lie under their general, the power which they give to the Church, will extend it self to the finding out and imposing all these rites were they yet to be invented, and so many more as can come hereafter in the fancy of any who hath a place and spirit for leading in the Church: the most of these rites they have avowed already to be lawful, yea the worst of all the Ceremonies and significant signs of the Masse they have proclaimed long ago to be good, to wit, the use of Images and prostration before them; upon this madnesse a great part of the faction, their zeal is now spent, albeit none of all the reformed Churches have kythed [manifested] more zeal
(78)
against Images both in doctrine and practice, than that of England, the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry, will bear witness, but this now is one of the diseases of this age, whereof Canterbury complains of to the King in his Preface to Andrew’s Posthum[ous] works. This Iconomachian [i.e., image-fighters] heresy is one of these fevers, a fit of that frenzy wherein this last and most corrupt age is fallen, to which his Grace’s medicinal hand offereth a potion; albeit as he there professeth, without great hope to get his perverse Patient by all the craft he can use, purged of the inveterate and now desperate disease; however, he will shew his endeavours that posterior ages may know and praise his labours to relieve the age wherein he lived from these epidemical evils whereto the malign influence of Prior times did make it subject.
We must fall down before Images.
Behold the tablet in hand which his Lo[rd]. by the hand of his Apothecary the Mountebank Dr. Montague presents to us to be swallowed for our health, Antidiatrib. p. 24. Hæretici nequaquam censeri debemus in posterum εἰκονομάχοι asservamus enim diligenter & cum cura Petri, Pauli, B. Virginis Deiparæ, Sanctorum aliorum innumeras imagines præsertim vero I. Christi redemptoris crucifixi etiam in templorum adytis, cryptis, lararys, & p. 26. Sunt apud nos quod aliquoties dicendum frequenterissimæ imagines in Ecclesijs perstallos ut vocant Canonicorum per fenestras, in bonis, valde quidem ut & ipsa θυσιαστήρια [We heretics ought by no means hereafter to be reckoned εἰκονομάχοι (image-fighters/iconoclasts); for we carefully and diligently preserve countless images of Peter, Paul, the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, and innumerable other saints, but especially of Jesus Christ the crucified Redeemer, even in the inner recesses of churches, in crypts, in shrines, etc. p. 26. Among us—as must be said more than once—images are exceedingly common in churches: along the stalls, as they call them, of the canons, in the windows, among the furnishings, and very much so even on the θυσιαστήρια (altars) themselves], he disallows not the religious use of Images but idolatry, p. 27. Tantummodo taxamus τὴν λατρείαν ulsam & utilem certe non sollicitamus ullo pacto [We only censure τὴν λατρείαν (the worship/adoration); we certainly do not in any way trouble or call into question the useful use], the greatest fault he alleges on the Papists here is not idolatry, p. 24. Pergamus ad Romanæ Ecclesiæ εἰκονοδουλείαν [Let us now turn to the Roman Church’s servitude to images], this fault he chargeth them with but for the fashion, for he grants the great conveniency of Images in the Church to stir up effectually by their sight and to invite the hearts of people to sorrow for sin, love of Christ, joy, and all other holy affections, ibid. He says farther that the honour of the Image is for the archetype, and what contumely is done to the Images redounds to the person whose image it is, that those who do any disgrace to the image of a Saint are mad and
(79)
should be punished, p. 128. Verissimum omnino est διὰ τὰ ἀρχέτυπα τιμῶνται εἰκόνες, ut Cæsaris imago in nummi mate, ut Meletij character in palatamellis, quod si quis Cæsaroni charactere & nummismate suo ἀτιμάζοι in archetypum transit ea contumelia, quod si quis Sancti alicujus imaginem dedicore afficiat, illum ego & ὑγιαίνειν optaverim & sive temeritatis pœnas dare [It is altogether most true that διὰ τὰ ἀρχέτυπα τιμῶνται εἰκόνες [images are honored because of their archetypes], as Caesar’s image is honored on a coin, or as the likeness of Meletius on the palatamella. For if anyone should dishonor Caesar in his image and coin, that insult passes over to the archetype. So also, if anyone should treat the image of some saint with disgrace, I would wish both that he come to his senses and that he pay the penalty for his rashness]. Yea if the old Laws be not exercised upon the breakers of Images which Canterbury makes Heylen to avow to be this day in force as they were in Q[ueen]. Mary’s days, Studley with his Graces approbation hath Printed that the hand of God will be on such profane persons, for he Prints that he knew a Churchwarden who had taken down a Cross in the Parish, much frequented by some devout people, and that for the taking down and breaking of that Image the poor man’s swine were stricken with madness, and that he thereafter in despair did drown himself. Yea which is wonderful, Montague leaves not the matter till he bring us to fall down and adore before the Image, just as we do before the Altar, p. 30. Christiani omnes adoramus Christum, imagini & simulachro non prosternimur coram imagine forsan, quid ad rem? Invitatio est ad pietatem ex intuitu, tolle scandalum ita si velis, prosternimur ante mensam Dominicam inclinamus, in genua procumbimus, venerationem exhibemus, non tamen mensam adoramus [All Christians worship Christ; we do not prostrate ourselves to an image or statue—perhaps before an image, but what is that to the point? It is an invitation to piety through the sight of it. Remove the scandal, if you wish. Thus we prostrate ourselves before the Lord’s Table, we bow, we fall upon our knees, we show reverence; yet we do not adore the table]. Will any Papist require more for the outward act than to fall down before the Image? Yea doth the spirit of error suffer these men to stand at an adoration before the Image and before the Table, hath not God given them over to vent their adoration and prostration not only before, but unto the Table for the respect of the body that lies on it, unto God, and to his Altar, and so by Montague his reason to use adoration, not only before Images, but to Images, when the horns of that Spirit are come out so long they deserve no compassion who will be deceived with it.
The Priest’s consumption of the Sacrifice enjoined.
In the Communion we follow the order of the Mass, there the Priest must communicate, and that in both kinds first: if there once be, the sacrifice of the Mass is
(80)
perfected, though no other communicate, his participation they enjoin as absolutely necessary and alone essential to this action. This we ordain straitly that the Presbyter himself first receive in both the kinds, this is the Priest’s consumption, wherein (as Bellarmine before did shew us) the main part of the life, soul, and essence of the Mass did consist. Of this our Church was never careful, it was indifferent for our Minister to communicate at what time, in what order he thought meet.
A door opened for removing of the cup from the people, and putting the bread in their mouth.
Beside this, we are enjoined to give otherwise to the people than we take ourselves; the Presbyter must take in both kinds, the people must get it in due order, not a word of both kinds for them, they have given us just occasion to suspect them of the Popish sacrilege of withdrawing the cup from the people, of in print of late they have forsaken the grounds whereby we oppugn this Popish crime, they tell us that Scripture doth not command the giving of the cup to the people, that the peoples possession of the cup is grounded on sole tradition, that bibite ex hoc omnes concerned the Apostles not as Disciples or people, but as Priests. Hear Doctor Montague in his last Treatise, Orig. p. 396. Ubi iubentur in Scriptura infantes baptizari, aut in cœna Domini sub utraque specie communicantes participare, sexcenta sunt ejusmodi in rebus sacris à Deo institutis, Ecclesiæ mandatis & usurpatis ab Ecclesia de quibus possumus profiteri nihil tale dicit Scriptura, Scriptura hoc non prædicat [Where are infants commanded in Scripture to be baptized, or communicants in the Lord’s Supper to partake under both kinds? There are hundreds of things of this sort in sacred matters instituted by God, commanded by the Church, and practiced by the Church, concerning which we may openly profess: Scripture says no such thing; Scripture does not declare this]. Dr. White of Ely in his Treatise of the Sabbath after 73 p. among his traditions reckons the baptism of Infants, the right sanctifying of the Sunday, the service of the Church in a known tongue, and the delivery of the communion to the people in both the kinds. Heylen Antidot. about the midst, tells us that hoc facite [do this] belongs to the Priest alone, and to the Apostles as Priests, but hoc edite [eat this] to the Priests and people both, he will not be pleased to stay so much of hoc bibite [drink this], Canterbury lets down in Andrew’s posthume furniture a little after the beginning the acknowledgement of the ancient custom of the people’s communicating in one kind in di-
(81)
verse cases without any appearance of dislike of such mutilation of the Sacrament. These are his words [It cannot be denied but reserving the Sacrament was suffered a long time in the Primitive Church, in time of persecution they were permitted to carry away how great a part they would, to keep it by them, and to take it at all times for their comfort, and those that lived as Hermits in remote places were likewise permitted to take with them so much as they thought good, to take it at times—As for the sick it was always sent them home, were the distance never so great, and against the time of extremity it was thought not amiss to have it reserved that if the Priest should not be in case to go to the sick party and there to consecrate for him, yet at least it might be sent him] Yea Dr. Pocklington is applauded by Canterbury to praise the Church of England, not only for their Altars, Fonts, Walls, Glass-windows, Vestry, Lavatory, Reclinatory for confessions within the Chancel, but also for their repository; now it is known that no part of the Sacrament used to be reserved and put in the cist or repository for the use of the sick or others, but the bread only. By this practice the Papists vehemently press us with the needlessness of the cup in all these cases. And by these preparatives the simple needlessness of it for the people in any case.
Vide large Supplem[ent].
While also they scrape out of the English Rubric the giving to the people the Communion in their hands, and put in for it the giving of it in due order, they make way to another Popish abuse of putting the bread in the peoples mouth, as being too profane to handle that which so oft after the consecration they call the body of the Lord, and by this due order they evidently distinguish the people from the Clergy that are present; the one communicates at the Altar, but the other is more unholy than to get leave to come near to the Altar, but were he a King he must receive the Communion without the rail. This diverse of them in their late Writs avows to have been the practice of antiquity, which they pretend themselves desirous to imitate.
(82)
In the delivery of the elements the English Liturgy is left, and the Mass followed.
In the Communion it seems the Romish Church ties not precisely to any one form of words in the delivery of the Elements; for in the Missal there is a diversity in the form of these words: My Sarum hath this form, Corpus Domini nostri J. Christi sit mihi peccatori via & vita in nomine Patris Fily & Spiritus Sancti, Amen [May the body of our Lord Jesus Christ be to me, a sinner, the way and the life; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen]. But the most common form I see is that of the Roman Missal, Corpus Domini nostri Iesu Christi custodiat animam meam in vitam æternam [May the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve my soul unto eternal life]. This our Book follows afflicting to one only form of words, and that of the Roman Missal, correcting as it were but most unhappily the English Liturgy, for both we add a Rubric here [the party receiving shall say, Amen] and repeat it also at the other element, for this sentence savouring so much as words may do, of their corporal presence, they will therefore have it much heeded, and the people to seal it with their Amen. Also that golden sentence of the English Liturgy, that served much to hinder what ever evil imagination people might have taken of a gross corporal presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements or on the Altar, either from the words in hand or any other that golden saying [Take, eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, by faith eat him in thy heart with thanksgiving] they score out by their new Index, least such a firm pillar should stand for these vile heretics the Sacramentarians to lean upon.
At the taking of the other element the Priest says, Sanguis Iesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam æternam [May the blood of Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto eternal life]. This our Book borrows [the blood of the Lord Jesus which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul to life eternal] for fear of Popish transubstantiation; the English put to this sentence [Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and give thanks.] But our men have sponged this away, propter Sacramentarios [because of the Sacramentarians; i.e., Zwinglians], least any thing should be here to hinder our return to our old faith of the real presence within the elements, and that to this faith we might the more be hastened, immediately they subjoin a Rubric to cover the remains of the consecrate elements with a corporal.
(83)
corporal. Now Pope Innocent tells us that corporale pallæ significant linteamina quibus corpus Christi involutum fuit [The corporal and the palls signify the linen cloths in which the body of Christ was wrapped], this linen is not called a corporal till after the consecration, for only then it doth involve and lie about the body of Christ, before the consecration the corpus was not present, and so before they will not give the linen the style of the Corporal.
The Postcommunion is approved.
The Post-Communion is some prayers which the Priest says after the participation. These in the ordinary Mass are thanksgivings to God that hath given the blessed food of Christ’s body and blood, and desires to find the fruit of that blessing in sundry forms of words, the same in substance with our Collect of Thanksgiving. The most common form is this, Gratias tibi ago Domine sancte Pater, omnipotens æterne Deus, qui me refecisti de sacrosancto corpore & sanguine filij tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi, & precor ut hoc sacramentum salutis nostræ quod sumpsimus peccator non veniat mihi ad judicium, neq. ad condemnationem pro meritis meis, sed ad profectum corporis mei & animæ, salutem in vitam æternam, Amen [I give thanks to you, O holy Lord, Father almighty, eternal God, who have refreshed me with the most holy body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. And I pray that this sacrament of our salvation, which I, a sinner, have received, may not come to me for judgment, nor for condemnation according to my merits, but for the profit of my body and soul, and for salvation unto eternal life. Amen]. The only thing that any would except against this or any other of the Post-Communions is the terms which may import the corporal presence, but these we leave to take in as gross words as the Missal doth use. The English have in this place the Lord’s prayer, and another prayer of thanksgiving; but our Book must rather be dissonant from the English than from the Roman Liturgy; these prayers must not stand here but be put to such places and ranked in such an order as Sarum of old prescribed, only in one thing we follow the English order in singing their Gloria in excelsis, which the Mass had long before as we shew in the proper place.
After all, while the Priest puts off his cloths, there are read sundry Psalms, and Scriptures, and prayers, none whereof our men will get refused, and all is closed with the Bishops or Priest’s blessing, the same which we use, as for the first part of it, it was in the Mass before the giving the pax or peace to the people, but the last part the Mass so expresseth it, Benedictio Dei patris omnipoten-
(84)
tis descendat super nos, & maneat semper in nomine Patris, Fily, & Spiritus Sancti, Amen: which we turn [translate] [The blessing of God Almighty, the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, be amongst you, and remain with you always, Amen.]
Nothing in the Mass at all which our men will not embrace if it were pressed on them by authority.
It remains that we should parallel with our Book the accidental parts of the Mass so to call them, the most of these we have actually, their vestments, hoods, surplices, rotchets, miters, copes of all colours filled with numbers of images, palls, corporals, chalices, patens, offertory basins, wax candles, vails, rails, stalls, lavatories, repositories, reclinatories, bowings, duckings, crossings, kissings, coursings, perfumings. These we have already, and what of the ceremonies we want, it were easy to fetch testimonies from our parties writs for their lawfulness, or at least to shew the necessity of taking them when ever they shall be imposed by our Bishops upon as good grounds as we have taken the rest.
As for the parts subjective, the diverse kinds of Masses our Book hath enough of them, it spends 78 leaves on them alone, it hath of them above an hundredth and seven, all borrowed from the Missal almost word by word; some from the Sanctoral [i.e., pertaining to the saints], but most from the temporal, the changes that are be not considerable. What in the particular Masses the order of Sarum joins to the Collects, Epistles and Gospels, to wit, the Office, Oration, Tractus, Sequentia, Communio, post Communio, there is no syllable in them to my memory which crosseth the writs of our party, but my present weariness and necessary avocation to other studies; also the hopes now we hear by the great mercy of God, and goodness of our Prince, to be quite of this unhappy Book, suffer me not to proceed any farther, I must also upon the same reasons leave at this time my intended Parallel of the Breviary with our Matins and Even-song, also the Ceremonial with our Order of Baptism, Purification, Burial, &c. in all these will be found betwixt the Romish Orders and our Book too great an identity.