14. CHAP. XII. Of the Mass, Also of Sacrifices.
CHAP. XII. Of the Mass, Also of Sacrifices.
B ecause in many places there is oftentimes mention made of this Hebrew word Mas, which signifieth tribute, whereof is derived
Masah, which word by some is taken for the tribute that hath been accustomed to be paid by each person: In very deed diverse bondslaves of the Pope have thought that their Mass hath taken his name from thence.
Wherefore perhaps it shall not be unprofitable to write somewhat thereof.
We have that word in the 16th Chapter of Deuteronomy, when God commandeth that after Easter vii weeks should be numbered, and then should be held the feast of Pentecost: Thou shalt appear (saith he) before the Lord and thou shalt give Missath Nidbhath Jadeca, that is, a freewill offering of thine own hand. And so is that oblation called as it were a yearly tribute, which nevertheless should come willingly. Howbeit others (and that perhaps more truly) interpret that word a sufficiency, namely, that there should so much be given as might be enough and sufficient. For in the 15th
Chapter of the same book, where the Lord commandeth the Israelites, that they should open their hands unto the poor, and should lend them sufficient:
that particle De, the Chaldee Paraphrast interpreteth Missah. In which place I perceive there must be a consideration had as well of the want of the poor as of the ability of the giver: for this was meet to be observed in voluntary oblations, to wit, that so much should be given as the power of the givers would suffer, and as much as might be comely for the service of God.
Hereof these men of ours, think that the Mass took her name, as though it were a tribute or freewill offering, which is everywhere offered to God in the Church for the quick and the dead. But I do not so think. Doubtless I know very well, that the Church hath borrowed certain words of the Hebrews: as Satan, Osanna, Zebaoth, Halleluia, Pesah or Pascha, and such other. Howbeit it must be considered that those words came not unto the Latin Church but by the Greek: seeing those words are found in the New
Testament as it was first written in Greek, and also in the Translation of the Old Testament, as it was translated by the seventy. Wherefore we have no Hebrew words derived unto our Church which the Greek Church had not before. But if we diligently examine the Greek books of the Fathers, we shall never find the word Mass used by them. Wherefore I do not think that the name of Mass is derived from the Hebrews.
2. The Greek Church called the holy supper λειτουργίαν, which word signifieth a common and public work. Neither is it proper to holy things, nay rather it is applied even to profane actions which were public. And who is ignorant, that the administration of the Lord's supper is a matter pertaining to the Christian people? For so many as be present, ought to be partakers thereof, and to communicate together. And that they do not pass over this: there is an Argument of some weight taken against private Masses out of the Etymology of that word. Furthermore that word, belongeth not only unto the Eucharist, but it is applied unto other holy functions.
Wherefore in the 13th chapter of the Acts it is written of the Apostles, λειτουργοῦντων αὐτῶν, the which some have turned, They sacrificing, whereas they should rather have said: They ministering or working publicly, to wit, in the holy service: which no doubt but they did in preaching of the Gospel. Among the Latins there were other names of this holy function. For sometime it is called a Communion, otherwhile the supper of the Lord, now and then the Sacrament of the body of Christ, or the breaking of bread: and many times our fathers, as did the Greeks called the fearful mysteries, σύναξιν. I omit that they very often used the name of sacrifice, not certainly as our adversaries fondly imagine, that therein is offered unto God by the priest, the body and blood of Christ for the quick and the dead, notwithstanding that the fathers also themselves have not misliked of that manner of speech wherein they said, that the body, and blood of Christ is offered unto God. But what they meant by these words, if they be attentively read, they plainly declare: namely, that then thanks are given unto God, who for our sakes gave his son unto death and unto the cross. By these names have the most ancient Fathers called it the supper of the Lord: but of Mass, they have made no mention. For if thou wilt read Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilarius and their equals, thou shalt never find that word among them in that signification. Augustine made mention thereof at two several times: namely in his 237th Sermon, De Tempore, where he speaketh of the Mass of the Catechumen. There he exhorted men to the forgiving of injuries one toward another. For (saith he) we must come to the Mass of the Catechumen, where we shall pray, Forgive us our trespass, even as we forgive them that trespass against us. Also in the 91st Sermon De
Tempore he writeth: In the history which is to be read at Masses. Some have doubted whether these were Augustine's sermons. Truly they seem unto me
to be the style and sentences of Augustine. And if I shall follow mine own conjecture, I think that this name of Mass began in a manner at that time to be used, seldom in deed, but not often: for if that word had been usual at that time, there would have been more often mention thereof, especially by Augustine, who applied his speech unto the common people.
3. They allege Ignatius in an Epistle to the people of Smyrna. Howbeit that place maketh very much against the Mass-mongers: seeing Ignatius there decreed, that Masses ought not to be had, unless that the Bishop shall be present: so greatly did the ancient time provide against private
Communions: For they would in very deed all to be present, and especially Bishops, while they were administered. These things have I said as it were granting to our adversaries that that was the very true book of Ignatius, and that it hath therein the word Mass: but this are we in no wise compelled to grant, seeing it is Apocriphus, even by the testimony of their own Gratian.
And herewithal, that those Epistles were written in Greek, and that therefore no doubt but he which translated them into Latin did put this word Missa, for εὐχαριστία. For thus it is in Greek, ἐκείνη βεβαία εὐχαριστία ἡγείσθω, that is, that perfect thanks giving was renewed: and straightway after, οὐκ ἐξόν ἐστι χωρίς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου οὔτε βαπτίζειν, οὔτε προσφέρειν, οὔτε θυσίαν προσκομίζειν, οὔτε δοχήν ἐπιτελεῖν, &c. that is, It is not lawful without the Bishop either to baptize, either to offer, either to make sacrifice, or to end the feast. And this is the Greek prayer of Ignatius: wherein, as appeareth, there is no mention of Mass. Also Leo is cited in the 9th Epistle to Dioscorus, wherein I confess that that father made mention of Mass, but yet so, as he very much repugneth private Masses. For he was demanded, when the Church was not so great as it might contain all the people which came while the Communion was ministering, what should be done with the
rest of the multitude, which tarried abroad, and could not be present. Leo answereth: when that part of the people shall be gone forth which was present at the holy service, it should be lawful for them which succeeded to begin again the holy service. But if the private Masses had been in use, what need would there have been to ask Leo counsel for that matter?
Assuredly this demand is a token sufficient, the Mass was not accustomed to be done but once.
4. They are wont also to bring John Cassianus which lived in the time of Honorius, and was driven out of the Church of Jerusalem by heretics, and then he came to Massilia, and was a Monk by profession. He indeed maketh mention of Mass in his 3rd book the 7th and 8th chapters: but he wresteth the signification of that word far to another purpose than to the holy communion. For with him Mass is a perfection, accomplishment and discharging. Wherefore he saith we wait for the Mass of the congregation, that is, till the assembly be discharged and dispatched. And straight after:
Being content with the sleep which is granted from the Mass of the watch, until it be day. Where, by the Mass he understandeth the time of watch, wherein the watches are discharged; then verily it was lawful for the Monks to sleep until day light. Neither are we to pass over that there is most manifest mention made of Masses in the exposition of the Proverbs of Solomon the xi. Chapter which is ascribed unto Jerome. Howbeit that book without controversy is none of Jerome's. For Gregory is there spoken of, which lived long time after Augustine and Jerome. Bruno Amerbachius in an Epistle which he put before his book, saith he saw in an old copy that interpretation, to be entitled unto Bede. Which if it were, it seemeth no marvel that he made mention of Masses. For in that age wherein Bede the Priest lived, many abuses were now crept into the Church. But I therefore
put you in mind of this, because in that place that supposed Jerome affirmeth that the souls of them that be departed are drawn out of purgatory by the celebration of Masses. Jerome is not so accustomed to speak.
5. It resteth that we declare, from whence the name of Mass (which in deed is a Latin name) may seem to be taken. The ancient fathers, (who so shall diligently mark their writings) have said Remiss, instead of Remission. Tertullian in his fourth Book against Marcion pg. 249. We have spoken (saith he) of the Remiss of sins. Cyprian De bono patientiae: He that was to give the Remiss of sins, in the fountain of regeneration, disdained not to be washed. The same Father in the 14th Epistle the third
Book: He that blasphemeth the holy Ghost hath not the Remiss of sins.
Therefore seeing in the stead of Remission, they said Remiss, they seem also to have used this word Missa in the place of Mission. And so that which was done in the Church after the sending away of the Catechumen, they called Mass. κατηχεῖν (to tell you that by the way) is to teach and instruct especially by word of mouth, and not by writings. Wherefore they were called κατηχούμενοι, who were not yet washed with the fountain of regeneration, but were instructed as touching faith. By Tertullian they were called Audients or Auditors, and by Augustine Competents. For before they should be Baptized at Easter, they gave their names for the space of 40 days before, in which space of time they were instructed, and by the Pastors of the Church, not only their faith but their life and manners were thoroughly tried. But in the holy assembly, when the holy Scriptures had been recited, and a sermon made, the Deacon spake out with a loud voice: Let the Catechumen come forth: and the Grecians said, ἅγια τοῖς ἁγίοις, that is:
Holy things to holy men, according as it is gathered out of the ancient Liturgies: and also out of Cyril upon John, the 12th book, chapter the 50th.
Yea and in the time of Gregory as himself testifieth in the 2nd book, Chapter the 23rd of his dialogues it was said: If any man communicate not, let him give place. And that manner might have seemed very like to a certain rite of the Ethnics. For in a certain service of their Religion, as Festus reporteth, the officer said: Stand forth thou vanquished Enemy, and thou woman or virgin, because in that divine service, it was forbidden unto these kinds of persons to be present. And Apuleius in his second book saith, that the Priest when he should begin the sacrifices, was accustomed thus to say, τίς τήδε, who is there? Unto whom it was answered καλοί κἀγαθοί, as if it were said: Honest and good men, when the polluted and unworthy persons were gone forth. So was it done in our Church: for after that by the Deacon was uttered that voice κατηχούμενοι, ἐνεργούμενοι, the Runagates and penitents went away thence. Of these orders Dionysius maketh mention: Ἐνεργούμενοι were those which were vexed with ill Spirits.
Perhaps they were persons excommunicated: seeing those at that time I mean in the primitive Church, were delivered unto Satan. Wherefore as it now appeareth by those things which we have spoken, the Latin Church, called the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Missa, as it were
Missio, a sending away. For sometime Ambrose also used this phrase Missas facere. And undoubtedly this opinion I better allow than the opinion of them which judge that the name was derived of the Hebrew word Mass.
6. But now that we have entreated of the name of the Mass, I think it good to make rehearsal of the parts thereof according as they were in the ancient time. The Greeks seem to have begun their Liturgy with Kyrie eleison, as if before all things, they would crave pardon of their sins. This phrase the Latin church borrowed of them, which some do attribute unto Gregory.
Howbeit while the people were gathering together, and before they were
assembled, they did sing somewhat out of a Psalm, or out of some part of the Scripture, and that song they called, The Entering in, because in very deed the people then went in. Thereof they made Caelestinus to be author.
After Kyrie eleison the people being as it were glad for obtaining remission of their sins, they song unto the praise of God, the Hymn; Glory be to the highest, which as they will was invented by Telesphorus. Further they had the Collects which are ascribed unto Gelasius. Besides forth certain things were recited out of the holy Scriptures, either out of the Old Testament, or out of the Acts, or out of the Apostolical Epistles. Which being heard, there remained some portion to be recited out of the Evangelical history. But when the readers of the Church had rehearsed the former lessons, the Deacon because he might be seen of all and understood of all, pronounced out of a high place and pulpit, those things which should be showed out of the Gospel. Therefore while he went and ascended up upon the steppes, the people was accustomed to sing some verses of the Psalms, which they commonly called Graduals. Also they used therein Halleluiah with a certain cheerful cry, rejoicing at the glad tidings of the Gospel. This word
Halleluiah seemeth to be taken from the church of Jerusalem: whereof there is mention both in the Apocalypse and in the title of certain Psalms. When the Gospel was recited, the Bishop or pastor of the Church, added an interpretation and exhortation: vices were corrected, and they consulted as touching them that should be excommunicated. Which things being thus finished, the Catechumen and others which would not communicate were sent away. But in our days, because there be seldom any Catechumen, and that those which are not to communicate stand by one together with another, yea and none well-near do communicate, except one sacrificing Priest; the Papists have deferred that Mission, unto the end of their abomination. For
then are they wont to say with a loud voice: Ite, Missa est, that is: Go your way: Ye have leave to depart. But in old time when those things were done which we have rehearsed, they which remained to be partakers of the holy
Supper, sung the Creed, to the intent they might diligently admonish one another as touching the principal points of Religion wherein they should agree together. For in the Creed is contained the effect of our faith. This contents or sum, doubtless if a man attentively read the ancient Fathers, is called the Tradition of the Church, which both is drawn out of the Books of God, and is necessary to be believed unto salvation. And sometime it is alleged by Tertullian against the heretics, which denied the holy Books. The Synod of Nice set forth the full and perfect Creed: howbeit not first of all, for some things were extant before, as out of Tertullian we may perceive.
7. Moreover when they had sung the Creed, the standers by offered of their goods what they thought meet. Verily the offering had three manner of uses. For, a part was bestowed upon certain moderate feasts which the Christians at that time did celebrate very religiously: and they were commonly called ἀγάπαι: A part which remained was distributed to the poor. And finally thereof was set aside some bread and wine for the use of the holy Supper. And that this oblation of things was then used, two things do testify. First, certain verses sung by the people while the offering was made. Which verses are therefore called by them the Offertory. Further the same is known by those Collects which be had in that part of the Mass. Yea and Justin a very ancient Martyr, in his Apology made mention of this oblation: so did Cyprian also and diverse of the ancient Fathers. After these things, they which came to minister the holy supper, said: Lift up your hearts: even as the Ethnics in their Ceremonies were wont to cry: Do this.
And very well (truly) and in good time did the Christians thus say, whereby
they might admonish themselves, that they should think upon no carnal nor earthly thing, but should altogether bend their mind unto heaven, where
Christ is to be sought and not upon the earth, as though he were included in bread or wine. Lastly were given thanks, when it was said: We give thee thanks, Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God, through Christ our
Lord &c. These things are most ancient and are everywhere in the most ancient Ecclesiastical writers: Yea also, the mystery itself of Christ's body and blood is called εὐχαριστία, because the whole confection thereof consisteth of thanksgiving. And when the Minister had said: Through Jesus
Christ our Lord, he descended to the proper words of the supper. Which being recited, the Lord's prayer was added. But Xystus would that the people should before that sing Holy, Holy, Holy, &c. And that a convenient access might be given to that song, there were prefaces put between. But hereunto they have patched a Canon of their own, which a certain
Schoolman made, as Gregory in his Register maketh mention. Who in deed is not allowed by the same Gregory, in that he would insert his own, and neglect the prayer of the Lord. The kiss of peace they say was invented by Leo the second, which seemeth not so unto me, seeing it was a custom in the Church even in the time of the Apostles, that Christians should one entertain another with a kiss of peace. Yea and Paul maketh mention in his
Epistles of that kind of kiss. Also Justin Martyr in his second Apology, speaketh of this kiss. The song of Agnus Dei is said to be brought in hither by one Innocentius. All these things being finished, they came to the distribution of the sacrament. While the same was a doing, or when it was finished, the song of thanksgiving was added which they called the after Communion. When all this was complete and finished, the Minister adding a comfortable prayer licensed the people to depart. All these things, albeit
they led away the Christian people from that first simplicity of having the Lord's Supper, many things being added, as it seemed good to sundry men: yet might they after a sort be abidden, and not justly be accused of superstition or idolatry. Howbeit the same things were not in all Churches nor were not kept after one sort. For as yet it was otherwise in the Church of Millaine by the constitution of Ambrose: nevertheless afterward the Roman
Antichrists corrupted all things.
8. But that those things which I have specified were by the old ordinance kept, I may easily show by the most ancient writers. Tertullian in Apologetico saith: We come together into the congregation and assembly; that praying unto God we may as it were hand in hand forcibly compass him about with prayers. This force is acceptable unto God. We also pray for Emperors, for their ministers and men in authority, for the state of this life, for the quietness of things, and for prolonging of the end. These things do show the sum of the Collects. And as touching the exercise of the Scriptures, he addeth: We come together to the rehearsal of the divine scriptures, if the quality of times present either compelleth us to forewarn or to call to remembrance. Doubtless by the holy words, we feed our faith, we advance our hope, we fasten our confidence. We nevertheless by often putting in mind, do strengthen the discipline of teachers. There also have we exhortations, chastisements and divine Censures. For judgment is given with great weight, &c. These be the things which were done in the holy assembly. Whereunto these also must be added, which the same Author elsewhere saith: namely, that the Eucharist was wont to be received at the hand of the chief prelates, &c. In these words we may have knowledge of the principal parts of the Mass which we have rehearsed. Justin Martyr in his second Apology writeth that upon the Sunday the Christians come
together, but of other feasts he maketh no mention. There he saith the holy scriptures were recited, unto which afterward the chief Prelate added his own exhortation. That (saith he) being done, we rise and pray: afterward he addeth, Unto the chief Prelate is brought the bread and the drink, over which he giveth thanks as heartily as he can: To whom answer is made of all men, Amen. These words declare two things not negligently to be passed over: First that thanks were not slightly given, but with all the power that might be, that is, with singular affection. Further it is manifest, that all things were spoken with an audible voice, seeing the people answered
Amen. Afterward (saith he) the Eucharist is distributed. Last of all is a general thanksgiving, and offering of alms.
9. Dionysius in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy rehearseth in a manner the selfsame things: namely, a recital of the Scriptures, a singing of Psalms, a communion, and other things which would be now overlong to declare: But (which seemeth the more strange) he maketh no mention of offering the body of Christ. Howbeit we must not think, that he was the same
Areopagita who is spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles. But whosoever he was, there is no doubt (as I think) but that he was an ancient writer. And why I should think that he was not Areopagita, I am led by these reasons: first because the kind of writing which he useth, especially of divine names, and of heavenly governance, containeth rather a doctrine of vain philosophy than a doctrine of pure Christianity, and it is utterly void of edifying.
Moreover those books be in a manner void of testimonies of the holy Scriptures. Further in his ecclesiastical Hierarchy he maketh Monks to be as a certain mean order between the clergy and laity, whereas in the Apostles time that kind of life was not as yet in the Church. Here withal the elder fathers in no place made mention of those books: which is an Argument that
those were none of the works of the Martyr. Gregorius Romanus first of all other in a certain homily of his, made mention of his writings. But passing over him come we to Augustine. That father in the 59th Epistle unto
Paulinus, while he assoileth the fifth question, he expoundeth four words which are in the 1st Epistle to Timothy the 2nd chapter. And those be δεήσεις, προσευχαί, ἐντεύξεις, and εὐχαριστία. And he affirmeth that δεήσεις [that is supplications] do go before the Celebration of the Sacrament: And προσευχάς he maketh to be prayers, which are used in the very administration of the Sacrament, wherein after a sort we vow ourselves unto Christ: and ἐντεύξεις he thinketh to be petitions and requests, by which the minister of the Church prayeth for good things for the people which stand by. And finally he teacheth that εὐχαριστίαι were general thanksgivings. I might besides these bring many other monuments of the fathers if I thought not these to be sufficient. But to return to the name of Mass: I see that there were some also which thought the same to be derived of this word Missio, because those things which were offered by the faithful were said to be sent, and they think, that the Hebrew word Masath gave an occasion of that name, because the Jews used in time of the Pentecost to offer gifts. But for what cause I judge that the name of Mass was not derived from an Hebrew word, I have declared before: And this I now add:
If the Mass took his name from the oblation of things which were given by the Godly, the Papists should abuse that name, who have there no respect at all to the alms of Godly men, but only to the oblation of the body and blood of Christ, which they commonly boast, and that impudently, that they offer unto the father for the quick and for the dead. But of those things I suppose we have spoken enough and at large.
Of Sacrifice.
10. Now there remaineth that we speak somewhat of Sacrifice. In seeking out of the definition thereof, first we find it to be a certain action, and the same voluntary: which I have therefore said, because there be some actions which they call natural, but those seeing they depend not of man's choice, cannot be called voluntary. Furthermore, Sacrifice should be referred to Religion, which I therefore speak, that I may remove and sever the same from civil and domestical works. For domestical works serve for the governing of a family: and civil works for the administration of commonwealths. But a Sacrifice is a Religious work: seeing it belongeth to the worshipping of God, and is instituted by him, that we may offer our things unto him, to that end doubtless that he should be honored, and that we may cleave unto him in a holy society, as Augustine in the 10th book De
Civitate Dei the 7th chapter saith: and hereby we may perceive how far a sacrifice (if we speak properly thereof) differeth from a sacrament. Which is also a voluntary and religious work, and also instituted by God, that by it the promise and good gifts should be sealed and exhibited, because therein we offer not anything unto God, but he himself showeth forth signs and amplifieth his gifts unto us, while we receive with a sound faith those things which be offered.
11. But to make the matter more plain, let us briefly gather a definition of sacrifice. A sacrifice undoubtedly is a voluntary and religious action, instituted by God, that we should offer that which is ours unto him to his glory, and whereby we may the more straitly be coupled unto him in holy society. Unto this definition of sacrifice must be added a partition. Certain sacrifices be propitiatory, and others of thanksgiving. In the first kind God is become merciful unto men through the power and just desert thereof. But of this sort we have only one. Forsomuch as by the only death of Christ, the
eternal father is reconciled unto us, and by the merit of his one only oblation the elect have their sins forgiven them. But in the other kind of sacrifice we give thanks unto God, we celebrate his name, and to our power, we are obedient unto his will. Further it is to be understood that this kind of sacrifice is of two parts, one of the which is inward, whereby in very deed, we willingly and without compulsion refer our will and ourselves wholly and all that we have unto God: we make them subject unto him, and do consecrate them unto his name. The other part is outward, whereby, by some gift, and that visible and sensible we do, as it were by some token and sign, testify what we have in our mind, and unto him do offer somewhat of those things which he himself hath given us. So did the forefathers offer the first fruits, tenths and slain beasts. In which things they not only shadowed
Christ the most acceptable sacrifice unto God, but also they testified what manner of will themselves had towards God. By these things it now appeareth, that the outward oblation or sacrifice unless it have the inward part joined with it, which it may truly testify to be in us, is not allowed by God: seeing they that offer in such sort do most foully lie unto God. For to testify that which is not true, belongeth to deceit, and seeing in all things and everywhere lying is discommended, yet is it far more pernicious and detestable if it be done before God. Thereof it arose that God said sundry times by his Prophets that the sacrifices of the Jews were unacceptable unto him, especially for because they made a show of worshipping him with their lips and outward signs, when as their mind was most far from him.
Wherefore the inward part he requireth by itself, but the outward he hath no otherwise commanded, but as it may be offered jointly with the inward: otherwise if it shall be naked and alone, both it is unacceptable and highly displeaseth him.
12. If thou shalt demand what manner of outward works those be by which may be testified the inward sacrifice, there may be many reckoned.
The slaughters of beasts for sacrifice, the oblations of first fruits and tenths, the which the fathers had while they were under the Law. Moreover there are applied outward words, by which thanks are given unto God, his praises are celebrated, and prayers are made. There be also duties of charity towards neighbors, mortifying of the affections of the flesh, and obedience to be done to the commandments of God. All these latter kinds of sacrifice are common as well to the Fathers as to us. These things we give unto God for testifying our faith and obedience towards him. And seeing there is no doubt of those former which were offered in time of the law, but that they in their times were sacrifices: least there should be a doubt of the other, which we named last, whether they may be counted in the place of sacrifices: it shall be confirmed by testimonies of the scriptures. In the 50th Psalm it is written: Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise. And in the 51st. A sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit, a contrite heart thou shalt not despise. Unto the Romans the 12th chap. I beseech you for the mercy of God that you give up your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, and acceptable to God. Micah in the 6th
Chapter saith, I will tell thee O man, what God requireth of thee: Do judgment, love mercy, walk reverently, and modestly before God. Also
Isaiah together with the rest of the Prophets hath written many things for the confirmation of this matter.
13. Neither is it to be passed over, that among these outward things which are offered as sacrifices unto God, there are certain degrees and an order appointed. For God himself doth testify that he preferreth mercy and charity towards our neighbors far above the rest. Wherefore in the 9th chapter of Matthew, is brought out of the Prophet Hosea: I will mercy and not
sacrifice. Moreover, it is written in the 1st of Samuel: Obedience is better than Sacrifices. These words teach us that among outward oblations, the killing of beasts, and Tenths, and fruits in the old time held the last place.
But the chief place was given to the obedience which is showed unto the word of God, to charity towards our brethren, to thanksgiving, and to prayers. Neither is the end of Sacrifices lightly to be passed over, but with diligence to be set forth, especially as Augustine hath expressed the same: namely that we might with a holy fellowship cleave unto God. For without it, our works though they be never so excellent, can be no sacrifices. Yea and for this cause specially did the very death of Christ which was the chief and only sacrifice please God, for that Christ to no other end offered himself but to fulfill the will of his father, and to obey him as it was meet.
But to these things which I have said I will also add another which Augustine writeth in his Epistle Ad Deo gratias the 3rd question: namely that in every sacrifice, God requireth two kind of things: First that our oblations be made unto the the true God: the which advise seeing the Idolaters do refuse, whatsoever they do in their rites turneth to their own destruction. The other is that the form of oblations consisteth of the doctrine of the holy scriptures, and proceedeth not of our own inventions and fainings.
14. There ariseth a doubt, because we have put a difference between a Sacrament and sacrifice: And yet, if the Fathers in the old law had in their oblations and sacrifices the selfsame thing that we have, when we celebrate the supper of the Lord (which no man doubteth to be a Sacrament) how will that stand, which we said before, that there is a difference between a Sacrifice and a Sacrament, seeing that of necessity the Sacrifices of the old fathers must also be Sacraments, To this I answer, that the reasons in deed
of these things are diverse, yet that proveth not, but that one thing may be both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice. For no man doubteth but that Philosophy and the strength of the body are diverse things, which nevertheless, are both to be seen in one man. So likewise it happeneth here, that one thing may be both a Sacrifice and a Sacrament, although the consideration of a Sacrament and a Sacrifice is diverse. When the supper of the Lord is celebrated, in that the body and blood of Christ are by faith and spirit given unto us to be received, and the promise of that conjunction which we have with Christ sealed, so that we are the members of his body, in this respect (I say) it is a Sacrament and so is called, because in that Action, God giveth his gifts unto us. But in that by the same action we celebrate the memory of the death of Christ, give thanks for the benefits received, consecrate, and offer ourselves unto God, it is, and may be called a just Sacrifice, because we offer most acceptable oblations unto God. The selfsame thing may we see in the killing of the Sacrifices which were done before God in old time. For those also were Sacraments, whereby Christ was set forth to the old fathers to be received of them by faith, and whereby they communicated before God in eating and drinking together. All these things I say, belonged to the nature of a Sacrament, and yet the same were also Sacrifices, seeing therein they did consecrate both theirs and themselves unto God.
15. But seeing Christ is said to be sacrificed, what mean these sacrificers, which say that he is daily sacrificed in the Mass? For the which cause it is to be noted, that in the supper of the Lord, there may be four oblations. The first is of the bread and wine, which was brought in by the people. Of a certain portion whereof was the Eucharist celebrated, of which the faithful communicated among themselves, and that which remained was distributed unto the poor. And of the same oblation, Irenaeus, Cyprian, and the
Ecclesiastical Stories do speak. And Paul unto the Philippians, the 4th chapter showeth that alms are Sacrifices, when he writeth that he received those things which they sent him, as a sweet-smelling Sacrifice unto God.
Secondly there is a thanksgiving which in the holy scriptures is called a Sacrifice of praise. Thirdly the Communicants do offer themselves unto
God to be governed and mortified: Of which Sacrifice, how it hath relation hither, thou hast it twice in the Epistle to the Romans. First: Give your bodies a holy and living Sacrifice, acceptable unto God. And in the 15th chapter the Apostle writeth, that He administered the Gospel to the intent that the oblation of the Gentiles may be acceptable and sanctified through the holy Ghost. Fourthly to conclude, when he speaketh there as touching the memorial of the death of Christ which was the true sacrifice, by a figurative speech, the Eucharist or Supper of the Lord taketh his name of that thing which it representeth, and is called a sacrifice: as Augustine saith upon the Psalm: that by remembrance and cogitation Christ is daily offered.
By these reasons I perceive the Fathers were led to use in the Eucharist the name of sacrifice and immolation. Which nevertheless I would not use, seeing the holy Scripture calleth it not so, from whose phrase of speech we must not rashly depart: And thou shalt not at any time find in the holy
Scriptures, that the ministers of Churches or the Apostles are called priests, for that is fully and wholly attributed unto Christ. And as the Epistle to the Hebrews hath: The Priesthood was translated unto him, and seeing he remaineth forever, he hath no need of a successor. And weak is the Argument of them which bring the saying of Malachi of offering the Sacrifice called in Hebrew Minchah, unto the name of the Lord in every place. For Irenaeus interpreteth this of bread, wine, and gifts, which (as we said before) was offered by the faithful in the supper of the Lord. Howbeit
Tertullian against the Jews and against Marcion, expoundeth it of spiritual oblations: I mean prayers, thanksgiving, and godly Sermons. Of the same opinion was Jerome upon Malachi: But the cause why the Prophet maketh mention of Minchah before other Sacrifices, is for that the same was universal and was adjoined to all Sacrifices, and so might it easily be offered by poor and simple men.
16. In like manner it is but weak that is objected out of the Council of Nice, that therein is mention made of an unbloody host or Sacrifice: which we deny not if thou wilt refer it to a memorial and thanksgiving. But unto them it is no unbloody Sacrifice, seeing they boast that they have true, and as they term it real blood in the Sacrament. Further according to this opinion not only the minister but the faithful, so many as do eat and drink of the Table of the Lord do Sacrifice although (as we have said) we should not use this word, seeing the holy scriptures speak not so of the Eucharist.
Neither may they speak ill of us, as though we take away from Ministers their dignity. For they have their honor still for ought that we say. Let them teach all nations, let them baptize, let them administer the Sacraments, and let them retain discipline in the Church, and let them not think that they have lost their degree, if it be denied that they offer Christ unto God the Father. What more excellent and honorable thing can they have, than to be the Ambassadors of Christ, and to reconcile the world unto God by their preaching, as we read in the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians? In the Acts of the Apostles we have, λειτουργούντων καί νηστευόντων: Which place although Erasmus translateth: Whiles they were Sacrificing and fasting, yet in his annotations he saith that he understandeth by the Sacrifice, the preaching of the Gospel. Neither is λειτουργεῖν properly to sacrifice, but to execute a public office and action. The Greek expositions also in that place
refer that unto the preaching of the Gospel. And let these men see how they can be otherwise counted than blasphemous, seeing they brag that they offer
Christ unto God the father: because it followeth hereupon, that they make themselves better and more worthy than Christ. For he that offereth cannot be unworthier than the thing offered. Whereupon Irenaeus when he useth the word of offering, plainly speaketh it of the oblation which he referreth unto the bread and unto the wine, because it receiveth the dignity from him that offereth, and is therefore acceptable unto God, because he that offereth it is acceptable unto him. And thereby it is most manifest that be cannot understand these things of Christ: For Christ is not acceptable unto God for the Sacrifice sake, but contrariwise rather, we be acceptable unto God for Christ's sake. And I marvel that some would object against this our
Argument the Baptism ministered unto Christ by John the Baptist, seeing that was a Sacrament, not a Sacrifice. And we doubt not, but that Sacraments may be ministered by them that are unworthy unto them that shall be better worthy. So then this instance is but vain, seeing a Sacrament hath not dignity by the Minister. But a sacrifice (as saith Irenaeus) getteth honor unto itself by him that offereth. And even this do we read in Isaiah, in the Psalms, in Micah the Prophet and elsewhere, that God detesteth those
Sacrifices which were offered without faith, charity, and a good conscience.
17. Many also are wont to say of the sacrifice of Melchizedek, that now there is a priesthood according to that order extant in the Church:
Wherefore (say they) even as he offered bread and wine unto God, so we in the form of bread and wine offer the son of God, whereby the thing signified and shadowed, may excel the figures and shadows thereof. But as touching this, the history of the book of Genesis hath not, that Melchizedek offered bread and wine unto God, but unto Abraham and his host, being
wearied. So Rabbi Solomon interpreteth that. Neither can this Hebrew word Jatsa in the conjugation Hiphil, otherwise signify than either to bring forth, or to bring out. Only Rabbi Solomon added that therein might be a figure, because in that place namely in Jerusalem it behooved them in old time to offer an oblation of wine and Mincha. But as touching the history he affirmeth, that those things were offered unto Abraham and to his host: And that Melchizedek would by this gift declare, that he took it not in ill part that his posterity was cut off by Abraham. For he maketh this Melchizedek as other Hebrews do, to be Sem the son of Noah. And therefore went he out to gratify him with bread and wine, that thereby Abraham and his host which were weary, might be refreshed. Ambrose also in his Treatise of the Sacraments plainly saith, that these things were offered unto Abraham. And Augustine in his book of Questions of the Old Testament, writeth that the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ was offered unto Abraham. Now then unto the Fathers which say, that Melchizedek offered unto God, we object the truth of the Hebrew, and other fathers which we have now cited.
But admit that he offered unto God, what is this unto the Mass? They shall have no other than an allegorical Argument, which in very deed, is most weak. Further we deny not, but that bread in the supper of the Lord, is after a sort offered unto God to be sanctified, and that it is made a sacrament by him. The difficulty and matter in debate is, whether Christ himself is offered unto God the father by massing priests: the which as it hath been said, these men do not prove. And that a priesthood remaineth in the Church according to the order of Melchizedek, we deny not, by reason of Christ who being our high priest, is entered into heaven, and for us maketh intercession to the Father. Of the which matter it is sufficiently written in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Another Common Place of Sacrifice.
18. And in Sacrifices it is to be observed, that God accepteth better of him that offereth, than of the Sacrifice, yea the oblations please not him but for the offerers sake. This judgment Iraeneus proveth by the Scriptures in his
4th book and 34th chapter. For God had a regard unto Abel and to his gifts, but unto Cain and his gifts he looked not, because of the disposition of them that offered. For look what manner of will he that offereth hath towards
God, the like will hath God to the oblation. Christ also saith: If thou bring thy gift unto the altar, and rememberest that thy brother hath somewhat against thee, go and reconcile thee first unto thy brother: and then come and offer thy gift. As though he should say: if whilst thou art evil and enemy unto God, thou doest offer, thine oblation shall not be acceptable unto God.
Wherefore Irenaeus concludeth, that it is not the sacrifice which sanctifieth, but the conscience of the sacrificer. And he addeth a reason: because God needeth not our sacrifice. Among men, the evil man oftentimes may be absolved, because men are sometimes covetous and needy, and are easily won with money. But if it happen the judge to be both just and good, he will reject the money, neither will he suffer his equity after that manner to be stained. So God, because he cannot be won by flattery, observeth the minds of men and not the Sacrifices. In Isaiah the 66th chapter, he saith: He that Sacrificeth a beast, is as if he slew a dog: not that God hateth sacrifices in general, but because he alloweth not the oblations of evil men. I have the largelier spoken of these things, because the Papists boast, that in Masses they offer Christ unto God the father: which if it should be granted, then must God the father more esteem a naughty sacrificer than he doth his son.
But the wife of Manoah reasoneth most wittily: God hath received our sacrifice, therefore he is not angry, neither will he destroy us. We count the
sacrifices of Christians to be a contrite heart, prayers, giving of thanks, alms, mortifying the affections of the flesh, and such like. These are left unto us after the abrogation of the carnal sacrifices, that we should offer them as the fruits of our faith, and testimonies of a thankful mind. But as touching the pacifying of God, Christ offered himself once upon the Cross, neither is there any need that any man should offer him again. For by one oblation he accomplished all things. Now remaineth, that we embrace his sacrifice with faith, and we shall have God merciful unto us: who of his goodness, will by Christ accept those sacrifices which we have now made mention of.
19. But Augustine against the letters of Parmenianus, in his 2nd book the 8th chapter seemeth at the first sight to make against us. For the Donatists would not communicate with other Christians, because they counted them defiled and impure. And they cited a place out of John: We know that God heareth not sinners. Your men (say they) have betrayed the holy books, have burnt incense unto Idols, have denied God, how then shall God hear them?
Augustine answereth, that it may be that an evil Minister, although he be not heard for his own cause, yet when he prayeth for the people he may be heard. And he confirmeth his saying by the Example of Balaam. For he being a most wicked man, prayed unto God, and was heard. But if a man diligently examine these things, he shall find that Augustine is not against us, although at the first sight he seemeth a little to press us. When he had said that the evil Ministers also are heard, he straight way addeth, that is not done for their wickedness sake, but because of the faith and devotion of the people. Whereby we gather, that although the Minister be the guide in words, yet are they not his prayers, but the prayers of the church. For there must be one certain man which must recite the prayers for the rest, least in
the multitude should arise a confusion or tumult, if every man should endeavor to make loud prayers in the Church. Wherefore the Minister is a certain mouth of the Church. So as if he be evil, it is not he which is herd, but the faithful people which speak by his words. And this doeth Augustine teach when he writeth that an evil minister is heard, not for his own wickedness, but for the faith and devotion of the people. Hereby are we admonished, that while we are present at public prayers, we must take very diligent heed, and assure ourselves that these prayers which are recited, are ours. But Balaam by a certain form of prayers, prophesied, and therefore his words are called a blessing, because he prophesied happy things unto the people of God. And he was not moved unto these prayers of his own will, but was set on by the spirit of God. And so he was not heard, but the holy
Ghost was the true Author of his words.
20. That which is alleged out of John: to wit, That God heareth not sinners: Augustine saith, that that was not the saying of Christ, but of the blind man, which was not yet fully lightened. Wherefore he affirmeth that sentence not to be generally true. For (as they define) the prayers of perverse Ministers are sometimes heard, because they are the prayers of the Church. But as touching the offering up of Christ, I think not that the Papists will grant that the whole Church offereth him, seeing they will have that to be peculiar to the Mass-mongers. And though they should grant that, yet is not the whole Church greater and more acceptable unto God than is
Christ: Because he is not acceptable unto God for the Church sake, but the Church is acceptable unto God for Christ's sake. But to return to the saying of John: That God heareth not sinners, adding a profitable distinction, we may thus expound it. There are some sinners which fall of weakness, or sin of ignorance, which yet afterward do acknowledge themselves, are
sorrowful and repent faithfully. But there are other which sin without conscience, which are destitute of faith, neither are they led with any repentance. The first sort, because they have faith, are heard, the other, for as much as they want faith do in vain pour out their prayers. Howbeit if a man will object the Publican, who being a sinner, prayed unto God, and departed justified: I answer that that Publican was in such sort a sinner, that yet when he prayed he was not without faith; nay rather he prayed from a faithful heart, otherwise God would not have heard his prayers. And undoubtedly James doeth right well admonish us when he saith: Pray having faith. To conclude, that sentence is firm and perfect, wherein it is said: Whatsoever is offered unto God for a sacrifice, the same is acceptable unto him, if faith and justification of him that offereth goeth before. Some cavil as touching the first act of faith whereby we begin first to assent unto
God: And they doubt whether it be acceptable unto God or no. Certainly, before it, he which now beginneth to believe, is an enemy. Then (say they) if that first consent be acceptable unto God, then accepteth he the gift of an enemy: but if it be not acceptable, then it justifieth not. To this I answer two ways: first that men are not justified through the worthiness of the act of faith, but by the firm promise of God which faith embraceth. Further when any man first assenteth and believeth, then is he first of an enemy made a friend: And although before he was an enemy, yet so soon as he believeth he is made a friend, and ceaseth to be an enemy. But that which we have before concluded that he which offereth is more acceptable unto God than the gift, the Ethnics themselves saw. For Plato in Alcibiade maketh mention that the Athenians upon a time made war against the Lacedemonians, and when they were overcome, they sent messengers unto Jupiter Ammon, by whom, they said that they marveled for what cause, seeing they had offered
so great gifts unto the gods, and contrariwise that their enemies had sacrificed sparingly and niggardly, and yet had the victory over them.
Ammon answered that the gods more esteemed the prayers of the Lacedemonians than the most fat sacrifices of the Athenians. For when they burnt Oxen unto their gods, in the mean time they thought nothing of their souls. So in Homer, Jupiter speaketh: that the gods are not moved with the smoke and smell of sacrifices, seeing they hated Priamus and the Trojans.
Wherefore the Ethnics understood that which the Papists at this day see not: who think that their blind sacrificer though he be never so impure and ungodly, doeth yet with his hands offer up Christ unto God the Father.
Of Altars.
21. In the old time there were two sorts of Altars, one of whole burnt offerings, and another of incense. To the first doubtless the Priests only had access, but to the latter, the laity did also go: Neither did they repair thither for any other cause but for their safety. And that men were sometimes saved there when they were in danger, it is sufficiently showed in the 12th of Exodus. I suppose that in the first of Kings the 13th Chapter, an Altar by the figure Synecdoche, betokeneth all that same perverse worshiping, or else that under the name of the Instrument is signified the effect. For no man is ignorant, but that an altar at that time was the principal instrument of the divine service. Yea and Paul useth that word in this sense, when unto the Corinthians he saith: They which wait at the Altar, are partakers of the Altar.
Which thing is nothing else, but that it is meet that they which are occupied in the service of God, should have their living thereof. Also Cyprian and Augustine disagree not from that sense, when they say, that Schematics or Heretics erect an altar against an altar, that is, they institute in the Church diverse and contrary services of God. Albeit to say what I think, the fathers
should not with so much liberty in the New Testament have seemed here and there to abuse the name of Altar. For Altar is referred to an outward sacrifice: but seeing this hath place no more among us, because we offer no more outward sacrifices of slain beasts, and that our sacrifices be nothing else than prayers, praises, thanksgivings, mortification of the flesh, and Alms deeds, therefore the correlative (as the Logicians speak) of an Altar being taken away, neither can itself be extant or had. Against this opinion,
Bishop Tonstall now lately in England would needs oppose himself, and prove that the Christians also have Altars among them. He brought a saying out of the Epistle to the Hebrews, We have an Altar whereof it is not lawful for them to eat which Minister in the tabernacle. And when it was said to him, that Altar in that place was nothing else but Christ himself: What (saith he) but is it not lawful to eat Christ? Little considering those whom the Apostle drove from eating of Christ: namely they which refusing the Gospel altogether, clave to the Jewish services: for how could such manner of men being envious unto Christ, eat of him? But Petrus Alexandrinus in a certain
Epistle of his, which is extant in Theodoretus the 4th book and 22nd chapter, went so far that he attributed more to the outward Altar than to the lively Temples of Christ. For when he had complained that the wicked in the time of Valens the Emperor in the Church of Alexandria, had drawn the virgins naked through the City, and had most shamefully violated them, and also beaten and slain them, he added, that they being not satisfied with those heinous deeds, devised more grievous things, to wit, that they violated and polluted the Altar of the Temple. Also Optatus Mileuitanus in the 6th book against Parmenianus: What is an Altar, (saith he?) Even the seat of the body and blood of Christ. Such sayings as these edified not the people, but rather drove them to the Ethnic and Jewish Rites, when as of a certain
foolish blind zeal they borrowed both Altars and other Rites as well of the Jews as of the Ethnics. Origen also in the 10th Homily upon Joshua maketh mention of an Altar. Likewise Tertullian in his book De Poenitentia writeth that there were wont to be certain kneeling's about the Altar. Much more sincerely and wisely did some of the fathers instead of Altar put Table, or in Greek τράπεζα, of which, the faithful took signs of the Eucharist.