19. Book V. Of the Oblation and Sacrifice of Christ

be vomited up, after the body and blood of Christ be gone away, and say, must be had in great reverence, because the body and blood of Christ had been “And not only the forms of bread and wine,” say they, “must be kept in great but also the ashes of them (for they command them to be burned into ashes) be kept with like reverence.” And shall you then forbid any man to worship himself, when he doth spiritually and effectually eat his very flesh and drink blood, when you will have such honour and reverence done to the ashes, which not of the body and blood of Christ, but only, as you teach, of the accidents and wine? Thus have I confuted your confutation of my second book concerning stantiation; wherein you be so far from the confutation of my book, as you that you have done nothing else but confounded yourself, studying to seek shifts and cavillations, as before your time were never devised, and yet constrained to grant such errors and monstrous speeches as to christian ears be intolerable. So that my former book, as well concerning the real presence Christs flesh and blood, as the eating and drinking of the same, and also transubstantiation, standeth fast and sure, not once

moved or shaken with all your ordinance shot against it. But it is now much stronger than it was before, being so mured and bulwarked that it never need hereafter to fear any assault of the enemies. And now let us examine your confutation of the last part of my book, containing the oblation and sacrifice of our Saviour Christ. The end of the second Book

The Confutation of the Fifth Book. Winchester

AS touching the fifth book, the title whereof is Of the oblation and sacrifice of our Saviour —— Christ,” somewhat is by me spoken before; which although it be sufficient to the matter, yet somewhat more must also be now said, wherewith to encounter the author’s imaginations and Ἢ surmises with the wrong construing of the scriptures and authors, to wrest them besides the truth of the matter and their meaning.

This is agreed and by the scriptures plainly taught, that the oblation and sacrifice of τὸς our Saviour Christ was.and is a perfect work, once conswmmate in perfection without necessity of reiteration, as it was mever taught to be reiterate, but a mere blasphemy to presuppose it. It is also in the catholic teaching, grounded upon the scripture, agreed, that the — same sacrifice once consummate was ordained by Christ’s institution in his most holy supper — to be in the church often remembered and shewed forth in such sort of shewing, as to the — Jaithful is seen present the most precious body and blood of our Saviour Christ under the forms of bread amd wine; which body and blood the faithful church of christian people — grant and confess, according to Christ’s words, to have been betrayed amd shed for the sins — ” of the world, and so in the same supper represented and delivered wnto them, to eat and feed of it according to Christ’s commandment, as of a most precious and acceptable sacrifice, acknowledging the same precious body and blood to be the sacrifice propitiatory for αἴ the sins of the world, whereunto they only resort, and only accompt that their very perfecti — body Oblation and sacrifice of christian people, through which all other sacrifices necessary on our part be accepted? and pleasant in the sight of God. And this manner of shewing Christ’s — — death, and keeping the memory of it, is grounded upon the scriptures, written by the evange- — lists and St Paul, and according thereunto preached, believed, used, and frequented in the church of Christ universally and from the beginning. This author uttering many words at large besides scripture, and against scripture, to deprave the catholic doctrine, doth in a few — words, which be in deed good words and true, confound and overthrow all his enterprise; and that issue will I join with him, which shall suffice for the confutation of this book. The Jew good words of the author, which words I say confound the rest, consist in these two points: one, in that the author alloweth the judgment of Petrus Lombardus touching the oblation and sacrifice of the church; another, in that the author confesseth the cowncil of Nice to be holy council3, as it hath been in deed confessed of all good christian men. Upon these two confessions I will declare the whole enterprise of this fifth book to be overthrown.

Canterbury

ΜΥ fifth book hath so fully and so plainly set out this matter of the sacrifice, - Lib. that for answer to all that you have here brought to the confutation thereof, the reader c need to do no more but to look over my book again, and he shall see you fully answered beforehand. Yet will I here and there add some notes, that your ignorance and craft may the better appear., This far you agree to the truth, that the sacrifice of Christ was a full and a perfect sacrifice, which needed not to be done no more but once, and yet it is remembered. i and shewed forth daily.” And this is the true doctrine according to God’s word. But as concerning the real presence in the accidents of bread and wine, is an untrue doctrine, - feigned only by the papists, as I have most plainly declared; and this is one of your errors here uttered. E Another is, that you call the most “precious body and blood of Christ the sacrifice

[[! The very perfect, Orig. ed. Winch.] [? Sacrifices necessarily be accepted, ibid. i [3 To be an holy council, 1551.] 4]

propitiatory for all the sins of the world;” which of itself was not the sacrifice, but the Vhing whereof the sacrifice was made, and the death of him upon the cross was the true sacrifice propitiatory, that purchased the remission of sin; which sacrifice continued ποῦ long, nor was made never but once; whereas his flesh and blood continued ever. in substance from his incarnation, as well before the said sacrifice as ever sithens. And. that sacrifice propitiatory made by him only upon the cross is of that effect to reconcile us to God’s favour, that by it be accepted all our sacrifices of lauds and thanksgiving.

Now before I join with you in your issue, I shall rehearse the words of my book, which when the indifferent reader seeth, he shall be the more able to judge truly between us. My book containeth thus.

The Fifth Book

The greatest blasphemy and injury that can be against Christ, and yet universally used through the popish kingdom, is this, that the priests make their mass a sacrifice propitiatory, to remit the sins as well of themselves, as of other, both quick and dead, to whom they list to apply the same. Thus under pretence of holiness, the papistical priests have taken upon them to be Christ’s suc- - eessors, and to make such an oblation and sacrifice as never creature made but Christ alone, neither he made the same any more times than once, and that was by his death upon the cross.

For as St Paul in his epistle to the Hebrews witnesseth, Although the high priests of the old law offered many times, at the least every year once, yet Christ offered not himself many times; for then he should many times have died. But now he offered himself but once, to take away sin by that offering of himself. And as men must die once, so was Christ offered once, to take away the sins of many.”

And furthermore St Paul saith, that the sacrifices of the old law, although they were continually offered from year to year, yet could they not take away sin, nor make men perfect. For if they could once have quieted men’s consciences by taking away sin, they should have ceased, and no more have been offered. But Christ with once offering hath made perfect for ever them that be sanctified, putting their sins clean out of God’s remembrance. And where remission of sins is, there is no more offering for sin.”

And yet further he saith concerning the old testament, that “it was disan- nulled and taken away, because of the feebleness and unprofitableness thereof, for ἰδ brought nothing to perfection. And the priests of that law were many, because they lived not long, and so the priesthood went from one to another: but Christ liveth ever, and hath an everlasting priesthood, that passeth not from him to any man else. Wherefore he is able perfectly to save them that come to God by him, forasmuch as he liveth ever to make intercession for us. For it was meet for us to haye such an high priest, that is holy, innocent, without spot, separated from sinners, and exalted up above heaven: who needeth not daily to effer up sacrifice, as Aaron’s priests did, first for his own sins, and then for the people: for that he did once, when he offered up himself Here in his epistle to the Hebrews St Paul hath plainly and fully described unto us the difference between the priesthood and sacrifices of the old testament, and the most high and worthy priesthood of Christ, his most perfect and necessary sacrifice, and the benefit that cometh to us thereby. i

[[ The title of this book runs thus in the Orig. ed.: The fifth book is of the Oblation and Sacrifice of]

[our Saviour Christ.”]]

wa 346 THE FIFTH BOOK.

For Christ offered not the blood of calves, sheep, and goats, as the priests of the old law have used to do’, but he offered his own blood upon the cross. And he went not into an holy place made by man’s hand, as Aaron did; but he ascended up into heaven, where his eternal Father dwelleth, and before him he maketh continual supplication for the sins of the whole world, presenting his own body, which was torn for us, and his precious blood, which of his most gracious and liberal charity he shed for us upon the cross.

And that sacrifice was of such force, that it was no need to renew it every year, as the bishops did of the old testament, whose sacrifices were many times offered, and yet were of no great effect or profit, because they were sinners themselves that offered them, and offered not their own blood, but the blood of brute beasts; but Christ’s sacrifice once offered was sufficient for evermore.

And that all men may the better understand this sacrifice of Christ, which he made for the great benefit of all men, it is necessary to know the distinction and diversity of sacrifices.;

One kind of sacrifice there is, which is called a propitiatory or merciful sacrifice, that is to say, such a sacrifice as pacifieth God’s wrath and indignation, and obtaineth mercy and forgiveness for all our sins, and is the ransom for our redemption from everlasting damnation.

And although in the old testament there were certain sacrifices called by that

name, yet in very deed there is but one such sacrifice, whereby our sins be pardoned, and God’s mercy and favour obtained, which is the death of the Son of God our Lord Jesu Christ; nor never was any other sacrifice propitiatory at any time, nor never shall be.

This is the honour and glory of this our high priest, wherein he admitteth neither partner nor successor. For by his own oblation he satisfied his Father for all men’s sins, and reconciled mankind unto his grace and favour. And whosoever deprive him of his honour? and go about to take it to themselves, they be very antichrists, and most arrogant blasphemers against God and against his Son Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent..

Another kind of sacrifice there is which doth not reconcile us to God, but 5 made of them that be reconciled by Christ, to testify our duties unto Godand to shew ourselves thankful unto him. And therefore they be called sacrifices of laud, praise, and thanksgiving.

The first kind of sacrifice Christ offered to God for us; the second kind we ourselves offer to God by Christ.

And by the first kind of sacrifice Christ offered also us unto his Father; and by the second we offer ourselves and all that we have unto him and his Father.

And this sacrifice generally is our whole obedience unto God, in keeping his laws and commandments. Of which manner of sacrifice speaketh the prophet David, saying: A sacrifice to God is a contrite heart.” And St Peter saith of all christian people, that they be “an holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesu Christ.” And St Paul saith, that “alway we offer unto God a sacrifice of laud and praise by Jesus Christ.” ἡ But now to speak somewhat more largely of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, he was such an high bishop, that he, once offering himself, was suffient, by once effusion of his blood, to abolish sin unto the world’s end. H was so perfect a priest, that by one oblation he purged an infinite heap of

[[Ὁ Old law used to do, 1551, and Orig. ed. ] [? Of this honour, 1551, and Orig. ed.] —.]

OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 347. sins, leaving an easy and a ready remedy for all sinners, that his one sacrifice. should suffice for many years unto all men that would not shew themselves. unworthy. And he took unto himself not only their sins that many years before were dead, and put their trust in him, but also the sins of those that, until his coming again, should truly believe in his gospel So that now we may look for none other priest nor sacrifice to take away our sins, but only him and his sacrifice. And as he, dying once, was offered for all, so as much as pertained to him he took all men’s sins unto himself: so that now there remaineth no more sacrifices for sin, but extreme judgment at the last day, when he shall appear to us again, not as a man to be punished again, and to be made a sacrifice for our sins, as he was before; but he shall come in his glory without sin, to the great joy and comfort of them which be purified and made clean by his death, and continue in godly and innocent living, and to the great terror and dread of them that be wicked and ungodly. ]

Thus the scripture teacheth, that if Christ had made any oblation for sin more than once, he should have died more than once; forasmuch as there is none oblation and sacrifice for sin but only his death. And now there is no more oblation for sin, seeing that by him our sins be remitted, and our consciences quieted.

And although in the old testament there were certain sacrifices, called sacrifices for sin, yet they were no such sacrifices that could take away our sins in the sight of God, but they were ceremonies ordained to this intent, that they should be, as it were, shadows and figures, to signify beforehand the excellent sacrifice of Christ that was to come, which should be the very true and perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

And for this signification they had the name of a sacrifice propitiatory, and were called sacrifices for sins, not because they indeed took away our sins, but because they were images, shadows, and figures, whereby godly men were admonished of the true sacrifice of Christ then to come, which should truly abolish sin and everlasting death.

And that those sacrifices which were made by the priests in the old law could not be able to purchase our pardon, and deserve the remission of our sins, St Paul doth clearly affirm in his said epistle to the Hebrews, where he saith: “It is impossible that our sins should be taken away by the blood of oxen and goats.” Wherefore all godly men, although they did use those sacrifices ordained of God, yet they did not take them as things of that value and estimation, that thereby they should be able to obtain remission of their sins before God.

But they took them partly for figures and tokens ordained of God, by the which he declared that he would send that Seed, which he promised to be the very true sacrifice for sin, and that he would receive them that trusted in that promise, and remit their sins for the sacrifice after to come.

And partly they used them as certain ceremonies, whereby such persons as had offended against the law of Moses, and were cast out of the congregation, were received again among the people, and declared to be absolved. As for like purposes we use in the church of Christ sacraments by him instituted And this outward casting out from the people of God, and receiving in again, was according to the law and knowledge of man; but the true reconciliation and forgiveness of sin before God, neither the fathers of the old law had, nor we yet have, but only by the sacrifice of Christ, made in the mount

of Calvary. And the sacrifices of the old law were prognostications and figures of the same then to come, as our sacraments be figures and demonstrations of the same now passed.

Now by these foresaid things may every man easily perceive, that the offering of the priest in the mass, or the appointing of his ministration at his pleasure, to them that be quick or dead, cannot merit and deserve, neither to himself, nor to them for whom he singeth or saith, the remission of their sins; but that such popish doctrine is contrary to the doctrine of the gospel, and injurious to the sacrifice of Christ. For if only the death of Christ be the oblation, sacrifice, and price wherefore our sins be pardoned, then the act or ministration of the priest cannot have the same office. Wherefore it is an abominable blasphemy to give that office or dignity to a priest, which pertaineth only to Christ; or to affirm that the church hath need of any such sacrifice: as who should say, that Christ’s sacrifice were not sufficient for the remission of our sins, or else that his sacrifice should hang upon the sacrifice of a priest.

But all such priests as pretend to be Christ’s successors in making a saerifice of him, they be his most heinous and horrible adversaries. For never no person made a sacrifice of Christ, but he himself only. And therefore St Paul. saith, that Christ’s priesthood cannot pass from him to another.” For what needeth any more sacrifices, if Christ’s sacrifice be perfect and sufficient? And as St Paul saith, that if the sacrifices and ministration of Aaron, and other priests of that time, had lacked nothing, but had been perfect and sufficient, then should not the sacrifice of Christ have been required, (for it had been but in vain to add any thing to that which of itself was perfect;) so likewise if Christ’s sacrifice, which he made himself, be sufficient, what need we every day to have more and more sacrifices? Wherefore all popish priests that presume to make every day a sacrifice of Christ, either must they needs make Christ’s sacrifice vain, unperfect, and unsufficient, or else is their sacrifice in vain which is added to the sacrifice which is already of itself sufficient and perfect.

But it is a wondrous thing to see what shifts and cautels the popish antichrists devise to colour and cloke their wicked errors. And as a chain is so joined together, that one link draweth another after it, so be vices and errors knit together, that every one draweth his fellow with him. And so doth it here in this matter.

For the papists, to excuse themselves, do say that they make no new saeri- ^ fice, nor none other sacrifice than Christ made (for they be not so blind but. they see, that then they should add another sacrifice to Christ’s sacrifice, and. so make his sacrifice unperfect;) but they say that they make the self-same sacrifice for sin that Christ himself made. á And here they run headlongs into the foulest and most heinous error that ever was imagined. For if they make every day the same oblation and sacrifice for sin that Christ himself made, and the oblation that he made was his death, and the effusion of his most precious blood upon the cross, for our redemption and price of our sins; then followeth it of necessity, that they every day slay Christ, and shed his blood, and so be they worse than the wicked Jews and Pharisees, which slew him and shed his blood but once. 4 Almighty God, the Father of light and truth, banish all such darkness and error out of his church, with the authors and teachers thereof, or else contr

. wert their hearts unto him, and give this light of faith to every man, that he may trust to have remission of his sins, and be delivered from eternal death and hell, by the merit only of the death and blood of Christ; and that by his own faith every man may apply the same unto himself, and not take it at the appointment of popish priests, by the merit of sacrifices and oblations!

Τῇ we be indeed, as we profess, christian men, we may ascribe this honour and glory to no man, but to Christ alone. Wherefore let us give the whole laud and praise hereof unto him; let us fly only to him for succour; let us hold him fast and hang upon him, and give ourselves wholly to him. And forasmuch as he hath given himself to death for us, to be an oblation and sacrifice to his Father for our sins, let us give ourselves again unto him, making unto him an oblation, not of goats, sheep, kine, and other beasts that have no reason, as was accustomed before Christ’s coming, but of a creature that hath reason, that is to say, of ourselves; not killing our own bodies, but mortifying the beastly and unreasonable affections that would gladly rule and reign in us.

So long as the law did reign, God suffered dumb beasts to be offered unto him: but now that we be spiritual, we must offer spiritual oblations in the place of calves, sheep, goats, and doves. We must kill devilish pride, furious anger, insatiable covetousness, filthy luere, stinking lechery, deadly hatred and maliee, foxy wiliness, wolvish ravening and devouring, and all other unreasonable lusts and desires of the flesh. And as many as belong to Christ must crucify and kill these for Christ’s sake, as Christ crucified himself for their sakes,

These be the sacrifices of christian men, these hosts and oblations be acceptable to Christ. And as Christ offered himself for us, so is it our duties after this sort to offer ourselves to him again. And so shall we not have the name of christian men in vain; but as we pretend to belong to Christ in word and profession, so shall we indeed be his in life and inward affection; so that within and without we shall be altogether his, clean from all hypocrisy or dissimulation. And if we refuse to offer ourselves after this wise unto him, by crucifying our own wills, and committing us wholly to the will of God, we be most unkind people, superstitious hypocrites, or rather unreasonable beasts, worthy to be excluded utterly from all the benefits of Christ’s oblations.

And if we put the oblation of the priest in the stead of the oblation of Christ, refusing to receive the sacrament of his body and blood ourselves, as he ordained, and trusting to have remission of our sins by the sacrifice of the priest in the mass, and thereby also to obtain release of the pains in purgatory, we do not only injury to Christ, but also commit most detestable idolatry. For these be but false doctrines, without shame devised, and feigned by wicked popish priests, idolaters, monks, and friars, which for lucre have altered and corrupted the most holy supper of the Lord, and turned it into manifest idolatry. Wherefore all godly men ought with all their heart to refuse and &bhor all such blasphemy against the Son of God.

And forasmuch as in such masses is manifest wickedness and idolatry, wherein the priest alone maketh oblation satisfactory, and applieth the same for the quiek and the dead at his will and pleasure, all such popish masses are to be clearly taken away out of christian churches, and the true use of the Lord’s supper is to be restored again; wherein godly people assembled together may receive the sacrament every man for himself, to declare that he

remembereth what benefit he hath received by the death of Christ, and to testify that he is a member of Christ’s body, fed with his flesh, and drinking his blood spiritually. x, Christ did not ordain his sacraments to this use, that one should receive to them for another, or the priest for all the lay people; but he ordained them for this intent, that every man should receive them for himself, to ratify, confo firm, and stablish his own faith and everlasting salvation. Therefore as one man may not be baptized for another, and if he be, it availeth nothing, so ought not one to receive the holy communion for another. For if a man be dry or hungry, he is never a whit eased if another man drink or eat for him; or if a man be all defiled, it helpeth him nothing another man to be washed for him: so availeth it nothing to a man, if another man be baptized for him, or be refreshed for him with the meat and drink at the Lord’s table. And therefore said St Peter: Let every man be baptized in the name of Jesu Christ And our Saviour Christ said to the multitude: Take, and eat.” And further he said: Drink you all of this.” Whosoever therefore will be spiritually regenerated in Christ, he must be baptized himself; and he that will live himself by Christ, must by himself eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood.

And briefly to conclude: he that thinketh to come to the kingdom of Christ himself, must also come to his sacraments himself, and keep his commandments himself, and do all things that pertain to a christian man and to his vocation himself; lest, if he refer these things to another man to do them for him, the - other may with as good right claim the kingdom of heaven for him.

Therefore Christ made no such difference between the priest and the layman, that the priest should make oblation and sacrifice of Christ for the layman, and lay eat the Lord’s supper from him all alone, and distribute and apply it as him liketh. Christ made no such difference, but the difference that is between the priest and the layman in this matter is only in the ministration; that the priest, as a common minister of the church, doth minister and distribute the Lord’s supper unto other, and other receive it at his hands. But the very supper itself - was by Christ instituted and given to the whole church, not to be offered and eaten of the priest for other men, but by him to be delivered to all that would - duly ask it. 3 As in a prince’s house the officers and ministers prepare the table, and yet other, as well as they, eat the meat and drink the drink; so do the priests and. - ministers prepare the Lord’s supper, read the gospel and rehearse Christ’s words, but all the people say thereto, Amen. All remember Christ’s death, all - give thanks to God, all repent and offer themselves an oblation to Christ, all take - him for their Lord and Saviour, and spiritually feed upon him, and in token. thereof they eat the bread and drink the wine in his mystical supper. — — E And this nothing diminisheth the estimation and dignity of priesthood and. other ministers of the church, but advanceth and highly commendeth their minis- tration, For if they are much to be loved, honoured and esteemed, that be the - kings, chancellors, judges, officers, and ministers in temporal matters; how much then are they to be esteemed, that be ministers of Christ’s words and sacraments, and have to them committed the keys of heaven, to let in and shut out by the ministration of his word and gospel? » Now forasmuch as I trust that I have plainly enough set forth the propitia- - tory sacrifice of our Saviour Jesu Christ, to the capacity and comfort of all men that have any understanding of Christ; and have declared also the heinous abomination and idolatry of the popish mass, wherein the priests have taken Dor;

them the office of Christ, to make a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the - people; and I have also told what manner of sacrifice christian people ought to make; it is now necessary to make answer to the subtle persuasions and sophistical eavillations of the papists, whereby they have deceived many a simple man, both learned and unlearned.

The place of St Paul unto the Hebrews, which they do cite for their purpose, maketh quite and clean against them. For where St Paul saith, that every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins,” he spake not that of the priests of the new testament, but of the old, which, as he saith, offered calves and goats. And yet they were not such priests that by their offerings and sacrifices they could take away the people’s sins; but they were shadows and figures of Christ our everlasting priest, which only by one oblation of himself taketh away the sins of the world. Wherefore the popish priests, that apply this text unto themselves, do directly contrary to the meaning of St Paul, to the great injury and prejudice of Christ, by whom only St Paul saith that the saerifice and oblation for the sin of the whole world was accomplished and fulfilled.

And as little serveth for the papists’ purpose the text of the prophet Malachi, that “every where should be offered unto God a pure sacrifice and oblation.” For the prophet in that place spake no word of the mass, nor of any oblation propitiatory to be made by the priests; but he spake of the oblation of all faithful people, in what place so ever they be, which offer unto God, with pure hearts and minds, sacrifices of laud and praise: prophesying of the vocation of the gentiles, that God would extend his mercy unto them, and not be the God only of the Jews, but of all nations, from east to west, that with pure faith call upon him and glorify his name.

But the adversaries of Christ gather together a great heap of authors, which, as they say, call the mass or holy communion a sacrifice. But all those authors be answered unto in this one sentence, that they call it not a sacrifice for sin, because that it taketh away our sin, which is taken away only by the death of Christ, but because the holy communion was ordained of Christ to put us in remembrance of the sacrifice made by him upon the cross: for that cause it beareth the name of that sacrifice, as St Augustine declareth plainly in his epistle ad Bonifacium, before rehearsed in this book, pp. 123, 1245, And in his book De fide ad Petrum Diaconum and in his book De Civitate Dei, he saith: “That which men call a sacrifice is a sign or representation of the true sacrifice.”

And the Master of the sentence, of whom all the school-authors take their occasion to write, judged truly in this point, saying: “That which is offered and consecrated of the priest is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation made in the altar of the cross.”

And St John Chrysostom, after he had said that Christ is our bishop, which offered that sacrifice that made us clean, and that we offer the same now, lest any man might be deceived by his manner of speaking, he openeth his meaning

[[’ And have also, 1551, and Orig. ed.] Basil. ap. Amerbach. 1506. ] [ Fol 64. ed. 1551, and Orig. ed. p. 141. ed. [ Illud quod offertur et consecratur a sacerdote,]

[1580, which is a misprint: it should be p. 125.] vocari sacrificium et oblationem, quia memoria est p Vid. p 77] et reprasentatio veri sacrificii et sanctz immola-]

[. V^ Sacrificium ergo visibile invisibilis sacrificii tionis fact in ara crucis. Petrus Lombardus, Lib.]

[sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est. August. IV. Dist. 12. p. 745. Colon. 1609.]]

[De Civitate Dei. Lib. X. cap. 5. Pars vii. Ed.]

more plainly, saying: “That which we do is done for a remembrance of that — which was done by Christ; for Christ saith, Do this in remembrance of me!^”.— Also Chrysostom, declaring at length that the priests of the old law offered ever new sacrifices, and changed them from time to time, and that christian people do not so, but offer ever one sacrifice of Christ; yet by and by, lest some might be offended with this speech, he maketh as it were a correction of his words, saying, But rather we make a remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice.” As though he should say: although in a certain kind of speech we may say that every day we make a sacrifice of Christ, yet in very deed, to speak properly, we make no sacrifice of him, but only a commemoration and remembrance of that sacrifice which he alone made, and never none but he. Nor Christ never gave this honour to any creature, that he should make a sacrifice of him, nor did not - ordain the sacrament of his holy supper, to the intent that either the priest or? the people should sacrifice Christ again, or that the priests should make a sacrifiee of him for the people: but his holy supper was ordained for this purpose, that every man, eating and drinking thereof, should remember that Christ died for him, and so should exercise his faith, and comfort himself by the remembrance of Christ’s benefits, and so give unto Christ most hearty thanks, and give himself also clearly unto him.

Wherefore the ordinance of Christ ought to be followed: the priest to minister the sacrament to the people, and they to use it to their consolation. And in this eating, drinking, and using of the Lord’s supper, we make not of Christ a new sacrifice propitiatory for remission of sin. 4 But the humble confession of all penitent hearts, their acknowledging of a Christ’s benefits, their thanksgiving for the same, their faith and consolation in the Christ, their humble submission and obedience to God’s will and commandments, is a sacrifice of laud and praise, accepted and allowed of God no less than the sacrifice of the priest. For Almighty God, without respect of person, accepteth the oblation and sacrifice of priest and lay person, of king and subject, of master and servant, of man and woman, of young and old, yea of English, French, Scot, - Greek, Latin, Jew, and Gentile; of every man according to his faithful and obe- i dient heart unto him, and that through the sacrifice propitiatory of Jesu Christ.

And as for the saying or singing of the mass by the priest, as it was in - time passed used, it is neither a sacrifice propitiatory, nor yet a sacrifice of = laud and praise, nor in any wise allowed before God, but abominable and detest- ti able; and thereof may well be verified the saying of Christ: “That thing - which seemeth an high thing before men is an abomination before God.” Vi They therefore which: gather of the doctors, that the mass is a sacrifice for — remission of sin, and that: it is applied by the priest to them for whom he saith or singeth, they which so gather of the doctors do to them most grievous - injury and wrong, most falsely belying them. im — For these monstrous things were never seen nor known of the old and pri- ^ mitive church, nor there was not then in one church many masses every day V but upon certain days there was a common: table of the Lord’s supper, where a number of people did together receive the body and blood of the Lord: i d there were then no daily private masses, where every priest received alone, like 1

[[! Τί οὖν; ἡμεῖς καθ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ob προσ- τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. οὐκ ἄλλην θυσίαν, καθάπερ,]

[φέρομεν; προσφέρομεν μὲν, ἀλλ ἀνάμνησιν ποι- ὃ ἀρχιερεὺς τότε, ἀλλὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀεὶ ποιοῦμενο,]

[προσφέρομεν καὶ νῦν, τὴν τότε Te προσενεχθεῖσαν, sost. in Epist. ad Heb. Hom. xvii. Tom. X11.]

[τὶν ἀνάλωτον. τοῦτο εἰς ἀνάμνησιν γίνεται τοῦ pp. 108,9. Ed. Bened.] iis]

[τότε γενομένου. τοῦτο γὰρ ποιεῖτέ, φησιν, εἰς [2 The Orig. ed. omits the words the priest or]]

as until this day there is none in the Greek churches, but one common mass in a day. Nor the holy fathers of the old church would not have suffered such ungodly and wicked abuses of the Lord’s supper.. But these private masses sprang up of late years, partly through the igno- - rance and superstition of unlearned monks and friars, which knew not what a sacrifice was, but made of the mass a sacrifice propitiatory, to remit both sin and ΠΟ the pain due for the same; but chiefly they sprang of lucre and gain, when priests found the means to sell masses to the people, which caused masses so much to increase, that every day was said an infinite number, and that no priest would receive the communion at another priest’s hand, but every one would receive it alone; neither regarding the godly decree of the most famous and holy eouncil of Nice, which appointed? in what order priests should be placed above deacons at the communion, nor yet the Canons of the apostles, which command, that when any communion is ministered, all the priests together should receive the same, or else be excommunicate’. So much the old fathers misliked that any -. priest should receive the sacrament alone.

Therefore when the old fathers called the mass or supper of the Lord a sacrifice, they meant that it was a sacrifice of lauds and thanksgiving, (and so as well the people as the priest do sacrifice,) or else that it was a remembrance of the very true sacrifice propitiatory of Christ; but they meant in no wise that it is a very true sacrifice for sin, and applicable by the priest to the quick and dead. ^ For the priest may well minister Christ’s words and sacraments to all men, - — both good and bad; but he can apply the benefit of Christ’s passion to no man, being of age and discretion, but only to such as by their own faith do apply the same unto themselves: so that every man of age and discretion taketh to himself the benefits of Christ’s passion, or refuseth them himself, by his own faith, quick or dead; that is to say, by his true and lively faith, that worketh by charity, he receiveth them, or else by his ungodliness or feigned faith rejecteth them. And this doctrine of the scripture clearly condemneth the wicked intentions ef the papists in these latter days, which have devised a purgatory to torment souls after this life, and oblations of masses said by the priests to deliver them from the said torments; and a great number of other commodities do they promise to the simple ignorant people by their masses. I Now the nature of man being ever prone to idolatry from the beginning of the world, and the papists being ready by all means and policy to défend and extol the mass for their estimation and profit, and the people being superstitiously enamoured and doted upon the mass, because they take it for a present remedy against all manner of evils, and part of the princes being blinded by papistical doctrine, part loving quietness, and loth to offend their clergy and subjects, and all being captive and subject to the antichrist of Rome, the estate ef the world remaining in that case, it is no wonder that abuses grew and inereased in the church, that superstition with idolatry were taken for godliness and true religion, and that many things were brought in without the authority of Christ: as purgatory, the oblation and sacrificing of Christ by the priest alone,

[I [ Appointeth, 1551, and Orig. ed.] Can. xviii. Labb. Tom. II. p. 676.]]

[1 [ἡ Λαμβανέτωσαν δὲ [oi διάκονοι] κατὰ τὴν [5 Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος]

[1 τάξιν τὴν εὐχαριστίαν μετὰ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους, ἢ ἐκ τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ προσφορᾶς]

[ἢ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου διδόντος αὐτοῖς ἢ τοῦ πρεσβυτέ- γενομένης μὴ μεταλάβοι, τὴν αἰτίαν εἰπάτω” καὶ]

[ο΄ ρου” ἀλλὰ μηδὲ καθῆσθαι ἐν μέσῳ τῶν πρεσβυτέ- ἐὰν εὔλογος j, συγγνώμης τυγχανέτω” εἰ δὲ μὴ]

[pwr ἐξέστω τοῖς διακόνοις, παρὰ κανόνα γὰρ λέγει, ἀφοριζέσθω. Ibid. Tom. I. p. 30.]]

[i. καὶ παρὰ τάξιν ἐστὶ τὸ γινόμενον. Conc. Nic. [ In this case, 1551, and Orig. ed.)]

[t1 [cRANMER.] 23]

the application and appointing of the same to such persons as the priest would sing or say mass for, and to such abuses as they could devise, to deliver some from — purgatory, and some from hell, (if they were not there finally by God deter- - mined to abide, as they termed the matter,) to make rain or fair weather, to put away the plague and other sicknesses both from man and beast, to hallow and preserve them that went to Jerusalem, to Rome, to St James in Compostella, and other places in pilgrimage, for a preservative against tempest and thunder, against perils and dangers of the sea, for a remedy against murrain of cattle, - against pensiveness of the heart, against all manner affliction and tribulations. - And finally, they extol their masses far above Christ’s passion, promising - many things thereby, which were never promised us by Christs passion: as - that if a man hear mass, he shall lack no bodily sustenance that day, nor nothing - necessary for him, nor shall be letted in his journey; he shall not lose his sight that day, nor die no sudden death; he shall not wax old in that time that he - heareth mass, nor no wicked spirits shall have power of him, be he never so wicked a man, so long as he looketh upon the sacrament. All these foolish and - devilish superstitions the papists, of their own idle brain, have devised of late years, which devices were never known in the old church. 4 And yet they cry out against them that profess the gospel, and say that. they dissent from the church, and would have them to follow the example of - their church. And so would they gladly do, if the papists would follow the. first church of the apostles, which was most pure and incorrupt: but the papists have clearly varied from the usage and examples of that church, and have. invented new devices of their own brains, and will in no wise consent to fol- - low the primitive church; and yet they would have other to follow their church, ἢ utterly varying and dissenting from the first most godly church. But, thanks be to the eternal God! the manner of the holy communion, which is now set forth within this realm, is agreeable with the institution of Christ, with St - Paul, and the old primitive and apostolic church, with the right faith of the Ἶ sacrifice of Christ upon the cross for our redemption, and with the true - doctrine of our salvation, justification, and remission of all our sins by that i only sacrifice. ᾿ in- Now resteth nothing, but that all faithful subjects will gladly receive and i] embrace the same, being sorry for their former ignorance, and every man i repenting himself of his offences against God, and amending the same, may yield himself wholly to God, to serve and obey him all the days of his life, i and often to come to the holy supper, which our Lord and Saviour Christ. hath prepared. And as he there corporally eateth the very bread, and drinketh the very wine; so spiritually he may feed of the very flesh and blood of. Jesu Christ his Saviour and Redeemer, remembering his death, thanking him for his benefits, and looking for none other sacrifice at no priest’s hands for. remission of his sins; but only trusting to his sacrifice, which being both the high priest, and also the Lamb of God, prepared from the beginning to take. away the sins of the world, offered up himself once for ever in a sacrifice — of sweet smell unto his Father, and by the same paid the ransom for the. sins of the whole world: who is before us entered into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of his Father, as a patron, mediator, and intercessor for us; and there hath prepared places for all them that be lively members of - his body, to reign with him for ever, in the glory of his Father; to whom with him, and the Holy Ghost, be glory, honour, and praise for ever and ever. Amen. P. p

Thus having rehearsed the whole words of my last book, I shall return to your A jssue, and make a joinder or demur with you therein. And if you cannot prove. your propitiatory sacrifice of the priests by Petrus Lombardus, and Nicene council,. then must you confess by your own issue, that the verdict must justly pass against you, and that you have a fall in your own suit. As for the sacrifice of lauds and thanksgiving, I have set it forth plainly in my book; but the sacrifice propitiatory, - devised to be made by the priest in the mass only, is a great abomination before God, how glorious soever it appear before men. And it is set up only by antichrist, and therefore worthy to be abhorred of all that truly profess Christ. L And first, as concerning Nicene council, because you begin with that first, I will rehearse your words. E First, to begin with the council of Nice, the same hath opened the mystery of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in this wise, That christian men believe the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world, to be situate upon God’s board, and to be sacrificed of the priests, not after the manner of other sacrifices.” This is the doctrine of the council of Nice, and must then be called an holy doctrine, and thereby a true doctrine, consonant to the scriptures, the found- Ἢ ation of all truth. If the author will deny this to have been the teaching of the council of “Nice, I shall allege therefore the allegation of the same by (Ecolampadius, who, being an adE. versary to the truth, was yet by God’s providence ordered to bear testimony to the truth in this point, and by his mean is published to the world, in Greek, as followeth, which nevertheless may otherwise appear to be true: Ἐπὶ τῆς θείας τραπέζης πάλιν κἀνταῦθα μὴ τῷ προ- ᾿ κειμένῳ ἄρτῳ καὶ τῷ ποτηρίῳ ταπεινῶς προσέχωμεν, ἀλλ ὑψώσαντες τὴν διάνοιαν, πίστει νοήσωμεν κεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς ἱερᾶς ἐκείνης τραπέζης τὸν ἀμνὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν αἴροντα τὴν dpapriav ᾿ τοῦ κόσμου, ἀθύτως ὑπὸ τῶν ἱερέων θυόμενον, καὶ τὸ τίμιον αὐτοῦ σῶμα καὶ αἷμα ἀληθῶς λαμ- ββάνοντας ἡμᾶς, πιστεύειν ταῦτα εἶναι τὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀναστάσεως σύμβολα. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ ᾿ς οὔτε πολὺ λαμβάνομεν ἀλλ ὀλίγον, ἵνα γνῶμεν ὅτι οὐκ εἰς πλησμονὴν, ἀλλ εἰς ἁγιασμόν. Iterum etiam hic in divina mensa, ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem et poculum, sed mente exaltata fide intelligamus, situm esse in sacra illa mensa illum Dei agnum, qui tollit peccata mundi, sacrificatum a sacerdotibus, non victimarum more: et “nos pretiosum illius corpus et sanguinem vere sumentes, credere hzc esse resurrectionis. mostre symbola!. Ideo enim non multum accipimus, sed parum, ut cognoscamus, quoniam -. mon in satietatem, sed sanctificationem. These words may be Englished thus: “Again in this godly table, we should not in base and low consideration direct our understanding to the bread and cup set forth; but having our mind exalted, we should understand by faith to be situate in that table the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, sacrificed L of the priests, not after the manner of other sacrifices, and we receiving truly the precious body and blood of the same Lamb, to believe these to be the tokens of our resurrection. And Jor that we receive not much, but a little, because we should know that not for saturity and filling, but for sanctification.”

This holy council of Nice hath been believed universally in declaration of the mystery of the Trinity, and the sacraments also. And to them that confess that council to be holy, as the author here doth, and to such as profess to believe the determination of that council in the opening of the mystery of the Trinity, with other words than scripture useth, (although they express such sense as in the scriptwres? is contained,) why should mot all such likewise believe the same council in explication of the sacraments, which to do the author hath bound himself, granting that council holy? And then we must believe the very presence of Christ’s body and blood on God’s board, and that priests do there sacrifice, and be therefore called end named sacrificerst. So as those names and terms be to be honoured amd religiously spoken of, being im an holy council wttered and confessed, because it was so seen to them and the Holy Ghost, without whose present assistance and suggestion believed to be there the council could not or ought not to be called holy. Now, if we confer with that council of

[1 [ Resurrectionis symbola, Orig. ed. Winch.] See Labbé Concilia, Vol. 11. pp. 103. 233. Cave’s]

[E [ This quotation is made from The History Hist. Lit.]]

[. 6f the Council of Nice, by Gelasius Cyzicenus,” a [? Scripture, 1551.] work of no value or repute. The more authentic [ And be therefore called sacrifices, Orig. ed. histories of the Council do not give the passage. Winch.]:]

[3 23—2]

” 356 THE FIFTH BOOK. Nice the testimony of the church beginning at St Dionyse, who was in the time of the apostles, and after him coming to Irence, who was near the apostles, and then Tertullian, and so St Cyprian, St Chrysostom, St Cyril, St Hierome, St Augustine, and from that age to the time of Petrus Lombardus!, all spake of the sacrament to the same effect, and termed it for the word sacrifice and oblation, to be frequented in the church, of the body and blood of Christ, as may be in particularity shewed, whereof I make also an issue with the author.

Canterbury

For answer to Nicene council, it speaketh of a sacrifice of lauds and thanksgiving, which is made by the priest in the name of the whole church, and is the sacrifice as well of the people as of the priest: this sacrifice, I say, the council of Nice speaketh of; but it speaketh not one word of the sacrifice propitiatory, which never none made but only Christ, nor he never made it any more than once, which was by his death. And wheresoever Christ shall be hereafter, in heaven or in earth, he shall never be sacrificed again; but the church continually, in remembrance of that sacrifice, maketh a sacrifice of laud and praise, giving evermore thanks unto him for that propitiatory sacrifice. And in the third chapter of my book here recited, the difference of these two sacrifices is plainly set out.

And although Nicene council call Christ “the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world,” yet doth it not mean that by the sacrifice of the priest in the mass, but by the sacrifice of himself upon the cross. But here, according to your accustomed manner, you alter some words of the council, and add also some of your own. For the council said not that the Lamb of God is “sacrificed of the priests, not after the manner of other sacrifices;” but that he is sacrificed not after the manner of a sacrifice, And in saying, that Christ is sacrificed of the priest, not like a sacrifice, or after the manner of a sacrifice, the council in these words signified a difference between the sacrifice of the priest, and the sacrifice of Christ, which upon the cross offered himself to be sacrificed after the manner of a very sacrifice, that is to say, idem Uno death, for the sins of the world. Christ made the bloody sacrifice, which took away sin: the priest with the church make a commemoration thereof with lauds and thanksgiving, offering also themselves obedient to God unto death. And yet this our sacrifice taketh not away our sins, nor is not accepted but by his sacrifice. The bleeding of him took away our sins, not the eating of him.

And although that council say, that Christ is situate in that table, yet it saith not that he is really and corporally in the bread and wine. For then that council would not have forbid us to direct our minds to the bread and cup, if they had believed that Christ had been really there. But forasmuch as the council commandeth that we shall not direct our minds downward to the bread and cup, but lift them up to Christ by faith, they give us to understand by those words, that Christ is really and corporally ascended up into heaven, unto which place we must lift up our minds, and reach him there by our faith, and not look down to find him in the bread. And yet he is in the bread sacramentally, as the same council saith, that the Holy Ghost is in the water of baptism. And as Christ is in his supper present to feed us, so is he in baptism to clothe and apparel us with his own self, as the same council declareth, whose words be these: “He that is baptized, goeth down into the water, being subject to sin, and held in the bands of corruption; but he riseth up free from bondage and sin, being made by the grace of God his son and heir, and co-inheritor with Christ, and apparelled with Christ himself, as it is written: As many of you as be baptized unto Christ, you have put Christ upon you?” These

[[! That age to Petrus Lombardus, Orig. ed. ἐνεχόμενος” ἀνέρχεται δὲ ἐλευθερωθεὶς τῆς τε τοι- E.]

[Winch.] αὐτης δουλείας καὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ WR [? Decret. Gratian. in Corpus Juris Canonici. kai κληρονόμος χάριτι αὐτοῦ γεγονὼς, συγκληρο- ma]

[—De consecrat. Dist. ii. cap. 52. “Semel.” Tom I. νόμος δὲ Χριστοῦ, kabws γέγραπται Ὅσοι els]

[col. 1938. Ed. Lugd. 1618.] Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. Labb. [? Κατέρχεται μὲν οὖν ὁ βαπτιζόμενος ὑπεύ- Concil. Tom. 11. col. 888. Florent. 1759.] “E”]

[Üvvos ἁμαρτημάτων, καὶ τῇ τῆς φθορᾶς δουλείᾳ, Ἢ ἢ ’]

words of the council I rehearse only in English, because I will not let nor encumber. the reader with the Greek or Latin, as you do, which is nothing else but to rehearse one thing thrice, without need or profit. If I had list, I could have rehearsed all the Greek authors in Greek, and the Latin writers in Latin; but unto Englishmen, unto whom only I write, it were a vain labour or glory, without fruit or profit, or any other cause, except I intended to make my book long for gain of the printer, rather than for profit to the reader. 1 But to return to the matter: Christ is present in his holy supper, as that holy council saith, even as he is present in baptism, but not really, carnally, corporally, and naturally, as you without ground imagineD And if he were so present, yet is he not there sacrificed again for sin. For then were his first sacrifice upon the cross in vain, if it sufficed not therefore. A And as for Dionyse, Irenee, Tertullian, with all your other authors, I have an- -. swered them in the thirteenth chapter of this my last book. And what need you make an issue in this thing which is not in controversy, and which I affirm in my whole last book? The matter in question is of the “sacrifice propitiatory;” and you make your issue of the sacrifice generally. —. Now let us see how you entreat Petrus Lombardus. WINCHESTER. Lo For the other point, in that the author approveth the judgment of Petrus Lombardus in E the matter, what should I more do, but write in the words of Petrus Lombardus as he hath them? which be these, in the fourth book, the twelfth chapter, alleged by the author: Post hse queeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos proprie dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio, et si Christus -. quotidie immoletur4, vel semel tantum immolatus sit? Ad hoc breviter dici potest, illud quod offertur et consecratur a sacerdote, vocari sacrificium et oblationem, quia memoria -. estet reprzesentatio veri sacrificii et sanctee immolationis factee in ara crucis; et semel Christus mortuus in cruce est, ibique immolatus est in semetipso, quotidie autem immolatur in sa- eramento, quia in sacramento recordatio fit illius, quod faetum est semel: unde Augustinus: “Certum habemus, quia Christus resurgens ex mortuis jam non moritur; et tamen, me obliviseamur quod semel factum est, in memoria nostra omni anno fit, scilicet quando ᾿ς paseha celebratur. Nunquid totiens Christus occiditur? sed tantum anniversaria recordatio representat quod olim faetum est, et sic nos facit moveri tanquam videamus Dominum in cruce^,” Item: “Semel immolatus est Christus in semetipso, et tamen quotidie immolatur insacramento$.” Quod sic intelligendum est: quia in manifestatione corporis et distinctione i membrorum semel tantum in cruce pependit, offerens se Deo Patri hostiam redemptionis A efficacem, eorum seilicet quos predestinavit. Item Ambrosius: In Christo semel oblata est hostia ad salutem potens; quid ergo nos? Nonne per singulos dies offerimus? Et si -. quotidie offeramus, ad recordationem ejus mortis fit; et una est hostia, non multe: quo- -. modo una et non multe? quia semel immolatus est Christus. Hoc autem sacrificium exemplum est illius: id ipsum, et semper id ipsum offertur: proinde hoc idem est sacrificium; 4 alioquin dicetur, quoniam in multis locis offertur, multi sunt Christi: non, sed unus ubique est Christus, et hic plenus existens, et illic plenus, sicut quod ubique offertur unum est 3 corpus, ita et unum sacrifieium. Christus hostiam obtulit, ipsam offerimus et nunc; sed quod nos agimus recordatio est sacrificii. Nec causa suse infirmitatis repetitur, quia perficit hominem, sed nostre, quia quotidie peccamus?.” Ex his colligitur esse sacrificium et diei quod agitur in altari, et Christum semel oblatum et quotidie offerri, sed aliter tunc, aliter nune: et etiam que sit virtus hujus sacramenti ostenditur: remissio scilicet pecca-

[[^ Quotidie vel immoletur semel, in ed. 1580. ] mus in cruce pendentem. Dominum. August. in]

[E [^ Et scimus et certum habemus, et fide immo- Psalm. xxi. Prafat. in secundam expositionem.]

[bili retinemus, quia Christus resurgens a mortuis Tom. VIII. p. 43. Ed. Paris. 1635.]]

[. jamnon moritur, et mors ei ultra non dominabitur.” [ August. Epist. xxir Ad Bonifacium.]

[. Verba ista Apostoli sunt: tamen ne obliviscamur Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso, et]

[ru quod factum est semel, in memoria nostra semel tamen in sacramento… omni die populis immo-]

[omni anno fit. Quotiens pascha celebratur, nunquid latur? Tom. II. p. 36.]]

[. totiens Christus moritur? Sed tamen anniversaria [7 In Epist. ad Hebr. x. Tom. III. p. 651. Paris,]

[recordatio quasi representat quod olim factum est, 1631. But this commentary is entirely omitted by]

[E e sic nos facit moneri [al. moveri] tanquam vide- the Benedictine editors, as being certainly spurious.]

torum venialium et perfectio virtutis. The English whereof is this: “After this it is asked — whether that the priest doth, may be said properly a sacrifice or immolation; and whether — Christ be daily immolate or only once? Whereunto it may be shortly answered, That which — is offered and consecrate of the priest, is called a sacrifice and oblation, because it is a memory 1 and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation done in the altar of the cross. — — And Christ was once dead on the cross, and there was offered in himself; but he is daily im- ὦ molate in the sacrament, because in the sacrament there is made a memory of that is omce —— done, Whereupon St Augustine: We are assured that Christ rising from death dieth not — ed mow, ὅς. Yet, lest we should forget that is once done, in our memory every year is done, E viz. as often as the pascha is celebrate, is Christ as often killed? only a yearly remembrance representeth that was once done, and so causeth us! to be moved as though we saw our Lord. 1 on the cross. Also Christ was once offered im himself, and is offered? daily im the saera- —— quent. Which is thus to be understanded, that in open shewing of his body and distinction of: Ong. his members he did hang only once upon the cross, offering himself to God the Father am » host of redemption effectual for them whom he hath predestinate. Also St Ambrose: In Christ the host was once offered being of power to health: what do we then? do we mot 3 it: offer every day? and if we offer every day, it is done to the remembrance of the death of 2 him, and the host is one, not many. How one and mot many? because Christ is once ofJered: this sacrifice is the example of that, the same, and always the same is offered; therefore — — this is the same sacrifice. Or else it may be said, because offering is3 in many places, there —— be many Christs; which is not so, but one Christ is each where, and here full, and there ull, so as that which is offered every where is one body, and so also one sacrifice. Christ —— hath offered the host, we do offer the same also now: but that we do is a remembrance of the sacrifice. Nor there is mo cause found of the own invalidity, because it perfecteth the hs man, but of us, because we daily sin.’.Hereof it is gathered that to be a sacrifice and to — — be so called, that is done in the altar; and Christ to be once offered and daily offered, but — otherwise then, and otherwise mow: and also it is shewed what is the virtue of this sacrament, that is to say, remission of venial sim amd perfection of virtue.” “ἢ Thus writeth Petrus Lombardus, whose judgment because this author alloweth, he must grant ἣ that the visible church hath priests in ministery, that offer daily Christ’s most precious body and ὦ blood in mystery: and then must it be granted, that Christ so offered himself in his supper; E Jor otherwise than he did cannot now be done. And by the judgment of Petrus Lombardus, ὦ the same most precious body and blood is offered daily, that once suffered and was once shed. And T also by the same Petrus judgment, which he confirmeth with the saying of other, this daily ὦ offering by the priest is daily offered for sin, not for any imperfection in the first offering, - de but because we daily fall. And by Petrus judgment appeareth also, how the priest hath a b — special function to make this offering, by whose mouth God is prayed unto (as Hesychius saith) — — to make this sacrifice, which Emissene noteth to be wrought by the great power of the invisible —— priest. By Petrus Lombardus also, if his judgment be true, (as it is in deed, and the author ὦ confesseth it so to be,) that is done in the altar is not only called a sacrifice, but also is so, — and the same that is offered once and daily to be the same, but otherwise then and otherwise ὦ now. But to the purpose: if the author will stand to the judgment of Petrus Lombardus, all — his fifth book of this treaty is clearly defaced. And if he will now call back that again, he.— might more compendiously do the same in the whole treatise, being so far overseen as he is. therein. Y CANTERBURY. i

How is it possible to set out more plainly the diversity of the true sacrifice of Christ made upon the altar of the cross, which was the propitiation of sin, from the sacrifice made in the sacrament, than Lombardus hath done in this place? For the one he calleth the true sacrifice, the other he calleth but a memorial or representa-: tion thereof, likening the sacrifice made in the Lord’s supper to a year’s mind or anniversary, whereat is made a memorial of the death of a person, and yet it is not his death indeed. So in the Lord’s supper, according to his commandment, we remem- AE [! And causeth us, Orig. ed. Winch.] [ By the power, ibid.] ia pr [ And yet is offered, 1551.] [^ Then offered and, ibid.] “Ὁ

[[? It is offered, Orig. ed. Winch.] i 1]

. ber his death, preaching and commending the same until his return again at the last “a And although it be one Christ that died for us, and whose death we remember, yet it is not one sacrifice that he made of himself upon the cross, and that we make - ef him upon the altar or table. For his sacrifice was the redemption of the world, - ours is not so: his was death, ours is but a remembrance thereof: his was the - taking away the sins of the world; ours is a praising and thanking for the same:. and therefore his was satisfactory, ours is gratulatory. It is but one Christ that was offered then, and that is offered now; yet the offerings be divers: his was the thing, and ours is the figure; his was the original and ours is as it were a pattern. “Therefore concludeth Lombardus, that Christ was “otherwise offered then and otherwise 1 now.” And seeing then that the offerings and sacrifices be divers, if the first was propitiatory and satisfactory, ours cannot be so, except we shall make many sacrifices propitiatory. And then, as St Paul reasoneth, either the first must be insufficient, or the other in vain. And as Christ only made this propitiatory sacrifice, so e made but one, and but once. For the making of any other, or of the same again, should have been (as St Paul reasoneth) a reproving of the first as unperfect and insufficient. And therefore, at his last supper, although Christ made unto his Father sacrifices of lauds and thanksgiving, as these words εὐχαριστήσας and ὑμνήσαντες do declare, yet he made there no sacrifice propitiatory; for then either the sacrifice upon the cross had been void, or the sacrifice at the supper unperfect and unsufficient. And although he had at his supper made sacrifices propitiatory, yet the priests do ᾿ς mot so, who do not the same that Christ did at his supper. For he ministered not the sacrament in remembrance of his death, which was not then brought to pass, but he ordained it to be ministered of us in remembrance thereof. And therefore our offering, after Lombardus judgment, is but a remembrance of that true offering wherein Christ offered himself upon the cross. And so did Christ institute it to beE And Lombardus saith not that Christ is daily offered for propitiation of our sins; but because we daily sin, we daily be put in the remembrance of Christ’s death, which is the perfect propitiation for sin^. And the priest (as Lombardus saith) maketh a memorial of that oblation of Christ, and (as Hesychius saith) he doth it in the name οὗ the people, so that the sacrifice is no more the priest’s than the people’s. For the priests speak the words, and the people should answer “Amen,” as Justinus saith. The priest should declare the death and passion of Christ, and all the people should look upon the cross in the mount of Calvary, and see Christ there hanging, and the blood flowing out of his side into their wounds to heal all their sores; and the priest and people all together should laud and thank instantly the chirurgeon and physician of their souls. And this is the priest’s and people’s sacrifice, not to be propitiators for sin, but (as Emissene saith) to worship continually in mystery that which was but once offered for the price of sin. And this shortly is the mind of Lombardus, that the thing which is done at God’s board is a sacrifice, and so is that also which was made upon 7 the cross, but not after one manner of understanding. For this was the thing in deed, 7 and that is the anniversary or commemoration of the thing. i And now have I made it evident, that Petrus Lombardus defaceth in no point 7 my saying of the sacrifice, but confirmeth fully my doctrine, as well of the sacrifice propitiatory made by Christ himself only, as of the sacrifice commemorative and gratulatory made by the priests and people. So that in your issue taken upon Lombard, the verdict cannot but pass with me, by the testimony of Lombard himself. And yet I do not fully allow Lombard’s judgment in all matters, who with Gratian his brother, 8$ it is said, were two chief champions of the Romish see, to spread abroad their errors and usurped authority; but I speak of Lombard only to declare that yet in his time they had not erred so far, to make of their mass a sacrifice propitiatory. But in the end of this process Lombard speaketh without the book, when he con-. eludeth this matter thus, that the virtue of this sacrament is the remission of venial sin and perfection of virtue:” which if Lombard understand of the sacrifice of Christ,

[3 [ Proportion for sin, 1580.]]

. 360 OTHE FIFTHBOOK. SIT it is too little, to make his sacrifice the remission but of venial sin; and if he understand it of the sacrifice of the priest, it is too much to make the priest’s sacrifice either “the perfection of virtue” or “the remission of venial sin,” which be the effects only of the sacrifice of Christ.

Now let us consider the rest of your confutation.

Wnestr

The catholic doctrine teacheth mot the daily sacrifice of Christ’s most precious body and blood to be an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the cross, but a sacrifice that representeth that sacrifice, and sheweth it also before the faithful eyes, and refresheth the effectual memory of it; so as in the daily sacrifice, without shedding of blood, we may see with the eye of faith the very body and blood of Christ by God’s mighty power, without division, distinctly exhibit, the same body and blood that suffered and was shed for us, which is a lively memorial to stir up our faith, and to consider therein briefly the great charity of God towards us declared in Christ. The catholic doctrine teacheth the daily sacrifice to be the same in essence that was offered on the cross once, assured thereof by Christ’s words when he said: This is my body that shall be betrayed for you.” The offering on the cross was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin, whereby to destroy the tyranny of sin, the effect whereof is given and dispensed in the sacrament of baptism, once likewise ministered and never to be iterate, no more than Christ can be crucified again; and yet by virtue of the same offering such as fall be relieved in the sacrament of penance.

Canterbury

After your wilful wrangling without any cause, at the last of your own swing you come to the truth, purely and sincerely professing and setting forth the same, except in few words here and there cast in, as it were cockle among clean corn. “The offering on the cross,” say you, was and is propitiatory and satisfactory for our redemption and remission of sin, the effect whereof is given and dispensed in the sacrament of baptism, once likewise ministered, and never to be iterate;” but the catholic doctrine teacheth not that the daily sacrifice is an iteration of the once perfected sacrifice on the cross, but a representation thereof, shewing it before the faithful eyes, and refreshing our memory therewith, so that we may see with the eye of faith the very body and blood of Christ, by God’s mighty power exhibit unto us, the same body and blood that suffered and was shed for us.” This is a godly and catholic doctrine, but of the cockle, which you cast in by the way, of distinction without division,” I cannot tell what you mean, except you speak out your dreams more plainly. And that it is the same body in substance, that is daily, as it were, offered by remembrance, which was once offered in the cross for sin, we learn not so plainly by these words, “This is my body,” hoc est corpus meum, as we do by these, Hic Jesus assumptus est im colum, and, Qui descendit, ipse est et qui ascendit supra ommes colos: “This Jesus was taken up into heaven,” and “he that descended was the same Jesus that ascended above all the heavens.”

And where you say, that “by virtue of Christ’s sacrifice such as fall be relieved in the sacrament of penance,” the truth is, that such as do fall be relieved by Christ, whensoever they return to him unfeignedly with heart and mind. And as for your words concerning the sacrament of penance, may have a popish understanding in it. But at length you return to your former error, and go about to revoke, or at the least evil-favouredly to expound, that which you have before well spoken. Your words be these. ‘a ἐξ WINCHESTER. D: The daily offering is propitiatory also, but not in that degree of propitiation, as for ve demption, regeneration, or remission of deadly sin, which was once purchased, and by force thereof is in the sacraments ministered; but for the increase of God’s favour, the mitigation

of God’s displeasure, provoked by our infirmities, the subduing of temptations, and the perfection of virtue in us. All good works, good thoughts, and good meditations may be called sacrifices, nd the same be called sacrifices propitiatory also, for so much as in their degree God accepteth Er and taketh them through the effect amd strength of the very sacrifice of Christ’s death, which is the reconciliation between God and man, ministered and dispensed particularly as God hath appointed, in such measure as he knoweth. But St Paul to the Hebrews, exhorting men to charitable deeds, saith: With such sacrifices. God is made favourable,” or, God is propitiate,” if we shall make new English. Whereupon it followeth, because the priest in the daily sacrifice doth as Christ hath ordered to be done for shewing forth and remembrance of Christ’s death, that act of the priest done according to God’s commandment must needs be propitiatory, and provoke God’s favour, and ought to be trusted on to have a propitiatory effect with God to the members of Christ’s body particularly, being the same done for the whole body, in such wise as God knoweth the dispensation to be meet and convenient; according to which measure God worketh most justly and most mercifully, otherwise than man can by his judgment discuss and determine. To call the daily offering a “sacrifice satisfactory,” must have an understanding that signifieth not the action of the priest, but the presence of Christ’s most precious body and blood, the very sacrifice of the world once perfectly offered being propitiatory and satisfactory Jor all the world; or else the word satisfactory” must have a signification and meaning, as it hath sometime, that declareth the acceptation of the thing done, and not the proper contrevail of the action, after which sort man may satisfy God that is so merciful as he will take in good worth for Christ’s sake man’s imperfect endeavour, and so the daily offering may be called a sacrifice satisfactory, because God is pleased with it, being a manner of worshipping of Christ’s passion according to his institution. But otherwise the daily sacrifice, in respect of the action of the priest, [cannot be]? called satisfactory, and it is a word indeed that soundeth not well so placed, although it might be saved by a signification, and therefore think that word rather to be well expounded, than by captious understanding brought in slander when it is used, and this speech to be frequented, that the only immolation of Christ in himself upon the altar of the cross is the very satisfactory sacrifice for reconciliation of mankind to the favour of God. And I have not read the daily sacrifice of Christ’s most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory, but this speech hath indeed been used, that the priest should sing satisfactory;” which they understood in the satisfaction of the priests duty, to attend the prayer he was required to make, and for a distinction thereof. they had prayer sometime required without special limitation, and that was called to pray mot “satisfactory.” Finally in man? by any his action to presume to satisfy God by way of countervail, is a very mad and furious blasphemy.

Canterbury

To defend the papistical error, that the daily offering of the priest in the mass is propitiatory, you extend the word ’ propitiation” otherwise than the apostles do, speaking of that matter. I speak plainly, according to St Paul and St John, that only Christ is the propitiation for our sins by his death. You speak according to the papists, that the priests in their masses make a sacrifice propitiatory. I call a sacrifice propitiatory, according to the scripture, such a sacrifice as pacifieth God’s indignation against us, obtaineth mercy and forgiveness of all our sins, and is our ransom and redemption from everlasting damnation. And on the other side, I call a sacrifice gratificatory, or the sacrifice of the church, such a sacrifice as doth not reconcile us to God, but is made of them that be reconciled to testify their duties, and to shew themselves thankful unto him. And these sacrifices in scripture be not called propitiatory but sacrifices of justice, of laud, praise, and thanksgiving. But you confound the words, and call one by another’s name, calling that propitiatory which the Scripture calleth but of justice, laud, and thanking. And all is nothing else but to defend your propitiatory sacrifice of the priests in their masses, whereby they may remit sin and redeem souls out of purgatory., And yet all your wiles and shifts will not serve you; for by extending the name

[: Ed. 1551, and Orig. τε a] ELE Fully wan, 1551, and Orig: ed. Winch] Christ’s institution, Orig. ed. Winch. i]

of a propitiatory sacrifice unto so large a signification as you do, you make all manner of sacrifices propitiatory, leaving no place for any other sacrifice. “For,” say you, “all good deeds and good thoughts be sacrifices propitiatory;” and then be the good works of the lay people sacrifices propitiatory, as well as those of the priest. And to what purpose then made you in the beginning of this book a distinction between sacrifices propitiatory and other? Thus for desire you have to defend the papistical errors, you have not fallen only into imaginations contrary to the truth of God’s word, but also contrary to yourself.

But let pass away these papistical inventions, and let us humbly profess ourselves, with all our sacrifices, not worthy to approach unto God, nor to have any access unto him, but by that only propitiatory sacrifice which Christ only made upon the cross. And yet let us with all devotion, with whole heart and mind, and with all obedience to God’s will, come unto the heavenly supper of Christ, thanking him only for propitiation of our sins. In which holy communion the act of the minister and other be all of one sort, none propitiatory, but all of lauds and thanksgiving. And such sacrifices be pleasant and acceptable to God, as St Paul saith, done of them that be good; but they win not his favour, and put away his indignation from them that & be evil.. For such reconciliation can no creature make, but Christ alone.

And where you say, that “to call the daily offering a sacrifice satisfactory must have an understanding that signifieth not the action of the priest;” here you may see what a business and hard work it is to patch the papists rags together, and what absurdities you fall into thereby. Even now you said, that the act of the priests must needs be a sacrifice propitiatory; and now, to have an understanding for the same, you be driven to so shameful a shift, that you say either clean contrary, that it is not the action of the priest, but the presence of Christ; or else that the action of the priest is none otherwise satisfactory than all other christian men’s works be. For otherwise, say you, the daily sacrifice, in respect of the action of the priest, cannot be called satisfactory. Wherefore at length, knowledging your popish doctrine to sound evil-favouredly, you confess again the true catholic teaching, that “this speech is to be frequented and used, that the only immolation of Christ in himself, upon the altar of the cross, is the very satisfactory sacrifice for reconciliation of mankind to the favour of God.”

And where you say, that you have not read the daily sacrifice of Christ’s most precious body to be called a sacrifice satisfactory:” if you have not read of satisfactory masses, it appeareth that you have read but very little of the school-authors. And yet not many years ago you might have heard them preached in every pardon. But because you have not read thereof, read Doctor Smith’s book of the sacrifice of the mass, and both your ears and eyes shall be full of it: whose “furious blasphemies” you have, with one sentence, here most truly rejected; wherefore yet remaineth in you some good sparks of the Spirit, that you so much detest such abomination.

And yet such blasphemies you go about to salve and plaster, as much as you may, by subtle and crafty interpretations. For by such exposition as you make of the satisfactory singing of the priest, in doing his duty in that he was required to do;” by this exposition he singeth as well satisfactory in saying of matins as in saying of mass, for in both he doth his duty that he required unto: and so might it be defended, that the player upon the organs playeth satisfactory, when he doth his duty in playing as he is required. And all the singing men in the church, that have wages thereto, sing satisfactory, as well as the priests, when they sing according to that they be hired unto. And then as one singing man or player on the organs, receiving a stipend of many men to play or sing at a certain time, if he do his duty, satisfieth them all at once; so might a priest sing satisfactory for many persons at one time, which the teachers of satisfactory masses utterly condemm. But if you had read Duns, you would have written more clerkly in these matters than you now do.

Now let us hear what you say further.

! The passage between asterisks is wanting in ed. 1551.

b Where the author, citing St Paul, Englisheth him thus, that “Christ’s priesthood cannot pass from him to another;” these words thus framed be not the simple and sincere expression of the truth of the text, which saith, that Christ hath a perpetual priesthood:” and the Greek hath a word ἀπαράβατον, which the Greek schools express and expound by the word ἀδιάδοχον, signifying the priesthood of Christ endeth not in him to go to another by succession, as in the tribe of Levi, where was among mortal men succession in the office of priesthood; but Christ liveth ever, and therefore is a perpetual everlasting priest, by whose authority priesthood is now in this visible church, as St Paul ordered to Timothy and Titus, and other places also confirm; which priests, visible ministers to our invisible priest, offer the daily sacrifice in Christ’s church; that is to say, with the very presence, by God’s omnipoteney wrought, of the most precious body and blood of our. Saviour Christ, shewing forth Christ’s death, and celebrating the memory of his supper and death according to Christ’s institution, so with daily oblation and sacrifice of the selfsame sacrifice to kindle in us a thankful remembrance of all Christ’s benefits unto us.

Canterbury

Where you find yourself grieved with my citing of St Paul, that Christ’s priesthood cannot pass from him to another,” which is not, say you, “the truth of the text, which meaneth that the priesthood of Christ endeth not in him to go to another by succession;” your manner of speech herein is so dark, that it giveth no light at all. For it seemeth to signify, that Christ’s priesthood endeth, but not to go to other by succession, but by some other means: which thing if you mean, then you make the endless priesthood of Christ to have an end. And if you mean it not, but that Christ’s priesthood is endless, and goeth to no other by succession, nor otherwise; then, I pray you, what have I offended in saying, that Christ’s priesthood cannot pass from him to another?” And as for the Greek words, παράβατον and διάδοχον signify any manner of succession, whether it be by inheritance, adoption, election, purchase, or any other means. And he that is instituted and inducted into a benefice after another, is called his successor. And Erasmus calleth ἀπαράβατον “quod in alium transire mon potest.” And so doth ἀδιάδοχον signify “quod successione caret;” that is to say, “a thing that hath no succession, nor passeth to none other.” And because Christ is a perpetual and everlasting priest, that by one oblation made a full sacrifice of sin for ever, therefore his priesthood neither needeth nor can pass to any other: wherefore the ministers of Christ’s church be not now appointed priests to make a new sacrifice for sin, as though Christ had not done that at once sufficiently for ever, but to preach abroad Christ’s sacrifice, and to be ministers of his words and sacraments. And where but a little before you had truly taught, that “the only immolation of Christ by himself upon the altar of the cross is the very satisfactory sacrifice for our reconciliation to God;” now in the end, like a cow that casteth down her milk with her own feet, you overthrow all again in few words, saying that “priests make daily the self-same sacrifice that Christ made:” which is so foul an error and blasphemy, that, as I said in mine other book, “if the priests daily make the self-same sacrifice that Christ did himself, and the sacrifice that he made was his death and the effusion of his most precious blood upon the cross, then followeth of necessity, that every day the priests slay Christ and shed his blood, and be worse than the Jews, that did it but once.”

Now followeth in your confutation thus.

Winchester

And where the author would avoid all the testimony of the fathers, by pretence ἐξ should be but a manner of speech, the canon of the council of Nice before rehearsed, and the words of it, where mysteries be spoken of in proper terms for doctrine, avoideth all that shift; and it hath no absurdity to confess, that Christ in his supper did institute, for a remembrance of

is e the only sacrifice, the presence of the same most precious substance! to be (as the canon of the sacri- council in proper teacheth) sacrificed by the priests, to be the pure sacrifice of the church there offered for the effect of increase of life in us, as it was offered on the cross to achieve ^ life unto us. And St Cyril, who for his doctrine was in great authority with the council One. Ephesine, writeth “the very body and blood of Christ to be the lively and unbloody sacrifice of the church;” as likewise in the old church other commonly termed the same, and among other Chrysostom, whom the author would now have seem to use it but for a manner of Speech, which in deed Chrysostom doth not, but doth truly open the understanding of that is done in the church, wherein by this sacrifice, done after the order of Melchisedech, Christ’s death is mot iterate, but a memory daily renewed of that death, so as Christ’s offering on the cross once done and consummate to finish all sacrifices after the order of Aaron, is now only remembered according to Christ’s institution, but in such wise as the same body is offered daily on the altar, that was once offered on the altar of the cross; but the same manner of offering is not daily that was on the altar of the cross, for the daily offering is without bloodshed, and is termed so to signify that bloodshedding once done to be sufficient, And as Chrysostom openeth it by declaration of what manner our sacrifice is, that is to say, this daily offering to be a remembrance of the other manner of sacrifice once done, and therefore saith rather we make a remembrance of it; this saying of Chrysostom doth mot impair his former words, where he saith, the host is the same offered on the cross and on the altar;” and therefore by him the body of Christ that died but once is daily present in deed, and, as the council of Nice saith, “sacrificed not after the manner of other sacrifices;” and, as Chrysostom saith, offered, but the death of that precious body only daily remembered, and not again iterate.”

Canterbury

of For answer hereto, read the thirteenth chapter of my fifth book? and that which to I have written here a little before of Nicene council’. And where you say, that “the effect of the sacrifice of Christ’s body, made by the priests, is to increase life in us, — as the effect of the sacrifice of the same body made by himself upon the cross is to give life unto us;” this is not only an absurdity, but also an intolerable blasphemy against Christ. For the sacrifice made upon the cross doth. both give us life, and also increase and continue the same: and the priest’s oblation doth neither of both. For our redemption and eternal salvation standeth not only in giving us life, but in continuing the same for ever; as Christ said, that “he came not only to give us life, but also to make us increase and abound therein:” and St Paul said: The life which I now live in flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” And therefore, if we have the one by the oblation of Christ, and the other by the oblation of the priest, then divide we our salvation between Christ and the priest. And because it is no less gift to continue life for ever, than to give it us, by this your mad and furious blasphemy we have our salvation and redemption as much by the sacrifice made by the priest, as we have by sacrifice made by Christ himself. And thus you make Christ to be like an unkind and unnatural mother, who, when she hath brought forth her child, putteth it to another to nurse, and maketh herself but half the mother of it. And thus you teach christian people to halt on both sides, partly worshipping God, and partly Baal; partly attributing our salvation to Christ, the true, perfect, eternal priest, and partly to antichrist and his priests.

And concerning Cyril, he speaketh not of a sacrifice propitiatory in that place, as I have more plainly declared in mine answer to Doctor Smith’s prologue. and And whereas you call the daily sacrifice of the church an unbloody sacrifice,” here the it were necessary, if you would not deceive simple people, but teach them such doctrine 2S they may understand, that you should in plain terms set forth and declare what ihe daily offering of the priest without blood-shedding is, in what words, deeds, crosses, signs, or gestures it standeth, and whether it be made before the consecration or after, and before the distribution of the sacrament or after, and wherein chiefly resteth the very pith and substance of it. And. when you have thus done, I will say you mean

! The presence of the most precious substance, [3 Vide supra, p. 351.

[Orig. ed. Winch.] [ Vide supra, p. 356.] 1]

PF. OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. 365 frankly, and walk not colourably in cloaked words not understanded; and then also. shall you be more fully answered, when I know better what you mean. And to Chrysostom needeth no further answer than I have made already in the thirteenth chapter of my fifth book. But let us hear the rest of your book.

Winchester

And where the author saith the old fathers, calling the supper of our Lord a sacrifice, meant a sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving; Hippinus of Hamburgh, mo papist, in his book dedicate to the king’s majesty that now is, saith otherwise, and, noteth how the old fathers called it a sacrifice propitiatory, for the very presence of Christ’s most precious body there:” thus saith he; which presence all christian men must say requireth on our part lauds and thanksgiving, which may be, and is, called in scripture by the name of sacrifice; but that sacrifice of our lauds and thanks cannot be a sacrifice giving life, as it is noted by Cyril the sacrifice of the church to do, when he saith it is vivificum, which can be only said of the very body and blood of Christ. Nor our sacrifice of lauds and thanksgiving cannot be said a pure and clean sacrifice, whereby to fulfil the prophecy of Malachi; and therefore the same prophecy was in the beginning of the church understanded to be spoken of the daily offering of the body and blood of Christ for the memory of Christ’s death, according to Christs ordinance in his supper, as may at more length be opened and declared. Thinking to the effect of this book sufficient to have encountered the chief points of the author’s doctrine, with such contradiction to them as the catholic doctrine doth of necessity require; the more particular confutation of that is untrue on the adversary part, and confirmation of that is true in the catholic doctrine, requiring more time and leisure than I have now, and therefore offering myself ready by mouth or writing to say further in this matter as shall be required; I shall here end for this time, with prayer to Almighty God, to grant his truth to be acknowledged and confessed, and uniformly to be preached and believed of all, so as, all contention for understanding of religion avoided, which hindereth charity, we may give such light abroad as men may see our good works, and glorify our Father who is im heaven, with the Son and Holy Ghost in one wnity of Godhead reigning without end. Amen.

Canterbury

JEpinus saith, that “the old fathers called the supper of our Lord a sacrifice:” but that the old fathers should call it a sacrifice propitiatory, I will not believe that ZEpinus so said, until you appoint me both the book and place where he so saith. For the effect of his book is clean contrary, which he wrote to reprove the propitiatory sacrifice, which the papists feign to be in the mass. Thus indeed ZEpinus writeth in one place: Veteres eucharistiam propter corporis et sanguinis Christi prasentiam primo vocaverunt sacrificium, deinde propter oblationes et munera que in ipsa eucharistia Deo consecrabantur, et conferebantur ad sacra ministeria et ad necessitatem. credentium. In which words /Epinus declareth, that “the old fathers called the supper of our Lord a sacrifice, for two considerations: one was for the presence of Christ’s flesh and blood, the other was for the offerings which the people gave there of their devotion to the holy ministration and relief of the poor.” But Zpinus speaketh here not one word of corporal presence, nor of propitiatory sacrifice, but generally of presence and sacrifice, which maketh nothing for your purpose, nor against me, that grant both a presence and a sacrifice. But when you shall shew me the place where /Epinus saith, that “the old [ Vide supra, p. 20. /Epinus de purgatorio, &c. gatorio, Satisfactionibus, Remissione Culparum et of which Strype gives the following account:— Pene, $c. This /Epinus was chief minister of “I add another book in quarto, of a foreigner, the Church of Hamburgh, and was sent twelve dedicated this year to the king, in a long epistle years before, as envoy from Hamburgh into England dated from Hamburgh. The author was Johannes to king Henry, upon matters of religion.” Strype, /JEpinus, The subjects of his book were, De Pur- Memorials, Vol. II, p. 229. Ed. Oxford, 1822.]

[i; Anno 1548.; ET]

fathers called the Lord’s supper a propitiatory sacrifice” I shall trust you the better, and him the worse.

And as for Cyril, if you will say of his head, that the sacrifice of the church giveth life;” how agreeth this with your late saying, that the sacrifice of the church increaseth life, as the sacrifice on the cross giveth life?” And if the sacrifice, made by the priest, both give life and increase life, then is the priest both the mother and nurse, and Christ hath nothing to do with us at all, but as a stranger.

And the sacrifice that Malachi speaketh of is the sacrifice of laud and thanks, which all devout christian people give unto God, whether it be in the Lord’s supper, in their private prayers, or in any work they do at any time or place to the glory of God; all which sacrifices, not of the priests only, but of all faithful people, be accepted of God through the sacrifice of Christ, by whose blood all their filth and unpureness is clean sponged away. ~~ But in this last book, it seemeth you were so astonied and amazed, that you were at your wit’s end, and wist not where to become. For now the priest maketh a sacrifice propitiatory, now he doth not: now he giveth life, now he giveth none: now is Christ the full Saviour and satisfaction, now the priest hath half part with him: now the priest doth all. And thus you are so inconstant in yourself, as one that had been nettled, and could rest in no place; or rather as one that had received such a stroke upon his head, that he staggered withal, and reeled here and there, and could not tell where to become.

And your doctrine hath such ambiguities, such perplexities, such absurdities, and such impieties in it, and is so uncertain, so uncomfortable, so contrary to God’s word and the old catholic church, so contrary to itself, that it declareth from whose spirit it cometh, which can be none other but antichrist himself.

Whereas, on the other side, the very true doctrine of Christ and his pure church from the beginning is plain, certain, without wrinkles, without any inconvenience or absurdity, so cheerful and comfortable to all christian people, that it must needs come from the Spirit of God, the Spirit of truth and all consolation. For what ought to be more certain and known to all christian people, than that Christ died once, and but once, for the redemption of the world? And what can be more true, than that his only death is our life? And what can be more comfortable to a penitent sinner, that is sorry for his sin, and returneth to God in his heart and whole mind, than to know that Christ dischargeth him of the heavy load of his sin, and taketh the burden upon his own back? And if we shall join the priest herein to Christ in any part, and give a portion hereof to his sacrifice, as you in your doctrine give to the priest the one half at the least, what a discourage is this to the penitent sinner, that he may not hang wholly upon Christ! what perplexities and doubts rise hereof in the sinner’s conscience! And what an obscuring and darkening is this of the benefit of Christ! Yea, what injury and contumely is it to him!

And furthermore, when we hear Christ speak unto us with his own mouth, and shew himself to be seen with our eyes, in such sort as is convenient for him of us in this mortal life to be heard and seen; what comfort can we have more? The minister of the church speaketh unto us God’s own words, which we must take as spoken from God’s own mouth, because that from his mouth it came, and his word it is, and not the ministers. Likewise, when he ministereth to our sights Christ’s holy sacraments, we must think Christ crucified and presented before our eyes, because the sacraments so represent him, and be his sacraments, and not the priest’s: as in baptism we must think, that as the priest putteth his hand to the child outwardly, and washeth him with water, so must we think that God putteth to his hand inwardly, and washeth the infant with his holy Spirit; and moreover, that Christ himself cometh down upon the child, and apparelleth him with his own self: and as at the Lord’s holy table the priest distributeth wine and bread to feed the body, so we must think that inwardly by faith we see Christ feeding both body and soul to eternal life. “What comfort can be devised any more in this world for a christian man? And on the other side, what discomfort is in your papistical doctrine, what doubts, what perplexities, what absurdities, what iniquities! What availeth it us that there is no bread nor wine? or that Christ is really under the forms and

OF THE OBLATION AND SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. of bread and wine, and not in us? or if he be in us, yet he is but in or the stomach, and tarrieth not with us. Or what benefit is it to a wicked to eat Christ, and to receive death by him that is life? From this your obscure, perplex, uncertain, uncomfortable, devilish, and papistical doctrine, Christ defend all his; and grant that we may come often and worthily to Christ’s holy table, to comfort our

feeble and weak faith by remembrance of his death,

who only is the satisfaction and propitiation of our sins, and our meat, drink, and food of everlasting life. Amen

Here endeth the answer of the most reverend father in God, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, &e., unto the crafty and sophistical cavillation of doctor Stephen Gardiner, devised by him to obscure the true, sincere, and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour CHRIST.

---

← 18. Book II. Against Transubstantiation · Contents · 20. The Answer unto the Preface of Doctor →