MER,

CRAN- Saviour's precept, to alter the form of his institution, and go Abp. Cant. off from the practice of the primitive Church. The sacraments are things that will admit of no innovation: in performances of this importance we must keep close to the pattern in the mount, to the rule of Gospel, and the usages of the ancient Church.

145.

"Farther, they urge that private masses have proved very destructive to the interest of the Church in other respects: that the pope's usurpations stand mostly upon this bottom. Without these the trade of indulgences would fall off, and it would not be in his power to draw so much of the treasure of Christendom into his coffers.

"To discharge these abuses therefore, our illustrious princes have struck off private masses, and recovered the sacrament to the benefit of the institution, and the practice of the primitive Church. And as for the customary ceremonies, they are almost all continued. Some alteration, we confess, is made: the hymns are in high Dutch; for it is the apostle's injunction, that a language understood by the people should be spoken in the church and because the mass was instituted for a communion, the people after examination are admitted to the Lord's table. The congregation are likewise instructed from the pulpit, in the meaning and dignity of this sacrament. And in short, the whole service is performed with all the solemnity and devotion imaginable.

“It is, therefore, mere calumny in our adversaries to charge us with throwing off the ceremonies, weakening the majesty of religion, and making the service of God look homely and contemptible. For order, decency, and regard, is no where seen to more advantage than in our churches.

"Farther, that the mass is no sacrifice, they endeavour to prove from these words of our Saviour, 'This is my body, which is given for you.' These words, as they continue, suppose a promise on God's part, and on ours only faith to believe it: to believe that grace and remission of sin is offered us in the promise: therefore, it can be nothing of a sacrifice, that is, it cannot be offered to God for the remission of our faults. Thus St. Paul teaches us, that in this sacrament' we show the Lord's death.' But to show or declare, is not sacrificing: that is, making an oblation to God Almighty for the forgiveness of sin. Besides, we read in the Gospel, that he 'broke, and gave the

VIII.

bread to his disciples, saying, 'Take, and eat,' &c. Likewise, HENRY 'Drink ye all of this:' but to receive, to eat, and to drink, can by no means be strained to a sacrifice; because the bare performance of this action can never relieve us against guilt, nor discharge our transgressions.

"Neither are we commanded by these words of the institution to offer any thing to God Almighty, but rather to receive something from him. For we read, Which is given for you,' meaning his body; and afterwards, 'The blood which is shed for you;' from which expression we may plainly collect, that those who partake of the holy eucharist are only receivers, and offer nothing to God Almighty. Besides, when the laity receive this holy sacrament, a sacrifice on their part is not so much as pretended. And yet our Saviour has put no difference between the clergy and laity as to the use and design of the holy eucharist.

upon

Pro debito

"These things considered, all palliating explanations of private masses signify nothing; for the grosser and most exceptionable sense is supported by the best authorities in the Church of Rome. Thus Thomas putting the question why the mass was instituted, makes this answer: The body of Aquinas in our Lord, as it was once offered the cross for original sin, Sacrament. Opusc. de so it ought to be continually repeated upon the altar for our Altaris. daily transgressions; that, by this means, the Church may be originali. furnished with a present to propitiate the Divine Majesty much more acceptable than all the sacrifices under the Mosaic law." Thus pope Alexander affirms, That this sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ is to be preferred to all other oblations. That our Saviour himself has taught us to offer the bread and the cup in the holy sacrament by commanding us to take and eat: and that our sins are forgiven in virtue of such sacrifices.' De Canon. Thus Gabriel informs us, That the eucharist is offered in the Missæ. nature of a sacrifice to God the Father; that by this performance both venial and mortal sins are discharged; that not only those who receive, but others for whom it is offered are benefited by this sacrament in proportion to the preparations they are under.' In consequence of this doctrine, Aquinas main- In quarto, dist. 1, 2. tains, That the eucharist, upon the score of its being a sacri- q. 2. fice, reaches to the advantage of those who are absent, provided it is offered in their behalf; and that it requires only potential, and not actual qualifications of a holy life in them. And,

6

MER,

CRAN- therefore, if they possess a disposition for virtue and duty, Abp. Cant. the assistances of grace are procured for them in this sacrament; and thus, by consequence, it discharges the debt of mortal sin, not by way of immediate casualty, but by procuring the grace of contrition."

Cotton.

Libr. Cleop.

6. E. 5.

fol. 173.

Ld. Herbert,

"The writings of the schoolmen are full of such sentences as these; nothing is more common with them than their assertion of the masses being a propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and dead. That the assistances of grace flow naturally, as it were, from the 'opus operatum,' and that a man may receive the advantage without having any part in the solemnity. That all reconciling attempts, extenuating glosses, and senses of accommodation, are to no purpose while private masses are kept on, and the significancy of them maintained. To soften the terms, and qualify the expression a little, by calling it 'a sacrifice of thanksgiving,' is short of the business; for, under this notion, it cannot rise up to any satisfactory expiation for those who officiate, neither can it be made applicable for the benefit of others. By this way of arguing, the nativity, and other festivals kept in honour of our Saviour, may be called eucharistic, or memorial sacrifices. And, to come nearer truth and propriety, preaching the Gospel, faith, prayer, and other instances of piety in holy men, may rather be called sacrifices ; and yet none of these performances can be called satisfactions, or extend to the benefit of others. From hence they proceed to argue for the marriage of the clergy."

The rest of the letter is mostly address, compliment, and declamation. It is signed by Francis Burgrat and George Boyneburg, ambassadors, and Myconius, a parish priest.

The king gave the ambassadors an answer as they desired; it was drawn by bishop Tunstal. After some length of compt. 1. p. 431. mendation and return of ceremony, the king enters upon the controversy. He begins with communion in one kind.

The king's

answer to the ambas

sadors' let

ter.

Corporal

presence

and concomitancy

"That this sacrament," says the king, " was commanded to be given the people under both kinds, and never under one, is an assertion we are surprised at; neither can we imagine your excellencies are in earnest, but that you have only a mind to maintained sound our opinion, and try our strength upon the argument. degree of And, therefore, notwithstanding what you have advanced, we wonder and cannot help thinking your persuasion the same with ours; and incomprehensibleness. that you believe under the form of bread, the natural and

to the last

VIII.

exsangue

esse.

etiam cor

poris sit

living body of Christ is really and substantially contained, toge- HENRY ther with the true and real blood; otherwise we must confess that the body is disfurnished of blood, which would be an Corpus ibi impious affirmation, since this flesh of our Saviour is not only alive, but productive of life in others. And thus, under the form of wine, there is not only the natural and real blood of our Saviour, but likewise, together with his blood, the real and natural flesh of his body is contained. The article of Cum vero sanguine orthodox belief standing thus, the consequence is, that those viva et vera who communicate in either kind communicate in both, as to effect and benefit; because our Saviour's body and blood is caro. entirely in each. And to support this doctrine of concomitancy, we are not unprovided with authority and instances. from the New Testament. Thus our blessed Saviour administered the sacrament in one kind to the disciples going to Emmaus. For it is written, 'As he sat at meat with them, Luke xxiv. he took bread and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them; and their eyes were opened, and they knew him, by the breaking of bread.' This place the ancients, St. Chrysostom, St. Austin, and Theophylact, interpret as referring to the holy eucharist, and yet here is not the least mention of giving the wine. Thus our Saviour, by administering in one kind, seems to have left the same liberty to his spouse the Church. For Christ, who gave instructions at his last supper for communion in both kinds, has left us his precedent for communicating under one; but no man was ever so bold as to charge our Saviour with inconsistency between precept and example.

66

Thus, after the descent of the Holy Ghost, and the conversion of three thousand people, at St. Peter's sermon, it is

30.

146.

said, 'They continued stedfastly in the Apostle's doctrine and Acts ii. 42. fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.' This text the ancients likewise understand of administering the holy sacrament; but neither is here any thing said of the cup. Now if communion under one kind is warranted both by our Saviour's and the Apostles' example, we are not to charge this usage with contradiction to the Gospel; for the Apostles, who were led into all truth by the Holy Spirit, would never have communicated the people only in the bread if our Saviour's command had obliged them to administer under both kinds; for such a latitude would have looked like forgetfulness of their Master's command, and changing his institution.

VOL. IV.

Ee

CRAN-
MER,

Abp. Cant.

"Farther. From our Saviour's instructions for this solemnity, recited by St. Paul, we find the two kinds separately and independently mentioned. The Apostle's words which he received from our Saviour are these: The Lord Jesus, in the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.' Here we see our blessed Saviour, in the words 'do this,' speaks separately, and by itself, of his body under the appearance of bread, before he proceeds to any mention of the cup. Afterwards, the Apostle informs us, that after the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me.' Here we are to observe the absoluteness of the command is altered; for it is not said without limitation, as it was in the breaking of the bread, This do in remembrance of me;' but there is a clause of latitude added, that is, 'Do this as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me.' By which we are to understand, that we are under no necessity of always receiving the cup; but that as often as we are communicated with the blood of our Saviour in the form of wine, we are bound to do this in remembrance of him.'

"Farther. Our blessed Saviour, when supper was over, at which he had given them his body under the form of bread, after this he gave his blood separately under the appearance of wine, saying, 'Do this as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me;' letting us know, that sometimes the administration might be performed under one kind, and yet, notwithstanding, the force and significancy of both received by the people; for otherwise there had been no necessity of pronouncing the words 'Do this' more than once, neither would they have been repeated distinctly upon the bread and cup. We have reason to conclude, therefore, that our Saviour, at the giving of the cup, would not have added, 'Do this as oft as ye shall drink it,' having said the same before of the bread, unless he had allowed the receiving of either of these without the other.

"Neither can it be denied that the disciples received the body of our Lord upon his giving them the bread, saying, This is my body;' for though the cup was not given till after some interval, when supper was ended, no person, we conceive,