Chapter 4: Of the Worship of God, the Public Form of Liturgy, the Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Lord's Supper

Of the worship of God, the public form of Liturgy, the sacrifice and sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

Touching the worship of God, Sedulius delivereth this general rule: that to adore any other beside the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost, is the crime of impiety; and that all that the soul owes to God, if it bestow it upon any beside God, it commits adultery. More particularly, in the matter of images, he reproveth the wise men of the heathen, for thinking that they had found out a way, how the invisible God might be worshipped by a visible image: with whom also accordeth Claudius; that God is to be known, neither in metal nor in stone. And for oaths, there is a canon ascribed to Saint Patrick; wherein it is determined, that no creature is to be sworn by, but only the Creator. As for the form of the Liturgy or public service of God, which the same Saint Patrick brought into this country: it is said, that he received it from Germanus and Lupus; and that it originally descended from Saint Mark the Evangelist. For so have I seen it set down in an ancient fragment, written well-nigh 900 years since: remaining now in the Library of Sir Robert Cotton, my worthy friend; who can never sufficiently be commended, for his extraordinary care, in preserving all rare monuments of this kind. Yes, Saint Jerome's authority is there vouched for proof hereof. Beatus Hieronymus adfirmat, quòd ipsum cursum, qui dicitur praesente tempore Scottorum, beatus Marcus decan[illegible]it. Which being not now to be found in any of Saint Jerome's works, the truth thereof I leave to the credit of the reporter.

But whatever Liturgy was used here at first: this is sure, that in the succeeding ages no one general form of divine service was retained, but diverse rites and manners of celebrations were observed in diverse parts of this kingdom; until the Roman use was brought in at last by Gillebertus, and Malachias, and Christianus, who were the Pope's Legates here about 500 years ago. This Gillebertus (an old acquaintance of Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury) in the Prologue of his book De usu Ecclesiastico, directed to the whole clergy of Ireland, writeth in this manner. At the request, yes and at the command of many of you (dearly beloved) I endeavored to set down in writing the canonical custom in saying of Hours, and performing the Office of the whole ecclesiastical Order; not presumptuously, but in desire to serve your most godly command: to the end that those diverse and schismatical Orders, wherewith in a manner all Ireland is deluded, may give place to one Catholic and Roman Office. For what may be said to be more indecent or schismatical; than that the most learned in one order, should be made as a private and lay man in another man's Church?

These beginnings were presently seconded by Malachias: in whose life, written by Bernard, we read as followeth. The apostolical constitutions, and the decrees of the holy Fathers, but especially the customs of the holy Church of Rome, did he establish in all churches. And hence it is, that at this day the canonical Hours are chanted and sung therein, according to the manner of the whole earth: whereas before that, this was not done, no not in the city itself. (The poor city of Ardmagh he meaneth.) But Malachias had learned song in his youth, and shortly after caused singing to be used in his own monastery; when as yet, as well in the city as in the whole bishopric, they either knew not, or would not sing. Lastly, the work was brought to perfection, when Christianus Bishop of Lismore, as Legate to the Pope, was President in the Council of Casshell: wherein a special order was taken for the right singing of the ecclesiastical Office; and a general act established, that all divine offices of holy Church should from thenceforth be handled in all parts of Ireland, according as the Church of England d[illegible]d observe them. The statutes of which Council were confirmed by the regal authority of King Henry the second; by whose mandate, the bishops that met therein were assembled, in the year of our Lord 1171, as Giraldus Cambrensis witnesseth, in his history of the Conquest of Ireland. And thus late was it, before the Roman use was fully settled in this kingdom.

That the Britons used another manner in the administration of the sacrament of Baptism than the Romans did: appeareth by the proposition made to them by Austin the Monk; that they should perform the ministry of baptism, according to the custom of the Church of Rome. That their form of Liturgy was the same with that which was received by their neighbors the Gauls, is intimated by the Author of that ancient fragment before alleged: who also addeth, that the Gallican Order was received in the Church throughout the whole world. Yet elsewhere do I meet with a sentence alleged out of Gildas; that the Britons were contrary to the whole world, and enemies to the Roman customs, as well in their Mass, as in their Tonsure.

Where to let pass what I have collected touching the difference of these tonsures (as a matter of very small moment either way) and to speak somewhat of the Mass (for which so great ado is nowadays made by our Romanists) we may observe in the first place, that the public Liturgy or service of the Church, was of old named the Mass: even then also, when prayers only were said, without the celebration of the holy Communion. So the last Mass that Saint Colme was ever present at, is noted by Adamnanus to have been vespertinalis Dominica noctis Missa. He died the midnight following; from where the Lord's day took his beginning (9[illegible] namely, Iunii, Anno Dom. 597.) according to the account of the Romans: which the Scottish and Irish seem to have begun from the evening going before. And then was that evening-Mass said: which in all likelihood, differed not from those [in non-Latin alphabet] mentioned by Leo the Emperor in his Tacticks, that is to say, from that which we call Evensong, or Evening prayer. But the name of the Mass was in those days more specially applied to the administration of the Lord's Supper: and therefore in the same Adamnanus we see that Sacra Eucharistiae ministeria and Missarum solemnia, the sacred ministry of the Eucharist and the solemnities of the Mass, are taken for the same thing. So likewise in the relation of the passages that concern the obsequies of Columbanus, performed by Gallus and Magnoaldus; we find that Missam celebrare and Missas agere, is made to be the same with Divina celebrare mysteria and Salutis hostiam (or salutare sacrificium) immolare: the saying of Mass, the same with the celebration of the divine mysteries and the oblation of the healthful sacrifice. For by that term was the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper at that time usually designed.

For as in our beneficence, and communicating to the necessities of the poor (which are sacrifices wherewith God is well pleased) we are taught to give both ourselves and our alms, first to the Lord, and after to our brethren by the will of God: so is it in this ministry of the blessed Sacrament. The service is first presented to God, (from which, as from a most principal part of the duty, the sacrament itself is called the Eucharist; because therein we offer a special sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving always to God) and then communicated to the use of God's people. In the performance of which part of the service, both the minister was said to give, and the communicant to receive the sacrifice: as well as in respect of the former part, they were said to offer the same to the Lord. For they did not distinguish the Sacrifice from the Sacrament, as the Romanists do nowadays: but used the name of Sacrifice indifferently, both of that which was offered to God, and of that which was given to and received by the communicant. Therefore we read of offering the sacrifice to God: as in that speech of Gallus to his scholar Magnoaldus; My master Columbanus is accustomed to offer to the Lord the sacrifice of salvation in brazen vessels. Of giving the sacrifice to man: as when it is said in one of the ancient Synods of Ireland, that a Bishop by his Testament may bequeath a certain proportion of his goods for a legacy to the Priest that gives him the sacrifice. And of receiving the sacrifice from the hands of the minister: as in that sentence of the Synod attributed to Saint Patrick; He who deserves not to receive the sacrifice in his life, how can it help him after his death? And in that gloss of Sedulius upon 1 Corinthians 11:33, Tarry one for another, that is, (says he) until you do receive the sacrifice. And in the British antiquities: where we read of Amon a noble man in Wales (father to Samson the Saint of Dole in little Britain) that being taken with a grievous sickness, he was admonished by his neighbours, that according to the usual manner he should receive the sacrifice of the communion. Whereby it does appear, that the sacrifice of the elder times was not like to the new Mass of the Romanists, wherein the Priest alone does all; but to our Communion, where others also have free liberty given to them to eat of the Altar, as well as they that serve that Altar.

Again, they that are communicants in the Romish sacrament, receive the Eucharist in one kind only: the Priest in offering of the sacrifice receives the same distinctly, both by way of meat and by way of drink; which they tell us is chiefly done, for the integrity of the Sacrifice and not of the Sacrament. For in the Sacrifice, they say, the several elements be consecrated, not into Christ's whole person as it was born of the Virgin or now is in heaven: but the bread into his body apart, as betrayed, broken, and given for us; the wine into his blood apart, as shed out of his body for remission of sins and dedication of the new Testament, which be conditions of his person as he was in sacrifice and oblation. But our ancestors, in the use of their Sacrament, received the Eucharist in both kinds: not being so acute as to discern between the things that belonged to the integrity of the sacrifice and of the sacrament, because in very truth, they took the one to be the other.

Thus Bede relates, that one Hildmer, an officer of Egfrid King of Northumberland, entreated our Cuthbert to send a Priest that might minister the sacraments of the Lord's body and blood to his wife that then lay a-dying: and Cuthbert himself, immediately before his own departure out of this life, received the communion of the Lord's body and blood; as Herefride Abbot of the monastery of Lindisfarne (who was the man that at that time ministered the sacrament to him) made report to the same Bede. Who elsewhere also particularly notes, that he then tasted of the cup. Pocula degustat vitae, Christique supinum Sanguine munit iter. Lest any man should think, that under the forms of bread alone he might be said to have been partaker of the body and blood of the Lord, by way of Concomitance: which is a toy, that was not once dreamed of in those days. So that we need not to doubt, what is meant by that which we read in the book of the life of Furseus (which was written before the time of Bede) that he received the communion of the holy body and blood; and that he was wished to admonish the Pastors of the Church, that they should strengthen the souls of the faithful with the spiritual food of doctrine, and the participation of the holy body and blood, or of that which Cogitosus writes in the life of Saint Brigid, touching the place in the Church of Kildare; whereunto the Abbess with her maidens and widows used to resort, that they might enjoy the banquet of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Which was agreeable to the practice, not only of the Nunneries founded beyond the seas according to the rule of Columbanus; where the Virgins received the body of the Lord, and sipped his blood (as appears by that which Jonas relates of Domnae, in the life of Burgundofora:) but also of Saint Brigid herself, who was the foundress of the monastery of Kildare; one of whose miracles is reported, even in the later Legends, to have happened when she was about to drink out of the Chalice, at the time of her receiving of the Eucharist. Which they that list to look after, may find in the collections of Capgrave, Surius, and such like.

But, you will say; these testimonies that have beene alledged, make not so much for us, in proving the use of the communion under both kindes, as they make against us, in confirming the opinion of Transubstantiation: seeing they all specifie the receiving, not of bread and wine, but of the body and bloud of Christ. I answer, that forasmuch as Christ himselfe at the first institution of his holy Supper did say expresly; This is my body, and, This is my bloud: hee deserveth not the name of a Christian, that will question the truth of that saying, or refuse to speake in that language, which hee has heard his Lord and Master use before him. The question onely is, in what sense, and after what manner, these things must bee conceived to bee his body and bloud. Of which there needed to be little question: if men would bee pleased to take into their consideration these two things; which were never doubted of by the ancient, and have most evident ground in the context of the Gospel. First, that the subject of those sacramentall propositions delivered by our Savior (that is to say, the demonstrative particle THIS) can have reference to no other substance, but that which hee then held in his sacred hands, namely, bread & wines which are of so different a nature from the body and bloud of Christ, that the one cannot possibly in proper sense be said to be the other; as the light of common reason does force the Romanists themselves to confesse. Secondly, that in the Predicate, or latter part of the same propositions, there is not mention made only of Christs body and bloud; but of his body broken, and his bloud shed: to shew, that his body is to be considered here apart, not as it was borne of the Virgin, or now is in heaven, but as it was broken and crucified for us; and his bloud likewise apart, not as running in his veines, but as shed out of his body; which the Rhemists have told us to be conditions of his person, as hee was in sacrifice and oblation.

And lest wee should imagine, that his body were otherwise to bee considered in the sacrament than in the sacrifice; in the one alive, as it is now in heaven, in the other dead, as it was offered upon the Crosse: the Apostle putteth the matter out of doubt, that not onely the minister in offering, but also the people in receiving, even as often as they eate this bread, and drinke this cup, doe shew the Lords death untill hee come. Our elders surely, that held the sacrifice to bee given and received (for so we have heard themselves speak) as well as offered; did not consider otherwise of Christ in the sacrament, than as hee was in sacrifice and oblation. If here therefore, Christs body be presented as broken and livelesse, and his bloud as shed forth and severed from his body; and it be most certaine, that there are no such things now really existent any where (as is confessed on all hands:) then must it follow necessarily, that the bread and wine are not converted into these things really. The Rhemists indeede tell us, that when the Church does offer and sacrifice Christ daily; hee in mysterie and sacrament dyeth. Further than this they durst not goe: for if they had said, hee dyed really; they should thereby not only make themselves daily killers of Christ, but also directly crosse that principle of the Apostle (Romans 6:9), Christ being raised from the dead dyeth no more. If then the body of Christ in the administration of the Eucharist be propounded as dead (as has been shewed) and dye it cannot really, but onely in mysterie and sacrament: how can it be thought to bee contained under the outward elements, otherwise than in sacrament and mysterie? And such as in times past were said to have received the sacrifice from the hand of the Priest; what other body and bloud could they expect to receive therein, but such as was sutable to the nature of that sacrifice, to wit, mysticall and sacramentall?

Coelius Sedulius (to whom Gelasius Bishop of Rome, with his Synod of LXX. Bishops, giveth the title of venerable Sedulius; as Venantius Fortunatus of conspicuous Sedulius; and Hildephonsus Toletanus of the good Sedulius, the Evangelicall Poet, the eloquent Orator, and the Catholicke Writer) is by Trithemius and others supposed to be the same with our Sedulius of Scotland (or Ireland) whose Collections are extant upon Saint Pauls Epistles: although I have forborne hitherto to use any of his testimonies, because I have some reason to doubt, whether hee were the same with our Sedulius or no. But Coelius Sedulius (whatever countryman hee was) intimateth plainly, that the things offered in the Christian sacrifice, are the fruit of the corne and of the vine: Denique Pontificum princeps summusque Sacerdos Quis nisi Christus adest? gemini libaminis author, Ordine Melchisedech, cui dantur munera semper Quae sua sunt, segetis fructus, & gaudia vitis. Or, as hee expresseth it in his prose; the sweete meate of the seede of wheate, and the lovely drinke of the pleasant vine. Of Melchisedek (according to whose order Christ, and he onely, was Priest) our owne Sedulius writeth thus: Melchisedek offered wine & bread to Abraham for a figure of Christ, offering his body and bloud to God his Father upon the Crosse. Where note, that first hee says, Melchisedek offered bread and wine to Abraham, not to God: and secondly, that hee was a figure of Christ offering his body and bloud upon the crosse, not in the Eucharist. But we (says he) doe offer daily, for a commemoration of the Lords passion (once performed) and our owne salvation. And elsewhere, expounding those words of our Savior, Doe this in remembrance of me; hee bringeth in this similitude, used before and after him by others. He left a memory of himselfe to us: even as if one that were going a farre journey, should leave some token with him whom hee loved; that as oft as hee beheld it, hee might call to remembrance his benefits and friendship.

Claudius noteth, that our Saviour's pleasure was, first to deliver to his Disciples the sacrament of his body and blood; and afterwards to offer up the body itself upon the altar of the cross. Where at the first sight I did verily think, that in the words fractione corporis an error had been committed in my transcript (corporis being miswritten for panis) but afterwards comparing it with the original, from where I took my copy, I found that the author retained the manner of speaking used both before and after his time; in giving the name of the thing signified to the sign, even there where the direct intention of the speech was to distinguish the one from the other. For he does expressly here distinguish the sacrament of the body, which was delivered to the Disciples, from the body itself, which was afterwards offered upon the Cross: and for the sacramental relation between them both, he renders this reason. Because bread does confirm the body, and wine does work blood in the flesh: therefore the one is mystically referred to the body of Christ, the other to his blood. Which doctrine of his (that the sacrament is in its own nature bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ by mystical relation) was in effect the same with that which long afterwards was here in Ireland delivered by Henry Crumpe the Monk of Baltinglas, that the body of Christ in the sacrament of the altar was only a looking glass to the body of Christ in heaven: yes, and within fifty or threescore years of the time of Claudius Scotus himself, was so fully maintained by Johannes Scotus in a book that he purposely wrote of that argument; that when it was alleged and extolled by Berengarius, Pope Leo (the ninth) with his Bishops assembled in Synodo Vercellensi, anno Domini, 1050 (which was 235 years after the time that Claudius wrote his commentaries upon Saint Matthew) had no other means to avoid it, but by flat condemning of it. Of what great esteem this John was with king Alfred, may be seen in William of Malmesbury, Roger Hoveden, Matthew of Westminster, and other writers of the English history. The king himself, in the Preface before his Saxon translation of Saint Gregory's Pastoral, professes that he was holpen in that work by John his Mass-priest. By whom if he did mean this John of ours: you may see, how in those days a man might be held a Mass-priest, who was far enough from thinking that he offered up the very body and blood of Christ really present under the forms of bread and wine; which is the only Mass that our Romanists take knowledge of.

Of which wonderful point how ignorant our elders were, even this also may be one argument: that the author of the book of the wonderful things of the holy Scripture (before alleged) passes this quite over, which is now esteemed to be the wonder of all wonders. And yet does he profess, that he purposed to pass over nothing of the wonders of the Scripture, wherein they might seem notably to swerve from the ordinary administration in other things.