A General View of Papistry, Book 2 · Controversy 13 · Part 2

A General View of Papistry · Book 2 · Controversy 13 · Part 2

p. 474THE SECOND PART OF THIS CONTROVERSY, CONCERNING the Popish Masse.

THis part likewise comprehendeth diuers questions.

1 Of the diuers representations of the death and sacrifice of Christ.

2 Of the sacrifice of the Masse, the name thereof, and of the sacrificing priesthood.

3 Of the vertue and efficacie which they falsely ascribe to the Masse.

4 For whom the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable: whether for the quicke and the dead.

p. 4755. Of priuate Masses.

6. Of the manner of saying and celebrating Masse.

7. Of the ceremonies which they vse in the idolatrous sacrifice of the Masse: some goe before: some are obserued in the celebration thereof.

8. Of the forme of the Masse, which consisteth partly of the Canon, and of the preface to the Canon, where we are to shew the foule and heretical blasphemies, which in great number are belched out by them in the Masse. Of these now in their order.

THE FIRST QVESTION OF THE DIVERS representations of the death of Christ.

The Papists.

THey are not contented with that one liuely representation of the death of Christ, which is exhibited in the Lords Supper, but they hauehave brought in error 126 two more beside that, and so make three in all: the first, say they, is simplex repraesentatio, a simple and plaine representation of the death of Christ, which is done so often as the Sacrament is receiued: the second is Repraesentatio ad vinum, A liuely and full representation of Christs death: which they doe vse yearely to set forth by solemne gestures, apparell, and other ceremonies vponupon Good Friday, as it is commonly called, before Easter, when they doe make nothing else but a Pageant play of the Sacrament: the third representation is also a sacrifice beside, and that is the sacrifice of the Masse, Bellarm. de Missa. lib. 1. cap. 1. The Rhemists make a fourth representation beside, which is in the solemne receiuing of the Communion at Easter: So then first, Christs death is shewed forth by the Sacrament of the Eucharist all the yeare long as it hangeth in the pixe, or when it is carried to house the sicke, Catechism. Rom. pag. 408. Secondly, it is represented once in the yeere by their solemne Pageant vponupon good Friday, when there is no Sacrament consecrated, but an histrionicall expressing by certaine gestures and actions, the manner of Christs crucifying. Thirdly, in the continuall sacrifice of the Masse, Christ his death is represented. And lastly, in the solemne receiuing at Easter: for then especially, the mysterie of Christ our Paschall lambe is commended to the people to be eaten with all sinceritie in the Sacrament: and so doe the Rhemist. expound that place of Saint Paul, Let vsus keepe feast or holy day, not with the leauen of malitiousnes, 1. Cor. 6.8. literally applying it to the feast of Easter, Rhemist. in hunc locum.

The Protestants.

FIrst, we are taught by the word of God, that by eating the bread, and drinking of the cup in the Sacrament, not by gazing, looking, lifting vp, turning, hanging vp bread in pixes, or by any such meanes, but onelyonly as we hauehave saide, p. 476is the Lords death shewed forth and represented, 1. Corinth. 11.26. Wee acknowledge therefore one onelyonly Sacramentall representation of Christ, and no more in the Lords Supper: the sacrifice of the Masse we iudge to bee an abominable idol, as afterward shall be shewed.

Secondly, it is a foule absurditie to make any representation of Christs death, by bare gestures, shewes, and actions of the bodie without any Sacrament, as they doe in their popish pageants vponupon Christs Passion daye: for at that time there is no Sacrament consecrated, Eckius. cap. 15. But the Priest, by certaine gestures and motions of the bodie, in bowing, bending, casting abroade his armes and such like, dooth resemble Christ crucified, Bellarm cap. 1. But to call this a liuely representation being done without a Sacrament, and the other in the Sacrament, simplicem repraesentationem, but a simple and plaine representation, is too great presumption: wherein they prefer their owne superstitious deuises, before the ordinance of Christ.

Thirdly, that place of Saint Paul is vnfitly applied to the celebration of Ester: Augustine expoundeth it far otherwise: Diem festum celebremus, non vtique vnam diem, sed totam vitam in azymis synceritatis & veritatis: Let vsus keepe holy day, not one onelyonly day, but all our life long, in the vnleauened bread of purenes and trueth. So then in Augustines iudgement, the Apostle had no relation to any certaine time, which he would hauehave kept holy: but to the reformation of the whole life.

THE SECOND QVESTION, OF THE sacrifice of the Masse and the Priesthoode thereto belonging.

THE FIRST PART, OF THE name and terme of Masse.

The Papists.

error 127 THere are diuerse opinions amongst them, concerning the originall of this name. Some say it is called Missa the Masse, Quia oblatio & preces ad Deum mittantur, Hugo, de S. Victore. Others, quod Angelus a Deo mittatur, quisacrificio assistat ▪ Because an angell is sent of God to bee assistant at the Masse. Thom. Aquinas. 3. part. quaest. 83. artic. 4. Some, of the hebrue worde Missath, Deut. 16. which signifieth an oblation: Some, ex missis donarijs, & symbolis, of the giftes and offerings sent or put in before the Communion. But what beginning soeuer it had, they doe now generally take the Masse, for that solemne action, whereby the Sacrament is made a sacrifice, and offered vp to God. Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa. cap. 1.

p. 477The Protestants.

WE doe not greatly force vponupon this name: for both the name and the thing is abolished from our hearts and mouthes; & we trust in God, wee shall neuer hauehave occasion to knowe it againe. But howsoeuer it is, this name Missa, Masse, cannot signifie any such thing as they pretend.

1 For it seemeth that Missa was deriued, à dimissione populi, of the dimission or sending away of the people: and so was taken generally for any congregation assembled either to pray, or sing Psalmes, or for any other religious duetie: As yet to this day in the Dutch language (Messe) signifieth any solemne frequencie or congregation of the people. In this sense Cassianus vnderstandeth Masse, that is, for the dimission of the people:De canonicis orat. lib. …. cap. 7. speaking of him that commeth not timelie to the howers of praier: hee would not hauehave him to enter in, but stantem pro foribus congregationis missam praestolari debere: hee ought standing without the doores to waite for the misse of the congregation.

2 Augustine taketh this word Missa generally for the leiturgie or seruice of the Church, as serm. de tempore 251. if that Sermō be Augustines. Sunt aliqui, & maximè potentes huius mundi, cum veniunt ad ecclesiam, non sunt deuoti ad laudes Dei celebrandas, sed cogunt presbyterū vt abbreuiet Missam: there are some, and commonly the great men of the world, which come not to Church with any deuotion to sing praises to God, but they constraine the presbyter or Minister to make short Masse. Here this word Masse signifieth the whole leiturgie, as singing of Psalmes, and praising God; not any sacrifice or oblation: for then he would hauehave said, Cogunt sacerdotem, not presbyterum, They constraine the priest, not the Minister. Wherefore as the sacrifice of the Masse is of no great antiquitie, so neither is the name in that sence.

THE SECOND PART, OF THE sacrifice of the Masse.

The Papists.

CHrist, they say, at his last Supper, did offer vp his owne bodie and blood in error 128 sacrifice, vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, to God his father: and at the same instant made his Apostles, and their successors Priests, to offer vp his bodie …n the Sacrament, Concil. Tridentin. sess. 22. cap. 1. And the same bodie which Christ offered vp vponupon the crosse, is dayly offered vp by the ministerie of the Priests, the difference onelyonly is in the manner of offering, Concil. Trident. ibid. c. 2. The eternitie & proper act of Christs Priesthood, consisteth in the offering & sacrificing of the body & blood of Christ in the formes of bread & wine in the Church, Rhem. Heb. 7. sect. 8. And we meane alwaies of Priest & sacrifice p. 478taken in their owne proper signification, ibid. sect. 7. In the Eucharist then there is a true sacrifice of the very bodie and blood of Christ offered vp to God, by the hands of the Priest, in the formes of bread and wine, Bellarm. cap. 5.

Argum. 1. Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech: but the proper act of Melchisedechs priesthoode did consist in sacrificing in the formes of bread and wine: Ergo, the eternitie of Christs priesthoode standeth in the sacrificing of his bodie and blood in those formes: there doth therefore still remaine a proper external sacrifice in the Church, Rhemist. annot. Hebr. 7. sect. 8. Bellarm. cap. 6.

Ans. 1. We confesse, that Melchisedech was a type of our Sauiour Christ, and that he was a Priest after Melchisedechs order: but not in any such respect, for offering in bread and wine: for the text saith, hee brought forth bread and wine, he offered it not: he brought it forth for the refreshing of Abraham, and those which were with him, Genes. 14.18.

2. He brought forth bread and wine, and not the formes onelyonly of bread and wine, therefore your sacrifice in the formes onelyonly is not after his order.

3. If Melchisedechs bringing forth of bread & wine were a sacrifice or oblation, and a type of the like sacrifice to continue for euer in the Church, it must also hauehave been a propitiatorie sacrifice for the remission of sinnes, as they say the sacrifice of the Masse is, which was thereby signified: but there is no propitiatorie sacrifice for remission of sinnes, without shedding of blood, Hebr. 9.22. Therefore Milchisedechs act, being without blood, was no such sacrifice, and consequently none at all.

4. The Apostle to the Hebrues sheweth, wherein Christ was a Priest after Melchisedechs order, Heb. 7. First, in that Melchisedech was both king & Priest, verse 2. so is Christ. Secondly, in respect of the eternitie of his Priesthoode: we doe not reade either of the beginning of his dayes, or end of his life, nor of any change of his priesthoode, vers. 3. Al which is most truely verified in Christ. Thirdly, Melchisedech was a type of Christ, and his Priesthoode of Christs, because of the excellencie thereof aboue the Leuiticall Priesthoode: for Leui paide tithes in Abraham to Melchisedech, and therefore was inferior, and was blessed of Melchisedech in Abraham, the lesse of the greater: so is the Priesthoode of Christ aduaunced farre aboue Aarons order. If in any other materiall point Melchisedechs Priesthoode had resembled Christs, as in this oblation of bread and wine, the Apostle would not hauehave omitted it.

5. Therein consisted the proper act of Melchisedechs priesthoode, for the which he receiued tithes of Abraham: but, as the Apostle saith, he receiued tithes, and blessed Abraham, Heb. 7.6. Ergo, the tithes were due not for any sacrifice which he offered, but for his blessing. The same therefore was the proper act of his Priesthoode.

Argum. 2. They alleage that place, Heb. 8.3. EueryEvery high Priest is appointed to offer giftes and hostes, wherefore it is necessarie that he also hauehave somewhat p. 479to offer. Christ then hath a certaine host in externall and proper manner, as other Priests hauehave, but this visible and externall act of sacrificing he doth not exercise now in heauen: therefore it must needes bee meant of the perpetuall oblation of his body and blood in the Church: for somewhat he must alwaies hauehave to offer, Rhemist. Hebr. 8. sect. 3.

Ans. 1. The Apostle saith not, that it is necessarie that Christ should still hauehave somewhat to offer in sacrifice: but that it was needefull for him to hauehave somewhat, which he had alreadie offered: for the verbe foreign, signifieth not the present tence, but the time past: whereby is vnderstoode the oblation which hee had already offered once, and which neede not bee repeated, Hebr. 7.27. For as herein hee is like to other Priests, that hee must hauehave somewhat to hauehave offered, so is he vnlike also in this, that they by reason of their infirmitie had need to offer often: but Christ our high Priest did it but once, as in that place the Apostle sheweth.

2. The gift which the Apostle in this place attributeth to Christ,Vers. 2. was his bodie, which hee calleth the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pight and not man. But that bodie of Christ, which they say is offered vp in the sacrifice of the Masse, is not of that nature: for it is made by the ministerie of man: for eueryevery one of their sacrificing Priests is able to make the bodie of Christ: but this bodie, which Christ had to offer, was made onelyonly by God, without the helpe of man, as the Apostle saith. Againe, say, if you dare, that the bodie which you offer, is the true Tabernacle and temple of God: for then it would followe, that God dwelleth in temples made with hands, that is, by the ministerie of man, contrarie to the Scriptures: seeing you affirme that the bodie of Christ is no otherwise present but by the ministerie of the Priest. And what a goodly Tabernacle is this for God, thinke you, which you shut vp in a pixe, and hang vp in your Churches? A mouse may eate it, the fire may consume it, corruption may take it: would God suffer his Tabernacle thus to be defiled? Wherefore vponupon these premises we conclude, that what you offer in your popish sacrifice, cannot be the proper gift belonging to Christes Priesthoode.

Argum. 3. The Apostle saith, Hebr. 13.10. Wee hauehave an altar, whereof they hauehave no power to eate, which serue in the Tabernacle. Ergo, we hauehave not onelyonly a common table to eate meere bread vponupon, but a verie altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christs bodie vponupon. Rhemist. annot. Hebr. 13. sect. 6.

Ans. First, the Apostle speaketh of the sacrifice of Christs death, whereof we are made partakers by faith: which they can reape no benefite by, which remaine in the ceremoniall obseruations of Leuiticall sacrifices. Christ therefore is our Priest, altar and sacrifice: for verse 12. the Apostle maketh mention of the suffrings of Christ: he meaneth not then the Communion table, which is vnproperly called an altar, or any materiall altar beside, but the altar onelyonly of Christs death. Secondly, if wheresoeuer in Scripture this worde (altar) is read, it must be taken for a proper materiall altar, we shall hauehave also a p. 480material altar in heauen, Apoc. 8.3. which I am sure they wil not grant. Thirdly, the Apostle saith, We hauehave an altar, which is but one, whereas popish altars are many: it cannot therefore be vnderstoode of such altars.

The Protestants.

THat there are spirituall sacrifices remaining yet vntounto Christians in the exercise of religion, we doe verily beleeue, being so taught by the Scriptures: such are the sacrifices of praise and thankesgiuing, Heb. 13.15. The sacrifice of almes and distribution, verse 16. the mortifying also of the flesh, is a kinde of crucifying, and so a spirituall sacrifice, Galat. 6.14. And in this sense wee denie not, but that the Sacrament may be called a sacrifice, that is, a spirituall oblation of praise and thankesgiuing: but that there is a proper and externall sacrifice, as in the lawe of Goates and Bullocks, vponupon the crosse of the bodie of Christ: so in the Eucharist, of the same bodie and flesh of Christ: we doe hold it for a great blasphemie, and heresie.

Argum. 1. The very flesh, and true naturall bodie of Christ, is not, as wee hauehave shewed before at large, in such carnall and corporall manner present in the Sacrament: therefore it cannot in the Sacrament be sacrificed, and offered vp.

Argum. 2. This sacrificing of the bodie and blood of Christ is contrarie to Christs institution: for he saith onelyonly, Take yee, eate yee, drinke yee: he saith not, Sacrifice yee, or lift vp, and make an oblation of my bodie. Neither doe those wordes, hoc facite, doe this, giuegive them any power to sacrifice: for to whome he saith, Eate yee, drinke yee, to the same also he saith, Doe yee. Wherefore, if doe yee, be as much as, sacrifice yee: all Christians, for whome it is lawfull to eate and drinke the Sacrament, by this rule hauehave authoritie to sacrifice. Againe, the words are, Doe this in remembrance. We remember things absent, and which are alreadie done and past: if then there be a present sacrifice in the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ, it cannot properly be said to be a memorie of his sacrifice.

Argum. 3. The Apostle saith, that Christ neede not to offer himselfe often, but that he hath done once in the end of the world, Heb. 9.26. And with one offering, hath hee made perfite for euer them that are sanctified, 10.14. Ergo, Christ cannot be sacrificed againe: for that were to make his sacrifice vponupon the crosse imperfect.

Bellarmine answereth: that the Apostle here speaketh of the bloodie and painefull sacrifice of Christ vponupon the crosse, which was sufficient once to bee done: but this taketh not away the vnbloodie sacrifice, which is but an iteration of the former, whereby the fruite and efficacie of that first oblation is applied vntounto vsus, Bellarm. lib. 1. de miss. cap. 25.

Ans. First, the Apostle excludeth all manner iterations of the sacrifice of Christ, for otherwise, if Christ should now bee often howsoeuer sacrificed, the difference would not hold betweene the sacrifices of the lawe which were often p. 481done, and the sacrifice of Christ, which was once to be performed: for their sacrifices were also in a manner iterations and commemorations of the sacrifice of Christ. The Apostle then thus reasoneth, They had many iteratiue and commemoratiue sacrifices of Christs death: Ergo, we hauehave not now. Secondly, that is but a foolish and false distinction of the bloodie and vnbloodie sacrifice, as they vnderstand it: for there can be no proper vnbloodie sacrifice of Christ, neither could he be offered vp, otherwise then by dying, Heb. 9.27.28. Therefore he is not offered vp in the Sacrament, because now he dyeth not. Thirdly, neither neede wee inuent a new kinde of sacrifice, for the application of Christs death: for to that end Christ hath appointed the preaching of the word, and instituted the Sacraments: wherby the death of Christ with al the benefites thereof, are most fruitefully applied vntounto vsus, Galath. 3.1. 1. Corinth. 11.26.

Argum. 4. Augustine in a certaine place allegorizing the parable of the prodigall child, thus writeth, Vitulum occidit, Ad fratres in erem. serm. 27.quando in sacramento altario memoriam passionis in mente renouauit: He slew the fat calfe, when hee renewed in the Sacrament of the altar the memorie of his passion in his minde. Hee calleth it the Sacrament, not the sacrifice of the altar: and it onelyonly bringeth to our minde the memorie of Christs passion and sacrifice: there is then no oblation or sacrifice in the Sacrament, but onelyonly a commemoration of Christs sacrifice, which we denie not.

AN APPENDIX OR THIRD PART, OF the name and office of Priestes.

The Papists.

AS they doe falsely teach and perswade, that there is yet remaining a proper error 129 externall sacrifice for Christians vnderunder the Gospell, so also they maintaine a sacrificing Priesthoode. And further they say, that the Leuiticall Priesthoode was not translated into the sacrifice of Christ vponupon the crosse, but is properly turned into the Priesthoode and sacrifice in the Church, according to Melchisedechs rite, in offering vp the bodie and blood of Christ in the formes of bread and wine, Rhemist. annot. Hebr. 7. sect. 7. Wherefore they which minister vnderunder the Gospell, are worthilie called Priests: which word doth so certainely implie the authoritie of sacrificing, that it is by vse made the onelyonly English of Sacerdos, Rhemist. act. 14. sect. 3.

The Protestants.

FIrst, we hold it to be a great blasphemie to say, that the Priesthood & sacrifice of Christ vpō the Crosse, is not that sacrifice or Priesthood into the which the old sacrifice & Priesthood was translated & changed. The Apostle proueth the contrary: for that sacrifice, whereby the new Testament is established, is that, p. 482whereunto the old sacrifice and Priesthoode is translated: but this is done by the singular sacrifice of Christ, who is the suretie of a better testament, Hebr. 7.23. Ergo, his singular sacrifice vponupon the crosse, is that whereinto the old Leuiticall sacrifices are changed, and no other. Againe the Priesthoode after Melchisedechs order is that, into the which the old Priesthoode is changed: but the Priesthoode of Christ vponupon the Crosse was after that order. Ergo. But here they are not ashamed to denie, that the sacrifice of Christ vponupon the Crosse was after Melchisedechs order, but doe most impudently and blasphemously affirme, that it was after the order of Aaron, Heskin. lib. 1. cap. 13. And thus eueryevery vile massemonger shall be more properly a Priest after Melchisedechs order, then Christ himselfe.

Secondly, none but Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech: for vntounto whome the Lord saide, Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech, to him the Lord saith also in the same Psalme, Sit thou at my right hand, Psal. 110. But this cānot agree to any popish Priest: therefore not the other. Againe, the Apostle maketh this difference betweene the Priesthoode of the lawe and the Gospell: because then there were many Priests, they being prohibited by death to continue: but Christ is the onelyonly Priest of the New Testament, because he dieth not, Heb. 7 23.24. If they answer, as they doe, that although there be many Priestes, yet it is but one Priesthoode, because Christ concurreth with them in the actes of the Priesthoode, Rhemist.

We answer, first, Christ concurreth with his faithfull ministers in the actes of their Ministerie: but no such Priesthoode doe wee acknowledge. Secondly, so Christ concurred in the actes of the Leuiticall Priesthoode, and the sacrifices of the law that were rightly offered: wherefore this concurrence of Christ dooth no more take away the multitude of Priests in the Gospell, then it did in the lawe.

Thirdly, concerning the name of Priests in their sense, as it implieth an authoritie of sacrificing, we vtterly abhor it: secondly, but as it is deriued of the Greeke word foreign ▪ which signifieth an Elder, we refuse it not, but wish rather, that it had not bin abused in cōmō speach to signifie popish sacrificers. Thirdly, as for the word (sacerdos) which may be englished a sacrificer, we finde it no where in the New Testament giuen to the ministers of the Gospell, and so much Bellarmine confesseth, cap. 17. And therefore vnfitly and vnproperly agreeth vntounto them. If some of the fathers hauehave confounded the names of Sacerdos and (Presbyter) they are not to be commended. The word Sacerdos, a sacrificer, being a proper name of the Leuitical Priests, cannot properly be attributed to the Ministers of the Gospell. To conclude, this word (Priest) as it is the English of (Sacerdos) we doe not approue: but as it giueth the sense of (Presbyter) from whence it is deriued, we condemne it not: for so it signifieth nothing else but an Elder. If common vse of speech hauehave drawne it to a contrarie sense, it would be amended.

Quaest. euangelicar. lib. 2. quaest. 40.Augustine saith, Sacerdotiū Iudaeorum nemo dubitat, &c. No faithful mā doubteth, but that the Priesthood of the law was a figure of the royall Priesthoode in p. 483the Church, whereby all that pertaine to the bodie of Christ are consecrated. He acknowledgeth no other Priesthood abiding in the Church, then that whereby all Christians are made Priests, to offer spirituall sacrifices vntounto God through Christ.

THE THIRD QVESTION, OF THE VERTVE AND efficacie falsely ascribed to the sacrifice of the Masse.

The Papists.

1. THey blasphemously affirme, that it is a sacrifice propitiatorie, that is, auailable error 130 to obtaine, ex opere operato, by the very worke wrought, remission and pardon of all their sinnes. Trident. Concil. sess. 22. can. 3.

Argum. Christ himselfe sayth in the institution, This is my blood shed for you for the remission of sinnes: Ergo, the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable for remission of sinnes, Bellarm. lib. 2. de miss. cap. 2.

The Protestants.

Ans. FIrst, Christ instituted no sacrifice, as we declared afore, but onelyonly a Sacrament in remembrance of his death and passion. Secondly, the Sacrament rightly administred, serueth to assure our faith of remission of sinnes by the death of Christ: but it doth not by it owne vertue conferre remission of sinnes, neither profiteth by the worke wrought: for the Apostle sayth, That without faith it is impossible to please God, Hebr. 11.6. wherefore no action is accepted of God not proceeding of faith.

Argum. The Apostle sayth, Where there is remission of sinnes, there is no more sacrifice for sinne, Hebr. 10.18. Seeing then remission of sinnes is fully obtained by the death and sacrifice of Christ, there can be no more sacrifice for sinne: Ergo, the Masse is no sacrifice for sinne.

The Papists.

2. THe sacrifice of the Masse is not onelyonly propitiatorie for sinnes, but auaileable error 131 to obtaine all other benefites, as peace, tranquilitie, health, and such like. Bellarm. cap. 3.

Argum. S. Paul willeth, That prayers and intercessions should be made for all men, especially for Kings, that we may leade a godly and a peaceable life, 1. Timoth. 1.1. These are the prayers which are made in the celebration of the Masse, Bellarm.

The Protestants.

Ans. FIrst, the Apostle speaketh generally of al prayers, made by whomsoeuer, as it appeareth, vers. 8. Therefore this place is vnfitly applied to the praiers of Priests in the Masse. Secondly, this place proueth, that temporall benefites p. 484are obtained by faithfull prayers, not by the sacrifice of the Masse, which S. Paul neuer knewe. Thirdly, Augustine indeed expoundeth this place of the publike prayers of the Church vsed in the administration of the Sacrament: for he calleth it,Epistol. 59. Domini mensam, the Lords table, not the altar: he meaneth nothing lesse then your popish Masse

Argum. It is contrarie to the institution of Christ, to applie the Sacrament for any such temporall or external vse. It was ordained to be receiued in remembrance of Christs death, to assure vsus by faith of remission of sinnes, and other spirituall blessings: not to giuegive vsus assurance of health, peace, life, prosperitie: for the obtaining of such blessings, according to the will of God, other meanes are appoynted. The ministerie of the Sacraments no more serueth for such vses, then the preaching of the word.

THE FOVRTH QVESTION, FOR WHOM THE sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable.

The Papists.

error 132 FIrst, they affirme that Masse may be fayd and offered for all the liuing, yea for Pagans and infidels, for men absent as well as present: for Saint Paul willeth prayers and supplications to be made for all men, 1. Timoth. 2.1. Bellarm. cap. 6.

Secondly, the sacrifice of the Masse is auaileable for the dead which are in error 133 Purgatorie, Bellarm. cap. 7. Concil. Trid. sess. 22. can. 3.

error 134 Thirdly, Masse may be rightly sayd in the remembrance and for the honour of Saints, with inuocation of them also in the prayers of the Church, Bellarm. cap. 8.

Argum. The Apostles taught the Church to keepe a memorie or inuocation of the Saints in this sacrifice, and that there should be speciall prayers for the dead: for these and such like were the things (no doubt) that S. Paul sayth he would set in order when he came, 1. Cor. 11.34. Rhemist. ibid.

Ans. 1. To the place out of Timothie we hauehave answered before, that it is vnderstood generally of all prayers made by the faithfull: neither doth it follow, it is lawfull to pray for all men, and therefore the Sacrament is auaileable for all men: for these are two diuers things: prayer is an effect of our faith, the Sacrament is an instrumental or ministerial cause of our faith.

2. It is too great boldnes for you, without scripture, to affirme, that these superstitious rites of yours were those very orders which the Apostle promised at his comming to establish: but either they were such as partained not to the administration of the Sacrament, or were but accidentall orders meete for the Church of Corinth, and not necessarie for all times and places.

p. 485The Protestants.

FIrst, the Sacrament (for sacrifice we acknowledge none) is onelyonly ordained for their comfort that doe receiue it: neither can one receiue the Sacrament for another, no more then he may be baptized in the stead of another.

Secondly, neither doth the celebration of the Sacrament profite the dead, as we hauehave shewed before, that it is in vaine to pray for them.

Thirdly, neither are the Saints, either then or at any other time to be prayed vntounto, or either by this, or any other religious worship to be honoured.

Argum. All these superstitious obseruances are cleane contrarie and repugnant to the institution of Christ. First, he sayth, Take ye, eate ye, doe this: wherefore to their comfort onelyonly the Sacrament worketh, that doe receiue it, and are doers in that action: the benefite thereof then is not extended to the absent, but onelyonly to the partakers. Secondly, the dead can feele no comfort by it, because they can neither eate nor drinke it, nor be doers therein. Thirdly, Christ sayth, Doe this in remembrance of me: he sayth not, in remembrance of Angels, Apostles, Saints: but onelyonly of me. Therefore it is contrarie to the institution to vse any commemoration of Saints in the Sacrament.

Augustine sayth, Quis offeret sacrificium corporis Christi, nisi pro ijs, qui sunt membra Christi? Who will offer the sacrifice of the bodie of Christ, but for the members of Christ? Lib. 1. de origin. anim. cap. 9. Therefore the Sacrament can not be celebrated for Pagans and Infidels, who are no members of Christ.

Againe, he sayth: Nos Martyribus non constituimus templa, sacerdotia, sacra aut sacrificia: We doe not erect either temples, priests, seruice or sacrifices to Martyrs, De ciuitat. dei. lib. 8. cap. 27. Ergo, it is not lawfull to vse the Sacrament for the honour of Saints.

THE FIFT QVESTION OF priuate Masses.

The Papists.

IF any man shall say, that priuate Masses, wherein the Priest alone by himselfe error 135 doth communicate, are vnlawful, and therefore to be abolished, we pronounce him accursed, Concil. Tridentin. sess. 22. can. 8.

Argum. The sacrifices of the law were sacrifices, before the people did eate thereof: so the substance & making of a medicine is one thing, the ingredience, or taking of it, an other: Ergo, neither is receiuing part of the substāce or making of the sacrifice of Christs bodie, but a consequence only: therefore there may be a sacrifice and sacrament without it, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 14.

p. 486Ans. First, we denie that there is any sacrifice in the Eucharist, but a Sacrament onelyonly: and therefore the comparison holdeth not betweene a sacrifice, which consisted both of oblation to God, and the participation of the people that offered, and the Sacrament which Christ in his institution offered not to God, but to his Disciples. Secondly, neither doth the similitude of a medicine conclude: for you cannot proue that the Sacrament not receiued hath vertue in it, as a medicine hath: for faith is requisite to the worthie receiuing of the Sacrament, which is not necessarie in the applying of a medicine: and yet it is not properly called a medicine, vnlesse being made, it be also applied, and being receiued doth heale.

The Protestants.

WE vtterly condemne the superstitious practises of popish priests, who doe vse to communicate alone in their Masses, the people standing by▪ gazing and looking vponupon him: yea you might hauehave seene many Masses sayd in one Church at once, almost in eueryevery corner one, no person being present for the most part, but the priest and his boy.

Argum. This priuate receiuing of the Sacrament is contrarie to the institution of Christ, who sayth, speaking to many, Take ye, eate ye, and diuide this amongst you: there must be then a diuision and distribution. Saint Paul also sayth, We that are many are one bread and one bodie, in as much as we are partakers of one bread, 1. Corinth. 10.17. Ergo, many must communicate together· For the Apostle speaketh not of the mysticall communion of the faithfull in this place, which doe all make but one bodie in Christ, (for so we doe communicate with the Church by faith, not onelyonly in the Sacrament, but without it) but of the Sacramentall communion of as many as receiue together: for how els can they be sayd to be partakers of one bread, or loafe, vnlesse they receiue together.

Augustine sayth, that, Sacramentum benedicitur, sanctificatur, & ad distribuendum comminuitur: Epistol. 59.That the Sacrament is blessed, sanctified, and broken to be distributed: Ergo, where there is distribution, there must be many to receiue.

AN APPENDIX CONCERNING THE name of the Sacrament.

The Papists.

136. Error.THey vtterly mislike these names of the Sacrament, that it is called amongst vsus the Lords Supper, or Communion: belike (say they) they will bring it againe to the Supper, or euening seruice, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 6. And the name Communion, is as ignorantly vsed of them, thereby making the people beleeue, that many should communicate together, 1. Cor. 11. sect. 24. they should rather vse the names of the Eucharist, Masse, or Leiturgie.

p. 487The Protestants.

FIrst, for the name of the Lords Supper, we doe learne of S. Paul so to call it: When ye come together, (sayth he) this is not to eate the Lords Supper, 1. Corinth. 11.20.

Rhemist. The Apostle calleth their feasts of louelove, which they were wont to make after the receiuing of the Sacrament, the Lords Supper, coenas dominicas, because they were made in the Lords houses, which were called Dominicae: he meaneth not the Sacrament.

Ans. First, there were then no such distinct places, as Churches, and Oratories for the seruice of God, which began to be built many yeeres after, but they assembled together in their owne houses. Secondly, if their louelove-feasts were called the Lords Suppers, it would followe that they neuer had them but at night, and that then also the Sacrament was celebrated about the time of their feasts, which must be at the eeuentide. But this, I think, they dare not affirme▪ that they celebrated the Sacrament at night: wherefore the Apostle cannot meane any other Supper, but that which was instituted by Christ, as it followeth, vers. 23.

Augustine calleth it the Lords Supper, Coenam manibus suis consecratam discipulis suis dedit: His Supper being consecrated,In Luk. ser. 33. he gaue with his owne hands to his Disciples. And although we sate not downe at that feast: Ipsam coenam tamē fide quotidie manducamus: Yet we eate that Supper daily by faith.

2. The name Communion, the Apostle also himselfe vseth: he calleth it foreign, The communion of the bodie of Christ, 1. Corinth. 10.16: so doth Augustine name it, Communionem corporis Christi. de ciuit. Det. 20. cap. 9.

3. As for the names of Eucharist, and Leiturgie, we mislike them not, being vnderstood in their own sense: but because they are Greeke and not vnderstood of the people, we vse them not. The horrible sacrilege of the Masse, is the cause also why we vse not that terme.

THE SIXT QVESTION, OF THE MANNER OF saying and celebrating Masse.

The Papists.

IT is not necessiarie that the Masse (or as we call it, the Sacrament) should be sayd or done in the vulgar and familiar speech, but for the greater reuerence,137. Error. to be kept in the Latine tongue, they say, it is more conuenient: and that the words of consecration should not be vttered in a loud and audible, but in a soft and low voyce, Bellarm. cap. 11.12.

Argum. Christ for the space of three houres, being so long vponupon the Crosse, vttered nothing in the hearing of the standers by, but 7. short sentences: Ergo, in the sacrifice of the Masse, it is not necessarie to vtter all in the hearing of the people, Ibid.

Ans. First, they hauehave not proued by this example, that the Priest should mutter p. 488and mumble to himselfe; but the contrarie rather: that either he must altogether hold his peace, or els speake aloude; vnlesse they can shew that Christ spake some words secretly to himselfe. Secondly, we must not fetch the right vse of the Sacrament of our owne heads, from the example of Christs sacrifice vponupon the Crosse: but we are commanded to resort for direction, to the institution in his last Supper, 1. Corinth. 11.23.

The Protestants.

FIrst, for the Sacrament or any other part of the seruice of God to be ministred in an vnknowne tongue, is contrary to S. Pauls rule, who would hauehave al things to be done in the Church to edifying, and in such sort that the vnlearned might say, Amen, 1. Corinth. 14.16. But the people cannot be edified by a language which they vnderstand not: nor yet can say, Amen vntounto strange prayers. But of this matter we hauehave alreadie elsewhere entreated more at large.

Secondly, it is also contrarie to S. Pauls rule, that the Priest should mutter to himselfe, and not speake aloud in the hearing of the people: for he saith, Ye doe shew forth, foreign, annuntiatis, preach or declare the death of Christ, so often as ye receiue it, 1. Corinth. 11.26. But they doe not annuntiare, that is, preach, set forth, and declare the death of Christ, that speake onelyonly to themselues.

Augustine sayth, Populus cum episcopo orat, & quasi ad eius verba subscribens respondet, Cont. Parmenian. lib. 1. cap. 7.Amen: The people prayeth with their pastor, and subscribing to his words, say, Amen. But how can the people say, Amen, where nothing is heard, or subscribe in their hearts vntounto it?

THE SEVENTH QVESTION, OF THE CEREMOnies which they vse in the idolatrous sacrifice of the Masse.

The Papists.

error 138 SOme ceremonies goe before the celebration of the Masse, and they are of such things, as they hauehave alwaies in a readines for that impious seruice: such are the vestiments and apparel of the priest, the Albe, Chesil, Stole, Dalmatike, with such other: Altars, Altarclothes, Corporasses, Pixes, Paxes, Dishes, Candlestickes, Platters, Censers, water-pots: all these and the like trumperie ought of right to be vsed in the sacrifice of the Masse, the better to discerne the bodie of Christ, Rhemist. 1. Corinth. 11. sect. 18.

The Protestants.

FIrst, for diuers causes we doe condemne and reiect these superstitious vsages of the Papists: 1. Because of the superfluous & vnnecessarie number of them, fewer by a great deale may serue for the Communion to be kept, after Christs p. 489institution: neither doe we reade, that Christ at his last Supper vsed any such, who notwithstanding would not hauehave left out any thing requisite and needfull for the Sacrament.

2. The superfluous and excessiue cost, in making so many Church vessels of gold and siluer, so many Masse garments of silke, fine linnen, embrodered with gold, pearle, & precious stones, was both an intolerable burthen to the Church, at whose charge such things were prouided, and a great deale more costly, then became the simplicitie of the Gospell.

3. Conuenient vessels and instruments, which are necessarie for the administration of the Sacrament, with other seemely ornaments: as a decent couering for the Communion table, a cleane and hansome vessell to keepe the wine, a cup of siluer for the distribution, cleane linnen napkins for the bread: such instruments and ornaments of the Lords table we condemne not, but vse them our selues: yet none of them for such ends or purposes, as they pretend, to discerne the bodie of the Lord by them: as though they were ordained to waite and attend vponupon the bodily presence of Christ, which they hauehave falsely imagined: but we vse them for decencie and order sake, and due reuerence, which is to be yeelded to so great mysteries.

In the Apostles time they had no consecrated Altars, but Communion tables, 1. Cor. 10.21. neither is it like that they vsed vessels of gold or siluer in the Lords Supper, when they had neither siluer nor gold in their purses, Math. 10.9. Wherfore such things are not necessarie for the discerning of the Lords bodie.

The Papists.

2. THere are other ceremonies, which they obserue and vse in the very action it selfe and celebration of the Masse: as the diuers gestures of the Priest, to lift vp his eyes, and cast them downe againe, and to lift them vp the second, the third time: sometime to cast abroad his hands, to close them againe, to warble with his fingers, to bow, to bend, to ducke, to turne on this side and on that, now on the right hand, againe on the left: to sigh, to smite vponupon his breast, to lift vp the Chalice, and shew it to the people, and set it downe againe: as also the diuiding of the host into three parts, which signifie three parts of the Church, in heauen, in earth, and in purgatorie: the rinsing of part thereof in wine, and eating part drie, the washing of his fingers before consecration: kissing of the altar, the patten, the booke, the paxe: sprinkling of holy water, censing of odors, crossing the chalice, the bread, their mouth, breast and face, which signe of the crosse they make aboue twentie times in one Masse while: Adde also vntounto these, their tedious & yrksome songs, the rude noyse and vnedifying sound of strange instruments, and the whole course of their Masse musicke set forth in a strange language, and endited to the honour of Saints. All these superstitious rites, with diuers more, vaine, vnfruitfull, abominable, they notwithstanding with force and maine defend and maintaine, Bellarm▪ lib. 2. de missa. cap. 14.15. Concil. Trid…ntin. sess. 22. ca…. 7.

p. 490The Protestants.

1. THis multitude of humane inuentions, agreeth not with the institution of the Lords Supper: for we reade not of any such kissing, kneeling▪ becking, bowing, or the like ridiculous gestures to hauehave been vsed, when our Sauiour instituted the Supper, nor afterwards by the Apostles to hauehave been practised▪ wherefore wee contenting our selues with the plaine institution of Christ, doe worthily reiect all such toyes.

2. Most of these gestures are impious, and tend to idolatrie in the adoration of bread and wine, which are but creatures: and they are all friuolous and hypocriticall, stealing away true deuotion from the heart, and making men to rest in the outward gestures of the bodie. Augustine sayth very well: Corpus genibus flexis prosternis, collum curuas in oratione, video vbi iaciat corpus, sed quaero vbi volitet animus? Thou bowest the knee, bendest thy bodie in prayer stretchest out thy necke, I see where thy bodie lieth: but what is become of thy soule?

3. Concerning Church songs and Musicke, Augustine thus writeth: S…briè Psallimus in Ecclesia diuina cantica Prophetarum: Epistol. 119 cap. 19.We sing treatably and soberly in the Church the diuine songs of the Prophets. Two conditions he requireth: first, that we sing holy Psalmes taken out of the scriptures. Secondly, that they be sung treatably and distinctly: Etiam illic (sayth he) si sonum non sensum libido audiendi desideret, Cont. Iulian. lib. 4.14.improbatur: Euen in good songs, if we follow the sound, not the sense, it is to be discommended: but in popish songs neither of these conditions is kept: for both the dittie, for the most part, is idolatrous, stuffed with inuocation and adoration of Saints, and the note is so diuided and drawne out in length, that nothing can be vnderstood.

THE EIGHT QVESTION OF THE FORME OF THE Masse, which consisteth partly of the Canon, partly of such things as are rehearsed before and after the Canon.

THE FIRST PART OF THE PRAIERS WHICH goe before the Canon of the Masse.

WE doe not vtterly condemne whatsoeuer is sayd or sung in their Leiturgie or Masse: for as they hauehave their introite, so we doe bid the people, after due preparation, in our Communions to draw neere. We hauehave also our Confiteor, a confession of sinnes to be said before the Communion. Other formes also, which hauehave been vsed of ancient time, we doe not refuse: as Dominus vobiscum, The Lord be with you: Kyrieeleson, Lord hauehave merciemercy of vsus: Sursum corda, Lift vp your hearts: with Alleluia, praised be God, and Sanctus, Sanctus, holy, holy: and Gloria in excelsis, Glorie be to God on high: the preface also to the Communion, Verè dignum, & iustum est, It is meete, right, and our bounden duetie: p. 491And we vse also the Lords praier after the distribution. These formes we mislike not, vsing the same our selues, which notwithstanding we borrowe not from them, but from the ancient and purer ages of the Church. But the corruptions, additions, immutations, which are vsed by them in these prefaces to the Masse, we doe vtterly condemne, as their introite and confiteor, is stuft full of idolatry, and inuocation of Saints: their Kyrieeleson is 9. times repeated in an vnknown toung Eleuation and adoration was brought in by Pope Honorius, anno. 1222. the Agnus was deuised by Pope Sergius, ann. 700. the Pax by Innocentius, plura apud Foxum. p. 1403.

THE SECOND PART, OF THE Canon of the Masse.

The Papists.

1. FIrst, the forme of their Masse they hauehave (they say) by tradition from the Apostles: error 139 Rhemist. 1. Cor. 11. sect. 22.

The Protestants.

THeir owne authors doe testifie, that eueryevery patch of their Masse was thrust in by Popes later then the Apostles: as by Leo the 1. Gregory the 1. Gregory the 3. Innocentius the 3. Honorius the 3. with many other: yea, Gregory the 1. confesseth, that one Scholasticus made the most part of the Canon. Ergo, it was not deuised by the Apostles. Bellarmine answereth, that Gregory setteth not downe any one man, by this name Scholasticus, but meaneth generally some notable learned man: and in this sense S. Peter, saith he, which was the author of the Canon, may be called Scholasticus, Bellarm. cap. 19.

Ans. This deuise of the Iesuite is rather to be laughed at, then to be confuted: who euer heard before, that S. Peter and the other Apostles were Scholastici, Schoolemen? what is this els, but to set the spirite of God to schoole, in saying that the Apostles being men endued with the holy Ghost, were brought vp in Schooles? Againe, Gregory findeth fault with the said Scholasticus, that in composing the Canon, he would put in his own praiers, and leaue out the Lords praier: but if this Scholasticus had beene Peter, I think Gregory would not hauehave beene so bolde, as to hauehave rebuked him.

The Papists.

2. THe Canon of the Masse (they say) is perfect and absolute,140. Error. voide of all error, and therefore not to be changed or abrogated, Concil. Trident. sess. 22. can. 6. Bellarm. cap. 21.

p. 492The Protestants.

BVt we on the contrary side, more truly and agreeably to Scripture, doubt not to say, that there can be nothing more corrupt, abominable, fuller of all impiety, heresie, lying, then is their idolatrous sacrifice of the Masse: as it shall now more particularly appeare, by the collection of the seuerall errors.