The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 13
Thirteenth Controverſie, OF THE SEVENTH BOOK OF Private Maſſes.
CHAP. I. Of Private Maſſes; And the ſhamefull Traffique of the ſame.
CArdinal Du Perron going about to defend private Maſſes, made a full point at the firſt line; God having cut off the thred of his labour, and that of his life. Having ſaid in the Chapter of the Communion in the two kinds that the Roman Church can diſpenſe of Chriſts Commandments, and that it belongs to her to judge what commandments of God are diſpenſable: God ſuffered him not to go further, or to enter upon another Controverſie, where it ſhould be neceſſary for him to uſe that abominable Maxime. This only he ſaith, It is wrongfully that Maſſes without Communicants are called private; and there he endeth.
He ſaith that after others, who maintain that all Maſſes are publick, becauſe in them the Prieſt prayeth for the Church in general. By that reaſon a womans prayer that prayeth in her cloſet for the general good of the Church, is a publick prayer. We call thoſe publick actions which are done for the publick good; for one may labour in private for the good of the Commonwealth, and a publick perſon in a a publick place can make private actions, as when a Paſtour of the Church prayeth alone in a corner of the Temple.(a)Eman. Sa. Aphor. in verbo Miſſa. §. 43. Miſſa plus illis prodeſt pro quibus particulariter offertur. Our adverſaries themſelves call thoſe particular Maſſes, that are in particular offered for ſome perſon. Now I ſee not why the word of private Maſs ſhould be more odious then that of particular Maſs.
But what? this diſpute whether Maſſes without Communicants and without aſſiſtants, ſung in a corner of the Church, to the intention of ſome particular perſon that payeth for them, ought to be called publick or private, is but a contention about a word, leaving the matter untoucht. For ſtill the queſtion remaineth, whether Maſſes without Communicants and without aſſiſtants, ſaid for a private man, ought to be approved? and whether they be conformable unto the Word of God, and to Chriſts inſtitution? And whether that cuſtom of the Roman Church, that began a few ages ſince, (to diſpatch ſo many ſmall Maſſes in one morning in ſeveral corners of the Church) be receivable?
When I lived in Paris I did often conſider that with compaſſion I ſaw in the place of Greve, before S. Johns Church a multitude of poor Prieſts that get their livelyhood by thoſe private Maſſes. They ſtand there waiting a whole morning till ſome come to hire them to ſing a Maſs to his intention: Some one going to travel, or having a ſick horſe, or fearing the froſt to his vineyard, or the death of a friend, calls for one of theſe Prieſts, and for a ſmall hire makes him ſing a Maſs, upon one of thoſe petty Altars which are in great number in ſeveral corners of that Church, for the ſucceſs of his journey, or the healing of his horſe; And that ſolitary Maſs is hudled up in great haſte. He for whom it is ſaid needs not to be preſent or to think of it; For they hold that the Maſs is profitable for him for whom it is ſung, although he be abſent or ſleeping, if only he make no reſiſtance againſt it. And this is the canting of their Doctors that the Maſs hath efficacy ex opere operato, that is, by the bare action, for which the attention of the perſon for whom the Maſs is ſaid is not neceſſarily requiſite. It is enough with them that he that celebrates the Maſs, hath an intention to do that which the Church doth, and yet it is not neceſſary for him to have an actual intention, or to think of it, or to have any attention to it when he celebrates it; but if he thought of it before, and had an inclination to think of it, it is enough. This is that which Sophiſters call an habitual or virtual intention, which is an intention without intention, and may be in a Prieſt when he is drunk or aſleep. And as for him for whom the Maſs is ſung, neither his attention, nor his preſence is neceſſary; no more is neceſſary for his part but that he reſiſt not the action or intention, and ſet not himſelf purpoſely to put an obſtacle againſt it.
Covetouſneſs and filthy lucre have brought in this abuſe, For a man for whom in particular a Maſs is ſaid, payeth alſo in particular. And they that will have annual Maſſes ſaid for them, will alſo found annual rents for that uſe. Never was a private Maſs ſung for a man that had given nothing. Were the Euchariſt celebrated nowhere but in Eccleſiaſtical congregations, it were a hard matter to fetch money from ſo many purſes at once, and to fit the general Maſſes to the profit and intention of each particular man. Hence theſe baſe Maximes maintained by our adverſaries, That the Maſs doth moſt good to them for whom it is offered in particular. (b)Loco citato. Quod ſi pro multis offertur, non tantundem ſingulis prodeſſe, acſi pro illis ſolis offerretur, docent Sylveſter, Navarrus, Soto, Tolet, Suarez, Scotus.And that if it be offered for many, it doth not ſo much good to the ſeveral perſons, as if it were offered for one alone, as the Jeſuite Emanuel Sa affirmeth.(c)Tolet de Inſt. Sacerd. l. 2. c. 8. Si ego jejurem pro quatuor, minus prodeſt ad ſatisfactionem ſingulis quam uni prodeſſet ſi pro uno tantum jejunaſſem. And Cardinal Tolet cleareth that by an example; ſaying, that a Maſs ſaid for many perſons profits not ſo much to every one, as if it were applyed to one alone. As if I faſt for four men, that faſt availeth not ſo much to ſatisfie for every one, as if I had faſted for one only. They hold then, that a Maſs ſaid for two ſouls in Purgatory, doth not eaſe them ſo much, as if every one had his ſeveral Maſs. And it is thriftily done of them to ſpeak ſo. For if a Maſs ſaid for two ſouls eaſed them as much as if each of them had his own Maſs, the ſame might be ſaid of three ſouls, and of ſix, and of twenty, and ſo on, till it were found that one Maſs doth as much good as a hundred. Thus inſtead of paying for a hundred Maſſes, the buyer would pay for one only: Whereby many Prieſts ſhould want their dinner, for want of being hired to ſing a Maſs in the morning.
The ſame Jeſuite addeth,(d)Eman. Sa loco citato. ſect 44. Illud certum eſt ſacerdotem ſi uni debet unam miſſam, & alteri alteram, non ſatisfacere ſi unam …cat pro utroque ſimul. Iidem Doctores qui ſupra. It is certain that a Prieſt if he oweth a Maſs to one, and another Maſſe to another, makes no ſatisfaction if he ſaith one Maſſe for both together, as the forecited Doctours affirm. The Jeſuite Gregorious de Valentia ſaith the ſame in the firſt book of the ſacrifice of the Maſſe in the laſt Chapter.
Nevertheleſſe many Doctors ſay that a Prieſt may be twice paid for one Maſſe, as the ſame Emanuel Sa affirmeth, and calls that which the Prieſt receiveth to ſing a private Maſſe(e)Ibid. Duas eleemoſynas pro unica Miſſa accipi poſſe ait Soto. an alms; (f)Tolet. de Inſtr. Sac. l. 2. cap. 8. Soto tenet quod pauper poteſt ſaltem duas pittancias recipere pro una Miſſa ad ſuſtentationem.Tolet calls it pitantia, ſaying that a poor Prieſt may receive two pittances at leaſt for a Maſſe to ſuſtain himſelf. The ſame Cardinal ſaith(g)Tolet eodem libro, cap. 6. Niſi mortui dum vixerunt ad Miſſas ſibi celebrandas pecunias erogarunt: Tunc enim per modum ſatisfactionis & juſtitiae conferunt. that to them who in their life-time have furniſht money to celebrate Maſſes for them, the ſame Maſſes profit by way of ſatisfaction and juſtice. This is the rule of juſtice by which theſe Gentlemen will tye God and oblige him to ſhew grace to him that hath paid for particular Maſſes; for why ſhould the poor man loſe his money? If the ſame man had wanted money, and had bought no Maſſes, God had not been bound to ſhew him the ſame grace. From the ſame bank comes the cuſtom that Maſſes are ſold more or leſſe according to the ornaments and the ſplendour wherewith they are d…eſt.
But this exceeds all impudence, and is of the ſame Jeſuit Emanuel Sa (h)Loco citato. Cui datur certa ſumma pecuniae pro Miſſis à ſe dicendis, poteſt alios pro minore pretio conducere qui adjuvent, et reliquum ſibi retinere.The Prieſt to whom a certain ſum of money is given to ſay Maſſes, may hire others that help him for a leſs price, and keep the reſidue of the money. Was there ever a more ſordid traffick? By this means a Prieſt having received ten pence to ſing a Maſſe, ſhall provide one that ſhall ſing it for ſix pence, ſo he ſhall get four pence clear. And why are private Maſſes uſed againſt froſt, againſt the murrain of cattel, and for the ſucceſs of a journey, but to draw money from all ſides? Whereas Chriſt inſtituted the holy Communion for the remiſſion of ſins, and to announce his death till he come? 1 Cor. 11. When a Prieſt makes Chriſt in the corner of a Church for ſix pence or two groats; if there be no Communicants, he ſells Chriſt and delivereth him not. Or if there be ſome Communicants, he may ſpeak as Judas, who ſaid, What will ye give me and I will deliver him unto you? Had it not been a goodly ſight, if the Apoſtle having adminiſtred the Communion to a multitude of Chriſtians, as Act. 20. had withdrawn himſelf into a corner, to ſing a Lords Supper, in favour of a private man, for a piece of money? Doubtleſs ſuch a gain might have exempted him from ſowing tents to relieve his neceſſity.
CHAP. II. That Maſſes without Communicants and aſsiſtants, ſaid to the intention of a private man that payeth for them, are repugnant unto the Word of God.
THis ſtrange and odious abuſe ſeems to be brought in purpoſely to overthrow the inſtitution of the Lord Jeſus, and to contradict his Word. 1. For what likeneſs is there between Chriſt ſitting at the table communicating with all his Diſciples in the two kinds, and the Prieſt making in the corner of a Church a ſacrifice without Communicants, without aſſiſtants, for a private man abſent, who payeth for that ſacrifice? Where is in that ſolitary Maſſe the leaſt trace of the Lords Supper which the Apoſtles did celebrate by the fraction and diſtribution of bread among Chriſtians! Act. 2.46. and 20.7. And of that participation which S. Paul ſpake of, 1 Cor. 10.17. ſaying, We are all partakers of that one bread. 3. The ſame Apoſtle in the ſame place calls the Lords Supper the Communion of the body of Chriſt, ſaying, The bread which we eat, is it not the Communion of the body of Chriſt? Now where is that Communion where none Communicateth? For all Communion is of neceſſity among many. 4. Wherefore the Apoſtle declareth in the ſame place that this Communion is among many, and that it is a teſtimony of concord among the faithful, and of the union of the Church in one body.(i)1 Cor. 11.16, & 17. The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Chriſt? For we being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread. Nothing of all that is found in private Maſſes. No Communion there, no breaking of bread among many, no teſtimony of the union of the Church in one body, no participation of the ſame bread. 5. No wonder then that the word Coena diſpleaſeth our adverſaries, becauſe the word ſignifies a common ſupper, and by conſequent imports Communion. Why then did they not blot out of their Bibles the word Coena? Why is the language of Scripture become odious unto them? How comes it to paſs that the word Maſs which is barbarous and unknown to the Churches of Greece, Syria, Armenia, Ethiopia, &c. hath taken the place of Coena or Supper of the Lord? For even in the Bible of the Roman Church theſe are the very words of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 11.20. where chiding the Corinthians for the abuſe which they committed in the holy Sacrament,(k)Convenientibus ergo vobis in unū, jam non eſt dominicam coenam manducare. When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lords Coena or Supper. 6. But that which is moſt important, and which we muſt eſpecially ſtand upon, is the inſtitution of Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, who ſaid when he inſtituted his holy Supper, Take eat, drink ye all of this, and to oblige us to follow him he ſaid Do this, as alſo the Apoſtles followed that example. Can the Prieſt ſay Take eat, when no body is preſent to take or to eat? Can he ſay Drink ye all of this, when he drinks alone? 7. And upon that it is good to hear the excuſe of Innocent the third in the 25. ch. of the myſteries of the Maſſe. He makes a queſtion to himſelf how the Prieſt can ſay in ſolitary Maſſes, Orate pro me frates, Pray for me brethren, ſeeing that he is alone, and without aſſiſtants: and who are theſe brethren to whom the Prieſt is ſpeaking? his anſwer is,(l)Pie credendum eſt quod Angeli Dei comites aſſiſtant orantibus, ſecundū illud propheticum, In conſpectu Angelorum pſallam tibi. We muſt piouſly believe that the Angels keep company with thoſe that pray, according to that ſentence of the Prophets, I will ſing praiſes unto thee in the preſence of Angels. By an ill tranſlated text of Pſal. 138. he proveth that the Prieſt is never alone: but he doth not untye the knot and ſolve the main difficulty. For ſuppoſe that the Angels are aſſiſtant there as praying, yet they aſſiſt not there as eating and drinking, and as Communicants. Wherefore it is not to the Angels that the Prieſt ſpeaks, ſaying, Accipite & manducate ex hoc omnes, Take and eat all of this, unleſſe they will ſay that the Angels being come from far have taken exerciſe enough to have good appetite. They ſhould indeed have put out of private Maſſes theſe words that condemn them. 8. Here to alledge the peoples want of devotion for an excuſe, and that the people ought to preſent themſelves to theſe Maſſes to Communicate, is a confeſſion that in theſe private Maſſes there is much abuſe, which they are forced to tolerate becauſe they can bring no remedy to it. But if that abuſe ſo lucrative unto Prieſts had diminiſhed their profits, they would ſoon have found how to mend it. And if it be an abuſe, they ought to labour to correct it by exhorting the people to come to the great and publick Maſſes where all the people might Communicate, rather then to buy private Maſſes. An exhortation which is never uſed. We have reaſon to believe that if the people were taught that Maſſes ſaid for many, are as profitable to every one as if every one bought his own Maſſe apart, the people would chuſe rather to go to publick Maſſes then to put themſelves to uſeleſſe coſt. It is certain that if the Maſſe was as good and holy as it is full of abuſe, the multitude of thoſe to whom it ſhould be adminiſtred would not diminiſh the benefit of every particular perſon. For the ſaving grace of God in Chriſt (which is or ought to be preſented in it unto all) is offered to every one to be poſſeſt by every one whole and undivided, and is not cut into pieces; being like the light of the Sun which every one that hath eyes enjoyeth full and whole, and if there were ten times more men in the world each of them ſhould have never the leſſe light.
But that which I repreſented in the firſt chapter, ſheweth evidently that the Clergy is purpoſely labouring to entertain that abuſe. For the Council of Trent ſaith not that Maſſes without Communicants ought to be tolerated, but eſtabliſheth them by an expreſſe command.(m)Seſſ. 22. cap. 6. Nec tamen ſi id non ſemper fiat, propterea miſſas illas in quibus ſacerdos ſolus ſacramentaliter communicat, ut privatas et illicitas damnat, ſed probat at que adeo commendat. The holy Council (ſay theſe Prelats) condemneth not the Maſſes in which the Prieſt alone ſacramentally communicates, but approveth and recommendeth them. And how ſhould the ſolitude of the Prieſt in a Maſſe be imputed to the peoples indevotion, ſeeing that the people knoweth not when it is done? Neither is warning given abroad when a Prieſt is hired with a piece of money to ſing a Maſſe preſently in ſome corner of a Church. How could the people attend private Maſſes, ſeeing that many are ſung together in one Church at the ſame time, ſo that the moſt devout cannot be preſent at the fourth part of them. It is not the peoples want of devotion, but the covetouſneſſe of the Prieſts that cauſeth that multitude of ſolitary Maſſes.
It is then with ſmall reaſon that this excuſe is alledged, that in a feaſt the invited cannot be conſtrained to eat againſt their will. For in private Maſſes no gheſt is invited. And if there were ſome commandement of God to oblige the invited to eat (as in the Lords Supper this commandement is laid upon us Take eat, and let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat this bread) and gheſts ought to be conſtrained to eat.
In vain do they bring ſome ſacrifices of the Law, where the people did not eat. It is a great abuſe to take the ceremonies of the Law for rules in a point where we have Chriſts inſtitution, and his expreſſe command, and the examples of Chriſt and his Apoſtles. Beſides, they hold that Chriſtians communicate to the Euchariſt, not as it is a Sacrifice, but as it is a Sacrament. A Sacrament and a Sacrifice differ as much as taking and giving. For by a Sacrifice we offer unto God, but in Sacraments we receive of God, and God imparts his graces unto us. Wherefore in this queſtion about the Communion to the Sacrament, the example ſhould be to ſome purpoſe if it were taken from the Paſſeover, which was a Sacrament of Communion, that never was celebrated without many Communicants, and to which every perſon of Iſrael, of a competent age, and not unclean, was obliged to participate. But the example taken from Sacrifices conſidered as Sacrifices, is improper.
The ancient Church in the fourth and fifth ages took no notice of ſuch conſiderations. They wanted not profane and indevout members. The writings of Fathers are full of lamentations about that. And yet no conſtitution is found in the whole antiquity that recommended the Euchariſt without either Communicants or aſſiſtants, nor any example that ever the holy Communion was celebrated without aſſiſtants, to the intention and at the coſt of ſome particular perſon, as we will ſhew in the next Chapter.
CHAP. III. That the Ancient Church did not know private or particular Maſſes, and did not celebrate the holy Sacrament without Communicants and aſſiſtants to the intention of a particular perſon.
CArdinal Bellarmin in the ſecond book of the Maſſe chap. 9. doth acknowledge ſo much, ſaying,(a)Nuſquam expreſſe legitur à veteribus oblatum ſacrificium ſine communione alicujus vel aliquorum praeter ipſum ſacerdotem. that no expreſs teſtimony is found among the ancient writers, that ever they offered any Sacrifice without the Communion of one perſon or more beſides the Prieſt.
If ſometimes by the indevotion of the people the action of the Lords Supper was ill frequented, the Paſtours did complain of it; Chryſoſtom above others thunders about that,(b)Chryſ. hom. 3. in ep. ad Epheſ. foreign, &c. foreign, &c. O cuſtom! (ſaith he) O preſumption! In vain is the every day Sacrifice done. In vain do we aſſiſt at the Altar, ſince none Communicates, &c. The Lord ſaid theſe things to us all who aſſiſt here impudently and raſhly. For every man that participates not to myſteries, is impudent and raſh in that he is preſent. He addeth, Tell me, if any invited to the feaſt waſheth his hands, and ſits, and is diſpoſed and ready at the table, and yet eats not, doth he not wrong him that invited him? Were it not better that ſuch a man ſhould not be preſent? Likewiſe thou alſo art preſent; Thou haſt ſung the hymn, and in that thou didſt not withdraw with the unworthy, thou madeſt profeſſion to be of the number of thoſe that are worthy; how then didſt thou remain and didſt not participate at the table? Thou ſayeſt, I am unworthy of it; Thou art then unworthy alſo of the Communion of prayers. (c)Bellar. l. 2. d… Miſſa c. 10. ſect. Ad illud.Upon which Bellarmin in the ſecond book of the Maſſe feareth not to ſay, that Chryſoſtom ſpeaking thus exceeded meaſure as in other things.
(d)foreign.Ignatius in the Epiſtle to the Philadelphians, One bread was broken to all. And we heard before Juſtin Martyr in the ſecond Apologetick ſaying that the Deacons diſtributed to every one of the aſſiſtants the bread, &c.
Hierom upon 1 Cor. 11. ſaith that(e)Dominica Coena omnibus debet eſſe communis. the Lords Supper ought to be common unto all. Let the attentive reader compare coena communis with Miſſa privata, a common ſupper with a private Maſſe.
The ancient Conſtitution of the Roman Church, attributed to Pope Anacletus, which is found alſo under the name of Calixtus, is ſuch;(f)Canone Peract. 2. Diſt. de Conſecratione. Peracta Conſecratione, omnes communicent qui noluerint Eccleſiaſticis carere liminibus. Sic enim & Apoſtoli ſtatuerunt, & ſancta Romana tenet Eccleſia. The conſecration being done, let all communicate that will not be put out of the Church dor…. For ſo the Apoſtles have conſtituted it, and ſo the holy Roman Church obſerveth it. Again,(g)Canone Tribus gradibus. Tanta in altari holocauſta offerantur, quanta populo ſufficere debeant. Let as many Sacrifices be offered upon the Altar as will ſerve for the people. If any thing remain, let it not be kept for the next day.
It was the cuſtom in the ancient Church when the hour of the Communion was come, that the Deacon cryed with a loud voyce, that all that did not Communicate ſhould go forth. And that ſending away was at the firſt called Miſſa which ſignified a dimiſſion. At that voyce the Penitents, the Catechumens, and the Energumens (that is thoſe that are vexed or poſſeſt by devils) went out, and none remained but the Communicants. Auſtin in the two hundred and thirty ſeventh Sermon de tempore ſpeaks thus, Ecce poſt Sermonem miſſa fit Catechumenis, manebunt fideles. Behold after Sermon the Catechumens were diſmiſt, but the faithful ſhall remain. (h)Greg. 1. Dialog. l. 2. cap. 23. Cum ex more Diaconus clamaret, Si quis non communicat, det locum.And Gregory the firſt, when the Deacon cryed according to the cuſtom, If any do not Communicate let him give room. Certainly if ſuch a cuſtom had been kept by the Roman Church of the laſt ages, it would have prevented the introduction of Maſſes without either Communicants or aſſiſtants; for it would have been a laughing matter and a ridiculous abſurdity to ſay, Go out when there was none with the Prieſt; and let all that do not Communicate, go forth, when there had been none to Communicate.
The ſame is confirmed by the old cuſtom of having but one Altar in a Temple: Euſebius in the tenth book of his hiſtory, cap. 4. deſcribes exactly the form both inward and outward of the Temple of Tyr and all the ornaments of the ſame, and ſpeaks of one table only incloſed with rails in the midſt of the Temple.(i)In 2 Cor. hom. 18. in moralitate, foreign. Chryſoſtom ſaith, We have one Baptiſm only, and one table only. (k)Baſil. in Pſ. 115. ſub finem.Baſil ſaith the ſame.(l)Vide Franc. Alvarez. hiſt. cap. 3. The Abyſſine Churches have but one Altar in each Church. Of ſo many petty Altars in the corners of Churches, upon which ſo many little Maſſes are huddled up, no trace is found in all antiquity. When the Fathers ſpeak of Tables or Altars in the plural, that muſt be underſtood of many Churches.
The very text of the Maſs is expreſs for that, in which the Prieſt ſaith,(m)Ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione ſumpſerimus, &c. That all we that ſhall take of the participation of this Altar, &c. And in another place,(n)Sacramenta quae ſumpſimus. The Sacraments which we have taken: And(o)Orate pro me fratres. Pray for me brethren. All theſe plural expreſſions ought to be razed out of the Canon of the Maſſe; for in moſt Maſſes of the Roman Church they are become ridiculous.
In the third book of(p)Burchard. Decret. l. 3. c. 64. et Decret. Grat. Diſt. 1. de Conſecrat. Can. Hoc quoque. Nullus Preſbyterorum Miſſarum ſolemnia celebrare praeſumat niſi duobus praeſentibus, ſibique reſpondentibus, et ipſe tertius habeatur. Quia quum pluraliter ab eo dicitur Dominus vobiſcum, et illud in ſecretis, Orate pro me, aptiſſimt convenit ut et ipſius reſpondeatur ſalutationi. Burchards Decree there is a Canon attributed to Pope Soter, in theſe words, Let no Prieſt preſume to celebrate the ſolemnities of the Maſſe, unleſs there be two perſons preſent that anſwer one another, and let the Prieſt be the third. Becauſe when he ſaith in the plural, the Lord be with you, and that which is ſaid in the Secrets, Pray you for me, it is very convenient that this ſalutation be anſwered.
And ch. 43. of the Council of Mentz held in the time of Charlemagne, (q)Nullus Presbyter, ut nobis videtur, ſolus Miſſam cantare valet recte. Quomodo enim dicet, Dominus vobiſcum, vel Surſum corda admonebit habere, et alia mille his ſimilia, cum alius nemo cum eo ſit?No Prieſt, as it ſeems to us, can well ſing the Maſſe alone; For how ſhall he ſay, The Lord be with you, or exhort them to lift up their hearts, and many other the like things, when there is no body with him? This was in the year 813. Whence it is evident, that Maſſes without either Communicants or aſſiſtants are of very late date.