Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 40
The fortieth Chapter treateth of priuate Masses, as the proclaymer termeth them, and solueth his arguments.Hesk.
Maister Heskins first rehearsing the Bishoppes Arguments, against the priuate Masse,Fulke. first maketh this generall aunswere to them al, that they proue it is lawfull for the people to receiue with the Priest, but not, that it is necessarie. And first he chargeth him with falsifying of Hierome In 1. Cor. 11. That the supper of the Lorde must be common to all the people, for Christ gaue his sacraments to all his disciples that were present. Where (saith Maister Heskins) he hath left out this worde equally, by whiche is meant, that poore men hauehave as good right to the sacrament, as riche men, but not that it is necessarie, that all men present at Masse, should receiue with the Priest. In deed the words of Hierome are these: Conuenientibus &c. Iam non est Dominica sed humana, quando vn…s quis quae tanquam caenam propriam solus inuadis, & alij, qui non obtulerit, non impereit. Ita vt magis propter saturitatem, quàm propter mysterium videamini conuenire. Caeterùm coena Dominica omni…us debes esse communis, quia ille omnibus discipulis suis, qui aderant, ęqualiter tradidit sacramenta. Coena autē ideo dicitur quia Dominu… in coena tradidit sacramentum. Item hoc ideo dicit quia in ecclesia conuenientes, oblationes suas separatim offerabant: & post communionem quae cunque eis de sacrificijs supersuissent, illic in Ecclesia communem coenam cōmedentes pariter consumebant. Et alius quidem esurit, &c. Quicumque non obtulisset non communicabat, quira omnia soli qui obtulerunt, insumebant.
When you come together, &c. Nowe is it not the LORDES supper, but a mannes supper, when euerie one falleth to it alone, as it were his owne supper, and giueth no parte to another, which hath offered nothing: so that you seeme to come together, rather to fill your bellies, then for the mysteries sake. But the Lordes supper ought to be common to al men, because he deliuered his sacramentes to all his disciples that were present, equally. And it is therefore called a supper, because the Lorde at supper deliuered the sacramente. Also he saith this, therfore, for that when they came together in the Church they offered their oblations seuerally: and after the communion, whatsoeuer was left to them of ye sacrifice, euen there in the Church, eating a common supper, they consumed it together. And one truely is a hungred: whosoeuer had not offred did not communicate, because they that had offred, consumed all alone. By this let the Reader iudge, what falsifying the proclaymer vsed and whether Hierome that condemned seuerall communions of riche men, would allowe a singular partaking of ye priest alone.
An other reason he hath of baptisme, whiche though it be common to all men, and that two speciall times in the yeare were appointed for the ministration thereof, yet it may be ministred alone. But the example is nothing like, for it was alwayes lawfull and often vsed, to baptise singuler persons at all times, so was it neuer of the Lordes supper, because the mysterie that S. Paul speaketh of, 1. Cor. 10. Many partaking of one bread, cannot bee expressed, when one priest receiueth alone. The third reason he bringeth, is a counterfet decree, ascribed to Fabianus of Rome 242. yeres after Christe, that people should receiue thryse in the yere, which had beene needlesse, if they receiued so often as the priest saide Masse. In deede the impudent forgerie of this decree is manifest, when two hundred yeares after Fabianus the people of Rome, as both Saint Augustine, and Saint Hierome do write, and Maister Heskins cannot denye, receiued the communion eueryevery day. As for the decree of once a yere receiuing, I knowe not when it was made, but wicked it was whensoeuer it was made. But Chrysostome, I wene doth make much for priuate Masses, for he writeth, but Maister Heskins dare not tell where for shame: Nonne per singulos dies offerimus? offerimus quidem, sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius. Do wee not eueryevery day (sayth hee) make oblation? we offer in deede, but doing it to the remembrance of his death. This question of Chrysos. is but an obiection of the vsual phrase of offering, which he expoundeth to be nothing else, but a celebration of the remembraunce of Christs death: and therfore in the end of that discourse for a full resolution he setteth down: Non aliud sacrificium sicut Pontifex, sed id ipsum semper facimus, magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur. Wee offer not another sacrifice as the holie priest, but the same alwayes: but rather wee make the remembraunce of that sacrifice. This correction sheweth, what he meaneth by the name of sacrifice.
And whereas Maister Heskins vrgeth, that they ministred dayly, & none were bound but priests to communicate, aboue thrise in ye yere, he concludeth the priest receiued oftentimes alone. But he playeth the papist notably in taking, rather then begging two principles: one that the people were not bounde, which hee is not able to proue; another, that there was but one Priest in a church, whereas at that time commonly there was but one church in a citie, in which were many priestes, which by his owne confession were bound to receiue as often as the sacrament was ministred, therefore one Priest did not eat vp all alone in Chrysostomes time.
To the saying of Ambrose which the Bishop alledgeth in 1 Cor. 11. Inuicem expecta…, &c. Ad inuicem expectandum dicit, vt multorum oblatio simul celebratur: & vt omnibus ministretur. He sayeth, they ought to tarie one for another, that the oblation of many might bee celebrated together, and that it might be ministred vntounto them all. M. Heskins aunswereth, that this doctour doth onelyonly reproue their want of deuotion, which is false: for he doth also shewe, that all ought to communicate together, or else it is not to eat the Lordes supper, vppon which wordes of the Apostle, he sayeth also: Murius enim oblatum tosius populi sit, quia in vno paene omnes significantur: per id quod enim vnum sumus, de vno paene omnes n…c sumere oportet. For the gift which is offered belongeth to all the people, because they are all signified in one bread: for in that wee are one, we ought to receiue all of one bread. If al must, then one ought not alone. As for that balde shift hee flyeth vntounto, that all priestes in seuerall places communicate together, is too bad for a begger to vse, for so might the Corinthians whome the Apostle reproueth for not tarying one for another, say they communicated with them whome they left out, and with al Christians in the worlde. But now M. Heskins with full sayle in rayling seas inueigheth against the proclaimer, for falsifying & wrong translating of Leo, when hee doth not translate him at all; but onelyonly doth gather the summe of his saying in fewe wordes, and that truely: though hee name neither Masse nor sacrifice, which are in ye saying of Leo, which, how little it maketh either for the popish Masse, or for the sacrifice propitiatorie, or finally for ye priuate Masse, I desire the reader to returne to the 32. Chapter of this booke, where he shall finde the place at large set downe and vrged, which therefore I thought it in vaine to repeat in this Chapter. After this hee defendeth, that by the Masse booke they are not bounde to hauehave a communion, but one priest may receiue alone. And whereas the Bishop rehearseth diuerse exhortations to prayer, vsed in the Masse, as: Oremus, let vsus praye: Orate pro me fratres & sorores, pray for me brethren and sisters, &c. And after the Agnus Dei: haec sacro sancta, &c. This holie commixtion and consecration of the bodie and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christ be vntounto mee & to all that receiue it, health of mind & bodie: All which sayings import a number present, & the last a number receiuing, whereas in the priuate Masse, there is neuer a brother or sister present many times, but one sorie boy, that helpeth ye priest to Masse, & though they be present, yet vnderstād they not that they are bidden to pray for the priest, when he turneth about: Maister Hesk. trifleth vponupon the former prayers, separating them from the last, and affirming that they may pray together, though they do not receiue together. For he saith: there be two communions in the Masse, beside the receiuing, (and therfore-belike that is not needefull) the one of prayer, the other of sacrifice, and as for the last prayer for them that receiue, is not ment onelyonly of them that receiue in the church at that time, but for all receiuers of all places and times, when and wheresoeuer. But what reason hath he to persuade vsus, that those brethren & sisterne whome the priest firste exhorteth to pray for him, that their sacrifice might be acceptable to God, are not the same, which ought to receiue with him? neuerthelesse in the ende, supposing the priestes prayeth with limitation of time and place, he sayth it is no reason, that if the people will not receiue, the priest should not: ye as verily, because Christe instituted a communion of many participantes in one time and place, and not one priests breakefast in a corner by him selfe. Againe, the wordes of the Masse: Omnibus sumentibus, to all which do receiue, and quae sumpsimus, which wee hauehave receiued, doe proue a number of receiuers, and which hauehave receiued at tha… time, and in that place, or else the Priest should saye, to mee which receiue it, and which I hauehave receiued. And whereas Maister Heskins chargeth the proclaimer, for adding the worde, Consecration, which is not in their Masse booke, I confesse I knowe not whether it be in all coppies omitted, but I am persuaded, the bishop had some ground of his saying, or else it might be the faulte of the Printer. But whereas the proclaimer alledgeth ye Canons of the Apostles, and decrees of the bishops of Rome, Maister Heskins sayth, as odious as the Popes be to him, faine he is to praye ayde of them. But he is altogether deceiued, God be thanked the holy scriptures are sufficient for vsus, both to proue al trueth, and to disproue all errours. But if either counsels or Popes decrees, be alledged, it is to beat downe the Papistes with their owne weapons, and to cast their owne doung in their owne faces, as the Prophet sayeth. But let vsus heare the Canon of the Apostles, Can. 9. Fideles, &c. The faithfull, which come to the Church and heare the Scriptures, and receiue not the holye communion, let them be excommunicated, as men that disquiet the church. Here he doth most impudently charge ye proclaimer with falsification, which he himself committeth, alledging it, not out of the booke of Canons, but out of the Popes dirtie decrees: Omnes fideles, &c. All Christian men that in the solemne seruice come together to the church, let them heare the scriptures of the Apostles & the Gospell. And such as continue not in prayer vntill masse be all done, nor do receiue the holie communion, it is meete they be excommunicated, as such as moue disquietnesse to the church: but that the learned reader, may see how syncerely ye bishop hath dealt, & how falsly Hesk. belyeth him, I wil set down the Canon in Greek, as it was firste written foreign. All the faithfull or Christians which enter into the church, and heare ye Scriptures, but tarrie not out the prayer & the holie cō munion or participation, ought to be separated, as causers of disorder in the Church. Here you see no mention of Masse at all. And if any ignorant papist dare not trust my translation out of Greeke, let him vnderstand yt in ye book of councels, he shal find two translations of this & the rest of those Canons, called the Canons of the Apostles, of which ye bishop hath followed the one, but Hesk. neither of both: for as I said before, there is no mention of the Masse in any of them. Therfore, what is the falsification committed in the Popes lawe, out of which he citeth it, how honestly in so doing, & reprouing the bishop for following the trueth, let the readers iudge. But for al yt he foysteth in the name of his Masse, yet can he not exclude ye necessitie of receiuing the cōmunion, of all ye lay people, which is the matter in question. And therefore it is a verie shame to report, what an absurde interpretation of the Canon he would make, namely, that it was not decreede against good Catholike people, which ioyned in prayer and receiued when deuotion serued them, but against licentious & yet dissembling heretikes and schismatikes, which being present in the churche, would not communicate, either in prayer or in receipt of the sacrament. For confutatiō of which blind meaning: first, I woulde aske, whether omnes fideles, all the faithful (as the Canon sayeth) doth signifie all licentious and dissembling heretikes and scismatikes? Secondly, when the Canon is made expressely against them that after thei hauehave heard the scriptures, depart when ye prayer & celebration of ye communiō beginneth, whether those yt be present & ioyne not in prayer & participation can be vnderstood? Thirdly (if he knew what kind of Censure this was, yt is spoken of) whether foreign or separation were a sufficient punishment, for men knowne to be licentious, dissembling, heretikes, & scismatikes? But hee wil father his feyned vnderstanding, vponupon the councel of Antioch, which (saith he) expoundeth it so almost, word for word: Omnes qui ingrediuntur, &c. All that come into the Church of God, & heare the holie scriptures, & communicate not in prayer with the people but of a certein wantonnesse turne them selues away from the receiuing of the holie communion, let them be remoued from the church, vntill by confession they shewe fruites of repentance, and by prayers obteine pardon.
But with excommunicate persons it is not lawfull to communicate, neither may we pray with such, as go from house to house auoyding the prayers of the church. But who will graunt to M. Heskins, that this should be an interpretation of the former Canon, contrarie to the wordes thereof? Secondly, when this Canon consisteth of two partes, and in deede comprehendeth two of those Canons of the Apostles, the former parte concerning all men that come into ye churche, the later onel… excomunicate persons, and scismatikes: who is so deuoyde of reason, to graunt that this Canon was made onelyonly against heretikes & scismatikes? But in the ende, as it were forsaking his holde, he claspeth another rotten post, that the Canon was made against the slacknesse of the people, and not against the deuotion of the priest: so that if none of the people would communicate, the priest might receiue alone. Surely yt priuate Masse is such a monster, as it is not credible, that it once entred into any of their heads, that decreede those Canons. But seeing they would not suffer any smal number of Christians to withdrawe them selues from ye communion, is it like they would suffer all not to receiue? And seeing the worde of God was the ground of their decree: Tarrie one for another, 1. Cor. 11. &c. who doubteth, but that if the peoples deuotion serued them not, the priest was as well bound to tarrie for the people, as one lay man for another? So that all the congregation ought to communicate together, and none to be left out, but such as either be vnworthie, or hauehave some necessarie impediment. Finally, if the Papistes were grieued at the seeldome receiuing & communicating with the priest, as they pretende, why do they not execute the censures of these Canons against all that be present at their Masses, and do not receiue with them?
But M. Heskins proceeding in confutation of the proclaimers arguments, first chargeth him to father a decree vponupon Calixtus, which was decreede by Anacletus, as though one thing might not be decreed by two bishops, and as though in the Canon lawe and other like-recordes, one lawe is not fathered vppon diuerse bishops. And Gratian ascribeth it to both, and namely to Calixtus dist. 2. Cap. Peracta. The words are these: Peracta consecratione, &c. When the consecration is done, let eueryevery man receiue the communion, vnlesse he wilbe put from the vnitie of the church. For this thing the Apostles hauehave ordeined, and the holy churche of Rome continueth the same. Two great faultes M. Hesk. findeth in this allegation. First, he doth detort, abuse, and wrest the place: secondly he doth mutilate it, and cutt it off by the knees. Here be vehement accusations, but in the tryall you shall see the bishop clearely discharged, & all the slaunder verified vponupon the accusers owne dealing. For first to reproue the bishops allegation, which was brought out of a decree of Calixtus, hee bringeth in an Epistle of Anacletus. Secondly, he will not alledge the wordes of the Epistle, but the report of Bartholomewe Garanza, a common falsifier of Canons & decrees, and thus he citeth it: Sacerdotes quando, &c. The priestes when they do offer sacrifice vntounto our Lorde, they ought not to do it alone, but let them take witnesses with them, that they may be proued to sacrifice perfectly vntounto the Lord in places dedicated to God, according to that of Deutron. 12. Take heede thou offer not sacrifice in all places that thou seest, but in the place that thy Lord God hath chosen. Let a bishop sacrificing to God hauehave witnesses with him, & more then another priest, with whome when the consecration is done, let all the ministers communicate, which will not bee forbidden the entrie of the church. Maister Heskins in his translation hath falsifyed the wordes, for where ye Latine is Non soli hoc agere debent, The Priestes ought not to do it alone, he hath turned it, they shall not do it alone: & where the Latine is, sed testes secum adhibeant, he turneth it, but they shall hauehave witnesses with them: wheras hee should saye, let them take witnesses with them. His pollicie is easie to espye. Hee would hauehave it seeme to the Englishe reader, that witnesses are appoynted, which if they faile to bee present, the Priest might notwithstanding saye his priuate Masse alone, whereas by the wordes of the decree, the Priestes are commaunded to get witnesses, and it is tolde them, they ought not to do it alone. But M. Hesk. to iustifie the falsification of his spanish Garanza, which saith: omnes ministri communicent, let all the ministers communicate, as though the commaundement were to them, & not to the people, bringeth forth a patch or two, out of the Epistle of Anacletus. But that the trueth of the proclaimer, & the falshood of this exclaimer may be more manifest, I will set downe all the discourse of this matter, out of that Epistle set forth vnderunder ye name of Anacletus, by Peter Crabbe, as errant a Papist as Bartholomew Garanza for his heart: nothing therein by diuersitie of letter, yt which M. Hesk. hath rent out from the rest. Ipsi autem quando Domino sacrificant, non soli hoc agere debent, sed testes secum adhibeāt vt Domino perfectè in sacratis Deo sacrificare locis probentur. Ait nam que authoritas legis Diuinę: Vide ne offeras holocausta tua in omni loco quem videris, sed in loco quem elegeris Dominus Deus tuus. Episcopus Deo sacrificans testes, vt praefixum est, secum habeat, & plures quàm alius sacerdos. Sicut enim maioris honoris gradu fruitur, sic maioris testimonij incrementatione indiget. In solennioribus quippe diebus aut septem, aut quin que aut tres diaconos, qui eius oculi dicuntur, & subdiaconos at que reliquos ministros secum habeat, qui sacris induti vestimentis in fronte & a tergo, & presbyteri è regione dextra laeuá que contrito corde & humiliato spiritu, ac prono stent vultu, custodientes eum à maleuolis hominibus, & consension eius praebeant sacrificio. Peracta auē consecratione omnes cōmunicent, qui noluerint ecclesiasticis carere liminibus. Sic enim Apostoli statueruns, & sancta Romana tenes ecclesia. And when the priestes do sacrifice, they ought not to do it alone, but let them take witnesses with them, yt they may be proued to do sacrifice to the Lord perfectly, in places dedicated to God. For the authoritie of Gods law sayeth: Take heede thou offer not thy burnt offerings in euerie place which thou shalt see, but in ye place which the Lord thy God shall choose. Let a bishop sacrificing to God hauehave witnesses with him, as is before sayed, & more then another priest. For as he enioyeth a degree of greater honor, so he hath need of the increase of greater testimonie. For in more solemne dayes, let him hauehave with him either seuen, or fiue, or three deacons, which are called his eyes, & the subdeacons and the rest of the ministers, which being cloathed in the holie vestimentes, let them stand before and behind him, & the priests ouer against him on the right hand & on the left hande with contrite heart, & humbled spirite, & sober countenaunce, preseruing him from malicious men, & let them giuegive their consent to his sacrifice. And when the consecration is ended, let al communicate, which will not be depriued of entrie into the church. These be the wordes of that Epistle which M. Hesk. mangleth and falsifieth thus: Episcopus, &c. The bishop doing sacrifice vntounto God, let him in the solemne dayes hauehave either seuen, or fiue, or three deacons which be called his eyes, & subdeacons & other ministers. First, he leaueth out, That, no priest ought to sacrifice alone, but must take witnesses wt him. Secondly, that a bishop ought to hauehave more then another priest at all times. Thirdly, hee citeth the words so, as though the bishop should hauehave no neede of witnesses, but only on solemne dayes. Fourthly, he leaueth out, how the deacons & other ministers should stand before and behind the bishop, which will not agree with his popish altar: for who can stande before the popish priest, except he stand in the windowe, or vppon the altar? Finally, wheras omnes may reasonably be vnderstood of al present, he restraineth it onelyonly to ye ministers, which if it were so, yet it ouerthroweth the Popish priuat Masse. For, if there be twentie or fortie priests & clarkes, as there be often so many at Masse, & sometimes an hundreth & more, as at a Synode, yet not one of them wil receiue with ye priest, neither are they banished yt refuse to cōmunicate. But to proue yt this word, all, should be referred to all the clergie, he citeth the Can. 9 Apost. Si quis episcopus, &c. If any bishop, &c. when the oblation is made, do not communicate, either let him shew a cause, that if it be reasonable he may obteine pardon, or if he shew none, let him be excommunicated, as one that is cause of offence to the people, giuing suspition of him which did sacrifice, that he hath not wel offered it. This Canō must be no interpretatiō of ye Epistle, and though it were, yet is his priuate Masse in neuer the better case: for here are still a number necessarily bounde to communicate with the Priest, vnderunder paine of excommunication. But M. Hesk. sayeth: possible it might be, that when the bishop had bene three attendant vponupon him, or such small number, they might all hauehave cause to absteine. This is a possibilitie not to like to come in esse, or being, once in 20. yeares. For where findeth he yt the bishop might hauehave but three with him? The decree before cited, requireth three deacons at the least, beside subdeacons & other ministers: of which in the auncient church, there was great store & diuerse functions, as acolytes, exercistes, readers, dorekeepers, &c. But admitt it were possible, that all these should absteine (yet saith he) there is no prohibition for ye priest to receiue alone. The decree sayeth they ought not to sacrifice alone, and both it & the Canon, commaund all Christians, & especially the Clergie that be present to cōmunicate: yet M. Hesk. sayeth, they are not prohibited to saye Masse alone, or yt it is not sayd, yt the priuate Masse is naught. What reason is in these aunswers let the readers iudge. But for cleare proofe & ouerthrow of ye proclaimers challēge, M. Hesk. sayth, that in the Masse of Chrysost. there is a plain rule giuen, what was to be done, when the priest receiued alone, & that the Proclaimer had not learned so farre, as to know this. Indeed this is an high point of learning (M. Hesk.) that ye proclaimer could neuer attain vntounto, to play with your readers noses so impudently, which cannot smell out your falshod, when you beare them in hande yt that was Chrysostomes Masse, which was written seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostome was dead, as appeareth plainly by the prayer for Pope Nicolas, & the Emperour Alexius that is in it, which the proclaimer as vnlearned as you make him, yet had wit to finde out & laye abrode to your open shame, and to all their shames that vse the same Liturgie, as authenticall & rightly to be ascribed to Chrysostome. The issue that you ioyne, that priuate Masse is not naught, nor prohibited in scripture, councel, or catholike writer, is tryed alreadie by sufficient euidence, giuen by the B. of Sarum against Harding, & by answere to your counterfet and false euidence vttered in this chapter & in the next. As for the receiuing of a sicke man alone, hath nothing to do with priuate Masse, which sole receiuing if it were admitted, yet a case of extreme necessitie, approoueth not an vsuall & dayly contempt of Christes holy institution.