Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 39
Hesk.The nine & thirtieth Chapter treateth of the value of the Mas… to the quicke and the dead.
Fulk.Prayer for the dead beeing an auncient errour, Maister Heskins triumpheth out of measure, that he findeth some spottes thereof, in the auncient writers bookes. But there is great difference betweene praying for the dead, which is an errour rising of superstition and infidelitie, and offring the bodie of Christe in sacrifice for the dead which is a most horrible blaspheming. Therefore he doeth maliciously wrest such thinges, as are spoken of prayer for the dead, or the sacrifice of prayer for the dead, yea and sometimes the sacrifice of thanksgiuing for the dead, to the oblation of CHRISTE for the dead.
Thus he abuseth first all the liturgies, falsely ascribed to Saint Iame, Basil, Chrysostome. Which as we hauehave proued before, pretended not to offer Christes body in sacrifice, and therfore offred it not for the dead, although they offer prayers for the dead. And here it is to be noted that Clementes liturgie forsaketh him for prayer for the dead, or else we should surely hauehave heard of him as we did before. He would get credite to that whiche is vntruely ascribed to Saint Iames, by the proclaymers testimonie, because he saide it was full of knowledge, and full of errours also. When Dionysius can say nothing for him, concerning the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable for the dead, he bringeth him in, speaking of prayers made for the partie deceassed at his buriall. Concerning the antiquitie of this Dionysius we hauehave shewed before, that he cannot be so olde by sixe hundreth yeares, as the Papistes would make him. That the Apostles taught not prayer for the dead in their writinges, he saith the cause was, that they needed not, for that the Iewes vsed both, prayer & sacrifice for the dead before Christes comming▪ by testimonie of the Booke of Machabees which (he sayeth) S. Augustine alloweth canonicall, and by witnesse of one Antonie Margarita, a late conuerted Iewe to Papistrie. Touching the veritie of that historie of the Machabees, though Augustine allowe it to be read, so it be soberly, yet doeth not he take it for Canonicall, and Hierome vtterly denieth it for Canonicall: Expre…at. in Prouerb.
But for as much as this controuersie of praying for the dead, is vnpertinent to this cause, and requireth a larger discourse then the answere to this Chapter may conteine, & also that Maister Heskins in the end ioyneth issue and maketh a newe challenge, I thinke it best, to referre the Readers to mine answere against Maister Allens Booke of Purgatorie, where he shall finde all those and a number more of places alledged and answered both touching prayers for the dead, and the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable to the dead, in the same also is some treatie of prayer vntounto dead Saintes. In the meane season, this is sufficient against all mans authoritie, that the worde of God prescribeth neither the one nor the other, but condemneth them both, for what so euer is not of faith is sin: and whatsoeuer is not of the word of God, is not of faith: therfore prayers for the dead and to the dead, beeing not of the worde of God are sinne. Neither were they vsed in ye Church more then an hundreth yeres after Christ. And the first that maketh mention of any praiers for the dead, which is the elder errour by two or three hundreth yeres, is Tertullian, whē he was an heretike, who had receiued it with other heresies of ye Montanistes, who were two hundreth yeares after Christ: notwithstanding yt Epiphanius & Augustine number it among ye errours of Arrius, that he denied prayers for ye dead, yet they both do also number it for one of the heresies of the Heracleonites, to redeeme their dead with inuocations, and other ceremonies vsed at their buriall. How M. Heskins falsifieth the councel of Carthage, which made a decree that such as denied to pay the oblations of the dead, should be excommunicated as murtherers of the poore: I shall not neede to rehearse, vnderstanding dead mens legacies for the vse of the poore, for Masses saide for the dead. The same doeth M. Allen with this and other councels.
Likewise M. Heskins falsifieth Cyprian De Cerna Dom: In huius praesentia non superuacuè in endicant lachrymae veniam, nec vnquam patitur contriti cordis holocaustum repulsam. In presence of him teares do neuer begge pardon in vain, neither doeth the sacrifice of a contrite heart euer suffer repulse. Here doth he translate Huius of this sacrifice, and applyeth it to the sacrifice of the Masse for the dead, whereas there is not one worde in all that sermon, either of prayer or sacrifice for the dead. But leauing this argument of praying and offering for the dead, M. Heskins chargeth the ye proclaimer with three vntrueths in one sentence, where he saide, that Saint Iames in his Masse preached and set foorth the death of Christ, but the Papistes in their Masse hauehave onelyonly a number of dumbe geastures, and ceremonies which they themselues vnderstande not and make no manner mention of Christes death. To the first he answereth, that they hauehave all thinges that S. Iames had in his Masse, by the proclaymers confessiō, who diuideth their Masse into holie prayer, holie doctrine, holy consecration, holy receiuing. See the impudent quarrelling of this froward sophister. The Bishop saith, ye Papistes diuide their Masse into these partes, therfore he acknowledgeth their Masse to consist of these partes: and yet all these are but dumbe gestures and ceremonies, because the people vnderstand none of them, were they neuer so good, as a great parte of them is starke naught.
To the second he saith, that they them selues vnderstand not their owne gestures and ceremonies: he sayeth that diuerse writers hauehave expounded euerie parcell of them, as Isidorus, Rabanus, Hugo, Hoffnester, Garetius and others, he leaueth out Bonauentur, and Durandus the cheefe, belike beeing ashamed of their ridiculous interpretations. But admitte these things to be set foorth in bookes, doth it therefore followe, that all or the moste priestes doe vnderstand them, whereof a great number, can neither conster the Latine of their masse, nor of those bookes? And generally it may be said, that they all vnderstand them not, because these writers themselues, doe not agree in the interpretation of them.
The thirde he saith, is A plaine lie that in the Masse they make no mention of Christes death, whereas the Masse setteth forth the death of Christe more liuely then the new communion. For with great outcries he saith, that there is mention of his death, where it is saide, The day before he suffred, and The bloud of the new Testament that it shed for you, and beeing mindfull of his passion, resurrection, &c. and do this in remembrance of me. Here is all the preaching of Christes death, that he can finde in the Masse. But seeing he grateth vponupon the wordes, No mention of his death, Which was not the Bishops meaning, but no profitable mention to the institution of the people, who vnderstand nothing although there were neuer so long a sermon of Christes death in Latine: yet I say, he hath not shewed the death of Christe once mentioned in the Masse, I say not by implication, but in fourme of wordes, whereof he taketh aduauntage, to charge the Bishop of a lie. But how open plaine, lowd, & impudent a lie it is, that The Masse setteth foorth the death of Christ more liuely then the new communion, as (he termeth it) I will not in one worde goe about to confute, least I should acknowledge any neuer so small shew of trueth to be in it.