The Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England, Part 1 · Section 3
Concerning private Maſſes, Spectacles Paragraph 3. à pag. 187. vſus que ad 199.
OVR Saviours words take yee, eate ye, make nothing againſt private Maſſe, for Chriſt there ſpake to all his Apoſtles who did all eate: and out of that place a man might as well ſay, that all muſt communicate that are in the Church at the ſame time as two or three.
S Pauls words where hee inviteth Chriſtians to imitate him, are meant of chaſtening the body, faſting and praying, and the like, in which Proteſtants follow him not, and if the words bee extended to the Sacrament, Catholike Prieſts imitate S. Paul therein, becauſe they are readie to communicate with all ſuch as come worthily to receive, but the Knight muſt prove that S. Paul would not ſay Maſſe, unleſſe others would communicate with him, or that he teacheth that other Prieſts muſt not.
Where S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. commandeth the people to tarrie one for another when they came together to cate hee ſpeaketh to the people, who made the ſuppers called Agape, as is plaine by the text wherein bee reprehendeth the Abuſes that were committed, as that ſome did exceed, others did want, ſome were drunke, ſome went away hungry, which could not pertaine to the bleſſed Sacrament; beſides the diſtribution of that belonged to the Prieſts not to the people who are here inſtructed, and reprehended for their manner of making their ſuppers.
The cup of bleſsing is called a Communion, becauſe it uniteth us to Chriſt our head, and alſo among our ſelves, as members of the ſame body, and though it doe this moſt perfectly when it is alſo received ſacramentally, yet not only ſo, but it doth the ſame alſo in ſome meaſure being ſpiritually received: and as this union may remaine among us members, though every one among us doe not receive every day: ſo it may alſo remaine betweene us and the Prieſt, though hee ſay Maſſe, and wee not receive. If this argument of the Knight were good, it would follow that not only ſome, but that all the people muſt receive together with the Priest.
The Catholique Doctours cited by the Knight ſay indeed, that it was the practiſe of the primitive Church to communicate every day with the Prieſt, but they ſay not that it was of neceſsitie ſo to doe; nay ſome of them as Bellarmine and Durand prove manifeſtly that there was no ſuch neceſsitie or dependence of the Prieſts celebrating upon the peoples communicating, that they might not celebrate unleſſe the people did communicate. For S. Chryſoſtome ſaith of himſelfe that hee celebrated every day, though there were no body to participate with him.
The Councell of Nants forbidding Prieſts to celebrate alone, ſpeaketh only of not ſaying Maſſe all alone, without one or two to anſwer; to whom the Prieſt may ſeeme to ſpeake, when hee ſaith, Dominus vobiſcum, and the like; but whats this to ſaying Maſſe without ſome body to communicate with him?
The Councell of Trent doth not bleſſe and curſe out of the ſame mouth, or approve or condemne the ſame thing, when it commendeth ſacramentall communion of the people together with the Prieſt, and yet condemneth thoſe who ſay private Maſſes are unlawfull. For it is one thing for the Councell to wiſh that the people would communicate, becauſe to heare Maſſe and receive withall will be more profitable: an other to ſay, that if there bee no body to communicate, ſuch a Maſſe is unlawfull, or that the Prieſt muſt not ſay Maſſe.
The Hammer.
THe Ieſuits anſwer to this Section of the Knight, wherein hee impugneth private Maſſe by foure texts of Scripture, two Canons of Councells, and twelve pregnant Confeſſions of Romiſh Doctours, conſiſteth partly of ſophiſmes, and partly of ſarcaſmes, to both which I purpoſe to returne a ſhort and ſmart anſwer, firſt by refuting his ſophiſmes, and after by retorting his ſarcaſmes.
To the firſt ſophiſticall anſwer I replie. That the words of our Saviour, Take, eat, Mat. 26.26.this is my body were ſpoken to all future communicants as well as to the Apoſtles then preſent, for they containe in them an inſtitution of a Sacrament to bee celebrated in all Chriſtian Churches, till the end of the world, as the Apoſtle teacheth us from the 23. to the 28. eſpecially at the 26 verſe,1 Cor. 11. as often as yee eate this bread, and drinke this cup, ye ſhew the Lords death till he come. This the Apoſtles in their perſons alone could not fulfill, for they lived not till Chriſts ſecond comming: they muſt of neceſſitie therefore bee extended to all that in ſucceeding ages ſhould bee preſent at the Lords Supper, who are as much bound by this precept of Chriſt to communicate with the Prieſt, or diſpencer of the Sacrament, as the Apoſtles were to communicate with Chriſt himſelfe, when hee firſt in his owne perſon adminiſtred it; otherwiſe if the precepts Take, eate, doe this in remembrance of mee appertained to the Apoſtles only, what warrant hath any Prieſt now to conſecrate the elements? or adminiſter the Sacrament? nay, what command have any faithfull at all to receive the Communion? Yea but ſaith the Ieſuit, if not only the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors, but all the faithfull are here enjoyned to eate: it would follow that whenſoever the Sacrament is adminiſtred, all muſt communicate that are in the Church at the ſame time. It will follow that all who are bid to the Lords table, and come prepared to whom the Prieſt in the perſon of Chriſt ſaith, Take eate, this is my body ought to communicate;De eccleſ. obſerv. ſciendum juxta antiquos patres quod ſoli cōmunicantes divinis myſterijs inter eſſe conſueverint. Orat. de conſecrat. diſt. 2. peractâ conſecratione omnes communicent niſi malint eccleſiaſticis carere liminibus. and this was the cuſtome of the ancient Church as Micrologus teacheth, Wee muſt know, ſaith he, according to the ancient Fathers, that none but Communicants were wont to be preſent at the myſteries, and therefore before the Communion, the Catechumenie and penitents which were not prepared to communicate, were commanded to depart ite, Miſſa eſt: and wee find an ancient Canon of the Roman Church attributed to Gelaſius, enjoyning all under paine of excommunication that are preſent after the Conſecrationis finiſhed, to participate of the bleſſed Sacrament.
To the ſecond. The precept of the Apoſtle, bee ye followers of mee as I am of Chriſt, 1 Co. 11.1. is generall, and reacheth as well to acts of pietie, as charitie. As non eſt diſtinguendum ubi lex non diſtinguit, ſo non eſt reſtringendum ubi lex non reſtringit; as wee may not diſtinguiſh where the law doth not diſtinguiſh: ſo we muſt not reſtraine where the law hath no reſtriction. The Ieſuite himſelfe ſaith, that S. Pauls imitation is directed to all, if to all, then to Prieſts; and againe hee ſaith, theſe words come in very fitly to prove that in all things that appertaine unto ſalvation wee ſhould ſeeke to imitate S. Paul as hee doth Chriſt. And I hope the Ieſuit holdeth the worthy receiving of the Sacrament a matter of ſalvation. I am ſure the Apoſtle ſaith, 1 Cor. 11. Hee that eateth and drinketh unwerthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himſelfe. But what need wee diſpute this point any further? ſith the Apoſtle after hee had delivered this precept in the beginning of the chapter, in purſuit thereof at the 23 verſe inſtanceth in the Sacrament it ſelfe, ſaying, What I received of the Lord, that I delivered unto you, that the Lord Ieſus the ſame night hee was betrayed tooke bread &c. Surely if wee are to follow the Apoſtle in the performance of morall duties, much more of religious, and this the Ieſuit in the end is compelled to grant, and therefore addeth for his further anſwer, that Catholique Prieſts doe imitate S. Paul in the adminiſtration of the Sacrament, becauſe they are ready to communicate with all ſuch as come worthily to receive. Catholique Prieſts, that is in his language Romaniſts imitate S. Paul in their Maſſe; wherein? and how? he adminiſtred a Sacrament, they offer a ſacrifice: hee prayed in a knowne tongue, they in the Latine unknowne to the people: he acknowledgeth no Lords ſupper where there is not a Communion,1 Cor. 10.17. whereby many are made one bread and one body, becauſe they all partake of that one bread; they ſay private Maſſes in which the Prieſt bids the people eate, and drinke, but eateth and drinketh all himſelfe: hee ſpeaketh of breaking of bread, they breake none at all: hee commandeth every one to examine himſelfe, and ſo to eate of that bread, and drinke of that cup, ver. 28. They forbid the Laytie to touch the cup: and call they this an imitation of the Apoſtle? is it not rather an immutation and violation of the Apoſtles holy precepts and practiſe? in theſe things they tread in the Apoſtles ſteps, as the Antipodes doe in ours, who are therefore ſo ſtiled, becauſe their feet and ſteps are diametrally oppoſite to ours.P. 194. Yea but ſaith Flood, there are many things which S. Paul did, and wherein he did deſire to bee followed, as chaſtening of his body, faſting and prayer, in which Proteſtants are not ſo well able to prove themſelves followers of him, as Papiſts can doe. I anſwer, that although S. Paul in this place ſpeaketh of no ſuch thing, neither can his words reaſonably bee ſtretched to the chaſtening and beating downe of his body to bring it in ſubjection, becauſe hee addeth, as I am of Chriſt bee ye followers of mee as I am of Chriſt. Now wee reade not that Chriſt beate his owne body, or needed to endeavour to bring it into ſubjection, which was alwayes ſo from the beginning: yet let him rightly underſtand the Apoſtles practiſe in taming his fleſh, and ſubduing his body, and he will find Proteſtants as ready to follow him as any the moſt auſtere Papiſt. For by taming his body hee meaneth not whipping or ſcourging, which Papiſts receive by tradition from the heretiques called flagellantes or the whippers: nor was his faſting an abſtinence from fleſh and feeding on the daintieſt fiſh, and powring downe the ſweeteſt and ſtrongeſt wines,Act. 28.33. Ye have continued faſting, having taken nothing, wherfore I pray you to take ſome meate, for this is for your health. but an afflicting his body by watching, continuall labour, and faſting from all kind of ſuſtenance, and ſuch faſts not only private Chriſtians among us keepe often, but our whole Church in publike calamities by the command of ſupreame authoritie religiouſly obſerveth, and hath reaped ſingular benefits thereby.
To the third. That the precept of S. Paul, to tary one for another when they came to eate, appertaineth to the Sacrament is evident,1 Cor. 11.20. firſt by that hee calleth it the Lords ſupper which they came together to eate, when yee come together in one place, this is not to cate the Lords Supper. Now that by the Lords Supper, not the Agape which were not inſtituted by him, but the Sacrament is meant not only S. Auſtin and S. Cyprian, Ep. 118.tract. de coen. dom. and the Fathers generally quoted by Caſaubonus, Exercit. 16. ſect. 23. Baron. annal. tom. 1. An. 34. Conſtat coenam domini ſic enim patres appellare conſuevere inſtitutionem ſacratiſſimae Euchariſtiae. Greg. Valent. Tom. 4. diſp. 6. q. 1. puncto 1. ſolet vocari hoc ſacramentum coena domini ſicut appellavitbut Baronius and Gregorius de Valentia, and the Fathers in the Catechiſme of the Councell of Trent expreſly affirme. Secondly, it is evident by the coherence of the Apoſtles diſcourſe in this chapter, who having reproved ſome abuſes in eating the Lords Supper, to ſet an edge upon his reproofe relateth, v. 23. & ſequentibus the inſtitution of the bleſſed Sacrament, and from thence inferreth, verſe the 33. and 34. wherefore my brethren, when you come together to eate tary one for another, and if any man hunger let him eate at home, that ye come not together to condemnation. Yea but ſaith the Ieſuit,Apoſtolus 1 Cor. 11. & Chryſoſtomus, hom 1. de coena dom. quamſanè appellationem tanquā à veteribus patribus uſurpatā commemorat quo que catechiſmus Romanus. Catechiſ. Trid. pat. tract de ſacram. Alt ſanctiſſimi patres Apoſtolorum authoritatem ſecuti coenae etiam nomine euchariſtiam interdum vocârunt, quòd illâ noviſſimâ coenâ ſalutari myſterio à Chriſto domi no ſit inſtituta. ſome among the Corinthians exceeded others, and ſome did want, ſome were drunke, and ſome went away hungrie, which could not pertaine to the Sacrament as every one knoweth. I grant theſe abuſes could not fall out in the very act of receiving the Sacrament in which every one had but ſome part of the Conſecrated bread, and a draught alſo of the holy Cup in ſuch a ſmall meaſure and quantitie, as they could not bee diſtempered thereby: neither doth the Apoſtle taxe theſe abuſes at the Lords Supper, but in their owne ſupper which they tooke before, v. 21. their diſorders in theſe hee ſharply reproves, not only as breaches of the Morall law, and acts of intemperance, but alſo as prophanation of the Sacrament, to which they ought to have come with a holy preparation before. Yea but ſaith the Ieſuit, the diſtribution of the Sacrament belonged to the Prieſts, not to the people who are here reprehended for their manner of making their ſuppers. I anſwer, that albeit it appertaineth to the Prieſts to deliver the ſacred elements, and the people to receive them from them: yet becauſe the Prieſts cannot give, if none bee to take from them, the people who either abſented themſelves from the Communion, or came not together, but one after another, are juſtly reproved: becauſe by this their negligence or diſorder, the Sacrament could not bee ſo decently, or ſolemnly celebrated, as it ought. Now if the Apoſtle as the Ieſuit will have it, requireth the people to tary one for another, before they began their feaſts called Agapae; how much more thinke you would hee require this dutie of expecting one the other before they began the Lords Supper? which is one of the chiefeſt and moſt publike Act and ſervice, whereby we profeſſe, and expreſſe the Communion of Saints. The neglect of the former dutie in not ſtaying for their gueſts at their Agapae, could bee at the moſt but a diſcourteſie or incivilitie; but the neglect in the later, as the Apoſtle teacheth, trenched upon their conſcience, and hazarded their ſalvation, wherefore my brethren, ſaith the Apoſtle, v. 33.34. When you come together to eate tarie one for another, and if any man hunger, let him eate at home that you come not together to condemnation.
To the fourth. The text of the Apoſtle, the cup of bleſsing, which wee bleſſe, 1 Cor. 10.16:is it not the Communion of the bloud of Chriſt? the Bread which wee breake, is it not the Communion of the body of Chriſt, for wee being many are one bread and one body, becauſe wee are all partakers of that one bread, is pertinently alledged by the Knight againſt private Maſſe, which is a communion without communicants; much like to Caeſars monument,Philippica. 1. which the Oratour fitly tearmeth inſepultam ſepulturam, an unburied buriall. How is the cup of bleſſing a Communion if none pledge as it were the one the other in it? how is the Bread a Communion if it bee communicated to none? How are the people made one bread, and one body by it, if they partake not of it. I grant the union betweene the head and members, and Prieſt and people may remaine though the Prieſt ſay Maſſe, and the people receive not: as likewiſe it may remaine though the Prieſt ſay no Maſſe, nor communicate himſelfe, becauſe, there are other meanes of this Communion beſides the Sacrament: yet becauſe this Sacrament was ordained principally to confirme this union, and communion, and from thence taketh its name, they who impropriate a common, and of a publike communion make a private Maſſe, deſtroy both the name and nature of this Sacrament. Moreover, as the worthy participation of the Sacrament wonderfully confirmeth: ſo it was inſtituted by Chriſt to repreſent the union of the Prieſt with the people, which cannot bee done in private Maſſes wherein the Prieſt communicateth alone. For that repreſenteth rather a diſtinction and ſeparation of the Prieſt from the people, then an union. Yea but (ſaith the Ieſuit) if this argument of the Knight were good, it would follow that not only ſome, but all the people muſt receive together with the Prieſt, and that the people muſt not receive one without the other. I anſwer, that it followeth indeed that all the people that are ſolemnly invited by the Prieſt, and come prepared, ought to receive together; and this the Apoſtles words ſtrongly enforce, wee being many are one bread and one body, 1 Cor. 10.17.becauſe wee are all partakers of that one bread, marke it, all partakers of one bread, and therefore all one bread and one body. How can Papiſts make this argument good out of their private Maſſes, wherein none partaketh of the Bread, or taſteth of the Cup but the Prieſt?
To the fifth. By the Iurie of twelve men true and honeſt in the Ieſuits account, (for they all lived and died in the communion of the Church of Rome) all Prieſts that ſay, (I cannot ſay celebrate) private Maſſes are caſt as tranſgreſſours of the traditions and cuſtomes of the primitive Church; Nay farther as noveliſts and innovators. For they all teſtifie and that joyntly, that the practiſe of the primitive Church is for our publike Communion, and againſt their private Maſſes, true ſaith the Ieſuit, they teſtifie concerning the practiſe of the primitive Church, but they affirme not that the contrary practiſe was unlawfull: the people then did communicate ordinarily with the Prieſt, but there was no neceſsitie ſo to doe. Admit this anſwer were true, that the verdict of this Iurie paſſed for the practiſe and manner of the primitive Church, not for any Canon or precept ſo to doe: yet the Knight hath the better of the cauſe. For they all prove that for which hee produceth them, viz. that by the confeſsion of our Adverſaries antiquitie is for us in this point, and that there was a Church celebrating the Lords Supper as we doe, in the firſt and beſt ages when there was no Church extant in the world, either maintaining or practiſing private Maſſes. No man doubteth but that the conſtant and uniforme practiſe of the primitive Church ought to ſway more with all religious Chriſtians,De ſacrific. Miſſ. Dur. rat. l. 4. c. 53. in primitivâ eccleſiâ omnes qui celebrationi miſſarum intererant communicabant. Bellith. in explicat can. c. 50 Micro. de eccleſ. obſervat. Tolos de Ritibus c. 38. Innocent. 3. l. 6. myſter. miſ. c. 5 Odo. in expoſ. ean. antiquitùs nullae miſſae ſine collectâ, hoc eſt, caetu aliquo modò offerentium, & ſacramenta participantiura agebantur. Iuſtin. in 1 Cor. 10. olim quod nunc etiam Graeci uſurpant, ex uno eodem que pane cō ſecrato delibatae particulae ſingulis tribuebantur ut melius unio & conjunctio cum Chriſto at que apertiùs ſignificaretur. then any novell conſtitution or practiſe of any later Church whatſoever. If wee had nothing but their practiſe, that alone were of great moment. Yet wee have more, I meane their judgement. For ſith whatſoever is not of faith is ſinne, eſpecially in actions of this nature, their conſtant and uniforme practiſe in this kind, may ſerve as a demonſtration to any ſober-minded man, that what they did, they thought moſt agreeable to Chriſts inſtitution. But the Witneſſes depoſe farther, for ſome come home to the point of unlawfulneſſe of private Maſſes. Albeit Cocleus ſaith no more then that anciently the Prieſts and people did communicate together; and Durandus, that all that were preſent at the celebration of the Maſſe did every day communicate. And Bellichus and Micrologus, and Tholoſanus, and Innocentius the Third, that in the infancie of the Church, all that were preſent together at the Sacrament were wont to communicate. Yet Odo Cameracenſis goeth a ſtep farther, ſaying, in the Primitive Church they never had Maſſes without the convention of the people to communicate together. Iuſtinian addeth to the practiſe of the primitive Church, the preſent practiſe of the Greeke Church backing them both with a good reaſon, In ancient times, ſaith hee, which the Greeke Church uſeth at this day of one loafe of bread Conſecrated, divers parts were diſtributed to each communicant, that by this their Communion their union with Chriſt might bee more plainly expreſſed. Hugo de S. Vict. in ſpec. eccleſ. poſt baec dicitur communio quae ſic appellatur ut omnes communicemus, vel dicitur communio quia in primitivâ eccleſiâ populus communicabat quolibet die. Caſſand. de ſolitar. miſſ. propriè communio dici non poteſt niſi plures de eodem ſacrificio participant. Ioan citat Caſſand. conſult de ſolit. miſſ. res ipſa clamat tam in Graecâ quàm in Latinâ eccleſiâ non ſolùm ſacerdotes ſacrificantes, ſed & reliques presbyteros, diaconos, nec non & reliquam plebem aut ſaltem aliquam plebis partem communicàſſe, quod quomodo ceſſaverit mirandū eſt, &c. Bellar. li 2 de miſſ. c 9 et 10 Durandus de hoeret. l. 2. c. 4.and Hugo out ſtrippeth him, ſaying, it is therefore called the Communion, to teach us that we ought all to communicate of it, or becauſe the people in the primitive Church did communicate every day together. Caſſander enforceth the Argument drawne from the name of this Sacrament yet farther againſt private Maſſes, it cannot bee ſaid properly a Communion, but where ſome people are partakers of the ſame ſacrifice with the Prieſt. And laſtly Iohannes Hoffmiſterus not only ſpeaketh plainly, but cryeth out againſt your private Maſſes, The thing it ſelfe doth ſpeake and cry alowd, that both in the Greeke and the Latine Church, not only the ſacrificing Prieſt, but the other Prieſts and Deacons, and the reſt of the people, or at least ſome part of the people did communicate together, and how this cuſtome ceaſed it is to bee wondered, and wee ought to endeavour that it may bee reſtored againe in the Church. Yea but ſaith the Ieſuit, Bellarmine and Durand prove by manifeſt authoritie, that in the Eaſterne Church in the time of S. Ambroſe, S. Auſtine and Chryſoſtome, the people did communicate but once a yeare: and yet S. Chryſoſtome even there where hee complaineth of the peoples coldneſſe, ſaith of himſelfe, that hee celebrated every day, though there were none to communicate with him. I anſwer, that the publike and ſolemne time at which all were bound to communicate in the Eaſterne Church, was but once a yeare, to wit at Eaſter: yet did the people in thoſe dayes both at other times, and eſpecially when they lay on their death-bed, receive the Communion: which was therefore called Viaticum morientium. As for S. Chryſoſtome; 'tis true that he much complaineth of the backwardneſſe of the people in comming to the Communion, and profeſſeth for his owne part, that hee neglected not his dutie to celebrate the holy Sacrament, though hee were much diſcouraged therein by the paucitie and raritie of thoſe, who preſented themſelves at the Lords Table: yet I find not that he any where ſaith, that he celebrated the Communion when there was none to participate with him. For though it may bee at ſome time eſpecially on the weeke dayes, none of the people did communicate with him: yet alwayes ſome of the Clergie, who aſſiſted that action communicated with him; and therefore the Ieſuits inference, that by our doctrine the Prieſt muſt not ſay Maſſe once in ſeven yeares, unleſſe the people bee ſo devout as to receive with him, is moſt abſurd. For in all Colledges, and Cathedrall Churches, the Prieſts and Deacons communicate every monethmonth at the leaſt, though none of the people ſometimes receive with them. But in pariſh Churches it were a prophanation and a meere mockerie to adminiſter the Communion without ſome of the people, to ſay, Take, eate, and drinke you all of this, when there is none to eate or drinke but the Prieſt himſelfe, none, I ſay, neither Layk nor Clergie man.
To the ſixt. The Canon of the Councell of Nants is mounted againſt ſolitarie Maſſes; and what are ſolitarie Maſſes but private Maſſes? the Fathers in that Councell account it a ridiculous ſuperſtition in a Prieſt, to ſay, the Lord bee with you, and lift up your hearts, and wee give thankes unto the Lord, or let us pray, when there is none to make anſwer,Concil Nan. c. 30. & Caſſand. p. 83. or preſent whom hee inviteth to pray with him; and is it not altogether as abſurd and ridiculous for the Prieſt to ſay as hee doth in all private Maſſes, Take, eate, De myſter. miſſae, c. 15. piè credendum eſt quòd Angeli dei comites aſſiſtant orantibus.and drinke yee all of this, when there is none to eate or drinke with him? Neither will Innocentius evaſion ſerve the turne, that wee are piouſly to beleeve that though there are no men preſent, yet that the Angels accompanie them that pray; for neither can the Angels joyne in ſuch formes of prayer as are uſed, looke upon our infirmities, and deliver us from fornication and other deadly ſinnes: neither is it agreeable to ſound Divinitie or Philoſophie to bid Angels that are ſpirits receive the body and bloud of our Saviour. Here for want of better anſwer the Ieſuit picketh a quarrell with the Knight for not citing the Councell of Nants out of any originall but out of Caſſander, Flood. p. 197.beyond whom and one or two more ſuch fellowes, ſaith he, it ſeemeth his learning did not ſtretch. I will repay him in his owne coyne. For the Ieſuit himſelfe citeth not the Councell of Nants out of any originall but out of Bellarmine and Burchard, beyond whom, P. 197, l. 27.and one or two more ſuch fellowes, it ſeemeth his learning did not ſtretch. Is it no diſparagement for Flood a profeſſor in Divinitie, and writer of Controverſies to cite a Canon of a Councell out of Bellarmine his fellow-Ieſuit, and is it a diſparagement for a Knight no profeſſed Divine, to cite a Canon of a Councell out of Caſſander a moſt learned Doctour, and great Antiquarie in high eſteeme when hee lived in the Roman Church? If the Ieſuit anſwer that hee could not cite the originall, becauſe that Decree is not now extant in any Councell of Nants that wee have, with one and the ſame anſwer hee juſtifieth the Knight as well as himſelfe. It is no argument of Ignorance, but rather of faithfulneſſe and ſinceritie when a man cannot come to the ſight of a record himſelfe to tranſcribe it out of others verbatim, who have ſeene it and avouch them for it.
To the ſeventh. The Councell of Trent like Satyrus in the Poet bloweth out of the ſame mouth hot and cold; 3. V. 11.or like the fountaine in S. Iames, ſendeth forth at the ſame place ſweet water and bitter, c. 6. can. 8. optaret quidem ſacro-ſancta ſynodus ut populus qui aſtat communicaret, quòd hujus ſanctiſſimi ſacrificij fructus uberior proveniret.for the Councell accurſeth them who ſay private Maſſes are unlawfull, and yet wiſheth that there might bee no private Maſſes. It is true that it is one thing to wiſh that the people would communicate becauſe to heare Maſſe and receive withall, will bee more profitable: another to ſay, if there bee none to communicate the Prieſt muſt not ſay Maſſe, or that ſuch Maſſe is unlawfull, yet there is ſuch affinitie betweene theſe two ſayings, that a good argument may bee drawne from the one to the other. For hee that wiſheth a reformation in private Maſſes, or (which is all one) that of private Maſſes they were made publike Communions, conſequently acknowledgeth that private Maſſes are faultie, or defective: and if faulty ſo farre as they are faulty, unlawfull.
And thus the indifferent reader may ſee that the water of this Flood wants aſhes and ſoap to bee mingled with it, lavat enim non perluit, for it waſheth but ſcowreth not, nor fetcheth out foule ſtaines in the Maſſe-prieſts linnen.
Having refuted his ſophiſmes,Loemel. ſpong feles unguentorum fragrantiâ, & Tigres pulſu tympanorum in rabiens aguntur. I come now to retort his Sarcaſmes. Tigers if they heare a drum grow madde: in this ſection the Knight ſounded an alarum, and cauſed the drum to beate hard, at the ſound whereof the Ieſuit his adverſarie after the manner of the Tiger groweth ſtarke madde, and ſnappeth at every one hee meeteth. Firſt hee falleth upon the Knight for creating a Cardinall, to wit, Hugo de S. Victore, Flood p. 188.of his owne free goodneſſe to make up the number of his Biſhops and Cardinals. I anſwer for the knight, that he created no ſupernumerall Cardinall: for he would not uſurpe upon the Poges priviledge; but committed a ſmall errour in an … and cry, which was made after one Hugh in ſtead of another, yet peradventure it was not the Knights miſtake, but the Correctors. For Hugh of S. Victor, though he hath his Cardinals hat in the margent, yet hee ſtandeth bareheaded in the text (it is called a Communion, Lynd ſafe way p. 119.becauſe it is a common union of Prieſts and people, otherwiſe, ſaith Hugo, it is called a Communion, for that the people in the primitive Church did communicate every day.) But admit the Knight miſtooke Hago de S. Victore, for Hugo Cardinalis, as Bellarmine confeſſeth, that many learned men of his owne ſide miſtooke Anſelmus Laudunenſis, for Cantuarienſis; yet Flood ſhould have pardoned or let paſſe and overſeene this ſmall overſight, becauſe wee tooke him at a worſe fault in the like kind in examining his laſt Section, wherein as I there ſhewed hee groſly miſtaketh Bertram for Elfrick, and a collation of two Authours for a tranſlation of one.
Loripedem rectus derideat Aethiopem albus. Eraſ. Adag.after this hee jeareth at the Knight for ſaying that the Councell of Trent wiſhed well to our doctrine,P. 189. What, ſaith hee, have you Maſſes Sir Humfrey? take heed it may coſt you money: an Informer that ſhould heare this might catch you by the backe, and bring you in for ſo many hundred markes as you have received bits of bread in your Church, which truly might prove a deere ordinarie for you. The Orator ſaid well,Cic. pre Coel. nihil tam volucre quàm maledictam, nothing is ſo eaſily caſt out as a contumelious word, and I may adde nothing ſo eaſily returned backe. The Knight no where ſaith that wee have any Maſſes in our Church, but only that the Councell of Trent wiſheth well to publike Communions wherein the people communicate with the Prieſt, which are not certainly your private Maſſes: but admit hee had ſaid wee have Maſſes in our Church, hee might very well have defended this ſpeech by my Lord of Dureſme his diſtinction of Chriſt his Maſſe, Tho. Mor. epiſc. Dunelm. l. nitit. Chriſt his Maſſe.and the Pope his Maſſe. Wee have Chriſt his maſſe at every communion, neither is any man merced for being preſent at it, but for being abſent from it. For Maſſes are not ſold with us, as they are with Papiſts where there is a price ſet for drie Maſſes, and wet Maſſes, for low Maſſes and high Maſſes; the ordinarie was but a groat for the one, and a teſter for the other, but now it is raiſed; and ſo to ſpeake in the Ieſuits language the Prieſts Maſſes prove a Deere ordinarie for the Laitie. After this madde Tiger hath left the Knight, hee faſtens his teeth upon our Communion Table, calling it an emptie Communion, nothing but a morſell of bread, P. 190.and a ſup of wine, and a prettie ſervice and good-fellow Communion. P. 199.Flood is the ſame full and faſting, in jeaſt and in earneſt, for in both hee contradicts himſelfe, which diſcouereth an idle and addle braine. If our Communion bee emptie and nothing but a morſell of bread, and a ſup of wine what good-fellowſhip can there bee in it? But in good earneſt how can the Ieſuit call ours an emptie Communion, which is every way full, and fuller then theirs, both for the ſignes, and the things ſignified? for the ſignes, we have the ſubſtance of Bread and Wine, they nothing but hungrie accidents and ſhewes, a bit of quantity, and a morſell of colours, and a ſoppe of figures; neither have the Laitie among them ſo much as a ſup of the conſecrated cup. For the thing ſignified we teach that all communicants by faith feed on the very body and bloud of Chriſt, and all that ſo feed partake of all the benefits of Chriſts paſſion: they teach that Infidels and reprobates eate Chriſts body, and reape no benefit at all by it. As for his good-fellow Communion, let him take it to himſelfe, for Aquinas noteth, that ſometimes their Prieſts are overſeene by drinking the liquor in the Conſecrated cup, Miſſal. in cautel. ſi in caſu gulae Euchariſtiam evomuerit.and the cautels of the Maſſe appoint what is to bee done in caſe the Prieſt being drunke before caſt up the hoſt. As for our Communion there can bee no exceſſe, or as hee tearmeth it good-fellowſhip in it. For the people have warning a weeke at leaſt before to prepare themſelves, and they receive alwayes faſting before, and the quantitie is ſo ſmal that it cannot diſtemper any, which this bone Compaignion could not bee ignorant of: But it ſeemeth hee tooke a cup of vinum Theologicum in the Taverne before hee ſet pen to paper in this ſection. For beſidemanifold contradictions before noted, hee tearmeth in it our Commnuion ſacrilegious, P. 199.not conſidering that they ſacrilegiouſly take the cup from the Laity, and that we have reſtored it, and he concludeth the Section with theſe words, here is enough of ſuch an idle ſubject. Now the ſubject as appeares by the argument of the Section, and the title he putteth throughout, is Private Maſſe. Nay which is a moſt certaine demonſtration of his diſtemper; when hee wrote this Section hee forgot that hee was a Prieſt, and reckoneth himſelfe among the Laitie, ſaying, the union may remaine betweene us and the Prieſt, P. 197. l. 1.though he ſay Maſſe, and wee not receive.