A Case for the Spectacles, Chapter 9 · 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 eate hee speaketh to the people, who made the suppers called Agape, as is plaine by the text wherein hee 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, eate, this is my body were spoken to all future communicants as well as to the Apostles then present,Mat. 26.26. 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; and this was the custome of the ancient Church as Micrologus teacheth,De eccles. observ. sciendum juxta antiquos patres quod soli cōmunicantes divinis mysterijs interesse consueverint. Orat. de consecrat. dist. 2. peractâ consecratione omnes communicent nisi malint ecclesiasticis carereliminibus. 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 Consecration is 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 unworthily, 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. Yea but saith Flood, there are many things which S. Paul did, P. 194.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. Te 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, first by that hee calleth it the Lords supper which they came together to eate,1 Cor. 11.20. when yee come together in one place, this is not to eate 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. g. 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 c…ena dom. quam sarè appellationem tanquā à veteribus patribus usurpatā commemorat quo{que} catechismus Romanus. Cathechis. Trid. pat. tract de sacram. Alt. sanctissimi patres Apostolorum authoritatem secuti coenae etiam nomine eucharistiam interdum vocârunt, quòd illâ …ovissimâ c…enâ salutari mysterio à Christo domino 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 cary one for another, before they began their feasts called Agape; 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. can. antiquitùs nullae missae sine collectâ, hoc est, caet… aliquo modò offerentium, & sacramenta participantium agebantur. Iustin. in 1 Cor. 10. olim quod nunc etiam Graeci usurpant, ex uno eodem{que} pane cōsecrato delibatae particulae singulis tribuebantur ut melius unio & conjunctio cum Christo at{que} apertiùs significaeretur. 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 everyday 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 commuxio 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 & reliquos presbyteros, diaconos, nec non & reliquam plebem aut saltem aliquam plebis partem communicàsse quod quo modo 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 ceàsed 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 everyday, 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 sometime 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, I come now to retort his Sarcasmes.Loemel. spong feles unguentorum fragrantiâ, & Tigres pulsu tympanorum in rabiem aguntur. 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 Popes priviledge; but committed a small errour in an hue 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 bare-headed 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 Hugo 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.
Eras. Adag…Loripedem rectus derideat Aethiopem albus. 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 c…utel. se 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 beside manifold contradictions before noted, hee tearmeth in it our Communion 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.