The Apostles did annoint many sicke men with oile and healed them Mark 6. 13 therefore Extreame vnction is a Sacrament enâ—oined by Christ to the Apostles Ans 1. That annointing was a temporarie thing neither hath it any commaundemeÌ„t that we should do the like 2. By the same reason the handkerchiefs of Paul Act 19. 12. and the shadowe of Peter whereby manie sicke men were healed Acts. 15. 15. should be Sacraments 3. The text speaketh of miraculous gifts which because they endured but for a time doe not come within the coÌ„passe of Sacraments 3 Is any man sicke among you let him call for the elders of the Church and let them pray for him and annoint him with oile c. Iames 5. 14. Answer 1. It followeth not Iames speaketh of oile therefore of oile of Extreame vnction magicallie exorcized 2. That annointing was not extreame vnction but was for the recoverie of health whereas on the contrarie side extreame vnction is administred in Poperie to them which are readie foorth-with to die when there is no hope of any recoverie 3 The meaning of Saint Iames is that praier should be made for the sick that their sinnes may bee forgiven them whereby they haue drawne sicknes vpon them but thence ariseth no Sacrament 4. Caietan no meane Cardinall among the Papists saith this place cannot bee vnderstoode of extreame vnction but of the miraculous annointing spoken of Mark 6. Whereof hee giveth three reasons 1 Because Iames doth not say Is anie man sicke vnto death but simply is any man sicke 2 The end and effect heereof is the easing of the sicke but of remission of sins he speaketh not but only conditionally wheras Extreame vnction is not administred but at the point of death is directly intended for remission of sinnes 3 Iames bids call for many Ministers to one sicke man both to pray for him and to annoint him which is much different from the rite of Extreame vnction So one of their owne pillars hath wyped them of two places at once This of Iames and the sixth of Marke which are the onely shewes of authoritie the Papists haue for this forged Sacrament CHAP. 15. Of Transsubstantiation OVr Aduersaries doe expound the sacramentall vnion in the Eucharist to bee by manner of Transsubstantiation whereby they imagine that after the words of consecration the elements doe altogether vanish away and are changed into the substance of the body and bloud of Christ so that besides the bare accidents which are seene tasted and felt there remaineth no whit of the elements in the Sacrament but we denie that there needes any such fiction of Transsubstantiation for the making of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and that for these reasons The nature of a Sacrament requireth that there be together an earthly and an heavenlie lie matter as Irenaeus saith or not that the substance be changed but that grace be adioined as Theodoret speaketh Because there be other meanes of Sacramentall vnion than by Transsubstantiation alone as is apparent in Baptisme Christ saith not This shall bee made my body or this is changed into my body but This is my body to wit by sacramentall relation and vnion as in other Sacraments Paul the heavenly Interpreter of Christs words doth not admit Transsubstantiation but doth so interprete the sacramentall vnion that stil the visible elements remaine or the bread of the Sacrament after the consecration hee calleth bread still to giue vs to vnderstand that the substance of the bread remaineth still 1 The bread saith he which we breake that is distribute after the consecration is it not the communion of the body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2. All we are partakers of one bread 1. Corinth 10. 16. 3. As often as yee shall eate this bread 1 Cor 11. 26. 4. Whosoeuer shall eate this bread vers 27. 5. Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of this bread verse 28. So haue the Fathers explaned this mysterie that they declare that the elements remaine as Receaue that in the bread spiritually by faith which hanged vppon the Crosse Augustine These manner of speaches in the Scripture are almost alike God is man This is my beloved sonne In which phrases is noted the most neare and straite vnion of the two natures in Christ farre straiter and more neare than this of the Sacrament and yet is not concluded the transsubstantiation of one nature into another or the abolishing of either nature Vpon the opinion of Transsubstantiation many absurdities doe follow 1 So Christ should be said to haue a twofold body or two bodies whereof the one should bee taken from the virgine Marie and the other should be made of bread 2. We should not receaue the body crucified for vs but a certaine other thing which an houre before was not that bodie but bread nay which a little before had no being in nature which is absurd and impious contrarie to the wordes of Christ whereby he promiseth vs that bodie that was given for vs and that bloud which was shed for vs. 3. Accidents are heereby made to bee without a subiect as if when the snow is melted the whitenes of the snow should remaine alone with out a subiect 4. Mise that gnawe the consecrated bread cannot gnaw bare accidents alone Therefore either accidents are substances that they may be subiect to the grinding of teeth or the glorified body of Christ is subiect to elementarie passions and naturall sufferings both of which are most absurd The like question may bee made concerning the burning of the Eucharist what it is that burneth whether bare accidents or the body of Christ 5 Infinite such other grosse absurdities may bee seene in the Writings of that famous man Wilhel Holderus de mure exenterato wherein are recited many other such like things according to the opinion of the Schoole men Our Aduersaries themselues doe not beleeve that there is Transsubstantiation 1. And therefore they seeke out other and more goodly words as annihilation of the elements or a ceasing of them to be desinition they call it 2. Gerson amongst his reasons for the communion vnder one kinde bringeth this as a reason why the cup should bee denied to the people because the wine might bee corrupt and turned into Flies and vineger If the wine be truly transsubstantiated then can it not bee corrupted vnlesse wee will say that Flies and vineger may be generated of the glorified body oâ— Christ or that they are generated of accidents there being no corporeall matter or substance required thereunto 3 Transsubstantiation was not belieued in the whole Church before * I take is this is a fault in the print that the Autor meaÌ„t to say 1300 yeares as â— câ—tur â— writers also do CeÌ„â— 13 cap col 622 for in the 13th centurie after Christ was the Councell of Lateran vnder InnoceÌ„tius the 3d. whereof the Autor heere speaketh which was the 〈◊〉 generall CouÌ„cell wherein TranssubstaÌ„tiation was
Latine tongue neither will they not therefore deride it too If when the whole Church is come together in one all speak staÌ„rge languages that is if nothing be done in the vulgar tonge there come in they that are vnlearned or they which beleeue not will they not say that ye are out of your wits as Paul saith 1 Cor. 14 23. Note that what is here spoken of the saying of Masse in Latine may also bee vnderstood of praiers rehearsed in Latine onely It is an abuse of the Masse also that they â— Abuse Masse for the dead offer the Masse not so much for the living as for the dead residing as the Papists thinke in Purgatorie and that they perswade them selues that the Masse doth profit the dead and that they are helped by the multitude of Masses the vanitie whereof how great it is shall bee declared afterward in the question of Purgatorie and therefore we will surcease from that labour now let it suffice that wee haue rehearsed now some fewe errors and abuses of the Masse in steede of many CHAP. 18. Of Communion vnder one kindâ— THE Antichrist of Rome hath moreover mangled the holy Supper of Christ and hath bereaved the people of the one part or kind of the Supper namely the Cup which hee pretendeth to appertaine not to the lay people but to the Priests onely but wee greatly reproue this mangling of the Supper as a kinde of sacriledge and that for most iust reasons Because it doth directly oppugne the sacred first institution of the Supper by our Lord Iesus Christ 1. For Christ instituted an entire whole Sacrament consisting of two kindes or rather of two parts and not a maimed Sacrament 2. Neither did hee institute two Sacraments of the Supper whereof the one which is for the Priests should consist of two parts or as they speake of two kinds the other for the people but of one This maiming of the Supper is repugnant to the expresse words of Christs Commaundement 1. Drinke yee a word of the Imperatiue Moode all of this Math. 26. 27. 2. And all of them drank of it according to his commandement Mar. 14 23. This was not barely commanded but in the vertue of a Testament which no man may disanull 1. For the Cup which our Aduersaries bereaue the people of is the Cup of the new Testament 1 â—oâ— 11. 25. Luk 22 20. 2. This is my bloud of the newe Testament Math. 26. 28. Mark 14 24. The Lord tyed the commemoration of his death to the Communion of the holie Cup also therefore the commemoration of the bloud Christ shed belongeth equally vnto all and consequently the Cup also As Christ ordained the bread as a means to partake his body which was given for vs that receaving the bread according to his ordinance we should therewith by â—aith receaâ—e his body also so hath hee ordained the Cuppe as a meanes for receaving his bloudâ— therefore seeing the lay people haue neede to receaue the bloud of Christ shedd for their sinnes it is needefull also to receaue it in the Cup the ordinarie meanes thereof and not in the bread Those thinges which Christ by the great wisedome of his Father did sever from them selues in the bread and the wine those doe our Aduersariâ—s confound together It is prooued that the ancient and Primitiue Church did communicate vnder both â—indes 1. By the example of the Corinthians to Note The B b in the counsell of Constance coÌ„sesse that the CoÌ„munion vnder one kinde was neither instituted by Christ nor vsed by the faithfull of the Primitiue Church those Papists the whom Paul prescribes the entire institution of the Supper equally to all 1 Corinth 11. 26 27 28. 2 By the Ecclesiasticall Histories in the times of the Fathers 3 By the confession of our Aduersaries in the Canons of the counsell of Constance which haue these words Though Christ did administer to his Disciples this venerable Sacrament vnder both the kindes of bread wine yet notwithstanding this the Communion vnder which would proue the CoÌ„munion vnder one kind by the Scripture doe reproue the counsell of CoÌ„stance for a lie and doe hold that the Counsell may erre one kinde onely is to be held for a law And againe Although in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receaved of the faithfull vnder both kindes yet notwithstanding this the custome being brought in c. 8 Seeing therefore that the Communion vnder one kinde was neither ordained by Christ nor vsed of the Apostles this constitution of Communion vnder one kinde onely can neither be Divine nor Apostolick but Antichristian as having had no place in the Church of Christ for many hundred yeares And when as afterward it crept into the Church by little and little in some places not every where it was at length confirmed brought in publickly by the counsell of Constance The lightnes of those reasons which they bring for the mangling of the Supper ought This booke was published by Gerson in the yeare 1417. August 20. to make it iustly hated of godly men Now wee will very briefly note the reasons of the counsell of Constance as Gerson hath explaned them in a particular booke for that purpose and these be they 1 If the cuppe were granted to the people there were danger of sheading 2 Danger in carying it from place to place 3 In the siâ—â—inesse of the vesselles which should bee Sacred and not commonly handled and touched by the Laickes 4 In mens long beards 5 In the reseruing of it for the sight For vineger might be generated in the vessell add moreouer that in summer time flyes might breedâ— in it some times the wine might puâ—rifie 6 Manie would abhorre to drinke it when manie others had drâ—nkâ— before them 7 In what vessell could there bee so much wine consecrated as would bee required at Easter time for some thousands of CoÌ„municants 8 There would bee losse in the chargeable prouiding of wine For in some places it is hardly gotten other where it is sould deere 9 There would be danger least it should congeale 10 Hereof would arise a danger of a false conceit as if there were as great worthinesse in the Laickes about receiuing Christs body as is in the Priests 11 It would be thought that the Communion of the cuppe hath beene heretofore and now were necessarie and so all the Doctors of the Cleargie and the Prelates which haue not opposed themselues against the contraâ—ie custome by their preâ—ching writing should haue offended 12 The power vertue of this sacrament would be deemed to be more in the receiuing than in the consecration of it 13 It woulde follow that the Church of Rome did not iudge soundly of the sacraments neither were herein to be imitated 14 It would follow that the Councell of Constance did erre in faith good manners 15 It would beâ— an occasion of Schismes in Christianity Had it beene
strange gentle Reader if this councel had been beaten to powder with lightning and thunder from Heauen which hath mangled turned vp side downe and broken the Testament and last will of the Son of God giuen vs in charge by the eternall Wisedome of GOD with such friuolous foolish and idle reasons Thus forsooth the Sacraments are to be handled so great ought to bee the authoritie of the Sonne of God in his Church with what burden of conscience then doo our Aduersaries defend this mangling Contrariwise our aduersarieâ— do dispute 1. Christ saith Doe this in remembrance of Mee that is administer the Supper in remembrance of Mee but this agreeth onely to Priests not to Laicks Therefore neither doth the Cup belongeth vnto the Laicks seeing it pertaineth â—ot to them to administer the Supper Ans 1 By this reason the Laicks should be thrust not from one but from both kinds of the Sacrament 2 The word Doe hath not only reference to him that administreth but to the coÌ„municants too Otherwise seeing the apostles did not administer in the 1 supper but onely receiued the Sacrament froÌ„ Christ they also should haue communicated but vnder one kinde 2 All the Apostles were Priests therefore the vse of the Cup and that precept Drinke ye c. belong to Priests onely Ans 1 Then the Primitiue CHVRCH did amisse and Paul the Apostle too who deliuered the Supper vnto the lay people not mangling the Communion of the Laicks as they call them but in such wise as hee had receiued it from the Lord that is so as it was deliuered vnto him 2 Againe by this reason the latity should bee excluded not from the cup onely but from the whole Sacrament 3 It cannot be that Apostles were then Priests that is sayers or doers of masse because then the masse had no beeing at all that the Apostles were made priests at the Supper it is a tale framed without authoritie of the scripture If it bee obiected that they were made Priests before when they were sent to preach the schoole-diuines denie it who say that they were made Priests at the supper and reduce the Apostles at the time of their sending forth into the order of exâ—rcists not of priests 6 Christ did not so institute both kindes that it may not be lawfull also to communicate vnder one kinde onely Answ 1 The Antecedent proposition is most false for it cannot be shewed in scripture that Christ did institute both kindes as a thing indifferent and arbitrarie 2 The words of Christ are vnanswerable Drinke ye all of this Now vnlesse they can shew a restriction or limitation in the scripture of this vniuersall proposition it remaiueth an vniuersall in his full force 3. It is a Doctour like interpretation Drinke ye all that is it is not needfull that all drinke Then those vniuersall sayings shall also bee so expounded Come vnto me all ye that are wearie that is it is not needefull that all which are wearie and heauie laden should come vnto me c. A rare kinde of Diuinitie no doubt 4 The true body of Christ is not without Concomitance bloude therefore seeing the bloude is contained also vnder hat kinde it is sufficient to communicate vnder one kinde onely Answer 1 This argument deserueth thunder claps and eternall brimstone Christ forsooth seemeth foolish to them who not considering that his bloud was coÌ„tained vnder his bodie instituted vnnecessary things in his last will as not hauing his wits well about him for feare of death But Wisedome is iustified of her children 2 And if vnder the breade there were the bodie not voide of bloude yet we should not so satisfie Christs commandement who commanded vs not to eate but to drinke drinke drinke his bloud 5 Paul saith whosoeuer shall eate this bread or drinke c. 1. Corin 11 17. there by the disiunctiue particle or is granted a Communion vnder one kinde Answer 1 If that were Paulls meaning then were it lawfull to communicate with the cup only without breade which seeing our Aduersaries denie they doe thereby expose the vanity of this argument to bee derided 2 Paul when hee describeth the institution of the Supper in its proper place 1 Corinth 11 24. 25 26 28. Vseth no disiunctiue particle 3. Our Aduersaries in running to the Greeke text doe against the councell of Trent which enioyneth the ould vulgar latine translation of the Bible to bee helde for authenticall in disputations so that no man may dare or presume to reiect it vpon any pretence what seeuer Sess 4 Decret 2. 6 Paul saith in the Greeke texte All wee are Partakers of one breade and those words et de vno calice and of one cup though they be in the olde translation yet they are not in the Greeke text Therefore Paul allowed a Communion vnder one kinde Answ 1 It is a failacie of composition and Division because those wordes are seuered from the entire and perfect reasoning of Paul by which words he argueth afterwarde from the communion of the cup as in the beginning hee did from the communion of the breade saying yee cannot drinke the cup of the Lord and the cuppe of deuills From these words a man might conclude by the same consequence as the Papists vpon their authoritie doe that it were lawfull to communicate with the cup onely without breade 7 Paul saith let vs keepe the feast in vnleauened breade 1 Cor. 5 8. There Paul maketh no mention of the cup insinuating one kinde onely Ans Paul speakes of the newnesse of life of the regenerate by an argument drawen from a rite of the Passeouer whereby they abstained from leauen This is then an idle inconsequent reason For these are Pauls words whole and entire let vs keep the feast not with olde leauen neither in the leauen of maâ—â—tiousnesse and wickednesse but with the vnleauened bread of sinceritie and truth These are nothing to the Lords supper there are then foure termes 8 Christ celebrated the supper vnder one kind onely before his two disciples in Emaus Luke 24 30. Ans 1. There is described Christs vsuall custome wherein hee vsed to breake bread at dinner or supper and to blesse it neither doth there appeare any shew of the celebration of the Supper in this storie The words are not said This is my body they are not bid eate or call to remembrance the Lords death neither is it said that the two Disciples did eate but it seemeth rather that they broke off their Supper straightwaies for ioy 9. Paul celebrated the Supper vnder one kinde onely in the ship Act. 27 35. Ans There is nothing at all of the Supper but of alaying their hunger vnlesse our Aduersaries would haue it that the heathen and vnconuerted Souldiours did communicate too and that they grewe to bee merie in the celebration of the Supper of the Lord as at a feast or banquet for both these are comprised in that rehearsall of Saint Luke The
cannot be without faith Romanes 14. 23. and faith is not without the word of God Romaines 10. 17. Seeing then we haue no word whereby we are bidden to worship the Eucharist faith falleth which is the primarie ground and stay of adoration If the Eucharist bee to be adored then by the like reason Baptisine should bee adored too because of the presence and effectuall operation of the holy Ghost But our Aduersaries denie this latter and therefore wee the former When Christ reached the Eucharist to his Disciples wee doe not reade any where that the Apostles rose vp and worshipped the Sacrament which out of doubt they would haue done if the Sacrament should haue beene adored Contrariwise our Aduersaries doe reason 1. Transsubstantiation takes away all occasion of Idolatrie therefore say they wee are vniustly accused of Idolatrie Ans 1. Transsubstantiation is a principle simply false therefore it is a begging of the question 2. If Transsubstantiation were granted yet it could not bee prooved that it should haue place out of the vse of the Sacraments these are therefore rotten and ruinous foundations 2. If it bee rightly adored in the vse why not rightly also out of the vse Ans Because the Sacrament out of the vse is no Sacrament As was declared a while agoe 3 Wheresoeuer Christ is there hee is to bee adored but Christ is in the consecrated host therefore he is to be worshipped in the hoste Answer 1 Wee worshipp Christ in the Eucharist for wee say at the Communion wee praise thee wee worship thee c. but wee worshipp not the Eucharist nor CHRIST as there carnally present 2 The maior proposition as it is proposed by the Papists is not simply and in all respects true For Christ was in Peter the Apostle yet Peter would not suffer himselfe to be worshipped Act 10 25 26. 4 If the manhoode of Christ which yet is a creature bee â—ightly adored because of the hypostaticall vnion why may not the bread be adored too because of the Sacramentall vnion Answere 1 There is great difference betweene the Sacramentall vnion and the personall vnion the one maketh one person and subsistence the other dooth not 2 The flesh of Christ never subsisted by any proper subsistence of his own before the incarnation but as soone as it beganne to haue a beeing it subsisted in the person of the Sonne of God and that not by any proper subsistence of his owne Hereof it commeth to passe that whosoeuer doth adore the Sonne of God that is the second person in Trinitie the same dooth also rightly adore the flesh of Christ which things seeing they be nothing so in the breade and wine of the Euchariste the case is nothing alike 3 The Sacramentall vnion is onely by relation and may bee dissolued the personall vnion is a most neare ioyning of two natures in one person which neuer can be dissolued 4 Concerning the worshipping of the flesh of Christ wee haue the word and examples in the Scripture but we want both for the worshipping of the Eucharist as was saide a while a goe QVESTION 3. Concerning carying about and inclosing the Eucharist in a boxe we deeme all those things impious Because they haue no commandement of God Because they are contrarie to the commandement of eating and drinking the Sacrament Because in so doing the sacramentall action is pulled a sunder to wit the consecratioÌ„ from the vse and pertaking of it The vse of the Supper is turned into an action altogether different from the institution of Christ The feast of Corpus Christi and the carrying about of the Sacrament were now late brought in and set on foote by the Bishops of Rome about an hundred and an halfe of yeares agoe If the commandement of Christ concerning the true vse of the Sacrament were performed there would remaine none occasion of shutting vp and carying about of the Sacrament There bee no examples of the Apostles for it For Paul who writeth to the Corinthians of the Eucharist most exactly yet doth not so much as in one worde mention anie shutting of it vp carying it about or adoring it Neither can there bee shewed in the purer primitiue Church anie so much as a step and token thereof CHAP. 17. Of the Masse THe Papists haue turned the sacrameÌ„t of the Note here the â—nrse is to bee obserued a-against soÌ„e of the Papists who peruert the state of the question in this disputation and say that they striue onely for the sacrifice of Eucharist or thanksgiuing these same are stracken with a curse by the councel of trent Lords Supper into a sacrifice wherein they offer daily the consecrated breade and winâ— to God the Father for the sinnes of the liuing and the dead And more ouer they contend that in the Eucharist there is not onely a sacrifice of remembrance and thanksgiuing but that there is also a propitiatorie sacrifice For so saith the Councell of Trent Sess 6. cap. 2 can 3. If any man shall say that the sacrifice of the Masse is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiuing or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed vpon the Crosse and not a propitiatorie Sacrifice or that it doth profit him alone that receiueth it and that it ought not to bee offered for the huing and the dead for their sinnes punishments satisfactions and other necessities let him bee accursed But wee acknowledge no such visible Sacrifice in the Church neither do we finde in scripture anie other propitiatorie Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of Christ and this sacrifice of the Masse wee doe reâ—ect for the reasons following Because to make of the Lords Suppera propitiatorie sacrifice for the liuing and the deade is contrarie to the institution of our Lord Iesus Christ and it is to disanull pernert his Testament 1 Christ did not command to offer his body and bloud but to eate and drinke them 2. And there is not so much as one word in al the action and institution of the supper which might inferre any mention of a Sacrifice 3 Neither do we reade that Christ offered himselfe in his supper as if by his owne example hee would institute masse for if hee offered himselfe to his heauenly Father in his supper then should hee not haue perfected his sacrifice with one oblation once made Heb 7 27 9 26. 28 and 10 10. 14. but with a double oblation twise made namely once in his supper once vpon the Crosse which is false absurd But if he offered not himselfe in his supper as it is most true he did not then neither can his example which wee should follow lay vpon vs the office of sacrificing 4. Paul receiued of the Lord the institution of the Eucharist but made mention of no sacrifice at all which the Apostle especially seeing hee boasteth that hee had shewed all the councell of God Acts 20 27 ought not to haue omitted if there should haue been anie respect of a
of a spirituall sacrifice saying let vs offer the sacrifice of praise vnto God c. verse 15. and to doe good and to distribute forget not for with such sacrifices GOD is well pleased verse 16. 4 Daniel prophecieth of Antichrist that hee shall take away the daily sacrifice Dan 8 11 and 11 31. But that cannot be vnderstood of spirituall sacrifices of praise and thanksgiuing which Tyrants cannot raze out of the hearts of men but of the outward and visible sacrifice which is the Masse Answer 1. Daniel speaketh principally of Antiochus who having defiled the lawfull worship of God did abolish the daily sacrifice for the space of three yeeres and an halfe allegorically he speaketh it of the Antichrist of Rome who hath abolished the true and sincere publicke service of God and in the place thereof hath set his Idoll service 2 There is more in the conclusion than in the premisses for it followeth not Antichrist shall abolish the daily sacrifice therefore that sacrifice can bee none other but the sacrifice of the Masse whereas notwithstanding there be other and farre truer sacrifices of Christians which are abrogated and corrupted by antichrist as the daily sacrifice was of old by Antiochus such as are godly praiers which are called sacrifices Heb 5 7. Reu The Popes of Rome are very carefull of the fulfilling of this prophecie which notwithstaÌ„ding themselues haue fulfilled long since very diligently 5 8. and 8 4. which the Antichrist of Rome hath robbed Christ of and commaunded them to be offered to Saints such as are also the sincere preaching of the Gospell and the right administration of the Sacraments all which are in such horible sort turned vpside downe mangled and corrupted by the Bishop of Rome that it may well bee said that they are abolished and that this prophecie of the abolisâ—ing of the spirituall true and most acceptable sacrifices to God the daily sacrifices of Christians is of a truth fulfilled in him 5. The types of the olde Testament of the dailie Sacrifice did decipher the daily sacrifice of Christians to wit the Masse Answer The Sacrifices were types of that one and onely sacrifice of Christ but not of the ministerie of the newe Testament saue onely spiritually Hebr 7 and 9 and 10 chapter But heere in this matter of the Masse there is no strife concerning spirituall sacrifices therefore the argument is of no force seeing it hath foure termes 6. FroÌ„ the rising of the sunne to the going down of the same my name is great among the Gentiles and in euery place Incense shall bee offered vnto my name and a pure offering Malachie 1 11. But there can be no purer offering than the body and blood of Christ therefore the Prophet speaketh of the sacrifice of the Masse Answere Paul biddeth men lift vp cleane and pure handes in praier euery where 1 Tâ— 2 8. which is the same with that sacrifice of praier invocation of Davids Psal 141. 2. There are therfore other spirituall sacrifices which are also called cleane Heere is then a fallacie a non distributo ad distributum arguing by two particulars as if the one were contained vnder the other as a particular vnder his generall for there bee moe sacrifices of the new Testament none of which is that one which our Aduersaries catch at for beside that one onely sacrifice of Christ there bee these also reckoned in the holy Scriptures 1. The Ministerie of the Gospell Rom 15 16. 2. The conuersion of the Gentiles Rom. 15 16. Phil. 2 17. 3 The Praiers of Christians Hebr 5 7 Revel 5 8 and 8 4. 4 The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving Heb 13 15 5 Liberality towards the poore and for the maintenance of the Ministerie Heb 13 16 Phil 4 18 6 Mortification of the olde man and renovation Rom 12 1. 7 Endurance of persecution or martirdome for the name of Christ Philip 2. 17. Therefore if there were no where in the World anie popish or idolatrous massing sacrifice yet the prophecy of Malachie should be neuerthelesse fulfilled among Christians by these spirituall sacrifices Now the spiritual sacrifices of Christians are called cleane because our heauenly Father dooth accept them for cleane and perfect for Christs merits sake 7 The Pascall Lambe was a type of the holy supper But the Lambe was not onely eaten but also offered So it is requisite in the Eucharist also not onely to eate but also to offer Answ 1 Thence this onely followeth that our Lambe CHRIST IESVS was to be sacrificed But that we should offer him that bâ— the type which was fulfilled in Christ cannot be proued 2 Wee haue before declared that the rite of sacrificing yearely was abolished by the one onely sacrifice of the true Lambe 3 If all things that belonged to this type should be applied to the Lords Supper then because it was needefull that the Lambe should bee killed they shall make themselues a bloudy sacrifice in the masse which our Aduersaries themselues holde absurd 4 Yea and that which is more we reade no where that the Paschall Lambe was offered or sacrificed but that it was killed For both the Hebrew word and the Greeke word which Paul vseth 1 Cor 5 7 doth not alwaies signifie to sacrifice but to kill Therefore the Popish argument falleth to the ground 8 There shall bee a handfull of corne in the papists in their scarcitie of arguments are driuen to 〈◊〉 to the Rabbiâ—â— the earth euen in the top of the mountaines c. Psal 72 16. Rabbi Salomon expoundeth these words of a kinde of Cakes in the daies of the Messias Therefore the Psalme speaketh of the eleuation of the masse wherein the breade is lifted vp aboue the shâ—uen crowne of the Priest An This is a scuruie argument to drawe the spirituall fertility and plentifulnesse of the Church to the propitiatorie sacrifice of the masse But such as the matter is such be their arguments 9 Christ saith facite hoc but facere doth sometimes in the scripture signifie to sacrifice Therefore it is all one as if Christ had sayde facite that is sacrifice hoc this that is my body Answ 1 They bee meere particulars whence nothing will follow 2 The word facere when it is put absolutely without expresse mention of a sacrifice doth never signifie to sacrifice except in that verse of Virgils Bucolicks Cum faciam vitula pro frâ—gibus ipse veâ—ito But Virgill will not stablish a massing sacrifice 3 And if the word facere in the holy supper doe signifie to sacrifice and Christ spoke those wordes to all Christians Hoc facite in mei Commemorationem Doe this in remembrance of Mee it will follow that all Christians ought to offer the massing sacrifice and so all shall be Priests though they be not oyled and shauen 10 Christ saith Hoc facite Doe this to wit that which you see mee doe But Christ offered Himselfe then to his heauenly Father Therefore he
commaunded that his bodie should bee offered in the masse Ans 1 The minor or second proposition is false for if Christ offered himselfe to his Father in his supper after the manner of the masse and the masse be as the Trent councell defineth it a propitiatorie sacrifice for the liuing and the dead for sinnes punishments and satisfaction and other necessities c. then was there at that time satisfaction made to the heauenly Father alreadie by a sacrifice in the supper for the sinnes and punishments of men and Christ offered himselfe the second time vpon the altar of the Crosse when there was no further neede which required him so to doo and the heauenly Father would haue one and the same debt twise paied vnto him and those debts are payed the third time ouer at this day while Christ is offered againe in the masse But if Christ at length offered himselfe vpon the altar of the Crosse it is false that he offered himselfe to his Father in his supper 2 The word facite doe in these wordes is referred to a certaine action that is to the reiterating of the celebration of the Lords supper in the Church of the blessing and distributing of the breade and wine of the eating and drinking of the remembrancing shewing CHRISTS death and of giuing of thankes for Gods benifits c. 11 Christ was offered in the supper after an vnbloudie manner and vpon the Altar of the Crosse after a bloudie manner Ans If so then was he not offered once but twise which is contrary to the Epistle to the Hebrues cap 7 ver 27 9 28 10. 12. 2 And the scripture doth not anie where say that Christ should bee offered after vnbloudie sort 12 The distinction betweene a bloudie vnbloudie sacrifice hath the ancient Fathers for Autors thereof Ans The auncient and purer Fathers distinguish betweene the bloudie sacrifices of the Olde Testament and the spirituall sacrices of christians in the New Testament But what is this to the visible massing sacrifice of the Papists 13. Hee was offered because he would Isay 53 7. Therefore Christ is offered in the masse and hee offered himselfe in the supper Ans Who can choose but laugh at suc◠a reason first the translation which they follow is false quite disagreeing from the originall and then doth it follow that because Christ was a sacrifice vpon the Crosse that therefore he is sacrificed in the supper 14 Christ is a Priest for euer therefore that he may for euer be offered it must needs be that he did institute in his Supper an eternall sacrifice that is such as is dayly to be offered Ans 1. By this argument it would follow that it should bee necessarie not that the Priests but that Christ should offer himselfe daily for not the massing sacrificers but christ is the Priest for euer 2 It would follow also seeing they presse the word Eternitie or for euer that the sacrifice should remaine to be offered still in the World to come after the last iudgment 3 The Apostle speaketh of eternall efficacie and vertue of Christs Priesthood whereby he one and the same to day and yesterday hath for euer sanctified them which were to be sanctified Which while our Aduersaries apply to their sacrificers there arise foure termes 4 And Christ abideth neuerthelesse a Priest for euer although there bee no where anie sacrifice of how Christ is a Priest for euer the masse For 1 in sanctifying vs he bringeth vs to his Father 2 He alwaies maketh intercession for vs. 3. He is able for euer to saue them that come vnto him which are all the offices of the high Priest 15 Melchizedeck was a type of Christ but Melchizedeck offered bread wine Gen 14 18 Therefore it must needes bee that Christ offered his body and bloud in his Supper Ans 1 If it were true that Melchizedeck offered breade and wine which yet is not true nothing els would follow but that Christ offered bread and wine which our aduersaries thēselues would not grant For they auouch that the bread and wine doth not remaine in the holy supper but that they are annihilated so transsubstantiated that nothing remaineth beside the body bloud of Christ There are therfore 4 termes 2 But neither did Melchizedeck offer but brought forth as the Hebrew word signifyeth bread and wine for the refreshing of Abrahams souldiers as the text doth clearely teach 3 Neither is Melchizedeck sayde to bee a type of Christ in this whether offering or bringing forth of breade and wine But first in respect of the name of Melchizedeck the King of righteousnesse Secondly because hee was King of Salem and Christ is King or Prince of peace Isay 9 6. Thirdly because Melchizedeck was together both a King and a Priest and so is Christ Fourthly because the progenie of Melchisedeck is not related so is Christ a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedeck Psalm 110. 4 All which whereas the Epistle to the Hebrues dooth most clearely and distinctly say yet it saith nothing of the masse It is therefore a fallacie from that which is spoken but in some respect onely to the same taken absolutely and in all respects 16 The text Genes 14 18. saith for he was a Priest but it is the office of Priests to offer sacrifices Therefore Melchisedeck then offered breade and wine Ans The hebrue text hath not the particle for but readeth thus and he was a Priest of the most high God and blessed him that is Abraham There is then no reason of the consequence Melchizedeck was a Priest and blessed Abraham therefore hee offered vnto God bread and wine let the Papists at length be ashamed of such Paralogismes 17. Paul compareth together the table of the Lord and the table of Devils which comparison cannot be entire seeing there is an offering in the table of Devils vnlesse there be also an offering in the table of the Lord 1 Cor 10. 21. therefore there must needes be a sacrifice in the Lords Supper Answere In the place of Paule cited by our Aduersaries it is not said that the Heathen did offer on their tables sacrifices to Devils neither that there was any offering at the table or celebration of the Lords Supper But this Paul treateth of that Christians cannot with good conscience both eate the body of Christ at the Lords table and neverthelesse in the banquets of the heathen eate of those meates which were offered vnto Idols for all sacrifices were not wholly consumed with fire but a good part thereof was reserved for costly banquets And what make these things for the confirming of the sacrifice of the Masse 2 Bee it that at their tables they offered those meates to Devils how doth it follow that there must needes be an oblation at the Lords table too vnlesse they haue some strange Logicke to shew contrarie to the olde receaved axiomes that thinges which are compared together must needes
agree in euery particular point 18. The body and bloud of Christ bee propitiatorie for our sinnes In the holy Supper there is the body and bloud of Christ therefore the Masse is propitiatorie for our sinnes Ans 1. The body and bloud of Christ is not in the sacrament saue only sacramentally and spiritually and therfore cannot be there offered 2. By the same reason it would followe that in euery place where Christ was on earth there should be a propitiatorie sacrifice The vertue and efficacie of Christs sacrifice doth at all times flow from the flesh of Christ but it was made a propitiatorie sacrifice but once and that vpon the Crosse it is offered and given in the Supper and receaved of the beleevers by faith 3. There is a changing of the predication for in the minor it is said The body and bloud are in the Sacrament in the conclusion therefore the Masse is propitiatorie Were it granted that their Masse were nothing but the Sacrament duly administred that the body of Christ were carnally there yet there would no more follow but this that in the Masse there is that which is propitiatorie for sinnes And if it be propitiatorie in bare being why needeth it to be sacrificed that it may be propitiatorie 19. The Fathers of the Church called the Eucharist by the name of a sacrifice therefore the Masse is a sacrifice Answer 1. It is a fallacie heaping vp moe questions for one for it is one question whether the Fathers called the Supper a sacrifice which is not yet sufficient for the purpose and another in what sence they called it a sacrifice whether as the Papists meane it or otherwise 2 It is a fallacie from a thing spoken but in some respect to the same taken absolutely for the Fathers called it a sacrifice in some respect onely as namely 1. because all sacred rites may be called by the common word of the olde Testament sacrificia sacrifices quasi a faciendo sacra from doing holy sacred actions 2. Because in the Supper there is a commemoration of that one onely and true sacrifice of Christ they gaue that name to the action from the more chiefe and principall respect 3 Because of praiers which were poured out in the celebration of the Supper which are called sacrifices as was before declared 4 Because of praise thanksgiving which were vsed in the celebration of the Supper and are called sacrifices in the Epistle to the Hebrewes 5. Because of their offering of first fruites and food which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 loue-feasts 6 Because the spirituall sacrifices faith hope charitie c are exercised stirred vp by the vle of the Supper 3 The Papists should proue that the ancient Fathers ever taught that the Masse is a propitiatorie sacrifice for the sinnes of the living and the dead but this they will never doe 20. The Church hath alwaies acknowledged the Masse for a sacrifice therefore it is a noveltie to denie the Masse to be a sacrifice Answer The Antecedent is prooved false 1 because there is no Masse in the newe Testament 2 Neither can it be shewed in the Primitiue Church as was before alleadged out of the booke of Valentinus Vannius who hath plainely proved that the Popish sacrifice of the Masse was not in the Church of Christ for the space of 600 yeares or thereabout 3 Because the chiefe thinges in the Masse are newe of late invention and were heaped together at sundry times one after another some by one Pope and some by another And such novelties are iustly reiected by vs. 21. The Masse is an application whereby that which Christ merited for vs is applied to everie man in particular Answere 1 It cannot bee said to bee any application vnlesse it bee thereunto so ordained by God Now wee haue a two-fold application onely of the merites of Christ recorded in Scripture Whereof the one is by the word and faith without any externall element and the other by the elements and rites in the Sacraments ordained thereunto But the Masse is a thing altogether different from the Lords Supper therefore it maketh nothing for the applying of Christs merite Moreover the Masse hath no testimonie from the Scripture of either of these manners of applying Neither therefore doth it applie the merite of Christ 2 And because the Masse hath no coÌ„mandement of God it may not be lawfull for men to tye the grace of God to mans inventions 22. In the Masse there is remembrance of the passion and death of Christ therefore the Masse is to be reverenced Ans 1. The remembrance of the passion death of Christ ought to bee done by the celebration of the Lords Supper which Christ ordained and instituted but not by the theatricall celebration of the Masse which was not instituted by Christ 2 The Papists striue not onely for the remembrance of the Lords death in the Supper but for a propitiatorie sacrifice as the Canon of the counsell of Trent hath it There is therefore more in the consequent than in the Antecedent 23. There are many good things contained in the Masse therefore c. Ans And there be very many idolatrous things contained in the Masse And Magick is therby made good because Magitians vse good and holy wordes for good mingled with evill doth not make that which is evill to become good but that which was good of it selfe is corrupted by the evill as when a man mingleth poison with good wine 24 The Masse is a representation of the death and passion of Christ Now seeing a representation doth worke more strongly than a bare commemoration the Masse cannot displease God Answere 1. Because a representation seemeth stronger and more forcible to men it doth not therfore seeme stronger to God also for my thoughts are not as your thoughts Isai 55 8. 2 Seeing that representation is a kinde of commemoration they which contend for a representation alone are stricken by the Pope with a curse in the Canon before cited 3 Neither doth the first Supper of Christ beare a representation in which Supper our Aduersaries themselues doe not admit of a representation 25. Luke maketh mention of the * Liturgie of the Apostles Act. 13 2. therefore the Apostles celebrated Masse Ans 1. The word Liturgie is vnderstoode of any service of God and therefore their owne vulgar Authenticall translation rendreth it ministrantibus illis and our English 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accordingly as they ministred to the Lord. 2 Seeing the most of the thinges in the Popish Masse are new how I pray you doth the Masse sute with this allegation of the Apostles who were dead sundrie hundreds of yeares before the Popish Masse was borne 26. We reade of many miracles that were done at the Masse of the Papists therefore it is not to be reiected Answer 1. The most of those miracles are such as If those mirâ—â—les bee tâ—ue how châ—nceth it thaâ— now theâ—e bee no
miraclâ—s done about the Masse 〈◊〉 seldome and those most false too the Papists at this day are ashamed of the books wherein those miracles are reported 2 The comming of Antichrist shall be with all power and signes and lying wonders 2 Thess 2 9 as Paul prophecied of him 3. Miracles without the word of God are not sufficient to prooue articles of religion as wee reade Deut 13 1 2 3. 27 Luther doth confesse the deuill suggested arguments vnto him against the masse Therfore to impugne the masse is diuelish Ans 1 Luther describeth the conflict of Luther dimisâ—a priuata his conscience wherein Satan after his manner laying a truth for his ground endeuoured to build thereupon falsehood and desperation Euen as the deuill tempting Christ alleadged the holy Scripture which vndoubtedly is true But it doth not therefore follow that simply euery thing is a lye which Satan bringeth in his tentations For when hee obiecteth our sinnes against vs certainely he speaketh a truth 2 We oppose not against our Aduersaries either the authoritie of Luther or the tentation of Satan but the Word of God Now the testimonies of Scripture which ouerthrow the masse cannot be termed deuilish suggestions Let them then answere vnto them if they can 28 Our Aduersaries seek a shift to wind themselues out of the danger of the thunderbolts of the Epistle to the Hebrues say that Christs bodie alwaies remaineth one therfore though it be daily offered yet it is alwaies the same and but one only and so it doth not anie waiet whart the Epistle to the Hebrues Answ 1. That is not the question whether Christs bodie be one and the same But here is the controuersie whether that bodie which is one and the same be often to bee offered to God seeing the Apostle to Hebrewes witnesseth that that bodie was once onely offered and that the offering thereof may not be iterated There is then no connexion of the Antecedent consequent in this paralogisme 2 But neither do they offer the same bodie of Christ which was offered vpon the Croffe but an other bodie which within a moment of time before was breade if all bee true which they faine of Transsubstantiation But the true bodie of Christ was not breade Therefore neither doo they offer one and the same body of CHRIST An appendix of other abuses of the Masse The followers of Antichrist have transformed 1 Abuse priuate masse the Masse into a priuate action wherein there is no communion but the masse-maker onely receiueth the sacrament whilest others that be present onely looke on who are perswaded that such a masse benifitteth them neucrthelsse though they communicate not But wee reject this priuate masse fos these reasons Because the Lords supper by those priuate masses which neuer were instituted by Christ is changed into an action altogether diuerse and different from the first institution Christ gaue not onely a bare spectacle to his disciples in his first supper but distributed his bodie and bloud to them to be eaten and druncken Priuate masses therefore haue no agreement with the action of Christ That appellation of the Lords Supper vsed by the Apostles the breaking of breade which is nothing els but by a hebrue phrase the distribution of it sheweth that in the primitiue Church in the celebration of the supper there was a communicating that priuate masse was altogether vnknowen The same is meant by the wordes of Paul we are all partakers of the same bread 1 Cor 10 17 If the Corinthians were partakers then doubtles they were not bare beholders of some priuate masse That which Paul speaketh of the abuse of the Supper among the Corinthians euery man taketh his owne supper afore one is hungrie and an other is drunke 1 Corin. 11 21. May not vnfitly be applyed to the priuate masse for a certaine likenesse betwixt them For what more like to this abuse than is the priuate masse wherein the looker on hungreth the masse-maker hath his priuate banquet though he be not drunken vnlesse perhaps of the former dayes ryot Contrariwise our aduersaries do dispute 1 There is mention made of a priuate communion euen in the histories of the primitiue Church Ans 1 Priuate communion at that time was a thing much differing froÌ„ priuate masse now a dayes For from the beginning whilest persecution did still rage and the Christians were therfore inflamed with great zeale the whole Church did vse to celebrate the Supper euerie day But after persecution ceased the zeale of Christians was by little and little abated so that afterwards they did coÌ„municate onely vpon the Lords day In the meane while they of the cleargy and the ministers of the Church kept the custome of the dayly communion And this Communion when they of the laitie were absent began to be called a priuate Communion and that which was celebrated on the Lords day was called a publicke CoÌ„munion It is therefore a frivolous argument altogether froÌ„ the purpose whilest our Aduersaries argue from the priuate receiuing of the Lords supper to the priuate sacrifices of the Masse so making foure termes 2 Those which are the lookers on in priuate masse do communicate spiritually Therfore they want not the fruite of the masse Ans 1. We speake of the sacrament and sacramental eating our Aduersaries alleadge spirituall eating There are therefore in this argument foure termes 2 That spirituall communion may bee by faith alone euen out of the masse and communion Therefore it is nothing to the masse 3 This is the nature of the ministerie that the benefits of God bee by it applyed vnto men But priuate masse is a part of the ministerie Therfore by it there is application Made to the standers by Ans 1 The minor proposition is falâ—â— It suffiseth not that a Preacher preach to himselfe without hauing any hearers so neither sufficeth it that the masse-maker alone communicate for others becavse our aduersaries cannot free their publicke masse much lesse their priuate masse from idolatrie and how shall idolatrie then be a part of the ministerie 2 Sacramentall application doth not consist in a bare spectacle but in the vse and fruition as it is not sufficient to saluation that an vnregenerate man bee a beholder of Baptisme vnlesse himselfe also bee baptized 4 Priests that doe masse are the mouth of the Church Therefore if the Priest communicate it is all one as if the whole Church had communicated Ans 1 The Antecedent hath no ground in the scripture 2 Neither doo the Papists themselues belieue this which they say otherwise the priuate coÌ„munion of the Priest would bee sufficient for theÌ„ that they should neuer haue neede of anie publicke communion 3 The mouth of the Church should bee an impure one when the Priest is polluted with adulterie whoredome and such other wickednesse The Priests in the Olde Testament did sacrifice for others the laitie being present so in priuate masse the
of their owne religion Moreover how lately those Ceremonies arose â— Abuse The newâ—es of their ceremonies and were vnknowne to the Primitiue Church we cannot more briefely learne than by the narration of Polydore Virgil. He writeth on thâ—â— wise Dâ— inâ—ent rer lib. 5 cap. 11. All mysteries of Religion were deliuered of Christ amongst his Apostles plainely and simply the whole order of Ceremonies was naked and plaine having more devotion than gay furniture for it is evident enough that Peter who either first of all as being the chiefe of the Apostles or together Where was here the offering after the Coâ—sâ—â— cratioâ—â— with the rest of the Apostles did estsoones celebrate divine service with that rite which hee receaved from Christ was woont straight after the consecration to bring in the Lords Prayer Afterward Iameâ— the Bishop of Ierusalem increased these mysteries Basill also increased them and others at sundrie times instituted other things Caelestinus the Introitus of the Masse the beginning whereof is the Psalme Iudica me Deus Damasus ordained the Confession which is made by the Priest before hee ascend to the Altar yet some there bee who ascribe it to Pontianus Gregorie ordained the Antheme which followeth the Introitus and therefore it is commonly called by the same name as also that Kyrie should be said nine times the Antheme after the Epistle Gospel Communion But the Antheme after the Epistle they call the gradual because the DeacoÌ„ ascendeth into an higher place to reade the Gospell Telesphorus ordained the Hymne Gloria in excelsis Deo Gelasiuâ— first invented the Orâ—isons that is the clauses of praiers as they call them Hierâ—m the Epistle and Gospell and Anastasiâ—s first appointed when it was read that all which were present at service should stand crooked and bending downe for reverence that they might bee more readie to defend the faith of the Gospell or to marke and note it which we vse to doe rather standing than sitting The Alleluiah was translated from Ierusalem The singing of the Creede that it should bee sung after the Gospell on feastivall daies and should bee repeated by the people which were present at service was the decree of Pope Mark the first The same decree was renued afterward by Damasus Gelasius made the Antheme which Here Masse was so celebrated that the people might answere they commonly call the Tract and the Hymnes and the prefaces which goe before the Canon hee framed in an elegant speach and song which as Pelagius reporteth are nine in number Vrbanus addeth the tenth vnto the honour of the virgin the mother of God And whereas Incense is burned at the Altar Aaron did that first as the Lord said vnto Moses Thou shalt set an altar before the vaile and Aaron shall burne theron sweete incense as it is in Exodus 30 6 7 And afterward Leo the third decreede that the same should be done amongst vs which was also obserued of the heathens Hereof it is that Virgill saith of Venus in the first of his Aenâ—ids Vbi Templum illi centumque Sabâ—o Thâ—re calent arae c. Where stand her famous seates And Temple rich and of incense an hundred altars sweats The vse of washing their hands seemeth to haue come from the Olde Testament for that the Iewes were wont to beginne not onely diuine seruice but their banquets also with washing of hands as holding it wicked to eate bread with vnwashen hands which fault they obiected against the Disciples of Christ Or else this custome was taken from the Heathen amongst whom those which sacrificed did first of all washe their hands as Hesiod saith there was a charge giuen that no man should in the morning ofter wine to Iupiter with vnwashen hands lest the glory of the sacred things should be polluted And here againe he alleadgeth verses of Virgils thus farre Polydore Virgill Who so would see more let him reade Durandus his booke intituled Rationale Diuinâ—rum Officâ—orum Behold the great impudencie of our Adâ—ersaâ—ies who boast of antiquity in the masse and endeuour to fetch it from the verie Apostles contrarie to their consciences and credit to all histories but least they here seeke a shift and pretend that these things are spoken of the ceremonies only which are not of the substance of the masse let vs heare what the same Autor writeth of the chiefest the substantiall misterie of the masse of the Canon I meane in the same booke and chapter Where he saith thus In the prefaces that Sanctus Sanctus How finely the masse came from the Apostls Sanctus Dominus Deus Zebaoth should bee sung was first decreed by Sixtus which was taken froÌ„ the Prophet Isay Gelasius made Teigitur which afterward was made the begining as before Syricius had made Communicants which now is set in the third place Whence it appeareth that the Canon it selfe was neither al framed by one man neither broght into that forme whereof it now consisteth The certaintie whereof hence appeareth that Alexander the first who was along time before Gelasius and Syricius appointed for the memoriall of Christs passion Quâ— pridie quaÌ„ pateâ—eter c. vnto these words Hoc est Corpus meum Wherefore it is cleare enough that then was the beginning of the Canon when as hath beene sayd Gelasius was Bishop of Rome about 360 yeares or somewhat more after Alexander Then Leo added Hanc igilur oblationem c vnto these words placitus accipias Gregorie annexed thereto three petitions Diesque nostras in tua pacâ— disponas atque ab aeterna damnatione â—oâ— eripe et in Electorum tâ—orum iubeas grege numerarâ— The same Gegorie the first added Sanctunâ— sacrificium immaculatam hostiam And in like sort others added other things Thus far Polydor Virgil. By this narratioÌ„ you see that they are stark shameles lies which the Papists boast of the antiquity of their masse of Apostolick traditions of the masse You haue heere the history of the beginning of the principall and substantiall parts of the masse compiled out of the Ecclesiasticall histories not by some Lutheran but by a faithfull seruant of the Romane Church euen by a masse-Priest 7 Abuse The errors and â—ooleries of the Canâ—â— of the masse Now leâ— vs see by one or two examples how absurd that Canon is thus patched together by diuerse shreds The Ancients in times past at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist brought loue-feasts for the sustenance of the poore and maintenance of the ministerie At those offerings which certainely were no propitiatorie sacrifice the Church was woont to pray for preseruation and safetie c. Now that in the Canon before the consecration is applyed to the breade and wine at this day and the breade and wine are offered to God the Father for the saluation of the Church In the Canon God is requested to accept that pure sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ as he did accept
the sacrifice of Abel and Meschizedeck If our Aduersaries referre these words to the olde accustomed offerings they make mockeries seeing this manner is now ceased amongst them and they pray for that which is no where But if they refer them to the present sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ in the masse what is this else but to make intercession to the heauenly Father for his Sonne Christ Againe how absurdly is that most precious sacrifice of Christs own body bloud compared with the sacrifice of Abel which it may be was a Lambe or a Goate but these witlesse men make no more reckoning of Christs sacrifice than of a goate or a Lambe There is comparison made with the sacrifice of Melchizedeck whereas yet there is An error in the sacrifice of Melchizedeck who did not sacrifice but brought forth bred and wine nothing in Scripture as hath alreadie beene shewed that Melchizedeck did offer breade and wine The sacrifice of Christ is compared with that sacrifice which is not neuer was and neuer shall be The Canon sayth that they offer the bread of life to the heauenly Father But where are they bid to offer the breade of life Whereof we reade nothing in the whole course of the scripture but that the bread of life should be eaten not offered The Canon is contrarie to the article of Christs ascension when it commandeth the Angels to carie the hoste before the face of God to the high altar What And did not Christ ascend vnto his Father And is there neede that he should now after all appeare before his Father that he should be caried from the earth aboue to his Father Againe seeing Christ is neuer in his glorifyed bodie absent from his Father what do the Angels carie according to the Canon of the masse if breade then they commit idolatrie if his body then hath Christ two bodies one whereof is present in Heauen with the Father and the other is now after all caried from the earth by the Angels And lastly that we may not seeme heere to make a large refutation of the Canon whatsoeuer praise prayer thankesgiuing was wont to be vsed in the primitiue Church in the celebration of the Supper and offerings of charity all that though the manner of those offerings bee abrogated with which that part of the seruice should rightly haue beene abrogated too all that I say our Aduersaries do so retaine that they haue of a foolish ordinance trasferred to the bread of the Eucharist present in the Supper all those which formerly belonged to an action altogether different from this As anie man may easily finde moe than be heere alleadged if hee doo but onely reade the Canon of the masse In the meane while the Councell of Trent striketh all them with acurse which say there be errors contained in the Canon of the masse But it is â—uident how it wanteth no errors but abouÌ„deth with them This is also one of the Abuses of the masse that 8 Abuse Masse sayd in Latine it is celebrated not in a knowen tongue and such as the people vnderstand but in a strange and indeed only in the latine tongue which we reproue for these causes Because in the supper there ought to bee a coÌ„memoratioÌ„ of the death passioÌ„ of Christ which how can it be done in a tongue which the people vnderstand not And how shall he that occupieth the roome of the vnlearned say Amen at thy giuing of thankes seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest 1 Corin 14 16. Paul writ the institution of the Lords Supper to the Corinthians rather in their mother tongue than in an other Before the receiuing of the Supper to the fruitfull vse thereof it is needfull to admonish and exhort the communicants before hand that the people may examine themselues This admonishing hath no place where the holy Supper is celebrated in a strange tongue Paul though hee commend the gifte of tongues yet woulde haue all thinges in the Church ordered to edification but by a strange tongue he that vnderstandeth it not is not edified neither can the hearers faith be strengthened by that speech which hee knoweth not what it meaneth I had rather in the Church saith Paule speake fiue words with mine vnderstanding that I might also instruct others than tenne thousand worâ—s in a strange tongue 1 Cor 14. 19. for this purpose reade that whole chapter Paul had rather in the publike congregation of the Church speake so that hee might bee vnderstoode but the Papists had rather in the meeting of the Church speake that they be not vnderstood Contrariwise our Aduersaries do reason thus 1. Masse is to be saide in Latine that they which come to vs out of France Italy England may vnderstand it and thereby set the vnitie of the Church Ans 1 By the like reason wee should not preach in the Dutch tongue but in the Latine amongst Dutch men that strangers which come vnto vs may vnderstand and heare the consent of our doctrine 2 The whole flocke and company of the godly are not to bee neglected for the cause of a stranger or two whereas notwithstanding there is often times never a one present 3 If there be a necessitie that all strangers should vnâ—erstand Masse how much more needefull â—â—at the whole Church at home should vnderstand 4 It is not certaine that all strangers doe vnderstand the Latine tongue 2. The words of some one language for example of the Dutch tongue are in sundâ—y places of the land different and disagreeing which falleth not out in the Latine tongue Answere 1. The Papists may bee ashamed of such sencelesse Paralogismes for by the same reason it should bee vnlawfull to preach in Dutch 2. And why doe not the Iesuites at this day for the same reason cease to publish their writings in the Dutch tongue But a fit cover for such a pot such as is the Popiâ—â— Religion such are the Popish reasons 3. If service should be said in the vulgar tongue then there would be a prophanation of the mysteries of Religion Answere 1. This is the sore that our Aduersaries cannot abide should bee touched for they are afraide least the grosse absurditities of the Canon of the Masse should bee espied even of the Laicks 2 By the like reason it should not bee any more lawfull to reade the Gospels appointed for Sondaies wherein are many high Mysteries of faith contained in the vulgar tongue before the people but mysteries of Religion whiles they are proposed to the Church and explaned are nothing at all by this meanes prophaned vnlesse they account the Church as Swine and Dogges before whom it is not lawfull to cast sacred things 4. Strangers which vnderstand not our vulgar tongue would laugh at our service which they vnderstand not Answer 1. And what if the common people deride the Masse because they vnderstand it not being saide in Latine 2. And what if those strangers vnderstand not the