Church practising nor the Fathers in the first 600. yeares acknowledging any such Propitiatory sacrifice as the Church of Rome both offereth and adoreth but in turbulent ages it grew from a Sacrament to a sacrifice from a Sacrifice of prayse to a Propitiatory sacrifice by way of representation from thence in times of ignorance carelesnesse and Politicall contentions to a reall and proper Propitiatory Sacrifice And seeing God our heauenly Father hath spread a table for vs in this wildernesse while others starue for foode let euery true Christian say with the Prodigall sonne I will arise and goe to my Father Let vs all remember that exuberant and superaboundant refreshing which we shall receiue from the table of God our Father where Christ himselfe is the refection and sustenance of our soules that our soules being nourished by faith in our Mediatour and sacrifice Christ the Lord both soule and body may bee saued by him in the day of iudgement Oh that God would open the blind eyes of such as are ensnared with the allurements of the Romish Church and deceiued with the false complexion of that painted Iesabell beeing poysoned with the cup of her fornications that so if they belong vnto the 〈◊〉 of grace they may escape out of Babylon and be saued And for vs that haue beene borne of the Church and brought vp in her bosome vnto whom God hath reuealed the purity of his word and exhibited his holy Sacraments without maime or alteration let vs neuer disclaime our Spirituall mother making our selues bastards by becomming the children of a Scarlet coloured Whore let vs neuer become Apostates from the truth staining 〈◊〉 soules and wounding our consciences by Idolatry If we be Iewes that is the Israel of God let not vs pollute our selues with Romish Samaritans Let vs not communicate with them in their impious Mystery or Mysticall impiety of their Massing Sacrifice least wee runne vpon our owne ruine and destruction But let vs abhorre it as beeing Antichristian let vs renounce it as most blasphemous against God and against his Christ. Let neirher prosperity nor aduersitie hope of profit or feare of losse draw vs to pertake in that Idolatrous seruice least while we seeke the world we loose our soules and while wee feare the face of man we bereaue our selues of the fauour of God 〈◊〉 our aduersaries perseuere in their superstition they are blind leaders of the blind but let euery Christian Ioshua say couragiously I and mine will feare will serue will worship the Lord of heauen and earth and not make to my selfe a breaden god or adore the creature in stead of the Creator Let vs not for feare of the Popes Anathema's excommunicate our selues from the society of Gods Saints but rather to say with vndaunted resolution in the words of Paul We are ready not onely to be bound but dye at Rome for the name of the Lord Iesus And albeit these are the dayes wherein the enemies of the Gospell thinke to preuaile yet fortifie your selues with courage in your profession start not a fide like a broken Bow forsake not Christ to take part with his Aduersaries but stand for your Sauiour as hee hath stood for you fight for your Sauiour as hee hath fought for you dye for your Sauiour as he hath dyed for you that you may receiue the reward of immortality with the rest of the holy Saints and Martyrs in the kingdome of heauen for the infinite merit of our eternall Priest and Al-sufficient Sacrifice Iesus Christ the righteous To whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost three distinct persons but one glorious and euerliuing God be ascribed Honour Maiestie Power and Dominion for euer Amen Faults escaped PAg. 12. l. 28 hand r. hands p. 20. l. 24. for place r. places p. 21. l. 22. for deered r. decreed p. 23. l. 22. for neere r. were p. 24. l. 18. for inauimate r. inanimate p. 25. l. 6. for Ilastica r. Hilastica which fault escaped in diuers other places p. 25. l. 26. for his r. this p. 28. l. 28. for phusian r. thusian p. 28. l. 32. for open reade oxen p. 30. l. 12. for finne r. sinne p. 42. l. 3. for almes reade all men p. 84. l. 32. for Bitrutum r. Bitentum p. 85. l. 18. for commendation r. commemoration p. 88. l. 18. for and r. a. p. 106. l. 29 for suffered r. offered p. 107. l. 31. for hexenegae r. exenenke p. 109. for host r. hoast p. 1 10. for hen r. en ibid. l 1 1. for Hebrewes r. Hebrew ibid. l. 13. for participle r particle p. 111. l 20. for an r. no p. 195. l. 30. for men r. man p. 198. l. 16. for their read three p. 206. l. 29 for 〈◊〉 r. Idololatreta FINIS ALPHABETVM GRAECVM Litterae apud Graecos sunt quatuor Viginti Figura Nomen Pronuntiatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alpha a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beta b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gamma g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Delta d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epsilon etenue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zeta z densum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eta e longum vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theta th 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iota i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cappa c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lambda l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ny n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Xi x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omicron oparuum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pi P 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rho r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sigma s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tau t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ypsilon y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phi ph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chi ch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psi. ps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Omega omagnum Finis Alphabeti DE GRAMMATICA ET EIVS PARTIBVS GRAMMATICA EST recte scribendi atque loquendi ars Grammaticae quatuor sunt partes Orthographia Etymológia Syntaxis Prosodia De Orthographia ORTHOGRAPHIA est rectè scribendi ratio qua docemur quibus quaeque dictio sit formanda literis vt Lectio non lexio ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rectus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scriptura DE LITERIS Ex viginti duabus literis quinque sunt vocales a e i o u nam y Graeca est Ex quibus variè dispositis coalescunt
by which he did offer himselfe And in another place he hath these words Where there is remission of sins there needes not any more sacrifices but Christ hath offered a Sacrifice seruing and standing sufficient for euer and therefore wee haue no neede of any other second sacrifice About the 1000 yeare they beganne to ordaine Priests with these words Accipe potestatem missas celebrandi sacrificium offerrendi pro viuis mortuis Take power to celebrate Masses and to offer Sacrifice sor the quicke and the dead Then had priuate Masse gotten some life wherein the Priest alone did communicate for himsefe and for those who had payed him a good price to be remembred when hee receiued the Sacrament that intentionally the vertue of his communicating might profit them to saluation Then began the circumgestation or carrying about of the host with the adoration or worshipping of it Then began they to ascribe to it the power of healing and working of miracles And about this time did the Church of Rome giue vnto the Sacrament that great and as yet vnrecouered name of taking away the cup of the Lords Supper from the Layity that is like Arithmeticians they had liberally studied addition making many things essentiall to the Sacrament of the Supper which were not so now they might put in practise Substraction by with-holding the one halfe of the Elements wherwith Christ institutes and the Apostles and Primitiue Church celebrated the Lords Supper from the lay people Let euery man iudge here whose religion is new or who are the Innovators they or we Among diuers other additions vnto the ceremonies of the Masse in the yeare 1065. was ioyned the blessing of the incense wherein there is mention made of a propitiatory sacrifice But this doctrine was not generally established in the Church till within this 408 yeares for as one of their greatest Schoolmen 〈◊〉 Ante Concilium Lataranense hoc dogma non suit Before the Councill of Lateran this opinion namely of 〈◊〉 was not that is generally approued and maintained And Cornalius Musso a Bishop of Bitrutum so famous for his learning as Sixtus Senensis writeth that he was a Preacher at twelue yeares old and all Italy ranne after him did defend in the Councell of Trent that Christ at his last Supper did offer no sacrifice at all meaning no true Propitiatory sacrifice For as he vrgeth if he offered himselfe to his Father in his last Supper then should he not haue perfected his sacrifice with one oblation made as Saint Paul teacheth but with a double oblation twice made once in the Supper and once vpon the crosse which were most repuguant to the holy Scripture But from the time of the Laterane Councill this doctrine of the Masse tooke such roote and spread it selfe so farre and so fast that the greatest part of Europe is darkned with the darke shade thereof growing by degrees from an action of thanksgiuing to an Eucharisticall Sacrifice and from thence to a Propitiatory sacrifice by way of Mystery and Commendation and from thence to a true proper and reall Propitiatory sacrifice equall with nay farre more effectuall then the sacrifice that Christ himselfe offered vpon the crosse And this dangerous and blasphemous doctrine crept in the more easily by the ignorance of these latter ages both in the Church and Common-wealth caused by the troubles of the Church of Rome as also by the corruption of languages which was in this last thousand yeares occasioned by the mixture of diuers nations together in seuerall kingdomes and especially Italy and this heresie beeing crept into the Church was fostered and nourished by the coldnesse of mens deuotion the couetousnesse of the Priests and the 〈◊〉 of the Bishops The coldnesse of mens deuotion was such that whereas in the feruent zeale of the Christian Church the Supper of the Lord was celebrated euery Lords day yea in some Churches euery day and great multitudes resorted and thronged thereunto yet in processe of time men began so to neglect the Lords Table that there was this law enacted to compel them to a more carefull respect of communicating That such lay people as did not communicate at the least euery feast of the Natiuity Easter and Whitsontide should bee held for Infidells This law was afterward ratified by Charles the Great and vrged vpon the people But hereby it came to passe that the profits of the Priests were much curtalled because the people brought not so many offerings as in former times wherefore the Clergie thought to vse a speedy remedie for this disease and therefore began to teach them that the Sacrament was not onely profitable for the saluation of the Communicants but also for all their friends and kindred liuing and dead which the Priest should remember secretly with himself at the time of celebration and this they called Vim 〈◊〉 the force efficacie of the Masse This broght in store of gaine to the Priests purse as Diana did to Demetrius and his companions and as the Pythonisse did vnto her masters no maruaile then if they stand to maintaine that which maintaines them This doctrine of the Massing sacrifice they cunningly built vpon two foundations which were layd both at this time the better to keepe the people in awe and to cause the more respect vnto their sacrfice The first was Transubstantion for after it was taught that the bread and wine was changed substantially into the body and blood of Christ then what reuerence was too great for this sacrifice who could doubt that it was Propitiatory The second was Purgatory for then might the people argue if our friends departed out of this world doe abide the scorching flames of Purgatory and that wee our selues must thither too and if the holy sacrifice of the Masse hath such vertue as to ease the soules therein then let vs out of charitie to our friends pay some portion of money to the Priest for the cessation of their paines and out of loue to our selues when we dye let vs leaue grounds and goods to the Church that Masse may be sayd for vs when we are dead Thus you see how the sacrifice of the Masse got footing vpon what ground it stood and so continues But God that still prouideth for his Church will and hath caused light to breake out of darknes that albeit the darknes of Fgypt bee palpable yet light shall shine clearely in Goshen and to this end hath sent diuers of his seruants to deliuer truth out of prison and to manifest the light there of vnto his people Their owne tongues are against them and some of their owne brood hatched about the time of the Laterane Councell disclaime this point As you haue heard Aquinas speaking in this case pag. 71. so heare whether he be not still the same who sayes It behooneth that there euermore should remaine some representation of the passion of our Lord. In the old teament this principall
sacrament was the Paschall lambe whereupon the Apostle sayes Christ our Paschall Lambe was offered And in place thereof hath succeeded the Eucharist in the new Testament which is a Memoriall of his passion past and suffered as the other was a prefigurer and 〈◊〉 of his passion to come Petrus Alphonsus at the same time did acknowledge the Masse or Eucharist for no other thing then a Sacrifice of praise And this was at that time one of the questions disputed by the Albigenses and Petrus Brutis who was burnt at Tholosa where hee taught publikely that it was not a Propitiatory All these sacrifices saith he which were vsed vnder the law were nothing but 〈◊〉 of this great sacrifice which was to destroy sinne But since the comming of Christ wee vse not any other Sacrifice but that of bread and wine which he hath ordained is like vnto that which Moses in the law called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sacrifice of prayse for therein we prayse God for the benefit hee hath bestowed vpon vs sauing vs by his onely Sonne c. Alexander Hales seemes to crosse the Masse in diuers of his assertions for he speakes thus Iesus Christ hath offered a double sacrifice a spirituall and corporall the spirituall that is a sacrifice of deuotion and loue towards mankind which he hath offered in spirit the corporall the sacrifice of the death which he vnderwent vpon the crosse which is represented in the sacrament Marke he confesseth no realitie of a sacrifice any otherwise then by 〈◊〉 The spirituall figured by the incense and perfume which was made vpon the inner 〈◊〉 the corporall which hee offered in his flesh two wayes that is to say sensibly vpon the crosse and insensibly vpon the altar Obserue he tearmes it an insensible offering not grosse vnder the formes of bread and wine That sensible sort being shadowed out by the sacrifices of beasts but the insensible by the sacrificing of things that are insensible as fruits bread and wine both the one and the other vpon the vtter altar Here he maketh one Propitiatory for such were the sacrifices wherein beasts were offered with the shedding of their blood for sinne figuring out the singular sacrifice vpon the crosse offered by the Messiah the Lord Iesus Christ. The other Eucharisticall onely for such properly were those of fruites bread c. Lyra also that Catholike interpreter of the whole scripture seems not much to dissent from the former for writing of the Sacrifice of Christ that it is not to be iterated preoccupates an obiection thus You will say the sacrament of the altar is euery day offered vp in the Church But the answer hereto is that this is no reiterating of the sacrifice but an ordinary remembring and calling to mind of the onely Sacrifice offered vpon the crosse wherefore it is said Math. 26. Doe this in remembrance of me That most learned Arrias Montanus vpon Luk. 22. thus writes This is my body that is My body is sacramentally contained in this sacrament of bread and straight way he addes like another Nicodemus Christs nightly disciple The secret and most mysticall manner whereof God will once vouchsafe more clearely to vnfold vnto his Church Thus hath the light of truth appeared from the beginning of the Primitiue Church vntill these our dayes albeit till within this hundred and odde yeares it hath from the time of Gregory shined more dimmely and since the Laterane Councell seemed well nigh to be quite extinct But at last the Sunne of righteousnes communicated his light vnto these 〈◊〉 which haue illuminated our Horizon such as Luther Zuinglius Oecolampadius Caluine Beza Iewell and many famous Martyrs in queene Maryes dayes as Cranmer Latimer Ridley Bradford Philpot c. which albeit it pleaseth the Romish Factors to brand them with the title of Heretickes haue so dispelled the darkenesse of superstition and discouered the Mysterie of Antichrist that all the world may point out which is the purple and scarlet Whore Babylon the great the mother of harlots and abhominations of the earth whose shame her children louers and friends would saine conceale but God hath layd it open and will dayly more and more before men and angells till the time come when she shall be cast downe burnt with fire and made desolate for euermore Thus haue I let you see briefly and I doubt more briefly then so ample a matter doth require how the sacrifice of the Masse crept into the Church and how it hath continued How first it was celebrated in a most plaine and simple manner Secondly it began to admit some encrease of ceremonies especially the offerings for the dead which was but a gratulation and thankesgiuing for them vntill 200. yeares after 〈◊〉 Thirdly prayers for the dead got entrance into the Supper about 400. yeares then came in Purgatory and redemption of soules thence by Masses though not generally taught nor authorized by any Councill About the 780. yeare Gregoryes Masse was publikely taken vp in the Churches of Italy whereas before Ambrose his Masse was of more generall vse Fourthly the disputations of Transubstantiation began about the yeare 840. but were not fully concluded till the Councell of Lateran by Innocent the third anno 1216. After which came in the offering of the body and blood of Christ vpon the altar And after that there followed the enclosing carying about and adoration of them Thus grew the Church of Rome from euill to worse till it came to that miserable state wherein it now is And as the Romanists are Innouatours in respect of the Sacrifice of the Masse so are they also in respect both of the Canon of the Ceremonies of the Masse for whereas they boast that the forme of the Masse in respect of the Canon is so ancient as that they deduce it from the Apostles and to this end alleadge the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy of Dionysius some of their owne writers doe question the veritie and antiquity of that book doubting whether it be spurious or no and that the Canon hath admitted diuers additions by seuerall and sundry Popes appeares by their owne Polidore Virgill whose words bee these All the Mysteries were deliuered by Christ to his Apostles barely and plainely sauouring more of piety then outward shew for Peter was went onely to consecrate by saying the Lords prayer after this these 〈◊〉 were enlarged by Saint Iames by Saint Basill Coelestine added the entrance of the Masse beginning with this 〈◊〉 Iudge me oh Lord. Damasus added the confession which is made by the Priest before hee ascend vnto the Altar some ascribe it to Pontianus Gregory added the 〈◊〉 which followeth the Entrance and that Lord haue mercy vpon vs should bee repeated ninetimes with the Antiphonie after the Epistle Gospel and communion Telesphorus added the hymne of glory to God on high Gelasius added the conclusions of the prayers as vpon Christmas day because thou didst
two persons of Christ and Iudas then hee stretcheth out his armes to figure Christ stretched on the crosse Which done he maketh three crosses to represent the threefold estate of such as haue benefit by that sacrifice namely those in Heauen on earth in purgatory He smiteth afterwards his breast to play the part of the Publican repenting in the Temple But this smiting must be with the three hinder-most fingers for the thombe and the fore-finger are reserued to consecrate and transubstantiate the Host into the body of Christ moreouer he smiteth his breast three times to figure the three-fold offence of thought word and deede Then he eleuateth the host to be adored Then he lifteth vp his voyce to represent the person of the theefe or the Centurion which confessed Christ in his passion Six other crosses are againe made three vpon the chalice couered to represent the three houres that Christ hanged on the crosse aliue and the other three on the chalice vncouered with the round host lifted vp againe to figure the three houres that Christ hanged on the crosse dead Then he kisseth the chalice and maketh two crosses to figure the water and blood that issued out of the side of Christ. Then the Priest must take the couering cloath off from the chalice and couer it with the patyne to figure the breaking of the vaile of the Temple in the middest at the death of Christ. This done the host is put from aboue the chalice and is couched vnder the corporas to figure the burying of Christ. The Priest hauing thus acted the parts of Christ of the holy Theefe of Iudas then acteth the person of the Centurion in singing the Pater Noster by the seauen petitions whereof Durandus would signifie the seauen weepings of the Virgin Mary or the seauen graces of the Holy Ghost or the seauen Beatitudes or the seauen deadly sinnes This song finished the Priest keepeth silence to signifie the silence or rest of Christ in the Sepulcher Who sees not here a Masse of fopperies and will-worship in this sacrifice of the Masse shall not God say vnto our Masse-mungers as he did vnto the Israelites Who required these things at your hands where hath Christ either giuen precept or example to make such representations of his passion by externall mummeries and histrionicall gestures But these things are of great antiquity and haue beene of long vse in the Church and why should wee now become Innouatours Answere I answere wee are not Innouatours because we abolish these Popish Idolatries and keepe our selues to the practise of the Primitiue Church but they are Innouatours that haue brought these superstitions into the Church And 〈◊〉 as they pleade Antiquity I answer first Antiquity or continuance of an euill is no ground for a tolleration and idolatry in religion is not to be permitted though neuer so ancient for by the same argument may the Turkes 〈◊〉 their Mahometan Alcoran which they haue possessed about 900 yeares vnder the which law they haue subdued nations conquered Realmes and Empires By the same reason might the Israelites iustifie the sacrificing of their children vnto Moloch in the valley of Tophet a most detestable Idolatry yet pactised well nigh the space of 1200 yeares till it was quite abolished by that good King Iosiah The Brazen Serpent a thing commanded by God himselfe possessed by the Israelites for the space of 900. yeares vnto which the people had burnt incense from time to time yet neither the long continuance nor the generall practise of such an Idolatry could preuaile with Hezechiah for tolleration Could the people of Israel be excused for committing 〈◊〉 by the two calues of Dan and Bethel erected by 〈◊〉 and worshipped for the space of three or foure hundred yeares No the long practise of an euill can afford no ground for permission but Idolatry though neuer so aged is to be extirpated as Theodosius the Emperour answered vnto the Senatours of Rome when they pressed him with the antiquity of their Pompilian religion which they had obserued for the space of 1000. yeares Againe the Masse is not so ancient as our aduersaries pretend neither in respect of the Canon nor in respect of the Ceremonies least of all in respect of the Sacrifice The Canon being patched together by sundry Popes who haue added their parts and parcels at seuerall times The Ceremonies as the diuers garments holy-water wax-tapers the Offertory Prayer for the dead Procession the like crept in also by degrees one after another as their owne Histories declare sufficiently And the sacrifice not acknowledged by any till within these 400 and odde yeares about the time of the Lateran Councell vnder Innocent the third Now let the indifferent Reader iudge of the impudencie of our Aduersaries who bragge so much of antiquitie endeauouring to deduce their Masse from the Apostles time against their owne consciences and the credit of all hystories For hereby clearely is declared the induction not onely of the Ceremonies but also of the very Canon of the Masse all which do not sauour only of Innouation but also of Iudaisme and Gentilisme the badges of a false and superstitious Sacrifice The third part of this confutation followes wherein we shall giue answer vnto some of the maine and principall arguments wherewith they endeauour to establish their battered and shaken imposture and to oppugne the inuincible truth of God and his Church So that wilfully they ouerturne the very principles of nature the order of all things the humanity of their Sauiour the truth of the Sacrament the truth of Scripture the foundations of all 〈◊〉 confusedly iumbling heauen and earth together rather then they will admit of a tropicall speech in our Sauiours consecration And first for the maintaining of the sacrifice of the Masse they alleadge That Christ is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech but the proper act of Melchizedechs Priesthood did consist in sacrificing vnder the formes of bread and wine Ergo. The eternity of Christs Priesthood standeth in the sacrificing of his body and blood in those formes by those Priests whom hee hath promised to continue in his Church till the worlds end Rhemist annot Heb. 7. sest 8. Bellar. cap 6. Hoffmeyst assert sacrific missae And that Melchizedechs Priesthood consisted in oblation of bread and wine they would prooue by these Reasons First from the word He brought forth The Hebrew word is properly applyed to the bringing forth of a sacrifice as Gen. 4. The like word is vsed to signifie Cain and Abels sacrifice Secondly because Abraham had no need of bread and wine to refresh himselfe being returned with so great spoyle from his enemies and so hauing sufficient to refresh himselfe with it is likely Melchizedech brought them forth to offer to God Thirdly as Melchizedech is said to be the Priest of the High God so it was requisite that the Scripture also should make mention of his
it saying The custome of the Iewes was to offer a sacrifice euening morning and euery day and they called this sacrifice entelechismon a continuall action now Antiochus at his comming tooke away the same And with him doth ioyne Nicolas Lyra referring both the eight and eleuenth of Daniel vnto the dayes of Antiochus Many of the ancients expound this place of the rooting out of the Iewish Priest-hood fulfilled in the vtter Catastraphe and ruine of Ierusalem by Titus Vespasianus where vnto Christ Iesus the true expounder of the Law and the Prophets hath referred this place saying When you shall see the abhomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet set in the holy place c. And thus doth Origen expound it saying Daniel doth signifie and note out vnto vs the seauenty yeares after the comming of our Lord for this weeke doth confirme and ratifie the testament c. And in the middest thereof the sacrifice of the 〈◊〉 was taken away euen in the 35 yeare and so was accomplished that which had beene written In the middest of the weeke c. Then also was the abhomination of desolation c. When they saw Ierusalem be siedged I do not deny but that Antiochus was a type of Antichrist for as the former set vp an Idoll in the Temple so this latter sets vp images in the Church the one burnt the Scriptures the other conceales them from the lay people the first hindred the dayly sacrifice and this latter hath conuerted the great sacrifice of Christ into an abhomination in that the Priest must offer a propitiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead greater abhomination then this was not in the dayes of Antiochus Secondly let vs grant that this prophesie is to be fulfilled in the dayes of Antichrist yet how shall it be prooued that this Iuge sacrificium dayly sacrifice is the sacrifice of the Masse Let this bee first prooued and wee shall soone yeelde the cause In the originall there is no mention made of a sacrifice but the word Iuge daily without any substantiue must there needes be vnderstood sacrifice why then doth Ierome call it Iugem cultum the dayly Worship of God and Theodoret Ecclesiasticum cnltum the Ecclsiasticall worship or seruice of God yet both of these restraine this prophesie to the time of Antichrist So Tremellius translates it Why may it not be 〈◊〉 of the preaching of the Gospell which shall be much hindered by Antichrist seeing that is Metaphorically a sacrificing worke Origen calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sacrificing worke and Ch ysostom Sacerdotium meum est praedicare Euangelium My priesthood is to preach the Gospell But let vs grant it is to be vnderstood of the Eucharist and that this is called a sacrifice but how any other then Eucharisticall or of thankesgiuing but let it be granted to bee vnderstood of the Lords Supper and it is called a Propitiatory sacrifice how any otherwise then by representation how any otherwise then of commemoration Thus the ground whereon they build shrinkes from them as refusing to become a foundation for such a tottering fabricke But against this interpretation of our Antagonists let vs oppose Socratically and by the way of interrogation desiring them to answer to these demands First why doth not the Apostle Saint Paul 2. The. 2. and Saint Iohn the Apostle and Euangelist 1. Ioh. 4. 3. Reuel 17. and 18. in their description of Antichrist make mention of this place of Daniel or of taking away for a time this Iuge sacrificium dayly sacrifice or hindering the sacrifice of the Masse Doubtlesse had Daniell spoken of Antichrists taking away the sacrifice of the Masse the Apostles would not haue either forgotten or willfully pretermitted so great a matter But by their forgetfulnesse we may conceiue the Masse not to be worth remembring or by their voluntary omission we may iudge it indigne and vnworthy to be spoken of Secondly I demand how Christ is euer with his Church vnto the end of the world Turrian answers for all the rest Christ is with vs in the mystery of the Masse but then I require againe whether Antichrist shall take away the Masse for a thousand two hundred and ninety dayes Turrian and with him Vega answer saying Gabriel that cannot lye saith that Antichr ist shall abolish and put downe the continuall sacrifice and what other thing is that but the Masse say they See now how our subtle aduersaries haue entangled themselues for how can Christ be euer with his Church in the sacrifice of the Masse when the sacrifice it selfe of the Masse by their owne confession shall bee abolished by Antichrist for the space of three yeares and six moneths Thirdly I demand whether that Iuge sacrificium dayly sacrifice be meant properly or Metaphorically if properly then the sacrifice of the Masse is Iudaicall then ought it to bee offered onely in one place and that euery day morning and euening which our Romish Priests obserue not If Metaphorically why then doe they vrge the verity and reality of a Hilasticke or Propitiatory sacrifice or why doe wee not agree and consent that it is Propitiatory by resemblance Lastly if Antichrist shall abolish the sacrifice of the Masse for the space of three years and sixe months then I demand how shal there remaine in the Church of Rome a continuall and constant succession neuer to bee interrupted Seeing by their owne consessions hee shall make interruption both of sacrifice and Priesthood Herein are our aduersaries contrary to themselues as they are alwayes contrary to the truth Diuers other arguments are alleadged by them but these are the principall and seeing their strongest testimonies are so infirme and weake I thinke it wil be supervacaneous and vnnecessary to trouble my selfe in giuing answer to those which are more friuolous hauing the lesse pretence and shew of reason Wherefore thus much shall serue for the third part of this confutation namely the answering of their obiections Argument 1. The fourth and last part now followes wherein wee shall lay downe arguments sufficiently proouing our owne opinion that in the Masse there is not a true reall Propitiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead and therefore not lawfull to be vsed in the Church of God And this is prooued First that sacrifice which is al-mighty al-sufficient and absolutely perfect in respect of the desired end cannot be reiterated by men But the sacrifice of the the immaculate Lambe Iesus Christ vpon the crosse was almighty al-sufficient and absolutely perfect in respect of the desired end which is the saluation of the faithfull Ergo. The al-sufficient and perfect sacrifice of Christ cannot be reiterated in the Masse The Maior is confirmed by the words of the Apostle The law which had a shadow of good things to come and not the very image of the things can neuer with those sacrifices which they offered yeare by yeare continually make
places and the like it is euident that hee that was to be the Priest of the new Couenant was also to be the Mediatour betweene God and man and that there is no Mediatour but onely Christ appeares by the words of Saint Paul For there is one God and one Mediatour betweene God and man the man Iesus Christ. Wherefore if they say they are Priests of the new Testament they may as well say they are Mediatours and if Mediators then Redeemers of the Church Argument 10. Tenthly if Christ in the Sacrament be giuen vnto vs to bee receiued with truth faith and humble reuerence then Christ is not offered vnto his Father by the Priest in the Eucharist much lesse in the Masse But he is offered vnto vs in the Eucharist Ergo. Christ is not offered by the Priest vnto his Father The hypotheticall connexion appeares by the nature of those things which are opposite for the end of Christs institution of the Supper was to exhibite himselfe vnto all beleeuers Spiritually to be receiued Sacramentally for the sealing and confirmation of their faith and not to bee offered vp by any mortall vnto his Father And whereas they obiect that God gaue vnto the Israelites sacrifices which they should offer vnto God We answer that this exception is plaine heterogenes of another nature for their sacrifices were corporall and externall ours spirituall and internall The assumption is prooued by the words of Christ Take eate this is my body which is giuen for you Taking doth presuppose a giuing it is called The Communion of the body and blood of Christ. That is the communicating and distributing of the blessed body and blood of Christ whereof all beleeuers in common are made partakers They affirme the Eucharist to be not onely a Sacrament out also a Propitiatory sacrifice were deny it vpon this ground because all expiatory sacrifices properly so called haue their complement in the most perfect and absolute sacrifice of Christ Iesus which he offered himselfe vpon the crosse But say they Christ sacrificed himselfe in the Eucharist which appeares by these words Datur frangitur effunditur is giuen is broken is powred out where our Sauiour speakes in the present tense and not shall be broken shall be giuen shall be powred out We answer first some of their owne writers haue denyed that Christ offered any Propitiatory sacrifice when he instituted and distributed the Eucharist see p. 84. And he himselfe saies that his time was not fully come namely wherein he should be offered Againe their owne translation hath tradetur effundetur shall be giuen shall be powred out which Lyra following doth so render and so is it in the Canon of the Masse Moreouer our Sauiour might so speake not to signifie a present sacrifice but to intimate that his body was already broken and his blood shed in Gods determination and his owne resolution in which sense he is called Agnus ab origine mundi occisus The lambe slaine from the beginning of the world because God had appointed him from the beginning to be the Sauiour of the world And why might not Christ speake in the present tense hauing respect vnto their 〈◊〉 whose property is to make things past and to come to be truely present But the direct answer is that in the words of Christ there is an Enallage temporis the present time being set for the future and this kind of speech is frequent in the scripture as Woe vnto that man by whom the Sonne of man is betrayed for shall be betrayed Vnto vs a sonne and borne of c. And thus their owne Cardinall expounds it saying Euangelistae in voce praesentis effunditur Paulus in frangitur futuram in cruce effusionem carnis frnctionem significarunt c. The Euangelists in the word is powred out being of the present tense and Paul by the word is broken did signifie the suture effusion of his blood and the breaking of his flesh vpon the crosse And so Gregory de Valentia vpon these words This is my body which is giuen for you saith That is which shall be offered by mee slaine vpon the crosse So Hugo Cardinalis vpon Math. 26. Fregit id est frangendum in cruce signauit He brake that is he signified it to be broken vpon the crosse Now who sees not the blasphemie of our peruerse aduersaries who against the light of holy scripture and I thinke I may safely say against the light of their owne conscience dare affirme that Christ in the Lords Supper offered his transubstantiated body vnto his Father an expiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the elect how can they reconcile this doctrine and the words of the Apostle Christ offered himselfe once for all which they can neuer effect till they prooue the action which Christ performed in the night before he was betrayed to bee eadem numero the same indiuiduall action which hee did the day following for if hee offered himselfe for sinne in the Sacrament and offered himselfe for the same sins vpon the crosse How can this bee true Hee offered himselfe once for all who sees not by their doctrine a double offering of Christ Who perceiues not double dealing in the matter Argument 11. The eleuenth argument That sacrifice which is not of diuine institution is not lawfull in the Church But the sacrifice of the Masse is not of diuine institution Therefore the sacrifice of the Masse is not lawfull The Maior is prooued by the confession of their owne Iesuite who sayes that the Church cannot institute any new sacrifice or sacrament for the ordinance of such essentiall parts of Gods worship must bee of diuine institution and as he affirmeth 〈◊〉 7. Sacrificia veteris legis omnia fuerunt a Deo immediate instituta licet erant a Mose promulgata Sacrificij autem 〈◊〉 gis solus Christus Deus homo author est God was the authour of all the sacrifices of the old Law albeit they were promulgated by Moses and Christ God and Man is the authour of the sacrifice of the new Testament Therefore hath Salomon their Iesuite iustly taxed a Great Scholler of their owne Church for saying the Church had authority to institute a new sacrifice if Christ himselfe had instituted none The Minor is true for as Martin Luther exacteth of our aduersaries a demonstration of their sacrifice from the institution of Christ wherein as hee obserueth We reade that Christ did distribute this sacrament vnto his disciples but that he offered it vp in forme of a sacrifice we cannot find Hereunto their Cardinall Bellarmine answereth That this manner of argument from scripture 〈◊〉 as thus it is not expressely set downe is scripture Ergo it was not done is ridiculous among schoole-boyes But if he wold take the aduise of Suarez or stand to his owne answer which elsewhere he himselfe hath deliuered he would not so slightly reiect that forme ofarguing For first Suarez a
Iesuite of his owne society that hee might prooue the receiuing of the bread and the wine in the Eucharist not to bee any essentiall part of this sacrifice reasoneth negatiuely from Christ his institution thus It is very likely that Christ instituting this sacrifice did not make it of the essence of this sacrifice for the Priest to receiue for the Euangelists negatiue authority proones it it being probable that they relating the history of so great a mystery would not haue pretermitted so essentiall a rite thereof who doe expresly signifie that Christ did consecrate the Eucharist but that hee himselfe did take it they doe not report and immediately hee addes If the Priests receiuing of the bread and wine be of the essence of the Eucharist it ought to haue bin cleerely and plainely deliuered by the Euangelist From hence may bee collected thus much That wbosoeuer is not expressely related by the Euangelist concerning the institution of this sacrament is not essentiall or absolutely necessary thereunto This is Suarez his confession and as much as Luther and we desire for if the Euangelists haue not layde downe any institution of a sacrifice nor so much as named a a sacrifice in the Eucharist wee ought not to embrace it this therefore argues the malice of our aduersary Bellarmine who calls this a ridiculous manner of reasoning in vs which is vsed by a Doctour of his owne order not inferiour to himselfe in learning and iudgement Secondly let vs appeale vnto the iudgement of the Cardinall himselfe who answers in another case after the same manner for hee reciteth the Liturgies that passe vnder the name of Saint Iames because all things saith he contained in those liturgies and in the liturgies of other Fathers are not taken from the example or precept of Christ. Thus doth the Cardinalls argument frame it selfe whatsoeuer in the seruice of God is not by prescript precept or direct example of Christ confirmed is not lawfull or warrantable see now the partiality and philautia of the Cardinall for what hee thinkes commendable in himselfe he accounts ridiculous in another The Liturgie of Saint Iames is not lawfull because it contains many things not taken either from the example or commandement of Christ yet we may not say that the Masse is vnlawfull because it cannot be prooued by either example or commandement of Christ. Note here the Cardinall requires greater authority for the confirmation of a Liturgy then of their Massing sacrifice Wherefore when they vrge the lawfulnesse of this their sacrifice let vs reply Orthodoxally in the Cardinals owne words Shew vs either example or commandement from Christ and it shall 〈◊〉 For in this tempestuous night of opposition and contention wee haue nothing to steere our course by but by the compasse of Scripture and the Load-starre Christ in whom wee are to obserue dicta facta his words and his actions in his institution It is not vntrue that some Romanists haue thought that Christ did name the word sacrifice or oblation when he spake vnto his father albeit it be not mentioned by the Euangelist for they thought it necessary in consecration that Christ should haue vsed the words offering or sacrificing But that had beene strange forgetfulnesse in the 〈◊〉 to haue omitted the maine thing which must authorize this sacrifice and how did the spirit of the truth lead them into all truth if this were omitted which is the maine part of Gods seruice and the chiefe solace of a Christian soule But we will not 〈◊〉 them to so strict a taske as to finde in the institution of Christ the very words of a sacrifice or oblation it shall auaile them to proue any word tending to that purpose Bellarmine brags of the probate of the point and vseth this argument Christ offered himselfe vnder the forme of bread and wine vnto his father and bid his Apostles do this in remembrance of him therefore the Church may offer a sacrifice propitiatory according to Christs command laying Do this Who sees not here a Paralogisme or petitio principij For he takes that for granted which is the life of the cause and hee supposes that Christ offered himselfe vnder the formes of bread and wine which can neuer be proued and therefore is vnlikely to be granted by vs for if it can appeare that Christ at the institution of the Eucharist or Lords Supper did 〈◊〉 his body into the bread and wine and so did offer it vnto his father wee shall soone yeelde and the controuersie shall haue end But can any man beleeue that Christ carried his whole body in owne of his hands that he gaue it to be eaten to his Disciples which saw him present at the Table and heard him speaking to them both while they were eating him and afterward that the same sonne of man should at once both 〈◊〉 his owne body and 〈◊〉 intine and whole at Table That a true naturall body should be in many places at once Vnlesse hee were as Tursellian reports of St. Xanier one of Loyala's brood who was seene in a boate and ship both at once like Plautus his Amphitruo Sealiger layes downe his Axiome The numericall vnity of a finite thing cannot stand without continuity But Bellarmine sayth The very places wherein Christs body is are discontinued yea and the very body of Christ it selfe is 〈◊〉 from it selfe 〈◊〉 respect of place though not in respect of substance and quantity As though there could be any diuision of a materiall substance but by bounds of place or as if quantity were not both bounded and measured by place alone Or as if that sinite body which is in two places at once were not first diuided in it selfe So that we demaund of Bellarmine as once Paul did in another case Is Christ diuided The Papists do not say as once of old Behold here is Christ or there but which is much worse Behold Christ is both here and there and euery where in his true humane nature thus they blush not to teach impossibilities that the selfe same body should be all here and all not here all visible and all inuisible all vppon the Table and all in Heauen all eaten and all vneaten all in England and all at Rome Who sees not these impostures to be most palpable And for that Bellarmine will haue these words Do this to signifie as much as to sacrifice thereby to establish their great Diana the sacrifice of the Masse hee alleadgeth not one of the whole Catalogue of the Fathers who hath so interpreted those words Insomuch that his brother Cardinall dispairing of the proofe of the Masse by these words is faine to confesse Vt vel hoc ex loco vel alijs scripturae locis essicaciter probari non possit hoc esse sacrificium tamen ex eccle siae traditione idefficaciter probatur That albeit this sacrifice cannot be proued by this text Do this or by other places of
vse as meanes for the conuersion of others were to liue in future ages and had not as yet beeing and consequently could not at that time finish those acts whereunto they were destined of God but if he vnderstand by these words All things necessary for mans saluation are not finished all the specificall acts of religion as Prayer Preaching Administration of the Sacraments c. and whatsoeuer of that kind which is necessary to mans saluation is not finished this is false for that they had their institution from Christ before his death and so in the species they were finished Or if thereby the sacrifice of Christ was not finished this is false for both it and the saluation of man by it was finished as appeares by the Apostles vsing the same words saying With one offering teteleioken consummauit he hath consummated for euer such as are sanctified And whereas he sayes that if all things necessary for mans saluation were consummated then the sacraments and all doctrine should bee superfluous this is false for the institution of them might be consummated although the exercise of them in future ages were not finished Againe the perfection of Christs sacrifice abolisheth not the vse of doctrine and Sacraments which doe represent vnto vs the death and sacrifice of Christ but it abolisheth all other sacrifices of Propitiation for if they be but memorialls of Christs death they are superfluous the word and sacraments beeing sufficient to that end and if they be more then memorials as auaileable to forgiue sinnes they are blasphemous and make Christs sacrifice imperfect Argument 17. The seauenteenth argument is taken from the falshood of the Canon of the Masse and it is thus framed Such as is the Canon such is the sacrifice But the Canon of the Masse is false Ergo the sacrifice is false and consequently not Propitiatory The falshood of the Masse appeares in diuers things 1. In the ancient Church when the Lords Supper was celebrated the Christians vsed to bring their agapai which were the bread and wine for the reliefe of the poore and the maintenance of the Ministry and when they had laide downe these oblations which were neuer accounted a Propitiatory sacrifice they prayed for the prosperity and preseruation of the Church which in the Canon before the consecration is applyed vnto the bread and wine and the bread and wine is offered vnto God the Father for the happinesse of the Church Secondly in the Canon They pray vnto God that he would accept that pure sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ as he accepted the sacrifices of Abell and Melchizedech In which words they become intercessours vnto God the Father to accept his Son Iesus Christ as though he were not worthy to be accepted of himselfe And how absurd is it to compare the most pretious sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ if it were so really and truely vnto the sacrifice of Abel which was but a lambe or a goate And how vnwisely doe they pray that God would accept the sacrifice of his Sonne as hee did accept the sacrifice of Melchizedech whereas it cannot appeare as is formerly prooued by the holy scripture that Melchizedech offered bread and wine how absurd is it then to compare the sacrifice of Christ with that sacrifice which neither was is nor shall be Thirdly the Canon saith that the Priest offereth vnto God the heauenly Father the bread of life But where are they commanded to offer the bread of life seeing in the scripture there is mention made of eating the bread of life but not of offering Fourthly the Canon ouerthrowes the article of ascension for it commands the Angells to carry that vnspotted sacrifice to the high Altar of heauen and to present it before God the Father What Is not Christ ascended and fitteth for euer at the right hand of God and hath he now more need of the helpe of Anglls then when he first ascended by the whole power of his Godhead and cannot hee appeare before his Father but by the assistants of Angells But let me bee bold to demand three questions of our aduersaries grounded vpon these words of the Canon Supplices te rogamus omnipotens Deus iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli c. We humbly beseech thee O Omnipotent God that tbou wouldest command this sacrifice to be carryed by the hands of the holy Angell vnto thy high Altar in the sight of thy diuine Maiesty c. First if they vnderstand it of the bread and wine transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ how comes it to passe that they are not taken by the Angell and carryed immediately into heauen according to the prayer of the Church Secondly I demand if their doctrine bee true of their Multipresence that the true humane body and blood of Christ be both in heauen and in many thousand places vpon the earth at one time what need then the Angell to carry the body of Christ into heauen where it is already before his heauenly Father Thirdly if it be so as they say that Christ in the night when he instituted the Lords Supper did offer himselfe his naturall body and blood vnder the forms of bread and wine a true Propitiatory sacrifice to his heauenly Father I demand whether the Angell did carry this sacrifice into heauen or whether it did 〈◊〉 before his Father in heauen or no If they say no how then was the sacrifice accepted or how comes the Church to pray for that priuiledge of hauing this sacrifice carryed into heauen which was not vouchsafed to the sacrifice offered immediately by Christ himselfe If they affirme that it was carryed into heauen it would then follow that Christs body was in heauen before his passion resurrection or ascension and when he in his humane nature ascended into heauen from his Disciples hee found his humane body and blood before his Father and to haue beene there before it came thither Thus they make Christ to haue two bodies and consequently two soules and so Christ is not one but two but many but innumerable These absurdities doe directly result and arise from their blasphemous Canon which is so grosse and palpable as deserues to be hissed out of the Church Lastly the Canon in diuers places ouerturnes the Mediation of Christ in that they pray to Saints and Angells making them to be intercessours it also establishes Purgatory and prayer for the dead doctrines so dissonant from the truth of the Scriptures as when we see them authorized in the Church of Rome wee may iustly call in question the vertue of their massing sacrifice Argument 18. The eighteenth Argument is taken from the effect of the Masse thus That which destroyeth the true nature of the Lords Supper cannot be a true Propitiatory sacrifice for the 〈◊〉 of the quicke and the dead But the pretended sacrifice of the Masse doth subuert and destroy the nature of the Lords Supper Ergo
of Christ was not of the seed of Dauid sed exsemine triticeo of the seed of wheat was sowed in the earth grinded in the mill baked in the ouen and at last torne a peeces with mens teeth Thus haue I laid open vnto thee Christian Reader a iust suruay and tryall of the sacrifice of the 〈◊〉 Masse which I doubt not appeares to thee as it is in it owne nature a Masse of impiety and that Mystery of iniquity foretold by Saint Paul which albeit it pretend the greatest honour and worship to Christ of any Ecclesiasticall seruice yet is there not a greater enemy vnto our King and Sauiour the Lord Iesus nor a more hellish traytour vnto his crowne and dignity wherein if euer The diuell hath transformed himselfe into an Angell of light couering his poysenous and deadly hooke with the baite of religion the most preualent Stratagem that euer Satan put in practise to hinder and oppugne the kingdome of Christ yet this is the Diana for which Demetrius and his companions are so importunate because by this Craft they get their gaine It may well bee stiled a Craft because it is a Mystery of iniquity whereby the Church of Rome is swollen so bigge with deuouring the gold treasure and inheritance of the Laity that the guttes of it are well nigh bursten This is that Helena for which the aduersaries of the truth doe so fiercely encounter which hath made the Kings of the earth drunken with the cup of her fornication This they labour so much to vphold which is the Pillar that vpholds them and for it they fight as the ancient Romanes were wont tanquam pro focis aris while on it depends their rich offerings vpon their Altars and the fatnes of their kitchin Take but away this one Pillar and their house will fall and the fall of it will be great for it will slay all the Lords of the Philistims Now if any true Orthodoxe Christian or soundmember of the Catholicke Church demand of me whether it be lawfull for him to be present at Masse albeit hee pretend that so hee keepes his heart to God I answere No for 〈◊〉 the Masse is full of so many impieties and abhominable blasphemies against the blessed person of the Sonne of God ouerthrowiug both the Word and Sacraments of our Lord Iesus Christ it is therefore vtterly vnlawfull for any Christian to be present at it or to communicate in that seruice Argument of Ridley and Bradford Secondly we cannot be partakers of Gods religion and Antichrist seruice whereof the Masse is a principall limbe a man cannot bee a member of the Church of Christ and of the Church of Rome as it now stands But he that frequenteth their Idolatrous assemblies makes himselfe a member thereof And therefore cutteth himselfe off from being a member of the Church of Christ. Argument of Bradford Thirdly to dissemble and halt in matters belonging to Gods glory is impious and vngodly but they who are present at Masse both hearing the name of God blasphemed and seeing many abhominations and yet hold their peace do notably dissemble Ergo They sinne egregiously against God Argument of Bradford Fourthly 〈◊〉 of the Masse impugneth diuers petitions of the Lords Prayer and so the practise of such is contrary to the dayly prayer they vse How can we say Thy Kingdome come when nothing in the earth doth more destroy the Kingdome of Christ then the Masse How can we pray Thy will be done when we do our owne wils and the wils of Idolaters flat against the will of God How can we pray Hallowed be thy name when wee seeme to approoue the Masse which is nothing but blasphemy against the whole Trinity How can wee pray Deliuer vs from euill which knowing the Masse to bee euill doe runne into it wherefore if wee meane as we pray we must not pertake in the Masse least wee approue of that in our practise which we condemne in our prayer Argument of Bradford Fiftly whatsoeuer giues occasion to the wicked to be more obfirmed and to the weake to stumble and fall is to be abhorred But Protestants going to Masse and by their presence giuing allowance to it do occasion the obstinate to be more intractable the weake Papists to be more resolute the wauering Protestant quite to fall Bradfords Argument Sixtly Daniel refused to be filled with the Kings meates which were polluted by Idolatry And so Iudeth likewise The Maccabees manfully gaue their liues in defence of the Ceremonies of the Law Ergo we ought much more to endure and suffer all things for the maintenance of the pure word of God and holy Sacraments Bishop Ridleyes Argument Seauenthly God commanded his people Israel by the mouth of his Prophet Amos Not to seeke Bethel nor to enter into Gilgall where Idolatry was vsed And againe My soule hath no pleasure in those that withdraw themselues sayth the Lord If any man prophane the Temple of the Lord him will God destroy for the Temple of God is holy which yee are All strange worship is counted whoredome by the Lord and they that follow it goe a whoring But they that goe to Masse enter into Bethel and Gilgal that is places of Idolatry they withdraw themselues from the faith in their outward behauiour they prophane their bodies which are Gods Temples being present at 〈◊〉 seruice they goe a whoring after a strange religion Ergo Protestants going to Masse disobey Gods command procure his displeasure will cause God to destroy them and diuorce themselues from God and his Church Philpots Argument Eightly The Apostle directly forbids all participation with such as are Idolaters in the eating of meat sacrificed to Idolls shewing that thereby the weake brethren are offended and the partakers make themselues Communicants at the Table of Diuells now a man cannot be partaker at the Lords Table and the table of Diuells But the Masse is an Idolatrous seruice a superstitious worship and the Altar thereof is the Table of Diuells howsoeuer it is to be hallowed with the inuocation of God the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost Angels Apostles Martyres Confessors Saints and painted ouer with the lustre of religion whereas it is indeed nothing but a painted Iezabel a deceitfull Strumpet with a false complexion Ninthly God is the Creator both of soule and body therefore he is to be worshipped both in soule and body Know 〈◊〉 not that your body is the Temple of the holy Ghost therefore glorifie God in your body and spirit which are Gods whereas God hath giuen both so hee requires the seruice of both And Paul will not giue a tolleration to any man to dishonour God by his body I beseech you brethren by the mercies of God that you present your bodies a liuing sacrifice holy and acceptable vnto God God will not be content with reseruing the soule to him when men bestow the worship of their bodyes vpon Idols The soule
and his truth is not worthy of the name of a Christian seeing hee appeares rather to bee a louer of himselfe then of Christ preferring his owne temporall profit before spirituall gaine the fauour of men before the loue of God the satisfying of friends before the honour of his Sauiour the enioying of an earthly habitation before the purchasing of an earthly kingdome Wherefore it is better to loose these and win Christ then to attaine these by apostacie and Idolatry and loose Christ Yea What would it bene fit thee to gaine the whole world by going to Masse and to loose thine owne soule But albeit in the daies of persecution the Martyres of Christ haue beene so violently pursued with cruelty as that they were constrained to sacrifice 〈◊〉 to God in the fire because they would not forsake Christ Iesus and ioyne with the Romish Idolaters in their blasphemous Masse witnesse Cranmer Ridley Latimer Hooper Bradford Philpot Bilney with many moe yet thankes be to God in these our daies the Gospell flourisheth the Sacraments are purely administred according to Christs institution and there is freedome by the lawes of the Realme giuen to all sound Protestants to serue God according to the doctrine now established in the Church of England And if it bee not lawfull for a man to go to Masse by eompulsion but that he ought rather to suffer the spoyling of his goods the losse of friends or to lay downe his life for Christ and his truth then to participate with them in their blasphemous seruice and impious Sacrifice Then cursed shall that man be that being a Protestant a professor of the true Catholike faith howsoeuer our Aduersaries of Rome challenge the title shall voluntarily and without 〈◊〉 either for flattery fashion present gaine or future hopes or the fauour of great Personages be drawne to deny his Christ and to cleaue vnto Antichrist forsaking the Church of God and becomming one of the Synagogue of Satan forgoing Sion for Babylon Ierusalem for Bethel and Samaria refusing the waters of Siloam which run softly and cleauing vnto Resin and Remeliahs Sonne reiecting the Communion of Saints in the participation of the Word and Sacraments taught and administred in the Protestant Church now established in England and associating himselfe vnto the Sons of Belial participating with them in their abhominable sacrifice of the Masse He that shall thus doe is much more vnworthy of Christ then such as shall be constrained or by feare forced to consent vnto their Idolatry and doubtlesse shall finde such horrour in his conscience and feele such a hell in his soule as that if God make him not a spectacle of shame and misery in this world yet he shall surely doe it before men and Angells in the world to come Fourthly they plead the example of Daniel who say they was present and worshipped the golden Image which appeares by this that hee was not cast into the Furnace with the three Children his Companions I answer that either Daniel was not present which is most probable or else he was not accused vnto the King or if hee were accused it may be the King would not heare his accusation or put him to death for the great fauour and affection which he bare vnto him for the great seruice he did in his kingdome And doubtlesse Daniel that would rather bee a prey vnto the Lyons then not pray vnto his God had rather haue tryed the heat of the fiery Furnace then haue vouchsafed so much countenance to Idolatry as to worship the golden Image Fiftly they plead the example of Iehu who openly professed the religion of Baal yet hee dissembled and meant nothing lesse and the Lord commends him for his diligent Execution of that which was right in his eies Vers. 30. Our answer is Iehu is commended not for his dissembling but for his diligence in destroying Ahabs house with the Priests and religion of Baal and all thar belonged thereunto for in other matters belonging to the seruice of God he departed not from the sinnes of Ieroboam the Sonne of Nebat that made Israel to sinne wherefore this can be no excuse for going to Masse seeing God neuer approued of dissimulation Sixtly they plead the command of the Magistrate thus Wee are commanded to obey our Magistrates though they be wicked and therefore if they enioyn vs to goe to Masse we see not how we can doe otherwise for feare of contempt and disobedience We are bound indeed to obey wicked gouernours but so long onely as they command nothing contrary to Gods word their wickednesse cannot release vs or giue a dispensation for disobedience but if they command any thing contrary to Gods word especially to partake in the Masse a superstitious seruice so directly blaspheming Christ and his seruice so plainely opposing the doctrine of the Gospell and so fundamentally euerting the institution of the Lords Supper in this case obedience is a sinne for what say the Apostles of Iesus their answer is Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken vnto you more then vnto God iudge yee And our Sauiour teacheth vs to Giue vnto Caesar that which is Caesars and vnto God that which is Gods As wee performe our lawfull duties to men so must we not for their sakes neglect our duties to God or doe any thing whereby he is dishonoured Seuenthly and lastly they plead the example of Naman the Syrian who being conuerted to the true worship of the God of Israel desired to bee dispenced with when he should goe with the King his Master into the house of Rimon an Idoll and bow himselfe there and that herein God would be mercifull vnto him vnto whom the Prophet Elisha answered Goe in peace as liking of his motion and yeelding to it Wee answer the opinions of Diuines touching this thing are diuers some thinke he spake onely of ciuill and politike presence that his Master the King might leane vpon him before his Idoll and not of Religious for he makes open protestation that hee would neuer worship other God then the God of Israel to the which the Prophet condescendeth But howsoeuer the gesture it selfe is indifferent to stand when the King stands or bow when the King boweth yet this gesture being clothed with such circumstances seemes not to be approoued That he should do this First in a Temple Secondly before an Idoll Thirdly in the time of publike seruice Fourthly by one professing the true God This seemes not so probable And both those famous Diuines departed from this answer cleauing vnto that which was more sound in their latter workes Others thinke he speaketh of the time past as if he should say Herein that I haue bowed iu the house of Rimmon c. The Lord be mercifull vnto me vsing the future for the time past Others and that more truly expound the words of Naaman thus That Naaman professed it a sinne