Work for a Mass-Priest

WORKE FOR A MASSE-PRIEST.

1. S IR Priest, is not this of Athanasius good Divinity, filius a patre solo est, non factus nec creatus? The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created. If so, then I pray you tell me, how without blasphemy you can say, Sacerdos est creator sui creatoris: A priest is the Creator of his Creator: meaning Christ the Son of God.

2. Again, if it be currant Divinity which the same Athanasius delivers; Christus, Deus ex substantia patris: homo ex substantia matris. Christ is of the substance of his Father, as he is God; and of the substance of his Mother, as he is Man: Tell me where the wit of your John the 22. was, when he said, Rex fit ex pane. The King (meaning Christ the King of heaven) is made of bread: and why you are not ashamed to retain in the Canon Law these words, Corpus Christiet sanguis ex panis et vini substantia efficitur. The body and blood of Christ is made of the substance of bread and Wine.

3. Thirdly, if it be true which S. Agustine saith, That God is nusquam inclusus, penned in, in no place: and that the great Cyclops (when Vlisses told him, that the Wine which he had in his Bottle was the god Bacchus) did not without cause in a wonderment reply? What? A god in a bottle? I pray tell me, why you pen up your Sacrament, which you acknowledge for your God, in a Pixe or in a box. Of a Be in a Box I have heard much by many; but of a God in a box I never heard but by Papists?

4. Fourthly, if it be evident that they are no gods, whose Priests keep their Temples with doors, and with locks, and with bars, lest their gods should be spoiled by Robbers, as Baruk saith in his 6. Chapter, which goes for Canonical Scripture with you: If they who cannot defend themselves from thieves and Robbers deserve not to be reputed gods, as the same Author saith: If Chrysostom justly derided Laban when he said, O excellentem insipientiam! Tales sunt dii tui vt quis eos furart possit? Non erubescis dicere, Quare furatus es deos meos? O notable foolerie! Are thy gods such gods as may be stolen? Art thou not ashamed to say, why hast thou stolen my gods? Why should not you, and your fellows, Sir Priest, be whoopt at for holding the Sacrament to be God, which for fear of stealing you would not have hung over the high Altar under a Canopy, but reserved in a surer place under lock and key.

Fifthly, if it be evident, that they are no gods, which cannot be preserved from rust and worms: which feel not when things which creep out of the earth eat them, as it seems by Baruk before mentioned: seeing it is the general doctrine of your Church, That worms may breed in your Sacrament: that brute-beasts, Dogs, Hogs, Mice, Chouhges, may eat it: Are you not singular odd Caps, to hold the Sacrament for your Lord and your God?

Ecquemtam amentem esse putas, qui illud quo vescatur deum credat esse? Thinkest thou there is any man so mad that holds it for his god whereof he eateth, saith Cetta? Quomodo quis sanae mentis deum nuncuparit id quod vero deo oblatum tandem ipse comedit? How can any man of reason think that to be God, which he offereth in sacrifice to the true God, and afterwards eats thereof himself, saith Theodoret. And if this be true, Sir Priest, do not you deserve to be sent to Bedl • m for eating the Sacrament, which you call your Lord and God? Auerroes ( they say) professed, that he had traveled a great part of the world, & that he had seen many men of different Religions, & yet he found not any Christiana deteriorē, aut tā fatuā, worse or foolisher then the Christians: qui • deum suum quē colunt dentibus deuorabant, because they tare him with their teeth, whom they worshipped as their God I verily believe he wronged the Christians of his time, charging them with that whereof they were not guilty: but if he had lived since your Religion got footing, & meant of you, he had spoken nothing but the truth, and his censure had been justifiable.

7. The God of right believing Christians is life it self, and gives life to others, even everlasting life to them who eat him spiritually. Yet your god is such a god, that a man eating him after your fashion, he may easily be poisoned by him. And I pray you then, how should your god be reputed the God of right believing Christians?

That a man may be poisoned, by eating, after your fashion, your god, the Sacrament, I mean; it is plain by diverse examples, for

Henricus Archiep. Eboracensis cum diuina celebraret mysteria, hausto in ipso calice (vt aiunt) veneno obiit. Henry Archb. of York died (as they say) of poison, by drinking of the Chalice when he administered the Sacrament, saith Matthew Paris.

Victor tertius fuit extinctus per venenum in calicem missum. Pope Victor the third was killed with poison in the Chalice, saith Polanus and others.

Henricus 7. Imperator (vt communis fert opinio) per paenitentiarium suum, immixto veneno in calice, dum ab ipso Eucharistiam sumeret extinctus est. The Emperor Henry the 7. (as the common report goes) was killed by his ghostly father, who put poison into the Chalice when he delivered unto him the Communion, saith the Author of the Appendix to Polonus.

8. A Synod of BB. in Italy decreed, That when the true flesh of Christ and his true blood appears at the celebration of the Sacrament in their proper kind, both the flesh and the blood should be reserved in the midst of the Altar for especial Reliks. Now I would know of you Sir Priest, what time or reason you have to make a Relike of your god? of the Reliks of Saints I have heard some talk, but of the Reliks of God, or rather that God himself should be kept for a Relike, I think never man heard, but out of a Papists mouth.

9. I read that you prescribe, Si Musca vel Aranea cadat in calicem post Consecrationem &c. If either Flye, or Spider, fall into the Chalice after words of Consecration, so that there be fear of poisoning, or provocation to vomit, the Priest shall take sanguinem illum et igne combur at cum aliqua stupa vel panno linneo, in ipso madefacto: that blood, and burn it by the help of some Tow, or Linnen rags dipt in it. Now whether it be poisoned or not poisoned, whether it be such as will provoke vomit, or not provoke vomit, as long as the species remains, it is your god. And how then can you clear yourselves from burning of your god?

10. I hear you teach, That in your Mass, Christ is truly and properly sacrificed by you. And with all I hear you teach, that whatsoever is truly and properly sacrificed, if it be a live thing, it is killed. Now I would gladly know of you, if this be thus, how you can excuse yourselves from killing of Christ? For Christ, whom (as you say) you sacrifice truly, and properly, is a live thing.

11. I hear you teach, That there is no Transubstantiation except he be a Priest who consecrates, and have an intent to consecrate. Now, seeing it is confessed by some of yourselves, that some have taken upon them the name of Priests, who were none: some being Priests have used the words of consecration without intent to consecrate. I would know how any lay Papists can possibly know when your Hosts are transubstantiated, and when he may safely adore it, because except there be transubstantiation, he commits Idolatry in adoring: adoring bread and wine the Creature, instead of the Creator.

12. I read in your books, ^k That the Virgin Mary, sola plus potest apud Deum impeirare, quam omnes sancti in Coelo: Can of her self alone prevail more with God then all the Saints in heaven besides: yea I read, that velocior est nonnunquam salus, inuocato nomine Mariae, quam inuocato nom ne Domini Jesus vnici filii eius: oftentimes men find more present help upon their praying to our Lady, then upon their praying to Jesus Christ. And that Nihil nos Deus voluit habere quod per manus Mariae non transiret: God's will is, we shall have nothing but what passeth through the Virgin Mary's fingers.

Now if this be true, I would know why men should not pray to the Virgin Mary only, who is so gracious & omnipotent: and cease to trouble, if not Christ, yet the rest of the Saints, which in comparison of her are so grace-less, and impotent?

13 I read in your books, that you hold it absurd to say: That the interc • ssion of our fellows beneath, are more available then the prayers of those that be in the glorious sight of God above. Now if it be indeed absurd to say so, I would gladly know of you, why S. Paul desired the Romans, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, the Colossians, the Thessalonians, the Hebrews, all of them his fellows beneath, to pray for him: and desired none of the Saints in the glorious sight of God above to pray for him? And why S. James advised them to whom he writ, That one of them (beneath) should pray for another: and required them not to pray to the Saints in the glorious sight of God above for help?

14. I have read in your books, that your Pope is called Caput vniuersalis Ecclesiae, Pater Ecclesiae, Filius Ecclesiae, ^z Sponsus Ecclesiae, Mater Ecclesia: the head of the Catholic Church, the Father of the Church, the Son of the Church, the Spouse of the Church, the Church our Mother. Now I would know of you, how he can be the Church her self, and yet head of the Church, and the Churches husband: how he can be father to the Church, and yet a son of the Church: how without committing Incest, the father may marry his daughter, the brother may marry his sister, the son may marry his mother.

15. I read in your books, solum Deum nosce quae sit iusta poenitentia that God only knows how long every sin deserves to be punished in Purgatory; though some take upon them precisely to set down, that every sin deserves▪ 2555. days purgatory torments. And yet I read, that the Pope grants Indulgences in this manner. Qui hoc vel illud fecerit liber abit animam vnam à Purgatorio: He that doth this, or that, shall deliver a soul, or more, out of purgatory. Now I would know how your Pope comes to know, That souls are so near the time of their delivery, that the doing of this, or that, will suffice to make eauen for the remainder of their punishment, or rather, whether you be not of my mind, that the Pope in granting such Indulgences, plays the K. and the people in making reckoning of them, play the Fools.

16 I read in your books, that your Pope, for delivering of souls out of Purgatory, prescribes sometimes no more, but the saying of a Mass at such an Altar in such a Church: or the saying of a Pater Noster twice or thrice, &c. Now I would know, with what justice God could keep him in such horrible torments as are in Purgatory, for want of the saying of a Mass, or two or three Pater Nosters: whō in mercy he meant to deliver upon the saying of a Mass, or two or three Pater Nosters?

17 And seeing I read in your books, That your Pope hath power to empty Purgatory at once: and if the saying of a Mass and a Pater Noster will help to empty it: I would know, how you can excuse your Pope frō unspeakable uncharitableness, and hard hartednes: in that he himself saith no more Masses, nor Pater Nosters for Christian souls, then he doth: nor setteth more of his Priests on that work. I do not doubt, but if such commodities would redeem souls, the Carmelits should have no cause to brag of their privilege, which is, that none of them shall lie longer in Purgatory then the Saturday following their departure: for the Pope might deliver every man the same day he died.

18 I have a book of yours, wherein their are many pardons granted upon saying of certain prayers, some for skores some for hundredth of days: some for hundreds, some for thousands of years. Amonge which there is one for 1000000 years: and an other promising as many years of pardon as there are bodies buried in that Church yeard where the prayer is said, which may amount to a numberless number, though perhaps not so many as Pope Sylvester granted to the Church of S. John Laterans, who at the hallowing of it, granted so many years of pardon thereto, as there fell drops of water that day, albeit never man saw a greater rain then fell that day. Now I would know of you, why any man should trouble himself with saying of those prayers, which have petty pardons of days, or some hundreds of years, assigned them? Me thinks it were enough to say that prayer which hath 1000000 years of pardon: and the other Church-yard prayer, which comes to a Nemo scit, and to let the rest sleep in the decke.

19 I read in your books, That your Votaries break their vows, if they marry: but not, if they keep whores. Now I would know of you, whether this doth not argue plainly, That your Votaries vow against Marriage, which the Scriptures call honorable: and not against Whoring, which is of it self damnable?

20 I read in your books, That he is more capable of holy Orders among you who hath kept two Whores, then he who hath married a widow, or two wives. And if this be thus, may we not say with your gloss, Nota mirabile, quod plus habit luxuria, quam castitas. Observe a strange thing, Whoredom hath greater privilege then Chastity.

21 I have heard it credibly reported, That your BB. may absolve from any sin committed against the Law of God, but not from every trespass against the Papal Sea. Now if the report be true, I desire to know, why he should be denied the lesser, to whom the greater is granted: And why you should be angry at us, if we say, that according to your opinion, Trespasses against the Pope, are more heinous then trespasses against God.

22 I have heard it credibly reported, That the Jews are licensed to have Synagogues at Rome: where Protestants cannot be allowed to have a Chapel. Now if this report be true also, I would gladly know of you, why the Jews should have such favor above the Protestants: seeing the Jews rail blasphemously on Christ Jesus, of whom the Protestants never spake nor thought evil, but always honourably.

23. But to come nearer you Sir Priest, I am told, That your Priests take this oath, Ego N. sacram scripturam iuxta eum sensum que tenuit, & tenet sanct a mater Eeclesia, cuius est iudicare de vero sensu & interpretation sacrarum scripturam admitto, nec eam vnquam nisi iuxta vnanimem consensum patrum accipiam & interpretabor, that is, I such a one, do take the holy Scriptures in that sense, which my holy mother the Church, whose duty it is to judge which is the true sense of Scripture, hath taken it, and takes it in: neither will I ever take it in other sense then such as the Fathers give thereof with joint consent Now if you do so, I would gladly know, how you can clear yourselves from perjury, seeing it is plain you sometimes take and expound Scripture in that sense, which never father gave of them, as for example, Micah 7. ver. 8. 9. which you allege for Purgatory. For no Father did ever so expound it. Sometimes you take and expound them in that sense, which is contrary to some Fathers, as when you expound the words in the 24. of the Proverbs ver. 16. of falling into sin, which Agustine saith is not so. For Non de iniquitatibus sed de Tribulationibus loquitur, saith Austin. Sometimes you take and expound them in that sense, which is contrary to all the Fathers, which we find to have interpreted them, as when you take Christ's words, which he spake of one Shepherd, to be meant of your ^u Pope, and not of Christ himself. For the Fathers say, that by that one Shepherd Christ meant himself.

24. Again Sir Priest, I am informed that your famous B. Simancha writes thus. Hereticis fides à priuato data seruanda non est-nec fides à magistratibus data seruanda est haereticis: faith made to an heretic by a private man, is not to be kept-neither is that Faith which is made to an heretic by Magistrates, to be kept. Though I have seen a book of yours, wherein this is utterly denied, yet I am credibly informed it is very true. Yea I am informed, that your Pope Martin the 5. writ to Alexander Duke of Lituania thus; Scito te mortalitater peccare si seruabis fidem datam haereticis. Know thou sinnest mortally if thou keep thy oath with heretics. Now, if this be thus, I would gladly know, you holding Protestants for heretics, why you should look that any Protestant should trust you further upon your oaths, then he would trust a dog with a shoulder of Mutton.

25 They say you teach haereticum esse priuatum dominio naturali, Ciuili, Politico. That an heretic is deprived of all his jurisdiction whether Natural; Ciuil, or Politike: and omni debito obligationis et obsequii, freed from all debt due by bond or service: in so much that the children, and servants, and subjects of heretics, owe no duty to their Parents, Ministers, or Princes: that good wives need not lie with their husbands. That such as are indebted, need not pay their debts to their Creditors, That keepers of Forts or Towns may surrender them into the enemies hands. And if this be your doctrine, can you be angry, If Protestant Princes, and their Subjects, who have wives, and children, and servants, and money in other mens hands, do wish you all vltra Garamantas & Indos.

26 You teach, Sir Priest, That the Word of God is partly written, partly unwritten. And the written word, you call Scripture: the unwritten Tradition. Yet you undertake to prove diverse of your opinions both by the Scripture, and by Tradition: as for example, Praying to Saints: Praying for the dead: setting up of Images in Churches: worshipping of Images set up, &c. Now I would know with what honesty you can allege Scripture, for that which you say is a tradition: or tradition, for that which you say you have Scripture? Can one and the same thing be written, and not written?

27 You brag much of the Church, as though it were yours only, and not ours. You tell us, that infallibilitas verbi dei ex Ecclesiae testimonio pendet. The infallibility of the word of God depends upon the Churches testimony: that the Church is, Iudex omnium controuersiarum, Judge of all controversies. And yet when we urge you to deal plainly with us, and to tell us what you mean by the Church, you 3 answer: Per Ecclesiam intelligimus Pontificem Romanū, by the Church we mean the Pope of Rome. Now is not this a jest?

28 You tell us, that Clemens 8. was called by Gabriel Patriarke of Alexandria, tertius-decimus Apostolorum gloriosi domini nostri Jesus Christi, et quintus SS. Euangelistarum, the 13. Apostle of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and the 5. Evangelist, and your ⁶ Cardinal Baronius approves of the Patriarchs intitling of your Pope so. Now I would know, if Clemens the 8. deserved to be called the 13. Apostle, and the 5. Evangelist, why the other Clements, and especially Clemens the first, yea and all the rest of your Popes may not be thought to have been Apostles and Evangelists?

29 They say, you burn Incense to your Images. And if that be so, I would know, why you should not be held Idolaters, seeing to burn Incense to a thing hath been held as much as to offer sacrifice unto the thing. And sacrificing unto anything but God only hath been always reputed Idolatry.

30 I have seen a prayer of yours Sir Priest, which as the Rubric saith, was shown unto S. Agustine by revelation of the holy Ghost: and of which you give out, that who beareth it about them, shall not perish in fire nor water, neither in battle, nor judgment, nor shall die sudden death, nor be poisoned with venom. Now this being thus, I desire to know what difference between you and sorcerers?

31 I am told you commend the Collier, who being asked by the Devil or by a Cardinal (some say the one, some say the other) how he believed, returned answer, as the Church believeth: and being asked how the Church believed, replied, as he believed: running still the round, vouchsafing no other answer, but I believe as the Church believes, and the Church believes as I believe. Now if this be true, I desire to know why the whole pack of you should not be held for fools, seeing belief in gross, is but gross divinity. Sure I am, Lactantius laughed at thē as fools, who being asked a reason of that which they believed, could give none, but rested in their forefathers judgments, quod illi sapientes fuerint, illi probauerint, illi sciuerint quod esset optimum: because (forsooth) they were very wise, and they approved of that which they held, and they knew what was best to be holden: concluding that such did se ipsos sensibus spoliare, & ration abdicare, that is, make fools of themselves.

32 The last point wherein I desire to be satisfied by you is, What you are able to reply, upon the Jesuits behalf, to Sixtus Quintus: who couuenting the General of their order before him, and expostulating the case with him, why his Order called themselves Jesuits; and receiving answer, that the people called them so, they themselves not taking that name unto them, but the name of Clerks of the society of Jesus: replied upon the General prettily (to give the devil his right) asking, why they durst be so saucy as to take that unto themselves, seeing the Apostle witnesseth, that all Christians are called into the society of Jesus. Me thinks, the Popes Replica, will admit no Replica on the Jesuits part. And therefore your Jesuits are as faulty in taking upon them in special to be of the society of Jesus, as if they had refused to be called Ignatians of their lame founder Ignatius, and scorned the name Christian, derived of Christ, as to common: and taken unto themselves the name Jesuit, of Jesus, which yet was held utterly unlawful many years before your Jesuits were hatched.