Chapter 15: The Mass

Masse. SECT. 22.

The title our Author gives to his first head of observation, is Messach, on what account I know not; unless it be with respect to a ridiculous Hebrew etymology of the word Missa; as though it should be the same with [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] a word quite of another signification. If this be that which his title intends, I wish him better success in his next etymologizing, for this attempt has utterly failed him. Missa never came out of the East nor has any affinity with those tongues; being a word utterly unknown to the Syrians; and Graecians also, by whom all Hebrew words that are used in religion came into Europe. He that will trouble himself to trace the pedigree of Missa, shall find it of no such ancient stock, but a word, that with many others came into use in the destruction of the Roman Empire, and the corruption of the Latin tongue. But as it is likely our Author having not been accustomed to feed much upon Hebrew roots, might not perceive the insipidness of this pretended traduction of the word Missa, so also on the other side, it is not improbable, but that he might only by an uncouth word think to startle his poor countrymen, at the entrance of the story of his travels, that they might look upon him as no small person who has the Messach, and such other hard names, at his fingers ends: as the Gnostics heightened their disciples, into an admiration of them by Paldaboth, Astaphaeum, and other names of the like hideous noise and sound.

Of the discourse upon this Messach whatever it is, there are sundry parts. That he begins with, is a preference of the devotion of the Romanists incomparably above that of the Protestants. This was the entrance of his discovery. Catholics' bells ring oftener than ours, their churches are swept cleaner than ours; yes, ours in comparison of theirs are like stables to a princely palace; their people are longer upon their knees, than ours, and upon the whole matter they are excellent every way in their worship of God, we every way blameworthy and contemptible: to all which, I shall only mind him of that good old advice; let your neighbor praise you, and not your own mouth. And as for us, I hope we are not so bad, but that we should rejoice truly to hear, that others were better. Only we could desire, that we might find their excellency to consist in things not either indifferent wholly in themselves, or else disapproved by God, which are the ways that hypocrisy usually vents itself in, and then boasts of what it has done. Knowledge of God and his will, as revealed in the Gospel, real mortification, abiding in spiritual supplications, diligent in universal obedience, and fruitfulness in good works, be as I suppose, the things which render our profession beautiful, and according to the mind of God. If our Author be able, to make a right judgment of these things, and find them really abounding among his party, I hope, we shall rejoice with him, though we knew the spring of them is not their Popery, but their Christianity. For the outside shows, he has as yet instanced in, they ought not, in the least, to have influenced his judgment in that disquisition of the truth, wherein he pretends he was engaged. He could not of old have come among the professors and mystae of those false religions, which by the light and power of the Gospel, are now banished out of the world, where he should not have met with the same vizards and appearances of devotion, so that hitherto we find no great discoveries, in his Messach.

From the Worship of the Parties compared, he comes to their Preaching, and finds them as differing as their devotion. The Preaching of Protestants of all sorts, is sorry pittiful stuffe. Inconsequent words, senseless notions, or, at least, rhetorical flourishes, make it up; the Catholicks, grave and pithy. Still all this, belongs to persons, not things. Protestants preach as well as they can, and, if they cannot preach so well as his wiser Romanists, it is their unhappiness, not their fault. But yet I have a little reason, to think, that our Author is not altogether of the mind that here he pretends to be of, but that he more hates, and fears, than despises, the Preaching of Protestants. He knows well enough, what mischief it has wrought his Party, though prejudice will not suffer him to see what good it has done the world; and therefore doubting, as I suppose, lest he should not be able to prevail with his Readers to believe him in that, which he would fain, it may be, but cannot believe himself, about the excellency of the Preaching of his Catholicks above that of Protestants, he decries the whole work, as of little or no use or concernment in Christian Religion. This it had been fair for him to have openly pleaded, and not to have made a flourish with that which he knew, he could make no better work of. Nor is the preaching of the Protestants, as is pretended, unlike that of the Antients. The best and most famous Preacher of the antient Church, whose Sermons are preserved, was Chrysostom. We know, the way of his proceding in that work, was to open the words and meaning of his Text; to declare the Truth contained and taught in it, to vindicate it from Objections, to confirm it by other Testimonies of Scripture, and to apply all to practise in the close. And as farr as I can observe, this, in general, is that method used by Protestants, being that indeed, which the very nature of the work dictates to them; therefore mistrusting lest he should not be able to bring men out of love with the Preaching of Protestants, in comparison of the endeavours of his Party in the same kind, he turns himself another way and labours to persuade us, as I said, that preaching itself is of little or no use in Christian Religion; for, so he may serve his own design, he cares not, it seems, openly to contradict the practise of the Church of God, ever since there was a Church in the world. To avoid that charge he tells us, That the Apostles and Apostolical Churches, had no Sermons, but all their Preaching was meerly for the Conversion of men to the faith, and, when this was done, there was an end of their preaching, and, for this he instanceth in the Sermons mentioned in the Acts, ch. 2, 3, 5, 10, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28. I wonder, what he thinks of Christ himself, whether he preached or no, in the Temple, or in the Synagogues of the Jews; and whether the Judaical Church to whose Members he preached, were not then a true, yes, the only Church in the world; and, whether Christ was not anointed and sent to preach the Gospel to them? If he know not this, he is very ignorant; if he does know it, he is somewhat that deserves a worse name. To labor to exterminate that out of the Religion of Christ, which was one of the chief works of Christ (for we do not read, that he went up and down singing Mass, though I have heard of a Fryer, that conceived, that to be his imployment) is a work unbecoming any man, that would count himself wronged, not to be esteemed a Christian. But whatever Christ did, it may be, it matters not; the Apostles and Apostolical Churches had no Sermons, but only such as they preached to Infidels and Jews to convert them; that is, they did not labor to instruct men in the knowledge of the mysteries of the Gospel, to build them up in their Faith, to teach them more and more the good knowledg of God, revealing to them the whole counsel of his will. And is it possible that any man who has ever read over the New Testament, or any one of Paul's Epistles, should be so blinded by prejudicies, and made so confident in his assertions, as to dare, in the face of the Sun, while the Bible is in every ones hand, to utter a matter so devoid of truth, and all color or pretence of probability? Methinks men should think it enough to sacrifice their consciences to their Moloch, without casting wholly away their reputation to be consumed in the same flames. It is true, the design of the story of the Acts, being to deliver to us the progress of the Christian faith, by the Ministry of the Apostles, insists principally on those Sermons which God in an especial manner, blessed to the conversion of souls, and encrease of the Church thereby; but, is there therefore no mention made of Preaching in it, to the edification of their Converts? Or, is there no mention of Preaching, unless it be said, that such a one preached at such a time, so long, on such a Text? When the people abode in the Apostles Doctrine (Acts 2:42), I think the Apostle taught them. And the Ministry of the Word, which they gave themselves to, was principally in reference to the Church (ch. 7:4). So Peter and John preached the Word to those whom Philip had converted at Samaria (ch. 18:25). A whole year together Paul and Barnabas assembled themselves together with the Church of Antioch, and taught much people (ch. 12:26). At Troas, Paul preached to them who came together to break bread, (that is, the Church) until midnight (ch. 20:7, 9), which, why our Author calls a dispute; or, what need of a dispute there was, when only the Church was assembled, neither I, nor he, do know. And ver. 20. & 27. he declares, that his main work and employment was, constant Preaching to the Disciples and Churches; giving commands to the Elders of the Churches to do the same. And what his practice was, during his imprisonment at Rome, the close of that book declares. And these not footsteps, but express examples of, and precepts concerning, Preaching to the Churches themselves, and their Disciples, we have in that book purposely designed, to declare their first calling and planting, not their progress and edification. Should I trace the commands given for this work, the commendation of it, the qualifications and gifts for it bestowed on men by Christ, and his requiring of their exercise, recorded in the Epistles, the work would be endless, and a good part of most of them must be transcribed. In brief, if the Lord Christ continue to bestow Ministerial gifts upon any, or to call them to the Office of the Ministry, if they are bound to labor in the Word and Doctrine, to be instant in Season, and out of Season in Preaching the Word to those committed to their charge; if that be one of the directions given them, that they may know how to behave themselves in the Church, the house of God; if they are bound to trade with the Talents their Master entrusts them with, to attend to Doctrine with all diligence; if it be the duty of Christians to labor to grow and encrease in the knowledge of God and his will, and that of indispensable necessity to salvation, according to the measure of the means God is pleased to afford to them; if their perishing through ignorance, will be assuredly charged on them who are called to the care, and freedom, and instructing of them; this business of Preaching, is an indispensible duty among Christians. If these things be not so indeed, for ought I know, we may do what our Adversary desires us; even burn our Bibles, and that as books that have no truth in them. Our Authors denial of the practice of Antiquity, conformable to this of the Apostles, is of the same nature. But that it would prove too long a diversion from my present work; I could as easily trace down the constant sedulous performance of this duty from the dayes of the Apostles, until it gave place to that ignorance which the world was beholding to the Papal Apostacy for, as I can possibly write so much paper, as the story of it would take up. But to what purpose should I do it? Our Author, I presume, knows it well enough; and others, I hope, will not be too forward in believing his affirmations of what he believes not himself.

The main design of this discourse is, to cry up the Sacrifice that the Catholics have in their Churches, but not the Protestants. This Sacrifice he tells us, was the sum of all Apostolical Devotion, which Protestants have abolished. Strange! that in all the writings of the Apostles, there should not one word be mentioned of that which was the sum of their Devotion. Things, surely, judged by our Author, of less importance, are at large handled in them. That they should not directly, nor indirectly, once intimate that which, it seems, was the sum of their devotion, is, I confess, to me, somewhat strange. They must make this concealment, either by design or oversight. How consistent the first is with their goodness, holiness, love to the Church; the latter with their wisdom and infallibility, either with their office, and duty; is easy to judge. Our Author tells us, they have a Sacrifice after the order of Melchizedek, Paul tells us, indeed, that we have a High Priest, after the order of Melchizedek; but, as I remember, this is the first time that ever I heard of a Sacrifice after the order of Melchizedek; though I have read somewhat that Roman Catholics say about Melchizedek's Sacrifice. Our Priest after the Order of Melchizedek, offered a Sacrifice, that none ever had done before, nor can do after him, even Himself. If the Romanists think to offer him, they must kill him. The species of Bread and Wine, are but a thin Sacrifice, next door to nothing, yes, somewhat worse than nothing, a figment of a thing impossible, or the shadow of a dream, nor will they say they are any. It is true, which our Author pleads in justification of the Sacrifice of his Church, that there were Sacrifices among the Jews, yes, from the beginning of the World, after the entrance of sin, and promise of Christ to come made to sinners. For, in the state of innocency, there was no Sacrifice appointed, because there was no need of an atonement. But all these Sacrifices, properly so called, had no other use in Religion, than to prefigure and represent the great Sacrifice of himself to be made, by the Son of God, in the fullness of time. That being once performed, all other Sacrifices were to cease; I mean, properly so called; for we have still Sacrifices metaphorical, called so by analogy, being parts of God's worship tendered to him, and accepted with him, as were the Sacrifices of old. Nor is it at all necessary, that we should have proper Sacrifices, that we may have metaphorical. It is enough, that such there have been, and that of God's own appointment. And we have still that only one real Sacrifice, which was the life and soul of all them that went before. The substance being come, the light shadowing of it, that was before, under the Law, is vanished. The Apostle does expressly place the opposition that is between the Sacrifice of the Christian Church, and that of the Judaical in this, that they were often repeated, this was performed once for all, and is a living abiding Sacrifice, constant in the Church for ever (Hebrews 10:1, 2). So that, by this rule, the repetition of the same, or any other Sacrifice in the Christian Church, can have no other foundation, but an apprehension of the imperfection of the Sacrifice of Christ; for, says he, where the Sacrifice is perfect, and makes them perfect that come to God by it, there must be no more Sacrifice. This then seems to be the real difference between Protestants, and Roman Catholics in this business of Sacrifice. Protestants believing the Sacrifice of Christ to be absolutely perfect, so that there is no need of any other, and that it is [in non-Latin alphabet], a fresh and living way of going to God continually, with whom, by it, obtaining remission of sin, they know there is no more offering for sin; they content themselves with that Sacrifice of his, continually in its virtue and efficacy residing in the Church. Romanists looking on that as imperfect, judge it necessary to institute a new Sacrifice of their own, to be repeated every day, and that without any the least color or warrant from the word of God, or example of the Apostles. But our Author puts in an exception, and tells us those words of Luke (Acts 13:2), [in non-Latin alphabet], are well and truly rendered by Erasmus, sacrificantibus illis Domino: which one text, says he, gives double testimony to Apostolical Sacrifice and Priestly Ordination; and he strengthens the authority of Erasmus with reason also, for the word can import nothing but Sacrifice, since it was made [in non-Latin alphabet]: for other inferior ministries of the Word and Sacraments are not made to God, but the people; but the Apostles were [in non-Latin alphabet], administering, liturgying, sacrificing to our Lord. For what he adds of Ordination, it belongs not to this discourse. Authority and Reason are pleaded to prove, I know not what, Sacrifice to be intended in these words. Erasmus is first pleaded, to whose interpretation, mentioned by our Author, I shall only add his own Annotations in the explication of his meaning; [in non-Latin alphabet], says he, Quod proprium est operantium sacris, nullum autem Sacrificium Deo gratius, quàm impartiri doctrinam Evangelicam. So that, it seems, the Preaching of the Gospel, or taking care about it, was the Sacrifice that Erasmus thought of in his Translation and Exposition: yes, but the word is truly translated Sacrificantibus. But who, I pray, told our Author so? The original of the word is of a much larger signification. Its common use is, to minister in any kind; it is so translated, and expounded by all learned impartial men, and is never used in the whole New Testament to denote Sacrificing. Nor is [in non-Latin alphabet], ever rendered in the Old Testament by the 70, [in non-Latin alphabet] or [in non-Latin alphabet], but [in non-Latin alphabet], etc. Nor is that word used absolutely, in any Author, Profane or Ecclesiastical, to signify, precisely, Sacrificing. And I know well enough what it is that makes our Author say, it is properly translated Sacrificing; and I know as well, that he cannot prove what he says; but he gives a reason for what he says, it is said, to be made to the Lord, whereas other inferior ministerial acts, are made to the people. I wish, heartily, he would once leave this scurvy trick of cogging in words, to deceive his poor unwary Reader; for what, I pray, makes his, made, here? What is it that is said to be made to the Lord? It is, when they were ministering to the Lord, so the words are rendered; not when they were making, or making Sacrifice, or when they made Sacrificing to the Lord. This wild gourd, made, puts death into his Pot. And we think here in England, that in all ministerial acts, though performed towards the people, and for their good, yet men administer to the Lord in them, because performing them by his appointment, as a part of that worship which he requires at their hands. In the close of our Author's discourse, he complains of the persecutions of Catholics: which whatever they are, or have been, for my part, I neither approve, nor justify; and do heartily wish, they had never showed the world those ways of dealing with them, who dissented from them in things concerning Religion, whereof themselves now complain; how justly, I know not. But if it be for the Mass that any of them have felt, or do fear suffering, which I pray God avert from them, I hope they will at length come to understand how remote it is from having any affinity with the devotion of the Apostolical Churches, and so free themselves, if not from suffering, yet at least from suffering for that which being not accepted with God, will yield them no solid Gospel-consolation in what they may endure or undergo.