The novelty of the modern Romish religion set forth in an answer to three queries propounded by N.G., priest, with a rejoynder to his reply, and a reply to an answer made to three queries propounded unto him : together with animadversions upon some reflexions made by an unknown author ... / written by S.F., M.A. and vicar of Mitton in Craven.

Concerning the private Mass.

FOr want of better Arguments, he makes a great outcry against me, because of a Mistake in the Transcription, 13 being written for 23. I could present him with the like Dish of his own cook∣ing, but I forbear it as trivial. Besides he says, that if the Expression was Pope Gre∣gories, there is nothing of Ordination or Prohibition to be found in the words; un to which I answer, that Doctor Moorton upon the very same words makes this fol∣lowing Observation; The Romane Church (saith he) ordained in the time of Pope Gregory, that at the Celebration of the Sa∣crifice, the Deacon should say, Whosoever doth not communicate let him depart; (Moort. App. l. 1. c. 2. Sect. 8.) Against which Mr. Brerely (as wise and as stout a Champion as this Gentleman is) durst ne∣ver object; and if from thence the Ordina∣tion

of the Church may be concluded, why not likewise the Ordination of the Pope? Surely it will be granted, that the pretended Head was some part of the Church, and that his power did concur in that Ordination; and it is strange that the Order which Pope Gregory reports to be observed in celebrating the Mass, should not be by his own Ordination, being that he was (though not supream Head, yet) a Ruler in the Church; and especially if that be true, which (the Reflector says) is testified by Beacon, to wit that the Mass was fully compleated by him; certainly if this was done by him, he did give Order when, and where, and after what manner the Mass was to be celebrated: Besides, the words that were pronounced by the Deacon were Imperative, commanding the Noncommunicants to depart. Now the Reflector must say, that the custom of pro∣nouncing that command was raised and continued either by the Ordination of the Deacon, or of the Pope, or the Church; he cannot say the first, because the Office of the Deacon was but subservient in the Church, and by saying either of the other, he will affirm that which he hath denyed, that there is somewhat of Ordination in the words, and that Gregory being Pope, it

was by his ordination they were pronoun∣ced.

But all this wind shakes no Corn; though this Objection do work its utmost against me, yet it is as trivial as that of the Cook, who excepted against a fat Capon, because it wanted some feathers; notwithstanding all this blustring stir that he makes, the truth which was affirmed stands unshaken, that Gregory in his opinion differed from the present Church of Rome concerning the private Mass, which this Gentleman must acknowledge, or else he must say that the practice of the Roman Church in his time was contrary to his Opinion; for his words are plain and easie to be understood, cumque in eadem ecclesia, &c. When Mas∣ses were celebrated in the Church, and the Deacon according to custom cryed out, if any doth not communicate, let him depart: his strange distinction of solemn and un∣solemn, or solemn and private cannot re∣sist the force of this testimony; it is folly in the abstract to use a distinction, when it is known before hand that the controversy is concerning that distinction, and it is af∣firmed that there was no such distinction between Masses used in Pope Gregorys time, as is manifest from his words; for Pope Gregory doth not limit the exercise of that

custom, which he speaks of, to any parti∣cular day, but speaks in the general, and says, when soever Masses were celebrated, and the Deacon according to custom pro∣nounced, If any one doth not communicate let him depart; whence it may be assured∣ly concluded, that whensoever the Sacra∣ment was administred, it was the custom of the Deacon to make this dismission, up∣on which the Non-communicants depart∣ed out of the Church; while the rest stayed to communicate with the Priest.

Should I comply to his humour, and suppose (contrary to the express Testimo∣ny of Pope Gregory) that the words were spoken of solemn in opposition to private Masses, we find in them, as they relate un∣to that which follows, a convincing Argu∣ment for the condemnation of private Masses, and to prove that the use of them is an abuse and Prophanation of the sacred Institution of Christ. Pope Gregory re∣ports an Apparition that was frequently made in the Church, The Spirits (says he) of two persons that died while they lay under a threatned Sentence of Excom∣munication, were observed to depart out of the Church whensoever the Deacon dis∣missed the Non-communicants. Whence

we must conclude that when pri∣vate Masses were celebrated, those Spirits resided in the Church, because then the dismission was not made: Now I ask this Gentleman, why they departed when the dismission was made, and what was the reason of their residence in the Church when it was not made? certainly he can return no other answer but this, when the People were admitted to communicate with the Priest, there was a secret divine Power working to drive such Spirits away, commanding them to this purpose, procul hinc pro∣cul este prophani, therefore the Sacra∣ment was then celebrated according to the Institution of Christ; but when private Masses were celebrated, there was no such power working to that purpose; therefore the observance and use of them is not agreeable to that sacred Institution, but an abuse and prophanation of it; and it is my persuasion that private Masses have many such Attendants to take notice of the mimical gestures of the Priest, and how much Christs sacred Institu∣tion is abused and prophaned by his solitary receiving.

But I need not be beholding unto Suppositions for Arguments to con∣demn the use of private Masses, or to prove the disuse of them in Pope Gre∣gory's time, for his Testimony is as clear as the Sun to evidence, that then it was the custom of the Church to dismiss the Non-communicants when the Sacrament was to be administred; therefore there was none but Com∣municants to stay in the Church, and there were some that did stay to communicate with the Priest; the Priest only did not receive the Sacra∣ment, the People being permitted to stand by as Spectators to take notice of his Actions, as is done now at the celebration of private Masses; where∣fore I must say that the Reason of the Reflector in the use of his im∣pertinent Similitude runs as low as his confidence speaks high: but be∣ing in a great strait, he is less to be blamed, because it was the best De∣vice that he could invent to involve the Reader in a dark Mist, that he might not discern the weakness of that Reply, that he makes to Pope Gregory's Testimony.

What parity is there between Easter-day, and that time which Pope Gregory speaks of, when he says, cumque missarum solemnia celebra∣rentur? and what parity is there be∣tween my saying of Service at other times besides Easter, and private Masses, which are not mentioned at all by Pope Gregory? And then what Reason is there why I may no more conclude against private Mass from his words, then it can be con∣cluded that service is not said by me at any other time, because I do administer the Sacrament on Easter∣day? Similitudes do not always run on four Feet, but I never knew till now, that sometime they have no Feet at all to stand on. Doth this Gen∣tleman conceit himself to be such an infallible Doctor, that whatsoever is affirmed by him without proof, must be received as a certain truth a∣gainst Reason? And did Chytrers say, that the great private Masses were used in Pope Gregory's time, without any proof for what he said? And did Pope Gregory maintain private Masses, yet no

Expressions to be found in his Writings, sounding to this purpose, If there be any, why is there not some Direction laid down where to find them? His Confi∣dence (I see in his bold Assertions,) is but like unto a Castle built in the Air, without a Foundation; and the Standing of it will be wonderful, though it be not a Wonder, that it was the Product of one that professeth himself to be a Pillar of the Roman-Church.

But I perceive, that his Second Thoughts do cor∣rect his First, and now he falls from his former Confidence, At least (says he) by the words of the Objection, &c. The meaning of which must be this, I have been too bold in concluding against Pope Gre∣gory's words; for I must confess, that his Testimony is plain and positive against private Masses; but yet however, there is mention made of Masses, which are contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Eng∣land; and argues S. F. guilty of Contradiction, or of charging a Contradiction upon Pope Gregory.

If this Gentleman had been as powerful in pro∣ving, as he is confident in concluding, he would be among the Roman Champions, as the Chief was among David's Worthies; but it is his sad misfor∣tune, that his Consequences are meer strangers to his Antecedents, and his Premises altogether unable to bring forth his Conclusions: He may take notice, that the term Missa, which signifies Mass, was not used by the Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive▪ Church; and when it came most into use, it was of different Significations; sometimes it signified the Assembling of Gods People, sometimes it signified Common Prayers, sometimes it signified the Commu∣nion.

Now, I suppose, that this Gentleman will not say, That Assemblies, or Communions, or Com∣mon Prayers, are contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England. In this Expression, which is quoted, Pope Gregory doth not say, When Masses were to be Celebrated, speaking in relation to that which was to be done, after the Deacon had dis∣missed the Non-Communicants; but he says, When Masses were Celebrated, speaking in relation to that which was done before the Deacon made this Dis∣mission; wherefore it is evident, that Pope Gregory, by Masses, doth understand that Common Service, which was performed before the Administration of the Sacrament; and then, where is the Contradi∣ction incurred by me, or charged by me upon Pope Gregory? It seems, this Gentleman entertains an Opinion, that travails far beyond the Limits of Ro∣mish Transubstantiation, being that he would have the Corporal Presence to be where and whensoever any kind of Masses were Celebrated.

If the Use of the term Mass be so powerful to conclude, what does he think of the Disuse of it? May not I more rationally and firmly conclude from the Negative, than he can do from the Af∣firmative, the term Mass was never used by our Saviour, or his Apostles? The learned Doctor Jewell, Bishop of Sarum, tells us, That it was not used by the Doctors and Fathers of the Primitive-Church for Three hundred years after Christ; and that it was seldom used by St. Augustin, St. Jerom, Ter∣tullian, St. Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius; and that unto St. Chrisostom, Basil, Naziansen, Gregory Nissen, and all other Greek Writers, it was utterly un∣known; therefore the Doctrine of the Church of

England is the same that was maintained by them and the Doctrine of the Private Mass, and Corporal Presence was never owned by them.

And now, Christian Reader, take notice what a load of Injuries is laid by this Gentleman upon Pope Gregory, charging him with an opinion, which is first contradictory to his own plain and positive Expressions, as I have already in some measure shewed, and have farther yet to shew; If Pope Gre∣gory did allow of Private Mass, how could that Prayer suit unto the Sacrament, which he penned to be used after the Receiving of it; Ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti & gratia repleamur? That as many of us, as by par∣taking of this Altar, have received the holy Body and Blood of thy Son, may be filled with all Hea∣venly Benediction and Grace.

Secondly, Contrary to the Institution of Christ; for it was not a Private Mass, but a Communion, that was instituted, and administred by Him, and He commanded the Disciples to do the same in Re∣membrance of Him.

Thirdly, Contrary to the Injunction of the Apo∣stle Paul, who commanded the Corinthians, to tarry one for another in the Holy Administration, and to con∣form their practice to the example of Christ.

Fourthly, Contrary to the Canons of the Apostles; for in them it is decreed, That if any resort unto the Church, and hear the Scriptures, and abstain from the Communion, that he shall stand excommunicate as one that troubleth the Congregation.

Fifthly, Contrary to the Nature of the Sacra∣ment; His own Doctor Harden, in his Answer to the Reverend Bishop Jewel, concerning the Private Mass, tells us, That in Christs Institution three things are contained, which Himself did, and by His gave Authority to the Church to do the same; the Consecration, the Oblation, and the Participation. Now in Private Mass, I desire to know where this Parti∣cipation is?

Sixthly, Contrary to the Opinion of Antient Fa∣thers. St. Jerom saith, That the Lords Supper must be common to all; for the Lord delivered the Sacrament to all the Disciples that were present, Jer. in 1 Cor. 11. St. Ambrose, expounding these words, Invicem ex∣pectate, Waīt one for another, saith thus, Ut mul∣torum oblatio simul celebrentur, That the Oblation of many may be celebrated together. Amb. in 1 Cor. 1. Clemens, who was called the Apostles Fellow, writeth thus, Let so many hosts be offered upon the Al∣tar, as may be sufficient for the People, Clem. Ep. 2. Augustin saith of the Congregation in his time, E∣very day we receive the Sacrament of Christ's Body, Aug. de ser. Tom. in monet. Clemens Alexandrinus saith, After certain (as the manner is) have divided the Sacrament, they give every of the People leave to take part of it, Clem. Strom. l. 1. Chrysostom plain∣ly describeth the very Order of the Communion that was used in his time, by these words, The Spi∣ritual and Reverend Sacraments are set forth equally to the Rich and to the Poor; neither doth the Rich Man injoy them more, and the Poor Man less; they have all alike coming unto them; the Sacraments being once laid forth, are not taken in again, until all the People have communicated, and taken part of that spiritual Meat;

but the Priests stand still, and wait for all, even the meanest and poorest of them all. Chris. in 1 Cor Hom. 27.

Lastly, An Opinion that brings forth many vain and ridiculous Practical Positions, not fit to be belie∣ved, and observed by Christians; That the Priest alone should receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; and that his solitary Receiving, should be product∣ive of Spiritual advantage to the Common People, who must live by their own Faith, and be saved by a particular application of the Benefits of Christ to their own Souls; That his eating, in effect, should be theirs, and his drinking theirs; and what descends into his Belly, should be offered up unto God as a Propitiatory Sacrifice, effectual to take away their Sins; All which is as like to be true, as that One Man may be sustained in a temporal life, by the Bread which Another Man eats, and may be refresh∣ed by the Drink which Another Man drinks: And what likewise can be more ridiculous, than to see the Roman Leaders sometime admitting the whole Congregation to stand by as Spectators, to behold the Histrionical Gestures of the Priest, and at o∣ther times dismissing the Non-Communicants with an Ite Missa est, while the rest are permitted to stay to Communicate in an half Communion, the Priest himself receiving the whole, is the institution of Christ, subject to such variety of handling; that sometime one alone, somtime the whole Congregati∣on may celebrate it, and that with this Distincti••n of Partially and Totally. Did Christ institute his last Supper with this respect of Persons, that some were to Communicate more freely and fully than others? And is there a Conformity unto his Institution ob∣served,

while the observance is maimed, and part of his Command, Drink ye all of this, disobeyed? Is this institution as Soft Wax, that may be moulded into any Form or Fashion, that suits to the Hu∣mours of Men? The Sacrament of the Lords Sup∣per, in the Primitive Times, was termed a Love-Feast; and surely he must be a nigardly Feast∣maker, that cannot find in his heart to afford all his Guests an equal Entertainment; and that must be a very spare Feast, where the Guests are fed with one bare, dry Mosel, and not allowed the Refreshment of a little Drink.