« PoprzedniaDalej »
years since) our holy papists deny, and say it was never done, nor ought to be done, nor that princes have any such authority to command or meddle in. Pope Pius the second bears witness, that the Sclavons, when they made suit to minister in their own tongue, and the pope made courtesy to grant it, “a voice was heard from heaven, that every spirit and language should praise God; and so it was granted them to use their own language'.” The popish kind of marriage, although the rest was Latin, yet the best part was English: “I, N. take thee, N. to my wedded wife, &c. I, N. take thee, N. to my wedded husband, &c.” If this was well, why not the rest also: If in making promises we use that language which we understand, why should we not do it to understand what God commands us? Is a promise to man more to be considered than that which is made to God? If these things should be denied, they be in print, that every man may read; and therefore I will not stand long in rehearsing of them. Are these tongues more holy than ours, that the holy mysteries may be used in them, and not in ours? I leave out the Bohemians and Waldenses, which have used to communicate in their own language many (though not all) these three hundred years. The Germans, the Italians, and the French I pass over, because it is not old. But these countries, they will say, are in the east part of the world, and parts of the Greek church, which never was subject to their holy father, the pope, and in these things they do err; but the west church, worshipping the pope, would never suffer any such thing. In thus saying they prove the pope to be worse than the Turk, prester John, the Sophi, or . any heathen prince, that will not suffer God's people to worship their God in their own language, as they do. It is great marvel to me, why our holy prelates will not have the people to pray in English, seeing the common rude sort and altogether unlearned in all the far north parts of the realm, even the bor[* Referunt Cyrillum, cum Romae ageret, Romano pontifici supplicasse, ut Sclavorum lingua ejus gentis hominibus, quam baptizaverat, rem divinam faciens uti posset. De quare dum in sacro senatu disceptaretur, essentque non pauci contradictores, auditam vocem tanquam de coelo in hac verba missam, “Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum, et omnis lingua
MEneas Sylvius, Histor. Bohemica, cap. 13.
confiteaturei.” Indeque datum Cyrillo indultum. Æn. Sylv. Historia Bohemica, cap. xIII. p. 91. Basil. 1571. Ed.]
ders, have ever used the Lord's prayer, the articles of our faith, and ten commandments, and yet do, in English metre, differing nothing from the true sense of the scripture. They never learned them in Latin, and cannot nor will not learn that they understand not. Surely, God's wisdom in their rude simplicity does confound these proud prelates' wicked popery. Yet is there remaining one of the foulest lies that is commonly read or written in the pope's testament, the decrees whereon they build their faith; which if this proctor and all his partakers can prove to be true, I will say with them. It is written de Consecra. distinct. i. cap. Jacobus, that “St James, the brother of our Lord, bishop of Jerusalem, and Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, made their mass”.” If this have any likeness of a truth in it, let the world judge. St James was bishop of Jerusalem, and there lived continually, not wandering into other countries, as other apostles did, but there suffered martyrdom, being thrown down from the pinnacle of the temple, where a fuller smote out his brains with a club. In Jerusalem then their natural speech was Hebrew, and the prayers that they used in the temple were only the scriptures, and in the Hebrew tongue, as the Jews do to this day in their synagogues: (wherein they prove themselves better than the papists, which in their churches have few prayers of the scripture, but many foolish ones devised of their own brain, and in a language that the people understand not.) Therefore, when they have proved that the Latin tongue was used in Jerusalem, or that St James prayed in Latin, (although I doubt not but he had the gift of tongues, as well as other apostles had,) I shall then believe them. The order of the communion which is abroad in the name of St James, is in Greek; but that he wrote or spake Latin in Jerusalem, there is no probability in it. And if he made our Latin mass then, that should be used now throughout the world, why would he make another in Greek so far unlike to it? Both cannot be true, that he made one in Greek and
[* A quibus fuerit tradita missarum celebratio. Jacobus, frater Domini secundum carnem, cui primum credita est Hierosolymitana ecclesia, et Eusebius, Caesariensis episcopus, cujus claritas per totum orbem refulsit in scripturis, addiderunt nobis missae celebrationem. Dist. i. Gratian. Pars III. p. 1990. Antv. 1573. Ed.]
another in Latin, so far unlike one to the other. Afterward the gloss upon this text of the pope's decree, afore rehearsed, de Consecra. distinct. i. says, that “St James made the canon of the mass, and Eusebius added other pieces to it afterward:” but beside that inconvenience which I spake of afore, that St James then should pray to himself, if that were true, a greater untruth would follow, that is, to pray to saints that were unborn, some one hundred, some two hundred, some three hundred year after, and more; as to Cyprian, Cornelius, Laurence, Chrysogonus, Damianus, which, and such-like women as Luce, Agnes, Cecily, &c. are put in their canon, or privity of their Latin mass. Is this like, that St James, a saint himself, would pray to a saint (if they were saints), that was yet unborn so many years after his death? But it may be thought that they knew these things to be so foolish, that if they were openly read and understand, they would be laughed at and despised, and therefore they enjoin their chaplains to speak softly when they say these things, that none should hear them what they say. If it were good, it were no danger in letting it be heard, for it would make them good that heard it (for faith comes by hearing), though their opinion is that it would be despised. But surely hearing is the way to make men good. Yet follows a greater inconvenience, if this pope's decree were true. For as the gloss there says that St James made their canon, so it says that Eusebius, which lived (as he says) under the emperor Julianus Apostata, should make the rest. How can their great relic, the mass, then be one thousand five hundred years old, as they crack it to be? This council of the apostles, where St James said mass (as this proctor says), was about fifty years after Christ our Lord was born, and not full twenty years after he was crucified, as many histories do testify; but Eusebius lived under Julian the emperor three hundred and sixty year after the birth of our Saviour Christ: and now since Christ's birth it is one thousand five hundred and sixty-two. Then take three hundred and sixty out of one thousand five hundred and sixtytwo, and so remains but one thousand two hundred and two. So by their own account they lie three hundred and sixty year in the ancienty of their mass.
But yet a greater lie. Eusebius was a Grecian, and never wrote in Latin, that any history makes mention of: how then wrote. he their Latin mass? Yea, where Gregory, bishop of Rome, in the epistle afore alleged says, that one Scholasticus' on made the prayers of their canon, how can this be true that cap.” St James made it? Dare they deny that which the holiest of the popes, their fathers, says is so :
But because they charge us with contrarieties and diversities of opinions, and are most in that fault themselves, I will yet let them see more wherein they differ among themselves. Isidorus, lib. i. de Origine Officiorum, cap. v., as Faber or alleges him”, says that “St Peter ordained first the order of Evange. the mass or prayers, with which the consecration is made, and that the whole world followed the same order;” and this was done by Peter at Antioch, as the same Joan. Faber says. Then how is that true, that St James and Eusebius made it at Jerusalem: Nay, how can any of these sayings agree with Platina”, one of the pope's sworn men, which affirms that pope Sixtus appointed the Sanctus to be sung; Gregory, the Kyrie Eleeson; Telesphorus, Gloria in excelsis; Jerome, the epistle and gospel; Leo, the censing; Innocentius I. the pax; Sergius, the Agnus, &c.; which all lived a great sort of years asunder; and from the first to the last, afore it could be
["Et valde mihi inconveniens visum est, ut precem quam Scholasticus composuerat, super oblationem diceremus; et ipsam traditionem, quam Redemptor noster composuit, super ejus corpus et sanguinem non diceremus. Gregor. Op. T. II. p. 960. Basil. 1564. Ed.]
[* Isidorus, qui ante nongentos floruit annos, lib. 1. de Origine Officiorum, cap. 5. Ordo missae vel orationum, quibus oblata Deo sacrificia consecrantur, primum a S. Petro est institutus: cujus celebrationem uno eodemque modo totus peregit orbis, &c. Lib. Iv. cap. iii. p. 97. Petrus quidem missam celebravit Antiochiae. Lib. 1. cap. ii. p. 8. Paris. 1564. Ed.]
[* In celebratione vero mandavit (Sixtus I.), ut Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus sabaoth cantaretur. Nuda primo haec erant, et omnia simpliciter tractabantur. Petrus enim ubi consecraverat, oratione Pater noster usus est: auxit haec mysteria Jacobus episcopus Hierosolymitanus: auxit et Basilius; auxere et alii. Nam Celestinus misste introitum dedit, Gregorius Kyrie eleeson, Gloria in excelsis Deo Telesphorus, collationes Gelasius primus, epistolam et evangelium Hieronymus, * * * thus Leo tertius, osculum pacis Innocentius primus; ut caneretur Agnus Dei, Sergius pontifex instituit. De vitis Pontificum, p. 16. Colon. 1540. Ed.]
patched together, it was six hundred year? For Gregory was pope six hundred year after Christ was born. Other sorts of reckoning there be, which pope added which part to the mass, and they agree not on the names; but in the number of years there is no great difference: for it was seven hundred year after Christ afore they had perfectly patched it together, and brought it in estimation, as appears by these reckonings. Where is now their one thousand five hundred year they crack so much on When they have learned to speak the truth, and agree among themselves, they may better blame other that do not. I will not lay all their lies and disagreeings to their charge, for it were too long; but when they have answered these, then they shall have more. In the mean time, these are sufficient to let them see that have eyes, and be not wilfully blind, how vain their bragging lies be, when they crack that their superstition, which they term their religion, is so old, and that the contrary was never heard of unto now a few years past. There is another subtler sort of papist; and when they see these things to be so foolish, that they have no good groundwork, nor able to be defended, they say, that Christ himself said the first mass: and yet that is as untrue as the rest. For the reasons that I made against the canon of St James (as they call it), the same may more justly be applied for our Saviour Christ. I am sure they will not say that he ate all alone, nor prayed to any saints; nor what kind of mass it was, they are not able to shew, and prove it so to be. I grant, and most true it is, that our Saviour Christ instituted the holy Communion, or the Lord's Supper (as St Paul calls it); but for any thing done by him to prove their mass, I utterly deny. In his last supper he sacrificed not for the quick and the dead, as they do in their mass: but that sacrifice was offered by himself in his own body and blood shed on the cross, on Good Friday, the next day after that he instituted his holy Supper the night afore, and bid them do that in remembrance of him unto his coming again. This is that which we desire all to follow: this is that which condemns their mass: this is that which we would have, all to eat and drink of that bread and cup with the minister, as he did with his apostles, and as St Paul wills the Corinthians to do; and not one priest to stand lifting it over