A treatise againste the preuee masse in the behalfe and furtheraunce of the mooste hylye communyon made by Edmund Gest. Reade gentyll reader and then iudge. M. D. XLVIII. Gest, Edmund. This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A01664 of text S110813 in the English Short Title Catalog (STC 11802). Textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. This text has not been fully proofread Approx. 154 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 90 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. EarlyPrint Project Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO 2018 A01664 STC 11802 ESTC S110813 99846284 99846284 11242 2240902859

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.

 Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A01664) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 11242) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 45:11) A treatise againste the preuee masse in the behalfe and furtheraunce of the mooste hylye communyon made by Edmund Gest. Reade gentyll reader and then iudge. M. D. XLVIII. Gest, Edmund. [180] p. In saynt Andrewes Paryshe, in the Waredrop. By [William Hill and] Thomas Raynald, Imprinted at London[n] : 1548. Title page varies: line 4 has misprint: "hylye" or is corrected to: "holye"--STC. Additonal printer's name from STC. Reproduction of the original in the British Library. eng Private masses -- Early works to 1800. eebo A treatise againste the preuee masse in the behalfe and furtheraunce of the mooste hylye communyon, made by Edmund Gest. Reade gentyll reader and then Gest, Edmund 1548 180 26905 99 0 0 0 1 0 40.51 D The rate of 40.51 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the D category of texts with between 35 and 100 defects per 10,000 words. 2012-10 Assigned for keying and markup 2012-10 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2012-12 Sampled and proofread 2012-12 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2013-02 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

A Treatise againste the preuee Masse in the behalfe and furtheraunce of the mooste hylye communyon , made by Edmund Gest

❧ Reade gentyll reader and then iudge .

M.D.XLVIII

Cum Priuilegio ad Imprimendum Solum .

❧ Imprinted at London in saynt Andrewes Paryshe , In the Waredrop . By Thomas Raynald .

Fautes escaped by the printer , reade in the second syde of the fyrst leafe & , xiiii . line of b , exhibitiue for exhitiue , & in the thyrd leafe & second syde & fourth line rede , not bread for bread , & in the fourthe leafe & last lyne of the second syde , rede and for er , & in the fyft leafe & fyrst syde & .xviii. lyne rede geuing sacramentes for sacramentes gyuen & in the , vi , leaf fyrst syde & second lyne , rede lest for est , & in the second syde of the same leafe & .x. lyne rede of for yf , & in the .xiiii. line seable for feble , & in the .vii. leafe fyrst syde & xvii . line , rede auouch for whych , & in the last leaf & syde , reade Baptisme for baptise , and in the .xiiii. line termed for turned .

To the righte worshipful maister Cheke , scole maister to the Kynges maiestie , and prouost of his worthy colledge in Cambridge , Edmund Gest wysheth enteir health both of body and soule .

NOt wythstandynge ( ryght worshipfull ) I haue attempted an enterpryce in prouynge eche parcel of the pryuye masse to dysplease god , whiche I can neyther word , matier , ne reason accordynglye , and so am rather dyslyked then lyked of manye for thys my doyng , rather heady then heedy as they suppose : Howebeyt in case the sayd persons woll wythe me earnestly respect my bounden deutie in the sayd doyng , they ( I doubte not ( woll be rathere contented then discontented with me for the same . For why ? it is godes oppen wyll that not they alone , whom he hath mercifully delyuered ten or fyue talentes vnto , Mat. xxv . but they also , who haue freelye receaued at hys mercye handes , but one talent , shuld occupy the same , to hys most auauntage , & not enwrappe it ( to his great hinderance ) in a napkyn . Lesse he wolde therfore withdraw it from theim , and delyuer it to the well occupyers , either of the fyue or ten talentes heretofore especyfied ( A clear ensample wherof is for our learning recorded in Math. xxv ) By reson wherof , albeit I am but slenderly knowledged in scriptur matters in respect of others , whose knowledge is ten or fyue talentes too myne one , & so am not hable to auale and gaue therwith any thing so much , as they with ther , who ar passingly skylled in the mattiers before said : This not withstanding I must occupy my talent & auantage so much therby vnto the lord , as I can possyble , to the full discharge of my bonden dew herin , otherwise straitely charged with al. luke . xvi . For we must all become accomptable to the dreadful lord for our receipt & stewardship . luke . xvi Who so saith Christe , Math. 14. is not faithful in a lytle is not trusty in moch . We must al be busely occupied tyl he come , eche man in his call accordyngly No man must attempt to appear before hym whithoute hys offre , Deut. xvi . more or lesse , according to his hablenes herein , which he estemeth , and not the value & bygnes of the offredge . luke . 21. Though the sely poore wydowe offred but two mytes in to the lordes cheast , yet was she no lesse regarded of hym therfor , than the great rych men , who offred in to the same much more . Eche man ( sayeth Hierome ) offreth in to the lordes house what he can , Some golde , syluer & precyous stone , Some eyther goteskinnes , or the heares of the same . For the lord nedeth all these , And he is egally pleased with them , who haue vnegally offrede . In respecte wherof I haue offred vnto hym , this my symple poor myte or goate heare , trusting he wol of hys mercye , both accept the same , & occasion hereby others , to wryte more groundely & clerkly in thys matteir , whych I haue chosen rather then an otheyr too entreate vpon , In respecte the treate therof is both right avaylable & nedefull to hys churche , & so avātageable to him selue , In that it enforceth much to the discontinuance & owerthrowe of the pryuat masse , wherin we are most piteously blinded , to the great dysworshipe bothe of our sauyour & hys moste holy communyon . This myne attempt ( which as ye se , not of pride but of mere conscience I am enforced to ) not wythstandynge I haue offred to the lorde : Houbeit I ensueng the prayse worthy vsage of offerers herein doo offre the same to som other beside , namely to your worshipful mastership , not the I adiudge it a present , worthy your worship , but that I wold hereby open my poore harte toward your maystershyp , trustyng ye of your wonted vnspekeable gentlenes wol take it in good parte , not respectynge so muche the vylenes therof , as the good mynde of the presenter of the same , who ( vndoubtedly ) hath presented , not all what he willyngly wolde , but what hym hably could theyrin . And thus I betake ye to god , whom I most enteirly besech to enuiron you with hys grace so to tread the Kinges maieste in all vertue , wisdome , and vnderstandynge , as shal be , fyrste to the hygh contentacion of god selue , & furtherance of hys trueth , secondly to the Kinges honour and weale of hys realmes , lastelye too youre greate worshyppe name and furtheraunce Amen .

To the christian Reader euerlastynge gretynge in the Lorde .

Wolde god ( deare reader ) soch a person had attempted , and attempted , had perfected , and perfected , had openly publyshed the worthy disclose and disproue of the vnsufferable abhomination of the popysshe priuate pryuye masse , an enterpryse no lesse nedeful than auayleable at al seasons , and for all personnes , and namely at thys present , whyche is , thanke be vnto the lord God , so fauourable and benefyciall to the furtherance of the gospell truth , and so preiudicial & hurtfull to the hinderance of the same : who for hys worthy knowlege perfectly knew , worthely & conninglye , for hys hartie zeale wolde earnestlye , for hys boldenes durst openly , and for his eloquence wold eloquently , and accordingly handel , and discouer the sayd vngodlynes , and workemanly paynt the same before thyne eyes . For why as it is ryghte conuenable & behoueable that as eche vngodlye , and exchueable vice , so the hertofore mencyoned ydolatrie , or ymage worshyppe must of force be knowen , and sensyblye dysclosed , not onely for that it is a doying both haynouse and wycked , but by reason it is also pretensed & cloked , wtyh the pretence and vsurped name of the Euangelicall truthe , & recompted in maner of eche man , ( thee more pytye ) for the worthyest vertue , and for a worshyp not to man alone , but to God also , mooste seruiceable and acceptable . To murder a gyltlesse personne , is a defaulte full greuouse , and thy selfe besyde , moch more greuouse , but not thy selfe alone , and an other but a greate compaignye of innocentes wythall , that is mooste greuouse of al. What sayd I moost greuouse ? Noo not so . For thee sayde murder compared wythe the slaughter of one poore seely soule , is in respecte thereof , nothynge greuouse at all , By reason as one soule sourmounteth , and passeth in worthines an infynite number of bodies , so the slaughter of one soule is more greuouse , than the murder of an vnnumerable sorte of bodyes : Howbeit the murder of sondrie soules is more greuouse than of one , & so consequently the slaughter of an infinite sorte is passinge greuouse In respect wherof , Oh what a greuouse cruel dede is our solytary and alone massinge , whych doeth murder not the bodies alone ( a wycked and a cruel dede ) , but which is most greuouse and wycked of al ) the soules also , not for a tyme , but for euer : not to be without pleasure and greuance , but to be in endeles wofulnes , not of certayn of the worshippers & mainteners therupon , but of eche one wythout restraynt , onlesse he in tyme become repentant , whether he be a pryue masser or a pryuate masse helper , whether he bee an hartie hearer or proctour of the sayd masse , Roma . 1 so that in effecte he be a solytarye masse worshipper , for as S. paule auoucheth not euyll workers alone , but theyr approuers and maynteyners , for that they be lyke mynded , shal be lyke punyshed , Yf the eatyng of an apple in paradyse dyd worthely and meritoriouslye slaye as questionles it dyd not bodely only , but ghostely also , not Adam alone but his wyfe also , & not then alone but al theyr posterite , and that not for a tyme , but euerlastinglye , for that it was directely agaynst the expresse commandemente of god , otherwyse beyng nothing derogatorye to God or preiudiciall to man : Certaynlye then oure alone massynge , for so moch as it is not onelye a breache of goddes open and holye commaundemente , as the eatynge of thee inhibited forbydden apple was , but an open ymage worshyp also , and a forged made seruice of god , whych is a default , no lesse haynouse than the sayd breache , yea , and more too : doeth moche more murder , aswel ghostely as bodely , not onelye the doers and kepers of thee pryuate Masse , but thee vpholders also , and worshyppers there vpon , onlesse they hartelye , and that in thys presente lyfe repent them selues for the same . For a double fault , deserueth a double death a double dampnatyon aswell of thee as agreers and fauourers thereof , as of the authors , and doers , of the same , Is it not a wicked doyinge to endamage an innocente bodye ? and is it not a mysdede moche more wycked , to murder the same ? yes verely . Than remedyles here vpon gatherable , it is oure alone massing is a wyckednes vncomparable , By reason therein Christes bodye , whyche passynglye surmounteth all bodelye creatures , bothe in worthynes dignitie , and in acceptance wythe Godde is assayde daye by daye of thee alone Massers , to be mortefyed & done to death . In consideration ( wherof ) good Christian reader , I beseche thee by the precyouse deathe of oure alone Sauiour Iesu Christ embrase lowe and frequent onelye , the most sacred communion christes owne ordynaunce the true masse , the true sacrament exhibitiue of christes body & bloud , the verye ghostely nurryture & foode both of oure bodyes and soules , into lyfe euerlastynge , & vtterly eschue auoyde , & deteste the pryuate masse , thee vsurped and false named communion , or masse , the pretensed & conterfayte sacrament , mans ordynaunce & tradycyon , the presente poyson both of our bodies and soules , into death not temporal alone , but eternal also . What is sacriledge that vnsyttyng haynouse and abhominable vyce , but an embecilmente and stelthe of an holy thing out of an holy place , whych is adiuged the more vnle●ful haynouse and abhominable in respect of thee more holye thynge embecilled , and stollen out of the more holy place whervpon it formally argueth oure pryuate massing is a sacriledge moost vnfytting , haynouse and detestable . For asmoch as it is a stelth of holye thinges , not of the basest sute as candelstickes sencers , crosses and chalices be , but of the holyest and chiefeste kynde , namely of christe , of the holy ghost , of true relygyon , of fayth , of godlynes , reposed and placed not in a stony temple or aulter but in a christian & faith , ful hart which is iustly estemed more preciouse and holy than a thousand stone tempels or aulters whych after thee report of paul is the temple of the holy ghoste & the mansyon place of the blessed trynitie , i , Cor , v● , Iohan , 14 as christe hym selfe wytnesseth in Iohan . The more preciouse marriage , the more haynouse default is the breach therof . What marriage is in worthynes to be compared wyth the spirituall marryage , that is betwene christ and vs ? Verely none at all , By reason wherof our alone massinge muste remedilesse be a moost haynouse trespace , For that it disseuereth the sayd marriage and enforseth vs to whore with false goddes agaynst christ the lyuinge God oure spirituall husbande . Oh Lorde what an vnspeakeable and vncomparable vyce is thee Pryuee Masse . In case she dyd but murder mens soules & bodies she were to wicked , but sythe she attempteth thee , slaughter of the blessed bodye of christ , sythe she embecilleth & taketh out of our hartes christ the holy ghost , & theyr body & soule sauing frutes , sithe she fondereth and diuorseth the marriage betwene christ & vs : she must no remedy be vncomparably & vnspekeably wycked . Is it not a lamentable fyght , to behold how hyghly men esteme this pryuate masse whych mothereth so manyfolde and haynouse vyces ? Is it not great pytye to see how she is suffered and frequented emongeste vs ? Is it not a deadely remorse to respect the worthy clerkes in thys realme , and the greate number of them , and yet not one to wryte agaynste hyr ? Who yf they wold , could handle & vtter hyr accordingly ? Yeas truli . Wel sythe they ( who perfectly can ) wyl not wryte agaynst the sayd masse , sythe it is nedefull , that her synfulnes to longe dyssembled , shoulde be openly vttered , sythe sythe I am enforced in conscience in thys greate vnseasonable sylence emong the great dyuines in this behalf , to declare my stomacke agayn here , I wil by goddes grace vndertake to wrytte agaynst the hertofore mencyoned masse , notwithstanding I am nothing fyt or suffycient to the ful perfourmaunce of so greate an enterpryse occasyoned so to do , luke . 23 through this the sayinge of christ , yf my dysciples wyl hold theyr peace the stones shal speake wherby he doeth vs to wyt that , it is hys wyl & prouidence that whan the learned refuse to sette forth hys truthe , the vnlearned shulde further and promote it ? Better it is somewhat to wryte and enueyghe agaynst the Popyshe masse , and that grosly than not so godly nothing at al. Better it is that the rude ignorant people shuld by my talke perceaue somwhat of the sinfulnes of the sayd masse , than through my sylence nothynge at all , Better it is that the sayd people shuld be somewhat wythdrawen from theyr receaued masse errour , than that they shuld wholy after theyr accostumed wonte endure in thee same . In respect wherof that what I can possible deuise to the vtterance and reprofe of the faultes incident to thee pryuate masse euen now by gods assistance do I wryte . Therfore good reader gyue heedy attendaunce therto :

PRyue masse after the doctryne of the Popishe boke entituled Antididagma is facyoned of fowre partes , namelye of thee Sacryfyce of Christes bodye and bloude , of the receypt of the communion of prayer , and of doctryne . These partes orderly wyl I declare and conferre them wyth goddes wrytten worde , vpon the conference and tryall whereof it shall ( I doubt not ) appeare ful true that eche parcel of the pryuate masse is vngodlye , and so consequently the masse selfe , exceadynge vngodlye .

The fyrste parte of the sayd masse is thee sacryfyce wherunto be incydente alwaye consecration transubstanciation and the worshippe of Christes body and bloude . And by reason consecracyon for goethe transubstanciation , and transubstanciation the sacryfyce , and the worshyppe aftergoethe them all : I wyll fyrste talke vpon consecratyon , and them orderly vpon the remnaunte . Consecracyon is that percel of the masse , wherein thee priest presumeth , to consecrat and hallow Chrstes bodye and bloude . The whyche , as it is an attempte too vnreasonable and vnable so passynge wycked presumptuouse & detestable . For howe can it possible be that christes bodye whych cannot be made holyer and perfecter than already it is : shuld or myght be consecrat of the priest ? Thys muste nedes be that / that is hallowed was before his consecration , eyther throughly prophane & nothing holy at al , eyther else not so holy , in consyderacyon wherof , whiles the prest do presume to consecrate christes body , nedes must they acknowledge and graunt by that theyr enterpryse not so godly as presumptuouse that the sayd body was before the consecration , eyther nothyng holy at al , else not so holy , which graunt as it is erronyouse and vnbeleueable so vngodly and exchuable . In case the prestes presumed only by theyr consecration to hallowe christes body , that theyr consecration were not so haynouse a dede , but for asmoche as therby they contend not so learnedly as stoutly not so truly as falsely , Christes body to be forged and made of the chosen bread , & therfore endeuour them selues therby , to forge the body of the purposed bread , it is exceding haynouse , for ther is no creature so worthy puissant & entier , as the sayd body is , whyche thyng could not be true , yf the priest or any man else dyd or coulde make the same . For the ofte making of any thing as of christes body , is an vndeceyueable proufe of the vnperfytenes , vnworthines , & feblenes of the same Ther is no man , be he neuer so moch priested or byshopped the can make the feblest basest , & vnperfytest creature in thys worlde , moch lesse christes body the perfytest & noblest creature , ther is no creature , be it neuer so imperfyte that is ofte made , howe than can christes bodye be oft made , that is the most perfyte . These wordes take , eate , in these wordes of the institution of the lordes supper , take , eate thys is my bodye , be no wordes of makinge of the lordes body , but of presenting & exhibiting the same to the receauers of the ryghte supper of the lord . So that it is full open that the prieste can nether consecrate Christes body , neyther make it . Howbeit , this is alwaye graunt able , the minister both consecrateth & maketh , though not christes body & bloud , yet th allotted bread & wyne , the sacramentes exhitiue of the same . For where as the bread & wyne vsed at the lordes supper were prophane & vnholy , before the wordes of the institution of the sayd supper were duely reported vpon them , Nowe after thee due reporte , and vtteraunce of thee sayde wordes by thee mynister , vpon the before named bread and wine , they be consecrate and made of prophane the holy sacramentes exhibitiues , of Christes body and bloud . Thus also meaned the fathers by these wordes , consecration and making in this sacramente . Nowe to transubstantiatyon , or tornekynde , thee next entreatable matter , whyche is no lesse disallowable , then deceaueable . How can thys stande wyth our fayth that Christes body ( whose creatyon is vnrenuable ) shulde be agayn made of the bread a ( vyle creature ) throughe th exchaunge of the nature therof into hys ? Howe were it true that the blessed wyne : & broken bread were bred & wyne , as Paule termethe them , yf theyr natures were throughlye altered into christes body & bloud ? Can they be bread & wyne styl , without they reteygne theyr natures styll : Can they be rightly named bread and wyne wythout theyr own proper mater & substaunce in respect , where of they were so named : doo they not styll appere to oure senses , bread & wine , not withstanding , they ar become the sacramentes exhibitiues of Christes body and bloud : who euer sawe the exchange of any substance without the alteracion of hys accedentes & outward shape ? when christ tourned marueylously water into wyne , it had not only the nature of wyne , but the externall forme also , tast colour & factō of wyne , & no semblance of water at al , Aarons rodde beyng altered into an adder , had not only the substance therof , but also the outward fassion of the same & no similitude of a rodde at al. The water which moyses chaunged into bloude , as it was in nature bloud , so outwardly it semed bloud . Euen so questionles shuld the bread & wyne leaue the outward shape wyth theyr inwarde substaunce , yf they were altered into christes bodye and bloud , By reason , wherof sythe they reteygne styl theyr accidentes , nedes must they also reteigne theyr wonted substance , can ther be any sacrament as S. Augustyne sayth , without therin the due element , & fyt word of god belonginge ther vnto , be ioyntlye coupled togethers : No verely , How than ? can the outward apperaunce of bread & wyne without theyr inward substance be the sacramentes of christes body , & bloud , for the outward apperaunce of bread & wyne be none elementes , but only th external shewes of the same . Elementes be substance & not accidental shewes . Is it not true , that in thee consacrate bread , ther are wormes both engendered & fosterd whych could not be , yf ther endured the bread lyke natured , after as it was before the consecracion ? For eche worme is a substance , and none accydent , therfore cannot be engendered or fedde of an accydente , but of a substaunce alone , In respect wherof , sythe the wormes brede and fede , not in Christes bodye , but in thee consecrate bread , we must remedyles acknowledge in the same bread to contynue thee verye proper substaunce therof . The bread and wyne be sacramentes of Christes body and bloude ordeyned of him purposely to enstructe oure senses outwardelye , what is wrought inwardly by the sayd bodye and bloud in the soule . For theyr vse is to declare too our outward senses assuredly , the as the receaued bread and wyne norishe , strengthen and glad our bodyes , so christes body eaten & hys bloud dronken accordyngly do oure soules . Howe coulde the bread & wyne serue to hys purpose , yf they were vtterly diuoided of theyr accostumed nature ? Verely no maner wyse . For why ? it is the alone substaunce of bread and wyne , and not the colour taste facyon of the same , that fostereth and cherysheth the body . Sacramentes ( sayth Augustyn ) vnlesse they haue certayne lykelyhode wyth the thynges wherof they be sygnes , they be no Sacramentes at al. What semblance I beseche you is ther betwyxte the natureles bread and wyne , and christes body and bloud ? questionles none at all . For the sayde body and bloude , and that after papysshe doctryne be not presented & exhibited at the communion accidentally but substancially only . In respect wherof nedes must we grant eyther the consecrate bread & wyne be not the sacramente of Christes body and bloud , whiche we ought not to do , eyther else thee sayd bread & wyne reteygne styl theyr owne natures , whyche is grantable . I maruel me muche that many of them , who stand in the defence of christes corporal presence at his supper , haue in earnest meyntenaunce transubstanciation , for as me semethe , it doeth moch , what hinder & preiudice , the sayd presence of christ in the sayd hys supper , by reason the broken bread & blessed wyne be institute purposely to resolue and ascertayn our senses that we as materially & truly , thoughe not grosselyer sensyblie , but ghostly receaue and eate Christes body & drinke his bloud as we do the foresayd : In consideration wherof yf we take , eate & drinke , but the accidentes of thee foresayde bread & wine , & not the very substaunces of the same them gatherable it were , christes bodye and bloud be not truely , but faynedly presented & gyuen at hys supper . For why ▪ yf the signe be counterfayt & fayned , them nedes must the thing be in semblable sorte , whyche is betokened thereby a true matter must remediles haue his token also true . In respect wherof the broken bread being the sygne geuen of the sayd body , is material & not mattierles , thys th ensuyng saying , which gracian reporteth , & fathereth vpon Austyne de consecrat distint . ii , cap. qui manducat , enforceth moche to the dysproue & dampnation , of transubstanciation , That is sene , is bread , and the cup wherof the eyes also make euident profe , but that that faythe demaundeth to be instructed in , is , that the bread is Christes bodye , and the cuppe hys bloud . These therfore be named sacramentes , for that in them one thyng is se able , and another vnderstande , that is , s●ne hath bodelye fourme that is vnderstand hath ghostly fruyt● What can be more effectually & expresselye spoken agaynste tornekynde , then thys the rehersed Englysshed sentence of Augustyne ? Fyrst he auoucheth therin the seable matter to be bread , secondelye , for an vndeceaueable argumente and tryall therof he alledgeth the testimonye of thee eyes , Thyrdly he sayth not that is seeable is a bodelye fourme , but hathe a corporall fourme , leste anye man shulde here be occasyoned too adiudge the mattier to want in thys element and so to remayne nothynge else but thee outwarde and accydentall shape of breade . For in that he saythe that , that is seene hathe a corporal fourme , he graunteth in thee elemente twoo thynges to bee remaynynge , thee thynge hadde and thee thynge hauyng , thee outwarde fassyon whych is seable and the subiecte and matter therof , it is to wytt the bread substaunce and the excernall apperaunce of the same . The sacramente of Thankesgeuynge , saythe Irenee consystethe vpon twoo matters or substaunces , thee one earthely , thee other heauenlye , Yf bread substaunce were departed them could not Irenee leyfully call the one part of the sacrament a substaunce but an earthlye accidente . The worthy counsayl of Nece wryteth to the disalowaunce of transubstantiation in sorte thus , Let vs not grossely beholde the bread & wyne proposed & set before our eyes , but in faythe consyder the lambe , yf god in that hys sacred table hauing our hartes eleuate & vplifted , loe , here the worthy counsel nameth the feble portyon of the sacrament after the consecration bread & wyne , & not the formes of the same . Gelasius in open & expresse wordes impugneth the sayd transubstanciation as erronyouse & vncredyble in sorte as followeth . The sacramentes of the body & bloud of christ , which we receaue ar sureli godly matters therfore through & by them , we ar made partakers of the godly nature , & yet do they not ceasse to be the substances of bread & wyne , but continue in the properties of theyr owne natures , wher as Austyne sayth , the lord doubted not to say thys is my body , when he gaue a sygne of hys body : he meanethe not that christes body is absented from hys supper , but that the consecrate bread is not the sayd body or turned substancially in to the same , & is but the signe of christes body , notwythstandinge it be named hys body . Notwithstanding Tertullian , Ambrose , Ierome , Chrisostome , wythe others whyche expresly in theyr wrytynges the consecrate bread to represent Christes body , & to be a signe therof , howbeit in those & soch other , semblable theyr speaches , theyr meanyng is not that the sayd bread is deuoided of Christes bodely presence and presentment , but that the consecrate bread is but thee sacramentall sygne of christes bodye , and not christes body selue , thoughe it be termed sacramentallye the sayd bodye . Nowe wyll I assoyle certayne obiections , and gayn sayinges facyoned of the catholiques , agaynst the premysses . Yf say they ) the bred , nature were not tornekynded into christes body : why dyd he name it hys bodye ? Can it be hys bodye , onles it be exchaunged into it ? Can I be you wythout I become your substance ? No verely . No more can thee bread be christes body wythoute the exchaunge of the matter therof into the sayd body , As for the accidentes of thee sayd bread , it is not requisite , ne nedefull that they shuld be together chaunged wythe theyr substaunce , because christe in thys hys sayinge , this is my body vseth the artycle demonstratyue thys , not in the masculine , but in the newtre gendre , whyche implyeth but the alone matter of the bread , and not accidentes of thee same therwyth , as the masculine doeth , Whereby christ doeth vs tunderstand that the bread nature is only altered & not his accidentes in lyke maner To this obiection , soche is myne answere . Christ in thys hys sayinge , this is my body doeth institute the sacrament of hys bodye and bloud , therfore he speaketh vpon the same , sacramentally it is to wyt , he termeth the signe by thee name of thee matter therby sygnyfyed . He nameth the consecrate bread hys bodye , for that it is resembled and presented therby baptyse , is named the founteyn of our agayn byrth , & the renuinge of the holy ghost , yet is it nether our newe byrth , nether thee renuyng of the holi ghost , ne chaunged into them , but so called for the therby the sayd byrth & renuing be not only represented but also wraughte presented and contributed vnto vs , Gene , 15 Circumcision was not in very dede the couenaunt made vnto Abraham , ne altered into it , howbeit , it was so turned in consyderation , it dyd bothe represent , and present the same couenaunt to Abraham & his posteritie : Christes breathe was called the holy ghost , not that it was the very holy ghost , or turned in to him , but in respect of the sayd ghost therwyth both resembled & exhibited semblably albeit the consecrate bread is named Christes body , yet is it not the layde body ne chaunged into the same , mathe , 26 luke , 22 but so called in consyderacion therwyth the sayd body is both sygnifyed , presented & exhibited . The cup is termed christes bloud & the newe testament : Yet that his so callyng them , notwithstanding , no man wyll depose therupon , the cup eyther to be christes bloud or his testament : Termed notwithstanding thou sayd bloud & testament , for that it is thou sacramental mean wherwyth they be applied & conferred vnto vs , Vpon semblable consyderacion is the bread named christes bodye . Wher as it is thought & credited the bread substance only & not hys accidentes also to be tornekynded into Christes bodye : By reason he vseth in this his saying this is my body , the article thys in the newtre & not in the masculine gendre : Yf this were formally argued is our bonden duety so to do . Yet it is replyed & sayed . Paule calleth the consecrate bread & wyne , this bred , this wyne . Why shuld he so terme them ? In case the one were not turned into christes bodye the other into hys bloud ? Verely the consideration therof is to haue vs put a difference therby betwyxte the consecrate & vnconsecrate & common breade & wyne , acknowledging the former bread & wyne to be sacramentes exhibitiues of christes body & bloud , and these ( I meane the common bread & wyne ) to be nothing lesse than lyke condicioned . The last argument that is alledged for tornekynd is thys . If christes bodye be in thee bred ( as vndoubtedly it is ) them it is enbreaded & his bloude enwyued , whych was alway taken for a great heresy , In respect wherof transubstantiacion nedes muste be graunted as ryght true and beleueable . To thys I answere in sorte thus . Notwythstandinge christes body be presented in thee bred ( as questionles it is ) not placely as ther placed spaced , & mesured , but ghostly : as ther vnplaced vnspaced & not measured : Howebeit , it is not enbreaded nomore then the deytie is recompted , enfleshed for that it is substancially in vs , Nomore then the sayd god hede is demed embreaded , for thou it is entierly in eche bred . No morothē the holy ghoste is accompted enbreathed , for that he was presented in christes breathe ? Nomore then the sayd holy ghost is adiudged enbodied or enharted , for that he is wholly in vs & in oure hartes . Christes body is adiudged of no man to be accidēted notwythstanding it is presented in the accidentes of the bread . Why then shuld it be adiuged embreaded for hys presence in the breade . The one is as reasonable ' as gatherable , as thother is . Some are fule deceyued in the meanynge of these wordes th impanacion of Christes bodye , whyche is not in simple any presence indeferently of the sayd body in the bred : Nomore than the incarnation or enfleshing of christes godhead is indifferently any presence therof in mans fleshe & nature : But only soch a presence of christes body in the bread wherwyth they both shuld be vnseuerably personed & haue al theyr condicions & properties common & mutuall betwixt them . Soch a presence is the personal presence of christes Godheade in hys manhode . Soch is the presence of the soule in the body . In respect wherof as christes body is not enpersoned in vs , notwithstanding it be enbodied to vs : Semblable though the sayd body be presented in thou bred , howbeit , it is not become one person therwith whych is properly termed the impaning or enbreding therof ? If the bred & wyne be not exchaunged in the communion , Some wil demaund of me , why the auncient doctors make so oft report vpon th alteracion of the breade & wyne . To whom this myne answere . The consideration why the forefathers so oft report an exchaunge to be wrought in the sacrament of christes body & bloud is . For that they beleued the chosen bread & wyne to be turned from a prophane to a godly vse , to become nomore common , but special bread & wyne , & to be made nowe exhibityues sacramentes of christes body & bloud , where as before theyr hallowing they were nothyng so . And not that they beleued the sayd bread & wyne to be torne kinded into the lordes body & bloud Thys is the exchaunge wherof the doctours make report , and none other doo they acknowledge here besyde , Thus I haue argued effectually both consecration & transubstantiacion construed , after the catholique doctryne to be directly repugnaunt agaynst gods wrytten truth . Now wyll I trye whether the masse sacrifyce in semblable sort empugneth the said truth And for so moch as this masse sacryfyce is taken here both for a satisfaction of syn & thankesgeuinge I wyl discusse fyrst whether it be a clensing & satisfactory sacrifice . This done them whether it be an acceptable & seruiceable thankesgeuing to god or no. Concernyng the clensynge sacryfyce falsely geuen to the masse , 〈…〉 , Paule wryteth in sort as followeth : With one offering hath christ made ꝑfyghte for euer them that are sanctifyed . There is not one word in this paules saying diligently & depely consydered the enforceth not moch against the before specified sacrifice . In respect wherof I wyll report orderly , & wayghe eche word of the sayd saying seuerally by it selfe . Paul sayth not wyth a manyfold or renewed but with one offering hath christ made perfecte for euer the sanctefied , In consyderacion whereof they bee foule deceaued , who auouche Christes sacrifyce ought to be reuiued & multiplied to the ful pardon & contentacion of our synne , otherwyse vnpardonable . And therfore repete the sayd sacryfyce day by day to the same effect . For why that , that is oft offered cannot iustly be recompted to be offered but ones : By reason a repeted & renewed sacrifice is not merely syngle & one , but manifolde & diuerse . If christ had oft died notwithstanding he were the selue same Christ , that doeth so oft dye Howbeit the his often dyeng shuld not be adiuged one single but sondry deaths . Though it be that selfe same body the dieth by the second deth , which died through the former deth Yet is the twyse dyeng of the body recompted not one but two dethes ( as wytnesseth Iohan in hys Apo. ) Euen so : 2● , yf christ were oft sacrificed thoughe he were the same & none other christ that is so offered . Yet were that oft sacrificying of hym no syngle one , but a many folde & multiplied sacrifyce . In consideracion wherof , sythe by the one otferinge of christe , oure synnes be thoughly pourged ( as paule recordeth ) : Sythe an often offer is not an ones , but a manifold sacrifyce , though it be ot the selue same matter : Christes bodi nether may ne ought to be agayne sacrificed either bloudely or vnbloudely to the doynge away of our defaultes Now to the entretable text of paul By one offering hath christe , &c. By the ones offering of christ . Paul meaneth his paynful & bloude sacrifice , ones done vpon the crosse for euer , else could not the his sacrifice pourge our synnes . For noo sacrifice without bloudshed clenseth syn . According to this sayinge of paul without bloudsheding ther is no remission of syn to be atteigned By reason wherof right oppen it is , they greuously erre , Hebr● 9. who hold opinion that our faultes ar pardoned through theyr vnsufferable & vnbloudy sacrificing of christes bodi otherwyse vnpardonable . With one offring hath christ made perfyte &c. Note this paul sayth note in the present tence doth make perfect , as though christ now doth pardon our syns vnꝑdoned before , but in the preterperfyt tence hath made perfyt : Purposely to do vs herby to wyt that we ar already redemed & clensed by the ones offering of christ neuer to be reuyued eyther sufferablye or vnsufferably bloudely or vnbloudely to purge our synnes with al In consyderacion wherof our catholiques be in a foule greuouse errour , Hebre. 10. for theyr auouching ( enforced questionles so too saye not so moche of a good ground as of a good entent ) our synnes clerely to be clensed wyth theyr vnsufferable , & vnbloudye sacryfyce of christ . For where remission of syn is , ther is ( sayth Paul ) nomore a sacryfyce for the same . By one offering hath christ made perfyght foreuer the sanctified . Note this paule sayth not , Christ hath made perfyght for a tyme , but for euer the sanctefyed . Certes yf christe were to be agayne sacryfyced to the ful contentacion & clensing of synne , them dyd he not throughe hys once offerynge perfyte for euer , but for a tyme the sanctefye● ▪ For why the sacryfyce that is remediles to be reuiued to the contentation & satisfaction of syn contenteth god for the same , not for euer , but for a tyme . By reason wherof oure catholikes are to be blamed , who rather ernestly then godly wil & contend that christes body shuld be agayne sacryfyced to the satisfaction & purgynge of syn , otherwyse after theyr iudgement vnpardonable . An erroure no lesse deragotorye to the entiertee & fulnes of christes ones sacrifice then preiudiciall to the maynteyners therof . For why to renew the sayde sacryfyce is vtterlye to vnperfyt , & disable it quite , fully to clense and do away syn . For so paul argueth to the Hebrues , the sacryfyces of the old lawe dyd not remyt syn , for that they were daylye repeted , else not to be renewed If thys be formallye argued of paul ( as out of question it is ) them it argueth that christ is not to be agayn offered lesse hys fyrst offering being entier & sufficiente to purge syn be through the repeting & reuiuinge therof vnperfyted & dishabled to the ful contētation of syn . ( An issue vtterly wyth al possible endeuour too bee exchued . ) Wyth one sacryfyce hath Christ made perfit for euer them that ar holi made . In the paul auoucheth her christ through his one sacrifice to haue made perfyt for euer them that ar sanctified , He doeth vs herby tunderstand , that the saintes ar none otherwyse redemed & saued then through the one offering of the sayd christ vpon the crosse , & so consequently no man can be otherwyse saued . For they be saintes that be saued : In respect wherof it is nothing answerable to the truth that thou catholiques not so godly as styfly maynteyn , it is to wyt we be redemed throughe the agayn sacrificing of christ otherwise vnperdonable . For yf the masse sacrifice be a contentacion & satisfaction for syn , them is the once sacrifice of christ vtterly to be abandoned & disauthorized , Hebr. viii For why to institute a new sacrifice of christe is tabrogate and adnul th old . Yea yf christ must be agayn offered to the contentation of syn , then muste he be also wofully payned and done to death again . For ( as the sayd paul sayth ther is no contenting sacrifice without it bebloudy . In consideration wherof , Hebre. 9. he argueth yf christ shuld be often offered , nedes must he oft suffer ofte dye . Wherfore ( most gentle reder ) sythe of the aforesayd it appereth ful open , that the masse mercy working offredge dyrectly gaynsayeth not only .ii. or .iii , but sondry scriptures , & then not doubtful but playn and not only scryptures ( whyche symplie to contrary is a sinne ful greuouse ) : but endeuourethe it self also to mourdre christ , whych is more greuouse ) : and not onlye that , but vtterly to adnul & abolishe christes most preciouse & entier sacrifice , done vpon the crosse ( whyche for too doo as it is a defaulte most greuouse , so most vnsufferable ) : I beseche the hartely iudge and esteme the sayd one sacrifice accordingly , that is to wyt to be the alone sacrifice wherwith our syns be clensed and done awaye . And thynke and depose vpon the pryuate masse sacryfyce as thou oughtest to do , namely to be nothyng lesse then a clensyng sacryfyce , But here wyll oure catholiques say they doo nothynge lesse then vpholde the masse offeringe to do awaye synne , For that they acknowledge wyth vs ( the protestauntes ) belongethe to Christes passion alone . God be praysed therfore in oure redubted souereigne lorde the Kynges maiestie , Who by a worthy acte of parlyamente , hath enforced them to the outward acknowledge thereof , otherwyse openly maynteyning the contrary But in case the foresayd persons , meaned that inwardly in the hart , whych wyth the tongue they outwardlye graunt & professe : They wold not defend eche parcell of the Masse canon to be godly & beleueable as they do . For why there it is playnly sayd , the masse sacrifice enforceth effectually to the redemption & ramsoning of the soules . The very wordes of the sayd Canon be these . Remembre lorde thy seruantes &c. for the whych we offre vnto the , or the which do offre vnto the this sacrifice of prayse for them selues , & to thee ramson of theyr soules . Loe , here it is open , the priest sacrificing of christe ( which is here termed a prayse sacrifice ) is purposely purposed & wrought to redeme & ramson soules withal Which thing doth apperteigne alonelye to christes sufferable and bloudy sacrifice . Wel not withstanding , this th alleged sayng out of the canon were not playn & sufficient enough to proue the sayd canon testablishe the masse sacrifice to content god : Howbeit ther is an other the questionles argueth the same , whych the priest alway reporteth & prayeth in the poost common Then ●lysshe wherof is thys . O holy Trinite performe that thys sacryfyce whych I vnworthy haue offered vnto theyes of thi maiestie may be acceptable to the & be also through thy mercy propiciatory , that is to say mercy working both to me & al them for whom I haue sacrificed it . Loe hear in manifest wordes the prest sollicieth god purposely to obteyn of him , this his sacrifice to be propiciatory & to appease his wrath . In consideration wherof grantable it is that the pryue masters acknowlege in very dede theyr masse sacrifice to be mercy working whyles they contend the canon therof to be throughely true & godlye , notwithstanding theyr mouth sayinge to the contrary . What an vnsufferable mockedge is this aswel of god as of our soueraygne lord that king , to acknowlege with them the masse sacrifice to be nothing propiciatory , & yet in the canon ( otherwyse named the masse secret ) to graunt it offered to redeme vs wythall , & to praye it myghte be propiciatorye , If we hartely thoughte with god & our prince the Masse sacrifice were not propiciatorye : We wold not throughlye mayntene the Masse Canon , We wold not saye there wyth we offer Christes bodye to oure redemption , We wolde not instant God as we do , to enforce our sacrifycing of christe to purchase hys mercy . But here it is replyed the foresayde Canon is misconstrued . For it meaneth no thyng lesse than that the masse sacrifice is satisfactory in very dede , but in name alone . So termed in consideration it is a resemblaunce or memory of christes propiciatorie sacrifice executed and perfyted vpon the cr●sse ones for euer . To thys replial thus I answere , In case the sayd sacrifyce were not to be taken , to be satisfactory , Why is it in the heretofore mencioned Canon auouched , We of fre the sayd sacrifice to the redemption both of our soules & others ? Why pray we that the sacryfyce myght be made satisfactorye ? If we wold not it shuld be taken for satisfactory ? Yf it were not to be taken for a satisfactory sacrifice , and that after the true meanyng of them , who fathered the Canon : They wold neuer haue so wrytten vpon it , as they haue done . Again yf we thought not hartely that it were soch a sacryfyce : We wolde not affyrme , we sacryfyce it to redeme vs and others withal . We wolde not ne durste sollicite god to enforce it propiciatorye : dredyng the dredeful saying of christ thou shalt be iustified by thi wordes , mathe , 13 & by thy wordes thou shalte be condempned . Let vs hedely beware lest christ iudge vs by our mouth as he dyd the wycked seruaunt . For the mouthe vtterance as of godly matters maketh to saluation , mathe. 25 Roma , 10 as wytnesseth Paule : So of vngodlye to dampnation . Let vs therfore condempne , as of bonden duetye we ryght ) the therfore saying of thee masse canon , Which , as they plainly , & directly withstand gods wrytten worde , so the kinges statutes : lest we through our allowaunce & prayinge of the same incurre & deserue the iust wrath both of god & of our prince . Here I cannot but disclose the vnsufferable subtiltie of our catheloques in this purposed matter . Therfore good reder , earnestly respecte the same to thy aduoydance of theyr trayn . They hauing in consyderation that now lefullye they cannot : in respecte of the pen euidence of gods wrytten worde agaynst them , which to gaynsay were not sufferable : Ne dare any longer vphold theyr masse sacrifice to be mercy workyng . For that it emplieth notable repugnaunce to an acte of parliamente whyche not to obey and approue , as it is vnfyttinge , so ryght punisheble : Consydering also yf theyr Masse canon were to be vnderstand after hys gramer sence ( as doubtles it is ) it must remedeles be condempned & canceled oute of the masse boke , as heresye to god , and disobeysaunce to the King : Wherupon happely myght consequencly ensue the vtter decaye and confusion of the masse selue , ( an issue no lesse perfourmable than resonable & ensuable ) : Haue at the last qual●fyed and blanched the sayd canon in the heretofore alledged places therof after thys sorte . To offer the sacrifice of prayse for the redemption of our soules meaneth nothing else , but toffre the sayd sacryfyce for a remembraunce of Christes sacryfyce , ones wroughte vpon thee crosse to redeme oure soules wyth all . To praye that the masse sacrifyce myghte bee propiciatorye is to praye , it myght be a memorye of the propiciatorie sacrifyce . Iesus what a far fetched meanyng of the foresayd is thys . Whyche cannot wel be ymagyned moche lesse gathered of the same . Yf they who fathered the Canon , meaned the masse sacryfyce were not offered purposelye to redeme vs wythal , but to record the satisfactore sacrifice : Theyr wordes vndoubtly wold rather haue enforced for the prest sacrifice to be a memory of the satisfactory sacrifice them to be it it self . Therfor the sayd fathers so did wryte the sayd Canon as thei might easely be vnderstanded what thei vnderstode therby , And so wrote it so openlye as they possible could deuise . By reson wherof sythe the before mencyoned sayinges of the canon make al togethers for the priest sacryfyce to be propiciatory Question les theyr meaning is that the sayd sacrifice appeaseth goddes yre & indignation & clenseth syn . Howesoeuer ours catholiques now take them . Though saye our catholiques ) the before especyfyed allegations seme targue the masse sacrifice to be satisfactory yet ar they to be construed as wee take them , And neuer were they other wyse taken eyther of vs , eyther else of others learned & catholique men . Lo the shamelesse vanitie of our catholiques , they do not only lye in mystakinge the Canon , but in misreporting the myndes of sondrye wryters . So that the common prouerbe is veryfyed one leasyng doeth accompanye another . Is not Mayster doctour smyth of Oxenford a great clerke and moch traded in auncient wryters ( as it appereth by hys doyinges ) ? Yet he in the hundereth and one , and twentye leaffe of hys boke entituled the defence of the sayed sacryfyce of the masse wryteth , for the sayd sacrifice to be propiciatory in sort thus . Doeth not this place proue the masse to be a sacrifice propiciatorye , Syth by the offeringe of christes body in sacrifice at it gods wrath towardes this man , & his seruauntes conceyued for theyr synnes ( wherby the deuyl had soch power on them ) was pacyfied & appeased ? Agayn in the next leaffe ensuing thus he wrytethe . Nothyngt can be more euidently spoken for the sacrifyce of the holye masse that it is a sacryfyce prepiciatory curing mans woundes ( that is to say , hys synnes ) & that also by the ordinance of christ commaunding it to be done for a remembraunce of hys death and rysynge a● 〈…〉 ●to mayster Smyth ? Wherby it is ryght euident that he thought the masse sacryfyce to be proprciatory , and I doubte not vnderstode the tofore named canon as I do . Cocleus a man hyghely estemed amongeste oure catholiques partly for hys ryght iudgement in scripture matters ( as they suppose ) partlye for hys learnyng , wryteth in hys former reply all to Bullyuger in the syxt chapter therof for the pryeste sacryfyce to bee propiciatorye in sorte as foloweth . We after the accostumed maner of speaking in the Church name not the supper but the masse , a sacryfice not onlye of prayse and thankesgeuynge , but of mercy workyng also , wherwyth we endeuoure oure selues to prayse god instaunte hym and appease hym . For wee offers the Masse masse sacryfyce not for the alone pourgyng of synne , ) which thou falsely doest charge vs wythall , but for sondrye other skylles also and nedes . As it is euydently knowen of the holy Canon . Cocleus woordes in Latyne be these Nos autem inxtu cousuetum in Ecclesia loquendi modum non caenam sed missam dicimus sacrificium non solum laudis & gratiarum actionis , sed etiam propiciationis . Quo deum laudare inuocare & placare satagimus Non enim pro sola peccatorum expiatione ( quod tu falso imputas nobis ) sed pro aliis causis & necessitatibus permultis Missae sacrificium offerimus , Quem admodum exsacro Canone liquido cognoscitur & ex multiplici diuersarum collectarum titulo verborum q contextu conspicitur . Here it is ryghte manyfeste and playn that Cocle bothe wel learned & godly iudgemēted after the opinion of our catholiques doeth not only say that that masse sacrifice is satisfactorye , but appealeth to the Canon therin as answereable ther vnto after hys iudgement . Freer Hofmaster ( who was so worthely estemed of the catholiques as they alotted hym to be one of the reasoners agaynst the protestantes in the emperours last dyet kept at Ratyspone ) wryteth in hys boke entyteled the exposytyon of the masse prayers & ceremonies in the behalfe of the masse satisfactory sacrifice in maner folowyng . Now that our sacryfyce is named a prayse sacryfyce I suppose it offendeth no man . For oure aduersaries acknowledge also the masse , for the prayers laudes & thankesgeuing therin accostumed to be made , maye be called a sacrifice of thankesgeuing & prayse , But that we auouche it to be also a propiciatorye sacrifice thys doo they stedfastly deny & disaffyrme . Hol maysters wordes in Latyn be thes● . Iam ꝙ sacrificium nostrum appelletur sacrificium laudis nominem opinor offendit . Nam et aduersarii fatentur missam ꝓpter preces , laudes & gratiarum actiones inibi fieri solitas sacrificium dici posse eucharisticium hoc est gratiarum actionis et laudis . At quod nos asserimus preter cetera etiam esse pr●piciatorium sacrificium hoc constanter negant . Lo , here hofmayster not only in hys own , but in the person also of thee catholiques ( otherwyse termed papistes ) as ful according wyth hym herin auoucheth contrary to our catholiques the masse bothe to be a thankesgeuing and contentation and pardon for our synne . This wrote the sayd Hofmayster in his before named Boke for the defence and allowance of thys sayinge of thee canon Pro quibus tibi offerimus . etc. for the whych we offer vnto the , or the whiche do offre to the this sacrifice of prayse for them selues and al theyrs for the ramson of theyr soules etc. Wherby we lerne it is not the fayth only of Hofmaister , but of the foren catholiques also , the the masse sacrifice is mercy workinge & that thee wordes also of thee masse canon , ye●mporte the same , ought so insimple to be taken without any far fetched glosse . Whatsoeuer our Englishe catholiques for a tyme do hold to the contrary . Wel syth it is both acknoleged of our catholikes & grondely I trust argued that the masse offredge is not satisfactory or ful contenting . The next entretable matter is that the sayd sacrifice is nothing auailable ether for the quick or the dead Our catholiques contend it is profytable for them both , but how moche or in what mesure it lyeth not in the powre of man to lymit : But thys theyr opynyon can not stande with Chrystes satysfatorie sacryfyce . By reason it is a full cōtentacyon and satisfactyon for synne , & so the Masse sacryfyce awaleth nothing at al to the clensyng thereof . For yf it auailed any thynge thereto : Then wete it propyciatorte aparte thoughe not entierly : Then were christes sacrifice satisfactore but aparte & not wholy : Then were the Masse sacryfice no lesse satysfactore then Christes , For that it shuld make partely for the satysfaction of synne as thristes doth : Whyche is a blasphemy to thynke moche more to speake : Then were oure catholiques deceyued in disaffyrmynge the masse sacryfyce to bee propiciatorye . But what nede I to argue thee sayed sacryfyce to be vnfruteful , The catholiques them selues in conclusyon grant the same , whyle they auouche the full & entier fruyte & vertu of the prest masse to consyst in the appliall of christes merytes vnto vs , otherwyse vtterly diuoided of the same ones merit●d vpon the crosse in general for almen . Which is the sacrament & not the sacrifice , For in thee sacrifice ther is nothinge applyed and rendred vnto vs , but to God alone , otherwyse no sacrifyce at al It is the sacrament alone , & not the sacrifice that geueth to vs , accordinge to the ryghte definitions of them both ? In consyderation wherof sythe the masse fruyte consysteth , not in the prest sacrifice , but in the apply all & gyft of christes body & bloud , not as sacrifice of the prest ( whych is but a coūtrefeiture & resemblaunce of thee true sacrifice ) but as offered of christe hym selfe vpon the crosse ones for euer : It muste nedes argue that the masse frute consisteth in the sacramet alone & not in the sacrifice also . For why the appliall & deliuere of thee frutes of christes death & agayn rysing to vs , is gods gyfte vnto vs & not ours vnto him . So that it is the sacrament & not the sacrifice of the masse that is auaileable . For a sacrament is defined to be an holy token , wherby god geueth vs fre pardon of syns , A sacrifice contrary wise is defyned to be that wherby we render somewhat vnto god . In respecte wherof oure catholiques be moch blame worthi , who yelde to the masse sacryfyce whyche is apperteyninge only to the Lordes supper , I meane the apply all & render of the benefyghtes of christ is deth & resurrection . Whych dyde as it is a grounded proufe of falshode so of the vnauaileablenes of the masse , as otherwise vnfrutful , Though ( wilsom say ) the masse sacrifice applyeth not , ne rendreth to vs christes merytes , Howbeit wythoute that they cannot possibly be presented and deliuered vnto vs . And so the sayd sacrifice must no remedy be auayleable . That is not so . For the sayd merites begyuen vs both in baptisme & absolution , yea & in the communion to wythout the prest sacryfyce as shal here after be declared , And so the sayde sacryfice in thys respert is fruytles . Yet doo our catholiques replye , the foresayd sacryfyce saye they , though it maketh nothing to the applial of christes merites to vs warde : Howbeit in that it is a thankesgeuing it must nedes be auaileable In this replial fyrst this is denyable , that the prest sacrifying of christes body & bloud is a thankesgeuing . For the merely & nakedly respected as nothing but an offredg nothing is thanked thereby , & so no thākgeuīg : In dede the prayers incident therto be a thankesgeuinge . But be it the sayd sacrifice were a thankesgeuinge . Yet it shall not orderlye here vpon ensue that it were an acceptable & auaileable thankesgeuinge For ther be two sortes therof , the one good & proffytable , thee other nought & vnfrutefull ? And yf the prest sacryfyce be a thankesgeuing it must nedes be both vngodlye & vnfrutefull , & so of the badsort of thanke render , By reason it is institute besyde gods wrytten wordes & so contrarie to the same , in that it is a putting therto . For yf it were fonded vpon the sayd word it shuld by al lykelyhod be gronded vpon christes wordes concerninge his supper . But the it is not And so it is a forged worship & thākerendre , For christ at his supper neyther offered hym self ne inioyned others to sacrifice him to his father . Orderly examine eche word of the institution of hys supper & ye shal wel apperceaue thys to be ful certayn . Christ at the sayd supper tuke bred , mathe. 26 Luke , 22 But that is not to sacryfyce hym selve . Els he sacryfyced hym selue to hys father so oft , as he dyd eate . He gaue thankes , but that is not to offere hym selue , Els he sacryfyed hym selue to hys father , what tyme he encresed fyue barelye loofes & fed therwyth fyue thousand men . He broke it and gaue it to his disciples . But that is not to rendre it to god , whych is behoueful in eche sacryfyce . His disciples toke & eate the bread & his body , so do the lea men in lyke manner , Yet they offre them not The which is geuen for you , herby he meaneth not to be here sacrifyed , Els shulde he offer hym selue oft , and not ones , Els wolde not our prestes ouerhipped those wordes in theyr consecration . The disciples were enioned to do this in his remembraunce and so they dyd : What then ? So doo all Christianes & the faythful lealtye performe the same . Yet offer they hym not . As ther is not one word touching this former part of the lords supper , the enforceth for the prieste sacrifice : Euen so is ther none in thys latter the maketh for the same , For that I haue spoken of the same , is reducible & appliaunt to the latter portion of the sayde supper . Thus it appereth playn christ nether offered him selue in hys supper ne commaunded others to offer hym in the same to hys father . In respect wherof paul spoke the selue same wordes vnto the vnprested Corinthians 1. Cori : 11. whych Christ reported to hys disciples . And bad them also perfourme all those thinges whyche Christ demaunded to be perfourmed of his disciples , whiche thing be wold neuer haue done , yf the vnprested Corin. mought not accomplished & put in execution al matters concerning the lordes supper . Thus it is playn the masse sacrifice is not grounded vpon Goddes wrytten word , & so nether acceptable or seruiceable to God ne fruteful to man . For why , whoso worshippeth god wythout his special word for the same worshippeth him wythout fayth . By reason true fayth issueth onlye from gods wrytten word as wytnesseth S. Paul . Fayth cometh by hearing & that hearinge by gods word . Roma . 10 And who so worshippeth god without fayth , synneth . For as Paul saith whatsoeuer thing is not of fayth , Roma . 14 is syn . So that hereby it is full open the sayd sacrifice is synful & consequently not to be frequented or vsed . Our catholiques in that that they acknowlege theyr priest sacrifice not to be mercy workyng suppose it so taken , may wel stande both with goddes word & christes honour . But in so demeng they be foule deceyued . For why to attempt to offer christ as it is an enterpryse toto bolde and presumptuou●e : so vnsufferable & blasphemouse . For thys is the state & condicion of leyfull sacrifyces before god , that they sacryfyced be not merelye of them selues , but in respect of the offerers godlynes regarded and hys synfulnes dyslyked of God . The sacryfyces of Abel and Cain , not wythstandyng they were not moch what vnlyke in them selues : Gene. iiii , howbeit they were dyuersly respected of god in consyderation of the soūorynes betwixt the offerers . For th one god regarded for Abels sake , the other he hated and abhorred for Cain sake . The lorde loked vnto Abel ( sayth moyses ) and to hys offering . But to Cain and hys offeringe he loked not . Marke thys , Fyrste he loked vpon Abell ere he respected hys offeringe . Fyrste he dyslyked Cain or he dislyked hys sacryfyce , Whereby we do vnderstand that the offering is lyked or dislyked of god in respect of the offerer . So that here vpon it grondelye arguethe that the offerer is bothe worthyer & better estemed of God then hys offering . For that , that god regardeth merely for it selue is better & more estemed of hym , than that whiche he regardeth but in respect of another . In consyderation wherof yf christ were to be sacrificed of thee priest , then were the priest bothe worthyer & better accepted before god than christ him selue , as it is gatherable of the before sayde . By reason wherof thee priest sacryfyce as it most hyghly empayrethe christes honoure & maiestie so vncomperablely offendeth god the father & so moste exchueable . Wolde you further know why the prest sacrifice is vnfitting & disalowable ? Then diligentlye note the sequeles , & after sayinges , Who so be autorised & appoynted to sacrifice Christ body must be prestes after the order ether of Aaron or Melchisedech , But our offerers ought not to be prested after Aarons order . For that his presthode is quyte repealed & done away . Syth the priesthode sayth Paul is translated of necessite must the law be translated also , Hebre , 7 Then remediles must the foresayde sacryfycers be priested after Melchifedech order , els are thei vnprested . But thei cannot be prestes as melchisedech was : By reson who so is a preste after hys order is an euerlastynge prieste according to this saying of dauid Psal: 14 , Thou art an euerlasting prest after the order of Melchisedech , but we be al immortal & but for a tyme , therfore not eternall & consequently none euerlastinge prestes , Whervpon it formally argueth that our vsurped prestes vsurpe & take the authorite to sacrifice Christes body , whych is graunted neyther to them ne to anye man els . By reason wherof they be blame worthy for that theyr vsurpation of soch autorytee . Hebre. 5 Let no man sayth Paul take honoure to him selue but he that is called of god as was Aaron To procede further in the disproufe of the prest sacrifice , Howe can it possible be that our prestes could sacrifi christes bodi & bsoud ? With out theyr due sacramentes the sayde body & bloud nether can be presented ne sacrifyced , as the prestes them selues acknoledge as most certen . For the sacrified bred & wine nether be ne can be sacramentes of christes body & bloud : By reason they be otherwyse vsed them christ selue ordeyned thee sacramentes of the same to be . Can the baptisme water be iustly recompted a sacrament wher it is transposed to other vsages than it is prepared for of christ by hys word & the ryght ordinaunce of the same , namely to be gaised vpon , too sprynkle & washe men with al , to christen belles to washe our clothes with all ? No truely . Can the circumcision or of pare which the Iewes and turkes now vse , be rightly demed a sacramente ? No verely . Certes nomore can the sacrificed bread & wyne be iustly accompted sacramentes of the lordes body & bloud . But heere oure Catholiques replye sayinge the wordes of consecration be reported vpon the bread & wyne ere they be sacryfyced , In consyderation wherof , nedes must they be sacramentes . Thys ther replial is nothinge formall ne forceable & that by theyr own doctryne . Be it that alaymā reported the consecration wordes on the bread & wyne or the prest vttered them not purposing the making of christes body & bloud . The sayd bread & wyne were after our prestes doctrine nothing lesse than geuing sacramentes of the aboue named body & bloud , notwithstanding the report of the consecration wordes ouer them . So that it standeth wythe catholique doctryne that in symple the bare report & naked vtttrance of the consecration wordes enforce not the sacrament . So that the foresayd replial is nothing effectual , being neyther true ne catholique ? Now to the before mencioned sacrificed bred agayn , I put the case , ther were soch adueuout priest who were so deuoutly disposed as he wolde eate none other breade & drinke none other drinke at meales but sacramentally consecrate bred & wyne & wold in consideracion hereof for eche his dyner and supper purposely report daye by day at hys masse , the consecration wordes ouer hys bread & wyne that he wold vse at the sayde meales : I suppose noman be he neuer so catholiq & old fashioned wyldepose that sayd bred & wyne to be geuing sacramentes of christes body & bloude notwithstanding the report of the consecration wordes ouer them , And verely the consecration hereof is the dyrecte & oppen abuse agaynst the ryght institution & vsage of the sacramentes of thee sayde bodye and bloud : Nomore be the sacryfyced bred & wyne sacramentes of christes body & bloud , notwithstandyng the rehersal of the consecration wordes ouer them : For why christe instituted at his supper his body not to be sacrificed but eten . In respecte wherof he saythe not take sacrifice , this is my bodi : but taken eate , thys eate my body . Ther be thre matters ryght nedefull & be houeful to the natural beynge of a sacrament , The due element the due word the especial commaundement of god directed therto . Wher any of the aforesayd want , there can be no sacrament . By reason wherof the sacrificed bread & wyne can be no sacramentes , notwithstanding they be the due elementes consecrate wyth due wordes . In consyderation ther wanteth gods special commaundement so to autoryse vs & able vs to sacrifice them as to take them & eate them . So that they be but pure elementes & no sacramentes . Therfore christes body & bloud cannot possibly be sacrifyced in & by them . Whereby it appereth euident , the prest sacrificing is of nothing lesse than of christes body & bloud . Thus ( good reder ) I haue argued ( I suppose forceably ) the priest sacrifice to be nether propiciatore ne auaileable , nether godly ne approueable but sinful and vnsufferable . Therfore I besech y● vtterly renounce it & detest it enbracing & vsing in the stede therof the most holy communion . But happely thou art loothe so to do tyl I haue soyled the reasens fetched out of scriptures whych colourably seme to ratefy the sayd sacryfyce , By reason whereof I wyl addresse me to the ful answere & resolution of the same . Wheras it is argued christ in respecte he is pristed after Melchisedech ordre offred him selue bodely vnder the fourme of bread & wyne , for that Melchisedech offered bread & wine . This reason holdeth not because it is false that Melchisedech sacrificed bred & wyne . For Moses sayth not Melchisedech offered but brought forth bread and wyne . To bring forth is not to offer , He sayth not he brought forth bread & wyne for a sacrifice but wythout any mention of sacrifice at al. He saith not he broughte forth the sayd bread & wyne to god , but to Abraham as it is right gatherable of the Historie to whom to do sacrifice were an ymage seruice , & therfore Melchisedech sacrificed not bread & wyne . Here it is obiected yf Moyses meaned not that melchisedech offered bread and wyne : Why adioned he immediatly thereto this ? he beynge the prest of the most hyghest god blessed hym ? Mary not because he sacrificed the bred & wyne but for that he blessed Abraham , doynge vs hereby to wete , as Melchisedech declared hym selue to bee a kinge in employing vpon Abraham bred & wyne : So in blessing hym to be a prest . For as the employing of bread and wyne , was a kingly function , so the blessing a priestly ●ffyce . In consyderation wherof the foresayd Moses thus wryteth . And Melcheledech thee Kynge of Salem brought forth breade and wyne , Gene. x●iii and he was a prieste of the moost hyghest God and blessed hym . The meanynge wherof is thys as me semeth ) because Melchysedech was a kyng he played the kynge he employed vpon Abraham hyghe chere , bicause he was a priest also , he played the prieste he blessed hym . In that he was a King he chered Abraham , in that he was a prieste he blessed hym . But here some wyl saye Abraham was alreadye greatly enriched wyth kyngly spoyles & hadde no nede of Melchisedechs chere , therfore by al lykelyhod he profered hym not the bread and wyne . To thys I answere , not wythstandynge Abraham neded not Melchysedech cheringe , yet he chered hym in fuile proufe of hys hospytalyte and humanytie toward both hym and his . ●hus both Chrisostome and Iosephus thynke . But be it Melch●sedech offered breade and wyne , and in so doyinge fygured christ Shall it folowe there vpon , that Christ offered hym selue bodelye infourmes of breade and wyne ? Noo verelye . Was not Aaron a fygure of Christe , dyd he not fygure and resemble hym selue in sacryfycyinge of a gote ? Yeas certaynly . Yet noo man wyll or oughte to gather , bycause Aaron who was a fygurer of christ sacrificed a gote , Therfore christ offered hīselue corporally in or vnder thee shape and kynd of agote . If the before mencioned doying of melchisedech were applied to christe after this sort folowing I could not but acknowledge the application therof both sufferable and godly , As melchisedech the king of Salem profered bread & wine to Abraham , & hys sodiers , not for them to sacrifice , but to eat to their relief , & blessed the sayde Abraham & in him al his posterite : Righte so christ our kynge , the kynge of spiritual peace & rightuousnes , presenteth at his supper to al vs his communers bothe bread and wyne ( sacramentes exhibitiues of hys body & bloud ) not to be offered but th one to beeaten & thother to be dronken to oure comfort , and blesseth vs al , & in vs al oure ofspring . The next alledged reason for the masse sacrifice is this deduced oute .i. & .iii of the prophet Malachie , I haue no wyl to you sayth the Lord of hostes & I wyl not receaue of your hande a sacrifyce . For from the rysing of the sonne vnto the gowing down myname is great emong the people . Lo her ( say our catholiques ) , the prophet prophesieth of the vtter refusall and repeale of the Iewyshe sacrifyce & of the succession chose and acceptaunce of a new , whych is to be vnderstanden of the masse alone . This ther vnderstandinge is nothing answereable to the prophetes meaning . For why he speketh only of soch sacrifice which is offered in al places of al men and from the morninge to nighte . The masse sacrifice is not sacrificed in eche place , but in the church alone , not from the morninge to night , but from the morninge to noonetyde , not of eche man indifferently , but of the prieste alone . The alledged reason out of thee eyght & twelue of Daniel enforceth nothing to the prest sacrifice For daniel as it appereth playne in the nynthe chapter entreateth of the abolishment of the Iewyshe dayly sacrifice , whych is discontynued for certeyn yeres through the tyran Antiochus . This sacrifice was offered twyse on the day in the mornyng & at nyght . The Masse sacrifice is sacrificed but ones on the day , & that in the mornyng , thother was offered but in the temple of Hiercusalē , this is sacryfyced in eche churche . Yea the moost learned catholiques cannot endure thee foresayde Prophecye shulde be so taken as it concerneth thee quyte abolishement of theyr Masse sacryfyce . For that they beleue that as Christes churche is euerlastable so theyr sayde sacrifice alwayes endureable . It is expressely wrytten in , xiii . of thee Acres of the Apostles ( say our catholiques ) that they sacrificed to thee Lorde . Therfore by al sembleaunce they sacrificed his body and bloud . What a misfashioned argumentation is this ? ●he Apostles sacryfyced to the Lord , ergo they sacryfyced hys body & bloud . Could they sacryfyce nothing but the sayd body & bloud ? Mought they not preache , pray , gather almouse for the nedy and mynystre the Lordes supper ? Be they not al seuerably seruiceable and acceptable sacrifyces ? Bee not also the ful executours of the same iustly named sacryfyers ? Yeas verely , Then it is nothing ensuable , because thee Apostles sacrificed , they sacrificed Christes bodye and bloude . And Luke saythe not they sacryfyced christes body & bloud , but in simple they sacrificed . Therfor this saying of luke they sacrificed importeth necessarelye no sacrifyce of christes body & bloud , but rather of the beforesayde . That here Erasmus nameth sacrificinge , the old translator termeth ministring Chrisostome takethe it for preachinge , so dothe Erasmus also . The greke word saye the Parisians betokeneth to execute & minister a publique office , & it is here taken to preache gods gospel , Thus the Pariliaus in theyr annotacions vpon the new testament . Thus it is euident the before alledged argumentation is both wrong framed & disproued both of christostome Erasmus & Parisians the hed maynteyners of the masse sacrifice . Another reason that the catholiques alledge for thee mayntenaunce of theyr sacrifice is thys The thyng fygured must agree wythe hys fygure . Christe was fygured by the pascal lambe , therfore as the sayd lambe was first offered ere it was eaten : Exodi . xii Euen so christe ( the true lambe ) was offered ere it was eaten , at his maundy . To this I answere after this sorte . It is ryght certayne that the matter figured & the figure both do & must accorde in some poynte , otherwyse ther can be neyther fygure ne thing fygured : In cōsyderation wherof the pascal lambe ( for the sygneth christ ) it muste & dothe resemble hym in somwhat & so it doth . For as the pascal lambe was slayne & offered , so was christ . As the pascall lambe ( slayne and offered ) was a meane whereby the Israelites were deliuered from theyr slauery of Pharao , So christ mourdered broken & offered was the meane wherwyth we be fredomed frome the thraldome of our spyrtual Pharao the deuyll . As the pascal lambe was not onely offered but eaten also : so Christ was both eaten & sacryfyced &c. But that the thinge fygured shuld be throughly ordred as hys fygure in all pointes , it is neyther nedeful ne possyble Els shuld Christ haue bene offered but of others alone & not of hym selfe also . In consideracion the pascall lambe was so Els shuld he haue bene rosted ere he were eaten , bycause the pascall lambe was not eaten rawe but rosted . Els his bones shulde haue bene brent , for that the sayd lambes were , Els his bloud shuld haue bene springled in the Iewes houses as the lambes was , Els he shuld not haue bene eaten whole & vnbroken vnsufferably but by pecemele and sufferably as the lambe was Wherfore ryght as Christ is fygured trueli by the pascal lambe notwithstanding his foresayd disagrement therwyth : Euen so thoughe christ is fyrst eaten & then sacrificed yet that is none hinderance why the sayd christ shulde be fygured by the pascal lambe , Now to the next reason that is adiudged to enforce for the masse sacrifice . Ye cannot drinke of the lordes cup & the deuils to ? Ye cannot be partakers of the lordes table & the deuils also Here S. Paul compareth the partaking of the lordes supper with the communion of the meates offred to the deuyls , i. Cori. 10 whych thinge certaynly he wold neuer haue done oneles he demed christes body and bloud fyrste to be sacryficed ere th one is eaten thother dronken as the meates dedicate to deuyls be . For els that hys comparison were nothing semblable ne formal . To thys is myne answere : Paules sayd comparison betwixt the sayd body and bloud , and the meates and drinkes consecrate to deuils consisteth only in mutual receipt and comunyng of them , and noothing at al in the sacrificing of the same . Therfore he mencyonethe only the partaking and not theyr offredge also : I meruel me moch what our catholiques meane to auouche thee before mencyoned comparyson not to be formall with oute it implied the offredge also both of the sayd meates and drinkes . May not two thinges be iustly compared togethers and that but in one symple matter ? Doo they not know that eche comparison halteth and in some matters discordeth ? Yf they wyl haue the heretofore named comparison so throughly answerable & sembleable in all condicions : Then it is to be argued after thys posycyon , and decre that whensoeuer christes body is eaten , hys bloud dronken and that accordinglye , yet they staine and embrue vs in consyderatyon the ymage meat and drinke , eaten & dronken so do . Then do they alway dysplease god , for that the meates and drinkes offered to ydols so do , Then they be grossely sensybly and sufferably eaten and dronken for that the meates and drinkes offered to Idols be after that sort both eaten and dronken . Al thees in cōueniēses be no lesse gatherable of the foresayd comparison then that Christes bodye and bloude ought to be sacryfyced . In consideration the ydol meate and drinke be offred . Is it not in expresse wordes in Paul .v. to the Hebrues ( saye our catholiques ) that eche Byshop or priest taken out of the nombre of men is ordeined for men in those thinges that do apperteīgn to god that he shuld offre gyftes & sacrifices for synne ? whereby it is full open that oure priestes do offere a sacrifyce for oure synne ? What can that bee but Christes body & bloud ? Fayn wold our catholiques haue theyr masse sacryfyce to be authorysed & founded vpon gods wrytten worde , but it wolde not be . I beseche the what enforceth the alledged text of Paul to the maynteyning of prestes sacrifice ? Verely nothing at al. For why it talketh only of the Aaroni cal ordre of priesthode , as it doth well appere by this the after sayinge of Paul , let no man take vnto hym honoure ( he meaneth the foresayde priestehode ) wythoute he bee called of God there too as Aaron was , and compareth thee offyce of thee sayde priestehode wyth Chrystes as it is ryghte euydente by thys thee nexte after speache whych begynneth in sort thus . Euen so lykewyse Chryste etc. And he speaking but of the leuiticall priesthode oughte in nowyse too be vnderstande of oure masse presthode , according to the generall rule . Eche man sayinge must be taken after the entended & entreated matter . Well though the foresayd allegation of Paul were to be construed of oure Christian priesthode & of our christian p●iestes . Howbeit , it oughte so too be taken that it implieth nomore one christian than another , nomore the spiritual than the leamē notwithstanding some be ecclesiastical ministers ) whyche other be not ) according to this saying of peter , ye be a kingly presthod , But be yt ther be certayn allotted & chosen to a special sort of presthode , i. Pet. ii whyche the remnaunte of Christians , be not allotted to , Iet shuld the heretofore alledged scripture argue nothing for them . By reason it entreateth of soch prestes who ar wonted to offre not one gyft , but many & diuers , not one sacrifice , but sondre , and then to the ful contentation of syn , oure made priestes offre but one gyfte , yf they offer that but one sacryfyce and not dyuers , and that not to the satisfaction and purging of synne but for a thankesgeuing , as our Catholiques then selue now at the last acknowledge . Yet thee sayde Catholiques replye for ther said sacrifice in sort thus ? Christ sayd to his apostels ( as Luke .xxii. maketh hereof report ) , Thys do for my remembraunce , which thys his saying autoryseth them to sacrifyce christis body and bloud as he him selue had them done at his supper . This theyr replicationis nothing effectual or true , Was not S. Paul an apostle not of that basest but hyghest sort ? howbeit he dyd not vnderstand the sayd sayinge of christ after that sort . For he spoke the very selue same to thou vnprested Corinthians , i. Cori. xi . and the not of his owne hede , but by the motion of the lord . I haue ( sayth he ) receyued of the lord , Which I haue delyuered you , wherby it doth wel appeare that it is not onelye Paules , but the lordes also & consequently al his apostles mynde , that thys hys sayinge do thys in my remembraunce , is spoken aswel to the vnprested as to the prested christians . By reason whereof yf th one be through the sayd speche autorysed to sacryfyce christ is body , the other is in lyke maner . If the one be not , the other sorte can not be ? In respect wherof our Catholiques acknowledging the vnprested not to be autorised throughe the sayd speach auctorysed to sacrifice christes bodi , thother is in lyke maner . If th one be not thother sorte cane not bee . In recspecte whereof oure Catholyques acknowledgynge thee vnpreysted not to bee auctorysed thoroughe the aboue alledged scrypture to offre Christes bodye and bloud : muste no remedye graunte thee preystede not to be lycenced by the sayd scripture to sacrifice the same Thys partecle thys in thys chrystes sayenge thys dooe in my remembraunce as it is a pronoūe relatyue so demonstratyue , therfor reporteth declareth & respecteth hys antecedent , whyche was not to sacryfyce hys body wherof he forspoke neuer word ne did anye thing concerning the same but onely the thankful receipt & eating of his body & drynkyng of hys bloude , ther purposeli mencioned . Which ymplie no maner sacrificing of the same at al , This is graunted of all men aswell of the catholiques as the protestantes as a trueth most vndoubted , that the laye & vnpriested man receaueth the communyon vnworthely , what tyme soeuer he take it not recording therwyth the precyous death of the lorde . But howe could the sayd man receaue that sayde communion vnworthely for his receypte therof wythout myndefulnes of christes passion & death , yf for to so take it , were not a punishable defaulte ? For why the vnworthenes herein issueth from synne alone . But how were it synne , yf it were not directly repugnaunte agaynst Goddes oppen commaundemente ? For there is noo synne whych is not a breach therof . But what commaundemente is there for the laye men to remember christes deathe at theyr receypte of the of his supper , yf thys do in my remembraunce be not it , yf it touche them not ? Certaynly none . By reason wherof nedes must we recognise & acknowledge eyther that the vnprested persons receyue not vnworthely the sayd sacramente when they take it in forgetfulnes and sylence of christes passion , whiche is nothing grauntable , eyther els that this saying of christ , this do in my remembraunce concerneth , & chargeth the sayd persons aswel , as the prestes , whych is ryght certeyn . In consideration wherof , this do in my remembraunce purporteth not to sacrifice christ in hys remembraunce but to recorde & declare openly hys death ( as Paul sayth ) who exponeth the sayd saying , 〈◊〉 11. in thys wyse . As oft as ye eate thys bread & drinke thys cup , ye shall show the death of the lorde tyl he come . Yet are not oure Catholiques contented but further they procede in theyr replial . We haue an aulter wherof they may not eate whych serue thee tabernacle : Here saye they . Paule meanethe thus . They who kepe the ceremonyes of Moyses lawe haue none authoritie to eat of christes bread hys very body consecrated & offered in sacryfyce on the aulter whiche we christen men haue set vp in our temples . If Paul had not meaned this he wold haue made noo mention of an aulter whych is made for sacrifice to be offered therupon to God . See ( good reder ) how foule deceyued be the herfore named persons . Is it not ryght euydent that Paul speaketh of an eateable aultar ? We haue an aultare ( saythe he ) wherof they maye not eate , He● 〈◊〉 & not of thee masse stone aulter whych is not eatable . If the sayd aultare were to be taken for a stone aultar Then were they who trusted in the ceremoniall lawe in better case then we Christians be For that they moughte not , wee must eat the sayd aulter , Then shuld Christes body & bloud th one haue bene eaten thother dronking in Paules tyme at the aultare & not at the table , 1. Cor: 10 , Then wold Paul haue termed the eatynge place of thee lordes supper not the lords table , but the lordes aultar , Then wold not the Apostles haue gone from house to house to mynister the communyon , Art : ● for that there was none aultare . Then do oure mynystres trespace who exhibite & mynystre the sayd communion to the dyeng men at home , were wantethe an aultare . Christe is onlye the eatable aultare heretofore especifyed , whom bothe we must and do eate vnto lyfe euerlastynge otherwyse spyrytuallye dead for euer , as we maye learne the same in Ihon : vt The which christ is named an aultar , for that vpon him alone we laye & powre our spiritual sacrifices namely our prayers & broken hartes , otherwise not acceptable to god the father according to this saying of Peter . 1 Petr: 2 Offer vp spiritual sacrifices acceptable to god for Iesu christe sake . Hebre. 1● By christ sayth Paule we offer the sacrifice of prayse alway to god , that is to wete the fruytes of those lippes which confesse his name Thys is the laste argumentacion of them that be deduced & fetched out of the scripture which semeth any thing forceable for the prest sacrifice . As touching thys place of Mathew . v. When thou offerest a gyft at the aultar . etc , Notwythstanding it mencioneth expresli both an aultar & an offredge : Howbeit for so moch as it was then vttered when the ceremoniall lawe of Moyses stode in hys wounted effecte and and force whych commaunded them both to be vsed , and spoken also to them , who were then obliged & bounde to obey the sayd law : For that then the new testament was not ful institute & ratified : It enforceth nothyng at al for like offring & aultare to be frequented & vsed emong vs christians . By reason the heretofore named law is through the ordinaunce & establyshment of the new testament vtterly abandoned & repeled . In that sayth Paul he saythe a new Testamente he hath abrogate the old . And as touching thys sayinge of Paule . 〈…〉 , And they which wayte at the aultar ar partakers of the aultar , it importeth nothing at al in the behalfe of masse sacrifice , wherof ther is no mencion made . It is but the fourmer parte of a symylitude fetched out of the ceremonial law of Moyses and 〈◊〉 thus ▪ As in moyses law , whoso serued the aultare ( as thee Leuytes dyd ) lyued thereby : Ryght so ( now in the new Testament ) who so preacheth the gospell shal haue hys lyuinge through the preachment therof . For Paule in his the alledged texte & others incidente hereto , endeuoureth hymselue to argue a lyuelyhode to be deiu & payable to the gospel , preachers of theyr auditours for ther euangelical preachement . Consyder ( dere reder ) wel the entier and full sayinge of Paule , & you shal easely perceaue he meaneth thus Do ye not ( sayth he ) vnderstande how that they whych minister in the temple haue theyr fyndynge of the temple , And they which wayt at the aultar ar partakers of the aultar ? Euen so , also ( note the application of the fourme two symilitudes ) dyd the lord ordeyn that they whyche preache the gospell , shuld lyue of the gospel . Yf the former part of the sayd symylitude were so to be taken that it shuld meane the now ther be certen ministers who shuld serue the aultare , it is to wete shuld masse it , then the gospel preachers shuld not masse it at al. For that by Paules doctryne to serue the aultare & to preache be soundrye and seuerable offices and ministeryes , Which thyng accordeth not with our catholique doctrine , which teacheth that the gospell preachers must masse it also . But wat meane I to be so moche in the soylyng of these two last recited scryptures , whych yf they had bene any thynge effectual for the proufe of the prieste sacryfyce , as the before alledged seme , Mayster doctour Smythe wold haue pleased them wyth in hys boke made for the defence of thee sayde sacryfyce , as he hathe doone thee remnaunte , and not in the margente therof . Thus haue I at full both declared and argued that Christes bodye and bloud ought not to be sacryfyced of the Massers in theyr masse , eyther to clense our synne , eyther els to thanke and serue god wythall , and that the reasons which the catholiques deduce out of the scripture to the mayntenaunce therof enforce nothing for the same . But saye oure catholyques the aunciente and holye Doctours as Austeyne Chrisostome and others expressely auouche thee Lordes bodye and bloud to be offered of the ministers , whych thyng they wold neuer haue affyrmed oneles they were offered so in verye dede , and that accordynge too Gods worde In dede it is fulle certayne that the sayd Doctours auouche both thee LORDES bodye and and hys bloude to bee sacrificed but not after oure Catholiques meaninge . For why they vnderstand by the sacryfyce of christes body & bloud done by the minister only the resembleance and memorye of the true & bloudy sacryfyce of the sayd body & bloude which is the communion & not any real & true sacrifice of the same executed by the priest as the catholiques mistake them . We ofte vse to saye ( sayth Austen to bonifacius ) when eastrr approcheth nyghe that to morow or the next daye is the lordes passion & yet it is many yeares sythe he suffered and the passion was neuer but ones : And vpon the sonday , we saye this daye he dyd agayn ryse , howbeit , it is many yeres sence he rose . Now is there no man so folisshe to reproue vs as lyers , for so saying , because we name those dayes after the similitude of those , in whych these matters were done , so that is called the same daye which is not the very same daye but by course of tyme lyke it . And it is sayde to be done thee same daye throughe meane of the celebration of the sacrament whych is not done the same daye , but longe tofore . Was not christ ones sacrificed in hymselue ? & yet in the sacrament is sacrificed for the people not onelye eche ester holy day , but eche day ? And he lieth not who beinge demaunded answereth he is offered For yf the sacramentes haue not some sembleaunce of the matters wherof they be sacramentes , they were noo sacramentes at all . Of this sembleaunce oft they take the names of the thynges by them sygnyfyed . Lo there it dothe full wel appere that by Austeynes mynde the sacramente of christes body & bloud is so named thee sacryfyce of them both as esterday is named the day of the lordes resurrection & good frydaye his passyon daye , But the sayd dayes benot termed fsr that the lord in very dede agayne ryseth in th one & resuffreth in thother , but by reason his passyon in th one hys resurrectyon in thother is represented & signifyed . Therfore the communion is called the sacrifice of the lordes body & bloud not the they be sacrificed verely in the same , but in consideracion theyr sacrifice is bothe recorded & resembled in the sayde communion or sacramente . The celebrating of the communion saythe Ekius in the tenthe chap. of hys fourmer boke of the masse sacrifice ( dedicate to the kynge of Pole ) for the it is an ymage resembling Christes passion ( the true sacrifice ) may be named alway a sacrifice . As Austeyn sayth to Simplicius , Images ar wonte to be called by the names of those thynges wherof they be ymages , Example , when we vteu & beholde a paynted table or walle we saye thys is Cicero , thys is Salust , thys Cesar , Here we se both by Austeyne and Ekius iudgement the communyon is named a sacryfyce of Christes body and bloud for that it is a resembleaunce & ymage of the same sacryfyced . By reason whereof nedes it must argue , as the ymage of a thynge is not thee thynge selue : as a paynted man is no man in dede , as Cesars ymage is not Cesar ne Salustis Salust selue : So thee Masse or Communyon beynge but an ymage and memorye of the true sacryfyce of christes body and bloud is not thee verye true sacrifice of them bothe , And as the communion is named the sacrifice of the foresayd body & bloud , in consyderation the sayd sacrifice is ther in both recorded & resembled Ryght so the ministring & ce●ebrating of the sayd communion is vpon lyke respect termed the sacrifyinge of christes bodye & bloude . Thus meaned our forefathers by the sacryfice & sacrificing of the sayde body and bloud . Now to the last matter incident to the masse sacrifice whych is the worshippe & instans of whole christe bothe man and god , in & vnder the fourmes of bread and wyne . A dede no lesse vnfytting & repugnaunt too the Euangelical truth them the premisses be . The pryue masse worshyppers holde opynyon that Christe ought of congruence to be honoured & prayed after the consecration as beyng in the prestes handes for that he is then there bothe god and man & so ther no lesse honourable & prayable than in heauen , But thys theyr argumentacion is nothing dialectical or formal . For that the presence of Christ in a place importeth not the honour & prayeng of him in the sayd place . Is not god the father essenciallye in eche creature ? Yet he is reuerenced & sollicited , but as resident in heauen & not in hys creatures . Is not the holy ghost in eche faythefull person ? Howbeit no man worshippeth him as present in the faithful , but as in heauen . Christ is present in eche religiouse assemble assembled faythfully in his name , the notwithstanding noman doth honoure , & pray vnto hym as resyant in the religiouse assemble but in heauen alone . Is he not as god eche wher & consequently at the masse ? Howbeit no man adiudgeth hym there to be worshipped & called vpon , yf hys body were thence vtterly absented , The experiens wherof is playn in that part of the masse that forgoeth consecration . Why then shuld hys bodely presence enforce vs to honour & sollicite him in the sayd masse ? For his body is not honourable ne prayable merely of it selue but in respect of hys godhedde personally alyed & coupled therwyth . Christ both god & man with his father & the holy goost is present at that baptisme of faythfull infantes where they become enbodied & incorporate therto , it is to wete where they eate his body & drinke his bloude as reallye as we do at his supper : Howbeit no man worshippeth eyther hys body as present at baptisme ther no lesse presented than at his supper , eyther els his godhed , ether for his own or for the presens of his said body , Why then shuld ether his body be honoured as present in the masse after the consecration or els thee presence therof cause vs to honour his godhed in the same , ther otherwyse vnhonourable ? As in the olde testament ( as we learne in the .vi. of Daniel ) the Godlye fathers in theyr exilement wandering in farren contreis farre from whom dyd in all theyr prayers made vnto god dyrecte bothe theyr hartes and theyr eyes toward Hierusalem , & wher so euer they cam , dyd sollicite god as inhabitant in the same : ryght so we being as pelgrimes in this world , exiled as were from heuen our Hierusalem and natyue countrie where god dwelleth must honour & pray vnto hym alway as resyant in that heauenvly Hierusalem & not els wher It is wrytten in the canon of thee most worthy counsayl of Nyce in sort as foloweth . Let vs not grossely beholde the breade and cuppe proposed & set before our eyes but in faythe , consydere thee lambe of of god in that hys sacred table with our myndes eleuate and vplifted Here we se the most worthy consayl inhibiteth & diswade the vs from gaysing & tootinge vpon the bread and wine , aduertising vs in faith to respect christ in his supper , hauing our myndes erected vp into heauen , In case the said consayl had estemed it sitting & leyful to worshyp the bread ( as the most parte of the lealtye , I had almost sayde of the clergie to doth , an ydolytre detestable ) , or christ in the breade ( as in maner all christiandom doth a lamentable case ) it wold not haue forbidden vs to to ote vpon the bred & aduertised vs to vplift our hartes into heauen . Doth not the prest him selue at his masse saye a little before eleuation or sacringe ? We haue our hartes aboue to the lord ? How eyther ought or can christ be reuerenced & oncalled as present in the sacringe yf we , as the masser & quere doo singe , haue & oughte to haue ( throughe the decre of the church ) our hartes & eyes two ( for where oure hartes be there muste our eyes be fastened also ) aboue erected vp into heauen to the lorde For yf he were to be considered & honoured in the masse , them we shuld haue our hartes beneth & not aboue downward & not vpward to the lord , then we shuld at that instante worshyp hym in the prestes handes & not in heauen . Christ prescribing vs an exacte trade & perfyt forme to praye wythall , enioyneth vs in the same to instant & on call God the father in heuen wher he him selue is resydent on hys ryghthande ( as Paule sayth ) & not els where notwithstanding he be eche where , Our father sayth christ whych is in heauen , he sayth not whych arte eche where . In respect wherof bothe the father & the sonne be to be worshipped & praied to in heauen a ●one & not els wher , For to praye otherwise ( saieth Ciprian ) then christe tought vs is not only an ignoraunce but a vice also , mathe. 15 syth he sayeth why do ye infring & break goddes iniunction purposely to establesh your tradicion . Chrisostome in hys exposicion vpon the lordes prayer writeth as foloweth , where as Christ saieth God is in heauen he doth not by that his so saieng conclud & hemen him ther but with draweth him who makethe his praier to hym , from the earth & fastneth him in heauen Item in his homely vpon the sayde prayer he wryteth after thys forte Se where ye cal vpon the father , verely in heauen vpon consideration whereof we crye at thee vicu of thee sacryfyce , oure hartes aboue , where oure confessyon is bounde , lette oure hartes bee represented . Hytherto Chrisostome who in these hys sayinges that Christ is not to be honoured & prayed to in the earth & so not in the massinge place ( apart therof ) but in heauen Further can ther be made to god at any tyme an effectual prayer with oute an vplyftinge of oure hartes , vnto hym ? No verelye . Why then pray we to christ in the masse sacring ? Wher can be none vpliftīge but a downliftinge of our hartes . In so moche as the places where christes supper and the masse , bee celebrate ( as al other places vnder heauen ) be beneth & not aboue . Austeyn in the behalfe of the premisses writeth , super lectionem euangelii confite or tibi pater etc , in sorte thus , Faythfull perfetly know where & when it is sayd , let vs rendre thankes to the lord our god . For noman rendereth thankes to the lord , who hath not his hart vpward to the lorde . Note , this he sayth not who hath his hart downward but vpward , beneth but aboue , dyrected but erec●ed , in the earth but in heuen to the lorde . Dyd not christ selue alwaye pray to hys father his eyes erected vp into heauen , as it appereth in Ihon. xvii ? Why then do we not directe our prayers to the Trinite , not as beynge here there or els wher , but in heauen alone ? But here it is obiected the manye dyd worshyp & instante Christ as beyng seably conuersant ●monge them , mathe. 8 namely Thomas Peter & the le●rouse personne & therefore wee may in lyke maner honoure hym and on call hym in the masse or communion . To this I answere , albeit christ was worshypful & prayeable as beyng emonge vs , whyle h● was sensiblye conuersaunt with vs : By reson he as god & men was the seable emong vs & vnassēded to heauen : Howbeit for so moch as he is now become both vnuisible emong vs , & resydent in heauen , on hys fathers ryghthand , he is both honourable & prayable but in heuen alone & not in the erth , & consecrate bred & wine . For whi to worship him in vnder or before the sayd bread & wyne : is to worshyp the same bread & wyne . As to worship god in vnder or before an ymage is to reuerence thee ymage selue , whych is an vnsufferable ydolatree & also disalowed by the kynges maiesties proceding . Ionn : 4 Collos: 3. Christ is truth spirite & the body , as Paule sayth , In respect wherof he is not to be honoured moche lesse called vpon , in or vnder shadowes & carnal thinges soch as the bread , wyne , pyxe & other earthlye thynges be . But in spirite & veritie wythoute fygure shadowe or any other carnal thinge as he hym selue sayth in Ihon iiii . The Catholyques them selues graunte it ydolatre to worshippe ●hrist body vnder the bread , yf ther were remayning the substance of the sayd bread , why than worshyp we the fore sayde bodye vnder the bread sythe as I haue heretofore argued the bread substance is not altered . Wel thoughe it were , yet why shuld it not be ydolatre to honour christes body vnder the accidental and outwarde fourmes of bread ? For in thys maner as well the accidentes of bread be worshipped as in thother thee substaunce therof . Now doth he show ( as the father and the holy ghost do ) his glory & maiestie but in heauen alone , notwithstanding he be eche where . In respecte wherof he is to bee adored & sollicited in heauen alone and not els where . For honoure & prayer importe the presence of his glorye and maiestye where they be exhibited to him And as a king renounceth to be honoured as a king where he dyffynneleth hys person age and maiestye royall . Ryghte so Christe dyssymuling hys Maiesty renoume & godly personage here emong vs refuseth to be reuerenced & called vpon as hee is amongest vs . He is as meate receaued & eaten & as drinke taken and dronken at hys supper : and thee masse also ( yf he be ther receaued at al ) . By reason wherof he is to be honoured and oncalled nether in the one ne in the other , bycause meat and drinke be nether honoured ne instanted . Thys it appeareth euydent that the worshyp & praying to christ at the masse , hys supper or els where , heauen exempted is dissonante to the sacred scripture worthy counsayll auncient doctours good reason & the nature & c●ndition of true prayer and so discommendable . But here wolsome saye God is too be honoured and prayed to in all places and so consequentlye in the priestes handes at the eleuation or els where . To this I answere notwithstanding we ought to honour and sollicite god eche where , howbeit our prayers & worshippes made vnto him here or ther must tende & be directed to him as inhabitant & resiant in heauen & not as here ther or els wher in the earth . Why then wolsome say doth Austeyne that worthy clerke wryte to the contrarye ? He sayth noman eateth christes flesshe onles he fyrst worshyppeth it and synneth it , he worship it not ? Wel though Austeyne saythe Christes must be worshipped , yet he gayn sayth not me , because he sayth not noman eateth christes fleshe without he worship it as in his supper or the masse in or vnder the bread , but in symple without any soch lyke glose worshippeth it . Yea though he were to be vnderstand to talke of soch worship whych implieth the honour and instaunce of the sayd flesshe . By reason he maketh noo clere mention wher the same shuld be worshypped , he is to be taken to entreate of the worshipping of the before mencioned fleshe in soch place wherein it is not doubted but certenly knowen it is worshipped , that is of heauen and not of any earthly place . But Augustyn meaneth by the worshipping of christes fleshe no soch worshippe as , honouring prayinge crowchinge or knelinge therunto , but only the worthy reuerent and holsome receypte & eating of the sayd fleshe . For the honour due and requisite to the said fleshe or sacrament therof , is to receyue them as christe instituted them to bee receaued , that is to wete wyth purefyeth clensed conscience wyth vnfayned repentaunce charitie & thankesgeuing with ful desyre and purpose to be fedde wyth christes fleshe to be therbye mortefyed too syn & sanctified , to be enbodyed to christ & not to crouch before the bred to his fleshe or to worshyp inuocate & sollicite him as presente in or vnder the bred . The ryght vsage of gods word & his sacramentes is recompted theyr due honour as theyr abusion dishonoure . The worde Baptisme & absolution throughe meane of true & obedient fayth , & clensed conscience be condignely & accordingly receyued without ether crouching or kneling eyther worshippinge or prayinge to God as present in the same . So thee lordes supper is worthely & ryghtely celebrate & receyued wyth oute thee foresayd crouche worshyp & instance . Thus haue I at full spoken of the fyrst part of the masse , Now to the second whych consisteth in the receypt of the lordes supper which wether it bee in very dede as it is named it happely may be wel doubted vpon . Yea as me seameth it is not in dede . For syth at the preuy masse ther is none to suppli the roumth & office of christ in ministring the supper it cannot be the lordes but the priestes supper . For without christe or his minister his supper cannot be made ne distribute . Wythoute christes wordes touchinge the institution of hys supper be duelye reported at the recepte of the bred & wyne ther cannot be his supper . How then can the masse supper be the lordes ? syth ther wanteth hys mynyster , who shulde reporte the sayd wordes ? Yf the pryest presume to pronounce them they be the priestes and not christes , for that they be the wordes not of the gyuer whyche is Christe , but of thee taker whyche cannot be he . Yf it were thee Lordes supper that the Pryeste takethe at hys Masse he he shuld receyue it of the lord and not of hym selve . But how can he possibly receyue it of the l●rd , sith ther is none present to exhibit the priest it in christ name ? But some wol saye the priest may supplye the person , both of the institutour exhybitour & receyuer of thee masse supper , therfore it is the lordes . Yf thys that is obiected were true , then mought one baptysme hym selue , assoyle hym selue , confyrme hym selue , marrye hym selue , annoynt hym selue , whych no man be he neuer so catholique wol graunt , By reason as thei be thought al to he institute of christ so they must all be executed in hys name & autorite Which cannot be , when ther is none to supply his r●um●he . For the receyuer of thee premisses cannot possibly play both the part of the geuer and of the taker . By reason they be twoo seueral persons . To this the catholiques also condiscende as moste certayn . Therfore as in the heretofore especified ceremonies ( some of them truly but al catholiqueli termed sacramentes ) one man alone cannot receyue them , for want of a second person who shuld mynyster than vnto him in the lordes name & autorite notwithstanding that one man hathe vsed for the receypte of the same eche worde requysit & behoueable therto : Right so the prest endeuouryng hym selue to receyue the lordes supper cannot receyue it without christes minyster an othere person ebesyde him selue , notwithstanding he reporteth all thee wordes apperteyninge to the ryght & ful institution of the sayd supper . For as the aboue mencioned sacramentes the receyuers reporte of the wordes belonging to the consecration of anye of the sayd sacramentes enforceth not the sacramentes ? Example , his reporting of the baptisme wordes ouer him selue , in washing him selue , or hys rehersal of the absolution wordes vpon him selue , maketh nether baptisme ne absolution : Euen so the prest beynge but the receyuer that is to say , he who wold receaue the lordes supper , cannot through hys own report of the wordes apperteyning to the ful institution of the sayd supper , institute or cause the same Ther is no sacrament which hath not for his ordinaunce & essensiall beyng bothe hys deputed element word & commandement . Wher is ther any commaundement , yea or sufferance to take or institute the lords supper alone ? Certes not in the holy scripture . Can ther be instituted the lordes supper wythout the due rehersall of the wordes concerninge the same ? Can the sayde wordes be iustlye estemed christes not construed as he meaned them ? Noo verelye , Therfore lette the masser reporte them in hys pryuate Masse so oft as him lyste , they be not the lordes wordes . For that take ye , eate ye drynke ye , implye both a commaundemente and a seconde person to the receypt of the Lordes bodye & bloude , and to the consecration of the sacramente of the same , Whyche bothe wante in thee Pryestes supper , and so it is not the lordes . Wherfore as it is falsly so presumptuously & blasphemously termed the lords supper , But let it be the same that the masser takethe in hys masse , yet it is there haynouslye abused , for that it is celebrate contrary to hys commaundement & otherwyse then he instituted it . luke . xxii He bad vs seuer the consecrate breade charitablye emong vs & not eche of vs to reserue it to hym selue , and to eate vncharytablye al alone , as the prest dothe . Math. 26 He bad vs take & eate hys bodye & not to worship it & vplyft it as the prest doth . 1. Cor: 10 , He bad vs at the celebration & receypt of his supper , receaue & eat hys body in his remenbreaunce & thankfully to showe his death emong the congregation whych the priest pretermyttethe & not to sacrifice his body & bloude as the prest dothe : Math. 26 He bad vs saye not only take eate this is my bodi but also which is geuen for you ( a clause most fruyteful & nedefull ) Which the prest as vayne & superfluouse ouerhyppethe . He bad vs take & eate hys body for oure selues alone & not for others also in that he commaundeth vs to eate it , for noman can effectualli eate it for another , But the prest doth not onlye eate it for hym selue , but for others also , both quyck and dead . Which as it is vnpossible for him to do effectuallye so to attempt is a superstition . Can another mans eating releife myn hunger ? Can hys drinkinge release my thyrste ? Can another man be baptysed assoyled , priested , maryed , confyrmed or anoynted for me ? How then can the prestes receypt & celebratinge of thee communion be myne or auayleable to me ? Chrisostome vpon the .xv. chap. of the fyrst to the Corinthians wryteth to the mayntenaunce of the premisses in sort as followeth . As one man cannot be christened for an other speciallye beyng dead , so noman can receyue the body & bloud of christ for another namely beynge dead . Hereto agreeth Antididagma . but be it it be so that the priest may receaue & eate the lordes supper for others , whether they be quycke or deade . Yet for as moch as he cannot possibly beleue for another ( the iuste man saith Paule shal lyue by his owne fayeth ( it muste no remedy be that he both taketh and eateth the Lord is supper to thee dampnacyon of them , Roma . i. whatsoeuer they bee good or bad deade or quycke for whom he taketh and eateth the same . By rasō he taketh & eateth the sayd supper for theym vnworthelye for wante of hys beleuyng for theyme , whyche is merelye nedefull to the holsome and worthye receypte and vsage of thee before mencyoned supper . Well thoughe it were so that the preyst bothe coulde at the Lordes supper for others , and beleue for theym also : Howbeyt in so much the sayde pryste vsyth in hys massyng the sayd supper , otherwyse then Chryste hym selue instytuted it ( as is heretofore declared ) nedes muste hee receyue it bothe to hys own dampnacion & others , Bicause ( as S , Ambrose wryteth vpon the leauenth of the fyrste to thee Corynthians ) who so vseth the Lordes supper otherwise than he hym selue ordened , receiueth it vnworthely & consequently to his dampnation as paul saith . 1. Cori : 11. Thus it is plane that the priuate masse supper is to be discontynued & surcesed as blasphemouse to God & annoyous to the practycioners therof , and the deuocyon and holynes , that is supposed to be in the vsage thereof , is mere ydolatrye and superstycion , and so both dampnable an● excheuable . Wherefore they w● 〈◊〉 deme it both reasonable and 〈…〉 ●ly , that the masser mought 〈…〉 it alone , whan others refus● 〈…〉 ●ctlye to masse wyth hym 〈…〉 no man oughte to be a st● 〈…〉 and hinderaunce of an othe● 〈◊〉 ●uocyon , be no lesse deceyued the● thee Iewes , who adiuged theyre condempning of the euangelical doctryne & persecuting of christ & his disciples both a sufferable & seruiceable seruice too God , in consideration it was done of deuotyon . Now to prayer the thyrde part of the solytarye masse , whyche is for soundrye consyderatyons blame worthy . Fyrst for that therin those sainctes bee on called as aduourers & ayders who be not here presently conuersant emonge vs but ar fare soundred & distanted from vs in place namelye in heauen . For though we mought praye vnto the sayd sainctes as beyng presentlye and conuersaunt wyth vs as wee do one to another assembled togethers , howbeit for asmoch they be farre placed from vs ( they in heauen we in the earth ) we ought not to instaunte them . For why that were to attribute and render to them the honour dewe and incidente to God alone , it is to weete the knowledge of our hartes and the hearinge of the farre absent , In case I beyng at Cambredge dyd desyre eyther you , eyther any mans then beynge not present wyth me , but eyther at yorke or London to praye for me , ( whom otherwyse present with me I mought both wel and wysely ) : wold not eche man depose that my desyre bothe vaynelye and vndiscretely made of me ? Bycause noo man beyng at that present , eyther at yorke or London , what tyme I praye to hym in Cambredge , eyther heareth or vnderstandethe that my prayer ? Yeas trulye , How then can our prayers be fruyteful and effectual which be directed to the heauen sainctes who be farrer distanted or sound red from vs then eyther London or yorke from Cambredge ? But the heauen sainctes w●l some saye beynge conuersant or present wyth God espye in hym as in a glasse , al the secretes & entendementes of our hartes , & so orderly perceaue what we praye for & to whom , This sophistical cauil or obiection is nothing answerable , to Goddes worde wherin it is expresly wrytten in sorte as foloweth . ii . para . vi Thou alone knowest the hartes of the sonnes of menne Howe coulde thys be veryfyed and iustifyed that god alone vnderstandeth mens hartes , yf the heauen sainctes knowe them also ? Abraham sayth Esaye .lxiii. knoweth vs not , Israell knoweth vs not , So maye we saye , Paule knoweth vs not , Peter knoweth vs not . For why they were asmoch pryueledged & regarded as Peter & Paul . It is wrytten in thee .ix. of thee boke named preacher , that the dead knowe the nothing any more , vpon the whyche text Hierome sayth thus . There is noo knowledge after death , ne any sense after the dissolutyon of thys lyfe . Wherfore as it is an vngodly so an vntrue sayinge the heauen sainctes knoweth our hartes not wythstandynge theyr conuersation wyth God . It was notably inhibited in the counsayl of Carthage that any saincte shulde be called vpon at thee aulter , that the priest shuld vtter thys or lyke prayer . S. Paule or Peter praye for me , Why then contrarye both to the scripture and the sayd godly counsayl do we instant supersticiousli the heauen sainctes at our massing ? But ynough hereof . The seconde consyderation , why masse prayer is to bee discommended is by reason therein , it is prayed for the dead , not so moche too declare therby our charitie towarde them in wishinge them saued ( which purpose ware no lesse sufferable then charitable ) as throughe our prayers too redeme them oute of pur - of purgatory or at lest to enlessen theyr paynes in the same . Whych for to thynke wel done as it is an vntollerable erroure so for to attempte is a synneful superstition . For who so dothe departe oute of this world , dieth eyther in the lorde or without him , If he die without hym then incontinent remedyles he is condempned . For wythout christe ther is no mercy to be achyued or hadde , ii . Corin. al promisses sayth Paul be in christ , yea and amen . But yf he die in the lord he is both blessed and enfranchised from al trauayl as S. Ihon wryteth in , xiiii . of his reuelation . In that Iohan auoucheth the departed in thee lorde to be blessed , he doth vs to vnderstand they be not payned in purgatorye els were they cursed & not blessed , In that he pronouncethe than quyte delyuered from al labour , he doth vs to were they be no more molested or tormented eyther in purgatorye or els were , els shuld thei endure in labour , For to bee payned in purgatorye is a greuous trauayl Agayne whoso dieth in the Lorde dyeth in fayth , whoso dyeth in faythe , escapeth both deth and iudgement & so consequently purgatory also , whych is a payneful iudgement after our catholique doctrine . Iohan , v , Verely , verely I say vnto you saythe christ , He that heareth my wordes and beleueth on hym that hath sent me , hath euerlasting lyfe and shal not come into iudgemente but is scaped from death to lyfe , As concernynge the other dead sort as it dyeth wythout christ so wythoute fayth , therfore it is euerlastinglye and so not pardonably in purgatory , but vnpardonably placed in hel . Wher vpon it formally argueth ther is no purgatorye . Thee dead saythe Salomon in the .ix. of of his boke entitled , the preacher , haue nomore a reward . Whych hys saying were not true , yf they mought be through our prayers sacryfices or otherwise deliuered out of purgatore . For theyr deliuery were a great reward . Yf any shulde come to purgatore it is very like & colourable that the thefe which was hanged with christ , shuld haue ben for a season placed & payned therein . being soch a synful liuer as he was tyl his dieng houre , but he incontinent after hys hence departure , went with christ to paradise . In consideration wherof it is right certeyn that purgatore is but an ymagyned & fayned place , by reason wherof the praiers & sacrifices institute to release & redeme solles out of the same ( otherwise called the thyrd place wherein they be payned ) be bothe vayn & stuperstitious . The place of the Machabees which the catholiques alledge to the mayntenaunce ● , mac , 12 of the sayd place is not autentical or receiued for scripture , as Hierome Gregory Ruffinus record . The canones whiche the catholiques father of the apostles , the canons of the last consayl of Leedes & Aphricane regestred the bible bokes without any mencion made of the Machabees at al , which argueth that then the bokes of Machabees were vncanonised It is wryten in the heretofore alledged place of the sayd Machabees the Iudas caused both sacrifice & prayer to bemade to purge & do away the syn of the murdered Iewes withal , & is in the sayd boke commended for that his so doyng which is an vndeceaueable argument that the said boke is not autentical or canonical . For the leuiticall sacrifices dyd not do away syn before god . It is vnpossyble sayth Paule to the Hebrues that the bloud of oxen & gottes shuld take away sinnes . Hebre. x Agayn ther be no sacrifices or prayers commanded of god in the behalfe of the dead . Therfore the before mencioned boke is nothinge lesse than canonical In consideration it approueth matters added to gods word contrary to his expresse commaundement , Deut , 20 Here iucidētly by the way we may lerne that syth god in the old law ( the tyme of vnperfection ) inioyned neyther sacryfyce ne prayer for the dead , it is not hys mynde that now in the new testament ( the tyme of perfection ) he being also now moch more mercyfull than before christes incarnation ther shuld be made eyther sacryfyce or prayer for the dead to redeme & release them wyth al ( as otherwyse vnredemed & payned ) Forther yf the foresayd boke were throughly wrytten by the enbrethinge of the holy ghost ( otherwise vncanonised as Peter saith ) them this ensuing clause shuld not haue ben interplaced in th ende therof , ii , Petr , i , ii , mac , 15 And if wel , & as it is conuenable for a storye , I wyshe the same , yf not worthely , I must be pardoned , Which wysshe or iayenge is vtterlye vnworthy the profession yf the holye ghost , who sayth & wryteth al matters both wel & godly , & so nedeth no pardon for the same . Yf the place of Paul whych the catholiques alledge for purgatorye were to be vnderstanden of the same , i. Cori. iii then questionles were the Apostles fyrst placed & vexed in the sayd purgatory , ere they came to heauen . For why Paul talking in the same place namely of preachers auoucheth that the fyre shal trye eche mans worke what it is , & consequently the apostles , for that they were both men & preachers . So that Paule was not incontinent after hys hence departure wyth Christe as he wysshed to bee For to bee placed and tormented in purgatore is not to be with christ So that Lazarus & the thefe were not immediatli vpon theyr decease , luk. 16.23 tho ne in paradise thother in Abrahams bosome , places of pleasure , & not of wofulnes ( as purgatorie is . If Christes talke in Mathew .v. concerning the extreme emprisonment of certayn , enforsed for purgatore than neyther soule masses sacryfyces ne prayers could enforce anye thyng to the raunsome and deliueraunce of them , who ar payned in the same . For theyr christe swereth they shal not come oute thense , tyl they payed the vttermost farthinge . What can prayer , sacryfyce or masse auayle her , sythe christe so exactly demaundeth the full paymente of thee dett , as wythoute it the emprysoned shall not be fredōmed and delyuered ? He speake the of a place where iustice is executed and not mercee , that is hel and not purgatore . Oute of another sayinge of Christe in the sayd Mathew .xii. oure catholiques do argue for purgatore but expuris negatiuis & therfore theyr argumentation beynge not formall is nothinge effectuall . The cause why oure aunciente wryters saye , they sacrifyce and praye for thee dead , was not to delyuer them out of payne therby ( For they sacrificed and prayed for the patriarches prophetes apostles also who then were perfit already in heauen , & had no nede of theyr prayers or sacrifices ) but partely too declare thereby theyr charitee towarde the hence departed , in wel wysshinge them & rendring god thankes for theyr saluation & endeles blessefulnes , partly to assure & warrant the suruyuers at the remembraunce of the good & blesful estate of the deceased , both of euerlastinge lyfe & bodelye resurrection : To sacryfyce Christes body & bloud eyther for the dead , or quycke , after the true meanyng of the foresayd wryters , is namely to recite & pray for the sayd personnes in those our prayers which we make at the receypt of the lordes supper , called otherwyse of them the sacryfyce of the lordes bodye and bloud , in consideration it is a resemblaunce therof & not as the solle massers mistake it , to vp offre the sayd body & bloud in very dede to clense thee quycke : and too redeme and raunsome the deadde oute of purgatory wythal . For after thys lyfe ther is no purging ne amendement place . Therfore sayth Ciprian in the fyrst treate agaynst Demetrian when we hence departe ther is no place of repentaunce . here lyfe is ether forfetted or atteigned . Whyle we be here saith Chrisostome in hys second homeli of Lazarus we haue good hope , but so soone as we shal hence departe , we shal not eyther repent or do awaye syn . The same Chrisostome in the two & twentye sermon to the people saith , ther be none occasions of meriting after this lyfe . Who so ( sayth Ambrose in the ii . chap. of hys boke concernyng the goodnes of death ) hath not here receyued remyssyon of syn shall not receaue it ther. There is no place , sayth Austeyn in hys Epistle to macedonius , of correcting our demeinour , but in this life . For after this lyfe eche man shall haue that whych he procured to him in thys , What can be more openlye & dyrectly wrytten agaynst the popysh purgatorye , them the alledged auctoritees ? why then do we mayntayn purgatorie contrary both to the scripture & auncient wryters ? But beit there were a purginge place wherin the hence departed solles be a mockedg & blaspheming of god is this , for the masser to praye in the lordes prayer let thy wyll be done in earth & yet contrary to goddes wyl to pray for the erection & acceptaunce of hys sacrifyce to the great hinderaunce & derogation of christes , whych was ꝑfyted & wrought at hys maiestyes appoyntmente ? What is to take the name of god in vayne , yf that be not ? & so sinneful What is to flocke & despyse god yf that be not ? In respecte wherof masse prayer is reprocheful . Now to the fourth & last part of the masse named doctrine , whych in consideration it teacheth & ratifieth thee damnable synfulnes of the before mencioned partes of this solitary ●●sse exhorting and occasionyng the laye people bothe to enbrace & w●rship the same is fautie as thei be . For the doctryne of a synneful matter is synful as the matter selue . Not onlye to ryot is synne , but the doctryne also therof & the allure to the same , To steale & to teache or exhort to steale be bothe defaultes , Too synne & to teache or moue to synne be bothe sinnefull . Euen so to pryuat masse it & to teache & motion so to do be both defaultes exchewable , Here am I demaunded wether I suppose the epystell and gospel interplaced in the masse to be godly & approueable or no To the whyth demaunde thus I answere . The gospell & epystell yf they were not abused & misplaced were both godly and commendable But for so moch as thei be inserted and placed in the priuy masse to the furniture worship and commendation therof , and for a couerte or cloke of the vngodlynes in the same , they so misused must nedes be synneful . Meate and drinke be good and receyueable but enpoysoned , they be nought & vnreceaueable , & poison theyr eaters & drinkers , as the pure poyson selue doth , wherwith they ar poisoned : Right so gods worde merely of it selue is good & frutful but abused vngodli , displesing god & ēpechīg man , as the syn abusion doth , wher with it is corrupted . An example & euidence wherof we haue both in oure massing , & coniuring wherin gods wordes be haynousli abused . There is no seruice ne worship whiche god so highly estemeth or so straytly inioyneth to be obserued , but beynge misused is not only not seruiceable & acceptable , but moch displesaunt also & hateful to him Bicause it is executed , not after but contrary to his wyl & therfore sinfull and detestable before hym , who commanded only the ryght vsage & not the abusage ( as of al other maters ) so of the premisses . Notwithstanding god commaunded both incense to be vsed and holy daies to be obserued , howbeit he openly by hys ꝓphetes auoucheth he hath them in hate & detestation , not in respect of them selues , for he bad them , but in consideration of theyr abusion which he inhibited I hate saithe he by his ꝓphete Amos , & abhorre your holy dayes & wher ye sence me when ye come together I wol not accompt it . And further by hys ꝓphete Esay .i. he sayeth thus , I abhorre your incense I may not away with your newmones your sabathes & solempne daies . &c Note this diligently , god saith not I abhorre ye for your abusyng of the holy dayes nor he sayth I abhorre your abuse of the holy dayes , but I abhorre your holy daies , he saith not I abhorre ye for your abusion of incense newmoones sabbathes & solempne dayes , nor he sayth I abhorre the abusion of your incense new moones sabathes & solemne daies , wherby he doth vs to wete that he doth not only hate & detest the abusers with there abusage of hys commaunded seruice & worshippe , but the seruice also & worship selue as an inhybyted synne practysed of man , & forged of the deuyl , and not as an honour inioyned approued , & deuysed of him , & through his grace put in practice of man . In consideracion wherof god nameth the foresaide holy dayes newe moones sabbathes not hys , but youres , it to wete the Iewes whom he spooke vnto . For nothing the is sinfull ( as eche abused mater is ) ought to be fathered of God the fountane & authore not of sinfulnes but of goodnes only . Iacob . i Which matere is by the meane of his abusage not a parte only , but throughlie faultie . i. Corin. v A litle leauen ( sayth ) Paule sowreth that whole lumpe of dowe . Wherby he doth vs to vnderstande that as othere abused matters be not a part only , but entier●y and throughly vicious and synful , so the prest masse is in like maner as wel in his doctryne , as in the other hys essential partes . Sethe ( good reader ) there is no portyon of the popysshe pryuat masse that doth not hyghly displease god as ●e pugnant to hys wrytten worde ●nd derogatorye to hys honour , & ●nnoy man as noyous both to hys ●ody and soule : I besech the with ●ll possible endeuour exchewe it & ●o maner wyse , accepte it as ether ●pproueable eyther els a suffera●le matter . If gods honour cannot ●ccasion and moue vs to the vtter ●efusal and auoydaunce therof , let ●s wel respecte the great benefyt ●nd commodytye that redounethe ●her vpon . If nether gods glorye ●e our profyt , can enforce vs to the premisses , them we be worse than brutish beestes , which , though not for godes glori , yet for theyr own , profyt , ar ledde willingly hither & thither . We resort to the church purposely to serue god therin , not wyth mans seruice , which he īhibiteth & dislyketh , but with his own alone which he commaundeth & accepteth . So that in the congregation no maner seruice ought to be frequented , bu● that alone which is both openlye and truly fonded vpon gods wryten worde . Why then is not the● prieste pryuee Masse abandoned and abolished quyte out of the congregation which is not quadrant but variant to the sayd word , wh●che doth not ratify & establish bu● inuert & subuert the ryght institution & vsage of the sacrament of chr●stes body & bloud ( as is heretofore argued at ful ) . And in the romt● therof why is not the communio● frequented ? Is not the sayd communion a new Testament , as christ selue saythe in Luke .xxii ▪ Can a man therfore not synfully but leyfulli alter the order therof ? No verelye . For as S. Paule sayth it is not leyful to exchange mans , Gala. iii moche lesse gods wyl legacye & testament . Why then doo we reteygne accepte & vse solytare masse ? Which is an vnfitting exchange of the communion ( the lordes Testament and legacye ) . Is not the sayd communion a Sacrament of charitye and loue ? In consyderation whereof it is not to receaued of one alone , but of manye at ones . For charytye consysteth in many & not in one alone . Why then vse we styll thee prieste masse ? whyche is rather an vnion then a communion and an argument rather of hate and dissention than of loue and vnite . For therin the priest vncharitably fondereth hym selue from the congregatyon , as one seuered not in place alone , but in harte also from the same . It is no marueyl that the priest is had in great hate and contēptmēt emong hys parishioners seith he so vncharitabli taketh , eateth , and drinketh al alone , disseuering and sequestring him selue from hys accompanable parrishioners , lest they wold communycate ( as charitable godlynes requyreth ( wyth hym . It is a lamentable syght to behold the great & vnto ●lerable vncharitablenes whyche our pryuate massing prestes shew toward theyr partishioners . Verely ( as me seamethe ) theyr pryuate massyng is no smal occasyon therof . By reason as the communyon engendereth orderly lowe , so thee pryuate massynge hate in the frequenters of the same : For why as they be contrary in nature , so they be in effect & operation . Wherfore the sayd massinge is not be frequented of any , but is to be disvsed of eche christian . Who ought to endeuour him selue to be charitable and not vncharitable . i. Cori. 10 We ought ( sayth Paul ) to eate al of one lofe , i. Cori. 10 and drinke al of one cup , we oughte ( as the same Paule wolleth vs ) assemble togethers to the receypt of the communion , 1. Cori : 11. and one to take it orderly after another : These premisses cannot be accomplished and veryfyed in the pryuate masse , where the priest seuerally all alone hath hys loofe & eateth it alone , wher ther is none assemble assembled togethers to receaue thee communion , but to gase vpon the prestes receypt & doynge , where none receaueth the sayd communion orderly one after another , but vnorderly one alone . Wherfore thee sayde masse is to be discontinued & abandoned . For whi he is accursed who so teacheth eyther in woorde , dede or ioynctlye in both , another doctryne in relygion , then that whych Paul learned vs , Gala. ● as he hym selue recordeth the same . We muste not do what we lyste , but what god commaundethe vs , as it is wrytten in Deuteronomy .xii. For why oure carnall reason & entendementes be merely repugnaunt , both to his sayenges & doynges , & so displeasaunt and hateful to him . The sense of the fleshe ( sayth Paule ) is enmytee agaynst God . Roma. 8. In case we moughte worship god as we lyst , Why dyd he appoynt & prescribe vs a p̄scripte order to worshippe him withal ? Yf we mought sittingly honoure hym after our wyl & fantasy : Then eche made worshyp were syttinge and ieyful , and so consequentelye ther were none ydolatree at al , them were there no dyfference betwexte oures and thee Turkes , Iewes Paynymes , Ethnikes , and other miscreantes religion , For they be onely differenced by Goddes wrytten woorde . If we moughte order christes supper after our arbitrement , then why dyd he institute & prescribe vs a trade and order to be obserued in the celebration therof ? 1. Cori. ●● . Why dyd Paule reproue and blame thee Corinthians for theyr disorder & abusage of the same ? Ar not wee named christians for that we ought to professe and geue ful credence to his sayinges and practyse , and enbrace hys doyinges , as followable and beleueable ? But howe doo we answere to our name and profession in our solitarie massing ? wherin we do not only , not ensue christes practyse and order , but throughly subuert and inuerte the same concernynge the administration of his supper Are we not called faythful for that we ought to grounde al our religion vpon our fayth ? whych fayth issueth only from Gods wrytten word , as Paule recordeth , Roma . 10 otherwyse no true fayth . But how can we be indede as we be named , yf we admit and frequente as wee doo , to thee greate and vnsufferable empechemente bothe of Christes honoure and our solles saluation , the prest preuye masse ? whych is variant to gods worde . Therfore as it is an vnfaythful , so as synneful misdede For that which is wrought wythout fayth is synne , Roma , 10 as Paul saith : Ace we not straytelye inioyned of God vtterly to abandon , & auoyd all ydolatrye ? How do we obserue and accomplishe this his iniunction , whyle we enbrace and accepte the sayde masse ? whych is a made worshyppe of God , and so ydolatrye . For the worshyp of any phantasye entent conceypt and ymage , or of any other matter else , forged of mans brayne wythout goddes wrytten word , is questionles ydolatrye ? Hereto accordeth Hierome ( who vpon the last of Hieremye on thys verse And they put theyr ydols in the house . etc , wrytethe in , sorte thus ) not only then Iudas reposed in Gods temple an ydoll ymage , whereof we rede in the fyrst of Ezechtel , but now styll in gods house ( whych by interpretation is the congregation ) or in the hart of the beleuers , is placed an ydol , whensoeuer any new doctrine is forged , and after the law adored and worshypped in the secrete . And vpon the twentye of Ezechyel the sayd , Hierome calleth the inuentions and deuyses of the phylosophers and herytyques , the Egyptians ydols . Auncient vsage in other matters of relygion semeth to be of moche force & importaunce to the acceptance & establishment of any soch semblable matter , but her in our pryuate masse matter the sayd vsage is no thing estemed ( To sure an argument I feare me of oure parcialitee in scripture matters ) Was not christes own administration of his supper the fyrst original vsage thereof ? Mat. xxvi and so the auncientest ? wherin none alone but soundrye ioinctly togethers dyd communicate ? In the prematiue church it was both obserued and enacted that all the whole congregation assembled shuld communicate wyth thee prieste or minister , as it doth wel appere in Gracian de consecra . distinct .i. in the canon dens , whyche is fathered of the Apostles , in thee Canon Episcopus fathered of Anacletus , & de consecra . distinc .ii. in the canon peracta , Calixtus thus wryttethe when the consecration is done , let eche man them present communicate , & then who woll not to be excommunicate . This thee Apostles enacted thys doth the Romyshe churche hold & obserue . Note thys that Calixtus doth not onli declare that it is his wyl & commaundement al they who be present at the communion time shuld communicate , els to be excommunicate , But the apostles decree & the vsage of the Romishe church also . Ther be ( saith Erasmus vpon the Psalme , Quam dilectabernacula ) who requyre in thee Masse a communion , In dede I graunt so it was instituted of Christ and so it was in thee olde tyme obserued Albert in hys boke of thee Masse misteries , recordeth it was fyrst in wont that al the togethers assembled persones in the church did communicat eche day , when that could not be obserued , it was decreed that on eche sondaye al the hole congregation shuld communicate , when this neyther could be obserued , it was decreed that thryse in the yeare , at Easter , Whytsondaye , and Christmasse , the communion shuld be receyued of the whole congregation . And when thys could nether be obserued it was enacted that ones in the yeare the sayde communion shuld be receaued of the whole congregation . Here we may learne of Albert that in the primatiue churche all thee whole congregation dyd communicate eche daye ioynetly togethers . Further in case we wold wel and earnestly respect the consyderatyon of our repayre to the church , & what also is of the masser reported oute of hys masse boke at thee celebration of thee communion : We mought wel vnderstande that the sayd communion shuld alway be receyued of a compaygne and not of one alone . Do we not ( I praye ye ) repayre to the churche , as to the common place , wherein we shulde make common prayers nothing excuting pryuatly but all commonly ? Saynt Paule auoucheth , i. Cori. 14 nothinge ought to be executed in thee churche , but that which redowneth to the edyfying & behoue of the whole congregation , so that as the churche is a common place , so the prayers therin shulde be common , so the celebration of the communion must be common , and not pryuate , as the wordes of the masse canon reported after the communion do wel declare , whych be thees followynge . That , that we haue receyued by the mouth , lord graunt we may receaue wyth hart purposely that ther may be made vnto vs an euerlasting remedy of the body & bloud of our lord Iesu christ . It is not sayd I , but we haue receaued . The priest as here so in other places saith not I but we euen whyle he communicateth all alone , wherby it is gatherable the masser shuld communicat not seuerally alone but iounctlye wyth others . For wee importeth a multitude & not a singularitee . Some ther be who deme the solitary massing an indifferent & consequently a sufferable matter . Wel thoughe it were so , as questionles it is not : Howbeit for so moch as we haue vtterlye renounced the Romsshe bishop with al his vsurped autorite , we ought of congruence abandon ther wyth the pryuate masse , whych he forged & fathered , lesse we through reteygnemēte & vsage therof , be occasioned to resume & agayn enbrace the sayd byshop withal his vnsytting & pretensed authorite . For vpon semblable consyderation , leui . xviii God inhibited the Israelites the vsage of the Egyptyans ceremonies , wherewith they had heretofore bene enfected , albeit soundry of them by al lykelyhode were indifferent . Notwithstanding ( gentle reder ) Ihertofor haue moch what vehemently gaynsayd the preuie masse & condemned here as detestable erroneouse & blasphemous : Howbeit I trust thou wolste accepte this my labour , enbracing & ensuing my doctrine therin , as ensuable & credible , syth it tendeth not to gods dishonour but to his honoure , not to thine empechement but to thy great comodite , not to the hinderance & ouerthrow● but to the redresse recouery & furtherance of the true masse , otherwise named the communion , whych cannot be so highly estemed and so ofte frequented as of necessytye it oughte , wythoute the prieste masse be hated and detested . For bothe it and the communion cannot be iounctly regarded . Whoso loueth thee one must nedes hate thother , for why they be mere contraries . But how can thee prieste masse be hadde in worthy hate ? yf her abominacyon were not at full dysclosed ? In respect wherof , thou seest how nedeful it is that she shuld be both gayne sayed and condemned as heresye , and abandoned as ydolatrye . God of hys mercye graunt vs all to learne , loue credyte and maynteyne hys truth and lyue thereafter .

AMEN .