THE
FOVRTH
PART
.
The
fourth
and
last
part
foloweth
,
the
which
is
of
the
abuses
and
of
the
abhomynacions
of
the
masse
,
and
hath
vi
.
chapters
.
THe
first
is
that
the
mass
doth
not
satisfie
for
them
,
nor
applie
such
things
to
man
.
THE
.
I.
CHAPTER
.
ALthough
we
haue
in
the
former
partis
touched
many
abuses
and
errors
of
the
mass
:
neuertheles
we
intend
(
in
this
last
,
specially
to
treate
of
certen
partycular
and
great
abusis
.
As
for
example
,
that
the
mass
shuld
forgeue
sinnes
,
that
it
shuld
satisfie
for
them
,
or
els
that
it
shuld
applie
to
vs
such
forgiuenes
or
satisfaction
and
that
it
shuld
be
a
sacrifice
for
the
liuing
and
for
the
deade
.
Than
next
also
that
the
same
masse
,
is
mans
inuention
and
not
gods
,
made
by
many
.
And
to
be
short
we
will
speake
of
many
other
abuses
which
partly
are
touched
and
of
many
wheroff
yet
ther
is
no
mencion
made
.
And
first
we
will
proue
that
the
mass
forgeueth
not
sinnes
,
satisfieth
not
god
for
them
,
nor
applieth
not
to
vs
the
forgeuenes
and
satisfaction
made
by
Christ
,
And
to
say
the
contrary
is
a
very
gret
error
and
abuse
.
And
I
proue
it
affter
this
sort
.
For
thos
that
affirme
the
mass
to
worke
thes
effectis
,
either
thei
will
and
meane
it
of
all
the
mass
,
that
is
to
say
of
all
thos
words
that
are
said
and
ceremonies
that
are
done
from
the
beginning
to
the
end
,
and
of
all
that
made
heape
of
wordes
and
gestures
,
or
els
thei
meane
of
the
sacrament
of
the
body
and
of
the
blood
only
the
which
is
chefely
considred
in
the
mass
.
Iff
thei
meane
it
of
the
whole
masse
it
is
false
.
For
by
saing
of
wordes
and
by
doing
of
ceremonies
sinnes
are
not
forgeuen
.
Seing
that
iff
a
man
shuld
say
the
whole
bible
ouer
,
which
are
gods
wordes
,
from
the
beginning
to
the
ending
an
hondreth
times
,
thei
could
not
forgeue
him
his
sinnes
,
How
than
shall
sinnes
be
forgeuen
,
or
satisfaction
made
for
them
by
saing
masse
,
which
is
mans
inuencion
,
as
we
will
proue
in
the
third
chapter
?
It
is
plaine
that
sinnes
are
not
forgeuen
by
saing
of
wordes
nor
doing
of
ceremonies
,
bycause
that
Iustificacion
els
shuld
be
by
workes
which
is
contrary
to
Paule
.
Who
dow●…eth
that
the
speaking
and
vttring
of
wordes
shuld
be
our
worke
?
Yea
who
is
that
wicked
man
that
can
not
doo
this
,
(
say
many
Psalmes
,
praiers
,
lessons
)
and
doo
ceremonies
?
That
no
sacrament
,
not
only
that
of
the
lords
supper
,
shuld
haue
this
office
,
I
wil
make
it
plaine
and
proue
it
.
For
the
worthy
receiuing
of
the
sacrament
whether
it
be
of
thankes
geuing
or
of
baptime
,
presupposeth
forgiuenes
of
sinnes
and
Iustificacion
,
than
neither
the
one
nor
the
other
doth
it
.
It
is
plaine
that
none
ought
to
take
,
what
so
euer
Sacrament
yow
will
,
iff
he
be
of
age
,
except
he
doo
trewe
repentance
and
haue
trewe
faith
.
But
he
that
doth
trewe
repentance
and
hath
trewe
faith
,
Peter
saith
,
speaking
in
Cornelius
the
hunderders
hows
in
Caesarea
,
To
this
saith
he
(
that
is
to
sai
to
Christ
,
for
he
spake
of
him
)
all
the
Prophetes
beare
witnes
,
that
euery
one
that
byleueth
in
him
,
receiueth
forgeuenes
of
sinnes
by
his
name
.
And
Paule
also
saith
,
The
vse
also
of
the
church
declareth
this
,
the
which
neuer
geueth
baptim
to
one
of
full
age
,
except
he
first
confess
that
he
byleueth
.
And
so
we
will
say
of
the
supper
,
the
which
all
men
doo
confesse
that
none
ought
to
receiue
it
but
he
that
first
hath
done
paenance
.
We
haue
th
example
of
baptim
in
thact●…s
of
th
apostles
of
Candache
the
quene
of
thethyopes
cunuch
to
whom
Philip
wold
not
geue
baptime
till
he
first
confessed
that
he
byleued
.
Returning
therfor
to
the
purpos
,
I
say
that
it
is
a
gret
abuse
and
supersticion
,
willingly
to
goo
abowt
to
say
that
the
sacrament
of
thanksgeuing
forgeueth
sinnes
,
for
it
is
gods
grace
that
forgeueth
sinnes
thorow
christ
,
whan
we
bileue
with
a
trewe
faith
,
and
not
the
sacrament
of
thanksgeuing
.
It
is
trew
in
dede
that
this
sacrament
doth
certifie
vs
of
that
thing
,
because
it
bringeth
to
our
remembrans
that
christ
gaue
his
body
and
his
blood
for
our
redemption
and
how
his
death
is
cause
of
our
life
,
but
it
worketh
not
the
forgeuenes
,
nor
it
can
not
work
it
,
as
we
haue
before
proued
.
And
iff
thos
that
defend
the
mass
,
shuld
say
that
thei
meane
of
the
forgeuenes
of
the
paine
and
not
of
the
fawte
,
whan
thei
say
that
the
masse
forgeueth
sinnes
,
And
that
affter
this
sort
also
the
praier
of
the
mass
booke
ought
to
be
vnderstand
,
in
the
which
is
made
mention
of
such
forgeuenes
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
thei
be
vnderstanden
of
the
forgeuenes
of
the
paine
and
not
of
the
fawt
.
Tho
this
I
say
first
,
that
the
praiers
absolutely
make
mention
of
the
forgeuenes
of
sinnes
.
and
doo
not
any
thing
speake
of
the
paine
,
wherby
it
appeareth
that
thei
meane
of
the
fawt
which
is
princypall
in
sinne
.
And
the
selff same
wordes
shewe
that
thei
meane
of
the
fawt
.
As
for
example
,
that
praier
,
haec
nos
communio
domine
purget
a
crimin
,
It
saith
not
,
liberet
a
poena
,
but
purget
a
crimine
that
is
to
say
from
the
fawt
.
And
that
other
which
saith
,
Sit
absolutio
scelerum
,
that
is
to
say
let
it
be
a
discharge
of
the
fawtes
.
and
affter
al●…o
it
saith
,
Sit
uiuorum
atque
mortuorum
fidelium
remissio
omnium
delictorum
,
that
is
to
say
,
let
it
be
a
forgeuenes
of
all
the
sinnes
of
the
faithfull
,
liuing
and
deade
.
Thes
wordes
surely
being
so
generall
as
thei
be
of
all
sin̄nes
as
well
of
the
liuing
as
of
the
deade
,
can
not
conueniently
be
vnderstand
only
of
the
paine
and
not
of
the
fawt
.
Than
the
Summistis
and
scol
men
defenders
of
the
masse
,
say
that
th
effect
of
this
sacrament
is
to
forgeue
veniall
sinnes
,
and
also
mortall
wherof
man
hath
no
consciens
,
that
is
to
say
,
as
I
thinck
,
whan
either
he
remembreth
not
,
or
Iudgeth
not
them
to
be
deadli
sinnes
allthough
thei
be
in
deede
deadly
.
And
among
thother
somnistes
,
the
Angelica
,
where
it
speaketh
of
th
effectis
of
the
thankes
geuing
,
saith
the
same
,
and
the
master
of
the
sentencis
in
the
iiij
.
the
xij
.
distinction
abowt
the
end
,
saith
that
it
forgeueth
veniall
sinnes
.
And
thomas
of
Aquine
also
in
the
iiij
.
of
the
sentencis
the
selff same
distinction
,
saith
the
same
thing
,
and
besides
that
it
forgeueth
thes
mortal
sinnes
wherof
man
forgetteth
himselff
.
And
that
saing
of
the
praier
the
which
saith
,
sit
absolutio
scelerum
may
be
vnderstand
affter
ij
.
sorth
,
that
is
to
say
,
either
so
farr
as
it
hurteth
him
,
or
els
it
is
vnderstand
of
thos
sinnes
which
man
hath
no
rememberans
off
.
Thes
be
the
fautors
of
the
mass
and
they
meane
that
the
Thanksgeuing
forgeueth
not
only
the
ponishment
but
also
the
fawt
.
THE
SECOND
CHAPTER
.
That
the
masse
is
no
sacrifice
nor
remembrans
of
sacrifice
.
IT
is
sureli
a
gret
abuse
to
vse
a
thing
to
any
effectt
or
end
with
which
it
agreith
not
.
The
defenders
of
the
masse
,
will
that
it
shuld
be
a
sacrifice
for
the
liuing
and
deade
.
The
which
thing
veri
mani
saings
in
the
same
masse
doo
witnes
.
As
for
example
,
that
In
spiritu
humilitatis
,
And
,
In
animo
contrito
&c.
that
is
to
say
,
let
vs
be
receiued
of
the
,
o
lord
,
in
the
spirit
of
humblēnes
and
in
a
sorowfull
mind
and
so
let
our
sacrifice
be
made
this
day
in
thy
sight
,
that
it
may
please
the
,
o
lord
god
.
And
that
other
the
which
the
bowt
standers
say
,
that
is
to
say
,
Let
the
lord
receiue
the
sacrifice
from
your
handes
,
to
the
praise
and
glory
of
his
name
.
The
which
saings
be
affter
the
offering
of
the
host
and
the
cupp
,
before
the
preface
.
And
that
which
is
said
in
th
end
of
the
masse
,
that
is
to
say
,
let
the
willing
duty
of
my
seruice
,
please
the
,
o
holy
trinitie
,
and
make
that
the
sacrifice
which
I
vnworthy
haue
offered
before
thi
miaesties
eies
may
be
acceptable
vnto
the
&c.
And
very
many
other
saings
innumerable
,
which
all
make
mention
that
the
masse
or
the
masses
sacraments
shuld
be
a
sacrifice
.
Allthough
that
in
the
former
chapter
we
haue
sufficiently
proued
that
this
is
a
gret
error
for
so
moch
as
that
if
the
masse
doo
not
forgiue
sinnes
,
it
is
not
neither
any
sacrifice
for
the
same
.
Neuertheles
for
the
plentifull
clerenes
of
the
truth
,
And
for
that
the
matter
is
of
such
Importans
,
we
will
particularli
proue
that
the
masse
is
no
sacrifice
,
but
because
this
word
,
sacrifice
,
hath
diuers
significations
,
to
th
entent
that
we
may
well
vnderstand
,
affter
what
sort
thei
make
a
sacrifice
,
It
is
to
be
vnderstand
that
acording
to
the
scripture
there
are
fownd
many
sortis
of
sacrifices
,
as
we
haue
in
exodus
,
leuiticus
and
in
numerus
.
Iff
they
that
say
that
the
mass
is
a
sacrifice
,
wold
haue
said
that
it
had
bene
a
praising
or
thanks
geuing
sacrifice
,
they
had
said
somthing
better
.
But
they
will
haue
it
,
and
they
vse
it
for
a
quiting
sacrifice
,
that
is
to
say
,
purging
or
clensing
and
satisfieng
for
the
sinnes
not
only
off
the
liuing
but
also
of
the
deade
.
Surely
this
is
a
gret
effect
to
wipe
a
way
and
to
purge
the
sinnes
not
only
of
the
liuing
but
also
of
the
deade
.
From
whens
gather
they
this
?
Where
haue
they
it
?
They
haue
it
not
owt
of
th
old
scripture
for
it
speaketh
not
of
the
masse
,
because
it
was
not
than
,
nor
owt
of
the
newe
.
Let
them
shewe
one
only
word
that
Christ
or
the
Apostles
euer
spake
,
that
the
masse
shuld
be
a
sacrifice
for
the
liuing
and
for
the
deade
.
Thei
shall
find
in
deede
that
the
sacrament
,
or
let
it
be
the
lordes
supper
,
is
a
remembrans
of
the
sacrifice
the
which
Christ
made
for
vs
,
that
is
to
say
of
his
death
.
This
doth
Christ
him selff
say
,
whan
he
did
institute
the
same
holy
supper
,
as
Mathew
,
Than
further
thei
say
that
the
scripture
saith
the
same
,
that
is
to
say
the
Prophete
malachy
the
which
saith
,
Loo
here
thei
say
that
the
masse
is
a
sacrifice
,
the
which
from
th
east
to
the
west
,
is
made
to
god
called
by
the
Prophet
a
cleane
offering
the
which
in
euery
place
is
sacrificed
,
In
france
,
in
Spaine
,
in
flanders
,
in
Almany
in
Italy
and
euery
where
.
To
thes
so
feble
profes
,
I
first
answer
that
th
old
fathers
called
the
supper
of
the
lord
a
sacrifice
meaning
that
it
was
a
rememberans
of
the
sacrifice
as
the
stone
owt
of
which
came
furth
the
water
in
the
desert
,
was
called
Christ
no●…
because
it
was
in
dede
Christ
,
but
because
it
did
signifie
Christ
.
Nor
this
is
not
mine
,
but
the
fathers
exposition
them selues
.
And
I
could
bring
furth
the
auctoritie
of
many
but
the
auctoritie
of
Chrisostom
for
this
time
shal
suffise
vs
,
Now
let
vs
proue
with
the
lordes
help
that
neither
the
masse
nor
the
sacrament
are
sacrifices
for
the
sinnes
neither
of
the
liuing
,
and
moch
lesse
of
the
deade
.
First
either
thei
meane
of
the
hole
mase
,
In
the
ninth
chapter
shewing
the
differens
betwene
th
old
bysshops
and
Christ
,
he
saith
that
the
leuitical
bisshop
entred
ones
in
the
yeare
into
that
place
,
the
which
is
called
sancta
sanctorum
,
that
is
the
head
holy
place
,
not
withowt
blood
,
the
which
he
offered
for
him selff
and
for
the
sinnes
of
the
peple
.
And
he
saith
that
thos
gifftes
and
sacrifices
which
were
offered
,
could
not
make
man
perfite
as
perteining
to
the
consciens
.
But
Christ
the
bisshop
of
trewe
good
things
entred
onys
in
to
the
head
holy
place
with
his
own
blood
and
gate
ther
th
euerlasting
ransom
.
And
affter
he
addeth
that
forgeuenes
is
not
wrought
withowt
blood
sheding
?
And
declaring
what
shuld
be
thos
head
holy
placis
where
into
Christ
entered
he
saith
that
,
that
is
heauen
,
and
that
he
is
there
entered
that
he
may
presently
appeare
in
gods
sight
for
vs
not
to
be
offten
offered
as
the
bisshop
,
(
that
is
to
say
the
leuiticall
bisshop
)
off●…
times
euery
yeare
entered
by
strange
blood
.
For
other
wise
it
shuld
haue
bene
nedefull
that
he
shuld
haue
offten
suffered
sins
the
beginning
of
the
world
.
But
now
towards
th
end
of
the
world
,
hath
he
ones
appeared
to
destroy
sinne
by
the
offering
of
him selff
.
And
as
it
is
appointed
that
all
men
ones
shall
die
,
and
affter
that
shal
iudgement
be
,
so
Christ
is
ones
offered
to
take
a
way
the
sinnes
of
man
.
All
this
talk
doth
shewe
that
neyther
the
masse
nor
the
sacrament
is
a
sacrifice
.
First
it
saith
that
thos
gifftes
and
sacrifices
which
were
offered
,
could
not
make
man
perfite
as
perteining
to
the
consciens
,
as
though
he
wold
say
,
that
they
could
not
for
giue
sinnes
nor
perfitely
clense
man
,
but
Christes
gifft
and
sacrifice
is
that
wich
maketh
man
perfite
as
perteining
to
the
consciens
.
It
is
plaine
that
Christes
sacrifice
is
made
for
all
th
elect
in
all
the
world
that
be
past
,
present
,
and
to
come
,
As
Iohn
saith
in
his
first
pistle
that
he
is
th
appeasement
of
all
the
world
,
In
the
tenth
chapter
he
saith
first
,
Et
dimitte
nobis
debita
nostra
.
that
is
to
say
,
forgue
vs
our
sinnes
.
Iff
he
hath
allredy
forgeuen
them
,
what
nede
we
any
more
desyre
that
he
wold
forgeue
them
vs
?
To
this
I
answer
that
whan
Paul
sayth
that
by
Christes
sacrifyce
is
forgeuen
vs
all
our
sinnes
,
Now
there
remaineth
to
proue
,
that
the
sacrament
of
the
masse
is
no
remembrans
of
a
sacrifice
.
For
,
iff
it
were
a
remeberans
of
a
sacrifice
,
it
shuld
be
a
trewe
sacrament
,
but
it
is
no
trewe
sacrament
,
chefely
to
them
that
be
there
present
,
and
say
not
the
masse
,
therfor
it
is
no
rememberans
of
a
sacrifice
.
I
proue
that
it
is
no
sacrament
,
becaus
that
to
a
trew
sacrament
is
necessary
,
that
the
wordes
of
the
consecration
be
said
,
and
that
thei
be
vnderstand
according
to
that
comon
saing
(
and
it
is
of
Austen
)
accedit
uerbum
ad
elementum
&
fít
sacramentum
,
that
is
to
say
,
when
the
worde
is
Ioined
to
the
Element
the
sacrament
is
made
,
it
is
necessary
,
I
say
,
to
a
trewe
sacrament
that
the
word
shuld
be
Ioined
,
other
wise
it
is
no
sacrament
.
But
how
be
thei
certen
whiche
be
present
at
the
masse
that
the
wordes
with
the
which
thei
consecrate
,
be
said
by
the
prest
or
not
?
For
so
moch
as
thei
heare
it
not
,
the
same
prest
saing
it
veri
sofftli
,
in
such
sort
as
none
heareth
it
,
except
the
prest
him selff
.
Therfor
to
them
which
heare
not
,
nor
understand
what
is
done
,
nor
said
,
it
is
no
sacrament
.
A
fewe
yeares
past
,
And
there
doth
folowe
it
,
many
other
.
But
let
than
folow
at
their
will
,
I
am
of
Christes
opinion
.
Ther
for
in
this
I
remitt
my selff
to
the
Iudgement
of
Christes
churches
.
I
say
thus
,
becaus
it
semith
vnto
me
according
to
gods
word
,
that
it
shuld
be
so
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
as
whan
the
vse
of
baptime
is
ceased
,
the
water
is
no
more
a
sacrament
,
so
whan
the
vse
of
the
thankesgeuing
is
ceased
,
that
is
to
say
,
whan
it
is
no
more
taken
and
dealt
,
eaten
and
drunck
,
it
is
no
more
a
sacrament
,
I
meane
,
eaton
and
drunck
in
common
,
for
so
moch
as
the
lords
supper
is
not
a
doing
of
one
particular
man
,
but
of
many
men
.
And
becaus
that
in
the
masse
we
haue
not
this
vse
,
but
the
prest
alone
taketh
that
ost
,
and
cupp
,
withowt
communicating
them
to
other
,
I
say
it
is
no
trewe
sacrament
.
And
iff
it
be
no
sacrament
,
it
is
neither
any
memory
of
sacrifice
,
the
which
thei
wold
haue
proued
.
But
admitt
that
there
neuer
had
bene
neither
th
one
,
nor
thother
,
of
thes
ij
.
disorders
,
what
will
thei
say
to
this
that
none
of
the
pristes
in
this
time
,
doth
perfitely
make
the
sacrament
according
to
their
own
doctrine
?
I
proue
it
thus
,
They
them selues
say
,
that
none
can
work
,
and
make
the
sacrament
except
it
be
a
prist
,
and
he
that
is
no
prist
,
can
not
consecrate
,
But
to
be
a
prist
is
necessary
that
he
shuld
be
consecrated
by
a
bisshop
,
the
which
in
the
consecracion
shuld
geue
him
the
mark
,
the
which
mark
,
is
a
certen
spirituall
vertu
geuen
by
the
bisshop
.
Standing
this
ther
doctrine
and
opinion
,
that
he
who
is
not
a
bisshop
,
cannot
make
a
prist
,
it
foloweth
that
from
certen
hondreth
yeares
hetherto
,
either
none
at
all
or
very
fewe
haue
bene
trewe
pristes
,
becaus
thei
haue
not
bene
made
,
by
trewe
bisshops
,
for
so
moch
as
that
he
is
no
trewe
bisshop
,
that
hath
not
at
the
least
thes
ij
.
pointes
necessary
for
a
trewe
bisshop
.
The
first
is
that
he
shuld
be
chossen
by
the
peple
.
The
other
is
,
that
he
shuld
feed
his
flocke
,
that
is
to
say
that
he
shuld
preach
gods
word
to
his
peple
.
Thes
2.
pointes
be
of
the
holi
scripture
.
For
as
,
to
the
first
,
we
haue
that
Paul
and
Barnabas
,
as
it
is
writton
in
th
actis
of
th
apostles
,
THE
THIRD
CHAPTER
.
How
the
mass
was
not
ordeined
by
Christ
,
nor
by
his
apostels
,
but
it
is
mans
inuencion
,
bilded
not
by
one
man
only
,
but
by
diuers
,
&
from
whens
this
name
,
Masse
,
had
the
beginning
.
BEcaus
in
this
our
treatise
,
by
this
word
,
Masse
,
we
doo
not
meane
the
sacrament
,
the
sacrament
of
the
lords
supper
the
which
with
owt
dowt
was
instituted
by
Christ
,
in
his
last
supper
and
affter
offt
vsed
,
by
his
apostels
,
and
euen
vnto
our
dayes
,
by
his
church
,
hath
bene
and
euer
shal
be
reuerently
kept
vnto
th
end
.
But
we
meane
all
the
gathering
to gether
of
wordes
,
gestures
,
and
ceremonies
,
beginning
from
the
Introibo
euen
to
the
Ite
missa
est
,
as
also
it
is
of
all
men
comonly
vnderstand
,
or
els
that
their
sacrament
that
thei
handle
,
and
the
defenders
of
the
masse
,
Whan
it
is
vnderstand
affter
thes
ij
.
sortis
,
will
defend
it
as
a
godly
institution
,
and
that
it
hath
bene
vsed
from
the
apostels
.
Therfor
we
will
at
this
present
proue
,
that
neither
Christ
,
nor
his
apostles
,
euer
said
or
ordeined
masse
,
in
which
so
euer
of
thes
ij
.
sortis
thei
take
it
:
but
it
is
mans
inuention
,
affter
either
of
both
sortis
.
And
that
this
is
trewe
,
First
I
say
,
Vnderstanding
by
this
word
,
Masse
,
all
the
whole
gathering
,
from
the
Introibo
vnto
the
Ite
missa
est
,
that
the
same
is
a
diuise
of
men
,
and
not
of
god
.
And
this
I
proue
,
by
th●…
fauorers
of
the
masse
them seluis
,
the
which
say
that
Christ
Ihesus
did
ordeine
the
sacrament
,
and
that
Peter
added
the
pater
noster
.
And
affter
that
Iames
bisshop
of
Ierusalem
did
increase
it
,
but
they
tell
not
what
he
added
.
And
that
Basill
likewise
hath
increased
it
.
Celestinus
the
pope
added
the
iudica
me
deus
Pope
Damasus
the
confession
,
which
is
made
by
the
prest
.
Certen
doo
ascribe
it
to
Pontianus
.
Gregory
the
.1
.
did
appoint
there
the
entry
and
that
the
kirieleeson
shuld
be
said
.ix.
times
.
Thelesphorus
the
Gloria
in
excels●…s
Deo
.
Gelastus
the
I.
the
collectis
,
that
is
to
say
the
praiers
that
goo
before
the
pistell
.
Iherom
the
pistell
,
and
the
gospell
.
Anastasius
ordeined
that
while
the
gospell
was
reading
all
men
shuld
stand
on
their
feete
,
but
stowpingly
and
with
reuerence
.
Marcus
the
bishop
ordeined
that
the
crede
shuld
be
song
on
holly
daies
,
and
that
it
shuld
be
said
by
the
peple
present
at
masse
.
And
damasus
affter
confirmed
that
decree
.
Gelasius
did
ordeine
the
antem
that
foloweth
the
crede
.
Thei
toke
the
incense
from
the
old
lawe
,
and
from
the
paynams
,
the
which
did
vse
the
incense
in
their
sacrifices
,
as
virgill
faith
in
the
1.
of
the
Eneidos
,
that
is
say
,
ubi
templum
,
illic
centumque
Sabeo
thure
calent
arae
that
is
to
say
where
his
temple
was
,
there
were
an
hundreth
altars
warmed
well
with
frankincens
.
The
prefacis
that
goo
before
the
Sanctus
,
which
as
gelasius
saith
be
.ix.
the
forsaid
gelasius
ordeined
them
,
and
vrbanus
,
put
to
the
tenth
.
Sixtus
the
.
I.
ordeined
that
the
sanctus
shuld
be
be
song
.
Concerning
the
canon
,
which
beginnith
,
te
igitur
clementissime
pater
,
certen
say
,
that
gelasius
made
the
beginning
as
it
is
now
.
Siritius
the
pope
made
the
communicantes
.
And
Alexander
the
.1
.
the
Qui
pridie
quam
pateretur
Pope
Leo
the
.1
.
added
the
●…anc
igitur
oblationem
,
Gregory
added
thes
.ij.
petions
,
that
is
to
say
diesque
nostros
in
tua
pace
disponas
,
atque
ab
aeterna
damnatione
nos
eripi
&
in
electorum
tuorum
iubeas
grege
numerari
Certen
other
say
that
the
canon
was
made
bi
one
called
Scolasticus
.
It
is
clere
that
it
was
not
made
by
one
man
,
nor
at
ones
,
but
at
diuers
times
.
And
the
order
of
the
times
,
is
moch
lesse
kept
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
that
which
the
more
awncient
haue
appointed
,
shuld
be
now
first
in
the
canon
,
but
it
is
cleane
contrary
.
For
Alexander
the
.1
.
was
before
all
them
,
and
yet
the
qui
pridie
quam
pateretur
,
which
Alexander
him selff
appointed
,
is
put
in
the
vi
.
place
.
And
the
te
igitur
,
the
which
as
thei
say
,
gelasius
made
,
who
folowed
Alexander
a
long
time
:
goth
,
before
all
thother
partis
of
the
canon
.
Gregory
,
as
the
ratiōall
of
diuine
offices
affirmeth
,
added
the
preface
before
the
pater
noster
,
that
is
to
say
the
Oremus
,
praeceptis
salutaribus
mōiti
,
and
also
that
the
pater
noster
,
shuld
be
said
,
as
he
affirmeth
in
the
register
,
saing
that
it
shuld
be
an
vnfit
thing
,
that
the
praier
of
scolasticus
,
of
which
we
haue
made
mention
before
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
canon
,
shuld
be
said
,
and
christes
praier
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
pater
noster
,
shuld
be
vnsaid
.
Sergius
the
pope
did
first
appoint
that
the
Agnus
dei
,
shuld
be
thrise
song
ouer
.
And
to
be
short
,
affter
their
own
Iudgement
,
Christ
hath
instituted
of
this
masse
,
nothing
except
the
sacrament
.
All
the
rest
,
was
added
by
diuers
men
,
and
at
diuers
times
.
Looke
vpon
platina
in
the
life
of
sixtus
the
1.
bishop
of
rome
.
And
the
ratiōall
of
diuine
offices
in
the
fourth
booke
,
and
polidorus
Virgilius
of
vrbine
in
the
.x.
chapter
of
the
.1
.
booke
de
inuētorbus
rerum
,
all
the
which
say
,
that
christ
did
say
no
part
of
this
masse
,
except
the
words
of
the
consecration
.
But
it
is
worthy
of
noting
,
that
the
defenders
of
the
masse
sai
,
that
the
masse
is
gods
institution
,
for
the
sacrament
is
the
chefe
of
the
same
masse
,
and
that
it
is
trewe
,
that
the
masse
was
augmented
,
and
increased
bi
diuers
men
,
and
at
diuers
times
,
yet
for
all
that
,
thei
sai
,
that
the
masse
,
for
becaus
of
the
chefe
part
,
is
gods
institution
.
And
thos
additions
be
for
furnisshing
of
it
,
neuertheles
,
the
substance
which
is
the
sacrament
,
was
made
bi
christ
.
And
it
semith
to
me
,
that
thei
wold
sai
of
the
masse
,
as
of
a
great
riuer
.
As
for
example
of
the
poo
,
the
which
at
the
head
,
It
is
playne
,
that
taking
also
this
word
Masse
,
for
the
sacrament
,
that
thei
make
,
it
was
neuer
ordeyned
by
Christ
,
nor
vsed
by
his
apostles
.
For
the
sacrament
that
Christ
ordeined
,
and
the
Apostles
vsed
,
was
of
a nother
sort
,
moch
differing
and
diuers
from
theirs
.
First
,
the
consecracion
was
made
,
after
a nother
sort
.
Becaus
Christ
said
the
words
of
the
consecracion
a
lowd
,
and
dyd
pronownce
them
plainely
that
all
vnderstode
.
Thei
,
say
them
sofftly
,
that
none
heareth
them
,
but
he
that
saith
the
masse
.
And
how
can
it
be
a
sacrament
,
to
them
that
vnderstond
not
,
nor
heare
not
the
wordes
,
seing
a
thing
can
not
be
a
sacrament
,
except
the
wordes
be
hard
,
and
vnderstand
?
Furthermore
Christ
said
not
thos
wordes
,
with
mind
to
change
the
substance
of
the
breade
and
wine
in
to
his
body
and
blood
,
as
thei
think
,
but
to
appoint
th
one
and
thother
,
to
be
signes
in
his
rememberans
,
as
his
wordes
doo
shewe
.
So
that
seing
thei
haue
not
the
same
meaning
,
that
Christ
had
,
nor
will
not
doo
the
same
,
that
Christ
did
,
but
a nother
thing
,
we
must
nedes
say
that
such
a
sacrament
,
is
not
Christes
sacrament
,
but
a
thing
fownd
owt
by
them selues
,
made
affter
their
own
maner
,
and
not
according
to
Christes
institution
.
Furthermore
the
sacrament
which
Christ
did
institute
,
was
instituted
to
th
entent
that
it
shuld
be
a
spirituall
supper
,
delt
to
many
,
and
he
gaue
it
to
all
.
Thei
doo
it
not
affter
this
sort
,
but
the
prest
only
taketh
that
his
sacrament
,
and
giueth
it
not
to
other
,
nor
this
thing
is
no
communion
,
becaus
a
communion
is
,
whan
many
doo
partake
of
one
thing
,
and
not
whan
one
alone
vseth
it
.
So
that
seing
thei
doo
not
as
Christ
did
,
or
rather
as
he
commanded
that
it
shuld
be
done
,
their
is
no
trewe
sacrament
,
as
also
we
haue
proued
in
the
second
chapter
of
this
part
.
Nor
it
was
not
instituted
by
Christ
,
but
by
mans
inuencion
.
Let
them
than
vnderstand
this
their
masse
,
either
for
all
the
hole
gathering
,
from
the
Introibo
to
the
Ite
missa
est
,
or
els
for
the
sacrament
only
,
becaus
it
is
no
trewe
sacrament
,
I
say
,
that
it
is
not
gods
ordinance
but
mans
.
And
being
mans
ordinans
,
yet
thei
make
it
a
sacrifice
,
and
a
woshipping
of
god
,
against
his
expresse
commandment
,
who
will
not
be
honored
with
the
inuention
of
men
,
as
allredy
we
haue
so
offten
sayd
.
There
remaineth
now
to
see
from
whens
this
name
of
Masse
had
the
beginning
?
Certen
say
,
as
Master
William
Durant
in
the
proheme
of
the
iiij
.
part
of
his
reason
geuing
of
gods
seruice
,
that
this
Name
Masse
is
some
time
a
nowne
collectiue
some
time
a
nowne
proper
.
A
Nowne
collectiue
is
à
word
that
gatherith
many
into
one
.
A
Nowne
proper
speakith
but
of
one
only
.
whan
it
is
a
collectiue
,
that
is
to
say
whan
it
importeth
all
the
whole
gathering
from
the
entring
to
the
end
,
that
is
to
say
Ite
missa
est
,
he
saith
that
it
is
as
moch
to
say
,
as
sent
or
committed
ouer
.
Becaus
the
faithfull
peple
,
by
the
mistery
of
the
priest
,
the
which
doth
Christes
office
betwene
god
and
men
doth
send
their
praiers
and
supplications
to
god
.
Some
time
this
name
masse
,
is
a
nowne
proper
,
and
doth
signifie
Christ
,
first
sent
,
from
the
father
to
vs
,
and
sent
from
vs
to
the
father
,
to
th
entent
that
before
him
,
he
might
intreate
for
vs
,
Albeit
for
shortnes
,
I
doo
not
recite
all
his
opinion
.
Some
other
,
as
Ihon
rewcklin
a
man
very
well
lerned
in
the
hebrew
tong
,
saith
,
that
the
masse
is
no
greke
name
nor
latin
but
hebrewe
,
and
is
as
moch
to
sai
,
as
sacrifice
.
And
now
our
massemongers
,
wold
that
the
masse
shuld
be
a
sacrifice
for
sinnes
.
Othersome
say
,
as
Polidor
virgil
of
vrbine
,
that
Missa
,
is
as
moch
to
say
as
geuing
leaue
to
depart
,
or
licensing
the
peple
that
thei
may
goo
their
way
,
that
is
to
say-that
licence
and
leaue
is
geuen
them
,
that
thei
may
depart
,
for
so
moch
as
,
in
old
time
no
man
ought
to
depart
from
the
holy
things
,
thei
being
present
,
except
licens
were
geuen
them
.
And
Missa
is
as
moch
to
say
,
as
missio
,
or
dimissio
,
a
licensing
,
or
geuing
leaue
to
depart
,
becaus
that
being
ended
,
the
peple
is
licensed
to
goo
at
their
plesure
to
their
howses
.
He
saith
besides
,
many
things
vp
on
this
matter
,
but
becaus
I
know
that
this
name
hath
an
abhominable
signification
,
I
litle
desire
to
serch
any
further
for
the
beginning
of
so
vngracios
a
name
.
Whan
it
shuld
haue
begon
to
be
so
named
,
and
who
shuld
haue
fownd
it
owt
it
is
not
well
knowne
.
It
appearith
that
from
pope
gregories
time
the
first
,
hetherto
,
it
hath
bene
vsed
.
And
I
doo
not
remember
that
I
euer
redd
that
before
his
time
it
was
vsed
.
THE
.
IIII.
CHAPTER
.
That
the
mass
is
a
gathering
together
and
an
heape
yea
a
sea
of
abuses
wikednessis
and
superstitions
,
IT
is
not
our
purpos
nor
mind
,
to
tell
all
the
abuses
of
the
masse
,
becaus
we
knowe
them
not
all
.
And
allthough
we
knewe
them
,
thei
be
so
many
,
that
to
goo
abowt
to
write
them
all
thei
wold
make
to
gret
a
booke
.
It
shall
suffise
we
write
some
of
them
by
the
which
may
be
sufficientli
Iudged
,
what
maner
a
thing
this
masse
is
.
One
of
the
chefe
is
the
worshipping
the
host
and
the
cupp
,
the
which
is
an
Idolatry
.
For
from
whens
gather
thei
that
the
sacraments
ought
to
be
worshipped
?
The
sacramentis
ought
to
be
handeled
with
reuerens
as
holy
things
and
godlie
institutions
,
but
that
thei
ought
to
be
worshipped
,
we
haue
it
not
in
any
place
of
the
scripture
,
nor
by
any
example
of
the
apostels
,
or
of
the
saintes
of
the
old
church
,
euen
as
the
baptime
is
not
worshipped
,
but
is
a
signe
that
maketh
vs
sure
and
certen
that
our
sinnis
be
forgeuin
vs
by
Christ
,
so
neither
the
bread
,
or
let
it
be
the
host
,
nor
the
cupp
,
ought
to
be
worshipped
,
nor
christ
did
not
institute
them
to
this
end
.
But
be
did
institute
them
,
in
remembrans
of
his
body
and
blood
geuin
for
forgiuenes
of
our
sinnes
.
This
remembrans
,
the
bread
and
the
wine
allredy
work
withowt
that
that
thei
shuld
be
worshipped
.
And
it
is
to
be
noted
that
iff
thei
shuld
be
worshipped
,
the
apostles
whan
Christ
did
institute
the
sacrament
,
of
his
body
,
and
blood
,
thei
wold
haue
worshipded
it
,
but
thei
did
not
worship
it
,
so
farr
as
we
haue
by
the
story
of
the
euangelistes
,
yea
thei
sate
still
at
the
table
.
And
it
well
appearith
by
a
certen
text
of
Honorius
the
pope
in
the
iij.
booke
of
the
decretalls
,
in
the
title
de
celebratione
missarum
that
this
worshipping
is
no
old
,
but
a
newe
thing
.
And
it
semith
,
that
it
shuld
be
the
institucion
of
honorius
himselff
,
who
died
in
the
yeare
of
our
lord
1226.
His
wordes
in
the
said
decretall
be
thes.
To
th
entent
that
thorow
the
small
care
of
the
pristes
,
gods
anger
shuld
not
be
more
greuosly
sent
,
we
doo
straitely
command
that
the
sacrament
of
thanksgeuing
,
be
by
the
prestes
placed
in
a
singular
place
,
cleane
and
locked
,
and
kept
deuowtly
and
faithfully
.
But
let
the
prest
very
offten
teach
his
peple
,
that
whan
the
helthfull
host
is
liffted
vp
on
high
in
the
celebracion
of
the
masse
,
thei
reuerently
bowe
them
seluis
,
doing
the
same
whan
the
priest
beareth
it
to
the
sicke
.
Here
honorius
commandeth
that
the
peple
shuld
bowe
them
seluis
to
the
host
,
and
doth
not
say
than
expressely
,
that
thei
ought
to
worship
it
,
he
saith
only
that
thei
ought
to
bowe
them
seluis
.
And
he
geueth
vs
to
vnderstand
by
this
his
talk
,
either
that
he
him selff
was
the
institutor
of
that
thing
or
els
that
this
bowing
to
the
sacrament
,
began
not
long
affter
him
.
For
iff
the
vse
had
bene
old
it
had
not
neded
to
make
so
straight
a
commandment
to
kepe
it
,
for
thos
things
that
the
custom
and
vse
is
to
doo
,
are
done
withowt
commandment
.
And
whithowt
dowt
the
same
hōorius
,
iff
such
a
custome
had
been
before
him
,
he
wold
haue
alledged
either
which
had
been
the
begin̄er
,
or
at
the
least
the
custom
it selff
.
And
he
of
him selff
wold
not
so
haue
spoken
as
he
hath
done
.
The
defenders
of
the
masse
will
say
,
that
christ
may
be
and
ought
to
be
worshipped
where
he
is
,
he
is
in
that
host
,
wherfor
he
ought
to
be
worshipped
in
the
same
.
I
answer
that
worshipping
is
a
deede
of
faith
,
faith
is
not
but
by
the
same
word
of
god
.
Let
them
shewe
one
Iote
,
if
thei
can
doo
it
by
gods
word
,
that
Christ
shuld
be
in
the
sacrament
bodily
.
We
doo
worship
Christ
in
heauen
,
becaus
we
haue
the
scripture
clere
that
he
is
ascended
in
to
heauen
and
there
abideth
and
sitteth
,
on
the
right
hand
of
god
,
Another
abuse
is
that
the
wordes
of
the
consecracion
be
not
said
with
a
lowd
voice
as
thei
ought
to
be
,
seing
thei
be
wordes
of
the
holy
gospell
,
the
which
Christ
hath
commanded
shuld
be
preached
to
euery
creature
.
What
els
be
thes
wordes
but
that
Christ
hath
geuon
his
body
and
his
blood
for
our
ransom
,
and
forgeuenes
of
our
sinnes
?
Seing
this
thing
is
of
necessitie
,
that
it
shuld
be
preached
to
euery
Christian
,
nor
he
is
not
a
Christian
,
that
doth
not
bileue
,
why
doo
thei
not
say
it
with
a
lowd
voice
,
as
in
the
old
time
it
was
wont
to
be
?
Here
thei
find
certen
scusis
,
and
among
other
thei
say
that
such
wordes
ought
to
be
said
in
secret
,
to
th
entent
that
the
high
holy
wordes
,
shuld
not
become
vile
,
And
that
it
is
red
how
in
old
time
whan
the
canon
was
said
with
a
lowd
voice
,
as
it
were
,
all
did
vnderstand
thos
wordes
,
and
did
openly
sing
them
in
the
streates
,
and
in
the
waies
,
Wherupon
certen
shepardes
singing
thos
wordes
,
and
hauing
laid
the
breade
vp
on
a
certen
stone
,
at
the
vttering
of
the
wordes
,
the
bred
was
turned
in
to
flessh
,
and
for
this
caus
the
fire
came
from
heauen
that
killed
them
,
for
the
which
thing
,
the
holy
fathers
haue
ordeined
,
that
vp
on
paine
of
cursing
,
such
wordes
in
the
masse
shuld
be
said
in
secret
,
and
with
the
holy
garmentis
.
This
master
William
Durant
saith
in
his
racional
of
diuine
offices
.
Soo
what
fowndacions
thes
be
,
(
I
will
not
say
fables
)
of
saing
the
wordes
of
the
sacrament
in
secret
?
Iff
thes
wordes
for
this
caus
ought
to
be
said
in
secret
,
to
th
entent
that
the
high
holy
wordes
,
shuld
not
become
vile
,
than
it
were
nedefull
to
say
the
holy
gospell
in
secret
,
and
not
to
preach
it
openly
with
a
lowd
voice
.
For
what
wordes
be
more
high
holy
than
thos
of
the
holy
gospell
?
Furthermore
the
holy
fathers
that
haue
ordeined
this
,
iff
it
be
trewe
in
dede
that
thei
did
ordeine
it
,
why
did
thei
not
rather
command
that
the
holy
wordes
shuld
be
pronownced
with
reuerens
,
withowt
making
them
say
them
in
secret
?
The
which
wordes
among
all
the
rest
that
are
said
in
the
masse
,
euer●…
Christēman
ought
singularly
to
vnderstand
?
Ought
not
euery
Christian
to
knowe
that
Christ
hath
geuin
his
body
and
his
blood
,
for
our
ransom
?
And
that
for
remembrans
of
so
gret
a
mistery
Christ
hath
ordeined
this
sacrament
?
And
what
els
doo
the
wordes
of
the
consecracion
say
exeept
this
in
substance
?
I
could
here
,
iff
I
wold
,
say
many
things
,
but
what
nedeth
it
to
heape
wordes
in
so
plaine
a
matter
?
It
is
withowt
dowt
a
gret
abuse
to
vtter
thos
wordes
in
secret
.
The
wordes
of
the
sacrament
ought
to
be
hard
of
all
,
withowt
the
which
it
is
no
sacrament
,
neither
the
bread
nor
the
wine
,
nor
any
other
thing
iff
that
the
significacion
of
it
be
not
knowen
nor
that
can
not
be
knowen
but
by
the
same
wordes
of
the
sacrament
.
Let
vs
goo
on
further
.
A nother
abuse
is
that
Christes
death
is
not
shewed
to
them
that
be
present
,
contrary
to
saint
Paul
,
the
which
saith
that
in
the
vse
of
the
sacrament
,
the
lords
death
ought
to
be
shewed
,
saing
in
his
1.
to
the
Corinthians
,
As
offten
as
yow
shall
eate
this
bread
and
drink
the
cupp
,
The
fourth
abuse
is
that
the
prest
alone
doth
take
that
his
sacrament
.
(
I
call
i●…h●…s
,
becaus
in
dede
it
is
no
sacrament
(
and
he
geuith
no
part
of
it
to
any
other
.
But
this
is
no
communion
,
for
a
communion
is
whan
many
do
communicate
,
or
take
part
of
one selff
thing
.
This
maner
of
taking
this
sacrament
,
is
against
Christ
,
who
hath
instituted
it
,
to
th
entent
that
it
shuld
be
taken
in
communion
,
and
not
priuately
,
and
against
sent
Paul
in
the
forsaid
place
,
(
Hoc
enim
est
corpus
meum
)
there
be
thes
,
that
is
to
say
,
accipite
&
manducate
ex
hoc
omnes
,
that
is
to
say
,
take
yow
and
eate
you
all
of
this
bread
.
Why
than
doo
thei
not
geue
it
to
all
or
to
many
,
as
Christ
commanded
according
to
their
own
opinion
?
Parauenture
thei
will
say
that
Christ
spake
thes
wordes
for
th
apostles
,
and
not
for
any
other
.
But
this
is
not
reasonably
spoken
,
for
so
moch
as
Christ
taught
them
withthes
wordes
that
he
spake
,
how
thei
shuld
doo
and
minister
this
sacrament
.
Iff
he
shuld
haue
spoken
thes
wordes
for
the
Apostles
only
,
the
Apostles
them selues
shuld
neuer
haue
knowen
how
to
haue
ministred
the
sacrament
to
others
,
but
only
to
them
seluis
.
Furthermore
,
in
old
time
this
is
certen
that
there
was
no
priuate
masse
said
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
one
only
shuld
take
the
sacrament
,
that
is
the
priest
that
celebrateth
,
but
allweis
there
was
a
communion
vsed
.
In
token
of
this
,
the
grekis
did
neuer
receiue
the
priuate
masse
,
doing
better
in
this
part
,
than
the
latines
,
and
keping
Christis
institucion
and
the
apostolyke
vse
.
A nother
abuse
is
.
that
thei
make
it
auayle
for
euery
thing
.
Thei
applye
it
for
the
raine
,
for
the
fayre
wether
.
against
tempest
,
warr
,
derth
,
pestylens
,
and
against
all
sortys
of
diseases
,
for
the
holsomnes
of
the
ayre
,
for
plenty
,
peace
,
helth
of
body
,
for
waifaryng
men
,
for
wiues
and
husbandes
,
against
enemyes
,
for
the
liuyng
,
for
the
deade
,
and
for
what
thing
is
not
the
masse
sayd
?
In
prayse
of
our
lady
,
of
the
angels
,
of
the
sayntes
,
for
repentant
,
for
thos
that
geue
allmes
,
for
them
that
sayle
,
for
the
Imprisoned
,
for
the
remaining
in
a
place
,
for
to
call
for
wisdom
.
It
is
said
against
persecutors
,
for
ani
maner
of
troble
,
for
the
king
for
the
Emperor
,
against
Infidels
,
against
temptacyon
,
for
the
petycion
of
the
teares
,
for
to
fynd
things
lost
,
for
shepe
,
for
oxen
,
(
beare
with
me
)
If
an
hors
haue
a
disease
in
his
eye
,
or
in
one
of
his
leggys
,
thei
caus
masse
to
be
sayd
for
hym
.
It
is
also
good
for
thes
that
confesse
,
I
meane
that
heare
the
confessyon
,
becaus
it
maketh
them
gett
good
mony
,
and
other
things
.
Forthei
geue
penans
to
them
that
thei
heare
in
confessyon
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
thei
of
force
cause
them
to
say
massys
,
and
thei
make
them
to
pay
lustily
,
in
such
sort
as
thei
make
,
thei
make
them
somtyme
scratt
the
head
again
.
And
what
hath
the
herbe
betonica
,
which
hath
so
many
vertews
,
as
Anthonius
Musa
sayth
,
to
doo
with
the
masse
.
It
is
no
meruel
that
it
shuld
be
good
for
so
many
things
,
becaus
that
thei
that
haue
fownd
it
owt
,
and
haue
framed
it
,
haue
much
more
powr
than
the
Apostles
,
as
paul
sayth
.
O
IESV
CHRIST
,
which
art
come
to
repayre
the
decayes
,
whan
wilt
thow
amend
thes
disorders
.
Christ
hath
ordeyned
the
sacrament
to
one
end
,
that
is
to
say
,
for
a
rememberans
,
and
thei
vse
it
for
a
thowsand
other
endes
.
From
whens
gather
thei
that
the
masse
shuld
haue
so
many
vertews
,
as
thei
say
it
hath
?
This
is
a
very
gret
abuse
and
to
gret
a
disorder
.
The
sixt
abuse
is
,
that
he
that
saith
it
,
doth
applie
it
for
whom
it
pleaseth
him
.
As
for
example
,
for
him
that
hath
waged
him
,
or
for
any
other
his
well
doer
,
or
for
father
and
mother
,
or
for
other
his
kinsfolk
,
as
though
it
were
his
to
bestowe
the
vertewis
,
or
the
benifites
of
the
masse
,
as
he
shuld
think
good
.
Surely
this
is
vnfitt
that
a
sinner
,
and
parauenture
,
a
wicked
man
,
shuld
haue
auctoritie
to
bestowe
such
benifites
.
I
make
a
differens
betwene
the
praing
,
and
the
bestowing
the
benifites
of
the
masse
,
for
as
thei
think
,
such
benifites
be
christes
benifites
,
and
how
can
this
be
,
seing
such
vertew
procedith
not
from
him
that
doth
celebrate
,
but
from
god
only
and
from
Christ
him selff
?
The
seuinth
abuse
is
,
that
one
masse
shuld
be
more
solempne
,
than
a nother
.
That
which
hath
fairer
and
richer
furniture
,
that
which
is
song
,
which
is
rong
with
the
gret
bells
,
that
is
there
descanted
,
where
as
be
candlestickbearers
Accolites
,
deacons
,
subdeacons
,
many
lightis
,
plaing
on
the
organes
,
and
such
owtward
knacks
:
Thes
such
masses
,
thei
call
solempne
masses
.
And
the
moo
and
greater
ceremonies
their
be
,
the
more
solemne
those
massis
be
.
Thei
folow
the
Iewis
or
els
the
Idolaters
,
the
which
in
worshipping
of
their
gods
,
did
make
solempnities
of
feastes
,
and
of
reioisinges
.
That
kind
of
worship
in
the
hebrew
peple
,
was
not
blamed
,
becaus
it
was
ordeined
by
god
,
but
yet
in
a
figure
of
spirituall
things
,
and
to
entertaine
that
peple
inclined
to
Idolatry
,
that
thei
shuld
not
committ
Idolatry
.
But
to
vs
christians
,
it
nedeth
not
to
make
thes
solempnities
,
and
pompes
,
seing
the
time
is
come
of
the
trewe
worshippers
,
the
which
ought
to
worship
god
,
in
spirite
,
and
truth
,
and
not
with
owtward
deckings
,
as
christ
saith
in
S.
Iohn
.
Th
eyght
is
,
that
one
masse
doth
more
a
vayle
,
than
a nother
,
according
to
the
dignitye
of
the
parson
.
That
is
to
say
the
bysshops
masse
doth
more
auayle
than
the
plaine
prestes
,
the
abbats
more
than
the
monks
,
for
if
thei
shuld
not
more
auayle
,
thei
shuld
not
sell
them
dearer
.
This
is
an
abuse
,
A nother
is
,
that
it
can
not
be
sayd
withowt
so
many
deckings
,
as
be
the
Amises
,
the
albys
,
the
phanells
,
the
stolys
,
the
cordgirdles
,
the
sandales
,
many
towels
,
altares
,
chalises
,
corporassis
,
animates
(
as
thei
call
them
)
and
a
halowed
stone
.
And
all
thes
things
must
be
blessed
and
consecrated
,
The
deckings
also
,
be
of
diuers
colors
,
according
to
the
diuersitie
of
the
daies
.
In
the
feast
of
martirs
thei
put
on
redd
.
On
the
virgins
daies
white
,
on
the
confessors
,
other
colors
.
Here
we
haue
deckings
of
lyning
cloth
,
of
say
,
of
all
colored
cloth
,
here
be
some
of
silk
,
of
veluet
,
of
damask
of
chamlet
,
of
satten
,
of
cloth
of
gold
,
and
of
siluer
.
Iff
it
be
a
blame
worthy
thing
for
a
man
,
or
a
woman
,
to
be
ouer
costly
decked
,
as
paul
saith
in
his
pistle
to
Timothy
,
Also
thei
geue
to
vnderstand
,
that
that
day
,
that
a
man
heareth
masse
,
there
can
no
misfortutune
chance
vnto
him
,
And
yet
we
doo
see
many
haue
euel
lucke
that
day
that
thei
haue
hard
the
masse
,
and
die
an
euill
death
.
Pope
victor
the
iij.
died
of
poison
by
the
consecrated
wine
,
that
was
poisoned
.
Henry
the
seuinth
,
Emperor
of
rome
,
died
by
the
ost
that
was
poisoned
,
and
geuen
vnto
him
by
a
dominicane
frire
,
in
the
castle
bonconuento
the
yere
of
our
lord
1086.
A nother
is
that
albeit
the
masse
is
mans
inuencion
,
as
we
haue
prouid
,
yet
thei
command
it
,
as
though
it
were
gods
commandment
.
This
is
against
the
expresse
word
of
god
him selff
,
Who
saith
in
Deutronomy
,
doo
to
the
lord
only
that
that
I
command
the
,
A nother
is
that
thei
affirme
that
he
who
saith
the
masse
,
hath
greter
auctoritie
than
the
angels
,
and
also
than
the
blessed
virgin
.
And
this
is
becaus
thei
hold
that
in
the
masse
is
made
the
transsubstancion
of
the
breade
,
and
the
wine
,
in
to
Christes
body
and
blood
.
And
bileuing
that
Christ
him selff
is
present
bodily
in
the
host
,
and
in
the
cupp
,
the
which
things
neither
the
angels
,
nor
the
blessed
virgin
haue
auctoritie
to
doo
,
but
the
prestes
only
,
thei
conclude
,
that
thos
prestes
haue
gretter
auctoritie
,
than
the
angels
,
or
the
blessed
virgin
.
And
thei
say
,
that
the
same
most
blessed
mother
,
caused
Christ
to
come
in
to
hir
virginlike
wombe
,
with
8.
wordes
,
that
is
to
say
,
Ecce
ancilla
domini
,
fiat
mihi
secundum
uerbum
tuum
And
the
pristes
,
make
him
to
come
in
to
the
host
with
v.
wordes
only
,
that
is
to
say
,
Hoc
est
enim
corpus
meum
.
I
will
leaue
at
this
time
,
to
examen
this
their
fals
spech
,
that
the
blessed
mother
shuld
make
the
sonn
of
god
to
come
with
thos
wordes
,
as
though
thei
shuld
haue
had
vertew
,
to
make
him
take
flessh
,
that
being
only
of
gods
work
.
I
will
leaue
,
as
I
say
,
to
speake
of
this
,
and
I
will
axe
them
from
whens
it
commith
,
that
on
th
one
part
,
thei
so
moch
exalt
the
blessed
virgin
,
that
thei
abase
Christ
and
god
,
for
thei
call
hir
quene
of
heauen
,
starr
of
the
sea
,
our
hope
,
our
life
,
mother
of
mercy
,
And
thei
geue
hir
such
titles
,
and
honor
,
as
be
only
due
to
god
and
Christ
.
And
here
thei
make
hir
meaner
than
a
plaine
prest
,
sometimes
,
as
I
haue
said
,
very
wicked
.
Indede
I
confesse
that
the
ministery
of
gods
word
,
and
of
the
sacraments
,
is
not
committed
to
the
blessed
mother
,
nor
to
the
angels
,
but
to
men
.
Yet
for
this
caus
to
goo
abowt
to
make
men
that
bee
sinners
,
more
worthy
than
the
angels
that
be
withowt
sinne
,
or
than
the
mother
of
god
,
it
is
vnfit
,
chefly
for
that
the
prestes
be
not
trewe
ministers
of
the
sacraments
,
for
so
moch
as
he
that
doth
not
minister
the
word
,
ought
neither
to
minister
the
sacraments
.
Further
also
,
as
we
haue
said
before
,
thei
be
not
called
by
a
trewe
vocacion
,
the
which
is
necessary
to
the
ministery
.
A nother
abuse
is
that
the
corporasses
the
challises
,
and
the
ostis
,
may
not
be
touched
by
lay
men
.
This
thei
haue
done
to
make
men
haue
the
more
reuerens
,
and
deuocion
to
the
masse
.
This
office
of
toching
,
the
chalises
,
the
host
,
the
patents
and
the
corporasses
(
thei
say
)
belongeth
only
to
them
that
be
in
sacris
,
that
is
,
in
holy
orders
,
and
not
to
other
.
But
for
what
caus
may
not
a
thing
be
toched
with
the
hand
,
iff
it
be
cleane
and
nett
,
the
which
may
be
eaten
and
dronken
?
But
this
sacrament
is
eaten
(
that
is
to
say
the
host
)
and
is
dronken
(
that
is
to
say
the
wine
(
for
what
caus
than
may
it
not
be
touched
with
the
hand
,
seing
it
is
touched
with
the
mowth
?
This
supersticion
is
against
Christes
ordinans
and
the
custom
of
the
Apostles
.
For
Christ
whan
he
reached
the
bread
and
the
cupp
to
his
Apostlos
,
he
said
vnto
them
,
that
thei
shuld
take
,
and
thei
toke
th
one
,
and
thother
,
with
their
handes
,
and
surely
thei
touched
them
.
Christ
did
not
than
giue
it
them
in
their
mowthes
.
Shall
we
say
that
Christ
shuld
speake
thes
wordes
,
that
is
to
say
,
Take
yow
,
Eate
yow
,
Drink
yow
,
only
for
the
Apostles
,
and
not
for
other
?
This
is
not
soo
,
but
he
spake
them
for
all
thos
that
weare
to
receiue
the
sacrament
,
as
also
S.
Paul
geuith
to
vnderstand
,
the
which
writing
to
the
Corinthes
in
his
first
,
reciteth
Christes
wordes
,
and
teacheth
not
only
the
ministers
,
but
all
the
whole
church
what
thei
haue
to
doo
.
Seing
than
this
things
is
comon
to
all
Christians
and
not
belonging
to
pristes
only
,
why
may
thei
not
than
be
touched
by
lay
men
,
seing
thei
also
ought
to
communicate
,
and
receiue
the
same
sacrament
?
The
old
church
,
and
the
Apostles
deliuered
the
sacrament
in
to
the
handes
of
all
them
that
did
receiue
it
.
From
whens
is
this
newe
religion
come
,
contrary
to
Christes
Institution
,
and
to
the
Apostles
custom
?
Shall
it
be
conuenient
that
a
lay
man
,
who
with
a
good
and
a
clere
consciens
receiuith
the
sacrament
may
not
touche
it
?
And
a
wicked
prest
,
with
a
blotted
and
a
defiled
consciens
,
shall
be
Counted
worthy
to
handle
it
?
A nother
abuse
is
that
the
masse
is
said
in
the
honor
of
sainctes
and
sainctesses
.
This
ought
not
to
be
done
,
for
so
moch
as
that
the
sacrament
,
which
is
the
substans
of
the
masse
,
was
instituted
in
rememberans
of
Christ
,
who
only
is
dead
for
our
ransoming
,
And
it
was
not
instituted
in
the
honor
of
saintes
.
Why
than
is
not
the
masse
said
in
rememberans
of
Christ
,
and
not
of
saintes
,
among
which
no
one
hath
redemed
vs
,
nor
the
sacrament
was
not
instituted
for
none
of
them
,
but
only
in
Christes
remembrans
?
Christ
saith
doo
this
in
my
remembrans
,
And
thei
will
doo
it
in
remembrans
of
saintes
.
Shuld
it
not
be
a
gret
abuse
if
the
gospell
shuld
be
preached
in
the
honor
of
saints
the
which
is
Christes
only
?
Euen
so
is
it
of
the
sacrament
,
Thei
handle
their
masses
,
as
poore
ignorant
men
doo
their
praiers
,
which
will
say
Aue
Maria
,
in
t
honor
of
S.
Christopher
,
and
the
pater
noster
in
worship
of
S.
Lucia
or
of
a nother
saint
.
How
moch
shuld
it
be
to
the
purpos
and
conuenient
,
iff
one
hauing
nede
to
intreate
the
Emperor
or
a
king
wold
goo
to
a
poore
man
and
on
his
kneis
wold
say
vnto
him
,
I
commend
my selff
to
your
magestie
,
and
I
besech
yow
that
yow
wold
shewe
me
this
fauor
,
and
wold
desire
of
him
such
things
as
he
could
not
doo
,
and
as
were
not
conuenient
to
be
axed
of
such
a
parson
,
shuld
not
that
poore
man
cownt
him selff
mocked
and
scorned
?
Thei
doo
moch
wors
,
becaus
thei
attribute
to
a
plaine
creature
,
that
which
belongeth
to
god
only
and
to
Christ
,
who
withowt
measure
,
doo
more
excede
euery
creature
,
than
any
earthly
estate
doth
any
poore
or
base
parson
,
as
to
the
world
.
And
marke
that
in
the
councelles
of
thes
owre
times
their
is
no
worde
spoken
of
thes
and
manie
other
so
greate
and
grosse
errors
and
abuses
as
Reingne
nowe
Amonge
Christes
flock
.
Be
thes
things
deuocions
?
Men
must
not
touche
them
.
Well
it
is
ynough
that
thei
goo
abowt
to
condemne
the
Lutheran
Heretikes
,
that
is
christ
with
all
the
whole
holy
scripture
,
as
their
fathers
haue
done
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
chefe
priestes
,
the
scribes
,
and
the
phariseis
,
Who
crucified
Christ
,
condemned
,
euelhādled
,
and
in
the
end
killed
the
holi
Apostels
.
Euen
soo
doo
they
.
A nother
abuse
is
that
they
geue
to
vnderstand
that
the
angels
,
with
all
the
court
of
heauen
,
be
present
at
the
masse
.
This
is
ouergret
a
falshode
,
for
that
the
angels
and
the
sowles
of
Iust
men
can
not
be
but
in
one
place
.
And
according
to
this
opinion
we
must
say
that
thei
be
eueri
where
wher
so
euer
the
masse
is
said
.
For
seing
that
thei
must
accompany
Christ
,
and
that
Christ
as
thei
think
,
is
in
all
thos
places
where
thei
celebrate
,
there
must
be
also
the
angels
,
and
the
sowles
of
saintes
,
and
so
the
plaine
creatures
shall
be
at
one
time
in
diuers
places
the
which
cannot
be
.
we
can
not
say
that
thei
accompany
him
more
in
one
place
than
in
a nother
,
seing
that
Christ
,
as
thei
think
is
equally
in
all
places
where
the
sacrament
is
.
Wherfor
we
must
say
that
eyther
thei
accompany
him
in
all
places
,
or
in
none
.
A nother
abuse
is
,
that
thei
say
the
masse
for
the
deade
,
against
Christes
institution
.
The
caus
is
this
,
for
that
the
sacraments
auaile
for
them
,
for
whom
thei
were
instituted
,
and
not
for
other
.
It
is
clere
that
thei
were
instituted
for
the
liuing
,
and
not
for
the
deade
,
therfor
thei
auaile
not
for
them
.
As
for
baptisme
,
it
is
plaine
.
that
it
auaileth
not
for
the
dead
seinge
the
deade
be
neither
baptised
them
selues
nor
ani
other
for
them
.
And
though
sontime
it
were
done
,
as
some
vnderstand
the
saing
of
Paul
to
the
Chorinthes
,
Vt
quid
baptisantur
pro
mortuis
?
This
was
by
error
,
and
it
was
not
well
done
.
So
we
will
say
of
the
super
,
that
it
was
instituted
for
the
liuing
,
and
not
for
the
deade
,
becaus
that
the
deade
can
not
vse
it
in
Christes
rememberans
,
nor
eate
it
,
nor
drinck
it
.
Some
man
will
say
,
the
deade
can
not
vse
it
,
but
the
liuing
may
vse
it
for
the
deade
.
I
wold
haue
of
thes
men
that
thei
wold
alledge
me
the
caus
why
this
sacrament
,
may
rather
be
vsed
for
the
deade
,
than
baptisme
?
There
is
differens
betwene
baptisme
,
and
the
supper
,
I
know
it
:
becaus
baptisme
is
vsed
only
ones
,
in
the
life
for
a
man
.
But
the
holy
supper
many
times
.
I
doo
confesse
that
in
this
point
there
is
a
differens
,
and
there
be
also
other
differencis
,
but
this
notwithstanding
baptisme
at
thos
times
that
it
is
vsed
,
may
also
be
taken
for
the
deade
,
such
a
nomber
of
childern
being
baptised
as
there
is
,
for
so
moch
as
that
in
baptisme
there
is
made
memory
of
the
passion
,
crossing
,
death
and
burieng
of
Christ
,
A nother
abuse
is
,
so
gret
a
variete
of
gestures
,
of
strange
dedes
,
now
this
now
that
,
now
the
prist
stoupeth
,
now
he
standeth
vp
.
And
this
may
haue
some
reason
,
becaus
the
stouping
there
,
is
a
signe
of
prayer
,
and
in
the
masse
are
said
diuers
prayers
.
But
how
many
gestures
and
cown
enancis
be
made
,
withowt
any
purpos
?
Somtime
he
Ioynith
his
handes
and
fingars
,
By
and
by
sondereth
them
.
Now
he
liffteth
vp
his
armes
,
now
he
putteth
them
down
,
Now
he
speaketh
,
now
he
saith
nothing
.
Now
he
speaketh
sofftly
,
now
a
lowd
,
somtime
he
standeth
at
one
end
of
the
altare
,
a nother
time
he
standeth
at
the
other
,
and
remoueth
the
masseboke
.
Now
he
he
turnith
him
to
the
peple
,
by
and
by
he
turneth
his
back
,
somtime
he
semith
to
slepe
.
Oh
there
be
made
I
can
not
tell
how
many
crosses
,
and
how
moche
a
doo
.
I
know
well
that
thei
geue
to
all
thes
things
their
significacion
,
Imagined
at
their
pleasure
,
and
fained
of
their
own
head
.
The
which
significacion
neuertheles
,
neither
the
peple
that
seith
and
heareth
,
nor
thei
them selues
that
say
the
masse
,
doo
vnderstand
.
But
tell
me
I
pray
yow
,
to
what
profite
serue
so
many
trifling
things
at
Christes
institucion
,
that
is
to
say
,
at
the
holy
supper
?
It
is
clere
that
thei
be
not
necessary
for
the
consecrating
the
bread
and
wine
,
that
is
to
say
for
th
appointing
them
to
an
holy
vse
,
and
for
the
making
the
sacrament
,
nor
for
the
receiuing
it
.
For
iff
thei
had
bene
necessary
Christ
wold
haue
ordeined
them
,
and
the
Apostles
wold
haue
vsed
them
,
but
neither
●…hone
nor
thother
was
done
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
neither
Christ
hath
instituted
them
,
nor
the
Apostles
vsed
them
,
wherfor
thei
be
not
necessary
.
Thei
will
say
parauentur
,
that
allthough
thei
be
not
of
necessitie
,
neuertheless
thei
be
for
ornament
,
and
solempnitie
of
the
sacrament
,
And
for
this
caus
the
holy
fathers
haue
ordeined
thes
so
many
deedes
,
and
gestures
,
in
the
masse
.
But
this
answer
is
not
good
:
For
iff
thei
be
not
necessary
,
what
is
the
caus
that
thei
haue
commanded
thei
shuld
be
done
,
vnder
paine
of
deadly
sinne
,
and
that
menn
sinne
deadly
,
iff
thei
be
not
done
.
This
is
off
necessitie
and
not
only
for
an
ornament
,
whan
a
thing
is
commanded
vnder
paine
off
deadly
sinn
.
Iff
the
sacrament
may
be
made
according
to
Christes
institucion
and
the
vse
off
the
Apostles
Withowt
so
many
nouelties
:
Is
this
conuenient
and
Iust
to
bind
thos
that
make
it
as
Christ
hath
commanded
and
taught
them
,
and
that
will
not
stepp
owt
off
his
most
holy
ordinans
vnder
deadly
sinn
,
albeit
thei
shuld
not
doe
the
addicions
off
men
which
rather
defile
than
sett
furth
,
Christes
institucion
,
who
wold
haue
off
vs
obedience
and
that
we
shuld
doo
,
as
he
him selff
hath
taugth
and
commanded
vs
?
A nother
abuse
more
manifest
than
the
rest
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
euery
man
may
more
easily
see
that
it
is
an
abuse
,
and
it
is
this
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
there
is
marchandise
made
of
it
,
and
such
as
is
to
be
merueled
at
.
And
this
marchandise
off
the
masse
among
all
the
other
,
hath
one
singular
priuilege
,
becaus
that
in
other
there
is
made
yet
a
certen
differens
off
dayes
,
and
there
is
had
certen
respect
,
to
the
feastes
,
to
the
places
,
chefely
holy
.
But
in
this
,
how
moch
the
feast
is
gretter
and
more
solempne
,
so
moch
the
fayer
is
made
more
solempne
.
Yea
then
thei
trafficke
and
occupie
.
How
moch
more
holy
the
place
is
,
so
moch
the
rather
this
marchandise
is
made
in
it
.
We
may
see
that
the
Innes
do
make
no
holydayes
,
but
thei
labor
alike
,
on
all
dayes
.
Thei
lodge
the
wayfarers
and
also
other
that
come
thether
,
as
well
on
holy
dayes
as
other
,
nor
thei
make
no
differens
betwene
one
daye
,
and
a nother
,
but
thei
make
all
a
like
.
It
is
trewe
,
but
yet
thei
doo
make
a
certen
differens
,
at
the
least
of
the
places
,
becaus
thei
occupie
not
euery
where
.
Who
if
that
Innholder
,
or
Tauerner
,
that
wold
make
an
Inn
,
or
a
tauerne
in
any
church
?
None
surely
.
But
the
massmarchantes
haue
not
this
respect
,
but
how
moch
the
holier
the
place
is
cownted
,
so
moch
the
willinglier
the
masse
is
there
bought
and
sold
.
This
excellent
priuilege
with
many
other
withowt
nomber
,
the
masse
marchants
haue
obteined
off
Antichrist
,
who
hath
all
powr
ouer
such
things
.
And
long
a
goo
the
time
was
,
thatt
this
marchandise
was
sold
very
dere
,
but
from
certen
yeares
hetherto
,
it
is
become
dogg
cheape
,
and
a
masse
is
geuen
for
a
dandy
prat
,
yea
and
for
lesse
,
according
to
the
places
,
and
to
the
parsons
,
that
knowe
how
to
bye
.
This
is
it
that
hath
made
rich
the
pristes
,
the
frires
and
the
monkes
,
that
maketh
men
fownd
chapells
,
bilde
churches
,
colleges
,
howsis
,
monasteries
,
off
friers
abbaies
,
commandries
,
and
to
beshort
it
is
that
,
that
hath
made
rich
the
state
called
ecclesiasticall
.
It
hath
meruelosly
liffted
it
vp
in
the
world
.
The
masse
is
that
which
geuith
so
gret
reuenewes
to
the
most
reuerend
Cardinals
,
and
which
maketh
them
ride
vp
on
thes
faire
mulis
,
couered
with
veluet
,
with
thos
faier
redd
hattis
,
the
which
doo
signifie
the
order
off
the
Seraphins
,
burning
in
charitie
and
in
godly
loue
.
This
is
the
significacion
,
some
say
,
off
red
hattes
which
(
the
masse
I
say
)
maketh
to
ride
with
so
many
horses
,
with
so
gret
a
company
of
gentlemen
,
as
though
thei
were
Dukes
,
or
Princes
,
that
whan
thei
goo
to
the
consistory
,
the
shalmes
are
plaied
on
to
them
,
on
the
battlements
off
the
castell
sent
Angelo
,
and
thei
ryde
with
very
gret
mirth
,
pomp
,
and
triumph
.
The
masse
maketh
all
thes
things
to
be
done
,
for
iff
it
were
not
,
surely
there
shuld
want
such
pomp
,
and
gretnes
.
Off
the
Bisshops
,
oh
how
many
things
might
I
say
iff
I
wold
,
but
I
must
leaue
to
other
to
say
their
part
.
I
wil
say
only
this
,
that
it
made
them
wholly
forget
their
office
,
and
hath
made
them
attend
to
certen
scornworthy
baggagis
,
as
to
Christen
the
bells
,
to
consecrate
the
stones
,
and
the
wallis
,
with
more
indeuor
and
diligens
,
than
iff
thei
shuld
baptise
the
sonnes
off
a
King
,
and
an
Emperor
,
and
than
iff
thei
shuld
minister
the
thanksgiuing
,
to
all
the
Monarchies
off
the
world
,
and
all
this
to
giue
credite
to
the
masse
.
I
speake
not
off
the
preaching
off
Gods
word
,
becaus
it
is
a
thing
for
poore
men
.
This
Masse
is
the
mother
off
purgatory
,
the
which
purgeth
the
purses
,
the
garners
,
the
howses
,
the
sellers
,
so
that
there
is
no
brome
in
the
world
,
that
swepeth
so
wel
an
hows
as
this
purgatory
doth
.
To
tell
yow
at
fewe
wordes
this
abuse
is
so
open
and
so
large
,
and
geueth
vs
so
moch
to
say
,
that
in
an
whole
yeare
it
wold
not
be
ended
.
I
haue
only
spoken
off
th
effectis
that
it
worketh
in
thes
ij
.
degrees
or
statis
,
withowt
rising
higher
or
going
down
lower
to
any
particularitie
.
But
among
all
the
other
properties
and
abuses
,
that
the
masse
hath
,
this
is
one
most
singular
,
that
it
leadeth
men
a
way
from
Gods
word
.
Here
there
nedeth
not
to
bring
any
other
than
experience
to
proue
it
.
Let
there
be
one
that
preacheth
,
and
let
him
be
in
the
midst
off
his
sermon
,
iff
there
come
furth
a
priest
apparelled
redy
to
say
masse
,
a
grett
part
off
the
hearers
turning
their
backes
to
the
preacher
wil
ronn
affter
the
priest
to
heare
masse
.
This
is
an
assuered
grownd
,
that
the
gret
part
off
the
peple
haue
more
deuocion
to
the
masse
,
than
to
Gods
word
and
the
holy
gospell
.
And
what
els
doth
Sathan
desire
,
but
by
such
meanes
,
to
drawe
a
way
the
peple
from
the
holy
gospell
,
and
from
Gods
word
?
The
sauior
saith
,
THE
FIFT
CHAPTER
.
That
the
masse
is
the
gretest
sacrilege
and
the
greatest
abhominacion
that
euer
was
in
any
time
from
the
beginning
of
the
world
,
and
is
the
chefe
greatest
mistery
of
Antichrist
.
IT
will
parauenter
seme
strange
that
I
shall
thus
speake
of
the
masse
.
And
thei
wil
say
that
I
speake
vncomly
,
and
stepp
(
as
it
is
comonly
said
)
owt
of
the
sorow
.
But
thos
men
iff
thei
knewe
what
a
thing
this
Masse
is
,
thei
wold
say
that
I
am
very
farr
from
the
mark
,
and
that
I
speake
not
the
thowsand
part
so
moch
as
I
ought
,
and
that
I
am
not
yet
well
entered
in
to
the
sorrow
,
moch
lesse
that
I
am
stept
owt
of
it
.
I
say
and
affirme
againe
,
that
the
Masse
is
the
greatest
sacrilege
and
the
gretest
abhominacion
,
that
euer
was
in
any
time
from
the
beginning
of
the
world
,
and
is
the
gret
mistery
of
Antichrist
.
And
iff
I
shall
not
proue
it
,
It
shall
not
be
becaus
the
trowth
is
not
so
,
but
my
weake
habilite
shall
be
in
fawt
.
Neuertheles
,
I
trust
in
the
lord
,
allthough
not
to
the
striuers
,
yet
at
the
least
to
the
louers
of
the
truth
,
I
shall
perswade
my
meaning
,
affter
this
sort
.
We
haue
owt
of
Paul
the
Apostle
,
The
second
doth
teach
and
instruct
man
toward
his
neighbor
.
Thes
things
to
all
thos
that
haue
knowlege
in
the
holy
writing
,
be
plaine
.
And
becaus
that
the
honor
and
glory
of
God
is
withowt
comparison
of
more
importans
,
than
thos
things
that
respectt
man
,
we
ought
to
say
that
the
sinnes
that
be
against
the
first
table
,
be
heuier
and
gretter
,
than
thos
that
be
against
the
second
,
becaus
that
thei
be
directly
against
gods
honor
.
And
therfor
infidelitie
,
Idolatry
and
blasphemy
,
which
be
sinnes
against
the
first
table
,
be
greter
and
heuier
sinnes
,
than
thefft
,
than
adultery
and
the
rest
which
be
against
the
second
table
,
and
against
men
.
This
is
with
owt
dowt
.
Let
vs
goo
further
.
We
ought
to
knowe
also
that
euen
as
among
the
sinnes
of
the
second
table
,
the
one
is
greter
and
more
weighty
than
thother
.
as
for
example
,
adultry
is
gretter
sinne
than
simple
thefft
,
and
one
murther
is
gretter
than
a nother
,
as
the
murthering
of
the
father
,
or
the
mother
,
is
a
gretter
sinne
than
the
murthering
of
a nother
parson
,
So
among
the
sinnes
that
be
against
the
first
table
,
one
is
gretter
than
a nother
.
As
for
example
,
one
blasphemy
is
greter
than
a nother
,
And
for
this
caus
the
Hebrewes
whan
thei
worsshipped
the
calff
in
the
desert
,
they
did
moch
more
greuosly
sinn
than
the
heathen
who
did
honor
the
Idols
,
for
so
moch
as
that
not
long
before
,
thei
were
cowncelled
by
God
him selff
who
gaue
them
the
lawe
and
commanded
them
that
thei
shuld
not
make
any
ymage
to
honor
and
yet
thei
made
it
against
Gods
expresse
commandment
.
And
so
as
many
other
times
as
thei
haue
committed
Idolatry
(
as
we
haue
in
the
bookes
of
the
Kings
and
of
the
Prophetes
)
thei
haue
moch
more
offended
God
and
more
greuosly
sinned
than
the
heathen
.
And
the
Idolatry
and
vnfaithfulnes
of
his
own
peple
,
was
more
abhominable
in
Gods
sight
,
and
did
more
prouoke
him
to
anger
,
than
that
of
the
heathen
.
And
for
this
caus
also
thei
were
more
threatned
,
than
the
ame
heathen
.
And
how
many
scorgis
,
how
many
ouerthrowes
haue
thei
suffred
for
the
sinn
of
vnbilefe
and
Idolatry
?
The
10.
tribes
of
Israell
,
for
what
caus
were
thei
so
offt
by
God
scorgid
,
and
at
the
last
berefft
of
their
right
,
The
tribe
off
Iuda
,
how
many
wayes
was
it
striken
,
as
well
off
their
borderers
that
is
off
their
next
neighbors
,
as
affter
by
a
peple
that
came
farr
off
,
as
the
Caldees
and
the
Assyrians
were
?
why
was
it
sent
in
to
exile
to
Babylone
?
Why
was
the
temple
destroyed
and
euery
thing
ouerthrowen
,
but
only
for
their
Idolatry
?
Be
caus
thes
things
be
knowen
,
I
doo
not
labor
to
recite
the
stories
where
thei
be
writton
,
and
therfor
I
passe
them
ouer
.
Tell
me
,
is
it
any
vnbilefe
and
Idolatry
to
worship
verie
men
?
And
what
shall
we
speake
of
verie
men
?
Is
it
Idolatry
to
worship
their
bonys
,
their
ashes
,
their
garments
,
ther
hattys
,
their
girdles
?
And
what
more
,
to
worship
that
which
is
not
knowen
?
Sometime
the
bonys
off
some
wicked
parson
,
I
will
not
say
of
other
beastys
(
which
thing
may
easily
happen
)
in
the
place
of
saintes
reliques
?
Thei
doo
also
worshipp
in
diuers
places
,
diuers
bodies
,
as
though
thei
were
the
bodies
of
one selff
saint
,
and
the
simple
peple
byleueth
,
that
both
th
one
,
and
thother
,
of
thos
bodies
be
the
bodies
of
that
saint
,
as
though
one
man
shuld
haue
had
2.
bodies
.
I
doo
remember
that
I
haue
sene
in
the
citie
off
Arle
,
a
certen
body
the
which
thei
say
,
is
S.
Antonis
the
abbot
,
and
yet
not
withstonding
,
there
is
shewed
a nother
in
the
citie
of
Vienna
,
In
Dolpheny
,
the
which
neuerteles
,
thei
say
and
affirme
is
.
S.
Antonyes
.
The
body
off
S.
William
of
aquitan
,
the
Seneases
say
,
that
it
is
in
an
abbey
in
their
territory
,
and
thei
shewe
it
.
And
yet
a nother
body
is
shewed
,
in
a
certen
vale
called
,
S.
Iames
vale
,
vnder
the
rule
of
grisones
and
there
is
done
to
it
gret
reuerens
.
It
is
worshipped
,
thei
ronn
to
it
for
raine
,
for
faire
wether
,
and
other
busines
.
How
many
heades
of
S.
Iohan
Baptist
be
shewed
in
diuers
placis
?
And
what
scornes
be
thes
of
the
Christen
religion
?
What
madnesses
,
what
dulnesses
be
thes
,
that
men
shuld
loose
the
comon
sense
and
shuld
haue
lesse
Iudgement
,
than
the
brute
beastes
?
So
we
could
iff
we
wold
tell
yow
a
gret
nombrer
of
like
abuses
.
This
corrupcion
can
not
be
scused
for
it
is
to
plaine
.
Let
vs
goo
on
further
,
Is
it
Idolatry
to
worship
the
Imagis
,
to
knele
before
them
,
to
stick
candels
before
them
,
to
sett
lampes
there
,
to
call
vp
on
them
,
to
make
vowes
to
them
,
to
hang
torches
,
tapers
,
cloth
corne
,
garments
,
eyes
,
handes
,
heades
,
leggs
,
sometime
off
waxe
,
somtime
off
siluer
,
before
them
,
to
hang
before
them
,
Imagis
off
men
,
off
wemen
,
of
yong
childern
,
off
oxen
and
off
hors
?
Is
it
Idolatry
,
and
likewise
I
ought
to
saye
,
plaine
doltisshnes
,
to
haue
greter
deuocion
to
one
Image
or
picture
,
than
to
a nother
,
off
the
selff same
saint
or
saintes
?
As
for
example
,
more
to
that
off
S.
Loreto
,
than
to
that
off
the
Annunciation
in
Florence
,
and
to
think
that
the
one
shuld
doo
more
miracles
than
the
other
?
Is
it
Idolatry
to
make
the
Image
of
the
Trinitie
the
which
is
an
high
spirite
,
that
can
not
be
painted
,
nor
carued
by
any
maner
off
meanes
?
And
yet
against
Gods
commandement
thei
paint
it
,
and
carue
it
,
in
the
shape
of
certen
strange
monsters
,
that
is
to
say
,
somtimes
in
the
shape
of
a
man
,
with
3.
heades
,
somtimes
in
the
fasshon
of
3.
men
with
2.
leggs
only
,
and
in
this
forme
thei
worship
it
,
and
make
their
vowes
to
it
.
What
will
thei
say
here
?
will
thei
defend
thes
manifest
abuses
,
with
that
their
distinction
,
that
thei
make
off
Dulia
and
Hiperdulia
and
Latria
?
This
thing
meaneth
a nother
maner
of
thing
than
Dulia
and
Hiperdulia
.
I
will
not
declare
thes
wordes
and
their
distinction
,
the
which
I
knowe
well
ynough
from
whens
it
cometh
.
Iff
there
were
not
worldy
gaine
here
in
this
Idolatry
,
their
Images
,
and
heir
Dulias
and
Hiperdulias
wold
soone
cease
.
It
can
not
be
denied
but
among
the
Christen
peple
there
be
many
Idolatries
,
moch
vnbilefe
many
blasphemies
and
sacrilegis
.
Sacrilege
is
to
robb
the
holy
things
.
What
is
more
holy
than
Gods
and
Christes
honor
?
This
is
to
cleere
.
Neuertheles
,
among
all
the
rest
,
as
there
be
many
Idolatries
,
(
I
will
not
say
withowt
nomber
)
that
of
the
masse
,
is
the
gretest
and
the
chefe
,
not
only
becaus
the
host
and
the
cup
,
be
worshipped
in
stead
of
Christ
,
not
being
certen
that
the
same
Christ
is
there
,
as
before
in
the
Cannon
we
haue
proued
,
in
that
part
where
their
consecracion
is
spoken
off
,
and
as
also
we
will
better
proue
,
in
the
sermon
in
th
end
of
this
booke
,
but
moch
more
becaus
thei
will
,
that
all
the
Masse
shuld
be
a
worship
of
God
,
saing
that
it
is
a
sacrifice
for
the
sinnes
of
the
liuing
,
and
of
the
dead
,
in
the
which
God
is
honored
,
yea
Christ
him selff
is
offered
to
God
,
wherfor
it
doth
well
folow
,
that
it
is
a
most
gret
Idolatry
,
for
so
moch
as
,
that
Idolatry
is
not
only
where
any
visible
ydoll
,
or
ymage
is
honored
,
but
euery
worship
the
which
is
made
vnto
God
withowt
his
word
,
is
Idolatry
,
for
becaus
that
no
such
worship
is
trewe
worship
,
nor
pleasith
God
,
but
rather
it
is
to
him
abhominacion
.
for
so
moch
then
as
that
God
will
not
as
before
we
haue
allredy
offten
told
,
that
we
shuld
honor
him
affter
our
own
mind
,
and
as
it
semeth
good
to
vs
,
but
will
that
we
shuld
honor
him
,
as
he
doth
teach
and
command
vs
,
But
let
vs
see
off
what
sort
off
Idolatry
it
is
?
First
there
be
many
deceites
,
and
among
the
rest
,
there
is
this
,
that
thei
persuade
the
peple
,
as
an
article
off
their
faith
,
not
only
that
Christ
is
bodily
in
that
host
,
and
likewise
in
the
cupp
,
and
make
them
honor
the
one
,
and
thother
,
but
that
he
is
there
,
as
gret
,
and
as
thick
,
as
he
was
vp
on
the
wood
off
the
crosse
,
and
that
he
is
wholly
,
not
only
in
that
litle
host
,
but
in
euery
part
off
the
host
and
the
wine
,
and
that
he
is
in
heauen
,
and
in
earth
,
and
in
all
places
where
the
hostes
be
consecrated
.
And
thei
persuade
that
there
is
the
whole
court
off
heauen
,
and
that
there
is
no
more
bread
nor
wine
,
but
only
the
withcommes
,
off
th
one
and
off
the
other
.
For
their
substancis
,
thei
be
transsubstanciated
,
that
is
to
say
,
changed
in
to
the
substance
off
the
body
,
and
blood
,
off
Christ
.
All
the
which
things
,
and
many
other
,
thei
haue
fownd
owt
,
to
geue
the
more
credite
to
this
their
masse
,
to
th
entent
,
that
the
peple
shuld
haue
more
deuocion
to
it
.
Thei
haue
fownd
that
it
is
good
for
euery
thing
,
and
that
it
hath
vertews
innumerable
,
and
thei
haue
geuen
vs
to
vnderstand
so
many
other
things
off
this
Masse
,
that
it
is
a
wonder
.
Further
more
,
as
we
haue
proued
in
the
former
discorse
that
we
haue
made
from
the
Introibo
,
to
the
end
,
how
many
falsedes
,
how
many
supersticions
,
wickednesses
,
and
blasphemies
be
in
this
Masse
?
There
Christ
is
robbed
off
his
honor
many
wayes
,
Yea
he
is
euel
spoken
off
,
the
forgeuenes
off
sinnes
,
the
satisfaction
,
the
ransoming
,
the
intreating
,
and
the
saluacion
is
attributed
to
other
things
.
Do
yow
not
think
that
a
most
greuos
sacrilege
is
committed
whan
his
glorios
titles
be
directly
pluckt
from
him
,
and
his
honor
and
glory
taken
away
?
The
which
outrages
so
open
and
so
plaine
,
were
neuer
committed
in
any
Idolatry
off
the
heathen
,
or
off
the
Iewes
.
And
to
perceiue
better
that
which
we
doo
say
,
yow
must
vnderstand
,
that
euen
as
Iesus
Christ
is
Gods
best
beloued
,
nor
that
the
same
God
loueth
any
other
thing
so
moch
as
Christ
his
only
begoten
sonn
(
yea
I
speake
off
him
in
that
he
is
man
)
nor
no
nother
man
off
the
world
can
be
reconciled
,
nor
return
in
to
Gods
fauor
but
by
Christ
,
yea
no
maner
thing
,
whether
it
be
prayer
,
thankes
geuing
,
allmes
or
any
other
maner
off
work
is
acceptable
,
or
thankfull
to
God
,
iff
not
by
Christ
,
nor
we
can
not
haue
any
maner
off
benifice
,
perteining
to
saluacion
,
but
thorow
Christ
,
so
on
the
contrary
there
can
not
be
done
a
thing
more
hatefull
,
more
displeasing
to
god
,
and
that
shuld
be
more
abhominable
to
him
,
than
to
doo
against
Christ
,
and
to
robb
his
honor
and
glory
.
And
the
more
a
thing
is
against
Christ
,
the
more
it
displeaseth
him
,
for
so
moch
as
nothing
pleaseth
him
but
thorow
christ
.
And
becaus
there
was
neuer
in
the
world
any
Idolatry
the
which
so
directly
,
and
so
many
waies
did
robb
Christ
,
as
this
masse
,
we
must
conclude
that
no
ydolatry
,
although
it
were
most
grett
,
was
euer
so
abhominable
before
god
as
this
.
Let
vs
take
the
ydolatries
of
the
heathen
,
it
is
clere
that
thei
had
not
the
knowlege
of
Christ
,
and
therfor
could
not
robbe
him
in
such
sort
,
as
the
masse
doth
,
in
the
which
chefely
it
made
expresse
mencion
of
him
in
many
places
.
The
Idolatries
likewise
of
the
Hebrewes
thei
haue
not
so
expressely
taken
the
honor
from
christ
as
the
masse
hath
.
Let
vs
beginn
with
the
Idolatry
that
thei
did
in
the
desert
,
whan
thei
honored
the
calff
,
it
was
in
dede
a
heuy
sinne
,
not
withstanding
it
was
done
by
want
of
consideracion
,
with
an
vprowr
,
and
rage
of
the
peple
,
And
Aaron
vnwillinglie
and
for
feare
agreid
vnto
them
,
Seing
it
is
thus
than
,
that
God
and
Christ
is
more
offended
in
the
Masse
,
than
in
all
the
other
Idolatries
that
euer
were
in
the
world
,
whether
it
be
off
the
heathen
,
or
off
the
Hebrewes
,
the
conclusion
foloweth
that
we
desired
to
proue
.
And
for
more
clerenes
,
or
els
euidence
off
this
our
profe
,
let
vs
gather
to gether
in
a
Somm
all
our
talk
made
in
this
chapter
.
It
is
an
easy
things
to
proue
,
by
the
things
allredy
spoken
,
that
it
is
the
gret
mistery
of
Antichrist
,
And
it
foloweth
necessarily
,
that
iff
the
masse
be
the
gretest
sacrilege
,
and
abhominacion
,
that
euer
was
in
the
world
,
that
also
it
is
the
gret
mistery
of
Antichrist
,
called
by
Paul
,
for
the
excellenci
of
it
,
the
mistery
of
iniquitie
.
Neuertheles
for
more
clerenes
,
and
better
proffe
of
the
thing
,
we
will
say
also
a
fewe
words
to
this
purpos
.
It
is
plaine
that
Antichrist
is
the
chefe
child
,
member
,
and
elect
instrument
of
sathan
,
The
other
way
of
making
warr
against
Christ
,
is
more
hidden
,
and
secret
,
and
is
not
sene
as
the
first
,
but
it
is
withowt
comparison
moch
wors
,
and
more
hurtfull
,
becaus
that
the
first
directly
hurteth
the
bodies
,
but
this
second
hurteth
and
is
deadly
to
the
sowles
.
For
so
moch
as
that
with
more
craffti
and
secret
waies
,
he
doth
falsifie
christes
doctrine
,
the
holy
gospell
,
and
the
truth
,
It
taketh
Gods
own
word
,
geuing
it
fals
understanding
,
and
vseth
it
for
a
weapon
against
Christ
,
and
the
truth
.
And
this
withowt
feare
of
persecution
,
persuadeth
vnder
the
shewe
of
godlines
,
and
religion
,
that
the
falsedis
,
wickednessis
,
and
blasphemies
,
be
holy
,
and
godly
things
.
As
for
example
that
the
pardons
which
to
him
that
hath
eies
to
see
,
be
an
open
deceite
,
and
yet
he
hath
geuen
to
vnderstand
that
thei
forgeue
sinnes
,
with
bullis
,
with
visitations
of
churches
,
with
stacions
,
with
pilgrimagis
,
with
cordes
,
with
girdles
,
with
garmentis
,
and
such
like
trompery
,
and
that
thes
things
help
to
euerlasting
liffe
.
And
here
I
might
haue
to
talck
a
long
time
and
coulde
iff
I
wold
,
geue
innumerable
examples
,
but
becaus
I
wold
not
be
long
,
I
haue
only
geuen
the
example
of
the
pardons
.
But
to
come
to
our
purpos
,
among
the
whole
nomber
of
doctrines
,
inuencions
,
deceites
,
craffti
barterings
of
Antichrist
,
there
is
none
so
wittily
done
,
with
so
great
art
and
conueians
,
as
the
Masse
.
In
the
which
Antichrist
him selff
,
hath
bestowed
all
his
witt
,
and
all
his
knowlege
in
bilding
it
,
to
make
it
be
cownted
,
and
taken
for
the
principall
worshipp
of
Christian
religion
,
nor
one
only
hath
not
laid
hand
to
this
doing
,
but
many
.
About
the
bilding
off
Salomons
temple
(
the
which
surely
was
done
with
most
high
wisdom
)
the
bilders
were
7.
yeares
,
and
than
thei
ended
the
work
.
But
abowt
the
bilding
of
the
Masse
,
how
many
hondreth
yeares
haue
bene
bestowed
,
and
by
how
many
bilders
?
One
hath
put
to
one
thing
,
a
nother
a nother
,
according
to
the
diuers
Antichristes
that
folowe
done
a nother
.
And
how
shuld
one
only
,
euer
haue
bene
able
(
I
will
not
say
to
make
)
but
to
Imagine
,
so
great
an
h●…̄dy
work
.
Surely
it
coulde
neuer
haue
bene
possible
.
And
all
this
is
done
vnder
color
and
shewe
off
doing
a
thing
most
choysefull
,
and
thankfull
to
God
,
for
the
benifite
off
the
sowles
,
and
profite
off
the
bodies
.
And
Antichrist
hath
not
withowt
gret
caus
bestowed
here
all
his
whole
knowlege
and
labor
,
becaus
that
he
hath
well
seene
,
that
principally
his
kingdom
,
and
rule
,
consisteth
in
the
same
Masse
as
in
a
strong
castell
,
and
in
a
well
defended
hold
.
And
withowt
dowt
whan
the
masse
is
throwen
to
the
grownd
,
the
whole
kingdom
of
Antichrist
,
goeth
to
vtter
decay
.
Therfor
it
is
no
meruell
,
though
by
all
meanes
he
can
,
and
knoweth
,
he
hath
sought
and
doth
seke
a
fressh
to
fauor
hir
,
to
defend
hir
,
to
kepe
hir
,
and
to
priuilege
hir
.
He
carith
not
though
euery
other
thing
goo
to
the
mischeff
,
so
that
his
kingdom
may
remaine
still
on
foote
.
There
is
no
mans
witt
that
can
serch
owt
,
and
moch
lesse
any
tong
declare
,
the
crafftines
,
the
suttlety
,
the
bartring
falsode
of
this
Masse
,
nor
the
gret
harm
that
it
hath
done
sins
it
begann
,
and
doth
continually
among
the
Christen
peple
.
There
is
no
pestilens
,
there
is
no
maner
of
sicknes
,
that
so
infecteth
the
bodies
,
as
this
Masse
doth
the
sowles
.
The
pestilens
killeth
the
bodyes
,
this
the
sowles
.
The
pestilens
iff
it
be
in
one
citie
it
is
not
in
a nother
,
iff
it
be
in
one
contry
,
it
is
not
in
a nother
,
iff
it
be
at
one
time
,
it
is
not
at
a nother
,
it
doth
not
comonly
continue
any
long
time
,
but
for
a
fewe
monthes
.
And
it
were
a
gret
thing
iff
it
shuld
last
a
yeare
.
But
the
disease
of
this
Masse
,
hath
bene
comon
to
all
the
Christen
peple
,
and
yet
is
,
and
hath
continewed
many
hondreth
yeares
and
yet
doth
.
I
haue
goone
abowt
in
this
booke
to
say
somwhat
of
this
masse
,
but
in
dede
I
confesse
,
I
am
no
thing
nigh
the
mark
,
nor
haue
hit
the
point
I
shuld
,
as
well
by
reason
of
my
dull
witt
,
as
also
that
it
is
not
possible
that
one
onely
man
,
might
be
able
to
disclose
so
many
deceites
,
as
be
therein
,
and
to
say
so
moch
as
the
matter
requireth
.
Therfor
I
desire
thos
to
whom
God
by
his
grace
hath
granted
more
vnderstanding
of
his
things
then
to
me
that
thei
wil
supplie
my
want
.
And
let
it
not
be
one
only
that
shuld
take
in
hand
this
enterprise
,
but
many
,
becaus
here
is
ynough
to
say
for
all
,
the
matter
being
most
large
,
and
as
it
were
endles
.
And
let
them
not
dowt
a
whit
,
that
this
depe
sea
can
euer
be
drawen
owt
,
or
vtterly
dried
vp
.
And
thei
shall
doo
a
most
thanckfull
thing
to
God
,
And
very
profitable
to
the
Christen
peple
.
Many
haue
writton
of
this
Masse
,
and
one
hath
said
one
thing
,
a nother
a nother
thing
,
but
all
in
generalitie
,
and
no
one
that
I
knowe
,
hath
considred
it
particularly
.
And
therfor
it
could
not
well
be
knowne
what
maner
a
thing
it
is
.
Therfor
whan
I
sawe
that
no
man
toke
this
enterprise
on
him
,
seing
that
no
better
surgen
than
my selff
came
in
place
,
becaus
the
rest
were
occupied
abowt
diuers
other
things
,
God
did
put
in
my
mind
to
take
in
hand
this
labor
,
that
is
to
say
to
Anatomie
hir
,
and
to
consider
hir
,
part
by
part
.
And
I
haue
done
that
litle
that
I
could
,
desiring
euery
faithfull
and
Christen
reader
that
he
will
pardon
me
,
iff
I
haue
fayled
in
any
thing
,
becaus
,
to
say
the
truth
,
who
could
euer
be
able
to
say
of
this
abhominacion
so
moch
,
as
suffiseth
,
And
as
it
displeaseth
God
and
prouoketh
his
anger
?
Iff
God
were
so
angry
for
the
Idolatry
committed
by
the
Hebruissh
peple
,
THE
SIXT
CHAPTER
.
That
the
mass
is
of
such
qualitie
and
crafft
,
and
affter
such
sort
abhominable
,
that
no
man
liuing
,
for
any
maner
of
pretens
,
respect
or
occasion
that
can
be
,
may
by
any
maner
of
meanes
,
with
a
safe
consciens
,
either
say
it
,
heare
it
or
any
waies
be
present
at
it
.
MANS
nature
is
of
such
sort
craffty
and
wittie
,
that
it
can
tell
,
euen
how
to
deceiue
it selff
.
There
are
fownd
in
the
world
certen
excellent
dise
Coggars
,
and
cardsetters
,
that
trapp
,
as
it
were
,
all
men
that
thei
haue
to
doo
with
,
and
it
behoueth
a
man
to
be
well
ware
,
least
thei
begyle
him
,
neuertheles
thei
doo
only
begile
other
,
and
not
them selues
.
But
our
nature
is
so
shiftfull
and
ware
,
that
it
doth
not
only
begile
other
,
but
it selff
also
.
And
this
it
doth
chefely
in
thos
things
that
like
them
,
and
serue
for
their
commodities
.
And
it
semith
that
it
hath
lerned
the
art
of
deceiuing
,
of
the
suttle
serpent
,
tre
which
with
his
persuasions
and
Intisements
,
brought
our
first
mother
Eue
to
eate
of
the
apple
,
and
to
doo
contrary
to
gods
commandement
,
making
hir
beleue
one
thing
for
a nother
.
Euen
so
doth
also
man
to
wards
him selff
,
that
can
meruelosly
color
,
and
sett
a
face
on
his
deceites
to
make
them
excusable
.
Not
wi●…hstonding
whan
he
hath
well
turned
and
tossed
him selff
,
with
as
many
scusys
as
he
can
bring
furth
,
it
is
fownd
at
●●ight
,
that
he
hath
erred
.
And
he
plainely
seith
that
his
crafftes
,
be
very
folies
.
There
be
many
now
a
daies
in
Germany
,
in
France
,
in
Spaine
,
in
Italy
that
haue
receiued
the
gospell
,
and
haue
the
knowlege
of
Christ
,
but
finding
them selues
in
the
middes
of
their
enemies
,
and
fearing
persecution
,
chefely
whan
thei
see
the
poore
Christians
to
be
euell
handled
,
the
which
now
by
this
hatefull
name
to
the
world
be
called
Lutherans
,
And
that
some
of
them
be
taken
and
putt
in
to
the
gallies
,
Some
Imprisoned
,
some
other
be
cruelly
tormented
vp
on
the
Racke
,
Some
hanged
,
Other
drowned
in
the
riuers
,
and
other
burnt
,
thei
be
affraied
,
And
becaus
thei
wold
not
be
marked
,
and
accused
for
Lutherans
,
thei
goo
to
the
masse
,
and
doo
against
their
consciens
.
And
to
proue
that
this
is
trewe
,
iff
the
feare
that
thei
haue
,
had
not
bene
,
thei
wold
neuer
haue
gone
to
the
masse
.
And
the
caus
why
thei
wold
not
haue
gone
is
,
that
thei
shuld
haue
thought
to
haue
done
euill
,
and
against
their
consciens
,
this
is
clere
.
Yet
as
I
haue
said
,
being
affraied
either
of
losing
their
temporall
goodes
,
or
rather
their
skinn
,
thei
doo
as
other
doo
.
And
to
the
intent
that
thei
might
affter
some
sort
be
scused
thei
alleage
certen
pretensis
with
the
which
thei
deceiue
them seluis
,
and
the
reasons
that
thei
bring
furth
,
be
thes.
Than
next
the
Apostle
Paul
doth
teach
vs
,
To
conclude
,
Now
thes
and
other
like
reasons
and
scusis
be
no
nother
,
but
pretenses
to
doo
euell
,
and
leaues
with
the
which
men
wold
yet
couer
thos
things
that
thei
doo
,
but
thei
be
deceiued
,
as
we
will
make
it
appeare
.
But
first
we
will
proue
our
purpos
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
by
no
meanes
it
is
lawfull
to
a
Christian
,
to
say
,
nor
to
heare
,
no
nor
to
be
present
at
the
masse
,
and
affter
we
will
answer
to
thes
reasons
.
He
that
goeth
to
the
masse
,
doth
iij.
great
euels
.
I
proue
this
thus
.
Paul
saith
to
the
Romains
,
euery
thing
that
is
not
of
faith
is
sinn
.
Who
is
he
knowing
what
maner
a
thing
the
Masse
is
,
that
knoweth
not
likewise
the
same
to
be
against
Gods
word
?
Iff
it
be
so
,
how
than
can
one
with
faith
,
and
good
consciens
be
present
at
a
thing
the
which
he
iudgeth
to
be
blasphemos
,
damnable
and
against
God
?
And
who
dowteth
that
he
who
doeth
against
his
consciens
sinnith
,
let
him
doo
what
so
euer
he
will
?
It
is
not
therfor
lawful
by
any
maner
of
meanes
to
be
present
at
the
Masse
.
That
he
doith
against
his
neighbors
safetye
likewise
proue
it
.
First
he
offendeth
,
and
hurteth
them
that
haue
not
yet
the
knowlege
of
Christ
.
For
so
moch
as
whan
thei
see
one
that
hath
the
knowlege
of
the
gospel
,
stand
at
the
Masse
,
herken
to
it
,
bowe
him selff
,
and
knele
to
the
Sacrament
,
and
worship
it
,
what
els
can
thei
thinck
,
but
that
he
hath
the
self
same
opinion
that
thei
them seluis
haue
?
And
this
being
persuaded
,
thei
be
confirmed
in
their
error
,
saing
to
them
seluis
,
behold
him
who
was
come
to
that
newe
opinion
or
religion
,
now
he
changeth
his
mind
,
and
returneth
to
the
old
faith
the
which
he
had
forsaken
.
Surely
he
wold
neuer
haue
returned
iff
he
had
not
knowen
that
he
was
deceiued
by
the
pretens
of
the
gospell
,
and
perceiued
that
with
vs
is
the
trewe
gospell
,
the
trewe
church
and
Christes
religion
.
God
forbid
that
we
shuld
forsake
our
opinion
,
the
which
he
with
euident
dedes
,
doth
shewe
to
be
good
.
And
with
thes
thoughtes
,
thei
be
enstranged
from
the
gospell
,
and
from
the
truth
,
and
be
confirmed
in
error
.
Do
yow
thinck
that
this
is
a
small
euell
,
with
our
example
to
estrange
the
mindes
of
men
from
the
gospell
,
and
and
from
Christ
,
and
to
confirme
them
in
Antichrists
church
?
Secondly
it
hurteth
the
weake
faithfull
,
the
which
begin
to
bileue
the
gospell
,
for
whan
thei
see
that
thei
,
who
better
vnderstand
than
them selues
goo
to
the
Masse
,
thei
become
weaker
in
faith
,
and
occasion
is
geuen
them
to
returne
to
their
first
errors
.
And
affter
this
sort
in
the
rase
of
faith
,
thei
be
stopt
,
not
only
hindered
,
becaus
thei
begin
to
dowt
.
And
what
saith
Christ
of
thos
that
offend
the
litle
ones
?
Thirdly
he
hurteth
the
stowt
and
strong
in
faith
,
and
hurteth
the
Christian
cause
it selff
,
becaus
he
maketh
,
that
the
wicked
men
more
boldlie
do
say
euell
of
the
trew
faith
,
doo
wrong
it
,
and
make
it
hatefull
,
many
maner
of
wayes
.
Is
not
this
daily
sene
,
that
how
many
moo
men
do
openly
enter
in
to
a
lye
,
and
in
to
an
error
,
that
so
moch
the
more
falsoode
is
strengthned
,
and
the
same
lye
confirmed
,
and
the
trewth
more
downe
beaten
,
And
the
wicked
men
becom
so
moch
the
more
fearce
,
and
stowt
,
to
down
beate
the
good
caus
,
and
all
thos
that
defend
it
,
as
thei
see
it
waxe
weaker
?
He
doth
also
against
his
own
sowle
helth
.
For
whan
he
goth
to
the
Masse
against
his
consciens
,
he
sheweth
that
he
loueth
better
him selff
,
than
Christ
and
God
,
and
the
tymed
liffe
,
more
than
the
euerlasting
,
and
he
is
condemned
by
Christes
sentens
,
the
which
saith
,
he
that
loueth
his
sowle
,
Where
as
first
thei
say
that
thei
goo
to
the
But
there
is
a nother
sort
of
offencis
,
the
which
as
I
haue
said
before
are
called
offences
taken
,
shat
is
to
say
,
whan
a
man
is
offended
for
things
,
for
the
which
he
ought
not
to
be
offended
,
but
taketh
occasion
of
offence
withowt
iust
cause
,
as
certen
doo
that
be
offended
,
at
good
workes
,
affter
the
maner
of
the
Phariseis
,
which
were
offended
with
Christ
,
becaus
he
healed
certen
sick
men
on
the
Sabbath
day
,
or
els
be
offended
iff
a
man
abstayne
from
wicked
workes
.
Now
this
such
kind
off
offence
is
no
sinne
,
becaus
the
man
properly
doth
not
geue
offence
,
but
other
doo
take
it
for
offence
the
which
thei
ought
not
to
doo
,
yea
thei
offend
,
esteming
and
cownting
that
to
be
offence
,
which
is
well
done
.
The
faithfull
and
godly
man
ought
not
to
passe
,
euen
as
Christ
passed
not
,
though
other
were
offended
for
such
workes
or
things
,
for
so
moch
as
that
a
man
must
cease
from
well
doing
,
or
els
must
nedes
doo
euel
,
that
wold
auoyde
such
kind
off
offencis
.
Euen
so
it
is
in
this
case
.
Iff
any
will
be
offended
that
one
goth
not
to
the
Masse
,
or
els
that
the
Images
be
not
honored
,
a
man
ought
not
to
care
for
it
.
For
iff
it
had
neded
to
care
for
such
offencis
,
it
had
bene
fitt
for
the
martirs
that
thei
shuld
haue
worshipped
the
Idols
,
For
the
Idolaters
were
offended
at
them
,
becaus
thei
worshipped
them
not
.
Yea
,
I
say
,
that
the
simple
and
the
weake
,
haue
more
occasion
off
offence
(
speaking
of
the
trewe
offence
)
and
be
more
offended
,
iff
one
that
hath
knowlege
goo
to
the
Masse
,
than
iff
he
went
not
.
For
as
before
I
haue
proued
,
by
such
going
thei
be
hurt
,
for
so
moch
as
that
thei
be
confirmed
in
their
error
,
the
which
is
moch
wors
for
them
to
be
so
offended
than
to
be
offended
,
for
that
other
offence
the
which
,
is
no
trew
offence
in
dede
.
To
the
saing
of
th
apostle
the
which
saith
that
he
did
applie
him selff
to
all
men
,
and
that
we
ought
to
doo
the
same
,
and
to
goo
to
the
Masse
with
them
that
goo
,
I
say
,
that
th
apostle
Paul
did
applie
himselff
to
all
men
,
in
thos
things
that
did
not
offend
God
,
as
was
in
certen
ceremonies
,
and
in
his
maner
off
liffe
,
and
in
certen
customs
which
were
no
sinne
.
He
kept
company
with
the
Iewes
,
and
liued
as
thei
did
,
keping
their
ceremonies
,
forbearing
thos
meates
that
thei
did
forbeare
.
He
did
eate
and
drinck
with
the
gentiles
,
he
vsed
their
meates
,
he
kept
company
with
them
,
to
haue
occasion
to
conuert
them
to
Christ
.
And
thes
things
were
no
sinn
,
but
in
thos
things
wherein
he
shuld
haue
offended
God
,
he
wold
neuer
haue
applied
him selff
vnto
them
.
And
that
this
is
trewe
,
Consider
that
we
reade
not
,
that
euer
he
did
honor
the
Idols
,
or
els
went
to
ther
sacrifices
.
And
why
soo
?
Becaus
he
shuld
haue
offended
God
.
So
we
knowing
that
the
Masse
is
an
abhominacion
,
we
ought
not
by
any
maner
of
meanes
to
goo
to
it
,
but
rather
to
dye
than
to
goo
thether
,
becaus
it
is
against
God
,
and
Christes
honor
,
as
we
haue
proued
.
To
that
other
scuse
which
saith
,
that
God
beholdeth
the
hartis
,
and
considereth
to
what
end
a
thing
is
done
,
and
so
that
a
man
doo
not
consent
with
his
hart
to
the
abuses
that
be
committed
in
the
Masse
,
it
is
no
sinn
to
goo
to
it
:
I
answere
,
that
if
this
reason
auailed
,
the
martyrs
,
as
I
haue
sayd
before
,
might
haue
worshipped
the
Idols
withowt
sinn
,
and
we
with
a
good
consciens
may
denye
Christ
.
For
allthough
that
the
martyrs
shuld
haue
worshipped
the
Idols
,
thei
wold
neuer
haue
worshipped
them
with
the
hart
,
but
only
owtwardly
,
and
vnwillingly
,
And
we
may
denye
Christ
with
the
mowth
but
not
with
the
hart
.
And
what
inconueniencis
be
thes
?
Christ
wil
not
only
that
we
shuld
byleue
in
him
,
but
wil
that
we
also
shuld
confesse
him
with
the
mowth
,
and
with
the
owtward
dedes
,
for
els
we
shall
not
be
trew
Christians
,
Further
I
say
,
that
trewe
faith
is
not
withowt
the
profession
,
not
only
of
wordes
,
but
of
dedes
and
workes
.
To
the
other
reason
or
rather
scuse
,
the
which
saith
that
thei
,
that
goo
to
the
Masse
,
iff
thei
haue
the
knowlege
of
the
gospell
,
thei
doo
not
allowe
the
abuses
,
nor
thos
addicions
that
be
there
,
but
only
that
which
Christ
made
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
Sacrament
of
his
body
and
blood
.
For
thos
addicions
doo
not
take
away
the
substans
of
the
Sacrament
,
I
answer
,
first
that
that
Sacrament
(
as
we
haue
said
before
)
is
not
Christes
trewe
Sacrament
,
but
although
that
it
were
a
trewe
Sacrament
,
it
were
not
therfor
conuenient
to
goo
thether
,
seing
there
is
in
the
same
so
many
falsedes
,
so
many
errors
and
abuses
,
which
defile
,
and
staine
,
the
clearnes
of
Christes
institucion
.
Nor
it
is
not
ynough
to
say
,
we
doo
allowe
nothing
,
but
that
which
Christ
did
,
and
not
any
other
:
becaus
that
this
allowing
is
only
knowen
to
them selfes
,
and
not
to
other
,
who
whan
thei
see
that
one
goeth
to
the
Masse
,
doo
thinck
that
,
he
allowith
the
whole
,
and
thei
be
confirmed
in
their
error
iff
thei
be
wicked
,
iff
thei
be
not
wicked
,
thei
haue
occasion
of
offence
and
remayne
offended
.
And
although
that
none
were
offended
,
nor
confirmed
in
wickednes
,
yet
vnderstonding
that
the
Masse
is
a
bottom
,
and
a
rolle
of
blasphemyes
,
how
shuld
the
eares
of
the
faithfull
,
behable
to
heare
,
and
their
eyes
suffer
to
see
,
so
great
an
abhominacion
,
the
which
so
many
wayes
doth
robb
God
and
Christ
,
of
their
honor
,
yea
that
speaketh
euell
of
them
.
To
the
examples
alleaged
of
Ioseph
of
the
citie
of
Arimathea
and
of
Nicodemus
,
Iust
and
holy
men
,
the
which
for
feare
of
the
Iewes
did
dissemble
,
I
answer
first
that
there
is
a
great
differens
betwene
thes
2.
and
thos
that
goo
to
the
Masse
.
For
although
for
feare
thei
did
not
open
them selues
to
be
Christes
disciples
,
neuertheles
thei
did
not
for
all
that
committ
any
maner
of
Idolatry
,
nor
thei
went
not
to
such
abhominacions
as
the
Masse
is
.
Further
,
it
is
no
good
reason
,
to
goo
abowt
to
defend
a
mans
own
fawtes
,
with
the
fawtes
of
holy
men
.
Nor
we
ought
not
to
folow
the
saintes
in
thos
things
wherein
thei
haue
erred
,
but
only
in
thos
things
that
be
worthy
of
commendacion
.
What
a
folissh
thing
were
it
,
iff
an
adulterer
wold
make
his
excuse
that
to
committ
adultery
is
not
euell
,
becaus
that
Dauid
committed
adultery
.
And
wold
excuse
the
deniall
of
Christ
to
be
no
sinn
,
becaus
that
Peter
denied
him
thrise
?
Euen
so
doo
thei
that
will
with
Iosephs
and
Nicodemussis
weakenes
scuse
their
error
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
it
is
lawfull
to
goo
to
the
Masse
,
and
dissemble
,
becaus
that
thos
2.
holy
men
,
for
feare
haue
dissembled
,
thei
being
of
Christes
disciples
.
But
let
thes
maner
of
men
tell
me
this
one
point
,
what
is
the
caus
why
thei
doo
not
rather
follow
thes
holy
men
in
the
stowtnes
of
their
doings
,
rather
than
in
their
weaknes
,
that
is
to
say
that
although
whilst
Christ
liued
on
the
earth
thei
were
affraid
to
be
knowen
for
his
disciples
,
neuertheles
at
the
time
of
his
death
whan
all
the
other
disciples
were
hiddon
,
except
Iohn
,
and
the
wemen
,
and
whan
,
rather
than
in
any
other
time
thei
shuld
haue
bene
affrayed
,
than
thei
waxed
stowt
.
Thus
thei
in
time
of
tribulacion
,
and
whan
there
was
cause
of
feare
be
came
stowt
and
did
not
remaine
fearfull
.
Why
doo
thei
not
folow
them
in
the
stowtnes
of
the
mind
,
which
is
a
vertew
,
and
not
in
the
weaknes
of
feare
which
is
a
vice
?
Who
dowteth
that
Ioseph
,
and
Nicodemus
,
whan
thei
dissembled
for
feare
,
were
weake
and
vnperfite
Christians
,
and
erred
in
that
thei
did
not
boldly
confesse
Christ
?
Let
vs
not
I
pray
yow
alleage
the
holy
men
in
things
euel
done
,
to
folowe
them
,
but
in
things
worthy
of
prayse
and
well
done
,
only
,
for
so
moch
as
that
in
thos
things
only
we
ought
to
folowe
them
,
and
not
in
other
.
To
the
example
of
Naaman
Syrus
,
I
say
,
that
thei
alleage
it
herein
euell
,
sayng
,
that
Heliseus
shuld
licens
him
that
he
might
enter
in
to
the
Gods
temple
of
the
Assyrians
,
called
Remmon
,
in
company
with
the
king
of
Assyria
,
and
to
worship
with
him
,
and
I
say
,
that
this
is
not
trewe
,
yea
it
is
cleane
contrary
,
as
it
appeareth
in
the
story
of
the
same
Naaman
writton
in
the
fourth
booke
of
the
kings
,
Parauentur
thei
will
answer
here
and
say
,
yow
in
dede
haue
goodly
talk
,
yow
I
say
,
that
are
owt
of
gunne
shote
(
as
men
be
wont
to
say
)
and
that
are
owt
of
perels
yow
that
are
in
a
sure
place
,
and
feare
not
to
be
taken
,
can
geue
goodly
cowncell
,
but
we
that
be
sure
,
iff
we
will
not
goo
to
the
Masse
,
to
loose
our
goodes
and
our
riches
,
and
our
liffe
withall
,
iff
we
presently
will
not
denye
Christ
,
what
shuld
we
doo
?
Iff
yow
were
in
our
place
,
we
can
not
tell
what
yow
wold
doo
,
whether
yow
wold
be
so
stowt
in
deedes
,
as
yow
be
bold
in
wordes
.
Here
I
doo
frely
confesse
that
I
haue
great
compassion
on
this
maner
of
men
,
nor
I
will
not
shewe
my selff
strong
by
reprouing
others
.
I
knowe
that
stowtnes
is
a
rare
gifft
of
God
,
and
not
granted
to
all
men
.
And
the
more
part
of
Christians
haue
a
weake
and
feble
faith
,
and
the
strong
,
and
stowt
of
mind
be
very
fewe
.
But
in
this
I
reproue
them
that
goo
to
mas
,
that
doing
euel
,
as
thei
doo
,
thei
wold
excuse
them selues
that
thei
sinn
not
,
and
will
with
scuses
lessen
that
their
fawt
,
which
whilst
thei
doo
,
thei
increase
the
sinn
to
their
condemnacion
.
Why
doo
thei
not
humble
themselues
,
and
confesse
that
thei
doo
euell
?
why
doo
thei
not
axe
of
God
the
spirit
of
stowtnes
,
and
constant
faith
?
It
were
reason
that
thei
shuld
behold
the
saintes
examples
of
vertewes
,
and
not
of
weakenessis
,
that
thei
shuld
behold
,
as
a
man
wold
say
,
Let
them
tell
me
,
which
is
the
greater
Idolatry
,
that
of
the
Idolatros
gentiles
or
that
of
the
Masse
?
That
of
the
goldin
caluis
,
or
of
the
Masse
?
Which
is
the
greater
sinn
to
eate
hoggs
flessh
,
or
to
heare
Masse
?
haue
not
we
proued
that
the
Masse
is
the
greatest
Idolatry
that
euer
was
in
the
world
?
And
what
is
the
caus
that
the
allegid
saintes
did
rather
desire
to
die
,
than
to
consent
to
any
Idolatry
,
or
els
to
doo
against
Gods
lawe
?
And
shall
we
Christians
make
no
consciens
to
consent
to
the
greatest
abhominacion
that
euer
was
?
But
let
vs
lay
a
side
the
saintes
the
which
dyed
becaus
thei
wold
not
offend
God
:
seing
thei
had
the
knowlege
of
God
and
Christ
,
and
the
trewe
religion
,
and
looked
,
affter
this
mortal
life
,
for
the
euerlasting
,
it
is
not
to
be
merueled
at
.
But
what
shall
we
say
of
the
poore
Idolaters
the
which
had
not
the
knowlege
of
Christ
nor
of
God
,
no
nor
loked
not
for
the
reward
of
euerlasting
life
?
And
yet
for
all
this
,
many
of
them
for
t
honor
of
the
world
and
for
Temporall
glory
haue
suffered
most
sharp
ponisshments
,
and
horrible
torments
,
and
were
miserably
killed
.
What
shall
we
say
of
Marcus
Antonius
seruant
of
whom
is
redd
,
that
becaus
he
wold
not
vtter
the
fawt
,
that
is
to
say
the
vnchast
lust
of
his
master
,
he
suffred
to
be
burnt
with
redd
hoote
plates
of
Iron
?
In
the
end
,
he
rather
suffred
to
be
torne
,
than
to
reueale
the
fawt
of
the
same
Marcus
Antonius
.
And
so
he
ouercame
all
the
force
of
the
accusers
?
What
shall
we
say
of
Marcus
Regulus
,
who
becaus
he
wold
not
breake
his
faith
geuen
to
the
Carthaginensis
,
returned
in
to
their
handes
,
being
sure
that
thei
wold
cruelly
put
him
to
death
(
as
in
deede
thei
did
)
putting
him
in
to
a
vessel
of
wood
all
full
of
very
sharp
nayles
that
were
stickt
in
to
the
vessel
to
th
entent
that
whan
the
vessel
shuld
be
moued
,
thei
shuld
prick
him
on
euery
side
,
and
shuld
teare
his
whole
body
.
And
many
other
that
we
might
alleage
iff
we
wold
?
Thei
suffered
for
a
temporall
honor
,
and
for
their
earthly
contry
,
and
yet
thei
passed
not
to
dye
.
And
will
not
we
for
Iesus
Christes
sake
,
for
Gods
honor
,
and
for
the
reward
of
euerlasting
glory
,
bestowe
owre
mortal
life
?
Shall
we
be
lesse
stowt
for
Christ
then
the
Idolaters
for
incestuose
men
?
Shall
we
be
lesse
coragios
to
possesse
the
euerlasting
contry
,
than
thei
to
kepe
for
other
their
earthly
contrye
?
Surely
our
fawt
is
most
great
,
iff
we
Christians
for
to
haue
heauen
,
and
the
chefe
goodnes
,
shall
refuse
to
suffer
that
,
that
the
men
voyde
of
trew
godlines
and
religion
,
and
that
loked
for
no
reward
affter
this
present
life
,
haue
not
refused
to
suffer
for
the
temporall
glory
,
that
helped
them
nothing
.
Let
vs
therfor
conclude
and
saye
,
that
it
is
in
no
case
,
nor
by
no
maner
of
meanes
lawfull
to
say
this
Masse
,
to
heare
it
,
nor
to
be
present
at
it
,
chefely
for
a
Christen
man
,
that
hath
the
knowlege
of
the
holy
gospel
,
as
by
so
many
wayes
we
haue
proued
.
And
iff
yet
it
shuld
happen
that
by
weakenes
of
faith
and
feare
any
shuld
goo
thether
,
let
them
take
hede
,
that
thei
scuse
not
,
and
couer
not
them selues
with
bowes
,
that
is
to
say
,
with
trifling
,
and
vaine
excusis
,
affter
the
maner
of
our
first
parentis
Adam
and
Eue
,
the
which
wold
haue
couered
their
shames
with
figgleaues
,
byleuing
that
thei
shuld
not
be
sene
,
for
so
moch
as
that
Gods
eyes
doo
pearse
,
Wherfor
o
Christians
,
euen
as
in
the
beginning
of
this
booke
I
haue
exhorted
yow
to
reade
it
and
well
to
consider
it
to
th
entent
that
yow
might
vnderstand
the
crafft
off
this
masse
,
so
many
wayes
blasphemos
,
so
now
in
the
end
of
the
same
,
whan
yow
doo
clerely
vnderstand
the
most
vngratios
qualities
of
the
same
,
that
yow
will
wholly
forsake
it
.
Hether
to
many
,
not
only
lay
men
,
but
priestes
,
fryres
and
monkes
haue
by
ignorance
fawted
,
thinking
that
it
had
bene
a
thing
most
holy
,
and
a
worship
most
thanckfull
to
God
,
and
therfor
haue
hawnted
it
,
not
knowing
it
.
And
though
thei
haue
greuosly
offended
God
,
yet
in
some
part
thei
were
excusable
,
hauing
fawted
by
ignorance
.
And
here
I
doo
not
speake
of
thos
the
which
against
their
conscience
,
and
knowing
what
maner
a
thing
it
was
,
only
for
feare
,
or
other
wordly
respect
,
haue
dissembled
,
bacaus
that
thos
maner
of
men
,
haue
committed
a
great
fawt
,
albeit
that
thei
also
shall
be
pardoned
,
iff
thei
forsake
the
same
,
and
doo
poenance
,
and
be
sory
for
that
which
is
past
.
But
now
that
by
this
boke
,
(
iff
thei
will
reade
it
and
vnderstand
it
)
all
mens
eyes
are
opened
,
and
made
plainely
to
see
,
with
how
many
abuses
,
and
cursings
,
it
is
not
only
ful
,
but
heaped
,
iff
thei
shall
(
being
priestes
,
frires
or
monkes
)
any
more
say
it
,
or
being
other
men
,
shall
any
more
heare
it
,
I
say
surely
that
thei
shall
be
vtterly
vnexcusable
and
damnable
,
as
thei
that
knowingly
and
willingly
shall
sinn
euen
of
very
purpos
,
and
shall
heape
vpp
Gods
wrath
vp
on
them
.
Nor
it
shall
not
help
nor
auayle
them
talleage
the
perell
of
their
goodes
,
of
their
howsold
,
or
of
their
own
life
.
For
so
moch
as
that
all
thes
things
,
and
as
many
other
as
can
be
had
in
the
world
to gether
with
the
liffe
it selff
,
compared
to
Christ
,
ought
to
be
cownted
as
vile
,
yea
of
no
valure
,
and
for
his
loue
we
must
necessarly
forsake
them
:
becaus
he
is
that
treasure
hiddon
in
the
felde
,
and
that
precios
margarite
for
the
which
we
ought
to
sell
all
our
goodes
to
bye
it
.
Now
,
the
poore
Christians
be
in
the
handes
of
Antiochessis
,
of
Dioclesians
,
of
Domicians
,
of
Neroes
,
and
other
cruel
tyrantes
and
Antichristes
(
I
touch
not
the
good
princis
)
the
which
tyrants
haue
allweyes
,
and
will
afflict
Gods
peple
,
But
let
vs
,
O
brethern
,
haue
pacience
in
Christ
,
as
him selff
doth
admonissh
vs
,
saing
,
THE
END
.
A
SERMON
OF
THE
SACRAMENT
OF
THANckes
geuing
the
which
declareth
whether
Christ
be
really
and
bodily
in
the
same
or
no.
I
CAN
NOT
SAY
HOW
moch
mirth
and
yoie
is
in
my
hart
whan
I
see
in
this
our
age
,
that
there
is
kindeled
in
the
mindes
of
many
the
holy
desire
to
vnderstand
gods
things
,
that
is
to
say
the
inestimable
,
and
the
incomprehensible
treasures
hidden
in
Christ
Iesus
,
whose
knowlege
passeth
euery
other
knowlege
and
wisdom
,
and
doth
so
farr
excell
,
Of
the
other
side
not
with
standing
,
I
can
not
but
be
sory
,
seing
in
thes
same
times
whan
the
gospell
that
hath
bene
hidden
so
many
worlds
past
,
is
by
the
goodnes
of
god
lately
come
furth
to
light
,
that
there
shuld
be
so
mani
and
so
diuers
opinions
of
thes
things
that
god
hath
Instituted
to
kepe
agrement
,
and
peace
among
the
faithful
,
that
is
to
say
,
of
the
sacraments
of
the
church
,
in
such
sort
as
Sathan
the
enemy
goth
abowt
with
the
self
same
instruments
of
peace
and
vnitie
,
to
make
warr
against
Christ
,
setting
dissension
,
making
schismes
,
and
sowing
debates
amongst
Christians
,
not
only
among
the
people
and
comon
sort
,
but
among
thos
that
shuld
be
lightes
,
glasses
,
and
examples
of
agrement
,
to
whom
belongeth
to
teach
other
,
that
is
to
say
,
among
the
ministers
and
preachers
of
the
holy
gospell
.
But
this
,
dere
brethern
,
ought
not
to
offend
yow
,
nor
to
remoue
yow
from
your
holy
purpos
,
that
yow
haue
in
Christ
,
but
rather
to
confirm
yow
in
faith
,
and
to
kindle
yow
to
make
a
gretter
entry
in
to
the
religion
,
and
way
of
God
,
for
so
moch
as
that
god
doth
suffer
such
striffes
,
and
diuersities
of
opinions
,
for
the
benifite
of
his
church
,
and
of
the
trewe
bileuers
.
First
to
th
entent
that
his
,
Now
to
return
to
the
purpose
of
the
striffe
,
that
is
of
the
sacraments
,
Some
say
that
in
the
sacrament
of
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
,
that
is
to
say
,
in
the
breade
and
wyne
consecrated
in
remembrans
of
his
death
,
is
conteined
his
very
body
and
his
very
blood
,
and
that
there
we
haue
really
,
and
bodily
,
all
and
hole
Christ
,
as
great
,
and
as
thick
as
he
was
on
the
crosse
.
Other
some
say
that
he
is
not
there
,
but
there
is
only
the
breade
and
the
wine
as
signes
of
Christes
body
,
and
blood
,
geuen
for
our
redempcion
.
And
this
controuersy
and
striffe
is
in
such
sort
gone
forward
,
that
it
hath
with
many
hindered
the
course
of
the
holy
gospel
.
And
it
hath
made
that
Christes
enemies
haue
taken
occasion
,
and
boldnes
to
blaspheme
,
the
holy
lerning
and
gods
truth
.
But
be
it
as
it
will
,
allthough
some
haue
committed
a
great
fawt
in
this
thing
,
striuing
euer
bitterly
against
the
contrary
opinion
,
wherby
thei
haue
shewed
them selues
to
be
men
,
and
haue
in
som
part
spotted
their
own
glory
,
lessening
the
credite
and
auctoritie
that
the
world
had
of
them
:
We
not
withstanding
,
will
comfort
our
seluis
with
Paules
saing
,
which
he
speaketh
to
the
romans
,
And
becaus
I
know
that
many
desire
to
vnderstand
what
shuld
be
the
trewe
opinion
of
this
sacrament
.
I
for
the
loue
of
the
truth
,
for
the
glory
of
god
,
and
to
doo
them
a
pleasure
,
and
also
a
benifite
,
will
simply
and
with
as
moch
easines
as
is
possible
,
sett
furth
the
opinion
,
which
I
thinck
,
and
hold
for
certen
hath
bene
,
and
is
,
the
opinion
of
the
Apostles
,
all
the
awncienty
,
of
the
holy
scripture
,
and
of
Christ
him selff
.
And
let
no
man
meruell
,
though
I
setting
the
suttletyes
a
syde
,
shall
rather
procede
with
simplenes
,
and
familiaritie
,
and
also
though
I
shall
reherse
one
thing
often
,
for
so
moch
as
that
my
mind
is
to
be
plainely
vnderstand
of
all
men
,
and
chefely
of
the
simple
and
vnlerned
.
And
because
the
thing
is
of
so
great
waight
,
that
it
deserueth
to
be
handled
with
all
diligens
,
to
th
entent
that
all
men
may
the
more
easily
vnderstand
it
,
we
by
order
and
by
parts
will
consider
it
.
And
First
we
wil
see
how
that
there
hath
bene
,
and
yet
be
,
diuers
opinions
of
this
sacrament
of
the
supper
of
the
lord
,
and
the
cause
why
,
and
we
will
bring
furth
the
contrary
talkes
,
and
reasons
to
the
truth
.
Secondarily
whan
we
haue
shewed
the
trewe
,
and
catholike
opinion
,
we
will
proue
it
with
sure
grownd
workes
,
and
plaine
reasons
.
In
the
third
place
,
we
will
make
it
certenly
appeare
,
that
this
is
the
opinion
of
the
holy
fathers
and
of
the
old
church
.
In
the
fourth
we
will
answer
to
the
contrary
saings
and
reasons
,
shewing
them
to
be
vaine
,
and
of
no
waight
.
In
the
fift
and
last
,
we
will
serch
owt
,
from
whens
the
error
,
of
the
fals
Imaginacions
,
in
the
matter
of
that
sacrament
,
is
proceded
,
let
vs
than
in
the
name
of
our
lord
begin
.
We
must
vnderstand
that
the
cause
of
the
differens
in
this
matter
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
some
say
that
Christ
is
really
and
bodyly
in
the
sacrament
of
the
bread
and
the
wyne
,
and
some
other
say
the
contrary
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
he
is
not
there
,
is
the
euel
vnderstanding
of
Christes
own
wordes
the
which
he
spake
whan
he
instituted
the
same
sacrament
.
For
one
opinyon
vnderstandeth
them
after
one
sort
,
and
thother
after
a nother
,
so
that
the
controuersy
and
contraryetye
of
the
opinyons
is
,
because
they
vnderstand
not
Christes
wordes
,
as
they
ought
to
be
vnderstand
.
They
of
the
first
opinyon
say
,
that
seing
the
wordes
be
christes
in
dede
they
can
not
be
fals
,
seing
he
hath
playnely
sayd
,
this
is
my
body
,
shewing
the
breade
,
and
this
is
my
bloode
,
shewing
the
wyne
.
We
must
nedes
say
that
christes
body
and
blood
be
there
,
for
els
his
wordes
should
not
be
trewe
,
but
fals
,
which
can
not
be
,
for
so
moch
as
that
Christ
being
the
chefe
trouth
can
not
say
an
vntrouth
.
He
hathe
sayd
that
the
breade
is
his
body
,
and
the
wyne
is
his
bloode
,
ther
for
it
must
nedes
be
soo
.
And
in
this
opinyon
there
be
also
ij
.
diuers
myndes
.
One
sayth
that
Iesus
Christ
is
not
only
in
the
sacrament
,
but
wil
that
neyther
breade
,
nor
wyne
shuld
remayne
in
the
sacrament
,
but
that
both
of
them
should
be
changed
and
should
be
cownted
turnkynded
,
that
is
to
say
,
transsubstantiated
,
as
they
call
it
,
the
which
meaneth
,
turned
in
to
Christes
body
and
blood
:
The
bread
in
to
Chrystes
trew
and
natural
body
,
the
wyne
in
to
his
blood
.
And
thei
call
this
turning
,
or
changing
trāssubstātiacyō
,
that
is
to
say
,
turning
of
the
substances
,
in
such
sort
,
as
there
remayneth
nothing
of
the
bread
and
the
wyne
but
the
withcommes
,
or
accydentes
,
that
is
to
say
the
whytenes
of
the
breade
,
the
rowndnes
,
the
tast
,
the
sauor
.
And
so
of
the
wyne
there
remayneth
the
rednes
,
if
it
be
redd
,
the
swetenes
,
or
the
sharpnes
,
according
as
the
tast
is
,
and
so
of
the
other
withcommes
,
the
which
remayne
withowt
any
subiect
,
that
is
withowt
any
body
to
be
in
.
But
the
substances
of
th
one
and
thother
,
be
turned
in
to
the
substances
of
christes
body
and
blood
,
and
this
is
done
by
myracle
,
becaus
god
can
doo
all
things
.
And
this
is
the
opinion
of
the
prystes
and
fryres
of
the
romish
church
.
And
they
haue
in
such
sort
preached
it
,
that
the
worlde
in
tyme
past
from
certen
hondreth
yeares
hetherto
,
haue
beleued
it
,
and
cownted
it
,
as
an
article
of
the
faith
.
And
woo
to
hym
that
had
sayd
the
contrary
.
For
they
wold
haue
condemned
,
and
burnt
him
,
as
an
heretik
.
And
that
,
because
the
pope
,
who
was
taken
for
god
on
earth
,
for
Christes
lefetenant
,
and
had
auctoritie
to
make
men
beleue
what
so
euer
liked
hym
,
and
euery
man
was
brought
to
his
determinacion
,
wold
nedes
haue
it
so
.
Certen
other
of
the
first
opinion
too
,
the
which
holdeth
that
Christ
is
realli
,
and
bodily
in
the
Sacrament
,
doo
saie
,
that
not
witstanding
that
Christes
body
is
,
wholly
in
the
breade
,
and
his
blood
wholli
in
the
wine
,
yet
the
breade
and
the
wine
abide
in
their
substance
as
before
,
and
be
not
turned
nor
changed
in
to
a nother
thing
,
as
the
former
opinion
saith
.
And
thes
maner
of
men
must
nedes
saie
,
that
at
the
least
.iij.
very
great
miracles
,
must
come
to
passe
in
this
Sacrament
.
The
first
is
,
that
Christ
is
,
wholli
under
that
breade
,
and
under
that
wine
,
as
great
,
and
as
thick
,
as
he
was
on
the
crosse
,
and
as
presentli
as
he
is
in
heauen
.
This
is
a
gret
thing
,
that
a
great
body
continewyng
great
,
shuld
be
inclosed
in
a
litle
thing
,
moch
lesse
then
the
same
bodi
.
The
second
miracle
is
,
that
Christes
whole
bodi
and
his
wholle
blood
is
in
the
whole
bread
,
and
in
the
whole
wine
,
and
in
eueri
,
yea
the
least
part
of
th
one
,
and
the
other
,
as
it
is
said
of
our
reasonable
sowle
,
that
it
is
whole
in
the
whole
bodi
,
and
whole
in
euery
part
of
the
body
,
in
such
sort
as
if
there
shuld
be
made
x.
thowsand
partes
of
the
breade
,
and
the
wine
,
whole
Christ
,
and
his
whole
blood
,
shuld
be
in
eueri
of
thos
diuided
partes
,
which
is
yea
a
greater
thing
,
withowt
comparison
,
than
that
of
the
being
of
the
sowle
in
the
whole
bodi
,
and
in
eueri
part
of
the
bodi
.
For
allthough
the
sowle
be
in
eueri
part
of
the
bodi
,
whilest
that
the
partes
abide
yoined
together
,
yet
it
is
not
in
all
the
partes
of
the
bodi
,
whan
thei
be
separated
.
For
whan
one
part
is
diuided
from
the
body
,
the
sowle
is
no
more
in
the
same
.
But
Christes
bodi
and
blood
,
according
to
this
opinion
,
be
in
all
the
partis
of
the
bread
and
of
the
wine
,
whan
thei
be
yoined
to gether
,
and
whan
thei
be
diuided
,
or
sondred
.
The
third
miracle
is
,
that
the
same
body
,
and
the
same
blood
,
is
in
heauen
and
in
earth
both
at
a
time
,
and
is
in
all
places
of
the
world
,
where
the
sacrament
is
,
In
France
,
in
Spayne
,
in
England
,
in
Almainy
,
in
Flanders
,
in
Italy
,
in
the
east
,
in
the
west
,
in
this
,
in
that
citie
,
In
this
in
that
church
,
on
this
,
The
chefe
grownd
worck
of
this
first
opinion
is
,
that
Christ
said
.
This
is
my
bodi
,
shewing
the
breade
,
and
This
is
my
blood
,
shewing
the
wine
.
And
therfor
Christ
must
be
in
the
same
sacrament
.
For
els
he
shuld
haue
spoken
falsely
,
the
which
can
not
be
.
Thei
bring
furth
in
dede
other
reasons
,
but
thei
all
doo
litle
auaile
,
as
that
same
,
that
if
Christ
were
not
in
the
sacrament
,
it
shuld
not
haue
bene
so
gret
a
fawt
,
to
him
that
had
receiued
it
vnworthely
,
as
Paul
saith
,
that
is
to
say
,
who
euer
eateth
that
breade
,
and
drinketh
that
wine
unworthyle
,
he
eateth
and
drinketh
Iudgement
,
that
is
to
say
,
condemnation
.
If
Christ
were
not
there
(
say
they
)
it
shuld
not
be
condemnation
to
eate
that
breade
,
and
to
drink
that
wine
,
But
the
condemnacion
is
to
him
that
eateth
and
drinketh
vnworthily
,
Therfor
Iesus
Christes
very
body
,
and
blood
,
is
there
.
And
the
same
Paul
,
in
the
self
same
chapter
,
doth
call
the
consecrated
bread
,
the
lords
body
,
and
therfor
they
say
,
that
Christ
is
in
that
breade
,
and
in
that
wine
.
Thei
of
this
opinion
,
to
my
Iudgement
,
doo
make
no
other
reasons
,
that
be
any
thing
worth
.
Not
withstanding
whan
we
shall
haue
placed
the
trewe
opinion
,
we
will
answer
to
this
shewsom
reason
,
and
with
the
help
of
the
lord
,
we
will
make
it
appeare
,
that
it
is
triffling
,
and
of
no
valewe
.
The
other
opinion
,
and
mind
abowt
this
matter
is
,
that
Christes
body
,
and
blood
,
be
really
in
heauen
,
where
he
sitteth
on
the
right
hand
of
god
the
father
,
and
that
thei
be
not
really
,
and
bodily
in
the
sacrament
,
but
saith
that
the
bread
,
and
the
wine
,
be
signes
appointed
,
to
signifie
the
body
and
the
blood
,
how
Christ
Iesus
hath
geuen
both
th
one
,
and
thother
,
for
our
ransom
,
and
satisfaction
for
our
sinnes
,
to
th
entent
that
we
shuld
kepe
in
our
rememberans
,
so
great
a
thing
and
mistery
,
as
he
him self
whan
he
did
institute
the
same
sacrament
in
the
presence
of
th
apostles
,
sayd
,
First
this
opinion
saith
,
The
reason
standeth
in
this
,
that
the
thanks
geuing
,
or
for
to
vse
paules
wordes
,
the
lordes
supper
is
no
nother
but
a
sacrament
,
therfor
it
is
no
nother
but
a
signe
.
Because
by
the
definicion
allredy
geuen
,
A
sacrament
is
a
signe
of
an
holy
thing
.
The
signe
of
a
thing
is
not
the
thing
it self
,
nor
is
not
changed
in
to
it
,
but
only
doth
signifie
it
,
Therfor
the
breade
and
the
wyne
be
not
changed
in
to
Christes
body
and
blood
nor
they
be
not
inclosed
in
them
,
that
is
to
say
in
the
bread
and
the
wyne
,
And
it
suffiseth
that
thei
be
truly
represented
by
the
bread
and
the
wyne
.
And
though
we
say
that
the
breade
and
the
wyne
,
be
no
nother
but
signes
,
we
meane
not
to
denye
the
effects
,
that
the
spyrite
of
god
(
of
the
which
the
same
sacraments
be
the
mynistery
)
doth
worke
in
the
beleuers
that
receiue
them
.
For
by
meanes
of
the
sacraments
,
the
trewe
beleuers
be
as
it
were
,
by
certen
signes
and
seales
of
god
confirmed
in
his
promises
and
be
assuered
of
gods
grace
,
and
of
many
benyfites
,
which
god
doth
geue
vs
,
through
Christ
,
but
we
doo
only
denye
that
Christ
,
is
body
lythere
,
for
so
moch
as
that
to
work
thes
effectis
,
which
we
say
,
that
the
sacraments
by
the
verteu
of
the
holy
gost
doo
work
,
it
suffiseth
that
they
be
signes
appoynted
by
god
to
that
end
.
And
it
nedeth
not
that
Christ
shuld
be
there
bodyly
present
nor
that
there
shuld
be
made
any
change
of
the
sustances
,
of
the
breade
and
the
wyne
.
22.
1.
Cor.
11.
Further
,
this
sacrament
was
instituted
by
Christ
in
remembrans
as
the
wordes
them
selues
of
the
same
insttucion
,
doo
witnes
,
saing
,
Doo
this
in
mi
rememberans
.
If
it
be
so
than
that
it
was
instituted
for
remembrans
,
it
is
not
necessary
that
Christ
should
be
bodyly
there
,
and
moch
lesse
that
there
should
be
made
any
turnyng
of
the
bread
and
the
wyne
,
in
to
his
body
and
blood
,
because
that
the
bread
and
the
wyne
,
doo
suffise
to
bring
to
remembrans
,
his
passion
and
his
body
and
blood
geuen
for
our
ransom
,
As
the
paschal
lamb
was
sufficient
to
bring
to
rememberans
the
passe
ouer
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
passing
by
of
the
Angel
in
Egypt
.
Yea
it
is
not
only
not
necessary
that
he
shuld
be
there
,
but
if
he
were
there
he
shuld
be
there
in
vayne
,
becaus
he
shuld
be
there
in
such
sort
as
shuld
help
nothing
to
rememberans
,
for
so
moch
as
that
he
could
not
be
seene
.
And
it
is
behouefull
that
the
signes
that
bring
a
thing
to
rememberans
,
as
the
sacramentes
doo
shuld
be
seeable
.
And
it
is
well
knowen
to
what
end
the
sacramentes
were
instituted
,
that
is
to
say
,
because
we
be
bodyed
,
as
the
old
doctors
say
,
and
among
the
rest
,
Chrysostom
vpon
mathew
,
the.
83.
Omelye
,
the
which
sayth
that
therfor
they
were
instituted
,
that
by
them
,
as
by
certen
seeable
signes
,
our
mynd
shuld
be
styrred
vp
to
the
spyrituall
,
and
vnseeable
things
signified
by
the
same
sacramentes
.
And
therfor
saint
Augustne
calleth
the
sacraments
,
seeable
wordes
,
so
that
if
we
were
vnbodied
,
it
neded
not
to
institute
them
.
The
reason
standeth
in
this
.
The
sacraments
were
instituted
in
remembrans
of
Christes
body
and
blood
geuen
for
vs
.
That
which
seruith
for
remembrance
as
an
owtward
signe
,
ought
to
be
seeable
.
Christes
body
and
blood
if
thei
were
in
the
sacrament
,
shuld
be
vnseeable
,
therfor
thei
shuld
nothing
serue
to
put
vs
in
remembrance
.
If
thei
shuld
no
waie
serue
to
put
vs
in
remembrance
,
than
it
is
not
necessary
nor
conuenient
,
that
thei
shuld
be
bodily
present
in
the
sacrament
,
And
it
is
enough
that
the
seeable
signes
,
shuld
be
there
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
bread
and
the
wine
,
which
may
work
that
is
to
say
,
which
may
bring
to
remembrances
the
body
and
blood
,
the
which
thing
Christes
bodily
presens
in
the
sacrament
could
not
doo
.
I
confirme
this
reason
thus
,
If
Christ
be
there
bodily
present
in
the
sacrament
of
thanksgeuing
,
and
the
substances
of
the
breade
and
the
wine
be
changed
in
to
his
body
,
and
blood
,
we
must
say
,
that
either
this
is
by
a
comen
,
and
generall
right
of
a
sacrament
,
the
which
shuld
belong
not
only
to
this
but
also
to
all
the
other
sacraments
,
orels
by
a
particular
and
speciall
right
,
of
this
sacrament
only
.
That
is
to
say
,
that
this
and
not
the
rest
,
shuld
haue
this
prerogatiue
.
Of
necessitie
it
must
be
by
one
of
thes
ij
.
rightes
,
or
els
by
them
both
.
But
first
we
can
not
say
that
it
is
by
a
comon
,
and
generall
right
of
a
sacrament
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
if
a
thing
be
a
sacrament
,
it
shuld
be
necessary
,
that
the
thing
signified
by
the
same
sacrament
,
shuld
there
be
present
,
and
moch
lesse
that
ther
shuld
be
made
any
turning
of
the
substances
,
this
can
not
be
sayd
,
because
that
their
things
signified
ought
than
to
be
there
present
in
all
the
other
sacraments
,
and
that
there
shuld
be
made
a
changing
of
the
substances
.
But
we
doo
see
the
contrary
,
for
so
moch
as
that
in
all
the
other
sacraments
,
the
substance
remayneth
as
at
the
first
,
and
is
not
changed
,
and
there
was
neuer
any
man
,
that
wold
say
any
such
thing
,
If
thei
wold
speake
of
the
old
sacraments
and
of
the
sacramentes
of
the
hebrewes
that
is
to
sai
,
of
the
circumcision
,
of
paschal
lamb
,
of
the
rock
,
owt
of
which
issewed
the
water
in
the
desert
,
and
of
the
manna
,
the
which
things
were
sacraments
to
that
people
,
because
thei
were
to
them
signes
of
holy
things
,
no
one
of
thes
dyd
euer
change
the
substance
for
to
be
a
sacrament
.
The
flesh
of
the
paschal
lamb
remained
flesh
,
as
before
,
And
we
will
sai
the
same
of
the
rock
,
and
of
the
manna
,
that
there
was
no
maner
change
of
substancc
.
The
newe
sacramentes
also
of
the
Christian
people
,
thei
also
doo
not
change
substance
.
The
water
of
baptisme
,
remaineth
water
as
before
.
The
other
likewise
which
be
by
the
scoole
men
,
and
newe
doctors
cownted
for
sacraments
,
that
is
to
say
,
Creame
,
Oile
,
which
thei
call
holy
,
Penans
,
Orders
and
matrimony
,
the
which
in
deede
be
no
sacraments
,
becaus
thei
were
not
instituted
by
Christ
for
sacraments
,
thei
doo
not
change
their
substances
,
but
remaine
in
their
first
substance
,
and
there
is
made
no
maner
of
change
,
This
is
clere
,
so
that
there
nedeth
not
by
comon
and
general
right
of
sacraments
,
to
put
Christes
bodied
presens
in
the
sacrament
,
and
moch
lesse
to
affirme
that
there
shuld
be
made
,
a
substanciall
changing
of
the
bread
,
and
the
wine
,
in
to
his
body
and
blood
.
Nor
we
ought
not
neither
to
say
,
that
by
particular
,
and
speciall
right
of
this
sacrament
,
Christ
shuld
be
bodily
present
,
nor
that
there
shuld
be
made
such
maner
of
change
,
For
so
moch
as
that
the
particular
right
of
this
sacrament
is
,
cheeflie
that
it
shuld
be
a
signe
,
sondred
from
the
other
sacraments
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
it
shuld
be
bread
,
and
wine
in
substance
,
which
be
things
diuers
from
the
other
sacraments
.
And
further
,
that
it
shuld
haue
a
particular
,
and
diuers
significacion
,
from
the
other
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
it
is
instituted
to
bring
particularly
to
our
rememberans
,
Christes
passion
,
and
death
,
and
that
it
shuld
represent
vnto
vs
,
how
Christ
gaue
his
body
,
and
shed
his
blood
,
for
our
ransoming
.
This
is
the
particular
and
speciall
right
of
this
sacrament
,
by
the
which
it
is
sondri
and
diuers
from
the
other
sacraments
.
But
it
is
not
necessary
by
this
ryght
,
that
there
shuld
be
made
a
change
of
the
substances
of
the
breade
and
wine
,
and
that
Christ
shuld
be
in
the
sacrament
.
For
the
breade
and
wine
remayne
in
their
substances
as
thei
were
first
,
and
may
(
withowt
that
that
Christ
shuld
be
present
in
the
sacrament
)
work
thes
effects
,
that
is
to
say
,
bring
to
our
rememberans
,
and
represent
vnto
vs
,
Christes
passion
,
and
death
,
and
how
he
hath
geuen
his
body
,
and
blood
,
for
our
ransoming
.
It
is
ynough
for
the
working
of
this
rememberans
,
that
thei
haue
a
newe
significacion
.
It
is
not
necessary
to
change
the
substances
,
as
in
the
first
reason
we
haue
sayd
.
Yea
,
I
say
,
that
seing
the
sacraments
were
instituted
to
th
entent
that
thei
shuld
be
trewe
signes
,
of
holy
things
,
their
substance
must
nedes
remayne
,
as
it
was
first
.
For
otherwise
,
thei
shuld
not
haue
agrement
and
likelied
,
with
ther
things
signified
,
nor
thei
shuld
not
be
trewe
signes
.
As
for
example
,
baptisme
hath
lykelihode
with
the
spiritual
wasshing
,
because
it
is
water
.
And
as
the
water
wassheth
,
and
clenseth
the
body
,
so
be
thos
that
beleue
in
Christ
spiritually
clensed
,
and
wasshed
from
their
sinnes
,
but
if
the
Water
of
baptisme
shuld
not
remaine
,
water
,
but
shuld
change
the
substance
,
it
shuld
not
haue
such
agreement
.
Soo
we
will
say
of
the
breade
,
and
the
wine
,
that
therfor
thei
haue
likelied
with
Christes
body
,
and
blood
,
because
thei
abide
still
breade
and
wine
,
for
so
moch
as
,
that
euen
as
the
breade
,
and
the
wine
,
doo
noryssh
,
and
mainteine
the
life
of
the
body
,
so
Christes
body
,
and
blood
receiued
spiritually
,
and
thorow
faith
in
to
the
mind
,
doo
norissh
and
mainteine
vs
,
in
the
spirituall
life
.
And
for
this
cause
Christ
Iesus
called
his
flessh
verily
meate
,
and
his
blood
verily
drinck
.
But
if
the
substance
of
breade
,
and
wine
shuld
not
abide
but
the
only
withcommes
shuld
remaine
,
there
shuld
not
be
that
liklihode
,
and
agreement
which
this
sacrament
requireth
,
because
that
the
only
withcommes
of
breade
,
and
wine
withowt
the
substances
,
can
not
norissh
.
And
whan
the
dewe
agreement
,
and
likelyhode
is
not
there
,
thei
shuld
not
be
trewe
signes
,
and
consequently
,
thei
shuld
not
be
trewe
sacraments
.
And
here
it
may
be
seene
,
that
thei
of
this
opinion
,
destroie
the
sacraments
,
making
them
not
to
be
trewe
but
vaine
signes
taking
from
them
the
growndwork
of
their
trewe
meaning
.
A nother
reason
is
this
.
And
a
fewe
words
,
he
addeth
,
veryly
,
veryly
I
say
vnto
you
,
he
that
beleueth
in
me
,
hath
lyfe
euerlaftinge
.
I
am
the
bread
of
lyfe
And
a
litle
after
,
he
saith
,
if
you
shall
not
eat
the
flesh
of
the
sonne
of
man
and
drink
his
blood
,
you
shall
not
haue
lyfe
in
you
.
He
that
eateth
my
flesh
and
drinketh
my
blood
,
hath
lyfe
euerlastinge
.
If
thes
wordes
spoken
by
Christ
,
be
trew
as
necessaryly
thei
must
be
trew
,
because
Christ
cannot
tell
an
vntroth
.
It
doth
necessaryly
folow
that
the
eatinge
his
flesh
and
drinking
his
bloode
,
is
none
other
,
but
to
beleue
in
him
or
at
the
least
,
that
the
eatinge
his
flesh
and
drinking
his
blood
,
and
the
beleuing
in
him
,
be
things
so
ioyned
to gether
,
that
they
cannot
be
separate
the
one
from
the
other
.
The
reason
is
this
becauce
that
if
these
words
were
not
the
same
in
sentence
,
or
ells
that
thei
were
suche
as
might
be
separated
,
the
one
from
the
other
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
the
one
might
be
trew
without
the
other
,
we
must
needs
say
,
that
a
man
might
be
saued
,
and
haue
the
lyfe
euerlasting
,
without
the
eating
of
Christs
flesh
,
and
drinking
his
blood
,
the
which
is
against
Christs
expresse
wordes
,
who
saieth
that
he
can
not
haue
lyfe
that
eateth
not
his
flesh
and
drinketh
not
his
blood
.
Or
els
we
must
nedes
saye
,
that
a
man
might
be
saued
not
beleuinge
in
Christ
.
This
is
clere
because
Christ
saith
that
he
that
eateth
his
flesh
,
and
drinketh
his
blood
,
hath
lyfe
euerlasting
.
If
it
be
so
that
man
is
saued
by
eating
his
flesh
,
and
drinking
his
blood
,
when
as
this
eating
,
and
drinkinge
,
be
not
the
same
that
beleuinge
is
,
or
els
that
they
may
be
separated
,
that
is
to
sai
that
the
eating
,
and
drinkinge
,
should
be
without
the
beleuing
,
a
man
then
shall
haue
life
euerlastinge
without
beleuing
in
Christ
,
the
which
likewise
is
against
Christs
expresse
words
,
who
will
that
he
that
bebeleueth
should
be
saued
and
he
that
beleueth
not
should
be
damned
.
Seing
then
that
the
one
and
the
other
of
these
two
sainges
be
trew
,
that
is
to
saie
,
that
he
that
eateth
Christs
fleshe
,
and
drinketh
his
blood
hath
lyfe
euerlasting
and
he
that
dothe
not
this
can
not
haue
it
.
And
this
other
also
is
trewe
,
that
is
to
saie
he
that
beleueth
in
Christ
,
hath
lyfe
euerlastinge
and
he
that
doth
not
beleue
cannot
haue
it
:
It
followeth
,
of
necessitie
,
that
to
eate
Christs
flesh
and
to
drink
his
blood
,
and
to
beleue
in
him
should
be
one self
thinge
or
els
yf
they
should
not
be
the
same
,
at
the
least
that
they
could
not
by
any
meanes
be
separated
,
that
is
to
saie
,
the
one
to
be
without
the
other
.
I
haue
made
this
longe
discourse
to
make
men
vnderstand
that
these
words
of
Christ
of
the
eating
of
his
flesh
and
drinking
his
blood
,
be
not
to
be
vnderstand
of
the
bodyly
eatinge
,
and
drinking
,
and
much
lesse
are
to
be
vnderstand
of
the
eating
and
drinking
the
sacrament
of
the
lords
supper
,
but
of
the
onely
spirituall
eatinge
,
and
drinkinge
,
and
thei
that
alledge
them
of
the
body
or
els
of
the
sacramentall
eating
or
drinking
,
do
alledge
them
out
of
the
purpose
.
Further
also
to
make
men
know
the
chefe
purpose
,
that
is
to
sai
,
that
althoughe
Christ
were
bodely
in
the
sacrament
,
it
should
helpe
nothing
,
because
that
the
fleshly
eating
after
what
so
euersorte
it
should
be
done
,
doth
nothing
proffit
to
the
witnessing
of
Christ
,
seing
the
spiritual
eatinge
onely
,
is
that
which
geueth
life
.
And
if
any
wold
answer
and
saie
that
when
Christ
said
that
the
flesh
did
help
nothinge
,
that
he
did
meane
,
that
it
did
help
nothing
,
whan
it
was
eaten
,
as
they
did
vnderstand
it
,
to
whome
Christ
spake
,
that
is
to
saie
,
the
Capernaits
,
the
which
thought
that
he
did
meane
to
saie
,
that
they
should
eat
his
flesh
as
the
flesh
of
the
shambells
is
eaten
,
and
drink
his
blood
as
wine
and
water
is
dronk
.
But
Christ
in
the
sacrament
,
is
eaten
after
suche
a
certene
sort
as
he
is
not
seane
nor
perceauid
,
no
nor
chewed
,
because
he
is
in
the
same
sacrament
vndiuideably
,
nor
his
flesh
is
not
eaten
nor
blood
dronken
for
to
norish
the
body
,
as
other
bodelie
meates
,
but
to
norishe
the
soule
.
And
therfore
Christ
reprouid
the
Capernaties
because
thei
vnderstode
him
euel
fauoredly
,
and
not
as
he
wold
be
vnderstand
.
This
answer
is
nothinge
,
for
whan
Christ
said
,
that
the
flesh
helpeth
nothinge
,
but
the
spirite
is
that
which
geueth
life
,
he
ment
that
the
only
spirituall
eating
the
which
is
done
with
the
harte
and
with
the
minde
thorow
belefe
was
that
which
helped
,
but
the
bodily
and
fleshly
eating
,
helped
nothing
after
what
so
euer
sort
it
should
be
done
.
There
is
no
doubt
,
but
though
that
Christ
be
not
eaten
in
peeces
and
partes
,
orels
chawed
as
other
flesh
is
chawed
and
eaten
,
as
the
Capernaites
did
vnderstand
it
:
Yet
not
with
standinge
,
after
what
so
eauer
sort
he
should
be
eaten
,
by
the
bodily
mouth
,
whether
it
were
by
parts
or
whole
as
they
of
the
first
opinion
beleue
,
the
which
will
,
that
Christ
great
and
thick
as
he
was
vpon
the
wood
of
the
crosse
,
shuld
be
wholy
in
the
sacrament
,
that
is
to
say
,
in
that
litle
host
,
as
they
call
it
.
This
is
a
fleshly
and
bodely
eating
,
for
so
much
,
as
that
a
thing
is
no
whit
lesse
bodely
eaten
,
whan
it
is
put
all
hole
into
the
mouth
,
and
sent
into
the
stomake
,
as
Ionas
was
wholy
swalowed
by
the
whale
,
or
as
the
pills
that
be
receauid
whole
.
It
is
no
whitlesse
bodely
eaten
(
I
say
)
than
if
it
were
eaten
by
partes
.
I
therfor
by
the
bodily
eating
do
meane
that
which
is
not
of
the
spirite
.
This
of
the
whiche
they
speak
,
that
is
done
by
the
mouthe
,
is
not
with
the
minde
therfor
it
is
bodely
,
If
it
be
bodelie
,
it
helpeth
nothinge
.
I
wil
say
to
be
shorte
,
that
if
Christ
were
bodily
preasent
in
the
sacrament
,
that
his
being
there
should
be
nothinge
profitable
at
all
,
althoughe
that
we
should
eat
his
flesh
,
and
drink
his
bluode
a
thousand
times
,
for
so
much
as
that
the
spiritual
eating
,
and
drinkinge
onely
the
which
is
by
faith
,
beleuinge
truely
in
him
,
is
that
,
whiche
helpeth
.
The
bodely
and
fleshly
eating
and
drinking
his
body
and
blood
,
the
which
is
done
by
the
mouth
helpeth
nothing
.
They
then
do
litle
honour
to
Christ
,
that
wold
that
he
should
be
really
,
in
the
sacrament
,
because
they
wold
bringe
to
passe
,
that
Christ
should
haue
made
vnprofitable
thinges
,
the
whiche
we
may
not
think
,
much
lesse
speake
.
But
because
we
haue
said
,
that
the
onely
spirituall
eating
and
drinking
Christs
flesh
and
bluode
,
is
that
which
helpeth
,
and
not
the
bodely
,
some
man
might
saye
to
what
purpose
then
did
Christ
institute
the
sacramentall
eatinge
and
drinkinge
,
the
which
is
not
spirituall
,
but
bodelye
&c.
To
this
I
answer
,
that
the
sacrament
was
therfore
instituted
by
Christ
because
that
although
the
eatinge
and
drinkinge
of
it
,
be
not
spirituall
but
bodely
,
yet
not
with
standing
it
serueth
,
and
is
profitable
,
to
the
spirituall
eating
and
drinking
,
the
whiche
is
by
faith
for
so
much
as
the
sacrament
doth
confirme
vs
in
faith
,
because
it
is
ordeyned
to
this
end
.
Not
that
it
shuld
already
haue
this
power
of
it self
,
but
because
it
is
an
instrument
,
or
els
a
ministerie
of
the
spirite
,
ioined
to
the
word
of
the
holye
gospell
,
with
which
instrument
,
and
ministerie
,
the
same
spirite
worketh
in
vs
,
And
it
is
not
necessarye
that
Christ
should
be
bodelye
in
the
sacrament
to
serue
for
the
eating
and
drinkinge
spiritually
,
and
by
faith
,
it
is
enoughe
that
the
bread
and
the
wyne
,
as
holye
signes
,
be
there
for
vs
,
as
we
will
better
tell
you
in
the
last
reason
.
And
whan
I
say
that
the
spirituall
eating
,
and
drinkinge
onelye
,
is
proffitable
,
and
not
the
bodelie
,
I
meane
of
the
bodely
eating
,
of
the
same
trew
bodye
,
and
of
the
bodely
drinking
,
of
the
trew
bloude
of
Christ
put
into
the
mouth
as
the
Capernaites
did
meane
,
and
as
they
affirme
,
the
which
wold
haue
Christ
to
be
really
in
the
sacrament
,
both
in
bodye
and
soule
.
I
do
not
meane
of
the
sacramentall
eating
the
which
without
doubt
is
profitable
,
when
it
is
ioyned
with
the
spirituall
.
And
whan
it
is
not
ioyned
,
it
is
not
onely
not
profitable
,
but
it
is
damnable
,
as
Saint
Paule
saieth
in
the
first
to
the
Corinthians
because
it
is
vnworthelie
receaued
.
Here
thy
of
this
opinion
be
intangled
and
they
answer
some
after
one
sorte
,
and
some
after
another
.
Innocentius
the
thirde
,
in
his
booke
of
the
office
of
the
masse
saith
that
euen
as
the
substance
of
the
bread
is
miraculously
turned
into
the
substance
of
Christs
body
the
withcommes
only
of
the
bread
and
the
wine
remaininge
,
so
the
substance
of
the
bread
,
of
the
which
the
wormes
or
any
other
thinge
,
might
be
engendered
,
may
miraculouslie
returne
.
Egidius
Romanus
in
his
Theoremes
of
Christs
bodie
saith
,
that
such
an
engenderinge
is
nat
miraculous
,
but
natural
,
for
because
(
saith
he
)
that
the
reasonable
minde
,
althoughe
it
be
made
by
god
onelie
,
yet
not
with
standinge
,
for
as
muche
as
god
hath
disposed
,
and
ordened
,
that
after
the
bodie
of
the
creature
be
fashioned
in
his
mothers
wombe
,
the
reasonable
soule
is
put
into
the
same
creatures
bodie
,
and
this
is
a
natural
poinct
by
the
reason
of
gods
order
taken
therin
,
and
if
it
were
otherwise
it
shuld
be
a
gainst
the
order
of
nature
.
Euen
so
seinge
that
god
hath
ordeined
,
that
the
withcommes
shuld
be
grownded
in
the
substance
as
soone
as
the
withcommes
of
the
bread
and
the
wine
,
be
corrupted
immediatly
,
by
the
natural
order
that
he
hath
geuen
to
things
doth
creat
the
matter
,
and
doth
put
it
vnder
thother
withcommes
newlie
brought
in
of
the
which
matter
the
wormes
be
after
engendered
.
Some
other
say
that
a
norishinge
matter
may
be
engendered
in
the
priests
stomake
,
the
whiche
with
the
sacrament
receaued
may
easely
norishe
,
although
the
formes
,
that
is
to
say
the
withcommes
of
the
bread
and
the
wine
of
them selfes
should
not
norishe
.
Certein
other
haue
said
,
that
euen
as
god
by
miracle
hath
made
that
the
withcomes
of
bread
and
wine
,
should
be
without
subiect
,
as
though
they
were
substances
,
so
he
geueth
them
the
nature
of
the
substances
of
the
bread
and
wine
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
the
wormes
may
be
engendered
of
the
withcommes
and
so
we
must
say
that
by
miracle
,
substances
may
be
engendered
of
things
whiche
be
no
substances
,
although
such
a
matter
be
imposible
by
nature
.
But
what
dreames
?
what
imaginacions
?
(
and
let
them
pardon
me
)
what
monsters
be
these
?
who
maketh
them
fuer
that
it
is
so
?
as
for
example
,
from
whence
gathereth
Innocentius
that
the
substance
of
the
bread
should
miraculously
returne
?
And
Egidius
Romanus
that
god
should
creat
new
matter
,
and
should
,
put
it
vnder
the
withcommes
newly
brought
in
,
and
vnder
the
shape
of
a
thinge
newly
engendred
?
And
those
other
,
that
a
norishinge
matter
should
be
engendered
in
the
stomake
?
And
finally
the
last
of
all
,
that
by
gods
might
,
a
substance
should
be
engendered
of
the
withcommes
?
If
in
a
matter
of
our
faith
,
we
wil
after
this
sorte
dallie
and
gesse
at
a
venture
without
the
holy
scripture
,
we
may
then
sett
forth
and
affirme
al
that
we
list
,
as
thoughe
it
were
trew
,
and
tel
as
many
phantasies
and
fables
,
I
will
not
say
follies
as
shall
come
in
oure
head
.
We
ought
not
to
dresse
vp
gods
things
after
oure
maner
,
and
as
toies
come
in
our
braine
:
but
we
must
handle
them
with
fear
and
reuerence
and
with
gods
words
,
and
walk
suerly
not
accordinge
to
oure
owne
phantasies
.
Without
doubt
,
this
Imagination
of
the
chaunginge
of
the
substance
of
the
bread
,
and
wine
into
Christs
bodie
and
blode
,
and
that
the
onely
withcomes
of
the
bread
,
and
the
wine
remaine
,
is
false
.
but
the
substances
of
the
bread
and
wine
remaine
,
for
if
they
should
not
remaine
these
euident
and
open
effectes
could
not
be
wrought
,
that
is
to
saie
,
the
norishinge
and
new
engenderinge
which
be
made
.
The
cause
whie
they
speak
thus
,
that
is
to
say
,
without
ani
maner
of
groundeworke
,
and
be
forced
to
graunt
to
mani
inconueniences
,
is
,
because
they
defend
an
euell
,
and
an
vniust
cause
,
and
therfore
they
must
graunte
many
inconueniences
.
And
in
dede
(
as
it
is
commenly
said
)
they
wote
not
what
they
fishe
for
,
beare
with
me
you
readers
,
seing
I
tell
the
trueth
.
Another
reason
is
this
.
And
this
may
be
another
reason
to
proue
that
Christ
,
Another
reason
is
this
the
opinion
that
saith
Christ
is
bodely
in
the
sacrament
diminisheth
the
trueth
of
Christs
trew
and
naturall
bodye
,
therfore
it
is
false
.
It
is
clere
that
the
Christian
religion
holdeth
for
an
article
of
the
faith
,
that
Christ
is
a
trew
,
and
naturall
man
,
that
is
to
say
,
The
other
propertie
is
to
be
onely
in
one
place
.
And
these
properties
be
in
such
sort
natural
to
a
body
,
that
thei
cannot
by
any
meanes
be
separated
from
it
,
and
when
a
man
separateth
them
from
the
bodye
,
then
shall
it
be
no
more
a
bodye
.
These
among
the
rest
,
be
two
properties
,
that
make
the
bodye
vndyuidehable
as
the
philosophers
sai
,
that
is
to
saie
,
thei
make
that
the
bodye
is
an
vndyuidehable
thinge
,
that
is
to
say
,
onely
one
,
other
this
,
or
that
,
distincte
,
and
dyuers
from
other
.
And
that
these
two
properties
,
that
is
to
saye
,
to
occupy
place
,
and
so
much
as
the
quantite
and
greatnes
of
the
body
is
,
and
likwise
that
a
body
cannot
be
but
in
one
place
at
ones
,
and
at
one
tyme
,
be
in
separable
from
the
bodye
,
nor
there
can
be
no
maner
of
body
that
hath
them
not
,
whether
it
beglorified
or
no.
We
speak
not
this
of
oure self
onely
,
for
Saint
Augustine
saith
it
in
his
57.
epistle
answering
to
dardanus
the
bishop
,
who
had
made
certain
questions
or
demaunds
to
him
,
and
he
answering
him
to
one
after
another
,
sayth
to
the
first
,
speaking
of
Christe
risen
and
glorified
:
doubt
not
(
sayth
he
)
but
the
man
Christ
Iesus
,
is
now
there
,
from
whence
he
shall
come
.
And
after
a
few
words
,
he
sayth
,
he
shall
come
from
none
other
place
,
then
from
whence
he
shall
come
to
iudge
the
lyuinge
and
the
dead
(
and
meaneth
from
heauen
)
And
so
he
shall
come
by
the
witnes
of
the
Aungels
voice
,
in
the
self
same
forme
and
substance
of
flesh
in
the
which
he
was
seen
go
into
heauen
,
to
the
which
forme
and
substance
,
in
dede
he
hath
geuen
immortalitie
,
but
he
hath
not
taken
away
the
nature
,
we
must
not
think
that
according
to
this
forme
,
that
is
to
saye
,
of
the
flesh
,
he
is
spred
abrode
euery
where
,
for
we
must
take
hede
,
that
we
do
not
,
in
such
sorte
,
affirme
the
godhed
of
the
man
,
that
we
should
take
away
the
troth
of
the
bodye
,
for
so
much
as
it
doth
not
in
dede
folow
that
he
that
is
in
god
,
should
be
so
euery
where
as
god
.
And
after
a
few
words
he
saith
.
God
and
man
is
one
person
,
and
one
Christ
Iesus
,
is
th
one
and
thother
,
In
that
that
he
is
god
,
he
is
euery
where
,
but
in
that
that
he
is
man
he
is
in
heauen
.
And
after
about
the
middest
of
the
Epistle
,
or
a
litle
before
,
he
saith
:
Take
the
rowmes
of
places
from
the
bodies
,
and
they
shal
not
be
in
any
place
,
and
because
they
shall
not
be
in
any
place
,
they
shal
not
be
at
all
,
take
the
same
bodies
,
from
the
qualities
of
bodies
,
and
there
shall
be
no
place
,
where
they
should
be
,
and
therfore
it
is
of
necessitie
that
thei
be
not
.
Also
he
saith
in
the
30.
treatise
vpon
Ihon
,
the
lord
is
aboue
,
but
yet
the
troth
is
here
,
that
is
to
sai
,
the
lord
,
because
that
the
bodye
of
the
lord
,
in
the
which
,
he
is
risen
,
must
nedes
be
in
one
place
,
but
the
troth
of
the
same
,
is
spred
abrode
euery
where
.
By
all
these
words
of
Augustine
we
haue
specially
two
thinges
.
The
first
is
that
Iesus
Christ
risen
and
glorified
,
is
not
in
that
he
is
man
but
in
one
place
,
that
is
to
say
in
heauen
,
from
whence
he
shall
come
to
iudge
the
lyuing
and
dead
,
in
that
he
is
god
,
he
is
euery
where
in
the
world
.
The
second
is
,
that
the
bodies
of
necessitie
do
occupye
rowme
of
place
and
if
they
did
not
occupy
rowme
,
they
should
not
be
in
any
place
,
and
being
in
no
place
,
they
should
not
be
any
thing
at
all
,
but
should
be
nothinge
:
this
groundwork
standing
that
these
two
properties
,
that
is
to
saye
that
euery
body
doth
occupy
so
much
place
,
as
his
greatnes
is
,
and
likewise
it
is
not
at
one
tyme
but
in
one
place
.
And
these
two
properties
cannot
be
taken
from
bodyes
,
And
he
that
wold
take
them
awaye
,
should
bring
to
passe
that
the
bodyis
should
not
be
in
anye
place
,
as
S.
Austen
sayth
and
if
they
should
not
be
in
any
place
,
thei
should
be
nothing
:
It
foloweth
necessaryly
,
that
if
Christ
were
bodely
in
the
sacrament
,
for
somuch
as
there
he
should
not
haue
neather
the
one
,
nor
the
other
of
these
two
proꝑties
,
It
foloweth
,
I
say
,
that
Christ
in
the
sacrament
should
not
haue
a
trew
bodye
,
yea
no
bodye
,
because
that
his
body
(
be
it
where
it
will
,
and
as
it
will
)
it
cannot
be
separatid
from
these
two
properties
,
to
a
bodie
most
naturall
and
inseparable
,
according
to
Austen
and
the
troth
.
Here
they
say
that
it
is
true
(
speakinge
naturally
)
that
these
two
conditions
and
properties
cannot
be
separated
,
from
bodies
,
but
speaking
supernaturally
;
and
by
miracle
,
they
may
be
separated
from
the
bodyes
,
as
in
effectt
they
be
separated
from
Christes
bodye
in
the
sacrament
.
To
this
I
answer
,
first
,
that
the
substantiall
properties
be
neuer
chaunged
by
miracle
,
let
them
finde
,
that
god
euer
did
it
,
let
them
geue
me
one
onely
example
.
We
know
that
god
is
almighty
and
there
is
no
maner
thinge
that
may
be
done
,
Impossible
vnto
him
,
as
the
Aungell
sayd
to
Marye
,
but
who
knoweth
that
this
thinge
may
be
done
?
I
will
not
stand
now
,
to
dispute
this
thinge
,
I
desier
them
that
they
wold
geue
some
other
example
,
but
they
will
neauer
do
it
.
Further
I
say
that
it
belongeth
to
them
to
proue
that
god
doth
these
miracles
.
This
is
no
good
reason
God
can
do
it
,
therfore
he
hath
done
it
.
How
many
thinges
can
god
do
that
he
hath
not
done
?
God
could
haue
sent
more
then
twelue
legions
of
Aungels
for
to
delyuer
Christ
out
of
the
Iewces
hands
,
Peraduenture
they
will
say
,
that
in
matters
of
faith
there
nedeth
no
profes
but
men
must
stand
to
the
letter
.
This
thinge
is
of
faith
therfore
it
nedeth
no
profe
I
say
that
in
matters
of
faith
we
must
stand
to
gods
worde
with
the
right
vnderstanding
of
it
,
and
trew
sense
of
the
words
,
nor
we
must
not
geue
them
other
and
straunge
senses
,
Contrary
to
the
mynde
of
the
spirite
.
The
sense
of
the
spirite
is
not
,
that
Christ
should
be
bodelye
in
the
host
,
and
in
the
cupp
,
as
it
is
sayde
,
but
it
is
that
whiche
we
haue
said
,
and
will
better
saye
,
in
the
talke
that
foloweth
,
where
we
will
declare
the
manners
of
sacramentall
speaches
,
according
to
the
scripture
.
And
to
be
short
that
we
may
end
now
at
lenght
this
reasoninge
,
I
saye
that
this
opinion
of
the
being
of
Christs
body
and
bluode
in
the
sacrament
,
doth
diminishe
the
troth
of
Iesus
Christs
trew
bodye
and
trew
bluode
.
And
it
maketh
him
to
haue
in
the
sacrament
,
a
phantasticall
body
,
and
much
more
phantasticall
then
Martiane
,
and
Manicheus
who
when
they
spake
of
Christ
and
apointed
him
notrew
and
naturall
body
,
but
a
phantasticall
,
and
Imaginable
,
orels
a
seming
bodie
,
they
saied
things
lesse
striuing
against
nature
then
this
opinion
,
because
they
did
neauer
deuide
Christs
bodie
,
nor
speak
of
him
things
so
vnimaginable
as
this
opinion
doth
,
nor
they
neauer
said
that
he
was
in
two
places
at
ones
.
This
opinion
maketh
him
to
be
(
in
that
he
is
man
)
In
infinite
places
,
nor
they
neauer
said
,
that
a
great
bodie
was
conteined
in
so
litle
a
thinge
as
these
men
say
,
and
so
we
wil
saie
of
the
other
so
many
Imaginacions
,
which
the
forsaid
opinion
placeth
.
And
yet
though
Manicheus
and
Martian
,
did
say
these
or
like
things
,
as
they
say
,
It
should
haue
bene
lesse
in
conuenient
,
seinge
they
did
apoint
him
a
fantastike
and
a
semeable
bodie
.
But
this
opinion
affirming
that
Christ
hath
a
trew
and
a
naturall
body
in
the
sacrament
doth
yet
speake
such
things
of
him
,
as
neather
can
be
in
dede
,
nor
be
not
Imaginable
,
and
be
without
all
reason
,
without
also
gods
worde
,
and
more
reproweable
(
as
to
this
)
than
the
fore said
opinions
(
I
meane
)
of
Manicheus
and
Martion
,
and
without
doubt
they
speak
things
disagreing
to
themselues
.
Furthermore
if
Christ
be
in
the
sacrament
what
meaneth
it
that
the
old
church
when
should
make
the
consecration
of
the
bread
and
wine
,
did
singe
the
preface
,
as
it
is
called
,
Sur
sum
Corda
that
is
to
say
,
lift
vp
your
harts
on
highe
,
and
also
these
words
be
now
said
in
al
the
masses
?
Suerly
we
ought
to
haue
our
harts
where
Christ
and
our
treasour
is
,
as
he
himself
in
S.
Math
,
And
S.
Paule
to
the
Colossians
saith
.
If
we
will
say
that
Christ
hath
geuen
to
the
words
of
the
Sacrament
of
the
bread
and
the
wine
,
the
power
to
make
the
turninge
of
th
one
and
tother
into
the
body
and
bluod
,
but
he
hath
not
gewen
the
pouer
,
to
thother
words
,
of
the
lamb
,
to
turne
it
into
the
passouer
,
orels
that
the
passouer
should
be
the
lamb
.
After
paule
addeth
in
the
same
place
that
all
did
eat
the
self
same
spirituall
food
,
and
dronk
all
the
self
same
spirituall
drink
,
And
he
calleth
that
spirituall
meat
,
or
els
foode
(
whether
you
wil
call
it
)
the
paschal
lamb
,
and
chefely
the
manna
,
the
which
meates
they
all
did
eat
,
and
he
calleth
the
spirituall
drink
,
that
water
which
came
out
of
the
rock
.
And
he
addeth
,
that
that
rock
was
Christ
,
that
is
to
say
,
did
signifie
Christ
.
That
spirituall
foode
,
that
is
to
say
the
paschall
lamb
and
the
Manna
,
did
also
signifie
Christ
,
as
the
water
did
betoken
him
,
although
paule
doth
not
expresly
speake
it
.
And
to
be
short
he
meaneth
that
the
hebrueish
people
did
aswell
communicate
with
those
signes
,
as
we
do
that
eat
the
sacramentall
bread
and
sacramentall
wyne
,
And
paule
meaneth
in
his
tong
,
that
all
did
eat
,
and
drink
Christ
sacramentally
,
for
so
much
,
as
that
to
eat
a
thing
sacramentally
,
is
none
other
,
but
to
eat
the
sacrament
of
the
same
.
Well
now
if
that
people
did
eat
Christ
,
and
drinke
his
blood
sacramentally
,
when
they
did
eat
the
paschall
lamb
,
and
the
manna
,
and
drunk
that
water
that
rann
out
of
the
rock
,
the
which
things
were
a
sacrament
of
Christ
,
as
the
bread
and
the
wyne
be
to
vs
,
and
did
signifie
the
same
,
as
paule
sayth
,
and
Austen
expoundeth
it
in
the
45.
treatyse
vpon
Iohn
,
saing
,
that
those
sacraments
did
signifie
the
self
same
that
oures
doo
,
althoughe
after
an
other
sort
.
And
yet
not
withstanding
they
did
not
eat
Christs
body
nor
drink
his
bluod
really
,
putting
them
in
to
the
mouth
:
What
is
the
cause
that
we
mai
not
also
eate
his
body
,
and
drink
his
bluod
,
sacramentally
,
without
eating
or
drinkinge
him
really
and
bodely
,
forso
much
as
that
to
eat
or
drink
Christ
sacramentally
,
is
none
other
but
to
receaue
with
the
mouth
his
sacrament
?
And
to
be
à
sacrament
,
it
is
not
nedefull
that
the
thing
signified
should
be
in
the
same
sacrament
,
and
much
lesse
that
there
should
be
made
any
turninge
of
the
substances
of
the
signes
,
And
it
is
enoughe
that
the
sacrament
should
be
a
signe
of
the
same
,
that
is
to
sai
,
that
it
should
signifie
it
,
according
to
the
definition
of
a
sacrament
which
sayth
Sacramentum
est
sacrae
rei
signum
,
that
is
to
say
,
A
sacrament
is
a
signe
of
a
holy
thinge
,
It
is
plaine
that
Christ
,
as
man
,
was
not
really
in
the
hebrues
sacraments
,
because
,
he
was
not
yet
ether
borne
or
incarnated
.
And
how
could
his
body
and
his
bluod
be
in
those
sacraments
seing
his
body
and
bluod
were
not
yet
?
And
yet
paule
saieth
that
they
did
eat
the
self
same
spiritual
meat
,
and
the
self
same
spiritual
drink
that
is
to
say
,
Christ
spiritually
.
Certein
expound
paules
text
,
of
the
spirituall
eating
and
drinking
of
that
people
,
that
is
to
saye
,
by
faith
but
because
that
all
did
not
eat
and
drink
spiritually
and
by
faith
,
for
so
much
as
that
a
great
parte
of
them
,
as
paule
affirmeth
,
in
the
text
were
vnbeleuers
,
and
yet
he
sayth
that
all
did
eat
the
self
same
spirituall
meat
,
and
drink
the
self
same
spirituall
drink
.
I
haue
therfore
expounded
it
of
the
sacramentall
eating
and
drinkinge
,
of
the
which
all
aswel
beleuers
as
vnbeleuers
,
did
eat
and
drink
,
and
not
of
the
spiritual
,
that
is
to
saie
by
faith
the
which
belonged
to
the
beleuers
onely
.
And
thoughe
paule
calleth
that
meat
and
drink
spirituall
,
yet
he
meaneth
not
that
it
should
be
spirituall
in
it self
,
as
that
which
is
of
faith
is
in
dede
spirituall
,
but
he
calleth
it
spirituall
,
as
to
the
signification
and
as
to
the
vse
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
it
was
apointed
to
signifie
Christ
,
who
is
a
spirituall
and
an
holy
thinge
,
as
oure
sacraments
may
be
called
spirituall
things
,
be
cause
they
be
appointed
,
to
spirituall
things
.
There
was
not
withstanding
difference
betwene
those
sacraments
and
oures
,
because
that
thei
(
beside
that
they
were
apointed
to
spirituall
things
)
serued
also
for
the
bodely
things
,
that
is
to
say
,
to
the
necessitie
of
the
present
lyfe
,
for
so
much
as
the
manna
and
the
water
were
their
dayly
meat
and
drink
,
so
that
they
had
two
vses
the
one
spirituall
,
because
it
was
to
them
a
sacrament
,
the
other
bodely
the
which
serued
to
the
necessitie
of
their
bodyes
.
Our
sacraments
be
not
so
the
which
be
taken
onely
for
the
spirituall
vse
that
is
to
say
,
for
sacraments
,
and
not
for
the
necessitie
of
the
body
.
To
conclude
therfore
,
I
saie
,
that
seing
Christ
cannot
be
eaten
nor
drunke
but
after
one
of
these
two
sorts
,
that
is
to
say
spiritually
and
by
faith
and
then
sacramentally
also
.
And
after
these
two
sortes
Christ
may
be
receaued
though
he
be
not
really
,
that
is
to
say
in
body
and
in
soule
,
in
the
sacrament
.
It
is
not
therfore
proffitable
,
and
much
lesse
necessary
,
to
affirme
such
reall
being
in
the
same
sacrament
.
They
that
say
,
that
Christ
is
really
in
that
host
and
in
that
cup
,
do
not
know
,
what
meaneth
to
eat
and
drink
Christ
sacramentally
,
for
so
much
as
,
that
to
eat
and
drink
sacramentally
,
as
we
haue
said
,
is
none
other
but
to
receaue
the
sacrament
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
signe
of
the
holy
thinge
,
and
doth
not
meane
to
take
bodely
the
self
same
thinge
,
that
is
represented
by
the
sacrament
.
I
might
if
I
wold
,
and
did
not
feare
to
be
tedious
to
the
readers
,
make
dyuers
other
reasons
also
,
but
it
nedeth
not
,
and
those
that
we
haue
made
,
do
suffice
.
But
let
vs
put
the
case
,
that
we
had
made
no
one
reason
,
to
proue
this
oure
negatiue
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
Christ
is
not
really
in
the
sacrament
,
nor
there
is
not
made
any
turninge
of
the
bread
and
the
wyne
into
his
body
and
bluod
,
nor
that
we
had
not
alledged
any
saing
of
the
scripture
,
the
which
not
withstanding
,
god
ayding
vs
,
we
haue
sufficiently
done
,
let
vs
put
the
case
(
I
say
)
that
we
had
done
no
one
of
those
things
,
yet
they
of
the
contrary
opinion
should
not
,
by
this
,
haue
had
their
purpose
,
because
that
it
doth
not
belong
to
vs
to
proue
our
negatiue
,
but
it
belongeth
to
them
to
proue
there
affirmatiue
.
For
eueri
one
that
affirmeth
any
sainge
is
bound
if
he
speak
reasonably
to
proue
it
,
If
it
were
not
already
so
plaine
that
euery
man
might
see
it
:
He
that
denyeth
is
not
bound
to
proue
his
negatiue
.
It
is
not
enough
for
a
man
of
what
so
euer
aucthoritie
he
be
,
for
to
be
beleued
,
to
say
it
is
so
,
the
matter
standeth
thus
but
he
must
proue
his
affirmatiue
sainge
,
chefely
if
it
be
a
matter
of
weight
,
and
pertaining
to
faith
as
this
is
.
Nor
it
is
not
enough
nether
,
to
be
hable
to
defend
and
maintaine
it
,
for
so
much
as
that
many
false
opinions
be
,
with
witt
,
with
distinctions
,
with
wrangelinges
and
intangelinges
defended
,
as
thoughe
they
were
true
.
We
mai
see
this
by
experience
,
in
the
schoole
doctoures
and
questionists
,
for
few
or
none
of
them
do
agree
to gether
,
but
they
be
of
contrary
and
d●…uers
opinions
and
alwaies
euery
one
of
them
defendeth
his
oune
fantasies
,
and
they
striue
continually
,
and
it
is
neauer
knowen
who
hath
the
right
,
and
they
confound
the
minds
of
men
,
they
lose
the
tyme
,
and
cause
other
also
to
lose
it
.
I
desire
then
of
these
maner
men
that
they
wold
proue
this
their
rule
or
opinion
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
Christ
is
bodely
in
the
sacrament
,
and
that
the
substance
of
the
bread
,
and
the
wyne
be
turned
into
his
body
and
bluod
.
I
desire
that
they
wold
proue
it
me
,
other
by
reason
,
or
such
aucthoritie
as
I
should
be
bound
to
beleue
,
This
my
request
is
iust
,
reasonable
and
honest
.
By
reason
they
can
not
proue
it
,
this
is
clere
,
and
themselues
by
agrement
do
confesse
it
:
by
aucthoritie
how
do
they
proue
it
?
They
bring
furth
the
old
doctours
,
they
alle●…ge
the
determinations
of
popes
,
and
of
Councels
,
the
common
opinion
of
the
churche
,
last
of
all
they
alledge
Christs
words
when
he
did
institute
the
supper
,
that
is
to
say
,
this
is
my
body
shewinge
the
bread
,
and
this
is
my
bluod
shewinge
the
wyne
,
and
Christs
sainge
also
in
S.
Iohn
,
To
the
which
aucthorities
I
answer
,
and
first
to
those
of
the
old
doctours
,
that
is
to
say
,
as
for
example
,
of
Ireneus
,
Tertulian
,
Cyprian
,
Origen
,
Hilary
,
Athanasius
,
Basill
,
Ionh
Chrisostom
,
Gregory
Nazianzene
,
Gregory
Nicene
,
Cyrill
,
Ambrose
Iherom
,
Augustine
,
And
such
other
holy
fathers
,
the
which
labored
for
Christs
church
in
wrytinge
bokes
,
expounding
the
scripture
,
disputinge
against
heretiks
,
preachinge
and
teachinge
,
wherby
they
do
in
dede
deserue
to
be
honoured
for
their
lerninge
,
and
holynes
,
but
,
I
say
that
no
one
of
them
,
nor
of
the
other
anucients
,
was
cauer
of
this
opinion
,
that
Christ
should
be
bodely
in
the
sacrament
,
and
much
lesse
,
that
the
substances
of
the
bread
and
wyne
,
should
be
turned
into
his
body
and
bluod
,
but
in
dede
they
haue
sayd
the
contrary
.
And
thoughe
somtyme
it
semeth
that
they
should
affirme
that
the
bread
and
the
wyne
be
Christes
body
and
bluode
,
yet
this
is
for
none
other
cause
,
but
that
they
speak
of
the
sacraments
,
after
the
maner
of
the
scripture
the
which
doth
call
them
by
the
name
of
the
thinges
signified
by
them
,
as
we
often
finde
that
Augustine
did
.
Who
very
often
hath
declared
such
maner
of
speches
as
we
will
tell
here
after
,
And
let
vs
admit
also
that
all
the
old
doctours
had
bene
of
that
opinion
,
and
that
all
the
world
wold
say
it
yet
ought
we
not
to
beleue
them
,
if
thei
bringe
not
furth
the
witnes
of
the
holy
scripture
,
because
that
this
is
a
thinge
pertaining
to
faith
and
,
faith
is
ground
wrought
onely
vpon
gods
worde
,
as
paule
saith
to
the
Romains
,
And
if
any
wold
say
,
and
the
scripture
also
was
made
by
men
therfore
we
ought
not
to
beleue
it
,
I
answer
that
the
scripture
is
writ-told
,
and
made
by
the
holy
gost
as
peter
saieth
in
the
second
Epistle
,
Wel
now
thei
wil
say
,
that
they
haue
gods
worde
,
that
is
to
saye
,
Christes
words
,
who
sayd
this
is
my
body
,
and
this
is
my
bluod
she
winge
the
bread
and
the
wyne
,
therfore
the
bread
and
wyne
be
turned
into
Christes
body
and
bluod
,
and
Christ
is
wholly
in
the
host
and
in
the
wyne
.
Further
he
sayd
those
words
in
the
sixt
chapter
of
Ihon
,
aboue
recyted
,
where
he
willeth
that
we
should
eat
his
flesh
and
drink
his
bluod
,
and
this
is
not
done
except
in
the
sacrament
,
therfore
he
is
bodely
in
the
sacrament
.
I
answer
first
to
those
words
,
this
is
my
body
,
and
this
is
my
bluod
,
and
I
aske
where
in
the
scripture
at
any
tyme
is
found
that
suche
a
speche
,
as
,
This
is
my
bodye
and
this
is
my
bluode
,
should
meane
,
this
is
turned
into
my
body
and
into
my
bluod
,
or
els
my
body
and
my
bluod
be
in
these
signes
?
I
neauer
found
this
maner
of
speche
.
Therfore
the
fore sayd
words
haue
another
meaninge
then
that
the
whiche
they
geue
them
,
or
that
whiche
the
scriptures
vse
that
is
to
say
,
this
is
the
signe
of
my
body
shewinge
the
bread
,
and
this
is
the
signe
of
my
bluod
,
shewinge
the
wyne
,
as
before
we
haue
sayd
and
we
will
also
better
say
,
in
the
declaration
of
those
words
,
This
is
in
dede
their
meaninge
.
To
the
saings
of
the
sixt
chapter
of
Ihon
,
I
say
,
that
they
do
not
alledge
them
to
purpose
,
because
that
there
,
Christ
doth
not
speak
of
the
sacramentall
eatinge
,
but
of
the
spirituall
,
and
by
faith
,
as
in
the
third
reason
we
haue
declared
,
yea
as
Christ
him self
doth
expounde
it
in
the
text
,
and
so
all
the
old
doctours
do
expounde
it
,
And
cheefely
Augustine
who
sayth
beleue
and
thou
hast
eaten
,
so
that
seinge
that
opinion
of
the
turninge
of
the
substances
of
the
bread
and
wyne
into
Christs
body
and
bluod
,
nor
that
of
his
bodely
presence
in
the
sacrament
cannot
be
proued
,
nether
by
reason
nor
any
aucthoritie
that
auayleth
,
we
ought
to
conclude
that
it
is
a
fayned
inuention
and
imagination
of
men
and
commeth
not
from
god
.
The
reasons
of
the
true
and
Catholike
opinion
beinge
ended
,
before
that
we
answer
to
the
obiections
and
ground
workes
of
the
partyes
contrary
to
the
trueth
there
remanith
to
mak
apere
that
the
opinion
which
we
haue
proued
is
that
of
the
old
church
,
and
the
forenamed
doctours
and
holy
men
.
And
because
I
should
be
to
long
,
if
I
wold
bringe
the
multitude
of
doctours
,
It
shall
suffise
me
therfore
to
tell
Augustines
opinion
a
most
ware
and
true
expounder
of
the
old
and
sound
opinions
,
the
which
Augustine
holdeth
not
,
but
the
opinion
of
the
Auntiens
,
and
that
which
was
holden
in
his
tyme
and
of
his
predecessours
.
In
his
Epistle
to
bonifacius
he
writeth
after
this
sorte
.
And
therfore
it
ought
to
be
vnderstand
soundly
that
is
to
say
,
that
Christ
did
not
meane
of
the
eating
of
his
flesh
and
drinkinge
his
bluode
fleshly
but
spiritually
,
beleuinge
in
him
,
and
hauinge
remembraunce
of
so
great
a
benefit
as
he
hath
wrought
vs
sufferinge
and
dyinge
for
vs
.
And
this
is
the
eatinge
and
drinking
,
that
Christ
ment
of
.
And
to
eat
and
drinke
after
this
sorte
,
It
nedeth
not
that
Christ
should
be
really
in
the
consecrated
bread
and
wyne
,
And
in
the
xxx
treatise
vpon
Iohn
he
sayth
,
The
lord
is
aboue
,
that
is
to
say
in
heauen
,
but
the
lord
,
that
is
,
the
trueth
is
also
here
.
Christes
body
in
the
which
he
rose
,
must
nedes
be
in
one
place
,
but
his
troth
is
euery
where
and
he
meaneth
by
the
troth
Christes
godhead
.
And
in
the
epistle
which
he
wryteth
to
dardanus
he
sayth
he
shall
come
for
to
iudge
the
lyuinge
and
the
dead
,
in
the
self
same
forme
that
he
ascended
into
heauen
,
to
the
which
forme
,
he
hath
seurly
geuen
immortalitie
,
but
he
hath
not
taken
away
the
nature
of
it
,
we
may
not
thinke
that
according
to
this
maner
of
forme
,
that
is
to
sai
,
mans
,
he
should
be
spred
abrode
euery
where
.
For
we
must
take
hede
that
we
do
not
so
affirme
his
god
head
that
we
take
away
the
truth
of
his
body
,
for
it
followeth
not
that
,
that
which
is
in
god
should
be
so
euery
where
as
god
.
Of
these
two
saings
of
Austen
the
which
before
we
haue
also
alledged
,
in
the
seauenth
reason
is
concluded
,
that
Austen
wil
not
that
Christes
body
may
be
in
more
then
one
place
at
one
tyme
,
he
will
in
dede
that
his
god
head
should
be
euery
where
,
but
not
his
manhode
,
the
whiche
is
in
one
onely
place
,
that
is
to
say
in
heauen
.
The
master
of
the
sentences
glosinge
or
els
expounding
certeyn
sainges
of
Augustine
in
the
fourth
of
his
sentences
the
tenth
distinction
where
he
bringeth
furth
amongst
his
other
sainges
this
:
But
in
the
third
boke
of
the
trinitie
,
And
if
any
one
wold
bringe
furth
the
boke
of
sacramentes
ascribed
to
Ambrose
,
the
which
putteth
this
new
opinion
of
Christes
bodelye
presence
in
the
sacrament
.
It
may
be
boldely
answered
him
,
that
that
boke
was
neauer
Ambroses
,
because
that
neyther
the
style
of
the
speche
was
Ambroses
nor
the
sentence
,
the
which
is
contrary
to
many
his
sainges
in
his
other
bokes
.
Nor
let
no
man
maruell
,
thoughe
I
denye
those
bokes
to
be
Ambroses
,
for
many
bokes
were
ascribed
to
the
old
doctoures
that
they
neauer
saw
,
much
lesse
made
as
that
boke
of
the
true
and
false
repentance
,
ascribed
to
Austen
,
the
which
teacheth
against
Austen
naminge
him
and
yet
certein
haue
attributed
it
to
him
.
Certeine
men
of
small
consciences
haue
done
this
other
that
they
might
better
sell
such
bokes
,
or
to
make
their
opinions
be
beleued
and
to
geue
them
auctoritie
vnder
the
name
of
Auntients
,
or
els
for
some
other
respects
scant
honest
.
It
is
no
small
fault
to
go
aboute
vnder
other
mens
auctorities
without
their
consent
to
make
men
beleue
their
opinions
,
as
it
is
a
great
faulte
that
their
laboure
and
bokes
should
be
attributed
to
other
.
And
I
say
more
also
againe
,
that
althoughe
all
the
old
doctours
were
of
suche
opinion
that
is
to
say
that
Christ
were
bodely
present
in
the
sacrament
,
we
be
not
bounde
,
nor
we
ought
not
to
beleue
them
,
If
they
proue
it
not
by
the
holy
scripture
the
which
they
neauer
did
nor
it
can
not
be
done
.
And
this
is
the
signe
,
that
as
mani
as
eauer
were
of
this
opinion
,
could
neauer
hetherto
mak
reason
that
might
auaile
.
If
this
bodely
presence
of
Christ
in
the
sacrament
,
had
bene
true
,
it
should
haue
bene
a
thinge
much
belonginge
to
faith
,
and
the
Apostolike
wrytinges
wold
haue
made
vs
clere
,
and
suere
of
it
but
we
see
that
such
a
presence
is
affirmed
in
no
one
place
of
the
scripture
.
Therfore
it
is
not
true
but
it
is
an
inuention
of
man
,
the
which
ought
not
to
haue
any
place
in
gods
thinges
.
Now
there
remayneth
to
answer
to
their
reasons
that
hold
this
bodely
presence
of
Christ
in
the
sacrament
.
They
make
(
as
in
the
beginninge
we
haue
sayde
)
many
profes
and
reasons
,
but
none
auayleth
.
And
we
will
not
answer
,
but
to
three
or
foure
,
whiche
haue
a
certeine
small
shew
,
for
answeringe
to
these
few
it
is
an
easy
thinge
to
answer
to
all
the
other
.
One
and
the
first
is
this
,
That
the
custome
of
the
scripture
is
to
call
the
sacraments
by
the
name
of
the
thinges
signefied
by
them
,
it
is
easelye
proued
,
and
we
haue
alreadye
sene
it
in
the
former
talk
.
The
circuncision
,
was
a
sacrament
of
the
hebrewish
people
,
and
because
it
was
a
sacrament
,
the
scripture
doth
call
it
couenaunt
,
because
it
was
the
signe
of
gods
couenaunt
made
with
Abraham
and
his
of
springe
,
as
it
is
written
in
genesis
where
god
doth
first
call
it
,
the
signe
of
the
couenaunt
,
and
after
a
few
words
,
he
calleth
it
the
couenaunt
.
The
couenaunt
was
this
,
that
god
wold
be
the
god
of
Abraham
and
of
his
seed
,
that
is
to
say
,
of
his
of
springe
.
It
is
a
plaine
matter
that
the
circuncision
was
not
really
this
couenaunt
,
or
promesse
,
and
yet
god
doth
call
it
couenaunt
,
because
it
was
the
signe
of
the
couenaunt
,
should
we
saye
that
the
circuncision
was
in
dede
gods
couenaunt
because
god
called
it
by
this
name
couenaunte
?
Sewerly
no
,
but
we
must
say
,
if
we
will
saye
well
,
that
therfore
god
calleth
it
so
,
becaus
the
same
is
a
signe
of
gods
couenaunt
,
or
els
of
gods
promesse
.
And
if
ani
should
say
what
meaneth
it
that
god
did
vse
this
maner
of
speche
,
Could
not
he
vse
the
proper
maner
of
speche
and
not
the
improper
?
To
this
I
answer
,
that
god
often
tymes
vseth
with
vs
the
custome
of
men
,
because
we
be
men
and
he
agreeth
to
oure
maner
of
speche
,
for
so
muche
as
the
custome
is
amonge
men
,
that
they
call
the
signes
of
a
thinge
,
by
the
self
same
name
,
of
the
same
thinge
signified
.
As
for
example
,
If
at
any
tyme
we
should
make
a
couenaunt
or
an
agrement
with
any
man
as
sone
as
the
agreement
and
couenaunt
is
made
,
we
cause
to
be
made
,
an
instrument
or
a
wrytinge
of
such
agrement
,
and
we
call
it
couenaunt
or
els
agrement
,
not
that
,
that
instrument
is
really
such
agreement
(
for
the
couenaunt
and
agrement
,
went
before
)
but
because
it
is
a
signe
of
such
couenaunt
and
agrement
So
we
call
the
wrytinge
of
a
sale
or
of
a
purchase
,
a
sale
or
purchase
,
because
it
is
a
signe
and
confirmacion
of
the
sale
or
purchase
.
And
we
do
call
the
wrytinge
or
the
instrument
of
such
thinges
,
testament
,
or
legacie
,
or
gift
,
because
it
is
the
signe
and
confirmacion
of
these
thinges
.
Let
vs
geue
an
other
example
which
also
is
of
the
scripture
.
In
Exodus
and
in
many
other
places
,
the
ceremony
of
the
paschall
lambe
,
is
called
passouer
.
And
Christ
and
the
Apostels
did
so
call
it
.
Christ
sayd
in
saynet
luke
,
I
haue
ernestly
desired
,
to
eat
this
passouer
,
before
I
suffer
.
Here
Christ
called
the
paschall
lamb
passouer
.
And
the
Apostells
said
to
Christ
,
where
willt
thou
that
we
prepare
for
the
to
eat
the
passouer
.
And
for
all
that
,
the
paschall
lamb
was
not
really
the
passouer
,
because
the
passouer
as
we
haue
in
the
same
Exodus
,
was
that
passage
(
as
it
is
also
sayd
before
in
the
ninth
reason
)
the
which
the
Aungell
made
when
he
strake
the
first
borne
of
Egypt
,
and
passed
by
the
houses
of
the
hebrues
.
Now
that
passage
,
was
properly
,
the
passouer
.
But
because
the
lamb
was
ordeined
,
that
it
should
be
killed
and
after
eaten
,
with
many
ceremonyes
in
signe
and
remembraunce
of
that
thinge
,
therfore
the
scripture
calleth
it
passouer
.
Behold
how
the
scripture
calleth
the
sacramentes
,
by
the
names
of
the
thinges
represented
and
signified
,
why
shall
we
maruell
then
that
Christe
did
call
the
consecrated
bread
his
body
and
the
wyne
his
bluod
,
because
they
should
be
signes
and
a
remembraunce
of
his
body
and
bluod
?
We
ought
not
to
maruell
,
yea
it
is
oure
great
rudenes
and
dulnes
that
we
see
not
this
thinge
,
and
why
he
hath
done
it
,
that
is
to
saie
whye
he
calleth
the
bread
his
body
and
the
wyne
his
bluod
.
Euery
man
sayth
that
the
sacrament
of
thanks
geuinge
doth
come
in
stede
of
the
sacrament
of
the
paschall
lambe
.
And
if
it
be
so
,
seinge
that
the
scripture
and
the
Apostels
call
the
same
such
lamb
passouer
yea
Christ
him self
in
the
same
supper
when
he
instituted
the
sacrament
of
his
body
and
bluod
,
called
that
lambe
passouer
,
not
for
any
other
cause
,
but
for
that
it
was
a
signe
and
a
remembraunce
of
the
passouer
,
why
should
not
the
bread
be
called
the
body
and
the
wyne
the
bluod
,
because
they
be
signes
and
a
remembraunce
of
the
bodye
and
the
bluod
:
euen
as
the
lambe
is
called
passouer
,
because
it
is
the
signe
and
remembraunce
of
the
passouer
.
And
that
rock
out
of
which
came
furth
the
water
in
the
desert
,
paule
calleth
it
Christ
,
not
for
any
other
cause
,
but
for
that
it
did
signifie
Christ
,
nor
there
was
neauer
any
men
that
bi
such
a
sainge
wold
think
that
paule
ment
to
affirme
,
that
that
stone
was
really
Christ
,
but
that
he
ment
onely
to
say
that
it
did
signifie
Christ
.
So
likewise
let
vs
saye
of
the
bread
and
the
wyne
,
that
they
be
called
body
and
bluod
,
because
they
be
signes
and
a
remembraunce
of
such
thinges
.
We
haue
bene
longe
in
answeringe
to
this
reason
because
in
dede
the
whole
consisteth
in
this
declaration
that
we
haue
made
.
The
second
reason
is
this
,
If
Christ
were
not
really
in
the
sacrament
S.
Paule
wold
not
haue
sayde
that
it
should
be
condemnation
to
them
that
should
take
it
vnworthelye
,
nor
he
wold
not
haue
sayde
,
that
such
should
be
giltie
of
the
lords
bodye
and
bluod
.
For
so
much
as
that
if
Christ
be
not
in
the
sacrament
,
there
should
not
be
any
other
thinge
but
bread
and
wyne
,
and
beinge
none
other
thinge
there
,
it
should
not
be
to
vs
such
condemnacion
,
as
it
is
in
dede
no
condemnation
to
eate
other
comen
bread
and
to
drink
other
wyne
.
To
this
is
answered
,
that
therfore
paule
sayth
that
they
be
giltye
of
the
lords
body
and
bluod
,
the
which
do
take
the
consecrated
bread
and
wyne
and
the
sacrament
vnworthelye
,
not
for
because
that
eather
the
body
or
the
bluod
be
in
the
sacrament
,
but
they
be
therfore
giltye
of
the
one
and
the
other
,
because
thei
dispise
Christs
death
thei
dispise
his
body
and
bluod
,
not
goinge
with
that
faith
and
with
that
reuerence
that
they
ought
to
take
those
holy
signes
Instituted
by
Christ
in
remembraunce
of
his
body
and
bluod
geuen
to
death
for
oure
raunsome
.
In
old
tyme
thei
that
did
dispyse
or
dishonoure
the
name
or
the
glory
of
the
Romane
Empire
thei
were
gyltie
of
treason
against
the
state
of
Rome
.
And
they
that
had
done
wronge
to
Cesars
Image
or
els
had
defaced
any
of
Cesars
writings
,
This
was
as
if
thei
had
layd
violent
hands
vpon
the
princes
persone
.
He
that
wold
dishonoure
the
armes
or
the
badges
,
of
any
great
state
,
that
prince
wold
haue
estemed
such
dishonoure
and
disworship
to
be
committed
against
his
oune
person
,
for
when
his
badges
or
els
his
Armes
be
dyspysed
he
him self
is
dispysed
.
So
seinge
that
Iesus
Christ
the
chefe
prince
of
the
world
hath
Instituted
the
sacramentall
bread
and
wyne
,
to
the
intent
that
that
it
should
be
a
remembraunce
of
so
great
a
thinge
,
and
should
represent
so
great
a
misterye
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
hath
geuen
his
body
and
his
bluod
,
and
dyed
for
to
deliuer
vs
from
sinn
and
from
euerlastinge
death
,
and
to
geue
vs
euerlastinge
lyfe
:
Sewerly
they
that
will
take
these
holy
signes
withoute
true
repentaunce
of
there
sinnes
,
and
without
true
faith
,
and
without
consideration
of
so
great
a
misterie
and
benefite
they
make
no
counte
,
nother
of
Christes
body
nor
his
bluod
nor
of
his
death
,
no
nor
of
Christe
himself
.
it
is
no
maruell
therfore
,
that
they
,
who
go
to
take
such
a
sacrament
vnworthelye
,
do
eate
and
drinke
Iudgement
,
that
is
to
say
condemnation
,
because
when
they
dispyse
the
signes
of
so
great
thinges
,
they
do
consequently
dispyse
the
same
thinges
,
and
him
also
that
did
institute
such
signes
.
It
is
not
proued
by
this
that
Christ
is
enclosed
in
this
sacrament
,
but
the
contrary
.
This
reason
is
nothinge
worth
,
and
it
is
like
the
reason
that
they
make
,
that
defended
purgatorie
with
saing
that
there
was
heard
certaine
lamentable
voices
of
the
soules
of
the
dead
which
desired
help
of
there
parents
or
frends
,
that
they
wold
cause
to
be
sayd
masses
and
chefely
those
masses
that
be
called
Saint
Gregories
,
and
as
sone
as
they
were
sayd
those
voyces
were
heard
no
more
.
It
is
told
also
in
the
lyfe
of
a
certeyne
seinct
(
but
in
dede
a
fryars
saincte
)
that
he
saw
ones
a
valley
full
of
soules
,
the
which
desired
help
,
and
that
seinct
was
moued
to
pytye
of
those
poore
soules
.
I
leaue
to
you
to
thinke
how
many
those
soules
ought
to
be
,
that
filled
that
valleye
,
when
he
had
sayd
I
cannot
tell
how
many
masses
(
because
I
do
not
well
remember
the
storye
)
he
returned
to
se
the
vally
and
he
found
them
no
more
there
,
because
they
were
delyuered
out
of
purgatorye
.
I
do
much
maruell
that
all
the
soules
in
purgatorye
went
not
thether
into
that
vally
that
thei
all
might
haue
bene
deliuered
by
that
sainctes
Masses
.
Ergo
there
is
a
purgatorye
.
What
will
the
lutheranes
that
denye
purgatorye
say
here
what
will
they
saie
?
Thei
that
you
call
lutherans
,
will
sai
that
you
be
a
blynde
sorte
of
superstitious
,
I
will
not
sai
ignoraunt
Idiots
of
gods
causes
,
and
that
you
haue
no
faith
in
Christe
,
thinkinge
that
the
materiall
fier
,
can
do
that
to
the
soules
,
that
onely
Christ
hath
done
with
his
pretious
bluod
that
is
to
saye
to
purge
them
,
and
perfectly
to
satisfie
gods
iustice
for
all
the
sinnes
of
the
beleuers
.
And
they
will
saye
that
you
deserue
to
be
begyled
,
and
mocked
by
the
deuell
,
that
leadeth
you
to
think
that
the
soules
of
the
dead
do
lament
and
desire
masses
,
and
ye
perceaue
not
that
he
is
the
same
wicked
spirite
,
the
which
fayneth
himself
to
be
the
soules
of
the
dead
,
and
desireth
help
,
and
caryeth
aboute
youre
brayne
,
and
maketh
you
beleue
that
glow
wormes
be
lanternes
,
The
soules
of
the
dead
go
not
a
solasinge
here
and
there
(
as
Chrisostome
vpon
S.
Mathew
,
saith
very
well
)
but
thei
abyde
in
there
places
apointed
vnto
them
,
those
soules
of
the
faithfull
and
godlye
abyde
with
Christ
,
the
other
abyde
in
there
place
lokinge
for
there
finall
condemnation
.
Euen
so
I
saye
of
these
maner
myracles
(
thoughe
thei
weare
in
dede
)
that
thei
be
none
other
but
illusions
and
disceyts
of
sathan
,
for
to
geue
credit
to
the
Masse
,
and
to
beinge
to
passe
that
we
should
not
beleue
sewerly
in
Christe
.
And
god
by
his
iust
iudgement
doth
suffer
these
disceyts
,
because
we
will
not
receaue
the
knowledge
of
the
troth
nor
beleue
the
holy
gospell
.
And
for
this
most
great
sinne
,
he
will
that
we
shall
beleue
lyes
,
and
be
deceaued
.
Nor
sewerly
we
deserue
none
other
,
but
to
receaue
and
allow
Antichristes
myracles
,
as
sainct
paule
sayth
to
the
Thessalonicenses
,
Concerninge
the
being
of
whole
Christ
in
the
sacrament
,
as
great
and
thick
,
as
he
is
in
heauen
,
they
geue
the
similitude
of
the
heauen
which
we
see
,
the
which
being
so
great
,
is
not
withstandinge
whole
in
oure
litle
eye
.
Likewise
oure
whole
face
,
apereth
in
a
glasse
that
is
much
lesse
then
the
face
is
,
yea
the
whole
man
,
is
seen
in
a
litle
glasse
.
Concerning
the
being
of
whole
Christ
in
euery
parte
of
the
sacrament
,
they
gyue
the
similitude
of
oure
soule
,
as
we
haue
already
sayd
the
which
is
whole
in
the
whole
and
whole
in
euery
parte
of
the
body
Oure
face
also
is
whole
in
the
whole
glasse
and
whole
in
euery
parte
of
the
glasse
,
after
this
sorte
,
that
is
to
saye
,
that
if
the
glasse
should
be
broken
in
many
partes
,
oure
whole
face
wold
apere
in
euery
one
of
them
.
Concerning
Christes
bodely
beinge
in
many
places
,
that
is
to
say
in
heauen
,
on
the
earth
and
in
euery
place
where
the
sacrament
is
,
they
geue
the
similitude
of
a
man
the
which
should
haue
about
him
many
glasses
in
euery
one
of
these
glasses
the
forme
of
a
man
will
apere
.
Likwise
if
one
speak
in
the
presence
of
many
persons
,
his
voice
is
but
one
,
and
yet
it
is
whole
in
dyuers
mens
eares
.
If
nature
bringe
this
to
passe
,
that
is
to
saye
,
that
one
thinge
may
be
in
dyuers
places
,
much
more
Christ
who
is
god
the
maker
of
nature
can
bringe
it
to
passe
in
his
body
,
that
is
to
saye
that
first
the
bread
,
should
be
turned
into
his
bodye
and
the
wyne
into
his
bluod
,
and
after
,
then
that
it
should
be
whole
in
the
whole
hoste
and
in
the
cupp
,
and
whole
in
euery
parte
of
the
sacrament
,
and
that
it
should
be
in
dyuers
places
,
If
he
can
do
those
thinges
,
and
will
doo
them
,
as
we
vnderstand
by
the
words
of
the
sacrament
,
the
whiche
say
,
this
is
my
bodye
shewing
the
bread
,
and
this
is
my
bluod
sh●…winge
the
wyne
,
then
they
be
done
,
because
it
is
written
in
the
psalme
Quaecunque
uoluit
,
fecit
dominus
,
All
thinges
that
the
lord
wold
do
he
did
.
I
answer
first
to
the
reason
it self
,
and
after
I
will
speake
of
the
similitudes
,
To
the
reason
,
that
is
to
say
if
god
can
do
it
,
therfore
he
hath
done
it
,
I
say
that
it
awayleth
not
,
and
it
is
already
answered
before
in
oure
seauenth
reason
that
god
doth
not
all
that
he
can
do
,
as
we
geue
the
example
of
the
twelue
thousand
legions
of
Aungels
the
which
god
if
he
wold
,
could
haue
sent
to
help
Christ
,
and
yet
he
sent
them
not
.
God
can
bringe
to
passe
that
we
all
maie
walke
vpon
the
sea
without
shippes
as
some
tyme
Christ
did
,
And
as
it
is
written
in
the
boke
of
wysdom
,
and
yet
he
doth
it
not
.
Oure
question
is
not
whether
god
can
do
it
or
no
,
but
it
is
whether
god
hath
done
it
or
no.
Thei
saiyes
and
we
saye
no
,
It
belongeth
to
them
to
proue
that
he
hath
done
it
and
that
he
doth
it
a
fresh
,
the
which
they
shall
neauer
do
nor
can
neauer
bringe
it
to
passe
by
gods
word
,
this
is
a
suer
rule
.
Concerninge
that
they
go
aboute
to
saye
,
that
god
had
desire
to
do
it
,
this
is
not
onely
false
but
most
false
.
What
reason
is
this
,
Christ
sayd
this
is
my
body
shewinge
the
bread
,
and
this
is
my
bluod
shewinge
the
wyne
,
therfore
he
will
that
the
bread
should
be
turned
into
his
body
and
the
wyne
into
his
bluod
,
or
at
the
least
that
he
should
be
in
the
sacrament
,
in
such
sort
as
they
say
?
This
reason
doth
not
deserue
any
answer
,
for
so
much
as
Christ
by
these
words
,
ment
not
to
saye
any
other
but
that
the
bread
and
the
wyne
,
were
a
sacrament
and
signes
of
his
body
and
bluod
and
ment
not
to
saye
that
which
they
affirme
,
as
before
we
haue
so
often
declared
.
The
examples
or
similitudes
that
they
bringe
furth
be
not
to
the
purpose
,
and
thei
be
rather
dissimilitudes
then
otherwise
.
The
example
of
Moyses
rodd
turned
into
the
serpent
,
and
after
the
serpent
turned
into
the
rod
,
and
of
the
waters
turned
into
bluod
,
it
is
not
like
,
because
the
serpent
,
To
the
other
similitudes
I
say
also
that
they
auayle
not
,
that
of
the
soule
that
it
should
be
whole
in
the
whole
bodye
,
and
whole
in
euery
parte
of
the
bodye
.
This
is
because
the
soule
seing
that
it
geueth
lyfe
to
all
the
bodye
as
it
is
playne
,
must
nedes
be
in
euery
parte
of
the
bodye
for
so
much
as
that
seinge
it
geueth
lyfe
not
onely
to
the
whole
body
,
but
to
euery
parte
of
the
same
.
It
is
necessarye
that
it
should
be
in
all
the
partes
,
because
that
if
it
were
not
in
any
parte
,
that
parte
should
not
be
a
lyue
,
And
because
that
the
soule
,
wheresoeauer
it
is
,
of
necessitye
it
must
be
whole
there
being
vndyuidable
and
not
hauing
partes
because
it
is
a
spirite
,
there
fore
it
is
necessary
,
that
the
soule
be
whole
in
the
whole
,
and
whole
in
euery
parte
of
the
body
,
but
Christes
body
not
being
a
spirite
,
and
hauinge
many
partes
beinge
longe
,
brode
,
and
thinke
,
cannot
be
whole
in
the
whole
,
and
whole
in
euery
parte
of
the
place
where
he
is
,
and
as
it
is
repugnaunte
,
to
a
bodye
to
be
a
spirite
so
is
it
repugnant
to
it
to
be
vndeuydhable
in
a
place
.
To
the
other
similitude
of
oure
face
,
the
which
is
whole
in
the
whole
and
whole
in
euery
parte
of
the
glasse
after
this
sorte
,
that
is
to
saye
,
that
when
the
glasse
is
broken
,
the
Image
of
the
face
is
in
euery
peece
of
the
glasse
.
I
say
they
be
deceaued
,
nor
it
is
not
true
that
one
Image
is
in
all
those
peeces
of
the
glasse
,
when
it
is
broken
,
but
there
be
manye
Images
and
so
many
as
there
be
peeces
of
the
broken
glasse
,
deuyded
the
one
from
the
other
.
It
is
true
in
dede
that
they
be
like
,
but
thei
be
not
the
self
same
as
the
self
same
bodye
of
Christ
is
in
all
the
peeces
,
after
their
Imagination
.
To
the
other
two
examples
with
the
which
they
wold
proue
,
that
one
thinge
may
be
in
many
places
,
I
saye
to
the
first
,
that
is
to
saye
,
to
that
which
saieth
that
the
Image
of
one
man
may
be
in
diuers
glasses
,
if
a
man
were
set
aboute
with
many
glasses
,
for
so
much
as
that
the
Image
of
the
same
man
shal
be
in
euery
one
of
those
glasses
.
I
say
that
those
Images
that
shal
be
in
dyuers
glasses
shall
not
be
one
onely
but
as
many
as
there
shal
be
glasses
,
albeit
that
they
shal
be
like
,
and
therfore
the
example
auayleth
not
,
It
had
bene
behouefull
if
it
should
haue
auayled
,
that
one self
Image
and
no
more
should
haue
bene
in
dyuers
glasses
the
which
is
false
.
To
the
last
example
the
which
sayth
,
that
one self
voyce
is
in
dyuers
eares
,
therfore
one
bodelye
thinge
may
be
in
dyuerse
places
.
I
answer
,
that
that
voyce
the
which
is
heard
is
one
and
no
mo
,
but
I
denye
that
the
self
same
is
in
dyuers
eares
,
yea
I
sai
,
that
that
which
is
earde
is
not
in
any
eare
but
is
in
the
eyre
next
to
him
that
speaketh
,
It
is
true
in
dede
that
the
similitude
of
the
same
voyce
is
there
in
their
eares
that
heare
,
but
that
similitude
is
not
one
,
but
as
many
as
the
eares
be
that
heare
,
and
this
is
like
the
thinge
that
is
seen
.
As
for
example
,
many
eies
see
one
face
,
and
that
face
which
is
seene
is
no
more
but
one
,
neuertheles
in
dyuers
eyes
that
see
the
face
,
be
dyuers
Images
and
that
Image
that
is
in
one
eie
,
is
not
in
an
other
.
And
so
is
it
of
the
voyce
,
thesame
is
one
,
but
it
is
not
in
the
eares
.
And
the
Images
be
dyuers
,
which
do
represent
the
voyce
that
is
in
the
ayre
,
and
it
is
behouefull
that
those
Images
should
be
as
many
as
the
eares
be
which
heare
.
I
haue
made
this
longe
talke
of
these
examples
,
the
which
peraduenture
,
to
some
shall
seme
superfluous
yet
I
desired
to
do
it
,
for
to
make
the
Vnlerned
vnderstand
that
all
the
examples
which
they
can
bringe
forth
be
not
to
the
purpose
.
Laste
of
all
we
will
tell
you
one
obiection
that
they
make
,
that
is
to
saye
,
Christ
sayd
that
he
whold
be
with
vs
vntill
the
end
of
the
world
this
to
be
with
vs
here
beneath
,
is
for
that
he
is
in
the
sacrament
,
and
dwelleth
with
vs
,
beinge
in
the
churches
,
Inclosed
with
in
the
pixes
and
litle
closets
.
O
poure
and
wretched
people
that
will
hyde
Christe
vnder
lock
and
keye
as
the
Iewes
did
,
that
thought
to
kepe
him
well
in
the
sealed
tombe
,
that
he
should
not
be
stolen
awaye
.
You
haue
kept
him
many
hundreth
yeres
in
such
sorte
shut
vpp
,
that
oure
predecessoures
could
not
see
him
,
yet
at
the
last
(
by
gods
goodnes
)
he
is
not
onely
come
a
brode
,
but
he
hath
broken
youre
shettinges
and
doth
shew
his
merye
and
godlye
countenaunce
to
his
,
that
is
to
say
to
them
that
desire
to
see
him
and
he
hath
put
you
in
such
feare
that
you
wote
not
what
to
do
,
you
wold
yet
ones
againe
Imprison
him
but
there
is
no
meane
to
do
it
.
Do
what
you
will
,
yea
and
can
apoinct
,
deuyse
,
gather
councells
against
him
,
folow
youre
foregoers
that
crucified
him
,
persecute
and
take
his
members
,
euell
handell
them
,
make
them
rott
in
prison
,
as
ye
haue
alredye
made
some
of
them
,
torment
them
after
sundrye
and
crewell
whayes
,
and
kill
them
,
yet
you
shall
not
auaile
.
But
by
these
meanes
you
shall
make
him
more
shyninge
and
glorious
.
It
must
nedes
be
o
Antichristes
that
you
should
lose
,
stryuinge
with
him
that
is
kinge
of
kinges
,
and
lord
of
lords
,
I
answer
them
,
that
when
Christe
sayd
to
his
disciples
in
the
name
of
the
whole
churche
I
will
be
with
you
vntill
the
ende
of
the
worlde
,
he
ment
not
to
saye
that
he
should
be
with
vs
in
the
sacrament
,
no
,
but
he
ment
to
saye
that
he
wold
be
with
vs
,
with
his
help
that
he
would
be
with
vs
with
his
poure
and
with
his
spirite
,
to
the
entent
that
the
Apostels
,
and
after
the
Apostells
,
we
should
not
think
when
he
ascended
into
heauen
,
and
as
to
the
bodely
presence
,
for
soke
the
earth
that
he
did
forsake
both
them
and
vs
,
or
had
no
more
care
of
vs
,
as
to
the
helpinge
vs
.
And
therfore
he
sayd
I
will
be
with
you
vntill
the
end
of
the
world
,
euen
as
the
sonne
although
it
be
bodely
in
heauen
separate
from
the
earth
,
yet
as
to
the
power
and
help
,
and
as
to
do
it
good
it
doth
not
forsake
it
,
because
it
geueth
it
light
,
it
warmeth
it
,
it
maketh
it
springe
,
it
maketh
the
trees
flowre
couereth
and
deckith
them
with
leaues
,
it
maketh
them
bringe
forth
frute
,
it
helpeth
the
generation
of
beastes
,
and
it
is
as
it
were
a
lyfe
,
of
all
the
bodyed
thinges
,
So
doth
Christ
notwithstandinge
that
he
is
in
heauen
,
much
higher
than
the
sonn
,
yet
he
doth
not
therfore
forsake
vs
,
but
he
hath
suche
care
of
vs
,
that
he
doth
help
vs
,
and
worketh
in
vs
,
with
his
holie
spirite
and
godly
poure
,
much
more
noblye
and
effectuously
,
then
the
sonne
doth
in
all
the
bodyed
thinges
,
because
without
him
we
can
doo
nothinge
but
sinne
,
and
he
helpeth
vs
muche
more
effectuously
,
then
if
he
were
on
the
earth
.
And
therfor
he
sayd
to
his
disciples
,
that
it
was
expedient
that
he
should
ascend
into
heauen
,
as
it
is
written
in
Ihon.
He
lighteth
vs
inwardly
,
he
conuerteth
vs
,
teacheth
vs
,
maketh
vs
stronge
,
geueth
vs
fayth
,
and
loue
,
increaseth
both
the
one
and
the
other
,
he
geueth
vs
trust
and
hope
in
god
,
he
geueth
vs
ioye
and
myrth
in
spirite
,
he
geueth
vs
pacience
and
euery
vertue
.
And
to
be
shorte
he
worketh
euery
good
thinge
in
vs
,
and
fulfilleth
euery
thinge
in
all
,
as
it
is
written
to
the
Ephesians
,
where
he
his
compared
to
the
head
,
We
think
,
yea
we
be
certayne
,
that
thus
farr
we
haue
playnely
proued
,
and
shewed
,
manye
wayes
that
Christ
Iesus
is
not
bodelye
in
the
sacrament
of
thankes
geuinge
(
or
the
lords
supper
as
paule
calleth
it
)
and
that
there
is
muche
lesse
made
in
the
same
anye
substantiall
turninge
of
the
bread
and
the
wyne
into
his
body
and
bluod
.
And
we
haue
made
it
apere
,
that
the
opinions
whiche
affirme
such
thinges
be
false
and
erroneous
.
There
remayneth
now
in
the
end
to
see
who
were
the
auctoures
of
those
strainge
and
phantasticall
Imaginations
,
and
wherby
they
were
moued
to
fynde
them
oute
seinge
they
be
withoute
all
reason
and
contrarye
to
Christes
mynd
,
and
the
whole
holy
scripture
.
I
haue
not
yet
heatherto
bene
hable
to
know
,
whan
this
opinion
of
the
reall
and
bodely
being
of
Iesus
Christe
in
the
sacrament
,
did
beginne
.
It
apereth
that
aboute
the
yere
of
oure
lorde
877.
or
about
the
tyme
of
pope
Iohn
the
eight
or
a
litle
before
,
men
began
to
dispute
about
that
matter
.
Iohn
scotus
an
Englishe
man
,
not
he
that
was
called
sottell
,
but
another
more
auntient
,
and
wery
worthye
in
lerninge
,
who
florished
in
fraunce
vnder
Charles
surnamed
balde
,
made
a
boke
against
this
new
opinion
of
the
sacrament
,
whose
Iudgement
,
shortly
after
,
Beringarius
of
the
countrye
of
Turonne
,
and
deacon
of
Aungee
,
followed
,
a
man
of
singular
lerninge
,
and
of
holy
lyfe
who
dealt
all
his
goods
to
the
poure
,
and
lyued
by
the
labour
of
his
handes
as
Platina
writeth
in
the
lyfe
of
Pope
Iohn
the
fiftenth
.
But
one
lanfranck
of
pauia
bishop
of
Canterbery
in
England
,
so
much
preuayled
with
his
auctoritie
,
with
Pope
Leo
the
nynth
and
so
much
persuaded
him
,
that
in
the
councell
of
vercels
,
he
caused
the
sayd
Ihon
scotusses
boke
and
berengarionses
opinion
who
followed
him
,
to
be
condemned
.
And
it
was
ordeined
in
that
councell
that
men
ought
to
beleue
not
onely
Christes
presence
in
the
sacrament
,
but
the
turning
of
the
bread
and
the
wyne
into
his
body
and
bluod
.
And
this
was
as
Mat.
palmerius
and
Iohn
lucidus
Samothenus
in
the
amendements
of
the
tymes
saye
,
in
the
yere
of
the
lord
.
1052.
so
that
it
is
now
iust
.
500.
yeares
sence
this
new
opinion
of
the
turninge
of
the
substances
of
the
bread
and
the
wyne
into
Christes
bodye
and
bluod
was
first
determined
.
Beringarius
opinion
of
the
sacrament
,
the
which
was
condemned
,
as
lanfranck
setteth
it
out
in
his
booke
made
against
him
,
is
this
.
The
sacrifice
of
the
church
is
mad
of
.
2.
things
of
the
seeable
and
of
the
vnseeable
,
that
is
to
say
of
the
sacrament
and
of
the
thing
of
the
sacrament
.
The
which
thing
not
withstanding
,
that
is
to
say
,
the
body
of
Christ
,
if
it
were
before
mens
eyes
,
it
should
be
seeable
,
but
it
is
lifted
vntill
the
tymes
of
the
restitutions
of
all
thinges
vp
into
heauen
,
and
sitting
on
the
right
hand
of
the
father
can
not
be
called
back
from
heauen
,
(
as
th
apostell
peter
wryteth
)
be
cause
that
the
parson
of
Christ
hath
his
being
of
god
and
of
man
,
but
the
sacrament
of
the
lords
table
is
made
of
bread
and
of
wyne
,
the
which
things
consecrated
be
not
turned
,
but
abyde
in
their
substances
hauing
lykelynes
with
those
things
whereof
thei
be
a
sacrament
.
This
true
and
godly
opynyon
of
Beringarius
the
which
,
as
we
haue
sayd
before
,
●…s
the
opinion
of
the
old
church
,
and
is
taken
out
of
the
holy
scripture
,
was
condemned
in
the
forsayd
councell
of
ve●…selles
.
And
afterward
a nother
tyme
in
Rome
,
by
pope
Nicholas
the
second
,
who
compelled
Beringarius
to
recant
,
and
make
a
beastly
and
shamefull
confession
contrary
to
his
own
true
confession
.
Beringarius
recantation
is
put
in
the
decree
of
consecration
,
the
.ij.
distinction
,
capite
Ego
beringarius
,
where
he
confesseth
and
affirmeth
that
he
beleueth
with
the
church
of
Rome
that
the
bread
and
the
wyne
,
which
be
set
on
th
altare
,
be
not
onely
a
sacrament
,
but
also
they
be
the
true
body
and
bluod
of
our
lord
Iesus
Christ
,
and
that
he
is
not
only
in
the
sacrament
,
but
also
in
trowth
sensually
handled
with
the
priestes
handes
,
and
is
broken
in
peces
and
with
the
teeth
of
the
faithfull
is
gnawed
in
to
morsels
.
Doo
ye
think
that
this
was
a
godly
confession
that
they
compelled
this
holy
man
Beringarius
to
make
,
the
which
confesseth
that
Christ
is
in
deede
sensibly
handeled
,
that
is
to
say
towched
,
and
broken
with
the
priestes
handes
,
and
than
after
,
The
gloser
of
the
decree
,
to
whom
such
a
maner
of
confession
semed
strange
and
crewel
saw
this
well
ynough
,
and
therfor
he
sayth
,
if
thow
dowst
not
after
a
safe
sort
vnderstand
Beringarius
words
,
thou
shalt
fall
into
a
greatter
heresy
than
that
which
he
had
.
The
master
of
the
sentences
in
the
fourth
,
the
.xij.
distinction
,
myndy●…g
to
glose
the
words
of
the
same
confession
,
sayth
,
that
the
same
(
to
be
sensibly
handled
)
may
be
referred
both
to
th
one
and
thother
,
that
is
to
say
to
the
body
and
to
the
sacrament
of
the
body
.
But
the
same
(
to
be
broken
in
peeces
and
to
be
knawed
into
morsels
,
can
not
be
said
but
of
the
sacrament
only
,
A
good
glose
that
speaketh
contrary
to
the
text
.
This
glose
hath
.ij.
faultes
.
First
it
speaketh
against
the
auctor
,
that
is
to
say
against
the
master
of
the
sentences
him self
,
who
geueth
it
,
because
he
will
that
Christ
shuld
be
in
the
sacrament
,
vndyuydably
,
whole
in
the
whole
,
and
whole
in
euery
part
of
the
sacrament
.
If
it
be
soo
,
how
can
he
be
towched
and
handled
with
the
priestes
handes
?
For
so
moch
as
that
the
thing
which
is
handled
,
is
felt
with
the
handes
,
and
if
it
be
felt
,
it
must
nedes
be
hote
or
cold
,
moist
or
drie
,
hard
or
soft
,
rough
or
smoth
,
who
did
euer
touch
Christes
body
syns
it
ascended
into
heauen
,
and
dyd
euer
feele
it
whether
it
were
whote
could
or
of
what
qualytie
it
should
be
?
If
the
master
of
the
sentences
had
said
that
the
withcommes
of
the
bread
and
the
wyne
be
handled
with
handes
,
he
had
sayd
true
according
to
his
opynion
,
because
that
the
greatnes
of
the
bread
,
and
the
withcommes
of
it
,
may
be
felt
with
handes
,
but
the
withcommes
of
Christes
body
can
not
be
felt
.
Therfor
Christes
body
can
not
be
handled
with
the
priestes
handes
.
Further
if
Christs
body
in
the
sacrament
may
be
handled
with
handes
,
why
should
it
not
be
seene
?
It
is
playne
that
euery
thing
that
is
felt
,
may
also
be
seene
,
if
it
be
not
a
thorow
shewer
as
the
ayer
is
.
But
who
did
eauer
see
Christ
in
the
sacrament
?
Thother
fault
of
thesame
glose
is
,
that
it
speaketh
against
the
text
.
For
the
text
of
beringarius
confession
,
sayth
expresly
,
that
not
only
the
sacrament
,
but
Christs
body
and
bluod
,
be
sensibly
handled
with
the
priestes
handes
,
be
broken
and
knawed
to
morsels
with
the
teeth
of
the
faithfull
.
These
wordes
cannot
haue
that
sense
,
that
the
master
of
the
sentences
geueth
them
,
because
that
the
body
and
the
bluod
,
be
playnely
spoken
of
,
and
he
sayth
in
the
text
,
that
they
be
broken
,
and
gnawed
into
morsels
,
with
the
faythfuls
teeth
.
Further
it
is
not
to
be
thought
that
they
who
were
present
at
that
confession
,
did
vnderstand
the
wordes
otherwise
than
according
to
the
open
and
lettered
signification
.
For
so
moch
as
that
in
confessions
men
must
chefelye
speake
playnely
,
and
not
in
such
sort
as
it
should
be
necessary
to
gyue
them
gloses
and
expositions
,
but
thei
ought
to
be
open
,
and
many
fast
,
and
farr
from
any
doubt
.
And
so
moch
the
more
as
they
that
compelled
him
to
make
that
confession
,
did
wirt
it
them selues
as
it
lyked
them
.
It
is
sayd
that
a
certen
man
called
Humbertus
cardinall
of
burgony
,
worded
or
if
you
will
so
call
it
,
framed
that
confession
,
O
Capernites
:
This
is
the
honor
that
thei
did
to
Christ
,
to
constraine
a
poore
man
to
confesse
that
Christ
,
who
is
immortall
,
and
vnsufferable
,
should
be
sensibly
handled
,
and
broken
with
the
priestes
handes
,
and
chawed
and
gnaued
into
morsels
,
with
the
teeth
of
the
faithfull
.
Be
these
the
councels
gathered
together
in
the
holy
gost
?
Let
the
master
of
the
sentences
,
for
all
that
,
and
as
many
other
glosers
a●…
be
in
the
world
,
glose
at
their
pleasure
,
yet
thei
shall
neuer
sett
the
matter
well
together
.
This
thing
is
to
doltish
,
yea
it
is
a
skorning
both
of
the
sacrament
,
and
of
Christ
him self
.
what
the
causes
should
be
that
haue
moued
the
deuysers
of
these
opinyons
of
Christes
bodyly
presence
in
the
sacrament
,
and
of
the
turning
of
the
bread
and
the
wyne
into
Christes
body
and
bluod
,
to
Imagin
such
things
,
I
say
,
in
my
Iudgsment
that
they
be
chefely
.ij.
The
first
is
the
ignorance
of
the
maners
of
speach
of
the
holy
scripture
,
because
they
were
not
exercysed
in
the
same
,
and
they
did
imagen
,
when
Christ
sayd
this
is
my
body
,
shewing
the
bread
,
And
this
is
my
bluod
shewing
the
wyne
,
that
such
a
maner
of
speach
cold
not
be
true
except
that
bread
and
that
wyne
,
were
substantially
,
and
beingly
,
the
very
body
and
the
very
bluod
of
Christ
,
or
at
the
least
,
that
the
one
and
thother
,
that
is
to
saie
Christes
body
and
bluod
,
were
with
in
the
sacrament
.
Thei
sawe
that
the
words
were
clere
,
and
on
the
other
side
also
,
that
the
old
doctours
many
tymes
did
affirme
and
call
the
breade
and
the
wyne
,
body
and
bluod
,
they
thought
that
that
was
the
mynd
,
as
well
of
the
same
doctor
as
of
the
holy
scripture
,
the
which
thing
notwithstanding
was
neuer
so
.
And
thei
considered
not
that
the
same
scripture
whan
it
treateth
of
sacraments
is
wont
to
speak
after
that
sort
that
is
to
say
,
to
call
the
sacraments
by
the
name
of
the
things
signified
,
as
allredy
we
haue
beforcertē
tymes
told
,
and
that
the
doctors
likwyse
folow
the
same
maner
of
speach
,
this
I
think
is
one
cause
why
thei
did
so
vtter
it
.
And
to
proue
this
true
,
whan
thei
goo
about
to
proue
their
purpose
,
thei
alledge
the
saings
of
the
doctors
euel
vnderstand
,
and
those
words
of
Christ
,
This
is
my
body
,
shewing
the
bread
,
and
this
is
my
bluod
shewing
the
wine
,
as
though
he
had
ment
to
sai
that
the
substances
of
the
bread
and
wyne
,
shuld
be
turned
into
his
body
and
bluod
.
Not
considering
that
Christ
speake
,
as
the
scripture
is
wont
to
speak
whan
it
calleth
the
sacraments
by
the
name
of
the
things
signified
.
And
therfor
thei
haue
affirmed
those
their
opinions
to
be
things
ꝑtaining
to
faith
,
the
which
euery
one
should
be
bund
to
beleue
,
as
an
article
of
the
faith
.
The
foresaid
lanfranck
in
his
boke
of
the
sacrament
,
the
which
he
wrote
against
Beringarius
saith
we
beleue
,
saith
he
,
that
the
earthly
substances
the
which
vpon
the
lordes
table
be
by
the
priestly
ministery
deuinelie
hallowed
,
by
the
heauenvly
powr
,
be
vnspeakably
,
vnconceiuably
,
and
meruelously
turned
in
the
veri
essens
,
or
beīgnes
,
of
the
lords
body
,
the
formes
of
the
same
things
,
and
certen
other
qualy●…ies
being
reserued
.
And
he
saith
also
,
that
the
iust
man
,
who
lyueth
by
faith
,
doth
not
labor
to
serchout
with
arguments
,
and
to
vnderstand
with
reson
,
after
what
sort
the
bread
is
made
flesh
,
and
the
wyne
is
turned
in
to
bluod
,
beingly
,
the
nature
of
the
one
and
the
other
being
changed
,
because
he
will
rather
gyue
faith
to
the
heauenly
my
steryes
,
to
th
entent
that
hereafter
he
might
come
to
the
rewards
of
faith
,
then
leauing
the
fayth
to
be
toyled
in
vayne
,
in
conprehending
those
things
that
cannot
be
comprehended
&c.
Thomas
of
aquyne
in
his
hymne
of
the
sacrament
of
the
lords
body
,
and
bluod
sayth
the
lyke
,
that
is
to
saie
,
the
word
flesh
,
that
is
to
sai
,
the
sonn
of
god
made
man
,
with
the
word
,
doth
make
bread
flesh
,
and
the
wyne
is
made
Christes
bluod
,
and
though
the
sense
doo
fayle
to
establish
a
pure
hart
,
yet
faith
only
is
sufficient
.
And
next
after
he
sayth
,
let
him
put
to
faith
as
a
help
,
for
the
fayling
of
the
senses
.
These
.ij.
men
wold
that
opinion
should
be
beleued
as
an
article
of
the
faith
,
but
if
they
haue
beleued
it
,
as
an
article
of
the
faith
,
and
as
their
wordes
doo
affirme
,
surely
they
haue
slyghtly
and
euel
fauordly
beleued
,
because
that
nothing
ought
to
be
beleued
as
an
artycle
of
the
faith
,
except
it
be
found
expressely
in
the
scripture
.
Let
them
tell
me
then
,
where
is
the
scripture
that
they
alledge
?
Where
is
gods
word
on
which
they
grownd
their
faith
?
Should
we
beleue
these
doctours
that
make
thearticles
of
the
faith
without
gods
word
,
that
bilde
their
bilding
vpon
the
sand
and
not
vpon
the
sure
rock
?
The
first
cause
,
I
say
,
of
such
opynions
,
was
the
ignorance
of
the
holy
scripture
.
The
second
cause
without
comparayson
is
moch
wors
than
this
,
And
parauenture
it
shall
appeare
to
some
that
I
am
of
an
euell
mynd
,
thinking
so
moch
euel
as
I
doo
of
the
auctours
of
such
opinions
.
But
if
thei
will
consider
the
disceightes
,
the
craftes
,
and
the
nomber
of
abuses
that
be
malytiously
committed
in
the
masse
,
thei
will
sai
surely
that
I
am
yet
to
gentle
,
that
I
think
not
moch
wors
.
What
good
can
be
thought
of
the
beginning
of
so
great
an
error
,
from
whens
doth
procede
so
many
inconueniences
and
disorders
?
The
second
cause
,
I
say
,
that
I
imagine
,
is
this
,
that
is
to
saie
that
thei
desired
to
gyue
credite
to
the
priuate
masse
,
that
is
to
say
to
that
masse
,
where
he
that
saith
it
onely
,
taketh
the
sacrament
and
doth
not
deale
it
to
the
people
.
We
must
vnderstand
that
in
old
tyme
,
the
masse
was
not
said
as
it
is
now
said
,
as
before
we
haue
noted
in
the
bocke
of
the
Anatomy
:
for
so
moch
as
that
the
masse
then
was
no
nother
but
the
ceremony
of
the
lords
supper
,
the
which
was
dealt
to
the
church
,
and
the
mynyster
did
not
take
it
alone
as
hath
bene
vsed
from
certen
hondreth
yeares
hetherto
,
against
Christes
expresse
ordynance
and
commaundement
who
sayd
whan
he
did
institute
the
sacrament
,
that
thei
should
take
it
and
dyuide
it
among
them
,
and
not
that
one
alone
should
receue
it
.
Thei
sawe
that
this
mass
was
that
wych
made
them
rych
and
mighty
:
It
multiplied
the
churches
reuenewes
and
in
th
end
it
made
them
lyue
in
delytes
,
as
before
in
the
boke
of
the
anatomy
in
the
chapter
of
the
abuses
of
the
masse
,
we
haue
sayd
.
And
for
to
wyne
them
credite
,
and
bring
to
passe
that
the
people
should
be
inclined
to
them
,
and
shuld
haue
deuocion
to
them
,
there
could
not
be
found
a
thing
more
to
the
purpose
,
then
to
geue
men
to
vnderstand
,
and
make
the
comon
sort
beleue
that
Christ
shuld
be
in
the
sacrament
,
and
that
there
shuld
be
made
a
turning
of
the
substances
of
the
bread
and
the
wyne
into
his
body
and
bluod
and
to
saie
that
there
be
so
many
myracles
,
and
to
make
the
thing
so
great
and
wonderfull
.
Thei
were
sure
that
if
the
people
were
persuaded
that
Christ
were
not
in
the
sacrament
,
but
that
there
were
only
the
bread
and
the
wyne
,
as
holy
signes
,
thei
wold
haue
cared
littell
for
it
,
nor
they
wold
neuer
haue
beleued
that
the
masse
shuld
haue
so
many
vertues
,
as
thei
haue
geuen
to
vnderstand
.
And
thei
should
not
haue
had
that
vnmesurable
gaine
.
ther
shuld
not
haue
bene
drawen
out
of
that
golden
well
thoes
infinite
richesses
.
Let
euery
man
that
hath
reason
,
and
is
without
affection
,
consider
and
he
shal
find
as
much
as
I
sai
to
be
true
.
This
is
a
sure
rule
,
if
the
people
did
not
beleue
Christ
to
be
in
the
sacrament
,
and
were
not
(
I
meane
the
people
)
bewitched
with
some
strange
Imagination
,
that
thei
wold
make
lytle
count
of
the
masse
.
The
popes
that
sawe
this
goodlye
inuention
to
be
moch
for
their
purpose
thei
after
did
,
not
only
with
their
decrees
and
concels
allowe
it
but
they
did
bynd
the
Christian
people
beleue
it
,
as
an
article
of
the
faith
.
I
haue
spoken
of
the
first
dyuisers
of
these
opinions
,
what
causes
I
thinck
did
moue
them
to
seke
owt
so
strange
Imaginations
and
so
farr
from
the
trouth
.
Of
the
other
,
that
folowed
next
after
,
that
is
to
say
of
the
scholemen
,
I
doo
not
sai
soo
.
As
for
example
of
one
Thomas
of
Aquine
of
Bonauāture
,
of
Egidus
Romanus
and
such
lyke
as
were
questionistes
without
noumber
,
and
haue
dysputed
endleslie
on
the
master
of
the
sentences
and
thereby
intangled
the
world
.
I
think
well
that
the
first
cause
that
is
to
say
,
the
ignorance
of
the
scripture
did
seduce
them
to
beleue
thus
,
because
they
did
attend
more
to
the
wordly
knowleges
,
and
to
the
bookes
of
phylosophy
,
then
to
the
holy
scripture
.
But
I
doo
not
beleue
that
any
such
malyce
did
moue
them
,
as
moued
those
first
inuenters
.
It
is
true
in
deede
that
a nother
ignorance
made
them
to
erre
,
that
is
to
say
,
that
when
they
sawe
that
the
pope
and
the
councels
had
so
determined
,
thei
Imagined
that
they
were
tyed
and
bound
,
to
beleue
all
that
that
thei
had
appointed
and
ordeyned
to
be
beleued
of
all
the
faithfull
.
And
therfor
thei
haue
affirmed
this
opinion
as
an
article
of
the
faith
,
thinking
they
should
haue
bene
heretikes
if
they
should
haue
holden
any
other
wyse
.
And
to
proue
this
true
,
certen
of
them
,
and
among
the
rest
,
Thomas
of
argentyne
the
heremyte
,
in
the
fourth
,
the
.xi.
distinction
,
saye
that
before
the
article
of
the
turnkēding
was
determyned
by
the
church
,
It
was
no
heresy
to
sai
the
contrary
,
that
is
to
sai
,
that
the
bread
and
wyne
remayne
after
the
consecration
.
This
is
that
which
deceyued
them
,
the
popes
auctorytye
,
whom
they
thought
was
Christes
lefetenant
,
and
that
euery
thing
that
the
see
Apostolyke
and
those
councels
determyned
,
was
an
oracle
,
against
the
which
it
was
not
lawfull
to
speake
,
the
poore
soules
not
vnderstanding
,
that
no
man
is
bound
in
matters
perteyning
to
faith
,
to
beleue
eyther
pope
or
councles
,
but
so
farr
as
gods
word
speaketh
,
from
the
which
if
they
swarue
,
though
there
should
come
an
angel
from
heauen
,
we
should
not
be
bound
,
yea
I
say
,
we
ought
not
to
beleue
him
,
as
paul
sayth
,
writing
to
the
galat.
And
if
we
haue
particular
reuerence
to
any
councels
,
Then
next
we
haue
put
the
second
opinion
the
which
we
hold
,
and
sure
beleue
is
catholik
and
godly
,
and
it
is
this
,
that
is
to
sai
,
that
the
substances
of
the
bread
,
and
wyne
,
doo
not
only
remaine
in
the
sacrament
,
but
Christ
is
not
there
bodyly
present
of
any
maner
of
sort
,
but
as
man
he
is
onelie
in
heauen
,
where
he
sitteth
on
the
right
hand
of
the
father
from
whence
he
shall
come
to
Iudge
the
liuinge
and
the
deade
,
The
third
,
seing
the
spirituall
eating
of
Christ
is
only
profitable
and
not
the
bodyly
,
The
turnekindinge
of
the
bread
and
wyne
into
Christes
body
and
bluod
,
The
fift
if
any
such
thing
were
,
god
with
out
any
maner
of
nede
shuld
work
some
,
The
syxt
,
it
should
not
be
necessary
that
Christ
on
the
day
of
iudgement
should
come
down
from
heauen
,
The
seuenth
,
The
eyght
,
The
nynth
,
Then
further
all
though
that
we
shuld
bringe
forth
no
reason
for
vs
,
it
belongeth
not
to
vs
to
proue
our
negatiue
,
but
it
belongeth
to
them
that
affirme
such
a
being
there
,
to
proue
their
affirmatiue
,
the
which
thei
did
neuer
,
nor
can
not
doo
by
any
saing
of
the
scripture
.
We
haue
after
also
,
made
appeare
that
our
oppinion
is
of
th
old
church
and
chefely
,
Augustines
.
And
we
haue
answered
to
the
obiections
of
the
contrary
opinion
,
making
it
apparant
,
that
,
they
be
vneffectuall
,
vnpithye
,
and
weak
to
proue
their
purpose
,
declaring
the
maners
of
speach
that
the
scripture
vseth
when
it
treateth
of
the
sacraments
.
In
the
end
,
we
haue
added
from
when
the
false
Imagination
of
that
maner
error
is
proceded
.
And
we
haue
bene
long
in
treating
of
this
article
,
and
we
haue
made
many
moo
wordes
than
we
thought
,
and
haue
repeated
the
self
things
often
,
and
haue
somthing
exceded
the
measure
of
a
sermon
,
for
the
which
thing
the
readers
shall
haue
me
excused
.
We
haue
considered
first
that
the
thing
was
most
wayghty
,
and
worthy
to
be
well
expressed
,
the
which
could
not
be
done
with
few
wordes
.
Then
further
also
,
the
error
was
so
confirmed
and
after
such
sort
rooted
in
the
myndes
of
the
people
,
that
it
could
not
be
pluckt
vp
nor
rooted
out
,
without
(
as
it
is
comonly
said
)
moch
digging
,
and
deluing
.
And
therfor
it
was
necessary
for
vs
to
be
long
,
and
parauenture
somthing
tedious
to
the
lerned
,
neuertheles
this
labor
is
chefely
taken
for
the
vnlerned
.
Well
,
it
suffiseth
that
this
our
purpose
was
vpright
and
that
we
toke
not
vpon
vs
this
entreprise
for
no
nother
end
,
but
for
gods
honor
,
and
for
the
loue
,
and
defence
,
of
the
truth
.
And
last
of
all
to
doo
good
and
help
to
the
simple
Christians
,
who
haue
bene
so
long
tyme
drowned
in
so
great
an
error
,
and
deceiued
by
the
suttle
and
wicked
Antichrist
:
Whom
let
vs
all
praye
vnto
god
with
a
good
hart
and
continually
,
that
he
will
so
roote
owt
,
and
plucck
vp
(
or
to
speak
better
)
destroie
(
sauing
allwayes
not
withstanding
the
men
to
whom
we
desire
all
good
)
I
sai
,
euen
destroie
as
the
lytle
stone
did
that
great
Image
which
Nabuchodonosor
sawe
,
in
his
dreame
,
that
is
to
sai
,
that
he
will
make
him
vtterly
vanysh
away
,
and
be
come
nothing
,
to
the
entent
,
that
gods
finall
and
perfite
kingdome
mai
come
thorow
Christ
Iesus
his
son
our
lord
and
redemer
,
to
whom
be
honor
and
glory
world
without
ende
Amen
.
FINIS
.