PRyue masse after the doctryne of the Popishe boke entituled Antididagma is facyoned of fowre partes, namelye of thee Sacryfyce of Christes bodye and bloude, of the receypt of the communion of prayer, and of doctryne. These partes orderly wyl I declare and conferre them wyth goddes wrytten worde, vpon the conferē ce and tryall whereof it shall (I doubt not) appeare ful true that eche parcel of the pryuate masse is vngodlye, and so consequently the masse selfe, exceadynge vngodlye.
The fyrste parte of the sayd masse is thee sacryfyce wherunto be incydente alwaye consecration [Page] transubstanciation and the worshippe of Christes body and bloude. And by reason consecracyon for goethe transubstanciation, and transubstanciation the sacryfyce, and the worshyppe aftergoethe them all: I wyll fyrste talke vpon consecratyon, and them orderly vpon the remnaunte. Cōsecracyon is that percel of the masse, wherein thee priest presumeth, to consecrat and hallow Chrstes bodye and bloude. The whyche, as it is an attempte too vnreasonable and vnable so passynge wycked presumptuouse & detestable. For howe can it possible be that christes bodye whych cannot be made holyer and perfecter thā already it is: shuld or myght be consecrat of the priest? Thys muste nedes be that / that [Page] is hallowed was before his cō secration, eyther throughly prophane & nothing holy at al, eyther else not so holy, in consyderacyon wherof, whiles the prest do presume to cōsecrate christes body, nedes must they acknowledge and graunt by that theyr enterpryse not so godly as presumptuouse that the sayd body was before the consecration, eyther nothyng holy at al, else not so holy, which graunt as it is erronyouse and vnbeleueable so vngodly and exchuable. In case the prestes presumed only by theyr cōsecratiō to hallowe christes body, that theyr cōsecratiō were not so haynouse a dede, but for asmoche as therby they contend not so learnedly as stoutly not so truly as falsely, Christes body to be forged and made of [Page] the chosen bread, & therfore endeuour thē selues therby, to forge the body of ye purposed bread, it is exceding haynouse, for ther is no creature so worthy puissāt & entier, as ye sayd body is, whyche thyng could not be true, yf ye priest or any mā else dyd or coulde make the same. For the ofte making of any thing as of christes body, is an vndeceyueable proufe of the vnperfytenes, vnworthines, & feblenes of ye same Ther is no man, be he neuer so moch priested or byshopped ye cā make the feblest basest, & vnperfytest creature in thys worlde, moch lesse christes body the perfytest & noblest creature, ther is no creature, be it neuer so imperfyte that is ofte made, howe thā can christes bodye be oft made, that is the most perfyte. These wordes take, eate, in these wordes [Page] of ye institution of the lordes supper, take, eate thys is my bodye, be no wordes of makinge of the lordes body, but of presenting & exhibiting the same to the receauers of the ryghte supper of the lord. So that it is full open that the prieste can nether consecrate Christes body, neyther make it. Howbeit, this is alwaye graunt able, ye minister both cōsecrateth & maketh, though not christes body & bloud, yet thallotted bread & wyne, ye sacramētes exhitiue of the same. For where as ye bread & wyne vsed at the lordes supper were prophane & vnholy, before the wordes of the institution of the sayd supper were duely reported vpon them, Nowe after thee due reporte, and vtteraunce of thee sayde wordes by thee mynister, vpō the before named bread and wine, they be consecrate and [Page] made of prophane the holy sacramentes exhibitiues, of Christes body and bloud. Thus also meaned the fathers by these wordes, consecratiō and making in this sacramente. Nowe to transubstantiatyon, or tornekynde, thee next entreatable matter, whyche is no lesse disallowable, then deceaueable. How can thys stande wyth our fayth that Christes body (whose creatyon is vnrenuable) shulde be agayn made of the bread a (vyle creature) throughe thexchaunge of the nature therof into hys? Howe were it true yt the blessed wyne: & broken bread were bred & wyne, as Paule termethe thē, yf theyr natures were throughlye altered into christes body & bloud? Can they be bread & wyne styl, without they reteygne [Page] theyr natures styll: Can they be rightly named bread and wyne wythout theyr own proper mater & substaūce in respect, where of they were so named: doo they not styll appere to oure senses, bread & wine, not withstanding, they ar become ye sacramētes exhibitiues of Christes body and bloud: who euer sawe the exchā ge of any substāce wtout the alteraciō of hys accedētes & outward shape? whē christ tourned marueylously water into wyne, it had not only ye nature of wyne, but the externall forme also, tast colour & factō of wyne, & no semblance of water at al, Aarōs rodde beyng altered into an adder, had not only ye substāce therof, but also ye outward fassion of ye same & no similitude of a rodde at al. The water which moyses chaunged into bloude, as it [Page] was ī nature bloud, so outwardly it semed bloud. Euē so questionles shuld ye bread & wyne leaue ye outward shape wyth theyr inwarde substaūce, yf they were altered into christes bodye and bloud, By reason, wherof sythe they reteygne styl theyr accidentes, nedes must they also reteigne theyr wonted substance, can ther be any sacramēt as S. Augustyne sayth, without therin ye due elemēt, & fyt word of god belonginge ther vnto, be ioyntlye coupled togethers: No verely, How than? can the outward apperaunce of bread & wyne without theyr inward substāce be ye sacramentes of christes body, & bloud, for ye outward apperaūce of bread & wyne be none elemē tes, but only thexternal shewes of the same. Elemētes be substā ce & not accidētal shewes. Is it [Page] not true, that in thee consacrate bread, ther are wormes both engendered & fosterd whych could not be, yf ther endured the bread lyke natured, after as it was before ye consecracion? For eche worme is a substance, and none accydent, therfore cannot be engendered or fedde of an accydente, but of a substaunce alone, In respect wherof, sythe the wormes brede and fede, not in Christes bodye, but in thee consecrate bread, we must remedyles acknowledge in the same bread to contynue thee verye proper substaunce therof. The bread and wyne be sacramē tes of Christes body and bloude ordeyned of him purposely to enstructe oure senses outwardelye, what is wrought inwardly by ye sayd bodye and bloud in the soule. For theyr vse is to declare too our outward senses assuredly, ye [Page] as the receaued bread and wyne norishe, strengthen and glad our bodyes, so christes body eaten & hys bloud dronken accordyngly do oure soules. Howe coulde the bread & wyne serue to hys purpose, yf they were vtterly diuoided of theyr accostumed nature? Verely no maner wyse. For why? it is the alone substaunce of bread and wyne, and not ye colour taste facyon of the same, that fostereth and cherysheth the body. Sacramentes (sayth Augustyn) vnlesse they haue certayne lykelyhode wyth the thynges wherof they be sygnes, they be no Sacramētes at al. What semblance I beseche you is ther betwyxte the natureles bread and wyne, and christes body and bloud? questionles none at all. For the sayde body and bloude, and that after papysshe [Page] doctryne be not presented & exhibited at the cōmuniō accidētally but substācially only. In respect wherof nedes must we grāt eyther the cōsecrate bread & wyne be not the sacramēte of Christes body and bloud, whiche we ought not to do, eyther else thee sayd bread & wyne reteygne styl theyr owne natures, whyche is grantable. I maruel me muche that many of thē, who stand in ye defence of christes corporal presence at his supper, haue in earnest meyntenaunce trāsubstāciation, for as me semethe, it doeth moch, what hinder & preiudice, the sayd presence of christ in ye sayd hys supper, by reason the brokē bread & blessed wyne be institute purposely to resolue and ascertayn our senses that we as materially & truly, thoughe not grosselyer sensyblie, but ghostly [Page] receaue and eate Christes body & drinke his bloud as we do the foresayd: In consideratiō wherof yf we take, eate & drinke, but the accidentes of thee foresayde bread & wine, & not the very substaunces of the same thē gatherable it were, christes bodye and bloud be not truely, but faynedly presented & gyuen at hys supper. For why▪ yf the signe be coū terfayt & fayned, thē nedes must the thing be in semblable sorte, whyche is betokened thereby a true matter must remediles haue his tokē also true. In respect wherof the brokē bread being ye sygne geuē of the sayd body, is material & not mattierles, thys thensuyng saying, which graciā reporteth, & fathereth vpō Austyne de cōsecrat distint. ii, cap. qui manducat, enforceth moche to the dysproue & dampnation, [Page] of transubstanciation, That is sene, is bread, and the cup wherof the eyes also make euidēt profe, but that that faythe demaundeth to be instructed in, is, that ye bread is Christes bodye, and the cuppe hys bloud. These therfore be named sacramentes, for that in them one thyng is se able, and another vnderstande, that is, s [...] ne hath bodelye fourme that is vnderstand hath ghostly fruyt [...] What can be more effectually & expresselye spoken agaynste tornekynde, then thys the rehersed Englysshed sentence of Augustyne? Fyrst he auoucheth therin the seable matter to be bread, secondelye, for an vndeceaueable argumente and tryall therof he alledgeth the testimonye of thee eyes, Thyrdly he sayth not that is seeable is a bodelye fourme, [Page] but hathe a corporall fourme, leste anye man shulde here be occasyoned too adiudge the mattier to want in thys element and so to remayne nothynge else but thee outwarde and accydentall shape of breade. For in that he saythe that, that is seene hathe a corporal fourme, he graunteth in thee elemente twoo thynges to bee remaynynge, thee thynge hadde and thee thynge hauyng, thee outwarde fassyon whych is seable and the subiecte and matter therof, it is to wytt the bread substaunce and the excernall apperaunce of the same. The sacramente of Thankesgeuynge, saythe Irenee consystethe vpon twoo matters or substaunces, thee one earthely, thee other heauenlye, Yf bread substaunce were [Page] departed thē could not Irenee leyfully call ye one part of the sacramēt a substaūce but an earthlye accidente. The worthy counsayl of Nece wryteth to the disalowaūce of trāsubstātiatiō in sorte thus, Let vs not grossely beholde the bread & wyne proposed & set before our eyes, but in faythe consyder the lambe, yf god in that hys sacred table hauing our hartes eleuate & vplifted, loe, here the worthy counsel nameth the feble portyon of the sacrament after the cōsecration bread & wyne, & not the formes of the same. Gelasius in open & expresse wordes impugneth the sayd transubstanciatiō as erronyouse & vncredyble in sorte as followeth. The sacramētes of ye body & bloud of christ, which we receaue ar sureli godly matters therfore through & by thē, we ar made [Page] partakers of the godly nature, & yet do they not ceasse to be the substances of bread & wyne, but cōtinue in ye properties of theyr owne natures, wher as Austyne sayth, ye lord doubted not to say thys is my body, whē he gaue a sygne of hys body: he meanethe not that christes body is absented frō hys supper, but that the consecrate bread is not the sayd body or turned substancially in to the same, & is but the signe of christes body, notwythstādinge it be named hys body. Notwithstanding Tertullian, Ambrose, Ierome, Chrisostome, wythe others whyche expresly in theyr wrytynges the consecrate bread to represent Christes body, & to be a signe therof, howbeit in those & soch other, semblable theyr speaches, theyr meanyng is not that the sayd bread is deuoided [Page] of Christes bodely presence and presentment, but that the consecrate bread is but thee sacramentall sygne of christes bodye, and not christes body selue, thoughe it be termed sacramentallye the sayd bodye. Nowe wyll I assoyle certayne obiections, and gayn sayinges facyoned of the catholiques, agaynst ye premysses. Yf say they) ye bred, nature were not tornekynded into christes body: why dyd he name it hys bodye? Can it be hys bodye, onles it be exchaunged into it? Cā I be you wythout I become your substance? No verely. No more can thee bread be christes body wythoute the exchaūge of the matter therof into the sayd body, As for the accidentes of thee sayd bread, it is not requisite, ne nedefull that they shuld be together chaunged [Page] wythe theyr substaunce, because christe in thys hys sayinge, this is my body vseth the artycle demonstratyue thys, not in ye masculine, but in the newtre gendre, whyche implyeth but the alone matter of the bread, and not accidentes of thee same therwyth, as the masculine doeth, Whereby christ doeth vs tunderstand that the bread nature is only altered & not his accidētes ī lyke maner To this obiection, soche is myne answere. Christ in thys hys sayinge, this is my body doeth institute the sacrament of hys bodye and bloud, therfore he speaketh vpon the same, sacramentally it is to wyt, he termeth the signe by thee name of thee matter therby sygnyfyed. He nameth the consecrate bread hys bodye, for yt it is [Page] resembled and presented therby baptyse, is named the founteyn of our agayn byrth, & ye renuinge of the holy ghost, yet is it nether our newe byrth, nether thee renuyng of ye holi ghost, ne chaū ged into thē, but so called for ye therby the sayd byrth & renuing be not only represented but also wraughte presented and contributed vnto vs,Gene, 15 Circūcistō was not in very dede the couenaunt made vnto Abraham, ne altered into it, howbeit, it was so turned in consyderatiō, it dyd bothe represent, and present the same couenaunt to Abrahā & his posteritie: Christes breathe was called ye holy ghost, not that it was the very holy ghost, or turned in to him, but in respect of the sayd ghost therwyth both resembled & exhibited semblably albeit ye cōsecrate bread is named Christes [Page] body, yet is it not the layde body ne chaūged into the same,mathe, 26 luke, 22 but so called in consyderaciō therwyth the sayd body is both sygnifyed, presented & exhibited. The cup is termed christes bloud & the newe testamēt: Yet that his so callyng thē, notwithstāding, no mā wyll depose therupō, the cup eyther to be christes bloud or his testamēt: Termed notwithstanding yu sayd bloud & testament, for that it is yu sacramētal mean wherwyth they be applied & conferred vnto vs, Vpon semblable consyderaciō is the bread named christes bodye. Wher as it is thought & credited the bread substāce only & not hys accidētes also to be tornekynded into Christes bodye: By reasō he vseth in this his saying this is my body, the article thys in the newtre & not in the masculine gendre: Yf this were formally argued [Page] is our bonden duety so to do. Yet it is replyed & sayed. Paule calleth the consecrate bread & wyne, this bred, this wyne. Why shuld he so terme thē? In case ye one were not turned into christes bodye the other into hys bloud? Verely the consideration therof is to haue vs put a difference therby betwyxte the consecrate & vnconsecrate & cōmon breade & wyne, acknowledging the former bread & wyne to be sacramentes exhibitiues of christes body & bloud, and these (I meane the commō bread & wyne) to be nothing lesse thē lyke cōdicioned. The last argumēt that is alledged for tornekynd is thys. If christes bodye be in thee bred (as vndoubtedly it is) thē it is enbreaded & his bloude enwyued, whych was alway taken for a great heresy, In respect wherof transubstantiacion nedes muste [Page] be graūted as ryght true and beleueable. To thys I answere in sorte thus. Notwythstandinge christes body be presented in thee bred (as questionles it is) not placely as ther placed spaced, & mesured, but ghostly: as ther vnplaced vnspaced & not measured: Howebeit, it is not enbreaded nomore then the deytie is recompted, enfleshed for that it is substancially in vs, Nomore then the sayd god hede is demed ēbreaded, for yu it is entierly in eche bred. No morothē the holy ghoste is accompted enbreathed, for that he was presented in christes breathe? Nomore then the sayd holy ghost is adiudged enbodied or enharted, for yt he is wholly in vs & in oure hartes. Christes body is adiudged of no man to be accidēted notwythstanding it is presented in the accidentes of the bread. Why then [Page] shuld it be adiuged ēbreaded for hys presēce in ye breade. The one is as reasonable 'as gatherable, as thother is. Some are fule deceyued in the meanynge of these wordes thimpanacion of Christes bodye, whyche is not in simple any presēce indeferētly of the sayd body in ye bred: Nomore thē ye incarnatiō or enfleshing of christes godhead is indifferētly any presence therof in mās fleshe & nature: But only soch a presence of christes body in the bread wherwyth they both shuld be vnseuerably personed & haue al theyr cō dicions & properties cōmō & mutuall betwixt thē. Soch a presence is the personal presence of christes Godheade in hys manhode. Soch is ye presence of ye soule in ye body. In respect wherof as christes body is not enpersoned ī vs, notwithstāding it be enbodied to vs: Semblable though the sayd [Page] body be presented in yu bred, howbeit, it is not become one person therwt whych is properly termed ye impaning or enbreding therof? If ye bred & wyne be not exchaunged in ye cōmuniō, Some wil demaūd of me, why ye aūciēt doctors make so oft report vpō thalteracion of ye breade & wyne. To whō this myne answere. The cōsideration why ye forefathers so oft report an exchaūge to be wrought in the sacramēt of christes body & bloud is. For yt they beleued the chosen bread & wyne to be turned frō a prophane to a godly vse, to become nomore cōmō, but special bread & wyne, & to be made nowe exhibityues sacramētes of christes body & bloud, where as before theyr hallowing they were nothyng so. And not yt they beleued the sayd bread & wyne to be torne kīded into ye lordes body & bloud Thys is the exchaunge wherof ye [Page] doctours make report, and none other doo they acknowledge here besyde, Thus I haue argued effectually both consecration & trā substantiacion construed, after ye catholique doctryne to be directly repugnaūt agaynst gods wrytten truth. Now wyll I trye whether the masse sacrifyce in semblable sort empugneth the said truth And for so moch as this masse sacryfyce is takē here both for a satisfactiō of syn & thankesgeuinge I wyl discusse fyrst whether it be a clensing & satisfactory sacrifice. This done thē whether it be an acceptable & seruiceable thankesgeuing to god or no. Concernyng ye clensynge sacryfyce falsely geuen to ye masse, [...], Paule wryteth in sort as followeth: With one offering hath christ made ꝑfyghte for euer thē that are sanctifyed. There is not one word in this paules saying diligently & depely consydered [Page] ye enforceth not moch against the before specified sacrifice. In respect wherof I wyll report orderly, & wayghe eche word of the sayd saying seuerally by it selfe. Paul sayth not wyth a manyfold or renewed but with one offering hath christ made perfecte for euer the sanctefied, In consyderacion whereof they bee foule deceaued, who auouche Christes sacrifyce ought to be reuiued & multiplied to the ful pardō & contentaciō of our synne, otherwyse vnpardonable. And therfore repete the sayd sacryfyce day by day to the same effect. For why that, that is oft offered cannot iustly be recōpted to be offered but ones: By reason a repeted & renewed sacrifice is not merely syngle & one, but manifolde & diuerse. If christ had oft died notwithstāding he were the selue same Christ, that doeth so oft dye Howbeit ye his often dyeng shuld [Page] not be adiuged one single but sondry deaths. Though it be yt selfe same body ye dieth by ye second deth, which died through ye former deth Yet is ye twyse dyeng of ye body recōpted not one but two dethes (as wytnesseth Iohā in hys Apo.) Euen so:2 [...], yf christ were oft sacrificed thoughe he were the same & none other christ that is so offered. Yet were that oft sacrificying of hym no syngle one, but a many folde & multiplied sacrifyce. In consideracion wherof, sythe by the one otferinge of christe, oure synnes be thoughly pourged (as paule recordeth): Sythe an often offer is not an ones, but a manifold sacrifyce, though it be ot ye selue same matter: Christes bodi nether may ne ought to be agayne sacrificed either bloudely or vnbloudely to ye doynge away of our defaultes Now to ye entretable text of paul By one offering hath christe, &c. [Page] By ye ones offerīg of christ. Paul meaneth his paynful & bloude sacrifice, ones done vpon the crosse for euer, else could not ye his sacrifice pourge our synnes. For noo sacrifice wtout bloudshed clēseth syn. According to this sayinge of paul wtout bloudsheding ther is no remissiō of syn to be atteigned By reason wherof right oppen it is, they greuously erre,Hebr [...] 9. who hold opiniō yt our faultes ar pardoned through theyr vnsufferable & vnbloudy sacrificīg of christes bodi otherwyse vnꝓdonable. With one offrīg hath christ made perfyte &c. Note this paul sayth note in ye ꝑsent tence doth make perfect, as though christ now doth ꝑdon our syns vnꝑdoned before, but in the preterperfyt tēce hath made ꝑfyt: Purposely to do vs herby to wyt yt we ar already redemed & clēsed by ye ones offering of christ neuer to be reuyued eyther sufferablye [Page] or vnsufferably bloudely or vnbloudely to purge our synnes wt al In consyderacion wherof our catholiques be in a foule greuouse errour,Hebre. 10. for theyr auouching (enforced questionles so too saye not so moche of a good ground as of a good entent) our synnes clerely to be clensed wyth theyr vnsufferable, & vnbloudye sacryfyce of christ. For where remission of syn is, ther is (sayth Paul) nomore a sacryfyce for the same. By one offering hath christ made perfyght foreuer the sanctified. Note this paule sayth not, Christ hath made perfyght for a tyme, but for euer the sanctefyed. Certes yf christe were to be agayne sacryfyced to the ful contentacion & clensing of synne, thē dyd he not throughe hys once offerynge perfyte for euer, but for a tyme the sanctefye [...] ▪ For why the sacryfyce that is [Page] remediles to be reuiued to the cō tentatiō & satisfaction of syn contēteth god for the same, not for euer, but for a tyme. By reason wherof oure catholikes are to be blamed, who rather ernestly then godly wil & contend that christes body shuld be agayne sacryfyced to the satisfaction & purgynge of syn, otherwyse after theyr iudgemēt vnpardonable. An erroure no lesse deragotorye to the entiertee & fulnes of christes ones sacrifice then preiudiciall to the maynteyners therof. For why to renew the sayde sacryfyce is vtterlye to vnperfyt, & disable it quite, fully to clense and do away syn. For so paul argueth to the Hebrues, the sacryfyces of the old lawe dyd not remyt syn, for that they were daylye repeted, else not to be renewed If thys be formallye argued of paul (as out of question it is) thē [Page] it argueth that christ is not to be agayn offered lesse hys fyrst offering being entier & sufficiente to purge syn be through the repetīg & reuiuinge therof vnperfyted & dishabled to the ful contētatiō of syn. (An issue vtterly wyth al possible endeuour too bee exchued.) Wyth one sacryfyce hath Christ made perfit for euer thē yt ar holi made. In ye paul auoucheth her christ through his one sacrifice to haue made perfyt for euer them yt ar sanctified, He doeth vs herby tunderstād, yt the saintes ar none otherwyse redemed & saued then through ye one offering of ye sayd christ vpō the crosse, & so cōsequētly no man cā be otherwyse saued. For they be saītes yt be saued: In respect wherof it is nothīg answerable to ye truth yt yu catholiques not so godly as styfly maynteyn, it is to wyt we be redemed throughe [Page] the agayn sacrificing of christ otherwise vnperdonable. For yf ye masse sacrifice be a contētacion & satisfactiō for syn, thē is ye once sacrifice of christ vtterly to be abandoned & disauthorized,Hebr. viii For why to institute a new sacrifice of christe is tabrogate and adnul thold. Yea yf christ must be agayn offered to the contētation of syn, then muste he be also wofully payned and done to death again. For (as the sayd paul sayth ther is no contēting sacrifice without it bebloudy. In consideratiō wherof,Hebre. 9. he argueth yf christ shuld be oftē offered, nedes must he oft suffer ofte dye. Wherfore (most gētle reder) sythe of the aforesayd it appereth ful opē, yt the masse mercy workīg offredge dyrectly gaynsayeth not only .ii. or .iii, but sondry scriptures, & thē not doubtful but playn [Page] and not only scryptures (whyche symplie to cōtrary is a sinne ful greuouse): but endeuourethe it self also to mourdre christ, whych is more greuouse): and not onlye yt, but vtterly to adnul & abolishe christes most preciouse & entier sacrifice, done vpon the crosse (whyche for too doo as it is a defaulte most greuouse, so most vnsufferable): I beseche the hartely iudge and esteme the sayd one sacrifice accordingly, that is to wyt to be the alone sacrifice wherwith our syns be clensed and done awaye. And thynke and depose vpon the pryuate masse sacryfyce as thou oughtest to do, namely to be nothyng lesse then a clensyng sacryfyce, But here wyll oure catholiques say they doo nothynge lesse then vpholde the masse offeringe to do awaye synne, For that they [Page] acknowledge wyth vs (the protestauntes) belongethe to Christes passiō alone. God be praysed therfore in oure redubted souereigne lorde the Kynges maiestie, Who by a worthy acte of parlyamente, hath enforced thē to the outward acknowledge thereof, otherwyse opēly maynteyning the contrary But in case the foresayd persons, meaned that inwardly in ye hart, whych wyth the tongue they outwardlye graunt & professe: They wold not defend eche parcell of ye Masse canon to be godly & beleueable as they do. For why there it is playnly sayd, the masse sacrifice enforceth effectually to the redemption & ramsoning of the soules. The very wordes of the sayd Canon be these. Remembre lorde thy seruātes &c. for the whych we offre vnto the, or the which do offre vnto the this sacrifice of prayse [Page] for thē selues, & to thee ramson of theyr soules. Loe, here it is open, ye priest sacrificīg of christe (which is here termed a prayse sacrifice) is purposely purposed & wrought to redeme & ramson soules withal Which thing doth apperteigne alonelye to christes sufferable and bloudy sacrifice. Wel not withstā ding, this thalleged sayng out of the canon were not playn & sufficient enough to proue the sayd canon testablishe the masse sacrifice to contēt god: Howbeit ther is an other ye questiōles argueth the same, whych the priest alway reporteth & prayeth in the poost cōmon Then [...]lysshe wherof is thys. O holy Trinite performe that thys sacryfyce whych I vnworthy haue offered vnto theyes of thi maiestie may be acceptable to the & be also through thy mercy propiciatory, that is to say mercy working [Page] both to me & al thē for whō I haue sacrificed it. Loe hear in manifest wordes ye prest sollicieth god purposely to obteyn of him, this his sacrifice to be ꝓpiciatory & to appease his wrath. In cōsideratiō wherof grantable it is yt the pryue masters acknowlege ī very dede theyr masse sacrifice to be mercy workīg whyles they contēd the canon therof to be throughely true & godlye, notwithstanding theyr mouth sayinge to the cōtrary. What an vnsufferable mockedge is this aswel of god as of our soueraygne lord yt kīg, to acknowlege wt thē ye masse sacrifice to be nothing propiciatory, & yet in the canon (otherwyse named ye masse secret) to graūt it offered to redeme vs wythall, & to praye it myghte be propiciatorye, If we hartely thoughte wt god & our prince ye Masse sacrifice were [Page] not propiciatorye: We wold not throughlye mayntene the Masse Canon, We wold not saye there wyth we offer Christes bodye to oure redemption, We wolde not instant God as we do, to enforce our sacrifycing of christe to purchase hys mercy. But here it is replyed the foresayde Canon is misconstrued. For it meaneth no thyng lesse thē that the masse sacrifice is satisfactory in very dede, but in name alone. So termed in consideratiō it is a resemblaūce or memory of christes propiciatorie sacrifice executed and perfyted vpō the cr [...]sse ones for euer. To thys replial thus I answere, In case the sayd sacrifyce were not to be takē, to be satisfactory, Why is it in ye heretofore mē cioned Canon auouched, We of fre the sayd sacrifice to the redēptiō both of our soules & others? [Page] Why pray we that the sacryfyce myght be made satisfactorye? If we wold not it shuld be taken for satisfactory? Yf it were not to be taken for a satisfactory sacrifice, and that after the true meanyng of thē, who fathered the Canon: They wold neuer haue so wryttē vpō it, as they haue done. Again yf we thought not hartely that it were soch a sacryfyce: We wolde not affyrme, we sacryfyce it to redeme vs and others withal. We wolde not ne durste sollicite god to enforce it propiciatorye: dredyng ye dredeful saying of christ thou shalt be iustified by thi wordes,mathe, 13 & by thy wordes yu shalte be cōdēpned. Let vs hedely beware lest christ iudge vs by our mouth as he dyd ye wycked seruaūt. For the mouthe vtterāce as of godly matters maketh to saluation,mathe. 25 Roma, 10 as wytnesseth Paule: So of vngodlye [Page] to dampnation. Let vs therfore condēpne, as of bondē duetye we ryght) the therfore saying of thee masse canō, Which, as they plainly, & directly withstād gods wrytten worde, so the kinges statutes: lest we through our allowaunce & prayinge of the same incurre & deserue y• iust wrath both of god & of our prince. Here I cannot but disclose the vnsufferable subtiltie of our catheloques in this purposed matter. Therfore good reder, earnestly respecte the same to thy aduoydance of theyr trayn. They hauing in consyderatiō that now lefullye they cannot: in respecte of the pē euidēce of gods wryttē worde agaynst thē, which to gaynsay were not sufferable: Ne dare any longer vphold theyr masse sacrifice to be mercy workyng. For that it emplieth notable repugnaunce to an acte of parliamente whyche [Page] not to obey and approue, as it is vnsyttinge, so ryght punisheble: Consydering also yf theyr Masse canon were to be vnderstād after hys gramer sence (as doubtles it is) it must remedeles be condempned & canceled oute of the masse boke, as heresye to god, and disobeysaunce to the King: Wherupō happely myght consequencly ensue the vtter decaye and confusiō of the masse selue, (an issue no lesse perfourmable thē resonable & ensuable): Haue at ye last qual [...]fyed and blāched the sayd canon in the heretofore alledged places therof after thys sorte. To offer the sacrifice of prayse for the redēption of our soules meaneth nothing else, but toffre the sayd sacryfyce for a remembraunce of Christes sacryfyce, ones wroughte vpon thee crosse to redeme oure soules wyth [Page] all. To praye that the masse sacrifyce myghte bee propiciatorye is to praye, it myght be a memorye of the propiciatorie sacrifyce. Iesus what a far fetched meanyng of the foresayd is thys. Whyche cannot wel be ymagyned moche lesse gathered of ye same. Yf they who fathered the Canon, meaned the masse sacryfyce were not offered purposelye to redeme vs wythal, but to record the satisfactore sacrifice: Theyr wordes vndoubtly wold rather haue enforced for ye prest sacrifice to be a memory of the satisfactory sacrifice thē to be it it self. Therfor ye sayd fathers so did wryte the sayd Canō as thei might easely be vnderstāded what thei vnderstode therby, And so wrote it so openlye as they possible could deuise. By reson wherof sythe ye before mēcyoned sayinges of the canon make al togethers for the priest sacryfyce [Page] to be propiciatory Question les theyr meaning is that ye sayd sacrifice appeaseth goddes yre & indignatiō & clenseth syn. Howesoeuer ours catholiques now take thē. Though saye our catholiques) the before especyfyed allegations seme targue the masse sacrifice to be satisfactory yet ar they to be construed as wee take them, And neuer were they other wyse takē eyther of vs, eyther else of others learned & catholique mē. Lo the shamelesse vanitie of our catholiques, they do not only lye in mystakinge the Canon, but in misreporting the myndes of sondrye wryters. So that the cōmon prouerbe is veryfyed one leasyng doeth accompanye another. Is not Mayster doctour smyth of Oxēford a great clerke and moch traded in aunciēt wryters (as it appereth by hys doyinges)? Yet he in the hundereth [Page] and one, and twētye leaffe of hys boke entituled the defence of the sayed sacryfyce of the masse wryteth, for ye sayd sacrifice to be propiciatory in sort thus. Doeth not this place proue the masse to be a sacrifice propiciatorye, Syth by the offeringe of christes body in sacrifice at it gods wrath towardes this mā, & his seruauntes cō ceyued for theyr synnes (wherby the deuyl had soch power on thē) was pacyfied & appeased? Agayn in the next leaffe ensuing thus he wrytethe. Nothyngt can be more euidētly spoken for the sacrifyce of ye holye masse yt it is a sacryfyce prepiciatory curing mans woundes (that is to say, hys synnes) & that also by the ordināce of christ commaunding it to be done for a remēbraunce of hys death and rysynge a [...] [...] [...]to mayster [Page] Smyth? Wherby it is ryght euident that he thought the masse sacryfyce to be proprciatory, and I doubte not vnderstode the tofore named canon as I do. Cocleus a man hyghely estemed amongeste oure catholiques partly for hys ryght iudgemēt in scripture matters (as they suppose) partlye for hys learnyng, wryteth in hys former reply all to Bullyuger in the syxt chapter therof for the pryeste sacryfyce to bee propiciatorye in sorte as foloweth. We after ye accostumed maner of speaking in ye Church name not the supper but the masse, a sacryfice not onlye of prayse and thankesgeuynge, but of mercy workyng also, wherwyth we endeuoure oure selues to prayse god instaunte hym and appease hym. For wee offers the Masse [Page] masse sacryfyce not for the alone pourgyng of synne,) which thou falsely doest charge vs wythall, but for sondrye other skylles also and nedes. As it is euydently knowen of the holy Canon. Cocleus woordes in Latyne be these Nos autem inxtu cousuetum in Ecclesia loquendi modum non caenā sed missam dicimus sacrificium non solum laudis & gratiarum actionis, sed etiam propiciationis. Quo deum laudare inuocare & placare satagimꝰ Non enim pro sola peccatorum expiatione (quod tu falso imputas nobis) sed pro aliis causis & necessitatibus permultis Missae sacrificiū offerimus, Quem admodum exsacro Canone liquido cognoscitur & ex multiplici diuersarum collectarum titulo verborū q̄ contextu conspicitur. Here it is ryghte manyfeste and playn that Cocle bothe wel learned & godly iudgemēted after ye [Page] opiniō of our catholiques doeth not only say that yt masse sacrifice is satisfactorye, but appealeth to the Canon therin as answereable ther vnto after hys iudgemēt. Freer Hofmaster (who was so worthely estemed of the catholiques as they alotted hym to be one of the reasoners agaynst the protestantes in ye emperours last dyet kept at Ratyspone) wryteth in hys boke entyteled the exposytyon of the masse prayers & ceremonies in the behalfe of the masse satisfactory sacrifice in maner folowyng. Now that our sacryfyce is named a prayse sacryfyce I suppose it offendeth no man. For oure aduersaries acknowledge also the masse, for ye prayers laudes & thākesgeuīg therin accostumed to be made, maye be called a sacrifice of thākesgeuing & prayse, But that we auouche it to be also [Page] a propiciatorye sacrifice thys doo they stedfastly deny & disaffyrme. Hol maysters wordes in Latyn be thes [...]. Iam ꝙ sacrificiū nostrū appelletur sacrificium laudis nominem opinor offendit. Nam et aduersarii fatentur missam ꝓpter preces, laudes & gratiarum actiones inibi fieri solitas sacrificium dici posse eucharisticium hoc est gratiarum actionis et laudis. At quod nos asserimus preter cetera etiā esse pr [...]piciatorium sacrificium hoc constanter negant. Lo, here hofmayster not only in hys own, but in the person also of thee catholiques (otherwyse termed papistes) as ful according wyth hym herin auoucheth contrary to our catholiques the masse bothe to be a thā kesgeuing and contentation and pardon for our synne. This wrote the sayd Hofmayster in his before named Boke for the defence and allowance of thys sayinge of thee canon [Page] Pro quibus tibi offerimus. etc. for ye whych we offer vnto the, or ye whiche do offre to the this sacrifice of prayse for thē selues and al theyrs for the ramson of theyr soules etc. Wherby we lerne it is not ye fayth only of Hofmaister, but of ye foren catholiques also, ye the masse sacrifice is mercy workinge & that thee wordes also of thee masse canon, ye [...]mporte y• same, ought so insimple to be takē without any far fetched glosse. Whatsoeuer our Englishe catholiques for a tyme do hold to ye cōtrary. Wel syth it is both acknoleged of our catholikes & grō dely I trust argued yt ye masse offredge is not satisfactory or ful cō tētīg. The next entretable matter is yt ye sayd sacrifice is nothīg auailable ether for ye quick or the dead Our catholiques cōtēd it is ꝓfytable for thē both, but how moche or ī what mesure it lyeth not in the powre of man to lymit: But thys [Page] theyr opynyon can not stande wt Chrystes satysfatorie sacryfyce. By reason it is a full cōtentacyō and satisfactyon for synne, & so ye Masse sacryfyce awaleth nothīg at al to the clensyng thereof. For yf it auailed any thynge thereto: Thē wete it propyciatorte aparte thoughe not entierly: Thē were christes sacrifice satisfactore but aparte & not wholy: Thē were ye Masse sacryfice no lesse satysfactore then Christes, For yt it shuld make partely for ye satysfactiō of synne as thristes doth: Whyche is a blasphemy to thynke moche more to speake: Then were oure catholiques deceyued in disaffyrmynge the masse sacryfyce to bee propiciatorye. But what nede I to argue thee sayed sacryfyce to be vnfruteful, The catholiques them selues in conclusyon grant [Page] the same, whyle they auouche the full & entier fruyte & vertu of the prest masse to consyst in the appliall of christes merytes vnto vs, otherwyse vtterly diuoided of ye same ones merit [...]d vpō the crosse in general for almē. Which is ye sacramēt & not the sacrifice, For in thee sacrifice ther is nothinge applyed and rendred vnto vs, but to God alone, otherwyse no sacrifyce at al It is the sacramēt alone, & not the sacrifice that geueth to vs, accordinge to the ryghte definitions of thē both? In consyderatiō wherof sythe the masse fruyte consysteth, not in the prest sacrifice, but in the apply all & gyft of christes body & bloud, not as sacrifice of the prest (whych is but a coūtrefeiture & resemblaunce of thee true sacrifice) but as offered of christe hym selfe vpon the crosse ones for euer: It muste nedes argue that the masse [Page] frute cōsisteth in the sacramet alone & not in ye sacrifice also. For why ye appliall & deliuere of thee frutes of christes death & agayn rysing to vs, is gods gyfte vnto vs & not ours vnto him. So yt it is the sacramēt & not the sacrifice of ye masse yt is auaileable. For a sacramēt is defined to be an holy token, wherby god geueth vs fre pardon of syns, A sacrifice cōtrary wise is defyned to be that wherby we rēder somewhat vnto god. In respecte wherof oure catholiques be moch blame worthi, who yelde to the masse sacryfyce whyche is apperteyninge only to the Lordes supper, I meane the apply all & render of the benefyghtes of christ is deth & resurrectiō. Whych dyde as it is a groūded proufe of falshode so of ye vnauaileablenes of ye masse, as otherwise vnfrutful, Though (wilsom say) the masse sacrifice applyeth not, [Page] ne rendreth to vs christes merytes, Howbeit wythoute that they cannot possibly be presented and deliuered vnto vs. And so ye sayd sacrifice must no remedy be auayleable. That is not so. For ye sayd merites begyuen vs both in baptisme & absolutiō, yea & in the cō munion to wythout the prest sacryfyce as shal here after be declared, And so the sayde sacryfice in thys respert is fruytles. Yet doo our catholiques replye, the foresayd sacryfyce saye they, though it maketh nothing to the applial of christes merites to vs warde: Howbeit in that it is a thākesgeuing it must nedes be auaileable In this replial fyrst this is denyable, yt the prest sacrifying of christes body & bloud is a thākesgeuing. For ye merely & nakedly respected as nothīg but an offredg nothīg is thāked thereby, & so no thākgeuīg: [Page] In dede the prayers incident therto be a thankesgeuinge. But beit the sayd sacrifice were a thankesgeuinge. Yet it shall not orderlye here vpon ensue that it were an acceptable & auaileable thākesgeuī ge For ther be two sortes therof, ye one good & proffytable, thee other nought & vnfrutefull? And yf the prest sacryfyce be a thākesgeuing it must nedes be both vngodlye & vnfrutefull, & so of the badsort of thanke render, By reason it is institute besyde gods wryttē wordes & so contrarie to the same, in that it is a putting therto. For yf it were fonded vpō the sayd word it shuld by al lykelyhod be gronded vpon christes wordes concerninge his supper. But ye it is not And so it is a forged worship & thā kerendre, For christ at his supper neyther offered hym self ne inioyned [Page] others to sacrifice him to his father. Orderly examine eche word of the institution of hys supper & ye shal wel apperceaue thys to be ful certayn. Christ at ye sayd supper tuke bred,mathe. 26 Luke, 22 But that is not to sacryfyce hym selue. Els he sacryfyced hym selue to hys father so oft, as he dyd eate. He gaue thā kes, but that is not to offere hym selue, Els he sacryfyed hym selue to hys father, what tyme he encresed fyue barelye loofes & fed therwyth fyue thousand men. He broke it and gaue it to his disciples. But that is not to rēdre it to god, whych is behoueful in eche sacryfyce. His disciples toke & eate the bread & his body, so do ye lea mē in lyke māner, Yet they offre thē not The which is geuē for you, herby he meaneth not to be here sacrifyed, Els shulde he offer hym selue oft, and not ones, Els wolde not [Page] our prestes ouerhipped those wordes in theyr cōsecratiō. The disciples were enioned to do this in his remēbraūce and so they dyd: What then? So doo all Christianes & the faythful lealtye performe ye same. Yet offer they hym not. As ther is not one word touching this former part of ye lords supper, ye enforceth for the prieste sacrifice: Euen so is ther none in thys latter ye maketh for ye same, For yt I haue spokē of ye same, is reducible & appliaūt to the latter portiō of the sayde supper. Thus it appereth playn christ nether offered him selue in hys supper ne cōmaunded others to offer hym in the same to hys father. In respect wherof paul spoke the selue same wordes vnto the vnprested Corinthians1. Cori: 11. whych Christ reported to hys disciples. And bad thē also perfourme all those thinges [Page] whyche Christ demaunded to be perfourmed of his disciples, whiche thing be wold neuer haue done, yf ye vnprested Corin. mought not accōplished & put in executiō al matters concerning the lordes supper. Thus it is playn the masse sacrifice is not groūded vpon Goddes wryttē word, & so nether acceptable or seruiceable to God ne fruteful to mā. For why, whoso worshippeth god wythout his special word for ye same worshippeth him wythout fayth. By reason true fayth issueth onlye from gods wryttē word as wytnesseth S. Paul. Fayth cometh by hearīg & yt hearinge by gods word.Roma. 10 And who so worshippeth god without fayth, synneth. For as Paul saith whatsoeuer thing is not of fayth,Roma. 14 is syn. So that hereby it is full opē the sayd sacrifice is synful & consequently not to be frequēted or vsed. Our catholiques in that [Page] that they acknowlege theyr priest sacrifice not to be mercy workyng suppose it so takē, may wel stande both with goddes word & christes honour. But in so demeng they be foule deceyued. For why to attēpt to offer christ as it is an enterpryse toto bolde and presumptuou [...]e: so vnsufferable & blasphemouse. For thys is the state & condiciō of leyfull sacrifyces before god, that they sacryfyced be not merelye of thē selues, but in respect of the offerers godlynes regarded and hys synfulnes dyslyked of God. The sacryfyces of Abel and Cain, not wythstādyng they were not moch what vnlyke in thē selues:Gene. iiii, howbeit they were dyuersly respected of god in consyderatiō of the soūorynes betwixt ye offerers. For thone god regarded for Abels sake, the other he hated and abhorred for Cain sake. The lorde loked vnto [Page] Abel (sayth moyses) and to hys offering. But to Cain and hys offeringe he loked not. Marke thys, Fyrste he loked vpon Abell ere he respected hys offeringe. Fyrste he dyslyked Cain or he dislyked hys sacryfyce, Whereby we do vnderstand that the offering is lyked or dislyked of god in respect of ye offerer. So yt here vpon it grondelye arguethe that the offerer is bothe worthyer & better estemed of God then hys offering. For that, that god regardeth merely for it selue is better & more estemed of hym, thā that whiche he regardeth but in respect of another. In consyderation wherof yf christ were to be sacrificed of thee priest, then were the priest bothe worthyer & better accepted before god thē christ him selue, as it is gatherable of the before sayde. By reason wherof thee priest sacryfyce as it most hyghly [Page] empayrethe christes honoure & maiestie so vncomperablely offendeth god the father & so moste exchueable. Wolde you further know why ye prest sacrifice is vnsitting & disalowable? Thē diligentlye note the sequeles, & after sayinges, Who so be autorised & appoynted to sacrifice Christ body must be prestes after the order ether of Aaron or Melchisedech, But our offerers ought not to be prested after Aarons order. For that his presthode is quyte repealed & done away. Syth the priesthode sayth Paul is translated of necessite must the law be translated also,Hebre, 7 Thē remediles must the foresayde sacryfycers be priested after Melchifedech order, els are thei vnprested. But thei cānot be prestes as melchisedech was: By reson who so is a preste after hys order is an euerlastynge prieste accordīg to this saying of dauidPsal: 14, [Page] Thou art an euerlasting prest after ye order of Melchisedech, but we be al immortal & but for a tyme, therfore not eternall & consequētly none euerlastinge prestes, Whervpō it formally argueth yt our vsurped prestes vsurpe & take the authorite to sacrifice Christes body, whych is graūted neyther to thē ne to anye mā els. By reason wherof they be blame worthy for yt theyr vsurpatiō of soch autorytee.Hebre. 5 Let no mā sayth Paul take honoure to him selue but he yt is called of god as was Aaron To ꝓcede further in ye disproufe of the prest sacrifice, Howe can it possible be yt our prestes could sacrifi christes bodi & bsoud? With out theyr due sacramētes ye sayde body & bloud nether cā be p̄sented ne sacrifyced, as the prestes them selues acknoledge as most certē. For ye sacrified bred & wine nether be ne cā be sacramētes of christes [Page] body & bloud: By reason they be otherwyse vsed thē christ selue ordeyned thee sacramētes of ye same to be. Can the baptisme water be iustly recōpted a sacramēt wher it is transposed to other vsages thē it is prepared for of christ by hys word & ye ryght ordinaūce of ye same, namely to be gaised vpon, too sprynkle & washe mē wt al, to christē belles to washe our clothes wt all? No truely. Can the circumcision or of pare which the Iewes and turkes now vse, be rightly demed a sacramente? No verely. Certes nomore can the sacrificed bread & wyne be iustly accompted sacramē tes of ye lordes body & bloud. But heere oure Catholiques replye sayinge the wordes of consecratiō be reported vpō the bread & wyne ere they be sacryfyced, In consyderation wherof, nedes must they be sacramētes. Thys ther replial is nothinge formall ne forceable & yt [Page] by theyr own doctryne. Be it that alaymā reported the consecration wordes on the bread & wyne or the prest vttered thē not purposing ye making of christes body & bloud. The sayd bread & wyne were after our prestes doctrine nothing lesse thē geuing sacramētes of ye aboue named body & bloud, notwithstanding the report of the consecratiō wordes ouer thē. So that it standeth wythe catholique doctryne yt in symple the bare report & naked vtttrance of the consecration wordes enforce not the sacramēt. So that the foresayd replial is nothīg effectual, being neyther true ne catholique? Now to ye before mencioned sacrificed bred agayn, I put ye case, ther were soch adueuout priest who were so deuoutly disposed as he wolde eate none other breade & drinke none other drinke at meales but sacramentally consecrate [Page] bred & wyne & wold in consideraciō hereof for eche his dyner and supper purposely report daye by day at hys masse, the cōsecration wordes ouer hys bread & wyne y• he wold vse at ye sayde meales: I suppose noman be he neuer so catholiq̄ & old fashioned wyldepose yt sayd bred & wyne to be geuīg sacramētes of christes body & bloude notwithstāding the report of ye cōsecratiō wordes ouer thē, And verely the consecration hereof is the dyrecte & oppē abuse agaynst the ryght institutiō & vsage of ye sacramentes of thee sayde bodye and bloud: Nomore be the sacryfyced bred & wyne sacramētes of christes body & bloud, notwithstā dyng ye rehersal of the consecratiō wordes ouer thē: For why christe instituted at his supper his body not to be sacrificed but etē. In respecte wherof he saythe not take [Page] sacrifice, this is my bodi: but takē eate, thys eate my body. Ther be thre matters ryght nedefull & be houeful to the natural beynge of a sacramēt, The due element the due word ye especial commaundemēt of god directed therto. Wher any of the aforesayd want, there can be no sacrament. By reason wherof the sacrificed bread & wyne cā be no sacramētes, notwithstāding they be the due elemētes consecrate wyth due wordes. In consyderation ther wāteth gods special commaūdemēt so to autoryse vs & able vs to sacrifice thē as to take thē & eate thē. So that they be but pure elemētes & no sacramētes. Therfore christes body & bloud cānot possibly be sacrifyced in & by thē. Whereby it appereth euidēt, ye prest sacrificing is of nothing lesse thē of christes body & bloud. Thus (good reder) I haue [Page] argued (I suppose forceably) the priest sacrifice to be nether propiciatore ne auaileable, nether godly ne approueable but sinful and vnsufferable. Therfore I besech y• vtterly renoūce it & detest it enbracing & vsing in the stede therof the most holy cōmunion. But happely thou art loothe so to do tyl I haue soyled the reasens fetched out of scriptures whych colourably seme to ratefy the sayd sacryfyce, By reason whereof I wyl addresse me to the ful answere & resolutiō of the same. Wheras it is argued christ in respecte he is pristed after Melchisedech ordre offred him selue bodely vnder the fourme of bread & wyne, for yt Melchisedech offered bread & wine. This reason holdeth not because it is false that Melchisedech sacrificed bred & wyne. For Moses sayth not Melchisedech [Page] offered but brought forth bread and wyne. To bring forth is not to offer, He sayth not he brought forth bread & wyne for a sacrifice but wythout any mētion of sacrifice at al. He saith not he broughte forth the sayd bread & wyne to god, but to Abrahā as it is right gatherable of ye Historie to whō to do sacrifice were an ymage seruice, & therfore Melchisedech sacrificed not bread & wyne. Here it is obiected yf Moyses meaned not yt melchisedech offered bread and wyne: Why adioned he immediatly thereto this? he beynge the prest of the most hyghest god blessed hym? Mary not because he sacrificed the bred & wyne but for y• he blessed Abrahā, doynge vs hereby to wete, as Melchisedech declared hym selue to bee a kinge in employing vpon Abraham bred & wyne: So in blessing [Page] hym to be a prest. For as the employing of bread and wyne, was a kingly function, so the blessing a priestly [...]ffyce. In consyderatiō wherof the foresayd Moses thus wryteth. And Melcheledech thee Kynge of Salem brought forth breade and wyne,Gene. x [...]iii and he was a prieste of the moost hyghest God and blessed hym. The meanynge wherof is thys as me semeth) because Melchysedech was a kyng he played the kynge he employed vpō Abrahā hyghe chere, bicause he was a priest also, he played the prieste he blessed hym. In that he was a King he chered Abraham, in that he was a prieste he blessed hym. But here some wyl saye Abraham was alreadye greatly enriched wyth kyngly spoyles & hadde no nede of Melchisedechs chere, therfore by al lykelyhod he profered hym not the bread and [Page] wyne. To thys I answere, not wythstandynge Abraham neded not Melchysedech cheringe, yet he chered hym in fuile proufe of hys hospytalyte and humanytie toward both hym and his. [...]hus both Chrisostome and Iosephus thynke. But be it Melch [...]sedech offered breade and wyne, and in so doyinge fygured christ Shall it folowe there vpon, that Christ offered hym selue bodelye infourmes of breade and wyne? Noo verelye. Was not Aaron a fygure of Christe, dyd he not fygure and resemble hym selue in sacryfycyinge of a gote? Yeas certaynly. Yet noo man wyll or oughte to gather, bycause Aaron who was a fygurer of christ sacrificed a gote, Therfore christ offered hī selue corporally in or vnder thee [Page] shape and kynd of agote. If the before mencioned doying of melchisedech were applied to christe after this sort folowing I could not but acknowledge the application therof both sufferable and godly, As melchisedech the king of Salem profered bread & wine to Abrahā, & hys sodiers, not for thē to sacrifice, but to eat to their relief, & blessed the sayde Abrahā & in him al his posterite: Righte so christ our kynge, the kynge of spiritual peace & rightuousnes, presenteth at his supper to al vs his communers bothe bread and wyne (sacramētes exhibitiues of hys body & bloud) not to be offered but thone to beeatē & thother to be dronkē to oure comfort, and blesseth vs al, & in vs al oure ofspring. The next alledged reasō for ye masse sacrifice is this deduced oute .i. & .iii of ye ꝓphet Malachie, [Page] I haue no wyl to you sayth the Lord of hostes & I wyl not receaue of your hande a sacrifyce. For from the rysing of the sonne vnto the gowing down myname is great emōg the people. Lo her (say our catholiques), ye prophet prophesieth of the vtter refusall and repeale of the Iewyshe sacrifyce & of the succession chose and acceptaūce of a new, whych is to be vnderstandē of the masse alone. This ther vnderstandinge is nothing answereable to the prophetes meaning. For why he speketh only of soch sacrifice which is offered in al places of al men and frō the morninge to nighte. The masse sacrifice is not sacrificed in eche place, but in ye church alone, not from the morninge to night, but from the morninge to noonetyde, not of eche man indifferently, but of the prieste alone. [Page] The alledged reason out of thee eyght & twelue of Daniel enforceth nothing to the prest sacrifice For daniel as it appereth playne in the nynthe chapter entreateth of the abolishmēt of the Iewyshe dayly sacrifice, whych is discontynued for certeyn yeres through the tyran Antiochus. This sacrifice was offered twyse on the day in the mornyng & at nyght. The Masse sacrifice is sacrificed but ones on the day, & that in the mornyng, thother was offered but in the tēple of Hiercusalē, this is sacryfyced in eche churche. Yea the moost learned catholiques cānot endure thee foresayde Prophecye shulde be so takē as it concerneth thee quyte abolishement of theyr Masse sacryfyce. For that they beleue that as Christes churche is euerlastable so theyr sayde sacrifice alwayes endureable. It is [Page] expressely wrytten in, xiii. of thee Acres of the Apostles (say our catholiques) that they sacrificed to thee Lorde. Therfore by al sembleaunce they sacrificed his body and bloud. What a misfashioned argumentation is this? [...]he Apostles sacryfyced to the Lord, ergo they sacryfyced hys body & bloud. Could they sacryfyce nothing but the sayd body & bloud? Mought they not preache, pray, gather almouse for the nedy and mynystre the Lordes supper? Be they not al seuerably seruiceable and acceptable sacrifyces? Bee not also the ful executours of the same iustly named sacryfyers? Yeas verely, Then it is nothing ensuable, because thee Apostles sacrificed, they sacrificed Christes bodye and bloude. And Luke saythe not they sacryfyced [Page] christes body & bloud, but in simple they sacrificed. Therfor this saying of luke they sacrificed importeth necessarelye no sacrifyce of christes body & bloud, but rather of ye beforesayde. That here Erasmus nameth sacrificinge, y• old trāslator termeth ministring Chrisostome takethe it for preachinge, so dothe Erasmus also. The greke word saye y• Parisiās betokeneth to execute & minister a publique office, & it is here takē to preache gods gospel, Thus the Pariliaus in theyr annotacions vpō the new testamēt. Thus it is euident the before alledged argumētation is both wrong framed & disproued both of christostome Erasmus & Parisians ye hed maynteyners of the masse sacrifice. Another reason that the catholiques alledge for thee mayntenaunce of theyr sacrifice is thys [Page] The thyng fygured must agree wythe hys fygure. Christe was fygured by the pascal lābe, therfore as the sayd lambe was first offered ere it was eaten:Exodi. xii Euen so christe (the true lambe) was offered ere it was eaten, at his maundy. To this I answere after this sorte. It is ryght certayne that ye matter figured & the figure both do & must accorde in some poynte, otherwyse ther can be neyther fygure ne thing fygured: In cō syderatiō wherof the pascal lābe (for ye sygneth christ) it muste & dothe resemble hym in somwhat & so it doth. For as the pascal lā be was slayne & offered, so was christ. As the pascall lābe (slayne and offered) was a meane whereby the Israelites were deliuered frō theyr slauery of Pharao, So christ mourdered brokē & offered was the meane wherwyth we be [Page] fredomed frome ye thraldome of our spyrtual Pharao ye deuyll. As ye pascal lambe was not onely offered but eatē also: so Christ was both eaten & sacryfyced &c. But yt ye thinge fygured shuld be throughly ordred as hys fygure in all pointes, it is neyther nedeful ne possyble Els shuld Christ haue bene offered but of others alone & not of hym selfe also. In cōsideraciō ye pascall lambe was so Els shuld he haue bene rosted ere he were eaten, bycause ye pascall lambe was not eaten rawe but rosted. Els his bones shulde haue bene brēt, for yt the sayd lambes were, Els his bloud shuld haue bene springled in ye Iewes houses as ye lābes was, Els he shuld not haue bene eatē whole & vnbrokē vn sufferably but by pecemele and sufferably as the lambe was Wherfore ryght as Christ is fygured [Page] trueli by the pascal lambe notwithstāding his foresayd disagremēt therwyth: Euē so thoughe christ is fyrst eatē & thē sacrificed yet yt is none hinderāce why the sayd christ shulde be fygured by the pascal lābe, Now to ye next reason yt is adiudged to enforce for the masse sacrifice. Ye cannot drinke of the lordes cup & the deuils to? Ye cānot be partakers of the lordes table & the deuils also Here S. Paul cōpareth the partaking of the lordes supper with the communion of the meates of fred to the deuyls,i. Cori. 10 whych thinge certaynly he wold neuer haue done oneles he demed christes body and bloud fyrste to be sacryficed ere thone is eatē thother dronkē as the meates dedicate to deuyls be. For els yt hys cōparison were nothīg semblable ne formal. To thys is myne answere: Paules [Page] sayd comparison betwixt ye sayd body and bloud, and the meates and drinkes consecrate to deuils consisteth only in mutual receipt and comunyng of them, and noothing at al in the sacrificing of ye same. Therfore he mencyonethe only ye partaking and not theyr offredge also: I meruel me moch what our catholiques meane to auouche thee before mencyoned comparyson not to be formall wt oute it implied the offredge also both of the sayd meates and drinkes. May not two thīges be iustly compared togethers and yt but in one symple matter? Doo they not know that eche comparison halteth and in some matters discordeth? Yf they wyl haue ye heretofore named cōparison so throughly answerable & sembleable in all condicions: Thē it is to be argued after thys posycyon, and [Page] decre that whēsoeuer christes body is eatē, hys bloud dronkē and that accordinglye, yet they staine and embrue vs in consyderatyō the ymage meat and drinke, eatē & drōkē so do. Thē do they alway dysplease god, for that ye meates and drinkes offered to ydols so do, Thē they be grossely sensybly and sufferably eatē and dronken for yt the meates and drinkes offered to Idols be after that sort both eatē and dronkē. Al thees in cōueniēses be no lesse gatherable of the foresayd comparison then that Christes bodye and bloude ought to be sacryfyced. In consideratiō the ydol meate and drinke be offred. Is it not in expresse wordes in Paul .v. to ye Hebrues (saye our catholiques) that eche Byshop or priest takē out of the nombre of mē is ordeined for mē in those thinges yt do apperteīgn [Page] to god that he shuld offre gyftes & sacrifices for synne? whereby it is full open that oure priestes do offere a sacrifyce for oure synne? What can that bee but Christes body & bloud? Fayn wold our catholiques haue theyr masse sacryfyce to be authorysed & founded vpon gods wrytten worde, but it wolde not be. I beseche the what enforceth ye alledged text of Paul to the maynteyning of prestes sacrifice? Verely nothing at al. For why it talketh only of the Aaroni cal ordre of priesthode, as it doth well appere by this the after sayinge of Paul, let no man take vnto hym honoure (he meaneth the foresayde priestehode) wythoute he bee called of God there too as Aaron was, and compareth thee offyce of thee sayde priestehode wyth Chrystes as it is ryghte euydente [Page] by thys thee nexte after speache whych begynneth in sort thus. Euen so lykewyse Chryste etc. And he speaking but of the leuiticall priesthode oughte in nowyse too be vnderstande of oure masse presthode, according to the generall rule. Eche man sayinge must be takē after the entended & entreated matter. Well though ye foresayd allegatiō of Paul were to be construed of oure Christian priesthode & of our christian p [...]iestes. Howbeit, it oughte so too be takē that it implieth nomore one christiā thē another, nomore ye spiritual thē the leamē notwithstanding some be ecclesiastical ministers) whyche other be not) according to this saying of peter, ye be a kingly presthod, But beyt ther be certayn allotted & chosen to a special sort of presthode,i. Pet. ii whyche the remnaunte of Christians, be not allotted to, Iet shuld the heretofore [Page] alledged scripture argue nothīg for thē. By reasō it entreateth of soch prestes who ar wonted to offre not one gyft, but many & diuers, not one sacrifice, but sondre, and thē to the ful contentation of syn, oure made priestes offre but one gyfte, yf they offer that but one sacryfyce and not dyuers, and that not to the satisfaction and purging of synne but for a thankesgeuing, as our Catholiques thē selue now at the last acknowledge. Yet thee sayde Catholiques replye for ther said sacrifice in sort thus? Christ sayd to his apostels (as Luke .xxii. maketh hereof report), Thys do for my remēbraunce, which thys his saying autoryseth thē to sacrifyce christis body and bloud as he him selue had thē done at his supper. This theyr replicationis nothing effectual or true, Was not [Page] S. Paul an apostle not of yt basest but hyghest sort? howbeit he dyd not vnderstād the sayd sayinge of christ after that sort. For he spoke the very selue same to yu vnprested Corinthiās,i. Cori. xi. and ye not of his owne hede, but by the motion of the lord. I haue (sayth he) receyued of the lord, Which I haue delyuered you, wherby it doth wel appeare that it is not onelye Paules, but the lordes also & consequently al his apostles mynde, that thys hys sayinge do thys in my remēbraunce, is spoken aswel to the vnprested as to the prested christians. By reason whereof yf thone be through the sayd speche autorysed to sacryfyce christ is body, the other is in lyke maner. If the one be not, the other sorte can not be? In respect wherof our Catholiques acknowledging the vnprested not to be autorised throughe [Page] ye sayd speach auctorysed to sacrifice christes bodi, thother is in lyke māer. If thone be not thother sorte cane not bee. In recspecte whereof oure Catholyques acknowledgynge thee vnpreysted not to bee auctorysed thoroughe the aboue alledged scrypture to offre Christes bodye and bloud: muste no remedye graunte thee preystede not to be lycenced by ye sayd scripture to sacrifice ye same Thys partecle thys in thys chrystes sayenge thys dooe in my remembraunce as it is a ꝓnoūe relatyue so demonstratyue, therfor reporteth declareth & respecteth hys antecedent, whyche was not to sacryfyce hys body wherof he forspoke neuer word ne did anye thing cōcernīg ye same but onely ye thākful receipt & eating of his body & drynkyng of hys bloude, ther purposeli mēcioned. Which [Page] ymplie no maner sacrificing of ye same at al, This is graūted of all mē aswell of the catholiques as ye protestantes as a trueth most vndoubted, yt ye laye & vnpriested mā receaueth the cōmunyon vnworthely, what tyme soeuer he take it not recording therwyth the precyous death of the lorde. But howe could the sayd mā receaue yt sayde cōmunion vnworthely for his receypte therof wythout myndefulnes of christes passion & death, yf for to so take it, were not a punishable defaulte? For why the vnworthenes herein issueth from synne alone. But how were it synne, yf it were not directly repugnaunte agaynst Goddes oppen commaū demente? For there is noo synne whych is not a breach therof. But what commaundemente is there for the laye men to remēbre christes deathe at theyr receypte of the [Page] of his supper, yf thys do in my remēbraunce be not it, yf it touche thē not? Certaynly none. By reason wherof nedes must we recognise & acknowledge eyther that the vnprested ꝑsons receyue not vnworthely the sayd sacramente when they take it in forgetfulnes and sylēce of christes passion, whiche is nothing graūtable, eyther els that this saying of christ, this do in my remēbraunce cōcerneth, & chargeth ye sayd persons aswel, as the prestes, whych is ryght certeyn. In cōsideratiō wherof, this do in my remēbraūce purporteth not to sacrifice christ in hys remē braunce but to recorde & declare opēly hys death (as Paul sayth) who exponeth the sayd saying, [...] 11. in thys wyse. As oft as ye eate thys bread & drinke thys cup, ye shall show the death of the lorde tyl he come. Yet are not oure Catholiques [Page] contented but further they procede in theyr replial. We haue an aulter wherof they may not eate whych serue thee tabernacle: Here saye they. Paule meanethe thus. They who kepe the ceremonyes of Moyses lawe haue none authoritie to eat of christes bread hys very body cōsecrated & offered in sacryfyce on the aulter whiche we christē men haue set vp in our tēples. If Paul had not meaned this he wold haue made noo mētion of an aulter whych is made for sacrifice to be offered therupon to God. See (good reder) how foule deceyued be the herfore named persōs. Is it not ryght euydēt that Paul speaketh of an eateable aultar? We haue an aultare (saythe he) wherof they maye not eate,He [...] [...] & not of thee masse stone aulter whych is not eatable. If y• sayd aultare were to be takē for a [Page] stone aultar Then were they who trusted in the ceremoniall lawe in better case then we Christians be For that they moughte not, wee must eat ye sayd aulter, Thē shuld Christes body & bloud thone haue bene eatē thother dronking in Paules tyme at the aultare & not at the table,1. Cor: 10, Thē wold Paul haue termed the eatynge place of thee lordes supper not the lords table, but the lordes aultar, Then wold not the Apostles haue gone from house to house to mynister the cō munyon,Art: [...] for that there was none aultare. Then do oure mynystres trespace who exhibite & mynystre the sayd communion to the dyeng men at home, were wantethe an aultare. Christe is onlye the eatable aultare heretofore especifyed, whom bothe we must and do eate vnto lyfe euerlastynge otherwyse spyrytuallye dead for euer, as we [Page] maye learne the same in Ihon: vt The which christ is named an aultar, for yt vpō him alone we laye & powre our spiritual sacrifices namely our prayers & brokē hartes, otherwise not acceptable to god ye father according to this saying of Peter.1 Petr: 2 Offer vp spiritual sacrifices acceptable to god for Iesu christe sake.Hebre. 1 [...] By christ sayth Paule we offer ye sacrifice of prayse alway to god, yt is to wete the fruytes of those lippes which confesse his name Thys is the laste argumentacion of them that be deduced & fetched out of the scripture which semeth any thing forceable for the prest sacrifice. As touchīg thys place of Mathew. v. When thou offerest a gyft at ye aultar. etc, Notwythstā ding it mēcioneth expresli both an aultar & an offredge: Howbeit for so moch as it was thē vttered whē the ceremoniall lawe of Moyses stode in hys wounted effecte and [Page] and force whych cōmaunded thē both to be vsed, and spokē also to thē, who were thē obliged & bounde to obey the sayd law: For yt thē the new testamēt was not ful institute & ratified: It enforceth nothyng at al for like offring & aultare to be frequēted & vsed emōg vs christians. By reason the heretofore named law is through the ordinaunce & establyshment of ye new testamēt vtterly abandoned & repeled. [...] In that sayth Paul he saythe a new Testamente he hath abrogate the old. And as touchīg thys sayinge of Paule. [...], And they which wayte at the aultar ar partakers of the aultar, it importeth nothing at al in ye behalfe of masse sacrifice, wherof ther is no mē cion made. It is but the fourmer parte of a symylitude fetched out of the ceremonial law of Moyses and [...] thus▪ As in moyses [Page] law, whoso serued the aultare (as thee Leuytes dyd) lyued thereby: Ryght so (now in the new Testamēt) who so preacheth the gospell shal haue hys lyuinge through ye preachment therof. For Paule in his the alledged texte & others incidente hereto, endeuoureth hymselue to argue a lyuelyhode to be deiu & payable to the gospel, preachers of theyr auditours for ther euangelical preachemēt. Consyder (dere reder) wel the entier and full sayinge of Paule, & you shal easely perceaue he meaneth thus Do ye not (sayth he) vnderstande how that they whych minister in the tēple haue theyr fyndynge of the temple, And they which wayt at the aultar ar partakers of the aultar? Euen so, also (note the applicatiō of the fourme two symilitudes) dyd the lord ordeyn that they whyche preache the gospell, [Page] shuld lyue of ye gospel. Yf the former part of ye sayd symylitude were so to be takē yt it shuld meane ye now ther be certen ministers who shuld serue ye aultare, it is to wete shuld masse it, then the gospel preachers shuld not masse it at al. For that by Paules doctryne to serue the aultare & to preache be soundrye and seuerable offices and ministeryes, Which thyng accordeth not with our catholique doctrine, which teacheth yt the gospell preachers must masse it also. But wat meane I to be so moche in the soylyng of these two last recited scryptures, whych yf they had bene any thynge effectual for the proufe of the prieste sacryfyce, as the before alledged seme, Mayster doctour Smythe wold haue pleased them wyth in hys boke made for the defence of thee sayde sacryfyce, as he hathe doone thee remnaunte, and [Page] not in the margente therof. Thus haue I at full both declared and argued that Christes bodye and bloud ought not to be sacryfyced of the Massers in theyr masse, eyther to clense our synne, eyther els to thanke and serue god wythall, and that the reasons which the catholiques deduce out of the scripture to the mayntenaunce therof enforce nothing for the same. But saye oure catholyques the aunciente and holye Doctours as Austeyne Chrisostome and others expressely auouche thee Lordes bodye and bloud to be offered of the ministers, whych thyng they wold neuer haue affyrmed oneles they were offered so in verye dede, and that accordynge too Gods worde In dede it is fulle certayne that the sayd Doctours auouche both thee LORDES bodye and [Page] and hys bloude to bee sacrificed but not after oure Catholiques meaninge. For why they vnderstand by the sacryfyce of christes body & bloud done by the minister only the resembleance and memorye of the true & bloudy sacryfyce of the sayd body & bloude which is the cōmunion & not any real & true sacrifice of the same executed by the priest as the catholiques mistake thē. We ofte vse to saye (sayth Austen to bonifacius) whē eastrr approcheth nyghe that to morow or the next daye is the lordes passion & yet it is many yeares sythe he suffered and ye passiō was neuer but ones: And vpon ye sonday, we saye this daye he dyd agayn ryse, howbeit, it is many yeres sence he rose. Now is there no mā so folisshe to reproue vs as lyers, for so saying, because we name those dayes after the similitude of those, in whych these [Page] matters were done, so that is called the same daye which is not the very same daye but by course of tyme lyke it. And it is sayde to be done thee same daye throughe meane of the celebration of the sacrament whych is not done the same daye, but longe tofore. Was not christ ones sacrificed in hymselue? & yet in the sacramēt is sacrificed for the people not onelye eche ester holy day, but eche day? And he lieth not who beinge demaunded answereth he is offered For yf the sacramentes haue not some sembleaunce of the matters wherof they be sacramentes, they were noo sacramentes at all. Of this sembleaūce oft they take the names of the thynges by thē sygnyfyed. Lo there it dothe full wel appere that by Austeynes mynde the sacramente of christes body & bloud is so named thee sacryfyce of thē both as esterday is named [Page] the day of the lordes resurrection & good frydaye his passyon daye, But the sayd dayes benot termed fsr yt the lord in very dede agayne ryseth in thone & resuffreth in thother, but by reason his passyon in thone hys resurrectyō in thother is represented & signifyed. Therfore the cōmuniō is called ye sacrifice of ye lordes body & bloud not ye they be sacrificed verely ī ye same, but in cōsideracion theyr sacrifice is bothe recorded & resembled in ye sayde communion or sacramente. The celebrating of the cōmunion saythe Ekius in the tenthe chap. of hys fourmer boke of the masse sacrifice (dedicate to the kynge of Pole) for ye it is an ymage resembling Christes passiō (ye true sacrifice) may be named alway a sacrifice. As Austeyn sayth to Simplicius, Images ar wonte to be called by ye names of those thynges [Page] wherof they be ymages, Exāple, whē we vteu & beholde a paynted table or walle we saye thys is Cicero, thys is Salust, thys Cesar, Here we se both by Austeyne and Ekius iudgemēt the communyō is named a sacryfyce of Christes body and bloud for that it is a resembleaunce & ymage of the same sacryfyced. By reason whereof nedes it must argue, as the ymage of a thynge is not thee thynge selue: as a paynted man is no mā in dede, as Cesars ymage is not Cesar ne Salustis Salust selue: So thee Masse or Communyon beynge but an ymage and memorye of ye true sacryfyce of christes body and bloud is not thee verye true sacrifice of thē bothe, And as the cōmunion is named the sacrifice of ye foresayd body & bloud, in consyderatiō the sayd sacrifice is ther in both recorded & resembled [Page] Ryght so the ministring & ce [...]ebrating of the sayd cōmunion is vpō lyke respect termed ye sacrifyinge of christes bodye & bloude. Thus meaned our forefathers by the sacryfice & sacrificing of the sayde body and bloud. Now to the last matter incident to the masse sacrifice whych is the worshippe & instans of whole christe bothe man and god, in & vnder the fourmes of bread and wyne. A dede no lesse vnsytting & repugnaunt too the Euāgelical truth thē the premisses be. The pryue masse worshyppers holde opynyon that Christe ought of congruēce to be honoured & prayed after the consecration as beyng in the prestes hādes for that he is thē there bothe god and mā & so ther no lesse honourable & prayable thē in heauē, But thys theyr argumentacion is nothīg [Page] dialectical or formal. For yt the presence of Christ in a place importeth not the honour & prayeng of him in the sayd place. Is not god the father essenciallye in eche creature? Yet he is reuerenced & sollicited, but as resident in heauē & not in hys creatures. Is not the holy ghost in eche faythefull person? Howbeit no mā worshippeth him as present in ye faithful, but as in heauē. Christ is present in eche religiouse assēble assembled faythfully in his name, y• notwithstādīg nomā doth honoure, & pray vnto hym as resyant in the religiouse assemble but in heauen alone. Is he not as god eche wher & consequētly at the masse? Howbeit no man adiudgeth hym there to be worshipped & called vpon, yf hys body were thēce vtterly absēted, The experiēs wherof is playn in that part of the masse [Page] that forgoeth consecration. Why thē shuld hys bodely presence enforce vs to honour & sollicite him in the sayd masse? For his body is not honourable ne prayable merely of it selue but in respect of hys godhedde personally alyed & coupled therwyth. Christ both god & mā wt his father & the holy goost is present at yt baptisme of faythfull infantes where they become enbodied & incorporate therto, it is to wete where they eate his body & drinke his bloude as reallye as we do at his supper: Howbeit no mā worshippeth eyther hys body as present at baptisme ther no lesse presēted thē at his supper, eyther els his godhed, ether for his own or for ye presens of his said body, Why thē shuld ether his body be honoured as present in ye masse after the consecration or els thee presēce therof cause vs to honour [Page] his godhed in the same, ther otherwyse vnhonourable? As in ye olde testament (as we learne in the .vi. of Daniel) the Godlye fathers in theyr exilemēt wādering in farrē cōtreis farre frō whom dyd in all theyr prayers made vnto god dyrecte bothe theyr hartes and theyr eyes toward Hierusalē, & wher so euer they cam, dyd sollicite god as inhabitant in ye same: ryght so we being as pelgrimes ī this world, exiled as were from heuē our Hierusalē and natyue countrie where god dwelleth must honour & pray vnto hym alway as resyāt in that heauēly Hierusalē & not els wher It is wrytten in the canon of thee most worthy counsayl of Nyce in sort as foloweth. Let vs not grossely beholde the breade and cuppe proposed & set before our eyes but in faythe, consydere thee lambe of [Page] of god in that hys sacred table wt our myndes eleuate and vplifted Here we se the most worthy cōsayl inhibiteth & diswade the vs from gaysing & tootinge vpō the bread and wine, aduertising vs in faith to respect christ in his supper, hauing our myndes erected vp into heauē, In case the said cōsayl had estemed it sitting & leyful to worshyp the bread (as the most parte of the lealtye, I had almost sayde of the clergie to doth, an ydolytre detestable), or christ in the breade (as in maner all christiandō doth a lamētable case) it wold not haue forbiddē vs to to ote vpō the bred & aduertised vs to vplift our hartes into heauē. Doth not the prest him selue at his masse saye a little before eleuation or sacringe? We haue our hartes aboue to ye lord? How eyther ought or can christ be reuerenced & oncalled as present [Page] in the sacringe yf we, as ye masser & quere doo singe, haue & oughte to haue (throughe the decre of the church) our hartes & eyes two (for where oure hartes be there muste our eyes be fastened also) aboue erected vp into heauē to the lorde For yf he were to be considered & honoured in ye masse, thē we shuld haue our hartes beneth & not aboue downward & not vpward to ye lord, thē we shuld at that instante worshyp hym in the prestes hādes & not in heauē. Christ prescribing vs an exacte trade & perfyt forme to praye wythall, enioyneth vs in the same to instant & on call God the father in heuē wher he him selue is resydent on hys ryghthande (as Paule sayth) & not els where notwithstāding he be eche where, Our father sayth christ whych is in heauē, he sayth not whych arte eche where. In respect wherof [Page] bothe ye father & ye sonne be to be worshipped & praied to ī heauē a [...]one & not els wher, For to praye otherwise (saieth Cipriā) thē christe tought vs is not only an ignoraūce but a vice also,mathe. 15 syth he sayeth why do ye infrīg & break goddes iniunction purposely to establesh your tradiciō. Chrisostome ī hys exposiciō vpō ye lordes prayer writeth as foloweth, where as Christ saieth God is in heauē he doth not by yt his so saiēg cōclud & hemē hī ther but wt draweth hī who makethe his praier to hym, frō ye earth & fastneth him ī heauē Itē in his homely vpon the sayde prayer he wryteth after thys forte Se where ye cal vpon the father, verely in heauen vpon consideration whereof we crye at thee vicu of thee sacryfyce, oure hartes aboue, where oure confessyon is bounde, lette oure hartes bee represē ted. [Page] Hytherto Chrisostome who in these hys sayinges that Christ is not to be honoured & prayed to in the earth & so not in ye massinge place (apart therof) but in heauen Further cā ther be made to god at any tyme an effectual prayer with oute an vplyftinge of oure hartes, vnto hym? No verelye. Why thē pray we to christ in ye masse sacring? Wher cā be none vpliftīge but a downliftinge of our hartes. In so moche as the places where christes supper and the masse, bee celebrate (as al other places vnder heauē) be beneth & not aboue. Austeyn in ye behalfe of the premisses writeth, super lectionē euāgelii cō fite or tibi pater etc, in sorte thus, Faythfull perfetly know where & whē it is sayd, let vs rēdre thākes to ye lord our god. For nomā rēdereth thākes to the lord, who hath not his hart vpward to the lorde. Note, this he sayth not who hath [Page] his hart downward but vpward, beneth but aboue, dyrected but erec [...]ed, in the earth but in heuē to the lorde. Dyd not christ selue alw [...]ye pray to hys father his eyes erected vp into heauen, as it appereth in Ihon. xvii? Why thē do we not directe our prayers to the Trinite, not as beynge here there or els wher, but in heauen alone? But here it is obiected ye manye dyd worshyp & instante Christ as beyng seably conuersant [...]monge thē,mathe. 8 namely Thomas Peter & the le [...]rouse personne & therefore wee may in lyke maner honoure hym and on call hym in the masse or cō munion. To this I answere, albeit christ was worshypful & prayeable as beyng emonge vs, whyle h [...] was sensiblye cōuersaunt with vs: By reson he as god & mē was the seable emong vs & vnassēded to heauē: How beit for so moch as he is now become both vnuisible [Page] emong vs, & resydēt in heauē, on hys fathers ryghthād, he is both honourable & prayable but ī heuē alone & not in ye erth, & consecrate bred & wine. For whi to worship hī in vnder or before ye sayd bread & wyne: is to worshyp ye same bread & wyne. As to worship god in vnder or before an ymage is to reuerence thee ymage selue, whych is an vnsufferable ydolatree & also disalowed by ye kynges maiesties proceding.Ionn: 4 Collos: 3. Christ is truth spirite & the body, as Paule sayth, In respect wherof he is not to be honoured moche lesse called vpon, in or vnder shadowes & carnal thīges soch as the bread, wyne, pyxe & other earthlye thynges be. But in spirite & veritie wythoute fygure shadowe or any other carnal thinge as he hym selue sayth in Ihon iiii. The Catholyques thē selues graunte it ydolatre to worshippe [...]hrist body vnder ye bread, yf ther [Page] were remayning the substance of the sayd bread, why than worshyp we the fore sayde bodye vnder the bread sythe as I haue heretofore argued the bread substance is not altered. Wel thoughe it were, yet why shuld it not be ydolatre to honour christes body vnder the accidental and outwarde fourmes of bread? For in thys maner as well the accidētes of bread be worshipped as in thother thee substaunce therof. Now doth he show (as the father and the holy ghost do) his glory & maiestie but in heauē alone, notwithstāding he be eche where. In respecte wherof he is to bee adored & sollicited in heauē alone and not els where. For honoure & prayer importe the presence of his glorye and maiestye where they be exhibited to him And as a king renoūceth to be honoured as a king where he dyffynneleth hys person [Page] age and maiestye royall. Ryghte so Christe dyssymuling hys Maiesty renoume & godly personage here emong vs refuseth to be reuerenced & called vpon as hee is amongest vs. He is as meate receaued & eaten & as drinke taken and dronken at hys supper: and thee masse also (yf he be ther receaued at al). By reason wherof he is to be honoured and oncalled nether in the one ne in the other, bycause meat and drinke be nether honoured ne instanted. Thys it appeareth euydēt yt the worshyp & praying to christ at the masse, hys supper or els where, heauē exempted is dissonante to the sacred scripture worthy counsayll aunciēt doctours good reason & the nature & c [...]nditiō of true prayer and so discommendable. But here wolsome saye God is too be honoured and prayed to in all places and so consequentlye in the priestes handes [Page] at the eleuation or els where. To this I answere notwithstanding we ought to honour and sollicite god eche where, howbeit our prayers & worshippes made vnto him here or ther must tende & be directed to him as inhabitant & resiant in heauē & not as here ther or els wher in the earth. Why then wolsome say doth Austeyne yt worthy clerke wryte to the contrarye? He sayth nomā eateth christes flesshe onles he fyrst worshyppeth it and synneth it, he worship it not? Wel though Austeyne saythe Christes must be worshipped, yet he gayn sayth not me, because he sayth not nomā eateth christes fleshe wtout he worship it as in his supper or ye masse in or vnder the bread, but in symple without any soch lyke glose worshippeth it. Yea though he were to be vnderstand to talke of soch worship whych implieth the [Page] honour and instaunce of the sayd flesshe. By reason he maketh noo clere mētion wher the same shuld be worshypped, he is to be taken to entreate of ye worshipping of ye before mēcioned fleshe in soch place wherein it is not doubted but certenly knowē it is worshipped, yt is of heauē and not of any earthly place. But Augustyn meaneth by ye worshippīg of christes fleshe no soch worshippe as, honouring prayinge crowchinge or knelinge therunto, but only the worthy reuerent and holsome receypte & eating of the sayd fleshe. For the honour due and requisite to the said fleshe or sacramēt therof, is to receyue thē as christe instituted thē to bee receaued, yt is to wete wyth pure fyeth clensed consciēce wyth vnfayned repentaunce charitie & thankesgeuing wt ful desyre and purpose to be fedde wyth christes [Page] fleshe to be therbye mortefyed too syn & sanctified, to be enbodyed to christ & not to crouch before ye bred to his fleshe or to worshyp inuocate & sollicite him as presente in or vnder ye bred. The ryght vsage of gods word & his sacramētes is recōpted theyr due honour as theyr abusion dishonoure. The worde Baptisme & absolution throughe meane of true & obedient fayth, & clensed consciēce be condignely & accordingly receyued wtout ether crouching or kneling eyther worshippinge or prayinge to God as present in ye same. So thee lordes supper is worthely & ryghtely celebrate & receyued wyth oute thee foresayd crouche worshyp & instā ce. Thus haue I at full spokē of ye fyrst part of the masse, Now to the secōd whych cōsisteth in ye receypt of the lordes supper which wether it bee in very dede as it is named [Page] it happely may be wel doubted vpon. Yea as me seameth it is not in dede. For syth at the preuy masse ther is none to suppli ye roumth & office of christ in ministring the supper it cānot be the lordes but ye priestes supper. For wtout christe or his minister his supper cannot be made ne distribute. Wythoute christes wordes touchinge the institution of hys supper be duelye reported at the recepte of the bred & wyne ther cannot be his supper. How then can the masse supper be the lordes? syth ther wanteth hys mynyster, who shulde reporte the sayd wordes? Yf the pryest presume to pronounce them they be the priestes and not christes, for that they be the wordes not of the gyuer whyche is Christe, but of thee taker whyche cannot be he. Yf it were thee Lordes supper that the Pryeste takethe at hys Masse he [Page] he shuld receyue it of the lord and not of hym selue. But how can he possibly receyue it of the l [...]rd, sith ther is none present to exhibit the priest it in christ name? But some wol saye the priest may supplye ye person, both of the institutour exhybitour & receyuer of thee masse supper, therfore it is ye lordes. Yf thys yt is obiected were true, then mought one baptysme hym selue, assoyle hym selue, confyrme hym selue, marrye hym selue, annoynt hym selue, whych no mā be he neuer so catholique wol graunt, By reason as thei be thought al to he institute of christ so they must all be executed in hys name & autorite Which cānot be, whē ther is none to supply his r [...]um [...]he. For the receyuer of thee premisses cannot possibly play both the part of the geuer and of the taker. By reasō [Page] they be twoo seueral persons. To this the catholiques also condiscē de as moste certayn. Therfore as in the heretofore especified ceremonies (some of thē truly but al catholiqueli termed sacramētes) one man alone cannot receyue thē, for want of a secōd person who shuld mynyster thē vnto him in the lordes name & autorite notwithstanding that one mā hathe vsed for ye receypte of the same eche worde requysit & behoueable therto: Right so the prest endeuouryng hym selue to receyue the lordes supper cā not receyue it without christes minyster an othere person ebesyde him selue, notwithstanding he reporteth all thee wordes apperteyninge to the ryght & ful institutiō of the sayd supper. For as the aboue mēcioned sacramētes the receyuers reporte of the wordes belonging to the cōsecration of anye of [Page] the sayd sacramētes enforceth not the sacramētes? Exāple, his reporting of the baptisme wordes ouer him selue, in washīg him selue, or hys rehersal of the absolution wordes vpō him selue, maketh nether baptisme ne absolutiō: Euē so the prest beynge but the receyuer that is to say, he who wold receaue the lordes supper, cānot through hys own report of ye wordes apperteyning to ye ful institutiō of the sayd supper, institute or cause the same Ther is no sacrament which hath not for his ordinaunce & essensiall beyng bothe hys deputed element word & cōmādemēt. Wher is ther any cōmaūdemēt, yea or sufferāce to take or institute ye lords supper alone? Certes not in ye holy scripture. Can ther be instituted ye lordes supper wythout the due rehersall of the wordes concerninge the same? Can the sayde wordes be iustlye [Page] estemed christes not construed as he meaned them? Noo verelye, Therfore lette the masser reporte them in hys pryuate Masse so oft as him lyste, they be not the lordes wordes. For that take ye, eate ye drynke ye, implye both a commaū demente and a seconde person to the receypt of the Lordes bodye & bloude, and to the consecration of the sacramente of the same, Whyche bothe wante in thee Pryestes supper, and so it is not the lordes. Wherfore as it is falsly so presūptuously & blasphemously termed ye lords supper, But let it be ye same yt the masser takethe in hys masse, yet it is there haynouslye abused, for yt it is celebrate cōtrary to hys commaūdement & otherwyse then he instituted it.luke. xxii He bad vs seuer the consecrate breade charitablye emong vs & not eche of vs to reserue it to hym selue, and to eate vncharytablye [Page] al alone, as ye prest dothe.Math. 26 He bad vs take & eate hys bodye & not to worship it & vplyft it as the prest doth.1. Cor: 10, He bad vs at the celebratiō & receypt of his supper, receaue & eat hys body in his remēbreaūce & thākfully to showe his death emong the congregatiō whych the priest pretermyttethe & not to sacrifice his body & bloude as the prest dothe:Math. 26 He bad vs saye not only take eate this is my bodi but also which is geuē for you (a clause most fruyteful & nedefull) Which the prest as vayne & superfluouse ouerhyppethe. He bad vs take & eate hys body for oure selues alone & not for others also in that he cōmaundeth vs to eate it, for nomā can effectualli eate it for another, But the prest doth not onlye eate it for hym selue, but for others also, both quyck and dead. Which as it is vnpossible for him [Page] to do effectuallye so to attempt is a superstition. Can another mans eating releife myn hunger? Can hys drinkinge release my thyrste? Can another man be baptysed assoyled, priested, maryed, cōfyrmed or anoynted for me? How then can the prestes receypt & celebratinge of thee communion be myne or auayleable to me? Chrisostome vpō the .xv. chap. of the fyrst to the Corinthians wryteth to the mayntenaunce of the premisses in sort as followeth. As one man cannot be christened for an other speciallye beyng dead, so noman can receyue the body & bloud of christ for another namely beynge dead. Hereto agreeth Antididagma. but be it it be so that the priest may receaue & eate the lordes supper for others, whether they be quycke or deade. Yet for as moch as he cannot possibly beleue for another (the iuste [Page] man saith Paule shal lyue by his owne fayeth (it muste no remedy be that he both taketh and eateth the Lord is supper to thee dampnacyon of them,Roma. i. whatsoeuer they bee good or bad deade or quycke for whom he taketh and eateth ye same. By rasō he taketh & eateth the sayd supper for theym vnworthelye for wante of hys beleuyng for theyme, whyche is merelye nedefull to the holsome and worthye receypte and vsage of thee before mencyoned supper. Well thoughe it were so that the preyst bothe coulde at the Lordes supper for others, and beleue for theym also: Howbeyt in so much the sayde pryste vsyth in hys massyng the sayd supper, otherwyse then Chryste hym selue instytuted it (as is heretofore declared) nedes muste hee receyue it bothe to hys own dampnaciō & others, [Page] Bicause (as S, Ambrose wryteth vpō ye leauenth of ye fyrste to thee Corynthiās) who so vseth ye Lordes supper otherwise thē he hym selue ordened, receiueth it vnworthely & cōsequētly to his dāpnatiō as paul saith.1. Cori: 11. Thus it is plane yt ye priuate masse supper is to be discōtynued & surcesed as blasphemouse to God & annoyous to the practycioners therof, and the deuocyō and holynes, that is supposed to be in the vsage thereof, is mere ydolatrye and superstycion, and so both dampnable an [...] excheuable. Wherefore they w [...] [...] deme it both reasonable and [...] [...] ly, that the masser mought [...] it alone, whan others refus [...] [...] [...] ctlye to masse wyth hym [...] no man oughte to be a st [...] [...] and hinderaunce of an othe [...] [...] [...] uocyon, be no lesse deceyued the [...] thee Iewes, who adiuged theyre [Page] condēpning of the euāgelical doctryne & persecuting of christ & his disciples both a sufferable & seruiceable seruice too God, in consideration it was done of deuotyon. Now to prayer the thyrde part of the solytarye masse, whyche is for soundrye consyderatyons blame worthy. Fyrst for that therin those sainctes bee on called as aduourers & ayders who be not here presently conuersant emonge vs but ar fare soundred & distanted from vs in place namelye in heauē. For though we mought praye vnto ye sayd sainctes as beyng presentlye and conuersaunt wyth vs as wee do one to another assembled togethers, howbeit for asmoch they be farre placed frō vs (they in heauē we in ye earth) we ought not to instaunte thē. For why that were to attribute and render to thē the honour dewe and incidente to God [Page] alone, it is to weete ye knowledge of our hartes and the hearinge of the farre absent, In case I beyng at Cambredge dyd desyre eyther you, eyther any mans thē beynge not present wyth me, but eyther at yorke or London to praye for me, (whom otherwyse present with me I mought both wel and wysely): wold not eche mā depose that my desyre bothe vaynelye and vndiscretely made of me? Bycause noo man beyng at that present, eyther at yorke or London, what tyme I praye to hym in Cambredge, eyther heareth or vnderstandethe yt my prayer? Yeas trulye, How thē can our prayers be fruyteful and effectual which be directed to the heauen sainctes who be farrer distanted or sound red from vs then eyther London or yorke frō Cambredge? But the heauen sainctes w [...]l some saye beynge conuersant [Page] or present wyth God espye in hym as in a glasse, al the secretes & entendemētes of our hartes, & so orderly perceaue what we praye for & to whom, This sophistical cauil or obiection is nothing answerable, to Goddes worde wherin it is expresly wryttē in sorte as foloweth.ii. para. vi Thou alone knowest the hartes of the sonnes of menne Howe coulde thys be veryfyed and iustifyed that god alone vnderstādeth mens hartes, yf the heauen sainctes knowe thē also? Abrahā sayth Esaye .lxiii. knoweth vs not, Israell knoweth vs not, So maye we saye, Paule knoweth vs not, Peter knoweth vs not. For why they were asmoch pryueledged & regarded as Peter & Paul. It is wrytten in thee .ix. of thee boke named preacher, that the dead knowe the nothing any more, vpon the whyche text Hierome sayth thus. There is noo knowledge after death, [Page] ne any sense after the dissolutyon of thys lyfe. Wherfore as it is an vngodly so an vntrue sayinge the heauen sainctes knoweth our hartes not wythstandynge theyr conuersation wyth God. It was notably inhibited in the counsayl of Carthage that any saincte shulde be called vpon at thee aulter, that the priest shuld vtter thys or lyke prayer. S. Paule or Peter praye for me, Why then contrarye both to the scripture and the sayd godly counsayl do we instant supersticiousli the heauen sainctes at our massīg? But ynough hereof. The seconde consyderation, why masse prayer is to bee discommended is by reason therein, it is prayed for the dead, not so moche too declare therby our charitie towarde them in wishinge thē saued (which purpose ware no lesse sufferable then charitable) as throughe our prayers too redeme them oute of pur- [Page] of purgatory or at lest to enlessen theyr paynes in the same. Whych for to thynke wel done as it is an vntollerable erroure so for to attempte is a synneful superstition. For who so dothe departe oute of this world, dieth eyther in ye lorde or without him, If he die without hym thē incontinent remedyles he is condempned. For wythout christe ther is no mercy to be achyued or hadde,ii. Corin. al promisses sayth Paul be in christ, yea and amen. But yf he die in the lord he is both blessed and enfranchised from al trauayl as S. Ihō wryteth in, xiiii. of his reuelation. In that Iohan auoucheth the departed in thee lorde to be blessed, he doth vs to vnderstād they be not payned in purgatorye els were they cursed & not blessed, In that he pronouncethe thē quyte delyuered frō al labour, he doth vs to were they be no more molested [Page] or tormēted eyther in purgatorye or els were, els shuld thei endure in labour, For to bee payned in purgatorye is a greuous trauayl Agayne whoso dieth in the Lorde dyeth in fayth, whoso dyeth in faythe, escapeth both deth and iudgemēt & so consequētly purgatory also, whych is a payneful iudgemēt after our catholique doctrine.Iohan, v, Verely, verely I say vnto you saythe christ, He that heareth my wordes and beleueth on hym that hath sēt me, hath euerlasting lyfe and shal not come into iudgemente but is scaped from death to lyfe, As concernynge the other dead sort as it dyeth wythout christ so wythoute fayth, therfore it is euerlastinglye and so not pardonably in purgatory, but vnpardonably placed in hel. Wher vpon it formally argueth ther is no purgatorye. Thee dead saythe Salomon in ye .ix. of [Page] of his boke entitled, ye preacher, haue nomore a reward. Whych hys saying were not true, yf they mought be through our prayers sacryfices or otherwise deliuered out of purgatore. For theyr deliuery were a great reward. Yf any shulde come to purgatore it is very like & colourable yt the thefe which was hāged wt christ, shuld haue ben for a season placed & payned therein. beīg soch a synful liuer as he was tyl his dieng houre, but he incontinēt after hys hence departure, wēt wt christ to paradise. In cōsideratiō wherof it is right certeyn that purgatore is but an ymagyned & fayned place, by reason wherof ye praiers & sacrifices institute to release & redeme solles out of the same (otherwise called ye thyrd place wherein they be payned) be bothe vayn & stuperstitious. The place of ye Machabees which ye catholiques alledge to the mayntenaūce [...], mac, 12 [Page] of ye sayd place is not autētical or receiued for scripture, as Hierome Gregory Ruffinus record. The canones whiche the catholiques father of ye apostles, the canōs of the last cōsayl of Leedes & Aphricane regestred ye bible bokes wtout any mēcion made of ye Machabees at al, which argueth yt thē the bokes of Machabees were vncanonised It is wrytē in ye heretofore alledged place of ye sayd Machabees ye Iudas caused both sacrifice & prayer to bemade to purge & do away ye syn of ye murdered Iewes wtal, & is in the sayd boke cōmēded for yt his so doyng which is an vndeceaueable argumēt yt the said boke is not autētical or canonical. For the leuiticall sacrifices dyd not do away syn before god. It is vnpossyble sayth Paule to the Hebrues yt the bloud of oxē & gottes shuld take away sinnes.Hebre. x Agayn ther be no sacrifices or prayers commanded [Page] of god in the behalfe of the dead. Therfore the before mēcioned boke is nothinge lesse thē canonical In consideratiō it approueth matters added to gods word cōtrary to his expresse cōmaūdemēt,Deut, 20 Here iucidētly by the way we may lerne yt syth god in the old law (the tyme of vnperfection) inioyned neyther sacryfyce ne prayer for the dead, it is not bys mynde that now in the new testamēt (the tyme of perfection) he being also now moch more mercyfull thē before christes incarnation ther shuld be made eyther sacryfyce or prayer for the dead to redeme & release them wyth al (as otherwyse vnredemed & payned) Forther yf the foresayd boke were throughly wryttē by the enbrethinge of the holy ghost (otherwise vncanonised as Peter saith) thē this ensuing clause shuld not haue ben interplaced in thende therof,ii, Petr, i, ii, mac, 15 And [Page] if wel, & as it is cōuenable for a storye, I wyshe the same, yf not worthely, I must be pardoned, Which wysshe or iayenge is vtterlye vnworthy the profession yf the holye ghost, who sayth & wryteth al matters both wel & godly, & so nedeth no pardon for the same. Yf the place of Paul whych the catholiques alledge for purgatorye were to be vnderstādē of the same,i. Cori. iii thē questionles were ye Apostles fyrst placed & vexed in the sayd purgatory, ere they came to heauen. For why Paul talking in ye same place namely of preachers auoucheth that the fyre shal trye eche mans worke what it is, & cōsequētly the apostles, for yt they were both mē & preachers. So yt Paule was not incō tinent after hys hence departure wyth Christe as he wysshed to bee For to bee placed and tormented [Page] in purgatore is not to be wt christ So y• Lazarus & ye thefe were not immediatli vpō theyr decease,luk. 16.23 tho ne in paradise thother in Abrahās bosome, places of pleasure, & not of wofulnes (as purgatorie is. If Christes talke in Mathew .v. concerning the extreme emprisonmēt of certayn, enforsed for purgatore thē neyther soule masses sacryfyces ne prayers could enforce anye thyng to the raunsome and deliueraunce of them, who ar payned in the same. For theyr christe swereth they shal not come oute thense, tyl they payed the vttermost farthinge. What can prayer, sacryfyce or masse auayle her, sythe christe so exactly demaundeth the full paymente of thee dett, as wythoute it the emprysoned shall not be fredō med and delyuered? He speake the of a place where iustice is executed and not mercee, that is hel and [Page] not purgatore. Oute of another sayinge of Christe in the sayd Mathew .xii. oure catholiques do argue for purgatore but expuris negatiuis & therfore theyr argumentation beynge not formall is nothinge effectuall. The cause why oure aunciente wryters saye, they sacrifyce and praye for thee dead, was not to delyuer thē out of payne therby (For they sacrificed and prayed for ye patriarches prophetes apostles also who thē were perfit already in heauē, & had no nede of theyr prayers or sacrifices) but partely too declare thereby theyr charitee towarde the hence departed, in wel wysshinge them & rendring god thankes for theyr saluation & endeles blessefulnes, partly to assure & warrāt the suruyuers at the remēbraunce of the good & blesful estate of the deceased, both of euerlastinge lyfe & bodelye resurrection: [Page] To sacryfyce Christes body & bloud eyther for the dead, or quycke, after the true meanyng of the foresayd wryters, is namely to recite & pray for the sayd personnes in those our prayers which we make at the receypt of the lordes supper, called otherwyse of thē the sacryfyce of the lordes bodye and bloud, in cōsideratiō it is a resemblaūce therof & not as ye solle massers mistake it, to vp offre the sayd body & bloud in very dede to clense thee quycke: and too redeme and raunsome the deadde oute of purgatory wythal. For after thys lyfe ther is no purging ne amēdemēt place. Therfore sayth Cipriā in the fyrst treate agaynst Demetrian whē we hēce departe ther is no place of repētaūce. here lyfe is ether forfetted or atteigned. Whyle we be here saith Chrisostome in hys second homeli of Lazarus we [Page] haue good hope, but so soone as we shal hence departe, we shal not eyther repēt or do awaye syn. The same Chrisostome in ye two & twē tye sermon to the people saith, ther be none occasiōs of meriting after this lyfe. Who so (sayth Ambrose in the ii. chap. of hys boke cōcernyng the goodnes of death) hath not here receyued remyssyō of syn shall not receaue it ther. There is no place, sayth Austeyn in hys Epistle to macedonius, of correctīg our demeinour, but ī this life. For after this lyfe eche mā shall haue that whych he procured to him in thys, What can be more openlye & dyrectly wrytten agaynst the popysh purgatorye, thē the alledged auctoritees? why thē do we mayntayn purgatorie cōtrary both to ye scripture & aunciēt wryters? But beit there were a purginge place wherin the hence departed solles be [Page] a mockedg & blaspheming of god is this, for the masser to praye in ye lordes prayer let thy wyll be done in earth & yet contrary to goddes wyl to pray for the erectiō & acceptaunce of hys sacrifyce to ye great hinderaūce & derogation of christes, whych was ꝑfyted & wrought at hys maiestyes appoyntmente? What is to take the name of god in vayne, yf yt be not? & so sinneful What is to flocke & despyse god yf that be not? In respecte wherof masse prayer is reprocheful. Now to the fourth & last part of ye masse named doctrine, whych in consideration it teacheth & ratifieth thee damnable synfulnes of the before mencioned partes of this solitary [...]sse exhorting and occasionyng the laye people bothe to enbrace & w [...]rship the same is fautie as thei be. For the doctryne of a synneful matter is synful as the matter selue. [Page] Not onlye to ryot is synne, but the doctryne also therof & the allure to the same, To steale & to teache or exhort to steale be bothe defaultes, Too synne & to teache or moue to synne be bothe sinnefull. Euen so to pryuat masse it & to teache & motiō so to do be both defaultes exchewable, Here am I demaū ded wether I suppose the epystell and gospel interplaced in the masse to be godly & approueable or no To the whyth demaunde thus I answere. The gospell & epystell yf they were not abused & misplaced were both godly and cōmendable But for so moch as thei be īserted and placed in the pryuee masse to the furniture worship and commē dation therof, and for a couerte or cloke of the vngodlynes in the same, they so misused must nedes be synneful. Meate and drinke be good and receyueable but enpoysoned, [Page] they be nought & vnreceaueable, & poison theyr eaters & drinkers, as the pure poyson selue doth, wherwt they ar poisoned: Right so gods worde merely of it selue is good & frutful but abused vngodli, displesing god & ēpechīg mā, as the syn abusion doth, wher wt it is corrupted. An exāple & euidēce wherof we haue both in oure massing, & cōiuring wherin gods wordes be haynousli abused. There is no seruice ne worship whiche god so highly estemeth or so straytly inioyneth to be obserued, but beynge misused is not only not seruiceable & acceptable, but moch displesaūt also & hateful to hī Bicause it is executed, not after but contrary to his wyl & therfore sinfull and detestable before hym, who cō man̄ded only ye ryght vsage & not ye abusage (as of al other maters) so of ye premisses. Notwithstādīg [Page] god cōmaūded both incēse to be vsed and holy daies to be obserued, howbeit he opēly by hys ꝓphetes auoucheth he hath thē in hate & detestatiō, not ī respect of thē selues, for he bad thē, but in cōsideration of theyr abusiō which he inhibited I hate saithe he by his ꝓphete Amos, & abhorre your holy dayes & wher ye sēce me whē ye come together I wol not accōpt it. And further by hys ꝓphete Esay .i. he sayeth thus, I abhorre your incēse I may not away wt your newmones your sabathes & solēpne daies. &c Note this diligētly, god saith not I abhorre ye for your abusyng of the holy dayes nor he sayth I abhorre your abuse of ye holy dayes, but I abhorre your holy daies, he saith not I abhorre ye for your abusiō of incēse newmoones sabbathes & solēpne dayes, nor he sayth I abhorre ye abusiō of your incēse [Page] new moones sabathes & solemne daies, wherby he doth vs to wete yt he doth not only hate & detest ye abusers wt there abusage of hys commaūded seruice & worshippe, but ye seruice also & worship selue as an inhybyted synne practysed of man, & forged of ye deuyl, and not as an honour inioyned apꝓued, & deuysed of him, & through his grace put in practice of man. In consideracion wherof god nameth ye foresaide holy dayes newe moones sabbathes not hys, but youres, it to wete ye Iewes whom he spooke vnto. For nothing ye is sinfull (as eche abused mater is) ought to be fathered of God the fountane & authore not of sinfulnes but of goodnes only.Iacob. i Which matere is by ye meane of his abusage not a parte only, but throughlie faultie.i. Corin. v A litle leauen (sayth) Paule sowreth yt whole lumpe of [Page] dowe. Wherby he doth vs to vnderstāde yt as othere abused matters be not a part only, but entier [...]y and throughly vicious and synful, so the prest masse is in like maner as wel in his doctryne, as in ye other hys essential partes. Sethe (good reader) there is no portyon of the popysshe pryuat masse that doth not hyghly displease god as [...]e pugnant to hys wrytten worde [...]nd derogatorye to hys honour, & [...]nnoy mā as noyous both to hys [...]ody and soule: I besech the with [...]ll possible endeuour exchewe it & [...]o maner wyse, accepte it as ether [...]pproueable eyther els a suffera [...]le matter. If gods honour cānot [...]ccasion and moue vs to the vtter [...]efusal and auoydaūce therof, let [...]s wel respecte the great benefyt [...]nd commodytye that redounethe [...]her vpon. If nether gods glorye [...]e our profyt, can enforce vs to ye [Page] premisses, thē we be worse thā brutish beestes, which, though not for godes glori, yet for theyr own, profyt, ar ledde willingly hither & thither. We resort to ye church purposely to serue god therin, not wyth mās seruice, which he īhibiteth & dislyketh, but with his own alone which he cōmaūdeth & accepteth. So yt in the cōgregatiō no maner seruice ought to be frequēted, bu [...] that alone which is both openlye and truly fonded vpon gods wryten worde. Why then is not the [...] prieste pryuee Masse abandoned and abolished quyte out of the cō gregatiō which is not quadrant but variant to the sayd word, wh [...] che doth not ratify & establish bu [...] inuert & subuert the ryght institution & vsage of ye sacramēt of chr [...] stes body & bloud (as is heretofore argued at ful). And in ye romt [...] therof why is not the communio [...] [Page] frequented? Is not the sayd communion a new Testamēt, as christ selue saythe in Luke .xxii▪ Can a man therfore not synfully but leyfulli alter the order therof? No verelye. For as S. Paule sayth it is not leyful to exchāge mās,Gala. iii moche lesse gods wyl legacye & testamēt. Why thē doo we reteygne accepte & vse solytare masse? Which is an vnsitting exchange of the communion (the lordes Testamēt and legacye). Is not the sayd communion a Sacrament of charitye and loue? In consyderation whereof it is not to receaued of one alone, but of manye at ones. For charytye cōsysteth in many & not in one alone. Why then vse we styll thee prieste masse? whyche is rather an vnion then a communion and an argument rather of hate and dissention thē of loue and vnite. For therin the priest vncharitably fondereth [Page] hym selue from the congregatyon, as one seuered not in place alone, but in harte also from the same. It is no marueyl that ye priest is had in great hate and contēptmēt emong hys parishioners seith he so vncharitabli taketh, eateth, and drinketh al alone, disseuering and sequestring him selue from hys accompanable parrishioners, lest they wold communycate (as charitable godlynes requyreth (wyth hym. It is a lamētable syght to behold the great & vnto [...] lerable vncharitablenes whyche our pryuate massing prestes shew toward theyr partishioners. Verely (as me seamethe) theyr pryuate massyng is no smal occasyon therof. By reason as the communyon engendereth orderly lowe, so thee pryuate massynge hate in the frequenters of the same: For why as [Page] they be cōtrary in nature, so they be in effect & operation. Wherfore the sayd massinge is not be frequēted of any, but is to be disvsed of eche christiā. Who ought to endeuour him selue to be charitable and not vncharitable.i. Cori. 10 We ought (sayth Paul) to eate al of one lofe,i. Cori. 10 and drinke al of one cup, we oughte (as the same Paule wolleth vs) assemble togethers to the receypt of the communion,1. Cori: 11. and one to take it orderly after another: These premisses cannot be accomplished and veryfyed in the pryuate masse, where the priest seuerally all alone hath hys loofe & eateth it alone, wher ther is none assemble assembled togethers to receaue thee cōmunion, but to gase vpō the prestes receypt & doynge, where none receaueth the sayd cōmuniō orderly one after another, but vnorderly one alone. Wherfore thee sayde [Page] masse is to be discontinued & abā doned. For whi he is accursed who so teacheth eyther in woorde, dede or ioynctlye in both, another doctryne in relygion, then that whych Paul learned vs,Gala. [...] as he hym selue recordeth the same. We muste not do what we lyste, but what god cō maundethe vs, as it is wrytten in Deuteronomy .xii. For why oure carnall reason & entendemētes be merely repugnaūt, both to his sayenges & doynges, & so displeasaūt and hateful to him. The sense of ye fleshe (sayth Paule) is enmytee agaynst God.Roma. 8. In case we moughte worship god as we lyst, Why dyd he appoynt & prescribe vs a p̄scripte order to worshippe him withal? Yf we mought sittingly honoure hym after our wyl & fantasy: Thē eche made worshyp were syttinge and ieyful, and so consequentelye ther were none ydolatree at al, thē [Page] were there no dyfference betwexte oures and thee Turkes, Iewes Paynymes, Ethnikes, and other miscreantes religion, For they be onely differenced by Goddes wrytten woorde. If we moughte order christes supper after our arbitrement, then why dyd he institute & prescribe vs a trade and order to be obserued in the celebratiō therof?1. Cori. [...]. Why dyd Paule reproue and blame thee Corinthians for theyr disorder & abusage of the same? Ar not wee named christians for that we ought to professe and geue ful credence to his sayinges and practyse, and enbrace hys doyinges, as followable and beleueable? But howe doo we answere to our name and profession in our solitarie massing? wherin we do not only, not ensue christes practyse and order, but throughly subuert and [Page] inuerte the same concernynge the administration of his supper Are we not called faythful for that we ought to grounde al our religion vpon our fayth? whych fayth issueth only from Gods wryttē word, as Paule recordeth,Roma. 10 otherwyse no true fayth. But how can we be indede as we be named, yf we admit and frequente as wee doo, to thee greate and vnsufferable empechemente bothe of Christes honoure and our solles saluation, the prest preuye masse? whych is variant to gods worde. Therfore as it is an vnfaythful, so as synneful misdede For that which is wrought wythout fayth is synne,Roma, 10 as Paul saith: Ace we not straytelye inioyned of God vtterly to abandon, & auoyd all ydolatrye? How do we obserue and accomplishe this his iniunction, whyle we enbrace and accepte the sayde masse? whych is a made [Page] worshyppe of God, and so ydolatrye. For the worshyp of any phantasye entent conceypt and ymage, or of any other matter else, forged of mans brayne wythout goddes wrytten word, is questionles ydolatrye? Hereto accordeth Hierome (who vpō the last of Hieremye on thys verse And they put theyr ydols in the house. etc, wrytethe in, sorte thus) not only thē Iudas reposed in Gods temple an ydoll ymage, whereof we rede in the fyrst of Ezechtel, but now styll in gods house (whych by interpretation is the congregatiō) or in the hart of ye beleuers, is placed an ydol, whē soeuer any new doctrine is forged, and after the law adored and worshypped in the secrete. And vpon the twentye of Ezechyel the sayd, Hierome calleth the inuētiōs and deuyses of the phylosophers and herytyques, the Egyptiās ydols. [Page] Auncient vsage in other matters of relygion semeth to be of moche force & importaūce to ye acceptāce & establishmēt of any soch semblable matter, but her in our pryuate masse matter the sayd vsage is no thīg estemed (To sure an argumēt I feare me of oure parcialitee in scripture matters) Was not christes own administratiō of his supper the fyrst original vsage thereof?Mat. xxvi and so the auncientest? wherin none alone but soundrye ioinctly togethers dyd communicate? In the prematiue church it was both obserued and enacted that all the whole cōgregation assēbled shuld communicate wyth thee prieste or minister, as it doth wel appere in Gracian de consecra. distinct .i. in the canon dēs, whyche is fathered of the Apostles, in thee Canon Episcopus fathered of Anacletus, & de consecra. distinc .ii. in the canon [Page] peracta, Calixtus thus wryttethe whē the cōsecratiō is done, let eche mā thē present cōmunicate, & then who woll not to be excōmunicate. This thee Apostles enacted thys doth the Romyshe churche hold & obserue. Note thys that Calixtus doth not onli declare that it is his wyl & commaūdemēt al they who be present at the communion time shuld communicate, els to be excō municate, But the apostles decree & the vsage of the Romishe church also. Ther be (saith Erasmus vpō the Psalme, Quam dilectabernacula) who requyre in thee Masse a communion, In dede I graunt so it was instituted of Christ and so it was in thee olde tyme obserued Albert in hys boke of thee Masse misteries, recordeth it was fyrst in wont that al the togethers assembled persones in ye church did communicat eche day, whē yt could not be [Page] obserued, it was decreed that on eche sondaye al the hole congregation shuld communicate, whē this neyther could be obserued, it was decreed that thryse in the yeare, at Easter, Whytsondaye, and Christmasse, the communion shuld be receyued of the whole congregatiō. And whē thys could nether be obserued it was enacted that ones in the yeare the sayde communion shuld be receaued of the whole cō gregation. Here we may learne of Albert that in the primatiue churche all thee whole congregation dyd communicate eche daye ioynetly togethers. Further in case we wold wel and earnestly respect the consyderatyon of our repayre to the church, & what also is of the masser reported oute of hys masse boke at thee celebration of thee communion: We mought wel vnderstande that the sayd communion [Page] shuld alway be receyued of a compaygne and not of one alone. Do we not (I praye ye) repayre to the churche, as to the common place, wherein we shulde make common prayers nothing excuting pryuatly but all cōmonly? Saynt Paule auoucheth,i. Cori. 14 nothinge ought to be executed in thee churche, but that which redowneth to ye edyfying & behoue of the whole cōgregatiō, so that as the churche is a cōmon place, so the prayers therin shulde be cōmon, so the celebration of the communion must be common, and not pryuate, as the wordes of the masse canon reported after the cō munion do wel declare, whych be thees followynge. That, that we haue receyued by the mouth, lord graunt we may receaue wyth hart purposely that ther may be made vnto vs an euerlasting remedy of the body & bloud of our lord Iesu [Page] christ. It is not sayd I, but we haue receaued. The priest as here so in other places saith not I but we euē whyle he cōmunicateth all alone, wherby it is gatherable ye masser shuld cōmunicat not seuerally alone but iounctlye wyth others. For wee importeth a multitude & not a singularitee. Some ther be who deme the solitary massing an indifferēt & consequently a sufferable matter. Wel thoughe it were so, as questionles it is not: Howbeit for so moch as we haue vtterlye renounced the Romsshe bishop wt al his vsurped autorite, we ought of cōgruēce abād on ther wyth the pryuate masse, whych he forged & fathered, lesse we through reteygnemēte & vsage therof, be occasioned to resume & agayn enbrace the sayd byshop withal his vnsytting & pretēsed authorite. For vpō semblable consyderation,leui. xviii God inhibited [Page] the Israelites the vsage of the Egyptyans ceremonies, wherewith they had heretofore bene enfected, albeit soūdry of thē by al lykelyhode were indifferēt. Notwithstādīg (gētle reder) Ihertofor haue moch what vehemētly gaynsayd the preuie masse & condēned here as detestable erroneouse & blasphemous: Howbeit I trust yu wolste accepte this my labour, enbracing & ensuing my doctrine therin, as ensuable & credible, syth it tēdeth not to gods dishonour but to his honoure, not to thine empechemēt but to thy great comodite, not to the hinderāce & ouerthrow [...] but to the redresse recouery & furtherance of ye true masse, otherwise named the cō munion, whych cānot be so highly estemed and so ofte frequented as of necessytye it oughte, wythoute the prieste masse be hated and detested. For bothe it and the communion cannot be iounctly regarded. [Page] Whoso loueth thee one must nedes hate thother, for why they be mere contraries. But how can thee prieste masse be hadde in worthy hate? yf her abominacyon were not at full dysclosed? In respect wherof, thou seest how nedeful it is yt she shuld be both gayne sayed and condemned as heresye, and abandoned as ydolatrye. God of hys mercye graunt vs all to learne, loue credyte and maynteyne hys truth and lyue thereafter.
AMEN.