AN ANA­TOMI, THAT IS TO SAY A PARTING IN PEECES [...]f the Mass. Which discouereth the horrible er­ [...]ors, and the infinit abuses vnknowen to the peo­ple, aswel of the Mass as of the Mass Book, very profitable, yea most necessary for al Christian people.

VVITH A SERMON OF THE SACRAment of thankes gyuyng in the end, whiche decla­ [...]eth whether Christ be bodyly in the Sacrament [...]r not.

By Chrystes humble ser­uant Anthoni de Adamo.

The word of the lord is quick and mightie, and [...]erceth faster then any two edgid sword. Heb. 4.

A. D. 1556.

Anthony de Adamo to the Christian rea­ders desyreth health.

Do exhort yow (ò Christians) to read and consider well this short booke, which treateth of the Masse and of the Masse booke, for without [...]t readinge and well considering it, you shall [...]ow what the one and the other is, and it is con­ [...]ient, seing this Masse is so greatly haunted, and [...] in such honour and pryce almost of all men, [...], estemed as the chefe and principall way to ho [...]ur god in the Christian religion. (It is fit I say) [...]at it be well knowen what it is, wheather it be [...]ofitable or hurtfull, good or euell, pleasinge or if pleasing to god. Manye, yea the more parte of [...]en without anye manner of knowledge in mat­ [...]rs of Christian religion, not considering the im­ [...]rtaunce therof, followe the multitude, Custome [...]d the common sort of men, thinkinge that they [...]end not but that they do well, and an acceptab­ [...]e worke to god, doinge as other men doo, but they [...] disceaued, for in the honouringe of god and [Page] doinge to him a thākefull dede,2. Petr. 1. It is necessary tha [...] we folow his worde as a light that may guide vs [...] it were trauelars that iorney by night, we ough [...] not to be ruled nor gouerned, in a matter ꝑtaininge to oure saluation, either by oure oune fantasi [...] and seming, or els by any other mens. For yf we d [...] so we shall leaue the light and walke in darknes, a [...] in the end fall into a headolngnes and euerlasting downfall. Who is that good seruant that seruith his lord or master as liketh himself? surely none: but the good serueth as his lord willeth and [...] maundeth, otherwise he shuld not be good but w [...] cked and stubborn. God wold aboue althings hau [...] obedience according to this saing,1. Reg. 15. Eccles. 4. Esa. 29. Melior es obediētia quā uictima that is to say obe [...] ence is better thē sacrifice. And Eccles. saith, Obe [...] ence is better then fooles sacrifices, who know no [...] the euel they doo. God threateneth that heauie se [...] tence written in Esaie, and alleadged by Christ i [...] S. Mathew,Matth. 15. This people (saith he) doth honour m [...] with there lippes, but there harts are far from m [...] they honour me vainely teaching the doctrine an [...] commaundements of men. Lo I will work a gre [...] wonder toward this peple for the wisedom of there wyse men shall perish, and the vnderstanding [...] of the wittye shalbe darkened, the which sentenc [...] [Page 3] [...]y the iust iudgement of god, from a certeine tyme [...]e her to is come vpon vs: Because that (leauing [...]e word of god) we haue imbraced the teachings [...]nd fantasies of men, estiminge them more then [...]he holy scripture, and therfore oure accompted [...]yse and witty mē, haue greatly erred, and as blin [...]e men haue led the rest of vs (being also blinde in [...]hat tyme) into the pit of innumerable and most [...]eadly errours. And I protest here before god and [...]sus Christ before whose throne we must all appe­ [...] and render accompt of oure doings at the last [...]ay that no priuat affection hath moued me to ta­ [...]e this enterprise in hand, but onely an ernestnes [...]owards gods glory and Iesus Christs, and for the [...]roffit of the Christian people, and I desyre euery [...]e that shall fynde any fault in this oure writing, [...]at he will openly in writinge confute it and de­ [...]are it. But let him doo this by the word of god, [...]en as hetherto I haue endeuored my self (accor­ [...]ng to my vnderstanding and habilitie) to make [...]ainly appere by the same worde of god the great [...]rrours and the infinit abuses that be in this Masse [...]nd Masse booke: I mistrust not, but there will be [...]me and vndoubtedly many, who lyue not onely [...] ease by this there accustomed marchandyse of [...]e Masse but also do fleshly triumphe on poore [Page] mens costs that will condempne this oure labour and will crye with a loud voyce, doune with him, doune with him, but without any auaylable reason and with out gods worde, alleadging onely the cu­stome and authoritie of mē, saing, how is it possible that the churche with so great a nombre of learned mē, should haue erred so long tyme, as though any certeine multitude which is commonly holden and taken for the trew churche were Christs church in deed, whose crye I litle care for, if they bring no other matter then the customes and words of men▪ But yf they can with the holy scripture and with liuely reasons grounded on the same confute this and defend there Masse and there Masse booke (th [...] which I think yea I beleue verili thei shal not) I sha [...] rest most bound vnto them and yeld thē my harty thanks. And because that this oure iudgement to some of small vnderstanding, may seme straunge and a new matter, ye they shall iudge it rather a wicked rashenes, I therfore do warne ād geue eue­ry Christian man to vnderstand, that none ought to be moued, either by the lōg custome or authoritie of any maner of man, whether he be holy or ler­ned, for in gods matters, we ought to take hede not to Customs, not to the continuance of tyme, not to the multitude, nor the authority of oure elders, bu [...] [Page 4] to the onely worde of god,Ezech. 20. as Ezechiell the pro­phet saith, Walk not in the commaundements of youre fathers nor kepe not there iudgemēts, with [...]here Idoles defyle not your selfs, I am the lord your god, walke in my commaundemēts and kepe any iudgements and do them,Leuit. 13. And in Leuiticus it is written. Kepe my commaundements, be not desy­rous to do those things that they haue done which haue bene before you, nor defyle not your selfe in them: I am the lord your god.Ciprian in his second booke of his epistels the 3. chaptre. And S. Cyprian to Cecilius in his second book of Epistels, the third cha­piter saith, that Christ ought onely to be herde, the father also from heauen hath testified the same, (saing) this is my welbelowed sonne, in whome I am wel pleased, here him. Wherby yf onely Christ be to be herde, we ought not to regarde, what any man before hath thought mete for vs to doo, but what first Christ hath done who is before all. Wherfore we ought not to folow men but the trueth of god. And he saith in diuers other places that we ought to follow the worde of god and not the opi­nious of mē, and likewyse to Pompey against Ste­uens Epistle he saith: That the Custome which was entred among many ought not to make that the trueth, should not preuayle and ouercome, for Custome without trueth is an oldnes of errours. [Page] Wherfore, leauinge the errour, let vs follow the trueth. I will let passe a nombre of the auncient fathers, as Austē, Hierom, Ambrose, ād other, who wold we should stick to the onely worde of god ād not to custome nor to ani other authoritie of mā. It hath bene alwaies that the more parte of men haue bene in errour, yea, and euē of thē that were called the people of god. Let the prophets be red and it shall apere that I say the trueth: for, whye were the prophets persecuted, euel handeled and in the en [...] put to death, yf not, for because they reproued the errours and abuses of there tyme, which were amōg the people? whye hath Christe and his Apostles suffered persecution, and in the end death, y [...] not, for that they reproued the false faith, the vn­trew worshippings, and the counterfet religion of there tyme? And for what cause thē shall we now maruell, that the Christian people should be myred and drowned in so many abuses corruptions, Idolatries and other infinit errours?2. Pet. 2. et 3. hath not Pete [...] fore tolde vs, in his secōd epistle, that there should come false teachers that wold bringe in deadly sects, ād that in the latter dayes there sholud come begylers and deceauers?2. Thess. 2. And Paule in his second to the Thessalonians, doth, not he declare that the­re should come a forsaking (as I vnderstand it o [...] [Page 5] the faith) that is to say that men should goo from the faith, and that god wold send forth a mightines of gyle and deceyte, so that men should beleue lyes, and that because they haue not loued the trueth? And to Timothi in his first Epistle doth not he say that in the latter tymes som should departe from the faith,1. Tim. 4. geuing heed to the spirits of errour and doctrines of deuels?2. Timo. 3. And in the second also he saith that in the latter dayes should be perilous ty­mes and men full of vyces: and among other things [...]he saith that they should haue shewes of religion but in dede they should denye the might therof. What hath bene preached to the people of a long tyme hetherto, but onely the teachings of men? so­me preached the Poets, some Aristotle, Auerroes, Plato, and other heathen philosophers, some prea­ched the lawes some vnproffitable questions of Scotus, Alexander of Hales, of Bonauentura of Thomas of Aquine, the whiche as it is manifest in there doctrine and opinions: the one of then gayn­sayd the other in open pulpit, the black against the graie the grey against the black, the Augusti­ne fryer against them both, and so we may say of the rest, some held one opinion some an other: and and what assurednes of trew doctrine could the poore people haue in so great a diuersitie and confusion? [Page] who was he that preached the holy scripture and the gospell purely? And shall we then ma­ruel, that errours are entred in among the Christiā people? shall we then say, how can it be possible that god wold haue left his churche so long tyme in erroure? Naye yf we had but a spark of witt and reason, we should say quyte contrary, that is, how is it possible to be otherwyse, but that the more parte of mē haue bene ād yet are in most grosse blind­nes couered with the dark mist of innumerable er­rours? and it could not be otherwyse.

There is amōg the rest one very great disorder, a cause of innumerable euels, that none of them to whome it belonged to teache and preach to the people hath done his office. It is well knowen that the office of preaching the worde of god belon­geth to the busshoppes, and who was he, yea we may now say, who is that bisshop that doth preach and feed the flock of Christ with the word of god? yea who is he, that disdaineth not to preache and doo that office which the Prophets the Apostles, ye and the sonne of god himself Christ Iesu god and man, hath done, and the godliest dewtie of all, that is to say the greatest and highest, which is to teach the word of god to the people, these oure great lordes doo not vouchafe it, but haue left it and yet do [Page 6] leaue it for other to do. It suffiseth them to haue the title, the rents and the honoure of a busshop, as in effect they wold declare that they be no busshop­pes (as in dede they be not) except onely in name, and in dede yf they were trew busshoppes, they wold not be ashamed to doo theire office, as Austine, Ambrose, Ciprian, Chrisostom, Basile, Gregory, and other holy fathers were not ashamed, the which taught and preached the word of god. This is the trew fedinge which Christ commaunded Pe­ter in S. Ihon the last chapter,Ioan. 15.21. 1. Pet. 5. and the same Peter also in his first Epistle the 5. chapter saith, feede so muche as in you is (that is to say) so much as you can and according to youre habilitie, the flock of Christ, or els as the other text saith, feed the flock of Christ which is in you, that is to say, which is committed ād geuē to you in charge. Of this disorder it commeth to passe that the cleane, pure and trew doctrine of the gospel and of the word of god doth want among the people, and as thorow a wide and large gate, be entred abuses, superstitions and er­rours among the Christiā flock. There is none thē that hath witt or reason that will say any more, how is it possible that oure elders (or let it be the church) and so many teachers, haue erred, God hath suffered by his iust iudgement this horrible [Page] decay in his chyrche, and it is a most singular gra­ce of god, that yet in a few (albeit euell handeled of the world) who be in dede the true church the faith doth remaine, Yea, I say that if the world in temporall gouernements had not had better rule and order then the estate called Ecclesiasticall, it should haue run̄ into an vtter confusion and deca­ye. Sew [...]rly it is trew that there be many disorders in worldly princes doings, but yet they doo in so­me parte there dewtye: they minister iustice after a certein maner, they chastice the fauters, they punisch theft, murder, blaspemie and other faults, they cause by there officer euery mans awne to be restored hym, they geue themselues to doo right as there calling is. But in the Ecclesiasticall state, who hath done, or yet doth his office? begin­ning at the highest degre, which is a busshopship, and see how that is handeled, and therebie lett the rest be iudged. The bissoppes attend to euery other thing, except preaching, yea they hinder by all meanes they can whom so euer wold doo this offi­ce trewly (that is) wold declare the gospell and the word of god purely, And they will not suffer it to be done but raginglye persecute the teachers of the trueth, they condemne them, they imprison them, they torment them, and in the ende they kill [Page 7] thē. And what is this, but, to shew plainely to the whole worlde, that they be raueninge wolues and not shepherdes of Christs flock? yea that they be very antichristes? And the worshipfull inquisitours, what els be they but antichristes Catchpoules cre­weller thē Neroes, so that it were better to fall in­to the hands of Turks and Mores without comparison then into thers. Besyde that they are vtterly ignorant of the holy scripture, they are skilled in none other learning but in the skotish and sophisticall mouldines. And these (as you see) are appointed to order the matters of oure faith, and in there handes, are the goods, the honoure and the lyues of poore soules, whom miserably they put to death, by pretence of the faith, although they be enemies of it and of all godlines. I am desyrous to make this discours to open there eies, Which fault not by ma [...]ice, but by ignorāce, and to make them vnderstand that they should not maruell, that I reproue the Masse and the Masse booke, saing that they be full of falshod abuses ād many other errours, as it may plainly be sene in this present booke. Wherfore I de [...]yre (for the dere loue of Iesus Christ) all the louers of the trueth, and those that tēder godlines, to read [...]nd well consider this my labour, for without [...]oubt they shall fynde trew that I say. Praye to [...]od for me, God be with yow.

The Table of the matters contained in this present book which we ha­ue deuided in IIII. partes.

  • 1. The first parte examineth the Masse, from the beginning, that is from these words, Introibo ad altare Dei, vnto that parte which they call the Cannon when the Sanctus is said.
  • 2. The second examineth the Cannon it self, the which they make the most holy and principall parte of the Masse, and is said altogether in secret.
  • 3. The third examineth all the rest, from the end of the Cannon, beginning at these words Per o­mnia saecula saeculorum, which goeth before the Pater noster, vnto the end of the Masse.
  • 4. The fourth examineth the abuses and the superstitions that be in the same Masse, cōcluding after in the end, that no Christian ought to be present at it, but that it ought to be eschewed of all men as the plage.

The first parte is deuyded into foure chapters.

  • [Page 8]1. The first saith that the introibo, is false and a superstition.
  • 2. That the Confíteor is not Christian, because it maketh no mention of Iesus Christ.
  • 3. The two prayers that are said softly when he goeth to the aulter, the one is false and the other is very wicked, ād lesseneth the honour of Iesus Christ
The second Chapter.
  • 1. Examineth the Kyrie eleison and the Gloria in excelsis Deo.
  • 2. It declareth that many praiers said after the Gloria in excelsis Deo, are wicked and [...]gainst the plaine word of God.
  • 3. It declareth that the epistle and the gospell and [...]enerally all Gods word are vnworthely and euell [...]auoredly handled in the Masse.
The third chapter.
  • 1. Declareth that the praier which is sayd in the [...]ffering of the bread, or as they say of the host is
  • 2. That the mixting of water with wyne (wicked. [...] an inuētion of mē, which ought not to haue pla­ [...] among holly thyngs.
  • 3. That the praier at the offering of the Cupp is [...]icked as that is of thost.
The fourth Chapter.
  • [Page]1. That many praiers which they call secreats, and are sayd before the preface, hold in them these wi­ckednesses, that is to say.
  • 2. That fasting doth purge sinns and make [...] Worthy of the grace of god, and leadeth vs to th [...] heauenly glory.
  • 3. That by the bread and Wine not yet consecr [...] ted God is apeased toward vs.

Te second parte vuhich is deuided into foure chapters.

  • 1. The first axamineth the thre first parts of th [...] Cannon That is, Te igitur the meme [...] to of the liuinge and the Communicāte [...]
The second chapter.
  • 1. Examineth the fourth ād first parte of the sa [...] Cannon that is, Hanc igitur oblationem and Quam oblationem.
  • 2. It examineth the sixt and seauenth parte, that Qui pridie quam pateretur, and t [...] Simili modo postquam coenatu [...] est which be parts of the Consecration.
The third chapter.
  • 1. Examineth the eight parte of the Cannon a [...] [Page 9] [...]heweth that he who saith the Masse vsurpeth that office which is onely Christs.
  • 2. That he saith a most wicked praier the which wrongeth Christ.
The fourth chapter.
  • 1. It examineth the nynth parte which is most wicked and praieth that the Aungels may beare [...]he body and blud of Christ into heauen before the [...]ace of god.
  • 2. It examineth the tenht parte of the Cannon, [...]he which is folish and gaine saieth itself.
  • 3. It examineth the eleauenth and last parte of the Cannon.

The third parte vvhich is deuyded in to foure chapters.

  • 1. The first sheweth that the saing of the prayers in secret and the desyre that amen shuld be answe­red by him that vnderstandeth not the prayer as it is in the Masse is a foolish thing and without any reason, and against S. Paules saing.
  • 2. That the prayers which they say after the Pater noster that is to say the libera nos quaesumus is with out reason said in secret.
  • 3. That the breaking of the host and making thre parts of it, and the mingling one of those parts [Page] with the wyne is vnfitt.
The second chapter.
  • 1. Declareth how deuout and holy the thre praie [...] sayd, Inmediatly after Agnus Dei be, and th [...] Domine non sum dignus, which is sa [...] thryse, and the praier concerning the host and t [...] cup, and the two praiers that follow.
  • 2. That the last praiers which are said in the e [...] of the Masse, be most wicked, because they geue [...] to the sacramēt, that office which is onely Christ▪
  • 3. And certein other prayers doe gainsay the pr [...] uat Mass.
1.The third chapter. of the Masse for the dead.
  • 2. Declareth that the first praier is folish, ād to [...] purpose because, it asketh that it ought not to as [...]
  • 3. That the Epistle taken out of the Apocalip [...] gainsaith the strst prayer ād the whole Masse th [...] praieth for the dead.
  • 4. The words of the books of the Machabees ar [...] examined.
  • That the offertory is fōd ād an incōueniēt reque [...]
Te fourth chapter of the blessings.
  • [Page 10]1. Declareth that the blessing of the ashes is blas­phemy, because it geueth to ashes the raunsom of sinn, and likewise all the other blessings, as of Can­dels, of palmes, of fyer, of frankincense, of the pas­call, of chese, of eggs of, bread of, water, and to be [...]hort of the popes Agnus Dei, they are all wicked and full of superstition, because they geue [...]o much to the bodyly things.

The fourth parte of the book is of the abuses of the Masse, and is deuided into 6. chapters.

  • 1. In the first, that it is a great errour that the Mas­se should forgeue sinnes, or satisfy for them, or els that it should apply such things to man.
  • 2. In the second, that the Masse is no sacrifice nor [...]emembraunce of sacrifice, and to say otherwyse is [...] very great erroure.
  • 3. In the thirde, that the Masse is inuētid by men and not ordened by Christe nor his Apostles.
  • 4. In the fourth that the Masse is a hotchpotch, a heap, yea a sea of endles abuses wickednesses, and superstitions.
  • 5. In the fift, that the Masse is the greatest sacri­ledge, and the greatest abhomination that euer was in any tyme from the beginning of the world, and [Page] is the great secret point of Antichrist.
  • 6. In the last that one ought not in any case nor in any maner to heare or be present at the Masse, nor that it ought not to be suffered, to be sayd vnder any excuse or pretense, and this is the conclusion of the booke.

The first parte.

An anatomie of the Masse and the Masse book deuided into foure parts.

The first parte examineth the Masse from the introibo, vnto the Cannon that is to say to the­se words, Teigitur. and this hath foure cha­pters.

The first declareth that the introibo, is fal­se and superstitious and that the confíteor, is not Christian, and that the two prayers which are sayd softly when they goo to the aulter the one is false and the other robbeth Christs honour and is very wicked.

The first chapter.

1 THe priest being ready beginneth to say introibo ad altare Dei and the clark answereth Ad Deū quilaetificat iuuētutē meā, Psal. 42. and in this goodly beginning of the Masse he spea­keth [Page 11] a lye, or yf you will so call it an vntroth. And it is not to be marueled at: seing that this Masse is an inuention of man and not of god as we will proue (with gods help) in the fourt [...] [...]rte of this booke. And for so much as the scripture saith that euery man is a lyar,Psalm. 115. Psalm. 118. Psalm. 42. It is not (I say) to be marueled at, that as the beginning of gods word is trueth, e­uen so that the beginning of the Masse is a lye for you must vnderstand that this introibo ad altare Dei, is a verse of the 42. Psalme which Dauid made, at that tyme whē he was dryuen out of his kingdome by his sun Absolon, in which he praieth god that he wold deliuer him from the con­spiratours of the same Absalon, and that he wold graunt him, that he might enter into the taberna­cle among the rest, and worthely praise God. And therfore he called that aulter, gods aulter, because it was made by gods apointment and ordinaunce, as all the rest of the tabernacle was, as it is written in the 35. of Exodus,Exod. 35. and it was parte of the cere­moniall law, wherfore Dauid did then say trew. But now is it false to say I will enter to gods aulter, because that he hath no more any aulter, as we haue no more any tabernacle, nor there is no more any sacrifice made of vnreasonable beasts, no [...] the­re Iuishe ceremonies are vsed ani more, for thei be [Page] all ceased, and had there end at Christs cōming, we haue no more (I say) any gods aulter of stone, brick or any other earthly matter.

Hebr. 13.We haue now the thing signified and the trueth of those aulters, that is Christ, that hath wrought the worck of oure redēption, ād doth that, which these aulters did signify and betoken, for he is the true and the gostly aulter of holeburnt, and of perfume or frankincense whether you will call it, and these two aultars were figures of Christe. Wherfo­re euen as God then wold that the incense, the sa­crifices and the offrings should be layd vpon these aultars (for otherwyse they should not haue bene acceptable vnto him) so we ought now to offer all oure praiers, and good deedes, in the name of oure lord Iesus Christ, and by him present them to god, yf we wold haue them well taken of him. Christ him [...]elf sayd of praing in S. Ihon̄,Ioan. 14. what soeuer you shall desyre of my father in my name, I will doe it.Ioan. 16. And also he saith: seurly I say vnto you, that all these things which you shall ask my father in my name, he will geue them you, vntill this tyme you haue asked nothing in my name, ask, and you shall receaue,Colloss. 3. And Paule saith, Euery thinge you doo, bye worde or dede, do it in the name of the lord Ie­sus, rendering thanks to god oure father by him. [Page 12] And to the Hebrewes he saith,Hebr. 13. by him (that is by Christ) we allwaies offer vp the sacrifice of thanks geuing vnto god (that is to say) the frute of oure lippes that confesse his name. The reason standeth in this poynt, that there is no gods aulter, but which is made by gods ordinaūce and cōmādimēt. But it is plain, that that wherof the priest speaketh in the begin̄inge of the Masse, is not made by gods order or cōmaūdemēt, but is mās deuyse, ād therfore not gods aulter. Let the defendours of the Masse once shew, wher god or Christ after his comming, did euer apointe or commaund, that there should be made an aultar, vppon whiche men should do any sacrifice. The other verse also in the Psalme that is, Confitebor tibi in cithara deus deus meus, &c. I know not to what purpo­se they should say it, hauing no harp nor other musicall instrument, which Dauid vsid to praise god with. But they care not (after there olde wont) how they wrythe the scriptures out of frame.

Then saith the priest, Adiutorium no­strum in nomine domini, qui fecit coelum & terram, Psalm. 42. and after that the Confiteor deo, in which I much marueill that the­re is made no maner mention of Christ, as though [Page] he had not eny parte in the remission of sinnes yea as though he had neauer bene in the world, sewer­ly it were reason that he were named there, if that Confíteor, shoul be Christian like. The priest, there first doth confesse himself to god, then to the blessed mother, to S. Peter to S. Paule, and some put in there, S. Michael and S. Ihon̄ Baptist. And some put in S. Dominick, some S. Fraunces, some S. Au­stine, and some S. Benett, according to the diuersi­tie of the ordes of fryers or monks. And some put in, for the end to S. Vrsula with all her company. And to be short there is made mētion of all saints, but of Iesus Christ the sun of god crucified and dead for oure sinns, there is made no mention at all. How vnworthy a thing is this to be cōfessed to the rest of the saints of whome there is none dead for vs, none that hath redemed vs, And of Christ who is oure onely redemer and sauior, and who o­nely hath satisfied for oure sinnes, to make no mention at all, as though, he were nether in heauen nor in eareth? Oh naked yea (I may well say) wicked Confíteor. In whose name is the repentaun­ce done of the which you wold that the spoken confession should be a parte? In whose, name (I say) is it made? Is it made in the name of thother saincts or [Page 13] [...]n Christs name? he himself suerly hath said,Luc. 24. that repentaūce and remissiō of sin̄es ought to be done [...]n his name, as we haue in sainct Luke. And why, [...]hen haue you not put him in this youre confí­teor, If at all you beleue in him? what will they [...]ay here? paraduenture they will say, that there is mention made of Christe in these words Confí­teor deo, Christ being god. And also in that [...]ther place where there is made mencion of all the the saincts Christ being also a sainct. A goodly ans­wer, And why is there not made, mēcion of Christ [...]s man, seing that there is mencioned the rest that [...]re onely creatures? Christ is not onely god but,Rom. 3. Timo. 2. Hebr. 7. [...]so man and oure aduocate in that he is man: Why [...]oo not we confesse oure self to him and pray to [...]im seing he onely is apointed by god to be our [...]ediatoure and intercessour, and not the other [...]aincts as muche as we vnderstand by the holly scriptures? And so much the rather also, that we be [...]ot certeine that the other saints here vs? And if we should make particular mencion of the others, who, although they be by gods fauour saincts, yet they were not without sinn. Wherfore should we not muche rather make mention of Ihesus Christ the sonne of god the saincte of sanictes and the hallower of al the rest?Collos 2. And in whome dwelleth the fulnes [Page] of the god head bodely, as S. Paule saith: It is plaine therfore that this Confiteor deo, o [...] the Masse, is not Christian, for that it burieth Christe.

After the Confiteor is said the miserea tur tui and the indulgentiam and ab­solutionē and the deus tu conuersus, and the Ostende nobis domine misericordiam tuam &c. Where neither is made any mention of Christe. This ended, they say two prayers, the first is this, Take from vs o lord we pray the, al oure iniquities, that we mai with pure mindes, come to the holy of holies, through Christ oure lord, Amen. This prayer were godly if there were not these words, holye of holies, or at the leasts if there were that had the true meaninge of them. But because it semeth to shewe, that that materiall aultar vpon which the Masse is sayd, should be the holye of the hollies, therfore it is superstitious, and telleth not the trueth, for the holly of the hollis was according to the scriptures: a place in the ta­bernacle, deuided from the rest, by a certein vee­le or Corthein (whether you will call it) as it is written in Exodus,Exod. 20. into which place none did entre except the high priest, once in the yere. And it sig­nifieth [Page 14] the heauen, whither Christ is now entered, after he had ended his euerlasting raunsomming, [...]s sainct Paule saith to the Hebrues.Hebr. [...]. So that seing this aulter wherupon the priest sayth Masse is not the hollie of the hollies, but an inuention of men, and not apointed by god, It is called vnproperly ye falsely the holly of the hollies, for that place the holly of the holiyes, is ended, as also the aultars be, and is no more, sence that Christe is come, who hath ended that materiall tabernacle, the leuiticall sacrifices, and all that outward and ceremoniall wor­shipping.Matth. 27. Marc. 15. And in token of that (as the Euangelists wryte) when Christ dyed on the Crosse, that veele, which parted the holly of the hollies from the rest of the temple, was deuyded, and torne in two, from the topp to the grounde: geuinge vs to vnderstand that the ceremoniall law, in euery parte ended by Christ. It belongeth not then to vs to make moe new holly of hollies, hauing no word of god for [...]t, Where as neuertheles if the prayer had vnder­stode by the holly of hollyes, the heauen where Christ is entered, ād wherin also we shall by his me [...]rits, ād the grace of god enter the praier, had bene [...]trew, ād godly: but this is not the intēt as it semeth: for it entēdeth to speake of the misteri of the Masse: ād of that aultar, to the which things mē ought to [Page] goo (as they say) with a pure minde and a cle [...] conscience.

Ther followeth next another praier, which [...] priest saieth in euery Masse softly and bowing h [...] self to the aulter (that is) We beseche the o lord [...] the deseruings of thy sainctes, whose reliques [...] here and of all the saincts, that thou woldest vo [...] safe to forgeue me all my sinnes, Amen. A folish [...] cked and blasphemous prayer, first he saieth t [...] by the deseruings of the sainctes that haue the reliques in that aultar or in the hallowed stone they say) And who knoweth that they be reliq [...] of saincts? What fuerty hath the priest therof? P [...] aduenture they be the reliques I will not say whome. And yf haplye there shalbe there no reliques of sainctes, as I thinck and beleue in a gr [...] parte, yea in the more parte of the aultars that [...] re are no reliques of sainctes in dede, what sh [...] auaile this there praier in that parte making me [...] tion of the sainctes that be not? Then what wick [...] nes and blasphemie is this to geue the remission [...] sinnes to the deseruings of mere men, who thoug [...] they be saintes, yet they all haue had nede of the s [...] me forgeuenes of sinnes,3. Reg. 8. 2. Petr. 6. Psal. 142. and no one of thē was [...] any time without sinne as the scripture saieth [...] many places? And Christ in the prayer that [...] [Page 15] taught the holy Apostles declareth the same,Eccles. 18. Matth. 6. who [...]eth that they should say when they pray forge­u [...] oure debts, that is to say oure sinnes, as we for [...] oure dettours. And S. Ihon̄. saith:1. Ioan. 1. If we shall [...] we haue no sinne, we deceaue oure selues, and tru [...]th is not in vs. What blasphemy (I say) is this to g [...] such remission to mere men, thesame being [...] office onely of Christe? The holy scripture [...]n it speaketh of the forgeuenes of sinnes it mak [...] no mētion of any but of Christe, and teacheth vs that by his onely merits sin̄es are forgeuen. And this praiers doth geue it,Ioan. 1. Acto. 4. to the deseruings of other saincts. Ihon̄ Baptist pointing to Christ, saieth, be­ [...]d the lamm of god, behold him that taketh away [...] sinnes of the world (and meaneth him onely [...]d S. Peter in the Actes of the Apostles saith, the­ [...]s none other name vnder heauen geuen to men, [...] which we must be saued. If there be none other [...]me by which we are saued but that of Christe, nor by other deseruings then his, whye then do we [...]ing in (in that case) any other but him? what mea [...]th this to be saued, if not to be freed from sinn? [...] Aungell also saieth to Ioseph, as S. Mathew [...]e Euangelist wryteth, speaking of Christ,Matt. 1. not [...]en borne, he shall saue his people from there sin̄es [...]e meaneth) he shall do it, and none other. Is it not [Page] knowen that in his name onely oure sinnes are fo [...] geuē vs, in whiche we be baptised, for baptisme [...] gnifieth the remission of sinnes.

1. Cor. 1.It is plaine as S. Paule saieth, to the Corinthi [...] that we be Christened in Chrsts name, and no [...] any other saincts. Are you (saith he) Christened [...] Pauls name?1. Ioan. 2. as though he wold saye, no, but [...] Christs. And Ihon̄ the Euangelist saith, I wryte [...] yow children, that youre sinnes are forgeuen yo [...] by his name (that is to say) Christes. And wh [...] should we nede to alledge mo saings? all the scr [...] pture both new and olde, is full of this. And wh [...] els saieth Esaias,Esa. 53. but that Christ hath suffered fo [...] oure sinnes, and Christ himself (as we haue said before) plainely affirmeth,Luc. 24. Rom. 3. Ephes. 1. Coloss. 2. Hebre. 1. that in his name is wro­ught remission of sinnes, and Paule in this matte [...] is plentifull aboue all, whose saings if I wold bring [...] furth, I should be to long, but for that the matter i [...] so clere to him that is not altogether ignoraun [...] of Christ and the scriptures, I will passe it ouer. Semeth this to you a small blasphemie, to take a­way that honoure, and that glory, that belongeth to Christ onely, and geue them to others, to whome they belong not? Is not this a dishonouring him, a dispysing him, and a committing of a great sacri­ledge? This prayer is wicked and a great blasphe­my, [Page 16] nor ye ought not to excuse it with gloses, And who that will defind it, shall shew himself an ene­my to the honoure and glory of Christe. And be­ [...]ds all this also, it plainli gainsaieth other parts of [...]he Mosse, as those two verses of Gloria in ex celsis deo, the which say to Christ, Qui tol [...]is peccata mundi miserere nobis, Qui tollis peccata mundi suscipe de [...]recationem nostrā. It speaketh against [...]he consecration of the cupp, and against the ago nus dei, the which saings affirme that Christ onely causeth remission of sinnes, and not the [...]aints.

The second chapter. THE EXAMINACION OF THE Kyrie cleeson and of the Gloria in ex­celsis deo, and how that many praiers after the gloria in excelsis, be wicked, and that the epistle and gospell, and generally the whole worde of god in the Masse, are vnworthely and euell fauoredly handled.

[Page]VVHen the priest is come to the aultar ād h [...] opened the Masse book, he beginneth [...] entrie, which commonly is of the old Testame [...] and for the most parte, it is certeine verses of [...] Psalmes. When the entrie is ended, the Kyrie [...] leeson, is sayd, which is as much to saye as d [...] mine miserere, that is, lord haue mercye, [...] Master williame Durant, in the fourth parte [...] his boke called the Rationale diuino [...] (that is to say a declaration of the causes whie [...] ry ceremonie is vsed in the common seruice) wh [...] he expoundeth, the Masse, he teacheth and rehe [...] seth the reasons of the things saide or done in [...] same, and saith, that the Kyrie eleeson, h [...] yet an other signification, that is Kyri, Christ, [...] god, ei haue mercye, son, vpon vs, so that this K [...] rie eleeson, shalbe foure words, the first shal [...] kyri, the second el, the third ei, and the fourth so [...] which altogether do make the Kyrie eleiso [...] which hole is as much to say as Christ god ha [...] mercy vpon vs, but whye it is sayd nyne tymes [...] gether with Christeleeson, the sayd Maste [...] william doth theach the cause saing, that for certein respects it is sayd nyne tymes, The first is th [...] the tenth order which is of men, being now re [...] [Page 17] [...]yred might accompanie the nyne orders of An­ [...]ls. The second that the churche might come to [...]e company of this nyne orders of Angels. The [...]ird is, that it may be against these nyne sortes of [...]nes, that is to say, oure birth sinne, forgeuable [...]dlye, bye thought, word, dede, by frailtie, simpli [...]ie, and maliciouslye, behold the goodly reasons [...] this Kyrie eleeson, whye it should be sayd [...]ne times, and you may see how auctenticall they [...] He bringeth in also certein other causes, which [...]r shortnes I leaue: but among the rest he saieth that this Kyrieleeson is of great power, and that [...] Basill crieng this Kyrie eleeson, wiht a loud [...]oyce, the church dores of Pauia were opened [...]d that at an other time by the crye of Kyrie [...]leeson, fiue kings were put to flight, And he [...]ddeth that perhappes this Kyrie eleeson, [...]etokeneth some other thing then domine mi [...]erere, which we do not knowe.

But I wold first vnderstand to what purpose [...]monge the latines, of which the great parte vn­ [...]erstandeth onely there naturall tonge and not the [...]atin, to what purpose (I say) should the greek be spoken, seing we vse the latine? Except that we wo­ [...]d saye that the words in greek, ether are better vnderstand [Page] then in latin, which is false, or ells that they haue more vertew then the latin which is su­perstitious. Wherfore then, is not lord haue mercy on vs said, ād not Kyrie eleeson, thone being as much in signification as the other? if there were an English preacher, that should preach to Eng­lish mē who vnderstand not the dutche tonge, and wold speake dutch, wold not the hearers think that they were mockt by such a preacher? Euen so do they that say Masse, who speak greek to the lati­nes, and that which is worse, to them that nether vnderstand greek nor latine.

Seing then that this Kyrie eleeson, mea­neth, lord haue mercye, whye is it not rather and fitlier said onely thre tymes to betokē the trinitie, the which is prayed vnto by such words, and to which belongeth to shew mercye: then nyne times for the nyne orders of Aungels which are nether prayed vnto in this Kyrie eleeson, nor to haue mercie on vs belongeth not vnto them? sewer­ly it should more conueniently and more fitlye be said oneli thre times for the thre diuine persons, because it belōgeth to thē to shew mercie, thē nyne times for the nyne orders of Aungels which haue not that power. Thē whi is it said rather nine times for [Page 18] [...]he nyne orders of Aungels then seauē times, seing [...]hat the nomber of seauen is found oftener in the [...]cripture, then the nombre of nyne, as the places [...]ight be shewed? Or els rather then twelue times [...]or the twelue Apostles, for the twelue tribes of Is­ [...]ell, for the twelue starres in the Apocalipse, for [...]e twelue articles of the faith, and for the twelue [...]ones of which is made mētiō in Iosue the fourth? [...]o what purpose when we praye vnto god should [...]e multiply oure words according to the nombre [...]f the Aūgels, or other things? this is as we should [...]tye fyue Pater nosters and fyue Aue Maryes in [...]he worship of the fyue woundes, or seauen in the worship of the seauen ioyes of oure ladye, which [...]hings I am sory to say. And to be shorte, this saing [...]f the Kyrie eleeson, nyne tymes vpō so vai­ [...]e causes is superstitious and maketh vs vnder­ [...]tand how feble and vaine the foundations of the Masse are, Yea seing the latine is more plaine to [...]s then the greek.

Then next, when Kyrie eleeson, is said, followeth the Gloria in excelsis Deo, which is a goodly praise and a godly, for the Aungels (as Luke the Euangelist saith) did sing it atLuc. 1. [Page] Christs birth those words that are ioyned to it, as Laudamus te, Benedicimus te, vnto the end, were put to (as some saie) by Hilariꝰ, others say by Telesphorꝰ the pope ād others, that thei were put to by Symacꝰ the pope, there is nothing thereto be reproued, cōcerning the substāce of the matter [...] We deny not, but that there is in the Masse certein [...] things agreable to gods word, yea and some parte of gods words it self, for there are of the saings of the psalmes, of the prophets, of the Apostels, an [...] of Christ himself, but the matter is, that these things should be placed worthely, and not other­wise. And also that the wicked should not be min­geled with the good. This is the suteltie of Satan, who vnder the shew of godly matters, deceaueth the vnaduysed, as we are wont to say, that in the [...] honye lyeth hidden the poison.

Tell me after what sort are men killed with poi­son? It is suer, that it is neauer geuen alone, but mixte amonge other good meats, ād after this son [...] it is taken and bringeth death: Euē so it happeneth in this Masse, for there are diuers good things, as the Epistel, and the gospell, and other saings of the scripture, but with such saings are couered many disceyts, are told many vntrueths, blaspemies and superstitions, is taken the honoure from Christ and [Page 19] god, and geuen to onely creatures. After this sort also are men deceaued with inchauntements, for [...]here is none or very few inchauntments made, that haue not some words (and those good) of god, and yet they ought not be done.

Then next after the Gloria certein praiers, which they call collects, and some of them be godly [...]nd Christiā like, made accordinge to gods worde, [...]ut there are many wicked and blaspemous, as that [...]f the fourth ferie (that is to saye) on wednisdaye of the Ember dayes in aduent, and it is the first praier [...]hat he saieth. Graunt we beseche the (o lord al­ [...]ichtye) that this solemne feast that is at hand of [...]ure redemption, may help vs in this present lyfe, and geue vs the rewards of euerlasting blessednes. The fourth praier also, the saterday which folo­weth in the same Imber dayes, sayth, the very same in substance as it may be sene in the Masse boke. The first praier also on the saterday in albis, (that is to say) the first saterday after Easter, saith thus. Graunt we beseche the almightie god, that we which haue kept with reuerence this feaste of Easter, may bye the same deserue to come to euer­lasting ioyes. These prayers plainlie desyre, that by the desert of the feasts that we kepe of Christ­mas [Page] and Easter god wold geue vs the euerlasting happines. And how can this stād, that by the kepin­ge of holy dayes we should deserue euerlasting blessednes?

First it is playne, that in the new Testament, we haue no holy day commaunded by Christ nor his Apostels, those that are kept, are by mans and not by gods apointment. I say not for all this, that it is euell, to ordeine certeine proper daies or feasts that the people may come together to the preaching of gods worde, to receaue the holy communion, to make common praier together, and also for there rest, who in that week were weried, and to the in­tent (I saye) that we may haue some day, wherin we may quietly haue regard to the heauenly things. But to do this, by gods commaundement, there is no more one day then an other apointed, for the dayes are all a lyke, nether is there one more holy then an other in it sel, [...] 4. or by gods ordinaunce. Paule reproued the Galathians because they did kepe daies, letting them witte that such kepinge is a ie­uysh and no Christiā like thinge.Col [...]os [...] Likewise writing to the Colossians he saith, let no mā iudge you nei­ther in meat, nor drink, nor in any parte of the holidaye, nor of the saboth day, which things are but shadowes of the things to come &c. Then is there [Page 24] not any holliday by gods cōmaūdemēt, since Christs cōming who hath ended the ceremonial law, of the which the keping of daies was a parte by gods oune

I saye more ouer, that although there were (law. holy daies cōmaūded by god in the new Testamēt, yet we could not be saued by keping of them, seing oure elders were not saued by the keping of the law commaunded by god. For there is none at any tyme saued or iustified by the law, as Peter saith in the acts of the Apostles,Acto. 15. but all be saued by the gra­ce of oure sauioure Iesus Christ. So now we (euen as oure fore fathers) be saued by the self same grace of Iesus Christ. How many saings of Paule could I bring forth if I wold, that we be not iustified nor sa­ued by the works of the law, nor by any other worke, but onely by faith, whiche is as much to say as by the grace of oure lord Iesus Christ, I say by his onely grace. And yet the Masse boke will affirme that by the holy daies commaunded bye men, god should geue vs euerlasting lyfe, which he neauer did to our forefathers, for the holy daies comma­unded by himself, nor for any other work comma­unded in the law. We haue before said, that there is none other name, in which we may be sa­ued, but that onely of Christs,Acto. 4. and the Masse book will that we should be saued in the na­me of holy daies found out and apointed by men, [Page] which howe they be kept it is well knowen, for that, god is muche more offended, and mo sundry waies (out of doubt) on such dayes then on any other.

These prayers are wicked. And if it should be sayd, that in such prayers is put in the end Per Christum Dominum nostrum geuinge vs to wit, that we be saued by Christ, I say that this is not enough, because Christ onely, or hi [...] deseruings onely do saue vs: and these praiers wo [...] that by the deserts of the holy dayes we should b [...] saued, geuing to the holy daies, at the least in par­te, that which Christ onely doth, and so do lesse his honoure. Gods word will that Christe onel [...] should haue this office, and putteth no other companion wiht him. There be many other praiers i [...] this wicked Collects, but we haue geuen an exam­ple of these few, lest we should werie the reader, m [...] king the boke, to great.

When the prayers are ended, the Epistle is said, and after the Epistle, the grayle which is certei [...] verses of Psalmes and for the most parte with cer­tein alleluiaes, orels the tract, which is also cer­teine verses of Psalmes, and then is saide the go­spell. These things are of the holy scripture and good, but be vndew [...]ifully handled because they [Page 21] [...]re vnprofitably spoken. Tell me, what can the [...]pistle, gospel, or any of the scripture profit if they [...]e not vnderstand? It is plaine that the more parte [...]f the people that here Masse commenly vnder­ [...]and not the latine. But what speake I of the peop­ [...]? They themselues that say the Masse, for the [...]ost part are ignoraunt, and vnderstand not the [...]eaninge of the words they speake, but like pyes [...]r popingaies, they pronounce the words and the [...]entēces, and vnderstand not the meaninge of then. what an abuse is this? And so much the more, as that they say softly before the gospell two praiers, [...]hat is. Clense (o almightie god) my harte and my [...]ippes, that didest clense the lippes of I say the pro­phet with a burning stone, voutsafe euē so to clense me with thy pitie, that I may worthelie declare this holly gospell, by Christ oure lord. And after this he saieth the other. Oure lord be in my hart, and in my lippes, that I may worthely ād sufficiētly shew forth his gospell.

After this sorte the priest saieth these prayers when there is no deacon, but where the deacon is there he asketh the blessing at the priests hands, who speaketh vnto him in the second person sain­ge. The lord be in thy hart and in thy lippes &c. The praier ended, the deacon then singeth the go­spell. [Page] There is required in these praiers to set furth the gospell worthely and as it ought. But how ca [...] the gospell be worthely set furth, whē it is vttered in such sort as it is nether vnderstand of him tha [...] hereth it, nor him that speaketh it, and proffiteth nothinge at all? Suerly they mock god and the gospell, for on the one parte they desire gods grace to shew forth worthely the gospell, and of the other parte they speak it or singe it in such sort as it can­not be vnderstand. Is the gospell worthely declare [...] by reading it onely on the boke? Did our sauior, c [...] maunde his Apostles (when he said vnto them preach the gospel to all creatures) that they shoul [...] preach it in a tong that men vnderstand not? Whe [...] fore gaue he them the gift of tongs? But that euen nation might vnderstand them? The gospell why i [...] it preached? to the entent to be beleued. How ca [...] it be beleued when it is not vnderstand? What [...] corruption is this of this Masse, to say it, to all the people, whiche are there some time a thousand persons, men and women, litle and great, and the more parte of them heareth onely the voice, without vn­derstanding any thinge that is saide in the hole Masse? O poure people what misorder and abuse is this? There is that haue hard Masse aboue fourescore yeres that neuer vnderstode any thinge, nor kno­weth [Page 22] what they haue done. O shepherds that ha­ue the charge of mens soules, is this youre go­uernement? do you handell of this sorte Christs poore shepe, which you ought to seede with gods worde, and ye feed them with wynde? why do you not remedy in youre Councels (which to what end you kepe them it is well knowen) this horrible abu­se and many other as great as this? but rather de­fend them and increase them from day to day as lawes of the churche. What excuse shall you haue [...]at the day of iudgement, before Christs throne, for this youre administration? Who hath taught you to speak in the churche before the hole nombre in an vnknowen tonge? do you not know that this is against gods commaundement declared by the Apostell Paule,1. Cor. 14. where plainely he willeth that in the church, and when the people are gathered to­gether, men should speak in a tonge that all men might vnderstand? and rebuketh those that speake in an vnknowen tonge, because it is without edifi­cation and proffit? what a destruction is this, to make the poore people lose the tyme and to kepe the people so disceaued that they should think it well done onely to here, and vnderstand nothinge? They know not that to read a thinge and not to vnder­stand it, is to dispise it, as Cato saieth whom euery [Page] chilce doth lerne. The cause why in the old tyme the latine tong was vsed in the churche, was, because, that then the people did vnderstand it. And Gre­gory at Rome to the people did vse none other tonge but latin as himself doth witnes in the preface to Ezechiell writing to Marian the bishop, yea it was commaunded by the Emperours Ciuill law, that the minister should speake the words of Consecra­tion with a loud voice, that all the people might here and vnderstand, which should haue bene do­ne in vaine, if the people had not vnderstand the meaning of the words. And therfore there was no praier said softly, but all were openly spoken with a loud voice to the intent that the people might answer, amen. Which should haue bene askorne by the witnes of Paule in the said place of his Epistle to the Corinthians,2. Cor. 14. if they had not vnderstand what was said. Therfore the minister or the priest when he should say the prayers, said, and yet saith Oremus, prouoking the whole multitude ga­thered to gother, to whom he speaketh, that they should pray and make together with him the same peticion that he speaketh, which cannot be fitly done, if that be not vnderstand that the priest saieth. And therfore this saing of the Epistle and gospell, and all the rest as it is handeled in the Masse, in the [Page 23] latine tonge, and being not vnderstanded of the [...]tanders bye, is a very great abuse and a begiling of the people, of the profit of Gods worde.

The thirde chapter.

THere is declared that the prayer which is said in the offering of the host, is wicked.

That the mixting water with wine, is mans inuention and not gods.

That the praier of the offeringe the cupp, is wicked, as that is of the hoste.

When the gospell is done the Crede is sayd on holly daies, on other daies it is not said. After the Crede then is the offertory which is a saing of the Psalmes, and some tymes it is some other parte of the scripture, brefe and short. When the offertory is said, or whilest it is saing, on holy daies, chefely on sonday, men offer and kysse the maniple or the paten, and there is said to them that offer. Cen­tuplum accipies, &c. The which saing was a promes that Christe made to those that wold forsake father, mother, wyfe, children, and there temporall goods for his name, and they aplie it to them that offer in this offeringe. Behold wheather [Page] this be to pull gods word from the purpose, and to corrupt it or no? As though Christs intēt had bene to sai in these words, whoso euer will kisse the pha­nel and offer to geue to the priests and fryers, shall receaue a hunderth fould, and shall possesse the ly­fe euerlasting. Thus marre they lykwyse other saings of the holy scripture. In old tyme this offe­ring was bestowed on the poore by the deacons hands, but now euery man knoweth to what vse it turneth. When the offertory is done, the hoste not yet consecrated (is offered as they say) and this prayer is said. O holy father almighty euerlasting god, take this vnspotted host, which I (thie vnworthy seruaunt) do offer to the my liuing and trew god, for­my innumerable sinnes, offences, and negligences, and for all the standers by, and for all the faithfull Christians liuing and dead, to the intent it may be profitable to me and to them for helth to lyfe euer­lasting, amen. In this praier is said, that that bread whiche they call the host is offered to god for the sinnes of all the faithfull liuinge and dead, and also de­sireth that it may be profitable for health to lyfe e­uerlasting.

These are suerly great effects, and it is much to be marueled at, how this host not yet consecrated can do (as they thinck) these things, that is to say, to [Page 24] auayle to forgeuenes of sinnes, and to lyfe euerla­sting, how can this be, that a pece of bread which is but bread should worke so great effects? I can not [...]ceaue this, I wold they wold proue it me by gods word. And yf they wold say that they speake such words not by that which is then bread, but by that, that it shalbe after the consecration, they can not with trueth speake it, for that host when it [...]all be consecrated shall not be any more bread [...] they think no, nor shall not be any more the same, but another thinge, for before it be con­secrated and when this prayer is said it is onely [...]ead, and when it is consecrated, it is the trew bo­ [...] of Christ, and no more materiall bread (as they [...]ink) And they in this praier speak of that hoste, [...]hich they then offer, sainge, O holly father al [...]ighty god, take this vnspotted host, shewing the [...]read not consecrated and they meane to speak of [...]hat, that they shew, and that it is then not that [...] shalbe. Also the Cannon it self in the first parte [...]hich sayeth, Quam oblationem tu de­ [...]s &c. declareth that it is spoken of the bread [...]d wyne vnconsecrated, as it apereth in that pla­ [...]e. Then this maner host that they then shew, how [...]n it forgeue sinnes, and saue men? The Iewes in [...]ede offered such things for sin̄es but the Christians [Page] (whose offering as Peter saith in his Epistel are spirituall) offer not such things to god for there sinnes, being suer that they are forgeuen them by Christ onely, and not by any other thing. This pra­yer therfore is wicked, as many other are, that are said in the Masse.

When the host is offered, and the wine in the challice, they also put to it water, which thing they say, that Alexander the first pope, ordened. First, to shew that the health of the peple (which is signified by the water, acording to the saing of the Apocalipse. Aquas quas uidisti ubi me retrix sedet, populi sunt, & gentes, & linguae) could not be without the sheding of Christs blode, nor the blud shedding without the health of the people: therfore it is necessarie, that, to betoken this, the water should be mingled with the wine. Secōdly it is to declare, that there issued out of Christs syde together with the blood, water, in token that Christ is not without the people, nor the people without Christ. Thirdly the water is mixt with the wyne, to tell that there is in Christ the manhode together with the god head, which towe things are betokened by the water and the wine, the manhode by the water, and the god hed by [Page 25] the Wyne. I wil not at this present take on me the burdene of reprouing Alexander, but I will yet tell what I thinke, that in the Sacrament there ought to be made (respecting those thinges that be the substance of them) no maner of chaunge, ne­ther to encrease nor to diminish. It is alread [...] knowen that Christ did not institute the Sacrament of the holy super with any other elements then with bread and wyne, and that no water in it: nor the apostels (as farr as we vnderstand by there wri­tings) haue added any other thinge. This me think shuld suffise. Then euen as it belongeth not, to any man in the world but to god and Christ that is god and man to institute Sacraments so ought no liuing man to diminish it, and seme to vnderstand more thē the ordeiner. Who is that inferiour that wold alter or chaunge the lawes or ordinaunces of his superiour? after this sort then, men might doo in baptisme, they might put to wyne, and al­ledge the cause, as is aledged of the water, why should water be rather put to the wyne in the Sacrament of the holy super then wyne to the water in the sacrament of baptisme? was not the godhed and manhede aswel in baptisme as in the holy supper? Yea they were more plainely beto­kened, whē Christ was baptised, for that that was [Page] the fathers voyce, the holy gost was seene in shape of a doue, which things neuer chaunced in the supper, so far as we vnderstand by the Euange­lists and writinges of the apostles. And whie can­not the godhed and māhed be betokened, by wyne and water aswel in the one Sacrament as in the other.

Forthermore none, except the ordeiner, hath authoritie to geue a new betokening to the Sa­cramēt. Christ hath apointed what the bread and wine shuld betoken, that is to saye, that the bread shuld betoken and bringe to remembraunce the bodye and the blud, and it belongeth not to vs, to chaunge, to put to or take fro, the betokenings of suche things. And this opinion here saith that the wyne betokeneth the godhead, and Christ hath or deined that it shuld betoken and bringe to oure remembraunce his blud. There is a great difference betwene the blud and the godhed for the blud is a creature, but the godhed is god the Creator. Last­ly Paule, who was taught of Christ (as he wryteth to the Corinthians after what sort this Sacrament ought to be handeled) maketh no maner mention of water, and he durst not put to any thinge besy­de that which Christ had taught him. And by what authoritie I pray you, go they, and add to [Page 26] the Sacraments? suerly this water ought not to be added.

Then next the priest offereth the cupp sainge We offer to the (oh lord) the cupp of health, bese­chinge thye mercyfulnes that it may ascend, with a swete sauoure, into the sight of thy deuine ma­iestie, for oure health and all the worldes. Amen. The self same that we haue sayd of the hoste or bread, we may and ought to say, of the cupp or wyne. How can it be that the wyne not yet conse­crated maye auayle for oure health and the whole worlds? We will tary till they can declare it. It is suer that this praier is wicked as well as that of the offering of the hoste.

The fourth Chapter.

HEre is examined that many praiers which they call secreats and are sayd before the preface, be damnable and hold much wickednes in them, as these.

That fasting purgeth sin̄es and maketh vs wor­thye of the grace of god, and leadeth vs to the heauenly and euerlasting glory.

That by the bread, and wyne god is apeased and forgeueth vs oure sinnes.

[Page]Then follow certein praiers and they be three which affirme the bread ād wyne to be a sacrifice, of which matter because we will treate of it in the end where we will proue, that nether the bread nor wyne before the consecration, nor the Sacrament after the consecration, can be a sacri­fice, albeit that the Sacrament is a remembraunce of the sacrifice. We wil not now talke any farther of it, least we should vnproffitably repeat one thinge often. But we wil examen that which re­maineth of this first parte, ād chefely these praiers which they call secreats, because they are sayd soft­ly, to geue more aucthoritie to the Masse. And let them neuertheles, alledge as many reasons as they will, yet they ought to speak it a loude, but this maketh not so much matter, as the wicknedesses and blasphemies, that are in some of them, and among the rest in that of the fourth ferye of the Imber dayes in aduent which saith: let oure fastings (we beseche the oh lord) be acceptable vnto the, which by clensing vs, maye make vs worthy of thy grace, and bring vs to the euerlasting promesses. The veri same is said also in the third serie, that is to saie the tewesday after pashiō sonday. And an other tyme, on fryday in the Ember weke, after the seauen­tēth sonday. after whit sonday, which praier in few [Page 27] words hath much matter, that is to say thre great blasphemyes.

The first is that fastinges, do clere, purge, and clense. The seconde is that they make vs worthye of Gods grace. The third that they bring vs to the euerlasting promesses. These thre cursed wicked­nesses are in this litle praier, who wil denye that these be not thre blasphemies? First is not this a blasphemie to geue to the fastings, which are oure works, the clensinge of sinnes,Heb. 1. which is gods wor­ke onely by Christ Iesus thoroughe his blod and death? As paule sayth.1. Ioan. 1. That Christ alone is he that purgeth sinnes. And Ihon in his first Epistle saith. That the blood of Iesus Christe, doth clense vs from al sinne. And Ihon Baptist sayth,Ioan. 1. behold the lamb of god, behold him that taketh awaye the sinnes of the world. And Esay geueth the forgeuinge of sinnes to Christe onely thorough his passion and death.Esa. 53. And to be shorte the whole scripture geueth this honoure to Christe, and this praier geueth it to oure fastings. The­se be those godly sacrifices that are made (bea­re with me you that yet know it not) in this dete­stable Masse, by which the world so long hath bene disceaued and Christ dispysed. Besyd yf by oure fastings we were clensed and oure sinnes forgeuen [Page] vs,Rom. 4. we should be iustified, by oure oune works, for so much as iustification is forgeuenes of sinnes it self, or at the least is not without it, and that onely iustifieth vs, that forgeueth vs oure sin­nes.Ro. 3. & 4. Gala. 2.3.4. & 5. Roma. 3. But this doctrine is contrary to the Apostle Paule, who sayth in all his Epistles, and specially to the Romaines and Galath. that we be not iustified by works, but bye Gods grace through Christs re­demption. Paule saith to the Romains, we be iu­stified by his grace (that is Gods) by the redemptiō that is in Christ Iesus. In which place appointinge the things that perteine to iustification, he alled­geth, grace, the redemption by Christe, and faith, which wholly he geueth to the grace of god by Christ, and no whit to man: yea rather he turneth out all the glory of man, and geueth the whole honoure and glory to God. Which he wold not haue done if oure works (whether they be fastings or other works) had pertained to iustification, as any cause therof. Moreouer how canne fastings purge or clense sinnes, seing that we must first be losed and clensed, before we can do eny work, that may be thankfull to God, whether it be fasting or other work? How can fastings take away sinnes, yf they be not thankfull to God? and if they be thankfull to God, it is necessary that oure sinnes should first be [Page 28] forgeuē vs, and that we should be clensed of them. Fastings therfore cannot cause forgeuenes of sin­nes nether in whole nor in parte, yea let thē think this before hand that yf they should be acceptable vnto god, forgeuenes of sinnes must necessarylye goo before them. And if it should be sayd that in the end of the praier there is, Per Dominum nostrū Iesum Christū, etc. Which words confesse that oure sinnes are forgeuen by Christ: to this is answerd that ether they will that by Iesus Christe himself onely our sinnes should be for­geuen, or els not onely by Christ, but by Christ to­gether with the fastings. If they will by Christ one­ly, why do they alledge fastings? yf they will haue fastings together with Christ, this is first against the scriptures, which thorowout alledge Christ onely ād none other. Further it is plaine that the reason before made resteth stronge, that is, that forgeuenes of sinnes go before fastings if they shalbe thank­full to god, then fasting cannot, because of forge­uenes of sinnes nether with Christ nor without Christ.

And if thei wold say we meane not of forgeue­nes of sinnes as concerning the faulte, but the pu­nishmēt, to this I say that when men speak abso­lutely of the clensing or forgeuinge of sinne, it is [Page] to be vnderstand of the faulte as of the chefe thin­ge in that forgeuenes and here the praier spea­keth absolutely: wherfore it is vnderstand of the fawt and not of the paine only. Than if the fawt be forgeuen and taken away, we ought not to be any more ponisshed for the cause of that fawt. For ta­ke away the caus, and the effect foloweth. This is a generall rule, where there is no fawt, there ought not to be any ponisshment. If god doo thorowly for gyue and take away the fawt, he taketh a way also the ponisshment, dewe for that fawt. And this distinction which is comonly made of the forgeuenes of the paine ād of the fawt, hath no maner fowndacyō in holy scriptures, but is fownd owt by men. And though somtymes, god forgiuing the fawt doth so­me way ponissh, as he did Dauyd and certen other, yet this is not, that the ponisshmēt, shuld remayne, as the ponisshmēt of that sin̄, but for other respect­tys, as to humble the man, and to exercyse hym, or to geue example to other that thei doo not the like, and that he also may be ware in tyme to come, that he fall not in such or like owtrage. This sentence is S. Austens in his II. booke called of the desertys of sinnes and of forgeuenes the 33. and 34. chapters, Where he bringeth in the paines laid on Dauid and other godly men, and sayth that thei remayne not, [Page 29] as ponisshmēts for sin̄es, but as exercises of iust mē. Thā the other wordes which say that fastings make vs whorty of gods grace (that is) that thei make vs deserue it, is an error ād an heresye by all meanes to be condemned,De predest natione sanctorū cap. 2. as S. Austen sayth in his boke of predestynaciō of saynts. And it was Pelagius the here­tikes error, condemned in the cowncell at Palestina by Pelagius him selff, lest els he shuld haue bene cō demned. He sayth the same in his 105.106.107. Lib. epist. 105.106.107. epi­stel. And in many other places where he reasoneth against the Pelagians. But what nede we alledge S. Austen and other lerned men, hauing the wordes of S. Paul to the Romai. so plaine, where he saith that that which is by grace, is not by workes,Rom. 11. that is to say, is not by desertes. And so of the contrary part, that which is by workes is not by grace, els grace shuld not be grace, nor workes (that is to say desertes) shuld not be workes. For the thing that is deserued is not by grace. And that which is by grace is not by desertis or workes. But this praier denieth grace, ād wrappeth in it a cōtrarietie. For the thing that is deserued, as we haue said, is not by grace but by workes. And therfor iff our fastings shuld be worthy of gods grace, and that we shuld deserue it, than grace shuld not be grace, which is an enw­rapping of contradiction, as the for said S. Austen [Page] in the alledged booke saith,De predestinatione sanctorū cap. 1. That grace in no wise is grace iff it be geuen according to desertes.

The third part of the praier saith that fasting bringeth vs to the euerlasting promises, that is to say, to euerlasting glory. He that seeth not that this is an vnsufferable blasphemy is blind, seing that men can not be sauid by their workes but by the grace of god thorow Christ,Rom. 6. Eph. 2. Tit. 3. Act. 4. as we lerne of Paule in so many places. And of S. Peter in the actes. There is non o­ther name vnder heauen, geuen to men, wherby we shuld be saued. And this praier wold that by the name of workes we shuld become safe.

There is a nother secret praier on the xxiij. son­day affter whitsontide which saith thus, Take o helpfull lord, the hostes, with which thow woldest be pleased and haue saffety restored vnto vs thorow thy mighty mercy. This secret saith here ij. things. First that god desyreth to be pleased by the hostes which the priest offereth. Secōdly it saith that god wold by these hostes haue safety restored vnto vs. And where wold god euer be pleased by that bread and that wine which are not yet a sacrament, moch lesse haue our safetie restored by them. From whens haue they that god wold such things shuld be done [Page 30] by thes offerings? In what place of the scripture fynd thei that? The scripture saith that by Christ god is pleased with vs, as we haue in Esay,Esa. 24. where it is writen, Behold my seruant whom I haue chosen, my welbeloued,Matth. 12. in whom my sowle is moch delighted, which saing Mathew alledgeth somwhat diuerse in wordes but not in sense. For in steade of that word which the Prophete calleth seruant, mathew saith, Son̄. And it is the very same in sense. For christ in that he is man, is gods seruant and is yet for all that gods sonn. The father also saith as it is written in the euangelistes, whan christ was baptised,Matth. 3.17. Marc. 1. Luc. 3. and also at that time whan he was trāsfigured, This is my welbeloued son in whom I am well pleased. Which saings all, doo giue vs to vnderstond that god is pa­cified by Christ, and by him are all men reconciled.Rom. 5. Paul saith the like to the romai. We being enemies are reconciled to god by his sonnes death. And to the Colosseis it is said, that it hath pleased the father to recōcile all things to him bi Christ, being pacified by the blood of christes own crosse.Coll. 1. These saings of Paul are clere and plaine, and affirme that christ is he, by whom god is pacified and men reconci­led. And this praier or secret saith that god will be pacified by those offerings, Which are yet no other but Comon breade and wine, and are not yet any sacrament. [Page] Likewise thother point of the praier, that by those offerings, we might haue safetie, is a great blasphemy. For euē as by Christ only god is pacified towards vs, so by him and not by any other thing, We haue safetie. Seing then that christ is our only sauior, this is sure a gret rasshnes, and a deuelissh self likinge to talk so boldly of our safetie withowt the holy scripture, yea against gods word. And iff any to defend this praier, wold say, that by thes of­ferings is not ment that thei than be, but that thei shall be, and at that time whan thei shall be conse­crated. To this we haue allredy answered, in the chapter before, whē the praier of the offring of the host not yet consecrated was examined. There is yet a great nōber of thes secreates which declare, that that breade and that wine not yet consecrated, take away sinnes, and forgeue them. But of this will we speake in the end, where we will proue that the sa­crament doth not take away sinnes, nor forgiue them, moch lesse the breade and wine cā take away sinne beinge not yet consecrated (that is to say) yelded to an holy vse, For to consecrate is none other thing then to yeld a thing vp to an holy vse.

The second parte examy­neth the canon which thei make the most holy and chese part of the masse. And it is said all in secreat which is diuided in iiij. chapters.

In the first is examined the iij. first partes of the canō, that is to say, the Te igitur, the memē to off the liuing, and the communicantes.

WHAN the secreates be said, thei say alowd, per omnia secula seculorū, Do­minus uobiscum, Sursum corda, gratias agamus, and the uere dignum & iustum est, and all the preface, and affter that, the Sanctus, whan the Sanctus is ended thei begin to say the canon that is tho say, the Te igi­tur, very sofftly which thei say, is the chefe part of the masse. Yea some thinck that the masse begin̄eth there. For all the rest is but of the solemnitie, alled­ging, de consecratione distincti. 2. capite panìs. Albeit in that chapter which is taken owt of the booke intitled. Off Sacramentes, and at­tributed to Ambrose, it is not said that the masse be­ginneth [Page] at the canon, but it is said only of the wor­des of the consecration and not of all the canon. In­nocentius in the decretallis de celebratione missarum in the chapter Cum marthe willeth and commandeth (because he was pope) that this canon shuld be receiued as deliuered by the a­postels, although it were writen at the least v. hondreth yeare affter the apostels time and but a litle before gregory the first,Lib. 7. epist. cap. 63. as he him selff witnesseth. It was written by a certen mā named Scolasticus and is diuided in to xi. partis, some going before the consecraciō and some folowing. Master William durāt in his Rationale diuinorum officio­rum (that is to say the declaration of the cause of euery thing vsed in gods seruice) with great reuerē ce, expoundeth thes, one part affter a nother, as a thingful of veri great, ād godly misteries. And saith that euery point of this canō, which we goo abowt to set owt, doth very hardly appeare, to be of any valewe. Wherfor (saith he) The tong faileth, The spech is vnfitt, The witt is ouer come, And the vnderstonding oppressed: Notwithstonding, I will knock at the dore that is to say, I will pray god that he wil open to me thes great secrettis. And yet for all thes there is not in this canon made by scolasticus so [Page 32] moch as one word of the holy scripture, except thos of the consecration, which are the least of it,For the pa­ter noster was added after by Gregory as in the place before re­hersed. and be christes wordes. So that, iff he shuld haue declared, Iohns gospel, or the mistery of the trinitie, he wold not haue made such a furniture of wordes. And he expowndeth it with so great diligence, ād reuerēce as it is meruolose. Thes be the worthy expownders, that expownd mans wordes with more reuerence, and with greater labor, than gods. So now expownding this canō, he saith many things vaine and chil­dish, yea many thinges wicked. Amongst the rest, he saith that parauenture, by gods foresight it is brought to passe, and not procured by mans labor, that the first letter of this canon shuld be T. which in hebrew is called Tau. Which Tau in his shape sheweth and expresseth the signe and mistery of the crosse, because god saith by Ezechiel, print the Tau,Ezech. 9. in the forhead of them that sorow and mourne for the abominations of Ierusalē. For thes things, sayth he, be fullfilled by the passion of Christ, ād the cross, and haue their strenght. And he addeth that in cer­ten bokes, that is to say massebokes the maiestie of the father, ād also the Image of the crucifix is paynted, to the intent that the priest might see (as it were presently) him that he calleth on, and with whom he speaketh, saing Te igitur &c. And that the passion [Page] which here is represented, may pearce in to the eyes of the hart. And he addeth, But the priest kisseth the feete of the Image of the same maiestie. and is cros­sed in the forhead, geuing vs to vnderstand, that he goeth reuerently to the mistery of the redempcion. Not withstonding (saith he) some kisse first the feete of the Image of the fathers maiestie, and affter of the crucifix according to the order of the canon. Other contrary wise. For by the sonn, men come to the father. And wher hath this honest fellowe fownd, that the maiestie of the father can be pain­ted?Exod. 20 Deut. 4.5. what shape hath the father (who is an highe spirite) that we may paint him? Seing he himselff hath so straightly in the lawe commanded that there shuld be made no fasshion nor ymage of god. Is not this to teach men to committ Idolatry?

Let no man maruel that I offten alledge William Durant. For I doo it to none other end but that it may appeare, of what sort the fowndacions of this masse are. For this is he that yeldeth and telleth the causes and reasons of the things that are sayd and done in the masse. Therfor I alledge him offten. But let vs ronne ouer a litle, this canon, And examining it we shal see in it thes vnexpressable misteries aff­ter master durant.

The first is this.

‘WE therfor, O most mercifull father, by Ie­sus Christ thy sonn, our lord doo humbly pray and desire the, that thow wilt accept these gyfftes, these presentys, and these vnspotted sacryfices.’ (And here must be made iij. crosses ouer the host, and the chales likewise) And he addeth. ‘First that we offer to the, for thy holi catholike church, which vouchsafe thow to quiet, to kepe, to Ioyne to gether, and to gouerne in euery part of the earthes compasse, to gether with thy seruant our Pope, and our bisshop (And here is the Pope, and the bisshop of that dyocesse where the masse is said, named by name.’ Or iff thei be friars or mōkes that celebrate, thei name their generall or Abbat, and affter he addeth this. That is to say, And for all the right opinioned, and kepers of the catholyke and apostolik faith.

This is the first of the xi. partis of the canon. In which it is destred that the breade, and the wyne, may be accepted for the church, for the pope, for the bisshops, for the generals fryars or mōkes, and for all the right opinioned, and kepers of the ca­tholik [Page] and apostolik faith. And it is affirmed, that that bread and that wyne, not yet consecrated, a­re holy and vndefiled sacrifices which are offered to god for the church ād for all thos that are there mencioned. And here is no great hardnes, for the wordes be plaine inough, except that those iij. crosses which are made ouer the breade and wyne shuld betoken some very great misteries. Master William durant saith here, that thes iij. crosses doo betoken the iij. deliueries of Christ, the first when god deliuerid his son to the world, the second whē Iudas deliuerid him to the Iewes, and the third whē the Iewes deliuerid him to death. Iff this reason be good, whi make thei not ther 4. crosses? Seing that Christ hath deliuered also him selff as Peter saith,1. Pet. 2. Tradebatautem se iudicanti iuste that is he deliuered himselff to him that Iudgith Iustly. Is not this Christ, as mā and as priest, deliuered or offered vnto god,Eph. 5. a sacrifice for our sinnes? And doth not S. Paul to the Ephes. say, that Christ deliuered himselff for the church to sāctifie it?Heb. 9. [...]0. ād to the hebrews, in how many places is ther made mencion,Math. 20. that Christ hath offred himselff to god? yea Christ him selff doth witnes, that he hath geuē his life for vs. Is not this deliuery of as great importan̄ce, as that of the Iewes, and rather greater? And [Page 34] why is ther not mencion made of it in thes cros­ses? He saith also that thes iij. crosses are made, in the worship of the trinitie, and also in betokening the threfold vnion in the acceptacion of Christ. Also in rememberance of the threfold crucifi­ēg, that is to say, In the will, In the cries, ād in the work. And for the iij. times before the lawe, that is to say from Adam to Noe, frō Noe to Abrahā, frō Abraham to Moyses. So that this our master Durant, allegeth as many significations of thes iij. crosses as there are threfoldnessis or nombers of thre Imagined. Behold now the great miste­ries of this Canon.

Moreouer who hath auctorised him that made this Canon to giue so many significa­cions to thes crosses? Is it in mans powr to doo it? Thes things, to him that vnderstandeth, are supersticious, and vnknowen, not only of the Apostles, but also of the primatiue, and puer church. I could, if I wold, touch that matter, how that bread, and that wine, not yet consecrated, could be sacrifices which are offered for the whole church and for all the faithfull: but of this matter we will speake more here affter when we will proue, Yea that the bread and wine consecrated, that is to say, whan thei be, a sacra­ment [Page] are no sacrifyces: but only a memory of the trew sacrifice, thei be so muche lesse sacrifi­ces whan as yet thei be not a sacrament, that is to say not yet consecrated, as we shall further de­clare.

‘The second part of the canō is the momento, which is a prayer that is made for the liuing, and it is this, Lord remember thy seruants men and wemen. (And in this place, praier is made for certen particular parsons, as semeth good to hym that sayth the masse, and affter he addeth, And all the bowt standers whos faith is plaine vnto the, and their deuocion knowen. For whom we offer vnto the, or els they offer vnto the, this sacrifice of praise, for thē selues, and for all theirs, for redempcion of their sowles for the hope of helth, and for their safetie. And thei yeld vp their vowes, vnto the eternal liuing and trewe god.’

In this memento ther is nothing but may be easily vnderstand. Here he that sayth the mas­se affirmeth, that that same bread and wyne which are not yet consecrate, but bare bread and wine, are offered to god for the redempcion of their sowles, of whom memory is made, and also of the about standers. This speach doth a base [Page 35] Christ, because it semeth, that Christ shuld not haue redemed thos sowles, as withowt dowt he hath done. And he first promysed it, and all the scriptures affirme,Math. 20, Heb. 9. that he nedeth no more to doo it. Paul to the hebrewes sayth that Christ hath fownd owt the euerlasting redempcion. In the Apocalipse, Iohn saith,Apoca. 5. Thow hast redemed vs in thy blood (and speaketh to Christ) of euery tribe, tong, people, ād nacion, And hast made vs, vnto our god kings and priestes. And how many saings, iff we wold, and also nede were, could we bring forth? But it nedeth not in so plaine a mat­ter, to alledge moo witnessis. Shuld we confesse, (as this praier doth) that with breade and wine is made the redempcion of our sowles? Christ only is our redemer, and not the bread, nor the wine, vnconsecrated, no nor when they be conse­crated, (as thei call it.) But let vs admitt that thei were consecrated (which not with stonding thei be not) and that Christ were with vs bodily in parson, yet it shuld not nede any more to offer him for the redempcion of our sowles, because he hym selff hath done that withowt vs, and hath offered hym selff ones for euer, to bring that to passe. What nedeth it than any more to offer him for that purpos? Ought we not to beleue that our [Page] redempcion is made, withowt seking who shuld make it againe, as though it were not made? Therfor this memento is wicked.

The third part of the canon is a praier in this forme.

‘Cōmunicating and honoring the memory of the gloryous and cōtinuall virgin Mary mother of god ād of our lord Iesus Christ, ād of the bles­sed Apostels and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, An­drew,The euelnes of the latin proueth him vnlear­ned in the latin tonge that made it Iames and Ihon, Thomas, Iames, Phi­lip, Bartilmew, Simon ād Thadeus, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Grisoganus, Iohn and Paul, Cosmyan and Da­myan, and of all thy sainctes, for whos desertis and prayers grant vs that we may (with the help of thy defence) be strengthened in all thinges by the same Christ our lord Amen.’

It is said that Siritius the pope did add thes wordes. In which is celebrated the rememberans of the gloryos mother and Virgin, and of the other sainctes here named. But why there shuld be made memory of thos rather than of many other, he that hath made this Communicantes, ought to tell it. It is destered that by owre com­municating with the saintes, and by parta­king [Page 36] of their good things, and by honoring the memory of them, that god thorow their merites wold grant vs in all things to be strengthned with his help. In this parte also there is nothing has is not easyly vnderstand. And why he doth [...]ere suppose, that the saincts pray for vs, which [...]s not fownd by the holy scripture, we shuld [...]alke a litle on this matter, but at this time we will attend to that which is of more waight, And we wil leaue this till a nother time to auoide tedyosnes to the reader.

THE II. CHAPTER. The iiij. and v. part of the canon is examined, that is, Hanc igitur oblationē and Quā oblationē It examineth also the vi. and vij. part, which is Qui pridie ād simili modo, where mē may plainly see, that the defenders of the masse, know not what Consecracion is, no nor with what wordes, nor whanit is made.

‘The iiij. part of the canō is this, that is to say, We besech the therfor o lord, that thow wilt [Page] accept or take this oblaciō of our seruice, and of all thy howsold, and that thow woldest dispose our dayes in thy peace and command that we may be freed from euerlasting damnacion, and be nombred among the flock of thine elect thorow Iesus Christ our lord, Amen.’

Te fifft part is this, that is to say. ‘The which oblacion, o god, we besech the, vouchsaue in all, things to make blessed, auctorissed, reasonable and acceptable, so that to vs it may be made, the body and blood of thy very welbeloued sonn our lord Iesus Christ,’ (And saing thes wordes there are made v. crosses, the first but ouer the breade only, and the last ouer the cupp only, the other iij. ouer the bread and the cupp together.) Ma­ster durant reciteth diuers exposicions of thes words, benedictā, ascriptā, ratā, ratio nabilē, ād acceptabilē, ād of thes crosses, and findeth owt certen other trines or threes, diuers from them that he hath taught before: But what neded it to institute so many cros­ses and supersticious doings, as things necessa­ry, whan Christ hath not commanded them nor his apostels, nor were neauer vsed by the prima­tiue church. The apostle paule, not being so bold, to ordein the sacrament otherwyse, than [Page 37] as Christ had taught him, that he had done in the last supper, saing to the Corynthyans, Hoc .n. accepi a Dnō ꝙ & tradidi nobis &c. 1. Chorin. 11. That is, that wich I receiued of the lord deliuered I vnto you. That pure and holy order geuin by Christ, and kept with so great reueren­ce, by his apostels, ought to haue suffised vs, and not to make so many addicions, which blemissh, (I wil not say beray) the purenes of the sacramēt, as thei haue done of baptym, to which they haue ioyned, salt, oyle, spyttel, coniuring, which things neither Iohn Baptist, whan he baptised Christ, nor the apostels did euer vse. And thes which with reuerence doo kepe Christes ap­pointment, and with humblenes doo obey him, are now cownted for heretikes, as though thei were more bownd to obey men than god. Let euery faithfull Christyan, iudge iff we say the treuth. This fift part of the canon, geueth to vnderstand clerely, that by thes wor­des, offerings, sacryfices and giftes, is vn­derstand the wine, not yet consecrated, And that thei be none other, but breade, and wyne. ffor he desireth, that thei may become, the body, and blood of Christ. So that according to the canon the bare simple breade, and the bare simple wyne [Page] are a sacrifice for the redempcion of sowles and for saluacyon, as in the ij. part hath bene sayd. We may not here glose that the Canon intendeth that the breade and wyne whan they shall be tur­ned in to the body and blood (as thei say) shall be a sacrifice for the raunsominge of sowles, for it meaneth, of that breade and of that wyne whi­ch are to become the body and blode. Now is it certen yea affter their own mind, that that brea­de and that wyne which are yet to become the body and blood of Christ, are bare playne breade and bare wyne, And yet the Canon sayth that thei be a sacrifice for the raunsominge of sow­les, which is a plaine wickednes.

The syxt part of the Canon, saith, The which (that is to say Chryst of whom is made mencion in the former part) the day before he suffered,The sixt parte of the canō of the masse whi­th the consecration. toke the bread in his holy and honorable handes (here the priest taketh the host in his handes and addeth) And his eies beinge lift vp into heauen, to the god, his father almyghty, yelding to the thanckes, he blessed. ‘(And here is made a crosse vpon the host and is added) he brake and gaue to his discyples, saing, Take and eate all of this ffor this is my body.’ (And here the host is liffted, [Page 38] vp and caused to be honored, a thing which christ hath not appointed. But why is not the breade than broken as Christ did, seing he com­manded that thei shuld doo this in his remem­berance, And not to cause the breade or wi­ne to be honored?) Whan this is done the host is laid down, vpon the aulter and the cupp is taken in hand, and the other part which is the seauenth part, is said, that is to say.

Likewise whan thei had supped taking this noble cupp in his holy and honorable handes,The vij. parte of the Canō of the masse. ren­dring thanckes again vnto the, he blessed (and he­ [...]e is made a crosse ouer the cupp and added) ‘And [...]aue to his disciples saing, Take and drinck all of [...]his, for this is the cupp of my blood, of the newe [...]nd euerlasting testament, a mistery of the faith, [...]he which shall be shed for yow and for many for [...]he remission of sinnes, so offt as yow shall doo thes things, yow shall doo them in my remembrā ­ce.’ (And saing thes last wordes the cupp is lifft vp and caused to be honored as we haue said of the host, that is to say, all to gether contrary to chri­stes ordinance.

In thes ij. partes is made the consecracion of the breade and wine. And in the consecracion of [Page] the bread are added ij. wordes that are not in the euāgelistes, that is to say that word, enim, and that other Ex hoc oēs. And in the cōsecraciō of the wine are added ij. other, that is eterni, ād misteriū fidei, which likewise are not in the­euāgelistes. And it is to be marueled seing the defē ders of the masse say, that with Christes wordes the consecracion is made, and that thei ought not to add or minissh them, and so moch the rather as thei them selues say, that Christ gaue the powre of consecracion to thos wordes that he spake not to any other, how durst thei be bold to ad any one word. I will not now say that by this the sentence is changed. Neuertheles seing we ought not to vse any other wordes than thos same that Christ spa­ke, because he gaue the powr of consecracion, to thos only and not to any other, as thei say, and that we cānot knowe certenly what wordes thei shuld be, but by the euāgelistes or by paule, And finding thos wordes that the canon doth add, neither in theuangelistes nor in paule, it is a great rasshnes to add them. Here the Rational or cause teller of diuine officis, saith, that the apostels had the ma­ner of the consecration from Christ and we from thapostels. And that it is not to be merueled though these wordes which seme added, be not [Page 39] fownd in the euangelistes, and yet spokē by christ: For the euangelistes for shortnes haue past ouer many things which the apostels haue supplied. And he giueth thexample of the visiō which Paul declareth in the 1. to the corinthiās,1. Cor. 15: that Christ affter his resurrection appeared to moo than v. hon­dreth brethern, of which vision theuangelistes make no mencyon at all, and yet it was trewe. He alledgeth also that amōg theuangelistes one declareth one thing and a nother leauith owt the same &c. All this is trewe that theuāgelistes haue leffe owt certē things which were done, ād allthoughe the one supplieth that which the other leaueth owt, this maketh not that we ought to add to the wordes of the euangelistes, chefely to them of the consecracion, to which wordes only, Christ (according to their oppinion) hath geuen powr to change the breade in to the body and the wine in to the blood, and not to any other. Who doth asserten vs that Christ spake this word enim ād thes other words aded that is to say, Ex hoc oēs ād thos other ij. that is to say aeterni and misteriū fidei. We be certē of the appearing of Christ, to moo than v. hondreth brethern, because Paul, to whom christ did reueale it, hath writon it. But if Paul had not writon it, and finding it not in the [Page] gospell how could it be certenly known? And how shall we be bownd to beleue it. Likewise this is the cause why things lefft owt by one euangelist are knowen, because a nother doth tell them, but if all had lefft them owt, how could we certenly knowe thē? O sai thei, the church had it frō the Apostels, Saist thow so, how doest thow knowe it? I will not beleue the, how many things are sayd of the Apostels ād are attributet to thē which neauer were? We might than affter this sort attribute to the Apostels what we wold. Paul writing to the Choryntes,1. Corith. 11. teacheth them the forme of the dedica­cion of the breade and the wyne, and sayth that he had it of the lord, and yet he putteth not in, any of thes wordes, and yet surely for all that he teacheth to consecrate well. Why than doth he not putt in thes wordes? Iff in the consecration there were nothing considered but the sentēc [...], it made no matter though some words were added or minisshed, so that the sentēce were not altered. But the consideracion here is of the wordes, that is to say, what thei be to which Christ hath geuen the powr to consecrate, and to them it be­houeth not to add or to minissh. All this I say according to their opinion. For thei wold that Christ shuld haue geuen the vertew of [Page 04] consecrating, to the wordes which he himselff spake and not to other. And yet thes wordes, that I say are added, be neither in theuange­listes nor in Paule. Here must we say, that Paul taught not to consecrate well, because he spake them not. Or els iff Paul taught to consecrate well, that Christ spake not thos wordes. And if Christ spake them not, thei haue vsed a great rasshnes that haue added them, specyally, hauing that opinion that thei haue of the consecracion, that is to say, of the powr geuen to thos wordes only that Christ pronownced. Moreouer what is the cause that in the consecracion of the bread are not putt in thes wordes which christ pronoūced, that is Quod ꝓuobis datur which is giuen for yow, as Luke saith, or els ꝙ pro uobis tradet ād frāgitur, which is brokē for yow, as Paul saith, as in the cōsecratiō of the wine there be thes wordes, Which shall be shed for yow and for many for the remission of sinnes, the body being no lesse geuen for our re­dempcion than the blood? Why haue thei in this part maymed the wordes of the conse­cracion of the breade and not thos of the consecracion of the wine; let euery man Iudge if this ought to be done. But this is the best of the matter, that the defenders of the [Page] masse to mainteine it, say that that breade and that wyne is changed, the one in to the body, that is to say the bread, and the other in to the blood, that is the wyne. And are muche combe­red, because thei can not tell what is shewed by this demonstratiue, Hoc whan is said, Hoc est corpus meū that is to say, this is my body. If by this word Hoc, be shewed the breade, the saing is false, because the breade is not changed in to the body, till all the wordes of the consecracion be vttered. Iff the body be shewed, it semeth that the body shuld be there before the wordes were spoken, and before the consecracion shuld be made. And we haue the like to say of the wordes of the consecracion of the wine, which thing is declared whan is said, Hoc ē. n. sāguis meus &c. Iff the wine be shewed, it is false that the wine shuld be blood. If the blood be shewed, it semeth that the blood shuld be there before the consecration were ma­de. Which thing cānot be. And therfor some say affter one sort and some affter a nother, and to be short thei knowe not what thei may say.

1 One saith that this Hoc. doth shewe partly to the sence and partly to the vnderstonding. And this is the meaning of thes wordes, this is [Page 41] my body that is to say, that into which this thing shall be transsubstantiate, is my body. And this is the opinion of Rychard of S. Victor in his boke of the trinitye. Certē other say that the with comes of the breade are shewed, And this 2 is my body, is as moch to say, as in this is my bo­dy. Some other say, that this pronown, Hoc, is 3 taken materially, and doth not shewe any thing whan it is pronownced in the cōsecraciō. But christes wordes only are repeated. To 4 other the contray appeareth, ffor whan Christ pronownced thos wordes, he shwed some thing and did consecrate. Therfor now also, being the same wordes and hauing the selff same vse that thei had whan Christ spake them, thei shall ha­ue the selff same significacion. And euen as Christ than shewed some thing, so now must some thing be shewed. Innocentius the iij.5 in his bokes of the office of the masse, doth hold that Christ cōsecrated with other words thā thes Hoc est corpus meū and Hic ē calix sāguinis mei. Some other haue said that the 6 powr of consecrating is geuen to thes wordes, that is to say, that at the vttering of them is made he trāssubstāciacion. Some other say, and amōg 7 he rest master Durant, that Christ first did con­secrate [Page] with a diuine powr not knowē to vs, and affter he declared the fasshiō with which affter him mē shuld consecrate. For Christ blessed with his own powr, but we doo blesse by the vertu that he hath geuen to the wordes with which men cō secrate, that is Hoc est corpus meum and hic est sanguis meus. And whan the priest pronownceth thes wordes, the breade is changed into the body, and the wine in to the 8 bloode. There be other that say that Christ consecrated with other wordes than thes Hoc est corpus meum, and that he consecrated whan he blessed. Peter cōmestor saith that Christ consecrated with thes wordes Hoc est cor­pus meum and hic est sanguis meus but he spake them sofftly to him selff and chan­ged the breade in to the body and the wine in to 10 the blood, and affter he repeated them with a lowd voice to the apostels. Other some say that Christ pronownced the wordes twise, first to ge­ue them the vertu of consecrating, and affter he pronownced the same wordes to teach the apo­stels 11 the fasshon of consecrating, and this opiniō is litle differing from the former. Some other say that the breade and the wine are both consecra­ted [Page 42] together, that is to say whan the wine is consecrated, than is the breade consecrated and not before. Other some say that the breade first is consecrated 12 and aff [...]er the wine. Abowt the forme of consecrating of the wine, some say, as Bonauenture 13 in the iiij. of the sentences the viij. distinction, and many other, that thes wordes hic est ca­lix sanguinis mei be of the substance of the forme of consecrating the wine the other which be added, that is to say, Noui & aeter ni testamenti, be only to furnissh. Thomas 14 of Aquine in the iij. part of his somm, saith that all thes wordes be of the substance. Scotus saith 15 that being vnknowen for certenty whether thei be of the substance of the form or not, that men ought not to determine that it shuld be so, but thei ought to say all, as iff thei were of the sub­stance of the forme, albeit that comonly the do­ctors agree with Bonauenture. And here is to be noted that according to the opinion of Scotus, it is not yet knowē what shuld be the wordes of cō secracion of the wine, but in part. It is sure that he said the truth, that neither he nor Bonauen­ture nor Thomas of Aquina nor as many moo scole doctors as be defenders of the masse, euer knewe certenly the very poinctt which [Page] shuld be the partes of consecracion, And this is the profe theroff. For iff thei had knowen it, there shuld not haue bene so great a diuersitie and confusion of opinions as we haue sene. And we could yet, (iff we wold) speake of others. This their so gret diuersitie, sheweth plainely that thei neuer knewe it nor neuer were certen of the matter. And it is most certen that iff the opinion that thei defend were trewe, there shuld neuer haue bene so many and so diuers opinions.

What a vaine thing is it than to say that by the vertu of certen wordes shuld be made a chan­ging of the breade and the wyne in to the body and blood of Christ, which thing not withston­ding by the holy scripture cānot be shewed, that is, that by the vertu of certen wordes the sub­stance of things shuld be chāged, and of the other part not to knowe or not to be certen which shuld be thos wordes? Thei speake also in such sort of this consecratoin, that affter their owne opinion, the church or the peple that heare the masse are neuer certen whether the consecracion be made or not. For the master of sentencis saith in the iiij. that the heretikes can not bring it to passe, that is to say, to consecrate. And also he saith, yow must haue the intent, for otherwise [Page 43] yow consecrate not. And who can be certen, ei­ther of the faith or of the intēt of him that celebrateth? Surely no man, being such things in the con­sciens of man which none seith but god and he that celebrateth. Therfor the peple that heare the masse, is neuer certen whan the consecracion is made and whan not. The cause whi this confusiō is amōg them, first is because thei knowe not pro­perly what maner of thing consecracion is. For consecracion meaneth one thing, and thei thinck it shuld haue a nother meaning. Besides thei be­leue or at the least cause mē to thinck that thei beleue, and thei preach the same as an article of the faith, that that breade and that wine is changed thone in to the trew ād substāciall body of Christ, (that is to say the breade) the other (that is to say the wyne) in to his blood. And thei say that Christ really in body ād sowle, as gret and as thick as he was vpon the wood of the crosse, and as now he is in heauen, is wholly in that litle host and wholly in that cupp where the wine was. And thei will that here there shuld come to gether many mira­cles, and thei hold that this meruelos change, which thei call transsubstanciaciō, shuld be done by the vertu of thos wordes of the consecracion, And thei will that consecraciō doth meane chan­ging [Page] of breade in to the body, and of wine in to the blood, made with thes wordes. So that they make this consecracyon, as the inchanters were wont to make their inchantmēts with certē wordes, wich they (being deceiued by the deuel) thinck to haue vertu to worke certen wōderfull effectys. So doo they, that thinck with thes wordes spoken softly ouer the breade and the wyne, to change by vertu of the same, the bread and the wyne in the body and blood of Iesus Christ.

Thes ij. be the causes why they know not with what wordes, the consecratyō is made, nor whā it is made. ffor hauing that opinyon that they haue, that is to say, that there is made that merue­lous change of bread ād wine, thes wordes hoc est corpus meum, make than the difficul­tye, and they knowe not what thing is shwesd by this word, hoc, For iff the breade be shewed the saing appeareth falss vnto them, because the breade is not the body of Christ tyll all the wor­des be spoken, and whan they shewe the breade, the wordes be not yet spoken. Than seing the body is not yet there, there can not be shewed by this word, hoc, the body which yet is not. And if they say, they shewe the body by this, hoc, that saing hoc est corpus meum semyth to them vntrew likewise, for seing the body is not [Page 44] yet there in that host, it can not be shwed in it. And thus not knowing how to make trewe that saing, what soeuer sort they shuld speake it, they goo abowt writhing it a thowsand maner of ways ād wold fayne help the matter if they could, but they fynd not the way, for god will not. As it chā ced to Pharaos coniurers that could not doo that they wold.Exo. [...]. So thei wold (yet for all that hol­ding that opinyon they hold, and for to geue credyt to the masse) they wold yet, I say, make that saing agree with this theyr opinion, but there is no meanes how. Let them turne it yet as they will, theyr opynyon standing, Christes saing hoc est corpus meum cannot be made trewe. Thā theyr opynynō is most false, which cā not stād with gods truth that is to say, his word.

It is chanced also to them, as to thos that wold haue bylded the gret tower of Babilon and haue made it meruelos high, as it is writon in Genesis,Gene. [...]. but god confused their tonges, that one dyd not vnderstand a nother, allthough that all did agre to the bylding of it. Euē so it hapnyth to thes carpēters or builders of the masse, wich also wold if they could, lifft it vp euen to heauen and make it be cownted as a godly thing, and an high worship. And thei all are agreed to this workmanship. And because they see that iff thei [Page] hold not that the trew body of Christ is in the host ād his trew ād naturall blood in the cupp, the masse shuld not be in price or any estimacion, but rather by and by shuld decay, therfor aboue all things thei take hede to this to persuade and by all meanes thei can, to make the peple beleue that Christ is really and bodily in that host and that cup. Neuertheles god hath confused their tōgs ād their mindes in to so many waies and opiniōs, in to so diuers fansies ād spechis, that the one is disagreing ād cōtrary to the other. This is now a pla­in and a manifest tokē that this workmāship pleaseth not god, and finally shall fall to the grownd, to the intent that the saing of Iesus Christ may be verified, that eueri plantinge which the heauinly father hath not planted shall be rooted vp.Mat. 15. We doo not now intend to goo abowt to proue here that that their opinion is false, that is to say that the breade and wine shuld be changed, the one in to his body, and thother in to his blood, because we shuld make to long a digression from our purpos. But with gods fauor, whan we haue ended this discours of the masse and the masse booke, we will in the end of the boke Ioine to it a plaine sermon of this matter in the which we will proue the treuth. And for this time we will make it onli ap­peare, [Page 45] that thei vnderstōd not what consecraciō meaneth. Therfor yow must vnderstād that Cō secrare affter the holy scripture, meane [...]h not to chāge one thing in to a nother by vertu of certen wordes, as thei take and vnderstand the consecracion of bread and wine, minding that it shuld be a changing of their substances in to other substancis, that is to say, in to the body and blood of Iesus Christ. For a thing that is consecrated, is not marred or destroied, that it shuld not be any more the same that it was (as thei say of the breade and wine, that thei remaine no longer affter the consecracion, but are vndone and destroied, and be no more that thei were) but the thing that is consecrated, remaineth the selff same that it was first, and is not altered in his substance, but only is dedicate or appointed to a certen holy vse to the which first it was not appointed or ordeined. This is the meaning of consecrare As for ex­ample, And hows is said to be cōsecrated to god, whan it is appointed to some holy vse, as a man wold say to the preaching of gods word to the administracion of the sacraments and to comō praier. Euen so man is consecrated to god, whan he is dedicated and appointed to an holy and secred vse of gods seruice. All christians be consecrated [Page] to god, that is to say, dedicated and appointed to his seruice, which is an holy thing, because thei be the trewe temple of god, in the which he dwelleth with his holy spirite, as S. Paul saith in many places.1. cho. 3. 2. cho. 6. Ephe. 2. Now it appearith that the man remainith still the same and is not changed in substance, because he is consecrated to god, but only is dedica­ted and appointed to gods seruice, to which he was not first appointed. This which we say, we say not of our selues, but owt of the holy scriptu­re in mani places,Exo. 13.29. num. 6. Leuiti. 27. as in Exodus numerus, leuiticus. It is writton in exodus, that euery first borne male shuld be consecrate to god as well of men as of beastis. Also that Aron and his childern were consecrated to be priestes. It appe­rith in numerus as well of men as wemen that were consecrated to god. In the last of leuiticus where is spoken of the consecracion of men and of feldys and vniuersally of eueri consecrated thing. It appeareth that that consecracion doth not meane to change one thing in to another with wordes, but meaneth to dedicate and appo­int, and as a man wold sai to appropriate a thing to god and to an holy vse. Euery thing that is cō secrated to the lord, saith god, whether it be mā, beast, or felde, shall not be sold nor can not be re­demed [Page 46] or raunsomed. And thes were the conse­cracions made in the lawe, which although we doo not now vse, yet neuertheles thei giue vs to vnderstand, what Consecrare meaneth, and that it importeth nothing els but to dedicate ād appoint a thing to an holy vse. And so we will say of the consecracion of breade and of wine, that it is no changing of their substancis made by vertu of wordes, but it is an appointing to an holy vse, that is to say that thei shuld signifie and bring to our remembrance the body and blood of Christ how he gaue them for our redempcion. As he him selff said whan he instituted this holy sacrament of breade and wine,Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Corint. 11. saing that thei shuld doo this in his remembrance. We haue be­ne long in this our talk, which we haue done, for the ignorant and not for the lerned, and becaus the matter is waighty.

THE III. CHAPTER. This examineth the viij. part of the canon and declareth how he that saith the masse, vsur­peth that office that is Christes, and also saith a most wicked praier, which is a gret wrong to Christ.

[Page] ‘THe viij. part of the canon, is this, that is to say, Wherfor we thy seruantes and thy holy peple, remembring vs of christ thy sonn our lord of so blessed a passion and resurre­ction from the deade, and of the glorios ascēsion in to the heauens, doo offer to thy most excellēt maiestie of thy rewardes and gifftes, the pure host, the holy host, the vnspotted host.’ (and here saing thes wordes are made iij. crosses ouer the host and ouer the cup consecrated, to gether, that is to say ouer both of them. And affter he addeth) ‘Holy breade of life euerlasting and the cup of continuall helth, (And here ij. other crosses be made, the one whan the bread is named ouer the same host, and the other ouer the cupp whan the same is named.)’

In this viij. part, is affirmed that the priest and the peple by the remembrans that thei haue of his death, resurrection and ascension, doo offer vnto god that host and that cupp consecrated, which be, as thei think, the trewe body and very blood of Christ. But where is it fownd in all the whole scripture that Christ or god did euer or­dein that either the priest or the peple shuld offer vnto god the body and blood of Iesus Christ? In dede [Page 47] we find that we ought to make a memory of such an offering as christ hath made. And ther­for he hath ordeined this sacrament to thintent that we shuld vse the remembrance of that obla­cion. But that we ought to offer to god either the body or the bloode of his sonn, that hath god not appointed vs, nor yet Christ nor ani Apostel, euer made mēcion of it. For this office to offer vnto god the body and blood of christ, belongeth only to christ, who is the high ād euerlasting priest,Heb. 7.9.10. and it belongeth not to vs. And the some christ hath done it ones for all, whan he was offered and died vpon the crosse. And it nedeth not to doo it offtner, because that that only time hath suffised to satisfie god for the sinnes of all the elect. And that which we doo now in the sacrament, is not the offering of Christes body ād blood but is a memory of that offering. And who knoweth not, that the memory of a thing, is not the selff same thing, but a remēbrance of it? And if ani wold say for all this, that it belōgeth to christians to offer christ in the sacramēt, because Peter saith that the Christiās be an holy priesthoode, to offer spirituall offrings acceptable to god by Iesus christ, To this I say, that Peter meaneth not here to speake of the sacrament, but meaneth of thos hostis, that is to say, spirituall sacrifices, the which not only [Page] the priestes, but all christiās may and ought to offer vnto god, accepted by Iesus Christ. And thes hostes or sacrifices, we be first our selffes, which ought to offer our selues ūto god ass. Paul exhorteth to the romans, saing, I pray yow that yow will giue vp or offer your bodies an holy, liuing, ād pleasing host vnto god, which is your reasonable seruing of god. This sacrifie is made bi deniēg of ourseluis, besides that, praisses, thankesgeuing, pra­iers, allmes deedes, and to be short, all duties off Christiā deuociō, be sacrifices. And to proue that this is trowth, Peter speketh not here to the pre­stis only, but he speaketh to all the christen pe­ple and to all the faithful whom he calleth a chosen peple, a kingly presthode &c. The prest than that saith the masse, vsurpeth the office that belō ­geth only to christ. But we will speake of this yet more largily in the iiij. part.

There foloweth further more in this part, a praier, ‘that is to saie, Vpon which things (or els) vp­on which gifftes (and speaketh of that host, and that wine cōsecrated, which affter their opiniō are the trewe body and the naturall blood of Christ) Vpon ihe which things (saith he) vouch­saue to looke, with an helpfull and a fauorable [Page 48] cowntenance, and to accept them as thow didst vouchsaue to accept the gifftes of thy iust ser­uant Abel and the sacrifice of our patriark Abraham and that holy sacrifice, vnspotted host, that thy high prest Melchisedech did offer vnto the.’ Thei that haue made this praier, and that which foloweth, which is the ninth part, either thei by­leued not that Christ shuld be in the host, or in that cupp (and so be heretikes affter the opinion of defenders of the masse, which hold as an arti­ckle of our faith that Christ is really in the Sa­crament) or els, if thei byleuid it, thei haue spokē most folisshly and wickedly. For in this praier, is desiered that god wold accept the body and bloode of Iesus Christ, as he accepted the gifftes and sacrifices of thes iij. that is to say, of Abel, Abra­ham, and Melchisedeck, which were plainly men, ād not withowt sinne (although iust by gods grace) and had nede of the forgeuenes of sinnes. Iff it be so thā (as in dede it is) how doth this praier desire of god, that he wold accept the bodi and blood of Iesus Christ his son̄, as he accepted the sacrifices of thos 3. As though his own sonn were not more accepted, but rather lesse accepted thā the sacrifi­ces of thes 3. which were sacrifices of vnreasona­ble beastes ād of plain creatures. And who dow­teth [Page] the body and blood of christ is withowt measure more accepted thā as many sacrifices as euer were made in the world? Yea who dowthet that all the sacrifices all the offerings, all the seruices, all the good workes of thes iij. fore named, and of all, other mē that euer pleased or were acceptable to god, were accepted by Iesus christ, by his body ād by his blood by the which, god is pacified with vs? who dowteth this but the infidel ād the wicked man? And this praier desiereth that god wold so accept the blood of his son̄, redemer of the world, as he did the blood of beastes. Ah blasphemos praier. Thes be thos great misteries that this canon hath, which Williā Durant expowndeth with so great reuerēce. But some man may parauenture say, that there is not desiered in this praier abso­lutly that the body and the blood of Iesus Christ for themselues, shuld be acceptable to god as the sacrifices of thos iij. holy men, because there is no dowt, but that thei be more acceptable, for them selues, thā all the sacrifices of all mē of the world. But there is desiered, that thei may be accepta­ble to god for vs, and so is the praier to be vnder­stond. This answer semeth suttle, and som contentios man might parauēture shew him selff stowt with it, but it is nothing worth. For let them say [Page 49] what thei will, it shall be allwaies inconuenient. ffor iff they wil desyre that the body and blood of Ihesus Christ (for them selues) shuld be acceptable to god, as the sacrifices of simple men, no man wil euer say, that this shuld be conueniente. And euen so shall it be inconuenyēt also to pray that the body and the blood off Ihesus Christ, shuld be accepted, for vs as the sacrifyces of thos iij weare. Because it is very cōuenyent that thei shuld be moch more acceptable to god for vs than the sacrifices of thos iij. ffor because the bo­dy and blood of Ihesus Christ haue obteyned vs forgeuenes of sin̄es, redemption grace and euerlasting liffe, a thinge that thos sacrifyces could not doo to thos iij. that dyd them. Thos sacrifyces were in dede fygures of Christ, but they dyd not take a way sin̄es nor gaue not helth as S. Paul saith to the hebrews.He. [...]. Here Williā Durant sayth in his ratyonall, that this word, sicut, doth meane likelynes and not quantytye.

But this is nothing worth, for iff we shuld offer ony gyfft that were a playne creature, we might ask this: But the sonn of god is offered, who cā not but be more accepted to god withowt comparison [Page] than thos sacrifices. This praier is fond, and is, as if for a gret prince that had infinite riches, some frind of his wold desire and pray god that he wold make the same prince as rich as a priua­te citizin. Such a praier, shuld be scorne worthy and folissh, euen so is this. And absolutely to him that well considereth the matter, he that made this praier, did not byleue that the body and blood of Christ shuld be really in that host ād cupp, but beleued that there was thonly bread and wi­ne, euen as in baptime we haue no change of the water but the water remaineth water as before, allthough it be a sacrament which it was not be­fore. Yet to be a sacrament doth not change the water, as concerning the substance. Euen so the bread and the wine in the sacrament remaine bread and wine still. For iff he had thought that the body and blood of Christ had bene in the sacra­ment realli, he wold neuer haue made that pra­ier, for it is to fond. Iff Christes body and blood be there, and he byleued it not, it foloweth, according to their opinion, that this praier is here­sy.


Here is examined the ix. part of the canon [Page 50] which is most wicked it examineth also the x. part, which is folissh ād speaketh against it selff. And it examineth also the xi. and last part of the same canon.

‘THe ix. part of the canon is this praier, On our kneis we besech the Allmighty god, command that thes things (that is to say that host and that which is in the cup) may be caried by thy holy Angels handes, to thyne high altare, in to the sight of thy diuine maiestie to the intent that as many of vs as shall receiue of this parta­king of the altare, the most holy body and blood of thy sonn, may be fullfilled with euery heuenly blessing and grace thorow the same Iesus Christ our lord. (And here are made iij. crosses.Masse prystes make ij. manifest ly­es in the canon euen whan thei are most deuoutly at mass which thei can not denie. One vp on the host whan the body is named, another o­uer the cupp whā the same is named, the third is made crossing him selff) And at this praier the prest boweth him selff a litle but he ought to knele downe, seing he saith that he pra­yeth vp on his kneis, and yet he doth not knele but only boweth him selff. As in the first part of this canon, he saith also that he kneleth and yet he kneleth not. And here William Durant vpon thes wor­des, [Page] that is to say, command that thes things may be caryed by the handes of thy holy Angel, vpon the high altare &c, sayth that they be of so gret depth, that mans vnderstanding is veri hardly sufficyent to enter in to them.’ And minding to expound them, he bringeth furth first, Gregories wordes registerd in the decree of consecracyon the 5. distinction Cap. Quid sit sanguis. And because he semed not satiffyed, he bringeth furth iij. other exposityons. the first is that that word, Hec, that is to say, thes things, may meane, not the body and the bloode, but the supplicacyons and prayers of the faithfull, which prayers the angels offer vnto god. And than he geuyth a nother significatyō, wich doth not satisfie hym. And affter he geueth also the third, that is this.

‘Command that thes things, that is to say the mistycall body of Christ, which is gods warfaring church, may be caryed to the high altare that is to say, to the victorios church, and that by the hā des of thy holy angel, that is to say, of christ who is an āgel of the great coūcel as Esai in the ix saith He addeth yet a nother, which for shortnes i will lett passe.’ It is an hard matter surely to defend an vniust cause for a man is constrayned to say many things that be not to the purpos. Id ne­deth [Page 51] not here that master Durāt shuld find owt so many glooses. For the canon speaketh, whan it sayth, thes things, of the host and of the wyne consecrated, as it spake before in the other pra­yer, and speketh not neither of the praiers nor of the misticall body, ffor it made no mencion nei­ther of the one nor of the other in the tother praier. And desyring in this prayer that god wold cō mād thes things to be caried by the hādes of his ā gels, ther is shewed by thos wordes (thes things) the selff same off which he spake off, in the other prayer immedyately going before. And iff he shuld haue ment of other things, it shuld not ha­ue bene to the purpos. More ouer iff it shuld haue ment of the prayers or of the misticall body, thes wordes shuld not haue bene of so gret depth as he sayth. Yea they shuld haue bene very easy to vnderstand, which is against Durant hym selff. Therfor than the canon speaketh of the host and wyne consecrated, which be, as they thinck, the very body and the very blood off Ihesus Christ, and desyereth that they may be caryed and presē ted vpon gods high altar, that is to say in heauen in gods sight. What a tale is this? that Christ [...]huld be caryed by the hands of angels and pre­ [...]ented in to gods sight? Is not Christ now by hym [Page] selff, present in heauē in the sight of the father withowt being caried ād presented bi the āgels? What, the article of our faith sayth that he sit­teth at the right hand of god, and Paul to the Hebrews saith that he sitteth there contynually,He. x. what nedeth it than to cary hym where he is all­redy? Iff any mā wold say that the angels may cary hym so farr as he is in the sacramēt, because that affter that sort he is on the earth. This saing is a very mōster ād vanytye, for Christ so farr as he is in the sacramēt, because he is there vnparta­bly, as thei thinck, he is there in such sort as he cā not be caried as the scole mē thēselues say. More ouer iff he shuld be caried forth affter such sort as he is in the sacrament, it were necessary that the angels shuld cari the sacramēt in to hea­uen, which is neuer sene. I haue said now that he that hath put in thes ij praiers in to the canō, bi the talcke that he maketh, doth shewe that he by leueth not Christes corporall presence in the sa­crament, as we told yow in the former chapter. For iff he had bileued it, he wold neuer haue sa­id such wordes, iff he had had any vnderstōding. He than that made thes praiers, the opinion of thes scole men standing, is an heretike. And ma­ster Durant to defend the canon, because he sa­we, that thes wordes according to his opinion [Page 52] could not stond, he magnifieth them as diuine things, but it neded not being mens wordes and not of the holy scripture, so moch to magnifie them, and to defend expresse errors, desiring to make them holy matters, as he is forced to doo in that his rationall or reason giuer.

The x. part is the Memento in which the dead are praied for. ‘And thus it saith, Also, o lord, haue in thy rememberance thy seruants men and wemen (here is made a particular re­memberans, for certen particular dead folkes, as like him that saith masse, and affter is added,)’

‘The which are gone before vs with the signe of faith, and slepe in the slepe of peace. To thes, o lord, and to all thos that rest in Christ we pray the that thow wilt grant place of comfort, of light and of peace thorough the same Christ our lord Amen.’

Here master Durant in thexposicion of this part, saith, that on the sonday thorough our lordes resurrectiō, it is thought that the sowles shuld haue rest. He meanith, I think, that thei suffer not the paines of purgatory, but the other daies thei doo. O master Durant it is very honest that the sowles in purgatory also shuld kepe the feastes. But I meruel why thei haue not [Page] rest also on the friday, on which day our sauior suffered to take from vs the paines that we had deserued,Esay. 53. as the scripture saith in so many places and chefely in Esay the Prophete, where it is writton that he hath borne our greffes, and that the lord hath layed vpon him all our iniquities, and how he was beaten for the wickednes of the pe­ple and other such saings which be there. Thapostle Paule wold not that there shuld be differen­ce of dayes in Christes church in this life. And re­buked the galathians who obserued dayes.Gala. 4. And he wrote to the colossians, Let no mā iudge yow in meate or drinck,Colos. 2. or in part of an holy day, or of a newe moone, or off the sabboth dayes &c. And shall we put difference of dayes in thother liffe? Not withstonding this is not of the canon, but master Durāts. And to returne to this praier of the Memento, me thincketh that it is fo­lissh and vnsauery, and that it speaketh against it selff. Because first it cōfesseth that the dead doo slepe in the slepe of peace, and that thei rest in Christ. And notwithstonding affter it desireth that god wold giue them place of comfort, of lig­ht and of peace. Iff thei slepe in the slepe of pea­ce and rest in Christ, haue thei not the place of peace? What nede yow axe that thos that slepe [Page 53] in peace shuld haue the place of peace? Is it not all one to slepe in peace and to haue the place of peace? To rest in Christ and to haue place of comfort? Iff the sowles be tormented in purgatory, be thei not dead in torment? How rest thei than? parauenture the defenders of the canon will ans­wer that this praier meaneth of the body, whan it saith that the dead slepe, and not of the sowle. Let it be so. For the sowle in deede slepeth not but only the body. But it saith also that thei haue quietnes and rest, which spech can not be conueniently vnderstand but of that part that may be tro­bled. What rest shall that be to rest in that part that can feele no maner of thing withowt the sowle and to be trobled in that part that in deede felith and l [...]ueth? Whan thei say in their seruice for the deade, requiescant in pace, surely thei meane to speake of the sowle and not of the body. For as moch as it nedeth not to pray that the body of the dead shuld rest, because that of necessitie it doth rest. But the sowle may, as thei thinck, haue troble and paine in purgatory. And therfor thei pray that thei may haue rest as con­cerning the sowle.Apoc. 14. S. Iohn in thapocalips whan he saith blessed are the deade that dye in the lord why doth the spirite say that from hens forth thei [Page] rest from their trauale? will we say that he shuld speake of the rest of the deades body and not of the sowle? Iff he speake of the body what prero­gatiue haue the bodies of the iust vntill the day of Iudgement more than the bodies of the wicked? The one and thother doo rest equally, and there is no difference in this point. And yet Ihon maketh a difference betwene them, for he calleth them the dead in the lorde that is to say, the Iust blessed. And why blessed? because that from hensforth thei shall rest from their trauel and be in quyet, geuing to vnderstand that the other doo not rest frō their trauale but haue more thā euer thei had, because thei be damned to euerlasting paine. So that whan the quietnes of the Iust is spoken of, it meaneth of the quietnes of the sowle and not of the body. Being than thus, that this praier in one part affirmeth that the iust slepe in peace and rest in Christ, and in a nother part desireth that god wold geue them a place of peace and comfort, appeareth that plainly it speaketh against itselff.

‘The xi. and last part is this. To vs sinners thy seruantes that trust in the multitude of thy mer­cies, vouchsafe likewise to giue some part and cō ­pany [Page 54] with thy holy Apostels and martirs, with Iohn, Steuen, Mathy, Barnaba, Ignatius, Alexander, marcellus, pe­ter, felicitas, perpetua, Agatha, Lu­cia, Cecilia, Anastasia, and withall thy saintes in whos felowship we besech the admitt vs, not as a regarder of desertes but as a giuer of pardon through Christ our lord Amen.’

And thes wordes are said somwhat with an higher voice to thentent that thei shuld be som­what hard. And the prest knocketh his brest, re­presenting (saith master durant) the contricion of the these that rebuked thother these. And A­mē, is not answered, partly because the angels that euer be assistent doo āswer thē seluis, ād partli for other causes that he him selff alledgeth. See what reasōs thes be of the masse, vaine and to no purpose. For iff Amen be not āswered because of the assistence of the angels it foloweth that in the masse, Amen shuld neuer be answered, for [...]hangells, as thei thinck, be allweies assistent. He sheweth also the cause why Steuen is put there accōpanied with Ihon before mathy ād barnabas, ād whi memori is made of Ihon ād not of the other Apostels. Without dowt this cannō being [Page] made and affter put in to the masse, for such causes as William Durant alledgeth, thei may boldly take it owt of the masse and the masse booke, withowt any scrupulositie, sauing thos fewe wordes of Christ that are there. For the masse shall be lesse beastly, althoughe it be estemed for the chefe and bewtifullest part, seing that it is allto­gether full of supersticions, beside the multitude of iniquities and blaspemies that be in it. And he that wold axe why mencion is made in this place raither of Ignacius, of Alexander of Marcellinus and Peter, which was a nother, than Peter thapo­stell, and so furth of thes particular holy wemen and martirs than of thother saintes men and we­men, I knowe not what thei shuld answer, being so many other besides thes here named. It is said that certen desiered with great ernestnes, of the popes, to put in there in this canon s. frances, but it wat not granted them, I thinck for this cause least thei of s. Benet, of s. Dominik, of s. Austen and of other sectes shuld haue start vp and also haue desiered to put thereinto their sainctes mē and wemē, as a man wold say, s. Peter the martir, s. Catarin of Siena, who had the marks of Chri­stes woundes as s. francis had. And iff not thes, yet at the least the heades of their orders. I doo [Page 55] not willingly tell thes things, but thei be of gret­ter importance than some thinck. ‘There folo­weth affter also in this xi. part, By the which (that is to say by Christ) create, halow quicken, blesse ād make thes things, O lord, allweyes good vnto vs. And here saing thes wordes, thei make iij. crosses ouer the host and the cupp together.’ And the cupp being vncouered and the host takē in hand, there is added, By him, with him, and in him (and there is made iij. other crosses ouer the" cupp and ij. other betwene the cupp and him selff that sayeth the masse, saing) ‘And to the, god the allmighty in the vnitie of the holy goost, be all honor and glory. (So that there are in all, viij. crosses in thes fewe wordes.’ And master Durant, according to his accustomed maner geueth a reason of euery thing. And what reasons be thei? Fo­lissh and vaine. And surely iff thei that made all this canon, (I say thei, because it was not made all at onis, but at sondry times, and of sondry men) were not moued by more reasonable causes, than a great part of thos reasons that he rendereth, thei were meruelos lightly moued. For the masse shuld haue bene lesse blasphemos than it is if thei had bene lefft owt. And iff thos crosses haue so many significacions, surely thei had great auctoritie [Page] that ordeined them, chefely that making so many of them in this masse thei haue not allwei­es like significacions, but now this, now that ac­cording to the diuersitie of places where thei be made.


This third part of the boke is from thend of the Canon, to thend of the masse, which is diui­ded in to iiij. chapters.

In the first is declared that the saing of the praiers in secret, and to will that he shuld answer Amen that neither vnderstandeth nor heareth the praiers as it is in the masse is a folissh thing. with owt reson and against that which S. Paul saith. Also that the praier that is said affter the Pater noster ought not to be said in secret as it is. And that the making iij. partes of thost and mingling thone of them with the wine is not conuenient.

The first chapter.

[Page 56]WHan the canon is ended, per omnia secula seculorum is said with alowd voice, that euery mā may heare, and Amen is answered, which wordes ought to be ioined with them that goo before, which be the end of the sa­me canon that is to say, ‘By him, with him and in him, and, to the father all mighty in the vnitie of the holy gost, be all honor and glory, affter the which wordes this doth follow, per omnia secula seculorum, to the which is answe­red Amen. But I aske thes men that haue ordeined that this per omnia secula seculo­rum shuld be said a lowd, and affter Amen shuld be answered, and all the rest that goith be­fore thei will that it be said in secret, that no man shuld heare it, but he that saith the masse. To what purpos, I say, will thei that all the peple which are present at the masse, or the clark in steade of them and of all, shuld answer Amen, whan thei vnderstode nor hard no maner of thing that was said in that praier that goth be­fore this per omnia secula seculorū? How can Amen be answered by him that [Page] vnderstandeth not nor heareth that that is sayd? what doth, Amen, meane, but so be it? And a how can a mā say, so be it, that is to say, acording to that which is sayd and desyered, iff he vnder­stand not what the prest sayd and desyered? But let vs put the case that the prest dyd blaspheme or desyred certen cur [...]singes in the stede of bles­singes, what ā āswer shuld this be to say Amē that is to say, so be it? Is this a reasonable matter that the peple shuld say Amē and confirme a thing that they vnderstand not? s. Paul in the 1. to the Corinthians saith expressely that a man can not answer Amen, 1. Co. 14. except he first vnderstand the thing that is spoken. And thei care not to make a mocking stock, of the poore peple, I will not say of god. And this is not done here only but twise besides, that is to say affter the secretes that goo before the preface. For the prest saith them sofftly and therfor thei be called secretes ād whan they be ended, the prest sayth per omnia secula seculorum? And he answereth A­men, that neither vnderstode nor hard what was sayd. And the like is done in the prayer that foloweth the pater noster, which is sayd sofftly, [Page 57] And whan that is ended, also, per om­nia secula seculorum is said, and Amē is answered. It shuld be lesse euil, that the prest who saith thes praiers in secret, and who kno­weth what he said (iff he vnderstand the latin him selff) shuld say Amen, and not make him to answer that knoweth not what he said. Al be it offt times it hapneth also that the prest himselff knoweth not what he hath said because he vnderstondeth not the latin, and yet he saith A­men. And surely the masse is not worthy any other ministers than such like, that is to say, Ignorant and that know not nor vnderstand not what thei them selues doo. Than next affter foloweth, Oremus, preceptis salutaribus moniti, and that the pater noster, which M. Durant saith, hath vij. peticions for Christes vij. wordes on the crosse, and for the vij. wordes of the blessed mother, and for the vij. gifftes of the holy goost, for the vij. beatitudes, and for to flee the vij. deadly sinnes. I meruell that he put not in the vij. planettes of heuen, the vij. starres, and the vij. spirites of the apocalipse, the vij. cannonicall howres, the vij. daies of the weeke and as many seuens as are fownd in the scriptures. I shuld spe­ake [Page] also of the vij. yoyes of our lady, but it is not fownd in the scripture. And from whens is it ga­thered, that for thes seuēfoldnessis Christ hath ordeined that in the pater noster shuld be vij. peticions? Thes are the grownd workes of the masse. whā our sauior taught his disciples the pater noster had he euer any thought of thes seuen­foldnessis, of the which the rationall or reason geuer withowt reason speaketh? I say euen vprigh­tly that I neuer red booke more contrary to his oWn title, than this. It is called the rationall, or reason giuer, but it is the most withowt reason, and the folisshest thing that euer I saw. And ge­ueth to vnderstand that the masse is an vnreaso­nable composiciō, and an hotchpotch ill fauoredly Iombled to gether of diuers mens fantasies. Thes his reasons that he rendereth tend to no o­ther end than to gyue auctoritie to the masse, and to persuade that it is a thing full of secretis ād of diuine misteries. But let him reade it that is minded to loose the time, as thei do that goo to the masse. Affter the Pater noster is said this praier, ‘We besech the, O lord, deliuer vs from all the e­uels, past, present, and to come, and at the request of the blessed and glorios continuall virgin mary [Page 58] mother of god, and of the blessed apostels, Peter, Paul and Andrew, and of all thy saintes, giue vs peace in our daies to the intent that being helped by the help of thy mercy, we may be both free from all sinne and sure from all troble, by the sa­me our lord Iesus Christ thy sonn who liuith and reigneth with the in the vnity of god the h. goost.’ And this praier is said in secret, and I see no caus why it shuld be said in secret. The rationall or reson giuer saith that this silence signifieth the sab­both day in the which the body of the lord did rest in the graue. For thā nōe did preach the faith. And a fore in the title which is of the pater noster and the exposition therof he allegeth a no­ther cause, that is, that this praier is sayd sofftly in token that christ sometyme did hold his peace in his preaching O vaine reason. And why can it not signifie, whan he held his peace vnder Cai­phas, Herode ād Pilate as well as the silence in the sermon? and why is it not said with a lowd voice, to signifie that christ sometime cried owt,Mathei 27. as whā he cried on the crosse, Heli, Heli? ād whā also preaching he cried if any be thirst let him come to me and drinck. And the rationall a litle affter, saith that be cause we be not worthy to deserue the forgiuenes of the things past, present and to come, [Page] except it be geuen vs by the praier of the blessed virgin Mary and of the blessed Peter ād Paul ād thother saintes, therfor we do call them here to our help. But I aske by whos intercession are sin­nes forgeuen? by Peters, Paulis or the sainctes all which had their sin̄es? Iff this praier intend that, that the rationall saith, it is blasphemos, as thou­gh we deserue not pardon eycept by the blissed virgin and of the blessed Peter, Paule, Andrewe and other saintes? And where is this sownd in the holy scripture, that we deserue not forgiuenes of sinnes, but by the praiers of saintes? How doth this rationall knowe this? How can we surely speake of the remission of sinnes, iff not by the word of god? The word of god thorowowtly saith that sinnes are forgeuen vs by christes intreating, and that Iesus Christ is our meane, aduocate and intreater and it appointeth no nother but him, nor maketh no mention of ani other. And this praier will haue that by saintes praiers, sinnes are for­geuen vs. Why saith he not by Christis intercessi­on? Why do we than faine to our selues of our fansy, other aduocates and other intreaters? But let the rationall with his masse tell me a litle the forenamed saintes, and all the rest, by whos intercession deserued thei pardon hauing all had one [Page 59] sinn or others? Sureli all had nede of pardon. It is necessari iff thei will answer well, that thei say bi Christ. Iff it be soo, why do thei allege other than him in the forgeuenes of sinnes? What man so e­uer he be in the world, for so moch as by one on­ly way, the sinnes of the world are forgeuen, as S. Iohn saith, in his 1. pistell, that he is the propy­cyacion for our sinnes, and not only for ours but for all thos of the world. Whā this praier is done, the host is broken ouer the cupp in 2. partes, and one of thos partys is laid vpon the pa [...]en, and the other also is broken in 2. partes, and the one of thes 2. second partis is laid also vpon the paten With the other that first was put there. And affter holding in his hand that other of the 2. pecys also ouer the cupp, he saith per o­mnia secula seculorum. And Amen is answered. And affter he addeth, pax domi­ni sit semper uo biscum. And saing thes wordes, there are made 3. crossis with that pece of the host ouer the cupp. ‘Whē the wordes be spoken and the crossis made, the prest saith thes wordes, that is to say, Let the mixing and conse­cracion of the body of our lord Iesus Christ be vnto vs that do or shall receiue them vnto euerlastinge life.’

[Page]And all thes things haue their significacions and their misteries, that is to say, their supersti­cions. But why doo thei not handle the sacrament as Christ taught? Christ did nat put any part of the breade in to the cupp, but seuerally gaue it to his disciples, first the bread which signified the body, after, the wine, which signifyed the blood, ech one a part by it selff. And dyd not mingle them together as men are wōt to doo sometymes with comon breade that is eaten sopt in wyne. This is not conuenyent in the holy sacramēt, the which ought not to be hādeled otherwyse thā as Christ hath taught vs. Here the racyonall sayth, that this mixture is made for iij. causes. The first is to signifye that the body is not withowt the blood nor the blood withowt the body. The second is to signifye that there is not but one sacrament.

The third is to declare the returne of the sowle to the body. And what meaneth it that the A­postels and the prymatyue church the which kept the singlenes of the institucyon of the sacrament haue not added thes mynglings? What is this but to handell the diuyne misteryes affter our owne fasshion, yea rather to make a mock at them. And euen as they them selues haue added, why also may not we make other addicyon and [Page 60] gyue them their significacyōs, and add eueri day to this masse euen tyll the day of iudgement, and make it so long that thei shuld stand an hole yea­re in saing it? Than, what meaneth this word cō secracyon whan the prest sayth, let this mixture and consecracyon of the body and blode of our lord Ihesus Christ be mades? Is not the consecracyon made allredy and the bread turned in to the body and the wyne in to the blood, as thei say? what nedeth it more that it shuld be made agayne a newe, iff it be made allready? Except thei wold vnderstand and golfe affter this fasshō, that is to say let the comixcyon of the body and the bloode that we make, and the consecracyon allready made, become to vs that shal take it, the body and blood of Christ to the profite of euerlasting liffe. But I can not tell if this were his mynd or no that ordeyned this part of the masse.

THE SECOND CHAPTER. Of the Agnus Dei: of the iiij. prayers that goo before the receauyng of the sacrament and of ij. that folow. How gret a part of the last prayers in the masse be wicked and some of them speake against the pryuate masse.

[Page]THe agnus dei foloweth which is said iij. times. Affter that are said iij. praiers the first destreth that god wold not looke vpon the sinnes of him that saith the masse, and that he wold according to his will agree and make one the church. The second destreth that by the most holy body and blood of Christ he wold deliuer him from iniquitie and from all his euels. And praith that he may be brought nerer to the commandments of god and that he may neuer be sondered from him. The third desireth that the sacrament shuld not become his iudgement and cō demnacion but that it might be a defence of his sowle and body. ‘Whan thes iij praiers are said, he taketh the host in his hand saing, I will take the heuenly breade, and wil call vp on the na­me of the lord, and knocketh his brest iij. times saing also thrise, Domine non sum di­gnus that is lord I ā vnworthie.’ And affter he hath takē the host in his hād, he saith, the body of our lord Iesus Christ kepe my sowle to euerla­sting life, Amen. And whan he hath said thus, he receiueth the host. And affter, he taketh the cupp in his hand saing, Quid retribuam Domino &c. that is what shall I render to [Page 61] the lord. ‘And he saith thus, The blood of our lord Iesus Christ kepe my sowle to euerlasting li­fe, and receiueth the cupp.’ Thone and thother being receiued, the prest affterwardes saith ij. short praiers. In the first is des [...]ered that the sacrament may be taken with a cleane mind and that it may become vnto vs an euerlasting remedy. The se­cond desireth that the body and blood of Christ may come nigh to our bowels, and that there may not remaine any spott of sinne. whan the ij. praiers are done, and the clensing made with water or wine or with thone and thother, the post communion is next said, that is to say certē short verses of the psalmes or of some other part of the scripture. And affter are said the last praiers of the masse, sometime one only iff the feast bee solē pne, somtime ij. somtime iij, somtime moo as it hapnith. ‘And of thes praiers a gret part are wi­cked, as that which saith, We besech the, allmig­hty and mercifull god, let the sacramentes which we haue taken clense vs &c. In the which is desired that that sacrament shuld be a wasshing of sinnes, and among thother things that it might be the forgiuenes of all sinnes of all the faithfull liuing and deade.’ As also that other, that is to say, Let this communion clense vs from sinne, and [Page] at the intreati of the blessed Mari mother of god, let it make vs partakers of the heuenly remedy. And that other, Let the receiuing of this sacra­ment, be vnto me, o lord, forgeuenes of my sinnes &c. And so many other as make mencion that sinnes shuld be taken away or forgeuen by the receiuing of the sacrament. And also thos that make mencion that bi such receiuing, euerlasting helth and glory shuld be geuen vs. Off which praiers thorowt the masse booke there is a gret nomber as well before the consecracion as affter. And chefely the last, Thei be all wicked. For the receiuing of the sacramentes is not that that forge­ueth sinnes, no nor that that giueth vs helth. Thes offices be to gret, nor thei doo not belong to the sacramentes, as at large we will proue in the iiij. part. Where we will shewe that the sacramentes be not instituted for such causes.

Beside this, it is to be noted that many of thes praiers are contrary to the priuate masse, that is to say, contrary to that where the peple doo not communicate, but only the prest, receiueth the ost and the cupp. Because thei make plaine men­cion that the multitude of the peple hath bene partakers of the sacrament, and not the prest only. As that is which saith, Satiasti Domine [Page 62] familiam tuam etc. that is to say, thow hast filled o lord, thy famili with holy gifftes (and speaketh of the sacrament). And this praier is said very offt affter the sacrament receiued. And that other Corporis sacri & pretiosi san [...] guinis repletilibamine that is to say. Being filled with the receaued sacrifice of thy holy body ād preciouse blood. And so many other as giue to vnderstād that the peple hath cōmunicated, it is plain that suche praiers can not be trew, on­lesse the people receiue the sacrament and yet the prest saith them, as though the people had recei­ued, and in dede receiued nothing at all. By thes praiers and such like, wherof there are a gret nō ber in the masse hooke which are said affter the prest hath receiued the host and the cupp, is ge­uen vs to vnderstand that the masse in that time that thos praiers were made, was no nother than the holy communion. And the same supper of the lord, which offt times was made, because thei wold neuer haue spoken affter that sort iff the prest alone shuld haue receiued thost and the cupp. And it is not to be answered here that thes pra­iers speake in the plurall nomber and not of the prest only because the prest doth communicate in all the peples name, seing that euen as one can not be baptised for a nother, so can he [Page] not receiue the supper for a nother. And affter a certen sort there is likelines betwene this spiri­tuall supper and the comon suppers or daili ea­tings. We will neuer say that one can eate for a nother, but euery one doth eate for him selff, and thones meate can not help thother. So is it of the holy supper, that euery one ought to receiue for him selff. Also the sainge of the prest geuith vs to vnderstand this, who whan he saith such praiers, turnith him to the peple and saith Oremus that is to say let vs pray all to gether and willeth that the peple shuld pray as well as he, and shuld say the same wordes that him selff saith. Which wordes can not be verified if the prest only shuld communicate and not the peple. Which thing also the name of the communion teachith vs which agreith not to one only but to mani. So that than such praiers be contrary to the priuate masse, and can not be trewe iff the peple doo not com­municate. But of necessitie must be false. Ther­for they giue vs to vnderstand, that sometime thei were trewe, that is to say whan the things were not yet in that disorder that thei be at this present.

THE THIRD CHAPTER How the first praier of the masse for the deade is f [...]lissh and to no purpos. The pistle of tha pocalipse doth gainsay not only the first praier but generalli all the mass for the deade. The offertory also is an vnfit praier:

WE haue not yet particularly touched the masse for the deade but for the liuing. And iff we wold tell all the errors that be there, our booke shuld growe to greate. But our mind is at this time to make plaine that the masse is the greatest error that is in all christendom. This shall suffise vs for this time. I doo not dowt but this our anatomy, as rude as it is, will wake vp some other to handell this argument or matter more worthily than I haue done. And so I desire, for the dere loue of Iesus Christ that thei to whom god hath giuen more vnderstōding of his things than to me that thei will take in hand this enterprise, to the honor of god ād profite of his chur­ch, because it is most waighty and worthy to be well handeled.

Now let vs looke vp on this mass for the [Page] deade. In the masse for the deade the first prayer desyreth that the sowle of the dead man or dead wo mā shuld not be geuē in to the hādes of the enemy, but shuld be receyued by the holy angels, ād caryed to the contry of paradyse, to thentēt that hauing byleued and hoped, it shuld not suffer the euerlasting payne but possesse theuerlasting loies. But to what purpos doth his prayer desyre that that sowle of the dead man or woman, shuld not suffer euerlasting payne, iff it be in such state as it can not be damned and [...]o which such a request doth not agree? It is playne, that the church prayeth not for thē that be damned, as also according to their opynyon it prayth not for them that are blessed and in liffe euerlasting. So that than being no perell nor possybylytie that the sowles of the faithfull affter thei be past this liffe, cā be dāned, but be certen of theyr safetye (nor it can not be no nother wise) it nedeth not than to pray for them that, god wold not dampne them, but there ought only to be desyered that they might be delyuered from the paynes of purgatory, iff at least they were there, and not from the euerlasting paynes from which withowt dowt thei be (by gods grace and thorow Christ) delyuered, nor there is no more perell that thei shuld fall in [Page 64] to it. Wherfor such a praier is made in vaine, and is vnfitt, because it putteth in dowt the safetie of the faithfull sowles, of the which thei be most certen. To be short, the sowles that be departed this life. either theibe of the trewe faithfull or not. Iff, thei be not of the faithfull, it nedeth not to pray for them because the praiers doo not help them. Iff thei be of the trewe faithfull, it nedeth not to pray for them that thei shuld be freed from euer­lasting paine, for such a praier shuld help them nothing, being withowt dowt allredy freed. Thā next affter it is writton in the lesson of thapoca­lipse, which is recited in the same masse,Apoc. 14. that thā ­gell said to lhon, write, blessed be thei that dye in the lord, for frōhenfforth (that is to say frō their bodily death) the spirite saith, that thei shall rest from all their labours and trauels. Iff it be so, that affter their death thei be in quiet and rest, and thes men speake not, but the spirite of god which cā not lie, to what purpos shuld we nede to pray for them that god wold leade them in to the pla­ce of comfort? Iff thei rest from all their trauells and be in quiet, it nedeth not to pray or desire god, that he wold giue them that the which, we be certen thei haue allredy. We be certen [...] the saing off the holy goost that thei rest [Page] from all their labors and consequently be free from all paine and haue no nede to be freed. Iff thei were in purgatory or in any paine, the spi­rit wold not haue said, that thei were in rest as he affirmeth, but wold haue caused mē to desire it. Surely this office for the deade speaketh against it self ād against tholy scripture, for it affirmeth that the sowles off the faithfull be in rest ād on the other side desireth that thei may haue rest. Affterward in the lessō of the machabeis, what is the cause that thei haue not putt in the text as it lieth? Whi, haue thei kept back that word sacrifice? The text saith thus.2 Mach. 12 Et facta collatione duo decim milia dragmas argenti, misit Ierosolima offerri pro peccatis mortuorum, sacrificium. How haue thei thus put in all the rest of this lessō ād thes wordes onely, that is to say Sacrificium thei haue lefft owt? Thei shuld with owt dowt haue put it in. But I Imagine thei feared least it wold hinder their opiniō. And be it as it wil be thei haue fauted, ād vsed crafft in hiding it, ād thei imagined such a maner of word shuld not be moch for their purpos because that the sacrifices were not made of mony but of beastes not with stonding this is none of the greatest fawtes.

[Page 65] ‘Than next in the offertori is praied, O lord Iesus Christ king of glory deliuer the sowles of all faithfull deade, from the paines of hell and from the depe lake. Deliuer them from the mowth of the lion that hell may not swalow them, and that thei fall not in to darknes, but that thy standerd bea­rers. Michaell may present them in the holy light the which in time past thow didst promes to A­braham and his seede.’

This offertory, as thow seist, praith for the sowles of the deade, that Christ wold deliuer them from the paines off hell (as the first praier saith) and from the mowth of the lion, that is to say, of the deuill, and that the horrible place, that is to say the depth of the dongion, shuld not swalow them, and that thei shuld no falle in to the dimme darknes. And it geuith vs to vnderstand that the sowles of the faithfull be yet in perell to be damned, the which is not only fals, but contrary to their own opinion that bringe in purgatory, the which sayth that the sowles of them that die in grace (for the which only the church praieth hand not for any other) can not be damned as the re­probate for whom the church praith not, becau­se thei can not be saued. Why than doth not this [Page] praier (called the offetory) desire that christ wold deliuer thos sowles from the paines of purgato­ry and not from the paines of hell whether thei can not goo? Parauenture some will glose, that thes wordes (paines of hell, mowth of the lion, Depe lake, Terrible and dark place,) doo not meane the paines or place of the damned, but of purga­tory. Thei cānot reasonably say this. For such maner wordes doo not agree with purgatory. And with owt dowt thei meane the hell of the dam­pned, ād of the euerlasting paine, as the first praier ment, the which expressely made mencion of purgatory. Surely this offetory is folish and erronios as the first praier is, because it geuith tun­derstand that the sowles of thelect passed from this liffe may be dampned.

The, iiij. Chapter.

THat the blessing in the massboke, that is to say, of asshes, of candels, of bowes, of chese, of eggs of breade, of fire, of fankincens, of the paschall, and of water, are wicked ād full of superstitions.

The blessing of the asshes is not ōly wicked, and supperstitos, but plaine blasphemy for that [Page 66] is very blassphemie whan that is geuen to plaine creatures which belōgeth only to god and christ. As for exāple to forgeue sin̄, to iustifie ād to saue. Now let vs see a litle, what this blessing of asshes saith? there be ij praiers. ‘The first saith, Grant by the calling vpō of thy holy name, that all thos which shall cast the asshes vpō them for redēpcion of their sinnes, may receiue the helth of body ād defence of sowle. The other that foloweth, affir­meth and confesseth that we put thes asshes on our heades to shewe furth humblenes and to de­serue forgeuenes, saing thus.’ ‘O god which doest not desyre the death of sinners but their repen­tans, looke most fauorably vpon the frailtie of mans state and vouchsaue to blesse thes asshes which we haue determined to lay vp on our heades to thentent to shewe furth humblenes and to deserue forgeuenes &c. In thes ij. praiers it is plainly confessed that we cast thos asshes vpon vs, for to haue redemption, and to deserue forgeue­nes of our sinnes.’ O cursed blasphemy. And shall we redeme our sinnes with asshes? And why not with towe? And what need we to labor to disproue so gret and so plaine a foly? How vile a thing doth Antichrist make the redemptiō of sin̄es? For the bringing of which to passe, it was nedefull [Page] [...] [Page 66] [...] [Page] that the son of god shuld become man, shuld be borne in our miseryes, shuld suffer so many tro­bles, shuld be of wicked men persecuted, delyue­red, taken, beaton, mocked, spytefully handled, whipt, Iudged hy thuniust, crucified, deade, and that he shuld goo downe to the grettest lowlines

And here he sayth that with the asshes is made the redempcyon of sinnes. How can the godly ād Christen eares heare this. Looke vp on this yow that goo to the mass, Looke vp on it yowr selues. Reade what I tell yow is in the masse boke. Thei that vnderstand the latyn haue not consydred it. Thoter knowe not what is sayd, because the hole is sayd in a tong not vnderstand of the vnlerned. And thei may blaspheme and say what they will at their pleasure. And be thes things to be born, to close vp our redempcyon within thasshes of woode the which only Christ hath brougth to passe with his hlood and death?

That of the candels which is done on candel­mes day, in the first prayer it desyreth that god wold by the calling vp on of his most holy name and by thintreatyes of the blessed Mary allweys virgyn, and by the prayers of all sayntes, blesse and make holy thos cādels for mans vse ād helth [Page 67] of bodyes and of sowles, whether it be vp on the land or in the waters. And where fynd we in the hole scripture, that any bodyly creature fasshoned by mē as the cādels ād the weekis be, shuld haue this vse to geue the helt of sowles? The helth of sowles is the forgeuenes of sinnes, and the holy making. Thes so gret and godly things are done by thonly fauor of god and by Christ,Esay. 53.61. 1. Pet. 2. Luk. 4. Esa. 61. and are not wrought with wax candells. Yea this prayer speaketh against it selff, because in thend it sayth that we be redemed with the precyos blood of the son of god. And before he sayth, that thes cā dles be for mens vse and for helth of sowles, that is to say, for remissyon of syn̄es. And how cā thes ij. things stand to gether? that is to say that we be redemed with the precyos blood of the sonn of god, which is most trewe, and that the candels shuld be the helth of our sowles, that is tho say the forgeuenes of synnes? Seing that forgeuenes of syn̄es is redempcyon it selff, as Paul witnesseth in many places. Surely iff the cādels forgyue synnes, than they worck our redēpcyon.Roma 3. Ephes. 1. collo. 1. But Christ only hath wrought our redempcyon, and hath not wrought it with candels. I knowe well that the wranglyng and supersticyous parsons, will not want answers and glosts. Notwithstanding [Page] let euery faithful and godly man wey and iudge whether the candels cā work such effectis or no. whan the candels be blessed and the holy water cast on thē and that they be censyd, certē verses are song? Affter they goo on processiō, and they sing iij. songes of praise, which they call Anthe­mes. And one of thē which is the second sayth, A­dorna thalamū tuum Syon, & suscipe regem Christum, amplectere mariā quae est coelestis porta, ipsa enim portat regem gloriae. And here this Antē confessith that mari is the heuēly gate. And though I shall say somwhat here to defēd gods honor ād christis, let no mā meruell. I speake to thos that haue no knowlege of the holi scripture. For I ā sure that thei which haue, wil not meruel. There is no dowt, but the most blessid mother, was ād is blessed aboue all wemē, ād is in that gretnes ād worthines that cā not be estemed, because she is Christes mother. And yet for all that, we ought not to geue hir thos praises that be not fitt for hir and that belōg only to christ. For so, thin king to honor hir, we dishonor hir ād do hir most greatest wrong, ād iff she were nere vs ād hard vs whā we geue hir such titles, that is to say, gate of heauē, mother of merci, whā we call hir our [Page 68] hope, our aduocate, and such like titles, which be lōg to christ ōly, or to god, she wold spitt in our facis, ād wold not suffer that the honor of god ād of christ (the which she ād all tho her saintes doo more esteme with owt cōparison than theit own) shuld be geuē to plaine creatures, were thei ne­uer so excellent. Onli Christ is our liffe, and hope,Io. Collossen. 3. 1. Timot. 2. Iohann. 10 1. Iohan. 2. Actor. 4, the gate of heauē, our aduocate, fowntane, king ād father of mercy. Thes names be namis for god ād Christ. To be the gate of heauē ād to be the aduocate, belōgeth to Christ, god and man, but the other belong to god and to Christ as god. So that they thā cōmitt a gret error, that to honor the saintes ād chefely the blessed mother, doo sing thes Antēs as the Salue regina, the Aue maris stella, and as many other as geue godly honor to plaine creatures. Fom hens it comith, that the deuocion to christ and god is lost, and it comith to passe that where we shuld call vp on god and Christ ād ron̄e to thē in our nede, we ron̄e to mē ād we place thē in our redemer ād makers place. The blessing of the boughes in the first praier affter the preface of the same blessing, destreth that thos that shall take of thos boughes, that thei may be vnto them, a defence both of sowle and ād body, a remedy of our safetie through Christ our lord. The fourth praier, which beginnith Deus qui per oliuae ramum, desireth [Page] that god wold blesse and make holy thos boug­hes of the olife ād of other trees, so that thei may be profitable for sowle helth to all the peple. Su­rely thes be very great effectis, that is to say, to be a protection of sowle and body and to be a remedy, or to be profitable for our sowle helth. God doth noth vse thes meanes to defend our sowles and to saue vs. We haue not in any place of the scripture āy of thes things. Paul thapostel to the colossians,Coloss. 2. saith that in Christ we be furnisshed, that is to say, that as concerning the things per­teining to the sowle helth, we haue no nother but Christ, god excepted. For in Christ and by Christ we haue all things, whether we speake of forge­uenes of sinnes, of Iustificacion, of repentans, of holy making or of sowl helth. We haue all thes things in Christ and bi Christ, and not by the boughes of oliue, palme or of any other thing. And beside it is a gret supersticion to be content to beleue that the boughes of oliues palmes or other treis shuld (by reason of thos blessings made with thos words, crossis and other ceremonies that a­re made) take any powr to bring to passe such ād so great effectis. We find not that the Prophe­tis, thapostels or Christ himselff, did euer vse such things, or that thei shuld with wordes geue po­wr [Page 69] to any bodied thing to work such effect is.

On saterday which thei call holy, is blessed the fire, the frankincense and the wax candel called the paschall. In the blessing of fire in the secōd praier, the which beginneth Domine De­us pater omnipotens, is destered that god wold blesse that light, that is to say, that kin­dled fire to thentent, that that fire being blessed and made holy of him that hath lightened all the world, we may be kindled by the same light, and lightened by the fire of his brightnes. And he me­aneth by thes wordes, that god by that blessed fi­re, shuld kindle and lighten vs with the fire of his brightnes. This can not be,Luce. 12, 2. Corin. 3 Gallat. 3. Actor. 10. because that god to kindle vs or to lighten vs, vseth not for his instrument or meane, the material fire, but his word the holy gospell, by which that diuine fire of the holy goost which worketh thes effectes is geuen.

The blessing of the frankincēs in the mass booke immediatly foloweth that of the fire. And is a praier that beginneth, Veniat quesumus omnipotens Deus. And first it desireth that the large onpowring might come vpon that frankincens, that is to say, that god wold largely powre on his blessing vpon that frankin­cens. [Page] And it semeth that a litle affter it affirmeth, that that frankincens to gether with the rest, that is to say with the paschal, ād the fire and such like ceremonies as are made, It semeth (I say) that it affirmeth them to be a sacrifice the which is sacrified that night. And this he saith because at other times such duties was wont to be done by night. And it desiereth that it may not only shi­ne with the secret mixture of gods light, but in euery place where any of that mistery, that is to say of that sacrifice shall be caried, that the crafft of the deuils wickednes may be driuen owt and the powr of the godly maiestie may be help re­dy. Iff this praier will as it semeth that it mea­nith, that such frankincense together with thos other things, shuld be a sacrifice vnto god, sacri­fied that night, and that it shuld haue powr to driue a way the deuell, this is a very supersticion. For we doo not find in the holy scripture, with as many wordes as may be said, that a thing doth take any newe pour the which it had not before. And it shuld behoue them to proue, why such powr is rather geuin to thes wordes that thei speake, to blesse thes things, than to other. Also we haue not that such things may be called a sacri­fice, by the apostolike scripture. We find in dede [Page 70] that the praysings of god,Hebreo. 13. Roman. 1 [...]. the allmosts and wor­kes of charitie be a pleasing sacrifice vnto god. But affter that Christ came, it is not fownd that we ought to offer vnto god, frankincens, fire, or candels. And thei be all fansies and diuises of mē. There is also to consider one other gret abuse, that is that thei haue geuen many significacions to thes such things as thei haue fownd owt, the which serue to no purpos. For neither the peple that are present at such ceremonies vnderstand them, no nor thei moch lesse that doo them, nor there is not among a thowsand one, that knowe­th what is done. And to what purpos are made so many ceremonies and gestures, and are geuin them so many significaciōs as the thowsand part of them that see them, knowe not to what end thei are made? This is to trewe, but it is an er­ror comon to all the ceremonies of the masse. For euery man seith many garments, sondri­nes of apparell, that is to say, stoles, phannells cord girdels, albes, Amises, vestmentes, copes, corporas clothes, patentes, and so many gestures as are made, so many Ioining to gether of handes, so many casting open of armes, putting to ge­ther and sondring of fingars, so many crosses, [Page] and to be short, so great a diuersitie of things which be vsed in the masse. And yet the peple vn­derstand not why thei are done. And why doo thei not teach some of thes significations, iff thei wold thei shuld profite. The Rationall of diuine offices, maketh so many significacions, so many misteries of such things, and yet no one, or very fewe doo knowe them. Well it is ynough that thei be writton in the boke. Let it be axed a litle of all that multitude that standeth present at the seruice on the holy sabbath day, what profite thei ha­ue goten by seing thos frankincensis, thos wax candels, fiers and other ceremonies, and by stan­ding iiij. or v. howres at thes seruices? This is the profite that is brought thens, that thei haue lost the time, and returne supersticios in that thei by leue that the wax of the pascall shuld haue powr against the enemies, against the deuell, against night sprites, and some doo put it vp on the do­res off their howses, and some other (sely sow­les) doo put it within the hornes of their oxē and other beastes and vp on the vinestakes against the tempest. Affter this sort the poore peple is handled.

Than next foloweth the blessing of the waxe, [Page 71] that is to say exultetiam angelica tur­ba coelorum. The which calleth the 5. peck of frankincēs that are stickt in the pascall Crosse­like, An euening sacrifise the which is offered to god, And praith that the wax consecrated to the honor of god may vnfailably cōtinewe to the destruction of the darknes of that night, so that being accepted by god to be a sauor of swetenes, it may be mixed with the heuinly lights ād that the flame of the same may find owt the mor­ning day starr, that is to say, Crist. And abowt the end it granteth to moch to that frankincense and to that taper. For iff we wold doo a thanck­full thing to god, we must offer vnto him a no­ther thing than frankinsens and cādels. The next blessings be putt in thende of the masse boke. The blessing of chese and eggs desireth that god wold powre owt his blessing vpon the chese and eggs, so that thei being armed with his heauinly defen­ce may be profitable for euerlasting life to all thos that shal tast of thos chese and eggs. That of the breade desireth that it may be to all thos that shal take of that breade blessed with the spiritual blessing, helth of mind and body and defence against all sicknessis and all waytlaings of enemies. [Page] There is a nother, appliable to eueri thing, the which desireth that god wold blesse that creature, (that is to say what so euer thei wold haue bless­ed) so that it may be an helpfull remedi to mākind ād that all thos that shall take or tast of that thing mai by the calling vpō the holi name of the lord, take the helth of body ād the defēce of the sowle.

Thes iij. blessings geue to moch to the bodily things. How can such things as mē eate and drinck be profitable to euerlasting life, to helth of mind and of body? How may thei be a defence against all the enemies,Mathei 15. and a sheld of the sowle? Christ saith, that which goith in thorow the mowth, defileth not the mind. Iff it cānot defile nor doo any spirituall harme to the sowle, it can neither bring any spirituall help.Rom. 14. And Paul to the romās saith, The kingdom of god is neither meate nor drinck, meaning to say that the kingdom of god, which is a spirituall thing, doth not stand in bodili things but in spiritual. Thes things than that are eaten and dronken can not work so gret effectes as thes blessings doo attribute to them. And so moch rather as thei be mennis inuencions and not according to gods word. And thei be of thos things that are wasted by vsing them as Paul sa­ith writing to the Colossians.Collo. 2. Where is it fownd in tholy scripture, that god by meanes of certen [Page 72] wordes euer gaue to a bodied thing like strength and powr? And iff any man wold say, that Paul for all that saith in the 1. to Timothi, that the meates be halowed by gods words and by praier, and therfor may haue by such halowing or blessing some vertu the which before thei had not, To this I answer that Paul in that place by the halowing of meates, meaneth not that the same meates shuld take any newe and spirituall powr the which thei had not he fore, but meaneth by hallowing, the cleane and lawfull vse granted by god to the faithfull, the which may eate for the maintenance of life at any time or of any maner of meate, giuing thanckes to god who hath made all meates for the vse of the faithfull. By the which thing we haue to vnderstād that the peple of god vnder the lawe, could not at their pleasure eate of eueri meate but of thos only that god did grant thē in the lawe, ād the other thei called vncleane ād comō, that is to say, of which the gētiles might eate. Now thos that thei might eate were halowed, that is to sai that the vse of thē was lawfull ād cleane according to gods word. And because that since Christes cōing eueri meate is made lawful to a Christiā nor we haue no more that prohibiciō as in the old lawe, therfor eueri meate is halowed to th [...]. And this the visiō that appeared to Peter geuith [Page] vs tunderstand as we haue in the dedes of thapostles,Actor. 10. whan Peter sawe that shete full of all sortis of beastes, cleane and vncleane, and herd a voice which said vnto him that he shuld kylle of thos beastes and eate. And he answering that he had neuer eaten any vncleane and comon thing, affter the maner of the gentiles, but in that part had kept the lawe, It was said vnto him, That which god hath halowed. thow shalt not say that it is cō mon. Here the heuenly voice gaue vs to vnderstand, that euery meate is halowed to the faith­full that is to say made cleane ād lawful as s. Paul saith also to Titꝰ, all things be cleane to the clea­ne: But to the vnfaithfull ād vncleane, there is nothing cleane, but their mind ād consciens is defi­led. So that than whan the Christian taketh his meate, praing and giuing thākes to god, such me ate is halowed, that is to say, the vse of it made lawfull, for so moch as now seing that Christ is come there is no more differens to the faithfull betwene this meate and that meate as Was in thold lawe. And therfor thei that forbid meates doo ve­ry euill.1 Timot. 4. And Paul writing to Timothy saith that such doctrine is the deuels doctrine, and against gods word, because the meate and euery creatu­re made for mans vse, is halowed, that is to say, [Page 73] the vse off it made lawfull by gods word and by praier. First by the word of the creacion the which hath made all meates and all bodied things for mans vse. Than also by that word that Peter hard which also was gods word, And by that word also the which assuerith vs that we be fr [...]id from the lawe and that we may for our nede vse any meate geuing thanks vnto god and making praier. So that the faithfull ought not at any ti­me to take meate except praier and thankes ge­uing goo before. See now affter what sori Paul is vnderstand? So than that halowing is no no­ther but the cleane and lawfull vse of meate.

The blessing of the holy water is all full of su­persticions. First the salt is charmed and coniur­ed. And there is desired that the salt may be co­me charmed salt for the sowle helth of the bile­uers, and that it may be to all thos that shall take it, helth of sowle and of body (And than be made iij. crosses) The second praier saith the like, that is to say, that this salt may be safetie of mind and body to all thos that shall take it, (and there is made one crosse). The other that foloweth, doth charme and coniure the water and desireth it may become charmed and coniured water, to [Page] driue a way all powr of the enemy, ād that it may roote vp and pluck owt the same enemy with his frogoing angels by the vertu of the same our lord Iesus Christ. (And thā be made iij. other crosses) Thother praier that foloweth desireth that god wold geue the vertu of his blessing to that water, (And there is also made one cross) and this is said, ‘that his creature seruing gods misteries may take theffectt of the godly grace to driue a way deuels and diseases.’ And besides it desierith that that place where it shall be sprinkled may be free from all vncleanes and from all harme, that it may be free from the pestilent spirite and from corrupt aye [...]. Let all the waitelaings of the hiddē or lurking e­nemies (saith that third praier) pack thē hēs &c. This blessing attributeth great powres to the water the which gods word geuith it not. How can the water with wordes fownd owt by mē (as thei of this halowing be) doo that that we reade not, that the wordes of the holy scripture which be gods wordes euer did? We finde in dede that Christ ād thapostles speaking brought meruelos effectes to passe, but that thei shuld haue geuen to thes wordes, thei spake, any powr (a nother man vtte­ring thē) to work any effect, we reade it not. Su­rely all thes blessings be supersticios and wicked and doo geue to moch to the bodied things. I wold [Page 74] faine saylom what of the blessing of the popes, Agnus deies, which be made of white waxe. But I cā not tell with what ceremonies it is done, because I haue not thos bokes wherein it is writ­ton. Yet notwithstanding master durant in his vi. booke of his Rational saith that thos such Agnus deies are made of newe hallowed waxe, or els of the pascal taper of the former yea are mingled with the Creame. And there he tel­leth the significacions of thos Agnus deies the which affter ward be distributed or delt to the peple by the pope him selff, on the satterday in A [...]bis, that is to say, the first saterday affter caster. And in thend describing the vertu of thes Agnus deies, he saith that thei by the vertu of their consecracion and blessing, defend the byleuers frō lightning ād tēpest. But sureli the pope hath done a great wrong to his Agnus dei­ies, that hauing himselff auctoritie ād powr to giue to things all thos [...]tewis that him listeth, as he hath geuē ūto Asshes powr to work redēpciō of sin̄es, ād to the holy water salted (the which euery prest cā blesse) the vertu to driue a waie deuels ād to saue mē, chefely to that water of the holisabbath which is caried from hows to hous, and hath geuē so meruelos vertuis so so many other things [Page] as we may see in this chapter of the blessings) he hath done, a gret wrōg to his Agnus dei, whi­ch no mā can blesse but himselff, that he hath not geuē thē the vertu of the herbe Agnus casiꝰ of the which Dio [...]corides ād Galene doo write, seing the prestis, the friers, the monkes, ād the nō nys ād vniuersaly all the ecclesiastical state haue so moch nede off it. For all haue vowed chastitie and mariage is forbidden them. It were moch more to the purpos to geue them this vertu and so to take a way so great an abhomination from the world as sendeth the stink of it euen to hea­uen, than that vertu, to serue against lightning and tempest. O benommed and blind world, whā wilt thow beginne to open thine eies to remem­ber thy selff and to see how myserably thow art bowght and sold? And by whom? By them that professe to haue the in charge. It is the right iud­gement of god For whan fables are preched euery man bileueth them. But let gods word, christds doctrine and truth come and be preachet, it is not only as a perelous error despised, but rather fersely persecuted.


[Page 71]The fourth ād last part foloweth, the which is of the abuses and of the abhomynacions of the masse, and hath vi. chapters.

THe first is that the mass doth not satisfie for them, nor applie such things to man.


ALthough we haue in the former partis touched many abuses and errors of the mass: neuertheles we intend (in this last, specially to treate of certen partycular and gre­at abusis. As for example, that the mass shuld for­geue sinnes, that it shuld satisfie for them, or els that it shuld applie to vs such forgiuenes or sa­tisfaction and that it shuld be a sacrifice for the liuing and for the deade. Than next also that the same masse, is mans inuention and not gods, ma­de by many. And to be short we will speake of many other abuses which partly are touched ād of many wheroff yet ther is no mencion made. And first we will proue that the mass forgeueth not [Page] sinnes, satisfieth not god for them, nor applieth not to vs the forgeuenes and satisfactiō made by Christ, And to say the contrary is a very gret er­ror and abuse. And I proue it affter this sort. For thos that affirme the mass to worke thes effectis, either thei will and meane it of all the mass, that is to say of all thos words that are said and cere­monies that are done from the beginning to the end, and of all that made heape of wordes and gestures, or els thei meane of the sacrament of the body and of the blood only the which is chefely considred in the mass. Iff thei meane it of the whole masse it is false. For by saing of wordes and by doing of ceremonies sinnes are not forgeuen. Se­ing that iff a man shuld say the whole bible ouer, which are gods wordes, from the beginning to the ending an hondreth times, thei could not for­geue him his sinnes, How than shall sinnes be forgeuen, or satisfaction made for them by saing masse, which is mans inuencion, as we will proue in the third chapter? It is plaine that sinnes are not forgeuen by saing of wordes nor doing of cere­monies, bycause that Iustificacion els shuld be by workes which is contrary to Paule. Who dow­ [...]eth that the speaking and vttring of wordes [Page 76] shuld be our worke? Yea who is that wicked man that can not doo this, (say many Psalmes, praiers, lessons) and doo ceremonies?Roma. Gallat. Coloss. 2. The deuell him selff can say many wordes that be holy and of god. Paul thapostel, as we haue in so many places of his epistles, to the Romans, to the Galathians and the colossians, saith that no man is Iustified, that is to say, no mans sinnes are forgeuen him by the workes of the lawe commanded by god. And he meaneth of those lawe whether it be of the commandementis, which is the morall la­we, or els of the ceremoniall lawe. And will we say that sinnes be forgeuen by reading or spe­aking of wordes, or els by doing of cerimonies not commanded by god, but diuised by men? This can not be. Iff thei will say that thei meane not of all the mass, but only of the sacrament, the which hath this vertu and strength to forgeue sinnes and to satisfie god for them, or els to ap­plie Christes redemption to them for whom the masse chanceth to be said, This is not trewe nei­ther, but is veri fals. For the office of the sacrāents is not to worke thes effectis, but it is to be token thē and to bring thē to mind and to assure vs of [Page] them. For iff the sacrament shuld haue this ver­tu, it shuld haue it chefely towardes them that worthily shuld receiue and take the sacrament, but it hath it not to wardes thos same, wherfor it hath it not towardes no nother.

That no sacrament, not only that of the lords supper, shuld haue this office, I wil make it plaine and proue it. For the worthy receiuing of the sa­cramēt whether it be of thankes geuing or of baptime, presupposeth forgiuenes of sinnes and Iu­stificacion, than neither the one nor the other doth it. It is plaine that none ought to take, what so euer Sacrament yow will, iff he be of age, ex­cept he doo trewe repentance and haue trewe faith. But he that doth trewe repentance and hath trewe faith,Actor. 10. his sinnes are forgeuen him and he is Iustified as we haue in thactes of thapostles. ‘Peter saith, speaking in Cornelius the hunderders hows in Caesarea, To this saith he (that is to sai to Christ, for he spake of him) all the Prophetes bea­re witnes, that euery one that byleueth in him, receiueth forgeuenes of sinnes by his name.’ And Paule also saith,Actor. 13. knowe ye, o men and brethern, that by this (and he spake of Christ) the forgeue­nes of sinnes is declared to yow, and by him, [Page 77] (that is to say by Christ) euery one that byleueth is iustified from all thos things from the which yow could not be Iustified by the lawe. Iff than faith and penance not only may be had withowt the sacramentes, but rather necessarily goo befo­re the sacramentes iff thei shuld be worthily re­ceiued, it foloweth consequently that the forgeuenes of sinnes or Iustificacion doo not hang nor be not caused by the same sacramentis, nor be not applied to man by them. Because it is necessary that such things shuld first be applied before the sacramentis shuld be taken.

The vse also of the church declareth this, the which neuer geueth baptim to one of full age, except he first confess that he byleueth. And so we will say of the supper, the which all men doo confesse that none ought to receiue it but he that first hath done paenance. We haue thexample of bap­tim in thact [...]s of thapostles of Candache the que­ne of thethyopes cunuch to whom Philip wold not geue baptime till he first confessed that he byleued.Actor. 8. Gene. 15. Abraham also was Iustified before the cir­cumcision as the genesis saith, that is to say, A­braham byleued god and it was imputed to him for Iustice, that is to say he was Iustified by fa­ith. [Page] The which example Paul to the romans, bringeth furth, meaning to proue that Iustificacion is not by workes nor by sacraments, And he saith that Abraham was iustified before circumcision, and that the circumcision was to him a token of the Iustice of faith. Geuing to vnderstand that the office of sacraments is not to forgiue sin­nes or to Iustifie mā, but to be a signe of such things. And iff thei be signes thei be no cau­ses. It is well knowen that there is a gret di­fference betwene the cause of an effectt and the signe of the same. The sacraments be signes and not causis of forgeuenes and therfor thei can not forgiue sinnes. Than moreouer iff the sacraments were thos that shuld forgeue sinnes, and withowt them forgeuenes could not be wrought: it shuld folowe that the grace of Iesus Christ shuld be of lesse strength aff­ter the coming of Christ thā it was before in the lawe. It is to plaine that this shuld be incon­uenient, that is to say, that Christes grace sh­uld be of lesse strenght sins his coming than before. What an inconueniens shuld this be, that now that Christ hath fullfilled the Prophecies, that he hath wrought our re­dempcion, (This being called the time of fullnes, [Page 78] the acceptable tyme and the time of grace) Chri­stes grace shuld be of lesse vertu and strength thā before he came? But that this incōueniēce shuld folow iff the sacramēts be necessary for the for­giuenes of sinnes, I will shewe it. For befo­re the lawe, by gods grace and by Christ, Abel, Enoch, Noe, yea and the scripture maketh particular mencion of Abraham, that all thes and thother sainctes were iustified withowt sacra­mentes. Why now than shall not Chri­stes grace haue the same vertu? It is plaine that a thing that can worck his effect with owt anothere helpe, is of more efficacie, force and strength, than that which hath nede of it. Iff than now gods grace and Christes vertu haue nede of sacraments to worck this ef­fect of forgeuenes of sinnes, and before it hath not nede, it is surely of lesse strength now than in that time, for by it selff it can not worck that that it could doo than whan Christ yet was not cōe in the flessh. So that now it shall be of lesse vertew and powr, than it was than which thing is inconuenient. How many exāples also haue we in the newe testamēt, that the forgeuenes of sin̄es is not caused by the sacramē ­tis? [Page] The sinfull womā, The man palsyed, The ho­wsold of Zacheus, The these crucified with Chr­ist, and Cornelius of whom we haue spoken, all thes receiued forgeuenes of sinnes and not by sa­cramentes but by faith only. Than the sacramen­ts doo not forgeue sinnes. And if any wold bring forth that comon saing of the doctors, that is that the sacraments of the newe lawe worke that it selff that thei betoken and signifie. And that al­so of Augustine in the preface of the 73. Psalme, who shewing the difference betwene the sacra­ments of thold lawe and owrs, saith, that the sa­craments of thold lawe did only promes the sa­uior, but ours doo giue the safetie. Which maner of speaking haue a litle excessiuenes. To this I an­swer that men must geue to such saings (iff thei shuld be trewe) fitt expositions, and not leaue them in this largenes or rather hyperbolike than oth­erwise,Hyperbolik is an ouer­passing kind of spech. and to giue them that sence which is fitt for them, and the which the selffe same auncient fathers geue them. The same Austen in many places affirmeth that the sacramētes of Moises lawe haue foretold of Christ, but our haue shewed him.Against faustus lib. 19. cap 14. Speaking against faustus he saith, the lawe and the Prophetes had fortelling sacramentes of the thing to come, but thes of our time doo wit­nes [Page 79] that that is come. So that thei are diuers as to the maner of signifieng but as to the thing si­gnified, thei agree, and are like.Against pe­tili. l. 2. cap. 37, In his booke aga­inst Petilian, he saith, the Iewes sacramentes were diuers in the signes but in the thing signified al o­ne, diuers in visible kind and forme, but like in spirituall vertu. Also vp on [...]hon he saith.In his treatise vpon Iohn. 26. ād 45. The selff same saith is in signes that be diuers as it is in wordes that be diuers. For the wordes doo change the sowndes by times, And surely wordes are no nother than signes. The fathers did drinck the selff same spirituall, but not the selff same bodily drinck. Behold than how that the selff same faith abiding, the signes be changed. There the stone was Christ: To vs, Christ is the same that is laid on the aultar. And thei by a great sacrament dranck the water that flowed owt of the stone, we what we drinck, the faithfull knowe it. Iff thow lookest vp on the visible forme it is diuers. Iff vp on the spirituall vnderstanding thei dranck the selff same spirituall drink. And in a nother place he saith, Theirs and ours is one selff meate and drinck in a mistery, but it is one in meaning and not in forme. For the selff same was betokened to them in the stone that was shewed to vs in flessh. So than iff we wold that saings aboue leadged [Page] shuld be trewe, it is necessari so to expownd thē amd to geue them the same meaning as we haue shewed in austen. That is to say, that the diffe­rence betwene their sacraments and ours is in the maner of betokening. For theirs dyd betoken the thing to come, ours doo exhybite it and ma­ke it present, that is to say doo betokē that it is not any more to come, but that it is present and allredy comne, and that it shuld be no more looked for. We doo not denie notwithstanding that the­re is not also for vs a doctrine, that is to say that ours doo more expressely and more clerely beto­ken than thold. For so moch as now in our time there is gretter knowlege of christ and off gra­ce, because it is the time of fullnes, So our sacraments can more clereli betokē than theires. But that thei can satisfie or forgeue sinnes, or Iustifie man or geue grace, or applie it to the same man, Thei can not doo it, as neither thold sacraments could doo any of thes things as we haue proued before. Concerning forgeuenes of sinnes and Iustification it is plaine that thei do it not, because that necessarily both thone and thother must goo before the sacraments iff thei shuld be worthily receiued. Thapplication al­so of Christes satisfaction and redemption is made [Page 80] by faith the which receiueth the whol worke of our saluation by gods grace thorow Christ, ād receiue forgeuenes, Iustification, holimaking and redemption from the mere and pure grace of god thorow Christ, and not from any other thing, and to it doth attribute and geue all the praise and glory,Roman. 3. as we haue in the pistle to the romanes. And therfor the sauior so offt doth beate in this faith, saing that who so euer beleuyth in him hath life euerlasting, geuing to ūderstād that bi faith are receiued the benifites of saluaciō bi gods grace thorow Christ, ād he that hath it not is not partaker of such benifites. Therfor whan we find in the saings of the Euangelistes or of thold doctors that the sacraments forgiue sinnes, as that of mark and luke, that Iohn preached the baptime of repentans in forgiuenes of sinnes, or els in thactes of thapostels, that Ananias said vnto paul, Rise vp, baptise the and wassh thy sinnes. And the crede receiued from the church which saith, confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum, And such like saings the which seme to attribute the forgeuenes of siinnes to baptim, I say that thei must be vnderstand safely by that figure [Page] which attributeth to the signe that that belon­geth to the signified. The saing of luke and mark and the article of the faith are vnderstand affter this sort, that is to say, that the baptime is a signe of the forgeuenes of sinnes. The saing of Ananias whan he saith to Paul, wassh thy sinnes, is as mo­ch to say, as take the signe of the wasshing. And that saing of Peter in thactes of thapostels,Actor. 2, whan he saith. Be repentant for sinnes, and let euery o­ne of yow be baptised for the forgeuenes of your sinnes, is thus vnderstand, Let euery one of yow be baptised in token of forgeuenes of your sinnes, And so of thother saings that attribute the forgeuenes of sinnes to the sacramentes, we must giue them the trewe vnderstanding, that is to say, th­at thei be tokens of such forgeuenes, and thei certifie the byleuers of the same, but thei be not the cause. And iff any wold axe to what end than be the sacraments geuen, iff thei work none of thes effectes, that is to say, iff thei forgeue not sinnes, iff thei Iustifie not, satisfie not, saue not, nor ap­plie not such things to man? I answer as before, that thoffice of the sacraments is to be witnessing signes of thes said things and thei be as it were certen sealis which assure vs of the forgeuenes of sinnes, of gods grace, and of saluacion. The [Page 81] merciful god and our fauorable father sawe, how we are by nature vnbyleuing and weake, And ther for for maintenans of our faith, and help of our weaknes, causeth not only his word, that is to sai, the holi gospell, to be preached vs, but cōfirmeth vs in the faith, with the sacraments, and sheweth vs by certen owtward signes and plaine to our sensis, that which is preached by the word. Wherfor whā we here said, he that beleueth the gospell, his sinnes are forgeuen hym, and affter we see one baptise with water, and knowe that this baptime is ordeined by god to signifie such a thing, we be confirmed in faith, that is to say, we bileue more surely, perceiuing that baptime is ordeined to signifie that euen as the water wa­ssheth the spottes or the vnclen̄es of the bodi, so is he that byleuyth wasshed with in the sowle. The sacraments haue other offices of the which it is not our mind presently to speake. It suffiseth that amōg other thei haue this, that is to say, to bring vs forgeuenes of sinnes, gods grace and our sal­uation not only at that time whan thei be geuen, but thorowt all our liffe, whan so euer thei come in to our remēberans, so that we bileue. And thei work not all this effect by their own vertu, but by tholy institution, and because thei be a mini­stery of the spirite as gods word is.

[Page]Returning therfor to the purpos, I say that it is a gret abuse and supersticion, willingly to goo a­bowt to say that the sacrament of thanksgeuing forgeueth sinnes, for it is gods grace that forge­ueth sinnes thorow christ, whan we bileue with a trewe faith, ād not the sacrament of thanksge­uing. It is trew in dede that this sacrament doth certifie vs of that thing, because it bringeth to our remembrans that christ gaue his body and his blood for our redemption and how his death is cause of our life, but it worketh not the forge­uenes, nor it can not work it, as we haue before proued. And iff thos that defend the mass, shuld say that thei meane of the forgeuenes of the paine and not of the fawte, whan thei say that the masse forgeueth sinnes, And that affter this sort also the praier of the mass booke ought to be vnderstand, in the which is made mention of such forgeuenes, that is to say, that thei be vnderstanden of the forgeuenes of the paine and not of the fawt. Tho this I say first, that the praiers absolutely make mention of the forgeuenes of sinnes. and doo not any thing speake of the paine, wherby it appeareth that thei meāe of the fawt which is princypall in sinne. And the selff same wordes shewe that thei meane of the fawt. As for exāple, that praier, haec nos commu­nio domine purget a crimin, It saith [Page 82] not, liberet a poena, but purget a cri­mine that is to say from the fawt. And that o­ther which saith, Sit absolutio scelerū, that is to say let it be a discharge of the fawtes. ād affter al [...]o it saith, Sit uiuorū at (que) mor­tuorum fidelium remissio omniū delictorum, that is to say, let it be a forgeuenes of all the sin̄es of the faithfull, liuing and dea­de. Thes wordes surely being so generall as thei be of all sin̄nes as well of the liuing as of the dea­de, can not conueniently be vnderstād only of the paine ād not of the fawt. Than the Summistis ād scol mē defenders of the masse, say that theffect of this sacramēt is to forgeue veniall sinnes, ād also mortall wherof man hath no cōsciens, that is to say, as I thinck, whan either he remēbreth not, or Iudgeth not thē to be deadli sinnes allthough thei be in deede deadly. And among thother somni­stes, the Angelica, where it speaketh of theffectis of tke thankes geuing, saith the same, and the master of the sentēcis in the iiij. the xij. distinction abowt the end, saith that it forgeueth veni­all sinnes. And thomas of Aquine also in the iiij. of the sentēcis the selff same distinctiō, saith the same thing, ād besides that it forgeueth thes mortal sin̄es wherof mā forgetteth himselff. And that saing of the praier the which saith, sit absolutio [Page] scelerum may be vnderstand affter ij. sorth, that is to say, either so farr as it hurteth him, or els it is vnderstād of thos sinnes which mā hath no rememberans off. Thes be the fautors of the mass and they meane that the Thāksgeuing forgeueth not only the ponishment but also the fawt.Thanks ge­uing allweis is that whi­ch is called Eucharista Although thes ij. distinctions that they make, thone of the veniall and mortall, and thotherof the forgeuenes of the fawt and of the ponisshment be bilded by them selues and not of gods word. The first distinction is fals. For iff we speake properly, euery sinn is deadly in it selff, hauing re­spect to the rigor of the lawe. For as moch as sinn is so moch sinn as it is against the lawe. And iff it had not bene against the lawe, it shuld in no wise haue bene sinn. Iff it be against the lawe, it curseth, according to the saing of the psalm, Cursed be they that decline from thy commandements.Deut. 27. The which saing, Dauid toke owt of moi­ses in the deuteronomy, where is writton this sentence. Euery one is cursed that abideth not in all the things that be written in this boke, that is to say,Rom. 3. Gala. 4. of the lawe. And ther for Paul to the Romās saith that the lawe worketh wrath. And to the galathians, that the lawe curseth all men, because no man kepeth it. And for this cause it is nedefull, [Page 83] that Christ shuld deliuer from such a curse, thos that bileue in him. So that this distinction, spea­king properly, is nothing. For the sinne which they call veniall, iff it be sinne, it is against the lawe. Iff it be againgst the lawe, it curseth and damneth. Iff it curse and damne it is deadly. Nor by this that is said, that euery sinne is deadly, is ment that all sinnis are like as certen haue said. Nor it denieth not that one sinne is gretter than another. As for example, murther gretter than theffe. But this only here is affirmed, that all sin­nes in them selues, be deadly, hauing respectt to the rigor of the lawe. Than that the thanksge­uing shuld forgiue the veniall and not the deadly sinnes, is fals. For the forgeuenes of sinnes is gods perfight work. Nor god forgeueth not a man one sinn, but he forgiueth him all. For accordingly, he that repenteth for one saut must repent him for all, at the least generally, otherwise no one sa­w [...] shuld be forgeuen him, for as moch as repen­tans is, whan the man is sory that he hath offen­ded god in what so euer sort he shuld offend him, And that he bileueth that thorow Christ all his sinnes be pardoned him. And that one shuld re­pent him for one fawt and not for all, that were not trewe repentans done in Christes name. So [Page] the masse that forgeueth not the deadly sinnes, can not forgeue the veniall. Also that other distinction of the forgeuing the fawt and the ponissh­ment is not of gods word, but against the word of god,Iere. 32. who saith in Ieremy that he wold no more remember their sinnes. What doth this meane, that he wold remember no more? It is plaine that he that ponissheth sinne, doth remember it. Dauid also saith in the Psalme,Psal. 31. Blessed is he to whom the lord hath not imputed sinne What meaneth this, not imputed, except pardoned in such sort as iff it had neuer bene done? Thus moch doth that word, not to impute, betoken. Than what ells mea­neth this, to forgeue sinn, but not to ponissh it? And iff god doth pardon the sinn, surely he doth perfitely pardon it. So than he requireth no ponisshment, and iff he shuld, he shuld not per­fitely pardon, ād so he shuld not be perfitely mercifull to wards his elect.Rom. 8. 1. cho. 1. Further more iff Chri­stes Iustice be so imputed to the trewe bileuers as though it were their own, For as moch as god geuing them Christ hath geuen them his Iustice, it surely foloweth, that the iustified by Christ sh­uld not be ponisshed affter any maner of sort. Nor it shuld not be conuenient that where Chri­stes iustice is, there shuld be any maner of poniss­ment, [Page 84] seing he hath plētifuly satisfied. And it wold some that he had not takē vp on him and born all that pomisshment the which gods elect deserued for their sinnes. The which thing is against gods word, who affirmeth in so many places of the scripture that Christ hath laid vpō himselff our iniquities.Esai. 3. Also it might seme that gods iustice were not by Christ perfitely pacified and recon­ciled to wardes the childern of god, loking for other satisfaction than that of Christ. Yea it shuld folow that the death, ād so gret a suffering of the son of god had bene insufficient for our redēpcion. And to be short, seing that all the elect be not ōly the children of god and Christes brethern but his members, this wold sownd to Christes dishonor. And surely euery ponishement that shuld be putt for this cause on such as haue so gret a cō ­iunction with Christ, Christ wold cownt it to be put vp on himselff. And though god somtime, affoer the repentans done and the fawt forgeuē, hath putt some ponisshement, as he did vp on Dauid and vp on certen other. This was not because he had not perfitely pardoned, and that such ponisshment shuld be a ponissment of the fawt committed, but it was an exercyse for them, and for other respectis than [Page] to ponish the fawt. As Austen saith well in his ij. boke intitled of the desertis of sinnes and of for­geuenes the 33. and 34. chapters, where he saith that the ponisshments with which god chastiseth men, ougth diuersly to be considered. For to the saintes, affter the forgeuenes of sinnes, thei be strifes battels and exercises, but to the refused, thei be with out forgeuenes ponisshments of iniquitie, where he bringeth furth thexāple of Dauid and others: and as for this we haue spoken of it before.

THE SECOND CHAPTER. That the masse is no sacrifice nor remem­brans of sacrifice.

IT is sureli a gret abuse to vse a thing to any effectt or end with which it agreith not. The defenders of the masse, will that it shuld be a sacrifice for the liuing and deade. The which thing veri mani saings in the same masse doo wi­tnes. As for exāple, that In spiritu humili­tatis, And, In animo contrito &c. that is to say, let vs be receiued of the, o lord, in the spirit of humblēnes and in a sorowfull mind and so let our sacrifice be made this day in thy sight, that [Page 85] it may please the, o lord god. And that other the which the bowt standers say, that is to say, Let the lord receiue the sacrifice from your handes, to the praise ād glory of his name. The which saings be affter the offering of the host and the cupp, before the preface. And that which is said in thēd of the masse, that is to say, let the willing duty of my seruice, please the, o holy trinitie, and make that the sacrifice which I vnworthy haue offered before thi miaesties eies may be accepta­ble vnto the &c. And very many other saings in­numerable, which all make mention that the masse or the masses sacramēts shuld be a sacrifice. Allthough that in the former chapter we haue su­fficiētly proued that this is a gret error for so moch as that if the masse doo not forgiue sin̄es, it is not neither any sacrifice for the same. Neuerthe­les for the plētifull clerenes of the truth, And for that the matter is of such Importās, we will particularli proue that the masse is no sacrifice, but because this word, sacrifice, hath diuers significati­ōs, to thentēt that we may well vnderstād, affter what sort thei make a sacrifice, It is to be vnder­stand that acording to the scripture there are fownd many sortis of sacrifices, as we haue in ex­odus, leuiticus ād in numerus.Exodus. 29. Where it is taught [Page] as well what maner of sacrifices they did owe to make,Exo. 29. Leui. 12.13.14 17.22. Num. 1.6.8 15.19. as of what sort ād for what cause. Chefely in leuiticus where is spoken at length of sacrifi­ces, the which all to gether may be brought generalli to ij. sortis of sacrifices, that is to sai, clēsing sacrifices ād praising or thanks geuing sacrifices And all though that this diuisiō shuld not cōpre­hend all the sacrifices, it shal make no matter, so that we proue that the masse is not a sacrifice affter that sort as they meane. The clēsing sacrifices were thos that were made to pourge ād clēse frō sin̄es or els to satisfie for thē as that was of the bulchin or yonge bullok wich is writton in leuiticus And very many other sacrifices that were made for sinnes.Leuiti. 4. All the rest that are made for other respects, whe haue by a general or comen name called them praising or thanckes geuing sacri­fices.

Iff they that say that the mass is a sacrifice, wo­ld haue said that it had bene a praising or thanks geuing sacrifice, they had said sōthing better. But they will haue it, and they vse it for a quiting sa­crifice, that is to say, purging or clensing and satisfieng for the sinnes not only off [Page 86] the liuing but also of the deade. Surely this is a gret effect to wipe a way and to purge the sinnes not only of the liuing but also of the deade. From whēs gather they this? Where haue they it? They haue it not owt of thold scripture for it speaketh not of the masse, because it was not than, nor owt of the newe. Let them shewe one only word that Christ or the Apostles euer spake, that the masse shuld be a sacrifice for the liuing and for the dea­de. Thei shall find in deede that the sacramēt, or let it be the lordes supper, is a remēbrans of the sa­crifice the which Christ made for vs, that is to say of his death. This doth Christ him selff say, whan he did institute the same holy supper, as Mathew,Mat. 26. Mar. 24. Luc.. 22. Marck Luke and Paul in the 1. to the Corinthiās doo say, Doo This in My remēbrans? In a ma­tter of so gret weight, as this is, how durst any man (yea I speake to all the men in the world ga­thered to gether) be so bold to affirme such a sen­tēs without gods auctoritie? howe can men know that any thing shuld be a sacrifice for sinne if gods word say it not? The selff same that is the sacrifice for sinne is the same that sauith vs. The masse than or let it be the masses sacramēt, shall be thatt that shall saue vs, nor Christ shal not be our sauior but it shall [Page] be the masse or hir sacrament. And how comith this matter to passe that the sacrament shuld work an effectt contrary to his office? Thoffice of the sacrament is to signifie that Christ is deade for vs in forgeuenes of sinnes. This Christ him selff saith, and signifieth that Christ forge­uith the sinnes and yet thei wold that the sacra­ment it selff shuld be that that forgeueth sinnes. Thes ij. things can not stand to gether, that the sacrament shuld both signifie that a nother thing. forgeueth sinnes and also that the sacrament it selff forgiuith them. Iff the sacramēt it selff forge­ueth them, how doth it betoken that Christ doth forgeue them? So than it selff will forgeue them and not Christ. Here thei alledge that the holy fa­thers, as Ambros, Austen and others did call it a sacrifice. And therfor thei also call it a sacrifice. ‘Than further thei say that the scripture saith the same, that is to say the Prophete malachy the which saith,Mala. 1. I haue no delite in yow, that is to say, yow please me not saith the lord of hostis. And I wil not take the gifft at your hand, for that from theast to the west, my name is gret among the gē tiles, and in euery place is sacrifised and offered to my name the cleane offering. For that, gret is my name among the gentiles, saith the lord of hostes.’ [Page 87] Loo here thei say that the masse is a sacrifice, the which from theast to the west, is made to god called by the Prophet a cleane offering the whi­ch in euery place is sacrificed, In frāce, in Spaine, in flanders, in Almany in Italy and euery where. To thes so feble profes, I first answer that thold fathers called the supper of the lord a sacrifice meaning that it was a rememberans of the sacrifice as the stone owt of which came furth the water in the desert, was called Christ no [...] because it was in dede Christ, but because it did signifie Christ. Nor this is not mine, but the fathers exposition them selues. And I could bring furth the auctori­tie of many but the auctoritie of Chrisostom for this time shal suffise vs,Chrisost. Heb. 9. who vp on the Pistel to the hebrews speaketh of the sacra­ment affter this sort. That which we doo is do­ne in remembrans of that which is allredy done. We doo not any other sacrifice, but allweyes, the selffe same. Yea we rather vse the remembrans of the sacrifice. Thes be the wordes of Chrisostom who will that she sacrament therfor shuld be called a sacrifice because it is a remembrans of the sacrifice. Also the master of the sentencis,Senten. 4. Distinc. 12. the defender of the masse, saith that the sacrament of the breade and wine is called a sacrifice and an offe­ring because it is a remembrans and a representacion [Page] of the trewe sacrifice, ād of the holy offring made vpon thaultar of the crosse. Because on is, saith he, Christ was dead on the crosse,, and offred in him selff, but euery day he is offered in the sa­crament because that in the sacrament is made the remembrans of that that ones was done. we might iff we wold, bring furth Cipriane, Austen, Ambros, and many other awncient authors, but seking for shortnes we will passe them ouer. And allthough that all thold men shuld say that it were in dede a sacrifice, not bringing gods word for them we shall not be bownd to byleue them: be­cause it behoueth that such a thing belonging to our faith, shuld be grownded vpon gods word ād not vp on mennes. To the saing of Malachy, I say, that it proueth not their intent, because thei must iff thei will that that saing shuld be to their pur­pos, proue that Malachy shuld speake of the masse. Malachy saith that in euery place is offered and sacrificed to god the cleane offring, he saith trewe, but he saith not that this cleane offring is the masse or the sacrament of the lords supper. He only maketh mencion of the cleane offring ād telleth not what that is. How trifle thei to gesse affter this sort, saing that he speaketh of the masse or of the sacrament? Thei must first shewe that [Page 88] the masse is a sacrifice, And affterward that ma­lachy shuld speake of the masse, or els of the sa­crament But thei shall neuer proue neither tho­ne nor thother, I say, by gods word. Than further let vs admitt that malachy Speakith of the sacra­ment of thaultar ād that the same is a sacrifice the which is offered in euery place, thei shuld not yet by this, haue their intent. Because that thei must also proue, that this is a clensing sacrifice for sinnes as thei wold haue it. It may be granted affter a good sence, the same sacrament being called Eucharistia, becaus in the same is yelded thankes to god for so gret a benifite as he hath geuē vs in Christ, It mai, I sai, he grāted that it is a praising or thā ksgeuing sacrifice, but thei haue not by the saing of malachy, that it is a clēsing sacrifice as thei doo meane. And iff thei shuld aske, Affter what sort than, is malachy vnderstād, ād of what sacrificest taketh he? I say that our meaning is not at this time to expownd that saing. It is only to make knowē that the profe is nothing worth, as yow may see. Neuertheles, I wil sai that malachi spake of the spirituall offerings ād sacrifices the which are offred eueri where sin̄s Christes coming. In the prophe­tis time mē might not doo sacrifice except in the temple at Ierusalē. But affter christis coming are made eueri where the trewe offrings ād the trewe [Page] spirituall sacrifices the which please god, made by the byleuers, and thei be thes, First the sacrifi­ce of praise of the which the Psalm saith,Psal. 49. Heb. 13. Sacrificiū laudis honorificabit me that is ye shall honor me with the sacrifice of praise. And Paul to the hebrews, per ipsum offe­rimus hostiam laudis semper deo that is thorow him we offer the sacrifice of praise alwais vnto god. And he addeth to, Benefi­centiae & communicationis noli­te obliuisci, talibus enim hostijs placetur deo that is be not vnmindful of liberali­tie and almesse for with such sacrifice god is pleased. See here ij. goodly spirituall sacrifices, the praise of god and the help of our neighbors tho­row charitie.Philip. 4. The other sacrifice which pleaseth god, and is made euery where, is whan we offer ourselues and dedicate vs to gods seruice, refu­sing and forsaking our seluis. Of this spake Paul to the romans.Rom. 12. Ther is a nother offring or sacrifice of the which also Paul to the romans speaketh, whan the ministers with the word of tholy go­spel doo offer to god thos that doo turne,Rom. 15. as Paul him selff saith he hath done the gentiles. And to be short all thos hostes and spirituall sacrifices of [Page 89] the which Peter telleth in his 1. pistel,1 Petri. 2. that be ac­ceptable to god thorow Christ, thos such sacri­fices be the same of the which I ymagin malachyment. For he had the selff same spirit, that Paul and Peter had who tell which be the sacrifi­ces that please god. And saing thus, we speake ac­cording to the scripture ād not of our own head, as thei doo that say that the masse is a clensing sacrifice for the sinnes of the liuing and deade, ād knowe not nor can not bring furth in their fa­uor any one saing of tholy scripture. In the mat­ters of sowl helth which are the chefe and of gret test wayght, men ought not only to be hable to defend them, but it is necessary that thei proue them by tholy scripture the which can not lie. Thei which say that the masse is a sacrifice for sinnes, by all the meanes thei can, thei indeuor and force them seluis to mainteine that thing with distinctions with a thowsand inuencions, and it is ynough for them not to be ouercome as it chan­ceth to the sect of the schole men, the which be of most diuers opinions. As for example, the Thomists, the Scotistes and euery one of them defend their own opinion and thei be in continuall strif­fe, and it is neuer knowen who hath the better. Surely it must nedes be, that hauing contrary opini­ons, [Page] at the least that thone of them shuld be fals, and yet thei defend them. It is not fitt in gods matters, for a man to seeke only to be able to defend his opinion, affter what sort he will, for so moch as the fals matters also may be defended with writhing and wrangling. But it is necessary that we proue our opinion by gods cleare and plaine word. And iff we can not proue it we ought not certenly to affirme it.

Now let vs proue with the lordes help that neither the masse nor the sacrament are sacrifices for the sin̄es neither of the liuing, ād moch lesse of the deade. First either thei meane of the hole mase,The first re­ason. as we haue said before, that is to say, of all that mixture or els heape and composition of wor­des, gestures and ceremonies, beginning from the Introibo, euen vnto thend, or els thei meaane only of the breade and wine that thei offer, and of the sacrament. Iff thei meane off the hole masse, it can not be a sacrifice. How is it possible that a thing full of so many falshods, so many superstitions, so many wikednesses and blas­phemies, and that so many waies robbeth gods honor and Christes, and offendeth him, shuld be a sacrifice for the sinnes of the liuing and of the deade? Shuld we doo sacrifice to god with blasphemies? [Page 90] That the masse is full of such things, he­therto we haue diuersly proued it by gods word Iff thei meane only of the breade and wine, and of the sacrament and not of the hole masse, either thei meane of the breade and wine not yet conse­crated, or els affter that thei be cōsecrated. Wich way so euer thei take it, it is fals that thei shuld be a sacrifice for sin̄es. Although I know that aff­ter both sortis thei wold it shuld be a sacrifice both affter the consecration and before. There is no dowt but affter the cōsecration folowing their opinion, the bread and the wine be a sacri­ce. For as thei think, Christ all hole is there in body and in sowle, and that there is no more nei­ther bread nor wine, but only Christ the which is the trew sacrifice. Also that thei hold that that bread and wine is a sacrifice before the consecra­tiō, how can thei denie it, so many praiers, secrets and chefely the canon affirming it? The which canon in the first part praith god that he wold blesse that bread and wine, and calleth them holy vntasted sacrifices in the plural nomber. And in the second part, that is to say in the me­mento, he calleth them a sacrifice of prai­se. The which is offered for the saluation of sowles. And in the fourth part he calleth [Page] them an oblacyon. And in the fifft he praith god that he wold vouchsafe taccept this oblacion so that it might becōe the body and blood of his best beloued sonn. So that than they will that that breade and wine which are not yet cōsecrated shuld be a sacrifice for the ransoming of sowles. And they pray that they may becom Christes body ād blood. Iff they pray that they may become, then be they not yet consecrated. For whan they be cō secrated, they are become Christs body ād blood, as they think, and it nedeth not any more to pray that they shuld become soo, becaus they be allready soo becomne. That this bread and wine vncō secrated shuld not be a sacrifice for sinnes it is an easy thing to proue. For that according to tholy scripture, the sacrifice for sinnes is that that hath redemed vs. For so moch as the redempcion is as moch to say as the forgeuenes of sinnes, accor­ding to Paul as it is writton to the Ephesians and to the Colossians:Eph. 1. Collos. 1. But we be not redemed ney­ther with bread nor wyne, but only with the blood of the vnspotted lamb christ as Peter saith in his first pistle,1. Petri 1 Yow knowe that yow were not redemed from yowr vayne conuersacion, which yow toke by the tradicion of yowr elders with fadeable things as gold ād siluer, but with Christes [Page 91] precios blood as of an hole and vndefyled lamb. Is not the bread and wine vncōsecrated things fade able and corruptible? How vile doth this masse make Christes redēpcion? Of how litle valew, his blessed blood? God wold not pardon sin̄e, but th­at there was paid so gret a price, so gret a passiō so high a blood and so gret a death as that was of his sonn. And they will that sinnes shuld be par­doned with bread and wine which yet are no no­ther but plaine breade ād plaine wine. That the bread and the wine whā the consecraciō is made, shuld be no sacrifice although there were no mo­re neither bread nor wine, but the body and blo­od of Christ Ihesus, as they wold haue it, I say that they be no sacrifice. They be so moch lesse a sacrifice, iff the bread ād the wine remaine. And that they shuld be the sacrament as without dowt the Sacramēt is no nother in substās, but bread and wyne, consecrated, that is to say appointed to the vse to which Christ appointed thē, that is to sai to bring in to remembrans his body and blood. That the sacrament, I say, is no sacrifice in what so euer sort it be a sacrament. I proue it by Paul in his pistle to the hebrews,Hebre. The which if the fauo­rers of the masse had but supperficially vnder­stand, they wold neuer so boldly haue vttered [Page] that the masse or let it be the sacrament shuld be a sacrifice. It is writton first in that pi­stle, that there were in the lawe many pry­stes, becaus thei were mortall, but Christ w­ho is immortall, hath now theuerlasting prist­hode, and therfor can saue for euer all thos that goo to god by him, alweys liuyng to that end that he may intreate god for vs. And he addeth a none affter, that thos prestes or els bysshops had nede toffer sacryfyces not only for the sinnes of the peple but for their own also. But it behoued that Christ shuld be vndefyled, innocent, the w­hich shuld not haue nede eueri dai toffer for him selffe, and affter for the peple because he dyd this ones, whan he offred hym selffe. For so moch as that the lawe appointeth men bisshops that haue weakenessys,Psal. 110. but the word of the oth, that is to sai the word of god, and of which Dauyd spake in the Psalme, appointeth the son for euer consum­mate, that is to say perfite. By thes wordes, ij things are geuen vs to be vnderstand. First that none can offer a sacrifice, that may auaile, (as before god) for sinnes, except Christ that is pure, inno­cent, separated from sinners perfite and euerla­sting bishop, who hath in such sort offered him selff, that the sacrifice is the prest him selff, and the [Page 92] priest the sacrifice it selff. For that toffer sacrifice for sinnes it behoueth not only that the sacrifice shuld be cleane, pure and withowt spott, but it is necessary that he that offereth it, shuld be him selff also cleane and that he shuld not haue nede toffer for his own sinnes. It is knowen off old, that among men also, whan a thing is presented by the handes of one that is in displeasure of any gret lord, allthough that the thing be good, yet it shall not be acceptable, because that he which presenteth it is not fauored. Iff it be so than that he who offereth must be cleane and no sinner, the prestes that say masse, can not offer sacrifice for sinnes because thei be vncleane and sinners. And albeit thei shuld in deede offer Christ ones again, that offring could not auaile for sinnes: because it is nedefull for the bringing to passe of such an effect that both thone and thother shuld be clea­ne and withowt spott, not only the sacrfice but also the sacrificer, a thing that can not be among as many as be but men in the whole world. And for this cause it behoued that Christ him selff sh­uld be he that shuld offer and make sacrifi­ce to god and no nother but him selff, because he alone is without sinne, and all the rest be sinners. Than it geuyth also tunderstand, [Page] that it nedeth not any more to doo sacrifice for sinnes becaus he that hath done sacrifice, Christ, hath satisfied, hauing done ones for euer, because it was perfite, being the same Christ theuerlasting bisshop that offred him selff. Iff that haue suffi­sed being ones done, what nedeth it to make oth­er sacrifices or to make againe the same at other times? Surely it shuld be superfluos, yea it shuld lessen the worthines of so gret a sacrifice, for it wold seme that it were not sufficient. So than the masses sacrament is no sacrifice for sinnes. Next affter in the viij. chapter he saith,Heb. 8. that Christ ha­th so moch a more excellent presthode than the old bisshops, as he is a mediator of a more excell­ent testament, the which is made with more ex­cellent promises. And declaring of what sort the newe testament shuld be, he allegeth the saing of the scripture,Iere. 31. that is to say, Ieremy, the which sa­ith, this is the testament (that is to say, the newe testament) which I will make with the hows of I­sraell, affter thos daies, saith the lord I wil geue them my lawes in their mindes, And in their har­tis I will write them, And I will be their god, and thei shal be my peple. And affter a fewe wordes he saith, I will be pacified concerning their vnrightuosnes, and their sinnes and iniquities I will no [Page 93] more remember. Thes wordes conclude that the­re is for vs no nother sacrifice for sinnes but that which Christ ones made. God saith (who can not lie) that geuing the newe testament he wold in such sort be mercifull, as he wold no more remember the sinnes of his peple, that is to say of the trewe byleuers. The which geueth to vnderstand that he shuld be perfitely and perpetually pacified. Let vs see now, for what cause he shuld be so pacified? We must say, for no nother cause but for the mediators sake of such a testament, that is to say, for Christes sake by whom this testament was made. Let vs goo on further. How is god pacified by Christ, except by the sacrifice the which he made, offring him selff vnto god for the sinnes of his peple? Gods anger and his Iustice is by no nother meanes pacified, but becaus (affter a maner of spech) he hath wreked him selff vpon Christ. Off the which, Esay saith I haue beaten him for the wickednes of my peple. Than let vs say affter this sort, iff god be pacified by Christes sacrifice, and forgeuith our sin̄es, It foloweth that there nedeth no nother sacrifice for sinnes. For iff he wold haue other sacrifice for sinnes he shuld not be, I say, perfytely pacifyed, nor, requiring other sa­crifyce that might satisfye for them. he wold not [Page] forget owre iniquities. Surely, he that seith not this is very bare of vnderstanding.

In the ninth chapter shewing the differens betwene thold bysshops ād Christ, he saith that the leuitical bisshop entred ones in the yeare into that place, the which is called sancta sāctorum, that is the head holy place, not withowt blood, the which he offered for him selff and for the sin­nes of the peple. And he saith that thos gifftes ād sacrifices which were offered, could not make man perfite as perteining to the consciens. But Christ the bisshop of trewe good things entred o­nys in to the head holy place with his own blood and gate ther theuerlasting ransō. And affter he addeth that forgeuenes is not wrought withowt blood sheding? And declaring what shuld be thos head holy placis where into Christ entered he sa­ith that, that is heauen, and that he is there ente­red that he may presently appeare in gods sight for vs not to be offten offered as the bisshop, (that is to say the leuiticall bisshop) off [...] times euery yeare entered by strange blood. For other wise it shuld haue bene nedefull that he shuld haue offten suffered sins the beginning of the world. But now towards thend of the world, hath he ones appeared to destroy sinne by the offering of him [Page 94] selff. And as it is appointed that all mē ones shall die, ād affter that shal iudgement be, so Christ is ones offered to take a way the sinnes of man. All this talk doth shewe that neyther the masse nor the sacramēt is a sacrifice. First it saith that thos gifftes and sacrifices which were offered, could not make man perfite as perteining to the cōsci­ēs, as though he wold say, that they could not for giue sinnes nor perfitely clense man, but Christes gifft ād sacrifice is that wich maketh man perfite as perteining to the cōsciēs. It is plaine that Chri­stes sacrifice is made for all thelect in all the world that be past, present, ād to come, As Iohn saith in his first pistle that he is thappeasement of all the world,1. Ioh. 2. and he hath made thē perfite as cō ­cerning cōsciēs, that is to say, hath perfitely rāso­med, freed, halowed, wasshed ād clēsed thē. And he onli hath done that which thos nōber of sacrifices of the lawe could not doo. And by that one ō ­ly he hath satisfied, quieted ād pacified their cōsci­encis and hath made thē sure of his grace, that is to say, of forgeuenes of sinnes, of recōciliaciō ād attonemēt with god, ād of their saluacion. To make a man perfite in consciens, doth bring with it thes forsaid things. Iff it be so than what ne­deth it more to make other sacrifices, and to goo [Page] abowt to seke to make that a newe that Christ hath perfitely made, as though he had not ma [...] it? that other word that foloweth, proueth the v [...] ry same, that is to say that christ hath fownd ow [...] theuerlasting ransom, that is to say, the per [...] freing of all thelect in the world, from sinne, from damnation, from death, and from all euill for e­uer, and this by the sacrifice that he made ones, with his blood, and by his passhion and death. If he haue with his facrifice ones made, gotē theuerlasting ransom, that is to say, that which shall allwaies be, and shall neuer faile but euer cōtinewe, wath nedeth there any other sacrifices for sin̄es? We haue inough of that which christ ōes made, because with that he fownd owt theuerlasting ransom. And that other word which saith that withowt blood sheding forgeuēes is not wrought, what doth it meane but that it is nedefull in the sacrifice which is made for sinnes and which forgeueth thē, that blood shuld be shed, ād that it shuld satisfie for sinnes? And for this cause was nedefull that christ shuld shed his blood. In the masse there is no sheding of blood, therfor it is no sacrifice for sin̄es. Tho ther word that cometh next affter, that is to say, that Christ is ētred in to heauē to the intēt that he may appeare in gods fight for vs not [Page 95] to be offten offered (for it is as moch to say as one time suffiseth. Forels it shuld haue bene nedefull that he shuld offten haue suffered sins the begin­ning of the world) what doo thes wordes meane, but that christ cānot be offered for sin̄es more th [...] one time, And who so euer seketh toffer him off [...]ner than one time, there foloweth this inconue­niens that it shuld haue bene nedefull that christ shuld offten haue suffered sins the beginning of the world? Thei say that christ is offered in the masse for sinnes, that is to say thei offer him them selues to god, not only for the liuing but also for the deade. Iff christ be offered one only time and that hath fuffised, what nedeth it any more to offer affter any maner of sort? Iff that only time haue suffised for sinne, what nedeth it more to say masse to that end? Oh, say thei the masse is that which applieth the merite of christes passhion. But from whens gather thei that their saing, but [...]owt of their own braine, I will not say from the spirite of Antichrist? It is not ynough to say that it is so, but thei must proue it by the scripture. The masse auaileth them not to applie the meri­te of christes Passion. Faith sufficeth, as before we haue saide. For by the testimony of peter and Paul, he that bileueth in Christ his sinnes be for­geuen [Page] him and he Iustified. The other saing is th­at Christ in thend of the world hath appeared ones by thoffering of hym selff to dryue a way and to destroye synne, that is to say, all the synnes of the elect. Iff he haue destroyed all sinne with his sacryfyce ones made, to what purpos shuld we make moo sacryfices? It nedeth not any more to doo that that is alredy done. And that last sa­ing, what doth it meane? That is, that as it is appoynted and ordeyned that all men shall ones dye, and affter Iudgement shall come, so Christ is ones offered to take away the synnes of many, that is to say of all thelectt. The scripture vseth offt this word, many, for all thelectt, as we haue in mathew,Math. 20 where Christ sayth that the son of man was come to geue his lyfe for the redempcyon of mani And whan he dyd institute the sacrament he said that his blood shuld be shed for many.Math. 26 Roma. 5 And Paul to the romans sayth that by chrystes obedyēs many be made iust. This word, Many, in all thes places, importyth as moch as all thelect. To our purpos, iff it be appointed and ordeyned that Chryst shuld be offered one tyme for the sinnes of many, as it is appoynted that all men ones shall dye, what nedeth it any more to offer hym? will we doo against gods ordynans? Here the [Page 96] defenders of the masse answer; that Christ is ones offered affter that maner, that is to say, suffering and dying, and affter that sort, it nedeth not that he shuld be any more offered, because that only time suffised. But now he is offered affter a no­ther sort, that is to say sacramentally, and affter this sort he may be offten offered for sinne. This answer is nothing worth. For iff Christ at that only time whan he offerd him selff, destroied sin̄, to what purpos nedeth it to offer him any more to that effect and to doo that is alredy done? The destruction of all sinnes was wrought by that only time that Christ was offered, It nedeth not any more to doo it neither affter that, nor affter any other sort.

In the tenth chapter he saith first,Hebr. 1 [...]. that iff the sacrifices the which were offered in the la­we could haue made men perfite, that is to say, clensed them perfitely, thei shuld not haue bene many times done, becaus that thei that shuld haue done them, being ones clensed shuld not ha­ue had any more cōsciens, that is to say, gnawing of sinne. For that thing that taketh a way sinne, taketh a way also the gnawing of the consciens for cause of sinne. And this word, sinne is put there for all sinnes. And he addeth that the [Page] blood of bulles ād of hegootes cā not take a wa [...] sinnes, and therfor he (that is to say Christ) entering in to the world, speaketh the worde [...] of the psalme,Psal. 39. that is to say, thow woldi [...] not haue sacrifice nor oblaciō nor thow art not delyted in whole burnt offerings for sinnes. Tha [...] I said, lo I come, that I may doo, oh god, thy will. And affter he saith. By the which wil [...] we are halowed, through the offring of Chri­stes body ones done. And affter a fewe wordes, a [...] it were shewing the caus why we be hallowed by the offring of Ihesus Christes body ones done, he saith, becaus that with one only offring he hath made perfite thos that be halowed. Which thing the holy goost doth witnes, the which foretold that god wold make a newe testament. And amongst other things, he saith that he wold nomore remember their sinnes, that is to say his peples, and his electis sinnes. And he addeth that whe­re forgeuenes off sinnes is wrought, there nedeth not any more to make other oblacion, that is to say to offer other sacrifice for sinne. Thes wordes be cannon shot is, ynough to beate down the whole bilding of the masse, or els thei be swordes ynough to throte cutt hir or vtterly to kill hir. First, he saith, that iff the sacrifices of the lawe had bene [Page 97] able to make mē perfite, the selff same shuld neuer haue bene so offten done again, becaus that they that had sacrifised shuld not haue had any more consciens of sinne, being allredy ones clen­sed and purged. Here the text saith plainely that it nedeth not to doo again thos sacrifices which take a way sinnes and make mē perfite, the which is all one. Iff the masse take a way sinnes, why doo they say it so offten? It shuld suffise to say one on­ly to satisfie for them for whō it shuld be said or that say it, and to forgiue their sinnes. Here the text saith that therfor thos sacrifices were the more offtened becaus they could not take a way sinnes. Iff they had taken them a way it had not nedid to doo the selff same againe. The defenders of the masse say that they doo no nother sacrifice in the masse, but the selff same that christ did, and that, they doo offten: O goodly ymaginacions. They putt than Christ offten vp on the crosse wetingly done and of purpos. The Iewes vnderstode not that Christ was Christ, nor they knewe him not, and therfor they crucified him, as Paul to the Chorinthes, saith. And they knowe that Ie­sus is Christ, and yet they put him so many times vp on the crosse,1. cho. 2. and thei be so many times made giltie of his body and bloode, as they say masses. [Page] It is a godly sacrifice. What will thei say here to the reason that the text maketh? that is to say, that if thos sacrifices of the lawe had bene able to take a way sinnes, thei shuld not haue be done more than ones? Iff the masse take a way sinnes why is it said again so offten? Than Further, as we ha­ue said. Iff that sacrifice which christ hath made one only time, that is to say, whan he offred him selff, did than forgiue sinne, and that only time sufficed, what nedeth it to make any more sacrifices for sinnes? The second saing is that we be halowed by gods will, through the oblatiō, that is to say, the sacrifice of christes body ones made. Iff we be halowed, that is to say iff we be made clea­ne, ād iff our sinnes be forgeuen vs through chri­stes sacrifice ones made, wath nedeth it to make any other sacrifice, or to offten the same? Now the third saing, the which rēdrith the caus of the whole, that is to say, that with one only oblatiō ād sa­crifice christ hath made perfite, all thos that is to say all thelect frō the begin̄ing of the world vnto thend. Iff it be trewe, as withowt dowt it is, what nedeth it any more to make sacrifice for sinnes, neither the selff same nor any other? By that, sa­ith the text here, be all thos made perfite, that be holied, that is to say thelect. Iff thei be made [Page 98] perfite, that is to say, perfitely clensed, and it me­anith that thei want nothing, what nede haue thei of moo sacrifices? furthermore if the holy goost which cā not lie doo witnes that god through christ wold no more remember the sinnes of his peple, that is to say, wold perfitely and thorow­ly forgeue them, what nedeth it any more to make sacrifices for sinnes? To be short, iff where as forgeuenes or sacrifice for sinnes is made, there is not any other offring or sacrifice for the same, as the text here saith, becaus that that of chri­stes is ynough, the which was made onis, why will we make mo sacrifices for sinnes if thei be wholly forgeuen, and of such sort as god wold neuer remember him any more of them? So that than it is clere and plaine by thes so many saings of this most christen and holy pystle fore ledged, that we haue no nother sacrifice for sinnes but that which christ made on the crosse. And iff it be so, it doth in dede folowe of necessitie and certenly that neither the masse, nor ther sacrament is a sacrifice for sinnes. And if any one wold say, how is forgeuenes of all sinnes w­rought by christ, seing euery day it is done a newe by repentans? And Christ Iesus him selff commandeth vs in the praier which he hath [Page] taught his apostles what thei shuld say, Et di­mitte nobis debita nostra. that is to say, forgue vs our sinnes. Iff he hath allredy forge­uen them, what nede we any more desyre that he wold forgeue them vs? To this I answer that whā Paul sayth that by Christes sacrifyce is forgeuen vs all our sinnes,1. Ioh. 2 that is to say, past, present, and to come, the which also Ihon affirmeth in his I. pi­stle, whan he saith,1. Pet. 2. that he is the appeasement of all the sinnes of the world. And whan peter in his first also sayth, that Christ hath born our sin­nes,Esa. 53. on his body vp on the crosse. And Esay, like­wyse sayth, that god hath layd all our iniquyties vp on him, that is to say vp on Christ. Thes saings of the scripture and such other like haue this me­aning, that is to say, that Christ Iesus hath satis­fyed gods Iustyce for the whole sinnes of thelect, past, present ād to come. nor god for this respect, doth not looke for any other satisfaction, or pa­yment, becaus he was perfitely and wholly satis­fyed for our sinnes, whā Christ gaue himselff for a sacrifyce, suffering and dyeng as he dyd, nor there was not any other way for us to pacifie god and to satisfye him, but this. Vnderston­ding affter this sort the fore sayd saings (the (forgyuenes of all the sinnes of all thelect of the world, present, past, and to come) are allredy [Page 99] forgeuen, nor there is no nother forgeuenes loked for. Becaus that for the sinnes of the same elect there is no nother satisfaccyon looked for. And whā it is sayd, that sinnes be daily forgeuen by repen­tans, this is to be vnderstād, as to vs, that is to sai, that we doo accept by fayth inclosed within re­pentans such forgeuenes, and we doo enter in to the knowlege of gods grace and mercy shewed towards vs thorow Christ, bi the forgeuyng of al our sinnes. Wherfor euen as Christ hath onli satisfied for thelect, ād not for the rest, to whom his death auaileth not, so thelect ōly haue the trew sayth, ād doo knowe the forgiuenes of their sin̄es w­rought thē by Christ. Wherfor speaking proper­li, neither the repentās nor the faith doo forgeue the sin̄es, becaus that gods grace ōly or mercy thorow Christ Iesus (that is to say, becaus he hath satisfied for us) is that that forgeuyth sinnes. But therfor the forgeuenes of synnes is attributed to repentans, and to faith, becaus the same faith is that, which knoweth and accepteth such forgeuenes, and it is a certen assurednes of the same. And whan we aske euery day in the lords praier that he wold forgeue vs our sinnes, we doo aske of god rather the knowlege and assurednes of such for­geuenes, than the forgeuenes it selff, of which the [Page] faithfull ought not to dowt, but that it is wrought him in Christ. But we doo aske to knowe such forgiuenes better, and to be more certen of the same. The which knowlege and certentie (being no nother but faith it selff) is neuer so gret, but it may increase and become greater. And ther­for the faithfull Christiā euery day, and as offten as he remembreth him of his sinnes, desireth for­geuenes of thē, that is to say, the knowlege ād more certentie of such forgeuenes. Further more Christ will that praing daily, we shuld ask forgeuenes of our sinnes, to make vs to knowe that we be sinners, ād that we doo continually offend him. The which thing whan we knowe, first it doth hūble vs before god. Thā it maketh vs know his mercy how gret it is. It hangeth of this kno­wlege that we be inflamid more feruently to loue god, to honor him, to reuerēce him, to serue him from the hart. And according to his exāple, to loue our neyghbor, to doo him good, to forgiue him whan he offendith vs, and to pardon wron­ges receiued, the which in comparison, of thos that we doo vnto god, which be withowt nōber, ād most great, we ought to accownt them no w­rongs and of no w [...]ight.

Now there remaineth to proue, that the sacra­ment of the masse is no remēbrans of a sacrifice. [Page 100] For, iff it were a remeberans of a sacrifice, it sh­uld be a trewe sacramēt, but it is no trewe sacramēt, chefely to thē that be there present, and say not the masse, therfor it is no remēberans of a sa­crifice. I proue that it is no sacramēt, becaus that to a trew sacrament is necessary, that the wor­des of the cōsecratiō be said, and that thei be vn­derstād according to that comō saing (and it is of Austē) accedit uerbum ad elemētum & fít sacramentum, that is to say, when the worde is Ioined to the Elemēt the sacramēt is made, it is necessary, I say, to a trewe sacrament that the word shuld be Ioined, other wise it is no sacramēt. But how be thei certē whiche be presēt at the masse that the wordes with the which thei cōsecrate, be said by the prest or not? For so moch as thei heare it not, the same prest saing it veri sofftli, in such sort as none heareth it, except the prest him selff. Therfor to thē which heare not, nor ūd­erstād what is done, nor said, it is no sacramēt. A fewe yeares past,Mark there was in Mantua a certē fri­re of a certē order the which was put in ā Irō cage becaus he had celebrated masse māi yeares, ād neu­er did cōsecrate. So it might chāce of māy other that might doo the like, who cā assertē the peple that the bread, ād wine, is cōsecrated, neither hearing, [Page] vnderstanding what is said? And iff any man wold say that there may be a sacrament, although the wordes of the consecration shuld neither be hard, nor vnderstand, seing that the childern be baptised, which vnderstand not what is said. To this I answer, that there is diuersitie betwene childern ād thē that be of full age, for the childern al­though thei neither heare, nor vnderstand, yet thei may and ought to be baptised by gods com­mandment. And this is taken owt of the scriptu­re. But thei of full age, ought not to be baptised, except thei vnderstād that which is said. Yea baptime in full age requireth faith, and the confessiō of the same. And iff at any time it shuld be done otherwise, that is to say, iff it shuld not be vnder­stand, it shuld not be vnto him trewe baptim. So moch more we shall say of the sacramēt of bread and wine (the which none vse butt thei of full a­ge) that thei be no sacrament, if the wordes be not spoken, and vnderstand, with which wordes thei be consecrated, that is to say appointed to an holy vse, and become a sacrament. For this cause in old time the wordes of the consecration were said with a lowd voice, to thentēt that euery one might vnderstād what was said, so that, seing the sacramēt of the masse is no trewe sacrament, it is [Page 101] no memory of a sacrifice Further more we must knowe, that the sacramēt is not an absolute thing but is a thing that hath respect to a nother thing, that is to say, to the vse to which it is appointed. And whan such vse is taken a way, it can not be properly called a sacrament. The trewe vse of the sacrament is, that it shuld be distributed to the multitude. And to this end it is consecrated, that is to say, appointed. Let vs see how the saui­or vsed it, whan he instituted it. It is ce [...]ten that he gaue it not to one only, but to all his disciples, and said vnto them, that thei shuld doo as he tau­ght them, and did him selff. And how did he? He said not only ouer the bread and wine, the wor­des of the consecration, as the priestes doo, which seme to make an inchantment, but he comman­ded them that thei all shuld take, and eate, the bread, and drink the wine. He did all this, and said that thei ought to doo as he had done. It behoueth iff it shuld be a sacrament to doo all that which Christ said and commanded, and not part. But now the Priest, beside that it is not vnderstand what he doth, he doth not deale the sacrament to the peple, but taketh it him selff alone, and yet he saith that he doth cōmunicate. And he calleth that receiuing with the mowth, that is to say, taking [Page] the bread, and wine, he calleth it, cōmunion, speaking and doing abusingly. It is called a cōmunion whan many doo partake of one thing, not whā one by him selff alone, doth take the whole, as is done in the priuat masse. By the which thing we may truli say that that sacrament of the masse, is no trew sacrament. Wherfor if Paul, for that disorder that the corinthians did vse (as it is writton in the 1. to the same corinthians) which was,1. Cho. 11. that one taried not for another (and it was but a small fawt in comparison of this) sa­id, that that which they did, was no eating of the lordes supper: what shall we say of this sacra­ment, in the which is committed not one, but so many abuses, and where the whole trewe vse of the lords supper, is changed? Christ cōmanded that all shuld take it. And here in the masse the prest eateth and drinketh vp all alone. My reason standeth in this. The vse of the sacramēt, is of the substance of the same sacramēt. And where the vse is not to which it was appointed, there the sa­cramēt in deed, is not. The vse of the lords sup­per, or of the thankes geuing is not only to say the wordes ouer the bread and the wine, but it is that many shuld take it, and eate the one and drink the other, as Christ appointed Than [Page 102] where such vse is not, there is no sacramēt, for he said to many. Eate yow, ād drink yow. And why is not this done in the priuate masse, but rather the cleane contrary? For one alone that is to say, the prest, doth take the host and the cupp. So that than it is no trewe sacrament. I will geue the ex­ample of baptim, to thentent that euery one may vnderstand how the sacrament standeth in the v­se, And whan the vse is ceased it is no more a sa­crament. The water of baptim is no sacrament, but for that time that it wassheth, ād is put vp on the body, saing thes wordes, I baptise the in the name of the father, the sonn and the holy goost Amen. Let that water fall in to another vess­el, affter that the creature be baptised, it is no more baptime, but is as any other water, this is plaine. Euen so I say of the sacrament of than­ksgeuing, whilest that it is delt, and distributed, it is a sacrament, but that which is lefft of the bread and wine, is no more a sacrament, but it may be eaten and dronken as other bread and wine, becaus it is no more appointed to such vse. So I say of thos crommes of breade that fall vp on the grownd, that thei be no sacrament. I know that of this my talk many things doo folow, the which will seme inconuenient. And amongst [Page] [...] [Page 102] [...] [Page] other that thes osts, the which are kept in the ta­bernacles, or pixis and in the litle closettis, be no sacrament, becaus that there we haue not the vse, the which is of the substance of the sacrament.

And there doth folowe it, many other. But let thē folow at their will, I am of Christes opinion. Ther for in this I remitt my selff to the Iudgement of Christes churches. I say thus, becaus it semith vn­to me according to gods word, that it shuld be so, that is to say, that as whan the vse of baptime is ceased, the water is no more a sacrament, so whan the vse of the thankesgeuing is ceased, that is to say, whan it is no more taken and dealt, eaten and drunck, it is no more a sacrament, I meane, eaton and drunck in common, for so moch as the lords supper is not a doing of one particular man, but of many men. And becaus that in the masse we haue not this vse, but the prest alone taketh that ost, and cupp, withowt communicating them to oth­er, I say it is no trewe sacrament. And iff it be no sacrament, it is neither any memory of sacrifice, the which thei wold haue proued.

But admitt that there neuer had bene neither thone, nor thother, of thes ij. disorders, what will thei say to this that none of the pristes in this [Page 103] time, doth perfitely make the sacrament accor­ding to their own doctrine? I proue it thus, They them selues say, that none can work, and make the sacramēt except it be a prist, and he that is no prist, can not consecrate, But to be a prist is necessary that he shuld be consecrated by a biss­hop, the which in the cōsecraciō shuld geue him the mark, the which mark, is a certen spirituall vertu geuen by the bisshop. Standing this ther doctrine ād opiniō, that he who is not a bisshop, cā not make a prist, it foloweth that frō certē hōdreth yeares hetherto, either none at all or very fewe haue bene trewe pristes, becaus thei haue not bene made, by trewe bisshops, for so moch as that he is no trewe bisshop, that hath not at the least thes ij. pointes necessary for a trewe bisshop. The first is that he shuld be chossen by the peple. The other is, that he shuld feed his flocke, that is to say that he shuld preach gods word to his peple. Thes 2. pointes be of the holi scripture. For as, to the first, we haue that Paul and Barnabas, as it is writton in thactis of thapostles,Acto. 14. they thē selues that had so gret auctoritie ād chefely Paul, being made an Apostle by Christ him selff, and by him called a chosen vessell, did appoint in the cities, the prestes, that is to say the bisshops [Page] (For than, there was no differens betwene pri­stes and bisshops) and thei made them not of the­ir own head, but by election. And thold canons them seluis did not cownt them for bisshops that were not chosen by the peple,Distinct. 62. Cap. nulla Distinct. 63. Cap. nosse. as we haue in the selff same decree. As to the secōd, seing this word bishop, is a name of an office, and of a work, as Paul himselff saith to timothy, he that desiereth a bisshopship, desiereth a good work, he saith not desireth a dignitie.1. Timoth. 3. For euen as the name of a shepard, agreith not except to him that fedith, And he that fedeth not, may well be called a she­pard, but yet it can not be, that he shuld be one in dede, Euen so we will say of a bisshop, there is no bisshop nor trewe shepard that doth not the office of feding and preaching. Seing it is so than, as it is in deede, Thus it foloweth that no prest made bi our late made bisshops, is in deede a prest as the bisshops them seluis of whom thei be made, be in dede no bisshops. Iff he be no prest then he can not consecrate, as the fauorers of the masse them seluis think, And iff thei can not consecrate it foloweth that their sacrament, is no trewe sa­crament, And iff it be not a trewe sacrament, it is not a memory of a sacrifice, but it foloweth, [Page 104] that as moch as in them is, from many an hun­dreth yeare hetherto, thei haue caused the Chri­sten peple to commit Idolatry. Doo yow thinck that this so gret a disorder shuld be inconueni­ent?

THE THIRD CHAPTER. How the mass was not ordeined by Christ, nor by his apostels, but it is mans inuencion, bilded not by one man only, but by diuers, & from wh­ens this name, Masse, had the beginning.

BEcaus in this our treatise, by this word, Masse, we doo not meane the sacrament, the sacrament of the lords supper the which with owt dowt was instituted by Christ, in his last supper and affter offt vsed, by his aposte­ls, and euen vnto our dayes, by his church, hath bene and euer shal be reuerently kept vn­to thend. But we meane all the gathering to ge­ther of wordes, gestures, and ceremonies, beginning from the Introibo euen to the Ite [Page] missa est, as also it is of all men comonly vn­derstand, or els that their sacrament that thei handle, and the defenders of the masse, Whan it is vnderstand affter thes ij. sortis, will defend it as a godly institution, and that it hath bene vsed from the apostels. Therfor we will at this pre­sent proue, that neither Christ, nor his apostles, euer said or ordeined masse, in which so euer of thes ij. sortis thei take it: but it is mans inuētion, affter either of both sortis. And that this is tre­we, First I say, Vnderstanding by this word, Masse, all the whole gathering, from the Introibo vnto the Ite missa est, that the same is a diui­se of men, and not of god. And this I proue, by th [...] fauorers of the masse thē seluis, the which say that Christ Ihesus did ordeine the sacrament, and that Peter added the pater noster. And affter that Iames bisshop of Ierusalem did increase it, but they tell not what he added. And that Basill likewise hath increased it. Celestinus the pope added the iudica me deus Pope Da­masus the confession, which is made by the prest. Certē doo ascribe it to Pontianus. Gregory the .1. did appoint there the entry and that the kirie­leeson shuld be said .ix. times. Thelesphorus the [Page 105] Gloria in excels [...]s Deo. Gelastus the I. the collectis, that is to say the praiers that goo before the pistell. Iherom the pistell, and the gospell. Anastasius ordeined that while the gospell was reading all men shuld stand on their feete, but stowpingly and with reuerence. Marcus the bishop ordeined that the crede shuld be song on holly daies, and that it shuld be said by the peple present at masse. And damasus affter confirmed that decree. Gelasius did ordeine the antē that foloweth the crede. Thei toke the incense frō the old lawe, and from the paynams, the which did vse the incense in their sacrifices, as virgill faith in the 1. of the Eneidos, that is say, ubi tem­plum, illic centum (que) Sabeo thure calent arae that is to say where his temple was, there were an hūdreth altars warmed well with frankincens. The prefacis that goo before the Sanctus, which as gelasius saith be .ix. the forsaid gelasius ordeined thē, ād vrbanus, put to the tēth. Sixtus the .I. ordeined that the sāctus shuld be be song. Concerning the canon, which beginnith, te igitur clementissime pa­ter, certen say, that gelasius made the beginning as it is now. Siritius the pope made the com­municātes. [Page] And Alexander the .1. the Qui pridie quam pateretur Pope Leo the .1. added the [...]anc igitur oblationē, Gregory added thes .ij. petions, that is to say dies (que) nostros in tua pace disponas, at (que) ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi & in electorum tuorū iubeas grege numerari Certen other say that the canon was made bi one called Scolasticus. It is clere that it was not made by one man, nor at ones, but at diuers times. And the order of the times, is moch lesse kept, that is to say, that that which the more awnciēt haue appointed, shuld be now first in the canon, but it is cleane contrary. For Alexāder the .1. was before all thē, ād yet the qui pridie quam pateretur, which Alexāder him selff appointed, is put in the vi. place. And the te igitur, the which as thei say, gelasius made, who folowed Alexāder a lōg time: goth, befo­re all thother partis of the canō. Gregory, as the ratiōall of diuine offices affirmeth, added the preface before the pater noster, that is to say the Oremus, praeceptis salutaribus mōiti, ād also that the pater noster, shuld be said, as he affirmeth in the register, saing that [Page 106] it shuld be an vnfit thing, that the praier of sco­lasticus, of which we haue made mentiō before, that is to say, the canō, shuld be said, and christes praier, that is to say, the pater noster, shuld be vnsaid. Sergius the pope did first appoint that the Agnus dei, shuld be thrise sōg ouer. And to be short, affter their own Iudgement, Christ hath instituted of this masse, nothing except the sacramēt. All the rest, was added by diuers mē, ād at diuers times. Looke vpon platina in the life of sixtus the 1. bishop of rome. And the ratiōall of diuine offices in the fourth booke, ād polidorus Virgilius of vrbine in the .x. chapter of the .1. booke de inuētorbus rerū, all the which say, that christ did say no part of this masse, except the words of the cōsecration. But it is worthy of noting, that the defenders of the masse sai, that the masse is gods institution, for the sacrament is the chefe of the same masse, and that it is trewe, that the masse was augmēted, ād increased bi di­uers mē, and at diuers times, yet for all that, thei sai, that the masse, for becaus of the chefe part, is gods institution. And thos additions be for fur­nisshing of it, neuertheles, the substance which is the sacramēt, was made bi christ. And it semith to me, that thei wold sai of the masse, as of a great riuer. As for example of the poo, the which [Page] at the head,The poo is a great Ri­uer in Italie as Thamis is in England. where it beginneth, is very lytle, and is no better than a lytle spring, but becaus there comyth in to it many other ryuers, therfor it be­comyth affterward great, neuerthelesse it kepith the name of Poo. So is it of the masse. But this talk is nothing worth. Our questyon is not now of the name, that all that gathering is called masse, and the same sacrament shuld be also called Masse, as it is called Poo, not only the spring where it beginnyth, but all thos ryuers gathered to gether in one great ryuer, which affter, is all to gether called Poo. We speake here of the whole masse, and we say that all the masse that is to say all that myxture of wordes, ād of so mani ceremonyes, was not instituted by Christ, but by many Popys and that Christ made no more of the whole masse, but the sacrament only. And seing that we haue putt the similitude of the masse, and of the Poo, we will say, that allthough, that all that composition or gathering to gether of ryuers in to one great riuer, shuld be called Poo, not with­standing, we shall neuer sai that all that gret and large ryuer, shuld growe owt of that litle spring but we will say that it groweth of diuers ryuers, that is to say the gret Poo, And that all the Poo, doth not growe of the lytle spring, but only a lytle [Page 107] part of it. So all the masse came not from Chr­ist, but only that lytle part of the consecracion. Yea according to their own opiniō the rest was added by plaine men.

It is playne, that taking also this word Masse, for the sacrament, that thei make, it was neuer ordeyned by Christ, nor vsed by his apostles. For the sacramēt that Christ ordeined, and the Apostles vsed, was of a nother sort, moch differing and diuers from theirs. First, the consecracion was made, after a nother sort. Becaus Christ said the words of the consecracion a lowd, and dyd pronownce them plainely that all vnderstode.

Thei, say them sofftly, that none heareth them, but he that saith the masse. And how can it be a sacrament, to them that vnderstond not, nor heare not the wordes, seing a thing can not be a sa­crament, except the wordes be hard, and vnder­stand? Furthermore Christ said not thos wordes, with mind to change the substance of the breade and wine in to his body and blood, as thei think, but to appoint thone and thother, to be signes in his rememberans, as his wordes doo shewe. So that seing thei haue not the same meaning, that [Page] Christ had, nor will not doo the same, that Christ did, but a nother thing, we must nedes say that such a sacrament, is not Christes sacrament, but a thing fownd owt by them selues, made affter their own maner, and not according to Christes institution.

Furthermore the sacrament which Christ did institute, was instituted to thentent that it shuld be a spirituall supper, delt to many, and he gaue it to all. Thei doo it not affter this sort, but the prest only taketh that his sacra­ment, and giueth it not to other, nor this thing is no communion, becaus a communion is, whan many doo partake of one thing, and not whan one alone vseth it. So that seing thei doo not as Christ did, or rather as he commanded that it shuld be done, their is no trewe sacramēt, as also we haue proued in the second chapter of this part. Nor it was not instituted by Christ, but by mans inuencion. Let them than vnderstand this their masse, either for all the hole gathering, frō the Introibo to the Ite missa est, or els for the sacrament only, becaus it is no trewe sa­crament, I say, that it is not gods ordinance but [Page 108] mans. And being mans ordinans, yet thei make it a sacrifice, and a woshipping of god, against his expresse commandment, who will not be ho­nored with the inuention of men, as allredy we haue so offten sayd.

There remaineth now to see from whens this name of Masse had the beginning? Certen say, as Master William Durant in the proheme of the iiij. part of his reason geuing of gods seruice, that this Name Masse is some time a nowne collectiue some time a nowne proper.A Nowne collectiue is à word that gatherith many into one. A Nowne proper speakith but of one only. whā it is a collectiue, that is to say whan it importeth all the whole gathering from the entring to the end, that is to say Ite missa est, he saith that it is as moch to say, as sent or committed ouer. Becaus the faithfull peple, by the mistery of the priest, the which doth Christes office betwene god and men doth send their praiers and sup­plications to god. Some time this name masse, is a nowne proper, and doth signifie Christ, first sent, from the father to vs, and sent from vs to the father, to thentent that before him, he might intreate for vs, Albeit for shortnes, I doo not recite all his opinion. Some other, as Ihon [Page] rewcklin a man very well lerned in the hebrew tōg, saith, that the masse is no greke name nor latin but hebrewe, ād is as moch to sai, as sacrifice. And now our massemongers, wold that the mas­se shuld be a sacrifice for sinnes. Othersome say, as Polidor virgil of vrbine, that Missa, is as moch to say as geuing leaue to depart, or licensing the peple that thei may goo their way, that is to say-that licence and leaue is geuē them, that thei may depart, for so moch as, in old time no man oug­ht to depart from the holy things, thei be­ing present, except licens were geuen them. And Missa is as moch to say, as missio, or dimissio, a licensing, or geuing leaue to depart, becaus that being ended, the peple is licensed to goo at their plesure to their howses. He saith besides, many things vp on this matter, but becaus I know that this name hath an abhominable signification, I litle desire to serch any further for the begin­ning of so vngracios a name. Whan it shuld haue begon to be so named, and who shuld haue fo­wnd it owt it is not well knowne. It appearith that from pope gregories time the first, hetherto, it hath bene vsed. And I doo not remember that I euer redd that before his time it was vsed.

THE .IIII. CHAPTER. That the mass is a gathering together and an heape yea a sea of abuses wikednessis and super­stitions,

IT is not our purpos nor mind, to tell all the abuses of the masse, becaus we knowe them not all. And allthough we knewe them, thei be so many, that to goo abowt to write them all thei wold make to gret a booke. It shall suffise we write some of thē by the which may be sufficientli Iudged, what maner a thing this masse is. 1 One of the chefe is the worshipping the host and the cupp, the which is an Idolatry. For frō wh­ens gather thei that the sacramēts ought to be worshipped? The sacramentis ought to be handeled with reuerens as holy things and godlie institutions, but that thei ought to be worshipped, we haue it not in any place of the scripture, nor by any example of the apostels, or of the sa­intes of the old church, euē as the baptime is not worshipped, but is a signe that maketh vs sure ād certen that our sinnis be forgeuin vs by Christ, so neither the bread, or let it be the host, nor the cupp, ought to be worshipped, nor christ did [Page] not institute them to this end. But be did institu­te them, in remembrans of his body and blood geuin for forgiuenes of our sinnes. This remem­brans, the bread and the wine allredy work wi­thowt that that thei shuld be worshipped. And it is to be noted that iff thei shuld be worship­ped, the apostles whan Christ did institute the sacrament, of his body, and blood, thei wold haue worshipded it, but thei did not worship it, so farr as we haue by the story of the euangelistes, yea thei sate still at the table. And it well appea­rith by a certen text of Honorius the pope in the iij. booke of the decretalls, in the title de cele­bratione missarum that this worship­ping is no old, but a newe thing. And it semith, that it shuld be the institucion of honorius him­selff, who died in the yeare of our lord 1226. His wordes in the said decretall be thes. ‘To then­tent that thorow the small care of the pristes, gods anger shuld not be more greuosly sent, we doo straitely command that the sacrament of thanksgeuing, be by the prestes placed in a sin­gular place, cleane and locked, and kept deuow­tly and faithfully. But let the prest very offten teach his peple, that whan the helthfull host is liffted vp on high in the celebracion of the masse, [Page 110] thei reuerently bowe them seluis, doing the sa­me whā the priest beareth it to the sicke.’ Here honorius cōmādeth that the peple shuld bowe thē seluis to the host, ād doth not say than expressely, that thei ought to worship it, he saith only that thei ought to bowe thē seluis. And he geueth vs to vnderstand by this his talk, either that he him selff was the institutor of that thing or els that this bowing to the sacramēt, began not long aff­ter him. For iff the vse had bene old it had not neded to make so straight a cōmādmēt to kepe it, for thos things that the custō ād vse is to doo, are do­ne withowt cōmādmēt. And whithowt dowt the sāe hōorius, iff such a custōe had bēe before him, he wold haue alledged either which had bēe the begin̄er, or at the least the custō it selff. And he of him selff wold not so haue spokē as he hath done.

The defenders of tbe masse will say, that christ may be and ought to be worshipped where he is, he is in that host, wherfor he ought to be worshipped in the same. I āswer that worshipping is a deede of faith, faith is not but by the same word of god. Let them shewe one Iote, if thei cā doo it by gods word, that Christ shuld be in the sa­crament bodily. We doo worship Christ in hea­uen, becaus we haue the scripture clere that he is ascended in to heauen and there abideth and sitteth, [Page] on the right hand of god,Luke 24. Mark 16. Act. 13. Ephes. 4. Act, 3. as it is writton in luke, and mark, in thactis of thapostles, ād to the­phesians. Who doth asserten vs that Christ is in that host and in that cupp? First we be not cer­ten that the prest hath consecrated, hauing not perceiued the wordes. Furthermore, he may ha­ue said the wordes, ād yet the consecracion shall not be made, becaus that either he shal not haue had thentent, or the trewe faith which things the consecracion requireth, as the master of the sen­tencis saith. I speake now affter their opinion. But of this thing we will speake more at large in the sermon of the sacrament, Now I will not stand to dispute, becaus I shuld be to long. That may be said to them that worship Christ in the host, and in the cupp, that Christ said to the samaritane, yow worship that that yow know not. Furthermore, as we haue said before and also wil say, there hath bene no one or very fewe trew priestes from many an hundreth yeare hetherto, becaus thos that haue ordeined them were not trewe bisshops, so than thei did neuer consecra­te. Here there might be said many things, but for shortnes I will leaue them.

2 Another abuse is that the wordes of the consecraciō [Page 111] be not said with a lowd voice as thei ought to be, seing thei be wordes of the holy gospell, the which Christ hath cōmanded shuld be prea­ched to euery creature. What els be thes wordes but that Christ hath geuō his body and his blood for our rāsom, ād forgeuenes of our sinnes? Seing this thing is of necessitie, that it shuld be preach­ed to euery Christiā, nor he is not a Christiā, that doth not bileue, why doo thei not say it with a lowd voice, as in the old time it was wont to be? Here thei find certen scusis, and among other thei say that such wordes ought to be said in secret, to thentent that the high holy wordes, shuld not become vile, And that it is red how in old time whan the canon was said with a lowd voice, as it were, all did vnderstand thos wordes, and did openly sing them in the streates, ād in the waies, Wherupon certen shepardes singing thos wordes, and hauing laid the breade vp on a certen stone, at the vttering of the wordes, the bred was turned in to flessh, and for this caus the fire ca­me from heauen that killed them, for the which thing, the holy fathers haue ordeined, that vp on paine of cursing, such wordes in the masse sh­uld be said in secret, and with the holy garmen­tis. This master William Durant saith in his ra­cional [Page] of diuine offices. Soo what fowndacions thes be, (I will not say fables) of saing the wordes of the sacramēt in secret? Iff thes wordes for this caus ought to be said in secret, to thentēt that the high holy wordes, shuld not become vile, than it were nedefull to say the holy gospell in secret, ād not to preach it openly with a lowd voice. For what wordes be more high holy than thos of the holy gospell? Furthermore the holy fathers that haue ordeined this, iff it be trewe in dede that thei did ordeine it, why did thei not rather command that the holy wordes shuld be pronown­ced with reuerens, withowt making them say them in secret? The which wordes among all the rest that are said in the masse, euer [...] Christēman ought singularly to vnderstand? Ought not eue­ry Christian to knowe that Christ hath geuin his body and his blood, for our ransom? And that for remembrans of so gret a mistery Chr­ist hath ordeined this sacrament? And what els doo the wordes of the consecraciō say exeept this in substance? I could here, iff I wold, say many things, but what nedeth it to heape wordes in so plaine a matter? It is withowt dowt a gret abuse to vtter thos wordes in secret. The wordes of [Page 112] the sacrament ought to be hard of all, withowt the which it is no sacrament, neither the bread nor the wine, nor any other thing iff that the si­gnificacion of it be not knowen nor that can not be knowen but by the same wordes of the sacra­ment. Let vs goo on further.

3 A nother abuse is that Christes death is not shewed to them that be present, contrary to saint Paul, the which saith that in the vse of the sacrament, the lords death ought to be shewed, saing in his 1. to the Corinthians, As offten as yow shall eate this bread and drink the cupp,1. Cor. 11. ye shall she­we the lordes death vntill he come, that is to say, yow shall preach it. It is clere that in the masse the lords death is not shewed, nor preached, to the peple. And what speake I of the daily and priuate masses? It is not shewed neither in the time of the communiō, whā thei reach furth the host to the cōmunicāts, where thei ought to teach the pore peple of the significaciō, ād of the importance of the sacramēt. Thei sai nothing to thē, except whether he bileue that Christ be in that host or no. As though Christ had instituted the sacramēt, [Page] to thentent that it shuld be bileued that he were in that host. so gret, and so large, as he was vp on the wood of the crosse, and not for remēbrans of his death. Yet Christ him selff said, doe this in my remembrans, and said not, bileue ye that I am hid den, in this bread, so gret and so large, as presen­tly yow see me. This was not Christes meaning, for so moch as he wold haue said it. Wherfor thā is not Christes death shewed in the masse? Surely this is a manifest abuse.

4 The fourth abuse is that the prest alōne doth take that his sacrament. (I call i [...]h [...]s, becaus in dede it is no sacrament (and he geuith no part of it to any other. But this is no communion, for a communion is whan many do communicate, or take part of one selff thing. This maner of taking this sacrament, is against Christ, who hath insti­tuted it, to thentent that it shuld be taken in communion, and not priuately, and against sent Paul in the forsaid place, [...]. Cor. 11. who rebuketh the chorin­thes becaus thei did not take the sacrament together, and with cōpany, nor thei did not tary one for a nother. And iff he so sharply rebuked them, becaus thei did not tary one for a nother, alltho­ugh that all shuld take the sacrament, how wold [Page 113] he haue suffered that one only shuld haue taken it? Thei doo also against the wordes which thei speake in the cōsecration. For before thes wor­des that thei say, (Hoc enim est corpus meum) there be thes, that is to say, accipite & manducate ex hoc omnes, that is to say, take yow and eate you all of this bread. Why than doo thei not geue it to all or to many, as Christ commanded according to their own o­pinion? Parauenture thei will say that Christ spake thes wordes for thapostles, and not for any other. But this is not reasonably spo­ken, for so moch as Christ taught them with­thes wordes that he spake, how thei shuld doo and minister this sacrament. Iff he shuld haue spoken thes wordes for the Apostles only, the Apostles them selues shuld neuer haue knowen how to haue ministred the sacrament to others, but only to them seluis. Furthermore, in old time this is certen that there was no priuate masse said, that is to say, that one only shuld take the sacrament, that is the priest that celebrateth, but allweis there was a communion vsed. In token of this, the grekis did neuer receiue the pri­uate masse, doing better in this part, than the [Page] latines, and keping Christis institucion and the apostolyke vse.

5 A nother abuse is. that thei make it auayle for euery thing. Thei applye it for the raine, for the fayre wether. against tempest, warr, derth, pes­tylens, and against all sortys of diseases, for the holsomnes of the ayre, for plenty, peace, helth of body, for waifaryng men, for wiues and husban­des, against enemyes, for the liuyng, for the dea­de, and for what thing is not the masse sayd? In prayse of our lady, of the angels, of the sayntes, for repentant, for thos that geue allmes, for thē that sayle, for the Imprisoned, for the remaining in a place, for to call for wisdom. It is said against persecutors, for ani maner of troble, for the king for the Emperor, against Infidels, against tem­ptacyō, for the petyciō of the teares, for to fynd things lost, for shepe, for oxen, (beare with me) If an hors haue a disease in his eye, or in one of his leggys, thei caus masse to be sayd for hym. It is also good for thes that confesse, I meane that heare the confessyon, becaus it maketh them [Page 114] gett good mony, and other things. Forthei geue penans to them that thei heare in confessyon, that is to say, that thei of force cause them to say massys, and thei make thē to pay lustily, in such sort as thei make, thei make them somtyme scratt the head again. And what hath the herbe betonica, which hath so many vertews, as Anthonius Musa sayth, to doo with the masse. It is no mer­uel that it shuld be good for so many things, be­caus that thei that haue fownd it owt, and haue framed it, haue much more powr than the Apostles, as paul sayth.2. Corin. 13. to whom was geuen powr to bylde, and not to destroy. But the masse makers haue the fulnes off powr to peruert, to cōfownd, to destroy, and to ouerthrowe, euery thing. And whan thei haue done all this that pleaseth them, no man may say vnto them, why doo ye soo? Becaus thei be aboue all, and may be iudged of none, how like ye this so gret a pow­re? Let no man therfor meruell of thes so many vertewes of the masse. O IESV CHRIST, which art come to repayre the decayes, whan wilt thow amend thes disor­ders. Christ hath ordeyned the sacrament to one [Page] end, that is to say, for a rememberans, and thei vse it for a thowsand other endes. From whens gather thei that the masse shuld haue so many vertews, as thei say it hath? This is a very gret a­buse and to gret a disorder.

6 The sixt abuse is, that he that saith it, doth applie it for whom it pleaseth him. As for exam­ple, for him that hath waged him, or for any o­ther his well doer, or for father ād mother, or for other his kinsfolk, as though it were his to besto­we the vertewis, or the benifites of the masse, as he shuld think good. Surely this is vnfitt that a sinner, and parauenture, a wicked man, shuld haue auctoritie to bestowe such benifites. I ma­ke a differens betwene the praing, and the besto­wing the benifites of the masse, for as thei think, such benifites be christes benifites, and how can this be, seing such vertew procedith not from him that doth celebrate, but from god only and from Christ him selff?

7 The seuinth abuse is, that one masse shuld be more solempne, than a nother. That which hath [Page 115] fairer and richer furniture, that which is song, which is rong with the gret bells, that is there descanted, where as be candlestickbearers Acco­lites, deacons, subdeacons, many lightis, plaing on the organes, and such owtward knacks: Thes such masses, thei call solempne masses. And the moo ād greater ceremonies their be, the more so­lemne those massis be. Thei folow the Iewis or els the Idolaters, the which in worshipping of their gods, did make solempnities of feastes, and of reioisinges. That kind of worship in the hebrew peple, was not blamed, becaus it was ordeined by god, but yet in a figure of spirituall things, and to entertaine that peple inclined to Idolatry, that thei shuld not committ Idolatry. But to vs chri­stians, it nedeth not to make thes solempnities, and pompes, seing the time is come of the trewe worshippers, the which ought to worship god, in spirite, and truth, and not with owtward deckings, as christ saith in S. Iohn.Ioh, 4▪ Yet fur­thermore, seing the dignitie of the sacrament comith from his thing signified, and from the institutor of the same, it is not conuenient to make it one time more solempne, than a nother. And as all the baptismes be alike, iff thei be tro­we [Page] baptysmes, so will we saye of the sacrament of thanksgeuing that one is not more worthy than a nother.

8 Theyght is, that one masse doth more a vayle, than a nother, according to the dignitye of the parson. That is to say the bysshops masse doth more auayle than the plaine prestes, the abbats more than the monks, for if thei shuld not more auayle, thei shuld not sell them dearer. This is an abuse,Rom. 2. becaus that before god, there is no respect of persons, nor the seruyces that be done to god, be not more accepted of hym, becaus one is sett in a greater state and dignitye, but whan he hath a greatter fayth, and religion. Furthermore yff the masse in it selff be that that hath the vertewes the strength, and efficacy, of working, it hangeth not of men, but of god only, why make thei than one more greter, and more worthy than a nother according to the diuersitye of persons?

A nother is, that it can not be sayd withowt so many deckings, as be the Amises, the albys, the phanells, the stolys, the cordgirdles, the san­dales, [Page 116] many towels, altares, chalises, corporassis, animates (as thei call them) and a halowed sto­ne. And all thes things must be blessed and conse­crated, The deckings also, be of diuers colors, ac­cording to the diuersitie of the daies. In the feast of martirs thei put on redd. On the virgins da­ies white, on the cōfessors, other colors. Here we haue deckings of lyning cloth, of say, of all colo­red cloth, here be some of silk, of veluet, of damask of chamlet, of satten, of cloth of gold, and of sil­uer. Iff it be a blame worthy thing for a man, or a woman, to be ouer costly decked, as paul saith in his pistle to Timothy,1. Tim. 2. 1. Petri.. 3 and Peter in the first pistle, for so moch as it is a vanitie, why shall it not be blame worthy, for one that handleth gods things, to be ouer costly decked, as though god shuld be delighted in owtward things, who wold haue the inward decking, and the decking of the mind. What meaneth it that there is not made so gret solēnitie at gods word? Thei put not on thā so many garments. And to the masse, that is mans inuentiō, thei vse so moch honor. What nedeth it for the ministratiō of the sacrament. to set a bro­de so mani things, ād to make so gret a furniture? Thes things be Iewish, or rather heathnish than [Page] otherwise. I remember I haue hard that in Ro­me there were fownd certen Imagis of the flamynes, which were prestes of the gentiles, clothed thorowtly like the prest at masse. The which ge­uith to vnderstand, that such decking is an heathnissh thing. The vse of so many garments, and of the consecracion of the same, is the ordinance of pope Stephan the first, and came frō the Iewis. The corporassis was the diuise of Sixtus the first. the chalises first were made of wood. Zepherinus the pope did institute that thei shuld minister in vessels of glasse. Affter it was appointed that thei shuld minister neither in wood nor in glas­se, becaus that the wood being vnfast, the wine entrid into it, And the glasse was lightly broken. For this cause it was ordeined, that thei shuld minister in siluer or in gold. And iff thei could not be gotten, at the least in tinne, and not in any other metall, becaus of the euill sauor of the o­ther metalls. Some say that pope Vrbanus the first did institute this. And what meaneth it, that the Apostles, nor the primatiue church, did not vse so gret pomp in vessels? what superstitions be these? How moch were to be said here? But it suffiseth me to toch the abuses, becaus thei wold axe to many wordes to declare them at length.

[Page 117]Also thei geue to vnderstand, that that day,10 that a man heareth masse, there can no misfortu­tune chance vnto him, And yet we doo see many haue euel lucke that day that thei haue hard the masse, and die an euill death. Pope victor the iij. died of poison by the cōsecrated wine, that was poisoned. Henry the seuinth, Emperor of rome, died by the ost that was poisoned, and geuen vnto him by a dominicane frire, in the castle bonconuento the yere of our lord 1086.

A nother is that albeit the masse is mans in­uencion,11 as we haue prouid, yet thei command it, as though it were gods commandment. This is against the expresse word of god him selff, Who saith in Deutronomy, doo to the lord only that that I command the,Deut. 12. and thow shalt not add, nor minissh. And against the saing of Esay,Esay. 29. which offten times we haue alleged, that is to say, that god will not be honored with men̄s commandemēts,Matth. 15. And Christ in S. Matthew saith the same, alledging the Prophet.

A nother is that thei affirme that he who sa­ith 12 the masse, hath greter auctoritie than the angels, and also than the blessed virgin. And this is [Page] becaus thei hold that in the masse is made the transsubstancion of the breade, and the wine, in to Christes body and blood. And bileuing that Christ him selff is present bodily in the host, and in the cupp, the which things neither the angels, nor the blessed virgin haue auctoritie to doo, but the prestes only, thei conclude, that thos prestes haue gretter auctoritie, than the angels, or the blessed virgin. And thei say, that the same most blessed mother, caused Christ to come in to hir virginlike wombe, with 8. wordes, that is to say, Ecce ancilla domini, fiat mihi se­cundum uerbum tuum And the pri­stes, make him to come in to the host with v. wordes only, that is to say, Hoc est enim cor­pus meum. I will leaue at this time, to exa­men this their fals spech, that the blessed mother shuld make the sonn of god to come with thos wordes, as though thei shuld haue had vertew, to make him take flessh, that being only of gods work. I will leaue, as I say, to speake of this, and I will axe them from whens it commith, that on thone part, thei so moch exalt the blessed virgin, that thei abase Christ and god, for thei call hir quene of heauen, starr of the sea, our hope, our [Page 118] life, mother of mercy, And thei geue hir such tit­les, and honor, as be only due to god and Christ. And here thei make hir meaner than a plaine prest, sometimes, as I haue said, very wicked. Indede I confesse that the ministery of gods word, and of the sacraments, is not committed to the blessed mother, nor to the angels, but to men. Yet for this caus to goo abowt to make men that bee sinners, more worthy than the angels that be withowt sinne, or than the mother of god, it is vn­fit, chefly for that the prestes be not trewe mini­sters of the sacraments, for so moch as he that doth not minister the word, ought neither to minister the sacraments. Further also, as we ha­ue said before, thei be not called by a trewe vo­cacion, the which is necessary to the ministe­ry.

A nother abuse is that the corporasses the challises,13 ād the ostis, may not be touched by lay mē. This thei haue done to make men haue the more reuerens, and deuocion to the masse. This office of toching, the chalises, the host, the patēts and the corporasses (thei say) belongeth only to them [Page] that be in sacris, that is, in holy orders, and not to other. But for what caus may not a thing be toched with the hand, iff it be cleane and nett, the which may be eaten and dronken? But this sacrament is eaten (that is to say the host) and is dron­kē (that is to say the wine (for what caus thā may it not be touched with the hand, seing it is tou­ched with the mowth? This supersticion is aga­inst Christes ordinans and the custom of the Apostles. For Christ whan he reached the bread and the cupp to his Apostlos, he said vnto them, that thei shuld take, and thei toke thone, and thother, with their handes, and surely thei touched them. Christ did not than giue it them in their mow­thes. Shall we say that Christ shuld speake thes wordes, that is to say, Take yow, Eate yow, Drink yow, only for the Apostles, and not for other? This is not soo, but he spake them for all thos that weare to receiue the sacrament, as also S. Paul geuith to vnderstand, the which writing to the Corinthes in his first, reciteth Christes wordes, and teacheth not only the ministers, but all the whole church what thei haue to doo. Seing than this things is comon to all Christians and not belonging to pristes only, why may thei not [Page 119] than be touched by lay men, seing thei also ought to communicate, and receiue the same sacramēt? The old church, and the Apostles deliuered the sacrament in to the handes of all them that did receiue it. From whens is this newe religion co­me, contrary to Christes Institution, and to the Apostles custom? Shall it be conuenient that a lay man, who with a good and a clere consciens receiuith the sacrament may not touche it? And a wicked prest, with a blotted and a defiled consciens, shall be Counted worthy to handle it?

A nother abuse is that the masse is said in the 14 honor of sainctes and sainctesses. This ought not to be done, for so moch as that the sacrament, which is the substans of the masse, was instituted in rememberans of Christ, who only is dead for our ransoming, And it was not instituted in the honor of saintes. Why than is not the masse said in rememberans of Christ, and not of saintes, a­mong which no one hath redemed vs, nor the sa­crament was not instituted for none of them, but only in Christes remembrās? Christ saith doo this in my remembrans, And thei will doo it in remē ­brans of saintes. Shuld it not be a gret abuse if the [Page] gospell shuld be preached in the honor of saints the which is Christes only? Euē so is it of the sacramēt, Thei handle their masses, as poore ignorant men doo their praiers, which will say Aue Maria, in thonor of S. Christopher, and the pater no­ster in worship of S. Lucia or of a nother saint. How moch shuld it be to the purpos ād conueniēt, iff one hauing nede to intreate the Emperor or a king wold goo to a poore mā and on his kneis wold say vnto him, I commend my selff to your magestie, ād I besech yow that yow wold shewe me this fauor, and wold desire of him such things as he could not doo, and as were not conuenient to be axed of such a parson, shuld not that poore man cownt him selff mocked and scorned? Thei doo moch wors, becaus thei attribute to a plaine creature, that which be­lōgeth to god only and to Christ, who withowt measure, doo more excede euery creature, thā any earthly estate doth any poore or base parson, as to the world. And marke that in the councelles of thes owre times their is no worde spokē of thes and manie o­ther so greate ād grosse errors and abuses as Rein­gne nowe Amonge Christes flock. Be thes things de­uociōs? Men must not touche thē. Well it is ynough that thei goo abowt to condēne the Lutherā Heretikes, that is christ with all the whole holy scripture, as their fathers haue done, that is to say, the chefe [Page 120] priestes, the scribes, ād the phariseis, Who crucified Christ, condemned, euelhādled, and in the end killed the holi Apostels. Euen soo doo they.

15 A nother abuse is that they geue to vnderstand that the angels, with all the court of heauen, be present at the masse. This is ouergret a falshode, for that the angels ād the sowles of Iust mē can not be but in one place. And according to this opiniō we must say that thei be eueri where wher so euer the masse is said. For seing that thei must accompany Christ, and that Christ as thei think, is in all thos places where thei celebrate, there must be also the angels, and the sowles of saintes, ād so the plaine creatures shall be at one time in diuers places the which cānot be. we can not say that thei accompany him more in one place thā in a nother, seing that Christ, as thei think is equally in all places where the sacramēt is. Wherfor we must say that eyther thei accōpany him in all places, or in none. 16 A nother abuse is, that thei say the masse for the deade, against Christes institutiō.The caus is this, for that the sacraments auaile for thē, for whō thei were instituted, and not for other. It is clere that thei were instituted for the liuing, ād not for the deade, therfor thei auaile not for them. As for baptisme, it is plaine. that it auaileth not for the dead seinge the deade be neither baptised thē selues nor ani other for thē. And though sōtime it we­re [Page] done, as some vnderstand the saing of Paul to the Chorinthes,1 Corin. 15. Vt quid baptisantur pro mortuis? This was by error, and it was not well done. So we will say of the super, that it was instituted for the liuing, and not for the deade, becaus that the deade can not vse it in Chri­stes rememberans, nor eate it, nor drinck it. Some man will say, the deade can not vse it, but the li­uing may vse it for the deade. I wold haue of thes men that thei wold alledge me the caus why this sacrament, may rather be vsed for the deade, than baptisme? There is differens betwene baptisme, and the supper, I know it: becaus baptisme is vsed only ones, in the life for a man. But the holy sup­per many times. I doo confesse that in this point there is a differens, and there be also other diffe­rencis, but this notwithstanding baptisme at thos times that it is vsed, may also be taken for the deade, such a nomber of childern being baptised as there is, for so moch as that in baptisme there is made memory of the passion, crossing, death and burieng of Christ,Roman. 6. 2 Coloss. 2. as we haue to the romans and to the collossians and mencion is made of the for­giuenes of sinnes. Yea iff we shuld speake by the scripture, it semeth to attribute more vnto bap­tisme, [Page 121] than to the holy supper.Marc. 1. Luc. 3. Act. 2. et 22. Iff we shuld consider many saings according to the letter, we haue in Mark, ād in Luke, that Iohn did baptise in forgeuenes of sinnes. We haue in the actes of thapostles, how Peter said, let euery one off yow be baptised in the forgiuenes of sinnes, and Ana­nias said to Paul, Rise vp, baptise the, and wassh thy sinnes. The article off the faith which saith, I doo confesse one baptisme in forgeuenes off sinnes, &c. All thes saings and other which we could bring forth iff we wold, seme according to the letter, that they shuld attribute, more to baptisme (as concerning forgeuenes of sinnes) than to the supper, And yet no one of the catho­liks, euer said, that baptisme shuld help the dea­de. Why than shall the holy supper help for the sinnes off the dead? It is certen, that where the holy supper is spoken off, there is not so offten and so expresse mencion made, that it shuld be taken in forgeuenes off sinnes, as where the bap­tisme is spoken of. I meane not, by this my saing, to affirme that by baptisme sinnes be forgeuen. I will not affirme this, for before we haue proued the contrary, that is to say, that the baptisme is in dede a signe off the forgeuenes off sinnes, and it certifieth vs, and maketh vs more sure off the [Page] same, not that it doth it. But I will say that in the writings of theuangelists and Apostles there is more mencion made of the forgeuenes of sin­nes, whan the baptisme is spoken of, than whan the supper is spoken off. And that iff the lords supper shuld auayle for the deade, baptisme also shuld auaile, but baptisme doth not auaile for the deade, wherfor also the sacrament of thanks giuing doth not auaile.

17 A nother abuse is, so gret a variete of gestu­res, of strange dedes, now this now that, now the prist stoupeth, now he standeth vp. And this may haue some reason, becaus the stouping the­re, is a signe of prayer, and in the masse are said diuers prayers. But how many gestures and cown enancis be made, withowt any purpos? Somtime he Ioynith his handes and fingars, By and by sondereth them. Now he liffteth vp his armes, now he putteth them down, Now he speaketh, now he saith nothing. Now he speaketh sofftly, now a lowd, somtime he standeth at one end of the altare, a nother time he standeth at the other, and remoueth the masseboke. Now he he turnith him to the peple, by and by he tur­neth his back, somtime he semith to slepe. Oh there be made I can not tell how many crosses, and [Page 122] how moche a doo. I know well that thei geue to all thes things their significacion, Imagined at their pleasure, ād fained of their own head. The which significaciō neuertheles, neither the peple that seith and heareth, nor thei thē selues that say the masse, doo vnderstād. But tell me I pray yow, to what profite serue so many trifling things at Christes institucion, that is to say, at the ho­ly supper? It is clere that thei be not necessary for the cōsecrating the bread and wine, that is to say for thappointing them to an holy vse, ād for the making the sacrament, nor for the receiuing it. For iff thei had bene necessary Christ wold haue ordeined them, and the Apostles wold haue vsed them, but neither [...]hone nor thother was done, that is to say, that neither Christ hath instituted them, nor the Apostles vsed them, wherfor thei be not necessary. Thei will say parauentur, that all­though thei be not of necessitie, neuertheless thei be for ornamēt, and solempnitie of the sacramēt, And for this caus the holy fathers haue ordeined thes so many deedes, ād gestures, in the masse. But this answer is not good: For iff thei be not neces­sary, what is the caus that thei haue commanded thei shuld be done, vnder paine of deadly sinne, and that menn sinne deadly, iff thei be not done. [Page] This is off necessitie and not only for an orna­ment, whan a thing is commanded vnder paine off deadly sinn. Iff the sacrament may be made according to Christes institucion and the vse off the Apostles Withowt so many nouelties: Is this conuenient and Iust to bind thos that make it as Christ hath commanded and taught them, and that will not stepp owt off his most holy ordi­nans vnder deadly sinn, albeit thei shuld not doe the addicions off men which rather defile than settfurth, Christes institucion, who wold haue off vs obediēce and that we shuld doo, as he him selff hath taugth and commāded vs?Ioan. 15. And he saith in Iohn, Yow be my frindes iff yow will doo thos things that I command yow. Nor Paul neuer durst be so bold, as to add, minissh or alter any maner off thing, but allegeth Christes plaine and only institucion, And so he teacheth the Chorin­thes, that thei shuld doo, saing, Ego enim accepi à Domino, quod & tradidi uobis, &c. that is to say, for I haue receiued off the lord that, which I haue deliuered to yow, &c. as though he wold say, I make yow not off my selff any ordinans, that which I doo appoint, is Christes institucion and not mine. What is the [Page 123] fairest ornament of Christes and Gods institu­ciō, iff not, simply and plainly to doo that which thei commād vs? This is the office of Antichrist, to goo abowt to bind vnder deadly sinne, that is to say, vnder paine of damnaciō, wher God, who only can saue and damne,Iames 4. (as Iames saith) doth not bind vs, but leaueth vs free. This is to sitt in Gods temple, that is to say to reigne in conscien­cis and to gouerne them and to kepe them sub­iect to the bondage off men, contrary to Paul,1. Corint. 7. Galat. 3. who saith that we ought not to be seruantes off men. Christ hath made vs free from damnacion, the which Gods lawe doth threaten vnto vs, and thei will make vs bond to the deuill and damne vs for euer, iff we doo not kepe their lawes. Sure­ly this is a gret abuse and a deuelish presumptiō.

A nother abuse more manifest than the rest,18 that is to say, that euery man may more easily see that it is an abuse, and it is this, that is to say, that there is marchandise made of it, and such as is to be merueled at. And this marchandise off the masse among all the other, hath one singular priuilege, becaus that in other there is made yet a certen differens off dayes, and there is had cer­ten respect, to the feastes, to the places, chefely holy. But in this, how moch the feast is gretter [Page] and more solempne, so moch the fayer is made more solempne. Yea then thei trafficke and oc­cupie. How moch more holy the place is, so moch the rather this marchandise is made in it. We may see that the Innes do make no holydayes, but thei labor alike, on all dayes. Thei lodge the wayfarers and also other that come thether, as well on holy dayes as other, nor thei make no differens betwene one daye, and a nother, but thei make all a like. It is trewe, but yet thei doo make a certen differens, at the least of the pla­ces, becaus thei occupie not euery where. Who if that Innholder, or Tauerner, that wold ma­ke an Inn, or a tauerne in any church? None surely. But the massmarchantes haue not this re­spect, but how moch the holier the place is cownted, so moch the willinglier the masse is there bought and sold. This excellent priuilege with many other withowt nomber, the masse mar­chants haue obteined off Antichrist, who hath all powr ouer such things. And long a goo the time was, thatt this marchandise was sold very dere, but from certen yeares hetherto, it is beco­me dogg cheape, and a masse is geuen for a dan­dy prat, yea and for lesse, according to the pla­ces, and to the parsons, that knowe how to bye. [Page 124] This is it that hath made rich the pristes, the frires and the monkes, that maketh men fownd chapells, bilde churches, colleges, howsis, mona­steries, off friers abbaies, commandries, and to beshort it is that, that hath made rich the state called ecclesiasticall. It hath meruelosly liffted it vp in the world. The masse is that which ge­uith so gret reuenewes to the most reuerend Cardinals, and which maketh them ride vp on thes faire mulis, couered with veluet, with thos faier redd hattis, the which doo signifie the order off the Seraphins, burning in charitie and in godly loue. This is the significacion, some say, off red hattes which (the masse I say) maketh to ride with so many horses, with so gret a company of gentlemen, as though thei were Dukes, or Prin­ces, that whan thei goo to the consistory, the shalmes are plaied on to them, on the battlemēts off the castell sent Angelo, and thei ryde with very gret mirth, pomp, and triumph. The masse maketh all thes things to be done, for iff it were not, surely there shuld want such pomp, and gretnes. Off the Bisshops, oh how many things might I say iff I wold, but I must leaue to other to say their part. I wil say only this, that it made them wholly forget their office, and hath made [Page] them attend to certen scornworthy baggagis, as to Christen the bells, to consecrate the stones, and the wallis, with more indeuor and diligens, than iff thei shuld baptise the sonnes off a King, and an Emperor, and than iff thei shuld minister the thanksgiuing, to all the Monarchies off the world, and all this to giue credite to the masse. I speake not off the preaching off Gods word, be­caus it is a thing for poore men. This Masse is the mother off purgatory, the which purgeth the purses, the garners, the howses, the sellers, so that there is no brome in the world, that swe­peth so wel an hows as this purgatory doth. To tell yow at fewe wordes this abuse is so open and so large, and geueth vs so moch to say, that in an whole yeare it wold not be ended. I haue only spoken off theffectis that it worketh in thes ij. de­grees or statis, withowt rising higher or going down lower to any particularitie.

18 But among all the other properties and abu­ses, that the masse hath, this is one most singular, that it leadeth men a way from Gods word. Here there nedeth not to bring any other than expe­rience to proue it. Let there be one that prea­cheth, and let him be in the midst off his sermon, [Page 125] iff there come furth a priest apparelled redy to say masse, a grett part off the hearers turning their backes to the preacher wil ronn affter the priest to heare masse. This is an assuered grownd, that the gret part off the peple haue more deuocion to the masse, than to Gods word and the holy gospell. And what els doth Sathan desire, but by such meanes, to drawe a way the peple from the holy gospell, and frō Gods word? The sauior saith,Luc. 11. Roma. 1. blessed be thei that heare Gods word and kepe it. And Paul saith that the gospell is the powr of God for helth to all byleuers. And the masse carieth mē away from Gods word and the holy gospel, and consequently from their sal­uacion. And iff there were not any other abuse in the masse but this, it ought to be fled as a de­uelish inuencion. And who could euer sett owt this abuse as it is worthy? This is the caus that Satā hath sought by so many ways, to deck it ād to make it faire, affter the sort off an harlot to intise the peple to whore with a spirituall and a sowles whordom, which withowt comparison doth moch more displease God, than the fleshly. What els be so many ceremonies, so many gar­ments, and so many handsom handlings as be there, but ornaments, and as it is said, bewtifiengs [Page] of this masse, to bring to passe that euery man may loue the harlot. I could tell many other abuses of this masse, for thei be so many, that there might be volumis of bokes writton of them. Ne­uertheles thes be ynowe to make it knowen for as stroyfull a thing as euer was in the world. Iff thei be considerd with a spiritual Iudgement.

THE FIFT CHAPTER. That the masse is the gretest sacrilege and the greatest abhominacion that euer was in any time from the beginning of the world, and is the chefe greatest mistery of Antichrist.

IT will parauenter seme strange that I shall thus speake of the masse. And thei wil say that I speake vncomly, and stepp (as it is comonly said) owt of the sorow. But thos men iff thei knewe what a thing this Masse is, thei wold say that I am very farr from the mark, and that I [Page 126] speake not the thowsand part so moch as I ought, and that I am not yet well entered in to the sorrow, moch lesse that I am stept owt of it. I say and affirme againe, that the Masse is the greatest sacrilege and the gretest abhomina­cion, that euer was in any time from the begin­ning of the world, ād is the gret mistery of Anti­christ. And iff I shall not proue it, It shall not be becaus the trowth is not so, but my weake habi­lite shall be in fawt. Neuertheles, I trust in the lord, allthough not to the striuers, yet at the least to the louers of the truth, I shall perswade my meaning, affter this sort.

We haue owt of Paul the Apostle,Rom. 3. et 7. Gala. 3. that the knowlege of sinne is by the lawe. (I speake of the 10. commandements which thei call the morall lawe) is diuided as men knowe in to 2. tables, the first, and the second. The first is of the worship­ping of God, and regardeth directly Gods honor and glory.

The second doth teach and instruct man toward his neighbor. Thes things to all thos that haue knowlege in the holy writing, be plaine. And becaus that the honor and glory of God is withowt comparison of more importans, [Page] than thos things that respectt man, we ought to say that the sinnes that be against the first table, be heuier and gretter, than thos that be against the second, becaus that thei be directly against gods honor. And therfor infidelitie, Idolatry and blasphemy, which be sinnes against the first ta­ble, be greter and heuier sinnes, than thefft, than adultery and the rest which be against the second table, and against men. This is with owt dowt. Let vs goo further. We ought to knowe also that euen as among the sinnes of the second table, the one is greter and more weighty than thother. as for example, adultry is gretter sinne than sim­ple thefft, and one murther is gretter than a no­ther, as the murthering of the father, or the mo­ther, is a gretter sinne than the murthering of a nother parson, So among the sinnes that be aga­inst the first table, one is gretter than a nother. As for example, one blasphemy is greter than a nother,Math. 12. Marc. 3. by christes testimony in S. Mathew and mark where he saith that all sinnes and blasphe­mies of men shall be forgeuen them, but he that shall blasphme against the holy gost, it shall ne­uer be forgeuen him. By the which spech is con­cluded that one blasphemy is gretter than tho­ther. And so we will say that one infidelitie [Page 127] is gretter than a nother, and one Idolatry heuier than a nother. That of gods peple, that is to say, of the hebrewes, was a more heuy sinne, than that of the gentiles. The hethnish peple were vnbileuing and Idolatros before that Christ was shewed vnto them, and thei did honor the things made, in steade of the maker, thei did worship pictures and Images,Rom. [...]. as Paul to the Romans sa­ith. And thei were in most theik darknes of vnbi­lefe, of ignorans and of error. Thei had in de­de the lawe of nature, but by the corruption of the same nature, brought by sinn in to all men, that lawe was in them so darkened, that it was not hable neither sufficiently to shewe them, nor to direct them in the way of saluatiō,Rom. 2. the which withowt Christ can not be had, allthough it we­re sufficient ynough to condempne them and make them inexcusable. And God, as the same Paul saith in thactis of the Apostles,Act. 14. did let them goo their own waies, that is to say, did let them walk in their error, withowt geuing them the light of his word, and of his spirite, so that as blind men, thei sawe not, nor knewe not what thei did. A great iudgement, by the which is shewed, what man can doo iff god forsake him, and doth not light him with his word and with [Page] the light of his spirite, becaus he knoweth not what is to be done, and in Gods things he doth all contrary. Withowt dowt the gentiles did greatly sinn in their vnbyleffe, committing Ido­latry, and blaspheming their maker, notwith­stonding thei sinned by ignorans, nor thei could not doo otherwise, hauing not the light of the scripture. But the Hebrewes, who had the beni­fice of Gods word cleare and open, did sinn mo­re greuosly in their vnbilefe, committing Idola­try and blasphemy, than the heathen. For it was euen as he that seith the ditch, and yet of purpos and willingly falleth in to it. It is plaine that he doth moch more sinne, who hath thexpresse commandment of the lord, and knoweth his will, and noth withstanding yet doth against such com­mandement and will, than he that knoweth it not,Luc. 12. as the Sauior saith in S. Luke. That is to say, the seruant that knoweth the will of his ma­ster, and doth it not, shall be worthily beaton with many stripes, but the seruant that kno­weth not the will of his lord and doth it not shall be beaton too, but not so moch as he that knoweth it.

And for this caus the Hebrewes whan thei [Page 128] worsshipped the calff in the desert, they did moch more greuosly sinn than the heathen who did honor the Idols, for so moch as that not long before, thei were cowncelled by God him selff who gaue them the lawe and commanded them that thei shuld not make any ymage to honor and yet thei made it a­gainst Gods expresse commandment. And so as many other times as thei haue committed Idolatry (as we haue in the bookes of the Kings and of the Prophetes) thei haue moch more offended God and more greuosly sinned than the heathen. And the Idolatry and vnfaith­fulnes of his own peple, was more abhomi­nable in Gods sight, and did more prouoke him to anger, than that of the heathen. And for this caus also thei were more threatned, than the ame heathen. And how many scor­gis, how many ouerthrowes haue thei suf­fred for the sinn of vnbilefe and Idolatry?

The 10. tribes of Israell, for what caus were thei so offt by God scorgid, and at the last be­refft of their right,4. Reg. 17. and by Salmanasar King of the Assyrians led in to continuall bondage, as it is writton in the boke of the Kings, but only for Idolatry?

[Page]The tribe off Iuda, how many wayes was it stri­ken, as well off their borderers that is off their next neighbors, as affter by a peple that came farr off, as the Caldees and the Assyrians were? why was it sent in to exile to Babylone? Why was the temple destroyed and euery thing ouer­throwen, but only for their Idolatry? Be caus thes things be knowen, I doo not labor to recite the stories where thei be writton, and therfor I passe them ouer.

Exod. 32. Deut. 4. 2. Parali. 7. Ierem. 43. & 44. Esa. 65. Ezech. 9. and. 43. Exod. 4. Deut. 7. 3. Reg. 14. Ezech. 8.20 4. Reg. 23.How offten hath God threatned the ouer­throwe to Idolaters? Loke in Exodus, in Deute­ronomy, in Paralipomenon, in Ieremy, in Esay, in Ezechiel, and in very many other placis of the Prophetes. Idolatry in the scripture is called ab­hominacion, becaus God hath it most chefely in hatred. Loke in Exodus, in Deutronomy, in the 3. boke off the Kings, where Achias the Prophet foretelleth the exile and sparkeling off the tribe off Israel for Idolatry, and also in Ezechiel. In all thes places the scripture calleth Idolatry, Ab­hominacion, becaus that God, as we haue sayd, hath it in meruelos hatred. This fowndacion being laid, that God hath chefly in hatred Idola­try, in what so euer sort it be done, but moch more in his own peple than he had in the other [Page 129] And this becaus his peple had the knowlege off God and were taught with his word the trew worship off God, that is to say how thei ought to worship him, and honor him, the other peple were not soo, the which sinned by ignorans. It doth fitly folow also that iff there shall be fownd Idolatry among the Christians, who be now Gods peple, that that shal be more abhominable before God, than any other, not only of the hea­then but also of the Hebrewes. For where as the knowlege off God, and off his trewe worship is gretter, and the trowth is more manifest, in that place Idolatry and vnbilefe be greater sinnes, and gretter abhominacions before God, than where there is not so moch knowlege, nor the truth so open. But who dowteth, that there shuld not be in the Christian peple a greater knowlege off God, and off his trew worship, and off Christ, who is the truth it selff, by the witnes off him selff, the which saith in S. Iohn, I am the way,Iohn 4. the truth and the liffe, than in any other peple and nacion? doth not he witnes the truth, talking with the Samaritane, as Iohn writeth, that the Christians, that is to say the peple gathered to gether of by leuing Iewes and heathē, which we be (turned to Christ by Gods grace) shuld be the [Page] trewe worshippers that shuld worshipp the fa­ther in spirite and truth? Haue not we more knowlege of God hauing greater knowlege of Christ, by whom God is truly knowen, than the Hebrewes? who will dowt this, but he that knoweth not, what Christ is? Also this time is compared to that of the lawe, vnder the which the Hebrews were, as the day is to the night. For thei had the flesshly worship, that is to say, thos sacrifices and nōber of ceremonies, and we haue the spiri [...]uall.Coloss. 2. Thei had the shadows, and we ha­ue the body as Paul saith to the Colosseis. The knowlege that thei had, was dark becaus it was shadowed with figures, and certen veales, or couerings, owrs be clere, bare, and open, wee doo better knowe Gods benifites thorow Christ than thei, how sinnes be forgeuen vs, how we be Iusti­fied and saued. Now we knowe that Christ is deade for our sinnes,Rma. 4. and is risen again as Paul saith, for our rigthuosnes. We know that he su­teth at the right hand of God, and where he is, there we shal be,Iohn 12. as he witnesseth in Iohn. And of this we be sure. We byleue certenly as an artikle of our faith that Christ is trewe God and trewe man. The comen sort of the Iewes did not cle­rely [Page 130] knowe thes things, as we doo. And that it is the truth, Iesus Christes Apostles them seluis, although thei had hard him a long time, and had conuersacion with him, yet thei did not think that by death, and chefely that death off the crosse, he shuld redeme the world and that he shuld be a sacrifice and satisfaccion for our sinnes. To him that hath redd the stories of the­uangelistes, this that I say is plaine. Iff it be so than that where the knowlege of God, of Christ, of the threw worship is greater, Idolatry, vnbi­lefe and blasphemy be more greuos sinnes than where there is not so gret and so clere knowlege. Surely iff we shall find thes so greuos sinnes in the Christen peple, we must of necessitie conclu­de that thei shall more displease God, and shall be more hatefull vnto him, than all the Idola­tries, all the vnbilefes, and all the blaspemies off the heathē, yea and off the Hebrewissh peple too. Now let vs see iff thes most greuos sinnes be fownd among the Christian peple (I call them Christian, becaus thei be so named) or no. I wold to God there were fownd none. How moch vn­bilefe, how many blasphemies, how many Ido­latries haue we?

[Page]Tell me, is it any vnbilefe ād Idolatry to worship verie mē? And what shall we speake of verie mē? Is it Idolatry to worship their bonys, their ashes, their garments, ther hattys, their girdles? And what more, to worship that which is not kno­wen? Sometime the bonys off some wicked par­son, I will not say of other beastys (which thing may easily happen) in the place of saintes reli­ques? Thei doo also worshipp in diuers places, diuers bodies, as though thei were the bodies of one selff saint, and the simple peple byleueth, that both thone, and thother, of thos bodies be the bodies of that saint, as though one man shuld haue had 2. bodies. I doo remember that I haue sene in the citie off Arle, a certen body the which thei say, is S. Antonis the abbot, and yet not withstonding, there is shewed a nother in the citie of Vienna, In Dolpheny, the which neuerteles, thei say and affirme is. S. Antonyes. The body off S. Williā of aquitan, the Seneases say, that it is in an abbey in their territory, and thei shewe it. And yet a nother body is shewed, in a certen vale called, S. Iames vale, vnder the rule of grisones and there is done to it gret reuerens. It is wors­hipped, thei ronn to it for raine, for faire we­ther, and other busines. How many heades of S. [Page 131] Iohan Baptist be shewed in diuers placis? And what scornes be thes of the Christen religion? What madnesses, what dulnesses be thes, that men shuld loose the comon sense and shuld haue lesse Iudgement, than the brute beastes? So we could iff we wold tell yow a gret nombrer of li­ke abuses. This corrupcion can not be scused for it is to plaine. Let vs goo on further, Is it Idola­try to worship the Imagis, to knele before them, to stick candels before them, to sett lampes the­re, to call vp on them, to make vowes to them, to hang torches, tapers, cloth corne, garments, eyes, handes, heades, leggs, sometime off waxe, somtime off siluer, before them, to hang before them, Imagis off men, off wemen, of yong chil­dern, off oxen and off hors? Is it Idolatry, and li­kewise I ought to saye, plaine doltisshnes, to ha­ue greter deuociō to one Image or picture, than to a nother, off the selff same saint or saintes? As for example, more to that off S. Loreto, than to that off the Annunciation in Florence, and to think that the one shuld doo more miracles than the other? Is it Idolatry to make the Image of the Trinitie the which is an high spirite, that can not be painted, nor carued by any maner off meanes? And yet against Gods commandement [Page] thei paint it, and carue it, in the shape of certen strange monsters, that is to say, somtimes in the shape of a man, with 3. heades, somtimes in the fasshon of 3. men with 2. leggs only, and in this forme thei worship it, and make their vowes to it. What will thei say here? will thei defend thes manifest abuses, with that their distinction, that thei make off Dulia and Hiperdulia and Latria? This thing meaneth a nother maner of thing than Dulia and Hiperdulia. I will not declare thes wordes and their distinction, the which I knowe well ynough frō whēs it cometh. Iff there were not worldy gaine here in this Ido­latry, their Images, and heir Dulias and Hiper­dulias wold soone cease. It can not be denied but among the Christen peple there be many Idola­tries, moch vnbilefe many blasphemies and sa­crilegis. Sacrilege is to robb the holy things. What is more holy than Gods and Christes ho­nor? This is to cleere. Neuertheles, among all the rest, as there be many Idolatries, (I will not say withowt nomber) that of the masse, is the gretest and the chefe, not only becaus the host and the cup, be worshipped in stead of Christ, not being certen that the same Christ is there, as before in [Page 132] the Cannon we haue proued, in that part where their consecracion is spoken off, and as also we will better proue, in the sermon in thend of this booke, but moch more becaus thei will, that all the Masse shuld be a worship of God, saing that it is a sacrifice for the sinnes of the liuing, and of the dead, in the which God is honored, yea Christ him selff is offered to God, wherfor it doth well folow, that it is a most gret Idolatry, for so mo­ch as, that Idolatry is not only where any visible ydoll, or ymage is honored, but euery wors­hip the which is made vnto God withowt his word, is Idolatry, for becaus that no such wors­hip is trewe worship, nor pleasith God, but ra­ther it is to him abhominacion. for so moch then as that God will not as before we haue allredy offten told, that we shuld honor him affter our own mind, and as it semeth good to vs, but will that we shuld honor him, as he doth teach and command vs,Esa. 29. Math. 15. as we haue in Esay and Christ alleageth him selff in sanct Mathew: We haue before allredy proued that the Masse is mans inuencion, therfor seing we will make it a worship as we doo, yea the chefe of the Christian religion, we must conclude that it is an Idolatry becaus that it is a worship withowt Gods word.

[Page]But let vs see off what sort off Idolatry it is? First there be many deceites, and amōg the rest, there is this, that thei persuade the peple, as an article off their faith, not only that Christ is bo­dily in that host, and likewise in the cupp, and make them honor the one, and thother, but that he is there, as gret, and as thick, as he was vp on the wood off the crosse, and that he is wholly, not only in that litle host, but in euery part off the host and the wine, and that he is in heauen, and in earth, and in all places where the hostes be consecrated. And thei persuade that there is the whole court off heauen, and that there is no more bread nor wine, but only the withcōmes, off thone and off the other. For their substancis, thei be transsubstanciated, that is to say, changed in to the substance off the body, and blood, off Christ. All the which things, and many other, thei haue fownd owt, to geue the more credite to this their masse, to thentent, that the peple shuld haue more deuocion to it. Thei haue fownd that it is good for euery thing, and that it hath ver­tews innumerable, and thei haue geuen vs to vn­derstand so many other things off this Masse, that it is a wonder. Further more, as we haue proued in the former discorse that we haue ma­de [Page 133] frō the Introibo, to the end, how many fal­sedes, how many supersticions, wickednesses, and blasphemies be in this Masse? There Christ is robbed off his honor many wayes, Yea he is euel spoken off, the forgeuenes off sinnes, the satis­faction, the ransoming, the intreating, and the saluacion is attributed to other things. Do yow not think that a most greuos sacrilege is committed whan his glorios titles be directly pluckt from him, and his honor and glory taken away? The which outrages so open and so plaine, were neuer committed in any Idolatry off the heathē, or off the Iewes.

And to perceiue better that which we doo say, yow must vnderstand, that euen as Iesus Christ is Gods best beloued, nor that the same God loueth any other thing so moch as Christ his only begoten sonn (yea I speake off him in that he is man) nor no nother man off the world can be reconciled, nor return in to Gods fauor but by Christ, yea no maner thing, whether it be prayer, thankes geuing, allmes or any other ma­ner off work is acceptable, or thankfull to God, iff not by Christ, nor we can not haue any ma­ner off benifice, perteining to saluacion, but tho­row Christ, so on the contrary there can not be [Page] done a thing more hatefull, more displeasing to god, and that shuld be more abhominable to him, than to doo against Christ, and to robb his honor and glory. And the more a thing is aga­inst Christ, the more it displeaseth him, for so moch as nothing pleaseth him but thorow christ. And becaus there was neuer in the world any I­dolatry the which so directly, and so many waies did robb Christ, as this masse, we must conclude that no ydolatry, although it were most grett, was euer so abhominable before god as this. Let vs take the ydolatries of the heathen, it is clere that thei had not the knowlege of Christ, and therfor could not robbe him in such sort, as the masse doth, in the which chefely it made expres­se mencion of him in many places. The Idolatries likewise of the Hebrewes thei haue not so expressely taken the honor from christ as the masse ha­th. Let vs beginn with the Idolatry that thei did in the desert, whan thei honored the calff, it was in dede a heuy sinne, not withstanding it was done by want of consideracion, with an vprowr, and rage of the peple, And Aaron vnwillinglie and for feare agreid vnto them,Exod. 20. as it is writton in exodus. Nor that peple had not so moch know lede of Christ as we, there was made no mencion [Page 134] of forgeuenes of sinnes, of satisfacion, of ranso­ming, or of the things belonging to Christes office. Nor Christ was not robbed of his honor, so many wayes as in the masse he is. And soo let vs goo thorowall the Idolatries of that peple, as well of the tribe of Iuda, as of the x. tribes. The x. tribes did worship ij. goldin calues, made by king hieroboam, thone was in Bethell,3. Reg. 12. and tho­ther in Dann. This was ydolatry for [...] respectis. First whan by gods commandement thei shuld haue worshipped in Hierusalem, thei worshipped els where. Than also becaus thei worshipped carued things, that is to say, the ij. Imagis of caluis against gods expresse commandement in the la­we, the which for biddeth, that there shuld be made any Image carued, or of ani other sort to worship it. Thei did worship also the ymage of baal vnder king Achab, as it is writton in the boke of the kings, in Helias time the Prophet,3. Reg. 16.18 ād thei did sacrifice vnto it. The tribe of Iuda, and the tribe of beniamin, thei also haue many times done ydolatry, the which allthough that thei fawted more committing ydolatry than the x. tribes, becaus thei had gretter knowlege of god, being better instructed, and taug­ht, in gods worship and in his lawe, [Page] becaus thei had more plenty off Prophetes, And also becaus with them was Gods doctrine more pure, and lesse corrupted, than among the 10. tribes, neuertheles, thei had not for all that so moch knowlege off God, and off Christ as we, nor thei did not so many wayes directly offend Christ, as thes do in the masse, as it appeareth plainely by all this whole discourse.

Seing it is thus than, that God and Christ is more offended in the Masse, than in all the other Idolatries that euer were in the world, whether it be off the heathē, or off the Hebrewes, the conclusion foloweth that we desired to proue. And for more clerenes, or els euidēce off this our pro­fe, let vs gather to gether in a Somm all our talk made in this chapter.An Epilog. or short re­hersal off the reason. And let vs say, that Idola­try, or els fals worship, in the which God and Christ be more, and off moo sortis robbed off their honor, and is among that peple that haue more knowlege off the same God and Christ, than the other, that Idolatry (I say) is greter sa­crilege, and abhominacion, than all the other. This sayng is so clere, that none can reasonably denye it. But the Masse is a fals worship, and an ydolatry, in the which Gods, and Christes ho­nor, is more, and affter moo sortes robbed than [Page 135] in my other, and is among that peple that haue more knowlege of God, and Christ, than the rest, for it is among the Christian peple, therfor that is the gretest sacrilege, and the most abhomina­cion, that euer was in any maner off world. That the masse is such a worship and such an Idolatry in the which Gods, and Christes honor is more robbed, than in any other that euer was, we haue by our former talk plainely ynough proued it. First that it is a fals worship, we haue proued it, becaus it is fownd owt by men, and further, becaus the ost, and the cup, be worship­ped, and that Gods honor and Christes is robbed many wayes, we haue also proued. First becaus he that sayth the masse doth vsurpe Christes offi­ce as wel becaus he offereth Christ him selff to God, as the fauorers off the masse confesse and affirme, the which thing (that is to say to offer the same Christ) belonged only to him, who as the chefe priest hath offred him selff vnto God, vp on the wood off the crosse. Further also, becaus that he, that is to say, the Masse sayer, is made intreater betwene the peple and God, the which thing is Christes office only. Thirdly, becaus it maketh the Masse to be a sacrifice for sinnes, the which in like sort belongeth to Christ only, as [Page] likewise we haue proued in the second chapter of this fourth part. The fautors, of the masse wold that the same shuld forgiue the sinnes of the liuing, and the deade, shuld satisfie for them, and that it shuld saue men, all the which things belong only to gods grace thorow Christ, and be the proper offices of Christ, and thei be not of a­ny creature. This masse robbeth from the crosse, from the passion, frō the blood, from the death, and from the beriall of Christ, becaus that that which Christ did, with thes things, thei wold that the masse shuld doo it. Surely, the masse, as thei think worketh thes effects. And what is it to robb christ of his honor, iff this be not? That is to say, to plucke frō him the glory of the pristhode, of the intreatorship, of the only sacrifice, and to be short, of the only redemer, and sauer? We ha­ue sene how many falsedes, how many supersti­cions, wickednesses, and blasphemies be therein, shall it not than be a sacrilege, shall it not be an abhominacion aboue all other sacrileges and abhominacions seinge it is an heape of sacrilegis ād abhominacions? Yes surely shall it. It is therfor clere and plaine, that the masse is the gretest sa­crilege, and the gretest abhominacion, that euer was in any world.

[Page 136]It is an easy things to proue, by the things all­redy spoken, that it is the gret mistery of Anti­christ, And it foloweth necessarily, that iff the masse be the gretest sacrilege, and abhominaciō, that euer was in the world, that also it is the gret mistery of Antichrist, called by Paul, for the ex­cellenci of it, the mistery of iniquitie. Neuerthe­les for more clerenes, and better proffe of the thing, we will say also a fewe words to this purpos. It is plaine that Antichrist is the chefe child, member, and elect instrument of sathan,2. Thessa. [...]. called bi Paul, the sonn of perdicion, by the which the same sathan, with all the meanes and weies that he can, and knoweth, seketh to withstād Christ, and to fight against him. And this he doth chefely affter ij. sortis. One is openly that euery man seith. The other is secretly and moch wors. The open waie is with the persecucions that he doth aga­inst the seruants of Iesus Christ, afflicting them, tormenting them and killing them, by meanes of the princes of the worlde, and as it is said, with the secular powr. For surely thes same be no nother but the Armes, of Antichrist, with the which he fighteth against Christ, although that the poore princes be not aware of such things, but be deceiued by the Antichristians, that [Page] be in their cowrtis. And this maner off with­standing Christ, although it be open to all men, neuertheles Antichrist being full off the miste­ries off iniquities, and off deuelissh crafftines, with meruelos and most craffty pretensis, and colors, maketh it to seeme, to be of a nother sort than it is. For although this maner of persecu­ting Christ, is all wholly wicked, and Satanike, yet neuertheles, he geueth to vnderstand, that it is a godly, and a religios thing, and that it is, a defence of Christen religion, and a keping of it, persuading that Christes seruantes be heretikes, and that the faithfull Christians be Lutheranes. He geueth to vnderstand that he is Christes liff­tenant, yea, that he is a God on earth, and not withstanding he procureth as moch as he can, that Christes doctrine shuld not come in to the light, becaus it is that that discouereth him, and maketh him open to the world. And he wold not be knowen for him that he is, that is to say, for Antichrist, which is as moch to say, as Chri­stes chefe aduersary. Doo yow not think that this is a newe maner off making warr against a prince, to serch by all meanes to beate him downe, to kill all his, and to ouerthrowe him vtterly? And than off the other part to giue to vnderstand, [Page 137] and make the world bileue, that he workith for him, that is to say, to mainteine him in his state, and to kepe him in his dominion? What say yow? Doth not this seme to be a fine art, to make warr vpon one wit his most might, and openly to seke to ouerthrow him vtterly, and of the other side, to make byleue to the world that euery thing that he doth, he doth it to serue him and to doo him pleasure? Euen so doth Antichrist against Christ. For he withstondeth him, he is his chefest and most mortal enemy, and neuertheles he saith he is his Leefftenāt, and doth euery thing to ser­ue Christ, and to mainteine his kingdom, that is to say, his church. Why doo yow not now at length open your eyes Oh Christians? Is it not ynough that hetherto yow haue bene so misera­bly, and with so great losse deceiued? Rise vp, o God, and iudge thine own caus. Suffer not any longer, o lord, so great disorder that the peple shuld be of this sort handled.Apocal. 13. Deliuer them now at length, from so great a bondage, from this so hard and long a tiranny.

The other way of making warr against Christ, is more hidden, and secret, and is not sene as the first, but it is withowt comparison moch wors, and more hurtfull, becaus that the first di­rectly [Page] hurteth the bodies, but this second hur­teth and is deadly to the sowles. For somoch as that with more craffti and secret waies, he doth falsifie christes doctrine, the holy gospell, and the truth, It taketh Gods own word, geuing it fals vnderstāding, and vseth it for a weapon against Christ, and the truth. And this withowt feare of persecution, persuadeth vnder the shewe of god­lines, and religion, that the falsedis, wickednes­sis, and blasphemies, be holy, and godly things. As for example that the pardons which to him that hath eies to see, be an open deceite, and yet he hath geuen to vnderstand that thei forgeue sinnes, with bullis, with visitations of churches, with stacions, with pilgrimagis, with cordes, with girdles, with garmentis, and such like trompery, and that thes things help to euerlasting liffe. And here I might haue to talck a long time and coulde iff I wold, geue innumerable exam­ples, but becaus I wold not be long, I haue on­ly geuen the example of the pardons. But to co­me to our purpos, among the whole nomber of doctrines, inuencions, deceites, craffti barte­rings of Antichrist, there is none so wittily done, with so great art and conueians, as the Masse. In the which Antichrist him selff, hath bestowed [Page 138] all his witt, and all his knowlege in bilding it, to make it be cownted, and taken for the prin­cipall worshipp of Christian religion, nor one only hath not laid hand to this doing, but many.

About the bilding off Salomons temple (the which surely was done with most high wisdom) the bilders were 7. yeares, and than thei ended the work. But abowt the bilding of the Masse, how many hondreth yeares haue bene besto­wed, and by how many bilders? One hath put to one thing, a nother a nother, according to the diuers Antichristes that folowe done a nother. And how shuld one only, euer haue bene able (I will not say to make) but to Imagine, so great an h [...] ̄dy work. Surely it coulde neuer haue bene possible. And all this is done vnder color and shewe off doing a thing most choysefull, and thankfull to God, for the benifite off the sowles, and profite off the bodies. And Antichrist hath not wit­howt gret caus bestowed here all his whole knowlege and labor, becaus that he hath well seene, that principally his kingdom, and rule, consisteth in the same Masse as in a strong ca­stell, and in a well defended hold.

[Page]And withowt dowt whan the masse is throwen to the grownd, the whole kingdom of Anti­christ, goeth to vtter decay. Therfor it is no meruell, though by all meanes he can, and kno­weth, he hath sought and doth seke a fressh to fauor hir, to defend hir, to kepe hir, and to pri­uilege hir. He carith not though euery other thing goo to the mischeff, so that his kingdom may remaine still on foote. There is no mans witt that can serch owt, and moch lesse any tong declare, the crafftines, the suttlety, the bartring falsode of this Masse, nor the gret harm that it hath done sins it begann, and doth continually among the Christen peple. There is no pestilens, there is no maner of sicknes, that so infecteth the bodies, as this Masse doth the sowles. The pesti­lens killeth the bodyes, this the sowles. The pesti­lens iff it be in one citie it is not in a nother, iff it be in one contry, it is not in a nother, iff it be at one time, it is not at a nother, it doth not comonly continue any long time, but for a fewe mon­thes. And it were a gret thing iff it shuld last a yeare. But the disease of this Masse, hath bene comon to all the Christen peple, and yet is, and hath continewed many hondreth yeares and yet doth.

[Page 139]I haue goone abowt in this booke to say som­what of this masse, but in dede I confesse, I am no thing nigh the mark, nor haue hit the point I shuld, as well by reason of my dull witt, as also that it is not possible that one onely man, might be able to disclose so many deceites, as be therein, and to say so moch as the matter requireth. Therfor I desire thos to whom God by his grace hath granted more vnderstanding of his things then to me that thei wil supplie my want. And let it not be one only that shuld take in hand this enterprise, but many, becaus here is ynough to say for all, the matter being most large, and as it were endles. And let thē not dowt a whit, that this depe sea can euer be drawen owt, or vtterly dried vp. And thei shall doo a most thanckfull thing to God, And very profitable to the Chri­sten peple.

Many haue writton of this Masse, and one hath said one thing, a nother a nother thing, but all in generalitie, and no one that I knowe, hath considred it particularly. And therfor it could not well be knowne what maner a thing it is. Therfor whan I sawe that no man toke this en­terprise on him, seing that no better surgen than my selff came in place, becaus the rest were occupied [Page] abowt diuers other things, God did put in my mind to take in hand this labor, that is to say to Anatomie hir, and to cōsider hir, part by part. And I haue done that litle that I could, desiring euery faithfull and Christen reader that he will pardon me, iff I haue fayled in any thing, be­caus, to say the truth, who could euer be able to say of this abhominacion so moch, as suffiseth, And as it displeaseth God and prouoketh his an­ger? Iff God were so angry for the Idolatry committed by the Hebruissh peple,Exod. 32. that he ponisshed thē so many wayes, first in the desert for the Ido­latry of the goldin calff, Affterward particu­larly the 10. tribes in the land of promes, he roo­ted them owt, and sent them in to perpetual ba­nisshment for their Idolatries as it is writton in the 4. of the kings.4. Reg. 17. And further the peple of Iu­da was offten afflicted, and striken, for their Ido­latries, that thei did now in the hilles, now in the valleys, now in the groues, and affterward thei were sent captiue to Babilon, And in the end, becaus thei sold Christ, crucified him, persecu­ted his Apostles, euell handled and killed his di­sciples, And aboue all, becaus thei despised the holy gospell, also the same peple were sent in to continuall banisshment, and wors handled than [Page 140] euer was any peple vnder the heauens, and wit­howt comparison more greuosly afflicted, and ponisshed, than the 10. tribes, And that which is more, thei be so cast off, that thei shall neuer be more the peple of God as Christ foretold in the­uangelistes,Matht 21. Marc 12. Luc. 20. what shall become of the Christen peple, that is to say of vs, the which withowt cōparison, as before we haue seene, doo deserue moch worse? The Hebrewissh peple many wayes cōmit [...]ed Idolatry, but we moo wayes and wi [...]h greater Idolatry than thei, as we haue proued, but specially in this masse. The Iewes old Christ one only time, the massers sell hym an infinite sort of times. Iudas sold him for 30. pens, thes sell him for a dandy pratt. The Iewes crucified him ones only, and that vnwittingly, not kno­wing that it was Christ, as Paul saith in the first to the Corinthes. For iff thei had knowē him,1. Corint. 2. thei wold neuer haue crucified the King of glory, we that knowe him and cōfesse him to be Christ, doo euery day so offten putt him vp on the crosse, as we saye Masses. Iff thos peple that withowt cōparison, haue cōmitted moch lesse Idolatrie thā we, and haue lesse crucified Christ than we, were so sharply afflicted and striken, and aff [...]er sent in to perpetual banisshmēt, what shall become off vs? [Page] Iff the Iewes were so euell handled, and affter vt­terly cast off, what can we loke for, for so greuos and gret an Idolatry of this Masse, in the which so many wayes we offend God and wrōg Christ? Wold to God that I were no prophet, and did not truly foregesse? And what doo I say forgesse? Iff Gods word be trew, as it can not be otherwise, Iff God be euer the same as he euer was, Iff affter the most greuos sinnes, and withow re­pentans of the peple, if affter continuall perse­uerans from euell, to wors, allweyes and in all times, there folowed and neuer fayled, sharpe reuenge, most great scorgis, and vtter ruines, what other thing shuld we conclude but that either the self same, or a moch greater ouerthro­we and ruine, must fall vp on vs, for as moch as we haue moch more sinned, and prouoked God vnto anger? Ought we not now at length to knowe, that how moch more slowe God is to po­nissh, so moch greter ponisshments he laith on? And whan he beginnith to beate, he striketh so moch the more greuosly? we see the most migh­tie enemie of the Christian name, which is the great Turke, drawe nigh to wards vs, yea that he hath driuen vs in to this corner of Europe, and continually he commith on nerer vs, and day by [Page 151] day maketh his coming on gretter. And who dowteth but this is gods work, with the which he threatnith vs, and called vs to repentans? And yet we, as it were blind men, not considring gods good­nes, and long suffering, doo heape vp, and bring to gether synnes vp on sinnes, hurding vp gods wrath vp on vs, stirring and prouoking him to to greater fury. Banisshment, bondage, ād other worldly ponisshments, be in comparison of ow­re desertes of litil weight and smal punisshmen­tes, becaus thei all passe a way, and with the pre­sent liffe shortly doo end, but the spirituall po­nisshments, and thos of the sowle, that allweies continewe, that is to say, the euerlasting owtcasting, the horrible and continuall wailings, who can esteme them and worthily consider them? Seing it is thus than, O Christian pe­ple, flee this masse, the which many waies kind­leth gods wrath, Flee it as a deadly and most pe­rellos pestilens of your sowles. And yow chefely, which were and yet be ministers of so gret ab­homynacion. Seing now that ye knowe it, cease from saing, and celebrating it any more, and frō being caus to make the poore peple, committ so grett an error. And doo yow penans for that which is past, and desire yow the most fauorable [Page] lord, and our heauenly father, that he wold deale with yow, not according to your sinnes, but according to the multitude of his mercies, that he wold deliuer yow from all euel through Iesus Christ our sauior.

THE SIXT CHAPTER. That the mass is of such qualitie and crafft, and affter such sort abhominable, that no man liuing, for any maner of pretens, respect or occa­sion that can be, may by any maner of meanes, with a safe consciens, either say it, heare it or any waies be present at it.

MANS nature is of such sort craffty and wittie, that it can tell, euen how to deceiue it selff. There are fownd in the world certen excellent dise Coggars, and cardsetters, that trapp, as it were, all men that thei haue to doo with, and it behoueth a man to be well ware, [Page 152] least thei begyle him, neuertheles thei doo only begile other, and not them selues. But our na­ture is so shiftfull and ware, that it doth not on­ly begile other, but it selff also. And this it doth chefely in thos things that like them, and serue for their commodities. And it semith that it hath lerned the art of deceiuing, of the suttle serpent, tre which with his persuasions and Intisemēts, brought our first mother Eue to eate of the ap­ple, and to doo contrary to gods commandemēt, making hir beleue one thing for a nother. Euen so doth also man to wards him selff, that can meruelosly color, and sett a face on his deceites to make them excusable. Not wi [...]hstonding whan he hath well turned and tossed him selff, with as many scusys as he can bring furth, it is fownd at [...]ight, that he hath erred. And he plainely seith that his crafftes, be very folies. There be many now a daies in Germany, in Frāce, in Spaine, in Italy that haue receiued the gospell, and haue the knowlege of Christ, but finding them selues in the middes of their enemies, and fea­ring persecution, chefely whan thei see the poore Christians to be euell handled, the which now by this hatefull name [Page] to the world be called Lutherans, And that so­me of them be taken and putt in to the gallies, Some Imprisoned, some other be cruelly tormen­ted vp on the Racke, Some hanged, Other drow­ned in the riuers, and other burnt, thei be affra­ied, And becaus thei wold not be marked, and accused for Lutherans, thei goo to the masse, and doo against their consciens. And to proue that this is trewe, iff the feare that thei haue, had not bene, thei wold neuer haue gone to the masse. And the caus why thei wold not haue gone is, that thei shuld haue thought to haue done euill, and against their consciens, this is clere. Yet as I haue said, being affraied either of losing their temporall goodes, or rather their skinn, thei doo as other doo. And to the intent that thei might affter some sort be scused thei alleage certen pre­tensis with the which thei deceiue them seluis, and the reasons that thei bring furth, be thes.

The 1. rea­son.First thei say that iff thei goo not to masse, and Euēsonge or other vsed ceremonies, thei fea­re to lay a grett Stumbling stock for the simple and weake, and to geue them occasion to thinck, or els at least suspect, that thei be despisers, yea scorners of Christian religion, or els heretikes, and enemies of the church, and not going to masse [Page 151] there is geuen them a wicked example, seing the poore sowles think such things to be lawfull and christianlike. And that for such respectt, it is well done to goo to the masse, and to their serui­ce, and to dissemble so long, till thei may haue go­ten the trewe knowlege. And whan thei goo not to the masse, the simple take a very euil example to doo the like against their consciens.

Than next the Apostle Paul doth teach vs,The second reason. to applie our selues to all men, and to fasshon our selues with other, as we haue in the first to the Corinthes where he saith, I am made seruant of all men, to the Iewes I am made a Iewe,1. chor. 9. to winn them: To thē that be vnder the lawe, as though I were vnder the lawe, to thentent that I might winne them: To them that be withowt lawe, as though I were withowt lawe (allthough that I as to ward god am not withowt lawe, but bownd to Christes lawe,) to thentent that I might winn them: I am made to the weake as though I were weake, to thende that I might winn the weake: I am become allthings to all, that at the least I might winn some. Iff thapostle Paul applied him selff to all, and did teach that the like also ought to be done by others, Why shall not we goo to the masse with other, doing as thei doo, applieng our [Page] selues to them, whan we seeke to winne them?

The third reason Psal. 7. Ierem. 17. Apocal. 2.Also the scripture saith that god is the ser­cher of hartis, and he looketh chefely vp on the mindes, and considreth to what end a thing is done, this is plaine. Therfor iff one with a good entent shall goo to the masse, not to offend god, but only for the foresaid respectis, that is to say, for to auoide geuing of euil example, and occasiō of slāder to the weake, but rather to drawe thē by litle ād litle to the knowlege of Christ, he shall not sinne, chefely not consenting to the abuses and to thos supersticions that there be committed, for so moch as the sinn is in the will, and in the con­sent, and not in the owt ward shewe.

The 4. rea­son.Furthermore, by this that we goo to the mas­se, we allowe no nother thing but Christis institution, that is to say, the sacrament of Iesus Chri­stes body and blood. For not withstonding thos addicions that be made there, the substāce of the same sacrament, by this is not taken a waye, as by the addiciōs that be made in baptisme, that is to say, salt, spittle, creame, Tapers, Light, Coniu­rings, and that the child is axed of the faith: And to conclude, that euery thing is said in an vnknowen tong, thes addicions make not that it shuld not be trewe baptisme, becaus there is the sub­stance [Page 154] of the same, that is to say, the water, And affter, thos holy wordes, that is to say, I baptise the in the name of the father, the sonn, and of the holy goost, Amen. Euen so is it of the masse, that for all that, that there be many things added, and that it is infolied with many diuicis of men, yet the substance not withstanding of the sacrament is there, that is to say, the bread, and the wine, ād the wordes of the consecraciō, the which things be instituted, and ordeined, by Christ him selff, nor our purpos is not to allowe any other thing but Christis plaine institution. And allthough there be made a certē worship, we doo not worship the sacrament (For god forbid we shuld) but we doo worshipp Iesus Christ and no nother. Therfor we doo not sinne going to the masse, for so moch as that we doo not approue any other thing than that which is good, and that which is of god. The rest we leaue, and we gather, as it is comonly said, the rose and leaue the thornes.

To conclude,The fifft reason. thei bring furth thexamples of the holy scripture, that is to say, of Nicodemus, of Ioseph of the citie of Aramathea, which both were secret disciples of Iesus Christ.Luk. 23. Iohn 3.7.19. And theuangelistes doo witnes of them, saing that thei [Page] were Iust.Ioh. 3.7.19. And of Nicodemus Iohn writeth that he came first to Iesus by night, Affterward he defended him in the cowncell of the Iewes, In the end he caried an hundreth pownd of mirrh and Aloes to Christes buriall. Surely thes were holy and iust men, yet thei hidd them selfes for feare of the Iewes, the which cowld not haue bene iff thei had not dissembled with thother Iewes, do­ing as they did.

4. kings 5.Thei bring furth also thexample of Naaman Sirus of whom it is writton in the iiij, booke of the kings, that Heliseus granted him, that he might enter in to the temple of Remmon, which was an Idoll, and to worshipp in the same with the king of Siria, Naaman being the chefe of the same kings warr. And why may not we also doo the like?

Now thes and other like reasons and scusis be no nother, but pretenses to doo euell, and lea­ues with the which men wold yet couer thos things that thei doo, but thei be deceiued, as we will make it appeare. But first we will proue our purpos, that is to say, that by no meanes it is lawfull to a Christian, to say, nor to heare, no nor to be present at the masse, and affter we will ans­wer to thes reasons. He that goeth to the masse, [Page 155] doth iij. great euels.He that goth to the mass doth 3. great euils. First he doth against the ho­nor nor of God, Secondly against his neighbors sa­fetie: Thirdly against his own sowle helth. That he doth against Gods honor, I will proue it. It is plaine that in no case, it is at any time lawfull, to doo against Gods honor, for so moch as the honor and glory of God, with the angels, with mē, ād with all maner of creatures, is of more importans, than the heauen and the earth, becaus that God hath made euery thing for his glory, as Sa­lomon saith in the Prouerbis, that is,Prouer. 16. the lord hath wrought all things for him selff, ād the wic­ked for the euell day. That he who goth to the Masse, or saith it, or standeth there present at it, doith against Gods honor, it is to plaine, for that we haue in the former discours hetherto proued, that the Masse is the greatest abhominacion that euer was in all worlds, becaus that there is committed a most gret Idolatry, and that honor that belongeth only to God, and Christ, is geuen to plaine creatures. The Masse is full of falsodes, of supersticions, of abuses, of wickednessis, and of blasphemies against God and Christ. And how can it be euer lawfull in any case (let it be what so euer it will) for a Christen man to say it to heare it, or to be present at it? And iff a gentle man [Page] do more esteme his honor than his own liffe, how moch more ought we to esteme Gods honor for the which we ought to gyue not only one, but infinite liues iff we had so many. And so moch the more as euery life is his gifft, and procedeth from him, yea is his? We doo reade that many Idolaters haue bestowed their liffe for their ear­thly cōtry, and for thonor of the same, the which notwithstonding affter this present life did loke for none other. And shall the Christiā feare to giue his mortall life for Gods honor and Christes, for thē, of whom he is euery way most sure that he shall haue euerlasting life?

I proue this thus. Paul saith to the Romains, euery thing that is not of faith is sinn. Who is he knowing what maner a thing the Masse is, that knoweth not likewise the same to be against Gods word? Iff it be so, how than can one with faith, and good consciens be present at a thing the which he iudgeth to be blasphemos, damna­ble and against God? And who dowteth that he who doeth against his consciens sinnith, let him doo what so euer he will? It is not therfor lawful by any maner of meanes to be present at the Masse. That he doith against his neighbors sa­fetye likewise proue it. First he offendeth, and [Page 156] hurteth them that haue not yet the knowlege of Christ. For so moch as whā thei see one that hath the knowlege of the gospel, stād at the Masse, herken to it, bowe him selff, and knele to the Sacra­ment, and worship it, what els can thei thinck, but that he hath the self same opinion that thei them seluis haue? And this being persuaded, thei be confirmed in their error, saing to them seluis, behold him who was come to that newe opinion or religion, now he changeth his mind, and re­turneth to the old faith the which he had forsa­ken. Surely he wold neuer haue returned iff he had not knowen that he was deceiued by the pretens of the gospell, and perceiued that with vs is the trewe gospell, the trewe church and Christes religion. God forbid that we shuld forsake our opinion, the which he with euident dedes, doth shewe to be good. And with thes thoughtes, thei be enstranged from the gospell, and from the truth, and be confirmed in error. Do yow thinck that this is a small euell, with our example to es­trange the mindes of men from the gospell, and and from Christ, and to confirme them in Anti­christs church?

Secondly it hurteth the weake faithfull, the which begin to bileue the gospell, for whan thei [Page] see that thei, who better vnderstād thā thē selues goo to the Masse, thei become weaker in faith, ād occasion is geuen them to returne to their first errors. And affter this sort in the rase of faith, thei be stopt, not only hindered, becaus thei be­gin to dowt. And what saith Christ of thos that offend the litle ones?Math. 18. Marc. 9. Luc. 17. He that shall offend (saith he) one off thes litle ones the which bileue in me, it were better for him that a mill stone shuld be hanged abowt his neck, and that he were dro­wend in the depth of the sea.

Thirdly he hurteth the stowt and strong in faith, and hurteth the Christian cause it selff, be­caus he maketh, that the wicked men more bold­lie do say euell of the trew faith, doo wrong it, and make it hatefull, many maner of wayes. Is not this daily sene, that how many moo men do opēly enter in to a lye, and in to an error, that so moch the more falsoode is strengthned, and the same lye confirmed, and the trewth more downe beaten, And the wicked men becom so moch the more fearce, and stowt, to down beate the good caus, and all thos that defend it, as thei see it wa­xe weaker?

He doth also against his own sowle helth. For whā he goth to the Masse against his consciens, [Page 157] he sheweth that he loueth better him selff, than Christ and God, and the tymed liffe, more thā the euerlasting, and he is condemned by Christes sentens, the which saith, he that loueth his sowle,Iohn. 12. that is to say his tēporal liffe shall lose it, and he that hateth his sowl in this world, shall kepe it in euerlasting liffe. And in luke he saith, iff any mā come to me ād hate not his father, his mother, his wife, his childern, his brethern and sisters, yea ād his own life, he can not be my disciple.Luc. 14. Is not this well knowen, that thei that haue the knowlege of the gospell, and goo to the Masse, goo thether for feare least thei shuld loose their goodes, and be affraied least thei shuld be persecuted? why folow thei not the cowncell, yea the cōmandement of Christ who saith, feare not thos that kill the body, becaus thei cā not kill the sowle,Math. 10. but rather feare him that can send the body and sowle to destructiō in to hell fire. So that than thes grownd workes remaining that the going to the Masse is against the honor of God, the profite of his neighbor, and against his own sowle helth, that goth thether, It is an easy thing to answer to thos reasons or rather scusis that certen make of the which we haue spoken before.

Where as first thei say that thei goo to the1. [Page] Masse, to auoide the offending of the simple and weake, and to thentēt that thei shuld not thinck of them, that thei were despisers, and mockers of religion, or els heretikes and enemyes off the church, iff thei goo not to the Masse. And that for such respect it is good to dissemble so lōg till that such weakelings might be brought to the trewe knowlege. I answer that there be 2. sortis of offences, the one is called an offence geuē, thother an offence taken. The first offence is whan a man doth any euel work, by the which he offendeth his neighbor. As for example, iff one shuld blasp heme or committ some thefft, or els other­wise shuld expressly doo against Gods commandement. This maner of offence is an offence ge­uē, becaus that he who doth such an euell work, doth surely giue occasion of offence, the work being of it selff wicked, and against God. Or els iff the work off it selff were not wicked, but might be lefft vndone withowt offendinge God, and yet the man not hauing respect to his wea­ke neighbor, wold doo it to satisfie, his appetite. As for example, there is one that hath the know­lege of the gospell, and of Christ, and knoweth that a Christian may at all times with thankes gi­uing,1. Timo. 4. vse euery meate for his neede, ād shall chance [Page 158] somtime into the company of certen simple and ignorāt men, the which shall thinck greuos­ly toffend iff thei shall eate flessh on the friday, and he that hath the knowlege, to satisfie his ap­petite will eate of it, not hauing respect to thos poore sowles the which be offended with him for that eating. This maner of mā sinneth, and doith against charitie as Paul saith to the Romains,Roma. 14. Iff for meate thy brother be trobled, thow dost not now walk according to charitie. And in the 1. to the Corinthes he saith,1. Corint. 8. rather than the meate shuld offend my brother, I will neuer eate flessh. Thes such like offences be called offencis geuen, becaus in dede the man giueth such occasion of offence and sinneth.

But there is a nother sort of offencis, the which as I haue said before are called offences ta­ken, shat is to say, whan a man is offended for things, for the which he ought not to be offen­ded, but taketh occasion of offence withowt iust cause, as certen doo that be offended, at good workes, affter the maner of the Phariseis, which were offended with Christ, becaus he healed cer­ten sick men on the Sabbath day, or els be offen­ded iff a man abstayne from wicked workes. Now this such kind off offence is no sinne, [Page] becaus the man properly doth not geue offence, but other doo take it for offence the which thei ought not to doo, yea thei offend, esteming and cownting that to be offence, which is well done. The faithfull and godly man ought not to passe, euen as Christ passed not, though other were of­fended for such workes or things, for so moch as that a man must cease frō well doing, or els must nedes doo euel, that wold auoyde such kind off offencis. Euen so it is in this case. Iff any will be offended that one goth not to the Masse, or els that the Images be not honored, a mā ought not to care for it. For iff it had neded to care for such offencis, it had bene fitt for the martirs that thei shuld haue worshipped the Idols, For the Ido­laters were offended at them, becaus thei wors­hipped them not. Yea, I say, that the simple and the weake, haue more occasion off offence (spea­king of the trewe offence) and be more offen­ded, iff one that hath knowlege goo to the Masse, than iff he wēt not. For as before I haue proued, by such going thei be hurt, for so moch as that thei be confirmed in their error, the which is moch wors for them to be so offended than to be offended, for that other offence the which, is no trew offence in dede.

[Page 159]To the saing of thapostle the which saith that 2 he did applie him selff to all men, and that we ought to doo the same, and to goo to the Masse with them that goo, I say, that thapostle Paul did applie himselff to all men, in thos things that did not offend God, as was in certen ceremo­nies, and in his maner off liffe, and in certen cu­stoms which were no sinne. He kept company with the Iewes, and liued as thei did, keping their ceremonies, forbearing thos meates that thei did forbeare. He did eate and drinck with the gentiles, he vsed their meates, he kept com­pany with them, to haue occasion to conuert thē to Christ. And thes things were no sinn, but in thos things wherein he shuld haue offēded God, he wold neuer haue applied him selff vnto them. And that this is trewe, Consider that we reade not, that euer he did honor the Idols, or els went to ther sacrifices. And why soo? Becaus he shuld haue offended God. So we knowing that the Masse is an abhominacion, we ought not by any maner of meanes to goo to it, but rather to dye than to goo thether, becaus it is against God, and Christes honor, as we haue proued.

To that other scuse which saith, that God be­holdeth 3 the hartis, and considereth to what end [Page] a thing is done, and so that a man doo not con­sent with his hart to the abuses that be commit­ted in the Masse, it is no sinn to goo to it: I answere, that if this reason auailed, the martyrs, as I haue sayd before, might haue worshipped the Idols withowt sinn, and we with a good con­sciens may denye Christ. For allthough that the martyrs shuld haue worshipped the Idols, thei wold neuer haue worshipped thē with the hart, but only owtwardly, and vnwillingly, And we may denye Christ with the mowth but not with the hart. And what incōueniencis be thes? Christ wil not only that we shuld byleue in him, but wil that we also shuld confesse him with the mowth, ād with the owtward dedes, for els we shall not be trew Christiās,Math. 10. but we shall be denyed of him, as he sayth in S. Mathew. He that shall acknow­lege me before men, I wil acknowlege him befo­re my father which is in heauen.Luck. 12. And in Luke he sayth, before the angels of God, And he that shall denye me before mē, I will denye him before my father which is in heauē. And thapostle Paul saith to the Romans.Roma. 10. With the hart men byleue to Iustice, but with the mowth is made the con­fession to safetye. God wil for 2. respectis haue of vs the owtward confession, that is to say, that [Page 170] we shuld make plaine to men, our faith and re­ligion, as well with wordes, as with dedes. First for his own glory, because that he is honored and glorified, whan the trewe religion is openly vtterid. Than further also, for the benifite of our neighbor, to thentent that by such confession, he might folow the trewe knowlege of God and holy religion. And to proue this trewe, tell me aff­ter what sort is the Christian religion increased, except first by the preaching of the holy gospell, and than by the blood of martyrs? The ydolaters saw the poore Christians constant in acknowle­ging Christes name, thei sawe them persecuted, taken, imprisoned, ponisshed, and miserably murdred, and sayd to them selues, surely this peple could neuer haue bene so constant, with so great and stowt mindes, nor thei wold neuer haue suf­fred so great tormentis, and so sharp death, iff thei had not bene certen that, affter this present life, there be laid vp for them, most great re­wards: And iff this their religion had not bene trewe. And affter this sort thei were conuertid to Christ, and Christes religion increased, that is to say the nomber of byleuers.

Further I say, that trewe faith is not withowt the profession, not only of wordes, but of dedes [Page] and workes.Hebr. 11. Paul saith to the Hebrewes, that by faith the saintes haue wrought iustice, and some of them by faith were racked, tormented, and beaton, some were stoned, some cutt in pecis, sawed, killed with the sword, and diuers wayes exercised.2. Iohn. 5. And Iohn in the 1. saith that our faith is the victory that ouercommith the world. He that hath the trewe faith, confesseth it, and she­weth it with dedes. Therfor to be short I answer to that reason, and I say, that it is trewe, that God looketh vp on the hartis, and iff the hart had not consentid, there shuld not haue bene any sinne, but here in this case, the hart consenteth vnto it, for iff the man had not agreid to goo to the Masse, he wold not haue gone thether, but he goith becaus he agreith to goo although he goo the­ther vnwillingly. The hart had not consented, iff the man had bene caried thether by force, or drawen thether with roopes, or chaynes, And in such case he had not fawted. But this chanceth, not to thos that goo to the Masse, becaus thei be not forced to goo thether, but thei goo thether willingly, although with a certen lothsomnes. And we must knowe, that all that which is done vnwillingly, is not done by force, for so moch as many things be done with grefe, and vnwillin­gly, [Page 171] and yet thei be done with the consent of the mind. As for example, the taking of a bitter me­dicine, the causing of some sick parte of the body to be cutt of, thes things shuld not be done iff the man were not content, and did not agree to thē. That saing, that is to say, that whan a man hath not a wicked, but a good intent,Roma. 3. and doth that which he doth to help his neighbor, is not to the purpos, becaus we must not doo euell that good may come of it.

To the other reason or rather scuse, the which 4 saith that thei, that goo to the Masse, iff thei ha­ue the knowlege of the gospell, thei doo not al­lowe the abuses, nor thos addicions that be the­re, but only that which Christ made, that is to say, the Sacrament of his body and blood. For thos addicions doo not take away the substans of the Sacrament, I answer, first that that Sacra­ment (as we haue said before) is not Christes tre­we Sacrament, but although that it were a trewe Sacrament, it were not therfor conuenient to goo thether, seing there is in the same so many falsedes, so many errors and abuses, which defile, and staine, the clearnes of Christes institucion. Nor it is not ynough to say, we doo allowe no­thing, but that which Christ did, and not any [Page] other: becaus that this allowing is only knowen to them selfes, and not to other, who whan thei see that one goeth to the Masse, doo thinck that, he allowith the whole, and thei be confirmed in their error iff thei be wicked, iff thei be not wic­ked, thei haue occasion of offence and remayne offended. And although that none were offen­ded, nor confirmed in wickednes, yet vnderston­ding that the Masse is a bottom, and a rolle of blasphemyes, how shuld the eares of the faith­full, behable to heare, and their eyes suffer to see, so great an abhominacion, the which so many wayes doth robb God and Christ, of their ho­nor, yea that speaketh euell of them.

5 To the examples alleaged of Ioseph of the citie of Arimathea and of Nicodemus, Iust and holy men, the which for feare of the Iewes did dissemble, I answer first that there is a great dif­ferens betwene thes 2. and thos that goo to the Masse. For although for feare thei did not open them selues to be Christes disciples, neuertheles thei did not for all that committ any maner of Idolatry, nor thei wēt not to such abhominaciōs as the Masse is. Further, it is no good reason, to goo abowt to defend a mans own fawtes, with the fawtes of holy men. Nor we ought not to fo­low [Page 172] the saintes in thos things wherein thei haue erred, but only in thos things that be worthy of commendacion. What a folissh thing were it, iff an adulterer wold make his excuse that to com­mitt adultery is not euell, becaus that Dauid committed adultery. And wold excuse the deniall of Christ to be no sinn, becaus that Peter de­nied him thrise? Euen so doo thei that will with Iosephs and Nicodemussis weakenes scuse their error, that is to say, that it is lawfull to goo to the Masse, and dissemble, becaus that thos 2. holy men, for feare haue dissembled, thei being of Christes disciples. But let thes maner of men tell me this one point, what is the caus why thei doo not rather follow thes holy men in the stowtnes of their doings, rather than in their weaknes, that is to say that although whilst Christ liued on the earth thei were affraid to be knowen for his disciples, neuertheles at the time of his death whan all the other disciples were hiddon, except Iohn, and the wemen, and whan, ra­ther than in any other time thei shuld haue bene affrayed, than thei waxed stowt.

Thus thei in time of tribulacion, and whan there was cause of feare be came stowt ād did not remaine fearfull. Why doo thei not folow them [Page] in the stowtnes of the mind, which is a vertew, ād not in the weaknes of feare which is a vice? Who dowteth that Ioseph, and Nicodemus, whan thei dissembled for feare, were weake and vnperfite Christians, and erred in that thei did not boldly cōfesse Christ? Let vs not I pray yow alleage the holy men in things euel done, to folowe thē, but in things worthy of prayse and well done, only, for so moch as that in thos things only we ought to folowe them, and not in other.

5 To the example of Naaman Syrus, I say, that thei alleage it herein euell, sayng, that Heliseus shuld licens him that he might enter in to the Gods temple of the Assyrians, called Remmon, in cōpany with the king of Assyria, and to wors­hip with him, and I say, that this is not trewe, yea it is cleane contrary, as it appeareth in the story of the same Naaman writton in the fourth booke of the kings,4. Kings 5. where the text sayth, that the same Naamā chefe of the king of Assyriās warr, whan he was healed of the leprosy by Heliseus, thorow Gods might, and being wasshed 7. times in the riuer of Iordan, whan he was returned to Helyseus, he sayd, Surely I knowe that there is no nother God on the whole earth, but he of Is­rael, and desyring to gyue him a gifft, Helyseus [Page 173] did not accept it. Further the text saith, that the same Naamā desiered the Prophet, that he wold grant him so moch earth of that contry as 2. moyles could cary, and sayd, becaus thy seruant will not make any more burnt offring, or sacri­fice to strāge Gods, but to the lord. By the which words he declared him self to byleue in the trewe God, and to professe him. And affter he added, But there is this one only thing, in the which thow shalt pray for thy seruant, whan my lord, that is to say, my king of Siria shall enter in to the temple of Remmon, to worshipp and whyle he leanyth on my hād, Iff I shall worshipp, whan he worshippeth in the same place, that the lord wold pardon me thy seruant for this thing, And Heliseus said vnto him, goo in peace. Here we see that Naaman desiered Helyseus that if it chan­ced him to worship in the temple of Remmon, that he wold pardon him that fawt, which fawt if he shuld haue done, Naaman him selff wit­howt dowt knewe it to be sinn, for if he had not knowen it to be euel and sinn, he wold not haue said to Helyseus, that he shuld pray God for him to pardon him. And Helyseus said vnto him, Goo in peace. The which words did not signifie that the Prophet Helyseus did grant to Naaman [Page] or permitt him, that he might enter in to the temple of Remmon, and worship there. Thes wor­des did not meane to signifie this, but thei did sig­nifie and giue to vnderstand, that if it did hap­pen him to committ such a fawt, that he wold pray to God for him to pardon him. There is a great differens betwen the sayng to one I will pray to God for the to pardon the, if thow shalt do or committ such a fawt, and to say, I doo grāt the that thow maist doo it. And iff any wold say, what is the caus that the Prophet reproued not Naaman, sayng to him, take hede Naaman that yow commit not this great sinn, nor doo so great a fawt. To this I answer that it neded not to say such wordes vnto him, nor to warne him of such a thing becaus that Naaman did well knowe it to be euill done, yea he did confesse it to be sinn, iff it shuld chance him to doo it. And it may be also that Helyseus did warne him that he ought not by any maner off meanes to suffer him selff to be brought to fall in [...]o that error. For we must thinck that all the wordes be not writton that hapned betwene the one and thother, the story being shortly writton. And to geue an ex­ample let vs admitt that one shuld come to me that shuld say I goo to the Emperors court, and [Page 174] becaus I am nere abowt his Maiestie, it may chance me that I shall wayte on him some time to the Masse. I knowe wel that to goo thether is sinn and idolatry, yet iff it shuld chance me for worldly respect, that I shuld at any time goo thether, pray vnto God for me, that he wold par­don me this sinn: And put in case that I shuld say vnto him goo in peace, by this my sayng goo in peace, I meane not to grant him that he might goo vnto the masse, Only I meane to say, goo your way, and iff any such thing shall happen yow, I will pray to God for yow, that he wold pardon yow. Euen so were Helyseus words with Naaman. For he did not grant him that he might enter in to that temple, nor that he might wors­hip, but only signified vnto him that he wold pray to God for him. This example therfor of Naaman doth nothing help thos that will be scused by going to the Masse with a good consciens, but rather it accuseth them. For iff thei will doo as Naaman did, thei shall accuse them selues and confesse to doo euell, iff thei goo to the Masse, as he did confesse it to be sinn, iff he shuld goo in to the temple of Remmon. Why doo not thei accuse thēselues, ād tell their fawt, ād axe pardō of God for so great a fawt, ād not goo abowt to scuse it?

[Page]Parauentur thei will answer here and say, yow in dede haue goodly talk, yow I say, that are owt of gunne shote (as men be wont to say) and that are owt of perels yow that are in a sure place, and feare not to be taken, can geue goodly cowncell, but we that be sure, iff we will not goo to the Masse, to loose our goodes and our riches, and our liffe withall, iff we presently will not denye Christ, what shuld we doo? Iff yow were in our place, we cā not tell what yow wold doo, whether yow wold be so stowt in deedes, as yow be bold in wordes. Here I doo frely confesse that I haue great compassion on this maner of men, nor I will not shewe my selff strong by repro­uing others. I knowe that stowtnes is a rare gifft of God, and not granted to all men. And the mo­re part of Christians haue a weake and feble faith, and the strong, and stowt of mind be very fewe. But in this I reproue thē that goo to mas, that doing euel, as thei doo, thei wold excuse thē selues that thei sinn not, and will with scuses les­sen that their fawt, which whilst thei doo, thei increase the sinn to their cōdemnacion. Why doo thei not humble themselues, and cōfesse that thei doo euell? why doo thei not axe of God the spirit of stowtnes, and constant faith? It were reason [Page 175] that thei shuld behold the saintes exāples of ver­tewes, and not of weakenessis, that thei shuld be­hold, as a man wold say,Tob. 2. Tobias of whom it is writtō in his booke that being the yongest of his tribe of Neptalim, he went not with all the r [...]st to worship the golden calues, the which Ieroboā king of Israel had made, but did flee all their company, and wēt to worship God in Ierusalem, nor he feared not to be persecuted, for not doing as the rest did. Cā there be fownd any one Prophet that wold goo with the rest to worship thos cal­ues, or that wold worship in the toppes vp on the mowntans, or els in the groues as the comon peple offt did. This shall neuer be fownd. Why do thei not hehold thos 3. yong men of the which Daniell speaketh, that is to say, Annanias,Danie. 2. Aza­rias and Misael, the which wold rather be thrown in to the hote ouen, than worship that goldin Image, which the king Nabuchodonosor made? why doo thei not follow the 7. Macha­beys brethern with their godly mother? the which were miserably tormented and killed by the most cruel king Antiochus, becaus thei wold not eate hoggs flessh, as it is writton in the boo­ke of the Machabees?2. Mach. 7. why doo thei not folow thapostles, So many martirs, not only men, but [Page] wemen, yea so many Iong wemen, as Agnes, Ka­tarin, Lucia and many other withowt nomber, that wold rather dye, than worship the Idols?

Let thē tell me, which is the greater Idolatry, that of the Idolatros gentiles or that of the Mas­se? That of the goldin caluis, or of the Masse? Which is the greater sinn to eate hoggs flessh, or to heare Masse? haue not we proued that the Masse is the greatest Idolatry that euer was in the world? And what is the caus that the allegid saintes did rather desire to die, than to consent to any Idolatry, or els to doo against Gods lawe? And shall we Christians make no consciens to consent to the greatest abhominacion that euer was? But let vs lay a side the saintes the which dyed becaus thei wold not offend God: seing thei had the knowlege of God and Christ, and the tre­we religion, and looked, affter this mortal life, for the euerlasting, it is not to be merueled at. But what shall we say of the poore Idolaters the which had not the knowlege of Christ nor of God, no nor loked not for the reward of euerla­sting life? And yet for all this, many of them for thonor of the world and for Temporall glory haue suffered most sharp ponisshments, and horrible torments, and were miserably killed. What [Page 176] shall we say of Marcus Antonius seruant of whō is redd, that becaus he wold not vtter the fawt, that is to say the vnchast lust of his master, he suffred to be burnt with redd hoote plates of Iron? In the end, he rather suffred to be torne, than to reueale the fawt of the same Marcus Antonius. And so he ouercame all the force of the accu­sers? What shall we say of Marcus Regulus, who becaus he wold not breake his faith geuen to the Carthaginensis, returned in to their handes, being sure that thei wold cruelly put him to de­ath (as in deede thei did) putting him in to a ves­sel of wood all full of very sharp nayles that were stickt in to the vessel to thentent that whan the vessel shuld be moued, thei shuld prick him on euery side, and shuld teare his whole body. And many other that we might alleage iff we wold? Thei suffered for a temporall honor, and for their earthly contry, and yet thei passed not to dye. And will not we for Iesus Christes sake, for Gods honor, and for the reward of euerla­sting glory, bestowe owre mortal life? Shall we be lesse stowt for Christ then the Idolaters for incestuose men? Shall we be lesse coragios to pos­sesse the euerlasting contry, than thei to kepe for other their earthly contrye?

[Page]Surely our fawt is most great, iff we Christians for to haue heauen, and the chefe goodnes, shall refuse to suffer that, that the men voyde of trew godlines and religion, and that loked for no re­ward affter this present life, haue not refused to suffer for the temporall glory, that helped them nothing. Let vs therfor conclude and saye, that it is in no case, nor by no maner of meanes law­full to say this Masse, to heare it, nor to be pre­sent at it, chefely for a Christen man, that hath the knowlege of the holy gospel, as by so many wayes we haue proued. And iff yet it shuld happē that by weakenes of faith and feare any shuld goo thether, let thē take hede, that thei scuse not, and couer not them selues with bowes, that is to say, with trifling, and vaine excusis, affter the maner of our first parentis Adam and Eue, the which wold haue couered their shames with figgleaues, byleuing that thei shuld not be sene, for so moch as that Gods eyes doo pearse,Hebr. 4. Eccle. 23. and passe thorow thes leaues, and see the conscience and thoughtis of man. There is no meanes nor any maner of way, to be hiddon from the sight of them. Well, let men find owt as many couerings, and scusis, as thei will, and can, yet their consciēs shall neuer be quiet, but thei shall allweys haue [Page 177] the grudge thereof. And yet iff thei will by some meanes be well couered in Gods sight, it shall be necessary that as was done with Adam and Eue affter thei had sinned, that is to say, that whan thei fownd them selues naked and shamfast to be sene, and hauing themselues no way to be co­uered with cootes of skinnes. So let thes with teares axe of the same God, that thei may be clothed with the same most pure, cleane, holy and godly skinn, that is to say, Iesus Christ, to thentent that being couered with it, thei might be no more as­hamed of Gods sight. But this can not be done, iff thei will scuse them selues. It behoueth that thei accuse them selues, that thei tell their own fawt, that thei doo poenance, and that plainely thei confesse to haue erred. Affter this sort thei shall obteine this godly garment, and thei shall folow Paules cowncell, yea his commandement the which he teacheth writing to the Romans, put on the lord Iesus Christ,Roma. 13. for otherwise thei shall allweys remaine naked and with shame, that is to say, that their consciens shall neuer be quyet but thei shall allweyes haue hell at home.

Wherfor o Christians, euen as in the begin­ning of this booke I haue exhorted yow to reade it and well to consider it to thentent that yow [Page] might vnderstand the crafft off this masse, so many wayes blasphemos, so now in the end of the same, whan yow doo clerely vnderstand the most vngratios qualities of the same, that yow will wholly forsake it. Hether to many, not only lay men, but priestes, fryres and monkes haue by ig­norāce fawted, thinking that it had bene a thing most holy, and a worship most thanckfull to God, and therfor haue hawnted it, not knowing it. And though thei haue greuosly offēded God, yet in some part thei were excusable, hauing fawted by ignorance. And here I doo not speake of thos the which against their conscience, and knowing what maner a thing it was, only for feare, or other wordly respect, haue dissembled, bacaus that thos maner of men, haue committed a great fawt, albeit that thei also shall be pardo­ned, iff thei forsake the same, and doo poenance, and be sory for that which is past. But now that by this boke, (iff thei will reade it and vnderstād it) all mens eyes are opened, and made plainely to see, with how many abuses, and cursings, it is not only ful, but heaped, iff thei shall (being priestes, frires or monkes) any more say it, or being other men, shall any more heare it, I say surely that thei shall be vtterly vnexcusable and dam­nable, [Page 178] as thei that knowingly and willingly shall sinn euen of very purpos, and shall heape vpp Gods wrath vp on them. Nor it shall not help nor auayle them talleage the perell of their goo­des, of their howsold, or of their own life. For so moch as that all thes things, and as many other as can be had in the world to gether with the lif­fe it selff, compared to Christ, ought to be cownted as vile, yea of no valure, and for his loue we must necessarly forsake them: becaus he is that treasure hiddon in the felde, and that precios margarite for the which we ought to sell all our goodes to bye it.Math. 13. And whan we be brought to such an eschew that we must either loose all thes things with the mortall liffe, or forsake Christ. Who dowteth but all the rest ought to be forsa­ken, to kepe Christ, whom iff we haue, we pos­sesse God and euery good thing. What doth it help man (saith Christ him selff) though he in dede winn the whole world and lose his sowle?Math. 1 [...]. What a foly is this to gett other things, and to loose a mans selff, withowt whō nothing cā help or auayle him? Off thother part, let vs consider, that nedes whether we will or noo, we must lea­ue the world, and this same life, for we be mortal, and cānot allweyes tary here, but we be certen [Page] that we must nedes depart, and goo owt off this contry, that is to say, dye and change the liffe. This is a sure rule. And seing that this is necessa­ry, and we can not eschewe it, is it not better for Christes sake to leaue the whole (the which is not in deede to loose, but to gaine) and to lay vp treasor in heauē, nor it is not to leaue it, but to put it in to his hādes, to thentent that he euerlastingly may kepe it for vs? Is it not better, I say, to doo thus, thā vtterly to lose all to gether? It is a thing most certen, that he that looseth Christ, loseth euery thing, and he that possesseth him, posses­seth euery good thing. I knowe that Antichrist with his tirantes, like a roaring lion doth threa­ten the lābe, and warreth with him, persecuting his affter diuers sortis, afflicting them, tormen­ting them, and in thend, killing them. But for all that let them work as moch as thei will and can, yet they shall lose, and the lambe (as Iohn saith in the Apocalipse) shall ouercom them.Apo. 14.17. For he is the king of kings and lord of lordes that hath all powr in heauen and in earth,Math. 28. And hath a name aboue all names to whom euery knee in heauen, in earth,Philip. 2. and in hell is bowed, and there is not, that can resist him. Now it semeth that he sle­peth, but the time will come of reuenge, whan, [Page 179] yea Antichrist with his tyrantes, to gether with his fals prophetes, shall be cast in to the burning pitt or lake of fire and brimstone, where thei shall be tormented for euer.

Now, the poore Christians be in the handes of Antiochessis, of Dioclesians, of Domicians, of Neroes, and other cruel tyrantes and Antichri­stes (I touch not the good princis) the which ty­rants haue allweyes, and will afflict Gods peple, But let vs, O brethern, haue pacience in Christ, as him selff doth admonissh vs, saing,Math. 14. In yowr paciens possesse your sowles. And he that shall con­tinewe to thend, shall be safe. Let vs pray and haue trust in God through Christ, for he is able to deliuer vs from the hand of our enemyes, and de­fend vs, iff it shall please him. And whan we shall see apparent parell, rather than to denye Christ, let vs flee awaye, iff we can from the vnhappy nacion. But iff we can not what els is to be done, but to confesse him boldly,Roma. 8. 2. Timo. 1.2. calling to remem­brans that the trewe Christian hath not the spi­rite of feare, but of stowtnes and powre? let vs rather obey God than men, the which can in dee­de kill the body but not the sowle.Math. 10. Let vs dye for God and Christes name, for this death shall be glorios, and let vs remember that which we said [Page] before, that nedes we must dye. Let vs dye, I say, with the prophetes, with the Apostels, with the holy martirs, yea with Christ him selff. Why shuld we be affrayed, hauing such companions so noble and glorios that haue ledd vs the way? being sure that iff we shall dye to gether with them,Roma. 8. and with Christ, we shall also to gether with them and with Christ reigne and liue for euer, to whom be all rule honor and glory for euer and euer, So be it.


A SERMON OF THE SACRAMENT OF THAN­ckes geuing the which declareth whether Christ be really and bodily in the same or no.

I CAN NOT SAY HOW moch mirth and yoie is in my hart whan I see in this our age, that there is kinde­led in the mindes of many the holy desire to vnder­stand gods things, that is to say the inestima­ble, and the incomprehensible treasures hid­den in Christ Iesus, whose knowlege passeth euery other knowlege and wisdō, and doth so farr excell,Philip. 3. that Paul thapostel thought eue­ry other thing losse, and worthy the thro­wing awai in comparison of that. Neuerthe­les the lord doth not geue this desire to know Christ to all men, but to his own, that is to say, to the elect only, the which he hath befo­re [Page] the beginning of the world forepointed, that thei shuld be to his praise and glory.Ephes. 1.

Of the other side not with standing, I can not but be sory, seing in thes same times whan the gospell that hath bene hidden so ma­ny worlds past, is by the goodnes of god late­ly come furth to light, that there shuld be so mani and so diuers opinions of thes things that god hath Instituted to kepe agre­ment, and peace among the faithful, that is to say, of the sacraments of the church, in such sort as Sathan the enemy goth abowt with the self same instruments of peace and vnitie, to make warr against Christ, setting dissension, making schismes, and sowing de­bates amongst Christians, not only among the people and comon sort, but among thos that shuld be lightes, glasses, and examples of agrement, to whom belongeth to teach other, that is to say, among the ministers and preachers of the holy gospell.

But this, dere brethern, ought not to offend yow, nor to remoue yow from your holy pur­pos, that yow haue in Christ, but rather to confirm yow in faith, and to kindle yow to [Page 181] make a gretter entry in to the religion, and way of God, for so moch as that god doth suf­fer such striffes, and diuersities of opiniōs, for the benifite of his church, and of the trewe bileuers. First to thentent that his,1. Corinh. 11 who abide constant, and stowt may be manifest, whan thother that haue not a trewe growndwork, but a fained and vaine faith, doo falle and fai­le. Furthermore also to thentent, that whan we see such disorders, we shuld not put our trust in men, the which may all err, but we shuld come to gods word, the which onlie can not deceiue, and that we shuld indeuor our selues with all diligens and care, to vnderstand it, and that we our selues shuld looke in the scripture, whether it be so or [...] as we may reade of thos that hard Paul preac [...] [...]n the ci­tie of Berrhoe in Macedony. as it is writtē in in thactis of thapostels,Act. 17. the which whan thei hard Paules sermon, thei looked in the scri­pture itself, whether it was so as he said [...] [...]o. And to be short, to thentēt that we shuld prai vnto god, that he wold geue vs the trewe vn­derstanding of the same, because the matters [Page] of gods spirite be not vnderstand by any mans way but by gods disclosing.2. Pet. 1. 1. Cho. 2.

Now to return to the purpose of the strif­fe, that is of the sacraments, Some say that in the sacramēt of the body and blood of Christ, that is to say, in the breade and wyne conse­crated in remembrans of his death, is contei­ned his very body and his very blood, and that there we haue really, and bodily, all and hole Christ, as great, and as thick as he was on the crosse. Other some say that he is not the­re, but there is only the breade and the wine as signes of Christes body, and blood, geuen for our redempcion. And this controuersy and striffe is in such sort gone forward, that it hath with many hindered the course of the holy gospel. And it hath made that Christes enemies haue taken occasion, and boldnes to blaspheme, the holy lerning and gods truth. But be it as it will, allthough some haue cōmitted a great fawt in this thing, striuing euer bitterly against the contrary opinion, wher­by thei haue shewed them selues to be men, and haue in som part spotted their own glo­ry, lessening the credite and auctoritie that [Page 182] the world had of them: We not withstanding, will comfort our seluis with Paules saing, which he speaketh to the romās,Rom. 8. that to gods elect euery thing groweth to good. And al­though that presently thorow such dissen­syon, we see among many nothing but disor­der, offence, and euel, yea hatred toward the gospell, yet god for all that, who knoweth how to get order owt of disorder, and good owt of euell, will caus whan it shall please him, some great profite to growe owt of it in his church, for the present vnknowen, but in the end open, thus we schuld beleue.

And becaus I know that many desire to vnderstand what shuld be the trewe opinion of this sacrament. I for the loue of the truth, for the glory of god, and to doo them a plea­sure, and also a benifite, will simply and with as moch easines as is possible, sett furth the o­pinion, which I thinck, and hold for certē hath bene, and is, the opinion of the Apostles, all the awncienty, of the holy scripture, and of Christ him selff. And let no man meruell, though I setting the suttletyes a syde, shall rather procede with simplenes, and familiari­tie, [Page] [...] [Page 182] [...] [Page] and also though I shall reherse one thing often, for so moch as that my mind is to be plainely vnderstand of all men, and chefely of the simple ād vnlerned. And because the thing is of so great waight, that it deserueth to be handled with all diligens, to thentent that all men may the more easily vnderstand it, we by order and by parts will consider it.

1 And First we wil see how that there hath bene, ād yet be, diuers opinions of this sacramēt of the supper of the lord, ād the cause why, ād we will bring furth the contrary talkes, and 2 reasons to the truth. Secondarily whan we haue shewed the trewe, and catholike opiniō, we will proue it with sure grownd workes, and 3 plaine reasons. In the third place, we will ma­ke it certenly appeare, that this is the opinion of the holy fathers and of the old church. In 4 the fourth we will answer to the contrary saings and reasons, shewing them to be vaine, and of no waight. In the fift and last, we will 5 serch owt, from whens the error, of the fals Imaginacions, in the matter of that sacra­ment, is proceded, let vs than in the name of our lord begin.

[Page 183]We must vnderstand that the cause of the differens in this matter, that is to say, that so­me say that Christ is really and bodyly in the sacrament of the bread and the wyne, and so­me other say the contrary, that is to say, that he is not there, is the euel vnderstanding of Christes own wordes the which he spake whā he instituted the same sacrament. For one opi­nyon vnderstandeth them after one sort, and thother after a nother, so that the controuer­sy ād contraryetye of the opinyons is, because they vnderstand not Christes wordes, as they ought to be vnderstand.Matth. 26. Marci 14. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Whan Christ dyd in­stitute this sacrament, he toke first the breade, and called it his body, saing this is my body▪ After he toke the wine ād called it his bloode.

They of the first opinyō say, that seing the wordes be christes in dede they cā not be fals, seing he hath playnely sayd, this is my body, shewing the breade, ād this is my bloode, she­wing the wyne. We must nedes say that chri­stes body ād blood be there, for els his wordes should not be trewe, but fals, which cā not be, for somoch as that Christ being the chefe trouth can not say an vntrouth. He hathe sayd [Page] that the breade is his body, ād the wyne is his bloode, ther for it must nedes be soo.

And in this opinyon there be also ij. diuers myndes. One sayth that Iesus Christ is not only in the sacrament, but wil that neyther breade, nor wyne shuld remayne in the sa­cramēt, but that both of thē should be chāged and should be cownted turnkynded, that is to say, transsubstātiated, as they call it, the which meaneth, turned in to Christes body ād blood: The bread in to Chrystes trew ād natural bo­dy, the wyne in to his blood. And thei call this turnīg, or chāging trāssubstātiacyō, that is to say, turning of the substances, in such sort, as there remayneth nothing of the bread ād the wyne but the withcommes, or accydētes, that is to say the whytenes of the breade, the rowndnes, the tast, the sauor. And so of the wyne there remayneth the rednes, if it be redd, the swetenes, or the sharpnes, according as the tast is, and so of the other withcommes, the which remayne withowt any subiect, that is withowt any body to be in. But the substances of thone ād thother, be turned in to the substā ces of christes body ād blood, ād this is done by [Page 184] myracle, becaus god can doo all things. And this is the opinion of the prystes and fryres of the romish church. And they haue in such sort preached it, that the worlde in tyme past from certen hondreth yeares hetherto, haue bele­ued it, ād cownted it, as an article of the faith. And woo to hym that had sayd the contrary. For they wold haue cōdemned, ād burnt him, as an heretik. And that, because the pope, who was taken for god on earth, for Christes lefe­tenant, and had auctoritie to make men beleue what so euer liked hym, and euery man was brought to his determinacion, wold nedes ha­ue it so.

Certen other of the first opinion too, the which holdeth that Christ is realli, and bodily in the Sacrament, doo saie, that not witstan­ding that Christes body is, wholly in the breade, and his blood wholli in the wine, yet the breade and the wine abide in their substance as before, and be not turned nor changed in to a nother thing, as the former opinion saith. And thes maner of mē must nedes saie, that at the least .iij. very great miracles, must come to passe in this Sacrament. The [Page] first is, that Christ is, wholli under that breade, ād under that wine, as great, ād as thick, as he was on the crosse, and as presentli as he is in heauen. This is a gret thing, that a great body continewyng great, shuld be inclosed in a litle thing, moch lesse then the same bodi.

The second miracle is, that Christes whole bodi and his wholle blood is in the whole bread, and in the whole wine, and in eueri, yea the least part of thone, and the other, as it is said of our reasonable sowle, that it is whole in the whole bodi, and whole in euery part of the body, in such sort as if there shuld be made x. thowsand partes of the breade, ād the wine, whole Christ, ād his whole blood, shuld be in eueri of thos diuided partes, which is yea a greater thing, withowt cōparison, thā that of the being of the sowle in the whole bodi, ād in eueri part of the bodi. For allthough the sowle be in eueri part of the bodi, whilest that the partes abide yoined together, yet it is not in all the partes of the bodi, whan thei be separated. For whan one part is diuided from the body, the sowle is no more in the same. But Christes bodi and blood, ac­cording [Page 185] to this opinion, be in all the partis of the bread ād of the wine, whan thei be yoined to gether, and whan thei be diuided, or son­dred. The third miracle is, that the same bo­dy, and the same blood, is in heauen and in earth both at a time, and is in all places of the world, where the sacrament is, In France, in Spayne, in England, in Almainy, in Flan­ders, in Italy, in the east, in the west, in this, in that citie, In this in that church, on this,The tabernacle is a litle-closet whe­rein the sa­crament is kept nere the altare. on that Altare, In this, in that tabernale, as thei say. Yea and that thei say, that Christ is euery where, and filleth euery thing. But it is be­houefull for them that put, or will haue the changing of the substances, of the bread and the wine, that is to say, that their transsub­stantion, to put besides thes .iij. miracles, others also, and to make a better marcket of miracles, than thei that put it not, yea a bet­ter market, than the holy scripture and god maketh, to whom notwithstonding belongeth to make miracles, who is not so liberall of mirakels as thei be.

The chefe grownd worck of this first opinion is, that Christ said. This is my bodi, [Page] shewing the breade, ād This is my blood, she­wing the wine. And therfor Christ must be in the same sacramēt. For els he shuld haue spokē falsely, the which cā not be. Thei bring furth in dede other reasōs, but thei all doo litle auaile, as that same, that if Christ were not in the sacrament, it shuld not haue bene so gret a fawt, to him that had receiued it vnworthely, as Paul saith, that is to say, who euer ea­teth that breade, and drinketh that wine un­worthyle, he eateth and drinketh Iudgement, that is to say, cōdemnation. If Christ were not there (say they) it shuld not be condemnation to eate that breade, and to drink that wine, But the condemnacion is to him that ea­teth and drinketh vnworthily, Therfor Ie­sus Christes very body, and blood, is there. And the same Paul, in the self same chapter, doth call the consecrated bread, the lords body, and therfor they say, that Christ is in that breade, and in that wine. Thei of this opinion, to my Iudgemēt, doo make no other reasons, that be any thing worth. Not with­standing whan we shall haue placed the trewe [Page 186] opinion, we will answer to this shewsom re­ason, and with the help of the lord, we will make it appeare, that it is triffling, and of no valewe.

The other opinion, and mind abowt this matter is, that Christes body, and blood, be really in heauen, where he sitteth on the right hand of god the father, and that thei be not really, and bodily in the sacrament, but saith that the bread, and the wine, be signes appo­inted, to signifie the body and the blood, how Christ Iesus hath geuen both thone, and tho­ther, for our ransom, and satisfaction for our sinnes, to thentent that we shuld kepe in our rememberans, so great a thing and mistery, as he him self whan he did institute the same sacrament in the presence of thapostles, sayd,Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. that is to say, as oft as yow shall doo this, yow shall doo it in my rememberās. And this is the trew and catholik opinion, a greable with the holy scripture, and with the doctri­ne of the old church, and awncient teachers, the which haue not said, as any one of the for said opinions saith, that is to say, that Christes body and blood, be inclosed in that [Page] breade, and wine, ād moch lesse as thother opi­nion sayth, the which affirmeth, that the sub­stances of the breade, and wine, be turned in to Christes body, and blood, and that there is no more neyther breade, nor wine, but only the withcommes, of thone and thother, but haue sayd, that the breade and the wine remaine ād be signes, of the body ād of the bloode, for to bring to our remēbrans, the most great ād high benefite that Christ hath wrought vs, dieng for vs, that is to say, of our redempciō. And the growndworkes of this opinion be sure. and of such sort stedfast, that all the In­gines in the world, be not sufficient to throwe them to the grownd, because thei be grownd wrought, vp on the sure rock, that is to say, thei agree with gods trowth, ād his word that abideth for euer. We doo not Intend now he­re, to bring furth all the reasons, and grownd workes, with the which this opinion is pro­ued. For we shuld than make a long treatyse, and not a sermon, to informe the ignorante and Iōglings in the knowlege of gods things, as we intend to doo. But we will only bring furth some fewe persuasions, by the which it [Page 187] may be clerely knowen, that it is euen soo as we sayd.

First this opinion saith,The first reason. that the definicion of the sacrament, must nedes shewe, and make Plaine to vs, that the matter standeth thus, that is to say, that the breade, and the wine re­mayne, and that Christes body, and blood, is not really there in them. For the definicion of a sacrament receiued of all men (and is sent Augustines a catholike doctor) is this, that is to say, that a sacrament is a signe of a holy" thing. Euery man confesseth that the than­kes geuing is a sacrament. If it be a sacra­ment, it is no nother but a signe of an holy thing. If it be a signe of an holy thing, it ne­deth not that the breade and the wine, for to be signes, shuld be changed in to other sub­stances, for so moch as that the signes, that thei may be signes, do not change any substans, but only take a newe significacion. And it is moch lesse nedefull, that Christes body, and blood shuld be really, and bodily present in the same breade and wine, for so moch as it is not necessary that the things signified, and represented by the signes, shuld be inclosed, or [Page] present in the same signes, as by experiens we may see in many sortes of signes, that it is not nedefull that the thing signified, shuld be ei­ther present, or inclosed in the signe. It is ynough that it be represented. Let vs geue an exāple. The Emperours Image is a signe of the Emperor, And because it is no nother but a signe, we will neuer say that the Emperor him self, is in that Image, nor that that Ima­ge, is changed in to the emperors parson. For if he were present where his Image is, he neded not to sett vp the ymage, for so moch as the Image is therfor sett vp (speaking of the bodied things) in any place, because the thing signified, is not there present, and therfor it is sett vp to thentent, that it may represent it. So will we say of the breade, and of the wyne, that Christ hath Instituted them to thentent, that thei might be representers of his body and blood, to thentent, that whan we see them, and vse them for a sacrament, as he hath ordeined, we shuld remember that Christ hath geuen them, that is to say, his bo­dy and blood, for our ransoming. And for to be signes affter this sort, it nedeth not that [Page 188] the body and blood shuld be there bodily pre­sent, and moch lesse that thei shuld be changed in to other substances. It suffiseth, as we haue said, that thei be signes as we haue spoken of the signes of the emperours yma­ge.

The reason standeth in this, that the thāks geuing, or for to vse paules wordes, the lordes supper is no nother but a sacrament, therfor it is no nother but a signe. Because by the defi­niciō allredy geuen, A sacrament is a signe of an holy thing. The signe of a thing is not the thing it self, nor is not changed in to it, but only doth signifie it, Therfor the breade and the wyne be not changed in to Christes body and blood nor they be not inclosed in them, that is to say in the bread and the wyne, And it suffiseth that thei be truly represented by the bread and the wyne. And though we say that the bread eād the wyne, be no nother but signes, we meane not to denye the effects, that the spyrite of god (of the which the same sa­craments be the mynistery) doth worke in the beleuers that receiue them. For by meanes of the sacraments, the trewe beleuers be as it [Page] were, by certen signes and seales of god con­firmed in his promises and be assuered of gods grace, and of many benyfites, which god doth geue vs, through Christ, but we doo only denye that Christ, is body lythere, for so moch as that to work thes effectis, which we say, that the sacraments by the verteu of the holy gost doo work, it suffiseth that they be signes appoynted by god to that end. And it nedeth not that Christ shuld be there bodyly present nor that there shuld be made any change of the sustances, of the breade and the wyne.

The second reason. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11.Further, this sacrament was instituted by Christ in remembrans as the wordes them sel­ues of the same insttucion, doo witnes, saing, Doo this in mi rememberans. If it be so than that it was instituted for remembrans, it is not necessary that Christ should be bodyly there, and moch lesse that there should be made any turnyng of the bread and the wyne, in to his body and blood, because that the bread and the wyne, doo suffise to bring to remembrans, his passion and his body and blood geuen for our ransom, As the paschal lamb was sufficient to bring to remēberans the passe ouer, that is [Page 189] to say, the passing by of the Angel in Egypt. Yea it is not only not necessary that he shuld be there, but if he were there he shuld be the­re in vayne, becaus he shuld be there in such sort as shuld help nothing to remēberans, for so moch as that he could not be seene. And it is behouefull that the signes that bring a thing to rememberans, as the sacramentes doo shuld be seeable. And it is well knowen to what end the sacramētes were instituted, that is to say, because we be bodyed, as the old doctors say, and among the rest, Chrysostom vpō mathew, the. 83. ‘Omelye, the which sayth that therfor they were instituted, that by them, as by certē seeable signes, our mynd shuld be styrred vp to the spyrituall, and vnseeable things signi­fied by the same sacramētes.’ And therfor saint Augustne calleth the sacraments, seeable wor­des, so that if we were vnbodied, it neded not to institute them. The reason standeth in this. The sacraments were instituted in remēbrans of Christes body and blood geuen for vs. That which seruith for remembrāce as an owtward signe, ought to be seeable. Christes body and blood if thei were in the sacrament, shuld be [Page] vnseeable, therfor thei shuld nothing serue to put vs in remembrance. If thei shuld no waie serue to put vs in remembrance, than it is not necessary nor conuenient, that thei shuld be bodily present in the sacrament, And it is enough that the seeable signes, shuld be there, that is to say, the bread and the wine, which may work that is to say, which may bring to remembrances the body and blood, the which thing Christes bodily presens in the sacramēt could not doo.

I confirme this reason thus, If Christ be there bodily present in the sacrament of thanksgeuing, and the substāces of the brea­de and the wine be changed in to his body, and blood, we must say, that either this is by a comen, and generall right of a sacrament, the which shuld belong not only to this but also to all the other sacraments, orels by a particular and speciall right, of this sacrament only. That is to say, that this and not the rest, shuld haue this prerogatiue. Of necessitie it must be by one of thes ij. rightes, or els by them both. But first we can not say that it is by a comon, and generall right of a sacramēt, [Page 190] that is to say, that if a thing be a sacrament, it shuld be necessary, that the thing signified by the same sacramēt, shuld there be present, and moch lesse that ther shuld be made any turning of the substances, this can not be sayd, because that their things signified ought thā to be there present in all the other sacramēts, ād that there shuld be made a changing of the substances. But we doo see the cōtrary, for so­moch as that in all the other sacraments, the substāce remayneth as at the first, and is not changed, and there was neuer any man, that wold say any such thing, If thei wold speake of the old sacraments and of the sacramētes of the hebrewes that is to sai, of the cir­cumcision, of paschal lamb, of the rock, owt of which issewed the water in the desert, and of the manna, the which things were sacra­ments to that people, because thei were to thē signes of holy things, no one of thes dyd euer change the substance for to be a sacrament. The flesh of the paschal lamb remained flesh, as before, And we will sai the same of the rock, and of the manna, that there was no ma­ner change of substancc.

[Page]The newe sacramentes also of the Christian people, thei also doo not change substance. The water of baptisme, remaineth water as befo­re. The other likewise which be by the scoole men, and newe doctors cownted for sacra­ments, that is to say, Creame, Oile, which thei call holy, Penans, Orders and matrimo­ny, the which in deede be no sacraments, be­caus thei were not instituted by Christ for sa­craments, thei doo not change their substan­ces, but remaine in their first substance, and there is made no maner of change, This is cle­re, so that there nedeth not by comon and ge­neral right of sacraments, to put Christes bo­died presens in the sacrament, and moch lesse to affirme that there shuld be made, a sub­stanciall changing of the bread, and the wine, in to his body and blood. Nor we ought not neither to say, that by particular, and speciall right of this sacrament, Christ shuld be bodi­ly present, nor that there shuld be made such maner of change, For so moch as that the par­ticular right of this sacramēt is, cheeflie that it shuld be a signe, sondred from the other sa­cramēts, that is to say, that it shuld be bread, [Page 191] and wine in substance, which be things diuers from the other sacraments. And further, that it shuld haue a particular, and diuers signifi­cacion, from the other, that is to say, that it is instituted to bring particularly to our re­memberans, Christes passion, and death, and that it shuld represent vnto vs, how Christ gaue his body, and shed his blood, for our ran­soming. This is the particular and speciall right of this sacrament, by the which it is sondri and diuers from the other sacraments. But it is not necessary by this ryght, that there shuld be made a change of the substan­ces of the breade and wine, and that Christ shuld be in the sacrament. For the breade and wine remayne in their substances as thei we­re first, and may (withowt that that Christ shuld be present in the sacrament) work thes effects, that is to say, bring to our remembe­rans, and represent vnto vs, Christes passion, and death, and how he hath geuen his body, and blood, for our ransoming. It is ynough for the working of this rememberans, that thei haue a newe significacion. It is not neces­sary to change the substances, as in the first [Page] reason we haue sayd. Yea, I say, that seing the sacraments were instituted to thentent that thei shuld be trewe signes, of holy things, their substance must nedes remayne, as it was first. For otherwise, thei shuld not haue agrement and likelied, with ther things signi­fied, nor thei shuld not be trewe signes. As for example, baptisme hath lykelihode with the spiritual wasshing, because it is water. And as the water wassheth, ād clēseth the body, so be thos that beleue in Christ spiritually clēsed, ād wasshed frō their sinnes, but if the Water of baptisme shuld not remaine, water, but shuld chā ge the substance, it shuld not haue such agree­ment. Soo we will say of the breade, and the wine, that therfor thei haue likelied with Christes body, and blood, because thei abide still breade ād wine, for so moch as, that euen as the breade, and the wine, doo noryssh, and mainteine the life of the body, so Christes bo­dy, and blood receiued spiritually, and thorow faith in to the mind, doo norissh and maintei­ne vs, in the spirituall life. And for this cau­se Christ Iesus called his flessh verily meate, and his blood verily drinck. But if the sub­stance [Page 192] of breade, and wine shuld not abide but the only withcommes shuld remaine, there shuld not be that liklihode, and agreement which this sacrament requireth, because that the only withcommes of breade, and wine wi­thowt the substances, can not norissh. And whan the dewe agreemēt, ād likelyhode is not there, thei shuld not be trewe signes, and con­sequently, thei shuld not be trewe sacraments. And here it may be seene, that thei of this opinion, destroie the sacraments, making them not to be trewe but vaine signes taking from them the growndwork of their trewe mea­ning.

A nother reason is this.The third reason. If Christ were bo­dilie in the sacrament it should be nothinge profitable, forsomuch as, that the onelie spiri­tuall eatinge of Christ, is that,Iohan. 6. that is profi­table, as the same Christ himself said to them that thought, whan he said, that his bodie was meat, ād his bloude drinke, ād that it was be­houefull for the hauinge of life, to eat his flesh and to drinke, his blode, They thought (I say) that he ment to speake of the bodily eatinge, and drinkinge, sending the one and the other, [Page] thorow the mouthe in to the stomake, as also, they beleue, that hold, that Christ should be personalli, and bodely in the sacrament. What said Christ to these maner of men? The spirit is that whiche geueth life, the flesh helpeth nothinge, that is to saye, when I saie, that you must eate my fleshe, ād drīk my bluode, I mea­ne that you must eat my flesh, and drink my bluode spiritually, ād after this sorte, they ge­ue lyfe but my flesh eaten, and my blood dronken, as you vnderstand it, do help nothinge. It is necessary for the geuing of lyfe that my flesh be eaten, and my blood be dronken spiri­tually and not fleshly. Christ is eaten and his blood is dronken spiritually as he him self de­clareth, whē mē beleue in him: And Augustine ī the exposiciō of the said words saith Crede et māducasti, that is to sai beleue and thou hast eaten, geuinge to vnderstād, that Christs intent was, when he said these words, that is to sai, that it was behoufull to eat his flesh and drink his blood, to say that it was beho­uefull to beleue in him, And after this sorte, his body was eaten, and his blode was dron­ken. And the text it self geueth vs to vn­derstand, [Page 193] that this is trewe, the which saith first, that the fathers will is, that euery one that beleueth in Christ should haue lyfe euer­lafting. ‘And a fewe words, he addeth, veryly, veryly I say vnto you, he that beleueth in me, hath lyfe euerlaftinge. I am the bread of lyfe And a litle after, he saith, if you shall not eat the flesh of the sonne of man and drink his blood, you shall not haue lyfe in you.’ He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath lyfe euerlastinge. If thes wordes spoken by Christ, be trew as necessaryly thei must be trew, because Christ cannot tell an vntroth. It doth necessaryly folow that the eatinge his flesh and drinking his bloode, is none other, but to beleue in him or at the least, that the eatinge his flesh and drinking his blood, and the beleuing in him, be things so ioyned to ge­ther, that they cannot be separate the one frō the other. The reason is this becauce that if these words were not the same in sentence, or ells that thei were suche as might be separa­ted, the one from the other, that is to say, that the one might be trew without the other, we must needs say, that a man might be saued, [Page] and haue the lyfe euerlasting, without the ea­ting of Christs flesh, and drinking his blood, the which is against Christs expresse wordes, who saieth that he can not haue lyfe that ea­teth not his flesh and drinketh not his blood. Or els we must nedes saye, that a man might be saued not beleuinge in Christ. This is clere because Christ saith that he that eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath lyfe euer­lasting. If it be so that man is saued by eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, when as this eating, and drinkinge, be not the same that be­leuinge is, or els that they may be separated, that is to sai that the eating, and drinkinge, should be without the beleuing, a man then shall haue life euerlastinge without beleuing in Christ, the which likewise is against Chri­sts expresse words, who will that he that be­beleueth should be saued ād he that beleueth not should be damned. Seing then that the one ād the other of these two sainges be trew, that is to saie, that he that eateth Christs fle­she, ād drinketh his blood hath lyfe euerlasting and he that dothe not this can not haue it. [Page 194] And this other also is trewe, that is to saie he that beleueth in Christ, hath lyfe euerlastinge and he that doth not beleue cannot haue it: It followeth, of necessitie, that to eate Christs flesh and to drink his blood, and to beleue in him should be one self thinge or els yf they should not be the same, at the least that they could not by any meanes be separated, that is to saie, the one to be without the other. I haue made this longe discourse to make men vnder­stand that these words of Christ of the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood, be not to be vnderstand of the bodyly eatinge, and drinking, and much lesse are to be vnderstand of the eating and drinking the sacrament of the lords supper, but of the onely spirituall eatin­ge, and drinkinge, and thei that alledge them of the body or els of the sacramentall eating or drinking, do alledge them out of the pur­pose. Further also to make men know the chefe purpose, that is to sai, that althoughe Christ were bodely in the sacramēt, it should helpe nothing, because that the fleshly eating after what so euersorte it should be done, doth [Page] nothing proffit to the witnessing of Christ, seing the spiritual eatinge onely, is that which geueth life.

And if any wold answer and saie that when Christ said that the flesh did help nothinge, that he did meane, that it did help nothing, whan it was eaten, as they did vnderstand it, to whome Christ spake, that is to saie, the Ca­pernaits, the which thought that he did mea­ne to saie, that they should eat his flesh as the flesh of the shambells is eaten, and drink his blood as wine and water is dronk. But Christ in the sacrament, is eaten after suche a certe­ne sort as he is not seane nor perceauid, no nor chewed, because he is in the same sacra­ment vndiuideably, nor his flesh is not eaten nor blood dronken for to norish the body, as other bodelie meates, but to norishe the soule. And therfore Christ reprouid the Caperna­ties because thei vnderstode him euel fauored­ly, and not as he wold be vnderstand.

This answer is nothinge, for whan Christ said, that the flesh helpeth nothinge, but the spirite is that which geueth life, he ment that [Page 195] the only spirituall eating the which is done with the harte and with the minde thorow belefe was that which helped, but the bodily and fleshly eating, helped nothing after what so euer sort it should be done. There is no doubt, but though that Christ be not eaten in peeces and partes, orels chawed as other flesh is chawed and eaten, as the Capernaites did vnderstand it: Yet not with standinge, after what so eauer sort he should be eaten, by the bodily mouth, whether it were by parts or whole as they of the first opinion beleue, the which will, that Christ great and thick as he was vpon the wood of the crosse, shuld be wholy in the sacrament, that is to say, in that litle host, as they call it. This is a fleshly ād bodely eating, for so much, as that a thing is no whit lesse bodely eaten, whan it is put all hole into the mouth, and sent into the stomake, as Ionas was wholy swalowed by the whale, or as the pills that be receauid whole. It is no whitlesse bodely eaten (I say) thē if it were eatē by par­tes. I therfor by the bodily eatīg do meane that which is not of the spirite. This of the whiche they speak, that is done by the mouthe, is not [Page] with the minde therfor it is bodely, If it be bo­delie, it helpeth nothīge. I wil say to be shorte, that if Christ were bodily preasent in the sacramēt, that his being there should be nothinge ꝓfitable at all, althoughe that we should eat his flesh, ād drīk his bluode a thousād times, for so much as that the spiritual eating, and drinkin­ge onely the which is by faith, beleuinge true­ly in him, is that, whiche helpeth. The bodely and fleshly eating and drinking his body and blood, the which is done by the mouth helpeth nothing. They then do litle honour to Christ, that wold that he should be really, in the sa­crament, because they wold bringe to passe, that Christ should haue made vnprofitable thinges, the whiche we may not think, much lesse speake.

But because we haue said, that the onely spirituall eating and drinking Christs flesh and bluode, is that which helpeth, and not the bodely, some man might saye to what purpo­se then did Christ institute the sacramentall eatinge and drinkinge, the which is not spiri­tuall, but bodelye &c. To this I answer, that the sacramēt was therfore īstituted by Christ because that although the eatinge and drin­kīge [Page 196] of it, be not spirituall but bodely, yet not with standing it serueth, and is profitable, to the spirituall eating and drinking, the whi­che is by faith for so much as the sacrament doth confirme vs in faith, because it is ordey­ned to this end. Not that it shuld already ha­ue this power of it self, but because it is an in­strument, or els a ministerie of the spirite, ioi­ned to the word of the holye gospell, with which instrument, and ministerie, the same spirite worketh in vs, And it is not necessarye that Christ should be bodelye in the sacramēt to serue for the eating and drinkinge spiritu­ally, and by faith, it is enoughe that the bre­ad and the wyne, as holye signes, be there for vs, as we will better tell you in the last reason. And whan I say that the spirituall eating, and drinkinge onelye, is proffitable, and not the bodelie, I meane of the bodely eating, of the same trew bodye, and of the bodely drinking, of the trew bloude of Christ put into the mo­uth as the Capernaites did meane, and as they affirme, the which wold haue Christ to be really in the sacramēt, both in bodye ād soule. I do not meane of the sacramentall eating the [Page] which without doubt is profitable, when it is ioyned with the spirituall. And whan it is not ioyned, it is not onely not profitable, but it is damnable, as Saint Paule saieth in the first to the Corinthians because it is vnworthelie re­ceaued.1. Corin. 11. If Christ then, be not really in the sa­crament the substances of the bread and the wine, be much lesse chaunged, but do both a­byde in substance as be fore.

The fourth reason.Another reason is this, and it is particu­larlie against the opinion of transsubstancia­tion, that is to saye of them that would that the bread and the wine shuld be chaunged in­to Iesu Christes bodye ād blode, ād that there shuld remaine no more of the bread and the wine, but the withcommes, that is to saye, the white coloure of the bread, the coloure of the wine, the taste of the one and the other, the roundnes or other forme of the same bre­ad, And so we will saie of the other withcom­mes, that is to saie of the moystines, drines, heat and could. This opinion cannot stand with those effectes, that we may manifestlie see, and that experience it self doth shew vs. First the sacrament is hable to norishe bode­lie, [Page 197] wherfore if there were one that should eat, a quantitie of hostes and wine consecrated, they wold norishe as other bread and wine not consecrated. Further it is seen by experience, that the sacrament somtimes, is corrupted and wormes be ingendered in it, as in other bread and wine not consecrated. But how cā these effects be wrought, this opi­niō standinge of the chaunginge of the bread, and the wine into Christs body and blood, the onely withcommes of the bread and the wine remayning? How can the withcommes no­rish without the substance? What is to norishe but that the substance of the meat and drink, is turned into his substance that eateth and drinketh it? Seurly the withcommes without substance cannot norishe because that noris­hing meaneth chaūging of the substāce of the meat, into the substāce of the thinge norished, we cānot now say that the substāce of Christs bodie ād blood should be that which should norishe, because that the thīge that norisheth, is as we haue said cōuerted īto the substāce of hī that receaueth it. Christes body ād bluod [...]īg īmortal ād vncorruptible, be not receiueable [Page] of such chaunges. Like as we haue said of the norishemēt we wil say of the ingēderinge, the which we may see is made in the sacramēt, whē the wormes be engēdered. How cā a substance be engendered, of the only withcommes?

Here thy of this opinion be intangled and they answer some after one sorte, and some after another. Innocentius the thirde, in his booke of the office of the masse saith that euen as the substance of the bread is miracu­lously turned into the substance of Christs body the withcommes only of the bread and the wine remaininge, so the substance of the bread, of the which the wormes or any other thinge, might be engēdered, may miraculous­lie returne. Egidius Romanus in his Theore­mes of Christs bodie saith, that such an engēderīge is nat miraculous, but natural, for because (saith he) that the reasonable mīde, althoughe it be made by god onelie, yet not with stādīge, for as muche as god hath disposed, ād ordened, that after the bodie of the creature be fashio­ned in his mothers wōbe, the reasonable soule is put into the same creatures bodie, ād this is a natural poinct by the reasō of gods order takē therin, ād if it were otherwise it shuld be a [Page 198] gainst the order of nature. Euen so seinge that god hath ordeined, that the withcōmes shuld be grownded in the substance as soone as the withcommes of the bread and the wine, be corrupted immediatly, by the natural order that he hath geuē to things doth creat the matter, ād doth put it vnder thother withcommes newlie brought in of the which matter the wormes be after engendered. Some other say that a norishinge matter may be engēdered in the priests stomake, the whiche with the sa­cramēt receaued may easely norishe, although the formes, that is to say the withcommes of the bread and the wine of them selfes should not norishe. Certein other haue said, that euen as god by miracle hath ma­de that the withcomes of bread and wine, should be without subiect, as though they we­re substances, so he geueth them the nature of the substāces of the bread and wine, that is to say, that the wormes may be engēdered of the withcommes and so we must say that by mi­racle, substances may be engendered of things whiche be no substances, although such a matter be imposible by nature. But what dreames? what imaginacions? (and let them [Page] pardō me) what mōsters be these? who maketh thē fuer that it is so? as for example, frō when­ce gathereth Innocentius that the substance of the bread should miraculously returne? And Egidius Romanus that god should creat new matter, and should, put it vnder the with­cōmes newly brought in, and vnder the shape of a thinge newly engēdred? And those other, that a norishinge matter should be engende­red in the stomake? And finally the last of all, that by gods might, a substance should be en­gendered of the withcommes? If in a matter of our faith, we wil after this sorte dallie ād ges­se at a vēture without the holy scripture, we may thēn settforth and affirme al that we list, as thoughe it were trew, ād tel as many phā ­tasies and fables, I will not say follies as shall come in oure head. We ought not to dresse vp gods things after oure maner, ād as toies co­me in our braine: but we must handle them with fear and reuerence ād with gods words, and walk suerly not accordinge to oure owne phātasies. Without doubt, this Imaginatiō of the chaunginge of the substance of the bread, and wine into Christs bodie ād blode, and that the onely withcomes of the bread, and the wi­ne [Page 199] remaine, is false. but the substances of the bread and wine remaine, for if they should not remaine these euident and open effectes could not be wrought, that is to saie, the norishinge ād new ēgēderinge which be made. The cause whie they speak thus, that is to say, without ani maner of groundeworke, ād be forced to graunt to mani incōueniences, is, because they defend an euell, and an vniust cause, and therfore they must graunte many inconueniences. And in dede (as it is commenly said) they wote not what they fishe for, beare with me you readers, seing I tell the trueth.

Another reason is this.The fift reason. God is not wont to work miracles but for to cōfirme the faith of the beleuers, ād his doctrine, as it is writtē in sainct mark in the end of his gospell.Marci 16. And the miracles that Christ worketh for to confirme his word and the faith of the beleuers, be see­albe thinges, as it is manifest, lokinge tho­row all the miracles, that Christ and the A­postels wrought, as geuing sight to the blin­de, clensinge the leepers, makinge the domme to speak, the lame to go, healing the feuered, and the other sick, reising the dead, walking [Page] on the water of the sea, cōmaūdinge the wīds, chaunging the water into wine, driuing awaie the deuels, satisfyng with a few loaues, ād cer­teine fishes many thousand persons. All these miracles were seen, and therfore did confirme the doctrine of the holy gospell: but if they had bene secret that none had seene them, they had helped nothing to that matter, that is to saie, to confirme the faith of any. Seing it is thus then, that god therfore worketh mira­cles, to confirme his doctrine, and the faith of the beleuers, and the miracles could not work such effects if they were not openly seen, to what purpose then shuld, Iesus Christ, as great and as thick as he was vpon the wood of the crosse, and as he is preasently in heauen, be hidden whole vnder a small cake, and a litle wyne, much lesse without comparison, then his bodye is, and all his blood? To what pur­pose were it to work this most great mira­cle, that it should not be seen, when it were ones done? to what purpose were it to work that other, that Christ should be whole in the whole sacrament, and whole in euery parte of the sacrament, as though he were a spirite? to [Page 200] what purpose were it to work, that Christ should be bodely in heauen, and in earth, here ād on all the aultars where the masse is saide, to what purpose were it that the bread and the wine, should be turned into Christs body and blood? To what purpose were it, that the withcommes of the bread and the wine should abide without a subiect as thoughe they we­re substances? All these most great and stonis­hinge myracles, and greater then euer Christ wrought, or that euer were hard of must ne­nedes be, if Chist himself should be inclosed bodelie within that sacramēt, ād yet not with standing, no one of these miracles were euer seene, as they are not, nor can be possibly seene. Seing then that such miracles cannot be seen to what end, to what proffit, or to what purpose, should they be wrought, when they are not hable nother to confirme Christs doctrine, nor oure faith? shall we saie that Christ wold work miracles, and such miracles as were neauer the greater without any ma­ner of profit? suerly no, if We wold not make god now lesse wise than men, the which if thei haue reason, will neauer do a thing that they [Page] be not perswaded is to purpose and profit for some end. We must then saie, that Christ is not bodely present in the sacrament, but he is in heauen, where he sitteth on the right hand of the father, from whence he must come, at the latter day, to iudge the liuing and the dead.

And this may be another reason to proue that Christ,The sixt reason. in as muche as he is man, is not personally in the sacramēt, because the article of oure faith saith that he is ascēded īto heauē, frō whence he shall come to iudge the liuing ād dead. If Christ were really ī the sacramēt, what should he nede on the latter day to come so farr of, that is to say, from heauen, he bein­ge neerer on the earth? what ells neded, but that he shal goe out of some cōsecrated cake, orells hoste, as they name it, and appere in maiestie ād glorious. Suerly it nedeth not that a thīge which is nere vs, should come to vs frō a farr of, ād it can not be denied, but a thinge frō at hād, may lightlyer and easelier (If it be not lett) come to vs then frō a farr of, Christ therfore is not in the sacrament, nor there is not made any maner of chaunge of substance.

[Page 201]Another reason is this the opinion that saith Christ is bodely in the sacrament dimi­nisheth the trueth of Christs trew and natu­rall bodye, therfore it is false. It is clere that the Christian religion holdeth for an article of the faith, that Christ is a trew, and naturall mā, that is to say,Luc. 24, that he hath the very nature of a man, and that he hath a very body and a very soule, as other men haue. And al­thoughe presently thone and the other, that is to say the body ād the soule, be glorified: neuertheles they be yet a very bodye ād a very soule. For the glorification, taketh not awaie the nature, It maketh it in dede more ꝑfit, but it taketh it not awaie, so as it is not the self same that it was before, as we vnderstand by Christ himself, who being risen and hauing taken his glorified body, said to his disciples, behold my hands, and my feet, that it is euen my self. Suerly he should not haue bene the self same that he was before if he had not had the self same hands the self same feet and the self same whole body, and the self same soule that he had before That that opinion which holdeth that Christ is bodely in the sacrament dimini­sheth [Page] the trueth of Iesus Christs bodye, and his mans nature, I do proue it, because the na­ture of a body hath, two properties or condi­tions the first is, to haue quantitie, that is to say some maner of lenght, some maner of bre­dth, and some maner if thicknes, and euen as a body hath greater or smaller quantitie, so much greater, or smaler place it occupieth, as by eyperience we may see. And his propertie, agreeth and is naturall to euery body, in such sorte as also the glorified bodies do occupye place that is to saye, that the greater glori­fied body occupieth greater place, and the les­se body lesse place, euen as Christ Iesus when he was risen, did occupye place, that is to say he was in so much place as the quātitie, and greatnes of his body was, nor he was not in any less place, then the greatnes of his bodye was For so much as that this, that is to saie, to be in lesse place, then the quantitie of the body is, should diminishe the trueth of the body.

The other propertie is to be onely in one place. And these properties be in such sort natural to a body, that thei cānot by any meanes be separated frō it, and when a mā separateth [Page 202] them from the bodye, then shall it be no more a bodye. These among the rest, be two proper­ties, that make the bodye vndyuidehable as the philosophers sai, that is to saie, thei make that the bodye is an vndyuidehable thinge, that is to say, onely one, other this, or that, distincte, and dyuers from other. And that these two properties, that is to saye, to occupy place, and so much as the quantite and greatnes of the body is, and likwise that a body cannot be but in one place at ones, and at one tyme, be in separable from the bo­dye, nor there can be no maner of body that hath them not, whether it beglorified or no.

We speak not this of oure self onely, for Saint Augustine saith it in his 57. epistle answering to dardanus the bishop, who had made certain questions or demaūds to him, and he answering him to one after another, sayth to the first, speaking of Christe risen and glo­rified: doubt not (sayth he) but the man Christ Iesus, is now there, frō whence he shall come. And after a few words, he sayth, he shall co­me frō none other place, then frō whence he shall come to iudge the lyuinge and the dead [Page] (and meaneth from heauen) And so he shall come by the witnes of the Aungels voice, in the self same forme ād substance of flesh in the which he was seen go into heauē, to the which forme and substance, in dede he hath geuen immortalitie, but he hath not taken away the nature, we must not think that according to this forme, that is to saye, of the flesh, he is spred abrode euery where, for we must take hede, that we do not, in such sorte, affirme the godhed of the man, that we should take away the troth of the bodye, for so much as it doth not in dede folow that he that is in god, sho­uld be so euery where as god. And after a few words he saith. God ād man is one person, and one Christ Iesus, is thone and thother, In that that he is god, he is euery where, but in that that he is man he is in heauē. And after about the middest of the Epistle, or a litle before, he saith: Take the rowmes of places frō the bo­dies, ād they shal not be in any place, ād because they shall not be in any place, they shal not be at all, take the same bodies, from the quali­ties of bodies, and there shall be no place, where they should be, and therfore it is of neces­sitie [Page 203] that thei be not. Also he saith in the 30. treatise vpon Ihon, the lord is aboue, but yet the troth is here, that is to sai, the lord, because that the bodye of the lord, in the which, he is risen, must nedes be in one place, but the troth of the same, is spred abrode euery whe­re.

By all these words of Augustine we haue specially two thinges. The first is that Iesus Christ risen and glorified, is not in that he is man but in one place, that is to say in hea­uen, from whence he shall come to iudge the lyuing and dead, in that he is god, he is euery where in the world. The second is, that the bodies of necessitie do occupye rowme of place ād if they did not occupy rowme, they should not be in any place, and being in no place, they should not be any thing at all, but should be nothinge: this groundwork standing that these two properties, that is to saye that euery body doth occupy so much place, as his greatnes is, and likewise it is not at one tyme but in one place. And these two properties cannot be taken from bodyes, And he that wold take them awaye, should bring to passe that the bodyis [Page] should not be in anye place, as S. Austen sayth and if they should not be in any place, thei should be nothing: It foloweth necessary­ly, that if Christ were bodely in the sacramēt, for somuch as there he should not haue nea­ther the one, nor the other of these two proꝑ­ties, It foloweth, I say, that Christ in the sacrament should not haue a trew bodye, yea no bodye, because that his body (be it where it will, and as it will) it cannot be separatid frō these two properties, to a bodie most naturall ād in­separable, according to Austen ād the troth.

Here they say that it is true (speakinge na­turally) that these two conditions ād proper­ties cānot be separated, from bodies, but spea­king supernaturally; ād by miracle, they may be separated frō the bodyes, as in effectt they be separated from Christes bodye in the sacra­mēt. To this I answer, first, that the substātiall properties be neuer chaunged by miracle, let them finde, that god euer did it, let them geue me one onely example. We know that god is almighty and there is no maner thinge that may be done, Impossible vnto him, as the Aū ­gell sayd to Marye, but who knoweth that this thinge may be done? I will not stand now, to [Page 204] dispute this thinge, I desier thē that they wold geue some other example, but they will nea­uer do it. Further I say that it belongeth to them to proue that god doth these miracles. This is no good reason God can do it, therfo­re he hath done it. How many thinges cā god do that he hath not done? God could haue sent more then twelue legions of Aungels for to delyuer Christ out of the Iewces hands,Math. 26. as he himself doth witnes in S. Mat. ād yet he sent thē not. And how many other thinges might we alledge, if we wold, that god can do ād yet he doth them not? Thei must proue then, that god doth these miracles. By Christes sainges, nor by the scriptures, they cannot proue it ex­cept that they will alledge, that Christ hath sayd it, that is to say, this is my body shewing the bread, and this is my blood shewing the wine: but this is a tryflynge profe, for so­much that Christ ment not by this manner of speache to affirme that he is within the bread and the wyne, but ment to saye, that both the one, and thother, were signes, and a remem­braunces of his body and blood, as plainly we will shew hereafter.

[Page]Peraduenture they will say, that in mat­ters of faith there nedeth no profes but men must stand to the letter. This thinge is of faith therfore it nedeth no profe I say that in matters of faith we must stand to gods worde with the right vnderstanding of it, and trew sense of the words, nor we must not geue thē other and straunge senses, Contrary to the mynde of the spirite. The sense of the spirite is not, that Christ should be bodelye in the ho­st, and in the cupp, as it is sayde, but it is that whiche we haue said, and will better saye, in the talke that foloweth, where we will decla­re the māners of sacramentall speaches, according to the scripture.

And to be short that we may end now at lēght this reasoninge, I saye that this opinion of the being of Christs body ād bluode in the sacrament, doth diminishe the troth of Iesus Christs trew bodye and trew bluode. And it maketh him to haue in the sacramēt, a phanta­sticall body, ād much more phantasticall then Martiane, ād Manicheus who whē they spake of Christ and apointed him notrew and natu­rall body, but a phantasticall, and Imaginable, [Page 205] orels a seming bodie, they saied things lesse striuing against nature then this opinion, be­cause they did neauer deuide Christs bodie, nor speak of him things so vnimaginable as this opinion doth, nor they neauer said that he was in two places at ones. This opiniō maketh him to be (in that he is man) In infinite places, nor they neauer said, that a great bodie was con­teined in so litle a thinge as these mē say, ād so we wil saie of the other so many Imaginaciōs, which the forsaid opiniō placeth. And yet though Manicheus ād Martiā, did say these or like things, as they say, It should haue bene lesse in cōueniēt, seinge they did apoint him a fantastike and a semeable bodie. But this opinion affirming that Christ hath a trew and a naturall body in the sacrament doth yet speake such things of him, as neather can be in dede, nor be not Imaginable, and be without all reason, without also gods worde, ād more reproweable (as to this) thē the fore said opiniōs (I mea­ne) of Manicheus and Martion, and without doubt they speak things disagreing to them­selues. Furthermore if Christ be in the sacrament what meaneth it that the old church whē [Page] should make the consecration of the bread ād wine, did singe the preface, as it is called, Sur sum Corda that is to say, lift vp your harts on highe, ād also these words be now said in al the masses? ‘Suerly we ought to haue our harts where Christ ād our treasour is, as he himself in S. Math,Matth. 5. saith, that is to saie, where your treasoure shalbe there will your hartes be. Oure treasoure ought to be where Christ is.’ And S. Paule to the Colossians saith.Coloss. 3. If you be risen againe together with Christ, that is to saie, If leauing the euell you haue taken the good, ād new life, to the likenes of Christ, who leauinge the corruptible, and mortal life hath takē the incorruptible, Immortal, ād glorious life, seek things which be aboue where Christ is, who sitteth on the right hand of god, seek those things that are aboue, ād not the earth­ly things geuinge vs to vnderstād, that seing Christ Iesus is oure treasour ād all oure welth we ought to haue our harts were he is. If it be so then that we ought to haue our hartes where Christ is (let him be in what so euer place he will) what neded it that the old church should admonish the people that they should lift vp there harts on highe, that is to say, in­to [Page 206] heauen, if by and by after a few words he should haue descēded into bread and into wi­ne? what need we to seek Christ so farr of, that is to say in heauē, if he be so nere vs, that is to say, in that bread and that wine? This sainge Sursum corda, suerly geueth vs to vnderstand that the old church did not beleue that Christ was bodelie in the sacramēt, for if they had beleued it, they wold neauer haue said lift vp your hartes on highe, but they wold haue said, be you attēt o you faithfull, for by ād by Christ Iesus oure lord shalbe here present in the bread ād the wine, as sone as the cōsecratiō is made. Direct youre minds to the bread, and the wine, whā they shalbe cōsecrated, because Iesus Christ shalbe ther bodely, but they said not after this sorte, they haue in dede said lift vp your hartes on highe, geuing to vnderstand that they beleued that Christ was in heauen, and not in the sacrament.The ninth reason. The ninth reason is this, and it gainsaieth the turnekindinge, If the bread be turned into the body, and the wine into the bluod, because Christ said, this is my body shewinge the bread, ād this is my bluode shewing the wine and that els Christs [Page] words should not haue benetrue, if the bread should not haue bene turned into the body ād the wine into the bluode, or at the least that Christs bodye should be in the bread, and his bluode in the wine. It followeth that the pas­chal lamb which Christ did eat with his disci­ples, was turned into the passeouer, because Christ said, the lāb is the passouer, as it is written in luke; I haue earnestly desired to eat this passouer with you before I suffer.Luk. 22. if is clere that by this word passouer Christ did meane the paschal lāb, ād because that pascha is that going ouer, and passing by that the Angell made whē he passed ouer the hebrues, not en­tering in but onely entered into the Egiptiās houses, killing theire first borne, as we haue in Exodus,Exod. 12. we shalbe cōpelled to say, that that lāb was turned into that same going ouer, or pas­sing by or els that that going ouer or passīg by was in that lamb according to there opi­nion that will, that Christ should be really in the sacrament, the substances of the bread and wine remaininge. And because that that going ouer, was not then, when Christ said those words, that is to saie, that, that lamb was the pascha or passouer, but it was onely [Page 207] in Moyses time in Egipt, it followeth that he did eat a thinge that was not, behold what maner things do folow their opinion, that wold that Christ should be bodily in that host and that cup, because he spake these words, this is my body, shewinge the bread, and this is my bluode, shewinge the wine. For so much as it is no lesse true, that the lamb is the pascha or passouer, then that bread ād that wine be Christs body ād bluod, because Christ who cannot lie hath spoken thone and thother. And god himself said the lamb is the passouer. It was therfore of ne­cessitie that the lamb should be turned into the passouer or at the least that that passo­uer should be in that lāb because god said soo.

If we will say that Christ hath geuen to the words of the Sacramēt of the bread ād the wine, the power to make the turninge of thone ād tother into the body and bluod, but he hath not gewen the pouer, to thother words, of the lamb, to turne it into the passouer, orels that the passouer should be the lamb.Exod. 12. This saing must nedes be self willed and without reason [Page] because the one and thother, is a sacrament and is made for remembrance, the lamb was ordeined in remembrance of that passouer of the aungell that was in Egipt, the bread and the wine, in remembraunce of Christs body and bluod, geuen for oure raunsominge. Fur­thermore they must shew how Christ hath geuen suche power to those words, that is to saie, this is my body and this is my bluod, that by vtteringe them, such turning should be made, orels that his body, and bluod should be made present. They shal neauer be hable to shewe this their self wild talk, to be true, nea­ther by the holy scripture (as it were behoue full thei should do, Intending to affirme such a matter) ād much lesse by any maner of reason auailable. Further though it were so that Christ had geuē such power to the words, yet he gaue it not but to those words that he thē said, whan he did institute the sacramēt ād not to other. And this they of the same opiniō do cōfesse, but the words that Christ spake thē, be no more true, because he spake thē of the time to come, and not of the time past, that is to say this is my bodi, the which shalbe geuē for you, and this is my bluod the whiche shalbe shed [Page 207] for you. These words were thē true, because that his body was not yet geuē, nor his bluod shed but they were to be geuē. but now they be no more true but false, because that euē as Christ now cā no more die nor suffer so cā he no more geue his bodie nor shed his bluod. For so much as if he could do these things, he should be sufferable and mortall, ād this cānot be. Therfore if these words had power to work those effects, thē false words should haue had pouer to turne the substances, orels to make Christ present in the sacrament, but if they be true, thē haue they power, to make Christ sufferable, ād mortal. I cōfirm this reasō thus, If, because Christ said those wosds, this is my bo­dy ād this is my bluod, such turning should be made, or els that he should be present in the sacramēt, there wold folow inconueniences, be­cause that we shuld be compelled to saie, that all the speeches of the scripture, and of god, in the which is affirmed that a thing is, other this, or that (seing that god can not, tel an vntroth) we shalbe compelled (I say) to affirme and graunt, that it is so, as the words seme to say. And so we shalbe cōpelled to graunte [Page] that the Testament or gods couenaunt whither you will call it, should be there in the same circumcision. For so much as that god, as we haue in the Genesis, said to Abram whan he did institute the circumcision,Gene. 17. this is, my couenant, speaking of the same circumci­sion, and for all that the circumcision was not that couenaunt, but onely a signe of that couenaunt, as in the same place, that is to say, the same chapter, it is plaine, that god called the circumcision, the signe of his couenaūt. It is plaine that the signe of a thinge, is not the self same thinge. And yet god said that the cir­cumcisiō was the couenaunt. We shalbe com­pelled to graunt that that fearfull fantasy, the which appered to Saule,1 Regū. 28. as we haue in the first boke of the kings, was Samuel in deed, because the scripture there, dothcal it Samuel, and yet al the Catholike doctours, say ād affirme, that it was a fātasie ād a deceipt of the deuel ād not Samuell. And we shalbe compelled also to saie, that because Christ said that he was the vine, that he was so in dede. And because the scripture calleth, Christ a rock, a lyon, a lamb, a she­pe, and as many other things, as it speaketh [Page 209] of him, we shalbe compelled to affirme, that Christ in dede was all those things. But what will they say to Christs owne words in the same institution of the sacrament, Christ did not onely say, this is my body and this is my bluod, but he said takinge the cupp,Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. as luke ād paule do affirme, this cup is my new testamēt in my bluode. These words be aswell trew, as those, this is my body, and this is my bluod, ād Christ did aswell sai these as those, except luke and paule did tell a lye, which is not to be spoken. Therfore we must nedes graunt, that that cupp was turned, into the new Testamēt, or els at the least, that the new Testament was in that cup, the which is not trew, for the new Testamēt is not the cupp, nor is not in it, but it is the ordinaunce or disposition the which god made to leaue to his elect childrē the euer lasting wealth, that is to say the forgeuenes of sinnes, the freing frō all euell, the euerla­sting lyfe, ād the possessiō of euery good thing If thes be incōueniēces as we may see, thē the­ir opiniō is false The last reason is this.The tenth reason. Christ mai be eatē ād his bluod drōk onely two waies [Page] that is to say, spiritually, and sacramentally the which sacramentall eating therfore, as we haue said, serueth and is profitable to the spirituall eating. I do not fynde after what other sort, except these two, we may eat Christ and drink his bluod. But to eat Christ and drink his bluod, after thes two sortes, we nede not to put him really into the mouth, nother his body nor his bluod, therfore it is not neces­sary that Christ shuld be really in the sacra­ment. That Christ may be eaten and his bluod dronk after these two sortes, though that he really in body ād in soule be not in the sacra­ment, I proue it thus. First to receaue his bo­dy and his bluode spiritually, we nede not to receaue hym by the bodely mouth it sufficeth to receaue him by faith, that is to say, to beleue in him, as we proued before in the third re­ason, nor it nedeth not, I say, for to eate his body ād drink his bluode after this sort, that we should put ether the one, or thother into the bodely mouth, this is plaine, because that such eating and drinking is done with the spirite, and with the mynde. And this the aduersary will not deny. That also it is not necessary for [Page 203] the receauing him sacramētally that he shuld be really in the sacrament, I proue it by the Apostle paule who saith to the Cor. that the hebrue is he people were baptised, aswel they,1 Corin. 10 as we althoughe vnder other signes then ou­res, because that we be baptised with water and that people sayth paule was baptised with the cloude dni with the sea, passing thorow the middest of the read sea, and that cloude that couered them and the red sea thorow the middest wherof thei al passed, was to thē baptisinge, where we may note that according to paule, not onely they of full age were bapti­sed but the children also, because that all were couered with the cloude ād all passed thorow the middest of the sea. I desired to say these few words, for their sakes that be seduced by the wicked spirit of the Anabaptisticall er­ror, who being led about by sathan do denye the baptisme of children. If the hebrues, chil­dren were baptised in token that they were al­so of gods people, for what cause should not now our childrē be baptised being, no lesse of gods people thē they, and being no lesse rede­med by Christ thē they of full age? this I desi­red to say by the waye.

[Page]After paule addeth in the same place that all did eat the self same spirituall food, ād dro­nk all the self same spirituall drink, And he calleth that spirituall meat, or els foode (whe­ther you wil call it) the paschal lamb, and che­fely the manna, the which meates they all did eat, and he calleth the spirituall drink, that water which came out of the rock. And he ad­deth, that that rock was Christ, that is to say, did signifie Christ. That spirituall foode, that is to say the paschall lamb and the Manna, did also signifie Christ, as the water did betoken him, although paule doth not expresly speake it. And to be short he meaneth that the hebr­ueish people did aswell cōmunicate with tho­se signes, as we do that eat the sacramentall bread and sacramentall wyne, And paule mea­neth in his tong, that all did eat, and drink Christ sacramentally, for so much, as that to eat a thing sacramentally, is none other, but to eat the sacrament of the same. Well now if that people did eat Christ, and drinke his blo­od sacramentally, when they did eat the pa­schall lamb, and the manna, and drunk that water that rann out of the rock, the which things [Page 211] were a sacrament of Christ, as the bread and the wyne be to vs, and did signifie the sa­me, as paule sayth, and Austen expoundeth it in the 45. treatyse vpon Iohn, saing, that those sacraments did signifie the self same that oures doo, althoughe after an other sort. And yet not withstanding they did not eat Christs body nor drink his bluod really, putting thē in to the mouth: What is the cause that we mai not also eate his body, and drink his bluod, sa­cramētally, without eating or drinkinge him really and bodely, forso much as that to eat or drink Christ sacramentally, is none other but to receaue with the mouth his sacramēt? And to be à sacrament, it is not nedefull that the thing signified should be in the same sacrament, and much lesse that there should be ma­de any turninge of the substāces of the signes, And it is enoughe that the sacrament should be a signe of the same, that is to sai, that it should signifie it, according to the definition of a sacramēt which sayth Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum, that is to say, A sacrament is a signe of a holy thinge, It is plaine that Christ, as man, was not really in [Page] the hebrues sacraments, because, he was not yet ether borne or incarnated. And how could his body and his bluod be in those sacraments seing his body and bluod were not yet? And yet paule saieth that they did eat the self same spiritual meat, ād the self same spiritual drink that is to say, Christ spiritually.

Certein expound paules text, of the spiri­tuall eating and drinking of that people, that is to saye, by faith but because that all did not eat and drink spiritually and by faith, for so much as that a great parte of them, as paule affirmeth, in the text were vnbeleuers, ād yet he sayth that all did eat the self same spirituall meat, ād drink the self same spirituall drink. I haue therfore expounded it of the sacramen­tall eating and drinkinge, of the which all aswel beleuers as vnbeleuers, did eat ād drink, and not of the spiritual, that is to saie by faith the which belōged to the beleuers onely. And thoughe paule calleth that meat and drink spirituall, yet he meaneth not that it should be spirituall in it self, as that which is of faith is in dede spirituall, but he calleth it spirituall, [Page 232] as to the signification and as to the vse, that is to say, that it was apointed to signifie Christ, who is a spirituall and an holy thinge, as oure sacraments may be called spirituall things, be cause they be appointed, to spirituall things. There was not withstanding difference bet­wene those sacraments ād oures, because that thei (beside that they were apointed to spiri­tuall things) serued also for the bodely things, that is to say, to the necessitie of the present lyfe, for so much as the manna and the water were their dayly meat and drink, so that they had two vses the one spirituall, be­cause it was to them a sacrament, the other bodely the which serued to the necessitie of the­ir bodyes. Our sacraments be not so the which be taken onely for the spirituall vse that is to say, for sacraments, and not for the necessitie of the body.

To cōclude therfore, I saie, that seing Christ cānot be eatē nor drunke but after one of the­se two sorts, that is to say spiritually and by faith and then sacramentally also. And after these two sortes Christ may be receaued tho­ugh he be not really, that is to say in body [Page] and in soule, in the sacramēt. It is not therfo­re proffitable, and much lesse necessary, to af­firme such reall being in the same sacrament. They that say, that Christ is really in that host and in that cup, do not know, what mea­neth to eat and drink Christ sacramentally, for so much as, that to eat and drink sacramē ­tally, as we haue said, is none other but to re­ceaue the sacrament, that is to say, the signe of the holy thinge, and doth not meane to take bodely the self same thinge, that is represen­ted by the sacrament.

I might if I wold, and did not feare to be tedious to the readers, make dyuers other reasons also, but it nedeth not, and those that we haue made, do suffice. But let vs put the case, that we had made no one reason, to proue this oure negatiue, that is to say, that Christ is not really in the sacrament, nor there is not made any turninge of the bread and the wy­ne into his body and bluod, nor that we had not alledged any saing of the scripture, the which not withstanding, god ayding vs, we haue sufficiently done, let vs put the case (I say) that we had done no one of those things, [Page 213] yet they of the contrary opinion should not, by this, haue had their purpose, because that it doth not belong to vs to proue our negatiue, but it belongeth to them to proue there affir­matiue. For eueri one that affirmeth any sainge is boūd if he speak reasonably to proue it, If it were not already so plaine that euery man might see it: He that denyeth is not boūd to proue his negatiue. It is not enough for a mā of what so euer aucthoritie he be, for to be beleued, to say it is so, the matter stādeth thus but he must proue his affirmatiue sainge, che­fely if it be a matter of weight, ād pertaining to faith as this is. Nor it is not enough ne­ther, to be hable to defend and maintaine it, for so much as that many false opinions be, with witt, with distinctions, with wrangelin­ges and intangelinges defended, as thoughe they were true. We mai see this by experien­ce, in the schoole doctoures and questionists, for few or none of them do agree to gether, but they be of contrary and d [...]uers opinions and alwaies euery one of them defendeth his oune fantasies, and they striue cōtinually, and it is neauer knowen who hath the right, and [Page] they confound the minds of men, they lose the tyme, and cause other also to lose it.

I desire then of these maner men that they wold proue this their rule or opinion, that is to say, that Christ is bodely in the sacrament, and that the substance of the bread, and the wyne be turned into his body and bluod. I de­sire that they wold proue it me, other by rea­son, or such aucthoritie as I should be boūd to beleue, This my request is iust, reasonable and honest. By reason they can not proue it, this is clere, and themselues by agrement do con­fesse it: by aucthoritie how do they proue it? They bring furth the old doctours, they alle [...] ­ge the determinations of popes, and of Coun­cels, the common opinion of the churche, last of all they alledge Christs words when he did institute the supper, that is to say, this is my body shewinge the bread, and this is my bluod shewinge the wyne, and Christs sainge also in S. Iohn,Io. 6. that is to saye, I am the bread of lyfe. I am the lyuinge bread that am come doune from heauen, and he that eateth of this bread, shall lyue for eauer. And the bread which I shall geue is my flesh, which I will [Page 214] geue for the lyfe of the world. And after truely truely, I say vnto you, if you eat not the flesh of the sonne of man, and drink not his bluode you shall not haue lyfe in you, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath lyfe euerlastinge. And further, my flesh is ve­ryly meat, and my bluode is veryly drink, these be the aucthorities that thei alledge.

To the which aucthorities I answer, and first to those of the old doctours, that is to say, as for exāple, of Ireneus, Tertulian, Cy­prian, Origen, Hilary, Athanasius, Basill, Iōh Chrisostom, Gregory Nazianzene, Gregory Nicene, Cyrill, Ambrose Iherom, Augustine, And such other holy fathers, the which labo­red for Christs church in wrytinge bokes, ex­pounding the scripture, disputinge against heretiks, preachinge and teachinge, wherby they do in dede deserue to be honoured for their lerninge, and holynes, but, I say that no one of them, nor of the other anucients, was cauer of this opinion, that Christ should be bodely in the sacrament, and much lesse, that the substances of the bread and wyne, should be turned into his body and bluod, but in dede [Page] they haue sayd the contrary. And thoughe somtyme it semeth that they should affirme that the bread and the wyne be Christes bo­dy and bluode, yet this is for none other cause, but that they speak of the sacraments, after the maner of the scripture the which doth call them by the name of the thinges signified by them, as we oftē finde that Augustine did. Who very often hath declared such maner of speches as we will tell here after, And let vs admit also that all the old doctours had bene of that opinion, and that all the world wold say it yet ought we not to beleue them, if thei bringe not furth the witnes of the holy scri­pture, because that this is a thinge pertaining to faith and, faith is ground wrought onely vpon gods worde, as paule saith to the Ro­mains,Ro. 10. faith cōmeth of hearinge but hearinge is by the worde of god, he doth not say by the word of men, the whiche may all err, but he sayeth it commeth of gods word, and the holy scripture is gods worde. Let them alled­ge vs in such thinges the holy scripture, and we will beleue them, els not,

[Page 215]And if any wold say, and the scripture al­so was made by men therfore we ought not to beleue it, I answer that the scripture is writ-told, and made by the holy gost as peter saieth in the second Epistle,2. Pet. 1. and it was confirmed with great signes, and meruelous miracles. Nor no [...]ue of the fathers or old doctours did [...]auer desire, that they should be beleued as the holy scripture but they all with one voi­ce do say, and chefely Saint Augustine, that concerninge matters of fayth we should so farr beleue them as is found in the holye scri­pture, and none otherwise, And thei will that it should be laufull to denye any men, yea let them be of what so euer holynesse learninge and aucthoritie you will, but not to deny the holy scripture. Tell me, who is he that wold beleue the article of the trinitie, althoughe the whole world had told him, if it were not plaine in the holy scriptures, who wold bele­ue the article of the incarnation of the sonne of god, and the other articles of the fayth, If gods word had not told it? What can men know of such thinges, except so much as god oppeneth vnto them by the scripture? Loke [Page] vpō Austen in the 19 epistle,The 19. pi­stell. where he sayth in sentēce that he beareth this honoure towards the Canonicall bokes of the scripture, that he beleueth seurly that no one of them hath [...]r­red, but for all the rest, he may deny them, if thei do not proue their suings by the holy scripture,The 3. pi­stell. The very same in meaninge he sayth in the hundreth and eleuenth epistle writing to fortunatianus the bishop. They all, beside all this, that I haue sayd, were of this opiniō, that Christ in that he is m [...], is only in heauē bodely.

In the se se­cond boke against the denatists cap. 3.Let vs say the same of the determinacions of popes, and of coūcels that all may err. Austen in the second boke against the donatists, sayth that the vniuersall former Coūcels may be amended by thē that folow. If they may be amended, suerly they may err, and so they that folow after them, who doubteth but they mai err aswell as they that go before? And we by experience ma [...] see, that many councels do err for one of thē doth gaynsay an other. I speak not this because that men ought not to haue reuerence to councels when they be lawfully gathered together and in the holy gost, and when the determinations that be made in [Page 216] them, be accordinge to the holy scripture as the Councell of Nece was against Arrius, The councell of Calcedone against Eutiches, And certein other old councels, the which had gods word for their rule. And these onely were gathered to gether in Christs name, and in the holy gost. But I say in dede that whan they determine anye maner of thinge pertaining to fayth, and do not stick to gods word, that we ought not to obey such coun­cels, nor men ought not to beleue them. And in our dayes, we haue the example of the councell of Trent, the goodly determinations that it made, all, at the popes good pleasure, whome the bishoppes cannot gainsay because they haue all sworne neauer to go against the sea Apostolike? What estimation should men haue of such coūcels, where no respectt is had to gods honoure nor to his worde, and such as be gathered together against Christ for to quēche him out, and to establish the kingdō of Antichrist, shal we allow such coūcels? This is a cheefe grounde. The faithfull Christian is not bounde nor ought not, in matters pertai­ning [Page] to faith to beleue the hole world together if they do not bringe forth gods worde, that is to say, the holy scripture for their witnesse.

Wel now thei wil say, that they haue gods worde, that is to saye, Christes words, who sayd this is my body, and this is my bluod she winge the bread and the wyne, therfore the bread and wyne be turned into Christes body and bluod, and Christ is wholly in the host and in the wyne. Further he sayd those words in the sixt chapter of Ihon, aboue recyted, whe­re he willeth that we should eat his flesh and drink his bluod, and this is not done except in the sacrament, therfore he is bodely in the sa­crament. I answer first to those words, this is my body, and this is my bluod, and I aske whe­re in the scripture at any tyme is found that suche a speche, as, This is my bodye and this is my bluode, should meane, this is turned into my body and into my bluod, or els my body and my bluod be in these signes? I neauer fo­und this maner of speche. Therfore the fore sayd words haue another meaninge then that the whiche they geue them, or that whiche the scriptures vse that is to say, this is the si­gne [Page 217] of my body shewinge the bread, and this is the signe of my bluod, shewinge the wyne, as before we haue sayd and we will also better say, in the declaration of those words, This is in dede their meaninge. To the saings of the sixt chapter of Ihon, I say, that they do not alledge thē to purpose, because that the­re, Christ doth not speak of the sacramentall eatinge, but of the spirituall, and by faith, as in the third reason we haue declared, yea as Christ him self doth expounde it in the text, and so all the old doctours do expounde it, And cheefely Augustine who sayth beleue ād thou hast eaten, so that seinge that opinion of the turninge of the substāces of the bread and wyne into Christs body and bluod, nor that of his bodely presence in the sacrament can­not be proued, nether by reason nor any au­cthoritie that auayleth, we ought to conclude that it is a fayned inuention and imagina­tion of men and commeth not from god. The reasons of the true and Catholike opiniō be­inge ended, before that we answer to the ob­iections and ground workes of the partyes contrary to the trueth there remanith to mak [Page] apere that the opinion which we haue proued is that of the old church, and the forenamed doctours and holy men.

And because I should be to long, if I wold bringe the multitude of doctours, It shall su­ffise me therfore to tell Augustines opinion a most ware and true expounder of the old and sound opinions, the which Augustine holdeth not, but the opinion of the Auntiens, and that which was holdē in his tyme ād of his predecessours. In his Epistle to bonifacius he writeth after this sorte.Epistle 23. If the sacramēts sho­uld not haue some similitude of those things, of the which they be sacraments, they should be in no wyse sacraments, And by this lyke­lynes, those same sacraments many tymes, ta­ke the name of the things them selues. Euen us therfore after a certeyn meyns the sacra­ment of Christs body, is Christes body, the sacrament of Christes bluod, is Christs bluode, and so the sacrament of faith, that is to say, the baptisme is faith, and is called faith. See here Augustine, how he vnderstandeth Chri­sts speache when he sayth, this is my body [Page 218] shewing the bread and this is my bluode she­winge the wyne, not to meane that the bread should be in dede Christes body, and the wyne Christes bluod, He meaneth not this. But he meaneth that therfore the bread is called Christes body and the wyne his bluod, because thei be sacramētes and signes of Christes body ād bluod. Also in a boke the which is against Adimantus the Maniche in the xij. chapter Augustine sayth,Against Adimantus ca. 12 The lord doubteth not to sai (and he speaketh of Christ) this is my body when he gaue the signe of his body. Here Au­sten plainly expoundeth this sainge of Christ that is to say, this is my bodye, that is as mu­che to saye, as this is the signe of my body.The 3. boke. cap. 16. And in the third boke called de doctrina Christiana in the xvi. he sayth that if that thinge whiche Christ commaundeth shall seme strange inconuenient or euell done, then we ought not to, vnderstand such speach accordinge to the letter, but fi­guratyuely. And geuinge the examples of these words of Christ that is to say. If you eat not the fleshe of the sonne of man and drink not his bluod you shall not haue lyfe in [Page] you. He saith that such speche ought not to be vnderstand accordinge to the letter, because that vnderstanding it according to the letter it is a disagreable, and an inconuenient thin­ge, that is to say, that the flesh of a man sho­uld be eaten and his bluod dronk.

And therfore it ought to be vnderstand soundly that is to say, that Christ did not me­ane of the eating of his flesh and drinkinge his bluode fleshly but spiritually, beleuinge in him, and hauinge remembraunce of so great a benefit as he hath wrought vs sufferinge and dyinge for vs. And this is the eatinge and drinking, that Christ ment of. And to eat and drinke after this sorte, It nedeth not that Christ should be really in the consecrated bread and wyne,The thirty treatise vpō Ihon. but onely that the faith of Christ. should be in vs. ‘And in the xxx treatise vpon Iohn he sayth, The lord is aboue, that is to say in heauen, but the lord, that is, the tru­eth is also here. Christes body in the which he rose, must nedes be in one place, but his troth is euery where and he meaneth by the troth Christes godhead.’ ‘And in the epistle which he wryteth to dardanus he sayth he [Page 219] shall come for to iudge the lyuinge and the dead, in the self same forme that he ascēded into heauen, to the which forme, he hath seurly geuen immortalitie, but he hath not taken away the nature of it, we may not thinke that ac­cording to this maner of forme, that is to sai, mans, he should be spred abrode euery where. For we must take hede that we do not so affir­me his god head that we take away the truth of his body, for it followeth not that, that which is in god should be so euery where as god.’ Of these two saings of Austen the which before we haue also alledged, in the seauenth reason is concluded, that Austen wil not that Christes body may be in more then one place at one tyme, he will in dede that his god head should be euery where, but not his manhode, the whiche is in one onely place, that is to say in heauen.

The master of the sentences glosinge or els expounding certeyn sainges of Augustine in the fourth of his sentences the tenth distin­ction where he bringeth furth amongst his other sainges this:In the 4. of the sentences the tenth distinction. that is to say that Christs body may be in one place, but the trueth is [Page] spred abrode euery where: he sayth that Chri­stes body may be in one placeseable in mans forme, but his truth that is to say his godhed, is euery where.vpon Ihon the sixt. And he addeth the truth also of the same, that is to say, his very body is on euery aultare in euery place where men cele­brate. Sauinge his reuerēce this is not to set forth Austen mynd, but it is to geue it straū ­ge senses that he neauer ment and it is in dede a maiminge of his saings: Austē by that word troth, meaneth Christes godhed, the whiche is powred abrode euery where and doth not meane the bodye, and yet he doth notwithstāding expounde it for the body, the whiche is (as he sayth) on all the aultares where thei celebrat. And so he doth with many other saings of S. Augustine in the sayd distinction, and in o­ther, where he speaketh of the matter of the thanks geuing, mayming S. Augustines sainges, and calling those heretikes that say the contrary, that is to say, that hold not that Christes bodyly presence is in the sacrament. But we will let him glose at his will, and say what pleaseth him. And it is to be maruelled-at that he should so lightly and without rea­son [Page 220] pronounce these to be heretiks that speak nothinge contrary to gods word, but they do in such sorte honoure it, as they do not alow in the matter of religion and faith any more, then so muche as the same word speaketh not mindinge, to stand to mens opinions except they be agreable with the holy scri­pture. The master of the sentences here ge­ueth an vniust and a wicked iudgement.

But in the third boke of the trinitie,The third boke of the tri­nite. ca. 10. Augu­stine sayth that no myracle happeneth about the sacrament of Christes body and bluod. If it be so that according to Saint Augusti­ne, there chaunceth no myracle about that sacrament he then beleued not that Christ, shuld be bodelye in the sacrament, for if he had beleued it he wold neauer haue sayd, that there was no myracle, but he wold haue sayd, that there happened, many and most great myracles, as before in the fifth reason we ha­ue seene. Well it is playne then after Austens mynde, that Christ is not really in bodye and in soule in the sacramēt, but he calleth the cōsecrated bread ād wyne Christs bodye ād bluod [Page] because they be signes of his bodye and bluod not that they should be really and in dede his true body and bluod because he will that tho­se should be in heauen, and not on the earth in the sacrament. We might if we wold alledge, the other old doctours, as Ireneus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Ierome, and Chrysostome, all the whiche be of the self same opi­nion, but let S. Austen suffise vs, who amonge all the rest is the most faythfull witnes of all the auntientie, And this we do to be shorte, not withstandinge if any wold see these doc­tours sainges, let him loke vpon Ireneus, who herd Policarp. Ihō the Euāgelistes disciple, in the fourth ād fift boke that he maketh against heresies. Let him loke vpon Tertullian that was next to Ireneus in the first fourth and fift boke against Martian the heretike. Let him loke vpon Origen vpon leuiticus the seauenth and nynth homely. Let him loke vpon Ambrose in the eleuenth chapter vpō the first epistle to the Corinthians. Let him loke vpon Chrisostom in the 83. homelye vpon S. Mathew. Let him loke vpon Ierō vpon Ecclesiastes the thirde chapter, all whose sainges for shortnes I [Page 221] leaue out. Then it is playne that the opinion ād iudgemēt of the old churche,Marke. is that which before we haue proued. And we must here marke that the old doctours intēdinge in the­ir maner of speache to agree with the scripture, the which whan it speaketh of the Sacra­mēts doth name them by the name of the thinges signified very oftē when they treat of the same sacraments and chefely of the thanks geuinge, theical it many tymes bodye and bluod and they speak in suche sorte as it semeth thei meane to affirme the bodely presence of the body and bluod in the sacrament, a thinge that they neauer intended. The which thinge when the late wryters and chefely the schole men haue not taken hede to, they haue bolde­ly, setfurth the bodely presence of thone and thother in the sacrament, but they be de­ceaued, for so much as that was neauer the o­pinion of the Auntientes.

And if any one wold bringe furth the bo­ke of sacramentes ascribed to Ambrose, the which putteth this new opiniō of Christes bodelye presence in the sacrament. It may be boldely answered him, that that boke was neauer [Page] Ambroses, because that neyther the style of the speche was Ambroses nor the sentence, the which is contrary to many his sainges in his other bokes. Nor let no man maruell, thoughe I denye those bokes to be Ambroses, for many bokes were ascribed to the old doctoures that they neauer saw, much lesse made as that boke of the true and false repentance, ascribed to Austen, the which teacheth against Austen naminge him and yet certein haue attributed it to him. Certeine men of small consciences ha­ue done this other that they might better sell such bokes, or to make their opinions be beleued and to geue them auctoritie vnder the name of Auntients, or els for some other respe­cts scant honest. It is no small fault to go a­boute vnder other mens auctorities without their consent to make men beleue their opi­nions, as it is a great faulte that their laboure and bokes should be attributed to other. And I say more also againe, that althoughe all the old doctours were of suche opinion that is to say that Christ were bodely present in the sa­crament, we be not bounde, nor we ought not to beleue thē, If they proue it not by the holy [Page 222] scripture the which they neauer did nor it can not be done. And this is the signe, that as mani as eauer were of this opinion, could neauer hetherto mak reason that might auaile. If this bodely presence of Christ in the sacramēt, had bene true, it should haue bene a thinge much belonginge to faith, and the Apostolike wry­tinges wold haue made vs clere, and suere of it but we see that such a presence is affirmed in no one place of the scripture. Therfore it is not true but it is an inuentiō of mā, the which ought not to haue any place in gods thinges.

Now there remayneth to answer to their reasons that hold this bodely presēce of Christ in the sacrament. They make (as in the begin­ninge we haue sayde) many profes and rea­sons, but none auayleth. And we will not an­swer, but to three or foure, whiche haue a certeine small shew, for answeringe to these few it is an easy thinge to answer to all the other.

One and the first is this,The first reason. that is to say Chist calleth the consecrated bread his bodye and the wyne his bluod, therfore it is so that the bread is his body ād the wyne his bluod that is [Page] that the bread and the wyne, be turne into his bodye and bluod, or at the least be there really present, or els he should haue spoken a lye, the which cannot be, seing Christ is the vndeceaueable troth. This is the greatest rea­son that they can make, the which not with­standinge is nothinge worth, yea it commeth of an ignoraunce of the maner of speche of the scripture, or els if it come not of ignora­unce it procedeth of an obstinacye and self willednes because they desire to defend, whe­ther it be (accordinge to the common sainge) right or wronge, that which ones they haue affirmed, because thei wolde not seme to haue erred. I answer to this reason, and saye, that Christ sayd the troth and could not speake an vntroth, because he could not err beinge god. And it is true that the bread is Christes bo­dye and the wyne is his bluod, and I confesse it, but it is true as Christ ment it, not as they wold haue it. Christ when he sayd this is my bodye shewinge the bread, ād this is my bluod shewing the wine, did not entend, nor went not a bout to saye that that bread was really, and substantially, his bodye, and the wyne his [Page 223] bluod, but he ment to say that that bread and that wyne, were a sacrament and did signifie his bodye and his bluod: And he folowed the maner of the speche of the scripture, when he speaketh of sacramentes: you know well yno­ugh that Christ alwayes did honoure the ho­lye scripture, alledginge it very often, and prouokinge men to the same. And therfore becau­se he knew that the custome of the scripture is to name the sacraments, and call them, by the name of the things signified, and represented by them, he also desired to vse that maner of speche, callinge the bread and the wyne his body and bluod, because they did signifie both the one and the other, that is to say, he called the bread his bodye, because it did signifie his bodye, and the wyne his bluod because it did signifie his bluod, as before S. Augustine hath sayde.

That the custome of the scripture is to call the sacraments by the name of the thinges si­gnefied by them, it is easelye proued, and we haue alreadye sene it in the former talk. The circuncisiō, was a sacrament of the hebrewish people, and because it was a sacrament, the [Page] scripture doth call it couenaūt, because it was the signe of gods couenaūt made with Abrahā and his of springe, as it is written in genesis where god doth first call it, the signe of the couenaunt, ād after a few words, he calleth it the couenaunt. The couenaunt was this, that god wold be the god of Abrahā ād of his seed, that is to say, of his of springe. It is a plaine matter that the circuncision was not really this couenaunt, or promesse, and yet god doth call it couenaunt, because it was the signe of the coue­naunt, should we saye that the circuncisiō was in dede gods couenaunt because god called it by this name couenaunte? Sewerly no, but we must say, if we will saye well, that therfore god calleth it so, becaus the same is a signe of gods couenaunt, or els of gods promesse. And if ani should say what meaneth it that god did vse this maner of speche, Could not he vse the proper maner of speche and not the improper? To this I answer, that god often tymes vseth with vs the custome of men, because we be men and he agreeth to oure maner of speche, for so muche as the custome is amonge men, that they call the signes of a thinge, by the [Page 224] self same name, of the same thinge signified. As for example, If at any tyme we should make a couenaunt or an agrement with any man as sone as the agreement and couenaunt is made, we cause to be made, an instrument or a wrytinge of such agrement, and we call it couenaunt or els agrement, not that, that instrument is really such agreement (for the coue­naunt and agrement, went before) but becau­se it is a signe of such couenaunt and agre­ment So we call the wrytinge of a sale or of a purchase, a sale or purchase, because it is a signe and confirmacion of the sale or purcha­se. And we do call the wrytinge or the instru­ment of such thinges, testament, or legacie, or gift, because it is the signe and confirmaci­on of these thinges. Let vs geue an other example which also is of the scripture. In Exodus and in many other places, the ceremo­ny of the paschall lambe, is called passouer. And Christ and the Apostels did so call it. Christ sayd in saynet luke, I haue ernestly desired, to eat this passouer, before I suffer. Here Christ called the paschall lamb passouer. [Page] And the Apostells said to Christ, where willt thou that we prepare for the to eat the passo­uer. And for all that, the paschall lamb was not really the passouer, because the passouer as we haue in the same Exodus, was that passage (as it is also sayd before in the ninth rea­son) the which the Aūgell made whē he strake the first borne of Egypt, ād passed by the houses of the hebrues. Now that passage, was properly, the passouer. But because the lamb was ordeined, that it should be killed and af­ter eaten, with many ceremonyes in signe and remēbraūce of that thinge, therfore the scri­pture calleth it passouer.

Behold how the scripture calleth the sacramētes, by the names of the thinges represented and signified, why shall we maruell then that Christe did call the cōsecrated bread his body and the wyne his bluod, because they should be signes and a remembraūce of his body and bluod? We ought not to maruell, yea it is oure great rudenes and dulnes that we see not this thinge, and why he hath done it, that is to saie whye he calleth the bread his body and the wyne his bluod. Euery man sayth that the sacrament [Page 225] of thanks geuinge doth come in stede of the sacrament of the paschall lambe. And if it be so, seinge that the scripture and the Apostels call the same such lamb passouer yea Christ him self in the same supper when he in­stituted the sacrament of his body and bluod, called that lambe passouer, not for any other cause, but for that it was a signe and a remembraunce of the passouer, why should not the bread be called the body and the wyne the blu­od, because they be signes and a remembraun­ce of the bodye and the bluod: euen as the lambe is called passouer, because it is the signe and remembraunce of the passouer. And that rock out of which came furth the water in the de­sert, paule calleth it Christ, not for any other cause, but for that it did signifie Christ, nor there was neauer any men that bi such a sainge wold think that paule ment to affirme, that that stone was really Christ, but that he ment onely to say that it did signifie Christ. So likewise let vs saye of the bread and the wyne, that they be called body and bluod, because they be signes and a remembraunce of such thinges. We haue bene longe in answeringe [Page] to this reason because in dede the whole consisteth in this declaration that we haue made.

The second reason is this, If Christ were not really in the sacrament S. Paule wold not haue sayde that it should be condemnation to them that should take it vnworthelye, nor he wold not haue sayde, that such should be giltie of the lords bodye and bluod. For so much as that if Christ be not in the sacrament, there should not be any other thinge but bread and wyne, and beinge none other thinge there, it should not be to vs such condemnacion, as it is in dede no condēnation to eate other comē bread and to drink other wyne. To this is an­swered, that therfore paule sayth that they be giltye of the lords body and bluod, the which do take the consecrated bread and wyne and the sacrament vnworthelye, not for because that eather the body or the bluod be in the sa­crament, but they be therfore giltye of the one and the other, because thei dispise Christs de­ath thei dispise his body and bluod, not goinge with that faith and with that reuerence that they ought to take those holy signes Institu­ted by Christ in remembraunce of his body [Page 226] and bluod geuen to death for oure raunsome. In old tyme thei that did dispyse or dishonou­re the name or the glory of the Romane Em­pire thei were gyltie of treason against the state of Rome. And they that had done wronge to Cesars Image or els had defaced any of Ce­sars writings, This was as if thei had layd violent hands vpon the princes persone. He that wold dishonoure the armes or the badges, of any great state, that prince wold haue estemed such dishonoure and disworship to be cōmit­ted against his oune person, for when his bad­ges or els his Armes be dyspysed he him self is dispysed. So seinge that Iesus Christ the chefe prince of the world hath Instituted the sacramētall bread and wyne, to the intēt that that it should be a remēbraunce of so great a thinge, and should represent so great a misterye, that is to say, that hath geuen his body and his bluod, and dyed for to deliuer vs from sinn and from euerlastinge death, and to geue vs euerlastinge lyfe: Sewerly they that will take these holy signes withoute true repentaunce of there sinnes, and with­out [Page] true faith, and without consideration of so great a misterie and benefite they make no counte, nother of Christes body nor his bluod nor of his death, no nor of Christe himself. it is no maruell therfore, that they, who go to take such a sacrament vnworthelye, do eate and drinke Iudgement, that is to say condem­nation, because when they dispyse the signes of so great thinges, they do consequently dispyse the same thinges, and him also that did institute such signes. It is not proued by this that Christ is enclosed in this sacrament, but the contrary.

The third reason.The third reason the which semeth to ha­ue some shew is this, that is to say that if Christ were not here in this sacrament, there should not be wrought any such great myra­cles, as men see. Sometyme it is seen that the hostes haue cast out bluod and such bluod is kept in many places. It is red in the lyfe of Saint Gregorie, that the consecrated bread maruelouslye chaunged into a mans finger. It is red that that the brute beastes did knele doune at the presence of the thankes geuinge. And somtyme there apered a childe when the [Page 227] host was listed vp. What shallbe sayde to the­se great myracles, sewerlye if Christ were not in the sacrament god wold neauer haue wro­ught these great signes.

This reason is nothinge worth, and it is like the reason that they make, that defended purgatorie with saing that there was heard certaine lamentable voices of the soules of the dead which desired help of there parents or frends, that they wold cause to be sayd masses and chefely those masses that be called Saint Gregories, and as sone as they were sayd tho­se voyces were heard no more. It is told also in the lyfe of a certeyne seinct (but in dede a fry­ars saincte) that he saw ones a valley full of soules, the which desired help, and that seinct was moued to pytye of those poore soules. I leaue to you to thinke how many those soules ought to be, that filled that valleye, when he had sayd I cannot tell how many masses (be­cause I do not well remember the storye) he returned to se the vally and he found them no more there, because they were delyuered out of purgatorye. I do much maruell that all the soules in purgatorye went not thether into [Page] that vally that thei all might haue bene deli­uered by that sainctes Masses. Ergo there is a purgatorye. What will the lutheranes that denye purgatorye say here what will they saie? Thei that you call lutherans, will sai that you be a blynde sorte of superstitious, I will not sai ignoraunt Idiots of gods causes, and that you haue no faith in Christe, thinkinge that the materiall fier, can do that to the soules, that onely Christ hath done with his pretious blu­od that is to saye to purge them, and perfectly to satiffie gods iustice for all the sinnes of the beleuers. And they will saye that you deserue to be begyled, and mocked by the deuell, that leadeth you to think that the soules of the de­ad do lament and desire masses, and ye percea­ue not that he is the same wicked spirite, the which fayneth himself to be the soules of the dead, and desireth help, and caryeth aboute youre brayne, and maketh you beleue that glow wormes be lanternes, The soules of the dead go not a solasinge here ād there (as Chrisostome vpon S. Mathew, saith very well) but thei abyde in there places apointed vnto thē, those soules of the faithfull and godlye abyde [Page 228] with Christ, the other abyde in there place lo­kinge for there finall condemnation.

Euen so I saye of these maner myracles (thoughe thei weare in dede) that thei be no­ne other but illusions and disceyts of sathan, for to geue credit to the Masse, and to beinge to passe that we should not beleue sewerly in Christe. And god by his iust iudgement doth suffer these disceyts, because we will not receaue the knowledge of the troth nor be­leue the holy gospell. And for this most great sinne, he will that we shall beleue lyes, and be deceaued. Nor sewerly we deserue none other, but to receaue and allow Anti­christes myracles, as sainct paule sayth to the Thessalonicenses,2. Thess. 2. seing that we will not stand to gods worde. The holy scripture and gods worde ought without any doubt to be in much more credit with vs, then as many such myra­cles, the which in dede be all lyes, yea then as many myracles althoughe they be true, as can be wrought in the world. The whiche worde of god doth affirme and say that Christ Iesus is in heauen,Mar. 16. Luc. 24. and that from thence he shall come to Iudge the lyuing and dead, and [Page] there he shall abyde,Act. 3. as peter sayth in the Acts of the Apostels vntill the tyme of the restitu­tion of all thinges, and it maketh vs likewise to vnderstand that the sacramentes be signes, and be not the thinges signified, let vs take hede, and geue credit to these thinges that be clere and plaine, If we will not be disceaued, and not to the opiniōs and phantasies of mē, which be not founde in the scripture, but be clerely against them:

the fourthe reason.They make another reason, the which I wold haue sayd nothinge of, because it is all­ready answered, yet for so much as they brin­gein with the same, certeine examples or similitudes to geue a coloure to their opinion, of the which we haue not yet spoken we will saie of them a few words to the greather and mo­re plentifull clerenes of the truthe. They saye, that god can bringe it to passe, that is to saie, that whole Christ great ād thick as he was on the Crosse, should be in the sacramēt, and that he should be whole in euery parte of the same as the soule is whole in the whole bodye, and whole in euery parte of the bodye, and that he should be as man, in many places, in heuen on [Page 229] earth vpon all altares, and in euery other place where the sacrament of thanks geuinge is. He can turne one body into another, as shall seme good and lik him, because he is almighty, then he can make that the bread shalbe turned into his bodye, and the wyne into his bluod. Seing he could create the world of nothinge, he can much easelyer chaunge one thinge in­to another. They geue eyample of Moyses rodd, the which was turned into a serpent and then the serpent was turned againe into the rod likewise the waters of Egypt were turned into bluod.

Concerninge the being of whole Christ in the sacrament, as great and thick, as he is in heauen, they geue the similitude of the heauen which we see, the which being so great, is not withstandinge whole in oure litle eye. Like­wise oure whole face, apereth in a glasse that is much lesse then the face is, yea the whole man, is seen in a litle glasse. Concerning the being of whole Christ in euery parte of the sacrament, they gyue the similitude of oure soule, as we haue already sayd the which is whole in the whole and whole in euery parte [Page] of the body Oure face also is whole in the whole glasse and whole in euery parte of the glasse, after this sorte, that is to saye, that if the glasse should be broken in many partes, oure whole face wold apere in euery one of them. Concerning Christes bodely beinge in many places, that is to say in heauen, on the earth and in euery place where the sacrament is, they geue the similitude of a man the which should haue about him many glasses in eue­ry one of these glasses the forme of a man will apere. Likwise if one speak in the presence of many persons, his voice is but one, and yet it is whole in dyuers mens eares. If nature bringe this to passe, that is to saye, that one thinge may be in dyuers places, much more Christ who is god the maker of nature can bringe it to passe in his body, that is to saye that first the bread, should be turned into his bodye and the wyne into his bluod, and after, then that it should be whole in the whole ho­ste and in the cupp, and whole in euery parte of the sacrament, and that it should be in dy­uers places, If he can do those thinges, and will doo them, as we vnderstand by the words of [Page 230] the sacrament, the whiche say, this is my bo­dye shewing the bread, and this is my bluod sh [...]winge the wyne, then they be done, becau­se it is written in the psalme Quaecun (que) uoluit, fecit dominus, All thinges that the lord wold do he did.

I answer first to the reason it self, and af­ter I will speake of the similitudes, To the reason, that is to say if god can do it, therfo­re he hath done it, I say that it awayleth not, and it is already answered before in oure sea­uenth reason that god doth not all that he can do, as we geue the example of the twelue tho­usand legions of Aungels the which god if he wold, could haue sent to help Christ, and yet he sent them not. God can bringe to passe that we all maie walke vpon the sea without shippes as some tyme Christ did, And as it is written in the boke of wysdom, and yet he doth it not. Oure question is not whether god can do it or no, but it is whether god hath done it or no. Thei saiyes and we saye [Page] no, It belongeth to them to proue that he hath done it and that he doth it a fresh, the which they shall neauer do nor can neauer bringe it to passe by gods word, this is a suer rule. Con­cerninge that they go aboute to saye, that god had desire to do it, this is not onely false but most false. What reason is this, Christ sayd this is my body shewinge the bread, and this is my bluod shewinge the wyne, therfore he will that the bread should be turned into his body and the wyne into his bluod, or at the least that he should be in the sacrament, in such sort as they say? This reason doth not de­serue any answer, for so much as Christ by these words, ment not to saye any other but that the bread and the wyne, were a sacramēt and signes of his body and bluod and ment not to saye that which they affirme, as before we haue so often declared.

The exāples or similitudes that they brin­ge furth be not to the purpose, and thei be ra­ther dissimilitudes then otherwise. The exam­ple of Moyses rodd turned into the serpent, and after the serpent turned into the rod, and of the waters turned into bluod, it is not like, [Page 231] because the serpent,Note fur­ther that in turninge of Moyses rod, of the water into bluod and such o­ther myra­cles the sen­ses did wit­nes the cha­unge of the thinges, which hol­deth not in the transub­stantiation. into the which the rodd was turned, was not before, but was newly ma­de. Likewise that bluod into the which the waters were turned was newlye made, and was not before, but Christes body and his blu­od were and be, before the bread. They put certayne turninges against nature, not mar­uelous but rather monstrous and Imagina­tiue. Let them geue me but one example in the hole scripture, that god eauer turned one thinge into another that was before, they shall not fynde it. How dare they then be so bold to affirme such a thinge yea that which is more, to go aboute to make men beleue it as an article of the fayth and yet thei cannot ne­ather proue it by gods worde, nor bringe fur­th any example, that eauer any lyke thinge was done? The example of the heauen that it is in oure eye which is litle, is nothinge wor­the, because the heauē is not really in oure eye but there is onely the image or the similitude of the heauen the which similitude is litle, as the eye, nor it is not vnconuenient that the si­militude or the Image of a great thinge shuld be litle, as the Image of Cesar was in the coyne [Page] that was shewed to Christ by the pharisees, the Image of Cesar was in that coyne the whi­ch was much lesse then Cesar himself and ne­uertheles it did represent Cesar who was gre­at and much greater then that Image. We will say the like of the Image of the man in the glasse the which althoughe that it be muche lesse then the man, yet it doth represent the man. This is no great matter, that the Ima­ge of agreat thinge should be litle, but it sho­uld be agreat matter that agreater body sho­uld be conteined in one much lesse as they say of Christ, that great and thick as he was vpō the wood of the crosse, and as presently he is in heauen, he should be whole conteyned in a litle cake. They that geue these examples of heauen and of the thinges that be seen in glas­ses do not proue that agreat bodye is contey­ned in a litle as they say of Christ, that he is conteyned in the hoste, but they proue onely the Image or similitude of agreat thinge may be whole in a litle thinge, the which we denie not, but if the similitude or image of agreat thinge be in a litle thinge, this is because, that [Page 232] that Image it self also is litle and no greater then that body wher in it apereth, yea it is les­se, so that these exāples be not to the purpose.

To the other similitudes I say also that they auayle not, that of the soule that it sho­uld be whole in the whole bodye, and whole in euery parte of the bodye. This is because the soule seing that it geueth lyfe to all the bodye as it is playne, must nedes be in euery parte of the bodye for so much as that seinge it geue­th lyfe not onely to the whole body, but to e­uery parte of the same. It is necessarye that it should be in all the partes, because that if it were not in any parte, that parte should not be a lyue, And because that the soule, wheresoeauer it is, of necessitye it must be whole the­re being vndyuidable and not hauing partes because it is a spirite, there fore it is necessa­ry, that the soule be whole in the whole, and whole in euery parte of the body, but Christes body not being a spirite, and hauinge many partes beinge longe, brode, and thinke, cannot be whole in the whole, and whole in euery parte of the place where he is, and as it is repugnaunte, to a bodye to be a spirite [Page] so is it repugnant to it to be vndeuydhable in a place. To the other similitude of oure face, the which is whole in the whole and whole in euery parte of the glasse after this sorte, that is to saye, that when the glasse is broken, the I­mage of the face is in euery peece of the glas­se. I say they be deceaued, nor it is not true that one Image is in all those peeces of the glasse, when it is broken, but there be manye Ima­ges and so many as there be peeces of the bro­ken glasse, deuyded the one from the other. It is true in dede that they be like, but thei be not the self same as the self same bodye of Christ is in all the peeces, after their Imagination.

To the other two exāples with the which they wold proue, that one thinge may be in many places, I saye to the first, that is to saye, to that which saieth that the Image of one mā may be in diuers glasses, if a man were set a­boute with many glasses, for so much as that the Image of the same man shalbe in euery one of those glasses. I say that those Images that shalbe in dyuers glasses shall not be one onely but as many as there shalbe glasses, al­beit that they shalbe like, and therfore the [Page 233] example auayleth not, It had bene behouefull if it should haue auayled, that one self Image and no more should haue bene in dyuers glas­ses the which is false. To the last example the which sayth, that one self voyce is in dyuers eares, therfore one bodelye thinge may be in dyuerse places. I answer, that that voyce the which is heard is one and no mo, but I denye that the self same is in dyuers eares, yea I sai, that that which is earde is not in any eare but is in the eyre next to him that speaketh, It is true in dede that the similitude of the same voyce is there in their eares that heare, but that similitude is not one, but as many as the eares be that heare, and this is like the thinge that is seen. As for example, many eies see one fa­ce, and that face which is seene is no more but one, neuertheles in dyuers eyes that see the face, be dyuers Images and that Image that is in one eie, is not in an other. And so is it of the voyce, thesame is one, but it is not in the eares. And the Images be dyuers, which do represent the voyce that is in the ayre, and it is behouefull that those Images should be as many as the eares be which heare. I haue made [Page] this longe talke of these examples, the which peraduenture, to some shall seme superfluous yet I desired to do it, for to make the Vnlerned vnderstand that all the examples which they can bringe forth be not to the purpose.

Laste of all we will tell you one obiection that they make, that is to saye, Christ sayd that he whold be with vs vntill the end of the world this to be with vs here beneath, is for that he is in the sacrament, and dwelleth with vs, be­inge in the churches, Inclosed with in the pi­xes and litle closets. O poure and wretched people that will hyde Christe vnder lock and keye as the Iewes did, that thought to kepe him well in the sealed tombe, that he should not be stolen awaye. You haue kept him many hundreth yeres in such sorte shut vpp, that ou­re predecessoures could not see him, yet at the last (by gods goodnes) he is not onely come a brode, but he hath broken youre shettinges and doth shew his merye and godlye counte­naunce to his, that is to say to them that desi­re to see him and he hath put you in such fea­re [Page 234] that you wote not what to do, you wold yet ones againe Imprison him but there is no meane to do it. Do what you will, yea and can apoinct, deuyse, gather councells against him, folow youre foregoers that crucified him, per­secute and take his members, euell handell thē, make them rott in prison, as ye haue alredye made some of them, torment them after sun­drye and crewell whayes, and kill them, yet you shall not auaile. But by these meanes you shall make him more shyninge and glorious. It must nedes be o Antichristes that you sho­uld lose, stryuinge with him that is kinge of kinges, and lord of lords,

I answer them, that when Christe sayd to his disciples in the name of the whole churche I will be with you vntill the ende of the worl­de, he ment not to saye that he should be with vs in the sacrament, no, but he ment to saye that he wold be with vs, with his help that he would be with vs with his poure and with his spirite, to the entent that the Apostels, and af­ter the Apostells, we should not think whē he ascended into heauen, and as to the bodely [Page] presence, for soke the earth that he did forsa­ke both them and vs, or had no more care of vs, as to the helpinge vs. And therfore he sayd I will be with you vntill the end of the world, euen as the sonne although it be bodely in he­auen separate from the earth, yet as to the power ād help, ād as to do it good it doth not forsake it, because it geueth it light, it war­meth it, it maketh it springe, it maketh the trees flowre couereth and deckith them with lea­ues, it maketh them bringe forth frute, it hel­peth the generation of beastes, and it is as it were a lyfe, of all the bodyed thinges, So doth Christ notwithstandinge that he is in heauen, much higher thē the sonn, yet he doth not therfore forsake vs, but he hath suche care of vs, that he doth help vs, and worketh in vs, with his holie spirite and godly poure, much more noblye ād effectuously, then the sonne doth in all the bodyed thinges, because without him we can doo nothinge but sinne, and he helpeth vs muche more effectuously, then if he were on the earth. And therfor he sayd to his disci­ples, that it was expedient that he should a­scend into heauen, as it is written in Ihon. He [Page 235] lighteth vs inwardly, he conuerteth vs, tea­cheth vs, maketh vs stronge, geueth vs fayth, and loue, increaseth both the one ād the other, he geueth vs trust and hope in god, he geueth vs ioye and myrth in spirite, he geueth vs pa­cience and euery vertue. And to be shorte he worketh euery good thinge in vs, and fulfilleth euery thinge in all, as it is written to the E­phesians, where he his compared to the head,Ephe. 1 ād 4 the which powre thin and geueth vertue, strenght and workinge to all the members, ac­cordinge to the beinge of euery one of them. Be hold after what sorte Christs sainge is vn­derstand? And they that expounde it of Chri­stes presence in the sacramēt do not vnderstād it, yea I sai that thei do greatly diminish Christes meaning, because they draw doune the hartes of men, the which god and Christ wold, shuld be on hye and lifted vp into heauē. And this is one of the cheifest causes, why Christ Iesus wold ascend into heauen and not any longer be conuersant on earth, to thentent that they should folow the councell yea commaun­dement of paule, the which (as before in the eight reason we haue sayd) writinge to the [Page] Collossiās, sayeth, If you be risen againe with Christ,Colos. 3 seke the thinges that be a boue, where Christ is who sitteth on the right hād of god vnderstand you the thinges aboue and not the earthly thinges. And shose men do the con­trary, for they drawe vs doune alow and to the earth, sainge that Christ in the litle clo­seth and in the litle holes when we should ha­ue oure conuersation aboue and in heauen, and that we might saye with paule: Oure con­uersation is in heauen from whence we loke for oure lord Iesus Christ, who shall chaunge oure wretched bodyes and shall make them lyke to his glorious bodye.

We think, yea we be certayne, that thus farr we haue playnely proued, and shewed, manye wayes that Christ Iesus is not bodelye in the sacrament of thankes geuinge (or the lords supper as paule calleth it) and that there is muche lesse made in the same anye substan­tiall turninge of the bread and the wyne into his body and bluod. And we haue made it ape­re, that the opinions whiche affirme such thin­ges be false ād erroneous. There remayneth now in the end to see who were the auctoures [Page 236] of those strainge and phantasticall Imagina­tions, and wherby they were moued to fynde them oute seinge they be withoute all reason and contrarye to Christes mynd, and the who­le holy scripture.

I haue not yet heatherto bene hable to know, whan this opinion of the reall and bo­dely being of Iesus Christe in the sacrament, did beginne. It apereth that aboute the yere of oure lorde 877. or about the tyme of pope Iohn the eight or a litle before, men began to dispute about that matter. Iohn scotus an Englishe man, not he that was called sottell, but another more auntiēt, and wery worthye in lerninge, who florished in fraunce vnder Charles surnamed balde, made a boke against this new opinion of the sacrament, whose Iud­gement, shortly after, Beringarius of the coū ­trye of Turonne, and deacon of Aungee, follo­wed, a mā of singular lerninge, ād of holy lyfe who dealt all his goods to the poure, and ly­ued by the labour of his hādes as Platina wri­teth in the lyfe of Pope Iohn the fiftenth. But one lanfranck of pauia bishop of Canterbery in England, so much preuayled with his auctoritie, with Pope Leo the nynth and [Page] so much persuaded him, that in the councell of vercels, he caused the sayd Ihon scotusses bo­ke and berengarionses opinion who followed him, to be condemned. And it was ordeined in that councell that men ought to beleue not o­nely Christes presence in the sacrament, but the turning of the bread and the wyne into his body and bluod. And this was as Mat. palme­rius and Iohn lucidus Samothenus in the amendements of the tymes saye, in the yere of the lord. 1052. so that it is now iust. 500. yeares sence this new opinion of the turninge of the substāces of the bread and the wyne into Christes bodye and bluod was first determined.

Beringarius opinion of the sacrament, the which was condēned, as lanfrāck setteth it out in his booke made against him, is this. The sacrifice of the church is mad of. 2. things of the seeable and of the vnseeable, that is to say of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacra­ment. The which thing not withstanding, that is to say, the body of Christ, if it were before mens eyes, it should be seeable, but it is lifted vntill the tymes of the restitutiōs of all thin­ges vp into heauen, and sitting on the right [Page 237] hand of the father can not be called back from heauen, (as thapostell peter wryteth) be cause that the parson of Christ hath his being of god and of man, but the sacrament of the lords table is made of bread and of wyne, the which things consecrated be not turned, but abyde in their substances hauing lykelynes with those things whereof thei be a sacramēt. This true and godly opynyon of Beringarius the which, as we haue sayd before, [...]s the opi­nion of the old church, and is taken out of the holy scripture, was condemned in the forsayd councell of ve [...]selles. And afterward a nother tyme in Rome, by pope Nicholas the second, who compelled Beringarius to recant, and make a beastly and shamefull confession con­trary to his own true confession. Beringarius recantation is put in the decree of consecra­tion, the .ij. distinction, capite Ego berin­garius, where he confesseth and affirmeth that he beleueth with the church of Rome that the bread and the wyne, which be set on thal­tare, be not onely a sacrament, but also they be the true body and bluod of our lord Iesus Christ, and that he is not only in the sacramēt, [Page] but also in trowth sensually handled with the priestes handes, and is brokē in peces ād with the teeth of the faithfull is gnawed in to mor­sels. Doo ye think that this was a godly con­fession that they compelled this holy man Be­ringarius to make, the which confesseth that Christ is in deede sensibly handeled, that is to say towched, and broken with the priestes handes, and than after,This host was such one as beleued all things. that he is knawed in to morsels with the teeth of the faythfull? Me thin­keth that this confession is like vnto that bost of Bachanus that beleued to moch as it is said.

The gloser of the decree, to whom such a maner of confession semed strange and crewel saw this well ynough, and therfor he sayth, if thow dowst not after a safe sort vnderstād Beringarius words, thou shalt fall into a great­ter heresy than that which he had. The master of the sentences in the fourth, the .xij. distin­ction, myndy [...]g to glose the words of the sa­me confession, sayth, that the same (to be sen­sibly handled) may be referred both to thone and thother, that is to say to the body and to the sacrament of the body. But the same (to be broken in peeces and to be knawed into [Page 238] morsels, can not be said but of the sacrament only, A good glose that speaketh contrary to the text. This glose hath .ij. faultes. First it speaketh against the auctor, that is to say against the master of the sentences him self, who geueth it, because he will that Christ shuld be in the sacrament, vndyuydably, whole in the whole, and whole in euery part of the sacra­ment. If it be soo, how can he be towched and handled with the priestes handes? For somoch as that the thing which is handled, is felt with the hādes, and if it be felt, it must nedes be hote or cold, moist or drie, hard or soft, rough or smoth, who did euer touch Christes body syns it ascended into heauen, and dyd euer feele it whether it were whote could or of what qua­lytie it should be? If the master of the senten­ces had said that the withcommes of the bread and the wyne be handled with handes, he had sayd true according to his opynion, because that the greatnes of the bread, and the with­commes of it, may be felt with handes, but the withcommes of Christes body can not be felt. Therfor Christes body can not be handled with the priestes handes. Further if [Page] Christs body in the sacrament may be hand­led with handes, why should it not be seene? It is playne that euery thing that is felt, may also be seene, if it be not a thorow shewer as the ayer is. But who did eauer see Christ in the sacrament? Thother fault of thesame glo­se is, that it speaketh against the text. For the text of beringarius confession, sayth expresly, that not only the sacrament, but Christs body and bluod, be sensibly handled with the prie­stes handes, be broken and knawed to morsels with the teeth of the faithfull. These wordes cannot haue that sense, that the master of the sentences geueth them, because that the body and the bluod, be playnely spoken of, and he sayth in the text, that they be broken, and gnawed into morsels, with the faythfuls teeth.

Further it is not to be thought that they who were present at that confession, did vn­derstand the wordes otherwise thē according to the open and lettered signification. For so moch as that in confessions men must chefe­lye speake playnely, and not in such sort as it should be necessary to gyue them gloses and expositions, but thei ought to be opē, and [Page 239] many fast, and farr from any doubt. And so moch the more as they that compelled him to make that confession, did wirt it them selues as it lyked thē. It is sayd that a certen mā cal­led Humbertus cardinall of burgony, worded or if you will so call it, framed that confessiō, O Capernites: This is the honor that thei did to Christ, to constraine a poore mā to confes­se that Christ, who is immortall, and vnsufferable, should be sensibly handled, and broken with the priestes handes, and chawed and gnaued into morsels, with the teeth of the faith­full. Be these the councels gathered together in the holy gost? Let the master of the senten­ces, for all that, and as many other glosers a [...] be in the world, glose at their pleasure, yet thei shall neuer sett the matter well together. This thing is to doltish, yea it is a skorning both of the sacrament, and of Christ him self.

what the causes should be that haue mo­ued the deuysers of these opinyons of Christes bodyly presence in the sacrament, and of the turning of the bread and the wyne into Chri­stes body and bluod, to Imagin such things, I say, in my Iudgsment that they be chefely .ij. [Page] The first is the ignorance of the maners of speach of the holy scripture, because they we­re not exercysed in the same, and they did imagen, when Christ sayd this is my body, she­wing the bread, And this is my bluod shewing the wyne, that such a maner of speach cold not be true except that bread and that wyne, we­re substantially, and beingly, the very body ād the very bluod of Christ, or at the least, that the one and thother, that is to saie Christes body and bluod, were with in the sacramēt. Thei sawe that the words were clere, and on the o­ther side also, that the old doctours many ty­mes did affirme and call the breade and the wyne, body and bluod, they thought that that was the mynd, as well of the same doctor as of the holy scripture, the which thing notwith­standing was neuer so. And thei considered not that the same scripture whan it treateth of sacramēts is wōt to speak after that sort that is to say, to call the sacraments by the name of the things signified, as allredy we haue befor­certē tymes told, ād that the doctors likwyse folow the same maner of speach, this I think is one cause why thei did so vtter it. And to pro­ue this true, whā thei goo about to proue their [Page 240] purpose, thei alledge the saings of the doctors euel vnderstād, ād those words of Christ, This is my body, shewing the bread, ād this is my bluod shewing the wine, as though he had mēt to sai that the substāces of the bread ād wyne, shuld be turned into his body ād bluod. Not cō sidering that Christ speake, as the scripture is wont to speak whā it calleth the sacramēts by the name of the things signified. And therfor thei haue affirmed those their opiniōs to be thī gs ꝑtaining to faith, the which euery one sho­uld be būd to beleue, as an article of the faith. The foresaid lāfrāck in his boke of the sacra­mēt, the which he wrote against Beringarius saith we beleue, saith he, that the earthly substā ces the which vpon the lordes table be by the priestly ministery deuinelie hallowed, by the heauēly powr, be vnspeakably, vncōceiuably, ād meruelously turned in the veri essens, or beī gnes, of the lords body, the formes of the same things, and certē other qualy [...]ies being reser­ued. And he saith also, that the iust mā, who lyueth by faith, doth not labor to serchout with arguments, and to vnderstād with reson, after what sort the bread is made flesh, ād the wyne is turned in to bluod, beingly, the nature of [Page] the one and the other being changed, because he will rather gyue faith to the heauenly my steryes, to thentent that hereafter he might come to the rewards of faith, then leauing the fayth to be toyled in vayne, in conprehen­ding those things that cannot be comprehen­ded &c.

Thomas of aquyne in his hymne of the sacramēt of the lords body, ād bluod sayth the lyke, that is to saie, the word flesh, that is to sai, the sonn of god made man, with the word, doth make bread flesh, and the wyne is made Chri­stes bluod, and though the sense doo fayle to establish a pure hart, yet faith only is suffi­cient. And next after he sayth, let him put to faith as a help, for the fayling of the senses. These .ij. men wold that opinion should be beleued as an article of the faith, but if they haue beleued it, as an article of the faith, ād as the­ir wordes doo affirme, surely they haue sly­ghtly and euel fauordly beleued, because that nothing ought to be beleued as an artycle of the faith, except it be found expressely in the scripture. Let them tell me then, where is the scripture that they alledge? Where is gods [Page 240] word on which they grownd their faith? Sho­uld we beleue these doctours that make thear­ticles of the faith without gods word, that bilde their bilding vpon the sand and not vpō the sure rock? The first cause, I say, of such o­pynions, was the ignorance of the holy scrip­ture. The second cause without comparayson is moch wors than this, And parauenture it shall appeare to some that I am of an euell mynd, thinking so moch euel as I doo of the auctours of such opinions. But if thei will consider the disceightes, the craftes, and the nom­ber of abuses that be malytiously committed in the masse, thei will sai surely that I am yet to gentle, that I think not moch wors. What good cā be thought of the beginning of so gre­at an error, from whens doth procede so ma­ny inconueniences and disorders?

The second cause, I say, that I imagine, is this, that is to saie that thei desired to gyue credite to the priuate masse, that is to say to that masse, where he that saith it onely, taketh the sacrament and doth not deale it to the people. We must vnderstand that in old tyme, the masse was not said as it is now said, as before [Page] we haue noted in the bocke of the Anatomy: for so moch as that the masse then was no no­ther but the ceremony of the lords supꝑ, the which was dealt to the church, and the myny­ster did not take it alone as hath bene vsed frō certē hondreth yeares hetherto, against Chri­stes expresse ordynāce ād cōmaundement who sayd whan he did institute the sacrament, that thei should take it and dyuide it amōg thē, and not that one alone should receue it. Thei sawe that this mass was that wych made thē rych ād mighty: It multiplied the churches reuenewes ād in thend it made thē lyue in delytes, as be­fore in the boke of the anatomy in the chapter of the abuses of the masse, we haue sayd. And for to wyne thē credite, and bring to passe that the people should be inclined to thē, and shuld haue deuociō to thē, there could not be found a thing more to the purpose, then to geue men to vnderstand, and make the comō sort beleue that Christ shuld be in the sacramēt, and that there shuld be made a turning of the substan­ces of the bread ād the wyne into his body and bluod and to saie that there be so many myra­cles, and to make the thing so great and won­derfull. [Page 242] Thei were sure that if the people were persuaded that Christ were not in the sacra­ment, but that there were only the bread and the wyne, as holy signes, thei wold haue cared littell for it, nor they wold neuer haue beleued that the masse shuld haue so many vertues, as thei haue geuē to vnderstand. And thei sho­uld not haue had that vnmesurable gaine. ther shuld not haue bene drawen out of that gol­den well thoes infinite richesses. Let euery man that hath reason, and is without affection, consider ād he shal find as much as I sai to be true. This is a sure rule, if the people did not bele­ue Christ to be in the sacrament, and were not (I meane the people) bewitched with some strā ge Imagination, that thei wold make lytle co­unt of the masse. The popes that sawe this go­odlye inuention to be moch for their purpose thei after did, not only with their decrees and cōcels allowe it but they did bynd the Christian people beleue it, as an article of the faith.

I haue spokē of the first dyuisers of these o­pinions, what causes I thinck did moue thē to seke owt so strange Imaginations and so farr from the trouth. Of the other, that folowed next after, that is to say of the scholemen, [Page] I doo not sai soo. As for example of one Tho­mas of Aquine of Bonauāture, of Egidus Ro­manus and such lyke as were questionistes without noumber, and haue dysputed endles­lie on the master of the sentences and there­by intangled the world.

I think well that the first cause that is to say, the ignorance of the scripture did seduce them to beleue thus, because they did attend more to the wordly knowleges, and to the bo­okes of phylosophy, then to the holy scriptu­re. But I doo not beleue that any such malyce did moue them, as moued those first inuēters. It is true in deede that a nother ignorance made them to erre, that is to say, that when they sawe that the pope and the councels had so determined, thei Imagined that they were tyed and bound, to beleue all that that thei had appointed and ordeyned to be beleued of all the faithfull. And therfor thei haue affirmed this opiniō as an article of the faith, thinking they should haue bene heretikes if they sho­uld haue holden any other wyse. And to pro­ue this true, certen of them, and among the rest, Thomas of argētyne the heremyte, in the [Page 243] fourth, the .xi. distinction, saye that before the article of the turnkēding was determyned by the church, It was no heresy to sai the contra­ry, that is to sai, that the bread and wyne re­mayne after the consecration. This is that which deceyued them, the popes auctorytye, whom they thought was Christes lefetenant, and that euery thing that the see Apostolyke and those councels determyned, was an oracle, against the which it was not lawfull to spea­ke, the poore soules not vnderstanding, that no man is bound in matters perteyning to fai­th, to beleue eyther pope or councles, but so farr as gods word speaketh, from the which if they swarue, though there should come an angel from heauen, we should not be bound, yea I say, we ought not to beleue him, as paul sayth, writing to the galat. And if we haue particular reuerence to any councels,Gala. 1. it is be­cause that in their determinacions, they agree with the holy scripture, which ought to be the paterne, ād the rule, to all the mē in the world And therfor we haue in specyall worshyp those .iiij. councels, that is to say the councel [Page] of Nece, in the which the error of Arrius was destroyed, the councel of Constātinople, ga­thered together against Eunomius and Mace­donius, the first councel of Ephesus where Nestorius was iudged ād condēned, the coūcel of Calcedō in the which the wickednes of Euty­ches and dyostorus, and certen other were re­proued, because thei haue not spokē nor deter­mined any further, then is conteined in the holy scriptures. But if that men, (let them be of what so euer knowlege, holynes and auctoritie ye will), shall not bring furth, in gods things, the holy scripture, we ought not to beleue thē nor all the whole world to gether can not make a man to beleue a thing as an article of the faith, except it be conteyned in the holy scri­pture.

A short re­hersall.It is tyme now that we knyt vp the some of this present sermon in the which this article that is whether Christ be really and bodyly in the sacrament of thanks geuing or no, is largely examyned. And first we haue sene how there be in this article .ij. principall Iudgemēts or opinions. The first saith that Christ in bo­dy [Page 244] and in soule, great and thick as he is presently in heauen, is whole in the sacramēt. And this opinion is diuided into ij. For some say that not only Christ is in the sacrament, but that the substance of the bread and wyne be turned into his body and bluod, and that there remaineth no more, eyther bread or wyne, but the only withcōmes of the one and the other. Some other sai that Christ is really in the sa­crament but the substances of the bread and wyne remayne, and that there is made no tur­ning in them. And we haue seene the obiecti­ons where vpon this their fantasy is ground-wrought.

Thē next we haue put the secōd opiniō the which we hold, and sure beleue is catholik and godly, and it is this, that is to sai, that the substances of the bread, ād wyne, doo not only remaine in the sacrament, but Christ is not there bodyly presēt of any maner of sort, but as mā he is onelie in heauen, where he sitteth on the right hād of the father frō whence he shall come to Iudge the liuinge ād the deade,The first reason. as tharticle of our faith doth sai. And this opinion we haue proued with many reasons. First by the definition of [Page] a sacrament, the which is none other but a si­gne of an holy thing, and it is not nedefull for to be a sacrament, that Christ should be really as man in the same, and moch lesse that there should be made any substantiall turning of the bread and the wyne. It suffiseth that the bread and the wyne, be there as signes of his body and bluod.The 2. reason. Then next, seinge that this sacra­ment was instituted only for remembrance, it suffiseth that it doo bring vs in remembrance of Christs body and bluod geuē for our raunsominge And it nedeth not to put there the bo­dyly presence of thone, or of thother, for so moch as that the right of no sacrament either in generall or particular requireth thys &c.

The third, seing the spirituall eating of Christ is only profitable and not the bodyly,The 3. reasō. If Christ were as man in the sacramēt he sho­uld help nothing.

The turnekindinge of the bread and wyne into Christes body and bluod,The. 4. re. cannot stand to­gether with certen playne and many fest ef­fects, which be sene that is to say, with the [Page 246] noryshing, because the sacramēt doth norish as other bread and wyne doth, and with thin­genderyng of certen beasts as magots or such like beastes, the which things cannot be made, admitting this turnkynding of the bread and the wyne, in to Christes body and bluod.

The fift if any such thing were, god with out any maner of nede shuld work some,The fift rea­son. yea many most stonishfull myracles, such as was neuer the greater.

The syxt, it should not be necessary that Christ on the day of iudgement should come down frō heauen,The syxt re­ason. but that he shuld stepp out of the sacrament, seing he is here, moch nerer on earth then in heauen.

The seuenth,The seuenth reason. the opinion of Christs bodyly presence in the sacrament, dymynisheth the truth of his body, and maketh it phantasticall yea nothingeth it.

The eyght,The eyght reason. The surs [...]m corda which is song in the masse, geueth to vnderstand that in old tyme Christs bodyly presence in the sa­crament was not beleued.

The nynth,The nynth reason. If forbecause Christ sayd this is my body, shewing the bread, and thit is my [Page] bluod shewing the wyne, the bread and the wyne shuld be turned into his body and bluod or els that the body and bluod shuld be there present, seing there be many other speaches in the scripture like vnto this, it shuld be behoue full that the lyke shuld be done in all those, from whens wold folow many inconueniences.

The tenth reason.The tenth, seing that Christes flesh can not be eaten, nor his bluod droken, but after .ij. sortes, that is to say, spiritually by fayth, and sa­cramentally. And this may be done without the bodyly presence,1. Chor. 10. as the auncients did eate and drink him before that he toke mans fleshe as paul saith wryting to the Chorynthyes there is therfor no necessytie to affirme that bo­dyly presence in the sacrament.

Then further all though that we shuld bringe forth no reason for vs, it belongeth not to vs to proue our negatiue, but it belongeth to them that affirme such a being there, to proue their affirmatiue, the which thei did neuer, nor can not doo by any saing of the scripture. We haue after also, made appeare that our oppinion is of thold church and chefely, Augustines. And we haue answered to the obiections [Page 264] of the contrary opinion, making it apparant, that, they be vneffectuall, vnpithye, and weak to proue their purpose, declaring the maners of speach that the scripture vseth when it tre­ateth of the sacraments. In the end, we haue added from when the false Imaginatiō of that maner error is proceded. And we haue bene long in treating of this article, and we haue made many moo wordes than we thought, and haue repeated the self things often, and haue somthing exceded the measure of a sermon, for the which thing the readers shall haue me excused. We haue cōsidered first that the thing was most wayghty, and worthy to be well ex­pressed, the which could not be done with few wordes. Then further also, the error was so cōfirmed and after such sort rooted in the myndes of the people, that it could not be pluckt vp nor rooted out, without (as it is comonly said) moch digging, and deluing. And therfor it was necessary for vs to be long, and para­uenture somthing tedious to the lerned, neuertheles this labor is chefely taken for the vnlerned. Well, it suffiseth that this our purpose was vpright and that we toke not vpō vs this [Page] entreprise for no nother end, but for gods honor, and for the loue, and defence, of the truth. And last of all to doo good and help to the simple Christians, who haue bene so long tyme drowned in so great an error, and deceiued by the suttle and wicked Antichrist: Whō let vs all praye vnto god with a good hart ād continually, that he will so roote owt, and plucck vp (or to speak better) destroie (sauing allwayes not withstanding the men to whō we desire all good) I sai, euen destroie as the lytle stone did that great Image which Nabucho­donosor sawe, in his dreame, that is to sai, that he will make him vtterly vanysh away, and be come nothing, to the entent, that gods finall ād perfite kingdome mai come thorow Christ Iesus his son our lord and redemer, to whō be honor and glory world without ende Amen.


Faults escaped in the printing and corrected after this sort. Take lea. for the leafe. A for the first side. B for the secōde side. Ly. for the lyne: R for read.

Lea. 2. b. ly. 8. headolugnes. r headlongnes. Lea. 4. a. ly. 21 opinious. r. opinions. lea. 6. b. ly. 1. ehyrch r. church. lea. 9. b. ly. 18. strst first. Lea. 12: b: ly: 1: euy. r: any. lea: 11 b. ly. 20 Hollis: r. holies lea: 21: a: ly: 2. vpistle: r: epistle 6. ly. 13: soruant: r: seruant. lea. 25: b: ly. 13 and the blud: r: and the winne the bluod: lea: 35: b. ly. 20 glorios: r. gloriousnes. lea 36: a ly: 11. tedyosnes: r. tediousnes: lea: 40: b. ly. 8. ho: r: hoc. lea: 42: a. ly: 26. poinctt. r: poinct. b. ly. 20. cōsecrationi, r. consecration. lea: 49: a. ly. 24 ony: r: any. lea. 54: b. ly: 16. wat. r. was. lea. 60. a. ly. 8: mades. r. made. and for Cōsecrauyon. r. cōsecration, lea. 65: a: ly. 16. no: r. not ly. 25. superstitos. r. superstitious: Lea. 67. a ly. 18. tho. r. to. lea. 68: a li. 5. thert. r. there. l. 17. fom: r: from. lea. 74. a. ly. 16 byleuers r: beleuers, and all waies after. lea. 72: a. ly. 10 he fore. r. before. lea. 77: a: li. 19. candache. r candace: lea. 81. b. ly: 26. crimin: crimine. lea. 88. a. ly: 21: offied: r: offered. lea: 94: b: ly. 12. [Page] passhion. r: passion. lea. 111. b: 21. except. r: ex­cept: lea: 115: a: li: 1: song: r: soung. ly. 2. rong r: roung. lea: a: li. 2. misfortutune: r. misfortune lea. 118: b: ly. 11. apostos. r. apostles.

Lea. 120. ly. r. super. r. supper. lea. 121. b. ly. 22 Now he he: r: Now. he. lea. 122: a: ly: 19: para­uentur. r. perauenture. le. 124. a: li. 12. thes. r. those. lea: 125: b: ly. 13. the chefe greatest miste ry: r: the cheefe mystery. lea. 126. a. li. 15. the lawe. (I speak: r: the lawe. Nor there is no sinn but that is against gods lawe. but gods law. (I speake. lea. 126. b. ly. 7. haue heuier sinnes. than: r: haue heuior sinnes, then mans laugh­ter, then. lea: 127: a: li. 5. Idolatros: r: Idola­trous. li. 9. thcik: r: thicke. li: 13. in them: r: in it lea. 127: b: ly: 8: benefice: r: benefite. lea: 128. a. ly: 18: ame: r. same.

Lea. 131. a. li. 19. saint or saintes. r: saint or sainctess. ly. 20: S. loreto: r: loreto. b: ly. 6: sa­y here? will [...]. say here? be these Idolatreis, how can thei de [...]ey it? will.

Lea. 131. b. ly. 9: Hiperdulia: r: Hyperdulia lea: 137: a: li. 5. wis. r. with. lea. 138. a. li. 13: fo­low done a nother: r: folowed one an other. lea 156: a: li. 22. and, and. r. and. lea. 174. b. ly: 19. [Page] mas: r: masse. lea. 177. a. li. 7. couered with. r. couered, wear couered with. b. ly. 1. crafft. r. craft. and lykewise in other places. lea. 178: a. li. 14 eschew. r. issue. and generally read for off, of: for thos those. for thes these: for couerid couered, and for such other in vid, read cōmēly ved. and often for ans or ens read ance, or ence as for importans, read importance, and for re­uerens, reuerence, and often for or, read our, as for sauior, read sauiour, and for byleuers all­ways beleuers, and commenly for os, read ous or ose as the word geueth, as for gratios read gratious, and for purpos read purpose.

Lea. 180. a. l. 8 yoie. r. ioy. 182. b. ly. 15 trewe. faults in the sermom. read true, and 185. b. li. 9. who euer. read who­soeuer 186. a. li. 15. remembrans. read remem­braunce and after.

187. a. ly. 18. substans read substance. 188. b. li. 5. body lithere. read bodyly there. 192. a. li. 7. dewe read. due. 193. a. il. 3. euerlasting: read. euerlasting. 193. b. li. 17. be beleweth. read bele­ueth. 194. b. li. 15. seane read seene. 196. b. l. 14 blode. r. bluod. 199. b. l. 3. satisfing: r: satisfiing 205. a. l. 25. whē should. r. when thei should. 222. b. l. 1. turne read. turned. and 228. a. li. [...]. beinge. r. bringe 225. b. li. 5. shose. r. those.


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