IT is no maruell if they which haue bene nouriſhed vnder the Maſſe euē from their childhode, are greatly offended when they heare the ſame blamed and condemned as a falſe ſeruice by the which God is diſhonoured and blaſphemed, ſeing that the ſame hath bene accompted heretofore for the moſt holy thing that euer was in the worlde, ſince the firſt creation thereof. And in deede they ſhould haue iuſt cauſe to be offended in that behalfe, if the reaſons which cauſe them to haue ſuch opinion of the holines thereof, were ſo certaine & true as they thinke them to be, and cauſe them ſelues to beleue, for ſo much as they haue bene ſo inſtructed. For firſt they haue bene taught that it was inſtituted and celebrated by Ieſus Chriſte him ſelfe: and afterward continued by his Apoſtles, & conſequently by al their ſucceſſours from age to age, euen from the firſt inſtitution of the ſame euen vntil our time. And then they do conſider the matter whereof al the pieces of the ſame are compoſed, the which they doe thinke to be all taken out of ye holy Scripture, becauſe that ſome of thoſe pieces are taken from thence. And therefore they ſay, Haue you not in it the Epiſtle & the Goſpell, and the Pater noſter, and the Credo? Are not theſe good things? Beholde then three reaſons of very great apparauntes which they doe alledge for them ſelues, of the which the firſt is taken of the inſtitution of the Maſſe, and of the authour of the ſame: and the ſecond of his long continuance, which is as they thinke euen from the death and paſſion of Ieſus Chriſte vntill our age: & the third is taken of ye matter of the good and holy wordes & things whereof it is cōpoſed. If all theſe reaſons were true and well grounded vpon trueth, they were worthy of great accompt. For, for the firſt, how great a crime is it to reiect and condemne the ordinaunces of the Sonne of God? And afterward what a pride were it, to make ſo ſmall accompt of the common conſent of the whole Church of God, and of ſo many holy men, and of ſo long a time? And on the other ſide ſhoulde they bee accompted for Chriſtians which do reiect the expreſſed word of God?

SEeing then that they alleadge ſuch reaſons, & that they giue them ſo goodly a ſhewe, it reſteth nowe to conſider whether they bee true or falſe. For if they be true, they haue then wonne their proceſſe. But if they be falſe, they may not finde it ſtraunge at all, if that a man doe diſcouer the falſhod which hindereth the knowledge of the truth of this matter. And therefore ſo farre forth as it toucheth the inſtitution of the Maſſe, and the authour of the ſame, we doe firſt aſke them what it is that they do vnderſtand by this word Maſſe: for if they vnderſtand by the ſame the Sacramēt of the holy ſupper of the Lorde, we will eaſely graunt them that Ieſus Chriſt him ſelfe did inſtitute and adminiſter the ſame holy Sacrament, and gaue commaundement to his Apoſtles, and to all their true ſucceſſours to do the like, euen as he did in the inſtitution and adminiſtration of the ſame, and that they haue done it according to the cōmandement which was giuen vnto thē. But if they vnderſtand by this worde Maſſe, ſuch a ſeruice as is that which at this day is ſo called, in the Church that is called Catholike Romaine, wee do not onely then not graunt that Ieſus Chriſte did euer inſtitute that Maſſe, nor that euer the Apoſtles or their true ſucceſſours did euer celebrate ſuch an one, but yt which more is, we ſay, that ſo farre of it is that ſuch a Maſſe may be the holy ſacramēt of the ſupper inſtituted by Ieſus Chriſt, that on the contrary, the ordinance of the Lorde is there wholy ouerthrowē, with the whole forme of the holy ſupper and of the diuine ſeruice which hath alwayes bene obſerued in the true ancient Church, by meane of the reaſons which I will anon yeelde.

THus much touching the foundation of their firſt reaſon, which is the ſtrongeſt & the moſt apparant that they haue. For if they cannot ſhew that their Maſſe is of the inſtitution of Ieſus Chriſt, and of the ordinance of God, it muſt then neceſſarily be placed amongſt the inuentions and traditions of men, by the which God him ſelfe doth witnes, not onely by the mouth of the Prophet Iſai, Iſai. 29. Mat. 15 Mark. 7 but alſo by that of his own ſonne Ieſus Chriſt, that he is ſerued in vaine. Wherefore, if this firſt foundation be already ouerthrowen, the ſecond which is founded vpon the ſame, will alſo be forthwith ouerthrowen. For if Ieſus Chriſt did not inſtitute ſuch a Maſſe, nor his Apoſtles & their true ſucceſſors did euer celebrate or knowe ſuch an one, at the leaſt for the time of ſix hundreth yeres after the aſcenſion of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt: where is that whereupon they will builde the auncientie thereof, and the long and cōtinual ſucceſſion, and the common and publique conſent of all the Church, for ſo long a time wherewith they make them ſelues ſo great a buckler? It is here then needefull to enquire, and to conſider what difference there is betweene the Sacrament of the ſupper ordeined by Ieſus Chriſte, and that which is called the ſacrament of the Altar in the Romiſh Church, and how long time the holy ſupper of the Lorde did remaine whole and perfect, and when it began to be changed, corrupted, ouerthrowen, and conuerted into the ſame faſhion that it nowe is in the Maſſe of the Romaine Church. For their owne doctours can not deny but that ſince the time of Ieſus Chriſt and of his Apoſtles, and of the firſt and moſt auncient Chriſtian Church, they haue chaunged and added much to the firſt inſtitution of the Lord, and in the forme of the adminiſtration of this holy Sacrament the which the Apoſtles did vſe. For this cauſe no one, but the moſt ſhameleſſe amōgſt thē dare ſaye openly, that Ieſus Chriſt did ordeine & make the Maſſe, but they ſaye that he gaue onely the matter, and that afterward the Church gaue it the faſhion by the ſucceſſours of the Apoſtles, & chiefly by the Romaine Popes, wherein they doe greatly honour the ſonne of God. For if it be ſo, he did but rough hewe the worke, whereof he left the matter confuſed and euill poliſhed, as a firſt purtraiture rude and not poliſhed, leauing the thing to be better poliſhed, adorned and brought to perfection by thoſe which ſhould come after him, the which worke was not made perfect by one or twoo workmen only, but by a great number as they them ſelues do witneſſe. For they are not ſo ſhameleſſe that they dare affirme that it was made or perfected, neither by one workman onely, but by many, nor at one inſtant, nor at one onely time, but in ſundry ages.

THoſe which dare not make Ieſus Chriſt the authour, do attribute the faſhion of it, ſome to Saint Iames, others to Baſile the great, and ſome other to Gregorie the firſt. And in deede they doe ſet forth diuerſe formes of Maſſes, the one ſorte Greeke, ye other Latin maſſes, which are greatly different amōg thē ſelues. As touching ye Greeke Maſſes they do againe ſet forth diuerſe formes, the one of Baſile, the other of Chryſoſtome. And as touching that of Chryſoſtome, they do not ſet forth onely one forme, but two at the leaſt. And as touching the Latin maſſe, the principall honour whereof they giue to Gregory the firſt, how many craftes men haue there bene which haue laid their handes vnto it, euer adding ſomething the one to ye others inuentions, according as their owne doctours & the hiſtorians of the Romaine Church do witneſſe? And after the time of Gregory the firſt, how many pieces haue bene added vnto it? and how long a time was it before it was ſuch an one as it is at this preſent? How thē is Ieſus Chriſt the author, or Saint Iames, or any other of the Apoſtles? And how did the Apoſtles ſing and celebrate the maſſe, the one in one countrey, and the others in others, as many of the Romaine doctors doe boldely and aſſuredly affirme without any ſhame at all, cleane contrary to the euidēt teſtimonies as wel of the holy ſcriptures, as of their owne doctors & hiſtorians, which giue teſtimonie of all the peeces that euery one of the ſaid craftes men which haue wrought in the ſame worke haue added thereunto. Whether their teſtimonies be true or no, I will not now enter into diſputation of it. It ſuffiſeth that thoſe which do vpholde the Maſſe do vouch them, and that by their own teſtimony, the which they doe receiue, they are conuinced that there was no ſuch maſſe as there is at this day in the Romaine Churche, not onely in the Apoſtles time, neither alſo in a long time after their daies. •• maunde How then commeth it to paſſe that the Apoſtles could ſing and celebrate the maſſe before that it was made or borne? If they take the maſſe for the ſupper, I will willingly graunt, that all the Apoſtles and their true ſucceſſors haue often celebrated the ſame: But it was in the ſame maner that Ieſus Chriſt did inſtitute and adminiſter it, & not in the ſame maner that it hath bene ſince diſguiſed and conuerted into maſſe, and ſuch as nowe it is celebrated in the Romaine Churche: wherefore it is a great filthines or too great a malice, ſo to diſguiſe things, to make the poore ignoraunt people to beleeue that the maſſe is of the inſtitution of Ieſus Chriſt and of his Apoſtles, and that they them ſelues ha • e celebrated the ſame, and that euen from their time it hath alwayes bene obſerued in the Church, ſuch as it is at this daie in the Romaine. For it is an ouer filthy and ſhameles lye.

IT muſt then be that the Romaine doctors confeſſe, that the Maſſe which they do now call the Maſſe, is farre different from that which they affirme to haue bene ſaid and celebrated by the Apoſtles and their true ſucceſſours. And if they do replie that it is the ſame in ſubſtance, and that there is no difference, but in reſpect of the ceremonies and ornamentes wherewith it hath bene adorned and enriched ſince that time, by the ſucceſſours of the Apoſtles: we muſt yet ſee whether it be ſo or no. Behold then one point which ſtandeth yet in queſtion: whereupon it muſt be conſidered whether ye Maſſe, ſuch as it is at this day, be in ſubſtāce the holy ſupper of Ieſus Chriſt or no, ſuch as he him ſelf did inſtitute & adminiſter, & his Apoſtles and his true Church did receiue from him, and did celebrate according to his ordinance and cō maundement. For our chiefe controuerſie is not for the wordes or for the names, but for the thing it ſelfe & the very ſubſtance thereof, for the which we are at controuerſie. Wherefore when we ſhal agree vpon the ſubſtance, we ſhall then eaſely agree vpon the accidentes & names, ſo farre forth as the thing which they do ſignifie, be conteined in the holy ſcriptures, and in the Lords ordināce, as we do it in the name of the trinitie and of Sacrament, and ſuch like. For albeit that the very ſame wordes are not founde either in the olde teſtament, or in the newe, yet for all that we doe receiue them, for ſo much as the things ſignified by them are therein conteined. Wherefore it would be vncomely and of ſmall edification to debate vpon names and wordes, when men are agreed vpon the things that they would ſignifie by theſe ſame. It reſteth now that we vnderſtand the one the other, and that we do agree vpon the ſenſe according to the which we ſhall take the wordes which we ſhall vſe. •• ndry ••• nes of 〈◊〉 ſupper. As touching the Sacrament whereof we do nowe ſpeake, it is called by Saint Paul, ſometime the table, an other time the ſupper of the Lord, and alſo the Communion and communication of the body and of the blood of the Lord. Seeing then that the holy Ghoſt hath giuē vnto it ſuch names & titles by this holy Apoſtle, it is then the ſureſt and the beſt to vſe the ſame. This notwithſtanding, if the Romaine Catholiques will call it both Maſſe and Sacrament of the Altar, we will not greatly ſtriue for it, prouided that we do agree in the principal point of our different.

IF then they be able to ſhewe that their Maſſe is in ſubſtance the very ſupper of the Lorde, and their ſacrament of the Altar his very table, our ſtrife is ended. For we will neuer ſtriue againſt the trouth, when they ſhall make it appeare vnto vs by good and ſure teſtimonies of the worde of God, the which is reueiled vnto vs by the ſcriptures. But if they cannot ſhewe the ſame vnto vs by this meane, and that we be able to ſhewe them the contrarie by the ſame meane which wee require of them, to wit, that the Maſſe ſuch as it is at this day, is not only not the very table and ſupper of the Lord, but is wholy cōtrary to the ſame, we beſeech them that they woulde not reſiſt the manifeſt truth, but that they giue glory to God, and do ſuffer that their Maſſe be ſo reformed according to the ordinance of Ieſus Chriſte, that as it hath bene peruerted into the ſame, euen ſo the ſame may be reſtored againe to ye true forme which he gaue to his holy ſupper, and was obſerued in the auncient Church. And then when that ſhalbe done, which is ſo iuſt and reaſonable that nothing can be more, all the controuerſies ſhalbe ended, and they ſhalbe no more deuided nor banded the one againſt the other for the ſupper and for the maſſe: wherein euery mā may iudge whether we demaunde any thing that is not very iuſt and very reaſonable, and whether they may iuſtly refuſe the ſame. It reſteth yet that I do declare the principall reaſons which doe hinder vs from the accepting of ye maſſe, ſuch as they do ſet forth vnto vs for the true ſupper of the Lorde, and for what cauſe we may in no wiſe receiue nor accept the ſame, but are cōſtrained to reiect it, as a thing which cannot agree with the true Chriſtian religion, if there be not ſuch reformation that it be no more that which it is at this preſent, but that it be the true ſupper of the Lorde, ſuch as it is ſet forth vnto vs by the Euangeliſtes and the Apoſtles, who are ſure and true witneſſes of the doctrine and of the ordināces and workes of Ieſus Chriſt their maſter, who did chuſe and call them to that office.

BUt before that I doe expounde theſe reaſons throughly, I will yet touche one point, concerning that which hath bene ſpoken of the good and holy wordes which are in the maſſe. I do not deny but it is ſo: but I do anſwere further,Of go •• 〈◊〉 that it is not enough to haue good wordes taken out of holy letters, except they be wel applied to their true vſe, and to that ende whereunto they ought to ſerue. For if it were not ſo, a man might by the like reaſon allowe, not onely the charmes and enchantments of Charmers, Sorcerers and Enchanters, but alſo the Alchoran of Mahomet, and the doctrine in maner of all the heretiques. For there be many good & faire words takē out of the holy ſcriptures, and faire names of God and of Ieſus Chriſte our Lord. And if the croſſes might ſerue to the holineſſe of the things with ye words, they haue ordinarily many in charmes & inchantments. It is not enough then to haue ſuch words,Inſtru •• tion. if the right vſe of them be not had with them. And further it muſt be ſeene whether there be any thing mingled with them, which doth corrupt them, as doth poyſon good meate which otherwiſe is of it ſelf good. For there needeth no great quantitie of poyſon to corrupt the beſt meates of the worlde, and the better that the meat is, the more daungerous is the poyſon which is hidden vnder the ſame, for ſo much as it is very hard to diſcouer it, and that men are the more prouoked to take it. Wherefore ſo farre of is it from letting ye poyſon to be any more poyſon, that it maketh it more daungerous, & more mortall, if that the poyſon be not expelled by a contrapoyſon. It is not then altogether to ſee if there be faire and good words in ye maſſe taken of ye holy ſcriptures: but we muſt yet conſider whether there bee any poyſon, falſe doctrine, and mens tradicions mixed with them. And if there be any ſuch, a man may profite nothing at all by it, but may be hurt thereby, if the ſame poyſon be not taken away and expelled by his contrapoyſon, the which can not be taken but of the pure word of God. And therefore the controuerſie vpon ye which we are at this preſent, reſteth yet in this, to witte, whether al the meat which is ſet forth to vs in ye maſſe, be wholy good, or whether there be poyſon mixed with the ſame: if it be al good, then may there none of it be reiected: if there be poyſon, no man may receiue it without danger and perill.

ANd euen as good meate doth not let but that poyſon is alwaye poyſon, and maketh it more hurtfull: euen ſo the good and holy wordes doe not let at all, but that God is diſhonoured in thē, when men do abuſe thē: Note. for the more holy & bleſſed that a thing is, ſo much the more is the abuſe thereof deteſtable in the ſight of God, & ſo much the more is he diſhonored, for ſo much as his holy name is there the more prophaned. By meane whereof ſo farre of is it, that the charmes and enchantments be the better becauſe of the names of God and of Ieſus Chriſt, & of the virgine Mary, and of men and women Sainctes, & of the good wordes of the holy ſcriptures that may be in thē, that they are in deede ſo much the more execrable and curſed. For ſeeing that the thing of it ſelfe is euill, it is yet made much worſe, when that which ſhould ſerue to the honor of God, is there applied to his diſhonor. Wherefore it is like to blaſphemies. For when men do blaſpheme God, they do take his name in their mouth:Similitude. but he is more diſhonored by yt meane, then though they did wholy abſtaine from naming him. For they do not vſe it at all, as they do which take it in their mouth to call vpon God and to ſanctifie him, but do abuſe it not onely taking it in vaine, but alſo villainouſly profaning and polluting the ſame. Therfore Irenee ſaieth, • ee, •• e. 1. 〈◊〉 1. that the heretiques, and cōſequently, al thoſe which abuſe the holy ſcriptures, do with thē, euen as when an excellēt workman ſhould make the image of a king very faire and of fine golde, and well furniſhed with all fortes of precious ſtones, and there did come an euill workeman, which ſhould take the ſame matter, and ſhould make thereof either a dogge or an ape, or ſome other beaſt, or ſome monſter. Albeit that it ſhould be alwayes one ſelfe matter, very good and very excellent, yet for all that the workemāſhip ſhould be greatly different, and the matter very euill applied, in as much as by applying thereof they ſhould deſtroy a good & very faire piece of work, to make one both euil and filthy. And by the ſame meane a man ſhould do great wrong to the king, in ſo counterfaiting his image. It is not enough then to take the matter whereof the Prophetes & the Apoſtles haue made the worke of the Lord, if it be not euenly laide, ſquared, and wrought as they them ſelues haue done it. • ee. For if any man make an other worke contrary to theirs, and by the which theirs ſhould be deſtroyed, the ſtuffe which men haue taken of thē is not well applied. Wherefore ſo farre of is it, that the worke is the better becauſe of the ſame, that on the contrary it is more worthy of blame. Thus much for the ſhuting vp of the mouthes of thoſe which doe alleadge the good woordes and the good things which are in the Maſſe, if they cannot otherwiſe ſhew the goodnes thereof, and that there be nothing at all in it that is good and applied as it ought to be.

I Wil now come to the principal points which do moue vs by good reaſon, not in any wiſe to allowe the maſſe, being of the ſame forme and qualitie that at this day it is ſet forth vnto vs, of the which pointes I will firſ make a generall diuiſion, and afterward a more ſpecial, and then I will propone and expounde them all, the one after the other, euery one of them in his place. The firſt diuiſion which is the moſt generall, ſhall conteine fiue pointes, of the which fiue pointes I will after ward make more ſpecial diuiſions. 5. point • . The firſt is touching the matter and all the pieces and inuentions and humaine tradicions in generall, whereof it is compounded. The ſecond is of the wordes of the ſame in ſpeciall. And the third is of the ſignes, and of the things ſignified by them. The fourth of the prayers. The fift of the collectes. As touching the ſecond point, which concerneth in ſpecial the wordes of the maſſe, I deuide it againe into three points, The firſt is touching the language of them. The ſecond concerning the pronunciation. The thirde concerning the application of them. And for the third point, which is concerning the ſignes and the things ſignified, I do deuide them againe into ſix other pointes. The firſt is the tranſubſtantiation of the ſignes. The ſecond, the adoration of them. The third, the reſeruation and application which vſed beſide the vſe of the ſupper. The fourth is of the ſacrifice. The fift is of the cōmunion. The ſixt, of the application, aſwell of the ſacrifice as of the communion, both for the dead and for the liuing. Now concerning the firſt, the fourth and the fifth. Of the fiue pointes which I did in the firſt place ſet forth in generall, I doe not at all make any other more ſpeciall diuiſion of them. Now all theſe pointes ioyned and comprehended together, do amount to the number of 12. the which I am not determined here to handle all at large, but onely ſummarily, to the ende that men may vnderſtand, which be the principall differences to agree vpon between the reformed Church and the Romaine Church, concerning the Sacrament of the ſupper, and that of the Maſſe.

AS concerning the ſecond point, which is touching the wordes of the Maſſe, we haue to note firſt, that albeit that it were ſo, that there were not one onely worde in the whole content of the ſame, but that it were taken out of the holy Scriptures, and were very agreeable to the ſame: yet for all that, there are three great and inſufferable faultes therein, of the which three the firſt is commō and generall to all the whole Maſſe, and euery part thereof: the other two belong more ſpeciall to the ſacramentall wordes, but they are notwithſtanding altogether manifeſtly repugnant to the expreſſed worde of God, and to the inſtitution of the holy Supper. And by that meane this ſecond point doth conteine thoſe other three, of which I made mention in the diuiſion of the ſame, which are touching the language, pronunciation and application of the wordes. As touching the firſt, it is manifeſtly againſt the expreſſe commaundement of God, in that that he hath expreſſedly forbidden by S. Paul, that in the aſſemblies of the Church, •• te well 〈◊〉 . there ſhould be neither praiers nor other words ſpokē in a tongue which were not knowen to ye whole aſſemblie, if there were not forthwith ſome one to expounde the ſame in a tongue which ſhould be well vnderſtoode by the whole congregatiō. Now it is ſo that al that euer is ſpoken & ſung in the maſſe, is there ſaid & ſung in an vnknowē language, at the leaſt, to the greateſt part of the people and aſſiſtantes, & oftentimes to them al. Whereof it foloweth according to the teſtimonie of S. Paul, that the commandement of God is there manifeſtly violated. • oncluſiō. Whereupon I doe further conclude, that the maſſe can not be the ſupper of the Lord, for ſo much as he hath plainly commanded that men ſhould ſet forth the remembrāce of him in the ſame. Which thing can not be done by vnknowen language, but onely by ſuch a language as is vnderſtoode of all, as Saint Paul doth ſufficiently declare, when expounding the wordes of Ieſus Chriſte concerning this commemoration, • . Cor. 11. he ſaith plainly, You ſhall ſhewe the Lordes death vntil the time that he come. The which ſhewing cannot be ſet forth by a language not vnderſtoode, but onely by preaching and doctrine ſet foorth in a language which may be vnderſtoode of all, for ſo much as ſpeach without vnderſtāding profiteth no more then though a man ſpake not at all. For that is as much, as though he yt ſpeaketh were domme, and he which heareth were deaſe.

FUrthermore, we haue yet to note in the other point, which is of the pronunciation of the wordes of the Maſſe, that albeit that whatſoeuer ſhould be there ſaid in a lāguage that ſhould be vnderſtoode of al men, yet for all that, Note. it could be in no wiſe ſufferable, that any thing ſhould be there recited with a whiſpering voyce, & namely the principall wordes, which do properly belong to the inſtitution of the ſupper, and chiefly thoſe which they do cal ſacramentall: the which they do pronounce with ſo ſoft a voice, as they can not be heard of any man, no not of thoſe which are neereſt the prieſt which pronounceth them: ſo farre of are they from being vnderſtoode by all the aſſemblie. Wherein they fall againe into the firſt inconuenience that I haue already touched. For be it that they ſpeake with a loude voice in an vnknowen tongue, or with a ſofte voice, in a knowen tongue, in ſort that he is not heard at all, or els that mē can not vnderſtande the wordes, the one ſort is euen as good as the other. This notwithſtanding, they do cō mit both the faultes in all their maſſes, chiefly in their cannon and in many other pieces, and namely in thoſe, the which becauſe of the ſame they do call the ſecrets. For beſide that, that the language of them is vnknowē, at the leaſt to the greateſt part, they adde thereunto alſo the pronunciation ſo ſoft, & ſo ſecret, that hardly there is any man that may vnderſtand one only word thereof, as I haue already ſaid. This thing is common to all Maſſes, as well high as lowe. For they haue theſe two ſortes, the which they do ſo diſtinguiſhe according to the pronunciation which they vſe in the ſame. They call high maſſes,High maſ •• s. thoſe which they ſay with ſong, becauſe that they ſpeake and crie more loude in them. Yet are they greatly to be blamed in the very ſame, that they ſing, in ſo much as they doe vſe ſuch ſongs as doth greatly hinder the vnderſtā ding of it, euen to thoſe which could otherwiſe vnderſtand the wordes and the language. For how many notes do they put oftentimes to one ſillable, from whence it commeth to paſſe that they make the woordes and the pronunciation of them ſo long, and doe make ſo great diſtance from one ſillable to an other, that men forget the firſt before they be come to the laſt, & namely whē they do ſing in ſet Muſick? Wherin it appeareth plainely, that the ſong of the Romaine Church hath bene vſed more to feede the bodily eares, then the ſoule and the ſpirit, and to ſerue men for delectation and paſtime, as doe their belles, and their organs. For there is al the profite which commeth of them, which conſiſteth in ſound which vaniſheth in ye aire. Againe, they call lowe Maſſes ſuch as are not ſaid with ſong, but onely with a ſoft voice. And albeit that there be very fewe which can vnderſtande any thing of it throughout the whole maſſe, yet not contented therewith, they do alſo ſpeake it more ſoftly, when they come to their ſecretes and to their Cannon, and therein they doublely tranſgreſſe, not onely the lawe of God, Note. as I haue already proued by the teſtimonie of S. Paul, but alſo the humane and Imperiall lawes. For the Emperour Iuſtinian, which raigned about the yere 528. did make a lawe expreſſedly for that point, the which he grounded vpon the ſentence of S. Paul, which I haue already alleadged, takē out of his firſt Epiſtle to the Corinths. Iuſtinia • new Conſt 123. The ſame lawe commaundeth all miniſters of the Church to ſpeake ſo loude and ſo plaine, eſpecially in the adminiſtratiō of the Sacraments, that all the people may heare and vnderſtande it, and make anſwere, So be it, to that which ſhalbe there ſpoken. He doth not commande thē that they ſhould ſpeake in a language vnderſtoode of al men, for ſo much as yet at that time they did alwayes ſo according to the example of the auncient Church: but onely ſo to ſpeake and pronoūce, to the end that they might be the better vnderſtoode of all men: the which thing had bene to no purpoſe at al, if ſpeaking in ſuch ſort, the ſpeach had not bene knowen and vnderſtood of all men. Wherefore in commāding the fame, hee preſuppoſeth that which already was, to witte, that the language was knowen and vnderſtoode of all men. Seeing then that in that reſpect the maſſe is repugnant to all lawe as well diuine as humaine, in deede if there were none other but this onely point to be blamed, we haue iuſt cauſe to cōdemne it, and to require reformation of the ſame.

THE laſt point of the ſame very purpoſe, which concerneth yet the wordes of ye maſſe, is, that beſide that which I haue already ſhewed to be worthy of blame in the pronunciation of them, there is yet this very foule faulte, and contrary to all reaſon, to witte, that in ſteade of declaring the wordes of the ſupper to the people aſſiſtant at the maſſe, and in ſpeaking them vnto them, to cauſe them to vnderſtand them, to the end that they ſhould be taught by them, according to the cōmaundemēt which the Lord hath giuen by Saint Paul, they ſpeake them to the bread and to the wine which are vpō the Altar, and do pronounce them ouer them. And therefore the prieſt is turned towardes them, & hath his backe towards ye people, to whom he ſhould ſpeake, and deliuer his wordes to teach and inſtruct them in the vnderſtanding of the doctrine belonging to this ſacrament, and in the myſteries and ſecretes which it conteineth. But in ſteade of doing this, he repreſenteth them to the people by geſtures, countenances, and diuers ceremonies, and oftentimes by ſo fooliſhe and doultiſh countenances, as are thoſe of a very Iugler. Therefore I know not for what cauſe a man may not ſaye as well of a Prieſt, that he goeth to doe, as well as to ſaie, Maſſe. For he hath there as much to doe as to ſaie. For th • like cauſe, men might as well ſay, Let vs go t • ſee, as well as let vs go to heare maſſe. For th • aſſiſtance doe there oftentimes ſee more the • they do heare, & namely in ye Iowe maſſes, wher • in they do plainely declare, that they do very it vnderſtande,In excellēt Inſtruc •• on. both the nature, and the vſe as wel • of the word of God as of the Sacraments. Fo • the word whereupon they are grounded, is no • there ſet forth to be ſpoken to the ſignes there of, but to choſe perſons to whom both the one 〈◊〉 the other ſhould be adminiſtred, to witte, as wel • the worde as the ſignes, or otherwiſe the ſacramentes ſhould be no ſacraments. For they are no ſacramentes being out of their proper vſe, for ſo much as they are onely ordeined thereunto. And therefore,Note well • his. the water is not the water o • Baptiſme, nor a ſigne, nor conſequently the ſacrament thereof, but ſo farre foorth as it is ioyned with the word of Ieſus Chriſt, by the which it is dedicated and cōſecrated to that vſe, and ſo being applied to thoſe perſons, which men do • baptize,Matt. 28. Note wel • his. according to his commandement. Th • very like is of the bread and of the wine of th • ſupper. For they can no more be ye ſignes thereof, then may the water of baptiſme, if being ioyned together with the word of Ieſus Chriſt, whereby they are dedicated and conſecrated to this ſacrament, they be not giuen and diſtribu • ed to thoſe which ſhould bee partakers of the ſame: as it doth appeare by the expreſſed words of Ieſus Chriſte, in that which he ſaieth of both the ſignes, Take ye & eate ye. Likewiſe,Mat. 26. Mark. 14. Luk. 22.1. Cor. 11. Note. Take ye and drinke all ye. For it is playne that theſe wordes may not be ſpoken either to the bread, or to the wine, but onely to thoſe perſons which might vnderſtande them, and execute the commandement that Ieſus Chriſt gaue vnto them by the ſame. For the bread and the wine can neither eate or drinke them ſelues.

THis notwithſtanding, it is to them that the prieſt doth ſpeake and deliuer their wordes, and not at all to thoſe which do aſſiſte as well at their Maſſe as at their Supper, the which they do adminiſter ſeldome times to the people. No more may they be deliuered alſo to beaſtes, for ſo much as they can not vnderſtand them, as alſo becauſe the ſacraments of the Lord were not ordeined for them, the like may we ſay of all other creatures, which are not partakers, either of ſenſe or vnderſtanding. Wherefore if they 〈◊〉 ſpoken to others then to ſuch as are capable 〈◊〉 this ſacrament, which may vnderſtand them 〈◊〉 may obey to that which Ieſus Chriſt comma • deth thē thereby, it is a meere mockery, whe •• by the intent and purpoſe of Ieſus Chriſte •• wholy ouerthrowen. Note. And if theſe wordes whi •• conteine the commandemēt that he gaue in t •• ſupper to all the faithful, ought not to be addr •• ſed but to thoſe which are capable thereof, t •• very like is of thoſe of the promiſe, which f •• loweth this commaundement. For when Ieſ •• Chriſt ſaieth, This ſame is my body, and this 〈◊〉 my blood, and that which foloweth, he addreſſe • no more his words to the bread and to the wi •• then when he ſaieth of them, Take and eate y •• but addreſſeth them to thoſe in deeds, to who • he ſpeaketh the firſt. Wherefore, ſeeing th •• there is both commandement and promiſe, a •• that the promiſe is made, euē to thoſe to who • the commandement is giuen, and that the Lo •• declareth thereby the cauſe and the ende, for 〈◊〉 which he giueth this commandement, it is e ••• to iudge, that the promiſe doth no leſſe belo •• vnto them then doth the commandement, a •• appertaine not at all to the bread & to the wi •• From whence it followeth alſo that both 〈◊〉 one and the other belong vnto them, & that th •• ought to vnderſtand them, and are not ſpokē • he bread and to the wine, which can not vnder • tand or comprehend either the one or the other.

WHen then the Lord doth ſay, Take ye, and eate ye, and then expoundeth by the pro • iſe which foloweth this commandement, the • auſe of the commandement, he admoniſheth as • ell the miniſters as the people, of that which • oth the one and the other ought to doe in the • upper. As touching the miniſters, their office is • o aduertiſe the people both of the commaundement, and of the promiſe, and of that which they •• ught to do according to the one and the other, • nd what it is that they ought to attende. And ye • ffice of the people is to be obedient to yt which • s commanded them, and to beleeue the promiſe which is made vnto them. Then if the mini • ters do not this office, they are ſacrilegious, in • s much as they do ſteale and hide the worde of God frō his people, which is ſo holy & ſacred a • hing. Wherfore they may be wel placed amōg • he falſe prophets, whom the Lorde accuſeth by • eremie, to haue ſtolen his word frō his people. Iere. 23. They are in like forte very open rebels to Ieſus Chriſt. • ote well •• is. For ſeeing that they ought to repr • ſent his perſon in the adminiſtration of the ſi • per and of al ſacramentes, it muſt in any wiſe b • that they do that which he commandeth them t • do, and that they follow his example. For if the do otherwiſe and contrary thereunto, they ma • not be called the miniſters of Ieſus Chriſte bu • onely by a wrong title. Nowe it is certaine tha • he commanded them to do in his remembrance the very ſame which he then did. And what is 〈◊〉 that he then did: Note. he as miniſter addreſſed hi • worde to his diſciples to whom he adminiſtre •• his ſupper, and forthwith diſtributed vnto then the ſignes thereof, which he commandeth the • to take. Wherefore if the prieſts do not the lik • in their maſſe & in their ſupper, wherein they ſa • they do repreſent as miniſters, the perſon of I • ſus Chriſt, they do mocke both Ieſus Chriſt an • his poore people. Nowe it is plaine that in the 〈◊〉 maſſe, they do neither the one, ne yet the other From whence it followeth very well, that th • ſame can not be the ſupper of Ieſus Chriſt, fo • ſo much as they do ſo great a wrong therein, a • well to him as to all Chriſtian people. For in h •• ding and ſtealing the worde which ought to b • declared vnto them, and in not diſtributing at a • that which is commāded them to diſtribute vnto them, they do diſhonour Ieſus Chriſte in di • obeying him: & alſo do great wrong to his peo • le, in not adminiſtring vnto them that which • hey ought to adminiſter vnto thē.The fau •• of the p •• ple. And as they • aile in this behalfe, euen ſo the people doe not • heir dutie, if they wil not receiue the word nor • he ſignes, when they are duely and ſincerely • dminiſtred vnto them. For therein they ſhew • hem ſelues rebels againſt God. Note. And if neither • he one nor the other be preſented and admini • tred vnto them, and that they care not at al, but • re contented to be depriued eyther in part or in • ll, they yeeld them ſelues then without excuſe, •• aſmuch as they declare thereby, that they doe • ot greatly care for the glory of god, nor for his •• luation, and chiefely when they may haue the •• eane to haue ye right and full adminiſtration • f the ſacraments.

• Eing thē that it is ſo, it is eaſie to iudge, howe fooliſh and ful of filthie ignorance, the diſtinction and the difference that the Romaine do • tors doe make betwene Baptiſme and the ſu • per, and their other ſacraments, is, touching t • applying of the wordes and of the ſignes 〈◊〉 them. For they ſay that in baptiſme the ſacr • mentall wordes are addreſſed to the perſo • which they baptize, Note. and not at al to the matt •• of baptiſme, to wit, to the water which is th • ſigne thereof, but it is contrary in the ſuppe • forſomuch as the ſacramentall wordes are adreſſed to the matter thereof, to wit, to ye brea •• and to the wine which are the ſignes, and n • at all to the perſons: from whence they do coclude the conuerſion of the bread and of th • wine into the bodie and bloud of Ieſus Chri •• according to their doctrine of tranſſubſtanci • tion. By meane whereof they doe affirme, tha • for that cauſe, the bread and the wine conſecr • ted after their maner, are no more bread an • wine, but are the very body and bloud of I • ſus Chriſte, and the holy Sacrament of th • altar and of the ſupper of the Lorde, yea eue •• out of the accion and vſe of the ſacrament: Th • which thing they dare not affirme of the w • ter of the baptiſme.Note well. For albeit that they hau • bleſſed and conſecrated it after their maner, an • that they doe reſerue it in their fonts for th • vſe of baptiſme, and that they doe pronounce th • ſacramental words thereof in thadminiſtration yet for al that they hold it neither for ſacrament, nor for ſigne of baptiſme; but in the very accion and vſe thereof, to witte, when it is applied to the perſons that men doe baptize.Demand But if they graunt vs this point concerning baptiſme, why make they ſo great difficultie to graunt vs the ſame concerning the ſupper? For haue they more expreſſe commandement of Ieſus Chriſt to adminiſter the water in Baptiſme, then the bread and the wine in the ſupper, which are the ſignes? I ſay yet further, that it is ſo, that they haue a more expreſſe commandement to diſtribute the bread and the wine of the ſupper,Note the well. then to adminiſter the water of the Baptiſme. For where is it that they ſhal be able to find that Ieſus Chriſt hath ſaid ſo expreſſely of the water of Baptiſme, Take ye, baptize ye, and be ye baptized, as he hath plainely ſpoken of the bread & of the wine of the ſupper, Take ye, eate ye, Take ye, drinke ye, yea euery one of you. And to whō did he ſpeake theſe woordes following, to wit, This ſame is my bodie, & this ſame is my bloud, but euen to thoſe very men to whom he ſpake ye wordes going before, as I haue alreadie declared, & to whom he gaue commandement to eate ye bread and to drinke the wine, which he brake & diſtributed vnto them for ſignes of his body and of his bloud:

ANd when they ſpeake of the chaunge & conuerſion of the ſignes of the ſacraments into • he thing which they do ſignifie, they doe vnderſtand this chaunge of the vſage of them,Note wel • this. for the which cauſe they doe alſo chaunge their name, taking the name of the thing which they ſignifie, in contemplation and in reſpect of this chaunge of the vſe, and not at all of the chaunge of one ſubſtance into an other, to wit, of the ſubſtance of the ſignes, into that of the things which they doe ſignifie. For if there were ſuch 〈◊〉 chaunge of ſubſtance, by the vertue of the ſacramental wordes and of the conſecration o • the ſignes, it ſhould neceſſaryly then come t • paſſe, that the ſame ſhould be in al ſacraments, 〈◊〉 not more in the one then in the other: forſ •• much as there is none at all that may be ſacraments without conſecration and without ſacramentall wordes, and they haue al this commo • together, and the like reaſon is in them all, concerning this point. • ote. Wherefore the Romayn • tranſſubſtantiators haue no ground of reaſon to affirme that there is more tranſſubſtanciati •• in the ſupper, by chaunge of the ſubſtance of th • ſignes, into the thing ſignified by the vertue o • the conſecration and of the ſacramental words then in all the other ſacraments. And therefor • if they would that we ſhould beleeue them, the • muſt then proue their ſayings by other teſtimonies then them ſelues, for ſo much as they do • ouerthrowe the whole nature of ſacraments by their doctrine. For the bread and the wine o • the Supper, can not be made the ſignes there of, but onely by the vertue of their conſecratio • and of the ſacramentall wordes by the which they are conſecrated to that vſe. For as we hau • alreadie heard by Saint Auguſtine, the word • muſt be alwaies ioyned to the element, befor • that it may be made a ſacramēt. Now it is ther • then ioyned, when the bread and the wine whic • are taken of the elements of this world, are applied to the vſe of the ſupper, and this application is made by the conſecration and by the ſacramental wordes, when they are pronounced and declared in the adminiſtration of the Supper in the ſame ſort as Ieſus Chriſt did pronounce and declare them, and commanded the ſame to be done according to his example. Behold then here al the conuerſion and all the tranſſubſtanciation which may be in the ſupper, aſwel as in the other ſacraments.

ANd therefore when the auncient doctors did ſpeake of chaunge and conuerſion of the ſignes into ye ſame, they vnderſtood none other, as I haue ſhewed and proued very plainly, and by good teſtimonies of the auncient doctors thē ſelues in other treatiſes of mine. For euery chaunge and euery conuerſion of one thing into an other carieth not with it at all tranſſubſtanciation of one ſubſtance into an other. For there may be chaunge, without conuerſion of ſubſtance. But conuerſion of ſubſtance can not be without chaunge. We may then ſay yt wher • there is tranſſubſtanciation by conuerſiō of ſubſtance, there is there chaunge. But there is not alwaies tranſſubſtanciation and conuerſion of ſubſtance, where there is chaunge. Wherefore there is as great difference betwene chaunge & tranſſubſtanciation, as is betwene the general & the ſpeciall. For chaunge is the generall which comprehendeth vnder it tranſſubſtanciation, but tranſſubſtanciation doth not comprehend in it chaunge, forſomuch as his ſignifiration is more ample (as that of chaunge, of tranſmutation and of conuerſion) then that of tranſſubſtanciation. For, all theſe names do cōprehend other kindes of chaunge and of conuerſion, then of one ſubſtance into an other. For as there is chaunge of ſubſtances, ſo is there alſo chaunge of accidents, to witte, of qualities, of time, of places, of habits and ſuch other like thinges, according to their natures, and to the predicaments vnder yt which they are comprehended, as the Logicians diſtinguiſh them. • egenera •• on. Our regeneration is not without chaunge, which is wrought in our own perſōs. But it is not at all by conuerſion of ye ſubſtance of our bodies nor of our ſoules into others, or into any other ſubſtance, but it is in qualitie, which is, from vice into vertue, by the chaunge & renewing of the olde Adam, & of the olde man into the new.Conu ••• this we •• . And therfore if there be any chaūge in the ſupper, touching the matter of the ſignes thereof, it muſt then be conſidered of what kind this chaunge is, and in what predicament it muſt be ſought, if we will ſpeake as becōmeth Logicians, and if there be chaunges, either of ſubſtance or of qualitie, in aſmuch as the matter of the ſignes thereof is otherwiſe qualified, when it is applied to that vſe, then it was before. I haue alreadie declared & proued, that there can be no more chaunge of one ſubſtance into an other, then there is in all other ſacraments, becauſe of the reaſons that I haue alreadie alleadged, taken aſwell of the nature of them, as of the teſtimonies of the word of God, whereupon they are grounded. And if there were ſuch a chaunge,Note w •• it muſt needes be that it ſhould be in 2. ſortes, to witte, the one, by the which ye bread and the wine ſhould be appointed to be the ſignes of the body and of the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt: and the other to conuert the ſubſtance of the bread and of the wine into his body and bloud, after that they ſhould haue bene made ye ſignes thereof, by the firſt conſecration, and by ye firſt chaunge which ſhould haue bene made by ye ſame. And by this meane it would come to paſſe that there ſhould be 2. conſecratiōs,Way wel • this. and 2. ſorts of ſacramental words. The firſt, to conſecrat & cauſe ye bread & the wine to be the ſignes: and then the ſecond, to conuert them afterward into the bodie and into ye bloud of Ieſus Chriſt: or elſe it muſt be, that the ſame very woordes ſhould do both at one inſtant. And if the ſame myght be done in the ſupper, there is no reaſon, why it ſhould not be done alſo in the other ſacraments, for the reaſons which I haue alreadie declared, and chiefely in thoſe in the which ye holy Ghoſt hath vſed like maners of ſpeach as in the ſupper. Note. We ſay thē that there is no more chaunge of the ſubſtance of the ſignes thereof, then there is in thoſe of the other ſacramēts, & yt there is none other at al but in the vſe which cō ſiſteth in this, that the matter which is taken for the ſignes of the ſacraments, is applied and ſerueth to another vſe, and an other end then his did before that time. And if there be none other chaunge in ye ſupper of the Lord, there can then be none other in the maſſe, if it be his true ſupper. And if it be not his true ſupper, it is not then a ſacramēt of the Lord, but is rather a kind of magike and of ſorcerie.

BVt they may replie that if it were ſo as I ſay, • eplie. according to the teſtimonie of Saint Auguſtine, the ſacraments, and the vertue and the efficacie of them ſhould depend more vpon the faith of thē, to whom thei ſhould be adminiſtred, then vpon the ordinance and the word of God, whereupon they are builded. • ſwere. Whereunto I anſwer that ſo farre it is of from me ſo to cōclude, that I ſay yet further, that they doe not onely not depend at all vpon thoſe vnto whom they are adminiſtred, neither yet vpon the very miniſters which do adminiſter them. For albeit ye miniſter were as vnfaithfull as Iudas was, yea thorowly an Atheiſt, and of the worſt conſcience of the world, yt notwithſtanding the ſacraments which they ſhould adminiſter, ſhould be no leſſe ſacraments, then if a very Apoſtle of Chriſt, or ſome other very holy perſonage ſhould adminiſter them, prouided that ſuch a miniſter ſhould be called by lawful vocation, according to the order which the Lorde hath ordained in his Church, and that he ſhould adminiſter the ſacramentes in the very true maner that they haue bene ordeined by the Lorde, without adding or diminiſhing, changing, diſguiſing and counterfaiting in any thing which belongeth to their proper nature and ſubſtance. Note. For if their vertue and efficacie ſhould depend of him that doth adminiſter them, in what caſe ſhould the Churche be? For what aſſurāce might ſhe haue, whether the ſacraments which are adminiſtred vnto her be true ſacraments or no, if it were ſo that their aſſurance were builded in ſuch matter vpon the faith of her miniſters? For ſhee is not God, which only knoweth the hearts whereby to diſcerne them. Wherefore, if her aſſurance be not better grounded then vpon the faith of the miniſters, it muſt nedes be that ſhe ſhould remaine alway in doubt, for ſo much as ſhe can not iudge of the hearts of men, nor conſequently of ye faith or vnfaithfulneſſe which may be in them. From whence it ſhould folowe, that ſhe ſhould alway remaine in doubt, & conſequētly that ſhe ſhould not receiue any ſacrament in aſſured faith, for ſo much as faith is ſo contrary to doubt, as is truſt and aſſurance. Wherefore they may in no wyſe agree together. And therefore in ſuch a caſe, the Churche needeth not but to haue a regarde to three pointes. The firſt is,Cōſider very welthre • poynts. whether the Lord did ordeine the Sacramentes which are ſet foorth vnto her in his name. The ſeconde, whether hee that doeth adminiſter them, bee called by lawfull vocation to that charge to adminiſter them. The thirde, whether hee doeth adminiſter them according to the ordinaunce of the Lorde or no, or whether hee doe diſguiſe and peruerte them, or whether hee doe adminiſter others in the ſteade of them. For as there ought nothing to be attempted in the Churche without lawfull vocation, euen ſo the onely vocation is not ſufficient, if the charge by her committed, be not executed according to the Lordes ordinance. For albeit that a man ſhalbe called by lawfull vocation, hee may very well ſtraye afterwarde, and may paſſe the limittes thereof, and doe cleane contrary to his duetie, but hee ſhall not bee allowed therein.Conſyder this. And therefore it behoueth euery man herein to take good heed that hee be not deceiued. For if the Miniſter doe deliuer any other woorde, then that which God hath reuealed vnto vs in his holy ſcriptures, and any other Sacramentes then thoſe which the Lorde hath ordained, and in any other ſorte, hee may well boaſte of his calling, for that ſhall not at all let, but that hee is a falſe miniſter, and a ſeducer in that behalfe, and that thoſe vnto whome hee ſhall adminiſter, be not ſeduced and deceiued by him. For his vocation may not exempt him, but ſo farre forth as hee followeth the ſame, and not at all in that wherein he doeth contrary thereunto. On the contrarie, if he doe adminiſter the woorde and the Sacramentes which hee ought to doe, and in ſuch ſorte as the Lorde hath commaunded, his infidelitie and wicked life ſhall not let, but that which is of God ſhall bee alwaye of God, and ſhall alwayes haue his vertue and his efficacie in thoſe which are made capable by him, becauſe that, that which the Lorde hath ordayned, taketh his vertue and force of him,Excellēt inſtruction. and not at all of the Miniſter which is but the inſtrument, which of him ſelfe can doe nothing, but ſo farre foorth as the Lorde ſhall worke by him. And therefore the Goſpell,Example. which Iudas preached, was no leſſe the Goſpell then that which was preached by the other Apoſtles his fellowes; for ſo much as hee was called to the ſame miniſterie with them. This notwithſtanding, Ieſus Chriſte yet in thoſe dayes ſayde that Iudas was a Deuill. Hee was then a Deuill and an Apoſtle both together. An Apoſtle by meane of his vocation, and for ſo much as hee dyd execute it according to the charge that was committed vnto him, and a Deuill in reſpect of his hypocriſie, and of his infidelitie, couetouſneſſe and malice.

TO returne againe then to the point whereupon I was,Concluſion. I cōclude that as the water of baptiſme cannot be the Sacrament, nor ye ſigne of baptiſme, but onely in the adminiſtration of the ſame, euen ſo is it of the bread and of the wyne in the Supper. For the ſacramentall wordes, both of the one and of the other ſacrament, haue no more reſpect to the matter of the ſignes, nor leſſe to the perſons which are capable in the baptiſme, then in the ſupper: as S. Auguſtine hath very well vnderſtoode it. For if he had ſaide of the ſupper onely, that the element is made a Sacrament, when the worde is ioyned vnto it, • pinion of • he Roman • iſtes. ye Romaine doctors might more iuſtly ſerue them ſelues with his teſtimonies to proue the difference which they make betweene the baptiſme and the ſupper, ſaying that the ſacramentall wordes of baptiſme haue regarde, and doe belong to the perſons which men doe baptize, and not at all to the matter of the ſacrament, which is the water and the ſigne thereof: and that thoſe of the ſupper haue regarde and do belong to the matter of the ſame, to witte, to the bread and to the wine and not to the perſons, as they do in baptiſme.Concluſiō. Whereupon they do conclude, that the bread conſecrated by them is no leſſe a ſacrament, beeing kept in a boxe, pixte, or hutch, then when they doe adminiſter it in their ſupper. And therefore they do alway cal it the ſacrament of the altar, and the body of the Lorde, and the bodie of God, as well in their pixtes and hutches, as in the adminiſtration of their ſupper.Note this. And we on the contrary, doe ſaye and prone forth with by the very wordes of Ieſus Chriſte, that if it were ſo in deede, that the bread and the wine ſhould be tranſſubſtantiated into the bodie and into the bloud of him, as the tranſſubſtanciatours do affirme, yet for all that they can not make the ſame by their tranſſubſtā tiation, if that forth wc they do not diſtribute it, & that they be not communicated, as Ieſus Chriſt hath done and commaunded. For they can not do that which he hath done and hath commaunded to be done in that matter, doing the cleane contrary to that which hee hath done and commanded. For the miniſter can not haue the vertue which the Lord hath giuen to the miniſterie of his Apoſtles, and of their true ſucceſſours, if it be not the very ſame miniſtery. Nowe it appeareth plainly that it is not the very ſame miniſterie, for ſo much as the ordinance & purpoſe of Ieſus Chriſte, is there manifeſtly and wholy violated and ouerthrowen. For Ieſus Chriſte declareth openly by the ſame, that hee hath not ordeined the bread and the wine, to be ſignes of the holy ſacrament, but to the ende that they ſhould be adminiſtred, diſtributed, and communicated in the ſame, according as he hath expreſly commaunded, ſaying, Take ye and eate ye. Likewiſe, Take ye & drinke ye. Who may then beleeue that Ieſus Chriſſe did giue ſuch power as the Romane prieſtes doe there attribute, to theſe which do cleane contrary to his ſo expreſſed ordinance and commandemēt: Note. For there is not here queſtion onely of their vocation, but alſo of the execution of their charge and office. For albeit that it were ſo that the vocatiō were in all things els very lawfull, yet for all that, doing cleane contrary to the ſame, that which they do, may in no wiſe be alowed by God. And therfore I demande of them, • mande. whether they be ordeined & called to the miniſtery, whereof they do ſo glorye, either to preach the word of God, and to adminiſter the ſupper, & the other ſacramēts according to the ſame, as the Apoſtles and their true ſucceſſours haue done before them: or els to ſay maſſe, and to ouerthrowe in the ſame the whole inſtitution of the Lord. If it be but to ſay maſſe, and to do onely that which they do in the ſame, I can not in that reſpect graunt, that their vocation nor the worke which they doe according to the ſame, • ote this may be of God. Wherefore I do againe conclude, that albeit that the doctrine of their tranſſubſtantiatiō were in the reſt true, yet notwithſtāding, it could not haue place out of the vſe of the ſupper, & their bread and wine could be but bread and wine, and not at all the body and the bloud of Chriſte, except they were diſtributed and communicated, accordingly as he hath expreſſedly commaunded. And therefore I ſaye againe that ſo farre of is it that the teſtimonie which I haue alledged of S. Auguſtine, may eſtabliſhe the diſtinction which the tranſſubſtantiatours doe make betweene Baptiſme and the Supper (whereof I haue euen nowe made mention) that on the contrary it doeth cleane ouerthrowe it. For he ſayd thoſe wordes,Con •• o • this. ſpeaking not at all of the Supper, but of Baptiſme, by the which hee doeth plainely-declare that the ſacramentall woorde thereof, haue no leſſe regarde to the ſigne which is appoynted vnto it, then thoſe of the Supper haue to the bread and to the wyne. From whence it followeth, that if for that cauſe there bee tranſſubſtantiation in the one, it is alſo in the other: for the ſacramentall woordes are no leſſe ſpoken of the one then of the other, to the perſons which are capable of theſe Sacramentes.

SEeing that I haue declared the abuſe and the errour which is in the diſtinction and difference that the tranſſubſtantiatours do make betweene the ſacramēts of baptiſme & the ſupper touching their ſignes, and the application of the ſame, I will touch briefly ye true diſtinction and difference which muſt bee put betweene them, taking the ſame of their proper nature and vſe, And for the better vnderſtanding of it, we ought firſt to conſider what it is that is cōmon to them both, and then what it is that euery of them hath proper and ſpeciall to it ſelfe. • at •• gs are •• mon & •• per to • ſe ſacra • uts. They both haue this common and generall, that they ſend vs to the death and to the ſacrifice of Ieſus Chriſte, and that they are ordained to the end that by the meane of them we may communicate with Ieſus Chriſte, and may be made partakers of his benefites. But becauſe that God doth offer vnto vs diuers graces by him, of the which he would make vs partakers, he hath ordained two ſacramentes the better to repreſent vnto vs his principall graces, the which do comprehende all the reſt. For ſeeing that by ſinne we are dead of ſpiritual death, 〈◊〉 good in • uction. we muſt firſt receiue that life which is contrary to that death, as though we ſhould riſe from ſpirituall death to ſpirituall life, the which we receiue of the benefit of Ieſus Chriſt, who bringeth vs that life, becauſe he hath it in him ſelfe, as he him ſelfe doth witneſſe, ſaying, I am the way, • oh • . 18.11 the truth, and the life. Likewiſe, I am the reſurrection and the life. For we cannot attaine to the bleſſed reſurrection and to eternal life, which wee waite for, but wee muſt firſt bee made partakers of this ſpirituall life, which Ieſus Chriſt by his death & reſurrectiō doth bring vnto vs.Note this anſplan • tion. And we can not be made partakers thereof, if we be not planted and graffed into him, which is the new Adam, and the new man, and the newe ſtocke of mankinde, in the which we muſt be renewed, euen as we haue bene plā ted and graffed into the olde Adam, and into the olde man which is the olde ſtocke of mankinde, the which is altogether corrupted through ſinne, wherefore we muſt needes be tranſported from this ſtocke into the other, if we wil be tranſported from death to life. And to bring this tranſportation to paſſe, we muſt die to our olde man, and muſt riſe againe to our newe, and we muſt ſpoyle our ſelues of the firſt, and clothe vs with the ſecond. And becauſe that we can not finde this vertue in our ſelues, we muſt therefore take it of the death and reſurrectiō of Ieſus Chriſt, to the ende that we may be throughly renewed and made newe creatures. This grace, and this benefit of Ieſus Chriſte, is called in the holy ſcripture Regeneration, becauſe that we are regenerated and borne againe as of newe by him, not bodily, but ſpiritually. For we haue already bodily life by our firſt natiuitie, the which wee hold of ye ſtock of Adam. Wherefore we haue no neede of a ſecond natiuitie, the which we do call new birth, & regeneration in reſpect of this life, the which we haue already, but in reſpect of the ſpirituall life, the which we receiue of ye ſtock of the new Adam, & of the new man, as the ſtippes and braunches which are graffed into a good tree, and as the vine braunches which receiue their life and nouriture of their ſtocke. For that cauſe Ieſus Chriſte is compared to the ſtocke of the vine, • n. 15. and his diſciples to the braunches ioyned to the ſtocke, and they which are not at al graffed nor ioyned together with him, are cō pared to the braunches that are cut off from the ſtocke. •• gnifica ••• n of bap ••• me. And therefore that this benefit is repreſented and communicated vnto vs by Baptiſme, and howe wee doe put off the olde man and put on the newe, •• m. 6. •• l. 3. Saint Paul ſaieth, that by Baptiſme wee are dead and buried with Ieſus Chriſt, into his death, and riſen againe with him, and planted and graffed, and incorporated into him, and that all thoſe which are baptized, haue put on Ieſus Chriſt. And thus much concerning the benefite of regeneratiō, and of baptiſme, which is the Sacrament and teſtimonie thereof, whereby the Lorde witneſſeth vnto vs, howe that he doeth renewe and regenerate vs in his ſonne Ieſus Chriſte, into a newe life, and doth refourme vs to his image, by the vertue of his holy ſpirite, and doth adopte vs by the ſpirit of adoption, and doth aduowe and receiue vs for his children into his houſe, which is his Church. For the which cauſe we are baptized in ye name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghoſt. Thus much concerning the nature and 〈1… pages missing〉

Note well his argument.FRom whence it followeth of two thinges, the one: which is, that the bread & wine remaine alwaies bread and wine, aſwell after the pronunciation of the ſacramentall woordes, as before: forſomuch as they doe alwayes keepe their firſt nature, as all the ſenſes may iudge, the which are not falſe: or els it muſt be that there is ſome illuſion which deceiueth the ſenſes, and that maketh the thinges to appeare otherwiſe then they are in deede: by meane whereof the ſignes ſhould be falſe & not true ſignes. Wherefore being falſe they could not be fignes of true things, for the trouth cannot be repreſented by a lie, nor the true by a falſe, forſomuch as there muſt needes be a true correſpondance betwene the ſignes and the thinges which they ſignifie. They muſt then confeſſe that the accidents are wholly without ſubſtance and without ſubiect, againſt the whole order of God and of nature, or els that the accidents of bread and of wine, be the accidents of the bodie & of the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt, and that the ſame body and the ſame bloud are the ſubiect and the ſubſtance of them. On which ſide ſoeuer they will take it, Note. they ſhal alwaies fall into marueilous abſurdities. For they may not here alledge miracle,Mirac •• if that they will not by that meanes ouerthrowe the whole nature of the miracles of God, as by their doctrine they do ouerthrowe the whole order of nature. For as the power of God may not be ſeparated from his wiſdome, by the which he neuer employeth his power, but wiſely, and keeping alwaies good order: euen ſo no more doth hee, be it that he worke naturally or ſupernaturally,Workes naturall ſupernat • rall. but that he maketh that which he hath made, & that that which is, is the ſame in deede, that it is. For if it were otherwiſe, he ſhould be againſt him ſelfe and againſt his owne woorkes. Note. And therefore albeit that he be almightie, yet for all that he doth not, neither alſo will he doe, that the bread and the wine ſhall be bread and wine, and that notwithſtanding they ſhall not be at al, and that they are, & are not at all euen together that which they are, and that he would that they ſhould be. The which thing they ſhould be, if the bread and the wine of the ſupper did keepe continually their former nature, as they do in deed, and the experience ſheweth if: and yet for al that they ſhould not hold their proper ſubſtance, without the which they could not haue nor kepe their naturall vertue, as in deede they do hold it, aſwell after the conſecration as before. And if they wil not confeſſe it, they muſt then needes confeſſe that the naturall ſenſes which God hath giuen vs, • nfider • s abſur •• e. doe deceyue vs, and that the bodily and outward ſenſes doe ſhewe falſe things to the ſpiritual and inward ſenſes. And if it be ſo, there is then the woorke of God corrupted, and his order wholly peruerted. For euen as wee may not ſeparate his wiſedome from his power, no more may wee alſo ſeparate his will, the which wee cannot knowe but ſo farre forth as he declareth by his worde. Nowe he hath not declared vnto vs by the ſame, • gument. that the bread which ſhould be baked betweens two hote prons, ſhould be conuerted into the body of his ſonne Ieſus Chriſt, by the vertue of certaine wordes ſpoken ouer it, by the prieſts ſo appointed & qualified as they are in the Romaine Church, nor that the ſame hath euer bene done, nor that it ſhall be done: as he hath declared that his ſonne ſhould take vnto him our fleſh, and that he ſhould be conceyued in the wombe of a virgine, of whom he ſhould be borne and that he ſhould be conuerſant, not inuiſibly, but viſibly among men. Euen ſo is it of all the other articles of our faith.Note thi • But of that of Tranſſubſtanciation, there is no one Prophet, which hath euer prophecied any thing, nor Apoſtle, no Euangeliſt that euer wrote any thing in ſuch ſorte as the tranſſubſtanciatours doe expound it and ſet it forth. For this cauſe the true auncient Church, and the auncient doctors and diuines of the ſame by whoſe handes wee haue receiued al the ſymboles, which the Church yet at this day vſeth, which doe conteyne the Articles of our faith, haue not ſet downe any thing touching this Tranſſubſtanciation, nor no one of them which doe depend no not in the very ſymbole, the which the prieſtes doe recite and ſing in their maſſe.

THen euen as the tranſſubſtanciators doe aboliſh from the ſupper the true ſignes of the ſame by their tranſſubſtanciation: euen ſo doe they take away the thinges ſignified by them, to wit, the body and bloud of Ieſus Chriſt, in aſmuch as they tranſfigure them into an other nature,Note wel. ſpoyling them of their bodyly proprieties in ſuch ſort that they are no more a very body nor a very bloud, forſomuch as they haue not their naturall proprieties, but haue thoſe of the bread and of the wine which ſhould repreſent them, and ſhould not be the thing it ſelfe, the which they ſhould ſignifie. And by the ſame ineane they ouerthrowe all the Articles of our faith, touching the incarnation of Ieſus Chriſt,Acticle • our fai •• cleane o •• thrown • and his conception and natiuitie, his death, reſurrection and aſcenſion into heauen: for if he haue ſuch a body as they attribute vnto him in their maſſe and ſupper, it is not a true humayne body, in aſmuch as it hath no thing at all of that which is required in a true humayne body, but onely that which is proper and naturall to the bread, if it be ſo that the bread be conuerted into the ſame. From whence it foloweth, nyther that it is not the ſame very body which was conceyued and borne of the virgine Mary,Note th • and which died, roſe againe, and went vp into heauen: or elſe if it be the ſame very body, it was neuer a true body, neyther in the conception and natiuitie, nor in the death, reſurrection and aſcenſion: or elſe it was afterwarde chaunged, eyther into an imaginatiue body, or into a ſpirite, or into God, in ſort that it is become infinite as God, and that it is euery where in his proper eſſence and ſubſtance as God: or at the leaſt yt it is in many places at one inſtaunt, and that it hath no one qualitie nor quantitie agreeable to a humayne bodie: The which things can in no wiſe agree with the nature of a true body. And yt which I do ſay of ye doctrine of the tranſſubſtanciators, may be alſo ſaid of that of the conſubſtanciators, who albeit they doe condenme tranſſubſtanciation as we do, yet for al that they doe conſtitute a corporall preſence of the body and of the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt with the bread and with the wine in the ſupper, which is not greatly different from that of the tranſſubſtanciators, and draweth after it as many abſurdities, concerning ye proprieties of the humaine nature of Ieſus Chriſt.

IT may not then bee that the tranſſubſtantiatours, nor alſo ye cōſubſtantiacors may bragge and glorye as they do, that they haue the expreſſed worde of Ieſus Chriſte, who ſayd,Con ••• well 〈◊〉 chapte •• This is my body: and that their faith of tranſſubſtantiation or conſubſtantiation, is grounded vpon the expreſſed and certaine worde of God. For ſeeing that their faith doth ouerthrowe the true faith of the principall articles of the Chriſtian doctrine and religion, which are very plaine & throughly certaine, it followeth then in deede, that it can not be a true faith as touching that point: and by conſequent, it cannot bee builded vpon the word of God. For they may not bragge to haue it in their fauour, if they do not take it in his true ſenſe, without the which it is no more the worde of God, but it is diſguiſed and ouerthrowen. Now it appeareth euidently,Take t •• worde of God in h • true ſenſe. that it is taken in an other then his owne true ſenſe, when it is taken in ſuch a ſenſe as ouerthroweth the principal articles of the Chriſtian faith: which are not grounded vpon any paſſage of the holy ſcriptures that is not well vnderſtoode, but vpon ſo many teſtimonies of the Prophetes and of the Apoſtles, and ſo plaine and euident, that there may remaine no ambiguitie or doubt to thoſe which do beleeue the diuine letters. The which thing can not bee ſaide of the doctrine of tranſſubſtantiation, nor of conſubſtantiation, which haue no other ground, but vpon a wrong and euill vnderſtanding & expoſition of the wordes of Ieſus Chriſte, the which doth plainely and manifeſtly appeare to bee contrary to the true ſenſe of the ſame, for ſo much as it is impoſſible to agree it, • onſider • ell this •• atter. either with the other maners of ſacramentall ſpeache of the ſcriptures, and with their liuely ſignification and expoſition, or els with the nature, as well of the ſacramentes as of the true bodie of Ieſus Chriſte, or of all thoſe articles of the faith, whereof I haue now made mention.Expoſition in matter of ſacraments. For the expoſition, which in matter of ſacramētes can not agree with all thoſe points, may not be true. On the contrary, that which diſagreeth not at all, but doth very well agree with all theſe pointes, may in no wyſe be reiected as falſe. Now we ſaye that the ſame of ours doth agree with them very well,Note this. in as much as it agreeth with all other the like paſſages of the ſcriptures, and like maners of ſacramentall and figuratiue ſpeaches, and with the natures of the ſacramentes and of the ſignes of them, and with that of the body and of the blood of Ieſus Chriſt, and with the articles of our faith. For we are not at all in controuerſie with the tranſſubſtantiatours, nor with the conſubſtantiators, touching the wordes of the Supper, whether they be of Ieſus Chriſte, and whether they bee true or no, and whether hee be preſent in the Supper or abſent, and whether his body and his blood be there preſent and diſtributed and communicated or no: for wee all agree in all theſe poyntes. But the different is onely in the maner of the preſence and communication, to witte, whether it bee bodily, or ſpiritually, and whether the body and the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt be there diſtributed,Note th • matter. and eaten and drunken bodily and naturally, or els ſpiritually, and ſuppernaturally. We ſaye, that it is ſpiritually and ſupernaturally, by meane of the reaſons which I haue already alleadged: the other ſaye, that it is bodily and naturally, which thing wee can not graunt them, if wee will not foorthwith graunt them al the abſurdities whereof I haue made mencion, and a great nomber of other which folowe their doctrine.

SO much touching the errour of tranſſubſtantiation, from whence there followeth yet an other very great & very vnſufferable, the which I ſet downe for the ſeconde, concerning the matter of tranſſubſtantiation, and for the ſeuenth of the twelue, into which nomber I bring all the poyntes. This ſame is,Note this well. concerning the worſhipping of the bread and of the wine, in ſtead of Ieſus Chriſt the very ſonne of God, This is an errour which yet draweth after it many other. • e firſt • our. The firſt is, that where the bread & the wine ſhould be diſtributed in the maſſe, to thoſe which be there preſent, as the Lorde hath commaunded that it ſhould be done in the ſupper, they doe onely ſet them out to ſhewe, lifting them vp on high, and cauſing them to bee worſhipped of euery one, as idols, through great ſuperſtition and idolatrie: whoſe like neuer was ſince the beginning of the world, howe great ſoeuer the blindneſſe haue bene. • icer. de. • at. deo. li. 3. For as Cicero himſelfe witneſſeth, there were neuer men that did beleeue or thinke, that that which they did eate was God. And there was neuer any people ſo beaſtly, which did thinke that the idols & the viſible things which they did honour and worſhip, were really and eſſentially gods, but onely that they were remembrances and repreſentations. But the idolatrie whereof I now ſpeake, paſſeth on much further. For it contenteth not it ſelf to cauſe the bread and the wine to be worſhipped and honoured as holy & ſacred ſignes, ordeined to be remembrances and repreſentations of the very body & blood of Ieſus Chriſt, but as Ieſus Chriſt him ſelfe in fleſhe and bone, and man and God together.Affirmation. For they affirme, that there is no more bread nor wine, but that that which was bread and wine before the conſecration, is really and in deede Ieſus Chriſte him ſelfe, which thing may not be, by meane of the reaſons which I haue already alleadged. From whence it followeth,Note t •• idolatrie. that the bread and the wine are there worſhipped for gods, & that that ſame worſhipping is a very idolatrie, and cleane contrary to the holy ordinaunce of the Lorde, and to that which he hath ſayd and done, and commaunded in the inſtitution and adminiſtration of the ſame. For he commandeth expreſly,Luk. 22. • 1. Cor. 11. to doe that which he did in the remembrance of him, and not otherwiſe. Nowe hauing taken the bread & the wine,Conſider this well. hee did not lift them vp on high, nor cauſed them to be worſhipped by his diſciples, before he did diſtribute them, but did diſtribute them to euery of thē, with expreſſe commandement, that they ſhould take both the one and the other, & euen at the ſame very time, that they ſhoulde eate the bread and drinke the wine, euen as they did in deede. And if this can not be proued to be done, neither in their maſſe, nor in the very ſupper which they do adminiſter to the people, there is thē leſſer reaſon to reſerue the bread in pixtes, caſkets, cupbordes, and ſuch like, not onely to cauſe it to bee worſhipped as God, or to beare it about in proceſſion in great pompe and ſolemnitie to that very ende, as the Perſians did beare in time paſt their ſacred fire,Abuſe of the Perſians. but alſo to coniure the time & the tempeſtes, and the Deuils, and to vſe them in ſuch like ſuperſtitions, according as it falleth in their fantaſie. For as I haue already heretofore ſhewed, • ote well. albeit that it were ſo, that according to their doctrine of tranſſubſtantiation, the bread were chaunged into the bodie of Ieſus Chriſte, yet for all that, it coulde not haue place out of the vſe of the Sacrament, by meane of the reaſons that I haue already yelded.Where the • ſe of the • cramēt is Nowe it is very true that there is no vſe there, where the Sacrament is not adminiſtred: and that it is not adminiſtred there where it is not diſtributed with the woorde, to thoſe which are capable of it. And if they doe applie the ſignes thereof to any other vſe then to the ſame, for the which they are ordeyned, that vſe is not lawfull: wherefore it may not bee taken for an vſe, but ſhoulde bee reiected as an abuſe, manifeſtly contrary to the woorde and ordinaunce of the Lorde. And on the other ſyde, if this abuſe were not ſo great, yet ſo is it for all that, that this worſhipping of the bread and of the wyne, and of their holy hoſtie, can not bee without putting them alwaye, which doe worſhippe them, in great daunger of Idolatrie. At the leaſt it can not bee done in fayth, Note. for ſo much as it muſt needes bee that the worſhippers remayne alwaye in doubt, touching the conſecration of the prieſtes, for ſo much as according to their doctrine,Doctri • of the a • uerſarie there is no tranſſubſtantiation, if the intent to conſecrate be not ioyned with the pronunciation of the woordes: and that there is no man that can iudge and bee aſſured of the purpoſe of the prieſtes, no more then they can of their fayth, onely God excepted, which knoweth the heartes.Note t • argume Wherefore either they put them ſelues in daunger to bee idolaters, according to their owne very doctrine, worſhipping the bread and the wyne, in ſteade of the body and of the blood of Ieſus Chriſte: or els they muſt needes worſhip them with condition, the which can not bee voyde of doubt. From whence it followeth, that it can not bee in fayth, but onely in opinion: and by conſequence it is ſinne, ſeeing that whatſoeuer is not of fayth, and without the ſame, Rom. 14 can not pleaſe God, but is ſinne.

ANd on ye other ſide, ſeing yt the Lord hath ordeined 2. ſignes in this ſacramēt, ye one may not be ſeparated from the other, 〈◊〉 ordi • e of the • de vio • ed and • ane ouer • owne. but that his ordinance is there violated and ouerthrowen, contrary to his intent and his expreſſed commandement. Now ſo it is, that the wine appointed to be that ſigne of the bloud, is ſeparated from the bread which is appointed to be the ſigne of the body, • ſurditie. not onely when the bread is reſerued in their pixtes & boxes, all alone without the wine, but alſo in their ſupper, which they adminiſter beſide their maſſe, to them whome they call the Lay people. From whence it foloweth that this bread is not at all the ſacrament of the ſupper, for ſo much as it is not applied to his true vſe, according to the intent and expreſſe commandement of Ieſus Chriſt, but cleane contrary. And if it be not a ſacrament of the ſupper, it can not be an other ſacrament. For Ieſus Chriſt hath not inſtituted any other, to yt which he hath appointed the bread for a ſigne, but only this. And if it be not at all a ſacrament,Demande. how may it be the body of Ieſus Chriſt, & Ieſus Chriſt him ſelfe, God and man? yea, in ſo many places at one inſtant, as there be boxes, pixtes, cupbordes and caſkets, in the which this bread is reſerued and kept as a relique? Therefore I would gladly, that the tranſſubſtantiators and Romaine doctors ſhould well conſider, in all their worſhippings that they doe to this bread, bee it in their maſſes, or in their pixtes, cupbordes and boxes, or in their proceſſions, to what purpoſe a litle before they do lift it vp in their maſſe, to cauſe it to be worſhipped, they ſay and ſing, Lift vp your heartes, which is as much to ſay, Surſum corda. For it is an exhortation to the Chriſtian people, taken of the true ancient Churche,Conſyde • this. whereby the miniſters did admoniſhe them, which ſhould cō municate at the ſupper, not to ſtay them ſelues and reſt vpon the viſible ſignes of the ſame, but that they ſhould lifte vp their heartes and their mindes on high, to heauenly and diuine things, repreſented by them, and to the Lorde which only can communicate thoſe things, and will bee ſerued and worſhipped in ſpirit and truth, as he him ſelfe witneſſeth, and not in viſible and corruptible things, nor in things baſe and earthly. For if the time be come, that he will not be any more worſhipped, either in Ieruſalem, or in the mountaine, no more will hee be worſhipped betweene the handes of the Romaine prieſtes, nor in their maſſes and boxes, cupbordes, pixtes, and caſkets. For that cauſe after that this exhortation, Surſum corda, was giuen to all the aſſiſtantes, they anſwered, Habemus ad dominum, which is to ſaye, we haue them vp to the Lorde, to witte, the heartes, the which they were exhorted to lift vp on high. Note. For the ſame was ſpoken in a tongue vnderſtoode of al. But to what purpoſe ſerueth it now to ſing in the maſſe, Surſum corda, before the poore people, and the ignorant, which knowe not what men ſaye vnto thē, neither do they vnderſtand at al the exhortation which is giuen vnto them, for ſo much as it is deliuered in Latin, and not in their owne language? • ote. And although that it were deliuered vnto them in their owne language, ſaying, Lift vp your heartes on high, it coulde not ſerue them, but onely to make them lift them vp to the handes of the prieſtes, which holde and lift vp their hoſtie and their cuppe, euen as hye as their pixtes & boxes, wherin they holde their holy hoſtie incloſed, • onſides • is. & no hygher at all. For ſeeing that they doe teache them there to ſeeke God & Ieſus Chriſte our Lorde, they neede not to lift their heartes more high to worſhyppe him in ſpirit and trueth, but rather that they doe abaſe them to the earth, where they ſhewe them their viſible god, whereupon they thinke and reſt. Wherefore they may very wel boaſte thē ſelues, that they haue a god which they ſee, and hee ſeeth not them. • ur God • s inuiſible But as for vs, we knowe no God created nor viſible, but onely hee, which hath created all things, and is not him ſelfe created, and which is eternall and inuiſible, the which doeth very well ſee vs, albeit that we ſee not him at all, for ſo much as his diuine nature can not bee ſeene. And albeit that hee made him ſelfe viſible in his Sonne Ieſus Chriſte, in whome hee hath declared him ſelfe, yet for all that, Ieſus Chriſt would withdrawe his bodily preſence from this viſible worlde,An i •• i • ble world to the ende that wee ſhoulde not ſeeke him any more in this baſe territorie, nor in corruptible things, but that wee ſhoulde ſeeke him in the heauens, where hee is at the right hande of the Father, to worſhippe him there in ſpirit and trueth.He muſt 〈◊〉 worſhipp •• in ſpirit & trueth. Iohn. 4. For hee will not bee worſhipped with any other worſhippe then that, wherewith hee hath taught vs, that God muſt bee worſhipped, ſeeing that hee is the cauſe for the which hee is worſhipped, for otherwyſe it ſhould not be lawfull to worſhip him, ſeeing that that honour apperteineth to none but to God onely.

LEt them not then finde it ſtraunge,The very words of the Lord if we doe not beleeue thē at all, when they ſay vnto vs, Lo here is Chriſt, yea there is Chriſt: behold, he is in the wilderneſſe, or in the cloſets. For Ieſus Chriſt doth not giue vs teſtimonie of ſuch a preſence of him in his Churche, neither of any ſuch comming of his from heauen but in deede giueth vnto vs one cleane contrary. No more may they alſo alleage vnto vs in this behalf the authoritie of the auncient Church, nor of the ancient doctours, nor the auncientie of their religion, touching ſuch worſhipping, reſeruation, and keeping of the bread, & of their holy hoſtie. • ranſſub • antiation •• onght in •• ye church • bout the •• ert 1060. For the auncient Church hath at the leaſt continued vpon the point of a thouſand and three ſcore yeeres, before that the doctrine of tranſſubſtantiation was brought into it, receiued and approued by the councel, in ſuch ſorte as the Romaine Church hath holdē it euer ſince, to witte, from the time of the Pope Nicholas the ſecōd,Nicholas • he ſecond. Gregorie • e ſeuēth. and afterward of Gregorie the ſeuenth, about the yeere 1074. But this was not done at all without contradiction of many, which coulde not profit at al, forſomuch as they were oppreſſed by the authoritie of the Romaine Popes, and of ye multitude of their adherentes. The cuſtome for all that, was not in the ſame church, to keepe the bread in cupbordes, boxes, and pixtes, before the time of Honorius the third,Honorius the third. 1226. who ordeined it about the yeere 1226. that hee was in the Romaine Chaire, nor alſo to beare it in ſolemne proceſſion, and to dedicate a ſpeciall feaſt to it, vnto the time of Pope Vrbane the fourth,Urban the fourth. who ordained that feaſt, which commonly is called the feaſt of God, or of the holy body of God. Beholde then the antiquitie of the religion which followeth ſuch doctrine and ſuch maner of doings, and as touching the principall authours, vnto the which it may be aſcribed.Note we this. And thereby euery man may knowe, what faith they ought to giue to the trāſſubſtantiatours and Romaine doctours, which affirme that the Romaine religion which they at this daye doe followe, is the religion of the true auncient Churche, and that they haue receiued it of Ieſus Chriſt, and of his Apoſtles, and is come euen to them, from hande to hand by a continuall ſucceſſion.Romaine Apoſtles. Men may alſo iudge by the very ſame, which were the Apoſtles, from whom they receiued ſuch doctrine, & ſuch ceremonies, ſuperſtitions, and idolatries, and what iniurie they do to Ieſus Chriſt and to his Apoſtles, and to all the auncient Church, in abuſing, as they doe, the name and authoritie of them, to giue a more faire ſhewe to the inuentions of men, and the more to cōfirme the poore ignorant in their errours and abuſes. For as I haue already declared, the whole ancient church and the true doctors of the ſame did not knowe any ſuch tranſſubſtantiation, as that of the Romaine Church, which is at this daye, nor any other conuerſion of the ſignes of the ſacramēts into the thing which they ſignified, but onely in reſpect of the vſe of them, as I haue already declared. And therefore it had alſo no ſuch worſhipping and keeping of the bread and of their hoſtie, as is that whereof I haue now ſpoken.

I Will not nowe bryng foorth anye more proofes, wherewith the better to cōfirme that which I haue already ſayde of all theſe things, becauſe that I haue ſufficiently written of it in diuerſe other bookes, and that I did not determine for this preſent, but onely to touche and handle them briefly and ſummarily. And therefore I will now come to the eight point, • . point. which is concerning the ſacrifice of ye Romane prieſts in their maſſe: the which dependeth alſo of the tranſſubſtantiatiō, and hath his foundation vpō the ſame. For if they did confeſſe that the bread and the wine did remaine alway bread and wine in the ſame,Note this cunning. they durſt not affirme nor ſaye, that they do offer vnto God bread and wine in ſacrifice for the remiſſion of ſinnes, & the redemptiō of ſoules, as well the liuing as the dead, as they boaſte them ſelues to doe daily in their maſſes. For, for the firſt, ſeeing that according to the teſtimonie of the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes, Conſide • well this point concerning ſacrifice. there is no ſacrifice offered for the remiſſion of ſinnes, without ſhedding of blood, they can in no waies make ſacrifice of bread and of wine, for ſo much as it ſhoulde bee without ſheading of bloud. And then what reaſon ſhould they haue to offer to God bread & wine for ye redēption of ſoules,Demande and for the ſaluation of man? and of what vertue and efficacie might ſuch a ſacrifice be? And therefore, ſeeing that they woulde conuert the Sacrament of the Supper into a ſacrifice,Note this cunning. and tranſforme it into a Maſſe, they muſt in deede foorthwith tranſſubſtantiate the bread and the wyne, into the bodie and into the blood of Ieſus Chriſte, to the ende that by that meane they might afterwarde offer them in ſaerifice, for the remiſſion of ſinnes, and for the redemption of ſoules, and not onely for the lyuing, but alſo for the dead. Wee may not then greatly marueile if that they doe fight ſtrongly and aſſuredly to mainteine their tranſſubſtantiation:Note this combat. without the which they are neuer able to mainteine their ſacrifice: without the which alſo their purgatorie would yelde them a very barren reuenue, with all their other inuentions. But what foundation haue they for this ſacrifice, I do not ſay in the inſtitution of the ſupper of the Lorde onely, but alſo in all the holy ſcriptures? For, for the firſt, we do not reade at all,Note the • ſtitution 〈◊〉 the Lord that when Ieſus Chriſt did inſtitute and adminiſter the ſupper, he did in any wiſe offer in ſacrifice, either the bread or the wine, which hee ordeined to be ſignes of the ſame, nor in like ſort his bodie nor his bloud. For it is not in the ſupper yt he did offer thē really in ſacrifice to God for man, 〈◊〉 matter • f great • aight. but vpō the croſſe. For the whole ſcripture maketh no mention of two ſacrifices of Ieſus Chriſt, for the redemption of man, but of one onely, which is ſo perfect that he needed not to make it but one time onely, and it could not bee offered by any other then by Ieſus Chriſte him ſelfe, the very ſonne of God, which onely is the prieſt,Ieſus Chriſt the prieſt, ſacrificer, ſacrifice, temple and altar. the ſacrificer, the Sacrifice, the Temple, and the Altar: and the ſame may in no wiſe be reiterated by any creature, ſeeing that it is of vertue eternall and of deſerte infinite. For this cauſe the ſacrifice of the maſſe can not ſtande with this, but it muſt neceſſarily be that ye one or the other be abholiſhed, to giue place to one onely, ſeeing that there is but one which is full and perfect, and there may none other be had: ſeeing then that the ſame of Ieſus is ſuch an one, it aboliſheth all the others.

WHereupon it is needful that euery man he warned of 2. trumperies, by the which the Romayne doctors do deceyue the ignorant, a • uſing the name of ſacrifice and of the authoritie and teſtimonie of the auncient doctors of the Church,The firſt deceite. in this matter. The firſt is in the confuſion yt they make betwene the ſacrifices: The other, in that they take the name of ſacrifice in the writings of the auncient doctors, for ye maſſe ſuch as it is in the Romayne Church. For firſt they do take for ſacrifice propitiatorie, that which the auncient Doctors did take for ſacrifice 〈◊〉 praiſe and thanks giuing, and for a commem •• ration of the death of Ieſus Chriſte, the whi •• for the ſame cauſe men may call Euchariſtique, euen as ſome men do call it, to giue men ye better to vnderſtand this difference, as men doe cal the Supper Euchariſtie, for ye ſame cauſe. For the which cauſe they haue called the Supper ſacrifice not blouddy, to giue to vnderſtande,Sacrific • not blou • that they did not meane to offer Ieſus Chriſt to God in ſacrifice in the ſame for the remiſſion of ſinnes and the redemption of ſoules, for ſomuch as the ſame cannot be done but by the very and onely ſonne of God Ieſus Chriſte, nor without the ſhedding of his bloud: but onely for a cōmemoration of the propiciatory ſacrifice, yt which Ieſus Chriſt him ſelfe did offer of his owne body & bloud, & to yeeld him praiſe and thankes. For they did knowe very wel, what difference there is betwene ſacrament and ſacrifice, and that the ſupper was not inſtituted by the Lorde for a ſacrifice, but for a Sacrament.An argument of great waight. For in a ſacrifice which is offered for the remiſſion of ſinnes and the redemption of ſoules, it behoueth that the man offer vnto God the thing which he ſacrificeth vnto him, and that it be ſufficient to appeaſe • is wrath: or otherwiſe the ſacrifice is not per • ect, neither may it ſatiſfie God. And therefore it was, that al thoſe of ye Leuits which were • rdayned in the lawe, to repreſent that of Ieſus Chriſt, did ceaſe to giue place to him only. But • e ſacraments are ordayned, not at all to offer any thing to god for the remiſſion of ſinnes, but on ye contrary, to receiue of him the ſpiritual and heauenly good things which he offreth & communicateth vnto vs by the ſame. And therefore Ieſus Chriſt did not offer vnto God eyther the bread or the wine of the Supper,Confider his well or yet his body and his bloud in the ſame, but did offer and communicate them both, to wit, the ſignes and the things ſignified by them, to his diſciples, diſtributing bodily vnto them that which was bodyly and earthly, & ſptritually that which was ſpiritual and heauenly. 〈◊〉 cōmaundement. And therefore he ſaid, Take ye, and eate ye, and drinke ye, the which woordes he did not addreſſe vnto▪ God, nor conſequently the bread and the wine which he commanded to eate and to drinke, neither his body nor his bloud ſignified by the ſame, but to his diſciples, and conſequently to al thoſe vnto whom the ſupper is adminiſtred according to his ordinance. And therefore when Ieſus Chriſt ſayd,Luke. 22. 1. Cor. 11. This is my body which is giuen and broken for you, he ſayd it not in reſpect of that which he then did in the ſupper towardes God his father, but in reſpect of that which he after did towardes him vpon the croſſe, very ſhortly after his ſupper. For it is there where he was giuen for vs,One Lord gaue him ſelfe for vs vpon the croſſe. when he offered him ſelfe vppon the croſſe in ſacrifice 〈◊〉 his father, and not at all in the ſupper. For it 〈◊〉 not there where he gaue him ſelfe for vs▪ 〈◊〉 where he is giuen to vs: for he is there giuen vnto vs, in aſmuch as he is cōmunicated vnto vs by the meane of this ſacrament of the Supper. Whereupon we haue to note that Ieſus Chriſt did vſe the preſent time, for the time to come,Note th • Ebrew n • ner of ſpeach. according to the Ebrue maner of ſpeach, which vſeth often times indifferently the time paſſed, ye time preſent, and the time to come the one for ye other, & chiefly when it cōcerneth the promiſſes of God, forſomuch as that which he promiſeth is as certaine, as if it were already preſent, or as if it were already done. Note. The like may we ſay alſo of that which is ſayd of the wine, This is my bloud of the newe teſtament, the which is ſhed for many for the remiſſion of ſinnes. For it was not in the ſupper that the body of Ieſus Chriſt was giuen and broken, and his bloud ſhed, but vpon the croſſe and in his death and paſſion.The latin tranſlator For the which canſe the tranſlator of the common Latin tranſlatiō, the which ye prieſts vſe in their maſſe, and in all their diuine ſeruice, hath tranſlated theſe, woordes into the time to come for the time preſēt, ſaying, which ſhal be giuen, and which ſhal be broken, and which ſhal be ſhed &c. in the ſtead that there it is, which is giuen, and which is broken, and which is ſhed, in the woordes of the Euangeliſtes and of Saint Paul, as they haue ſet them downe in ye Greeke. And al the auncient doctors of the Church haue not taken thē in any other ſenſe. •• te. And forſomuch as they did wel vnderſtand what differēce there was betwene ſacrament and ſacrifice, they had not any maſſe to offer vnto God a ſacrifice of the body and of the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt, as ye Romaine prieſts at this day doe boaſt thē ſelues to do in theirs: but in the ſtead of ſuch a maſſe they had the Supper, the which they did not celebrate at any time, but that they had preſently communion of the faithfull to whom the ſame was adminiſtred, and not only to a prieſt in particular, as they do in the maſſe.

BEholde then here one great trumpery, the which proceedeth either of the ignorance or of the malice of the Romaine doctors & prieſts, which doe make the ignorant beleeue,Conſider this that the auncients did call the Supper ſacrifice in the ſame very ſenſe that they at this day do take it in their maſſe, wherein they doe them great wrong. For they did neuer ſo vnderſtand or teach. And albeit their ſhould haue ſo vnderſtood & taught, we mought not folowe their doctrine in that behalfe, becauſe that it ſhould be cleane contrary to that of the Apoſtles, and namely to all the Epiſtle to the Hebrues. And then folowing that trumpery, they doe yet build an other very great one vpon ye ſame, which is ye ſecond,2. Dece • wherof I am now to ſpeake: which is, that they willing to proue that the auncient doctors haue approued their Maſſe, and that the ſame was in the auncient Church, ſuch as it is at this day, they take the paſſages wherein the auncient fathers doe vſe the name of ſacrifice, oblation and offering, and ſuch other like, as wel in the latine as in the Greeke, when they ſpeake of the Supper, or of all the diuine ſeruice, as though they had vſed the name of maſſe in the ſame, and that they had vnderſtod by the names which they did vſe, of ſuch a maſſe as ye Romaine maſſe nowe is. Queſtio For here is no queſtion whether ye auncients did vſe ſuch words or names, but whether they tooke thoſe words in the ſame ſenſe yt they are at this day taken in the Romaine Church. And albeit that they ſhould haue vſed the name of maſſe, in the ſtead of the name of ſacrifice, and ſuch like, yt which they vſed, to ſignifie all the diuine ſeruice of the Chriſtians, yet ſhould they haue nothing gayned at all. For it muſt yet be, that they doe ſhew that the maſſe of ye aunciētes was ſuch an one as theirs is, and that there was in it like ſacrifice. The which they ſhal neuer do. For albeit that ſome of the auncients did begin to vſe the name of maſſe for the diuine ſeruice, after three or foure hundred yeres after the natiuity of our Lorde, that notwithſtanding it was but in ſmall vſe: yet in two hundred yeres after that, to wit, before the time of Gregory ye firſt, no more was it then taken for ſuch a maſſe as it is at this daye in the Romaine. Church. For there was not yet at that time any ſuch, • ante of •• fts men neyther could there be, for ſo much as ye greateſt nomber of the workemen, which haue framed ye ſame from age to age, & frō yere to yere for a lōg time, were not yet borne at ye time. Behold then howe the Romayne doctors doe deceiue ye ignorant, vnder the name of ſacrifice, and vnder the authoritie of the auncient doctors, as vnder the name and authoritte of Ieſus Chriſt and of the Apoſtles. For after that they haue greatly bragged that Ieſus Chriſt and the Apoſtles did inſtitute and celebrate the maſſe, they proue, to confirme the ſame, that they haue inſtituted and celebrated the Supper, wherein they proue and confirme that which is not at all in queſtion or in doubt, and not that at all which is in controuerſie: but in ſtead of prouing and confirming that, they proue and confirme an other thing which is out of al controuerſie. Euen ſo doe they concerning the auncient fathers. For willing to proue by them the ſame of the maſſe and of the ſacrifice thereof, they proue that they haue vſed the name of ſacrifice, and other names alſo as well Greeke as Latines, which ſignifie as much as diuine ſeruice, and publike miniſterye in our language.

BVt they will replie,Replc • that Ieſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and the auncient dnctors of the Primitiue Church, haue done both in the Supper, to wit, that they offered vnto God in Sacrifice, the body and the bloud of Ieſus Chriſt: and thē haue alſo forthwith communicated them to the Chriſtian people, & that in ſo doing, there is no inconuenience but yt the ſupper may be both ſacrament and ſacrifice together. I anſwere, • we •• . it is not enough that they do affirme, except they doe proue it foorthwith. I wil graunt them that the ſacrifices of the lawe were alſo as a kind of ſacramēts, and that there were ſome, in the which there was oblation to God of one part of the beaſt which was ſacrificed, and in like ſort communion of an other part among the people, and that there was ioyned to the ſacrifice a banket, the which ſignified the communion of the people in ye ſame. But that cannot agree with the ſupper. 〈◊〉 . For, for the firſt, as there was dayly newe banket in theſe ſacrifices, ſo was there newe hoſtie. For they mought not ſacrifice one very thing oftener then once, nor by conſequent communicate the ſame more often to the people, but they muſt needes take dayly new. But ye like is not of the ſacrifice of Ieſus Chriſte. For there is but one onely hoſtie of the ſame, which is very Ieſus Chriſt, • ry. 53 • hu. 1. • et. 2. • or. 5. • hu. 19. the which is the lambe of God that taketh away the ſinnes of the worlde, figured chiefly by the paſchall lambe, which among the reſt was chiefly ſacrifice and ſacrament both together, becauſe that the Lord had two regards in the inſtitution of the ſame. For firſt he inſtituted it to be in the Church of Iſrael, for a memoriall and remembrance of the paſſage which the Angell of the Lorde did make in Egypt, ſtriking the firſt borne of the Egyptians, •• od. 12.13. and of the deliuerance of the Iſraelites from the captiuitie of them, as Moyſes doeth plainly witneſſe. For the which cauſe it was called by him, and conſequently by the other Hebrues, Peſah, which is to ſay Paſſage, by the name of the thing that it did ſignifie, of the which the Greekes and the Latines haue made their worde Paſcha, the which they haue vſed, and which ſince haue bene cōuerted into our ſpeach, by the name of Eaſter. Beholde then howe this ſacrament had regard vnto that which was already done, and to that benefit of God ye which the Iſraelites had already receyued, touching their deliuerance out of Egypt. And by that meane, it was a memorial and a ſacrament cō memoratiue, and a ſacrifice of praiſe & of thanks giuing, in reſpect of the things which were already paſſed. But beſide that,A doubl • regarde ye paſſeo the Lorde had yet regard to the deliuerāce of mankind the which ſhould be wrought by Ieſus Chriſt, whereof yt of Egypt was a figure.Our del • uerauce And forſomuch as he ſhould worke this deliuerance by the paſſage of his death and by the ſacrifice of his body and of his bloud,Sacrific • with ſa •• ment. the ſacrifice was ioyned to the ſacrament in the Paſchal lambe, to the end that i • ſhould the better repreſent that which was yet to be done and accompliſhed. Beholde wherein it was ordeyned for the thinges which were yet to come, and of the which men did yet looke for the accompliſhment. For that cauſe there was there a ſacrifice, which did repreſent that of Ieſus Chriſt to come. And alſo there was ioyned vnto, a banket, which did ſignifie the communiō of him, as it ought to be in euery ſacramēt. And therefore Saint Paul hath ioyned the one with the other, expounding the veritie of that figure. For after that he hath ſayde that Chriſte our paſſeouer was ſacrificed, • or. 5. he exhorteth the faithfull to the ſpiritual banket of this ſacrifice, and to the continuall feaſt which wee ſhould make and celebrate alwaies. Seeing then that the thing to come figured by this ſacrifice & ſacrament, was accompliſhed, the one and the other are ceaſſed. For we haue nowe the Sacrifice offered by Ieſus Chriſt, whereof the other was but a ſhadowe and figure. Wherfore ſeing that wee haue the body and the trueth, the ſhadowe and the figure doth clerely ceaſe. And therefore euen as our Lorde Ieſus Chriſt did chaunge ye Circumciſion of the Church of Iſrael, •••• de • • his • ge. into the baptiſme of the Chriſtian Church, euen ſo hath he chaunged the Sacrament of the Paſchall lambe, into that of the Supper, the which hath that in common with the ſacrament of the Paſchall lambe, that as it had regard to the paſſage which was made in Egypt, and to the deliueraunce of the children of Iſrael, which were thinges that were alreadie done: in like ſorte the Supper hath regarde to the paſſage which Ieſus Chriſt hath made by his death, and for the deliuerance which he hath brought to mankind by the ſacrifice which he hath offred in the ſame, which are alſo things that are alreadie done and paſſed. They haue in like ſort both of thē this in common,Note th • that euen as the ſacrament of ye Paſchall lambe, was ordeined and celebrated according to the commandement which the Lord did giue to Moſes, in the ſame very night, & in the ſame very time that the paſſage ſhould be made in Egypt, & ye people deliuered from the ſame,Exod. 12. euen ſo Ieſus Chriſt did intitute and celebrate his Supper in the very fame night, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. and euen before the very time, that he was taken to be brought to be ſacrificed, and to woorke the deliuerance of mankind. For yt cauſe he vſed ye very ſame maners of ſpeach in the inſtitutiō, & in the adminiſtration of this ſacrament, as Moyſes did in that of the Paſchall lambe.The word • of Moiſe • For euen as Moyſes did fay of the lambe, It is the paſſeouer of the Lord, which is to ſay, the paſſage the which he did repreſent, giuing to the ſigne the name of the thing ſignified:words • ar lord. euē ſo Ieſus Chriſt did ſay of the bread of the Supper, This is my body, and of the wine, This is my bloud of the newe teſtament, or, This cup is the new teſtament in my bloud. Wherefore it is not alſo to be doubted, that euen as he did folowe the maner of ſpeach of Moyſes, which was much frequented in the holy Scriptures in ye vſe of the ſacraments: euen ſo did he alſo vſe them in the like ſenſe and ſignification, without diſguiſing any thing at al the accuſtomed language of the holy Ghoſt, by ſenſe newe and ſtraunge to ſuch maners of ſpeach. Thus much concerning that which the ſacraments of the Paſchall lambe, & of the ſupper, may haue common together, touching theſe points. But the Supper hath this different from the ſame, • fferent. that it was not inſtituted to be a figure of any ſacrifice to come, nor of any other thing which mought be yet to accō pliſh, but only to be a ſacrament cōmemoratiue of the ſacrifice already offered by Ieſus Chriſt and for the communication of the ſame. And therefore there is no propiciatorie ſacrifice for ye remiſſion of ſinnes, in this ſacrament offered to God by the miniſters which do adminiſter it, but onely the banket, which witneſſeth vnto vs the communication which wee haue in the ſacrifice which is already offered. For ſeeing that it endureth for euer becauſe of his eternall and infinite vertue, it needeth not at all to be offered againe: wherefore there reſteth no more to doe in reſpect of the ſame, but onely the application and communication which is done ordinarily in the Churche, by the miniſterie of the woorde of God and of the ſacraments, and chiefly of the ſupper. And therefore Ieſus Chriſte did commande none other thing to be done in the ſame, when he cōmanded the diſtribution of the bread and of the wine, which are the ſignes, but onely to celebrate the remembrance and commemoration of him, in awayting his comming from heauen, as Saint Paul declareth it vnto vs,Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. ſaying, As often as ye ſhall eate this bread & brinke this cup, you ſhall ſhewe foorth the death of the Lorde vntill the time that he come. Seing then that Ieſus Chriſt hath ioyned none other propiciatorie ſacrifice to his ſupper, but onely that which he him ſelfe hath offered vpon the croſſe: it followeth then that they which doe ioyne any other vnto it,Falſaries of the teſtament. are very falſaries and counterfaitors of his teſtament, for ſo much as the ſupper is as his teſtament, and the ſacrament and witneſſe of the benefit which hee offereth and communicateth vnto vs by the ſame. Wherefore if men accounte them falſaries, Note. which do falſifie the teſtament of a mortall man, howe great a fault is this, to falſifie the teſtament of the eternall ſonne of God, adding an other ſacrifice to his for the remiſſion of ſinnes, ſeeing that it may not in any wyſe bee reiterated? For ſeeing that there is but this onely hoſtie, euen ſo may the ſame dye but only one, and his blood may bee ſhead but onely once. From whence it followeth alſo, • om. 6. • eb. 9. that it can not bee offered nor ſacrificed to God, but onely one tyme for the remiſſion of ſinnes.The vertue if this ſarifice. Wherefore, ſeeing that Ieſus Chriſte hath already offered the ſacrifice which is of eternall and infinite vertue, there reſteth no more but the partaking and the communication of the ſame, which is repreſented vnto vs by the table of the Lorde in the Supper, and in the viſible banquet of the ſame, as it is done in very deede inuiſibly, and ſpiritually towardes the faythfull, by the vertue of the holy Ghoſt and of faith. And by that meane the Supper is not ordeined therein to offer a newe ſacrifice of the body and of the blood of Ieſus Chriſte, nor to reiterate that which hee him ſelfe hath already offered, but onely to be a Sacrament, teſtimonie and commemoration of the ſacrifice once offered, and to communicate in the ſame by the meane of this Sacrament: for ſo much as the ſacrifice can not at all profite vs to ſaluation, but ſo farre forth as we are made partakers thereof, as it is needefull for vs to be continually.

Way well this cōcluſiō throug • out.FRom whēce I conclude either that the maſſe may in no wiſe be a ſacrifice, either for the liuing or for the dead: or els that Ieſus Chriſt is not the true, perfect, and eternall ſacrificer, and the onely ſauiour and redeemer, and that his ſacrifice is not ful and perfect, and by conſequent, that hee is not the true anoynted of the Lorde, and that all that which is wrytten of his office of Sacrificer, and of his ſacrifice, in all the Epiſtle to the Hebrewes, and in all the reſt of the Scriptures, is falſe. From whence it ſhould alſo followe, either that the Scriptures which wee doe call holy, ſhould not bee reuealed by the Spirit of God: or els that the Spirite of God ſhould not bee the Spirit of trueth, as it is, •• hu. 14. but the ſpirit of errour and of lyes, and by conſequent God ſhoulde not bee God, but ſhoulde bee in ſteade of the Deuill, which is a lyer and the father of lyes. Behold the ſtraūge conſequēces, • traunge •• nſequen •• s. on the which men may not thinke without great horrour, which the maſſe draweth after it: for it can not bee ſuch an one as it is ſet foorth vnto vs in the Romayne Churche, but that all theſe conſequences muſt needes followe. Nowe they can bee none other then great blaſphemies againſt Ieſus Chriſte and his ſacrifice, • he vertue • f theſe cō •• quences. and all his benefites: from whence it followeth neceſſarily, that the maſſe may no more bee the propiciatorie ſacrifice of the body and of the blood of Ieſus Chriſte, then it may be that Ieſus Chiſte ſhoulde not bee the true anoynted of the Lorde. Note. And if it were ſo that his ſacrifice might bee reiterated, yet for all that, the ſame coulde not bee offered by any other then by him ſelfe onely.Vertue •• finite. But ſeeing that it is eternall, and of vertue infinite, it is no more needefull that it bee reiterated, not onely by any other then by hym,This ſacr • fice may not be rei • terated. but alſo by him ſelfe. Seeing then, that not onely the Maſſe, but alſo the very Supper, may not bee the propiciatorie ſacrifice of the body and of the blood of Ieſus Chriſte, it followeth then in deede, that it can not bee the very ſelfe Sacrifice which was offered by Ieſus Chriſte vpon the croſſe. From whence I dos agayne conclude, that if it bee a Sacrifice, it can not bee other then a Sacrifice commemoratiue,Sacrifice cōmemoratiue. of the Sacrifice offered by Ieſus Chriſte. And if it be but a Sacrifice commemoratiue of hym, it is not then a Propiciatorie Sacrifice, but Euchariſtique, to wytte, of prayſe and thankes. Note. But yet before that it maye bee ſuch a Sacrifice, it muſt fyrſt bee, that it bee the true Supper of the Lorde, which thing it is not all, neyther maye bee, beeyng ſuch as it is at this preſent, but is cleane contrary, as men may iudge, as well by that which I haue already heretofore ſpoken, as by that which I will yet ſpeake hereafter, & by that meane it ſhal be no pleaſant ſacrifice to God, either in one ſorte or in an other.

• niuty •• one by the • omaine •• ieſts.ANd by the ſame men may iudge, what iniurie the Romaine prieſtes doe to the Catholiques of the Romaine Church, in ſelling to thē their maſſes for ſacrifices, not only commemoratiues and Euchariſtiques, but alſo propiciatories, being notwithſtanding either the one or the other. And thereby men may knowe what marchantes they are, & what is their marchandiſes in that behalfe. And albeit that it were ſo, that they were ſacrifices in both thoſe ſortes, • illain •• affique. yet the markets and faires which they make of thē, ſhould be a very villaine traffique. For do they not ſell them for prices agreed vpon, as they do all their other ſacramentes and ceremonies, euē againſt their owne councels and canons, and their owne very decrees: • emande. And do they not call the marchandizes of holy things Simonie: O how many prieſtes haue they, which haue neither cure nor benefice, nor charge of ſoule, which were made prieſtes onely to ſaye maſſes, and which doe liue of the marchandizes which they daily make thereof? And howe many bee there among them which doe liue from the day to his dayes labour, as the prouerbe is, & which haue their teeth very ſharpe that day that they finde no marchāts to buye their marchandizes: If I ſhould ſpeake of theſe marchauntes, that which one of their bookes,Stella cle •• corum. called Stella clericorum, doth, they would thinke them ſelues marueilouſly outraged by me. And therefore I will cauſe it to be ſpoken vnto them by the doctour which was the authour of that booke. And to the ende that they doe not thinke that I doe alleadge him falſely, I will cauſe him firſt to ſpeake in his owne proper language, and then I will expounde both the woordes and the ſenſe. Behold now his wordes. The prieſt which doth celebrate maſſe for money, ſeemeth to ſay with Iudas, What wil you giue me, and I will deliuer him vnto you. Therefore it is wrong to ſell his Lord. Thinke thou that ye firſt ſeruant which ſaide, did hang him ſelfe, Iudas did caſt downe the money in the Temple. The prieſtes which do beſtowe the money that they haue of them, for whom they do ſing, at the ſtewes, and vpon their belly, are worſe. Iudas ſolde Chriſt once, & repented him thereof. And thou perchance haſt ſolde him oftentimes, and doeſt not repent therof. Take heede leſt deſpairing thou do hang thy ſelfe. The wordes in Latin are theſe, Sacerdos qui pro nummis celebrat, videtur dicere cum Iuda, Quid vultis mihi dare & ego vobis eum tradam? Ergo nefas eſt vendere. Dominum ſuum. Cogita quod primus ſeruus venditor ſeipſum ſuſpendit, Iudas enim nummos miſit in Templum. Peiores ſunt ſacerdotes, qui denarios pro quibus cantant, mittunt in lupanar & in ventrem ſuum. Iudas ſemel Chriſtum vendidit, & de hoc penituit. Et tu forte multoties vē didiſti, & non penites. Caue ne deſperans te ipſum ſuſpendas. Behold how this good doctour ſpeaketh. And if the litle marchantes, which are in great trauaile to gaine their poore liuing by theſe marchandizes, may not be excuſed in this point, howe much more are the great and fatte marchants, which ſell them in groſſe, and make greater and more riche traffique of them: Seeing then that it is ſo, they may not finde the matter ſtraunge, if Ieſus Chriſte doe agayne take the whippe in hande to driue ſuch marchauntes out of his Temple, Matt. 21. Mar. 11. Luk. 19. Iohn. 2. and out of his Churche, and that hee ouerthrowe their ſeates and their tables, by the preaching of his Goſpell. For if compariſon ſhould be made betweene them and thoſe which Ieſus Chriſte did driue out of the Temple of Ieruſalem, the difference woulde bee founde ſo great, that thoſe which Ieſus Chriſte him ſelfe in his owne perſon did driue foorth, ſhoulde be iuſtified by thoſe here, as Samaria did iuſtifie Sodome, and Ieruſalem Samaria, according to the teſtimonie of Ezechiel. Eze. 1 • . For the marchauntes which were by Ieſus Chriſte driuen out of the Temple of Ieruſalem, had ſufficient aucthoritie by the lawe of God, for that which they did. Note. For they did not at all ſell any falſe marchaundizes, nor diuine and holy things, but onely thoſe things which might bee offered and ſacrificed according to the Lawe, to the ende that the people which came from farre, ſhould be eaſed, and that they ſhoulde not take the payne to leade with them, or to carry ſo farre, that which they would offer and ſacrifice. But for ſo much as thoſe marchauntes did it not for that cauſe, nor to the ende that God might be the more honoured, but tooke onely that colour, to make it to ſerue to their gayne and to couer their auarice therewith, Ieſus Chriſte did dryue them out as Theeues, Sacrilegious, and Robbers, which did villainouſly abuſe ye name of God by a falſe title: home woulde hee then at this day endure the ſellers of Sacramentes and of Maſſes: For if their doctrine of tranſſubſtantiation were true,A notable argument. they coulde not ſell any Maſſe, without ſelling foorthwith Ieſus Chriſte i • fleſh & bones, the which they do make of ye bread and of the wine of the ſame, according to their owne very doctrine. And if it bee not true, ſo much the more falſe and vntrue is the marchandize. This notwithſtanding, he that ſhould ſuppreſſe all the faires, markets, & traffiques, which they do make, ſhould forthwith ſee very few • Prieſts at the Altar. For it is for ſuch ſtuffe that they doe ſo fight againſt the preaching of the Goſpell, to mainteine their maſſe and the ſacrifice of the ſame, and conſequently their tranſſubſtantiation, which is the foundation thereof and of all that which it draweth with it. Note. And i • they do confeſſe that their maſſe is no propiciatorie ſacrifice, but only Euchariſtique and commemoratiue of the ſacrifice propiciatorie of Ieſus Chriſt, as ſome of them are conſtrained to confeſſe, ſeing that they may not otherwiſe ſaue nor giue colour to their doctrine, they may not yet for all that eſcape cleare, but are yet ye more to be cōdemned. For they ſell to their marchāts one marchandize for an other, to witte, • o ſell one thing for an other. a ſacrifice of praiſe and thankeſgiuing, in ſteade of a ſacrifice propiciatorie, for the remiſſion of ſinnes, and the redemption of ſoules, as they doe boaſt that they do in their maſſe. And if it be neither ye one nor the other, as I haue already proued, yet are the marchants which do buie ſuch marchandizes the more deceiued. Wherefore I leaue thē to thinke in what eſtimation they ought to haue their marchantes. For if they committed none other faulte, this here ſhould be ſufficiēt to cauſe them to leaue & abandon them cleane. For who is ſo euill a marchant as taketh pleaſure to bee deceiued, and to buye euill marchandizes. Thus much concerning the ſacrifice of the maſſe: I will now come to the ninth point, which is yet in controuerſie, the which is concerning the cō munion as wel of the Supper as of the Maſſe.

Now the ſupper in •• be the ſupper. I Haue already here before declared, howe that the Supper may not be the Supper without the Communion of the things which do belong thereunto, and which ought to bee therein cōmunicated, according to the ordināce of Ieſus Chriſt. Now there is no ſuch communion in the Romaine Maſſe. From whence it foloweth that it is not the ſupper of the Lord, & conſequently alſo that it is not the Sacrament thereof, but is a new ſacramēt inuented by mē, and wholy contrary to that of the Lorde, from the which they woulde giue vnto it his foundation and his countenance. • emande. For what communion is there ordinarily, either in priuate or particular maſſes, either in thoſe which are publike the which they do cal parochial: for there is both in the one & in the other, but ye prieſt only which is at the altar, who doth participate of the bread & of the wine yt which he doth conſecrate in the ſame. For he eateth and drinketh al alone at his altar, without offering or preſenting any thing of that which he eateth and drinketh, not only to the people which doe aſſiſt at his maſſe, but alſo to his owne fellowes which are of the ſame occupation that he is of, and which helpe him to ſaye and doe the ſame, and are the nereſt to his table and altar. This notwithſtanding, he calleth this litle banquet which hee maketh in his maſſe, Communion: and the praier which followeth it ſhortly after, Poſtcommuniō. Cōmunion is taken of common: but what is it that is there common where one taketh all? The only name which they do vſe, doth conuince them of their errour, and of the wrong that they do to all Chriſtian people. And if they do replie that they • o call this litle banquet Communion, Repl. not in reſpect of the diſtribution which is there made of the bread & of the wine, which is there made to thoſe which doe aſſiſt at their maſſe, for ſo much as there is there none at all made, according as the Lord hath ordeined in his ſupper, but in reſpect of the communication that the prieſt hath with Ieſus Chriſt: whereunto I anſwere, Anſwere. that that anſwere & ſolution is not ſufficiēt enough. For Ieſus Chriſt hath not inſtituted a Supper wherein one onely miniſter ſhoulde communicate, and ſhould diſtribute the Supper vnto him ſelf alone: but hath ordained it for al thoſe which are capable thereof in his Churche, which is the communiō of Saincts, to the which this ſacrament belongeth in generall, and not to certain particulars only.1. Cor. 11. And therfore S. Paul hath written, The bread which we breake, is it not ye communiō of ye body of Chriſt, & the cup of bleſſing, the which we bleſſe, is it not ye cōmunion of the blood of Chriſt? For we which are many are one bread & one body, in aſmuch as we are al partakers of one very bread. S. Paul doth here ſet forth vnto vs 2. things. The firſt,Note theſe two thing • yt the ſupper is not for one alone but for many, & for ye whol church: & the other, yt it ought not to be diſmēbred, but to be fully adminiſtred, aſwel to ye Chriſtiā people as to ye miniſters of ye ſame, wtout cutting frō thē yt one half, or any thing whatſoeuer, as ye Romain prieſtes doe in their Supper, which they doe adminiſter to the people, in cutting the cup cleane from them. For it ſufficed them not to cut them off from all the Communion of their maſſes, which they do ſaye, and doe dayly, and likewiſe from that of the parrochial maſſes, which they do ſay euery ſunday: but that they muſt needes cut from them the full one halfe of that Supper which they do miniſter vnto thē, once, twiſe▪ or thriſe in the yere, vpon certaine of their moſt ſolemne feaſtes. • oce wel. The which thing is yet an other newe inuention, cleane contrarie, both to the ſupper of the Lord, and to all the true anciēt Church. • onc. • onſt. • eſ. 13. For before the Councel of Conſtance, holden in the yere, 1415. there was neuer any ordinance made in the Church, whereby it was forbidden to adminiſter the cuppe to al the people, as the Romaine doctours them ſelues are enforced to confeſſe. This notwithſtanding, the corrupted and abaſtardiſed Romaine church,Conſider • ell this. which hath made this ordinance, cleane contrary to the expreſſe cōmandement of Ieſus Chriſt and to the obſeruatiō of the true anciēt church, as well the Romaine as of all ye true vniuerſall churche, is that true ancient Romaine Church, and the true catholique Churche, which did immediatly ſucceede ye Apoſtles, if we will beleeue the Romaine doctors, albeit that ſhee be apparantly cleane contrary to it.

THen when the prieſt,Conſider well this. which is at the altar, receiueth his ſacrament alone, and communicateth nothing to any one of all thoſe which doe aſſiſte at his maſſe, is not this as a kinde of excommunication, whereby he ſhuteth them all out from the Supper which he receiueth all alone? for doth he not as though there were none but he alone which were worthy & capable therof, &. that all the reſt were vnworthy & mought be reiected as perſons excommunicated?The exco • municate • of the auncient Church. For there is no great difference betwene that which they do at this day in ye maſſe, in reſpect of thoſe which do aſſiſte at the ſame, and that which they did in time paſſed in the auncient Church in ye adminiſtration of the Supper, towarde excommunicated perſons which were in the place of the penitents. For albeit that they did aſſiſte in the Temple, yet for al that they were ſeparated from thoſe which did communicate at the ſupper, and were ſhut forth from the communication of the ſame, vntil ſuch time as they were reconciled to the Church. But yet they had that more then thoſe haue which do aſſiſte at ye maſſe, that they did vnderſtand both the praiers and the doctrine, which were ſet forth in the aſſemblie, & mought make their profit thereof. But ye greateſt part of thoſe which doe aſſiſte at the maſſe, may carry away with them no ſuch profit, forſomuch as they vnderſtād there nothing at al. And then when the excommunicated were reconciled to the Church, they mought goe to the ſupper as often as the ſame ſhould be adminiſtred. For they then made no particular. Supper for any, but made it onely generall for all: wheras euery prieſt maketh his particular for him ſelfe, and ſhutteth out all the reſt. Wherein they do commit three notable faults. • otable •• lts. The firſt is in yt as I haue already touched, yt the cōmon people & thoſe whō they call lay, are depriued of ye Supper in maner al ye whole yere: albeit that the prieſtes doe euery day make theirs, euery of them in particular. The ſecond is, that in the ſame very time that they do adminiſter the ſupper generally to al, yet doe not the prieſtes adminiſter theirs with the reſt of the body of the Church, but doe it all aparte, as though they were of an other Church, and members of an other body. The third is, that being already ſo ſeparated from the reſt, yet doe they ſeparate them ſelues among them ſelues the one from the other. For euery of them maketh his Supper aparte, vpon his altar, without communicating any thing to any of his felowes.

THey do very il agree in euery reſpect in this wt the ordinance of ye Lord. For men may not ſay at al of any of their Suppers made in this maner, that which Saint Paul hath written of the communion of the true Supper, ſaying,1. Cor. 1 • Wee which are many, are one bread and one body, forſomuch as we are all partakers of one very bread: For euery one doth not partake here of one very bread nor at one very table,Note th • abuſe of 〈◊〉 Supper. for euery one hath his bread and his table apart. Saint Paul in his time did rebuke the Corinthians, for that they did not tary the one for the others, when they did celebrate the Supper, but did ſeparate the one from the others, and chiefly the rich from the poore, as well for the contempt of them, as for the bankets which yet at that time they did adde to the Supper. And for that cauſe he wrote vnto them, When then ye doe aſſemble your ſelues together, it is not to eate the Supper of the Lorde: for euery man taketh his owne particular ſupper &c. Men mought by greater reaſon ſay the like of this particularitie of maſſes and of Suppers, which are made in the Romaine Church. It is true, that the table of the people is more common. So is it notwithſtanding, that the ſame is yet greatly deuided, and ſeparated without any neceſſity.Example. For as euery prieſt hath his apart vpon his altar, & in his Chapell, euen ſo do they adminiſter the Supper after their maner, to thoſe which will haue it apart and in particular in all their Chappels and altars, the which will ſeparate them ſelues from the common table of others. The which thing doth very euill agree with the nature of this holy Sacrament, which is vnto vs a Sacrament, • acramēt 〈◊〉 vnion. aſwel of ye vnion that the faithful haue with Ieſus Chriſte their head, as his mēbers, as of that which they haue euery of them with the other among them by his ſpirite. Wherefore the more that wee may repreſent this vnion, being all vnited together in the communion of the Supper, ſo much the better doe wee accompliſh that which the ſame Supper doth repreſent vnto vs. For that cauſe doe wee eate all of one very bread, and drinke all of one very wine, Cor. 10. the which notwithſtanding that they be both made of ſundry graines gathered together, yet for all that they make but one very lofe and one very wine. And thereby ye Lord would giue vs to vnderſtand, that wee which were ſcattered abroad, are brought together by his death, Iohn. 11. as Saint Iohn witneſſeth, and are reunited with him, and ye one with the other. By meane whereof as we eat al of one bread, & drinke al of one wine & at one very table,Note this •• ſtruction euen ſo albeit yt we be many, yet ought we alwaies to be altogether one, gathered together in one body, as many graines in one lofe & in one wine. • bleſſed • nion. Wherefore if it mought he, that all ye members of the whole vniuerſall Church mought cōmunicate together at one very table, and ſupper, it were to be deſired that it mought be done, the better to repreſent ſuch a bleſſed vnion. But becauſe that it cannot be ſo done, it is requiſite yt al doe celebrate the ſame in thoſe places where they may aſſemble commodiouſly in greateſt nombers, for ſo holy and bleſſed a woorke.

ANd therefore the prieſts and the Romaine catholikes do very euil cōſider theſe things. For they do cleane contrary, deuiding and ſeparating them ſelues in ſort that they do deuide and ſeparate them ſelues the one from the others, both in table, in bread, and in their wine, as though their body of their Church were a body deuided, diſmembred, and rent in pieces, and that there were at all neither vnion nor coniunction among them. For, for the firſt,Note thi • diuiſion. beholde there are the tables of the prieſtes ſeparated from that of other men, the which they do not prepare very often: and albeit that they did often prepare them, they do allowe as many particulars as men would haue in diuers places, and at ſundry times, without keeping any certaine order. And howe often is it that they doe prepare them for themſelues, whē they do not prepare thē for any other at all? For in al their maſſes, wherein none of the aſſiſtants doe communicate with them, they doe prepare them only for them ſelues. And when they doe prepare them for them ſelues, they ſhould very well content them ſelues to prepare one for al, and to communicate the one with the others, and to receiue the Supper the one at ye hand of the other, without preparing ſo many tables apart, & ſo many bankets in a morning, al ſeparate the one from the other, as though euery of them did excommunicate his fellowe, being at his ſeueral table and communion, who hath nothing common with any man. Wherin euery of them plaieth two parts: For they play the part of the miniſter which doeth adminiſter the Supper, and of him vnto whom it is adminiſtred. For euery of them is miniſter to him ſelfe, • ote this • fference. and doth receiue of him ſelfe. If they doe vnderſtand that their maſſe is a Sacrifice and ſacrament of the ſupper both together, as they doe affirme it, they ſhould yet at the leaſt when they haue offered their ſacrifice, make their communion more generall then they doe, and to call the people with them thereunto, or at the leaſt their felowes, which are of the ſame very occupation that they are. And in ſo dooyng, it ſhould not be nedefull to haue ſo many tables, nor ſo many altars, nor ſo many Chappels. And the fewer yt they were, ſo much the better ſhould they repreſent the vnion, whereof the ſupper is vnto vs a ſacrament, in ſtead of the diuiſion and diſſipation which is in ſo many their Suppers which they make apart, which are no Suppers at all.

ANd then whereas the nature of the Supper requireth an equality in all men, they on ye contrary doe put there great inequalities.Note th • inequalit • For as they do ſeparate the table of the people from theirs, euen ſo do they make it farre vnequal to theirs: chiefly in two points. The firſt, in that that they doe not giue vnto them of the ſame wine that they do drinke, the which they cut frō them in the banket. The other is, that alſo they put a difference in ye bread. For thoſe which are for the prieſtes, are greater and larger thē thoſe which are for other men, the which are much leſſe in quantity. And by that meane they haue great and litle Gods, as they haue great and litle hoſties, the great ones are for the prieſts, & the litle ones for the people. • e gods the • eſtes. And as the dignitie of the prieſts is great aboue al other men, euen ſo is there great difference betwene their Gods, and thoſe of the common people, not only touching their greatnes and forme, but alſo touching their dignities and honours. For euen as theirs are more great and larger, and of fairer ſhewe, euen ſo are they lifted vp on high and ſhewed to al men, and worſhipped ſolemnely of al men. But the other litle gods which are prepared for the common people, are not lifted vp at all in ſuch honour and dignitie, but doe remaine there quietly vpon the table, vntill the time that they be diſtributed to be eaten, without any other ſhewe or ſo great handling, or ſo much turning and returning by the hands of the prieſtes, as thoſe, which are made for them, • hat gods 〈◊〉 offered 〈◊〉 ſacrifice. haue. And then there is yet this point more, that there are none but the Gods of the prieſtes, which are offered in Sacrifice, and not the others the which are not made but to be eaten incontinently after, or elſe to be kept in boxes, and cupbordes, for a kinde of prouiſion to the end that there be no want of Gods ready made, but that there may bee good ſtore at what time ſoeuer neede ſhall require, either to cary to the ſicke, or to coniure ye time, the tempeſtes, and the deuils, and to make them to ſerue to other ſuch like occupations. Beholde many inequalities which doe very euill agree with the nature of the Supper, Note. and with the vnion which ſhould be repreſented by the ſame. Wherefore, rather then ſo to diſguiſe it, it ſhould be much more agreeable, not onely that all ſhould haue one table, but alſo one very bread and one very wine, and to haue the bread made of ſuch a faſhion that it may be broken and diſtributed to euery one, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke. 22. Actes. 2.1. Cor. 10.11. Eſai. 58. as Ieſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles haue vſed it, and as it was vſed and practiſed in the auncient Church. For this maner of diſtribution doth much better repreſent the communion and the vnion of the Church in the ſupper, and the charity yt the faithful ought to haue the one with the other, then when they do giue to euery one a little cake apart. For ye breaking of ye bread carieth al this wt it in the Scripture. But this importeth not much. Therfore it may 〈◊〉 among iudifferent things, prouided that al 〈…〉 • hich is of the proper ſubſtance of the ſupper, 〈◊〉 wel obſerued, according to ye Lords ordinance.

BUt let vs come now to that which they may replie againſt that which I haue euen nowe ſpoken. • ote. The Romaine doctors and catholikes do anſwere vs when we do blame their, for that there is no generall communion in 〈◊〉 maſſes, that there is no fault at al in the prieſte • which ſay it. For they doe excuſe them ſelues yt they are not the cauſe that there is no communion of the aſſiſtants, for they denie it to no mā: wherefore the fault procedeth from the aſſiſtāts which doe not demaund it at all, and which are not at al diſpoſed to receiue it, as they ought to doe, & not from the prieſtes. By meane whereof they ſhut thē ſelues from it. But who is ye cauſe thereof, but onely the prieſtes them ſelues? For what admonition doe they giue to the people, either in their maſſe or before the ſame, to cauſe them to prepare and diſpoſe them ſelues to the communion which they will adminiſter in the ſame? And when they come to the Altar, do not they know wel enough what ſupper they ought to adminiſter, and which be thoſe that are diſpoſed to communicate at the ſame? doe they not know very well that there are none which are prepared thereunto? for they do not accuſtome at all to communicate the ſame, but to ſuch as are firſt cōfeſſed to them, and by whom they are aduertiſed, whether they haue will to communicate or no. And on the other ſide,Horrible deceite. what is the chief cauſe, yt the people hath ſo ſmal care to cō municate there? is it not becauſe that they haue giuen them to vnderſtand, that they do communicate for all in the communion of their maſſe? Wherefore the people beeing ſo inſtructed and falſely perſwaded, do thinke that they may very well reſt vpon their conſciences. But if they doe excuſe them ſelues vpon that, that the people is not at all diſpoſed as they ought to bee, they may not ſay the like of them ſelues, at the leaſt of thoſe which are diſpoſed to ſay maſſe, and are accuſtomed daily to ſay it. For they come not at all to the altar without preparing thē ſelues firſt, according to their maner. Wherefore is it then at the leaſt that they do not communicate altogether, and that they adminiſter not a ſupper in commō among them, and ſuch as ſhoul • be diſpoſed to communicate with them, and no • to ſeparate them ſelues euery one the one from the other?

WE doe reade well in the bookes of the ancient doctors,Note this. and in the Eccleſiaſticall hiſtories, that it is come often to paſſe, that becauſe the deuotion of the people was already become colde, and that they did very often celebrate the Supper, there were but the miniſters and the Deacons and the Auncientes of the Churche, and thoſe of the Clergie, and certaine others which did communicate at the Supper. But yet for all that, ſuch as would cōmunicate, did cōmunicate alway together, were they miniſters, byſhops, prieſtes, deacons, or others: and there was no one at all which made his Supper aparte. And in the meane whyle that true Biſhops and true prieſtes, beeing the true miniſters of the Churches, did neuer giue the people to vnderſtande that it was ſufficient that they alone did adminiſter the Supper for them, and for all the reſt of the Churche, neither did they make marchādizes of it, as the Romaine prieſts do of their maſſes: but on the contrary, they did greatly blame and rebuke,Note th • inſtructi •• ſuch as willingly did abſtaine from the communiō, and they declared vnto thē yt they were rebels to God in ſo doing, and how ingrate & vnworthy they were of ſuch a grace. And amōg the reſt S. Iohn Chryſoſtom did oftentimes cōplaine thereof. There are alſo ſūdrie decrees & canons to ye ſame effect, againſt thoſe which did not cōmunicate at all, & did not tarry to the end of the whole diuine ſeruice, & of the laſt benedictiō, whereby the miniſter did cō clude & end the ſame, as we doe yet at this day, following the maner of the ancient church.Note the names. But for ſo much as the ſeruice & the diuine office is called in theſe canons, either by the name of ſacrifice or of oblation, or of maſſe, the Romaine doctors & catholikes do take it for their priuate & particular maſſes, to the which they are cleane contrary. For they ſpeake fully of all the diuine ſeruice, and do make expreſſe mētion of the ſupper and of the communion of the people and of all the whole church. But they which applie it in this ſort, are ſo ignorāt, or els ſo caried away by their owne opinions and affections, that they do take for them ſelues thoſe teſtimonies which are manifeſtly againſt them, and do put into our handes a ſwoorde, wherewith to beate them, and to cut their throtes: but it is ſufficiēt for them to dazle the eyes of the ignorant, which do delight to be deceiued with them by ſuch fogges and ſmokes. • ote this ••• truction. When then there is any queſtion of the ſupper, there muſt be there certaine order, & the miniſter muſt know at what time, and in what place, and to what perſons, & in what ſorte they ought to adminiſter it. And if there be not ſuch number of perſons diſpoſed and prepared to receiue the ſame, as is requiſit, they muſt then attend a better opportunitie. For they may not receiue it for ye reſt, nor any one in particular ſeparated and deuided from the other. And therfore the very Romaine church hath had neither particular and priuate maſſes and ſuppers without communion, but onely from the time that the maſſe was conuerted in the ſame into a propiciatorie ſacrifice, as well for the dead as for the liuing. For euen from that time, it hath bene the worke and occupation of prieſts & monkes, and mamely from the time that they haue accuſtomed to ſet their maſſes at ſale, and to make common marchandizes of the ſacrifices of the ſame.Note theſe • archaun • iſes. For that traffike hath alſo bene the cauſe of the multiplication of the marchaunts, which hath traded that marchandize. From thence is come chiefly a great multitude of prieſts and of monkes, wherewith the Church hath bene loden and filled.Note 〈◊〉 theſe ca • ſes folo • ing. And for ſo much as the maſſes haue bene multiplied according to the multitude of the Sayers and marchants of the ſame, it was needefull that the communion which ſhould be in the Supper, ſhould be cut off, & that it ſhould be conuerted into that of the onely prieſt which ſaieth the maſſe, and that for ſundrie cauſes. The firſt is, for ſo much as the doctrine which ſhould be ſet forth to the people, and by the which they ſhould be exhorted to the cōmunion, and to prepare them ſelues to the ſame, hath bene taken away and conuerted into mumbling & ſinging. The other is, that albeit that this fault were not there at all, men are alwayes of the deuotion colde enough in matters of true religion, and are not very warme, if it be not in ſuperſtion and idolatrie. Wherefore if at that very time that they haue good paſtors, which doe ſet foorth purely vnto them the doctrine of the Lorde, and doe ſolicite them thereby to do their dutie, they are yet very colde and ſlowe: we may not maruell then, if when they want that doctrine, they haue litle care, both for the Supper and Communiō, and for all other diuine ſeruice. The third is, that albeit that they were the beſt affected of the world to the religion, yet for all that they could not furniſhed and accompliſhe ſo many Suppers, and ſo often, and in ſo many diuers times and places, as the prieſtes doe ordinarily ſaye Maſſes. Wherefore it muſt needes be, either that they do ſaye fewer, and to better purpoſe, or els that they doe adminiſter their ſupper and communion all alone, •• ncluſiō. as they daily do. Behold then how the true vſe of the true ſupper of the Lorde was loſt by the meane of maſſes, and was conuerted into the particular & priuate cō muniō and ſuppers of the prieſts, which are neither ſuppers nor communions, as I haue already ſufficiently proued heretofore.

THere reſteth yet to aunſwere nowe to that which they ſaye, that albeit that thoſe which aſſiſt at the maſſe, doe not communicate at all bodily at the communion which the prieſt receiueth in the ſame, yet for all that, the ſame letteth not but that they may cōmunicate ſpiritually. But I aſke them, • emande. if the meanes which the Lord hath ordeined for to communicate vnto vs his giftes and graces, doe ſerue for nothing to that, for the which he hath ordeined them? and whether it be all one, either to vſe them or not to vſe them at all. For if they be there of no value, they are ordeined in vaine, the which thing ſhoulde very euill agree with the wiſdome and prouidence of the almighty, which doth make and ordaine nothing without very good & iuſt cauſe. And if it be ſo, they which doe contemne theſe meanes, do tempt God, & are rebels vnto him, in as much as they do not obey his ordinance: & in ſo doing, they make them ſelues vnworthy,A worthy ſentence. & depriue them ſelues of the benefites which God would cōmunicate vnto them by thoſe meanes. For albeit that he is able to communicate them without thoſe meanes, Note. and tha he is not thereunto ſubiect at all, yet for all that, ſeeing that he will cōmunicate thē in that ſort vnto vs, he hath made vs ſubiect to that order. Wherefore if we do contemn and violate them, we do make our ſelues vnworthy & incapable of ye good things which hee would beſtow vpon vs by the ſame: the fruite whereof we can not receiue, if we our our ſelues do not enioy & poſſeſſe ye ſame in our own very perſons, & not by vicars & lieutenāts. For there is no mā yt may poſſeſſe thē, nor enioy and receiue ye fruite of thē for others, but euery man for him ſelfe onely. For the which cauſe it muſt alſo be, yt whoſoeuer wilbe made partaker, muſt vſe in his own perſon thoſe meanes by the which the Lord doth communicate them and not an other for him: as wee may well iudge by the preaching of the Goſpel, and by the doctrine ſet forth vnto vs in the ſame. •• n. 10. For ſeeing that faith is giuen by the hearing of the woorde of God, I muſt, if I will receiue this gift of faith, heare the worde, by hearing whereof the holy Ghoſt will worke in me, and make me partaker: for ſeeing that the Lorde hath ſo ordeined it, • onſyder •• ll this. if I reiect the preaching of the woorde, I depriue my ſelfe of the faith which I ſhoulde receiue by the ſame. And therefore Saint Paul ſaith, • om. 10. How ſhall they belleeue in him whom they haue not heard? and how ſhall they heare without a preacher? euen then as an other may not beleeue for me, and as I can not be ſaued by ye faith of an other, whatſoeuer he be, if I my ſelf doe not beleeue in proper perſon, euē ſo none other may heare the Goſpell for me in ſuch ſorte that it may profite me, if I my ſelfe doe not heare it in mine own perſon. For faith is, • hat faith 〈◊〉 . in reſpect of the ſoule and of the ſpirituall life, as the ſoule is in reſpect of the body and of the corporall life: wherefore euen as no man may liue a corporall life by meane of the ſoule of an other man, • xample. but onely by his own: euen ſo no man may liue a ſpirituall life, by the faith of an other, but by his owne faith, according to that which is written, •• a. 2. • om. 2. The iuſt man ſhal liue by faith. And euen as no man may entertain and conſerue the life which hee receiued by meane of his ſoule, by the nouriture which an other doth take, nor by that which he eateth and drinketh, but onely by that which he him ſelfe doth take, and by the meates and drinkes which he receiueth by his owne preſon, euen ſo is it of the nouriture of ye faith of euery man by the word of God, for the entertainement and conſeruatiō of the ſpirituall life.

Note wel this chapter.ANd that which I ſay of preaching and of the worde, muſt be alſo vnderſtoode of the Sacramentes and of the adminiſtration of them, for ſo much as they do depend of the ſame, and that they are, as Saint Auguſtine hath very wel ſaid,Aug. in Ioa • Ho. 80. & cō tra Fauſt. li. 16. & de doctr. Chri. li. 11. as it were a kinde of worde which is viſible and to be felt, and is ſenſible, the which teacheth men by their eyes, by the meane of the ſight, and by the other ſenſes, by the meane of their feelings, as doth the woorde and the voice by the eares, by the meane of ye hearing. From whēce it commeth to paſſe, that by the meane of the ſacramentes, ••• uctiō meane • he ſacra •• nts. man is inſtructed by all his ſenſes, as well exteriour as interiour, and as well bodily as ſpirituall, becauſe that they haue ſuch as agreement together, that the exteriour and bodily ſenſes, are as the meſſengers and the aduertiſers of the inward and ſpiritual ſenſes. Wherfore, ſeeing that God would that by the meane of his ſacraments, yt one ſhould helpe to inſtruct the others euery one in their order and degree, none may then contemne and ouerthrowe that order. Whereupon I do conclude, that the Romaine prieſts may as wel receiue the ſupper for others as for them ſelues, as they may heare the word of God, & beleeue & be ſaued for others, for ſo much as it muſt needes be, yt euery man haue all this in his owne perſon. • ote this • impariſō. Wherefore it is as poſſible that the Chriſtiā people ſhould be fedde ſpiritually with ye body & blood of Ieſus Chriſt, by the communion, which the prieſt alone maketh in his maſſe, as it is poſſible that he may be fed bodily, with that which ye prieſt dineth with, and eateth & drinketh all alone. 〈◊〉 good in •• ruction. Wherefore if ye people wilbe partakers of ye things ſignified by the ſignes of the ſupper, they muſt alſo be partakers of the worde & of the ſignes of the ſame: which are the meanes whereby God will cōmunicate thoſe things which they doe ſignifie. For as he hath ordeined the meane whereby he will giue, entertaine & conſerue the bodily life, euē ſo hath he done for the conſeruation of the ſpiritual life. And therefore ſeeing yt he hath ordeined the miniſterie of the word & of the ſacramēts in reſpect of the ſpirituall life: he that would haue & conſerue it wtout this meane, ſhould do as much as if he would liue a bodily life, without eating or drinking, & vſing ye meane ordeined of God, for the nouriture & entertainemēt of the ſame, if there be no ſuch neceſſitie and let, that they both cannot be had. For God hath not ſo tied his graces to external things,God diſt •• buteth h • graces as pleaſeth him. that he cannot diſtribute the ſame without them, by his diuine vertue, and without externall meanes, if it pleaſe him, prouided that there bee no contempt or rebellion of our part: for albeit that he hath made vs ſubiect thereunto, ſo farre foorth as hee giueth vs the meanes, yet for all that he is not ſubiect as wee are, but ſo farre foorth as it pleaſeth him to vſe them of his owne free will.Example. And therefore euen as he did nouriſh extraordinarily & ſupernaturally by his diuine vertue Moyſes, Elie, and Ieſus Chriſt, the ſpace of fortie dayes, they not receiuing in that time any bodily meate or drinke, according to the order of nature: euen ſo may hee nouriſhe ſpiritually, and communicate his gifts and graces, without the miniſterie of man ordeined in his Churche, if it pleaſe him, to thoſe which by neceſſitie are depriued of them, notwithſtanding that they haue great deſire to vſe the meanes which he hath ordeined, and that they do all their indeuour that they may, to haue the true and right vſe thereof, •• ample. as if a faithfull man were ſo holden by neceſſitie of ſickneſſe, or by captiuitie and priſon of tyrantes, or by ſome other like neceſſitie which hindreth him, that he may not participate outwardly. For if there were there of his fault, • onſider •• ll this • tructiō. and that hee would forbeare for his pleaſure, and that he would not do his duetie in that behalfe, the reaſon ſhoulde bee otherwiſe.

ANd if the doctrine of tranſſubſtantiation were true, that which I ſay, would fight yet more ſharpely againſt the Romaine prieſts. For ſeeing that they doe affirme that the bread and the wine which are the ſignes of the ſupper, are conuerted into the very body and blood of Ieſus Chriſt, the which they ſignifie, they muſt alſo confeſſe, will they or will they not, that in depriuing priuing the people of theſe two ſignes in their maſſe, they doe alſo depriue them of the bodie & of the blood of Ieſus Chriſte, and that in their commō ſupper they depriue them of the blood, deliuering to them but they body, according to their doctrine:Note. Ephe. 5. for ſeeing that we muſt be made fleſh, of the fleſh, & bones, of the bones of Ieſus Chriſt, by the communiō which we ſhould haue with him, and which is repreſented vnto vs, Rom. 6. 1. Cor. 10 as well by baptiſme as by the ſupper, an other can not be that for vs. And by that meane the prieſts may no more receiue the ſupper for vs, & in our name, then they may be baptized in our name & for vs. And therefore Ieſus Chriſt ſaid not,Note we • this inſtruction. yt he which ſhould eate his fleſh and drinke his blood by vicar & lieutenant, ſhould haue life in him, & ſhould be in Ieſus Chriſt, and Ieſus Chriſt in him, but ſaid openly, Iohn. 6. He that eateth my fleſh and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me & I in him, & hath eternall life, and I will rayſe him vp at the latter day. Let the Romaine Catholiques then conſider, whether their prieſtes may eate this meate and drinke this drinke, & riſe for all their parochians, and for all thoſe which heare and ſee their maſſes: and whether they will be contented to be ſo nouriſhed with the fleſh and with the blood of Ieſus Chriſte, and ſo to riſe at the latter daye in the perſon of their prieſtes.

WHerein they do againe greatly faile, & in ſondrie ſortes. For, for the firſt,Note the • faultes. ſeeing that the doe all that which they doe, in all theſe points without any woord of God, they can not doe them in faith. ••• ment. And if they can not doe them in faith, they may then in no wiſe pleaſe God in ſo doing. But they do greatly diſpleaſe him. By meane whereof, ſo farre off is the worke which they do, from being good, that it is in deed but ſinne. •• te. And that the ſame is true, I proue it vnto them by that which is written, that whatſoeuer is done without faith is ſinne, •• t • . 14. •• b. 11. and that without faith it is impoſſible to pleaſe God. And then I proue that all that which is done without the word of God, is done without faith, becauſe that it is alſo written, 〈◊〉 other •• ofe. • om. 10. that faith cōmeth by the hearing of the ſame. Wherefore there where this worde is not, and there where faith hath not the ſame for his foundation, there is alſo no faith. • ote. Nowe I haue already ſufficiently ſhewed, that they haue no worde of God, whereupon they may builde any propiciatorie ſacrifice for the remiſſion of ſinnes, either for the liuing or for the dead, except it bee that which Ieſus Chriſt him ſelfe hath offered, the which may not be offered againe, neither yet by any other then by him ſelfe onely. • onſyber •• ll this. They haue no more woorde of God for that communion which they ſay alſo is adminiſtred in their maſſe, as well for the one as for the other, but they haue the worde of God directly contrary to all theſe points, and chiefly the inſtitution of the holy Supper of the Lord. It foloweth then, yt their faith & religion in this matter is not founded otherwiſe, but only vpon the doctrines & the commandements & tradicions of men, wherby God witneſſeth not only by Eſay, but alſo by his own ſonne Ieſus Chriſt,Eſai. 2 • Mat. 1 • Mat. 7. yt he is ſerued in vaine. And by what teſtimonies of the Scripture wil they alſo proue either the praiers, or the ſuffrages for the dead, and the inuocatiō of Saints? Now if there were no other reaſon but this,Note 〈◊〉 couclu ••••• Now if there were no other reaſon but this, it is ſufficient to ouerthrowe all theſe points. For I wil ſay alwaies, and it ſhalbe true, yt al that is done without faith: from whēce it foloweth yt it is ſinne, vntil ſuch time as they be able to ſhewe by certaine teſtimonies of the word of God, that he hath commanded & alowed ſuch workes, & yt he hath giuen commandement & promiſe therunto: which thing they ſhal neuer do, but by corrupting and peruerting the true ſenſe of the Scriptures.

ANd further I aſke them whether the Lord did ordaine the ſacraments either for the liuing,No •• or for the dead, •• aund ••• at •• quence or for both together? It is certain yt it is not for the dead, but for the liuing only. For ſeeing that the ſacraments cannot be adminiſtred without the word, vpon the which they are grounded, it is very certaine, that none may be capable of them, but onely thoſe vnto whom the word may be adminiſtred with their ſignes. ••• der 〈◊〉 . Now ſo it is, yt the one neither the other may be adminiſtred to the dead. From whēce it alſo foloweth, that the ſacraments doe no more belong vnto thē, then the preaching of ye Goſpel which is ordinarily vſed in the Church. And to ſay, that the liuing may receiue them for them, I haue already declared yt it cannot be done: For if ye very liuing may not do it for thoſe yt are liuing, much leſſe yet may they do it for the dead. And if it were ſo yt it mought be done, wherefore alſo ſhould not ye other Chriſtiās aſwel do it, for their kinſmen and friends which are dead, as ye prieſts & the monkes: And if they mought do it in reſpect of the ſupper, wherefore mought they not do it in reſpect of baptiſme, yea more iuſtly, according to their doctrine? for they place ſo great neceſſity in the outwarde ſigne thereof, yt they do affirme that thoſe cannot be ſaued which cannot attaine thereunto. For the which cauſe they haue forged a Limbe for the children which are dead without baptiſme, ••• e. the which according to their diuinitie, is at the leaſt as it were a halfe hel. If then it be ſo, yt the neceſſitie be ſuch,Note this. & that ye one may receiue the ſacraments for the other, & namely the prieſts & the monkes, they ſhould haue greater reaſon to practiſe the ſame rather in the baptiſme, thē in the ſupper, forſomuch as according to their doctrine, there is much greater daunger to be depriued of baptiſme, then of ye ſupper. For they do not at al accompt damned, thoſe which doe die not hauing receiued the Supper, as they do thoſe which do die without baptiſme. Wherefore is it then that the prieſtes are not baptized rather for the litle Children which are borne dead,Deman •• which could not liue vntil they mought receiue baptiſme, then to receiue the ſupper for the liuing, & for the dead, as they vaunt thē ſelues to do in their maſſe, ſaying that they are as it were ye mouth of ye whole Church, by the which al the body of the ſame, and all her members are nouriſhed ſpiritually?

NOwe it is true that they haue not at al any certaine word of God to declare & to proue any of al this. •• ndaciō maine. Whereon then are they groūded? it is not vpō the ſtone & vpon the rocke: but vpon the grauel and vpon the ſand. Wherefore it muſt needes come to paſſe,infallicenſure. wil they or will they not, yt al this whole building ſhal at the laſt fal & tumble into vtter ruine. And therfore it ſemeth to me yt they do very wel, to leaue ye dead apart, & to deale onely wt the liuing, doing the dutie of good miniſters and paſtours towards them, as their duty requireth according to the worde of God. For if they dead haue neede of ſacrifices, or of ſacraments, • ote very • ell this. or of other ſuffrages and good deedes, ye Saints which are dead which knowe better their ſtate then we do, & which are alſo in better eſtate & more worthy to ſuccour thē, may better do this office then the liuing. And if they cannot do it, if it be neceſſary yt ſome ſhould doe it, it ſhalbe yet more harde for the liuing to doe it. And at the leaſt, we haue not at al any certain teſtimonie in al the holy ſcriptures, whereby we may be aſſured that they may doe it, neither yt it is needful, nor that God doth alow ſuch a worke & yt it doth profit ye dead. Thus much then touching this point, concerning the ſacrifice and communion of the maſſe, aſwel for the liuing as for the dead, and ye applying of the ſacrifice & of the benefits of Ieſus Chriſt by the ſame.

I Haue yet 2. points, for the 11. & 12. the which I wil touch in briefe. 2 poi •• The firſt is concerning the praiers which they make in ye maſſe, wherein we finde 2. faults. The firſt is concerning thoſe which they make for the dead, the which we can not accept by meane of ye reaſons which I haue already alleaged, concerning the points which haue not at al any certaine foundation in ye holy ſcriptures. Frō whence it foloweth alſo, yt faith may haue no place in them, by meane of ye reaſons which I haue already yelded. The other is touching ye inuocation of men & womē ſaints, againſt yt which we haue alſo like reaſō. Wherunto I yet adde ye great diſhonor & outrage which is done to God, & to Ieſus Chriſt our Lorde in ſuch praiers, in that that they be not addreſſed to God only, by our only mediator & aduocate Ieſus Chriſt, 〈◊〉 3.8. •• n 2. 〈◊〉 . 9.10. •• hn. 2. & by his merit, but alſo to dead men, and by their interceſſions & merits: the which by this meane are put in the place of Ieſus Chriſt the ſonne of God, which only is giuen to vs for mediator and aduocate towards ye father, according to the expreſſe teſtimonie of the ſcriptures: or at ye leaſt are ſubſtituted or ioyned vnto him for companions. And by this meane Ieſus Chriſt i • robbed if not in al, yet at the leaſt of a great part of his office. Wherfore they may wel alleadge yt thei do alwaies ſay, Note. By Ieſus Chriſt. For it is not enough that they take him for mediator & aduocate, but they muſt alſo giue this honor to him alone, without ioining vnto him any other felowes, or any other merit to his. And they may not here alleadge their diſtinction of aduocates, • iſtinctiō aduo • tes. & mediators, of reconciliatiō, & of interceſſion, attributing the firſt to Ieſus Chriſt, & the ſecond to men and women Saints which are dead. For by what teſtimonies of ye Scriptures may they proue & mainteine it? • emaund. For ye cō cluſion which they make from the liuing to the dead, is not good at al. For it foloweth not at al, yt if the liuing do pray and may pray the one for the other in this life, that they may in like ſort pray for the dead, & the dead in like ſort for thē, be they men or womē. Saints, or of what condition ſoeuer els they be. For we haue commā dement and promiſe for the firſt concerning the liuing, in a great nomber of paſſages,Co •• deme •• promi • and ſuch as are very plaine in ye holy ſcriptures: But we haue not one, onely for the other two. Note. And on the other ſide, when it is commaunded to the liuing to pray for the liuing, it is not to the end yt the one ſhould be aduocates towards God for ye others, or toward Ieſus Chriſt, but onely to exerciſe their charitie the one towardes the other, becauſe that they do knowe, both the neceſſities & infirmities whereunto they are ſubiect, but ye like is not of the dead. The ſame is alſo done to the end that God may be glorified by many, as Saint Paul doth witneſſe. And therefore he,2. Co •• which mought be aduocate for others, how often doth he deſire the praiers of the other faithful for him during this life? and did he euer promiſe or teach, that he or any other of ye Apoſtles & other holy perſonages would pray after their death for thē, & for ye other liuing, or alſo for the dead?Con •• Wherefore I will alway conclude infallibly, that ſuch praiers are made without faith, only by opinion and humaine fantaſie. From whence it alſo foloweth, yt they are ſinne, & diſpleaſing God.

ANd in the meane time their deacons, Subdeacons & Archdeacons, are occupied but in fooliſh & vain ceremonies, as it appeareth aſwel by the charge which is giuen vnto thē, whē they are appointed to their myniſterie, by their Byſhops or ſuffragans, as by ye alſo which is written of their office in their bookes, & by ye executiō of the ſame. There are in their maſſe praiers, to wit,Conſider his wel thoſe which goe before the reading or ye ſinging of the Epiſtle, yt which they do cal Collects. But in the meane time there is no collection made for the poore. And the Doacons and Subdeacons which ſhould gather the ſame, & ſhould diſtribute them after ward to ye poore, do there none other thing, but that the one ſingeth the Epiſtle & the other the Goſpel, which is to ſay, ſome piece aſwel of the one as of the other, yea often times very euil & vnaptly ſhaped. And as for ye reſt they do ſerue the prieſt which doth adminiſter the maſſe, Note. in the ceremonies which he hath to do, & chiefly to gather the offerings of ye offertorie, yt which as I haue already ſaid, come not ſo farre as to the poore. And yet they do not this office, but in ſolemne maſſes & ſuch as they do ſing with a loude voice: for in the others, it is ſufficient to haue ſome pety clarke to anſwere thē, & to ſerue the prieſt which is at ye altar. And as touching the offertorie, it is not ſo in euery mans libertie, either to go or not to go thereunto, but that there is alſo conſtraint thereunto, chiefly in certaine feaſtes of the yere, & namely in thoſe which they do call ſolemne. For there is certaine tribute laid vpon aſwel men as women at the leaſt vpon fathers & mothers of houſhold, which they muſt thē bring to the offertorie. And albeit yt the curats haue their benefices & cures certenly rented, yet for al that they ſay that yt is their right, as are many other impoſtes which they do impoſe to their parochians, aſwel for the liuing as for the dead, & aſwel for thadminiſtration of their ſacraments, as for their other ceremonies, ſuperſtitions & Idolatries. If the ſame be not done in euery place after one ſort, yet it is done notwithſtanding. For they doe not any thing freely & for nought. Thus much concerning this latter point, the which we do alſo condemne in the Romaine maſſe: the which albeit yt it be not of the proper ſubſtance of the Supper, yet for all that, I thought good to ſet forth the ſame, becauſe yt ye auncient Church was not wt out theſe Collects, & namely when they did celebrate ye ſupper: of yt which they did alſo leuy ye bread & the wine yt they did diſtribute to ye faithfull in the fame, the which were there dedicated & cōſecrated in ſuch ſort as I haue here tofore already declared to be there ſignes of the body & of the bloud of the Lorde.

I Do omit very many other points, forſomuch as I wold only bring forth ſuch as were moſt principal & moſt intolerable, the which we may in no wiſe allowe, without reiecting of Ieſus Chriſt, & ouerthrowing wholy al the ſacrament of ye holy ſupper, & obſeruation therem of ye true aunciēt Church. No more haue I alſo determined to make many proofs, the more to confirme that which I haue ſet forth, againſt the points yt which we do condemne, aſwel becauſe that the arguments, which I haue brought forth to the ſame purpoſe, may ſuffice ſuch as wilbe ſatiffied with reaſon, and will not fight againſt all manyfeſt trueth, as for that alſo, that I haue handled theſe matters very largely in diuers other bookes, in the which men ſhal finde arguments, & teſtimonies ſufficient to confirme more largely yt, which I haue here handled more briefely. And forſomuch as the Romaine doctors and catholikes doe make their chiefe buckler of the ſacrifice, and of the order of Melchiſedec, Sacri ••• of Mel ••• ſedec. for the defence of their maſſe and of the ſacrifice of the ſame, I haue made an other booke of purpoſe vpon that matter, in the which I doe ſhewe by apparant teſtimonies & arguments, taken out of the holy ſcriptures, howe that the foundation which they lay vpon that order of Melchiſedec, doeth more ſhake downe ye building which they do build thereupon, thē it doth ſuſtaine it, & how contrary it is to the Sacrifices that they would build thereupon. Wherefore I will nowe end this treatiſe, Note. wherein I haue firſt ſet foorth the principal reaſons which mought leade the Romaine catholikes to maintaine their maſſe, as they do maintaine it, to the which I haue made anſwere. And then I haue ſet forth the points which doe leade the catholikes of the reformed Church to reiect the ſame, being ſuch as it is at this preſent in the Romaine Church. For as I haue already declared, wee are not at all in controuerſie concerning the inſtitution, and obſeruation of the Sacrament of the Supper, the which we doe all confeſſe: but the different is, whether the maſſe, ſuch as it is at this day in vſe in the Romaine Church, be this Sacrament of the holy Supper or no, & whether it be ye true ſupper (or elſe if they wil cal it ye maſſe) of ye true aunciēt Church, or elſe an other baſtard maſſe, into the 〈…〉 the ſupper of the Lorde, •• d the forme 〈◊〉 diuine ſeruice of the true auncient Ch ••• 〈◊〉 bene conuerted and tranſformed. 〈…〉 I haue reduced theſe principal 〈…〉 •• ereof we are in controuerſie with 〈◊〉 •••• raine catholikes, and the which I haue han •• ed here before, firſt into fiue, of the which I haue alſo deuided ſome into diuers articles, in ſort that in the whole I make to the nomber of xii. by that order that they are ſet downe in the table, placed in the be ginning of this booke after the Aduertiſement.