deuise to the vtteraÌce and reprofe of the faultes incideÌt to thee pryuate masse eueÌ now by gods assistance do I wryte Therfore good reader gyue heedy attendaunce therto PRyue masse after the doctryne of the Popishe boke entituled Antididagma is facyoned of fowre partes namelye of thee Sacryfyce of Christes bodye and bloude of the receypt of the communion of prayer and of doctryne These partes orderly wyl I declare and conferre them wyth goddes wrytten worde vpon the confereÌce and tryall whereof it shall I doubt not appeare ful true that eche parcel of the pryuate masse is vngodlye and so consequently the masse selfe exceadynge vngodlye The fyrste parte of the sayd masse is thee sacryfyce wherunto be incydente alwaye consecration transubstanciation and the worshippe of Christes body and bloude And by reason consecracyon for goethe transubstanciation and transubstanciation the sacryfyce and the worshyppe aftergoethe them all I wyll fyrste talke vpon consecratyon and them orderly vpon the remnaunte CoÌsecracyon is that percel of the masse wherein thee priest presumeth to consecrat and hallow Chrstes bodye and bloude The whyche as it is an attempte too vnreasonable and vnable so passynge wycked presumptuouse detestable For howe can it possible be that christes bodye whych cannot be made holyer and perfecter thaÌ already it is shuld or myght be consecrat of the priest Thys muste nedes be that / that is hallowed was before his coÌsecration eyther throughly prophane nothing holy at al eyther else not so holy in consyderacyon wherof whiles the prest do presume to coÌsecrate christes body nedes must they acknowledge and graunt by that theyr enterpryse not so godly as presumptuouse that the sayd body was before the consecration eyther nothyng holy at al else not so holy which graunt as it is erronyouse and vnbeleueable so vngodly and exchuable In case the prestes presumed only by theyr coÌsecratioÌ to hallowe christes body that theyr coÌsecratioÌ were not so haynouse a dede but for asmoche as therby they contend not so learnedly as stoutly not so truly as falsely Christes body to be forged and made of the chosen bread therfore endeuour theÌ selues therby to forge the body of the purposed bread it is exceding haynouse for ther is no creature so worthy puissaÌt entier as the sayd body is whyche thyng could not be true yf the priest or any maÌ else dyd or coulde make the same For the ofte making of any thing as of christes body is an vndeceyueable proufe of the vnperfytenes vnworthines feblenes of the same Ther is no man be he neuer so moch priested or byshopped the caÌ make the feblest basest vnperfytest creature in thys worlde moch lesse christes body the perfytest noblest creature ther is no creature be it neuer so imperfyte that is ofte made howe thaÌ can christes bodye be oft made that is the most perfyte These wordes take eate in these wordes of the institution of the lordes supper take eate thys is my bodye be no wordes of makinge of the lordes body but of presenting exhibiting the same to the receauers of the ryghte supper of the lord So that it is full open that the prieste can nether consecrate Christes body neyther make it Howbeit this is alwaye graunt able the minister both coÌsecrateth maketh though not christes body bloud yet thallotted bread wyne the sacrameÌtes exhitiue of the same For where as the bread wyne vsed at the lordes supper were prophane vnholy before the wordes of the institution of the sayd supper were duely reported vpon them Nowe after thee due reporte and vtteraunce of thee sayde wordes by thee mynister vpoÌ the before named bread and wine they be consecrate and made of prophane the holy sacramentes exhibitiues of Christes body and bloud Thus also meaned the fathers by these wordes consecratioÌ and making in this sacramente Nowe to transubstantiatyon or tornekynde thee next entreatable matter whyche is no lesse disallowable then deceaueable How can thys stande wyth our fayth that Christes body whose creatyon is vnrenuable shulde be agayn made of the bread a vyle creature throughe thexchaunge of the nature therof into hys Howe were it true that the blessed wyne broken bread were bred wyne as Paule termethe theÌ yf theyr natures were throughlye altered into christes body bloud Can they be bread wyne styl without they reteygne theyr natures styll Can they be rightly named bread and wyne wythout theyr own proper mater substauÌce in respect where of they were so named doo they not styll appere to oure senses bread wine not withstanding they ar become the sacrameÌtes exhibitiues of Christes body and bloud who euer sawe the exchaÌge of any substaÌce wtout the alteracioÌ of hys accedeÌtes outward shape wheÌ christ tourned marueylously water into wyne it had not only the nature of wyne but the externall forme also tast colour factoÌ of wyne no semblance of water at al AaroÌs rodde beyng altered into an adder had not only the substaÌce therof but also the outward fassion of the same no similitude of a rodde at al. The water which moyses chaunged into bloude as it was iÌ nature bloud so outwardly it semed bloud EueÌ so questionles shuld the bread wyne leaue the outward shape wyth theyr inwarde substauÌce yf they were altered into christes bodye and bloud By reason wherof sythe they reteygne styl theyr accidentes nedes must they also reteigne theyr wonted substance can ther be any sacrameÌt as S. Augustyne sayth without therin the due elemeÌt fyt word of god belonginge ther vnto be ioyntlye coupled togethers No verely How than can the outward apperaunce of bread wyne without theyr inward substaÌce be the sacramentes of christes body bloud for the outward apperauÌce of bread wyne be none elemeÌtes but only thexternal shewes of the same ElemeÌtes be substaÌce not accideÌtal shewes Is it not true that in thee consacrate bread ther are wormes both engendered fosterd whych could not be yf ther endured the bread lyke natured after as it was before the consecracion For eche worme is a substance and none accydent therfore cannot be engendered or fedde of an accydente but of a substaunce alone In respect wherof sythe the wormes brede and fede not in Christes bodye but in thee consecrate bread we must remedyles acknowledge in the same bread to contynue thee verye proper substaunce therof The bread and wyne be sacrameÌtes of Christes body and bloude ordeyned of him purposely to enstructe oure senses outwardelye what is wrought inwardly by the sayd bodye and bloud in the soule For theyr vse is to declare too our outward senses assuredly the as the receaued bread and wyne norishe strengthen and glad our bodyes so christes body eaten hys bloud dronken accordyngly do oure soules Howe coulde the bread wyne serue to hys purpose yf they were vtterly diuoided of theyr accostumed nature Verely no
maner wyse For why it is the alone substaunce of bread and wyne and not the colour taste facyon of the same that fostereth and cherysheth the body Sacramentes sayth Augustyn vnlesse they haue certayne lykelyhode wyth the thynges wherof they be sygnes they be no SacrameÌtes at al. What semblance I beseche you is ther betwyxte the natureles bread and wyne and christes body and bloud questionles none at all For the sayde body and bloude and that after papysshe doctryne be not presented exhibited at the coÌmunioÌ accideÌtally but substaÌcially only In respect wherof nedes must we graÌt eyther the coÌsecrate bread wyne be not the sacrameÌte of Christes body and bloud whiche we ought not to do eyther else thee sayd bread wyne reteygne styl theyr owne natures whyche is grantable I maruel me muche that many of theÌ who stand in the defence of christes corporal presence at his supper haue in earnest meyntenaunce traÌsubstaÌciation for as me semethe it doeth moch what hinder preiudice the sayd presence of christ in the sayd hys supper by reason the brokeÌ bread blessed wyne be institute purposely to resolue and ascertayn our senses that we as materially truly thoughe not grosselyer sensyblie but ghostly receaue and eate Christes body drinke his bloud as we do the foresayd In consideratioÌ wherof yf we take eate drinke but the accidentes of thee foresayde bread wine not the very substaunces of the same theÌ gatherable it were christes bodye and bloud be not truely but faynedly presented gyuen at hys supper For why ⪠yf the signe be couÌterfayt fayned theÌ nedes must the thing be in semblable sorte whyche is betokened thereby a true matter must remediles haue his tokeÌ also true In respect wherof the brokeÌ bread being the sygne geueÌ of the sayd body is material not mattierles thys thensuyng saying which graciaÌ reporteth fathereth vpoÌ Austyne de coÌsecrat distint ii cap. qui manducat enforceth moche to the dysproue dampnation of transubstanciation That is sene is bread and the cup wherof the eyes also make euideÌt profe but that that faythe demaundeth to be instructed in is that the bread is Christes bodye and the cuppe hys bloud These therfore be named sacramentes for that in them one thyng is se able and another vnderstande that is sâne hath bodelye fourme that is vnderstand hath ghostly fruytâ What can be more effectually expresselye spoken agaynste tornekynde then thys the rehersed Englysshed sentence of Augustyne Fyrst he auoucheth therin the seable matter to be bread secondelye for an vndeceaueable argumente and tryall therof he alledgeth the testimonye of thee eyes Thyrdly he sayth not that is seeable is a bodelye fourme but hathe a corporall fourme leste anye man shulde here be occasyoned too adiudge the mattier to want in thys element and so to remayne nothynge else but thee outwarde and accydentall shape of breade For in that he saythe that that is seene hathe a corporal fourme he graunteth in thee elemente twoo thynges to bee remaynynge thee thynge hadde and thee thynge hauyng thee outwarde fassyon whych is seable and the subiecte and matter therof it is to wytt the bread substaunce and the excernall apperaunce of the same The sacramente of Thankesgeuynge saythe Irenee consystethe vpon twoo matters or substaunces thee one earthely thee other heauenlye Yf bread substaunce were departed theÌ could not Irenee leyfully call the one part of the sacrameÌt a substauÌce but an earthlye accidente The worthy counsayl of Nece wryteth to the disalowauÌce of traÌsubstaÌtiatioÌ in sorte thus Let vs not grossely beholde the bread wyne proposed set before our eyes but in faythe consyder the lambe yf god in that hys sacred table hauing our hartes eleuate vplifted loe here the worthy counsel nameth the feble portyon of the sacrament after the coÌsecration bread wyne not the formes of the same Gelasius in open expresse wordes impugneth the sayd transubstanciatioÌ as erronyouse vncredyble in sorte as followeth The sacrameÌtes of the body bloud of christ which we receaue ar sureli godly matters therfore through by theÌ we ar made partakers of the godly nature yet do they not ceasse to be the substances of bread wyne but coÌtinue in the properties of theyr owne natures wher as Austyne sayth the lord doubted not to say thys is my body wheÌ he gaue a sygne of hys body he meanethe not that christes body is absented froÌ hys supper but that the consecrate bread is not the sayd body or turned substancially in to the same is but the signe of christes body notwythstaÌdinge it be named hys body Notwithstanding Tertullian Ambrose Ierome Chrisostome wythe others whyche expresly in theyr wrytynges the consecrate bread to represent Christes body to be a signe therof howbeit in those soch other semblable theyr speaches theyr meanyng is not that the sayd bread is deuoided of Christes bodely presence and presentment but that the consecrate bread is but thee sacramentall sygne of christes bodye and not christes body selue thoughe it be termed sacramentallye the sayd bodye Nowe wyll I assoyle certayne obiections and gayn sayinges facyoned of the catholiques agaynst the premysses Yf say they the bred nature were not tornekynded into christes body why dyd he name it hys bodye Can it be hys bodye onles it be exchaunged into it CaÌ I be you wythout I become your substance No verely No more can thee bread be christes body wythoute the exchauÌge of the matter therof into the sayd body As for the accidentes of thee sayd bread it is not requisite ne nedefull that they shuld be together chaunged wythe theyr substaunce because christe in thys hys sayinge this is my body vseth the artycle demonstratyue thys not in the masculine but in the newtre gendre whyche implyeth but the alone matter of the bread and not accidentes of thee same therwyth as the masculine doeth Whereby christ doeth vs tunderstand that the bread nature is only altered not his accideÌtes iÌ lyke maner To this obiection soche is myne answere Christ in thys hys sayinge this is my body doeth institute the sacrament of hys bodye and bloud therfore he speaketh vpon the same sacramentally it is to wyt he termeth the signe by thee name of thee matter therby sygnyfyed He nameth the consecrate bread hys bodye for that it is resembled and presented therby baptyse is named the founteyn of our agayn byrth the renuinge of the holy ghost yet is it nether our newe byrth nether thee renuyng of the holi ghost ne chauÌged into theÌ but so called for the therby the sayd byrth renuing be not only represented but also wraughte presented and contributed vnto vs Gene 15 CircuÌcistoÌ was not in very dede the couenaunt made vnto Abraham ne altered into it howbeit it was so turned in consyderatioÌ it dyd bothe represent and present the same couenaunt to
AbrahaÌ his posteritie Christes breathe was called the holy ghost not that it was the very holy ghost or turned in to him but in respect of the sayd ghost therwyth both resembled exhibited semblably albeit the coÌsecrate bread is named Christes body yet is it not the layde body ne chauÌged into the same mathe 26 luke 22 but so called in consyderacioÌ therwyth the sayd body is both sygnifyed presented exhibited The cup is termed christes bloud the newe testameÌt Yet that his so callyng theÌ notwithstaÌding no maÌ wyll depose therupoÌ the cup eyther to be christes bloud or his testameÌt Termed notwithstanding thou sayd bloud testament for that it is thou sacrameÌtal mean wherwyth they be applied conferred vnto vs Vpon semblable consyderacioÌ is the bread named christes bodye Wher as it is thought credited the bread substaÌce only not hys accideÌtes also to be tornekynded into Christes bodye By reasoÌ he vseth in this his saying this is my body the article thys in the newtre not in the masculine gendre Yf this were formally argued is our bonden duety so to do Yet it is replyed sayed Paule calleth the consecrate bread wyne this bred this wyne Why shuld he so terme theÌ In case the one were not turned into christes bodye the other into hys bloud Verely the consideration therof is to haue vs put a difference therby betwyxte the consecrate vnconsecrate coÌmon breade wyne acknowledging the former bread wyne to be sacramentes exhibitiues of christes body bloud and these I meane the commoÌ bread wyne to be nothing lesse theÌ lyke coÌdicioned The last argumeÌt that is alledged for tornekynd is thys If christes bodye be in thee bred as vndoubtedly it is theÌ it is enbreaded his bloude enwyued whych was alway taken for a great heresy In respect wherof transubstantiacion nedes muste be grauÌted as ryght true and beleueable To thys I answere in sorte thus Notwythstandinge christes body be presented in thee bred as questionles it is not placely as ther placed spaced mesured but ghostly as ther vnplaced vnspaced not measured Howebeit it is not enbreaded nomore then the deytie is recompted enfleshed for that it is substancially in vs Nomore then the sayd god hede is demed eÌbreaded for thou it is entierly in eche bred No morotheÌ the holy ghoste is accompted enbreathed for that he was presented in christes breathe Nomore then the sayd holy ghost is adiudged enbodied or enharted for that he is wholly in vs in oure hartes Christes body is adiudged of no man to be accideÌted notwythstanding it is presented in the accidentes of the bread Why then shuld it be adiuged eÌbreaded for hys preseÌce in the breade The one is as reasonable ' as gatherable as thother is Some are fule deceyued in the meanynge of these wordes thimpanacion of Christes bodye whyche is not in simple any preseÌce indefereÌtly of the sayd body in the bred Nomore theÌ the incarnatioÌ or enfleshing of christes godhead is indiffereÌtly any presence therof in maÌs fleshe nature But only soch a presence of christes body in the bread wherwyth they both shuld be vnseuerably personed haue al theyr coÌdicions properties coÌmoÌ mutuall betwixt theÌ Soch a presence is the personal presence of christes Godheade in hys manhode Soch is the presence of the soule in the body In respect wherof as christes body is not enpersoned iÌ vs notwithstaÌding it be enbodied to vs Semblable though the sayd body be presented in thou bred howbeit it is not become one person therw t whych is properly termed the impaning or enbreding therof If the bred wyne be not exchaunged in the coÌmunioÌ Some wil demauÌd of me why the auÌcieÌt doctors make so oft report vpoÌ thalteracion of the breade wyne To whoÌ this myne answere The coÌsideration why the forefathers so oft report an exchauÌge to be wrought in the sacrameÌt of christes body bloud is For that they beleued the chosen bread wyne to be turned froÌ a prophane to a godly vse to become nomore coÌmoÌ but special bread wyne to be made nowe exhibityues sacrameÌtes of christes body bloud where as before theyr hallowing they were nothyng so And not that they beleued the sayd bread wyne to be torne kiÌded into the lordes body bloud Thys is the exchaunge wherof the doctours make report and none other doo they acknowledge here besyde Thus I haue argued effectually both consecration traÌsubstantiacion construed after the catholique doctryne to be directly repugnauÌt agaynst gods wrytten truth Now wyll I trye whether the masse sacrifyce in semblable sort empugneth the said truth And for so moch as this masse sacryfyce is takeÌ here both for a satisfactioÌ of syn thankesgeuinge I wyl discusse fyrst whether it be a clensing satisfactory sacrifice This done theÌ whether it be an acceptable seruiceable thankesgeuing to god or no. Concernyng the clensynge sacryfyce falsely geuen to the masse ãâ¦ã Paule wryteth in sort as followeth With one offering hath christ made êfyghte for euer theÌ that are sanctifyed There is not one word in this paules saying diligently depely consydered the enforceth not moch against the before specified sacrifice In respect wherof I wyll report orderly wayghe eche word of the sayd saying seuerally by it selfe Paul sayth not wyth a manyfold or renewed but with one offering hath christ made perfecte for euer the sanctefied In consyderacion whereof they bee foule deceaued who auouche Christes sacrifyce ought to be reuiued multiplied to the ful pardoÌ contentacioÌ of our synne otherwyse vnpardonable And therfore repete the sayd sacryfyce day by day to the same effect For why that that is oft offered cannot iustly be recoÌpted to be offered but ones By reason a repeted renewed sacrifice is not merely syngle one but manifolde diuerse If christ had oft died notwithstaÌding he were the selue same Christ that doeth so oft dye Howbeit the his often dyeng shuld not be adiuged one single but sondry deaths Though it be that selfe same body the dieth by the second deth which died through the former deth Yet is the twyse dyeng of the body recoÌpted not one but two dethes as wytnesseth IohaÌ in hys Apo. Euen so 2â yf christ were oft sacrificed thoughe he were the same none other christ that is so offered Yet were that oft sacrificying of hym no syngle one but a many folde multiplied sacrifyce In consideracion wherof sythe by the one otferinge of christe oure synnes be thoughly pourged as paule recordeth Sythe an often offer is not an ones but a manifold sacrifyce though it be ot the selue same matter Christes bodi nether may ne ought to be agayne sacrificed either bloudely or vnbloudely to the doynge away of our defaultes Now to the entretable text of paul By one offering hath christe
heere oure Catholiques replye sayinge the wordes of consecratioÌ be reported vpoÌ the bread wyne ere they be sacryfyced In consyderation wherof nedes must they be sacrameÌtes Thys ther replial is nothinge formall ne forceable that by theyr own doctryne Be it that alaymaÌ reported the consecration wordes on the bread wyne or the prest vttered theÌ not purposing the making of christes body bloud The sayd bread wyne were after our prestes doctrine nothing lesse theÌ geuing sacrameÌtes of the aboue named body bloud notwithstanding the report of the consecratioÌ wordes ouer theÌ So that it standeth wythe catholique doctryne that in symple the bare report naked vtttrance of the consecration wordes enforce not the sacrameÌt So that the foresayd replial is nothiÌg effectual being neyther true ne catholique Now to the before mencioned sacrificed bred agayn I put the case ther were soch adueuout priest who were so deuoutly disposed as he wolde eate none other breade drinke none other drinke at meales but sacramentally consecrate bred wyne wold in consideracioÌ hereof for eche his dyner and supper purposely report daye by day at hys masse the coÌsecration wordes ouer hys bread wyne yâ he wold vse at the sayde meales I suppose noman be he neuer so catholiqÌ old fashioned wyldepose that sayd bred wyne to be geuiÌg sacrameÌtes of christes body bloude notwithstaÌding the report of the coÌsecratioÌ wordes ouer theÌ And verely the consecration hereof is the dyrecte oppeÌ abuse agaynst the ryght institutioÌ vsage of the sacramentes of thee sayde bodye and bloud Nomore be the sacryfyced bred wyne sacrameÌtes of christes body bloud notwithstaÌdyng the rehersal of the consecratioÌ wordes ouer theÌ For why christe instituted at his supper his body not to be sacrificed but eteÌ In respecte wherof he saythe not take sacrifice this is my bodi but takeÌ eate thys eate my body Ther be thre matters ryght nedefull be houeful to the natural beynge of a sacrameÌt The due element the due word the especial commaundemeÌt of god directed therto Wher any of the aforesayd want there can be no sacrament By reason wherof the sacrificed bread wyne caÌ be no sacrameÌtes notwithstaÌding they be the due elemeÌtes consecrate wyth due wordes In consyderation ther waÌteth gods special commauÌdemeÌt so to autoryse vs able vs to sacrifice theÌ as to take theÌ eate theÌ So that they be but pure elemeÌtes no sacrameÌtes Therfore christes body bloud caÌnot possibly be sacrifyced in by theÌ Whereby it appereth euideÌt the prest sacrificing is of nothing lesse theÌ of christes body bloud Thus good reder I haue argued I suppose forceably the priest sacrifice to be nether propiciatore ne auaileable nether godly ne approueable but sinful and vnsufferable Therfore I besech yâ vtterly renouÌce it detest it enbracing vsing in the stede therof the most holy coÌmunion But happely thou art loothe so to do tyl I haue soyled the reasens fetched out of scriptures whych colourably seme to ratefy the sayd sacryfyce By reason whereof I wyl addresse me to the ful answere resolutioÌ of the same Wheras it is argued christ in respecte he is pristed after Melchisedech ordre offred him selue bodely vnder the fourme of bread wyne for that Melchisedech offered bread wine This reason holdeth not because it is false that Melchisedech sacrificed bred wyne For Moses sayth not Melchisedech offered but brought forth bread and wyne To bring forth is not to offer He sayth not he brought forth bread wyne for a sacrifice but wythout any meÌtion of sacrifice at al. He saith not he broughte forth the sayd bread wyne to god but to AbrahaÌ as it is right gatherable of the Historie to whoÌ to do sacrifice were an ymage seruice therfore Melchisedech sacrificed not bread wyne Here it is obiected yf Moyses meaned not that melchisedech offered bread and wyne Why adioned he immediatly thereto this he beynge the prest of the most hyghest god blessed hym Mary not because he sacrificed the bred wyne but for yâ he blessed AbrahaÌ doynge vs hereby to wete as Melchisedech declared hym selue to bee a kinge in employing vpon Abraham bred wyne So in blessing hym to be a prest For as the employing of bread and wyne was a kingly function so the blessing a priestly âffyce In consyderatioÌ wherof the foresayd Moses thus wryteth And Melcheledech thee Kynge of Salem brought forth breade and wyne Gene. xâiii and he was a prieste of the moost hyghest God and blessed hym The meanynge wherof is thys as me semeth because Melchysedech was a kyng he played the kynge he employed vpoÌ AbrahaÌ hyghe chere bicause he was a priest also he played the prieste he blessed hym In that he was a King he chered Abraham in that he was a prieste he blessed hym But here some wyl saye Abraham was alreadye greatly enriched wyth kyngly spoyles hadde no nede of Melchisedechs chere therfore by al lykelyhod he profered hym not the bread and wyne To thys I answere not wythstandynge Abraham neded not Melchysedech cheringe yet he chered hym in fuile proufe of hys hospytalyte and humanytie toward both hym and his âhus both Chrisostome and Iosephus thynke But be it Melchâsedech offered breade and wyne and in so doyinge fygured christ Shall it folowe there vpon that Christ offered hym selue bodelye infourmes of breade and wyne Noo verelye Was not Aaron a fygure of Christe dyd he not fygure and resemble hym selue in sacryfycyinge of a gote Yeas certaynly Yet noo man wyll or oughte to gather bycause Aaron who was a fygurer of christ sacrificed a gote Therfore christ offered hiÌselue corporally in or vnder thee shape and kynd of agote If the before mencioned doying of melchisedech were applied to christe after this sort folowing I could not but acknowledge the application therof both sufferable and godly As melchisedech the king of Salem profered bread wine to AbrahaÌ hys sodiers not for theÌ to sacrifice but to eat to their relief blessed the sayde AbrahaÌ in him al his posterite Righte so christ our kynge the kynge of spiritual peace rightuousnes presenteth at his supper to al vs his communers bothe bread and wyne sacrameÌtes exhibitiues of hys body bloud not to be offered but th one to beeateÌ thother to be dronkeÌ to oure comfort and blesseth vs al in vs al oure ofspring The next alledged reasoÌ for the masse sacrifice is this deduced oute .i. .iii of the êphet Malachie I haue no wyl to you sayth the Lord of hostes I wyl not receaue of your hande a sacrifyce For from the rysing of the sonne vnto the gowing down myname is great emoÌg the people Lo her say our catholiques the prophet prophesieth of the vtter refusall and repeale of the Iewyshe sacrifyce of the succession chose and
ExaÌple wheÌ we vteu beholde a paynted table or walle we saye thys is Cicero thys is Salust thys Cesar Here we se both by Austeyne and Ekius iudgemeÌt the communyoÌ is named a sacryfyce of Christes body and bloud for that it is a resembleaunce ymage of the same sacryfyced By reason whereof nedes it must argue as the ymage of a thynge is not thee thynge selue as a paynted man is no maÌ in dede as Cesars ymage is not Cesar ne Salustis Salust selue So thee Masse or Communyon beynge but an ymage and memorye of the true sacryfyce of christes body and bloud is not thee verye true sacrifice of theÌ bothe And as the coÌmunion is named the sacrifice of the foresayd body bloud in consyderatioÌ the sayd sacrifice is ther in both recorded resembled Ryght so the ministring ceâebrating of the sayd coÌmunion is vpoÌ lyke respect termed the sacrifyinge of christes bodye bloude Thus meaned our forefathers by the sacryfice sacrificing of the sayde body and bloud Now to the last matter incident to the masse sacrifice whych is the worshippe instans of whole christe bothe man and god in vnder the fourmes of bread and wyne A dede no lesse vnsytting repugnaunt too the EuaÌgelical truth theÌ the premisses be The pryue masse worshyppers holde opynyon that Christe ought of congrueÌce to be honoured prayed after the consecration as beyng in the prestes haÌdes for that he is theÌ there bothe god and maÌ so ther no lesse honourable prayable theÌ in heaueÌ But thys theyr argumentacion is nothiÌg dialectical or formal For that the presence of Christ in a place importeth not the honour prayeng of him in the sayd place Is not god the father essenciallye in eche creature Yet he is reuerenced sollicited but as resident in heaueÌ not in hys creatures Is not the holy ghost in eche faythefull person Howbeit no maÌ worshippeth him as present in the faithful but as in heaueÌ Christ is present in eche religiouse asseÌble assembled faythfully in his name yâ notwithstaÌdiÌg nomaÌ doth honoure pray vnto hym as resyant in the religiouse assemble but in heauen alone Is he not as god eche wher consequeÌtly at the masse Howbeit no man adiudgeth hym there to be worshipped called vpon yf hys body were theÌce vtterly abseÌted The experieÌs wherof is playn in that part of the masse that forgoeth consecration Why theÌ shuld hys bodely presence enforce vs to honour sollicite him in the sayd masse For his body is not honourable ne prayable merely of it selue but in respect of hys godhedde personally alyed coupled therwyth Christ both god maÌ with his father the holy goost is present at that baptisme of faythfull infantes where they become enbodied incorporate therto it is to wete where they eate his body drinke his bloude as reallye as we do at his supper Howbeit no maÌ worshippeth eyther hys body as present at baptisme ther no lesse preseÌted theÌ at his supper eyther els his godhed ether for his own or for the presens of his said body Why theÌ shuld ether his body be honoured as present in the masse after the consecration or els thee preseÌce therof cause vs to honour his godhed in the same ther otherwyse vnhonourable As in the olde testament as we learne in the .vi. of Daniel the Godlye fathers in theyr exilemeÌt waÌdering in farreÌ coÌtreis farre froÌ whom dyd in all theyr prayers made vnto god dyrecte bothe theyr hartes and theyr eyes toward HierusaleÌ wher so euer they cam dyd sollicite god as inhabitant in the same ryght so we being as pelgrimes iÌ this world exiled as were from heueÌ our HierusaleÌ and natyue countrie where god dwelleth must honour pray vnto hym alway as resyaÌt in that heaueÌly HierusaleÌ not els wher It is wrytten in the canon of thee most worthy counsayl of Nyce in sort as foloweth Let vs not grossely beholde the breade and cuppe proposed set before our eyes but in faythe consydere thee lambe of of god in that hys sacred table with our myndes eleuate and vplifted Here we se the most worthy coÌsayl inhibiteth diswade the vs from gaysing tootinge vpoÌ the bread and wine aduertising vs in faith to respect christ in his supper hauing our myndes erected vp into heaueÌ In case the said coÌsayl had estemed it sitting leyful to worshyp the bread as the most parte of the lealtye I had almost sayde of the clergie to doth an ydolytre detestable or christ in the breade as in maner all christiandoÌ doth a lameÌtable case it wold not haue forbiddeÌ vs to to ote vpoÌ the bred aduertised vs to vplift our hartes into heaueÌ Doth not the prest him selue at his masse saye a little before eleuation or sacringe We haue our hartes aboue to the lord How eyther ought or can christ be reuerenced oncalled as present in the sacringe yf we as the masser quere doo singe haue oughte to haue throughe the decre of the church our hartes eyes two for where oure hartes be there muste our eyes be fastened also aboue erected vp into heaueÌ to the lorde For yf he were to be considered honoured in the masse theÌ we shuld haue our hartes beneth not aboue downward not vpward to the lord theÌ we shuld at that instante worshyp hym in the prestes haÌdes not in heaueÌ Christ prescribing vs an exacte trade perfyt forme to praye wythall enioyneth vs in the same to instant on call God the father in heueÌ wher he him selue is resydent on hys ryghthande as Paule sayth not els where notwithstaÌding he be eche where Our father sayth christ whych is in heaueÌ he sayth not whych arte eche where In respect wherof bothe the father the sonne be to be worshipped praied to iÌ heaueÌ a âone not els wher For to praye otherwise saieth CipriaÌ theÌ christe tought vs is not only an ignorauÌce but a vice also mathe 15 syth he sayeth why do ye infriÌg break goddes iniunction purposely to establesh your tradicioÌ Chrisostome iÌ hys exposicioÌ vpoÌ the lordes prayer writeth as foloweth where as Christ saieth God is in heaueÌ he doth not by that his so saieÌg coÌclud hemeÌ hiÌ ther but with draweth hiÌ who makethe his praier to hym froÌ the earth fastneth him iÌ heaueÌ IteÌ in his homely vpon the sayde prayer he wryteth after thys forte Se where ye cal vpon the father verely in heauen vpon consideration whereof we crye at thee vicu of thee sacryfyce oure hartes aboue where oure confessyon is bounde lette oure hartes bee represeÌted Hytherto Chrisostome who in these hys sayinges that Christ is not to be honoured prayed to in the earth so not in the massinge place apart therof but in heauen Further caÌ ther be made to god at any
or his minister his supper cannot be made ne distribute Wythoute christes wordes touchinge the institution of hys supper be duelye reported at the recepte of the bred wyne ther cannot be his supper How then can the masse supper be the lordes syth ther wanteth hys mynyster who shulde reporte the sayd wordes Yf the pryest presume to pronounce them they be the priestes and not christes for that they be the wordes not of the gyuer whyche is Christe but of thee taker whyche cannot be he Yf it were thee Lordes supper that the Pryeste takethe at hys Masse he he shuld receyue it of the lord and not of hym selue But how can he possibly receyue it of the lârd sith ther is none present to exhibit the priest it in christ name But some wol saye the priest may supplye the person both of the institutour exhybitour receyuer of thee masse supper therfore it is the lordes Yf thys that is obiected were true then mought one baptysme hym selue assoyle hym selue confyrme hym selue marrye hym selue annoynt hym selue whych no maÌ be he neuer so catholique wol graunt By reason as thei be thought al to he institute of christ so they must all be executed in hys name autorite Which caÌnot be wheÌ ther is none to supply his râumâhe For the receyuer of thee premisses cannot possibly play both the part of the geuer and of the taker By reasoÌ they be twoo seueral persons To this the catholiques also condisceÌde as moste certayn Therfore as in the heretofore especified ceremonies some of theÌ truly but al catholiqueli termed sacrameÌtes one man alone cannot receyue theÌ for want of a secoÌd person who shuld mynyster theÌ vnto him in the lordes name autorite notwithstanding that one maÌ hathe vsed for the receypte of the same eche worde requysit behoueable therto Right so the prest endeuouryng hym selue to receyue the lordes supper caÌnot receyue it without christes minyster an othere person ebesyde him selue notwithstanding he reporteth all thee wordes apperteyninge to the ryght ful institutioÌ of the sayd supper For as the aboue meÌcioned sacrameÌtes the receyuers reporte of the wordes belonging to the coÌsecration of anye of the sayd sacrameÌtes enforceth not the sacrameÌtes ExaÌple his reporting of the baptisme wordes ouer him selue in washiÌg him selue or hys rehersal of the absolution wordes vpoÌ him selue maketh nether baptisme ne absolutioÌ EueÌ so the prest beynge but the receyuer that is to say he who wold receaue the lordes supper caÌnot through hys own report of the wordes apperteyning to the ful institutioÌ of the sayd supper institute or cause the same Ther is no sacrament which hath not for his ordinaunce essensiall beyng bothe hys deputed element word coÌmaÌdemeÌt Wher is ther any coÌmauÌdemeÌt yea or sufferaÌce to take or institute the lords supper alone Certes not in the holy scripture Can ther be instituted the lordes supper wythout the due rehersall of the wordes concerninge the same Can the sayde wordes be iustlye estemed christes not construed as he meaned them Noo verelye Therfore lette the masser reporte them in hys pryuate Masse so oft as him lyste they be not the lordes wordes For that take ye eate ye drynke ye implye both a commauÌdemente and a seconde person to the receypt of the Lordes bodye bloude and to the consecration of the sacramente of the same Whyche bothe wante in thee Pryestes supper and so it is not the lordes Wherfore as it is falsly so presuÌptuously blasphemously termed the lords supper But let it be the same that the masser takethe in hys masse yet it is there haynouslye abused for that it is celebrate coÌtrary to hys commauÌdement otherwyse then he instituted it luke xxii He bad vs seuer the consecrate breade charitablye emong vs not eche of vs to reserue it to hym selue and to eate vncharytablye al alone as the prest dothe Math. 26 He bad vs take eate hys bodye not to worship it vplyft it as the prest doth 1. Cor 10 He bad vs at the celebratioÌ receypt of his supper receaue eat hys body in his remeÌbreauÌce thaÌkfully to showe his death emong the congregatioÌ whych the priest pretermyttethe not to sacrifice his body bloude as the prest dothe Math. 26 He bad vs saye not only take eate this is my bodi but also which is geueÌ for you a clause most fruyteful nedefull Which the prest as vayne superfluouse ouerhyppethe He bad vs take eate hys body for oure selues alone not for others also in that he coÌmaundeth vs to eate it for nomaÌ can effectualli eate it for another But the prest doth not onlye eate it for hym selue but for others also both quyck and dead Which as it is vnpossible for him to do effectuallye so to attempt is a superstition Can another mans eating releife myn hunger Can hys drinkinge release my thyrste Can another man be baptysed assoyled priested maryed coÌfyrmed or anoynted for me How then can the prestes receypt celebratinge of thee communion be myne or auayleable to me Chrisostome vpoÌ the .xv. chap. of the fyrst to the Corinthians wryteth to the mayntenaunce of the premisses in sort as followeth As one man cannot be christened for an other speciallye beyng dead so noman can receyue the body bloud of christ for another namely beynge dead Hereto agreeth Antididagma but be it it be so that the priest may receaue eate the lordes supper for others whether they be quycke or deade Yet for as moch as he cannot possibly beleue for another the iuste man saith Paule shal lyue by his owne fayeth it muste no remedy be that he both taketh and eateth the Lord is supper to thee dampnacyon of them Roma i. whatsoeuer they bee good or bad deade or quycke for whom he taketh and eateth the same By rasoÌ he taketh eateth the sayd supper for theym vnworthelye for wante of hys beleuyng for theyme whyche is merelye nedefull to the holsome and worthye receypte and vsage of thee before mencyoned supper Well thoughe it were so that the preyst bothe coulde at the Lordes supper for others and beleue for theym also Howbeyt in so much the sayde pryste vsyth in hys massyng the sayd supper otherwyse then Chryste hym selue instytuted it as is heretofore declared nedes muste hee receyue it bothe to hys own dampnacioÌ others Bicause as S Ambrose wryteth vpoÌ the leauenth of the fyrste to thee CorynthiaÌs who so vseth the Lordes supper otherwise theÌ he hym selue ordened receiueth it vnworthely coÌsequeÌtly to his daÌpnatioÌ as paul saith 1. Cori 11. Thus it is plane that the priuate masse supper is to be discoÌtynued surcesed as blasphemouse to God annoyous to the practycioners therof and the deuocyoÌ and holynes that is supposed to be in the vsage thereof is mere
the same in that it is a putting therto For yf it were fonded vpoÌ the sayd word it shuld by al lykelyhod be gronded vpon christes wordes concerninge his supper But the it is not And so it is a forged worship thaÌkerendre For christ at his supper neyther offered hym self ne inioyned others to sacrifice him to his father Orderly examine eche word of the institution of hys supper ye shal wel apperceaue thys to be ful certayn Christ at the sayd supper tuke bred mathe 26 Luke 22 But that is not to sacryfyce hym selue Els he sacryfyced hym selue to hys father so oft as he dyd eate He gaue thaÌkes but that is not to offere hym selue Els he sacryfyed hym selue to hys father what tyme he encresed fyue barelye loofes fed therwyth fyue thousand men He broke it and gaue it to his disciples But that is not to reÌdre it to god whych is behoueful in eche sacryfyce His disciples toke eate the bread his body so do the lea meÌ in lyke maÌner Yet they offre theÌ not The which is geueÌ for you herby he meaneth not to be here sacrifyed Els shulde he offer hym selue oft and not ones Els wolde not our prestes ouerhipped those wordes in theyr coÌsecratioÌ The disciples were enioned to do this in his remeÌbrauÌce and so they dyd What then So doo all Christianes the faythful lealtye performe the same Yet offer they hym not As ther is not one word touching this former part of the lords supper the enforceth for the prieste sacrifice Euen so is ther none in thys latter the maketh for the same For that I haue spokeÌ of the same is reducible appliauÌt to the latter portioÌ of the sayde supper Thus it appereth playn christ nether offered him selue in hys supper ne coÌmaunded others to offer hym in the same to hys father In respect wherof paul spoke the selue same wordes vnto the vnprested Corinthians 1. Cori 11. whych Christ reported to hys disciples And bad theÌ also perfourme all those thinges whyche Christ demaunded to be perfourmed of his disciples whiche thing be wold neuer haue done yf the vnprested Corin. mought not accoÌplished put in executioÌ al matters concerning the lordes supper Thus it is playn the masse sacrifice is not grouÌded vpon Goddes wrytteÌ word so nether acceptable or seruiceable to God ne fruteful to maÌ For why whoso worshippeth god wythout his special word for the same worshippeth him wythout fayth By reason true fayth issueth onlye from gods wrytteÌ word as wytnesseth S. Paul Fayth cometh by heariÌg that hearinge by gods word Roma 10 And who so worshippeth god without fayth synneth For as Paul saith whatsoeuer thing is not of fayth Roma 14 is syn So that hereby it is full opeÌ the sayd sacrifice is synful consequently not to be frequeÌted or vsed Our catholiques in that that they acknowlege theyr priest sacrifice not to be mercy workyng suppose it so takeÌ may wel stande both with goddes word christes honour But in so demeng they be foule deceyued For why to atteÌpt to offer christ as it is an enterpryse toto bolde and presumptuouâe so vnsufferable blasphemouse For thys is the state condicioÌ of leyfull sacrifyces before god that they sacryfyced be not merelye of theÌ selues but in respect of the offerers godlynes regarded and hys synfulnes dyslyked of God The sacryfyces of Abel and Cain not wythstaÌdyng they were not moch what vnlyke in theÌ selues Gene. iiii howbeit they were dyuersly respected of god in consyderatioÌ of the souÌorynes betwixt the offerers For th one god regarded for Abels sake the other he hated and abhorred for Cain sake The lorde loked vnto Abel sayth moyses and to hys offering But to Cain and hys offeringe he loked not Marke thys Fyrste he loked vpon Abell ere he respected hys offeringe Fyrste he dyslyked Cain or he dislyked hys sacryfyce Whereby we do vnderstand that the offering is lyked or dislyked of god in respect of the offerer So that here vpon it grondelye arguethe that the offerer is bothe worthyer better estemed of God then hys offering For that that god regardeth merely for it selue is better more estemed of hym thaÌ that whiche he regardeth but in respect of another In consyderation wherof yf christ were to be sacrificed of thee priest then were the priest bothe worthyer better accepted before god theÌ christ him selue as it is gatherable of the before sayde By reason wherof thee priest sacryfyce as it most hyghly empayrethe christes honoure maiestie so vncomperablely offendeth god the father so moste exchueable Wolde you further know why the prest sacrifice is vnsitting disalowable TheÌ diligentlye note the sequeles after sayinges Who so be autorised appoynted to sacrifice Christ body must be prestes after the order ether of Aaron or Melchisedech But our offerers ought not to be prested after Aarons order For that his presthode is quyte repealed done away Syth the priesthode sayth Paul is translated of necessite must the law be translated also Hebre 7 TheÌ remediles must the foresayde sacryfycers be priested after Melchifedech order els are thei vnprested But thei caÌnot be prestes as melchisedech was By reson who so is a preste after hys order is an euerlastynge prieste accordiÌg to this saying of dauid Psal 14 Thou art an euerlasting prest after the order of Melchisedech but we be al immortal but for a tyme therfore not eternall consequeÌtly none euerlastinge prestes WhervpoÌ it formally argueth that our vsurped prestes vsurpe take the authorite to sacrifice Christes body whych is grauÌted neyther to theÌ ne to anye maÌ els By reason wherof they be blame worthy for that theyr vsurpatioÌ of soch autorytee Hebre. 5 Let no maÌ sayth Paul take honoure to him selue but he that is called of god as was Aaron To êcede further in the disproufe of the prest sacrifice Howe can it possible be that our prestes could sacrifi christes bodi bsoud With out theyr due sacrameÌtes the sayde body bloud nether caÌ be pÌsented ne sacrifyced as the prestes them selues acknoledge as most certeÌ For the sacrified bred wine nether be ne caÌ be sacrameÌtes of christes body bloud By reason they be otherwyse vsed theÌ christ selue ordeyned thee sacrameÌtes of the same to be Can the baptisme water be iustly recoÌpted a sacrameÌt wher it is transposed to other vsages theÌ it is prepared for of christ by hys word the ryght ordinauÌce of the same namely to be gaised vpon too sprynkle washe meÌ with al to christeÌ belles to washe our clothes with all No truely Can the circumcision or of pare which the Iewes and turkes now vse be rightly demed a sacramente No verely Certes nomore can the sacrificed bread wyne be iustly accompted sacrameÌtes of the lordes body bloud But
murder compared wythe the slaughter of one poore seely soule is in respecte thereof nothynge greuouse at all By reason as one soule sourmounteth and passeth in worthines an infynite number of bodies so the slaughter of one soule is more greuouse thaÌ the murder of an vnnumerable sorte of bodyes Howbeit the murder of sondrie soules is more greuouse thaÌ of one so consequeÌtly the slaughter of an infinite sorte is passinge greuouse In respect wherof Oh what a greuouse cruel dede is our solytary and alone massinge whych doeth murder not the bodies alone a wycked and a cruel dede but which is most greuouse and wycked of al the soules also not for a tyme but for euer not to be without pleasure and greuance but to be in endeles wofulnes not of certayn of the worshippers mainteners therupoÌ but of eche one wythout restraynt onlesse he in tyme become repeÌtant whether he be a pryue masser or a pryuate masse helper whether he bee an hartie hearer or proctour of the sayd masse Roma 1 so that in effecte he be a solytarye masse worshipper for as S. paule auoucheth not euyll workers alone but theyr approuers and maynteyners for that they be lyke mynded shal be lyke punyshed Yf the eatyng of an apple in paradyse dyd worthely and meritoriouslye slaye as questionles it dyd not bodely only but ghostely also not Adam alone but his wyfe also not theÌ alone but al theyr posterite and that not for a tyme but euerlastinglye for that it was directely agaynst the expresse commandemente of god otherwyse beyng nothing derogatorye to God or preiudiciall to man Certaynlye then oure alone massynge for so moch as it is not onelye a breache of goddes open and holye commaundemente as the eatynge of thee inhibited forbydden apple was but an open ymage worshyp also and a forged made seruice of god whych is a default no lesse haynouse than the sayd breache yea and more too doeth moche more murder aswel ghostely as bodely not onelye the doers and kepers of thee pryuate Masse but thee vpholders also and worshyppers there vpon onlesse they hartelye and that in thys presente lyfe repent them selues for the same For a double fault deserueth a double death a double dampnatyon aswell of thee as agreers and fauourers thereof as of the authors and doers of the same Is it not a wicked doyinge to endamage an innocente bodye and is it not a mysdede moche more wycked to murder the same yes verely ThaÌ remedyles here vpon gatherable it is oure alone massing is a wyckednes vncomparable By reason therein Christes bodye whyche passynglye surmounteth all bodelye creatures bothe in worthynes dignitie and in acceptance wythe Godde is assayde daye by daye of thee alone Massers to be mortefyed done to death In consideration wherof good Christian reader I beseche thee by the precyouse deathe of oure alone Sauiour Iesu Christ embrase lowe and frequent onelye the most sacred coÌmunion christes owne ordynaunce the true masse the true sacrament exhibitiue of christes body bloud the verye ghostely nurryture foode both of oure bodyes and soules into lyfe euerlastynge vtterly eschue auoyde deteste the pryuate masse thee vsurped and false named communioÌ or masse the preteÌsed conterfayte sacrament mans ordynaunce tradycyon the presente poyson both of our bodies and soules into death not temporal alone but eternal also What is sacriledge that vnsyttyng haynouse and abhominable vyce but an embecilmente and stelthe of an holy thing out of an holy place whych is adiuged the more vnleâful haynouse and abhominable in respect of thee more holye thynge embecilled and stollen out of the more holy place whervpon it formally argueth oure pryuate massing is a sacriledge moost vnsytting haynouse and detestable For asmoch as it is a stelth of holye thinges not of the basest sute as candelstickes sencers crosses and chalices be but of the holyest and chiefeste kynde namely of christe of the holy ghost of true relygyon of fayth of godlynes reposed and placed not in a stony temple or aulter but in a christian faith ful hart which is iustly estemed more preciouse and holy than a thousaÌd stone teÌpels or aulters whych after thee report of paul is the temple of the holy ghoste the mansyon place of the blessed trynitie i Cor vâ Iohan 14 as christe hym selfe wytnesseth in IohaÌ The more preciouse marriage the more haynouse default is the breach therof What marriage is in worthynes to be compared wyth the spirituall marryage that is betwene christ and vs Verely none at all By reason wherof our alone massinge muste remedilesse be a moost haynouse trespace For that it disseuereth the sayd marriage and enforseth vs to whore with false goddes agaynst christ the lyuinge God oure spirituall husbande Oh Lorde what an vnspeakeable and vncomparable vyce is thee Pryuee Masse In case she dyd but murder meÌs soules bodies she were to wicked but sythe she atteÌpteth thee slaughter of the blessed bodye of christ sythe she embecilleth taketh out of our hartes christ the holy ghost theyr body soule sauing frutes sithe she foÌdereth and diuorseth the marriage betwene christ vs she must no remedy be vncomparably vnspekeably wycked Is it not a lameÌtable fyght to behold how hyghly men esteme this pryuate masse whych mothereth so manyfolde and haynouse vyces Is it not great pytye to see how she is suffered and frequented emongeste vs Is it not a deadely remorse to respect the worthy clerkes in thys realme and the greate number of them and yet not one to wryte agaynste hyr Who yf they wold could handle vtter hyr accordiÌgly Yeas truli Wel sythe they who perfectly caÌ wyl not wryte agaynst the sayd masse sythe it is nedefull that her synfulnes to longe dyssembled shoulde be openly vttered sythe sythe I am enforced in conscience in thys greate vnseasonable sylence emong the great dyuines in this behalf to declare my stomacke agayn here I wil by goddes grace vndertake to wrytte agaynst the hertofore mencyoned masse notwithstaÌding I am nothing fyt or suffycient to the ful perfourmaunce of so greate an enterpryse occasyoned so to do luke 23 through this the sayinge of christ yf my dysciples wyl hold theyr peace the stones shal speake wherby he doeth vs to wyt that it is hys wyl prouidence that whan the learned refuse to sette forth hys truthe the vnlearned shulde further and promote it Better it is somewhat to wryte and enueyghe agaynst the Popyshe masse and that grosly thaÌ not so godly nothing at al. Better it is that the rude ignorant people shuld by my talke perceaue somwhat of the sinfulnes of the sayd masse than through my sylence nothynge at all Better it is that the sayd people shuld be somewhat wythdraweÌ froÌ theyr receaued masse errour thaÌ that they shuld wholy after theyr accostumed wonte endure in thee same In respect wherof that what I caÌ possible
loquendi modum non caenaÌ sed missam dicimus sacrificium non solum laudis gratiarum actionis sed etiam propiciationis Quo deum laudare inuocare placare satagimê° Non enim pro sola peccatorum expiatione quod tu falso imputas nobis sed pro aliis causis necessitatibus permultis Missae sacrificiuÌ offerimus Quem admodum exsacro Canone liquido cognoscitur ex multiplici diuersarum collectarum titulo verboruÌ qÌ contextu conspicitur Here it is ryghte manyfeste and playn that Cocle bothe wel learned godly iudgemeÌted after the opinioÌ of our catholiques doeth not only say that that masse sacrifice is satisfactorye but appealeth to the Canon therin as answereable ther vnto after hys iudgemeÌt Freer Hofmaster who was so worthely estemed of the catholiques as they alotted hym to be one of the reasoners agaynst the protestantes in the emperours last dyet kept at Ratyspone wryteth in hys boke entyteled the exposytyon of the masse prayers ceremonies in the behalfe of the masse satisfactory sacrifice in maner folowyng Now that our sacryfyce is named a prayse sacryfyce I suppose it offendeth no man For oure aduersaries acknowledge also the masse for the prayers laudes thaÌkesgeuiÌg therin accostumed to be made maye be called a sacrifice of thaÌkesgeuing prayse But that we auouche it to be also a propiciatorye sacrifice thys doo they stedfastly deny disaffyrme Hol maysters wordes in Latyn be thesâ Iam ê sacrificiuÌ nostruÌ appelletur sacrificium laudis nominem opinor offendit Nam et aduersarii fatentur missam êpter preces laudes gratiarum actiones inibi fieri solitas sacrificium dici posse eucharisticium hoc est gratiarum actionis et laudis At quod nos asserimus preter cetera etiaÌ esse prâpiciatorium sacrificium hoc constanter negant Lo here hofmayster not only in hys own but in the person also of thee catholiques otherwyse termed papistes as ful according wyth hym herin auoucheth contrary to our catholiques the masse bothe to be a thaÌkesgeuing and contentation and pardon for our synne This wrote the sayd Hofmayster in his before named Boke for the defence and allowance of thys sayinge of thee canon Pro quibus tibi offerimus etc. for the whych we offer vnto the or the whiche do offre to the this sacrifice of prayse for theÌ selues and al theyrs for the ramson of theyr soules etc. Wherby we lerne it is not the fayth only of Hofmaister but of the foren catholiques also the the masse sacrifice is mercy workinge that thee wordes also of thee masse canon yeâmporte yâ same ought so insimple to be takeÌ without any far fetched glosse Whatsoeuer our Englishe catholiques for a tyme do hold to the coÌtrary Wel syth it is both acknoleged of our catholikes groÌdely I trust argued that the masse offredge is not satisfactory or ful coÌteÌtiÌg The next entretable matter is that the sayd sacrifice is nothiÌg auailable ether for the quick or the dead Our catholiques coÌteÌd it is êfytable for theÌ both but how moche or iÌ what mesure it lyeth not in the powre of man to lymit But thys theyr opynyon can not stande with Chrystes satysfatorie sacryfyce By reason it is a full coÌtentacyoÌ and satisfactyon for synne so the Masse sacryfyce awaleth nothiÌg at al to the clensyng thereof For yf it auailed any thynge thereto TheÌ wete it propyciatorte aparte thoughe not entierly TheÌ were christes sacrifice satisfactore but aparte not wholy TheÌ were the Masse sacryfice no lesse satysfactore then Christes For that it shuld make partely for the satysfactioÌ of synne as thristes doth Whyche is a blasphemy to thynke moche more to speake Then were oure catholiques deceyued in disaffyrmynge the masse sacryfyce to bee propiciatorye But what nede I to argue thee sayed sacryfyce to be vnfruteful The catholiques them selues in conclusyon grant the same whyle they auouche the full entier fruyte vertu of the prest masse to consyst in the appliall of christes merytes vnto vs otherwyse vtterly diuoided of the same one 's meritâd vpoÌ the crosse in general for almeÌ Which is the sacrameÌt not the sacrifice For in thee sacrifice ther is nothinge applyed and rendred vnto vs but to God alone otherwyse no sacrifyce at al It is the sacrameÌt alone not the sacrifice that geueth to vs accordinge to the ryghte definitions of theÌ both In consyderatioÌ wherof sythe the masse fruyte consysteth not in the prest sacrifice but in the apply all gyft of christes body bloud not as sacrifice of the prest whych is but a couÌtrefeiture resemblaunce of thee true sacrifice but as offered of christe hym selfe vpon the crosse ones for euer It muste nedes argue that the masse frute coÌsisteth in the sacramet alone not in the sacrifice also For why the appliall deliuere of thee frutes of christes death agayn rysing to vs is gods gyfte vnto vs not ours vnto him So that it is the sacrameÌt not the sacrifice of the masse that is auaileable For a sacrameÌt is defined to be an holy token wherby god geueth vs fre pardon of syns A sacrifice coÌtrary wise is defyned to be that wherby we reÌder somewhat vnto god In respecte wherof oure catholiques be moch blame worthi who yelde to the masse sacryfyce whyche is apperteyninge only to the Lordes supper I meane the apply all render of the benefyghtes of christ is deth resurrectioÌ Whych dyde as it is a grouÌded proufe of falshode so of the vnauaileablenes of the masse as otherwise vnfrutful Though wilsom say the masse sacrifice applyeth not ne rendreth to vs christes merytes Howbeit wythoute that they cannot possibly be presented and deliuered vnto vs. And so the sayd sacrifice must no remedy be auayleable That is not so For the sayd merites begyuen vs both in baptisme absolutioÌ yea in the coÌmunion to wythout the prest sacryfyce as shal here after be declared And so the sayde sacryfice in thys respert is fruytles Yet doo our catholiques replye the foresayd sacryfyce saye they though it maketh nothing to the applial of christes merites to vs warde Howbeit in that it is a thaÌkesgeuing it must nedes be auaileable In this replial fyrst this is denyable that the prest sacrifying of christes body bloud is a thaÌkesgeuing For the merely nakedly respected as nothiÌg but an offredg nothiÌg is thaÌked thereby so no thaÌkgeuiÌg In dede the prayers incident therto be a thankesgeuinge But beit the sayd sacrifice were a thankesgeuinge Yet it shall not orderlye here vpon ensue that it were an acceptable auaileable thaÌkesgeuiÌge For ther be two sortes therof the one good proffytable thee other nought vnfrutefull And yf the prest sacryfyce be a thaÌkesgeuing it must nedes be both vngodlye vnfrutefull so of the badsort of thanke render By reason it is institute besyde gods wrytteÌ wordes so contrarie to
acceptauÌce of a new whych is to be vnderstandeÌ of the masse alone This ther vnderstandinge is nothing answereable to the prophetes meaning For why he speketh only of soch sacrifice which is offered in al places of al men and froÌ the morninge to nighte The masse sacrifice is not sacrificed in eche place but in the church alone not from the morninge to night but from the morninge to noonetyde not of eche man indifferently but of the prieste alone The alledged reason out of thee eyght twelue of Daniel enforceth nothing to the prest sacrifice For daniel as it appereth playne in the nynthe chapter entreateth of the abolishmeÌt of the Iewyshe dayly sacrifice whych is discontynued for certeyn yeres through the tyran Antiochus This sacrifice was offered twyse on the day in the mornyng at nyght The Masse sacrifice is sacrificed but ones on the day that in the mornyng thother was offered but in the teÌple of HiercusaleÌ this is sacryfyced in eche churche Yea the moost learned catholiques caÌnot endure thee foresayde Prophecye shulde be so takeÌ as it concerneth thee quyte abolishement of theyr Masse sacryfyce For that they beleue that as Christes churche is euerlastable so theyr sayde sacrifice alwayes endureable It is expressely wrytten in xiii of thee Acres of the Apostles say our catholiques that they sacrificed to thee Lorde Therfore by al sembleaunce they sacrificed his body and bloud What a misfashioned argumentation is this âhe Apostles sacryfyced to the Lord ergo they sacryfyced hys body bloud Could they sacryfyce nothing but the sayd body bloud Mought they not preache pray gather almouse for the nedy and mynystre the Lordes supper Be they not al seuerably seruiceable and acceptable sacrifyces Bee not also the ful executours of the same iustly named sacryfyers Yeas verely Then it is nothing ensuable because thee Apostles sacrificed they sacrificed Christes bodye and bloude And Luke saythe not they sacryfyced christes body bloud but in simple they sacrificed Therfor this saying of luke they sacrificed importeth necessarelye no sacrifyce of christes body bloud but rather of the beforesayde That here Erasmus nameth sacrificinge yâ old traÌslator termeth ministring Chrisostome takethe it for preachinge so dothe Erasmus also The greke word saye yâ ParisiaÌs betokeneth to execute minister a publique office it is here takeÌ to preache gods gospel Thus the Pariliaus in theyr annotacions vpoÌ the new testameÌt Thus it is euident the before alledged argumeÌtation is both wrong framed disproued both of christostome Erasmus Parisians the hed maynteyners of the masse sacrifice Another reason that the catholiques alledge for thee mayntenaunce of theyr sacrifice is thys The thyng fygured must agree wythe hys fygure Christe was fygured by the pascal laÌbe therfore as the sayd lambe was first offered ere it was eaten Exodi xii Euen so christe the true lambe was offered ere it was eaten at his maundy To this I answere after this sorte It is ryght certayne that the matter figured the figure both do must accorde in some poynte otherwyse ther can be neyther fygure ne thing fygured In coÌsyderatioÌ wherof the pascal laÌbe for the sygneth christ it muste dothe resemble hym in somwhat so it doth For as the pascal laÌbe was slayne offered so was christ As the pascall laÌbe slayne and offered was a meane whereby the Israelites were deliuered froÌ theyr slauery of Pharao So christ mourdered brokeÌ offered was the meane wherwyth we be fredomed frome the thraldome of our spyrtual Pharao the deuyll As the pascal lambe was not onely offered but eateÌ also so Christ was both eaten sacryfyced c. But that the thinge fygured shuld be throughly ordred as hys fygure in all pointes it is neyther nedeful ne possyble Els shuld Christ haue bene offered but of others alone not of hym selfe also In coÌsideracioÌ the pascall lambe was so Els shuld he haue bene rosted ere he were eaten bycause the pascall lambe was not eaten rawe but rosted Els his bones shulde haue bene breÌt for that the sayd lambes were Els his bloud shuld haue bene springled in the Iewes houses as the laÌbes was Els he shuld not haue bene eateÌ whole vnbrokeÌ vn sufferably but by pecemele and sufferably as the lambe was Wherfore ryght as Christ is fygured trueli by the pascal lambe notwithstaÌding his foresayd disagremeÌt therwyth EueÌ so thoughe christ is fyrst eateÌ theÌ sacrificed yet that is none hinderaÌce why the sayd christ shulde be fygured by the pascal laÌbe Now to the next reason that is adiudged to enforce for the masse sacrifice Ye cannot drinke of the lordes cup the deuils to Ye caÌnot be partakers of the lordes table the deuils also Here S. Paul coÌpareth the partaking of the lordes supper with the communion of the meates of fred to the deuyls i. Cori. 10 whych thinge certaynly he wold neuer haue done oneles he demed christes body and bloud fyrste to be sacryficed ere th one is eateÌ thother dronkeÌ as the meates dedicate to deuyls be For els that hys coÌparison were nothiÌg semblable ne formal To thys is myne answere Paules sayd comparison betwixt the sayd body and bloud and the meates and drinkes consecrate to deuils consisteth only in mutual receipt and comunyng of them and noothing at al in the sacrificing of the same Therfore he mencyonethe only the partaking and not theyr offredge also I meruel me moch what our catholiques meane to auouche thee before mencyoned comparyson not to be formall with oute it implied the offredge also both of the sayd meates and drinkes May not two thiÌges be iustly compared togethers and that but in one symple matter Doo they not know that eche comparison halteth and in some matters discordeth Yf they wyl haue the heretofore named coÌparison so throughly answerable sembleable in all condicions TheÌ it is to be argued after thys posycyon and decre that wheÌsoeuer christes body is eateÌ hys bloud dronkeÌ and that accordinglye yet they staine and embrue vs in consyderatyoÌ the ymage meat and drinke eateÌ droÌkeÌ so do TheÌ do they alway dysplease god for that the meates and drinkes offered to ydols so do TheÌ they be grossely sensybly and sufferably eateÌ and dronken for that the meates and drinkes offered to Idols be after that sort both eateÌ and dronkeÌ Al thees in coÌuenieÌses be no lesse gatherable of the foresayd comparison then that Christes bodye and bloude ought to be sacryfyced In consideratioÌ the ydol meate and drinke be offred Is it not in expresse wordes in Paul .v. to the Hebrues saye our catholiques that eche Byshop or priest takeÌ out of the nombre of meÌ is ordeined for meÌ in those thinges that do apperteiÌgn to god that he shuld offre gyftes sacrifices for synne whereby it is full open that oure priestes do offere a sacrifyce for oure synne What can that bee but Christes body
bloud Fayn wold our catholiques haue theyr masse sacryfyce to be authorysed founded vpon gods wrytten worde but it wolde not be I beseche the what enforceth the alledged text of Paul to the maynteyning of prestes sacrifice Verely nothing at al. For why it talketh only of the Aaroni cal ordre of priesthode as it doth well appere by this the after sayinge of Paul let no man take vnto hym honoure he meaneth the foresayde priestehode wythoute he bee called of God there too as Aaron was and compareth thee offyce of thee sayde priestehode wyth Chrystes as it is ryghte euydente by thys thee nexte after speache whych begynneth in sort thus Euen so lykewyse Chryste etc. And he speaking but of the leuiticall priesthode oughte in nowyse too be vnderstande of oure masse presthode according to the generall rule Eche man sayinge must be takeÌ after the entended entreated matter Well though the foresayd allegatioÌ of Paul were to be construed of oure Christian priesthode of our christian pâiestes Howbeit it oughte so too be takeÌ that it implieth nomore one christiaÌ theÌ another nomore the spiritual theÌ the leameÌ notwithstanding some be ecclesiastical ministers whyche other be not according to this saying of peter ye be a kingly presthod But beyt ther be certayn allotted chosen to a special sort of presthode i. Pet. ii whyche the remnaunte of Christians be not allotted to Iet shuld the heretofore alledged scripture argue nothiÌg for theÌ By reasoÌ it entreateth of soch prestes who ar wonted to offre not one gyft but many diuers not one sacrifice but sondre and theÌ to the ful contentation of syn oure made priestes offre but one gyfte yf they offer that but one sacryfyce and not dyuers and that not to the satisfaction and purging of synne but for a thankesgeuing as our Catholiques theÌ selue now at the last acknowledge Yet thee sayde Catholiques replye for ther said sacrifice in sort thus Christ sayd to his apostels as Luke .xxii. maketh hereof report Thys do for my remeÌbraunce which thys his saying autoryseth theÌ to sacrifyce christis body and bloud as he him selue had theÌ done at his supper This theyr replicationis nothing effectual or true Was not S. Paul an apostle not of that basest but hyghest sort howbeit he dyd not vnderstaÌd the sayd sayinge of christ after that sort For he spoke the very selue same to thou vnprested CorinthiaÌs i. Cori. xi and the not of his owne hede but by the motion of the lord I haue sayth he receyued of the lord Which I haue delyuered you wherby it doth wel appeare that it is not onelye Paules but the lordes also consequently al his apostles mynde that thys hys sayinge do thys in my remeÌbraunce is spoken aswel to the vnprested as to the prested christians By reason whereof yf th one be through the sayd speche autorysed to sacryfyce christ is body the other is in lyke maner If the one be not the other sorte can not be In respect wherof our Catholiques acknowledging the vnprested not to be autorised throughe the sayd speach auctorysed to sacrifice christes bodi thother is in lyke maÌer If th one be not thother sorte cane not bee In recspecte whereof oure Catholyques acknowledgynge thee vnpreysted not to bee auctorysed thoroughe the aboue alledged scrypture to offre Christes bodye and bloud muste no remedye graunte thee preystede not to be lycenced by the sayd scripture to sacrifice the same Thys partecle thys in thys chrystes sayenge thys dooe in my remembraunce as it is a ênouÌe relatyue so demonstratyue therfor reporteth declareth respecteth hys antecedent whyche was not to sacryfyce hys body wherof he forspoke neuer word ne did anye thing coÌcerniÌg the same but onely the thaÌkful receipt eating of his body drynkyng of hys bloude ther purposeli meÌcioned Which ymplie no maner sacrificing of the same at al This is grauÌted of all meÌ aswell of the catholiques as the protestantes as a trueth most vndoubted that the laye vnpriested maÌ receaueth the coÌmunyon vnworthely what tyme soeuer he take it not recording therwyth the precyous death of the lorde But howe could the sayd maÌ receaue that sayde coÌmunion vnworthely for his receypte therof wythout myndefulnes of christes passion death yf for to so take it were not a punishable defaulte For why the vnworthenes herein issueth from synne alone But how were it synne yf it were not directly repugnaunte agaynst Goddes oppen commauÌdemente For there is noo synne whych is not a breach therof But what commaundemente is there for the laye men to remeÌbre christes deathe at theyr receypte of the of his supper yf thys do in my remeÌbraunce be not it yf it touche theÌ not Certaynly none By reason wherof nedes must we recognise acknowledge eyther that the vnprested êsons receyue not vnworthely the sayd sacramente when they take it in forgetfulnes and syleÌce of christes passion whiche is nothing grauÌtable eyther els that this saying of christ this do in my remeÌbraunce coÌcerneth chargeth the sayd persons aswel as the prestes whych is ryght certeyn In coÌsideratioÌ wherof this do in my remeÌbrauÌce purporteth not to sacrifice christ in hys remeÌbraunce but to recorde declare opeÌly hys death as Paul sayth who exponeth the sayd saying ãâã 11. in thys wyse As oft as ye eate thys bread drinke thys cup ye shall show the death of the lorde tyl he come Yet are not oure Catholiques contented but further they procede in theyr replial We haue an aulter wherof they may not eate whych serue thee tabernacle Here saye they Paule meanethe thus They who kepe the ceremonyes of Moyses lawe haue none authoritie to eat of christes bread hys very body coÌsecrated offered in sacryfyce on the aulter whiche we christeÌ men haue set vp in our teÌples If Paul had not meaned this he wold haue made noo meÌtion of an aulter whych is made for sacrifice to be offered therupon to God See good reder how foule deceyued be the herfore named persoÌs Is it not ryght euydeÌt that Paul speaketh of an eateable aultar We haue an aultare saythe he wherof they maye not eate Heâ ãâã not of thee masse stone aulter whych is not eatable If yâ sayd aultare were to be takeÌ for a stone aultar Then were they who trusted in the ceremoniall lawe in better case then we Christians be For that they moughte not wee must eat the sayd aulter TheÌ shuld Christes body bloud th one haue bene eateÌ thother dronking in Paules tyme at the aultare not at the table 1. Cor 10 TheÌ wold Paul haue termed the eatynge place of thee lordes supper not the lords table but the lordes aultar Then wold not the Apostles haue gone from house to house to mynister the coÌmunyon Art â for that there was none aultare Then do oure mynystres trespace who exhibite mynystre the sayd communion
to the dyeng men at home were wantethe an aultare Christe is onlye the eatable aultare heretofore especifyed whom bothe we must and do eate vnto lyfe euerlastynge otherwyse spyrytuallye dead for euer as we maye learne the same in Ihon vt The which christ is named an aultar for that vpoÌ him alone we laye powre our spiritual sacrifices namely our prayers brokeÌ hartes otherwise not acceptable to god the father according to this saying of Peter 1 Petr 2 Offer vp spiritual sacrifices acceptable to god for Iesu christe sake Hebre. 1â By christ sayth Paule we offer the sacrifice of prayse alway to god that is to wete the fruytes of those lippes which confesse his name Thys is the laste argumentacion of them that be deduced fetched out of the scripture which semeth any thing forceable for the prest sacrifice As touchiÌg thys place of Mathew v. When thou offerest a gyft at the aultar etc NotwythstaÌding it meÌcioneth expresli both an aultar an offredge Howbeit for so moch as it was theÌ vttered wheÌ the ceremoniall lawe of Moyses stode in hys wounted effecte and and force whych coÌmaunded theÌ both to be vsed and spokeÌ also to theÌ who were theÌ obliged bounde to obey the sayd law For that theÌ the new testameÌt was not ful institute ratified It enforceth nothyng at al for like offring aultare to be frequeÌted vsed emoÌg vs christians By reason the heretofore named law is through the ordinaunce establyshment of the new testameÌt vtterly abandoned repeled In that sayth Paul he saythe a new Testamente he hath abrogate the old And as touchiÌg thys sayinge of Paule ãâ¦ã And they which wayte at the aultar ar partakers of the aultar it importeth nothing at al in the behalfe of masse sacrifice wherof ther is no meÌcion made It is but the fourmer parte of a symylitude fetched out of the ceremonial law of Moyses and ãâã thus ⪠As in moyses law whoso serued the aultare as thee Leuytes dyd lyued thereby Ryght so now in the new TestameÌt who so preacheth the gospell shal haue hys lyuinge through the preachment therof For Paule in his the alledged texte others incidente hereto endeuoureth hymselue to argue a lyuelyhode to be deiu payable to the gospel preachers of theyr auditours for ther euangelical preachemeÌt Consyder dere reder wel the entier and full sayinge of Paule you shal easely perceaue he meaneth thus Do ye not sayth he vnderstande how that they whych minister in the teÌple haue theyr fyndynge of the temple And they which wayt at the aultar ar partakers of the aultar Euen so also note the applicatioÌ of the fourme two symilitudes dyd the lord ordeyn that they whyche preache the gospell shuld lyue of the gospel Yf the former part of the sayd symylitude were so to be takeÌ that it shuld meane the now ther be certen ministers who shuld serue the aultare it is to wete shuld masse it then the gospel preachers shuld not masse it at al. For that by Paules doctryne to serue the aultare to preache be soundrye and seuerable offices and ministeryes Which thyng accordeth not with our catholique doctrine which teacheth that the gospell preachers must masse it also But wat meane I to be so moche in the soylyng of these two last recited scryptures whych yf they had bene any thynge effectual for the proufe of the prieste sacryfyce as the before alledged seme Mayster doctour Smythe wold haue pleased them wyth in hys boke made for the defence of thee sayde sacryfyce as he hathe doone thee remnaunte and not in the margente therof Thus haue I at full both declared and argued that Christes bodye and bloud ought not to be sacryfyced of the Massers in theyr masse eyther to clense our synne eyther els to thanke and serue god wythall and that the reasons which the catholiques deduce out of the scripture to the mayntenaunce therof enforce nothing for the same But saye oure catholyques the aunciente and holye Doctours as Austeyne Chrisostome and others expressely auouche thee Lordes bodye and bloud to be offered of the ministers whych thyng they wold neuer haue affyrmed oneles they were offered so in verye dede and that accordynge too Gods worde In dede it is fulle certayne that the sayd Doctours auouche both thee LORDES bodye and and hys bloude to bee sacrificed but not after oure Catholiques meaninge For why they vnderstand by the sacryfyce of christes body bloud done by the minister only the resembleance and memorye of the true bloudy sacryfyce of the sayd body bloude which is the coÌmunion not any real true sacrifice of the same executed by the priest as the catholiques mistake theÌ We ofte vse to saye sayth Austen to bonifacius wheÌ eastrr approcheth nyghe that to morow or the next daye is the lordes passion yet it is many yeares sythe he suffered and the passioÌ was neuer but ones And vpon the sonday we saye this daye he dyd agayn ryse howbeit it is many yeres sence he rose Now is there no maÌ so folisshe to reproue vs as lyers for so saying because we name those dayes after the similitude of those in whych these matters were done so that is called the same daye which is not the very same daye but by course of tyme lyke it And it is sayde to be done thee same daye throughe meane of the celebration of the sacrament whych is not done the same daye but longe tofore Was not christ ones sacrificed in hymselue yet in the sacrameÌt is sacrificed for the people not onelye eche ester holy day but eche day And he lieth not who beinge demaunded answereth he is offered For yf the sacramentes haue not some sembleaunce of the matters wherof they be sacramentes they were noo sacramentes at all Of this sembleauÌce oft they take the names of the thynges by theÌ sygnyfyed Lo there it dothe full wel appere that by Austeynes mynde the sacramente of christes body bloud is so named thee sacryfyce of theÌ both as esterday is named the day of the lordes resurrection good frydaye his passyon daye But the sayd dayes benot termed fsr that the lord in very dede agayne ryseth in th one resuffreth in thother but by reason his passyon in th one hys resurrectyoÌ in thother is represented signifyed Therfore the coÌmunioÌ is called the sacrifice of the lordes body bloud not the they be sacrificed verely iÌ the same but in coÌsideracion theyr sacrifice is bothe recorded resembled in the sayde communion or sacramente The celebrating of the coÌmunion saythe Ekius in the tenthe chap. of hys fourmer boke of the masse sacrifice dedicate to the kynge of Pole for the it is an ymage resembling Christes passioÌ the true sacrifice may be named alway a sacrifice As Austeyn sayth to Simplicius Images ar wonte to be called by the names of those thynges wherof they be ymages
away syn before god It is vnpossyble sayth Paule to the Hebrues that the bloud of oxeÌ gottes shuld take away sinnes Hebre. x Agayn ther be no sacrifices or prayers commanded of god in the behalfe of the dead Therfore the before meÌcioned boke is nothinge lesse theÌ canonical In consideratioÌ it approueth matters added to gods word coÌtrary to his expresse coÌmauÌdemeÌt Deut 20 Here iucideÌtly by the way we may lerne that syth god in the old law the tyme of vnperfection inioyned neyther sacryfyce ne prayer for the dead it is not bys mynde that now in the new testameÌt the tyme of perfection he being also now moch more mercyfull theÌ before christes incarnation ther shuld be made eyther sacryfyce or prayer for the dead to redeme release them wyth al as otherwyse vnredemed payned Forther yf the foresayd boke were throughly wrytteÌ by the enbrethinge of the holy ghost otherwise vncanonised as Peter saith theÌ this ensuing clause shuld not haue ben interplaced in th ende therof ii Petr i ii mac 15 And if wel as it is coÌuenable for a storye I wyshe the same yf not worthely I must be pardoned Which wysshe or iayenge is vtterlye vnworthy the profession yf the holye ghost who sayth wryteth al matters both wel godly so nedeth no pardon for the same Yf the place of Paul whych the catholiques alledge for purgatorye were to be vnderstaÌdeÌ of the same i. Cori. iii theÌ questionles were the Apostles fyrst placed vexed in the sayd purgatory ere they came to heauen For why Paul talking in the same place namely of preachers auoucheth that the fyre shal trye eche mans worke what it is coÌsequeÌtly the apostles for that they were both meÌ preachers So that Paule was not incoÌtinent after hys hence departure wyth Christe as he wysshed to bee For to bee placed and tormented in purgatore is not to be with christ So yâ Lazarus the thefe were not immediatli vpoÌ theyr decease luk 16.23 tho ne in paradise thother in AbrahaÌs bosome places of pleasure not of wofulnes as purgatorie is If Christes talke in Mathew .v. concerning the extreme emprisonmeÌt of certayn enforsed for purgatore theÌ neyther soule masses sacryfyces ne prayers could enforce anye thyng to the raunsome and deliueraunce of them who ar payned in the same For theyr christe swereth they shal not come oute thense tyl they payed the vttermost farthinge What can prayer sacryfyce or masse auayle her sythe christe so exactly demaundeth the full paymente of thee dett as wythoute it the emprysoned shall not be fredoÌmed and delyuered He speake the of a place where iustice is executed and not mercee that is hel and not purgatore Oute of another sayinge of Christe in the sayd Mathew .xii. oure catholiques do argue for purgatore but expuris negatiuis therfore theyr argumentation beynge not formall is nothinge effectuall The cause why oure aunciente wryters saye they sacrifyce and praye for thee dead was not to delyuer theÌ out of payne therby For they sacrificed and prayed for the patriarches prophetes apostles also who theÌ were perfit already in heaueÌ had no nede of theyr prayers or sacrifices but partely too declare thereby theyr charitee towarde the hence departed in wel wysshinge them rendring god thankes for theyr saluation endeles blessefulnes partly to assure warraÌt the suruyuers at the remeÌbraunce of the good blesful estate of the deceased both of euerlastinge lyfe bodelye resurrection To sacryfyce Christes body bloud eyther for the dead or quycke after the true meanyng of the foresayd wryters is namely to recite pray for the sayd personnes in those our prayers which we make at the receypt of the lordes supper called otherwyse of theÌ the sacryfyce of the lordes bodye and bloud in coÌsideratioÌ it is a resemblauÌce therof not as the solle massers mistake it to vp offre the sayd body bloud in very dede to clense thee quycke and too redeme and raunsome the deadde oute of purgatory wythal For after thys lyfe ther is no purging ne ameÌdemeÌt place Therfore sayth CipriaÌ in the fyrst treate agaynst Demetrian wheÌ we heÌce departe ther is no place of repeÌtauÌce here lyfe is ether forfetted or atteigned Whyle we be here saith Chrisostome in hys second homeli of Lazarus we haue good hope but so soone as we shal hence departe we shal not eyther repeÌt or do awaye syn The same Chrisostome in the two tweÌtye sermon to the people saith ther be none occasioÌs of meriting after this lyfe Who so sayth Ambrose in the ii chap. of hys boke coÌcernyng the goodnes of death hath not here receyued remyssyoÌ of syn shall not receaue it ther. There is no place sayth Austeyn in hys Epistle to macedonius of correctiÌg our demeinour but iÌ this life For after this lyfe eche maÌ shall haue that whych he procured to him in thys What can be more openlye dyrectly wrytten agaynst the popysh purgatorye theÌ the alledged auctoritees why theÌ do we mayntayn purgatorie coÌtrary both to the scripture auncieÌt wryters But beit there were a purginge place wherin the hence departed solles be a mockedg blaspheming of god is this for the masser to praye in the lordes prayer let thy wyll be done in earth yet contrary to goddes wyl to pray for the erectioÌ acceptaunce of hys sacrifyce to the great hinderauÌce derogation of christes whych was êfyted wrought at hys maiestyes appoyntmente What is to take the name of god in vayne yf that be not so sinneful What is to flocke despyse god yf that be not In respecte wherof masse prayer is reprocheful Now to the fourth last part of the masse named doctrine whych in consideration it teacheth ratifieth thee damnable synfulnes of the before mencioned partes of this solitary ââsse exhorting and occasionyng the laye people bothe to enbrace wârship the same is fautie as thei be For the doctryne of a synneful matter is synful as the matter selue Not onlye to ryot is synne but the doctryne also therof the allure to the same To steale to teache or exhort to steale be bothe defaultes Too synne to teache or moue to synne be bothe sinnefull Euen so to pryuat masse it to teache motioÌ so to do be both defaultes exchewable Here am I demauÌded wether I suppose the epystell and gospel interplaced in the masse to be godly approueable or no To the whyth demaunde thus I answere The gospell epystell yf they were not abused misplaced were both godly and coÌmendable But for so moch as thei be iÌserted and placed in the pryuee masse to the furniture worship and commeÌdation therof and for a couerte or cloke of the vngodlynes in the same they so misused must nedes be synneful Meate and drinke be good and receyueable but enpoysoned they be
nought vnreceaueable poison theyr eaters drinkers as the pure poyson selue doth wherw t they ar poisoned Right so gods worde merely of it selue is good frutful but abused vngodli displesing god eÌpechiÌg maÌ as the syn abusion doth wher with it is corrupted An exaÌple euideÌce wherof we haue both in oure massing coÌiuring wherin gods wordes be haynousli abused There is no seruice ne worship whiche god so highly estemeth or so straytly inioyneth to be obserued but beynge misused is not only not seruiceable acceptable but moch displesauÌt also hateful to hiÌ Bicause it is executed not after but contrary to his wyl therfore sinfull and detestable before hym who coÌmanÌded only the ryght vsage not the abusage as of al other maters so of the premisses NotwithstaÌdiÌg god coÌmauÌded both inceÌse to be vsed and holy daies to be obserued howbeit he opeÌly by hys êphetes auoucheth he hath theÌ in hate detestatioÌ not iÌ respect of theÌ selues for he bad theÌ but in coÌsideration of theyr abusioÌ which he inhibited I hate saithe he by his êphete Amos abhorre your holy dayes wher ye seÌce me wheÌ ye come together I wol not accoÌpt it And further by hys êphete Esay .i. he sayeth thus I abhorre your inceÌse I may not away with your newmones your sabathes soleÌpne daies c Note this diligeÌtly god saith not I abhorre ye for your abusyng of the holy dayes nor he sayth I abhorre your abuse of the holy dayes but I abhorre your holy daies he saith not I abhorre ye for your abusioÌ of inceÌse newmoones sabbathes soleÌpne dayes nor he sayth I abhorre the abusioÌ of your inceÌse new moones sabathes solemne daies wherby he doth vs to wete that he doth not only hate detest the abusers with there abusage of hys commauÌded seruice worshippe but the seruice also worship selue as an inhybyted synne practysed of man forged of the deuyl and not as an honour inioyned apêued deuysed of him through his grace put in practice of man In consideracion wherof god nameth the foresaide holy dayes newe moones sabbathes not hys but youres it to wete the Iewes whom he spooke vnto For nothing the is sinfull as eche abused mater is ought to be fathered of God the fountane authore not of sinfulnes but of goodnes only Iacob i Which matere is by the meane of his abusage not a parte only but throughlie faultie i. Corin. v A litle leauen sayth Paule sowreth that whole lumpe of dowe Wherby he doth vs to vnderstaÌde that as othere abused matters be not a part only but entierây and throughly vicious and synful so the prest masse is in like maner as wel in his doctryne as in the other hys essential partes Sethe good reader there is no portyon of the popysshe pryuat masse that doth not hyghly displease god as âe pugnant to hys wrytten worde ând derogatorye to hys honour ânnoy maÌ as noyous both to hys âody and soule I besech the with âll possible endeuour exchewe it âo maner wyse accepte it as ether âpproueable eyther els a sufferaâle matter If gods honour caÌnot âccasion and moue vs to the vtter âefusal and auoydauÌce therof let âs wel respecte the great benefyt ând commodytye that redounethe âher vpon If nether gods glorye âe our profyt can enforce vs to the premisses theÌ we be worse thaÌ brutish beestes which though not for godes glori yet for theyr own profyt ar ledde willingly hither thither We resort to the church purposely to serue god therin not wyth maÌs seruice which he iÌhibiteth dislyketh but with his own alone which he coÌmauÌdeth accepteth So that in the coÌgregatioÌ no maner seruice ought to be frequeÌted buâ that alone which is both openlye and truly fonded vpon gods wryten worde Why then is not theâ prieste pryuee Masse abandoned and abolished quyte out of the coÌgregatioÌ which is not quadrant but variant to the sayd word whâche doth not ratify establish buâ inuert subuert the ryght institution vsage of the sacrameÌt of chrâstes body bloud as is heretofore argued at ful And in the romtâ therof why is not the communioâ frequented Is not the sayd communion a new TestameÌt as christ selue saythe in Luke .xxii ⪠Can a man therfore not synfully but leyfulli alter the order therof No verelye For as S. Paule sayth it is not leyful to exchaÌge maÌs Gala. iii moche lesse gods wyl legacye testameÌt Why theÌ doo we reteygne accepte vse solytare masse Which is an vnsitting exchange of the communion the lordes TestameÌt and legacye Is not the sayd communion a Sacrament of charitye and loue In consyderation whereof it is not to receaued of one alone but of manye at ones For charytye coÌsysteth in many not in one alone Why then vse we styll thee prieste masse whyche is rather an vnion then a communion and an argument rather of hate and dissention theÌ of loue and vnite For therin the priest vncharitably fondereth hym selue from the congregatyon as one seuered not in place alone but in harte also from the same It is no marueyl that the priest is had in great hate and conteÌptmeÌt emong hys parishioners seith he so vncharitabli taketh eateth and drinketh al alone disseuering and sequestring him selue from hys accompanable parrishioners lest they wold communycate as charitable godlynes requyreth wyth hym It is a lameÌtable syght to behold the great vnto âlerable vncharitablenes whyche our pryuate massing prestes shew toward theyr partishioners Verely as me seamethe theyr pryuate massyng is no smal occasyon therof By reason as the communyon engendereth orderly lowe so thee pryuate massynge hate in the frequenters of the same For why as they be coÌtrary in nature so they be in effect operation Wherfore the sayd massinge is not be frequeÌted of any but is to be disvsed of eche christiaÌ Who ought to endeuour him selue to be charitable and not vncharitable i. Cori. 10 We ought sayth Paul to eate al of one lofe i. Cori. 10 and drinke al of one cup we oughte as the same Paule wolleth vs assemble togethers to the receypt of the communion 1. Cori 11. and one to take it orderly after another These premisses cannot be accomplished and veryfyed in the pryuate masse where the priest seuerally all alone hath hys loofe eateth it alone wher ther is none assemble assembled togethers to receaue thee coÌmunion but to gase vpoÌ the prestes receypt doynge where none receaueth the sayd coÌmunioÌ orderly one after another but vnorderly one alone Wherfore thee sayde masse is to be discontinued abaÌdoned For whi he is accursed who so teacheth eyther in woorde dede or ioynctlye in both another doctryne in relygion then that whych Paul learned vs Gala. â as he hym selue recordeth the same We muste not do what
we lyste but what god coÌmaundethe vs as it is wrytten in Deuteronomy .xii. For why oure carnall reason entendemeÌtes be merely repugnauÌt both to his sayenges doynges so displeasauÌt and hateful to him The sense of the fleshe sayth Paule is enmytee agaynst God Roma 8. In case we moughte worship god as we lyst Why dyd he appoynt prescribe vs a pÌscripte order to worshippe him withal Yf we mought sittingly honoure hym after our wyl fantasy TheÌ eche made worshyp were syttinge and ieyful and so consequentelye ther were none ydolatree at al theÌ were there no dyfference betwexte oures and thee Turkes Iewes Paynymes Ethnikes and other miscreantes religion For they be onely differenced by Goddes wrytten woorde If we moughte order christes supper after our arbitrement then why dyd he institute prescribe vs a trade and order to be obserued in the celebratioÌ therof 1. Cori. ââ Why dyd Paule reproue and blame thee Corinthians for theyr disorder abusage of the same Ar not wee named christians for that we ought to professe and geue ful credence to his sayinges and practyse and enbrace hys doyinges as followable and beleueable But howe doo we answere to our name and profession in our solitarie massing wherin we do not only not ensue christes practyse and order but throughly subuert and inuerte the same concernynge the administration of his supper Are we not called faythful for that we ought to grounde al our religion vpon our fayth whych fayth issueth only from Gods wrytteÌ word as Paule recordeth Roma 10 otherwyse no true fayth But how can we be indede as we be named yf we admit and frequente as wee doo to thee greate and vnsufferable empechemente bothe of Christes honoure and our solles saluation the prest preuye masse whych is variant to gods worde Therfore as it is an vnfaythful so as synneful misdede For that which is wrought wythout fayth is synne Roma 10 as Paul saith Ace we not straytelye inioyned of God vtterly to abandon auoyd all ydolatrye How do we obserue and accomplishe this his iniunction whyle we enbrace and accepte the sayde masse whych is a made worshyppe of God and so ydolatrye For the worshyp of any phantasye entent conceypt and ymage or of any other matter else forged of mans brayne wythout goddes wrytten word is questionles ydolatrye Hereto accordeth Hierome who vpoÌ the last of Hieremye on thys verse And they put theyr ydols in the house etc wrytethe in sorte thus not only theÌ Iudas reposed in Gods temple an ydoll ymage whereof we rede in the fyrst of Ezechtel but now styll in gods house whych by interpretation is the congregatioÌ or in the hart of the beleuers is placed an ydol wheÌsoeuer any new doctrine is forged and after the law adored and worshypped in the secrete And vpon the twentye of Ezechyel the sayd Hierome calleth the inueÌtioÌs and deuyses of the phylosophers and herytyques the EgyptiaÌs ydols Auncient vsage in other matters of relygion semeth to be of moche force importauÌce to the acceptaÌce establishmeÌt of any soch semblable matter but her in our pryuate masse matter the sayd vsage is no thiÌg estemed To sure an argumeÌt I feare me of oure parcialitee in scripture matters Was not christes own administratioÌ of his supper the fyrst original vsage thereof Mat. xxvi and so the auncientest wherin none alone but soundrye ioinctly togethers dyd communicate In the prematiue church it was both obserued and enacted that all the whole coÌgregation asseÌbled shuld communicate wyth thee prieste or minister as it doth wel appere in Gracian de consecra distinct .i. in the canon deÌs whyche is fathered of the Apostles in thee Canon Episcopus fathered of Anacletus de consecra distinc .ii. in the canon peracta Calixtus thus wryttethe wheÌ the coÌsecratioÌ is done let eche maÌ theÌ present coÌmunicate then who woll not to be excoÌmunicate This thee Apostles enacted thys doth the Romyshe churche hold obserue Note thys that Calixtus doth not onli declare that it is his wyl commauÌdemeÌt al they who be present at the communion time shuld communicate els to be excoÌmunicate But the apostles decree the vsage of the Romishe church also Ther be saith Erasmus vpoÌ the Psalme Quam dilectabernacula who requyre in thee Masse a communion In dede I graunt so it was instituted of Christ and so it was in thee olde tyme obserued Albert in hys boke of thee Masse misteries recordeth it was fyrst in wont that al the togethers assembled persones in the church did communicat eche day wheÌ that could not be obserued it was decreed that on eche sondaye al the hole congregation shuld communicate wheÌ this neyther could be obserued it was decreed that thryse in the yeare at Easter Whytsondaye and Christmasse the communion shuld be receyued of the whole congregatioÌ And wheÌ thys could nether be obserued it was enacted that ones in the yeare the sayde communion shuld be receaued of the whole coÌgregation Here we may learne of Albert that in the primatiue churche all thee whole congregation dyd communicate eche daye ioynetly togethers Further in case we wold wel and earnestly respect the consyderatyon of our repayre to the church what also is of the masser reported oute of hys masse boke at thee celebration of thee communion We mought wel vnderstande that the sayd communion shuld alway be receyued of a compaygne and not of one alone Do we not I praye ye repayre to the churche as to the common place wherein we shulde make common prayers nothing excuting pryuatly but all coÌmonly Saynt Paule auoucheth i. Cori. 14 nothinge ought to be executed in thee churche but that which redowneth to the edyfying behoue of the whole coÌgregatioÌ so that as the churche is a coÌmon place so the prayers therin shulde be coÌmon so the celebration of the communion must be common and not pryuate as the wordes of the masse canon reported after the coÌmunion do wel declare whych be thees followynge That that we haue receyued by the mouth lord graunt we may receaue wyth hart purposely that ther may be made vnto vs an euerlasting remedy of the body bloud of our lord Iesu christ It is not sayd I but we haue receaued The priest as here so in other places saith not I but we eueÌ whyle he coÌmunicateth all alone wherby it is gatherable the masser shuld coÌmunicat not seuerally alone but iounctlye wyth others For wee importeth a multitude not a singularitee Some ther be who deme the solitary massing an indiffereÌt consequently a sufferable matter Wel thoughe it were so as questionles it is not Howbeit for so moch as we haue vtterlye renounced the Romsshe bishop with al his vsurped autorite we ought of coÌgrueÌce abaÌd on ther wyth the pryuate masse whych he forged fathered lesse we through reteygnemeÌte vsage therof be occasioned to resume agayn enbrace the sayd byshop withal his vnsytting preteÌsed authorite For vpoÌ semblable consyderation leui xviii God inhibited the Israelites the vsage of the Egyptyans ceremonies wherewith they had heretofore bene enfected albeit souÌdry of theÌ by al lykelyhode were indiffereÌt NotwithstaÌdiÌg geÌtle reder Ihertofor haue moch what vehemeÌtly gaynsayd the preuie masse condeÌned here as detestable erroneouse blasphemous Howbeit I trust thou wolste accepte this my labour enbracing ensuing my doctrine therin as ensuable credible syth it teÌdeth not to gods dishonour but to his honoure not to thine empechemeÌt but to thy great comodite not to the hinderaÌce ouerthrowâ but to the redresse recouery furtherance of the true masse otherwise named the coÌmunion whych caÌnot be so highly estemed and so ofte frequented as of necessytye it oughte wythoute the prieste masse be hated and detested For bothe it and the communion cannot be iounctly regarded Whoso loueth thee one must nedes hate thother for why they be mere contraries But how can thee prieste masse be hadde in worthy hate yf her abominacyon were not at full dysclosed In respect wherof thou seest how nedeful it is that she shuld be both gayne sayed and condemned as heresye and abandoned as ydolatrye God of hys mercye graunt vs all to learne loue credyte and maynteyne hys truth and lyue thereafter AMEN