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 coÌ„secrate bread is named Christes body yet is it not the layde body ne chauÌ„ged 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 testameÌ„t Yet that his so callyng theÌ„ notwithstaÌ„ding no maÌ„ wyll depose therupoÌ„ the cup eyther to be christes bloud or his testameÌ„t Termed notwithstanding thou sayd bloud testament for that it is thou sacrameÌ„tal 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 substaÌ„ce only not hys accideÌ„tes 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 coÌ„mon 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 coÌ„dicioned The last argumeÌ„t 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 grauÌ„ted 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 eÌ„breaded 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 accideÌ„ted notwythstanding it is presented in the accidentes of the bread Why then shuld it be adiuged eÌ„breaded for hys preseÌ„ce 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 preseÌ„ce indefereÌ„tly of the sayd body in the bred Nomore theÌ„ the incarnatioÌ„ or enfleshing of christes godhead is indiffereÌ„tly any presence therof in maÌ„s fleshe nature But only soch a presence of christes body in the bread wherwyth they both shuld be vnseuerably personed haue al theyr coÌ„dicions properties coÌ„moÌ„ 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 notwithstaÌ„ding 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 coÌ„munioÌ„ Some wil demauÌ„d of me why the auÌ„cieÌ„t doctors make so oft report vpoÌ„ thalteracion of the breade wyne To whoÌ„ this myne answere The coÌ„sideration why the forefathers so oft report an exchauÌ„ge to be wrought in the sacrameÌ„t 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 coÌ„moÌ„ but special bread wyne to be made nowe exhibityues sacrameÌ„tes 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 kiÌ„ded 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 traÌ„substantiacion construed after the catholique doctryne to be directly repugnauÌ„t 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 〈…〉 Paule wryteth in sort as followeth With one offering hath christ made ê‘fyghte 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 recoÌ„pted to be offered but ones By reason a repeted renewed sacrifice is not merely syngle one but manifolde diuerse If christ had oft died notwithstaÌ„ding 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 recoÌ„pted 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
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 SacrameÌ„tes 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 coÌ„munioÌ„ accideÌ„tally but substaÌ„cially only In respect wherof nedes must we graÌ„t eyther the coÌ„secrate bread wyne be not the sacrameÌ„te 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 traÌ„substaÌ„ciation 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 â–ª yf the signe be couÌ„terfayt 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 coÌ„secrat 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 euideÌ„t 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 sâ—ne 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 sacrameÌ„t a substauÌ„ce but an earthlye accidente The worthy counsayl of Nece wryteth to the disalowauÌ„ce of traÌ„substaÌ„tiatioÌ„ 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 coÌ„secration 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 sacrameÌ„tes 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 coÌ„tinue 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 notwythstaÌ„dinge 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 exchauÌ„ge 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 accideÌ„tes 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 chauÌ„ged 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 CircuÌ„cistoÌ„ 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
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 meÌ„cioned boke is nothinge lesse theÌ„ canonical In consideratioÌ„ it approueth matters added to gods word coÌ„trary to his expresse coÌ„mauÌ„demeÌ„t Deut 20 Here iucideÌ„tly 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 testameÌ„t 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 coÌ„uenable 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 vnderstaÌ„deÌ„ 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 coÌ„sequeÌ„tly the apostles for that they were both meÌ„ preachers So that Paule was not incoÌ„tinent 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 AbrahaÌ„s bosome places of pleasure not of wofulnes as purgatorie is If Christes talke in Mathew .v. concerning the extreme emprisonmeÌ„t 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 fredoÌ„med 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 warraÌ„t the suruyuers at the remeÌ„braunce 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 coÌ„sideratioÌ„ it is a resemblauÌ„ce 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 ameÌ„demeÌ„t place Therfore sayth CipriaÌ„ in the fyrst treate agaynst Demetrian wheÌ„ we heÌ„ce departe ther is no place of repeÌ„tauÌ„ce 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 repeÌ„t or do awaye syn The same Chrisostome in the two tweÌ„tye sermon to the people saith ther be none occasioÌ„s of meriting after this lyfe Who so sayth Ambrose in the ii chap. of hys boke coÌ„cernyng 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 correctiÌ„g 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 coÌ„trary both to the scripture auncieÌ„t 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 hinderauÌ„ce derogation of christes whych was ê‘fyted 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 â—â—sse exhorting and occasionyng the laye people bothe to enbrace wâ—rship 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 demauÌ„ded wether I suppose the epystell and gospel interplaced in the masse to be godly approueable or no To the whyth demaunde thus I answere The gospell epystell yf they were not abused misplaced were both godly and coÌ„mendable But for so moch as thei be iÌ„serted and placed in the pryuee masse to the furniture worship and commeÌ„dation therof and for a couerte or cloke of the vngodlynes in the same they so misused must nedes be synneful Meate and drinke be good and receyueable but enpoysoned they be
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 consequeÌ„tly 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 repeÌ„tant 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 coÌ„munion 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 preteÌ„sed 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 vnleâ—ful 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 thousaÌ„d stone teÌ„pels 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 meÌ„s soules bodies she were to wicked but sythe she atteÌ„pteth 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 foÌ„dereth and diuorseth the marriage betwene christ vs she must no remedy be vncomparably vnspekeably wycked Is it not a lameÌ„table 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 accordiÌ„gly 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 notwithstaÌ„ding 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
deuise to the vtterāce and reprofe of the faultes incidēt to thee pryuate masse euē 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 conferēce 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 Cōsecracyon is that percel of the masse wherein thee priest presumeth to consecrat and hallow Chrstes bodye and bloude The whyche as it is an attempte too vnreasonable and vnable so passynge wycked presumptuouse detestable For howe can it possible be that christes bodye whych cannot be made holyer and perfecter thā already it is shuld or myght be consecrat of the priest Thys muste nedes be that / that is hallowed was before his cōsecration eyther throughly prophane nothing holy at al eyther else not so holy in consyderacyon wherof whiles the prest do presume to cōsecrate christes body nedes must they acknowledge and graunt by that theyr enterpryse not so godly as presumptuouse that the sayd body was before the consecration eyther nothyng holy at al else not so holy which graunt as it is erronyouse and vnbeleueable so vngodly and exchuable In case the prestes presumed only by theyr cōsecratiō to hallowe christes body that theyr cōsecratiō were not so haynouse a dede but for asmoche as therby they contend not so learnedly as stoutly not so truly as falsely Christes body to be forged and made of the chosen bread therfore endeuour thē selues therby to forge the body of the purposed bread it is exceding haynouse for ther is no creature so worthy puissāt entier as the sayd body is whyche thyng could not be true yf the priest or any mā else dyd or coulde make the same For the ofte making of any thing as of christes body is an vndeceyueable proufe of the vnperfytenes vnworthines feblenes of the same Ther is no man be he neuer so moch priested or byshopped the cā make the feblest basest vnperfytest creature in thys worlde moch lesse christes body the perfytest noblest creature ther is no creature be it neuer so imperfyte that is ofte made howe thā can christes bodye be oft made that is the most perfyte These wordes take eate in these wordes 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 cōsecrateth maketh though not christes body bloud yet thallotted bread wyne the sacramētes 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 vpō 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 consecratiō and making in this sacramente Nowe to transubstantiatyon or tornekynde thee next entreatable matter whyche is no lesse disallowable then deceaueable How can thys stande wyth our fayth that Christes body whose creatyon is vnrenuable shulde be agayn made of the bread a vyle creature throughe thexchaunge of the nature therof into hys Howe were it true that the blessed wyne broken bread were bred wyne as Paule termethe thē yf theyr natures were throughlye altered into christes body bloud Can they be bread wyne styl without they reteygne theyr natures styll Can they be rightly named bread and wyne wythout theyr own proper mater substaūce in respect where of they were so named doo they not styll appere to oure senses bread wine not withstanding they ar become the sacramētes exhibitiues of Christes body and bloud who euer sawe the exchāge of any substāce wtout the alteraciō of hys accedētes outward shape whē christ tourned marueylously water into wyne it had not only the nature of wyne but the externall forme also tast colour factō of wyne no semblance of water at al Aarōs rodde beyng altered into an adder had not only the substāce 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 ī nature bloud so outwardly it semed bloud Euē so questionles shuld the bread wyne leaue the outward shape wyth theyr inwarde substaūce yf they were altered into christes bodye and bloud By reason wherof sythe they reteygne styl theyr accidentes nedes must they also reteigne theyr wonted substance can ther be any sacramēt as S. Augustyne sayth without therin the due elemēt fyt word of god belonginge ther vnto be ioyntlye coupled togethers No verely How than can the outward apperaunce of bread wyne without theyr inward substāce be the sacramentes of christes body bloud for the outward apperaūce of bread wyne be none elemētes but only thexternal shewes of the same Elemētes be substāce not accidētal 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 sacramētes 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
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 thaÌ„kerendre 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 thaÌ„kes but that is not to offere hym selue Els he sacryfyed hym selue to hys father what tyme he encresed fyue barelye loofes fed therwyth fyue thousand men He broke it and gaue it to his disciples But that is not to reÌ„dre it to god whych is behoueful in eche sacryfyce His disciples toke eate the bread his body so do the lea meÌ„ in lyke maÌ„ner 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 coÌ„secratioÌ„ The disciples were enioned to do this in his remeÌ„brauÌ„ce 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 appliauÌ„t to the latter portioÌ„ of the sayde supper Thus it appereth playn christ nether offered him selue in hys supper ne coÌ„maunded 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 accoÌ„plished put in executioÌ„ al matters concerning the lordes supper Thus it is playn the masse sacrifice is not grouÌ„ded 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 heariÌ„g 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 frequeÌ„ted 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 atteÌ„pt to offer christ as it is an enterpryse toto bolde and presumptuouâ—e 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 wythstaÌ„dyng they were not moch what vnlyke in theÌ„ selues Gene. iiii howbeit they were dyuersly respected of god in consyderatioÌ„ of the souÌ„orynes 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 caÌ„not be prestes as melchisedech was By reson who so is a preste after hys order is an euerlastynge prieste accordiÌ„g 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 consequeÌ„tly none euerlastinge prestes WhervpoÌ„ it formally argueth that our vsurped prestes vsurpe take the authorite to sacrifice Christes body whych is grauÌ„ted 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 ê“cede 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 sacrameÌ„tes the sayde body bloud nether caÌ„ be pÌ„sented ne sacrifyced as the prestes them selues acknoledge as most certeÌ„ For the sacrified bred wine nether be ne caÌ„ be sacrameÌ„tes of christes body bloud By reason they be otherwyse vsed theÌ„ christ selue ordeyned thee sacrameÌ„tes of the same to be Can the baptisme water be iustly recoÌ„pted a sacrameÌ„t wher it is transposed to other vsages theÌ„ it is prepared for of christ by hys word the ryght ordinauÌ„ce 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 sacrameÌ„tes of the lordes body bloud But
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 sacrameÌ„tes 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 sacrameÌ„tes 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 sacrameÌ„t So that the foresayd replial is nothiÌ„g 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 coÌ„secration 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 geuiÌ„g sacrameÌ„tes of christes body bloude notwithstaÌ„ding the report of the coÌ„secratioÌ„ 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 sacrameÌ„tes of christes body bloud notwithstaÌ„dyng 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 sacrameÌ„t The due element the due word the especial commaundemeÌ„t 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 sacrameÌ„tes notwithstaÌ„ding they be the due elemeÌ„tes consecrate wyth due wordes In consyderation ther waÌ„teth gods special commauÌ„demeÌ„t so to autoryse vs able vs to sacrifice theÌ„ as to take theÌ„ eate theÌ„ So that they be but pure elemeÌ„tes no sacrameÌ„tes Therfore christes body bloud caÌ„not possibly be sacrifyced in by theÌ„ Whereby it appereth euideÌ„t 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 renouÌ„ce it detest it enbracing vsing in the stede therof the most holy coÌ„munion 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 meÌ„tion 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 â—ffyce In consyderatioÌ„ wherof the foresayd Moses thus wryteth And Melcheledech thee Kynge of Salem brought forth breade and wyne Gene. xâ—iii and he was a prieste of the moost hyghest God and blessed hym The meanynge wherof is thys as me semeth because Melchysedech was a kyng he played the kynge he employed 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 â—hus both Chrisostome and Iosephus thynke But be it Melchâ—sedech offered breade and wyne and in so doyinge fygured christ Shall it folowe there vpon that Christ offered hym selue bodelye infourmes of breade and wyne Noo verelye Was not Aaron a fygure of Christe dyd he not fygure and resemble hym selue in sacryfycyinge of a gote Yeas certaynly Yet noo man wyll or oughte to gather bycause Aaron who was a fygurer of christ sacrificed a gote Therfore christ offered hiÌ„selue 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 sacrameÌ„tes 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 ê“phet 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 emoÌ„g 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
acceptauÌ„ce 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 abolishmeÌ„t 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 teÌ„ple of HiercusaleÌ„ this is sacryfyced in eche churche Yea the moost learned catholiques caÌ„not 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 â—he Apostles sacryfyced to the Lord ergo they sacryfyced hys body bloud Could they sacryfyce nothing but the sayd body bloud Mought they not preache pray gather almouse for the nedy and mynystre the Lordes supper Be they not al seuerably seruiceable and acceptable sacrifyces Bee not also the ful executours of the same iustly named sacryfyers Yeas verely Then it is nothing ensuable because thee Apostles sacrificed they sacrificed Christes bodye and bloude And Luke saythe not they sacryfyced 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 traÌ„slator termeth ministring Chrisostome takethe it for preachinge so dothe Erasmus also The greke word saye yâ— ParisiaÌ„s betokeneth to execute minister a publique office it is here takeÌ„ to preache gods gospel Thus the Pariliaus in theyr annotacions vpoÌ„ the new testameÌ„t Thus it is euident the before alledged argumeÌ„tation 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 laÌ„be 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 coÌ„syderatioÌ„ wherof the pascal laÌ„be for the sygneth christ it muste dothe resemble hym in somwhat so it doth For as the pascal laÌ„be was slayne offered so was christ As the pascall laÌ„be 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 coÌ„sideracioÌ„ 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 breÌ„t for that the sayd lambes were Els his bloud shuld haue bene springled in the Iewes houses as the laÌ„bes 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 notwithstaÌ„ding his foresayd disagremeÌ„t therwyth EueÌ„ so thoughe christ is fyrst eateÌ„ theÌ„ sacrificed yet that is none hinderaÌ„ce why the sayd christ shulde be fygured by the pascal laÌ„be 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 caÌ„not be partakers of the lordes table the deuils also Here S. Paul coÌ„pareth 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 coÌ„parison were nothiÌ„g 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 thiÌ„ges 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 coÌ„parison so throughly answerable sembleable in all condicions TheÌ„ it is to be argued after thys posycyon and decre that wheÌ„soeuer christes body is eateÌ„ hys bloud dronkeÌ„ and that accordinglye yet they staine and embrue vs in consyderatyoÌ„ the ymage meat and drinke eateÌ„ droÌ„keÌ„ 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 coÌ„uenieÌ„ses 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 apperteiÌ„gn 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
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 vpō him alone we laye powre our spiritual sacrifices namely our prayers brokē 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. 1◠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 touchīg thys place of Mathew v. When thou offerest a gyft at the aultar etc Notwythstāding it mēcioneth expresli both an aultar an offredge Howbeit for so moch as it was thē vttered whē the ceremoniall lawe of Moyses stode in hys wounted effecte and and force whych cōmaunded thē both to be vsed and spokē also to thē who were thē obliged bounde to obey the sayd law For that thē the new testamēt was not ful institute ratified It enforceth nothyng at al for like offring aultare to be frequēted vsed emōg vs christians By reason the heretofore named law is through the ordinaunce establyshment of the new testamēt vtterly abandoned repeled In that sayth Paul he saythe a new Testamente he hath abrogate the old And as touchīg thys sayinge of Paule 〈…〉 And they which wayte at the aultar ar partakers of the aultar it importeth nothing at al in the behalfe of masse sacrifice wherof ther is no mēcion made It is but the fourmer parte of a symylitude fetched out of the ceremonial law of Moyses and 〈◊〉 thus ▪ As in moyses law whoso serued the aultare as thee Leuytes dyd lyued thereby Ryght so now in the new Testamēt who so preacheth the gospell shal haue hys lyuinge through 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 preachemēt Consyder dere reder wel the entier and full sayinge of Paule you shal easely perceaue he meaneth thus Do ye not sayth he vnderstande how that they whych minister in the tēple haue theyr fyndynge of the temple And they which wayt at the aultar ar partakers of the aultar Euen so also note the applicatiō of the fourme two symilitudes dyd the lord ordeyn that they whyche preache the gospell shuld lyue of the gospel Yf the former part of the sayd symylitude were so to be takē 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 cōmunion not any real true sacrifice of the same executed by the priest as the catholiques mistake thē We ofte vse to saye sayth Austen to bonifacius whē eastrr approcheth nyghe that to morow or the next daye is the lordes passion yet it is many yeares sythe he suffered and the passiō 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 mā 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 sacramēt is sacrificed for the people not onelye eche ester holy day but eche day And he lieth not who beinge demaunded answereth he is offered For yf the sacramentes haue not some sembleaunce of the matters wherof they be sacramentes they were noo sacramentes at all Of this sembleaūce oft they take the names of the thynges by thē sygnyfyed Lo there it dothe full wel appere that by Austeynes mynde the sacramente of christes body bloud is so named thee sacryfyce of thē both as esterday is named 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 resurrectyō in thother is represented signifyed Therfore the cōmuniō is called the sacrifice of the lordes body bloud not the they be sacrificed verely ī the same but in cōsideracion theyr sacrifice is bothe recorded resembled in the sayde communion or sacramente The celebrating of the cōmunion saythe Ekius in the tenthe chap. of hys fourmer boke of the masse sacrifice dedicate to the kynge of Pole for the it is an ymage resembling Christes passiō 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
ExaÌ„ple 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 iudgemeÌ„t 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 coÌ„munion is named the sacrifice of the foresayd body bloud in consyderatioÌ„ the sayd sacrifice is ther in both recorded resembled Ryght so the ministring ceâ—ebrating of the sayd coÌ„munion 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 EuaÌ„gelical truth theÌ„ the premisses be The pryue masse worshyppers holde opynyon that Christe ought of congrueÌ„ce to be honoured prayed after the consecration as beyng in the prestes haÌ„des for that he is theÌ„ there bothe god and maÌ„ so ther no lesse honourable prayable theÌ„ in heaueÌ„ But thys theyr argumentacion is nothiÌ„g 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 asseÌ„ble assembled faythfully in his name yâ— notwithstaÌ„diÌ„g nomaÌ„ doth honoure pray vnto hym as resyant in the religiouse assemble but in heauen alone Is he not as god eche wher consequeÌ„tly at the masse Howbeit no man adiudgeth hym there to be worshipped called vpon yf hys body were theÌ„ce vtterly abseÌ„ted The experieÌ„s 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 preseÌ„ted 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 preseÌ„ce 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 exilemeÌ„t waÌ„dering in farreÌ„ coÌ„treis 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 resyaÌ„t in that heaueÌ„ly 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 coÌ„sayl 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 coÌ„sayl 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 lameÌ„table 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 haÌ„des 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 notwithstaÌ„ding 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 â—one not els wher For to praye otherwise saieth CipriaÌ„ theÌ„ christe tought vs is not only an ignorauÌ„ce but a vice also mathe 15 syth he sayeth why do ye infriÌ„g 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 saieÌ„g coÌ„clud 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 represeÌ„ted 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 lâ—rd 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 caÌ„not be wheÌ„ ther is none to supply his râ—umâ—he 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 condisceÌ„de as moste certayn Therfore as in the heretofore especified ceremonies some of theÌ„ truly but al catholiqueli termed sacrameÌ„tes one man alone cannot receyue theÌ„ for want of a secoÌ„d 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 caÌ„not 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 meÌ„cioned sacrameÌ„tes the receyuers reporte of the wordes belonging to the coÌ„secration of anye of the sayd sacrameÌ„tes enforceth not the sacrameÌ„tes ExaÌ„ple his reporting of the baptisme wordes ouer him selue in washiÌ„g 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 caÌ„not 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 coÌ„maÌ„demeÌ„t Wher is ther any coÌ„mauÌ„demeÌ„t yea or sufferaÌ„ce 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 commauÌ„demente and a seconde person to the receypt of the Lordes bodye bloude and to the consecration of the sacramente of the same Whyche bothe wante in thee Pryestes supper and so it is not the lordes Wherfore as it is falsly so presuÌ„ptuously 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 coÌ„trary to hys commauÌ„dement 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 remeÌ„breauÌ„ce thaÌ„kfully 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 coÌ„maundeth 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 coÌ„fyrmed 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 CorynthiaÌ„s who so vseth the Lordes supper otherwise theÌ„ he hym selue ordened receiueth it vnworthely coÌ„sequeÌ„tly to his daÌ„pnatioÌ„ as paul saith 1. Cori 11. Thus it is plane that the priuate masse supper is to be discoÌ„tynued 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