will replie that Iesus Christ and his Apostles and the auncient dnctors of the Primitiue Church haue done both in the Supper to wit that they offered vnto God in Sacrifice the body and the bloud of Iesus Christ and thē haue also forthwith communicated them to the Christian people that in so doing there is no inconuenience but that the supper may be both sacrament and sacrifice together I answere it is not enough that they do affirme except they doe proue it foorthwith I wil graunt them that the sacrifices of the lawe were also as a kind of sacramēts and that there were some in the which there was oblation to God of one part of the beast which was sacrificed and in like sort communion of an other part among the people and that there was ioyned to the sacrifice a banket the which signified the communion of the people in the same But that cannot agree with the supper For for the first as there was dayly newe banket in these sacrifices so was there newe hostie For they mought not sacrifice one very thing oftener then once nor by consequent communicate the same more often to the people but they must needes take dayly new But the like is not of the sacrifice of Iesus Christe For there is but one onely hostie of the same which is very Iesus Christ the which is the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde figured chiefly by the paschall lambe which among the rest was chiefly sacrifice and sacrament both together because that the Lord had two regards in the institution of the same For first he instituted it to be in the Church of Israel for a memoriall and remembrance of the passage which the Angell of the Lorde did make in Egypt striking the first borne of the Egyptians and of the deliuerance of the Israelites from the captiuitie of them as Moyses doeth plainly witnesse For the which cause it was called by him and consequently by the other Hebrues Pesah which is to say Passage by the name of the thing that it did signifie of the which the Greekes and the Latines haue made their worde Pascha the which they haue vsed and which since haue bene cōuerted into our speach by the name of Easter Beholde then howe this sacrament had regard vnto that which was already done and to that benefit of God the which the Israelites had already receyued touching their deliuerance out of Egypt And by that meane it was a memorial and a sacrament cōmemoratiue and a sacrifice of praise of thanks giuing in respect of the things which were already passed But beside that the Lorde had yet regard to the deliuerāce of mankind the which should be wrought by Iesus Christ whereof that of Egypt was a figure And forsomuch as he should worke this deliuerance by the passage of his death and by the sacrifice of his body and of his bloud the sacrifice was ioyned to the sacrament in the Paschal lambe to the end that i◠should the better represent that which was yet to be done and accomplished Beholde wherein it was ordeyned for the thinges which were yet to come and of the which men did yet looke for the accomplishment For that cause there was there a sacrifice which did represent that of Iesus Christ to come And also there was ioyned vnto a banket which did signifie the communiō of him as it ought to be in euery sacramēt And therefore Saint Paul hath ioyned the one with the other expounding the veritie of that figure For after that he hath sayde that Christe our passeouer was sacrificed he exhorteth the faithfull to the spiritual banket of this sacrifice and to the continuall feast which wee should make and celebrate alwaies Seeing then that the thing to come figured by this sacrifice sacrament was accomplished the one and the other are ceassed For we haue nowe the Sacrifice offered by Iesus Christ whereof the other was but a shadowe and figure Wherfore seing that wee haue the body and the trueth the shadowe and the figure doth clerely cease And therefore euen as our Lorde Iesus Christ did chaunge the Circumcision of the Church of Israel into the baptisme of the Christian Church euen so hath he chaunged the Sacrament of the Paschall lambe into that of the Supper the which hath that in common with the sacrament of the Paschall lambe that as it had regard to the passage which was made in Egypt and to the deliueraunce of the children of Israel which were thinges that were alreadie done in like sorte the Supper hath regarde to the passage which Iesus Christ hath made by his death and for the deliuerance which he hath brought to mankind by the sacrifice which he hath offred in the same which are also things that are alreadie done and passed They haue in like sort both of thē this in common that euen as the sacrament of the Paschall lambe was ordeined and celebrated according to the commandement which the Lord did giue to Moses in the same very night in the same very time that the passage should be made in Egypt the people deliuered from the same euen so Iesus Christ did intitute and celebrate his Supper in the very fame night and euen before the very time that he was taken to be brought to be sacrificed and to woorke the deliuerance of mankind For that cause he vsed the very same maners of speach in the institutiō in the administration of this sacrament as Moyses did in that of the Paschall lambe For euen as Moyses did fay of the lambe It is the passeouer of the Lord which is to say the passage the which he did represent giuing to the signe the name of the thing signified euē so Iesus Christ did say of the bread of the Supper This is my body and of the wine This is my bloud of the newe testament or This cup is the new testament in my bloud Wherefore it is not also to be doubted that euen as he did folowe the maner of speach of Moyses which was much frequented in the holy Scriptures in the vse of the sacraments euen so did he also vse them in the like sense and signification without disguising any thing at al the accustomed language of the holy Ghost by sense newe and straunge to such maners of speach Thus much concerning that which the sacraments of the Paschall lambe of the supper may haue common together touching these points But the Supper hath this different from the same that it was not instituted to be a figure of any sacrifice to come nor of any other thing which mought be yet to accōplish but only to be a sacrament cōmemoratiue of the sacrifice already offered by Iesus Christ and for the communication of the same And therefore there is no propiciatorie sacrifice for the remission of sinnes in this
1415. there was neuer any ordinance made in the Church whereby it was forbidden to administer the cuppe to al the people as the Romaine doctours them selues are enforced to confesse This notwithstanding the corrupted and abastardised Romaine church which hath made this ordinance cleane contrary to the expresse coÌ„mandement of Iesus Christ and to the obseruatioÌ„ of the true ancieÌ„t church as well the Romaine as of all the true vniuersall churche is that true ancient Romaine Church and the true catholique Churche which did immediatly succeede the Apostles if we will beleeue the Romaine doctors albeit that shee be apparantly cleane contrary to it Chapter ii Whether the Supper of the Lord may be a true supper if any of the signes of the same be cut off and whether Iesus Christ did ordayne any thing superfluous in the same whether he did ordeine one sort of supper for one sort of men and an other for the others BVt they will yet replie that as the bloud is contayned vnder the body and that the lay people in receiuing the body receiue also the bloud albeit that they doe receiue but the signe of the body and not that of the bloud euen so when the priest communicateth alone in the masse he communicateth for al the rest and all the rest do communicate also in the person of him Behold a very faire starting hole and a reason very wel grounded Whereupon I aske them for the first whether Iesus Christ did ordaine any thing superfluous and in vaine in his holy supper and that was not very necessary I do not thinke at all that they dare gainesay this If there be theÌ„ nothing superfluous neyther that is ordayned in vayne and without great and necessary cause in this sacrameÌ„t and mysteries which it containeth wherefore is it that they dare to cut off any thing froÌ„ thence And if there be any thing superfluous and not necessary Note wherefore doe they not as wel cut off in their masse that whiâ—â— they do cut off in the supper of the people forse much as it must needes be that there be equaltie among al in the supper of the Lorde For hâ— ordained none other for the ministers then hâ— did for the people nor for the pastours then fâ—â— the sheepe nor for the clerkes then for the layâ— And what reason haue they to cut off rather thâ— wine Demaund then the bread They wil answere that 〈◊〉 is because that there is greater daunger in repect of the wine Answere by meane of the shedding thaâ— may happen and consequently of the bloud intâ— that which it is conuerted by meane of their transsubstanciation Wherfore is it then that the auncâ—ent Church did not aswel feare this daunger before the time of the Councel of Constaunce a did that Church which hath bin since There 〈◊〉 no doubt at al but that the errour of transsubstanciation hath brought foorth this also For thâ— Church which hath counterfaited it hath haâ— since greater feare to shed the bloud into thâ— which the wine is conuerted according to theâ—â— doctrine then the true auncient Church haâ—â— which did not know any such transsubstanciatâ—on Wherefore she did not also feare any suâ—shedding of the bloud of Iesus Christ Note And fâ—â— that also that she did not vse to keepe the breâ—â— and the wine to make them to be worshippeâ— as they do at this day in the Romaine Church in like sort she did not feare that the body and the bloud of the Lord should corrupt in the vessels wherein they were kept Beholde then one reason that the most moderne Romaine Church hath had more then the true auncient Church concerning this point And on the other side euen as the priestes of the same haue magnified their dignitie by meane of their transsubstanciation not onely aboue all other men but also aboue the virgine Mary and the Angels euen so haue they done in the communion of their masse and of their Supper For it is no small dignitie to be able to cause Iesus Christe to come and to be betwene their handes euery day and when it pleaseth them to make gods and to be the creatours of the creatour as they haue named them selues heretofore in their owne very bookes Therefore it is very reasonable also that they haue their communion apart separated from others which are not of such dignitie and that it be different from that which is common to al persons Chapter iii. Whether the Priestes may receiue the Supper for the people and what communion and excommunication is FUrther I aske them if they would be conteÌ„ted that an other man should dine for them or else that he should receyue the reuenewes of their benefices and that he should keepe the same for him selfe and in the meane time should say that he had receyued it for them I do beleeue that they would not haue such vicars nor such receiuers for them neither at the table nor iâ— their recepts but would doe both the one and y other in their owne person This notwithstanding they will needes be vicars of their Parochians in such matters in receyuing alone for them al that which belongeth generally to euery of them And the Parochians are very weâ— contented to haue such vicars and receiuers which do ordinarily receiue the Supper for theÌ„ because that they knowe not what the Supper of the Lorde is nor what profit or hurt they maâ— receiué by the administration or priuation of same wherefore they cannot knowe nor consâ—der the wrong which they do to them in so dâ—priuing them be it in all or in parte For who 〈◊〉 shal wel consider the communion which is inâ— masse and shall iudge thereof according to thâ— truth may of right call it no communion at all but excommunication For as communicatiâ—â— signifieth the partaking of many in one thing which is common to them al so on the contraâ— excommunication signifieth the depriuation 〈◊〉 such a partaking and communication as also to excommunicate signifieth asmuch as to be put out of the communion comminalty Now it is so that the Church as I haue already declared is the communion of Saints the comminalty of the faithfull And forsomuch as the sacraments being administred according to the pure ordinance of the Lorde are of the principal outward markes of the true Church and of the communion comminaltie she is also signified and represented by them For that cause they do receiue those the which they do esteeme for true members of that whole body and of all that coÌ„minaltie which we doe call the Church and the communion of Saints acknowledging theÌ„ as true Burgesses and Citizens of the kingdome of heauen and of the holy Citie of god And by that meane they do communicate vnto them the Sacraments which are vnto them as markes and tokens which Princes Lordes and Captames doe giue to their seruants and souldiours the which they doe aduow
the Apostles chiefly by the Romaine Popes wherein they doe greatly honour the sonne of god For if it be so he did but rough hewe the worke whereof he left the matter confused and euill polished as a first purtraiture rude and not polished leauing the thing to be better polished adorned and brought to perfection by those which should come after him the which worke was not made perfect by one or twoo workmen only but by a great number as they them selues do witnesse For they are not so shamelesse that they dare affirme that it was made or perfected neither by one workman onely but by many nor at one instant nor at one onely time but in sundry ages Chapter iiii Of the principall authours of the Masse alleadged by the Romaine doctors and of the diuersitie of Masses as well Greekes as Latins and of those Masses which were celebrated by the Apostles THose which dare not make Iesus Christ the authour do attribute the fashion of it some to Saint Iames others to Basile the great and some other to Gregorie the first And in deede they doe set forth diuerse formes of Masses the one sorte Greeke the other Latin masses which are greatly different amoÌ„g theÌ„ selues As touching the Greeke Masses they do againe set forth diuerse formes the one of Basile the other of Chrysostome And as touching that of Chrysostome they do not set forth onely one forme but two at the least And as touching the Latin masse the principall honour whereof they giue to Gregory the first how many craftes men haue there bene which haue laid their handes vnto it euer adding something the one to the others inuentions according as their owne doctours the historians of the Romaine Church do witnesse And after the time of Gregory the first how many pieces haue bene added vnto it and how long a time was it before it was such an one as it is at this present How theÌ„ is Iesus Christ the author or Saint Iames or any other of the Apostles And how did the Apostles sing and celebrate the masse the one in one countrey and the others in others as many of the Romaine doctors doe boldely and assuredly affirme without any shame at all cleane contrary to the euideÌ„t testimonies as wel of the holy scriptures as of their owne doctors historians which giue testimonie of all the peeces that euery one of the said craftes men which haue wrought in the same worke haue added thereunto Whether their testimonies be true or no I will not now enter into disputation of it It suffiseth that those which do vpholde the Masse do vouch them and that by their own testimony the which they doe receiue they are conuinced that there was no such masse as there is at this day in the Romaine Churche not onely in the Apostles time neither also in a long time after their daies How then commeth it to passe that the Apostles could sing and celebrate the masse before that it was made or borne If they take the masse for the supper I will willingly graunt that all the Apostles and their true successors haue often celebrated the same But it was in the same maner that Iesus Christ did institute and administer it not in the same maner that it hath bene since disguised and conuerted into masse and such as nowe it is celebrated in the Romaine Churche wherefore it is a great filthines or too great a malice so to disguise things to make the poore ignoraunt people to beleeue that the masse is of the institution of Iesus Christ and of his Apostles and that they them selues haâ—e celebrated the same and that euen from their time it hath alwayes bene obserued in the Church such as it is at this daie in the Romaine For it is an ouer filthy and shameles lye Chapter v. Of the names of the Supper and of the Masse and whether the differeÌ„ce that is at this day because of the same betweene the reformed Church and the Romaine is onely for the names and titles or els for the matter and substance and whether the Masse be in substance the Supper of the Lord. IT must then be that the Romaine doctors confesse that the Masse which they do now call the Masse is farre different from that which they affirme to haue bene said and celebrated by the Apostles and their true successours And if they do replie that it is the same in substance and that there is no difference but in respect of the ceremonies and ornamentes wherewith it hath bene adorned and enriched since that time by the successours of the Apostles we must yet see whether it be so or no. Behold then one point which standeth yet in question whereupon it must be considered whether the Masse such as it is at this day be in substaÌ„ce the holy supper of Iesus Christ or no such as he him self did institute administer his Apostles and his true Church did receiue from him and did celebrate according to his ordinance and coÌ„maundement For our chiefe controuersie is not for the wordes or for the names but for the thing it selfe the very substance thereof for the which we are at controuersie Wherefore when we shal agree vpon the substance we shall then easely agree vpon the accidentes names so farre forth as the thing which they do signifie be conteined in the holy scriptures and in the Lords ordinaÌ„ce as we do it in the name of the trinitie and of Sacrament and such like For albeit that the very same wordes are not founde either in the olde testament or in the newe yet for all that we doe receiue them for so much as the things signified by them are therein conteined Wherefore it would be vncomely and of small edification to debate vpon names and wordes when men are agreed vpon the things that they would signifie by these same It resteth now that we vnderstand the one the other and that we do agree vpon the sense according to the which we shall take the wordes which we shall vse As touching the Sacrament whereof we do nowe speake it is called by Saint Paul sometime the table an other time the supper of the Lord and also the Communion and communication of the body and of the blood of the lord Seeing then that the holy Ghost hath giueÌ„ vnto it such names titles by this holy Apostle it is then the surest and the best to vse the same This notwithstanding if the Romaine Catholiques will call it both Masse and Sacrament of the Altar we will not greatly striue for it prouided that we do agree in the principal point of our different Chapter vi Of the chiefe different that is betweene the reformed Church and the Romaine touching the Supper and the Masse and of the meane to agree it IF then they be able to shewe that their Masse is in substance the very supper of the Lorde and their sacrament of the Altar his
of God froÌ„ his people which is so holy sacred a â—hing Wherfore they may be wel placed amoÌ„g â—he false prophets whom the Lorde accuseth by â—eremie to haue stolen his word froÌ„ his people They are in like forte very open rebels to Iesus Christ For seeing that they ought to reprâ—sent his person in the administration of the siâ—per and of al sacramentes it must in any wise bâ— that they do that which he commandeth them tâ— do and that they follow his example For if the do otherwise and contrary thereunto they maâ— not be called the ministers of Iesus Christe buâ— onely by a wrong title Nowe it is certaine thaâ— he commanded them to do in his remembrance the very same which he then did And what is 〈◊〉 that he then did Note he as minister addressed hiâ— worde to his disciples to whom he administreâ—â— his supper and forthwith distributed vnto then the signes thereof which he commandeth theâ— to take Wherefore if the priests do not the likâ— in their masse in their supper wherein they saâ— they do represent as ministers the person of Iâ—sus Christ they do mocke both Iesus Christ anâ— his poore people Nowe it is plaine that in the 〈◊〉 masse they do neither the one ne yet the other From whence it followeth very well that thâ— same can not be the supper of Iesus Christ foâ— so much as they do so great a wrong therein aâ— well to him as to all Christian people For in hâ—â—ding and stealing the worde which ought to bâ— declared vnto them and in not distributing at aâ— that which is commaÌ„ded them to distribute vnto them they do dishonour Iesus Christe in diâ—obeying him also do great wrong to his peoâ—le in not administring vnto them that which â—hey ought to administer vnto theÌ„ And as they â—aile in this behalfe euen so the people doe not â—heir dutie if they wil not receiue the word nor â—he signes when they are duely and sincerely â—dministred vnto them For therein they shew â—hem selues rebels against God. Note And if neither â—he one nor the other be presented and adminiâ—tred vnto them and that they care not at al but â—re contented to be depriued eyther in part or in â—ll they yeeld them selues then without excuse â—â—asmuch as they declare thereby that they doe â—ot greatly care for the glory of god nor for his â—â—luation and chiefely when they may haue the â—â—eane to haue the right and full administration â—f the sacraments Chapter xvi Of the differeÌ„ce and distinction that the Romaine doctors do make in thapplicatioÌ„ of the sacramental wordes of the sacrameÌ„ts aswel concerning the signes of them as the persons which are capable thereof and of the foundation of their transsubstanciation which they ground vpon the same â—Eing theÌ„ that it is so it is easie to iudge howe foolish and ful of filthie ignorance the distinction and the difference that the Romaine doâ—tors doe make betwene Baptisme and the suâ—per and their other sacraments is touching tâ— applying of the wordes and of the signes 〈◊〉 them For they say that in baptisme the sacrâ—mentall wordes are addressed to the persoâ— which they baptize Note and not at al to the mattâ—â— of baptisme to wit to the water which is thâ— signe thereof but it is contrary in the suppeâ— forsomuch as the sacramentall wordes are adressed to the matter thereof to wit to the breaâ—â— and to the wine which are the signes and nâ— at all to the persons from whence they do coclude the conuersion of the bread and of thâ— wine into the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chriâ—â— according to their doctrine of transsubstanciâ—tion By meane whereof they doe affirme thaâ— for that cause the bread and the wine consecrâ—ted after their maner are no more bread anâ— wine but are the very body and bloud of Iâ—sus Christe and the holy Sacrament of thâ— altar and of the supper of the Lorde yea eueâ—â— out of the accion and vse of the sacrament Thâ— which thing they dare not affirme of the wâ—ter of the baptisme For albeit that they hauâ— blessed and consecrated it after their maner anâ— that they doe reserue it in their fonts for thâ— vse of baptisme and that they doe pronounce thâ— sacramental words thereof in thadministration yet for al that they hold it neither for sacrament nor for signe of baptisme but in the very accion and vse thereof to witte when it is applied to the persons that men doe baptize But if they graunt vs this point concerning baptisme why make they so great difficultie to graunt vs the same concerning the supper For haue they more expresse commandement of Iesus Christ to administer the water in Baptisme then the bread and the wine in the supper which are the signes I say yet further that it is so that they haue a more expresse commandement to distribute the bread and the wine of the supper then to administer the water of the Baptisme For where is it that they shal be able to find that Iesus Christ hath said so expressely of the water of Baptisme Take ye baptize ye and be ye baptized as he hath plainely spoken of the bread of the wine of the supper Take ye eate ye Take ye drinke ye yea euery one of you And to whoÌ„ did he speake these woordes following to wit This same is my bodie this same is my bloud but euen to those very men to whom he spake the wordes going before as I haue alreadie declared to whom he gaue commandement to eate the bread and to drinke the wine which he brake distributed vnto them for signes of his body and of his bloud Chapter xvii Of thapplying of the sacramentall wordes tâ— the signes of the sacraments and of the coÌ„secration of them THey may not then at all alledge that they dâ—â— better agree with the matter of the bread and 〈◊〉 the wine in the supper then with that of the wâ—ter in Baptisme and that it hath not equal respeâ—â— to the persons aswell in the one sacrament as 〈◊〉 the other Wherefore to speake properly theâ— must be referred in both the sacrameÌ„ts aswel 〈◊〉 the signes as to the persoÌ„s to whom they ought 〈◊〉 be administred but it is euer in the respect of thâ— persoÌ„s For it should be to no purpose that theâ— were pronounced in secret and in their absencâ— For that should be more like to a charme aâ— enchantment then to a sacrameÌ„t For the maâ—ter which is taken for the signes in all sacrâ—ments cannot be the signes if the same be nâ—â— dedicated and consecrated thereunto by tâ—â— worde of God by the which they are made hâ—ly and sacred signes where as before they weâ—â— but simple and common matter And therefoâ—â— there is so great difference betweene that thâ—â— it was and that that it is after that the word 〈◊〉 added vnto it as there is betwene a piece of
will they â—oue this first sacrifice which they terme not blouddy vpon the which we are in controuersie with them and of the which they say that they â—e sacrificers and successors of Iesus Christ in 〈◊〉 behalfe For we doe not disagree with theÌ„â—t all as touching the second And concerning â—â—e first wee will not make any difficultie to â—â—aunt them that the auncient doctors of the â—hurch and the auncient Church which foloâ—ed their doctrine haue indeede called the saâ—â—â—â—eÌ„t of the supper sacrifice in that sense that the holy Scripture calleth the same name the woorke of the preaching of the Gospel by the which the true ministers thereof bring men vnto God as though they did offer men vnto him and as it doth call also the mortification of the Christians whereby they offer them selues vnto God for liuing and reasonable sacrifices and in like sort the praiers thanks giuing the almes because that al these things were done auncieÌ„tly in the supper For it was not celebrated without the preaching of the word of God nor without praiers and thankes giuing from whence it hath had the name of Eucharistie among the Greekes nor without almes and gathering and such other like good workes the which God accepteth for sacrifices But these are not at al propiciatory sacrifices for the remission of sinnes the redemption of soules but are sacrifices of praise and thankes giuing For the Christian Church doth not acknowledge any other sacâ—â—â—fice propiciatorie but onely that which Iesuâ— Christ him selfe did offer in his owne person â–ª not wheÌ„ he did iustitute and administer the supper but wheÌ„ he suffered for vs and namely inhâ—â— he died for our sinnes For al his life was a peâ—â—petuall sacrifice but wee take him chiefly in hiâ— death because that it was therein ended as 〈◊〉 him selfe did witnesse vpon the crosse Then whâ— the auncients did call the sacrament of the suâ—per a sacrifice not bloudy they toke it in the seÌ„se that I haue already declared that the Supper was a sacrifice of praise thankes giuing they haue also called it so because that they haue ofteÌ„ times taken the name of sacrifice for that which we do call diuine seruice praier forsomuch as al the parts therof al the things therein required are comprised in the celebration of the Supper in that same maner as it was instituted by Iesus Christ and celebrated by the Apostles and by the true auncient Church For according to the testimony of Saint Luke the first Christian Church had foure thinges in singular recoÌ„meÌ„dation in their assemblies The first was the praiers and then the doctrine of the Apostles and the thied breaking of bread and the fourth the communion by the which two latter wee must vnderstand the administration and distriâ—â—tioÌ„ of the Supper and the gatherings for the â—oore the distributioÌ„s which were made vnto â—hem When then the auncients do call the supâ—er sacrifice and that they doe make mencion of sacrifice not bloudy they vse it in that sense that haue already declared as it appeareth plainâ—â— by their owne testimony Wherefore we wil â—â—t make any great difficulty to graunt that the â—upper was a sacrifice in that sense to wit a â—acrifice of praise and thankes giuing 〈◊〉 not a Sacrifice propiciatorie for the remission of sinnes the redemption of soules in such sorte as the Romaine catholiques do affirme their masse to be into the which they haue conuerted the supper of the Lorde Chapter xii Of the trumperies of the doctors of the Romayne Church concerning the name of sacrifice and the vse thereof and chiefly of the confusion which they put betwene the sacrifice propiciatorie and Eucharistique and betweene sacrament and sacrifice and of the differeÌ„ce that must be put betwene the one and the other WHereupon it is needful that euery man he warned of 2. trumperies by the which the Romayne doctors do deceyue the ignorant aâ—using the name of sacrifice and of the authoritie and testimonie of the auncient doctors of the Church in this matter The first is in the confusion that they make betwene the sacrifices The other in that they take the name of sacrifice in the writings of the auncient doctors for the masse such as it is in the Romayne Church For first they do take for sacrifice propitiatorie that which the auncient Doctors did take for sacrifice 〈◊〉 praise and thanks giuing and for a commemâ—â—ration of the death of Iesus Christe the whiâ—â— for the same cause men may call Eucharistique euen as some men do call it to giue men the better to vnderstand this difference as men doe cal the Supper Eucharistie for the same cause For the which cause they haue called the Supper sacrifice not blouddy to giue to vnderstande that they did not meane to offer Iesus Christ to God in sacrifice in the same for the remission of sinnes and the redemption of soules for somuch as the same cannot be done but by the very and onely sonne of God Iesus Christe nor without the shedding of his bloud but onely for a coÌ„memoration of the propiciatory sacrifice that which Iesus Christ him selfe did offer of his owne body bloud to yeeld him praise and thankes For they did knowe very wel what difference there is betwene sacrament and sacrifice and that the supper was not instituted by the Lorde for a sacrifice but for a Sacrament For in a sacrifice which is offered for the remission of sinnes and the redemption of soules it behoueth that the man offer vnto God the thing which he sacrificeth vnto him and that it be sufficient to appease â—is wrath or otherwise the sacrifice is not perâ—ect neither may it satisfie god And therefore it was that al those of the Leuits which were â—rdayned in the lawe to represent that of Iesus Christ did cease to giue place to him only But â—e sacraments are ordayned not at all to offer any thing to god for the remission of sinnes but on the contrary to receiue of him the spiritual and heauenly good things which he offreth communicateth vnto vs by the same And therefore Iesus Christ did not offer vnto God eyther the bread or the wine of the Supper or yet his body and his bloud in the same but did offer and communicate them both to wit the signes and the things signified by them to his disciples distributing bodily vnto them that which was bodyly and earthly sptritually that which was spiritual and heauenly And therefore he said Take ye and eate ye and drinke ye the which woordes he did not addresse vnto â–ª God nor consequently the bread and the wine which he commanded to eate and to drinke neither his body nor his bloud signified by the same but to his disciples and consequently to al those vnto whom the supper is administred according to his ordinance And therefore when Iesus Christ sayd
ful and perfect and by consequent that hee is not the true anoynted of the Lorde and that all that which is wrytten of his office of Sacrificer and of his sacrifice in all the Epistle to the Hebrewes and in all the rest of the Scriptures is false From whence it should also followe either that the Scriptures which wee doe call holy should not bee reuealed by the Spirit of God or els that the Spirite of God should not bee the Spirit of trueth as it is but the spirit of errour and of lyes and by consequent God shoulde not bee God but shoulde bee in steade of the Deuill which is a lyer and the father of lyes Behold the straūge consequēces on the which men may not thinke without great horrour which the masse draweth after it for it can not bee such an one as it is set foorth vnto vs in the Romayne Churche but that all these consequences must needes followe Nowe they can bee none other then great blasphemies against Iesus Christe and his sacrifice and all his benefites from whence it followeth necessarily that the masse may no more bee the propiciatorie sacrifice of the body and of the blood of Iesus Christe then it may be that Iesus Chiste shoulde not bee the true anoynted of the Lorde Note And if it were so that his sacrifice might bee reiterated yet for all that the same coulde not bee offered by any other then by him selfe onely But seeing that it is eternall and of vertue infinite it is no more needefull that it bee reiterated not onely by any other then by hym but also by him selfe Seeing then that not onely the Masse but also the very Supper may not bee the propiciatorie sacrifice of the body and of the blood of Iesus Christe it followeth then in deede that it can not bee the very selfe Sacrifice which was offered by Iesus Christe vpon the crosse From whence I dos agayne conclude that if it bee a Sacrifice it can not bee other then a Sacrifice commemoratiue of the Sacrifice offered by Iesus Christe And if it be but a Sacrifice commemoratiue of hym it is not then a Propiciatorie Sacrifice but Eucharistique to wytte of prayse and thankes Note But yet before that it maye bee such a Sacrifice it must fyrst bee that it bee the true Supper of the Lorde which thing it is not all neyther maye bee beeyng such as it is at this present but is cleane contrary as men may iudge as well by that which I haue already heretofore spoken as by that which I will yet speake hereafter by that meane it shal be no pleasant sacrifice to God either in one sorte or in an other Chapter xvii Of the marchandise of Masses and of the sacrifices of the same and of the abuses that therein are ANd by the same men may iudge what iniurie the Romaine priestes doe to the Catholiques of the Romaine Church in selling to thē their masses for sacrifices not only commemoratiues and Eucharistiques but also propiciatories being notwithstanding either the one or the other And thereby men may knowe what marchantes they are what is their marchandises in that behalfe And albeit that it were so that they were sacrifices in both those sortes yet the markets and faires which they make of thē should be a very villaine traffique For do they not sell them for prices agreed vpon as they do all their other sacramentes and ceremonies euē against their owne councels and canons and their owne very decrees And do they not call the marchandizes of holy things Simonie O how many priestes haue they which haue neither cure nor benefice nor charge of soule which were made priestes onely to saye masses and which doe liue of the marchandizes which they daily make thereof And howe many bee there among them which doe liue from the day to his dayes labour as the prouerbe is which haue their teeth very sharpe that day that they finde no marchāts to buye their marchandizes If I should speake of these marchauntes that which one of their bookes called Stella clericorum doth they would thinke them selues marueilously outraged by me And therefore I will cause it to be spoken vnto them by the doctour which was the authour of that booke And to the ende that they doe not thinke that I doe alleadge him falsely I will cause him first to speake in his owne proper language and then I will expounde both the woordes and the sense Behold now his wordes The priest which doth celebrate masse for money seemeth to say with Iudas What wil you giue me and I will deliuer him vnto you Therefore it is wrong to sell his lord Thinke thou that the first seruant which saide did hang him selfe Iudas did cast downe the money in the Temple The priestes which do bestowe the money that they haue of them for whom they do sing at the stewes and vpon their belly are worse Iudas solde Christ once repented him thereof And thou perchance hast solde him oftentimes and doest not repent therof Take heede lest despairing thou do hang thy selfe The wordes in Latin are these Sacerdos qui pro nummis celebrat videtur dicere cum Iuda Quid vultis mihi dare ego vobis eum tradam Ergo nefas est vendere Dominum suum Cogita quod primus seruus venditor seipsum suspendit Iudas enim nummos misit in Templum Peiores sunt sacerdotes qui denarios pro quibus cantant mittunt in lupanar in ventrem suum Iudas semel Christum vendidit de hoc penituit Et tu forte multoties vēdidisti non penites Caue ne desperans te ipsum suspendas Behold how this good doctour speaketh And if the litle marchantes which are in great trauaile to gaine their poore liuing by these marchandizes may not be excused in this point howe much more are the great and fatte marchants which sell them in grosse and make greater and more riche traffique of them Seeing then that it is so they may not finde the matter straunge if Iesus Christe doe agayne take the whippe in hande to driue such marchauntes out of his Temple and out of his Churche and that hee ouerthrowe their seates and their tables by the preaching of his Gospell For if comparison should be made betweene them and those which Iesus Christe did driue out of the Temple of Ierusalem the difference woulde bee founde so great that those which Iesus Christe him selfe in his owne person did driue foorth shoulde be iustified by those here as Samaria did iustifie Sodome and Ierusalem Samaria according to the testimonie of Ezechiel For the marchauntes which were by Iesus Christe driuen out of the Temple of Ierusalem had sufficient aucthoritie by the lawe of God for that which they did Note For they did not at all sell any false marchaundizes nor diuine and holy things but onely those
in his owne person Wherefore it is as possible that the Christiā people should be fedde spiritually with the body blood of Iesus Christ by the communion which the priest alone maketh in his masse as it is possible that he may be fed bodily with that which the priest dineth with and eateth drinketh all alone Wherefore if the people wil be partakers of the things signified by the signes of the supper they must also be partakers of the worde of the signes of the same which are the meanes whereby God will cōmunicate those things which they doe signifie For as he hath ordeined the meane whereby he will giue entertaine conserue the bodily life euē so hath he done for the conseruation of the spiritual life And therefore seeing that he hath ordeined the ministerie of the word of the sacramēts in respect of the spirituall life he that would haue conserue it without this meane should do as much as if he would liue a bodily life without eating or drinking vsing the meane ordeined of God for the nouriture entertainemēt of the same if there be no such necessitie and let that they both cannot be had For God hath not so tied his graces to external things that he cannot distribute the same without them by his diuine vertue and without externall meanes if it please him prouided that there bee no contempt or rebellion of our part for albeit that he hath made vs subiect thereunto so farre foorth as hee giueth vs the meanes yet for all that he is not subiect as wee are but so farre foorth as it pleaseth him to vse them of his owne free will. And therefore euen as he did nourish extraordinarily supernaturally by his diuine vertue Moyses Elie and Iesus Christ the space of fortie dayes they not receiuing in that time any bodily meate or drinke according to the order of nature euen so may hee nourishe spiritually and communicate his gifts and graces without the ministerie of man ordeined in his Churche if it please him to those which by necessitie are depriued of them notwithstanding that they haue great desire to vse the meanes which he hath ordeined and that they do all their indeuour that they may to haue the true and right vse thereof as if a faithfull man were so holden by necessitie of sicknesse or by captiuitie and prison of tyrantes or by some other like necessitie which hindreth him that he may not participate outwardly For if there were there of his fault and that hee would forbeare for his pleasure and that he would not do his duetie in that behalfe the reason shoulde bee otherwise Chapter .xii. How greatly and how much the more inexcusable the Romaine priestes should be for depriuing the Christian people from the communion of the body and of the blood of the Lorde in their Masses and of his blood in their common Suppers if the doctrine of their transsubstātiation were true ANd if the doctrine of transsubstantiation were true that which I say would fight yet more sharpely against the Romaine priests For seeing that they doe affirme that the bread and the wine which are the signes of the supper are conuerted into the very body and blood of Iesus Christ the which they signifie they must also confesse will they or will they not that in depriuing priuing the people of these two signes in their masse they doe also depriue them of the bodie of the blood of Iesus Christe and that in their commō supper they depriue them of the blood deliuering to them but they body according to their doctrine for seeing that we must be made flesh of the flesh bones of the bones of Iesus Christ by the communiō which we should haue with him and which is represented vnto vs as well by baptisme as by the supper an other can not be that for vs And by that meane the priests may no more receiue the supper for vs in our name then they may be baptized in our name for vs And therefore Iesus Christ said not that he which should eate his flesh and drinke his blood by vicar lieutenant should haue life in him should be in Iesus Christ and Iesus Christ in him but said openly He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me I in him hath eternall life and I will rayse him vp at the latter day Let the Romaine Catholiques then consider whether their priestes may eate this meate and drinke this drinke rise for all their parochians and for all those which heare and see their masses and whether they will be contented to be so nourished with the flesh and with the blood of Iesus Christe and so to rise at the latter daye in the person of their priestes Chapter .xiii. Of the Sacrifice and of the Communion that the priestes doe administer in their masses as well for the dead as for the liuing THus much concerning the cōmunion which is in the masse and concerning the ninth errour which wee doe blame in the same I will now come to the tenth which is cōcerning that that the priests doe not doaste that they do sacrifice and cōmunicate in their masse only for the liuing but also for the dead affirming that by that meane they doe applie the sacrifice of Iesus Christe and the vertue and the merite of the same as well to the one as to the others For the which cause they saye that they doe deuide their hosties into three partes in their communion of the which they dippe the one into the wine in their challice against the expresse ordinaunce of the Lorde yea and against the very auncient canons For the Lorde did not temper the bread with the wine neither did hee make a soppe in the wine in the institution of the supper neither did he also commaunde to do it And therefore it is written in the auncient canons which forbidde the same that Iesus Christe did distribute the bread apart and the wine apart and that he gaue not the bread nor the morcell tempered to any other then to Iudas which betrayed him and he gaue it not vnto him yet in the Supper but out of the Supper Nowe of these three partes that the priestes make of their hostie in their masse they assigne the one to the liuing and the two others to the dead because that they doe make two sortes to witte the one which are already happy and doe raigne in Paradise and the other which are yet holden in the paines of purgatorie and haue not yet fulfilled their penance nor haue fully satisfied vnto God and by that meane they doe sacrifice and communicate both for the liuing and for the dead all at one tyme as though Iesus Christe had not fully satisfied for all by his sacrifice and as though the ministerie of the woorde and of the Sacramentes were
Romaine masse the which albeit that it be not of the proper substance of the Supper yet for all that I thought good to set forth the same because that the auncient Church was not without these Collects namely when they did celebrate the supper of that which they did also leuy the bread the wine that they did distribute to the faithfull in the fame the which were there dedicated coÌ„secrated in such sort as I haue here tofore already declared to be there signes of the body of the bloud of the Lorde Chapter xxi A briefe gathering of the matters handled in this booke I Do omit very many other points forsomuch as I wold only bring forth such as were most principal most intolerable the which we may in no wise allowe without reiecting of Iesus Christ ouerthrowing wholy al the sacrament of the holy supper obseruation therem of the true auncieÌ„t Church No more haue I also determined to make many proofs the more to confirme that which I haue set forth against the points that which we do condemne aswel because that the arguments which I haue brought forth to the same purpose may suffice such as wil be satiffied with reason and will not fight against all manyfest trueth as for that also that I haue handled these matters very largely in diuers other bookes in the which men shal finde arguments testimonies sufficient to confirme more largely that which I haue here handled more briefely And forsomuch as the Romaine doctors and catholikes doe make their chiefe buckler of the sacrifice and of the order of Melchisedec for the defence of their masse and of the sacrifice of the same I haue made an other booke of purpose vpon that matter in the which I doe shewe by apparant testimonies arguments taken out of the holy scriptures howe that the foundation which they lay vpon that order of Melchisedec doeth more shake downe the building which they do build thereupon theÌ„ it doth sustaine it how contrary it is to the Sacrifices that they would build thereupon Wherefore I will nowe end this treatise Note wherein I haue first set foorth the principal reasons which mought leade the Romaine catholikes to maintaine their masse as they do maintaine it to the which I haue made answere And then I haue set forth the points which doe leade the catholikes of the reformed Church to reiect the same being such as it is at this present in the Romaine Church For as I haue already declared wee are not at all in controuersie concerning the institution and obseruation of the Sacrament of the Supper the which we doe all confesse but the different is whether the masse such as it is at this day in vse in the Romaine Church be this Sacrament of the holy Supper or no whether it be the true supper or else if they wil cal it the masse of the true auncieÌ„t Church or else an other bastard masse into the 〈…〉 the supper of the Lorde â—â—d the forme 〈◊〉 diuine seruice of the true auncient Châ—â—◠〈◊〉 bene conuerted and transformed 〈…〉 I haue reduced these principal 〈…〉 â—â—ereof we are in controuersie with 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—raine catholikes and the which I haue hanâ—â—ed here before first into fiue of the which I haue also deuided some into diuers articles in sort that in the whole I make to the nomber of xii by that order that they are set downe in the table placed in the be ginning of this booke after the Aduertisement FINIS Isai 29. Mat. 15 Mark. 7 â—â—maunde â—â—ndry â—â—â—nes of 〈◊〉 supper Of goâ—◠〈◊〉 Instruâ—â—tion Similitude â—ee â—â—e 1. 〈◊〉 1. â—ee 5. pointâ— Deut. 4 1â— Apoc. 22. Jos 1. Eze. 10. 1. Cor. 11. â—or 12. â—oc 22. â—â—te well 〈◊〉 â—onclusioÌ„ â— Cor. 11. High masâ—â—s Iustiniaâ— new Const 123. In excelleÌ„t Instrucâ—â—on Note well â—his Matt. 28. Note wel â—his Mat. 26. Mark. 14. Luk. 22.1 Cor. 11. Note Iere. 23. â—ote well â—â—is The fauâ—â— of the pâ—â—ple Note well Demand Note the well Note well Note wel Example An othâ—â— Exod. 3. Aug. in Ioh. Hoâ—â— 13. â—â—ene 17 â—â—â—t 13. Note welâ— this â—ote â—egeneraâ—â—on Conuâ—â—â— this weâ—â— Note wâ—â— Way welâ— this Note thâ— â—say 29 â—â—g in â—oh Hom. 〈◊〉 â—eplie â—swere CoÌ„sider very welthreâ— poynts Consyder this ExcelleÌ„t instruction Example A good instruction Example Consydâ—â— this well CoÌ„municantes A good lesson â—ote August de ciuit dei lib. 21. c. 25. In 10. Tra. 26. c. 6. 3. things in a true sacrament Example Conclusion â—pinion of â—he Romanâ—istes ConclusioÌ„ Note this â—mande â—ote this Conâ—â—oâ— this â—at â—â—gs are â—â—mon â—â—per to â—se sacraâ—uts 〈◊〉 good inâ—uction â—ohâ— 18.11 Note this ansplanâ—tion â—n 15. â—â—gnificaâ—â—â—n of bapâ—â—â—me â—â—m 6. â—â—l 3. Note these propofitions â—acrameÌ„â— speches â—â—d their â—â—â—â—e vse Note 〈◊〉 â—â—te well â—â—s Signes â—â—gniftyng thing sigâ—ifted Note this Note thâ— argumeâ— An otheâ— argumenâ— other â—ument Note well his argument Miracâ—â— Workes naturall supernatâ—rall â—nfider â—s absurâ—â—e â—gument Note thiâ— great abâ—ditie â—ngnlar struction â—â—ample Note 〈◊〉 distinctâ— Instructâ— Or vain imaginatâ—ons or phantasies â—ote Note wel Acticleâ— our faiâ—â— cleane oâ—â— thrownâ— Note thâ— Conâ—â—â— well 〈◊〉 chapteâ—â— Take tâ—â— worde of God in hâ— true sense â—onsider â—ell this â—â—atter Exposition in matter of sacraments Note this Note thâ— matter Note this well â—e first â—our â—icer de â—at deo li. 3. Affirmation Note tâ—â— idolatrie Luk. 22. â— 1. Cor. 11. Consider this well Abuse of the Persians â—ote well Where the â—se of the â—crameÌ„t is Doctriâ— of the aâ— uersarie Note tâ— argume Rom. 14 〈◊〉 ordiâ—e of the â—de vioâ—ed and â—ane ouerâ—owne â—surditie Demande Consydeâ— this â—ote â—onsides â—is â—ur God â—s inuisible An iâ—â—iâ—ble world He must 〈◊〉 worshippâ—â— in spirit trueth Iohn 4. The very words of the Lord â—ranssubâ—antiation â—â—onght inâ—â— the church â—bout the â—â—ert 1060. Nicholas â—he second Gregorie â—e seueÌ„th Honorius the third 1226. Urban the fourth Note we this Romaine Apostles â— point Note this cunning Consideâ— well this point concerning sacrifice Demande Note this cunning Note this combat Note the â—stitution 〈◊〉 the Lord 〈◊〉 matter â—f great â—aight Iesus Christ the priest sacrificer sacrifice temple and altar Blouddy 〈◊〉 not bloudâ— Note this Demande â—om 5 â—undry saâ—â—fices Rom. 12. Psal. 50. Hebru 13. Auncient celebration of the supper Not sacrifices propiciatories The whole life of christ was a perpetual sacrifice Iohn 19. Actes 4. things in singular recoÌ„mendacioÌ„ The first deceite Sacrificâ— not blouâ— An argument of great waight Confider his well 〈◊〉 coÌ„maundement Luke 22. 1. Cor. 11. One Lord gaue him selfe for vs vpon the crosse Note thâ— Ebrew nâ—ner of speach The latin translator â—â—te Consider this 2. Deceâ— â—ante of â—â—fts men Replcâ— â—weâ—◠〈◊〉 â—ry 53 â—hu 1 â—et 2 â—or 5 â—hu 19. â—â—od 12.13 A doublâ— regarde the passeo Our delâ—uerauce Sacrificâ— with saâ—â—ment â—or 5. â—â—â—â—deâ—â—his â—ge Note thâ— Exod. 12. Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. The wordâ— of Moiseâ— words â—ar lord â—fferent Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Falsaries of the testament â—om 6 â—eb 9. The vertue if this sarifice Propiciatorie sacrifice by whâ—â— Intent of Christ â—â—se â—ote well â—â—s 〈◊〉 most sinâ—â—lar note â—bedience â—etter then â—â—crifice Who is a â—ufficient â—ostie to God. Consydâ— well thiâ— Way well this coÌ„clusioÌ„ througâ—out â—â—hu 14. â—traunge â—â—nsequenâ—â—s â—he vertue â—f these coÌ„â—â—quences Vertue â—â—finite This sacrâ—fice may not be reiâ—terated Sacrifice coÌ„memoratiue â—niuty â—â—one by the â—omaine â—â—iests â—illain â—â—affique â—emande Stella cleâ—â—corum Matt. 21. Mar. 11. Luk. 19. Iohn 2. Eze. 1â— A notable argument â—o sell one thing for an other Now the supper inâ—â— be the supper â—emande 1. Cor. 11. Note these two thingâ— â—oce wel â—onc â—onst â—es 13. Consider â—ell this Replie Demaund An other demaund Demaund Vicars ExcoÌ„munication Note thiâ— instructiâ—â— Excommunication Consider well this The excoâ—municateâ— of the auncient Church â—otable â—â—lts 1. Cor. 1â— Note thâ— abuse of 〈◊〉 Supper Example â—acrameÌ„t 〈◊〉 vnion Cor. 10. Iohn 11. Note this â—â—struction â—blessed â—nion Note thiâ— diuision â—ote this â—fference Note thâ— inequalitâ— â—e gods the â—estes â—hat gods 〈◊〉 offered 〈◊〉 sacrifice Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke 22. Actes 2.1 Cor. 10.11 Esai 58. â—ote Horrible deceite Note this Note thâ— instructiâ—â— Note the names â—ote this â—â—â—truction Note these â—archaunâ—ises Note 〈◊〉 these caâ—ses foloâ—ing â—â—nclusioÌ„ â—emande A worthy sentence â—â—n 10. â—onsyder â—â—ll this â—om 10. â—hat faith 〈◊〉 â—xample â—â—a 2. â—om 2. Note wel this chapter Aug. in Ioaâ— Ho. 80. coÌ„tra Faust li. 16. de doctr Chri. li. 11. â—â—â—uctioÌ„ meane â—he sacraâ—â—nts â—ote this â—imparisoÌ„ 〈◊〉 good inâ—â—ruction God distâ—â—buteth hâ— graces as pleaseth him Example â—â—ample â—onsider â—â—ll this â—tructioÌ„ Note Ephe. 5. Rom. 6. 1. Cor. 10 Note weâ— this instruction Iohn 6. An horriâ—le sacriâ—edge 〈◊〉 true sayâ—ng Note this De Condist 2. C. qum â—omne Oriestes Iubaistes Note Duran 〈◊〉 lib. 4. Ruâ—â— de fract 〈◊〉 Bonau iâ— Sed dist 〈◊〉 Hilper iâ— Ele. de Eâ—cha Note theâ— faultes â—â—â—ment â—â—te â—â—tâ— 14 â—â—b 11. 〈◊〉 other â—â—ofe â—om 10. â—ote â—onsyber â—â—ll this Esai 2â— Mat. 1â— Mat. 7. Note 〈◊〉 coucluâ—â—â—â—â— Noâ—â— â—â—aund â—â—â—at â—â—quence â—â—â—der 〈◊〉 â—â—â—e Note this Demanâ—â— â—â—hee â—â—und â—â—swer â—ote Hebrâ— 1. Coâ— Epheâ— 1. IoÌ„hâ— Apo. 〈◊〉 Iohnâ— Acteâ— 1. Tâ—â— 1. Peâ—â—â— Hortâ— treasâ—â— gainâ—â— sus 〈◊〉 â—â—ndacioÌ„ maine infallicensure â—ote very â—ell this 2 poiâ—◠〈◊〉 3.8 â—â—n 2. 〈◊〉 9.10 â—â—hn 2. â—istinctioÌ„ aduoâ—tes â—emaund Coâ—â— demeâ—â— promiâ— 2. Coâ—â— Conâ—â— â—mes â—â—tes 2.4 Cor. 16. Cor. 8 9. â—al 1.8 6. Tim. 3. â—ote this â—der Thes 3. Tim. 5. Note here that th autor speaketh of these offices as they are in the corruption of the Romaine Church not of those that in good reformed Churches are diligent preaching Arch deacons Deacons c. for such be not vaine titles but necessary offices Actes 6.1 Tim. 3. Dery gresacriledgâ— Consider his wel Sacriâ—â—â— of Melâ—â—â—sedec ⧠Imprinted at London by Christopher Barker Printer to the Queenes Maiestie 1579.
things which might bee offered and sacrificed according to the Lawe to the ende that the people which came from farre should be eased and that they shoulde not take the payne to leade with them or to carry so farre that which they would offer and sacrifice But for so much as those marchauntes did it not for that cause nor to the ende that God might be the more honoured but tooke onely that colour to make it to serue to their gayne and to couer their auarice therewith Iesus Christe did dryue them out as Theeues Sacrilegious and Robbers which did villainously abuse the name of God by a false title home woulde hee then at this day endure the sellers of Sacramentes and of Masses For if their doctrine of transsubstantiation were true they coulde not sell any Masse without selling foorthwith Iesus Christe iâ— flesh bones the which they do make of the bread and of the wine of the same according to their owne very doctrine And if it bee not true so much the more false and vntrue is the marchandize This notwithstanding he that should suppresse all the faires markets traffiques which they do make should forthwith see very fewâ— Priests at the Altar For it is for such stuffe that they doe so fight against the preaching of the Gospell to mainteine their masse and the sacrifice of the same and consequently their transsubstantiation which is the foundation thereof and of all that which it draweth with it Note And iâ— they do confesse that their masse is no propiciatorie sacrifice but only Eucharistique and commemoratiue of the sacrifice propiciatorie of Iesus Christ as some of them are constrained to confesse seing that they may not otherwise saue nor giue colour to their doctrine they may not yet for all that escape cleare but are yet the more to be coÌ„demned For they sell to their marchaÌ„ts one marchandize for an other to witte a sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing in steade of a sacrifice propiciatorie for the remission of sinnes and the redemption of soules as they doe boast that they do in their masse And if it be neither the one nor the other as I haue already proued yet are the marchants which do buie such marchandizes the more deceiued Wherefore I leaue theÌ„ to thinke in what estimation they ought to haue their marchantes For if they committed none other faulte this here should be sufficieÌ„t to cause them to leaue abandon them cleane For who is so euill a marchant as taketh pleasure to bee deceiued and to buye euill marchandizes Thus much concerning the sacrifice of the masse I will now come to the ninth point which is yet in controuersie the which is concerning the coÌ„munion as wel of the Supper as of the Masse The thirde Booke Chapter 1. Of the CommunioÌ„ which may be in the Romaine Masse and Supper and how there is not at all any true Communion and how that it may in no wise be the true Supper of Iesus Christ I Haue already here before declared howe that the Supper may not be the Supper without the Communion of the things which do belong thereunto and which ought to bee therein coÌ„municated according to the ordinaÌ„ce of Iesus Christ Now there is no such communion in the Romaine Masse From whence it foloweth that it is not the supper of the Lord consequently also that it is not the Sacrament thereof but is a new sacrameÌ„t inuented by meÌ„ and wholy contrary to that of the Lorde from the which they woulde giue vnto it his foundation and his countenance For what communion is there ordinarily either in priuate or particular masses either in those which are publike the which they do cal parochial for there is both in the one in the other but the priest only which is at the altar who doth participate of the bread of the wine that which he doth consecrate in the same For he eateth and drinketh al alone at his altar without offering or presenting any thing of that which he eateth and drinketh not only to the people which doe assist at his masse but also to his owne fellowes which are of the same occupation that he is of and which helpe him to saye and doe the same and are the nerest to his table and altar This notwithstanding he calleth this litle banquet which hee maketh in his masse Communion and the praier which followeth it shortly after PostcommunioÌ„ CoÌ„munion is taken of common but what is it that is there common where one taketh all The only name which they do vse doth conuince them of their errour and of the wrong that they do to all Christian people And if they do replie that they â—o call this litle banquet Communion Repl. not in respect of the distribution which is there made of the bread of the wine which is there made to those which doe assist at their masse for so much as there is there none at all made according as the Lord hath ordeined in his supper but in respect of the communication that the priest hath with Iesus Christ whereunto I answere Answere that that answere solution is not sufficieÌ„t enough For Iesus Christ hath not instituted a Supper wherein one onely minister shoulde communicate and should distribute the Supper vnto him self alone but hath ordained it for al those which are capable thereof in his Churche which is the communioÌ„ of Saincts to the which this sacrament belongeth in generall and not to certain particulars only And therfore S. Paul hath written The bread which we breake is it not the communioÌ„ of the body of Christ the cup of blessing the which we blesse is it not the coÌ„munion of the blood of Christ For we which are many are one bread one body in asmuch as we are al partakers of one very bread S. Paul doth here set forth vnto vs 2. things The first that the supper is not for one alone but for many for the whol church the other that it ought not to be dismeÌ„bred but to be fully administred aswel to the ChristiaÌ„ people as to the ministers of the same without cutting froÌ„ theÌ„ that one half or any thing whatsoeuer as the Romain priestes doe in their Supper which they doe administer to the people in cutting the cup cleane from them For it sufficed them not to cut them off from all the Communion of their masses which they do saye and doe dayly and likewise from that of the parrochial masses which they do say euery sunday but that they must needes cut from them the full one halfe of that Supper which they do minister vnto theÌ„ once twise â–ª or thrise in the yere vpon certaine of their most solemne feastes The which thing is yet an other newe inuention cleane contrarie both to the supper of the Lord and to all the true ancieÌ„t Church For before the Councel of Constance holden in the yere