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
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
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
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
bloud Fayn wold our catholiques haue theyr masse sacryfyce to be authorysed founded vpon gods wrytten worde but it wolde not be I beseche the what enforceth the alledged text of Paul to the maynteyning of prestes sacrifice Verely nothing at al. For why it talketh only of the Aaroni cal ordre of priesthode as it doth well appere by this the after sayinge of Paul let no man take vnto hym honoure he meaneth the foresayde priestehode wythoute he bee called of God there too as Aaron was and compareth thee offyce of thee sayde priestehode wyth Chrystes as it is ryghte euydente by thys thee nexte after speache whych begynneth in sort thus Euen so lykewyse Chryste etc. And he speaking but of the leuiticall priesthode oughte in nowyse too be vnderstande of oure masse presthode according to the generall rule Eche man sayinge must be takeÌ„ after the entended entreated matter Well though the foresayd allegatioÌ„ of Paul were to be construed of oure Christian priesthode of our christian pâ—iestes Howbeit it oughte so too be takeÌ„ that it implieth nomore one christiaÌ„ theÌ„ another nomore the spiritual theÌ„ the leameÌ„ notwithstanding some be ecclesiastical ministers whyche other be not according to this saying of peter ye be a kingly presthod But beyt ther be certayn allotted chosen to a special sort of presthode i. Pet. ii whyche the remnaunte of Christians be not allotted to Iet shuld the heretofore alledged scripture argue nothiÌ„g for theÌ„ By reasoÌ„ it entreateth of soch prestes who ar wonted to offre not one gyft but many diuers not one sacrifice but sondre and theÌ„ to the ful contentation of syn oure made priestes offre but one gyfte yf they offer that but one sacryfyce and not dyuers and that not to the satisfaction and purging of synne but for a thankesgeuing as our Catholiques theÌ„ selue now at the last acknowledge Yet thee sayde Catholiques replye for ther said sacrifice in sort thus Christ sayd to his apostels as Luke .xxii. maketh hereof report Thys do for my remeÌ„braunce which thys his saying autoryseth theÌ„ to sacrifyce christis body and bloud as he him selue had theÌ„ done at his supper This theyr replicationis nothing effectual or true Was not S. Paul an apostle not of that basest but hyghest sort howbeit he dyd not vnderstaÌ„d the sayd sayinge of christ after that sort For he spoke the very selue same to thou vnprested CorinthiaÌ„s i. Cori. xi and the not of his owne hede but by the motion of the lord I haue sayth he receyued of the lord Which I haue delyuered you wherby it doth wel appeare that it is not onelye Paules but the lordes also consequently al his apostles mynde that thys hys sayinge do thys in my remeÌ„braunce is spoken aswel to the vnprested as to the prested christians By reason whereof yf th one be through the sayd speche autorysed to sacryfyce christ is body the other is in lyke maner If the one be not the other sorte can not be In respect wherof our Catholiques acknowledging the vnprested not to be autorised throughe the sayd speach auctorysed to sacrifice christes bodi thother is in lyke maÌ„er If th one be not thother sorte cane not bee In recspecte whereof oure Catholyques acknowledgynge thee vnpreysted not to bee auctorysed thoroughe the aboue alledged scrypture to offre Christes bodye and bloud muste no remedye graunte thee preystede not to be lycenced by the sayd scripture to sacrifice the same Thys partecle thys in thys chrystes sayenge thys dooe in my remembraunce as it is a ê“nouÌ„e relatyue so demonstratyue therfor reporteth declareth respecteth hys antecedent whyche was not to sacryfyce hys body wherof he forspoke neuer word ne did anye thing coÌ„cerniÌ„g the same but onely the thaÌ„kful receipt eating of his body drynkyng of hys bloude ther purposeli meÌ„cioned Which ymplie no maner sacrificing of the same at al This is grauÌ„ted of all meÌ„ aswell of the catholiques as the protestantes as a trueth most vndoubted that the laye vnpriested maÌ„ receaueth the coÌ„munyon vnworthely what tyme soeuer he take it not recording therwyth the precyous death of the lorde But howe could the sayd maÌ„ receaue that sayde coÌ„munion vnworthely for his receypte therof wythout myndefulnes of christes passion death yf for to so take it were not a punishable defaulte For why the vnworthenes herein issueth from synne alone But how were it synne yf it were not directly repugnaunte agaynst Goddes oppen commauÌ„demente For there is noo synne whych is not a breach therof But what commaundemente is there for the laye men to remeÌ„bre christes deathe at theyr receypte of the of his supper yf thys do in my remeÌ„braunce be not it yf it touche theÌ„ not Certaynly none By reason wherof nedes must we recognise acknowledge eyther that the vnprested ê‘sons receyue not vnworthely the sayd sacramente when they take it in forgetfulnes and syleÌ„ce of christes passion whiche is nothing grauÌ„table eyther els that this saying of christ this do in my remeÌ„braunce coÌ„cerneth chargeth the sayd persons aswel as the prestes whych is ryght certeyn In coÌ„sideratioÌ„ wherof this do in my remeÌ„brauÌ„ce purporteth not to sacrifice christ in hys remeÌ„braunce but to recorde declare opeÌ„ly hys death as Paul sayth who exponeth the sayd saying 〈◊〉 11. in thys wyse As oft as ye eate thys bread drinke thys cup ye shall show the death of the lorde tyl he come Yet are not oure Catholiques contented but further they procede in theyr replial We haue an aulter wherof they may not eate whych serue thee tabernacle Here saye they Paule meanethe thus They who kepe the ceremonyes of Moyses lawe haue none authoritie to eat of christes bread hys very body coÌ„secrated offered in sacryfyce on the aulter whiche we christeÌ„ men haue set vp in our teÌ„ples If Paul had not meaned this he wold haue made noo meÌ„tion of an aulter whych is made for sacrifice to be offered therupon to God See good reder how foule deceyued be the herfore named persoÌ„s Is it not ryght euydeÌ„t that Paul speaketh of an eateable aultar We haue an aultare saythe he wherof they maye not eate He◠〈◊〉 not of thee masse stone aulter whych is not eatable If yâ— sayd aultare were to be takeÌ„ for a stone aultar Then were they who trusted in the ceremoniall lawe in better case then we Christians be For that they moughte not wee must eat the sayd aulter TheÌ„ shuld Christes body bloud th one haue bene eateÌ„ thother dronking in Paules tyme at the aultare not at the table 1. Cor 10 TheÌ„ wold Paul haue termed the eatynge place of thee lordes supper not the lords table but the lordes aultar Then wold not the Apostles haue gone from house to house to mynister the coÌ„munyon Art â— for that there was none aultare Then do oure mynystres trespace who exhibite mynystre the sayd communion
to the dyeng men at home were wantethe an aultare Christe is onlye the eatable aultare heretofore especifyed whom bothe we must and do eate vnto lyfe euerlastynge otherwyse spyrytuallye dead for euer as we maye learne the same in Ihon vt The which christ is named an aultar for that 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
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