eyes and tast with our mouthes to be bread and wine should be flesh and bloud No nor that neither which is contrary to the order of Nature namely that accidents should haue an abyding without a substance fitte and conuenient for them to be in or that a naturall body of a man may be inclosed in so small roome as the bignes or roundnes of an hoast for these things are contrary to nature And if the Catholicks reply that God is almighty and able to doe these things the Protestants doe answere that doutlesse he is of power to doe whatsoeuer he listeth In so much that because God will neither sinne nor lie we say he can neither lie nor sin But our Lord meant so litle that his body after his glorification should receaue vnnaturall qualities that cleane contrarywise he would haue his Apostles to iudge by the sence of their sight and feeling that his body was a true and perfect naturall body and not an imagined body And although the effects of the Sacrament be thinges diuine and supernaturall yet are they not contrary to nature as those are which depend vpon the doctrine of Transubstantiation Neither can it be proued by the word of God that the Sacraments or any other of the ordinances of God conteine any thing contrary to nature This doctrine of the Protestantes touching this Sacrament is also euidently grounded vpon the word of god For first of all we doe say and beleue according to the articles of our faith that Iesus Christ is ascended into heauen from whence he shall come not ten thousand times a dry but only once at the last day when he shall come to iudge both the quick and the dead Which thing S. Peter declareth very openly when in speaking of the last comming of our Lord he sayth thus Whom the heauens shall contein vntill the full setting of all things in perfecte state which God hath foretold by the mouthes of all his holy Prophetes that haue beene since the beginning of the world And Iesus Christ himselfe also did wel geue vs to vnderstand that we should not beleue that his body after his ascention should euery day return hither on the earth nor remayne shut vp in boxes when he said to his disciples which found themselues greeued at the shedding of a little ointmēt vpon his body You shall not haue me alwayes with you And yet notwithstanding we must beleeue that by the efficacie of his grace he will alway be with vs as he declared to his Apostles in sending them throughout the world to preach the doctrine of his grace saying vnto them Behold I am alwayes with you euen vnto the end of the world And we must furthermore consider that the body of Christ was made in all points like vnto the bodies of other men except sinne as the scriptures do witnes In so much that it hath euer had and still hath at this present a certain measure of greatnes and thicknes as the bodies of other men haue Wherupon it followeth of consequence that his body neither is nor euer hath been in any mo places than one at one time And therefore when he celebrated hys holy supper with hys Disciples the day before he suffered hys death passion his body which sate at the table was not in the bread which he gaue thē for the nature of a true body doth not permit it to be in any moe places than one at one tyme And if they reply that a glorified body may be in many places at one instaunt the aunswere thereunto is that the body of Christ was not thē glorified but mortall at the tyme when hee celebrated hys holy supper was put to death the day after and that the wordes of the holy supper cānot as now be true in any other sort than they were whē he spake them and instituted the Sacrament And therefore this replication is impertinent and besides that it is vntrue for the body of Christ hath not through his glorification lost the qualities of a perfect body whiche is to be felt to haue flesh and bones and to be contayned within the compasse of certayne bowndes And therefore when hee celebrated the holy supper hys body was not in the bread which he gaue to hys Disciples and much les was the bread transubstantiated into hys body Whereof it followeth that these words of Iesus Christ This is my body This is my bloud ought to be vnderstood sacramētally as if he had said This is the sacrament of my body of my bloud because that as is aforesayd the nature of a very true body in deede permitteth vs not to vnderstand that euery morsell of the bread which he gaue to his disciples was his owne natural body Also the words which S. Luke and S. Paul vse in speaking of the Sacrament of his bloud do well declare that it is so to bee vnderstood For they say not that Christ sayd This is my bloud but rather this cup is the newe couenaunt in my bloud Neuerthelesse wee must thinke it all one with the other speach where it is sayd this is my bloud or els should S. Luke and S. Paule be contrary to S. Mathew and S. Marke which were vngodly to beleue So that if it be graūted as truth is that to say this is my bloud is asmuch as to say this cup is the couenant in my bloud It followeth playnely that this manner of speaking ought to be vnderstoode of the sacrament of his bloud or of the sacrament of the new couenant of his bloud which is all one and commeth all to one sense For the bread and the wine of the supper are the sacramentes of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Iesus Christe and of the newe couenaunt which he maketh with vs because that in receiuing this sacrament with our mouthes our soules do also participate and receiue spiritually and really the thing signified which is the body and bloud of Christ in whiche participation consisteth the couenant which he maketh with vs. And in very deed Iesus Christ him selfe in speaking to his disciples of the eating of his flesh and of the drinking of his bloud yea and of the supper it selfe as the Catholickes expound it perceiuing them to be offended thereat tolde them that it ought to be vnderstood of a spirituall feeding and not of a crusshing of his flesh and hys bones betwixt their teeth nor of a cāniballike kinde of drinking of mans bloud as the catholicke scholemen of these dayes do vnderstand it Neither ought it to seeme a more straunge interpretation of these wordes this is my body to say this is the sacrament of my body thā to make the same interpretation of a great sort of other figuratiue speaches conteined in the scripture As for example where Christ sayth I am the vine and my Father is the husbandman I am the gate And agayne it is sayd the rocke was
Christ The Lambe is the passeouer The circumcision is the couenaunt The sacrifice is the clensing of the law and Christ is the church For out of question all these textes are to bee interpreted figuratiuely Thus may you see that the doctrine of the Protestauntes touching the holy sacrament of the supper is grounded vpon the pure word of God. But now as touching the canons The Catholickes thinke they make altogether for them and for the vpholding maintayning of their transubstantiatiō as in deed there be of them which do and chiefly the canon before alleadged which is an abiuratiō that pope Nicolas caused to bee made at Rome by one Beringarius a deacon of the church of S. Mawrice of Angiers by which abiuratiō they inforced this poore man of Angiers to say and protest that he renounced the doctrine that he had holden aforetime wherby he had maintained that the bread and wine of the sacramēt remained bread and wine stil after the consecration that the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ could not be handled with the handes of men nor eaten with their teeth Declaring that contrariwise he there allowed the doctrine of the Romish church and of pope Nicholas that is to wit that after the cōsecration the bread and the wine doe chaunge and transubstantiate themselues into the very body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ and that the priest in putting the sacramēt into the mouthes of the faythfull doth sensibly handle Christes very body it selfe and that the faythfull doe crowze and crashe it betwixt their teeth But agaynst this goodly abiuration racked by pope Nicholas and a hundred and fourtene bishops out of this pore Deacon whom they helde amongest them in their clawes there are many other canōs to be opposed which are of a better stampe Thus sayth one of them which is taken out of S. Augustine wher he interpreteth these wordes of the Lord The wordes which I haue spoken vnto you are spirit life meaning of the eating of his flesh and of his bloud These words sayth he are spirit and life to those that vnderstande them spiritually But to those that vnderstand them carnally they are neither spirit nor life You shall not eate this bodye that you see neither shall you drinke the bloud which they shall shed that shall crucifye me the thing that I commend vnto you is a sacrament If you vnderstād it spiritually it will quicken you the fleshly vnderstanding thereof auayleth nothing at all Afterwards he concludeth thus The Lord shall be still aboue vntill the end of the world but yet in the meane while his truth shal remayn here amongest vs For it must needes be that the body wherein he is risen agayne is in a place certayne but his truth is spred euery where throughout the worlde And to shew that the flesh of our lord is not crushed so betwixt the teeth as Beringarius sayth in his abiuration here is an other canon taken also out of S. Augustine which sayeth thus To what purpose doost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly beleue and thou hast eaten for to beleue in the Lord is to eat the bread and to drinke the wine who so beleueth in him eateth him And an other Canon following sayth thus That which is seene and perceiued with the eies is the bread and the cuppe but as in respect of sayth which seeketh to be taught the bread is Christs body and the cup is his bloud And because the receiuing of the sacrament is spirituall It followeth that at that supper the wicked receiue but the signes onely not the things signified whiche are the spirituall meat of Christes body and bloud And the same is auowed by an other Canon which sayth He that agreeth not with Christ eateth not his flesh nor drinketh his bloud though he receiue the sacrament to his vtter vndoing and damnation By these Canons it appeareth plainly that transubstantiation is reproued and condemned and so by cosequence the locall worshipping of the body of christ in the sacrament of the bread and wine But before I passe out of this matter I will alleadge one text of S. Augustines which is so cleare and fitte to confute this transubstantiatiō as is possible For first of all that men may learne to know what manner of speaches in the scriptures are to be taken figuratiuely and what are to be taken according to the letter he setteth downe this rule which is a very notable one If there be any thing sayth he so spokē in Gods word as that it can not properly agree with the comelines of good maners nor with the trueth of fayth you must take the same to be figuratiuely spoken Afterwardes to make this rule plain by examples he sayth these very wordes If then the maner of speaking be a precept so as it forbiddeth any crime and misbehauiour or commaundeth the thing that is good and behoue full such maner of speaking is not figuratiue But if it seeme to commaund an euill fact or to forbidde the thing that is good and behouefull then is it spoken figuratiuely Vnlesse you eate the fleshe of the sonne of man sayth our Lord and drinke his bloud you shall haue no life in you By this maner of speaking he seemeth to commaunde a cruelty and an euill facte in eating of his fleshe and drinking of his bloud therefore it is a figure wherby we be commaunded to become partakers of the passion of our Lord and to imprint gentlye and profitably in our memories that his flesh was māgled and crucified for vs. The Scripture sayeth likewise If thine enemye hunger feede him if he be a thirst geue him drink no doubt but in this case he commaundeth a good deede But wheras it followeth for in so doing thou shalt heape coales of fire vpon his head forasmuch as thou mayest thinke that he commaundeth a malicious deed doubt not but that this manner of speache is figuratiue and that those wordes may be taken two manner of waies the one to do hurt the other to do good Thou oughtest therfore rather to construe them according to charitye than otherwise and by those burninge coales to vnderstand the burning sighes of repentaunce wherby the pride of the party is healed in that he repenteth himself to haue bene an enemy to such a one as releeueth his misery and necessity Also it is written who so loueth his soule shal lose it Now It is not to be thought that he forbiddeth so requisite a thing as the sauing of a mans owne soule but that this speache ought to bee taken figuratiuely He shall lose his soule that is to say he must suppresse and forsake the froward vntoward dealing wherunto his mind is now geuen by meanes wherof he is so greatly wedded to these temporall things that he hath no regard of the euerlasting things Agayn it is also written Shew mercy and receiue not the sinner The latter
it appeareth by the canons that the saluatiō of men doth doth not depend wholly vpon Baptisme but principallye vpon fayth These be the very wordes of the Canon S. Ciprian to proue that the torment of death may stād in stead of Baptisme hath grounded his argument vpon these wordes of Christ spoken to the vnbaptised theefe This day shalt thou bee with me in Paradise In the examining whereof more narrowly I fynde that not onely the suffering of death for the name of Christ but also the harty beleuing in him and the confessing of him may supply the want of baptisme when the party is so distressed by some extremity of tyme as he cannot haue the sacrament of batisme ministred vnto him And there followeth an other Canon which sayth that if a learner of the Catechisme that is to say such a one as is but newly entred into the doctrine of the faith and is not yet baptised do suffer marterdome for the name of Christ he fayleth not to be saued although hee want Baptisme And the reasō herof as sayth the same canons is because that in this case such as haue not receiued the sacrament of Baptisme haue not wanted it through pride or disdayne but through inforcement of necessity In likewise it is forbidden by the Canons that women how wise so euer they bee shall either preach or baptise It is true that hereunto they do ioyn this one exception which is if it be not in case of necessity But if it be graūted according to the truth that the Infants which dye vnbaptised be not therfore excluded from saluation It followeth well that no necessity can be great inough to dispēse with women for intermedling themselues with the administration of the Sacramentes And truely in old time as the canons do witnes Baptisme was not ministred ordinarily but only at two tymes in the yeare namely at Easter and at Whittesontyde which well bewrayeth that they vsed no such haste as that women shoulde bee fayne to meddle with the matter Likewise it doth also appeare by the Canōs that Baptisme was not ministred to the infidels but only to such as had faith and did make confession therof when they were of age to do it And as touching the forementioned Ceremonies in deed there are some Canons how be it of the worst stamp which do allow thē But the best and most auntient canons do vtterly dissallow thē For by the auntient Canons men are permitted to baptise in Riuers in the Sea in fountaynes and in euery other place commodious for that purpose These be the wordes of a Canon taken out of the decrees of Pope Victor Let the Gentiles that are come to the faith be baptised in all seasons and all places fit for them be it in Riuer sea or Spring as being made cleane by confession of the Christian fayth And by an other Canon it is well shewed that wee ought rather to rest vpon the Baptisme of the couenaunt of fayth than vpon the Baptisme of water For it sayth thus The true baptisme doth not consist so much in the washing of the bodie as in the beleife of the hart as the apostolicke doctrine doth teach vs saying They make cleane their hartes through fayth And in an other Canon going before it is sayed that a catholicke not Baptised for it presupposeth that one may be a catholick without being baptised whiche hath an ardent zeale of deuine charity is to be preferred before a wicked man that is baptised As for example sayth the Canon Cornelius the Centener who was filled with the holy ghost before he was baptised is to be preferred before Simon Magus who was possessed with an vncleane Spirit after he had bene Baptised But if Cornelius hauing receiued the holy ghost had not bene willing to be baptised he had bene greuously guiltye of the despising of so excellent a sacrament By which canon it is easy to iudge that wee ought altogether to depend vpon that which the sacrament doth signifie vnto vs and vpon the graces which god doth thereby geue vnto vs and not to set our mindes vpon a sort of superstitious and vayn ceremonies as the Romish catholicks do in these dayes For they may easely perceiue by the things aforesayd that the doctrine of the reformed religion touching the sacrament of baptisme is better more auncient furder from heresy than theirs is according to our three maximes here before set downe to proue the points which are in question Let vs now speak of the supper of the Lord. ⧠Of the Sacrament of the holy supper The vii chapter THe difference betwixt the Romish Catholickes and the Protestantes concerning the Supper of the Lord doth consist in three points The one in the naming therof for the Catholickes call that the keeping of Easter which the Protestantes doe name the Supper of the lord But this diuersitie of speaking importeth not much for both of them are still a celebrating of the mistery of our redemtion True it is that the Catholickes vse the maner of speaking of the old Testament according to the phrase whereof the feast of Easter that is to say the passeouer was celebrated by the eating of a Lambe which did represent Christ in remembrance of the deliuerance of the people of Israell whom God had brought out of the thraldome of Egipt But the Protestantes vse the manner of speaking of the new Testament whereby the holy institution which our Lord Iesus Christ ordayned to celebrate the remembrance of his death and passion and to make vs partakers of his body and bloud is called the supper of the lord But we must not striue about words so it be knowen that to keepe the Easter and to celebrate the Lords Supper are at this day one selfe same thing The second difference which is much greater consisteth in the substance of the Sacrament For the Catholickes at leastwise the schoolmen vphold that assoone as the priest hath spoaken the words of consecration ouer one hoaste or ouer many they change their nature presently and are transubstantiated into the very body and bloud of Iesus Christ in the selfe-same greatnes bignes that it was vpon the crosse so as the bread of the hoast is thē no longer bread although the color and the tast of bread remayn still therin Their proofe of this doctrine is that when our Lord Iesus Christ did institute his supper as he gaue the bread to his disciples he said vnto them This is my body And in geuing them the cup he said vnto them This is my bloud They proue it also by a Canon which beginneth thus I Beringarius c. which Canon saith in expresse wordes that after the consecration the bread and wine become not only sacraments but also the very body and the very blo ud of Christ And that the priest doth sensibly handle the same very bodye and breake it And that the faithful in eating the Sacrament with
their mouthes doe crash and crush betweene their teeth the very naturall body of our Sauiour And vpon this doctrine they conclude that we ought to worshippe the bread of the supper which they tearm the holy hoast Because say they it is the very body of our Lord Iesus Christ. But the Protestants allow not this Transubstantiation of the bread into flesh nor of the wine into bloud nor consequently the worshipping of thē as though Iesus Christ were personally enclosed within the compasse of the boast For they say that euery Sacrament is called a Sacrament because it is a signe of a holy thing In so much that the outward signe is to be conceiued by the eye and the thing signifyed which is inward and spirituall is to be conceiued by the mind And that therfore in the holy supper the bread and the wine are the signes which we see with our eyes receue with our mouthes but the body and the bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ be the thinges signifyed the which we comprehend and receue by the mind as true spirituall foode ordayned to feede the soule and not the body Now to receaue and eate this spirituall meate and to cause it so to disgest in our soules which are spirites as it may geue them such nourishmēt as may make them liue euerlastingly like as the food it self and our soules that receaue it are spirituall thinges so must the eating therof be spirituall also And to make this spirituall eating to become effectual we must not imagine that our soules are remoued from hence and conueyed vp to heauen nor that God leaueth his place in heauen to come downe to vs heare below for the minde of man doth wel execute his workes though the thing that it worketh vpon be farre distant from it As for example we see how it doth truely and effectually vnderstand the thinges that are farre from it by distance of place by meanes of the habilitie or power of reasoning which serueth it as an Instrument to ioyne it to the thing that it worketh vpon how farre of so euer it be by distance of place And euen as reason serueth the minde as an Instrument to couple it to the thing that it ameth at in vnderstanding euen so likewise doth faith serue the minde for an Instrument to receaue and take hold of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ in the spirituall meate drinke notwithstanding that he be in heauē on the right hand of his father from whence he will not come vntill the last day This māner of eating then which is done spiritually by the meanes of faith is no lesse reall than if it were done carnally by the mouth of the fleshly body because the spirituall actions of the minde bee no lesse reall and true than the corporall and fleshly actions of the body which are perceyued by the eyes The third difference touching the supper doth consist in the manner of receiuing it For the Catholicques I alwayes meane the scholedeuines do hold opinion that the lay people that is to saye those whiche are no priestes ought not to communicate but only with the sacrament of bread And that the priestes as beyng more worthy ought to communicate both with bread and wine And yet least the lay people should be difcontented with this partage they say that the body of Christ is not without bloud but that the bloud doth alwayes accompany the body and that so by consoquence the lay people in receiuing the sacrament of the body receiue also the sacrament of the bloud They hold opinion also that the priest ought to receiue this holy sacramēt euery day And that it is sufficiēt for the lay people to receiue it once a yeare and that it is not sufferable that they shoulde touche the sacrament with their bare handes But the Protestantes do in no wise allow such parting of it nor yet their fond shift of consequency but hold opinion that the holy sacrament as wel of the bloud as of the body of Christ ought to be distributed vnto all the faythfull without any distinction of lay people or priestes because that otherwise the supper of the Lord should not be celebrated whol but by halfedeales And therfore that it is good and necessary to receiue it as often as they may that men may be the oftner put in minde of the excellent misterye of our redemption and be made partakers of the heauenly foode whiche geueth euerlasting lyfe to our soules Likewise they say that in asmuch as Christ sayd Take ye which is referred to the hand and Eate ye which is referred to the mouth the faythful ought to receiue the Sacrament into their owne handes and the custome of the Primitiue Church was to receiue the sacrament with their owne hands as witnesseth Eusebius Thus you see in effect what the doctrine aswell of the protestantes as of the catholiques is concerning these three poyntes of the supper of our Lord whiche are in controuersie amongest them And now may a man easely iudge by comparing the one doctrine with the other which of thē doth best yeld god his due honor For if the bread were changed or transubstantiated as the Catholickes tearme it into the very body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ it should follow by their doctrine that he should come euery day down from heauen to be handled and eaten of a Million of Priestes and to be bruised and crushed betwixt their teeth yea and that he might also be eaten of mise and gnawen with wormes which are thinges to much against reason and too too intollerable to be heard For it were a thing very vnbeseeming the maiestie of the sonne of God to be so cōmonly conueid through the hands Mouthes and Bellies of so many Priestes full often foule and filthy both in body and soule And that his precious body should be subiect to be eaten of mice and gnawn with worms And therfore the Protestants doe best yeald Christ his due honor for that they vphold that his body is gone vp into heauen and there sitteth at the right hand of his father and that frō thence he neither doth nor will remoue vntill the last day when he shal come to iudge both the quick and the dead And therfore that our worshiping of him must be in heauen and we must lift vp ovr hartes on high and not worship him in the priests hands or in the pix Likewise they much more honor the supper of the Lord than doe the Catholicks because they doe so often celebrate the same that not by half deales but wholly vtterly abhorring the broosing and crushing of the flesh and bones of our Sauiour betwixt their teeth as a doctrine more meete for the barbarous people of America and the Canibals than for Christians Neither will they say they beleeue the contrary of that which naturall sence doth teach vs that is to say that the things which we see with our
part of this sentēce seemeth to forbidde a good deed for it sayth receyue not the sinner Vnderstand therefore that this is spoken by a figure taking the sinner for the sin to the ende that thou admit not any sinne Thus haue you heard the very wordes of S. Augustine which doe very well declare vnto vs as well by the rule as by the first example which he setteth downe that the eating of the flesh and bloud of christ in his supper ought to be vnderstoode spiritually sacramentally and not after the manner of the cannibals which is vtterly voyd of all humanity and good manners as those transubstantiatiers would make vs beleue And whereas the catholickes vphold that this sacramēt ought not to be distributed vnto the lay people but by halfes which they doe terme vnder one kinde the same is expresly cōdemned by their owne canons as hie treason towardes god For you shall here what a canon sayth which is taken out of the decrees of Pope Gelasius It is done vs to vnderstand that some hauing receyued the holy sacrament of the body do abstayne from the cup of the holy bloud which thing they ought not to do for in asmuch as it is euident that in so doing they entangle themselues in I wot not what a kind of superstition they ought to receyue the sacrament whole togither or els to abstayne from it altogither For the deuiding a sunder of one selfe same mistery can not be done without great trechery And furthermore where as the most part of the lay catholikes do content themselues with the receyuing of the sacrament onely once a yeare which is at Easter they are condemned by the canons which declare that those are not to be taken for catholikes which receyue not three times in a yeare These be the very wordes of a cannon taken out of the councell of Agatha The laye people which receyue not the Lordes supper at Christmas at Easter and at whitsontide let them not bee taken ne reputed for Catholikes Thus may all men perceyue iudge with what manner of passion these catholikes are caried away which do so boldly condemne the Protestants as heretiques for their doctrine concerning this poynt of the supper of the Lord and so do spitefully name them Sacramentaries as though they denied this sacramēt For in so doing they do also vnawares condemne their owne cānons which otherwise they esteme so greatly that many of them do attribute more authority vnto those Cannons than to the holy scripture saying that they be the determinations of the holy mother church wherunto they ought to sticke bicause the scripture is to obscure and may be taken both wayes But indede it is nothing so for the scripture hath but one sence which is easy to be found out of a man that is willing to learne by conferring one text with another But the cannons are in many cases quite contrary one to another I know full well that too shift off these contrarieties the schole men say that we must always hold vs to those that were last made But I answer them that that is asmuch to say as we must alwayes hold vs to the worst For euery man of sound iudgement may always easely perceyue that the ancient cannons are better than those of latter tyme. And further to abate the authority of their canōs by their canōs thēselues I say that the cannons do will vs to serch the vnderstāding of the obscure textes of the scripture in the scripture it selfe And those which seeke it elsewhere are the very scholemasters of errour These are the very wordes of a cannon What is more vngodly than to hold an vngodly doctrine and not to beleue those that are most wise and learned But all such do fall into this kind of ignorance as make not their recourse to the wordes of the Prophets to the writing of the Apostles and to the authority of the Euangelistes to learne the knowledge of the truth in any obscure poynt but will needes trust to their own wit And therefore they become scholemaisters of errour because they list not to be disciples of the truth Which cannon in very deede doth deeply in few wordes condemne the scholedeuines that make more accompt of the authority of the Cannons and doctors of the church than of the very text of the scripture which they accompt to be to obscure And true it is that some textes of the scripture are in some places very darke howbeit there is no text so obscure but it may be made playne by other textes of the same scripture Specially if they resort not to the cannons and decretalls but to the Hebrue text for the the olde testament and to the Greeke text for the new testament as S. Augustine doth teach vs who sayth in this wise Such as vnderstand the latine tongue must for the better vnderstanding of the whole Scriptures haue the knowledge of two other languages more that is to wit of the Hebrue and of the Greek to the end they may haue recourse to the very fountayne of the originall coppies when the diuersitye of the Latin rranslations doth breede any doubte And hereto accordeth a Canon which sayth thus Like as the trueth of the things that are contayned in the old Testament ought to be examined by the Hebrue books Euen so the truth which is written in the new Testament ought to be made playne and cleere by the Greek bookes I besech you what can be braied aagaynst this Canon by the whole herd of these Asses which are so bold as to say that the Hebrue and Greeke tongues be the Languages of Heritickes and therefore doe vtterly reiect and condemne them Do they not by the same meanes condemne the canons and auncient doctors And if they condemne them Are they to bee holden for good Catholickes Well let vs come now to speake of the Masse Of the Masse The viii Chapter THe difference betwixt the Masse and the Supper of our Lord is great For the Catholick schoolemen which vnderstand what the masse is for all of them vnderstand it not doe say that it is a Sacrifice whereby the Priest offereth vp the body and the bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ vnto God for the soule health both of the quick and of the dead Which Sacrifice is accompanied with diuers other parcels as accessaries that is to say with diuers prayers and diuers texts taken out of the gospels and epistles of the new Testament and with divers verses taken out of the Psalmes of Dauid and other bookes of the olde Testament and interlarded throughout with many and diuers Ceremonies And this goodly omnigatherū hath bene patched together at many Sondry tymes by dyuers Popes And that is the cause why the Catholickes do put the masse among the cōmaundementes of their holy mother Church For this commaundement Thou shalt heare masse vpō the Sondayes and vpon other feastfull dayes inioyned is the first
was once a Priest yet as now he hath resigned that office vnto others The Apostle testifyeth that he is a Priest still and euer shall be saying thus of him Thou art a high Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech And because we shold not thinke that there should be any other priest thā he the Apostle teacheth vs that there may be none other in that he saith that no man may take the honor of high priest vnto himselfe except he be called of God as Christ was called to that office by his Father These be his very words No man may take that honor vpon him but he shall enioy it which is called of God as was Aaron Neyther hath Christ presumed of himselfe to be made high Preest but he hath bestowed that dignity vpon him which fayde vnto him Thou art my sonne this day haue I begotten thee Now as we are taught by this text that neyther there is nor ought to be any mo then one Sacrifice for the forgeuenes of sins that is to wit Iesus Christ which is and shal be the high preest for euer So are we taught also by other texts that there is but one only Sacrifice once offered for all sinnes and to obtayn euerlasting life which is the death and passion of Iesus Christ our Saviour And that we need none other Sacrifice for the remission of our sinnes but only that This is the very text of the Apostle which is so playn and cleere as nothing can be more By the which will we are made holy euen by the offering of the body of Christ once for all For by that one offering hath he made them perfect for euer which are to be sanctified where remission of sinnes is there needes no more Sacrifice for sinne Which words of the Apostle are a very definitiue sentence pronounced against the Masse For if there be no more offering for sinne what shall become of the masse seeing it is no other thing in substance as the very words of the consecration doe declare but a Sacrifice and an offering for the forgeuenes of the sinnes of the quick and the dead And in very deede the Catholick Schoolemē not being able by any meanes to rid themselues of these textes which are so playne and cleere do say for their refuge that the Mas is not a very Sacrifice in deed but a remembrance of the only and true Sacrifice of our Lord Iesus Christ But the answere to this shift of descant is very easie For seeing they doe maintayne that the very body of Christ is in the mas and that the bread of the singingcake is changed into his very body and the wine into his very bloud And that they breake his body in peeces and offer vp both the body and the bloud in Sacrifice vnto God It followeth of necessitie that their opinion is that it is a very Sacrifice and not a remembrance only On the other side the protestants doe say that the remembrance of the true Sacrifice of Iesus Christ ought to be done by celebrating his holy supper after the same maner that he hath appointed it For he hath ordayned that his Supper should be celebrated by many at once because it is a sacramentall communion of the body and bloud of our Sauiour by the which we are made one body and as it were one loafe in Iesus Christ become partakers of one selfesame bread of euerlasting life These are the wordes of S. Paule vpon the same matter Is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a partaking of the bloud of Christ And is not the bread which we breake a partaking of the body of Christ For we that are many are one loafe and one body because we be al partakers of one bread By which text it appeareth euidently that the remembrance of the Sacrifice of our Sauiour ought to be vsed in celebrating the holy Supper by many together accordingly as when he did institute and celebrate it with his Disciples they were many together And so consequently it followeth that the Mas neither is nor can be a true remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ seeing that none taketh part of it but the priest him selfe Now let vs come to the Canones The Canons which we haue alleaged in the former Chapter when we spake of the Lordes Supper doe sufficiently confute this Transubstātiation which is the very principall parte and foundation of the Masse And therfore we will speake no more of that point But I will speake of certain difficulties into the which the Transubstantiatiō hath led the schole diuines as it hapneth commonly according to the saying of the Logicians that in admitting one absurditie there follow many moe The schole doctors hauing once graunted that the bread and wine in the Masse are Transubstantiated into the very body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ are greately troubled how to resolue diuers other questions which haue growen vpon the same matter Pope Innocent the third reciteth one of them which he sayth was greatly debated amongst the sayd Scholedoctors howbeit in such sort as they knew not how to determine it That is to witt whether the water which the preest putteth into the chalice with the wine be transubstātiated into bloud or not for they imagine that water must nedes be put into the chalice where the wine is bicause it is written that out of the side of our Lord Iesus Christ there did issue both bloud and water Notwithstanding their opinion is that there ought to be more wine than water For Pope Honorius the third did sharply checke a certayne Bishop who in singing masse did put more water in his chalice then wine wherupon grew a great disputation amongst the Scholediuines as Pope Innocent reporteth For some of thē held opinion that the water was not Transubstantiated into wine but remayned naturall water still bicause say they there was water in the bloud which issued out of the side of our Lord Iesus Christ when he was vpon the Crosse And therfore seeing that the wine in the Chalice at the masse tyme is Transubstantiated into the very bloud it must needes be that the water remayneth water still to the ende that there be an answerable resemblance aswell of the water as of the bloud Others sayd that although it were graunted that water must needes remayne still in the Chalice with the bloud yet notwithstanding it must alwayes be beleeued that the water which the priest putteth into the Challice is turned into the selfe same water which issued out of the side of our Lord Iesus Christ Which opinion seemeth to haue most shew of wit and most proportionble resemblance agreeing to the matter though at the first sight it might seeme an absurde thinge to saye that water is turned into other water For looke by what reason the wine is trāsubstantiated into the very bloud by the same reason is the water changed into the
cōmaundement of the Church of Roome But asfor the supper of our Lord It is no sacrifice but an holy bancket which is prepared to put vs in mynde of thonelye and soueraigne sacrifice whereby our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe was once for all sacrificed for our redemption and to make vs pertakers of his body and bloud by the spirituall and effectuall eating thereof So that there is noe more lykenes betweene the celebrating of the Lordes supper and the celebrating of the masse than is betwixt geuing taking which are things far differyng For in the supper the faythfull receyue the body and bloud of Christ but in the Masse the Priest geueth or offereth vp Christ wholly vnto God the Father as an host of sacrifice Now it must needes be graunted that in this poynt of the Masse the catholickes and the Protestantes doe vtterly disagree And that the same disagreement is the principall cause why the Catholicks do so extreemely bate the doctrine of the sayd Protestants For they esteeme the masse to be one of the principall poyntes of the Christian religion and therfore think it very straunge that the Protestants should be so bould as to reiect it syth it hath dured so long tyme and is cōposed of so many good things drawē out of holy Scripture the whiche the Protestantes seeme to reiect in reiectyng the texts that are taken out of it In deede these reasons geue some likelyhood wherby to iudge so without hearing the other partye But if the Catholickes will vse a little patience and here the replies of the Protestantes they shall not finde them so voyde of reason as they thinke For first they say that the onely sacrifice whereby Christ hymselfe was sacrificed once for all is more than sufficient for the saluation of the whole worlde Yea though he had shed but one only drop of hys precious bloud vpon the crosse It had bene sufficient to haue satisfyed the Iustice of God his father and to washe away the sinnes of all men which should be borne into the world in an hundred thousand yeres if the world shold last so long for that inasmuch as he was the sonne of god the dignity of his priesthoode and the infinite greatnes of hys Sacrifice are of sufficiency and worthines inough and more than inough to doe away the innumerable sinnes of all men hetherto borne or hereafter to be borne And therefore it is great outrage say the Protestants to our Sauiour to crucifie hym new agayne as they do in the masse to obtayne remission of sinnes and lyfe euerlasting for the quick and the dead for it is all one as to say that hys onely once sacrificing of himselfe is not sufficient to take away our sinnes and to obtayne vs lyfe euerlasting because that if they held it for sufficient and perfect as in truth it is it should follow that it were in vayne to do it any more And is it not a great blasphemy to say that the oblation and sacrifice of the death and passion of our Lord Iesus Christ is not sufficient for the saluation of the whole world Truely it is not to be douted for although it be nether auailable nor appliable to any other than to such as beleue in him yet notwithstanding his sacrifice is more thā sufficient to saue all the world And furthermore wheras the Catholickes at the least wise the simple common people imagine that the Protestants in reiecting the masse doe reiect the holy Sacrament of the body bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ they deceyue themselues greatly for contrariwise the Protestantes hold the same sacrament in his true perfection as we haue showed in the Chapter going before Neither do they reiect the textes that are stuffed into the Masse and be taken out of the holy Scripture But they like much better to read learn them in the bible it selfe than in the Massebooke Neither do they reiect the good prayers which are mingled in the Masse but they say it is much better to pray to God with a contynual prayer for Princes Magistrates for the Shepheards of the church for the necessities of all the people for the remission of sinnes for those which are sick and afflicted for the conseruation of the faithfull for the inlightening of the ignorant and for the aduancement of the kingdome of Iesus Christ as they themselues doe than to say an Oremus or particular prayer for euery of these thinges as the Priest doth in his masse which sayth now one Oremus for himselfe and by and by another for the Pope and 〈◊〉 a third for his benefactors and for those that are departed and often times for brute beastes as is done in the Masse of S. Anthony For besides that the most part of the prayers in the masse be not allowable by the word of God It is certaine that men pray more hartely more aduisedly and with greater zeal when the prayer is contynued to the end without interruption than when it is sayd by iumps with often interruption Besides this the people which do harken to the Priestes Oremus cannot set their mindes well vpon the prayer which he is saying because they vnderstand it not nor often times the Priest himselfe To be short therfore by this doctrine of the Protestants God is better honored than by the doctrine of the Catholicks For the Protestants in not admitting any other sacrifice than that which our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe did make of his own body vpon the crosse which sacrifice they esteeme to be very sufficient and perfect for our saluation doe therby yeald the honor and the effect of our felicity vnto our Lorde Iesus Christ onelye wheras the Catholiques doe attribute parte of his honor to the Priest and parte to the sacrifice of the Mas. Likewise the Protestantes doe much better honor God in learning the texts of Scripture in the Bible it selfe which is the very originall Record of his will than those which wil needes learn them in the Massebook where they be confusedly packed and vnaptly applyed And now to shew that the doctrine of the Protestantes which admitte the only Sacrifice of Christ and reiect the Sacrifice of the Masse is euidently grounded vpon the holy Scripture there needeth no other witnes than the Apostle to the Hebrues For first he doth testifie vnto vs that there is none other Sacrifice for the remission of mennes sinnes but Iesus Christ only and that he himselfe by his own bloud hath obtayned for vs an euerlasting redemtion For thus he sayth Christ being become the high Priest of the good things that are to come by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle not made with hands That is to say not of this building nor by the bloud of Goates and Calues but by his own bloud is entered in once into the holy place and hath found eternall redemtion And to the end we should not thinke that Christ is no more a Priest but that although he
water The third opinion is taken out of Galene and other Phisitions which say that mannes body is compounded of fower humors That is of bloud of flewme of melancholy and of choller and therfore say they that are of that opinion it is very like that when the Euangelist sayd that with the bloud there issued water out of the side of Iesus Christ he meant that there issued out fleame which is a watry humor Wherupon they doe conclude that in the Masse water was changed into fleame But this opiniō was condemned by the sayd Pope Innocent in a letter which he sent to the Bishop of Ferrara The fourth opinion is of such as vphold that the water also is changed into bloud as well as the wine Which opinion the said Pope Innocent graunteth to haue in it not most truth but most likelyhode of trueth Because saith he water is often times in the Scripture taken for the multitude of the people so as the vnion which is made betwixt the water and the wine by the transubstantiating of the same water into wine doth signifie vnto vs the true knitting together of Christ with his people by such a bonde as cannot be broken Truely a reason drawen out of a quintisens of the subtilties of Scotus otherwise called Duns Marke here the goodly questions or rather the fonde and heathenish dotages wherin the Schoolemen and the Popes haue wrapped themselues by the meane of their Transubstantiation Likewise also they finde themselues greatly cumbred in answering these other questions that is to wit if a mouse or a rat doe happen to eate the Sacrament of the hoast whether she eat the very body or the accidents only Again whether the Accidentes can be without a subiect and whether Accidentes can be eaten or no. Also whether the Accident without the subiect may haue the tast of the wine and geue nourishment to the body and such other vaine questions whereof they can geue none but very absurde resolutions because the presupposing of transubstantiation is nothing but absurditie Besides this the Canons say not that our Lord Iesus Christ did ordayne the Mas but they affirme that it was S. Iames and S. Basill for these be the wordes of the Canon Iames the brother of our Lord according to the flesh who had the first charge of the Church of Ierusalem and Basil the Bishop of Cesarea whose knowledge in the Scripture hath been renowmed throughout the world haue brought vnto vs the celebrating of the Masse But yet neither S. Iames nor the other Apostles nor the Euangelistes haue at any time spoken of the masse in their wrytings so as there is no likelihood of truth in the report of this Canon that S. Iames should be the inuenter of the Masse Neither were it to any great purpose to say that onely Iames of all the other Apostles was the first foūder and setter vp thereof For had it been a good thing the rest of the Apostles would haue allowed it as well as he and not being good he would haue allowed it no more than the residue did Besides this S. Iames hath no more spoken of it in his Epistle than the other Apostles haue spoaken of it in theirs Neither is it to be beleeued that any of them would adde aught to the ordinances of Christ their Maister And as for S. Basill the Canon hath vnfitly ioyned him with S. Iames to haue helped him to make the mas For he was 350. yeares after S. Iames. Moreouer there are other Canones which doe father the inuenting of euery part of the Masse vpon other foūders As for example the vsing of vnleauened bread and the putting of water into the Challice with the wine they father vpon pope Alexander the first The Sanctus Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth and the inuention of the Corporace they attribute to pope Sixtus the first The inuention of Gloria in excelsis to pope Telesphorus the first The inuention to vse chalices of golde and siluer which wer wont to be of wood and glasse To pope Vrbane the first The singing of the great Creed at the Sondaies masse to Pope Marke The saying of Confiteor in the beginninge of the Masse To Pope Damasus the first The standing vp of the people when the priest singeth or saieth the Gospell To Pope Anastasius the first The kissing of the paxe to Pope Innocent the first The inuentiō of anthems taken out of the psalmes of Dauid and the Introites and Graduels to Pope Celestine the first The inuention of the nine Kirieleysons of the Alleluya and of the offertorye to pope Gregory the first The Oremus against the Turks Pagans and Infidels which in that time did make great warres vpon the Christianes to Pope Calixte the third The long prayers which are in the secrete words of the consecration to Pope Leo the first and to diuers other Authors So as S Basill is not found to haue done any thing toward the building of the Masse as may appeere by the Historiographers which haue written the liues of the Popes and by the Canones which speake of their particular inuentions Now these Popes that haue inuented and added euery one somthing to the Masse were not al at one time For betwixt the first and the last that are here spoaken of there was more than a thousand yeares which sheweth plainly inough that the Masse is but an inuention of men and therfore deserueth not to be of such estimation as the Romish Catholicks doe reken it For it ought to be sufficient for vs to dwell vpon the holy ordinances and institutions of God and to let goe the inuentions of men seeing that the Scripture forbiddeth either to adde or to diminish aught from Gods word Yea and there are some Canones that seeme to disalow the Mas. For among the rest there is one which cōmaundeth euery man to receiue immediatly after the consecration vpon payne of excommunication so as by that Canon it may be sayd that all such as be nowadayes at Masse are excommunicated euery one saue only the Priest because none receiueth but he only These are the expresse words of the same Canon After the consecration let them all communicate except they will be put out of the church for the Apostles haue so ordayned and the holy Romane Church doth so obserue the same There is also another Canō which forbiddeth vpon the same paine of excommunication that any man should heare the Masse of any Priest which keepeth a Concubine or any other woman These are the words of the Canon We doe commaund moreouer that no man doe heare the Masse of any Priest whom he knoweth assuredly to keepe a Concubine or any other woman in his house for so hath the holy Sinode ordayned vpon payn of excommunication By which Canon it appeareth that a man shal in these daies hardly heare a Masse without putting himselfe in danger of excommunication by reason of the notorious
whoredome and bawdry which is amongst the most parte of Priests And moreouer the Canons denounce those persons to be Idolaters which heare the Masse of any Priest or Deacon that is a Fornicator For thus saith a Canon taken out of S. Gregory If any Priest Deacon or Subdeacon be stayned with the sinne of fornication we in the name of the father almighty by the authoritie of S. Peter doe vtterly forbid bim to come into the Church vntill he haue done penance and made amendes And if they continue in their sinne let no mā presume to heare their diuine seruice for their blessings shall be turned into cursings their prayer into sinne And this doth the Lord himselfe witnesse where he saith by his Prophet I will curse your blessings And as many as disobay this holesome commaundement shall fall into the sinne of Idolatry Were this Canon wel vnderstood of the infinite number of pore ignorant soules that hold of the Romish Religion and doe ordinarily hear the Masses and other Church seruices of lecherous priestes I beleeue they would rather forbeare it vtterly than defile themselues so wretchedly with Idolatrie And as saith this Canon receiue the curse of God in receiuing the blessing of such a priest But ignorance accompanied with error which hath been long bred and rooted in the Romain Church doe cause the poore people to be content to heare the masses of these Fornicators But if a maryed Priest should sing them a Mas they would stone him to death and not allow his masse to be good Behold what power long forgrowen error hath ouer poore ignorant people and how strangely the tirany therof causeth their wretched consciences to goe astray For by the auncient Canons it is a cursed thing to shun the offering of a maryed priest or to beleeue that the same is to be despised because he is marryed These be the very words of a Canon taken out of the councell of Gangra If any man make difference of a marryed Priest in forbearing to come to his offering as though he might not doe it because he is marryed Cursed be he And there is yet another Canon which saith that no Priest hath power to consecrate singingcakes except he be a man of good life Which thing should make the Romish Catholicks to thinke that they put them selues in great danger of Idolatry when they worship the singing cake although it were admitted that their doctrine of Transubstantiation were true which thing the Protestants doe still deny For questionles by this Canon all be Idolaters which worship the singing bread that is consecrated by priests of euill life as the most part of them be These be the very wordes of the Canon The priestes which minister the body and bloud of the Lord vnto the people doe wickedly in beleeuing that by the law of Christ it is the wordes which the priest speaketh and not his good life which make the consecration of the Sacrament And that to doe the same there nedeth but only the solemne pronouncing of the prayer without any merit of the priest for it is written that the Prieste which hath any blemish in him may not approch to the Lord to offer any Sacrifice vnto him So then by this Canon it may be well said that in these dayes there are very few Priestes which haue power to consecrate Moreouer in these dayes they obserue no parte of the Ceremonies appointed by the Canons in the saying of their Masse For they ought to sing the Masse in single linnen cloth and not in silks of colors These are the expresse words of the Canon By the opinion of vs all we ordain that no man presume to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Altar in cloth of silke nor in any other cloth of color but in linnen cloth only consecrated by the Bishop That is to say made and wouen of flax which groweth vpon the earth Euen in such like sorte as the bodye of our Lord Iesus Christ was buried and wrapped in a simple white sheete made of flax Neither ought they to sing or say Masse without two assistantes least they should offend in the congruity of Grammer in hauing but one when they said Dominus vobiscum and Orate pro me fratres speaking in the plurall number But yet this notwithstanding the most part of Masses are said nowadayes but with one Clarke to accompany the priest yea and often times the Priest is constrayned to answere himselfe as it is sayd by a common prouerbe of a priest named Martin These be the very wordes of the Canō It is also ordayned that no priest shal presume to say masse except he haue two assistants so as he himselfe may be the third For when he saith in the plurall number the Lord be with you these words of the Memento Brethren pray for me it is very conuenient that other folks should answere of themselues to his salutation So as if all these Canons be well considered euery man may well perceiue that the Romish Catholicks haue no great reason to make so great account of their Mas or to thinke the Protestants to be in error in that they will neither come at it nor allow of it Of Maryage The ix Chapter AS cōcering marriage the doctrine of the Protestauntes differeth not much from the doctrine of the romish catholickes In deed the Catholickes do terme it a sacrament and the protestantes say it is a holy institution of God but not a sacrament because that in euery sacramēt there must be an outward signe to bee discerned with the eie and an inward thing signified which is inuisible as I haue sayed of Baptisme heretofore shewing that in that sacrament the water is the outward signe and the washing of the soule is the inward inuisible thing signified And in the supper of our lord the bread and the wine are the outward signes and the body and the bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ bee the things signified which our soules do receiue inwardly and spiritually But it cannot be sayd that in marriage ther is an outward visible signe and an inward inuisible thing signified And therfore it is not a Sacrament Agayne the Protestants affirm that marriage is honorable amongst all sorts of people be they lay men or men of the church noble or vnnoble rich or poore because God hath instituted it and hath permitted the vse thereof to all persons of what quality soeuer they be and to celebrate the same at all seasons And that to make gloses and limitations or restrayntes of the which God hath set at liberty is to goe about to be wiser than God which in deede is starke foolishnesse beastly presumption and heddy trayterousnesse Contrarywise the romish Catholickes holde opinion that it is not lawfull for men of the church to be married at all nor to celebrate any marriage in Lent in Aduent and in the foure ember weeks And the reason whereupon they haue