such sorte as the Romaine Church hath holdeÌ„ it euer since to witte from the time of the Pope Nicholas the secoÌ„d and afterward of Gregorie the seuenth about the yeere 1074. But this was not done at all without contradiction of many which coulde not profit at al forsomuch as they were oppressed by the authoritie of the Romaine Popes and of the multitude of their adherentes The custome for all that was not in the same church to keepe the bread in cupbordes boxes and pixtes before the time of Honorius the third who ordeined it about the yeere 1226. that hee was in the Romaine Chaire nor also to beare it in solemne procession and to dedicate a speciall feast to it vnto the time of Pope Vrbane the fourth who ordained that feast which commonly is called the feast of God or of the holy body of god Beholde then the antiquitie of the religion which followeth such doctrine and such maner of doings and as touching the principall authours vnto the which it may be ascribed And thereby euery man may knowe what faith they ought to giue to the traÌ„ssubstantiatours and Romaine doctours which affirme that the Romaine religion which they at this daye doe followe is the religion of the true auncient Churche and that they haue receiued it of Iesus Christ and of his Apostles and is come euen to them from hande to hand by a continuall succession Men may also iudge by the very same which were the Apostles from whom they receiued such doctrine such ceremonies superstitions and idolatries and what iniurie they do to Iesus Christ and to his Apostles and to all the auncient Church in abusing as they doe the name and authoritie of them to giue a more faire shewe to the inuentions of men and the more to coÌ„firme the poore ignorant in their errours and abuses For as I haue already declared the whole ancient church and the true doctors of the same did not knowe any such transsubstantiation as that of the Romaine Church which is at this daye nor any other conuersion of the signes of the sacrameÌ„ts into the thing which they signified but onely in respect of the vse of them as I haue already declared And therefore it had also no such worshipping and keeping of the bread and of their hostie as is that whereof I haue now spoken Chapter x. Of the sacrifice of the Romaine Masse and of the building of the same vpon the transsubstantiation and of the onely sacrifice of Iesus Christ and of the contrarietie that is betweene the same and that of the Masse I Will not nowe bryng foorth anye more proofes wherewith the better to coÌ„firme that which I haue already sayde of all these things because that I haue sufficiently written of it in diuerse other bookes and that I did not determine for this present but onely to touche and handle them briefly and summarily And therefore I will now come to the eight point which is concerning the sacrifice of the Romane priests in their masse the which dependeth also of the transsubstantiatioÌ„ and hath his foundation vpoÌ„ the same For if they did confesse that the bread and the wine did remaine alway bread and wine in the same they durst not affirme nor saye that they do offer vnto God bread and wine in sacrifice for the remission of sinnes the redemptioÌ„ of soules as well the liuing as the dead as they boaste them selues to doe daily in their masses For for the first seeing that according to the testimonie of the Epistle to the Hebrewes there is no sacrifice offered for the remission of sinnes without shedding of blood they can in no waies make sacrifice of bread and of wine for so much as it shoulde bee without sheading of bloud And then what reason should they haue to offer to God bread wine for the redeÌ„ption of soules and for the saluation of man and of what vertue and efficacie might such a sacrifice be And therefore seeing that they woulde conuert the Sacrament of the Supper into a sacrifice and transforme it into a Masse they must in deede foorthwith transsubstantiate the bread and the wyne into the bodie and into the blood of Iesus Christe to the ende that by that meane they might afterwarde offer them in saerifice for the remission of sinnes and for the redemption of soules and not onely for the lyuing but also for the dead Wee may not then greatly marueile if that they doe fight strongly and assuredly to mainteine their transsubstantiation without the which they are neuer able to mainteine their sacrifice without the which also their purgatorie would yelde them a very barren reuenue with all their other inuentions But what foundation haue they for this sacrifice I do not say in the institution of the supper of the Lorde onely but also in all the holy scriptures For for the first we do not reade at all that when Iesus Christ did institute and administer the supper he did in any wise offer in sacrifice either the bread or the wine which hee ordeined to be signes of the same nor in like sort his bodie nor his bloud For it is not in the supper that he did offer theÌ„ really in sacrifice to God for man but vpoÌ„ the crosse For the whole scripture maketh no mention of two sacrifices of Iesus Christ for the redemption of man but of one onely which is so perfect that he needed not to make it but one time onely and it could not bee offered by any other then by Iesus Christe him selfe the very sonne of God which onely is the priest the sacrificer the Sacrifice the Temple and the Altar and the same may in no wise be reiterated by any creature seeing that it is of vertue eternall and of deserte infinite For this cause the sacrifice of the masse can not stande with this but it must necessarily be that the one or the other be abholished to giue place to one onely seeing that there is but one which is full and perfect and there may none other be had seeing then that the same of Iesus is such an one it abolisheth all the others Chapter .xi. Of the difference that the Romaine doctors do put betwene the bloudy sacrifice the not bloudy of Iesus Christ in what sense the auncieÌ„t doctors of the Church did take both the one and the other and did cal the supper by the name of sacrifice And of the things which were obserued in the assemblies of the auncient Church IT may not be then that the Romayne sacrificers doe lay before vs 2. sortes of sacrifices of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes to wit the one not blouddy that is to say without shedding of bloud the which he offred in the supper and the other blouddy to wit with shedding of â—loud the which he offered vpon the crosse For by what testimonie of the Scripture
will they â—oue this first sacrifice which they terme not blouddy vpon the which we are in controuersie with them and of the which they say that they â—e sacrificers and successors of Iesus Christ in 〈◊〉 behalfe For we doe not disagree with theÌ„â—t all as touching the second And concerning â—â—e first wee will not make any difficultie to â—â—aunt them that the auncient doctors of the â—hurch and the auncient Church which foloâ—ed their doctrine haue indeede called the saâ—â—â—â—eÌ„t of the supper sacrifice in that sense that the holy Scripture calleth the same name the woorke of the preaching of the Gospel by the which the true ministers thereof bring men vnto God as though they did offer men vnto him and as it doth call also the mortification of the Christians whereby they offer them selues vnto God for liuing and reasonable sacrifices and in like sort the praiers thanks giuing the almes because that al these things were done auncieÌ„tly in the supper For it was not celebrated without the preaching of the word of God nor without praiers and thankes giuing from whence it hath had the name of Eucharistie among the Greekes nor without almes and gathering and such other like good workes the which God accepteth for sacrifices But these are not at al propiciatory sacrifices for the remission of sinnes the redemption of soules but are sacrifices of praise and thankes giuing For the Christian Church doth not acknowledge any other sacâ—â—â—fice propiciatorie but onely that which Iesuâ— Christ him selfe did offer in his owne person â–ª not wheÌ„ he did iustitute and administer the supper but wheÌ„ he suffered for vs and namely inhâ—â— he died for our sinnes For al his life was a peâ—â—petuall sacrifice but wee take him chiefly in hiâ— death because that it was therein ended as 〈◊〉 him selfe did witnesse vpon the crosse Then whâ— the auncients did call the sacrament of the suâ—per a sacrifice not bloudy they toke it in the seÌ„se that I haue already declared that the Supper was a sacrifice of praise thankes giuing they haue also called it so because that they haue ofteÌ„ times taken the name of sacrifice for that which we do call diuine seruice praier forsomuch as al the parts therof al the things therein required are comprised in the celebration of the Supper in that same maner as it was instituted by Iesus Christ and celebrated by the Apostles and by the true auncient Church For according to the testimony of Saint Luke the first Christian Church had foure thinges in singular recoÌ„meÌ„dation in their assemblies The first was the praiers and then the doctrine of the Apostles and the thied breaking of bread and the fourth the communion by the which two latter wee must vnderstand the administration and distriâ—â—tioÌ„ of the Supper and the gatherings for the â—oore the distributioÌ„s which were made vnto â—hem When then the auncients do call the supâ—er sacrifice and that they doe make mencion of sacrifice not bloudy they vse it in that sense that haue already declared as it appeareth plainâ—â— by their owne testimony Wherefore we wil â—â—t make any great difficulty to graunt that the â—upper was a sacrifice in that sense to wit a â—acrifice of praise and thankes giuing 〈◊〉 not a Sacrifice propiciatorie for the remission of sinnes the redemption of soules in such sorte as the Romaine catholiques do affirme their masse to be into the which they haue conuerted the supper of the Lorde Chapter xii Of the trumperies of the doctors of the Romayne Church concerning the name of sacrifice and the vse thereof and chiefly of the confusion which they put betwene the sacrifice propiciatorie and Eucharistique and betweene sacrament and sacrifice and of the differeÌ„ce that must be put betwene the one and the other WHereupon it is needful that euery man he warned of 2. trumperies by the which the Romayne doctors do deceyue the ignorant aâ—using the name of sacrifice and of the authoritie and testimonie of the auncient doctors of the Church in this matter The first is in the confusion that they make betwene the sacrifices The other in that they take the name of sacrifice in the writings of the auncient doctors for the masse such as it is in the Romayne Church For first they do take for sacrifice propitiatorie that which the auncient Doctors did take for sacrifice 〈◊〉 praise and thanks giuing and for a commemâ—â—ration of the death of Iesus Christe the whiâ—â— for the same cause men may call Eucharistique euen as some men do call it to giue men the better to vnderstand this difference as men doe cal the Supper Eucharistie for the same cause For the which cause they haue called the Supper sacrifice not blouddy to giue to vnderstande that they did not meane to offer Iesus Christ to God in sacrifice in the same for the remission of sinnes and the redemption of soules for somuch as the same cannot be done but by the very and onely sonne of God Iesus Christe nor without the shedding of his bloud but onely for a coÌ„memoration of the propiciatory sacrifice that which Iesus Christ him selfe did offer of his owne body bloud to yeeld him praise and thankes For they did knowe very wel what difference there is betwene sacrament and sacrifice and that the supper was not instituted by the Lorde for a sacrifice but for a Sacrament For in a sacrifice which is offered for the remission of sinnes and the redemption of soules it behoueth that the man offer vnto God the thing which he sacrificeth vnto him and that it be sufficient to appease â—is wrath or otherwise the sacrifice is not perâ—ect neither may it satisfie god And therefore it was that al those of the Leuits which were â—rdayned in the lawe to represent that of Iesus Christ did cease to giue place to him only But â—e sacraments are ordayned not at all to offer any thing to god for the remission of sinnes but on the contrary to receiue of him the spiritual and heauenly good things which he offreth communicateth vnto vs by the same And therefore Iesus Christ did not offer vnto God eyther the bread or the wine of the Supper or yet his body and his bloud in the same but did offer and communicate them both to wit the signes and the things signified by them to his disciples distributing bodily vnto them that which was bodyly and earthly sptritually that which was spiritual and heauenly And therefore he said Take ye and eate ye and drinke ye the which woordes he did not addresse vnto â–ª God nor consequently the bread and the wine which he commanded to eate and to drinke neither his body nor his bloud signified by the same but to his disciples and consequently to al those vnto whom the supper is administred according to his ordinance And therefore when Iesus Christ sayd
will replie that Iesus Christ and his Apostles and the auncient dnctors of the Primitiue Church haue done both in the Supper to wit that they offered vnto God in Sacrifice the body and the bloud of Iesus Christ and thē haue also forthwith communicated them to the Christian people that in so doing there is no inconuenience but that the supper may be both sacrament and sacrifice together I answere it is not enough that they do affirme except they doe proue it foorthwith I wil graunt them that the sacrifices of the lawe were also as a kind of sacramēts and that there were some in the which there was oblation to God of one part of the beast which was sacrificed and in like sort communion of an other part among the people and that there was ioyned to the sacrifice a banket the which signified the communion of the people in the same But that cannot agree with the supper For for the first as there was dayly newe banket in these sacrifices so was there newe hostie For they mought not sacrifice one very thing oftener then once nor by consequent communicate the same more often to the people but they must needes take dayly new But the like is not of the sacrifice of Iesus Christe For there is but one onely hostie of the same which is very Iesus Christ the which is the lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the worlde figured chiefly by the paschall lambe which among the rest was chiefly sacrifice and sacrament both together because that the Lord had two regards in the institution of the same For first he instituted it to be in the Church of Israel for a memoriall and remembrance of the passage which the Angell of the Lorde did make in Egypt striking the first borne of the Egyptians and of the deliuerance of the Israelites from the captiuitie of them as Moyses doeth plainly witnesse For the which cause it was called by him and consequently by the other Hebrues Pesah which is to say Passage by the name of the thing that it did signifie of the which the Greekes and the Latines haue made their worde Pascha the which they haue vsed and which since haue bene cōuerted into our speach by the name of Easter Beholde then howe this sacrament had regard vnto that which was already done and to that benefit of God the which the Israelites had already receyued touching their deliuerance out of Egypt And by that meane it was a memorial and a sacrament cōmemoratiue and a sacrifice of praise of thanks giuing in respect of the things which were already passed But beside that the Lorde had yet regard to the deliuerāce of mankind the which should be wrought by Iesus Christ whereof that of Egypt was a figure And forsomuch as he should worke this deliuerance by the passage of his death and by the sacrifice of his body and of his bloud the sacrifice was ioyned to the sacrament in the Paschal lambe to the end that i◠should the better represent that which was yet to be done and accomplished Beholde wherein it was ordeyned for the thinges which were yet to come and of the which men did yet looke for the accomplishment For that cause there was there a sacrifice which did represent that of Iesus Christ to come And also there was ioyned vnto a banket which did signifie the communiō of him as it ought to be in euery sacramēt And therefore Saint Paul hath ioyned the one with the other expounding the veritie of that figure For after that he hath sayde that Christe our passeouer was sacrificed he exhorteth the faithfull to the spiritual banket of this sacrifice and to the continuall feast which wee should make and celebrate alwaies Seeing then that the thing to come figured by this sacrifice sacrament was accomplished the one and the other are ceassed For we haue nowe the Sacrifice offered by Iesus Christ whereof the other was but a shadowe and figure Wherfore seing that wee haue the body and the trueth the shadowe and the figure doth clerely cease And therefore euen as our Lorde Iesus Christ did chaunge the Circumcision of the Church of Israel into the baptisme of the Christian Church euen so hath he chaunged the Sacrament of the Paschall lambe into that of the Supper the which hath that in common with the sacrament of the Paschall lambe that as it had regard to the passage which was made in Egypt and to the deliueraunce of the children of Israel which were thinges that were alreadie done in like sorte the Supper hath regarde to the passage which Iesus Christ hath made by his death and for the deliuerance which he hath brought to mankind by the sacrifice which he hath offred in the same which are also things that are alreadie done and passed They haue in like sort both of thē this in common that euen as the sacrament of the Paschall lambe was ordeined and celebrated according to the commandement which the Lord did giue to Moses in the same very night in the same very time that the passage should be made in Egypt the people deliuered from the same euen so Iesus Christ did intitute and celebrate his Supper in the very fame night and euen before the very time that he was taken to be brought to be sacrificed and to woorke the deliuerance of mankind For that cause he vsed the very same maners of speach in the institutiō in the administration of this sacrament as Moyses did in that of the Paschall lambe For euen as Moyses did fay of the lambe It is the passeouer of the Lord which is to say the passage the which he did represent giuing to the signe the name of the thing signified euē so Iesus Christ did say of the bread of the Supper This is my body and of the wine This is my bloud of the newe testament or This cup is the new testament in my bloud Wherefore it is not also to be doubted that euen as he did folowe the maner of speach of Moyses which was much frequented in the holy Scriptures in the vse of the sacraments euen so did he also vse them in the like sense and signification without disguising any thing at al the accustomed language of the holy Ghost by sense newe and straunge to such maners of speach Thus much concerning that which the sacraments of the Paschall lambe of the supper may haue common together touching these points But the Supper hath this different from the same that it was not instituted to be a figure of any sacrifice to come nor of any other thing which mought be yet to accōplish but only to be a sacrament cōmemoratiue of the sacrifice already offered by Iesus Christ and for the communication of the same And therefore there is no propiciatorie sacrifice for the remission of sinnes in this
sacrament offered to God by the ministers which do administer it but onely the banket which witnesseth vnto vs the communication which wee haue in the sacrifice which is already offered For seeing that it endureth for euer because of his eternall and infinite vertue it needeth not at all to be offered againe wherefore there resteth no more to doe in respect of the same but onely the application and communication which is done ordinarily in the Churche by the ministerie of the woorde of God and of the sacraments and chiefly of the supper And therefore Iesus Christe did commande none other thing to be done in the same when he coÌ„manded the distribution of the bread and of the wine which are the signes but onely to celebrate the remembrance and commemoration of him in awayting his comming from heauen as Saint Paul declareth it vnto vs saying As often as ye shall eate this bread brinke this cup you shall shewe foorth the death of the Lorde vntill the time that he come Seing then that Iesus Christ hath ioyned none other propiciatorie sacrifice to his supper but onely that which he him selfe hath offered vpon the crosse it followeth then that they which doe ioyne any other vnto it are very falsaries and counterfaitors of his testament for so much as the supper is as his testament and the sacrament and witnesse of the benefit which hee offereth and communicateth vnto vs by the same Wherefore if men accounte them falsaries Note which do falsifie the testament of a mortall man howe great a fault is this to falsifie the testament of the eternall sonne of God adding an other sacrifice to his for the remission of sinnes seeing that it may not in any wyse bee reiterated For seeing that there is but this onely hostie euen so may the same dye but only one and his blood may bee shead but onely once From whence it followeth also that it can not bee offered nor sacrificed to God but onely one tyme for the remission of sinnes Wherefore seeing that Iesus Christe hath already offered the sacrifice which is of eternall and infinite vertue there resteth no more but the partaking and the communication of the same which is represented vnto vs by the table of the Lorde in the Supper and in the visible banquet of the same as it is done in very deede inuisibly and spiritually towardes the faythfull by the vertue of the holy Ghost and of faith And by that meane the Supper is not ordeined therein to offer a newe sacrifice of the body and of the blood of Iesus Christe nor to reiterate that which hee him selfe hath already offered but onely to be a Sacrament testimonie and commemoration of the sacrifice once offered and to communicate in the same by the meane of this Sacrament for so much as the sacrifice can not at all profite vs to saluation but so farre forth as we are made partakers thereof as it is needefull for vs to be continually Chapter .xv. That the Masse may be neither sacrifice nor Supper of Iesus Christe if in deede there were there no other addicion then that of the sacrifice and that Iesus Christe may not be offered in sacrifice but once nor by any other then by him selfe ANd therefore when the Romaine priests do make of the sacrament of the supper a propiciatorie sacrifice of Iesus Christe to God the Father in steade of administring this Sacrament to the faithfull as Iesus Christe him selfe did and commaunded and as the Apostles and their true successours and all the true auncient Churche did obserue and practise it appeareth euidently that they doe wholy ouerthrowe the ordinaunce of the Lorde in what sorte soeuer they colour their Masse For for the first seeing that there is no true communion for the whole Churche therein beholde there alreadie the principall intent of Iesus Christe oueâ—â—rowen in respect of the institution of the Supper and of the chiefe point of the same But there is yet more For albeit that they did indeede administer the Supper to the whole Churche as often as they shoulde saye and sing their Masse yet shoulde they for all that ouerthrowe the ordinance of the Lorde in adding a sacrifice the which hee hath not ordained to the sacrament by him ordained For first he hath not commanded to offer and to sacrifice to God his father either the bread or the wine in the supper neither yet his body and his blood signified by the same and theÌ„ to offer present and communicate the same to his Church but did coÌ„maunde to do that only which he hath done in the supper to witte to distribute and administer the things which hee did administer in the same But in steade of doing that the Romaine priestes doe nothing in their masse of all that which Iesus Christ hath done and commaÌ„ded in the supper but on the contrary they wil do that which he hath not done coÌ„maunded neither may they in any wise doe nor yet any other creature whatsoeuer no not the very Angels them selues For euen as there is no other hostie which may be sacrificed to God for the remissioÌ„ of sinnes sufficient to satisfie his iudgement but very Iesus Christ euen so the same can not be offered any oftener then onely once the which endureth alway for so much as it 〈◊〉 â—erfect and eternall nor yet by any other theâ—â—by him selfe onely for so much as there is no sacrificer meet to offer such a sacrifice nor that may be allowed of the Father as is very plainely and euidently set forth in the whole Epistle to the Hebrues From whence it followeth that the sacrameÌ„t of the supper can not be the sacrifice of Iesus Christ for the remission of sinnes and then much lesse the masse for so much as it is not the supper of the Lorde and that in deede it can not be such a sacrifice albeit it were the very true supper of the Lorde For being the supper of the Lorde it could bee no more the same then that of Iesus Christ and of the Apostles and of the true auncient Church For the supper can not be the sacrifice which Iesus Christe did offer vpon the crosse by meane of the reasons which I haue already yelded Now there is none other which is propiciatorie for the remission of sinnes and the redemption of soules be it bloodie or not bloodie as it shall please them to call it but euen so as I haue already declared Chapter .xvi. Of the straunge consequence which followe the sacrifice of the Masse and howe the Masse may not be either sacrifice propiciatorie or Eucharistique and the cause why FRom wheÌ„ce I conclude either that the masse may in no wise be a sacrifice either for the liuing or for the dead or els that Iesus Christ is not the true perfect and eternall sacrificer and the onely sauiour and redeemer and that his sacrifice is not
ful and perfect and by consequent that hee is not the true anoynted of the Lorde and that all that which is wrytten of his office of Sacrificer and of his sacrifice in all the Epistle to the Hebrewes and in all the rest of the Scriptures is false From whence it should also followe either that the Scriptures which wee doe call holy should not bee reuealed by the Spirit of God or els that the Spirite of God should not bee the Spirit of trueth as it is but the spirit of errour and of lyes and by consequent God shoulde not bee God but shoulde bee in steade of the Deuill which is a lyer and the father of lyes Behold the straūge consequēces on the which men may not thinke without great horrour which the masse draweth after it for it can not bee such an one as it is set foorth vnto vs in the Romayne Churche but that all these consequences must needes followe Nowe they can bee none other then great blasphemies against Iesus Christe and his sacrifice and all his benefites from whence it followeth necessarily that the masse may no more bee the propiciatorie sacrifice of the body and of the blood of Iesus Christe then it may be that Iesus Chiste shoulde not bee the true anoynted of the Lorde Note And if it were so that his sacrifice might bee reiterated yet for all that the same coulde not bee offered by any other then by him selfe onely But seeing that it is eternall and of vertue infinite it is no more needefull that it bee reiterated not onely by any other then by hym but also by him selfe Seeing then that not onely the Masse but also the very Supper may not bee the propiciatorie sacrifice of the body and of the blood of Iesus Christe it followeth then in deede that it can not bee the very selfe Sacrifice which was offered by Iesus Christe vpon the crosse From whence I dos agayne conclude that if it bee a Sacrifice it can not bee other then a Sacrifice commemoratiue of the Sacrifice offered by Iesus Christe And if it be but a Sacrifice commemoratiue of hym it is not then a Propiciatorie Sacrifice but Eucharistique to wytte of prayse and thankes Note But yet before that it maye bee such a Sacrifice it must fyrst bee that it bee the true Supper of the Lorde which thing it is not all neyther maye bee beeyng such as it is at this present but is cleane contrary as men may iudge as well by that which I haue already heretofore spoken as by that which I will yet speake hereafter by that meane it shal be no pleasant sacrifice to God either in one sorte or in an other Chapter xvii Of the marchandise of Masses and of the sacrifices of the same and of the abuses that therein are ANd by the same men may iudge what iniurie the Romaine priestes doe to the Catholiques of the Romaine Church in selling to thē their masses for sacrifices not only commemoratiues and Eucharistiques but also propiciatories being notwithstanding either the one or the other And thereby men may knowe what marchantes they are what is their marchandises in that behalfe And albeit that it were so that they were sacrifices in both those sortes yet the markets and faires which they make of thē should be a very villaine traffique For do they not sell them for prices agreed vpon as they do all their other sacramentes and ceremonies euē against their owne councels and canons and their owne very decrees And do they not call the marchandizes of holy things Simonie O how many priestes haue they which haue neither cure nor benefice nor charge of soule which were made priestes onely to saye masses and which doe liue of the marchandizes which they daily make thereof And howe many bee there among them which doe liue from the day to his dayes labour as the prouerbe is which haue their teeth very sharpe that day that they finde no marchāts to buye their marchandizes If I should speake of these marchauntes that which one of their bookes called Stella clericorum doth they would thinke them selues marueilously outraged by me And therefore I will cause it to be spoken vnto them by the doctour which was the authour of that booke And to the ende that they doe not thinke that I doe alleadge him falsely I will cause him first to speake in his owne proper language and then I will expounde both the woordes and the sense Behold now his wordes The priest which doth celebrate masse for money seemeth to say with Iudas What wil you giue me and I will deliuer him vnto you Therefore it is wrong to sell his lord Thinke thou that the first seruant which saide did hang him selfe Iudas did cast downe the money in the Temple The priestes which do bestowe the money that they haue of them for whom they do sing at the stewes and vpon their belly are worse Iudas solde Christ once repented him thereof And thou perchance hast solde him oftentimes and doest not repent therof Take heede lest despairing thou do hang thy selfe The wordes in Latin are these Sacerdos qui pro nummis celebrat videtur dicere cum Iuda Quid vultis mihi dare ego vobis eum tradam Ergo nefas est vendere Dominum suum Cogita quod primus seruus venditor seipsum suspendit Iudas enim nummos misit in Templum Peiores sunt sacerdotes qui denarios pro quibus cantant mittunt in lupanar in ventrem suum Iudas semel Christum vendidit de hoc penituit Et tu forte multoties vēdidisti non penites Caue ne desperans te ipsum suspendas Behold how this good doctour speaketh And if the litle marchantes which are in great trauaile to gaine their poore liuing by these marchandizes may not be excused in this point howe much more are the great and fatte marchants which sell them in grosse and make greater and more riche traffique of them Seeing then that it is so they may not finde the matter straunge if Iesus Christe doe agayne take the whippe in hande to driue such marchauntes out of his Temple and out of his Churche and that hee ouerthrowe their seates and their tables by the preaching of his Gospell For if comparison should be made betweene them and those which Iesus Christe did driue out of the Temple of Ierusalem the difference woulde bee founde so great that those which Iesus Christe him selfe in his owne person did driue foorth shoulde be iustified by those here as Samaria did iustifie Sodome and Ierusalem Samaria according to the testimonie of Ezechiel For the marchauntes which were by Iesus Christe driuen out of the Temple of Ierusalem had sufficient aucthoritie by the lawe of God for that which they did Note For they did not at all sell any false marchaundizes nor diuine and holy things but onely those
in his owne person Wherefore it is as possible that the Christiā people should be fedde spiritually with the body blood of Iesus Christ by the communion which the priest alone maketh in his masse as it is possible that he may be fed bodily with that which the priest dineth with and eateth drinketh all alone Wherefore if the people wil be partakers of the things signified by the signes of the supper they must also be partakers of the worde of the signes of the same which are the meanes whereby God will cōmunicate those things which they doe signifie For as he hath ordeined the meane whereby he will giue entertaine conserue the bodily life euē so hath he done for the conseruation of the spiritual life And therefore seeing that he hath ordeined the ministerie of the word of the sacramēts in respect of the spirituall life he that would haue conserue it without this meane should do as much as if he would liue a bodily life without eating or drinking vsing the meane ordeined of God for the nouriture entertainemēt of the same if there be no such necessitie and let that they both cannot be had For God hath not so tied his graces to external things that he cannot distribute the same without them by his diuine vertue and without externall meanes if it please him prouided that there bee no contempt or rebellion of our part for albeit that he hath made vs subiect thereunto so farre foorth as hee giueth vs the meanes yet for all that he is not subiect as wee are but so farre foorth as it pleaseth him to vse them of his owne free will. And therefore euen as he did nourish extraordinarily supernaturally by his diuine vertue Moyses Elie and Iesus Christ the space of fortie dayes they not receiuing in that time any bodily meate or drinke according to the order of nature euen so may hee nourishe spiritually and communicate his gifts and graces without the ministerie of man ordeined in his Churche if it please him to those which by necessitie are depriued of them notwithstanding that they haue great desire to vse the meanes which he hath ordeined and that they do all their indeuour that they may to haue the true and right vse thereof as if a faithfull man were so holden by necessitie of sicknesse or by captiuitie and prison of tyrantes or by some other like necessitie which hindreth him that he may not participate outwardly For if there were there of his fault and that hee would forbeare for his pleasure and that he would not do his duetie in that behalfe the reason shoulde bee otherwise Chapter .xii. How greatly and how much the more inexcusable the Romaine priestes should be for depriuing the Christian people from the communion of the body and of the blood of the Lorde in their Masses and of his blood in their common Suppers if the doctrine of their transsubstātiation were true ANd if the doctrine of transsubstantiation were true that which I say would fight yet more sharpely against the Romaine priests For seeing that they doe affirme that the bread and the wine which are the signes of the supper are conuerted into the very body and blood of Iesus Christ the which they signifie they must also confesse will they or will they not that in depriuing priuing the people of these two signes in their masse they doe also depriue them of the bodie of the blood of Iesus Christe and that in their commō supper they depriue them of the blood deliuering to them but they body according to their doctrine for seeing that we must be made flesh of the flesh bones of the bones of Iesus Christ by the communiō which we should haue with him and which is represented vnto vs as well by baptisme as by the supper an other can not be that for vs And by that meane the priests may no more receiue the supper for vs in our name then they may be baptized in our name for vs And therefore Iesus Christ said not that he which should eate his flesh and drinke his blood by vicar lieutenant should haue life in him should be in Iesus Christ and Iesus Christ in him but said openly He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me I in him hath eternall life and I will rayse him vp at the latter day Let the Romaine Catholiques then consider whether their priestes may eate this meate and drinke this drinke rise for all their parochians and for all those which heare and see their masses and whether they will be contented to be so nourished with the flesh and with the blood of Iesus Christe and so to rise at the latter daye in the person of their priestes Chapter .xiii. Of the Sacrifice and of the Communion that the priestes doe administer in their masses as well for the dead as for the liuing THus much concerning the cōmunion which is in the masse and concerning the ninth errour which wee doe blame in the same I will now come to the tenth which is cōcerning that that the priests doe not doaste that they do sacrifice and cōmunicate in their masse only for the liuing but also for the dead affirming that by that meane they doe applie the sacrifice of Iesus Christe and the vertue and the merite of the same as well to the one as to the others For the which cause they saye that they doe deuide their hosties into three partes in their communion of the which they dippe the one into the wine in their challice against the expresse ordinaunce of the Lorde yea and against the very auncient canons For the Lorde did not temper the bread with the wine neither did hee make a soppe in the wine in the institution of the supper neither did he also commaunde to do it And therefore it is written in the auncient canons which forbidde the same that Iesus Christe did distribute the bread apart and the wine apart and that he gaue not the bread nor the morcell tempered to any other then to Iudas which betrayed him and he gaue it not vnto him yet in the Supper but out of the Supper Nowe of these three partes that the priestes make of their hostie in their masse they assigne the one to the liuing and the two others to the dead because that they doe make two sortes to witte the one which are already happy and doe raigne in Paradise and the other which are yet holden in the paines of purgatorie and haue not yet fulfilled their penance nor haue fully satisfied vnto God and by that meane they doe sacrifice and communicate both for the liuing and for the dead all at one tyme as though Iesus Christe had not fully satisfied for all by his sacrifice and as though the ministerie of the woorde and of the Sacramentes were
the Apostles chiefly by the Romaine Popes wherein they doe greatly honour the sonne of god For if it be so he did but rough hewe the worke whereof he left the matter confused and euill polished as a first purtraiture rude and not polished leauing the thing to be better polished adorned and brought to perfection by those which should come after him the which worke was not made perfect by one or twoo workmen only but by a great number as they them selues do witnesse For they are not so shamelesse that they dare affirme that it was made or perfected neither by one workman onely but by many nor at one instant nor at one onely time but in sundry ages Chapter iiii Of the principall authours of the Masse alleadged by the Romaine doctors and of the diuersitie of Masses as well Greekes as Latins and of those Masses which were celebrated by the Apostles THose which dare not make Iesus Christ the authour do attribute the fashion of it some to Saint Iames others to Basile the great and some other to Gregorie the first And in deede they doe set forth diuerse formes of Masses the one sorte Greeke the other Latin masses which are greatly different amoÌ„g theÌ„ selues As touching the Greeke Masses they do againe set forth diuerse formes the one of Basile the other of Chrysostome And as touching that of Chrysostome they do not set forth onely one forme but two at the least And as touching the Latin masse the principall honour whereof they giue to Gregory the first how many craftes men haue there bene which haue laid their handes vnto it euer adding something the one to the others inuentions according as their owne doctours the historians of the Romaine Church do witnesse And after the time of Gregory the first how many pieces haue bene added vnto it and how long a time was it before it was such an one as it is at this present How theÌ„ is Iesus Christ the author or Saint Iames or any other of the Apostles And how did the Apostles sing and celebrate the masse the one in one countrey and the others in others as many of the Romaine doctors doe boldely and assuredly affirme without any shame at all cleane contrary to the euideÌ„t testimonies as wel of the holy scriptures as of their owne doctors historians which giue testimonie of all the peeces that euery one of the said craftes men which haue wrought in the same worke haue added thereunto Whether their testimonies be true or no I will not now enter into disputation of it It suffiseth that those which do vpholde the Masse do vouch them and that by their own testimony the which they doe receiue they are conuinced that there was no such masse as there is at this day in the Romaine Churche not onely in the Apostles time neither also in a long time after their daies How then commeth it to passe that the Apostles could sing and celebrate the masse before that it was made or borne If they take the masse for the supper I will willingly graunt that all the Apostles and their true successors haue often celebrated the same But it was in the same maner that Iesus Christ did institute and administer it not in the same maner that it hath bene since disguised and conuerted into masse and such as nowe it is celebrated in the Romaine Churche wherefore it is a great filthines or too great a malice so to disguise things to make the poore ignoraunt people to beleeue that the masse is of the institution of Iesus Christ and of his Apostles and that they them selues haâ—e celebrated the same and that euen from their time it hath alwayes bene obserued in the Church such as it is at this daie in the Romaine For it is an ouer filthy and shameles lye Chapter v. Of the names of the Supper and of the Masse and whether the differeÌ„ce that is at this day because of the same betweene the reformed Church and the Romaine is onely for the names and titles or els for the matter and substance and whether the Masse be in substance the Supper of the Lord. IT must then be that the Romaine doctors confesse that the Masse which they do now call the Masse is farre different from that which they affirme to haue bene said and celebrated by the Apostles and their true successours And if they do replie that it is the same in substance and that there is no difference but in respect of the ceremonies and ornamentes wherewith it hath bene adorned and enriched since that time by the successours of the Apostles we must yet see whether it be so or no. Behold then one point which standeth yet in question whereupon it must be considered whether the Masse such as it is at this day be in substaÌ„ce the holy supper of Iesus Christ or no such as he him self did institute administer his Apostles and his true Church did receiue from him and did celebrate according to his ordinance and coÌ„maundement For our chiefe controuersie is not for the wordes or for the names but for the thing it selfe the very substance thereof for the which we are at controuersie Wherefore when we shal agree vpon the substance we shall then easely agree vpon the accidentes names so farre forth as the thing which they do signifie be conteined in the holy scriptures and in the Lords ordinaÌ„ce as we do it in the name of the trinitie and of Sacrament and such like For albeit that the very same wordes are not founde either in the olde testament or in the newe yet for all that we doe receiue them for so much as the things signified by them are therein conteined Wherefore it would be vncomely and of small edification to debate vpon names and wordes when men are agreed vpon the things that they would signifie by these same It resteth now that we vnderstand the one the other and that we do agree vpon the sense according to the which we shall take the wordes which we shall vse As touching the Sacrament whereof we do nowe speake it is called by Saint Paul sometime the table an other time the supper of the Lord and also the Communion and communication of the body and of the blood of the lord Seeing then that the holy Ghost hath giueÌ„ vnto it such names titles by this holy Apostle it is then the surest and the best to vse the same This notwithstanding if the Romaine Catholiques will call it both Masse and Sacrament of the Altar we will not greatly striue for it prouided that we do agree in the principal point of our different Chapter vi Of the chiefe different that is betweene the reformed Church and the Romaine touching the Supper and the Masse and of the meane to agree it IF then they be able to shewe that their Masse is in substance the very supper of the Lorde and their sacrament of the Altar his
as well diuine as humaine in deede if there were none other but this onely point to be blamed we haue iust cause to coÌ„demne it and to require reformation of the same Chapter .xiii. Of the application of the Sacramentall words in the Masse and whether they should be spoken either to those which do there assist or els to the bread and to the wine of the same and whether the signes of the sacraments may be the signes of them or no beside their true and proper vse THE last point of the same very purpose which concerneth yet the wordes of the masse is that beside that which I haue already shewed to be worthy of blame in the pronunciation of them there is yet this very foule faulte and contrary to all reason to witte that in steade of declaring the wordes of the supper to the people assistant at the masse and in speaking them vnto them to cause them to vnderstand them to the end that they should be taught by them according to the coÌ„maundemeÌ„t which the Lord hath giuen by Saint Paul they speake them to the bread and to the wine which are vpoÌ„ the Altar and do pronounce them ouer them And therefore the priest is turned towardes them hath his backe towards the people to whom he should speake and deliuer his wordes to teach and instruct them in the vnderstanding of the doctrine belonging to this sacrament and in the mysteries and secretes which it conteineth But in steade of doing this he representeth them to the people by gestures countenances and diuers ceremonies and oftentimes by so foolishe and doultish countenances as are those of a very Iugler Therefore I know not for what cause a man may not saye as well of a Priest that he goeth to doe as well as to saie Masse For he hath there as much to doe as to saie For thâ— like cause men might as well say Let vs go tâ— see as well as let vs go to heare masse For thâ— assistance doe there oftentimes see more theâ— they do heare namely in the Iowe masses wherâ— in they do plainely declare that they do very it vnderstande both the nature and the vse as welâ— of the word of God as of the Sacraments Foâ— the word whereupon they are grounded is noâ— there set forth to be spoken to the signes there of but to chose persons to whom both the one 〈◊〉 the other should be administred to witte as welâ— the worde as the signes or otherwise the sacramentes should be no sacraments For they are no sacramentes being out of their proper vse for so much as they are onely ordeined thereunto And therefore the water is not the water oâ— Baptisme nor a signe nor consequently the sacrament thereof but so farre foorth as it is ioyned with the word of Iesus Christ by the which it is dedicated and coÌ„secrated to that vse and so being applied to those persons which men doâ— baptize according to his commandement Thâ— very like is of the bread and of the wine of thâ— supper For they can no more be the signes thereof then may the water of baptisme if being ioyned together with the word of Iesus Christ whereby they are dedicated and consecrated to this sacrament they be not giuen and distribuâ—ed to those which should bee partakers of the same as it doth appeare by the expressed words of Iesus Christe in that which he saieth of both the signes Take ye eate ye Likewise Take ye and drinke all ye For it is playne that these wordes may not be spoken either to the bread or to the wine but onely to those persons which might vnderstande them and execute the commandement that Iesus Christ gaue vnto them by the same For the bread and the wine can neither eate or drinke them selues Chapter .xiiii. That the wordes of the Supper appertaine not to such as are capable thereof and what fault the Romaine priestes doe committe in that behalfe THis notwithstanding it is to them that the priest doth speake and deliuer their wordes and not at all to those which do assiste as well at their Masse as at their Supper the which they do administer seldome times to the people No more may they be deliuered also to beastes for so much as they can not vnderstand them as also because the sacraments of the Lord were not ordeined for them the like may we say of all other creatures which are not partakers either of sense or vnderstanding Wherefore if they 〈◊〉 spoken to others then to such as are capable 〈◊〉 this sacrament which may vnderstand them 〈◊〉 may obey to that which Iesus Christ commaâ—deth theÌ„ thereby it is a meere mockery wheâ—â—by the intent and purpose of Iesus Christeâ—â— wholy ouerthrowen Note And if these wordes whiâ—â— conteine the commandemeÌ„t that he gaue in tâ—â— supper to all the faithful ought not to be addrâ—â—sed but to those which are capable thereof tâ—â— very like is of those of the promise which fâ—â—loweth this commaundement For when Iesâ—â— Christ saieth This same is my body and this 〈◊〉 my blood and that which foloweth he addresseâ— no more his words to the bread and to the wiâ—â— then when he saieth of them Take and eate yâ—â— but addresseth them to those in deeds to whoâ— he speaketh the first Wherefore seeing thâ—â— there is both commandement and promise aâ—â— that the promise is made eueÌ„ to those to whoâ— the commandement is giuen and that the Loâ—â— declareth thereby the cause and the ende for 〈◊〉 which he giueth this commandement it is eâ—â—â— to iudge that the promise doth no lesse beloâ—â— vnto them then doth the commandement aâ—â— appertaine not at all to the bread to the wiâ—â— From whence it followeth also that both 〈◊〉 one and the other belong vnto them that thâ—â— ought to vnderstand them and are not spokeÌ„ â—he bread and to the wine which can not vnderâ—tand or comprehend either the one or the other Chapter xv Of the office as well of the ministers as of the Christian people in the supper and of the fault which the priestes and the Romaine Catholiques do coÌ„mitte against the same in their Masse WHen then the Lord doth say Take ye and eate ye and then expoundeth by the proâ—ise which foloweth this commandement the â—ause of the commandement he admonisheth as â—ell the ministers as the people of that which â—oth the one and the other ought to doe in the â—upper As touching the ministers their office is â—o aduertise the people both of the commaundement and of the promise and of that which they â—â—ught to do according to the one and the other â—nd what it is that they ought to attende And the â—ffice of the people is to be obedient to that which â—s commanded them and to beleeue the promise which is made vnto them Then if the miniâ—ters do not this office they are sacrilegious in â—s much as they do steale and hide the worde
of God froÌ„ his people which is so holy sacred a â—hing Wherfore they may be wel placed amoÌ„g â—he false prophets whom the Lorde accuseth by â—eremie to haue stolen his word froÌ„ his people They are in like forte very open rebels to Iesus Christ For seeing that they ought to reprâ—sent his person in the administration of the siâ—per and of al sacramentes it must in any wise bâ— that they do that which he commandeth them tâ— do and that they follow his example For if the do otherwise and contrary thereunto they maâ— not be called the ministers of Iesus Christe buâ— onely by a wrong title Nowe it is certaine thaâ— he commanded them to do in his remembrance the very same which he then did And what is 〈◊〉 that he then did Note he as minister addressed hiâ— worde to his disciples to whom he administreâ—â— his supper and forthwith distributed vnto then the signes thereof which he commandeth theâ— to take Wherefore if the priests do not the likâ— in their masse in their supper wherein they saâ— they do represent as ministers the person of Iâ—sus Christ they do mocke both Iesus Christ anâ— his poore people Nowe it is plaine that in the 〈◊〉 masse they do neither the one ne yet the other From whence it followeth very well that thâ— same can not be the supper of Iesus Christ foâ— so much as they do so great a wrong therein aâ— well to him as to all Christian people For in hâ—â—ding and stealing the worde which ought to bâ— declared vnto them and in not distributing at aâ— that which is commaÌ„ded them to distribute vnto them they do dishonour Iesus Christe in diâ—obeying him also do great wrong to his peoâ—le in not administring vnto them that which â—hey ought to administer vnto theÌ„ And as they â—aile in this behalfe euen so the people doe not â—heir dutie if they wil not receiue the word nor â—he signes when they are duely and sincerely â—dministred vnto them For therein they shew â—hem selues rebels against God. Note And if neither â—he one nor the other be presented and adminiâ—tred vnto them and that they care not at al but â—re contented to be depriued eyther in part or in â—ll they yeeld them selues then without excuse â—â—asmuch as they declare thereby that they doe â—ot greatly care for the glory of god nor for his â—â—luation and chiefely when they may haue the â—â—eane to haue the right and full administration â—f the sacraments Chapter xvi Of the differeÌ„ce and distinction that the Romaine doctors do make in thapplicatioÌ„ of the sacramental wordes of the sacrameÌ„ts aswel concerning the signes of them as the persons which are capable thereof and of the foundation of their transsubstanciation which they ground vpon the same â—Eing theÌ„ that it is so it is easie to iudge howe foolish and ful of filthie ignorance the distinction and the difference that the Romaine doâ—tors doe make betwene Baptisme and the suâ—per and their other sacraments is touching tâ— applying of the wordes and of the signes 〈◊〉 them For they say that in baptisme the sacrâ—mentall wordes are addressed to the persoâ— which they baptize Note and not at al to the mattâ—â— of baptisme to wit to the water which is thâ— signe thereof but it is contrary in the suppeâ— forsomuch as the sacramentall wordes are adressed to the matter thereof to wit to the breaâ—â— and to the wine which are the signes and nâ— at all to the persons from whence they do coclude the conuersion of the bread and of thâ— wine into the bodie and bloud of Iesus Chriâ—â— according to their doctrine of transsubstanciâ—tion By meane whereof they doe affirme thaâ— for that cause the bread and the wine consecrâ—ted after their maner are no more bread anâ— wine but are the very body and bloud of Iâ—sus Christe and the holy Sacrament of thâ— altar and of the supper of the Lorde yea eueâ—â— out of the accion and vse of the sacrament Thâ— which thing they dare not affirme of the wâ—ter of the baptisme For albeit that they hauâ— blessed and consecrated it after their maner anâ— that they doe reserue it in their fonts for thâ— vse of baptisme and that they doe pronounce thâ— sacramental words thereof in thadministration yet for al that they hold it neither for sacrament nor for signe of baptisme but in the very accion and vse thereof to witte when it is applied to the persons that men doe baptize But if they graunt vs this point concerning baptisme why make they so great difficultie to graunt vs the same concerning the supper For haue they more expresse commandement of Iesus Christ to administer the water in Baptisme then the bread and the wine in the supper which are the signes I say yet further that it is so that they haue a more expresse commandement to distribute the bread and the wine of the supper then to administer the water of the Baptisme For where is it that they shal be able to find that Iesus Christ hath said so expressely of the water of Baptisme Take ye baptize ye and be ye baptized as he hath plainely spoken of the bread of the wine of the supper Take ye eate ye Take ye drinke ye yea euery one of you And to whoÌ„ did he speake these woordes following to wit This same is my bodie this same is my bloud but euen to those very men to whom he spake the wordes going before as I haue alreadie declared to whom he gaue commandement to eate the bread and to drinke the wine which he brake distributed vnto them for signes of his body and of his bloud Chapter xvii Of thapplying of the sacramentall wordes tâ— the signes of the sacraments and of the coÌ„secration of them THey may not then at all alledge that they dâ—â— better agree with the matter of the bread and 〈◊〉 the wine in the supper then with that of the wâ—ter in Baptisme and that it hath not equal respeâ—â— to the persons aswell in the one sacrament as 〈◊〉 the other Wherefore to speake properly theâ— must be referred in both the sacrameÌ„ts aswel 〈◊〉 the signes as to the persoÌ„s to whom they ought 〈◊〉 be administred but it is euer in the respect of thâ— persoÌ„s For it should be to no purpose that theâ— were pronounced in secret and in their absencâ— For that should be more like to a charme aâ— enchantment then to a sacrameÌ„t For the maâ—ter which is taken for the signes in all sacrâ—ments cannot be the signes if the same be nâ—â— dedicated and consecrated thereunto by tâ—â— worde of God by the which they are made hâ—ly and sacred signes where as before they weâ—â— but simple and common matter And therefoâ—â— there is so great difference betweene that thâ—â— it was and that that it is after that the word 〈◊〉 added vnto it as there is betwene a piece of
of substance where there is chaunge Wherefore there is as great difference betwene chaunge transsubstanciation as is betwene the general the speciall For chaunge is the generall which comprehendeth vnder it transsubstanciation but transsubstanciation doth not comprehend in it chaunge forsomuch as his signifiration is more ample as that of chaunge of transmutation and of conuersion then that of transsubstanciation For all these names do cōprehend other kindes of chaunge and of conuersion then of one substance into an other For as there is chaunge of substances so is there also chaunge of accidents to witte of qualities of time of places of habits and such other like thinges according to their natures and to the predicaments vnder that which they are comprehended as the Logicians distinguish them Our regeneration is not without chaunge which is wrought in our own persōs But it is not at all by conuersion of the substance of our bodies nor of our soules into others or into any other substance but it is in qualitie which is from vice into vertue by the chaunge renewing of the olde Adam of the olde man into the new And therfore if there be any chaūge in the supper touching the matter of the signes thereof it must then be considered of what kind this chaunge is and in what predicament it must be sought if we will speake as becōmeth Logicians and if there be chaunges either of substance or of qualitie in asmuch as the matter of the signes thereof is otherwise qualified when it is applied to that vse then it was before I haue alreadie declared proued that there can be no more chaunge of one substance into an other then there is in all other sacraments because of the reasons that I haue alreadie alleadged taken aswell of the nature of them as of the testimonies of the word of God whereupon they are grounded And if there were such a chaunge it must needes be that it should be in 2. sortes to witte the one by the which the bread and the wine should be appointed to be the signes of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ and the other to conuert the substance of the bread and of the wine into his body and bloud after that they should haue bene made the signes thereof by the first consecration and by the first chaunge which should haue bene made by the same And by this meane it would come to passe that there should be 2. consecratiōs and 2. sorts of sacramental words The first to consecrat cause the bread the wine to be the signes and then the second to conuert them afterward into the bodie and into the bloud of Iesus Christ or else it must be that the same very woordes should do both at one instant And if the same myght be done in the supper there is no reason why it should not be done also in the other sacraments for the reasons which I haue alreadie declared and chiefely in those in the which the holy Ghost hath vsed like maners of speach as in the supper Note We say thē that there is no more chaunge of the substance of the signes thereof then there is in those of the other sacramēts that there is none other at al but in the vse which cōsisteth in this that the matter which is taken for the signes of the sacraments is applied and serueth to another vse and an other end then his did before that time And if there be none other chaunge in the supper of the Lord there can then be none other in the masse if it be his true supper And if it be not his true supper it is not then a sacramēt of the Lord but is rather a kind of magike and of sorcerie Chapter xx Of the ground of the errour of transsubstanciation of the absurdities which followe the same and of the application of the sacramental words to those persons which are capablc and what faith there is there required BUt the Romaine doctors hauing not wel vnderstood the meaning nor the maners of speach of the auncient doctors haue taken them for a chaunge of one substance into an other in stead of taking them for the chaunge which is in the vse thereof It is no maruaile at all if they be fallē into that errour seing that they haue so il vnderstood the nature of the sacrament of the supper that not only they haue conuerted it into a sacrifice in their masse but also they haue made it a sacrament of the altar the which they accompt for a sacrament yea when it is out of the vse therof Wherfore seing they know not what the true vse of the supper is no more haue they well vnderstood what was the chaunge of the signes in the same in respect of their proper vse For that cause euen as they haue chaūged their vse into an other wholly newe and straunge by their doctrine and inuention euen so haue they found out an other newe sort of chaunge of the substance of the signes of the supper into the substance of the thing signified by them against the doctrine and the vsage of al the auncient Church This ignorance and newe inuention hath beene the cause of great and filthie errours and abuses of the transsubstanciation and of the infinite absurdities that the same draweth after it We must then first note Note in what sort the word is adioyned to the matter of the signes to know in what sort the same is dedicated and consecrated to that vse by the same word according to that which I haue lately alleadged of Saint Augustine saying The word is ioyned to the element and it is made a sacrament And then we must goe on further to consider howe the same worde is applied to the persons to whom the sacraments are administred and for whose cause the matter of the signes and of the sacraments is dedicated and consecrated to that vse whereunto it serueth For if the word were not ioyned and applied but onely to the matter of the signes the which Saint Augustine calleth element because it is taken of these earthly elements it should not be conuerted into a sacramēt by the conuersion of the vse whereunto it is conuerted but should alway remaine in his first qualitie should not be qualified as it is when that it is applied to the vse of the sacraments For God hath not giuē the word to man to declare the same to insensible creatures Note to pronounce it ouer thē For that belōgeth to magiciās forcerers charmers and enchaunters which doe abuse it cōtrary to the true vse therof For it is their custome so to applie their charmes enchantmēts to pronounce thē secretly with a whispering voice to babble mumble thē without vnderstanding as also Esay doth witnesse And therefore Saint Augustine sayeth yet very well that the element is made a sacrament by the word which
Saint Peter or some other of the Apostles had administred the same â–ª On the other side if Saint Peter him self or any other of the Apostles yea a very Angel should administer it in that sort as it is at this day administred in the Romaine Churche and should saye masse as the Romaine priestes at this dayâ— there doe yet could it not be the supper of thâ— Lorde nor acceptable or pleasaunt vnto God â–ª for so much as his ordinance is there vtterly â—â—uerthrowen and in that respect could be no betâ—ter then if Iudas had saide it We must theâ— consider not only the vocation of the ministers but also the execution of their charge And wheâ—ther they doe both agree together the rest whicâ— may be in their person bee it neuer so vitious may not hinder the vertue of the Lordes miâ—â—sterie But if these thinges be there wanting 〈◊〉 namely the second Note the case is altered For if thâ— Treasorer or receiuour of a Prince doe deliâ—â— foorth false money in steade of good the offiâ—â— whereunto he is called can not make it othâ— then false money because he doeth not execuâ— the office faithfully and doth chaunge the goâ— money which he receiueth to distribute by thâ— commaundement of his Lorde into that which is not the same that he receiued to bee distributed And by this meane they which shall haue receiued the same shal be deceiued and spoiled On the other side although he were wicked and vniust if he did distribute it good such as he was commanded the same coulde not let at all but that it should be good that they which should receiue it should very well make their profite thereof So much concerning ministers that which their ministerie may receiue of them Let vs now speake of those to whom they are sent If they doe administer that which they ought to doe their ministery hath his vertue as wel in the respect of God as in the respect of them selues And as concerning those to whom they do administer them they may in no wise make their profite of it if they doe not receiue in faith that which is administred vnto them For they can not coÌ„municate with Iesus Christe nor be partakers of his graces the which he communicateth to his church by the meanes of the ministerie which he hath ordained in the same without hauing faith in him and his promises Then if they haue true faith they doe receiue with the signes the things signified by theÌ„ but if there be no faith in them they shall receiue nothing but that which they may receiue without the same but not at all that which without the same they may not receiue Nowe they may well receiue the signes of the sacramentes without faith because that they haue in their bodies and in their members the instrumentes whereby to receiue theÌ„ But they may in no wise receiue the thing which they signifie because that it is spirituall and that they want the spirituall instrumentes without the which no maÌ„ may receiue them the which no man may haue but by the meane of faith And for that cause Saint Augustine saith that they doe in deede receiue the sacrament by the which he vnderstandeth the signes but not the thing of the sacrament which is to saye that which is signified by them For he doth euen in that sort take the name of Sacrament when he so speaketh as it appeareth by that that he doth distinguish froÌ„ the thing signified by the same For the sacrament is not a true sacrament if it haue not alway these three things to witte the word of God and the signes ordained by him the thing which they signifie All these things neuer faile in the respect of God but they which do abuse them are the cause that it is not a sacrament vnto them in as much as they doe reiect through their vnbeliefe the grace which is offered vnto them by him Wherefore the like happeneth vnto those to whom the sacramentes are administred as to meÌ„ in respect of the SuÌ„ne the which shineth well for all but not to all For there are none but those which haue eies that do receiue his light the which he presenteth to all but in the meane time such as are blinde do not receiue it For they haue not the instrumeÌ„t without the which they cannot receiue it So standeth it betweene the faithfull and the vnfaithful in respect of the ministery of the Churche for it presenteth vnto all the benefites of god And albeit that the faithlesse do not receiue them at al that not withstanding the same letteth not but that the ministery hath alway in it selfe his vertue But in the meane while it is not ordeined but to be exercised towardes those for whome it was ordeined or otherwise it should not be a ministerie and by consequence should not haue his vertue Chapter xxii That the signes of the Supper may no more be Sacramentes out of the vsage thereof theÌ„ that of Baptisme out of the time of Baptisime TO returne againe then to the point whereupon I was I coÌ„clude that as the water of baptisme cannot be the Sacrament nor the signe of baptisme but onely in the administration of the same euen so is it of the bread and of the wyne in the Supper For the sacramentall wordes both of the one and of the other sacrament haue no more respect to the matter of the signes nor lesse to the persons which are capable in the baptisme then in the supper as S. Augustine hath very well vnderstoode it For if he had saide of the supper onely that the element is made a Sacrament when the worde is ioyned vnto it the Romaine doctors might more iustly serue them selues with his testimonies to proue the difference which they make betweene the baptisme and the supper saying that the sacramentall wordes of baptisme haue regarde and doe belong to the persons which men doe baptize and not at all to the matter of the sacrament which is the water and the signe thereof and that those of the supper haue regarde and do belong to the matter of the same to witte to the bread and to the wine and not to the persons as they do in baptisme Whereupon they do conclude that the bread consecrated by them is no lesse a sacrament beeing kept in a boxe pixte or hutch then when they doe administer it in their supper And therefore they do alway cal it the sacrament of the altar and the body of the Lorde and the bodie of God as well in their pixtes and hutches as in the administration of their supper And we on the contrary doe saye and prone forth with by the very wordes of Iesus Christe that if it were so in deede that the bread and the wine should be transsubstantiated into the bodie and into the bloud of him as the transsubstanciatours do
affirme yet for all that they can not make the same by their transsubstātiation if that forth w they do not distribute it that they be not communicated as Iesus Christ hath done and commaunded For they can not do that which he hath done and hath commaunded to be done in that matter doing the cleane contrary to that which hee hath done and commanded For the minister can not haue the vertue which the Lord hath giuen to the ministerie of his Apostles and of their true successours if it be not the very same ministery Nowe it appeareth plainly that it is not the very same ministerie for so much as the ordinance purpose of Iesus Christe is there manifestly and wholy violated and ouerthrowen For Iesus Christe declareth openly by the same that hee hath not ordeined the bread and the wine to be signes of the holy sacrament but to the ende that they should be administred distributed and communicated in the same according as he hath expresly commaunded saying Take ye and eate ye Likewise Take ye drinke ye Who may then beleeue that Iesus Chrisse did giue such power as the Romane priestes doe there attribute to these which do cleane contrary to his so expressed ordinance and commandemēt Note For there is not here question onely of their vocation but also of the execution of their charge and office For albeit that it were so that the vocatiō were in all things els very lawfull yet for all that doing cleane contrary to the same that which they do may in no wise be alowed by god And therfore I demande of them whether they be ordeined called to the ministery whereof they do so glorye either to preach the word of God and to administer the supper the other sacramēts according to the same as the Apostles and their true successours haue done before them or els to say masse and to ouerthrowe in the same the whole institution of the lord If it be but to say masse and to do onely that which they do in the same I can not in that respect graunt that their vocation nor the worke which they doe according to the same may be of god Wherefore I do againe conclude that albeit that the doctrine of their transsubstantiatiō were in the rest true yet notwithstāding it could not haue place out of the vse of the supper their bread and wine could be but bread and wine and not at all the body and the bloud of Christe except they were distributed and communicated accordingly as he hath expressedly commaunded And therefore I saye againe that so farre of is it that the testimonie which I haue alledged of S. Augustine may establishe the distinction which the transsubstantiatours doe make betweene Baptisme and the Supper whereof I haue euen nowe made mention that on the contrary it doeth cleane ouerthrowe it For he sayd those wordes speaking not at all of the Supper but of Baptisme by the which hee doeth plainely-declare that the sacramentall woorde thereof haue no lesse regarde to the signe which is appoynted vnto it then those of the Supper haue to the bread and to the wyne From whence it followeth that if for that cause there bee transsubstantiation in the one it is also in the other for the sacramentall woordes are no lesse spoken of the one then of the other to the persons which are capable of these Sacramentes Chapter xxiii Of the true distinction and difference which ought to be had betweene Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord. SEeing that I haue declared the abuse and the errour which is in the distinction and difference that the transsubstantiatours do make betweene the sacramēts of baptisme the supper touching their signes and the application of the same I will touch briefly the true distinction and difference which must bee put betweene them taking the same of their proper nature and vse And for the better vnderstanding of it we ought first to consider what it is that is cōmon to them both and then what it is that euery of them hath proper and speciall to it selfe They both haue this common and generall that they send vs to the death and to the sacrifice of Iesus Christe and that they are ordained to the end that by the meane of them we may communicate with Iesus Christe and may be made partakers of his benefites But because that God doth offer vnto vs diuers graces by him of the which he would make vs partakers he hath ordained two sacramentes the better to represent vnto vs his principall graces the which do comprehende all the rest For seeing that by sinne we are dead of spiritual death we must first receiue that life which is contrary to that death as though we should rise from spirituall death to spirituall life the which we receiue of the benefit of Iesus Christ who bringeth vs that life because he hath it in him selfe as he him selfe doth witnesse saying I am the way the truth and the life Likewise I am the resurrection and the life For we cannot attaine to the blessed resurrection and to eternal life which wee waite for but wee must first bee made partakers of this spirituall life which Iesus Christ by his death resurrectiō doth bring vnto vs. And we can not be made partakers thereof if we be not planted and graffed into him which is the new Adam and the new man and the newe stocke of mankinde in the which we must be renewed euen as we haue bene plāted and graffed into the olde Adam and into the olde man which is the olde stocke of mankinde the which is altogether corrupted through sinne wherefore we must needes be transported from this stocke into the other if we wil be transported from death to life And to bring this transportation to passe we must die to our olde man and must rise againe to our newe and we must spoyle our selues of the first and clothe vs with the second And because that we can not finde this vertue in our selues we must therefore take it of the death and resurrectiō of Iesus Christ to the ende that we may be throughly renewed and made newe creatures This grace and this benefit of Iesus Christe is called in the holy scripture Regeneration because that we are regenerated and borne againe as of newe by him not bodily but spiritually For we haue already bodily life by our first natiuitie the which wee hold of the stock of Adam Wherefore we haue no neede of a second natiuitie the which we do call new birth regeneration in respect of this life the which we haue already but in respect of the spirituall life the which we receiue of the stock of the new Adam of the new man as the stippes and braunches which are graffed into a good tree and as the vine braunches which receiue their life and nouriture of their stocke For that cause Iesus Christe
is compared to the stocke of the vine and his disciples to the braunches ioyned to the stocke and they which are not at al graffed nor ioyned together with him are cōpared to the braunches that are cut off from the stocke And therefore that this benefit is represented and communicated vnto vs by Baptisme and howe wee doe put off the olde man and put on the newe Saint Paul saieth that by Baptisme wee are dead and buried with Iesus Christ into his death and risen againe with him and planted and graffed and incorporated into him and that all those which are baptized haue put on Iesus Christ And thus much concerning the benefite of regeneratiō and of baptisme which is the Sacrament and testimonie thereof whereby the Lorde witnesseth vnto vs howe that he doeth renewe and regenerate vs in his sonne Iesus Christe into a newe life and doth refourme vs to his image by the vertue of his holy spirite and doth adopte vs by the spirit of adoption and doth aduowe and receiue vs for his children into his house which is his Church For the which cause we are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost Thus much concerning the nature and faults and very apparant to those which vnderstand what sacraments are and doe knowe the nature of them and also that of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ and of the vnion and the distinction of his diuine humaine natures in the person of him The first is touching the maner of expounding the sacramentall wordes of the supper The 2. concerning the signes of the same and the abolishing of them The 3. cōcerning the thinges that they signifie For the first they giue to the sacramentall woordes by Iesus Christ pronounced in the Supper an exposition altogether newe and strange which cannot in any wise agree with any kind of sacramētal speach that is in al the holy scripture like vnto that which Iesus Christ hath vsed in the Supper For first of a sacramentall proposition they wil make a natural proposition By meane whereof they haue already ouerthrowne the nature of the Sacraments For if I say of the bread of the Supper This bread is the body of Christ there is no apparance to take it naturally so as when I say Iesus Christ is man and Iesus Christ is God but this proposition must be taken sacramentally forsomuch as we must alwaies take the signification of the termes wordes which men doe vse according to the matter whereof men speake the nature of the same Wherfore if mē speake of natural things the wordes must be taken naturally but if men speake of spirituall and sacramentall thinges they must be vnderstoode spiritually and sacramentally If there be then sundry sortes of sacramental speaches in the scripture like to that which Iesus Christ did vse in the Supper there is no reason to take them in one sense in some sacraments and in an other cleane contrary in some others for so much as the matter is alwaies sacramentall and the maners of speache alwaies like And on the other side it is a great fault to take the wordes in their proper and naturall signification when they should be vnderstoode by figure and that the meaning of them cannot be true otherwise as they ought to bee vnderstoode chiefly for two causes in the speache of Iesus Christ in the Supper which woordes are at this day in controuersie The first is because that al other maners of sacramental speaches like vnto this may not be otherwise vnderstoode nor also diuers others which resemble them The other is that if they be expounded otherwise there followe infinite absurdities the which do sufficiently declare that such an exposition may not agree with the meaning of the wordes of the Lorde And that which more is on which side soeuer the transsubstantiatours their adherentes may turne them selues they can neuer in any wise expounde these woordes according to the very sense that they would giue them but that they will bee constrayned to acknowledge and receyue some figure as I haue very amply declared all these matters in diuers other bookes I say further also that they shall not bee able to finde in all the holy Scriptures any maner of speach which carieth with it transsubstanciation and conuersion of one substance into an other like to that that Iesus Christ hath vsed in his supper Wherfore is it then that they will here disguise and transsorme the language of the holy Ghost by a new exposition whereof they haue neither testimonie nor example in the whole scriptures namely in the matter of sacraments where they haue many to the contrarie For albeit they say they will take the wordes of Iesus Christe simply and according to the letter Yet for all that they doe it not when they doe expounde the meaning of them according to their doctrine For Iesus Christe hath not spoken that which they say by their exposition Chapter ii Of the abolishing of the signes of the Supper and of the things signified by them and consequently of all the sacrament by the Romaine Transsubstanciation THe other fault which is cōcerning the signes confisteth in that that by their exposition whereby they would establish transsubstanciation they doe abolish the material signes of the supper conuerting them into the thing which they signifie or at least they do confounde them both together whereas they should be distinguished the one from the other For euen as a sacrament cannot be a true sacrament without the woord of God no more can it be without material signes which are ioyned to that word as seales thereof Now if the substance of bread and wine were transsubstanciate and conuerted into that of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ there should be there no more bread nor wine by consequent there should be no more materiall signes forasmuch as there is none other but the bread and the wine From whence it should also folowe that there should be at all no sacrament And so willing to conuert the signes into the thing which they signifie they haue neyther the one nor the other For in abolishing the signes they abolish also the thyng which should be signified by them For it can not bee there offered nor communicated sacramentally as it ought to be set foorth and communicated if the meanes be taken awaye which the Lord hath ordayned to make vs partakers thereof And for to alleadge that the signes doe alwaies remayne signes albeit that they be conuerted into the thing which they should signifie because that their accidents do alwayes remaine whole the which do there remayne for signes that is not to satisfie the question and the difficultie but to make it yet greater For as the accidents may not be without substaunce no more may they be accidentes of substances if they be not agreeable to their
nature For albeit that a man may not see and perceyue the substances but by their accidents it foloweth not for all that that all accidents do agree with euery substance but are attributed vnto them according to their nature and distinguished as thei are or otherwise al nature should be confounded in a marueilous cōfusion of substances and accidents And further wee haue to note that among accidents there be some that are so proper and natural to their substance whereof they be accidents that they may not be separated without corrupting the subiect which sustayneth them in sort that when they shall be separated it is no more that which it was when they were ioyned vnto it And by this meane the bread the wine may be no more bread and wine if they haue not the colour the sauour the other qualities which are proper and naturall vnto them And if they cannot be that which they should naturally bee without their natural qualities and other accidentes their qualities and accidents may much lesse be without their substance Chap. iii. That the bread and the wine of the Supper can not be the true signes of the same if they do not remayne alway bread wine in their proper substance and nature and that the transsubstanciators cannot couer their errour with a couer of miracle FRom whence it followeth of two thinges the one which is that the bread wine remaine alwaies bread and wine aswell after the pronunciation of the sacramentall woordes as before forsomuch as they doe alwayes keepe their first nature as all the senses may iudge the which are not false or els it must be that there is some illusion which deceiueth the senses and that maketh the thinges to appeare otherwise then they are in deede by meane whereof the signes should be false not true signes Wherefore being false they could not be fignes of true things for the trouth cannot be represented by a lie nor the true by a false forsomuch as there must needes be a true correspondance betwene the signes and the thinges which they signifie They must then confesse that the accidents are wholly without substance and without subiect against the whole order of God and of nature or els that the accidents of bread and of wine be the accidents of the bodie of the bloud of Iesus Christ and that the same body and the same bloud are the subiect and the substance of them On which side soeuer they will take it Note they shal alwaies fall into marueilous absurdities For they may not here alledge miracle if that they will not by that meanes ouerthrowe the whole nature of the miracles of God as by their doctrine they do ouerthrowe the whole order of nature For as the power of God may not be separated from his wisdome by the which he neuer employeth his power but wisely and keeping alwaies good order euen so no more doth hee be it that he worke naturally or supernaturally but that he maketh that which he hath made that that which is is the same in deede that it is For if it were otherwise he should be against him selfe and against his owne woorkes Note And therefore albeit that he be almightie yet for all that he doth not neither also will he doe that the bread and the wine shall be bread and wine and that notwithstanding they shall not be at al and that they are are not at all euen together that which they are and that he would that they should be The which thing they should be if the bread and the wine of the supper did keepe continually their former nature as they do in deed and the experience sheweth if and yet for al that they should not hold their proper substance without the which they could not haue nor kepe their naturall vertue as in deede they do hold it aswell after the consecration as before And if they wil not confesse it they must then needes confesse that the naturall senses which God hath giuen vs doe deceyue vs and that the bodily and outward senses doe shewe false things to the spiritual and inward senses And if it be so there is then the woorke of God corrupted and his order wholly peruerted For euen as wee may not separate his wisedome from his power no more may wee also separate his will the which wee cannot knowe but so farre forth as he declareth by his worde Nowe he hath not declared vnto vs by the same that the bread which should be baked betweens two hote prons should be conuerted into the body of his sonne Iesus Christ by the vertue of certaine wordes spoken ouer it by the priests so appointed qualified as they are in the Romaine Church nor that the same hath euer bene done nor that it shall be done as he hath declared that his sonne should take vnto him our flesh and that he should be conceyued in the wombe of a virgine of whom he should be borne and that he should be conuersant not inuisibly but visibly among men Euen so is it of all the other articles of our faith But of that of Transsubstanciation there is no one Prophet which hath euer prophecied any thing nor Apostle no Euangelist that euer wrote any thing in such sorte as the transsubstanciatours doe expound it and set it forth For this cause the true auncient Church and the auncient doctors and diuines of the same by whose handes wee haue receiued al the symboles which the Church yet at this day vseth which doe conteyne the Articles of our faith haue not set downe any thing touching this Transsubstanciation nor no one of them which doe depend no not in the very symbole the which the priestes doe recite and sing in their masse Chapter iiii That the doctrine of transsubstanciation can not be true without spoyling of Iesus Christe and his humaine nature NOw if they take their second point whereof I haue lately spoken they redouble their faulte for by that meane they spoyle Iesus Christ of the proprieties without the which his humaine nature cannot be a true humaine nature in sort that they giue him a humaine bodie the which altogether and at one time shal be a humaine and not a humaine bodie For it cannot be a true humaine bodie if it haue not al that which is proper to a true humaine bodie and without the which it cannot be an humaine bodie be it glorified or not glorified For it must needes be alway that a bodie be a bodie be it glorified or not and not a spirite and that it doe keepe alway his naturall proprieties without the which it cannot be a true bodie and such as God hath created it and would that it should be For euen as the soule of man vnited to his bodie cannot be a bodie because that it is a spirite but remayneth alway a soule and spirite euen so the
bodie cannot be the soule because it cannot be a spirite or els if it be conuerted into spirit it is no more a bodie as also the spirite is no more the spirite if it be conuerted into bodie The like is of the bodie and of the soule of Iesus Christe and of his diuine and humaine nature of the which euery one of them holdeth so continually his proprieties that the one cannot be that which the other is For albeit that they be vnited together by personall vnion yet for all that they remaine alway distinct in their vnitie according to their proprieties and not confused in sort that the one cannot be the other wherefore we may not say at all that the diuinitie is the humanitie or that the humanitie is the diuinitie nor that the one is conuerted into the other For if there were such a conuersion they should no more be that which they are but should be chaunged into other natures which thing cannot be For God can neuer be but God Wherefore he can not be conuerted into man but he may well vnite man to him selfe as he hath done in the person of his sonne Iesus Christ In likewise man can not be conuerted into God forsomuch as he is a creature that God which is the creator of all cannot be created but is without beginning as he is without end and infinite the which thing can not agree with any creature From whence it foloweth that the Goddes which are created and that haue had any beginning are no Goddes at all but are onely creatures or else illusions And as the substaunce of God cannot be conuerted into that of man nor that of man into that of God for otherwise God should not be God nor man should not be man at all Euen so neyther the one nor the other may be without his conuenient and naturall proprieties For if the humaine nature haue the proprieties belonging to the diuine nature it is no more humaine nature but diuine In like sort if the body and the bloud of Iesus Christ haue the natural proprieties which doe belong to the bread and to the wine as they haue indeed if they haue their qualities accidents these same effects they are not at all the body and the bloud of him but bread and wine remayning alwaies in their substance with their accidents Chapter v. That the doctrine of transsubstanciatiō doth ouerthrow a great parte of the Articles of the faith and Christian religion concerning the worke of the redemptiō wrought by Iesus Christ THen euen as the transsubstanciators doe abolish from the supper the true signes of the same by their transsubstanciation euen so doe they take away the thinges signified by them to wit the body and bloud of Iesus Christ in asmuch as they transfigure them into an other nature spoyling them of their bodyly proprieties in such sort that they are no more a very body nor a very bloud forsomuch as they haue not their naturall proprieties but haue those of the bread and of the wine which should represent them and should not be the thing it selfe the which they should signifie And by the same ineane they ouerthrowe all the Articles of our faith touching the incarnation of Iesus Christ and his conception and natiuitie his death resurrection and ascension into heauen for if he haue such a body as they attribute vnto him in their masse and supper it is not a true humayne body in asmuch as it hath no thing at all of that which is required in a true humayne body but onely that which is proper and naturall to the bread if it be so that the bread be conuerted into the same From whence it foloweth nyther that it is not the same very body which was conceyued and borne of the virgine Mary and which died rose againe and went vp into heauen or else if it be the same very body it was neuer a true body neyther in the conception and natiuitie nor in the death resurrection and ascension or else it was afterwarde chaunged eyther into an imaginatiue body or into a spirite or into God in sort that it is become infinite as God and that it is euery where in his proper essence and substance as God or at the least that it is in many places at one instaunt and that it hath no one qualitie nor quantitie agreeable to a humayne bodie The which things can in no wise agree with the nature of a true body And that which I do say of the doctrine of the transsubstanciators may be also said of that of the consubstanciators who albeit they doe condenme transsubstanciation as we do yet for al that they doe constitute a corporall presence of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ with the bread and with the wine in the supper which is not greatly different from that of the transsubstanciators and draweth after it as many absurdities concerning the proprieties of the humaine nature of Iesus Christ Chapter vi That the doctrine aswell of the transsubstanciators as also of the consubstanciators hath no certayne foundation vpon the wordes of Iesus Christ and for what causes and of the chiefe different which is betweene them and vs touching the presence of Iesus Christ in the Supper IT may not then bee that the transsubstantiatours nor also the cōsubstantiacors may bragge and glorye as they do that they haue the expressed worde of Iesus Christe who sayd This is my body and that their faith of transsubstantiation or consubstantiation is grounded vpon the expressed and certaine worde of god For seeing that their faith doth ouerthrowe the true faith of the principall articles of the Christian doctrine and religion which are very plaine throughly certaine it followeth then in deede that it can not be a true faith as touching that point and by consequent it cannot bee builded vpon the word of god For they may not bragge to haue it in their fauour if they do not take it in his true sense without the which it is no more the worde of God but it is disguised and ouerthrowen Now it appeareth euidently that it is taken in an other then his owne true sense when it is taken in such a sense as ouerthroweth the principal articles of the Christian faith which are not grounded vpon any passage of the holy scriptures that is not well vnderstoode but vpon so many testimonies of the Prophetes and of the Apostles and so plaine and euident that there may remaine no ambiguitie or doubt to those which do beleeue the diuine letters The which thing can not bee saide of the doctrine of transsubstantiation nor of consubstantiation which haue no other ground but vpon a wrong and euill vnderstanding exposition of the wordes of Iesus Christe the which doth plainely and manifestly appeare to bee contrary to the true sense of the same for so much as it is impossible to agree it
either with the other maners of sacramentall speache of the scriptures and with their liuely signification and exposition or els with the nature as well of the sacramentes as of the true bodie of Iesus Christe or of all those articles of the faith whereof I haue now made mention For the exposition which in matter of sacramētes can not agree with all those points may not be true On the contrary that which disagreeth not at all but doth very well agree with all these pointes may in no wyse be reiected as false Now we saye that the same of ours doth agree with them very well in as much as it agreeth with all other the like passages of the scriptures and like maners of sacramentall and figuratiue speaches and with the natures of the sacramentes and of the signes of them and with that of the body and of the blood of Iesus Christ and with the articles of our faith For we are not at all in controuersie with the transsubstantiatours nor with the consubstantiators touching the wordes of the Supper whether they be of Iesus Christe and whether they bee true or no and whether hee be present in the Supper or absent and whether his body and his blood be there present and distributed and communicated or no for wee all agree in all these poyntes But the different is onely in the maner of the presence and communication to witte whether it bee bodily or spiritually and whether the body and the bloud of Iesus Christ be there distributed and eaten and drunken bodily and naturally or els spiritually and suppernaturally We saye that it is spiritually and supernaturally by meane of the reasons which I haue already alleadged the other saye that it is bodily and naturally which thing wee can not graunt them if wee will not foorthwith graunt them al the absurdities whereof I haue made mencion and a great nomber of other which folowe their doctrine Chapter vii Of the adoration of the bread and of the wine as well in the Masse as in their pixtes and boxes and of the idolatric that therein is SO much touching the errour of transsubstantiation from whence there followeth yet an other very great very vnsufferable the which I set downe for the seconde concerning the matter of transsubstantiation and for the seuenth of the twelue into which nomber I bring all the poyntes This same is concerning the worshipping of the bread and of the wine in stead of Iesus Christ the very sonne of God This is an errour which yet draweth after it many other The first is that where the bread the wine should be distributed in the masse to those which be there present as the Lorde hath commaunded that it should be done in the supper they doe onely set them out to shewe lifting them vp on high and causing them to bee worshipped of euery one as idols through great superstition and idolatrie whose like neuer was since the beginning of the world howe great soeuer the blindnesse haue bene For as Cicero himselfe witnesseth there were neuer men that did beleeue or thinke that that which they did eate was god And there was neuer any people so beastly which did thinke that the idols the visible things which they did honour and worship were really and essentially gods but onely that they were remembrances and representations But the idolatrie whereof I now speake passeth on much further For it contenteth not it self to cause the bread and the wine to be worshipped and honoured as holy sacred signes ordeined to be remembrances and representations of the very body blood of Iesus Christ but as Iesus Christ him selfe in fleshe and bone and man and God together For they affirme that there is no more bread nor wine but that that which was bread and wine before the consecration is really and in deede Iesus Christe him selfe which thing may not be by meane of the reasons which I haue already alleadged From whence it followeth that the bread and the wine are there worshipped for gods that that same worshipping is a very idolatrie and cleane contrary to the holy ordinaunce of the Lorde and to that which he hath sayd and done and commaunded in the institution and administration of the same For he commandeth expresly to doe that which he did in the remembrance of him and not otherwise Nowe hauing taken the bread the wine hee did not lift them vp on high nor caused them to be worshipped by his disciples before he did distribute them but did distribute them to euery of thē with expresse commandement that they should take both the one and the other euen at the same very time that they shoulde eate the bread and drinke the wine euen as they did in deede And if this can not be proued to be done neither in their masse nor in the very supper which they do administer to the people there is thē lesser reason to reserue the bread in pixtes caskets cupbordes and such like not onely to cause it to bee worshipped as God or to beare it about in procession in great pompe and solemnitie to that very ende as the Persians did beare in time past their sacred fire but also to coniure the time the tempestes and the Deuils and to vse them in such like superstitions according as it falleth in their fantasie For as I haue already heretofore shewed albeit that it were so that according to their doctrine of transsubstantiation the bread were chaunged into the bodie of Iesus Christe yet for all that it coulde not haue place out of the vse of the Sacrament by meane of the reasons that I haue already yelded Nowe it is very true that there is no vse there where the Sacrament is not administred and that it is not administred there where it is not distributed with the woorde to those which are capable of it And if they doe applie the signes thereof to any other vse then to the same for the which they are ordeyned that vse is not lawfull wherefore it may not bee taken for an vse but shoulde bee reiected as an abuse manifestly contrary to the woorde and ordinaunce of the Lorde And on the other syde if this abuse were not so great yet so is it for all that that this worshipping of the bread and of the wyne and of their holy hostie can not bee without putting them alwaye which doe worshippe them in great daunger of Idolatrie At the least it can not bee done in fayth Note for so much as it must needes bee that the worshippers remayne alwaye in doubt touching the consecration of the priestes for so much as according to their doctrine there is no transsubstantiation if the intent to consecrate be not ioyned with the pronunciation of the woordes and that there is no man that can iudge and bee assured of the purpose of the priestes
no more then they can of their fayth onely God excepted which knoweth the heartes Wherefore either they put them selues in daunger to bee idolaters according to their owne very doctrine worshipping the bread and the wyne in steade of the body and of the blood of Iesus Christe or els they must needes worship them with condition the which can not bee voyde of doubt From whence it followeth that it can not bee in fayth but onely in opinion and by consequence it is sinne seeing that whatsoeuer is not of fayth and without the same can not please God but is sinne Chapter viii Of the diuision of the signes of the Supper and of the Sursum corda of the Masse and of the signification of the same and whereunto it serueth at this present ANd on the other side seing that the Lord hath ordeined 2. signes in this sacramēt the one may not be separated from the other but that his ordinance is there violated and ouerthrowen contrary to his intent and his expressed commandement Now so it is that the wine appointed to be that signe of the bloud is separated from the bread which is appointed to be the signe of the body not onely when the bread is reserued in their pixtes boxes all alone without the wine but also in their supper which they administer beside their masse to them whome they call the Lay people From whence it foloweth that this bread is not at all the sacrament of the supper for so much as it is not applied to his true vse according to the intent and expresse commandement of Iesus Christ but cleane contrary And if it be not a sacrament of the supper it can not be an other sacrament For Iesus Christ hath not instituted any other to that which he hath appointed the bread for a signe but only this And if it be not at all a sacrament how may it be the body of Iesus Christ Iesus Christ him selfe God and man yea in so many places at one instant as there be boxes pixtes cupbordes and caskets in the which this bread is reserued and kept as a relique Therefore I would gladly that the transsubstantiators and Romaine doctors should well consider in all their worshippings that they doe to this bread bee it in their masses or in their pixtes cupbordes and boxes or in their processions to what purpose a litle before they do lift it vp in their masse to cause it to be worshipped they say and sing Lift vp your heartes which is as much to say Sursum corda For it is an exhortation to the Christian people taken of the true ancient Churche whereby the ministers did admonishe them which should cōmunicate at the supper not to stay them selues and rest vpon the visible signes of the same but that they should lifte vp their heartes and their mindes on high to heauenly and diuine things represented by them and to the Lorde which only can communicate those things and will bee serued and worshipped in spirit and truth as he him selfe witnesseth and not in visible and corruptible things nor in things base and earthly For if the time be come that he will not be any more worshipped either in Ierusalem or in the mountaine no more will hee be worshipped betweene the handes of the Romaine priestes nor in their masses and boxes cupbordes pixtes and caskets For that cause after that this exhortation Sursum corda was giuen to all the assistantes they answered Habemus ad dominum which is to saye we haue them vp to the Lorde to witte the heartes the which they were exhorted to lift vp on high Note For the same was spoken in a tongue vnderstoode of al. But to what purpose serueth it now to sing in the masse Sursum corda before the poore people and the ignorant which knowe not what men saye vnto thē neither do they vnderstand at al the exhortation which is giuen vnto them for so much as it is deliuered in Latin and not in their owne language And although that it were deliuered vnto them in their owne language saying Lift vp your heartes on high it coulde not serue them but onely to make them lift them vp to the handes of the priestes which holde and lift vp their hostie and their cuppe euen as hye as their pixtes boxes wherin they holde their holy hostie inclosed no hygher at all For seeing that they doe teache them there to seeke God Iesus Christe our Lorde they neede not to lift their heartes more high to worshyppe him in spirit and trueth but rather that they doe abase them to the earth where they shewe them their visible god whereupon they thinke and rest Wherefore they may very wel boaste thē selues that they haue a god which they see and hee seeth not them But as for vs we knowe no God created nor visible but onely hee which hath created all things and is not him selfe created and which is eternall and inuisible the which doeth very well see vs albeit that we see not him at all for so much as his diuine nature can not bee seene And albeit that hee made him selfe visible in his Sonne Iesus Christe in whome hee hath declared him selfe yet for all that Iesus Christ would withdrawe his bodily presence from this visible worlde to the ende that wee shoulde not seeke him any more in this base territorie nor in corruptible things but that wee shoulde seeke him in the heauens where hee is at the right hande of the Father to worshippe him there in spirit and trueth For hee will not bee worshipped with any other worshippe then that wherewith hee hath taught vs that God must bee worshipped seeing that hee is the cause for the which hee is worshipped for otherwyse it should not be lawfull to worship him seeing that that honour apperteineth to none but to God onely Chapter ix Of the auncientie of transsubstantiation and of the worshipping and keeping of the holy Romaine hostie and of the feast and procession which is dedicated vnto it LEt them not then finde it straunge if we doe not beleeue thē at all when they say vnto vs Lo here is Christ yea there is Christ behold he is in the wildernesse or in the closets For Iesus Christ doth not giue vs testimonie of such a presence of him in his Churche neither of any such comming of his from heauen but in deede giueth vnto vs one cleane contrary No more may they also alleage vnto vs in this behalf the authoritie of the auncient Church nor of the ancient doctours nor the auncientie of their religion touching such worshipping reseruation and keeping of the bread of their holy hostie For the auncient Church hath at the least continued vpon the point of a thousand and three score yeeres before that the doctrine of transsubstantiation was brought into it receiued and approued by the councel in
This is my body which is giuen and broken for you he sayd it not in respect of that which he then did in the supper towardes God his father but in respect of that which he after did towardes him vpon the crosse very shortly after his supper For it is there where he was giuen for vs when he offered him selfe vppon the crosse in sacrifice 〈◊〉 his father and not at all in the supper For it 〈◊〉 not there where he gaue him selfe for vs ▪ 〈◊〉 where he is giuen to vs for he is there giuen vnto vs in asmuch as he is cōmunicated vnto vs by the meane of this sacrament of the Supper Whereupon we haue to note that Iesus Christ did vse the present time for the time to come according to the Ebrue maner of speach which vseth often times indifferently the time passed the time present and the time to come the one for the other chiefly when it cōcerneth the promisses of God forsomuch as that which he promiseth is as certaine as if it were already present or as if it were already done Note The like may we say also of that which is sayd of the wine This is my bloud of the newe testament the which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes For it was not in the supper that the body of Iesus Christ was giuen and broken and his bloud shed but vpon the crosse and in his death and passion For the which canse the translator of the common Latin translatiō the which the priests vse in their masse and in all their diuine seruice hath translated these woordes into the time to come for the time presēt saying which shal be giuen and which shal be broken and which shal be shed c. in the stead that there it is which is giuen and which is broken and which is shed in the woordes of the Euangelistes and of Saint Paul as they haue set them downe in the Greeke And al the auncient doctors of the Church haue not taken thē in any other sense And forsomuch as they did wel vnderstand what differēce there was betwene sacrament and sacrifice they had not any masse to offer vnto God a sacrifice of the body and of the bloud of Iesus Christ as the Romaine priests at this day doe boast thē selues to do in theirs but in the stead of such a masse they had the Supper the which they did not celebrate at any time but that they had presently communion of the faithfull to whom the same was administred and not only to a priest in particular as they do in the masse Chapter xiii Of the name of sacrifice falsely taken for the Romaine masse how the Romaine doctors in stead to proue that Iesus Christ and his Apostles did institute and celebrate the Masse doe proue that they instituted and celebrated the Supper in stead to proue that the auncient doctors did take it for a propiciatory sacrifice they proue that they vsed the name of sacrifice in an other sēse BEholde then here one great trumpery the which proceedeth either of the ignorance or of the malice of the Romaine doctors priests which doe make the ignorant beleeue that the auncients did call the Supper sacrifice in the same very sense that they at this day do take it in their masse wherein they doe them great wrong For they did neuer so vnderstand or teach And albeit their should haue so vnderstood taught we mought not folowe their doctrine in that behalfe because that it should be cleane contrary to that of the Apostles and namely to all the Epistle to the Hebrues And then folowing that trumpery they doe yet build an other very great one vpon the same which is the second wherof I am now to speake which is that they willing to proue that the auncient doctors haue approued their Masse and that the same was in the auncient Church such as it is at this day they take the passages wherein the auncient fathers doe vse the name of sacrifice oblation and offering and such other like as wel in the latine as in the Greeke when they speake of the Supper or of all the diuine seruice as though they had vsed the name of masse in the same and that they had vnderstod by the names which they did vse of such a masse as the Romaine masse nowe is Questio For here is no question whether the auncients did vse such words or names but whether they tooke those words in the same sense that they are at this day taken in the Romaine Church And albeit that they should haue vsed the name of masse in the stead of the name of sacrifice and such like that which they vsed to signifie all the diuine seruice of the Christians yet should they haue nothing gayned at all For it must yet be that they doe shew that the masse of the aunciētes was such an one as theirs is and that there was in it like sacrifice The which they shal neuer do For albeit that some of the auncients did begin to vse the name of masse for the diuine seruice after three or foure hundred yeres after the natiuity of our Lorde that notwithstanding it was but in small vse yet in two hundred yeres after that to wit before the time of Gregory the first no more was it then taken for such a masse as it is at this daye in the Romaine Church For there was not yet at that time any such neyther could there be for so much as the greatest nomber of the workemen which haue framed the same from age to age frō yere to yere for a lōg time were not yet borne at the time Behold then howe the Romayne doctors doe deceiue the ignorant vnder the name of sacrifice and vnder the authoritie of the auncient doctors as vnder the name and authoritte of Iesus Christ and of the Apostles For after that they haue greatly bragged that Iesus Christ and the Apostles did institute and celebrate the masse they proue to confirme the same that they haue instituted and celebrated the Supper wherein they proue and confirme that which is not at all in question or in doubt and not that at all which is in controuersie but in stead of prouing and confirming that they proue and confirme an other thing which is out of al controuersie Euen so doe they concerning the auncient fathers For willing to proue by them the same of the masse and of the sacrifice thereof they proue that they haue vsed the name of sacrifice and other names also as well Greeke as Latines which signifie as much as diuine seruice and publike ministerye in our language Chapter xiiii In what sort the sacrifices of the lawe were sacraments and sacrifices both together and that the supper cannot be both but onely a sacrament and of the agreement difference that is betwene the same and the sacrament of the Paschal lambe BVt they
things which might bee offered and sacrificed according to the Lawe to the ende that the people which came from farre should be eased and that they shoulde not take the payne to leade with them or to carry so farre that which they would offer and sacrifice But for so much as those marchauntes did it not for that cause nor to the ende that God might be the more honoured but tooke onely that colour to make it to serue to their gayne and to couer their auarice therewith Iesus Christe did dryue them out as Theeues Sacrilegious and Robbers which did villainously abuse the name of God by a false title home woulde hee then at this day endure the sellers of Sacramentes and of Masses For if their doctrine of transsubstantiation were true they coulde not sell any Masse without selling foorthwith Iesus Christe iâ— flesh bones the which they do make of the bread and of the wine of the same according to their owne very doctrine And if it bee not true so much the more false and vntrue is the marchandize This notwithstanding he that should suppresse all the faires markets traffiques which they do make should forthwith see very fewâ— Priests at the Altar For it is for such stuffe that they doe so fight against the preaching of the Gospell to mainteine their masse and the sacrifice of the same and consequently their transsubstantiation which is the foundation thereof and of all that which it draweth with it Note And iâ— they do confesse that their masse is no propiciatorie sacrifice but only Eucharistique and commemoratiue of the sacrifice propiciatorie of Iesus Christ as some of them are constrained to confesse seing that they may not otherwise saue nor giue colour to their doctrine they may not yet for all that escape cleare but are yet the more to be coÌ„demned For they sell to their marchaÌ„ts one marchandize for an other to witte a sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing in steade of a sacrifice propiciatorie for the remission of sinnes and the redemption of soules as they doe boast that they do in their masse And if it be neither the one nor the other as I haue already proued yet are the marchants which do buie such marchandizes the more deceiued Wherefore I leaue theÌ„ to thinke in what estimation they ought to haue their marchantes For if they committed none other faulte this here should be sufficieÌ„t to cause them to leaue abandon them cleane For who is so euill a marchant as taketh pleasure to bee deceiued and to buye euill marchandizes Thus much concerning the sacrifice of the masse I will now come to the ninth point which is yet in controuersie the which is concerning the coÌ„munion as wel of the Supper as of the Masse The thirde Booke Chapter 1. Of the CommunioÌ„ which may be in the Romaine Masse and Supper and how there is not at all any true Communion and how that it may in no wise be the true Supper of Iesus Christ I Haue already here before declared howe that the Supper may not be the Supper without the Communion of the things which do belong thereunto and which ought to bee therein coÌ„municated according to the ordinaÌ„ce of Iesus Christ Now there is no such communion in the Romaine Masse From whence it foloweth that it is not the supper of the Lord consequently also that it is not the Sacrament thereof but is a new sacrameÌ„t inuented by meÌ„ and wholy contrary to that of the Lorde from the which they woulde giue vnto it his foundation and his countenance For what communion is there ordinarily either in priuate or particular masses either in those which are publike the which they do cal parochial for there is both in the one in the other but the priest only which is at the altar who doth participate of the bread of the wine that which he doth consecrate in the same For he eateth and drinketh al alone at his altar without offering or presenting any thing of that which he eateth and drinketh not only to the people which doe assist at his masse but also to his owne fellowes which are of the same occupation that he is of and which helpe him to saye and doe the same and are the nerest to his table and altar This notwithstanding he calleth this litle banquet which hee maketh in his masse Communion and the praier which followeth it shortly after PostcommunioÌ„ CoÌ„munion is taken of common but what is it that is there common where one taketh all The only name which they do vse doth conuince them of their errour and of the wrong that they do to all Christian people And if they do replie that they â—o call this litle banquet Communion Repl. not in respect of the distribution which is there made of the bread of the wine which is there made to those which doe assist at their masse for so much as there is there none at all made according as the Lord hath ordeined in his supper but in respect of the communication that the priest hath with Iesus Christ whereunto I answere Answere that that answere solution is not sufficieÌ„t enough For Iesus Christ hath not instituted a Supper wherein one onely minister shoulde communicate and should distribute the Supper vnto him self alone but hath ordained it for al those which are capable thereof in his Churche which is the communioÌ„ of Saincts to the which this sacrament belongeth in generall and not to certain particulars only And therfore S. Paul hath written The bread which we breake is it not the communioÌ„ of the body of Christ the cup of blessing the which we blesse is it not the coÌ„munion of the blood of Christ For we which are many are one bread one body in asmuch as we are al partakers of one very bread S. Paul doth here set forth vnto vs 2. things The first that the supper is not for one alone but for many for the whol church the other that it ought not to be dismeÌ„bred but to be fully administred aswel to the ChristiaÌ„ people as to the ministers of the same without cutting froÌ„ theÌ„ that one half or any thing whatsoeuer as the Romain priestes doe in their Supper which they doe administer to the people in cutting the cup cleane from them For it sufficed them not to cut them off from all the Communion of their masses which they do saye and doe dayly and likewise from that of the parrochial masses which they do say euery sunday but that they must needes cut from them the full one halfe of that Supper which they do minister vnto theÌ„ once twise â–ª or thrise in the yere vpon certaine of their most solemne feastes The which thing is yet an other newe inuention cleane contrarie both to the supper of the Lord and to all the true ancieÌ„t Church For before the Councel of Constance holden in the yere
1415. there was neuer any ordinance made in the Church whereby it was forbidden to administer the cuppe to al the people as the Romaine doctours them selues are enforced to confesse This notwithstanding the corrupted and abastardised Romaine church which hath made this ordinance cleane contrary to the expresse coÌ„mandement of Iesus Christ and to the obseruatioÌ„ of the true ancieÌ„t church as well the Romaine as of all the true vniuersall churche is that true ancient Romaine Church and the true catholique Churche which did immediatly succeede the Apostles if we will beleeue the Romaine doctors albeit that shee be apparantly cleane contrary to it Chapter ii Whether the Supper of the Lord may be a true supper if any of the signes of the same be cut off and whether Iesus Christ did ordayne any thing superfluous in the same whether he did ordeine one sort of supper for one sort of men and an other for the others BVt they will yet replie that as the bloud is contayned vnder the body and that the lay people in receiuing the body receiue also the bloud albeit that they doe receiue but the signe of the body and not that of the bloud euen so when the priest communicateth alone in the masse he communicateth for al the rest and all the rest do communicate also in the person of him Behold a very faire starting hole and a reason very wel grounded Whereupon I aske them for the first whether Iesus Christ did ordaine any thing superfluous and in vaine in his holy supper and that was not very necessary I do not thinke at all that they dare gainesay this If there be theÌ„ nothing superfluous neyther that is ordayned in vayne and without great and necessary cause in this sacrameÌ„t and mysteries which it containeth wherefore is it that they dare to cut off any thing froÌ„ thence And if there be any thing superfluous and not necessary Note wherefore doe they not as wel cut off in their masse that whiâ—â— they do cut off in the supper of the people forse much as it must needes be that there be equaltie among al in the supper of the Lorde For hâ— ordained none other for the ministers then hâ— did for the people nor for the pastours then fâ—â— the sheepe nor for the clerkes then for the layâ— And what reason haue they to cut off rather thâ— wine Demaund then the bread They wil answere that 〈◊〉 is because that there is greater daunger in repect of the wine Answere by meane of the shedding thaâ— may happen and consequently of the bloud intâ— that which it is conuerted by meane of their transsubstanciation Wherfore is it then that the auncâ—ent Church did not aswel feare this daunger before the time of the Councel of Constaunce a did that Church which hath bin since There 〈◊〉 no doubt at al but that the errour of transsubstanciation hath brought foorth this also For thâ— Church which hath counterfaited it hath haâ— since greater feare to shed the bloud into thâ— which the wine is conuerted according to theâ—â— doctrine then the true auncient Church haâ—â— which did not know any such transsubstanciatâ—on Wherefore she did not also feare any suâ—shedding of the bloud of Iesus Christ Note And fâ—â— that also that she did not vse to keepe the breâ—â— and the wine to make them to be worshippeâ— as they do at this day in the Romaine Church in like sort she did not feare that the body and the bloud of the Lord should corrupt in the vessels wherein they were kept Beholde then one reason that the most moderne Romaine Church hath had more then the true auncient Church concerning this point And on the other side euen as the priestes of the same haue magnified their dignitie by meane of their transsubstanciation not onely aboue all other men but also aboue the virgine Mary and the Angels euen so haue they done in the communion of their masse and of their Supper For it is no small dignitie to be able to cause Iesus Christe to come and to be betwene their handes euery day and when it pleaseth them to make gods and to be the creatours of the creatour as they haue named them selues heretofore in their owne very bookes Therefore it is very reasonable also that they haue their communion apart separated from others which are not of such dignitie and that it be different from that which is common to al persons Chapter iii. Whether the Priestes may receiue the Supper for the people and what communion and excommunication is FUrther I aske them if they would be conteÌ„ted that an other man should dine for them or else that he should receyue the reuenewes of their benefices and that he should keepe the same for him selfe and in the meane time should say that he had receyued it for them I do beleeue that they would not haue such vicars nor such receiuers for them neither at the table nor iâ— their recepts but would doe both the one and y other in their owne person This notwithstanding they will needes be vicars of their Parochians in such matters in receyuing alone for them al that which belongeth generally to euery of them And the Parochians are very weâ— contented to haue such vicars and receiuers which do ordinarily receiue the Supper for theÌ„ because that they knowe not what the Supper of the Lorde is nor what profit or hurt they maâ— receiué by the administration or priuation of same wherefore they cannot knowe nor consâ—der the wrong which they do to them in so dâ—priuing them be it in all or in parte For who 〈◊〉 shal wel consider the communion which is inâ— masse and shall iudge thereof according to thâ— truth may of right call it no communion at all but excommunication For as communicatiâ—â— signifieth the partaking of many in one thing which is common to them al so on the contraâ— excommunication signifieth the depriuation 〈◊〉 such a partaking and communication as also to excommunicate signifieth asmuch as to be put out of the communion comminalty Now it is so that the Church as I haue already declared is the communion of Saints the comminalty of the faithfull And forsomuch as the sacraments being administred according to the pure ordinance of the Lorde are of the principal outward markes of the true Church and of the communion comminaltie she is also signified and represented by them For that cause they do receiue those the which they do esteeme for true members of that whole body and of all that coÌ„minaltie which we doe call the Church and the communion of Saints acknowledging theÌ„ as true Burgesses and Citizens of the kingdome of heauen and of the holy Citie of god And by that meane they do communicate vnto them the Sacraments which are vnto them as markes and tokens which Princes Lordes and Captames doe giue to their seruants and souldiours the which they doe aduow
Romaine masse the which albeit that it be not of the proper substance of the Supper yet for all that I thought good to set forth the same because that the auncient Church was not without these Collects namely when they did celebrate the supper of that which they did also leuy the bread the wine that they did distribute to the faithfull in the fame the which were there dedicated coÌ„secrated in such sort as I haue here tofore already declared to be there signes of the body of the bloud of the Lorde Chapter xxi A briefe gathering of the matters handled in this booke I Do omit very many other points forsomuch as I wold only bring forth such as were most principal most intolerable the which we may in no wise allowe without reiecting of Iesus Christ ouerthrowing wholy al the sacrament of the holy supper obseruation therem of the true auncieÌ„t Church No more haue I also determined to make many proofs the more to confirme that which I haue set forth against the points that which we do condemne aswel because that the arguments which I haue brought forth to the same purpose may suffice such as wil be satiffied with reason and will not fight against all manyfest trueth as for that also that I haue handled these matters very largely in diuers other bookes in the which men shal finde arguments testimonies sufficient to confirme more largely that which I haue here handled more briefely And forsomuch as the Romaine doctors and catholikes doe make their chiefe buckler of the sacrifice and of the order of Melchisedec for the defence of their masse and of the sacrifice of the same I haue made an other booke of purpose vpon that matter in the which I doe shewe by apparant testimonies arguments taken out of the holy scriptures howe that the foundation which they lay vpon that order of Melchisedec doeth more shake downe the building which they do build thereupon theÌ„ it doth sustaine it how contrary it is to the Sacrifices that they would build thereupon Wherefore I will nowe end this treatise Note wherein I haue first set foorth the principal reasons which mought leade the Romaine catholikes to maintaine their masse as they do maintaine it to the which I haue made answere And then I haue set forth the points which doe leade the catholikes of the reformed Church to reiect the same being such as it is at this present in the Romaine Church For as I haue already declared wee are not at all in controuersie concerning the institution and obseruation of the Sacrament of the Supper the which we doe all confesse but the different is whether the masse such as it is at this day in vse in the Romaine Church be this Sacrament of the holy Supper or no whether it be the true supper or else if they wil cal it the masse of the true auncieÌ„t Church or else an other bastard masse into the 〈…〉 the supper of the Lorde â—â—d the forme 〈◊〉 diuine seruice of the true auncient Châ—â—◠〈◊〉 bene conuerted and transformed 〈…〉 I haue reduced these principal 〈…〉 â—â—ereof we are in controuersie with 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—raine catholikes and the which I haue hanâ—â—ed here before first into fiue of the which I haue also deuided some into diuers articles in sort that in the whole I make to the nomber of xii by that order that they are set downe in the table placed in the be ginning of this booke after the Aduertisement FINIS Isai 29. Mat. 15 Mark. 7 â—â—maunde â—â—ndry â—â—â—nes of 〈◊〉 supper Of goâ—◠〈◊〉 Instruâ—â—tion Similitude â—ee â—â—e 1. 〈◊〉 1. â—ee 5. pointâ— Deut. 4 1â— Apoc. 22. Jos 1. Eze. 10. 1. Cor. 11. â—or 12. â—oc 22. â—â—te well 〈◊〉 â—onclusioÌ„ â— Cor. 11. High masâ—â—s Iustiniaâ— new Const 123. In excelleÌ„t Instrucâ—â—on Note well â—his Matt. 28. Note wel â—his Mat. 26. Mark. 14. Luk. 22.1 Cor. 11. Note Iere. 23. â—ote well â—â—is The fauâ—â— of the pâ—â—ple Note well Demand Note the well Note well Note wel Example An othâ—â— Exod. 3. Aug. in Ioh. Hoâ—â— 13. â—â—ene 17 â—â—â—t 13. Note welâ— this â—ote â—egeneraâ—â—on Conuâ—â—â— this weâ—â— Note wâ—â— Way welâ— this Note thâ— â—say 29 â—â—g in â—oh Hom. 〈◊〉 â—eplie â—swere CoÌ„sider very welthreâ— poynts Consyder this ExcelleÌ„t instruction Example A good instruction Example Consydâ—â— this well CoÌ„municantes A good lesson â—ote August de ciuit dei lib. 21. c. 25. In 10. Tra. 26. c. 6. 3. things in a true sacrament Example Conclusion â—pinion of â—he Romanâ—istes ConclusioÌ„ Note this â—mande â—ote this Conâ—â—oâ— this â—at â—â—gs are â—â—mon â—â—per to â—se sacraâ—uts 〈◊〉 good inâ—uction â—ohâ— 18.11 Note this ansplanâ—tion â—n 15. â—â—gnificaâ—â—â—n of bapâ—â—â—me â—â—m 6. â—â—l 3. Note these propofitions â—acrameÌ„â— speches â—â—d their â—â—â—â—e vse Note 〈◊〉 â—â—te well â—â—s Signes â—â—gniftyng thing sigâ—ifted Note this Note thâ— argumeâ— An otheâ— argumenâ— other â—ument Note well his argument Miracâ—â— Workes naturall supernatâ—rall â—nfider â—s absurâ—â—e â—gument Note thiâ— great abâ—ditie â—ngnlar struction â—â—ample Note 〈◊〉 distinctâ— Instructâ— Or vain imaginatâ—ons or phantasies â—ote Note wel Acticleâ— our faiâ—â— cleane oâ—â— thrownâ— Note thâ— Conâ—â—â— well 〈◊〉 chapteâ—â— Take tâ—â— worde of God in hâ— true sense â—onsider â—ell this â—â—atter Exposition in matter of sacraments Note this Note thâ— matter Note this well â—e first â—our â—icer de â—at deo li. 3. Affirmation Note tâ—â— idolatrie Luk. 22. â— 1. Cor. 11. Consider this well Abuse of the Persians â—ote well Where the â—se of the â—crameÌ„t is Doctriâ— of the aâ— uersarie Note tâ— argume Rom. 14 〈◊〉 ordiâ—e of the â—de vioâ—ed and â—ane ouerâ—owne â—surditie Demande Consydeâ— this â—ote â—onsides â—is â—ur God â—s inuisible An iâ—â—iâ—ble world He must 〈◊〉 worshippâ—â— in spirit trueth Iohn 4. The very words of the Lord â—ranssubâ—antiation â—â—onght inâ—â— the church â—bout the â—â—ert 1060. Nicholas â—he second Gregorie â—e seueÌ„th Honorius the third 1226. Urban the fourth Note we this Romaine Apostles â— point Note this cunning Consideâ— well this point concerning sacrifice Demande Note this cunning Note this combat Note the â—stitution 〈◊〉 the Lord 〈◊〉 matter â—f great â—aight Iesus Christ the priest sacrificer sacrifice temple and altar Blouddy 〈◊〉 not bloudâ— Note this Demande â—om 5 â—undry saâ—â—fices Rom. 12. Psal. 50. Hebru 13. Auncient celebration of the supper Not sacrifices propiciatories The whole life of christ was a perpetual sacrifice Iohn 19. Actes 4. things in singular recoÌ„mendacioÌ„ The first deceite Sacrificâ— not blouâ— An argument of great waight Confider his well 〈◊〉 coÌ„maundement Luke 22. 1. Cor. 11. One Lord gaue him selfe for vs vpon the crosse Note thâ— Ebrew nâ—ner of speach The latin translator â—â—te Consider this 2. Deceâ— â—ante of â—â—fts men Replcâ— â—weâ—◠〈◊〉 â—ry 53 â—hu 1 â—et 2 â—or 5 â—hu 19. â—â—od 12.13 A doublâ— regarde the passeo Our delâ—uerauce Sacrificâ— with saâ—â—ment â—or 5. â—â—â—â—deâ—â—his â—ge Note thâ— Exod. 12. Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. The wordâ— of Moiseâ— words â—ar lord â—fferent Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11. Falsaries of the testament â—om 6 â—eb 9. The vertue if this sarifice Propiciatorie sacrifice by whâ—â— Intent of Christ â—â—se â—ote well â—â—s 〈◊〉 most sinâ—â—lar note â—bedience â—etter then â—â—crifice Who is a â—ufficient â—ostie to God. Consydâ— well thiâ— Way well this coÌ„clusioÌ„ througâ—out â—â—hu 14. â—traunge â—â—nsequenâ—â—s â—he vertue â—f these coÌ„â—â—quences Vertue â—â—finite This sacrâ—fice may not be reiâ—terated Sacrifice coÌ„memoratiue â—niuty â—â—one by the â—omaine â—â—iests â—illain â—â—affique â—emande Stella cleâ—â—corum Matt. 21. Mar. 11. Luk. 19. Iohn 2. Eze. 1â— A notable argument â—o sell one thing for an other Now the supper inâ—â— be the supper â—emande 1. Cor. 11. Note these two thingâ— â—oce wel â—onc â—onst â—es 13. Consider â—ell this Replie Demaund An other demaund Demaund Vicars ExcoÌ„munication Note thiâ— instructiâ—â— Excommunication Consider well this The excoâ—municateâ— of the auncient Church â—otable â—â—lts 1. Cor. 1â— Note thâ— abuse of 〈◊〉 Supper Example â—acrameÌ„t 〈◊〉 vnion Cor. 10. Iohn 11. Note this â—â—struction â—blessed â—nion Note thiâ— diuision â—ote this â—fference Note thâ— inequalitâ— â—e gods the â—estes â—hat gods 〈◊〉 offered 〈◊〉 sacrifice Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke 22. Actes 2.1 Cor. 10.11 Esai 58. â—ote Horrible deceite Note this Note thâ— instructiâ—â— Note the names â—ote this â—â—â—truction Note these â—archaunâ—ises Note 〈◊〉 these caâ—ses foloâ—ing â—â—nclusioÌ„ â—emande A worthy sentence â—â—n 10. â—onsyder â—â—ll this â—om 10. â—hat faith 〈◊〉 â—xample â—â—a 2. â—om 2. Note wel this chapter Aug. in Ioaâ— Ho. 80. coÌ„tra Faust li. 16. de doctr Chri. li. 11. â—â—â—uctioÌ„ meane â—he sacraâ—â—nts â—ote this â—imparisoÌ„ 〈◊〉 good inâ—â—ruction God distâ—â—buteth hâ— graces as pleaseth him Example â—â—ample â—onsider â—â—ll this â—tructioÌ„ Note Ephe. 5. Rom. 6. 1. Cor. 10 Note weâ— this instruction Iohn 6. An horriâ—le sacriâ—edge 〈◊〉 true sayâ—ng Note this De Condist 2. C. qum â—omne Oriestes Iubaistes Note Duran 〈◊〉 lib. 4. Ruâ—â— de fract 〈◊〉 Bonau iâ— Sed dist 〈◊〉 Hilper iâ— Ele. de Eâ—cha Note theâ— faultes â—â—â—ment â—â—te â—â—tâ— 14 â—â—b 11. 〈◊〉 other â—â—ofe â—om 10. â—ote â—onsyber â—â—ll this Esai 2â— Mat. 1â— Mat. 7. Note 〈◊〉 coucluâ—â—â—â—â— Noâ—â— â—â—aund â—â—â—at â—â—quence â—â—â—der 〈◊〉 â—â—â—e Note this Demanâ—â— â—â—hee â—â—und â—â—swer â—ote Hebrâ— 1. Coâ— Epheâ— 1. IoÌ„hâ— Apo. 〈◊〉 Iohnâ— Acteâ— 1. Tâ—â— 1. Peâ—â—â— Hortâ— treasâ—â— gainâ—â— sus 〈◊〉 â—â—ndacioÌ„ maine infallicensure â—ote very â—ell this 2 poiâ—◠〈◊〉 3.8 â—â—n 2. 〈◊〉 9.10 â—â—hn 2. â—istinctioÌ„ aduoâ—tes â—emaund Coâ—â— demeâ—â— promiâ— 2. Coâ—â— Conâ—â— â—mes â—â—tes 2.4 Cor. 16. Cor. 8 9. â—al 1.8 6. Tim. 3. â—ote this â—der Thes 3. Tim. 5. Note here that th autor speaketh of these offices as they are in the corruption of the Romaine Church not of those that in good reformed Churches are diligent preaching Arch deacons Deacons c. for such be not vaine titles but necessary offices Actes 6.1 Tim. 3. Dery gresacriledgâ— Consider his wel Sacriâ—â—â— of Melâ—â—â—sedec ⧠Imprinted at London by Christopher Barker Printer to the Queenes Maiestie 1579.