A Treatise against the privy Mass in the behalf and furtherance of the most hylye communion, made by Edmund Gest  
❧ Read gentle reader and then judge.  
M.D.XLVIII  
¶ Come Privilegio ad Imprimendum Solum.  
❧ Imprinted at London in saint Andrew's Paryshe, In the Waredrop. By Thomas Raynald.   

¶ Faults escaped by the printer, read in the second side of the first leaf &, xiiii. line of b, exhibitive for exhitive, & in the third leaf & second side & fourth line read, not bread for bread, & in the fourth leaf & last line of the second side, read and for er, & in the fift leaf & first side & xviii line read giving sacraments for sacraments given & in the, vi, leaf first side & second line, read lest for est, & in the second side of the same leaf & ten line read of for if, & in the xiiii line seable for feeble, & in the vii leaf first side & xvii. line, read avouch for which, & in the last leaf & side, read Baptism for baptize, and in the xiiii line termed for turned.   

To the right worshipful master Cheke, school master to the Kings majesty, and provost of his worthy college in Cambridge, Edmund Gest wisheth enteir health both of body and soul.  
NOt withstanding (right worshipful) I have attempted an enterprise in proving each parcel of the privy mass to displease god, which I can neither word, matter, ne reason accordingly, and so am rather dyslyked than liked of many for this my doing, rather heady then heedy as they suppose: Howebeyt in case the said persons will with me earnestly respect my bounden duty in the said doing, they (I doubt not (will be rather contented then discontented with me for the same. For why? it is gods open will that not they alone, whom he hath mercifully delivered ten or five talents unto, 
Mat. xxv.  but they also, who have freely received at his mercy hands, but one talon, should occupy the same, to his most advantage, & not enwrap it (to his great hindrance) in a napkin. Less he would therefore withdraw it from them, and deliver it to the well occupiers, either of the five or ten talents heretofore especyfied (A clear ensample whereof is for our learning recorded in Math. xxv) By reason whereof, albeit I am but slenderly knowledged in scripture matters in respect of others, whose knowledge is ten or five talents too mine one, & so am not able to avail and gave therewith any thing so much, as they with there, who are passingly skilled in the matters before said: This not withstanding I must occupy my talon & advantage so much thereby unto the lord, as I can possible, to the full discharge of my bonden dew herein, otherwise straightly charged with al. 
luke. xvi.  For we must all become accountable to the dreadful lord for our receipt & stewardship. 
luke. xvi  Who so saith Christ, 
Math. 14.  is not faithful in a little is not trusty in much. We must all be busily occupied till he come, each man in his call accordingly No man must attempt to appear before him whithoute his offer, 
Deut. xvi.  more or less, according to his ableness herein, which he esteemeth, and not the value & bigness of the offredge. 
luke. 21.  Though the silly poor widow offered but two mites in to the lords chest, yet was she no less regarded of him therefore, than the great rich men, who offered in to the same much more. Each man (sayeth Hierome) offereth in to the lords house what he can, Some gold, silver & precious stone, Some either goteskinnes, or the hears of the same. For the lord needeth all these, And he is equally pleased with them, who have unegally offrede. In respect whereof I have offered unto him, this my simple poor mite or goat hear, trusting he will of his mercy, both accept the same, & occasion hereby others, to write more groundly & clerkly in this matter, which I have chosen rather than an otheyr too entreat upon, In respect the treat thereof is both right available & needful to his church, & so avantageable to him selue, In that it enforceth much to the discontinuance & owerthrowe of the private mass, wherein we are most piteously blinded, to the great dysworshipe both of our saviour & his most holy communion. This mine attempt (which as ye see, not of pride but of mere conscience I am enforced to) not withstanding I have offered to the lord: Houbeit I ensuing the praise worthy usage of offerers herein do offer the same to some other beside, namely to your worshipful mastership, not the I adjudge it a present, worthy your worship, but that I would hereby open my poor heart toward your mastership, trusting ye of your wont unspeakable gentleness will take it in good part, not respecting so much the vileness thereof, as the good mind of the presenter of the same, who (undoubtedly) hath presented, not all what he willingly would, but what him hably could theyrin. And thus I betake ye to god, whom I most enteirly beseech to environ you with his grace so to tread the Kings majesty in all virtue, wisdom, and understanding, as shallbe, first to the high contentation of god selue, & furtherance of his truth, secondly to the kings honour and weal of his realms, lastly to your great worship name and furtherance Amen.   

To the christian Reader everlasting greeting in the Lord.  
Would god (dear reader) such a person had attempted, and attempted, had perfected, and perfected, had openly published the worthy disclose and disprove of the unsufferable abomination of the popish private privy mass, an enterprise no less needful than available at all seasons, and for all persons, and namely at this present, which is, thank be unto the lord God, so favourable and beneficial to the furtherance of the gospel truth, and so prejudicial & hurtful to the hindrance of the same: who for his worthy knowledge perfectly knew, worthily & conninglye, for his hearty zeal would earnestly, for his boldness durst openly, and for his eloquence would eloquently, and accordingly handle, and discover the said ungodliness, and workmanly paint the same before thine eyes. For why as it is right convenable & behovable that as each ungodly, and exchueable vice, so the heretofore mentioned idolatry, or image worship must of force be known, and sensyblye disclosed, not only for that it is a doing both heinous and wicked, but by reason it is also pretenced & cloaked, wtyh the pretence and usurped name of the evangelical truth, & recounted in manner of each man, (thee more pity) for the worthiest virtue, and for a worship not to man alone, but to God also, most serviceable and acceptable. To murder a guiltless person, is a default full grievous, and thyself beside, much more grievous, but not thyself alone, and an other but a great company of innocentes withal, that is most grievous of al. What said I most grievous? No not so. For thee said murder compared with the slaughter of one poor silly soul, is in respect thereof, nothing grievous at all, By reason as one soul sourmounteth, and passeth in worthiness an infinite number of bodies, so the slaughter of one soul is more grievous, than the murder of an unnumerable sort of bodies: Howbeit the murder of sundry souls is more grievous than of one, & so consequently the slaughter of an infinite sort is passing grievous In respect whereof, Oh what a grievous cruel deed is our solitary and alone massing, which doth murder not the bodies alone (a wicked and a cruel deed), but which is most grievous and wicked of all) the souls also, not for a time, but for ever: not to be without pleasure and grievance, but to be in endless woefulness, not of certain of the worshippers & maintainers thereupon, but of each one without restraint, unless he in time become repentant, whether he be a prive masser or a private mass helper, whether he be an hearty hearer or proctor of the said mass, 
Roma. 1  so that in effect he be a solitary mass worshipper, for as S. paul avoucheth not evil workers alone, but their approvers and maintainers, for that they be like minded, shallbe like punished, If the eating of an apple in paradise did worthily and meritoriously slay as questionless it did not bodily only, but ghostly also, not Adam alone but his wife also, & not then alone but all their posterity, and that not for a time, but everlastingly, for that it was directly against the express commandement of god, otherwise being nothing derogatory to God or prejudicial to man: certainly then our alone massing, for so much as it is not only a breach of gods open and holy commandment, as the eating of thee inhibited forbidden apple was, but an open image worship also, and a forged made service of god, which is a default, no less heinous than the said breach, yea, and more too: doth moche more murder, aswell ghostly as bodily, not only the doers and keepers of thee private Mass, but thee upholders also, and worshippers there upon, unless they heartily, and that in this present life repent themselves for the same. For a double fault, deserveth a double death a double damnation aswell of thee as agreers and favourers thereof, as of the authors, and doers, of the same, Is it not a wicked doing to endamage an innocent body? and is it not a misdeed much more wicked, to murder the same? yes verily. Than remedyless here upon gatherable, it is our alone massing is a wickedness uncomparable, By reason therein Christ's body, which passynglye surmounteth all bodily creatures, both in worthiness dignity, and in acceptance with god is assayed day by day of thee alone Massers, to be mortified & done to death. In consideration (whereof) good Christian reader, I beseech thee by the precious death of our alone Saviour jesus Christ embrace low and frequent only, the most sacred communion Christ's own ordinance the true mass, the true sacrament exhibitive of Christ's body & blood, the very ghostly nurryture & food both of our bodies and souls, into life everlasting, & utterly eschew avoid, & detest the private mass, thee usurped and false named communion, or mass, the pretenced & conterfayte sacrament, man's ordinance & tradition, the present poison both of our bodies and souls, into death not temporal alone, but eternal also. What is sacrilege that unfitting heinous and abominable vice, but an embecilment and stealth of an holy thing out of an holy place, which is adjudged the more unleeful heinous and abominable in respect of thee more holy thing embecilled, and stolen out of the more holy place whereupon it formally argueth our private massing is a sacrilege most unfitting, heinous and detestable. For as much as it is a stealth of holy things, not of the basest suit as candlesticks sencers, crosses and chalices be, but of the holiest and chief kind, namely of christ, of the holy ghost, of true religion, of faith, of godliness, reposed and placed not in a stony temple or altar but in a christian & faith, full heart which is justly esteemed more precious and holy than a thousand stone temples or altars which after thee report of paul is the temple of the holy ghost & the mansion place of the blessed trinity, 
i, Cor, v●, johan, 14  as christ himself witnesseth in johan. The more precious marriage, the more heinous default is the breach thereof. What marriage is in worthiness to be compared with the spiritual marriage, that is between christ and us? Verily none at all, By reason whereof our alone massing must remediless be a most heinous trespass, For that it dissevereth the said marriage and enforceth us to whore with false gods against christ the living God our spiritual husband. Oh Lord what an unspeakable and uncomparable vice is thee Pryvee Mass. In case she did but murder men's souls & bodies she were to wicked, but sith she attempteth thee, slaughter of the blessed body of christ, sith she embecilleth & taketh out of our hearts christ the holy ghost, & their body & soul saving fruits, sith she fondereth and divorseth the marriage between christ & us: she must no remedy be uncomparably & unspekeably wicked. Is it not a lamentable fight, to behold how highly men esteem this private mass which mothereth so manifold and heinous vices? Is it not great pity to see how she is suffered and frequented amongst us? Is it not a deadly remorse to respect the worthy clerks in this realm, and the great number of them, and yet not one to write against her? Who if they would, could handle & utter her accordingly? yes truli. Well sith they (who perfectly can) will not write against the said mass, sith it is needful, that her sinfulness to long dissembled, should be openly uttered, sith sith I am enforced in conscience in this great unseasonable silence among the great divines in this behalf, to declare my stomach again here, I will by god's grace undertake to writ against the heretofore mentioned mass, notwithstanding I am nothing fit or sufficient to the full performance of so great an enterprise occasioned so to do, 
luke. 23  through this the saying of christ, if my disciples will hold their peace the stones shall speak whereby he doth us to wit that, it is his will & providence that when the learned refuse to set forth his truth, the unlearned should further and promote it? Better it is somewhat to write and enueyghe against the popish mass, and that grossly than not so godly nothing at al. Better it is that the rude ignorant people should by my talk perceive somewhat of the sinfulness of the said mass, than through my silence nothing at all, Better it is that the said people should be somewhat withdrawn from their received mass error, than that they should wholly after their accostumed wont endure in thee same. In respect whereof that what I can possible devise to the utterance and reproof of the faults incident to thee private mass even now by god's assistance do I write. Therefore good reader give heedy attendance thereto:   

prive mass after the doctrine of the Popish book entitled Antididagma is fashioned of four parts, namely of thee sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, of the receipt of the communion of prayer, and of doctrine. These parts orderly will I declare and confer them with gods written word, upon the conference and trial whereof it shall (I doubt not) appear full true that each parcel of the private mass is ungodly, and so consequently the mass self, exceeding ungodly.  
The first part of the said mass is thee sacrifice whereunto be incydente alway consecration transubstantiation and the worship of Christ's body and blood. And by reason consecration for goeth transubstantiation, and transubstantiation the sacrifice, and the worship aftergoethe them all: I will first talk upon consecration, and them orderly upon the remnant. consecration is that parcel of the mass, wherein thee priest presumeth, to consecrate and hollow Chrstes body and blood. The which, as it is an attempt too unreasonable and unable so passing wicked presumptuous & detestable. For how can it possible be that Christ's body which cannot be made holier and perfecter than already it is: should or might be consecrat of the priest? This must needs be that/ that is hallowed was before his consecration, either thoroughly profane & nothing holy at all, either else not so holy, in consideration whereof, whiles the priest do presume to consecrated Christ's body, needs must they acknowledge and grant by that their enterprise not so godly as presumptuous that the said body was before the consecration, either nothing holy at all, else not so holy, which grant as it is erroneous and unbelievable so ungodly and exchuable. In case the priests presumed only by their consecration to hallow Christ's body, that their consecration were not so heinous a deed, but for asmuch as thereby they contend not so learnedly as stoutly not so truly as falsely, Christ's body to be forged and made of the chosen bread, & therefore endeavour themselves thereby, to forge the body of the purposed bread, it is exceeding heinous, for there is no creature so worthy puissant & entire, as the said body is, which thing could not be true, if the priest or any man else did or could make the same. For the oft making of any thing as of Christ's body, is an undeceyveable proof of the unperfytenes, unworthiness, & feebleness of the same There is no man, be he never so much priested or byshopped the can make the feeblest basest, & unperfytest creature in this world, much less Christ's body the perfytest & noblest creature, there is no creature, be it never so imperfect that is oft made, how than can Christ's body be oft made, that is the most perfit. These words take, eat, in these words of the institution of the lords supper, take, eat this is my body, be no words of making of the lords body, but of presenting & exhibiting the same to the receivers of the right supper of the lord. So that it is full open that the priest can neither consecrate Christ's body, neither make it. Howbeit, this is alway grant able, the minister both consecrateth & maketh, though not Christ's body & blood, yet thallotted bread & wine, the sacraments exhitive of the same. For where as the bread & wine used at the lords supper were profane & unholy, before the words of the institution of the said supper were duly reported upon them, Now after thee due report, and utterance of thee said words by thee minister, upon the before named bread and wine, they be consecrate and made of profane the holy sacraments exhibitives, of Christ's body and blood. Thus also meaned the fathers by these words, consecration and making in this sacrament. Now to transubstantiation, or tornekind, thee next entreatable matter, which is no less disallowable, then deceivable. How can this stand with our faith that Christ's body (whose creation is unrenuable) should be again made of the bread a (vile creature) through thexchange of the nature thereof into his? How were it true that the blessed wine: & broken bread were bred & wine, as Paul termeth them, if their natures were throughly altered into Christ's body & blood? Can they be bread & wine still, without they reteygne their natures still: Can they be rightly named bread and wine without their own proper matter & substance in respect, where of they were so named: do they not still appear to our senses, bread & wine, not withstanding, they are become the sacraments exhibitives of Christ's body and blood: who ever saw the exchange of any substance without the alteration of his accedents & outward shape? when christ turned marvelously water into wine, it had not only the nature of wine, but the external form also, taste colour & facton of wine, & no semblance of water at all, Aaron's rod being altered into an adder, had not only the substance thereof, but also the outward fashion of the same & no similitude of a rod at al. The water which moyses changed into blood, as it was in nature blood, so outwardly it seemed blood. Even so questionless should the bread & wine leave the outward shape with their inward substance, if they were altered into Christ's body and blood, By reason, whereof sith they reteygne still their accidents, needs must they also retain their wont substance, can there be any sacrament as S. Augustyne saith, without therein the due element, & fit word of god belonging there unto, be jointly coupled togethers: No verily, How than? can the outward appearance of bread & wine without their inward substance be the sacraments of Christ's body, & blood, for the outward appearance of bread & wine be none elements, but only thexternal shows of the same. Elements be substance & not accidental shows. Is it not true, that in thee consacrate bread, there are worms both engendered & fostered which could not be, if there endured the bread like natured, after as it was before the consecration? For each worm is a substance, and none accident, therefore cannot be engendered or fed of an accydente, but of a substance alone, In respect whereof, sith the worms breed and feed, not in Christ's body, but in thee consecrate bread, we must remedyless acknowledge in the same bread to continue thee very proper substance thereof. The bread and wine be sacraments of Christ's body and blood ordained of him purposely to instruct our senses outwardly, what is wrought inwardly by the said body and blood in the soul. For their use is to declare too our outward senses assuredly, the as the received bread and wine nourish, strengthen and glad our bodies, so Christ's body eaten & his blood drunken accordingly do our souls. How could the bread & wine serve to his purpose, if they were utterly divoided of their accostumed nature? Verily no manner wise. For why? it is the alone substance of bread and wine, and not the colour taste fashion of the same, that fostereth and cherisheth the body. Sacraments (saith Augustyn) unless they have certain likelihood with the things whereof they be signs, they be no Sacraments at al. What semblance I beseech you is there betwixt the natureles bread and wine, and Christ's body and blood? questionless none at all. For the said body and blood, and that after papysshe doctrine be not presented & exhibited at the communion accidentally but substantially only. In respect whereof needs must we grant either the consecrated bread & wine be not the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, which we ought not to do, either else thee said bread & wine reteygne still their own natures, which is grantable. I marvel me much that many of them, who stand in the defence of Christ's corporal presence at his supper, have in earnest meyntenaunce transubstantiation, for as me seemeth, it doth much, what hinder & prejudice, the said presence of christ in the said his supper, by reason the broken bread & blessed wine be institute purposely to resolve and ascertayn our senses that we as materially & truly, though not grosselyer sensyblie, but ghostly receive and eat Christ's body & drink his blood as we do the foresaid: In consideration whereof if we take, eat & drink, but the accidents of thee foresaid bread & wine, & not the very substances of the same them gatherable it were, Christ's body and blood be not truly, but feignedly presented & given at his supper. For why▪ if the sign be counterfeit & feigned, them needs must the thing be in semblable sort, which is betokened thereby a true matter must remediless have his token also true. In respect whereof the broken bread being the sign given of the said body, is material & not mattierles, this thensuing saying, which gracian reporteth, & fathereth upon Austyne de consecrat distint. two, cap. qui manducat, enforceth moche to the disprove & damnation, of transubstantiation, That is seen, is bread, and the cup whereof the eyes also make evident proof, but that that faith demandeth to be instructed in, is, that the bread is Christ's body, and the cup his blood. These therefore be named sacraments, for that in them one thing is see able, and another understand, that is, s●ne hath bodily form that is understand hath ghostly fruit What can be more effectually & expressly spoken against tornekind, than this the rehearsed Englysshed sentence of Augustyne? first he avoucheth therein the seable matter to be bread, secondly, for an undeceivable argument and trial thereof he allegeth the testimony of thee eyes, Thirdly he saith not that is seeable is a bodily form, but hath a corporal form, lest any man should here be occasioned too adjudge the matter to want in this element and so to remain nothing else but thee outward and accidental shape of bread. For in that he saith that, that is seen hath a corporal form, he granteth in thee element two things to be remaining, thee thing had and thee thing having, thee outward fashion which is seable and the subject and matter thereof, it is to wit the bread substance and the excernall appearance of the same. The sacrament of thanksgiving, saith Irenee consisteth upon two matters or substances, thee one earthily, thee other heavenly, If bread substance were departed them could not Irenee leyfully call the one part of the sacrament a substance but an earthly accident. The worthy counsel of Niece writeth to the disalowaunce of transubstantiation in sort thus, Let us not grossly behold the bread & wine proposed & set before our eyes, but in faith consider the lamb, if god in that his sacred table having our hearts elevate & uplifted, lo, here the worthy counsel nameth the feeble portion of the sacrament after the consecration bread & wine, & not the forms of the same. Gelasius in open & express words impugneth the said transubstantiation as erroneous & uncredible in sort as followeth. The sacraments of the body & blood of christ, which we receive are sureli godly matters therefore through & by them, we are made partakers of the godly nature, & yet do they not cease to be the substances of bread & wine, but continued in the properties of their own natures, where as Austyne saith, the lord doubted not to say this is my body, when he gave a sign of his body: he meaneth not that Christ's body is absented from his supper, but that the consecrate bread is not the said body or turned substantially in to the same, & is but the sign of Christ's body, notwythstandinge it be named his body. Notwithstanding Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrisostome, with others which expressly in their writings the consecrate bread to represent Christ's body, & to be a sign thereof, howbeit in those & such other, semblable their speeches, their meaning is not that the said bread is devoided of Christ's bodily presence and presentment, but that the consecrate bread is but thee sacramental sign of Christ's body, and not Christ's body selue, though it be termed sacramentally the said body. Now will I assoil certain objections, and gain sayings fashioned of the catholics, against the premisses. If say they) the bred, nature were not tornekynded into Christ's body: why did he name it his body? Can it be his body, unless it be exchanged into it? Can I be you without I become your substance? No verily. No more can thee bread be Christ's body without the exchange of the matter thereof into the said body, As for the accidents of thee said bread, it is not requisite, ne needful that they should be together changed with their substance, because christ in this his saying, this is my body useth the article demonstrative this, not in the masculine, but in the newtre gendre, which implieth but the alone matter of the bread, and not accidents of thee same therewith, as the masculine doth, Whereby christ doth us tunderstand that the bread nature is only altered & not his accidents in like manner To this objection, such is mine answer. Christ in this his saying, this is my body doth institute the sacrament of his body and blood, therefore he speaketh upon the same, sacramentally it is to wit, he termeth the sign by thee name of thee matter thereby signified. He nameth the consecrate bread his body, for that it is resembled and presented thereby baptize, is named the founteyn of our again birth, & the renewing of the holy ghost, yet is it neither our new birth, neither thee renewing of the holy ghost, ne changed into them, but so called for the thereby the said birth & renewing be not only represented but also wraughte presented and contributed unto us, 
Gone, 15  Circunciston was not in very deed the covenant made unto Abraham, ne altered into it, howbeit, it was so turned in consideration, it did both represent, and present the same covenant to Abraham & his posterity: Christ's breath was called the holy ghost, not that it was the very holy ghost, or turned in to him, but in respect of the said ghost therewith both resembled & exhibited semblably albeit the consecrated bread is named Christ's body, yet is it not the laid body ne changed into the same, 
mathe, 26 luke, 22  but so called in consideration therewith the said body is both signified, presented & exhibited. The cup is termed Christ's blood & the new testament: Yet that his so calling them, notwithstanding, no man will depose thereupon, the cup either to be Christ's blood or his testament: Termed notwithstanding thou said blood & testament, for that it is thou sacramental mean wherewith they be applied & conferred unto us, Upon semblable consideration is the bread named Christ's body. Where as it is thought & credited the bread substance only & not his accidents also to be tornekynded into Christ's body: By reason he useth in this his saying this is my body, the article this in the newtre & not in the masculine gendre: If this were formally argued is our bonden duty so to do. Yet it is replied & said. Paul calleth the consecrate bread & wine, this bred, this wine. Why should he so term them? In case the one were not turned into Christ's body the other into his blood? Verily the consideration thereof is to have us put a difference thereby betwixt the consecrate & unconsecrate & common bread & wine, acknowledging the former bread & wine to be sacraments exhibitives of Christ's body & blood, and these (I mean the common bread & wine) to be nothing less than like conditioned. The last argument that is alleged for tornekynd is this. If Christ's body be in thee bred (as undoubtedly it is) them it is enbreaded & his blood enwyved, which was always taken for a great heresy, In respect whereof transubstantiation needs must be granted as right true and believable. To this I answer in sort thus. notwithstanding Christ's body be presented in thee bred (as questionless it is) not placely as there placed spaced, & measured, but ghostly: as there unplaced unspaced & not measured: Howbeit, it is not enbreaded no more then the deity is recounted, enfleshed for that it is substantially in us, no more then the said god heed is deemed embreaded, for thou it is entirely in each bred. No morothen the holy ghost is accounted enbreathed, for that he was presented in Christ's breath? no more then the said holy ghost is adjudged enbodied or enharted, for that he is wholly in us & in our hearts. Christ's body is adjudged of no man to be accidented notwithstanding it is presented in the accidents of the bread. Why then should it be adjudged embreaded for his presence in the bread. The one is as reasonable ' as gatherable, as tother is. Some are fool deceived in the meaning of these words thimpanation of Christ's body, which is not in simple any presence indeferently of the said body in the bred: no more than the incarnation or enfleshing of Christ's godhead is indifferently any presence thereof in man's flesh & nature: But only such a presence of Christ's body in the bread wherewith they both should be unseverably personed & have all their conditions & properties common & mutual betwixt them. Soch a presence is the personal presence of Christ's godhead in his manhood. Soch is the presence of the soul in the body. In respect whereof as Christ's body is not enpersoned in us, notwithstanding it be enbodied to us: Semblable though the said body be presented in thou bred, howbeit, it is not become one person therewith which is properly termed the impaning or enbreding thereof? If the bred & wine be not exchanged in the communion, Some will demand of me, why the ancient doctors make so oft report upon th'alteration of the bread & wine. To whom this mine answer. The consideration why the forefathers so oft report an exchange to be wrought in the sacrament of Christ's body & blood is. For that they believed the chosen bread & wine to be turned from a profane to a godly use, to become no more common, but special bread & wine, & to be made now exhibityves sacraments of Christ's body & blood, where as before their hallowing they were nothing so. And not that they believed the said bread & wine to be torn kinded into the lords body & blood This is the exchange whereof the doctors make report, and none other do they acknowledge here beside, Thus I have argued effectually both consecration & transubstantiation construed, after the catholic doctrine to be directly repugnant against gods written truth. Now will I try whether the mass sacrifice in semblable sort empugneth the said truth And for so much as this mass sacrifice is taken here both for a satisfaction of sin & thanksgiving I will discuss first whether it be a cleansing & satisfactory sacrifice. This done them whether it be an acceptable & serviceable thanksgiving to god or no. Concerning the cleansing sacrifice falsely given to the mass, 
〈…〉,  Paul writeth in sort as followeth: With one offering hath christ made ꝑfyghte for ever them that are sanctified. There is not one word in this Paul'S saying diligently & deeply considered the enforceth not much against the before specified sacrifice. In respect whereof I will report orderly, & wayghe each word of the said saying severally by itself. Paul saith not with a manifold or renewed but with one offering hath christ made perfect for ever the sanctefied, In consideration whereof they be foul deceived, who avouch Christ's sacrifice ought to be revived & multiplied to the full pardon & contentation of our sin, otherwise unpardonable. And therefore repeat the said sacrifice day by day to the same effect. For why that, that is oft offered cannot justly be recounted to be offered but ones: By reason a repeated & renewed sacrifice is not merely single & one, but manifold & diverse. If christ had oft died notwithstanding he were the selue same Christ, that doth so oft die Howbeit the his often dying should not be adjudged one single but sundry deaths. Though it be that self same body the dieth by the second death, which died through the former death Yet is the twice dying of the body recounted not one but two deaths (as witnesseth johan in his Apo.) Even so: 
2●,  if christ were oft sacrificed though he were the same & none other christ that is so offered. Yet were that oft sacrificying of him no single one, but a many fold & multiplied sacrifice. In consideration whereof, sith by the one otferinge of christ, our sins be thoughly purged (as paul recordeth): Sith an often offer is not an one's, but a manifold sacrifice, though it be ot the selue same matter: Christ's body neither may ne aught to be again sacrificed either bloudely or unbloodily to the doing away of our defaults Now to the entretable text of paul By one offering hath christ, etc. By the ones offering of christ. Paul meaneth his painful & blood sacrifice, once done upon the cross for ever, else could not the his sacrifice purge our sins. For no sacrifice without bloodshed cleanseth sin. According to this saying of paul without bloodshedding there is no remission of sin to be attained By reason whereof right open it is, they grievously err, 
Hebr● 9  who hold opinion that our faults are pardoned through their unsufferable & unbloody sacrificing of christes body otherwise unpardonable. With one offering hath christ made perfit etc. Note this paul saith note in the present tense doth make perfect, as though christ now doth pardon our sins unꝑdoned before, but in the preterperfyt tense hath made perfit: Purposely to do us hereby to wit that we are already redeemed & cleansed by the once offering of christ never to be revived either sufferablye or unsufferably bloudely or unbloodily to purge our sins with all In consideration whereof our catholics be in a foul grievous error, 
Hebre. 10.  for their avouching (enforced questionless so too say not so much of a good ground as of a good intent) our sins clearly to be cleansed with their unsufferable, & unbloody sacrifice of christ. For where remission of sin is, there is (saith Paul) no more a sacrifice for the same. By one offering hath christ made perfectly forever the sanctified. Note this paul saith not, Christ hath made perfectly for a time, but for ever the sanctefyed. Certes if christ were to be again sacrificed to the full contentation & cleansing of sin, them did he not through his once offering perfit for ever, but for a time the sanctefye●▪ For why the sacrifice that is remediless to be revived to the contentation & satisfaction of sin contenteth god for the same, not for ever, but for a time. By reason whereof our catholics are to be blamed, who rather earnestly then godly will & contend that Christ's body should be again sacrificed to the satisfaction & purging of sin, otherwise after their judgement unpardonable. An error no less deragotorye to the entiertee & fullness of Christ's ones sacrifice then prejudicial to the maintainers thereof. For why to renew the said sacrifice is utterly to unperfit, & disable it quite, fully to cleanse and do away sin. For so paul argueth to the hebrews, the sacrifices of the old law did not remit sin, for that they were daily repeated, else not to be renewed If this be formally argued of paul (as out of question it is) them it argueth that christ is not to be again offered less his first offering being entire & sufficient to purge sin be through the repeating & reviving thereof unperfyted & disabled to the full contentation of sin. (An issue utterly with all possible endeavour too be eschewed.) With one sacrifice hath Christ made perfect for ever them that are holy made. In the paul avoucheth her christ through his one sacrifice to have made perfit for ever them that are sanctified, He doth us hereby tunderstand, that the saints are none otherwise redeemed & saved then through the one offering of the said christ upon the cross, & so consequently no man can be otherwise saved. For they be saints that be saved: In respect whereof it is nothing answerable to the truth that thou catholics not so godly as stiffly maintain, it is to wit we be redeemed through the again sacrificing of christ otherwise unperdonable. For if the mass sacrifice be a contentation & satisfaction for sin, them is the once sacrifice of christ utterly to be abandoned & disauthorized, 
Hebr. viii  For why to institute a new sacrifice of christ is tabrogate and adnul th old. Yea if christ must be again offered to the contentation of sin, then must he be also woefully pained and done to death again. For (as the said paul saith there is no contenting sacrifice without it bebloudy. In consideration whereof, 
Hebre. 9  he argueth if christ should be often offered, needs must he oft suffer oft die. Wherefore (most gentle reder) sith of the aforesaid it appeareth full open, that the mass mercy working offredge directly gainsayeth not only ii or iii, but sundry scriptures, & then not doubtful but plain and not only scriptures (which simply to contrary is a sin full grievous): but endevourethe itself also to mourdre christ, which is more grievous): and not only that, but utterly to adnul & abolish Christ's most precious & entire sacrifice, done upon the cross (which for too do as it is a default most grievous, so most unsufferable): I beseech the heartily judge and esteem the said one sacrifice accordingly, that is to wit to be the alone sacrifice wherewith our sins be cleansed and done away. And think and depose upon the private mass sacrifice as thou oughtest to do, namely to be nothing less than a cleansing sacrifice, But here will our catholics say they do nothing less than uphold the mass offering to do away sin, For that they acknowledge with us (the protestants) belongeth to Christ's passion alone. God be praised therefore in our redubted sovereign lord the Kings majesty, Who by a worthy act of parliament, hath enforced them to the outward acknowledge thereof, otherwise openly maintaining the contrary But in case the foresaid persons, meaned that inwardly in the heart, which with the tongue they outwardly grant & profess: They would not defend each parcel of the Mass canon to be godly & believable as they do. For why there it is plainly said, the mass sacrifice enforceth effectually to the redemption & ramsoning of the souls. The very words of the said Canon be these. Remember lord thy servants etc. for the which we offer unto thee, or the which do offer unto the this sacrifice of praise for themselves, & to thee ramson of their souls. Lo, here it is open, the priest sacrificing of christ (which is here termed a praise sacrifice) is purposely purposed & wrought to redeem & ramson souls withal Which thing doth appertain alonely to Christ's sufferable and bloody sacrifice. Well not withstanding, this thalleged saying out of the canon were not plain & sufficient enough to prove the said canon testablishe the mass sacrifice to content god: Howbeit there is an other the questionless argueth the same, which the priest always reporteth & prayeth in the poost common Then ●lysshe whereof is this. O holy trinity perform that this sacrifice which I unworthy have offered unto theyes of thy majesty may be acceptable to the & be also through thy mercy propitiatory, that is to say mercy working both to me & all them for whom I have sacrificed it. Lo hear in manifest words the priest sollicieth god purposely to obtain of him, this his sacrifice to be propitiatory & to appease his wrath. In consideration whereof grantable it is that the prive masters acknowledge in very deed their mass sacrifice to be mercy working whiles they contend the canon thereof to be thoroughly true & godly, notwithstanding their mouth saying to the contrary. What an unsufferable mockedge is this aswell of god as of our sovereign lord that king, to acknowledge with them the mass sacrifice to be nothing propitiatory, & yet in the canon (otherwise named the mass secret) to grant it offered to redeem us withal, & to pray it might be propitiatory, If we heartily thought with god & our prince the Mass sacrifice were not propitiatory: We would not throughly maintain the Mass Canon, We would not say there with we offer Christ's body to our redemption, We would not instant God as we do, to enforce our sacrificing of christ to purchase his mercy. But here it is replied the foresaid Canon is misconstrued. For it meaneth no thing less than that the mass sacrifice is satisfactory in very deed, but in name alone. So termed in consideration it is a resemblance or memory of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice executed and perfected upon the cr●sse ones for ever. To this replial thus I answer, In case the said sacrifice were not to be taken, to be satisfactory, Why is it in the heretofore mentioned Canon avouched, We of free the said sacrifice to the redemption both of our souls & others? Why pray we that the sacrifice might be made satisfactory? If we would not it should be taken for satisfactory? If it were not to be taken for a satisfactory sacrifice, and that after the true meaning of them, who fathered the Canon: They would never have so written upon it, as they have done. Again if we thought not heartily that it were such a sacrifice: We would not affirm, we sacrifice it to redeem us and others withal. We would not ne durst solicit god to enforce it propitiatory: dreading the dreadful saying of christ thou shalt be justified by thy words, 
mathe, 13  & by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Let us hedely beware lest christ judge us by our mouth as he did the wicked servant. For the mouth utterance as of godly matters maketh to salvation, 
mathe. 25 Roma, 10  as witnesseth Paul: So of ungodly to damnation. Let us therefore condemn, as of bounden duty we right) the therefore saying of thee mass canon, Which, as they plainly, & directly withstand gods written word, so the kings statutes: lest we through our allowance & praying of the same incur & deserve the just wrath both of god & of our prince. Here I cannot but disclose the unsufferable subtlety of our catheloques in this purposed matter. Therefore good reder, earnestly respect the same to thy advoydance of their train. They having in consideration that now lefullye they cannot: in respect of the pen evidence of gods written word against them, which to gainsay were not sufferable: Ne dare any longer uphold their mass sacrifice to be mercy working. For that it emplieth notable repugnance to an act of parliament which not to obey and approve, as it is unfitting, so right punisheble: considering also if their Mass canon were to be understand after his grammar sense (as doubtless it is) it must remedeles be condemned & canceled out of the mass book, as heresy to god, and disobeisance to the King: Whereupon happily might consequencly ensue the utter decay and confusion of the mass selue, (an issue no less perfourmable than reasonable & ensuable): Have at the last qual●fyed and blanched the said canon in the heretofore alleged places thereof after this sort. To offer the sacrifice of praise for the redemption of our souls meaneth nothing else, but toffre the said sacrifice for a remembrance of Christ's sacrifice, once wrought upon thee cross to redeem our souls with all. To pray that the mass sacrifice might be propitiatory is to pray, it might be a memory of the propitiatory sacrifice. jesus what a far fetched meaning of the foresaid is this. Which cannot well be imagined moche less gathered of the same. If they who fathered the Canon, meaned the mass sacrifice were not offered purposely to redeem us withal, but to record the satisfactore sacrifice: Their words undoubtly would rather have enforced for the priest sacrifice to be a memory of the satisfactory sacrifice them to be it itself. Therefore the said fathers so did write the said Canon as they might easily be understanded what they understood thereby, And so wrote it so openly as they possible could devise. By reason whereof sith the before mencyoned sayings of the canon make all togethers for the priest sacrifice to be propitiatory Question les their meaning is that the said sacrifice appeaseth god's ire & indignation & cleanseth sin. howsoever ours catholics now take them. Though say our catholics) the before especyfyed allegations seem targue the mass sacrifice to be satisfactory yet are they to be construed as we take them, And never were they other wise taken either of us, either else of others learned & catholic men. Lo the shameless vanity of our catholics, they do not only lie in mystakinge the Canon, but in misreporting the minds of sundry writers. So that the common proverb is verified one leasing doth accompany another. Is not Master doctor smith of Oxenford a great clerk and much traded in ancient writers (as it appeareth by his doings)? Yet he in the hundredth and one, and twenty leaf of his book entitled the defence of the said sacrifice of the mass writeth, for the said sacrifice to be propitiatory in sort thus. Doth not this place prove the mass to be a sacrifice propitiatory, Sith by the offering of Christ's body in sacrifice at it gods wrath towards this man, & his servants conceived for their sins (whereby the devil had such power on them) was pacified & appeased? Again in the next leaf ensuing thus he writeth. Nothyngt can be more evidently spoken for the sacrifice of the holy mass that it is a sacrifice prepiciatory curing man's wounds (that is to say, his sins) & that also by the ordinance of christ commanding it to be done for a remembrance of his death and rising a● 〈…〉 ●to master Smyth? Whereby it is right evident that he thought the mass sacrifice to be proprciatory, and I doubt not understood the tofore named canon as I do. Cocleus a man highly esteemed amongst our catholics partly for his right judgement in scripture matters (as they suppose) partly for his learning, writeth in his former reply all to Bullyuger in the sixth chapter thereof for the pryeste sacrifice to be propitiatory in sort as followeth. We after the accostumed manner of speaking in the Church name not the supper but the mass, a sacrifice not only of praise and thanksgiving, but of mercy working also, wherewith we endeavour ourselves to praise god instant him and appease him. For we offers the Mass mass sacrifice not for the alone purging of sin,) which thou falsely dost charge us withal, but for sundry other skills also and needs. As it is evidently known of the holy Canon. Cocleus words in Latin be these Nos autem inxtu cousuetum in Ecclesia loquendi modum non caenam sed missam dicimus sacrificium non solum laudis & gratiarum actionis, sed etiam propiciationis. Quo deum laudare invocare & placare satagimus Non enim pro sola peccatorum expiatione (quod tu falso imputas nobis) sed pro aliis causis & necessitatibus permultis Missae sacrificium offerimus, Quem admodum exsacro Canone liquido cognoscitur & ex multiplici diversarum collectarum titulo verborum q contextu conspicitur. Here it is right manifest and plain that Cocle both well learned & godly iudgemented after the opinion of our catholics doth not only say that that mass sacrifice is satisfactory, but appealeth to the Canon therein as answerable there unto after his judgement. Freer Hofmaster (who was so worthily esteemed of the catholics as they allotted him to be one of the reasoners against the protestants in the emperors last diet kept at Ratyspone) writeth in his book entyteled the exposition of the mass prayers & ceremonies in the behalf of the mass satisfactory sacrifice in manner following. Now that our sacrifice is named a praise sacrifice I suppose it offendeth no man. For our adversaries acknowledge also the mass, for the prayers laudes & thanksgiving therein accostumed to be made, may be called a sacrifice of thanksgiving & praise, But that we avouch it to be also a propitiatory sacrifice this do they steadfastly deny & disaffyrme. Haul masters words in Latyn be these. jam ꝙ sacrificium nostrum appelletur sacrificium laudis nominem opinor offendit. Nam et adversarii fatentur missam ꝓpter preces, laudes & gratiarum actiones inibi fieri solitas sacrificium dici posse eucharisticium hoc est gratiarum actionis et laudis. At quod nos asserimus preter cetera etiam esse pr●piciatorium sacrificium hoc constanter negant. Lo, here hofmayster not only in his own, but in the person also of thee catholics (otherwise termed papists) as full according with him herein avoucheth contrary to our catholics the mass both to be a thanksgiving and contentation and pardon for our sin. This wrote the said Hofmayster in his before named Book for the defence and allowance of this saying of thee canon Pro quibus tibi offerimus. etc. for the which we offer unto thee, or the which do offer to the this sacrifice of praise for themselves and all theirs for the ramson of their souls etc. Whereby we learn it is not the faith only of Hofmaister, but of the foreign catholics also, the the mass sacrifice is mercy working & that thee words also of thee mass canon, ye●mporte the same, ought so insimple to be taken without any far fetched gloss. Whatsoever our English catholics for a time do hold to the contrary. Well sith it is both acknoleged of our catholics & grondely I trust argued that the mass offredge is not satisfactory or full contenting. The next entretable matter is that the said sacrifice is nothing available either for the quick or the dead Our catholics contend it is profitable for them both, but how moche or in what measure it lieth not in the power of man to limit: But this their opinion can not stand with Christ'S satysfatorie sacrifice. By reason it is a full contentation and satisfaction for sin, & so the Mass sacrifice awaleth nothing at all to the cleansing thereof. For if it availed any thing thereto: Then wet it propyciatorte apart though not entirely: Then were Christ's sacrifice satisfactore but apart & not wholly: Then were the Mass sacrifice no less satysfactore then Christ's, For that it should make partly for the satisfaction of sin as thristes doth: Which is a blasphemy to think moche more to speak: Then were our catholics deceived in disaffyrming the mass sacrifice to be propitiatory. But what need I to argue thee said sacrifice to be unfruitful, The catholics themselves in conclusion grant the same, while they avouch the full & entire fruit & virtue of the priest mass to consist in the appliall of Christ's merits unto us, otherwise utterly divoided of the same ones merited upon the cross in general for almen. Which is the sacrament & not the sacrifice, For in thee sacrifice there is nothing applied and rendered unto us, but to God alone, otherwise no sacrifice at all It is the sacrament alone, & not the sacrifice that giveth to us, according to the right definitions of them both? In consideration whereof sith the mass fruit consisteth, not in the priest sacrifice, but in the apply all & gift of Christ's body & blood, not as sacrifice of the priest (which is but a countrefeiture & resemblance of thee true sacrifice) but as offered of christ himself upon the cross ones for ever: It must needs argue that the mass fruit consists in the sacramet alone & not in the sacrifice also. For why the appliall & deliver of thee fruits of Christ's death & again rising to us, is god's gift unto us & not ours unto him. So that it is the sacrament & not the sacrifice of the mass that is available. For a sacrament is defined to be an holy token, whereby god giveth us free pardon of sins, A sacrifice contrary wise is defined to be that whereby we tender somewhat unto god. In respect whereof our catholics be much blame worthy, who yield to the mass sacrifice which is appertaining only to the lords supper, I mean the apply all & render of the benefyghtes of christ is death & resurrection. Which died as it is a grounded proof of falsehood so of the unavaileablenes of the mass, as otherwise unfruitful, Though (wilsom say) the mass sacrifice applieth not, ne rendereth to us christes merits, Howbeit without that they cannot possibly be presented and delivered unto us. And so the said sacrifice must no remedy be available. That is not so. For the said merits begive us both in baptism & absolution, yea & in the communion to without the priest sacrifice as shall here after be declared, And so the said sacrifice in this respert is fruitless. Yet do our catholics reply, the foresaid sacrifice say they, though it maketh nothing to the applial of Christ's merits to us ward: Howbeit in that it is a thanksgiving it must needs be available In this replial first this is denyable, that the priest sacrifying of Christ's body & blood is a thanksgiving. For the merely & nakedly respected as nothing but an offredg nothing is thanked thereby, & so no thankgeving: In deed the prayers incident thereto be a thanksgiving. But be it the said sacrifice were a thanksgiving. Yet it shall not orderly here upon ensue that it were an acceptable & available thanksgiving For there be two sorts thereof, the one good & profitable, thee other nought & unfruitful? And if the priest sacrifice be a thanksgiving it must needs be both ungodly & unfruitful, & so of the badsort of thank render, By reason it is institute beside gods written words & so contrary to the same, in that it is a putting thereto. For if it were fonded upon the said word it should by all likelihood be gronded upon Christ's words concerning his supper. But the it is not And so it is a forged worship & thākerendre, For christ at his supper neither offered himself ne enjoined others to sacrifice him to his father. Orderly examine each word of the institution of his supper & ye shall well apperceave this to be full certain. Christ at the said supper took bred, 
mathe. 26 Luke, 22  But that is not to sacrifice hym selve. Else he sacrificed him selue to his father so oft, as he did eat. He gave thanks, but that is not to offer him selue, Else he sacrified him selue to his father, what time he increased five barely loofes & fed therewith five thousand men. He broke it and gave it to his disciples. But that is not to rendre it to god, which is behoveful in each sacrifice. His disciples took & eat the bread & his body, so do the lea men in like manner, Yet they offer them not The which is given for you, hereby he meaneth not to be here sacrified, Else should he offer him selue oft, and not once, Else would not our priests overhipped those words in their consecration. The disciples were enioned to do this in his remembrance and so they did: What then? So do all Christianes' & the faithful lealtye perform the same. Yet offer they him not. As there is not one word touching this former part of the lords supper, the enforceth for the priest sacrifice: Even so is there none in this latter the maketh for the same, For that I have spoken of the same, is reducible & appliaunt to the latter portion of the said supper. Thus it appeareth plain christ neither offered him selue in his supper ne commanded others to offer him in the same to his father. In respect whereof paul spoke the selue same words unto the unprested Corinthians 
1. Cori: 11.  which Christ reported to his disciples. And bade them also perform all those things which Christ demanded to be performed of his disciples, which thing be would never have done, if the unprested Corin. mought not accomplished & put in execution all matters concerning the lords supper. Thus it is plain the mass sacrifice is not grounded upon Gods written word, & so neither acceptable or serviceable to God ne fruitful to man. For why, whoso worshippeth god without his special word for the same worshippeth him without faith. By reason true faith issueth only from gods written word as witnesseth S. Paul. Faith cometh by hearing & that hearing by gods word. 
Roma. 10  And who so worshippeth god without faith, sinneth. For as Paul saith whatsoever thing is not of faith, 
Roma. 14  is sin. So that hereby it is full open the said sacrifice is sinful & consequently not to be frequented or used. Our catholics in that that they acknowledge their priest sacrifice not to be mercy working suppose it so taken, may well stand both with god's word & Christ's honour. But in so deeming they be foul deceived. For why to attempt to offer christ as it is an enterprise toto bold and presumptuou●e: so unsufferable & blasphemous. For this is the state & condition of leeful sacrifices before god, that they sacrificed be not merely of themselves, but in respect of the offerers godliness regarded and his sinfulness dyslyked of God. The sacrifices of Abel and Cain, not withstanding they were not much what unlike in themselves: 
Gene. iiii,  howbeit they were diversly respected of god in consideration of the sounorynes betwixt the offerers. For th'one god regarded for Abel's sake, the other he hated and abhorred for Cain sake. The lord looked unto Abel (saith moyses) and to his offering. But to Cain and his offering he looked not. Mark this, first he looked upon Abel ere he respected his offering. first he dyslyked Cain or he disliked his sacrifice, Whereby we do understand that the offering is liked or disliked of god in respect of the offerer. So that here upon it grondelye argueth that the offerer is both worthier & better esteemed of God than his offering. For that, that god regardeth merely for it selue is better & more esteemed of him, than that which he regardeth but in respect of another. In consideration whereof if christ were to be sacrificed of thee priest, than were the priest both worthier & better accepted before god than christ him selue, as it is gatherable of the before said. By reason whereof thee priest sacrifice as it most highly empayrethe Christ's honour & majesty so uncomperablely offendeth god the father & so most exchueable. Would you further know why the priest sacrifice is unfitting & disallowable? Then diligently note the sequels, & after sayings, Who so be authorised & appointed to sacrifice Christ body must be priests after the order either of Aaron or Melchisedech, But our offerers ought not to be pressed after Aaron's order. For that his priesthood is quite repealed & done away. Sith the priesthood saith Paul is translated of necessity must the law be translated also, 
Hebre, 7  Then remediless must the foresaid sacrificers be priested after Melchifedech order, else are they unprested. But they cannot be priests as melchisedech was: By reason who so is a pressed after his order is an everlasting priest according to this saying of david 
Psal: 14,  Thou art an everlasting priest after the order of Melchisedech, but we be all immortal & but for a time, therefore not eternal & consequently none everlasting priests, Whereupon it formally argueth that our usurped priests usurp & take the authority to sacrifice Christ's body, which is granted neither to them ne to any man else. By reason whereof they be blame worthy for that their usurpation of such authority. 
Hebre. 5  Let no man saith Paul take honour to him selue but he that is called of god as was Aaron To proceed further in the disprove of the priest sacrifice, How can it possible be that our priests could sacrify Christ's body & bsoud? With out their due sacraments the said body & blood neither can be presented ne sacrificed, as the priests themselves acknowledge as most certain. For the sacrified bred & wine neither be ne can be sacraments of Christ's body & blood: By reason they be otherwise used them christ selue ordained thee sacraments of the same to be. Can the baptism water be justly recounted a sacrament where it is transposed to other usages than it is prepared for of christ by his word & the right ordinance of the same, namely to be gaised upon, too sprinkle & wash men with all, to christian bells to wash our clothes with all? No truly. Can the circumcision or of pair which the jews and turks now use, be rightly deemed a sacrament? No verily. Certes no more can the sacrificed bread & wine be justly accounted sacraments of the lords body & blood. But here our Catholics reply saying the words of consecration be reported upon the bread & wine ere they be sacrificed, In consideration whereof, needs must they be sacraments. This there replial is nothing formal ne forcible & that by their own doctrine. Be it that alayman reported the consecration words on the bread & wine or the priest uttered them not purposing the making of Christ's body & blood. The said bread & wine were after our priests doctrine nothing less than giving sacraments of the above named body & blood, notwithstanding the report of the consecration words over them. So that it standeth with catholic doctrine that in simple the bare report & naked utttrance of the consecration words enforce not the sacrament. So that the foresaid replial is nothing effectual, being neither true ne catholic? Now to the before mentioned sacrificed bred again, I put the case, there were soch advevout priest who were so devoutly disposed as he would eat none other bread & drink none other drink at meals but sacramentally consecrate bred & wine & would in consideration hereof for each his dinner and supper purposely report day by day at his mass, the consecration words over his bread & wine that he would use at the said meals: I suppose noman be he never so Catholic & old fashioned wyldepose that said bred & wine to be giving sacraments of Christ's body & blood notwithstanding the report of the consecration words over them, And verily the consecration hereof is the direct & open abuse against the right institution & usage of the sacraments of thee said body and blood: no more be the sacrificed bred & wine sacraments of Christ's body & blood, notwithstanding the rehearsal of the consecration words over them: For why christ instituted at his supper his body not to be sacrificed but eaten. In respect whereof he saith not take sacrifice, this is my body: but taken eat, this eat my body. There be three matters right needful & be hoveful to the natural being of a sacrament, The due element the due word the especial commandment of god directed thereto. Where any of the aforesaid want, there can be no sacrament. By reason whereof the sacrificed bread & wine can be no sacraments, notwithstanding they be the due elements consecrate with due words. In consideration there wanteth gods special commandment so to autoryse us & able us to sacrifice them as to take them & eat them. So that they be but pure elements & no sacraments. Therefore Christ's body & blood cannot possibly be sacrificed in & by them. Whereby it appeareth evident, the priest sacrificing is of nothing less than of Christ's body & blood. Thus (good reder) I have argued (I suppose forcibly) the priest sacrifice to be neither propiciatore ne available, neither godly ne approvable but sinful and unsufferable. Therefore I beseech y● utterly renounce it & detest it embracing & using in the stead thereof the most holy communion. But happily thou art loothe so to do till I have soiled the reasens fetched out of scriptures which colourably seem to ratefy the said sacrifice, By reason whereof I will address me to the full answer & resolution of the same. Whereas it is argued christ in respect he is pristed after Melchisedech order offered him selue bodily under the form of bread & wine, for that Melchisedech offered bread & wine. This reason holdeth not because it is false that Melchisedech sacrificed bred & wine. For Moses saith not Melchisedech offered but brought forth bread and wine. To bring forth is not to offer, He saith not he brought forth bread & wine for a sacrifice but without any mention of sacrifice at al. He saith not he brought forth the said bread & wine to god, but to Abraham as it is right gatherable of the History to whom to do sacrifice were an image service, & therefore Melchisedech sacrificed not bread & wine. Here it is objected if Moses meaned not that melchisedech offered bread and wine: Why adioned he immediately thereto this? he being the priest of the most highest god blessed him? Mary not because he sacrificed the bred & wine but for that he blessed Abraham, doing us hereby to weet, as Melchisedech declared him selue to be a king in employing upon Abraham bred & wine: So in blessing him to be a priest. For as the employing of bread and wine, was a kingly function, so the blessing a priestly ●ffyce. In consideration whereof the foresaid Moses thus writeth. And Melcheledech thee King of Salem brought forth bread and wine, 
Gene. x●iii  and he was a priest of the most highest God and blessed him. The meaning whereof is this as me seemeth) because Melchysedech was a king he played the king he employed upon Abraham high cheer, because he was a priest also, he played the priest he blessed him. In that he was a King he cheered Abraham, in that he was a priest he blessed him. But here some will say Abraham was already greatly enriched with kingly spoils & had no need of Melchisedechs' cheer, therefore by all likelihood he proffered him not the bread and wine. To this I answer, not withstanding Abraham needed not Melchysedech cheringe, yet he cheered him in fuile proof of his hospitality and humanity toward both him and his. ●hus both Chrisostome and josephus think. But be it Melch●sedech offered bread and wine, and in so doing figured christ Shall it follow there upon, that Christ offered him selue bodily informers of bread and wine? No verily. Was not Aaron a figure of Christ, did he not figure and resemble him selue in sacryfycyinge of a goat? yes certainly. Yet no man will or ought to gather, because Aaron who was a fygurer of christ sacrificed a goat, Therefore christ offered himself corporally in or under thee shape and kind of agote. If the before mentioned doing of melchisedech were applied to christ after this sort following I could not but acknowledge the application thereof both sufferable and godly, As melchisedech the king of Salem proffered bread & wine to Abraham, & his sodiers, not for them to sacrifice, but to eat to their relief, & blessed the said Abraham & in him all his posterity: Right so christ our king, the king of spiritual peace & righteousness, presenteth at his supper to all us his communers both bread and wine (sacraments exhibitives of his body & blood) not to be offered but th'one to beeaten & tother to be drunken to our comfort, and blesseth us all, & in us all our offspring. The next alleged reason for the mass sacrifice is this deduced out i & iii of the prophet Malachi, I have no will to you saith the Lord of hosts & I will not receive of your hand a sacrifice. For from the rising of the son unto the gowing down myname is great among the people. Lo her (say our catholics), the prophet prophesieth of the utter refusal and repeal of the jewish sacrifice & of the succession chose and acceptance of a new, which is to be understanden of the mass alone. This there understanding is nothing answerable to the prophets meaning. For why he speaketh only of such sacrifice which is offered in all places of all men and from the morning to night. The mass sacrifice is not sacrificed in each place, but in the church alone, not from the morning to night, but from the morning to noontide, not of each man indifferently, but of the priest alone. The alleged reason out of thee eight & twelve of Daniel enforceth nothing to the priest sacrifice For daniel as it appeareth plain in the ninth chapter entreateth of the abolishment of the jewish daily sacrifice, which is discontynued for certain years through the tyrant Antiochus. This sacrifice was offered twice on the day in the morning & at night. The Mass sacrifice is sacrificed but ones on the day, & that in the morning, tother was offered but in the temple of Hiercusalem, this is sacrificed in each church. Yea the most learned catholics cannot endure thee foresaid prophecy should be so taken as it concerneth thee quite abolishement of their Mass sacrifice. For that they believe that as Christ's church is everlastable so their said sacrifice always endureable. It is expressly written in, xiii. of thee Acres of the Apostles (say our catholics) that they sacrificed to thee Lord. Therefore by all sembleaunce they sacrificed his body and blood. What a misfashioned argumentation is this? ●he Apostles sacrificed to the Lord, ergo they sacrificed his body & blood. Can they sacrifice nothing but the said body & blood? Mought they not preach, pray, gather almose for the needy and minister the lords supper? Be they not all severably serviceable and acceptable sacrifices? Be not also the full executors of the same justly named sacryfyers? yes verily, Than it is nothing ensuable, because thee Apostles sacrificed, they sacrificed Christ's body and blood. And Luke saith not they sacrificed Christ's body & blood, but in simple they sacrificed. Therefore this saying of luke they sacrificed importeth necessarily no sacrifice of Christ's body & blood, but rather of the beforesaid. That here Erasmus nameth sacrificing, the old translator termeth ministering Chrisostome taketh it for preaching, so doth Erasmus also. The greek word say the Parisians betokeneth to execute & minister a public office, & it is here taken to preach gods gospel, Thus the Pariliaus in their annotations upon the new testament. Thus it is evident the before alleged argumentation is both wrong framed & disproved both of christostome Erasmus & Parisians the head maintainers of the mass sacrifice. Another reason that the catholics allege for thee maintenance of their sacrifice is this The thing figured must agree with his figure. Christ was figured by the pascal lamb, therefore as the said lamb was first offered ere it was eaten: 
Exodi. xii  Even so christ (the true lamb) was offered ere it was eaten, at his maundy. To this I answer after this sort. It is right certain that the matter figured & the figure both do & must accord in some point, otherwise there can be neither figure ne thing figured: In consideration whereof the pascal lamb (for the signeth christ) it must & doth resemble him in somewhat & so it doth. For as the pascal lamb was slain & offered, so was christ. As the paschal lamb (slain and offered) was a mean whereby the Israelites were delivered from their slavery of Pharaoh, So christ mourdered broken & offered was the mean wherewith we be fredomed from the thraldom of our spyrtual Pharaoh the devil. As the pascal lamb was not only offered but eaten also: so Christ was both eaten & sacrificed etc. But that the thing figured should be thoroughly ordered as his figure in all points, it is neither needful ne possible Else should Christ have been offered but of others alone & not of himself also. In consideration the paschal lamb was so Else should he have been roasted ere he were eaten, because the paschal lamb was not eaten raw but roasted. Else his bones should have been brent, for that the said lambs were, Else his blood should have been springled in the jews' houses as the lambs was, Else he should not have been eaten whole & unbroken vnsufferably but by pecemele and sufferably as the lamb was Wherefore right as Christ is figured trueli by the pascal lamb notwithstanding his foresaid disagreement therewith: Even so though christ is first eaten & then sacrificed yet that is none hindrance why the said christ should be figured by the pascal lamb, Now to the next reason that is adjudged to enforce for the mass sacrifice. Ye cannot drink of the lords cup & the devils to? Ye cannot be partakers of the lords table & the devils also Here S. Paul compareth the partaking of the lords supper with the communion of the meats offered to the devils, 
i Cori. 10  which thing certainly he would never have done whiles he deemed christes body and blood first to be sacrificed ere th'one is eaten tother drunken as the meats dedicate to devils be. For else that his comparison were nothing semblable ne formal. To this is mine answer: Paul's said comparison betwixt the said body and blood, and the meats and drinks consecrate to devils consisteth only in mutual receipt and comuning of them, and noothing at all in the sacrificing of the same. Therefore he mentioneth only the partaking and not their offredge also: I marvel me much what our catholics mean to avouch thee before mentioned comparison not to be formal with out it implied the offredge also both of the said meats and drinks. May not two things be justly compared togethers and that but in one simple matter? Do they not know that each comparison halteth and in some matters discordeth? If they will have the heretofore named comparison so thoroughly answerable & semblable in all conditions: Then it is to be argued after this position, and decree that whensoever Christ's body is eaten, his blood drunken and that accordingly, yet they stain and imbrue us in consideration the image meat and drink, eaten & drunken so do. Then do they always displease god, for that the meats and drinks offered to idols so do, Then they be grossly sensibly and sufferably eaten and drunken for that the meats and drinks offered to Idols be after that sort both eaten and drunken. All these in conveniences be no less gatherable of the foresaid comparison then that Christ's body and blood ought to be sacrificed. In consideration the idol meat and drink be offered. Is it not in express words in Paul .v. to the Hebrues (say our catholics) that each Bishop or priest taken out of the number of men is ordained for men in those things that do apperteingn to god that he should offer gifts & sacrifices for sin? whereby it is full open that our priests do offer a sacrifice for our sin? What can that be but Christ's body & blood? Fayn would our catholics have their mass sacrifice to be authorized & founded upon gods written word, but it would not be. I beseech the what enforceth the alleged text of Paul to the maintaining of priests sacrifice? Verily nothing at al. For why it talketh only of the Aaroni call order of priesthood, as it doth well appear by this the after saying of Paul, let no man take unto him honour (he meaneth the foresaid priesthood) without he be called of God there too as Aaron was, and compareth thee office of thee said priesthood with Christ'S as it is right evident by this thee next after speech which beginneth in sort thus. Even so likewise christ etc. And he speaking but of the levitical priesthood ought in nowise too be understand of our mass priesthood, according to the general rule. Each man saying must be taken after the intended & entreated matter. Well though the foresaid allegation of Paul were to be construed of our Christian priesthood & of our christian priests. Howbeit, it ought so too be taken that it implieth no more one christian than another, no more the spiritual than the leamen notwithstanding some be ecclesiastical ministers) which other be not) according to this saying of peter, ye be a kingly priesthood, But be yt there be certain allotted & chosen to a special sort of priesthood, 
i Pet. two  which the remnant of Christians, be not allotted to, jet should the heretofore alleged scripture argue nothing for them. By reason it entreateth of such priests who are wont to offer not one gift, but many & divers, not one sacrifice, but sondre, and then to the full contentation of sin, our made priests offer but one gift, if they offer that but one sacrifice and not divers, and that not to the satisfaction and purging of sin but for a thanksgiving, as our Catholics then selue now at the last acknowledge. Yet thee said Catholics reply for their said sacrifice in sort thus? Christ said to his apostles (as Luke xxii maketh hereof report), This do for my remembrance, which this his saying autoryseth them to sacrifice christis body and blood as he him selue had them done at his supper. This their replicationis nothing effectual or true, Was not S. Paul an apostle not of that basest but highest sort? howbeit he did not understand the said saying of christ after that sort. For he spoke the very selue same to thou unprested Corinthians, 
i Cori. xi.  and the not of his own heed, but by the motion of the lord. I have (saith he) received of the lord, Which I have delivered you, whereby it doth well appear that it is not only Paul's, but the lords also & consequently all his apostles mind, that this his saying do this in my remembrance, is spoken aswell to the unprested as to the prested christians. By reason whereof if th'one be through the said speech autorysed to sacrifice christ is body, the other is in like manner. If the one be not, the other sort can not be? In respect whereof our Catholics acknowledging the unprested not to be authorised through the said speech authorized to sacrifice christes body, tother is in like manner. If th'one be not tother sort cane not be. In recspecte whereof our catholics acknowledging thee unpreysted not to be authorized thorough the above alleged scripture to offer Christ's body and blood: must no remedy grant thee preystede not to be licensed by the said scripture to sacrifice the same This partecle this in this Christ's saying this do in my remembrance as it is a pronoun relative so demonstrative, therefore reporteth declareth & respecteth his antecedent, which was not to sacrifice his body whereof he forspoke never word ne did any thing concerning the same but only the thankful receipt & eating of his body & drinking of his blood, there purposeli mentioned. Which ymplie no manner sacrificing of the same at all, This is granted of all men aswell of the catholics as the protestants as a truth most undoubted, that the lay & unpriested man receiveth the communion unworthily, what time soever he take it not recording therewith the precious death of the lord. But how could the said man receive that said communion unworthily for his receipt thereof without myndefulnes of Christ's passion & death, if for to so take it, were not a punishable default? For why the unworthenes herein issueth from sin alone. But how were it sin, if it were not directly repugnant against God's open commandment? For there is no sin which is not a breach thereof. But what commandment is there for the lay men to remember Christ's death at their receipt of the of his supper, if this do in my remembrance be not it, if it touch them not? Certainly none. By reason whereof needs must we recognize & acknowledge either that the unprested persons receive not unworthily the said sacrament when they take it in forgetfulness and silence of Christ's passion, which is nothing grauntable, either else that this saying of christ, this do in my remembrance concerneth, & chargeth the said persons aswell, as the priests, which is right certain. In consideration whereof, this do in my remembrance purporteth not to sacrifice christ in his remembrance but to record & declare openly his death (as Paul saith) who exponeth the said saying, 
〈◊〉 11.  in this wise. As oft as ye eat this bread & drink this cup, ye shall show the death of the lord till he come. Yet are not our Catholics contented but further they proceed in their replial. We have an altar whereof they may not eat which serve thee tabernacle: Here say they. Paul meaneth thus. They who keep the ceremonies of Moses' law have none authority to eat of Christ's bread his very body consecrated & offered in sacrifice on the altar which we christian men have set up in our temples. If Paul had not meaned this he would have made no mention of an altar which is made for sacrifice to be offered thereupon to God. See (good reder) how foul deceived be the herefore named people. Is it not right evident that Paul speaketh of an eateable altar? We have an aultare (saith he) whereof they may not eat, 
He● 〈◊〉  & not of thee mass stone altar which is not eatable. If the said aultare were to be taken for a stone altar Then were they who trusted in the ceremonial law in better case than we Christians be For that they mought not, we must eat the said altar, Then should Christ's body & blood th'one have been eaten tother dronking in Paul's time at the aultare & not at the table, 
1. Cor: 10,  Then would Paul have termed the eating place of thee lords supper not the lords table, but the lords altar, Then would not the Apostles have gone from house to house to minister the communion, 
Art: ●  for that there was none aultare. Then do our ministers trespass who exhibit & minister the said communion to the dying men at home, were wanteth an aultare. Christ is only the eatable aultare heretofore especifyed, whom both we must and do eat unto life everlasting otherwise spiritually dead for ever, as we may learn the same in John: ut The which christ is named an altar, for that upon him alone we lay & power our spiritual sacrifices namely our prayers & broken hearts, otherwise not acceptable to god the father according to this saying of Peter. 
1 Petr: 2  Offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to god for jesus christ sake. 
Hebre. 1●  By christ saith Paul we offer the sacrifice of praise always to god, that is to weet the fruits of those lips which confess his name This is the last argumentation of them that be deduced & fetched out of the scripture which seemeth any thing forcible for the priest sacrifice. As touching this place of Matthew. v. When thou offerest a gift at the altar. etc, notwithstanding it mentioneth expresli both an altar & an offredge: Howbeit for so much as it was then uttered when the ceremonial law of Moses stood in his wonted effect and and force which commanded them both to be used, and spoken also to them, who were then obliged & bound to obey the said law: For that then the new testament was not full institute & ratified: It enforceth nothing at all for like offering & aultare to be frequented & used among us christians. By reason the heretofore named law is through the ordinance & establishment of the new testament utterly abandoned & repealed. 
 In that saith Paul he saith a new Testament he hath abrogate the old. And as touching this saying of Paul. 
〈…〉,  And they which wait at the altar are partakers of the altar, it importeth nothing at all in the behalf of mass sacrifice, whereof there is no mention made. It is but the former part of a similitude fetched out of the ceremonial law of Moses and 〈◊〉 thus▪ As in moyses law, whoso served the aultare (as thee levities did) lived thereby: Right so (now in the new Testament) who so preacheth the gospel shall have his living through the preachment thereof. For Paul in his the alleged text & others incident hereto, endeavoureth himself to argue a lyvelyhode to be deiu & payable to the gospel, preachers of their auditors for their evangelical preachement. Consider (dear reder) well the entire and full saying of Paul, & you shall easily perceive he meaneth thus Do ye not (saith he) understand how that they which minister in the temple have their finding of the temple, And they which wait at the altar are partakers of the altar? Even so, also (note the application of the form two similitudes) did the lord ordain that they which preach the gospel, should live of the gospel. If the former part of the said similitude were so to be taken that it should mean the now there be certain ministers who should serve the aultare, it is to weet should mass it, than the gospel preachers should not mass it at al. For that by Paul's doctrine to serve the aultare & to preach be sundry and severable offices and ministries, Which thing accordeth not with our catholic doctrine, which teacheth that the gospel preachers must mass it also. But what mean I to be so moche in the soiling of these two last recited scriptures, which if they had been any thing effectual for the proof of the priest sacrifice, as the before alleged seem, Master doctor Smythe would have pleased them with in his book made for the defence of thee said sacrifice, as he hath done thee remnant, and not in the margente thereof. Thus have I at full both declared and argued that Christ's body and blood ought not to be sacrificed of the Massers in their mass, either to cleanse our sin, either else to thank and serve god withal, and that the reasons which the catholics deduce out of the scripture to the maintenance thereof enforce nothing for the same. But say our catholics the ancient and holy Doctors as Austin Chrisostome and others expressly avouch thee Lords body and blood to be offered of the ministers, which thing they would never have affirmed whiles they were offered so in very deed, and that according too God's word In deed it is full certain that the said Doctors avouch both thee LORDS body and and his blood to be sacrificed but not after our Catholics meaning. For why they understand by the sacrifice of Christ's body & blood done by the minister only the resembleance and memory of the true & bloody sacrifice of the said body & blood which is the communion & not any real & true sacrifice of the same executed by the priest as the catholics mistake them. We oft use to say (saith Austen to bonifacius) when eastrr approacheth nigh that to morrow or the next day is the lords passion & yet it is many years sith he suffered and the passion was never but ones: And upon the sunday, we say this day he did again rise, howbeit, it is many years sense he rose. Now is there no man so foolish to reprove us as liars, for so saying, because we name those days after the similitude of those, in which these matters were done, so that is called the same day which is not the very same day but by course of time like it. And it is said to be done thee same day through mean of the celebration of the sacrament which is not done the same day, but long tofore. Was not christ once sacrificed in himself? & yet in the sacrament is sacrificed for the people not only each ester holy day, but each day? And he lieth not who being demanded answereth he is offered For if the sacraments have not some sembleaunce of the matters whereof they be sacraments, they were no sacraments at all. Of this sembleaunce oft they take the names of the things by them signified. Lo there it doth full well appear that by Austeynes mind the sacrament of Christ's body & blood is so named thee sacrifice of them both as Easter-Day is named the day of the lords resurrection & good friday his passion day, But the said days benot termed fsr that the lord in very deed again riseth in th'one & resuffreth in tother, but by reason his passion in th'one his resurrection in tother is represented & signified. Therefore the communion is called the sacrifice of the lords body & blood not the they be sacrificed verily in the same, but in consideration their sacrifice is both recorded & resembled in the said communion or sacrament. The celebrating of the communion saith Ekius in the tenth chap. of his former book of the mass sacrifice (dedicated to the king of Pole) for the it is an image resembling Christ's passion (the true sacrifice) may be named always a sacrifice. As austin saith to Simplicius, Images are wont to be called by the names of those things whereof they be images, Example, when we view & behold a painted table or wall we say this is Cicero, this is Sallust, this Cesar, Here we see both by Austin and Ekius judgement the communion is named a sacrifice of Christ's body and blood for that it is a resembleaunce & image of the same sacrificed. By reason whereof needs it must argue, as the image of a thing is not thee thing selue: as a painted man is no man in deed, as Caesar's image is not Cesar ne Salustis Sallust selue: So thee Mass or communion being but an image and memory of the true sacrifice of Christ's body and blood is not thee very true sacrifice of them both, And as the communion is named the sacrifice of the foresaid body & blood, in consideration the said sacrifice is there in both recorded & resembled Right so the ministering & celebrating of the said communion is upon like respect termed the sacrifyinge of Christ's body & blood. Thus meaned our forefathers by the sacrifice & sacrificing of the said body and blood. Now to the last matter incident to the mass sacrifice which is the worship & instans of whole christ both man and god, in & under the forms of bread and wine. A deed no less unfitting & repugnant too the evangelical truth them the premises be. The prive mass worshippers hold opinion that Christ ought of congruence to be honoured & prayed after the consecration as being in the priests hands for that he is then there both god and man & so there no less honourable & prayable than in heaven, But this their argumentation is nothing dialectical or formal. For that the presence of Christ in a place importeth not the honour & praying of him in the said place. Is not god the father essenciallye in each creature? Yet he is reverenced & solicited, but as resident in heaven & not in his creatures. Is not the holy ghost in each faithful person? Howbeit no man worshippeth him as present in the faithful, but as in heaven. Christ is present in each religious assemble assembled faithfully in his name, the notwithstanding noman doth honour, & pray unto him as resyant in the religious assemble but in heaven alone. Is he not as god each where & consequently at the mass? Howbeit no man adjudgeth him there to be worshipped & called upon, if his body were thence utterly absented, The experiens whereof is plain in that part of the mass that foregoeth consecration. Why then should his bodily presence enforce us to honour & solicit him in the said mass? For his body is not honourable ne prayable merely of it selue but in respect of his godhead personally allied & coupled therewith. Christ both god & man with his father & the holy ghost is present at that baptism of faithful infants where they become enbodied & incorporate thereto, it is to weet where they eat his body & drink his blood as really as we do at his supper: Howbeit no man worshippeth either his body as present at baptism there no less presented than at his supper, either else his godhead, either for his own or for the presence of his said body, Why then should either his body be honoured as present in the mass after the consecration or else thee presence thereof cause us to honour his godhead in the same, there otherwise unhonourable? As in the old testament (as we learn in the vi of Daniel) the Godly fathers in their exilement wandering in foreign countries far from whom did in all their prayers made unto god direct both their hearts and their eyes toward Jerusalem, & where so ever they came, did solicit god as inhabitant in the same: right so we being as pelgrimes in this world, exiled as were from heaven our Jerusalem and native country where god dwelleth must honour & pray unto him always as resyant in that heavenvly Jerusalem & not else where It is written in the canon of thee most worthy counsel of nice in sort as followeth. Let us not grossly behold the bread and cup proposed & set before our eyes but in faith, consider thee lamb of of god in that his sacred table with our minds elevate and uplifted Here we see the most worthy consayl inhibiteth & dissuade the us from gaysing & tooting upon the bread and wine, advertising us in faith to respect christ in his supper, having our minds erected up into heaven, In case the said consayl had esteemed it sitting & leyful to worship the bread (as the most part of the lealtye, I had almost said of the clergy to doth, an ydolytre detestable), or christ in the bread (as in manner all christiandom doth a lamentable case) it would not have forbidden us to to ote upon the bred & advertised us to uplift our hearts into heaven. Doth not the priest him selue at his mass say a little before elevation or sacringe? We have our hearts above to the lord? How either aught or can christ be reverenced & oncalled as present in the sacringe if we, as the masser & quere do sing, have & ought to have (through the decree of the church) our hearts & eyes two (for where our hearts be there must our eyes be fastened also) above erected up into heaven to the lord For if he were to be considered & honoured in the mass, them we should have our hearts beneath & not above downward & not upward to the lord, then we should at that instant worship him in the priests hands & not in heaven. Christ prescribing us an exact trade & perfit form to pray withal, enjoineth us in the same to instant & on call God the father in heaven where he him selue is resident on his right-hand (as Paul saith) & not else where notwithstanding he be each where, Our father saith christ which is in heaven, he saith not which art each where. In respect whereof both the father & the son be to be worshipped & prayed to in heaven a ●one & not else where, For to pray otherwise (saith Cyprian) then christ taught us is not only an ignorance but a vice also, 
mathe. 15  sith he sayeth why do ye infringe & break god's injunction purposely to establish your tradition. Chrisostome in his exposition upon the lords prayer writeth as followeth, where as Christ saith God is in heaven he doth not by that his so saying conclude & hemen him there but with draweth him who maketh his prayer to him, from the earth & fasteneth him in heaven Iten in his homely upon the said prayer he writeth after this fort See where ye call upon the father, verily in heaven upon consideration whereof we cry at thee vicu of thee sacrifice, our hearts above, where our confession is bound, let our hearts be represented. Hitherto Chrisostome who in these his sayings that Christ is not to be honoured & prayed to in the earth & so not in the massing place (apart thereof) but in heaven Further can there be made to god at any time an effectual prayer with out an uplifting of our hearts, unto him? No verily. Why then pray we to christ in the mass sacring? Where can be none uplifting but a downliftinge of our hearts. In so much as the places where Christ's supper and the mass, be celebrate (as all other places under heaven) be beneath & not above. austin in the behalf of the premises writeth, super lectionem euangelii confite or tibi pater etc, in sort thus, Faithful perfectly know where & when it is said, let us rendre thanks to the lord our god. For noman rendereth thanks to the lord, who hath not his heart upward to the lord. Note, this he saith not who hath his heart downward but upward, beneath but above, directed but erected, in the earth but in heaven to the lord. Did not christ selue alway pray to his father his eyes erected up into heaven, as it appeareth in Ihon. xvii? Why then do we not direct our prayers to the trinity, not as being here there or else where, but in heaven alone? But here it is objected the many did worship & instant Christ as being seably conversant among them, 
mathe. 8  namely Thomas Peter & the le●rouse person & therefore we may in like manner honour him and on call him in the mass or communion. To this I answer, albeit christ was worshipful & prayeable as being among us, while h● was sensibly conversant with us: By reason he as god & men was the seable among us & unassended to heaven: Howbeit for so much as he is now become both unvisible among us, & resydent in heaven, on his father's righthand, he is both honourable & prayable but in heaven alone & not in the earth, & consecrate bred & wine. For why to worship him in under or before the said bread & wine: is to worship the same bread & wine. As to worship god in under or before an image is to reverence thee image selue, which is an unsufferable ydolatree & also disallowed by the kings majesties proceeding. 
jonn: 4 Collos: 3.  Christ is truth spirit & the body, as Paul saith, In respect whereof he is not to be honoured moche less called upon, in or under shadows & carnal things such as the bread, wine, pyx & other earthly things be. But in spirit & verity without figure shadow or any other carnal thing as he him selue saith in John iiii. The catholics themselves grant it idolater to worship ●hrist body under the bread, if there were remaining the substance of the said bread, why than worship we the foresaid body under the bread sith as I have heretofore argued the bread substance is not altered. Well though it were, yet why should it not be idolater to honour Christ's body under the accidental and outward forms of bread? For in this manner as well the accidents of bread be worshipped as in tother thee substance thereof. Now doth he show (as the father and the holy ghost do) his glory & majesty but in heaven alone, notwithstanding he be each where. In respect whereof he is to be adored & solicited in heaven alone and not else where. For honour & prayer import the presence of his glory and majesty where they be exhibited to him And as a king renounceth to be honoured as a king where he dyffynneleth his person age and majesty royal. Right so Christ dyssymuling his Majesty renown & godly parsonage here among us refuseth to be reverenced & called upon as he is amongst us. He is as meat received & eaten & as drink taken and drunken at his supper: and thee mass also (if he be there received at all). By reason whereof he is to be honoured and oncalled neither in the one ne in the other, because meat and drink be neither honoured ne instanted. This it appeareth evident that the worship & praying to christ at the mass, his supper or else where, heaven exempted is dissonant to the sacred scripture worthy counsel ancient doctors good reason & the nature & condition of true prayer and so discommendable. But here wolsome say God is too be honoured and prayed to in all places and so consequently in the priests hands at the elevation or else where. To this I answer notwithstanding we ought to honour and solicit god each where, howbeit our prayers & worships made unto him here or there must tend & be directed to him as inhabitant & resiant in heaven & not as here there or else where in the earth. Why then wolsome say doth Austin that worthy clerk write to the contrary? He saith noman eateth Christ's flesh unless he first worshippeth it and sinneth it, he worship it not? Well though Austin saith Christ's must be worshipped, yet he gain saith not me, because he saith not noman eateth Christ's flesh without he worship it as in his supper or the mass in or under the bread, but in simple without any such like gloze worshippeth it. Yea though he were to be understand to talk of such worship which implieth the honour and instance of the said flesh. By reason he maketh no clear mention where the same should be worshipped, he is to be taken to entreat of the worshipping of the before mentioned flesh in such place wherein it is not doubted but certainly known it is worshipped, that is of heaven and not of any earthly place. But Augustyn meaneth by the worshipping of Christ's flesh no such worship as, honouring praying crowchinge or kneeling thereunto, but only the worthy reverent and wholesome receipt & eating of the said flesh. For the honour due and requisite to the said flesh or sacrament thereof, is to receive them as christ instituted them to be received, that is to weet with purifieth cleansed conscience with unfeigned repentance charity & thanksgiving with full desire and purpose to be fed with Christ's flesh to be thereby mortefyed too sin & sanctified, to be enbodyed to christ & not to crouch before the bred to his flesh or to worship invocate & solicit him as present in or under the bred. The right usage of god's word & his sacraments is recounted their due honour as their abusion dishonour. The word Baptism & absolution through mean of true & obedient faith, & cleansed conscience be condignly & accordingly received without either crouching or kneeling either worshipping or praying to God as present in the same. So thee lords supper is worthily & rightly celebrate & received with out thee foresaid crouch worship & instance. Thus have I at full spoken of the first part of the mass, Now to the second which consists in the receipt of the lords supper which wether it be in very deed as it is named it happily may be well doubted upon. Yea as me seemeth it is not in deed. For sith at the privy mass there is none to suppli the roomth & office of christ in ministering the supper it cannot be the lords but the priests supper. For without christ or his minister his supper cannot be made ne distribute. without Christ's words touching the institution of his supper be duly reported at the receipt of the bred & wine there cannot be his supper. How then can the mass supper be the lords? sith there wanteth his minister, who should report the said words? If the priest presume to pronounce them they be the priests and not Christ's, for that they be the words not of the giver which is Christ, but of thee taker which cannot be he. If it were thee lords supper that the priest taketh at his Mass he he should receive it of the lord and not of hym selve. But how can he possibly receive it of the l●rd, sith there is none present to exhibit the priest it in christ name? But some will say the priest may supply the person, both of the institutor exhybitour & receiver of thee mass supper, therefore it is the lords. If this that is objected were true, then mought one baptism him selue, assoil him selue, confirm him selue, marry him selue, anoint him selue, which no man be he never so catholic will grant, By reason as they be thought all to he institute of christ so they must all be executed in his name & authority Which cannot be, when there is none to supply his r●um●he. For the receiver of thee premises cannot possibly play both the part of the giver and of the taker. By reason they be two several persons. To this the catholics also condescend as most certain. Therefore as in the heretofore especified ceremonies (some of them truly but all catholiquelis termed sacraments) one man alone cannot receive them, for want of a second person who should minister than unto him in the lords name & authority notwithstanding that one man hath used for the receipt of the same each word requisit & behovable thereto: Right so the priest endeavouring him selue to receive the lords supper cannot receive it without Christ's minister an other person ebesyde him selue, notwithstanding he reporteth all thee words appertaining to the right & full institution of the said supper. For as the above mentioned sacraments the receivers report of the words belonging to the consecration of any of the said sacraments enforceth not the sacraments? Example, his reporting of the baptism words over him selue, in washing him selue, or his rehearsal of the absolution words upon him selue, maketh neither baptism ne absolution: Even so the priest being but the receiver that is to say, he who would receive the lords supper, cannot through his own report of the words appertaining to the full institution of the said supper, institute or cause the same There is no sacrament which hath not for his ordinance & essensiall being both his deputed element word & commandment. Where is there any commandment, yea or sufferance to take or institute the lords supper alone? Certes not in the holy scripture. Can there be instituted the lords supper without the due rehearsal of the words concerning the same? Can the said words be justly esteemed Christ's not construed as he meaned them? No verily, Therefore let the masser report them in his private Mass so oft as him list, they be not the lords words. For that take ye, eat ye drink ye, imply both a commandment and a second person to the receipt of the lords body & blood, and to the consecration of the sacrament of the same, Which both want in thee Pryestes supper, and so it is not the lords. Wherefore as it is falsely so presumptuously & blasphemously termed the lords supper, But let it be the same that the masser taketh in his mass, yet it is there heinously abused, for that it is celebrate contrary to his commandment & otherwise then he instituted it. 
luke. xxii  He bade us sever the consecrate bread charitably among us & not each of us to reserve it to him selue, and to eat uncharytablye all alone, as the priest doth. 
Math. 26  He bade us take & eat his body & not to worship it & uplyft it as the priest doth. 
1. Cor: 10,  He bade us at the celebration & receipt of his supper, receive & eat his body in his remembreaunce & thankfully to show his death among the congregation which the priest pretermyttethe & not to sacrifice his body & blood as the priest doth: 
Math. 26  He bade us say not only take eat this is my body but also which is given for you (a clause most fruitful & needful) Which the priest as vain & superfluous overhyppethe. He bade us take & eat his body for our selves alone & not for others also in that he commandeth us to eat it, for noman can effectualli eat it for another, But the priest doth not only eat it for him selue, but for others also, both quick and dead. Which as it is unpossible for him to do effectually so to attempt is a superstition. Can another man's eating relief mine hunger? Can his drinking release my thirst? Can another man be baptized assoiled, priested, married, confirmed or anointed for me? How then can the priests receipt & celebrating of thee communion be mine or available to me? Chrisostome upon the xu chap. of the first to the Corinthians writeth to the maintenance of the premises in sort as followeth. As one man cannot be christened for an other specially being dead, so noman can receive the body & blood of christ for another namely being dead. Hereto agreeth Antididagma. but be it it be so that the priest may receive & eat the lords supper for others, whether they be quick or dead. Yet for as much as he cannot possibly believe for another (the just man saith Paul shall live by his own faith (it must no remedy be that he both taketh and eateth the Lord is supper to thee damnation of them, 
Roma. i.  whatsoever they be good or bad dead or quick for whom he taketh and eateth the same. By rason he taketh & eateth the said supper for them unworthily for want of his believing for them, which is merely needful to the wholesome and worthy receipt and usage of thee before mentioned supper. Well though it were so that the preyst both could at the lords supper for others, and believe for them also: howbeit in so much the said priest useth in his massing the said supper, otherwise then christ him selue instituted it (as is heretofore declared) needs must he receive it both to his own damnation & others, Because (as S, Ambrose writeth upon the eleventh of the first to thee Corinthians) who so useth the Lords supper otherwise than he him selue ordained, receiveth it unworthily & consequently to his damnation as paul saith. 
1. Cori: 11.  Thus it is plane that the private mass supper is to be discontynued & surcesed as blasphemous to God & annoyous to the practycioners thereof, and the devotion and holiness, that is supposed to be in the usage thereof, is mere idolatry and superstition, and so both damnable an● exchevable. Wherefore they w● 〈◊〉 dame it both reasonable and 〈…〉 ●ly, that the masser mought 〈…〉 it alone, when others refuse 〈…〉 ●ctlye to mass with him 〈…〉 no man ought to be a st● 〈…〉 and hindrance of an other 〈◊〉 ●uocyon, be no less deceived the● thee jews, who adjudged their condemning of the evangelical doctrine & persecuting of christ & his disciples both a sufferable & serviceable service too God, in consideration it was done of devotion. Now to prayer the third part of the solitary mass, which is for sundry consyderatyons blame worthy. first for that therein those saints be on called as advourers & aiders who be not here presently conversant among us but are far soundred & distanted from us in place namely in heaven. For though we mought pray unto the said saints as being presently and conversant with us as we do one to another assembled togethers, howbeit for as much they be far placed from us (they in heaven we in the earth) we ought not to instant them. For why that were to attribute and render to them the honour dew and incident to God alone, it is to weet the knowledge of our hearts and the hearing of the far absent, In case I being at Cambredge did desire either you, either any man's then being not present with me, but either at york or London to pray for me, (whom otherwise present with me I mought both well and wisely): would not each man depose that my desire both vaynelye and undiscreetly made of me? Because no man being at that present, either at york or London, what time I pray to him in Cambredge, either heareth or understandeth that my prayer? yes truly, How then can our prayers be fruitful and effectual which be directed to the heaven saints who be farrer distanted or sound red from us then either London or york from Cambredge? But the heaven saints w●l some say being conversant or present with God espy in him as in a glass, all the secrets & entendementes of our hearts, & so orderly perceive what we pray for & to whom, This sophistical cavil or objection is nothing answerable, to God's word wherein it is expressly written in sort as followeth. 
two. para. vi  Thou alone knowest the hearts of the sons of men How could this be verified and justified that god alone understandeth men's hearts, if the heaven saints know them also? Abraham saith Isaiah lxiii knoweth us not, Israel knoweth us not, So may we say, Paul knoweth us not, Peter knoweth us not. For why they were as much pryveledged & regarded as Peter & Paul. It is written in thee ix of thee book named preacher, that the dead know the nothing any more, upon the which text Hierome saith thus. There is no knowledge after death, ne any sense after the dissolution of this life. Wherefore as it is an ungodly so an untrue saying the heaven saints knoweth our hearts not withstanding their conversation with God. It was notably inhibited in the counsel of Carthage that any saint should be called upon at thee altar, that the priest should utter this or like prayer. S. Paul or Peter pray for me, Why then contrary both to the scripture and the said godly counsel do we instant supersticiousli the heaven saints at our massing? But enough hereof. The second consideration, why mass prayer is to be discommended is by reason therein, it is prayed for the dead, not so much too declare thereby our charity toward them in wishing them saved (which purpose were no less sufferable than charitable) as through our prayers too redeem them out of pur- of purgatory or at  to enlessen their pains in the same. Which for to think well done as it is an untolerable error so for to attempt is a sinful superstition. For who so doth depart out of this world, dieth either in the lord or without him, If he die without him then incontinent remedyless he is condemned. For without christ there is no mercy to be achieved or had, 
two. Corin.  all promises saith Paul be in christ, yea and amen. But if he die in the lord he is both blessed and enfranchised from all travail as S. John writeth in, xiiii. of his revelation. In that johan avoucheth the departed in thee lord to be blessed, he doth us to understand they be not pained in purgatory else were they cursed & not blessed, In that he pronounceth than quite delivered from all labour, he doth us to were they be no more molested or tormented either in purgatory or else were, else should they endure in labour, For to be pained in purgatory is a grievous travail Again whoso dieth in the Lord dieth in faith, whoso dieth in faith, escapeth both death and judgement & so consequently purgatory also, which is a painful judgement after our catholic doctrine. 
johan, v,  Verily, verily I say unto you saith christ, He that heareth my words and believeth on him that hath sent me, hath everlasting life and shall not come into judgement but is scaped from death to life, As concerning the other dead sort as it dieth without christ so without faith, therefore it is everlastingly and so not pardonably in purgatory, but unpardonably placed in hell. Where upon it formally argueth there is no purgatory. Thee dead saith Solomon in the ix of of his book entitled, the preacher, have no more a reward. Which his saying were not true, if they mought be through our prayers sacrifices or otherwise delivered out of purgatore. For their delivery were a great reward. If any should come to purgatore it is very like & colourable that the thief which was hanged with christ, should have been for a season placed & pained therein. being soch a sinful liver as he was till his dying hour, but he incontinent after his hence departure, went with christ to paradise. In consideration whereof it is right certain that purgatore is but an imagined & feigned place, by reason whereof the prayers & sacrifices institute to release & redeem souls out of the same (otherwise called the third place wherein they be pained) be both vain & stuperstitious. The place of the Maccabees which the catholics allege to the maintenance 
●, mac, 12  of the said place is not authentical or received for scripture, as Hierome Gregory Ruffinus record. The canon's which the catholics father of the apostles, the canons of the last consayl of Leedes & Aphricane registered the bible books without any mention made of the Maccabees at all, which argueth that then the books of Maccabees were uncanonized It is written in the heretofore alleged place of the said Maccabees the judas caused both sacrifice & prayer to bemade to purge & do away the sin of the murdered jews withal, & is in the said book commended for that his so doing which is an undeceivable argument that the said book is not authentical or canonical. For the levitical sacrifices did not do away sin before god. It is unpossible saith Paul to the hebrews that the blood of oxen & gottes should take away sins. 
Hebre. x  Again there be no sacrifices or prayers commanded of god in the behalf of the dead. Therefore the before mentioned book is nothing less than canonical In consideration it approveth matters added to god's word contrary to his express commandment, 
Deut, 20  Here iucidently by the way we may learn that sith god in the old law (the time of unperfection) enjoined neither sacrifice ne prayer for the dead, it is not his mind that now in the new testament (the time of perfection) he being also now much more merciful than before Christ's incarnation there should be made either sacrifice or prayer for the dead to redeem & release them with all (as otherwise unredemed & pained) Forther if the foresaid book were thoroughly written by the enbrethinge of the holy ghost (otherwise uncanonized as Peter saith) them this ensuing clause should not have been interplaced in th'end thereof, 
two, Petr, i,  
two, mac, 15  And if well, & as it is convenable for a story, I wish the same, if not worthily, I must be pardoned, Which wish or iayenge is utterly unworthy the profession if the holy ghost, who saith & writeth all matters both well & godly, & so needeth no pardon for the same. If the place of Paul which the catholics allege for purgatory were to be understanden of the same, 
i Cori. iii  then questionless were the Apostles first placed & vexed in the said purgatory, ere they came to heaven. For why Paul talking in the same place namely of preachers avoucheth that the fire shall try each man's work what it is, & consequently the apostles, for that they were both men & preachers. So that Paul was not incontinent after his hence departure with Christ as he wished to be For to be placed and tormented in purgatore is not to be with christ So that Lazarus & the thief were not immediatli upon their decease, 
luk. 16.23  though ne in paradise tother in Abraham's bosom, places of pleasure, & not of woefulness (as purgatory is. If Christ's talk in Matthew .v. concerning the extreme imprisonment of certain, enforced for purgatore than neither soul masses sacrifices ne prayers could enforce any thing to the ransom and deliverance of them, who are pained in the same. For their christ sweareth they shall not come out thence, till they paid the uttermost farthing. What can prayer, sacrifice or mass avail her, sith christ so exactly demandeth the full payment of thee debt, as without it the imprisoned shall not be fredommed and delivered? He speak the of a place where justice is executed and not mercy, that is hell and not purgatore. Out of another saying of Christ in the said Matthew xii our catholics do argue for purgatore but expuris negativis & therefore their argumentation being not formal is nothing effectual. The cause why our ancient writers say, they sacrifice and pray for thee dead, was not to deliver them out of pain thereby (For they sacrificed and prayed for the patriarchs prophets apostles also who then were perfect already in heaven, & had no need of their prayers or sacrifices) but partly too declare thereby their charity toward the hence departed, in well wysshinge them & rendering god thanks for their salvation & endless blessefulnes, partly to assure & warrant the survivors at the remembrance of the good & blissful estate of the deceased, both of everlasting life & bodily resurrection: To sacrifice Christ's body & blood either for the dead, or quick, after the true meaning of the foresaid writers, is namely to recite & pray for the said persons in those our prayers which we make at the receipt of the lords supper, called otherwise of them the sacrifice of the lords body and blood, in consideration it is a resemblance thereof & not as the soul massers mistake it, to up offer the said body & blood in very deed to cleanse thee quick: and too redeem and ransom the dead out of purgatory withal. For after this life there is no purging ne amendment place. Therefore saith Cyprian in the first treat against Demetrian when we hence depart there is no place of repentance. here life is either forfeited or attained. While we be here saith Chrisostome in his second homeli of Lazarus we have good hope, but so soon as we shall hence depart, we shall not either repent or do away sin. The same Chrisostome in the two & twenty sermon to the people saith, there be none occasions of meriting after this life. Who so (saith Ambrose in the two. chap. of his book concerning the goodness of death) hath not here received remission of sin shall not receive it ther. There is no place, saith austin in his Epistle to macedonius, of correcting our demeinour, but in this life. For after this life each man shall have that which he procured to him in this, What can be more openly & directly written against the popish purgatory, them the alleged authorities? why then do we maintain purgatory contrary both to the scripture & ancient writers? But beit there were a purging place wherein the hence departed souls be a mockedg & blaspheming of god is this, for the masser to pray in the lords prayer let thy will be done in earth & yet contrary to god's will to pray for the erection & acceptance of his sacrifice to the great hindrance & derogation of Christ's, which was ꝑfyted & wrought at his majesties appointment? What is to take the name of god in vain, if that be not? & so sinful What is to flock & despise god if that be not? In respect whereof mass prayer is reproachful. Now to the fourth & last part of the mass named doctrine, which in consideration it teacheth & ratifieth thee damnable sinfulness of the before mentioned parts of this solitary ●●sse exhorting and occasioning the lay people both to embrace & w●rship the same is faulty as they be. For the doctrine of a sinful matter is sinful as the matter selue. Not only to riot is sin, but the doctrine also thereof & the allure to the same, To steal & to teach or exhort to steal be both defaults, Too sin & to teach or move to sin be both sinful. Even so to private mass it & to teach & motion so to do be both defaults exchewable, Here am I demanded weather I suppose the epistle and gospel interplaced in the mass to be godly & approvable or no To the with demand thus I answer. The gospel & epistle if they were not abused & misplaced were both godly and commendable But for so much as they be inserted and placed in the privy mass to the furniture worship and commendation thereof, and for a covert or cloak of the ungodliness in the same, they so misused must needs be sinful. Meat and drink be good and receyveable but enpoisoned, they be nought & unreceaveable, & poison their eaters & drinkers, as the pure poison selue doth, wherewith they are poisoned: Right so god's word merely of it selue is good & fruitful but abused ungodlis, displesing god & empeching man, as the sin abusion doth, where with it is corrupted. An example & evidence whereof we have both in our massing, & conjuring wherein gods words be haynousli abused. There is no service ne worship which god so highly esteemeth or so straightly enjoineth to be observed, but being misused is not only not serviceable & acceptable, but much displesaunt also & hateful to him Because it is executed, not after but contrary to his will & therefore sinful and detestable before him, who commanded only the right usage & not the abusage (as of all other matters) so of the premises. Notwithstanding god commanded both incense to be used and holy days to be observed, howbeit he openly by his prophets avoucheth he hath them in hate & detestation, not in respect of themselves, for he bade them, but in consideration of their abusion which he inhibited I hate saith he by his prophet Amos, & abhor your holy days & where ye sense me when ye come together I will not account it. And further by his prophet Esay i he sayeth thus, I abhor your incense I may not away with your newmones your sabathes & solemn days. etc. Note this diligently, god saith not I abhor ye for your abusing of the holy days nor he saith I abhor your abuse of the holy days, but I abhor your holy days, he saith not I abhor ye for your abusion of incense newmoones sabbaths & solemn days, nor he saith I abhor the abusion of your incense new moons sabathes & solemn days, whereby he doth us to weet that he doth not only hate & detest the abusers with there abusage of his commanded service & worship, but the service also & worship selue as an inhybyted sin practised of man, & forged of the devil, and not as an honour enjoined approved, & devised of him, & through his grace put in practice of man. In consideration whereof god nameth the foresaid holy days new moons sabbaths not his, but yours, it to weet the jews whom he spoke unto. For nothing the is sinful (as each abused matter is) ought to be fathered of God the fountain & authore not of sinfulness but of goodness only. 
jacob. i  Which matter is by the mean of his abusage not a part only, but throughlie faulty. 
i Corin. v  A little leaven (saith) Paul soureth that whole lump of dough. Whereby he doth us to understand that as other abused matters be not a part only, but entierty and thoroughly vicious and sinful, so the priest mass is in like manner as well in his doctrine, as in the other his essential parts. seethe (good reader) there is no portion of the popish private mass that doth not highly displease god as ●e pugnant to his written word ●nd derogatory to his honour, & annoyed man as noyous both to his ●ody and soul: I beseech the with ●ll possible endeavour eschew it & ●o manner wise, accept it as either approvable either else a sufferable matter. If gods honour cannot ●ccasion and move us to the utter refusal and avoidance thereof, let ●s well respect the great benefit ●nd commodity that redounethe ●her upon. If neither god's glory ●e our profit, can enforce us to the premises, them we be worse than brutish beasts, which, though not for gods glori, yet for their own, profit, are led willingly hither & thither. We resort to the church purposely to serve god therein, not with man's service, which he inhibiteth & dislyketh, but with his own alone which he commandeth & accepteth. So that in the congregation no manner service ought to be frequented, bu● that alone which is both openly and truly fonded upon gods written word. Why then is not the● priest pryvee Mass abandoned and abolished quite out of the congregation which is not quadrant but variant to the said word, which doth not ratify & establish bu● invert & subvert the right institution & usage of the sacrament of christs body & blood (as is heretofore argued at full). And in the room thereof why is not the communion frequented? Is not the said communion a new Testament, as christ selue saith in Luke xxii▪ Can a man therefore not sinfully but leyfulli alter the order thereof? No verily. For as S. Paul saith it is not leyful to exchange man's, 
Gala. iii  much less gods will legacy & testament. Why then do we reteygne accept & use solytare mass? Which is an unfitting exchange of the communion (the lords Testament and legacy). Is not the said communion a Sacrament of charity and love? In consideration whereof it is not to received of one alone, but of many at ones. For charity consisteth in many & not in one alone. Why then use we still thee priest mass? which is rather an union than a communion and an argument rather of hate and dissension than of love and unite. For therein the priest uncharitably fondereth him selue from the congregation, as one severed not in place alone, but in heart also from the same. It is no marvel that the priest is had in great hate and contemptment among his parishioners saith he so uncharitabli taketh, eateth, and drinketh all alone, dissevering and sequestering him selue from his accompanable parrishioners, lest they would communicate (as charitable godliness requireth (with him. It is a lamentable sight to behold the great & unto ●lerable uncharitableness which our private massing priests show toward their partishioners. Verily (as me seamethe) their private massing is no small occasion thereof. By reason as the communion engendereth orderly low, so thee private massing hate in the frequenters of the same: For why as they be contrary in nature, so they be in effect & operation. Wherefore the said massing is not be frequented of any, but is to be disused of each christian. Who ought to endeavour him selue to be charitable and not uncharitable. 
i Cori. 10  We ought (saith Paul) to eat all of one loaf, 
i Cori. 10  and drink all of one cup, we ought (as the same Paul wolleth us) assemble togethers to the receipt of the communion, 
1. Cori: 11.  and one to take it orderly after another: These premises cannot be accomplished and verified in the private mass, where the priest severally all alone hath his loof & eateth it alone, where there is none assemble assembled togethers to receive thee communion, but to gaze upon the priests receipt & doing, where none receiveth the said communion orderly one after another, but unorderly one alone. Wherefore thee said mass is to be discontinued & abandoned. For why he is accursed who so teacheth either in word, deed or jointly in both, another doctrine in religion, then that which Paul learned us, 
Gala. ●  as he him selue recordeth the same. We must not do what we list, but what god commandeth us, as it is written in Deuteronomy xii For why our carnal reason & entendementes be merely repugnant, both to his sayings & doings, & so displeasant and hateful to him. The sense of the flesh (saith Paul) is enmity against God. 
Roma. 8.  In case we mought worship god as we list, Why did he appoint & prescribe us a pnscripte order to worship him withal? If we mought sittingly honour him after our will & fantasy: Then each made worship were sitting and ieyful, and so consequentelye there were none ydolatree at all, them were there no difference betwixt ours and thee Turks, jews paynims, ethnics, and other miscreants religion, For they be only differenced by Gods written word. If we mought order Christ's supper after our arbitrement, then why did he institute & prescribe us a trade and order to be observed in the celebration thereof? 
1. Cori. ●●.  Why did Paul reprove and blame thee Corinthians for their disorder & abusage of the same? Are not we named christians for that we ought to profess and give full credence to his sayings and practise, and embrace his doings, as followable and believable? But how do we answer to our name and profession in our solitary massing? wherein we do not only, not ensue Christ's practise and order, but thoroughly subvert and invert the same concerning the administration of his supper Are we not called faithful for that we ought to ground all our religion upon our faith? which faith issueth only from Gods written word, as Paul recordeth, 
Roma. 10  otherwise no true faith. But how can we be indeed as we be named, if we admit and frequent as we do, to thee great and unsufferable empechement both of Christ's honour and our souls salvation, the priest privy mass? which is variant to god's word. Therefore as it is an unfaithful, so as sinful misdeed For that which is wrought without faith is sin, 
Roma, 10  as Paul saith: Ace we not straightly enjoined of God utterly to abandon, & avoid all idolatry? How do we observe and accomplish this his injunction, while we embrace and accept the said mass? which is a made worship of God, and so idolatry. For the worship of any fantasy intent conceit and image, or of any other matter else, forged of man's brain without gods written word, is questionless idolatry? Hereto accordeth Hierome (who upon the last of Hieremye on this verse And they put their idols in the house. etc, writeth in, sort thus) not only then judas reposed in God's temple an idol image, whereof we read in the first of Ezechtel, but now still in god's house (which by interpretation is the congregation) or in the heart of the believers, is placed an idol, whensoever any new doctrine is forged, and after the law adored and worshipped in the secret. And upon the twenty of Ezechyel the said, Hierome calleth the inventions and devices of the philosophers and herytyques, the Egyptians idols. Ancient usage in other matters of religion seemeth to be of moche force & importance to the acceptance & establishment of any such semblable matter, but her in our private mass matter the said usage is no thing esteemed (To sure an argument I fear me of our partiality in scripture matters) Was not Christ's own administration of his supper the first original usage thereof? 
Mat. xxvi  and so the ancientest? wherein none alone but sundry jointly togethers did communicate? In the primitive church it was both observed and enacted that all the whole congregation assembled should communicate with thee priest or minister, as it doth well appear in Gracian de consecra. distinct i in the canon dens, which is fathered of the Apostles, in thee Canon Episcopus fathered of Anacletus, & de consecra. distinc ii in the canon peracta, Calixtus thus wryttethe when the consecration is done, let each man them present communicate, & then who will not to be excommunicate. This thee Apostles enacted this doth the romish church hold & observe. Note this that Calixtus doth not only declare that it is his will & commandment all they who be present at the communion time should communicate, else to be excommunicate, But the apostles decree & the usage of the romish church also. There be (saith Erasmus upon the Psalm, Quam dilectabernacula) who require in thee Mass a communion, In deed I grant so it was instituted of Christ and so it was in thee old time observed Albert in his book of thee Mass mysteries, recordeth it was first in wont that all the togethers assembled persons in the church did communicate each day, when that could not be observed, it was decreed that on each sunday all the hole congregation should communicate, when this neither could be observed, it was decreed that thrice in the year, at Easter, whitsunday, and Christmas, the communion should be received of the whole congregation. And when this could neither be observed it was enacted that once in the year the said communion should be received of the whole congregation. Here we may learn of Albert that in the primative church all thee whole congregation did communicate each day joinetly togethers. Further in case we would well and earnestly respect the consideration of our repair to the church, & what also is of the masser reported out of his mass book at thee celebration of thee communion: We mought well understand that the said communion should always be received of a compaygne and not of one alone. Do we not (I pray ye) repair to the church, as to the common place, wherein we should make common prayers nothing excuting privately but all commonly? Saint Paul avoucheth, 
i Cori. 14  nothing ought to be executed in thee church, but that which redowneth to the edifying & behove of the whole congregation, so that as the church is a common place, so the prayers therein should be common, so the celebration of the communion must be common, and not private, as the words of the mass canon reported after the communion do well declare, which be these following. That, that we have received by the mouth, lord grant we may receive with heart purposely that there may be made unto us an everlasting remedy of the body & blood of our lord jesus christ. It is not said I, but we have received. The priest as here so in other places saith not I but we even while he communicateth all alone, whereby it is gatherable the masser should communicate not severally alone but iounctlye with others. For we importeth a multitude & not a singularity. Some there be who dame the solitary massing an indifferent & consequently a sufferable matter. Well though it were so, as questionless it is not: Howbeit for so much as we have utterly renounced the Romsshe bishop with all his usurped authority, we ought of congruence abandon there with the private mass, which he forged & fathered, less we through reteygnement & usage thereof, be occasioned to resume & again embrace the said bishop withal his unfitting & pretenced authority. For upon semblable consideration, 
levi. xviii  God inhibited the Israelites the usage of the egyptians ceremonies, wherewith they had heretofore been infected, albeit soundry of them by all likelihood were indifferent. Notwithstanding (gentle reder) Ihertofor have much what vehemently gainsaid the privy mass & condemned here as detestable erroneous & blasphemous: Howbeit I trust thou wolste accept this my labour, embracing & ensuing my doctrine therein, as ensuable & credible, sith it tendeth not to gods dishonour but to his honour, not to thine empechement but to thy great commodity, not to the hindrance & overthrow but to the redress recovery & furtherance of the true mass, otherwise named the communion, which cannot be so highly esteemed and so oft frequented as of necessity it ought, without the priest mass be hated and detested. For both it and the communion cannot be iounctly regarded. Whoso loveth thee one must needs hate tother, for why they be mere contraries. But how can thee priest mass be had in worthy hate? if her abomination were not at full disclosed? In respect whereof, thou seest how needful it is that she should be both gain said and condemned as heresy, and abandoned as idolatry. God of his mercy grant us all to learn, love credit and maintain his truth and live thereafter.  
AMEN.