AN ANATOMIS, THAT IS TO SAY A PARTING IN pieces ●…f the Mass. Which discovereth the horrible er●…ors, and the infinite abuses unknown to the people, aswell of the Mass as of the Mass Book, very profitable, yea most necessary for all Christian people.  
WITH A SERMON OF THE SACRAment of thanks giving in the end, which decla●…eth whether Christ be bodily in the Sacrament ●…r not.  
By Christ'S humble servant Anthoni de Adamo.  The word of the lord is quick and mighty, and ●…erceth faster than any two edgid sword. Heb. 4. 
A. D. 1556.   

Anthony de Adamo to the Christian readers desireth health.  
Do exhort you (ò Christians) to read and consider well this short book, which treateth of the Mass and of the Mass book, for without ●…t reading and well considering it, you shall ●…ow what the one and the other is, and it is con●…ient, seeing this Mass is so greatly haunted, and 〈◊〉 in such honour and price almost of all men, 〈◊〉, esteemed as the chief and principal way to ho●…ur god in the Christian religion. (It is fit I say) ●…at it be well known what it is, whether it be ●…ofitable or hurtful, good or evil, pleasing or if pleasing to god. Many, yea the more part of ●…en without any manner of knowledge in mat●…rs of Christian religion, not considering the im●…rtaunce thereof, follow the multitude, Custom ●…d the common sort of men, thinking that they ●…end not but that they do well, and an acceptab●…e work to god, doing as other men do, but they 〈◊〉 deceived, for in the honouring of god and doing to him a thankful deed, 
2. Petr. 1.  It is necessary tha●… we follow his word as a light that may guide us 〈◊〉 it were travelars that journey by night, we ough●… not to be ruled nor governed, in a matter ꝑtaininge to our salvation, either by our own fantasi●… and seeming, or else by any other men's. For if we d●… so we shall leave the light and walk in darkness, a●… in the end fall into a headolngnes and everlasting downfall. Who is that good servant that serveth his lord or master as liketh himself? surely none: but the good serveth as his lord willeth and ●…maundeth, otherwise he should not be good but w●…cked and stubborn. God would above allthings hau●… obedience according to this saying, 
1. Reg. 15. Eccles. 4. Esa. 29.  Melior es obedientia quam victima that is to say obe●…ence is better than sacrifice. And Eccles. saith, Obe●…ence is better than fools sacrifices, who know no●… the evil they do. God threateneth that heavy se●…tence written in isaiah, and alleged by Christ i●… S. Matthew, 
Matth. 15.  This people (saith he) doth honour m●… with there lips, but there hearts are far from m●… they honour me vainly teaching the doctrine an●… commandments of men. Lo I will work a gre●… wonder toward this people for the wisdom of there wise men shall perish, and the vnderstanding●… of the witty shallbe darkened, the which sentenc●… ●…y the just judgement of god, from a certain time ●…e her to is come upon us: Because that (leaving ●●e word of god) we have embraced the teachings ●…nd fantasies of men, estiminge them more than ●…he holy scripture, and therefore our accounted ●…yse and witty men, have greatly erred, and as blin●…e men have led the rest of us (being also blind in ●…hat time) into the pit of innumerable and most ●…eadly errors. And I protest here before god and ●…sus Christ before whose throne we must all appe●… and render account of our doings at the last ●…ay that no private affection hath moved me to ta●…e this enterprise in hand, but only an earnestness ●…owards gods glory and jesus Christ's, and for the ●…roffit of the Christian people, and I desire every ●…e that shall find any fault in this our writing, ●…at he will openly in writing confute it and de●…are it. But let him do this by the word of god, ●●en as hitherto I have endeavoured myself (accor●…ng to my understanding and ability) to make ●…ainly appear by the same word of god the great ●…rrours and the infinite abuses that be in this Mass ●…nd Mass book: I mistrust not, but there will be ●…me and undoubtedly many, who live not only 〈◊〉 ease by this there accustomed merchandise of ●…e Mass but also do fleshly triumph on poor men's costs that will condemn this our labour and will cry with a loud voice, down with him, down with him, but without any available reason and with out gods word, alleging only the custom and authority of men, saying, how is it possible that the church with so great a number of learned men, should have erred so long time, as though any certain multitude which is commonly holden and taken for the true church were Christ's church in deed, whose cry I little care for, if they bring no other matter then the customs and words of men▪ But if they can with the holy scripture and with lively reasons grounded on the same confute this and defend there Mass and there Mass book (th●… which I think yea I believe verili they shall not) I sha●… rest most bound unto them and yield them my hearty thanks. And because that this our judgement to some of small understanding, may seem strange and a new matter, ye they shall judge it rather a wicked rashness, I therefore do warn and give every Christian man to understand, that none ought to be moved, either by the long custom or authority of any manner of man, whether he be holy or learned, for in gods matters, we ought to take heed not to Customs, not to the continuance of time, not to the multitude, nor the authority of our elders, bu●… to the only word of god, 
Ezech. 20.  as ezechiel the prophet saith, Walk not in the commandments of your fathers nor keep not there judgements, with ●…here Idols defile not yourselves, I am the lord your god, walk in my commandments and keep any judgements and do them, 
levit. 13.  And in Leviticus it is written. Keep my commandments, be not desirous to do those things that they have done which have been before you, nor defile not yourself in them: I am the lord your god. 
Cyprian in his second book of his epistles the 3. chapter.  And S. Cyprian to Cecilius in his second book of epistles, the third chapter saith, that Christ ought only to be herd, the father also from heaven hath testified the same, (saying) this is my welbelowed son, in whom I am well pleased, here him. Whereby if only Christ be to be herd, we ought not to regard, what any man before hath thought meet for us to do, but what first Christ hath done who is before all. Wherefore we ought not to follow men but the truth of god. And he saith in divers other places that we ought to follow the word of god and not the opinious of men, and likewise to Pompey against Steuens Epistle he saith: That the Custom which was entered among many ought not to make that the truth, should not prevail and overcome, for Custom without truth is an oldness of errors. Wherefore, leaving the error, let us follow the truth. I will let pass a number of the ancient fathers, as Austen, Hierom, Ambrose, and other, who would we should stick to the only word of god and not to custom nor to any other authority of man. It hath been always that the more part of men have been in error, yea, and even of them that were called the people of god. Let the prophets be red and it shall apere that I say the truth: for, why were the prophets persecuted, evil handled and in the en●… put to death, if not, for because they reproved the errors and abuses of there time, which were among the people? why hath Christ and his Apostles suffered persecution, and in the end death, y●… not, for that they reproved the false faith, the untrue worshippings, and the counterfeit religion of there time? And for what cause then shall we now marvel, that the Christian people should be mired and drowned in so many abuses corruptions, Idolatries and other infinite errors? 
2. Pet. 2. et 3.  hath not Pete●… foretold us, in his second epistle, that there should come false teachers that would bring in deadly sects, and that in the latter days there sholud come beguilers and deceivers? 
2. Thess. 2.  And Paul in his second to the Thessalonians, doth, not he declare that there should come a forsaking (as I understand it o●… the faith) that is to say that men should go from the faith, and that god would send forth a mightiness of guile and deceit, so that men should believe lies, and that because they have not loved the truth? And to Timothi in his first Epistle doth not he say that in the latter times some should depart from the faith, 
1. Tim. 4.  giving heed to the spirits of error and doctrines of devils? 
2. Timo. 3.  And in the second also he saith that in the latter days should be perilous times and men full of vices: and among other things ●…he saith that they should have shows of religion but in deed they should deny the might thereof. What hath been preached to the people of a long time hitherto, but only the teachings of men? some preached the Poets, some Aristotle, Averroes, Plato, and other heathen philosophers, some preached the laws some unprofitable questions of Scotus, Alexander of Hales, of Bonaventura of Thomas of Aquine, the which as it is manifest in there doctrine and opinions: the one of then gainsaid the other in open pulpit, the black against the grey the grey against the black, the Augustine friar against them both, and so we may say of the rest, some held one opinion some an other: and and what assuredness of true doctrine could the poor people have in so great a diversity and confusion? who was he that preached the holy scripture and the gospel purely? And shall we then marvel, that errors are entered in among the Christian people? shall we then say, how can it be possible that god would have left his church so long time in error? Nay if we had but a spark of wit and reason, we should say quite contrary, that is, how is it possible to be otherwise, but that the more part of men have been and yet are in most gross blindness covered with the dark mist of innumerable errors? and it could not be otherwise.  
There is among the rest one very great disorder, a cause of innumerable evils, that none of them to whom it belonged to teach and preach to the people hath done his office. It is well known that the office of preaching the word of god belongeth to the bishops, and who was he, yea we may now say, who is that bishop that doth preach and feed the flock of Christ with the word of god? yea who is he, that disdaineth not to preach and do that office which the Prophets the Apostles, ye and the son of god himself Christ jesus god and man, hath done, and the godliest duty of all, that is to say the greatest and highest, which is to teach the word of god to the people, these our great lords do not vouchsafe it, but have left it and yet do leave it for other to do. It sufficeth them to have the title, the rents and the honour of a bishop, as in effect they would declare that they be no bishops (as in deed they be not) except only in name, and in deed if they were true bishops, they would not be ashamed to do their office, as Austin, Ambrose, Cyprian, Chrisostom, Basile, Gregory, and other holy fathers were not ashamed, the which taught and preached the word of god. This is the true feeding which Christ commanded Peter in S. John the last chapter, 
joan. 15.21. 1. Pet. 5.  and the same Peter also in his first Epistle the 5. chapter saith, feed so much as in you is (that is to say) so much as you can and according to your ability, the flock of Christ, or else as the other text saith, feed the flock of Christ which is in you, that is to say, which is committed and given to you in charge. Of this disorder it cometh to pass that the clean, pure and true doctrine of the gospel and of the word of god doth want among the people, and as thorough a wide and large gate, be entered abuses, superstitions and errors among the Christian flock. There is none then that hath wit or reason that will say any more, how is it possible that our elders (or let it be the church) and so many teachers, have erred, God hath suffered by his just judgement this horrible decay in his church, and it is a most singular grace of god, that yet in a few (albeit evil handled of the world) who be in deed the true church the faith doth remain, Yea, I say that if the world in temporal governments had not had better rule and order then the estate called Ecclesiastical, it should have run into an utter confusion and decay. Sew●…rly it is true that there be many disorders in worldly princes doings, but yet they do in some part there duty: they minister justice after a certain manner, they chastise the fauters, they punisch theft, murder, blasphemy and other faults, they cause by there officer every man's own to be restored him, they give themselves to do right as there calling is. But in the Ecclesiastical state, who hath done, or yet doth his office? beginning at the highest degree, which is a busshopship, and see how that is handled, and thereby let the rest be judged. The bissoppes attend to every other thing, except preaching, yea they hinder by all means they can whom so ever would do this office truly (that is) would declare the gospel and the word of god purely, And they will not suffer it to be done but ragingly persecute the teachers of the truth, they condemn them, they imprison them, they torment them, and in the end they kill them. And what is this, but, to show plainly to the whole world, that they be ravening wolves and not shepherds of Christ's flock? yea that they be very antichrists? And the worshipful inquisitors, what else be they but antichristes Catchpoules creweller than nero's, so that it were better to fall into the hands of Turks and moor without comparison then into there's. Beside that they are utterly ignorant of the holy scripture, they are skilled in none other learning but in the skotish and sophistical mouldines. And these (as you see) are appointed to order the matters of our faith, and in there hands, are the goods, the honour and the lives of poor souls, whom miserably they put to death, by pretence of the faith, although they be enemies of it and of all godliness. I am desirous to make this discourse to open there eyes, Which fault not by ma●…ice, but by ignorance, and to make them understand that they should not marvel, that I reprove the Mass and the Mass book, saying that they be full of falsehood abuses and many other errors, as it may plainly be seen in this present book. Wherefore I de●…yre (for the dear love of jesus Christ) all the lovers of the truth, and those that tender godliness, to read ●…nd well consider this my labour, for without ●…oubt they shall find true that I say. Pray to ●…od for me, God be with you.   

THE TABLE.  
The Table of the matters contained in this present book which we have divided in FOUR parts.  

1. The first part examineth the Mass, from the beginning, that is from these words, Introibo ad altare Dei, unto that part which they call the Cannon when the Sanctus is said.  
2. The second examineth the Cannon itself, the which they make the most holy and principal part of the Mass, and is said altogether in secret.  
3. The third examineth all the rest, from the end of the Cannon, beginning at these words Per omnia saecula saeculorum, which goeth before the Pater noster, unto the end of the Mass.  
4. The fourth examineth the abuses and the superstitions that be in the same Mass, concluding after in the end, that no Christian ought to be present at it, but that it ought to be eschewed of all men as the plague.   

The first part is divided into four chapters.  

1. The first saith that the introibo, is false and a superstition.  
2. That the Confíteor is not Christian, because it maketh no mention of jesus Christ.  
3. The two prayers that are said softly when he goeth to the altar, the one is false and the other is very wicked, and lesseneth the honour of jesus Christ   

The second Chapter.  
1. Examineth the Kyrie eleison and the Gloria in excelsis Deo.  
2. It declareth that many prayers said after the Gloria in excelsis Deo, are wicked and ●…gainst the plain word of God.  
3. It declareth that the epistle and the gospel and ●…enerally all God's word are unworthily and evil ●…auoredly handled in the Mass.   

The third chapter.  
1. Declareth that the prayer which is said in the ●…ffering of the bread, or as they say of the host is  
2. That the mixting of water with wine (wicked. 〈◊〉 an invention of men, which ought not to have pla●● among holy things.  
3. That the prayer at the offering of the Cup is ●…icked as that is of thost.   

The fourth Chapter.  
1. That many prayers which they call secrets, and are said before the preface, hold in them these wickednesses, that is to say.  
2. That fasting doth purge sins and make 〈◊〉 Worthy of the grace of god, and leadeth us to th●… heavenly glory.  
3. That by the bread and Wine not yet consecr●…ted God is appeased toward us.    

Te second part which is divided into four chapters.  

1. The first axamineth the three first parts of th●… Cannon That is, Te igitur the meme●…to of the living and the Communicāte●…   

The second chapter.  
1. Examineth the fourth and first part of the sa●… Cannon that is, Hanc igitur oblationem and Quam oblationem.  
2. It examineth the sixth and seventh part, that Qui pridie quam pateretur, and t●● Simili modo postquam coenatu●… est which be parts of the Consecration.   

The third chapter.  
1. Examineth the eight part of the Cannon a●… ●…heweth that he who saith the Mass usurpeth that office which is only Christ's.  
2. That he saith a most wicked prayer the which wrongeth Christ.   

The fourth chapter.  
1. It examineth the ninth part which is most wicked and prayeth that the Angels may bear ●…he body and blood of Christ into heaven before the ●…ace of god.  
2. It examineth the tenht part of the Cannon, ●…he which is foolish and gain saith itself.  
3. It examineth the eleventh and last part of the Cannon.    

The third part which is divided in to four chapters.  

1. The first showeth that the saying of the prayers in secret and the desire that amen should be answered by him that understandeth not the prayer as it is in the Mass is a foolish thing and without any reason, and against S. Paul's saying.  
2. That the prayers which they say after the Pater noster that is to say the libera nos quaesumus is with out reason said in secret.  
3. That the breaking of the host and making three parts of it, and the mingling one of those parts with the wine is unfit.   

The second chapter.  
1. Declareth how devout and holy the three praie●… said, immediately after Agnus Dei be, and th●… Domine non sum dignus, which is sa●… thrice, and the prayer concerning the host and t●… cup, and the two prayers that follow.  
2. That the last prayers which are said in the e●… of the Mass, be most wicked, because they given to the sacrament, that office which is only Christ▪  
3. And certain other prayers do gainsay the pr●…uat Mass.   

1. The third chapter. of the Mass for the dead.  
2. Declareth that the first prayer is foolish, and to 〈◊〉 purpose because, it asketh that it ought not to as●…  
3. That the Epistle taken out of the Apocalip●… gainsaith the first prayer and the whole Mass th●… prayeth for the dead.  
4. The words of the books of the Maccabees ar●… examined.  
That the offertory is fond and an inconvenient reque●…   

Te fourth chapter of the blessings.  
1. Declareth that the blessing of the ashes is blasphemy, because it giveth to ashes the ransom of sin, and likewise all the other blessings, as of Candles, of palms, of fire, of frankincense, of the paschal, of cheese, of eggs of, bread of, water, and to be ●…hort of the pope's Agnus Dei, they are all wicked and full of superstition, because they give ●…o much to the bodily things.    

The fourth part of the book is of the abuses of the Mass, and is divided into 6. chapters.  

1. In the first, that it is a great error that the Mass should forgive sins, or satisfy for them, or else that it should apply such things to man.  
2. In the second, that the Mass is no sacrifice nor ●…emembraunce of sacrifice, and to say otherwise is 〈◊〉 very great error.  
3. In the third, that the Mass is invented by men and not ordained by Christ nor his Apostles.  
4. In the fourth that the Mass is a hodge-podge, a heap, yea a sea of endless abuses wickednesses, and superstitions.  
5. In the fift, that the Mass is the greatest sacrilege, and the greatest abomination that ever was in any time from the beginning of the world, and is the great secret point of Antichrist.  
6. In the last that one ought not in any case nor in any manner to hear or be present at the Mass, nor that it ought not to be suffered, to be said under any excuse or pretence, and this is the conclusion of the book.     

The first part.  
An anatomy of the Mass and the Mass book divided into four parts.  
The first part examineth the Mass from the introibo, unto the Cannon that is to say to these words, Teigitur. and this hath four chapters.  
The first declareth that the introibo, is false and superstitious and that the confíteor, is not Christian, and that the two prayers which are said softly when they go to the altar the one is false and the other robbeth Christ's honour and is very wicked.  

The first chapter.  
THe priest being ready beginneth to say introibo ad altare Dei and the clerk answereth Ad Deum quilaetificat iuuētutem meam, 
Psal. 42.  and in this goodly beginning of the Mass he speaketh a lie, or if you will so call it an untruth. And it is not to be marveled at: seeing that this Mass is an invention of man and not of god as we will prove (with gods help) in the fourt●…●●rte of this book. And for so much as the scripture saith that every man is a liar, 
Psalm. 115. Psalm. 118. Psalm. 42.  It is not (I say) to be marveled at, that as the beginning of god's word is truth, even so that the beginning of the Mass is a lie for you must understand that this introibo ad altare Dei, is a verse of the 42. Psalm which David made, at that time when he was driven out of his kingdom by his sun Absalon, in which he prayeth god that he would deliver him from the conspirators of the same Absalon, and that he would grant him, that he might enter into the tabernacle among the rest, and worthily praise God. And therefore he called that altar, god's altar, because it was made by god's appointment and ordinance, as all the rest of the tabernacle was, as it is written in the 35. of Exodus, 
Exod. 35.  and it was part of the ceremonial law, wherefore David did then say true. But now is it false to say I will enter to god's altar, because that he hath no more any altar, as we have no more any tabernacle, nor there is no more any sacrifice made of unreasonable beasts, no●… there jewish ceremonies are used any more, for they be all ceased, and had there end at Christ's coming, we have no more (I say) any god's altar of stone, brick or any other earthly matter.  

Hebr. 13.  We have now the thing signified and the truth of those altars, that is Christ, that hath wrought the work of our redemption, and doth that, which these altars did signify and betoken, for he is the true and the ghostly altar of holeburnt, and of perfume or frankincense whether you will call it, and these two altars were figures of Christ. Wherefore even as God then would that the incense, the sacrifices and the offerings should be laid upon these altars (for otherwise they should not have been acceptable unto him) so we ought now to offer all our prayers, and good deeds, in the name of our lord jesus Christ, and by him present them to god, if we would have them well taken of him. Christ him●…elf said of praying in S. john, 
joan. 14.  what soever you shall desire of my father in my name, I will do it. 
joan. 16.  And also he saith: seurly I say unto you, that all these things which you shall ask my father in my name, he will give them you, until this time you have asked nothing in my name, ask, and you shall receive, 
Colloss. 3.  And Paul saith, Every thing you do, buy word or deed, do it in the name of the lord jesus, rendering thanks to god our father by him. And to the Hebrews he saith, 
Hebr. 13.  by him (that is by Christ) we always offer up the sacrifice of thanks giving unto god (that is to say) the fruit of our lips that confess his name. The reason standeth in this point, that there is no gods altar, but which is made by god's ordinance and commandiment. But it is plain, that that whereof the priest speaketh in the beginning of the Mass, is not made by god's order or commandment, but is man's devise, and therefore not gods altar. Let the defenders of the Mass once show, where god or Christ after his coming, did ever appoint or command, that there should be made an altar, upon which men should do any sacrifice. The other verse also in the Psalm that is, Confitebor tibi in cithara deus deus meus, etc. I know not to what purpose they should say it, having no harp nor other musical instrument, which David used to praise god with. But they care not (after there old wont) how they writhe the scriptures out of frame.  
Then saith the priest, Adiutorium nostrum in nomine domini, qui fecit coelum & terram, 
Psalm. 42.  and after that the Confiteor deo, in which I much marvel that there is made no manner mention of Christ, as though he had not any part in the remission of sins yea as though he had never been in the world, surely it were reason that he were named there, if that Confíteor, should be Christian like. The priest, there first doth confess himself to god, then to the blessed mother, to S. Peter to S. Paul, and some put in there, S. Michael and S. john Baptist. And some put in S. Dominick, some S. Frances, some S. Austin, and some S. Benett, according to the diversity of the ordes of friars or monks. And some put in, for the end to S. Ursula with all her company. And to be short there is made mention of all saints, but of jesus Christ the sun of god crucified and dead for our sins, there is made no mention at all. How unworthy a thing is this to be confessed to the rest of the saints of whom there is none dead for us, none that hath redeemed us, And of Christ who is our only redeemer and saviour, and who only hath satisfied for our sins, to make no mention at all, as though, he were neither in heaven nor in eareth? Oh naked yea (I may well say) wicked Confíteor. In whose name is the repentance done of the which you would that the spoken confession should be a part? In whose, name (I say) is it made? Is it made in the name of tother saints or ●…n Christ's name? he himself surely hath said, 
Luc. 24.  that repentance and remission of sins ought to be done ●…n his name, as we have in saint Luke. And why, ●…hen have you not put him in this your confíteor, If at all you believe in him? what will they ●…ay here? peradventure they will say, that there is mention made of Christ in these words Confíteor deo, Christ being god. And also in that ●…ther place where there is made mention of all the the saints Christ being also a saint. A goodly answer, And why is there not made, mention of Christ ●…s man, seeing that there is mentioned the rest that ●…re only creatures? Christ is not only god but, 
Rom. 3. Timo. 2. Hebr. 7.  ●…so man and our advocate in that he is man: Why ●…oo not we confess oure self to him and pray to ●…im seeing he only is appointed by god to be our ●…ediatoure and intercessor, and not the other ●…aincts as much as we understand by the holy scriptures? And so much the rather also, that we be ●…ot certain that the other saints here us? And if we should make particular mention of the others, who, although they be by gods favour saints, yet they were not without sin. Wherefore should we not much rather make mention of Jesus' Christ the son of god the saint of sanictes and the hallower of all the rest? 
Collos 2.  And in whom dwelleth the fullness of the god head bodily, as S. Paul saith: It is plain therefore that this Confiteor deo, o●… the Mass, is not Christian, for that it burieth Christ.  
After the Confiteor is said the miserea tur tui and the indulgentiam and absolutionem and the deus tu conversus, and the ostend nobis domine misericordiam tuam etc. Where neither is made any mention of Christ. This ended, they say two prayers, the first is this, Take from us o lord we pray thee, all our iniquities, that we may with pure minds, come to the holy of holies, through Christ our lord, Amen. This prayer were godly if there were not these words, holy of holies, or at the leasts if there were that had the true meaning of them. But because it seemeth to show, that that material altar upon which the Mass is said, should be the holy of the holies, therefore it is superstitious, and telleth not the truth, for the holly of the hollis was according to the scriptures: a place in the tabernacle, divided from the rest, by a certain veele or Corthein (whether you will call it) as it is written in Exodus, 
Exod. 20.  into which place none did entre except the high priest, once in the year. And it signifieth the heaven, whither Christ is now entered, after he had ended his everlasting raunsomming, ●…s saint Paul saith to the hebrews. 
Hebr. ●….  So that seeing this altar whereupon the priest saith Mass is not the holly of the holies, but an invention of men, and not appointed by god, It is called unproperly ye falsely the holly of the holies, for that place the holly of the holiyes, is ended, as also the altars be, and is no more, sense that Christ is come, who hath ended that material tabernacle, the levitical sacrifices, and all that outward and ceremonial worshipping. 
Matth. 27. Marc. 15.  And in token of that (as the Evangelists write) when Christ died on the Cross, that veele, which parted the holly of the holies from the rest of the temple, was divided, and torn in two, from the top to the ground: giving us to understand that the ceremonial law, in every part ended by Christ. It belongeth not then to us to make more new holly of holies, having no word of god for ●…t, Where as nevertheless if the prayer had understood by the holly of hollyes, the heaven where Christ is entered, and wherein also we shall by his me ●…rits, and the grace of god enter the prayer, had been ●…trew, and godly: but this is not the intent as it seemeth: for it intendeth to speak of the misteri of the Mass: and of that altar, to the which things men ought to go (as they say) with a pure mind and a cle●● conscience.  
There followeth next another prayer, which 〈◊〉 priest saith in every Mass softly and bowing h●…self to the altar (that is) We beseech the o lord 〈◊〉 the deservings of thy saints, whose relics 〈◊〉 here and of all the saints, that thou wouldest vo●●safe to forgive me all my sins, Amen. A foolish ●…cked and blasphemous prayer, first he saith t●… by the deservings of the saints that have the relics in that altar or in the hallowed stone they say) And who knoweth that they be reliq●… of saints? What surety hath the priest thereof? P●… adventure they be the relics I will not say whom. And if haply there shallbe there no relics of saints, as I think and believe in a gr●… part, yea in the more part of the altars that ●…re are no relics of saints in deed, what sh●… avail this there prayer in that part making me●…tion of the saints that be not? Then what wick●…nes and blasphemy is this to give the remission●… sins to the deservings of mere men, who thought they be saints, yet they all have had need of the s●…me forgiveness of sins, 
3. Reg. 8. 2. Petr. 6. Psal. 142.  and no one of them was 〈◊〉 any time without sin as the scripture saith 〈◊〉 many places? And Christ in the prayer that 〈◊〉 taught the holy Apostles declareth the same, 
Eccles. 18. Matth. 6.  who ●●●eth that they should say when they pray forgeu●●● our debts, that is to say our sins, as we for 〈◊〉 our debtors. And S. Ihon. saith: 
1. joan. 1.  If we shall 〈◊〉 we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and tru●…th is not in us. What blasphemy (I say) is this to g●●● such remission to mere men, the same being 〈◊〉 office only of Christ? The holy scripture ●●●n it speaketh of the forgiveness of sins it mak●●● no mention of any but of Christ, and teacheth us that by his only merits sins are forgiven. And this prayers doth give it, 
joan. 1. Acto. 4.  to the deservings of other saints. john Baptist pointing to Christ, saith, be●●●d the lamm of god, behold him that taketh away 〈◊〉 sins of the world (and meaneth him only ●●d S. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles saith, the●●s none other name under heaven given to men, 〈◊〉 which we must be saved. If there be none other ●●me by which we are saved but that of Christ, nor by other deservings then his, why then do we ●●ing in (in that case) any other but him? what mea●…th this to be saved, if not to be freed from sin? 〈◊〉 Angel also saith to joseph, as S. Matthew ●●e Evangelist writeth, speaking of Christ, 
Matt. 1.  not ●●en borne, he shall save his people from there sins ●●e meaneth) he shall do it, and none other. Is it not known that in his name only our sins are fo●…geuē us, in which we be baptized, for baptism ●…gnifieth the remission of sins.  

1. Cor. 1.  It is plain as S. Paul saith, to the Corinthi●● that we be Christened in Chrsts name, and no●● any other saints. Are you (saith he) Christened 〈◊〉 Paul's name? 
1. joan. 2.  as though he would say, no, but 〈◊〉 Christ's. And john the Evangelist saith, I wryte●… you children, that your sins are forgiven yo●… by his name (that is to say) Christ's. And wh●… should we need to allege more sayings? all the scr●…pture both new and old, is full of this. And wh●… else saith Esaias, 
Esa. 53.  but that Christ hath suffered fo●… our sins, and Christ himself (as we have said before) plainly affirmeth, 
Luc. 24. Rom. 3. Ephes. 1. Coloss. 2. Hebre. 1.  that in his name is wrought remission of sins, and Paul in this matte●… is plentiful above all, whose sayings if I would bring●… forth, I should be to long, but for that the matter i●… so clear to him that is not altogether ignoraun●… of Christ and the scriptures, I will pass it over. Seemeth this to you a small blasphemy, to take away that honour, and that glory, that belongeth to Christ only, and give them to others, to whom they belong not? Is not this a dishonouring him, a despising him, and a committing of a great sacrilege? This prayer is wicked and a great blasphemy, nor ye ought not to excuse it with gloss, And who that will defined it, shall show himself an enemy to the honour and glory of Christ. And beards all this also, it plainli gainsaieth other parts of ●…he Moss, as those two verses of Gloria in ex celsis deo, the which say to Christ, Qui tol ●…is peccata mundi miserere nobis, Qui tollis peccata mundi suscipe de ●…recationem nostram. It speaketh against ●…he consecration of the cup, and against the ago nus dei, the which sayings affirm that Christ only causeth remission of sins, and not the ●…aints.   

The second chapter. THE EXAMINATION OF THE Kyrie cleeson and of the Gloria in excelsis deo, and how that many prayers after the gloria in excelsis, be wicked, and that the epistle and gospel, and generally the whole word of god in the Mass, are unworthily and evil favouredly handled.  
WHen the priest is come to the altar and h●… opened the Mass book, he beginneth 〈◊〉 entry, which commonly is of the old Testament and for the most part, it is certain verses of 〈◊〉 Psalms. When the entry is ended, the Kyrie ●…leeson, is said, which is as much to say as d●… mine miserere, that is, lord have mercy, 〈◊〉 Master williame Durant, in the fourth part 〈◊〉 his book called the Rationale diuino●… (that is to say a declaration of the causes why ●●ry ceremony is used in the common service) wh●… he expoundeth, the Mass, he teacheth and rehe●…seth the reasons of the things said or done in 〈◊〉 same, and saith, that the Kyrie eleeson, h●… yet an other signification, that is Kyri, Christ, 〈◊〉 god, ei have mercy, son, upon us, so that this K●…rie eleeson, shallbe four words, the first shal●… kyri, the second el, the third ei, and the fourth so●… which altogether do make the Kyrie eleiso●… which hole is as much to say as Christ god ha●… mercy upon us, but why it is said nine times ●…gether with Christeleeson, the said Maste●… william doth theach the cause saying, that for certain respects it is said nine times, The first is th●… the tenth order which is of men, being now re●● ●…yred might accompany the nine orders of An●…ls. The second that the church might come to ●…e company of this nine orders of Angels. The ●●ird is, that it may be against these nine sorts of ●●nes, that is to say, our birth sin, forgevable godly, buy thought, word, deed, by frailty, simpli●●ie, and maliciously, behold the goodly reason's 〈◊〉 this Kyrie eleeson, why it should be said ●…ne times, and you may see how authentical they 〈◊〉 He bringeth in also certain other causes, which ●●r shortness I leave: but among the rest he saith that this Kyrieleeson is of great power, and that 〈◊〉 basil crying this Kyrie eleeson, with a loud ●…oyce, the church doors of Pavia were opened ●●d that at an other time by the cry of Kyrie ●…leeson, five kings were put to flight, And he ●…ddeth that perhaps this Kyrie eleeson, ●…etokeneth some other thing then domine mi●…erere, which we do not know.  
But I would first understand to what purpose ●…monge the latins, of which the great part vn●…erstandeth only there natural tongue and not the ●…atin, to what purpose (I say) should the greek be spoken, seeing we use the latin? Except that we wo●●d say that the words in greek, either are better understand then in latin, which is false, or else that they have more virtue than the latin which is superstitious. Wherefore then, is not lord have mercy on us said, and not Kyrie eleeson, th'one being as much in signification as the other? if there were an English preacher, that should preach to English men who understand not the dutch tongue, and would speak dutch, would not the hearers think that they were mocked by such a preacher? Even so do they that say Mass, who speak greek to the latins, and that which is worse, to them that neither understand greek nor latin.  
Seeing then that this Kyrie eleeson, meaneth, lord have mercy, why is it not rather and fitlier said only three times to betoken the trinity, the which is prayed unto by such words, and to which belongeth to show mercy: then nine times for the nine orders of Angels which are neither prayed unto in this Kyrie eleeson, nor to have mercy on us belongeth not unto them? surely it should more conveniently and more fitly be said only three times for the three divine persons, because it belongeth to them to show mercy, them nine times for the nine orders of Angels which have not that power. Then why is it said rather nine times for ●…he nine orders of Angels then seven times, seeing ●…hat the number of seven is found oftener in the ●…cripture, than the number of nine, as the places ●…ight be showed? Or else rather than twelve times ●…or the twelve Apostles, for the twelve tribes of Is●●ell, for the twelve stars in the Apocalypse, for ●●e twelve articles of the faith, and for the twelve ●…ones of which is made mention in joshua the fourth? ●…o what purpose when we pray unto god should ●…e multiply our words according to the number ●…f the Angels, or other things? this is as we should ●…tye five Pater nosters and five ave mary's in ●…he worship of the five wounds, or seven in the worship of the seven joys of our lady, which ●…hings I am sorry to say. And to be short, this saying ●…f the Kyrie eleeson, nine times upon so vai●…e causes is superstitious and maketh us vnder●…tand how feeble and vain the foundations of the Mass are, Yea seeing the latin is more plain to ●…s then the greek.  
Then next, when Kyrie eleeson, is said, followeth the Gloria in excelsis Deo, which is a goodly praise and a godly, for the Angels (as Luke the Evangelist saith) did sing it at 
Luc. 1.  Christ's birth those words that are joined to it, as Laudamus te, Benedicimus te, unto the end, were put to (as some say) by Hilarius, others say by Telesphorus the pope and others, that they were put to by Symacus the pope, there is nothing thereto be reproved, concerning the substance of the matter●… We deny not, but that there is in the Mass certein●… things agreeable to god's word, yea and some part of gods words itself, for there are of the sayings of the psalms, of the prophets, of the apostles, an●… of Christ himself, but the matter is, that these things should be placed worthily, and not otherwise. And also that the wicked should not be mingled with the good. This is the suteltie of Satan, who under the show of godly matters, deceiveth the unadvised, as we are wont to say, that in the●… honey lieth hidden the poison.  
Tell me after what sort are men killed with poison? It is sure, that it is never given alone, but mixed among other good meats, and after this son●… it is taken and bringeth death: Even so it happeneth in this Mass, for there are divers good things, as the Epistel, and the gospel, and other sayings of the scripture, but with such sayings are covered many disceyts, are told many untruths, blasphemies and superstitions, is taken the honour from Christ and god, and given to only creatures. After this sort also are men deceived with inchauntements, for ●…here is none or very few enchantments made, that have not some words (and those good) of god, and yet they ought not be done.  
Then next after the Gloria certain prayers, which they call collects, and some of them be godly ●…nd Christian like, made according to god's word, ●…ut there are many wicked and blasphemous, as that ●…f the fourth ferie (that is to say) on wednesday of the Ember days in advent, and it is the first prayer ●…hat he saith. Grant we beseech thee (o lord al●…ichtye) that this solemn feast that is at hand of ●…ure redemption, may help us in this present life, and give us the rewards of everlasting blessedness. The fourth prayer also, the saturday which followeth in the same Imber days, saith, the very same in substance as it may be seen in the Mass book. The first prayer also on the saturday in albis, (that is to say) the first saturday after Easter, saith thus. Grant we beseech the almighty god, that we which have kept with reverence this feast of Easter, may buy the same deserve to come to everlasting joys. These prayers plainly desire, that by the desert of the feasts that we keep of Christmas and Easter god would give us the everlasting happiness. And how can this stand, that by the keeping of holy days we should deserve everlasting blessedness?  
First it is plain, that in the new Testament, we have no holy day commanded by Christ nor his apostles, those that are kept, are by man's and not by gods appointment. I say not for all this, that it is evil, to ordain certain proper days or feasts that the people may come together to the preaching of gods word, to receive the holy communion, to make common prayer together, and also for there rest, who in that week were wearied, and to the intent (I say) that we may have some day, wherein we may quietly have regard to the heavenly things. But to do this, by god's commandment, there is no more one day then an other appointed, for the days are all a like, neither is there one more holy than an other in it sell, 
〈◊〉 4.  or by gods ordinance. Paul reproved the Galathians because they did keep days, letting them wit that such keeping is a ievysh and no Christian like thing. 
Col●…os ●…  Likewise writing to the Colossians he saith, let no man judge you neither in meat, nor drink, nor in any part of the holiday, nor of the Sabbath day, which things are but shadows of the things to come etc. Then is there not any holiday by god's commandment, since Christ's coming who hath ended the ceremonial law, of the which the keeping of days was a part by god's own  
I say more over, that although there were (law. holy days commanded by god in the new Testament, yet we could not be saved by keeping of them, seeing our elders were not saved by the keeping of the law commanded by god. For there is none at any time saved or justified by the law, as Peter saith in the acts of the Apostles, 
Acto. 15.  but all be saved by the grace of our saviour jesus Christ. So now we (even as our fore fathers) be saved by the self same grace of jesus Christ. How many sayings of Paul could I bring forth if I would, that we be not justified nor saved by the works of the law, nor by any other work, but only by faith, which is as much to say as by the grace of our lord jesus Christ, I say by his only grace. And yet the Mass book will affirm that by the holy days commanded buy men, god should give us everlasting life, which he never did to our forefathers, for the holy days commanded by himself, nor for any other work commanded in the law. We have before said, that there is none other name, in which we may be saved, but that only of Christ's, 
Acto. 4.  and the Mass book will that we should be saved in the name of holy days found out and appointed by men, which how they be kept it is well known, for that, god is much more offended, and more sundry ways (out of doubt) on such days then on any other.  
These prayers are wicked. And if it should be said, that in such prayers is put in the end Per Christum Dominum nostrum giving us to wit, that we be saved by Christ, I say that this is not enough, because Christ only, or hi●… deservings only do save us: and these prayers wo●… that by the deserts of the holy days we should b●… saved, giving to the holy days, at the least in part, that which Christ only doth, and so do less his honour. God's word will that Christ onel●… should have this office, and putteth no other companion with him. There be many other prayers i●… this wicked Collects, but we have given an example of these few, lest we should weary the reader, m●…king the book, to great.  
When the prayers are ended, the Epistle is said, and after the Epistle, the grayle which is certei●… verses of Psalms and for the most part with certain alleluiaes, or else the tract, which is also certain verses of Psalms, and then is said the gospel. These things are of the holy scripture and good, but be vndew●…ifully handled because they ●…re unprofitably spoken. Tell me, what can the ●…pistle, gospel, or any of the scripture profit if they ●…e not understand? It is plain that the more part ●…f the people that here Mass commonly vnder●…and not the latin. But what speak I of the peop●…? They themselves that say the Mass, for the ●…ost part are ignorant, and understand not the ●…eaninge of the words they speak, but like pies ●…r popingays, they pronounce the words and the ●…entences, and understand not the meaning of then. what an abuse is this? And so much the more, as that they say softly before the gospel two prayers, ●…hat is. Cleanse (o almighty god) my heart and my ●…ippes, that diddest cleanse the lips of I say the prophet with a burning stone, vouchsafe even so to cleanse me with thy pity, that I may worthily declare this holy gospel, by Christ our lord. And after this he saith the other. Our lord be in my heart, and in my lips, that I may worthily and sufficiently show forth his gospel.  
After this sort the priest saith these prayers when there is no deacon, but where the deacon is there he asketh the blessing at the priests hands, who speaketh unto him in the second person saying. The lord be in thy heart and in thy lips etc. The prayer ended, the deacon than singeth the gospel. There is required in these prayers to set forth the gospel worthily and as it ought. But how ca●… the gospel be worthily set forth, when it is uttered in such sort as it is neither understand of him tha●… heareth it, nor him that speaketh it, and profiteth nothing at all? surely they mock god and the gospel, for on the one part they desire gods grace to show forth worthily the gospel, and of the other part they speak it or sing it in such sort as it cannot be understand. Is the gospel worthily declare●… by reading it only on the book? Did our saviour, c●…maunde his Apostles (when he said unto them preach the gospel to all creatures) that they shoul●… preach it in a tongue that men understand not? Whe●…fore gave he them the gift of tongues? But that even nation might understand them? The gospel why i●… it preached? to the intent to be believed. How ca●… it be believed when it is not understand? What 〈◊〉 corruption is this of this Mass, to say it, to all the people, which are there some time a thousand persons, men and women, little and great, and the more part of them heareth only the voice, without understanding any thing that is said in the hole Mass? O pour people what misorder and abuse is this? There is that have hard Mass above fourscore years that never understood any thing, nor knoweth what they have done. O shepherds that have the charge of men's souls, is this your government? do you handle of this sort Christ's poor sheep, which you ought to seed with gods word, and ye feed them with wind? why do you not remedy in your Counsels (which to what end you keep them it is well known) this horrible abuse and many other as great as this? but rather defend them and increase them from day to day as laws of the church. What excuse shall you have ●…at the day of judgement, before Christ's throne, for this your administration? Who hath taught you to speak in the church before the hole number in an unknown tongue? do you not know that this is against god's commandment declared by the apostle Paul, 
1. Cor. 14.  where plainly he willeth that in the church, and when the people are gathered together, men should speak in a tongue that all men might understand? and rebuketh those that speak in an unknown tongue, because it is without edification and profit? what a destruction is this, to make the poor people lose the time and to keep the people so deceived that they should think it well done only to here, and understand nothing? They know not that to read a thing and not to understand it, is to despise it, as Cato saith whom every chilce doth learn. The cause why in the old time the latin tongue was used in the church, was, because, that then the people did understand it. And Gregory at Rome to the people did use none other tongue but latin as himself doth witness in the preface to ezechiel writing to Marian the bishop, yea it was commanded by the emperors Civil law, that the minister should speak the words of Consecration with a loud voice, that all the people might here and understand, which should have been done in vain, if the people had not understand the meaning of the words. And therefore there was no prayer said softly, but all were openly spoken with a loud voice to the intent that the people might answer, amen. Which should have been askorne by the witness of Paul in the said place of his Epistle to the Corinthians, 
2. Cor. 14.  if they had not understand what was said. Therefore the minister or the priest when he should say the prayers, said, and yet saith Oremus, provoking the whole multitude gathered together, to whom he speaketh, that they should pray and make together with him the same petition that he speaketh, which cannot be fitly done, if that be not understand that the priest saith. And therefore this saying of the Epistle and gospel, and all the rest as it is handled in the Mass, in the latin tongue, and being not understanded of the ●…tanders buy, is a very great abuse and a beguiling of the people, of the profit of God's word.   

The third chapter.  
THere is declared that the prayer which is said in the offering of the host, is wicked.  
That the mixting water with wine, is man's invention and not gods.  
That the prayer of the offering the cup, is wicked, as that is of the host.  
When the gospel is done the Crede is said on holy days, on other days it is not said. After the Crede then is the offertory which is a saying of the Psalms, and some times it is some other part of the scripture, brief and short. When the offertory is said, or whilst it is saying, on holy days, chiefly on sunday, men offer and kiss the maniple or the paten, and there is said to them that offer. Centuplum accipies, etc. The which saying was a promise that Christ made to those that would forsake father, mother, wife, children, and there temporal goods for his name, and they apply it to them that offer in this offering. Behold whether this be to pull gods word from the purpose, and to corrupt it or no? As though Christ's intent had been to sai in these words, whoso ever will kiss the phanel and offer to give to the priests and friars, shall receive a seven-fold, and shall possess the life everlasting. Thus mar they likewise other sayings of the holy scripture. In old time this offering was bestowed on the poor by the deacons hands, but now every man knoweth to what use it turneth. When the offertory is done, the host not yet consecrated (is offered as they say) and this prayer is said. O holy father almighty everlasting god, take this unspotted host, which I (thy unworthy servant) do offer to the my living and true god, formy innumerable sins, offences, and negligences, and for all the standers by, and for all the faithful Christians living and dead, to the intent it may be profitable to me and to them for health to life everlasting, amen. In this prayer is said, that that bread which they call the host is offered to god for the sins of all the faithful living and dead, and also desireth that it may be profitable for health to life everlasting.  
These are surely great effects, and it is much to be marveled at, how this host not yet consecrated can do (as they think) these things, that is to say, to avail to forgiveness of sins, and to life everlasting, how can this be, that a piece of bread which is but bread should work so great effects? I can not deceive this, I would they would prove it me by god's word. And if they would say that they speak such words not by that which is then bread, but by that, that it shallbe after the consecration, they can not with truth speak it, for that host when it ●…all be consecrated shall not be any more bread 〈◊〉 they think no, nor shall not be any more the same, but another thing, for before it be consecrated and when this prayer is said it is only ●…ead, and when it is consecrated, it is the true bo●… of Christ, and no more material bread (as they ●…ink) And they in this prayer speak of that host, ●…hich they then offer, saying, O holy father al●…ighty god, take this unspotted host, showing the ●…read not consecrated and they mean to speak of ●…hat, that they show, and that it is then not that 〈◊〉 shallbe. Also the Cannon itself in the first part ●…hich sayeth, Quam oblationem tu de●…s etc. declareth that it is spoken of the bread ●●d wine unconsecrated, as it appeareth in that pla●…e. Then this manner host that they then show, how ●…n it forgive sins, and save men? The jews in ●…ede offered such things for sins but the Christians (whose offering as Peter saith in his Epistel are spiritual) offer not such things to god for there sins, being sure that they are forgiven them by Christ only, and not by any other thing. This prayer therefore is wicked, as many other are, that are said in the Mass.  
When the host is offered, and the wine in the chalice, they also put to it water, which thing they say, that Alexander the first pope, ordained. First, to show that the health of the people (which is signified by the water, according to the saying of the Apocalypse. Aquas quas vidisti ubi me retrix sedet, populi sunt, & gentes, & linguae) could not be without the shedding of Christ's blood, nor the blood shedding without the health of the people: therefore it is necessary, that, to betoken this, the water should be mingled with the wine. Secondly it is to declare, that there issued out of Christ's side together with the blood, water, in token that Christ is not without the people, nor the people without Christ. Thirdly the water is mixed with the wine, to tell that there is in Christ the manhood together with the god head, which tow things are betokened by the water and the wine, the manhood by the water, and the god head by the Wine. I will not at this present take on me the burden of reproving Alexander, but I will yet tell what I think, that in the Sacrament there ought to be made (respecting those things that be the substance of them) no manner of change, neither to increase nor to diminish. It is alread●… known that Christ did not institute the Sacrament of the holy supper with any other elements then with bread and wine, and that no water in it: nor the apostles (as far as we understand by there writings) have added any other thing. This me think should suffice. Then even as it belongeth not, to any man in the world but to god and Christ that is god and man to institute Sacraments so ought no living man to diminish it, and seem to understand more than the ordeiner. Who is that inferior that would alter or change the laws or ordinances of his superior? after this sort then, men might do in baptism, they might put to wine, and allege the cause, as is alleged of the water, why should water be rather put to the wine in the Sacrament of the holy supper than wine to the water in the sacrament of baptism? was not the godhead and manhood aswell in baptism as in the holy supper? Yea they were more plainly betokened, when Christ was baptized, for that that was the father's voice, the holy ghost was seen in shape of a dove, which things never chanced in the supper, so far as we understand by the Evangelists and writings of the apostles. And why cannot the godhead and manhed be betokened, by wine and water aswell in the one Sacrament as in the other.  
furthermore none, except the ordainer, hath authority to give a new betokening to the Sacrament. Christ hath appointed what the bread and wine should betoken, that is to say, that the bread should betoken and bring to remembrance the body and the blood, and it belongeth not to us, to change, to put to or take fro, the betokenings of such things. And this opinion here saith that the wine betokeneth the godhead, and Christ hath ordained that it should betoken and bring to our remembrance his blood. There is a great difference between the blood and the godhead for the blood is a creature, but the godhead is god the Creator. Lastly Paul, who was taught of Christ (as he writeth to the Corinthians after what sort this Sacrament ought to be handled) maketh no manner mention of water, and he durst not put to any thing beside that which Christ had taught him. And by what authority I pray you, go they, and add to the Sacraments? surely this water ought not to be added.  
Then next the priest offereth the cup saying We offer to thee (oh lord) the cup of health, beseeching thy mercifulness that it may ascend, with a sweet savour, into the sight of thy divine majesty, for our health and all the worlds. Amen. The self same that we have said of the host or bread, we may and aught to say, of the cup or wine. How can it be that the wine not yet consecrated may avail for our health and the whole worlds? We will tarry till they can declare it. It is sure that this prayer is wicked as well as that of the offering of the host.   

The fourth Chapter.  
HEre is examined that many prayers which they call secrets and are said before the preface, be damnable and hold much wickedness in them, as these.  
That fasting purgeth sins and maketh us worthy of the grace of god, and leadeth us to the heavenly and everlasting glory.  
That by the bread, and wine god is appeased and forgiveth us our sins.  
Then follow certain prayers and they be three which affirm the bread and wine to be a sacrifice, of which matter because we will treat of it in the end where we will prove, that neither the bread nor wine before the consecration, nor the Sacrament after the consecration, can be a sacrifice, albeit that the Sacrament is a remembrance of the sacrifice. We will not now talk any farther of it, lest we should unproffitably repeat one thing often. But we will examen that which remaineth of this first part, and chiefly these prayers which they call secrets, because they are said softly, to give more authority to the Mass. And let them nevertheless, allege as many reasons as they will, yet they ought to speak it a loud, but this maketh not so much matter, as the wicknedesses and blasphemies, that are in some of them, and among the rest in that of the fourth ferry of the Imber days in advent which saith: let our fastings (we beseech the oh lord) be acceptable unto thee, which by cleansing us, may make us worthy of thy grace, and bring us to the everlasting promesses. The veri same is said also in the third serie, that is to say the tewesday after passion sunday. And an other time, on friday in the Ember week, after the seventeenth sunday. after whit sunday, which prayer in few words hath much matter, that is to say three great blasphemies.  
The first is that fastings, do clear, purge, and cleanse. The second is that they make us worthy of God's grace. The third that they bring us to the everlasting promesses. These three cursed wickednesses are in this little prayer, who will deny that these be not three blasphemies? First is not this a blasphemy to give to the fastings, which are our works, the cleansing of sins, 
Heb. 1.  which is gods work only by Christ jesus thorough his blood and death? As paul saith. 
1. joan. 1.  That Christ alone is he that purgeth sins. And John in his first Epistle saith. That the blood of jesus Christ, doth cleanse us from all sin. And John Baptist saith, 
joan. 1.  behold the lamb of god, behold him that taketh away the sins of the world. And Esay giveth the forgiving of sins to Christ only through his passion and death. 
Esa. 53.  And to be short the whole scripture giveth this honour to Christ, and this prayer giveth it to our fastings. These be those godly sacrifices that are made (bear with me you that yet know it not) in this detestable Mass, by which the world so long hath been deceived and Christ despised. Besyd if by our fastings we were cleansed and our sins forgiven us, 
Rom. 4.  we should be justified, by our own works, for so much as justification is forgiveness of sins itself, or at the least is not without it, and that only justifieth us, that forgiveth us our sins. 
Ro. 3. & 4. Gala. 2.3.4. & 5. Roma. 3.  But this doctrine is contrary to the Apostle Paul, who saith in all his Epistles, and specially to the Romans and Galath. that we be not justified by works, but buy God's grace through Christ's redemption. Paul saith to the Romans, we be justified by his grace (that is Gods) by the redemption that is in Christ jesus. In which place appointing the things that pertain to justification, he allegeth, grace, the redemption by Christ, and faith, which wholly he giveth to the grace of god by Christ, and no whit to man: yea rather he turneth out all the glory of man, and giveth the whole honour and glory to God. Which he would not have done if our works (whether they be fastings or other works) had pertained to justification, as any cause thereof. Moreover how can fastings purge or cleanse sins, seeing that we must first be loosed and cleansed, before we can do any work, that may be thankful to God, whether it be fasting or other work? How can fastings take away sins, if they be not thankful to God? and if they be thankful to God, it is necessary that our sins should first be forgiven us, and that we should be cleansed of them. Fastings therefore cannot cause forgiveness of sins neither in whole nor in part, yea let them think this before hand that if they should be acceptable unto god, forgiveness of sins must necessarily go before them. And if it should be said that in the end of the prayer there is, Per Dominum nostrum jesum Christum, etc. Which words confess that our sins are forgiven by Christ: to this is answered that either they will that by jesus Christ himself only our sins should be forgiven, or else not only by Christ, but by Christ together with the fastings. If they will by Christ only, why do they allege fastings? if they will have fastings together with Christ, this is first against the scriptures, which throughout allege Christ only and none other. Further it is plain that the reason before made resteth strong, that is, that forgiveness of sins go before fastings if they shallbe thankful to god, then fasting cannot, because of forgiveness of sins neither with Christ nor without Christ.  
And if they would say we mean not of forgiveness of sins as concerning the fault, but the punishment, to this I say that when men speak absolutely of the cleansing or forgiving of sin, it is to be understand of the fault as of the chief thing in that forgiveness and here the prayer speaketh absolutely: wherefore it is understand of the fault and not of the pain only. Than if the fault be forgiven and taken away, we ought not to be any more punished for the cause of that fault. For take away the cause, and the effect followeth. This is a general rule, where there is no fault, there ought not to be any punishment. If god do thoroughly for give and take away the fault, he taketh a way also the punishment, dew for that fawt. And this distinction which is commonly made of the forgiveness of the pain and of the fault, hath no manner foundation in holy scriptures, but is found out by men. And though sometimes, god forgiving the fault doth some way ponissh, as he did david and certain other, yet this is not, that the ponisshment, should remain, as the ponisshment of that sin, but for other respectties, as to humble the man, and to exercise him, or to give example to other that they do not the like, and that he also may be ware in time to come, that he fall not in such or like outrage. This sentence is S. Austin's in his II. book called of the deserts of sins and of forgiveness the 33. and 34. chapters, Where he bringeth in the pains laid on David and other godly men, and saith that they remain not, as ponisshments for sins, but as exercises of just men. Than the other words which say that fastings make us whorty of god's grace (that is) that they make us deserve it, is an error and an heresy by all means to be condemned, 
De predest natione sanctorum cap. 2.  as S. Austen saith in his book of predestination of saints. And it was Pelagius the heretics error, condemned in the council at Palestina by Pelagius himself, lest else he should have been condemned. He saith the same in his 105.106.107. 
Lib. epist. 105.106.107.  epistle. And in many other places where he reasoneth against the Pelagians. But what need we allege S. Austen and other learned men, having the words of S. Paul to the Romai. so plain, where he saith that that which is by grace, is not by works, 
Rom. 11.  that is to say, is not by deserts. And so of the contrary part, that which is by works is not by grace, else grace should not be grace, nor works (that is to say deserts) should not be works. For the thing that is deserved is not by grace. And that which is by grace is not by desertis or works. But this prayer denieth grace, and wrappeth in it a contrariety. For the thing that is deserved, as we have said, is not by grace but by works. And therefore if our fastings should be worthy of god's grace, and that we should deserve it, than grace should not be grace, which is an enwrapping of contradiction, as the for said S. Austen in the alleged book saith, 
De predestinatione sanctorum cap. 1.  That grace in no wise is grace though it be given according to deserts.  
The third part of the prayer saith that fasting bringeth us to the everlasting promises, that is to say, to everlasting glory. He that seeth not that this is an unsufferable blasphemy is blind, seeing that men can not be saved by their works but by the grace of god thorough Christ, 
Rom. 6. Eph. 2. Tit. 3. Act. 4.  as we learn of Paul in so many places. And of S. Peter in the acts. There is none other name under heaven, given to men, whereby we should be saved. And this prayer would that by the name of works we should become safe.  
There is another secret prayer on the twenty-three. sunday after whitsuntide which saith thus, Take o helpful lord, the hosts, with which thou wouldest be pleased and have saffety restored unto us thorough thy mighty mercy. This secret saith here ij. things. First that god desireth to be pleased by the hosts which the priest offereth. Secondly it saith that god would by these hosts have safety restored unto us. And where would god ever be pleased by that bread and that wine which are not yet a sacrament, much less have our safety restored by them. From whence have they that god would such things should be done by thes offerings? In what place of the scripture find they that? The scripture saith that by Christ god is pleased with us, as we have in Esay, 
Esa. 24.  where it is written, Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my well-beloved, 
Matth. 12.  in whom my soul is much delighted, which saying Matthew allegeth somewhat diverse in words but not in sense. For in stead of that word which the Prophet calleth servant, matthew saith, Son. And it is the very same in sense. For christ in that he is man, is god's servant and is yet for all that gods son. The father also saith as it is written in the evangelists, when christ was baptized, 
Matth. 3.17. Marc. 1. Luc. 3.  and also at that time when he was transfigured, This is my well-beloved son in whom I am well pleased. Which saings all, do give us to understand that god is pacified by Christ, and by him are all men reconciled. 
Rom. 5.  Paul saith the like to the romai. We being enemies are reconciled to god by his sons death. And to the Colosseis it is said, that it hath pleased the father to reconcile all things to him by Christ, being pacified by the blood of Christ's own cross. 
Coll. 1.  These sayings of Paul are clear and plain, and affirm that christ is he, by whom god is pacified and men reconciled. And this prayer or secret saith that god will be pacified by those offerings, Which are yet no other but Common bread and wine, and are not yet any sacrament. Likewise tother point of the prayer, that by those offerings, we might have safety, is a great blasphemy. For even as by Christ only god is pacified towards us, so by him and not by any other thing, We have safety. Seeing then that christ is our only saviour, this is sure a great rasshnes, and a devilish self liking to talk so boldly of our safety without the holy scripture, yea against god's word. And if any to defend this prayer, would say, that by thes offerings is not meant that they than be, but that they shall be, and at that time when they shall be consecrated. To this we have already answered, in the chapter before, when the prayer of the offering of the host not yet consecrated was examined. There is yet a great number of thes secrets which declare, that that bread and that wine not yet consecrated, take away sins, and forgive them. But of this will we speak in the end, where we will prove that the sacrament doth not take away sins, nor forgive them, much less the bread and wine can take away sin being not yet consecrated (that is to say) yielded to an holy use, For to consecrate is none other thing then to yield a thing up to an holy use.    

The second part examineth the canon which they make the most holy and cheese part of the mass. And it is said all in secret which is divided in iiij. chapters.  
In the first is examined the iij. first parts of the canon, that is to say, the Te igitur, the memen to off the living, and the communicantes.  
WHEN the secrets be said, they say aloud, per omnia secula seculorum, Dominus vobiscum, Sursum corda, gratias agamus, and the vere dignum & justum est, and all the preface, and after that, the Sanctus, when the Sanctus is ended they begin to say the canon that is though say, the Te igitur, very sofftly which they say, is the chief part of the mass. Yea some think that the mass beginneth there. For all the rest is but of the solemnity, alleging, de consecratione distincti. 2. capite panìs. Albeit in that chapter which is taken out of the book entitled. Off Sacraments, and attributed to Ambrose, it is not said that the mass beginneth at the canon, but it is said only of the words of the consecration and not of all the canon. Innocentius in the decretallis de celebratione missarum in the chapter Cum marthe willeth and commandeth (because he was pope) that this canon should be received as delivered by the apostles, although it were written at the lest v. hundreth year after the apostles time and but a little before gregory the first, 
Lib. 7. epist. cap. 63.  as he himself witnesseth. It was written by a certain man named Scolasticus and is divided in to xi. partis, some going before the consecration and some following. Master William durant in his Rationale divinorum officiorum (that is to say the declaration of the cause of every thing used in god's service) with great reverence, expoundeth thes, one part after another, as a thingful of veri great, and godly mysteries. And saith that every point of this canon, which we go about to set out, doth very hardly appear, to be of any value. Wherefore (saith he) The tongue faileth, The speech is unfit, The wit is over come, And the understanding oppressed: notwithstanding, I will knock at the door that is to say, I will pray god that he will open to me thes great secrettis. And yet for all thes there is not in this canon made by scolasticus so much as one word of the holy scripture, except those of the consecration, which are the least of it, 
For the pater noster was added after by Gregory as in the place before rehearsed.  and be Christ's words. So that, iff he should have declared, john's gospel, or the mystery of the trinity, he would not have made such a furniture of words. And he expoundeth it with so great diligence, and reverence as it is meruolose. Thes be the worthy expownders, that expound man's words with more reverence, and with greater labour, than gods. So now expounding this canon, he saith many things vain and childish, yea many things wicked. Amongst the rest, he saith that peraventure, by god's foresight it is brought to pass, and not procured by man's labour, that the first letter of this canon should be T. which in hebrew is called Tau. Which Tau in his shape showeth and expresseth the sign and mystery of the cross, because god saith by Ezechiel, print the Tau, 
Ezech. 9  in the forehead of them that sorrow and mourn for the abominations of jerusalem. For thes things, saith he, be fulfiled by the passion of Christ, and the cross, and have their strength. And he addeth that in certain books, that is to say massebokes the majesty of the father, and also the Image of the crucifix is painted, to the intent that the priest might see (as it were presently) him that he calleth on, and with whom he speaketh, saying Te igitur etc. And that the passion which here is represented, may pierce in to the eyes of the heart. And he addeth, But the priest kisseth the feet of the Image of the same majesty. and is crossed in the forehead, giving us to understand, that he goeth reverently to the mystery of the redemption. Not withstanding (saith he) some kiss first the feet of the Image of the father's majesty, and after of the crucifix according to the order of the canon. Other contrary wise. For by the son, men come to the father. And where hath this honest fellow found, that the majesty of the father can be painted? 
Exod. 20 Deut. 4.5.  what shape hath the father (who is an high spirit) that we may paint him?  he himself hath so straightly in the law commanded that there should be made no fashion nor image of god. Is not this to teach men to commit Idolatry?  
Let no man marvel that I often allege William Durant. For I do it to none other end but that it may appear, of what sort the fowndations of this mass are. For this is he that yieldeth and telleth the causes and reasons of the things that are said and done in the mass. Therefore I allege him often. But let us run over a little, this canon, And examining it we shall see in it thes unexpressible mysteries after master durant.  

The first is this.  
WE therefore, O most merciful father, by jesus Christ thy son, our lord do humbly pray and desire thee, that thou wilt accept these gyfftes, these presenties, and these unspotted sacrifices. (And here must be made iij. crosses over the host, and the chales likewise) And he addeth. First that we offer to thee, for thy holy catholic church, which vouchsafe thou to quiet, to keep, to join together, and to govern in every part of the earths compass, together with thy servant our Pope, and our bishop (And here is the Pope, and the bishop of that diocese where the mass is said, named by name. Or if they be friars or monks that celebrate, they name their general or Abbot, and after he addeth this. That is to say, And for all the right opinioned, and keepers of the catholic and apostolic faith.  
This is the first of the xi. partis of the canon. In which it is destre that the bread, and the wine, may be accepted for the church, for the pope, for the bishops, for the general's friars or monks, and for all the right opinioned, and keepers of the catholic and apostolic faith. And it is affirmed, that that bread and that wine, not yet consecrated, are holy and undefiled sacrifices which are offered to god for the church and for all those that are there mentioned. And here is no great hardness, for the words be plain enough, except that those iij. crosses which are made over the bread and wine should betoken some very great mysteries. Master William durant saith here, that thes iij. crosses do betoken the iij. deliveries of Christ, the first when god delivered his son to the world, the second when judas delivered him to the jews, and the third when the jews delivered him to death. Iff this reason be good, why make they not there 4. crosses? Seeing that Christ hath delivered also himself as Peter saith, 
1. Pet. 2.  Tradebatautem se iudicanti just that is he delivered himself to him that judgith justly. Is not this Christ, as man and as priest, delivered or offered unto god, 
Eph. 5.  a sacrifice for our sins? And doth not S. Paul to the Ephes. say, that Christ delivered himself for the church to sanctify it? 
Heb. 9 ●…0.  and to the hebrews, in how many places is there made mention, 
Math. 20.  that Christ hath offered himself to god? yea Christ himself doth witness, that he hath given his life for us. Is not this delivery of as great importance, as that of the jews, and rather greater? And why is there not mention made of it in thes crosses? He saith also that thes iij. crosses are made, in the worship of the trinity, and also in betokening the threefold union in the acceptation of Christ. Also in remembrance of the threefold crucifying, that is to say, In the will, In the cries, and in the work. And for the iij. times before the law, that is to say from Adam to Noah, from No to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses. So that this our master Durant, allegeth as many significations of thes iij. crosses as there are threfoldnessis or numbers of three Imagined. Behold now the great mysteries of this Canon.  
Moreover who hath authorized him that made this Canon to give so many significations to thes crosses? Is it in man's power to do it? Thes things, to him that understandeth, are superstitious, and unknown, not only of the Apostles, but also of the primative, and puer church. I could, if I would, touch that matter, how that bread, and that wine, not yet consecrated, could be sacrifices which are offered for the whole church and for all the faithful: but of this matter we will speak more here after when we will prove, Yea that the bread and wine consecrated, that is to say, when they be, a sacrament are no sacrifices: but only a memory of the true sacrifice, they be so much less sacrifices when as yet they be not a sacrament, that is to say not yet consecrated, as we shall further declare.  
The second part of the canon is the momento, which is a prayer that is made for the living, and it is this, Lord remember thy servants men and women. (And in this place, prayer is made for certain particular parsons, as seemeth good to him that saith the mass, and after he addeth, And all the bout standers whose faith is plain unto thee, and their devotion known. For whom we offer unto thee, or else they offer unto thee, this sacrifice of praise, for themselves, and for all theirs, for redemption of their souls for the hope of health, and for their safety. And they yield up their vows, unto the eternal living and true god.  
In this memento there is nothing but may be easily understand. Here he that saith the mass affirmeth, that that same bread and wine which are not yet consecrate, but bare bread and wine, are offered to god for the redemption of their souls, of whom memory is made, and also of the about standers. This speech doth a base Christ, because it seemeth, that Christ should not have redeemed those souls, as without doubt he hath done. And he first promised it, and all the scriptures affirm, 
Math. 20, Heb. 9  that he needeth no more to do it. Paul to the hebrews saith that Christ hath found out the everlasting redemption. In the Apocalypse, john saith, 
Apoca. 5.  Thou hast redeemed us in thy blood (and speaketh to Christ) of every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, And hast made us, unto our god kings and priests. And how many sayings, iff we would, and also need were, could we bring forth? But it needeth not in so plain a matter, to allege more witnessis. Should we confess, (as this prayer doth) that with bread and wine is made the redemption of our souls? Christ only is our redeemer, and not the bread, nor the wine, unconsecrated, no nor when they be consecrated, (as they call it.) But let us admit that they were consecrated (which not with standing they be not) and that Christ were with us bodily in parson, yet it should not need any more to offer him for the redemption of our souls, because he himself hath done that without us, and hath offered himself ones for ever, to bring that to pass. What needeth it than any more to offer him for that purpose? Ought we not to believe that our redemption is made, without seeking who should make it again, as though it were not made? Therefore this memento is wicked.  
The third part of the canon is a prayer in this form.  
Communicating and honouring the memory of the glorious and continual virgin Marry mother of god and of our lord jesus Christ, and of the blessed apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, 
The evilness of the latin proveth him unlearned in the latin tongue that made it  james and John, Thomas, james, Philip, Bartilmew, Simon and Thadeus, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Laurence, Grisoganus, john and Paul, Cosmyan and damian, and of all thy saints, for whose desertis and prayers grant us that we may (with the help of thy defence) be strengthened in all things by the same Christ our lord Amen.  
It is said that Siritius the pope did add thes words. In which is celebrated the rememberans of the gloryos mother and Virgin, and of the other saints here named. But why there should be made memory of those rather than of many other, he that hath made this Communicantes, aught to tell it. It is destered that by hour communicating with the saints, and by partaking of their good things, and by honouring the memory of them, that god thorough their merits would grant us in all things to be strengthened with his help. In this part also there is nothing has is not easily understand. And why he doth ●…ere suppose, that the saints pray for us, which ●…s not found by the holy scripture, we should ●…alke a little on this matter, but at this time we will attend to that which is of more weight, And we will leave this till another time to avoid tedyosnes to the reader.   

THE II. CHAPTER. The iiij. and v. part of the canon is examined, that is, Hanc igitur oblationem and Quam oblationem It examineth also the vi. and seven. part, which is Qui pridie and simili modo, where men may plainly see, that the defenders of the mass, know not what Consecration is, no nor with what words, nor whanit is made.  
The iiij. part of the canon is this, that is to say, We beseech the therefore o lord, that thou wilt accept or take this oblation of our service, and of all thy howsold, and that thou wouldest dispose our days in thy peace and command that we may be freed from everlasting damnation, and be numbered among the flock of thine elect thorough jesus Christ our lord, Amen.  
Te fifft part is this, that is to say. The which oblation, o god, we beseech thee, vouchsafe in all, things to make blessed, auctorissed, reasonable and acceptable, so that to us it may be made, the body and blood of thy very well-beloved son our lord jesus Christ, (And saying thes words there are made v. crosses, the first but over the bread only, and the last over the cup only, the other iij. over the bread and the cup together.) Master durant reciteth divers expositions of thes words, benedictan, ascriptan, ratan, ratio nabilem, and acceptabilem, and of thes crosses, and findeth out certain other trines or three, divers from them that he hath taught before: But what needed it to institute so many crosses and superstitious doings, as things necessary, when Christ hath not commanded them nor his apostles, nor were never used by the primative church. The apostle paul, not being so bold, to ordain the sacrament otherwise, than as Christ had taught him, that he had done in the last supper, saying to the corinthians, Hoc. n. accepi a Dnon ꝙ & tradidi nobis etc. 
1. Chorin. 11.  That is, that which I received of the lord delivered I unto you. That pure and holy order given by Christ, and kept with so great reverence, by his apostles, aught to have sufficed us, and not to make so many additions, which blemissh, (I will not say bewray) the pureness of the sacrament, as they have done of baptism, to which they have joined, salt, oil, spyttel, conjuring, which things neither john Baptist, when he baptized Christ, nor the apostles did ever use. And thes which with reverence do keep Christ's appointment, and with humbleness do obey him, are now counted for heretics, as though they were more bound to obey men than god. Let every faithful Christian, judge though we say the truth. This fift part of the canon, giveth to understand clearly, that by thes words, offerings, sacrifices and gifts, is understand the wine, not yet consecrated, And that they be none other, but bread, and wine. for he desireth, that they may become, the body, and blood of Christ. So that according to the canon the bare simple bread, and the bare simple wine are a sacrifice for the redemption of souls and for salvation, as in the ij. part hath been said. We may not here gloze that the Canon intendeth that the bread and wine when they shall be turned in to the body and blood (as they say) shall be a sacrifice for the raunsominge of souls, for it meaneth, of that bread and of that wine which are to become the body and blood. Now is it certain yea after their own mind, that that bread and that wine which are yet to become the body and blood of Christ, are bare plain bread and bare wine, And yet the Canon saith that they be a sacrifice for the raunsominge of souls, which is a plain wickedness.  
The sixth part of the Canon, saith, The which (that is to say christ of whom is made mention in the former part) the day before he suffered, 
The sixth part of the canon of the mass  the consecration.  took the bread in his holy and honourable hands (here the priest taketh the host in his hands and addeth) And his eyes being lift up into heaven, to the god, his father almighty, yielding to the thanks, he blessed. (And here is made a cross upon the host and is added) he broke and gave to his disciples, saying, Take and eat all of this for this is my body. (And here the host is liffted, up and caused to be honoured, a thing which christ hath not appointed. But why is not the bread than broken as Christ did, seeing he commanded that they should do this in his remembrance, And not to cause the bread or wine to be honoured?) When this is done the host is laid down, upon the altar and the cup is taken in hand, and the other part which is the seventh part, is said, that is to say.  
Likewise when they had supped taking this noble cup in his holy and honourable hands, 
The seven. part of the Canon of the mass.  rendering thanks again unto thee, he blessed (and he●…e is made a cross over the cup and added) And ●…aue to his disciples saying, Take and drink all of ●…his, for this is the cup of my blood, of the new ●…nd everlasting testament, a mystery of the faith, ●…he which shall be shed for you and for many for ●…he remission of sins, so oft as you shall do thes things, you shall do them in my remembrance. (And saying thes last words the cup is lifft up and caused to be honoured as we have said of the host, that is to say, all together contrary to Christ's ordinance.  
In thes ij. parts is made the consecration of the bread and wine. And in the consecration of the bread are added ij. words that are not in the evangelists, that is to say that word, enim, and that other Ex hoc oens. And in the consecration of the wine are added ij. other, that is eterni, and misterium fidei, which likewise are not in theevamgelistes. And it is to be marveled seeing the defenders of the mass say, that with Christ's words the consecration is made, and that they ought not to add or minissh them, and so much the rather as they themselves say, that Christ gave the power of consecration to those words that he spoke not to any other, how dared they be bold to add any one word. I will not now say that by this the sentence is changed. Nevertheless seeing we ought not to use any other words than those same that Christ spoke, because he gave the power of consecration, to those only and not to any other, as they say, and that we cannot know certainly what words they should be, but by the evangelists or by paul, And finding those words that the canon doth add, neither in thevangelists nor in paul, it is a great rasshnes to add them. Here the Rational or cause teller of divine officis, saith, that the apostles had the manner of the consecration from Christ and we from th'apostles. And that it is not to be marveled though these words which seem added, be not found in the evangelists, and yet spoken by christ: For the evangelists for shortness have passed over many things which the apostles have supplied. And he giveth th'example of the vision which Paul declareth in the 1. to the corinthians, 
1. Cor. 15:  that Christ after his resurrection appeared to moo than v. hundreth brethren, of which vision thevangelists make no mention at all, and yet it was true. He allegeth also that among thevangelists one declareth one thing and another leaveth out the same etc. All this is true that thevamgelistesevangelists have leffe out certain things which were done, and although the one supplieth that which the other leaveth out, this maketh not that we ought to add to the words of the evangelists, chiefly to them of the consecration, to which words only, Christ (according to their opinion) hath given power to change the bread in to the body and the wine in to the blood, and not to any other. Who doth asserten us that Christ spoke this word enim and thes other words added that is to say, Ex hoc oens and those other ij. that is to say aeterni and misterium fidei. We be certain of the appearing of Christ, to more than v. hundreth brethren, because Paul, to whom christ did reveal it, hath written it. But if Paul had not written it, and finding it not in the gospel how could it be certainly known? And how shall we be bound to believe it. Likewise this is the cause why things lefft out by one evangelist are known, because another doth tell them, but if all had left them out, how could we certainly know them? O say they, the church had it from the apostles, sayst thou so, how dost thou know it? I will not believe thee, how many things are said of the apostles and are attributet to them which never were? We might than after this sort attribute to the apostles what we would. Paul writing to the Choryntes, 
1. Corith. 11.  teacheth them the form of the dedication of the bread and the wine, and saith that he had it of the lord, and yet he putteth not in, any of thes words, and yet surely for all that he teacheth to consecrate well. Why than doth he not put in thes words? Iff in the consecration there were nothing considered but the sentenc●…, it made no matter though some words were added or minished, so that the sentence were not altered. But the consideration here is of the words, that is to say, what they be to which Christ hath given the power to consecrate, and to them it behoveth not to add or to minissh. All this I say according to their opinion. For they would that Christ should have given the virtue of consecrating, to the words which he himselff spoke and not to other. And yet thes words, that I say are added, be neither in thevangelists nor in Paul. Here must we say, that Paul taught not to consecrate well, because he spoke them not. Or else if Paul taught to consecrate well, that Christ spoke not those words. And if Christ spoke them not, they have used a great rasshnes that have added them, specially, having that opinion that they have of the consecration, that is to say, of the power given to those words only that Christ pronounced. Moreover what is the cause that in the consecration of the bread are not put in thes words which christ pronounced, that is Quod ꝓuobis datur which is given for you, as Luke saith, or else ꝙ pro vobis tradet and frangitur, which is broken for you, as Paul saith, as in the consecration of the wine there be thes words, Which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins, the body being no less given for our redemption than the blood? Why have they in this part maimed the words of the consecration of the bread and not those of the consecration of the wine; let every man judge if this aught to be done. But this is the best of the matter, that the defenders of the mass to maintain it, say that that bread and that wine is changed, the one in to the body, that is to say the bread, and the other in to the blood, that is the wine. And are much cumbered, because they can not tell what is showed by this demonstrative, Hoc when is said, Hoc est corpus meum that is to say, this is my body. If by this word Hoc, be showed the bread, the saying is false, because the bread is not changed in to the body, till all the words of the consecration be uttered. Iff the body be showed, it seemeth that the body should be there before the words were spoken, and before the consecration should be made. And we have the like to say of the words of the consecration of the wine, which thing is declared when is said, Hoc est. n. sanguis meus etc. Iff the wine be showed, it is false that the wine should be blood. If the blood be showed, it seemeth that the blood should be there before the consecration were made. Which thing cannot be. And therefore some say after one sort and some after another, and to be short they know not what they may say.  
One saith that this Hoc. doth show partly to the sense and partly to the understanding. And this is the meaning of thes words, this is my body that is to say, that into which this thing shall be transsubstantiate, is my body. And this is the opinion of Richard of S. Victor in his book of the trinity. Certain other say that the with comes of the bread are showed, And this is my body, is as much to say, as in this is my body. Some other say, that this pronown, Hoc, is taken materially, and doth not show any thing when it is pronounced in the consecration. But Christ's words only are repeated. To other the contrary appeareth, for when Christ pronounced those words, he shwed some thing and did consecrate. Therefore now also, being the same words and having the self-same use that they had when Christ spoke them, they shall have the self-same signification. And even as Christ than showed some thing, so now must some thing be showed. Innocentius the iij. in his books of the office of the mass, doth hold that Christ consecrated with other words than thes Hoc est corpus meum and Hic est calix sanguinis mei. Some other have said that the power of consecrating is given to thes words, that is to say, that at the uttering of them is made he transubstantiation. Some other say, and among he rest master Durant, that Christ first did consecrate with a divine power not known to us, and after he declared the fashion with which after him men should consecrate. For Christ blessed with his own power, but we do bless by the virtue that he hath given to the words with which men consecrated, that is Hoc est corpus meum and hic est sanguis meus. And when the priest pronownceth thes words, the bread is changed into the body, and the wine in to the blood. There be other that say that Christ consecrated with other words than thes Hoc est corpus meum, and that he consecrated when he blessed. Peter commestor saith that Christ consecrated with thes words Hoc est corpus meum and hic est sanguis meus but he spoke them sofftly to himself and changed the bread in to the body and the wine in to the blood, and after he repeated them with a loud voice to the apostles. Other some say that Christ pronounced the words twice, first to give them the virtue of consecrating, and after he pronounced the same words to teach the apostles the fashion of consecrating, and this opinion is little differing from the former. Some other say that the bread and the wine are both consecrated together, that is to say when the wine is consecrated, than is the bread consecrated and not before. Other some say that the bread first is consecrated and aff●…er the wine. about the form of consecrating of the wine, some say, as Bonaventure in the iiij. of the sentences the viii. distinction, and many other, that thes words hic est calix sanguinis mei be of the substance of the form of consecrating the wine the other which be added, that is to say, Novi & aeter ni testamenti, be only to furnissh. Thomas of Aquine in the iij. part of his somm, saith that all thes words be of the substance. Scotus saith that being unknown for certainty whether they be of the substance of the form or not, that men ought not to determine that it should be so, but they ought to say all, as if they were of the substance of the form, albeit that commonly the doctors agree with Bonaventure. And here is to be noted that according to the opinion of Scotus, it is not yet known what should be the words of consecration of the wine, but in part. It is sure that he said the truth, that neither he nor Bonaventure nor Thomas of Aquina nor as many more school doctors as be defenders of the mass, ever knew certainly the very poinctt which should be the parts of consecration, And this is the proof theroff. For if they had known it, there should not have been so great a diversity and confusion of opinions as we have seen. And we could yet, (iff we would) speak of others. This their so great diversity, showeth plainly that they never knew it nor never were certain of the matter. And it is most certain that though the opinion that they defend were true, there should never have been so many and so divers opinions.  
What a vain thing is it than to say that by the virtue of certain words should be made a changing of the bread and the wine in to the body and blood of Christ, which thing not withstanding by the holy scripture cannot be showed, that is, that by the virtue of certain words the substance of things should be changed, and of the other part not to know or not to be certain which should be those words? They speak also in such sort of this consecratoin, that after their own opinion, the church or the people that hear the mass are never certain whether the consecration be made or not. For the master of sentencis saith in the iiij. that the heretics can not bring it to pass, that is to say, to consecrate. And also he saith, you must have the intent, for otherwise you consecrate not. And who can be certain, either of the faith or of the intent of him that celebrateth? Surely no man, being such things in the consciens of man which none saith but god and he that celebrateth. Therefore the people that hear the mass, is never certain when the consecration is made and when not. The cause why this confusion is among them, first is because they know not properly what manner of thing consecration is. For consecration meaneth one thing, and they think it should have another meaning. Besides they believe or at the least cause men to think that they believe, and they preach the same as an article of the faith, that that bread and that wine is changed th'one in to the true and substantial body of Christ, (that is to say the bread) the other (that is to say the wine) in to his blood. And they say that Christ really in body and soul, as great and as thick as he was upon the wood of the cross, and as now he is in heaven, is wholly in that little host and wholly in that cup where the wine was. And they will that here there should come together many miracles, and they hold that this marvelous change, which they call transubstantiation, should be done by the virtue of those words of the consecration, And they will that consecration doth mean changing of bread in to the body, and of wine in to the blood, made with thes words. So that they make this consecration, as the enchanters were wont to make their enchantments with certain words, which they (being deceived by the devil) think to have virtue to work certain wonderful effects. So do they, that think with thes words spoken softly over the bread and the wine, to change by virtue of the same, the bread and the wine in the body and blood of jesus Christ.  
Thes ij. be the causes why they know not with what words, the consecration is made, nor when it is made. for having that opinion that they have, that is to say, that there is made that marvelous change of bread and wine, thes words hoc est corpus meum, make than the difficulty, and they know not what thing is shwesd by this word, hoc, For if the bread be showed the saying appeareth false unto them, because the bread is not the body of Christ till all the words be spoken, and when they show the bread, the words be not yet spoken. Than seeing the body is not yet there, there can not be showed by this word, hoc, the body which yet is not. And if they say, they show the body by this, hoc, that saying hoc est corpus meum seemeth to them untrue likewise, for seeing the body is not yet there in that host, it can not be shwed in it. And thus not knowing how to make true that saying, what soever sort they should speak it, they go about writhing it a thousand manner of ways and would fain help the matter if they could, but they find not the way, for god will not. As it chanced to Pharaos' conjurers that could not do that they would. 
Exo. ●….  So they would (yet for all that holding that opinion they hold, and for to give credit to the mass) they would yet, I say, make that saying agree with this their opinion, but there is no means how. Let them turn it yet as they will, their opinion standing, Christ's saying hoc est corpus meum cannot be made true. Than their opynynon is most false, which cannot stand with god's truth that is to say, his word.  
It is chanced also to them, as to those that would have builded the great tower of Babylon and have made it marvelous high, as it is written in Genesis, 
Gene. ●….  but god confused their tongues, that one did not understand another, although that all did agree to the building of it. Even so it hapnyth to thes carpenters or builders of the mass, which also would if they could, lifft it up even to heaven and make it be counted as a godly thing, and an high worship. And they all are agreed to this workmanship. And because they see that though they hold not that the true body of Christ is in the host and his true and natural blood in the cup, the mass should not be in price or any estimation, but rather by and by should decay, therefore above all things they take heed to this to persuade and by all means they can, to make the people believe that Christ is really and bodily in that host and that cup. Nevertheless god hath confused their tongues and their minds in to so many ways and opinions, in to so divers fancies and speeches, that the one is disagreeing and contrary to the other. This is now a plain and a manifest token that this workmanship pleaseth not god, and finally shall fall to the ground, to the intent that the saying of jesus Christ may be verified, that every planting which the heavinly father hath not planted shall be rooted up. 
Mat. 15.  We do not now intent to go about to prove here that that their opinion is false, that is to say that the bread and wine should be changed, the one in to his body, and tother in to his blood, because we should make to long a digression from our purpose. But with god's favour, when we have ended this discourse of the mass and the mass book, we will in the end of the book join to it a plain sermon of this matter in the which we will prove the truth. And for this time we will make it onli appear, that they understand not what consecration meaneth. Therefore you must understand that Consecrare after the holy scripture, meane●…h not to change one thing in to another by virtue of certain words, as they take and understand the consecration of bread and wine, minding that it should be a changing of their substances in to other substancis, that is to say, in to the body and blood of jesus Christ. For a thing that is consecrated, is not marred or destroyed, that it should not be any more the same that it was (as they say of the bread and wine, that they remain no longer after the consecration, but are undone and destroyed, and be no more that they were) but the thing that is consecrated, remaineth the self-same that it was first, and is not altered in his substance, but only is dedicate or appointed to a certain holy use to the which first it was not appointed or ordained. This is the meaning of consecrare As for example, And house is said to be consecrated to god, when it is appointed to some holy use, as a man would say to the preaching of gods word to the administration of the sacraments and to common prayer. Even so man is consecrated to god, when he is dedicated and appointed to an holy and sacred use of god's service. All christians be consecrated to god, that is to say, dedicated and appointed to his service, which is an holy thing, because they be the true temple of god, in the which he dwelleth with his holy spirit, as S. Paul saith in many places. 
1. cha. 3. 2. cha. 6. Ephe. 2.  Now it appeareth that the man remainith still the same and is not changed in substance, because he is consecrated to god, but only is dedicated and appointed to god's service, to which he was not first appointed. This which we say, we say not of ourselves, but out of the holy scripture in many places, 
Exo. 13.29. num. 6. Leuiti. 27.  as in Exodus numerus, leviticus. It is written in exodus, that every first borne male should be consecrate to god as well of men as of beasts. Also that Aron and his children were consecrated to be priests. It appeareth in numerus as well of men as women that were consecrated to god. In the last of leviticus where is spoken of the consecration of men and of fields and universally of every consecrated thing. It appeareth that that consecration doth not mean to change one thing in to another with words, but meaneth to dedicate and appoint, and as a man would say to appropriate a thing to god and to an holy use. Every thing that is consecrated to the lord, saith god, whether it be man, beast, or field, shall not be sold nor can not be redeemed or ransomed. And thes were the consecrations made in the law, which although we do not now use, yet nevertheless they give us to understand, what Consecrare meaneth, and that it importeth nothing else but to dedicate and appoint a thing to an holy use. And so we will say of the consecration of bread and of wine, that it is no changing of their substancis made by virtue of words, but it is an appointing to an holy use, that is to say that they should signify and bring to our remembrance the body and blood of Christ how he gave them for our redemption. As he himself said when he instituted this holy sacrament of bread and wine, 
Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Corint. 11.  saying that they should do this in his remembrance. We have been long in this our talk, which we have done, for the ignorant and not for the learned, and because the matter is weighty.   

THE III. CHAPTER. This examineth the viii. part of the canon and declareth how he that saith the mass, usurpeth that office that is Christ's, and also saith a most wicked prayer, which is a great wrong to Christ.  
THe viii. part of the canon, is this, that is to say, Wherefore we thy servants and thy holy people, remembering us of christ thy son our lord of so blessed a passion and resurrection from the dead, and of the glorios ascension in to the heavens, do offer to thy most excellent majesty of thy rewards and gifts, the pure host, the holy host, the unspotted host. (and here saying thes words are made iij. crosses over the host and over the cup consecrated, together, that is to say over both of them. And after he addeth) Holy bread of life everlasting and the cup of continual health, (And here ij. other crosses be made, the one when the bread is named over the same host, and the other over the cup when the same is named.)  
In this viii. part, is affirmed that the priest and the people by the remembrans that they have of his death, resurrection and ascension, do offer unto god that host and that cup consecrated, which be, as they think, the true body and very blood of Christ. But where is it found in all the whole scripture that Christ or god did ever ordain that either the priest or the people should offer unto god the body and blood of jesus Christ? In deed we find that we ought to make a memory of such an offering as christ hath made. And therefore he hath ordained this sacrament to th'intent that we should use the remembrance of that oblation. But that we ought to offer to god either the body or the blood of his son, that hath god not appointed us, nor yet Christ nor ani apostle, ever made mention of it. For this office to offer unto god the body and blood of christ, belongeth only to christ, who is the high and everlasting priest, 
Heb. 7.9.10.  and it belongeth not to us. And the some christ hath done it once for all, when he was offered and died upon the cross. And it needeth not to do it offtner, because that that only time hath sufficed to satisfy god for the sins of all the elect. And that which we do now in the sacrament, is not the offering of Christ's body and blood but is a memory of that offering. And who knoweth not, that the memory of a thing, is not the self-same thing, but a remembrance of it? And if any would say for all this, that it belongeth to christians to offer christ in the sacrament, because Peter saith that the Christians be an holy priesthood, to offer spiritual offerings acceptable to god by jesus christ, To this I say, that Peter meaneth not here to speak of the sacrament, but meaneth of those hostis, that is to say, spiritual sacrifices, the which not only the priests, but all christians may and aught to offer unto god, accepted by jesus Christ. And thes hosts or sacrifices, we be first ourselves, which ought to offer ourselves unto god ass. Paul exhorteth to the romans, saying, I pray you that you will give up or offer your bodies an holy, living, and pleasing host unto god, which is your reasonable serving of god. This sacrify is made by denying of ourseluis, besides that, praisses, thanksgiving, prayers, allmes deeds, and to be short, all duties off Christian devotion, be sacrifices. And to prove that this is troth, Peter speaketh not here to the priests only, but he speaketh to all the christian people and to all the faithful whom he calleth a chosen people, a kingly priesthood etc. The priest than that saith the mass, usurpeth the office that belongeth only to christ. But we will speak of this yet more largily in the iiij. part.  
There followeth further more in this part, a prayer, that is to say, Upon which things (or else) upon which gifts (and speaketh of that host, and that wine consecrated, which after their opinion are the true body and the natural blood of Christ) Upon ihe which things (saith he) vouchsafe to look, with an helpful and a favourable cowntenance, and to accept them as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the gifts of thy just servant Abel and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham and that holy sacrifice, unspotted host, that thy high priest Melchisedech did offer unto the. They that have made this prayer, and that which followeth, which is the ninth part, either they believed not that Christ should be in the host, or in that cup (and so be heretics after the opinion of defenders of the mass, which hold as an article of our faith that Christ is really in the Sacrament) or else, if they believed it, they have spoken most foolishly and wickedly. For in this prayer, is desired that god would accept the body and blood of jesus Christ, as he accepted the gifts and sacrifices of thes iij. that is to say, of Abel, Abraham, and Melchisedeck, which were plainly men, and not without sin (although just by god's grace) and had need of the forgiveness of sins. if it be so than (as in deed it is) how doth this prayer desire of god, that he would accept the body and blood of jesus Christ his son, as he accepted the sacrifices of those 3. As though his own son were not more accepted, but rather less accepted than the sacrifices of thes 3. which were sacrifices of unreasonable beasts and of plain creatures. And who doubteth the body and blood of christ is without measure more accepted than as many sacrifices as ever were made in the world? Yea who dowthet that all the sacrifices all the offerings, all the services, all the good works of thes iij. fore named, and of all, other men that ever pleased or were acceptable to god, were accepted by jesus christ, by his body and by his blood by the which, god is pacified with us? who doubteth this but the infidel and the wicked man? And this prayer desireth that god would so accept the blood of his son, redeemer of the world, as he did the blood of beasts. Ah blasphemos prayer. Thes be those great mysteries that this canon hath, which William Durant expoundeth with so great reverence. But some man may peraventure say, that there is not desired in this prayer absolutely that the body and the blood of jesus Christ for themselves, should be acceptable to god as the sacrifices of those iij. holy men, because there is no doubt, but that they be more acceptable, for themselves, than all the sacrifices of all men of the world. But there is desired, that they may be acceptable to god for us, and so is the prayer to be understand. This answer seemeth subtle, and some contentios man might peraventure show himself stout with it, but it is nothing worth. For let them say what they will, it shall be always inconvenient. for if they will desire that the body and blood of Jesus' Christ (for themselves) should be acceptable to god, as the sacrifices of simple men, no man will ever say, that this should be convenient. And even so shall it be inconuenyent also to pray that the body and the blood off Jesus' Christ, should be accepted, for us as the sacrifices of those iij wear. Because it is very convenient that they should be much more acceptable to god for us than the sacrifices of those iij. for because the body and blood of Jesus' Christ have obtained us forgiveness of sins, redemption grace and everlasting life, a thing that those sacrifices could not do to those iij. that did them. Thos sacrifices were in deed figures of Christ, but they did not take a way sins nor gave not health as S. Paul saith to the hebrews. 
Herald ●….  Here William Durant saith in his ratyonall, that this word, sicut, doth mean likelynes and not quantity.  
But this is nothing worth, for if we should offer any gyfft that were a plain creature, we might ask this: But the son of god is offered, who cannot but be more accepted to god without comparison than those sacrifices. This prayer is fond, and is, as if for a great prince that had infinite riches, some friend of his would desire and pray god that he would make the same prince as rich as a private citizen. Such a prayer, should be scorn worthy and foolish, even so is this. And absolutely to him that well considereth the matter, he that made this prayer, did not believe that the body and blood of Christ should be really in that host and cup, but believed that there was th'only bread and wine, even as in baptism we have no change of the water but the water remaineth water as before, although it be a sacrament which it was not before. Yet to be a sacrament doth not change the water, as concerning the substance. Even so the bread and the wine in the sacrament remain bread and wine still. For if he had thought that the body and blood of Christ had been in the sacrament realli, he would never have made that prayer, for it is to fond. if Christ's body and blood be there, and he believed it not, it followeth, according to their opinion, that this prayer is heresy.   

THE FOUR CHAPTER  
Here is examined the ix. part of the canon which is most wicked it examineth also the x. part, which is foolish and speaketh against itself. And it examineth also the xi. and last part of the same canon.  
THe ix. part of the canon is this prayer, On our knees we beseech the Almighty god, command that thes things (that is to say that host and that which is in the cup) may be carried by thy holy Angels hands, to thine high altar, in to the sight of thy divine majesty to the intent that as many of us as shall receive of this partaking of the altar, the most holy body and blood of thy son, may be fulfiled with every heavenly blessing and grace thorough the same jesus Christ our lord. (And here are made iij. crosses. 
Mass priests make ij. manifest lies in the canon even when they are most devoutly at mass which they can not deny.  One up on the host when the body is named, another over the cup when the same is named, the third is made crossing himself) And at this prayer the priest boweth himself a little but he ought to kneel down, seeing he saith that he prayeth up on his knees, and yet he doth not kneel but only boweth himself. As in the first part of this canon, he saith also that he kneeleth and yet he kneeleth not. And here William Durant upon thes words, that is to say, command that thes things may be carried by the hands of thy holy Angel, upon the high altar etc., saith that they be of so great depth, that man's understanding is veri hardly sufficient to enter in to them. And minding to expound them, he bringeth forth first, Gregory's words registered in the decree of consecration the 5. distinction Cap. Quid sit sanguis. And because he seemed not satisfied, he bringeth forth iij. other exposityons. the first is that that word, Hec, that is to say, thes things, may mean, not the body and the blood, but the supplications and prayers of the faithful, which prayers the angels offer unto god. And than he giveth another signification, which doth not satisfy him. And after he giveth also the third, that is this.  
Command that thes things, that is to say the mystical body of Christ, which is gods warfaring church, may be carried to the high altar that is to say, to the victorios church, and that by the hands of thy holy angel, that is to say, of christ who is an angel of the great council as isaiah in the ix saith He addeth yet another, which for shortness i will let pass. It is an hard matter surely to defend an unjust cause for a man is constrained to say many things that be not to the purpose. Id needeth not here that master Durant should find out so many glooses. For the canon speaketh, when it saith, thes things, of the host and of the wine consecrated, as it spoke before in the other prayer, and speaketh not neither of the prayers nor of the mystical body, for it made no mention neither of the one nor of the other in the other prayer. And desiring in this prayer that god would command thes things to be carried by the hands of his angels, there is showed by those words (thes things) the self-same off which he spoke off, in the other prayer immediately going before. And if he should have meant of other things, it should not have been to the purpose. More over though it should have meant of the prayers or of the mystical body, thes words should not have been of so great depth as he saith. Yea they should have been very easy to understand, which is against Durant himself. Therefore than the canon speaketh of the host and wine consecrated, which be, as they think, the very body and the very blood off Jesus' Christ, and desireth that they may be carried and presented upon gods high altar, that is to say in heaven in gods sight. What a tale is this? that Christ ●…huld be carried by the hands of angels and pre●…ented in to god's sight? Is not Christ now by himself, present in heaven in the sight of the father without being carried and presented by the angels? What, the article of our faith saith that he sitteth at the right hand of god, and Paul to the Hebrews saith that he sitteth there continually, 
Herald x.  what needeth it than to carry him where he is already? Iff any man would say that the angels may carry him so far as he is in the sacrament, because that after that sort he is on the earth. This saying is a very monster and vanity, for Christ so far as he is in the sacrament, because he is there unpartably, as they think, he is there in such sort as he can not be carried as the school men themselves say. More over though he should be carried forth after such sort as he is in the sacrament, it were necessary that the angels should cari the sacrament in to heaven, which is never seen. I have said now that he that hath put in thes ij prayers in to the canon, by the talk that he maketh, doth show that he by leaveth not Christ's corporal presence in the sacrament, as we told you in the former chapter. For if he had believed it, he would never have said such words, iff he had had any understanding. He than that made thes prayers, the opinion of thes school men standing, is an heretic. And master Durant to defend the canon, because he saw, that thes words according to his opinion could not stand, he magnifieth them as divine things, but it needed not being men's words and not of the holy scripture, so much to magnify them, and to defend express errors, desiring to make them holy matters, as he is forced to do in that his rational or reason giver.  
The x. part is the Memento in which the dead are prayed for. And thus it saith, Also, o lord, have in thy remembrance thy servants men and women (here is made a particular rememberans, for certain particular dead folks, as like him that saith mass, and after is added,)  
The which are gone before us with the sign of faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace. To thes, o lord, and to all those that rest in Christ we pray the that thou wilt grant place of comfort, of light and of peace through the same Christ our lord Amen.  
Here master Durant in th'exposition of this part, saith, that on the sunday through our lords resurrection, it is thought that the souls should have rest. He meaneth, I think, that they suffer not the pains of purgatory, but the other days they do. O master Durant it is very honest that the souls in purgatory also should keep the feasts. But I marvel why they have not rest also on the friday, on which day our saviour suffered to take from us the pains that we had deserved, 
Esay. 53.  as the scripture saith in so many places and chiefly in Esay the Prophet, where it is written that he hath borne our griefs, and that the lord hath laid upon him all our iniquities, and how he was beaten for the wickedness of the people and other such sayings which be there. Thapostle Paul would not that there should be difference of days in Christ's church in this life. And rebuked the galathians who observed days. 
Gala. 4.  And he wrote to the colossians, Let no man judge you in meat or drink, 
Colos. 2.  or in part of an holy day, or of a new moon, or off the sabbath days etc. And shall we put difference of days in tother life? Not withstanding this is not of the canon, but master Durants. And to return to this prayer of the Memento, me thinketh that it is foolish and unsavoury, and that it speaketh against itself. Because first it confesseth that the dead do sleep in the sleep of peace, and that they rest in Christ. And notwithstanding after it desireth that god would give them place of comfort, of light and of peace. if they sleep in the sleep of peace and rest in Christ, have they not the place of peace? What need you axe that those that sleep in peace should have the place of peace? Is it not all one to sleep in peace and to have the place of peace? To rest in Christ and to have place of comfort? Iff the souls be tormented in purgatory, be they not dead in torment? How rest they than? peraventure the defenders of the canon will answer that this prayer meaneth of the body, when it saith that the dead sleep, and not of the soul. Let it be so. For the soul in deed sleepeth not but only the body. But it saith also that they have quietness and rest, which speech can not be conveniently understand but of that part that may be troubled. What rest shall that be to rest in that part that can feel no manner of thing without the soul and to be troubled in that part that in deed feeleth and l●…ueth? When they say in their service for the dead, requiescant in pace, surely they mean to speak of the soul and not of the body. For as much as it needeth not to pray that the body of the dead should rest, because that of necessity it doth rest. But the soul may, as they think, have trouble and pain in purgatory. And therefore they pray that they may have rest as concerning the soul. 
Apoc. 14.  S. john in th'apocalypse when he saith blessed are the dead that die in the lord why doth the spirit say that from hens forth they rest from their travail? will we say that he should speak of the rest of the deeds body and not of the soul? if he speak of the body what prerogative have the bodies of the just until the day of judgement more than the bodies of the wicked? The one and tother do rest equally, and there is no difference in this point. And yet John maketh a difference between them, for he calleth them the dead in the lord that is to say, the Just blessed. And why blessed? because that from henceforth they shall rest from their travel and be in quiet, giving to understand that the other do not rest from their travail but have more than ever they had, because they be damned to everlasting pain. So that when the quietness of the just is spoken of, it meaneth of the quietness of the soul and not of the body. Being than thus, that this prayer in one part affirmeth that the just sleep in peace and rest in Christ, and in another part desireth that god would give them a place of peace and comfort, appeareth that plainly it speaketh against itselff.  
The xi. and last part is this. To us sinners thy servants that trust in the multitude of thy mercies, vouchsafe likewise to give some part and company with thy holy apostles and martyrs, with john, Steven, Mathy, Barnaba, Ignatius, Alexander, marcellus, peter, felicitas, perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Cecilia, Anastasia, and withal thy saints in whose fellowship we beseech the admit us, not as a regarder of deserts but as a giver of pardon through Christ our lord Amen.  
And thes words are said somewhat with an higher voice to th'intent that they should be somewhat hard. And the priest knocketh his breast, representing (saith master durant) the contrition of the these that rebuked tother these. And Amen, is not answered, partly because the angels that ever be assistant do answer them seluis, and partli for other causes that he himself allegeth. See what reasons thes be of the mass, vain and to no purpose. For iff Amen be not answered because of the assistance of the angels it followeth that in the mass, Amen should never be answered, for ●…hangells, as they think, be allweys assistant. He showeth also the cause why Steven is put there accompanied with John before mathy and barnabas, and why memori is made of John and not of the other apostles. Without doubt this cannon being made and after put in to the mass, for such causes as William Durant allegeth, they may boldly take it out of the mass and the mass book, without any scrupulosity, saving those few words of Christ that are there. For the mass shall be less beastly, although it be esteemed for the chief and bewtifullest part, seeing that it is altogether full of superstitions, beside the multitude of iniquities and blasphemies that be in it. And he that would axe why mention is made in this place rather of Ignacius, of Alexander of Marcellinus and Peter, which was another, than Peter th'apostle, and so forth of thes particular holy women and martyrs than of tother saints men and women, I know not what they should answer, being so many other besides thes here named. It is said that certain desired with great earnestness, of the pope's, to put in there in this canon s. frances, but it what not granted them, I think for this cause lest they of s. Benet, of s. Dominik, of s. Austen and of other sects should have start up and also have desired to put thereinto their saints men and women, as a man would say, s. Peter the martyr, s. Catarin of Sienna, who had the marks of Christ's wounds as s. francis had. And iff not thes, yet at the least the heads of their orders. I do not willingly tell thes things, but they be of greater importance than some think. There followeth after also in this xi. part, By the which (that is to say by Christ) create, hallow quicken, bless and make thes things, O lord, always good unto us. And here saying thes words, they make iij. crosses over the host and the cup together. And the cup being uncovered and the host taken in hand, there is added, By him, with him, and in him (and there is made iij. other crosses over thee" cup and ij. other between the cup and himself that sayeth the mass, saying) And to thee, god the almighty in the unity of the holy ghost, be all honour and glory. (So that there are in all, viii. crosses in thes few words. And master Durant, according to his accustomed manner giveth a reason of every thing. And what reasons be they? Folissh and vain. And surely though they that made all this canon, (I say they, because it was not made all at onis, but at sundry times, and of sundry men) were not moved by more reasonable causes, than a great part of those reasons that he rendereth, they were marvelous lightly moved. For the mass should have been less blasphemos than it is if they had been left out. And if those crosses have so many significations, surely they had great authority that ordained them, chiefly that making so many of them in this mass they have not allweys like significations, but now this, now that according to the diversity of places where they be made.    

THE THIRD PART.  
This third part of the book is from th'end of the Canon, to th'end of the mass, which is divided in to iiij. chapters.  
In the first is declared that the saying of the prayers in secret, and to will that he should answer Amen that neither understandeth nor heareth the prayers as it is in the mass is a foolish thing. with out reason and against that which S. Paul saith. Also that the prayer that is said after the Pater noster aught not to be said in secret as it is. And that the making iij. parts of thost and mingling th'one of them with the wine is not convenient.  

The first chapter.  
When the canon is ended, per omnia secula seculorum is said with aloud voice, that every man may hear, and Amen is answered, which words ought to be joined with them that go before, which be the end of the same canon that is to say, By him, with him and in him, and, to the father all mighty in the unity of the holy ghost, be all honour and glory, after the which words this doth follow, per omnia secula seculorum, to the which is answered Amen. But I ask thes men that have ordained that this per omnia secula seculorum should be said a loud, and after Amen should be answered, and all the rest that goeth before they will that it be said in secret, that no man should hear it, but he that saith the mass. To what purpose, I say, will they that all the people which are present at the mass, or the clerk in stead of them and of all, should answer Amen, when they understood nor hard no manner of thing that was said in that prayer that goth before this per omnia secula seculorum? How can Amen be answered by him that understandeth not nor heareth that that is said? what doth, Amen, mean, but so be it? And a how can a man say, so be it, that is to say, according to that which is said and desired, iff he understand not what the priest said and desired? But let us put the case that the priest did blaspheme or desired certain cur●…singes in the stead of blessings, what Turrian answer should this be to say Amen that is to say, so be it? Is this a reasonable matter that the people should say Amen and confirm a thing that they understand not? s. Paul in the 1. to the Corinthians saith expressly that a man can not answer Amen, 
1. Co. 14.  except he first understand the thing that is spoken. And they care not to make a mocking stock, of the poor people, I will not say of god. And this is not done here only but twice besides, that is to say after the secrets that go before the preface. For the priest saith them sofftly and therefore they be called secrets and when they be ended, the priest saith per omnia secula seculorum? And he answereth Amen, that neither understood nor hard what was said. And the like is done in the prayer that followeth the pater noster, which is said sofftly, And when that is ended, also, per omnia secula seculorum is said, and Amen is answered. It should be less evil, that the priest who saith thes prayers in secret, and who knoweth what he said (iff he understand the latin himself) should say Amen, and not make him to answer that knoweth not what he said. All be it offt times it happeneth also that the priest himself knoweth not what he hath said because he understandeth not the latin, and yet he saith Amen. And surely the mass is not worthy any other ministers than such like, that is to say, Ignorant and that know not nor understand not what they themselves do. Than next after followeth, Oremus, preceptis salutaribus moniti, and that the pater noster, which M. Durant saith, hath seven. petitions for Christ's seven. words on the cross, and for the seven. words of the blessed mother, and for the seven. gifts of the holy ghost, for the seven. beatitudes, and for to flee the seven. deadly sins. I marvel that he put not in the seven. planets of heaven, the seven. stars, and the seven. spirits of the apocalypse, the seven. canonical hours, the seven. days of the week and as many sevens as are found in the scriptures. I should speak also of the seven. yoyes of our lady, but it is not found in the scripture. And from whence is it gathered, that for thes sevenfoldnessis Christ hath ordained that in the pater noster should be seven. petitions? Thes are the ground works of the mass. when our saviour taught his disciples the pater noster had he ever any thought of thes sevenfoldnessis, of the which the rational or reason giver without reason speaketh? I say even uprightly that I never red book more contrary to his oWn title, than this. It is called the rational, or reason giver, but it is the most without reason, and the folisshest thing that ever I saw. And giveth to understand that the mass is an unreasonable composition, and an hodge-podge ill favouredly jombled together of divers men's fantasies. Thes his reasons that he rendereth tend to no other end than to give authority to the mass, and to persuade that it is a thing full of secretis and of divine mysteries. But let him read it that is minded to lose the time, as they do that go to the mass. Affter the Pater noster is said this prayer, We beseech thee, O lord, deliver us from all the evils, past, present, and to come, and at the request of the blessed and glorios continual virgin marry mother of god, and of the blessed apostles, Peter, Paul and Andrew, and of all thy saints, give us peace in our days to the intent that being helped by the help of thy mercy, we may be both free from all sin and sure from all trouble, by the same our lord jesus Christ thy son who liveth and reigneth with the in the unity of god the h. ghost. And this prayer is said in secret, and I see no cause why it should be said in secret. The rational or reason giver saith that this silence signifieth the sabbath day in the which the body of the lord did rest in the grave. For than none did preach the faith. And afore in the title which is of the pater noster and the exposition thereof he allegeth another cause, that is, that this prayer is said sofftly in token that christ sometime did hold his peace in his preaching O vain reason. And why can it not signify, when he held his peace under Caiphas, Herode and Pilate as well as the silence in the sermon? and why is it not said with a loud voice, to signify that christ sometime cried out, 
Mathei 27.  as when he cried on the cross, Heli, Heli? and when also preaching he cried if any be thirst let him come to me and drink. And the rational a little after, saith that be cause we be not worthy to deserve the forgiveness of the things past, present and to come, except it be given us by the prayer of the blessed virgin Mary and of the blessed Peter and Paul and tother saints, therefore we do call them here to our help. But I ask by whose intercession are sins forgiven? by Peter's, Paulis or the saints all which had their sins? Iff this prayer intent that, that the rational saith, it is blasphemos, as though we deserve not pardon eycept by the blessed virgin and of the blessed Peter, Paul, Andrew and other saints? And where is this sound in the holy scripture, that we deserve not forgiveness of sins, but by the prayers of saints? How doth this rational know this? How can we surely speak of the remission of sins, iff not by the word of god? The word of god thorowowtly saith that sins are forgiven us by Christ's entreating, and that jesus Christ is our mean, advocate and entreater and it appointeth no nother but him, nor maketh no mention of any other. And this prayer will have that by saints prayers, sins are forgiven us. Why saith he not by Christis intercession? Why do we than feign to ourselves of our fancy, other advocates and other entreaters? But let the rational with his mass tell me a little the forenamed saints, and all the rest, by whose intercession deserved they pardon having all had one sin or others? Sureli all had need of pardon. It is necessari though they will answer well, that they say by Christ. if it be so, why do they allege other than him in the forgiveness of sins? What man so ever he be in the world, for so much as by one only way, the sins of the world are forgiven, as S. john saith, in his 1. pistle, that he is the propycyation for our sins, and not only for ours but for all those of the world. When this prayer is done, the host is broken over the cup in 2. parts, and one of those parties is laid upon the pa●…en, and the other also is broken in 2. parts, and the one of thes 2. second partis is laid also upon the paten With the other that first was put there. And after holding in his hand that other of the 2. pieces also over the cup, he saith per omnia secula seculorum. And Amen is answered. And after he addeth, pax domini sit semper vobiscum. And saying thes words, there are made 3. crossis with that piece of the host over the cup. When the words be spoken and the crossis made, the priest saith thes words, that is to say, Let the mixing and consecration of the body of our lord jesus Christ be unto us that do or shall receive them unto everlasting life.  
And all thes things have their significations and their mysteries, that is to say, their superstitions. But why do they not handle the sacrament as Christ taught? Christ did not put any part of the bread in to the cup, but severally gave it to his disciples, first the bread which signified the body, after, the wine, which signified the blood, each one a part by itself. And did not mingle them together as men are wont to do sometimes with common bread that is eaten sopped in wine. This is not convenient in the holy sacrament, the which ought not to be handled otherwise than as Christ hath taught us. Here the rational saith, that this mixture is made for iij. causes. The first is to signify that the body is not without the blood nor the blood without the body. The second is to signify that there is not but one sacrament.  
The third is to declare the return of the soul to the body. And what meaneth it that the apostles and the primitive church the which kept the singleness of the institution of the sacrament have not added thes mynglings? What is this but to handle the divine mysteries after our own fashion, yea rather to make a mock at them. And even as they themselves have added, why also may not we make other addition and give them their significations, and add every day to this mass even till the day of judgement, and make it so long that they should stand an hole year in saying it? Than, what meaneth this word consecration when the priest saith, let this mixture and consecration of the body and blood of our lord Jesus' Christ be maids? Is not the consecration made already and the bread turned in to the body and the wine in to the blood, as they say? what needeth it more that it should be made again a new, iff it be made already? Except they would understand and golf after this fashion, that is to say let the commixtion of the body and the blood that we make, and the consecration already made, become to us that shall take it, the body and blood of Christ to the profit of everlasting life. But I can not tell if this were his mind or no that ordained this part of the mass.   

THE SECOND CHAPTER. Of the Agnus Dei: of the iiij. prayers that go before the receiving of the sacrament and of ij. that follow. How great a part of the last prayers in the mass be wicked and some of them speak against the private mass.  
THe agnus dei followeth which is said iij. times. Affter that are said iij. prayers the first destreth that god would not look upon the sins of him that saith the mass, and that he would according to his will agree and make one the church. The second destreth that by the most holy body and blood of Christ he would deliver him from iniquity and from all his evils. And praith that he may be brought nearer to the commandments of god and that he may never be sondered from him. The third desireth that the sacrament should not become his judgement and condemnation but that it might be a defence of his soul and body. When thes iij prayers are said, he taketh the host in his hand saying, I will take the heavenly bread, and will call up on the name of the lord, and knocketh his breast iij. times saying also thrice, Domine non sum dignus that is lord I am unworthy. And after he hath taken the host in his hand, he saith, the body of our lord jesus Christ keep my soul to everlasting life, Amen. And when he hath said thus, he receiveth the host. And after, he taketh the cup in his hand saying, Quid retribuam Domino etc. that is what shall I render to the lord. And he saith thus, The blood of our lord jesus Christ keep my soul to everlasting life, and receiveth the cup. Thone and tother being received, the priest affterwardes saith ij. short prayers. In the first is des●…ered that the sacrament may be taken with a clean mind and that it may become unto us an everlasting remedy. The second desireth that the body and blood of Christ may come nigh to our bowels, and that there may not remain any spot of sin. when the ij. prayers are done, and the cleansing made with water or wine or with th'one and tother, the post communion is next said, that is to say certain short verses of the psalms or of some other part of the scripture. And after are said the last prayers of the mass, sometime one only though the feast be solemn, sometime ij. sometime iij, sometime more as it hapnith. And of thes prayers a great part are wicked, as that which saith, We beseech thee, almighty and merciful god, let the sacraments which we have taken cleanse us etc. In the which is desired that that sacrament should be a washing of sins, and among tother things that it might be the forgiveness of all sins of all the faithful living and dead. As also that other, that is to say, Let this communion cleanse us from sin, and at the intreati of the blessed Mari mother of god, let it make us partakers of the heavenly remedy. And that other, Let the receiving of this sacrament, be unto me, o lord, forgiveness of my sins etc. And so many other as make mention that sins should be taken away or forgiven by the receiving of the sacrament. And also those that make mention that by such receiving, everlasting health and glory should be given us. Off which prayers throughout the mass book there is a great number as well before the consecration as after. And chiefly the last, They be all wicked. For the receiving of the sacraments is not that that forgiveth sins, no nor that that giveth us health. Thes offices be to great, nor they do not belong to the sacraments, as at large we will prove in the iiij. part. Where we will show that the sacraments be not instituted for such causes.  
Beside this, it is to be noted that many of thes prayers are contrary to the private mass, that is to say, contrary to that where the people do not communicate, but only the priest, receiveth the  and the cup. Because they make plain mention that the multitude of the people hath been partakers of the sacrament, and not the priest only. As that is which saith, Satiasti Domine familiam tuam etc. that is to say, thou hast filled o lord, thy famili with holy gifts (and speaketh of the sacrament). And this prayer is said very oft after the sacrament received. And that other Corporis sacri & pretiosi san●…guinis repletilibamine that is to say. Being filled with the received sacrifice of thy holy body and precious blood. And so many other as give to understand that the people hath communicated, it is plain that such prayers can not be true, unless the people receive the sacrament and yet the priest saith them, as though the people had received, and in deed received nothing at all. By thes prayers and such like, whereof there are a great number in the mass hook which are said after the priest hath received the host and the cup, is given us to understand that the mass in that time that those prayers were made, was no nother than the holy communion. And the same supper of the lord, which oft times was made, because they would never have spoken after that sort iff the priest alone should have received thost and the cup. And it is not to be answered here that thes prayers speak in the plural number and not of the priest only because the priest doth communicate in all the peoples name, seeing that even as one can not be baptized for another, so can he not receive the supper for another. And after a certain sort there is likeliness between this spiritual supper and the common suppers or daily eatings. We will never say that one can eat for another, but every one doth eat for himself, and thones meat can not help tother. So is it of the holy supper, that every one ought to receive for himself. Also the saying of the priest giveth us to understand this, who when he saith such prayers, turnith him to the people and saith Oremus that is to say let us pray all together and willeth that the people should pray as well as he, and should say the same words that himself saith. Which words can not be verified if the priest only should communicate and not the people. Which thing also the name of the communion teacheth us which agreeth not to one only but to many. So that than such prayers be contrary to the private mass, and can not be true though the people do not communicate. But of necessity must be false. Therefore they give us to understand, that sometime they were true, that is to say when the things were not yet in that disorder that they be at this present.   

THE THIRD CHAPTER How the first prayer of the mass for the dead is f●…lissh and to no purpose. The pistle of tha pocalipse doth gainsay not only the first prayer but generally all the mass for the dead. The offertory also is an unfit prayer:  
WE have not yet particularly touched the mass for the dead but for the living. And if we would tell all the errors that be there, our book should grow to great. But our mind is at this time to make plain that the mass is the greatest error that is in all christendom. This shall suffice us for this time. I do not doubt but this our anatomy, as rude as it is, will wake up some other to handle this argument or matter more worthily than I have done. And so I desire, for the dear love of jesus Christ that they to whom god hath given more understanding of his things than to me that they will take in hand this enterprise, to the honour of god and profit of his church, because it is most weighty and worthy to be well handled.  
Now let us look up on this mass for the dead. In the mass for the dead the first prayer desireth that the soul of the dead man or dead woe man should not be given in to the hands of the enemy, but should be received by the holy angels, and carried to the country of paradise, to th'intent that having believed and hoped, it should not suffer the everlasting pain but possess th'everlasting joys. But to what purpose doth his prayer desire that that soul of the dead man or woman, should not suffer everlasting pain, iff it be in such state as it can not be damned and ●…o which such a request doth not agree? It is plain, that the church prayeth not for them that be damned, as also according to their opinion it prayeth not for them that are blessed and in life everlasting. So that than being no peril nor possybylytie that the souls of the faithful after they be past this life, can be damned, but be certain of their safety (nor it can not be no nother wise) it needeth not than to pray for them that, god would not damn them, but there ought only to be desired that they might be delivered from the pains of purgatory, though at least they were there, and not from the everlasting pains from which without doubt they be (by gods grace and thorough Christ) delivered, nor there is no more peril that they should fall in to it. Wherefore such a prayer is made in vain, and is unfit, because it putteth in doubt the safety of the faithful souls, of the which they be most certain. To be short, the souls that be departed this life. either theibe of the true faithful or not. Iff, they be not of the faithful, it needeth not to pray for them because the prayers do not help them. if they be of the true faithful, it needeth not to pray for them that they should be freed from everlasting pain, for such a prayer should help them nothing, being without doubt already freed. Than next after it is written in the lesson of th'apocalypse, which is recited in the same mass, 
Apoc. 14.  that th'angel said to lhon, writ, blessed be they that die in the lord, for fronhenfforth (that is to say from their bodily death) the spirit saith, that they shall rest from all their labours and travels. if it be so, that after their death they be in quiet and rest, and thes men speak not, but the spirit of god which can not lie, to what purpose should we need to pray for them that god would lead them in to the place of comfort? if they rest from all their travels and be in quiet, it needeth not to pray or desire god, that he would give them that the which, we be certain they have already. We be certain 〈◊〉 the saying off the holy ghost that they rest from all their labours and consequently be free from all pain and have no need to be freed. if they were in purgatory or in any pain, the spirit would not have said, that they were in rest as he affirmeth, but would have caused men to desire it. Surely this office for the dead speaketh against itself and against t'holy scripture, for it affirmeth that the souls off the faithful be in rest and on the other side desireth that they may have rest. Affterward in the lesson of the Maccabees, what is the cause that they have not put in the text as it lieth? why, have they kept back that word sacrifice? The text saith thus. 
2 Mach. 12  Et facta collatione duo decim milia dragmas argenti, misit Ierosolima offerri pro peccatis mortuorum, sacrificium. How have they thus put in all the rest of this lesson and thes words only, that is to say Sacrificium they have left out? They should with out doubt have put it in. But I Imagine they feared lest it would hinder their opinion. And be it as it will be they have fauted, and used craft in hiding it, and they imagined such a manner of word should not be much for their purpose because that the sacrifices were not made of money but of beasts not with standing this is none of the greatest faults.  
Than next in the offertori is prayed, O lord jesus Christ king of glory deliver the souls of all faithful dead, from the pains of hell and from the deep lake. Deliver them from the mouth of the lion that hell may not swallow them, and that they fall not in to darkness, but that thy standard bearers. Michael may present them in the holy light the which in time passed thou didst promise to Abraham and his seed.  
This offertory, as thou seist, praith for the souls of the dead, that Christ would deliver them from the pains off hell (as the first prayer saith) and from the mouth of the lion, that is to say, of the devil, and that the horrible place, that is to say the depth of the dungeon, should not swallow them, and that they should no fall in to the dim darkness. And it giveth us to understand that the souls of the faithful be yet in peril to be damned, the which is not only falls, but contrary to their own opinion that bring in purgatory, the which saith that the souls of them that die in grace (for the which only the church prayeth hand not for any other) can not be damned as the reprobate for whom the church praith not, because they can not be saved. Why than doth not this prayer (called the offetory) desire that christ would deliver those souls from the pains of purgatory and not from the pains of hell whether they can not go? peraventure some will gloze, that thes words (pains of hell, mouth of the lion, Deep lake, Terrible and dark place,) do not mean the pains or place of the damned, but of purgatory. They cannot reasonably say this. For such manner words do not agree with purgatory. And with out doubt they mean the hell of the dampened, and of the everlasting pain, as the first prayer ment, the which expressly made mention of purgatory. Surely this offetory is foolish and erronios as the first prayer is, because it giveth tunderstand that the souls of th'elect passed from this life may be dampened.   

The, iiij. Chapter.  
THat the blessing in the massboke, that is to say, of ashes, of candles, of bows, of cheese, of eggs of bread, of fire, of fankincens, of the paschal, and of water, are wicked and full of superstitions.  
The blessing of the ashes is not only wicked, and supperstitoes, but plain blasphemy for that is very blassphemie when that is given to plain creatures which belongeth only to god and christ. As for example to forgive sin, to justify and to save. Now let us see a little, what this blessing of ashes saith? there be ij prayers. The first saith, Grant by the calling upon of thy holy name, that all those which shall cast the ashes upon them for redemption of their sins, may receive the health of body and defence of soul. The other that followeth, affirmeth and confesseth that we put thes ashes on our heads to show forth humbleness and to deserve forgiveness, saying thus. O god which dost not desire the death of sinners but their repentans, look most favourably upon the frailty of man's state and vouchsafe to bless thes ashes which we have determined to lay up on our heads to th'intent to show forth humbleness and to deserve forgiveness etc. In thes ij. prayers it is plainly confessed that we cast those ashes upon us, for to have redemption, and to deserve forgiveness of our sins. O cursed blasphemy. And shall we redeem our sins with ashes? And why not with tow? And what need we to labour to disprove so great and so plain a folly? How vile a thing doth Antichrist make the redemption of sins? For the bringing of which to pass, it was needful that the son of god should become man, should be borne in our miseries, should suffer so many troubles, should be of wicked men persecuted, delivered, taken, beaton, mocked, spitefully handled, whipped, judged by thunjust, crucified, dead, and that he should go down to the greatest lowliness  
And here he saith that with the ashes is made the redemption of sins. How can the godly and Christian ears hear this. Look up on this you that go to the mass, Look up on it your selves. Read what I tell you is in the mass book. They that understand the latin have not considered it. Thoter know not what is said, because the hole is said in a tongue not understand of the unlearned. And they may blaspheme and say what they will at their pleasure. And be thes things to be born, to close up our redemption within thashes of wood the which only Christ hath brought to pass with his hlood and death?  
That of the candles which is done on candelmes day, in the first prayer it desireth that god would by the calling up on of his most holy name and by thentreaties of the blessed Mary allweys virgin, and by the prayers of all saints, bless and make holy those candles for man's use and health of bodies and of souls, whether it be up on the land or in the waters. And where find we in the hole scripture, that any bodily creature fashioned by men as the candles and the weekis be, should have this use to give the helt of souls? The health of souls is the forgiveness of sins, and the holy making. Thes so great and godly things are done by th'only favour of god and by Christ, 
Esay. 53.61. 1. Pet. 2. Luk. 4. Esa. 61.  and are not wrought with wax candles. Yea this prayer speaketh against itself, because in th'end it saith that we be redeemed with the precyos blood of the son of god. And before he saith, that thes candles be for men's use and for health of souls, that is to say, for remission of sins. And how can thes ij. things stand together? that is to say that we be redeemed with the precyos blood of the son of god, which is most true, and that the candles should be the health of our souls, that is though say the forgiveness of sins? Seeing that forgiveness of sins is redemption itself, as Paul witnesseth in many places. Surely though the candles forgive sins, than they worck our redemption. 
Roma 3. Ephes. 1. collo. 1.  But Christ only hath wrought our redemption, and hath not wrought it with candles. I know well that the wrangling and superstitious parsons, will not want answers and glosts. Notwithstanding let every faithful and godly man weigh and judge whether the candles can work such effectis or no. when the candles be blessed and the holy water cast on them and that they be censyd, certain verses are song? Affter they go on procession, and they sing iij. songs of praise, which they call Anthems. And one of them which is the second saith, Adorna thalamun tuum Zion, & suscipe regem Christum, amplectere marian quae est coelestis porta, ipsa enim portat regem gloriae. And here this Antem confesseth that mari is the heavenly gate. And though I shall say somewhat here to defend gods honour and christis, let no man marvel. I speak to those that have no knowledge of the holy scripture. For I am sure that they which have, will not marvel. There is no doubt, but the most blessed mother, was and is blessed above all women, and is in that greatness and worthiness that can not be esteemed, because she is Christ's mother. And yet for all that, we ought not to give her those praises that be not fit for her and that belong only to christ. For so, thin king to honour her, we dishonour her and do her most greatest wrong, and if she were near us and hard us when we give her such titles, that is to say, gate of heaven, mother of merci, when we call her our hope, our advocate, and such like titles, which be long to christ only, or to god, she would spit in our facis, and would not suffer that the honour of god and of christ (the which she and all though her saints do more esteem with out comparison than theit own) should be given to plain creatures, were they never so excellent. Onli Christ is our life, and hope, 
Io. 1.6.11.14. colossen. 3. 1. Timot. 2. johann. 10 1. johan. 2. Actor. 4,  the gate of heaven, our advocate, fowntane, king and father of mercy. Thes names be names for god and Christ. To be the gate of heaven and to be the advocate, belongeth to Christ, god and man, but the other belong to god and to Christ as god. So that they than commit a great error, that to honour the saints and chiefly the blessed mother, do sing thes Antens as the Salue regina, the ave maris stella, and as many other as give godly honour to plain creatures. From hens it cometh, that the devotion to christ and god is lost, and it cometh to pass that where we should call up on god and Christ and rone to them in our need, we rone to men and we place them in our redeemer and maker's place. The blessing of the boughs in the first prayer after the preface of the same blessing, destreth that those that shall take of those boughs, that they may be unto them, a defence both of soul and and body, a remedy of our safety through Christ our lord. The fourth prayer, which beginneth Deus qui per olivae ramum, desireth that god would bless and make holy those boughs of the olive and of other trees, so that they may be profitable for soul health to all the people. Surely thes be very great effectis, that is to say, to be a protection of soul and body and to be a remedy, or to be profitable for our soul health. God doth noth use thes means to defend our souls and to save us. We have not in any place of the scripture any of thes things. Paul th'apostle to the colossians, 
Coloss. 2.  saith that in Christ we be furnished, that is to say, that as concerning the things pertaining to the soul health, we have no nother but Christ, god excepted. For in Christ and by Christ we have all things, whether we speak of forgiveness of sins, of justification, of repentans, of holy making or of sowl health. We have all thes things in Christ and by Christ, and not by the boughs of olive, palm or of any other thing. And beside it is a great superstition to be content to believe that the boughs of olives palms or other trees should (by reason of those blessings made with those words, crossis and other ceremonies that are made) take any power to bring to pass such and so great effectis. We find not that the Prophetis, th'apostles or Christ himself, did ever use such things, or that they should with words give power to any bodied thing to work such effect is.  
On saturday which they call holy, is blessed the fire, the frankincense and the wax candle called the paschal. In the blessing of fire in the second prayer, the which beginneth Domine Deus pater omnipotens, is destered that god would bless that light, that is to say, that kindled fire to th'intent, that that fire being blessed and made holy of him that hath lightened all the world, we may be kindled by the same light, and lightened by the fire of his brightness. And he meaneth by thes words, that god by that blessed fire, should kindle and lighten us with the fire of his brightness. This can not be, 
Luce. 12, 2. Corin. 3 Gallat. 3. Actor. 10.  because that god to kindle us or to lighten us, useth not for his instrument or mean, the material fire, but his word the holy gospel, by which that divine fire of the holy ghost which worketh thes effects is given.  
The blessing of the frankincens in the mass book immediately followeth that of the fire. And is a prayer that beginneth, Veniat quesumus omnipotens Deus. And first it desireth that the large onpowring might come upon that frankincens, that is to say, that god would largely power on his blessing upon that frankincens. And it seemeth that a little after it affirmeth, that that frankincens together with the rest, that is to say with the paschal, and the fire and such like ceremonies as are made, It seemeth (I say) that it affirmeth them to be a sacrifice the which is sacrified that night. And this he saith because at other times such duties was wont to be done by night. And it desireth that it may not only shine with the secret mixture of gods light, but in every place where any of that mystery, that is to say of that sacrifice shall be carried, that the craft of the devils wickedness may be driven out and the power of the godly majesty may be help ready. Iff this prayer will as it seemeth that it meaneth, that such frankincense together with those other things, should be a sacrifice unto god, sacrified that night, and that it should have power to drive a way the devil, this is a very superstition. For we do not find in the holy scripture, with as many words as may be said, that a thing doth take any new pour the which it had not before. And it should behove them to prove, why such power is rather given to thes words that they speak, to bless thes things, than to other. Also we have not that such things may be called a sacrifice, by the apostolic scripture. We find in deed that the praisings of god, 
Hebreo. 13. Roman. 1●….  the allmosts and works of charity be a pleasing sacrifice unto god. But after that Christ came, it is not found that we ought to offer unto god, frankincens, fire, or candles. And they be all fancies and devices of men. There is also to consider one other great abuse, that is that they have given many significations to thes such things as they have found out, the which serve to no purpose. For neither the people that are present at such ceremonies understand them, no nor they much less that do them, nor there is not among a thousand one, that knoweth what is done. And to what purpose are made so many ceremonies and gestures, and are given them so many significations as the thousand part of them that see them, know not to what end they are made? This is to true, but it is an error common to all the ceremonies of the mass. For every man saith many garments, sondrines of apparel, that is to say, stoles, phannells cord girdles, albes, amices, vestments, copes, corporas clothes, patents, and so many gestures as are made, so many joining together of hands, so many casting open of arms, putting together and sondring of fingers, so many crosses, and to be short, so great a diversity of things which be used in the mass. And yet the people understand not why they are done. And why do they not teach some of thes significations, iff they would they should profit. The Rational of divine offices, maketh so many significations, so many mysteries of such things, and yet no one, or very few do know them. Well it is enough that they be written in the book. Let it be axed a little of all that multitude that standeth present at the service on the holy sabbath day, what profit they have gotten by seeing those frankincensis, those wax candles, fires and other ceremonies, and by standing iiij. or v. hours at thes services? This is the profit that is brought thence, that they have lost the time, and return supersticios in that they by leave that the wax of the paschal should have power against the enemies, against the devil, against night spirits, and some do put it up on the doors off their houses, and some other (silly souls) do put it within the horns of their oxen and other beasts and up on the vinestakes against the tempest. Affter this sort the poor people is handled.  
Than next followeth the blessing of the wax, that is to say exultetiam angelica turba coelorum. The which calleth the 5. peck of frankincens that are sticked in the paschal Crosse-like, An evening sacrifice the which is offered to god, And praith that the wax consecrated to the honour of god may unfailably continue to the destruction of the darkness of that night, so that being accepted by god to be a savour of sweetness, it may be mixed with the heavenly lights and that the flame of the same may find out the morning day star, that is to say, Crist. And about the end it granteth to much to that frankincense and to that taper. For if we would do a thankful thing to god, we must offer unto him another thing than frankinsens and candles. The next blessings be put in th'end of the mass book. The blessing of cheese and eggs desireth that god would power out his blessing upon the cheese and eggs, so that they being armed with his heavinly defence may be profitable for everlasting life to all those that shall taste of those cheese and eggs. That of the bread desireth that it may be to all those that shall take of that bread blessed with the spiritual blessing, health of mind and body and defence against all sicknessis and all waytlaings of enemies. There is another, appliable to every thing, the which desireth that god would bless that creature, (that is to say what so ever they would have blessed) so that it may be an helpful remedi to mankind and that all those that shall take or taste of that thing may by the calling upon the holy name of the lord, take the health of body and the defence of the soul.  
Thes iij. blessings give to much to the bodily things. How can such things as men eat and drink be profitable to everlasting life, to health of mind and of body? How may they be a defence against all the enemies, 
Mathei 15.  and a shield of the soul? Christ saith, that which goith in thorough the mouth, defileth not the mind. if it cannot defile nor do any spiritual harm to the soul, it can neither bring any spiritual help. 
Rom. 14.  And Paul to the romans saith, The kingdom of god is neither meat nor drink, meaning to say that the kingdom of god, which is a spiritual thing, doth not stand in bodili things but in spiritual. Thes things than that are eaten and drunken can not work so great effects as thes blessings do attribute to them. And so much rather as they be men's inventions and not according to gods word. And they be of those things that are wasted by using them as Paul saith writing to the Colossians. 
Collo. 2.  Where is it found in t'holy scripture, that god by means of certain words ever gave to a bodied thing like strength and power? And if any man would say, that Paul for all that saith in the 1. to Timothi, that the meats be hallowed by gods words and by prayer, and therefore may have by such hallowing or blessing some virtue the which before they had not, To this I answer that Paul in that place by the hallowing of meats, meaneth not that the same meats should take any new and spiritual power the which they had not he fore, but meaneth by hallowing, the clean and lawful use granted by god to the faithful, the which may eat for the maintenance of life at any time or of any manner of meat, giving thanks to god who hath made all meats for the use of the faithful. By the which thing we have to understand that the people of god under the law, could not at their pleasure eat of every meat but of those only that god did grant them in the law, and the other they called unclean and common, that is to say, of which the gentiles might eat. Now those that they might eat were hallowed, that is to say that the use of them was lawful and clean according to gods word. And because that since Christ's coming every meat is made lawful to a Christian nor we have no more that prohibition as in the old law, therefore every meat is hallowed to th●…. And this the vision that appeared to Peter giveth us tunderstand as we have in the deeds of th'apostles, 
Actor. 10.  when Peter saw that sheet full of all sortis of beasts, clean and unclean, and herd a voice which said unto him that he should kill of those beasts and eat. And he answering that he had never eaten any unclean and common thing, after the manner of the gentiles, but in that part had kept the law, It was said unto him, That which god hath hallowed. thou shalt not say that it is common. Here the heavenly voice gave us to understand, that every meat is hallowed to the faithful that is to say made clean and lawful as s. Paul saith also to Titus, all things be clean to the clean: But to the unfaithful and unclean, there is nothing clean, but their mind and consciens is defiled. So that than when the Christian taketh his meat, praying and giving thanks to god, such meat is hallowed, that is to say, the use of it made lawful, for so much as now seeing that Christ is come there is no more differens to the faithful between this meat and that meat as Was in thold law. And therefore they that forbidden meats do very evil. 
1 Timot. 4.  And Paul writing to Timothy saith that such doctrine is the devils doctrine, and against god's word, because the meat and every creature made for man's use, is hallowed, that is to say, the use off it made lawful by gods word and by prayer. First by the word of the creation the which hath made all meats and all bodied things for man's use. Than also by that word that Peter hard which also was gods word, And by that word also the which assureth us that we be fr●…id from the law and that we may for our need use any meat giving thanks unto god and making prayer. So that the faithful ought not at any time to take meat except prayer and thanks giving go before. See now after what sori Paul is understand? So than that hallowing is no nother but the clean and lawful use of meat.  
The blessing of the holy water is all full of superstitions. First the salt is charmed and conjured. And there is desired that the salt may be come charmed salt for the soul health of the believers, and that it may be to all those that shall take it, health of soul and of body (And than be made iij. crosses) The second prayer saith the like, that is to say, that this salt may be safety of mind and body to all those that shall take it, (and there is made one cross). The other that followeth, doth charm and conjure the water and desireth it may become charmed and conjured water, to drive a way all power of the enemy, and that it may root up and pluck out the same enemy with his frogoing angels by the virtue of the same our lord jesus Christ. (And than be made iij. other crosses) Thother prayer that followeth desireth that god would give the virtue of his blessing to that water, (And there is also made one cross) and this is said, that his creature serving gods mysteries may take theffect of the godly grace to drive a way devils and diseases. And besides it desireth that that place where it shall be sprinkled may be free from all uncleanness and from all harm, that it may be free from the pestilent spirit and from corrupt aye●…. Let all the waitelaings of the hidden or lurking enemies (saith that third prayer) pack them hens etc. This blessing attributeth great powers to the water the which gods word giveth it not. How can the water with words found out by men (as they of this hallowing be) do that that we read not, that the words of the holy scripture which be gods words ever did? We find in deed that Christ and th'apostles speaking brought marvelous effects to pass, but that they should have given to thes words, they spoke, any power (another man uttering than) to work any effect, we read it not. Surely all thes blessings be supersticios and wicked and do give to much to the bodied things. I would feign saylom what of the blessing of the pope's, Agnus Deis, which be made of white wax. But I can not tell with what ceremonies it is done, because I have not those books wherein it is written. Yet notwithstanding master durant in his vi. book of his Rational saith that those such Agnus Deis are made of new hallowed wax, or else of the pascal taper of the former yea are mingled with the Cream. And there he telleth the significations of those Agnus Deis the which after ward be distributed or dealt to the people by the pope himself, on the saturday in A●…bis, that is to say, the first saturday after caster. And in th'end describing the virtue of thes Agnus Deis, he saith that they by the virtue of their consecration and blessing, defend the believers from lightning and tempest. But sureli the pope hath done a great wrong to his Agnus deiys, that having himselff authority and power to give to things all those ●…tewis that him listeth, as he hath given unto Ashes power to work redemption of sins, and to the holy water salted (the which every priest can bless) the virtue to drive a way devils and to save men, chiefly to that water of the holisabbath which is carried from house to house, and hath given so marvelous vertuis so so many other things as we may see in this chapter of the blessings) he hath done, a great wrong to his Agnus dei, which no man can bless but himself, that he hath not given them the virtue of the herb Agnus casius of the which Dio●…corides and Galene do write, seeing the priests, the friars, the monks, and the nonnies and universally all the ecclesiastical state have so much need off it. For all have vowed chastity and marriage is forbidden them. It were much more to the purpose to give them this virtue and so to take a way so great an abomination from the world as sendeth the stink of it even to heaven, than that virtue, to serve against lightning and tempest. O benumbed and blind world, when wilt thou begin to open thine eyes to remember thyself and to see how miserably thou art bowght and sold? And by whom? By them that profess to have the in charge. It is the right judgement of god For when fables are preached every man believeth them. But let gods word, christds doctrine and truth come and be preachet, it is not only as a perilous error despised, but rather fiercely persecuted.    

THE FOURTH PART.  
The fourth and last part followeth, the which is of the abuses and of the abominations of the mass, and hath vi. chapters.  
THe first is that the mass doth not satisfy for them, nor apply such things to man.  

THE. I. CHAPTER.  
ALthough we have in the former partis touched many abuses and errors of the mass: nevertheless we intent (in this last, specially to treat of certain particular and great abusis. As for example, that the mass should forgive sins, that it should satisfy for them, or else that it should apply to us such forgiveness or satisfaction and that it should be a sacrifice for the living and for the dead. Than next also that the same mass, is man's invention and not gods, made by many. And to be short we will speak of many other abuses which partly are touched and of many whereof yet there is no mention made. And first we will prove that the mass forgiveth not sins, satisfieth not god for them, nor applieth not to us the forgiveness and satisfaction made by Christ, And to say the contrary is a very great error and abuse. And I prove it after this sort. For those that affirm the mass to work thes effectis, either they will and mean it of all the mass, that is to say of all those words that are said and ceremonies that are done from the beginning to the end, and of all that made heap of words and gestures, or else they mean of the sacrament of the body and of the blood only the which is chiefly considered in the mass. if they mean it of the whole mass it is false. For by saying of words and by doing of ceremonies sins are not forgiven. Seeing that though a man should say the whole bible over, which are gods words, from the beginning to the ending an hundreth times, they could not forgive him his sins, How than shall sins be forgiven, or satisfaction made for them by saying mass, which is man's invention, as we will prove in the third chapter? It is plain that sins are not forgiven by saying of words nor doing of ceremonies, because that justification else should be by works which is contrary to Paul. Who dow●…eth that the speaking and uttering of words should be our work? Yea who is that wicked man that can not do this, (say many Psalms, prayers, lessons) and do ceremonies? 
Roma. 3.4.5.8. Gallat. 2.3.4.5. Coloss. 2.  The devil himself can say many words that be holy and of god. Paul th'apostle, as we have in so many places of his epistles, to the Romans, to the Galathians and the colossians, saith that no man is justified, that is to say, no man's sins are forgiven him by the works of the law commanded by god. And he meaneth of those law whether it be of the commandementis, which is the moral law, or else of the ceremonial law. And will we say that sins be forgiven by reading or speaking of words, or else by doing of ceremonies not commanded by god, but devised by men? This can not be. if they will say that they mean not of all the mass, but only of the sacrament, the which hath this virtue and strength to forgive sins and to satisfy god for them, or else to apply Christ's redemption to them for whom the mass chanceth to be said, This is not true neither, but is veri falls. For the office of the sacranents is not to work thes effectis, but it is to be token them and to bring them to mind and to assure us of them. For if the sacrament should have this virtue, it should have it chiefly towards them that worthily should receive and take the sacrament, but it hath it not to wards those same, wherefore it hath it not towards no nother.  
That no sacrament, not only that of the lords supper, should have this office, I will make it plain and prove it. For the worthy receiving of the sacrament whether it be of thanks giving or of baptism, presupposeth forgiveness of sins and justification, than neither the one nor the other doth it. It is plain that none ought to take, what so ever Sacrament you will, iff he be of age, except he do true repentance and have true faith. But he that doth true repentance and hath true faith, 
Actor. 10.  his sins are forgiven him and he is justified as we have in th'acts of th'apostles. Peter saith, speaking in Cornelius the hunderders house in Caesarea, To this saith he (that is to say to Christ, for he spoke of him) all the Prophets bear witness, that every one that believeth in him, receiveth forgiveness of sins by his name. And Paul also saith, 
Actor. 13.  know ye, o men and brethren, that by this (and he spoke of Christ) the forgiveness of sins is declared to you, and by him, (that is to say by Christ) every one that believeth is justified from all those things from the which you could not be justified by the law. Iff than faith and penance not only may be had without the sacraments, but rather necessarily go before the sacraments though they should be worthily received, it followeth consequently that the forgiveness of sins or justification do not hang nor be not caused by the same sacramentis, nor be not applied to man by them. Because it is necessary that such things should first be applied before the sacramentis should be taken.  
The use also of the church declareth this, the which never giveth baptim to one of full age, except he first confess that he believeth. And so we will say of the supper, the which all men do confess that none ought to receive it but he that first hath done paenance. We have th'example of baptism in thact●…s of th'apostles of Candache the queen of thethyopes cunuch to whom Philip would not give baptism till he first confessed that he believed. 
Actor. 8.  
Gene. 15.  Abraham also was justified before the circumcision as the genesis saith, that is to say, Abraham believed god and it was imputed to him for justice, that is to say he was justified by faith. The which example Paul to the romans, bringeth forth, meaning to prove that justification is not by works nor by sacraments, And he saith that Abraham was justified before circumcision, and that the circumcision was to him a token of the justice of faith. giving to understand that the office of sacraments is not to forgive sins or to justify man, but to be a sign of such things. And if they be signs they be no causes. It is well known that there is a great difference between the cause of an effectt and the sign of the same. The sacraments be signs and not causis of forgiveness and therefore they can not forgive sins. Than moreover if the sacraments were those that should forgive sins, and without them forgiveness could not be wrought: it should follow that the grace of jesus Christ should be of less strength after the coming of Christ than it was before in the law. It is to plain that this should be inconvenient, that is to say, that Christ's grace should be of less strength sins his coming than before. What an inconueniens should this be, that now that Christ hath fulfiled the Prophecies, that he hath wrought our redemption, (This being called the time of fullness, the acceptable time and the time of grace) Christ's grace should be of less virtue and strength than before he came? But that this inconvenience should follow if the sacraments be necessary for the forgiveness of sins, I will show it. For before the law, by god's grace and by Christ, Abel, Enoch, Noah, yea and the scripture maketh particular mention of Abraham, that all thes and tother saints were justified without sacraments. Why now than shall not Christ's grace have the same vertu? It is plain that a thing that can worck his effect with out another help, is of more efficacy, force and strength, than that which hath need of it. Iff than now gods grace and Christ's virtue have need of sacraments to worck this effect of forgiveness of sins, and before it hath not need, it is surely of less strength now than in that time, for by itself it can not worck that that it could do than when Christ yet was not come in the flesh. So that now it shall be of less virtue and power, than it was than which thing is inconvenient. How many examples also have we in the new testament, that the forgiveness of sins is not caused by the sacramentis? The sinful woman, The man palsied, The howsold of Zacheus, The these crucified with Christ, and Cornelius of whom we have spoken, all thes received forgiveness of sins and not by sacraments but by faith only. Than the sacraments do not forgive sins. And if any would bring forth that common saying of the doctors, that is that the sacraments of the new law work that itself that they betoken and signify. And that also of Augustine in the preface of the 73. Psalm, who showing the difference between the sacraments of thold law and owrs, saith, that the sacraments of thold law did only promise the saviour, but ours do give the safety. Which manner of speaking have a little excessiveness. To this I answer that men must give to such sayings (iff they should be true) fit expositions, and not leave them in this largeness or rather hyperbolike than otherwise, 
Hyperbolik is an overpassing kind of speech.  and to give them that sense which is fit for them, and the which the selfsame ancient fathers give them. The same Austen in many places affirmeth that the sacraments of Moses law have foretold of Christ, but our have showed him. 
Against faustus lib. 19 cap 14.  Speaking against faustus he saith, the law and the Prophets had foretelling sacraments of the thing to come, but thes of our time do witness that that is come. So that they are divers as to the manner of signifying but as to the thing signified, they agree, and are like. 
Against petili. l. 2. cap. 37,  In his book against Petilian, he saith, the jews sacraments were divers in the signs but in the thing signified all one, divers in visible kind and form, but like in spiritual virtue. Also up on ●…hon he saith. 
In his treatise upon john. 26. and 45.  The self-same saith is in signs that be divers as it is in words that be divers. For the words do change the sounds by times, And surely words are no nother than signs. The fathers did drink the self-same spiritual, but not the self-same bodily drink. Behold than how that the self-same faith abiding, the signs be changed. There the stone was Christ: To us, Christ is the same that is laid on the altar. And they by a great sacrament dranck the water that flowed out of the stone, we what we drink, the faithful know it. if thou lookest up on the visible form it is divers. if up on the spiritual understanding they dranck the self-same spiritual drink. And in another place he saith, Theirs and ours is oneself meat and drink in a mystery, but it is one in meaning and not in form. For the self-same was betokened to them in the stone that was showed to us in flesh. So than though we would that sayings above leadged should be true, it is necessari so to expound them and to give them the same meaning as we have showed in austin. That is to say, that the difference between their sacraments and ours is in the manner of betokening. For theirs did betoken the thing to come, ours do exhybite it and make it present, that is to say do betoken that it is not any more to come, but that it is present and already comen, and that it should be no more looked for. We do not deny notwithstanding that there is not also for us a doctrine, that is to say that ours do more expressly and more clearly betoken than th old. For so much as now in our time there is greater knowledge of christ and off grace, because it is the time of fullness, So our sacraments can more clereli betoken than theirs. But that they can satisfy or forgive sins, or justify man or give grace, or apply it to the same man, They can not do it, as neither thold sacraments could do any of thes things as we have proved before. Concerning forgiveness of sins and justification it is plain that they do it not, because that necessarily both th'one and tother must go before the sacraments though they should be worthily received. Thapplication also of Christ's satisfaction and redemption is made by faith the which receiveth the whole work of our salvation by gods grace thorough Christ, and receive forgiveness, justification, holimaking and redemption from the mere and pure grace of god thorough Christ, and not from any other thing, and to it doth attribute and give all the praise and glory, 
Roman. 3.  as we have in the pistle to the Romans. And therefore the saviour so oft doth beat in this faith, saying that who so ever believeth in him hath life everlasting, giving to understand that by faith are received the benefits of salvation by god's grace thorough Christ, and he that hath it not is not partaker of such benefits. Therefore when we find in the sayings of the Evangelists or of thold doctors that the sacraments forgive sins, as that of mark and luke, that john preached the baptism of repentans in forgiveness of sins, or else in th'acts of th'apostles, that Ananias said unto paul, Rise up, baptize the and wash thy sins. And the creed received from the church which saith, confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum, And such like sayings the which seem to attribute the forgiveness of siinnes to baptim, I say that they must be understand safely by that figure which attributeth to the sign that that belongeth to the signified. The saying of luke and mark and the article of the faith are understand after this sort, that is to say, that the baptism is a sign of the forgiveness of sins. The saying of Ananias when he saith to Paul, wassh thy sins, is as much to say, as take the sign of the washing. And that saying of Peter in th'acts of th'apostles, 
Actor. 2,  when he saith. Be repentant for sins, and let every one of you be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins, is thus understand, Let every one of you be baptized in token of forgiveness of your sins, And so of tother saings that attribute the forgiveness of sins to the sacraments, we must give them the true understanding, that is to say, that they be tokens of such forgiveness, and they certify the believers of the same, but they be not the cause. And if any would axe to what end than be the sacraments given, iff they work none of thes effects, that is to say, iff they forgive not sins, iff they justify not, satisfy not, save not, nor apply not such things to man? I answer as before, that th'office of the sacraments is to be witnessing signs of thes said things and they be as it were certain sealis which assure us of the forgiveness of sins, of god's grace, and of salvation. The merciful god and our favourable father saw, how we are by nature unbyleving and weak, And there for for maintenans of our faith, and help of our weakness, causeth not only his word, that is to say, the holy gospel, to be preached us, but confirmeth us in the faith, with the sacraments, and showeth us by certain outward signs and plain to our sensis, that which is preached by the word. Wherefore when we here said, he that believeth the gospel, his sins are forgiven him, and after we see one baptize with water, and know that this baptism is ordained by god to signify such a thing, we be confirmed in faith, that is to say, we believe more surely, perceiving that baptism is ordained to signify that even as the water washeth the spots or the uncleanness of the body, so is he that believeth washed with in the soul. The sacraments have other offices of the which it is not our mind presently to speak. It sufficeth that among other they have this, that is to say, to bring us forgiveness of sins, god's grace and our salvation not only at that time when they be given, but throughout all our life, when so ever they come in to our rememberans, so that we believe. And they work not all this effect by their own virtue, but by t'holy institution, and because they be a ministry of the spirit as god's word is.  
Returning therefore to the purpose, I say that it is a great abuse and superstition, willingly to go about to say that the sacrament of thanksgiving forgiveth sins, for it is god's grace that forgiveth sins thorough christ, when we believe with a true faith, and not the sacrament of thanksgiving. It is true in deed that this sacrament doth certify us of that thing, because it bringeth to our remembrans that christ gave his body and his blood for our redemption and how his death is cause of our life, but it worketh not the forgiveness, nor it can not work it, as we have before proved. And if those that defend the mass, should say that they mean of the forgiveness of the pain and not of the fault, when they say that the mass forgiveth sins, And that after this sort also the prayer of the mass book ought to be understand, in the which is made mention of such forgiveness, that is to say, that they be understanden of the forgiveness of the pain and not of the fault. though this I say first, that the prayers absolutely make mention of the forgiveness of sins. and do not any thing speak of the pain, whereby it appeareth that they mean of the fault which is principal in sin. And the self-same words show that they mean of the fault. As for example, that prayer, haec nos communio domine purget a crimin, It saith not, liberet a poena, but purget a crimine that is to say from the fault. And that other which saith, Sit absolutio scelerum, that is to say let it be a discharge of the faults. and after al●…o it saith, Sat uiuorum atque mortuorum fidelium remissio omnium delictorum, that is to say, let it be a forgiveness of all the sins of the faithful, living and dead. Thes words surely being so general as they be of all sinnnes as well of the living as of the dead, can not conveniently be understand only of the pain and not of the fault. Than the Summistiss and scol men defenders of the mass, say that th'effect of this sacrament is to forgive venial sins, and also mortal whereof man hath no consciens, that is to say, as I think, when either he remembreth not, or judgeth not them to be deadli sins although they be in deed deadly. And among tother somnistes, the Angelica, where it speaketh of theffects of the thanks giving, saith the same, and the master of the sentemces in the iiij. the xii. distinction about the end, saith that it forgiveth venial sins. And thomas of Aquine also in the iiij. of the sentemces the self-same distinction, saith the same thing, and besides that it forgiveth thes mortal sins whereof man forgetteth himself. And that saying of the prayer the which saith, sit absolutio scelerum may be understand after ij. forth, that is to say, either so far as it hurteth him, or else it is understand of those sins which man hath no rememberans off. Thes be the fautors of the mass and they mean that the thanksgiving forgiveth not only the punishment but also the fault. 
Thanks giving allweis is that which is called Eucharista  Although thes ij. distinctions that they make, th'one of the venial and mortal, and thotherof the forgiveness of the fault and of the punishment be builded by themselves and not of god's word. The first distinction is false. For if we speak properly, every sin is deadly in itself, having respect to the rigour of the law. For as much as sin is so much sin as it is against the law. And if it had not been against the law, it should in no wise have been sin. if it be against the law, it curseth, according to the saying of the psalm, Cursed be they that decline from thy commandments. 
Deut. 27.  The which saying, David took out of moses in the deuteronomy, where is written this sentence. Every one is cursed that abideth not in all the things that be written in this book, that is to say, 
Rom. 3. Gala. 4.  of the law. And there for Paul to the Romans saith that the law worketh wrath. And to the galathians, that the law curseth all men, because no man keepeth it. And for this cause it is needful, that Christ should deliver from such a curse, those that believe in him. So that this distinction, speaking properly, is nothing. For the sin which they call venial, iff it be sin, it is against the law. if it be againgst the law, it curseth and damneth. if it curse and damn it is deadly. Nor by this that is said, that every sin is deadly, is meant that all sins are like as certain have said. Nor it denieth not that one sin is greater than another. As for example, murder greater than thief. But this only here is affirmed, that all sins in themselves, be deadly, having respect to the rigour of the law. Than that the thanksgiving should forgive the venial and not the deadly sins, is false. For the forgiveness of sins is gods perfect work. Nor god forgiveth not a man one sin, but he forgiveth him all. For accordingly, he that repenteth for one saut must repent him for all, at the least generally, otherwise no one saw●… should be forgiven him, for as much as repentans is, when the man is sorry that he hath offended god in what so ever sort he should offend him, And that he believeth that thorough Christ all his sins be pardoned him. And that one should repent him for one fault and not for all, that were not true repentans done in Christ's name. So the mass that forgiveth not the deadly sins, can not forgive the venial. Also that other distinction of the forgiving the fault and the punishment is not of god's word, but against the word of god, 
jere. 32.  who saith in jeremy that he would no more remember their sins. What doth this mean, that he would remember no more? It is plain that he that ponissheth sin, doth remember it. David also saith in the Psalm, 
Psal. 31.  Blessed is he to whom the lord hath not imputed sin What meaneth this, not imputed, except pardoned in such sort as if it had never been done? Thus much doth that word, not to impute, betoken. Than what else meaneth this, to forgive sin, but not to ponissh it? And if god doth pardon the sin, surely he doth perfitly pardon it. So than he requireth no punishment, and if he should, he should not perfitly pardon, and so he should not be perfitly merciful to wards his elect. 
Rom. 8. 1. cha. 1.  Further more if Christ's justice be so imputed to the true believers as though it were their own, For as much as god giving them Christ hath given them his justice, it surely followeth, that the justified by Christ should not be punished after any manner of sort. Nor it should not be convenient that where Christ's justice is, there should be any manner of ponissment, seeing he hath plentifuly satisfied. And it would some that he had not taken up on him and born all that pomisshment the which gods elect deserved for their sins. The which thing is against god's word, who affirmeth in so many places of the scripture that Christ hath laid upon himself our iniquities. 
isaiah. 3.  Also it might seem that god's justice were not by Christ perfitly pacified and reconciled to wards the children of god, looking for other satisfaction than that of Christ. Yea it should follow that the death, and so great a suffering of the son of god had been insufficient for our redemption. And to be short, seeing that all the elect be not only the children of god and Christ's brethren but his members, this would sound to Christ's dishonour. And surely every punishment that should be put for this cause on such as have so great a conjunction with Christ, Christ would cownt it to be put up on himself. And though god sometime, affoer the repentans done and the fault forgiven, hath put some ponisshement, as he did up on David and up on certain other. This was not because he had not perfitly pardoned, and that such punishment should be a ponissment of the fault committed, but it was an exercise for them, and for other respectis then to punish the fault. As Austen saith well in his ij. book entitled of the desertis of sins and of forgiveness the 33. and 34. chapters, where he saith that the ponisshments with which god chastiseth men, ought diversly to be considered. For to the saints, after the forgiveness of sins, they be strifes battles and exercises, but to the refused, they be with out forgiveness ponisshments of iniquity, where he bringeth forth th'example of David and others: and as for this we have spoken of it before.   

THE SECOND CHAPTER. That the mass is no sacrifice nor remembrans of sacrifice.  
IT is sureli a great abuse to use a thing to any effectt or end with which it agreeth not. The defenders of the mass, will that it should be a sacrifice for the living and dead. The which thing veri many sayings in the same mass do witness. As for example, that In spiritu humilitatis, And, In animo contrito etc. that is to say, let us be received of thee, o lord, in the spirit of humblennes and in a sorrowful mind and so let our sacrifice be made this day in thy sight, that it may please thee, o lord god. And that other the which the bout standers say, that is to say, Let the lord receive the sacrifice from your hands, to the praise and glory of his name. The which sayings be after the offering of the host and the cup, before the preface. And that which is said in th'end of the mass, that is to say, let the willing duty of my service, please thee, o holy trinity, and make that the sacrifice which I unworthy have offered before thy miaesties' eyes may be acceptable unto the etc. And very many other saings innumerable, which all make mention that the mass or the masses sacraments should be a sacrifice. Although that in the former chapter we have sufficiently proved that this is a great error for so much as that if the mass do not forgive sins, it is not neither any sacrifice for the same. Nevertheless for the plentiful clearness of the truth, And for that the matter is of such Importans, we will particularli prove that the mass is no sacrifice, but because this word, sacrifice, hath divers significations, to th'intent that we may well understand, after what sort they make a sacrifice, It is to be understand that according to the scripture there are found many sortis of sacrifices, as we have in exodus, leviticus and in numerus. 
Exodus. 29.  Where it is taught as well what manner of sacrifices they did owe to make, 
Exo. 29. Levi. 4.5.6.7.10 12.13.14 17.22. Num. 1.6.8 15.19.  as of what sort and for what cause. Chiefly in leviticus where is spoken at length of sacrifices, the which all together may be brought generally to ij. sortis of sacrifices, that is to say, cleansing sacrifices and praising or thanks giving sacrifices And all though that this division should not comprehend all the sacrifices, it shall make no matter, so that we prove that the mass is not a sacrifice after that sort as they mean. The cleansing sacrifices were those that were made to purge and cleanse from sins or else to satisfy for them as that was of the bulchin or young bullock which is written in leviticus And very many other sacrifices that were made for sins. 
Leuiti. 4.  All the rest that are made for other respects, when have by a general or comen name called them praising or thanks giving sacrifices.  
if they that say that the mass is a sacrifice, would have said that it had been a praising or thanks giving sacrifice, they had said something better. But they will have it, and they use it for a quitting sacrifice, that is to say, purging or cleansing and satisfying for the sins not only off the living but also of the dead. Surely this is a great effect to wipe a way and to purge the sins not only of the living but also of the dead. From whence gather they this? Where have they it? They have it not out of thold scripture for it speaketh not of the mass, because it was not than, nor out of the new. Let them show one only word that Christ or the Apostles ever spoke, that the mass should be a sacrifice for the living and for the dead. They shall find in deed that the sacrament, or let it be the lords supper, is a remembrans of the sacrifice the which Christ made for us, that is to say of his death. This doth Christ himself say, when he did institute the same holy supper, as Matthew, 
Mat. 26. Mar. 24. Luc.. 22.  Marck Luke and Paul in the 1. to the Corinthians do say, Do This in My remembrans? In a matter of so great weight, as this is, how durst any man (yea I speak to all the men in the world gathered together) be so bold to affirm such a sentens without gods authority? how can men know that any thing should be a sacrifice for sin if god's word say it not? The self-same that is the sacrifice for sin is the same that sveth us. The mass then or let it be the masses sacrament, shall be that that shall save us, nor Christ shall not be our saviour but it shall be the mass or her sacrament. And how cometh this matter to pass that the sacrament should work an effectt contrary to his office? Thoffice of the sacrament is to signify that Christ is dead for us in forgiveness of sins. This Christ himself saith, and signifieth that Christ forgiveth the sins and yet they would that the sacrament itself should be that that forgiveth sins. Thes ij. things can not stand together, that the sacrament should both signify that another thing. forgiveth sins and also that the sacrament itself forgiveth them. Iff the sacrament itself forgiveth them, how doth it betoken that Christ doth forgive them? So than itself will forgive them and not Christ. Here they allege that the holy fathers, as Ambros, Austen and others did call it a sacrifice. And therefore they also call it a sacrifice. Than further they say that the scripture saith the same, that is to say the Prophet malachy the which saith, 
Mala. 1.  I have no delight in you, that is to say, you please me not saith the lord of hosts. And I will not take the gifft at your hand, for that from th'east to the west, my name is great among the gentiles, and in every place is sacrificed and offered to my name the clean offering. For that, great is my name among the gentiles, saith the lord of hosts. Loo here they say that the mass is a sacrifice, the which from th'east to the west, is made to god called by the Prophet a clean offering the which in every place is sacrificed, In france, in Spain, in flanders, in Almany in Italy and every where. To thes so feeble profess, I first answer that thold fathers called the supper of the lord a sacrifice meaning that it was a rememberans of the sacrifice as the stone out of which came forth the water in the desert, was called Christ no●… because it was in deed Christ, but because it did signify Christ. Nor this is not mine, but the father's exposition themselves. And I could bring forth the authority of many but the authority of Chrisostom for this time shall suffice us, 
Chrisost. Heb. 9  who up on the Pistel to the hebrews speaketh of the sacrament after this sort. That which we do is done in remembrans of that which is already done. We do not any other sacrifice, but always, the selfsame. Yea we rather use the remembrans of the sacrifice. Thes be the words of Chrisostom who will that she sacrament therefore should be called a sacrifice because it is a remembrans of the sacrifice. Also the master of the sentencis, 
Senten. 4. Distinc. 12.  the defender of the mass, saith that the sacrament of the bread and wine is called a sacrifice and an offering because it is a remembrans and a representation of the true sacrifice, and of the holy offering made upon thaltar of the cross. Because on is, saith he, Christ was dead on the cross,, and offered in himself, but every day he is offered in the sacrament because that in the sacrament is made the remembrans of that that ones was done. we might if we would, bring forth transverse, Austen, Ambros, and many other ancient authors, but seeking for shortness we will pass them over. And although that all thold men should say that it were in deed a sacrifice, not bringing gods word for them we shall not be bound to believe them: because it behoveth that such a thing belonging to our faith, should be ground upon god's word and not up on men's. To the saying of Malachy, I say, that it proveth not their intent, because they must if they will that that saying should be to their purpose, prove that Malachy should speak of the mass. Malachy saith that in every place is offered and sacrificed to god the clean offering, he saith true, but he saith not that this clean offering is the mass or the sacrament of the lords supper. He only maketh mention of the clean offering and telleth not what that is. How trifle they to guess after this sort, saying that he speaketh of the mass or of the sacrament? They must first show that the mass is a sacrifice, And afterward that malachy should speak of the mass, or else of the sacrament But they shall never prove neither th'one nor tother, I say, by god's word. Than further let us admit that malachy Speakith of the sacrament of thaltar and that the same is a sacrifice the which is offered in every place, they should not yet by this, have their intent. Because that they must also prove, that this is a cleansing sacrifice for sins as they would have it. It may be granted after a good sense, the same sacrament being called Eucharistia, because in the same is yielded thanks to god for so great a benefit as he hath given us in Christ, It may, I say, he granted that it is a praising or thanksgiving sacrifice, but they have not by the saying of malachy, that it is a cleansing sacrifice as they do mean. And if they should ask, Affter what sort than, is malachy understand, and of what sacrificest taketh he? I say that our meaning is not at this time to expound that saying. It is only to make known that the proof is nothing worth, as you may see. Nevertheless, I will sai that malachis spoke of the spiritual offerings and sacrifices the which are offered every where sins Christ's coming. In the prophetis time men might not do sacrifice except in the temple at jerusalem. But after christis coming are made every where the true offerings and the true spiritual sacrifices the which please god, made by the believers, and they be thes, First the sacrifice of praise of the which the Psalm saith, 
Psal. 49. Heb. 13.  Sacrificium laudis honorificabit me that is ye shall honour me with the sacrifice of praise. And Paul to the hebrews, per ipsum offerimus hostiam laudis semper deo that is thorough him we offer the sacrifice of praise always unto god. And he addeth to, Beneficentiae & communicationis nolite oblivisci, talibus enim hostijs placetur deo that is be not unmindful of liberality and alms for with such sacrifice god is pleased. See here ij. goodly spiritual sacrifices, the praise of god and the help of our neighbours thorough charity. 
Philip. 4.  The other sacrifice which pleaseth god, and is made every where, is when we offer ourselves and dedicate us to god's service, refusing and forsaking our seluis. Of this spoke Paul to the romans. 
Rom. 12.  There is another offering or sacrifice of the which also Paul to the romans speaketh, when the ministers with the word of t'holy gospel do offer to god those that do turn, 
Rom. 15.  as Paul himself saith he hath done the gentiles. And to be short all those hosts and spiritual sacrifices of the which Peter telleth in his 1. pistle, 
1 Petri. 2.  that be acceptable to god thorough Christ, those such sacrifices be the same of the which I imagine malachyment. For he had the self-same spirit, that Paul and Peter had who tell which be the sacrifices that please god. And saying thus, we speak according to the scripture and not of our own head, as they do that say that the mass is a cleansing sacrifice for the sins of the living and dead, and know not nor can not bring forth in their favour any one saying of t'holy scripture. In the matters of sowl health which are the chief and of great test weight, men ought not only to be able to defend them, but it is necessary that they prove them by t'holy scripture the which can not lie. They which say that the mass is a sacrifice for sins, by all the means they can, they endeavour and force them seluis to maintain that thing with distinctions with a thousand inventions, and it is enough for them not to be overcome as it chanceth to the sect of the school men, the which be of most divers opinions. As for example, the Thomists, the Scotistes and every one of them defend their own opinion and they be in continual strife, and it is never known who hath the better. Surely it must needs be, that having contrary opinions, at the least that th'one of them should be false, and yet they defend them. It is not fit in gods matters, for a man to seek only to be able to defend his opinion, after what sort he will, for so much as the falls matters also may be defended with writhing and wrangling. But it is necessary that we prove our opinion by gods clear and plain word. And if we can not prove it we ought not certainly to affirm it.  
Now let us prove with the lords help that neither the mass nor the sacrament are sacrifices for the sins neither of the living, and much less of the dead. First either they mean of the hole maze, 
The first reason.  as we have said before, that is to say, of all that mixture or else heap and composition of words, gestures and ceremonies, beginning from the Introibo, even unto th'end, or else they meaane only of the bread and wine that they offer, and of the sacrament. if they mean off the hole mass, it can not be a sacrifice. How is it possible that a thing full of so many falsehoods, so many superstitions, so many wikednesses and blasphemies, and that so many ways robbeth gods honour and Christ's, and offendeth him, should be a sacrifice for the sins of the living and of the dead? Should we do sacrifice to god with blasphemies? That the mass is full of such things, hitherto we have diversly proved it by gods word though they mean only of the bread and wine, and of the sacrament and not of the hole mass, either they mean of the bread and wine not yet consecrated, or else after that they be consecrated. Which way so ever they take it, it is false that they should be a sacrifice for sins. Although I know that after both sortis they would it should be a sacrifice both after the consecration and before. There is no doubt but after the consecration following their opinion, the bread and the wine be a sacrice. For as they think, Christ all hole is there in body and in soul, and that there is no more neither bread nor wine, but only Christ the which is the true sacrifice. Also that they hold that that bread and wine is a sacrifice before the consecration, how can they deny it, so many prayers, secrets and chiefly the canon affirming it? The which canon in the first part praith god that he would bless that bread and wine, and calleth them holy untasted sacrifices in the plural number. And in the second part, that is to say in the memento, he calleth them a sacrifice of praise. The which is offered for the salvation of souls. And in the fourth part he calleth them an oblation. And in the fifft he praith god that he would vouchsafe taccept this oblation so that it might become the body and blood of his best beloved son. So that than they will that that bread and wine which are not yet consecrated should be a sacrifice for the ransoming of souls. And they pray that they may become Christ's body and blood. if they pray that they may become, then be they not yet consecrated. For when they be consecrated, they are become Christ's body and blood, as they think, and it needeth not any more to pray that they should become so, because they be already so becomne. That this bread and wine unconsecrated should not be a sacrifice for sins it is an easy thing to prove. For that according to t'holy scripture, the sacrifice for sins is that that hath redeemed us. For so much as the redemption is as much to say as the forgiveness of sins, according to Paul as it is written to the Ephesians and to the Colossians: 
Eph. 1.  1.  But we be not redeemed neither with bread nor wine, but only with the blood of the unspotted lamb christ as Peter saith in his first pistle, 
1. Petri 1  You know that you were not redeemed from your vain conversation, which you took by the tradition of your elders with fadeable things as gold and silver, but with Christ's precios blood as of an hole and undefiled lamb. Is not the bread and wine unconsecrated things fade able and corruptible? How vile doth this mass make Christ's redemption? Of how little value, his blessed blood? God would not pardon sin, but that there was paid so great a price, so great a passion so high a blood and so great a death as that was of his son. And they will that sins should be pardoned with bread and wine which yet are no nother but plain bread and plain wine. That the bread and the wine when the consecration is made, should be no sacrifice although there were no more neither bread nor wine, but the body and blood of Christ Jesus', as they would have it, I say that they be no sacrifice. They be so much less a sacrifice, iff the bread and the wine remain. And that they should be the sacrament as without doubt the Sacrament is no nother in substans, but bread and wine, consecrated, that is to say appointed to the use to which Christ appointed them, that is to sai to bring in to remembrans his body and blood. That the sacrament, I say, is no sacrifice in what so ever sort it be a sacrament. I prove it by Paul in his pistle to the hebrews, 
Hebre. 7.8.9.10.  The which if the favourers of the mass had but supperficially understand, they would never so boldly have uttered that the mass or let it be the sacrament should be a sacrifice. It is written first in that pistle, that there were in the law many priests, because they were mortal, but Christ who is immortal, hath now th'everlasting priesthood, and therefore can save for ever all those that go to god by him, always living to that end that he may entreat god for us. And he addeth a none after, that those priests or else bishops had need toffer sacrifices not only for the sins of the people but for their own also. But it behoved that Christ should be undefiled, innocent, the which should not have need every day toffer for himself, and after for the people because he did this once, when he offered himself. For so much as that the law appointeth men bishops that have weakenessies, 
Psal. 110.  but the word of the oath, that is to sai the word of god, and of which david spoke in the Psalm, appointeth the son for ever consummate, that is to say perfit. By thes words, ij things are given us to be understand. First that none can offer a sacrifice, that may avail, (as before god) for sins, except Christ that is pure, innocent, separated from sinners perfit and everlasting bishop, who hath in such sort offered himself, that the sacrifice is the priest himself, and the priest the sacrifice itself. For that toffer sacrifice for sins it behoveth not only that the sacrifice should be clean, pure and without spot, but it is necessary that he that offereth it, should be himself also clean and that he should not have need toffer for his own sins. It is known off old, that among men also, when a thing is presented by the hands of one that is in displeasure of any great lord, although that the thing be good, yet it shall not be acceptable, because that he which presenteth it is not favoured. if it be so than that he who offereth must be clean and no sinner, the priests that say mass, can not offer sacrifice for sins because they be unclean and sinners. And albeit they should in deed offer Christ once again, that offering could not avail for sins: because it is needful for the bringing to pass of such an effect that both th'one and tother should be clean and without spot, not only the sacrifice but also the sacrificer, a thing that can not be among as many as be but men in the whole world. And for this cause it behoved that Christ himself should be he that should offer and make sacrifice to god and no nother but himself, because he alone is without sin, and all the rest be sinners. Than it giveth also tunderstand, that it needeth not any more to do sacrifice for sins because he that hath done sacrifice, Christ, hath satisfied, having done once for ever, because it was perfit, being the same Christ th'everlasting bishop that offered himself. Iff that have sufficed being once done, what needeth it to make other sacrifices or to make again the same at other times? Surely it should be superfluos, yea it should lessen the worthiness of so great a sacrifice, for it would seem that it were not sufficient. So than the masses sacrament is no sacrifice for sins. Next after in the viii. chapter he saith, 
Heb. 8.  that Christ hath so much a more excellent priesthood than the old bishops, as he is a mediator of a more excellent testament, the which is made with more excellent promises. And declaring of what sort the new testament should be, he allegeth the saying of the scripture, 
jere. 31.  that is to say, jeremy, the which saith, this is the testament (that is to say, the new testament) which I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the lord I will give them my laws in their minds, And in their hartis I will write them, And I will be their god, and they shall be my people. And after a few words he saith, I will be pacified concerning their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities I will no more remember. Thes words conclude that there is for us no nother sacrifice for sins but that which Christ once made. God saith (who can not lie) that giving the new testament he would in such sort be merciful, as he would no more remember the sins of his people, that is to say of the true believers. The which giveth to understand that he should be perfitly and perpetually pacified. Let us see now, for what cause he should be so pacified? We must say, for no nother cause but for the mediators sake of such a testament, that is to say, for Christ's sake by whom this testament was made. Let us go on further. How is god pacified by Christ, except by the sacrifice the which he made, offering himself unto god for the sins of his people? God's anger and his justice is by no nother means pacified, but because (after a manner of speech) he hath wreked himself upon Christ. Off the which, Esay saith I have beaten him for the wickedness of my people. Than let us say after this sort, if god be pacified by Christ's sacrifice, and forgiveth our sins, It followeth that there needeth no nother sacrifice for sins. For if he would have other sacrifice for sins he should not be, I say, perfitly pacified, nor, requiring other sacrifice that might satisfy for them. he would not forget hour iniquities. Surely, he that saith not this is very bare of understanding.  
In the ninth chapter showing the differens between thold bishops and Christ, he saith that the levitical bishop entered once in the year into that place, the which is called sancta sanctorum, that is the head holy place, not without blood, the which he offered for himself and for the sins of the people. And he saith that those gifts and sacrifices which were offered, could not make man perfit as pertaining to the consciens. But Christ the bishop of true good things entered once in to the head holy place with his own blood and gate there th'everlasting ranson. And after he addeth that forgiveness is not wrought without blood shedding? And declaring what should be those head holy placis where into Christ entered he saith that, that is heaven, and that he is there entered that he may presently appear in god's sight for us not to be often offered as the bishop, (that is to say the levitical bishop) off●… times every year entered by strange blood. For other wise it should have been needful that he should have often suffered sins the beginning of the world. But now towards th'end of the world, hath he once appeared to destroy sin by the offering of himself. And as it is appointed that all men once shall die, and after that shall judgement be, so Christ is once offered to take a way the sins of man. All this talk doth show that neither the mass nor the sacrament is a sacrifice. First it saith that those gifts and sacrifices which were offered, could not make man perfit as pertaining to the consciens, as though he would say, that they could not for give sins nor perfitly cleanse man, but Christ's gifft and sacrifice is that which maketh man perfit as pertaining to the consciens. It is plain that Christ's sacrifice is made for all th'elect in all the world that be past, present, and to come, As john saith in his first pistle that he is thappeasement of all the world, 
1. joh. 2.  and he hath made them perfit as concerning consciens, that is to say, hath perfitly ransomed, freed, hallowed, washed and cleansed them. And he onli hath done that which those number of sacrifices of the law could not do. And by that one only he hath satisfied, quieted and pacified their consciencis and hath made them sure of his grace, that is to say, of forgiveness of sins, of reconciliation and atonement with god, and of their salvation. To make a man perfit in consciens, doth bring with it thes foresaid things. if it be so than what needeth it more to make other sacrifices, and to go about to seek to make that a new that Christ hath perfitly made, as though he had not ma●… it? that other word that followeth, proveth the v●…ry same, that is to say that christ hath found ow●… th'everlasting ransom, that is to say, the per●… freing of all th'elect in the world, from sin, from damnation, from death, and from all evil for ever, and this by the sacrifice that he made ones, with his blood, and by his passhion and death. If he have with his sacrifice once made, gotten th'everlasting ransom, that is to say, that which shall always be, and shall never fail but ever continue, wath needeth there any other sacrifices for sins? We have enough of that which christ once made, because with that he found out th'everlasting ransom. And that other word which saith that without blood shedding forgevenes is not wrought, what doth it mean but that it is needful in the sacrifice which is made for sins and which forgiveth them, that blood should be shed, and that it should satisfy for sins? And for this cause was needful that christ should shed his blood. In the mass there is no shedding of blood, therefore it is no sacrifice for sins. though their word that cometh next after, that is to say, that Christ is entered in to heaven to the intent that he may appear in gods fight for us not to be often offered (for it is as much to say as one time sufficeth. Forels it should have been needful that he should often have suffered sins the beginning of the world) what do thes words mean, but that christ cannot be offered for sins more th●… one time, And who so ever seeketh toffer him off●…ner than one time, there followeth this inconueniens that it should have been needful that christ should often have suffered sins the beginning of the world? They say that christ is offered in the mass for sins, that is to say they offer him themselves to god, not only for the living but also for the dead. if christ be offered one only time and that hath fuffised, what needeth it any more to offer after any manner of sort? Iff that only time have sufficed for sin, what needeth it more to say mass to that end? Oh, say they the mass is that which applieth the merit of Christ's passhion. But from whence gather they that their saying, but ●…owt of their own brain, I will not say from the spirit of Antichrist? It is not enough to say that it is so, but they must prove it by the scripture. The mass availeth them not to apply the merit of Christ's Passion. Faith sufficeth, as before we have said. For by the testimony of peter and Paul, he that believeth in Christ his sins be forgiven him and he justified. The other saying is that Christ in th'end of the world hath appeared once by thofferinging of himself to drive a way and to destroy sin, that is to say, all the sins of the elect. if he have destroyed all sin with his sacrifice once made, to what purpose should we make more sacrifices? It needeth not any more to do that that is already done. And that last saying, what doth it mean? That is, that as it is appointed and ordained that all men shall once die, and after judgement shall come, so Christ is once offered to take away the sins of many, that is to say of all thelect. The scripture useth oft this word, many, for all thelect, as we have in matthew, 
Math. 20  where Christ saith that the son of man was come to give his life for the redemption of many And when he did institute the sacrament he said that his blood should be shed for many. 
Math. 26 Roma. 5  And Paul to the romans saith that by Christ's obedyens many be made just. This word, Many, in all thes places, importyth as much as all th'elect. To our purpose, iff it be appointed and ordained that christ should be offered one time for the sins of many, as it is appointed that all men once shall die, what needeth it any more to offer him? will we do against gods ordynans? Here the defenders of the mass answer; that Christ is once offered after that manner, that is to say, suffering and dying, and after that sort, it needeth not that he should be any more offered, because that only time sufficed. But now he is offered after another sort, that is to say sacramentally, and after this sort he may be often offered for sin. This answer is nothing worth. For though Christ at that only time when he offered himself, destroyed sin, to what purpose needeth it to offer him any more to that effect and to do that is already done? The destruction of all sins was wrought by that only time that Christ was offered, It needeth not any more to do it neither after that, nor after any other sort.  
In the tenth chapter he saith first, 
Hebr. 1●….  that though the sacrifices the which were offered in the law could have made men perfit, that is to say, cleansed them perfitly, they should not have been many times done, because that they that should have done them, being once cleansed should not have had any more consciens, that is to say, gnawing of sin. For that thing that taketh a way sin, taketh a way also the gnawing of the consciens for cause of sin. And this word, sin is put there for all sins. And he addeth that the blood of bulls and of hegootes can not take a wa●… sins, and therefore he (that is to say Christ) entering in to the world, speaketh the worde●… of the psalm, 
Psal. 39  that is to say, thou woldi●● not have sacrifice nor oblation nor thou art not delighted in whole  offerings for sins. Tha●… I said, lo I come, that I may do, oh god, thy will. And after he saith. By the which wil●… we are hallowed, through the offering of Christ's body once done. And after a few words, a●… it were showing the cause why we be hallowed by the offering of Jesus' Christ's body once done, he saith, because that with one only offering he hath made perfit those that be hallowed. Which thing the holy ghost doth witness, the which foretold that god would make a new testament. And amongst other things, he saith that he would no more remember their sins, that is to say his peoples, and his electis sins. And he addeth that where forgiveness off sins is wrought, there needeth not any more to make other oblation, that is to say to offer other sacrifice for sin. Thes words be cannon shot is, enough to beat down the whole building of the mass, or else they be sword enough to throat cut her or utterly to kill her. First, he saith, that though the sacrifices of the law had been able to make men perfit, the self-same should never have been so often done again, because that they that had sacrificed should not have had any more consciens of sin, being already once cleansed and purged. Here the text saith plainly that it needeth not to do again those sacrifices which take a way sins and make men perfit, the which is all one. Iff the mass take a way sins, why do they say it so often? It should suffice to say one only to satisfy for them for whom it should be said or that say it, and to forgive their sins. Here the text saith that therefore those sacrifices were the more offtened because they could not take a way sins. if they had taken them a way it had not nedid to do the self-same again. The defenders of the mass say that they do no nother sacrifice in the mass, but the self-same that christ did, and that, they do often: O goodly imaginations. They put than Christ often up on the cross wittingly done and of purpose. The jews understood not that Christ was Christ, nor they knew him not, and therefore they crucified him, as Paul to the Chorinthes, saith. And they know that jesus is Christ, and yet they put him so many times up on the cross, 
1. cha. 2.  and they be so many times made guilty of his body and blood, as they say masses. It is a godly sacrifice. What will they say here to the reason that the text maketh? that is to say, that if those sacrifices of the law had been able to take a way sins, they should not have be done more than ones? Iff the mass take a way sins why is it said again so often? Than Further, as we have said. Iff that sacrifice which christ hath made one only time, that is to say, when he offered himself, did than forgive sin, and that only time sufficed, what needeth it to make any more sacrifices for sins? The second saying is that we be hallowed by gods will, through the oblation, that is to say, the sacrifice of Christ's body once made. if we be hallowed, that is to say if we be made clean, and if our sins be forgiven us through Christ's sacrifice once made, wath needeth it to make any other sacrifice, or to often the same? Now the third saying, the which rendrith the cause of the whole, that is to say, that with one only oblation and sacrifice christ hath made perfit, all those that is to say all th'elect from the beginning of the world unto th'end. if it be true, as without doubt it is, what needeth it any more to make sacrifice for sins, neither the self-same nor any other? By that, saith the text here, be all those made perfit, that be holied, that is to say th'elect. if they be made perfit, that is to say, perfitly cleansed, and it meaneth that they want nothing, what need have they of more sacrifices? furthermore if the holy ghost which can not lie do witness that god through christ would no more remember the sins of his people, that is to say, would perfitly and thoroughly forgive them, what needeth it any more to make sacrifices for sins? To be short, if where as forgiveness or sacrifice for sins is made, there is not any other offering or sacrifice for the same, as the text here saith, because that that of Christ's is enough, the which was made onis, why will we make more sacrifices for sins if they be wholly forgiven, and of such sort as god would never remember him any more of them? So that than it is clear and plain by thes so many sayings of this most christian and holy pistle fore ledged, that we have no nother sacrifice for sins but that which christ made on the cross. And if it be so, it doth in deed follow of necessity and certainly that neither the mass, nor their sacrament is a sacrifice for sins. And if any one would say, how is forgiveness of all sins wrought by christ, seeing every day it is done a new by repentans? And Christ jesus himself commandeth us in the prayer which he hath taught his apostles what they should say, Et dimit nobis debita nostra. that is to say, forgue us our sins. if he hath already forgiven them, what need we any more desire that he would forgive them us? To this I answer that when Paul saith that by Christ's sacrifice is forgiven us all our sins, 
1. joh. 2  that is to say, past, present, and to come, the which also John affirmeth in his I. pistle, when he saith, 
1. Pet. 2.  that he is the appeasement of all the sins of the world. And when peter in his first also saith, that Christ hath born our sins, 
Esa. 53.  on his body up on the cross. And Esay, likewise saith, that god hath laid all our iniquities up on him, that is to say up on Christ. Thes sayings of the scripture and such other like have this meaning, that is to say, that Christ jesus hath satisfied gods justice for the whole sins of th'elect, past, present and to come. nor god for this respect, doth not look for any other satisfaction, or payment, because he was perfitly and wholly satisfied for our sins, when Christ gave himself for a sacrifice, suffering and dying as he did, nor there was not any other way for us to pacify god and to satisfy him, but this. Vnderstonding after this sort the foresaid sayings (the (forgiveness of all the sins of all th'elect of the world, present, past, and to come) are already forgiven, nor there is no nother forgiveness looked for. Because that for the sins of the same elect there is no nother satisfaction looked for. And when it is said, that sins be daily forgiven by repentans, this is to be understand, as to us, that is to say, that we do accept by faith enclosed within repentans such forgiveness, and we do enter in to the knowledge of god's grace and mercy showed towards us thorough Christ, by the forgiving of all our sins. Wherefore even as Christ hath only satisfied for th'elect, and not for the rest, to whom his death availeth not, so thelect only have the true saith, and do know the forgiveness of their sins wrought them by Christ. Wherefore speaking properli, neither the repentans nor the faith do forgive the sins, because that gods grace only or mercy thorough Christ jesus (that is to say, because he hath satisfied for us) is that that forgiveth sins. But therefore the forgiveness of sins is attributed to repentans, and to faith, because the same faith is that, which knoweth and accepteth such forgiveness, and it is a certain assuredness of the same. And when we ask every day in the lords prayer that he would forgive us our sins, we do ask of god rather the knowledge and assuredness of such forgiveness, than the forgiveness itself, of which the faithful ought not to doubt, but that it is wrought him in Christ. But we do ask to know such forgiveness better, and to be more certain of the same. The which knowledge and certainty (being no nother but faith itself) is never so great, but it may increase and become greater. And therefore the faithful Christian every day, and as often as he remembreth him of his sins, desireth forgiveness of them, that is to say, the knowledge and more certainty of such forgiveness. Further more Christ will that praying daily, we should ask forgiveness of our sins, to make us to know that we be sinners, and that we do continually offend him. The which thing when we know, first it doth humble us before god. Than it maketh us know his mercy how great it is. It hangeth of this knowledge that we be inflamed more fervently to love god, to honour him, to reverence him, to serve him from the heart. And according to his example, to love our neighbour, to do him good, to forgive him when he offendeth us, and to pardon wrongs received, the which in comparison, of those that we do unto god, which be without number, and most great, we ought to accownt them no wrongs and of no w●…ight.  
Now there remaineth to prove, that the sacrament of the mass is no remembrans of a sacrifice. For, iff it were a remeberans of a sacrifice, it should be a true sacrament, but it is no true sacrament, chiefly to them that be there present, and say not the mass, therefore it is no rememberans of a sacrifice. I prove that it is no sacrament, because that to a true sacrament is necessary, that the words of the consecration be said, and that they be understand according to that common saying (and it is of Austen) accedit verbum ad elementum & fít sacramentum, that is to say, when the word is joined to the Element the sacrament is made, it is necessary, I say, to a true sacrament that the word should be joined, other wise it is no sacrament. But how be they certain which be present at the mass that the words with the which they consecrated, be said by the priest or not? For so much as they hear it not, the same priest saying it veri sofftli, in such sort as none heareth it, except the priest himself. Therefore to them which hear not, nor understand what is done, nor said, it is no sacrament. A few years past, 
Mark  there was in Mantua a certain frire of a certain order the which was put in Turrian Iron cage because he had celebrated mass many years, and never did consecrated. So it might chance of many other that might do the like, who can asserten the people that the bread, and wine, is consecrated, neither hearing, understanding what is said? And if any man would say that there may be a sacrament, although the words of the consecration should neither be hard, nor understand, seeing that the children be baptized, which understand not what is said. To this I answer, that there is diversity between children and then that be of full age, for the children although they neither hear, nor understand, yet they may and aught to be baptized by god's commandment. And this is taken out of the scripture. But they of full age, ought not to be baptized, except they understand that which is said. Yea baptism in full age requireth faith, and the confession of the same. And though at any time it should be done otherwise, that is to say, iff it should not be understand, it should not be unto him true baptim. So much more we shall say of the sacrament of bread and wine (the which none use butt they of full age) that they be no sacrament, if the words be not spoken, and understand, with which words they be consecrated, that is to say appointed to an holy use, and become a sacrament. For this cause in old time the words of the consecration were said with a loud voice, to th'intent that every one might understand what was said, so that, seeing the sacrament of the mass is no true sacrament, it is no memory of a sacrifice Further more we must know, that the sacrament is not an absolute thing but is a thing that hath respect to another thing, that is to say, to the use to which it is appointed. And when such use is taken a way, it can not be properly called a sacrament. The true use of the sacrament is, that it should be distributed to the multitude. And to this end it is consecrated, that is to say, appointed. Let us see how the saviour used it, when he instituted it. It is ce●…ten that he gave it not to one only, but to all his disciples, and said unto them, that they should do as he taught them, and did himself. And how did he? He said not only over the bread and wine, the words of the consecration, as the priests do, which seem to make an enchantment, but he commanded them that they all should take, and eat, the bread, and drink the wine. He did all this, and said that they ought to do as he had done. It behoveth if it should be a sacrament to do all that which Christ said and commanded, and not part. But now the Priest, beside that it is not understand what he doth, he doth not deal the sacrament to the people, but taketh it himself alone, and yet he saith that he doth communicate. And he calleth that receiving with the mouth, that is to say, taking the bread, and wine, he calleth it, communion, speaking and doing abusingly. It is called a communion when many do partake of one thing, not when one by himself alone, doth take the whole, as is done in the private mass. By the which thing we may truly say that that sacrament of the mass, is no true sacrament. Wherefore if Paul, for that disorder that the corinthians did use (as it is written in the 1. to the same corinthians) which was, 
1. Cho. 11.  that one tarried not for another (and it was but a small fault in comparison of this) said, that that which they did, was no eating of the lords supper: what shall we say of this sacrament, in the which is committed not one, but so many abuses, and where the whole true use of the lords supper, is changed? Christ commanded that all should take it. And here in the mass the priest eateth and drinketh up all alone. My reason standeth in this. The use of the sacrament, is of the substance of the same sacrament. And where the use is not to which it was appointed, there the sacrament in deed, is not. The use of the lords supper, or of the thanks giving is not only to say the words over the bread and the wine, but it is that many should take it, and eat the one and drink the other, as Christ appointed Than where such use is not, there is no sacrament, for he said to many. Eat you, and drink you. And why is not this done in the private mass, but rather the clean contrary? For one alone that is to say, the priest, doth take the host and the cup. So that than it is no true sacrament. I will give the example of baptism, to th'intent that every one may understand how the sacrament standeth in the use, And when the use is ceased it is no more a sacrament. The water of baptim is no sacrament, but for that time that it washeth, and is put up on the body, saying thes words, I baptize the in the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost Amen. Let that water fall in to another vessel, after that the creature be baptized, it is no more baptism, but is as any other water, this is plain. Even so I say of the sacrament of thanksgiving, whilst that it is dealt, and distributed, it is a sacrament, but that which is left of the bread and wine, is no more a sacrament, but it may be eaten and drunken as other bread and wine, because it is no more appointed to such use. So I say of those crumbs of bread that fall up on the ground, that they be no sacrament. I know that of this my talk many things do follow, the which will seem inconvenient. And amongst other that thes osts, the which are kept in the tabernacles, or pixis and in the little closettis, be no sacrament, because that there we have not the use, the which is of the substance of the sacrament.  
And there doth follow it, many other. But let than follow at their will, I am of Christ's opinion. There for in this I remit myself to the judgement of Christ's churches. I say thus, because it seemeth unto me according to gods word, that it should be so, that is to say, that as when the use of baptism is ceased, the water is no more a sacrament, so when the use of the thanksgiving is ceased, that is to say, when it is no more taken and dealt, eaten and drunk, it is no more a sacrament, I mean, eton and drunk in common, for so much as the lords supper is not a doing of one particular man, but of many men. And because that in the mass we have not this use, but the priest alone taketh that , and cup, without communicating them to other, I say it is no true sacrament. And if it be no sacrament, it is neither any memory of sacrifice, the which they would have proved.  
But admit that there never had been neither th'one, nor tother, of thes ij. disorders, what will they say to this that none of the priests in this time, doth perfitly make the sacrament according to their own doctrine? I prove it thus, They themselves say, that none can work, and make the sacrament except it be a priest, and he that is no priest, can not consecrate, But to be a priest is necessary that he should be consecrated by a bishop, the which in the consecration should give him the mark, the which mark, is a certain spiritual virtue given by the bishop. Standing this their doctrine and opinion, that he who is not a bishop, cannot make a priest, it followeth that from certain hundreth years hitherto, either none at all or very few have been true priests, because they have not been made, by true bishops, for so much as that he is no true bishop, that hath not at the least thes ij. points necessary for a true bishop. The first is that he should be chossen by the people. The other is, that he should feed his flock, that is to say that he should preach gods word to his people. Thes 2. points be of the holy scripture. For as, to the first, we have that Paul and Barnabas, as it is written in thacts of th'apostles, 
Acto. 14.  they themselves that had so great authority and chiefly Paul, being made an Apostle by Christ himself, and by him called a chosen vessel, did appoint in the cities, the priests, that is to say the bishops (For than, there was no differens between pristes and bishops) and they made them not of their own head, but by election. And thold canons themselves did not cownt them for bishops that were not chosen by the people, 
Distinct. 62. Cap. nulla Distinct. 63. Cap. nosse.  as we have in the self-same decree. As to the second, seeing this word bishop, is a name of an office, and of a work, as Paul himself saith to timothy, he that desireth a bisshopship, desireth a good work, he saith not desireth a dignity. 
1. Timoth. 3.  For even as the name of a shepherd, agreeth not except to him that fedith, And he that feedeth not, may well be called a shepherd, but yet it can not be, that he should be one in deed, Even so we will say of a bishop, there is no bishop nor true shepherd that doth not the office of feeding and preaching.  it is so than, as it is in deed, Thus it followeth that no priest made by our late made bishops, is in deed a priest as the bishops them seluis of whom they be made, be in deed no bishops. if he be no priest than he can not consecrate, as the favourers of the mass them seluis think, And if they can not consecrate it followeth that their sacrament, is no true sacrament, And if it be not a true sacrament, it is not a memory of a sacrifice, but it followeth, that as much as in them is, from many an hundredth year hitherto, they have caused the Christian people to commit Idolatry. Do you think that this so great a disorder should be inconvenient?   

THE THIRD CHAPTER. How the mass was not ordained by Christ, nor by his apostles, but it is man's invention, bilded not by one man only, but by divers, & from whence this name, Mass, had the beginning.  
Because in this our treatise, by this word, Mass, we do not mean the sacrament, the sacrament of the lords supper the which with out doubt was instituted by Christ, in his last supper and after oft used, by his apostles, and even unto our days, by his church, hath been and ever shall be reverently kept unto th'end. But we mean all the gathering together of words, gestures, and ceremonies, beginning from the Introibo even to the Ite missa est, as also it is of all men commonly understand, or else that their sacrament that they handle, and the defenders of the mass, When it is understand after thes ij. sortis, will defend it as a godly institution, and that it hath been used from the apostles. Therefore we will at this present prove, that neither Christ, nor his apostles, ever said or ordained mass, in which so ever of thes ij. sortis they take it: but it is man's invention, after either of both sortis. And that this is true, First I say, Understanding by this word, Mass, all the whole gathering, from the Introibo unto the Ite missa est, that the same is a device of men, and not of god. And this I prove, by th●… favourers of the mass themselves, the which say that Christ Jesus' did ordain the sacrament, and that Peter added the pater noster. And after that james bishop of jerusalem did increase it, but they tell not what he added. And that basil likewise hath increased it. Celestinus the pope added the judica me deus Pope Damasus the confession, which is made by the priest. Certain do ascribe it to Pontianus. Gregory the .1. did appoint there the entry and that the kirieleeson should be said ix times. Thelesphorus the Gloria in excels●…s Deo. Gelastus the I. the collectis, that is to say the prayers that go before the pistle. Iherom the pistle, and the gospel. Anastasius ordained that while the gospel was reading all men should stand on their feet, but stowpingly and with reverence. Marcus the bishop ordained that the creed should be song on holy days, and that it should be said by the people present at mass. And damasus after confirmed that decree. Gelasius did ordain the antem that followeth the creed. They took the incense from the old law, and from the paynams', the which did use the incense in their sacrifices, as virgil faith in the 1. of the Eneidos, that is say, ubi templum, illic centumque Sabeo thure calent arae that is to say where his temple was, there were an hundredth altars warmed well with frankincens. The prefaces that go before the Sanctus, which as gelasius saith be ix the foresaid gelasius ordained them, and urbanus, put to the tenth. Sixtus the . I. ordained that the sanctus should be be song. Concerning the canon, which beginneth, te igitur clementissime pater, certain say, that gelasius made the beginning as it is now. Siritius the pope made the communicantes. And Alexander the .1. the Qui pridie quam pateretur Pope Leo the .1. added the ●…anc igitur oblationem, Gregory added thes two petions, that is to say diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi & in electorum tuorum iubeas grege numerari Certain other say that the canon was made by one called Scolasticus. It is clear that it was not made by one man, nor at ones, but at divers times. And the order of the times, is much less kept, that is to say, that that which the more awncient have appointed, should be now first in the canon, but it is clean contrary. For Alexander the .1. was before all them, and yet the qui pridie quam pateretur, which Alexander himself appointed, is put in the vi. place. And the te igitur, the which as they say, gelasius made, who followed Alexander a long time: goth, before all tother partis of the canon. Gregory, as the rational of divine offices affirmeth, added the preface before the pater noster, that is to say the Oremus, praeceptis salutaribus moniti, and also that the pater noster, should be said, as he affirmeth in the register, saying that it should be an unfit thing, that the prayer of scolasticus, of which we have made mention before, that is to say, the canon, should be said, and Christ's prayer, that is to say, the pater noster, should be unsaid. Sergius the pope did first appoint that the Agnus dei, should be thrice sung over. And to be short, after their own judgement, Christ hath instituted of this mass, nothing except the sacrament. All the rest, was added by divers men, and at divers times. Look upon platina in the life of sixtus the 1. bishop of rome. And the rational of divine offices in the fourth book, and polidorus Virgilius of urbine in the ten chapter of the .1. book de inventorbus rerum, all the which say, that christ did say no part of this mass, except the words of the consecration. But it is worthy of noting, that the defenders of the mass sai, that the mass is god's institution, for the sacrament is the chief of the same mass, and that it is true, that the mass was augmented, and increased by divers men, and at divers times, yet for all that, they say, that the mass, for because of the chief part, is god's institution. And those additions be for furnisshing of it, nevertheless, the substance which is the sacrament, was made by christ. And it seemeth to me, that they would sai of the mass, as of a great river. As for example of the poo, the which at the head, 
The poo is a great River in Italy as Thamis is in England.  where it beginneth, is very little, and is no better than a little spring, but because there cometh in to it many other rivers, therefore it become afterward great, nevertheless it keepeth the name of Po. So is it of the mass. But this talk is nothing worth. Our question is not now of the name, that all that gathering is called mass, and the same sacrament should be also called Mass, as it is called Po, not only the spring where it beginneth, but all those rivers gathered together in one great river, which after, is all together called Po. We speak here of the whole mass, and we say that all the mass that is to say all that mixture of words, and of so many ceremonies, was not instituted by Christ, but by many popes and that Christ made no more of the whole mass, but the sacrament only. And seeing that we have put the similitude of the mass, and of the Po, we will say, that although, that all that composition or gathering together of rivers in to one great river, should be called Po, not withstanding, we shall never sai that all that great and large river, should grow out of that little spring but we will say that it groweth of divers rivers, that is to say the great Po, And that all the Po, doth not grow of the little spring, but only a little part of it. So all the mass came not from Christ, but only that little part of the consecration. Yea according to their own opinion the rest was added by plain men.  
It is plain, that taking also this word Mass, for the sacrament, that they make, it was never ordained by Christ, nor used by his apostles. For the sacrament that Christ ordained, and the Apostles used, was of another sort, much differing and divers from theirs. First, the consecration was made, after another sort. Because Christ said the words of the consecration a loud, and did pronounce them plainly that all understood.  
They, say them sofftly, that none heareth them, but he that saith the mass. And how can it be a sacrament, to them that understand not, nor hear not the words, seeing a thing can not be a sacrament, except the words be hard, and understand? Furthermore Christ said not those words, with mind to change the substance of the bread and wine in to his body and blood, as they think, but to appoint th'one and tother, to be signs in his rememberans, as his words do show. So that seeing they have not the same meaning, that Christ had, nor will not do the same, that Christ did, but another thing, we must needs say that such a sacrament, is not Christ's sacrament, but a thing found out by themselves, made after their own manner, and not according to Christ's institution.  
Furthermore the sacrament which Christ did institute, was instituted to th'intent that it should be a spiritual supper, dealt to many, and he gave it to all. They do it not after this sort, but the priest only taketh that his sacrament, and giveth it not to other, nor this thing is no communion, because a communion is, when many do partake of one thing, and not when one alone useth it. So that seeing they do not as Christ did, or rather as he commanded that it should be done, their is no true sacrament, as also we have proved in the second chapter of this part. Nor it was not instituted by Christ, but by man's invention. Let them than understand this their mass, either for all the hole gathering, from the Introibo to the Ite missa est, or else for the sacrament only, because it is no true sacrament, I say, that it is not gods ordinance but man's. And being man's ordinans, yet they make it a sacrifice, and a woshipping of god, against his express commandment, who will not be honoured with the invention of men, as already we have so often said.  
There remaineth now to see from whence this name of Mass had the beginning? Certain say, as Master William Durant in the proheme of the iiij. part of his reason giving of god's service, that this Name Mass is some time a noun collective some time a noun proper. 

A Noun collective is a word that gatherith many into one.  
A Noun proper speakith but of one only.   when it is a collective, that is to say when it importeth all the whole gathering from the entering to the end, that is to say Ite missa est, he saith that it is as much to say, as sent or committed over. Because the faithful people, by the mystery of the priest, the which doth Christ's office between god and men doth send their prayers and supplications to god. Some time this name mass, is a noun proper, and doth signify Christ, first sent, from the father to us, and sent from us to the father, to th'intent that before him, he might entreat for us, Albeit for shortness, I do not recite all his opinion. Some other, as John rewcklin a man very well learned in the hebrew tongue, saith, that the mass is no greek name nor latin but hebrewe, and is as much to sai, as sacrifice. And now our massmongers, would that the mass should be a sacrifice for sins. Othersome say, as Polidor virgil of urbine, that Missa, is as much to say as giving leave to departed, or licensing the people that they may go their way, that is to saythat licence and leave is given them, that they may departed, for so much as, in old time no man ought to departed from the holy things, they being present, except licens were given them. And Missa is as much to say, as missio, or dimissio, a licensing, or giving leave to departed, because that being ended, the people is licenced to go at their pleasure to their houses. He saith besides, many things up on this matter, but because I know that this name hath an abominable signification, I little desire to search any further for the beginning of so ungracios a name. When it should have begun to be so named, and who should have found it out it is not well known. It appeareth that from pope gregories time the first, hitherto, it hath been used. And I do not remember that I ever red that before his time it was used.   

THE. FOUR CHAPTER. That the mass is a gathering together and an heap yea a sea of abuses wikednessis and superstitions,  
IT is not our purpose nor mind, to tell all the abuses of the mass, because we know them not all. And although we knew them, they be so many, that to go about to write them all they would make to great a book. It shall suffice we writ some of them by the which may be sufficientli judged, what manner a thing this mass is. One of the chief is the worshipping the host and the cup, the which is an Idolatry. For from whence gather they that the sacraments ought to be worshipped? The sacramentis ought to be handled with reverens as holy things and godly institutions, but that they ought to be worshipped, we have it not in any place of the scripture, nor by any example of the apostles, or of the saints of the old church, even as the baptism is not worshipped, but is a sign that maketh us sure and certain that our sins be forgevin us by Christ, so neither the bread, or let it be the host, nor the cup, aught to be worshipped, nor christ did not institute them to this end. But be did institute them, in remembrans of his body and blood given for forgiveness of our sins. This remembrans, the bread and the wine already work without that that they should be worshipped. And it is to be noted that though they should be worshipped, the apostles when Christ did institute the sacrament, of his body, and blood, they would have worshipded it, but they did not worship it, so far as we have by the story of the evangelists, yea they sat still at the table. And it well appeareth by a certain text of Honorius the pope in the iij. book of the decretals, in the title de celebratione missarum that this worshipping is no old, but a new thing. And it seemeth, that it should be the institution of honorius himself, who died in the year of our lord 1226. His words in the said decretal be thes. To th'intent that thorough the small care of the priests, gods anger should not be more grievously sent, we do straightly command that the sacrament of thanksgiving, be by the priests placed in a singular place, clean and locked, and kept devoutly and faithfully. But let the priest very often teach his people, that when the healthful host is liffted up on high in the celebration of the mass, they reverently bow them seluis, doing the same when the priest beareth it to the sick. Here honorius commandeth that the people should bow them seluis to the host, and doth not say than expressly, that they ought to worship it, he saith only that they ought to bow them seluis. And he giveth us to understand by this his talk, either that he himself was the institutor of that thing or else that this bowing to the sacrament, began not long after him. For if the use had been old it had not needed to make so strait a commandment to keep it, for those things that the custom and use is to do, are done without commandment. And whithowt doubt the same honorius, if such a custom had been before him, he would have alleged either which had been the beginer, or at the least the custom itself. And he of himself would not so have spoken as he hath done.  
The defenders of the mass will say, that christ may be and aught to be worshipped where he is, he is in that host, wherefore he ought to be worshipped in the same. I answer that worshipping is a deed of faith, faith is not but by the same word of god. Let them show one jote, if they can do it by gods word, that Christ should be in the sacrament bodily. We do worship Christ in heaven, because we have the scripture clear that he is ascended in to heaven and there abideth and sitteth, on the right hand of god, 
Luke 24. Mark 16. Act. 13. Ephes. 4. Act, 3.  as it is written in luke, and mark, in thacts of th'apostles, and to thephesians. Who doth asserten us that Christ is in that host and in that cup? First we be not certain that the priest hath consecrated, having not perceived the words. Furthermore, he may have said the words, and yet the consecration shall not be made, because that either he shall not have had th'intent, or the true faith which things the consecration requireth, as the master of the sentencis saith. I speak now after their opinion. But of this thing we will speak more at large in the sermon of the sacrament, Now I will not stand to dispute, because I should be to long. That may be said to them that worship Christ in the host, and in the cup, that Christ said to the samaritan, you worship that that you know not. Furthermore, as we have said before and also will say, there hath been no one or very few true priests from many an hundredth year hitherto, because those that have ordained them were not true bishops, so than they did never consecrate. Here there might be said many things, but for shortness I will leave them.  
Another abuse is that the words of the consecration be not said with a loud voice as they ought to be, seeing they be words of the holy gospel, the which Christ hath commanded should be preached to every creature. What else be thes words but that Christ hath gevon his body and his blood for our ransom, and forgiveness of our sins? Seeing this thing is of necessity, that it should be preached to every Christian, nor he is not a Christian, that doth not believe, why do they not say it with a loud voice, as in the old time it was wont to be? Here they find certain scusis, and among other they say that such words ought to be said in secret, to th'intent that the high holy words, should not become vile, And that it is red how in old time when the canon was said with a loud voice, as it were, all did understand those words, and did openly sing them in the streets, and in the ways, Whereupon certain shepherds singing those words, and having laid the bread up on a certain stone, at the uttering of the words, the bred was turned in to flesh, and for this cause the fire came from heaven that killed them, for the which thing, the holy fathers have ordained, that up on pain of cursing, such words in the mass should be said in secret, and with the holy garmentis. This master William Durant saith in his racional of divine offices. So what fowndations thes be, (I will not say fables) of saying the words of the sacrament in secret? Iff thes words for this cause ought to be said in secret, to th'intent that the high holy words, should not become vile, than it were needful to say the holy gospel in secret, and not to preach it openly with a loud voice. For what words be more high holy than those of the holy gospel? Furthermore the holy fathers that have ordained this, iff it be true in deed that they did ordain it, why did they not rather command that the holy words should be pronounced with reverens, without making them say them in secret? The which words among all the rest that are said in the mass, every Christemman ought singularly to understand? Ought not every Christian to know that Christ hath given his body and his blood, for our ransom? And that for remembrans of so great a mystery Christ hath ordained this sacrament? And what else do the words of the consecration say exeept this in substance? I could here, iff I would, say many things, but what needeth it to heap words in so plain a matter? It is without doubt a great abuse to utter those words in secret. The words of the sacrament ought to be hard of all, without the which it is no sacrament, neither the bread nor the wine, nor any other thing though that the signification of it be not known nor that can not be known but by the same words of the sacrament. Let us go on further.  
Another abuse is that Christ's death is not showed to them that be present, contrary to saint Paul, the which saith that in the use of the sacrament, the lords death ought to be showed, saying in his 1. to the Corinthians, As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the cup, 
1. Cor. 11.  ye shall show the lords death until he come, that is to say, you shall preach it. It is clear that in the mass the lords death is not showed, nor preached, to the people. And what speak I of the daily and private masses? It is not showed neither in the time of the communion, when they reach forth the host to the communicants, where they ought to teach the poor people of the signification, and of the importance of the sacrament. They sai nothing to them, except whether he believe that Christ be in that host or no. As though Christ had instituted the sacrament, to th'intent that it should be believed that he were in that host. so great, and so large, as he was up on the wood of the cross, and not for remembrans of his death. Yet Christ himself said, do this in my remembrans, and said not, believe ye that I am hid den, in this bread, so great and so large, as presently you see me. This was not Christ's meaning, for so much as he would have said it. Wherefore than is not Christ's death showed in the mass? Surely this is a manifest abuse.  
The fourth abuse is that the priest alone doth take that his sacrament. (I call i●…h●…s, because in deed it is no sacrament (and he giveth no part of it to any other. But this is no communion, for a communion is when many do communicate, or take part of oneself thing. This manner of taking this sacrament, is against Christ, who hath instituted it, to th'intent that it should be taken in communion, and not privately, and against sent Paul in the foresaid place, 
●…. Cor. 11.  who rebuketh the chorinthes because they did not take the sacrament together, and with company, nor they did not tarry one for another. And if he so sharply rebuked them, because they did not tarry one for another, although that all should take the sacrament, how would he have suffered that one only should have taken it? They do also against the words which they speak in the consecration. For before thes words that they say, (Hoc enim est corpus meum) there be thes, that is to say, accipite & manducate ex hoc omnes, that is to say, take you and eat you all of this bread. Why than do they not give it to all or to many, as Christ commanded according to their own opinion? peraventure they will say that Christ spoke thes words for th'apostles, and not for any other. But this is not reasonably spoken, for so much as Christ taught them withthes words that he spoke, how they should do and minister this sacrament. if he should have spoken thes words for the Apostles only, the Apostles themselves should never have known how to have ministered the sacrament to others, but only to them seluis. Furthermore, in old time this is certain that there was no private mass said, that is to say, that one only should take the sacrament, that is the priest that celebrateth, but allweis there was a communion used. In token of this, the greeks did never receive the private mass, doing better in this part, than the latins, and keeping Christis institution and the apostolic use.  
Another abuse is. that they make it avail for every thing. They apply it for the rain, for the fair wether. against tempest, war, dearth, pestylens, and against all sorts of diseases, for the wholesomeness of the air, for plenty, peace, health of body, for wayfaring men, for wives and husbands, against enemies, for the living, for the dead, and for what thing is not the mass said? In praise of our lady, of the angels, of the saints, for repentant, for those that give allmes, for them that sail, for the Imprisoned, for the remaining in a place, for to call for wisdom. It is said against persecutors, for any manner of trouble, for the king for the Emperor, against Infidels, against temptation, for the petition of the tears, for to find things lost, for sheep, for oxen, (bear with me) If an horse have a disease in his eye, or in one of his legs, they cause mass to be said for him. It is also good for thes that confess, I mean that hear the confession, because it maketh them get good money, and other things. Forthei give penans to them that they hear in confession, that is to say, that they of force cause them to say massies, and they make them to pay lustily, in such sort as they make, they make them sometime scratt the head again. And what hath the herb betonica, which hath so many virtues, as Antonius Musa saith, to do with the mass. It is no marvel that it should be good for so many things, because that they that have found it out, and have framed it, have much more power than the Apostles, as paul saith. 
2. Corin. 13.  to whom was given power to build, and not to destroy. But the mass makers have the fullness off power to pervert, to confownd, to destroy, and to overthrow, every thing. And when they have done all this that pleaseth them, no man may say unto them, why do ye so? Because they be above all, and may be judged of none, how like ye this so great a power? Let no man therefore marvel of thes so many virtues of the mass. O JESV CHRIST, which art come to repair the decays, when wilt thou amend thes disorders. Christ hath ordained the sacrament to one end, that is to say, for a rememberans, and they use it for a thousand other ends. From whence gather they that the mass should have so many virtues, as they say it hath? This is a very great abuse and to great a disorder.  
The sixth abuse is, that he that saith it, doth apply it for whom it pleaseth him. As for example, for him that hath waged him, or for any other his well doer, or for father and mother, or for other his kinsfolk, as though it were his to bestow the vertewis, or the benefits of the mass, as he should think good. Surely this is unfit that a sinner, and peraventure, a wicked man, should have authority to bestow such benefits. I make a differens between the praying, and the bestowing the benefits of the mass, for as they think, such benefits be Christ's benefits, and how can this be, seeing such virtue procedith not from him that doth celebrate, but from god only and from Christ himself?  
The sevinth abuse is, that one mass should be more solemn, than another. That which hath fairer and richer furniture, that which is song, which is rung with the great bells, that is there descanted, where as be candlestickbearers Accolites, deacons, subdeacons, many lightis, playing on the organs, and such outward knacks: Thes such masses, they call solemn masses. And the more and greater ceremonies their be, the more solemn those massis be. They follow the jewis or else the Idolaters, the which in worshipping of their gods, did make solempnities of feasts, and of rejoicings. That kind of worship in the hebrew people, was not blamed, because it was ordained by god, but yet in a figure of spiritual things, and to entertain that people inclined to Idolatry, that they should not commit Idolatry. But to us christians, it needeth not to make thes solempnities, and pomps, seeing the time is come of the true worshippers, the which ought to worship god, in spirit, and truth, and not with outward deckings, as christ saith in S. john. 
Ioh, 4.  Yet furthermore, seeing the dignity of the sacrament cometh from his thing signified, and from the institutor of the same, it is not convenient to make it one time more solemn, than another. And as all the baptisms be alike, if they be trow baptysmes, so will we say of the sacrament of thanksgiving that one is not more worthy than another.  
Th'eight is, that one mass doth more a veil, than another, according to the dignity of the parson. That is to say the bishops mass doth more avail than the plain priests, the abbots more than the monks, for if they should not more avail, they should not sell them dearer. This is an abuse, 
Rom. 2.  because that before god, there is no respect of persons, nor the services that be done to god, be not more accepted of him, because one is set in a greater state and dignity, but when he hath a greater faith, and religion. Furthermore if the mass in itself be that that hath the virtues the strength, and efficacy, of working, it hangeth not of men, but of god only, why make they then one more greater, and more worthy than another according to the diversity of persons?  
Another is, that it can not be said without so many deckings, as be the amices, the albies, the phanells, the stolies, the cordgirdles, the sandales, many towels, altars, chalises, corporassis, animates (as they call them) and a hallowed stone. And all thes things must be blessed and consecrated, The deckings also, be of divers colours, according to the diversity of the days. In the feast of martyrs they put on red. On the virgin's days white, on the confessors, other colours. Here we have deckings of lining cloth, of say, of all coloured cloth, here be some of silk, of velvet, of damask of chamlet, of satin, of cloth of gold, and of silver. if it be a blame worthy thing for a man, or a woman, to be over costly decked, as paul saith in his pistle to Timothy, 
1. Tim. 2. 1. Petri.. 3  and Peter in the first pistle, for so much as it is a vanity, why shall it not be blame worthy, for one that handleth gods things, to be over costly decked, as though god should be delighted in outward things, who would have the inward decking, and the decking of the mind. What meaneth it that there is not made so great solemnity at gods word? They put not on than so many garments. And to the mass, that is man's invention, they use so much honour. What needeth it for the ministration of the sacrament. to set a broad so many things, and to make so great a furniture? Thes things be jewish, or rather heathenish than otherwise. I remember I have hard that in Rome there were found certain Imagis of the flamynes, which were priests of the gentiles, clothed thorowtly like the priest at mass. The which giveth to understand, that such decking is an heathnissh thing. The use of so many garments, and of the consecration of the same, is the ordinance of pope Stephan the first, and came from the jewis. The corporassis was the device of Sixtus the first. the chalises first were made of wood. Zepherinus the pope did institute that they should minister in vessels of glass. Affter it was appointed that they should minister neither in wood nor in glass, because that the wood being unfast, the wine entered into it, And the glass was lightly broken. For this cause it was ordained, that they should minister in silver or in gold. And if they could not be gotten, at the least in tin, and not in any other metal, because of the evil savour of the other metals. Some say that pope Vrbanus the first did institute this. And what meaneth it, that the Apostles, nor the primative church, did not use so great pomp in vessels? what superstitions be these? How much were to be said here? But it sufficeth me to toch the abuses, because they would axe to many words to declare them at length.  
Also they give to understand, that that day, that a man heareth mass, there can no misfortutune chance unto him, And yet we do see many have evil luck that day that they have hard the mass, and die an evil death. Pope victor the iij. died of poison by the consecrated wine, that was poisoned. Henry the sevinth, Emperor of rome, died by the  that was poisoned, and given unto him by a dominican frire, in the castle bonconuento the year of our lord 1086.  
Another is that albeit the mass is man's invention, as we have provid, yet they command it, as though it were gods commandment. This is against the express word of god himself, Who saith in deuteronomy, do to the lord only that that I command thee, 
Deut. 12.  and thou shalt not add, nor minissh. And against the saying of Esay, 
Esay. 29.  which often times we have alleged, that is to say, that god will not be honoured with menns commandments, 
Matth. 15.  And Christ in S. Matthew saith the same, alleging the Prophet.  
Another is that they affirm that he who saith the mass, hath greater authority than the angels, and also than the blessed virgin. And this is because they hold that in the mass is made the transsubstantion of the bread, and the wine, in to Christ's body and blood. And believing that Christ himself is present bodily in the host, and in the cup, the which things neither the angels, nor the blessed virgin have authority to do, but the priests only, they conclude, that those priests have greater authority, than the angels, or the blessed virgin. And they say, that the same most blessed mother, caused Christ to come in to her virginlike womb, with 8. words, that is to say, Ecce ancilla domini, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum And the priests, make him to come in to the host with v. words only, that is to say, Hoc est enim corpus meum. I will leave at this time, to examen this their falls speech, that the blessed mother should make the son of god to come with those words, as though they should have had virtue, to make him take flesh, that being only of gods work. I will leave, as I say, to speak of this, and I will axe them from whence it cometh, that on th'one part, they so much exalt the blessed virgin, that they abase Christ and god, for they call her queen of heaven, star of the sea, our hope, our life, mother of mercy, And they give her such titles, and honour, as be only due to god and Christ. And here they make her meaner than a plain priest, sometimes, as I have said, very wicked. indeed I confess that the ministry of god's word, and of the sacraments, is not committed to the blessed mother, nor to the angels, but to men. Yet for this cause to go about to make men that be sinners, more worthy than the angels that be without sin, or than the mother of god, it is unfit, chiefly for that the priests be not true ministers of the sacraments, for so much as he that doth not minister the word, ought neither to minister the sacraments. Further also, as we have said before, they be not called by a true vocation, the which is necessary to the ministry.  
Another abuse is that the corporasses the challises, and the ostis, may not be touched by lay men. This they have done to make men have the more reverens, and devotion to the mass. This office of toching, the chalises, the host, the patents and the corporasses (they say) belongeth only to them that be in sacris, that is, in holy orders, and not to other. But for what cause may not a thing be toched with the hand, iff it be clean and net, the which may be eaten and drunken? But this sacrament is eaten (that is to say the host) and is drunken (that is to say the wine (for what cause than may it not be touched with the hand, seeing it is touched with the mouth? This superstition is against Christ's ordinans and the custom of the Apostles. For Christ when he reached the bread and the cup to his Apostlos, he said unto them, that they should take, and they took th'one, and tother, with their hands, and surely they touched them. Christ did not than give it them in their mouths. Shall we say that Christ should speak thes words, that is to say, Take you, Eat you, Drink you, only for the Apostles, and not for other? This is not so, but he spoke them for all those that wear to receive the sacrament, as also S. Paul giveth to understand, the which writing to the Corinth's in his first, reciteth Christ's words, and teacheth not only the ministers, but all the whole church what they have to do. Seeing than this things is common to all Christians and not belonging to priests only, why may they not than be touched by lay men, seeing they also ought to communicate, and receive the same sacrament? The old church, and the Apostles delivered the sacrament in to the hands of all them that did receive it. From whence is this new religion come, contrary to Christ's Institution, and to the Apostles custom? Shall it be convenient that a lay man, who with a good and a clear consciens receiveth the sacrament may not touch it? And a wicked priest, with a blotted and a defiled consciens, shall be Counted worthy to handle it?  
Another abuse is that the mass is said in the honour of saints and sainctesses. This ought not to be done, for so much as that the sacrament, which is the substans of the mass, was instituted in rememberans of Christ, who only is dead for our ransoming, And it was not instituted in the honour of saints. Why than is not the mass said in rememberans of Christ, and not of saints, among which no one hath redeemed us, nor the sacrament was not instituted for none of them, but only in Christ's remembrans? Christ saith do this in my remembrans, And they will do it in remembrans of saints. Should it not be a great abuse if the gospel should be preached in the honour of saints the which is Christ's only? Even so is it of the sacrament, They handle their masses, as poor ignorant men do their prayers, which will say ave Maria, in thonour of S. Christopher, and the pater noster in worship of S. Lucia or of another saint. How much should it be to the purpose and convenient, if one having need to entreat the Emperor or a king would go to a poor man and on his knees would say unto him, I commend myself to your majesty, and I beseech you that you would show me this favour, and would desire of him such things as he could not do, and as were not convenient to be axed of such a parson, should not that poor man cownt himself mocked and scorned? They do much worse, because they attribute to a plain creature, that which belongeth to god only and to Christ, who without measure, do more exceed every creature, than any earthly estate doth any poor or base parson, as to the world. And mark that in the councils of thes hour times their is no word spoken of thes and many other so great and gross errors and abuses as Reingne now Among Christ's flock. Be thes things devotions? Men must not touch them. Well it is enough that they go about to condemn the Lutheran Heretics, that is christ with all the whole holy scripture, as their fathers have done, that is to say, the chief priests, the scribes, and the Pharisees, Who crucified Christ, condemned, evelhandled, and in the end killed the holy apostles. Even so do they.  
Another abuse is that they give to understand that the angels, with all the court of heaven, be present at the mass. This is overgret a falsehood, for that the angels and the souls of Just men can not be but in one place. And according to this opinion we must say that they be every where where so ever the mass is said. For seeing that they must accompany Christ, and that Christ as they think, is in all those places where they celebrate, there must be also the angels, and the souls of saints, and so the plain creatures shall be at one time in divers places the which cannot be. we can not say that they accompany him more in one place than in another, seeing that Christ, as they think is equally in all places where the sacrament is. Wherefore we must say that either they accompany him in all places, or in none. Another abuse is, that they say the mass for the dead, against Christ's institution. The cause is this, for that the sacraments avail for them, for whom they were instituted, and not for other. It is clear that they were instituted for the living, and not for the dead, therefore they avail not for them. As for baptism, it is plain. that it availeth not for the dead seeing the dead be neither baptized them selves nor any other for them. And though sometime it were done, as some understand the saying of Paul to the Chorinthes, 
1 Corin. 15.   quid baptisantur pro mortuis? This was by error, and it was not well done. So we will say of the supper, that it was instituted for the living, and not for the dead, because that the dead can not use it in Christ's rememberans, nor eat it, nor drink it. Some man will say, the dead can not use it, but the living may use it for the dead. I would have of thes men that they would allege me the cause why this sacrament, may rather be used for the dead, than baptism? There is differens between baptism, and the supper, I know it: because baptism is used only ones, in the life for a man. But the holy supper many times. I do confess that in this point there is a differens, and there be also other differencis, but this notwithstanding baptism at those times that it is used, may also be taken for the dead, such a number of children being baptized as there is, for so much as that in baptism there is made memory of the passion, crossing, death and burying of Christ, 
Roman. 6. 2 Coloss. 2.  as we have to the romans and to the collossians and mention is made of the forgiveness of sins. Yea though we should speak by the scripture, it seemeth to attribute more unto baptism, than to the holy supper. 
Marc. 1. Luc. 3. Act. 2. et 22.  if we should consider many sayings according to the letter, we have in Mark, and in Luke, that john did baptize in forgiveness of sins. We have in the acts of th'apostles, how Peter said, let every one off you be baptized in the forgiveness of sins, and Ananias said to Paul, Rise up, baptize thee, and wash thy sins. The article off the faith which saith, I do confess one baptism in forgiveness off sins, etc. All thes sayings and other which we could bring forth if we would, seem according to the letter, that they should attribute, more to baptism (as concerning forgiveness of sins) than to the supper, And yet no one of the catholics, ever said, that baptism should help the dead. Why then shall the holy supper help for the sins off the dead? It is certain, that where the holy supper is spoken off, there is not so often and so express mention made, that it should be taken in forgiveness off sins, as where the baptism is spoken of. I mean not, by this my saying, to affirm that by baptism sins be forgiven. I will not affirm this, for before we have proved the contrary, that is to say, that the baptism is in deed a sign off the forgiveness off sins, and it certifieth us, and maketh us more sure off the same, not that it doth it. But I will say that in the writings of thevangelists and Apostles there is more mention made of the forgiveness of sins, when the baptism is spoken of, than when the supper is spoken off. And that if the lords supper should avail for the dead, baptism also should avail, but baptism doth not avail for the dead, wherefore also the sacrament of thanks giving doth not avail.  
Another abuse is, so great a variety of gestures, of strange deeds, now this now that, now the priest stoopeth, now he standeth up. And this may have some reason, because the stooping there, is a sign of prayer, and in the mass are said divers prayers. But how many gestures and cown enancis be made, without any purpose? Sometime he joynith his hands and fingers, By and by sondereth them. Now he liffteth up his arms, now he putteth them down, Now he speaketh, now he saith nothing. Now he speaketh sofftly, now a loud, sometime he standeth at one end of the altar, another time he standeth at the other, and removeth the masseboke. Now he he turnith him to the people, by and by he turneth his back, sometime he seemeth to sleep. Oh there be made I can not tell how many crosses, and how much a do. I know well that they give to all thes things their signification, Imagined at their pleasure, and feigned of their own head. The which signification nevertheless, neither the people that saith and heareth, nor they themselves that say the mass, do understand. But tell me I pray you, to what profit serve so many trifling things at Christ's institution, that is to say, at the holy supper? It is clear that they be not necessary for the consecrating the bread and wine, that is to say for thappointing them to an holy use, and for the making the sacrament, nor for the receiving it. For if they had been necessary Christ would have ordained them, and the Apostles would have used them, but neither ●…hone nor tother was done, that is to say, that neither Christ hath instituted them, nor the Apostles used them, wherefore they be not necessary. They will say paraventur, that although they be not of necessity, nevertheless they be for ornament, and solemnity of the sacrament, And for this cause the holy fathers have ordained thes so many deeds, and gestures, in the mass. But this answer is not good: For if they be not necessary, what is the cause that they have commanded they should be done, under pain of deadly sin, and that menn sin deadly, if they be not done. This is off necessity and not only for an ornament, when a thing is commanded under pain off deadly sin. Iff the sacrament may be made according to Christ's institution and the use off the Apostles without so many novelties: Is this convenient and Just to bind those that make it as Christ hath commanded and taught them, and that will not step out off his most holy ordinans under deadly sin, albeit they should not do the additions off men which rather defile than set furth, Christ's institution, who would have off us obedience and that we should do, as he himself hath taugth and commanded us? 
joan. 15.  And he saith in john, You be my friends iff you will do those things that I command you. Nor Paul never durst be so bold, as to add, minissh or alter any manner off thing, but allegeth Christ's plain and only institution, And so he teacheth the Chorinthes, that they should do, saying, Ego enim accepi à Domino, quod & tradidi vobis, etc. that is to say, for I have received off the lord that, which I have delivered to you, etc. as though he would say, I make you not off myself any ordinans, that which I do appoint, is Christ's institution and not mine. What is the fairest ornament of Christ's and God's institution, though not, simply and plainly to do that which they command us? This is the office of Antichrist, to go about to bind under deadly sin, that is to say, under pain of damnation, where God, who only can save and damn, 
james 4.  (as james saith) doth not bind us, but leaveth us free. This is to sit in God's temple, that is to say to reign in consciencis and to govern them and to keep them subject to the bondage off men, contrary to Paul, 
1. Corint. 7. Galat. 3.  who saith that we ought not to be servants off men. Christ hath made us free from damnation, the which Gods law doth threaten unto us, and they will make us bond to the devil and damn us for ever, iff we do not keep their laws. Surely this is a great abuse and a devilish presumption.  
Another abuse more manifest than the rest, that is to say, that every man may more easily see that it is an abuse, and it is this, that is to say, that there is merchandise made of it, and such as is to be marveled at. And this merchandise off the mass among all the other, hath one singular privilege, because that in other there is made yet a certain differens off days, and there is had certain respect, to the feasts, to the places, chiefly holy. But in this, how much the feast is greater and more solemn, so much the fair is made more solemn. Yea than they traffic and occupy. How much more holy the place is, so much the rather this merchandise is made in it. We may see that the Inns do make no holidays, but they labour alike, on all days. They lodge the wayfarers and also other that come thither, as well on holy days as other, nor they make no differens between one day, and another, but they make all a like. It is true, but yet they do make a certain differens, at the least of the places, because they occupy not every where. Who if that Innholder, or Taverner, that would make an Inn, or a tavern in any church? None surely. But the massmarchantes have not this respect, but how much the holier the place is counted, so much the willinglier the mass is there bought and sold. This excellent privilege with many other without number, the mass merchants have obtained off Antichrist, who hath all power over such things. And long a go the time was, that this merchandise was sold very dear, but from certain years hitherto, it is become dog cheap, and a mass is given for a dandy prat, yea and for less, according to the places, and to the parsons, that know how to buy. This is it that hath made rich the priests, the friars and the monks, that maketh men found chapels, build churches, colleges, howsis, monasteries, off friars abbeys, commandries, and to beshort it is that, that hath made rich the state called ecclesiastical. It hath meruelosly liffted it up in the world. The mass is that which giveth so great revenues to the most reverend Cardinals, and which maketh them ride up on thes fair mulis, covered with velvet, with those fair red hattis, the which do signify the order off the Seraphins, burning in charity and in godly love. This is the signification, some say, off red hats which (the mass I say) maketh to ride with so many horses, with so great a company of gentlemen, as though they were Dukes, or Princes, that when they go to the consistory, the shawms are played on to them, on the battlements off the castle sent Angelo, and they ride with very great mirth, pomp, and triumph. The mass maketh all thes things to be done, for if it were not, surely there should want such pomp, and greatness. Off the Bishops, oh how many things might I say though I would, but I must leave to other to say their part. I will say only this, that it made them wholly forget their office, and hath made them attend to certain scornworthy baggagiss, as to christian the bells, to consecrate the stones, and the walls, with more endeavour and diligens, than if they should baptize the sons off a King, and an Emperor, and than if they should minister the thanksgiving, to all the Monarchies off the world, and all this to give credit to the mass. I speak not off the preaching off God's word, because it is a thing for poor men. This Mass is the mother off purgatory, the which purgeth the purses, the garners, the houses, the sellers, so that there is no broom in the world, that sweepeth so well an house as this purgatory doth. To tell you at few words this abuse is so open and so large, and giveth us so much to say, that in an whole year it would not be ended. I have only spoken off theffects that it worketh in thes ij. degrees or statis, without rising higher or going down lower to any particularity.  
But among all the other properties and abuses, that the mass hath, this is one most singular, that it leadeth men a way from God's word. Here there needeth not to bring any other than experience to prove it. Let there be one that preacheth, and let him be in the midst off his sermon, iff there come forth a priest appareled ready to say mass, a great part off the hearers turning their backs to the preacher will ronn after the priest to hear mass. This is an assured ground, that the great part off the people have more devotion to the mass, than to God's word and the holy gospel. And what else doth Satan desire, but by such means, to draw a way the people from the holy gospel, and from God's word? The saviour saith, 
Luc. 11. Roma. 1.  blessed be they that hear God's word and keep it. And Paul saith that the gospel is the power of God for health to all believers. And the mass carrieth men away from God's word and the holy gospel, and consequently from their salvation. And though there were not any other abuse in the mass but this, it ought to be fled as a devilish invention. And who could ever set out this abuse as it is worthy? This is the cause that Satan hath sought by so many ways, to deck it and to make it fair, after the sort off an harlot to entice the people to whore with a spiritual and a souls whoredom, which without comparison doth much more displease God, than the fleshly. What else be so many ceremonies, so many garments, and so many handsome handlings as be there, but ornaments, and as it is said, bewtifiengs of this mass, to bring to pass that every man may love the harlot. I could tell many other abuses of this mass, for they be so many, that there might be volumis of books writton of them. Nevertheless thes be enough to make it known for as stroyfull a thing as ever was in the world. if they be considered with a spiritual judgement.   

THE FIFT CHAPTER. That the mass is the greatest sacrilege and the greatest abomination that ever was in any time from the beginning of the world, and is the chief greatest mystery of Antichrist.  
IT will paraventer seem strange that I shall thus speak of the mass. And they will say that I speak uncomely, and step (as it is commonly said) out of the sorrow. But those men if they knew what a thing this Mass is, they would say that I am very far from the mark, and that I speak not the thousand part so much as I ought, and that I am not yet well entered in to the sorrow, much less that I am stepped out of it. I say and affirm again, that the Mass is the greatest sacrilege and the greatest abomination, that ever was in any time from the beginning of the world, and is the great mystery of Antichrist. And if I shall not prove it, It shall not be because the troth is not so, but my weak ability shall be in fault. Nevertheless, I trust in the lord, although not to the strivers, yet at the least to the lovers of the truth, I shall persuade my meaning, after this sort.  
We have out of Paul the Apostle, 
Rom. 3. et 7. Gala. 3.  that the knowledge of sin is by the law. (I speak of the 10. commandments which they call the moral law) is divided as men know in to 2. tables, the first, and the second. The first is of the worshipping of God, and regardeth directly God's honour and glory.  
The second doth teach and instruct man toward his neighbour. Thes things to all those that have knowledge in the holy writing, be plain. And because that the honour and glory of God is without comparison of more importans, than those things that respect man, we ought to say that the sins that be against the first table, be heavier and greater, than those that be against the second, because that they be directly against god's honour. And therefore infidelity, Idolatry and blasphemy, which be sins against the first table, be greater and heavier sins, than thefft, than adultery and the rest which be against the second table, and against men. This is with out doubt. Let us go further. We ought to know also that even as among the sins of the second table, the one is greater and more weighty than tother. as for example, adultery is greater sin than simple thefft, and one murder is greater than another, as the murdering of the father, or the mother, is a greater sin than the murdering of another parson, So among the sins that be against the first table, one is greater than another. As for example, one blasphemy is greater than another, 
Math. 12. Marc. 3.  by Christ's testimony in S. Matthew and mark where he saith that all sins and blasphemies of men shall be forgiven them, but he that shall blasphme against the holy ghost, it shall never be forgiven him. By the which speech is concluded that one blasphemy is greater than tother. And so we will say that one infidelity is greater than another, and one Idolatry heavier than another. That of god's people, that is to say, of the hebrews, was a more heavy sin, than that of the gentiles. The hethnish people were unbileving and Idolatros before that Christ was showed unto them, and they did honour the things made, in stead of the maker, they did worship pictures and Images, 
Rom. ●….  as Paul to the Romans saith. And they were in most theik darkness of unbelief, of ignorans and of error. They had in deed the law of nature, but by the corruption of the same nature, brought by sin in to all men, that law was in them so darkened, that it was not able neither sufficiently to show them, nor to direct them in the way of salvation, 
Rom. 2.  the which without Christ can not be had, although it were sufficient enough to condemn them and make them inexcusable. And God, as the same Paul saith in thacts of the Apostles, 
Act. 14.  did let them go their own ways, that is to say, did let them walk in their error, without giving them the light of his word, and of his spirit, so that as blind men, they saw not, nor knew not what they did. A great judgement, by the which is showed, what man can do if god forsake him, and doth not light him with his word and with the light of his spirit, because he knoweth not what is to be done, and in God's things he doth all contrary. without doubt the gentiles did greatly sin in their unbyleffe, committing Idolatry, and blaspheming their maker, notwithstanding they sinned by ignorans, nor they could not do otherwise, having not the light of the scripture. But the Hebrews, who had the benefice of God's word clear and open, did sin more grievously in their unbelief, committing Idolatry and blasphemy, than the heathen. For it was even as he that saith the ditch, and yet of purpose and willingly falleth in to it. It is plain that he doth much more sin, who hath thexpress commandment of the lord, and knoweth his will, and noth withstanding yet doth against such commandment and will, than he that knoweth it not, 
Luc. 12.  as the Saviour saith in S. Luke. That is to say, the servant that knoweth the will of his master, and doth it not, shall be worthily beaton with many stripes, but the servant that knoweth not the will of his lord and doth it not shall be beaton too, but not so much as he that knoweth it.  
And for this cause the Hebrews when they worsshipped the calff in the desert, they did much more grievously sin than the heathen who did honour the Idols, for so much as that not long before, they were cowncelled by God himself who gave them the law and commanded them that they should not make any image to honour and yet they made it against God's express commandment. And so as many other times as they have committed Idolatry (as we have in the books of the Kings and of the Prophets) they have much more offended God and more grievously sinned than the heathen. And the Idolatry and unfaithfulness of his own people, was more abominable in God's sight, and did more provoke him to anger, than that of the heathen. And for this cause also they were more threatened, than the ame heathen. And how many scourges, how many overthrows have they suffered for the sin of unbelief and Idolatry?  
The 10. tribes of Israel, for what cause were they so oft by God scorgid, and at the last berefft of their right, 
4. Reg. 17.  and by Salmanasar King of the Assyrians led in to continual bondage, as it is written in the book of the Kings, but only for Idolatry?  
The tribe off juda, how many ways was it stricken, as well off their borderers that is off their next neighbours, as after by a people that came far off, as the Caldees and the Assyrians were? why was it sent in to exile to Babylone? Why was the temple destroyed and every thing overthrown, but only for their Idolatry? Be cause thes things be known, I do not labour to recite the stories where they be written, and therefore I pass them over.  

Exod. 32. Deut. 4. 2. Parali. 7. jerem. 43. & 44. Esa. 65. Ezech. 9 and. 43. Exod. 4. Deut. 7. 3. Reg. 14. Ezech. 8.20 4. Reg. 23.  How often hath God threatened the overthrow to Idolaters? Look in Exodus, in Deuteronomy, in Paralipomenon, in jeremy, in Esay, in Ezechiel, and in very many other placis of the Prophets. Idolatry in the scripture is called abomination, because God hath it most chiefly in hatred. Look in Exodus, in deuteronomy, in the 3. book off the Kings, where Achias the Prophet foretelleth the exile and sparkling off the tribe off Israel for Idolatry, and also in Ezechiel. In all thes places the scripture calleth Idolatry, Abomination, because that God, as we have said, hath it in marvelous hatred. This fowndation being laid, that God hath chiefly in hatred Idolatry, in what so ever sort it be done, but much more in his own people than he had in the other And this because his people had the knowledge off God and were taught with his word the true worship off God, that is to say how they ought to worship him, and honour him, the other people were not so, the which sinned by ignorans. It doth fitly follow also that though there shall be found Idolatry among the Christians, who be now God's people, that that shall be more abominable before God, than any other, not only of the heathen but also of the Hebrews. For where as the knowledge off God, and off his true worship is greater, and the troth is more manifest, in that place Idolatry and unbelief be greater sins, and greater abominations before God, than where there is not so much knowledge, nor the truth so open. But who doubteth, that there should not be in the Christian people a greater knowledge off God, and off his true worship, and off Christ, who is the truth itself, by the witness off himself, the which saith in S. john, I am the way, 
john 4.  the truth and the life, than in any other people and nation? doth not he witness the truth, talking with the Samaritane, as john writeth, that the Christians, that is to say the people gathered together of by leving jews' and heathen, which we be (turned to Christ by God's grace) should be the true worshippers that should worship the father in spirit and truth? Have not we more knowledge of God having greater knowledge of Christ, by whom God is truly known, than the Hebrews? who will doubt this, but he that knoweth not, what Christ is? Also this time is compared to that of the law, under the which the Hebrews were, as the day is to the night. For they had the fleshly worship, that is to say, those sacrifices and number of ceremonies, and we have the spiri●…uall. 
Coloss. 2.  They had the shadows, and we have the body as Paul saith to the Colosseis. The knowledge that they had, was dark because it was shadowed with figures, and certain veals, or coverings, owrs be clear, bare, and open, we do better know God's benefits thorough Christ than they, how sins be forgiven us, how we be justified and saved. Now we know that Christ is dead for our sins, 
Rma. 4.  and is risen again as Paul saith, for our rigthuosnes. We know that he suiteth at the right hand of God, and where he is, there we shall be, 
john 12.  as he witnesseth in john. And of this we be sure. We believe certainly as an artikle of our faith that Christ is true God and true man. The comen sort of the jews did not clearly know thes things, as we do. And that it is the truth, jesus Christ's Apostles themselves, although they had hard him a long time, and had conversation with him, yet they did not think that by death, and chiefly that death off the cross, he should redeem the world and that he should be a sacrifice and satisfaction for our sins. To him that hath red the stories of thevangelists, this that I say is plain. if it be so than that where the knowledge of God, of Christ, of the threw worship is greater, Idolatry, unbelief and blasphemy be more grievous sins than where there is not so great and so clear knowledge. Surely though we shall find thes so grievous sins in the Christian people, we must of necessity conclude that they shall more displease God, and shall be more hateful unto him, than all the Idolatries, all the unbilefes, and all the blasphemies off the heathen, yea and off the Hebrewissh people too. Now let us see if thes most grievous sins be found among the Christian people (I call them Christian, because they be so named) or no. I would to God there were found none. How much unbelief, how many blasphemies, how many Idolatries have we?  
Tell me, is it any unbelief and Idolatry to worship very men? And what shall we speak of very men? Is it Idolatry to worship their bones, their ashes, their garments, their hatties, their girdles? And what more, to worship that which is not known? Sometime the bones off some wicked parson, I will not say of other beasts (which thing may easily happen) in the place of saints relics? They do also worship in divers places, divers bodies, as though they were the bodies of oneself saint, and the simple people believeth, that both th'one, and tother, of those bodies be the bodies of that saint, as though one man should have had 2. bodies. I do remember that I have seen in the city off Arle, a certain body the which they say, is S. Antonis the abbot, and yet not withstanding, there is showed another in the city of Vienna, In Dolpheny, the which neverteles, they say and affirm is. S. Antony's. The body off S. William of aquitan, the Seneases say, that it is in an abbey in their territory, and they show it. And yet another body is showed, in a certain vale called, S. james vale, under the rule of grisones and there is done to it great reverens. It is worshipped, they ronn to it for rain, for fair wether, and other business. How many heads of S. johan Baptist be showed in divers placis? And what scorns be thes of the Christian religion? What madnesses, what dulnesses be thes, that men should lose the common sense and should have less judgement, than the brute beasts? So we could if we would tell you a great nombrer of like abuses. This corruption can not be scused for it is to plain. Let us go on further, Is it Idolatry to worship the Imagis, to kneel before them, to stick candles before them, to set lamps there, to call up on them, to make vows to them, to hang torches, tapers, cloth corn, garments, eyes, hands, heads, legs, sometime off wax, sometime off silver, before them, to hang before them, Imagis off men, off women, of young children, off oxen and off horse? Is it Idolatry, and likewise I ought to say, plain doltisshnes, to have greater devotion to one Image or picture, than to another, off the self-same saint or saints? As for example, more to that off S. Loreto, than to that off the Annunciation in Florence, and to think that the one should do more miracles than the other? Is it Idolatry to make the Image of the Trinity the which is an high spirit, that can not be painted, nor carved by any manner off means? And yet against God's commandment they paint it, and carve it, in the shape of certain strange monsters, that is to say, sometimes in the shape of a man, with 3. heads, sometimes in the fashion of 3. men with 2. legs only, and in this form they worship it, and make their vows to it. What will they say here? will they defend thes manifest abuses, with that their distinction, that they make off Dulia and Hiperdulia and Latria? This thing meaneth another manner of thing than Dulia and Hiperdulia. I will not declare thes words and their distinction, the which I know well enough from whence it cometh. Iff there were not worldy gain here in this Idolatry, their Images, and heir Dulias and Hiperdulias would soon cease. It can not be denied but among the Christian people there be many Idolatries, much unbelief many blasphemies and sacrilegis. Sacrilege is to rob the holy things. What is more holy than Gods and Christ's honour? This is to clear. Nevertheless, among all the rest, as there be many Idolatries, (I will not say without number) that of the mass, is the greatest and the chief, not only because the host and the cup, be worshipped in stead of Christ, not being certain that the same Christ is there, as before in the Cannon we have proved, in that part where their consecration is spoken off, and as also we will better prove, in the sermon in th'end of this book, but much more because they will, that all the Mass should be a worship of God, saying that it is a sacrifice for the sins of the living, and of the dead, in the which God is honoured, yea Christ himself is offered to God, wherefore it doth well follow, that it is a most great Idolatry, for so much as, that Idolatry is not only where any visible idol, or image is honoured, but every worship the which is made unto God without his word, is Idolatry, for because that no such worship is true worship, nor pleaseth God, but rather it is to him abomination. for so much then as that God will not as before we have already often told, that we should honour him after our own mind, and as it seemeth good to us, but will that we should honour him, as he doth teach and command us, 
Esa. 29. Math. 15.  as we have in Esay and Christ allegeth himself in sanct Matthew: We have before already proved that the Mass is man's invention, therefore seeing we will make it a worship as we do, yea the chief of the Christian religion, we must conclude that it is an Idolatry because that it is a worship without God's word.  
But let us see off what sort off Idolatry it is? First there be many deceits, and among the rest, there is this, that they persuade the people, as an article off their faith, not only that Christ is bodily in that host, and likewise in the cup, and make them honour the one, and tother, but that he is there, as great, and as thick, as he was up on the wood off the cross, and that he is wholly, not only in that little host, but in every part off the host and the wine, and that he is in heaven, and in earth, and in all places where the hosts be consecrated. And they persuade that there is the whole court off heaven, and that there is no more bread nor wine, but only the withcommes, off th'one and off the other. For their substancis, they be transsubstanciated, that is to say, changed in to the substance off the body, and blood, off Christ. All the which things, and many other, they have found out, to give the more credit to this their mass, to th'intent, that the people should have more devotion to it. They have found that it is good for every thing, and that it hath virtues innumerable, and they have given us to understand so many other things off this Mass, that it is a wonder. Further more, as we have proved in the former discorse that we have made from the Introibo, to the end, how many falsedes, how many superstitions, wickednesses, and blasphemies be in this Mass? There Christ is rob off his honour many ways, Yea he is evil spoken off, the forgiveness off sins, the satisfaction, the ransoming, the entreating, and the salvation is attributed to other things. Do you not think that a most grievous sacrilege is committed when his glorios titles be directly plucked from him, and his honour and glory taken away? The which outrages so open and so plain, were never committed in any Idolatry off the heathen, or off the jews.  
And to perceive better that which we do say, you must understand, that even as jesus Christ is Gods best beloved, nor that the same God loveth any other thing so much as Christ his only begotten son (yea I speak off him in that he is man) nor no nother man off the world can be reconciled, nor return in to Gods favour but by Christ, yea no manner thing, whether it be prayer, thanks giving, allmes or any other manner off work is acceptable, or thankful to God, though not by Christ, nor we can not have any manner off benefice, pertaining to salvation, but thorough Christ, so on the contrary there can not be done a thing more hateful, more displeasing to god, and that should be more abominable to him, than to do against Christ, and to rob his honour and glory. And the more a thing is against Christ, the more it displeaseth him, for so much as nothing pleaseth him but thorough christ. And because there was never in the world any Idolatry the which so directly, and so many ways did rob Christ, as this mass, we must conclude that no idolatry, although it were most great, was ever so abominable before god as this. Let us take the idolatries of the heathen, it is clear that they had not the knowledge of Christ, and therefore could not rob him in such sort, as the mass doth, in the which chiefly it made express mention of him in many places. The Idolatries likewise of the Hebrews they have not so expressly taken the honour from christ as the mass hath. Let us begin with the Idolatry that they did in the desert, when they honoured the calff, it was in deed a heavy sin, not withstanding it was done by want of consideration, with an uprowr, and rage of the people, And Aaron unwillingly and for fear agreid unto them, 
Exod. 20.  as it is written in exodus. Nor that people had not so much know lead of Christ as we, there was made no mention of forgiveness of sins, of satisfation, of ransoming, or of the things belonging to Christ's office. Nor Christ was not rob of his honour, so many ways as in the mass he is. And so let us go thorowall the Idolatries of that people, as well of the tribe of juda, as of the x. tribes. The x. tribes did worship ij. goldin calves, made by king hieroboam, th'one was in bethel, 
3. Reg. 12.  and tother in Dann. This was idolatry for 〈◊〉 respectis. First when by god's commandment they should have worshipped in Jerusalem, they worshipped else where. Than also because they worshipped carved things, that is to say, the ij. Imagis of caluis against gods express commandment in the law, the which for biddeth, that there should be made any Image carved, or of any other sort to worship it. They did worship also the image of baal under king Achab, as it is written in the book of the kings, in Helias time the Prophet, 
3. Reg. 16.18  and they did sacrifice unto it. The tribe of juda, and the tribe of benjamin, they also have many times done idolatry, the which although that they fawted more committing idolatry than the x. tribes, because they had greater knowledge of god, being better instructed, and taught, in god's worship and in his law, because they had more plenty off Prophets, And also because with them was God's doctrine more pure, and less corrupted, than among the 10. tribes, nevertheless, they had not for all that so much knowledge off God, and off Christ as we, nor they did not so many ways directly offend Christ, as thes do in the mass, as it appeareth plainly by all this whole discourse.  
 it is thus than, that God and Christ is more offended in the Mass, than in all the other Idolatries that ever were in the world, whether it be off the heathen, or off the Hebrews, the conclusion followeth that we desired to prove. And for more clearness, or else evidence off this our proof, let us gather together in a Somm all our talk made in this chapter. 
An Epilog. or short rehearsal off the reason.  And let us say, that Idolatry, or else falls worship, in the which God and Christ be more, and off more sortis rob off their honour, and is among that people that have more knowledge off the same God and Christ, than the other, that Idolatry (I say) is greater sacrilege, and abomination, than all the other. This saying is so clear, that none can reasonably deny it. But the Mass is a falls worship, and an idolatry, in the which Gods, and Christ's honour, is more, and after moo sorts rob than in my other, and is among that people that have more knowledge of God, and Christ, than the rest, for it is among the Christian people, therefore that is the greatest sacrilege, and the most abomination, that ever was in any manner off world. That the mass is such a worship and such an Idolatry in the which Gods, and Christ's honour is more rob, than in any other that ever was, we have by our former talk plainly enough proved it. First that it is a falls worship, we have proved it, because it is found out by men, and further, because the , and the cup, be worshipped, and that God's honour and Christ's is rob many ways, we have also proved. First because he that saith the mass doth usurp Christ's office as well because he offereth Christ himself to God, as the favourers off the mass confess and affirm, the which thing (that is to say to offer the same Christ) belonged only to him, who as the chief priest hath offered himself unto God, up on the wood off the cross. Further also, because that he, that is to say, the Mass sayer, is made entreater between the people and God, the which thing is Christ's office only. Thirdly, because it maketh the Mass to be a sacrifice for sins, the which in like sort belongeth to Christ only, as likewise we have proved in the second chapter of this fourth part. The fautors, of the mass would that the same should forgive the sins of the living, and the dead, should satisfy for them, and that it should save men, all the which things belong only to gods grace thorough Christ, and be the proper offices of Christ, and they be not of any creature. This mass robbeth from the cross, from the passion, from the blood, from the death, and from the beriall of Christ, because that that which Christ did, with thes things, they would that the mass should do it. Surely, the mass, as they think worketh thes effects. And what is it to rob christ of his honour, iff this be not? That is to say, to pluck from him the glory of the priesthood, of the intreatorship, of the only sacrifice, and to be short, of the only redeemer, and saver? We have seen how many falsedes, how many superstitions, wickednesses, and blasphemies be therein, shall it not than be a sacrilege, shall it not be an abomination above all other sacrileges and abominations seeing it is an heap of sacrilegis and abominations? Yes surely shall it. It is therefore clear and plain, that the mass is the greatest sacrilege, and the greatest abomination, that ever was in any world.  
It is an easy things to prove, by the things already spoken, that it is the great mystery of Antichrist, And it followeth necessarily, that though the mass be the greatest sacrilege, and abomination, that ever was in the world, that also it is the great mystery of Antichrist, called by Paul, for the excellenci of it, the mystery of iniquity. Nevertheless for more clearness, and better proof of the thing, we will say also a few words to this purpose. It is plain that Antichrist is the chief child, member, and elect instrument of sathan, 
2. Thessa. ●….  called by Paul, the son of perdition, by the which the same sathan, with all the means and weighs that he can, and knoweth, seeketh to withstand Christ, and to fight against him. And this he doth chiefly after ij. sortis. One is openly that every man saith. The other is secretly and much worse. The open way is with the persecutions that he doth against the servants of jesus Christ, afflicting them, tormenting them and killing them, by means of the princes of the world, and as it is said, with the secular power. For surely thes same be no nother but the Arms, of Antichrist, with the which he fighteth against Christ, although that the poor princes be not aware of such things, but be deceived by the Antichristians, that be in their cowrtis. And this manner off withstanding Christ, although it be open to all men, nevertheless Antichrist being full off the mysteries off iniquities, and off devilish crafftines, with marvelous and most craffty pretensis, and colours, maketh it to seem, to be of another sort than it is. For although this manner of persecuting Christ, is all wholly wicked, and Satanike, yet nevertheless, he giveth to understand, that it is a godly, and a religios thing, and that it is, a defence of Christian religion, and a keeping of it, persuading that Christ's servants be heretics, and that the faithful Christians be Lutherans. He giveth to understand that he is Christ's lifftenant, yea, that he is a God on earth, and not withstanding he procureth as much as he can, that Christ's doctrine should not come in to the light, because it is that that discovereth him, and maketh him open to the world. And he would not be known for him that he is, that is to say, for Antichrist, which is as much to say, as Christ's chief adversary. Do you not think that this is a new manner off making war against a prince, to search by all means to beat him down, to kill all his, and to overthrow him utterly? And than off the other part to give to understand, and make the world believe, that he workith for him, that is to say, to maintain him in his state, and to keep him in his dominion? What say you? Doth not this seem to be a fine art, to make war upon one wit his most might, and openly to seek to overthrow him utterly, and of the other side, to make believe to the world that every thing that he doth, he doth it to serve him and to do him pleasure? Even so doth Antichrist against Christ. For he withstandeth him, he is his chiefest and most mortal enemy, and nevertheless he saith he is his Leefftenant, and doth every thing to serve Christ, and to maintain his kingdom, that is to say, his church. Why do you not now at length open your eyes Oh Christians? Is it not enough that hitherto you have been so miserably, and with so great loss deceived? Rise up, o God, and judge thine own cause. Suffer not any longer, o lord, so great disorder that the people should be of this sort handled. 
Apocal. 13.  Deliver them now at length, from so great a bondage, from this so hard and long a tyranny.  
The other way of making war against Christ, is more hidden, and secret, and is not seen as the first, but it is without comparison much worse, and more hurtful, because that the first directly hurteth the bodies, but this second hurteth and is deadly to the souls. For so moch as that with more craffti and secret ways, he doth falsify Christ's doctrine, the holy gospel, and the truth, It taketh Gods own word, giving it falls understanding, and useth it for a weapon against Christ, and the truth. And this without fear of persecution, persuadeth under the show of godliness, and religion, that the falsediss, wickednessis, and blasphemies, be holy, and godly things. As for example that the pardons which to him that hath eyes to see, be an open deceit, and yet he hath given to understand that they forgive sins, with bullis, with visitations of churches, with stations, with pilgrimagis, with cords, with girdles, with garmentis, and such like trumpery, and that thes things help to everlasting life. And here I might have to talc a long time and could if I would, give innumerable examples, but because I would not be long, I have only given the example of the pardons. But to come to our purpose, among the whole number of doctrines, inventions, deceits, craffti bartering of Antichrist, there is none so wittily done, with so great art and conveians, as the Mass. In the which Antichrist himself, hath bestowed all his wit, and all his knowledge in building it, to make it be counted, and taken for the principal worship of Christian religion, nor one only hath not laid hand to this doing, but many.  
About the building off salomon's temple (the which surely was done with most high wisdom) the bilders were 7. years, and than they ended the work. But about the building of the Mass, how many hundreth years have been bestowed, and by how many bilders? One hath put to one thing, a nother another, according to the divers Antichristes' that follow done another. And how should one only, ever have been able (I will not say to make) but to Imagine, so great an h●…̄dy work. Surely it could never have been possible. And all this is done under colour and show off doing a thing most choysefull, and thankful to God, for the benefit off the souls, and profit off the bodies. And Antichrist hath not without great cause bestowed here all his whole knowledge and labour, because that he hath well seen, that principally his kingdom, and rule, consisteth in the same Mass as in a strong castle, and in a well defended hold.  
And without doubt when the mass is thrown to the ground, the whole kingdom of Antichrist, goeth to utter decay. Therefore it is no marvel, though by all means he can, and knoweth, he hath sought and doth seek a fresh to favour her, to defend her, to keep her, and to privilege her. He careth not though every other thing go to the mischeff, so that his kingdom may remain still on foot. There is no man's wit that can search out, and much less any tongue declare, the crafftines, the subtlety, the bartering falsode of this Mass, nor the great harm that it hath done sins it began, and doth continually among the Christian people. There is no pestilens, there is no manner of sickness, that so infecteth the bodies, as this Mass doth the souls. The pestilens killeth the bodies, this the souls. The pestilens though it be in one city it is not in another, iff it be in one country, it is not in another, iff it be at one time, it is not at another, it doth not commonly continue any long time, but for a few months. And it were a great thing iff it should last a year. But the disease of this Mass, hath been common to all the Christian people, and yet is, and hath continued many hundreth years and yet doth.  
I have gone about in this book to say somewhat of this mass, but in deed I confess, I am no thing nigh the mark, nor have hit the point I should, as well by reason of my dull wit, as also that it is not possible that one only man, might be able to disclose so many deceits, as be therein, and to say so much as the matter requireth. Therefore I desire those to whom God by his grace hath granted more understanding of his things then to me that they will supply my want. And let it not be one only that should take in hand this enterprise, but many, because here is enough to say for all, the matter being most large, and as it were endless. And let them not doubt a whit, that this deep sea can ever be drawn out, or utterly dried up. And they shall do a most thankful thing to God, And very profitable to the Christian people.  
Many have written of this Mass, and one hath said one thing, another another thing, but all in generality, and no one that I know, hath considered it particularly. And therefore it could not well be known what manner a thing it is. Therefore when I saw that no man took this enterprise on him, seeing that no better surgeon than myself came in place, because the rest were occupied about divers other things, God did put in my mind to take in hand this labour, that is to say to Anatomy her, and to consider her, part by part. And I have done that little that I could, desiring every faithful and Christian reader that he will pardon me, iff I have failed in any thing, because, to say the truth, who could ever be able to say of this abomination so much, as sufficeth, And as it displeaseth God and provoketh his anger? if God were so angry for the Idolatry committed by the Hebruissh people, 
Exod. 32.  that he punished them so many ways, first in the desert for the Idolatry of the goldin calff, Affterward particularly the 10. tribes in the land of promise, he rooted them out, and sent them in to perpetual banisshment for their Idolatries as it is written in the 4. of the kings. 
4. Reg. 17.  And further the people of juda was often afflicted, and stricken, for their Idolatries, that they did now in the hills, now in the valleys, now in the groves, and afterward they were sent captive to Babylon, And in the end, because they sold Christ, crucified him, persecuted his Apostles, evil handled and killed his disciples, And above all, because they despised the holy gospel, also the same people were sent in to continual banisshment, and worse handled than ever was any people under the heavens, and without comparison more grievously afflicted, and punished, than the 10. tribes, And that which is more, they be so cast off, that they shall never be more the people of God as Christ foretold in thevangelists, 
Matht 21. Marc 12. Luc. 20.  what shall become of the Christian people, that is to say of us, the which without comparison, as before we have seen, do deserve much worse? The Hebrewissh people many ways commit●…ed Idolatry, but we more ways and wi●…h greater Idolatry than they, as we have proved, but specially in this mass. The jews old Christ one only time, the massers sell him an infinite sort of times. judas sold him for 30. pens, thes sell him for a dandy pratt. The jews crucified him once only, and that unwittingly, not knowing that it was Christ, as Paul saith in the first to the Corinth's. For if they had known him, 
1. Corint. 2.  they would never have crucified the King of glory, we that know him and confess him to be Christ, do every day so often put him up on the cross, as we say Masses. Iff those people that without comparison, have committed much less Idolatry than we, and have less crucified Christ than we, were so sharply afflicted and stricken, and aff●…er sent in to perpetual banisshment, what shall become off us? Iff the jews were so evil handled, and after utterly cast off, what can we look for, for so grievous and great an Idolatry of this Mass, in the which so many ways we offend God and wrong Christ? Would to God that I were no prophet, and did not truly foregesse? And what do I say forgesse? if God's word be true, as it can not be otherwise, if God be ever the same as he ever was, Iff after the most grievous sins, and withow repentans of the people, if after continual perseverans from evil, to worse, always and in all times, there followed and never failed, sharp revenge, most great scourges, and utter ruins, what other thing should we conclude but that either the self same, or a much greater overthrow and ruin, must fall up on us, for as much as we have much more sinned, and provoked God unto anger? Ought we not now at length to know, that how much more slow God is to ponissh, so much greater ponisshments he layeth on? And when he beginneth to beat, he striketh so much the more grievously? we see the most mighty enemy of the Christian name, which is the great Turk, draw nigh to wards us, yea that he hath driven us in to this corner of Europe, and continually he cometh on nearer us, and day by day maketh his coming on greater. And who doubteth but this is god's work, with the which he threatnith us, and called us to repentans? And yet we, as it were blind men, not considering gods goodness, and long suffering, do heap up, and bring together sins up on sins, hurding up god's wrath up on us, stirring and provoking him to to greater fury. Banisshment, bondage, and other worldly ponisshments, be in comparison of hour deserts of little weight and small punisshmentes, because they all pass a way, and with the present life shortly do end, but the spiritual ponisshments, and those of the soul, that allweys continue, that is to say, the everlasting owtcasting, the horrible and continual wailings, who can esteem them and worthily consider them?  it is thus than, O Christian people, flee this mass, the which many ways kindleth gods wrath, Flee it as a deadly and most perelloes pestilens of your souls. And you chiefly, which were and yet be ministers of so great abomination. Seeing now that ye know it, cease from saying, and celebrating it any more, and from being cause to make the poor people, commit so great an error. And do you penans for that which is past, and desire you the most favourable lord, and our heavenly father, that he would deal with you, not according to your sins, but according to the multitude of his mercies, that he would deliver you from all evil through jesus Christ our saviour.   

THE sixth CHAPTER. That the mass is of such quality and craft, and after such sort abominable, that no man living, for any manner of pretense, respect or occasion that can be, may by any manner of means, with a safe consciens, either say it, hear it or any ways be present at it.  
MAN'S nature is of such sort craffty and witty, that it can tell, even how to deceive itself. There are found in the world certain excellent dise Coggars, and cardsetters, that trapp, as it were, all men that they have to do with, and it behoveth a man to be well aware, lest they beguile him, nevertheless they do only beguile other, and not themselves. But our nature is so shiftfull and ware, that it doth not only beguile other, but itself also. And this it doth chiefly in those things that like them, and serve for their commodities. And it seemeth that it hath learned the art of deceiving, of the subtle serpent, tre which with his persuasions and Enticements, brought our first mother Eve to eat of the apple, and to do contrary to god's commandment, making her believe one thing for another. Even so doth also man to wards himself, that can meruelosly colour, and set a face on his deceits to make them excusable. Not wi●…hstonding when he hath well turned and tossed himself, with as many scusies as he can bring forth, it is found at ●●ight, that he hath erred. And he plainly saith that his crafftes, be very follies. There be many now a days in Germany, in France, in Spain, in Italy that have received the gospel, and have the knowledge of Christ, but finding themselves in the mids of their enemies, and fearing persecution, chiefly when they see the poor Christians to be evil handled, the which now by this hateful name to the world be called Lutherans, And that some of them be taken and put in to the galleys, Some Imprisoned, some other be cruelly tormented up on the Rack, Some hanged, Other drowned in the rivers, and other burnt, they be affrayed, And because they would not be marked, and accused for Lutherans, they go to the mass, and do against their consciens. And to prove that this is true, if the fear that they have, had not been, they would never have gone to the mass. And the cause why they would not have gone is, that they should have thought to have done evil, and against their consciens, this is clear. Yet as I have said, being affrayed either of losing their temporal goods, or rather their skin, they do as other do. And to the intent that they might after some sort be scused they allege certain pretensis with the which they deceive themselves, and the reasons that they bring forth, be thes.  

The 1. reason.  First they say that though they go not to mass, and evensong or other used ceremonies, they fear to lay a great Stumbling stock for the simple and weak, and to give them occasion to think, or else at least suspect, that they be despisers, yea scorners of Christian religion, or else heretics, and enemies of the church, and not going to mass there is given them a wicked example, seeing the poor souls think such things to be lawful and christian-like. And that for such respect, it is well done to go to the mass, and to their service, and to dissemble so long, till they may have gotten the true knowledge. And when they go not to the mass, the simple take a very evil example to do the like against their consciens.  
Than next the Apostle Paul doth teach us, 
The second reason.  to apply ourselves to all men, and to fashion ourselves with other, as we have in the first to the Corinth's where he saith, I am made servant of all men, to the jews I am made a jew, 
1. chor. 9  to win them: To them that be under the law, as though I were under the law, to th'intent that I might win them: To them that be without law, as though I were without law (although that I as to ward god am not without law, but bound to Christ's law,) to th'intent that I might win them: I am made to the weak as though I were weak, to th'end that I might win the weak: I am become allthings to all, that at the least I might win some. if th'apostle Paul applied himself to all, and did teach that the like also aught to be done by others, Why shall not we go to the mass with other, doing as they do, applying our selves to them, when we seek to win them?  

The third reason Psal. 7. jerem. 17. Apocal. 2.  Also the scripture saith that god is the searcher of hartis, and he looketh chiefly up on the minds, and considreth to what end a thing is done, this is plain. Therefore if one with a good intent shall go to the mass, not to offend god, but only for the foresaid respectis, that is to say, for to avoid giving of evil example, and occasion of slander to the weak, but rather to draw than by little and little to the knowledge of Christ, he shall not sin, chiefly not consenting to the abuses and to those superstitions that there be committed, for so much as the sin is in the will, and in the consent, and not in the out ward show.  

The 4. reason.  Furthermore, by this that we go to the mass, we allow no nother thing but Christis institution, that is to say, the sacrament of jesus Christ's body and blood. For not withstanding those additions that be made there, the substance of the same sacrament, by this is not taken a way, as by the additions that be made in baptism, that is to say, salt, spittle, cream, Tapers, Light, conjurings, and that the child is axed of the faith: And to conclude, that every thing is said in an unknown tongue, thes additions make not that it should not be true baptism, because there is the substance of the same, that is to say, the water, And after, those holy words, that is to say, I baptize the in the name of the father, the son, and of the holy ghost, Amen. Even so is it of the mass, that for all that, that there be many things added, and that it is infolied with many divicis of men, yet the substance not withstanding of the sacrament is there, that is to say, the bread, and the wine, and the words of the consecration, the which things be instituted, and ordained, by Christ himself, nor our purpose is not to allow any other thing but Christis plain institution. And although there be made a certain worship, we do not worship the sacrament (For god forbidden we should) but we do worship jesus Christ and no nother. Therefore we do not sin going to the mass, for so much as that we do not approve any other thing than that which is good, and that which is of god. The rest we leave, and we gather, as it is commonly said, the rose and leave the thorns.  
To conclude, 
The fifft reason.  they bring forth th'examples of the holy scripture, that is to say, of Nicodemus, of joseph of the city of Aramathea, which both were secret disciples of jesus Christ. 
Luk. 23. john 3.7.19.  And thevangelists do witness of them, saying that they were just. 
joh. 3.7.19.  And of Nicodemus john writeth that he came first to jesus by night, Affterward he defended him in the council of the jews, In the end he carried an hundredth pound of myrrh and Aloes to Christ's burial. Surely thes were holy and just men, yet they hid themselves for fear of the jews, the which cold not have been if they had not dissembled with tother jews, doing as they did.  

4. kings 5.  They bring forth also th'example of Naaman Sirus of whom it is written in the iiij, book of the kings, that Heliseus granted him, that he might enter in to the temple of Remmon, which was an Idol, and to worship in the same with the king of Syria, Naaman being the chief of the same king's war. And why may not we also do the like?  
Now thes and other like reasons and scusis be no nother, but pretences to do evil, and leaves with the which men would yet cover those things that they do, but they be deceived, as we will make it appear. But first we will prove our purpose, that is to say, that by no means it is lawful to a Christian, to say, nor to hear, no nor to be present at the mass, and after we will answer to thes reasons. He that goeth to the mass, doth iij. great evils. 
He that goth to the mass doth 3. great evils.  First he doth against the honour nor of God, Secondly against his neighbours safety: Thirdly against his own soul health. That he doth against God's honour, I will prove it. It is plain that in no case, it is at any time lawful, to do against God's honour, for so much as the honour and glory of God, with the angels, with men, and with all manner of creatures, is of more importans, than the heaven and the earth, because that God hath made every thing for his glory, as Solomon saith in the Proverbis, that is, 
prover. 16.  the lord hath wrought all things for himself, and the wicked for the evil day. That he who goth to the Mass, or saith it, or standeth there present at it, doth against God's honour, it is to plain, for that we have in the former discourse hitherto proved, that the Mass is the greatest abomination that ever was in all worlds, because that there is committed a most great Idolatry, and that honour that belongeth only to God, and Christ, is given to plain creatures. The Mass is full of falsodes, of superstitions, of abuses, of wickednessis, and of blasphemies against God and Christ. And how can it be ever lawful in any case (let it be what so ever it will) for a Christian man to say it to hear it, or to be present at it? And if a gentle man do more esteem his honour than his own life, how much more ought we to esteem God's honour for the which we ought to give not only one, but infinite lives though we had so many. And so much the more as every life is his gifft, and proceedeth from him, yea is his? We do read that many Idolaters have bestowed their life for their earthly country, and for thonour of the same, the which notwithstanding after this present life did look for none other. And shall the Christian fear to give his mortal life for God's honour and Christ's, for them, of whom he is every way most sure that he shall have everlasting life?  
I prove this thus. Paul saith to the Romans, every thing that is not of faith is sin. Who is he knowing what manner a thing the Mass is, that knoweth not likewise the same to be against God's word? if it be so, how then can one with faith, and good consciens be present at a thing the which he judgeth to be blasphemos, damnable and against God? And who doubteth that he who doth against his consciens sinnith, let him do what so ever he will? It is not therefore lawful by any manner of means to be present at the Mass. That he doth against his neighbours safety likewise prove it. First he offendeth, and hurteth them that have not yet the knowledge of Christ. For so much as when they see one that hath the knowledge of the gospel, stand at the Mass, hearken to it, bow himself, and kneel to the Sacrament, and worship it, what else can they think, but that he hath the self same opinion that they themselves have? And this being persuaded, they be confirmed in their error, saying to them seluis, behold him who was come to that new opinion or religion, now he changeth his mind, and returneth to the old faith the which he had forsaken. Surely he would never have returned if he had not known that he was deceived by the pretense of the gospel, and perceived that with us is the true gospel, the true church and Christ's religion. God forbidden that we should forsake our opinion, the which he with evident deeds, doth show to be good. And with thes thoughts, they be enstranged from the gospel, and from the truth, and be confirmed in error. Do you think that this is a small evil, with our example to estrange the minds of men from the gospel, and and from Christ, and to confirm them in antichrist's church?  
Secondly it hurteth the weak faithful, the which begin to believe the gospel, for when they see that they, who better understand than themselves go to the Mass, they become weaker in faith, and occasion is given them to return to their first errors. And after this sort in the race of faith, they be stopped, not only hindered, because they begin to doubt. And what saith Christ of those that offend the little ones? 
Math. 18. Marc. 9 Luc. 17.  He that shall offend (saith he) one off thes little ones the which believe in me, it were better for him that a mill stone should be hanged about his neck, and that he were drowend in the depth of the sea.  
Thirdly he hurteth the stout and strong in faith, and hurteth the Christian cause itself, because he maketh, that the wicked men more boldly do say evil of the true faith, do wrong it, and make it hateful, many manner of ways. Is not this daily seen, that how many more men do openly enter in to a lie, and in to an error, that so much the more falsoode is strengthened, and the same lie confirmed, and the truth more down beaten, And the wicked men become so much the more fierce, and stout, to down beat the good cause, and all those that defend it, as they see it wax weaker?  
He doth also against his own soul health. For when he goth to the Mass against his consciens, he showeth that he loveth better himself, than Christ and God, and the timed life, more than the everlasting, and he is condemned by Christ's sentens, the which saith, he that loveth his soul, 
john. 12.  that is to say his temporal life shall lose it, and he that hateth his sowl in this world, shall keep it in everlasting life. And in luke he saith, iff any man come to me and hate not his father, his mother, his wife, his children, his brethren and sisters, yea and his own life, he can not be my disciple. 
Luc. 14.  Is not this well known, that they that have the knowledge of the gospel, and go to the Mass, go thither for fear lest they should lose their goods, and be affrayed lest they should be persecuted? why follow they not the council, yea the commandment of Christ who saith, fear not those that kill the body, because they can not kill the soul, 
Math. 10.  but rather fear him that can send the body and soul to destruction in to hell fire. So that than thes ground works remaining that the going to the Mass is against the honour of God, the profit of his neighbour, and against his own soul health, that goth thither, It is an easy thing to answer to those reasons or rather scusis that certain make of the which we have spoken before.  
Where as first they say that they go to the 
1.  Mass, to avoid the offending of the simple and weak, and to th'intent that they should not think of them, that they were despisers, and mockers of religion, or else heretics and enemies off the church, iff they go not to the Mass. And that for such respect it is good to dissemble so long till that such weaklings might be brought to the true knowledge. I answer that there be 2. sortis of offences, the one is called an offence given, tother an offence taken. The first offence is when a man doth any evil work, by the which he offendeth his neighbour. As for example, if one should blaspheme or commit some thefft, or else otherwise should expressly do against God's commandment. This manner of offence is an offence given, because that he who doth such an evil work, doth surely give occasion of offence, the work being of itself wicked, and against God. Or else if the work off itself were not wicked, but might be left undone without offending God, and yet the man not having respect to his weak neighbour, would do it to satisfy, his appetite. As for example, there is one that hath the knowledge of the gospel, and of Christ, and knoweth that a Christian may at all times with thanks giving, 
1. Timo. 4.  use every meat for his need, and shall chance sometime into the company of certain simple and ignorant men, the which shall think grievously toffend though they shall eat flesh on the friday, and he that hath the knowledge, to satisfy his appetite will eat of it, not having respect to those poor souls the which be offended with him for that eating. This manner of man sinneth, and doth against charity as Paul saith to the Romans, 
Roma. 14.  if for meat thy brother be troubled, thou dost not now walk according to charity. And in the 1. to the Corinth's he saith, 
1. Corint. 8.  rather than the meat should offend my brother, I will never eat flesh. Thes such like offences be called offencis given, because in deed the man giveth such occasion of offence and sinneth.  
But there is another sort of offencis, the which as I have said before are called offences taken, shalt is to say, when a man is offended for things, for the which he ought not to be offended, but taketh occasion of offence without just cause, as certain do that be offended, at good works, after the manner of the Phariseis, which were offended with Christ, because he healed certain sick men on the Sabbath day, or else be offended though a man abstain from wicked works. Now this such kind off offence is no sin, because the man properly doth not give offence, but other do take it for offence the which they ought not to do, yea they offend, esteeming and cownting that to be offence, which is well done. The faithful and godly man ought not to pass, even as Christ passed not, though other were offended for such works or things, for so much as that a man must cease from well doing, or else must needs do evil, that would avoid such kind off offencis. Even so it is in this case. Iff any will be offended that one goth not to the Mass, or else that the Images be not honoured, a man ought not to care for it. For if it had needed to care for such offencis, it had been fit for the martyrs that they should have worshipped the Idols, For the Idolaters were offended at them, because they worshipped them not. Yea, I say, that the simple and the weak, have more occasion off offence (speaking of the true offence) and be more offended, if one that hath knowledge go to the Mass, than if he went not. For as before I have proved, by such going they be hurt, for so much as that they be confirmed in their error, the which is much worse for them to be so offended than to be offended, for that other offence the which, is no true offence in deed.  
To the saying of th'apostle the which saith that he did apply himself to all men, and that we ought to do the same, and to go to the Mass with them that go, I say, that th'apostle Paul did apply himself to all men, in those things that did not offend God, as was in certain ceremonies, and in his manner off life, and in certain customs which were no sin. He kept company with the jews, and lived as they did, keeping their ceremonies, forbearing those meats that they did forbear. He did eat and drink with the gentiles, he used their meats, he kept company with them, to have occasion to convert them to Christ. And thes things were no sin, but in those things wherein he should have offended God, he would never have applied himself unto them. And that this is true, Consider that we read not, that ever he did honour the Idols, or else went to their sacrifices. And why so? Because he should have offended God. So we knowing that the Mass is an abomination, we ought not by any manner of means to go to it, but rather to die than to go thither, because it is against God, and Christ's honour, as we have proved.  
To that other excuse which saith, that God beholdeth the hartis, and considereth to what end a thing is done, and so that a man do not consent with his heart to the abuses that be committed in the Mass, it is no sin to go to it: I answer, that if this reason availed, the martyrs, as I have said before, might have worshipped the Idols without sin, and we with a good consciens may deny Christ. For although that the martyrs should have worshipped the Idols, they would never have worshipped them with the heart, but only owtwardly, and unwillingly, And we may deny Christ with the mouth but not with the heart. And what inconueniencis be thes? Christ will not only that we should believe in him, but will that we also should confess him with the mouth, and with the outward deeds, for else we shall not be true Christians, 
Math. 10.  but we shall be denied of him, as he saith in S. Matthew. He that shall acknowledge me before men, I will acknowledge him before my father which is in heaven. 
Luck. 12.  And in Luke he saith, before the angels of God, And he that shall deny me before men, I will deny him before my father which is in heaven. And th'apostle Paul saith to the Romans. 
Roma. 10.  With the heart men believe to justice, but with the mouth is made the confession to safety. God will for 2. respectis have of us the outward confession, that is to say, that we should make plain to men, our faith and religion, as well with words, as with deeds. First for his own glory, because that he is honoured and glorified, when the true religion is openly uttered. Than further also, for the benefit of our neighbour, to th'intent that by such confession, he might follow the true knowledge of God and holy religion. And to prove this true, tell me after what sort is the Christian religion increased, except first by the preaching of the holy gospel, and than by the blood of martyrs? The idolaters saw the poor Christians constant in acknowledging Christ's name, they saw them persecuted, taken, imprisoned, punished, and miserably murdered, and said to themselves, surely this people could never have been so constant, with so great and stout minds, nor they would never have suffered so great tormentis, and so sharp death, iff they had not been certain that, after this present life, there be laid up for them, most great rewards: And if this their religion had not been true. And after this sort they were converted to Christ, and Christ's religion increased, that is to say the number of believers.  
Further I say, that true faith is not without the profession, not only of words, but of deeds and works. 
Hebr. 11.  Paul saith to the Hebrews, that by faith the saints have wrought justice, and some of them by faith were racked, tormented, and beaton, some were stoned, some cut in pecis, sawed, killed with the sword, and divers ways exercised. 
2. john. 5.  And john in the 1. saith that our faith is the victory that overcommith the world. He that hath the true faith, confesseth it, and showeth it with deeds. Therefore to be short I answer to that reason, and I say, that it is true, that God looketh up on the hartis, and if the heart had not consented, there should not have been any sin, but here in this case, the heart consenteth unto it, for if the man had not agreid to go to the Mass, he would not have gone thither, but he goeth because he agreeth to go although he go thither unwillingly. The heart had not consented, if the man had been carried thither by force, or drawn thither with roopes, or chains, And in such case he had not fawted. But this chanceth, not to those that go to the Mass, because they be not forced to go thither, but they go thither willingly, although with a certain loathsomeness. And we must know, that all that which is done unwillingly, is not done by force, for so much as many things be done with grief, and unwillingly, and yet they be done with the consent of the mind. As for example, the taking of a bitter medicine, the causing of some sick part of the body to be cut of, thes things should not be done though the man were not content, and did not agree to them. That saying, that is to say, that when a man hath not a wicked, but a good intent, 
Roma. 3.  and doth that which he doth to help his neighbour, is not to the purpose, because we must not do evil that good may come of it.  
To the other reason or rather excuse, the which saith that they, that go to the Mass, iff they have the knowledge of the gospel, they do not allow the abuses, nor those additions that be there, but only that which Christ made, that is to say, the Sacrament of his body and blood. For those additions do not take away the substans of the Sacrament, I answer, first that that Sacrament (as we have said before) is not Christ's true Sacrament, but although that it were a true Sacrament, it were not therefore convenient to go thither, seeing there is in the same so many falsedes, so many errors and abuses, which defile, and stain, the clearness of Christ's institution. Nor it is not enough to say, we do allow nothing, but that which Christ did, and not any other: because that this allowing is only known to themselves, and not to other, who when they see that one goeth to the Mass, do think that, he alloweth the whole, and they be confirmed in their error though they be wicked, iff they be not wicked, they have occasion of offence and remain offended. And although that none were offended, nor confirmed in wickedness, yet understanding that the Mass is a bottom, and a roll of blasphemies, how should the ears of the faithful, behable to hear, and their eyes suffer to see, so great an abomination, the which so many ways doth rob God and Christ, of their honour, yea that speaketh evil of them.  
To the examples alleged of joseph of the city of Arimathea and of Nicodemus, Just and holy men, the which for fear of the jews did dissemble, I answer first that there is a great differens between thes 2. and those that go to the Mass. For although for fear they did not open themselves to be Christ's disciples, nevertheless they did not for all that commit any manner of Idolatry, nor they went not to such abominations as the Mass is. Further, it is no good reason, to go about to defend a man's own faults, with the faults of holy men. Nor we ought not to follow the saints in those things wherein they have erred, but only in those things that be worthy of commendation. What a foolish thing were it, if an adulterer would make his excuse that to commit adultery is not evil, because that David committed adultery. And would excuse the denial of Christ to be no sin, because that Peter denied him thrice? Even so do they that will with joseph's and Nicodemussis weakness 'scuse their error, that is to say, that it is lawful to go to the Mass, and dissemble, because that those 2. holy men, for fear have dissembled, they being of Christ's disciples. But let thes manner of men tell me this one point, what is the cause why they do not rather follow thes holy men in the stoutness of their doings, rather than in their weakness, that is to say that although whilst Christ lived on the earth they were afraid to be known for his disciples, nevertheless at the time of his death when all the other disciples were hiddon, except john, and the women, and when, rather than in any other time they should have been afraid, than they waxed stout.  
Thus they in time of tribulation, and when there was cause of fear be came stout and did not remain fearful. Why do they not follow them in the stoutness of the mind, which is a virtue, and not in the weakness of fear which is a vice? Who doubteth that joseph, and Nicodemus, when they dissembled for fear, were weak and unperfit Christians, and erred in that they did not boldly confess Christ? Let us not I pray you allege the holy men in things evil done, to follow them, but in things worthy of praise and well done, only, for so much as that in those things only we ought to follow them, and not in other.  
To the example of Naaman Syrus, I say, that they allege it herein evil, saying, that Heliseus should licens him that he might enter in to the God's temple of the Assyrians, called Remmon, in company with the king of Assyria, and to worship with him, and I say, that this is not true, yea it is clean contrary, as it appeareth in the story of the same Naaman written in the fourth book of the kings, 
4. Kings 5.  where the text saith, that the same Naaman chief of the king of Assyrians war, when he was healed of the leprosy by Heliseus, thorough God's might, and being washed 7. times in the river of jordan, when he was returned to Helyseus, he said, Surely I know that there is no nother God on the whole earth, but he of Israel, and desiring to give him a gifft, Helyseus did not accept it. Further the text saith, that the same Naaman desired the Prophet, that he would grant him so much earth of that country as 2. moils could carry, and said, because thy servant will not make any more  offering, or sacrifice to strange Gods, but to the lord. By the which words he declared himself to believe in the true God, and to profess him. And after he added, But there is this one only thing, in the which thou shalt pray for thy servant, when my lord, that is to say, my king of Syria shall enter in to the temple of Remmon, to worship and while he leanyth on my hand, Iff I shall worship, when he worshippeth in the same place, that the lord would pardon me thy servant for this thing, And Heliseus said unto him, go in peace. Here we see that Naaman desired Helyseus that if it chanced him to worship in the temple of Remmon, that he would pardon him that fault, which fault if he should have done, Naaman himself without doubt knew it to be sin, for if he had not known it to be evil and sin, he would not have said to Helyseus, that he should pray God for him to pardon him. And Helyseus said unto him, Go in peace. The which words did not signify that the Prophet Helyseus did grant to Naaman or permit him, that he might enter in to the temple of Remmon, and worship there. Thes words did not mean to signify this, but they did signify and give to understand, that if it did happen him to commit such a fault, that he would pray to God for him to pardon him. There is a great differens between the saying to one I will pray to God for the to pardon thee, if thou shalt do or commit such a fault, and to say, I do grant the that thou mayst do it. And if any would say, what is the cause that the Prophet reproved not Naaman, saying to him, take heed Naaman that you commit not this great sin, nor do so great a fault. To this I answer that it needed not to say such words unto him, nor to warn him of such a thing because that Naaman did well know it to be evil done, yea he did confess it to be sin, iff it should chance him to do it. And it may be also that Helyseus did warn him that he ought not by any manner off means to suffer himself to be brought to fall in ●…o that error. For we must think that all the words be not written that happened between the one and tother, the story being shortly written. And to give an example let us admit that one should come to me that should say I go to the Emperor's court, and because I am near about his Majesty, it may chance me that I shall wait on him some time to the Mass. I know well that to go thither is sin and idolatry, yet if it should chance me for worldly respect, that I should at any time go thither, pray unto God for me, that he would pardon me this sin: And put in case that I should say unto him go in peace, by this my saying go in peace, I mean not to grant him that he might go unto the mass, Only I mean to say, go your way, and if any such thing shall happen you, I will pray to God for you, that he would pardon you. Even so were Helyseus words with Naaman. For he did not grant him that he might enter in to that temple, nor that he might worship, but only signified unto him that he would pray to God for him. This example therefore of Naaman doth nothing help those that will be scused by going to the Mass with a good consciens, but rather it accuseth them. For if they will do as Naaman did, they shall accuse themselves and confess to do evil, iff they go to the Mass, as he did confess it to be sin, iff he should go in to the temple of Remmon. Why do not they accuse themselves, and tell their fault, and axe pardon of God for so great a fault, and not go about to 'scuse it?  
Paraventur they will answer here and say, you in deed have goodly talk, you I say, that are out of gun shoot (as men be wont to say) and that are out of perils you that are in a sure place, and fear not to be taken, can give goodly council, but we that be sure, if we will not go to the Mass, to lose our goods and our riches, and our life withal, iff we presently will not deny Christ, what should we do? if you were in our place, we can not tell what you would do, whether you would be so stout in deeds, as you be bold in words. Here I do freely confess that I have great compassion on this manner of men, nor I will not show myself strong by reproving others. I know that stoutness is a rare gifft of God, and not granted to all men. And the more part of Christians have a weak and feeble faith, and the strong, and stout of mind be very few. But in this I reprove them that go to mas, that doing evil, as they do, they would excuse themselves that they sin not, and will with scuses lessen that their fault, which whilst they do, they increase the sin to their condemnation. Why do they not humble themselves, and confess that they do evil? why do they not axe of God the spirit of stoutness, and constant faith? It were reason that they should behold the saints examples of virtues, and not of weakenessis, that they should behold, as a man would say, 
Tob. 2.  Tobias of whom it is written in his book that being the youngest of his tribe of Neptalim, he went not with all the r●…st to worship the golden calves, the which jeroboam king of Israel had made, but did flee all their company, and went to worship God in jerusalem, nor he feared not to be persecuted, for not doing as the rest did. Can there be found any one Prophet that would go with the rest to worship those calves, or that would worship in the tops up on the mowntans, or else in the groves as the common people oft did. This shall never be found. Why do they not hehold those 3. young men of the which Daniel speaketh, that is to say, Annanias, 
Danie. 2.  Azarias and Misael, the which would rather be thrown in to the hot oven, than worship that goldin Image, which the king Nabuchodonosor made? why do they not follow the 7. Machabeys brethren with their godly mother? the which were miserably tormented and killed by the most cruel king Antiochus, because they would not eat hogs flesh, as it is written in the book of the Maccabees? 
2. Mach. 7.  why do they not follow th'apostles, So many martyrs, not only men, but women, yea so many young women, as Agnes, Katarin, Lucia and many other without number, that would rather die, than worship the Idols?  
Let them tell me, which is the greater Idolatry, that of the Idolatros gentiles or that of the Mass? That of the goldin caluis, or of the Mass? Which is the greater sin to eat hogs flesh, or to hear Mass? have not we proved that the Mass is the greatest Idolatry that ever was in the world? And what is the cause that the allegid saints did rather desire to die, than to consent to any Idolatry, or else to do against God's law? And shall we Christians make no consciens to consent to the greatest abomination that ever was? But let us lay a side the saints the which died because they would not offend God: seeing they had the knowledge of God and Christ, and the true religion, and looked, after this mortal life, for the everlasting, it is not to be marveled at. But what shall we say of the poor Idolaters the which had not the knowledge of Christ nor of God, no nor looked not for the reward of everlasting life? And yet for all this, many of them for thonour of the world and for Temporal glory have suffered most sharp ponisshments, and horrible torments, and were miserably killed. What shall we say of Marcus Antonius servant of whom is red, that because he would not utter the fault, that is to say the unchaste lust of his master, he suffered to be burnt with red hoot plates of Iron? In the end, he rather suffered to be torn, than to reveal the fault of the same Marcus Antonius. And so he overcame all the force of the accusers? What shall we say of Marcus Regulus, who because he would not break his faith given to the Carthaginensis, returned in to their hands, being sure that they would cruelly put him to death (as in deed they did) putting him in to a vessel of wood all full of very sharp nails that were sticked in to the vessel to th'intent that when the vessel should be moved, they should prick him on every side, and should tear his whole body. And many other that we might allege if we would? They suffered for a temporal honour, and for their earthly country, and yet they passed not to die. And will not we for jesus Christ's sake, for God's honour, and for the reward of everlasting glory, bestow hour mortal life? Shall we be less stout for Christ then the Idolaters for incestuose men? Shall we be less coragios to possess the everlasting country, than they to keep for other their earthly country?  
Surely our fault is most great, if we Christians for to have heaven, and the chief goodness, shall refuse to suffer that, that the men void of true godliness and religion, and that looked for no reward after this present life, have not refused to suffer for the temporal glory, that helped them nothing. Let us therefore conclude and say, that it is in no case, nor by no manner of means lawful to say this Mass, to hear it, nor to be present at it, chiefly for a Christian man, that hath the knowledge of the holy gospel, as by so many ways we have proved. And though yet it should hap that by weakness of faith and fear any should go thither, let them take heed, that they excuse not, and cover not themselves with bows, that is to say, with trifling, and vain excusis, after the manner of our first parentis Adam and Eve, the which would have covered their shames with figgleaves, believing that they should not be seen, for so much as that God's eyes do pierce, 
Hebr. 4. Eccle. 23.  and pass thorough thes leaves, and see the conscience and thoughts of man. There is no means nor any manner of way, to be hiddon from the sight of them. Well, let men find out as many coverings, and scusis, as they will, and can, yet their consciens shall never be quiet, but they shall allweys have the grudge thereof. And yet if they will by some means be well covered in God's sight, it shall be necessary that as was done with Adam and Eve after they had sinned, that is to say, that when they found themselves naked and shamefast to be seen, and having themselves no way to be covered with coats of skins. So let thes with tears axe of the same God, that they may be clothed with the same most pure, clean, holy and godly skin, that is to say, jesus Christ, to th'intent that being covered with it, they might be no more ashamed of God's sight. But this can not be done, iff they will 'scuse themselves. It behoveth that they accuse themselves, that they tell their own fault, that they do penance, and that plainly they confess to have erred. Affter this sort they shall obtain this godly garment, and they shall follow Paul's council, yea his commandment the which he teacheth writing to the Romans, put on the lord jesus Christ, 
Roma. 13.  for otherwise they shall allweys remain naked and with shame, that is to say, that their consciens shall never be quiet but they shall always have hell at home.  
Wherefore o Christians, even as in the beginning of this book I have exhorted you to read it and well to consider it to th'intent that you might understand the craft off this mass, so many ways blasphemos, so now in the end of the same, when you do clearly understand the most ungratios qualities of the same, that you will wholly forsake it. Hither to many, not only lay men, but priests, friars and monks have by ignorance fawted, thinking that it had been a thing most holy, and a worship most thankful to God, and therefore have hawnted it, not knowing it. And though they have grievously offended God, yet in some part they were excusable, having fawted by ignorance. And here I do not speak of those the which against their conscience, and knowing what manner a thing it was, only for fear, or other worldly respect, have dissembled, bacaus that those manner of men, have committed a great fault, albeit that they also shall be pardoned, iff they forsake the same, and do penance, and be sorry for that which is past. But now that by this book, (iff they will read it and understand it) all men's eyes are opened, and made plainly to see, with how many abuses, and cursings, it is not only full, but heaped, iff they shall (being priests, friars or monks) any more say it, or being other men, shall any more hear it, I say surely that they shall be utterly unexcusable and damnable, as they that knowingly and willingly shall sin even of very purpose, and shall heap up God's wrath up on them. Nor it shall not help nor avail them talleage the peril of their goods, of their howsold, or of their own life. For so much as that all thes things, and as many other as can be had in the world together with the life itself, compared to Christ, aught to be counted as vile, yea of no valour, and for his love we must necessarily forsake them: because he is that treasure hiddon in the field, and that precios margarite for the which we ought to sell all our goods to buy it. 
Math. 13.  And when we be brought to such an eschew that we must either lose all thes things with the mortal life, or forsake Christ. Who doubteth but all the rest ought to be forsaken, to keep Christ, whom though we have, we possess God and every good thing. What doth it help man (saith Christ himself) though he in deed win the whole world and lose his soul? 
Math. 1●….  What a folly is this to get other things, and to lose a man's self, without whom nothing can help or avail him? Off tother part, let us consider, that needs whether we will or no, we must leave the world, and this same life, for we be mortal, and cannot always tarry here, but we be certain that we must needs departed, and go out off this country, that is to say, die and change the life. This is a sure rule. And seeing that this is necessary, and we can not eschew it, is it not better for Christ's sake to leave the whole (the which is not in deed to lose, but to gain) and to lay up treasure in heaven, nor it is not to leave it, but to put it in to his hands, to th'intent that he everlastingly may keep it for us? Is it not better, I say, to do thus, than utterly to lose all together? It is a thing most certain, that he that looseth Christ, loseth every thing, and he that possesseth him, possesseth every good thing. I know that Antichrist with his tyrants, like a roaring lion doth threaten the lamb, and warreth with him, persecuting his after divers sortis, afflicting them, tormenting them, and in th'end, killing them. But for all that let them work as much as they will and can, yet they shall lose, and the lamb (as john saith in the Apocalypse) shall overcome them. 
Apo. 14.17.  For he is the king of kings and lord of lords that hath all power in heaven and in earth, 
Math. 28.  And hath a name above all names to whom every knee in heaven, in earth, 
Philip. 2.  and in hell is bowed, and there is not, that can resist him. Now it seemeth that he sleepeth, but the time will come of revenge, when, yea Antichrist with his tyrants, together with his false prophets, shall be cast in to the burning pit or lake of fire and brimstone, where they shall be tormented for ever.  
Now, the poor Christians be in the hands of Antiochessis, of Dioclesian's, of Domicians, of Nero's, and other cruel tyrants and Antichristes' (I touch not the good princes) the which tyrants have always, and will afflict God's people, But let us, O brethren, have patience in Christ, as himself doth admonish us, saying, 
Math. 14.  In your paciens possess your souls. And he that shall continue to th'end, shall be safe. Let us pray and have trust in God through Christ, for he is able to deliver us from the hand of our enemies, and defend us, iff it shall please him. And when we shall see apparent apparel, rather than to deny Christ, let us flee away, iff we can from the unhappy nation. But iff we can not what else is to be done, but to confess him boldly, 
Roma. 8. 2. Timo. 1.2.  calling to remembrans that the true Christian hath not the spirit of fear, but of stoutness and power? let us rather obey God than men, the which can in deed kill the body but not the soul. 
Math. 10.  Let us die for God and Christ's name, for this death shall be glorios, and let us remember that which we said before, that needs we must die. Let us die, I say, with the prophets, with the apostles, with the holy martyrs, yea with Christ himself. Why should we be afraid, having such companions so noble and glorios that have led us the way? being sure that though we shall die together with them, 
Roma. 8.  and with Christ, we shall also together with them and with Christ reign and live for ever, to whom be all rule honour and glory for ever and ever, So be it.   
THE END.   

A SERMON OF THE SACRAMENT OF thanks giving the which declareth whether Christ be really and bodily in the same or no.  
I CAN NOT SAY HOW much mirth and joy is in my heart when I see in this our age, that there is kindled in the minds of many the holy desire to understand gods things, that is to say the inestimable, and the incomprehensible treasures hidden in Christ jesus, whose knowledge passeth every other knowledge and wisdom, and doth so far excel, 
Philip. 3.  that Paul th'apostle thought every other thing loss, and worthy the throwing away in comparison of that. Nevertheless the lord doth not give this desire to know Christ to all men, but to his own, that is to say, to the elect only, the which he hath before the beginning of the world forepointed, that they should be to his praise and glory. 
Ephes. 1.   
Of the other side not with standing, I can not but be sorry, seeing in thes same times when the gospel that hath been hidden so many world's past, is by the goodness of god lately come forth to light, that there should be so many and so divers opinions of thes things that god hath Instituted to keep agreement, and peace among the faithful, that is to say, of the sacraments of the church, in such sort as Satan the enemy goth about with the self same instruments of peace and unity, to make war against Christ, setting dissension, making schisms, and sowing debates amongst Christians, not only among the people and common sort, but among those that should be lights, glasses, and examples of agreement, to whom belongeth to teach other, that is to say, among the ministers and preachers of the holy gospel.  
But this, dear brethren, ought not to offend you, nor to remove you from your holy purpose, that you have in Christ, but rather to confirm you in faith, and to kindle you to make a greater entry in to the religion, and way of God, for so much as that god doth suffer such strifes, and diversities of opinions, for the benefit of his church, and of the true believers. First to th'intent that his, 
1. Corinh. 11  who abide constant, and stout may be manifest, when tother that have not a true growndwork, but a feigned and vain faith, do fall and fail. Furthermore also to th'intent, that when we see such disorders, we should not put our trust in men, the which may all ere, but we should come to god's word, the which only can not deceive, and that we should endeavour ourselves with all diligens and care, to understand it, and that we ourselves should look in the scripture, whether it be so or 〈◊〉 as we may read of those that hard Paul preac●●●…n the city of Berrhoe in Macedony. as it is written in in thacts of th'apostles, 
Act. 17.  the which when they hard Paul's sermon, they looked in the scripture itself, whether it was so as he said 〈◊〉 ●…o. And to be short, to th'intent that we should prai unto god, that he would give us the true understanding of the same, because the matters of gods spirit be not understand by any man's way but by gods disclosing. 
2. Pet. 1. 1. Cho. 2.   
Now to return to the purpose of the strife, that is of the sacraments, Some say that in the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, that is to say, in the bread and wine consecrated in remembrans of his death, is contained his very body and his very blood, and that there we have really, and bodily, all and hole Christ, as great, and as thick as he was on the cross. Other some say that he is not there, but there is only the bread and the wine as signs of Christ's body, and blood, given for our redemption. And this controversy and strife is in such sort gone forward, that it hath with many hindered the course of the holy gospel. And it hath made that Christ's enemies have taken occasion, and boldness to blaspheme, the holy learning and gods truth. But be it as it will, although some have committed a great fault in this thing, striving ever bitterly against the contrary opinion, whereby they have showed themselves to be men, and have in some part spotted their own glory, lessening the credit and authority that the world had of them: We not withstanding, will comfort our seluis with Paul's saying, which he speaketh to the romans, 
Rom. 8.  that to gods elect every thing groweth to good. And although that presently thorough such dissension, we see among many nothing but disorder, offence, and evil, yea hatred toward the gospel, yet god for all that, who knoweth how to get order out of disorder, and good out of evil, will cause when it shall please him, some great profit to grow out of it in his church, for the present unknown, but in the end open, thus we should believe.  
And because I know that many desire to understand what should be the true opinion of this sacrament. I for the love of the truth, for the glory of god, and to do them a pleasure, and also a benefit, will simply and with as much easiness as is possible, set forth the opinion, which I think, and hold for certain hath been, and is, the opinion of the Apostles, all the awncienty, of the holy scripture, and of Christ himself. And let no man marvel, though I setting the suttletyes a side, shall rather proceed with simpleness, and familiarity, and also though I shall rehearse one thing often, for so much as that my mind is to be plainly understand of all men, and chiefly of the simple and unlearned. And because the thing is of so great weight, that it deserveth to be handled with all diligens, to th'intent that all men may the more easily understand it, we by order and by parts will consider it.  
And First we will see how that there hath been, and yet be, divers opinions of this sacrament of the supper of the lord, and the cause why, and we will bring forth the contrary talks, and reasons to the truth. Secondarily when we have showed the true, and catholic opinion, we will prove it with sure ground works, and plain reasons. In the third place, we will make it certainly appear, that this is the opinion of the holy fathers and of the old church. In the fourth we will answer to the contrary sayings and reasons, showing them to be vain, and of no weight. In the fift and last, we will search out, from whence the error, of the false Imaginations, in the matter of that sacrament, is proceeded, let us than in the name of our lord begin.  
We must understand that the cause of the differens in this matter, that is to say, that some say that Christ is really and bodily in the sacrament of the bread and the wine, and some other say the contrary, that is to say, that he is not there, is the evil understanding of Christ's own words the which he spoke when he instituted the same sacrament. For one opinion understandeth them after one sort, and tother after another, so that the controversy and contraryetye of the opinions is, because they understand not Christ's words, as they ought to be understand. 
Matth. 26. Marci 14. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11.  When Christ did institute this sacrament, he took first the bread, and called it his body, saying this is my body▪ After he took the wine and called it his blood.  
They of the first opinion say, that seeing the words be Christ's in deed they can not be false, seeing he hath plainly said, this is my body, showing the bread, and this is my blood, showing the wine. We must needs say that Christ's body and blood be there, for else his words should not be true, but falls, which can not be, for so moch as that Christ being the chief troth can not say an untruth. He hath said that the bread is his body, and the wine is his blood, there for it must needs be so.  
And in this opinion there be also ij. divers minds. One saith that jesus Christ is not only in the sacrament, but will that neither bread, nor wine should remain in the sacrament, but that both of them should be changed and should be counted turnkynded, that is to say, transsubstantiated, as they call it, the which meaneth, turned in to Christ's body and blood: The bread in to Christ'S true and natural body, the wine in to his blood. And they call this turning, or changing transsubstantiacyon, that is to say, turning of the substances, in such sort, as there remaineth nothing of the bread and the wine but the withcomes, or accydentes, that is to say the whiteness of the bread, the roundness, the taste, the savour. And so of the wine there remaineth the redness, if it be red, the sweetness, or the sharpness, according as the taste is, and so of the other withcomes, the which remain without any subject, that is without any body to be in. But the substances of th'one and tother, be turned in to the substances of Christ's body and blood, and this is done by miracle, because god can do all things. And this is the opinion of the priests and friars of the romish church. And they have in such sort preached it, that the world in time passed from certain hundreth years hitherto, have believed it, and cownted it, as an article of the faith. And woe to him that had said the contrary. For they would have condemned, and burned him, as an heretic. And that, because the pope, who was taken for god on earth, for Christ's lietuenant, and had authority to make men believe what so ever liked him, and every man was brought to his determination, would needs have it so.  
Certain other of the first opinion too, the which holdeth that Christ is realli, and bodily in the Sacrament, do say, that not witstanding that Christ's body is, wholly in the bread, and his blood wholli in the wine, yet the bread and the wine abide in their substance as before, and be not turned nor changed in to another thing, as the former opinion saith. And thes manner of men must needs say, that at the least three very great miracles, must come to pass in this Sacrament. The first is, that Christ is, wholli under that bread, and under that wine, as great, and as thick, as he was on the cross, and as presentli as he is in heaven. This is a great thing, that a great body continuing great, should be enclosed in a little thing, much less than the same body.  
The second miracle is, that Christ's whole body and his whole blood is in the whole bread, and in the whole wine, and in every, yea the least part of th'one, and the other, as it is said of our reasonable soul, that it is whole in the whole body, and whole in every part of the body, in such sort as if there should be made x. thousand parts of the bread, and the wine, whole Christ, and his whole blood, should be in every of those divided parts, which is yea a greater thing, without comparison, than that of the being of the soul in the whole body, and in every part of the body. For although the soul be in every part of the body, whilst that the parts abide yoined together, yet it is not in all the parts of the body, when they be separated. For when one part is divided from the body, the soul is no more in the same. But Christ's body and blood, according to this opinion, be in all the partis of the bread and of the wine, when they be yoined together, and when they be divided, or sundered. The third miracle is, that the same body, and the same blood, is in heaven and in earth both at a time, and is in all places of the world, where the sacrament is, In France, in Spain, in England, in Almainy, in Flanders, in Italy, in the east, in the west, in this, in that city, In this in that church, on this, 
The tabernacle is a litle-closet wherein the sacrament is kept near the altar.  on that Altar, In this, in that tabernale, as they say. Yea and that they say, that Christ is every where, and filleth every thing. But it is behoveful for them that put, or will have the changing of the substances, of the bread and the wine, that is to say, that their transsubstantion, to put besides thes three miracles, others also, and to make a better market of miracles, than they that put it not, yea a better market, than the holy scripture and god maketh, to whom notwithstanding belongeth to make miracles, who is not so liberal of mirakels as they be.  
The chief ground work of this first opinion is, that Christ said. This is my body, showing the bread, and This is my blood, showing the wine. And therefore Christ must be in the same sacrament. For else he should have spoken falsely, the which can not be. They bring forth in deed other reasons, but they all do little avail, as that same, that if Christ were not in the sacrament, it should not have been so great a fault, to him that had received it unworthily, as Paul saith, that is to say, who ever eateth that bread, and drinketh that wine unworthyle, he eateth and drinketh judgement, that is to say, condemnation. If Christ were not there (say they) it should not be condemnation to eat that bread, and to drink that wine, But the condemnation is to him that eateth and drinketh unworthily, Therefore jesus Christ's very body, and blood, is there. And the same Paul, in the self same chapter, doth call the consecrated bread, the lords body, and therefore they say, that Christ is in that bread, and in that wine. They of this opinion, to my judgement, do make no other reasons, that be any thing worth. Not withstanding when we shall have placed the true opinion, we will answer to this shewsom reason, and with the help of the lord, we will make it appear, that it is trifling, and of no value.  
The other opinion, and mind about this matter is, that Christ's body, and blood, be really in heaven, where he sitteth on the right hand of god the father, and that they be not really, and bodily in the sacrament, but saith that the bread, and the wine, be signs appointed, to signify the body and the blood, how Christ jesus hath given both th'one, and tother, for our ransom, and satisfaction for our sins, to th'intent that we should keep in our rememberans, so great a thing and mystery, as he himself when he did institute the same sacrament in the presence of th'apostles, said, 
Matth. 26. Marc. 14. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11.  that is to say, as oft as you shall do this, you shall do it in my rememberans. And this is the true and catholic opinion, a agreeable with the holy scripture, and with the doctrine of the old church, and ancient teachers, the which have not said, as any one of the for said opinions saith, that is to say, that Christ's body and blood, be enclosed in that bread, and wine, and much less as tother opinion saith, the which affirmeth, that the substances of the bread, and wine, be turned in to Christ's body, and blood, and that there is no more neither bread, nor wine, but only the withcomes, of th'one and tother, but have said, that the bread and the wine remain and be signs, of the body and of the blood, for to bring to our remembrans, the most great and high benefit that Christ hath wrought us, dying for us, that is to say, of our redemption. And the growndworkes of this opinion be sure. and of such sort steadfast, that all the Engines in the world, be not sufficient to throw them to the ground, because they be ground wrought, up on the sure rock, that is to say, they agree with god's troth, and his word that abideth for ever. We do not Intent now here, to bring forth all the reasons, and ground works, with the which this opinion is proved. For we should then make a long treatise, and not a sermon, to inform the ignorant and jonglings in the knowledge of gods things, as we intent to do. But we will only bring forth some few persuasions, by the which it may be clearly known, that it is even so as we said.  
First this opinion saith, 
The first reason.  that the definition of the sacrament, must needs show, and make Plain to us, that the matter standeth thus, that is to say, that the bread, and the wine remain, and that Christ's body, and blood, is not really there in them. For the definition of a sacrament received of all men (and is sent Augustine's a catholic doctor) is this, that is to say, that a sacrament is a sign of a holy" thing. Every man confesseth that the thanks giving is a sacrament. If it be a sacrament, it is no nother but a sign of an holy thing. If it be a sign of an holy thing, it needeth not that the bread and the wine, for to be signs, should be changed in to other substances, for so much as that the signs, that they may be signs, do not change any substans, but only take a new signification. And it is much less needful, that Christ's body, and blood should be really, and bodily present in the same bread and wine, for so much as it is not necessary that the things signified, and represented by the signs, should be enclosed, or present in the same signs, as by experiens we may see in many sorts of signs, that it is not needful that the thing signified, should be either present, or enclosed in the sign. It is enough that it be represented. Let us give an example. The emperors Image is a sign of the Emperor, And because it is no nother but a sign, we will never say that the Emperor himself, is in that Image, nor that that Image, is changed in to the emperor's parson. For if he were present where his Image is, he needed not to set up the image, for so much as the Image is therefore set up (speaking of the bodied things) in any place, because the thing signified, is not there present, and therefore it is set up to th'intent, that it may represent it. So will we say of the bread, and of the wine, that Christ hath Instituted them to th'intent, that they might be representers of his body and blood, to th'intent, that when we see them, and use them for a sacrament, as he hath ordained, we should remember that Christ hath given them, that is to say, his body and blood, for our ransoming. And for to be signs after this sort, it needeth not that the body and blood should be there bodily present, and much less that they should be changed in to other substances. It sufficeth, as we have said, that they be signs as we have spoken of the signs of the emperors image.  
The reason standeth in this, that the thanks giving, or for to use paul's words, the lords supper is no nother but a sacrament, therefore it is no nother but a sign. Because by the definition already given, A sacrament is a sign of an holy thing. The sign of a thing is not the thing itself, nor is not changed in to it, but only doth signify it, Therefore the bread and the wine be not changed in to Christ's body and blood nor they be not enclosed in them, that is to say in the bread and the wine, And it sufficeth that they be truly represented by the bread and the wine. And though we say that the breadand the wine, be no nother but signs, we mean not to deny the effects, that the spirit of god (of the which the same sacraments be the ministry) doth work in the believers that receive them. For by means of the sacraments, the true believers be as it were, by certain signs and seals of god confirmed in his promises and be assured of god's grace, and of many benyfites, which god doth give us, through Christ, but we do only deny that Christ, is body lythere, for so much as that to work thes effectis, which we say, that the sacraments by the virtue of the holy ghost do work, it sufficeth that they be signs appointed by god to that end. And it needeth not that Christ should be there bodily present nor that there should be made any change of the sustances, of the bread and the wine.  

The second reason. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11.  Further, this sacrament was instituted by Christ in remembrans as the words them selves of the same insttution, do witness, saying, Do this in mi rememberans. If it be so than that it was instituted for remembrans, it is not necessary that Christ should be bodily there, and much less that there should be made any turning of the bread and the wine, in to his body and blood, because that the bread and the wine, do suffice to bring to remembrans, his passion and his body and blood given for our ransom, As the paschal lamb was sufficient to bring to rememberans the pass over, that is to say, the passing by of the Angel in Egypt. Yea it is not only not necessary that he should be there, but if he were there he should be there in vain, because he should be there in such sort as should help nothing to rememberans, for so much as that he could not be seen. And it is behoveful that the signs that bring a thing to rememberans, as the sacraments do should be seeable. And it is well known to what end the sacraments were instituted, that is to say, because we be bodied, as the old doctors say, and among the rest, Chrysostom upon matthew, the. 83. Omelye, the which saith that therefore they were instituted, that by them, as by certain seeable signs, our mind should be stirred up to the spiritual, and unseeable things signified by the same sacraments. And therefore saint Augustne calleth the sacraments, seeable words, so that if we were unbodied, it needed not to institute them. The reason standeth in this. The sacraments were instituted in remembrans of Christ's body and blood given for us. That which serveth for remembrance as an outward sign, aught to be seeable. Christ's body and blood if they were in the sacrament, should be unseeable, therefore they should nothing serve to put us in remembrance. If they should no way serve to put us in remembrance, than it is not necessary nor convenient, that they should be bodily present in the sacrament, And it is enough that the seeable signs, should be there, that is to say, the bread and the wine, which may work that is to say, which may bring to remembrances the body and blood, the which thing Christ's bodily presence in the sacrament could not do.  
I confirm this reason thus, If Christ be there bodily present in the sacrament of thanksgiving, and the substances of the bread and the wine be changed in to his body, and blood, we must say, that either this is by a comen, and general right of a sacrament, the which should belong not only to this but also to all the other sacraments, or else by a particular and special right, of this sacrament only. That is to say, that this and not the rest, should have this prerogative. Of necessity it must be by one of thes ij. rights, or else by them both. But first we can not say that it is by a common, and general right of a sacrament, that is to say, that if a thing be a sacrament, it should be necessary, that the thing signified by the same sacrament, should there be present, and much less that there should be made any turning of the substances, this can not be said, because that their things signified aught than to be there present in all the other sacraments, and that there should be made a changing of the substances. But we do see the contrary, for so moch as that in all the other sacraments, the substance remaineth as at the first, and is not changed, and there was never any man, that would say any such thing, If they would speak of the old sacraments and of the sacraments of the hebrews that is to say, of the circumcision, of paschal lamb, of the rock, out of which issewed the water in the desert, and of the manna, the which things were sacraments to that people, because they were to them signs of holy things, no one of thes did ever change the substance for to be a sacrament. The flesh of the paschal lamb remained flesh, as before, And we will sai the same of the rock, and of the manna, that there was no manner change of substancc.  
The new sacraments also of the Christian people, they also do not change substance. The water of baptism, remaineth water as before. The other likewise which be by the school men, and new doctors counted for sacraments, that is to say, Cream, Oil, which they call holy, Penans, Orders and matrimony, the which in deed be no sacraments, because they were not instituted by Christ for sacraments, they do not change their substances, but remain in their first substance, and there is made no manner of change, This is clear, so that there needeth not by common and general right of sacraments, to put Christ's bodied presence in the sacrament, and much less to affirm that there should be made, a substantial changing of the bread, and the wine, in to his body and blood. Nor we ought not neither to say, that by particular, and special right of this sacrament, Christ should be bodily present, nor that there should be made such manner of change, For so much as that the particular right of this sacrament is, chiefly that it should be a sign, sundered from the other sacraments, that is to say, that it should be bread, and wine in substance, which be things divers from the other sacraments. And further, that it should have a particular, and divers signification, from the other, that is to say, that it is instituted to bring particularly to our rememberans, Christ's passion, and death, and that it should represent unto us, how Christ gave his body, and shed his blood, for our ransoming. This is the particular and special right of this sacrament, by the which it is sondri and divers from the other sacraments. But it is not necessary by this right, that there should be made a change of the substances of the bread and wine, and that Christ should be in the sacrament. For the bread and wine remain in their substances as they were first, and may (without that that Christ should be present in the sacrament) work thes effects, that is to say, bring to our rememberans, and represent unto us, Christ's passion, and death, and how he hath given his body, and blood, for our ransoming. It is enough for the working of this rememberans, that they have a new signification. It is not necessary to change the substances, as in the first reason we have said. Yea, I say, that seeing the sacraments were instituted to th'intent that they should be true signs, of holy things, their substance must needs remain, as it was first. For otherwise, they should not have agreement and likelied, with their things signified, nor they should not be true signs. As for example, baptism hath lykelihode with the spiritual washing, because it is water. And as the water washeth, and cleanseth the body, so be those that believe in Christ spiritually cleansed, and washed from their sins, but if the Water of baptism should not remain, water, but should change the substance, it should not have such agreement. So we will say of the bread, and the wine, that therefore they have likelied with Christ's body, and blood, because they abide still bread and wine, for so much as, that even as the bread, and the wine, do noryssh, and maintain the life of the body, so Christ's body, and blood received spiritually, and thorough faith in to the mind, do norissh and maintain us, in the spiritual life. And for this cause Christ jesus called his flesh verily meat, and his blood verily drink. But if the substance of bread, and wine should not abide but the only withcomes should remain, there should not be that liklihode, and agreement which this sacrament requireth, because that the only withcomes of bread, and wine without the substances, can not nourish. And when the dew agreement, and likelihood is not there, they should not be true signs, and consequently, they should not be true sacraments. And here it may be seen, that they of this opinion, destroy the sacraments, making them not to be true but vain signs taking from them the growndwork of their true meaning.  
Another reason is this. 
The third reason.  If Christ were bodily in the sacrament it should be nothing profitable, forsomuch as, that the only spiritual eating of Christ, is that, 
johan. 6.  that is profitable, as the same Christ himself said to them that thought, when he said, that his body was meat, and his blood drink, and that it was behoveful for the having of life, to eat his flesh and to drink, his blood, They thought (I say) that he meant to speak of the bodily eating, and drinking, sending the one and the other, thorough the mouth in to the stomach, as also, they believe, that hold, that Christ should be personalli, and bodily in the sacrament. What said Christ to these manner of men? The spirit is that which giveth life, the flesh helpeth nothing, that is to say, when I say, that you must eat my flesh, and drink my blood, I mean that you must eat my flesh, and drink my blood spiritually, and after this sort, they give life but my flesh eaten, and my blood drunken, as you understand it, do help nothing. It is necessary for the giving of life that my flesh be eaten, and my blood be drunken spiritually and not fleshly. Christ is eaten and his blood is drunken spiritually as he himself declareth, when men believe in him: And Augustine in the exposition of the said words saith Crede et manducasti, that is to sai believe and thou hast eaten, giving to understand, that Christ's intent was, when he said these words, that is to say, that it was behoufull to eat his flesh and drink his blood, to say that it was behoveful to believe in him, And after this sort, his body was eaten, and his blood was drunken. And the text itself giveth us to understand, that this is true, the which saith first, that the father's will is, that every one that believeth in Christ should have life everlafting. And a few words, he addeth, verily, verily I say unto you, he that believeth in me, hath life everlasting. I am the bread of life And a little after, he saith, if you shall not eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting. If thes words spoken by Christ, be true as necessarily they must be true, because Christ cannot tell an untruth. It doth necessarily follow that the eating his flesh and drinking his blood, is none other, but to believe in him or at the least, that the eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and the believing in him, be things so joined together, that they cannot be separate the one from the other. The reason is this becauce that if these words were not the same in sentence, or else that they were such as might be separated, the one from the other, that is to say, that the one might be true without the other, we must needs say, that a man might be saved, and have the life everlasting, without the eating of Christ's flesh, and drinking his blood, the which is against Christ's express words, who saith that he can not have life that eateth not his flesh and drinketh not his blood. Or else we must needs say, that a man might be saved not believing in Christ. This is clear because Christ saith that he that eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, hath life everlasting. If it be so that man is saved by eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, when as this eating, and drinking, be not the same that believing is, or else that they may be separated, that is to say that the eating, and drinking, should be without the believing, a man then shall have life everlasting without believing in Christ, the which likewise is against Christ's express words, who will that he that bebeleveth should be saved and he that believeth not should be damned. Seeing then that the one and the other of these two sayings be true, that is to say, that he that eateth Christ's flesh, and drinketh his blood hath life everlasting and he that doth not this can not have it. And this other also is true, that is to say he that believeth in Christ, hath life everlasting and he that doth not believe cannot have it: It followeth, of necessity, that to eat Christ's flesh and to drink his blood, and to believe in him should be one self thing or else if they should not be the same, at the least that they could not by any means be separated, that is to say, the one to be without the other. I have made this long discourse to make men understand that these words of Christ of the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood, be not to be understand of the bodily eating, and drinking, and much less are to be understand of the eating and drinking the sacrament of the lords supper, but of the only spiritual eating, and drinking, and they that allege them of the body or else of the sacramental eating or drinking, do allege them out of the purpose. Further also to make men know the chief purpose, that is to say, that although Christ were bodily in the sacrament, it should help nothing, because that the fleshly eating after what so eversorte it should be done, doth nothing profit to the witnessing of Christ, seeing the spiritual eating only, is that which giveth life.  
And if any would answer and say that when Christ said that the flesh did help nothing, that he did mean, that it did help nothing, when it was eaten, as they did understand it, to whom Christ spoke, that is to say, the Capernaits, the which thought that he did mean to say, that they should eat his flesh as the flesh of the shambleses is eaten, and drink his blood as wine and water is drunk. But Christ in the sacrament, is eaten after such a certain sort as he is not scene nor perceived, no nor chewed, because he is in the same sacrament undivideably, nor his flesh is not eaten nor blood drunken for to nourish the body, as other bodily meats, but to nourish the soul. And therefore Christ reprovid the Capernaties because they understood him evil favouredly, and not as he would be understand.  
This answer is nothing, for when Christ said, that the flesh helpeth nothing, but the spirit is that which giveth life, he meant that the only spiritual eating the which is done with the heart and with the mind thorough belief was that which helped, but the bodily and fleshly eating, helped nothing after what so ever sort it should be done. There is no doubt, but though that Christ be not eaten in pieces and parts, or else chawed as other flesh is chawed and eaten, as the Capernaites did understand it: Yet not with standing, after what so ever sort he should be eaten, by the bodily mouth, whether it were by parts or whole as they of the first opinion believe, the which will, that Christ great and thick as he was upon the wood of the cross, should be wholly in the sacrament, that is to say, in that little host, as they call it. This is a fleshly and bodily eating, for so much, as that a thing is no whit less bodily eaten, when it is put all hole into the mouth, and sent into the stomach, as jonas was wholly swallowed by the whale, or as the pills that be received whole. It is no whitlesse bodily eaten (I say) than if it were eaten by parts. I therefore by the bodily eating do mean that which is not of the spirit. This of the which they speak, that is done by the mouth, is not with the mind therefore it is bodily, If it be bodily, it helpeth nothing. I will say to be short, that if Christ were bodily present in the sacrament, that his being there should be nothing profitable at all, although that we should eat his flesh, and drink his blood a thousand times, for so much as that the spiritual eating, and drinking only the which is by faith, believing truly in him, is that, which helpeth. The bodily and fleshly eating and drinking his body and blood, the which is done by the mouth helpeth nothing. They then do little honour to Christ, that would that he should be really, in the sacrament, because they would bring to pass, that Christ should have made unprofitable things, the which we may not think, much less speak.  
But because we have said, that the only spiritual eating and drinking Christ's flesh and blood, is that which helpeth, and not the bodily, some man might say to what purpose then did Christ institute the sacramental eating and drinking, the which is not spiritual, but bodily etc. To this I answer, that the sacrament was therefore instituted by Christ because that although the eating and drinking of it, be not spiritual but bodily, yet not with standing it serveth, and is profitable, to the spiritual eating and drinking, the which is by faith for so much as the sacrament doth confirm us in faith, because it is ordained to this end. Not that it should already have this power of itself, but because it is an instrument, or else a ministery of the spirit, joined to the word of the holy gospel, with which instrument, and ministery, the same spirit worketh in us, And it is not necessary that Christ should be bodily in the sacrament to serve for the eating and drinking spiritually, and by faith, it is enough that the bread and the wine, as holy signs, be there for us, as we will better tell you in the last reason. And when I say that the spiritual eating, and drinking only, is profitable, and not the bodily, I mean of the bodily eating, of the same true body, and of the bodily drinking, of the true blood of Christ put into the mouth as the Capernaites did mean, and as they affirm, the which would have Christ to be really in the sacrament, both in body and soul. I do not mean of the sacramental eating the which without doubt is profitable, when it is joined with the spiritual. And when it is not joined, it is not only not profitable, but it is damnable, as Saint Paul saith in the first to the Corinthians because it is unworthily received. 
1. Corin. 11.  If Christ then, be not really in the sacrament the substances of the bread and the wine, be much less changed, but do both abide in substance as before.  

The fourth reason.  Another reason is this, and it is particularly against the opinion of transubstantiation, that is to say of them that would that the bread and the wine should be changed into jesus Christ's body and blood, and that there should remain no more of the bread and the wine, but the withcomes, that is to say, the white colour of the bread, the colour of the wine, the taste of the one and the other, the roundness or other form of the same bread, And so we will say of the other withcomes, that is to say of the moystines, dryness, heat and could. This opinion cannot stand with those effects, that we may manifestly see, and that experience itself doth show us. First the sacrament is able to nourish bodily, wherefore if there were one that should eat, a quantity of hosts and wine consecrated, they would nourish as other bread and wine not consecrated. Further it is seen by experience, that the sacrament sometimes, is corrupted and worms be engendered in it, as in other bread and wine not consecrated. But how can these effects be wrought, this opinion standing of the changing of the bread, and the wine into Christ's body and blood, the only withcomes of the bread and the wine remaining? How can the withcomes nourish without the substance? What is to nourish but that the substance of the meat and drink, is turned into his substance that eateth and drinketh it? Seurly the withcomes without substance cannot nourish because that nourishing meaneth changing of the substance of the meat, into the substance of the thing nourished, we cannot now say that the substance of Christ's body and blood should be that which should nourish, because that the thing that nourisheth, is as we have said converted into the substance of him that receiveth it. Christ's body and blood ●●ing immortal and uncorruptible, be not receivable of such changes. Like as we have said of the nourishment we will say of the ingenderinge, the which we may see is made in the sacrament, when the worms be engendered. How can a substance be engendered, of the only withcomes?  
Here thy of this opinion be entangled and they answer some after one sort, and some after another. Innocentius the third, in his book of the office of the mass saith that even as the substance of the bread is miraculously turned into the substance of Christ's body the withcomes only of the bread and the wine remaining, so the substance of the bread, of the which the worms or any other thing, might be engendered, may miraculously return. Egidius Romanus in his Theorems of Christ's body saith, that such an engendering is not miraculous, but natural, for because (saith he) that the reasonable mind, although it be made by god only, yet not with standing, for as much as god hath disposed, and ordained, that after the body of the creature be fashioned in his mother's womb, the reasonable soul is put into the same creatures body, and this is a natural point by the reason of gods order taken therein, and if it were otherwise it should be a 'gainst the order of nature. Even so seeing that god hath ordained, that the withcommes should be ground in the substance as soon as the withcomes of the bread and the wine, be corrupted immediately, by the natural order that he hath given to things doth create the matter, and doth put it under tother withcomes newly brought in of the which matter the worms be after engendered. Some other say that a nourishing matter may be engendered in the priest's stomach, the which with the sacrament received may easily nourish, although the forms, that is to say the withcomes of the bread and the wine of themselves should not nourish. Certain other have said, that even as god by miracle hath made that the withcomes of bread and wine, should be without subject, as though they were substances, so he giveth them the nature of the substances of the bread and wine, that is to say, that the worms may be engendered of the withcomes and so we must say that by miracle, substances may be engendered of things which be no substances, although such a matter be impossible by nature. But what dreams? what imaginations? (and let them pardon me) what monsters be these? who maketh them fuer that it is so? as for example, from whence gathereth Innocentius that the substance of the bread should miraculously return? And Egidius Romanus that god should create new matter, and should, put it under the withcommes newly brought in, and under the shape of a thing newly engendered? And those other, that a nourishing matter should be engendered in the stomach? And finally the last of all, that by gods might, a substance should be engendered of the withcomes? If in a matter of our faith, we will after this sort dally and guess at a venture without the holy scripture, we may then set forth and affirm all that we list, as though it were true, and tell as many fantasies and fables, I will not say follies as shall come in our head. We ought not to dress up gods things after our manner, and as toys come in our brain: but we must handle them with fear and reverence and with gods words, and walk surely not according to our own fantasies. Without doubt, this Imagination of the changing of the substance of the bread, and wine into Christ's body and blood, and that the only withcomes of the bread, and the wine remain, is false. but the substances of the bread and wine remain, for if they should not remain these evident and open effects could not be wrought, that is to say, the nourishing and new engendering which be made. The cause why they speak thus, that is to say, without any manner of groundeworke, and be forced to grant to many inconveniences, is, because they defend an evil, and an unjust cause, and therefore they must grant many inconveniences. And in deed (as it is commonly said) they wot not what they fish for, bear with me you readers, seeing I tell the truth.  
Another reason is this. 
The fift reason.  God is not wont to work miracles but for to confirm the faith of the believers, and his doctrine, as it is written in saint mark in the end of his gospel. 
Marci 16.  And the miracles that Christ worketh for to confirm his word and the faith of the believers, be seealbe things, as it is manifest, looking thorough all the miracles, that Christ and the apostles wrought, as giving sight to the blind, cleansing the leepers, making the dumb to speak, the lame to go, healing the fevered, and the other sick, raising the dead, walking on the water of the sea, commanding the winds, changing the water into wine, driving away the devils, satisfing with a few loaves, and certain fishes many thousand persons. All these miracles were seen, and therefore did confirm the doctrine of the holy gospel: but if they had been secret that none had seen them, they had helped nothing to that matter, that is to say, to confirm the faith of any.  it is thus then, that god therefore worketh miracles, to confirm his doctrine, and the faith of the believers, and the miracles could not work such effects if they were not openly seen, to what purpose then should, jesus Christ, as great and as thick as he was upon the wood of the cross, and as he is preasently in heaven, be hidden whole under a small cake, and a little wine, much less without comparison, than his body is, and all his blood? To what purpose were it to work this most great miracle, that it should not be seen, when it were once done? to what purpose were it to work that other, that Christ should be whole in the whole sacrament, and whole in every part of the sacrament, as though he were a spirit? to what purpose were it to work, that Christ should be bodily in heaven, and in earth, here and on all the altars where the mass is said, to what purpose were it that the bread and the wine, should be turned into Christ's body and blood? To what purpose were it, that the withcomes of the bread and the wine should abide without a subject as though they were substances? All these most great and stonishinge miracles, and greater than ever Christ wrought, or that ever were hard of must nenedes be, if Chest himself should be enclosed bodily within that sacrament, and yet not with standing, no one of these miracles were ever seen, as they are not, nor can be possibly seen. Seeing then that such miracles cannot be seen to what end, to what profit, or to what purpose, should they be wrought, when they are not able neither to confirm Christ's doctrine, nor our faith? shall we say that Christ would work miracles, and such miracles as were never the greater without any manner of profit? surely no, if We would not make god now less wise than men, the which if they have reason, will never do a thing that they be not persuaded is to purpose and profit for some end. We must then say, that Christ is not bodily present in the sacrament, but he is in heaven, where he sitteth on the right hand of the father, from whence he must come, at the latter day, to judge the living and the dead.  
And this may be another reason to prove that Christ, 
The sixth reason.  in as much as he is man, is not personally in the sacrament, because the article of our faith saith that he is ascended into heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the living and dead. If Christ were really in the sacrament, what should he need on the latter day to come so far of, that is to say, from heaven, he being nearer on the earth? what else needed, but that he shall go out of some consecrated cake, orells host, as they name it, and appear in majesty and glorious. surely it needeth not that a thing which is near us, should come to us from a far of, and it can not be denied, but a thing from at hand, may lightlier and easilier (If it be not let) come to us then from a far of, Christ therefore is not in the sacrament, nor there is not made any manner of change of substance.  
Another reason is this the opinion that saith Christ is bodily in the sacrament diminisheth the truth of Christ's true and natural body, therefore it is false. It is clear that the Christian religion holdeth for an article of the faith, that Christ is a true, and natural man, that is to say, 
Luc. 24,  that he hath the very nature of a man, and that he hath a very body and a very soul, as other men have. And although presently th'one and the other, that is to say the body and the soul, be glorified: nevertheless they be yet a very body and a very soul. For the glorification, taketh not away the nature, It maketh it in deed more perfect, but it taketh it not away, so as it is not the self same that it was before, as we understand by Christ himself, who being risen and having taken his glorified body, said to his disciples, behold my hands, and my feet, that it is even myself. surely he should not have been the self same that he was before if he had not had the self same hands the self same feet and the self same whole body, and the self same soul that he had before That that opinion which holdeth that Christ is bodily in the sacrament diminisheth the truth of jesus Christ's body, and his man's nature, I do prove it, because the nature of a body hath, two properties or conditions the first is, to have quantity, that is to say some manner of length, some manner of breadth, and some manner if thickness, and even as a body hath greater or smaller quantity, so much greater, or smalller place it occupieth, as by eyperience we may see. And his property, agreeth and is natural to every body, in such sort as also the glorified bodies do occupy place that is to say, that the greater glorified body occupieth greater place, and the less body less place, even as Christ jesus when he was risen, did occupy place, that is to say he was in so much place as the quantity, and greatness of his body was, nor he was not in any less place, than the greatness of his body was For so much as that this, that is to say, to be in less place, than the quantity of the body is, should diminish the truth of the body.  
The other property is to be only in one place. And these properties be in such sort natural to a body, that they cannot by any means be separated from it, and when a man separateth them from the body, then shall it be no more a body. These among the rest, be two properties, that make the body undyvidehable as the philosophers sai, that is to say, they make that the body is an undyvidehable thing, that is to say, only one, other this, or that, distinct, and divers from other. And that these two properties, that is to say, to occupy place, and so much as the quantity and greatness of the body is, and likewise that a body cannot be but in one place at ones, and at one time, be in separable from the body, nor there can be no manner of body that hath them not, whether it beglorified or no.  
We speak not this of oure self only, for Saint Augustine saith it in his 57 epistle answering to dardanus the bishop, who had made certain questions or demands to him, and he answering him to one after another, saith to the first, speaking of Christ risen and glorified: doubt not (saith he) but the man Christ jesus, is now there, from whence he shall come. And after a few words, he saith, he shall come from none other place, then from whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead (and meaneth from heaven) And so he shall come by the witness of the Angels voice, in the self same form and substance of flesh in the which he was seen go into heaven, to the which form and substance, in deed he hath given immortality, but he hath not taken away the nature, we must not think that according to this form, that is to say, of the flesh, he is spread abroad every where, for we must take heed, that we do not, in such sort, affirm the godhead of the man, that we should take away the troth of the body, for so much as it doth not in deed follow that he that is in god, should be so every where as god. And after a few words he saith. God and man is one person, and one Christ jesus, is th'one and tother, In that that he is god, he is every where, but in that that he is man he is in heaven. And after about the midst of the Epistle, or a little before, he saith: Take the rooms of places from the bodies, and they shall not be in any place, and because they shall not be in any place, they shall not be at all, take the same bodies, from the qualities of bodies, and there shall be no place, where they should be, and therefore it is of necessity that they be not. Also he saith in the 30. treatise upon John, the lord is above, but yet the troth is here, that is to say, the lord, because that the body of the lord, in the which, he is risen, must needs be in one place, but the troth of the same, is spread abroad every where.  
By all these words of Augustine we have specially two things. The first is that jesus Christ risen and glorified, is not in that he is man but in one place, that is to say in heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the living and dead, in that he is god, he is every where in the world. The second is, that the bodies of necessity do occupy room of place and if they did not occupy room, they should not be in any place, and being in no place, they should not be any thing at all, but should be nothing: this groundwork standing that these two properties, that is to say that every body doth occupy so much place, as his greatness is, and likewise it is not at one time but in one place. And these two properties cannot be taken from bodies, And he that would take them away, should bring to pass that the bodyiss should not be in any place, as S. Austen saith and if they should not be in any place, they should be nothing: It followeth necessarily, that if Christ were bodily in the sacrament, for somuch as there he should not have neither the one, nor the other of these two proꝑties, It followeth, I say, that Christ in the sacrament should not have a true body, yea no body, because that his body (be it where it will, and as it will) it cannot be separatid from these two properties, to a body most natural and inseparable, according to Austen and the troth.  
Here they say that it is true (speaking naturally) that these two conditions and properties cannot be separated, from bodies, but speaking supernaturally; and by miracle, they may be separated from the bodies, as in effectt they be separated from Christ's body in the sacrament. To this I answer, first, that the substantial properties be never changed by miracle, let them find, that god ever did it, let them give me one only example. We know that god is almighty and there is no manner thing that may be done, Impossible unto him, as the Angel said to mary, but who knoweth that this thing may be done? I will not stand now, to dispute this thing, I desire them that they would give some other example, but they will never do it. Further I say that it belongeth to them to prove that god doth these miracles. This is no good reason God can do it, therefore he hath done it. How many things can god do that he hath not done? God could have sent more than twelve legions of Angels for to deliver Christ out of the jewces hands, 
Math. 26.  as he himself doth witness in S. Mat. and yet he sent them not. And how many other things might we allege, if we would, that god can do and yet he doth them not? They must prove then, that god doth these miracles. By Christ's sayings, nor by the scriptures, they cannot prove it except that they will allege, that Christ hath said it, that is to say, this is my body showing the bread, and this is my blood showing the wine: but this is a trifling proof, for somuch that Christ meant not by this manner of speech to affirm that he is within the bread and the wine, but meant to say, that both the one, and tother, were signs, and a remembrances of his body and blood, as plainly we will show hereafter.  
Peradventure they will say, that in matters of faith there needeth no profess but men must stand to the letter. This thing is of faith therefore it needeth no proof I say that in matters of faith we must stand to god's word with the right understanding of it, and true sense of the words, nor we must not give them other and strange senses, Contrary to the mind of the spirit. The sense of the spirit is not, that Christ should be bodily in the host, and in the cup, as it is said, but it is that which we have said, and will better say, in the talk that followeth, where we will declare the manners of sacramental speeches, according to the scripture.  
And to be short that we may end now at length this reasoning, I say that this opinion of the being of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, doth diminish the troth of jesus Christ's true body and true blood. And it maketh him to have in the sacrament, a fantastical body, and much more fantastical than Martiane, and Manicheus who when they spoke of Christ and appointed him notrew and natural body, but a fantastical, and Imaginable, or else a seeming body, they said things less striving against nature then this opinion, because they did never divide Christ's body, nor speak of him things so unimaginable as this opinion doth, nor they never said that he was in two places at ones. This opinion maketh him to be (in that he is man) In infinite places, nor they never said, that a great body was contained in so little a thing as these men say, and so we will say of the other so many Imaginations, which the foresaid opinion placeth. And yet though Manicheus and Martian, did say these or like things, as they say, It should have been less in convenient, seeing they did appoint him a fantastic and a semeable body. But this opinion affirming that Christ hath a true and a natural body in the sacrament doth yet speak such things of him, as neither can be in deed, nor be not Imaginable, and be without all reason, without also gods word, and more reproweable (as to this) than the foresaid opinions (I mean) of Manicheus and Martion, and without doubt they speak things disagreeing to themselves. Furthermore if Christ be in the sacrament what meaneth it that the old church when should make the consecration of the bread and wine, did sing the preface, as it is called, Sur sum Corda that is to say, lift up your hearts on high, and also these words be now said in all the masses? surely we ought to have our hearts where Christ and our treasure is, as he himself in S. Math, 
Matth. 5.  saith, that is to say, where your treasure shallbe there will your hearts be. Our treasure ought to be where Christ is. And S. Paul to the Colossians saith. 
Coloss. 3.  If you be risen again together with Christ, that is to say, If leaving the evil you have taken the good, and new life, to the likeness of Christ, who leaving the corruptible, and mortal life hath taken the incorruptible, Immortal, and glorious life, seek things which be above where Christ is, who sitteth on the right hand of god, seek those things that are above, and not the earthly things giving us to understand, that seeing Christ jesus is our treasure and all our wealth we ought to have our hearts were he is. If it be so then that we ought to have our hearts where Christ is (let him be in what so ever place he will) what needed it that the old church should admonish the people that they should lift up there hearts on high, that is to say, into heaven, if by and by after a few words he should have descended into bread and into wine? what need we to seek Christ so far of, that is to say in heaven, if he be so near us, that is to say, in that bread and that wine? This saying Sursum corda, surely giveth us to understand that the old church did not believe that Christ was bodily in the sacrament, for if they had believed it, they would never have said lift up your hearts on high, but they would have said, be you attended o you faithful, for by and by Christ jesus our lord shallbe here present in the bread and the wine, as soon as the consecration is made. Direct your minds to the bread, and the wine, when they shallbe consecrated, because jesus Christ shallbe their bodily, but they said not after this sort, they have in deed said lift up your hearts on high, giving to understand that they believed that Christ was in heaven, and not in the sacrament. 
The ninth reason.  The ninth reason is this, and it gainsaieth the turnekindinge, If the bread be turned into the body, and the wine into the blood, because Christ said, this is my body shewing the bread, and this is my blood showing the wine and that else Christ's words should not have benetrue, if the bread should not have been turned into the body and the wine into the blood, or at the least that Christ's body should be in the bread, and his blood in the wine. It followeth that the paschal lamb which Christ did eat with his disciples, was turned into the passover, because Christ said, the lamb is the passouer, as it is written in luke; I have earnestly desired to eat this passouer with you before I suffer. 
Luk. 22.  if is clear that by this word passouer Christ did mean the paschal lamb, and because that pascha is that going over, and passing by that the Angel made when he passed over the hebrews, not entering in but only entered into the Egyptians houses, killing their first borne, as we have in Exodus, 
Exod. 12.  we shallbe compelled to say, that that lamb was turned into that same going over, or passing by or else that that going over or passing by was in that lamb according to there opinion that will, that Christ should be really in the sacrament, the substances of the bread and wine remaining. And because that that going over, was not then, when Christ said those words, that is to say, that, that lamb was the pascha or passover, but it was only in Moses' time in Egypt, it followeth that he did eat a thing that was not, behold what manner things do follow their opinion, that would that Christ should be bodily in that host and that cup, because he spoke these words, this is my body, shewing the bread, and this is my blood, shewing the wine. For so much as it is no less true, that the lamb is the pascha or passover, than that bread and that wine be Christ's body and blood, because Christ who cannot lie hath spoken th'one and tother. And god himself said the lamb is the passouer. It was therefore of necessity that the lamb should be turned into the passouer or at the least that that passouer should be in that lamb because god said so.  
If we will say that Christ hath given to the words of the Sacrament of the bread and the wine, the power to make the turning of th'one and t'other into the body and blood, but he hath not gewen the power, to tother words, of the lamb, to turn it into the passouer, or else that the passouer should be the lamb. 
Exod. 12.  This saying must needs be self-willed and without reason because the one and tother, is a sacrament and is made for remembrance, the lamb was ordained in remembrance of that passouer of the angel that was in Egypt, the bread and the wine, in remembrance of Christ's body and blood, given for our raunsominge. Furthermore they must show how Christ hath given such power to those words, that is to say, this is my body and this is my blood, that by uttering them, such turning should be made, or else that his body, and blood should be made present. They shall never be able to show this their self wild talk, to be true, neither by the holy scripture (as it were behove full they should do, Intending to affirm such a matter) and much less by any manner of reason available. Further though it were so that Christ had given such power to the words, yet he gave it not but to those words that he then said, when he did institute the sacrament and not to other. And this they of the same opinion do confess, but the words that Christ spoke then, be no more true, because he spoke than of the time to come, and not of the time past, that is to say this is my body, the which shallbe given for you, and this is my blood the which shallbe shed for you. These words were then true, because that his body was not yet given, nor his blood shed but they were to be given. but now they be no more true but false, because that even as Christ now can no more die nor suffer so can he no more give his body nor shed his blood. For so much as if he could do these things, he should be sufferable and mortal, and this cannot be. Therefore if these words had power to work those effects, them false words should have had power to turn the substances, or else to make Christ present in the sacrament, but if they be true, them have they power, to make Christ sufferable, and mortal. I confirm this reason thus, If, because Christ said those wosds, this is my body and this is my blood, such turning should be made, or else that he should be present in the sacrament, there would follow inconveniences, because that we should be compelled to say, that all the speeches of the scripture, and of god, in the which is affirmed that a thing is, other this, or that (seeing that god can not, tell an untruth) we shallbe compelled (I say) to affirm and grant, that it is so, as the words seem to say. And so we shallbe compelled to grant that the Testament or gods covenant whither you will call it, should be there in the same circumcision. For so much as that god, as we have in the Genesis, said to Abram when he did institute the circumcision, 
Gene. 17.  this is, my covenant, speaking of the same circumcision, and for all that the circumcision was not that covenant, but only a sign of that covenant, as in the same place, that is to say, the same chapter, it is plain, that god called the circumcision, the sign of his covenant. It is plain that the sign of a thing, is not the self same thing. And yet god said that the circumcision was the covenant. We shallbe compelled to grant that that fearful fantasy, the which appeared to Saul, 
1 Regum. 28.  as we have in the first book of the kings, was Samuel in deed, because the scripture there, dothcal it Samuel, and yet all the Catholic doctors, say and affirm, that it was a fantasy and a deceit of the devil and not Samuel. And we shallbe compelled also to say, that because Christ said that he was the vine, that he was so in deed. And because the scripture calleth, Christ a rock, a lion, a lamb, a sheep, and as many other things, as it speaketh of him, we shallbe compelled to affirm, that Christ in deed was all those things. But what will they say to Christ's own words in the same institution of the sacrament, Christ did not only say, this is my body and this is my blood, but he said taking the cup, 
Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11.  as luke and paul do affirm, this cup is my new testament in my blood. These words be aswell true, as those, this is my body, and this is my blood, and Christ did aswell sai these as those, except luke and paul did tell a lie, which is not to be spoken. Therefore we must needs grant, that that cup was turned, into the new Testament, or else at the least, that the new Testament was in that cup, the which is not true, for the new Testament is not the cup, nor is not in it, but it is the ordinance or disposition the which god made to leave to his elect children the ever lasting wealth, that is to say the forgiveness of sins, the freing from all evil, the everlasting life, and the possession of every good thing If thes be inconveniences as we may see, them their opinion is false The last reason is this. 
The tenth reason.  Christ may be eaten and his blood drunk only two ways that is to say, spiritually, and sacramentally the which sacramental eating therefore, as we have said, serveth and is profitable to the spiritual eating. I do not find after what other sort, except these two, we may eat Christ and drink his blood. But to eat Christ and drink his blood, after thes two sorts, we need not to put him really into the mouth, neither his body nor his blood, therefore it is not necessary that Christ should be really in the sacrament. That Christ may be eaten and his blood drunk after these two sorts, though that he really in body and in soul be not in the sacrament, I prove it thus. First to receive his body and his blood spiritually, we need not to receive him by the bodily mouth it sufficeth to receive him by faith, that is to say, to believe in him, as we proved before in the third reason, nor it needeth not, I say, for to eat his body and drink his blood after this sort, that we should put either the one, or tother into the bodily mouth, this is plain, because that such eating and drinking is done with the spirit, and with the mind. And this the adversary will not deny. That also it is not necessary for the receiving him sacramentally that he should be really in the sacrament, I prove it by the Apostle paul who saith to the Cor. that the Hebrew is he people were baptized, aswell they, 
1 Corin. 10  as we although under other signs than ours, because that we be baptized with water and that people saith paul was baptized with the cloud dni with the sea, passing thorough the midst of the read sea, and that cloud that covered them and the red sea thorough the midst whereof they all passed, was to them baptizing, where we may note that according to paul, not only they of full age were baptized but the children also, because that all were covered with the cloud and all passed thorough the midst of the sea. I desired to say these few words, for their sakes that be seduced by the wicked spirit of the anabaptistical error, who being led about by sathan do deny the baptism of children. If the hebrews, children were baptized in token that they were also of god's people, for what cause should not now our children be baptized being, no less of god's people than they, and being no less redeemed by Christ than they of full age? this I desired to say by the way.  
After paul addeth in the same place that all did eat the self same spiritual food, and drunk all the self same spiritual drink, And he calleth that spiritual meat, or else food (whether you will call it) the paschal lamb, and chiefly the manna, the which meats they all did eat, and he calleth the spiritual drink, that water which came out of the rock. And he addeth, that that rock was Christ, that is to say, did signify Christ. That spiritual food, that is to say the paschal lamb and the Manna, did also signify Christ, as the water did betoken him, although paul doth not expressly speak it. And to be short he meaneth that the hebrueish people did aswell communicate with those signs, as we do that eat the sacramental bread and sacramental wine, And paul meaneth in his tongue, that all did eat, and drink Christ sacramentally, for so much, as that to eat a thing sacramentally, is none other, but to eat the sacrament of the same. Well now if that people did eat Christ, and drink his blood sacramentally, when they did eat the paschal lamb, and the manna, and drunk that water that ran out of the rock, the which things were a sacrament of Christ, as the bread and the wine be to us, and did signify the same, as paul saith, and Austen expoundeth it in the 45. treatise upon john, saying, that those sacraments did signify the self same that ours do, although after an other sort. And yet not withstanding they did not eat Christ's body nor drink his blood really, putting them in to the mouth: What is the cause that we may not also eat his body, and drink his blood, sacramentally, without eating or drinking him really and bodily, forso much as that to eat or drink Christ sacramentally, is none other but to receive with the mouth his sacrament? And to be a sacrament, it is not needful that the thing signified should be in the same sacrament, and much less that there should be made any turning of the substances of the signs, And it is enough that the sacrament should be a sign of the same, that is to say, that it should signify it, according to the definition of a sacrament which saith Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum, that is to say, A sacrament is a sign of a holy thing, It is plain that Christ, as man, was not really in the hebrews sacraments, because, he was not yet either borne or incarnated. And how could his body and his blood be in those sacraments seeing his body and blood were not yet? And yet paul saith that they did eat the self same spiritual meat, and the self same spiritual drink that is to say, Christ spiritually.  
Certain expound paul's text, of the spiritual eating and drinking of that people, that is to say, by faith but because that all did not eat and drink spiritually and by faith, for so much as that a great part of them, as paul affirmeth, in the text were unbelievers, and yet he saith that all did eat the self same spiritual meat, and drink the self same spiritual drink. I have therefore expounded it of the sacramental eating and drinking, of the which all aswell believers as unbelievers, did eat and drink, and not of the spiritual, that is to say by faith the which belonged to the believers only. And though paul calleth that meat and drink spiritual, yet he meaneth not that it should be spiritual in itself, as that which is of faith is in deed spiritual, but he calleth it spiritual, as to the signification and as to the use, that is to say, that it was appointed to signify Christ, who is a spiritual and an holy thing, as our sacraments may be called spiritual things, be cause they be appointed, to spiritual things. There was not withstanding difference between those sacraments and ours, because that they (beside that they were appointed to spiritual things) served also for the bodily things, that is to say, to the necessity of the present life, for so much as the manna and the water were their daily meat and drink, so that they had two uses the one spiritual, because it was to them a sacrament, the other bodily the which served to the necessity of their bodies. Our sacraments be not so the which be taken only for the spiritual use that is to say, for sacraments, and not for the necessity of the body.  
To conclude therefore, I say, that seeing Christ cannot be eaten nor drunk but after one of these two sorts, that is to say spiritually and by faith and then sacramentally also. And after these two sorts Christ may be received though he be not really, that is to say in body and in soul, in the sacrament. It is not therefore profitable, and much less necessary, to affirm such real being in the same sacrament. They that say, that Christ is really in that host and in that cup, do not know, what meaneth to eat and drink Christ sacramentally, for so much as, that to eat and drink sacramentally, as we have said, is none other but to receive the sacrament, that is to say, the sign of the holy thing, and doth not mean to take bodily the self same thing, that is represented by the sacrament.  
I might if I would, and did not fear to be tedious to the readers, make divers other reasons also, but it needeth not, and those that we have made, do suffice. But let us put the case, that we had made no one reason, to prove this our negative, that is to say, that Christ is not really in the sacrament, nor there is not made any turning of the bread and the wine into his body and blood, nor that we had not alleged any saying of the scripture, the which not withstanding, god aiding us, we have sufficiently done, let us put the case (I say) that we had done no one of those things, yet they of the contrary opinion should not, by this, have had their purpose, because that it doth not belong to us to prove our negative, but it belongeth to them to prove there affirmative. For every one that affirmeth any saying is bound if he speak reasonably to prove it, If it were not already so plain that every man might see it: He that denieth is not bound to prove his negative. It is not enough for a man of what so ever authority he be, for to be believed, to say it is so, the matter standeth thus but he must prove his affirmative saying, chiefly if it be a matter of weight, and pertaining to faith as this is. Nor it is not enough neither, to be able to defend and maintain it, for so much as that many false opinions be, with wit, with distinctions, with wrangelinges and intangelinges defended, as though they were true. We may see this by experience, in the school doctoures and questionists, for few or none of them do agree together, but they be of contrary and d●…uers opinions and always every one of them defendeth his own fantasies, and they strive continually, and it is never known who hath the right, and they confound the minds of men, they lose the time, and cause other also to lose it.  
I desire then of these manner men that they would prove this their rule or opinion, that is to say, that Christ is bodily in the sacrament, and that the substance of the bread, and the wine be turned into his body and blood. I desire that they would prove it me, other by reason, or such authority as I should be bound to believe, This my request is just, reasonable and honest. By reason they can not prove it, this is clear, and themselves by agreement do confess it: by authority how do they prove it? They bring forth the old doctors, they alle●…ge the determinations of pope's, and of Counsels, the common opinion of the church, last of all they allege Christ's words when he did institute the supper, that is to say, this is my body shewing the bread, and this is my blood shewing the wine, and Christ's saying also in S. john, 
Io. 6.  that is to say, I am the bread of life. I am the living bread that am come down from heaven, and he that eateth of this bread, shall live for ever. And the bread which I shall give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. And after truly truly, I say unto you, if you eat not the flesh of the son of man, and drink not his blood you shall not have life in you, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting. And further, my flesh is verily meat, and my blood is verily drink, these be the authorities that they allege.  
To the which authorities I answer, and first to those of the old doctors, that is to say, as for example, of Ireneus, Tertulian, Cyprian, Origen, Hilary, Athanasius, basil, Ionh Chrisostom, Gregory Nazianzene, Gregory Nicene, cyril, Ambrose Iherom, Augustine, And such other holy fathers, the which laboured for Christ's church in writing books, expounding the scripture, disputing against heretics, preaching and teaching, whereby they do in deed deserve to be honoured for their learning, and holiness, but, I say that no one of them, nor of the other anucients, was caver of this opinion, that Christ should be bodily in the sacrament, and much less, that the substances of the bread and wine, should be turned into his body and blood, but in deed they have said the contrary. And though sometime it seemeth that they should affirm that the bread and the wine be Christ's body and blood, yet this is for none other cause, but that they speak of the sacraments, after the manner of the scripture the which doth call them by the name of the things signified by them, as we often find that Augustine did. Who very often hath declared such manner of speeches as we will tell here after, And let us admit also that all the old doctors had been of that opinion, and that all the world would say it yet ought we not to believe them, if they bring not forth the witness of the holy scripture, because that this is a thing pertaining to faith and, faith is ground wrought only upon god's word, as paul saith to the Romans, 
Ro. 10.  faith cometh of hearing but hearing is by the word of god, he doth not say by the word of men, the which may all ere, but he sayeth it cometh of god's word, and the holy scripture is god's word. Let them allege us in such things the holy scripture, and we will believe them, else not,  
And if any would say, and the scripture also was made by men therefore we ought not to believe it, I answer that the scripture is writ-told, and made by the holy ghost as peter saith in the second Epistle, 
2. Pet. 1.  and it was confirmed with great signs, and marvelous miracles. Nor no ●…ue of the fathers or old doctors did ●…auer desire, that they should be believed as the holy scripture but they all with one voice do say, and chiefly Saint Augustine, that concerning matters of faith we should so far believe them as is found in the holy scripture, and none otherwise, And they will that it should be lawful to deny any men, yea let them be of what so ever holiness learning and authority you will, but not to deny the holy scripture. Tell me, who is he that would believe the article of the trinity, although the whole world had told him, if it were not plain in the holy scriptures, who would believe the article of the incarnation of the son of god, and the other articles of the faith, If gods word had not told it? What can men know of such things, except so much as god oppeneth unto them by the scripture? Look upon Austen in the 19 epistle, 
The 19 pistle.  where he saith in sentence that he beareth this honour towards the Canonical books of the scripture, that he believeth seurly that no one of them hath ●…rred, but for all the rest, he may deny them, if they do not prove their suing by the holy scripture, 
The 3. pistle.  The very same in meaning he saith in the hundredth and eleventh epistle writing to fortunatianus the bishop. They all, beside all this, that I have said, were of this opinion, that Christ in that he is m●…, is only in heaven bodily.  

In the se second book against the denatists cap. 3.  Let us say the same of the determinations of pope's, and of counsels that all may ere. Austen in the second book against the donatists, saith that the universal former Counsels may be amended by them that follow. If they may be amended, surely they may ere, and so they that follow after them, who doubteth but they may ere aswell as they that go before? And we by experience ma●… see, that many counsels do ere for one of them doth gainsay an other. I speak not this because that men ought not to have reverence to counsels when they be lawfully gathered together and in the holy ghost, and when the determinations that be made in them, be according to the holy scripture as the Council of Niece was against Arrius, The council of Calcedone against Eutiches, And certain other old counsels, the which had gods word for their rule. And these only were gathered together in Christ's name, and in the holy ghost. But I say in deed that when they determine any manner of thing pertaining to faith, and do not stick to god's word, that we ought not to obey such counsels, nor men ought not to believe them. And in our days, we have the example of the council of Trent, the goodly determinations that it made, all, at the pope's good pleasure, whom the bishops cannot gainsay because they have all sworn never to go against the sea Apostolic? What estimation should men have of such counsels, where no respect is had to god's honour nor to his word, and such as be gathered together against Christ for to quench him out, and to establish the kingdom of Antichrist, shall we allow such counsels? This is a chief ground. The faithful Christian is not bound nor ought not, in matters pertaining to faith to believe the hole world together if they do not bring forth gods word, that is to say, the holy scripture for their witness.  
Well now they will say, that they have gods word, that is to say, Christ's words, who said this is my body, and this is my blood she wing the bread and the wine, therefore the bread and wine be turned into Christ's body and blood, and Christ is wholly in the host and in the wine. Further he said those words in the sixth chapter of John, above recited, where he willeth that we should eat his flesh and drink his blood, and this is not done except in the sacrament, therefore he is bodily in the sacrament. I answer first to those words, this is my body, and this is my blood, and I ask where in the scripture at any time is found that such a speech, as, This is my body and this is my blood, should mean, this is turned into my body and into my blood, or else my body and my blood be in these signs? I never found this manner of speech. Therefore the foresaid words have another meaning then that the which they give them, or that which the scriptures use that is to say, this is the sign of my body shewing the bread, and this is the sign of my blood, shewing the wine, as before we have said and we will also better say, in the declaration of those words, This is in deed their meaning. To the sayings of the sixth chapter of John, I say, that they do not allege them to purpose, because that there, Christ doth not speak of the sacramental eating, but of the spiritual, and by faith, as in the third reason we have declared, yea as Christ himself doth expound it in the text, and so all the old doctors do expound it, And chiefly Augustine who saith believe and thou hast eaten, so that seeing that opinion of the turning of the substances of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, nor that of his bodily presence in the sacrament cannot be proved, neither by reason nor any authority that availeth, we ought to conclude that it is a feigned invention and imagination of men and cometh not from god. The reasons of the true and Catholic opinion being ended, before that we answer to the objections and ground works of the parties contrary to the truth there remanith to make apere that the opinion which we have proved is that of the old church, and the forenamed doctors and holy men.  
And because I should be to long, if I would bring the multitude of doctors, It shall suffice me therefore to tell Augustine's opinion a most aware and true expounder of the old and sound opinions, the which Augustine holdeth not, but the opinion of the Auntiens, and that which was held in his time and of his predecessors. In his Epistle to bonifacius he writeth after this sort. 
Epistle 23.  If the sacraments should not have some similitude of those things, of the which they be sacraments, they should be in no wise sacraments, And by this lykelynes, those same sacraments many times, take the name of the things themselves. Even us therefore after a certain meyns the sacrament of Christ's body, is Christ's body, the sacrament of Christ's blood, is Christ's blood, and so the sacrament of faith, that is to say, the baptism is faith, and is called faith. See here Augustine, how he understandeth Christ's speech when he saith, this is my body showing the bread and this is my blood shewing the wine, not to mean that the bread should be in deed Christ's body, and the wine Christ's blood, He meaneth not this. But he meaneth that therefore the bread is called Christ's body and the wine his blood, because they be sacraments and signs of Christ's body and blood. Also in a book the which is against Adimantus the Maniche in the xii. chapter Augustine saith, 
Against Adimantus ca 12  The lord doubteth not to say (and he speaketh of Christ) this is my body when he gave the sign of his body. Here Austen plainly expoundeth this saying of Christ that is to say, this is my body, that is as much to say, as this is the sign of my body. 
The 3. book. cap. 16.  And in the third book called de doctrina Christiana in the xvi. he saith that if that thing which Christ commandeth shall seem strange inconvenient or evil done, than we ought not to, understand such speech according to the letter, but figuratively. And giving the examples of these words of Christ that is to say. If you eat not the flesh of the son of man and drink not his blood you shall not have life in you. He saith that such speech ought not to be understand according to the letter, because that understanding it according to the letter it is a disagreeable, and an inconvenient thing, that is to say, that the flesh of a man should be eaten and his blood drunk.  
And therefore it ought to be understand sound that is to say, that Christ did not mean of the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood fleshly but spiritually, believing in him, and having remembrance of so great a benefit as he hath wrought us suffering and dying for us. And this is the eating and drinking, that Christ meant of. And to eat and drink after this sort, It needeth not that Christ should be really in the consecrated bread and wine, 
The thirty treatise upon Ihon.  but only that the faith of Christ. should be in us. And in the thirty treatise upon john he saith, The lord is above, that is to say in heaven, but the lord, that is, the truth is also here. Christ's body in the which he rose, must needs be in one place, but his troth is every where and he meaneth by the troth Christ's godhead. And in the epistle which he writeth to dardanus he saith he shall come for to judge the living and the dead, in the self same form that he ascended into heaven, to the which form, he hath seurly given immortality, but he hath not taken away the nature of it, we may not think that according to this manner of form, that is to say, man's, he should be spread abroad every where. For we must take heed that we do not so affirm his god head that we take away the truth of his body, for it followeth not that, that which is in god should be so every where as god. Of these two sayings of Austen the which before we have also alleged, in the seventh reason is concluded, that Austen will not that Christ's body may be in more than one place at one time, he will in deed that his god head should be every where, but not his manhood, the which is in one only place, that is to say in heaven.  
The master of the sentences glozing or else expounding certain sayings of Augustine in the fourth of his sentences the tenth distinction where he bringeth forth amongst his other sayings this: 
In the 4. of the sentences the tenth distinction.  that is to say that Christ's body may be in one place, but the truth is spread abroad every where: he saith that Christ's body may be in one placeseable in man's form, but his truth that is to say his godhead, is every where. 
upon John the sixth.  And he addeth the truth also of the same, that is to say, his very body is on every aultare in every place where men celebrate. saving his reverence this is not to set forth Austen mind, but it is to give it strange senses that he never meant and it is in deed a maiming of his sayings: Austen by that word troth, meaneth Christ's godhead, the which is powered abroad every where and doth not mean the body, and yet he doth notwithstanding expound it for the body, the which is (as he saith) on all the altars where they celebrat. And so he doth with many other sayings of S. Augustine in the said distinction, and in other, where he speaketh of the matter of the thanks giving, maiming S. Augustine's sayings, and calling those heretics that say the contrary, that is to say, that hold not that Christ's bodily presence is in the sacrament. But we will let him gloze at his will, and say what pleaseth him. And it is to be maruelled-at that he should so lightly and without reason pronounce these to be heretics that speak nothing contrary to god's word, but they do in such sort honour it, as they do not allow in the matter of religion and faith any more, than so much as the same word speaketh not minding, to stand to men's opinions except they be agreeable with the holy scripture. The master of the sentences here giveth an unjust and a wicked judgement.  
But in the third book of the trinity, 
The third book of the trinity. ca 10.  Augustine saith that no miracle happeneth about the sacrament of Christ's body and blood. If it be so that according to Saint Augustine, there chanceth no miracle about that sacrament he then believed not that Christ, should be bodily in the sacrament, for if he had believed it he would never have said, that there was no miracle, but he would have said, that there happened, many and most great miracles, as before in the fifth reason we have seen. Well it is plain then after Austin's mind, that Christ is not really in body and in soul in the sacrament, but he calleth the consecrated bread and wine Christ's body and blood because they be signs of his body and blood not that they should be really and in deed his true body and blood because he will that those should be in heaven, and not on the earth in the sacrament. We might if we would allege, the other old doctors, as Ireneus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, and Chrysostom, all the which be of the self same opinion, but let S. Austen suffice us, who among all the rest is the most faithful witness of all the auntientie, And this we do to be short, not withstanding if any would see these doctors sayings, let him look upon Ireneus, who herd Policarp. John the evangelists disciple, in the fourth and fift book that he maketh against heresies. Let him look upon Tertullian that was next to Ireneus in the first fourth and fift book against Martian the heretic. Let him look upon Origen upon leviticus the seventh and ninth homely. Let him look upon Ambrose in the eleventh chapter upon the first epistle to the Corinthians. Let him look upon Chrisostom in the 83. homely upon S. Matthew. Let him look upon jeron upon Ecclesiastes the third chapter, all whose sayings for shortness I leave out. Then it is plain that the opinion and judgement of the old church, 
Mark.  is that which before we have proved. And we must here mark that the old doctors intending in their manner of speech to agree with the scripture, the which when it speaketh of the Sacraments doth name them by the name of the things signified very often when they treat of the same sacraments and chiefly of the thanks giving, thei cal it many times body and blood and they speak in such sort as it seemeth they mean to affirm the bodily presence of the body and blood in the sacrament, a thing that they never intended. The which thing when the late writers and chiefly the school men have not taken heed to, they have boldly, set furth the bodily presence of th'one and tother in the sacrament, but they be deceived, for so much as that was never the opinion of the Auntientes.  
And if any one would bring forth the book of sacraments ascribed to Ambrose, the which putteth this new opinion of Christ's bodily presence in the sacrament. It may be boldly answered him, that that book was never Ambroses', because that neither the style of the speech was Ambroses' nor the sentence, the which is contrary to many his sayings in his other books. Nor let no man marvel, though I deny those books to be Ambroses', for many books were ascribed to the old doctoures that they never saw, much less made as that book of the true and false repentance, ascribed to Austen, the which teacheth against Austen naming him and yet certain have attributed it to him. Certain men of small consciences have done this other that they might better sell such books, or to make their opinions be believed and to give them authority under the name of Ancients, or else for some other respects scant honest. It is no small fault to go about under other men's authorities without their consent to make men believe their opinions, as it is a great fault that their labour and books should be attributed to other. And I say more also again, that although all the old doctors were of such opinion that is to say that Christ were bodily present in the sacrament, we be not bound, nor we ought not to believe them, If they prove it not by the holy scripture the which they never did nor it can not be done. And this is the sign, that as many as ever were of this opinion, could never hitherto make reason that might avail. If this bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament, had been true, it should have been a thing much belonging to faith, and the Apostolic writings would have made us clear, and sure of it but we see that such a presence is affirmed in no one place of the scripture. Therefore it is not true but it is an invention of man, the which ought not to have any place in gods things.  
Now there remaineth to answer to their reasons that hold this bodily presence of Christ in the sacrament. They make (as in the beginning we have said) many profess and reasons, but none availeth. And we will not answer, but to three or four, which have a certain small show, for answering to these few it is an easy thing to answer to all the other.  
One and the first is this, 
The first reason.  that is to say Chest calleth the consecrated bread his body and the wine his blood, therefore it is so that the bread is his body and the wine his blood that is that the bread and the wine, be turn into his body and blood, or at the least be there really present, or else he should have spoken a lie, the which cannot be, seeing Christ is the undeceivable troth. This is the greatest reason that they can make, the which not withstanding is nothing worth, yea it cometh of an ignorance of the manner of speech of the scripture, or else if it come not of ignorance it proceedeth of an obstinacy and self-willedness because they desire to defend, whether it be (according to the common saying) right or wrong, that which once they have affirmed, because they would not seem to have erred. I answer to this reason, and say, that Christ said the troth and could not speak an untruth, because he could not ere being god. And it is true that the bread is Christ's body and the wine is his blood, and I confess it, but it is true as Christ meant it, not as they would have it. Christ when he said this is my body shewing the bread, and this is my blood showing the wine, did not intend, nor went not a bout to say that that bread was really, and substantially, his body, and the wine his blood, but he meant to say that that bread and that wine, were a sacrament and did signify his body and his blood: And he followed the manner of the speech of the scripture, when he speaketh of sacraments: you know well enough that Christ always did honour the holy scripture, alleging it very often, and provoking men to the same. And therefore because he knew that the custom of the scripture is to name the sacraments, and call them, by the name of the things signified, and represented by them, he also desired to use that manner of speech, calling the bread and the wine his body and blood, because they did signify both the one and the other, that is to say, he called the bread his body, because it did signify his body, and the wine his blood because it did signify his blood, as before S. Augustine hath said.  
That the custom of the scripture is to call the sacraments by the name of the things signified by them, it is easily proved, and we have already seen it in the former talk. The circuncision, was a sacrament of the hebrewish people, and because it was a sacrament, the scripture doth call it covenant, because it was the sign of god's covenant made with Abraham and his of springe, as it is written in genesis where god doth first call it, the sign of the covenant, and after a few words, he calleth it the covenant. The covenant was this, that god would be the god of Abraham and of his seed, that is to say, of his of springe. It is a plain matter that the circumcision was not really this covenant, or promise, and yet god doth call it covenant, because it was the sign of the covenant, should we say that the circuncision was in deed gods covenant because god called it by this name covenant? surely no, but we must say, if we will say well, that therefore god calleth it so, because the same is a sign of gods covenant, or else of gods promise. And if any should say what meaneth it that god did use this manner of speech, Can not he use the proper manner of speech and not the improper? To this I answer, that god often times useth with us the custom of men, because we be men and he agreeth to our manner of speech, for so much as the custom is among men, that they call the signs of a thing, by the self same name, of the same thing signified. As for example, If at any time we should make a covenant or an agreement with any man as soon as the agreement and covenant is made, we cause to be made, an instrument or a writing of such agreement, and we call it covenant or else agreement, not that, that instrument is really such agreement (for the covenant and agreement, went before) but because it is a sign of such covenant and agreement So we call the writing of a sale or of a purchase, a sale or purchase, because it is a sign and confirmation of the sale or purchase. And we do call the writing or the instrument of such things, testament, or legacy, or gift, because it is the sign and confirmation of these things. Let us give an other example which also is of the scripture. In Exodus and in many other places, the ceremony of the paschal lamb, is called passouer. And Christ and the apostles did so call it. Christ said in saynet luke, I have earnestly desired, to eat this passouer, before I suffer. Here Christ called the paschal lamb passover. And the apostles said to Christ, where wilt thou that we prepare for the to eat the passouer. And for all that, the paschal lamb was not really the passouer, because the passouer as we have in the same Exodus, was that passage (as it is also said before in the ninth reason) the which the Angel made when he struck the first borne of Egypt, and passed by the houses of the hebrews. Now that passage, was properly, the passouer. But because the lamb was ordained, that it should be killed and after eaten, with many ceremonies in sign and remembrance of that thing, therefore the scripture calleth it passover.  
Behold how the scripture calleth the sacraments, by the names of the things represented and signified, why shall we marvel then that Christ did call the consecrated bread his body and the wine his blood, because they should be signs and a remembrance of his body and blood? We ought not to marvel, yea it is our great rudeness and dullness that we see not this thing, and why he hath done it, that is to say why he calleth the bread his body and the wine his blood. Every man saith that the sacrament of thanks giving doth come in stead of the sacrament of the paschal lamb. And if it be so, seeing that the scripture and the apostles call the same such lamb passover yea Christ himself in the same supper when he instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called that lamb passover, not for any other cause, but for that it was a sign and a remembrance of the passouer, why should not the bread be called the body and the wine the blood, because they be signs and a remembrance of the body and the blood: even as the lamb is called passouer, because it is the sign and remembrance of the passouer. And that rock out of which came forth the water in the desert, paul calleth it Christ, not for any other cause, but for that it did signify Christ, nor there was never any men that by such a saying would think that paul meant to affirm, that that stone was really Christ, but that he meant only to say that it did signify Christ. So likewise let us say of the bread and the wine, that they be called body and blood, because they be signs and a remembrance of such things. We have been long in answering to this reason because in deed the whole consisteth in this declaration that we have made.  
The second reason is this, If Christ were not really in the sacrament S. Paul would not have said that it should be condemnation to them that should take it unworthily, nor he would not have said, that such should be guilty of the lords body and blood. For so much as that if Christ be not in the sacrament, there should not be any other thing but bread and wine, and being none other thing there, it should not be to us such condemnation, as it is in deed no condemnation to eat other comen bread and to drink other wine. To this is answered, that therefore paul saith that they be guilty of the lords body and blood, the which do take the consecrated bread and wine and the sacrament unworthily, not for because that either the body or the blood be in the sacrament, but they be therefore guilty of the one and the other, because they despise Christ's death they despise his body and blood, not going with that faith and with that reverence that they ought to take those holy signs Instituted by Christ in remembrance of his body and blood given to death for our ransom. In old time they that did despise or dishonour the name or the glory of the Roman Empire they were guilty of treason against the state of Rome. And they that had done wrong to Caesar's Image or else had defaced any of Caesar's writings, This was as if they had laid violent hands upon the prince's person. He that would dishonour the arms or the badges, of any great state, that prince would have esteemed such dishonour and disworship to be committed against his own person, for when his badges or else his Arms be despised he himself is despised. So seeing that jesus Christ the chief prince of the world hath Instituted the sacramental bread and wine, to the intent that that it should be a remembrance of so great a thing, and should represent so great a mystery, that is to say, that hath given his body and his blood, and died for to deliver us from sin and from everlasting death, and to give us everlasting life: surely they that will take these holy signs without true repentance of there sins, and without true faith, and without consideration of so great a mystery and benefit they make no count, neither of Christ's body nor his blood nor of his death, no nor of Christ himself. it is no marvel therefore, that they, who go to take such a sacrament unworthily, do eat and drink judgement, that is to say condemnation, because when they despise the signs of so great things, they do consequently despise the same things, and him also that did institute such signs. It is not proved by this that Christ is enclosed in this sacrament, but the contrary.  

The third reason.  The third reason the which seemeth to have some show is this, that is to say that if Christ were not here in this sacrament, there should not be wrought any such great miracles, as men see. Sometime it is seen that the hosts have cast out blood and such blood is kept in many places. It is red in the life of Saint Gregory, that the consecrated bread marvelously changed into a man's finger. It is red that that the brute beasts did kneel down at the presence of the thanks giving. And sometime there appeared a child when the host was listed up. What shallbe said to these great miracles, sewerlye if Christ were not in the sacrament god would never have wrought these great signs.  
This reason is nothing worth, and it is like the reason that they make, that defended purgatory with saying that there was heard certain lamentable voices of the souls of the dead which desired help of there parents or friends, that they would cause to be said masses and chiefly those masses that be called Saint Gregory's, and as soon as they were said those voices were heard no more. It is told also in the life of a certain seinct (but in deed a friars saint) that he saw once a valley full of souls, the which desired help, and that seinct was moved to pity of those poor souls. I leave to you to think how many those souls ought to be, that filled that valley, when he had said I cannot tell how many masses (because I do not well remember the story) he returned to see the valley and he found them no more there, because they were delivered out of purgatory. I do much marvel that all the souls in purgatory went not thither into that valley that they all might have been delivered by that saints Masses. Ergo there is a purgatory. What will the lutherans that deny purgatory say here what will they say? They that you call lutherans, will sai that you be a blind sort of superstitious, I will not say ignorant Idiots of gods causes, and that you have no faith in Christ, thinking that the material fire, can do that to the souls, that only Christ hath done with his precious blood that is to say to purge them, and perfectly to satisfy gods justice for all the sins of the believers. And they will say that you deserve to be beguiled, and mocked by the devil, that leadeth you to think that the souls of the dead do lament and desire masses, and ye perceive not that he is the same wicked spirit, the which feigneth himself to be the souls of the dead, and desireth help, and carrieth about your brain, and maketh you believe that glow worms be lanterns, The souls of the dead go not a solacing here and there (as Chrisostome upon S. Matthew, saith very well) but they abide in there places appointed unto them, those souls of the faithful and godly abide with Christ, the other abide in there place looking for there final condemnation.  
Even so I say of these manner miracles (though they wear in deed) that they be none other but illusions and disceyts of sathan, for to give credit to the Mass, and to being to pass that we should not believe surely in Christ. And god by his just judgement doth suffer these disceyts, because we will not receive the knowledge of the troth nor believe the holy gospel. And for this most great sin, he will that we shall believe lies, and be deceived. Nor surely we deserve none other, but to receive and allow Antichristes' miracles, as saint paul saith to the Thessalonicenses, 
2. Thess. 2.  seeing that we will not stand to god's word. The holy scripture and gods word ought without any doubt to be in much more credit with us, then as many such miracles, the which in deed be all lies, yea then as many miracles although they be true, as can be wrought in the world. The which word of god doth affirm and say that Christ jesus is in heaven, 
Mar. 16. Luc. 24.  and that from thence he shall come to judge the living and dead, and there he shall abide, 
Act. 3.  as peter saith in the Acts of the apostles until the time of the restitution of all things, and it maketh us likewise to understand that the sacraments be signs, and be not the things signified, let us take heed, and give credit to these things that be clear and plain, If we will not be deceived, and not to the opinions and fantasies of men, which be not found in the scripture, but be clearly against them:  

the fourth reason.  They make another reason, the which I would have said nothing of, because it is already answered, yet for so much as they bringein with the same, certain examples or similitudes to give a colour to their opinion, of the which we have not yet spoken we will say of them a few words to the greater and more plentiful clearness of the truth. They say, that god can bring it to pass, that is to say, that whole Christ great and thick as he was on the Cross, should be in the sacrament, and that he should be whole in every part of the same as the soul is whole in the whole body, and whole in every part of the body, and that he should be as man, in many places, in heaven on earth upon all altars, and in every other place where the sacrament of thanks giving is. He can turn one body into another, as shall seem good and like him, because he is almighty, than he can make that the bread shallbe turned into his body, and the wine into his blood.  he could create the world of nothing, he can much easilier change one thing into another. They give eyample of Moses' rod, the which was turned into a serpent and then the serpent was turned again into the rod likewise the waters of Egypt were turned into blood.  
Concerning the being of whole Christ in the sacrament, as great and thick, as he is in heaven, they give the similitude of the heaven which we see, the which being so great, is not withstanding whole in our little eye. Likewise our whole face, appeareth in a glass that is much less than the face is, yea the whole man, is seen in a little glass. Concerning the being of whole Christ in every part of the sacrament, they give the similitude of our soul, as we have already said the which is whole in the whole and whole in every part of the body Our face also is whole in the whole glass and whole in every part of the glass, after this sort, that is to say, that if the glass should be broken in many parts, our whole face would apere in every one of them. Concerning Christ's bodily being in many places, that is to say in heaven, on the earth and in every place where the sacrament is, they give the similitude of a man the which should have about him many glasses in every one of these glasses the form of a man will apere. Likewise if one speak in the presence of many persons, his voice is but one, and yet it is whole in divers men's ears. If nature bring this to pass, that is to say, that one thing may be in divers places, much more Christ who is god the maker of nature can bring it to pass in his body, that is to say that first the bread, should be turned into his body and the wine into his blood, and after, then that it should be whole in the whole host and in the cup, and whole in every part of the sacrament, and that it should be in divers places, If he can do those things, and will do them, as we understand by the words of the sacrament, the which say, this is my body showing the bread, and this is my blood sh●…winge the wine, than they be done, because it is written in the psalm Quaecunque voluit, fecit dominus, All things that the lord would do he did.  
I answer first to the reason itself, and after I will speak of the similitudes, To the reason, that is to say if god can do it, therefore he hath done it, I say that it awayleth not, and it is already answered before in our seventh reason that god doth not all that he can do, as we give the example of the twelve thousand legions of Angels the which god if he would, could have sent to help Christ, and yet he sent them not. God can bring to pass that we all may walk upon the sea without ships as some time Christ did, And as it is written in the book of wisdom, and yet he doth it not. Our question is not whether god can do it or no, but it is whether god hath done it or no. They saiyes and we say no, It belongeth to them to prove that he hath done it and that he doth it a fresh, the which they shall never do nor can never bring it to pass by god's word, this is a sure rule. Concerning that they go about to say, that god had desire to do it, this is not only false but most false. What reason is this, Christ said this is my body shewing the bread, and this is my blood shewing the wine, therefore he will that the bread should be turned into his body and the wine into his blood, or at the least that he should be in the sacrament, in such sort as they say? This reason doth not deserve any answer, for so much as Christ by these words, meant not to say any other but that the bread and the wine, were a sacrament and signs of his body and blood and meant not to say that which they affirm, as before we have so often declared.  
The examples or similitudes that they bring forth be not to the purpose, and they be rather dissimilitudes then otherwise. The example of Moses' rod turned into the serpent, and after the serpent turned into the rod, and of the waters turned into blood, it is not like, because the serpent, 
Note further that in turning of Moses' rod, of the water into blood and such other miracles the senses did witness the change of the things, which holdeth not in the transubstantiation.  into the which the rod was turned, was not before, but was newly made. Likewise that blood into the which the waters were turned was newly made, and was not before, but Christ's body and his blood were and be, before the bread. They put certain turnings against nature, not marvelous but rather monstrous and Imaginative. Let them give me but one example in the hole scripture, that god ever turned one thing into another that was before, they shall not find it. How dare they then be so bold to affirm such a thing yea that which is more, to go about to make men believe it as an article of the faith and yet they cannot neither prove it by gods word, nor bring forth any example, that ever any like thing was done? The example of the heaven that it is in our eye which is little, is nothing worth, because the heaven is not really in our eye but there is only the image or the similitude of the heaven the which similitude is little, as the eye, nor it is not unconvenient that the similitude or the Image of a great thing should be little, as the Image of Cesar was in the coin that was showed to Christ by the pharisees, the Image of Cesar was in that coin the which was much less than Cesar himself and nevertheless it did represent Cesar who was great and much greater than that Image. We will say the like of the Image of the man in the glass the which although that it be much less than the man, yet it doth represent the man. This is no great matter, that the Image of a great thing should be little, but it should be a great matter that a greater body should be contained in one much less as they say of Christ, that great and thick as he was upon the wood of the cross, and as presently he is in heaven, he should be whole contained in a little cake. They that give these examples of heaven and of the things that be seen in glasses do not prove that a great body is contained in a little as they say of Christ, that he is contained in the host, but they prove only the Image or similitude of a great thing may be whole in a little thing, the which we deny not, but if the similitude or image of a great thing be in a little thing, this is because, that that Image itself also is little and no greater than that body where in it appeareth, yea it is less, so that these examples be not to the purpose.  
To the other similitudes I say also that they avail not, that of the soul that it should be whole in the whole body, and whole in every part of the body. This is because the soul seeing that it giveth life to all the body as it is plain, must needs be in every part of the body for so much as that seeing it giveth life not only to the whole body, but to every part of the same. It is necessary that it should be in all the parts, because that if it were not in any part, that part should not be a live, And because that the soul, wheresoeaver it is, of necessity it must be whole there being undyvidable and not having parts because it is a spirit, there fore it is necessary, that the soul be whole in the whole, and whole in every part of the body, but Christ's body not being a spirit, and having many parts being long, broad, and think, cannot be whole in the whole, and whole in every part of the place where he is, and as it is repugnant, to a body to be a spirit so is it repugnant to it to be undevydhable in a place. To the other similitude of our face, the which is whole in the whole and whole in every part of the glass after this sort, that is to say, that when the glass is broken, the Image of the face is in every piece of the glass. I say they be deceived, nor it is not true that one Image is in all those pieces of the glass, when it is broken, but there be many Images and so many as there be pieces of the broken glass, divided the one from the other. It is true in deed that they be like, but they be not the self same as the self same body of Christ is in all the pieces, after their Imagination.  
To the other two examples with the which they would prove, that one thing may be in many places, I say to the first, that is to say, to that which saith that the Image of one man may be in divers glasses, if a man were set about with many glasses, for so much as that the Image of the same man shallbe in every one of those glasses. I say that those Images that shallbe in divers glasses shall not be one only but as many as there shallbe glasses, albeit that they shallbe like, and therefore the example availeth not, It had been behoveful if it should have availed, that one self Image and no more should have been in divers glasses the which is false. To the last example the which saith, that one self voice is in divers ears, therefore one bodily thing may be in diverse places. I answer, that that voice the which is heard is one and no more, but I deny that the self same is in divers ears, yea I say, that that which is earde is not in any ear but is in the air next to him that speaketh, It is true in deed that the similitude of the same voice is there in their ears that hear, but that similitude is not one, but as many as the ears be that hear, and this is like the thing that is seen. As for example, many eyes see one face, and that face which is seen is no more but one, nevertheless in divers eyes that see the face, be divers Images and that Image that is in one eye, is not in an other. And so is it of the voice, the same is one, but it is not in the ears. And the Images be divers, which do represent the voice that is in the air, and it is behoveful that those Images should be as many as the ears be which hear. I have made this long talk of these examples, the which peradventure, to some shall seem superfluous yet I desired to do it, for to make the unlearned understand that all the examples which they can bring forth be not to the purpose.  
last of all we will tell you one objection that they make, that is to say, Christ said that he whold be with us until the end of the world this to be with us here beneath, is for that he is in the sacrament, and dwelleth with us, being in the churches, Enclosed with in the pixes and little closerts. O pour and wretched people that will hide Christ under lock and key as the jews did, that thought to keep him well in the sealed tomb, that he should not be stolen away. You have kept him many hundredth years in such sort shut up, that our predecessors could not see him, yet at the last (by gods goodness) he is not only come a broad, but he hath broken your shettinge and doth show his merry and godly countenance to his, that is to say to them that desire to see him and he hath put you in such fear that you wot not what to do, you would yet once again Imprison him but there is no mean to do it. Do what you will, yea and can appoint, devise, gather councils against him, follow your foregoers that crucified him, persecute and take his members, evil handle them, make them rot in prison, as ye have already made some of them, torment them after sundry and cruel whayes, and kill them, yet you shall not avail. But by these means you shall make him more shining and glorious. It must needs be o Antichristes' that you should lose, striving with him that is king of kings, and lord of lords,  
I answer them, that when Christ said to his disciples in the name of the whole church I will be with you until the end of the world, he meant not to say that he should be with us in the sacrament, no, but he meant to say that he would be with us, with his help that he would be with us with his power and with his spirit, to the intent that the apostles, and after the apostles, we should not think when he ascended into heaven, and as to the bodily presence, for soak the earth that he did forsake both them and us, or had no more care of us, as to the helping us. And therefore he said I will be with you until the end of the world, even as the son although it be bodily in heaven separate from the earth, yet as to the power and help, and as to do it good it doth not forsake it, because it giveth it light, it warmeth it, it maketh it springe, it maketh the trees flower covereth and decketh them with leaves, it maketh them bring forth fruit, it helpeth the generation of beasts, and it is as it were a life, of all the bodied things, So doth Christ notwithstanding that he is in heaven, much higher than the son, yet he doth not therefore forsake us, but he hath such care of us, that he doth help us, and worketh in us, with his holy spirit and godly power, much more nobly and effectuously, than the son doth in all the bodied things, because without him we can do nothing but sin, and he helpeth us much more effectuously, then if he were on the earth. And therefore he said to his disciples, that it was expedient that he should ascend into heaven, as it is written in Ihon. He lighteth us inwardly, he converteth us, teacheth us, maketh us strong, giveth us faith, and love, increaseth both the one and the other, he giveth us trust and hope in god, he giveth us joy and mirth in spirit, he giveth us patience and every virtue. And to be short he worketh every good thing in us, and fulfilleth every thing in all, as it is written to the Ephesians, where he his compared to the head, 
Ephe. 1 and 4  the which power thin and giveth virtue, strength and working to all the members, according to the being of every one of them. Behold after what sort Christ's saying is understand? And they that expound it of Christ's presence in the sacrament do not understand it, yea I say that they do greatly diminish Christ's meaning, because they draw down the hearts of men, the which god and Christ would, should be on high and lifted up into heaven. And this is one of the chiefest causes, why Christ jesus would ascend into heaven and not any longer be conversant on earth, to th'intent that they should follow the council yea commandment of paul, the which (as before in the eight reason we have said) writing to the Colossians, sayeth, If you be risen again with Christ, 
Colos. 3  seek the things that be a 'bove, where Christ is who sitteth on the right hand of god understand you the things above and not the earthly things. And shose men do the contrary, for they draw us down allow and to the earth, saying that Christ in the little closeth and in the little holes when we should have our conversation above and in heaven, and that we might say with paul: Our conversation is in heaven from whence we look for our lord jesus Christ, who shall change our wretched bodies and shall make them like to his glorious body.  
We think, yea we be certain, that thus far we have plainly proved, and showed, many ways that Christ jesus is not bodily in the sacrament of thanks giving (or the lords supper as paul calleth it) and that there is much less made in the same any substantial turning of the bread and the wine into his body and blood. And we have made it apere, that the opinions which affirm such things be false and erroneous. There remaineth now in the end to see who were the authors of those straying and fantastical Imaginations, and whereby they were moved to find them out seeing they be without all reason and contrary to Christ's mind, and the whole holy scripture.  
I have not yet hitherto been able to know, when this opinion of the real and bodily being of jesus Christ in the sacrament, did begin. It appeareth that about the year of our lord 877. or about the time of pope john the eight or a little before, men began to dispute about that matter. john scotus an English man, not he that was called sottell, but another more ancient, and weary worthy in learning, who flourished in france under Charles surnamed bald, made a book against this new opinion of the sacrament, whose judgement, shortly after, Beringarius of the country of Turonne, and deacon of Aungee, followed, a man of singular learning, and of holy life who dealt all his goods to the power, and lived by the labour of his hands as Platina writeth in the life of Pope john the fifteenth. But one lanfranck of pavia bishop of Canterbery in England, so much prevailed with his authority, with Pope Leo the ninth and so much persuaded him, that in the council of vercels, he caused the said John scotusses book and berengarionses opinion who followed him, to be condemned. And it was ordained in that council that men ought to believe not only Christ's presence in the sacrament, but the turning of the bread and the wine into his body and blood. And this was as Mat. palmerius and john lucidus Samothenus in the amendments of the times say, in the year of the lord. 1052. so that it is now just. 500 years sense this new opinion of the turning of the substances of the bread and the wine into Christ's body and blood was first determined.  
Beringarius opinion of the sacrament, the which was condemned, as lanfranck setteth it out in his book made against him, is this. The sacrifice of the church is mad of. 2. things of the seeable and of the unseeable, that is to say of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacrament. The which thing not withstanding, that is to say, the body of Christ, if it were before men's eyes, it should be seeable, but it is lifted until the times of the restitutions of all things up into heaven, and sitting on the right hand of the father can not be called back from heaven, (as th'apostle peter writeth) be cause that the parson of Christ hath his being of god and of man, but the sacrament of the lords table is made of bread and of wine, the which things consecrated be not turned, but abide in their substances having lykelynes with those things whereof they be a sacrament. This true and godly opinion of Beringarius the which, as we have said before, ●…s the opinion of the old church, and is taken out of the holy scripture, was condemned in the foresaid council of ve●…selles. And afterward another time in Rome, by pope Nicholas the second, who compelled Beringarius to recant, and make a beastly and shameful confession contrary to his own true confession. Beringarius recantation is put in the decree of consecration, the two distinction, capite Ego beringarius, where he confesseth and affirmeth that he believeth with the church of Rome that the bread and the wine, which be set on th'altar, be not only a sacrament, but also they be the true body and blood of our lord jesus Christ, and that he is not only in the sacrament, but also in troth sensually handled with the priests hands, and is broken in pieces and with the teeth of the faithful is gnawed in to morsels. Do ye think that this was a godly confession that they compelled this holy man Beringarius to make, the which confesseth that Christ is in deed sensibly handled, that is to say touched, and broken with the priests hands, and than after, 
This host was such one as believed all things.  that he is knawed in to morsels with the teeth of the faithful? Me thinketh that this confession is like unto that boast of Bachanus that believed to much as it is said.  
The glosser of the decree, to whom such a manner of confession seemed strange and crewel saw this well enough, and therefore he saith, if thou doused not after a safe sort understand Beringarius words, thou shalt fall into a greater heresy than that which he had. The master of the sentences in the fourth, the twelve distinction, myndy●…g to gloze the words of the same confession, saith, that the same (to be sensibly handled) may be referred both to th'one and tother, that is to say to the body and to the sacrament of the body. But the same (to be broken in pieces and to be knawed into morsels, can not be said but of the sacrament only, A good gloze that speaketh contrary to the text. This gloze hath two faults. First it speaketh against the auctor, that is to say against the master of the sentences himself, who giveth it, because he will that Christ should be in the sacrament, undyvydably, whole in the whole, and whole in every part of the sacrament. If it be so, how can he be touched and handled with the priests hands? For so moch as that the thing which is handled, is felt with the hands, and if it be felt, it must needs be hot or cold, moist or dry, hard or soft, rough or smooth, who did ever touch Christ's body sins it ascended into heaven, and did ever feel it whether it were hot could or of what quality it should be? If the master of the sentences had said that the withcomes of the bread and the wine be handled with hands, he had said true according to his opinion, because that the greatness of the bread, and the withcomes of it, may be felt with hands, but the withcomes of Christ's body can not be felt. Therefore Christ's body can not be handled with the priests hands. Further if Christ's body in the sacrament may be handled with hands, why should it not be seen? It is plain that every thing that is felt, may also be seen, if it be not a thorough shower as the air is. But who did ever see Christ in the sacrament? Thother fault of the same gloze is, that it speaketh against the text. For the text of beringarius confession, saith expressly, that not only the sacrament, but Christ's body and blood, be sensibly handled with the priests hands, be broken and knawed to morsels with the teeth of the faithful. These words cannot have that sense, that the master of the sentences giveth them, because that the body and the blood, be plainly spoken of, and he saith in the text, that they be broken, and gnawed into morsels, with the faythfuls teeth.  
Further it is not to be thought that they who were present at that confession, did understand the words otherwise than according to the open and lettered signification. For so much as that in confessions men must chiefly speak plainly, and not in such sort as it should be necessary to give them gloss and expositions, but they ought to be open, and many fast, and far from any doubt. And so much the more as they that compelled him to make that confession, did wirt it themselves as it liked them. It is said that a certain man called Humbertus cardinal of burgony, worded or if you will so call it, framed that confession, O Capernites: This is the honour that they did to Christ, to constrain a poor man to confess that Christ, who is immortal, and unsufferable, should be sensibly handled, and broken with the priests hands, and chawed and gnaved into morsels, with the teeth of the faithful. Be these the counsels gathered together in the holy ghost? Let the master of the sentences, for all that, and as many other glossers a●… be in the world, gloze at their pleasure, yet they shall never set the matter well together. This thing is to doltish, yea it is a scorning both of the sacrament, and of Christ himself.  
what the causes should be that have moved the devisers of these opinions of Christ's bodily presence in the sacrament, and of the turning of the bread and the wine into Christ's body and blood, to Imagine such things, I say, in my judgsment that they be chiefly two The first is the ignorance of the manners of speech of the holy scripture, because they were not exercised in the same, and they did imagen, when Christ said this is my body, showing the bread, And this is my blood showing the wine, that such a manner of speech could not be true except that bread and that wine, were substantially, and beingly, the very body and the very blood of Christ, or at the least, that the one and tother, that is to say Christ's body and blood, were with in the sacrament. They saw that the words were clear, and on the other side also, that the old doctors many times did affirm and call the bread and the wine, body and blood, they thought that that was the mind, as well of the same doctor as of the holy scripture, the which thing notwithstanding was never so. And they considered not that the same scripture when it treateth of sacraments is wont to speak after that sort that is to say, to call the sacraments by the name of the things signified, as already we have beforcerten times told, and that the doctors likewise follow the same manner of speech, this I think is one cause why they did so utter it. And to prove this true, when they go about to prove their purpose, they allege the sayings of the doctors evil understand, and those words of Christ, This is my body, showing the bread, and this is my blood showing the wine, as though he had meant to sai that the substances of the bread and wine, should be turned into his body and blood. Not considering that Christ speak, as the scripture is wont to speak when it calleth the sacraments by the name of the things signified. And therefore they have affirmed those their opinions to be things ꝑtaining to faith, the which every one should be bund to believe, as an article of the faith. The foresaid lanfranck in his book of the sacrament, the which he wrote against Beringarius saith we believe, saith he, that the earthly substances the which upon the lords table be by the priestly ministry divinely hallowed, by the heavenvly power, be unspeakably, unconceivably, and marvelously turned in the veri essence, or beingnes, of the lords body, the forms of the same things, and certain other qualy●…ies being reserved. And he saith also, that the just man, who liveth by faith, doth not labour to serchout with arguments, and to understand with reason, after what sort the bread is made flesh, and the wine is turned in to blood, beingly, the nature of the one and the other being changed, because he will rather give faith to the heavenly my steryes, to th'intent that hereafter he might come to the rewards of faith, then leaving the faith to be toiled in vain, in conprehending those things that cannot be comprehended etc.  
Thomas of aquine in his hymn of the sacrament of the lords body, and blood saith the like, that is to say, the word flesh, that is to say, the son of god made man, with the word, doth make bread flesh, and the wine is made Christ's blood, and though the sense do fail to establish a pure heart, yet faith only is sufficient. And next after he saith, let him put to faith as a help, for the failing of the senses. These two men would that opinion should be believed as an article of the faith, but if they have believed it, as an article of the faith, and as their words do affirm, surely they have slightly and evil favordly believed, because that nothing ought to be believed as an article of the faith, except it be found expressly in the scripture. Let them tell me then, where is the scripture that they allege? Where is god's word on which they ground their faith? Should we believe these doctors that make thearticles of the faith without god's word, that build their building upon the sand and not upon the sure rock? The first cause, I say, of such opinions, was the ignorance of the holy scripture. The second cause without comparayson is much worse than this, And peraventure it shall appear to some that I am of an evil mind, thinking so much evil as I do of the auctors of such opinions. But if they will consider the disceightes, the crafts, and the number of abuses that be malytiously committed in the mass, they will sai surely that I am yet to gentle, that I think not much worse. What good can be thought of the beginning of so great an error, from whence doth proceed so many inconveniences and disorders?  
The second cause, I say, that I imagine, is this, that is to say that they desired to give credit to the private mass, that is to say to that mass, where he that saith it only, taketh the sacrament and doth not deal it to the people. We must understand that in old time, the mass was not said as it is now said, as before we have noted in the bocke of the Anatomy: for so much as that the mass than was no nother but the ceremony of the lords supper, the which was dealt to the church, and the minister did not take it alone as hath been used from certain hundreth years hitherto, against Christ's express ordinance and commandment who said when he did institute the sacrament, that they should take it and divide it among them, and not that one alone should receive it. They saw that this mass was that who made them rich and mighty: It multiplied the church's revenues and in th'end it made them live in delights, as before in the book of the anatomy in the chapter of the abuses of the mass, we have said. And for to wine them credit, and bring to pass that the people should be inclined to them, and should have devotion to them, there could not be found a thing more to the purpose, then to give men to understand, and make the common sort believe that Christ should be in the sacrament, and that there should be made a turning of the substances of the bread and the wine into his body and blood and to say that there be so many miracles, and to make the thing so great and wonderful. They were sure that if the people were persuaded that Christ were not in the sacrament, but that there were only the bread and the wine, as holy signs, they would have cared little for it, nor they would never have believed that the mass should have so many virtues, as they have given to understand. And they should not have had that unmeasurable gain. there should not have been drawn out of that golden well those infinite richesses. Let every man that hath reason, and is without affection, consider and he shall find as much as I sai to be true. This is a sure rule, if the people did not believe Christ to be in the sacrament, and were not (I mean the people) bewitched with some strange Imagination, that they would make little count of the mass. The pope's that saw this goodly invention to be much for their purpose they after did, not only with their decrees and concels allow it but they did bind the Christian people believe it, as an article of the faith.  
I have spoken of the first dyvisers of these opinions, what causes I think did move them to seek out so strange Imaginations and so far from the troth. Of the other, that followed next after, that is to say of the schoolmen, I do not sai so. As for example of one Thomas of Aquine of Bonavamture, of Egidus Romanus and such like as were questionistes without number, and have disputed endlessly on the master of the sentences and thereby entangled the world.  
I think well that the first cause that is to say, the ignorance of the scripture did seduce them to believe thus, because they did attend more to the worldly knowledges, and to the books of philosophy, then to the holy scripture. But I do not believe that any such malice did move them, as moved those first inventors. It is true in deed that another ignorance made them to err, that is to say, that when they saw that the pope and the counsels had so determined, they Imagined that they were tied and bound, to believe all that that they had appointed and ordained to be believed of all the faithful. And therefore they have affirmed this opinion as an article of the faith, thinking they should have been heretics if they should have holden any other wise. And to prove this true, certain of them, and among the rest, Thomas of argentyne the hermit, in the fourth, the xi distinction, say that before the article of the turnkending was determined by the church, It was no heresy to sai the contrary, that is to say, that the bread and wine remain after the consecration. This is that which deceived them, the pope's authority, whom they thought was Christ's lietuenant, and that every thing that the see apostolic and those counsels determined, was an oracle, against the which it was not lawful to speak, the poor souls not understanding, that no man is bound in matters pertaining to faith, to believe either pope or councles, but so far as god's word speaketh, from the which if they serve, though there should come an angel from heaven, we should not be bound, yea I say, we ought not to believe him, as paul saith, writing to the galat. And if we have particular reverence to any counsels, 
Gala. 1.  it is because that in their determinations, they agree with the holy scripture, which ought to be the pattern, and the rule, to all the men in the world And therefore we have in special worship those four counsels, that is to say the council of Niece, in the which the error of Arrius was destroyed, the council of Constantinople, gathered together against Eunomius and Macedonius, the first council of Ephesus where Nestorius was judged and condemned, the council of Calcedon in the which the wickedness of Eutyches and dyostorus, and certain other were reproved, because they have not spoken nor determined any further, then is contained in the holy scriptures. But if that men, (let them be of what so ever knowledge, holiness and authority ye will), shall not bring forth, in gods things, the holy scripture, we ought not to believe them nor all the whole world together can not make a man to believe a thing as an article of the faith, except it be contained in the holy scripture.  

A short rehearsal.  It is time now that we knit up the some of this present sermon in the which this article that is whether Christ be really and bodily in the sacrament of thanks giving or no, is largely examined. And first we have seen how there be in this article two principal judgements or opinions. The first saith that Christ in body and in soul, great and thick as he is presently in heaven, is whole in the sacrament. And this opinion is divided into ij. For some say that not only Christ is in the sacrament, but that the substance of the bread and wine be turned into his body and blood, and that there remaineth no more, either bread or wine, but the only withcommes of the one and the other. Some other sai that Christ is really in the sacrament but the substances of the bread and wine remain, and that there is made no turning in them. And we have seen the objections where upon this their fantasy is ground-wrought.  
Then next we have put the second opinion the which we hold, and sure believe is catholic and godly, and it is this, that is to say, that the substances of the bread, and wine, do not only remain in the sacrament, but Christ is not there bodily present of any manner of sort, but as man he is only in heaven, where he sitteth on the right hand of the father from whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead, 
The first reason.  as th'article of our faith doth sai. And this opinion we have proved with many reasons. First by the definition of a sacrament, the which is none other but a sign of an holy thing, and it is not needful for to be a sacrament, that Christ should be really as man in the same, and much less that there should be made any substantial turning of the bread and the wine. It sufficeth that the bread and the wine, be there as signs of his body and blood. 
The 2. reason.  Then next, seeing that this sacrament was instituted only for remembrance, it sufficeth that it do bring us in remembrance of Christ's body and blood given for our raunsominge And it needeth not to put there the bodily presence of th'one, or of tother, for so much as that the right of no sacrament either in general or particular requireth this etc.  
The third, seeing the spiritual eating of Christ is only profitable and not the bodily, 
The 3. reason.  If Christ were as man in the sacrament he should help nothing.  
The turnekindinge of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood, 
The. 4. re.  cannot stand together with certain plain and manifest effects, which be seen that is to say, with the noryshing, because the sacrament doth nourish as other bread and wine doth, and with thengendering of certain beasts as maggots or such like beasts, the which things cannot be made, admitting this turnkynding of the bread and the wine, in to Christ's body and blood.  
The fift if any such thing were, god with out any manner of need should work some, 
The fift reason.  yea many most stonishfull miracles, such as was never the greater.  
The sixth, it should not be necessary that Christ on the day of judgement should come down from heaven, 
The sixth reason.  but that he should step out of the sacrament, seeing he is here, much nearer on earth then in heaven.  
The seventh, 
The seventh reason.  the opinion of Christ's bodily presence in the sacrament, dymynisheth the truth of his body, and maketh it fantastical yea nothingeth it.  
The eight, 
The eight reason.  The surs●●m corda which is song in the mass, giveth to understand that in old time Christ's bodily presence in the sacrament was not believed.  
The ninth, 
The ninth reason.  If forbecause Christ said this is my body, showing the bread, and this is my blood showing the wine, the bread and the wine should be turned into his body and blood or else that the body and blood should be there present, seeing there be many other speeches in the scripture like unto this, it should be behove full that the like should be done in all those, from whence would follow many inconveniences.  

The tenth reason.  The tenth, seeing that Christ's flesh can not be eaten, nor his blood droken, but after two sorts, that is to say, spiritually by faith, and sacramentally. And this may be done without the bodily presence, 
1. Chor. 10.  as the ancients did eat and drink him before that he took man's flesh as paul saith writing to the Chorynthyes there is therefore no necessity to affirm that bodily presence in the sacrament.  
Then further all though that we should bring forth no reason for us, it belongeth not to us to prove our negative, but it belongeth to them that affirm such a being there, to prove their affirmative, the which they did never, nor can not do by any saying of the scripture. We have after also, made appear that our opinion is of thold church and chiefly, Augustine's. And we have answered to the objections of the contrary opinion, making it apparent, that, they be uneffectual, unpithye, and weak to prove their purpose, declaring the manners of speech that the scripture useth when it treateth of the sacraments. In the end, we have added from when the false Imagination of that manner error is proceeded. And we have been long in treating of this article, and we have made many more words than we thought, and have repeated the self things often, and have something exceeded the measure of a sermon, for the which thing the readers shall have me excused. We have considered first that the thing was most weighty, and worthy to be well expressed, the which could not be done with few words. Then further also, the error was so confirmed and after such sort rooted in the minds of the people, that it could not be plucked up nor rooted out, without (as it is commonly said) much digging, and delving. And therefore it was necessary for us to be long, and peraventure something tedious to the learned, nevertheless this labour is chiefly taken for the unlearned. Well, it sufficeth that this our purpose was upright and that we took not upon us this enterprise for no nother end, but for god's honour, and for the love, and defence, of the truth. And last of all to do good and help to the simple Christians, who have been so long time drowned in so great an error, and deceived by the subtle and wicked Antichrist: Whom let us all pray unto god with a good heart and continually, that he will so root out, and plucck up (or to speak better) destroy (saving always not withstanding the men to whom we desire all good) I sai, even destroy as the little stone did that great Image which Nabuchodonosor saw, in his dream, that is to say, that he will make him utterly vanish away, and be come nothing, to the intent, that gods final and perfit kingdom may come thorough Christ jesus his son our lord and redeemer, to whom be honour and glory world without end Amen.  
FINIS.   

Faults escaped in the printing and corrected after this sort. Take lea. for the leaf. A for the first side. B for the second side. Ly. for the line: R for read.  
Lea. 2. b. lie. 8. headolugnes. r headlongnes. Lea. 4. a. lie. 21 opinious. r. opinions. lea. 6. b. lie. 1. ehyrch r. church. lea. 9 b. lie. 18. strst first. Lea. 12: b: lie: 1: evy. r: any. lea: 11 b. lie. 20 Hollis: r. holies lee: 21: a: lie: 2. upistle: r: epistle 6. lie. 13: soruant: r: servant. lea. 25: b: lie. 13 and the blood: r: and the win the blood: lea: 35: b. lie. 20 glorios: r. gloriousness. lee 36: a : 11. tedyosnes: r. tediousness: lea: 40: b. lie. 8. ho: r: hoc. lea: 42: a. lie: 26. poinctt. r: point. b. lie. 20. consecrationi, r. consecration. lea: 49: a. lie. 24 any: r: any. lea. 54: b. lie: 16. wat. r. was. lea. 60. a. lie. 8: maids. r. made. and for Consecravyon. r. consecration, lea. 65: a: lie. 16. no: r. not lie. 25. superstitos. r. superstitious: Lea. 67. a . 18. tho. r. to. lea. 68: a li. 5. thert. r. there. l. 17. from: r: from. lea. 74. a. lie. 16 believers r: believers, and all ways after. lea. 72: a. lie. 10 he fore. r. before. lea. 77: a: li. 19 candache. r candace: lea. 81. b. lie: 26. crimin: crimine. lea. 88 a. lie: 21: offied: r: offered. lea: 94: b: lie. 12. passhion. r: passion. lea. 111. b: 21. except. r: except: lea: 115: a: li: 1: song: r: sung. lie. 2. rung r: roung. lea: a: li. 2. misfortutune: r. misfortune lea. 118: b: lie. 11. apostos. r. apostles.  
Lea. 120. . r. super. r. supper. lea. 121. b. lie. 22 Now he he: r: Now. he. lea. 122: a: lie: 19: paraventur. r. peradventure. le. 124. a: li. 12. thes. r. those. lea: 125: b: lie. 13. the chief greatest mystery: r: the chief mystery. lea. 126. a. li. 15. the law. (I speak: r: the law. Nor there is no sin but that is against god's law. but gods law. (I speak. lea. 126. b. lie. 7. have heavier sins. then: r: have hevior sins, than man's laughter, then. lea: 127: a: li. 5. Idolatros: r: Idolatrous. li. 9 thcik: r: thick. li: 13. in them: r: in it lee. 127: b: lie: 8: benefice: r: benefit. lea: 128. a. lie: 18: ame: r. same.  
Lea. 131. a. li. 19 saint or saints. r: saint or sainctess. lie. 20: S. loreto: r: loreto. b: lie. 6: say here? will●●. say here? be these Idolatreis', how can they de ●…ey it? will.  
Lea. 131. b. lie. 9: Hiperdulia: r: Hyperdulia lea: 137: a: li. 5. wis. r. with. lea. 138. a. li. 13: follow done another: r: followed one an other. lee 156: a: li. 22. and, and r. and lea. 174. b. lie: 19 mass: r: mass. lea. 177. a. li. 7. covered with. r. covered, wear covered with. b. lie. 1. craft. r. craft. and likewise in other places. lea. 178: a. li. 14 eschew. r. issue. and generally read for off, of: for those those. for thes these: for covered covered, and for such other in vid, read commonly ved. and often for ans or ens read ance, or ence as for importans, read importance, and for reverens, reverence, and often for or, read our, as for saviour, read saviour, and for believers always believers, and commonly for os, read ous or ose as the word giveth, as for gratios read gracious, and for purpose read purpose.  
Lea. 180. a. l. 8 yoie. r. joy. 182. b. lie. 15 true. 
faults in the sermom.  read true, and 185. b. li. 9 who ever. read whosoever 186. a. li. 15. remembrans. read remembrance and after.  
187. a. lie. 18. substans read substance. 188. b. li. 5. body lither. read bodily there. 192. a. li. 7. dew read. due. 193. a. ill. 3. everlasting: read. everlasting. 193. b. li. 17. be beleweth. read believeth. 194. b. li. 15. scene read seen. 196. b. l. 14 blood. r. blood 199. b. l. 3. satisfing: r: satisfying 205. a. l. 25. when should. r. when they should. 222. b. l. 1. turn read. turned. and 228. a. li. ●…. being. r. bring 225. b. li. 5. shose. r. those.  
FINIS.