A CONFUTATION of the Popish Transubstantiation. Together with a narration, how that the Mass was at sundry times patched and peeced by sundry Popes. Wherein is contained a brief sum of the reasons and Arguments which those render, that will not receive the Mass. Translated out of French into English by PETER ALLIBOND Minister of the word of God. Read, and then judge with discretion. 2 Thess. 2.11. And therefore God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies. Printed at London by Thomas Scarlet for Thomas man.. 1592. THE TRANSLATOR TO THE CHRISTIAN AND INdifferent reader, Grace, mercy and peace. THou hast in this little Treatise (gentle Reader) these two things delivered unto thee. 1 First, here is showed that howsoever our adversaries, the Papists, do for the maintenance and upholding of their abominable Mass, pretend antiquity, & long continuance of time: that yet the Mass was at sundry times collected, and patched up by divers Popes: some adding one thing, some adding another, as they thought good in their foolish imaginations. Wherein they deal with us as the Gibeonites did with joshua, who for to save their lives, feigned themselves to be ambassadors, Ios. 9.4.6. & that they came from far, craftily bringing with them old shoes, old sacks, musty bread, etc. desiring joshua therefore to make a league with them. Into whose dealings if joshua had looked thoroughly, he should have found them to have been but counterfeits, and dissemblers. So notwithstanding that the Papists vaunt & faith, that their doctrine, and their positions come from far, and are (as they say) of great standing and antiquity: yet if we look thoroughly into the matter, and examine all things by the touchstone of the word of God, which is the trial of all truth, we shall find their Popish Assertions to be untruths, new upstarts, and counterfeits. They further object unto us, that we depart from the Church, and have (as they say) a new innovated doctrine. True it is that we are departed from them, as Moses departed from Egypt, because they are departed from God & his truth. And for the newness of our doctrine (as it pleaseth them to term it) it is evident that our doctrine and religion, both in the whole, and in the particulars thereof, hath the warrant, and antiquity of the holy Scriptures. Abraham's servants digged wells for their master's cattle: aster the death of Abraham the Philistians stopped them: Goe 26.16.16 the servants of Isaac did afterwards dig them anew, so that the wells might in some sort be said to be new, because they were newly digged: So our religion, with some may be thought to be new, not that it is so, but because that it was of long time stopped and covered by the Popish philistians, and is now (the Lord be praised for it) discovered and found out, by the holy and faithful servants of the Lord. For it is one thing to say that a thing is new, because it was never in Esse before, and it is another thing to term a thing new, because it is newly repaired. And thus (good Reader) thou seest how our adversary may be answered in his objection. 2 Now for the other part of this Treatise, there is contained in it a strong confutation of Transubstantiation: wherein the Author (who both for his name & person is unknown unto me) useth very sufficient and forcible arguments, to confute their opinion, so that I need not to speak much of that, and yet somewhat I will be bold to add: namely, that if their assertion for the real presence be true, then there will this absurdity ensue, to wit, that Christ at his last supper had two bodies. For if (as our adversaries say) that the bread was his body, it is evident and plain, that he sitting with his Disciples, and performing the parts of a natural man, by his speech, gesture, and eating, had a human body: so that if they affirm the former (which they can never prove) we dare aver & justify the latter. This is one of our adversaries shifts, that if any object unto them, that it stands not with a human body to be in divers places at one and the self-same time, they answer it and say; that this is done miraculously, by means of Christ's glorification: but than what will they say unto this objection; for the bread in his last supper: for either they must confess that the bread was not his body, or else that a body not glorified may be in divers places, at one and the self-same time, for this was done before his glorification, resurrection, or death. There was ever betwixt Christ and us this difference, Heb. 4.15. to wit, that he ever was without sin. There is now further since his ascension, this dissimilitude, namely, his glorification: and yet it is neither that that he hath not, which we have, namely sin: nor that that he hath, which we have not (though by faith we be fully assured of it) namely, glorification, that do take from him the true parts of a natural body, and of his human nature. The women, namely, Marry Magdalen, joanna, Mary the mother of james, and others, coming unto the sepulchre of our Saviour, and to bestow their odours upon him, & to embalm him, it was said unto them by the two men standing by them in shining vestures, Why seek ye him that liveth among the dead? he is not here, but is risen. And so much more may it be said to our adversaries, why seek ye him really in the bread? Luk. 24.5, 6. he is ascended, he is not there. S. james saith, Ye ask and receive not, jam. 4.3. because ye ask amiss: And so the poor papists seek & find not, because they seek amiss: For it is plainly said that the heavens must contain him until the time that all things be restored which is to be understood, 1. Kin. 8.27. Act. 3.21. not of his divine nature (which the heaven of heavens cannot contain) but of his human nature. And to contain in one place, namely in heaven, and to be in many places in earth, are contraries: therefore that place in the 3. of the Acts, being understood of Christ's body, as it must needs be, will not permit any real presence. And thus much for the sum of the book, which is very short and small, and therefore I must frame the boulk of mine Epistle, answerable unto the quantity of the Treatise, lest the work should be like unto an Owl, more head than body: or for fear lest the porch should be bigger than the Church. I have been the more bold and willing at this time, to take from this Treatise the veil of an unknown tongue, & to publish it, both because at this time the Papists are very rife & ready, with their seducing Seminaries and jesuits, to delude and deceive the people with their Masses & tromperyes: and also to manifest unto others the fondness of their opinions: that so men may look upon them, as upon rocks, to avoid them. And thus (Gentle Reader) I request thee to take in good part this my poor labour, heartily wishing that God might be glorified, and that thou mightst receive instruction and profit by it, which is the thing I aimed at, so I crave it for my labour, and pains taking. Farewell. Thine in the Lord P. A. A SHORT SUM of the Reasons and Arguments that those render, which will not receive the Mass. THere is very good reason that we should answer those that demand of us why we will not join with them in the Mass. For (as S. Peter saith, in his first Epistle & third chapter) We ought always to be ready with meekness and reverence, 1. Pet. 3.15. to answer every one that shall demand of us a reason of the hope that is in us. And howsoever we may easily allege & propound many things, both out of the holy Scripture, and also out of councils, to prove that the Mass (which is now sung & used) was not ordained of God, nor of the holy Apostles: yet for the avoiding of prolixity & tediusnes, we will for this time produce & city some such easy and plain arguments, as we shall be able; trusting in God, that men of upright & indifferent judgement will neither despise nor condemn them, before that they have diligently weighed and considered them. We in the mean space offering to answer more largely, if in case any be not content with this our answer. First, there is not any man that feareth God, but will herein willingly accord and agree with us: namely, that it appertaineth unto God only, to establish laws & ordinances for to govern his Church by, It belongeth unto GOD only to establish laws in his Church. and that neither angels nor men ought to intrude or thrust in themselves, to devise or prescribe in the Church any service for Religion, but that that GOD himself hath commanded. And that he in Deuteronomie straightly forbiddeth us, that we shall not any of us do that that seemeth good in our eyes: Chap. 12.8. but to take heed to his Commandments, to do them; & whereunto we are not in any sort either to add or to diminish. Deut. 4.4. Prou. 30.6. God hath sent his son into the world, and hath said of him; This is my well-beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear him. Mat. 17.9. He hath in his Church fully taught thee the will of God his Father, concerning things necessary unto salvation, as he himself testifieth in S. john saying; Hereafter call I not you my servants, john 15.15. for the servant knoweth not what his master doth: but I call you my friends, because that I have made you know all that, that I have heard of my father. He himself hath preached the gospel: afterward he gave commandment to his apostles to preach the gospel throughout the whole world; Mar. 16.15. he commanded not any thing concerning the Mass: the Apostles have not spoken one word thereof. Nay further, a man shall not find this word Mass throughout the whole new or old Testament. Now then, if the Mass were of such great weight and importance, as some account it to be: saying, that without it we cannot be saved, & that he is condemned which believeth not in the Mass, and that all they must needs die which will not go unto it: the Apostles should greatly have failed in forgetting & omitting such a point; forasmuch as they have spoken of many things which seem not to be of so great importance, 2. Cor. 11.5. 1. Tim. 2.9. 2. Pet. 3.3. as of the covering of women, of their hair, of the trimming of their heads, & other attires. To allege that, that some do, to prove the Mass: namely, that our Lord jesus, in going about to celebrate his last supper, said, Hoc est corpus meum, it is not sufficient. The difference betwixt these words Hoc est corpus meum, and the Mass. For there is a great difference between these words Hoc est corpus meum, and the mass: yea though they speak of their mass when it is at the best, as they use to sing it at this day. Neither is it requisite that the poor force that is in these four words, Hoc est corpus meum, being shuffled and thrust into the midst of their mass, which is nothing else but a massy or confused heap of patches and pieces, brought, and gathered together by divers men, and that at sundry times: should make us believe that the Mass is therefore good, and that it was ordained of God, because it hath these four words in it. For if one should so argue, he might easily so set open a door unto all heretics and deceivers, who at all times have well known in such sort to take some sentence out of the holy Scripture, to jumble, and to mingle it amongst their false doctrine, that so they may thereby seem to give it some colour of truth. We will not deny, but that our Lord said these words, Hoc est corpus meum, but we deny that ever he said Mass, nor S. Peter, neither yet the Apostles, as it is easy to be proved. First, the Priests, I mean those which are in some sort learned, cannot deny, but that the Mass, even from the beginning to the end of it, The Mass was grounded by divers Popes, and that at divers times. hath been made by sundry Popes; and that at sundry times. They well know that Damascen the fift, which was made Bishop in the year of our Lord jesus Christ, 368. did put into the Mass the Confiteor, etc. Gelasius of Africa, who (as Nauclerus saith) was made Bishop of Rome in the year 415. made the hymns, collects, responses, the graduals, and prefaces of the mass, and set all in order, and added unto the Mass, Verèdignum, & iustumest. etc. Symachus also, who was bishop of Rome in the year of our Lord, 502. was loath to forget, but likewise added his patch: for he ordained that every sunday, and solemn feast day of the Martyrs, they should sing Gloria in excelsis deo, etc. Pelagius also, being Bishop of Rome in the year 158. he added thereunto his piece: for he added the commemoration, or remembrance for the dead. * This Pope added many pieces to the Mass: & in his time it took the name of the Mass. Gregory the first made the singing in the choir, and the tuning or setting of the Mass. Also he ordained that the Kyrielieson, and the Alleluia should be song nine times, and that the Pater noster should be song with aloud voice, over the consecrated Host, and he added unto the canon of the mass, Dies nostros in tua pace disponas. Sergius, who was in theyere 588. he ordained that these words, Agnus Dei should be song three times in the Mass, before the breaking of the bread. Gregory the third, he secretly added unto the mass, Quorum solennitas hodié in conspectu tuae maiestatis celebratur, Domine Deus noster, in toto orb terrarum. Nicholas the first of that name, caused the sequences to be added to the mass. It cannot be denied, but that Sixtus, the first of that name, added unto the Mass these words, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Innocent, which was in the year 405. added the kissing of the pax. Leo, the first of that name added, Orate pro me fratres. And he added also, Deo gratias. And further, by prescript headed this, Sanctum sacrificium immaculatam hostiam: and this moreover, Hancigitur oblationem. Celestine the first, he made and ordained the Offertory. Alexander the seventh Bishop of Rome, The beginning of unleavened bread. in the time of Adrian the Emperor, in the year 120. did now begin to violate and break the ordinance of jesus, and ordained that the bread should be without leaven, and not common as it was before. Distinct. 93. chap. Si quis. And also he commanded to mingle water with the wine in the holy supper. De consecratione. distinct. 2. in capit. de Sacramento. And he first added unto the Supper, Qui pridie quam pateretur. This doth very evidently & plainly prove, that jesus Christ made not the Mass, seeing that so many men have intermeddled in the making thereof. Furthermore, this great addition or piece, Teigitur clementissime pater, which is one of the principal pieces of the Mass; in which portion is mention made of the Pope, of the Bishop and of the King, doth evidently prove, that jesus Christ made not the Mass: for in his time there was neither Pope nor Bishop. The communicants also, wherein is mention made of the holy virgin, of the apostles, and of many saints, which were long since the apostles time, as Saint Cyprian, Laurence, Grisogon, Cosme, Damian, and others, do plainly show that jesus made not the Mass. S. Peter put not himself in this number: for than they would have said, that he had sought his own glory. There is yet one special piece of the Mass, which beginneth thus, Nobis quoque peccatoribus; wherein is mention made of certain apostles and saints, both men and women mingled one amongst another, as of S. Barbara, Perpetue; Agathe, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilie, etc. who came, and were in the world, a long time since the death & suffering of our Lord. So far of was he from making the Mass, which some affirm: that we may easily see the contrary, as appeareth by that which hath been already said. As for those words which they call Sacramental words; to wit, Hoc est corpus meum: they do in no sort make for the Mass. For when jesus Christ said, This is my body, this is my blood: his purpose was not to say, as do the Priests, which give men to understand thus, to wit; that the bread is not any longer bread, and that the wine is not any longer wine, but are changed into the true substance of the flesh and blood of jesus: but saith simply and plainly This is my body, and calleth the bread & wine, in the holy Supper, his body & blood, in the same sense that before he called the Paschall Lamb by the name of the Passover, saying in S. Luke, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you. Luke. 22.15. Now we know well enough that the Lamb was not the Passover, but it was a true Sacrament of it, that is to say, the true visible sign of that deliverance which God wrought for his people Israel in Egype. Exod. 12.13.26.27. So, after that jesus Christ had eaten the Lamb with his Apostles, which Lamb he called the Passeover, for the reason and cause aforesaid: now at that very same time, he ordained the holy Supper to succeed the Lamb being the Sacrament of the old Testament, which was to have an end at his death and passion: and called the bread his body, & the wine his blood; as if he should have said, I have at this Feast eaten with you the Paschall Lamb, which Lamb was appointed of my Father in remembrance of that deliverance that he already made for your fathers in Egypt: but this new Sacrament which I appoint unto you, is the Sacrament of my body & of my blood, which is given for you on the Cross, to deliver you from everlasting death: and as the Lamb in the Passeover was a sign of their deliverance in Egypt; so hereafter this Sacrament shall be unto you a perpetual remembrance of my body & of my blood given upon the cross for you, as appeareth by the very words of jesus, saying; Do this in remembrance of me. Luke 22.9. As oft as ye shall eat this bread, 1. Cor. 11.26 and drink this cup, you shall show the Lords death until his coming. In which phrase or manner of speech we are to take heed: for the apostle saith not, When you shall eat of this body, & when you shall drink of this blood: but he saith When you shall eat of this bread, etc. So when our Saviour Christ gave the cup, he did not say, I will not drink hereafter of this blood: but he said, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, Mat. 26.27. until I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father. Moreover, we may easily see by the words of jesus Christ, to wit, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the Vine; that he himself eat the Supper with his Apostles: if then the bread were changed into his body, and the wine into his blood (as many affirm) then should jesus Christ have eaten himself, which is a monstrous absurdity to say. Furthermore, in saying, This is my body, we are to take heed how we understand these words, not according to the letter or carnally; for he that will take them so (as some would) should make jesus Christ a liar, and which should have said a thing which could not be accomplished: for, giving the bread, he said, This is my body which is given for you, etc. and yet the bread was not hanged on the cross for us. Therefore, to the end that we be not deceived, we are to take good heed to the interpreting of the words of the holy Supper, & not every one of us to expound them according to our own fantasy: but to have recourse unto the words of jesus Christ, who saith, The flesh profiteth nothing, but the spirit quickeneth; john 6.63. the words which I say unto you, are spirit and life. So also, jesus Christ is not a kind of fleshly meat to nourish our bodies; but is a kind of spiritual meat for to give life unto our Souls, which are nourished even by the very substance of jesus Christ in the holy supper: although in respect of his body he be on high in the heavens, as the article of our Christian faith teacheth us: which is done by the means of faith, which is, as it were the mouth of the soul. Neither is it needful, that he should bodily descend unto us here below on the earth, for to give nourishment unto our souls, no more than it is needful that the Sun should come down, which without any passing out of his set place, ceaseth not therefore to make us partakers of his heat & light: so is it with Christ; otherwise, it would be to small purpose to lay hold on the incomprehensible virtue and power of jesus Christ. Of which power our adversaries falsely speak so much against us, as if that we should go about to deny it: although it appear evidently, that we think and judge better and more reverently of it, than they do For they cannot believe that we may be nourished with the body and blood of jesus, unless that he bodily come down from heaven, in, and under a morfell of bread, & to be subject unto mustiness, and to be eaten of beasts and vermin, as oftentimes it cometh to pass: a thing which they cannot deny, that such consecrated bread, which they call Corpus Domini: that is, the body of the Lord, hath been found rotten and musty in a cupboard, and part of it hath been eaten of rats and mice. Moreover, if the bread and wine in the holy Supper should be really changed into the flesh and blood (as some say) then would it follow that jesus Christ, should be meat for the infidels and unbelievers, aswell as he is for the faithful, which would be another great absurdity, contrary unto the things that are taught by jesus Christ in S. john, joh. 6.51.53.54.55.56. john. 6. To this may be added that that Saint Paul saith, to wit, that he calleth it not flesh & blood, 1. Cor. 11.27. but bread and wine, saying, Whosoever shall eat of this bread, and drink of this cup unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation. Also, the holy scripture saith not, that Christ ought to come to put himself into the bread and wine used in the Supper, after that the words are spoken: but it saith, When you shall eat this bread, 1. Cor. 11.26. and drink this cup, you shall show forth the Lords death till his coming: that is to say, until his bodily coming at that his last judgement. Nay further, if the bread and wine of the holy Supper should be changed into flesh and blood, then should there be no sacrament in the supper. For, as Sacrament (as they themselves cannot deny) is a sign of a holy thing, so that the sign is not the thing itself. There is a very great difference between the Truth, and the sign of the same Truth. The truth of the Sacrament, is this, jesus Christ crucified for our sins; the sign is this, Bread and Wine, which are called the Body and blood in the Supper: because they are the true and undoubted signs of the body and blood of Christ: as it is a phrase very usual, not only in the holy Scriptures, but also in profane authors, that the name of a thing is put for the sign, which representeth the thing itself. In like manner, when the priests say, that the bread and wine in the Supper do by virtue of the Sacramental words (as they call them) lose the true substance of Bread and of wine to be changed into the true substance of flesh and blood (which thing consisteth only in opinion, and not in experience) herein we say that they destroy the Truth of a Sacrament, and we may justly call them Sacramentaries, because that by their perverse and froward opinion, they do overthrow and annihilate the sacrament of the holy Supper, by supposing, & putting in the room and place thereof, that that they have devised in their own heads. As indeed they are not able to prove this word Mass, throughout the whole holy Scripture, neither yet that the holy Prophets and Apostles did at any time use it: so shall they never be able to prove this word Transubstantiation (that is to say, the changing of one substance into another) by no author, either Greek or Latin: but that it is a word that the schoolmen have forged & coined in their own fantasy. Now, if they hereupon allege the ancient Doctors, we are notignorant (God be thanked) how they have spoken, and are able for this purpose to allege many sentences even of those ancient Doctors which make for our purpose, but that we purpose and labour to be brief. And if that they object and allege unto us, that there are many good things in the Mass, as Pater, i. Father, the Gospel, the Epistle, etc. Herein do they not say any more, than that that other mockers, and deceivers may say aswell as they. For as we do see that good and wholesome meats, are spoiled and spilled, by means of a small quantity of poison being mingled among them; and as the gold and silver being mingled with iron, brass, lead, or other base matter, or metals, for to falsify the coin thereof, are justly condemned, and those likewise which make such counterfeits: so, in like manner we say, that those good things, whereof we have before spoken, being put and altered from their true and natural use whereunto God hath appointed them, for to be jumbled and mingled amongst such a huge Chaos and heap of unsavoury things, cannot be indeed acknowledged for good, until they be drawn from amongst those unsavoury things, no more than can a ring or signet of gold in the midst of a dunghill. And if that God the Father, and his son jesus Christ had known that such good things should have been so applied for the salvation of this poor world, they no doubt had been sufficiently wise to have given notice and commandment of them, and not to have left them to the discretion of these men, and many other things, which we have omitted for brevities sake: who thinking to do better than GOD; have in so doing (by their own inventions) abused this holy mystery unto the great dishonour of God, and also to the pernicious hurt of the bodies, souls, & goods of many men. To be brief, if after the words of consecration (as they call them) the bread and the wine in the holy Supper, should be changed into the flesh and blood of Christ (as many do affirm) this should yet no whit make for their Mass: as we shall easily know by a brief conferring and comparing of the Supper and the Mass together; which we will here decipher and descry, setting the holy Supper by itself, and the Mass by itself. THE HOLY SUPPER of jesus Christ. 1 jesus Christ, he himself ordained the holy Supper. THE MASS. 1 The Mass was compiled & made by many Popes, as we have before showed. THE HOLY SUPPER of jesus Christ. 2 Christ did not change his habits or garments to celebrate the Supper. THE MASS. 2 The Priest disguiseth himself he knoweth not how, to sing his Mass. THE HOLY SUPPER of jesus Christ. 3 Christ took common bread, used at the Table at his Supper. THE MASS. 3 The Priest must have a whole cake, baked betwixt two irons. THE HOLY SUPPER of jesus Christ. 4 Christ made his Supper at a common Table. THE MASS. 4 The Priest must have a consecrated Table (as they call it) to wit, an altar; wherein there must be a certain quantity of Relics enclosed in a cupboard, in the midst of the altar, which they call the sepulchre: or at the least, if the altar be not consecrated, then must it be of marble. Furthermore, he must have napkins as matters of substance, or as it were standards in their Mass, as Durandus laboureth very well to show in his book called Rationale divinorum. THE HOLY SUPPER of jesus Christ. 5 Christ when he made his supper, he preached & taught his Apostles. THE MASS. 5 The Priest muttereth out a certain number of prayers, turneth & trimmeth his altar, turning sometimes his back, sometimes his belly unto the people, & goeth from one end of the table to another, singing sometimes high sometimes low; sometimes he lifteth up his hands, and sometimes he kisseth them; one holdeth up his train, holding in his hand a burning torch or a taper; me think that such a sight should make a sad man change his countenance. THE HOLY SUPPER of jesus Christ. 6 Christ in administering his last supper, spoke in a known language, common, and used in the country. THE MASS. 6 In the Mass they speak in a language, that the greatest part of the Priests themselves do not understand: which is clean contrary unto that that Saint Paul teacheth 1. Corinth. 14 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. where he showeth, that in the Church we are not to speak any other language, but that that the people can understand. THE HOLY SUPPER of jesus Christ. 7 In the Supper, jesus first broke bread, & then afterward gave it to his Apostles. THE MASS. 7 In the Mass, the Priest turneth this order upside down: for first he saith a few words over the bread, and then breaketh it when it pleaseth him: but jesus broke the bread, and then spoke the words. THE HOLY SUPPER of jesus Christ. 8 Christ said, Hoc est corpus meum. THE MASS. 8 The Priest he addeth Enim, saying, Hoc est enim corpus meum. THE HOLY SUPPER of jesus Christ. 9 Christ said, Take and eat. THE MASS. 9 The Priest he showeth the bread and wine unto the people, without giving it unto them, but like a greedy glutton keepeth all unto himself. Which is not only contrary unto the ordinance of jesus Christ, but is also against the custom of ancient men and times, as appeareth by Canons set down (as some suppose) by Anacletus and Calixtus; where it was ordained (upon pain of excommunication) that in the Supper all should communicate, after the consecration was performed. So likewise it is set down in the Canons attributed to the Apostles, and likewise in the Council of Tholose. Whereupon it doth evidently follow, that the Mass (such as is now used) was not ordained by jesus Christ, neither yet celebrated by the holy Apostles: and further, that those which see it, & now partake in it, are all excommunicate; because they are not partakers in the Communion, but the Priest only taketh all to himself, contrary to the ordinance of Christ, and of the ancient Fathers. THE HOLY SUPPER of jesus Christ. 10 Christ gave not only the bread, but also the wine, saying, Drink ye all of this, as Matthew 26.27. THE MASS. 10 The Priest giveth to the common people but the bread only, and not the wine; which is wholly not only against the institution of jesus Christ, but also against the custom of the ancient Fathers, which lived after the Apostles, who communicated in both kinds, and condemned all those which communicated but in one, as it appeareth in their consecration dist. 2. cap. Comperimus, where it is said, that all those which received not the Sacrament in both kinds, are infidels and church-robbers, and those likewise which refuse either the one or the other kind. THE HOLY SUPPER of jesus Christ. 11 As touching the wine in the supper, Christ mingled nothing with it. THE MASS. 11 The Priest mingleth Water with the Wine, which is the ordinance of a sinful man, as we have before showed. THE HOLY SUPPER of jesus Christ. 12 Christ gave the bread by itself, and the wine by itself. THE MASS. 12 The Priest breaketh the bread in three pieces, one piece whereof he lets fall into the wine, & so mingleth them both together. THE HOLY SUPPER of jesus Christ. 13 Christ ordained his holy Supper, in remembrance of his death and passion, and that but once giving his body & blood upon the Cross for us. THE MASS. 13 The Priest he saith Mass in remembrance of saints both men & women, and for the recovery of things lost: Also he saith Mass for beasts, as for oxen, horses, asses, & for other beasts that are sick, because men give him money for it. And in so doing, he is in stead of a plaster or a drug for every disease. He saith further, that he offereth up jesus Christ, and presenteth him unto God the Father, for the sins of the quick and of the dead. We might allege many other reasons why we would not join, & consent to the mass, which was never ordained by jesus Christ, nor song by his Apostles, neither yet by the ancient fathers, which lived in the world a long time after them; & further, that the Mass is a mere disguising of the holy Supper, and a plain derogation from the death, and suffering of jesus Christ. Yea and if we are to believe ancient Counsels, there shall we find that those that will hear the mass (as it is now sung) are excommunicate, as we have already sufficiently above showed: yet for brevities sake we will for this time content ourselves with these things that are here mentioned. And for conclusion, we receive and embrace that that S. john saith; john 20.31. to wit, that that which is written in the gospel, is written that we might believe that jesus is that Christ, the son of God; and that in believing, we might have life through his name. The mass is not written in the gospel, whereupon it followeth, that we are neither to believe in it, nor to look for life by it. Moreover, the Apostle saith unto the Hebrews, Heb. 9. 2●. that Christ was once offered, to take away the sins of many: he doth not say that Christ is offered up many times, for to take away sins, but that he hath been offered once. By consequence whereof the priest is a liar, because he saith, that he daily offereth up jesus Christ in the mass, for the quick, and for the dead. Furthermore, Heb. 10.12. the same Apostle unto the Hebrews saith; that we are sanctified by an offering once made by the body of jesus Christ, he doth not say, being many times made. And further, 14. in the same chapter he saith, that with one only offering hath he consecrated for ever them that are sanctified. To be brief, S. Paul in the 20. Chapter of the acts of the Apostles, protesteth, that he kept nothing back from them that was profitable for their salvation; but he maketh no mention of the mass, therefore the mass made nothing for their salvation: for if it had, S. Paul would have spoke of it, and not omitted, or forgotten such a point. And in the same chapter he saith I have kept nothing back, 〈…〉. but have showed you the whole council of God: there is no mention made of the mass, therefore the mass is not the council of God, but is a new invention of men, which is set instead of the true service of God. Wherefore, we do justly, & for good cause, reject and refuse it, and will in no sort join in it, but by many degrees rather, love and desire to cleave unto, and firmly to rest upon the ancient and catholic faith & law, which God from time to time gave unto our ancient fathers without any cleaving unto that, which is but an heap of news, set abroach by themselves: some thinking thereby to do well, others being led by ambition, and to show themselves, others to continue their memorial amongst men, and others to get unto themselves the goods of men, as daily experience showeth us: for as much as they say not mass for the poor, whether they be quick or dead, but only for the rich. And further, admit that the number of Idolaters and deceivers were greater than it is, yet we rather desire to follow the will of God, with the small number, as did our forefathers, Noah and Lot, than to perish with the multitude: and to walk in the strait and narrow way, which leadeth unto salvation, than in the wide and broad way, which leadeth men unto destruction, Mat. 7.13. Now I beseech the God of all mercy to have pity upon his poor children, to enlighten them by his holy spirit, and to make them worthy both to understand, & to follow his heavenly wil Certain Arguments, very strong and true, against the Sacrifice of the Mass. The first Argument. EVery divine service, instituted by the authority of man, with out the word of God, is wicked: the sacrifice of the mass hath no commandment from God, for Christ in his supper commanded none other thing, but the communion and participation of his body and blood, as the Evangelists do show, and as S. Paul doth witness 1. Cor. 11.24, 25. For these words, take, eat, drink, cannot be understood of any other thing, saving of that whereunto they tend: to wit, of the body and blood of Christ, which are offered unto the faithful. An objection of the Papists. Christ and his Apostles taught more things than are writ; so that we are not only to believe that which is in the Bible: but many more things are to be believed which the Church hath received and approved, which yet notwithstanding, are not expressed in the scripture. The Answer. It is a blasphemous speech, to say that the Scripture is not absolute & perfect. john 20.30. For, as for that that S. john saith, to wit, that jesus did many other things, which are not written: he afterwards addeth, that there is nothing omitted that concerneth our salvation, saying, 31. These things are written that ye might believe, that jesus is that Christ, that Son of God, and that in believing ye might have life through his name. So doth Cyrill expound this place in his twelfth book chap. 68 saying; All things are done by the Lord: but those only are writ, which suffice both for manners & for doctrine. chrysostom upon the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, speaking of all the words and acts of Christ, doth not say, I have writ all: but, I have writ all that is necessary unto salvation. So S. Paul in the second to Timothy, Chap. 3.15. saith, That the Scripture is able to make a man wise unto salvation, through the faith which is in Christ jesus. As for that that the Apostle saith to the Corinthians, Other things will I set in order when I come: 1. Cor. 11.34 and that to the Thessalonians, Brethren stand fast, and keep the instruction which you have been taught, either by word, or by our Epistle, this doth not prove that the Apostles taught any thing which was not written. 2. Thes. 2.15. And Tertullian wisheth that all traditions might be compassed or measured by the writings of the Apostles, saying; Their doctrine conferred with that of the Apostles, shall show by the diversity and contrariety thereof, that it is neither from the Apostles, nor Apostolical. And S. Hierome upon the 23. of Matthew saith; That which hath not the authority of the Scriptures is to be rejected, because it is not to be approved. For the Church hath not power either to make new Articles of the faith, or to change the institutions and doctrine of Christ, or of the Apostles: seeing that the holy Ghost hath not reserved unto himself this prerogative, but saith by S. Paul his chosen vessel, Gal. 1.8. as it were admonishing & warning every man; If an angel from heaven shall show you any other thing, than that which we have declared unto you, let him be accursed. If the Mass were a thing so necessary as our adversaries would have it to be, no doubt jesus Christ and his apostles would have said some thing of it, considering that they have spoken even how servants and children are to live. Forasmuch therefore, as Christ & his Apostles have not taught any thing concerning the Mass, it is therefore evident, that it was not used in the Primitive Church, as ouraduersaries do falsely allege. Another Argument. It is of necessity, that the Priest which purgeth and taketh away sins, be holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens, which needeth not daily, as Aaron's Priests, Heb. 7.26.27. to offer upsacrifice, first for his own sins, and than for the sins of the people: and further, that he be without infirmity; the Popish priests are far from being such, and Christ only is such a one, therefore Christ only remaineth the Priest of the Church, who taketh away sins, & saveth, and sanctifieth all those that believe, and admitteth not of any vicegerent, or vicar in his Priesthood. Another Argument. No sacrifice which purgeth or cleanseth, is without blood. Hebr. 9.22. Without shedding of blood there is no remission: the Papists say, that in the Mass sins are purged & cleansed, and that it is a sacrifice that purgeth; therefore of necessity it must follow, that the Mass must be a sacrifice with blood. Which, if it be so, than this will follow, that Christ is not entered in once only into the holy places by his own blood. And again on the otherside; If the sacrifice of the Mass be without blood, then is it not of the same substance as was that of the Cross; for the substance and the ground of the sacrifice of the Cross is this, to wit, Christ taking upon him the wrath of his Father, turning it from us, giving up his body unto death, and shedding his blood for us. Another Argument. Christ offered up himself once, and cannot be offered any more: for this is the nature and quality of his Sacrifice. Other sacrifices are offered by others, but this sacrifice, which is the son of God, cannot be offered but by himself, and that but once, which, without question, is not again to be iterated. The adversaries than do greatly & grossly deceive themselves, when they say that the son of God is offered by their priests. Another Argument. The son of God, by one only oblation hath for ever made them perfect which are sanctified: & this oblation is applied unto every one by his own faith, in laying hold upon it. Therefore it is not needful that the Priest should apply it, by his oblation or offering. For if over and beside this sacrifice of Christ, the sacrifices of the priests are necessary; or if the sacrifice of the Cross be insufficient, and serveth not to any purpose, unless it be applied by the Priest: then will it follow, that Christ by his one only oblation hath not purged and purified all the believers. But it is most certain, that the oblation of Christ is sufficient unto salvation for ever, and for all the believers, Heb. 6.26.27. so that it needeth not to be iterated or performed again: neither is it applied by the Mass, but by Faith and by the Sacraments, being ordained & appointed by Christ unto that end. Therefore, etc. Another Argument. Where there is forgiveness of sins already, there need not to be any more oblation for them: that is to say, after that sins are pardoned, Sacrifices cease: but in the new Testament there is a full & perfect remission and purging from all sins by the death of Christ: therefore all purging sacrifices cease and have an end in the new testament only there remaineth the sacrifice of praise and giving of thanks, & a memorial or remembrance of that Sacrifice once offered on the Cross; which remembrance is performed in the Supper of the Lord. FINIS. The true Sacrifices of Christians. 1 I beseech you brethren by the mercies of God, that ye give up your bodies, a living sacrifice, holy & acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable serving of God, Rom. 12.1. 2 Offer unto God praise, and pay thy vows unto the most high. Psal. 50.14. 3 The sacrifices of God, are a contrite spirit, a broken and a contrite heart o God, thou wilt not despise. Psal. 51.17. 4 To do good, and to distribute forget not, for with such sacrifices GOD is pleased, Heb. 13.16.