Of the principal points which are at this day in controversy, concerning the holy Supper of jesus Christ and the Mass of the Roman Church, and of the resolution of them.  

¶ The first Book.  

Chapter. 1.  
Of the principal reasons whereupon they ground themselves which maintain the Mass, and of the weight of them.  
IT is no marvel if they which have been nourished under the Mass even from their childhood, are greatly offended when they hear the same blamed and condemned as a false service by the which God is dishonoured and blasphemed, seeing that the same hath been accounted heretofore for the most holy thing that ever was in the world, since the first creation thereof. And in deed they should have just cause to be offended in that behalf, if the reasons which 'cause them to have such opinion of the holiness thereof, were so certain & true as they think them to be, and cause themselves to believe, for so much as they have been so instructed. For first they have been taught that it was instituted and celebrated by jesus Christ himself: and afterward continued by his Apostles, & consequently by all their successors from age to age, even from the first institution of the same even until our time. And then they do consider the matter whereof all the pieces of the same are composed, the which they do think to be all taken out of the holy Scripture, because that some of those pieces are taken from thence. And therefore they say, Have you not in it the Epistle & the Gospel, and the Pater noster, and the Credo? Are not these good things? Behold then three reasons of very great apparauntes which they do allege for themselves, of the which the first is taken of the institution of the Mass, and of the author of the same: and the second of his long continuance, which is as they think even from the death and passion of jesus Christ until our age: & the third is taken of the matter of the good and holy words & things whereof it is composed. If all these reasons were true and well grounded upon truth, they were worthy of great account. For, for the first, how great a crime is it to reject and condemn the ordinances of the Son of God? And afterward what a pride were it, to make so small account of the common consent of the whole Church of God, and of so many holy men, and of so long a time? And on the other side should they be accounted for Christians which do reject the expressed word of God?   

Chapter ii  
Of the examination of the reasons before alleged: and whether the Sacrament of the holy Supper of the Lord, and the Sacrament of the Altar, and the Mass of the Roman Church, be one very thing or else be things different and contrary.  
SEeing then that they allege such reasons, & that they give them so goodly a show, it resteth now to consider whether they be true or false. For if they be true, they have then won their process. But if they be false, they may not find it strange at all, if that a man do discover the falsehood which hindereth the knowledge of the truth of this matter. And therefore so far forth as it toucheth the institution of the Mass, and the author of the same, we do first ask them what it is that they do understand by this word Mass: for if they understand by the same the Sacrament of the holy supper of the Lord, we will easily grant them that jesus Christ himself did institute and administer the same holy Sacrament, and gave commandment to his Apostles, and to all their true successors to do the like, even as he did in the institution and administration of the same, and that they have done it according to the commandment which was given unto them. But if they understand by this word Mass, such a service as is that which at this day is so called, in the Church that is called Catholic Roman, we do not only then not grant that jesus Christ did ever institute that Mass, nor that ever the Apostles or their true successors did ever celebrated such an one, but that which more is, we say, that so far of it is that such a Mass may be the holy sacrament of the supper instituted by jesus Christ, that on the contrary, the ordinance of the Lord is there wholly overthrown, with the whole form of the holy supper and of the divine service which hath always been observed in the true ancient Church, by mean of the reasons which I will anon yield.   

Chapter iii  
Whether jesus Christ or his Apostles did ever ordain, say, or celebrated the Mass: and of the ancienty of the same, and of the workmen which laid their hands to the framing thereof, and of the pieces which have been added unto it by succession of time.  
THus much touching the foundation of their first reason, which is the strongest & the most apparent that they have. For if they cannot show that their Mass is of the institution of jesus Christ, and of the ordinance of God, it must then necessarily be placed amongst the inventions and traditions of men, by the which God himself doth witness, not only by the mouth of the Prophet Isai, 
Isai. 29. Mat. 15 Mark. 7  but also by that of his own son jesus Christ, that he is served in vain. Wherefore, if this first foundation be already overthrown, the second which is founded upon the same, will also be forthwith overthrown. For if jesus Christ did not institute such a Mass, nor his Apostles & their true successors did ever celebrated or know such an one, at the lest for the time of six hundredth years after the ascension of our Lord jesus Christ: where is that whereupon they will build the ancienty thereof, and the long and continual succession, and the common and public consent of all the Church, for so long a time wherewith they make themselves so great a buckler? It is here then needful to inquire, and to consider what difference there is between the Sacrament of the supper ordained by jesus Christ, and that which is called the sacrament of the Altar in the Romish Church, and how long time the holy supper of the Lord did remain whole and perfect, and when it began to be changed, corrupted, overthrown, and converted into the same fashion that it now is in the Mass of the Roman Church. For their own doctors can not deny but that since the time of jesus Christ and of his Apostles, and of the first and most ancient Christian Church, they have changed and added much to the first institution of the Lord, and in the form of the administration of this holy Sacrament the which the Apostles did use. For this cause no one, but the most shameless amongst than dare say openly, that jesus Christ did ordain & make the Mass, but they say that he gave only the matter, and that afterward the Church gave it the fashion by the successors of the Apostles, & chief by the Roman Popes, wherein they do greatly honour the son of God. For if it be so, he did but rough hew the work, whereof he left the matter confused and evil polished, as a first portraiture rude and not polished, leaving the thing to be better polished, adorned and brought to perfection by those which should come after him, the which work was not made perfect by one or two workmen only, but by a great number as they themselves do witness. For they are not so shameless that they dare affirm that it was made or perfected, neither by one workman only, but by many, nor at one instant, nor at one only time, but in sundry ages.   

Chapter. iiii.  
Of the principal authors of the Mass, alleged by the Roman doctors, and of the diversity of Masses, as well Greekes as Latins, and of those Masses which were celebrated by the Apostles.  
THose which dare not make jesus Christ the author, do attribute the fashion of it, some to Saint james, others to Basile the great, and some other to Gregory the first. And in deed they do set forth diverse forms of Masses, the one sort Greek, the other Latin masses, which are greatly different among themselves. As touching the greek Masses they do again set forth diverse forms, the one of Basile, the other of chrysostom. And as touching that of chrysostom, they do not set forth only one form, but two at the lest. And as touching the Latin mass, the principal honour whereof they give to Gregory the first, how many crafts men have there been which have laid their hands unto it, ever adding something the one to the others inventions, according as their own doctors & the historians of the Roman Church do witness? And after the time of Gregory the first, how many pieces have been added unto it? and how long a time was it before it was such an one as it is at this present? How then is jesus Christ the author, or Saint james, or any other of the Apostles? And how did the Apostles sing and celebrated the mass, the one in one country, and the others in others, as many of the Roman doctors do boldly and assuredly affirm without any shame at all, clean contrary to the evident testimonies as well of the holy scriptures, as of their own doctors & historians, which give testimony of all the pieces that every one of the said crafts men which have wrought in the same work have added thereunto. Whether their testimonies be true or not, I will not now enter into disputation of it. It sufficeth that those which do uphold the Mass do vouch them, and that by their own testimony, the which they do receive, they are convinced that there was no such mass as there is at this day in the Roman Church, not only in the Apostles time, neither also in a long time after their days. 
●●maunde  How then cometh it to pass that the Apostles could sing and celebrated the mass before that it was made or borne? If they take the mass for the supper, I will willingly grant, that all the Apostles and their true successors have often celebrated the same: But it was in the same manner that jesus Christ did institute and administer it, & not in the same manner that it hath been since disguised and converted into mass, and such as now it is celebrated in the Roman Church: wherefore it is a great filthiness or too great a malice, so to disguise things, to make the poor ignorant people to believe that the mass is of the institution of jesus Christ and of his Apostles, and that they themselves ha●e celebrated the same, and that even from their time it hath always been observed in the Church, such as it is at this day in the Roman. For it is an over filthy and shameless lie.   

Chapter. u  
Of the names of the Supper and of the Mass, and whether the difference that is at this day because of the same between the reformed Church and the Roman, is only for the names and titles, or else for the matter and substance, and whether the Mass be in substance the Supper of the Lord  
IT must then be that the Roman doctors confess, that the Mass which they do now call the Mass, is far different from that which they affirm to have been said and celebrated by the Apostles and their true successors. And if they do reply that it is the same in substance, and that there is no difference, but in respect of the ceremonies and ornaments wherewith it hath been adorned and enriched since that time, by the successors of the Apostles: we must yet see whether it be so or no. Behold then one point which standeth yet in question: whereupon it must be considered whether the Mass, such as it is at this day, be in substance the holy supper of jesus Christ or no, such as he himself did institute & administer, & his Apostles and his true Church did receive from him, and did celebrated according to his ordinance and commandment. For our chief controversy is not for the words or for the names, but for the thing itself & the very substance thereof, for the which we are at controversy. Wherefore when we shall agreed upon the substance, we shall then easily agreed upon the accidents & names, so far forth as the thing which they do signify, be contained in the holy scriptures, and in the Lord's ordinance, as we do it in the name of the trinity and of Sacrament, and such like. For albeit that the very same words are not found either in the old testament, or in the new, yet for all that we do receive them, for so much as the things signified by them are therein contained. Wherefore it would be uncomely and of small edification to debate upon names and words, when men are agreed upon the things that they would signify by these same. It resteth now that we understand the one the other, and that we do agreed upon the sense according to the which we shall take the words which we shall use. 
●●ndry ●●●nes of 〈◊〉 supper.  As touching the Sacrament whereof we do now speak, it is called by Saint Paul, sometime the table, an other time the supper of the Lord, and also the Communion and communication of the body and of the blood of the Lord. Seeing then that the holy Ghost hath given unto it such names & titles by this holy Apostle, it is then the surest and the best to use the same. This notwithstanding, if the Roman Catholics will call it both Mass and Sacrament of the Altar, we will not greatly strive for it, provided that we do agreed in the principal point of our different.   

Chapter. vi.  
Of the chief different that is between the reformed Church and the Roman, touching the Supper and the Mass, and of the mean to agreed it.  
IF then they be able to show that their Mass is in substance the very supper of the Lord, and their sacrament of the Altar his very table, our strife is ended. For we will never strive against the troth, when they shall make it appear unto us by good and sure testimonies of the word of God, the which is revealed unto us by the scriptures. But if they cannot show the same unto us by this mean, and that we be able to show them the contrary by the same mean which we require of them, to wit, that the Mass such as it is at this day, is not only not the very table and supper of the Lord, but is wholly contrary to the same, we beseech them that they would not resist the manifest truth, but that they give glory to God, and do suffer that their Mass be so reformed according to the ordinance of jesus Christ, that as it hath been perverted into the same, even so the same may be restored again to the true form which he gave to his holy supper, and was observed in the ancient Church. And then when that shallbe done, which is so just and reasonable that nothing can be more, all the controversies shallbe ended, and they shallbe no more divided nor banded the one against the other for the supper and for the mass: wherein every man may judge whether we demand any thing that is not very just and very reasonable, and whether they may justly refuse the same. It resteth yet that I do declare the principal reasons which do hinder us from the accepting of the mass, such as they do set forth unto us for the true supper of the Lord, and for what cause we may in no wise receive nor accept the same, but are constrained to reject it, as a thing which cannot agreed with the true Christian religion, if there be not such reformation that it be no more that which it is at this present, but that it be the true supper of the Lord, such as it is set forth unto us by the Evangelists and the Apostles, who are sure and true witnesses of the doctrine and of the ordinances and works of jesus Christ their master, who did choose and call them to that office.   

Chapter. seven.  
Of those which will allow the Mass by the good and fair words taken out of the holy scriptures which are contained in the same, and what judgement and consideration is meet to be had of the same.  
BUt before that I do expound these reasons thoroughly, I will yet touch one point, concerning that which hath been spoken of the good and holy words which are in the mass. I do not deny but it is so: but I do answer further, 
Of go●● 〈◊〉  that it is not enough to have good words taken out of holy letters, except they be well applied to their true use, and to that end whereunto they aught to serve. For if it were not so, a man might by the like reason allow, not only the charms and enchantments of Charmers, Sorcerers and Enchanters, but also the Koran of Mahomet, and the doctrine in manner of all the heretics. For there be many good & fair words taken out of the holy scriptures, and fair names of God and of jesus Christ our Lord. And if the crosses might serve to the holiness of the things with the words, they have ordinarily many in charms & enchantments. It is not enough then to have such words, 
Instru●●tion.  if the right use of them be not had with them. And further it must be seen whether there be any thing mingled with them, which doth corrupt them, as doth poison good meat which otherwise is of itself good. For there needeth no great quantity of poison to corrupt the best meats of the world, and the better that the meat is, the more dangerous is the poison which is hidden under the same, for so much as it is very hard to discover it, and that men are the more provoked to take it. Wherefore so far of is it from letting the poison to be any more poison, that it maketh it more dangerous, & more mortal, if that the poison be not expelled by a contrapoyson. It is not then altogether to see if there be fair and good words in the mass taken of the holy scriptures: but we must yet consider whether there be any poison, false doctrine, and men's traditions mixed with them. And if there be any such, a man may profit nothing at all by it, but may be hurt thereby, if the same poison be not taken away and expelled by his contrapoyson, the which can not be taken but of the pure word of God. And therefore the controversy upon the which we are at this present, resteth yet in this, to wit, whether all the meat which is set forth to us in the mass, be wholly good, or whether there be poison mixed with the same: if it be all good, then may there none of it be rejected: if there be poison, no man may receive it without danger and peril.   

Chapter. viii.  
Whether there be any thing in the Mass other then good words, and whether those good words which are in it be well applied: and whether that for those good words, the Mass aught to be accounted good.  
ANd even as good meat doth not let but that poison is alway poison, and maketh it more hurtful: even so the good and holy words do not let at all, but that God is dishonoured in them, when men do abuse them: Note. for the more holy & blessed that a thing is, so much the more is the abuse thereof detestable in the sight of God, & so much the more is he dishonoured, for so much as his holy name is there the more profaned. By mean whereof so far of is it, that the charms and enchantments be the better because of the names of God and of jesus Christ, & of the virgin Mary, and of men and women Saints, & of the good words of the holy scriptures that may be in them, that they are in deed so much the more execrable and cursed. For seeing that the thing of itself is evil, it is yet made much worse, when that which should serve to the honour of God, is there applied to his dishonour. Wherefore it is like to blasphemies. For when men do blaspheme God, they do take his name in their mouth: 
Similitude.  but he is more dishonoured by that mean, then though they did wholly abstain from naming him. For they do not use it at all, as they do which take it in their mouth to call upon God and to sanctify him, but do abuse it not only taking it in vain, but also villainously profaning and polluting the same. Therefore Irenee saith, 
●ee, ●●e. 1. 〈◊〉 1.  that the heretics, and consequently, all those which abuse the holy scriptures, do with them, even as when an excellent workman should make the image of a king very fair and of fine gold, and well furnished with all forts of precious stones, and there did come an evil workman, which should take the same matter, and should make thereof either a dog or an ape, or some other beast, or some monster. Albeit that it should be always one self matter, very good and very excellent, yet for all that the workmanship should be greatly different, and the matter very evil applied, in as much as by applying thereof they should destroy a good & very fair piece of work, to make one both evil and filthy. And by the same mean a man should do great wrong to the king, in so counterfeiting his image. It is not enough then to take the matter whereof the Prophets & the Apostles have made the work of the Lord, if it be not evenly laid, squared, and wrought as they themselves have done it. 
●ee.  For if any man make an other work contrary to theirs, and by the which theirs should be destroyed, the stuff which men have taken of them is not well applied. Wherefore so far of is it, that the work is the better because of the same, that on the contrary it is more worthy of blame. Thus much for the shuting up of the mouths of those which do allege the good words and the good things which are in the Mass, if they cannot otherwise show the goodness thereof, and that there be nothing at all in it that is good and applied as it aught to be.   

Chapter. ix.  
Of the division of the matters which shallbe handled hereafter, and of the principal points which are at this day in controversy concerning the Supper and the Mass.  
I Will now come to the principal points which do move us by good reason, not in any wise to allow the mass, being of the same form and quality that at this day it is set forth unto us, of the which points I will sirs make a general division, and afterward a more special, and then I will propone and expound them all, the one after the other, every one of them in his place. The first division which is the most general, shall contain five points, of the which five points I will after ward make more special divisions. 
5. point●.  The first is touching the matter and all the pieces and inventions and humane traditions in general, whereof it is compounded. The second is of the words of the same in special. And the third is of the signs, and of the things signified by them. The fourth of the prayers. The fift of the collects. As touching the second point, which concerneth in special the words of the mass, I divide it again into three points, The first is touching the language of them. The second concerning the pronunciation. The third concerning the application of them. And for the third point, which is concerning the signs and the things signified, I do divide them again into six other points. The first is the transubstantiation of the signs. The second, the adoration of them. The third, the reservation and application which used beside the use of the supper. The fourth is of the sacrifice. The fift is of the communion. The sixth, of the application, aswell of the sacrifice as of the communion, both for the dead and for the living. Now concerning the first, the fourth and the fifth. Of the five points which I did in the first place set forth in general, I do not at all make any other more special division of them. Now all these points joined and comprehended together, do amount to the number of 12. the which I am not determined here to handle all at large, but only summarily, to the end that men may understand, which be the principal differences to agreed upon between the reformed Church and the Roman Church, concerning the Sacrament of the supper, and that of the Mass.   

Chapter. x.  
Of the first general point which is of the whole matter of the Mass, and of the additions which men have given to the supper of the Lord in the same, by the which they have clean overthrown his institution.  
THe first point then that we do condemn in the Mass, is, that in general there are so many inventions, traditions, and human additions to the lords institution, & so many changes and disguisings of the same, and so many ceremonies and foolish and doltish superstitions, and insufferable Idolatries, that there remaineth in the same no kind of form of the pure ordinance of the Lord, but that it is there wholly overthrown. And by the same mean the expressed word of God is there openly violated, in as much as it is so often and so expressedly forhidden by the same, in the holy scriptures, 
Deut. 4. 1● Apoc. 22. Jos. 1. Eze. 10.  to add or to diminish any thing to or from the law, statutes and ordinances of the Lord, or to go out either on the right hand or else on the left. For the which cause Saint Paul meaning to correct the abuses which were already in his time committed in the supper among the Corinth's, said plainly, setting forth the institution of jesus Christ: I have received of the Lord that which also I have delivered unto you. 
1. Cor. 11.  And after ward he expoundeth it point by point, in what sort jesus Christ did institute and administer this holy Sacrament, and ordained it to be administered afterward in his Church, wherein he meant to give plainly to understand, not only to the Corinth's, but also to the whole Church of God, as well for that present time as for all the time to come, that the institution of the Lord is pure, whole and perfect, & what rule there was and is to be observed in such matter, without adding any thing to it, or diminishing, changing, and disguising any thing from it or in it. For if Saint Paul which was plucked up even to the third heaven, 
●or. 12.  and who saw there secrets incomprehensible to man, and hath so fair and excellent a testimony of his vocation by jesus Christ himself, neither would nor durst take in hand such a matter, but did content himself with the simple ordinance of the Lord, and tied himself to the fame rule, and did draw thereunto the whole Church, what pride is this in those which dare undertake more than he, yea more than the very son of God himself did: These which are so audacious, ds they not fear at all the curses which are denounced by Saint john in the Apocalypse, 
●oc. 22.  to all those which either add or diminish any thing to or from the doctrine revealed by the Lord? for that which he saith in his Apocalypse, doth no less agreed to all the rest of the body of the holy scriptures then to itself, for so much as there is no canonical book which is of less authority. And if Saint Paul did assubiecte the very Angels to the Gospel which he had preached, Note. who dare set himself up above them?   

Chapter. xi.  
Of the second general point which is of the words of the Mass, and of the division of the same into his members, and first of the language of the Mass.  
AS concerning the second point, which is touching the words of the Mass, we have to note first, that albeit that it were so, that there were not one only word in the whole content of the same, but that it were taken out of the holy Scriptures, and were very agreeable to the same: yet for all that, there are three great and insufferable faults therein, of the which three the first is common and general to all the whole Mass, and every part thereof: the other two belong more special to the sacramental words, but they are notwithstanding altogether manifestly repugnant to the expressed word of God, and to the institution of the holy Supper. And by that mean this second point doth contain those other three, of which I made mention in the division of the same, which are touching the language, pronunciation and application of the words. As touching the first, it is manifestly against the express commandment of God, in that that he hath expressedly forbidden by S. Paul, that in the assemblies of the Church, 
●●te well 〈◊〉.  there should be neither prayers nor other words spoken in a tongue which were not known to the whole assembly, if there were not forthwith some one to expound the same in a tongue which should be well understood by the whole congregation. Now it is so that all that ever is spoken & sung in the mass, is there said & sung in an unknown language, at the lest, to the greatest part of the people and assistants, & oftentimes to them al. Whereof it followeth according to the testimony of S. Paul, that the commandment of God is there manifestly violated. 
conclusion.  Whereupon I do further conclude, that the mass can not be the supper of the Lord, for so much as he hath plainly commanded that men should set forth the remembrance of him in the same. Which thing can not be done by unknown language, but only by such a language as is understood of all, as Saint Paul doth sufficiently declare, when expounding the words of jesus Christ concerning this commemoration, 
●. Cor. 11.  he saith plainly, You shall show the lords death until the time that he come. The which showing cannot be set forth by a language not understood, but only by preaching and doctrine set forth in a language which may be understood of all, for so much as speech without understanding profiteth no more than though a man spoke not at all. For that is as much, as though he that speaketh were domme, and he which heareth were dease.   

Chapter. xii.  
Of the pronunciation of the words of the Mass, and chief of those which are called sacramental, and what fault there is committed in the same, as well against the commandment of God, as against the laws Imperial.  
FUrthermore, we have yet to note in the other point, which is of the pronunciation of the words of the Mass, that albeit that whatsoever should be there said in a language that should be understood of all men, yet for all that, Note. it could be in no wise sufferable, that any thing should be there recited with a whispering voice, & namely the principal words, which do properly belong to the institution of the supper, and chief those which they do call sacramental: the which they do pronounce with so soft a voice, as they can not be heard of any man, not not of those which are nearest the priest which pronounceth them: so far of are they from being understood by all the assembly. Wherein they fall again into the first inconvenience that I have already touched. For be it that they speak with a loud voice in an unknown tongue, or with a soft voice, in a known tongue, in sort that he is not heard at all, or else that men can not understand the words, the one sort is even as good as the other. This notwithstanding, they do commit both the faults in all their masses, chief in their cannon and in many other pieces, and namely in those, the which because of the same they do call the secrets. For beside that, that the language of them is unknown, at the lest to the greatest part, they add thereunto also the pronunciation so soft, & so secret, that hardly there is any man that may understand one only word thereof, as I have already said. This thing is common to all Masses, as well high as low. For they have these two sorts, the which they do so distinguish according to the pronunciation which they use in the same. They call high masses, 
High mas●●s.  those which they say with song, because that they speak and cry more loud in them. Yet are they greatly to be blamed in the very same, that they sing, in so much as they do use such songs as doth greatly hinder the understanding of it, even to those which could otherwise understand the words and the language. For how many notes do they put oftentimes to one syllable, from whence it cometh to pass that they make the words and the pronunciation of them so long, and do make so great distance from one syllable to an other, that men forget the first before they be come to the last, & namely when they do sing in set Music? Wherein it appeareth plainly, that the song of the Roman Church hath been used more to feed the bodily ears, than the soul and the spirit, and to serve men for delectation and pastime, as do their bells, and their organs. For there is all the profit which cometh of them, which consisteth in sound which vanisheth in the air. Again, they call low Masses such as are not said with song, but only with a soft voice. And albeit that there be very few which can understand any thing of it throughout the whole mass, yet not contented therewith, they do also speak it more softly, when they come to their secrets and to their Cannon, and therein they doublely transgress, not only the law of God, Note. as I have already proved by the testimony of S. Paul, but also the human and Imperial laws. For the Emperor justinian, which reigned about the year 528. did make a law expressedly for that point, the which he grounded upon the sentence of S. Paul, which I have already alleged, taken out of his first Epistle to the Corinth's. 
Iustinia● new Const 123.  The same law commandeth all ministers of the Church to speak so loud and so plain, especially in the administration of the Sacraments, that all the people may hear and understand it, and make answer, So be it, to that which shallbe there spoken. He doth not command them that they should speak in a language understood of all men, for so much as yet at that time they did always so according to the example of the ancient Church: but only so to speak and pronounce, to the end that they might be the better understood of all men: the which thing had been to no purpose at all, if speaking in such sort, the speech had not been known and understood of all men. Wherefore in commanding the fame, he presupposeth that which already was, to wit, that the language was known and understood of all men. Seeing then that in that respect the mass is repugnant to all law as well divine as humane, in deed if there were none other but this only point to be blamed, we have just cause to condemn it, and to require reformation of the same.   

Chapter xiii  
Of the application of the Sacramental words in the Mass, and whether they should be spoken either to those which do there assist, or else to the bread and to the wine of the same, and whether the signs of the sacraments may be the signs of them or not, beside their true and proper use.  
THE last point of the same very purpose, which concerneth yet the words of the mass, is, that beside that which I have already showed to be worthy of blame in the pronunciation of them, there is yet this very foul fault, and contrary to all reason, to wit, that in stead of declaring the words of the supper to the people assistant at the mass, and in speaking them unto them, to 'cause them to understand them, to the end that they should be taught by them, according to the commandment which the Lord hath given by Saint Paul, they speak them to the bread and to the wine which are upon the Altar, and do pronounce them over them. And therefore the priest is turned towards them, & hath his back towards the people, to whom he should speak, and deliver his words to teach and instruct them in the understanding of the doctrine belonging to this sacrament, and in the mysteries and secrets which it containeth. But in stead of doing this, he representeth them to the people by gestures, countenances, and divers ceremonies, and oftentimes by so foolish and doltish countenances, as are those of a very juggler. Therefore I know not for what cause a man may not say as well of a Priest, that he goeth to do, as well as to say, Mass. For he hath there as much to do as to say. For th● like cause, men might as well say, Let us go t● see, as well as let us go to hear mass. For th● assistance do there oftentimes see more the● they do hear, & namely in the jowe masses, wher● in they do plainly declare, that they do very it understand, 
In excellent Instruction.  both the nature, and the use as wel● of the word of God as of the Sacraments. Fo● the word whereupon they are grounded, is no● there set forth to be spoken to the signs there of, but to choose persons to whom both the one 〈◊〉 the other should be administered, to wit, as wel● the word as the signs, or otherwise the sacraments should be no sacraments. For they are no sacraments being out of their proper use, for so much as they are only ordained thereunto. And therefore, 
Note well ●his.  the water is not the water o● Baptism, nor a sign, nor consequently the sacrament thereof, but so far forth as it is joined with the word of jesus Christ, by the which it is dedicated and consecrated to that use, and so being applied to those persons, which men do● baptise, 
Matt. 28. Note well ●his.  according to his commandment. Th● very like is of the bread and of the wine of th● supper. For they can no more be the signs thereof, then may the water of baptism, if being joined together with the word of jesus Christ, whereby they are dedicated and consecrated to this sacrament, they be not given and distributed to those which should be partakers of the same: as it doth appear by the expressed words of jesus Christ, in that which he saith of both the signs, Take ye & eat ye. Likewise, 
Mat. 26. Mark. 14. Luk. 22.1. Cor. 11. Note.  Take ye and drink all ye. For it is plain that these words may not be spoken either to the bread, or to the wine, but only to those persons which might understand them, and execute the commandment that jesus Christ gave unto them by the same. For the bread and the wine can neither eat or drink themselves.   

Chapter xiiii  
That the words of the Supper appertain not to such as are capable thereof, and what fault the Roman priests do commit in that behalf.  
THis notwithstanding, it is to them that the priest doth speak and deliver their words, and not at all to those which do assist as well at their Mass as at their Supper, the which they do administer seldom times to the people. Not more may they be delivered also to beasts, for so much as they can not understand them, as also because the sacraments of the Lord were not ordained for them, the like may we say of all other creatures, which are not partakers, either of sense or understanding. Wherefore if they 〈◊〉 spoken to others then to such as are capable 〈◊〉 this sacrament, which may understand them 〈◊〉 may obey to that which jesus Christ commands them thereby, it is a mere mockery, whereby the intent and purpose of jesus Christe●● wholly overthrown. Note. And if these words whi●● contain the commandment that he gave in t●● supper to all the faithful, aught not to be addressed but to those which are capable thereof, t●● very like is of those of the promise, which followeth this commandment. For when Ies●● Christ saith, This same is my body, and this 〈◊〉 my blood, and that which followeth, he addresse● no more his words to the bread and to the wi●● then when he saith of them, Take and eat y●● but addresseth them to those in deeds, to who● he speaketh the first. Wherefore, seeing th●● there is both commandment and promise, a●● that the promise is made, even to those to who● the commandment is given, and that the Lo●● declareth thereby the cause and the end, for 〈◊〉 which he giveth this commandment, it is e●●● to judge, that the promise doth no less belo●● unto them than doth the commandment, a●● appertain not at all to the bread & to the wi●● From whence it followeth also that both 〈◊〉 one and the other belong unto them, & that th●● aught to understand them, and are not spoken ●he bread and to the wine, which can not understand or comprehend either the one or the other.   

Chapter. xv.  
Of the office as well of the ministers as of the Christian people in the supper: and of the fault which the priests and the Roman Catholics do commit against the same in their Mass.  
WHen then the Lord doth say, Take ye, and eat ye, and then expoundeth by the pro●ise which followeth this commandment, the ●ause of the commandment, he admonisheth as ●ell the ministers as the people, of that which ●oth the one and the other aught to do in the ●upper. As touching the ministers, their office is ●o advertise the people both of the commandment, and of the promise, and of that which they ●●ught to do according to the one and the other, ●nd what it is that they aught to attend. And the ●ffice of the people is to be obedient to that which ●s commanded them, and to believe the promise which is made unto them. Then if the minister's do not this office, they are sacrilegious, in ●s much as they do steal and hide the word of God from his people, which is so holy & sacred a ●hing. Wherefore they may be well placed among ●he false prophets, whom the Lord accuseth by ●eremie, to have stolen his word from his people. 
jere. 23.  They are in like fort very open rebels to jesus Christ. 
●ote well ●●is.  For seeing that they aught to represent his person in the administration of the si●per and of all sacraments, it must in any wise b● that they do that which he commandeth them t● do, and that they follow his example. For if the do otherwise and contrary thereunto, they ma● not be called the ministers of jesus Christ bu● only by a wrong title. Now it is certain tha● he commanded them to do in his remembrance the very same which he then did. And what is 〈◊〉 that he then did: Note. he as minister addressed hi● word to his disciples to whom he administereth his supper, and forthwith distributed unto then the signs thereof, which he commandeth the● to take. Wherefore if the priests do not the like in their mass & in their supper, wherein they sa● they do represent as ministers, the person of I●sus Christ, they do mock both jesus Christ an● his poor people. Now it is plain that in the 〈◊〉 mass, they do neither the one, ne yet the other From whence it followeth very well, that th● same can not be the supper of jesus Christ, fo● so much as they do so great a wrong therein, a● well to him as to all Christian people. For in h●●ding and stealing the word which aught to b● declared unto them, and in not distributing at a● that which is commanded them to distribute unto them, they do dishonour jesus Christ in disobeying him: & also do great wrong to his people, in not administering unto them that which ●hey aught to administer unto them. 
The fau●● of the p●●ple.  And as they ●aile in this behalf, even so the people do not ●heir duty, if they will not receive the word nor ●he signs, when they are duly and sincerely administered unto them. For therein they show ●hem selves rebels against God. Note. And if neither ●he one nor the other be presented and administered unto them, and that they care not at all, but ●re contented to be deprived either in part or in ●ll, they yield themselves then without excuse, inasmuch as they declare thereby, that they do ●ot greatly care for the glory of god, nor for his salvation, and chiefly when they may have the ●●eane to have the right and full administration ●f the sacraments.   

Chapter xuj.  
Of the difference and distinction that the Roman doctors do make in th'application of the sacramental words of the sacraments, aswell concerning the signs of them, as the persons which are capable thereof: and of the foundation of their transubstantiation which they ground upon the same.  
●Eing then that it is so, it is easy to judge, how foolish and full of filthy ignorance, the distinction and the difference that the Roman doctor's do make between Baptism and the su●per, and their other sacraments, is, touching t● applying of the words and of the signs 〈◊〉 them. For they say that in baptism the sacramental words are addressed to the people which they baptise, Note. and not at all to the matt●● of baptism, to wit, to the water which is th● sign thereof, but it is contrary in the suppe● forsomuch as the sacramental words are addressed to the matter thereof, to wit, to the brea●● and to the wine which are the signs, and n● at all to the persons: from whence they do conclude the conversion of the bread and of th● wine into the body and blood of jesus Chri●● according to their doctrine of transsubstanci●tion. By mean whereof they do affirm, tha● for that cause, the bread and the wine consecrated after their manner, are no more bread an● wine, but are the very body and blood of I●sus Christ, and the holy Sacrament of th● altar and of the supper of the Lord, yea even out of the action and use of the sacrament: Th● which thing they dare not affirm of the w●ter of the baptism. 
Note well.  For albeit that they hau● blessed and consecrated it after their manner, an● that they do reserve it in their fonts for th● use of baptism, and that they do pronounce th● sacramental words thereof in th'administration yet for all that they hold it neither for sacrament, nor for sign of baptism; but in the very action and use thereof, to wit, when it is applied to the persons that men do baptise. 
Demand  But if they grant us this point concerning baptism, why make they so great difficulty to grant us the same concerning the supper? For have they more express commandment of jesus Christ to administer the water in Baptism, than the bread and the wine in the supper, which are the signs? I say yet further, that it is so, that they have a more express commandment to distribute the bread and the wine of the supper, 
Note the well.  then to administer the water of the Baptism. For where is it that they shall be able to found that jesus Christ hath said so expressly of the water of Baptism, Take ye, baptise ye, and be ye baptised, as he hath plainly spoken of the bread & of the wine of the supper, Take ye, eat ye, Take ye, drink ye, yea every one of you. And to whom did he speak these words following, to wit, This same is my body, & this same is my blood, but even to those very men to whom he spoke the words going before, as I have already declared, & to whom he gave commandment to eat the bread and to drink the wine, which he broke & distributed unto them for signs of his body and of his blood:   

Chapter xvii.  
Of thapplying of the sacramental words t● the signs of the sacraments and of the consecration of them.  
THey may not then at all allege, that they d●● better agreed with the matter of the bread and 〈◊〉 the wine in the supper, then with that of the w●ter in Baptism, and that it hath not equal respe●● to the persons, aswell in the one sacrament as 〈◊〉 the other. 
Note well.  Wherefore to speak properly, the● must be referred in both the sacraments aswell 〈◊〉 the signs as to the persons, to whom they aught 〈◊〉 be administered, but it is ever in the respect of th● persons. For it should be to no purpose that the● were pronounced in secret, and in their absence's For that should be more like to a charm & a● enchantment, then to a sacrament. For the ma●ter which is taken for the signs in all sacraments, cannot be the signs, 
Note well.  if the same be n●● dedicated and consecrated thereunto by t●● word of God, by the which they are made h●ly and sacred signs, where as before they we●● but simple and common matter. And therefore there is so great difference between that th●● it was, 
Example.  and that that it is after that the word 〈◊〉 added unto it, as there is between a piece of s●uer before it be stamped, and that that it is aft●● the coining thereof having imprinted in it 〈◊〉 mark of the prince, the which giveth unto it his estimation and value: It hath also like difference, as hath the wax, 
An oth●●  whereof men make a ●eale, before it be printed, and after that it is printed having received the form by the Impression of the seal, it is then no more simple wax as before, but the true seal of the prince. For that cause the rod the which Moses held ●n his hand, 
Exod. 3.  keeping the sheep of jethro his Father in law when God appeared unto him in ●he bush, is afterward called the rod of God, when God had commanded him to use the same ●n his ministery, and in the miraculous works which were done by the same. 
Aug. in joh. Ho●● 13.  And in this sort must we understand that which Saint Augustine ●aid speaking of baptism, The word is joined ●o the element, and it is made a sacrament. He ●nderstandeth by the element the water of baptism, the which is dedicated to be the sign ●hereof by the word which is joined unto it, ●he which is not joined unto it, but to be understood of those unto whom it belongeth, and ●o understand by the same to what end it is ●●yned to the signs. Note. And albeit that the li●e children can not understand it in their baptism, as those which are of greater age do, yet ●or all that the same is not wrong applied, in ●s much as it may be understood as well by ●●eir Godfathers and Godmothers, as by those which do present them and assist at thei● baptism, for so much as it is not founded onel● upon the person of the infants, and upon thei● faith, but also upon the faith of their Godfathers and Godmothers, and of the whole Church, i● as much as it is grounded upon the alliance that God hath made with the faithful, because h● hath also comprehended in the same, their children, saying that he would be their God and th● God of their children. 
●●ene. 17. ●●●t. 13.  Wherefore seeing that baptism is the sacrament thereof in the Christia● Church, as the Circumcision was in th● Church of Israel, the children of the Christian● are no less capable of Baptism than were thos● of the jews of circumcision, forsomuch as ther● is one very foundation and one very reason i● them both touching this point. And therefore such is the consecration which is done to th● water in baptism, whereby the same is consecrated to that use. Note. We then see here, how that the word whereupon the same is grounded, hath aswell relation to the matter of baptism in respect of the blood of Christ, according to the testimony of Saint Augustine, as hau● those of the supper to the bread & to the wine, i● sort that the water is no less consecrated by thi● mean to be the sign of baptism, then is th● bread & the wine in the supper to be signs thereof For a man may say in very troth thereof, th● ●ame that Saint Augustine hath said of the wa●er of baptism. For there is like reason in both, ●n as much as there is none other mean, wherry the matter which is taken to be the sign ●f the Sacraments, may be dedicated and consecrated to that use, otherwise then by the word of God, whereof they are signs and sacraments. Behold here then that which the ancients did ●all here properly, Consecration.   

Chapter xviii.  
Of the change and conversion of the signs of the sacraments into the thing signified by them, according to the usage of the ancient Church, and of the doctors of the same.  
ANd when they speak of the change & conversion of the signs of the sacraments into ●he thing which they do signify, they do understand this change of the usage of them, 
Note wel● this.  for the which cause they do also change their name, taking the name of the thing which they signify, in contemplation and in respect of this change of the use, and not at all of the change of one substance into an other, to wit, of the substance of the signs, into that of the things which they do signify. For if there were such 〈◊〉 change of substance, by the virtue of the sacramental words and of the consecration o● the signs, it should necessarily then come t● pass, that the same should be in all sacraments, 〈◊〉 not more in the one then in the other: fors●● much as there is none at all that may be sacraments without consecration and without sacramental words, and they have all this commo● together, and the like reason is in them all, concerning this point. 
●ote.  Wherefore the Roman transsubstantiators have no ground of reason to affirm that there is more transsubstanciati●● in the supper, by change of the substance of th● signs, into the thing signified by the virtue o● the consecration and of the sacramental words then in all the other sacraments. And therefore if they would that we should believe them, the● must then prove their sayings by other testimonies than themselves, for so much as they do● overthrow the whole nature of sacraments by their doctrine. For the bread and the wine o● the Supper, can not be made the signs there of, but only by the virtue of their consecration and of the sacramental words by the which they are consecrated to that use. For as we hau● already heard by Saint Augustine, the word● must be always joined to the element, befor● that it may be made a sacrament. Now it is ther● then joined, when the bread and the wine whic● are taken of the elements of this world, are applied to the use of the supper, and this application is made by the consecration and by the sacramental words, when they are pronounced and declared in the administration of the Supper in the same sort as jesus Christ did pronounce and declare them, and commanded the same to be done according to his example. Behold then here all the conversion and all the transubstantiation which may be in the supper, aswell as in the other sacraments.   

Chapter xix.  
Whether every change carry with it conversion of one substance into another: and what difference there is between change and transubstantiation: and of the double change of the signs which should be required in the supper, if the doctrine of transsubstanciation were true.  
ANd therefore when the ancient doctors did speak of change and conversion of the signs into the same, they understood none other, as I have showed and proved very plainly, and by good testimonies of the ancient doctor's themselves in other treatises of mine. For every change and every conversion of one thing into an other carrieth not with it at all transubstantiation of one substance into an other. For there may be change, without conversion of substance. But conversion of substance can not be without change. We may then say that wher● there is transubstantiation by conversion of substance, there is there change. But there is not always transubstantiation and conversion of substance, where there is change. Wherefore there is as great difference between change & transubstantiation, as is between the general & the special. For change is the general which comprehendeth under it transubstantiation, but transubstantiation doth not comprehend in it change, forsomuch as his signifiration is more ample (as that of change, of transmutation and of conversion) then that of transubstantiation. For, all these names do comprehend other kinds of change and of conversion, then of one substance into an other. For as there is change of substances, so is there also change of accidents, to wit, of qualities, of time, of places, of habits and such other like things, according to their natures, and to the predicaments under that which they are comprehended, as the Logicians distinguish them. 
●egenera●●on.  Our regeneration is not without change, which is wrought in our own persons. But it is not at all by conversion of the substance of our bodies nor of our souls into others, or into any other substance, but it is in quality, which is, from vice into virtue, by the change & renewing of the old Adam, & of the old man into the new. 
Conu●●● this we●●.  And therefore if there be any change in the supper, touching the matter of the signs thereof, it must then be considered of what kind this change is, and in what predicament it must be sought, if we will speak as becometh Logicians, and if there be changes, either of substance or of quality, in as much as the matter of the signs thereof is otherwise qualified, when it is applied to that use, than it was before. I have already declared & proved, that there can be no more change of one substance into an other, then there is in all other sacraments, because of the reasons that I have already alleged, taken aswell of the nature of them, as of the testimonies of the word of God, whereupon they are grounded. And if there were such a change, 
Note w●●  it must needs be that it should be in 2. sorts, to wit, the one, by the which the bread and the wine should be appointed to be the signs of the body and of the blood of jesus Christ: and the other to convert the substance of the bread and of the wine into his body and blood, after that they should have been made the signs thereof, by the first consecration, and by the first change which should have been made by the same. And by this mean it would come to pass that there should be 2. consecrations, 
Way wel● this.  and 2. sorts of sacramental words. The first, to consecrat & 'cause the bread & the wine to be the signs: and then the second, to convert them afterward into the body and into the blood of jesus Christ: or else it must be, that the same very words should do both at one instant. And if the same might be done in the supper, there is no reason, why it should not be done also in the other sacraments, for the reasons which I have already declared, and chiefly in those in the which the holy Ghost hath used like manners of speech as in the supper. Note. We say then that there is no more change of the substance of the signs thereof, then there is in those of the other sacraments, & that there is none other at all but in the use which consisteth in this, that the matter which is taken for the signs of the sacraments, is applied and serveth to another use, and an other end then his did before that time. And if there be none other change in the supper of the Lord, there can then be none other in the mass, if it be his true supper. And if it be not his true supper, it is not then a sacrament of the Lord, but is rather a kind of magic and of sorcery.   

Chapter xx.  
Of the ground of the error of transubstantiation, & of the absurdities which follow the same, and of the application of the sacramental words to those persons which are capablc, and what faith there is there required.  
BUt the Roman doctors, having not well understood the meaning nor the manners of speech of the ancient doctors, have taken them for a change of one substance into an other in stead of taking them for the change which is in the use thereof. 
Note th●  It is no marvel at all if they be fallen into that error, seeing that they have so il understood the nature of the sacrament of the supper, that not only they have converted it into a sacrifice in their mass, but also they have made it a sacrament of the altar, the which they account for a sacrament, yea when it is out of the use thereof. Wherefore seeing they know not what the true use of the supper is, no more have they well understood what was the change of the signs in the same, in respect of their proper use. For that cause even as they have changed their use into an other wholly new and strange, by their doctrine and invention, even so have they found out an other new sort of change, of the substance of the signs of the supper, into the substance of the thing signified by them, against the doctrine and the usage of all the ancient Church. This ignorance and new invention hath been the cause of great and filthy errors and abuses of the transubstantiation, and of the infinite absurdities that the same draweth after it. We must then first note, Note. in what sort the word is adjoined to the matter of the signs, to know in what sort the same is dedicated and consecrated to that use by the same word, according to that which I have lately alleged of Saint Augustine, saying, The word is joined to the element, and it is made a sacrament. And then we must go on further, to consider how the same word is applied to the persons, to whom the sacraments are administered, and for whose cause the matter of the signs and of the sacraments is dedicated and consecrated to that use whereunto it serveth. For if the word were not joined and applied, but only to the matter of the signs, the which Saint Augustine calleth element, because it is taken of these earthly elements, it should not be converted into a sacrament by the conversion of the use whereunto it is converted: but should always remain in his first quality, & should not be qualified, as it is when that it is applied to the use of the sacraments. For God hath not given the word to man to declare the same to insensible creatures, Note. & to pronounce it over them. For that belongeth to magicians, forcerers, charmers, and enchanters, which do abuse it contrary to the true use thereof. For it is their custom, so to apply their charms & enchantments & to pronounce them secretly & with a whispering voice, 
●say. 29. ●●g. in ●oh. Hom. 〈◊〉.  & to babble & mumble them without understanding, as also Esay doth witness. And therefore Saint Augustine sayeth yet very well, that the element is made a sacrament by the word which is joined unto it, not somuch because it is spoken, but because it is believed. He doth not deny, but that the element is made a sacrament by the word, because it is spoken & pronounced, but it is chief because that men do believe the same word. For men could not believe it, if it were not declared unto them which should & aught to believe it. But his only meaning is, that it is not enough to speak & pronounce it, but that it must also be received by faith. From whence it followeth also, that it must needs be that it be declared & understood. For otherwise men could not believe, considering that faith can not be faith without the understanding & the knowledge of the things, which are set forth unto men by the word of God. Note. And thereby it is easy to judge, that the word is not of effect in the sacraments, & that they cannot be made sacraments by the same, if it be not declared to those which are capable of it. For the signs cannot believe the word, wherefore it is not for their cause that the word is joined unto them: but in respect of those unto whom they are administered, to the end that they may know what the use of them is, & to what end they are administered unto them. For he that should pronounce the words only over the signs, in stead of declaring them to the people, to whom the sacraments do belong, it should be to convert the sacraments into a manner of sorcery, of charms and of enchantments against the expressed word of God▪   

Chapter xxi.  
Whether the Sacraments and their virtue do depend as well of the persons which do administer them, as of those to whom they are administered.  
But they may reply that if it were so as I say, 
reply.  according to the testimony of Saint Augustine, the sacraments, and the virtue and the efficacy of them should depend more upon the faith of them, to whom they should be administered, then upon the ordinance and the word of God, whereupon they are builded. 
●swere.  Whereunto I answer that so far it is of from me so to conclude, that I say yet further, that they do not only not depend at all upon those unto whom they are administered, neither yet upon the very ministers which do administer them. For albeit the minister were as unfaithful as judas was, yea thoroughly an Atheist, and of the worst conscience of the world, that notwithstanding the sacraments which they should administer, should be no less sacraments, then if a very Apostle of Christ, or some other very holy parsonage should administer them, provided that such a minister should be called by lawful vocation, according to the order which the Lord hath ordained in his Church, and that he should administer the sacraments in the very true manner that they have been ordained by the Lord, without adding or diminishing, changing, disguising and counterfeiting in any thing which belongeth to their proper nature and substance. Note. For if their virtue and efficacy should depend of him that doth administer them, in what case should the Church be? For what assurance might she have, whether the sacraments which are administered unto her be true sacraments or not, if it were so that their assurance were builded in such matter upon the faith of her ministers? For she is not God, which only knoweth the hearts whereby to discern them. Wherefore, if her assurance be not better grounded then upon the faith of the ministers, it must needs be that she should remain always in doubt, for so much as she can not judge of the hearts of men, nor consequently of the faith or unfaithfulness which may be in them. From whence it should follow, that she should always remain in doubt, & consequently that she should not receive any sacrament in assured faith, for so much as faith is so contrary to doubt, as is trust and assurance. Wherefore they may in no wise agreed together. And therefore in such a case, the Church needeth not but to have a regard to three points. The first is, 
Consider very welthre● points.  whether the Lord did ordain the Sacraments which are set forth unto her in his name. The second, whether he that doth administer them, be called by lawful vocation to that charge to administer them. The third, whether he doth administer them according to the ordinance of the Lord or not, or whether he do disguise and pervert them, or whether he do administer others in the stead of them. For as there aught nothing to be attempted in the Church without lawful vocation, even so the only vocation is not sufficient, if the charge by her committed, be not executed according to the lords ordinance. For albeit that a man shallbe called by lawful vocation, he may very well stray afterward, and may pass the limits thereof, and do clean contrary to his duty, but he shall not be allowed therein. 
Consider this.  And therefore it behoveth every man herein to take good heed that he be not deceived. For if the Minister do deliver any other word, then that which God hath revealed unto us in his holy scriptures, and any other Sacraments than those which the Lord hath ordained, and in any other sort, he may well boast of his calling, for that shall not at all let, but that he is a false minister, and a seducer in that behalf, and that those unto whom he shall administer, be not seduced and deceived by him. For his vocation may not exempt him, but so far forth as he followeth the same, and not at all in that wherein he doth contrary thereunto. On the contrary, if he do administer the word and the Sacraments which he aught to do, and in such sort as the Lord hath commanded, his infidelity and wicked life shall not let, but that which is of God shall be alway of God, and shall always have his virtue and his efficacy in those which are made capable by him, because that, that which the Lord hath ordained, taketh his virtue and force of him, 
Excellent instruction.  and not at all of the Minister which is but the instrument, which of himself can do nothing, but so far forth as the Lord shall work by him. And therefore the Gospel, 
Example.  which judas preached, was no less the Gospel then that which was preached by the other Apostles his fellows; for so much as he was called to the same ministery with them. This notwithstanding, jesus Christ yet in those days said that judas was a Devil. He was then a Devil and an Apostle both together. An Apostle by mean of his vocation, and for so much as he did execute it according to the charge that was committed unto him, and a Devil in respect of his hypocrisy, and of his infidelity, covetousness and malice.  
If then during the time that he was yet an Apostle, he should have administered the supper, in such sort as jesus Christ did ordain and administer the same, it should have been no less● the lords supper, then if Saint Peter or some other of the Apostles had administered the same▪ On the other side, if Saint Peter himself, or any other of the Apostles, yea a very Angel, should administer it in that sort as it is at this day administered in the Roman Church, and should say mass as the Roman priests at this day● there do, yet could it not be the supper of th● Lord, nor acceptable or pleasant unto God▪ for so much as his ordinance is there utterly ●●uerthrowen: and in that respect could be no better than if judas had said it. 
A good instruction.  We must the● consider not only the vocation of the ministers but also the execution of their charge. And whether they do both agreed together, the rest whic● may be in their person, be it never so vicious may not hinder the virtue of the lords ministry. But if these things be there wanting, 〈◊〉 namely the second; Note. the case is altered. For if th● Treasurer or receiver of a Prince, 
Example.  do deli●● forth false money in stead of good, the offi●● whereunto he is called, can not make it oth● then false money, because he doth not execu● the office faithfully, and doth change the go● money which he receiveth to distribute by th● commandment of his Lord, into that which is not the same that he received to be distributed. And by this mean they which shall have received the same, shallbe deceived and spoiled. On the other side, although he were wicked and unjust, if he did distribute it good & such as he was commanded, the same could not let at all but that it should be good, & that they which should receive it, should very well make their profit thereof. So much concerning ministers, & that which their ministery may receive of them. Let us now speak of those to whom they are sent. 
Consider this well.  If they do administer that which they aught to do, their ministry hath his virtue as well in the respect of God, as in the respect of themselves. And as concerning those to whom they do administer them, 
Communicantes.  they may in no wise make their profit of it, if they do not receive in faith that which is administered unto them. For they can not communicate with jesus Christ, nor be partakers of his graces, the which he communicateth to his church, by the means of the ministery, which he hath ordained in the same, without having faith in him and his promises. Then if they have true faith, 
A good lesson.  they do receive with the signs the things signified by them, but if there be no faith in them, they shall receive nothing but that which they may receive without the same, but not at all that which without the same they may not receive. 
●ote.  Now they may well receive the signs of the sacraments without faith, because that they have in their bodies and in their members the instruments whereby to receive them. But they may in no wise receive the thing which they signify, because that it is spiritual, and that they want the spiritual instruments, without the which no man may receive them: the which no man may have but by the mean of faith. 
August. de civit. dei. lib. 21. c. 25. & In 10. Tra. 26. c. 6.  And for that cause Saint Augustine saith, that they do in deed receive the sacrament, by the which he understandeth the signs, but not the thing of the sacrament, which is to say, that which is signified by them. For he doth even in that sort take the name of Sacrament, when he so speaketh, as it appeareth by that that he doth distinguish from the thing signified by the same. For the sacrament is not a true sacrament, 
3. things in a true sacrament.  if it have not always these three things, to wit, the word of God, and the signs ordained by him, & the thing which they signify. All these things never fail in the respect of God: but they which do abuse them, are the cause that it is not a sacrament unto them, in as much as they do reject through their unbelief, the grace which is offered unto them by him. 
Example.  Wherefore the like happeneth unto those to whom the sacraments are administered, as to men in respect of the sun, the which shineth well for all, but not to all. For there are none but those which have eyes, that do receive his light, the which he presenteth to all: but in the mean time, such as are blind do not receive it. For they have not the instrument, without the which they cannot receive it. So standeth it between the faithful and the unfaithful in respect of the ministry of the Church, for it presenteth unto all the benefits of God. And albeit that the faithless do not receive them at all, that not withstanding the same letteth not, but that the ministry hath always in itself his virtue. But in the mean while it is not ordained but to be exercised towards those for whom it was ordained, or otherwise it should not be a ministery, and by consequence should not have his virtue.   

Chapter. xxii.  
That the signs of the Supper may no more be Sacraments out of the usage thereof, than that of Baptism out of the time of Baptisime.  
TO return again then to the point whereupon I was, 
Conclusion.  I conclude that as the water of baptism cannot be the Sacrament, nor the sign of baptism, but only in the administration of the same, even so is it of the bread and of the wine in the Supper. For the sacramental words, both of the one and of the other sacrament, have no more respect to the matter of the signs, nor less to the persons which are capable in the baptism, then in the supper: as S. Augustine hath very well understood it. For if he had said of the supper only, that the element is made a Sacrament, when the word is joined unto it, 
opinion of ●he Roman●istes.  the Roman doctors might more justly serve themselves with his testimonies to prove the difference which they make between the baptism and the supper, saying that the sacramental words of baptism have regard, and do belong to the persons which men do baptise, and not at all to the matter of the sacrament, which is the water and the sign thereof: and that those of the supper have regard and do belong to the matter of the same, to wit, to the bread and to the wine and not to the persons, as they do in baptism. 
Conclusion.  Whereupon they do conclude, that the bread consecrated by them is no less a sacrament, being kept in a box, pixte, or hutch, then when they do administer it in their supper. And therefore they do always call it the sacrament of the altar, and the body of the Lord, and the body of God, as well in their pixtes and hutches, as in the administration of their supper. 
Note this.  And we on the contrary, do say and prove forth with by the very words of jesus Christ, that if it were so in deed, that the bread and the wine should be transsubstantiated into the body and into the blood of him, as the transsubstanciatours do affirm, yet for all that they can not make the same by their transubstantiation, if that forth w they do not distribute it, & that they be not communicated, as jesus Christ hath done and commanded. For they can not do that which he hath done and hath commanded to be done in that matter, doing the clean contrary to that which he hath done and commanded. For the minister can not have the virtue which the Lord hath given to the ministery of his Apostles, and of their true successors, if it be not the very same ministry. Now it appeareth plainly that it is not the very same ministery, for so much as the ordinance & purpose of jesus Christ, is there manifestly and wholly violated and overthrown. For jesus Christ declareth openly by the same, that he hath not ordained the bread and the wine, to be signs of the holy sacrament, but to the end that they should be administered, distributed, and communicated in the same, according as he hath expressly commanded, saying, Take ye and eat ye. Likewise, Take ye & drink ye. Who may then believe that jesus Chrisse did give such power as the Roman priests do there attribute, to these which do clean contrary to his so expressed ordinance and commandment: Note. For there is not here question only of their vocation, but also of the execution of their charge and office. For albeit that it were so that the vocation were in all things else very lawful, yet for all that, doing clean contrary to the same, that which they do, may in no wise be allowed by God. And therefore I demand of them, 
●mande.  whether they be ordained & called to the ministry, whereof they do so glory, either to preach the word of God, and to administer the supper, & the other sacraments according to the same, as the Apostles and their true successors have done before them: or else to say mass, and to overthrow in the same the whole institution of the Lord. If it be but to say mass, and to do only that which they do in the same, I can not in that respect grant, that their vocation nor the work which they do according to the same, 
●ote this  may be of God. Wherefore I do again conclude, that albeit that the doctrine of their transubstantiation were in the rest true, yet notwithstanding, it could not have place out of the use of the supper, & their bread and wine could be but bread and wine, and not at all the body and the blood of Christ, except they were distributed and communicated, accordingly as he hath expressedly commanded. And therefore I say again that so far of is it that the testimony which I have alleged of S. Augustine, may establish the distinction which the transsubstantiatours do make between Baptism and the Supper (whereof I have even now made mention) that on the contrary it doth clean overthrow it. For he said those words, 
Con●●o● this.  speaking not at all of the Supper, but of Baptism, by the which he doth plainely-declare that the sacramental word thereof, have no less regard to the sign which is appointed unto it, than those of the Supper have to the bread and to the wine. From whence it followeth, that if for that cause there be transubstantiation in the one, it is also in the other: for the sacramental words are no less spoken of the one then of the other, to the persons which are capable of these Sacraments.   

Chapter. xxiii.  
Of the true distinction and difference which aught to be had between Baptism and the Supper of the Lord  
SEeing that I have declared the abuse and the error which is in the distinction and difference that the transsubstantiatours do make between the sacraments of baptism & the supper touching their signs, and the application of the same, I will touch briefly the true distinction and difference which must be put between them, taking the same of their proper nature and use, And for the better understanding of it, we aught first to consider what it is that is common to them both, and then what it is that every of them hath proper and special to itself. 
●at ●●gs are ●●mon & ●●per to ●se sacra●uts.  They both have this common and general, that they sand us to the death and to the sacrifice of jesus Christ, and that they are ordained to the end that by the mean of them we may communicate with jesus Christ, and may be made partakers of his benefits. But because that God doth offer unto us divers graces by him, of the which he would make us partakers, he hath ordained two sacraments the better to represent unto us his principal graces, the which do comprehend all the rest. For seeing that by sin we are dead of spiritual death, 
〈◊〉 good induction.  we must first receive that life which is contrary to that death, as though we should rise from spiritual death to spiritual life, the which we receive of the benefit of jesus Christ, who bringeth us that life, because he hath it in himself, as he himself doth witness, saying, I am the way, 
●oh●. 18.11  the truth, and the life. Likewise, I am the resurrection and the life. For we cannot attain to the blessed resurrection and to eternal life, which we wait for, but we must first be made partakers of this spiritual life, which jesus Christ by his death & resurrection doth bring unto us. 
Note this ansplan●tion.  And we can not be made partakers thereof, if we be not planted and graffed into him, which is the new Adam, and the new man, and the new stock of mankind, in the which we must be renewed, even as we have been planted and graffed into the old Adam, and into the old man which is the old stock of mankind, the which is altogether corrupted through sin, wherefore we must needs be transported from this stock into the other, if we will be transported from death to life. And to bring this transportation to pass, we must die to our old man, and must rise again to our new, and we must spoil ourselves of the first, and cloth us with the second. And because that we can not find this virtue in ourselves, we must therefore take it of the death and resurrection of jesus Christ, to the end that we may be thoroughly renewed and made new creatures. This grace, and this benefit of jesus Christ, is called in the holy scripture Regeneration, because that we are regenerated and borne again as of new by him, not bodily, but spiritually. For we have already bodily life by our first nativity, the which we hold of the stock of Adam. Wherefore we have no need of a second nativity, the which we do call new birth, & regeneration in respect of this life, the which we have already, but in respect of the spiritual life, the which we receive of the stock of the new Adam, & of the new man, as the stippes and branches which are graffed into a good tree, and as the vine branches which receive their life and nurture of their stock. For that cause jesus Christ is compared to the stock of the vine, 
●n. 15.  and his disciples to the branches joined to the stock, and they which are not at all graffed nor joined together with him, are compared to the branches that are cut off from the stock. 
●●gnifica●●●n of baptism.  And therefore that this benefit is represented and communicated unto us by Baptism, and how we do put off the old man and put on the new, 
●●m. 6. ●●l. 3.  Saint Paul saith, that by Baptism we are dead and buried with jesus Christ, into his death, and risen again with him, and planted and graffed, and incorporated into him, and that all those which are baptised, have put on jesus Christ. And thus much concerning the benefit of regeneration, and of baptism, which is the Sacrament and testimony thereof, whereby the Lord witnesseth unto us, how that he doth renew and regenerate us in his son jesus Christ, into a new life, and doth reform us to his image, by the virtue of his holy spirit, and doth adopt us by the spirit of adoption, and doth avow and receive us for his children into his house, which is his Church. For the which cause we are baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Thus much concerning the nature and    


faults, and very apparent to those which understand what sacraments are, and do know the nature of them, and also that of the body and of the blood of jesus Christ, and of the union and the distinction of his divine & humane natures in the person of him. The first is, touching the manner of expounding the sacramental words of the supper. The 2. concerning the signs of the same, and the abolishing of them. The 3. concerning the things that they signify. For the first they give to the sacramental words, by jesus Christ pronounced in the Supper, an exposition altogether new and strange, which cannot in any wise agreed with any kind of sacramental speech, that is in all the holy scripture, like unto that which jesus Christ hath used in the Supper. For first of a sacramental proposition, they will make a natural proposition. 
Note these propofitions.  By mean whereof they have already overthrown the nature of the Sacraments. For if I say of the bread of the Supper, This bread is the body of Christ, there is no appearance to take it naturally so, as when I say, jesus Christ is man, and jesus Christ is God: but this proposition must be taken sacramentally, forsomuch as we must always take the signification of the terms & words which men do use, according to the matter whereof men speak & the nature of the same. Wherefore if men speak of natural things, the words must be taken naturally, but if men speak of spiritual and sacramental things, they must be understood spiritually and sacramentally. 
sacrament speeches ●●d their ●●●●e use.  If there be then sundry sorts of sacramental speeches in the scripture, like to that which jesus Christ did use in the Supper, there is no reason to take them in one sense in some sacraments, and in an other clean contrary in some others, for so much as the matter is always sacramental, and the manners of speech always like. And on the other side, it is a great fault to take the words in their proper and natural signification, when they should be understood by figure, and that the meaning of them cannot be true otherwise, as they aught to be understood chief for two causes in the speech of jesus Christ in the Supper, which words are at this day in controversy. The first is because that all other manners of sacramental speeches like unto this may not be otherwise understood, nor also divers others which resemble them. The other is, that if they be expounded otherwise, there follow infinite absurdities, the which do sufficiently declare that such an exposition may not agreed with the meaning of the words of the Lord. And that which more is, on which side soever the transsubstantiatours & their adherentes may turn themselves, they can never in any wise expound these words according to the very sense that they would give them, but that they will be constrained to acknowledge and receive some figure, as I have very amply declared all these matters in divers other books. I say further also, that they shall not be able to find in all the holy Scriptures any manner of speech, 
Note 〈◊〉  which carrieth with it transubstantiation and conversion of one substance into an other, like to that that jesus Christ hath used in his supper. Wherefore is it then that they will here disguise and transform the language of the holy Ghost by a new exposition, whereof they have neither testimony nor example in the whole scriptures, namely in the matter of sacraments, where they have many to the contrary: For albeit they say they will take the words of jesus Christ simply and according to the letter, Yet for all that they do it not when they do expound the meaning of them according to their doctrine. For jesus Christ hath not spoken that which they say by their exposition.   

Chapter two.  
Of the abolishing of the signs of the Supper, and of the things signified by them: and consequently of all the sacrament by the Roman transubstantiation.  
THe other fault which is concerning the signs, consisteth in that, that by their exposition, whereby they would establish transubstantiation, they do abolish the material signs of the supper, converting them into the thing which they signify, or at lest they do confound them both together, whereas they should be distinguished the one from the other. 
●●te well ●●s.  For even as a sacrament cannot be a true sacrament without the word of God: no more can it be without material signs which are joined to that word, as seals thereof. Now if the substance of bread and wine were transsubstanciate and converted into that of the body and of the blood of jesus Christ, there should be there no more bread nor wine, & by consequent there should be no more material signs, forasmuch as there is none other but the bread and the wine. From whence it should also follow, that there should be at all no sacrament. 
Signs ●●gniftyng thing sig●ifted.  And so willing to convert the signs into the thing which they signify: they have neither the one nor the other. For in abolishing the signs, they abolish also the thing which should be signified by them. 
Note this  For it can not be there offered nor communicated sacramentally, as it aught to be set forth and communicated, if the means be taken away which the Lord hath ordained to make us partakers thereof. And for to allege that the signs do always remain signs albeit that they be converted into the thing which they should signify, because that their accidents do always remain whole, the which do there remain for signs: that is not to satisfy the question and the difficulty, but to make it yet greater. For as the accidents may not be without substance, 
Note th● argument  no more may they be accidents of substances, if they be not agreeable to their nature. For albeit that a man may not see and perceive the substances but by their accidents, it followeth not for all that, that all accidents do agreed with every substance, but are attributed unto them according to their nature, and distinguished as they are: or otherwise all nature should be confounded in a marvelous confusion of substances and accidents. 
another argument  And further we have to note, that among accidents there be some that are so proper and natural to their substance whereof they be accidents, that they may not be separated, without corrupting the subject which sustaineth them: in sort that when they shall be separated, it is no more that which it was when they were joined unto it. And by this mean the bread & the wine may be no more bread and wine, if they have not the colour, & the savour, & the other qualities which are proper and natural unto them. And if they cannot be that which they should naturally be without their natural qualities and other accidents, 
other ●ument.  their qualities and accidents may much less be without their substance.   

Chap. iii  
That the bread and the wine of the Supper can not be the true signs of the same, if they do not remain always bread & wine in their proper substance and nature: and that the transsubstanciators cannot cover their error with a cover of miracle.  

Note well his argument.  FRom whence it followeth of two things, the one: which is, that the bread & wine remain always bread and wine, aswell after the pronunciation of the sacramental words, as before: forsomuch as they do always keep their first nature, as all the senses may judge, the which are not false: or else it must be that there is some illusion which deceiveth the senses, and that maketh the things to appear otherwise then they are in deed: by mean whereof the signs should be false & not true signs. Wherefore being false they could not be signs of true things, for the troth cannot be represented by a lie, nor the true by a false, forsomuch as there must needs be a true correspondance between the signs and the things which they signify. They must then confess that the accidents are wholly without substance and without subject, against the whole order of God and of nature, or else that the accidents of bread and of wine, be the accidents of the body & of the blood of jesus Christ, and that the same body and the same blood are the subject and the substance of them. On which side soever they will take it, Note. they shall always fall into marvelous absurdities. For they may not here allege miracle, 
Miracle  if that they will not by that means overthrow the whole nature of the miracles of God, as by their doctrine they do overthrow the whole order of nature. For as the power of God may not be separated from his wisdom, by the which he never employeth his power, but wisely, and keeping always good order: even so no more doth he, be it that he work naturally or supernaturally, 
Works natural supernatural.  but that he maketh that which he hath made, & that that which is, is the same in deed, that it is. For if it were otherwise, he should be against himself and against his own works. Note. And therefore albeit that he be almighty, yet for all that he doth not, neither also will he do, that the bread and the wine shall be bread and wine, and that notwithstanding they shall not be at all, and that they are, & are not at all even together that which they are, and that he would that they should be. The which thing they should be, if the bread and the wine of the supper did keep continually their former nature, as they do in deed, and the experience showeth if: and yet for all that they should not hold their proper substance, without the which they could not have nor keep their natural virtue, as in deed they do hold it, aswell after the consecration as before. And if they will not confess it, they must then needs confess that the natural senses which God hath given us, 
●nfider ●s absur●●e.  do deceive us, and that the bodily and outward senses do show false things to the spiritual and inward senses. And if it be so, there is then the work of God corrupted, and his order wholly perverted. For even as we may not separate his wisdom from his power, no more may we also separate his will, the which we cannot know but so far forth as he declareth by his word. Now he hath not declared unto us by the same, 
●gument.  that the bread which should be baked between two hot prons, should be converted into the body of his son jesus Christ, by the virtue of certain words spoken over it, by the priests so appointed & qualified as they are in the Roman Church, nor that the same hath ever been done, nor that it shall be done: as he hath declared that his son should take unto him our flesh, and that he should be conceived in the womb of a virgin, of whom he should be borne and that he should be conversant, not invisibly, but visibly among men. Even so is it of all the other articles of our faith. 
Note thi●  But of that of transubstantiation, there is no one Prophet, which hath ever prophesied any thing, nor Apostle, no Evangelist that ever wrote any thing in such sort as the transsubstanciatours do expound it and set it forth. For this cause the true ancient Church, and the ancient doctors and divines of the same by whose hands we have received all the symbols, which the Church yet at this day useth, which do contain the Articles of our faith, have not set down any thing touching this transubstantiation, nor no one of them which do depend no not in the very symbol, the which the priests do recite and sing in their mass.   

Chapter iiii.  
That the doctrine of transubstantiation can not be true, without spoiling of jesus Christ and his humane nature.  
NOw if they take their second point, whereof I have lately spoken, they redouble their fault, for by that mean, they spoil jesus Christ of the proprieties, 
great ab●ditie.  without the which his humane nature cannot be a true humane nature, in sort that they give him a humane body, the which altogether and at one time shallbe a humane, and not a humane body. For it cannot be a true humane body, if it have not all that which is proper to a true humane body, and without the which it cannot be an humane body, be it glorified or not glorified. For it must needs be always that a body be a body (be it glorified or not) and not a spirit: 
●ngnlar struction  and that it do keep always his natural proprieties, without the which it cannot be a true body, and such as God hath created it, and would that it should be. For even as the soul of man united to his body, 
●●ample.  cannot be a body, because that it is a spirit, but remaineth always a soul and spirit: even so the body cannot be the soul, because it cannot be a spirit: or else if it be converted into spirit, it is no more a body, as also the spirit is no more the spirit if it be converted into body. The like is of the body and of the soul of jesus Christ, and of his divine and humane nature, of the which every one of them holdeth so continually his proprieties, that the one cannot be that which the other is. For albeit that they be united together by personal union, yet for all that they remain always distinct in their unity, according to their proprieties, 
Note 〈◊〉 distinct●  and not confused in sort that the one cannot be the other: wherefore we may not say at all, that the divinity is the humanity, or that the humanity is the divinity, nor that the one is converted into the other. For if there were such a conversion, they should no more be that which they are, but should be changed into other natures, which thing cannot be. For God can never be but God: 
Instructs  Wherefore he can not be converted into man, but he may well unite man to himself, as he hath done in the person of his son jesus Christ. In likewise man can not be converted into God, forsomuch as he is a creature, & that God which is the creator of all, cannot be created, but is without beginning as he is without end and infinite: the which thing can not agreed with any creature. From whence it followeth that the Gods which are created, and that have had any beginning, are no Gods at all, but are only creatures, or else illusions: 
Or vain imagination's, or fantasies.  And as the substance of God cannot be converted into that of man, nor that of man into that of God, for otherwise God should not be God, nor man should not be man at all: Even so neither the one nor the other may be without his convenient and natural proprieties. For if the humane nature have the proprieties belonging to the divine nature, it is no more humane nature, but divine. 
●ote.  In like sort, if the body and the blood of jesus Christ have the natural proprieties which do belong to the bread and to the wine, as they have indeed, if they have their qualities, & accidents, & these same effects, they are not at all the body and the blood of him, but bread and wine, remaining always in their substance with their accidents.   

Chapter v.  
That the doctrine of transsubstanciation doth overthrow a great part of the Articles of the faith and Christian religion, concerning the work of the redemption wrought by jesus Christ.  
THen even as the transsubstanciators do abolish from the supper the true signs of the same by their transubstantiation: even so do they take away the things signified by them, to wit, the body and blood of jesus Christ, in as much as they transfigure them into an other nature, 
Note well.  spoiling them of their bodily proprieties in such sort that they are no more a very body nor a very blood, forsomuch as they have not their natural proprieties, but have those of the bread and of the wine which should represent them, and should not be the thing itself, the which they should signify. And by the same ineane they overthrow all the Articles of our faith, touching the incarnation of jesus Christ, 
Acticle● our fai●● clean o●● thrown  and his conception and nativity, his death, resurrection and ascension into heaven: for if he have such a body as they attribute unto him in their mass and supper, it is not a true human body, in as much as it hath no thing at all of that which is required in a true human body, but only that which is proper and natural to the bread, if it be so that the bread be converted into the same. From whence it followeth, neither that it is not the same very body which was conceived and borne of the virgin Mary, 
Note th●  and which died, rose again, and went up into heaven: or else if it be the same very body, it was never a true body, neither in the conception and nativity, nor in the death, resurrection and ascension: or else it was afterward changed, either into an imaginative body, or into a spirit, or into God, in sort that it is become infinite as God, and that it is every where in his proper essence and substance as God: or at the lest that it is in many places at one instant, and that it hath no one quality nor quantity agreeable to a human body: The which things can in no wise agreed with the nature of a true body. And that which I do say of the doctrine of the transsubstanciators, may be also said of that of the consubstanciators, who albeit they do condenme transubstantiation as we do, yet for all that they do constitute a corporal presence of the body and of the blood of jesus Christ with the bread and with the wine in the supper, which is not greatly different from that of the transsubstanciators, and draweth after it as many absurdities, concerning the proprieties of the humane nature of jesus Christ.   

Chapter vi.  
That the doctrine aswell of the transsubstanciators as also of the consubstanciators hath no certain foundation upon the words of jesus Christ, and for what causes: and of the chief different which is between them and us, touching the presence of jesus Christ in the Supper.  
IT may not then be that the transsubstantiatours, nor also the consubstantiacors may brag and glory as they do, that they have the expressed word of jesus Christ, who said, 
Con●●● well 〈◊〉 chapte●●  This is my body: and that their faith of transubstantiation or consubstantiation, is grounded upon the expressed and certain word of God. For seeing that their faith doth overthrow the true faith of the principal articles of the Christian doctrine and religion, which are very plain & thoroughly certain, it followeth then in deed, that it can not be a true faith as touching that point: and by consequent, it cannot be builded upon the word of God. For they may not brag to have it in their favour, if they do not take it in his true sense, without the which it is no more the word of God, but it is disguised and overthrown. Now it appeareth evidently, 
Take t●● word of God in h● true sense.  that it is taken in an other than his own true sense, when it is taken in such a sense as overthroweth the principal articles of the Christian faith: which are not grounded upon any passage of the holy scriptures that is not well understood, but upon so many testimonies of the Prophets and of the Apostles, and so plain and evident, that there may remain no ambiguity or doubt to those which do believe the divine letters. The which thing can not be said of the doctrine of transubstantiation, nor of consubstantiation, which have no other ground, but upon a wrong and evil understanding & exposition of the words of jesus Christ, the which doth plainly and manifestly appear to be contrary to the true sense of the same, for so much as it is impossible to agreed it, 
consider ●ell this ●●atter.  either with the other manners of sacramental speech of the scriptures, and with their lively signification and exposition, or else with the nature, as well of the sacraments as of the true body of jesus Christ, or of all those articles of the faith, whereof I have now made mention. 
Exposition in matter of sacraments.  For the exposition, which in matter of sacraments can not agreed with all those points, may not be true. On the contrary, that which disagreeth not at all, but doth very well agreed with all these points, may in no wise be rejected as false. Now we say that the same of ours doth agreed with them very well, 
Note this.  in as much as it agreeth with all other the like passages of the scriptures, and like manners of sacramental and figurative speeches, and with the natures of the sacraments and of the signs of them, and with that of the body and of the blood of jesus Christ, and with the articles of our faith. For we are not at all in controversy with the transsubstantiatours, nor with the consubstantiators, touching the words of the Supper, whether they be of jesus Christ, and whether they be true or not, and whether he be present in the Supper or absent, and whether his body and his blood be there present and distributed and communicated or no: for we all agreed in all these points. But the different is only in the manner of the presence and communication, to wit, whether it be bodily, or spiritually, and whether the body and the blood of jesus Christ be there distributed, 
Note th● matter.  and eaten and drunken bodily and naturally, or else spiritually, and suppernaturally. We say, that it is spiritually and supernaturally, by mean of the reasons which I have already alleged: the other say, that it is bodily and naturally, which thing we can not grant them, if we will not forthwith grant them all the absurdities whereof I have made mention, and a great number of other which follow their doctrine.   

Chapter. seven.  
Of the adoration of the bread and of the wine, as well in the Mass as in their pixtes and boxes, and of the idolatry that therein is.  
SO much touching the error of transubstantiation, from whence there followeth yet an other very great & very unsufferable, the which I set down for the second, concerning the matter of transubstantiation, and for the seventh of the twelve, into which number I bring all the points. This same is, 
Note this well.  concerning the worshipping of the bread and of the wine, in stead of jesus Christ the very son of God, This is an error which yet draweth after it many other. 
●e first ●our.  The first is, that where the bread & the wine should be distributed in the mass, to those which be there present, as the Lord hath commanded that it should be done in the supper, they do only set them out to show, lifting them up on high, and causing them to be worshipped of every one, as idols, through great superstition and idolatry: whose like never was since the beginning of the world, how great soever the blindness have been. 
●icer. de. ●at. deo. li. 3.  For as Cicero himself witnesseth, there were never men that did believe or think, that that which they did eat was God. And there was never any people so beastly, which did think that the idols & the visible things which they did honour and worship, were really and essentially gods, but only that they were remembrances and representations. But the idolatry whereof I now speak, passeth on much further. For it contenteth not itself to 'cause the bread and the wine to be worshipped and honoured as holy & sacred signs, ordained to be remembrances and representations of the very body & blood of jesus Christ, but as jesus Christ himself in flesh and bone, and man and God together. 
Affirmation.  For they affirm, that there is no more bread nor wine, but that that which was bread and wine before the consecration, is really and in deed jesus Christ himself, which thing may not be, by mean of the reasons which I have already alleged. From whence it followeth, 
Note t●● idolatry.  that the bread and the wine are there worshipped for gods, & that that same worshipping is a very idolatry, and clean contrary to the holy ordinance of the Lord, and to that which he hath said and done, and commanded in the institution and administration of the same. For he commandeth expressly, 
Luk. 22. ● 1. Cor. 11.  to do that which he did in the remembrance of him, and not otherwise. Now having taken the bread & the wine, 
Consider this well.  he did not lift them up on high, nor caused them to be worshipped by his disciples, before he did distribute them, but did distribute them to every of them, with express commandment, that they should take both the one and the other, & even at the same very time, that they should eat the bread and drink the wine, even as they did in deed. And if this can not be proved to be done, neither in their mass, nor in the very supper which they do administer to the people, there is then lesser reason to reserve the bread in pixtes, caskets, cupboards, and such like, not only to 'cause it to be worshipped as God, or to bear it about in procession in great pomp and solemnity to that very end, as the Persians did bear in time past their sacred fire, 
Abuse of the Persians.  but also to conjure the time & the tempests, and the Devils, and to use them in such like superstitions, according as it falleth in their fantasy. For as I have already heretofore showed, 
●ote well.  albeit that it were so, that according to their doctrine of transubstantiation, the bread were changed into the body of jesus Christ, yet for all that, it could not have place out of the use of the Sacrament, by mean of the reasons that I have already yielded. 
Where the ●se of the ●cramēt is  Now it is very true that there is no use there, where the Sacrament is not administered: and that it is not administered there where it is not distributed with the word, to those which are capable of it. And if they do apply the signs thereof to any other use then to the same, for the which they are ordained, that use is not lawful: wherefore it may not be taken for an use, but should be rejected as an abuse, manifestly contrary to the word and ordinance of the Lord. And on the other side, if this abuse were not so great, yet so is it for all that, that this worshipping of the bread and of the wine, and of their holy hostie, can not be without putting them alway, which do worship them, in great danger of Idolatry. At the lest it can not be done in faith, Note. for so much as it must needs be that the worshippers remain alway in doubt, touching the consecration of the priests, for so much as according to their doctrine, 
Doctri● of the adversary  there is no transubstantiation, if the intent to consecrated be not joined with the pronunciation of the words: and that there is no man that can judge and be assured of the purpose of the priests, no more than they can of their faith, only God excepted, which knoweth the hearts. 
Note t● argume  Wherefore either they put themselves in danger to be idolaters, according to their own very doctrine, worshipping the bread and the wine, in stead of the body and of the blood of jesus Christ: or else they must needs worship them with condition, the which can not be void of doubt. From whence it followeth, that it can not be in faith, but only in opinion: and by consequence it is sin, seeing that whatsoever is not of faith, and without the same, 
Rom. 14  can not please God, but is sin.   

Chapter. viii.  
Of the division of the signs of the Supper, and of the Sursum corda of the Mass, and of the signification of the same, and whereunto it serveth at this present.  
ANd on the other side, seeing that the Lord hath ordained 2. signs in this sacrament, the one may not be separated from the other, 
〈◊〉 ordi●e of the ●de vio●ed and ●ane ouer●owne.  but that his ordinance is there violated and overthrown, contrary to his intent and his expressed commandment. Now so it is, that the wine appointed to be that sign of the blood, is separated from the bread which is appointed to be the sign of the body, 
●surditie.  not only when the bread is reserved in their pixtes & boxes, all alone without the wine, but also in their supper, which they administer beside their mass, to them whom they call the Lay people. From whence it followeth that this bread is not at all the sacrament of the supper, for so much as it is not applied to his true use, according to the intent and express commandment of jesus Christ, but clean contrary. And if it be not a sacrament of the supper, it can not be an other sacrament. For jesus Christ hath not instituted any other, to that which he hath appointed the bread for a sign, but only this. And if it be not at all a sacrament, 
Demand.  how may it be the body of jesus Christ, & jesus Christ himself, God and man? yea, in so many places at one instant, as there be boxes, pixtes, cupboards and caskets, in the which this bread is reserved and kept as a relic? Therefore I would gladly, that the transsubstantiators and Roman doctors should well consider, in all their worshippings that they do to this bread, be it in their masses, or in their pixtes, cupboards and boxes, or in their processions, to what purpose a little before they do lift it up in their mass, to 'cause it to be worshipped, they say and sing, Lift up your hearts, which is as much to say, Sursum corda. For it is an exhortation to the Christian people, taken of the true ancient Church, 
Consider this.  whereby the ministers did admonish them, which should communicate at the supper, not to stay themselves and rest upon the visible signs of the same, but that they should lift up their hearts and their minds on high, to heavenly and divine things, represented by them, and to the Lord which only can communicate those things, and will be served and worshipped in spirit and truth, as he himself witnesseth, and not in visible and corruptible things, nor in things base and earthly. For if the time be come, that he will not be any more worshipped, either in jerusalem, or in the mountain, no more will he be worshipped between the hands of the Roman priests, nor in their masses and boxes, cupboards, pixtes, and caskets. For that cause after that this exhortation, Sursum corda, was given to all the assistants, they answered, Habemus ad dominum, which is to say, we have them up to the Lord, to wit, the hearts, the which they were exhorted to lift up on high. Note. For the same was spoken in a tongue understood of al. But to what purpose serveth it now to sing in the mass, Sursum corda, before the poor people, and the ignorant, which know not what men say unto them, neither do they understand at all the exhortation which is given unto them, for so much as it is delivered in Latin, and not in their own language? 
●ote.  And although that it were delivered unto them in their own language, saying, Lift up your hearts on high, it could not serve them, but only to make them lift them up to the hands of the priests, which hold and lift up their hostie and their cup, even as high as their pixtes & boxes, wherein they hold their holy hostie enclosed, 
●onsides ●is.  & no higher at all. For seeing that they do teach them there to seek God & jesus Christ our Lord, they need not to lift their hearts more high to worship him in spirit and truth, but rather that they do abase them to the earth, where they show them their visible god, whereupon they think and rest. Wherefore they may very well boast themselves, that they have a god which they see, and he seeth not them. 
●ur God ●s invisible  But as for us, we know no God created nor visible, but only he, which hath created all things, and is not himself created, and which is eternal and invisible, the which doth very well see us, albeit that we see not him at all, for so much as his divine nature can not be seen. And albeit that he made himself visible in his Son jesus Christ, in whom he hath declared himself, yet for all that, jesus Christ would withdraw his bodily presence from this visible world, 
An inviable world  to the end that we should not seek him any more in this base territory, nor in corruptible things, but that we should seek him in the heavens, where he is at the right hand of the Father, to worship him there in spirit and truth. 
He must 〈◊〉 worshipp●● in spirit & truth. john. 4.  For he will not be worshipped with any other worship then that, wherewith he hath taught us, that God must be worshipped, seeing that he is the cause for the which he is worshipped, for otherwise it should not be lawful to worship him, seeing that that honour appertaineth to none but to God only.   

Chapter. ix.  
Of the ancienty of transubstantiation, and of the worshipping and keeping of the holy Roman hostie, and of the feast and procession which is dedicated unto it.  
LEt them not then find it strange, 
The very words of the Lord  if we do not believe them at all, when they say unto us, Lo here is Christ, yea there is Christ: behold, he is in the wilderness, or in the closerts. For jesus Christ doth not give us testimony of such a presence of him in his Church, neither of any such coming of his from heaven but in deed giveth unto us one clean contrary. Not more may they also allege unto us in this behalf the authority of the ancient Church, nor of the ancient doctors, nor the ancienty of their religion, touching such worshipping, reservation, and keeping of the bread, & of their holy hostie. 
●ranssub●antiation ●●onght in●● the church ●bout the ●●ert 1060.  For the ancient Church hath at the least continued upon the point of a thousand and three score years, before that the doctrine of transubstantiation was brought into it, received and approved by the council, in such sort as the Roman Church hath held it ever since, to wit, from the time of the Pope Nicholas the second, 
Nicholas ●he second. Gregory ●e seventh.  and afterward of Gregory the seventh, about the year 1074. But this was not done at all without contradiction of many, which could not profit at all, forsomuch as they were oppressed by the authority of the Roman Popes, and of the multitude of their adherentes. The custom for all that, was not in the same church, to keep the bread in cupboards, boxes, and pixtes, before the time of Honorius the third, 
Honorius the third. 1226.  who ordained it about the year 1226. that he was in the Roman Chair, nor also to bear it in solemn procession, and to dedicated a special feast to it, unto the time of Pope Urban the fourth, 
Urban the fourth.  who ordained that feast, which commonly is called the feast of God, or of the holy body of God. Behold then the antiquity of the religion which followeth such doctrine and such manner of doings, and as touching the principal authors, unto the which it may be ascribed. 
Note we this.  And thereby every man may know, what faith they aught to give to the transsubstantiatours and Roman doctors, which affirm that the Roman religion which they at this day do follow, is the religion of the true ancient Church, and that they have received it of jesus Christ, and of his Apostles, and is come even to them, from hand to hand by a continual succession. 
Roman Apostles.  Men may also judge by the very same, which were the Apostles, from whom they received such doctrine, & such ceremonies, superstitions, and idolatries, and what injury they do to jesus Christ and to his Apostles, and to all the ancient Church, in abusing, as they do, the name and authority of them, to give a more fair show to the inventions of men, and the more to confirm the poor ignorant in their errors and abuses. For as I have already declared, the whole ancient church and the true doctors of the same did not know any such transubstantiation, as that of the Roman Church, which is at this day, nor any other conversion of the signs of the sacraments into the thing which they signified, but only in respect of the use of them, as I have already declared. And therefore it had also no such worshipping and keeping of the bread and of their hostie, as is that whereof I have now spoken.   

Chapter. x.  
Of the sacrifice of the Roman Mass, and of the building of the same upon the transubstantiation, and of the only sacrifice of jesus Christ, and of the contrariety that is between the same and that of the Mass.  
I Will not now bring forth any more proofs, wherewith the better to confirm that which I have already said of all these things, because that I have sufficiently written of it in diverse other books, and that I did not determine for this present, but only to touch and handle them briefly and summarily. And therefore I will now come to the eight point, 
●. point.  which is concerning the sacrifice of the Roman priests in their mass: the which dependeth also of the transubstantiation, and hath his foundation upon the same. For if they did confess that the bread and the wine did remain always bread and wine in the same, 
Note this cunning.  they durst not affirm nor say, that they do offer unto God bread and wine in sacrifice for the remission of sins, & the redemption of souls, as well the living as the dead, as they boast themselves to do daily in their masses. For, for the first, seeing that according to the testimony of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
Consider well this point concerning sacrifice.  there is no sacrifice offered for the remission of sins, without shedding of blood, they can in no ways make sacrifice of bread and of wine, for so much as it should be without shedding of blood. And then what reason should they have to offer to God bread & wine for the redemption of souls, 
Demand  and for the salvation of man? and of what virtue and efficacy might such a sacrifice be? And therefore, seeing that they would convert the Sacrament of the Supper into a sacrifice, 
Note this cunning.  and transform it into a Mass, they must in deed forthwith transsubstantiate the bread and the wine, into the body and into the blood of jesus Christ, to the end that by that mean they might afterward offer them in saerifice, for the remission of sins, and for the redemption of souls, and not only for the living, but also for the dead. We may not then greatly marvel if that they do fight strongly and assuredly to maintain their transubstantiation: 
Note this combat.  without the which they are never able to maintain their sacrifice: without the which also their purgatory would yield them a very barren revenue, with all their other inventions. But what foundation have they for this sacrifice, I do not say in the institution of the supper of the Lord only, but also in all the holy scriptures? For, for the first, we do not read at all, 
Note the ●stitution 〈◊〉 the Lord  that when jesus Christ did institute and administer the supper, he did in any wise offer in sacrifice, either the bread or the wine, which he ordained to be signs of the same, nor in like sort his body nor his blood. For it is not in the supper that he did offer them really in sacrifice to God for man, 
〈◊〉 matter ●f great ●aight.  but upon the cross. For the whole scripture maketh no mention of two sacrifices of jesus Christ, for the redemption of man, but of one only, which is so perfect that he needed not to make it but one time only, and it could not be offered by any other then by jesus Christ himself, the very son of God, which only is the priest, 
jesus Christ the priest, sacrificer, sacrifice, temple and altar.  the sacrificer, the Sacrifice, the Temple, and the Altar: and the same may in no wise be reiterated by any creature, seeing that it is of virtue eternal and of desert infinite. For this cause the sacrifice of the mass can not stand with this, but it must necessarily be that the one or the other be abolished, to give place to one only, seeing that there is but one which is full and perfect, and there may none other be had: seeing than that the same of jesus is such an one, it abolisheth all the others.   

Chapter xi  
Of the difference that the Roman doctors do put between the bloody sacrifice & the not bloody of jesus Christ, & in what sense the ancient doctors of the Church did take both the one and the other, and did call the supper by the name of sacrifice: And of the things which were observed in the assemblies of the ancient Church.  
IT may not be then, that the Roman sacrificers do lay before us 2. sorts of sacrifices of jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, to wit, 
Bloody 〈◊〉 not bloud●  the one not bloody, that is to say, without shedding of blood, the which he offered in the supper, and the other bloody, to wit, with shedding of ●loud, the which he offered upon the cross. For by what testimony of the Scripture will they ●oue this first sacrifice which they term, 
Note this. Demand.  not bloody, upon the which we are in controversy with them, and of the which they say that they ●e sacrificers, and successors of jesus Christ in 〈◊〉 behalf? For we do not disagree with thē●t all, as touching the second. And concerning ●●e first, we will not make any difficulty to ●●aunt them that the ancient doctors of the church, and the ancient Church which followed their doctrine, have indeed called the sacrament of the supper, sacrifice, in that sense that the holy Scripture calleth the same name the work of the preaching of the Gospel, 
●om. 5. ●undry sa●●fices.  by the which the true ministers thereof bring men unto God, as though they did offer men unto him: and as it doth call also the mortification of the Christians, whereby they offer themselves unto God for living and reasonable sacrifices, and in like sort the prayers, 
Rom. 12. Psal. 50. Hebru. 13.  thanks giving & the alms, because that all these things were done anciently in the supper. For it was not celebrated without the preaching of the word of God, 
Ancient celebration of the supper.  nor without prayers and thanks giving (from whence it hath had the name of Eucharistie among the greeks) nor without alms and gathering; and such other like good works, the which God accepteth for sacrifices. 
Not sacrifices propiciatories.  But these are not at all propitiatory sacrifices for the remission of sins, & the redemption of souls, but are sacrifices of praise and thanks giving. For the Christian Church doth not acknowledge any other sac●●●fice propitiatory, but only that which Iesu● Christ himself did offer in his own person▪ not when he did iustitute and administer the supper, but when he suffered for us, and namely inh●● he died for our sins. 
The whole life of christ was a perpetual sacrifice.  For all his life was a pe●●petuall sacrifice, but we take him chief in hi● death, because that it was therein ended, as 〈◊〉 himself did witness upon the cross. Then wh● the ancients did call the sacrament of the su●per, a sacrifice not bloody; they took it in the sense that I have already declared, that the Supper was a sacrifice of praise & thanks giving: 
john. 19  they have also called it so because that they have often times taken the name of sacrifice, for that which we do call divine service & prayer, forsomuch as all the parts thereof, & all the things therein required, are comprised in the celebration of the Supper, in that same manner as it was instituted by jesus Christ, and celebrated by the Apostles, and by the true ancient Church. 
Acts. 4. things in singular recommendation  For according to the testimony of Saint Luke, the first Christian Church had four things in singular recommendation in their assemblies. The first was the prayers, and then the doctrine of the Apostles, and the thied, breaking of bread, and the fourth, the communion by the which two latter we must understand the administration and distribution of the Supper, and the gatherings for the ●oore, & the distributions which were made unto ●hem. When then the ancients do call the supper sacrifice, and that they do make mention of sacrifice not bloody, they use it in that sense that have already declared, as it appeareth plain●● by their own testimony. Wherefore, we will ●●t make any great difficulty, to grant that the ●upper was a sacrifice in that sense, to wit, a sacrifice of praise and thanks giving, 〈◊〉 not a Sacrifice propitiatory for the remission of sins & the redemption of souls, in such sort as the Roman catholics do affirm their mass to be, into the which they have converted the supper of the Lord.   

Chapter xii.  
Of the trumperies of the doctors of the Roman Church concerning the name of sacrifice and the use thereof: and chief of the confusion which they put between the sacrifice propitiatory, and Eucharistique, and between sacrament, and sacrifice, and of the difference that must be put between the one and the other.  
WHereupon it is needful that every man he warned of 2. trumperies, by the which the Roman doctors do deceive the ignorant, a●using the name of sacrifice and of the authority and testimony of the ancient doctors of the Church, 
The first deceit.  in this matter. The first is in the confusion that they make between the sacrifices: The other, in that they take the name of sacrifice in the writings of the ancient doctors, for the mass such as it is in the Roman Church. For first they do take for sacrifice propitiatory, that which the ancient Doctors did take for sacrifice 〈◊〉 praise and thanks giving, and for a commem●●ration of the death of jesus Christ, the whi●● for the same cause men may call Eucharistique, even as some men do call it, to give men the better to understand this difference, as men do call the Supper Eucharistie, for the same cause. For the which cause they have called the Supper sacrifice not bloody, to give to understand, 
Sacrific● not blout  that they did not mean to offer jesus Christ to God in sacrifice in the same for the remission of sins and the redemption of souls, for somuch as the same cannot be done but by the very and only son of God jesus Christ, nor without the shedding of his blood: but only for a commemoration of the propitiatory sacrifice, that which jesus Christ himself did offer of his own body & blood, & to yield him praise and thanks. For they did know very well, what difference there is between sacrament and sacrifice, and that the supper was not instituted by the Lord for a sacrifice, but for a Sacrament. 
An argument of great weight.  For in a sacrifice which is offered for the remission of sins and the redemption of souls, it behoveth that the man offer unto God the thing which he sacrificeth unto him, and that it be sufficient to appease ●is wrath: or otherwise the sacrifice is not perfect, neither may it satisfy God. And therefore it was, that all those of the levites which were ordained in the law, to represent that of jesus Christ, did cease to give place to him only. But ●e sacraments are ordained, not at all to offer any thing to god for the remission of sins, but on the contrary, to receive of him the spiritual and heavenly good things which he offereth & communicateth unto us by the same. And therefore jesus Christ did not offer unto God either the bread or the wine of the Supper, 
Consider his well  or yet his body and his blood in the same, but did offer and communicate them both, to wit, the signs and the things signified by them, to his disciples, distributing bodily unto them that which was bodily and earthly, & sptritually that which was spiritual and heavenly. 
〈◊〉 commandment.  And therefore he said, Take ye, and eat ye, and drink ye, the which words he did not address unto▪ God, nor consequently the bread and the wine which he commanded to eat and to drink, neither his body nor his blood signified by the same, but to his disciples, and consequently to all those unto whom the supper is administered according to his ordinance. And therefore when jesus Christ said, 
Luke. 22. 1. Cor. 11.  This is my body which is given and broken for you, he said it not in respect of that which he then did in the supper towards God his father, but in respect of that which he after did towards him upon the cross, very shortly after his supper. For it is there where he was given for us, 
One Lord gave himself for us upon the cross.  when he offered himself upon the cross in sacrifice 〈◊〉 his father, and not at all in the supper. For it 〈◊〉 not there where he gave himself for us▪ 〈◊〉 where he is given to us: for he is there given unto us, in as much as he is communicated unto us by the mean of this sacrament of the Supper. Whereupon we have to note that jesus Christ did use the present time, for the time to come, 
Note th● Hebrew n●ner of speech.  according to the Ebrue manner of speech, which useth often times indifferently the time passed, the time present, and the time to come the one for the other, & chief when it concerneth the promises of God, forsomuch as that which he promiseth is as certain, as if it were already present, or as if it were already done. Note. The like may we say also of that which is said of the wine, This is my blood of the new testament, the which is shed for many for the remission of sins. For it was not in the supper that the body of jesus Christ was given and broken, and his blood shed, but upon the cross and in his death and passion. 
The latin translator  For the which cause the translator of the common Latin translation, the which the priests use in their mass, and in all their divine service, hath translated these, words into the time to come for the time present, saying, which shall be given, and which shall be broken, and which shall be shed etc. in the stead that there it is, which is given, and which is broken, and which is shed, in the words of the Evangelists and of Saint Paul, as they have set them down in the greek. And all the ancient doctors of the Church have not taken them in any other sense. 
●●te.  And forsomuch as they did well understand what difference there was between sacrament and sacrifice, they had not any mass to offer unto God a sacrifice of the body and of the blood of jesus Christ, as the Roman priests at this day do boast themselves to do in theirs: but in the stead of such a mass they had the Supper, the which they did not celebrated at any time, but that they had presently communion of the faithful to whom the same was administered, and not only to a priest in particular, as they do in the mass.   

Chapter xiii.  
Of the name of sacrifice falsely taken for the Roman mass, & how the Roman doctors in stead to prove that jesus Christ and his Apostles did institute and celebrated the Mass, do prove that they instituted and celebrated the Supper, & in stead to prove that the ancient doctors did take it for a propitiatory sacrifice, they prove that they used the name of sacrifice in an other sense.  
Behold then here one great trumpery, the which proceedeth either of the ignorance or of the malice of the Roman doctors & priests, which do make the ignorant believe, 
Consider this  that the ancients did call the Supper sacrifice in the same very sense that they at this day do take it in their mass, wherein they do them great wrong. For they did never so understand or teach. And albeit their should have so understood & taught, we might not follow their doctrine in that behalf, because that it should be clean contrary to that of the Apostles, and namely to all the Epistle to the hebrews. And then following that trumpery, they do yet build an other very great one upon the same, which is the second, 
2. Deces  whereof I am now to speak: which is, that they willing to prove that the ancient doctors have approved their Mass, and that the same was in the ancient Church, such as it is at this day, they take the passages wherein the ancient fathers do use the name of sacrifice, oblation and offering, and such other like, as well in the latin as in the Greek, when they speak of the Supper, or of all the divine service, as though they had used the name of mass in the same, and that they had understood by the names which they did use, of such a mass as the Roman mass now is. Questio For here is no question whether the ancients did use such words or names, but whether they took those words in the same sense that they are at this day taken in the Roman Church. And albeit that they should have used the name of mass, in the stead of the name of sacrifice, and such like, that which they used, to signify all the divine service of the Christians, yet should they have nothing gained at all. For it must yet be, that they do show that the mass of the ancients was such an one as theirs is, and that there was in it like sacrifice. The which they shall never do. For albeit that some of the ancients did begin to use the name of mass for the divine service, after three or four hundred years after the nativity of our Lord, that notwithstanding it was but in small use: yet in two hundred years after that, to wit, before the time of Gregory the first, no more was it then taken for such a mass as it is at this day in the Roman. Church. For there was not yet at that time any such, 
●ante of ●●fts men  neither could there be, for so much as the greatest number of the workmen, which have framed the same from age to age, & from year to year for a long time, were not yet borne at the time. Behold then how the Roman doctors do deceive the ignorant, under the name of sacrifice, and under the authority of the ancient doctors, as under the name and authoritte of jesus Christ and of the Apostles. For after that they have greatly bragged that jesus Christ and the Apostles did institute and celebrated the mass, they prove, to confirm the same, that they have instituted and celebrated the Supper, wherein they prove and confirm that which is not at all in question or in doubt, and not that at all which is in controversy: but in stead of proving and confirming that, they prove and confirm an other thing which is out of all controversy. Even so do they concerning the ancient fathers. For willing to prove by them the same of the mass and of the sacrifice thereof, they prove that they have used the name of sacrifice, and other names also as well Greek as Latins, which signify as much as divine service, and public ministry in our language.   

Chapter xiiii.  
In what sort the sacrifices of the law were sacraments and sacrifices both together: and that the supper cannot be both, but only a sacrament: and of the agreement & difference that is between the same, and the sacrament of the Paschal lamb.  
But they will reply, 
Replc●  that jesus Christ and his Apostles, and the ancient dnctors of the Primitive Church, have done both in the Supper, to wit, that they offered unto God in Sacrifice, the body and the blood of jesus Christ: and then have also forthwith communicated them to the Christian people, & that in so doing, there is no inconvenience but that the supper may be both sacrament and sacrifice together. I answer, 
●we●●.  it is not enough that they do affirm, except they do prove it forthwith. I will grant them that the sacrifices of the law were also as a kind of sacraments, and that there were some, in the which there was oblation to God of one part of the beast which was sacrificed, and in like sort communion of an other part among the people, and that there was joined to the sacrifice a banquet, the which signified the communion of the people in the same. But that cannot agreed with the supper. 
〈◊〉.  For, for the first, as there was daily new banquet in these sacrifices, so was there new hostie. For they might not sacrifice one very thing oftener than once, nor by consequent communicate the same more often to the people, but they must needs take daily new. But the like is not of the sacrifice of jesus Christ. For there is but one only hostie of the same, which is very jesus Christ, 
●ry. 53 ●hu. 1. ●et. 2. ●or. 5. ●hu. 19  the which is the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, figured chief by the paschal lamb, which among the rest was chief sacrifice and sacrament both together, because that the Lord had two regards in the institution of the same. For first he instituted it to be in the Church of Israel, for a memorial and remembrance of the passage which the Angel of the Lord did make in Egypt, striking the first borne of the Egyptians, 
●●od. 12.13.  and of the deliverance of the Israelites from the captivity of them, as Moses doth plainly witness. For the which cause it was called by him, and consequently by the other hebrews, Pesah, which is to say Passage, by the name of the thing that it did signify, of the which the greeks and the Latins have made their word Pascha, the which they have used, and which since have been converted into our speech, by the name of Easter. Behold then how this sacrament had regard unto that which was already done, and to that benefit of God the which the Israelites had already received, touching their deliverance out of Egypt. And by that mean, it was a memorial and a sacrament commemorative, and a sacrifice of praise & of thanks giving, in respect of the things which were already passed. But beside that, 
A doubl● regard the passeo  the Lord had yet regard to the deliverance of mankind the which should be wrought by jesus Christ, whereof that of Egypt was a figure. 
Our del●uerauce  And forsomuch as he should work this deliverance by the passage of his death and by the sacrifice of his body and of his blood, 
Sacrific● with savement.  the sacrifice was joined to the sacrament in the Paschal lamb, to the end that i● should the better represent that which was yet to be done and accomplished. Behold wherein it was ordained for the things which were yet to come, and of the which men did yet look for the accomplishment. For that cause there was there a sacrifice, which did represent that of jesus Christ to come. And also there was joined unto, a banquet, which did signify the communion of him, as it aught to be in every sacrament. And therefore Saint Paul hath joined the one with the other, expounding the verity of that figure. For after that he hath said that Christ our passover was sacrificed, 
●or. 5.  he exhorteth the faithful to the spiritual banquet of this sacrifice, and to the continual feast which we should make and celebrated always. Seeing then that the thing to come figured by this sacrifice & sacrament, was accomplished, the one and the other are ceased. For we have now the Sacrifice offered by jesus Christ, whereof the other was but a shadow and figure. Wherefore seeing that we have the body and the truth, the shadow and the figure doth clearly cease. And therefore even as our Lord jesus Christ did change the Circumcision of the Church of Israel, 
●●●●de●●his ●ge.  into the baptism of the Christian Church, even so hath he changed the Sacrament of the Paschall lamb, into that of the Supper, the which hath that in common with the sacrament of the Paschall lamb, that as it had regard to the passage which was made in Egypt, and to the deliverance of the children of Israel, which were things that were already done: in like sort the Supper hath regard to the passage which jesus Christ hath made by his death, and for the deliverance which he hath brought to mankind by the sacrifice which he hath offered in the same, which are also things that are already done and passed. They have in like sort both of them this in common, 
Note th●  that even as the sacrament of the Paschall lamb, was ordained and celebrated according to the commandment which the Lord did give to Moses, in the same very night, & in the same very time that the passage should be made in Egypt, & the people delivered from the same, 
Exod. 12.  even so jesus Christ did intitute and celebrated his Supper in the very fame night, 
Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11.  and even before the very time, that he was taken to be brought to be sacrificed, and to work the deliverance of mankind. For that cause he used the very same manners of speech in the institution, & in the administration of this sacrament, as Moses did in that of the Paschall lamb. 
The word● of Moise●  For even as Moses did faith of the lamb, It is the passover of the Lord, which is to say, the passage the which he did represent, giving to the sign the name of the thing signified: 
words ●ar lord.  even so jesus Christ did say of the bread of the Supper, This is my body, and of the wine, This is my blood of the new testament, or, This cup is the new testament in my blood. Wherefore it is not also to be doubted, that even as he did follow the manner of speech of Moses, which was much frequented in the holy Scriptures in the use of the sacraments: even so did he also use them in the like sense and signification, without disguising any thing at all the accustomed language of the holy Ghost, by sense new and strange to such manners of speech. Thus much concerning that which the sacraments of the Paschall lamb, & of the supper, may have common together, touching these points. But the Supper hath this different from the same, 
●fferent.  that it was not instituted to be a figure of any sacrifice to come, nor of any other thing which might be yet to accomplish, but only to be a sacrament commemorative of the sacrifice already offered by jesus Christ and for the communication of the same. And therefore there is no propitiatory sacrifice for the remission of sins, in this sacrament offered to God by the ministers which do administer it, but only the banquet, which witnesseth unto us the communication which we have in the sacrifice which is already offered. For seeing that it endureth for ever because of his eternal and infinite virtue, it needeth not at all to be offered again: wherefore there resteth no more to do in respect of the same, but only the application and communication which is done ordinarily in the Church, by the ministery of the word of God and of the sacraments, and chief of the supper. And therefore jesus Christ did command none other thing to be done in the same, when he commanded the distribution of the bread and of the wine, which are the signs, but only to celebrated the remembrance and commemoration of him, in awaiting his coming from heaven, as Saint Paul declareth it unto us, 
Luk. 22. 1. Cor. 11.  saying, As often as ye shall eat this bread & brink this cup, you shall show forth the death of the Lord until the time that he come. Seeing then that jesus Christ hath joined none other propitiatory sacrifice to his supper, but only that which he himself hath offered upon the cross: it followeth then that they which do join any other unto it, 
Falsaries of the testament.  are very falsaries and counterfaitors of his testament, for so much as the supper is as his testament, and the sacrament and witness of the benefit which he offereth and communicateth unto us by the same. Wherefore if men account them falsaries, Note. which do falsify the testament of a mortal man, how great a fault is this, to falsify the testament of the eternal son of God, adding an other sacrifice to his for the remission of sins, seeing that it may not in any wise be reiterated? For seeing that there is but this only hostie, even so may the same die but only one, and his blood may be shed but only once. From whence it followeth also, 
●om. 6. ●eb. 9  that it can not be offered nor sacrificed to God, but only one time for the remission of sins. 
The virtue if this sarifice.  Wherefore, seeing that jesus Christ hath already offered the sacrifice which is of eternal and infinite virtue, there resteth no more but the partaking and the communication of the same, which is represented unto us by the table of the Lord in the Supper, and in the visible banquet of the same, as it is done in very deed invisibly, and spiritually towards the faithful, by the virtue of the holy Ghost and of faith. And by that mean the Supper is not ordained therein to offer a new sacrifice of the body and of the blood of jesus Christ, nor to reiterate that which he himself hath already offered, but only to be a Sacrament, testimony and commemoration of the sacrifice once offered, and to communicate in the same by the mean of this Sacrament: for so much as the sacrifice can not at all profit us to salvation, but so far forth as we are made partakers thereof, as it is needful for us to be continually.   

Chapter xu  
That the Mass may be neither sacrifice nor Supper of jesus Christ, if in deed there were there no other addition then that of the sacrifice: and that jesus Christ may not be offered in sacrifice, but once, nor by any other then by himself.  

Propitiatory sacrifice by wh●●  ANd therefore when the Roman priests do make of the sacrament of the supper, a propitiatory sacrifice of jesus Christ to God the Father, in stead of administering this Sacrament to the faithful, as jesus Christ himself did and commanded, and as the Apostles and their true successors, and all the true ancient Church did observe and practise, it appeareth evidently that they do wholly overthrow the ordinance of the Lord, in what sort soever they colour their Mass. For, for the first, seeing that there is no true communion for the whole Church therein, 
Intent of Christ.  behold there already the principal intent of jesus Christ oue●●rowen, in respect of the institution of the Supper, and of the chief point of the same. But there is yet more: For albeit that they did indeed administer the Supper to the whole Church, as often as they should say and sing their Mass, yet should they for all that overthrow the ordinance of the Lord, 
●●se.  in adding a sacrifice the which he hath not ordained, to the sacrament by him ordained. For first he hath not commanded to offer and to sacrifice to God his father, 
●ote well ●●s.  either the bread or the wine in the supper, neither yet his body and his blood signified by the same, and then to offer, present and communicate the same to his Church, but did command to do that only which he hath done in the supper, 
〈◊〉 most sin●●lar note.  to wit, to distribute and administer the things which he did administer in the same. But in stead of doing that, the Roman priests do nothing in their mass of all that which jesus Christ hath done and commanded in the supper, 
obedience ●etter than sacrifice.  but on the contrary, they will do that which he hath not done & commanded, neither may they in any wise do, nor yet any other creature whatsoever, no not the very Angels themselves. 
Who is a ●ufficient ●ostie to God.  For even as there is no other hostie which may be sacrificed to God for the remission of sins, sufficient to satisfy his judgement, but very jesus Christ: even so the same can not be offered any oftener then only once, the which endureth always, for so much as it 〈◊〉 perfect and eternal: nor yet by any other the●●by himself only, for so much as there is no sacrificer meet to offer such a sacrifice, nor that may be allowed of the Father: as is very plainly and evidently set forth in the whole Epistle to the hebrews. From whence it followeth that the sacrament of the supper can not be the sacrifice of jesus Christ for the remission of sins, 
Consyd● well thi●  and then much less the mass, for so much as it is not the supper of the Lord, and that in deed it can not be such a sacrifice, albeit it were the very true supper of the Lord. For being the supper of the Lord, it could be no more the same, then that of jesus Christ and of the Apostles, and of the true ancient Church. For the supper can not be the sacrifice which jesus Christ did offer upon the cross, by mean of the reasons which I have already yielded. Now there is none other which is propitiatory for the remission of sins, and the redemption of souls, be it bloody or not bloody, as it shall please them to call it, but even so as I have already declared.   

Chapter xvi  
Of the strange consequence which follow the sacrifice of the Mass, and how the Mass may not be either sacrifice propitiatory, or Eucharistique, and the cause why.  

Way well this conclusion throughout.  FRom whence I conclude either that the mass may in no wise be a sacrifice, either for the living or for the dead: or else that jesus Christ is not the true, perfect, and eternal sacrificer, and the only saviour and redeemer, and that his sacrifice is not full and perfect, and by consequent, that he is not the true anointed of the Lord, and that all that which is written of his office of Sacrificer, and of his sacrifice, in all the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in all the rest of the Scriptures, is false. From whence it should also follow, either that the Scriptures which we do call holy, should not be revealed by the Spirit of God: or else that the Spirit of God should not be the Spirit of truth, as it is, 
●●hu. 14.  but the spirit of error and of lies, and by consequent God should not be God, but should be in stead of the Devil, which is a liar and the father of lies. Behold the strange consequences, 
strange consequences.  on the which men may not think without great horror, which the mass draweth after it: for it can not be such an one as it is set forth unto us in the Roman Church, but that all these consequences must needs follow. Now they can be none other than great blasphemies against jesus Christ and his sacrifice, 
●he virtue ●f these consequences.  and all his benefits: from whence it followeth necessarily, that the mass may no more be the propitiatory sacrifice of the body and of the blood of jesus Christ, than it may be that jesus Chiste should not be the true anointed of the Lord. Note. And if it were so that his sacrifice might be reiterated, yet for all that, the same could not be offered by any other then by himself only. 
Virtue ●●finite.  But seeing that it is eternal, and of virtue infinite, it is no more needful that it be reiterated, not only by any other then by him, 
This sacr●fice may not be rei●terated.  but also by himself. Seeing then, that not only the Mass, but also the very Supper, may not be the propitiatory sacrifice of the body and of the blood of jesus Christ, it followeth then in deed, that it can not be the very self Sacrifice which was offered by jesus Christ upon the cross. From whence I does again conclude, that if it be a Sacrifice, it can not be other than a Sacrifice commemorative, 
Sacrifice commemorative.  of the Sacrifice offered by jesus Christ. And if it be but a Sacrifice commemorative of him, it is not then a Propitiatory Sacrifice, but Eucharistique, to wit, of praise and thanks. Note. But yet before that it may be such a Sacrifice, it must first be, that it be the true Supper of the Lord, which thing it is not all, neither may be, being such as it is at this present, but is clean contrary, as men may judge, as well by that which I have already heretofore spoken, as by that which I will yet speak hereafter, & by that mean it shall be no pleasant sacrifice to God, either in one sort or in an other.   

Chapter. xvii.  
Of the merchandise of Masses, and of the sacrifices of the same, and of the abuses that therein are.  

●niuty ●●one by the ●omaine priest's.  ANd by the same men may judge, what injury the Roman priests do to the Catholics of the Roman Church, in selling to them their masses for sacrifices, not only commemoratives and Eucharistiques, but also propiciatories, being notwithstanding either the one or the other. And thereby men may know what merchants they are, & what is their merchandises in that behalf. And albeit that it were so, that they were sacrifices in both those sorts, 
●illain traffic.  yet the markets and fairs which they make of them, should be a very villain traffic. For do they not cell them for prices agreed upon, as they do all their other sacraments and ceremonies, even against their own counsels and canons, and their own very decrees: 
demand.  And do they not call the merchandises of holy things Simony: O how many priests have they, which have neither cure nor benefice, nor charge of soul, which were made priests only to say masses, and which do live of the merchandises which they daily make thereof? And how many be there among them which do live from the day to his days labour, as the proverb is, & which have their teeth very sharp that day that they find no merchants to buy their merchandises: If I should speak of these merchants, that which one of their books, 
Stella cle●●corum.  called Stella clericorum, doth, they would think themselves marvelously outraged by me. And therefore I will 'cause it to be spoken unto them by the doctor which was the author of that book. And to the end that they do not think that I do allege him falsely, I will 'cause him first to speak in his own proper language, and then I will expound both the words and the sense. Behold now his words. The priest which doth celebrated mass for money, seemeth to say with judas, What will you give me, and I will deliver him unto you. Therefore it is wrong to cell his Lord. Think thou that the first servant which said, did hung himself, judas did cast down the money in the Temple. The priests which do bestow the money that they have of them, for whom they do sing, at the stews, and upon their belly, are worse. judas sold Christ once, & repented him thereof. And thou perchance hast sold him oftentimes, and dost not repent thereof. Take heed jest despairing thou do hung thyself. The words in Latin are these, Sacerdos qui pro nummis celebrat, videtur dicere cum juda, Quid vultis mihi dare & ego vobis eum tradam? Ergo nefas est vendere. Dominum suum. Cogita quod primus servus venditor seipsum suspendit, judas enim nummos misit in Templum. Peiores sunt sacerdotes, qui denarios pro quibus cantant, mittunt in lupanar & in ventrem suum. judas semel Christum vendidit, & de hoc penituit. Et tu forte multoties vendidisti, & none penites. Caue ne desperans te ipsum suspendas. Behold how this good doctor speaketh. And if the little merchants, which are in great travail to gain their poor living by these merchandises, may not be excused in this point, how much more are the great and fat merchants, which cell them in gross, and make greater and more rich traffic of them: Seeing than that it is so, they may not find the matter strange, if jesus Christ do again take the whip in hand to drive such merchants out of his Temple, 
Matt. 21. Mar. 11. Luk. 19 john. 2.  and out of his Church, and that he overthrow their seats and their tables, by the preaching of his Gospel. For if comparison should be made between them and those which jesus Christ did drive out of the Temple of jerusalem, the difference would be found so great, that those which jesus Christ himself in his own person did drive forth, should be justified by those here, as Samaria did justify Sodom, and jerusalem Samaria, according to the testimony of Ezechiel. 
Eze. 1●.  For the merchants which were by jesus Christ driven out of the Temple of jerusalem, had sufficient authority by the law of God, for that which they did. Note. For they did not at all cell any false merchandises, nor divine and holy things, but only those things which might be offered and sacrificed according to the Law, to the end that the people which came from far, should be eased, and that they should not take the pain to lead with them, or to carry so far, that which they would offer and sacrifice. But for so much as those merchants did it not for that cause, nor to the end that God might be the more honoured, but took only that colour, to make it to serve to their gain and to cover their avarice therewith, jesus Christ did drive them out as thieves, Sacrilegious, and Robbers, which did villainously abuse the name of God by a false title: home would he then at this day endure the sellers of Sacraments and of Masses: For if their doctrine of transubstantiation were true, 
A notable argument.  they could not cell any Mass, without selling forthwith jesus Christ i● flesh & bones, the which they do make of the bread and of the wine of the same, according to their own very doctrine. And if it be not true, so much the more false and untrue is the merchandise. This notwithstanding, he that should suppress all the fairs, markets, & traffics, which they do make, should forthwith see very few● Priests at the Altar. For it is for such stuff that they do so fight against the preaching of the Gospel, to maintain their mass and the sacrifice of the same, and consequently their transubstantiation, which is the foundation thereof and of all that which it draweth with it. Note. And i● they do confess that their mass is no propitiatory sacrifice, but only Eucharistique and commemorative of the sacrifice propitiatory of jesus Christ, as some of them are constrained to confess, seeing that they may not otherwise save nor give colour to their doctrine, they may not yet for all that escape clear, but are yet the more to be condemned. For they cell to their merchants one merchandise for an other, to wit, 
●o cell one thing for an other.  a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, in stead of a sacrifice propitiatory, for the remission of sins, and the redemption of souls, as they do boast that they do in their mass. And if it be neither the one nor the other, as I have already proved, yet are the merchants which do buy such merchandises the more deceived. Wherefore I leave than to think in what estimation they aught to have their merchants. For if they committed none other fault, this here should be sufficient to 'cause them to leave & abandon them clean. For who is so evil a merchant as taketh pleasure to be deceived, and to buy evil merchandises. Thus much concerning the sacrifice of the mass: I will now come to the ninth point, which is yet in controversy, the which is concerning the communion as well of the Supper as of the Mass.    

The third Book.  

Chapter. 1.  
Of the Communion, which may be in the Roman Mass and Supper, and how there is not at all any true Communion, and how that it may in no wise be the true Supper of jesus Christ.  

Now the supper in●● be the supper.  I Have already here before declared, how that the Supper may not be the Supper without the Communion of the things which do belong thereunto, and which aught to be therein communicated, according to the ordinance of jesus Christ. Now there is no such communion in the Roman Mass. From whence it followeth that it is not the supper of the Lord, & consequently also that it is not the Sacrament thereof, but is a new sacrament invented by men, and wholly contrary to that of the Lord, from the which they would give unto it his foundation and his countenance. 
demand.  For what communion is there ordinarily, either in private or particular masses, either in those which are public the which they do call parochial: for there is both in the one & in the other, but the priest only which is at the altar, who doth participate of the bread & of the wine that which he doth consecrated in the same. For he eateth and drinketh all alone at his altar, without offering or presenting any thing of that which he eateth and drinketh, not only to the people which do assist at his mass, but also to his own fellows which are of the same occupation that he is of, and which help him to say and do the same, and are the nearest to his table and altar. This notwithstanding, he calleth this little banquet which he maketh in his mass, Communion: and the prayer which followeth it shortly after, Postcommunion. Communion is taken of common: but what is it that is there common where one taketh all? The only name which they do use, doth convince them of their error, and of the wrong that they do to all Christian people. And if they do reply that they ●o call this little banquet Communion, Repl. not in respect of the distribution which is there made of the bread & of the wine, which is there made to those which do assist at their mass, for so much as there is there none at all made, according as the Lord hath ordained in his supper, but in respect of the communication that the priest hath with jesus Christ: whereunto I answer, Answer. that that answer & solution is not sufficient enough. For jesus Christ hath not instituted a Supper wherein one only minister should communicate, and should distribute the Supper unto himself alone: but hath ordained it for all those which are capable thereof in his Church, which is the communion of Saints, to the which this sacrament belongeth in general, and not to certain particulars only. 
1. Cor. 11.  And therefore S. Paul hath written, The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ, & the cup of blessing, the which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? For we which are many are one bread & one body, in as much as we are all partakers of one very bread. S. Paul doth here set forth unto us 2. things. The first, 
Note these two things  that the supper is not for one alone but for many, & for the whole church: & the other, that it aught not to be dismembered, but to be fully administered, aswell to the Christian people as to the ministers of the same, without cutting from them that one half, or any thing whatsoever, as the Romain priests do in their Supper, which they do administer to the people, in cutting the cup clean from them. For it sufficed them not to cut them off from all the Communion of their masses, which they do say, and do daily, and likewise from that of the parrochial masses, which they do say every sunday: but that they must needs cut from them the full one half of that Supper which they do minister unto them, once, twice▪ or thrice in the year, upon certain of their most solemn feasts. 
●oce well.  The which thing is yet an other new invention, clean contrary, both to the supper of the Lord, and to all the true ancient Church. 
●onc. nonst. ●es. 13.  For before the Council of Constance, holden in the year, 1415. there was never any ordinance made in the Church, whereby it was forbidden to administer the cup to all the people, as the Roman doctors themselves are enforced to confess. This notwithstanding, the corrupted and abastardised Roman church, 
Consider ●ell this.  which hath made this ordinance, clean contrary to the express commandment of jesus Christ and to the observation of the true ancient church, as well the Roman as of all the true universal church, is that true ancient Roman Church, and the true catholic Church, which did immediately succeed the Apostles, if we will believe the Roman doctors, albeit that she be apparently clean contrary to it.   

Chapter two.  
Whether the Supper of the Lord may be a true supper, if any of the signs of the same be cut off, and whether jesus Christ did ordain any thing superfluous in the same, whether he did ordain one sort of supper for one sort of men, and an other for the others.  
But they will yet reply, 
Reply.  that as the blood is contained under the body, and that the lay people in receiving the body, receive also the blood, albeit that they do receive but the sign of the body and not that of the blood: even so, when the priest communicateth alone in the mass, he communicateth for all the rest, and all the rest do communicate also in the person of him. Behold a very fair starting hole, and a reason very well grounded. Whereupon I ask them for the first, whether jesus Christ did ordain any thing superfluous and in vain in his holy supper, 
Demand.  and that was not very necessary? I do not think at all that they dare gainsay this. If there be then nothing superfluous, neither that is ordained in vain, and without great and necessary cause in this sacrament and mysteries which it containeth, wherefore is it that they dare to cut off any thing from thence: And if there be any thing superfluous and not necessary, Note. wherefore do they not as well cut off in their mass, that whi●● they do cut off in the supper of the people, force much as it must needs be that there be equaltie among all in the supper of the Lord: For h● ordained none other for the ministers, than h● did for the people, nor for the pastors than f●● the sheep, nor for the clerks then for the lay● And what reason have they to cut off rather th● wine, Demand. than the bread: They will answer that 〈◊〉 is because that there is greater danger in respect of the wine, Answer. by mean of the shedding tha● may happen, and consequently of the blood into that which it is converted, by mean of their transubstantiation. Wherefore is it then, that the aunc●ent Church did not aswell fear this danger before the time of the Council of constance, 
another demand.  a did that Church which hath been since: There 〈◊〉 no doubt at all, but that the error of transubstantiation hath brought forth this also. For th● Church which hath counterfeited it, hath ha● since greater fear to shed the blood, into th● which the wine is converted according to the●● doctrine, than the true ancient Church ha●● which did not know any such transsubstanciat●on. Wherefore she did not also fear any su●shedding of the blood of jesus Christ. Note. And f●● that also that she did not use to keep the bre●● and the wine to make them to be worshippe● as they do at this day in the Roman Church: in like sort she did not fear that the body and the blood of the Lord should corrupt in the vessels, wherein they were kept. Behold then one reason, that the most modern Roman Church hath had, more than the true ancient Church, concerning this point. And on the other side, even as the priests of the same have magnified their dignity, by mean of their transubstantiation, not only above all other men, but also above the virgin Mary and the Angels, even so have they done in the communion of their mass and of their Supper. For it is no small dignity to be able to cause jesus Christ to come and to be between their hands, every day and when it pleaseth them, & to make gods, and to be the creators of the creator, as they have named themselves heretofore in their own very books. Therefore it is very reasonable also, that they have their communion apart, separated from others which are not of such dignity, and that it be different from that which is common to all persons.   

Chapter iii  
Whether the Priests may receive the Supper for the people, and what communion and excommunication is.  
FUrther I ask them if they would be contented that an other man should dine for them, 
Demand.  or else that he should receive the revenues of their benefices, and that he should keep the same for himself, and in the mean time should say that he had received it for them: I do believe that they would not have such vicar's nor such receivers for them, neither at the table nor i● their recepts: but would do both the one and the other in their own person. This notwithstanding they will needs be vicar's of their Parochians in such matters, 
Vicars.  in receiving alone for them all, that which belongeth generally to every of them. And the Parochians are very we● contented to have such vicar's and receivers, which do ordinarily receive the Supper for them, because that they know not what the Supper of the Lord is, nor what profit or hurt they ma● receiué by the administration or privation of same: wherefore they cannot know nor consider the wrong which they do to them, in so depriving them, be it in all or in part. For who 〈◊〉 shall well consider the communion which is in● mass, and shall judge thereof according to th● truth, may of right call it, no communion at all but excommunication. For as communicati●● signifieth the partaking of many in one thing which is common to them all: 
Excommunication.  so on the contra● excommunication signifieth the deprivation 〈◊〉 such a partaking and communication, as also to excommunicate, signifieth as much as to be put out of the communion & commonalty. Now it is so that the Church, as I have already declared, is the communion of Saints & the commonalty of the faithful. And forsomuch as the sacraments, being administered according to the pure ordinance of the Lord, are of the principal outward marks of the true Church, and of the communion, & commonalty, she is also signified and represented by them. 
Note thi● instructi●●  For that cause they do receive those the which they do esteem for true members of that whole body, and of all that commonalty which we do call the Church, and the communion of Saints, acknowledging them as true Burgesses and Citizens of the kingdom of heaven, and of the holy City of God. And by that mean they do communicate unto them the Sacraments, which are unto them as marks and tokens, which Princes, Lords, and Captames do give to their servants and soldiers the which they do advow & esteem them worthy, because of their faithfulness. 
Excommunication.  On the contrary they do reject from the communion of the sacraments, those whom they cannot acknowledge for true members of the Church, but only for notten members, or such as are cut off from the same. The which thing they do declare unto them when they do shut them from the administration Note. of them, to signify unto them that they are cut off and shut out, not only from the company of the faithful, but also of jesus Christ which is the head, and of all his heavenly court. And by that mean, Note. when they do deny them the marks of the true faithful, and do deprive them thereof, the same is as a manner of degradation, as if a man should take from them the tokens which do belong but only to true Christians, & as a man should take from soldiers, the livery of their Prince and Captain, as from Traitors, or from cowardly and untrue servants, & such as are unworthy to be any more received into the company of others, which are faithful and true. For that cause we do call such personages, excommunicated.   

Chapter iiii.  
Of the difference which is betwenc the assistants at the mass, be they priests or not, & the penitents, and excommunicated of the ancient Church, & of the faults which are to be blamed in particular excommunications.  
THen when the priest, 
Consider well this.  which is at the altar, receiveth his sacrament alone, and communicateth nothing to any one of all those which do assist at his mass, is not this as a kind of excommunication, whereby he shooteth them all out from the Supper which he receiveth all alone? for doth he not as though there were none but he alone which were worthy & capable thereof, &. that all the rest were unworthy & might be rejected as persons excommunicated? 
The excommunicated of the ancient Church.  For there is no great difference between that which they do at this day in the mass, in respect of those which do assist at the same, and that which they did in time passed in the ancient Church in the administration of the Supper, toward excommunicated persons which were in the place of the penitents. For albeit that they did assist in the Temple, yet for all that they were separated from those which did communicate at the supper, and were shut forth from the communication of the same, until such time as they were reconciled to the Church. But yet they had that more than those have which do assist at the mass, that they did understand both the prayers and the doctrine, which were set forth in the assembly, & might make their profit thereof. But the greatest part of those which do assist at the mass, may carry away with them no such profit, forsomuch as they understand there nothing at al. And then when the excommunicated were reconciled to the Church, they might go to the supper as often as the same should be administered. For they then made no particular. Supper for any, but made it only general for all: whereas every priest maketh his particular for himself, and shutteth out all the rest. Wherein they do commit three notable faults. 
●otable ●●lts.  The first is in that as I have already touched, that the common people & those whom they call lay, are deprived of the Supper in manner all the whole year: albeit that the priests do every day make theirs, every of them in particular. The second is, that in the same very time that they do administer the supper generally to all, yet do not the priests administer theirs with the rest of the body of the Church, but do it all apart, as though they were of an other Church, and members of an other body. The third is, that being already so separated from the rest, yet do they separate themselves among themselves the one from the other. For every of them maketh his Supper apart, upon his altar, without communicating any thing to any of his fellows.   

Chapter v.  
Of the particular masses, and Suppers of the Roman Church: and how much they are repugnant to the institution & nature of the Supper of the Lord  
THey do very il agreed in every respect in this with the ordinance of the Lord. For men may not say at all of any of their Suppers made in this manner, that which Saint Paul hath written of the communion of the true Supper, saying, 
1. Cor. 1●  We which are many, are one bread and one body, forsomuch as we are all partakers of one very bread: For every one doth not partake here of one very bread nor at one very table, 
Note th● abuse of 〈◊〉 Supper.  for every one hath his bread and his table apart. Saint Paul in his time did rebuke the Corinthians, for that they did not tarry the one for the others, when they did celebrated the Supper, but did separate the one from the others, and chief the rich from the poor, as well for the contempt of them, as for the banquets which yet at that time they did add to the Supper. And for that cause he wrote unto them, When then ye do assemble yourselves together, it is not to eat the Supper of the Lord: for every man taketh his own particular supper etc. Men might by greater reason say the like of this particularity of masses and of Suppers, which are made in the Roman Church. It is true, that the table of the people is more common. So is it notwithstanding, that the same is yet greatly divided, and separated without any necessity. 
Example.  For as every priest hath his apart upon his altar, & in his Chapel, even so do they administer the Supper after their manner, to those which will have it apart and in particular in all their Chapels and altars, the which will separate themselves from the common table of others. The which thing doth very evil agreed with the nature of this holy Sacrament, which is unto us a Sacrament, 
sacrament 〈◊〉 union.  aswell of the union that the faithful have with jesus Christ their head, as his members, as of that which they have every of them with the other among them by his spirit. Wherefore the more that we may represent this union, being all united together in the communion of the Supper, so much the better do we accomplish that which the same Supper doth represent unto us. For that cause do we eat all of one very bread, and drink all of one very wine, 
Cor. 10.  the which notwithstanding that they be both made of sundry grains gathered together, yet for all that they make but one very loaf and one very wine. And thereby the Lord would give us to understand, that we which were scattered abroad, are brought together by his death, 
john. 11.  as Saint john witnesseth, and are reunited with him, and the one with the other. By mean whereof as we eat all of one bread, & drink all of one wine & at one very table, 
Note this ●●struction  even so albeit that we be many, yet aught we always to be altogether one, gathered together in one body, as many grains in one loaf & in one wine. 
yblessed ●nion.  Wherefore if it might he, that all the members of the whole universal Church might communicate together at one very table, and supper, it were to be desired that it might be done, the better to represent such a blessed union. But because that it cannot be so done, it is requisite that all do celebrated the same in those places where they may assemble commodiously in greatest numbers, for so holy and blessed a work.   

Chapter vi.  
That the particular masses and Suppers of the Roman catholics do rather represent a division and scattering abroad in the Church, than an union and communion.  
ANd therefore the priests and the Roman catholics do very evil consider these things. For they do clean contrary, dividing and separating themselves in sort that they do divide and separate themselves the one from the others, both in table, in bread, and in their wine, as though their body of their Church were a body divided, dismembered, and rend in pieces, and that there were at all neither union nor conjunction among them. For, for the first, 
Note thi● division.  behold there are the tables of the priests separated from that of other men, the which they do not prepare very often: and albeit that they did often prepare them, they do allow as many particulars as men would have in divers places, and at sundry times, without keeping any certain order. And how often is it that they do prepare them for themselves, when they do not prepare them for any other at all? For in all their masses, wherein none of the assistants do communicate with them, they do prepare them only for themselves. And when they do prepare them for themselves, they should very well content themselves to prepare one for all, and to communicate the one with the others, and to receive the Supper the one at the hand of the other, without preparing so many tables apart, & so many banquets in a morning, all separate the one from the other, as though every of them did excommunicate his fellow, being at his several table and communion, who hath nothing common with any man. Wherein every of them playeth two parts: For they play the part of the minister which doth administer the Supper, and of him unto whom it is administered. For every of them is minister to himself, 
●ote this ●fference.  and doth receive of himself. If they do understand that their mass is a Sacrifice and sacrament of the supper both together, as they do affirm it, they should yet at the lest when they have offered their sacrifice, make their communion more general than they do, and to call the people with them thereunto, or at the lest their fellows, which are of the same very occupation that they are. And in so doing, it should not be needful to have so many tables, nor so many altars, nor so many Chapels. And the fewer that they were, so much the better should they represent the union, whereof the supper is unto us a sacrament, in stead of the division and dissipation which is in so many their Suppers which they make apart, which are no Suppers at all.   

Chapter seven.  
Of the inequality which is between the supper of the priests, and that of the people, in the Roman Church in respect of the breads, and of the gods of the same, & of their adoration and of their sacrifice.  
ANd then whereas the nature of the Supper requireth an equality in all men, they on the contrary do put there great inequalities. 
Note th● inequality  For as they do separate the table of the people from theirs, even so do they make it far unequal to theirs: chief in two points. The first, in that that they do not give unto them of the same wine that they do drink, the which they cut from them in the banquet. The other is, that also they put a difference in the bread. For those which are for the priests, are greater and larger than those which are for other men, the which are much less in quantity. And by that mean they have great and little Gods, as they have great and little hosties, the great ones are for the priests, & the little ones for the people. 
●e gods the ●estes.  And as the dignity of the priests is great above all other men, even so is there great difference between their Gods, and those of the common people, not only touching their greatness and form, but also touching their dignities and honours. For even as theirs are more great and larger, and of fairer show, even so are they lifted up on high and showed to all men, and worshipped solemnly of all men. But the other little gods which are prepared for the common people, are not lifted up at all in such honour and dignity, but do remain there quietly upon the table, until the time that they be distributed to be eaten, without any other show or so great handling, or so much turning and returning by the hands of the priests, as those, which are made for them, 
●hat gods 〈◊〉 offered 〈◊〉 sacrifice.  have. And then there is yet this point more, that there are none but the Gods of the priests, which are offered in Sacrifice, and not the others the which are not made but to be eaten incontinently after, or else to be kept in boxes, and cupboards, for a kind of provision to the end that there be no want of God's ready made, but that there may be good store at what time soever need shall require, either to carry to the sick, or to conjure the time, the tempests, and the devils, and to make them to serve to other such like occupations. Behold many inequalities which do very evil agreed with the nature of the Supper, Note. and with the union which should be represented by the same. Wherefore, rather then so to disguise it, it should be much more agreeable, not only that all should have one table, but also one very bread and one very wine, and to have the bread made of such a fashion that it may be broken and distributed to every one, 
Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Luke. 22. Acts. 2.1. Cor. 10.11. Esai. 58.  as jesus Christ and his Apostles have used it, and as it was used and practised in the ancient Church. For this manner of distribution doth much better represent the communion and the union of the Church in the supper, and the charity that the faithful aught to have the one with the other, then when they do give to every one a little cake apart. For the breaking of the bread carrieth all this with it in the Scripture. But this importeth not much. Therefore it may 〈◊〉 among iudifferent things, provided that all 〈…〉 ●hich is of the proper substance of the supper, 〈◊〉 well observed, according to the lord's ordinance.   

Chapter viii.  
Whether the Roman priests may justly excuse themselves by the people, in that that they are deprived of the communion of their masses.  
BUt let us come now to that which they may reply against that which I have even now spoken. 
●ote.  The Roman doctors and catholics do answer us when we do blame their, for that there is no general communion in 〈◊〉 masses, that there is no fault at all in the priests which say it. For they do excuse themselves that they are not the cause that there is no communion of the assistants, for they deny it to no man: wherefore the fault proceedeth from the assistants which do not demand it at all, and which are not at all disposed to receive it, as they aught to do, & not from the priests. By mean whereof they shut themselves from it. But who is the cause thereof, but only the priests themselves? For what admonition do they give to the people, either in their mass or before the same, to 'cause them to prepare and dispose themselves to the communion which they will administer in the same? And when they come to the Altar, do not they know well enough what supper they aught to administer, and which be those that are disposed to communicate at the same? do they not know very well that there are none which are prepared thereunto? for they do not accustom at all to communicate the same, but to such as are first confessed to them, and by whom they are advertised, whether they have will to communicate or no. And on the other side, 
Horrible deceit.  what is the chief cause, that the people hath so small care to communicate there? is it not because that they have given them to understand, that they do communicate for all in the communion of their mass? Wherefore the people being so instructed and falsely persuaded, do think that they may very well rest upon their consciences. But if they do excuse themselves upon that, that the people is not at all disposed as they aught to be, they may not say the like of themselves, at the lest of those which are disposed to say mass, and are accustomed daily to say it. For they come not at all to the altar without preparing themselves first, according to their manner. Wherefore is it then at the lest that they do not communicate altogether, and that they administer not a supper in common among them, and such as shoul● be disposed to communicate with them, and no● to separate themselves every one the one from the other?   

Chapter ix  
That there was not at all any particular or private Mass of Supper in the ancient church, and of the declarations and decrees against such as did not communicate at all, nor did tarry the end of the divine service: and of the original spring, and multiplication of particular and private Masses.  
WE do read well in the books of the ancient doctors, 
Note this.  and in the Ecclesiastical histories, that it is come often to pass, that because the devotion of the people was already become cold, and that they did very often celebrated the Supper, there were but the ministers and the Deacons and the ancients of the Church, and those of the Clergy, and certain others which did communicate at the Supper. But yet for all that, such as would communicate, did communicate always together, were they ministers, bishops, priests, deacons, or others: and there was no one at all which made his Supper apart. And in the mean while that true Bishops and true priests, being the true ministers of the Churches, did never give the people to understand that it was sufficient that they alone did administer the Supper for them, and for all the rest of the Church, neither did they make merchandises of it, as the Roman priests do of their masses: but on the contrary, they did greatly blame and rebuke, 
Note th● instructi●●  such as willingly did abstain from the communion, and they declared unto them that they were rebels to God in so doing, and how ingrate & unworthy they were of such a grace. And among the rest S. john Chrysostom did oftentimes complain thereof. There are also sundry decrees & canons to the same effect, against those which did not communicate at all, & did not tarry to the end of the whole divine service, & of the last benediction, whereby the minister did conclude & end the same, as we do yet at this day, following the manner of the ancient church. 
Note the names.  But for so much as the service & the divine office is called in these canons, either by the name of sacrifice or of oblation, or of mass, the Roman doctors & catholics do take it for their private & particular masses, to the which they are clean contrary. For they speak fully of all the divine service, and do make express mention of the supper and of the communion of the people and of all the whole church. But they which apply it in this sort, are so ignorant, or else so carried away by their own opinions and affections, that they do take for themselves those testimonies which are manifestly against them, and do put into our hands a sword, wherewith to beat them, and to cut their throats: but it is sufficient for them to dazzle the eyes of the ignorant, which do delight to be deceived with them by such fogs and smokes. 
●ote this ●●●truction.  When then there is any question of the supper, there must be there certain order, & the minister must know at what time, and in what place, and to what persons, & in what sort they aught to administer it. And if there be not such number of persons disposed and prepared to receive the same, as is requisite, they must then attend a better opportunity. For they may not receive it for the rest, nor any one in particular separated and divided from the other. And therefore the very Roman church hath had neither particular and private masses and suppers without communion, but only from the time that the mass was converted in the same into a propitiatory sacrifice, as well for the dead as for the living. For even from that time, it hath been the work and occupation of priests & monks, and mamely from the time that they have accustomed to set their masses at sale, and to make common merchandises of the sacrifices of the same. 
Note these merchandises.  For that traffic hath also been the cause of the multiplication of the merchants, which hath traded that merchandise. From thence is come chief a great multitude of priests and of monks, wherewith the Church hath been laden and filled. 
Note 〈◊〉 these ca●ses following.  And for so much as the masses have been multiplied according to the multitude of the Sayers and merchants of the same, it was needful that the communion which should be in the Supper, should be cut off, & that it should be converted into that of the only priest which saith the mass, and that for sundry causes. The first is, for so much as the doctrine which should be set forth to the people, and by the which they should be exhorted to the communion, and to prepare themselves to the same, hath been taken away and converted into mumbling & singing. The other is, that albeit that this fault were not there at all, men are always of the devotion cold enough in matters of true religion, and are not very warm, if it be not in superstition and idolatry. Wherefore if at that very time that they have good pastors, which do set forth purely unto them the doctrine of the Lord, and do solicit them thereby to do their duty, they are yet very cold and slow: we may not marvel then, if when they want that doctrine, they have little care, both for the Supper and Communion, and for all other divine service. The third is, that albeit that they were the best affected of the world to the religion, yet for all that they could not furnished and accomplish so many Suppers, and so often, and in so many divers times and places, as the priests do ordinarily say Masses. Wherefore it must needs be, either that they do say fewer, and to better purpose, or else that they do administer their supper and communion all alone, 
conclusion.  as they daily do. Behold then how the true use of the true supper of the Lord was lost by the mean of masses, and was converted into the particular & private communion and suppers of the priests, which are neither suppers nor communions, as I have already sufficiently proved heretofore.   

Chapter ten  
Whether men may communicate spiritually at the Supper, by the mean of those which do there communicate bodily, without communicating there with them, and whether the one may receive the Sacraments better for the other, than he may hear the preaching and believe and be saved, the one for the other.  
THere resteth yet to answer now to that which they say, that albeit that those which assist at the mass, do not communicate at all bodily at the communion which the priest receiveth in the same, yet for all that, the same letteth not but that they may communicate spiritually. But I ask them, 
demand.  if the means which the Lord hath ordained for to communicate unto us his gifts and graces, do serve for nothing to that, for the which he hath ordained them? and whether it be all one, either to use them or not to use them at all. For if they be there of no value, they are ordained in vain, the which thing should very evil agreed with the wisdom and providence of the almighty, which doth make and ordain nothing without very good & just cause. And if it be so, they which do contemn these means, do tempt God, & are rebels unto him, in as much as they do not obey his ordinance: & in so doing, they make themselves unworthy, 
A worthy sentence.  & deprive themselves of the benefits which God would communicate unto them by those means. For albeit that he is able to communicate them without those means, Note. and that he is not thereunto subject at all, yet for all that, seeing that he will communicate them in that sort unto us, he hath made us subject to that order. Wherefore if we do contemn and violate them, we do make ourselves unworthy & incapable of the good things which he would bestow upon us by the same: the fruit whereof we can not receive, if we our ourselves do not enjoy & possess the same in our own very persons, & not by vicar's & lieutenant's. For there is no man that may possess them, nor enjoy and receive the fruit of them for others, but every man for himself only. For the which cause it must also be, that whosoever willbe made partaker, must use in his own person those means by the which the Lord doth communicate them and not an other for him: as we may well judge by the preaching of the Gospel, and by the doctrine set forth unto us in the same. 
●●n. 10.  For seeing that faith is given by the hearing of the word of God, I must, if I will receive this gift of faith, hear the word, by hearing whereof the holy Ghost will work in me, and make me partaker: for seeing that the Lord hath so ordained it, 
consider ●●ll this.  if I reject the preaching of the word, I deprive myself of the faith which I should receive by the same. And therefore Saint Paul saith, 
●om. 10.  How shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? even then as an other may not believe for me, and as I can not be saved by the faith of an other, whatsoever he be, if I myself do not believe in proper person, even so none other may hear the Gospel for me in such sort that it may profit me, if I myself do not hear it in mine own person. For faith is, 
●hat faith 〈◊〉.  in respect of the soul and of the spiritual life, as the soul is in respect of the body and of the corporal life: wherefore even as no man may live a corporal life by mean of the soul of an other man, 
example.  but only by his own: even so no man may live a spiritual life, by the faith of an other, but by his own faith, according to that which is written, 
●●a. 2. ●om. 2.  The just man shall live by faith. And even as no man may entertain and conserve the life which he received by mean of his soul, by the nurture which an other doth take, nor by that which he eateth and drinketh, but only by that which he himself doth take, and by the meats and drinks which he receiveth by his own preson, even so is it of the nurture of the faith of every man by the word of God, for the entertainment and conservation of the spiritual life.   

Chapter xi  
Of the agreement which is between the signs of the Sacraments and the word of the same, concerning the instruction of man: and of the spiritual communion of them without the bodily in case of necessity.  

Note well this chapter.  ANd that which I say of preaching and of the word, must be also understood of the Sacraments and of the administration of them, for so much as they do depend of the same, and that they are, as Saint Augustine hath very well said, 
Aug. in Ioa● Ho. 80. & contra Faust. li. 16. & de doctr. Chri. li. 11.  as it were a kind of word which is visible and to be felt, and is sensible, the which teacheth men by their eyes, by the mean of the sight, and by the other senses, by the mean of their feelings, as doth the word and the voice by the ears, by the mean of the hearing. From whence it cometh to pass, that by the mean of the sacraments, 
●●●uction mean ●he sacraments.  man is instructed by all his senses, as well exterior as interior, and as well bodily as spiritual, because that they have such as agreement together, that the exterior and bodily senses, are as the messengers and the advertisers of the inward and spiritual senses. Wherefore, seeing that God would that by the mean of his sacraments, that one should help to instruct the others every one in their order and degree, none may then contemn and overthrow that order. Whereupon I do conclude, that the Roman priests may as well receive the supper for others as for themselves, as they may hear the word of God, & believe & be saved for others, for so much as it must needs be, that every man have all this in his own person. 
●ote this ●imparisō.  Wherefore it is as possible that the Christian people should be fed spiritually with the body & blood of jesus Christ, by the communion, which the priest alone maketh in his mass, as it is possible that he may be fed bodily, with that which the priest dineth with, and eateth & drinketh all alone. 
〈◊〉 good instruction.  Wherefore if the people willbe partakers of the things signified by the signs of the supper, they must also be partakers of the word & of the signs of the same: which are the means whereby God will communicate those things which they do signify. For as he hath ordained the mean whereby he will give, entertain & conserve the bodily life, even so hath he done for the conservation of the spiritual life. And therefore seeing that he hath ordained the ministery of the word & of the sacraments in respect of the spiritual life: he that would have & conserve it without this mean, should do as much as if he would live a bodily life, without eating or drinking, & using the mean ordained of God, for the nurture & entertainment of the same, if there be no such necessity and let, that they both cannot be had. For God hath not so tied his graces to external things, 
God dist●●buteth h● graces as pleaseth him.  that he cannot distribute the same without them, by his divine virtue, and without external means, if it please him, provided that there be no contempt or rebellion of our part: for albeit that he hath made us subject thereunto, so far forth as he giveth us the means, yet for all that he is not subject as we are, but so far forth as it pleaseth him to use them of his own free will. 
Example.  And therefore even as he did nourish extraordinarily & supernaturally by his divine virtue Moses, Elie, and jesus Christ, the space of forty days, they not receiving in that time any bodily meat or drink, according to the order of nature: even so may he nourish spiritually, and communicate his gifts and graces, without the ministery of man ordained in his Church, if it please him, to those which by necessity are deprived of them, notwithstanding that they have great desire to use the means which he hath ordained, and that they do all their endeavour that they may, to have the true and right use thereof, 
●●ample.  as if a faithful man were so holden by necessity of sickness, or by captivity and prison of tyrants, or by some other like necessity which hindereth him, that he may not participate outwardly. For if there were there of his fault, 
consider ●●ll this ●truction.  and that he would forbear for his pleasure, and that he would not do his duty in that behalf, the reason should be otherwise.   

Chapter xii  
How greatly and how much the more inexcusable the Roman priests should be for depriving the Christian people from the communion of the body and of the blood of the Lord in their Masses, and of his blood in their common Suppers, if the doctrine of their transubstantiation were true.  
ANd if the doctrine of transubstantiation were true, that which I say, would fight yet more sharply against the Roman priests. For seeing that they do affirm that the bread and the wine which are the signs of the supper, are converted into the very body and blood of jesus Christ, the which they signify, they must also confess, will they or will they not, that in depriving priving the people of these two signs in their mass, they do also deprive them of the body & of the blood of jesus Christ, and that in their common supper they deprive them of the blood, delivering to them but they body, according to their doctrine: 
Note. Ephe. 5.  for seeing that we must be made flesh, of the flesh, & bones, of the bones of jesus Christ, by the communion which we should have with him, and which is represented unto us, 
Rom. 6. 1. Cor. 10  as well by baptism as by the supper, an other can not be that for us. And by that mean the priests may no more receive the supper for us, & in our name, than they may be baptised in our name & for us. And therefore jesus Christ said not, 
Note we● this instruction.  that he which should eat his flesh and drink his blood by vicar & lieutenant, should have life in him, & should be in jesus Christ, and jesus Christ in him, but said openly, 
john. 6.  He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me & I in him, & hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the latter day. Let the Roman Catholics then consider, whether their priests may eat this meat and drink this drink, & rise for all their parochians, and for all those which hear and see their masses: and whether they will be contented to be so nourished with the flesh and with the blood of jesus Christ, and so to rise at the latter day in the person of their priests.   

Chapter xiii  
Of the Sacrifice and of the Communion that the priests do administer in their masses as well for the dead as for the living.  
THus much concerning the communion which is in the mass, and concerning the ninth error which we do blame in the same. I will now come to the tenth, which is concerning that that the priests do not doaste that they do sacrifice and communicate in their mass only for the living, but also for the dead, 
An horrible sacrilege. 〈◊〉 true saying.  affirming that by that mean they do apply the sacrifice of jesus Christ, and the virtue and the merit of the same, as well to the one as to the others. For the which cause they say, that they do divide their hosties into three parts, in their communion, of the which they dip the one into the wine in their chalice, against the express ordinance of the Lord, yea, and against the very ancient canons. 
Note this.  For the Lord did not temper the bread with the wine, neither did he make a sop in the wine in the institution of the supper, neither did he also command to do it. And therefore, it is written in the ancient canons which forbid the same, 
De Condist. 2. C. qum. somne. Oriestes' jubaistes. Note.  that jesus Christ did distribute the bread apart, and the wine apart, and that he gave not the bread, nor the morsel tempered to any other then to judas, which betrayed him: 
Duran. 〈◊〉 lib. 4. Ru●● de fract. 〈◊〉 Bonau. i● Sed dist. 〈◊〉 Hilper. i● Ele. de E●cha.  and he gave it not unto him yet in the Supper, but out of the Supper. Now of these three parts, that the priests make of their hostie in their mass, they assign the one to the living, and the two others to the dead, because that they do make two sorts, to wit, the one which are already happy, and do reign in Paradise, and the other which are yet holden in the pains of purgatory, and have not yet fulfilled their penance, nor have fully satisfied unto God, and by that mean they do sacrifice and communicate, both for the living and for the dead, all at one time, as though jesus Christ had not fully satisfied for all by his sacrifice, and as though the ministery of the word and of the Sacraments, were not limited within the course of this life, and as though there were such communication between the living and the dead, as there is between those which live in this world together.   

Chapter xiiii  
That these sacrifices and communions cannot be made in faith, nor consequently be pleasant to God.  
WHerein they do again greatly fail, & in sundry sorts. For, for the first, 
Note the● faults.  seeing that the do all that which they do, in all these points without any word of God, they can not do them in faith. 
●●●ment.  And if they can not do them in faith, they may then in no wise please God in so doing. But they do greatly displease him. By mean whereof, so far off is the work which they do, from being good, that it is in deed but sin. 
●●te.  And that the same is true, I prove it unto them by that which is written, that whatsoever is done without faith is sin, 
●●t●. 14. ●●b. 11.  and that without faith it is impossible to please God. And then I prove that all that which is done without the word of God, is done without faith, because that it is also written, 
〈◊〉 other ●●ofe. ●om. 10.  that faith cometh by the hearing of the same. Wherefore there where this word is not, and there where faith hath not the same for his foundation, there is also no faith. 
●ote.  Now I have already sufficiently showed, that they have no word of God, whereupon they may build any propitiatory sacrifice for the remission of sins, either for the living or for the dead, except it be that which jesus Christ himself hath offered, the which may not be offered again, neither yet by any other then by himself only. 
●onsyber ●●ll this.  They have no more word of God for that communion which they say also is administered in their mass, as well for the one as for the other, but they have the word of God directly contrary to all these points, and chief the institution of the holy Supper of the Lord It followeth then, that their faith & religion in this matter is not founded otherwise, but only upon the doctrines & the commandments & traditions of men, whereby God witnesseth not only by Esay, but also by his own son jesus Christ, 
Esai. 2● Mat. 1● Mat. 7.  that he is served in vain. And by what testimonies of the Scripture will they also prove either the prayers, or the suffrages for the dead, and the invocation of Saints? Now if there were no other reason but this, 
Note 〈◊〉 couclu●●●●●  Now if there were no other reason but this, it is sufficient to overthrow all these points. For I will say always, and it shallbe true, that all that is done without faith: from whence it followeth that it is sin, until such time as they be able to show by certain testimonies of the word of God, that he hath commanded & allowed such works, & that he hath given commandment & promise thereunto: which thing they shall never do, but by corrupting and perverting the true sense of the Scriptures.   

Chapter xv.  
Whether the ministry aswell of the word as of the sacraments be aswell ordained for the dead as for the living, & whether the work of the same may stretch out so far as to the dead, & whether the priests may better receive the supper for them then the Baptism, & better than the other living Christians.  
ANd further I ask them whether the Lord did ordain the sacraments either for the living, 
No●●  or for the dead, 
●●aund ●●●at ●●quence  or for both together? It is certain that it is not for the dead, but for the living only. For seeing that the sacraments cannot be administered without the word, upon the which they are grounded, it is very certain, that none may be capable of them, but only those unto whom the word may be administered with their signs. 
●●●der 〈◊〉.  Now so it is, that the one neither the other may be administered to the dead. From whence it also followeth, that the sacraments do no more belong unto than, than the preaching of the Gospel which is ordinarily used in the Church. And to say, that the living may receive them for them, I have already declared that it cannot be done: For if the very living may not do it for those that are living, much less yet may they do it for the dead. And if it were so that it might be done, wherefore also should not the other Christians aswell do it, for their kinsmen and friends which are dead, as the priests & the monks: And if they might do it in respect of the supper, wherefore might they not do it in respect of baptism, yea more justly, according to their doctrine? for they place so great necessity in the outward sign thereof, that they do affirm that those cannot be saved which cannot attain thereunto. For the which cause they have forged a Limb for the children which are dead without baptism, 
●●●e.  the which according to their divinity, is at the lest as it were a half hell. If then it be so, that the necessity be such, 
Note this.  & that the one may receive the sacraments for the other, & namely the priests & the monks, they should have greater reason to practise the same rather in the baptism, than in the supper, forsomuch as according to their doctrine, there is much greater danger to be deprived of baptism, then of the supper. For they do not at all account damned, those which do die not having received the Supper, as they do those which do die without baptism. Wherefore is it then that the priests are not baptised rather for the little Children which are borne dead, 
Deman●●  which could not live until they might receive baptism, then to receive the supper for the living, & for the dead, as they vaunt themselves to do in their mass, saying that they are as it were the mouth of the whole Church, by the which all the body of the same, and all her members are nourished spiritually?   

Chapter xuj.  
Of the masses which are celebrated in the honour of men Saints & women Saints, & which bear their name, and of the application of them to all things: & what fruit the masses for the dead might bring unto them, although indeed the invention of the Roman purgatory were certain.  
ANd on the other side, 
●●hee ●●und.  I ask than, What need have they to Sacrifice, or to communicate for the Saints which are already in paradise? for, what need have they so to do? Now if they say that they do it in their praise and for their remembrance, I answer, that jesus Christ hath not ordained his supper, 
answer.  either in the remembrance, or in the praise of any other then of himself, & for to yield thanks unto God for his benefits. And therefore he hath not ordained any supper either of S. Peter, 
●ote.  or S. Paul or S. john, nor of any of the Angels, nor of any men saints, or women saints, be they either dead or living, but did ordain only one which is the supper of jesus Christ: Wherefore men may not say the like of the Roman masses, of the which the one is of S. james, the other of S. Philip, & others for this or that Saint, in sort as they have their names divers, according to the Saints to the which they are dedicated, and the persons and the things whereunto the are applied. For they do make a Recipe ad omnia, & a medicine for all diseases. I ask them also wherein the sacrifice & communion may serve for the dead, the which they do receive for them in their mass? For, for the first, what sure foundation have they for their fire of purgatory in all the holy scriptures, wherein they do lodge in manner all the souls of those that are departed, to make them after ward to pay ransom? And what foundation may it have, more than the sacrifice of the mass hath, forsomuch as it far exceedeth the true purgatory, the which the scripture placeth in the only blood of jesus Christ, and in the washing & in the purgation made by the same? 
Hebr● 1 Co● Ephe● 1 Iōh● Apo. 〈◊〉 Iohn● Acts 1. T●● 1. Pe●●●  For it is he that hath made it by himself, & by the which we are washed & made clean by the mean of the word of God, & of faith which purifieth the hearts. For it is the price of our ransom by the which we are bought, and neither by gold nor silver, as they do after the use of the Roman church. And albeit it were so, that they could very well prove by good testimonies of the scripture, that there were such a purgatory by fire, yet must they for all that prove that they are able to redeem & to deliver the souls from thence, by the sacrifices, & communions which they have in their masses, & such other means which they have invented to the same effect: And under the shadow of the which things they have gained, & do gain yet daily so great riches, that they have drawn to themselves the greatest part of the temporal goods of Christendom. Wherefore it is not to be marveled at, if they do endeavour themselves to kindle & light again this furnace of purgatory, without the which the sacrifice of their mass, & their communion in the same, should loose a great part of their estimation, & of their rents & tributes. 
Hort● treason gain●● sus 〈◊〉  We may say the like of the satisfactions, which they have invented against that of jesus Christ, and against his merit & benefits. For if his be sufficient, then are theirs of no value. And if it be not sufficient, he may not then be the true Christ. And may mortal men do that which he was not able to do, & add any of theirs to his work?   

Chapter xvii.  
How much more commendable it would be for the Roman priests to do the office of pastors towards the living, & to leave to the dead the ministry for the dead.  
Now it is true that they have not at all any certain word of God to declare & to prove any of all this. 
●●ndaciō main.  Whereon then are they grounded? it is not upon the stone & upon the rock: but upon the gravel and upon the sand. Wherefore it must needs come to pass, 
infallicensure.  will they or will they not, that all this whole building shall at the last fall & tumble into utter ruin. And therefore it seemeth to me that they do very well, to leave the dead apart, & to deal only with the living, doing the duty of good ministers and pastors towards them, as their duty requireth according to the word of God. For if they dead have need of sacrifices, or of sacraments, 
●ote very ●ell this.  or of other suffrages and good deeds, the Saints which are dead which know better their state then we do, & which are also in better estate & more worthy to secure than, may better do this office than the living. And if they cannot do it, if it be necessary that some should do it, it shallbe yet more hard for the living to do it. And at the lest, we have not at all any certain testimony in all the holy scriptures, whereby we may be assured that they may do it, neither that it is needful, nor that God doth allow such a work & that it doth profit the dead. Thus much then touching this point, concerning the sacrifice and communion of the mass, aswell for the living as for the dead, and the applying of the sacrifice & of the benefits of jesus Christ by the same.   

Chapter xviii.  
Of prayers for the dead, & of the invocation of saints in the mass, & of the distinction of the Roman doctors between the advocates of reconciliation and of intercession.  
I Have yet 2. points, for the 11. & 12. the which I will touch in brief. 
2 poi●●  The first is concerning the prayers which they make in the mass, wherein we find 2. faults. The first is concerning those which they make for the dead, the which we can not accept by mean of the reasons which I have already alleged, concerning the points which have not at all any certain foundation in the holy scriptures. Fron whence it followeth also, that faith may have no place in them, by mean of the reasons which I have already yielded. The other is touching the invocation of men & women saints, against that which we have also like reason. Whereunto I yet add the great dishonour & outrage which is done to God, & to jesus Christ our Lord in such prayers, in that that they be not addressed to God only, by our only mediator & advocate jesus Christ, 
〈◊〉 3.8. ●●n 2. 〈◊〉. 9.10. ●●hn. 2.  & by his merit, but also to dead men, and by their intercessions & merits: the which by this mean are put in the place of jesus Christ the son of God, which only is given to us for mediator and advocate towards the father, according to the express testimony of the scriptures: or at the least are substituted or joined unto him for companions. And by this mean jesus Christ i● rob if not in all, yet at the lest of a great part of his office. Wherefore they may well allege that they do always say, Note. By jesus Christ. For it is not enough that they take him for mediator & advocate, but they must also give this honour to him alone, without joining unto him any other fellows, or any other merit to his. And they may not here allege their distinction of advocates, 
distinction aduo●tes.  & mediators, of reconciliation, & of intercession, attributing the first to jesus Christ, & the second to men and women Saints which are dead. For by what testimonies of the Scriptures may they prove & maintain it? 
demand.  For the conclusion which they make from the living to the dead, is not good at al. For it followeth not at all, that if the living do pray and may pray the one for the other in this life, that they may in like sort pray for the dead, & the dead in like sort for them, be they men or women. Saints, or of what condition soever else they be. For we have commandment and promise for the first concerning the living, in a great number of passages, 
Co●● deme●● promit  and such as are very plain in the holy scriptures: But we have not one, only for the other two. Note. And on the other side, when it is commanded to the living to pray for the living, it is not to the end that the one should be advocates towards God for the others, or toward jesus Christ, but only to exercise their charity the one towards the other, because that they do know, both the necessities & infirmities whereunto they are subject, but the like is not of the dead. The same is also done to the end that God may be glorified by many, as Saint Paul doth witness. And therefore he, 
2. Co●●  which might be advocate for others, how often doth he desire the prayers of the other faithful for him during this life? and did he ever promise' or teach, that he or any other of the Apostles & other holy personages would pray after their death for them, & for the other living, or also for the dead? 
Con●●  Wherefore I will always conclude infallibly, that such prayers are made without faith, only by opinion and humane fantasy. From whence it also followeth, that they are sin, & displeasing God.   

Chapter xix.  
Of the Collects of the ancient Church, & of those of the mass: & of the Deacons, aswell of the one as of the other, & of their office.  
THe other point, which is the twelfth & the last, is touching the Collects of the ancient Church, & those of the mass, & his offertories. I have already declared in an other place, how that the ancient Church had collects & alms for the poor ioyved to their assemblies, 
●mes. ●●tes. 2.4. Cor. 16. Cor. 8 9 ●al. 1.8, 6. Tim. 3.  & namely to thadministration of the supper, and that for the same cause it had also his deacons, which had the charge & dispensation, & the care & special regard to the poor, to the end that all might be distributed in good order according to the necessity of every of them. Therefore, when the faithful met in their assemblies, 
●ote this ●der.  & namely upon the day of the Supper, every of them did bring according to his power that which he would give, as well for the help and maintenance of the poor, as for the other charges which the Church did ordinarily endure. And the deacons did receive & gather the same which every one brought of their own free will, 
Thes. 3.  without any constraint, & then they did husband and distribute the same so well, & by so good order, & in such faithfulness, that the alms of the faithful were not given but only unto those to whom they aught to be given and had need thereof. 
Tim. 5.  And by this mean, even as the poor were not left in necessity, no more were the idle & loitering one nourished in their idleness by the mean thereof. And they also which had wherewith to maintain themselves otherwise, did not eat at all, the goods of the poor. Note. But the clean contrary is now done in the mass & in the Roman Church. She hath not only deacons but also Subdeacons' and Archdeacon's: 
Note here that th' author speaketh of these offices, as they are in the corruption of the Roman Church, & not of those that in good reformed Churches are diligent preaching Arch deacons, Deacons, etc. for such be not vain titles but necessary offices.  but they are but vain titles, which have not joined unto them the office which they do signify: but are greatly different from those of the which the scripture mentioneth. For they are such but in name, as be all the other ministers & officers of the Roman Church, 
Acts. 6.1. Tim. 3.  that which do keep well the ancient names & titles of the true ministers of the ancient Church, with those which they have added unto them by their own invention: but others must be sought which must execute their office. For these kind of men are well contented with the titles, & the benefices the which they do enjoy under the shadow thereof, without taking any care at all for the office. Even so is it of their deacons, Subdeacons' & archdeacon's. For they have not in all their clergy any that are appointed to have any care for the poor, nor to distribute unto them any of the goods of the Church, nor of the offerings which are offered in the same. For the goods of the Church are no more in the Roman Church the goods of the poor: 
Dery gresacriledg●  but the goods of the rich, which do so divide it with the poor, that they take all to themselves, & do leave nothing, or else very little for the poor. They have indeed in their mass the offertory in stead of the collects of the ancients. But that which is there received, is not for the poor, but for the priests and the monks, which divide the spoil among them.   

Chapter xx.  
Of the Charge which is given to Archdeacon's, deacons, & subdeacons in the Roman Church, & of the offertories of the mass of the same.  
ANd in the mean time their deacons, Subdeacons' & Archdeacon's, are occupied but in foolish & vain ceremonies, as it appeareth aswell by the charge which is given unto them, when they are appointed to their ministry, by their Bishops or suffragans, as by the also which is written of their office in their books, & by the execution of the same. There are in their mass prayers, to wit, 
Consider his well  those which go before the reading or the singing of the Epistle, that which they do call Collects. But in the mean time there is no collection made for the poor. And the Doacons and Subdeacons' which should gather the same, & should distribute them after ward to the poor, do there none other thing, but that the one singeth the Epistle & the other the Gospel, which is to say, some piece aswell of the one as of the other, yea often times very evil & unaptly shaped. And as for the rest they do serve the priest which doth administer the mass, Note. in the ceremonies which he hath to do, & chief to gather the offerings of the offertory, that which as I have already said, come not so far as to the poor. And yet they do not this office, but in solemn masses & such as they do sing with a loud voice: for in the others, it is sufficient to have some petty clerk to answer them, & to serve the priest which is at the altar. And as touching the offertory, it is not so in every man's liberty, either to go or not to go thereunto, but that there is also constraint thereunto, chief in certain feasts of the year, & namely in those which they do call solemn. For there is certain tribute laid upon aswell men as women at the lest upon fathers & mothers of household, which they must then bring to the offertory. And albeit that the curates have their benefices & cures certainly rented, yet for all that they say that that is their right, as are many other impostes which they do impose to their parochians, aswell for the living as for the dead, & aswell for th'administration of their sacraments, as for their other ceremonies, superstitions & Idolatries. If the same be not done in every place after one sort, yet it is done notwithstanding. For they do not any thing freely & for naught. Thus much concerning this latter point, the which we do also condemn in the Roman mass: the which albeit that it be not of the proper substance of the Supper, yet for all that, I thought good to set forth the same, because that the ancient Church was not without these Collects, & namely when they did celebrated the supper: of that which they did also levy the bread & the wine that they did distribute to the faithful in the fame, the which were there dedicated & consecrated in such sort as I have here tofore already declared to be there signs of the body & of the blood of the Lord.   

Chapter xxi.  
A brief gathering of the matters handled in this book.  
I Do omit very many other points, forsomuch as I would only bring forth such as were most principal & most intolerable, the which we may in no wise allow, without rejecting of jesus Christ, & overthrowing wholly all the sacrament of the holy supper, & observation therem of the true ancient Church. Not more have I also determined to make many proofs, the more to confirm that which I have set forth, against the points that which we do condemn, aswell because that the arguments, which I have brought forth to the same purpose, may suffice such as willbe satisfied with reason, and will not fight against all manifest truth, as for that also, that I have handled these matters very largely in divers other books, in the which men shall find arguments, & testimonies sufficient to confirm more largely that, which I have here handled more briefly. And forsomuch as the Roman doctors and catholics do make their chief buckler of the sacrifice, and of the order of Melchisedec, 
Sacri●●● of Mel●●●sedec.  for the defence of their mass and of the sacrifice of the same, I have made an other book of purpose upon that matter, in the which I do show by apparent testimonies & arguments, taken out of the holy scriptures, how that the foundation which they lay upon that order of Melchisedec, doth more shake down the building which they do build thereupon, them it doth sustain it, & how contrary it is to the Sacrifices that they would build thereupon. Wherefore I will now end this treatise, Note. wherein I have first set forth the principal reasons which might lead the Roman catholics to maintain their mass, as they do maintain it, to the which I have made answer. And then I have set forth the points which do lead the catholics of the reformed Church to reject the same, being such as it is at this present in the Roman Church. For as I have already declared, we are not at all in controversy concerning the institution, and observation of the Sacrament of the Supper, the which we do all confess: but the different is, whether the mass, such as it is at this day in use in the Roman Church, be this Sacrament of the holy Supper or not, & whether it be the true supper (or else if they will call it the mass) of the true ancient Church, or else an other bastard mass, into the 〈…〉 the supper of the Lord, ●●d the form 〈◊〉 divine service of the true ancient Ch●●● 〈◊〉 been converted and transformed. 〈…〉 I have reduced these principal 〈…〉 thereof we are in controversy with 〈◊〉 ●●●●raine catholics, and the which I have handled here before, first into five, of the which I have also divided some into divers articles, in sort that in the whole I make to the number of xii. by that order that they are set down in the table, placed in the be beginning of this book after the Advertisement.    
FINIS.   

 

   

❧ Imprinted at London by Christopher Barker, Printer to the Queen's Majesty. 1579.