The Idolatry of the Mass, Part 1. This audio was created with an artificial voice for the Audiobook Initiative on Sermon Audio. A vindication of the doctrine that the sacrifice of the Mass is idolatry. 1550. The exact time when Knox was liberated from his confinement on board the French galley is somewhat doubtful. In a letter, dated in December 1559, he refers to his bodily sufferings during the space of 19 months, in which, with the other prisoners in the galleys, he was miserably entreated. As the castle of St. Andrews surrendered on the 30th of July, 1547, and the French vessels sailed, after certain days, laden with the spoil, this would fix the period of his release to February or March, 1548 to 1549. On the other hand, he mentions his having received a letter from William Kirkcaldy of Grange, asking his council respecting some plan for effecting his escape from the fortress of Mount St. Michel. This might obviously have been several months before it was accomplished, but Knox expressly states that he obtained his own release the winter before he met Kirkcaldy in England. Now it seems to be an ascertained fact that Kirkcaldy and three of his companions succeeded in their bold attempt on the 5th of January 1549 to 1550, and having separated for the better chance of escaping discovery, he and Peter Carmichael wandered about as poor mariners for upwards of twelve weeks before they found a vessel to take them to England. It is therefore most probable that Knox, in consequence of the entreaty of some of his friends and the certainty of his having had no concern in Cardinal Beaton's murder, was set at liberty in the earlier part of the year, 1549. This supposition is confirmed by a letter from Sir John Mason, English ambassador at the Court of France in June 1550, in which he details his negotiations for the release of the Scots of St Andrews at the special instance of Edward VI, And he alludes to Kirkcaldy having escaped from prison, and to the previous liberation of two others, probably Knox himself and Alexander Clerk. The rest of the prisoners, who had been detained in violation of the treaty, with the garrison in 1547, being released in the course of that year, 1550. The state of parties in Scotland prevented Knox from returning to his native country, and he proceeded to London. The zeal which he had already displayed in proclaiming the Protestant doctrines, having recommended him as a fit person to be employed in the northern parts of England where the Romish services were still continued, he was speedily nominated by the Privy Council at the suggestion of Cranmer as preacher at Berwick. Dr. Cuthbert Tonstall, one of the most learned of the Romish prelates, still held the See of Durham, and wishing to curb Knox's zeal in denouncing the idolatry of the Mass, he summoned him before the Council of the North for public affairs in April 1550. He accordingly presented himself at Newcastle, and on the fourth of that month, delivered the following confession or vindication of his doctrine regarding the sacrifice of the Mass. The text is here given from the manuscript volume in the possession of the Reverend Doctum Cry, compared and in some places corrected by the old printed copy without date, which is annexed to the first edition of Knox's letter to the Queen Regent in 1556. On the title page, of which an exact copy will afterwards be given, it bears Here is also a notable sermon made by the said John Knox wherein is evidently proved that the Mass is and always has been abominable before God and idolatry. It has supplied the marginal notes which are mostly omitted in the manuscript, and also some lines at the top of the pages too closely cut by the binder. The 4th of April, in the year 1550, was appointed to John Knox, preacher of the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, to give his confession why he affirmed the Mass to be idolatry. Which day, in presence of the council and congregation, among whom was also present the Bishop of Durham and his doctors, on this manner he began. This day I do appear in your presence, honourable audience, to give a reason why so constantly I do affirm the Mass to be, and at all times to have been, idolatry and abomination before God. And because men of great erudition in your audience affirmed the contrary, most gladly would I that here they were present, either in proper person or else by their learned men, to ponder and weigh the causes moving me thereto, for unless I evidently prove my intent by God's holy scriptures, I will recount it as wicked doctrine, and confess myself most worthy of grievous punishment. How difficult it is to pull forth of the hearts of the people the thing wherein opinion of holiness stands, declares the great tumult and uproar moved against Paul by Demetrius and his fellows, who by idolatry got great advantage, as our priests have done by the mass in time past. The people, I say, hearing that the honour of their great goddess Diana stood in jeopardy, with furious voices cried, Great is Diana of the Ephesians, as they would say, we will not have the magnificence of our great goddess Diana, whom not only Asia but the whole world worships, called in doubt, come in question or controversy, away with all men intending that impiety, and hereunto were they moved by long custom and false opinion. I know that in the Mass there is not only been esteemed great holiness and honouring of God, but also the ground and foundation of our religion, so that, in the opinion of many, the Mass being taken away, there rests no true worshipping nor honouring of God in the earth, The deeper hath it pierced the hearts of men that it occupies the place of the last and mystical supper of our Lord Jesus. But if I shall, by plain and evident Scripture, prove the Mass, in a most honest garment, to have been idolatry before God, and blasphemous to the death and passion of Christ, and contrary to the supper of Jesus Christ, Then good hope have I, honourable audience and beloved brethren, that the fear, love and obedience of God, who in his scriptures has spoken all truth necessary for our salvation, will have you to give place to the same. O Lord Eternal, move and govern my tongue to speak the truth, and the hearts of thy people to understand and obey the same. that you may the better perceive and understand the manner of my doctrine in this my confession. First will I collect and gather the sum thereof in a brief and short syllogism, and hereafter explain the same more largely. The mass is idolatry. All worshipping, honouring, or service invented by the brain of man in the religion of God, without his own expressed commandment, is idolatry. The Mass is invented by the brain of man, without any commandment of God, therefore it is idolatry. For probation of the first part, I will adduce none of the Gentile sacrifices, in which, notwithstanding, was less abomination than has been in our Mass. But forth of God's Scriptures will I bring the witness of my words. And first, let us hear Samuel speaking to Saul, after that he had sacrificed unto the Lord upon Mount Gilgal, what time his enemies approached against him. Thou art become foolish, says Samuel. Thou hast not observed the precepts of the Lord, which he commanded you. Truly the Lord had prepared to have established this kingdom above Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not be sure. Let us consider what was the offence committed by Saul. His enemies approaching, and he considering that the people departed from him, and that he had not consulted with the Lord, nor offered sacrifice for pacification of the Lord's wrath, by reason that Samuel, the principal prophet and high priest, was not present, offered himself burnt and peace offerings. Here is the ground of all his iniquity, and of this preceded the cause of his rejection from the kingdom, that he would honour God otherwise than was commanded by his express word. For he, being none of the tribe of Levi, appointed by God's commandment to make sacrifice, usurped that office not due to him which was most high abomination before God, as by the punishment appears. Consider well that no excuses are admitted by God, as that his enemies approached and his own people departed from him. He could not have a lawful minister, and gladly would he have been reconciled to God, and consulted with him of the end and chance of that journey. And therefore he, the king, anointed by God's commandment, makes sacrifice. But none of all these were admitted by God. But Saul was pronounced foolish and vain. For no honouring knows God, nor will accept, without it have the express commandment of his own word to be done in all points. And no commandment was given unto the king to make or offer unto God any manner of sacrifice, which because he took upon him to do, he and his posterity were deprived from all honour in Israel. Neither availed his preeminence the necessity wherein he stood, nor yet his good intent. But let us hear more. when commandment was given unto Saul by Samuel, in God's name, to destroy Amalek, because that sometime that troublesome people of Israel passing up from Egypt, advert, yet that presently persecute the people of God, albeit your pains be deferred, yet are they already prepared of God. This people of Amalek were not immediately after the violence done against Israel punished, But long after, they were commanded to be destroyed by Saul, man, woman, infant, suckling, oxen, cattle, camels and asses, and finally, all that lived in that land. Terrible should the remembrance hereof be to all as trouble or molestation, as would follow the commandment and vocation of God, leaving spiritual Egypt the kingdom of Antichrist and the abomination thereof. But Saul saved the king, named Agag, and permitted the people to save the best and fattest of the beasts, to the intent sacrifices should be made thereof unto God. But let us hear how this is accepted. Samuel, before admonished of his disobedience coming unto Saul, asked what voice was it which he heard. The king answered, The people have saved the fattest and best beasts thereof to make sacrifice unto their God. Here may be marked that Saul had no sure confidence in God, for he spoke as though God apparent nothing unto him. Samuel answers, Suffer and I shall declare unto thee what the Lord has spoken unto me this night. And shortly he rebuked him most sharply that he had not obeyed the voice of the Lord. But Saul, standing in opinion that he had not offended, because he did all of good intent, says, I have obeyed the Lord's voice. I have destroyed the sinners of Amalek, and only I have saved the king. And the people have reserved certain beasts to be offered unto God. And so defended he his own work to be just and righteous. But there too, answers Samuel, delights God in burnt offering, and not rather that his voice be obeyed. The sin of witchcraft is not to obey his voice, and to be stubborn is the sin of idolatry. As Samuel would say, there is nothing that God more requires of man than obedience to his commandment. Yes, he prefers obedience to the very same sacrifice ordained by himself, and no sin is more odious in God's presence than to disobey his voice. For that esteems God so odious that he does compare it to the two sins most abominable, incantation and idolatry. So that disobedience to his voice is very idolatry. Disobedience to God's voice is not only when man does wickedly contrary to the precepts of God, but also when of good zeal or good intent, as we commonly speak, man does anything to the honor or service of God, not commanded by the express word of God, as in this matter plainly may be seen. For Saul transgressed not wickedly in murder, adultery, or like external sins, but saved one aged and impotent king, which thing who would not call a good deed of mercy, and permitted the people, as said is, to save certain beasts to be offered unto the Lord. thinking that God should therewith stand content and appeased, because he and the people did it of good intent. But both these calls Samuel idolatry, first, because they were done without any commandment of God, and secondly, because in doing thereof he thought himself not to have offended. And that is principle idolatry when our own inventions we defend to be righteous in the sight of God, because we think them good, laudable, and pleasant. We may not think us so free nor wise, that we may do unto God and unto his honour what we think expedient. No, the contrary is commanded by God, saying, Unto my word shall you add nothing, nothing shall you diminish therefrom, that you might observe the precepts of your Lord God. Which words are not to be understood of the decalogue and law moral only, but of statutes, rites, and ceremonies, for equal obedience of all his laws requires God. Three, and in witness thereof, Nadab and Abihu offering strange fire, whereof God had given unto them no charge, were instantly as they offered punished to death by fire. Strange fire which they offered unto God was a common fire, and not of that fire which God had commanded to burn day and night upon the altar of burnt sacrifice, which only ought to have been offered unto God. O bishops, you should have kept this fire. At morn and at even ought you to have laid faggots thereupon. Yourselves ought to have cleansed it and carried away the ashes. But God all beheld. In the punishment of these two aforesaid it is to be observed that Nidab and Abihu were the principal priests next to Aaron, their father. and that they were comprehended neither in adultery, covetousness, nor desire of worldly honour, but of a good zeal and simple intent were making sacrifice, desiring no profit of the people thereby, but to honour God and to mitigate his wrath. And yet in the doing of this selfsame act and sacrifice were they consumed away with fire. whereof it is plain that neither the preeminence of the person or man that makes or sets up any religion without the express commandment of God, nor yet the intent whereof he does the same, is accepted before God. For nothing in his religion will he admit without his own word, but all that is added thereto does he abhor, and punishes the inventors and doers thereof, as you have heard in Nadab and Abihu, by Gideon and diverse others of the Israelites setting up something to honour God, whereof they had no express commandment. For a story, which is received in the Pope's chronicles, will I recite, which differs nothing from the punishment of Nadab, etc. Gregory the Great, in the time of the most contagious pestilence, wherewith God punished the iniquity of Rome, for now was the wicked hour that Antichrist sprung up and set in authority. In this time, I say, Gregory the Pope devised a new honouring of God, the invocation of Sanctus Collet the Latani, whereof in the Scriptures neither is there authority nor commandment. upon which sacrilege and idolatry God declared his wrath, even as he did upon Nadab and Abihu. For in the instant hour when first the litany was recited in open procession, as they call it, four score of the principal men that recited the same horribly were struck by the plague of God to death, all in one hour. The papists attribute this to the contagious air and vehemence of the plague. But it was no other thing but a manifest declaration of God's wrath for inventing and bringing into the Church a false and diabolical religion. For while we desire saints to make intercession and to pray for us, what other thing do we then esteem the advocacy of Jesus Christ not to be sufficient for us? And what can be more devilish? Of these precedents, it is plain that no man on earth has power nor authority to statute anything to the honour of God, not commanded by his own word. 5. It profits nothing to say the Church has power to set up, devise or invent honouring of God, as it thinks most expedient for the glory of God. This is the continual crying of the Papists. The Church, the Church has all power. It cannot err, for Christ says, I will be with you to the end of the world. Wherever two or three gather in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Of this fallacy conclude they, the church may do all that seems good for the glory of God, and whatsoever the church does, that accepts and approves God. Six, I could evidently prove that while they call the church not to be the church, an immaculate spouse of Jesus Christ, which does not err. But presently I ask, if the church of God be bound to this perpetual precept. Not that thing which appears righteous in thine own eyes that shall you do, but what God has commanded that observe and keep, and if they will deny. I desire to be certified who has abrogated and made the same of none effect. In my judgment, Jesus Christ confirms the same, saying, My sheep hear my voice, and a stranger they will not hear but flee from him. To hear his voice, which is also the voice of God the Father, is to understand and obey the same, and to flee from a stranger is to admit none other doctrine, worshipping, nor honouring of God, than has proceeded forth of his own mouth, as he himself testifies, saying, All that is of the truth hear my voice. And Paul says, the church is founded upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, which foundation, no doubt, is the law and the gospel, so that it may command nothing that is not contained in one of the two. For if so it does, it is removed from the only foundation, and so ceases to be the true church of Christ. 7. Secondly, I would ask, if Jesus Christ be not king and head of his church, this will no man deny. If he be king, then must he do the office of a king, which is not only to guide, rule, and defend his subjects, but also to make and statute laws, which laws only are his subjects bound to obey, and not the laws of any foreign princes. Then it becomes the church of Jesus Christ to observe what he speaks, to receive and embrace his laws, and what he makes an end of speaking or law-giving there to rest, so that all the power of the church is subject to God's word. And that is most evident by the commandment given of God unto Joshua, his chosen captain and leader of his people. In these words, be strong and valiant that you may do according to the holy law, which my servant Moses commanded unto you. Decline not from it, neither to the right hand nor to the left, etc. Let not the book of the law depart from thy mouth, but meditate in it both day and night that you may keep and do in all things according to that which is written therein, etc. Here was it not permitted to Joshua to alter one jot, ceremony, or statute in all the law of God, nor yet for to add thereto, but diligently for to observe that which was commanded. No less obedience requires God of us than he did of Joshua his servant. For he will have the religion ordained be his only Son, Jesus Christ, most strictly observed, and not to be violated in any part. 8. For that I find given in charge to the congregation of Thyatira in these words, I say unto you, and unto the rest that are in Thyatira, who have not the doctrine, meaning of the diabolical doctrine before rehearsed, and who have not known the depths of Satan, I will put upon you no other burden but that which you have, hold till I come. Mark well, the Spirit of God calls all which is added to Christ's religion, the doctrine of the devil, and deep invention of the adversary Satan. As also did Paul writing to Timothy. And Jesus Christ says, I will lay upon you no other burden than I have already, and that which you have, observe diligently. O God eternal, hast thou laid none other burden upon our backs than Jesus Christ laid by his word. Then who has burdened us with all these ceremonies, prescribed fasting, compelled chastity, unlawful vows, invocation of saints, and with the idolatry of the mass? The devil, the devil, brethren, invented all these burdens to depress imprudent men to perdition. 9. Paul, writing of the Lord's Supper, says, Ego excepia domino quod et traditi vobis, I have received and learned of the Lord that which I have taught you. And consider if one's ceremony he adds or permits to be used other than Christ did use himself, but commands them to use with reverence the Lord's institution until his returning to judgment. 10. Albeit Moses was replenished with the spirit of wisdom and was more familiar with God than ever was any mortal man, yet was there not of all the ceremonies referred to his wisdom one jot, but all was commanded to him to be made according to the similitude shown unto him and according as the word expresses. Of the which precedence I think it is plain, that all which is added to the religion of God, without his own express word, is idolatry. 11. Yet must I answer to one objection, objected by the Papists, for never may they abide to be subject unto God's word. The apostles, say they, in the council held in Jerusalem, set up a religion and made laws whereof no jot was contained in God's word. Therefore the church may do the same. But there was any religion, that is, honouring of God, whereby they might merit, as you call it, anything before God, invented in that council, you are never able to prove. Precepts were given, but neither such nor to that intent that you allege. All precepts given in that council had the commandment of God, as after shall be heard. First, let us hear the cause of the council. Paul and Barnabas had taught among the Gentiles that only faith in Christ's blood justifies, and a great multitude of Gentiles by their doctrine embraced Jesus Christ, and by him truly worshipped God. Unto Antioch from Judea came certain false teachers, affirming that unless they were circumcised according to Moses' law, they could not be saved. As our papists say this day, that true faith in Christ's blood is not sufficient purgation for our sins, unless also we buy their mumbled masses. This controversy troubled the hearts and consciences of the brethren, insomuch that Paul and Barnabas were compelled to go unto Jerusalem, unto Peter and James, and others, I think, of the apostles. Where a convention had, the question was proposed, whether the Gentiles should be subject to the observation of Moses' law or not, that is, whether only faith in Jesus Christ did justify, or necessary was also to justification the law observed. After great contention, Peter expounded how that the house of Cornelius, being all Gentiles, had by his preaching received Jesus Christ and were declared in his presence just and righteous before God. For they did receive the Holy Spirit visibly, not only without observation of Moses' law, but also before they had received any sacramental sign of Christ's religion. Peter concluded that to put a yoke upon the brethren's necks, which they might none of the Jews bear themselves, was nothing but to tempt God. That is, to prove if God would be pleased with such laws and ordinances as they would lay upon the necks of men, without his own word, which were most extreme in piety. And as concludes he, that the Gentiles ought not to be burdened with the law. Hereafter declared Paul and Barnabas what wondrous works God had showed by them among the Gentiles, who never observed Moses' law. And last, James, who appears unto me principal in that council, for he collects the scriptures and pronounces the final sentence, as you shall hear plainly, declares that the vocation of the Gentiles was prophesied before, and that they should be accepted and accounted to be the people of God without observation of Moses' law, adding that no man ought to inquire a cause of God's work, and so pronounces he the sentence that their liberty should not be diminished. Advert now the cause, the process, and determination of this council. The cause was to inquire the truth of certain doctrines, that is, whether the Gentiles should be charged with the observation of Moses' law as was affirmed and taught by some. In this matter they proceeded by example of God's works, finding that His Gracious Majesty had accepted the Gentiles without any thralldom or ceremony observed. Last are produced scriptures declaring so to be forespoken, and according to all this it is concluded and defined that the Gentiles shall not be burdened with the law. What congruence, I pray you, has the Antichrist's counsel with this counsel of the Apostles? The Apostles gather to consult upon the truth. The papistical councils are gathered for private commodity, upsetting of idolatry and all abomination, as their determinations manifestly prove. The apostles proceeded in their councils by consideration of God's works and applying of the same to the present cause, whereupon deliberation was to be taken and determined as God's scriptures command. But the papists in their councils proceed according to their wisdom and foolish brain, thinking good and expedient, and concluding not only without authority of God's scriptures, but also manifestly contrary to the same. And that I offer me most clearly to prove, if any would deny or allege that so it is not. But yet, say they, the apostles commanded the Gentiles to abstain from certain things, whereof they had no commandment of God. Let us hear the things inhibited. You shall abstain, says the apostle sent to Antioch from fornication. This is the commandment of God. So, although the Gentiles esteemed it to be no sin, yet it is expressly forbidden in God's law. But it follows, from things offered unto idols, from strangling, and from blood, you shall abstain. If the causes moving the apostles to forbid these things be well considered, it shall be found that they had the express commandment of Jesus Christ to do so. The spirit of truth and knowledge working in the apostles with all abundance showed unto them that nothing was more profitable, and more might advance the glory of God, and increase the church of Christ, than that the Jews and Gentiles should use together in familiar and daily conversation, that by mutual company love might increase. One thing was easy to be seen, that the Jews could not hastily be persuaded that the eating of meats forbidden in Moses' law was no sin before God. For difficult it is to pull forth of the heart that which is planted by God's own word, so that the Jews would have abhorred the company of the Gentiles if they had eaten in their presence such meats, as was forbidden in the law. The apostles considered that the abstaining from such things was nothing prejudicial to the liberty of Christians, for with the time, and as the Jews grew more strong and were better instructed, that would be nothing offensive for such matters, and therefore commanded the Gentiles to abstain for a time. For that it was not a perpetual precept, declares this day, when no man holds the eating of such things sin. But what precept had they so to do? The last and new precept given by Jesus Christ to his disciples, that everyone love another as he has loved us, may not Christian love command that none of us do in the sight of another, that which may offend or trouble the conscience of the infirm and weak. So witnesses Paul, affirming, that if a man eats with offence, he sins. And by virtue of this same precept, the apostles forbid that the Gentiles shall eat things offered unto idols, etc., that being apart with the infirmity of the Jews, they might grow together in mutual amity and Christian love. And these are the traditions of the seniors which Paul commanded to be observed. I pray you, what similitude has our papistical laws with this precept of the apostles? But greatly it is to be marveled that men do not advert that the book of God's law, that is, of all his ordinances, testament, promises, and exhibitions thereof, was sealed and confirmed in the days of the apostles. the effect and contents thereof promulgated and published, so that most extreme impiety it is to make any alteration therein. Yes, and the wrath and fearful malediction of God is denounced to fall upon all them that dare attempt to add or diminish anything in his religion, confirmed and proclaimed by his own voice. O Papists, where shall you hide yourselves from the presence of the Lord? You have perverted his law, you have taken away his ordinances, You have placed up your own statutes instead of his. Woe and damnation abides you. Albeit that the apostles had made laws other than the express word commanded, what pertains that to you? Have you the spirit of truth and knowledge in abundance as they had? Was the church of Christ left imperfect after the apostles' days? Bring yourselves to mind and be ashamed of your vanity. For all men, whose eyes Satan has not blinded, may see, that neither wisdom nor authority of man may change or set up anything in the religion of God, without his own express commandment and word. And thus, I think, the first part of my argument sufficiently proved, which is that all worshipping, honouring, or service of God, invented by the brain of man, in the religion of God, without his own express commandment, is idolatry. But in vain will some think, that all this labour I have taken, for no man of whole judgment any part of this would have denied, nor yet does it prove anything of my intent. For the Mass is not the invention of man, but the very ordinance of God. Then descend I to prove the Mass to be the mere invention of man, set up without all commandment of God. And first, of this name Missa, which we call the Mass. Would I ask what such as would defend that papistical abomination? Of what spirit is it invented that Missa shall signify a sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead? Of the spirit of God, or of the spirit of man? Or of what original is it descended? Some will answer, from the Hebrew diction, Misa, which after some does signify an oblation or a gift, like as tribute which the inferior offers or pays to the superior. In the Hebrew tongue, I confess myself ignorant, but have, as God knows, fervent thirst to have some entrance therein, and as of the Hebrew diction, cannot contend. But men of great judgment in the same tongue say, that nowhere in scriptures misah betokens any oblation. But admitting that so it did, what shall they be able to prove thereby? My question is, if the spirit of God has invented and pronounced this diction, misah, to signify a sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead, While if they be not able to prove, then must they confess that it is of man's invention, and not of God's imposition. I could give unto them a more apparent cause and derivation of that diction, missa, but of the name I am not greatly solicitous. Secondly, I desire to be certified what they call their mass, Whether the whole action, with all ceremonies used now of old, or a part thereof, it will not satisfy the hearts of all godly to say, St. James and St. Peter celebrated the first Mass in Jerusalem or Antioch. If it were so, were one of the two celebrated first, and the other after. But neither of the two can be proved by Scripture. Great marvel it is that so manifestly men are not ashamed to lie. Peter and James, say the Papists, celebrated the first Mass. But I shall prove that Pope Sixtus was the first that did institute the altars. Felix, the first of that name, did consecrate them and the temples both. Boniface commanded the altars to be covered with clean cloths. Gregory Magnus commanded the candles to be lighted at the evangel and did institute certain cloths. Pontianus commanded confitior to be said. And wherefore shall I trouble you and myself both in reciting what every pope added? You may for two pence have the knowledge what every Pope added until at last was compact and set up the whole body of the blasphemous idol. And yet they shame not to say, St. Peter said the first Mass, although that many hundred years after him so abominable ceremonies were invented. But they say, all these ceremonies are not of the substance of the Mass, but are added for good causes. What commandment have they received to add anything to the ordinance of God for any cause aspiring to them? But let them certify me what is the mass. The canon will they answer with the words of consecration. Who is author of the canon can they precisely tell? Be well advised before you answer, lest by neglecting yourself you be proved liars. Will you say that the Apostles used your canon, so you have affirmed in times past? If the canon descended from the Apostles to the Pope's bold and malapert impiety, it had been to half-added anything thereto, for a canon is a full and sufficient rule, which in all parts and points is perfect. But I will prove diverse Popes to have added their portions to this holy canon. If they will deny, advise what added Sergius, and what added Leo, and what added the two Alexanders, for I may not abide presently to recite all, but if they doubt, their own law shall certify them. Secondly, the remembrance of the names of such men, who were not born many hundred years after the days of the apostles, declares the canon not to have been invented many years after the apostles. For who used to make mention of a man in his prayers before he was born? and mastery's memory is made in the canon of such men and women, of whose holiness and godly life credible histories make little mention, which is an evident testimony that your holy canon is vain and of none effect. And if any will take upon him to defend the same, I will prove that therein is indigest barbarous, foolish congestion of words, imperfection of sentences, ungodly invocations and diabolical conjurations. And this is that holy canon whose authority presoleth all scripture. Oh, it was so holy, it might not be spoken plainly as the rest, but secretly it behooved to be whispered. That was not evil devised, for if all men had heard it, men would have espied the vanity thereof. But to the words of consecration, by whom have they that name I desire to know? By Jesus Christ will they say. But nowhere are they able to prove that the words which he pronounced in his last supper, call it he or any of his apostles after him words of consecration. And so have they received the name by authority of man. What are the words? Let us hear. axcipitet manducat ex hoc omnis, hoc est enim corpus mum, similiter et calicem posquam coenovit, dysons, etc. Let us inquire if anything be here added to Christ's words, or if anything be changed or altered therein. First, in which of the evangelists are these words, ex hoc omnis, spoken of the bread? Jesus Christ did speak them of the cup, but not of the bread. O Papists, you have made alteration, not so much in words as in deed, and of the selfsame action commanded to be used by him. You permit all to eat of the bread, but of the cup you reserve it to you. Clipped in the crowns and anointed upon the fingers and in pain of your great anathematization, of your great cursing, you forbid that any layperson presume to drink thereof. But tell me, Papists, were the apostles clipped and anointed as you be? Or will you then say that the congregation of the Corinthians were Papist priests? I think you will not. And yet they all drank of the cup, like as they ate of the bread. Mark, brethren, that of Christ's own words they make alteration. But let us proceed. They say, hoc est enim corpus mum. I pray them, show where they find that im, Is not this their own invention and added of their own brain? Oh, here they make a great matter, and here lies a secret mystery and hidden superstition. For in five words conceived the Virgin Mary, say they when she conceived the Son of God. What if she had spoken seven, ten, or twenty words? Or what if she had not spoken three? Should thereby the determinate counsel be impeded? But, O Papists, is God a juggler? Uses he a certain number of words in performing his intent? But whereunto are you ascended to be exalted in knowledge and wisdom above Jesus Christ? He says only, Hoc est corpus meum. But you, as though that lacked something necessary and requisite, have added enim, saying, Hoc est enim corpus meum, so that your affirmation makes all perfect. Consider, I exhort you, beloved brethren, if they have not added air of their own invention to Christ's words, and as they add, so steal they from them. Christ says, hoc est corpus mum cor probobis dator et frangitor, this is my body which is given for you or which is broken for you. These last words wherein stands our whole comfort, omit they, and make no mention of them. And what can be judged more bold or wicked than to alter Christ's words, to add unto them, and to diminish from them, had it not been convenient that, after they had introduced Jesus Christ speaking, that his own words had been received, nothing interchanged, added, or diminished? which seeing they have not done, but have done the express contrary, as before is proved. End of the Idolatry of the Mass, Part 1. This audio was created with an artificial voice for the Audiobook Initiative on Sermon Audio. There may be mispronunciations or occasional repetitions. To report a mistake, please email us at info at sermonaudio.com and include the sermon ID or title of the message and the time at which the error occurs.