The second thing is that you say Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck in this action which you mean the Mass did offer up his body and blood under the formes of bread and wine It is true indeed that Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck is an high-Priest and not according to the order of Aaron but yet neither is it certain out of the Scripture that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine in an external sacrifice For the Scripture saith only he brought it forth For this is the proper signification of the Hebrew word Hotzsi as in sundry places of Scripture Ezech. 22. Psal 135. Exod. 8. Num. 30. and so the Chaldaick Paraphrast Amena which is to bring forth and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Cyprian Epist ad Caecil Chrysost hom 35. in cap. 14. Genes Joseph lib. 1. cap. 19. Ambros upon the 7. cap. Epist ad Heb. he brought forth for to refresh Abraham c. And Cardinal Cajetan saith the same upon the 14 of Gen. There is nothing written there of a sacrifice or oblation but a bringing forth of bread and wine to refresh the victors saith he which is not to sacrifice And it is certain that he gave it to Abraham and his company to refresh them with after the slaughter of these Kings And the Apostle Heb 7 whereas he sets down these things wherein Melchisedeck was a type of Christ he doth not so much as give any inkling of this For there he compares Melchisedeck with Christ First that as Melchisedeck was both King and Priest so was Christ Next as Melchisedeck was without father and mother beginning and ending the Scripture not mentioning of it so was Christ Thirdly as Melchisedeck was greater then Aaron and had a more excellent Priesthood then the Levitical Priesthood so was Christs But never a word here of a sacrifice of bread and wine wherein Melchisedeck should have resembled the sacrifice of your Mass as ye suppose So you find out here that which the Spirit of God found not out and so ye make your self wiser then the holy Ghost in his Epistle But we will learn not to be wise above that which is written and to search no further then the Spirit of God hath found out already And suppose it were granted to you which ye are never able to prove that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine yet what to do hath this with your devilish abomination of your Mass wherein ye say the substance of bread and wine is gone away only the formes remaining For if your sacrifice in the Mass be like the sacrifice of Melchisedeck then the substance of bread and wine should remain as it did in the sacrifice of Melchisedeck and the bread and wine should be offered up and not Christs body and blood as bread and wine only were offered up in Melchisedeck his sacrifice So then either Melchisedeck his sacrifice is not a type of your sacrifice in the Mass or else true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament and not Christ his body and blood which is offered up Choose you then whither you will deny your sacrifice to be according to the order of Melchisedeck or else will you let go your real presence your transubstantiation and your personal offering up of Christ Jesus in your abominable Mass for one you must do Thirdly if Christ offered up such a sacrifice at his Supper as was prefigured by Melchisedeck which you affirm here then must it follow that Christ fulfilled that figure perfectly and so the same sacrifice needs no more to be offered up again and so here will follow the desolation of your Mass-Priests whose work is chiefly in repeating of this sacrifice again Fourthly I would ask you whither is this sacrifice which ye say he offered up according to the order of Melchisedeck in his last Supper one with that sacrifice which he offered up upon the cross or not If it be one then I say as he died and shed his blood on the cross and purchased an everlasting redemption by the same so this sacrifice of your Mass must be joyned with his death and shedding of his blood and must have the like vertue and effect to redeem us and so two absurdities will follow The one that Christ not only should twise have died once in the Supper and afterward upon the cross but also dies and is crucified continually in your Mass and yet the Scripture saith he died but once The other that that sacrifice of his upon the cross is superfluous for what needed him to die again to redeem mankind since the first offering of himself in the Supper was a sufficient redemption For if his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption which you cannot deny and if the sacrifice of him in the Supper be one with that of necessity it must follow that as his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption even so his sacrifice in the Supper must be a sufficient redemption for mankind And therefore Alanus a great defender of your Catholick faith saith according to the judgement of the Council of Trent That the new Covenant is founded on the blood of Christ offered up in the Supper before he was crucified and that Christ was truly our passover the day before he suffered and he saith This is the foundation of all Christian doctrine according to the judgement of the Council Alanus de Euchar. lib. 2 cap. 28. Now if this be true that he was our Passover before he died and the covenant was founded in his blood which he offered up in the Supper then certainly Christ died in vain which is more then blasphemous and so blasphemous must that doctrine of your Mass be which carries with it such a blasphemie And if you will say it is not the same with that sacrifice upon the cross then I say First you are contrary to your own Church in this who saith it is one with that sacrifice of the cross Next Christ his body and blood is not offered then in the Supper for his body and blood was offered up upon the cross and so your Mass is gone or else make two Christs one in the Supper under the forms of bread and wine which the Disciples saw not and another who was offered up upon the cross which was seen of all So whither will ye go and unto what side will ye turn you M. Gilbert for the uphold of your Mass For there are rocks and sand-beds on every side So neither did Christ offer up himself in a sacrifice at all in his last Supper neither did he it according to the order of Melchisedeck But now let us see how ye prove this sacrifice out of the institution And seeing this point of doctrine is such a weighty point as whereupon the salvation and damnation of souls doth hing therefore I pray thee Christian Reader deceive not thine own soul to thy everlasting perdition but take
own heads as may be seen in our Psalm books Whereunto I answer If ye respect the matter contained in our thanksgiving it hath the warrant of the Scripture and so in that respect it is not our own invention If ye respect the authority we are taught and commanded by our Savior both by his example for he gave thanks and also by his commandment Do this to do the same And so in that respect it is not our own invention If you respect the end it is Gods glory which is the proper end of all thanksgiving If ye will respect the form of this thanksgiving to wit the words and order wherein it is conceived I say it is left indifferent to the Church of God to form their prayers and thanksgiving so being the matter end and authority of the using of them publickly have their warrant out of the Word of God So seeing the authority to give thanks and the matter also of our thanksgiving and end thereof is set down in the Word and seeing the Lord hath left it free to the Church of God concerning the outward form of the same the Scriptures not determining it which your self I hope will not deny For your Canon hath many forms of prayers and thanksgiving in your Mass which after that form and order is not set down in the Word of God Therefore you injury the Lords Spirit and his Church who calls our thanksgiving our own invention As to the third concerning blessing which you distinguish from thanksgiving and saith we have blotted it out of our Scots Bibles and put thanksgiving in the room thereof and so you say we want that part First then I will ask you Did not Luke and the Apostle Paul set down the whole form and the chief points of the institution of that Sacrament I suppose you will not deny it for it were too plain an impiety for you to say that either Luke the sworn pen-man of Gods Spirit or Paul who said I have received of the Lord that which also I have delivered unto you 1. Cor. 11.23 that either of these had omitted the history of the institution of this Sacrament a principal point thereof but either this blessing is one with thanksgiving or else they have omitted a principal point thereof for neither of them makes mention in these places of blessing but only of thanksgiving therefore it is one with thanksgiving Secondly I say either the whole three Evangelists and the Apostle Paul in setting down the institution of the Sacrament of the Supper omits a chief thing to wit the blessing of the cup which I suppose ye will not say or else the blessing of the cup is one with thanksgiving for the Apostles Paul Luke makes no mention at all of blessing but only of thanksgiving and the two Evangelists Matthew and Mark makes no mention of the blessing of the cup but saith that after or also he took the cup and when he had given thanks c. therefore they are one Thirdly if ye will credit one Evangelist exponing another whereas Matthew and Mark have this word and he blessed Luke and Paul have these words And he gave thanks And whereas Matthew and Mark have this word blessing after he took the bread they use the word thanksgiving after he took the cup to signifie that they are both one And therefore if ye will believe Scripture exponing Scripture they are both one Yea what will you say to Bellarmin who saith lib. 1. de sacram Euchar. cap. 10 That some Catholicks contends that both the words to bless and to give thanks in the Scripture signifies one thing and therefore they interpret thanksgiving blessing So if you will credit your own Catholicks they are both one here And whereas you say that both in the Greek and Latin they signifie diverse things I answer Indeed it is true that sometimes they signifie diverse actions as blessing Numb 6. for the petition of a blessing But yet sometimes also blessing is taken in the Scripture for thanksgiving as both I have proved in these places as also if ye will deny there is many places in the Scripture for the contrary as Luke 1.65 Eph. 1.3 1. Pet. 1.3 And whereas you say that in Mark they signifie two distinct actions I have proved before they are both one And last of all I say if by blessing you mean the words of the consecration this is my body which is broken for you c. as Bellarmin affirms lib. 4. de sacram Euch. cap. 13 that the Roman catechist so expones it and the Theologues commonly teaches the same then I say we want not that chief point for we rehearse the words of the institution So howsoever the word blessing be taken either for thanksgiving or for the sanctification of these elements to an holy use by prayer which is comprehended in the thanksgiving or for the words as ye call them of the consecration we have always this blessing in our cōmunion And as for your hovering and blowing of the words of Christ over the bread and calice with your crossing and charming them after the manner of Sorcerers with a set number and order of words and signs your hiding it your rubbing of your fingers for fear of crums your first thortering and then lifting up of your arms your joining and disjoyning of thumb and fore-finger and sundry other vain and superfluous ceremonies and curiosities which you use in blessing of the elements they have neither command nor example of Christs institution and action and the Apostles doctrine and doing in the Scriptures of God Now as to the fourth giving or offering up of the body and blood of Christ to his Father by the faithful We confess a giving to his Disciples which you call afterward a communicating But for another giving that is as you expone it an offering up of his body and blood to his Father we utterly deny it as a thing not so much as once mentioned in the whole institution but contrary to the same and Antichristian and therefore we utterly abhor it and detest it as an invention of your own as Antichristian as idolatry as abomination as that which derogates from that blessed only one sacrifice whereby he offered up himself once upon the cross never to be offered up again as the Scripture testifies Heb. 25. And Bellarmin saith plainly lib. 1. de missa cap. 12. 24. That this offering up is not expresly set down in the words of the institution and that it cannot be easily discerned And as for the fifth a communicating we have it and that not only of the bread and wine as ye here imagine but of Jesus Christ God and Man his very flesh and blood and all his blessings by faith spiritually seeing therefore we have all these points which are requisit in the institution a lawful Minister thanksgiving blessing giving and communicating therefore we have the true institution of Christ in the
militis Orig. contra Celsum lib. 7. 8. Lactant. de divin instit lib. 2. cap. 29. Cyprian de van idol Clemenâ— lib. 5. ad Jac. frat Chrysost hom 57. in Genes 31. Concil Elib Can. 36. with sundry others The sixth abuse is in the prayer that the Priest saith when he offers his hoste upon the altar Receive holy Father this immaculat sacrifice which I offer unto thee for my own sins and for the sins of all the faithful both living and dead that it may profit to me and them to salvation and everlasting life And he prays the like when he offers the calice upon the altar That it may ascend in the presence of his Majesty for the salvation of him and of all the world Wherein the Priest commits horrible blasphemy in ascribing remission of sins and redemption to the sacrifice of bread and wine for as yet the words of consecration are not pronounced and so by their own confession they are yet but bread and wine and yet the Priest saith he offers it to God for the sins of the quick and dead and for the salvation of the world Now what blasphemy is this to ascribe that to the sacrifice of bread and wine which by their own confession is not changed yet in Christs body and blood which is only proper to the blood of Jesus Christ John 1.29 Heb. 9.26 and 10.12 1 John 1.7 and 2.2 Acts 4.12 Next that he offers this sacrifice for the salvation of the dead seeing the elect departed are in heaven and so they need no sacrifice for them and the reprobat departed are in hell so no sacrifice will avail them And as for Purgatory which they dream of the Scriptures knows not such a thing I pass by the mixing of the wine with water contrary the express institution of Christ and the necessity of the silver and golden vessels or at the least tin vessels in your sacrifice The seventh abuse is their magical blessing of their incense after the manner of sorcerers without the warrant of the Word and the vertue which the Priest prays for that it may chase away the Devil make whole every disease which hath no more vertue then their exorcismes and adjurations which the Priest makes in Baptism and in their other services by their holy water by their lighted candles their oyls anointings and other like ceremonies And in this ceremony they either Judaize for the Jewes used this ceremony of incense under the Law to figure the sweet savor of the sacrifice of the Son of God to his Father and so makes the death of Christ of no effect to them or else they follow the custome of the old Romane idolaters For we read more then 700. years before Christ that they used incense in their sacrifices and other services which they did to their Idoles Alex. ab Alex. lib. 4. cap. 17. Some say that Leo the third joyned to the Mass this part concerning the incense about the year of God 800. The eight abuse is in that they make their Mass a memorial of Christ his incarnation circumcision resurrection and ascension and that they celebrat the same to the honor of others then to God to wit to the honor of the Virgin Mary and of all the Saints which is horrible blasphemy to give that which is Gods glory to his creatures And therefore they have a Mass of our Lady a Mass of S. Antony a Mass of S. Michel c. Now if the Mass be one with the Lord his Supper as they say it is then it is properly a memorial of his death and it is instituted only to the glory of God and not to the honor of any creature therefore our Savior saith Do this in remembrance of me and not of his Saints The ninth abuse passing by their monstrous Transubstantiation whereof I have spoken in another place is their round hoste taken from the use of the old Romane idolaters 700. years before Christ who had little round bread which was consecrated to the honor of their Gods which they did eat after the sacrifice Pollux in Onom lib. 6. Alex. ab Alex. lib. 4. cap. 17. So it was not the Spirit of Christ which taught you this form but the spirit of Numa Pompilius the Magician who breathed this doctrine in you for there is no word of this round bread in Christs Testament The tenth abuse is the lifting up of the sacrifice above their head and the adoring and worshipping of the same which is abominable idolatry to worship a bit of bread as the great God and Creator of all the world contrary the express commandment of God Thou shalt only worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Deut. 6.16 And how can they excuse themselves from idolatry according to their own doctrine for they hold this that if the Priest have not an intention some saith actual other some habitual that is a purpose to consecrat that the bread and the wine are not changed in the body and blood of Christ and if he had a purpose to consecrat but the one half of the bread the other half is not changed but remains common bread Summa angel Euch. cap. 26. They therefore that adore it if the Priest had not that purpose what do they worship but the creature and that according to their own doctrine And who can be certain of the Priests intention So who can worship in faith that God of theirs seeing they cannot be certain of the intention of the Priest upon the which this change depends and that which is done without faith is sin Secondly their own doctrine is that the intention of the Priest suffices not unless it be according to the institution of Christ Bonaventura in compend sacr Theolog. lib. 6. Hugo de S. Victor Gerardus Lorichius Now sundry of their own learned Doctors saith that their privat Masses where there is no publick communion is not according to the institution of Christ therefore by their own doctrine they are vile idolaters both Priest and people in worshipping a bit of bread that is made of wheat as the great God seeing by their own doctrine there is no change there in their privat Masses of the bread and wine in the body and blood of Christ Last of all seeing there are sundry cases and that very ordinary wherein the Priest by their own doctrine doth not consecrat at all as if the Priest have forgotten to put wine in the calice if the bread be made of other thing then flowr if the water surmount the wine if the wine be sowr if he left out one of the words of consecration Thom. p. 3. q. 83. Joan. de Burgo Pupilla cap. 3. Gerson contra Florent extra de celebrat Miss Now what certainty can the standers by have that the Priest hath fallen in none of these cases So with what assurance of faith can they worship their breaden God To prove this by some examples that by
4. That it is impossible to fulfil the whole Law and Vega a Papist saith lib 11. in consil cap 20 That venial sins are properly against the Law Upon the which I reason He that daylie transgresses the law fulfills not nor is not able to fulfil the law for to fulfill the law and transgress the law are contrarie but your own doctrine is that no man can keep himself at least from venial sins and Vega as hath been said saith that venial sins are against the law Therefore if your selves speak true no man is able to fulfil the law I conclud therefore that this doctrine of yours is contrarie to the doctrine of Jesus Christ and his Apostles set down in the Scripture and also contrarie to the doctrine of the Fathers and contrarie to the doctrine of the most learned and chief Doctors of your Roman Church And this for the second point of your doctrine SECTION VIII Whither a man by his Free-will may resist the will of GOD. Master Gilbert Brown THirdly Our doctrine is that man of his Free-will may resist the will of God which is contrary to their doctrine ratified by Act of Parliament in the year 1560. And also against their Psalm book of Geneva Yet our doctrine is the doctrine of Christ For Christ said to them of Jerusalem How oft would I have gathered together thy children but you would not Matth. 23.37 And S. Steven Ye stiff-necked and of uncircumcised hearts and ears ye alwayes resist the holy Ghost as your fathers your selves also Acts 7 51. The same was the faith and belief of the Apostle S. Peter saith Our Lord is not willing that any perish but that all return to pennance 2. Pet. 3.9 And S. Paul hath Our Savior God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth 1. Tim. 2.4 This was the doctrine of the Prophets before Psal 5.5 Ezec. 18.23 and 33.11 Now then if God wills that all men should return and yet all men doth not the same whereof proceeds it but of their Free-will which will not work with the will of God Therefore our Savior saith in sundrie places If thou wilt enter into life keep my commands If thou wilt be perfect go and sell all that thou hast Matth. 19.17 He that will follow me let him deny himself Luke 9.23 Master John Welsch his Reply As for this third point of doctrine I cannot wonder enough what ye mean by it For have you sold your self so far to untruth and lying that for to bring the truth of God which we profess in hatred you will father on us that doctrine which never so much as once entred into our thoughts let be to teach it or write it Did you think when you writ this that the truth of it would never come to light Or thought you that ye regarded not to be controlled of lying at the last so being that for a season ye might make our Religion to be more abhorred through your calumnie But frost and falshood as they say will never have a fair hinder end If you mean then by resisting the will of God a voluntary disobedience and repining against the Spirit of God and his revealed will in his Word as the testimonies which ye quote here imports Then I say there was never man of our Religion that professed taught or writ the contrary and ye will not find a syllable neither in the Confession of our Faith confirmed by the Act of Parliament neither in our Psalm book to the contrary For our doctrine is flat contrary to this to wit that man of his Free-will resists that that is good and chooses the contrary So ye fight here with your own shadow And if ye mean any other thing set it down in plain termes and I hope by his grace it shal be answered So I cannot wonder enough what ye mean to write and subscribe so manifest an untruth Now surelie M. Gilbert I think it had been greater wisdom to you to have saved your own credit and not for a little hatred to our Religion to have blotted your self with lying and untruth for ever I would pray thee Christian Reader if thou wilt not credit me read our Confession thy self and I hope thou shalt wonder with me what the man meant in subscribing so manifest a calumnie This for the third point SECTION IX Concerning Transubstantiation and Christs real and substantial Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Master Gilbert Brown Fourthly Our doctrine is that our Savior gave his true flesh and very body and blood under the forms of bread and wine to be eaten of his Disciples at his last Supper and that to be received by their very mouth And this I say by the written Word is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles Christ saith John 6.51 And the bread which I will give you is my flesh for the life of the world And at the latter Supper Take ye and eat ye this is my body And Drink ye all of this For this is my blood of the New Testament which shal be shed for many unto remission of sins Matth 26.27.28 And in S. Mark This is my body and this is my blood of the New Testament which shal be shed for many Mark 14.22.24 And S Luke saith This is my body which is given for you and this is the calice of the New Testament in my blood which shal be shed for you Luke 22.19.20 This same is the doctrine of the Apostles For S. Paul saith This is my body which shal be delivered for you and this calice is the New Testament in my blood and whosoever shal eat this bread and drink the calice of our Lord unworthily he shal be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord. And after For he that eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgement to himself not decerning the body of our Lord 1. Cor. 11.24.25 27.29 And in the chapter befo e The calice of benediction which we do bless is it not the communication of the blood of Christ And the bread which we break is it not the participation of the body of the Lord 1. Cor. 10.10 M. John Welsch his Reply I come now to the fourth point of your doctrine your Transubstantiation and real presence The first ye quote is the 6. of John And the bread which I will give is my flesh c. This makes nothing for your real presence For first our Savior speaks not here of that sacramental eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in this sermon which was not instituted a year after that For he speaks here of that eating and drinking of his flesh and blood without the which there is no life So our Savior testifies in the 53. verse Except ye eat saith he the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you But your selves grants that men may be saved without that sacramental eating therefore
it is not of that which he speaks here Secondly he speaks of that eating and drinking of his flesh and blood which whosoever so doth hath eternal life to themselves so our Savior Christ promises in the 54. verse But your own doctrine is that the reprobat eats and drinks Christs body and blood in the Sacrament and yet have no life in them therefore he speaks not here of that sacramental eating Thirdly if he speak here of the sacramental eating as you say then your Church not only hath erred foully but also hath been and is the cause of the condemnation of your people these many years because you give them not his blood to drink And our Savior saith not only Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man but also except ye drink his blood ye have no life in you And this reason was so effectual that it hath moved sundry of your own Doctors as Jansenius and Tapperus with sundry others to expone this place not of the sacramental eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ but of the spiritual eating and drinking of him by faith For they did see that it behoved them either to forsake this place as not making for them and grant that it speaks not of the Sacrament or else to confess that their Church hath erred and through this error hath been the cause of the damnation of many in ministring the Sacrament but under one kind And because you say if our expositions vere removed from the Scripture they would ferve for you whom therefore will you credit in exponing of this place If our Savior hear then how he expon s this eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in the 35. verse I am the bread of life he that cometh unto me shal not hunger and he that believes in me shal never thirst So when we believe in Christ we eat him and when we come unto him which is only by faith we drink him So Augustine also expones this place Tractat. 25. in Johan cap 6. Tract 26 de doct Christ lib. 3 cap. 16. Believe saith he and thou hast eaten Clement Alexandrinus lib. 1. Padago cap. 6. and Hieronymus in Psal 147. and Bernard supra Psal 90 vers 3 all expones the flesh and blood of Christ figuratively And if ye will credit none of these then I hope ye will not discredit your own chief Doctors who affirms That this place is not meant of the Sacrament but of the spiritual eating and drinking of Christ by faith As Biel Cusanus Caiâ—tanus Hesselius and Jansâ—nius cited by Bellarm lib 1 de Eucharist cap. 5. And if ye will reply that many others of the Fathers have exponed this place of the Sacrament then Janfenius and Tapperus two Papists will answer you That they did it only by way of application unto the readers and hearers to stir them up to the often receiving of the Sacrament So this place can serve nothing for your Transubstantiation for it speaks not of the Sacrament but of his suffering upon the Cross for the away taking of our sins and the purchasing to us of eternal life The next place ye quote is the words of the institution as Matthew Mark Luke and the Apostles rehearses them Your argument is this Christ calls the bread his flesh and so Paul and the wine his blood therefore the bread is changed in his body and the wine in his blood the outward formes of bread and wine only remaining This is the chief and principal ground of your real presence and Transubstantiation Whereunto I answer First there is not a syllable here that tells us that the substance of the bread and wine is transchanged in the body and blood of Christ unless ye will expone this word is my body for it is changed in my body which is a monstrous exposition for both it is contrary to the native signification of the word est Est Fieri sunt contraria that signifies to be alreadie for to be already and to be in a change are contrary as also it hath not the like form of speach in the whole Scripture to warrant it from the first of Genesis to the last of the Revelation Bring one instance if ye can And Augustin saith in Genes quaest 117. in Psal 105. supr Num. quaest 95. The solution of a question should be warranted by some example of the like speach in the Scripture the which you are not able to do Therefore your exposition is without warrant Next I say by what Art of reasoning can you gather this doctrine out of these places of Scripture Christ saith of the bread This is my body and of the wine This is my blood Therefore the outward formes of the bread and wine only remains but the substance of them is gone Never such an inkling in all these texts of this doctrine of yours Thirdly this interpretation and doctrine which results upon it is false and that for these reasons First because it is plainly gain-said by the Scripture Secondly because it destroys sundry articles of our Faith and many blasphemous absurdities doth follow upon it Thirdly it destroys the nature of the Sacrament And last of all is utterly repugnant to the words of the institution My argument then is this That interpretation and doctrine which is gain-said by the plain testimony of the Scripture which destroyes the articles of our faith and the fundamental points of our salvation which hath many absurdities following upon it which overthrowes the nature of the Sacrament and last of all which is contrary to the whole institution must be false blasphemous and erroneous This cannot be denyed but your interpretation of these words This is my body c. and your transubstantiation which ye gather upon it is such Therefore it must be erroneous c. My assumption I prove thus First your interpretation is gain-said by the plain testimony of the Scripture Your interpretation is that there remains no true bread nor wine in the Sacrament but the substance of it is changed But Matthew Mark Luke and the Apostles all four testifies That Christ took bread brake it and gave it to his disciples And lest ye should say that it was true bread and wine before the consecration but not after the Scripture saith plainly 1. Cor. 10.16 that it is bread which we break and bread which is eaten and the fruit of the vine which is drunken in the Sacrament The Apostle saith The bread which we break c. And as oft as ye eat this bread c. Whosoever shal eat this bread c. And let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread c. And our Savior saith that after he had given the cup and they had drunken of it From henceforth shal I not drink of the fruit of the vine with you c. Therefore true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament contrary expresly to your interpretation Secondly That your
interpretation destroyes the Articles of our Faith I prove it thus If this be true that the bread and wine be really changed in the bodie and blood of Christ in the Sacrament as ye expound the words First It will follow that either Christ ascerded not into heaven because he remaineth in the earth in the Sacrament and so one of the Articles of our Belief is falsified Or else if ye say he ascended once but yet descends continually to be present in the Sacrament then another Article of our Belief is falsified which saith That he sitteth at the right hand of God his Father And as Peter saith abides in heaven whom the heavens must contain while the time of the restoring of all things come Act. 3.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Secondly It will follow that Christs bodie is made of the bread for if the substance of the bread be changed in the bodie of Christ then it must follow that the bread is become the bodie of Christ and Christ his bodie is made of that bread as the wine was made of the water at the marriage of Cana in Galilee And so Bellarmin lib 3. de Eucharist fol. 399. and Pope John 22. lib. orat in script antidotar animae and the Master of Sentences Lombard lib. 4. distinct 11. cap. 8 grants that Christ it made of bread and the substance of bread and wine it made Christs flesh and bodie and so here another article of our faith falsified which saith That Christ his bodie was made of the seed of the woman and not of any other matter and like to us in all things except sin Thirdlie It will follow that Christ had two bodies together one under the form of a man and another under the form of bread one speaking and another dumb one giving to his disciples to eat and another the self same thing which was given to be eaten yea it shal follow if your exposition be true in saying That Christs body and blood is under the forms of bread and wine in the Sacrament not only that there are two Christs one in heaven at the right hand of his Father visible glorious and in one place and another Christ in the earth invisible circumscribed by no place but also that there are as many Chri s as there are Sacraments in the earth yea as many Christs as there are bits of bread in every Sacrament and so the foundation of our salvation is overturned Fourthly It will follow that the body and blood of Christ are separat as the bread and wine in the Sacrament which is turned in them is separated Fifthly It will follow that his body is separat from his soul and so a dead bodie because the bread and wine are not changed in his soul but only in his body Sixthly It will follow that the bread in the first Supper being changed in the body of Christ that the substance of the bread hath suffered for us died for us and risen again for us and hath a part of our redemption which is blasphemous to think Seventhly It will follow that Christ eated his own body and drank his own blood which is absurd for Chrysostom hom 83. in Mar. and your Canon Law de consecr dist 2. Canon Nec Moses testifies that he ate the same thing which he gave to his Disciples And also he saith himself From hence forth will I not drink with you more of the fruit of this vine c. So he drank of that which they drank of And last of all it will follow that the Mass-Priest is the creator of his Creator and so their Breviaries and Lombardus and Bellarmin grants In their Breviaries the Priest saith Qui creavit me sine me creatur mediante me that is He that created me without me is created by my moyen Lombardus saith distinct 12. lib. 4. cap. 5. The Priests are said to make the body and blood of Christ because by their ministry the substance of the bread is made his flesh And Bellarmin saith lib. 3. de Eucharist cap 24 Sacerdotes conficiunt corpus Christi ex pane That the Priests makes Christ his body of bread Now if there be no blasphemous absurdities I know not what is blasphemy Now choose ye whither ye will subscribe to all these absurdities which you with all the wit of the Roman Clergy is not able to eschew if ye grant this interpretation of yours to be true or will you forsake this interpretation of yours as false erroneous and contrary both to the plain Scriptures of God and the articles of our Faith and the grounds of our salvation As to the third Your interpretation destroys the nature of all Sacraments and makes the Supper of the Lord no Sacrament for every Sacrament consists of an outward and visible sign and of a spiritual thing signified by that sign the which sign hath a resemblance with the thing signified The sign is ever earthly and the thing signified is heavenly as shal appear by all the rest of the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament In Paradise Gen. 2.9 Rev. 2.7 there was a very tree for the sign and Christ the thing signified by it In circumcision there was a cutting of the skin Gen. 17.9.20 Rom 4 11. Deut. 30.6 Col. 2.11 and the cutting off of sin In the Passover there was a Lamb and Christ Exod. 12. 1. Cor. 5.7.8 John 19.36 And in the Sabath there was a day of rest and eternal rest Heb. 4.1 3.4.5 c. In the Sanctuary there was an holy Place and heaven Heb. 9 24. In the wilderness there was a Rock yeelding water and Christ yeelding his blood 1. Cor. 10 4. In the apparition there was a dove and the holy Ghost John 1.32 In the Manna there was bread and Christ 1. Cor. 10.3 In Baptism there was very water which washeth us and Christs blood washing our sins Tit. 3.5 1. Pet. 3.21 Therefore in the Sacrament of the Supper must be bread and wine feeding this natural life and resembling our communion one with another and Christs flesh blood feeding our spiritual life 1. Cor. 10.16 17. otherwise this Sacrament is against the nature of all other Sacraments which is absurd to think and should be no Sacrament at all as Augustin saith Epist. 23. If the Sacraments had not a resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments they should not be Sacraments at all But your interpretation and doctrine destroys both the sign and the resemblance which they should have with the things signified in the Supper for there is no outward sign there which is an earthly substance but only accidents of color and quantity if your doctrine be true and there is nothing there to resemble either our spiritual nowrishment by the flesh and blood of Christ or yet our spiritual fellowship one with another unless you will say that accidents feeds and nowrishes the which if you will say then to say no more to it but this If
the rest which is exceeding many and because if you be a right defender of the Catholick Faith you will say with the rest of your Clergie that the Pope cannot err Therefore a Pope Gelasius by name saith de duabus natura in Christo Neither the substance of the bread nor nature of the wine ceaseth to be any more then they were before but remain in their own substance And he calls them there An image and resemblance of the body and blood of Christ Now tell me Master Gilbert do not these speak as plain as we Will you avow your transubstantiation which they so flatly deny And as our Savior saith A Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand so the manifold divisions among your selves concerning this transubstantiation is a very sure argument of the falling both of you and your doctrine Some of you expounds this word hoc this (1) Bonaventure Gerson contra Florentiū lib. 4. of the bread (2) As Thomas lib. 4 seu dist 8. Occam in 4 sent d. 13. q. 16.17 Some of Christs body (3) Innocent 3 de offic miss pag. 3 object 14 Scotus in l. 46. d. 8. q. 3. and some calls it an individuum vagum (4) Durandus rational 4 some saith it signifieth nothing (5) Holcot in 4. sent quaest 1 and some saith it signifieth a thing which is common both to terminus à quo and terminus ad quem Secondly in the exposition of the word est is some for it is some for it is changed Thirdly some (a) Thomas saith the substance of the bread and wine returns to nothing some saith (b) The gloss of Gratian and the extravag de cōsecr dist 2 cap. Species c firmit extr de summa Trinitate it passes in the body of Christ Fourthly some saith (c) C. non oportet ibi gloss de consecrat dist 2. c. Cum Martha para verum eleemos the water in the Sacrament returns to nothing some saith it is changed in the blood with the wine some saith it is (d) Thomas 3974 art 8. turned in Christs vital humors some saith it is turned in the wine and after in the blood some saith (e) Durand lib. 4. cap. 42. they dare not define it Fifthly some saith (f) Thomas Epist 59. 3. quaest 79. the worms that are bred of the Sacrament comes of the quantitie other some saith (g) Durand lib. 3. cap. 41. they are bred of the substance Sixthly some saith Christ (h) Idem lib. 4. cap. 41. consecrated by the word he blessed some by the (i) M. Gilbert words This is my body and the blessing together some (k) Gloss in cap. Utrum in verbis perferri de cons dist 2. will have the consecration to be made in heaven and some frankly (l) Scotus in repor dist 8. qu. 2. confesses That they neither know the words nor the number of them whereby this consecration is made And to omit six hundred the like I will only touch these few (m) Gloss in l. tribus some saith The body of Christ is taken bodily with the mouth (n) Cajetan tom 2. cap. 2. 3. 5. some saith That it feeds (o) Gloss ibidem some saith As soon as it is pressed with the teeth the body of Christ is caught up to heaven (p) Durand rational lib. 4. But other some faith It passeth from the teeth to the heart and then the bodily presence ceases (q) Bonavent 4. dist 13. art 2. qu. 2. and other some will have him go to the stomack c. but not to the mind And yet he saith He doubts whither he goes to the belly or not for the variety of opinions and in so great variety he saith what to hold is hard to judge And suppose he holds it That the body of Christ goes not into the belly of a mouse or is casten out into the draught because saith he the ears of well disposed persons would abhor it and infidels and hereticks would jest at it and laugh us to scorn Yet sundry others holds as Alexander de Hales part quaest 45. Thomas Aquin parte 3. qu. 80. art 3. Antonius Archiepisc part 3. tit 13. cap. 6. That not only it goes into the belly but also Christs body may be vomited up or purged out in the draught and that brute beasts may eat Christs body it may go into the belly of dogs and swine O filthy mouthes unclean spirits what heretick what Capernait was ever so gross and carnal yea so barbarous and brutish as ye are So not only are ye more gross then the Capernaits who thought that saying hard but also like the barbarous Canibals who eat the flesh of man O blind leaders of the blind shal myce dogs and swine eat and drink the precious body and blood of Christ Shal they then have eternal life I think the ears of all Christians will abhor this your doctrine and their hearts will tremble at it These absurdities together with Scriptures and Fathers against the same hath made some of your great pillars to say as Fisher against the captivity of Babylon That no man can prove by the words of the Gospel that any Priest in these days doth consecrat the very body and blood of Christ And others as Lindanus Panop lib. 4. Canisius and Petrus a Soto supra citati That transubstantiation it but a tradition which hath not the author of it in the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same And others as Tonstal de Sacramentis That it had been better to have left every man to his own conjecture as they were before the Council of Lateran then to bring in such a question I have been longsome in this but yet it so behoved me because it is the foundation of their sacrifice of the Mass and their other idolatries and abominations So then to conclud this seeing your doctrine of Transubstantiation is agreeable neither to the doctrine of Christ nor his Apostles nor ancient Fathers nor your own Canon Law and Popes as they have been cited And seeing ye are at such variance among your selves concerning the same therefore it is to be rejected as heretical damnable and blasphemous by all Christians And this for the fourth point of your doctrine SECTION X. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass Master Gilbert Brown WE have only in our Church that heavenly action and sacrifice which we call the blessed Mass that our Savior did at his latter Supper and was (a) Levit. 2. per totum 6.20 prefigured by the Law of Moses and fore-spoken by the (b) Mal. 1.10 11. Isai 19.19.21 and 56.7 Prophets For Christ being the chief Priest of all Priests according to the order of (c) Genes 14.18 Psal 109.4 Heb. 7.3.17 Melchisedec in this action according to the order of (d) Heb. 9.12.13.14 Aaron upon the Cross took (e) Matth.
good heed what ground is in the institution for this their sacrifice for if they prove it not here it will never be proved by the Scripture You say therefore that Christ took bread and wine we grant that yet here is no sacrifice What then He gave thanks yet here is no sacrifice What next He blessed it Yet here is no sacrifice And whereas ye say that by this blessing and his heavenly words the bread and wine is changed in the body and blood of Christ that I have sufficiently as I hope overthrown already But to return to the words of the institution after the blessing of the bread which Luke expones by giving of thanks the text saith He gave What gave he but that which he took and had blessed And what took he and blessed he but the bread And therefore the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 10. The bread which we bless c. So then it was bread which he gave and not his own body and blood corporally And unto whom gave he it The text saith unto his disciples both in Matthew Mark and Luke all with one consent Now that which was given to his Disciples was not properly offered up in a sacrifice for a sacrifice is an offering to God And the text saith here He gave it to his Disciples So there is not a syllable in the institution that can make for your pretended sacrifice You here corrupt the word of Jesus Christ wonderfully For first you expone by giving offering up in a sacrifice Next whereas the Scripture in Matthew Mark and Luke have but giving once refers this giving not to God but to the Disciples And he gave it to the Disciples you alledge here two givings the one to God which is your own invention whereof the Scripture makes no mention the other to the Disciples which is the form of a Sacrament and not of a sacrifice for a Sacrament is given to us a sacrifice to God So all the grounds of your sacrifice of the Mass is two the one is your devised transubstantiation so one error leans upon another the other is not the words of Christ And he gave it to his Disciples but your own words and your own exposition only And he gave or offered up himself then for them These are your own words and not the words of the holy Ghost So this sacrifice of your Mass hath not the words of Jesus Christ as Matthew Mark and Luke have set them down to be the ground of it but only your own words and your own interpretation For how dare ye be so impudent as to affirm that Christ gave it twise once in an offering for his Disciples and another time in a Sacrament to his Disciples seeing we will believe Matthew Mark and Luke the sworn pen-men of the holy Ghost who say only he gave it to his Disciples as a Sacrament and makes no mention at all that he gave it to God as a sacrifice Do you think the Lord will never take an account of you for such a manifest lie of the Son of God of his Scripture of his Apostles and holy Writers who writ it they all saying He gave it to his Disciples and you affirming beside that giving to them that he gave it that is offered it up for them O sinful man Who will venter the salvation of his soul upon so smal a threed yea upon so impudent a lie as ye make of the Son of God O repent or else you shal one day feel the fierceness of the Lords hot wrath and indignation upon your soul and carcass for evermore Leave off therefore to be the cause of the damnation of souls for you deceive them and makes them believe that this monstrous abomination of your Mass hath Jesus Christ to be the Author of it while it hath not so much as a syllable in the whole institution that gives so much as an inkling of it Are you wiser then the wisest of your generation Bellarmin who for all the arguments that he brings never so much as once gives an inkling of this your argument For he thought it was too plain a lie to affirm a double giving here out of the words of the institution and too absurd an exposition to expone He gave that is he offered it up And therefore he hath no such reasoning for his sacrifice of the Mass Yea that which ye think is plain out of the institution that Christ offered up his body and his blood in the Supper he saith That the action of offering cannot be easily distinguished and separated from the other actions which was done joyntly there together by the words of the institution Bellar. lib. 1. de missa cap. 12. fol. 669. And more plainly he saith That the Evangelists have not expresly said that Christ offered up himself unto the Father in the Supper lib. 1. de missa cap. 24. fol. 706. This is a plain speaking Now your sacrifice of the Mass hath no express warrant out of the institution of Christ if you will believe him whose controversies are allowed by the Pope to be printed But it may be ye thought that this your doctrine would have been swallowed up without further tryal therefore you regarded not what you writ You have stoln your self in such credit with the simple among you who are deceived and blinded by your lies that ye are not ashamed to be plain enough in speaking untruths lies of the Word of God But the Lord will recōpence this one day But now to return to the rest of the words of the institution as ye rehearse them And last of all ye say He gave his body and blood to his Disciples to be eaten He gave it spiritually and they did eat it spiritually and he gave them Sacraments of his body and blood the bread and wine corporally to them and they did eat them corporally suppose for a spiritual use and end For that which he gave they did eat he gave the bread and wine therefore it was bread and wine which they did eat and drink And therefore the Apostle saith plainly For whosoever shal eat of this bread c. 1. Cor. 11. He calls it bread that is eaten And our Savior saith Verily verily from henceforth shal I not drink of the fruit of this vine with you Matth. 26.29 That which he gave his Apostles to drink corporally in the latter Supper was the fruit of the vine so the Evangelists saith But Christs blood was not the fruit of the vine therefore it was not his his blood which they corporally drank but wine which was the fruit of the vine-tree I go forward And when he had done this ye say He cōmanded his Disciples that is the lawful Pastors of the Church to do the same for the remembrance of him to the end of the world That is true that which he did here he commanded to be done by his Disciples to the end of the world but never a syllable
we are all partakers of one bread made of many grains and of one wine made of many grapes to signifie unto us that we are all renewed and redeemed by one blood members of one body living by one Spirit drawing life motion and feeling all from one Head being one with him and so one with others whereby follows our mutual duties one toward another In your Mass there is no communion of the bread made of many grains and of the wine made of many grapes to signifie this conjunction and communion either with Christ our Head or among our selves the Priest eating and drinking all himself In the Supper according to Christ his institution by giving taking eating and drinking of the bread and wine by all the Disciples whereby our bodily life is nowrished and strengthened is not only signified and represented our spiritual growth in that spiritual communion with him whereon our spiritual life depends but also in the same all the faithful doth truly by faith eat and drink spiritually his flesh and blood whereby they are made one with himself flesh of his flesh bone of his bones whereby they are strengthned in that spiritual life and confirmed in the hope of that glory But is there any such thing in your Papistical sacrifice Is there any giving and taking eating and drinking of bread and wine by the faithful either to represent our communion with Christ among our selves or to strengthen us in that spiritual life through his conjunction Do the poor people eat or drink either bodily or spiritually in your Mass Is there any action there to stir up their conscience Or any instruction to increase their knowledge Are they ought but idle beholders of a pretended mystery which is both dumb and deaf and of a Priest that eats and drinks all himself alone So that in stead of these heavenly dishes which our loving Father doth propine unto us upon his table in the Supper what is there in your abominable sacrifices but a feeding with husks an apish game and Juglers tricks to feed the fantasies of the poor people that sees but understands not that hears but they know not what So that in truth there is as great likeness betwixt Christs Supper and your Mass as is between the table of the Lord and the table of Devils and light with darkness Seeing therefore there is such a difference betwixt your sacrifice in the Mass and Christ his Supper as hath been seen therefore your Priests doth not the same in the Mass which our Savior did in the last Supper And therefore how can ye say that your Religion in this is instituted by Christ And this is so evident that some of your own Doctors and learned Writers have been forced to confess the same As Petrus a Soto in his book against Brentius and Lindanus lib. 4. Panopl confesses that the sacrifice of the Mass with many other points of their Religion is an unwritten tradition which hath neither the beginning nor author of it in the Scriptures of God And Gerson a Papist and exponer of the Mass saith in Floretum that the office of the Mass was ordained by Saint James and Basile the Bishop of Cesarea but the Sacrament of the Supper was instituted by Jesus Christ And he alledges the Canon Law De cons dist 1. Canon Jacobus for him So first there is three hundred years betwixt Basile and James which are the composers of the Mass Secondly he distinguishes betwixt the Supper and the Mass and he saith The Supper is instituted by Christ and the office of the Mass by S. James and S. Basile So if he speak true the Mass and the Supper is not both one and the Mass is not instituted by Christ as the Supper is And so out of your own mouthes your Mass is confessed not to be instituted by Christ in the Scripture Shameless therefore and impudent M. Gilbert are ye in affirming that your Religion in this is instituted by Christ Master Gilbert Brown There are five chief things wherein the instruction of Jesus Christ consists as I have shewed before Of these five the Ministers wants three of the chiefest in their communion First a lawful Priest or Minister Secondly thanksgiving Thirdly blessing Fourthly giving or offering Fifthly communicating First a lawful Minister as after I shal show Secondly the blessing of the bread wine which they have blotted out of their Scots Bibles and put in thanksgiving for the same as if both were one not the less that both the Greck and Latin is against them and signifies two diverse actions both done and said in S. Mark 14.22.23 at his Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 benedicens blessed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gratias agens giving thanks And thirdly giving or offering of his blessed body and blood to his Father for his faithful which properly is to sacrifice as the holy Fathers writes upon the same And as for their thanksgiving it is but an invention of their own head as may be seen in their Psalm books and their communicating is but of bread and wine but ours is of the body and blood of Christ So we only have the true institution of Jesus Christ and not they and that by the tryal of the touch-stone Master John Welsch his Reply As for the five chief things wherein ye say the institution of Christ consists to wit a lawful Minister 2. Thanksgiving 3. Blessing 4 Giving or offering 5 Communicating We grant that a lawful Minister is required but not a sacrificing Priest here because there is no external and outward sacrifice here as ye suppone and as hath been proved And seeing your Priests are sacrificing Priests of a sacrifice that hath not a syllable in the Word of God to bear witness unto it and seeing their authority depends of the authority of the Pope which in Antichristian as shal be proved hereafter and seeing the most part of your Priests are admitted without the due tryal and examination of gifts and manners and the most part cannot preach the Gospel as experience teacheth therefore in your communion or rather abominable sacrifice of your Mass for how can it be called a Communion where the Priest only eats and drinks up all there is no lawful Minister and seeing our offices is lawful to wit the preaching of the Gospel the administration of Sacraments and Discipline and seeing our entry to the offices is lawful also by due examination of life and doctrine and seeing the authority of our calling is from God who enables whom he calls with gifts meet to discharge the calling and from his Church examining trying testifying approving ordaining and consenting unto the same Therefore in the administration of our Communion there are lawful Ministers As to the second thanksgiving we grant also it is comprised in the institution of Christ his Sacrament and is required in the celebration of the same But you say our thanksgiving which we use is but an invention of our
institution of the Supper Take ye eat ye and drink ye all of this And contrary also to the doctrine of the ancient Doctors of the primitive Church Hieron in 1. Cor. cap. 11. Chrysost in 1. Cor. hom 18. and of some Councils Concil 2. Antioc cap. 2. Conc. 4. de Tolet. cap. 17. and some of your own Popes also Alex 5. Epist 1. de myst corp sang Calixtus de consecrat dist 2. Can. Peracta The twelfth abuse is in the prayer contained in the Canon of the Mass in these words Look mercifully upon these things to wit Jesus Christ his body and his blood which the Priest thinks he offers up to God and so Biel a exponer of the Mass interprets the same and accept of them as thou accepted of the sacrifice of Abel of Abraham and of Melchisedeck And in another place the Priest prays unto God to receive that sacrifice to wit of Christ and to sanctifie it with the blessing wherewith he sanctified the oblation of Abel Now if any thing can be said to be blasphemy certainly this must be blasphemy to a Mass-Priest a sinful creature to interceed between God the Father and Christ his Son to pray the Father that he may sanctify his Son and accept of him as though he were not fully sanctified in himself and were not the fountain of all holiness to others and as though the Father were not well pleased in him already And because the Mass-Priest vaunts that in his sacrifice of the Mass he offers up the eternal Son of God in a sacrifice to his Father for the sins of the quick and the dead I will ask him this Doth not he blaspheme horribly who vaunts that in something that he doth he is more acceptable to God then Jesus Christ is This cannot be denyed But I assume that the Priest vaunts that in his Mass he is more acceptable to God then Jesus Christ is Therefore the Priest is a horrible blasphemer And I prove the assumption thus The Priest vaunts that in his Mass he offers up Jesus Christ to God his Father the Priest also in the Mass prays the Father that he would sanctifie and accept of his Son which he offers up Therefore the Priest vaunts that he is more acceptable to God in the Mass then Jesus Christ is for God regards more the person that offers up then the thing that is offered up This is Ireneus language lib. 4. contra haeres Valent cap. 34. and for this purpose he brings forth the examples of Abel and Cain and their sacrifices For he saith They two offered up to the Lord but they were not both accepted of him for Abel his sacrifice pleased God because his person pleased him and that because of his faith but the sacrifice of Cain pleased not God because his person pleased him not and that because of his incredulity Seeing therefore that the Mass-Priest vaunts that he offers up Jesus Christ in his Mass to the Father and seeing the Priest must be more acceptable then your sacrifice Therefore it must follow that the Priest in the Mass vaunts that he is more acceptable to God then Jesus Christ is and so is a horrible blasphemer in his Mass The thirteenth abuse is that he compares the sacrifice of the Son of God with the sacrifice of Abel Abraham and Melchisedeck which by infinit degrees surpasseth them all The fourteenth what horrible blasphemy commits the Priest when he prays that that oblation which he thinks to be Jesus Christ may be carried to heaven by the hands of an Angel as though Christ were not as powerful now to ascend to heaven as he was after his resurrection and therefore hath now need of the help of an Angel to carry him to heaven What blasphemy is this But let me ask you M. Gilbert wherefore pray ye that he may be carried to heaven seeing ye eat him and makes him to descend in your belly as ye think and to ascend and descend are things contrary And if ye will say that first it mounts to heaven and then descends again then I say first the accidents of the bread and wine are left there alone for they are not carried to heaven but remains in your hand and Christs body and blood are not under them seeing he is carried to heaven by the hands of an Angel and so your real presence is gone Secondly seeing ye eat his body and drink his blood it must follow that ye must make a new transubstantiation to cause Christ come down again from heaven and to make the bread and wine to be transchanged again in his body and blood that ye may eat him and drink him And so these are many voyages which ye cause Christ to make First to descend from heaven by the means of your Transubstantiation then to make him to ascend to heavē by the means of your prayer and then last of all to make him again descend from heaven that ye may eat him and drink him These are the blasphemies which follows on your blasphemous Mass The fifteenth abuse is in their prayer for the dead wherein they pray for a place of refreshment light and peace for them who have died in faith sleeps in peace and rests in the Lord and yet in the Masses that are said for them they will not give the Pax to be kissed which is a sign of peace let them advise how they will reconcile this But first I say their prayer for the dead is without all warrant of the Word next I would know who these are for whom the Priest prays not for them that are in hell for they have not died in faith nor sleeps in peace nor rests in the Lord and prayers for them are needless for out of hell is no redemption not for them that are in heaven for what greater light or peace or joy can they have then that which they have already Not for them that are in Purgatory for beside that it is but the devise of man according to their own doctrine they that are in Purgatory sleeps not in peace but are tormented in fire if their doctrine of the fire of Purgatory be true and so this prayer cannot be for them neither The sixteenth is your horrible cruelty against the Son of God in breaking the body of Christ in three pieces in your Mass as ye think which is greater cruelty then the men of war did to him upon the cross for they brake not a bone of him and yet ye Mass-Priests makes no scruple to part his body in three pieces The seventeenth is your dipping a part of the hoste into the cup which is without all warrant or example of the Scripture and is against the doctrine of one of your Popes Pope Julius de consecrat dist 2. Can. Cum omne crimen The eighteenth is in the prayer wherein the Priest prays that the receiving of Christ his body be not to his condemnation seeing he means not here by the
did not obey the other As also a number of the Fathers of your own Religion who in two General Councils the one of Constance where there was almost a thousand Fathers the other of Basel did not obey the Pope in defining General Councils to be above the Pope So if ye speak truth infinit millions of Christians in all ages and innumerable Churches and thousands of your own Religion are condemned to Hell But this is false M. Gilbert and who will believe you And to the end now my conclusion yet holds sure That seeing his Kingdom is that second beast that hath two horns like the Lamb and speaks like the Dragon Rev. 13.11 And himself is that man of sin and son of perdition that adversary and Antichrist that was to come 2. Thess 2.3.4 And his doctrine is that Apostasie and abomination sore-told in the Scripture Rev. 17. And his seat that Harlot and mystical Babylon that mother of whoredoms who is drunken with the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus Whosoever receives his mark on his fore-head or hand that is openly or privatly professes obedience unto him shal as the Angel proclaimed drink of the wine of the wrath of God yea of that pure wine in the cup of his wrath and he shal be tormented with fire and brimstone before the holy angels and before the Lamb. And the smoak of his torment shal ascend for evermore and they shal have no rest day nor night which worship the beast or his image And as for your prayer I beseech God M. Gilbert that he may open my eyes and inlarge my heart to understand and imbrace his truth more and more and to make me to grow up in that spiritual communion with Christ and his members more and more But that which ye call truth is heresie and that which ye call the true Church is Babel and therefore that doctrine and Church of yours is that strong delusion and whore of Babel with the which whosoever shal communicat is excluded from the merits of Christ and shal be partaker of her plagues and finally shal be damned SECTION XXVIII That the Pope is Antichrist Master Gilbert Brown IF the Pope be the Antichrist what is the cause that M. John would not set down some place out of the Word of God that proves the same But good Reader I will let you see how far M. John is against the Word of God in this and that by some examples only First our Savior shew unto the Jews that albeit he came in the name of his Father yet they would not receive him If another saith he shal come in his own name him ye will receive This no doubt as Augustin expones the same is meant of the Antichrist that the Jews shal receive Now it is out of all controversie that the Jews never received the Pope Therefore the Pope is not the Antichrist Again the Pope came never in his own name but in the Name of Christ for he is called the Vicare of Christ and the servant of the servants of God therefore he cannot be the Antichrist Master John Welsch his Reply I come now to prove that which I offered before to prove to wit that your Popes which ye will have to be the Head of the Church of Christ are the self-same Antichrist that the Scripture fore-told should come Thou wouldest know Christian Reader of what weight this controversie is Whether the Pope be the Antichrist or not For this supremacy of his unto them is the foundation whereupon their Religion and the safety of their whole Church depends so that they call it The Rock whereupon the Church is built against which the gates of Hell shal not prevail Rhemist annot upon Matth. 16. And Bellarmin calls him in his Preface before the controversie of the Popes supremacy The foundation which upholds the house of God the Pastor which feeds his flock the Emperor which governes his host the Sun which gives light to the starrs that is to the Ministers of the Church the Head which gives life to his body So that remove his supremacy the house of God must fall the flock of Christ must be scattered the host of the Lord must be discomfited the starrs that is the Ministery must be darkened and the body must ly still without motion And he applyes these Prophesies Isai 28.16 and 8.14.15 spoken and fulfilled only in the Son of God unto him a calling him that foundation stone in Sion upon the which the whole Church is built and that proved stone against the which the gates of Hell hath never nor never shal prevail and that corner stone which joyns both Jew and Gentil as two walls together in a Christian Church and that precious stone from whence the infinit treasure of grace is most plenteously derived unto the whole Church as unity in doctrine the bond of peace the unity of faith which is salvation it self and the very life of Religion And he saith There is no way to Christ but by Peter in whose room their Popes succeed So that in their judgement there is no way to Christ but by the Pope And he calls him that rock of offence and stumbling stone spoken of in Isai chap. 8. Upon the which whosoever shal fall shal be broken and on whom it shal fall it shal dash him in pieces O blasphemous mouth Let the heavens be confounded at this And therefore this is of such a weight that Boniface the 8 hath made it an article of our Faith whose words are these We declare we affirm we define and pronounce that it is altogether needful to salvation to all creatures to be under the Pope of Rome Extra de minoritate obedientia cap. unam sanctam So that Bellarmin saith when the Popes supremacy is called in controversie The sum of all Christianity is called in question and when that is controverted Then it is controverted whether the Church should stand any longer or not or fall and dissolve Unto them therefore it is an article of Faith which must be believed and practised under the pain of the loss of salvation And unto us he is that self-same Antichrist which the Scripture hath fore-told time hath made manifest and the Church hath suffered Unto them he is the Head of the body of Christ the Pastor of his flock the Sun that gives light to the starrs the foundation of the house of God and a mortal God among men Unto us he is Gods enemy the son of perdition the second beast and false prophet 2 Thess 2.13 Rev. 13.11 the adversary of true Religion a pest in the body a tyrant in the Common-wealth and Antichrist in the Church So thou sees Christian Reader of what weight this controversie is Let us see then how he defends him from being the Antichrist and then you shal hear our reasons to the contrary You ask wherefore I set not down some places of Scripture to prove the Pope to be the Antichrist I answer Not
against you for wrath and vengeance then ever Abels blood did against his brother Cain Gen. 4.10 Now therefore at the last repent you of it Purge your hands of it and at the least vouchsafe so much upon every Church as may sustain a Pastor to break the bread of life unto them and think the damnation of so many millions of souls of your poor brethren who might have been saved for ought that ye know if they had had the Gospel of salvation preached unto them too great guiltiness suppose ye had not blood upon blood Otherwise if ye will not I call heaven and earth to witness against you Deut. 30.19 that the indignation of the LORD shal root you and your posterity out of the land of the living and their blood that perish for want of teaching shal be laid to your charge and ye shal be arraigned as murderers of their souls in that great day And not only that curse shal fall upon you which was commanded to be pronounced upon Mount Hebal Deut. 27.23.18 for causing the blind to go out of the way whereunto all the people should say Amen But also that most fearful and irrevocable sentence shal be pronounced and executed upon you in that great day by the Judge of the whole earth Depart from me ye cursed in that everlasting fire of hell to be damned with the Devil and his Angels for evermore Matth. 25.41 Lay it therefore to your hearts and flatter not your selves in a carnal and vain presumption Be not cruel to your own souls and to the souls of the poor people any more otherwise ye shal most assuredly drink of the wine of the wrath of God and be casten in the great wine-fat of his wrath where there ye shal be tormented day and night Let every one of us therefore in the conscience of so great and singular mercies which the LORD hath vouchsafed upon us in such a plentiful measure Harden not our hearts while it is called to day but let us rent them and turn them unto the LORD our GOD Heb. 4.7 Joel 2.13 and let us not delay it while he calls upon us by his word and spreads out his arms unto us Otherwise if we will not but despise the day of our salvation then I protest unto you in the Name of the great GOD that he will hear the cry of our sins and will abhor us greatly as he did Israel that he shal forsake his glorious Tents and Tabernacles in this land and first give over his strength to captivitie and his glory to the hands of our enemies Psal 78.49.60.61 c. And then accounting no more of us then of the myre in the street he shal deliver us over both old and young Pastor and people to the sword of the enemie For this I dare say if he take his Kingdom from us he shal not let Scotland be a free Kingdom Matth. 21.43 as it hath been before For true is he who hath said it The Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee shal perish and these Nations shal be utterly destroyed Esai 60.12 And if he spare not his own strength and glory I mean his glorious Gospel but deliver it over into captivity into the hands of his enemies he shal have no compassion of us but shal surrender us over to the edge of the sword to be consumed thereby and as the LORD hath been more abundant in his mercy towards us then towards any others so shal his wrath be accordingly For if other Kingdoms or Nations yea if Tyrus or Sidon Sodom or Gomorrha Matth. 11.21.22 yea if the Turks or barbarous Americans had heard the things that we have heard they would have repented long since in sackcloth and ashes and therefore our condemnation shal be heavier then any condemnation under heaven Now therefore if there be any consolation in CHRIST if any comfort of love if any fellowship of the Spirit Philip. 2.1 if any love to his glorie to his blood to his Gospel and if there be any compassion and mercy in your hearts to this poor and sinful land and his poor Church and Kingdom therein repent you of your sins reconcile you to GOD take hold of his blood wash you and cleanse you in it until ye be white and bright in his eyes Rev. 7.14 Bring him into the chambers of your hearts and make him to dwell in you Eph. 3.17 Galat. 6.14 that he may crucifie your sins and bury them in the grave with him Col 2.12.13 and may quicken and raise you up together wiâ—h him and may set you in those heavenly places with himself Eph. 2 5 6. And then having rooted and grounded your hearts in him Col. 2.7 and having filled your souls with the abundance of his presence bring him out first to your families and then to your tenants servants neighbors and people According to your callings instruct them rebuke them admonish them correct them and reform them and rest not till ye have set him up as a LORD and a King in their hearts or at the least till you have obtained this assurance in your consciences that ye have been so faithful and sincere in your callings that if CHRIST be hid from any to whom your callings or occasions have reached he is hid from such only as perish Now oh that the LORD would give us these hearts and so purge us that we might be thus fruitful to the praise of his glory then assuredly would he repent him of all the evil that he hath thought against us then should he have delight in us in our posterity and then these Canaanites I mean the relicks of that cursed generation of Babel the Church of Rome which is yet left unrooted out of this land to try us and tempt us if we will serve the LORD our GOD and to be pricks and thorns in our side should not bring us in bondage again but should be made tributaries to JESUS CHRIST yea our latter estat should be more glorious then the former Now let us find this favor in thy eyes O LORD our Redeemer and glorifie thy great Name among us by converting our hearts at the least the hearts of all thy children in mercy rather then by confounding and consuming of us in thy wrath and indignation For wherefore should thy enemies say Take up their GOD and their Gospel Wherefore should they O LORD our GOD blaspheme thy holy Name when they shal see thee angrie with thy own inheritance and redeemed ones Oh! turn us unto thee and put us not away from thy face and let not those that are thy enemies triumph over us Purchase thy self an everlasting Name through our conversion and repentance that the enemie and the avenger may be still and our hearts may be inlarged and our mouthes may be opened to proclaim the everlasting mercies and to shout forth thy praises Turn you unto him you that are his children and delight in his Tents You that love
you and your common Clergy who is so bold and strong in maintaining this monstrous Transubstantiation of yours against the truth of God were fed with no better substance then accidents then I say you would have fainted long since in the defence of it Seeing therefore your interpretation makes the Supper to be no Sacrament and makes it unlike all other Sacraments therefore it must be false and erroneous As to the fourth that it is against the whole institution and use thereof I prove it thus First I will ask you what was it which Christ took in his hand If you say his flesh then the text will say the contrary And Jesus took bread in all the three Evangelists and the Apostle Paul So it was bread which he took after he did take it he blessed it What did he bless but the bread which he had taken so it is yet bread After he blessed it he brake it What did he break If you say it was his flesh or body then the Scripture will say the contrary There was not a bone of him broken Exod. 12. John 19. And the Apostle saith It is bread which we break 1. Cor. 10. So it is bread which is broken Then yet it is bread After he brake it he gave it What gave he but the thing which he brake And what brake he but bread 1. Cor. 10.17 and 11.26 27.28 So it is bread which he gave After he had given it they received it and did eat it But what did they eat but that which he gave And therefore the Apostle saith four times It is bread which is eaten and whereof we are partakers and that after the consecration For it is broken given and received and eaten after the consecration And when they did eat it he said This is my body What did he call his body but that which they did eat and that was bread So when then should this change be seeing it is bread all the time while he took it blessed it and gave it and they did eat For I suppose ye will not say it is changed after it is broken and given and in eating Secondly I will ask you what are the words whereby this monstrous change is made as ye suppose of the substance of the bread in Christs body If this change be made by any word spoken in the institution of this Sacrament then I say it must either be by this word And he blessed it or by these words This is my body c. But not by the first for after he blessed it he called it bread And the Apostle saith it is bread which we break therefore it remains bread after the blessing Not by the other words for if they be not spoken to the bread and wine they cannot change their nature But Mark saith plainly they were spoken to the Disciples And he said unto them This is my blood Mark 14.24 Therefore they changed not their nature And Durand a Papist saith in his Rationals That this change is made by the blessing Therefore not by these words which were pronounced after the blessing And these words cannot work a change For they are not words importing an operation as these are Let light be Let the earth bring forth fruit Gen. 1. Come out Lazarus John 12. and such like but only signifying the things themselves as these are Thou art my well-beloved Son So if these words should have wrought any change they would not have been This is my body c. but let this be my body Therefore there is no such change at all here as ye imagine Thirdly it should follow that the cup should also be changed in his blood and in the New Testament because Christ calls the cup his blood and New Testament as he calls the bread his body But this you will not say Wherefore then are you so absurd as to say the other Fourthly I will ask you whither do ye receive in the Sacrament that body which is mortal or that body which is glorified For one of them you must receive either Christs body as it was mortal or his body as it is now glorified If ye say a mortal body then I say Christ hath not a mortal body to give you now in the Sacrament for it is glorified therefore ye cannot receive it If ye say an immortal and glorified body then I say ye must seek another warrant then this text of Matthew Mark and Luke For at that time his body was not glorified For the Sacrament was instituted before his death and he was not glorified until after his resurrection And if ye receive that same body which the Apostles then received then ye receive not a glorified body What a body is this then which ye receive neither mortal nor glorified Fifthly the text saith they who receives unworthily receives their own damnation But if Christs flesh and blood were there present as ye say then all who received it should receive their salvation because our Savior saith He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood hath life everlasting John 6 54. Now I conclud seeing your interpretation of these places of Scripture and your doctrine of Transubstantiation which ye gather thereupon first is plainly gain-said by the express testimonies of the Scripture next overthrows all the main foundations of our salvation and articles of our Faith thirdly destroys the nature of a Sacrament and maketh it no Sacrament at all and like no other Sacrament either of the Old or New Testament and last of all is contrary to the whole institution thereof as I hope I have sufficiently proved therefore of necessity it must be false and erroneous As for the 10 of the 1. Cor 16. The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion and the bread which we break is it not c. I answer This Sacrament of bread and wine because it not only represents and seals up to us our communion with Christ but also by it as by a most effectual instrument the holy Ghost increases and nowrishes this communion both with him and among our selves therefore it is called the communion of his body and blood But this most clearly proves that there is no such change here as ye suppose for the Apostle saith plainly The bread which we break and this breaking you say is after the consecration therefore after the consecration true bread remains in the Sacrament and so there is no transubstantiation in the same But because you say the substance of the bread and wine is not there I pray you tell me whither are they gone Whither are they turned to nothing or are they changed in Christs body If you say they are turned to nothing First I say this were a strange kind of reasoning This is my body therefore the substance of the bread is turned to nothing Next the Apostle should not speak truly to call it bread which is broken and bread which is eaten c if it were turned to
nothing Thirdly then this should not be called Transubstantiation or changing of one substance into another but an annihilation of one substance that is a turning of it to nothing and a bringing in of another substance in the room of it And fourthly Thomas of Aquin your great defender of this doctrine is against this lib. 4 dist 8. But if you say they are turned in Christs body which the word Transubstantiation imports then I say as oft as the Sacrament hath been ministrated as oft hath there been some quantitie of substance added to his body and it shal still grow in greatness and quantitie as long as it shal be ministred but this is monstrous to think And to end this if you say there is no substance of bread and wine left in the Sacrament then let me ask you whose are the whiteness and redness and roundness that we see What means this taste in our mouthes of bread and wine if there be no substance of them there May we not say to you as Christ said to Thomas who doubted of his resurrection Put thy finger here behold my hands put thy hand in my side and be not incredulous but believe So may not we say to you who doubteth whither the substance of bread and wine be here remaining yet touch them taste them look on them and feel them and be not incredulous but believe For behold there would not be such a color such a taste and smel and there were not substance of bread and wine here And I pray you tell me what is this that rots then and growes in worms in the bread and souers in the wine if they be long kept If their substance remaineth not will you say Christs flesh and blood rots and consumes and souers What is this but to make him mortal yea to crucifie him again And if you will not say that then either must you confess that their substance remaines and is not changed or else Christs flesh and blood is transubstantiated in these substances which rots and souers or else that the accidents is changed again in their substances and so ye shal not have one but mo changes in your Sacrament Yea if their substance be gone and nothing but their accidents remaining then how could Pope Victor the 3. and the Emperor Henry the 7. have been poisoned with them as Fasciculus temp Platina Blond testifieth accidents and Christs body could neither poison them nor be capable of poison therefore they felt by experience that there was no Transubstantiation in the Sacrament So we see the texts ye brought with you is against you as the sword that Goliah brought to slay David cutted off his own head But yet you will say If the bread be not his body why then did he call it his body this is the chief thing you have for your doctrine answer this and the plea is won Unto this then I answer that in that same sense he said This is my body In the which he said afterward which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Luke 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is given in the present time But there can be no sense of these words but this the bread was broken and signified that his body should be broken with the sorrows of death for his body was not broken before he suffered and the Apostle saith it is bread which is broken so then as the breaking of the bread signified the breaking of his body so the bread signified his body and as his body was not broken indeed when the bread was broken so the bread could not be his body in very deed when he so called it For the resemblance and likeness thereof between the bread and his body the bread it is called his body c. and this phrase is very frequent in the Scripture to give the name of the things signified to the sign as shal be seen afterward M. Gilbert Brown Now let the Ministers come in here with their natural reasons against the omnipotencie of Christ that he cannot be in two places at once and with their figurs signs similituds symbols and spiritual eating of a natural body with many the like which are the inventions of their own brains not contained in the written Word And who can say but that our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and not theirs M. John Welsch his Reply Ye prevent our answers here and first ye bid us hold away our natural reasons against the omnipotency of Christ that he cannot be in two places at once Whereunto I answer that we shal bring no reason neither natural nor supernatural against the omnipotency of Christ for we acknowledge it and adores it But we say to you pretend not his omnipotency for your monstrous imaginations which have no warrant of his will in his Scripture For first we say this argument of yours will not follow Christ is able to make his body to be in two places both at once in heaven and in the Sacrament therefore he makes it to be so For you must first prove he will do so for your self M. Gilbert can do many things which you do not because you will not so from can to will it follows not And if you say that Christ hath willed so because he said This is my body I have answered to it before refute you it and all your Roman Clergy if you can For you might as well say Christ willed the cup wherein the wine was to be changed in his blood and New Testament and himself to be changed in a vine-tree and a door and a rock to be changed in him because so hath he and his Apostles spoken John 10. and 13. 1. Cor. 10 and 11. and these speaches are as true as that and yet there is no change here Next I say your own School-men and great defenders of Transubstantiation Thomas of Aquin and others say lib. 1 cap. 84. lib. 2. cap. 25. contra Gent. That it is against the omnipotency of God to affirm that he may do any thing which implyes a contradiction in its self for that is rather to be called a weakness then a power And the Scripture affirms that God cannot lie nor deny himself nor be tempted and that yea and nay it not in Christ Heb. 6. 2 Tim. 2. James 1.2 Cor. 1. but to Christs body both to be a true body like to us in all things to wit essential except sin as the Scripture saith and to be in mo places at once which makes him to have not a true body like ours For Augustin saith ad Dardanum speaking of Christs glorified body If it be a true body it is then in a certain place and take away from bodies their quantities they are no more true bodies implyes a contradiction and is yea and nay in him and Christs body both to be visible and invisible at one time to be in a certain place in heaven with his own length and
breadth and not to have his own length and breadth at once in the Sacrament is a manifest contradiction is yea and nay in Christ therefore both by the Scripture and your own doctrine the omnipotency of Christ cannot be alledged or pretended for this your doctrine which is yea and nay and implyes a manifest contradiction So this in very truth is the invention of your own brain which is alledged for your Transubstantiation and wants the warrant yea is gain-said both by the written Word and your own School-men Next ye would have us to hold away our figurs symbols and similituds I answer our own figurs we shal hold away but these figurs symbols and signs wherein our Savior hath delivered his truth to us we must and will acknowledge So then obeying rather God who hath set them down in his Scripture then you who forbids us to acknowledge them and what a monstrous exposition would you make of infinit places of Scripture if you would admit no figures in them but all to be understood plainly and literally as they were spoken The Scripture ascribes to God eyes ears foot hands and a face and the Scripture calls Christ a door a vine Now if you will admit no figurs here but will have all these places exponed literally as you will have us to do in the Sacrament then you would be reckoned in the number of the old hereticks called Anthropomorphitae who because they saw the Scripture speak so of God they taking it literally and exponing it without figurs as you would have us to expone the Sacrament they thought that God was bodilie yea you must make another monstrous Transubstantiation of Christ in a door and vine-tree for so he calls himself And to come to the Sacraments themselves how many transubstantiations will you make in all the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament if you will remove figurs and signs from them and expone them literally as you would have us to do in this Sacrament Circumcision is called the covenant Gen. 27. and yet it was but the sign of the covenant the Lamb in the Passover is called the Passover of the Lord Exod. 12. and yet it was but the sign of the Passover the Rock in the wilderness is called Christ 2. Cor. 20. and yet it was but a sign of Christ the Ark is called the Lord Psal 24. and yet it was but a sign of the Lord the land of Canaan is called the rest of the Lord. Heb. 4. and yet it was but a sign of that rest and Baptism is called the washing of regeneration Tit. 3. and yet it is but the sign of our regeneration Do you think that the forms of speaches in all other Sacraments are figuratively taken and the form of speach in this Sacrament only to be literally understood What reason can there be of this diversity But it may be you think that the form of speaches in all other Sacraments should be taken figuratively but the phrase of speach in this Sacrament is to be taken literally But first what then will you say to this speach This is my body which is broken for you and this The cup is the New Testament in my blood and the cup is my blood and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 11. Luke 22. Mark 14. 1. Cor. 13. all figurative speaches and to be understood figuratively otherwise Christ should have been broken in the Sacrament which is both contrary to the Scripture and also absurd For then he should have suffered twise once in the Sacrament and once upon the cross and not only should there be one transubstantiation in the Sacrament but many as of the cup in the blood of Christ and of the bread and cup in the participation of the body and blood of Christ and so you should not only have one transubstantiation but many And how I pray you can Sacraments which are but figurs signs and symbols be understood but figuratively And how can duo diversa individua alterum de altero praedicari in praedicatione and be spoken of another without a figure as it is here This bread is my body c. Can you or any at all of your Roman Clergy understand such propositions otherwise then figurativelie What an unreasonable thing is it then to you to forbid us to acknowledge figurs in this Sacrament which is but a figure and sign seeing they are so frequentlie used in the Scriptures of God and especiallie in Sacraments as also in this Sacrament So nil ye will ye signs and symbols tropes and figurs ye must admit in the exposition of this Sacrament Last of all ye think a natural bodie cannot be spirituallie eaten Would you be so absurd and blasphemous as to have Christs bodie naturallie eaten For then his bodie must be naturallie chawed digested turned over in our substance and casten out in the draught and so be mortal and suffer again Apage hanc blasphemiam Let me ask you whither is Christs bodie the food of the soul or the food of the bodie If you say it is the food of the bodie to fill the bellie then I say it must be naturally eaten but you are blaspemous in so thinking But if you say it is the food of the soul as it is indeed and as our Savior saith John 6.35 then it cannot be eaten naturally For as the food of the body cannot be eaten spiritually so the food of the soul cannot be eaten naturally but spiritually by faith And if you understood this true eating of Christ by faith all your contention would take an end But this is the stone which ye stumble at and therefore ye forbid us to come in with a spiritual eating of Christs natural body as though it could be eaten otherwise then spiritually by faith Will you neither understand the Scriptures John 6 35. nor the ancient Fathers August tract 26. in Joh. 6 lib 3. de doct Christ cap. 16 Clemens Alex Hierom. S Basilius Bernardus supra citat nor your own Church Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 7. and your Canon Law de consecrat dist 1. cap. 5. who all acknowledge a spiritual eating of Christ by faith What gross darkness is this wherewith the Lord hath blinded you above all that ye cannot understand it As Christ dwells in us and we in him so do we eat him and drink him But the Apostle saith he dwells in us by faith Ephes 3. therefore we eat him and drink him by faith And seeing your Church grants that the eating of Christ corporally doth no good and the eating of him by faith only will bring eternal life as our Savior saith John 6. what needs then this corporal and real eating of Christ And why are ye like the gross and carnal Capernaits who can understand no eating but a corporal eating of him
And what is the cause that ye cannot understand the doctrine of your own Church which acknowledges a spiritual eating of Christ by faith both by the Word and by the Sacrament also de consecr dist 2. cap. Ut quid I had never have thought that ye had been so far blinded of the Lord. But I leave you to the Lord. Let the Christian Reader now judge whether our doctrine or yours be the invention of mans brain and which of them have their warrant out of the written Word of God M. Gilbert Brown And further I say of these words This is my body which shal be delivered for you 1. Cor. 11.24 which is a true proposition and therefore this must follow But there was no body delivered for us but the natural body of Christ therefore it was his natural body that he gave to his Disciples to be eaten Then if it were his natural body it was not natural bread As Saint Ambrose expounds the same Let us prove saith he this not to be that that nature formed but that thing which the blessing hath consecrate and greater strength to be in blessing then in nature for nature it self is changed by blessing He hath the same more amplie in the fourth book in the 4 chap. de Sacramentis Maister John Welsch his Reply First I answer the words of the Apostle is not as ye cite them here which shal be delivered but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is broken and in the present time and so in Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is given so you are not faithful in translating this place of Scripture both contrary to the Greek and Syriak copies Upon the which I reason thus this proposition is true This is my body which is broken for you so the Apostle saith but Christs body was not broken then really for not a bone of him was broken at all as the Scripture testifies Exod 12. and the Scripture saith John 19. and all men confesses that he suffered but once so only his sufferings are signified then by the breaking of the bread in the Sacrament here so as Christs body was not broken then really that is suffered but his suffering only signified by the breaking of the bread so his body was not given really and corporally to be eaten but only signified Secondly I say it is true that Christs natural body was delivered to the death for us but yet it will not follow upon this that it was his natural body which he gave to them to be eaten corporally for his natural body was really delivered to death for us and it was but given to them spiritually to be eaten You must coyn a new Logick M. Gilbert ere you can make these two stick together and the one necessarilie to follow upon the other For by that same reason you may as well conclud that Christ gave his natural body to be eaten corporally in the word for he gives himself to be eaten in his word as well as in his Sacrament 2. John 6.35 Bellarmin grants this also lib. 1. de Eucharist cap. 7. and also he gives that same body to them in the word which was delivered to death for the self same Christ is offered and received as well in the word as in the Sacrament So from his bodilie death to a corporal eating of him it will not follow And further by that same reason you may as well say that the Fathers before Christ under the Law did eat Christs body corporally for they ate that same spiritual food and drank that same spiritual drink in their Sacraments which we do now in ours So the Apostle testifies even that self same Christ his body and blood which was delivered to the death and yet it will not follow that they did eat his natural body c. As for Ambrose it is true he so speaks but he expones himself in that same chapter while as he saith Before the blessing another form or thing is named but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified If the bread then signifie the body of Christ it is not changed in his body And because of this holy use to signifie the body of Christ Ambrose saith That the nature is changed by blessing and that this is his meaning his words following will declare it where he saith Shal not the words of Christ be of force to change the form of the elements In that same sense Ambrose saith the nature of the elements is changed in the which he saith the form of them is changed for he affirmeth both there But ye will not say I suppose unless you will overthrow your transubstantiation that Ambrose means that the form of the elements is changed in substance but only in use and signification for you say the forms remains therefore you must also grant that Ambrose means not by the change of nature the change of the substance of them but only the change in the use of them from a common use to a holy use And because it may be you will delay to subscribe to the truth of our doctrine until you hear the sentence and judgement of the Fathers Therefore I will set them down here Tertullian saith contra Marc. lib. 4. This is my body that is a figure of my body Chrysostome saith in 1. Cor. cap. 10. What is that which the bread signifies the body of Christ Theodoret saith dialog 1. and 2. The bread and wine is signs and figures of the body and blood of Christ And he saith Our Savior in the institution of the Sacrament enterchanged the names and gave to the sign or symbol the name of his body and these mystical signs of these holy things whereof are the signs Unto the which he answers Are they not signs of the body and blood of Christ Hieronymus saith in Mat. 2.6 That Christ by taking of the bread which comforts the heart of man representeth the truth of his bodie Cyrillus saith ad Euop Matth. 11. Bas Liturgia Nazian in orat 2. de Pas funere Gorg. Our Sacrament avoweth not the eating of a man Basilius and Nazianzen calls the bread and wine in the Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figurs or signs of the body of Christ Cyprian saith lib. 1. ep 6. ejus contra Adima cap. 12. Psal 3. The Lord called bread made of many grains his body and wine made of many grapes his blood Augustin saith Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body while as he gave but the sign of his body And he calls it the figure of his body and blood And their Canon Law saith de conseer dist 2. cap. Hoc est The heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is called after a manner the body of Christ while as it is but the Sacrament of his body And the Gloss there saith The heavenly bread that is the heavenly Sacrament which represents truly the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly I omit
26.26.27 bread and wine and having given (f) Luke 22.19 thanks to his Father of heaven (g) Mark 14.22 blessed the same by the which (h) 1. Cor. 10.16 blessing and heavenly words he made them his body and blood as I said before and (i) Luke 22.29 gave or offered himself then for them that is for his And last of all gave the same body and blood to his Apostles to be eaten which we call to (k) 1. Cor 10.16 communicat And when he had done the same he commanded his Apostles and by them the lawful Pastors of the Church till the worlds end to do the same for the (l) Luke 22.19 remembrance of him And seeing that our Priests do the same as our Savior did how can M. John say that our Religion in this was not instituted by Christ Master John Welsch his Reply I come to another point of your doctrine concerning the sacrifice of the Mass which suppose ye call blessed yet is it most abominable idolatry as by the grace of God shal be made manifest And first concerning the word it self MASS you are of such variety of opinions among your selves concerning it that (a) As Doctor Bellarmin in his answer to Duplessis Mornay de Eucharist lib. 11. cap. 1. Genebrard in Liturg. S. Denis from the word MISSAH Deut. 16.10 that properly signifieth sufficiency but Bellarmin refutes this lib. 1. de Missa cap. 1. some of you saith it is taken from the Hebrew some (b) Bulinger ibidem from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifies a secret sanctificatioÌ„ from the which comes mystery from the Greek some (c) As Bellarmin ibidem and sundry others from mitto missio or dimissio from the Latin and (d) Some because the sacrifice and prayers is sent to God in the same as Hugo de S. Victor de sacram lib. 2. part 8. cap. ult some saith it is called the Mass for one cause and (e) Some because an angel as they say is sent unto the same as Lombard in 4. sent dist 13. Thomas part 3. quaest 83. And some because the people is dismissed and sent forth as Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa cap. 1. some for another I will only speak this of it that it is usually taken by the ancient Writers for the dismission or skailing as we call it of the Church after the publick service was done to God as Bellarmin grants in the first acception of this word Mass And therefore in the end of your Mass the Deacon crys Ite missa est that is Go your way the Congregation is dismissed But now the Papists takes not the word in this sense for the skailing of the Church or dismission of the people after the service of preaching prayer and so forth but for that abominable sacrifice of theirs wherein as they suppone they offer up Christ his very body and blood in a sacrifice for the quick and the dead as M. Gilbert doth here And for this cause they call this sacrifice the Mass that is first sent from the Father to us that Christ his body and blood might be with us next sent from us to the Father that he may interceed and may be for us with the Father as Durandus lib. 4. ration divin testifieth But how can he be sent from them to heaven seeing he descends in the mouth stomack and belly of the Priest for to be sent down to the belly of the Priest to be sent up to heaveÌ„ are things contrary So by this stile of the Mass as they take it it is plain that either Christ descends from heaven in the earth dayly in the Mass which some of them grants also Turrian 1 tract cap. 11 fol. 59. which is contrary to an article of our faith That he sits at the right hand of hâ—s Father whom the heavens must contain until the time that all things be restored Acts 3.21 or else their Mass-Priests dust and ashes are the creators of their Creator which is a blasphemy Thus much now for the name of the Mass which all Christians should abhor according to that of David That he would not take the name of false Gods in his mouth Psal 16 4. For that word which is proponed by men for an Article of our Faith which is not found in the Scripture neither in proper terms nor yet in substance and by necessary consequence out of the same should be rejected by the Church of God as a profane and a bastard word But the Mass is such For it is proponed by the Church of Rome as an Article of our Faith and yet it is neither found in proper termes nor in substance nor by any necessary consequence out of the Scripture Therefore it should be rejected as profane and idolatrous by the Church of God This for the name Now to the matter This is one of the greatest controversies betwixt you and us concerning your sacrifice of the Mass which as ye account it most heavenly so we account it most abominable as that which injures the Son of God which derogats from his death and passion which is injurious to his everlasting Priesthood which is idolatrous vain needless and fruitless which hinders and overthrows the true service of God all which shal be made plain of it by Gods grace The matter of our controversie therefore is Whither Jesus Christ God and man his body and blood be personally and corporally offered up in your sacrifice of the Mass as ye call it And whither this your sacrifice be a propiciatory sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead This your Church affirms and holds and this we deny Now let us see your reasons first and then we will set down what reasons we have for us out of the Word of God to the contrary As to yours First ye say it way prefigured by the Law of Moses Next prophesied of by the Prophets And thirdly done and instituted by Christ our Savior and commanded by him to be done to the end of the world As to the first This sacrifice was prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Testament for the which purpose ye quote Levit. 2. and 6.20 Unto the which I answer That the sacrifices of the Old Testament were figures and shadows of that great and bloody sacrifice of Christ Jesus ones offered up upon the cross never to be offered up again as the Apostle saith Heb. 9.25.26.27.28 and of our spiritual sacrifices and service to God whereof the Apostle speaks in these places here cited Rom. 12.1 Heb. 13.15.16 The which also were fulfilled in that one and only sacrifice of himself upon the cross for the sins of the world and are fulfilled in our spiritual sacrifices of our selves and of the calves of out lips continually But that these were figures of your abominable sacrifice in the Mass there is not a syllable in the whole Scripture to prove the same For that which was prefigured
here that he offered up his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine in the Supper in a propiciatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead Therefore he commanded not this sacrifice of your Mass to be done to the end of the world And whereas ye restrict this commandment Do this only to the Pastors ye have to understand that as there is something here which Christ did which is proper to them as to be the dispensers of these heavenly mysteries so there is some actions here which is common also with them to the people as to receive to eat to drink these Sacraments of his body and blood in his remembrance Seeing therefore this commandment Do this is to be referred to the whole actions of the Supper seeing there is some actions in the same which the other Christians should do also therefore this commandment Do this is not to be restricted to the office of the Pastors only which ye do but common with them to the actions of the people Now to your conclusion Seeing say ye your Priests do the same in this sacrifice which our Savior did how can I say that your Religion in this was not instituted by Christ If you do the same that he did indeed I will grant you it But ye do not the same which our Savior did Therefore your Religion in this is not instituted by Jesus Christ The which I prove First Christ took bread and wine in this Sacrament and gave it to be eaten and drunken and bread was eaten and wine was drunken by his Disciples But your Priest takes bread and wine and conjures the substance Of it away by your transubstantiation and only remains the forms of the bread and wine behind therefore you do not the thing which Christ did Secondly Christ took bread and brake it you take bread and hangs it up and keeps it in a box to carry to the sick and in processions Thirdly Christ took bread and gave it to his Apostles your Priests like gluttons in the sacrifice of your Mass eats it up every whit himself alone Fourthly Christ gave a Sacrament to strengthen mens faith but your Priests gives a sacrifice to redeem mens souls Fifthly Christ gave it to be eaten your Priests gives it to be worshipped Sixthly Christ gave bread your Priests say they give God Seventhly Christ gave the cup to his Disciples saying Drink ye all of this your Priest drinks all himself and takes away the cup from the people both in your sacrifice and Sacrament Eightly Christ instituted the Supper and commanded the Church to celebrat the same as he had instituted it but the Mass hath been clamped up by many sundry Popes one made the Confiteor another the Introit another the Kyrieeleison another the Gloria in excelsis and so forth of the rest as shal be proved afterward Ninthly Christ intending to celebrat his Supper changeth not his garment but the Priest going to say his Mass doth nought but clothe and unclothe and every garment carrying a great mystery The Priest saying Mass must have his head and beard shaven and upon his head a circle of hair which they call a crown imitating the Priests of the Gentils in this Baruch chap. 6. v. 30. and not Christ and his Apostles Tenthly Christ in the Supper used common bread but the Popish Priest must expresly use other manner of bread baken betwixt two irons which is properly Wafers Eleventhly Christ made his Supper upon a table the Popish Priest must have a consecrat Altar with some pieces of relicks put in the hole of it or else a marble stone in the borders whereof are little pieces of cloth which they call Corporales to say his Mass on Twefthly Christ in the celebrating of the Supper preached and taught his Apostles the Popish Priest mumbleth betwixt his teeth certain prayers he turneth to and from the Altar one while his back another while his face to the people now goeth he from one side of the Altar unto another now he singeth with an high voice now with a low voice now he lifts up his arms now he casteth them down Briefly he seemeth to be a man wholly mad not knowing what countenance for to use Thirteenthly Christ in the Supper spake in a vulgar tongue that all might understand the Popish Priest in their Masses speaks in a strange tongue which the most part of themselves understands not Fourteenthly Christ first brake the bread and then gave it to his Apostles the profane Priest first speaketh certain words over the bread in his Mass and then breaketh it or the accidents of it as they say at their pleasure Fifteenthly Christ after he had broken the bread saith This is my body the Popish Priest speaks the words without breaking of the bread and not content with the words of Christ he addeth this word enim unto them Therefore you cannot M. Gilbert but speak against the light of your own conscience when you say that your Priests doth the same in their Mass that Christ did in the Supper And here I appeal your conscience before the terrible and everliving God and before Jesus Christ that shal judge the quick and the dead whither ye do not speak in this against the light of your own conscience or not And whether your Priests in your Mass do the same which Christ did in the Supper or not Think you not that you must stand before the living God and give a reckoning of these things Repent in time and cease to deceive the souls of your Countrey-men any more But to conclud this What ado hath your Mass with the Supper of Christ What likeness is there between the one and the other In the Supper which Christ instituted in the Scripture we are remembred of his death and passion upon the cross whereby he appeased the wrath of God for our sins and of our duty towards him whereby we acknowledge in our consciences that we are obliged to die to sin seeing it behoved the eternal Son of God by his death upon the cross to redeem us from the same upon the which arises an earnest thanksgiving in the hearts and mouthes of every true Christian for so great a salvation purchased so wonderfully as by the death of the eternal Son of God In your sacrifice of the Mass is there any such thing Is there any remembrance of his death suffering there Is his death shown to the people in a known language that they may understand it Is there any acknowledging of any duty there for his death Is there any true thanksgiving there No none But in stead of these a heap of words in an unknown language and a diversity of apish gestures and Morish and Juglers tricks to feed the eyes of the poor people which neither the people nor yet many of your selves do understand In the Supper we are also admonished of our spiritual conjunction with our neighbor and of our duty towards him in that
the body and blood of Christ From time this was taught the people then what followed but all adoration and worship to be given to the Sacrament where Christ is really present Then how could it be but a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living seeing it was that self-same body and blood under the forms of bread and wine which was offered up upon the cross for the sins of the world The next was that of Purgatory for seeing say they that there is a fire of Purgatory after this life where through men must pass to heaven and seeing in these flames their sins must be purged therefore a remedy must be fore-seen and where is there a remedy to be found but in the sacrifice of the Mass where the Son of God is offered up that will relieve our souls after we are departed These will help the souls of our parents and friends that are there already Upon the which was founded the Masses and sacrifices for the dead and from thence came the most part of the donation of lands to the Churches to have Masses said for their souls So then to conclud the loss of the Communion in the Sacrament of the Supper Next the sanctification of the oblations of the people which at last was turned to that which the Priest consumed himself alone Thirdly the avarice of the Priests which bred their damnable doctrine that the Supper was not only a Sacrament but a sacrifice c. Fourthly the applying of the prayers conceived of the gifts of the people unto the round host and calice which the Priest consumed Fifthly the abusing of the word sacrifice which the Fathers and Church used Sixthly the publick and universal negligence and ignorance of Pastor and people Seventhly the confusion of languages And last of all their damnable doctrine of Transubstātiation and Purgatory These were the degrees by the which their abominable sacrifice hath been created nowrished entertained and perfected in that measure and strength that at the last it took such deep root in the hearts of all men almost that nothing could root it out except only the power of the Lords Spirit by the voice of his Word And yet this abuse was perceived by sundry whom the Lord stirred up as Arnold de Villanova anno 1200. and Albigenses and Waldenses in France who taught That the sacrifice of the Mass was a manifest abuse and that the Masses both for the living and the dead was directly contrary the institution of our Lord. And some of their own Doctors in their writings doth contradict this propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass as the Maister of Sentences distinct 12. lib. 4. de consecrat and Thomas of Aquin in summa part 3. quaest 83. 73. Lyranus in Epist ad Heb. cap. 10. affirming That Christ once died for our sins and that once oblation is sufficient for all our sins and that it cannot be reiterat and that the Sacrament is an ordinary memorial and representation of that only one sacrifice which was offered up upon the cross the which doctrine of theirs cannot stand with their dayly immolation and real oblations of the Son of God in their Mass And that nothing may be lacking to the manifesting of it we will show also the Authors and times of the entring in of the ceremonies of the same The mixing of water with the wine in the calice is ascribed to Pope Alexander the first de consecrat dist 2. Can. in Sacram. oblat anno 111. he also put to this clause to the Mass Qui pridie quam pateretur Secondly Sanct. sanct sanct Dom. Deus Sabaoth is put to by Pope Syricius the first anno 121. Thirdly Gloria in excelsis is put to by Pope Telesphore the first anno 139 Fourthly the singing of the Creed after the Gospel put to by Pope Mark the first and according to some by Pope Julius the first anno 335. Fifthly Pope Zepherin ordained that the wine should be put in glasses and Urban the first ordained that the vessels should be of gold or silver or at the least of tin anno 213. Sixthly Pope Felix the first ordained to celebrat Masses in the names of the Martyrs above their graves and relicks anno 267. Seventhly the offerture of the Mass is ascribed to Eutychian the first anno 270. Eightly the Kyrieeleison to Sylvester the first anno 314. Ninthly the celebration of Masses in linnen clothes to Eusebius and him also Tenthly the standing up at the reading of the Gospel to Anastasius the first anno 401. Eleventhly the blessing of the Pax. to Innocentius the first anno 405 dist 2. cap. Pacem Twelfthly the Antiphones the Introits and the Graduals to Celestin the first anno 427. Thirteenthly Orate pro me fratres Deo gratias sanctum sacrificium to Leo the first anno 444. Fourteenthly the nine-fold repetition of Kyrieeleyson and the singing of Hallelujah to Gregory the first anno 593. Fifteenthly the singing of Agnus Dei thrise to Sergius the first anno 688. Sixteenthly the incense and offerture restored by Leo the third anno 800. Seventeenthly their Transubstantiation invented by Lanfrancus an Italien anno 1036. decreed in the Council of Lateran in substance anno 1059. And made the 13. Article of Faith by Innocent the third anno 1215. Decret tit 1. de summa Trinit fide cap. Firmiter credimus I omit the rest as their Canon compiled by one named Scholasticus as Gregory witnesses lib. 2. 7. 9 and fundry other ceremonies So that between the first and last inventers and authors of their Mass it is more then a thousand years And thus much touching that abominable sacrifice of the Mass which is not the Lords ordinance but the invention of the Popes and Clergy of Rome Master Gilbert Brown I thought such like to have proved the ceremonies of this blessed sacrifice by the same holy Word but because it were something long some I have continued the same till another place SECTION XII Of the manifold abuses of the Mass Master John Welsch his Reply AS for your Ceremonies you did most wisely in rejecting the probation of them till another place and so to hold the Reader in the halfe as we speak because ye are never able to do it and it is good to delay to enterprise a thing that is impossible But how can you be so impudent as to write that you will prove the ceremonies of your Mass by the Scripture seeing the Mass it self hath not the warrant out of the same but contrary and repugnant to the same as hath been proved And I can scarcely think M. Gilbert that you have spoken this in earnest when you said you would prove the ceremonies of your Mass by the same holy Word which is the Scripture For what then will you say to the Council of Trent Sess 22. cap. 5. who referrs not the institution of them to the Lord Jesus in his written Word but to the Church by the unwritten traditions
their own doctrine they make the people to commit idolatry in worshipping of their breaden God About the year 1536. there was four Augustin Friers hanged in Sevil in Spain who had secretly by night murthered their Provincial The day following to avoid all suspicion of the murther they all four said Mass but they had no intention to consecrat as they themselves afterward confessed and so there was no Transubstantiation there by their own doctrine and therefore all these that heard their Mass that day by their own doctrine committed idolatry because there was no consecration there I will set down another example There was a certain Priest who being deposed for his filthy life wherein he had continued for the space of 30. years with a harlot being demanded by one if he had truly repented him of this his abominable life and if he had put away this his concubine from him with intent never to receive her again He never had said he any such purpose Being asked again how then said he Mass every day and made he no scruple to eat the bread of the Lord and drink of his holy cup his conscience accusing him of such an erroneous sin At the last he confessed that to avoid the unworthy receiving of the body and blood of the Lord he did not pronounce the sacramental words wherewith it is consecrat And being urged again how he durst commit so horrible a wickedness as to give so great an occasion of so horrible idolatry to the people who kneeling on their knees casting themselves on the earth lifting up their hands toward the altar striking their breasts did worship the unconsecrated bread and cup Unto whom he answered that it was not so great a fault as he said of it and that he was not alone but many mo did the same which thought it not so abominable an offence as he made of it These two Histories I find written by a Spanish Author one Cyprian Valera the title whereof is Of the Pope and his authority and of the Mass and the holiness thereof All these then that heard the Masses of these men and adored the Sacrament which they lifted up committed idolatry by their own Canons and Decrees For the last did not pronounce the words of consecration and the other four had not the intent to consecrat and therefore there was no transubstantiation there by their own doctrine and so they worshipped bread and wine as their great Redeemer and Creator But what a miserable Religion is this that depends upon the intention of another And therefore who can be certain by their own doctrine whither it be God they worship or not in their Sacrament And this made a certain Inquisitor an enemy to the truth fearing when he heard Mass whither the Priest had intention to consecrat or not to say O Lord if thou be there I adore thee and so by this subtilty he thought to escape committing of idolatry In the time of the Council of Constance there was three Popes that the Council for their abominations did depose and elected another These three not being Popes could not ordain Priests nor give them authority to consecrat so that by their own Canons all they that heard Masses of such Priests as had their authority from them committed idolatry This same may be said of them that heard the Masses of all these Priests that were ordained by Pope Constantin the first and the whore Pope John the 8. For neither of these had power to ordain Priests by their own Canons And as for Pope John there is no controversie of it because she was a woman not capable of that authority by their own Canons And as for Constantin the first he was a laick man who without receiving any orders was by force named Pope He not being a Priest himself could not give this authority to others And so by their own doctrine all these that heard the Masses of such Priests did commit horrible idolatry And howsoever the Pope and his Clergy affirms it to be God and not bread and wine which they adore yet ye shal see what estimation they have themselves of that breaden God of theirs by some examples Pope Gregory the seventh used it for conjuration and sought a response of it and because it would give him none he cast it in the fire and burnt it and so burnt his Creator They use it to revenge their wrongs hatred and malice by it and therefore Pope Victor the third in the year 1088. was poisoned in the calice by his Sub-deacon Such like the Archbishop of York poisoned in the calice Such like Henry the seventh poisoned by a Dominican Frier in the Sacrament They use it for an Harvenger sending it one or mo days journey before with the basest sort of the people The Dominican Friers of the town Auxerra in France in the year 1536. did burn it being vomit out by a Frier that said Mass And the Franciscans de alia Villa burnt the Cow which had eaten up the Sacrament out of the Priests hand and so in burning her did burn their Creator with her Molon one of the Spanish Inquisition 35 years since being to go into procession upon the day of Corpus Christi and the hoste that was to be put in the box being so great that it could not be placed in the same he being impatient to await while another hoste had been consecrat demanded a pair of shears and clipped his God and Creator and so went on forward to their procession Of the which we gather two things First that their Popes and Ecclesiastical rable is without all God and Religion that makes so light of their God as to clip it and burn it and use it as the instruments of their malice and revenge Secondly that this consecrat bread of theirs which they sell to the people to be worshipped and adored is most abominable Idolatry whereof one day they shal give a reckoning to God And thus much for the tenth abuse of their idolatrous Mass The eleventh abuse is that in your cōmunions First contrary the institution of Christ ye give not the bread to the hands of the people to take but puts it in theirs mouthes as though their mouthes were holier then their hands Next ye spoil the poor people of a sweet pledge of their salvation the Sacrament of the wine giving them only bread contrary first the express command of Jesus Christ Drink ye all of this Matth. 26.27 Mark 14.23 next contrary the doctrine of the Fathers August in lib. seu prosp your own Canon Law de consecrat dist 2. can Dumfrangitur hostia Cyprian serm 5 de lapsis and Pope Gelasius de consecrat dist 2. can Comperimus The second is that in your Mass suppose ye speak of a communion and communicants yet there is none at all for your Priest eats and drinks out all And therefore have ye added to the words of Christ eat all drink all contrary the express
of them are taken from the fashion of the Pagans For Numa Pompilius when he used to worship he covered himself with a kerchief or vail and he ordained that these idolatrous Priests should have their Albe and a painted colored coat above it Ovid. in Fastis Alex. ab Alex. As the Jewish Priest had a lawer whereat they must wash before they sacrificed Exod 30.20 so have yours as they lifted up a part of the hoste Exod 29.27 so you lift up the whole hoste as they sounded the trumpets at their sacrifices Num. 10.10 so you ring your bells And what shal I speak of the rest of your vain and superstitious ceremonies in washing often in crossing and blessing often in censing often in soft speech and whispering in kissing of the Amice kissing of the fannel kissing of the stole kissing of the altar kissing of the book kissing of the Priests hand and kissing of the Pax in smiting and knocking of the breast in gesturing by rule and measure in bowing and becking in spacing forward backward and turning round about and traversing of the ground his gesture so ridiculous so changeable so affectat in saying of his Mass that a man would think a player were coming forth upon the stage to play when the Priest adresseth himself to the Mass beside de musick of your Organs where it may be had and your three-fold salutation of the Priest Dominus vobiscum which can have no use in the privat Masses where the Priest is himself alone together with the Clark So that in truth it is more then Jewish For in ceremonies they are above their ceremonies in orders more exquisite in cautels more diligent so that it seems rather to be a stage-play then the worship of God But I see it is fulfilled in them which was fore-told that God would send them strong delusions that they might believe lies that all these might be damned which loved not the truth Let the Christian Reader judge now whither the Mass be an heavenly action or whither it be not a sink and closet of all abomination or idolatry or not As truth confirms it self so falshood destroys it self A Kingdom divided against it self as our Savior saith cannot stand Therefore their divisions and contradictions among themselves concerning this their sacrifice of the Mass is an evident token that that Kingdom cannot stand Some of you saith Christ descends dayly from the bosom of the Father to the altar and ascends from thence to heaven again Turrian 1. tract cap. 11. fol. 59. Other some say the contrary That he neither descends from heaven in the Mass nor ascends from thence to heaven Scarga art 11. fol. 335. 2. Bellarmin lib. 2. de Missa cap. 4. saith That the sacrifice of the Mass doth not satisfie for our sins or merit properly the forgiveness of them And yet in lib. 2. de Missa fol. 731. he saith That Christ offered in the last Supper a sacrifice for the sins of the Apostles and the sacrifice of the Mass saith he is one with that And their Priests say in the Mass That he offers it up for the redemption of souls In Canone Miss And the Council of Trent calls it A true propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead Sess 6. Can. 2. 3. And Gabriel Biel an exponer of the Mass saith That the Mass is one in substance with the sacrifice of the cross and that it proceeds the self-same effects to wit the appeasing of God his wrath Lect. 85. in explic Canon in 4. sâ—nt dist 12 qu. 2. If it then appease God his wrath and be offered for the redemption of souls then it must both merit properly and satisfie properly 3. Some of you affirms That the sacrifice of the cross is more excellent then the sacrifice of the Mass Bellar. lib. 1. de Missa fol. 626. and the vertue of the Mass depends upon it Vega de Missa thes 141. And yet some of you saith It is but one sacrifice with that of the cross the same sacrifice and the same Priest in both Vega thes 137. How then can the one be more excellent then the other 4. Bellarmin lib. 2. de Missa cap. 4 saith That the value of the sacrifice of the Mass is finit and therefore it is oft repeated But Caietan a Cardinal saith That the vertue quantity and effect of it is infinit as the suffering of Christ Tract 7. de celebrat Missae cap. 2. quaest 1. 5. Some of them saith That Christ is offered up in the Mass by the words of the Church when it is said Tua de tuis offerimus tibi Possevinus lib. contra Chytraeum Volanum Some when the words of the consecration are pronounced But Bellarmin agrees with neither he saith The sacrifice is offered up not so much by the words as by the putting of the sacrifice upon the altar Lib. 2. de Missa cap. 11. 6. Bellarmin saith in a part That if there be not a real and true slaughter of Christ in the Mass then the Mass is not a true and real sacrifice Lib. 1. de Missa cap 17 For saith he to a true and real sacrifice is required a true and real slaughter of the thing that is sacrificed for the essence saith he of the sacrifice stands in the slaughter Upon the which follows that either Christ is dayly truly crucified in the Mass by their Priests or else their Mass is not a true and real sacrifice And yet in another part he saith That the sacrifice of the Mass requires not a true slaughter of the sacrifice Ibidem cap. 25. 7. Gaspa Castlius saith That there are two diverse sacrifices in the Eucharist or Mass the one of the bread and wine the other of the body and blood of Christ Lib. 1. de sacr cap. 20. And yet Bellarmin and sundry others denyes it and saith There is but one Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 27. 8. Pope Innocent saith That the sacrifice of the Mass is offered up for original venial and mortal sins Tract de Missa And yet the Master of Sentences and Gerson saith That the Mass purgeth but venial sins Lib. 4. sent dist 12. cap. Posthaec in Floret lib. 4. And Thomas of Aquin agrees with neither of them for he saith The sacrifice of the cross was for our original sin but the sacrifice of the altar is for our ordinary sins Thomas de Aquaviva 9. M. Gilbert Brown saith That their Priests doth the same in the Mass which Christ did in the Supper But Bellarmin frankly grants That Christ did not offer up the bread by the same words that their Priests do now in the Mass Lib. 1. de Missa cap. 27. Therefore they do not the same thing that Christ did 10. M. Gilbert Brown saith That Christ did offer his body and blood to the Father after the consecration But Bellarmin saith ibidem That neither Christ nor his Apostles in the beginning did offer up any
the words themselves be understood of him without great absurdity Or can they be applyed to him without horrible blasphemy And may not every one see that they were conceived and made of the gifts and sacrifices of praise which the people did offer up to God in the Sacrament And they speak here in the plural number of many and the sacrifice of the Son of God is but one Next they are called gifts presents thy own gifts of thy own sacrifices of praises which caÌ„not be spoken of the real sacrifice of the Son of God which is a propitiatory sacrifice are not called gifts presents and sacrifices of praises of the people Thirdly they say Remember them who offers unto thee their gifts for themselves and theirs which cannot be understood of any but of the people that offered their offerings of their fruits unto the Lord. For you will not say that the people offers up the Son of God but only the Priest And what Christian heart can think that these prayers can be applyed to him without horrible blasphemy as to dust and ashes to interceed by prayer to God the Father for his beloved Son to pray him to accept in his favor to bless and sanctify his own beloved Son who is the fountain of all blessing and holiness and in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwels and to look upon him with a merciful and favorable countenance and to daign to vouchsafe to accept of him in whom and with whom he is well pleased who is his Fathers dayly delight and joy and to accept of him as he did of the sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchisedeck comparing that blessed sacrifice of himself with the sacrifices of the fruits of the earth and beasts of the field as theirs was without the which neither their sacrifices nor persons would ever have pleased God and to pray to God the Father to command the Angels in whom as Job saith he found no purity to carry his own eternal Son up to heaven in his presence as though he were not as able now to ascend from thence to heaven if he were there being glorified without the help of Angels as he did after his resurrection Now let any Christian heart judge whither these prayers can be conceived without blasphemy of the eternal Son of God or not And after the consecration they have this prayer in their Ganon By whom thou creates sanctifies quickens blesses and gives to us all these good things which can no ways be applyed unto the sacrifice of Christ unless they will have him a creature dayly made blessed and quickned in their Mass but unto the gifts and presents of the people which they offered up to God in the Sacrament And in the Liturgy which they ascribe to Clement the prayer is Pro dono oblato that is for the gift which is offered up that it would please God to receive it in his altar through the intercession of his Christ in a sweet smelling savor Clemens lib. 3. cap. 17. which no ways can be applyed unto the sacrifice of the Son of God For here they are manifestly distinguished the gift offered and the intercession of Christ for the which they desire God to accept of the gift offered So here is a most notorious corruption wherein they apply all the prayers which were first conceived and made of the gifts and presents of the people which they offered up to God in the Sacrament to the pretended sacrifice of the Son of God And from the offerings of the people which was many they pass to an oblation which was offered For a Sacrament of praise to a Sacrament which the Priest consumeth all himself from a Sacrament to confirm us of our salvation in Christ to a propiciatory sacrifice of the Son of God for the redemption of souls and from a commemoration of the death of Christ in the Sacrament to a real immolation and offering of him up again and that not for the living only but for the dead also By these degrees then hath this monstrous sacrifice been conceived formed received life and brought forth into the world Now many other things did concurr to the strengthening of her and the rooting of her in the hearts and consciences of men as first the word sacrifice which was frequently used by the Fathers of the pâ—imitivâ— Church taken from the Old Testament and the typical sacrifices there which they ascribed unto the Sacrament of the Supper calling it a sacrifice And that first because it was celebrated with thanksgiving which is called the sacrifice of praise Next because they sacrificed themselves in a holy lively and acceptabâ—e sacrifice to God in the same Rom. 12.1.2 3. Heb. 13 15.16 Thirdly because of their offering and alms which they â—ffered in the Sacrament which are called sacrifices wherewith God is pleased And last of all because it was a commemoration of that once offered up sacrifice of the Son of God the vertue whereof is eternal and sufficient The next was the universal ignorance both of Pastors and people through the barbarous Nations of the Goths Huns and Vandals which spoiled and wasted the Empire of the West more then an hundred years full whereby all learning almost was buried and the lights and torches of the Church being extinguished their successors being born and brought up under that barbarity in that common and publick ignorance they were so far from chasing away that darkness that they rather increased the same being given altogether to seculare and worldly affairs as the laws of Charles the Great do testifie commanding them that they should abstain from seculare affairs from the Court from warrs from salconry from lechery from games Thirdly the corruption of languages which entred in with these barbarous Nations at that same time through the mixture of people of sundry languages Whereby first the language became barbarous next not universally understood And certainly were not this Satan could not have prevailed so much in causing this poyson of this monstrous sacrifice to be so universally drunken out by the people For if they had understood the language these words which they dayly heard in their service Sursum corda lift up your hearts And show forth the death of the Son of man and confess his resurrection till his coming These words might easily have kept them in this knowledge that Christ was above and they should not seek him bodily in the Sacrament because he was not there really present but was to come and that the Sacrament was not a real offering of the Son of God again but a showing forth of his death until his second coming But two doctrines especially which by process of time also entred in the Church of God brought this pretended sacrifice of their Mass to her full perfection and strength the one was the doctrine of Transubstantiation that the bread and wine in the Sacrament by the words spoken or rather muttered by the Priest was changed in