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
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
our Ministers in Scotland except they be put to death by the Pope they bear not the testimony of Christ For these are M. Johns own words And S. John saith That the beast shal slay the two Witnesses Rev. 11.7.8 Now by M. John the beast is the Pope and the Witnesses is the Ministers therefore the Pope must slay the Ministers and after that their bodies must ly three dayes and an half not in Scotland but in Jerusalem for there was the Lord of these two Witnesses slain Rev 11.19.11.12 And after they must revive and ascend up to heaven in a cloud in the sight of their enemies and so forth Which things I trust shal come to pass to none of them in our dayes nor long after the Laird of Merchistons doomsday in his 14. Prop. Master John Welsch his Reply As for the first thing which you infer here concerning the invisibility of the Church because you have the same argument afterward I refer the answer of it to that place As for the second thing which ye infer that except the Ministers of Scotland be put to death by the Pope they bear not the testimony of Christ I answer As it is true that it is prophesied of the Antichrist that he shal slay the two Witnesses of God Rev. 11.7 and that he shal make war with the Saints and overcome them Rev. 11.12.13.15.17 so is it likewise prophesied that his cruelty shal not always continue but at the last The Lord shal take his Kingdom in his own hand and the Gospel shal be preached to them that dwel upon the earth and Babel that great city shal fall Rev. 13.6.8.9 and 18.21 So that the blood which your Church hath spilt of the Saints of God already in all the parts of Europe these three hundred years by past and that in such abundance that suppose the Lord may number them yet no man is able to number them And the patience and suffering of our brethren is a sufficient evidence that both your Popes are the Antichrist and they are the Ministers of Christ suppose they slay no mo of them And although the Lord hath shortened your power yet ye want no good will to spill the blood of the rest That ransacking of Germany that cruel persecution of Queen Mary and bloody Inquisition of Spain in the Low Countreys and that most savage and cruel massacre of Paris and that Spanish Navy which the Lord discomfited with his own mighty and outstretched arm in the 1588. year of God doth sufficiently testifie what heart ye bear to the Ministers of Scotland if your power were according to your malice But fulfill ye the measure of your fathers that the blood of all the righteous may come upon you As for the Prophesie of the ignominious handling of the bodies of these Witnesses after their slaughter it is also fulfilled by your Popes and their authority upon the carcasses of the Saints of God which in all parts almost where ever their blood was shed was most ignominiously handled as though they had been not the bodies of men but the dead carions of dogs and swine Let both Histories and some who yet live bear witness of this As for the time and place and their reviving and ascending up to heaven it is to be understood after the manner of prophesies mystically and figuratively as I have proved before The time of three days and an half signifying all the time of your tyrannous cruelty The place of their ignominy is the streets of that great City which is here called Sodom and Egypt and the place where our Lord was crucified not literally but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 spiritually as the text saith Rev. 17.9 18. And also called Babylon in the 14. and 17. and 18. of the Revelation which is literally that seven hilled City which hath dominion over the Kings of the earth Rev. 11.8 and 17 5. which as Bellarmin lib. de Rom Pont. cap. 2. confesses is Rome properly So as this great City is neither Sodom nor Egypt nor Babylon suppose it be called so literally but only mystically and spiritually as the Scripture saith and your self will not deny for the likeness between them Sodom for her filthiness and uncleanness Egypt and Babylon for her tyranny and cruelty over the Saints of God wherein she resembles them So is she not literally the place where Christ was crucified but only mystically and spiritually for the likeness between them that as by the authority of the Emperor of Rome his Deputy Pilat our Lord was crucified for the false challenge of treason against the Emperor which was falsly and wickedly laid to his charge and therefore is said here by the holy Ghost to be crucified at Rome that is by the authority of the Rulers at Rome So by the authority of the Popes who now reign and have reigned these many years at Rome Christ is crucified again in his members because they will not receive his mark and worship him And as Jerusalem boasted her self to be a holy City and the spouse of Christ and yet was an harlot a murderer and a persecuter of the Saints so Rome doth boast her self to be an holy City and the spouse of Christ and the Head of all and yet is now and is long since become an harlot and a murderer and a persecuter of the Saints And if ye will ask When did the bodies of the Saints ly in the streets of Rome I answer As by the gates in the city in the fourth command Exod 20. is not meant the gates of the City properly but the authority and jurisdiction of the City so by the streets of Rome is not only meant the gates within the walls of Rome but all the places and parts whither his power dominion hath spread its self So that all the places where the Popes of Rome have exercised their tyranny over the Saints are called here the streets of that great City All these therefore who have been cruelly murdered by the Popes authority in England Scotland France the Low Countreys c. and whose bodies have been cast out and whose bodies have been ignominiously handled they have lyen in the streets of that great City And as all the rest of this Prophesie is to be understood spiritually so is this reviving and ascending of these Witnesses to heaven in the sight of their enemies to be understood not literally but spiritually So this is not the meaning of the holy Ghost that these Witnesses whom the Antichrist shal slay shal be raised up again in their own persons which yet shal be at the last day in the general resurrection but that the Lord shal raise up other Witnesses indued with that same Spirit which they were indued with preaching the same truth and maintaining the same cause against Antichrist as that Prophesie in the 3. of Malachie of the sending of Elias before the coming of Christ was fulfilled as our Savior testifies Matth. 11.10.14 not in the
some of them might come out Oppede made them to be beaten back to the fire with picks and halberts some of them that came forth he slew with his own hands ripping open their bellies so that their children came forth whom he trod with his feet It is too tedious to tell the hellish and unparalleled cruelties that he used upon that people See Sleydans Commentaries and M. Clerks Martyrology pag. 133. Another instance of their inhumane cruelty was in Italy anno 1560. in Calabria where 88. Protestants being shut up in a prison the executioner cometh in taketh out one and blind-foldeth him and so leads him forth to a large place adjoyning where commanding him to kneel down he cuts his throat and leaving him half dead he takes his butchers knife all bloody and goeth back to the rest so leading one after another he dispatched them all This was such a sad spectacle that he that writes of it could not repeat it without tears See Clerks Matyr pag. 238. The next instance of their inhumane and bloody câ—uelty shal be the Massacre of Paris anno 1572. where when the Papists could not get the Protestants subdued by warr they conclud a peace And for security of it the King gives his own sister to the King of Navarre and all the Protestants are invited to the marriage But in the mean time the Queen of Navarre is poysoned and dies and upon Bartholomews day anno 1672. the gates were shut under pretence of searching for one that shot the Admiral but really to keep all the Protestants within the Citie and they came in first and killed the Admiral and threw his dead body into the streets and sent his head as a present to the Pope And then to work they went and slew that night and the two dayes following to the number of ten thousand in Paris In this massacre their cruelty was so great that they spared not young children in the cradle nor infants in their mothers wombs so that the streets were covered with mangled bodies gates and doors filled with blood shoutings and howlings of the murderers mixed with the cryes and groans of the dying the breaking open of doors and windows with the noise of guns and pistols all which made an hellish noise multitudes of dead bodies were thrown into the river which was dyed red with their blood presently after the King sending letters to Meaux Troys Orleans Angiers Roan Tholouse Bourdeaux and other places where they murdered all the Protestants most barbarously and inhumanely and cast out their dead bodies naked without the honor of burial or threw them in the water so that the rivers were dyed with their blood The number that were massacred in France in a few weeks amounted to thirty thousand and above Whosoever desires to hear a more full Relation of the mischievous and horrid cruelty used in this Massacre let them read Fox his Acts and Monuments Vol. III. and Clerks Martyrology p. 310. c. The next instance I shal give shal be of their persecution in the Valtoline anno 1620. where setting upon the people as they were at Sermon not dreading any such thing they murdered them all not regarding sex nor age After which they marched to Sanders where the Papists in that place hearing of their coming went to the Justice protesting that they should guard him from danger and that they would not permit such villanies to be committed among them then did they arm themselves under pretence of defending and securing the Protestants who trusting to their promises mixed themselves among them to stand to their own defence But they treacherously betrayed them and joyned with the other Papists in murdering them all whereever they met with them Their cruelty was monstrous for they put a gag in the mouth of some and then filled their mouth with powder and put fire to it which tore their head miserably Some had their mouthes slit up to their ears others had the flesh cut from their faces others were slashed in other parts of their body till they died and others were often put to the strapado and then hewen in pieces The next instance is more recent and fresh in memory in the late warrs in Germany since anno 1630. where the Sweds possessed of a town called Pasewalk the Imperialists took it by storm beat killed and drave out the Sweds and not content therewith they fell to torturing of the Towns men ravishing women and girles in the open streets and Church-yard yea women in child bed where they killed the men fired their houses and burnt many in them Thurst straw into cellars where children were hidden and so burnt and smothered them Then they burnt the Churches and massacred the Ministers and at last burnt down the whole Town The like cruelty was used against the city of Magdeburg famous for Religion which being taken by Tilly anno 1631. was in twelve hours space wholly turned into ashes except 139 houses No mercy was shown to any age sex or condition about twenty thousand persons were slain burnt and smothered to death six thousand were drowned in the river Ladies and Gentle-women like beasts were yoked together and led about the Countrey and driven into woods to be ravished and such as resisted were stript stark naked whipt had their ears cropt and so were turned off The Popish army having taken the town of Hoxter anno 1634. they spared neither man woman nor child most inhumanely butchering and hewing in pieces all without respect of age sex or condition and what the sword could not spoil they caused the fire to consume and the dead corps they cast into the river Weser Their rage was so great against the professors of the Gospel that neither Turks nor Heathens did ever exceed them In Saxony Tillies souldiers tortured the Protestants by half strangling them and pressing their thumbs with wheels In Pomeran they forced the people to eat their own excrements and if they refused they thrust them down their throat whereby some of them were choked They tyed about the heads of some strong matches or cords and with short truncheons twisted them while blood came out of their eyes ears and noses yea sometimes till their eyes started out of their heads to others they tyed burning matches between their fingers yea to their eyes ears noses tongues cheeks breasts leggs and secret parts yea such parts as nature hideth they either stuffed with gun-powder or hung bags of powder to them and so giving fire to it in an horrible manner they burst their bellies and killed them with bodkins they made holes or with knives they cut the skin and flesh of many They drew strings and cords through the fleshie parts of some and through the muscles of their thighs leggs arms c. or through their noses ears lips c. Some they hung up in the smoke drying them with smal fires and sometimes refreshing them with smal drink or water taking care lest in their torments
say and would ye have the salvation of mens souls to lean to this point of doctrine that they caÌ„not err which is the rock foundation of your Church which above all others have erred most grievously O malicious and cruel man that would deceive the poor flock of Jesus Christ for whom he shed his blood with such heresie and abomination Then this prerogative is not granted to your Popes the head and foundation of your Church And surely if the foundation may be turned up-side-down and the head may become sensless and dead I see not how the house can stand and the body can be whole and one of your greatest Papists Bâ—llarmin plainly confesseth lib. 4 de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. that if the Pope err of necessity tota Ecclesia errabit that is the whole Church shal err Upon the which I reason If the Pope may err and hath erred then the whole Church may err and hath erred so Bellarmin one of the learnedest Papists that ever was writ But the first hath been proved by your own Doctors Cardinals Popes Councils Canon Law Ergo by your own doctrine the whole Church may err Here we might stay now and go no further for this sufficiently overthrows this point of your doctrine that the Church caÌ„not err that by the confession of the learnedest of your side But yet I will pursue the rest If you say it is granted to the body then it is either graÌ„ted to the people or to the Clergy To the people I suppose ye will not for if your Popes may err much more may your people err And if the Apostles other famous Churches may err much more may your people err yea if not it should follow that your people were above their head the Pope which I suppose ye wil not say If ye say the Clergy then either it must be your Doctors severally by themselves or as they are gathered together in a Council But as they are several ye will not say For your Bellarmin controversies would convince you to the face for almost there are few controversies which he handles and he handles more then 300 but he brings in some of your own Writers dissenting from him and whom in many places he confutes And I think if Popes have not this priviledge surely the Doctors of your Church severally have not this priviledge But because as Bellarmin confesseth Lib. 2. de author Concil c. 11. If a general Council err then the whole Church may err for it represents the whole Church And therefore he brings this in as a reason to prove That general Councils cannot err because the whole Church cannot err For saith he the general Council represents the whole Church therefore it cannot err Let us examine this for if it be found that general Councils may err surely your cause is gone First then what will ye say to thirteen general Councils whereof seven is utterly rejected the other six are in part allowed and in part rejected which all have erred as Bellarmin de Concilijs lib. 1. cap. 6. 7. confesseth But it may be you answer that these were not approved by the Popes of Rome and therefore they might err and have erred but these Councils that are altogether allowed of him cannot err nor have not erred Indeed it is true that this is your doctrine That neither general nor provincial Councils can err that is allowed by the Pope Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 2. 5. and that general Councils lawfully conveaned may err unless they follow the instructions of the Pope And therefore Bellarmin saith cap. 11. that they may err three manner of wayes 1. If in defining of any thing the Fathers of the Council dissent from the Popes Legats 2. If it be against the Popes instruction suppose both the Fathers and the Legats of the Council agree together 3. They may err before they have received the Popes confirmation and judgement suppose all both Fathers and Legats consent together because saith he the Popes judgement is the last from the which no man may appeal and he may approve and disprove the General Council notwithstanding of their consent with his own Legats And therefore he saith in another place Lib. 4. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 3. That the whole strength or certainty of lawful Councils depends only of the Pope So then this is your last refuge All depends on his instruction and confirmation he hath a priviledge that he cannot err and the General Councils receives the same through his approbation and confirmation But I answer The Pope can give no greater prerogative to others then he hath himself But as hath been proved before the Popes may err and have been hereticks therefore they cannot give this prerogative to others And if ye will say as some of you do that the Pope suppose he may err privatly as he is a privat man and as a privat teacher yet he cannot err as he is Pope in his office judicially Whereunto I answer first That some of your own Church as Gerson and Almane de potestate Ecclesiae Alphonsus de Castro lib. 1. cap. 2. contra haeres Canus loci Theolog. lib. 6. cap. 1. and Pope Adrian the sixth all these teaches That the Popes may err and teach heresie as they are Popes Either therefore the Popes may err as they are Popes judicially and teach heresie or else not only these Doctors of your own Church but also the Pope himself hath erred and that in a point of doctrine and so however it be the Popes as they are Popes judicially may err in points of doctrine Secondly I say besides nine Popes which have been hereticks and that when they were Popes sundrie of them have made decrees not only contrary to Gods Word but also contrary one to another and that in matters of doctrine As for example Pope Celestin the third made a decree cap. laudabilem de conversione infidelium that when of married persons the one falls in heresie the marriage is dissolved and the Catholick partie is free to marry again contrary to the truth of God Matth. 6. and 19.9 and also contrary to the decreet of Pope Innocentius the third lib 4. decretal cap. Quanto Thirdly either your Canon Law errs or else Clements decrees that all things should be common and that wives also should be common causa 12 quaest 1. Dilectissimis Gelasius Pope affirms de consecrat cap. Comperimus That the mistery of the body and blood in the Sacrament cannot be divided and that the Sacrament cannot be taken in one kind only without great sacriledge and yet the Council of Trent hath decreed the contrary and the whole Romane Church practises the contrary Pope Martin decreed dist 50. cap. Qui semel that the Priests who are deposed for any fault may never be admitted to any degree of the Priesthood again Pope Syricus distinct 82. cap. Quia and Pope Calixtus distinct 82. cap. Presbyter have decreed the contrary Pope Gregory the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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