Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	body_n	natural_a	spiritual_a	4,171	5	6.7902	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65422	Popery anatomized, or, A learned, pious, and elaborat treatise wherein many of the greatest and weightiest points of controversie, between us and papists, are handled, and the truth of our doctrine clearly proved : and the falshood of their religion and doctrine anatomized, and laid open, and most evidently convicted and confuted by Scripture, fathers, and also by some of their own popes, doctors, cardinals, and of their own writers : in answer to M. Gilbert Brown, priest / by that learned, singularly pious, and eminently faithful servant of Jesus Christ M. John Welsch ...; Reply against Mr. Gilbert Browne, priest	Welch, John, 1568?-1622.; Craford, Matthew. Brief discovery of the bloody, rebellious and treasonable principles and practises of papists.	1672 (1672)	Wing W1312; ESTC R38526	397,536	586

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

Antichrist is called an adversary that is opposed and contrary to God and that not in life only but in doctrine Religion and government and that not in one point only but almost in all the substantial points thereof The which mark the Popes of Rome bear and that not only in their lives but also in the whole substantial points of Religion And to make this clear besides that which hath been spoken we shal compare the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the government of his Kingdom set down in the Scripture with the doctrine of the Popes and the manner of their government that the contrariety of them may be known so that it shal be seen that cold is no more contrary to heat and black to white then Papism to Christianity and the Religion of the Church of Rome to the Religion of Christ Jesus The doctrine of Christ stands especially in these two things in the knowledge of his person and in the knowledge of his offices And therefore the Apostle saith I desire to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified 1. Cor. 2.2 And Christ himself saith It is life eternal to know thee to be the only true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ John 17 3. The doctrine of the Popes of Rome overthrows both And first to prove this concerning his person the Scripture testifies that Jesus Christ is conceived of the substance of the Virgin Mary and that he hath but one true body made of the seed of David and of the seed of the woman Rom. 1.3 Gal. 4. 4 and not many and that he is like unto us in all things except sin Heb. 2.17 The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that Christ Jesus his body is made of the bread and wine in the Sacrament their doctrine makes him to have as many bodies as there is bits of bread in the Sacrament and not to be like his brethren in all things except sin Bellar. lib. 3. de Eucharistia fol. 399. Pope John 22. lib. orat in scr antidotarius animae for his brethren can be but in one place at once with their own due proportion visibly But their doctrine of Transubstantiation makes him to be both in heaven and earth at once in heaven visibly in earth invisibly in heaven with his own quantity and proportion in earth without his natural proportion and not in one place of the earth only but in innumerable places thereof at once so that this main foundation of mans salvation without the which there is no eternal life concerning the truth of Christs manhood made of the woman is utterly defaced and overthrown by the doctrine of the Popes of Rome in making him to have infinit bodies not made of the feed of the woman but of bread and wine or at the least made of two diverse substances And as they overthrow the doctrine of his person so they overthrow the doctrine of his offices His offices are three a Prophet a Priest and a King which are all overthrown by them As he is a Prophet he hath revealed his Fathers whole will unto his servants John 1.18 and hath left it in register in his latter Testament and hath forbidden to add empair or to alter the same Deut. 4.2 and hath pronounced a wo a curse unto them that adds empairs or alters the same Rev. 22.18 Gal. 1.8 and that because it is sufficient to make a man wise unto salvation and to make the man of God perfect unto every good work 2. Tim. 3.15.16 and because it is pure and perfect and easie to all them that will understand it Prov. 8.9 Psal 19.8.9 13. 119. But they have many wayes corrupted this Testament of Christ by mingling and adulterating the same First in that they give divine authority to the Books called Apocrypha which are humain Concil Trident. Sess 4. Next in receiving and commanding others to receive traditions with equal reverence and affection with the Scripture Thirdly in their corrupt Latin translation which they have made authentical which some of themselves confess have missed sometimes the meaning of the holy Ghost Bud. annot prior in Pandect Andrad lib. 4. Arias Montanus Tom. 8. Bibl. Reg. in praefat Fourthly in joyning with the Commandments of God their own commandments and that not as things indifferent but as necessary to salvation Concil Trident. Sess 6 cap. 10. Fifthly in condemning all sense and meaning of the holy Scripture but that which they hold themselves Sess 4. Last of all in quarrelling the Scripture of imperfection obscurity and ambiguity calling it dead and dumb like a nose of wax They therefore who have altered added and corrupted the Testament of Jesus Christ confirmed by his death which he hath left in writ for to instruct his Church in all things and to make her wise to salvation and perfect to every good work doth spoil the Lord Jesus of his Prophetical office But the doctrine of the Church of Rome hath done so Ergo they spoyl Jesus Christ of his Prophetical office Thirdly they are no less sacrilegious and injurious to his Priesthood His Priesthood stands in two things First in purchasing unto us by the vertue of that one sacrifice once offered up upon the Cross an everlasting redemption Next in making continual intercession for us with his Father Heb. 9.11.12 15.24.25.26.27.28 the which both are overthrown by the doctrine of the Church of Rome As to the first it is overthrown many wayes as first our Savior saith That his soul was sorrowful unto the death and that he swat drops of blood Matth. 26.37.38 and he sent up strong cryes and supplications with tears in the dayes of his flesh Heb. 5.7 Luke 22.44 and therefore he thrise upon his knees prays That if it had been possible that cup might be removed from him Matth. 27.39 And upon the Cross through the sense and feeling of that wrath he breaks forth in that complaint My God my God why hast thou forsaken me All which do testifie that he suffered more then a common death to wit the terrors of the wrath of God which was due to the sins of all the elect But the doctrine of the Church of Rome ranverseth this doctrine of our salvation and teacheth that Christ suffered not the wrath of God upon his soul which if it be true then Christ hath not payed our debt sufficiently for our debt was not only the natural death of the body but the wrath of God upon the soul and therefore the Scripture saith The soul that sinneth shal die the death Ezech. 18.20 Secondly the Scripture testifieth that Christs death and blood is a sufficient ransom for our sins and a sufficient satisfaction unto the justice of God Heb. 10.10.14 John 19.28 1. Tim. 2.6 1. Pet. 2.24 1. John 1.7 They by the contrary joyn to his satisfaction the satisfactions of men both in this life and in the life to come in Purgatory and that not only for their own sins but for

I delivered it to his Majesty but he was in a passion and it seems it hath fallen by for I have not gotten an answer Nay my Lord said M. Welsch you should not lie to God and to me I know you delivered it not I am sory My Lord for your lot I warned you not to be false to God and now I tell you God shal take your estat and honors in Scotland and shal give them to your neighbor and this in your own time This troubled the Lord Ochiltrie and came truly to pass for he being the eldest son of the good Lord Ochiltrie a Reformer was forced in his own time to quite all and give both estat and honors to James the son of Captain James the second brother who was the last of that house VI. While he was Minister at Air the plague was sore in the Countrey but no infection was in the Town but it came to pass that two men coming with packs of cloth to the Town from a neighboring place where there was yet no suspicion thereof The sentry on the Bridge held them out notwithstanding they had a pass while the Magistrat came who though he could not disprove their pass yet would not permit them to enter the Town till he sent for M. Welsch So the Bailly bids them disburden their beasts till he considered what was to be done A little after M. Welsch coming the Bailly saith to him Sir here are men come from such a place we have heard of no plague there besides they have a pass from known men What shal we do M. Welsch made no answer but uncovering his head stood in the midst of the company that followed him and having his eyes directed to heaven yet speaking nothing near half a quarter of an hour at last said Bailly cause these men put on their packs again and be gone for if GOD be in heaven the plague of GOD is in these packs These men returned and opened their packs at Cumnock and it was observed that such contagion was therein that all the people of that Village died there was not a man left to bury the dead VII While he was in prison John Stewart an eminent Christian wo lived at Air being come to visit him found him in a more then ordinary way troubled and sad and upon his enquiry thereanent he saith John ye should not be here go home to Air for the plague of GOD is broken up in that place and cause Hew Kennedy Provest of that Town who was also a very singular Christian convean the people to the streets and pray together and the Lord shal hear Hew Kennedy and remove the stroke This at first did something astonish the said John and put him to question its truth having so lately come out of that place but at his return found it so and accordingly in every thing it fell out as the man of GOD had shewed These instances are recorded in the fulfilling of the Scriptures to which I add one no less true then the rest it is this VIII While M. VVelsch was Minister at Air there was much profanation of the LORDS Day committed by reason of great confluence of people at a Gentle-mans house about eight miles distance from Air to the foot-ball and other games and pastimes whereupon M. VVelsch did several times write to the Gentle-man desiring him to suppress the profanation of the LORDS Day at his house but he not loving to be called a Puritan slighted it wherefore M. VVelsch came on a day to his gate and called for the Gentle-man who coming to him he told him that he had a message from GOD to him to show him that because he slighted the advise given him from the LORD and would not restrain the profanation of the LORDS Day committed in his bounds therefore the LORD would cast him out of his house and estat and none of his posterity should ever enjoy it Which came to pass for although the Gentle-man was in a very good external condition at that time yet from that day forward all things crossed him while at length he was necessitat to sell his estat and while he was giving the buyer possession thereof he told before his wife and children with tears that he had found M. VVelsch a true Prophet This was related by the Gentle-mans own son a godly and reverent Minister who was present when his father told it with tears He longed much to be in heaven and to be rid of a body of death as witnesseth among others these expressions in that fore-cited letter My desire to remain here is not great knowing that so long as I am in this house of clay I am absent from the LORD and if it were dissolved I look for a building not made with hands eternal in the heavens In this I groan desiring to be clothed upon with my house which is in heaven If so be that being clothed I shal not be found naked For I that am within this tabernacle do oft times groan and sigh within my self being oft times burdened not that I would be unclothed but clothed upon that mortality might be swallowed up of life I long to eat the fruit of that tree which is planted in the midst of the Paradise of GOD and to drink of the pure river clear as crystal that runs through the streets of that new Jerusalem I know that my Redeemer liveth and that he shal stand at the last day on the earth and that after my skin worms destroy my body yet in my flesh shal I see GOD whom I shal see for my self and not another for me And mine eyes shal behold him though my reins be consumed within me I long to be refreshed with the souls of them that are under the altar who were slain for the Word of GOD and the testimony they held And to have these long white robes given me that I may walk in white with these glorious Saints who have washed their garments and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Why should I think it a strange thing to be removed from this place to that wherein is my hope my joy my crown my eldest brother my Head my Father my Comforter and all the glorified Saints and where the song of Moses and the Lamb is sung joyfully Where we shal not be compelled to sit by the rivers of Babylon nor to hing up our harps on willow trees but shal take them and sing the new Halelujah Blessing honor glory and power to him that sitteth upon the throne and to the Lamb for ever What is under this old vault of the heavens and in this old worn earth which is under the bondage of corruption groaning and travelling in pain and as it were still shooting out the head looking waiting and longing for the redemption of the sons of GOD VVhat is there I say that should make me remain here I expect that new heaven and that new earth where righteousness

you and your common Clergy who is so bold and strong in maintaining this monstrous Transubstantiation of yours against the truth of God were fed with no better substance then accidents then I say you would have fainted long since in the defence of it Seeing therefore your interpretation makes the Supper to be no Sacrament and makes it unlike all other Sacraments therefore it must be false and erroneous As to the fourth that it is against the whole institution and use thereof I prove it thus First I will ask you what was it which Christ took in his hand If you say his flesh then the text will say the contrary And Jesus took bread in all the three Evangelists and the Apostle Paul So it was bread which he took after he did take it he blessed it What did he bless but the bread which he had taken so it is yet bread After he blessed it he brake it What did he break If you say it was his flesh or body then the Scripture will say the contrary There was not a bone of him broken Exod. 12. John 19. And the Apostle saith It is bread which we break 1. Cor. 10. So it is bread which is broken Then yet it is bread After he brake it he gave it What gave he but the thing which he brake And what brake he but bread 1. Cor. 10.17 and 11.26 27.28 So it is bread which he gave After he had given it they received it and did eat it But what did they eat but that which he gave And therefore the Apostle saith four times It is bread which is eaten and whereof we are partakers and that after the consecration For it is broken given and received and eaten after the consecration And when they did eat it he said This is my body What did he call his body but that which they did eat and that was bread So when then should this change be seeing it is bread all the time while he took it blessed it and gave it and they did eat For I suppose ye will not say it is changed after it is broken and given and in eating Secondly I will ask you what are the words whereby this monstrous change is made as ye suppose of the substance of the bread in Christs body If this change be made by any word spoken in the institution of this Sacrament then I say it must either be by this word And he blessed it or by these words This is my body c. But not by the first for after he blessed it he called it bread And the Apostle saith it is bread which we break therefore it remains bread after the blessing Not by the other words for if they be not spoken to the bread and wine they cannot change their nature But Mark saith plainly they were spoken to the Disciples And he said unto them This is my blood Mark 14.24 Therefore they changed not their nature And Durand a Papist saith in his Rationals That this change is made by the blessing Therefore not by these words which were pronounced after the blessing And these words cannot work a change For they are not words importing an operation as these are Let light be Let the earth bring forth fruit Gen. 1. Come out Lazarus John 12. and such like but only signifying the things themselves as these are Thou art my well-beloved Son So if these words should have wrought any change they would not have been This is my body c. but let this be my body Therefore there is no such change at all here as ye imagine Thirdly it should follow that the cup should also be changed in his blood and in the New Testament because Christ calls the cup his blood and New Testament as he calls the bread his body But this you will not say Wherefore then are you so absurd as to say the other Fourthly I will ask you whither do ye receive in the Sacrament that body which is mortal or that body which is glorified For one of them you must receive either Christs body as it was mortal or his body as it is now glorified If ye say a mortal body then I say Christ hath not a mortal body to give you now in the Sacrament for it is glorified therefore ye cannot receive it If ye say an immortal and glorified body then I say ye must seek another warrant then this text of Matthew Mark and Luke For at that time his body was not glorified For the Sacrament was instituted before his death and he was not glorified until after his resurrection And if ye receive that same body which the Apostles then received then ye receive not a glorified body What a body is this then which ye receive neither mortal nor glorified Fifthly the text saith they who receives unworthily receives their own damnation But if Christs flesh and blood were there present as ye say then all who received it should receive their salvation because our Savior saith He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood hath life everlasting John 6 54. Now I conclud seeing your interpretation of these places of Scripture and your doctrine of Transubstantiation which ye gather thereupon first is plainly gain-said by the express testimonies of the Scripture next overthrows all the main foundations of our salvation and articles of our Faith thirdly destroys the nature of a Sacrament and maketh it no Sacrament at all and like no other Sacrament either of the Old or New Testament and last of all is contrary to the whole institution thereof as I hope I have sufficiently proved therefore of necessity it must be false and erroneous As for the 10 of the 1. Cor 16. The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion and the bread which we break is it not c. I answer This Sacrament of bread and wine because it not only represents and seals up to us our communion with Christ but also by it as by a most effectual instrument the holy Ghost increases and nowrishes this communion both with him and among our selves therefore it is called the communion of his body and blood But this most clearly proves that there is no such change here as ye suppose for the Apostle saith plainly The bread which we break and this breaking you say is after the consecration therefore after the consecration true bread remains in the Sacrament and so there is no transubstantiation in the same But because you say the substance of the bread and wine is not there I pray you tell me whither are they gone Whither are they turned to nothing or are they changed in Christs body If you say they are turned to nothing First I say this were a strange kind of reasoning This is my body therefore the substance of the bread is turned to nothing Next the Apostle should not speak truly to call it bread which is broken and bread which is eaten c if it were turned to

nothing Thirdly then this should not be called Transubstantiation or changing of one substance into another but an annihilation of one substance that is a turning of it to nothing and a bringing in of another substance in the room of it And fourthly Thomas of Aquin your great defender of this doctrine is against this lib. 4 dist 8. But if you say they are turned in Christs body which the word Transubstantiation imports then I say as oft as the Sacrament hath been ministrated as oft hath there been some quantitie of substance added to his body and it shal still grow in greatness and quantitie as long as it shal be ministred but this is monstrous to think And to end this if you say there is no substance of bread and wine left in the Sacrament then let me ask you whose are the whiteness and redness and roundness that we see What means this taste in our mouthes of bread and wine if there be no substance of them there May we not say to you as Christ said to Thomas who doubted of his resurrection Put thy finger here behold my hands put thy hand in my side and be not incredulous but believe So may not we say to you who doubteth whither the substance of bread and wine be here remaining yet touch them taste them look on them and feel them and be not incredulous but believe For behold there would not be such a color such a taste and smel and there were not substance of bread and wine here And I pray you tell me what is this that rots then and growes in worms in the bread and souers in the wine if they be long kept If their substance remaineth not will you say Christs flesh and blood rots and consumes and souers What is this but to make him mortal yea to crucifie him again And if you will not say that then either must you confess that their substance remaines and is not changed or else Christs flesh and blood is transubstantiated in these substances which rots and souers or else that the accidents is changed again in their substances and so ye shal not have one but mo changes in your Sacrament Yea if their substance be gone and nothing but their accidents remaining then how could Pope Victor the 3. and the Emperor Henry the 7. have been poisoned with them as Fasciculus temp Platina Blond testifieth accidents and Christs body could neither poison them nor be capable of poison therefore they felt by experience that there was no Transubstantiation in the Sacrament So we see the texts ye brought with you is against you as the sword that Goliah brought to slay David cutted off his own head But yet you will say If the bread be not his body why then did he call it his body this is the chief thing you have for your doctrine answer this and the plea is won Unto this then I answer that in that same sense he said This is my body In the which he said afterward which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Luke 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is given in the present time But there can be no sense of these words but this the bread was broken and signified that his body should be broken with the sorrows of death for his body was not broken before he suffered and the Apostle saith it is bread which is broken so then as the breaking of the bread signified the breaking of his body so the bread signified his body and as his body was not broken indeed when the bread was broken so the bread could not be his body in very deed when he so called it For the resemblance and likeness thereof between the bread and his body the bread it is called his body c. and this phrase is very frequent in the Scripture to give the name of the things signified to the sign as shal be seen afterward M. Gilbert Brown Now let the Ministers come in here with their natural reasons against the omnipotencie of Christ that he cannot be in two places at once and with their figurs signs similituds symbols and spiritual eating of a natural body with many the like which are the inventions of their own brains not contained in the written Word And who can say but that our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and not theirs M. John Welsch his Reply Ye prevent our answers here and first ye bid us hold away our natural reasons against the omnipotency of Christ that he cannot be in two places at once Whereunto I answer that we shal bring no reason neither natural nor supernatural against the omnipotency of Christ for we acknowledge it and adores it But we say to you pretend not his omnipotency for your monstrous imaginations which have no warrant of his will in his Scripture For first we say this argument of yours will not follow Christ is able to make his body to be in two places both at once in heaven and in the Sacrament therefore he makes it to be so For you must first prove he will do so for your self M. Gilbert can do many things which you do not because you will not so from can to will it follows not And if you say that Christ hath willed so because he said This is my body I have answered to it before refute you it and all your Roman Clergy if you can For you might as well say Christ willed the cup wherein the wine was to be changed in his blood and New Testament and himself to be changed in a vine-tree and a door and a rock to be changed in him because so hath he and his Apostles spoken John 10. and 13. 1. Cor. 10 and 11. and these speaches are as true as that and yet there is no change here Next I say your own School-men and great defenders of Transubstantiation Thomas of Aquin and others say lib. 1 cap. 84. lib. 2. cap. 25. contra Gent. That it is against the omnipotency of God to affirm that he may do any thing which implyes a contradiction in its self for that is rather to be called a weakness then a power And the Scripture affirms that God cannot lie nor deny himself nor be tempted and that yea and nay it not in Christ Heb. 6. 2 Tim. 2. James 1.2 Cor. 1. but to Christs body both to be a true body like to us in all things to wit essential except sin as the Scripture saith and to be in mo places at once which makes him to have not a true body like ours For Augustin saith ad Dardanum speaking of Christs glorified body If it be a true body it is then in a certain place and take away from bodies their quantities they are no more true bodies implyes a contradiction and is yea and nay in him and Christs body both to be visible and invisible at one time to be in a certain place in heaven with his own length and

body of Christ the bread which is a seal of his body but properly the body of Christ which whosoever receives receives not to death but to life seeing he is life and salvation it self The nineteenth is the blowing and mumbling of the Priests on the bread and wine their turning of their back to the people when they pronounce the words of consecration their so oft signing with the sign of the cross in their Mass 25. times their keeping and inclosing of Christs body as they suppone in a box their burning of candles before it The ordinance of Honorius the 3. confirmed by Pope Innocent the 4. de celebrat Miss Canon Sane de custod Euchar. cap. 1. their carrying of it in procession upon their solemn days which they call the Feast of God in their Temples Villages streets their carrying of it to the sick and diseased with these blasphemous words spoken by the Priest to the patient Behold my friend God your Creator which I have brought unto you Ordinance of Pope Urban anno 1564. What blasphemie is this And what a God is this that cannot come by himself but must be brought by another And what comfort can this God bring to the patient that cannot bring himself to the patient but as he must be born by the Priest What a mockery of God of his Word of themselves and of the poor people is this Do their Priests the thing that Christ did in the Sacrament Did he any of these things or commanded he them to be done Crossed he the bread and wine Did he blow and mumble the words upon it Commanded he the bread to be kept in a box to be carried in processions to be carried to the sick to burn candles before it What spirit hath revealed to you these things seeing the Spirit of Christ hath not revealed them in the Scriptures You must seek therefore for a new Gospel to prove these ceremonies for the Gospel of Christ makes no mention of them yea this keeping of the sacrifice it is forbidden by your own Canon Law de consecrat dist 2. cap. 3. Gradibus So ye both fight against the Scripture and your own Canon Law The twentieth abuse is their manifold stiles and titles that they give to their Mass which cannot be all agreeable to the same some taken from the persons in whose name and honor they are celebrat as the Masses of the Trinity of the Name of Jesus of his cross crown and five wounds of our Lady of the Angels of the Saints some taken from the persons and matters whereof they are said For there are sundry sorts of Masses for sundry sorts of persons and matters as one for the Pope another for the Emperor the third for the King the fourth for a man 5. for a woman 6. for the bridegroom 7. for the bride 8. for prisoners 9. for them that saills 10. for them that goes a voyage 11. for the dead 12. for him of whose soul there is doubt 13. for the pest 14. for the rage 15. for the tempest 16. for the fire 17. for all sorts of diseases both of man and beast And last of all some of their styles are taken from the diversity of times and seasons wherein they are said one sort of Mass for Summur another for Winter one for the time of Lent another for the time of flesh one for Christmas another for Pasch another for Whitsunday and other some for other Feast days Now these Masses are so diverse that the Mass that it said at one of these solemn times cannot serve for another the Mass for Lent cannot serve for the time of flesh the Mass for Pasch cannot serve for Christmas and so forth of the rest In the which there are many horrible abuses First if the Mass be one with the Supper as they say then as there is but one Supper of the Lord which is instituted only for the remembrance of CHRIST which is but one in general for all and whereof all the faithful are partakers of whatsoever rank they be be they great be they smal be they rich by they poor and which serves for all times For as our Savior did institut but one Baptism to serve for all persons and for all times so he did institut but one Supper to serve for all persons and all times If therefore the Mass were one with the Supper it should be but one for all persons and for all seasons But this diversity of Masses doth testifie that it is not the institution of Jesus Christ but the institution of Antichrist and that it is not one with the Lord his Supper as they falsly alledge Yea it doth testifie that they have forsaken the truth of God and are given over of God to believe lies and to be deceived by strong delusions that they might be damned Secondly what needs several Masses of the Trinity of the holy Spirit of the Name of Jesus For seeing the three persons of the Trinity are one and they all concurr in the work of our faith the Father giving his Son by his holy Spirit in the Word and Sacraments therefore this diversity as though the persons of the Trinity were separat is needless Thirdly this would be marked that suppose they have stiled their Masses from sundry persons yet they have not ascribed a singular Mass to Jesus Christ that it might be named simply the Mass of Jesus Christ and this no question is not without the providence of God that seeing the Mass is not the institution of Christ but of Antichrist not the ordinance of God but of Satan he would not that such a blasphemous and idolatrous invention should have the same stile to be called the Mass of Christ simply without any further addition as the Supper is called the Lords Supper Fourthly they have a several Mass to the Name of Jesus unto the which Boniface the sixth hath given pardon of three thousand years to them that say this Mass devoutly Missale Romanum as though his Name were a thing separat from himself and as though there were some special vertue in the syllables letters of that Name after the manner of Magiciens and Sorcerers Fifthly their Masses to his cross and crown is manifest idolatry in ascribing that which was proper to Jesus Christ to the tree whereon he hang and to the crown of thorns which he bure as though either they had redeemed us and not himself who was crucified on the tree or else that they were one with himself which are both blasphemy Sixthly their Masses to the honor of the Virgin Mary to Angels and Saints is manifest idolatry For the Supper was not instituted in the honor of any creature but only to the honor of him who did redeem us Seventhly wherefore serves any Mass for the Pope For if he be such a one as himself and his Church have written of him to wit That his will is heavenly that he may make something of nothing that

him as by another But to what purpose do ye quote the 9. of Matthew That the Son of man hath power to forgive sins For will you say that the Ministers of the Church have that absolut authority that he had The which if ye do then are ye blasphemous As for the word Priest wherewith ye style the Ministers of the Church I know that you and your Church takes more pleasure in this style then in all the styles which the holy Ghost hath given to the Ministers of the Church in the New Testament For among the manifold styles which are given to his Ministers yet hath he never given this style of a sacrificing Priest as proper to them throughout the whole New Testament But as your office of Priesthood is not written in Christ his latter Testament so neither is your style of sacrificing Priests contained in the same But new offices must have new styles SECTION XIV Of Extreme Vnction and whither it be a Sacrament Master Gilbert Brown SIxthly our doctrine is to make the Priests of the Church to anoint the sick with oyl in the Name of our Lord and to pray over him because it is the doctrine of the Apostles as we have in S. James in these words Is any sick among you let him bring in the Priests of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the Name of our Lord and the prayer of faith shal save the sick and our Lord shal lift him up and if he be in sins they shal be remitted him * James 4.15 August tom 4. super Levit. quaest 84. And because we find here an external form which is the anointing with oyl of an internal grace which is remission of sins therefore we say it is a Sacrament Now take from these places the vain subterfuges of our new men that will have him a Mediciner for the body in this and not for the soul the matter will be plain of it self M. John Welsch his Reply As to your doctrine of anointing of the sick with oyl and that not by every man but by a Priest not in all sicknesses but in the extremity of death not with every oyl but with oyl consecrated by the Bishop which Bellarmin makes essential to this Sacrament cap. 7. de extr unctione and that not all the parts and members of the body but the five organs of the senses and the reins and feet and that by this form of words Let God forgive thee whatsoever thou hast sinned by the sight hearing smelling c. by this holy unction and his most godly mercy The which you will have to have two effects The one the health of the body if it be expedient for the soul the other remission of the relicks of sins that remains and this ye make to be one of your Sacraments And for this purpose ye only bring one testimony of Scripture So that all the show of warrant you can pick out of the Scripture is this only place of James For I suppose with Bellarmin and sundry others you have seen that that place of Mark 6.13 which is also alledged by the Council of Trent for the confirmation of this doctrine would carry no show to make any thing for you and therefore it may be you have omitted it But this place serves nothing for your purpose For first I say this was a ceremonie annexed to the miraculous gift of healing as is plain both by the text using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Lord will lift him up which is properly spoken of the health of the bodie and also by that place of Mark 6.13 where it is written that the Apostles anointed many sick with oyl and they healed them The which gift was not only given to the Apostles but also to the very Churches as is plain of the 1. Corinth 12. Unto another is given the gift of healing c. Now seeing this extraordinary gift is ceased in the Church of God wherefore will you superstitiously use the ceremonie So either avow M. Gilbert that your Priests have this miraculous gift of healing which I suppose ye will not or else leave off the ceremonie Secondly by this argument ye may as wel make all the rest of the ceremonies which our Savior and his Apostles Peter and Paul and the believers in the primitive Church used toward the sick blind lame and dead Sacraments As the laying on of hands Mark 16.18 which had both a command and a promise joyned with it anointing of the eyes of the blind with clay John 9.6 washing in the pool of Siloam c. John 5. Mat. 9.29 Acts 3.6 20.10 For why should not their examples be as well followed as the example of the Elders of the primitive Church And seeing you use not these ceremonies because ye want the miraculous gift which was joyned with them why do ye use this ceremonie superstitiously seeing ye want this gift also Thirdly I say this place can make nothing for your doctrine for this place saith Call the Elders of the Church and let them c. but you call for a sacrificing Priest This text saith in the plural number Call for the Elders your doctrine saith one Priest is sufficient This place speaks of oyl not mentioning a syllable of consecration blessing of it by the Bishop and that nine-fold salutation that ye give unto it Hail O holy oyl with the bowing of the knee and other ceremonies There is not a syllable in this nor in any other Scripture that speaks of these things and yet your doctrine will have all these ceremonies This place saith And the prayer of faith shal save the sick and you attribut it to the ointment This place puts no difference of sickness but your doctrine is that none be anointed but he who is lying in the bed and at the point of death This place only specifieth the anointing of the sick some of you reckons as the Council of Florentine seven parts some the five senses as necessary And therefore this moved Thomas of Aquin lib. 4. sent 4. dist 23. quaest to say That the form of this Sacrament is not extant in the Scripture Now if it be not extant in the Scripture what to do have we with it seeing the Scripture is able to make a man wise unto salvation and to make the man of God perfect in every good work Fourthly Beda Ecumenius and Theophylactus in their Commentaries upon these places and Thomas Waldensis lib. 2. de sacr Alphonsus de Castro de haeresibus two archpapists affirms that in the 6. of Mark 5. of James the self-same unction and anointing is meaned But Bellarmin de extr unct Jansenius in Marc. 6. two other Papists affirms and proves by firm reasons that that anointing in Mark is no Sacrament therefore neither is this anointing in James a Sacrament seeing as said is in both the places the self-same unction is meaned Fifthly I say all the

Acts 2. and Thomas of Aquin 3. part quaest 52. art 1. 3. two great Papists and yet Bonaventure in 3. distinct 22. quaest 4. and Bellarmin lib. 4. de Christo cap. 16. affirms the contrary That his soul was in the place of pain and yet suffered no pain Next Thomas of Aquin affirms 3. part qu. 52. That Christ descended only into that place of hell called Limbus Patrum but Bellarmin saith It is more probable that he went to all the parts of hell And this is the consent which you Papists have among your selves not only in this point but almost in all the points of your doctrine Now as to the places of Scripture which ye quote they serve nothing to this purpose For the 2. of the Acts it speaks of that bondage of the grave which kept him under until he rose again and therefore the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth death and not hell as ye translate it here and Peter saith whom God raised up The Apostle speaks then of that part of Christ which had fallen and was raised up but it was the body only and not the soul which fell down and was raised up therefore he speaks of the sorrows of death whereby his body was kept in bondage and not of any local descension of Christs soul As for the places of the Psalms which ye quote here Peter brings them not in to prove this local descension as ye say whereof he makes no mention but to prove his resurrection as he saith in the 31. verse most plainly He knowing this before speaking of David spake of the resurrection of Christ that his soul should not remain in grave neither his flesh should see corruption So if ye will believe the Spirit of God in the Apostle interpreting these places they speak of the resurrection of Christ and not of the delivering of the soul out of hell for he was in Paradise as he saith himself and it is the body that was raised and not the soul And the Hebrew word is NEPHESCH which not only signifieth the soul but also the life as Gen. 37.21 Let us smite his soul that is take away his life And it signifieth also the body of the dead wherein there was life as Levit. 21.1.11 And this word Hell is SCHEOL in Hebrew which most usually is taken in the Scripture for the grave So then the meaning is this The Lord will not leave his Nephesch that is the body wherein his life was in Scheol that is in the grave which speech is usual in the Scripture Now as to the other Psalm 29.3 it is spoken properly of David where he thanketh God who had saved his life from the hands of his enemies which by a borrowed speech frequented in the Scripture is called the delivery of his soul from the grave As for the 4. of the Ephesians these lower parts of the earth is not Hell as ye expone it but the earth it self which in respect of the world is the lowest part and so it is taken in the Psalm 139 15. where David saith Thou hast fashioned me beneath in the lower parts of the earth where here it is not taken for Hell as you take it in that place of the Ephesians otherwise ye must say that David was born in Hell which I suppose ye will not say So hereby is meant then the lowest and basest degree of his humiliation So now to conclud this neither in these points M. Gilbert nor in any point of doctrine wherein ye differ from us is your doctrine agreeable to Christs doctrine and his Apostles as hath been I hope proved sufficiently You must therefore provide you for better weapons and armor and stronger defences for the overthrow of our doctrine and uphold of yours then ye have done otherwise your shots will be but as shots of paper and your bulwarks but of intempered morter which suddenly will rush down at the light of the truth of God The Lord open your eyes to see the truth and suffer you not to continue any longer to cause the blind go out of the way as you have done Amen SECTION XX. Concerning the difference betwixt Popery and the Reformed Religion Master John Welsch ANd our Religion which we profess and all the particular heads of it was instituted by Jesus Christ and his Apostles which I offer me also to prove either by word or writ against whosoever will plead the contrary The which if I fail in I will be content to lose my life therefore by his grace Master Gilbert Brown There is much promised here but nothing done and it is a thing impossible to him to do For why the difference chiefly that the Protestants differ from us is in denying abhorring or detesting as may be seen in their Confession of Faith which they compel all men to swear and subscribe As we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God upon the Church the civil Magistrat c. except such things were expresly contained in the Word of God M. John Welsch his Reply As for my promise and performance I answere● 〈◊〉 that before and whither that be a thing unpossible 〈◊〉 or not let this my answer be a tryal thereof You are bold enough indeed in affirming it to be impossible but what have ye for you You say because the difference chiefly that we differ from you is in denying and abhorring What a raison is this Can we not prove our Religion out of the Scripture because we deny yours which is contrary to the same Is it impossible to prove the truth because falshood is denyed and abhorred What new Logick or Divinity is this I would never have believed that ye had been such an unskilful reasoner if your self had not bewrayed the same And certainly your Church is not beholden to you For if your reason hold forth it will follow that it is impossible to you or any man else to prove the heads of your Religion by the Scripture For in your Confession of Faith and form of abjuration set down by the Monks of Burdeaux anno 1585. there they deny and abhor the Protestants and their doctrine and compel all men who desire the fellowship of the Roman Church and their absolution to abjure renounce and subscribe the same But I suppose your Church will not allow this manner of reasoning of yours And whereas you say that the chief difference wherein we differ from you is in denying and abhorring c. of your Religion I ask you Doth not our Religion differ as far from yours as yours doth from us This you cannot deny For are not two contraries equally different one from another Doth not light differ as far from darkness white from black Christ from Antichrist as darkness from light black from white and Antichrist from Christ And are not yours and our Religions contrary one to another But your self will not deny and Bellarmin confesseth in

of the cold and famine suffered in the way But these were but the beginnings of sorrows for they fell on and murdered in cold blood some at plough others in their houses others travelling in the way without provocation In the Castle of Lisgool there were about 152. persons consumed with fire At the Castle of Monea were an hundred slain together All that was in the Castle of Tullah were all cruelly murdered after the Castle was yeelded upon composition and faithful promises of fair quarter At Lissenkea they hanged and killed above an hundred of the Scots Protestants Some they caused upon hopes of life to hear Mass and to swear never to alter from it and presently thereafter hanged or killed them At Portendoun-bridge they drave a thousand persons into the river and drowned them all yea in that County they drowned four thousand persons driving them to the river and if any were slack in their pace they pricked them forward with their swords and picks and to terrifie the rest they killed some and wounded others and if any essayed to swim to the shore they stood and shot at them Some they gave passes and sent of the Irish with them under the pretence of safe-conducting them while they came to some place fit for execution where they either murdered or drowned them At Armach Onel got together all the Protestants thereabout pretending to conduct them to Colrain but before they were gone a days journey they were all murdered and so were many others though they had Oneals protection In Armach town there were 500. persons murdered and drowned In Kilmore all the inhabitants were stript and massacred being 200. families The whole County was a common butchery where many thousands perished in a short time by sword famine fire water and all other cruel manner of deaths that rage and malice could invent yea their cruelty was so great that they would not grant them so much liberty as to pray before they murdered them Some when they were kneeling and praying they would cut off their head When some on their knees begged but leave to pray before they were slain they would bid them bequeath their souls to the Devil Others would ask them Why do you desire to pray your souls are already with the Devil and so would immediatly slaughter them Some they put in filthy dungeons full of dirt and myre and there clapping bolts on their legs suffered them to perish at leasure Some they barbarously mangled and left them languishing upon the high ways crying out but for so much mercy as to be dispatched out of their pain Some they buried alive Some when they were half hanged they cast into pits covering them with a little earth where they sent out most lamentable groans for a good while after Some they hacked slashed and wounded and then put and kept them under with stones where they lay languishing and groaning while their own wives stopped their breath with handkerchiefs to put them out of pain Some they buried alive yet so as their pityful cryes were heard afar off Some were deadly wounded and so were hung by the chocks upon tenter hooks Some with ropes about their necks were drawn through the water Some with ropes about their middles were drawn through woods and bogs Some were hung up by the arms and then with their swords they made experiment how many blows an English Protestant would endure ere he died Some had their bellies ript up and so were left with their guts running about their heels Many women great with child they hung up then ript their bellies and let the infants fall out and gave them to be devoured of dogs and swine Many children they took by the heels and dashed their brains out against a tree Many they pucked and stabbed with their skeens forks and swords slashing cutting and mangling them in their heads faces breasts arms and other parts yet killed them not but left them wallowing in their blood to languish starve and pine to death and when they desired them to kill them out of their pain they refused yet sometimes after a day or two they would dash out their brains with stones or clubs which they accounted as a great favor In the cold weather many thousands of Protestants of all ranks ages and sexes being turned out stark naked perished of cold and hunger Thousands of others were drowned cast into ditches bogs and turff-pits Multitudes were inclosed in houses which being set on fire they were burnt miserably Some that lay sick of fevers they drew out of their beds and hanged them Some men women and children they drove into boggy pits and if any of them endeavored to get out they knockt them on their heads Some aged men and women they forced them to carry their own children to the river where they were drowned yea some children were compelled unnaturally to be the executioners of their own parents Wives were forced to help to hang their own husbands and mothers to cast their own children into the water after all which themselves were murdered In Slego they forced a young man to kill his own father and then hanged him up In another place they forced a woman to kill her husband then caused her son to kill her and then immediatly hanged the son and this they did that they might destroy both soul and body yea the women were as bloody as the men killing women and children yea they boyled a child of twelve years of age in a caldron and in some places the women stoned the English women to death In some places they plucked out the eyes and cut off the hands of the Protestants and so turned them out into the fields to wander till they perished Neither did their cruelty end with the lives of the Protestants but extended after death to the denying burial to their carkasses casting some into ditches leaving others to be devoured of ravenous beasts and fowls yea some that had been formerly buried they digged up and left them as dung upon the face of the earth and they vowed if any parents or wives digged graves to bury their husbands or children in they should be buried therein themselves Yea they abused and triumphed over the dead for at Kilkenny when they had committed many cruel murders they brought seven Protestant heads among which was the head of a Minister all which they set on the Market Cross on a Market day triumphing● slashing and mangling of them and putting a gag into the Ministers mouth they slit up his cheeks to his ears and laying a leaf of the Bible before it they bid him preach for his mouth was wide enough When they put many Protestants in houses and set fire in them and burnt them they exulted over them imitating in scorn their cryes and saying O how sweetly do they fry Yea they made their boast how many Protestants they killed yea they burnt and blasphemously abused the Bible At Slego they put all the Protestants

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