else the Fathers of the Council of Basile and Verratus a Papist errs for they call the Roman Church a particular Church We grant say they Basil Concil Epist Synod 3 Verratus disputationum contra Lutheranos Tom. 6. de authoritate potest univers Eccles cap. 1. that the Roman Church is a principal Church among others but while you commend a part forget not the whole And they say The Universal Church comprehends the Roman Church Choose you then whither will you contradict the Fathers of the Council of Basile and a Papist Verratus and be so absurd as to call the arm of the body the whole body an arm of the Ocean sea the whole Ocean sea or to go from your tittle that the Roman Church is not the Catholick Church Secondly the Catholick Church comprehends them that were before Christ but the Church of Rome comprehends not them for there was a Church ere ever there was a Church at Rome and the Roman Church comprehends none but them that acknowledges the Pope to be the head of the Church But those that were before Christ never did that Therefore the Roman Church is not the Catholick Church Thirdly the Catholick Church is invisible for at the least neither are they that are glorified neither are they that are to be born visible But ye will not have the Roman Church but alwayes visible Therefore the Roman Church is not the Catholick Church Fourthly if the Roman Church be the Catholick Church then either it shal follow that the Pope is the head of the Catholick Church or else that the Roman Church wants a visible head Choose you whither of these ye will for the one ye must if ye will have the Roman Church to be the Catholick Church But to say that the Pope is the head of the Catholick Church I suppose ye dare not be so blasphemous for the glorified Saints and Peter himself are of the Catholick Church or else as I said before Pope Pius and the Fathers of Trent errs And so then if ye will make him head of the Catholick Church ye must make him head of the glorified Saints and of Peter also So then choose you whither will ye leave the style of Catholick which ye claim as proper to your Church or will ye have the Pope the head of the triumphant Church in heaven Or last of all will ye have your Roman Church to want a visible head One of these ye must choose So to end this point this style of Catholick it is like the numbering of the people by David for as it brought him in a wonderful strait when he saw it behoved him to choose either seven years famine or four moneths flying before his enemies or three days pestilence 2. Sam. 24. So this tittle of yours if you will abide by it brings you in a wonderful strait for ye have not the choise of one of three evils but these three things must ye either choose or else let this style of Catholick go one of you fighting against another the Church invisible and the Pope not to be the head of the Church Of the which the least of these is more able to overthrow your Kingdom then they all were able to have overthrown the Kingdom of David for they are the main pillars of your Kingdom your unity your visibility your Popes supremacy all which you must either lose or else let your style of Catholick go from your Church But how will ye wrestle your self out of this For if ye will believe the Fathers of Trent and Pope Pius in defining the Catholick Church ye cannot eschew these inconveniencies And if you will not believe them that they spake truly in that point ye must accuse them of error And so the Church hath erred the Pope hath erred and your self hath erred that said your Church hath the truth in all things And surely as Cajaphas being high Priest that year spake the truth when he said that one must die for the people John 11.50 and not the whole Nation perish suppose in an evil sense So have the Fathers of Trent and Pope Pius here spoken truly both according to the Scriptures for the Church is called the assembly of the first-born whose names are written in heaven Heb. 12.23 And that new Jerusalem which is from above which is the mother of us all Gal. 4.26 And also according to the Fathers Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 7. Bernard in Cant. c. 78. August de catechis rud cap. 20. Gregor moral in Job lib. 28. cap. 9. who affirmeth that the Church is the company of the predestinat and all the elect are within the compass of it are citizens of it So as Christ said to the Jews Matth. 12.27 If I cast out devils by the prince of devils by whom then casteth your children them out So if we speak now by an erroneous spirit that sayes the Catholick Church comprehends all the elect that was is and shal be and the Church of Rome cannot be the Catholick Church By what spirit hath your Council and Pope and these Fathers spoken the same So not your children but your Fathers shal be your Judges Ye did mark some contradiction as ye thought between me and some others unto the which I will answer in the own time Let me therefore mark this one now and mark it Reader Ye have heard now how that all these with one voice have said that the Catholick Church comprehends all the elect that was is and shal be Is it any heresie then to hold this point I think you will not nor dare not say it What will you say then to your general Council of Constance Sess 15. art 1. 6. who condemned John Hus for the same doctrine the first and sixth article for saying that there is an Universal Church which is the company of the predestinat and as it is taken in this sense it is an article of our faith For these among the rest was this pure innocent condemned and burnt as an heretick his doctrine as heresie which of these will ye say now have erred whither the general Council of Constance or the Fathers of Trent Pope Pius Gregorie Augustine Clement and Bernard For surely if the latter erred not then not only did the Council of Constance err but also have brought upon themselves innocent blood in condemning the innocent and the truth in him And if the Council of Constance erred not in condemning these articles of John Hus then have they condemned the doctrine of the Fathers of Trent Pope Pius Gregorie Augustine c. and their persons in the person of John Hus. Choose which of them ye will I speak the truth to thee in Christ Reader be not deceived But open thy eyes and behold the veritie it self condemned by a general Council and the professor of it burnt for an heretick but his blood and the blood of the rest of the martyrs of God is found in this whore of
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
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
did not obey the other As also a number of the Fathers of your own Religion who in two General Councils the one of Constance where there was almost a thousand Fathers the other of Basel did not obey the Pope in defining General Councils to be above the Pope So if ye speak truth infinit millions of Christians in all ages and innumerable Churches and thousands of your own Religion are condemned to Hell But this is false M. Gilbert and who will believe you And to the end now my conclusion yet holds sure That seeing his Kingdom is that second beast that hath two horns like the Lamb and speaks like the Dragon Rev. 13.11 And himself is that man of sin and son of perdition that adversary and Antichrist that was to come 2. Thess 2.3.4 And his doctrine is that Apostasie and abomination sore-told in the Scripture Rev. 17. And his seat that Harlot and mystical Babylon that mother of whoredoms who is drunken with the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus Whosoever receives his mark on his fore-head or hand that is openly or privatly professes obedience unto him shal as the Angel proclaimed drink of the wine of the wrath of God yea of that pure wine in the cup of his wrath and he shal be tormented with fire and brimstone before the holy angels and before the Lamb. And the smoak of his torment shal ascend for evermore and they shal have no rest day nor night which worship the beast or his image And as for your prayer I beseech God M. Gilbert that he may open my eyes and inlarge my heart to understand and imbrace his truth more and more and to make me to grow up in that spiritual communion with Christ and his members more and more But that which ye call truth is heresie and that which ye call the true Church is Babel and therefore that doctrine and Church of yours is that strong delusion and whore of Babel with the which whosoever shal communicat is excluded from the merits of Christ and shal be partaker of her plagues and finally shal be damned SECTION XXVIII That the Pope is Antichrist Master Gilbert Brown IF the Pope be the Antichrist what is the cause that M. John would not set down some place out of the Word of God that proves the same But good Reader I will let you see how far M. John is against the Word of God in this and that by some examples only First our Savior shew unto the Jews that albeit he came in the name of his Father yet they would not receive him If another saith he shal come in his own name him ye will receive This no doubt as Augustin expones the same is meant of the Antichrist that the Jews shal receive Now it is out of all controversie that the Jews never received the Pope Therefore the Pope is not the Antichrist Again the Pope came never in his own name but in the Name of Christ for he is called the Vicare of Christ and the servant of the servants of God therefore he cannot be the Antichrist Master John Welsch his Reply I come now to prove that which I offered before to prove to wit that your Popes which ye will have to be the Head of the Church of Christ are the self-same Antichrist that the Scripture fore-told should come Thou wouldest know Christian Reader of what weight this controversie is Whether the Pope be the Antichrist or not For this supremacy of his unto them is the foundation whereupon their Religion and the safety of their whole Church depends so that they call it The Rock whereupon the Church is built against which the gates of Hell shal not prevail Rhemist annot upon Matth. 16. And Bellarmin calls him in his Preface before the controversie of the Popes supremacy The foundation which upholds the house of God the Pastor which feeds his flock the Emperor which governes his host the Sun which gives light to the starrs that is to the Ministers of the Church the Head which gives life to his body So that remove his supremacy the house of God must fall the flock of Christ must be scattered the host of the Lord must be discomfited the starrs that is the Ministery must be darkened and the body must ly still without motion And he applyes these Prophesies Isai 28.16 and 8.14.15 spoken and fulfilled only in the Son of God unto him a calling him that foundation stone in Sion upon the which the whole Church is built and that proved stone against the which the gates of Hell hath never nor never shal prevail and that corner stone which joyns both Jew and Gentil as two walls together in a Christian Church and that precious stone from whence the infinit treasure of grace is most plenteously derived unto the whole Church as unity in doctrine the bond of peace the unity of faith which is salvation it self and the very life of Religion And he saith There is no way to Christ but by Peter in whose room their Popes succeed So that in their judgement there is no way to Christ but by the Pope And he calls him that rock of offence and stumbling stone spoken of in Isai chap. 8. Upon the which whosoever shal fall shal be broken and on whom it shal fall it shal dash him in pieces O blasphemous mouth Let the heavens be confounded at this And therefore this is of such a weight that Boniface the 8 hath made it an article of our Faith whose words are these We declare we affirm we define and pronounce that it is altogether needful to salvation to all creatures to be under the Pope of Rome Extra de minoritate obedientia cap. unam sanctam So that Bellarmin saith when the Popes supremacy is called in controversie The sum of all Christianity is called in question and when that is controverted Then it is controverted whether the Church should stand any longer or not or fall and dissolve Unto them therefore it is an article of Faith which must be believed and practised under the pain of the loss of salvation And unto us he is that self-same Antichrist which the Scripture hath fore-told time hath made manifest and the Church hath suffered Unto them he is the Head of the body of Christ the Pastor of his flock the Sun that gives light to the starrs the foundation of the house of God and a mortal God among men Unto us he is Gods enemy the son of perdition the second beast and false prophet 2 Thess 2.13 Rev. 13.11 the adversary of true Religion a pest in the body a tyrant in the Common-wealth and Antichrist in the Church So thou sees Christian Reader of what weight this controversie is Let us see then how he defends him from being the Antichrist and then you shal hear our reasons to the contrary You ask wherefore I set not down some places of Scripture to prove the Pope to be the Antichrist I answer Not
that the Jesuit Varadius wrote to Barerius Non posse ab aliquo fieri ullum magis meritorium opus quà m si Regem intersecerit That there could not be a more meritorious work then for him to kill a King Cresuel in his Philopat sect 2. num 160. 162. affirmeth That subjects may not only lawfully dethrone heretical Princes but also are obliged by divine precepts yea even upon the greatest hazard of their souls His words are Obligati sunt subditi ad Principos haereticos depellendos hujusmodi Principes suos non tantum legitimè possunt deturbare sed etiam ad hoc praecepto divino ac vinculo arctissimo ac-extremo animarum periculo tenentur But let us hear what H. T. replyeth First saith he art 7. p. 100. What this or that particular Doctor may hold or the Popes flatterers if he have any adds nothing to the creed of Catholicks nor is it justly chargeable on the whole Church Answer Sir if you had not the whores fore head that refuseth to be ashamed ye could not write so for this is so well known to be the commonly received doctrine of your Church that Cresuel Eudem ingenuously confesseth it For Cresuel plainly avoweth That it is the universal opinion of your Divines and an article of your Faith that any Prince who openly maketh defection from the Roman Catholick Religion and would withdraw others from the same doth presently fall from all his power and dignity by vertue both of Divine and Humane law and that before any sentence of the Pope and their subjects are all free of any obligation of oath to obedience and they ought to cast such a man out of their dominions as an Apostat lest he infect others Now lest ye think we wrong him not citing his words faithfully we shal set down his own words Universa Theologorum Schola tenet est certum ac de fide quemcunque Principem Christianum si de Romano Catholica Religione manifestè deflexerit alios avocare voluerit excidere statim ab omni potestate dignitate ex ipsa vi juris divini ac humani Hocque ante omnem sententiam Pontificis subditos quoscunque liberos esse ab omni juramenti obligatione quod de obedientia praestitissent posséque ac debere hujusmodi hominem tanquam apostatam ex dominatu eficere ne alios inficiat Cresuel Philop. num 37. Likewise Eudem affirmeth Apol. cap. 3. Non est propria Jesuitarum sed totius Ecclesiae quidem ab antiquissimis temporibus consensione recepta nostra doctrina That this is not the peculiar doctrine of the Jesuits but of the whole Church of Rome received from ancient times 2. But if the testimony of these two Doctors be not sufficient I hope the infallible judgement of two Popes è Cathedra will abundantly convince that this is the doctrine of the Romish Church The first is Pope Urban who Can. 23. quast 5. Can. excommunicatorum saith We esteem them not murderers who being possessed with the zeal of their mother the Catholick Church against these that are excommunicat shal happen to kill any of them The second is Pope Sixtus the fifth who when he heard that King Henry the third of France was killed by the Monk he went to his Consistory where before his Cardinals at Rome Sept. 11. 1589 he had a Panegyrick Oration which he began thus Animo meo saepe c. When I pondered in my mind and was intent upon the thoughts of these things which lately have fallen out by God providence I thought I might make use of that of the Prophet Habakkuk There shal be a work done in your dayes which none shal believe when it shal be told The King of France is dead by the hands of a Monk for to that may the words of the Prophet be rightly applyed c. a brave application of Scripture indeed And a little after We with grief truly did often fore-tell that as he was the last of his family so he should have an unusual and shameful end See more of this Oration cited by learned Hornbeck contra Bullam Pap. Innocent 10. Now can any Papist for his heart disown this treasonable doctrine which the Pope approveth except he disown his faith and Religion For doth not the faith and Religion of Papists depend on the Popes decrees so strongly and with such a spirit of delusion that he can make the most pestilent doctrines pass with them for Evangelical truths and the most abominable actions for patterns of holiness For Bellarmin expresly affirmeth and no Papist that I heard of did ever disallow it That if the Pope did err in commanding vices or prohibiting vertues the Church should be obliged to believe that vices are good and vertues evil unless she should speak against conscience Bellarm. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. And that in good sense Christ hath given to Peter the power to make sin to be no sin and that which is no sin to be sin Bellarm. contra Barclay cap. 31. We can dissent from the most eminent in our Church when they hold any thing contrary to the Word of God but so cannot Papists do with the Pope whom they acknowledge to be infallible 2. But let us hear what H. T. saith further We saith he abominat and detest that doctrine to wit that if the Pope excommunicat an heretical Prince it is lawful for his own subjects to kill him For it is defined by the Council of Constance and therefore of faith with us that it is heretical to affirm it lawâ—ul for a subject to kill his Prince upon any pretence whatsoever Sess 15. Ans O matchless audacity For doth not the Bulls and Dâ—cretals of your Popes the Writings and Disputations of your Doctors and your actings and practises prove you a liar Yea if there were no more then the Acts of the Parliament of Paris who condemned the Books of Bellarmin Suarez Mariana Santarella c. to the fire and banished the Jesuits the Kingdom it were sufficient to convince you of falshood 2. Whereas ye say that the Council of Constance hath declared the doctrine of King-killing heretical it is a mere forgery For your great Doctor Suarez who did write fifteen Volumes of Divinity saith to King James of famous memory that the Council of Constance forbiddeth not the killing of a King excommunicated by the Pope His words are Ubi legit Rex in Concilio Constantiensi particulam illam Principis per Papam excommunicati vel deprivati aut illam per suos subditos aut alios quoscunque The truth is the case propounded to the Council by Gerson was not about the murdering of Soveraign Princes but about the killing of a great Officer of the Crown who ruleth tyrannically and exalts himself above his King For John Duke of Burgundy who had killed Lewis Duke of Orleans pretended him to have been a Tyrant of that kind So then Tyrants are declared inviolable
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
Sacrament And because in this your abominable sacrifice of the Mass as hath been said there is no communion For the Priest takes all And because you affirm the personal and corporal presence of Christs flesh and blood in your sacrifice and the corporal eating and drinking of it which is Capernaitical and more then carnal contrary to the Scripture contrary the nature of a Sacrament contrary the truth of Christ his humanity and contrary the Articles of our Faith of his ascension sitting at his right hand and there remaining till his returning in the last day all which your sacrifice of the Mass and transubstantiation in your communion overthroweth Therefore you have not the true institution of Jesus Christ according to the Scripture I might end here but because ye account the sacrifice of your Mass most heavenly and the principal part of the worship of God and we account it a most abominable idolatry therefore I will set down some arguments against the same whereby if you will you may perceive the abomination of it First I say all lawful sacrifices have the express testimonies of the Scripture to warrant the institution of them to be of God But your sacrifice of the Mass hath no express testimony of the Scripture whereby it may be made manifest that it is instituted of God therefore it is not lawful What now will you say to this The proposition you cannot deny for our Savior saith In vain worship ye me teaching for doctrine mens commandments Matth. 15.9 And Jeremie reproves the Jewes that they would not walk according as the Lord commanded them but according to their own will Jer. 7 24. And the Apostle condemns all voluntary Religion Col. 2.23 Therefore this is most certain that that Religion or sacrifice which hath not express Scripture whereby it may be made plain that it is instituted of God is not lawful For all that is done without faith is sin Rom. 14.23 and faith hath only the Word of God to lean to Rom. 10.17 And dare the creature be so bold as to appoint a mean to worship God without the warrant of his will in his Word Now to the assumption what can you say to it Bring me an express testimony out of the Scripture that God hath instituted your Mass and take it to you Yea if it be instituted in any place of the Scripture it is instituted in the last Supper for this you grant your selves But there is not a syllable in the whole institution that Christ offered up himself in a sacrifice in the same as hath been proved and Bellarmin the learnedest of your Church confesses plainly that the Evangelists have not said expresly that Christ offered up himself in the Supper in a sacrifice Bellarm. lib. 1. de missa cap. 24. And therefore others of your own Religion Petrus a Soto in his book against Brentius Lindanus lib. 4. Panopliae Papists of great name have reckoned the sacrifice of the Mass among the traditions which have not their beginning nor author in the Scriptures So then by your own confession the sacrifice of the Mass hath not express Scripture to warrant it yea it is a tradition which hath neither the beginning nor author of it in the Scriptures of God And I would ask this question of you What can be the cause wherefore the typical sacrifices and all the rites and ceremonies thereof is so expresly set down in the Scripture of the Old Testament which you will not deny and this sacrifice of yours which ye account more excellent then all these not to have been expresly set down in the New Testament neither the sacrifice nor the rites and ceremonies thereof yea not so much as the very name of it Is the New Testament think ye more obscure then the Old Testament which is absurd to say Shal the Old Testament be clear in setting down the sacrifices and all the rites thereof which is but the shadow And should not the New Testament have been at the least as clear in setting down the sacrifice of the New Testament which ye affirm to be the Mass if it were such What an absurd thing is this Christian Reader assure thy self the Lord Jesus would have dealt as lovingly and plainly with thee in setting down the sacrifice of the Mass in the New Testament if ever he had instituted such a sacrifice as he was in setting down the sacrifices of the Old Testament But thou may assure thy self and thy conscience may lean unto it since he hath not so much as once expressed it in all the New Testament therefore he hath never appointed it Secondly I say in all the places of Scripture wheresoever the Apostles speaks of the sacrifices which Christians should offer up they ever speak of spiritual sacrifices and never speak of this external sacrifice of the Mass They never remember of this their sacrifice of the offering up of Christ in the Mass Look throughout the whole New Testament and thou shalt not find this as namely in these places Rom. 12. Heb. 1â— Phil. 4. Rom. 15.1 Pet. 2. Rev. 5. Are you and your Mass Priests more wise then the Apostles are Whither should we then think and speak as they spake and thought or as ye would have us They never spake of your sacrifice of the Mass and bring one instance if ye can therefore neither should we We will believe them rather then you Thirdly that doctrine which is expresly gain-said by the Scripture must be false This you cannot deny But this your doctrine concerning the often and dayly offering up of Jesus Christ his body and blood in sacrifice in your Mass is expresly gain-said by the Scripture For the Scripture saith in sundry places That he hath once offered up himself never to offer up himself again Heb. 10.10 By the which will we are sanctified even by the offering up of Jesus Christ once made 11. And every Priest standeth dayly ministring and oft times offereth one manner of offering which cannot take away sin 12. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sin sitteth for ever at the right hand of God 10. For with one offering hath he consecrated for ever them that are sanctified Heb. 9.24 Christ hath entred into the very heaven to appear now in the sight of God for us not that he should offer himself often c. 28. So Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many Heb. 7.27 Christ died once when he offered up himself Seeing the Scripture therefore affirms so plainly that Christ once offered up himself and you affirm that in your abominable sacrifice he offers up himself often since the Scripture saith the offering up of Christ is once only ye say it is often in your Mass therefore this doctrine of yours is plain against the express sayings of the Scripture For suppose ye will have an unbloody offering up of Christ yet the Scripture only acknowledges this bloody offering up of himself
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
Sacrament of the union of Christ and his Church And yet our new Confession detests the same and will have it but a bastard Such concord is betwixt Christ his Apostles and our new preachers of the Gospel and also among themselves M. John Welsch his Reply The ninth point of your doctrine is you will have Marriage a Sacrament of the New Testament and that properly and that according to the institution of God unto the which the promise of the grace of justification is annexed so Bellarmin lib. 1. de matrim cap. 2. and the Council of Trent saith But mark Christian Reader their ground of this their doctrine They say the bond of marriage among infidels may be broken but say they the bond of marriage among the faithful cannot be broken And they make the cause of this difference to be this because the marriage of Christians is a Sacrament So they reason Marriage among Christians is a Sacrament therefore say they it cannot be broken But what is their principal ground now whereby they prove marriage to be a Sacrament Because say they the marriage of Christians is a bond indissoluble therefore it is a Sacrament which hath the grace of Justification joyned with it So mutually one error upholds another Upon the which I reason If the bond of marriage may be broken for adultery then it cannot be a Sacrament this your Church grants because they make that the ground of this but the bond of marriage may be broken for adultery as hath been proved before both by the Scriptures and also by your own Canons Councils Doctors and Popes therefore marriage is not a Sacrament Secondlie in the Sacraments of the New Testament there are earthly elements as the water in Baptism the bread and wine in the Supper and an express form of words prescribed in the New Testament as in Baptism I baptize thee c. and in the Supper This is my body c. Matth. 26. They have their express institution by Christ in the same and have the promises of remission of sins and justification annexed to them But none of these things are to be had in marriage First no earthly element next no form prescribed in the Word of God thirdly no express institution of it as of a Sacrament fourthly no promise of the remission of sins and salvation annexed unto it Therefore it cannot be a Sacrament of the New Testament properly Thirdly if marriage were a Sacrament and such a Sacrament that signified and gave the grace of justification with it that is remission of sins then wherefore should your Church forbid all your Clergie from the same And wherefore should ye abstain from that Sacrament which is instituted of God to give remission of sins to you and to make you acceptable to God as your doctrine saith Bellarmin lib. 1. de matrim cap. 5. pag. 67. Why should ye deprive your self of that thing which may place you in Gods favor and purchase to you remission of sins as ye say marriage may do it is a token that either ye believe not your own doctrine or else prefers whoredom and adultery which is condemned of God to marriage which is Gods ordinance and honorable among all men Fourthly I say if the marriage of Adam and Eva in Paradise and the marriage of all the Patriarchs and Prophets and Priests and people in the Old Testament was not a Sacrament neither is the marriage of Christians in the New Testament a Sacrament For they were symbols that represented our spiritual conjunction with Christ as well as the marriage of Christians in the New Testament doth the which you will not deny And Pope Leo saith Epist 92. That marriage was instituted from the beginnning that they might have in themselves a Sacrament of Christ and his Church but the first you grant your selves was not a Sacrament therefore neither is the second a Sacrament Fifthly that which is filthiness and pollution cannot be a Sacrament to give forgiveness of sins but Pope Syricius calls marriage pollution and uncleanness Dist 82. cap. Proposuisti c. Plurim 8. Therefore it cannot be a Sacrament if he speak true Sixthly if marriage be such a Sacrament as ye say to give remission of sins then it should be more excellent then virginity because virginity hath not this promise but this ye will not grant therefore it is not a Sacrament Last of all Durandus a great Doctor of your Church saith Ut Capreolus refert in 4. dist 26. quaest unica artic 3. That marriage is not properly a Sacrament As for that place in the fifth of the Ephesians which ye quote where the Apostle saith This is a great mystery speaking of the mutual duâ—ies of man and wife I answer first he calls not marriage this great mystery but that band of our conjunction with Christ as he expones himself This is saith he a great mystery and then he subjoyns I speak of Christ and his Church Secondly suppose the old Interpreter doth translate this word mystery a Sacrament yet you know if you know the Greek language that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called a secret Thirdly will you have all these to be Sacraments properly which are called mysteries in the New Testament and which the old Interpreter and your Rhemists translats Sacraments then shal you not only make marriage a Sacrament but also the chief articles of our faith 1. Tim. 3.16 and the Gospel Col. 1. Eph. 3 1. 2. Thess 27 and the seven stars in the Revelation chap. 1.20 and the whore o Babel and the iniquity of the Antichrist Rev. 17 5 all Sacraments For they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek and some of them are translated Sacraments by the old Interpreter and your Rhemists as marriage is I wonder that ye quote Melancthon as though he were of your opinion seeing Bellarmin acknowledges plainly lib. 1. de matrim cap. 1. 5. that he denyes it to be a Sacrament properly as Baptism and the Lords Supper is but only grants that it is a Sacrament in some respect But you regard not what ye write so being it may carry any show against us The same we answer to you of Zuinglius and Merchiston They call it a Sacrament but not in that sense that Baptism and the Lords Supper are called Sacraments taking the word improperlie and more amply as Bellarmin confesses of Melancthon So here is no discord neither betwixt us and Christ neither among our selves But in very deed you are they who are at discord both with Christ and among your selves For beside this that Bellarmin and Innocentius calls the marriage of the Gentils Sacraments because you may answer that they call them Sacraments improperly as Melancthon Zuinglius and Merchiston calls marriage a Sacrament improperly So if they be at variance with us for calling marriage a Sacrament so is Bellarmin lib. 1. de sacram matrim c. 3 and Pope Innocent cap. gaud de divort at variance with your
bound to lay down our life one for another much more to ware out for him such things as may serve for the comfort of this life in such an extremity And the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. John 3.16 is not to supererogat as ye take it but to ware out further expenses So your blindness is gross in this And as for that of David in praising God night and day so often he was so far from thinking of himself that he had done more then the Law required of him that he never thought of himself that he had fully obeyed the Law And therefore how often prays he in that Psalm that the Lord would open his eyes to understand the Law and give him grace to perform the same Psal 119.12.17.18.27 And in other Psalms he saith My sins are mo then the hairs of my head Psal 40.12 And if thou mark iniquity who can stand Psal 130.3 And therefore this was no work of supererogation And if you knew M. Gilbert but the Lord hath blinded you either the perfection of the Law of God or our inability to perform it or the unsearchable love and kindness of God which hath obliged us to mo duties then ever we are able to do For when we have done all which is commanded us yet we are but unprofitable servants you would be so far from defending these your works of supererogation that ye would abhor and detest this doctrine SECTION XIX Concerning Christs descending into Hell Master Gilbert Brown THirteenthly our doctrine is that Christ our Savior according to the soul descended to the Hells as we have in our Belief And this was the doctrine of the Apostles for S. Peter saith That God hath raised him up loosing the sorrows of Hell according as it was impossible that he should be held of it Acts 2.24 And this he proves by the Psalms of David Behold thou wilt not leave my soul in hell saith David nor give thy holy One to see corruption Psal 16.10 This same is the doctrine of S Paul also And that he ascended what is it but because he descended also first into the inferior parts of the earth He that descended the same is he also which is ascended above all the heavens that he might fill all things Eph. 4.9.10 Ye see in these and all the rest of our doctrine wherein they differ from us that the touch-stone beares witness to us and proves ours only to be the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and not their denying thereof Master John Welsch his Reply Bellarmin grants that we all agree that Christ after a certain manner descended into hell but the whole controversie is of the sense and meaning of it We say that he suffered the pains of hell in his soul upon the cross and lay under the bondage of death and was held captive in the grave which in the Hebrew is called SCHEOL which signifieth sometime hell in the Scripture and sometime the grave for the space of three days and in this sense we grant he descended into hell and in this sense it is taken in our Belief But your doctrine is That he descended locally into hell according to his soul first to give to the souls of the Fathers essential blessedness and to deliver them out of that prison and bring them to heaven Bellarm. lib. 4. de Christo cap. 16. And this we say is neither the meaning of that article of your Belief neither yet hath it so much as a syllable in the whole Scripture to warrant it And as for the article it self Bellarmin confesses that this article was not in the Creed with all Churches as he proves there by the testimonies of Ireneus Origen Tertullian and Augustin who all exponed the Creed And Augustin exponed it five times and yet never mentions this article And Ruffinus an ancient writer testifies That this article was neither in the Creed of the Roman Church nor of the East Churches And also it is not in the Nicene Creed which is more then 300. years after Christ And Perkins a learned man in his exposition of the Creed affirms that threescore Creeds of the most ancient Councils and Fathers wants this clause Whereby it is most clear that this article was not put in at that time when the rest of the articles were gathered together but hath crept in since and that more then 300. years after the days of the Apostles For Augustin lived in the 400. years and the Nicene Creed was more then 300. years after Christ And yet because it hath continued a long time and hath been received by the consent of the Churches of God and doth also carry with it a fit understanding and sense as hath been spoken therefore it is to be retained but not in that sense as ye expone it For first if this local descension of Christ according to his soul into hell were true and that it were an article of our Faith as ye say then the four Evangelists which are the sworn pen-men of the history of his death and resurrection and especially Luke who as he saith himself Luke 1 3. intended to make an exact narration of the same who also did amply set down the same with all the circumstances thereof they would not have omitted it being a special article of our Faith if your doctrine be true seeing the end of their writing as John saith was that we might believe and by believing have eternal life John 10.31 But they never mention it as your selves cannot deny Therefore it cannot be that he locally descended into hell Secondly the Scripture makes it plain that Christs soul was in Paradise at that time with the thief For he saith unto him This night shalt thou be with me in Paradise Luke 23.43 For this cannot be meant of his God-head for it is every where neither of his body for it was in the grave Seeing therefore his soul was at that time in Paradise it could not be in hell except you will say that Paradise and hell are both one which I suppose ye will not say Thirdly if the souls of the Fathers were not in hell then Christ descended not thither For ye say That he descended thither for that effect to deliver them Bellar. lib. 4. de Christo cap. 16. but they were not in hell but in heaven which our Savior calls Abrahams bosome where Lazarus was betwixt the which and hell the Scripture testifies there is a great gulf Luke 16.23 therefore he descended not locally into hell Fourthly some of your own learned Doctors have seen this error of yours and have gone from it as Durandus by name who affirms in 3. distinct 22. quaest 3. That Christs soul descended not to hell in substance but in vertue and proves it by reasons And last of all you are at such variance among your selves concerning this point that some of you affirms That Christs soul suffered pain in hell when it was there as Cajetan in