The second thing is that you say Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck in this action which you mean the Mass did offer up his body and blood under the formes of bread and wine It is true indeed that Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck is an high-Priest and not according to the order of Aaron but yet neither is it certain out of the Scripture that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine in an external sacrifice For the Scripture saith only he brought it forth For this is the proper signification of the Hebrew word Hotzsi as in sundry places of Scripture Ezech. 22. Psal 135. Exod. 8. Num. 30. and so the Chaldaick Paraphrast Amena which is to bring forth and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Cyprian Epist ad Caecil Chrysost hom 35. in cap. 14. Genes Joseph lib. 1. cap. 19. Ambros upon the 7. cap. Epist ad Heb. he brought forth for to refresh Abraham c. And Cardinal Cajetan saith the same upon the 14 of Gen. There is nothing written there of a sacrifice or oblation but a bringing forth of bread and wine to refresh the victors saith he which is not to sacrifice And it is certain that he gave it to Abraham and his company to refresh them with after the slaughter of these Kings And the Apostle Heb 7 whereas he sets down these things wherein Melchisedeck was a type of Christ he doth not so much as give any inkling of this For there he compares Melchisedeck with Christ First that as Melchisedeck was both King and Priest so was Christ Next as Melchisedeck was without father and mother beginning and ending the Scripture not mentioning of it so was Christ Thirdly as Melchisedeck was greater then Aaron and had a more excellent Priesthood then the Levitical Priesthood so was Christs But never a word here of a sacrifice of bread and wine wherein Melchisedeck should have resembled the sacrifice of your Mass as ye suppose So you find out here that which the Spirit of God found not out and so ye make your self wiser then the holy Ghost in his Epistle But we will learn not to be wise above that which is written and to search no further then the Spirit of God hath found out already And suppose it were granted to you which ye are never able to prove that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine yet what to do hath this with your devilish abomination of your Mass wherein ye say the substance of bread and wine is gone away only the formes remaining For if your sacrifice in the Mass be like the sacrifice of Melchisedeck then the substance of bread and wine should remain as it did in the sacrifice of Melchisedeck and the bread and wine should be offered up and not Christs body and blood as bread and wine only were offered up in Melchisedeck his sacrifice So then either Melchisedeck his sacrifice is not a type of your sacrifice in the Mass or else true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament and not Christ his body and blood which is offered up Choose you then whither you will deny your sacrifice to be according to the order of Melchisedeck or else will you let go your real presence your transubstantiation and your personal offering up of Christ Jesus in your abominable Mass for one you must do Thirdly if Christ offered up such a sacrifice at his Supper as was prefigured by Melchisedeck which you affirm here then must it follow that Christ fulfilled that figure perfectly and so the same sacrifice needs no more to be offered up again and so here will follow the desolation of your Mass-Priests whose work is chiefly in repeating of this sacrifice again Fourthly I would ask you whither is this sacrifice which ye say he offered up according to the order of Melchisedeck in his last Supper one with that sacrifice which he offered up upon the cross or not If it be one then I say as he died and shed his blood on the cross and purchased an everlasting redemption by the same so this sacrifice of your Mass must be joyned with his death and shedding of his blood and must have the like vertue and effect to redeem us and so two absurdities will follow The one that Christ not only should twise have died once in the Supper and afterward upon the cross but also dies and is crucified continually in your Mass and yet the Scripture saith he died but once The other that that sacrifice of his upon the cross is superfluous for what needed him to die again to redeem mankind since the first offering of himself in the Supper was a sufficient redemption For if his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption which you cannot deny and if the sacrifice of him in the Supper be one with that of necessity it must follow that as his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption even so his sacrifice in the Supper must be a sufficient redemption for mankind And therefore Alanus a great defender of your Catholick faith saith according to the judgement of the Council of Trent That the new Covenant is founded on the blood of Christ offered up in the Supper before he was crucified and that Christ was truly our passover the day before he suffered and he saith This is the foundation of all Christian doctrine according to the judgement of the Council Alanus de Euchar. lib. 2 cap. 28. Now if this be true that he was our Passover before he died and the covenant was founded in his blood which he offered up in the Supper then certainly Christ died in vain which is more then blasphemous and so blasphemous must that doctrine of your Mass be which carries with it such a blasphemie And if you will say it is not the same with that sacrifice upon the cross then I say First you are contrary to your own Church in this who saith it is one with that sacrifice of the cross Next Christ his body and blood is not offered then in the Supper for his body and blood was offered up upon the cross and so your Mass is gone or else make two Christs one in the Supper under the forms of bread and wine which the Disciples saw not and another who was offered up upon the cross which was seen of all So whither will ye go and unto what side will ye turn you M. Gilbert for the uphold of your Mass For there are rocks and sand-beds on every side So neither did Christ offer up himself in a sacrifice at all in his last Supper neither did he it according to the order of Melchisedeck But now let us see how ye prove this sacrifice out of the institution And seeing this point of doctrine is such a weighty point as whereupon the salvation and damnation of souls doth hing therefore I pray thee Christian Reader deceive not thine own soul to thy everlasting perdition but take
in the Old Testament was and is fulfilled in the New Testament But the New Testament hath not so much as one syllable of your sacrifice of the Mass therefore it could not be prefigured in the Old Testament For if it were prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Testament it behoved either to be one with the spiritual sacrifice of all Christians or else one with the bloody sacrifice of Christ upon the cross for only these two sorts of sacrifices are prefigured in the Old Testament recorded to be fulfilled in the New Testament but your sacrifice of the Mass is one with neither of them for it is not one with the first sort for they are spiritual you will have it external neither is it one with the other of Christs sacrifice upon the cross for there he died there he shed his blood and there he suffered the torments of Gods wrath and indignation for our sins and there he satisfied the justice of God and merited an everlasting redemption to us But in your sacrifice of the Mass your selves grants that neither is he crucified nor is his blood shed nor suffers he the wrath of God for our sins nor satisfies properly the justice of God for the same nor properly merits remission of our sins in the Mass Bellarm. lib. 2. de missa cap. 4. therefore it is not one with that sacrifice of Christ upon the cross For two several actions which have two different forms and are done in divers times and places for divers ends cannot be one only and the self same sacrifice for it is the form that gives a thing to be and distinguishes it from all other things But Christ his offering up of himself upon the cross and your sacrifice of the Mass have different forms are done in divers places and times and for diverse ends therefore they cannot be both one Further if they were both one then it should follow that as the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of an infinit valor so the sacrifice of the Mass should be of the same valor But Bellarmin saith lib. 2. de missa cap. 4 fol. 740. That the sacrifice of the Mass is but of a finit valor and the sacrifice of the cross of an infinit valor Therefore they cannot be both one and the self same sacrifice Therefore this sacrifice of your Mass seeing it is not one with neither of these two sorts of sacrifices is not prefigured in the Old Testament As for the second that it was fore-told by the Prophets It is as true as the former for all the sacrifices which were fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New Testament But the New Testament as hath been said makes only mention of these two sorts of sacrifices Christs on the cross and our spiritual sacrifices and not a syllable or the sacrifice of the Mass Therefore it is not fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Testament As for these Scriptures which ye quote Malac. 1.10.11.12 Isai 19.19.21 and 56.7 they speak of the spiritual worship of God and of the spiritual sacrifices which the Gentils being called should offer up unto God under the Gospel whereof mention is made in these places Heb. 13.15.16 1. Pet. 2.5 Rom. 12.1 and 15.16 For either they speak properly and literally or else figuratively But if you say they speak properly of external sacrifices then they speak here of that legal and ceremonial worship of the Jewes and so these places doth not appertain to the New Testament Or if you will say they speak figuratively then I say they make nothing for your external sacrifice in the Mass which you will have to be a sacrifice not figuratively but properly So howsoever ye expone them they can no wayes make for your external sacrifice in the Mass Either therefore must ye prove this sacrifice of your Mass in the New Testament first which ye will never be able to do or else the figures and prophesies in the Old Testament will never prove it seeing there is nothing either prefigured or fore-told in the Old Testament but that which in the New Testament is fulfilled Let us see therefore what you can alledge for this your sacrifice in the New Testament You say that Christ the chief Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck in this action and according to the order of Aaron upon the cross instituted it Matth. 26.26 Luke 22.19 Mark 14 22. and commanded to be observed to the end of the world Before I come to the institution there are two things to be examined which you have written here The first that you say that Christ according to the order of Aaron did offer up himself upon the cross Unto the which I answer first that you gain-say here two great Papists Alanus and Bellarmin whereof the one saith that Christ never sacrificed Aaronicè that is according to the order of Aaron Alanus de Eucharist lib 2. cap. 9. The other saith that Christ his sacrifice upon the cross was neither according to the order of Melchisedeck nor yet according to the order of Aaron Bellarm. de Missa lib. 1. cap. 6 fol. 626. And not only he affirmes it that it is not according to the order of Aaron but also he affirmes that this should be certain to all the faithful So if you be of the faithful and his doctrine be true which the Pope your head hath priviledged to be printed this should also have been certain to you and so you should not have gain-said it You had need to beware of this M. Gilbert to contradict so openly the learned Fathers and Maisters of your Catholick faith for by this doing ye will both bewray your selves that you have no unity and concord one with another and also ye will bring your self in suspicion with your head that ye are not a defender of the Catholick faith seeing you so openly contradict the maisters and defenders thereof Mark this Reader what concord these men have among themselves some saying one thing some another Next I say if you refer this also to his person that as this action was according to Aaron so himself was a Priest according to his order in his sacrifice Then I say you both gain-say the plain Scriptures of God Heb. 5.6.10 and 7.11 and also the learnedst of your Church Bellar. lib. 1. de missa cap. 6. For suppose it be true that this sacrifice of his upon the cross did accomplish all the sacrifices of Aaron and put an end unto them according as he said It is finished Yet he offered up this sacrifice not as he was a Priest according to Aaron for he was not a Priest according to his order at all but as he was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck and therefore the Scripture joyns both together Heb. 5.6.7.10 to assure us that he offered up himself upon the cross as he was Priest not according to Aaron but according to Melchisedeck
3. and 11. and 15. And the Church of Galatia erred in being carried away to another Gospel and in joyning the Ceremonies of the law with grace in justification Gal. 1. and 3. And what will ye say when the heresie of Arrius who denied Christ to be the Son of God equal to his Father spread its self so far that it is testified by Theodor. hist. Eccles lib. 2. Hier. dial contra Lucif cap. 7. in chron Athanas Epist de Synod Alim Seleu. that the Bishops of the whole world became Arrians that the whole world did grieve and wonder at it self that it was become an Arrian What will ye say unto all the Christian Churches of the East Grecia Asia and Africa Churches planted by the Apostles I mean not now of them that have professed Mahometism but of them that admits the Scripture acknowledges Christ their Savior who have their ordinar succession of Patriarks and Bishops as well as your Church of Rome hath who in number far exceeds these Churches which acknowledges your Pope to be the head of the Church For first yours is but in Europe except ye will claim to the New-found land and not all Europe for all the Churches in Greece which is a great part of Europe acknowledges not your supremacy Now take the Greek Churches from you next the Reformed Churches in Scotland England Germany Denmark France Zeland Holland and other places which have gone out of Babel which are all in Europe your number will not be many that acknowledges your supremacy And next take all Asia and Africa from you which is the two parts of the world your number will be smal in comparison of these that are against your supremacy Now all these detests your supremacy as tyranny and the worship of Images your transubstantiation in the Sacrament the Communion under one kind the single life of Priests Either therefore ye must grant that the greatest number of Christian Churches have erred and doth err or else that your Roman Church doth err and your supremacy yea your Religion which depends upon your supremacy is the head of heresie But it may be ye will say that all other Christian Churches may err but that it is only proper to your Church not to err First therefore let me ask at you what can be the cause of that singular priviledge which the Church of Rome hath beside all other Churches which ever have been is or shal be Yea above Adam when he was in his integrity for he erred yea above the Angels for they remained not in the truth Jude 6 Above the Patriarcks Abraham Isaac and Jacob yea above Aaron and the Church in the wilderness above the Church under the Law yea above the Apostles and Peter himself before Christs suffering in the time of his suffering after the resurrection after the receiving of the holy Ghost for they erred in all these times Yea above the Christian Churches that have been founded by the Apostles as well as yours that had the promise the covenant the service of God once in as great purity as ever yours had that have their ordinar succession their antiquity their vocation ordinar as well as yours hath unto this day Great surely must be that priviledge given unto the Church of Rome that hath exeemed her from error others having erred What is then your prerogative above all other Churches I know that ye will say because of Peters chair that was there wherein the Popes sits after him First then if Peters chair hath such a prerogative that the Pastors who sits in it and the Church that cleaves to it cannot err I think surely the Lords chair which was at Jerusalem which was called the Temple and seat of God and Moses chair wherein the Scribes and Pharisees sate should rather have that prerogative to free the Churches and Pastors sitting in these chairs from erring yea the Church which the truth it self Jesus Christ founded whom he taught with his own mouth and among whom he was crucified should with far greater right claim to that prerogative But since all their seats have erred for the Temple became a den of thieves the Scribes and Pharisees that sate in Moses chair condemned the Lord of glory and Jerusalem it self cryed out Crucifie crucifie him And the Christian Church gathered there are long since far from the way of salvation So that if neither the chair of God nor Moses freed the Church of the Jews from erring nor the chair of Christ freed the Christian Church there gathered from erring How then can Peters chair have this prerogative above them all as to exeem that Church and Pastors that sits therein from possibility of erring What is this but to prefer him before them all whose seat hath a priviledge that neither God nor his sons nor Moses seat had O high blasphemy to be detested and abhorred of all Christian hearts But let us see if it hath this prerogative which they ascribe unto it or not And first if it could have exeemed any from erring should it not have exeemed himself especially from erring But as it hath been shown he erred Acts 1.6 Gal. 2. therefore it cannot exeem neither his successors not yet the Church that acknowledges them from erring Secondly if it had exeemed any Church from erring should it not have exeemed the Church of Antiochia especially for surely Antiochia hath better right to claim to this prerogative then your Church hath For first it was Peters first seat Next the Scripture bears witness to it that he was there Gal. 2.11 But neither was Rome Peters first seat nor is there so much as a syllab in all the Scriptures to prove that ever Peter was in Rome But suppose Peter was there for we will not examine this now whither is this prerogative not to err given to your head that is to the Popes or to the body that is the people or to both If ye say to the head as ye do indeed then what will ye answer to your own Writers and Fathers to your own Councils and Popes to your own Canon Law affirming that Popes may err and be hereticks and should be deposed and are deposed when they are manifest hereticks as hath been proved before And what will ye say to your Popes that have been hereticks indeed one of them an Arrian another an Eutychian the third a Nestorian the fourth a Montanist the fifth deposed as an heretick the sixth denying that the souls of the children of God saw Gods face while after the resurrection the seventh denying life everlasting and others giving themselves over in the hands of the Devil for the Popedom others repelling and abrogating the decrees of their predecessors others such monsters and beasts so cruel to the dead and to the living that your own friends calls them monsters and affirms of one of them that the Devil shot him through while he was abusing another mans wife and so died without repentance Dare you
it out of the histories leaving it free to Historiographers to write what they please and omit what they please Thirdly it is manifest that the Church of the Jewes in the time of Christ was changed both in doctrine and manners from that estat that it was in the time of Aaron Eleazar and sundry others and also the Churches of Galatia and Corinth that they were changed from the estat wherein they were And yet I suppose that neither ye nor any Papist in the earth is able to assign to me all the circumstances of the mutations and changes in the same as the first authors time place c. and yet there was a great change in doctrine and Religion in all these Churches as hath been proved before And we read that our Savior and the Apostles convicted them of a change and yet they designed not the first authors time and place c. The like I say of the Church of Greece Asia and Africa which in number exceeds yours That there is a wonderful change in their Church and Religion ye will not deny or else your Religion is heresie For as said is they acknowledge not your Popes supremacy transubstantiation c. And yet I suppose ye nor no Papist in the earth is able to assign all the circumstances of changes in their Church and Religion which they have presently yea more unable to do this then we are able to do the same in yours I mean not the heresies of Arrius Samosatenus Nestorius Eutyches Sergius and the rest which long ago were damned by the Councils of the Greek Churches For I suppose ye shal not be able to prove that they now maintain these heresies which they condemned and refuted long ago But I mean of the present errors and corruptions in their worship and Religion which now they maintain and profess If then ye judge the Churches of the East heretical because they are not agreeable to your doctrine and Religion of Rome and yet not be able to assign the circumstances of the changes and mutations of the same will ye not grant the same liberty to us to account and judge your Church and Religion failed because it is not agreeable to the doctrine of Jesus Christ set down in the Scripture suppose we could not assign to you the circumstances of the changes of the same Fourthly I say if you have read Epiphanius there ye shal find many heresies which I omit for shortness which he accounts heresies whose beginnings and authors are unknown Fifthly there is such an universal complaint of the monstrous abominations decays in your Religion discipline and manners and that by your own Councils Concil Constant sess 4. 5. Trident. sess 6. Basil sess 2. 3. Fathers Bernard in Cant. 33. Popes Cardinals and Friers that I would have thought it uncredible unless I had read them that either your own mouthes should have so condemned your selves or else that the posterity afterward should have been so shameless as to have boasted of the purity of their Church and Religion Therefore the Council of Trent hath proclaimed it to the world in writ that the Church hath need to be reformed in the head and members Now I ask that of you concerning these abuses in discipline and manners which ye ask of us concerning your doctrine Show me all the circumstances of mutation and change distinctly if ye can what time what place by what author c. such monstrous abominations first brake in in your Church and Religion Now seeing there is no man who hath a spark of judgement that will doubt of that incredible change of manners and discipline in your Church and yet the circumstances of the changes unknown think ye then that ye shal assure men that no changes could fall in your doctrine unless we knew the circumstances of the changes of the same Sixthly the Scripture testifies Matth. 13.27.28 that even the tares which is the evil seed doth not appear so soon as they are sown and that neither the times nor the first author of them was known no not to the most diligent laborers of the Lords ground at the first and yet it was enough to know them to be evil seed by the difference that was seen betwixt them and the good seed suppose the time place and author was unknown at the first So it is proof enough against your doctrine that it is but tares if the difference be made manifest between it and the Lords truth in the Scripture suppose the circumstances of the changes of it cannot be assigned Seventhly error is likened to leaven and a canker which doth not all at once infect the whole mass and fester the whole body but piece and piece so your corruption came not in all at once but piece and piece infected your Church and festered your Religion And therefore it is no wonder suppose the beginnings of infection and circumstances of it hath not been marked For if they had broken in all at once and suddenly overthrown the whole Church it had been no difficulty to have assigned the circumstances of the overthrow of it For if any having a whole constitution with a stroke were slain if a ship with a wave were drowned it were no difficulty to assign the circumstances of the sudden changes But in a consumption and in a leck that hath come in piece and piece in the body and in the ship the beginnings thereof cannot be so easily perceived For a little leck in process of time will sink a great ship And if it be so hard to discern the beginnings of these things which our senses may grope how much more hard is it to perceive the beginnings of these spiritual corruptions which cannot be perceived by the natural man but only by the light of Gods Spirit by the spiritual man Eightly if now it be so in other heresies as the Scripture testifies of them that their beginnings are ofttimes unknown even unto the most diligent laborers of the Lords husbandrie and that they come in by little and little and doth not infect all at once how much more is this true in your Antichristian Religion which as it was fore-told should deceive all Nations and make them drunken with the wine of her fornication And therefore your doctrine is termed in the Scripture an iniquitie but a secret iniquitie an unrighteousness but yet a deceivable unrighteousness a delusion but yet a strong delusion 2. Thess an abomination and spiritual fornication Rev. 17. but yet put in a golden cup that is having the show of godliness and Religion and your Church is called a harlot but yet finely decked in purple c. not like a harlot but a Queen Your Kingdō is called a beast that speaks like the dragon but yet like the lamb in his horns resembling the power and authority of the Lord Jesus Seeing then your Church Kingdom and Doctrine is such a mystery of iniquity hath such a show of godliness hath such a
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
nothing Thirdly then this should not be called Transubstantiation or changing of one substance into another but an annihilation of one substance that is a turning of it to nothing and a bringing in of another substance in the room of it And fourthly Thomas of Aquin your great defender of this doctrine is against this lib. 4 dist 8. But if you say they are turned in Christs body which the word Transubstantiation imports then I say as oft as the Sacrament hath been ministrated as oft hath there been some quantitie of substance added to his body and it shal still grow in greatness and quantitie as long as it shal be ministred but this is monstrous to think And to end this if you say there is no substance of bread and wine left in the Sacrament then let me ask you whose are the whiteness and redness and roundness that we see What means this taste in our mouthes of bread and wine if there be no substance of them there May we not say to you as Christ said to Thomas who doubted of his resurrection Put thy finger here behold my hands put thy hand in my side and be not incredulous but believe So may not we say to you who doubteth whither the substance of bread and wine be here remaining yet touch them taste them look on them and feel them and be not incredulous but believe For behold there would not be such a color such a taste and smel and there were not substance of bread and wine here And I pray you tell me what is this that rots then and growes in worms in the bread and souers in the wine if they be long kept If their substance remaineth not will you say Christs flesh and blood rots and consumes and souers What is this but to make him mortal yea to crucifie him again And if you will not say that then either must you confess that their substance remaines and is not changed or else Christs flesh and blood is transubstantiated in these substances which rots and souers or else that the accidents is changed again in their substances and so ye shal not have one but mo changes in your Sacrament Yea if their substance be gone and nothing but their accidents remaining then how could Pope Victor the 3. and the Emperor Henry the 7. have been poisoned with them as Fasciculus temp Platina Blond testifieth accidents and Christs body could neither poison them nor be capable of poison therefore they felt by experience that there was no Transubstantiation in the Sacrament So we see the texts ye brought with you is against you as the sword that Goliah brought to slay David cutted off his own head But yet you will say If the bread be not his body why then did he call it his body this is the chief thing you have for your doctrine answer this and the plea is won Unto this then I answer that in that same sense he said This is my body In the which he said afterward which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Luke 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is given in the present time But there can be no sense of these words but this the bread was broken and signified that his body should be broken with the sorrows of death for his body was not broken before he suffered and the Apostle saith it is bread which is broken so then as the breaking of the bread signified the breaking of his body so the bread signified his body and as his body was not broken indeed when the bread was broken so the bread could not be his body in very deed when he so called it For the resemblance and likeness thereof between the bread and his body the bread it is called his body c. and this phrase is very frequent in the Scripture to give the name of the things signified to the sign as shal be seen afterward M. Gilbert Brown Now let the Ministers come in here with their natural reasons against the omnipotencie of Christ that he cannot be in two places at once and with their figurs signs similituds symbols and spiritual eating of a natural body with many the like which are the inventions of their own brains not contained in the written Word And who can say but that our doctrine in this is the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and not theirs M. John Welsch his Reply Ye prevent our answers here and first ye bid us hold away our natural reasons against the omnipotency of Christ that he cannot be in two places at once Whereunto I answer that we shal bring no reason neither natural nor supernatural against the omnipotency of Christ for we acknowledge it and adores it But we say to you pretend not his omnipotency for your monstrous imaginations which have no warrant of his will in his Scripture For first we say this argument of yours will not follow Christ is able to make his body to be in two places both at once in heaven and in the Sacrament therefore he makes it to be so For you must first prove he will do so for your self M. Gilbert can do many things which you do not because you will not so from can to will it follows not And if you say that Christ hath willed so because he said This is my body I have answered to it before refute you it and all your Roman Clergy if you can For you might as well say Christ willed the cup wherein the wine was to be changed in his blood and New Testament and himself to be changed in a vine-tree and a door and a rock to be changed in him because so hath he and his Apostles spoken John 10. and 13. 1. Cor. 10 and 11. and these speaches are as true as that and yet there is no change here Next I say your own School-men and great defenders of Transubstantiation Thomas of Aquin and others say lib. 1 cap. 84. lib. 2. cap. 25. contra Gent. That it is against the omnipotency of God to affirm that he may do any thing which implyes a contradiction in its self for that is rather to be called a weakness then a power And the Scripture affirms that God cannot lie nor deny himself nor be tempted and that yea and nay it not in Christ Heb. 6. 2 Tim. 2. James 1.2 Cor. 1. but to Christs body both to be a true body like to us in all things to wit essential except sin as the Scripture saith and to be in mo places at once which makes him to have not a true body like ours For Augustin saith ad Dardanum speaking of Christs glorified body If it be a true body it is then in a certain place and take away from bodies their quantities they are no more true bodies implyes a contradiction and is yea and nay in him and Christs body both to be visible and invisible at one time to be in a certain place in heaven with his own length and
breadth and not to have his own length and breadth at once in the Sacrament is a manifest contradiction is yea and nay in Christ therefore both by the Scripture and your own doctrine the omnipotency of Christ cannot be alledged or pretended for this your doctrine which is yea and nay and implyes a manifest contradiction So this in very truth is the invention of your own brain which is alledged for your Transubstantiation and wants the warrant yea is gain-said both by the written Word and your own School-men Next ye would have us to hold away our figurs symbols and similituds I answer our own figurs we shal hold away but these figurs symbols and signs wherein our Savior hath delivered his truth to us we must and will acknowledge So then obeying rather God who hath set them down in his Scripture then you who forbids us to acknowledge them and what a monstrous exposition would you make of infinit places of Scripture if you would admit no figures in them but all to be understood plainly and literally as they were spoken The Scripture ascribes to God eyes ears foot hands and a face and the Scripture calls Christ a door a vine Now if you will admit no figurs here but will have all these places exponed literally as you will have us to do in the Sacrament then you would be reckoned in the number of the old hereticks called Anthropomorphitae who because they saw the Scripture speak so of God they taking it literally and exponing it without figurs as you would have us to expone the Sacrament they thought that God was bodilie yea you must make another monstrous Transubstantiation of Christ in a door and vine-tree for so he calls himself And to come to the Sacraments themselves how many transubstantiations will you make in all the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament if you will remove figurs and signs from them and expone them literally as you would have us to do in this Sacrament Circumcision is called the covenant Gen. 27. and yet it was but the sign of the covenant the Lamb in the Passover is called the Passover of the Lord Exod. 12. and yet it was but the sign of the Passover the Rock in the wilderness is called Christ 2. Cor. 20. and yet it was but a sign of Christ the Ark is called the Lord Psal 24. and yet it was but a sign of the Lord the land of Canaan is called the rest of the Lord. Heb. 4. and yet it was but a sign of that rest and Baptism is called the washing of regeneration Tit. 3. and yet it is but the sign of our regeneration Do you think that the forms of speaches in all other Sacraments are figuratively taken and the form of speach in this Sacrament only to be literally understood What reason can there be of this diversity But it may be you think that the form of speaches in all other Sacraments should be taken figuratively but the phrase of speach in this Sacrament is to be taken literally But first what then will you say to this speach This is my body which is broken for you and this The cup is the New Testament in my blood and the cup is my blood and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ and the cup which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 11. Luke 22. Mark 14. 1. Cor. 13. all figurative speaches and to be understood figuratively otherwise Christ should have been broken in the Sacrament which is both contrary to the Scripture and also absurd For then he should have suffered twise once in the Sacrament and once upon the cross and not only should there be one transubstantiation in the Sacrament but many as of the cup in the blood of Christ and of the bread and cup in the participation of the body and blood of Christ and so you should not only have one transubstantiation but many And how I pray you can Sacraments which are but figurs signs and symbols be understood but figuratively And how can duo diversa individua alterum de altero praedicari in praedicatione and be spoken of another without a figure as it is here This bread is my body c. Can you or any at all of your Roman Clergy understand such propositions otherwise then figurativelie What an unreasonable thing is it then to you to forbid us to acknowledge figurs in this Sacrament which is but a figure and sign seeing they are so frequentlie used in the Scriptures of God and especiallie in Sacraments as also in this Sacrament So nil ye will ye signs and symbols tropes and figurs ye must admit in the exposition of this Sacrament Last of all ye think a natural bodie cannot be spirituallie eaten Would you be so absurd and blasphemous as to have Christs bodie naturallie eaten For then his bodie must be naturallie chawed digested turned over in our substance and casten out in the draught and so be mortal and suffer again Apage hanc blasphemiam Let me ask you whither is Christs bodie the food of the soul or the food of the bodie If you say it is the food of the bodie to fill the bellie then I say it must be naturally eaten but you are blaspemous in so thinking But if you say it is the food of the soul as it is indeed and as our Savior saith John 6.35 then it cannot be eaten naturally For as the food of the body cannot be eaten spiritually so the food of the soul cannot be eaten naturally but spiritually by faith And if you understood this true eating of Christ by faith all your contention would take an end But this is the stone which ye stumble at and therefore ye forbid us to come in with a spiritual eating of Christs natural body as though it could be eaten otherwise then spiritually by faith Will you neither understand the Scriptures John 6 35. nor the ancient Fathers August tract 26. in Joh. 6 lib 3. de doct Christ cap. 16 Clemens Alex Hierom. S Basilius Bernardus supra citat nor your own Church Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 1. cap. 7. and your Canon Law de consecrat dist 1. cap. 5. who all acknowledge a spiritual eating of Christ by faith What gross darkness is this wherewith the Lord hath blinded you above all that ye cannot understand it As Christ dwells in us and we in him so do we eat him and drink him But the Apostle saith he dwells in us by faith Ephes 3. therefore we eat him and drink him by faith And seeing your Church grants that the eating of Christ corporally doth no good and the eating of him by faith only will bring eternal life as our Savior saith John 6. what needs then this corporal and real eating of Christ And why are ye like the gross and carnal Capernaits who can understand no eating but a corporal eating of him
And what is the cause that ye cannot understand the doctrine of your own Church which acknowledges a spiritual eating of Christ by faith both by the Word and by the Sacrament also de consecr dist 2. cap. Ut quid I had never have thought that ye had been so far blinded of the Lord. But I leave you to the Lord. Let the Christian Reader now judge whether our doctrine or yours be the invention of mans brain and which of them have their warrant out of the written Word of God M. Gilbert Brown And further I say of these words This is my body which shal be delivered for you 1. Cor. 11.24 which is a true proposition and therefore this must follow But there was no body delivered for us but the natural body of Christ therefore it was his natural body that he gave to his Disciples to be eaten Then if it were his natural body it was not natural bread As Saint Ambrose expounds the same Let us prove saith he this not to be that that nature formed but that thing which the blessing hath consecrate and greater strength to be in blessing then in nature for nature it self is changed by blessing He hath the same more amplie in the fourth book in the 4 chap. de Sacramentis Maister John Welsch his Reply First I answer the words of the Apostle is not as ye cite them here which shal be delivered but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is broken and in the present time and so in Luke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is given so you are not faithful in translating this place of Scripture both contrary to the Greek and Syriak copies Upon the which I reason thus this proposition is true This is my body which is broken for you so the Apostle saith but Christs body was not broken then really for not a bone of him was broken at all as the Scripture testifies Exod 12. and the Scripture saith John 19. and all men confesses that he suffered but once so only his sufferings are signified then by the breaking of the bread in the Sacrament here so as Christs body was not broken then really that is suffered but his suffering only signified by the breaking of the bread so his body was not given really and corporally to be eaten but only signified Secondly I say it is true that Christs natural body was delivered to the death for us but yet it will not follow upon this that it was his natural body which he gave to them to be eaten corporally for his natural body was really delivered to death for us and it was but given to them spiritually to be eaten You must coyn a new Logick M. Gilbert ere you can make these two stick together and the one necessarilie to follow upon the other For by that same reason you may as well conclud that Christ gave his natural body to be eaten corporally in the word for he gives himself to be eaten in his word as well as in his Sacrament 2. John 6.35 Bellarmin grants this also lib. 1. de Eucharist cap. 7. and also he gives that same body to them in the word which was delivered to death for the self same Christ is offered and received as well in the word as in the Sacrament So from his bodilie death to a corporal eating of him it will not follow And further by that same reason you may as well say that the Fathers before Christ under the Law did eat Christs body corporally for they ate that same spiritual food and drank that same spiritual drink in their Sacraments which we do now in ours So the Apostle testifies even that self same Christ his body and blood which was delivered to the death and yet it will not follow that they did eat his natural body c. As for Ambrose it is true he so speaks but he expones himself in that same chapter while as he saith Before the blessing another form or thing is named but after the consecration the body of Christ is signified If the bread then signifie the body of Christ it is not changed in his body And because of this holy use to signifie the body of Christ Ambrose saith That the nature is changed by blessing and that this is his meaning his words following will declare it where he saith Shal not the words of Christ be of force to change the form of the elements In that same sense Ambrose saith the nature of the elements is changed in the which he saith the form of them is changed for he affirmeth both there But ye will not say I suppose unless you will overthrow your transubstantiation that Ambrose means that the form of the elements is changed in substance but only in use and signification for you say the forms remains therefore you must also grant that Ambrose means not by the change of nature the change of the substance of them but only the change in the use of them from a common use to a holy use And because it may be you will delay to subscribe to the truth of our doctrine until you hear the sentence and judgement of the Fathers Therefore I will set them down here Tertullian saith contra Marc. lib. 4. This is my body that is a figure of my body Chrysostome saith in 1. Cor. cap. 10. What is that which the bread signifies the body of Christ Theodoret saith dialog 1. and 2. The bread and wine is signs and figures of the body and blood of Christ And he saith Our Savior in the institution of the Sacrament enterchanged the names and gave to the sign or symbol the name of his body and these mystical signs of these holy things whereof are the signs Unto the which he answers Are they not signs of the body and blood of Christ Hieronymus saith in Mat. 2.6 That Christ by taking of the bread which comforts the heart of man representeth the truth of his bodie Cyrillus saith ad Euop Matth. 11. Bas Liturgia Nazian in orat 2. de Pas funere Gorg. Our Sacrament avoweth not the eating of a man Basilius and Nazianzen calls the bread and wine in the Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 figurs or signs of the body of Christ Cyprian saith lib. 1. ep 6. ejus contra Adima cap. 12. Psal 3. The Lord called bread made of many grains his body and wine made of many grapes his blood Augustin saith Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body while as he gave but the sign of his body And he calls it the figure of his body and blood And their Canon Law saith de conseer dist 2. cap. Hoc est The heavenly bread which is the flesh of Christ is called after a manner the body of Christ while as it is but the Sacrament of his body And the Gloss there saith The heavenly bread that is the heavenly Sacrament which represents truly the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly I omit
the rest which is exceeding many and because if you be a right defender of the Catholick Faith you will say with the rest of your Clergie that the Pope cannot err Therefore a Pope Gelasius by name saith de duabus natura in Christo Neither the substance of the bread nor nature of the wine ceaseth to be any more then they were before but remain in their own substance And he calls them there An image and resemblance of the body and blood of Christ Now tell me Master Gilbert do not these speak as plain as we Will you avow your transubstantiation which they so flatly deny And as our Savior saith A Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand so the manifold divisions among your selves concerning this transubstantiation is a very sure argument of the falling both of you and your doctrine Some of you expounds this word hoc this (1) Bonaventure Gerson contra Florentiū lib. 4. of the bread (2) As Thomas lib. 4 seu dist 8. Occam in 4 sent d. 13. q. 16.17 Some of Christs body (3) Innocent 3 de offic miss pag. 3 object 14 Scotus in l. 46. d. 8. q. 3. and some calls it an individuum vagum (4) Durandus rational 4 some saith it signifieth nothing (5) Holcot in 4. sent quaest 1 and some saith it signifieth a thing which is common both to terminus à quo and terminus ad quem Secondly in the exposition of the word est is some for it is some for it is changed Thirdly some (a) Thomas saith the substance of the bread and wine returns to nothing some saith (b) The gloss of Gratian and the extravag de cōsecr dist 2 cap. Species c firmit extr de summa Trinitate it passes in the body of Christ Fourthly some saith (c) C. non oportet ibi gloss de consecrat dist 2. c. Cum Martha para verum eleemos the water in the Sacrament returns to nothing some saith it is changed in the blood with the wine some saith it is (d) Thomas 3974 art 8. turned in Christs vital humors some saith it is turned in the wine and after in the blood some saith (e) Durand lib. 4. cap. 42. they dare not define it Fifthly some saith (f) Thomas Epist 59. 3. quaest 79. the worms that are bred of the Sacrament comes of the quantitie other some saith (g) Durand lib. 3. cap. 41. they are bred of the substance Sixthly some saith Christ (h) Idem lib. 4. cap. 41. consecrated by the word he blessed some by the (i) M. Gilbert words This is my body and the blessing together some (k) Gloss in cap. Utrum in verbis perferri de cons dist 2. will have the consecration to be made in heaven and some frankly (l) Scotus in repor dist 8. qu. 2. confesses That they neither know the words nor the number of them whereby this consecration is made And to omit six hundred the like I will only touch these few (m) Gloss in l. tribus some saith The body of Christ is taken bodily with the mouth (n) Cajetan tom 2. cap. 2. 3. 5. some saith That it feeds (o) Gloss ibidem some saith As soon as it is pressed with the teeth the body of Christ is caught up to heaven (p) Durand rational lib. 4. But other some faith It passeth from the teeth to the heart and then the bodily presence ceases (q) Bonavent 4. dist 13. art 2. qu. 2. and other some will have him go to the stomack c. but not to the mind And yet he saith He doubts whither he goes to the belly or not for the variety of opinions and in so great variety he saith what to hold is hard to judge And suppose he holds it That the body of Christ goes not into the belly of a mouse or is casten out into the draught because saith he the ears of well disposed persons would abhor it and infidels and hereticks would jest at it and laugh us to scorn Yet sundry others holds as Alexander de Hales part quaest 45. Thomas Aquin parte 3. qu. 80. art 3. Antonius Archiepisc part 3. tit 13. cap. 6. That not only it goes into the belly but also Christs body may be vomited up or purged out in the draught and that brute beasts may eat Christs body it may go into the belly of dogs and swine O filthy mouthes unclean spirits what heretick what Capernait was ever so gross and carnal yea so barbarous and brutish as ye are So not only are ye more gross then the Capernaits who thought that saying hard but also like the barbarous Canibals who eat the flesh of man O blind leaders of the blind shal myce dogs and swine eat and drink the precious body and blood of Christ Shal they then have eternal life I think the ears of all Christians will abhor this your doctrine and their hearts will tremble at it These absurdities together with Scriptures and Fathers against the same hath made some of your great pillars to say as Fisher against the captivity of Babylon That no man can prove by the words of the Gospel that any Priest in these days doth consecrat the very body and blood of Christ And others as Lindanus Panop lib. 4. Canisius and Petrus a Soto supra citati That transubstantiation it but a tradition which hath not the author of it in the Scripture nor cannot be defended by the same And others as Tonstal de Sacramentis That it had been better to have left every man to his own conjecture as they were before the Council of Lateran then to bring in such a question I have been longsome in this but yet it so behoved me because it is the foundation of their sacrifice of the Mass and their other idolatries and abominations So then to conclud this seeing your doctrine of Transubstantiation is agreeable neither to the doctrine of Christ nor his Apostles nor ancient Fathers nor your own Canon Law and Popes as they have been cited And seeing ye are at such variance among your selves concerning the same therefore it is to be rejected as heretical damnable and blasphemous by all Christians And this for the fourth point of your doctrine SECTION X. Concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass Master Gilbert Brown WE have only in our Church that heavenly action and sacrifice which we call the blessed Mass that our Savior did at his latter Supper and was (a) Levit. 2. per totum 6.20 prefigured by the Law of Moses and fore-spoken by the (b) Mal. 1.10 11. Isai 19.19.21 and 56.7 Prophets For Christ being the chief Priest of all Priests according to the order of (c) Genes 14.18 Psal 109.4 Heb. 7.3.17 Melchisedec in this action according to the order of (d) Heb. 9.12.13.14 Aaron upon the Cross took (e) Matth.
own heads as may be seen in our Psalm books Whereunto I answer If ye respect the matter contained in our thanksgiving it hath the warrant of the Scripture and so in that respect it is not our own invention If ye respect the authority we are taught and commanded by our Savior both by his example for he gave thanks and also by his commandment Do this to do the same And so in that respect it is not our own invention If you respect the end it is Gods glory which is the proper end of all thanksgiving If ye will respect the form of this thanksgiving to wit the words and order wherein it is conceived I say it is left indifferent to the Church of God to form their prayers and thanksgiving so being the matter end and authority of the using of them publickly have their warrant out of the Word of God So seeing the authority to give thanks and the matter also of our thanksgiving and end thereof is set down in the Word and seeing the Lord hath left it free to the Church of God concerning the outward form of the same the Scriptures not determining it which your self I hope will not deny For your Canon hath many forms of prayers and thanksgiving in your Mass which after that form and order is not set down in the Word of God Therefore you injury the Lords Spirit and his Church who calls our thanksgiving our own invention As to the third concerning blessing which you distinguish from thanksgiving and saith we have blotted it out of our Scots Bibles and put thanksgiving in the room thereof and so you say we want that part First then I will ask you Did not Luke and the Apostle Paul set down the whole form and the chief points of the institution of that Sacrament I suppose you will not deny it for it were too plain an impiety for you to say that either Luke the sworn pen-man of Gods Spirit or Paul who said I have received of the Lord that which also I have delivered unto you 1. Cor. 11.23 that either of these had omitted the history of the institution of this Sacrament a principal point thereof but either this blessing is one with thanksgiving or else they have omitted a principal point thereof for neither of them makes mention in these places of blessing but only of thanksgiving therefore it is one with thanksgiving Secondly I say either the whole three Evangelists and the Apostle Paul in setting down the institution of the Sacrament of the Supper omits a chief thing to wit the blessing of the cup which I suppose ye will not say or else the blessing of the cup is one with thanksgiving for the Apostles Paul Luke makes no mention at all of blessing but only of thanksgiving and the two Evangelists Matthew and Mark makes no mention of the blessing of the cup but saith that after or also he took the cup and when he had given thanks c. therefore they are one Thirdly if ye will credit one Evangelist exponing another whereas Matthew and Mark have this word and he blessed Luke and Paul have these words And he gave thanks And whereas Matthew and Mark have this word blessing after he took the bread they use the word thanksgiving after he took the cup to signifie that they are both one And therefore if ye will believe Scripture exponing Scripture they are both one Yea what will you say to Bellarmin who saith lib. 1. de sacram Euchar. cap. 10 That some Catholicks contends that both the words to bless and to give thanks in the Scripture signifies one thing and therefore they interpret thanksgiving blessing So if you will credit your own Catholicks they are both one here And whereas you say that both in the Greek and Latin they signifie diverse things I answer Indeed it is true that sometimes they signifie diverse actions as blessing Numb 6. for the petition of a blessing But yet sometimes also blessing is taken in the Scripture for thanksgiving as both I have proved in these places as also if ye will deny there is many places in the Scripture for the contrary as Luke 1.65 Eph. 1.3 1. Pet. 1.3 And whereas you say that in Mark they signifie two distinct actions I have proved before they are both one And last of all I say if by blessing you mean the words of the consecration this is my body which is broken for you c. as Bellarmin affirms lib. 4. de sacram Euch. cap. 13 that the Roman catechist so expones it and the Theologues commonly teaches the same then I say we want not that chief point for we rehearse the words of the institution So howsoever the word blessing be taken either for thanksgiving or for the sanctification of these elements to an holy use by prayer which is comprehended in the thanksgiving or for the words as ye call them of the consecration we have always this blessing in our cōmunion And as for your hovering and blowing of the words of Christ over the bread and calice with your crossing and charming them after the manner of Sorcerers with a set number and order of words and signs your hiding it your rubbing of your fingers for fear of crums your first thortering and then lifting up of your arms your joining and disjoyning of thumb and fore-finger and sundry other vain and superfluous ceremonies and curiosities which you use in blessing of the elements they have neither command nor example of Christs institution and action and the Apostles doctrine and doing in the Scriptures of God Now as to the fourth giving or offering up of the body and blood of Christ to his Father by the faithful We confess a giving to his Disciples which you call afterward a communicating But for another giving that is as you expone it an offering up of his body and blood to his Father we utterly deny it as a thing not so much as once mentioned in the whole institution but contrary to the same and Antichristian and therefore we utterly abhor it and detest it as an invention of your own as Antichristian as idolatry as abomination as that which derogates from that blessed only one sacrifice whereby he offered up himself once upon the cross never to be offered up again as the Scripture testifies Heb. 25. And Bellarmin saith plainly lib. 1. de missa cap. 12. 24. That this offering up is not expresly set down in the words of the institution and that it cannot be easily discerned And as for the fifth a communicating we have it and that not only of the bread and wine as ye here imagine but of Jesus Christ God and Man his very flesh and blood and all his blessings by faith spiritually seeing therefore we have all these points which are requisit in the institution a lawful Minister thanksgiving blessing giving and communicating therefore we have the true institution of Christ in the
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
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
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
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
to be his seat Rev. 18. therefore Constantin the Great leaving the City of Rome to Sylvester the Bishop of R me made yet the way more easie till at the last they first got the primacy of honor next of authority and jurisdiction over their brethren and then last of all did subdue the necks of Kings and Emperors unto them The which they did not attain unto at the first but piece and piece and that not without long and great resistance both of the Church as I have proved before condemning his Monarchy in all ages and of the Emperors as we shal see hereafter And as they ever grew in their superiority so did the purity of the Church of Christ decay and as a pest infects not a Kingdom all at once but piece and piece so did your Antichristian heresie it infected not all at once but piece and piece till at the last it went over all While as then Merchiston makes the beginning of his reign to be in the 316 year of God and the Church from thence to become invisible His meaning is that then that let which the Apostle speaks of was begun to be removed that his seat and throne might be in Rome and from thence as they grew in hight so was the Church ay more and more continually obscured till at the last the Lord did scatter that darkness by the light of his Gospel which came to pass in our days Master Gilbert Brown The Church that is set down to us in the Word of God can no way be invisible for when the holy Writ speaks of the Church of Christ it speaks of a visible number of men and women and no wise of Angels or spirits as may be seen in these examples Numb 20.4.3 Kings 8.14 Matth. 16.18 and 18.17 Acts 15.3.4 and 18.22 and 22.28 1. Tim. 3.15 Master John Welsch his Reply I come now to your arguments First you say that the Church that is set down to us in the Word of God can no ways be invisible because say ye when it speaks of the Church it speaks of a visible number of men and women and no ways of Angels or spirits I answer This is most false For the Scripture sets down to us that Church which is the body of Christ Eph. 1.22.23 and whereof he is the head and Savior Eph. 5.23 and which is built upon the rock Col. 1.18 which is called the congregation of the first born whose names are written in heaven Heb. 12.23 and that Jerusalem which is the mother of us all Gal. 4.26 Matth. 16.28 And this is the Catholick Church which comprehends all the elect as well triumphant as militant which is invisible for the respects before said as I have proved And suppose the elect that are here militant may be seen as they are men and ofttimes also in respect of their outward profession yet it follows not but that they are invisible in so far as they are a part of the Catholick Church And also that sometimes through the extremity of persecution they may be latent and lurk so that they are not openly visible and known to all as I have said before As for these places of Scripture to wit Num. 20 4. 3. Kings 8.14 Acts 15.3.4 and 20.28 and 18.22 and 1. Tim 3 15 they speak all of particular Churches which we grant unto you are visible suppose not ay alike as hath been proved As for the 16. of Matthew it speaks of the Church of the chosen for they only are built upon this rock and against whom the gates of hell prevail not and they are invisible in respect before said as hath been proved As for the 18 of Matthew it is quoted afterward therefore I refer the answer of it unto that place Master Gilbert Brown The Scripture also in many places compares the Church to visible things that cannot be unseen as He hath placed his tabernacle in the Sun A city cannot be hid set on a mountain It is also compared to a light set on a candlestick to lighten the whole house and not to be put under a bed or a bushel with many the like which I have omitted for brevities cause saving some here at the end Moreover our Savior commands us to complain to the Church if our brother offend us and also we ought to joyn our selves to the true Church or else we cannot have remission of our sins But how can a man complain to it if it cannot be seen Or joyn himself to it if it be invisible The Church of Christ may never want the true preaching of the Word and right administration of the Sacraments but these things are always visible because by the Ministers they are the signs and marks of the Church therefore the true Church may be always known by them To be short not only the Word of God affirms the Church to be alwayes visible as I have noted before but also the ancient Fathers in all their works as partly I have marked also Psal 18.6 read S. Aug. on this Mat. 5.15 Isai 69.9 Dan 2.35 Mich. 4.1.2 Read Hieron on these places Aug 1. tract in Epist Joan. item de bapt lib. 4. cap. 1. Matth. 18.17 Cyprian de simpli praelat Jer. 1. Epist ad Damas Aug. lib. 19. contra Faust cap. 11. Origen homil 30. in Matth. Cyp. lib de unitat Eccles Chrysost hom 4. in cap. 6. Isai August lib. 3. contra Epist. Parmeni cap. 3. item tract 1. in Epist Joan. tract 2. item Epist 166. ad Donatistas M. John Welsch his Reply As for the 18. Psalm it speaks not of the visibility of the Church there but of the Lords wonderful and glorious works and specially in disponing such a glorious place or tabernacle or throne to the Sun to shine in the which demonstrates the glory of the Lord. As for Augustine exposition it results of the corrupted old Translation which was not taken from the Hebrew fountain but from the version of the Septuagints therefore Pagninus Vatabius and Arias Montanus a Papist and Tremellius expone it not so but after the Hebrew Secondly he means not here of the Catholick Church but of particular Churches which were exceeding far enlarged in his days but yet this hinders not but that they should be obscured in the time of the Antichrist as it was fore-told and your Church acknowledges As for the 5. of Matthew 15.16 there not the Catholick Church but the Pastors of particular Churches are compared to this light which is set up in the candlestick and to the city set up upon the hill top which cannot be hid that is the eyes of all is on them and therefore they should be so much the more wake-rife and careful because their doings cannot be hid As for Isai 2.3 and 60.20 and 61.9 and Dan. 2.35 and Mich. 4.12 they prophesie of the greatness and clearness of the Church of Christ in the time of the Messias and of the propagation of the Gospel throughout the
did not obey the other As also a number of the Fathers of your own Religion who in two General Councils the one of Constance where there was almost a thousand Fathers the other of Basel did not obey the Pope in defining General Councils to be above the Pope So if ye speak truth infinit millions of Christians in all ages and innumerable Churches and thousands of your own Religion are condemned to Hell But this is false M. Gilbert and who will believe you And to the end now my conclusion yet holds sure That seeing his Kingdom is that second beast that hath two horns like the Lamb and speaks like the Dragon Rev. 13.11 And himself is that man of sin and son of perdition that adversary and Antichrist that was to come 2. Thess 2.3.4 And his doctrine is that Apostasie and abomination sore-told in the Scripture Rev. 17. And his seat that Harlot and mystical Babylon that mother of whoredoms who is drunken with the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus Whosoever receives his mark on his fore-head or hand that is openly or privatly professes obedience unto him shal as the Angel proclaimed drink of the wine of the wrath of God yea of that pure wine in the cup of his wrath and he shal be tormented with fire and brimstone before the holy angels and before the Lamb. And the smoak of his torment shal ascend for evermore and they shal have no rest day nor night which worship the beast or his image And as for your prayer I beseech God M. Gilbert that he may open my eyes and inlarge my heart to understand and imbrace his truth more and more and to make me to grow up in that spiritual communion with Christ and his members more and more But that which ye call truth is heresie and that which ye call the true Church is Babel and therefore that doctrine and Church of yours is that strong delusion and whore of Babel with the which whosoever shal communicat is excluded from the merits of Christ and shal be partaker of her plagues and finally shal be damned SECTION XXVIII That the Pope is Antichrist Master Gilbert Brown IF the Pope be the Antichrist what is the cause that M. John would not set down some place out of the Word of God that proves the same But good Reader I will let you see how far M. John is against the Word of God in this and that by some examples only First our Savior shew unto the Jews that albeit he came in the name of his Father yet they would not receive him If another saith he shal come in his own name him ye will receive This no doubt as Augustin expones the same is meant of the Antichrist that the Jews shal receive Now it is out of all controversie that the Jews never received the Pope Therefore the Pope is not the Antichrist Again the Pope came never in his own name but in the Name of Christ for he is called the Vicare of Christ and the servant of the servants of God therefore he cannot be the Antichrist Master John Welsch his Reply I come now to prove that which I offered before to prove to wit that your Popes which ye will have to be the Head of the Church of Christ are the self-same Antichrist that the Scripture fore-told should come Thou wouldest know Christian Reader of what weight this controversie is Whether the Pope be the Antichrist or not For this supremacy of his unto them is the foundation whereupon their Religion and the safety of their whole Church depends so that they call it The Rock whereupon the Church is built against which the gates of Hell shal not prevail Rhemist annot upon Matth. 16. And Bellarmin calls him in his Preface before the controversie of the Popes supremacy The foundation which upholds the house of God the Pastor which feeds his flock the Emperor which governes his host the Sun which gives light to the starrs that is to the Ministers of the Church the Head which gives life to his body So that remove his supremacy the house of God must fall the flock of Christ must be scattered the host of the Lord must be discomfited the starrs that is the Ministery must be darkened and the body must ly still without motion And he applyes these Prophesies Isai 28.16 and 8.14.15 spoken and fulfilled only in the Son of God unto him a calling him that foundation stone in Sion upon the which the whole Church is built and that proved stone against the which the gates of Hell hath never nor never shal prevail and that corner stone which joyns both Jew and Gentil as two walls together in a Christian Church and that precious stone from whence the infinit treasure of grace is most plenteously derived unto the whole Church as unity in doctrine the bond of peace the unity of faith which is salvation it self and the very life of Religion And he saith There is no way to Christ but by Peter in whose room their Popes succeed So that in their judgement there is no way to Christ but by the Pope And he calls him that rock of offence and stumbling stone spoken of in Isai chap. 8. Upon the which whosoever shal fall shal be broken and on whom it shal fall it shal dash him in pieces O blasphemous mouth Let the heavens be confounded at this And therefore this is of such a weight that Boniface the 8 hath made it an article of our Faith whose words are these We declare we affirm we define and pronounce that it is altogether needful to salvation to all creatures to be under the Pope of Rome Extra de minoritate obedientia cap. unam sanctam So that Bellarmin saith when the Popes supremacy is called in controversie The sum of all Christianity is called in question and when that is controverted Then it is controverted whether the Church should stand any longer or not or fall and dissolve Unto them therefore it is an article of Faith which must be believed and practised under the pain of the loss of salvation And unto us he is that self-same Antichrist which the Scripture hath fore-told time hath made manifest and the Church hath suffered Unto them he is the Head of the body of Christ the Pastor of his flock the Sun that gives light to the starrs the foundation of the house of God and a mortal God among men Unto us he is Gods enemy the son of perdition the second beast and false prophet 2 Thess 2.13 Rev. 13.11 the adversary of true Religion a pest in the body a tyrant in the Common-wealth and Antichrist in the Church So thou sees Christian Reader of what weight this controversie is Let us see then how he defends him from being the Antichrist and then you shal hear our reasons to the contrary You ask wherefore I set not down some places of Scripture to prove the Pope to be the Antichrist I answer Not
upon this rock But your Popes of Rome are not one singular person but many Therefore your Popes of Rome are not this rock upon the which Christ promised to build his Church What difference is there between your argument for the Pope and this argument against the Pope seeing both are grounded upon the like phrase Choose you then M. Gilbert whether will you have the Antichrist not to be one singular person but a succession of many Or will you have the Popes not to be the rock whereupon the Church is built For the one ye must Thirdly I say the Apostle Paul saith speaking of the Antichrist That the mystery of iniquity is begun even now to work 2. Thess 2.7 And John saith This is the spirit of that Antichrist which ye heard was to come and is even now present in the world 1. John 4.3 And the Apostle saith The Lord shal destroy him with his presence 2. Thess 2.8 And your doctrine is that he shal not come while the end of the world Now what a monstrous man will you make him whose spirit was in the dayes of the Apostles and who must continue till the end of the world if the Scripture be true a man of fifteen hundred years of age already Is this credible Or are you able to perswade men that have but the least drop of reason left in them and believe the Scripture that the Antichrist should be but one singular man since the Scripture saith that his spirit was present in the world and his iniquity even then began to work in the Apostles dayes that is ◠1500. years since and he shal continue to the end of the world Fourthly is it possible that one singular person can perform all these things which either the Scripture or your own doctrine tell he shal do For the Scripture saith He shal resemble the Lamb with horns He shal speak like the Dragon He shal do all the power of the former Beast He shal make all men to worship the beasts image He shal make all both rich and smal c. to receive his mark c. so that no man shal buy or sell but he that hath his mark c. so that all Nations shal be drunken with the wine of her fornication Rev. 13 and 14. and 17. and 18. And your doctrine is that he shal build the Temple of Jerusalem which the Turks have now in possession that he shal destroy Rome that he shal abolish all Religion and all the outward ceremonies thereof that he shal conquer and overcome the strongest Empires in the earth and be Monarch of the whole world Bellarm. lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. and Rhemists annot upon 2. Thess 2. and Sanderus in his demonstrations Now is it likely or can it be that any one mortal man is able to perform so great and so wonderful things Was there ever yet any King Emperor or any other creature under heaven that ever performed so great and wonderful things and specially in so short a time as ye assign to your imaginary Antichrist as of three years and an half That one city of Troy kept all the Grecians for the space of ten years almost besieging it before they could overcome it The Temple of Jerusalem was seven years in building by Solomon who had riches and wealth above all the Kings in the earth who had an hundred fifty three thousand and six hundred workmen for the same 2. Chron. 2. That great Conqueror Alexander with whom no Monarch is comparable neither in power nor happy success was not able to conquer all Asia the space of ten years which was the fourth part of the world And shal we think that a miserable Jew by the help of their scattered people being an enemy to God and all good men shal be able to overcome that great Monarchy of the Turks against whom all the power of Christendom hath not prevailed not only to overcome them but also to overcome all the Empires and Kingdoms in the earth and to restore the city of Jerusalem and build the Temple again from the foundation and abolish all Religion both true and false except his own For this is the doctrine of your Church concerning the Antichrist and that in so short a time as three years and an half as you ascribe unto him Who will believe you M. Gilbert Will any Turk Christian or Jew himself believe that any one man suppose his age were never so long and his person never so strong can be able to accomplish and perform so many and so wonderful things as your own doctrine affirms shal be done by the Antichrist So this doctrine of yours that the Antichrist shal be but one singular person can neither stand with the Scripture nor yet with your own doctrine concerning the Antichrist Fifthly as partly hath been proved this is the common phrase of the Scripture in the person of one to understand a multitude And therefore Daniel in the describing of the Monarchies he compares them to sundry beasts in the singular number to a Lyon a Bear a Leopard c. and yet by them was not signified one certain person but a succession of Kings in the self-same Kingdom and therefore the Antichrist is likened to a beast to signifie a Kingdom and succession of persons in that Kingdom Rev. 13. Tertullian calls the Antichrist A City which prostituts its self to fornication to wit spiritual de resurrectione carnis Ambrose in Apoc. 17 calls the woman clad with purple who is Antichrist the city of the Devil Augustin calls that beast which is the Antichrist the ungodly and body of the wicked who fights against the Lamb a people contrary the people of God which joyntly with their head is called the Antichrist an heretical Church which is called Babylon Nonnulli non ipsum Principem sed universum quodammodo corpus ejus id est ad eum pertinentem hominùm multitudinem simul cum suo Principe hoc loco Antichristum intelligi volunt Homil. 10. in Apoc. homil 13. de civitate Dei lib. 18. cap. 2. lib. 20. cap. 19. Gregory a Pope saith in moralibus lib. 33. cap. 26 The beast is a multitude of them who preach the Antichrist And Thomas a Papist saith The beast which is the Antichrist is a body and so not a singular person And the ordinar Gloss saith The head and the body together make the Antichrist And Hugo a Cardinal calls him an university or commonality So not only the Scripture and reason but also the testimonies of these Fathers and some of your selves concurr all in this that the Antichrist is not a singular person but a body an estat a succession So I hope the Reader hath seen nothing either by Scripture or by reason alledged by M. Gilbert wherefore the Pope may not be the Antichrist Master Gilbert Brown Thirdly S. Paul saith He shal be an adversary and is extolled above all that is called God or that
for I think you would not have wished me to read that thing which ye your self believes not to be true I therefore read it and read it over again And beside many other things I find this in it that the Antichrist should be born of a Virgin by the help of the Devil as Christ was born of the Virgin by the work of the holy Ghost I wondered that you should have wished me to read that Book in the which there was so manifest an error and that contrary the doctrine of your own Church You should beware of this M. Gilbert for if your Head and Church get wit of it they will not only count you a bad defender of the Catholick Faith as you say you are but also it may be they suspect you of heresie who do wish your adversaries to read that Book wherein so manifest an error is and that against the doctrine of your own Church For who will think of you but that ye are of that same opinion your self seeing you are so earnest with others to read the same Bellarmin that great defender of your Catholick Faith was more wise then you in this point For first he saith lib. 3. de Rom. Pont. cap. 12. There is a manifest error in that treatise Next he saith It is certain that that treatise cannot be Augustins but it is probable saith he that it is Rabanus his work So to conclud this I assure you M. Gilbert I am of the same mind that I was concerning your Popes for all the reading of that work But I am not of the same mind towards you that I was before the reading of the same for either I think you have been very foolish in wishing me to read that which you believed not your self to be true or else that ye defend a manifest error not only against the truth but also against the doctrine of your own Church And let your Pope who is the bond of unity among you see to this how to reconcile you and Bellarmin two defenders of his Catholick Faith you saying that that work is Augustins and Bellarmin flatly denying it and affirming that it cannot be his you wishing your adversary to read it and Bellarmin confuting a manifest error in it But betwixt you be it Now this is all that you have said for the defense of your Pope which are but as figg leaves which cannot hide his nakedness Now I will let thee see Christian Reader what we have for us wherefore we affirm and teach and is ready also as thousands have done before us to seal it with our blood that the Popes of Rome are the Antichrist which the Scripture hath fore-told should come time hath made manifest and the Lord his mouth hath in a part consumed And first I will lay this ground which M. Gilbert cannot gain say and the conscience of all men will subscribe to That as the true Christ is sufficiently described in the Old and New Testament so the Antichrist is sufficiently described there also And as he is to be believed under the pain of the endless damnation of their souls to be the true Christ to whom the prophesies of the Old Testament concerning the Savior to come doth agree and of whom the New Testament testifieth that they are accomplished so he must be that Antichrist which the Scripture fore-told was to come to whom every one of the marks and properties of the Antichrist set down in the same do agree and in whom they are found to be accomplished Let us therefore out of the Scripture search the marks of the Antichrist and then let us see whether their Popes of Rome be stamped with these marks or not I speak not now of the many Antichrists whereof John speaks 1. John 2.18 which were fore-runners of that great defection which was fore-told should come in the Church of God but of that chief and great Antichrist who not in one or two things only but almost in all the points of his Religion should be contrary to Jesus Christ whom these places of Scripture 1. John 4.3 2. Thess 2. Rev. 11.13.17.18 do describe And while as I affirm that the Popes of Rome are this great Antichrist I understand it thus That they are the Prince and Head of that defection and apostasie which the Scripture fore-shew and fore-told was to come in the Church For I do not think that all the strength and force of the Antichrist is included in the Pope but the Pope and his Kingdom which is contrary to the Kingdom of Christ is most truly called the Antichrist whereof because the Pope is the Prince and Head therefore by that figure taking the part for the whole I call him the Antichrist And in this we follow the Scripture for the Scripture speaking of the Antichrist sometimes calls it a defection and a mystery of iniquity and the second beast that hath horns like the Lamb and the Harlot and sometimes points out the principal and chief in this Kingdom on whom the whole body of iniquity doth hang as when he writes here the man of sin and son of perdition which is an adversary who extolls himself above all c. which is most properly spoken not of the body but of the Head Having shown now in what sense we take the Antichrist we will go to the matter And first to that 2. Thess 2.3.4 where he is described and that by no dark prophesies as you say but by plain sayings First therefore the Scripture calls him there a man of sin a son of perdition The which to be accomplished in your Popes your own Histories Cardinals Councils Favorers Friers Friends and themselves do sufficiently testifie So that if they speak true of themselves which you cannot deny then of all the monsters that ever the earth hath born some of your Popes have been the greatest monsters For in this point M. Gilbert we deal not with you as ye deal with us for ye cite our enemies as witnesses of us which should have no credit and we cite your own friends and these of your own Religion So that they shal be fetched out as witnesses against you in this point whether your Popes be the men of sin and sons of perdition or not What Commandment is there of the first or second Table which they have not violated in the highest degree 1. Whoremongers 2. Adulterers 3. Sodomits 4. Incestuous 5. Fosterers and maintainers of harlots 6. Tyrants 7. Devilish and Sorcerers 8. In pride passing all creatures under heaven 9. Atheists without God 10. Perjured 11. Burreaus 12. Bawds and merchants of whores 13. Sacrilegious 14. Traitors 15. Seditious 16. Blasphemous 17. Parricides 18. Poysoners of Emperors Senators Cardinals yea of their own parents and sisters 19. Helpers of the Turks 20. Drunkards 21. Simoniacks 22. Monsters 23. Bastards 24. Arrians 25. Idolaters 26. And so contentious that sometimes there was two sometimes three and sometimes four all Popes striving for the Popedom together
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