Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	aaron_n	according_a	join_v	15	3	8.6306	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

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

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

upon the cross Fourthly I will ask you to what purpose serves the personal sacrifice of Christ in your Mass It must be for one of two to wit either to satisfie for our sins and therefore ye call it a propiciatory sacrifice or else to apply that satisfaction once made by his death upon the cross unto us the which ye affirm also of it But for neither of these is Jesus Christ to be offered up again therefore for no cause is he to be sacrificed in your Mass Not for the first to satisfie for our sins because the Scripture saith plainly that he hath satisfied for our sins by his once oblation upon the cross never to die again and therefore our Savior saith upon the cross It is finished And our redemption and satisfaction is ascribed only to his death once made and his blood once shed Heb. 1. 6. 10. John 19 28. And your selves will not deny this but the death of Christ is a sufficient ransom and satisfaction for all the sins of the world and therefore Bellarmine lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. grants this That the vertue of his once offering up upon the cross is infinit and everlasting to sanctifie us so that there needs not another sacrifice of the cross or the repetition of the same And the truth of this is manifest for if Christ must be offered up in the Mass to satisfie for our sins he must die again and suffer again For what is it to satisfie God but to pay to God that which we ow And what ow we unto him for our sins but death for death is the stipend of sin So that to satisfie God for our sins is to die for our sins therefore we say Christ hath once satisfied for our sins because he hath once payed our debt which is death that is he hath once died for our sins So then either Christ hath not fully satisfied for our sins by his once death upon the cross which is impiety to think or else the Lord craves a debt already payed over again which is blasphemy or else Christ needs not to be offered up in your Mass to satisfie for our sins And so your sacrifice of the Mass avails not for to satisfie for our sins Let us come to the next If ye will say He is offered up in the Mass for to apply the vertue of the death of Christ unto us which your Church also sayes First I say Christ is applyed to us when he is offered not to God in a sacrifice but to us in the Word and Sacraments therefore he should not be offered up to God in a sacrifice but offered to us in his Word and Sacraments that he may be applied to us for it is the Word and Sacraments which outwardly applyes Christ and his death to us and not a sacrifice for in a sacrifice the thing which is sacrificed is offered to God and not applyed to us Next I say if your sacrifice serves but to apply the vertue of Christ his satisfaction unto us then it is manifest the satisfaction is already made For first the salve must be made before it can be applyed So your Church here errs which saith Your sacrifice of the Mass is propiciatory to appease the wrath of God and also applicatory to apply the same to us I say thirdly if Christ should be sacrificed again that the vertue of his death may be made effectual in us then also should he be conceived again in the womb of the Virgin born again die again and rise again that the vertue of his incarnation birth death and resurrection should be applyed unto us for will you say● That he must be sacrificed again to apply the vertue of his sacrifice upon the cross unto us and what reason then can ye pretend for you wherefore he should not be incarnat again die again and rise again that the vertue of these may be applyed to us Do you think this absurd What is the cause then that ye will not blush at the other Fourthly I say if your sacrifice of the Mass be an application of Christ his sacrifice then it is not the sacrifice it self for the applying of the salve is not the salve itself and therefore since you say that it is the applying of Christ his sacrifice wherefore should ye say that Christ is sacrificed in it for these two cannot stand together Fifthly in Baptism the sacrifice of Christ and the vertue of his death is truly applyed unto us and yet ye will confess that Christ is not sacrificed in Baptism Wherefore then may not the vertue of his death and sacrifice be applyed to us in the Sacrament of the Supper and yet he not sacrificed again in it And last of all neither you neither any creature should appoint or make mo means of the applying of Christ and his death to us then is set down in his Word But his Word only sets down the inward operation of Gods Spirit applying it to us and faith upon our part apprehending it and the Word the Sacraments and Discipline proponing and confirming the same unto us But never a syllable in the whole Scripture that the Lord hath appointed your sacrifice of the Mass to apply the death of Christ unto us Seeing therefore your sacrifice of the Mass neither satisfies for our sins for Christ by his death hath done that sufficiently nor yet applyes the satisfaction once made by the death of Christ unto us for that is done by the Spirit and faith inwardly and by the Word Sacraments and discipline outwardly and that sufficiently Therefore your sacrifice of the Mass is needless and serves to no use in the earth Fifthly the Scripture ever conjoins With the sacrifice of Christ his death so that he cannot be sacrificed but by dying as the Scripture plainly testifies Heb. 9.25.26 Not that he should offer up himself often for then must he have often suffered from the foundation of the world The same may be seen also in sundry other places whereof I have quoted a few Heb. 7.27 and 9.14 So the Scripture saith if he must be often offered up he must often suffer And Bellarmin lib. 1. de missa fol. 725. saith That if there he not a true and a real slaughter of Christ in the Mass then the Mass is not a true and real sacrifice But the Scripture saith plainly that he hath but once died and I suppose you will not say that he is to die again Therefore seeing he cannot die again he cannot be offered up again For the Scripture acknowledgeth no sacrifice of Christ but that which is joined with his death Sixthly Bellarmin grants that in all external sacrifices the sacrifice must be changed lib. 1. de missa cap. 2. fol. 693. 604. It is also required saith he in a true sacrifice that that which is to be sacrificed be utterly destroyed And in another place cap. 27. lib. de Missa fol. 726. cap. 2. fol. 604.

That which is offered is ordained to a true real and voluntar destruction But Christ now being glorified cannot be changed and utterly destroyed therefore he cannot be sacrificed if your selves speak true or else as oft as he is sacrificed in your Mass he is utterly destroyed which is blasphemy Seventhly the Scripture saith Where there is remission of sins there is no more offering Heb. 10.18 That is all external propiciatory sacrifice ceases but remission of sins is already obtained by the death of Christ as the Scripture testifieth Heb. 1.3 and your selves will not deny Therefore there needs no more oblation of Christ in your Mass for the same Eightly the Scripture saith That without shedding of blood there is no remission Heb. 9 22 But in your sacrifice of the Mass there is no shedding of blood as your selves grants For ye call it an unbloody sacrifice therefore by your sacrifice of the Mass there is no remission of sin Further the Scripture acknowledges no other Priest of the New Testament but Christ only These Priests saith the Apostle to the Hebrews 5. and 7. speaking of the Priests of the Old Testament were many because death hindered them to indure but he speaking of Christ because he abides for ever hath an everlasting Priesthood which cannot pass from one to another So Christ is the only Priest of the New Testament Now if it be true which you say that Christ is offered up in your Mass and that by your Mass-Priests then are there mo Priests of the New Testament then Christ which is plain against the Scriptures What will you say to this That Christ is the principal Priest of the New Testament and yours are secondary Priests and under him by whose ministery he offereth up himself to God But first was not the Priests of the Old Testame●t only secondary Priests This you will not deny seeing their sacrifices were figurs of his and their Priesthood figurs of his Priesthood But the Apostle oppones the Priesthood of Christ not to another principal Priesthood but to the Priesthood of men which was but secondary and saith it cannot stand with that secondary Priesthood in the Old Testament therefore it cannot stand with your Priesthood of the New Testament And the reason which the Apostle alledges will not only serve to exclud the Priests of the Old Testament that was but secundary Priests also but also all other sacrificing Priests whatsoever of the propiciatory sacrifice of the New Testament For the reason is because he bides for ever and hath a Priesthood which cannot pass from one to another which will serve as well against your Mass-Priests as against them For they are mortal as the Priests of the Old Testament were and his Priesthood cannot pass from one to another as it might have done among the Priests of the Old Testament and also doth among your Priests For to what purpose should your Priesthood and sacrifice serve seeing Christ his sacrifice hath fulfilled all the types of all the sacrifices of the Old Testament If you say to signifie Christ his sacrifice to come as theirs did then that is false for he is sacrificed already But if you say to signifie and represent his sacrifice already done then I say what needs him to be sacrificed again for that purpose For the Word and Sacraments doth represent him sufficiently and so your Mass needs not to represent his sacrifice And if you say it represents his sacrifice then I say it is not one with that sacrifice of his upon the cross which you will be loath to grant For your Church saith that it is one with that in substance And I say further if your will say with Bellarmin lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. That this place of the Apostle only excluds absolutly the multiplication of Priests in the same dignity and power with Christ that then they exclud yours also For if you offer up the same sacrifice which he offered up then you have the same power and dignity which he had But this you say you do For it is no matter of the difference of the manner since the sacrifice is one Seeing therefore Christ God and Man which ye say ye offer up in your Mass is of that same dignity which he was of when he was offered up upon the cross and seeing the equal dignity of the sacrifice makes the equal dignity of the Priest that offers it up therefore sacrilegious are your Mass-Priests and excluded here by the Apostle And thirdly I say this is a vain distinction of yours of principal and chief Priest and secondary Priests For this is the nature of this sacrifice of Christ that it cannot be offered up by none but by himself And fourthly if your Mass-Priests be but Ministers in this sacrifice and Christ the principal as you say who offers up himself by you then I say as ye offer up Christ as instruments for your sins and the sins of the people it should follow that Christ offers up himself in your Mass by you for his own sins and the sins of the people But this is blasphemy and expresly gain-said by the Scripture Heb. 7.27 And last of all I say seeing as your Church saith Christ his sacrifice in the Mass is one with that sacrifice upon the cross therefore as Christ offered himself upon the cross without the ministery of secondary Priests so should he be offered up in your Mass without the ministery of the same or else it is not one with that So your Mass-Priests are no wayes to be called secondary Priests to Christ except in that respect that Judas with the band of men of war and hie-Priests were the instruments and ministers of Christ his taking death and crucifying even so you are the instruments and ministers of the crucifying of Christ dayly in your Mass so far as in you lyes and in this respect keep ye your style of Mass-Priests And because they have a common distinction in their mouthes of a bloody and an unbloody sacrifice For they affirm that sacrifice of Christ upon the cross to be bloody and that sacrifice of him in the Mass to be unbloody Therefore I will take away this refuge and vain starting-hole from them And first I say this distinction of theirs of a bloody and unbloody sacrifice of the self same thing that is sacrificed wants all warrant in the Word of God For there is not so much in the whole New Testament as a syllable that tells us that there is a proper sacrifice of Christ which is unbloody and you are never able to bring one instance to the contrary Secondly I say it is repugnant to the Scripture Heb. 10.10 11.12.14 for the Scripture only acknowledges such a sacrifice of Christ as is joined with his death as hath been proved before See Heb. 9.24.25 Not that he should offer himself often for then should he have suffered often since the beginning of the world Now if the Apostle his argument be true

holy Ghost therefore who was the giver and preserver of it And as for the ceremony it was a sign of the presence of Gods Spirit in them who was lawfully ordained Now as to the second that ye will have it a Sacrament because it hath an external form and also a promise of grace That will not follow For then you should have innumerable Sacraments For prayer alms-deeds and the ordination of Magistrats and many others have external forms and have promises of grace joyned with them and yet you will not say that they are properly Sacraments For in all the Sacraments of the New Testament which properly are Sacraments there must be first not only an external action but an earthly and visible element as water in Baptism and bread and wine in the Supper And therefore Augustin saith in Joan. tract 90. Let the word be joyned with the element and then it is a Sacrament Secondly they must have their express warrant and institution from Jesus Christ in the Scripture as Baptism hath Matth. 28. and the Lords Supper Matth. 26. Thirdly they must not only have a promise of grace but a promise of remission of sins and sanctification For they must be seals of that Covenant which is common to all Christians as Baptism and the Lords Supper is But this ceremony of imposition of hands wants all these three For neither is there any earthly element neither seals it up the Covenant which is common to all but proper to the Ministery only neither hath it the express institution of Christ in all the four Evangelists And whereas in the 20. of John he there ordains his Apostles we read he breathed on them and said Receive the holy Ghost But not a word that he laid his hands on them or commanded them to use it to others The which without all question he would have done if he had ordained it to be a Sacrament And Petrus a Soto a Papist saith That the making of the imposition of hands to be a Sacrament is a tradition Therefore it is not a Sacrament properly of the New Testament Secondly if the ordination of any by imposition of hands were a Sacrament the ordination of a Bishop by the same especially should be a Sacrament For the place which ye quote here is of Timothy who was a Bishop as your Church affirms And Bellarmin saith de Sacramento ordinis lib. 1. cap. 5. If this be not a Sacrament then it cannot be proved by the Scripture that ordination by imposition of hands is a Sacrament And he saith If this be not granted they will lose all the testimonies of the Ancients to prove imposition of hands to be a Sacrament for they speak of the ordination of Bishops But the ancient Schollers and Doctors of your own Church in 4. dist 24. and Dominicus a Soto a learned Papist lib. 10. de justitia jure qu. 1. art 2. affirms That this is not a Sacrament properly and so neither the ordination of the rest of the Ministery can be a Sacrament seeing a Bishop is above the rest in your order Last of all the Council of Trent sess 23. cap. 2. 3. is not against it and sundry of the rest of your Clergy Bellarm. lib. 1. de sacr ord cap. 9. makes all the seven Orders of your Church as Priests which you distinguish in two sorts to wit in Bishops and inferior Priests Deacons Sub-Deacons Exorcists Lectors Door-keepers and your Acoluthyts every one of them by themselves Sacraments And your Master of Sentences lib 4 dist 24. cap. Si autem calls all the Orders in the plural number Sacraments So if ye durst let the people know the secret of this your doctrine ye make not only seven Sacraments but fourteen in very deed But this were dangerous to you to sowe abroad For you fear it would cast your doctrine in some suspicion with them and be an occasion to them to examine it by the Scripture the which if they would once begin to do ye know your hope were lost As for Calvin and Melancthon they call it a Sacrament taking the word in an ample sense for these ceremonies that have the foundation in the Word which have a promise of a blessing joyned with them and not in that sense that Baptism and the Lords Supper are called Sacraments as Calvin in that first place which ye quote plainly acknowledgeth For these are his words Let the Christian Church saith he be content of these meaning of Baptism and the Supper and let them not admit nor acknowledge desire or look for any other third Sacrament till the end of the world And as for imposition of hands which the Church useth in their ordinations he saith I will not be against it that it be called a Sacrament so being I reckon it not among the ordinary Sacraments And Melancthon in that same place reckons up prayer alms marriage the Magistrat in the number of these unto the which he gives this name of a Sacrament whereby he makes it plain that he takes this word Sacrament amply and largely as hath been said before and not in that sense that Baptism and the Supper is called Sacraments So you play your self M. Gilbert in the ambiguity of this word Sacrament and deceives the Reader with the same And whereas ye call your Priests the only lawful Ministers now adays I will answer to this more fully afterward only this now First seeing the fountain and ground upon the which all the lawful callings in your Church depends and is derived as your selves confess is the supremacy of your Pope whom I have proved to be the Antichrist in my other Treatise and seeing the office of your Priesthood in sacrificing the Son of God as ye suppose is most abominable idolatrous and Antichristian as I have proved also there therefore you are not only not lawful Ministers of Christ but the Ministers of Antichrist And as for the style of Priest I answered it before it is not so much as once ascribed to the Ministers of the Gospel to signifie their proper calling in the whole New Testament SECTION XVI Concerning Matrimony and whither it be a Sacrament Master Gilbert Brown EIghtly our doctrine is that Matrimony is a bond undissoluble because our Savior saith That which God hath joyned together let no man separat Matth 19.6 And such like he saith That whosoever demits his wife and marries another commits adultery upon her Mark 10.11.12 And in S. Luke 16.18 we have the same And S. Matthew 5.35 19.9 is of the same opinion albeit one may put away his wife by him for fornication this is the doctrine also of the Apostles of Jesus Christ for it is written in S. Paul That a woman that is under a husband her husband living is bound to the law but if her husband be dead she is loosed from the law of her husband Therefore her husband living she shal be called an adulteress if she be with another man

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