Reply Against Gilbert Brown, Part 2

Reply Against Gilbert Brown · Part 2

p. 212The ſecond part of the Reply againſt Maiſter Gilbert Browne

Maiſter Gilbert Browne.

WE hauehave onelie in our Kirk that heauenly action and Sacrifice, (whilk we call the bliſſed Maſſe) that our Sauiour did at his latter Supper, and was a)a)Leuit. 2. per totum. Leuit. 6.20.Lev 2Lev 6:20prefigured by the Law of Moſes, & foreſpoken by the b)b)Mala. 1.10. 1… Eſa. 19 19.21, Eſa. 56.7Mal 1:10Mal 1:1Isa 19:19Isa 19:21Isa 56:7Prophetes. For Chriſt beeing the chiefe Prieſt of all Prieſts (according to the order of c)c)Geneſ. 14.18. Pſal 109.4 Heb. 73.17Gen 14:18Ps 109:4Melchiſedech in this action, & according to the order of d)d)Heb 9.12.13 14Heb 9:12Heb 9:13Aaron vponupon the Croce) tooke e)e)Mat. 26 26.27Matt 26:26Matt 26:27bread and wine, and hauing giuen f)f)Luc. 22.19Luke 22:19thankes to his Father of heuin, g)g)Mar. 14.22Mark 14:22bliſſed the ſame, by the whilk h)h)1. Cor. 10.161 Cor 10:16bliſſing, and heauenly words he made them his bodie and blood, [as I ſaide before] and i)i)Luc. 22 29.Luke 22:29gaue, or offered himſelfe then for them, (that is) for his. And laſt of all gaue the ſame body and blood to his Apoſtles to be eaten, whilk we call to k)k)1. Cor. 0 16.communicate. And when he had done the ſame, he commanded his Apoſtles, (and by them the lawfull Paſtors of the Kirk till the worldes end) to doe the ſame, for the l)l)Luke 22.19.Luke 22:19remembrance of him. And ſeing that our Prieſts does the ſame, as our Sauiour did, how can Maiſter Iohn ſay that our religion (in this) was not inſtituted by Chriſt?

Maiſter Iohn Welſche his Reply.

I Come to the 10. point of your doctrine concerning the ſacrifice of the Maſſe: whilk ſuppoſe ye call bliſſed, yet is it moſt abhominable idolatrie, as (by the grace of God) ſhall be made manifeſt. And firſte concerning the word it ſelfe MASSE, you are of ſik variety of opinions amongſt your ſelues concerning it, that a)a)As doctor Bellarmine in his anſwere to Pleſſis de Mornay. de Euchariſt. lib. 11. cap. 1. & Genebrard. in Liturg. S, Denis from the word MESSAH Deut. 16.10. that properlie ſignifieth ſufficiencie, but Bellarm. refutes this, lib. 1. de Miſſa, cap. 1Deut 16:10ſome of you ſayes it is taken from the Hebrew: ſome b)b)Bull…nger ibidem from foreign that ſignifies a ſecret ſanctification, from the whi…k comes myſterie.from the Greeke, ſome c)c)As Bellarmine ibidem, and ſundrie others from mitto, miſſio, or dimiſſio.from the Latine: and d)d)Some becauſe the ſacrifice and praiers is ſent to God in the ſame, as Hugo de S Vict de ſacram. lib. 2. part. … cap. vlt.ſome ſayes it is called the Maſſe for one cauſe, and e)e)Some becauſe an Angell as they ſay is ſent vntounto the ſame, as Lombardus in 4. ſent. diſt. 13 & Thomas part 3. queſt. 83. And ſome becauſe the people is diſmiſſed, ond ſend forth, as Bellar. lib. 1. de Miſſa, cap, 1.ſome for another. p. 213I will only ſpeake this of it, that it is vſually taken by the auncient writers, for the dimiſsion, or skailling (as we cal it) of the Kirk, after the publict ſeruice was done to God, as Bellarmine graunts, in the firſt acception of this word Maſſe. And therefore in the end of your Maſſe, the Deacon cries, Ite miſſa eſt, that is, Goe your way, the Congregatiō is diſmiſſed. But now the Papiſts takes not the word in this ſenſe, for the skailling of the Kirk, or dimiſsion of the people, after the ſeruice of preaching, prayer, & ſo forth: but for that abhominable ſacrifice of theirs, wherin, as they ſuppone, they offer vp Chriſt his very bodie and blood, in a ſacrifice for the quick and the dead as Maiſter Gilbert does heir. And for this cauſe they a)a)as Durandus li. 4. rational. diuin.call this ſacrifice, the Maſſe, that is, firſt ſent from the Father to vsus, that Chriſt his bodie and blood might be with vsus: next, ſent from vsus to the Father, that he may interceede, and may be for vsus with the Father. But how can he be ſent from them to heauen? ſeing he deſcends in the mouth, ſtomack, and bellie of the Prieſt? for to be ſent downe to the bellie of the Prieſt, and to be ſent vp to heauen, are things contrarie. So by this ſtile of the Maſſe, as they take it, it is plaine, that either Chriſt deſcends from heauen in the earth dailie in the Maſſe, whilk b)b)Turrian. 1. tract cap, 11. fol 59ſome of thē graunts alſo) whilk is contrary to an article of our faith, that he ſits at the right hād of his Father, whom the c)c)Act. 3.21Acts 3:21heauens muſt contain vntil the time that al things be reſtored: or elſe their Maſſe-prieſts, duſt and aſhes, are the creators of their creator, whilk is a blaſphemie.

This mekle now for the name of the Maſſe, whilk al chriſtians ſhould abhorre, according to that of d)d)Pſal. 16.4Ps 16:4Dauid, that he would not take the name of falſe Gods in his mouth. For that word, whilk is proponed by men for an article of our faith, whilk is not found in the Scripture, neither in proper termes, nor yet in ſubſtance, and by neceſſary conſequence out of the ſame, ſhould be reiected by the kirk of God, as a profane, and a baſtard worde. But the Maſſe is ſik: for it is proponed by the Kirk of Rome, as an article of our faith: and yet it is neither found in proper termes, nor in ſubſtance, nor by any neceſſary conſequence out of the Scripture: Therefore it ſhoulde p. 214be reiected; as prophane & idolatrous, by the Kirk of God.

This for the name: nowe to the matter. This is one of the greateſt controuerſies betwixt you and vsus, concerning your ſacrifice of the Maſſe: whilk, as ye account it moſt heauenly, ſo we account it moſt abhominable, as that whilk iniures the ſonne of God, whilk derogates from his death and paſsion, whilk is iniurious to his euerlaſting Prieſt-hoode, whilk is idolatrous, vaine, neidleſſe, and fruteleſſe, whilk hinders and ouerthrowes the true ſeruice of God: all whilk ſhalbe made plaine of it, by Gods grace. The matter of our controuerſie therefore is: Whether Ieſus Chriſt, God and man, his bodie and blood be perſonally and corporally offered vp, in your ſacrifice of the Maſſe, (as ye call it) and whether this your ſacrifice be a propitiatorie ſacrifice, for the ſinnes of the quicke and the deade: this your Kirk affirmes and holdes, and this we deny. Now let vsus ſee your reaſons firſt, and then we will ſet downe what reaſons we hauehave for vsus out of the worde of God, to the contrary. As to yours. Firſt, ye ſay it was prefigured by the Law of Moſes: next, forſpoken by the Prophets and thirdly, done and inſtituted by Chriſt our Sauiour, and commanded by him to be done to the end of the world. As to the firſte, This ſacrifice was prefigured by the ſacrifices of the olde Teſtament, for the whilk purpoſe ye quote Leuit. 2. and 6.20. VntoUnto the whilk I anſwere: that the ſacrifices of the olde Teſtament were figures and ſhadowes, of that great & bloody ſacrifice of Chriſt Ieſus, once offered vp, vponupon the croce, neuer to be offered vp againe, as e)e)Heb. 9.25.26.27.28.Heb 9:25Heb 9:26Heb 9:27Heb 9:28the Apoſtle ſaies: and of our ſpirituall ſacrifices, and ſeruice to God, whereof the f)f)Rom. 12.1. Heb. 13.15.16.Rom 12:1Heb 13:15Heb 13:16Apoſtle ſpeakes in theſe places cited on the margent. The whilk alſo were fulfilled in that one, and only ſacrifice of him ſelfe vponupon the croce, for the ſinnes of the world: and are fulfilled in our ſpirituall ſacrifices of our ſelues, & of the calues of our lips continuallie. But that theſe were figures of your abhominable ſacrifice in the Maſſe, there is not a ſillabe in the whole Scripture, to proue the ſame: for that whilk was prefigured in the olde Teſtament, was, and is fulfilled in the new Teſtament. But the new Teſtament hes not ſo mekle as one p. 215ſillabe of your ſacrifice of the Maſſe: therefore it could not be prefigured in the olde Teſtament. For if it were prefigured by the ſacrifices of the olde Teſtament, it behooued either to be one with the ſpirituall ſacrifice of all Chriſtians, or elſe one with the bloodie ſacrifice of Chriſt vponupon the Croce: for only theſe two ſorts of ſacrifices are prefigured in the old Teſtament, and recorded to bee fulfilled in the new Teſtament: but your ſacrifice of the Maſſe, is one with neither of them: for it is not one with the firſt ſort, for they are ſpirituall, and you will hauehave it externall: neither is it one with the other of Chriſts ſacrifice vponupon the Croce, for there he died, & there he ſhed his blood, and there he ſuffered the tormentes of Gods wrath, and indignation for our ſinnes: and there he ſatisfied the iuſtice of God, and merited an euerlaſting redemption to vsus. But in your ſacrifice of the Maſſe, your g)g)Ballarm. lib. 2. de miſſa. cap. 4.ſelues graunts, that neither is he crucified, nor is his blood ſhed, nor ſuffers he the wrath of God for our ſinnes, nor ſatiſfies properly the iuſtice of God for the ſame, nor properly merites remiſſion of our ſinnes in the Maſſe: therefore it is not one with that ſacrifice of Chriſt vponupon the Croce. For two ſeuerall actions whilk hes two different formes, & are done in diuers times, and places, for diuerſe ends, cannot be one only, and the ſelf ſame ſacrifice: for it is the forme that giues a thing to be, and diſtinguiſhes it from all other things. But Chriſt his offering vp of himſelf vponupon the croce, and your ſacrifice of the Maſſe hes different formes, are done in diuerſe places and times & for diuerſe ends, therefore they cannot be both one. Further, if they were both one, then it ſhould follow, that as the ſacrifice of Chriſt vponupon the Croce is of an infinite valure, ſo the ſacrifice of the Maſſe ſhould be of the ſame valure. But Bellarm. ſayes, h)h)lib. 2. de miſſa. cap. 4. fol. 740.That the ſacrifice of the Maſse, is but of a finite valour, and the ſacrifice of the Croce of an infinite valour. Therefore they cannot be both one and the ſelfe ſame ſacrifice: Therefore this ſacrifice of your Maſſe, ſeeing it is not one with neither of theſe two ſorts of ſacrifices, is not prefigured in the olde Teſtament.

As for the ſecond: that it was foretolde by the Prophets: p. 216It is as true as the former: for all the ſacrifices whilk were fore-tolde by the Prophetes in the olde teſtaments, are fulfilled in the newe Teſtament. But the newe Teſtament, (as hes bene ſaide) makes only mention of theſe two ſorts of ſacrifices, Chriſts on the Croce, and our ſpiritual ſacrifices: and not a ſillabe of the ſacrifice of the Maſſe: Therefore it is not fore-tolde by the Prophetes in the olde Teſtament. As for theſe i)i)Malac. 1.10.11 1… Eſa. 19.19.21 …ſa. 56.7Mal 1:10Mal 1:11Isa 19:19Isa 19:21Scriptures whilk ye quote, they ſpeake of the ſpirituall worſhip of God, and of the ſpirituall ſacrifices, whilk the Gentiles being called, ſhould offer vp vntounto God, vnderunder the Goſpel, whereof mention is made in theſe k)k)Heb 13.15 16 1. Pet. 2.5. Rom. 12.1. Rom. 15.16.Heb 13:151 Pet 2:5Rom 12:1Rom 15:16places. For either they ſpeake properlie and literally, or elſe figuratiuelie. But if you ſay they ſpeake properly of externall ſacrifices then they ſpeake heir of that legal, and ceremonial worſhip of the Iewes, and ſo theſe places does not appertaine to the new Teſtament. Or, if you will ſay they ſpeak figuratiuely, then, I ſay, they make nothing for your externall ſacrifice in the Maſſe, whilk you will hauehave to be a ſacrifice, not figuratiuely, but properly. So howſoeuer ye expone them, they cā no waies make for your externall ſacrifice in the Maſſe. Eyther therefore muſt ye proue this ſacrifice of your Maſſe, in the newe Teſtament firſt, (whilk ye will neuer be able to do) or elſe the figures and prophecies in the olde Teſtament, wil neuer proue it, ſeeing there is nothing either prefigured, or foretold in the old Teſtament, but that whilk in the new Teſtament is fulfilled. Let vsus 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 Melchiſedech in this action, and according to the order of Aaron vponupon the Croce) inſtituted it. l)l)Matth 26.26 Luc. 22.19. Mar. 14.22Matt 26:26Luke 22:19Mark 14:22(m) Matthew, Marke, and Luke: & commanded to be obſerued to the end of the world. Before I come to the inſtitution, there are two things to be examined, whilk you hauehave written heir. The firſt, that you ſay, that Chriſt, according to the order of Aaron did offer vp himſelfe vponupon the Croce. VntoUnto the whilk I anſwere: firſt, that you gainſay heir, two great Papiſts, Alanus and Bellarmine, wherof the m)m)Alanus de Euchar. lib. 2. cap 9.one ſayes that Chriſt neuer ſacrificed Aaronice, that p. 217is, according to the order of Aaron. The n)n)Bellarm. de Miſſa. lb 1. cap 6 fol. 626. M. Gilbert contrad cts the learned Fathers of his Kirk.other ſayes, that Chriſt his ſacrifice vponupon the Croce was neither according to the order of Melchiſedech, nor yet according to the order of Aaron. And not only he affirmes it, that it is not according to the order of Aaron, but alſo he affirmes, that this ſhould be certaine to al the faithfull. So, if you be of the faithful, and his doctrine be true whilk the Pope your heade hes priuiledged to bee printed, this ſhould alſo hauehave beene certaine to you, & ſo you ſhould not hauehave gaine-ſaide it. You had neede to bee ware of this (Maiſter Gilbert) to contradict ſo openly the learned fathers and maiſters of your Catholicke faith, for by this doing, yee will both bewray your ſelues, that you hauehave no vnitie, and concorde one with another, and alſo ye will bring your ſelfe in ſuſpition with your heade: that yee are not a defender of the Catholicke faith, ſeing you ſo openly contradict the maiſters and defenders thereof. Marke this (Reader) what concorde theſe men hes amongſt themſelues, ſome ſaying one thing, ſome another. Next, I ſay: if you referre this alſo to his perſon, that as this action was according to Aaron, ſo himſelfe was a prieſt according to his order, in his ſacrifice. Then I ſay, you both gainſay the plaine. o)o)Heb. 5.6.10 Heb. 7.11Heb 5:6Heb 5:10Heb 7:11Scriptures of God, and alſo the p)p)Bellar. lib. 1. de Miſſa. cap. 6learnedſt of your Kirk. For, ſuppoſe it be true, that this ſacrifice of his vponupon the croce, did accompliſh al the ſacrifices of Aaron, and put an end vntounto them, according as he ſaid, It is finiſhed: Yet he offered vp this ſacrifice, not as hee 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 Melchiſedech: and therefore the q)q)Heb. 5.6.7.10.Heb 5:6Heb 5:7Heb 5:10Scripture ioynes both together: to aſſure vsus that he offered vp himſelfe vponupon the croce, as he was Prieſt, not according to Aaron, but according to Melchiſedech.

The ſecond thing is: that you ſay, For this is the proper ſignification of the Hebrew worde HOTZSI as in ſundrie places of Scripture, Ezech. 21. Pſal. 135. Exod. 8. Num. 30. & ſo the chaldaick paraphraſte Amena which is to bring forth, & the greeke Exenegge & ſo Cyprian Epiſt. ad Caecil. & Chryſoſt. hom 35 in cap. 14. Gen & Ioſeph. lib. 1. cap 19. & Ambroſe vponupon the 7, cap. Epiſt. ad Heb. he brought foorth for to refreſh Abraham &c And Cardinall Caietan ſaith the ſame vponupon the 14 of Gen. There is nothing written there of a Sacrifice or oblation: but a bringing foorth of bread and wine to refreſh the victours, ſaith he,Ezek 21Ps 135Exod 8Num 30Chriſt according to the order of Melchiſedech in this action, whilk you meane the Maſſe, did offer vp his body and blood vnderunder the formes of bread and wyne. It is true indeede, that Chriſt, according to the order of Melchiſedech is an hie-Prieſt, and not according to the order of Aaron: but yet neither is it certaine out of the Scripture, that p. 218Melchiſedech did offer vp bread and wine, in an externall ſacrifice. For the Scripture ſayes only, he brought it forth, whilk is not to ſacrifice. And it is certaine (b)(b)As theſe confeſſis.that he gaue it to Abraham, & his company to refreſh them with, after the ſlaughter of theſe Kings. And the (r)(r)Heb. 7.Heb 7Apoſt. whereas he ſets down theſe things wherein Melchiſedech was a type of Chriſt, he does not ſo much as giuegive any inkling of this: for there he compares Melchiſedech with Chriſt: firſt, that as Melchiſedech was both King and Prieſt, ſo was Chriſt. Next, as Melchiſedech was with out father and mother, beginning, and ending, the Scripture not mentioning of it, ſo was Chriſt. Thirdly, as Melchiſedech was greater then Aaron, and had a more excellent Prieſthoode then the Leuiticall Prieſt-hoode, ſo was Chriſts. But neuer a word heir, of a ſacrifice of bread and wine, wherein Melchiſedech ſhoulde hauehave reſembled the ſacrifice of your Maſſe, as ye ſuppoſe. So you find out heir that whilk the ſpirit of God found not out: and ſo ye make your ſelf wiſer then the holy Ghoſte in his Epiſtle. But we will learne not to bee wiſe aboue that whilk is written, and to ſearche no further, then the ſpirit of God hes found out already. And ſuppoſe it were graunted to you (whilk yee are neuer able to proue,) that Melchiſedech did offer vp bread and wine yet what to doe hes this with your diueliſh abhomination of your Maſſe, wherein ye ſay the ſubſtance of bread and wine is gone away, only the formes remayning. For if your ſacrifice in the Maſſe, be like the ſacrifice of Melchiſedech, then the ſubſtance of breade and wine ſhould remaine as it did in the ſacrifice of Melchiſedech, and the bread and wine ſhould be offered vp, and not Chriſts body and blood, as bread and wine only were offerd vp in Melchiſedech his ſacrifice, So then, either Melchiſedech his ſacrifice is not a tipe of your ſacrifice in the Maſſe, or els true bread and wine remaines in the ſacrament, and not Chriſt his bodie and blood whilk is offered vp. Chooſe you then, whether you will deny your ſacrifice to be according to the order of Melchiſedech, or elſe will you let goe your reall preſence, your Tranſubſtantiation, and your perſonal offering vp of Chriſt Ieſus in your abhominable Maſſe, for one you muſt doe. Thirdly, if Chriſt offered vp ſik a ſacrifice at his p. 219Supper, as was prefigured by Melchiſedech, whilk you affirme heir, Ioh. 19.28.John 19:28then muſt it follow that Chriſt fulfilled that figure perfitely: and ſo the ſame ſacrifice needs no more to be offered vp againe, and ſo heir will followe the deſolation of your Maſſe-Prieſts, whoſe worke is chiefly in repeating of this ſacrifice againe. Fourthlie, I would aske you, Whether is this ſacrifice, whilk ye ſay he offered vp according to the order of Melchiſedech in his laſt ſupper, one with that ſacrifice whilk he offered vp vponupon the C…oce, or not? If it be one, then, I ſay as he died and ſhed his blood on the croce, & purchaſed an euerlaſting redemption by the ſame: ſo this ſacrifice of your Maſſe muſt be ioyned with his death, and ſhedding of his blood, and muſt hauehave the like vertue and effect to redeeme vsus, and ſo two abſurdities will follow. The one, that Chriſt not only ſhould twiſe hauehave died, once in the Supper, and afterward vponupon the croce: but alſo dies, and is crucified continuallie: in your Maſſe, & yet the Scripture ſayes hee dyed but once. The other, that that ſacrifice of his vppon the croce is ſuperfluous: for what needed him to die againe to redeeme mankinde, ſince the firſte offering of himſelfe in the Supper was a ſufficient redemption. For if his ſacrifice vponupon the croce was a ſufficient redemption, whilk you cannot deny: and if the ſacrifice of him in the Supper be one with that: of neceſsitie it muſt followe, that as his ſacrifice vponupon the croce was a ſufficient redemption: euen ſo his ſacrifice in the Supper muſt be a ſufficient redemption for mankind. And therefore (s)(s)De euchat lib. 2. cap. 18.Alanus a great defender of your Catholick faith, ſaith, according to the iudgement of the councell of Trent, that the new couenant is founded on the blood of Chriſt offered vp in the Supper, before he was crucified: and that Chriſt was truly our Paſſeouer the day before he ſuffered: and he ſayes, This is the foundation of all Chriſtian doctrine, according to the iudgement of the councell. Nowe if this be true, that he was our Paſſeouer, before hee died, and the couenant was founded in his blood whilk he offered vp in the Supper: then, certainly, Chriſt died in vaine, whilk is more then blaſphemous: and ſo blaſphemous muſt that doctrine of your Maſſe be, whilk carries p. 220with it ſik a blaſphemie. And if you will ſay, it is not the ſame with that ſacrifice vponupon the croce: then, I ſay, firſt you are contrarie to your owne Kirk in this, who ſayes, it is one with that ſacrifice of the croce. Next, Chriſt his body and blood is not offered thē in the Supper: for his body & blood was offered vp vponupon the croce, and ſo your Maſſe is gone, or elſe make two Chriſts: one in the Supper vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, whilk the Diſciples ſawe not: and another who was offered vp vponupon the croce, whilk was ſeene of all. So whether will ye go, and vntounto what ſide will ye turne you, Maiſter Gilbert, for the vpholde of your Maſſe? for there are rocks and ſand beds on eueryevery ſide. So neither did Chriſt offer vp himſelf in a ſacrifice at all in his laſt Supper, neither did he it according to the order of Melchiſedech. But now let vsus ſee how ye proue this ſacrifice out of the inſtitution. And ſeing this point of doctrine is ſik a waightie point, as whereupon the ſaluation and damnation of ſoules does hing: The inſtitution of the Supper makes nothing for the ſacrifice of the Maſſe.therefore I pray thee (Chriſtian Reader) deceaue not thine owne ſoule to thy euerlaſting perdition, but take good head what ground is in the inſtitution for this their ſacrifice, for if they prooue it not heir, it will neuer be prooued by the Scripture. You ſay therefore that Chriſt tooke bread and wyne, we grant that, yet heir is no ſacrifice. What then? Hee gaue thanks: yet heir is no ſacrifice. What next? He bliſſed it. Yet heir is no ſacrifice. And whereas ye ſay that by this bliſsing, and his heauenly wordes the breade and wine is changed in the body and blood of Chriſt: that I hauehave ſufficiently (as I hope) ouerthrowne in my anſwere vntounto the fourth point of your doctrine in the firſt part. But to returne to the wordes of the inſtitution: after the bliſsing of the bread, whilk Luke expones by giuing of thankes: the text ſayes, He gaue. What gaue he but that whilk he tooke, and had bliſſed? And what tooke he, and bliſſed he, but the bread? And therefore the t)t)1. Corinth 10.1 Cor 10Apoſtle ſayes, The bread whilk we bliſſe, &c. So thē it was bread whilk he gaue, and not his owne body and blood corporally. And vntounto whome gaue he it? the text ſayes, VntoUnto his diſciples, both in Matthew, Marke, and Luke, all with one conſent. Now, p. 221that whilk was giuen to his Diſciples was not properly offered vp in a ſacrifice: for a ſacrifice is an offering to God. And the text ſayes heir, He gaue it to his Diſciples. So there is not a ſillabe in the inſtitution, that can make for your pretended ſacrifice. M. Gilbert addes to the inſtitution a new giuing, wherof the ſcripture makes no mention.You heir corrupt the word of Ieſus Chriſt wonderfully: for firſt you expone by Giuing, Offering vp in a ſacrifice. Next, whereas the Scripture in Matthew, Marke and Luke hes but giuing once, and referres this giuing not to God, but to the Diſciples: And he gaue it to the Diſciples: you alledge heir two giuings: the one to God, whilk is your owne inuention, wherof the Scripture makes no mention: the other to the Diſciples, whilk is the forme of a Sacrament and not of a ſacrifice: All the ground of the ſacrament of the Maſſe.for a ſacrament is giuen to vsus, a ſacrifice to God. So all the groūds of your ſacrifice of the Maſſe is two: the one is, your deuiſed Tranſubſtantiation: ſo one error leanes vponupon another: the other is, not the words of Chriſt, And he gaue it to his Diſciples, but your owne wordes, and your owne expoſition only, And he gaue, or offered vp himſelf then for them. Theſe are your owne words, and not the words of the holie Ghoſt. So this ſacrifice of your Maſſe, hes not the words of Ieſus Chriſt as Matthew, Marke, and Luke hes ſet them downe, to be the ground of it: but only your owne words, and your owne interpretation. For howe dare ye be ſo impudent as to affirme that Chriſt gaue it twiſe: once in an offering for his Diſciples and another time in an ſacrament to his Diſciples, ſeing we will beleeue Matthew, Marke, and Luke, the ſworne pen-men of the holy Ghoſt, who ſayes only he gaue it to his Diſciples as a ſacrament, and makes no mention at all, that he gaue it to God as a ſacrifice. Doe you thinke the Lorde will neuer take an accompt of you for ſik a manifeſt lie of the ſonne of God, of his Scripture, of his Apoſtles and holy writers who write it, they all ſaying, he gaue it to his Diſciples, and you affirming beſide that giuing to them, that he gaue it, that is, offered it vp for them. O ſinfull man! Who will venter the ſaluation of his ſoule vponupon ſo ſmall a threed: yea, vponupon ſo impudent a lie, as ye make of the ſonne of God. O repent, or elſe you ſhall one day feill the fierceneſſe of the Lords hoat wrath & p. 222indignation vponupon your ſoule & carcaſe for euermore. Leaue off therefore to be the cauſe of the damnation of ſoules, for you deceaue them, and makes them beleeue that this monſtrous abhomination of your Maſſe, hes Ieſus Chriſt to be the author of it, while it hes not ſo mekle as a ſillabe in the whole inſtitution, that giues ſa mekle as an inkling of it. Are you wiſer then the wiſeſt of your generation, Bellarmine, who for all the arguments that he brings, neuer ſo mekle as once giues an inkling of this your argument. For he thought it was too plaine a lie to affirme a double giuing heir, out of the wordes of the inſtitution: and too abſurd a expoſition to expone, He gaue, that is, he offered it vp. And therefore he hes no ſik reaſoning for his ſacrifice of the Maſſe. Yea, that whilk ye thinke is plaine out of the inſtitution that Chriſt offered vp his body and his blood in the ſupper: he ſayes, (u)(u)Bellar. lib. 1. de miſſa. cap. 12. fol 669.that the action of offering cannot be eaſily diſtinguiſhed and ſeparated from the other actions whilk was done ioyntly there together, by the words of the inſtitutiō. And more plainly he ſayes, (x)(x)lib. 1. de miſſa c. 24. fol 706. The ſacrifice of the maſſe hes no expreſſe warrant in the inſtitution of the Supper by their owne confeſſion.that the Euangeliſtes hes not expreſly ſaide that Chriſt offered vp himſelfe vntounto the Father in the Supper. This is a plaine ſpeaking: nowe your ſacrifice of the Maſſe, hes no expres warrand out of the inſtitution of Chriſt if you will beleeue him, whoſe controuerſies are allowed by the Pope to be printed. But it may be ye thought that this your doctrine would hauehave bene ſwallowed vp without further triall, and therefore you regarded not what you write. You hauehave ſtollen your ſelfe in ſik credite with the ſimple amongſt you, who are deceaued & blinded by your lies, that ye are not aſhamed to be plain ynough in ſpeaking vntruths and lies of the word of God. But the Lorde will recompence this one day. But now to returne to the reſt of the words of the inſtitution, as ye rehearſe them. And laſt of all ye ſay, Hee gaue his body and blood to his Diſciples to be eaten: He gaue it ſpirituallie, and they did eate it ſpirituallie: and he gaue the ſacraments of his body and blood, the bread and wine corporally to them, and they did eate them corporally, ſuppoſe for a ſpirituall vſe and end. For that whilk he gaue they did eat: he gaue the bread and wine, therefore it was bread & wine p. 223whilk they did eate, and drinke. And therefore the (y)(y)1. Cor. 11.1 Cor 11Apoſt. ſayes plainlie, for whoſoeuer ſhall eate of this bread, &c. He calles it bread that is eaten. And our Sauiour ſayes (z)(z)Matth. 26.29.Matt 26:29Verely, verely from hence forth ſhall I not drinke of the fruite of this vine with you. That whilk he gaue his Apoſtles to drinke corporally in the latter Supper was the fruite of the vine, (ſo the Euangeliſtes ſaies.) But Chriſts blood was not the frutie of the vine: therfore it was not his blood whilk they corporally dranke, but wine, whilk was the fruite of the Vine-tree. I goe forwarde. And when he had done this, ye ſay, He commanded his Diſciples, that is, the lawfull Paſtors of the Kirk to doe the ſame for the remembrance of him to the end of the world. That is true, that whilk he did heir, he commanded to be done by his Diſciples to the end of the world: but neuer a ſillabe heir that he offered vp his bodie and blood vnderunder the formes of bread and wine in the Supper, in a propitiatory ſacrifice for the quick and the dead: Therefore he commanded not this ſacrifice of your Maſſe to be done to the end of the world. And whereas yee reſtrict this commandement, Doe this, only to the Paſtors, ye hauehave to vnderſtand that as there is ſome thing heir whilk Chriſt did, whilk is proper to them, as to be the diſpenſers of theſe heauenly myſteries: ſo there is ſome actions heir, whilk is common alſo with them to the people: as to receaue, to eate, to drink theſe Sacramēts of his body & blood in his remembrance. Seing therefore this commandement, Doe this, is to be referred to the whole actions of the Supper: and ſeing there is ſome actions in the ſame, whilk the other Chriſtians ſhould doe alſo: Therefore this commandement, Do this, is not to be reſtricted to the office of the Paſtors only, (whilk ye doe) but common with them to the actions of the people. Now to your concluſion: Seing (ſay ye) your Prieſtes does the ſame in this ſacrifice, whilk our Sauiour did: howe can I ſay that your religion in this, was not inſtituted by Chriſt. The preiſts in the maſſe doth not the ſame thing that Chriſt either commanded or did himſelfe in the latter Supper.If ye doe the ſame that he did, indeed I will graunt you it. But you doe not the ſame whilk our Sauiour did: Therefore your religion in this is not inſtituted by Ieſus Chriſt. The whilk I prooue. Firſt, Chriſt took bread and wine in this Sacrament p. 224and gaue it to be eaten and drunken: and bread was eaten, & wine was drunken by his Diſciples. The difference betwene the Sacrament of the Supper, and the abhominable ſacrifice of the Maſſe.But your Prieſt takes bread and wine, & coniures the ſubſtance of it away by your Tranſubſtantiation, and onelyonly remaines the formes of the breade and wine behinde: therefore you doe not the thing whilk Chriſt did. Secondly, Chriſt tooke bread and brake it you take bread and hangs it vp, and keepes it in a boxe, to carrie to the ſeik, and in proceſsions. Thirdly, Chriſt tooke bread and gaue it to his Apoſtles: your Prieſts like gluttons in the ſacrifice of your Maſſe eates it vp eueryevery whit himſelfe alone. Fourthly, Chriſt giues a Sacrament to ſtrēgthen mens faith: but your Prieſtes giues a ſacrifice to redeeme mens ſoules. Fiftly, Chriſt gaue it to be eaten, your Prieſts giues it to be worſhipped. Sextly, Chriſt gaue bread, your Prieſtes ſay they giuegive God. Seuenthly, Chriſt gaue the Cupe to his Diſciples, ſaying, Drinke ye all of this, your Prieſt drinkes all himſelfe, and takes away the Cupe from the people, both in your ſacrifice and ſacrament. Eightly, Chriſt inſtituted the Supper, and commanded the Kirk to celebrate the ſame, as he had inſtituted it: but the Maſſe hes bene clamped vp by many ſundry Popes: one made the Confiteor, another the Introit: another the Kyriceleiſon, another the Gloria in excelſis: and ſo forth of the reſt, as ſhalbe prooued afterwarde. Ninthly, Chriſt intending to celebrate his Supper, changeth not his garment: but the Prieſt going to ſay his Maſſe, doth naught but cloth and vn-cloath, & eueryevery garment carrying a great myſterie. The Prieſt ſaying Maſſe muſte hauehave his head and beard ſhauen, and vponupon his head a circle of haire, whilk they call a crowne: imitating the Prieſtes of the Gentiles in this, Baruh chap. 6. ver. 30. and not Chriſt and his Apoſtles. Tenthly, Chriſt in the Supper vſed common bread, but the Popiſh Prieſt muſt expreſly vſe other manner of bread, baked betwixt two irons, whilk is properly, Wafers. Elleuenthlye, Chriſt made his Supper vponupon a Table, the Popiſhe Prieſt muſt hauehave a conſecrate Altar, with ſome peeces of relickes put in the hole of it, or elſe a marble ſtone, in the borders whereof are little peeces of cloth, whilk they call corporales, to p. 225ſay his Maſſe on. Twelfthly, Chriſt in the celebrating of the Supper, preached & taught his Apoſtles: the Popiſhe Prieſt mumbleth betwixt his teeth certaine praiers: he turneth to and from the altar, one while his back, another while his face to the people: now goeth he from one ſide of the altar vntounto another: now he ſingeth with an high voice, now with a lowe voice: now he lifts vp his armes, now he caſteth them downe. Briefly, he ſeemeth to be a man whollie mad, not knowing what countenance for to vſe. Thirtenthly, Chriſt in the Supper ſpake in a vulgar tongue, that al might vnderſtand: the Popiſh Prieſt in their Maſſes, ſpeakes in a ſtrange tongue, whilk the moſt part of themſelues vnderſtands not. Fourtenthly, Chriſt firſt brake the bread, and then gaue it to his Apoſtles: the prophane Prieſte firſt ſpeaketh certaine wordes ouer the bread in his Maſſe, and then breaketh it, (or the accidents of it, as they ſay) at their pleaſure. Fiftenthly, Chriſt after he had broken the bread ſayes, This is my body the Popiſh Prieſt ſpeakes the words, without breaking of the bread, and not content with the words of Chriſt, he addeth this word enim vntounto them. Therefore you cannot M. Gilbert, but ſpeake againſt the light of your owne conſcience, when you ſay that your Prieſtes does the ſame in their Maſſe that Chriſt did in the Supper, and heir I appeale your conſcience before the terrible and euerliuing God, and before Ieſus Chriſt that ſhall iudge the quick and the deade, whether ye doe not ſpeake in this againſt the light of your owne conſcience or not, and whether your Prieſts in your Maſſe, does the ſame whilk Chriſt did in the Supper or not? Thinke you not that you muſt ſtand before the liuing God, and giuegive a reckoning of theſe things. Repent in time, and ceaſe to deceaue the ſoules of your countriemen any more. But to conclude this: What adoe hes your Maſſe with the Supper of Chriſt? what likeneſſe is there betweene the one and the other? In the Supper whilk Chriſt inſtituted in the Scripture, we are remembred of his death & paſsion vponupon the Croce, whereby he appeaſed the wrath of God for our ſinnes, and of our duty towards him: whereby we acknowledge in our p. 226conſciences, that we are obliſhed to die to ſinne, ſeing it behooued the eternall ſonne of God by his death vppon the croce, to redeeme vsus from the ſame: vponupon the whilk ariſes an earneſt thankeſgiuing in the hearts and mouthes of euerie true Chriſtian, for ſo great a ſaluation, purchaſed ſo wonderfully, as by the death of the eternal ſonne of God. In your ſacrifice of the Maſſe is there any ſik thing? Is there any remembrance of his death and ſuffering there? Is his death ſhewen to the people in a knowne language that they may vnderſtand it? Is there any acknowledging of any dutie there, for his death? Is there any true thankeſgiuing there? No, none. But in ſtead of theſe, a heape of wordes in an vnknowne language, and a diuerſity of Apiſh geſtures, & Moriſhe and Iuglers tricks, to feede the eyes of the poore people, whilk neither the people, nor yet many of your ſelues do vnderſtand. In the Supper we are alſo admoniſhed of our ſpirituall coniunction with our neighbour, and of our duetie towards him, in that we are all partakers of one bread, made of many graines, and of one wine made of many grapes: to ſignifie vntounto vsus that we are all renewed and redeemed by one blood, members of one bodie, liuing by one ſpirit, drawing life, motion, & feeling all from one head, being one with him, and ſo one with others, whereby followes our mutuall duties one toward another. In your Maſſe there is no communion of the bread made of many graines, and of the wine made of many grapes, to ſignify this coniunction and communion, either with Chriſt our heade or amongſt our ſelues, the Prieſt eating and drinking all himſelfe. In the Supper, according to Chriſt his inſtitution by giuing, taking, eating, and drinking of the breade and wine by all the Diſciples, whereby our bodily life is nouriſhed and ſtrengthned, is not only ſignified and repreſented our ſpirituall grouth in that ſpirituall communion with him, whereon our ſpirituall life depends: but alſo in the ſame, all the faithfull doeth truelie by faith eate and drinke ſpiritually his fleſhe & blood, wherby they are made one with himſelfe, fleſh of his fleſhe, and bone of his bones, whereby they are ſtrengthned in that ſpirituall p. 227life, and confirmed in the hope of that glorie. But is there any ſik thing in your Papiſticall ſacrifice? Is there any giuing, and taking, eating, and drinking of bread and wine by the faithful, either to repreſent our cōmunion with Chriſt and amongſt our ſelues, or to ſtrengthen vsus in that ſpirituall life through his coniunction. Doe the poore people eate or drinke, either bodily, or ſpiritually in your Maſſe? Is there any action there to ſtirre vp their conſcience? or any inſtruction to incres their knowledge? Are they ought but idle be holders of a pretended myſtery, whilk is both dumb & deaf, and of a Prieſt that eates and drinkes all himſelf alone? So that in ſtead of theſe heauenly diſhes, whilk our louing Father doeth propine vntounto vsus, vppon his Table in the Supper, what is there in your abhominable ſacrifices, but a feeding with huskes, an apiſhe game, and Iuglers tricks to feede the fantaſies of poore people, that ſees but vnderſtands not, that heares, but they knowe not what. So that in trueth there is as great likeneſſe betwixt Chriſts Supper, and your Maſſe, as is betweene the Table of the Lorde, Some of themſelues hes confeſſed and written that al men may know it, that the Maſſe is but an vnwritten Tradition, and is not inſtituted by chriſt in the Scriptureand the Table of Diuels, and light with darkeneſſe. Seing therefore there is ſik a difference betwixt your ſacrifice in the Maſſe, and Chriſt his Supper, as hes beene ſeene: therefore your Prieſts does not the ſame in the Maſſe, whilk our Sauiour did in the laſt Supper. And therefore howe can you ſay, that your religion in this is inſtituted by Chriſt? And this is ſo euident, that ſome of your owne Doctors and learned writers hes beene forced to confeſſe the ſame. As a)a)In his book againſt BrentiusPetrus á Soto and b)b)Lib. 4. Panopl.Lindanus cō feſſes that the ſacrifice of the Maſſe, with many other points of their religion, is an vnwritten Tradition, whilk hes neither the beginning nor authour of it in the Scriptures of God. And c)c)In Floretum.Gerſon, a Papiſt, & exponer of the Maſſe ſayes, that the office of the Maſſe was ordained by Saint Iames and Baſile the Biſhop of Caeſarea, but the Sacrament of the Supper was inſtituted by Ieſus Chriſt. And he alledges the Canon d)d)De conſ. diſt. 1 Canon Iacobus. graece, foreign that is, they hauehave deliuered that myſtical ſacrifice in write to vsus.Law for him. So firſt there is three hundreth yeares betwixt Baſile and Iames, whilk are the compoſers of the Maſſe. Secondly, he diſtinguiſhes betwixt the ſupper and the Maſſe, and he ſayes the Supper is inſtituted by Chriſt, p. 228and the office of the Maſſe by S. Iames, and S. Baſile. So if he ſpeake true, the Maſſe and the Supper is not both one, and the Maſſe is not inſtituted by Chriſt, as the Supper is. And ſo out of your owne mouthes, your Maſſe is confeſſed not to be inſtituted by Chriſt in the Scripture. Shameleſſe therefore & impudent (Maiſter Gilbert) are ye in affirming that your religion in this is inſtituted by Chriſt.

Maiſter Gilbert Browne.

There are fiue chief things wherein the inſtitution of Ieſus Chriſt conſiſts (as I hauehave ſhewed before.) Of theſe fiue, the Miniſters wants three of the chiefeſt in their communiō. Firſt, a lawfull Prieſt or Miniſter. Secondly Thankſgiuing. Thirdly, bliſſing. Fourthly, giuing or offering. Fiftly, communicating. Firſt, ane lawfull Miniſter; as after I ſhall ſhewe. Secondly, the bliſſing of the bread and wine, whilk they hauehave blotted out of their Scots Bibles, and put in thankeſgiuing for the ſame, as if both were one: not the les, that both the Greeke, Mar. 14.22.23Mark 14:22Mark 14:23and Latine is againſt them, and ſignifies two diuerſe actions, both done or ſaid in S. Marke at his Supper foreign benedicens, bliſſand, and foreign gratias agens, giuing thanks. And thirdly, giuing or offering of his bliſſed bodie and blood to his Father for his faithful, whilk properly is to ſacrifice, as the holy Fathers writes vponupon the ſame. And as for their thankſgiuing, it is but an invention of their owne heade, as may be ſeene in their Pſalme bookes: and their communicating is but of breade and wine, but ours is of the body and blood of Chriſt. So we only huae the true inſtitution of Ieſus Chriſt, & not they, & that by the triall of the touchſtone.

Maiſter Iohn Welſche his Reply.

We hauehave all things that are compriſed in the inſtitution of the Supper by Chriſt You hauehave them not.As for the fiue chief things wherein ye ſay the inſtitution of Chriſt conſiſts: to wit, a lawfull Miniſter, 2. Thankſgiuing. 3. Bliſsing. 4. Giuing or offering. 5. Communicating. We graunt that a lawfull Miniſter is required, but not a ſacrificing Prieſt heir, becauſe there is no externall and outwarde ſacrifice heir, as ye ſuppone, and as hes bene proued. And ſeing your Prieſte are ſacrificing Prieſts of a ſacrifice that hes not a ſillabe in the word of God to beare witnes vntounto it, and ſeeing their authority depends of the authority of the Pope, whilk is Antichriſtian, as ſhalbe proued heirafter: and ſeing the moſt part of your Prieſtes are admitted without the due triall and examination of gifts and manners: and the moſte part cannot preach the Goſpell, as experience teaches, therfore p. 229in your communion, or rather abhominable ſacrifice of your Maſſe, (for how can it be called a Communion, where the Prieſt only eates and drinkes vp all?) there is no lawfull Miniſter: and ſeeing our offices is lawfull: to wit, the preaching of the Goſpell, the adminiſtracion of Sacraments, and Diſcipline: and ſeing our entry to the offices is lawfull alſo: by dew examination of life and doctrine: and ſeing the authority of our calling is from God, who enables whome hee calles with gifts meete to diſcharge the calling, and from his Kirk examining, trying, teſtifying, approuing, or dayning, & conſenting vntounto the ſame: Therefore in the adminiſtration of our Communion there are lawfull Miniſters. As to the ſecond, Thankeſ-giuing, we grant alſo it is compriſed in the inſtitution of Chriſt his ſacrament, and is required in the celebration of the ſame: But you ſay, our thankeſgiuing whilk we vſe is but an inuention of our own heads, as may be ſene in our Pſalme bookes. Wherunto I anſwer: If ye reſpect the matter contained in our Thankſ-giuing, it hes the warrand of the Scripture, and ſo in that reſpect it is not our owne inuention. If ye reſpect the authority, we are taught & commanded by our Sauiour, both by his example, for he gaue thankes: and alſo by his commandement, Doe this, to doe the ſame. And ſo in that reſpect it is not our owne inuention. If you reſpect the end, it is Gods glory, whilk is the proper end of all thankeſ-giuing. If yee will reſpect the forme of this thankeſ-giuing: to wit, the words and order wherein it is cō ceaued: I ſay, it is left indifferent to the Kirk of God to form their praiers and thankſ-giuings: ſo being the matter, end, & authority of the vſing of them publikly, hauehave there warrand out of the worde of God. So ſeeing the authoritye to giuegive thanks, and the matter alſo of our thankeſ-giuing, and end thereof is ſet downe in the worde, and ſeeing the Lorde hes left it free to the Kirk of God concerning the outward form of the ſame, the Scriptures not determining it, whilk your ſelf, I hope, will not deny. For your canon hes many formes of praiers, and thankſ-giuing in your Maſſe, whilk after that forme and order is not ſet downe in the word of God. Therfore, p. 230you iniury the Lords ſpirit and his Kirk, who calles our thankſ-giuing our owne inuention.

As to the third concerning Bliſſing, whilk you diſtinguiſh from thankſ-giuing: and ſayes, we hauehave blotted it out of our Scots Bibles, and put thankſ-giuing in the roome thereof: & ſo you ſay, we want that part. Firſt then, I wil aske you, Did not Luke and the Apoſtle Paule ſet down the whole forme & the chief points of the inſtitution of that ſacrament? Luk. 22 1. Cor. 11Luke 221 Cor 11I trow 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 Paule, who ſaide, I hauehave receaued of the Lord, that whilk alſo I hauehave deliuered vntounto you, that either of theſe had omitted the hiſtorie of the inſtitution of this Sacrament, 1. Cor 11.231 Cor 11:23a principall point therof: but either this Bliſſing is one with Thankeſ-giuing, or elſe they hauehave omitted a principall point thereof, for neither of them makes mention in theſe places of Bliſsing, but onelie of Thankeſ-giuing: therefore it is one with Thankeſ-giuing. Secondly, I ſay, either the whole three Euangeliſts, and the Apoſtle Paule, in ſetting down the inſtitution of the ſacrament of the Supper, omits a chief thing: to wit, the bliſsing of the Cup (whilk I trow ye wil not ſay) or elſe the Bliſsing of the Cupe is one with Thankeſ-giuing: for the Apoſtle Paule and Luke makes no mention at all of bliſsing, but only of thankeſ-giuing: and the two Euangeliſts Matthew and Marke, makes no mention of the bliſsing of the Cupe: but ſayes, that after, or Alſo he tooke the Cupe, and when he had giuen thanks, &c. therfore they are one. Thirdly, if ye wil credite one Euangeliſt exponing another whereas Matthew and Marke hes this word, and he bliſſed: Luke and Paule hes theſe words, And he gaue thankes. And whereas Matthew and Marke hes this word Bliſsing after he tooke the breade, they vſe the word thankeſ-giuing after he tooke the Cupe, to ſignify that they are both one. And therfore if ye will beleue Scripture exponing Scripture, they are both one. Yea, what will you ſay to a)a)Bellarm. lib. 1 de ſacr. Eucha. cap. 10.Bellarmine, who ſayes that ſome Catholickes contends, that both the words to bliſſe, and to giuegive thanks in the Scripture ſignifies one thing: and therfore they interprete Thankeſ-giuing, Bliſsing. So if you will credite your p. 231owne Catholickes, they are both one heir.

And whereas you ſay, that both in the Greeke & Latine they ſignifie diuerſe things: I anſwere: Indeed it is true that ſometimes they ſignifie diuerſe actions: as b)b)Num 6.Num 6Bliſsing, for the petition of a bliſsing. But yet ſometimes alſo bliſsing is taken in the Scripture, for thankeſ-giuing, as both I hauehave proued in theſe places, as alſo, if ye will deny, there is places c)c)Luc. 1.65 Eph. 1.3 1. Pet 1.3Luke 1:65Eph 1:31 Pet 1:3ynow in the Scripture for the contrary. And whereas you ſay that in Marke they ſignifie two diſtinct actions, I hauehave proued before they are both one.

And laſt of all I ſay, if by bleſſing you meane the wordes of the conſecration this is my body whilk is broken for you &c. as (d) Bellarmine affirms that the Romane catechiſt ſo expones it, Lib. 4. de ſacram. Euch. cap. 13and the Theologes commonly teaches the ſame: then I ſay wee want not that chiefe point, for we reherſe the wordes of the inſtitution. So howſoeuer the word (bliſſing) be taken, either for thankſgiuing, or for the ſanctification of theſe elements to an holy vſe, by prayer: whilk is cōprehēded in the thankſgiuing, or for the words (as ye call them) of the conſecration, we hauehave alwaies this bliſſing in our communion. And as for your houering and blowing of the wordes of Chriſt ouer the bread and challice, with your croſsing and charming them, after the manner of Sorcerers, with a ſet nomber and order of wordes and ſignes: your hyding it: your rubbing of your fingers for feare of crummes: your firſt thortering, and then lifting vp of your armes: your ioyning and diſ-ioyning of thumbe and fore-finger: and ſundry other vaine and ſuperfluous ceremonies and curioſities, whilk you vſe in bliſsing of the elements: they hauehave neither command, nor example of Chriſts inſtitution and action, and the Apoſtles doctrine and doing, in the Scriptures of God.

Now as for the fourth, giuing, or offering vp of the body and blood of Chriſt to his Father, by the faithfull: We confeſſe a giuing to his Diſciples, vvhilk you call afterward a communicating. But for another giuing, that is, (as you expone it) an offering vp of his body and blood to his Father, we alluterly deny it, as a thing not ſo mekle as once mentioned in p. 232the whole inſtitution, but contrary to the ſame, and Antichriſtian: and therefore we vtterly abhorre it, and deteſts it, as an inuention of your owne, as Antichriſtian, as idolatry, as abhomination, as that whilk derogates from that bliſſed & only one ſacrifice, whereby he offered vp himſelf once vponupon the Croce, neuer to be offered vp againe, as the e)e)Heb 9.25 Bellar. lib. 1. de Miſſa, cap. 12 & cap 24.Heb 9:25ſcripture teſtifies. And Bellarmine ſayes plainly, that this offering vp is not expreſly ſet downe in the words of the inſtitution, and that it cannot be eaſily diſcerned.

And as for the fifth a communicating we hauehave it, and that not only of the bread and wine, as ye here imagine, but of Ieſus Chriſt God and man, his verye fleſhe and blood, and al his bliſſings by faith ſpiritually: ſeing therefore we hauehave all theſe points whilk are requiſite in the inſtitution, a lawfull Miniſter, thankſgiuing, bliſſing, giuing, and communicating: therfore wee hauehave the true inſtitution of Chriſt in the ſacrament. And becauſe in this your abhominable ſacrifice of the Maſſe, (as hes bene ſaid) there is no communion, for the Prieſt takes all; and becauſe you affirme the perſonall and corporall preſence of Chriſts fleſh and blood in your ſacrifice, and the corporall eating and drinking of it, whilk is Capernaiticall and more nor carnall, contrarie to the Scripture, contrarie the nature of a ſacrament, contrarie the trueth of Chriſt his humanitie, and contrarie the articles of our faith of his aſcenſion, ſitting at his right hande and there remaining, till his returning in the laſt daye, all whilk your ſacrifice of the Maſſe, and Tranſubſtantiation in your communion ouerthroweth: Therefore you hauehave not the true inſtitution of Ieſus Chriſt according to the Scripture. I might end here, but becauſe ye account the ſacrifice of your Maſſe moſte heauenly and the principall part of the worſhip of God, and wee account it a moſt abhominable idolatrie: Arguments againſt the abhominable Sacrifice of the Maſſe., herefore I will ſet downe ſome arguments againſt the ſame, whereby if you will you maye perceiue the abhomination of it. Firſt I ſay, all lawfull ſacrifices hes the expres teſtimonies of the Scripture to warrand the inſtitution of them to bee of God. But your ſacrifice of the Maſſe hes no expres teſtimonie of the Scripture, whereby p. 233it can be made manifeſt that it is inſtituted of God: therefore it is not lawfull. What now will you ſay to this, the propoſition you cannot deny, for our Sauiour ſayes, Math. 15 9. I…r. 7.24.Matt 15:9in vaine worſhip ye me, teaching for doctrine mens commandements. And Ieremie reprooues the Iewes that they woulde not walke according as the Lord commanded them, but according to their owne willes. Col. 2.23.Col 2:23And the Apoſtle condemnes all voluntarie Religion. Therefore this is moſt certaine, that that Religion or ſacrifice, whilk hes not expreſſe Scripture whereby it may be made plaine that it is inſtituted of God, is not lawfull: Rom 14.1…. Rom. 10.17.Rom 14:1Rom 10:17for all that is done without faith is ſinne: and faith hes only the word of God to leane to: And dare the creature be ſo bolde as to appoint a meane to worſhip God, without the warrand of his will in his worde? Nowe to the aſſumption, what can you ſay to it? Bring me an expres teſtimony out of the Scripture, that God hes inſtituted your Maſſe, and take it to you? Yea, if it be inſtituted in ony place of the Scripture, it is inſtituted in the laſte Supper (for this you graunt your ſelues:) But there is not a ſillabe in the whole inſtitution, that Chriſt offered vp himſelfe in a ſacrifice in the ſame, as hes bene proued: Bellarm. lib. 1. de miſſa cap. 24.and Bellarmine the learnedeſt of your Kirk confeſſes plainly, that the Euangeliſts hes not ſaide expreſly that Chriſt offered vp himſelfe in the Supper in a ſacrifice. And therefore others of your owne Religion, Petrus a Soto in his book againſt Brentius. Lindanus lib. … Panopli…Papiſts of great name, hes reckoned the ſacrifice of the Maſſe amongſt the traditions, whilk hes not their beginning nor author in the Scriptures. So then by your owne confeſsion, the ſacrifice of the Maſſe hes not expreſſe Scripture to warrand it: yea, it is a tradition, whilk hes neither the beginning nor authour of it in the Scriptures of God. And I would aske this queſtion of you: What can be the cauſe, wherefore the typicall ſacrifices, and all the rites and ceremonies thereof, is ſo expreſlye ſet downe in the Scripture of the old Teſtament, (whilk you will not deny) and this ſacrifice of yours, whilk yee account more excellent then all theſe, not to hauehave bene expreſly ſee downe in the newe Teſtament, neither the ſacrifice, nor the rites and ceremonies thereof, yea, not ſo meikle as the very name of it? Is the new Teſtament (thinke ye) more obſcure p. 234then the olde Teſtament? (whilk is abſurde to ſay.) Shall the olde Teſtament be cleare in ſetting downe the ſacrifices and all the rites thereof, whilk is but the ſhaddowe: and ſhould not the newe Teſtament, hauehave bene at the leaſt, as cleare in ſetting downe the ſacrifice of the newe Teſtament, whilk ye affirme to be the Maſſe, if it were ſik, what an abſurde thing is this? Chriſtian reader aſſure thy ſelf, the Lord Ieſus would hauehave dealt as louinglie, and plainly with thee, in ſetting downe the ſacrifice of the Maſſe in the newe Teſtament, (if euer he had inſtituted ſik a ſacrifice) as he was in ſetting downe the ſacrifices of the olde Teſtament. But thou may aſſure thy ſelfe, and thy conſcience may leane vntounto it, ſince he hath not ſo much as once expreſſed it in all the new Teſtament, therefore he hes neuer appointed it. Secondly, I ſay, in all the places of Scripture whereſoeuer the Apoſtles ſpeaks of the ſacrifices, whilk Chriſtians ſhould offer vp, they euer ſpeake of ſpirituall ſacrifices, and neuer ſpeakes of this their externall ſacrifice of the Maſſe. They neuer remember of this their ſacrifice, of the offering vp of Chriſt in the Maſſe Looke throughout the whole newe o)o)Rom. 12. Heb 13 Phil. 4. Rom. 15. 1. Pet. 2. Apo. 2Rom 12Heb 13Phil 4Rom 151 Pet 2Teſtament, and thou ſhall not finde this, as namely, in theſe places noted in the margent. Are you and your Maſſe-Prieſts more wiſe then the Apoſtles are? Whether ſhoule we then thinke & ſpeake as they ſpak and thought, or as ye would hauehave vsus? They neuer ſpak of your ſacrifice of the Maſſe, and bring one inſtance, if ye can: therefore neither ſhould we. We will beleeue them rather then you. Thirdly, that doctrine whilk is expreſly gainſaide by the Scripture, muſt be falſe:) this you cannot deny:) but this your doctrine concerning the often and daily offering vp of Ieſus Chriſt, his body and blood in ſacrifice in your Maſſe, is expreſly gainſaid by the ſcripture: for the Scripture ſayes in ſundry places, that he hes once offred vp himſelfe, neuer to offer vp himſelfe againe, Heb 10.10. By the whilk will we are ſanctified, euen by the offering vp of Ieſus Chriſt once made. 11. And eueryevery Prieſt ſtandeth daylie miniſtring, and ofttimes offereth one manner of offering, whilk cannot take away ſinne 11. But this man after he had offered one ſacrifice for ſinnes, ſitteth p. 235for euer at the right hand of God. 14. For with one offering hath hee conſecrated for euer them that are ſanctified. Heb. 9.24. Chriſt hes entred into the very heauen to appeare now in the ſight of God for vsus, not that he ſhould offer himſelf often, &c. 28. So Chriſt was once offered to take away the ſinnes of many. Heb. 7.27. Chriſt died once, whē he offered vp himſelf, Seing the Scripture therefore affirmes ſo plainlie, that Chriſt once offered vp himſelfe, and you affirm that in your abhominable ſacrifice, he offers vp himſelfe often: ſince the Scripture ſayes, the offering vp of Chriſt is once only and ye ſay it is often in your Maſſe: Therefore this doctrine of yours is plaine againſt the expreſſe ſayings of the Scriptures. For ſuppoſe ye will hauehave an vnbloody offering vp of Chriſt, yet the Scripture only acknowledges this bloody offering vp of himſelf vponupon the croce.

Fourthly, I will aske you to what purpoſe ſerues the perſonall ſacrifice of Chriſt in your Maſſe? It muſt be for one of two: to wit, either to ſatisfy for our ſinnes, (and therefore ye call it a propitiatorie ſacrifice) or elſe to apply that ſatisfaction once made by his death vppon the croce vntounto vsus, (the whilk yee affirme alſo of it:) But for neither of theſe is Ieſus Chriſt to be offered vp againe: therefore for no cauſe is hee to be ſacrificed in your Maſſe. Not for the firſt, to ſatisfie for our ſinnes, becauſe the Scripture ſayes plainly, that he hes ſatisfied for our ſinnes, by his once oblation vppon thh Croce, neuer to die againe, and therefore our Sauiour ſayes vppon the * Croce, It is finiſhed. And our redemption and ſatisfactiō is aſcriued only to his death once made, Heb. 1. & 9. & 10 Ioh. 19.28. Bellar. lib. 1. do Miſſa. cap. 25Heb 1John 19:28and his blood once ſhed. And your ſelues will not deny this, but the death of Chriſt is a ſufficient ranſome and ſatisfaction for all the ſins of the world, and therefore Bellarmine graunts this, that the vertue of his once offering vp vponupon the croce, is infinite and euerlaſting, to ſanctifie vsus: ſo that there needes not another ſacrifice of the croce, or the repetition of the ſame. And the treuth of this is manifeſt: for if Chriſt muſt be offered vp in the Maſſe to ſatisfie for our ſinnes, he muſt die againe, and ſuffer againe. For what is it to ſatisfie God, but to pay to God that whilk we owe? And what owe we vntounto him for our ſinnes, but death: for death is the p. 236ſtipend of ſinne? So that to ſatisfie God for our ſinnes, is to die for our ſinnes: and therefore we ſay, Chriſt hes once ſatisfied for our ſinnes, becauſe he hes once payed our debt, whilk is death: that is, he hes once died for our ſinnes. So thē either Chriſt hes not fully ſatisfied for our ſinnes, by his once death vponupon the Croce, (whilk is impiety to thinke) or elſe the Lord craues a debt already payed, ouer againe: (whilk is blaſphemy) or elſe Chriſt needs not to be offered vp in your Maſſe, to ſatisfie for our ſinnes. And ſo your ſacrifice of the Maſſe availles not for to ſatisfie for our ſinnes.

Let vsus come to the next: If ye will ſay, he is offered vp in the Maſſe for to apply the vertue of the death of Chriſt vntounto vsus, (whilk your Kirk alſo ſayes.) Firſt, I ſay, Chriſt is applyed to vsus, when he is offered, not to God in a ſacrifice, but to vsus in the word and Sacraments: therefore he ſhould not be offered vp to God in a ſacrifice, but offered to vsus in his word & Sacraments, that he may be applied to vsus: for it is the worde and Sacraments whilk outwardlye applyes Chriſt and his death to vsus, and not a ſacrifice: for in a ſacrifice the thing whilk is ſacrificed, is offered to God, and not applied to vsus. Next, I ſay, if your ſacrifice ſerues but to apply the vertue of Chriſt his ſatisfaction vntounto vsus: then it is manifeſt, the ſatisfaction is alreadie made: for firſt the ſalue muſt be made, before it can be applied. So your Kirk heir erres, whilk ſayes your ſacrifice of the Maſſe is propitiatory to appeaſe the wrath of God, and alſo applicatorie to apply the ſame to vsus. I ſay thirdly, if Chriſt ſhould be ſacrificed againe, that the vertue of his death may be made effectuall in vsus: then alſo ſhould he be conceaued againe in the wombe of the Virgine borne againe, die againe, and riſe againe: that the vertue of his incarnation, birth, death, and reſurrection, ſhould be applyed vntounto vsus: for will you ſay, that he muſt be ſacrificed againe to apply the vertue of his ſacrifice vponupon the croce vntounto vsus: and what reaſon then can ye pretend for you wherefore he ſhould not be incarnate againe, die againe, and riſe again that the vertue of theſe may be applyed to vsus? Doe you think this abſurde? What is the cauſe then that ye will not bluſhe p. 237at the other. Fourthly, I ſay, if your ſacrifice of the Maſſe be an application of Chriſt his ſacrifice: then it is not the ſacrifice it ſelf: for the applying of the ſalue, is not the ſalue it ſelf: 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 Baptiſme, the ſacrifice of Chriſt, and the vertue of his death is truely applyed vntounto vsus: and yet ye will confeſſe that Chriſt is not ſacrificed in Baptiſme. Wherefore then may not the vertue of this death and ſacrifice, be applyed to vsus in the ſacrament of the Supper, and yet he not ſacrificed againe in it. And laſt of all, neither you, neither any creature ſhoulde appoint or make moe meanes of the applying of Chriſt & his death to vsus, then is ſet downe in his word: but his word only ſets downe the inwarde operation of Gods ſpirit applying it to vsus, and faith vppon our part apprehending it: and the worde the ſacraments, and diſcipline proponing and confirming the ſame vntounto vsus. But neuer a ſillabe in the whol ſcripture, that the Lord hes appointed your ſacrifice of the Maſſe to apply the death of Chriſt vntounto vsus. Seing therefore your ſacrifice of the Maſſe, neither ſatisfies for our ſins (for Chriſt by his death hes done that ſufficiently) nor yet applyes the ſatisfaction once made by the death of Chriſt vntounto vsus, (for that is done by the ſpirit and faith inwardly, & by the worde ſacraments, and diſcipline outwardly, and that ſufficiently:) Therefore your ſacrifice of the Maſſe is needleſſe, and ſerues to no vſe in the earth.

Fifthly, the Scripture euer conioynes with the ſacrifice of Chriſt, his death: ſo that he cannot be ſacrificed but by dying, as the Scripture plainly teſtifies, Heb. 9.25. and 26. Not that he ſhould offer vp himſelfe often, for then muſt he hauehave often ſuffered from the foundation of the world. Heb. 7.…. Heb ….1…Heb 7The ſame may be ſeene alſo in ſundry other places, wherof I hauehave quoted a few on the margent. So the Scripture ſayes, if he muſt be often offered vp, he muſt often ſuffer. And Bellarmine lib. 1. de Miſſa, fol. 725. ſayes, That if there be not a true and a reall ſlaughter of Chriſt in the Maſſe, then the Maſſe is not a true and reall ſacrifice. But the Scripture p. 238ſayes plainly that he hes but once died, and I trow you wil not ſay that he is to die againe: Therefore ſeeing he cannot die againe, he cannot be offered vp againe: for the Scripture acknowledgeth no ſacrifice of Chriſt, but that whilk is ioyned with his death.

Lib. 1. de Miſſa cap. 2. fol. 693 & 604. Cap 27. lib. de Miſſa, fol. 726. & cap. 2. fol. 604.Sextly, Bellarmine graunts that in all externall ſacrifices, the ſacrifice muſt be changed. It is alſo required (ſayes he) in a true ſacrifice, that that whilk is to be ſacrificed be alluterly deſtroyed. And in another place, That whilk is offered is ordayned to a true, reall, and voluntare deſtruction. But Chriſt now being glorified cannot be changed and alluterly deſtroied: therefore he cā not be ſacrificed, if your ſelues ſpeake true: or elſe as oft as he is ſacrificed in your Maſſe, he is alluterly deſtroied, whilk is blaſphemie.

Seuinthly, the ſcripture ſayes, Where ther is remiſsion of ſinnes there is no more offering: aaHeb. 10.18Heb 10:18that is, all externall propitiatory ſacrifices ceaſes: but remiſsion of ſinnes is already obtained by the death of Chriſt, as the b)b)Heb. 1.3Heb 1:3Scripture teſtifies, and your ſelues will not deny. Therefore there needes no more oblation of Chriſt in your Maſſe for the ſame.

Eightly, the c)c)Heb. 9.22Heb 9:22Scripture ſaith, That without ſhedding of blood there is no remiſsion: but in your ſacrifice of the Maſſe there is no ſhedding of blood, as your ſelues graunts, for ye call it an vnbloody ſacrifice: therefore by your ſacrifice of the Maſſe there is no remiſsion of ſinne.

Further, the (d(dHeb. 5. Heb. 7Heb 5Heb 7Scripture acknowledges no other Prieſte of the new Teſtament, but Chriſt only, Theſe Prieſts ſayes the Apoſtle to the Hebrewes, ſpeaking of the Prieſts of the olde Teſtament, were many, becauſe death hindered them to indure: but he, ſpeaking of Chriſt, becauſe he abydes for euer, hes an euerlaſting Prieſt-hoode, whilk cannot paſſe from one to another. So Chriſt is the only Prieſt of the newe Teſtament. Now if it be true whilk you ſay, that Chriſt is offered vp in your Maſſe, and that by your Maſſe-Prieſtes, then are there moe Prieſts of the newe Teſtament then Chriſt, whilk is plaine againſt the Scripturs. What will you ſay to this? That Chriſt is the principal prieſt of the new Teſtament, and yours are ſecondary Prieſtes and p. 239vnderunder him, by whoſe miniſtry he offereth vp himſelf to God But firſt, was not the Prieſts of the old Teſtament onelyonly ſecondarie Prieſts? this you will not deny, ſeing their ſacrifices were figures of his, and their Prieſthood figures of his Prieſt hoode. But the Apoſtle oppones the Prieſthoode of Chriſt, not to another principall Prieſthoode, but to the Prieſthood of men, whilk was but ſecondary, and ſayes it cannot ſtande with that ſecondary Prieſthood in the olde Teſtament: therfore it cannot ſtand with your Prieſthoode of the new Teſtament. And the reaſon whilk the Apoſtle alledges will not only ſerue, to exclude the Prieſts of the old Teſtament, that was but ſecundary Prieſts alſo: but alſo all other ſacrificing Prieſts whatſoeuer, of the propitiatory ſacrifice of the newe Teſtament. For the reaſon is, becauſe he bydes for euer, and hes a Prieſthoode whilk cannot paſſe from one to another, whilk wil ſerue aſwell againſt your Maſſe-Prieſts, as againſt them: for they are mortall as the Prieſts of the old Teſtament were: and his Prieſthoode cannot paſſe from one to another, as it might hauehave done amongſt the Prieſts of the olde Teſtament, and alſo does amongſt your Prieſts. For to what purpoſe ſhould your Prieſthoode and ſacrifice ſerue, ſeing Chriſt his ſacrifice hes fulfilled al the types of all the ſacrifices of the olde 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 alreadie done: then I ſay, what needes him to be ſacrificed againe for that purpoſe? for the word and ſacramentes does repreſent him ſufficiently: and ſo your Maſſe 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 vponupon the croce, whilk you will be loth to graunt, for your Kirk ſaith, that it is one with that in ſubſtance. And I ſay farther, Bellar. lib. 1. de Miſſa, cap. 25if you will ſay with Bellarmine, That this place of the Apoſt. only excludes abſolutely the multiplication of Prieſts in the ſame dignitie and power with Chriſt: that then they exclude yours alſo. For if you offer vp the ſame ſacrifice whilk he offered vp, then you hauehave the ſame power & dignity whilk he had. But this you ſay you doe: for it is no p. 240matter of the difference of the manner, ſince the ſacrifice is one. Seing therefore Chriſt God and man, whilk ye ſay yee offer vp in your Maſſe is of that ſame dignity, whilk he was of, when he was offered vp vponupon the croce: and ſeing the equall dignity of the ſacrifice makes the equall dignity of the Prieſt that offers it vp: therefore ſacrilegious are your Maſ-Prieſts, and excluded heir by the Apoſtle. And thirdly, I ſay, This is a vaine diſtinction of yours, of principall and chiefe Prieſt, and ſecondary Prieſts: for this is the nature of this ſacrifice of Chriſt that it cannot be offered vp by none, but by himſelfe. And fourthly, if your Maſſe-Prieſts be but Miniſters in this ſacrifice, and Chriſt the principall, (as you ſay) who offers vp himſelf by you: then I ſay as ye offer vp Chriſt as inſtruments, for your ſinnes and the ſinnes of the people: it ſhould followe that Chriſt offers vp himſelf in your Maſſe by you, for his owne ſinnes, and the ſinnes of the people: But this is blaſphemie, Heb. 7.…7.Heb 7:7and expreſly gainſaide by the Scripture. And laſt of all, I ſay, ſeing (as your Kirk ſayes) Chriſt his ſacrifice in the Maſſe is one with that ſacrifice vponupon the croce: therefore as Chriſt offered himſelf vponupon the croce, without the miniſtery of ſecondary Prieſts, ſo ſhuld he be offered vp in your Maſſe, without the miniſtrie of the ſame, or elſe it is not one with that. So your Maſſe-Prieſts are no waies to be called ſecondary Prieſts to Chriſt, except in that reſpect that Iudas, with the band of men of warre and hie-prieſts, were the inſtruments and miniſters of Chriſt his taking, death, & crucifying: euen ſo you are the inſtruments and miniſters of the crucifying of Chriſt daylie in your Maſſe, ſo far as in you lyes: and in this reſpect brook ye your ſtile of Maſſe-Prieſts. And becauſe they hauehave a cōmon diſtinction in their mouths of a bloody and an vn-bloody ſacrifice: for they affirme that ſacrifice of Chriſt vponupon the croce to be bloody, and that ſacrifice of him in the Maſſe to be vn-bloody: Therefore I will take away this refuge & vaine ſtarting hole from them. And firſt I ſay, this diſtinction of theirs of a bloody, & vn-bloody ſacrifice of the ſelf ſame thing that is ſacrificed, wants al war…nd in the worde of God. For there is not ſo meikle in the p. 241whole new Teſtament as a ſillabe, that telles vsus that there is a proper ſacrifice of Chriſt whilk is vn-bloody: and you ar neuer able to bring one inſtance to the contrary. Secondly, I ſay, it is repugnant to the Scripture: Heb. 10.10.11 12.14. Heb 9.24.25.Heb 10:10Heb 10:11Heb 9:24Heb 9:25for the * Scripture only acknowledges ſik a ſacrifice of Chriſt as is ioyned with his death, as hes bene proued before. See Heb. 9.24.25. Not that he ſhould offer himſelf often, for then ſhould he hauehave ſuffered often ſince the beginning of the world. Now if the Apoſtle his argumēt be true, that Chriſt cannot be offered vp often, becauſe then he muſt die often: then this doctrine of yours is againſt the ſcripture, y^e ſayes, Chriſt may be offered vp often, and yet not die often. But if you wil ſay, this is ſpoken of that bloody ſacrifice: I graunt that: and I ſay the Apoſtle knewe not, nor neuer ſpak of another ſacrifice: and therefore your doctrine is vaine, that would hauehave another ſacrifice, then euer the Apoſtles in the whole Scripture hes made mention of. And I ſay thirdly, this diſtinction of yours cannot ſtand with your owne doctrine: for if there be a true ſacrifice of Chriſt properly in your Maſſe, as ye ſay, then his blood muſt be truely ſhed, and he muſt truelie die, (for this is the nature of all ſik ſacrifices for ſinne, as Bellarmine graunts it) lib. 1. de Miſſa, fol. 725. ſaying, If there bee not a true and reall ſlaughter of Chriſt in the Maſſe, then is not the Maſſe a true and reall ſacrifice: And alſo, In all true, real, and externall ſacrifices, the ſacrifice muſt be a thing ſenſible and muſt be made holy of a prophane thing, as Bellarmine confeſſes: & theſe conditions he requires in the definition of the ſame: but this, I hope, ye will not ſay of Chriſt: for he is holye alwayes, and is inſenſible in your ſacrifice, & cannot be ſlaine againe: therefore properly there can be no true ſacrifice of Chriſt in your Maſſe, by your owne doctrine. To conclude this then: For theſe cauſes wee reiect this abhomination of your Maſſe. Firſt, becauſe Chriſt cannot be offered vp in a ſacrifice, but he muſt die alſo, as hes bene prooued, and the Scripture teſtifies that he hes once died, and all chriſtians confeſſes it. Secondly, becauſe the death of Chriſt is a ſufficient ſatisfaction for our ſinnes, and ſo we neede not that he ſhould be offered vp againe to ſatisfie for the ſame. Thirdly, p. 242becauſe the ſpirit of Chriſt and faith, by the outward means of the word & ſacraments & cenſures, is a ſufficient meane to apply him to vsus, and ſo wee neede not the ſacrifice of the Maſſe for that end. Fourthlye, becauſe Chriſt onelyonly is the Prieſt of the new Teſtament, who hes no ſucceſſors, & whoſe Prieſthood cannot paſſe from one to another, becauſe he liues for euermore, and he only can be ſacrificed by himſelf, & therfore he only can offer vp himſelf, whilk he hes once done vponupon the croce. Fifthly, becauſe the ſacrifice of Chriſt vponupon the croce is perfite, and the vertue of it indures for euer, and it cannot, nor ſhould not be reiterate. Sextly, becauſe the Scripture propones Chriſt now ſitting in glorie at the right hand of his Maieſty, and not vnderunder the formes of bread and wine in your ſacrifice. And ſeauenthly, becauſe it is but the deuiſe of man, wanting God to beare witneſſe to it in the Scripture, repugnant to that only one ſacrifice of his vppon the croce, aboliſhing the frutes of his death and paſsion, turning the ſacrament of the Supper, in abhominable idolatrie, cauſing men to worſhip a bit of bread, as the ſonne of God: and laſt, becauſe it ſpoiles men of the fruite of the ſacrament Therefore in all theſe reſpects it is abhominable, to be deteſted, and in no ſort to be communicated with.

VntoUnto this I will adioyne ſome teſtimonies of ſome of the auncient Fathers, The teſtimonies of the auncient Fathers againſt the ſame, euen vntill the thouſand yeare after Chriſtwhereby it is manifeſt what their doctrine and iudgement was concerning this point. a)a)Li. 2. Paedagog. cap. 2. & in ſtromClemens Alexandrinus, who was neir the Apoſtles dayes, ſayes, Wee ſacrifice not at all vntounto God, meaning with a reall and externall ſacrifice but we glorifie him who was ſacrificed for vsus. And then hee ſubioynes what kinde of ſacrifices they offered vp to God: to wit, a ſacrifice ſpirituall, of themſelues, of prayer, and of righteouſneſſe: and vponupon what aultar, to wit, vponupon the aultar of their ſoules, with the perfo…me of their prayers. b)b)In T…yphon, & in expoſ. fidei.Iuſtinus Martyr ſaies, I dare ſaies he, affirme that there is no other ſacrifice perfite and acceptable to God but ſupplications, and thankeſgiuing. And he ſayes, that Chriſtians hes learned to offer vp theſe ſacrifices only. c)c)aduer. Iudaeos.Tertullian ſaies, That it behooues vsus to ſacrifice vntounto God, not earthly, but ſpirituall things, ſo we read as it is written, a contrite heart is a ſacrifice to God. d)d)In epiſt. ad Rom & in homil 2. in Cant. & lib. 8. contra CelſumOrigen p. 243ſayes, The blood of Chriſt is only ſufficient for the redemption of al mē, what neede then hes the Kirk of ony other propitiatory ſacrifice? And as for the ſacrifice of Chriſtians, he ſayes, they are their prayers and ſupplications. It was a common reproach wherewith the Chriſtians was charged by the Pagans three hundreth yeare after Chriſt, that they had no altars; vntounto the whilk their common anſwere was, that their altars was a holy ſoule, not corruptible altars, but immortall altars. If then the Chriſtians had no materiall altars the firſt three hundreth year after Chriſt as e)e)Lib. 7. Stro.Clemens Alexandrinus, f)f)Ibid. cont. CelſumOrigene, Minutius Foelix, and g)g)Lib. 2. & 4Arnobius doe teſtifie: therefore it muſt followe they had no externall ſacrifices nor Maſſes all that time: ſo there was no Maſſes the firſt three hundreth yeare after Chriſt, ſeing there was no altars. a)a)Contra Matt. haereſ 42. & 55Epiphanius ſayes, That God by the comming of Chriſt hes taken away all the vſe of ſacrifice, by that one ſacrifice of Chriſt. b)b)In orat. 3. cont. ArrianumAthanaſius ſayes, that the ſacrifice of Chriſt once offered vp, hes accompliſhed all things, and remaines for euer, and that he is a Prieſt without ſucceſsion. The ſame ſayes c)c)In Eſaiae cap. 1. Irenaeus lib. 4, cap 34. Cyprianus de Baptiſmo Chriſti Athenag. in Apolog. pro Chriſtianis. Lactant. lib. 6. ca. 26. Euſeb. de demonſt. lib. 1. cap 6. & lib. 3. cap. 4. Greg. Nazianz. in Paſch. orat. 2 Euſeb. Niſsen. de coena Domini. Chryſoſt. aduerſ. Iudaeos orat 4. & in Ioh. hom, 17. & ad Heb. hom. 13. & homil. de cruce & ſpirit. 3. & in Matth hom 83. & ad Heb. hom. 26. & hom 17. & hom. 7. Cyrillus lib. 1. cont. Iul…anum & ad Hebraeos homil. 11. Ambroſius ad Heb. cap. 10. & ad Theod. epiſt. 28. & in epiſt. ad Rom. cap 12. Hieronymus in Eſaiam, cap. 1. & in Pſal. 26. & 49. & 50. Auguſtinus de fide ad Petrum Diacon. cap. 2. & de Trinitat… lib. 4. cap. 1. & 14. & in Pſal. 49. & de ciuitate Dei, lib. 10. cap. 4. & 6. Idem de tempore.Heb 10Rom 12Ps 26Ps 49Baſile. And he ſaies further, There is no more queſtion of a continuall ſacrifice: for there is but one ſacrifice whilk is Chriſt, and the mortification of his Saints. Becauſe it were ouer longſome to ſet downe the ſentences of the reſt, therefore I will only quote them on the margent: & I would deſire Maiſter Gilbert to reade the ſame. And if hee will beleeue them, I am ſure he will leaue off to be a Maſſe-Prieſt any longer: for they all aggree in this, that the ſacrifice of Chriſt vponupon the croce, hes accompliſhed all the ſacrifices of the old Lawe: and that the vertue of it is euerlaſting and therefore ſhould not be reiterate: and that the ſacrifice of Chriſtians are not propitiatorie, but only ſpirituall.

Seing therefore the ſacrifice of the Maſſe was ſo long vnknowne to the Kirk of Chriſt, it remaines now that we ſhow by what degrees it crap in: for as after the going downe of the Sun, darkenes commes not in immediatly, but there is a twi-light before the darkenes come: euen ſo after the bright p. 244ſtarres of the primitiue Kirk had ended their courſe, in proceſſe of time, and peece and peece: firſt, the third part of the Sunne, Moone, and ſtarres were darkened: till at the laſt the bottomles pit was opened, & that great darkenes came vp, as the ſmoake of a great fornace, that darkened both the Sunne and the aire. Out of the whilk this great abhomination of the ſacrifice of the Maſſe did proceede. For e)e)Bertram. de corpore & ſang. Domi. in Heb. 7.Heb 7Bertrame who liued betweene the 800. and 900. yeare after Chriſt, ſayes, Our Sauiour hes done it once in offering vp himſelfe: for he hes once offered vp himſelf for the ſinnes of the people: and this oblation is alwaies celebrate eueryday, but in a myſterie: and he ſayes, that once oblation of Chriſt is handled eueryevery day by the celebration of theſe myſteries or ſacraments, in the remembrance of his paſsion. There he oppones a real ſacrifice to a myſtery, & Chriſts ſacrifice once made, to a daily commemoration or remembrance of his ſuffering. f)f)Haymo in cap. 5. Oſe. & in cap. 2 Abac. & Malac. 1.Mal 1Haymo ſiklike, reckoning out the ſacrifices of Chriſtians, he calles there, the praiſes of the beleeuers, the penitence of ſinners, the teares of ſupplications, their praiers, and almes. g)g)Theophilact in Ioan. cap. 8. & ad Heb. cap, 10John 8Theophilact, who liued in the 900. yeare after Chriſt, he ſayes, That there is but one ſacrifice, and not many: becauſe Chriſt hes offered vp himſelf once. And he ſayes in an other place: Chriſt hes offered vp himſelfe once, a ſufficient ſacrifice for euer, and we hauehave neede of no other ſacrifice: to wit, propitiatorie. And h)h)Anſelm, in ep. ad Heb. cap. 10.Heb 10Anſelm who liued in the 1000. yeare of God and after, he ſayes, That whilk we offer eueryevery day is the remembrance of the death of Chriſt, and that there is but one ſacrifice, not many: for it hes bene once only offered vp. And again, Our Lord, ſayes he, bade take eate, not ſacrifice and offer vp to God. So this was the doctrine of the moſte learned, who liued 1000. yeares after Chriſt, that Chriſt offers vp himſelf but once, and that ſacrifice, was ſufficient and euerlaſting, and the ſacrifices of Chriſtians are ſpirituall: and the ſacrament (whilk they called ſometimes a ſacrifice) was a commemoration of Chriſts one ſacrifice, once offered vp vponupon the Croce. But from thence vntounto this time, this abuſe and ſacrifice of their Maſſe crap in, but by diuerſe degrees, and by the concurrence of many cauſes.