from that which is in question first it is granted by all that what Christ did in his last supper that did he institute to be done by his Apostles Priests and by his Ministers their successors for euer after Also that Christ was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedecke because both these haue euident warrant in the written word That then which is to be proued is that this order of Melchisedeckes Priest-hood doth properly or principally consist in the forme manner of his sacrificing We say yea M. PER. saith no and proueth it out of S. Paul who shewing Christ to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedecke doth make no mention of his Sacrifice but compareth them together in many other points as that he was a King of justice a Prince of peace without Father and Mother Hebr. 7. or Genealogie finally that he tooke tithes of Abraham and blessed him and in these points only saith M. PERKINS standeth the resemblance Reply Not so for that in none of these thinges doth any speciall order of Priest-hood consist what his owne name or the name of his Citty doth signifie are accidentall incident thinges to Priest-hood to receiue tithes and to blesse belong to Priest-hood in deede but generally to all sortes of Priest-hood as well to the order of Aaron as to that of Melchisedecke and therefore cānot distinguish one order of Priest-hood from another Wherefore it remaineth apparant that the proper order of Melchisedeckes Priest-hood must be gathered not from any of those circumstances specified by the Apostle but out of the very forme and manner of sacrificing which is as it were the correlatiue of a Priest and his proper function as the Apostle in the same Epistle defineth Cap. 5. vers 1. where he saith That euery high Priest is appointed to offer Sacrifices for sinnes Nowe that both the order of Melchisedecke consisted in sacrificing bread and wine and that therein Christ resembled him let the learnedst and most holy ancient Fathers no partial judges betweene vs for they knewe neither of vs be our arbitrators Let vs heare first that famous Martyr S. Cyprian vvho vpon those vvordes Thou art a Priest for euer according vnto the order of Melchisedecke Lib. 2. epist 3. writeth thus Which order surely is this proceeding of that Sacrifice and thence descending that Melchisedecke was a Priest of the most high God that he offered bread and wine that he blessed Abraham For who is rather a Priest of the most high then our Lord Iesus Christ that offered Sacrifice to God the Father and did offer the same that Melchisedecke had offered that is bread and wine to wit his body and bloud The same he repeateth in his treatise of our Lordes supper De coena Domini saying That Sacraments signified by Melchisedecke did then appeare when our high Priest brought forth bread and wine and said This is my body Can any thing be more plaine Epist 126 ad Euag. S. Hierome following the sentence of the most ancient Doctors Iereneus Hippolitus Eusebius Apollinaris and Eustathius defineth the order of Melchisedecke to consist properly in this that he offered not bloudy sacrifices of beasts as Aaron did but in single bread and wine being a cleane and pure Sacrifice did prefigure and dedicate the Sacrament of Christ The same doth he teach vpon the twenty six Chapter of S. Mathewe S. Augustine in diuers passages of his most learned workes doth confirme the same most plainely I will cite one In the old Testament there was a Sacrifice after the order of Aaron afterward Christ of his body and bloud ordained a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedecke He that desireth to see more of this point let him reade Theodorete Arnobius Psal 109. In cap. 7. 10. Cassiodorus and all ancient commentaries vpon that verse of the Psalme Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Malchisedecke and in like sort those who haue written vpon the Epistle to the Hebrewes and he shall find it to be the generall resolute opinion of all antiquity that Christ in his last supper did institute the Sacrifice of his body and bloud vnder the formes of bread and wine according to the order of Melchisedecke But why then did not the Apostle treating of this resemblance betweene Christ and Melchisedecke make mention of this point of the Sacrifice The reason is in readinesse because it was not conuenient First it made not to his purpose because he doth proue that the order of Melchisedecke was more excellent then that of Aaron which could not be proued by the Sacrifice of Melchisedecke in bread and wine which were inferior vnto Beefes and Muttons the sacrifices of Aaron The second cause was the weakenesse of those Hebrewes faith who were not then sufficiently instructed in Christes owne person and in his Sacrifice on the Crosse and therefore incapable of his Sacraments and other mysteries thereupon depending which the Apostle himselfe forewarneth saying Hebr. 5. vers 11. Of Melchisedecke we haue great speach and inexplicable because you are become weake to heare Therefore very absurdly doe the Protestants argue here ab authoritate negatiuè as they speake in Schooles thus The Apostle made no mention of this point of resemblance therefore there is none such whereas he himselfe told them before that there were many profound points concerning Melchisedecke to be spoken off which he omitted because those Iewes vvere not as yet fit to heare them And in truth what could haue beene more out of season then to haue spoken to them of the Sacrifice of the Masse which is but a liuely resemblance of Christes death vvho were not then rightly informed of Christes death it selfe Epist 126 He spake saith S. Hierome to the Iewes and not to the faithfull to whome he might haue beene bold to vtter the Sacrament And thus much to this first euasion of M. PERKINS Nowe to the second That forsooth Melchisedecke did not sacrifice at all in bread and wine but only brought forth bread and wine to refresh Abraham and his souldiers and is called a Priest there not in regard of any Sacrifice but in consideration of his blessing of Abraham as the wordes teach saith he And he was a Priest of the most high and therefore he blessed him Reply He deserueth to be blessed with a cudgell that dareth thus peruert the word of God First he addeth to the text this vvord therefore againe where the point in the Hebrewe text is at the end of this sentence He was a Priest of the most high he remoueth it to the end of the next clause joyning that togither which is separated in the text Thirdly the reason is friuolous as M. PER. pointeth it For it can be no good reason vvhy Melchisedecke was a Priest for that he blessed Abraham for Abraham was a Priest as well as he and often offered Sacrifice as wel as Melchisedecke did Nowe it standeth
7. vers 24. betweene Christ the high Priest of the newe Testament and all the Leuiticall Priestes in this that they were many one succeding another but he is only one hauing an eternall Preest-ood which cannot passe from him to any other Nowe if this difference be good then Christ alone in his owne person must be the Priest of the newe Testament and no other with or vnder him If they say that the whole action is done in the person of Christ and that the Priest is but his Minister and an instrument vnder him as they say in deede I say againe it is false because the whole Oblation is acted by the Priest and he that doth all is more then a bare instrument Answere To beginne with that which he saith last because I must stay longer on the first he bewrayeth his ignorance in the matter of the Masse when he saith that the Priest acteth the whole Oblation in his owne name and not as the minister of Christ for the principall part of both Sacrifice and Sacrament consisteth in the consecration as we holde which the Priest wholy executeth in the name and person of Christ For consecrating he saith This is my body speaking in the person of Christ and not in his owne person saying this is Christes body in like sorte he consecrateth the Chalice This is the Chalice of my bloud So that nothing is more certaine then that the Sacrifice of our Lordes supper is offered by the Priest as the Minister and instrument of Christ wherefore M. PER. pithagorically I say againe is conuinced to be most vntrue Nowe to the former part of his mistaking the Apostles discourse which is farre more profound then the Protestants take it to be for his purpose is to proue that Consummation as he there speaketh was not by the Leuiticall Priest-hood that is Cap. 7. vers 11. that the Priests of Moyses lawe could not offer vp such a Sacrifice to God by vertue whereof Gods justice could be satisfied and the redemption of all mankinde purchased For if any of the high Priests could haue performed that there needed not to haue beene many Priests or any one successor to an other because the former should sufficiently haue done that already vvhich the later vvent about to doe wherefore the Apostle concludeth that it vvas necessary that an other Priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedecke whose one oblation should be so pretious in Gods sight and of such infinite value that it should neede neyther to be offered twice nor to haue the supply of any other Sacrifice vvhich vve vvillingly graunt and teach daylie but carry alvvaies in minde that the Apostle there treateth only of that compleate Sacrifice vvhich procured the generall redemption of all men and payed the just price vnto God for the sinnes of the vvhole vvorld of vvhich sort vvee acknoweledge that Sacrifice vvhich our Sauiour offered on the Crosse to be the only Sacrifice fully satisfying the rigour of Gods justice for the offences of all the world and as plentifully purchasing all kinde of graces to be bestowed vpon all degrees of men so that it needeth not to be repeated it selfe or to haue any supply from any other Sacrifice But all this doth no more proue that our Sacrifice of the Masse is not a true and proper Sacrifice then that the Leuiticall sacrifices were no sacrifices For S. Paules scope is not to proue that there were not or should not be any more sacrifices but one but that there can be but one such an absolute and perfect sacrifice as Christes was on the Crosse Well then if that one sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse be so complete and absolute what neede is there of any other sacrifice great neede and that for three causes First to represent and keepe better in minde that singuler sacrifice which can by no meanes be so liuely represented as by the sacrificing of the selfe same thinges in substance albeit after an other manner Secondly to conuey and apply the vertue of that on the Crosse vnto all obedient Christians For it is to be obserued though Christ paide in his body the ransome of all sinners and purchased Gods grace for them yet no man vvas thereby only freede from his sinnes and receiued into grace but euery one must vse the meanes ordained by Christ to be made partaker of that heauenly fauour The Protestants hold faith alone to be the only meanes but we more truly say that the Sacraments and Sacrifice of the Masse are principal conduict pipes to conuey the streames of Gods grace into our soules as shall be proued hereafter The third cause vvhy vve must haue a sacrifice to be offered daylie in the state of the newe Testament is that men may meete solemnely at it to doe their fealty and chiefe homage vnto God which shall also in this question be proued more at large Thus haue we briefly shewed howe there is one absolute sacrifice and howe after the same there yet remaineth an other which may be the better vnderstood if we consider that the vertue of Christes sacrifice on the Crosse did vvorke the saluation of men euen from the beginning of the world Apoc. 13. vers 8. whereupon Christ is called a lambe slaine from the beginning Now most euident it is that notwithstanding the al-sufficiency of Christes only sacrifice on the Crosse as well then in force as nowe there were both in the lawe of nature and of Moyses diuers other sacrifices of which some were to purge from sinne why therefore may there not aswell be one other since his passion If their sacrifices then when Christes sacrifice on the Crosse vvas as present and in as full force vvith God could stand vvell vvith it vvithout any derogation vnto the full vertue of it vvhy cannot ours aswell also doe so nowe Hebr. 10. vers 14. If you say That Christ by one oblation hath consummated or made perfect them that be sanctified therefore nowe there needeth no more I answere as before that Christ by that same one oblation obtained at his fathers handes a generall pardon for all mankinde and all grace to be bestowed vpon them euen from the beginning of the world in such sort as he thought best and that his one oblation doth no more exclude other Sacrifices since the time of his passion then it did other oblations before which all are as dependents on it and meanes to keepe it fresh in memory and to apply the vertue and meritte of that one oblation vnto all men I vrge yet further for the Protestants to supply M. PERKINS negligence and that this hard point may be the better vnderstood and adde out of S. Paul Ibidem vers 18. Where there is remission of these iniquities nowe there is no oblation for sinnes True such an oblation as Christ offered on the Crosse so vertuous to wipe away all iniquities so pretious to pay a generall ransome but there may be
an other auailable to entreate and deserue that the vertue of the former generall may be deriued vnto men in particuler because although those sinnes and iniquities were vnto Christ pardoned in general yet at his death or by it only those sinnes were not remitted and pardoned vnto any man in particuler so that it was meete and requisite that besides the Sacrifice to purchase that generall redemption there should be an other to apply the vertue of it in particuler And thus much of this argument not that it deserued as it was proposed nakedly by M. PER. any more then a flat deniall but to explicate this difficulty and to interprete some obscure places of S. Paul omitted by M. PERKINS M. PER. fift reason If the Priest doe offer to God Christes reall body and bloud for the pardon of our sinnes then man is become a mediator betweene God and Christ This illation is too too ridiculous Is he Christes mediator that asketh forgiuenes of sinnes for Christes sake then are al Christians mediators betweene God and Christ for we all present vnto God Christs passion and beseech him for the meritte thereof to pardon vs our sinnes I hope that we may both lawfully pray vnto God and also imploy our best endeauours that Christ may be truly knowne rightly honoured and serued of all men without incroaching vpon Christs mediation These be seruices we owe vnto Christ and the bounden duties of good Christians wherein it hath pleased him to imploy vs as his seruantes and ministers not as his mediators But Master PERKINS addeth that vve request in the Cannon of the Masse That God will accept our gifts and offerings namely Christ himselfe offered as he did the Sacrifices of Abell and Noe he would haue said Abraham for Noe is not there mentioned True in the sence there following not that this Sacrifice of Christes body is not a thousand times more gratefull vnto him then was the Sacrifices of the best men but that this Sacrifice which is so acceptable of it selfe may be vnto all the partakers of it cause of all heauenly grace and benediction and that also through the same Christ our Lord as it there followeth in the Canon His sixt and last reason Is the judgement of the ancient Church which is the feeblest of al the rest for that he hath not one place which maketh not flat against himselfe Conc. Tol. 12. cap. 5. heare and then judge First saith he A Councell held at Toledo in Spaine hath these wordes Relation is made vnto vs that certaine Priests doe not so many times receiue the grace of the holy communion as they offer Sacrifice but in one day if they offer many Sacrifices to God they suspend themselues from the Communion Is not this a fit testimony to proue that there is no Sacrifice of the Masse whereas it teacheth the quite contrary to wit that there were at that time Priests that did offer Sacrifice daily but were complained on and reproued for that they did not themselues communicate of euery Sacrifice which they offered M. PER. biddeth vs marke that the Sacrifice then was but a kinde of seruice because the Priest did not communicate But why did not he marke that they were therefore reprehended as he well deserueth to be for grounding his argument vpon some simple Priests abuse or ignorance Mileuit cap. 12. Secondly he saith That in an other Councell the name of Masse is put for a forme of prayer It hath pleased vs that prayer suppliations and Masses which shall be allowed in the Councell be vsed Answ Very good It is indeed that forme of prayer which the Catholike Church hath alwayes vsed set downe in the Missals or Masse-bookes so that the Councell by him alleadged doth allowe of Masse Priests and Sacrifice But saith he very profoundly Masses be compounded but the Sacrifice propitiatory of the body and bloud of Christ admitteth no composition This is so deepe and profound an obseruation of his that I can scarce conjecture what he meaneth The Masse indeed is a prayer composed of many parts so I weene be all longer prayers but in what sence can that be true that the Sacrifice of Christ admitteth no composition If he meane the passion of Christ on the Crosse it was a bundell of Mirhe and heape of sorrowes shames and paines tyed together and laid vpon the most innocent Lambe sweet IESVS If he signifie their Lordes supper doth it not consist of diuers partes and hath it not many compositions in it let the good man then explicate himselfe better that one may ghesse at his meaning and then he shall be answered more particulerly But Abbot Paschasius shall mende all hee should by his Title of Abbot seeme rather likely to marre all he saith Because we sinne daylie L. de corpore sanguine Christi Christ is sacrificed for vs mystically and his passion is giuen vs in mistery Very good in the mistery of the Masse Christ is sacrificed for vs not as he was on the Crosse bloudily but in mistery that is vnder the formes of bread and wine which may serue to answere al that he citeth out of Paschasius specially considering that in that whole treatise and one or two other of the same Authour his principall butte and marke is to proue the reall presence and Sacrifice In the first Chapter of the booke cited by M. PER. he hath these wordes Our Lord hath done all thinges in heauen and earth as he will himselfe and because it hath so pleased him though the figure of bread and wine be here that is in the Sacrament notwithstanding it is to be beleeued that after consecration there is nothing else but the flesh and bloud of Christ vvhich he also expresly proueth there at large And in an other treatise of the same argument he hath these among many such like wordes Christ when he gaue his Disciples bread and broke it did not say this is a figure of my body nor in this mistery there is a certaine vertue of it but he said without dissimulation This is my body and therefore it is that which he said it was and not that which men imagine it to be Did I not tell you that this Abbot vvas like to helpe M. PER. but a litle Thus at length we are come to the end of M. PER. reasons in fauour of their cause let vs heare what he produceth for the Catholike party The first argument Christ was a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedecke but Melchisedeckes order was to Sacrifice in bread and wine Psal 109. ad Hebr. 5. 7. therefore Christ did offer vp Sacrifice in formes of bread and wine at his last supper And what Christ then did that did he ordaine to be done to the worlds end by the Apostles their successors therefore there is now in the true Church a true and proper Sacrifice offered in our Lordes supper To seperate that which is certaine