Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	aaron_n	order_n	priesthood_n	51	3	10.7478	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07919	The suruey of popery vvherein the reader may cleerely behold, not onely the originall and daily incrementes of papistrie, with an euident confutation of the same; but also a succinct and profitable enarration of the state of Gods Church from Adam vntill Christs ascension, contained in the first and second part thereof: and throughout the third part poperie is turned vp-side downe.	Bell, Thomas, fl. 1593-1610.	1596 (1596)	STC 1829; ESTC S101491	430,311	555

in his hands at his last supper that selfe same body that was borne of the virgine Mary and suffered the next day after And yet if the valure of the sacrifice of the m●sse be finite then doubtlesse that sacrifice can not be the sonne of God for he is of infinite power of infinite glorie of infinite maiestie of infinite valure Yea whosoeuer denieth Christes body bloud subsisting in the person of God by hypostaticall vnion to be of infinite valure hee is become a flat Arrian beleeuing Christ to bee pure man and not God And consequently howsoeuer the papistes thinke or speake of their masse yet in making it a sacrifice they are blasphemous and that must needs followe though it were freelie graunted them that Christes body were present really in the Sacrament I prooue it tenthly because our Iesuite cannot denie but that a reall destruction is necessarily required in euery true reall sacrifice Wherefore since Christ dieth not in the popish masse it cannot be that he is truly sacrificed in the same For as Bellarmine truely saith Abraham did not truely sacrifice his sonne Isaac because he was not really slain Now that this discourse may be made more manifest I will propound the strongest obiec●ions for the aduerse part and adde briefe solutions to the same The first obiection S. Paul saith that Christ is a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech and Melchisedech offered bread and wine as he was Gods priest saith holy Moses To which we must adde that the thing figured is more excellent then the figure that Christ truely offered sacrifice in bread and wine otherwise hee shuld not haue exactly fulfilled y e figure of Melchisedech For al the fathers graunt that he was a true figure of Christ euen as he was a priest The answere I say first that Melchisedech did not sacrifice bread wine but as the Hebrew text saith brought forth bread wine that is sufficient victuals for the refection of Abraham and his souldiers after their returne from the slaughter of Chedor-laomer and the other kings For the whole course of y e scripture telleth vs that bread by Synecdoche signifieth meate So Moses saith that the Egyptians might not eate bread with the Hebrewes that is meate In Esay 7. women say we will eate our owne bread that is our owne meat King Dauid promised Mephibosheth that he should eate bread alwaies at his own table which had been a very small reward of a king if by bread were not signified all kinde of meat King Iehoiachim ate bread at the table of Euil-merodach the king of Babel that is al delicate fare So it is called bread that Iobs friendes ate in his house when it is certaine that they had right sumptuous cheere The like examples are in S. Mathew sundry other places of scripture This I note against the papistes who fondly vse to answere that bread was a slender refection for all Abrahams companie I say secondly that Christes priesthood is after the order of Melchisedech not in any sacrifice of bread and wine which Melchisedech can neuer be prooued to haue offered but in y t as man he was without father wonderfully cōceiued as God without beginning without ending without mother woonderfully begotten for which cause the prophet demaundeth who shall declare his generation in these points Christes priesthood differeth not from Melchisedech who as S. Paule saith was without father without mother without kinred without beginning of his daies without end of his life likened to the son of God and a priest for euer Yet in the oblation of bread and wine the priesthood of Melchisedech was not perfitly distinguished from the priesthood of Aaron as the scripture witnesseth S. Paul therfore describeth the priesthood of Melchisedech without the mention of bread and wine in such sort as it is perfitly distinguished from the priesthood of Aaron So Eusebius Caesariensis comparing the priesthoode of Christ with the priesthood of Melchisedech doth not say that it consisteth in the sacrifice of bread and wine but in the vnction the diuine similitude the eternitie and want of succession These are his expresse words Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech Hic autē Melchisedech in diuinis voluminib sacerdos fuisse Dei summi refertur sed qui non oleo communi perunctus sit neque qui ex successione generis suscepit sacerdotium sicut apud Hebraeos fieri mos erat ideo secundum ordinem ipsius sacerdos futurus dicitur Christus qui non olei liquore sed virtute coelestis spiritus consecretur Thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech And this Melchisedech is called in the holy scriptures the priest of God most high but one which was not annointed with common oyle neither yet receiued his priesthood by the succession of kinred as the manner was among the Hebrews and therfore Christ is called a priest after his order who is consecrate not with the liquor of oyle but with the vertue of the holy ghost I say thirdly that Melchisedech in his action towards Abraham shewed himself both to be a priest and a king a priest in that he blessed Abraham a king in that he releeued Abraham and his souldiers with bread wine that is with al competent corporall sustenance I say fourthly that if there had bin any force in the oblation of Melchisedech touching Christs priesthoode S. Paul who handled euery least thing exactly in that comparison would neuer haue omitted his sacrifice in bread and wine and yet he passed it ouer as a thing of no importance I say fiftly that Christ offering himselfe vpon the crosse for the sinnes of the world was not a priest after the order of Aaron but properly and truely after the order of Melchisedech I proue the former part First because perfection could not come by the priesthood of the Leuites as the apostle beareth witnes Againe because our Lord Iesus was of the tribe of Iuda of which tribe Moses spake nothing at al touching the priesthood Thirdly because the sacrifice of the crosse was the most perfit sacrifice of all other as which did cōsummate them that are sanctified for euer I proue the latter part first because it must be after some order but not after the order of Aaron as is proued ergo after the order of Melchisedech Secondly because the apostle doth in expresse terms cal Christ a priest euen after the order of Melchisedech These are his words And being consummate was made the cause of eternall life to all them that obey him and is called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedech Lo Saint Paule ioyneth the order of Melchisedech with the sacrifice of the crosse offered for mans redemption as if he had said Christ is therefore called a priest after the order of Melchisedech because he