Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	aaron_n	apostle_n	priest_n	16	3	6.0097	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A05408	The vnmasking of the masse-priest vvith a due and diligent examination of their holy sacrifice. By C.A. Shewing how they partake with all the ancient heretiques, in their profane, impious, and idolatrous worship.; Melchizedech's anti-type	Lewis, John, b. 1595 or 6.	1624 (1624)	STC 15560; ESTC S103079	137,447	244

the commers thereunto perfect for then should they not haue ceased to be offered because that the worshippers once purged should haue had no more conscience of sinnes What doth the Apostle conclude here He opposeth the Gospell to the law our Soueraigne Priest Christ Iesus against the Priests of Aaron his sacrifice which had no need to be renewed against their sacrifices repeated euery day the holinesse and effectuall sanctifying power which was in his sacrifice against their weakenesse and disability to sanctifie Hereupon he concludeth Hee taketh away the former to establish the latter the sacrifices of the law to establish his owne sacrifice Now how could this conclusion be good if this sacrifice should be reiterated seeing the often repetition argues weakenesse and impotency therefore the Apostle so often vses these words once offered to note the al-sufficiency of Christs sacrifice in the single and vnrepeated act of offering hee hauing annihilated and disanulled all other sacrifices whatsoeuer Wherefore the blood of Christ shed personally by himselfe being of sufficient vertue and merit to purifie cleanse and redeeme all beleeuers it must necessarily follow that there needes no reiteration but we may content our selues with that onely sacrifice offered vpon the crosse The Minor is so plaine and Orthodoxe that hee deserues not the name of a Christian that shall deny it Argument 2. Secondly he that offereth a true Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne must be of more value then the sacrifice it selfe but the Priest is not of more value then the body of Christ. Ergo the Priest in the Masse cannot offer the body of Christ. The Maior is true for the gift is not accepted for it selfe but for the worthinesse of him that offers it as Ireneus affirmes wherefore albeit Cains sacrifice was not of lesse worth in it selfe then Abells yet the person of Cain being vnworthy because of the wickednesse of his heart his offering was reiected but Abell beeing more worthy then his oblation in regard of his faith the Lord had respect vnto him and to his offering so Christ as Priest was God and man and therefore of more merit and efficacy then his humane nature which was the onely sacrifice for without the merit of the Godhead by which the humanity was offered the sacrifice of Christ could not haue beene of infinite value and desert Wherefore he that presumes to offer the body of Christ truely and really vnto God the Father for a Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne blasphemously sayes in effect that he is of more value worth and merit then the sacrifice he offers Argument 3. Thirdly 〈◊〉 lawfull sacrifice is grounded vpon expresse words of Scripture whereby it may appeare that God hath instituted such a sacrifice but there is no command in scripture for the sacrifice of the Masse Ergo. The sacrifice of the Masle is not lawfull The Maior proposition is prooued by the words of Christ Invaine doe they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandements of men Where our Sauiour sharpely reprehendeth the Scribes and 〈◊〉 for teaching those things to belong to the worship of God which were of their owne inuention and not by Gods expresse command for this is a true Thesis Nothing ought to bee accounted of the substance or essence of Gods worship but what God himselfe hath expresly commanded in his word And for this very thing did God reprooue the Iewes because they worshipped in Tophet offering such kind of sacrifices as hee neuer appointed for I spake not vnto your fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them forth of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices but this I said commanding them Obey my voyce and I will be your God c. Where first God condemned them for doing what they were not commanded as offering their children vnto Molech in the vally of Tophet Secondly God shewes them wherein he will bee worshipped namely in that which he expresly commandeth Therefore albeit God had commanded the sacred action of sacrificing as a part of diuine worship yet because the Gentils in their sacrifices did not follow the prescript forme of the law of God therefore were their sacrifices abhominable and no other then I dolatrous The Minor proposition is perspicuous for let all the Gospells and writings of the Apostles bee strictly suruayed and there can neither the name nor sacrifice of the Masse be found for the sacrifices of the law had their precise and prescript forme enioyned why then if God would haue an externall sacrifice to remaine vnder the Gospell hath hee not left vs directions for the manner And whereas our aduersaries pretend a command in these words Do this hereunto we haue already answered page 56. Wherefore the sacrifice of the Masse hauing no ground in the new Testament wee must needes account it fictitious a humane inuention and therefore to be reiected Argument 4. Fourthly that sacrifice wherein there is no shedding of blood cannot bee Propitiatory But in the Masse there is no shedding of blood Ergo the sacrifice of the Masse is no Propitiatory sacrifice The Maior proposition is grounded vpon the words of the Apostle Without blood shedding there can be no remission of sinnes and in the legall sacrifices all that were Propitiatory were liuing creatures which were slaine by the Priests The minor is true according to the common consent of our aduersaries who make the Masse to be sacrificium incruentum an vnbloody sacrifice and albeit the blood of Christ be powred out yet it is not shed for them in behalfe of whom it is offered wherein they doe directly contradict themselues Argument 5. Fiftly that doctrine which is contrary to it selfe is not to be embraced in the Church But the doctrine of our aduersaryes touching the sacrifice of the Masse is contrary to it selfe Ergo it is not to bee imbraced The Maior neither Protestant nor Papist will deny The Minor is prooued For our aduersaries teach that the body of Christ in the Masse is an externall sacrifice and is truely offered vnto God the Father vnder the formes of bread and wine And yet they teach the body of Christ to be inuisible in the sacrifice wherein they are contrary to themselues for no externall sacrifice is an inuisible sacrifice neither can a sacrifice be visible which they affirme of their sacrifice when the thing offered is inuisible Wherefore if they will make it an externall offering the sacrifice it selfe must be visible but here is nothing visible according to their Tenent but the Altar the Priest his ceremoniall and mimicall actions his many hundred crossings the accidents and outward formes which are no part of the sacrifice Here then their doctrine implyes a contradiction to make it a visible sacrifice and yet the sacrifice is inuisible it is an externall oblation yet the matter offered is internall and cannot be discerned Howsoeuer though no man can perceiue the matter of their sacrifice yet euery man may perceiue the manner of their iugling

command Thirdly that the same Iesus the sonne of God was the Priest which offered that all-sufficient sacrifice for remission of the sinnes of all that beleeue in him Thus the Authour hauing layd the ground worke of his subsequent matter doth in the sequell of the Epistle polish euery particular part with sundry arguments still building vpon that foundation which he had laid But because the Iewes thought it strange that the Gospell should take place and be preferred before the Law therefore the Authour first declares the excellency of Iesus Christ shewing him to be not onely man but God farre aboue all Angells and consequently worthy of a great deale more honour then Moses Hauing handled his Propheticall and Regall offices hee comes in the fourteenth verse of the fourth chapter to his Priestly office and comparing him with Aaron layes downe diuers differences betweene Christ and Aaron who differed First in person the one being onely man the other as well God as man Secondly in qualitie the one being sinnefull offered sacrifice not onely for others but for himselfe also the other being Choris hamartias without sinne offered himselfe for vs. Thirdly in order the one being of the Leuiticall order the other after the order of Melchisedech and consequently the one was temporarie the other eternall Fourthly in the manner of sacrificing Aaron offered the blood of beasts but Christ offered himselfe yea his owne blood Fiftly in efficacie the sacrifices of Aaron being in themselues of no vertue not able to cleanse sinne but the sacrifice of Christ was effectuall purging all beleeuers from all their sinnes Sixthly in the reiteration for Aaron and his sons were bound to reiterate their sacrifices euery day Christ offered once for all Seauenthly Aaron entred into an earthly tabernacle without the people but Christ into a heauenly with all his faithfull members Then the Apostle shewes what Analogie and proportion there was betweene the Priest-hood of Christ and that of Aaron which agreed First in election for as the Leuiticall Priests were elected to their office so was Christ ordained of his Father Secondly they did offer sacrifice with blood so did Christ. Thirdly they did it in behalfe of the people so did Christ. Fourthly they prayed for the people so did Christ. Last'y they entred into the Sanctum Sanctorum Holy of Holyes so did Christ. The Authour in the ninth chapter hauing compared the carnall rites with the spirituall the 〈◊〉 Tabernacle which was corruptible with the glorious tabernacle of Christs humane nature which was and is incorruptible the blood of beasts with the blood of Christ shewing that these were but the shadowes whereof Christ was the substance in whom we inioy all things spiritually and by whose blood al things are sanctified vnto vs in this chapter he shewes the insufficiencie of the Leuiticall oblations to be imployed by their frequent reiteration and the perfection of Christs sacrifice by the single act wherefore the Hebrewes should not rest in the Leuiticall sacrifices which being types of Christ had their perfection in him who hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne sitteth for euer at the right hand of God This text doth diuide it selfe into two parts An Agent and his Actions The Agent in this relatiue pronoune Autos He. His Actions are two The first done and past The second present and in doing The first hee offered one sacrifice for sinne where we haue First the subiect of his action He offered a sacrifice Secondly the singularitie of this subiect One sacrifice Thirdly the end of both for finne His second action is expressed by three predicaments Situs His gesture He sitteth Vbi His place at the right hand of God Quando His time how long for euer In the first is intimated his Maiestie in that hee sitteth In the second his Omnipotencie at the right hand of God In the third his Eternitie in that hee sitteth for euer In the first action you haue Christ in the state of humiliation In the second in the state of exaltation In the first he is dying for sinne in the second 〈◊〉 ouer sinne And first of the first Hee hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne In the handling of which words this Method shal be obserued First I shall shew who was the Priest that offered Secondly what was the sacrifice which was offered Thirdly the scope and end whereunto it was directed This Priest was Christ the eternall sonne of God one with the Father 〈◊〉 of all things and by whom all things doe subsist King of Kings Lord of Lords a perfect man without sinne full of grace and truth He it was that tooke vpon him this function to be a Priest and to offer an all-sufficient sacrifice to expiate for the sinnes of the elect And herein did Christ 〈◊〉 mainely differ from the Leuiticall Priests in that they were onely the persons offering sacrifice and not the sacrifice it selfe but Christ was both the Priest and Sacrifice for there could no sufficient sacrifice bee found for the sinne of man but onely Christ and none worthy to offer the sonne of God but onely himselfe But seeing Christ in the vnitie of his person had entertained a dualitie of natures consisting of Deitie and Humanitie hence arises a question Whether the Priestly office of Christ belong vnto his Godhead or to his manhood or to both The answer is that Christ is this Priest according to neither nature separately or diuided but according to both natures ioyntly as he was both God and man See this confirmed How much more shall the blood of Christ who by the eternall spirit offered himselfe to God purge our consciences from dead works to serue the liuing God By which eternall spirit we are to vnderstand his eternall Godhead concurring with his manhood to make him a perfect Priest The reasons why the Priestly office of Christ did require that he should be both God and man are these First as he was a Priest so was he to be a Mediatour but he could not be a Mediatour except he were God and man for Opera Christi Mediatoris sunt The andrica The workes of Christ which concerne his Mediatourship proceede from both natures Secondly because he was to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech so that he must bee apator and ametor without father without mother as Melchisedech was Now he was not without father but as hee was man nor without mother but as he was God Thirdly because hee must be both God and man that reconciled in one God vnto man and man vnto God Lastly because no creature could satisfie Gods 〈◊〉 but onely God none ought but onely man wherefore the Godhead of Christ did giue unto his manhood efficacie and merit to deserue at Gods hands remission of our sinnes for the manhood of it selfe without the Godhead hath no vertue or efficacie to be meritorious So it appeares that Christ Iesus was the High Priest for