Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	aaron_n	body_n	offer_v	20	3	6.4234	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07192	Of the consecration of the bishops in the Church of England with their succession, iurisdiction, and other things incident to their calling: as also of the ordination of priests and deacons. Fiue bookes: wherein they are cleared from the slanders and odious imputations of Bellarmine, Sanders, Bristow, Harding, Allen, Stapleton, Parsons, Kellison, Eudemon, Becanus, and other romanists: and iustified to containe nothing contrary to the Scriptures, councels, Fathers, or approued examples of primitiue antiquitie. By Francis Mason, Batchelour of Diuinitie, and sometimes fellow of Merton Colledge in Oxeford.	Mason, Francis, 1566?-1621.	1613 (1613)	STC 17597; ESTC S114294	344,300	282

yet saide is nothing because to the very being of a Bishop the order of Priesthood is essentially required which is not to be found in the Church of England For there are two principall functions of Priesthood the first is the power of Sacrificing the second of Absolution but you haue neither as I will prooue in order to beginne with the first it is giuen in holy Church by these wordes Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium deo missasque celebrare tam pro viuis quam pro defunctis in nomine domini that is Receiue power to offer Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masse as well for the quicke as for the dead in the name of the Lord. But you vse neither these wordes nor any aequiualent in your ordination of Priestes as may appeare by the Booke therefore you want the principall function of Priesthood ORTHOD. If you meane no more by Priest then the holy Ghost doeth by Presbyter that is a Minister of the new Testament then we professe and are ready to prooue that we are Priestes as we are called in the booke of common prayers and the forme of ordering because we receiue in our ordination authoritie to Preach the word of God and to minister his holy Sacraments Secondly by Priestes you meane Sacrificing Priestes and would expound your selues of spirituall Sacrifices then as this name belongeth to all Christians so it may bee applied by an excellencie to the Ministers of the Gospell Thirdly although in this name you haue a relation to bodily Sacrifices yet euen so we may bee called Priestes by way of allusion For as Deacons are not of the tribe of Leui yet the ancient fathers doe cōmonly call them Leuites alluding to their office because they come in place of Leuites so the ministers of the new Testament may be called Sacrificers because they suceed the sons of Aaron and come in place of Leuites so the Ministers of the new Testament may be called sacrificers because they succeed the sonnes of Aaron and come in place of sacrificers Fourthly for as much as we haue authoritie to minister the Sacraments and consequently the Eucharist which is a representation of the sacrifice of Christ therefore we may be said to offer Christ in a mystery and to sacrifice him by way of commemoration Is not this sufficient if it be not what other sacrificing is required PHIL. THere is required sacrificing properly so called which is an externall oblation made onely to God by a lawfull Minister wherby some sensible and permanent thing is Consecrated and changed with Mysticall rite for the acknowledgement of humane infirmitie and for the profession of the Diuine Maiestie ORTHOD. What is the sensible and permanent thing you offer PHIL. It is the very body and blood of Christ. ORTHOD. The Church of England teacheth thus according to the Scripture The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption propitiation and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world both originall and actuall and there is no other satisfaction for sinne but that alone and consequently it condemneth your masses for the quicke and the dead as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits PHIL. But the Councell of Trent teacheth that in the masse there is offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice propitiatory for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead and curseth all those that thinke otherwise ORTHOD. HOw doe you prooue that the Sacrificing Priesthood which offereth as you say the very body and blood of Christ is the true Ministery of the Gospel PHIL. That Ministery which was typed in the old Testament foretold by the Prophets instituted by Christ and practised by the Apostles is the true Ministery of the Gospel But our sacrificing Priesthood which offereth the very body and blood of Christ is such therefore it is the true Ministery of the Gospel The proposition of it self is plaine euident the parts of the assumption shall be prooued in order ORTHOD. Then first let vs heare where your Priesthood was typed CHAP. II. Of their argument drawne from Melchisedec PHIL. THe Sacrifice of Melchisedec was a type of that which Christ offered at his last Supper with his owne hands shal offer by the hands of the Priests vntil the end of the world For the vnderstanding wherof we must consider that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in a more excellent maner then Aaron insomuch that Christ is called a Priest after the order of Melchisedec and not after the order of Aaron For betweene these two Priesthoods there are two differences the first consisteth in the externall forme of the Sacrifice For the Sacrifices of Aaron were bloodie and represented the death of Christ vnder the forme of liuing things that were s●aine The sacrifice of Melchisedec was vnbloody and did figure the body and blood of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and Wine From which property of the order of Melchisedec we may draw this argument If Melchisedec did offer an vnbloody sacrifice vnder the forme of Bread and Wine then seeing Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec he also must offer an vnbloody Sacrifice vnder the formes and shapes of Bread and Wine but the Sacrifice of the Crosse was bloody therefore he offered another Sacrifice besides the Sacrifice of the Crosse and what can this be but the Sacrifice of the Supper But he commaded his Apostles and in them vs to doe as hee did saying doe this in remembrance of me therfore Christ commanded that we should sacrifice him in an vnbloody manner in the formes of Bread and Wine consequently the Ministers of the Gospel are Sacrificers by Christs owne institution ORTH. We graunt first that Melchisedec was a type of Christ because the Scripture saith he was likened to the sonne of God Secondly that Christ was a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedec because God hath not only said it but sworne it The Lord hath sworne and will not repent thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedec but wee deny that Melchisedec did offer any Bread and Wine for a Sacrifice to God wee deny that Christ euer offered any such or euer gaue any such commission to his Apostles Therefore this is so farre from prouing your pretended Priesthood that it will quite ouerthrowe it PHIL. THat Melchisedec Sacrificed Bread and Wine is plaine in Genesis ORTHOD. In Genesis Why there is no such thing the wordes are these And Melchisedec king of Salem brought foorth Bread and Wine and he was a Priest of the most high God Where your owne vulgar translation readeth proferens not offerens hee brought forth Bread and Wine and not hee offered it PHIL. True he brought it forth but the end why he brought it foorth was to Sacrifice vnto God ORTHOD. That is more then you can gather out of the text Iosephus sayth

authenticall Edition of Sixtus quintus and Clemens octauus the Soph pasuk you vrge is expressed onely by a comma and in some of the Vulgar there is not so much as a comma Wherefore this doeth rather argue a relation to that which followeth then to that which went before and consequently these words He was a Priest of the most High God cannot be referred to the bringing foorth of the bread and wine but rather to the blessing And that it is so may appeare by the Epistle to the Hebrewes where the Type of Melchisedec is vnfolded and yet there is no mention at all of sacrificing but only of blessing But if we should suppose that it were to be translated by the causall for and that these words For he was a Priest of the most High God had relation to that which went before concerning the bringing out of bread and wine what should you gaine by it PHIL. The very point in question For the latter part shall yeeld a reason of the former Did Melchisedec bring foorth bread and wine to Abraham What moued him so to doe The reason is rendered because he was a Priest of the most High God Therefore this was a Priestly action ORTHOD. He gaue entertainment to Abraham and was thereunto moued by consideration of his owne Office euen because hee was not onely a professour of the true Religion but also a Priest for as it becommeth all that imbrace Religion to loue one another and reioyce at their good so this duetie especially belongeth to the Priest And your learned Iesuite Andradius hence obserueth the great lincke of Religion saying Who would not wonder that a man tyed by no lincks of acquaintance with Abraham but to those whom Abraham conquered tyed by the lincke of neighbour-hood and peraduenture of alliance also for I hold it very probable that Melchisedec was a Canaanite should prosecute Abraham with presents and other kind offices and for the victory gotten ouer his owne country men should congratulate Abraham not without procuring to himselfe great enuie from his neighbours but seeing there are no lincks to bee compared with the linkes of religion Moyses saith that he performed these offices to Abraham because he was a Priest of the most high God that all men might vnderstand that hee was coupled with greater lincks of loue with Abraham who excelled for singular commendation of Pietie and religion then with them to whom he was tied by the Law of nature and country therefore there is no necessity to say that he sacrificed bread and wine for the text euen read and pointed as you would haue it may in the iudgement of some of your learned Diuines admit an excellent sence without any sacrifice BVt let vs imagine that hee did sacrifice bread and wine what is this to the purpose PHIL. Yes it proueth our Priest hood directly and strongly For must not the truth answere to the Type ORTHOD. You make the type consist in this that Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine but stay a little did Christ sacrifice bread and wine where find you that PHIL. A Type consisteth in representation and representation dependeth rather vpon the outward accidents then the inward substance therfore whereas Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine the truth of that Type must consist in the outward accidents that is in the formes of bread wine and the Type was fulfilled in that Christ offered himselfe in the formes of bread and wine ORTH. Was the sacrifice of Melchisedec bread and wine in substance or was it the body and blood of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine if you say the first then our communion doth better answere to the sacrifice of Melchisedec then your Masse and consequently our ministery doth better resemble his then your Priesthood but if you say that he offered the very bodie and blood of Christ in the formes of bread and wine that would fit your turne well for then Melchisedec should be a Masse Priest but it is so absurde that you dare not auouch it For then the very bodie and blood of Christ should haue beene actually and substantially existent before it was conceiued in the wombe of the Virgin Mary Thus say what you can you are quite ouerthrowne PHIL. If Melchisedec sacrificed bread and wine then surely hee offred an vnbloody sacrifice and seeing Christ being a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must needs haue the essentiall properties of that Order therefore Christ offered also an vnbloody sacrifice ORTHOD. Or rather thus seeing Christ is a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec hee must haue all the essentiall properties belonging to that Order but his sacrifice was bloodie and not vnbloody for With his owne blood hath he entred into the most Holy and hath purchased an eternall redemption for vs therefore to offer an vnbloody sacrifice is no essential propertie of the Order of Melchisedec wherfore if he did so it followeth not that Christ should do so PHIL. It was both bloody and vnbloodie bloody vpon the Crosse vnbloodie in the Eucharist ORTHOD. Doe you not teach that Christ offered his owne body and blood in the Eucharist if hee sacrificed his owne blood how can that sacrifice be vnbloodie PHIL. His blood was shed and sacrificed in the Eucharist in an vnbloudie manner that is in the forme of bread and wine ORTHO The Scripture saith that Christ was Once offered and that with once offering he hath Consecrated for euer them that are sanctified and this offering is called the blood of the Crosse not the blood of the Eucharist but the blood of the Crosse. PHIL. Will you deny the blood and sacrifice of the Eucharist ORTHOD. Christ saith Doe this in remembrance of mee therefore in the Eucharist there is a memoriall of Christ euen of his bodie and blood which were sacrificed for vs vpon the Crosse once for all as hath been alreadie prooued Therefore the blood was shed and sacrificed vpon the Crosse properly and substantially in the Eucharist improperly and in a mystery by way of commemoration an representation as shall appeare more amply when we come to the point PHIL. ANother difference betweene Aaron and Melchisedec is thus set down by Bellarmine Estetiā alia differentia inter Sacerdotium Melchisedechi Aaronis quòd illud fuit vnius tantū hominis qui non successit alteri cui non successit alter istud autem fuit multorum qui per mortem sibi inuicem succedebant i. There is an other difference betweene the Priesthood of Melchisedec and of Aaron that the former was onely of one man who succeeded not an other and to whom no man succeeded but the latter was of many men which succeeded one another by death where we may obserue two properties of the Priesthood of Melchisedec vnity and eternity ORTH. The first propertie belongeth most aptly to Christ who alone hath offered himselfe a sweete smelling sacrifice to God for vs but to

vpon the silence of the Apostle onely but of the silence of all the Apostles and Prophets There is not a word in the whole Bible to declare that Melchisedec was a type of Christ in offering such an vnbloodie Sacrifice in the formes of Bread and Wine and this very silence is like the voice of a Trumpet proclaiming vnto the world that Popery is the meer inuention of man shall wither in the root from whence it sprung For euery plant which our heauenly father hath not planted shall be rooted out PHIL. Doe not the Fathers make this a type of the Eucharist And wherein can it consist but in an oblation or sacrifice ORTHOD. First some of the Fathers say not that Melchisedec offered this Bread and wine to God but to Abraham Secondly those which say it was offered vnto God as a Sacrifice may meane an Eucharisticall Sacrifice and not a propitiatorie Thirdly if any of the Fathers say that hee offered a propitiatorie Sacrifice yet it followeth not that because they make the oblation of Melchisedec a Type of the Eucharist that therefore in the Eucharist there is a propitiatorie Sacrifice for those which hold so must make a double oblation of this Bread and Wine by Melchisedec the first to God by way of Sacrifice the second to Abraham and the armie in the manner of a banquet the first might haue relation to Christ vpon the Crosse the second to the Eucharist Fourthly your Popish massing Sacrifice presupposeth transubstantiation which is contrary to Christs institutiō of the Eucharist as in due place shall be declared Wherefore those fathers which vnderstand the Eucharist according to Christs institution cannot referre the type of Melchisedec to any transubstantiate Sacrifice CHAP. III. Of their argument drawne from the Paschall Lambe PHIL. THe Sacrifice of the Masse and consequently the office of the Priest or Sacrificer is proued by an argument drawne from the Paschall Lambe And first it is cleare by the Scripture that the Paschal Lambe was a Sacrifice For we read in Exodus Take you for euery of your houshoulds a lambe and immolate the Passeouer And againe You shall slay it it is the Victime or Sacrifice of the Lords Passeouer And in the 9. of Numbers Certaine men were defiled by a dead man that they might not keepe the Passeouer the same day and they came before Moses and before Aaron the same day And those men said vnto him we are defiled by a dead man Wherfore are we kept back that we may not offer an offring vnto the Lord in the time therunto appointed And againe But the man that is cleane and is not in a iourney and is negligent to keepe the Passeouer the same person shall be cut off from his people because he brought not the Sacrifice of the Lord in his due season And in the Gospel of S. Mark The first day of the Azyms when they sacrificed the Passeouer And S. Paul saith Our Passeouer Christ is immolated ORTHOD. Admit it were a Sacrifice what can you conclude PHIL. The celebration of the Paschall Lambe was an expresse figure of the celebration of the Eucharist Therefore if the Paschal Lambe were a Sacrifice the Eucharist likewise must be a Sacrifice that there may be a correspondency betwene the figure and the thing figured ORTHOD. As other ceremonies of the Law so the Paschall Lambe was most euidently and expresly a figure of Christ and therefore was fulfilled in the passion of Christ. PHIL. The ceremonie of the Paschal Lambe was more immediately and more principally a figure of the Eucharist then of the passion as may appeare by foure circumstances First the Paschal Lambe was to be eaten the fourteenth day of the moneth at euen and at the same time Christ instituted the Eucharist but the passion was deferred vntill the day following ORTHOD. Because the Eucharist was to succeed the passeouer therefore the wisedome of God so disposed that it should be instituted at the celebration of the passeouer But this doth not proue that the Passeouer was more principally a figure of the Eucharist then of the passion for what saith the Scripture Behold the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinnes of the world How doth he take away the sinnes of the world Is it not by his death and passion as it is written wee haue redemption through his blood euen the forgiuenes of our sinnes according to his rich grace And againe He is the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the world therefore the substance of the Type consisted in this that hee was slaine which was not in the Eucharist but vpon the Crosse. Which is most euidently set downe by the Euangelist Saint Iohn who rendreth this reason why his legges were not broken because it is written there shall not a bone of him be broken PHIL. Secondly The Lambe was offered in remembrance of the Lords passing ouer and the deliuerance of the people and the Eucharist is celebrated in memory of the Lords passing out of this world to his father by his passion and of our deliuerance from the power of Satan by the death of Christ. ORTHOD. If both bee memorialls of our deliuerance by Christ then one is not the body of the other but the substance of both is Christ. PHIL. Thirdly the Lambe was offered that it might be eaten and so is the Eucharist but Christ was not crucified that he might be eaten neither was there any then which ate him after hee was so Sacrificed ORTHOD. If the Lambe were properly offered then it was more truely a Type of Christ then of the Eucharist For the Scripture witnesseth that Christ was offered vpon the Crosse but it witnesseth no such thing concerning the Eucharist onely Christ sayth doe this in remembrance of me Whereby we learne that the Eucharist is not an oblation but a memoriall of Christs oblation Now whereas you say that Christ was not crucified that hee might be eaten Christ himselfe saith Verely verely I say vnto you except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood ye haue no life in you Whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him vp at the last day For my flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him And a little before The bread that I will giue is my flesh which I will giue for the life of the world PHIL. That may be meant of his flesh in the Eucharist ORTHO Saint Austin sheweth the contrary in these words De mensa dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam quibusdam ad exitium res verò ipsa cutus sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps fuerit i. Some receiue the sacrament from the Lords Table vnto life some vnto destruction but

Aimonius alleadged both by Baronius and Binius Wherefore either hee was no monster or if hee were the Romanes must impute the blame of his election rather to themselues then to the Emperour PHIL. Whether hee were or no Doctour Genebrard declareth that there were fiftie monsters intruded by the tyrannie of the Germane Emperours ORTHOD. I will answere this in the wordes of a learned man Genebrard without all reuerence both of God and man doth raile lye and falsisie stories to deface the Emperours and crosse the Writers of the Centuries For hee saith that the Emperours did as wilde boares eate vp the vineyard of the Lord the stories say that they deliuered it from wild boares The stories say that the monsters of the Popes were chosen by the Romanes themselues hee saith that they came in by intrusion of the Emperours The stories say that the Emperours who hunted out those beastes were vertuous and lawfull Princes hee calleth them tyrants not onely them but also many good Emperours moe who medled with the Popes election Finally the stories say that the Emperours were allowed by Popes and councels to doe it hee saith they vsurped it by the right of Herod And yet himselfe recordeth and that in the same Chronicle too that Pope Adrian with a Councell Pope Leo with a Councell Pope Clemens with a Councell did grant it vnto Charles Otho and Henry the Emperours No Philodox it was not the Emperour but the Romanes which intruded the monsters as I haue alreadie shewed at large and you may further see by Benedict the ninth Syluester the third and Gregory the sixt which Platina calleth tria teterrima monstra i. three most vglie monsters and were all chosen by the Romanes Yea the Emperours were so farre from intruding that they did extrude them Otho Iohn the twelfth and Henry the second Gregory the sixth For the Emperour Henry went into Italy vpon purpose to prouide for the Church which Gregory vnderstanding met him and to winne his fauour offered him a crowne of golde But the Emperour put on iustice as a robe and a crowne It was dearer vnto him then a crowne of golde So he called a councell wherein Gregory being conuented and conuicted resigned the place as some say or rather was deposed as others affirme and one Swidiger a Germaine a man famous for honestie and learning named by the Emperour and approued by all was chosen in his place and called Clement the second by whom Henry being crowned Emperour caused the Romanes to sweare that they would not medle at all with Elections but by the Emperours commond For hee sawe that the world was come to that passe that euery factious fellow were hee neuer so base so hee were rich and potent might corrupt their voyces and obtaine the place by bribes And the new Pope with a Councell as Genebrard confesseth gaue the same to Henry which was giuen before to Otho PHIL. CLement the second was no true Pope in the iudgement of Genebrard ORTHOD. But he was a true Pope in the iudgements of Baronius and Binius for they both put him into the Catalogue Wherefore you must confesse that this authoritie was yeelded to the Emperour by a true Pope And as it was yeelded by him so it was practised by the Emperour For the next foure Popes Damasus the second Leo the ninth Victor the second and Stephen the ninth are called of Onuphrius most holy and good men well deseruing of the Church of God and he proueth by the Histories of that time that they were all created by the authoritie of the Emperour Which is most cleare in Leo the ninth For after the death of Damasus the Romanes sent to Henry to intreat him to send them a good Pope who presently offered them one Bauno a Bishop a good and well meaning man PHIL. This Embassage was sent from the Cardinals not that the Emperour should elect a Pope but that he should send one to be elected at Rome according to the custome by the Councell of the Cardinalls as Benno our aduersarie cannot deny And Leo Ostiensis witnesseth that he was chosen by the Romanes Therefore whereas some say that he was chosen by the Emperour you must vnderstand that hee was delected by the Emperour but elected by the Cardinals For Otto Frisingensis recordeth that as Leo passed through France in his Pontificall robes Hildebrand came and told him that it was vnlawfull for a Pope to enter violently per manum laicam by the helping hand of a lay Prince or as Platina saith that Henry had no power from God to create a Pope so he put of his purple and entred Rome as a priuate man Whereupon the Romane Clergie elected him the rather because by this his fact hee had translated all the authoritie of chusing the Pope from the Emperour to the Clergie ORTHO If he translated it from the Emperour then it was inuested in the Emperour as indeed it was euen by their owne iudgement for else why did they send vnto him yea both the Emperour and the Pope did so take it as appeareth because he put on his pontificall robes in the presence of the Emperour Otto Frisingensis did so take it when hee said that Leo was appointed to the seat of Peter authoritate regalis excellenciae i By the authoritie of the regall excellency Onuphrius did so take it in the words before alleadged Wherefore howsoeuer you distinguish betweene delecting and electing It is cleare that they sent to the Emperour as to one that had authoritie yea they had bound themselues by oath not to meddle with elections but at his command wherfore their election was either by his authority or they were al periured Which Imperiall authoritie continued till Gregory the seuenth for Platina saith that the Emperour and Gregorie were made friends eundemque in pontificatu confirmauit vt tum Imperatorūmos erat i. He confirmed him in the Popedome as then it was the custome of Emperours PHIL. Now are you come to a worthy man indeed a most couragious maintainer of the liberties of the Church who was not afraid to renew and defend the holy and Ecclesiasticall lawes namely the 22. Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon For in a Councell holden in the yeere 1080 hee excluded all secular Potentates whatsoeuer from inuestitures reseruing the elections onely to the Clergie and people Wherein he was seconded by his noble successours Victor and Vrban ORTHO Ancient and holy lawes which are these Bellarmine nameth but one and that a counterfet contrary to the custome of the Church which was ancient and holy Indeed your couragious Champion did not onely exclude all secular Potentates from inuestitures but also in the same Councell he deposed his owne lord and soueraigne who confirmed him in the Popedome and gaue away the Empire to Rodolph a rebell promising forgiuenesse of sinnes to all that obeyed him Was this

though Christ saith S. Gregorie liuing immortally now dieth not yet hee dieth in this mysterie and his flesh suffereth for the saluation of the people That is saith the Glosse his death and Passion is represented And you heard before out of the Master of the Sentences that that which is offered and Consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice and oblation because it is a memoriall and representation of the true sacrifice and holy oblation made vpon the Altar of the Crosse. And Bellarmine granteth that Thomas and other Schoolemen doe commonly answere that it is called an oblation because it is a representation of the oblation PHIL. Peter Lombard when he asketh the question whether that which the Priest doth be properly called a sacrifice or an oblation taketh the name of sacrifice or oblation for occision or killing as though he had asked Whether that which the Priest doth be a killing of Christ and answereth most rightly that Christ was truely offered that is slaine but once and that now he is not properly offered that is slaine but only in a Sacrament and representation ORTHOD. First I referre it to the indifferent Reader to consider whether this answere of Bellarmine be not a meere shift and cauill Secondly neither will this shift serue his turne for if the Priest doe not so he cannot be said properly to sacrifice him because in a sacrifice there must be the destruction of the thing sacrificed as is before declared out of Bellarmine PHIL. THe Councell of Trent pronounceth a curse against all those which deny that a true and proper sacrifice is offered in the Masse And they haue reason for as the Apostles so all the Fathers of the Primitiue Church were Masse-Priests For S. Ambrose testifieth That imposition of hands is certaine mysticall words whereby hee that is elected into the Priesthood is confirmed receiuing authoritie his conscience bearing him witnesse that he may bee bold to offer sacrifice to God in the Lords stead ORTHOD. S. Ambrose elsewhere expoundeth himselfe saying Quid ergo nos nonne per singulos dies offerimus offerimus quidem sed recordationem facientes mortis eius That is What therefore doe we doe we not offer dayly truely wee offer but so that wee make a remembrance of his death And againe Ipsum semper offerimus magis autem recordationem sacrificij operamur That is Wee offer him alwayes or rather we worke a remembrance of his sacrifice PHIL. S. Chrysostome saith In many places there is offered not many Christs but one Christ euery where being full and perfect both here and there ORTHOD. S. Chrysostome expoundeth himselfe in the same place Wee offer him saith he or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is We worke a remembrance of the sacrifice Where by the way you may see that S. Ambrose did borrow his former speech from this place of Chrysostome PHIL. S. Augustine saith That Christ commaunded the Leper to offer a sacrifice according to the Law of Moses Quia nondum institutum erat hoc sacrificium sanctum sanctorum quod corpus eius est That is Because this Sacrifice the Holy of holies which is his body was not yet instituted And elsewhere Quid gratius offerri aut suscipi posset quàm caro sacrificij nostri corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri That is What can be offered or accepted more gratefully then the body of our Priest being made the flesh of our Sacrifice And Cyrill Leo Fulgentius and other Fathers haue commonly the like ORTHOD. Then the answering of Austine will be the answering of all Now what his meaning was let himselfe declare Was not Christ once offered or sacrificed in himselfe And yet he is offered in a sacrament not onely at all the solemnities at Easter but euery day to the people Neither doth he lye that being asked doth answere that he is offered For if sacraments haue not a certaine resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments they should not be sacraments at all And for this resemblance they take the names commonly of the things themselues therefore as after a certaine maner the sacrament of the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ the sacrament of the Blood of Christ is the Blood of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith And elsewhere The flesh and blood of the sacrifice of Christ was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before hee came was performed in trueth and in deed when he suffered is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance since he asc●nded PHIL. YOu cannot so delude the ancient Fathers of the Church For the Nicen Councell in that Canon which Caluine and all other receiue saith plainely That the Lambe of God offered vnbloodily is layde vpon the holy Table ORTHOD. The Lambe Christ Iesus which was offered vpon the Crosse for the sinnes of the world is layd vpon the holy Table not substantially but Sacramentally PHIL. But the Councell meaneth substantially for they say It is come by relation to the holy Councell that in certaine places and Cities the Deacons do reach the sacraments to the Priests Neither the Canon nor the custome hath deliuered this That those which haue not the power to offer sacrifice should reach the body of Christ to those that offer it Where you may see that they doe not onely call it the body of Christ but they plainely describe a Priest by hauing a power and authoritie to offer it and distinguish him from the Deacons which haue no such power ORTHOD. Who can better tell the meaning of the Councel then those which were present and subscribed vnto it One whereof was Eusebius PHIL. Very true and hee telleth how when Constantine dedicated the Temple at Ierusalem some did pacifie the diuine Maiestie with vnbloody sacrifices and mysticall Consecrations Who were these but Masse-priests and what were the vnbloody sacrifices but the sacrifice of the Masse for the Body and Blood of Christ are there offered vnbloodily ORTHOD. Let Eusebius expound Eusebius Christ hauing offered himselfe for a soueraigne sacrifice vnto his Father ordained that we should offer a remembrance thereof vnto God in stead of a sacrifice Is not this a plaine demonstration that in the iudgement of Eusebius there is not in the Lords Supper a sacrifice properly so called but onely a remembrance in stead of a sacrifice And this remembrance hee thus describeth VVhich remembrance wee celebrate by the signes of his Body and Blood vpon his Table He calleth it not a sacrifice but a remembrance celebrated not by the substance of his Body and Blood but by the signes and that not vpon an Altar but vpon a Table and this he calleth an vnbloodie sacrifice as appeareth by his owne words And pleasing God well wee offer vnbloodie sacrifices and reasonable and acceptable to him So it is as cleere as the noone day that Eusebius knew not your Massing sacrifice but expoundeth the

your Popish Priests it cannot agree because they are many for if the Priests should be many then this vnity of the Priest could not bee a property of the Priesthood therefore this vnitie is directly against you Now let vs see what you can conclude from the eternity PHIL. If Christ haue an euerlasting Priesthood then hee must haue an euerlasting sacrifice for euery Priest must haue a sacrifice or else the Priesthood should be idle but the sacrifice of the Crosse was not euerlasting for it was but once offered therefore there must needs be another sacrifice of the New Testament that is the sacrifice of the Masse wherein the sacrifice of Christ is continued for euer and so our Priest-hood is proued ORTHOD. Proued how is it proued the scripture saith that Christ because he indureth for euer hath an euerlasting Priesthood he indureth for euer he euen he in his owne person and therefore hath no neede of you to continue his Sacrifice For Christ is a Priest for euer First in respect of his owne Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. Secondly in respect of his intercession In respect of the Sacrifice which though it were but once offered yet it is an euerlasting Sacrifice because the vertue of it is euerlasting and continueth effectuall for euer for as he is the lambe slaine from the beginning of the world so hee is Iesus Christ yesterday to day and the same for euer neither by the blood of goates and calues but by his owne blood entred he once into the holy place and hath obtained an eternall redemption for vs. PHIL. As hee is a Priest properly for euer so hee must for euer offer a Sacrifice But he hath no more Sacrifice to offer in his owne person therefore he must offer it by another ORTH. Your owne Rhemists affirme that Christ was a Priest from the first moment of his conception Now what if one should reason thus with you if he be a Priest he must offer a Sacrifice but in the Virgins wombe he offered no Sacrifice therefore then he was no Priest Or thus till he was thirty three yeeres olde he offered no Sacrifice therefore all that while hee was no Priest what would you answere PHIL. I would say that Christ was truely then a Priest in respect of that Sacrifice of his body and blood which he offered in due time ORTHOD. If he were a Priest in the wombe of the Virgin in respect of that Sacrifice which was then to come why may hee not bee called a Priest till the end of the world in respect of the same Sacrifice alreadie offered and as he is a Priest for euer in respect of his Sacrifice so he is a Priest for euer in regard of his intercession For his Priesthood hath two parts Redemption and Intercession It behoued our high Priest first to purchase our redemption by his blood secondly to applie his precious merits vnto vs by his intercession and both these are set downe by Saint Iohn if any man sinne wee haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the Propitiation for our sinnes Who is our aduocate euen hee that hath sacrificed his blood a propitiation for our sinnes hee is our aduocate and appeareth in heauen to make intercession for vs. Who shall now lay any thing to the charge of Gods chosen it is God that iustifieth who shall condemne vs It is Christ which is dead yea rather which is risen againe who is also at the right hand of God and maketh intercession for vs And seeing we haue a high Priest made higher then the heauens who euer liueth to make intercession for vs In this respect he may well be saide to bee a Priest for euer and needeth not your Massemongers to continue his Sacrifice Wherefore it is euident that your sacrificing priestood cannot bee grounded vpon the type of Melchisedec Which may yet appeare more fully because the Apostle to the Hebrewes speaking very particularly of this Type saith not one word cōcerning his Sacrifice but vnfouldeth it in these branches following First Melchisedec signifieth King of righteousnesse therein being a type of Christ Iesus who is the Lord our righteousnesse Secondly Melchisedec was King of Salem that is king of peace So Christ Iesus is the Prince of peace for he is our peace which hath made of both one and hath broken the stop of the partition wall in abrogating through his flesh the hatred that is the lawe of commandements which standeth in ordinances for to make of twaine one new man in himselfe so making peace And that hee might reconcile both vnto God in one body by his Crosse and slay hatred thereby and came and Preached peace to you which were a farre off and to them that were neere Thirdly Melchisedec was both King and Priest so was Christ Iesus Fourthly Melchisedec blessed Abraham and the blessing of God commeth through Christ Iesus vpon all the sonnes of Abraham that is vpon all beleeuers For we ought all to say with the Apostle Blessed bee God euen the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ which hath blessed vs with all spirituall blessing in heauenly things in Christ. Fifthly Melchisedec receiued tithes of Abraham and consequētly euen Leui being as yet in the loines of Abraham payed tithes to Melchisedec Whereby was signified that the Priesthood of Christ who was after the order of Melchisedec was farre more excellent then the Priesthood of Aaron Sixtly Melchisedec was without father without mother without kindred not simply but is said to be so in respect of the silence of the Scripture which bringeth him in sodenly making no mention at all of father mother or kinred thereby representing Christ Iesus who as he was man had no father as he was God had no mother nor kinred Seuenthly Melchisedec had neither beginning of dayes nor end of life That is the Scripture doth not mention the one nor the other that therein hee might bee a representation of the eternitie of Christ Iesus who as hee is God is from euerlasting to euerlasting Thus the Scripture vnfoldeth the type of Melchisedec plentifully and particularly and yet saith not one word concerning his sacrificing which is an euident argument that it is a meere deuise and imagination of mans braine PHIL. The Apostles silence is no sufficient argument against it For hee renders a reason why hee was inforced to omit diuers deepe points concerning Melchisedec A high Priest according to the order of Melchisedec of whom we haue great speech and inexplicable to vtter because you are become weake to heare Among which no doubt say the Rhemists the mysterie of the Sacrament Sacrifice of the Altar called Masse was a principall and pertinent matter And indeede it was not reasonable to talke much to them of that Sacrifice which was the resemblance of Christs death when they thought not right of Christs death it selfe ORTHOD. We doe not ground