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 moses_n priesthood_n 117 3 10.1784 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A35740 The funeral of the mass, or, The mass dead and buried without hope of resurrection translated out of French.; Tombeau de la messe. English Derodon, David, ca. 1600-1664.; S. A. 1673 (1673) Wing D1121; ESTC R9376 67,286 160

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

the Priests of the Romish Church so and consequently cannot be after the order of Melchisedec and they that have written the lives of the Popes have sufficiently declared what righteousness and peace they have procured for the true and faithful servants of Jesus Christ as I shall shew at large elsewhere Secondly The Apostle Heb. 7. represents Melchisedec to us as a man come from heaven without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of days nor end of life not that he was really such a one but because Moses hath wholy concealed from us his Father Mother Descent Birth and Death that he might be the type of Christ who was without Father as he is Man without Mother as God without Descent both as God and as man having neither beginning of days as God nor end of life as God or as Man But the Fathers Descent Birth and Death of Aaron and other High Priests are exactly described by Moses And there were never any Popes Bishops or Priests whose Parents Birth and Death were not known and consequently they cannot be after the order of Melchisedec Thirdly The Apostle adds that Melchisedec being made like unto the Son of God abideth a Priest for ever because Moses makes no mention of his death nor of any one that succeeded him in his Priestly office that so he might be the type of Jesus Christ who never left his Priestly office but will exercise it until the end of the World always inter●●ding for those that are his by presenting his sacrifice to God the Father continually As for Aaron and other Priests they are dead and have had successors And the Popes Bishops and Priests die daily and have successors and consequently are not after the order of Melchisedec Fourthly The Apostle saith likewise that Melchisedec took tithes of Abraham and adds that Melchisedec blessed him that had the Promises viz. Abraham and that the less is blessed of the greater Whence it appears that Melchisedec having taken tithes of Abraham and blessed him and Levi and all the Priests in his person was more excellent then Abraham Levi and all the Priests In which respect he was a type of Jesus Christ who was infinitely more excellent then Abraham and all his successors because he in whom all the promises were fulfilled must needs be incomparably more excellent then he that received them only But I do not believe that the Priests of the Romish Church are so bold as to prefer themselves before Abraham the Father of the Faithful in whose seed all the Nations of the Earth are blessed and consequently are not after the order of Melchisedec Fifthly The Apostle never spake of the sacrifice of Melchisedec so far was he from comparing it with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as being like it or with that of Aaron as being unlike it so that all that our Adversaries say of it is nothing else but meer humane invention 29. I conclude my answer with this Argument Jesus Christ hath offered no sacrifice but after the order whereof he was established a Priest But he was established a Priest after the order of Melchisedec only as the Apostle observes Therefore he hath offered no sacrifice but after the order of Melchisedec But according to the Romish Doctors there is no other sacrifice after the order of Melchisedec but that of the Mass Therefore according to the Romish Doctors Jesus Christ hath offered no other sacrifice but that of the Mass And seeing according to them the sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloudy sacrifice it follows that Jesus Christ hath offered no other sacrifice but an unbloudy sacrifice and consequently he hath not offered a bloudy sacrifice on the Cross which is blasphemy THE END
himself to his Father once for all on the Cross to take away sins and will be no more on earth until he comes to judge the quick and the dead This utterly destroys the Mass in which Jesus Christ is said to be offered and sacrificed continually by the ministry of Priests 14. Fifthly Sacrifices that take away sins and sanctifie those that come thereunto ought not to be reiterated for the only reason which the Apostle alledgeth why the old sacrifices of the Law were reiterated is because they could not take away sins nor sanctifie the comers thereunto as appears by the Text above cited But the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross takes away sins and sanctifies those that come thereunto Therefore the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross ought not to be reiterated and consequently is not reiterated in the Mass 15. If Jesus Christ did offer himself a sacrifice on the Cross that he might sanctifie us for ever and purchase eternal redemption for us then it is evident that the fruit and efficacy of this sacrifice endures for ever and that we must have recourse to no other sacrifice but to that of the Cross But Jesus Christ did offer himself a sacrifice on the Cross that he might sanctifie us for ever and purchase eternal redemption for us as appears by the Texts aforesaid Therefore the efficacy of the sacrifice of the Cross endures for ever and we must have recourse to no other Sacrifice but to that of the Cross In a word either we must confess that the sacrifice of the Cross hath no vertue to take away sins and to sanctifie us for ever which is contrary to what the Apostle saith or else if it hath this vertue and sufficiency then Jesus Christ hath offered one only sacrifice once for all and consequently is not offered dayly in the Mass by the Ministry of Priests 16. Lastly The Apostle almost throughout the whole Epistle to the Hebren s saith that Jesus Christ was constituted and consecrated by his Father High Priest for ever and particularly chap. 7. he saith That many were made Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death but Jesus Christ because he continueth forever hath an unchangeable Priesthood and that he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them and consequently he hath no need of Vicars or companions in his Priesthood 17. In answer to these Arguments the Romish Doctors are wont to say that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same with that of the Cross in respect of the essence of the Sacrifice the same thing being offered in both viz. the body and bloud of Christ by the same Priest viz. by Jesus Christ But it differs in respect of the manner of offering for on the Cross Jesus Christ offered himself bloudily that is when he died he shed his bloud for mankind but in the Mass he offers himself unbloudily that is without sheding his bloud and without dying On the Cross Jesus Christ was destroyed in respect of his natural being but in the Mass he is destroyed in respect of his sacramental being They add that all the Arguments drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews respect only that bloudy oblation which was once offered on the Cross but besides this bloudy sacrifice there is another that is unbloudy which is daily offered in the Mass Lastly They say that the sacrifice of the Cross is primitive and original but this of the Mass representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Cross as the Council hath it in its 22. Session 18. To these distinctions I reply That the sacrifice of the Mass doth not differ from that of the Cross in respect of the manner only which is but an accidental difference but it differs in respect of essence too First Because the natural death of Jesus Christ is of the essence of the sacrifice of the Cross But the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend the natural death of Jesus Christ for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass doth not comprehend that which is of the essence of the sacrifice of the Cross and consequently differs from it essentially and not in respect of the manner only Secondly Because the representation of a thing differs essentially from the thing represented For example The Kings Picture differs essentially from the King Also the memorial of a thing differs essentially from the thing whereof it is a memorial For example The celebration of the Passover which was a memorial of the Angels favourable passing over the houses of the Israelites differs essentially from that passing over And lastly the application of a thing differs essentially from it For example The application of a Plaister differs essentially from the Plaister But according to the determination of the Council of Trent in Session 22. the sacrifice of the Mass is representative commemorative and applicative of that of the Cross Therefore the sacrifice of the Mass differs essentially from that of the Cross Thirdly Because the sacrifice of the Cross is of an infinite value and consequently ought not to be reiterated for its value being infinite it is sufficient to take away all sins past present and to come as Bellarmin saith Book I. of the Mass chap. 4. But the sacrifice of the Mass is of a finite price and value according to the same Bellarmin and other Romish Doctors at which we may justly wonder seeing as our Adversaries say it differs not from the sacrifice of the Cross either in respect of the thing sacrificed or in respect of the chief Priest and yet from these the sacrifice hath all its price and value 19. Secondly I say that an unbloudy propitiatory sacrifice is a feigned and an imaginary thing and that the Arguments drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews do wholy destroy it First Because it is said Heb. 9. that without sheding of bloud there is no remission of sins Therefore in the unbloudy sacrifice of the Mass there can be no remission of sins and consequently it cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice for sin Secondly Because Jesus Christ cannot be offered without suffering for the Apostle saith Heb. 6. Jesus Christ offereth not himself often otherwise he should often have suffered But the sacrifice of Jesus Christ with suffering is a bloudy sacrifice Therefore there is no unbloudy sacrifice Thirdly Because the bloudy sacrifice of the Cross being of an infinite value hath purchased an eternal redemption Heb. 9. and hath taken away all sins past present and to come Whence it follows that there is no other sacrifice either bloudy or unbloudy that can purchase the pardon of our sins the sacrifice of the Cross having sufficiently done it Fourthly Because the justice of God requires that sins shall be expiated by the punishment that is due to them and this is so true that the wrath of God could