Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	bread_n	eat_v	show_v	5,537	5	5.6290	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79524	Catholike history, collected and gathered out of Scripture, councels, ancient Fathers, and modern authentick writers, both ecclesiastical and civil; for the satisfaction of such as doubt, and the confirmation of such as believe, the Reformed Church of England. Occasioned by a book written by Dr. Thomas Vane, intituled, The lost sheep returned home. / By Edward Chisenhale, Esquire.	Chisenhale, Edward, d. 1654.	1653 (1653)	Wing C3899; Thomason E1273_1; ESTC R210487	201,728	571

is a figure of the Testament of Christ which was to be sealed with his blood For his blood is not the Testament but the thing that confirms the new Testament This is so evident a place to disprove the tenents of Romes Church in this particular that her champions are forced to their last refuge of abusing Scripture and therefore they render that text thus This blood is a new Testament in my blood which translation I submit to the judicious Reader whether it be not more strange then any figurative speech Christ saith we must be baptized with the holy Ghost this is a figurative speech So likewise Except a man be born again c. that was a figurative speech intending thereby spiritual regeneration S. Paul saith that in Baptism we cloathe us with Christ and be buried with him Rom. 6. which are figurative speeches of our newness of life and mortification of sin The Paschal Lamb without spot signified Christ the effusion of that blood signified Christ's passion and the sprinkling of the posts with blood whereby the first-born escaped death is a type of those which at the last day shall be saved being sprinkled with the blood of Jesus As in the Old Testament Exod. 12. God said This is the Lords passeover which was not the Lords Passeover but a figure representing the Lords passing by so Christ in the New Testament says of the bread and wine This is my body This is my blood which is not so in substance but in signification A figure hath the name of a thing that is signified thereby as we say a mans image is called a man the figure of a tree a tree or the like So we say Let us go to S. Peter of Millain to S. James in Compestella c. not meaning thereby the things themselves but understanding by the things representive the things represented Even so the bread and wine though Christ call them his body and blood yet they are not verily so but the elementary parts and outward signes of the invisible grace his flesh and blood thereby signified Nor is this a strange interpretation but according to Christs own figurative speech saying Luk. 22. I have much desired to eat this passeover with you Which words none can deny to be figurative God himself used that figurative speech and Jesus the onely Son of that Father to ssure us of his unity with the Godhead breathes out the same Spirit to his Apostles This is my passeover This is my body This is my blood As the shedding of that Lamb's blood was a token of the shedding of Christs blood then to come and forasmuch as the Sacraments of the Old Testament ceased and ended in Christ lest we should through corrup●ion and depravity forget the accomplishment of those Types and not take heed to print in our memories the benefits we receive by Christ Therefore Christ at his last Supper when he took leave of his disciples being shortly to depart out of the world according to the will of the Father did make a new Will He did make a new Will and Testament wherein he bequeathed clear remission of sins which he sealed next day with his blood and instituted this holy Sacrament in remembrance thereof and ordained the same in bread and wine saying This is my body This cup is my blood which is shed for remission of sins Do this in remembrance of me And Saint Paul says 1 Cor. 11. As often as we eat this bread and drink this cup we shew the Lords death till he come Therefore when we come to be made partakers of this heavenly food we should seriously call to minde the wonderful sufferings great goodness and marvelous kindness of Christ he offering himself for our redemption and by a lively faith apply the merits of his Passion to our souls and so we verily receive Christ he to be in us and we in him The Scriptures do sufficiently set forth this truth That when Christ said Hoc est corpus it was a figurative speech and the Church of England holds forth this truth against all adversaries and opposers thereof And that in this she may not seem arrogant to assume a self-interpretation of the Scriptures to maintain this her assertion I will bring in some ancient Fathers to bear witness for her Saint Augustine How to interpret Scrip ure de doctrina Christiana lib. 3. advising us how to interpret Scripture bids us beware how we take literally any thing that is spoken figuratively and figuratively any thing that is spoken literally And he therefore gives this Rule in way of caution If the thing saith he that is spoken be to the furtherance of Charity then it is a proper speech and no figure as when it commands any good or forbids any evil act then it is no figure but if it command any evil thing or forbid that that is good then it is a figurative speech Now this saying of Christ Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye have no life in you seems to enjoyn a hainous and vicked thing and therefore upon S. Austin's rule it is a figurative speech But I will not onely conclude it upon that general rule to be so But I will likewise for better clearing this truth ●t down the express opinions of the Fathers in this point The ancient Fathers agree that it was a figurative speech Irenaeus contr Valent. lib. 4. c. 32. ●aith Christ confessed bread which is creature to be his body and the cup to be his blood And in cap. 57. he ●●ith that Christ taking bread of the ●ame sort that ours is of confessed that ●t was his body It was saith he ma●erial bread and therefore a figurative ●peech Cyprian ad Magn. lib. 1. Epist 6. Christ called bread made of many corns and wine pressed out of many grapes his body and blood Cyril in Johan lib. 4. cap. 14. Christ gave to his disciples pieces of bread saying Take eat this is my body And herewith agree Austin de Trinit lib. 3. cap. 4. Theodoret. dialog 1. all concurring that when Christ took bread and wine and spake these words This is my body This is my blood that it was bread and wine which he gave and not any other substance And Origen in Levit. Hom. 7. declareth the eating and drinking of Christs flesh and blood to be figurative therefore saith he understand them as spiritual not as carnal men Tertul. contra Marcion lib. 1. calls bread broken by Christ a figure of his body and wine his blood because saith he in the Old Testament bread and wine were figures of his body and blood And Chrysostome upon Psal 22. saith that Christ ordained the Table of his holy Supper for this purpose that in that Sacrament he should shew unto us bread and wine for a similitude of his body and blood So that all agree it is a figurative speech S. Ambrose upon 1 Cor. 11. saith that in eating and drinking the bread and

as a matter of faith and that upon pain of damnation as witness this novel point and some others which are of later times crept into that Church And when any thing of Papal will and interest must be held forth to the other Churches then is the Lateran at Rome pitched upon Ante chap. 14. as I have formerly said as the onely convenient place to have the matter debated it being there likely to receive the least opposition by reason his Holiness is at hand to take notice of his enemies and to punish them and to flatter and promote such as stand for his Papal pleasure In this Councel of Laterane The Councel of Laterane chap. 17. likewise was hatched that other Cockatrice that strange brazen-fac'd and staring opinion of deposing Kings from which root of bitterness springs many tart branches of dangerous and poysonful Errours the nauseating juyce of whose sowre grapes being given to some other Churches to drink it hath intoxicated them making their Vertigious heads turn after the Laterane Weather-cock and in their brain-sick fit conceit that her high-reared Spire is the onely supporter of the heavenly Pole whilst the sober and discreet Christian knows that her proud top being exalted to that height is but so much the neere● the pattern of Babels Tower And whilst they think she is dignified before others her head being lifted above them others know she hath not whereof to boast unless in this That shee has the upper room in Satan 's airy principality which how much the higher she is lifted she is but thereby rendered more subject to be muffled with the black contractions of the Devil's Cimerian clouds of Errours And though the top thereof be forged out of that material Sword as is by the Romish Legends maintained which cut off Saint John Baptist's head it should not therefore arrogate to be the onely decolling instrument of Principality and Temporal power But I return to the subject matter of this Chapter That I may the further lay open the errours of the Church of Rome in this particular Miracles the cause of Transubstantiation and that the Papists shall not have whereof to boast in that I said they were induced by Miracles to maintain this doctrine should I pass those Miracles by in silence I will let the Reader know what they were It is reported that a Bishop of Canterbury about the time of this change did shew unto some for their conversion the Host turned into flesh and blood in outward appearance dropping into the Chalice and that thereupon they believed Transubstantiation Another is reported by Paschasius of one Plegildus a Priest of Almain who did see and handle visibly the shape of a childe upon the Altar and after it turned into bread and he was to receive it Another is reported of a Jew-boy who coming into the Church with another boy which was a Christian he saw upon the Altar a little childe torn in pieces and afterwards by portions distributed which he reporting was condemned to be burned but was after rescued from the flame by the Christians These Miracles were the onely arguments used against Berengarius and the convincing perswasions of the facile consciences of those days which how it stands with the doctrine of Christ Joh. 6.63 the practice of the Apostles the profession of the Primitive times and the faith and doctrine of the ancient Fathers let any judge S. Paul says 1 Cor. 11. That which he had received of the Lord Jesus that he delivered That as often as they did eat the bread and drink the cup they shewed the Lords death till he came Saint Paul calls it bread and the Evangelist wine and that after consecration and the Fathers of the Church taught that doctrine with them and Christ himself calls them bread and fruit of the vine and S. Paul The communion of the body And this being the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles though an Angel from heaven should come and teach any other doctrine let him be accursed Gal. 1. Wherefore these miraculous apparitions were no ground for Rome to change her faith in this point If these stories be true they ought to be considered as extraordinary apparitions like the light from heaven which shone about S. Paul These external miraculous apparitions were but to perswade the consciences of Infidels and Heathens to turn to the faith of Christ and to be perswaded of the truth of that Sacrament and not to make the true and already-grounded Christians to change the nature of their faith which is the ground of things hoped for and the evidence of things which are not seen Heb. 11.1 This was to perswade the mis-believing Jew of Christ and of the truth of this blessed Sacrament whereby he was to be made partaker of the benefits of his precious death and passion not to teach the Christian any new doctrine concerning the same These miracles should rather confirm him in his faith received that it was a spiritual banquet in respect that after the apparition as the story runs at the receiving that which was received was become bread again and not to ensnare him into this novel errour which was contrary to Christs doctrine the Apostles preaching and the practice of the Primitive Church But I will no longer insist upon this point I submit to any good Christian whether it be safer to follow Christs explanation of this mystery to be spiritual with which S. Paul and the ancient Fathers do concur then to humour the times and to be observant to the late Popes which about the time of this change were grown great and since have by cunning practices enlarged that power insomuch that now they are declared above Councels and whatsoever they propound must de fide be received upon the score of their infallibility be it never so contrary to the truth of Gods Word And they by this doctrine receiving advantage by their Altar-Sacrifices will not easily be induced to renounce the errour thereof and though never so palpably against the Truth of God yet the Jesuites will maintain it for their Masters advantage this doctrine tending more to his avail then any good to the souls of his flock Wherefore the Church of England having a right to reform errours in her own Province has chosen to cast off this blinde tenent of the Pope and his Parasites and she having the warrant of Christ the rules of the Apostles the practice of the Primitive Church and the consent of the ancient Fathers for her doctrine in this point hath therefore made choice with them in unity of Spirit firmly to hold and maintain that Christ in his humanity is not really and corporally in the Sacrament but figuratively in the outward elements being thereby signified and is spiritually eaten and drunken of the worthy receiver CHAP. XVI Against Communion in one kinde That the Church of Rome's withholding the Cup from the Layty is a novelty against Christs precept and the ancient

superfluous as to the cup the Church of Rome administers in one kind as if nothing were perfect and to be received in the Catholick Church but what his Holiness please to teach and allow And their reasons are so weak they offer for such their alterations that any one may plainly discern it is Will not Reason brings her into such changes Who but knows that Christ as he was man and the Apostles likewise were obnoxious to the same inconveniences of spilling the Wine as the Doctor alledges or part sticking upon their beards as the people of these dayes are But they knowing that it was Christs order to separate the cup from the bread and give it to be divided amongst them thereby denoting to them how his blood should be separated from his flesh and by Christ left as a pattern for them to follow and to have continuance till his comming again they by eating the bread and drinking the cup shew the Lords death till he come and for that the same was to be continued in remembrance thereof and they being commanded likewise hereunto Drink ye all of this Let a man examine himself and let him eat and let him drink They would not and we dare not admit of Romes alteration but desire of God to hold fast this truth we have received and that it would please him to confirm us herein that we may be blameless in the day of the Lord Jesus praying that all other Churches as in this so in all other points of faith and doctrine may be of one consent and firmly united together in one mind and one judgement that we may all proceed in one Rule and walk together as followers of Christ and his Apostles having them for an ensample to us that we may with one mind and one mouth praise God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Amen CHAP. XVII That the Lyturgie and private Prayers ought not to be in an unknown Language which the Congregation doth not understand WHereas Saint Paul in the 1 Cor. 14. is against giving of thanks or praying without understanding because the hearer is not edified nor can say Amen to he knows not what the Doctor to help the lame Dogg over the style and to clear his new step-mother the Church of Rome from the errors which other Churches lay to her charge for that she restrains her Prayers and her Lyturgy universally to the Latine tongue would needs have us to understand that S. Paul doth not hereby impugne the Lyturgie of the Church of Rome which sayes he was for the service and praise of God and he to whom it is directed understands any tongue but it is meant sayes he of Church-meetings which were onely for instruction and edification of the Auditors and not at all to be understood to gainsay the Lyturgie of Romes Church To which I answer 1. S. Paul's meaning is as well meant of the one as of the other for vers 26. When ye come says he together according as every one hath a tongue or hath interpretation let it be done to edifying By which it is plain that both praises and prayers Psalms as well as doctrine ought to be with understanding For vers 28. If any man hath an unknown tongue let him keep silence in the Church and speak to himself and to God That man that hath the spirit of Tongues may speak to God and himself but he must be silent to others unless they can understand him for how shall they say Amen to they know not what God requires from us the heart Give me thine heart David desired to praise the Lord in soul and spirit Praise the Lord O my soul and all that is within me praise his holy Name We must not think that a little lip-labour to say Amen to we know not what can be acceptable unto God 1 Sam. 1. Hannah prayed in her heart to the Lord. Not every one that saith Lord Lord shall be saved Matth. 7. God doth not require lip-service he condemned the Scribes and Pharisees who drew neer unto him with their lips but their hearts were far off Matth. 15. We are commanded to serve God with all our heart and soul Josh 24. We must sing and make melody to the Lord in our hearts Ephes 5. We must approve that which is pleasing to the Lord vers 10. God is King of all the earth sing ye praises therefore with understanding By all which and many more places of Scripture it is plain that the service of the Congregation it must be with the heart that is with the understanding We must not think that God is well pleased with the peoples devotion that proceeds not from the heart I will for the better satisfaction of those that seem to be satisfied with the Doctor 's exposition of S. Paul offer these reasons to his consideration against those he has propounded to justifie the Romane Lyturgie universally Platina writes La●ne service first set up that the first Latine Service that ever was at Constantinople was anno 687. whenas the sixth Councel there held was assembled for before that it was never had in the Latine but in the Greek or Hebrew Tongue But now was the Pope grown to be universal by the late donation of Phocas for countenancing his murder of Mauritius and it did not stand with his new-acquired honour and dignity that the Language of any other Church should be preferred before that of Rome and therefore at a General Councel the representative of the several Churches must the Language of the Romane See be preferred before any other For as the Pope was universal Head he must needs have an Universal Tongue otherwise his Universality were dumb And this was the true ground of composing the Latine Lyturgie and not as the Doctor would perswade us because it was the most general Tongue for whenas this was consented unto by many other Bishops to please the Lordly Pope the Emperours great favourite it gave occasion for the spreading of that Language because the Service began to be in many places in it not that it was so copious or known a Tongue before Nor doth the reason the Doctor brings justifie but rather condemn the Latine Lyturgie for saith he the Lyturgie of the Eastern Churches was used in Greek though all the Eastern parts spoke not that Language therefore why may not Rome prescribe a Lyturgie in Latine to the Western Churches To which I answer It was thought fit by the Fathers of the Primitive Church to have one uniform Lyturgie in all the Churches upon earth and ●o that end did those then-visible Churches use the Greek Tongue Why has the Church of Rome set up another form By this the Doctor contradicts her Antiquity and the other mark that she should never have separated from a Society more ancient then her self or else den●es her Universality in that she is but to prescribe a Latine Lyturgie to the Western Churcbes and so he makes those marks

this salvation And herewith agree the Fathers of the Primitive Churches Origen who writ about two hundred yeers after Christ upon the text of Matth. 15. The Word was made flesh and very meat which whoso eateth shall live for ever says that no evil man can eat thereof for it is onely eaten by faith And herewith agrees S. Cyprian in Serm. de Coena Dominic saying Our eating and drinking is a certain hunger and desire to dwell in him and that none do eat of this Lamb but such as be true Israelites which hunger is termed of the soul as David was an hungry Psal 41. My soul hath thirsted after God which is the well of life For the soul feeling nothing but the horrour of death and the terrour of Gods justice sin by the Laws impeachment having drawn that direful sentence upon her in her pensive meditations of her just demerits betakes her self to this spiritual refreshment of comfort and solace being hereunto invited with the sweet appellation of blessed if she hunger and thirst after righteousness and a cheerful promise of comforts that she shall be satisfied Matth. 5. Which spiritual hunger and thirst as it is not perceived of a carnal man but onely of such as inwardly desire this refreshment and ease from the deep throws of their sad condition so is it not given to any but such as spiritually long and seek after it God feedeth the hungry but the rich those that stand upon their own integrity he sends empty away It is no carnal banquet that flesh and blood can thirst after Have ye no houses to eat and drink in 1 Cor. 11. It is not eating an ordinary Supper to satisfie the greedy appetite of a natural man but as Christ said to his disciples Joh. 4.32 I have other meat to eat which ye know not The disciples themselves as carnal men knew not of this spiritual food and therefore Christ minding to draw them from their gross fleshly principles and to convince them that there is spiritual food as well as that which the mouth and throat take and swallow plainly says unto them Is any dry let him come to me Joh. 7. for he is meat he is drink which whosoever by faith spiritually eat and drink live for ever Athanasius de peccat in Spir. sanct says Christ made mention of his ascension to pluck men from corporal fancie and thereby to perswade them that his flesh was spiritual food the things which he spake were spirit and life It must needs therefore be understood of spiritual eating and spiritual drinking his flesh and blood which hereticks unbelievers could not do as S. Hierome upon Hos 8. witnesses And S. Ambrose de benedict Patr. cap. 9. says Jesus is the bread which is the meat of the Saints and he that taketh this bread dieth not a sinners death for this bread is remission of sins And S. Austin in his 26 Tract upon John Bread and wine which nourisheth the body a man may eat and drink and nevertheless die but the very body and blood no man eateth but hath everlasting life And in another place in sententiis ex Prosp decerpt cap. 339. He that agreeth not with Christ doth neither eat his flesh nor drink his blood although to the condemnation of himself for his presumption he every day receive the Sacrament of so high a nature Judas did eat the bread saith he in his 59 Tract but not the bread that was the Lord. Christ is onely spiritually in the bread and wine to such as by a lively faith receive him As for the wicked they receive but the meer bread and wine abusing the Ordinance From these Authorities may clearly be evinced that the Church of England doth maintain in this point as the ancient Fathers taught concerning this Sacrament Nor can any otherwise understand of this holy mystery for if Christ be corporally in the bread and wine then the wicked receiving him receive his body and not his Spirit for Rom. 8. as he that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his so he that hath Christ in him believeth because he is justified And if his Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead dwell in you he that raised Christ from death shall give life to your mortal bodies for his Spirits sake that dwelleth in you So that no wicked man hath the Spirit of Christ in him and to maintain that he hath him corporally and not spiritually is to divide his Humanity from his Divinity which blasphemy the Catholike Church abhors Now the Church of England doth not thus divide the Natures but holds that both his Body and Spirit is by faith received but not that the body is corporally in the bread the bread and wine being but the elementary parts signifying the spiritual substance and that God worketh this faith inwardly in our hearts 3. The bread and wine are but figures of the body and blood by his holy Spirit and outwardly confirmeth the same to our ears by the Word and to our senses by the eating and drinking the Sacramental bread and wine in his holy Supper Which eating and drinking is a spiritual feeding requiring no real presence of Christ but onely in Spirit grace and effectual operation And that when Christ said Hoc est corpus meum it was but figuratively spoken it being bread which he brake and gave as a type for a remembrance how his body was crucified for us And let none wonder at this her tenent to say that Christ spake in figures when he did institute this Sacrament for it is the nature of a Sacrament to be figures and types signifying mystical grace thereby received Hence it was that the Philistims when the Ark came into the army of the Israelites said that God was come into the army 1 King 4. And God himself at that time by the mouth of his Prophets said that from that time that he had brought the children of Israel out of Egypt he dwelled not in houses but that he was carried about in tents and tabernacles 1 King 7. which was a figurative speech he speaking that thing of himself which was to be understood of the Ark. Which phrase of speaking Christ himself often used as in Mat. 13.11 17. The field is the world The enemy the devil c. Joh. 16. I am the vine you are the branches Joh. 4. I have meat to eat which you know not And Joh. 10. I am the door Matth. 12. He that doth my Fathers will is my brother and sister c. These and many more Christ spake in Parables Tropes and Figures but chiefly when he said Hoc est corpus a figurative speech This cup is the new Testament in my blood the word my taken for the thing in the cup. Neither is the cup nor the wine Christs Testament but a signe and figure of his Testament And admit that by the word cup neither the cup nor wine is meant but the blood yet it

the Evangelists who witness with one consent that Christ took the Bread and also or after the same manner he took the Cup we must not say that he took the Bread or the Cup for so we destroy the Sacrament as being of incertainty and having no certain ground either for its institution or the precept for the administring thereof Wherefore for the Doctor here to construe and or is to multiply contradictions and so his reason is become invalid in respect that the general scope of the Scripture is that this Sacrament is to be administred under both kinds therefore it is more safe to construe those few places where Sacramental Bread alone is mentioned without the Cup to be understood of the whole Sacrament rather then in many places to wrest and into or For the mentioning of Bread onely doth not exclude the Cup negatively but rather according to Cyprians speech by the naming of part of the action the whole is to be understood and herewith agreeth Saint Paul 1 Cor. 10.17 And we that are many are one bread and one body because we are all partakers of one bread We must not think that because here Saint Paul names bread onely that therefore the Corinthians did not communicate in the cup for that is against the precedent verse where he saies The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ and the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ Besides in the ensuing Chapter he enjoyns both to be received and that to the people so that where the breaking of Sacramental bread is onely mentioned we are not thereby to exclude the cup for the Hebrew phrase is under the breaking of bread to signifie the whole feast as in the Prophet Esay Frangere esurientis panem is as well to give drink as bread Besides should we admit of any other construction as that when bread is mentioned alone thereby to understand communion in one kind we should in that change Saint Luke in Act. 2. to teach contrary to the practice of Christ and the rest of the Apostles which did both receive and deliver to the people under both kinds which were an impious and presumptuous charge Wherefore let the Church of Rome for shame confess her errors herein and let her not longer wrest mangle and misconstrue Scripture contrary to Christs rules herein contrary to the sense of the Primitive Church and contrary to the judgement and practice of the antient Fathers and her own antient Bishops and that but for self-interest to maintain a new doctrine of her own framing taken up upon a light score and never heard of or believed in the Church for a thousand years after Christ and let her confess the truth with us herein by which means she shall neither alter the sense nor wrest any particular word to maintain her doctrine herein and if she will not for unitie sake and for communion with us yet for avoiding an absurdity against her own principles let her never construe that place of Luke to signifie an entire Sacrament for then she makes the whole Sacrament onely breaking of bread and destroyes Transubstantiation As for the Doctor if he be not herewith satisfied but that he will persist notwithstanding that it must be understood of communion in one kind and furthermore to maintain that opinion will here construe and for or I must tell him that he has hereby wiped off one error which he elswhere fol. 337. taxed our Translators with 1 Cor. 11.27 which if it be mis-translated it makes nothing for communion in one kind but whether we receive the one or the other that we should take heed to receive with due reverence so Heavenly a banquet and it doth further illustrate to us that though we receive the bread worthily yet if we receive the cup unworthily we are guilty of the body and blood which is an argument and indeed an absolute proof that they both make but a perfect Sacrament of the body and blood therefore I encline to think with the Doctor that it is a corruption in our printed Bibles rendring and for or I find it various from the old copies and I will not presume upon the Doctors rule to justifie it however it is something excusable for that in the very same Chapter 26 28 and 29. verses eating the bread and drinking the cup is expressed and not eating the bread or drinking the cup which upon the Doctors rule for avoiding contradiction should be construed or but whether it be taken or or and yet notwithstanding it makes nothing for the Popish communion in one kind The Doctor layes down for the Priests receiving in both kinds Of the sacrifice offered upon the Altar by the Priest because he offers up a sacrifice I will therefore a little consider of that I hope I shall give satisfaction to any reasonable soul that the Priest and the people offer up one and the same sacrifice and if so then by the Doctors rule they are to receive in both kinds because saith he Christs sacrifice upon the Cross is not perfectly represented but by both kinds as it was prefigured in Melchizedek's sacrifice of bread and wine For the better explaining of this point it is to be understood that there are two kinds of sacrifices one is a perpetual sacrifice pacifying Gods wrath whereby mercy and forgiveness of sins is obtained which is onely the death of Christ prefigured by the sacrifices under the Law The other is a sacrifice of laud and thanksgiving which doth not reconcile us unto God but is offered up of such as be already reconciled unto him by faith in him which is the reconciliation for our sins even Christ Jesus By the first Christ offered us unto the Father by the second we offer our selves and all that we have unto him and his Father according as David sayes Psal 50. A sacrifice to God is a contrite heart and Hebr. 13. Alwaies we offer up to God a sacrifice of laud and praise by Jesus Christ and Saint Peter saith of all people that they are A holy Priest-hood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ The Papists object that saying of Saint Paul Heb. 9. Every High-priest is ordained to offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins To prove thereby their sacrifice of the Altar offered up in their Mass which who please to read may plainly discover that that saying is meant of the Priests under the Law who did offer Bullocks and Goats for the sins of the people and therefore in the old Testament such sacrifices are sometimes called Propitiatory sacrifices being indeed but shaddows and types of Christs sacrifice which was to come which was the true and perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world wherefore in the very same Chapter S. Paul saith it were impossible our sins should be taken away by the blood of Oxen and Goats verse 1● By