lambe for his innocencie of nature and without blemish for integritie of conuersation therefore hee needed no sacrifice to be offered for him to purge his sinne as all men els doe but onely offered in behalfe of all beleeuers Therefore we may safely affirme that Christ receiued no benefit by his owne sacrifice in respect of remission of his sinnes for seeing hee was without sin he needed no sacrifice to bee offered for himselfe Wherefore the actiue obedience of Christ to the law did appertaine both to the elect and to himselfe to the elect that the law might be fulfilled by Christ for them to himselfe for as hee was a creature after the image of God so was hee bound to obey the law of his creatour but his passiue obedience appertaineth onely to the faithfull seeing he had not sinned therefore he deserued no punishment and hauing not 〈◊〉 needed no sacrifice to bee offered for himselfe This appeares by the word of the Angell Gabriel vnto Daniell And after threescore and two weekes the Messiah shall be 〈◊〉 but not for himselfe Thereupon worthily did the Councill of Ephesus stablish this Canon Si quis dic it Christum pro se obtulisse sacrificium non magis pro nobis solum Anathema 〈◊〉 If any man shall say that Christ did offer an oblation for himselfe and not rather for vs alone let him be accursed For vs then it is that Christ offered sacrifice and for our sinne Quest. But what sinne Answ. All sinnes of the elect originall and actuall of omission and commission of weakenesse and wilfulnesse before their conuersion and since their conuersion whatsoeuer is anomia a transgression of the law is by this sacrifice of Christ expiated yea the sinne against the Holy Ghost albeit it be not at any time actually pardoned yet there is so much merit and worth in this sacrifice as to deserue the pardon of it if the party com̄itting it could come to repentance Not that that sinne can bee or is at any time pardoned because of the incredulitie and impenitencie of the sinner but that the sinne in it selfe considered cannot be so great but the mercy of God is able to pardon it and the merits of Christ in this sacrifice are of such sufficiencie as to deserue remission and giue satisfaction for it Now whereas it is said to be a sacrifice for sinne it offers to our obseruation three things First the heinousnesse and abhominablenesse of sinne euery sinne be it neuer so small is both so odious in the eyes of God and iniurious to his diuine law that nothing can expiate it but the death and sacrifice of the Sonne of God why then shall any Christian take pleasure in sinne which drew Christ Iesus from his 〈◊〉 one of Maiestie and fastned him to the crosse which caused him to shed his precious blood and to giue his life as a ransome for the sons of men As the burthen of our sinnes were well nigh vnto Christ 〈◊〉 so let the practise of them be vnto vs detestable Let vs neither extenuate their number nor their nature for the smallest sin though but once done is committed against a God of an 〈◊〉 maiestie and deserues an infinite punishment and could not be satisfied for but by the infinite sacrifice of the Sonne of God Christ Iesus Secondly we may obserue heere the insufficiencie of all other sacrifices both before and vnder the law for they were not able to 〈◊〉 the sinnes of the 〈◊〉 and therefore to speake properly there was 〈◊〉 but one true Ilasticke and propitiatory sacrifice for sinne which Christ Iesus offered when he gaue his body vpon the crosse for our redemption And therefore doth the Apostle 〈◊〉 this sacrifice of Christ 〈◊〉 exochen aboue all others thusian to theo is 〈◊〉 euodias a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling 〈◊〉 Thereby intimating that this sacrifice beeing most gratefull to God in it alone was God well pleased Obiect But here may be obiected Noah after the waters were abated off the earth and that at Gods command he was come forth of the Arke hee tooke of euery cleane beast and of euery cleane foule and 〈◊〉 burnt offerings on the altar and the Lord smelled a sweet sauour And againe Exod. 29. 18. The offerings that are made for the consecration of the Priests are called sweet sauours vnto the Lord. Answ. I answer these sacrifices are to be considered two wayes either in themselues or as they haue relation to Christ. As they were considered in themselues so they had no sweet sauour in the nostrills of God because they were but earthly things and of a finite vertue and therefore doth the Lord often complaine against those that reposed confidence only in the outward ceremony of sacrificing whose oblations were an abhomination to him But as these offerings had relation to the sacrifice of Christ and were offered by faith in his sacrifice so they were acceptable vnto God and God did smell a sweet sauor in them not for themselues but for the Antitype Christ Iesus who was figured by them and therefore it is said that By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice then Cain Not but that Cains might in value equall Abels but because Abel offered by faith in Christ and Cain without faith And as the Leuiticall sacrifices of the law were onely accepted in Christ so and no otherwise are our spirituall sacrifices of the Gospell yee also as liuing stones are built vp a spirituall house an holy Presthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. By which it appeares that all our sacrifices and seruices are to be presented before God onely in the perfection of this al-sufficient sacrifice of Iesus Christ. Thirdly obserue we here the perfection of this sacrifice in that there was nothing in sinne but the contrary might bee found in this sacrifice In sinne there is imperfection in this sacrifice perfection in sinne disobedience in this sacrifice obedience in sin carnall delight and pleasure in this sacrifice vnspeakable torture and torment in sinne pride in this sacrifice humilitie in sinne enuy in this sacrifice loue in sinne mans destruction in this sacrifice mans restauration in sinne death in this sacrifice life So that wheresoeuer sinne had made a breach this sacrifice of Christ makes it vp giuing full satisfaction for euery default Quest. But here will arise a great question which of late hath troubled the Church of God and it is this Seeing here it is 〈◊〉 downe indefinitely that Christ offered one sacrifice for sinne Whether did Christ offer a propitiatory sacrifice to satisfie for the sinnes of all men as well reprobates as elects Answ. The Arminians are of opinion that Christ by the sacrifice of his death obtained remission of sins reconciliation and saluation for all and particular men Nor doe they doubt to say that by the death of Christ reconciliation was obtained for
external thing as Abel of the firstlings of his flock c. For it must be some outward visible thing animate or inauimate I speake of the sacrifices of the law and not of the Gospell which I shall shew to be as well internall as externall I say moreouer that it must be offered to the true God and therefore all sacrifices offered by the Heathens vnto their Idolls and fained gods are improperly called sacrifices in regard that it can neuer be called sacred which tends to the dishonour of the true God Furthermore I say there must bee ioyned with this Knowledge for there can be no acceptable sacrifice vnto God which is done ignorantly without the knowledge of Gods holy will the Apostle sayes whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne And without faith it is impossible to please God now faith cannot subsist without the knowledge of that which we doe beleeue Lastly I say it must bee a thing acceptable to God Therefore the price of a whore the price of blood a dogs head swines blood and the like though they were offered yet are they abhominable because they are forbidden yea whatsoeuer is unseemely or vndecent is not acceptable The Leuiticall sacrifices were of two sorts Ilastika expiatory or Eucharistika Gratulatory In the expiatory propitiatory or satisfactory sacrifice for these different titles belong all to one thing the Iewes had respect vnto their sinnes and by the laying their hand on the beast and slaying it before the Lord they did in act confesse that they themselues had deserued death eternall for their sinnes but by the blood of Iesus Christ the immaculate lambe who was to dye for mankind they were assured to receiue remission of their sinnes and freedome from eternall death This sacrifice was called Catat that is sinne or a sacrifice for sinne So Paul alluding hereunto saith that God hath made him sinne for vs who knew no sinne that is to say God made him a sacrifice for sinne It is also called Ilastikon or expiatory from the end for the which it was instituted namely to represent the sacrifice which should expiate and satisfie for our sinnes which was Christ himselfe So that this sacrifice was called Expiatory not properly but Metonymically as hauing relation to the Messiah Vnto his sacrifice were referred that offering which was called 〈◊〉 of Olon and chauo because it was allburnt in the fire and the priests had no part of it or else it was so called of Holah which signifies to ascend because it being wholy consumed in the fire did ascend vp vnto God in the smoake Vnto this Expiatory sacrifice were also referred those oblations which were offered for the cleansing of lepers for the purification of women after childbirth for touching of dead bodies for the sanctifying of Priests for all these pollutions had respect to the pollution of sinnes The other sacrifices were Eucharistica or offerings of thanksgiuing whereby they did testifie their thankfulnesse for benefits temporall or spirituall this kind of sacrifice was called Zebach Schelamim 〈◊〉 pacificorum a peace offering because it was offered by them that had beeing reconciled to God by the former sacrifice receiued remission of their sinnes and were at peace with God as also because thereby they testified their gratitude to God for all his fauours which the Hebrewes did comprize vnder the word Peace And to this sacrifice were referred the meate offerings and drinke offerings the first fruits and the tenths all which were testimonies of their thankfulnes And indeed all sacrifices may be reduced to these two heads Either Ilastika or Eucharistika Expiatory or Gratulatorie For according vnto Gods affection towards man such were mens 〈◊〉 towards God Now God is either angry with vs and so punisheth vs or is well pleased and so blesseth vs and all the effects of God vpon euery man are either blessings or cursings when hee is angry hee sends cursings when hee is well pleased hee sends blessings wherefore hauing stirred him vp to wrath by sinnes the Iewes offered Ilasticke sacrifices to appease his wrath hauing appeased his anger and pleasing him by obeying his commandements they obtained his blessings and fauours to their bodies and soules wherfore they offered Eucharisticke sacrifices to testifie their thankfulnesse to the Lord. Now in both these kinds of sacrifices had the Iews respect vnto the Messiah fixing the eye of their faith vpon Christ that was to come both in him expecting saluation by the satisfactory sacrifice of his death and in him rendering thankes vnto Iehouah for all his blessings which they were made partakers of through the Messiah Thus much of a sacrifice in generall and of the kind of sacrifices among the lewes The second thing I propounded is to shew you what this particular sacrifice is which Christ offered for finne As there was vnder the law a double sacrifice Ilasticum and Eucharisticum Expiatory and Gratulatory So is there vnder the Gospell this double sacrifice offered by Christ for when he had finished his Propheticall office here on earth he then entered vpon his Pontificall or Priestly office which was to offer sacrifice for all beleeuers And albeit this expiatory sacrifice was first in order of nature as making way for the Eucharisticall whereby it might be acceptable to God hauing satisfied for sinne by his death and so reconciling God and man yet in time his Eucharisticall sacrifice was offered before his Expiatory and the reason hereof is alleadged by a most famous Diuine whose words are these Although the Father was first to be appeased by the Ilasticall sacrifice of Christ 〈◊〉 the crosse and so forgiuenesse of sinne and of punishment beeing obtained then should haue followed the sacrifice of thanksgiuing for all benefits obtained by Christs death and passion yet Christ offers his sacrifice of thankesgiuing as if hee were already crucified For so he was indeed in Gods decree and in his determination and in this respect hee is 〈◊〉 The lambe slaine from the beginning of the world This Eucharisticall sacrifice of Christ was in the Lords Supper which was not vnworthily euer after in the Church of God by the Fathers tearmed by the name of the Eucharist Yet vnderstand mee I doe not say that the bread and the cup were this Eucharisticall sacrifice that Christ offered but the thanksgiuing which he offered to his father For before hee brake the bread and gaue the cup to his Disciples it is the opinion of all ancient and moderne writers that lifting vp his eyes vnto heauen in the name of all the elect that were are and euer shall bee in the world he gaue thanks to his heauenly Father for all his blessings of nature grace and glory but especially for that remission of 〈◊〉 and redemption from eternall death purchased by that sacrifice of his body vpon the crosse So that in these two sacrifices of Christ all the Leuiticall sacrifices had their full perfection and
Cain Pharaoh Saul and Iudas not as they were reprobates but as they were sinners for God say they doth equally intend and desire the saluation of all men and the incredulitie of man is the cause that remission and reconciliation is not applyed to all They hold moreouer that the end which God propounded to himselfe in deliuering his Sonne to death was not to apply the benefit of remission to some particular men nor doe they 〈◊〉 that Christ was appointed to death by his Father before God thought of sauing men One of them sayes That reconciliation being obtained there was yet no necessitie of application that is after saluation and reconciliation for almes was obtained there was no necessitie that any one should bee saued because hee will haue the decree of sending Christ in order to goe before the Decree of sauing those that beleeue therefore that God intended to send his Sonne when as yet hee had not intended to saue them that beleeue And the 〈◊〉 would haue this to be the end why God sent his Son namely to make the saluation of men possible and to lay open a way to himselfe whereby hee might saue sinners without any preiudice to his Iustice by this meanes say they God hath gotten power of sauing man because without the death of Christ by which the iustice of God was satisfied God could not bee willing to saue man But the Truth bids vs be of another opinion Wee doe acknowledge that Christ dyed for all men but we deny that by the death of Christ saluation and forgiuenesse of 〈◊〉 is obtained for all men or that reconciliation is made for Cain 〈◊〉 Saul Iud 〈◊〉 Neither doe we thinke that remission of sinnes is obtained for any one whose sinnes are not remitted or that saluation was purchased for him whom God from eternity hath decreed to condemne We deny that election is after the death of Christ seeing Christ doth euery where affirme that he dyed for his sheep and for those whom his Father gaue him And when we say that Christ dyed for all wee take it thus that the death of Christ is sufficient to saue 〈◊〉 doe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that it is sufficient to saue all men that euer were are or 〈◊〉 bee if they did beleeue in him and that the cause why all men are not saued is not the insufficiency of the death of Christ but the incredulity of man Whosoeuer therefore shall say that Christ offered his body an expiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of euery particular man as of pharaoh Cain and Iudas hee doth by this doctrine openly mocke God for Christ is imagined to obtaine that from his Father which he knew would neuer profit as if God should grant to his Sonne the saluation of that man which from eternity he decreed to condemne for if Christ obtained reconciliation and remission of sinnes for Cain or Iudas whether considered as reprobates or as sinners yet he knew this reconciliation and remission should neuer be applyed vnto them and therefore their doctrine is as if Christ should say vnto his Father I pray thee receiue to 〈◊〉 those whom I know thou 〈◊〉 neuer receiue into 〈◊〉 and whom I know certainly to be condemned For Christ as God knew full well the secrets of election Surely these men doe their endeauour that Christian Religion should be made a mocking stocke Can God at one and the same time loue and hate a man Loue him because he giueth his Sonne for him and would haue reconciliation obtained for him hate him because from eternitie he decreed to condemne him Can God be so vniust as to punish one offence twice For once Christ as the Arminians teach sustained the punishment of 〈◊〉 and Iudas and for them made satisfaction vpon the crosse yet for the same sins doe the same persons suffer eternall death Obiect To strengthen their tottering and declining cause they alleadge scripture God so loued the world c. which place they rest to prooue Christs dying for all men wheras indeed by the world Christ vnderstandeth the noblest and most worthy creatures as in the sequel of the verse That al those that beleeue in him might not perish 〈◊〉 haue euerlasting lise Where what was obscure by the generall tearme of the world is explained by its restriction onely vnto the faithfull and in this sense is the word World 〈◊〉 Ioh. 6. 33. But albeit we grant that by the world is vnderstood mankind in generall yet it will not follow that Christ purchased saluation for all particular men but that he came to saue the whole nature of man though not all 〈◊〉 for in that hee redeemed some men it doth aboundantly testifie the loue of God to mankind Obiect 2. They assault vs with the words of 〈◊〉 Iohn Baptist Behold the lambe of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 away the sinnes of the world but hereby wee are to vnderstand that in the whole world no mans sinnes are remitted but by Christ as in the same sense Saint 〈◊〉 speakes In Christ all men are made aliue because no man is made aline but by him If a man say that 〈◊〉 taught all Greece and Italy Physicke hee doth not say that all particular men each seuerall person in Greece or Italy learned of him but that no man learned 〈◊〉 but from him Not to trouble you with many arguments the Thesis or true Position of this 〈◊〉 is this That Christ 〈◊〉 fus offere a not his body vpon the crosse to bee a propitiatory or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the sinnes of any reprobate but onely for the sinnes of the elect which haue in times past doe at this present and shall hereafter beleeue in Christ and attaine to true repentance This benefite then of Christs sacrifice is onely confined to beleeuers as the Apostle manifests whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood whereby it appeares that there is no propitiation without faith and consequently no obtaining of reconciliation And the same Apostle in the same epistle affordeth a strong testimony for the confirmation of this point for he sayes who shall lay any thing to the charge c. which place tells vs that they for whom Christ dyed cannot be condemned nor can any thing be layed to their charge but the reprobates are condemned and something is laide to their charge therefore Christ dyed not for them neither did he make satisfaction for their sinnes but onely for such as beleeue in him and for these alone doth hee also make intercession I pray not for the world but for them which thou hast giuen me So that the Ocean of Christs loue in offering of sacrifice and applying it is bounded within the shoare of beleeuers not extending it selfe vnto any reprobate wherefore the Scripture which is the best expositer of it selfe shewes that when it sayes Christ was a propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world meanes not of all men in generall
Priests should become Christochthonoi Christ Killers Yet how can they auoid the suspition of treason against the life of Christ when they seperate his reall body from his blood for it is greatly to be feared that they who powre out his liuely blood and breake his reall and substantiall body are guilty of the death of our Lord and Sauiour Argument 8. Eighly If Christ be dayly sacrificed in the Masse then Christ doth daily satisfie for our sinnes but Christ doth not daily satisfie for our sinnes ergo Christ is not dayly sacrificed in the Masse The consequence is plaine by euidence of Scripture for wheresoeuer and whensoeuer Christ was to be sacrificed it was for the satisfaction of his Fathers wrath for sinne Who gaue himselfe a ransom for all to be testified in due time Hee was delinered to death for our offences Who loued vs and gaue himselfe for vs an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweete smelling sauour If when we were enemies we were reconciled vnto God by the death of his sonne c. Who gaue himselfe for our sinnes that he might deliuer vs from this present euill world By these and diuers other places of holy Scripture it is plainely prooued that satisfaction for our sinnes is the end of Christs sacrifice and in naming the one wee suppose the other The Minor is prooued because Christ did perfectly satisfie for the sinnes of all the elect appeasing fully the wrath of God by his sacrifice vpon the Crosse and now ceasing from making any further satisfaction he onely sitting at the right hand of God maketh intercession for vs. For to satisfie the wrath of God is to doe that for vs which wee should haue done and to suffer that which we had deserued namely death and so Christ should againe yeelde obedience to the Law and suffer death againe but the Apostle sayth Christ being once dead dyeth no more neither is Almighty God so vniust as to require satisfaction of him that hath perfectly satisfyed already But our aduersaries say that Christ is sacrificed in the Masse to apply vnto vs the satisfaction which Christ hath giuen for vs on the Crosse. But so in applying satisfaction he makes satisfaction for Christ cannot be sacrificed truely but hee must truely die and he cannot die but to make satisfaction Againe if Christ ought to be sacrificed againe that the fruite of his sacrifice may be applyed vnto vs then ought he as well to be incarnate againe in the wombe of the Virgin that the fruite of his incarnation may be applied vnto vs to die to be buried to rise againe that so the fruite of his death Sepulture and resurrection may be applyed vnto vs. Lastly the application of the benefit of Christs sacrifice by reiteration of his sacrifice is not found in Scripture But there is a double meanes one internall and that is the efficacie of the Spirit of God which powerfull applies 〈◊〉 vs the vertue of Christs sacrifice the other is externall namely the Preaching of the word and the Sacraments which two concurring together beget faith in the soule which particularly applies the benefit of Christs oblation to the beleeuer In a word let them consider what applicari to be applied signifies and they shall easily perceiue that the sacrifice of Christ is applied vnto vs when Christ is offered not to God as in the Masse but to vs as in the holy Eucharist Christ freely giuing his body to be eaten his blood to be drunke and that spiritually by faith Argument 9. Ninthly if in the Masse Christ be offered vnto God by the Priests of Rome then hee is not the onely Priest of the new Testament But Christ is the onely Priest of the New Testament Ergo he is not offered by the Priests of Rome in the sacrifice of the Masse The consequence is true for if there be a true and reall sacrifice in the Masse there must needes follow a true and reall Priest-hood which offereth this sacrifice and so Christ is not the onely Priest of the new Testament The Minor is denied by our aduersaries but is proued by vs. First there is no other proper externall Priesthood vnder the Gospell but that which is after the order of Melchizedech of which order there is no man worthy but onely Christ as is sufficiently declared And whereas our aduersaries vainely boast their Priest-hood to be after the order of Melchizedech herein they are contrary to Scripture which makes this not to be a common Priest-hood as Aarons was but personall belonging onely vnto Christ wherefore the Apostle sayes that Christ because he continueth for euer hath Aparabaton Hierosunen such a Priest-hood as cannot passe from one to another Where the Apostle plainly shewes that such as were mortal and consequently not eternall were vncapable of that order of Melchizedech such are the Priests of Rome mortall as those of Aaron were and thereof vnto them cannot this Priest-hood be diuolued They thinke to cut vs off with this distinction Christ is the primary or principall Priest but men may be secundary and lesse principall by whose ministery Christ may offer himselfe vnto God I demaund then was not Christ euen vnder the Law a Priest after the order of Melchizedech and were not the Priests of Aaron being compared to Christ that was to come Secundary Priests were they not therefore Types and figures of the Priest-hood of Christ wherefore when the primary or superior Priest was come the Priest-hood of Aaron vanished and the Apostle would haue no legall Priesthood to remaine But where hath he substituted any other secundary Priests instead of the former Certes the Scripture hath not appointed any Againe by the same reason that the Apostle disanulles the legall Priest-hood hath he also excluded all other externall Priest-hood vnder the Gospell for he opposeth him that is immortall against those that are mortall God and man against those who are meere men Now if the Priests of Rome be no freer from mortality or fuller of deity then the Priests of Leuy they are then by the same reason both excluded for Cui ratio perfectum medium conclusionis conuenit eidem ipsa conuenit conclusio To whom the true reason and perfect medium of a conclusion doth agree to the same also the conclusion it selfe may be applied Againe Christ is plainely manifested to be the only Priest of the New Testament and so alone able to offer the sacrifice of propitiaton for our sinnes by that figuratiue entring alone of the high Priest once a yeare into the Tabernacle Againe he that offers a true propitiatory sacrifice effectuall in it selfe to procure pardon for 〈◊〉 must needes be a Mediator of the new Testament therefore is it sayd of Christ But now hath hee obtained a better ministry by how much also he is made a Mediator of a better couenanant And for this cause he is the 〈◊〉 of the new Testament that by meanes of death c. By which
Apostle speakes there Metaphoricall alluding to the priesthood of Aaron and the Leuiticall oblations that as the priest did offer the oblation that was brought vnto him vnto the Lord so Paul had a carefull desire by the preaching of the Gospell to subdue the affections of the Gentiles and so to offer them as it were a pure and acceptable sacrifice vnto God So Origen and other of the fathers tearme the preaching of the Gospell a priestly or sacrificall worke not absolutely but comparatiuely and by way of similitude Obiect But here may bee obiected these testimonies of Scripture 1. Pet. 2. 5. 9. Reu. 1. 6. Reu. 20. 6. by which place it appeares that there are priests of the new Testament which ought still to offer sacrifice vnto God Answ. Vnto these places I answer that if you consider who these are that are here spoken of you shall finde them not to be onely the Clergie but all faithfull Christians which haue not a materiall or externall priesthood but a spirituall and an internall and so they doe offer spirituall sacrifices as I shall shew when I come to speake of the sacrifice that Christ offered So that these places of scripture doe prooue the 〈◊〉 priesthood not to bee lawfull nor the title of priest properly to appertaine to the ministers of the Gospell but onely that all Christians should be spirituall priests to offer spirituall sacrifice to God The third and last vse of this point is that which the Apostle makes Seeing wee haue not a high Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our in 〈◊〉 but was in all points tempted like as we are without sinne let vs therefore come boldlie vnto the throne of grace that we may obtaine mercy and finde grace to helpe in time of need and againe Hauing therefore brethren boldnesse to enter into the Holyest by the blood of Iesus By a new and lining way which he hath consecrated for vs through the raile that is to say His flesh And hauing an high Priest ouer the house of God Let vs draw neere with a true heart in full assurance of faith hauing our hearts sprinkled from an euill conscience and our bodies washed with pure water Seeing Christ Iesus whom the Father had deereed from all eternity did from euerlasting giue himselfe a Sacrifice for our transgressions and when the fulnesse of time was come by vertue of his priesthood did offer vp himselfe and offering of a sweet smelling sauour vnto God for vs Oh then let vs with wonder admire the infinite oue of God that spared not his owne sonne the infinite compassion of his Sonne that spared not his owne life but shed his blood plentifully for our saluation Let vs with boldnesse confidence and assurance flye vnto our high Priest Christ Iesus who is entred into the Sanctū 〈◊〉 there presenting his 〈◊〉 before his father making request for vs. The children of God therefore ought with much alacritie to cherish themselues in all their worldly troubles and affliction seeing they haue such a high Priest as hath ouercome the gates of hell the strength of the graue and the power of sinne that they shall neuer preuaile against his elect Let not Satan terrifie thee for our Sampson hath slaine the deuouring Lyon hee that is the strongest of all hath bound that strong man and spoyled him of his weapons Let not death cause thee to startle for Christ triumpheth ouer the graue Oh death where is thy sting oh graue where is thy victory Let not the multitude of thy sinnes affright thee for if any man sinne we haue an aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous But let vs bee assured that the head being entered into the most holy place will at length draw all the members after it to make them pertakers with it of glory and immortality Thus much for the first part who was the Priest Now followes the second what was the sacrifice In the declaration whereof for our better vnderstanding I shall propound to my selfe this Methode First to speake somewhat of a sacrifice in generall and of the kinds of sacrifices 2. To shew what this particular sacrifice was 3. To shew the necessity of this sacrifice First to speake of sacrifices in generall Sacrifice was instituted by God for the vse of man after his fall for it is thought that if man had not sinned there had neuer beene any institution of sacrifice The persons imployed in sacrificing were men for as the Apostle vnder the Gospell would at no hand permit a woman to execute the publike misteriall function because she was not first in creation though first in transgression so from the beginning in the Church of God the act of sacrificing hath bin practised onely by men for the better shadowing foorth of Christ the Messiah whom in that action they represented The action of sacrificing was accounted so sacred and so honourable that before the promulgation of the law the chiefest persons were imployed in it and vnder the law onely those who were separated from the people and set a part for that end and purpose Yea among the Infidels who did apishly imitate and heathenishly abuse that sacred ceremony sacrifice was offered onely by some choice persons yea pleraque sacra a solis regibus 〈◊〉 consueta the most of their sacrifices were offered of 〈◊〉 kings alone And of that iudgement was Clemens Alexandrinus who sayes that the Egyptians who exceeded all the heathen in aboundance and variety of sacrifices did not commit their mysteries to euery one amougst them c. but to those onely which nere to come to the gouernment of their kingdome and to the Priests of such as were approoued for education learning and linage And so the word Cohen signifies both a Prince and a Priest to intimate that the priestly office did not 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 was king of Salem and 〈◊〉 of the most high God Thus much in a word of the 〈◊〉 imployed in the act of sacrificing Now what a sacrifice is By a sacrifice is sometime in scripture vnderstood the act of sacrificing sometimes the thing ordained to be sacrificed and 〈◊〉 both these concurre to the making of a sacrifice it may therefore be thus defined A sacrifice is a sacred and religious action instituted by God whereby we offer some externall thing vnto the true God which wee know will be acceptable vnto him I called it a sacred religious action instituted by God because it was a part of Gods worship prescribed vnto the Fathers before the writing of the law in Sinai and taught by them vnto their children from age to age and after the deliuering of the law commaunded expresly to the people of Israel Againe it was a sacred and religious action because it was to bee performed holily and religiously to Gods glory the edification of the Church and the saluation of the person offering Againe I say it is the offering of some
estated in glory By him we haue our fetters knockt off and our filthy rags cast away by him we are arrayed with rich apparrell of holines and innocencie by him wee are brought into his fathers presence and are accepted of God Almightie Through him we haue our Iustification through him we haue our Sanctification through him we haue our Glorification Seeing then the saluation of all beleeuers is perfectly wrought and consummated by the sacrifice of Christ here may arise a question Quest. Whether there be any sacrifices to bee offered by Christians vnder the Gospell or no Answ. I answer there are not any Ilasticke or propitiatory sacrifices to bee offered for attonement with God for to that end Christ hath offered himselfe once for all But as you haue heard that all Christians are spirituall Priests so they haue spirituall sacrifices to offer still vnto God which sacrifices are these First a broken and a contrite heart The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit a broken and a contrite heart oh Lord thou wilt not despise without this sacrifice all others are abhominable in the sight of God Secondly the offering vp of beleeuers per leitourgian ministrornm by the seruice of Gods ministers of this Paul speakes That I should be the minister of Iesus Christ to the Gentiles ministring the Gospell 〈◊〉 God that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable 〈◊〉 sanctified by the Holy Ghost Thirdly al manner of prayer and supplication Let my prayers be directed before thee as 〈◊〉 incense and the lifting vp of my hands as the euening sacrifice Fourthly all praise and thanksgining which wee giue vnto God By him therefore let vs offer the sacrifice of prayse to God 〈◊〉 that is the fruits of our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thanks to his name This sacrifice of 〈◊〉 Orthodox fathers called an im ton thu sian an vnbloody sacrifice as 〈◊〉 in his embassage for the Christians to the Emperours Antonius and 〈◊〉 And Eusebius Offerant illi logikas kai anaimous thu sias Let them offer 〈◊〉 and vnbloody sacrifices So Cyrill Oecumenicus Iustine Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus fathers of great 〈◊〉 called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haleluiahs of Angels and the holy hymnes of the Saints acceptable 〈◊〉 sacrifices Fiftly our almes and reliefe of the poore are spirituall sacrifices To doe good and to distribute forget not for with such sacrifices God is well 〈◊〉 And Paul calls the beneuolence of the Philippians sent by Ep phroditus an odor of a sweet smell and a sacrifice acceptable well pleasing to God Sixtly there is the sacrifice of righteousnesse or iustice Offer to God the sacrifices of right 〈◊〉 and againe Then shalt thoube pleased with the sacrifices of righteousnesse 〈◊〉 there is the slaying of our sinnes and offering them vp dead vnto the Lord with there signation of our selues to Gods seruice I beseech you therefore 〈◊〉 by the mercies of God that you present your bodies a liuing sacrifice holy and acceptable to God which is your reasonable seruice Eighthly the bodily death of the Martyrs inflicted on them by bloody tyrants is a spirituall sacrifice Thus Paul calls himselfe a Sacrifice Yea if I bee offered vp a sacrifice for the seruice of your faith And I take it in this sense it is the Prophet Dauid speakes saying Precious in the sight of God is the death of his Saints Thus did that holy Polycarpe the Disciple of Saint Iohn call his death which hee indured for the testimony of Iesus a Sacrifice And so Saint Augustine speaking of the Martyrs hath these words The Gentils dedicated Temples consecrated Priests erected altars and offered sacrifices to their gods We Christians dedicate Temples to our Martyrs not as to Gods but to their memories as to dead men whose spirits liue with the Lord. Neither doe we erect alvars whereon we sacrifice to the Martyrs but to one God theirs and ours Wee offer sacrifice at which sacrifices those Martyrs as men of God are named in their place and order nor are they 〈◊〉 by him that offers the sacrifice for the sacrifice is not made to them but to God although it be in the remembrance of them for he is the minister of God and not theirs and the sacrifice is the body of Christ which is not offered vnto them for they themselues are that body In the latter end of which words Saint Augustine shewes that the whole Church which is the mysticall body of Christ whereof the Martyrs are a part is a gratefull sacrifice acceptable vnto God Lastly the sacrament of the Lords supper is a sacrifice but not after the manner of the Papists but onely figuratiuely So the bread and cup are called the sacrifices of Christians by Iustine Martyr because they represent the sacrifice of Christ and were instituted in remembrance of it So Dyonisius calls it Sumbolike ierourgia ☠Symbolicum Sacrificium Eccles. Hiera cap. 30. a Symbolicall sacrifice So Saint Augustine Quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium signum est veri 〈◊〉 That which by all men is called a sacrifice is but a signe of the true sacrifice And that immolation which is in the hands of the Priest is called the passion death and crucifixion of Christ not that it is so indeed and in truth but onely by the way of remembrance So that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be called Sacrificium 〈◊〉 a Recordatory Sacrifice wherein vsing the signes and Symbolls of his body and blood with true faith and thankfull hearts we celebrate the memoriall of the death and sacrifice of our Sauiour Iesus Christ. Wherefore the Fathers called it an vnbloody sacrifice because it was not a proper sacrifice but onely mysticall and figuratiue And indeed this makes it not to bee properly a sacrifice because in a sacrifice we giue vnto God but in a Sacrament wee receiue from God but in the Lords Supper wee giue not the body and blood of Christ vnto God but receiue it from the minister as from Christ for the confirmation of our faith which makes it to be properly and truely a sacrament but a sacrifice it is called improperly and by representation Thus you see what was the sacrifice offered by Christ and what are the spirituall sacrifices of euery Christian. Now followes the third branch of this first part of the text Namely the cause why Christ offered this sacrifice or the end whereunto this sacrifice was directed which is said here to be for sinne But this man hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne Here we are to note that albeit the Angels had sinned as well as man yet it was not for their sinne that Christ offered sacrifice for they had no benefite by his incarnation death or passion but for the sinnes of mankind and withall we are to obserue that albeit Christ was a man endued with true humane nature yet in regard he was not a sinnefull man but a lambe without blemish and without spot a
giue thine onely Sonne c. as is set downe in the book of Common prayer and vsed at the administration of the Communion by the Church of England Ierom added the Epistle and Gospell and that all men should stand vp at the reading of the Gospell 〈◊〉 they borrowed from the Church of 〈◊〉 the singing of the Creed was added by Pope Marke the first which Damasus afterward renewed Gelasius added the Antiphony which they call Tractum with the hymnes and prefaces which goe before the Canon which are nine in number the tenth to the honour of the Virgine Mary the mother of God Pope Vrbane added Aaron first burnt frankincense on the Altar according as God commanded Moses and Pope Leo the third commanded the same to be vsed in the Church which also the Heathens did vse The washing of the hands was a ceremony taken from the custome of the Iewes and from the Gentiles whose vse was to wash their hands when they sacrificed Xystus the first appointed that in the preface Holy Holy Holy Lord God of Sabbath should bee sung Whereby it appeares that the Canon of the Masse was neither all composed by one man nor was digested into that forme wherein now it is Which appeares by this that Pope Alexander the first who 〈◊〉 ccclx. yeares before Gelasius and Syricius in memorie of the passion of Christ caused these words to be added who the day before he suffered vnto these words this is my body whereby it is 〈◊〉 that that was the beginning of the Canon Leo'1 afterwards added therefore this 〈◊〉 and this holy sacrifice and immaculate host Gregory annexed three prayers which are these Dispose our dayes in thy peace and deliuer vs from eternall damnation and cause vs to be numbered among thine elect So others added other things after the Canon is ended then is said the peace of God then was appointed that the Priests should kisse one another by Innocent the first and that the people should kisse the pax by Leo the second Now for the ceremonies of the Masse most of them were borrowed from the Iewes and ancient Idolatry of the Romanes instituted by Numa Pompilius their second King about 700. yeares before the incarnation of Christ. As their shauing of Priests which the ancient Idolatrous Romanes vsed after the forme of the Babylonians or of the Herculean Priests called for the same cause Stephanophores as bearing a crowne vpon their heads these were by the Heathenish Romanes tearmed Curiones from whence our Romish Priesthood haue borrowed the name of Curate Next the vestment of the Priest which Numa Pompilius ordained to be White called by the Latins Alba and with the Vestment hath continued to this day wherein the Priest celebrateth Masse But our Romanists scorning to bee beholding to their Idolatrous Predecessours will haue this Aulbe to figure the conuersation of Christ in his flesh or the purity of his body incarnate in the wombe of the Virgin Others interpret the white colour to signifie chastity and continency Others signifie by the Aulbe the White garment presented by Herod vnto Christ when he was sent backe as a foole to Pilate Aboue this the old Roman Idolators vsed an ornament for the breast of brasse or copper which is by the Church of Rome now turned into gold or siluer tearmed the Cheasuble They vsed also a vayle to couer their heads called an Amice first inuented by AEneas which also our Masse Priests vse and they will haue it to represent the vayle wherewith Christ was couered when the Iewes mocked him in the house of Caiphas Or the Diuinity of Christ hid vnder the humanity Adde vnto these the Stole the Manuple and the Zone which three saith one do represent the three cords wherwith Christ was bound and led before the High Priest Or by the Zone saith Biel were figured the rods wherewith Christ was whipped by the Stole laid a crosse the crosse that Christ carryed on his shoulders The Manuple carryed on the left arme represents the band of loue wherwith Christ was holden Another interpreteth the Zone or Girdle wherwith the Aulbe is trussed or tyed together to signifie the band of the charity of God The Stole put vpon the Amice on the necke of the Priest in forme of the crosse to figure the obedience of Iesus Christ vnto the death of the Crosse. The Manuple carryed vpon the left hand to figure the eternall felicity of Iesus Christ. Another saith the Amice figureth Faith the Stole humility of obedience and the Manuple the watchfull and hearty deuotion of the Massing Sacrificer Thus are they vncertaine among themselues of the figuratiue representations of their Sacrificall Vestments The next ceremonie was Holy-water borrowed from the ancient Idolaters of Rome and inuented by Numa who ordained that the people should bee sprinkled with sea or salt water because that salt was of a fierie nature which is apt to purifie hereby they purged and cleansed the faults of the people especially lying and periury Pope Alexander the first of that name and one of the first corrupters of the holy sacraments following the Idolatry of Pompilius commanded this coniuring and consecrating of holy water to driue away diuells But to colour this 〈◊〉 hee vseth this comparison If it be so saith Pope Alexander that the ashes of a red cow offered vp in sacrifices mingled with water of the fountaine purified the people of the Iewes by greater reason the water sprinkled with salt should purifie Christians and chase away 〈◊〉 Thus haue they continued that Idolatrous vse of Holy water still in the Church of Rome which the Heathens did vse 360. yeares after Christ as appeares by that story of Valentinian After the sprinkling of Holy-water followes the Procession which Platina ascribes to Agapetus Bishop of Rome but I find it well nigh a 1000. yeares before him practised by the ancient Idolatrous Romanes called Supplication The order of Procession instituted by Numa either to appease the wrath of their gods or to obtaine peace or the fruits of the earth was this First before the Procession went young children then the Priests clad in white Vestments singing hymnes prayses and songs vnto their gods after followed the High Bishop called by them Pontifex Maximus which title was after giuen to all the Emperours of Rome that were not Christians as appeares by their coynes and Sculptures then the ancient Senators of Rome and their wiues and children with crownes on their heads In the Procession was carryed commonly the Pagent or shrine of Iupiter or Anubis oy some of the Priests clad in white Vestments their heads beeing shauen and hauing a crowne vpon their heads This crowne was in such repute that the Emperour Antonius Commodus himselfe being the High Bishop caused his head to be shauen and to be crowned to beare the shrine of the god Anubis Before the shrine went a Torch-bearer carrying a taper light
two persons of Christ and Iudas then hee stretcheth out his armes to figure Christ stretched on the crosse Which done he maketh three crosses to represent the threefold estate of such as haue benefit by that sacrifice namely those in Heauen on earth in purgatory He smiteth afterwards his breast to play the part of the Publican repenting in the Temple But this smiting must be with the three hinder-most fingers for the thombe and the fore-finger are reserued to consecrate and transubstantiate the Host into the body of Christ moreouer he smiteth his breast three times to figure the three-fold offence of thought word and deede Then he eleuateth the host to be adored Then he lifteth vp his voyce to represent the person of the theefe or the Centurion which confessed Christ in his passion Six other crosses are againe made three vpon the chalice couered to represent the three houres that Christ hanged on the crosse aliue and the other three on the chalice vncouered with the round host lifted vp againe to figure the three houres that Christ hanged on the crosse dead Then he kisseth the chalice and maketh two crosses to figure the water and blood that issued out of the side of Christ. Then the Priest must take the couering cloath off from the chalice and couer it with the patyne to figure the breaking of the vaile of the Temple in the middest at the death of Christ. This done the host is put from aboue the chalice and is couched vnder the corporas to figure the burying of Christ. The Priest hauing thus acted the parts of Christ of the holy Theefe of Iudas then acteth the person of the Centurion in singing the Pater Noster by the seauen petitions whereof Durandus would signifie the seauen weepings of the Virgin Mary or the seauen graces of the Holy Ghost or the seauen Beatitudes or the seauen deadly sinnes This song finished the Priest keepeth silence to signifie the silence or rest of Christ in the Sepulcher Who sees not here a Masse of fopperies and will-worship in this sacrifice of the Masse shall not God say vnto our Masse-mungers as he did vnto the Israelites Who required these things at your hands where hath Christ either giuen precept or example to make such representations of his passion by externall mummeries and histrionicall gestures But these things are of great antiquity and haue beene of long vse in the Church and why should wee now become Innouatours Answere I answere wee are not Innouatours because we abolish these Popish Idolatries and keepe our selues to the practise of the Primitiue Church but they are Innouatours that haue brought these superstitions into the Church And 〈◊〉 as they pleade Antiquity I answer first Antiquity or continuance of an euill is no ground for a tolleration and idolatry in religion is not to be permitted though neuer so ancient for by the same argument may the Turkes 〈◊〉 their Mahometan Alcoran which they haue possessed about 900 yeares vnder the which law they haue subdued nations conquered Realmes and Empires By the same reason might the Israelites iustifie the sacrificing of their children vnto Moloch in the valley of Tophet a most detestable Idolatry yet pactised well nigh the space of 1200 yeares till it was quite abolished by that good King Iosiah The Brazen Serpent a thing commanded by God himselfe possessed by the Israelites for the space of 900. yeares vnto which the people had burnt incense from time to time yet neither the long continuance nor the generall practise of such an Idolatry could preuaile with Hezechiah for tolleration Could the people of Israel be excused for committing 〈◊〉 by the two calues of Dan and Bethel erected by 〈◊〉 and worshipped for the space of three or foure hundred yeares No the long practise of an euill can afford no ground for permission but Idolatry though neuer so aged is to be extirpated as Theodosius the Emperour answered vnto the Senatours of Rome when they pressed him with the antiquity of their Pompilian religion which they had obserued for the space of 1000. yeares Againe the Masse is not so ancient as our aduersaries pretend neither in respect of the Canon nor in respect of the Ceremonies least of all in respect of the Sacrifice The Canon being patched together by sundry Popes who haue added their parts and parcels at seuerall times The Ceremonies as the diuers garments holy-water wax-tapers the Offertory Prayer for the dead Procession the like crept in also by degrees one after another as their owne Histories declare sufficiently And the sacrifice not acknowledged by any till within these 400 and odde yeares about the time of the Lateran Councell vnder Innocent the third Now let the indifferent Reader iudge of the impudencie of our Aduersaries who bragge so much of antiquitie endeauouring to deduce their Masse from the Apostles time against their owne consciences and the credit of all hystories For hereby clearely is declared the induction not onely of the Ceremonies but also of the very Canon of the Masse all which do not sauour only of Innouation but also of Iudaisme and Gentilisme the badges of a false and superstitious Sacrifice The third part of this confutation followes wherein we shall giue answer vnto some of the maine and principall arguments wherewith they endeauour to establish their battered and shaken imposture and to oppugne the inuincible truth of God and his Church So that wilfully they ouerturne the very principles of nature the order of all things the humanity of their Sauiour the truth of the Sacrament the truth of Scripture the foundations of all 〈◊〉 confusedly iumbling heauen and earth together rather then they will admit of a tropicall speech in our Sauiours consecration And first for the maintaining of the sacrifice of the Masse they alleadge That Christ is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech but the proper act of Melchizedechs Priesthood did consist in sacrificing vnder the formes of bread and wine Ergo. The eternity of Christs Priesthood standeth in the sacrificing of his body and blood in those formes by those Priests whom hee hath promised to continue in his Church till the worlds end Rhemist annot Heb. 7. sest 8. Bellar. cap 6. Hoffmeyst assert sacrific missae And that Melchizedechs Priesthood consisted in oblation of bread and wine they would prooue by these Reasons First from the word He brought forth The Hebrew word is properly applyed to the bringing forth of a sacrifice as Gen. 4. The like word is vsed to signifie Cain and Abels sacrifice Secondly because Abraham had no need of bread and wine to refresh himselfe being returned with so great spoyle from his enemies and so hauing sufficient to refresh himselfe with it is likely Melchizedech brought them forth to offer to God Thirdly as Melchizedech is said to be the Priest of the High God so it was requisite that the Scripture also should make mention of his
of the offering which is not in the Hebrewes vt causa sed vt separata clausula as a cause but as a disiunctine participle as if hee would say Melchizedech was a king which appeares by this plentifull feasting of Abraham and his souldiours and hee was not onely a King but also the Priest of the high God so that in this one verse is comprised both the Regall and Sacerdotiall office of Melchizedech and vnto each of them is ascribed his proper act for hauing named King of Salem he sayes immediately brought foorth bread and wine noting therein his Regall 〈◊〉 Then mentioning his Priesthood he sayes and he was the Priest of the most High God and immediately shewing wherein he declares his Priestly office sayes and bee blessed him in the former is expressed his Kingly in the latter his Priestly function Fiftly they say the Priesthood of Christ cannot be eternall except there remaine a sacrifice and there remaines no sacrifice but of bread and wine because the sacrifice vpon the crosse was finished at Christs death Vnto this we answer by denying the falshood of this argument in diuers points First we say the Priesthood of Christ may remaine eternall though the Sacrifice remaine not eternally in sacrificing for as I haue shewed formerly the eternity of Christs sacrifice is not to bee iudged by the eternity of the act of sacrificing but by the vertue and efficacie of the Priest and Sacrifice which are so meritorious as to procure eternall saluation vnto all beleeuers for whom it was offered and in this sense the Priesthood of Christ is said to be eternall Againe we affirme that the Sacrifice of Christ shall remaine for euer not in offering but as hauing beene offered so the humane nature of Christ which was our Sacrifice shall for euer remaine hypostatically vnited to the Deity Againe it is not necessary that Christ should haue an externall Priesthood here on earth that should offer bread and wine and bee after the order of Melchizedech for in the time of the law there was an externall Priesthood after the order of Melchizedech yet euen then was Christ a Priest after the order of Melchizedech and as he had a sacrifice in fore so now hath he in fuisse But we demand here if the proper act of Melchisedechs sacrifice consist in bread and wine why doth not Paul mention it for in the historicall relation of Melchizedechs meeting of Abraham Heb. 7. 1. he mentions those things wherein hee was a type of Christ but neuer so much as names the bringing foorth of bread and wine as nothing appertaining to his Priesthood And if the Church should continue a sacrifice after Melchizedechs order and haue no direction from Christ or his Apostles it may soone erre in the maine point of Christian religion Ho sius and after him Bellarmine saith That this mystery was too great for the Hebrewes to conceiue but by their leaue the Apostle tells them of things as strange in a manner of a man without Father without Mother without beginning or end of dayes And if there had beene any difficulty of whom might they haue beene more clearely and plainely instructed then of the Apostles and why were not the Hebrewes as capable of this doctrine as any nation among the Gentiles And doubtlesse had the substance of the Eucharist consisted in the offering vp of Christ vnder the forms of bread and wine both our Sauiour aud his Apostles would haue spoken clearely of it for as Saint Augustine to this purpose Let no man alleadge vnto me the things that are spoken darkely or figuratiuely faith must be builded vpon that which is cleare and not subiect vnto diuers interpretations I will conclude this answer with shewing two things First wherein Melchizedech was a type of Christ aud in what respect Christ is said to be a Priest after the order of Melchizedech Secondly the absurdities which will ensue vpon their doctrine 1. He was a type of Christ in his name Melchizedech which signifies king of righteousnesse so was Christ. 2. In that he was king of Salem that is King of peace so is Christ the Prince of peace 3. In regard of his double office exercising publikely the sacred functions both of King and Priest so did Christ. 4. In that he is said to be apator and ametor without father without mother so Christ was without father as man without mother as God 5. In the eternity and continuance of his office for there is no mention made of his death that therein he might be a type of the eternity of Christs priesthood 6. In the excellency of his person beeing greater then the Patriarch Abraham which appeares in blessing him So is Christ aboue all men in regard of his humane nature it being perfectly sanctified by the Godhead and made the head of the Church So that the bringing forth of bread and wine was no type of the Priesthood of Christ albeit I deny not but it was a type of his Regall bountie and munificence typifying the spirituall refection which Christ our King affords to all that warre against the enemies of their saluation Secondly obserue here the absurdities that will follow hereupon They say the order of Melchizedechs sacrifice consists properly in sacrificing bread and wine their Priests offer after the order of Melchizedech hereupon it will follow that either Melchizedech offered vp the body of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine as they doe which no man euer affirmed or they offer onely bread and wine as he did and that they will neuer confesse or else the sacrifice of Melchisedech and of the Romanists being different they must needes bee of different orders and thus they wound themselues with their owne weapons for if they will ground their sacrifice vpon Melchizedechs offering bread and wine they must needes then confesse that in the Masse is offered nothing but bread and wine and indeede the Fathers typically applying Melchizedechs bringing forth bread and wine to refresh Abraham and his souldiours returning from the slaughter of the kings vnto the Sacrament of the Eucharist make an apt and fit comparison for so Christ by the bread and wine in the Sacrament being eaten with faith in the thing represented nourisheth all beleeuers refreshing them in the skirmish against their spirituall enemies But Bellarmine thinkes to shake vs off and to make vs loosen our hold by telling vs That the sacrifice of the Masse and the sacrifice of Melchizedech agree in the outward symboles and formes though not in the substance and that is sufficient for the representation is in the accidents not in the substance and that was but the type or Symbole and therefore the substance may be diuers What hath Bellarmine aduantaged himselfe by this excuse hereupon it will follow that they who consecrate bread and wine onely doe more properly imitate Melchisedechs sacrifice then the Masse-Priests who say they consecrate flesh
Argument 6. Sixtly if the sacrifice of Christ was perfectly finished vpon the Crosse then is it vnlawfull for any Priest to presume to offer againe this sacrifice But the offering of the sacrifice of Christ was perfectly finished vpon the crosse Ergo it is vnlawfull to presume to offer this sacrifice againe in the Masse The consequence is euident For hee that goes about to offer that sacrifice which was perfectly finished vpon the crosse cannot but by his reiteration preiudice and call in question the perfection thereof for as Chrysostome speaketh he that hath a soueraigne medicine which by once applying is perfectly able to cure a disease and shall often apply the same doth derogate from the vertue thereof so he that shall reiterate the all-sauing sacrifice vpon the crosse by the frequent reiteration charges it with impotency and imbecility Wherefore whatsoeuer pretence our aduersaries may vse they by their Massing sacrifice doe no lesse then robbe the al-sufficient sacrifice of the Crosse and with irreligious blasphemy derogate from it the meritorious power to saue all that beleeue The Minor is manifest by the words of our Sauiour he cryed Consummatum est It is finished What is finished The Ceremoniall law was abrogated the Morall law was fulfilled the sacrifice of Christ was perfected the saluation of mankind accomplished And God forbid that against so many euidences of scripture any man should affirme the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse not to be perfectly finished as though he had left any part to bee supplyed by the Masse-Priests which hee himselfe was not able to effect Wherefore if Christ hath on his crosse cancelled the hand writing which was against vs if hee by his crosse hath reconciled vs vnto his father if he on the crosse did once sacrifice himselfe for all beleeuers then God forbid any man should 〈◊〉 in ought saue the crosse of Christ God forbid any Christian should seeke for a Propitiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist which hath no vertue in it to procure pardon for sinne vnto any soule but onely faithfully receiued to seale the remission purchased by the bloody sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse But our subtle Antagonists thinke to auoide the force of our argument by this cunning distinction There is say they two degrees of remission of sinnes The first that God would for his part and as much as in him lyes be reconciled to men Secondly that he would receiue them into fauour they working by faith and repentance The first degree say they is in the sacrifice of Christs death on the crosse The second is in the sacrifice of the Masse and for the confirmation of this distinction they adduce the saying of the Apostle God was in Christ reconciling the world vnto himselfe not imputing their trespasses vnto them and hath committed vnto vs the word of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But our aduersaries by this distinction thinking to auoid us haue giuen vs the greater aduantage For this latter degree of remission of sinnes is nothing els but the application of the sacrifice of Christ vnto all men as if they should say that then are wee made partakers of that great benefite of Christs sacrifice when we doe receiue him with a true faith And for this end was the sacrifice of the Masse instituted Vt cruenti sacrificij salutaris virtus in remissionem corum quae quotidie committuntur a nobis peccatorum 〈◊〉 That the sauing vertue of the bloody sacrifice may be applyed vnto vs for the remission of those sinnes which are dayly committed by vs. From hence I conclude that if the application of a Propitiatory sacrifice bee not the sacrifice it selfe for he that confounds the thing and the application of that thing shewes but weakenesse of iudgement and that in the Masse there is an application of the great Propitiatory sacrifice offered by Christ it must needes follow that in the Masse there is no Propitiatory sacrifice it selfe true and reall but onely an application of the great and al-sufficient sacrifice offered by Christ. Therefore the Apostle sayes that God hath committed to vs his ministers the ministery of reconciliation From which words I collect these two obseruations First that the Pastors of the Church of Christ are Ministers of application of Christs sacrifice but not of sacrificing Christ himselfe Secondly that this application is made not by sacrificing of Christ as our Romanists dreame but by teaching admonishing and exhorting with the administration of the Sacrament according to the institution of Christ. Argument 7. Seauenthly if Christ be truely and really offered in the Masse then in the Masse he is really slaine But in the Masse he is not truely and really slaine ergo in the Masse Christ is not reall offered The Consequence appeares by this that the offering of Christ and the slaying of Christ are neuer seperated in the holy Scripture For it was not with Christ as with the beast vnder the Law which were first slaine and then offered vppon the Altar but Christ in the instant of his death was offered a sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauor to his Heauenly Father Let the Scriptures be examined and iudge whether euer they speake of the Sacrifice of Christ but thereby is meant his death For this he did once when he offered himselfe How much more the blood of Christ which by the eternall spirit offered himselfe without spot to God So Christ was once offered to beare the sinnes of many These and all other places of the new Testament which speake of the offering of Christ are to be interpreted of his death Wherefore to say Christus 〈◊〉 est Christ is offered is nothing else but to say Christus mortuus est Christ is dead or Christ is slaine Wherefore if Christ be truely and really offered in the Masse he must be truely and really slaine Our aduersaries answere That there is a Sacramentall immolation of Christ in the Masse because by the power and vertue of Transubstantiation the body of Christ is consecrated and made to subsist by it selfe and the blood of Christ is consecrated and made to subsist by it selfe and so though they are seperated locally and in appearance yet they are not seperated propter concomitantiam by concomitance they are both ioyned together By this their distinction they thinke to vp hold their Masse by which they ouer-turne it For first in that they say it is a Sacramentall immolation herein they speake more truely then they are aware wherein wee consent with them for if it be Sacramentall it cannot be proper reall and externall seeing that which is Sacramentall is so relatiue hauing reference vnto that substance whereof it is a shadow or resemblance Againe for the body and the blood to be framed seperately and yet by concommitance not to be seperated who heares not a contradiction in these words The Minor our aduersaries themselues confesse they will not say Christ is slaine really and truely in the Masse least their
Scripture yet it is effectually proued by the tradition of the Church Which may make vs iustly admire the vaine 〈◊〉 of our aduersaries who boasting of nothing more then Scripture are yet faine wholy to relinquish it and to build vpon the tradition of the Church but an answere 〈◊〉 this 〈◊〉 afore And for these words Is giuen broken shed for you they interpret to be a present giuing in the Eucharist by way of sacrifice but this is sufficiently answered in the former 〈◊〉 Now seeing the words of Christs institution doe make their sacrifice to be a meere non Ens let ve examine his actions and see if any of them will breath any life into this their sacrifice The actions of Christ the Scripture mentions to be foure Hee tooke bread He blessed it He brake it He gaue it Not any one of these can seeme to import a sacrifice And whereas our aduersaries haue divided their sacrifice into fix actions in the which of them this sacrifice should consist Suarez makes it doubtfull The first action is the taking of the bread before consecration and the heauing it vp which they call the Eleuation of the host this is not essentiall to the sacrifice by the Iesuites owne confession because it cannot be prooued neither by Scripture nor the tradition of the Church that Christ did vse it Albeit herein he dissents from Sotus a learned Doctor who with others thought it to be vsed by Christ and in some sort to 〈◊〉 to the substance of this sacrifice The second action is the Consecration of the Host in the words of Christ Hoc est corpus meum This is my body This Suarez 〈◊〉 to be intrinsecall and essentiall to this sacrifice and to be the sacrificing action and yet tels vs that it was the opinion of many learned men That consecration was but only an antecedent vnto the sacrifice but properly neither to be of the essence nor yet any part of this sacrifice And how can the Papists confidently build their sacrifice vpon those words This is my body when their owne Bishop hath prooued from the testimonies of the most ancient Fathers that those are not the words of consecration but that the words of consecration were before those words when Christ prayed and blessed the bread and the cup and therefore hee alleadgeth the perpetuall practise of the Church from the age of the Apostles whose custome was to consecrate by prayer or benediction as also the Liturgies of St. Iames Clement Basil Chrysostome do declare the same being backed with the iudgement of many learned Schoole-men to whom hee adioynes the Diuines of Colein all agreeing consecration rather to be in the prayer or blessing of Christ then in these words This is my body which hee rather accounts to be the institution then the consecration of the Sacrament The third action after the words of consecration is the Oblation vsed by the lifting vp of the Host in these words Be mindfull ô Lord c. Concerning which there is great 〈◊〉 some great Doctors haue placed the whole essence of this sacrifice in this Oblation or Eleuation as Ecchius 〈◊〉 Ruardus Others say it is of the essence but not the whole essence as Scotus Gabriel Biel Soto Canus these Suarez quoteth but differing from them all for he affirmes it to be no essentiall part of the sacrifice with whom agrees Bellarmine because say they it is not expressed in the Scripture neither yet is it probable other wayes that this kinde of eleuation or lifting vp was vsed by Christ in the institution onely herein these Iesuites differ Suirez will haue this eleuation to be an Ecclesiasticall rite but Bellarmine to be Apostolicall The fourth action is the dipping of the consecrated Host into the cup which Canus makes to bee of the substance of this sacrifice which Suarez againe one the same ground disanulls because that it appeares not that Christ did vse any such action The fift action is the distribution of the 〈◊〉 according vnto the example of Christ who gaue it vnto his Disciples which saith the Iesuite some Catholike Doctours haue iudged to be the full complement and perfection of this sacrifice But as learned Morton obserues first they must shew vnto vs where the essence of this sacrifice is to bee found least they tell vs of the perfection of a sacrifice before their sacrifice appeare to be Ens or to haue any beeing The last action is the Priests consuming the consecrated formes by eating and drinking some make this to be the substance of the sacrifice and the very essence of it as the Moderne Thomists Ledesima Canus and Bellarmine who are againe contradicted by other great Doctours of the Roman Church as Thomas Aquinas 〈◊〉 Maior Alan Cassalus Catharinus Turrianus Palacius with whom Salmeron doth consent all which doe deny that this consumption of the Host doth belong to the essence of this sacrifice Thus haue you seene what 〈◊〉 warre our aduersaries doe maintaine among themselues 〈◊〉 against Manasses and Manasses against Ephraim but both against Iudah 〈◊〉 war in their owne campe yet they all conspire against the truth Now let the Reader iudge where is vnity or consent in doctrine when their greatest Doctours in the maine point of religion are at variance directly contradicting one another with est non est it is and it is not They vniustly vpbraid vs with dissentions when alas ours is no dissention if compared with theirs we onely differing in the fringe they in the garment wee alone in the ceremonies they in the substance and very soule of religion Thus haue we largely and sufficiently prooued by the testimonies of our aduersaries that the sacrifice of the Masse was not instituted by Christ and therefore by the confession of their owne Iesuites not to be admitted into the Church Argument 12. The twelfth argument is grounded vpon Bellarmines owne ssertion which is this Ad verum sacrificium requiritur vt quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in sacrificium plane destruatur id 〈◊〉 ita mutetur vt desinat esse id quod erat To a true sacrifice is required that that which is offered vnto God in sacrifice be wholy destroyed that is be so changed that it cease to be that which it was And againe Verum reale sacrificium veram realem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A true and a reall sacrifice requireth a true and reall death or destruction of the thing sacrificed Which assertion is true in all Propitiatory sacrifices wherein there was alwayes a destruction of the offering or sacrifice and that by death and shedding of blood that therein they might bee perfect figures of the great sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse wherein his body did shed blood suffered death sustained destruction though not totall and perpetuall yet partiall and for a season in so much that although hee was not consumed yet there was in him for a time a cessation or
sacrifice of Christ offered on the crosse once for all Our aduersaries themselues dare not nor doe not deny it yet will they not relinquish their sacrifice of the Masse Argument 15. The fifteenth Argument The Apostle sayes that Christ needes not to offer himselfe often but now once in the end of the world hee hath appeared to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe and againe By one offering he hath perfected for euer them that are sanctified From these testimonies of Scripture I frame this Syllogisme If Christ once in the end of the world was sacrificed to put away sinne and by one offering hath perfected them that are 〈◊〉 then he is not offered in the Masse But Christ once in the end of the world was sacrificed to put away sinne and by one offering of himselfe once for all hath perfected them that are sanctified Ergo Christ is not offered in the Masse Bellarmine answeres that the Apostle there speaketh of the bloody and painefull sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse which was sufficient once to bee done but this taketh not away the vnbloody sacrifice which is but a continuance of the former whereby the fruite and efficacy of the former oblation is applied vnto vs. But wee are to obserue that the Apostle by these words excludes and cuts of all iterations of the sacrifice of Christ for otherwise if Christ should now be often sacrificed really though after any manner the difference of the Apostle could neuer stand betweene the Leuiticall sacrifices which were often repeated and the sacrifice of Christ which was once offered Secondly that is but a false distinction of a bloody and an vnbloody sacrifice as they vnderstand it otherwise then the fathers did for there can be no proper vnbloody sacrifice of Christ neither could hee be offered vp otherwise then by dying Therefore he is not offered vp in the Eucharist because therein hee dyeth not Thirdly we neede not inuent a new kind of sacrifice which may apply vnto vs the efficacy of Christs death seeing to that end Christ hath appointed the preaching of the word and the administration of the Sacraments Bellarmine replyeth first though the death of Christ be applyed by the Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper yet it may be applyed also by the sacrifice of the Masse which in this behalfe is not superfluous no more then Baptisme is by which also Christs death is applyed Secondly that the Apostle speaketh of the bloody and painefull sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse it appeareth by the words following For then he must haue often suffered But we cut off Bellarmines answere by affirming That albeit both the Eucharist and Baptisme doe apply the death of Christ vnto vs yet is not Baptisme superfluous because it is of Christs institution so is not the Masse Againe they apply Christs death diuersly baptisme as the seale of our regeneration the Eucharist as a signe of our redemption the one signifies our sanctification by the washing of Christs blood the other our iustification by the sufferings of the same Christ our Sauiour the one for our initiation into the Church the other for our confirmation so that neither of them are superfluous but the sacrifice of the Masse is superfluous because the remembrance and shewing forth of Christs death is sufficiently performed without a sacrifice Wherefore the comparison holds not that the Masse may as well be vsed to apply the vertue of Christs death albeit the Eucharist doth the same as baptisme seeing baptisme is of Christs institution the Masse is not and baptisme and the Lords Supper though they both apply the death of Christ yet in diuers manners and for diuers ends But the Papists pretend the same to be the end of the Masse which is of the Lords Supper And whereas Bellarmine sayth the Apostle speakes of the bloody sacrifice of Christ it is true for he neuer once dreamed of an vnbloody sacrifice which could neuer haue any existence in rerum natura For if you marke the Apostles words hee quite knockes this vnbloody sacrifice of the Papists on the head saying Not that he should offer himselfe often c. For then must 〈◊〉 often haue suffered Intimating that there can be no proper offering or real sacrificing of Christ but by death and suffering Wherefore where there is no actuall death of Christ nor reall suffering there can be no true and proper offering and Christ hauing but once died really he could but once be really offered Argument 16. The sixteenth Argument is taken from the words of Christ who being on the Crosse cryed out Consummatum est It is finished Giue vs leaue to demand what was finished Let one of their owne friends speake Why now was finished whatsoeuer God had determined whatsoeuer he had commanded whatsoeuer the Law and the Prophets had foretold concerning Christ whatsoeuer was necessary and conducible for mans saluation the oblation was offered the types fulfilled the shadowes abolished the Scriptures were verified and the great sacrifice quo solo Deus placari potuit by which onely the 〈◊〉 of God was pacified is now perfected In which words obserue first that whatsoeuer was necessary for mans faluation was now accomplished what neede then haue we of Masses Secondly that Ferus sayes The sacrifice of Christ was finished How dares any man then renew it in the Masse Thirdly he sayes The sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse onely could 〈◊〉 Gods wrath How then comes the sacrifice of the Masse to be propitiatory Bellarmine answeres that these words It is finished are to be vnderstood of the Prophecies of his passion not that all things were done necessary to mans saluation For then the Sacraments and all Doctrine should bee 〈◊〉 But this answere will not serue the turne for the prophecies were not all fulfilled when hee spake these words for after this time two prophecies were fulfilled First the not breaking of abone foretold Exod. 12. 46. Secondly the pearcing of him with a speare prophecied Zach. 12. 10. But let vs admit for good Ferus his wordes Quoniam fuit in opere consummationis ideo dixit consummatum est because they were in the act of consummation or ready to be consummated therefore he sayd It is finished And let vs admit for good the first part of Bellarmines answere that the prophecies were fulfilled yet let vs a little pause before we grant the second For whereas he sayes All things necessary to mans saluation were not finished it is true if hee meane some speciall actes 〈◊〉 did concerne Christs person as his resurrection and assension without which our redemption could not bee perfectly consummated Againe if he vnderstand it of some indiuiduall actions of religion which were to be performed for the saluation of such particular persons as should beleeue afterward it is true they were not finished because the persons whom God had appointed and decreed to
vse as meanes for the conuersion of others were to liue in future ages and had not as yet beeing and consequently could not at that time finish those acts whereunto they were destined of God but if he vnderstand by these words All things necessary for mans saluation are not finished all the specificall acts of religion as Prayer Preaching Administration of the Sacraments c. and whatsoeuer of that kind which is necessary to mans saluation is not finished this is false for that they had their institution from Christ before his death and so in the species they were finished Or if thereby the sacrifice of Christ was not finished this is false for both it and the saluation of man by it was finished as appeares by the Apostles vsing the same words saying With one offering teteleioken consummauit he hath consummated for euer such as are sanctified And whereas he sayes that if all things necessary for mans saluation were consummated then the sacraments and all doctrine should bee superfluous this is false for the institution of them might be consummated although the exercise of them in future ages were not finished Againe the perfection of Christs sacrifice abolisheth not the vse of doctrine and Sacraments which doe represent vnto vs the death and sacrifice of Christ but it abolisheth all other sacrifices of Propitiation for if they be but memorialls of Christs death they are superfluous the word and sacraments beeing sufficient to that end and if they be more then memorials as auaileable to forgiue sinnes they are blasphemous and make Christs sacrifice imperfect Argument 17. The seauenteenth argument is taken from the falshood of the Canon of the Masse and it is thus framed Such as is the Canon such is the sacrifice But the Canon of the Masse is false Ergo the sacrifice is false and consequently not Propitiatory The falshood of the Masse appeares in diuers things 1. In the ancient Church when the Lords Supper was celebrated the Christians vsed to bring their agapai which were the bread and wine for the reliefe of the poore and the maintenance of the Ministry and when they had laide downe these oblations which were neuer accounted a Propitiatory sacrifice they prayed for the prosperity and preseruation of the Church which in the Canon before the consecration is applyed vnto the bread and wine and the bread and wine is offered vnto God the Father for the happinesse of the Church Secondly in the Canon They pray vnto God that he would accept that pure sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ as he accepted the sacrifices of Abell and Melchizedech In which words they become intercessours vnto God the Father to accept his Son Iesus Christ as though he were not worthy to be accepted of himselfe And how absurd is it to compare the most pretious sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ if it were so really and truely vnto the sacrifice of Abel which was but a lambe or a goate And how vnwisely doe they pray that God would accept the sacrifice of his Sonne as hee did accept the sacrifice of Melchizedech whereas it cannot appeare as is formerly prooued by the holy scripture that Melchizedech offered bread and wine how absurd is it then to compare the sacrifice of Christ with that sacrifice which neither was is nor shall be Thirdly the Canon saith that the Priest offereth vnto God the heauenly Father the bread of life But where are they commanded to offer the bread of life seeing in the scripture there is mention made of eating the bread of life but not of offering Fourthly the Canon ouerthrowes the article of ascension for it commands the Angells to carry that vnspotted sacrifice to the high Altar of heauen and to present it before God the Father What Is not Christ ascended and fitteth for euer at the right hand of God and hath he now more need of the helpe of Anglls then when he first ascended by the whole power of his Godhead and cannot hee appeare before his Father but by the assistants of Angells But let me bee bold to demand three questions of our aduersaries grounded vpon these words of the Canon Supplices te rogamus omnipotens Deus iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli c. We humbly beseech thee O Omnipotent God that tbou wouldest command this sacrifice to be carryed by the hands of the holy Angell vnto thy high Altar in the sight of thy diuine Maiesty c. First if they vnderstand it of the bread and wine transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ how comes it to passe that they are not taken by the Angell and carryed immediately into heauen according to the prayer of the Church Secondly I demand if their doctrine bee true of their Multipresence that the true humane body and blood of Christ be both in heauen and in many thousand places vpon the earth at one time what need then the Angell to carry the body of Christ into heauen where it is already before his heauenly Father Thirdly if it be so as they say that Christ in the night when he instituted the Lords Supper did offer himselfe his naturall body and blood vnder the forms of bread and wine a true Propitiatory sacrifice to his heauenly Father I demand whether the Angell did carry this sacrifice into heauen or whether it did 〈◊〉 before his Father in heauen or no If they say no how then was the sacrifice accepted or how comes the Church to pray for that priuiledge of hauing this sacrifice carryed into heauen which was not vouchsafed to the sacrifice offered immediately by Christ himselfe If they affirme that it was carryed into heauen it would then follow that Christs body was in heauen before his passion resurrection or ascension and when he in his humane nature ascended into heauen from his Disciples hee found his humane body and blood before his Father and to haue beene there before it came thither Thus they make Christ to haue two bodies and consequently two soules and so Christ is not one but two but many but innumerable These absurdities doe directly result and arise from their blasphemous Canon which is so grosse and palpable as deserues to be hissed out of the Church Lastly the Canon in diuers places ouerturnes the Mediation of Christ in that they pray to Saints and Angells making them to be intercessours it also establishes Purgatory and prayer for the dead doctrines so dissonant from the truth of the Scriptures as when we see them authorized in the Church of Rome wee may iustly call in question the vertue of their massing sacrifice Argument 18. The eighteenth Argument is taken from the effect of the Masse thus That which destroyeth the true nature of the Lords Supper cannot be a true Propitiatory sacrifice for the 〈◊〉 of the quicke and the dead But the pretended sacrifice of the Masse doth subuert and destroy the nature of the Lords Supper Ergo
vnto Christ the Layty gazing on him appearing rather to be excommunicate persons then to haue any communion in the body of Christ as also the Communion of Saints is abolished by the Masse seeing any notorious sinner who can pay for a Masse shall haue as much relaxation of paines as a 〈◊〉 man 6. In the administration of the Sacrament the Laity did pertake of the cup as well as the clergy But in the Masse the Sacrament is maimed by taking away the cup from the Lay people 7. Christ instituted the Sacrament in remembrance of himselfe saying Doe this in remembrance of me The Priest sayes Masse in remembrance of the dead Againe hereby they destroy the remembrance of Christs death For as a Testament doth suppose the death of the Testator so the alteration of that Testament supposeth that the Testator is not yet dead wherefore the Masse beeing so much altered from the institution of Christ which hee bequeathed as a Testament vnto his Church doth by consequence deny the death of Christ For it beeing sufficiently proued to be another pretended Testament differing from the first institution doth 〈◊〉 require againe that Christ should dye recrucisying the Sonne of God for as Paul sayth Where a Testament is there must necessarily follow the death of the Testator Moreouer if Christ be offered 〈◊〉 day how is this not rather to institute a new sacrifice then to Doe it in remembrance of his great sacrifice vppon the Crosse. 8. Christ instituted the Sacrament to be reuerently distributed vnto the people But the Masse is reserued in the Pix is carried about the Cities and Townes like a may-game 9. Christ gaue bread and wine to his Disciples The Priest 〈◊〉 God vnto the people hee being the maker of his Maker and they eating God with their bodyly mouthes to Christ instituted the Sacrament to confirme our Faith they say Masse to redeeme mens soules to cure diseases to worke miracles The second impiety of the Masse It commandeth and practiseth things directly contrary to Gods word 〈◊〉 inuocation of Saints and Angels Prayer for the dead Adoration of creatures Purgatory c. Thirdly it by consequence affirmeth that Christ is out of the fauour of his Heauenly Father and therefore had neede of an earthly Mediator which is the Priest who may offer the body of Christ vnto his Father and pray that God would accept him as the sacrifice of Abell Fourthly the Masse hindreth the seruice of God for God wil be serued in spirit and truth with an inward and entire affection but the Masse causeth a man to rest in the outward seruice of God as hearing seeing gazing stooping kneeling knocking c. Which things of themselues are meritorious by the worke wrought and because the Masse alone is sufficient therefore it makes needlesse all holy exercises as Preaching Prayer c. Working presumption in wicked men who albeit they haue spent their dayes in wickednesse yet if they haue a Masse or can get the Priest to say Masse for them they doubt not but to be saued Fiftly it blasphemeth the Deity of Christ in that whereas God alone is to be worshipped with Diuine worship they ascribe and yeelde that which is due vnto God alone vnto the creature worshipping it instead of God as the bread and the wine in the Eucharist and doubtlesse their Artolatreia is nothing else but Tololatreia Sixtly it derogateth from the vertue of Christs death making it ineffectuall and his sacrifice imperfect ouer-turning the Crosse of Christ by erecting an Altar and reiterating that perfect and all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ which was offered once for all whereby hee sanctified for euer them that were perfect hauing obtained eternall redemption for vs. And as the reiteration of the Leuiticall sacrifices argued the imperfection of them so the repetition of the Masse argues an insufficiency in the sacrifice of Christ. Seuenthly it falsifies the word of Christ. We vsually obserue the last speeches of dying men as oracles but Christ dying vpon the Crosse shut vp all with this speech It is finished that is Mans saluation is finished by this my sacrifice And yet the Massedenies it What is this but to make Christ a lyer Eightly it denies the Article of Christs humanity in that it a scribes not vnto him those properties which are competent to all 〈◊〉 bodies and without which a reall body cannot subsist as to be locally in one place at once to be circumscriptible to haue true demensions c. Ninthly it 〈◊〉 the article of Christs session at the right hand of God Who enioying a true materiall body if hee be present in the Masse cannot sit as a man at the right hand of his Father for euer Tenthly it is the ground of all diffidence and distruct the Sacrament encreaseth our faith while thereby wee apprehend Christ bodily absent to bee spiritually present but the Masse depending on the intention of the Priest cannot but beget distrust in the minds of the people Eleuenthly the Masse robbes vs of the fruite of Christs death for the fruite of Christs death is remission of sinnes which is sealed vnto vs in the Lords Supper But the Masse by the consent of some of their greatest Doctors is not auaileable for the remission of sinnes Twelfely it opens the mouth of the Common Aduersary who despises both the persons and religions of all Christians because the Church of Rome worshippeth a breaden God The thirteenth impiety of the Masse is this it destroyeth the eternity of Christs Priest-hood who was consecrated of his father a Priest not for a time but for euer after the order of Melchizedech which order was not temporall as the Priest-hood of Rome but eternall not externall and visible after his assension but spirituall and inuisible such as could neither be supplyed by substitutes or successours But by offering the sacrifice of the Masse they make themselues after the order of Melchizedech which order at the end of the world shall cease what then shall become of Christs eternall Priest-hood The fourteenth impiety of the Masse It maketh the Priest of more desert then Christ himselfe For the sacrifice is not accepted for it selfe but for the worthinesse of the person offering Caines sacrifice was as good as Abels when yet it was reiected for the wickednesse of him that offered Abels being accepted for the worthinesse of the sacrificer so the humane nature of Christ being our sacrifice was meritorious by the vertue of the God-head whereby it was offered vnto his Father But if the Priests do offer the body of Christ vnto his Father he must needes be of more desert then the sacrifice it selfe The fifteenth impiety of the Masse It ouerthroweth the Doctrine of grace and iustification which teacheth that in this life alone man hath time to worke his saluation and to procure the fauour of God and pardon for sinne But the Masse is profitable for the dead yea both to mitigate the paines and totally to liberate out of
to goe in to bow with his Master in the house of Rimmon and therefore prayeth twice for mercy for it professing he will neuer worship any but the true God neither doth he onely pray for sinne past but in the sence of his owne weakenesse desireth mercy that 〈◊〉 may not bee drawne from his purpose and withsll stirreth vp the Prophet to pray for him that God would giue him grace and strength and for pardon if at any time hee should against his purpose bee drawne into his former sinne and in this sense the Prophet bids him goe in peace as if hee should say I will pray that God would keepe thee in thy godly resolution and for mercy and pardon if thou shouldest be drawne aside and so farewell The words of the Prophet Elisha Goe in peace are also diuerssy expounded Some thinke the Prophets words 〈◊〉 no grant made vnto his petition but rather a prohibition not to trouble himselfe about those matters as if he should haue sayd Content thy selfe require no such thing it would trouble thy conscience but goe in peace keepe a good conscience and labour for the peacetherof so as Polan obserues the words of the Prophet are Tantum dimittentis abeuntem non concedentis postulatum onely a valediction and not any concession or granting of his request Againe it appeares not by the words of the Prophet that he gaue any tolleration or dispensation vnto Naaman for Naaman makes in one verse two petitions one for permission to goe into Rimmons Temple the other for two mules load of earth to carry home with him to offer sacrifice vpon vnto the Lord. Now the Prophet makes the same answer vnto both and therefore doth either condescend to both or deny both but grant them both he did not for the one was cleane contrary to the law to giue Naaman leaue to sacrifice in Syria who was not a Priest whose office it was alone to offer sacrifice and moreouer Ierusalem was the onely place appointed for that action This request therefore the Prophet can by no meanes be thought to haue granted Ergo nor the other And vnto this sence I doe adhere for that the Prophet neither could nor durst giue any liberty to Naaman to be present at the Idolatrous worship of the Syrian Rimmon I am not ignorant of the opinion of some that the Prophet answers dispensando by the way of dispensation though not generally yet in that case onely to goe into the Idols Temple and to bee present at their Idolatry But Lyranus will haue it declarando by declaring it to be lawfull for Naaman to bee present in the Temple of Rimmon at Idolatrous seruice and sacrifice so it were onely for ciuill respect vnto the king his Master and of this opinion seemes 〈◊〉 to be who allowes a man to bee present by reason of some ciuill office so hee yeeld not to the least shew of Idolatry but I should rather commend the practise of the Protestant Princesat Augusta who brought Charles the fift their Emperour along as he was going to the Masse but left him at the Church doore as also of Valentinian who brought Iulian to the Temple of his Idols and when the doore-keeper sprinkled his gowne with the Idols water as the Pagans vsed Valentinian forthwith gaue him a blow on the eare Conclusion Thus hauing sufficiently refelled their strongest arguments and giuen answer to their chiefest pleas the conclusion shall bee this Seeing the Romish Masse hath quite ouerthrowne and thrust the Supper of the Lord out of the Church the holy Supper being an assembly a body of the faithfull vnited and knit together in one spirit strengthening our faith 〈◊〉 our charity kindling our zeale wherein is celebrated the memory of the death and passion of our Lord by a plaine and open rehearsall of the cause manner and benefits of the same whereby the faithfull are taught to acknowledge and call to mind the greatnesse of their sinnes and to admire and magnifie the great and vnspeakeable mercies of God whereby they are stirred vp to renounce and forsake themselues to giue themselues wholy vnto God to dye vnto their lusts and concupiscences and to liue vnto Christ who hauing once deliuered himselfe to the death of the crosse for to giue them life did yet further vouchsafe to giue himselfe to them in this sacrament as spirituall meate and drinke to feede their soules vnto eternall life and herein all the faithfull doe communicate together in the bread and in the cup in the body and in the blood of our Lord being taught thereby that they are diuers members of one mysticall hody whereof Christ is the head being quickned mooued and gouerned by one Spirit euen the Spirit of Christ liuing one life and hauing their hearts vnited one to another by loue Herein wee are seriously admonished of our bond and obligation to God the Father for sending his Son and God the Sonne fulfilling the will of his Father the remembrance of whose death wee shew forth till he come who as verily as the Minister giueth vs the bread and wine to be receiued with our hands which being eaten and drunken are conuerted into our substances and become nourishments of our bodies giueth vs his body and 〈◊〉 to be receiued with faith that we may eate and drinke them spiritually and that they may be turned into the life and substance of our soules making vs one with Christ and Christ one with vs. This was the holy Supper of the faithfull in the ancient Church and this is ours with the rest of the reformed Churches But in the Masse there are no footsteps of the holy Supper but all things are so changed as if the Lords Supper were abolished and the Masse were come in the stead therof for in the Masse there is a Prieft in a strange garment his face fixt vpon an Altar with a Clarke standing behind him muttering in a strange language interlarded with signes lifting vp a wafer in an affected and ceremoniall superstitious sort causing it to be worshipped dipping it in the wine eating it alone persuading the people that by thus much as hath beene done beeing at their request and bought with somepiece of money he hath sacrificed Christ for them What shewing foorth of the Lords death is there till he come Nay is there not an abolishing of the perfection value and efficacy of Christs death and sacrifice Is their not 〈◊〉 in robbing the lay-people of the cup Is not the Masse ful of abhominable blasphemies and grosse impieties Are not the deaths and sufferings of Saints and Martyrs rather reckoned vp then the death of Christ represented Is there not rather a breach of charity then any Symbole of loue when the Priest eates all himselfe the common people being excluded from it where is there any communion betweene the members or signification of our engrafting into Christ The scriptures neither authorising nor the Primitiue and Apostolicall