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
his elect according to both natures Concerning the Priesthood of Christ there are three things obseruable First that albeit Christ was a Priest yet he did not arise out of the Priestly stocke of Aaron he was not of the tribe of Leui but of the Princely stocke of Dauid being borne of the tribe of Iudah aud that for these two reasons First to shew that hee was not a Priest after the order of Aaron but of a new order differing from the Leuiticall as the Anti-type from the Type the true Priesthood from the figuratiue Secondly he arose of the Regall tribe of Iudah that so like Melchisedech hee might bee not onely a Priest but a King Yet notwithstanding in the priesthood of Aaron there were many resemblances of Christs Priesthood 1. In that the high Priest was annoynted with oyle so was Christ spiritually God euen thy God hath annointed thee with the oyle of gladnesse aboue thy fellowes 2. In the sumptuous apparrell which the high Priest put on a type of the rich and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. In the speciall parts of the high Priests attire as the Ephod the shoulders whereof had two Onix stones whereon were engrauen the names of the twelue tribes to represent Christs carrying all the elect on his shoulders supporting them in this life against the world the flesh and the diuell Next the brest-plate of iudgement wherin were set twelue stones hauing engrauen on them the names of the 12. tribes of Israel and with these did he appeare before God in the Sanctuarie representing thereby that Iesus our High Priest being in his heauenly Sanctuarie beares in memorie all the elect before God and vpon this ground the Church in the Canticles prayes that she might bee set as a seale vpon his heart and as a seale vpon his arme Then the Vrim and Thummim the first whereof signifies Lights the second Perfections representing in Christ. 1. The light of wisedome for in him are hid all the treasures of wisedome and knowledge 2. His perfection wherein he excelleth all creatures Lastly the Priest had a plate on his forehead whereon was engrauen Holinesse to Iehouah representing the holines of Christ wherewith he doth appeare before his father for the redemption of his people In the second place we are to obscrue the eternity of Christs Priesthood for it is saide Thou art Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech Now the Priesthood of Christ is said to bee eternall not that Christ shall for euer offer sacrifice for the sinnes of his people but that the vertue and efficacie of his sacrifice doth extend it selfe vnto eternity in the saluation of all beleeuers in that by the merit of this oblation of his death and passion hee hath purchased for all his members eternall glorie So that the eternitie of Christs Priesthood consists not in the continuation of his Sacerdotall acts but in the eternall effect of his sacrifice vpon the elect For when Christ shall at the last day iudge the world and shall inuest the soules and bodies of all his Saints with glory and immortalitie then shall cease the Propheticall and Priestly offices of Christ and onely his Regall or Kingly office shall remaine for the Saints in glorie shall haue perfect knowledge and shall need no information from him as a Prophet nor shall neede the sacrifice or intercession of Christ as a Priest but shall yeeld all obedience in thought word and deede vnto him as their King Quest. But how can the sacrifice of Christ beeing but finite and temporarie be of infinite and eternall merit Ans. The act of Christ vpon the orosse offering himselfe a sacrifice for the sinnes of his Saints was a finite act and temporarie lasting but some certaine houres and so consequently could not be of it selfe of 〈◊〉 and eternall vertue but if we consider that with his manhood there was inseparably vnited his Godhead which was of eternall and infinite efficacie and Christs sacrifice was accepted of his father not onely as the sacrifice of the sonne of man but also as the sacrifice of the Sonne of God his onely begotten Son then we mustneedes confesse the sacrifice of Christ to be of infinite and eternall merit Here then is the solution of this doubt Albeit the Manhood of Christ onely was the sacrifice for our finnes which did satisfie Gods wrath yet the Manhood of Christ alone was not sufficient for the Dietie must concurre though not in suffering yet in giuing vertue power and officacie to merite eternall life at the hands of God Thirdly wee are to obserue the parts of Christs Priesthood which are two First Satisfaction or Expiation for our sinnes whereby Christ hath payd the price for our iniquities and hath giuen himselfe an all-sufficient ransome for vs. From which satisfaction ariseth our reconciliation whereby God is well pleased with vs in his 〈◊〉 and wee in Christ are made the Sonnes of God Secondly 〈◊〉 and that consists of two things First in that he makes request for vs before his father not that he doth kneele before him to pray for vs but that hee doth continually and incessantly appeare before him by the merit of his righteousnesse making intercession for vs for as Christ did vnite his eternall righteousnesse vnto his humane nature at his birth and continued it vntill his death so his humane nature endued with perfect righteousnesse appeares before God the Father in heauen after an ineffable manner making request for vs. Secondly in that hee doth offer our prayers and thanks giuings to God making them acceptable in himselfe Christ is that Angell spoken of by S. Iohn The golden altar is his Godhead signifying Purity and Merit his incense is his righteousnesse which beeing an offering of a sweet smelling sauour in the nostrills of his Father makes the prayers of the Saints acceptable to the father These things being thus made plaine touching the Priesthood of Christ the Thesis or point of Doctrine followes That there neuer was nor euer shall be any Priest that could or shall hereafter offer a perfect satisfactorie sacrifice for the sinnes of the redeemed but onely Christ Iesus the son of God For if any creatures could haue satisfied for the sin of man and reconciled him vnto God he would neuer haue layd so heauy a burthen vpon his onely Son as to endure the shame of cursed Iewes and which was tenne thousand times more the infinite wrath of his heauenly Father for the transgressions of mankind And indeede Christ onely was sufficient for this office if we consider these particulars First he that was to offer such a sacrifice must bee God and man after the order of Melchizedech without father without mother which should be King of Salem and authour of eternall peace who was so but onely Christ Secondly hee that offered such a sacrifice was of no lesse worth merit aud dignity with God then the sacrifice it selfe seeing as
graue to ascend into heauen to reconcile vs to God this he could not doe but by the power might and efficacie of his Godhead And to this purpose are the words of Bernard Singula 〈◊〉 opera ad 〈◊〉 siue illam necesse est pertinere naturam ad 〈◊〉 scilicet miseria ad illam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the workes of Christ doe appertaine either to one nature or other to the humane nature belongs his miserie to his 〈◊〉 nature his power Diuers authorities of the Fathers are alleadged by the Rhemists for the proouing of their opinion which you shall find sufficiently answered by learned 〈◊〉 vpon the fift chapter of the Hebrewes vers 6. Secondly seeing Christ onely is that Priest that can offer an al-sufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of his elect this then demonstrateth the sacrilegious blasphemie of the Romish Priesthood that they dare presume to arrogate that office to themselues which is onely peculiar to Iesus Christ How dare such presumptuous priests once vndertake to offer a sacrifice for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead seeing the offering of that sacrifice caused the Sonne of God to sweat clods of water and blood to endure the infinite wrath of his infinite father and had he not beene corroborated by the dietie his body had beene vanquished by death and captiuated by the power of the graue if the Sonne of God could not do it but with so much difficultie proud are the sonnes of 〈◊〉 the Priests of Rome who seeme to doe it with such facilitie But I would argue Socratically with them by demanding some questions 1. First he that was to offer this sacrifice was to be God and man without sinne I demaund whether any of them be God and man if not then they cannot offer this satisfactorie sacrifice neither are they after the order of Melchizedech If they say that euery one of their priests is God and man oh how doe they blaspheme how doe they proclaime themselues of the spawne of Antichrist who takes vpon him to be God and exalts himselfe aboue all that are called Gods 2. Secondly the Angell told Daniell Dan. 9. that Christ should take away sinne by his sacrifice and the holy Apostle sayes Christ offered himselfe an oblation and sacrifice to God of a sweet smelling sauour So that this sacrifice could be offered of none but Christ. Are they so many Christs 3. Thirdly there was but one high Priest at once among the Iewes to signifie that there was but one high Priest that could take away our sinnes by offering a satisfactory sacrifice But are not they innumerable 4. Fourthly hee that offered this sacrifice was to be of no lesse dignitie and worth then the sacrifice it selfe seeing a sacrifice is accepted for his sake that offers it But dares the masse priest say he is himselfe of equall dignitie with the sacrifice he offers or that it is accepted for his sake No not for his eares Lastly the sacrifice that the Priest offers in the masse either is the same that Christ offered or another if it be another then it is not propitiatory seeing the true satisfactory sacrifice was but one according to the text hauing offered one sacrifice If it be the same why then doe they make the sacrifice of Christ imperfect and weake by their so often reiteration yea why doe they make the Scripture false which sayes Hauing offered one sacrifice once for all And as the Leuiticall sacrifices being so frequently repeated did shew that they were in themselues imperfect and could neuer make the commers hereunto perfect so doth the often repetition of the sacrifice of Christ argue the imbecility thereof Obiect But the factors of the Church of Rome will say that Christ may haue deputies on earth in his stead to offer sacrifice Ans. I answer hereunto two wayes First I say Christ is not bound to offer any more sacrifice at all for the oblation of himselfe vpon the crosse did consummate mans redemption and put an end 〈◊〉 all typical sacrifices of the law and to his sacrifice which he was to offer for mans reconciliation wherefore seeing Christ is not to offer any more sacrifice what needes he a deputie to offer sacrifices where neither seruice is required nor expected what need is there of a substitute 2. I answer by the way of admission let vs grant that Christ is yet to offer sacrifice or to continue his begunne sacrifice which is most erroneous Yet we must consider Christ two wayes 1. as God 2. as a Mediatour As hee is God with the Father and the holy Ghost he hath Kings and Magistrates to bee his deputies on earth therefore they are called Elohim Gods But as he is a Mediatour he hath neither deputie nor vicegerent neither king to rule ouer his Church nor priest to offer sacrifice for him Quest. If they aske what wee doe then with Ministers in the Church of England Answ. I answer wee make them not Mediatours and sacrificing priests as Parmenian the heretick and the papists doe but we haue them for such purposes as Christ hath commanded namely to administer the word and sacraments to vse prayer and discipline in the Church which is no part of the office of Christs eternall priesthood or chiefe sacrificers dignity Plainely then doe appeare vnto vs the blasphemie and sacriledge of the Priests of Rome in establishing their massing priesthood for while they seeke to maintaine their owne glory they robbe Christ of his endeauouring to confirme the multiplicity of their priests they ouerthrow the singular priesthood of 〈◊〉 Christ. Quest. But heere may bee demanded a question whether the title priest may properly be assigned to a Minister of the new Testament Answ. I answer howsoeuer it bee crept into the Church yet as learned Fulke it is not a proper title for the ministers of the Gospell in regard that wee haue but one Priest Iesus Christ for the office of the Priest is to offer sacrifice which doth not appertaine to the ministers of Christ Iesus neither is the name priest any where in the new Testament ascribed vnto the Ministers in respect of their office But how then shal we answer to that place of Paul That I should be the Minister of Iesus Christ to the Gentiles ministring the Gospell of God that the offering vp of the Gentiles might be acceptable beeing sanctified through the Holy Ghost Where the word 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 ministring the Gospell signifies as much as sacrificing the Gospell and so Erasmus translates it explained by the word following namely that the offering of the Gentiles where it appeares that a sacerdotall action is attributed vnto Paul being a minister of the Gospell and therefore that the title priest may as lawfully and conueniently be ascribed to him So Origen Sacrificale opus est 〈◊〉 Euangelium It is a sacrificall worke to preach the Gospel I answer vnto the place alleadged out of the Romans as Caluin on the place that the
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
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
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
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
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
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
ceasing to bee a liuing man as hee was before Our aduersarie then hauing vouchsafed vs this ground worke we will make bold thus to build vpon it Euery thing really and properly sacrificed for propitiation doth suffer a real destruction of the substance But the body of Christ doth not in the sacrifice of the. Masse suffer a reall destruction Ergo. In the sacrifice of the Masse the body of Christ is not really and properly offered The Maior being graunted by the Cardinall the Minor prooues it selfe thus If the body of Christ doth in the Masse suffer destruction which to say were blasphemy it must eyther be in whole or in part if in whole how come we to finde the same Christ the same body and blood the next morning againe in the Masse If but in part or for a time as it was during his beeing in the graue then would follow that the Church for a time hath no Christ perfect God and perfect man Now Bellarmine affirmes that the Priests eating of the consecrated elements which are made the body of Christ is the destruction of the sacrifice his words are these Consumptio seu manducatio quae fit a sacer dote quôd fit essentialis pars 〈◊〉 inde probatur quia in tota actione missae nulla est alia realis destructio victimae praeter istam requiri autem realem destructionem supra probatum est The Priests consumptionor eating of the Host is prooued to be of the essence of the sacrifice for in the whole action of the Masse there is no destruction of the sacrifice but onely this and that there must be a reall destrustion of the sacrifice I haue already prooued But herein how is hee constant to himselfe who sayes The substance of the sacrifice must suffer destruction and yet hold againe that the Priest consumes not the body of Christ by eating it for it suffers no diminution but onely the formes of bread and wine Who sees not here a most palpable contradiction for he will haue the body of Christ to be the substance of this sacrifice and this sust ance must be consumed or els it is no sacrifice and yet when it comes to the push the body of Christ suffers not destruction but only the formes Is not this to make quidlibet ex quolibet Is not this to make it a sacrifice and no sacrifice Is not this to say the body of Christ is the substance of this oblation and not the substance because it is not consumed Againe if a Propitiatory sacrifice be as Bellarmine defines it That which doth pacifie the wrath of God for the remission of sinnes I demand then how remission of sinnes is procured mentall presence of the Lords body and blood there is a true reall and actuall application of his death quo ad meritum in regard of the merit of it to all that receiue with faith But the Iesui te will haue a proper death of Christ in the Eucharist euen as he is truely really substantially and corporally present and yet see how he thwartes and crosses himselfe in the last words saying Christ in the Eucharist dyes not Hence we may frame this Argument After the same manner that Christ is in the Eucharist after the same manner hee dyes in the same for an actuall and corporall presence requires an actuall and corporall death as a sacramentall presence a sacramental death onely But in the Eucharist by our aduersaries owne confession Christ dyes not properly actually or bodily Ergo in the Eucharist hee is not properly actually or bodily present Thirdly note how contrary this doctrine is vnto it selfe The body of Christ saith he and the blood of Christ are consecrated apart and seuerally yet they do not subsist apart least there should be an actuall and reall effusion of the blood of Christ. But I demand if it be so that they are consecrated and made apart then when the Priest hath consecrated the body of Christ first for hee cannot consecrate both in an instant doth not that body subsist without blood till hee hath made and consecrated the blood also This is strange in the sacrament that the body of Christ and his blood should admit for a time such an actuall separation as is betweene that which hath a being and that which hath no being Lastly note how enigmatically he tells vs of those things which are separated by consecration and yet are indiuisibly conioyned that they cannot be separated contrary to the institution of Christ who tooke the bread and the cup seuerally consecrating them asunder to figure vnto vs that actuall and reall separation of the body and blood of Christ vpon the crosse Argument 13. The thirteenth Argument is this That which is a Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne must appease and pacifie the wrath of God this Bellarmine affirmeth But the sacrifice of the Masse doth not appease the wrath of God Ergo The sacrifice of the Masse is not Propitiatory The Minor is thus prooued That which doth appease Gods wrath must bee of infinite value But the sacrifice of the Masse is not of infinite value Ergo The sacrifice of the Masse cannot appease Gods wrath The Maior is prooued because the wrath of God for sinne being infinite cannot be pacified but by that which is of infinite merite and desert and this is confessed by their owne Iesuite in these words Si Aaron aut 〈◊〉 Pontifex hostiam obtulisset quae visua tolleret peccata non esset necesse alteram offerri 〈◊〉 iam peccata per illam deletaerant Dices illa hostia delebat peccata vsque ad illam oblationem commissa sed quum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noua peccata quid obstat alteram offerri frustra id fieret 〈◊〉 si 〈◊〉 sua tollebat peccata infiniti valoris erat non enim aliter poterat tolli peccatum compensari iniuria Deo facta If Aaron or any other high Priest had offered a sacrifice which by it owne vertue had taken away sinne there had beene no need to haue offered any more because all sinnes were already taken away by the former Thou wilt say that sacrifice did take away those sinnes which were committed before it was offered but when afterward new sinnes were committed why may not new sacrifices be offered No that were but in vaine for if by it owne proper vertue it did take away sinnes it was then of infinite value and merit for otherwise sinne could not bee taken away nor the iniury done vnto God recompenced First here he disableth the Leuiticall sacrifices because of their often repetition and reiteration Secondly he prooues our Maior Proposition that nothing can appease the infinite wrath of God and so satisfie his iustice but that which is of infinit merit and desert therefore all the Angells in heauen could not haue wrought mans redemption by satisfying for the sinne of Adam but Christ himselfe nor he had he been meere man and not Theanthropos God and man for no finite
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