Selected quad for the lemma: order_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
order_n	aaron_n	abraham_n	tithe_n	338	4	9.6518	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34012	Missa triumphans, or, The triumph of the mass wherein all the sophistical and wily arguments of Mr de Rodon against that thrice venerable sacrifice in his funestuous tract by him called, The funeral of the Mass, are fully, formally, and clearly answered : together with an appendix by way of answer to the translators preface / by F.P.M.O.P. Hib.	Collins, William, 17th cent.; F. P. M. O. P.	1675 (1675)	Wing C5389; ESTC R5065	231,046	593

that he hath reconciled men unto God made their peace with the Angels and hath particularly recommended Peace to them As for Aaron and other high Priests they were no kings much less are the Priests of the Romish Church so and consequently cannot be after the order of Melchisedeck And they that have written the lives of the Popes have sufficiently declared what righteousness and Peace they have procured for the true and faithful servants of Iesus Christ as I shall shew at large elswhere Secondly the Apostle heb 7. represents Melchisedick to us as a man come from heaven without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of days nor end of life not that he was really such a one but because Moses hath wholy concealed from us his father mother descent birth and death that he might be the type of Christ who was without father as he is man without mother as God without descent both as God and man having neither beginning of dayes as God nor end of life as God or as man But the fathers descent birth and death of Aaron and other high Priests are exactly described by Moses And there were never any Popes Bishops or Priests whose Parents birth and death were not known consequently they cannot be after the order of Melchisedec Thirdly the Apostle adds that Melchisedec being made like unto the son of God abideth a Priest for ever because Moses makes no mention of his death nor of any one that succeedeth him in his Priestly office that so he might be the type of Iesus Christ who never less his Priestly office but will exercise it untill the end of the world always interceeding for those that are his by presenting his sacrifice to God the father continually As for Aaron and other Priests they are dead and have had successors and the Popes Bishops and Priests die dayly and have successors and consequently are not after the order of Melchisedec fourthly the Apostle saith likewise that Melchisedec took tithes of Abraham and adds that Melchisedec blessed him that had the Promises viz. Abraham and the less is blessed of the greater whence it appears that Melchisedec having taken tithes of Abraham and blessed him and Levi and all the Priests in his person was more evcellent then Abraham and all his successors because he in whom all the promises were fulfilled must needs be incomparably more excellent then he that received them only But I do not believe that the Priests of the Romish Church are so bold as to prefer themselves before Abraham the father of the faithfull in whose seed all the Nations of the Earth are blessed and consequently are not after the order of Melchisedec fifthly the Apostle never spoke of the sacrifice of Melchisedec so far was he from comparing it with the sacrifice of Iesus Christ as being like it or with that of Aaron as being unlike it so that all that our Adversaries say is nothing else but meer humane invention Answ. This your last answer Mounsieur is indeed very false as to its two first points viz. that the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and that of Aaron did not consist in this that Aaron offered the bloudy sacrifices of beasts and Melchisedec offered an unbloudy sacrifice of bread ●…nd wine as also when you deny the likenesse of the Priesthood of Melchisedec to that of Jesus Christ doth consist in this that as Melehisedeck did sacrifice bread and wine so Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine This answer I say is not only false but also impious because it contradicts both scripture and the unanimous opinion of all the holy fathers It contradicts scripture because scripture says in plain and express termes that Christ took bread in his hand and said of it this is my body and took wine in a cup and said of it this is my bloud and yet you pertinaciously say it is not founded in scripture or reason It is I confess above our reason to comprehend how Christs body is in the host and yet it is not contrary to reason that it should be there and yet we have reason to believe it is there both because Christ said it and his word is truth and omnipotent as also because the words of the Royal prophet and of the Apostle concerning the everlasting Priesthood and sacrifice of Melchisedec must needs be verified in Christ as I said before which since they cannot be verified by his bloudy sacrifice as is also proved and there is no other strict sacrifice imaginable whereby to verifie them but this of the Masse it stands both with scripture and reason that as Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine so Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine and consequently that the likeness of both their Priesthoods did chiefly consist in this manner of sacrificing To what you say that these are but human inventions I say they are liker divine inspirations since all the holy fathers concurr in them then your impudent denial without any proof but your own consident word is of any force or weight to weaken or hurt them You say further more that the Apostle writing to the hebrews doth place the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and Aaron and its likenesse in quite another thing first because being called Melchisedeck which signifies King of Righteousnesse and being king of Salem which signifies Peace he was the type of Jesus Christ who is truly king of righteousness and king of peace But Aaron you say and other high priests were no kings and much lesse are the Priests of the Romish Church so and consequently cannot be after the order of Melchisedeck But good Sir with your leave the Apostle by this disparity betwixt Melchisedeck and Aaron viz. that Melchisedeck was a king and Aaron not that th'ones name signified Righteousness and Peace and th' others not placeth no difference between their Priesthood but only between their persons viz. that Melchisedeck being both king and Priest is a more perfect type of Jesus Christ then Aaron was who was but only a Priest and no king and all this we grant But this shews no difference between their Priesthood as any body may see and yet the difference between their Priesthood and not their persons is the thing you are to prove out of the Apostle which you will never be able to do but by the difference of their sacrifices therefore though Aaron nor any of the Romish Priests were kings your consequence has a huge slaw in it The same slaw hath your second consequence because all what you say out of the Apostle Heb. 7. concerning Melchisedecs coming from heaven without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of days nor end of life all these I say do shew the difference between Melchesedec and Aarons persons and that Melchisedec was a more perfect type of Christ then Aaron was but it shews

of your selues for as Christ covers not your impurities nor imputes his righteousness unto you but rather esteems you for no better then heathens and publicans because you hear not his Church so the holy Ghost has nothing to do with you for Christs holy spirit never contradicts Christ. True it is what you say that that which God hath decreed Jesus Christ hath purchased and the holy Ghost hath begun that that is reputed by God perfect and compleat But this only concerns orthodox people and not you for them be these the Apostle speaks of 1 Tym. 2. 8. in these words you aledge I will that men pray every where lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting And Ephes. 5. Iesus Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Very farr alass are you from such people for you pray but very little or nothing in comparison of others who pray both day and night and you pray not every where for if you were compared with the rest of the world who profess Christ you are but a handful of people in little corners or Islands and there too but for a very short time in comparison of former ages how holy your hands are set aside your own private conceits of your selves the rest of the world can easily judge how void of wrath especially against us we very well know how undoubting you are in points of Religion no body breathing can tell for no two of you could ever as yet fully agree as to that point and every one of you is always seeking but never finding what can quiet and content his conscience in that matter you run from the luke-warm Protestant to the precise Puritan or Presbyterian who hates and rayles at the Protestant Bishops and Clergy as much as they do at us others of you from being Presbyterians turn Independents and viceversa from Independents and Presbyterians you turn Anabaptists from Anabaptists you become Quakers from Quakers Fanaticks and from Phanaticks at last you become Atheists your union consists only in this that to preserve your worldly Interest you retain the common notion or name of Protestant and band all against the Roman Catholick whereas on the contrary the Roman Catholick or Papist holds still to his old Lady Dinna to his Invocation of saints to his praying for the souls departed to the Indulgences which are as he believes bequeathed by Christ unto his Church to Pur gatory all which they say are included in these two articles of our belief viz. I believe in the holy Catholick Church and in the communion of saints In a word all the Roman Catholicks do unanimously agree in all the tenents and points of their whole Religion and are perfectly satisfied and contented in their consciences as to all matters of faith without running here and there from one sect to another to search and seek after new opinions as the Protestants do How then can you be the Church the Congregation of the faithful whom the Apostle sayes Ephes. 5. Christ loved and gave himself for how can you be a glorious Church a Church without spot or wrinckle or any such thing a holy one and without blemish Objection 6th Roman 20. The sixth objection is drawn from Gen. 14. in these words And Melchisedeck king of salem bringing forth bread and wine for he was a Priest blessed him and from Ps. 110. and from Heb. 7. where it is said thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck from which words they argue thus Iesus Christ is a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedeck the difference between Aaron and Melchisedeck consisting in this viz. that Aaron and the other Levitical Priests offered bloudy sacrifices killing and shedding the bloud of beasts which they sacrificed to God as a signe and figure of the bloudy sacrifice of Iesus Christ on the Cross But Melchisedeck offered an unbloudy sacrifice for when he went to meet Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings he offered to God bread and wine And seeing this bread and wine offered to God by Melchisedeck were signs and types of Christs body and bloud Iesus Christ was obliged to offer an unbloudy sacrifice viz. his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine which he did at the Institution and celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist that so the reality of the thing typified might answer to the shaddows and types Secondly that although Melchisedeck had brought all his bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his Army●… that returned from the slaughter of the kings yet he first offered it to God and then gave it to them that so they might partake of the sacrifice of bread and wine and the reason of this is because the scripture saith that Abraham returned from the battle with great spoils amongst which there was bread and drink enough for the refreshment of himself and of his people Also it saith expresly that Abrahams people had taken such refreshment as was necessary before Melchisedeck met them and consequently they had no need of the bread and wine which he brought except it had been to partake of the sacrifice of the bread and wine which he offered Thirdly they say this is strongly proved by the following words for he was a Priest of the most high God which show the reason why Melchisedeck brought bread and wine viz. to make an oblation or offering of it to God for if he had brought this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his people the scripture would have said that he brought this bread and wine because that Abraham and his army being faint and tired had need of meat and drink but it speaks nothing of this on the contrary it saith that he brought bread and wine for he was a Priest fourthly they say that Jesus Christ is a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedek and seeing there can be no Priest without a sacrifice there can be no eternal Priest without an eternal or perpetual sacrifice But the sacrifice of the Cross was offered but once and cannot be reiterated for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore there must be another perpetual sacrifice in the Church which Iesus Christ offereth by the hands of Priests which can be nothing else but the sacrifice of the Masse viz. the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud under the species of bread and wine typified by the sacrifice of broad and wine of Melchisedeck Answer Rodon 21. To this I answer first that the hebrew word doth not signifie bringing but brought drew out caused to be brought c. But our Adversaries falsifie the Text thus to make way for another falsification viz. to put

no difference of their manner of sacrificing and consequently touches not their Priesthood at least reduplicatively as it ought to do to make the Mounsieurs consequence slawless your words out of the Apostle viz. Melchisedec being made like unto the son of God abideth a Priest for ever to make your third consequence follow smoothly are quite for us and against you for if the son of God abideth a Priest for ever then it will follow that he will sacrifice for ever or that there must be a perpetual sacrifice but the perpetual sacrifice cannot be that of the cross for though its effect be perpetual yet the sacrifice it self is not so for it is past and gone and a new other bloudy sacrifice he cannot offer any more because Christ can die no more Rom. 6. Therefore it must be an unbloudy sacrifice which is offered by his ministers his mistical members that must correspond with Christs everlasting Priesthood and that is the holy sacrifice of the Mass offered under the species of bread and wine symbolized by the bread and wine sacrificed to God by Melchisedeck and consequently the sacrifice of the Mass out of these words of the Apostle is a sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedeck And Christs continual intercession for us in heaven as Mr. de Rodon surmizes is not a sacrifice at least not a strict one yet if Christ be a strict Priest for ever there must be a strict sacrifice answerable to hisstrict Priesthood for ever first because his Priesthood doth not totally consist in his intercession as Mr. de Rodon himself confesses secondly because his intercession unless it be median●…e victima through the mediation of a victime is no more sacrifice then the prayers of other people are and if it be through the mediation of a victime then Christ offers new victimes continually which our adversaries will not admitt of Thirdly the inconveniences I spoke of before would follow if Christs continual intercession for us in heaven were a strict and rigorous sacrifice viz. there would be no Christian Religion nor Law here upon earth nor no naked and pure truth in heaven but only shadows and types of truth for the reasons there shewn But the Mounsieur says that Aaron and the high Priests all died and that the Popes Bishops and Priests die daylie therefore he concludes our sacrifice is not after the order of Melehisedeck which is to last for ever Aaron we confess and all the Priests of the old Law died and their Priesthood is also quite destroyed But although our Popes Bishops and Priests die daily we deny that our Priesthood dies or is destroied no more then the Kingship of a kingdom dies or is destroied when the King dies and leaves a successor behinde him to succeed where is now your brave consequence Mounsieur He will fetch it out smoothly with his fourth reason which is because Melchisedeck took Tithes from Abraham and the Levitical Priests who descended from him and consequently Melchisedeck was a type of Jesus Christ who was infinitely more excellent then Abraham and all his successors because he in whom all the promises were fulfilled must needs be incomparably more excellent then he that received them only all this we grant Then replyes the Mounsieur strongly But I do not believe that the Priests of the Romish Church are so bold a●… to prefer themselves before Abraham the father of the faithful in whose seed all the Nations of the earth are blessed No more do I also and I am sure on 't too that none of the Romish Priests nay nor the Pope himself dares prefer his own person before the person of Abraham or of any of the least Saints in heaven But for his Priesthood or Priestly function I am sure both the Pope all his Priests will prefer theirs before Abrahams priesthood and all the priestly functions of the old Law But all this will not fetch out the consequence you aim at Lastly both holy Scripture and the Apostle make mention that Melchisedeck brought or offered bread and wine and they say he was a priest without mentioning any other thing that he ever brought or offered to be sacrificed but bread and wine and they say also that Aarons offering or sacrifices were beasts soul c. and all the holy Fathers as I shall presently shew do compare and collect out of these different sort of sacrifices the difference betwixt Melchisedeck and Aarons priesthood therefore if it be true that Christ promised his spirit to his Church until the consummation of the world as we believe he did therefore I say if this be but a humane invention I dare maintain it is a very good and solid one and a hundred thousand times of more firmity and weight then Mr de Rodons divine inspirations as he may think them to be or rather diabolical illusions as I take them to be with his own silly bare word without any kinde of proof for the contrary Rodon 29. To conclude my answer with this argument Iesus Christ hath offered no sacrifice but after the order whereof he was established a Priest but he was established a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck only as the Apostle observes Therefore he hath offered no sacrifice but after the order of Melchisedeck but accocding to the Romish Doctors there is no other sacrifice after the order of Melchisedeck but that of the masse therefore according to the Romish Doctors Iesus Christ hath offered no other sacrifice but that of the masse and seeing according to them the sacrifice of the masse is an unbloudy sacrifice it follows that Iesus Christ hath offered no other sacrifice and consequently he hath not offered a bloudy sacrifice on the Cross which is blasphemy Answ. Mounsieur as I followed and hunted you all along this Treatise be sure this captious and sophistical argument shall not save you Therefore I answer that Christs bloudy sacrifice was not after the order of Melchisedeck nor of Aaron either but the proto-type of both for both Melchisedeck and Aarons sacrifices were but types of Christs bloudy sacrifice Therefore since Christs bloudy sacrifice cannot be a type of its own self it cannot be a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedeck or of Aaron which were but meer types and consequently since Aarons Priesthood and sacrifices are quite abolisht and destroyed it is necessary for to uphold and maintain Christs everlasting Priesthood that a sacrifice should be instituted after the order of Melchisedeck which is to remain for ever and since this sacrifice cannot be a bloudy one it must needs be an unbloudy one which we say and have hitherto defended is no other then that of the Mass and so we say that although Christ offered a bloudy sacrifice which we confess were blasphemy to deny yet his bloudy sacrifice was not after the order of Melchisedeck nor of the order of Aaron but the primitive principal and prototype sacrifice of both But at the In●…itution of

the Sacrament of the Eucharist then we say he offered a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedeck and commanded this sacrifice should be continued and ●…terated unto the worlds end when he said to the Apostles and consequently to their successors as often as y●…u do this do it in remembrance of me And so the fox is hunted through all his Blasphemous Treatise and forced to end it in Blasphemy Yet since we had to deal with an obstina●…e and stubborn enemy and one that will not acquiesce to S. Ieromes vulgar translation but prefers his own bare saying as if every word of his were an oracle with him and his Translator before the Saints vulgar received version since I say he will not yeild to us and we think we have no reason to yeild to his bare word concerning the Translation of s●…ripture and since he or his may think that our reasons to prove that Melchisedec before he treated Abraham and his army with bread and wine sacrificed it first unto God are not considerable or convincing and we on the other side to hold their reasons against our said proofs do be as inconsiderable and weak since neither of us will submit one to the other in this point who can be better umpiers to decide this obscure question then the holy ancient fathers of Christs Church who not only lived nearer the Apostles times then we but also far surpassed both Mr. de Rodon his party and us in eminency of learning and sanctity of life especially when they are all unanimous and of the same opinion To these great ●…eroes to these holy fathers court of Judicature I humbly appeal and cite Mr. de Rodon with his whole party these I choose for my Umpiers and ●…udges and challenge de Rodon to this scripturistical combat before them and if he and his be not insolently proud they cannot refuse the Gantlet The first of them I pitch upon is Clemens Alexandrinus whose words lib. 4. stromat be these Melchisedec rex Salem sacardos dei altissimi qui vinum panem sanctificatum dedit nutrimentum in ●…ipum Eucharistiae Melchisedec king of Salem Priest of the most high God who gave wine and bread sanctified a●…●…ypes of the E●…charist where note that he says not only wine and bread but wine and bread sanctified or sacrificed After him I rank S. Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium Nam quis quoth he Magis sacerdos Dei summi quam Dominus nester Iesus Christus qui sacrificium D●…o patri obtulit obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedec obtule●… id est panem vinum suum scilicet c●…rpus sanguin●…m for who is more the Priest of the 〈◊〉 then our Lord Jesus Christ who offered sacrifice to God the father and who offered the self same that Melchisedec offered bread and wine that is to say his own body and bloud what I pray could be said more clearly to our purpose S. Ierome the Mounsieurs adversary shall come next In his Ep. to Marcella he writes thus Recurre ad Genesim Melchisedec regem Salem hujus Principem invenies c●…vitatis qui jam tuno in typo Christi panem vinum obtulit misterium Christianum in salvatori●… sanguine corpore dedic●…vit search Genesis and there you shall finde Melchisedec king of this citty who sometime offered bread and wine in the type of Christ and dedicated the Christian Mystery or Sacrament contained in the body and bloud of our Saviour If these Testimonies and authorities of the abovementioned holy fathers satisfy not the Reader I refer him to all these ensuing renowned Interpreters of holy writt and every of them if I be not mistaken will over ballance ten thousand de Rodons with his partitoes Let him then read Euseb. Caesari●…nsis lib. 5. demonstrat Evangelica cap. 3. S. Aug. Ep. 95. ad Innocentium Papam S. A●…b lib. 5. sacram c. 1. S. Epiph. haeres 55. quae est Melchisedechianorum S. Chrysost. hom 35. in Genes S. Theodoret in Comment Ps. 109. S. Leo. 1. serm de Annivers assump suae ad Pontific●…t Euseb. E●…iss serm 5. Arnob in ps 109. Eucher lib. 2. cap. 18. in Gen Primasius in Comment c. 5. Epist. ad hebraeos Cassiod in ps 109. Re●…ig Antisiod and Euthimius Zigabenus upon the same psalm Damascenus lib. 4. de side c. 14. O●…cumen in Comment c. 5. Epist. ad hebraeos Theophilac in cap. 5. ad hebraeos Ansel. in cap. 5. ad hebraeos All these great ones and many more which were too tedious to recount do unanimously combine with the Romish doctors against Mr. de Rodon and his party in this principal point of our controversie Therefore since all the Mounsieurs Arguments and keen arrows are all spent and all his solutions glosses and answers to our Objections do band directly against the whole to rent of holy fathers and since he is not able to produce one of them to stand of his side I see no reason why he should not be hooted at like a mad dog by all rational and impartial readers for his bare word against so many eminent Pillars of Gods Church is but a meer vain barking and consequently unworthy to be farther answered Laus Deo FINIS The PREFACE OF M. de RODONS Translator THe author of this piece was one Mounsieur de Rodon Philosophy Professor in the Royal Colledge at Nismes a Citty of Languedo●… in France where it was written But as soon as it was printed it was supprest by the command of authority prohibiting all persons to keep any of them upon I know not what severe penalties and such copies as could be found were publickly burnt by the hangman about 1660. whereupon the poor gentleman for fear of being condemned to keep company with his books was 〈◊〉 to ●…y to Geneva where he not long after dyed These severities of our Adversaries bring to my remembrance what a learned and ingenious frenchman once told me viz. that this small Tract hath more n●…tled their party then any one piece that ever was extant in France since the Reformation of Religion there Whether that be a mistake I know not but this I dare affirm that though many famous men of that kingdom have in the memory of this Age written very smar●…ly against the Romish heresies yet there is not one of them whose person and writings have had such hard measure Whence it appears that our Author his very enemies being Iudges hath made good what he undertook viz. he hath destroyed that great Diana the Masse and hath also by way of prevention destroyed all the arguments made use of by the Romish doctors for the restoring and re-establishing of her which he hath so well performed that to this very day not one of them hath dared so much as to attempt to revive her by answering his book so that here you may see her laid in her grave without hope of resurrection and therefore the book may very fitly be termed The