command Thirdly that the same Iesus the sonne of God was the Priest which offered that all-sufficient sacrifice for remission of the sinnes of all that beleeue in him Thus the Authour hauing layd the ground worke of his subsequent matter doth in the sequell of the Epistle polish euery particular part with sundry arguments still building vpon that foundation which he had laid But because the Iewes thought it strange that the Gospell should take place and be preferred before the Law therefore the Authour first declares the excellency of Iesus Christ shewing him to be not onely man but God farre aboue all Angells and consequently worthy of a great deale more honour then Moses Hauing handled his Propheticall and Regall offices hee comes in the fourteenth verse of the fourth chapter to his Priestly office and comparing him with Aaron layes downe diuers differences betweene Christ and Aaron who differed First in person the one being onely man the other as well God as man Secondly in qualitie the one being sinnefull offered sacrifice not onely for others but for himselfe also the other being Choris hamartias without sinne offered himselfe for vs. Thirdly in order the one being of the Leuiticall order the other after the order of Melchisedech and consequently the one was temporarie the other eternall Fourthly in the manner of sacrificing Aaron offered the blood of beasts but Christ offered himselfe yea his owne blood Fiftly in efficacie the sacrifices of Aaron being in themselues of no vertue not able to cleanse sinne but the sacrifice of Christ was effectuall purging all beleeuers from all their sinnes Sixthly in the reiteration for Aaron and his sons were bound to reiterate their sacrifices euery day Christ offered once for all Seauenthly Aaron entred into an earthly tabernacle without the people but Christ into a heauenly with all his faithfull members Then the Apostle shewes what Analogie and proportion there was betweene the Priest-hood of Christ and that of Aaron which agreed First in election for as the Leuiticall Priests were elected to their office so was Christ ordained of his Father Secondly they did offer sacrifice with blood so did Christ. Thirdly they did it in behalfe of the people so did Christ. Fourthly they prayed for the people so did Christ. Last'y they entred into the Sanctum Sanctorum Holy of Holyes so did Christ. The Authour in the ninth chapter hauing compared the carnall rites with the spirituall the 〈◊〉 Tabernacle which was corruptible with the glorious tabernacle of Christs humane nature which was and is incorruptible the blood of beasts with the blood of Christ shewing that these were but the shadowes whereof Christ was the substance in whom we inioy all things spiritually and by whose blood al things are sanctified vnto vs in this chapter he shewes the insufficiencie of the Leuiticall oblations to be imployed by their frequent reiteration and the perfection of Christs sacrifice by the single act wherefore the Hebrewes should not rest in the Leuiticall sacrifices which being types of Christ had their perfection in him who hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne sitteth for euer at the right hand of God This text doth diuide it selfe into two parts An Agent and his Actions The Agent in this relatiue pronoune Autos He. His Actions are two The first done and past The second present and in doing The first hee offered one sacrifice for sinne where we haue First the subiect of his action He offered a sacrifice Secondly the singularitie of this subiect One sacrifice Thirdly the end of both for finne His second action is expressed by three predicaments Situs His gesture He sitteth Vbi His place at the right hand of God Quando His time how long for euer In the first is intimated his Maiestie in that hee sitteth In the second his Omnipotencie at the right hand of God In the third his Eternitie in that hee sitteth for euer In the first action you haue Christ in the state of humiliation In the second in the state of exaltation In the first he is dying for sinne in the second 〈◊〉 ouer sinne And first of the first Hee hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne In the handling of which words this Method shal be obserued First I shall shew who was the Priest that offered Secondly what was the sacrifice which was offered Thirdly the scope and end whereunto it was directed This Priest was Christ the eternall sonne of God one with the Father 〈◊〉 of all things and by whom all things doe subsist King of Kings Lord of Lords a perfect man without sinne full of grace and truth He it was that tooke vpon him this function to be a Priest and to offer an all-sufficient sacrifice to expiate for the sinnes of the elect And herein did Christ 〈◊〉 mainely differ from the Leuiticall Priests in that they were onely the persons offering sacrifice and not the sacrifice it selfe but Christ was both the Priest and Sacrifice for there could no sufficient sacrifice bee found for the sinne of man but onely Christ and none worthy to offer the sonne of God but onely himselfe But seeing Christ in the vnitie of his person had entertained a dualitie of natures consisting of Deitie and Humanitie hence arises a question Whether the Priestly office of Christ belong vnto his Godhead or to his manhood or to both The answer is that Christ is this Priest according to neither nature separately or diuided but according to both natures ioyntly as he was both God and man See this confirmed How much more shall the blood of Christ who by the eternall spirit offered himselfe to God purge our consciences from dead works to serue the liuing God By which eternall spirit we are to vnderstand his eternall Godhead concurring with his manhood to make him a perfect Priest The reasons why the Priestly office of Christ did require that he should be both God and man are these First as he was a Priest so was he to be a Mediatour but he could not be a Mediatour except he were God and man for Opera Christi Mediatoris sunt The andrica The workes of Christ which concerne his Mediatourship proceede from both natures Secondly because he was to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech so that he must bee apator and ametor without father without mother as Melchisedech was Now he was not without father but as hee was man nor without mother but as he was God Thirdly because hee must be both God and man that reconciled in one God vnto man and man vnto God Lastly because no creature could satisfie Gods 〈◊〉 but onely God none ought but onely man wherefore the Godhead of Christ did giue unto his manhood efficacie and merit to deserue at Gods hands remission of our sinnes for the manhood of it selfe without the Godhead hath no vertue or efficacie to be meritorious So it appeares that Christ Iesus was the High Priest for
but makes it plaine by restraining it to some onely This is my blood which is shed for many for remission of sins and the sonne of man 〈◊〉 that he might giue his life a redemption for many and he was offered once for the sins of many By this it is plaine that all men haue not benefite by Christs sacrifice neither is the guilt of euery mans sinnes washed away by the 〈◊〉 of this lambe of God but onely of the elect in Christ who haue doe and shall beleeue in his holy name Away then with the erroneous innouation of the Arminians teaching satisfaction for each particular man And away with that 〈◊〉 conceit of most common people concerning 〈◊〉 Redemption whereby they are apt to say that all men shall be saued and God forbid that any man should goe to hell thus out of 〈◊〉 charitie they iudge contrary to the Canon of Gods word for the iudgement of charitie is not alwayes the iudgement of verity The 〈◊〉 and Sacrifice of Christ with the end of both of them beeing thus largely and sufficiently explained I shall thinke it necessary now to draw all that hath beene formerly spoken to this Corrolary which I will lay downe as a generall doctrine collected out of the three parts of the first branch of the text and it is this That Iesus Christ the eternall Sonne of the euer-liuing God as God and man was the onely Priest that offered on the crosse his whole humane nature soule and body a true and perfect Expiatory sacrifice to satisfie for all the finnes of all true 〈◊〉 where by hee wrought their perfect reconciliation with God and obtained full remission for all their offences The which position in euery particular hath beene so fully prooued that it needs no further confirmation wherefore it shall be necessary to make some application to our selues The vses to be made of this doctrine are diuers Vse 1. First it teacheth vs to consider the true and proper nature of sinne which is so contrary to the 〈◊〉 essence of God so opposire vnto his sacred law so odious and abhominable in his eyes so noxious and dangerous to the soule of man that all the creatures in the world men and angels gold and precious iewells could not appease the wrath of God or be a propitiatory sacrifice for the atonement and reconciliation of mankind but onely 〈◊〉 Christ God and man the eternall Sonne of his Father Oh then how are most men too blame that esteeme their 〈◊〉 as things not worthy regarding not worthy excepting against and how are all men to bee condemned that either for a little gaine or a small deale of perishing pleasure will make no scruple to pollute 〈◊〉 to wound and slay their soules with wilfull and knowne wickednesse Alas alas sinne is so hainous in Gods account that all the world is not able to satisfie for it but onely the eternall Sonne of God and that by being a sacrifice and powring foorth his precious blood Well then did sinne draw Christ from the bosome of his father Did sinne cause him to take our nature vpon him Did sinne nayle him to the crosse piercing his hands his feet his side Did 〈◊〉 take away his blood and with his blood his life Did sinne make him a sacrifice burning in the flames of his fathers wrath and crying Eli Eli 〈◊〉 My God my God why 〈◊〉 thou for saken me was sinne the procuring cause of all this his 〈◊〉 Cursed then be that man that shall eyther 〈◊〉 and delight in sinne or shall extenuate and lessen his sinne esteeming it 〈◊〉 or slender cause why God should cast a man into hell or as sinne 〈◊〉 the heart of Christ shall not bee pricked and pierced at the heart with sorrow and repentance Put thy sinne in one ballance and the price that was payd for it in the other and thou shalt soone finde the one to be of infinite weight to presse thee downe to hell and the other to be of infinite pretiousnesse to recouer thee to heauen This is the first vse of this point for information to teach vs that if Christ were offered a sacrifice for our sinnes sinne then is not to be 〈◊〉 as a slight and slender thing Vse 2. The second vse of this point is for instruction to teach vs what loue God the Father hath expressed vnto vs mortalls in that he sent his Sonne to bee a sacrifice for mankind God commendeth his loue towards vs in that while we were yet sinners Christ dyed for vs. Great yea infinite surely was the loue of God in that when we had reiected him and giuen heede to the entisements of the Serpent when we had raced forth his image out of our whole man and instead thereof had imprinted therein the feature of the Diuell when we had rebelled against our maker trampling his law vnder our feete destroying our owne soules yet that there should remaine within his bosome a more then fatherly affection towards vs insomuch that he gaue his onely sonne that euery one that 〈◊〉 in him might not perish but haue euerlasting life this is loue indeede farre transcending the loue of any creature which ought to beget in vs true thankfulnesse and a holy retorsion of loue againe For but that God had so much compassion on Adam as to make vnto him that promise of the blessed seede he and we in him had beene hopelesse and helpelesse not 〈◊〉 to get forth of that pit into which we were plunged so that the Lord may say vnto Adam Perditio tua ex te ô Adam saluatio ex me Oh Adam thy destruction proceedes from thy selfe thy saluation only from me and from my loue Should not the consideration of this loue of God plentifully powred out vpon vs without any desert on our part prouoke vs to loue him with all our heartes withall our strength withall our power Why do men loue riches more then God why doe men loue pleasure more then God why do men reioyce more in temporall honour then in God Because they call not to minde the loue that God hath shewed to mankind in sending his sonne into the world to be a sacrifice for our sinnes Hath God so manifested his loue and shall it be so buried in obliuion O consider this yee that forget God least I teare you in peeces and there be none to deliuer you Here as God the father hath manifested his compassion so God the Sonne Iesus Christ hath declared his prompt and ready affection to vs poore sinners in that sponte of his owne free-will he was pleased to take vpon him that arduous and paineful office of priesthood and to effect that stupendious worke of our redemption That he that was verbum increatum the Word increate should become verbum incarnatum the Word incarnate Here was loue without parallell without compare Especially if wee consider that he could not take vpon him the shape of a seruant but
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
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
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
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
accomplishment Therefore the Apostle sayes 〈◊〉 5.2 that Christ gaue himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an oblation and a sacrifice by an oblation vnderstanding a gratulatory offering and by sacrifice an expiatory host for sinne And that the 〈◊〉 sacrifices had their consummation in Christ appeares in that figuratiue casting the open and doues out of the Temple as Theophylact. on the 21. chapter of Math. obserueth saying Iesus eiiciendo boues columbas praesignauit non vltra opus esse animalium sacrificio sed oratione 〈◊〉 casting the oxen and doues out of the Temple signified that there should no longer need the sacrifice of beast but of prayer But it is demanded Which of these two sacrifices it is that the Apostle speakes of The text it selfe cleares this doubt you heard before that the Eucharisticall sacrifices were for mercies and blessings receiued and the Ilasticke or Expiatorie sacrifices were for sinnes committed so that when the Apostle sayes this sacrifice was for sinne it plainely appeares that hereby is meant the Expiatory sacrifice of Christ offered to appease his Fathers wrath This sacrifice is no other then Christ himselfe dying vpon the crosse for the transgressions of mankind Origen speaking of Christ sayes Ipse est hostia Sancta Sanctorum He is the most holy sacrifice for his holy ones Which the Apostle Saint Peter confirmes saying For so much as ye know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as siluer and gold But by the precious blood of Christ as of a lambe without blemish or without spot Christ himselfe was this sacrifice who so loued vs that he gaue himselfe for vs an offering and sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour But according to which nature was Christ the safice for sinnes Onely according to his humane nature as appeares By which will we are sanctisied through the offering of the body of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 by which words the body of Christ we are to vnderstand the whole humane nature of Christ for there the part is put for the whole so that Christ the man consisting of body and soule was the sacrifice for our sinnes and as we in soule and body had transgressed against God so Christ both in soule and body was to suffer punishment and to make satisfaction for our offences Compare this place of the Hebrews with the words of the Prophet Esa. and you shall easily discouer this truth Yet it pleased God to bruise him hee hath put him to griefe when thou shalt make his soule an offering for sinne he shall see his seede he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand What the Propheticall Apostle Paul attributes to the body the Euangelicall Prophet Esa. attributes to the soule so that both these being essentiall parts of man make the whole humanitie of Christ to bee the sacrifice for our sinnes And as the Tree of life did represent the Godhead of the Messiah so did the Animate sacrifices of the Leuiticall law shadow out his Manhood And the reasons why this sacrifice that Christ offered should be his manhood are these 1. Because that in the same nature the offence was made in the same nature was the sacrifice to bee offered and the satisfaction to bee performed for otherwise Gods iustice could not be appeased but in the nature of man was a transgression committed therefore in mans nature must a sacrifice bee offered and satisfaction made And for this reason the Angels that fell from God had no benefit by the Incarnation of Christ nor by his death and passion because he tooke not vpon him their nature neither in their nature did he offer sacrifice 2. Secondly the death of the beasts in the Ceremoniall law did figure out the death of that sacrifice which the Sonne of God was to offer vnto his Father for mans Redemption So that in that nature wherein Christ dyed in that nature he was to sacrifice but Christ as he was God could not dye for the Godhead is apathes and cannot suffer but according to his humanitie he dyed truely and not fantastically and in shew onely as Marcion and the Manichees heretically thought And indeed considering Gods eternall decree of sending his Sonne to be 〈◊〉 flesh it was necessarily required that hee should dye and shed his blood to appease his Fathers wrath and to procure forgiuenesse of sinnes for all beleeuers for according to the words of the Apostle choris haimatekchusias ou ginetai aphesis without blood shedding is no remission So it appeares that the humane nature of Christ consisting of soule and body was the Alsufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of all beleeuers 3. The third thing propounded is the necessitie of this sacrifice Adam being seduced by his wife and eating the forbidden fruit brought vpon himselfe and all his posteritie three euills First hee was by his transgression guilty of 〈◊〉 before God Secondly he was depriued of all his grace of integrity and righteousnesse which God had conferred vpon him in his creation Thirdly he was driuen out of Paradise to signifie his banishment from the celestiall Paradise Wherefore it was necessary that there should bee a sacrifice offered for man First that his sinnes might be remitted whereby he was turned from God Secondly that he might be restored againe to the state of grace Thirdly that he might be re-united and reconciled vnto God and inherit eternall life These three were effected by the sacrifice of Christ. For first by this Sacrifice our sinnes are pardoned and the guilt of all our iniquities is washed away by the blood of Iesus hee was that promised fountaine which should be set open for Iudah and Ierusalem to wash in This appeares by the words of Paul Traditus est in mortem propter offensas nostras He was deliuered to death for our offences Secondly by this sacrifice wee are made pertakers of his grace whereby wee are comely in the eyes of God the Father for hee thereby imputed his righteousnesse vnto vs and communicated that life of grace which was radically in himselfe the head vnto all his faithfull members for by him it is that wee all receiue grace for grace Thirdly hereby are wee entitled againe vnto the kingdome of heauen lost by our first parents for when this earthly tabernacle is dissolued we are put inro possession of that building of God not made with hands which endures for euer in heauen All these three are contained in one verse Christ Iesus is made vnto vnto vs of God righteousnesse sanctification and redemption Righteousnesse in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes 〈◊〉 in the communication of his grace and Redemption in the saluation of our soules and bodies By this that hath beene spoken wee may note that the beginning middle and end of mans happinesse is from the sacrifice of Christ by him wee are deliuered from the bondage of sinne by him wee are in the liberty of grace by him are wee
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
the holy Church dotb not cease to offer bread and wine throughout the whole world For in those carnall sacrifices there is a figuring of the flesh of Christ which hee was to offer for our sinnes and of the blood which he was to shed for the remission of sinnes but in this sacrifice there is a commemoration and thankesgiuing for the flesh of Christ which he hath offered and of the blood which he powred out for vs. Obserue here first he calleth it bread and wine which is offered Secondly hee shewes the end only for commemoration and thanksgiuing So that none of the Fathers did tearme the Eucharist or Sacrament of the Lords Supper in that sence which the Papists doe to bee an vnbloody sacrifice because Christ without shedding of 〈◊〉 was really properly and personally offered but because it was both a representation of that substantiall and great sacrifice which Christ offered on the Crosse as also because it was a sacrifice of prayse thanksgiuing and commemoration And heereupon some of the learned Papists as Gropperus and others being ashamed of this grosse and 〈◊〉 opinion of the Romanists haue confessed the Masse to be nothing but Onely a remembrance of the passion of Christ in a publicke congregation of Christians where there is a generall thankesgiuing for the benefit of our redemption but that Sacrifie of Christ vpon the Crosse to bee offered to God and to remaine in the presence of God in the time of the Supper that when a man despaires of his owne worth hee may apprehend the price of our redemption to wit the body of Christ by faith and offer it to God betweene the wrath of God and his sinnes for the obtaining of that pardon which Christ hath both merited and procured Thus haue wee at length brought this first part of our confutation to an end in which is plainely prooued that the Popish Sacrifice of the Masse hath no foundation either in the Scriptures or Apostolicall constitutions or was either knowne vnto or named by the Fathers for the space of 600. yeares after Christ as also that the Fathers vsed the word Sacrifice in a farre different sence from that of the Church of Rome The second part followes wherein wee shall demonstrate how and by what degrees the Masse was brought into the Church and how it increased and first shall I shew the meaning of the word Masse and how it was vsed in the Ancient Church The Papists themselues are not certaine of the antiquity of the word Missa the Masse yet they finde it no ancienter then Pope Leo and Saint Ambrose his time so their owne Iesuites confesse Bellarmine and others But the word Missa when it is vsed by the Fathers signifies nothing but a publike meeting to the Communion and prayers or a dismission of the assembly or the forme of their religious worship For the first of these it 〈◊〉 an 〈◊〉 gathered together to serue God publikely as Georg. Cassan. praefat in preces suas confesseth which the Greekes signified by the word sunagein to meete together sunaxeis poiein to make congregations ekklesiazein to gather together which words they for the establishing of their hereticall doctrine haue absurdly translated to make Masse or to goe to Masse Secondly the word Masse was vsed for the forme of religious seruice vsed by and in the Church and signified the same with 〈◊〉 or hierourgia The Meleuitan Counsell taketh prayers and Masses both for one thing and to this purpose Saint Augustine in a Sermon if it be his sayth There are some and chiefly great men in the world when they come vnto the Church are not deuoutly affected to celebrate the Prayses of God Sed cogunt presbiterum vt abreuiet Missam but compell the Minister to make short the Masse Heere the word Masse signifieth the whole Liturgie reading of Scriptures singing of Psalmes Prayers and Praysings of God Thirdly it signified the dismission of some of the congregation as wee shall shew immediately The Papists deriue it diuersly some a missione Quia oblatio preces ad Deum mitttantur because an I oblation and prayers are sent vp to God or Quia Angelus a Deo mittatur qui sacrificio 〈◊〉 because an Angell is sent from God to assist the Sacrifice Some of the word Missath vsed Deutr. 16. 10. or Masah which signified a free gift or Eleuation but certainly there are no words now vsed in the Church of the Latines or which were vsed formerly deriued of the Hebrewes but they were first vsed by the Greeke Church and Fathers but this word Missa or Missath was neuer vsed by any of the Fathers of the Greeke Church to signifie either the assembling or seruice or Sacrifice of the Church And therefore is rather to be thought to be deriued a missione and that two wayes either a donis missis from the gifts that were sent by such as were of ability at the celebration of the Sacrament both for the furnishing of the Lords Table as also for the reliefe of the poore Or else it was called 〈◊〉 a dimissione populi as Cyprian calls remissam peccatorum for remissionem when the Deacon cries Ite missa est Leaue is granted you may depart And it is not vnlikely that the same custome was vsed by the Greeke Church when the Minister cried Aphesis laois dismission to the people This dismission was two-fold The first was called Missa 〈◊〉 when the Catechumeni that is such as beeing conuerted to Christianity but not sufficiently 〈◊〉 in the principles of religion and therefore were not as yet baptized were caused to depart as 〈◊〉 with them the Penitents who for some open and scandalous crime did do publike penance in the congregation and the Energoumenoi that is such as were excommunicate who were so called because being deliuered vp vnto Sathan they were supposed to be vexed with wicked spirits These three sorts of people were permitted to bee present both at the prayers seruice and Sermon but when the Lords Supper began to be administred they were to depart wherefore the Deacon cryed with a loud voyce Ite missa est Leaue is giuen you must depart A custome not vnlike that of the Iewes which was not to permit any Leprouse or infected person to be present at their sacrifices and the 〈◊〉 of the Heathens who would haue present at their sacrifices and augurations neither enemy nor conquered nor woman nor virgin nor any profane person wherefore the Priest was wont to aske T is têde who is there and the answere was returned Kaloi k'agathoi none but such as are good and honest The second was Missa Fidelium the Masse of the Faithfull which was the whole ceremony and celebration of the Lords Supper Then all things being finished they had liberty to depart Thus it appeares that the word Masse is not so ancient as our aduersaries pleade Ierome who was the Pastor of Rome and of no
the commers thereunto perfect for then should they not haue ceased to be offered because that the worshippers once purged should haue had no more conscience of sinnes What doth the Apostle conclude here He opposeth the Gospell to the law our Soueraigne Priest Christ Iesus against the Priests of Aaron his sacrifice which had no need to be renewed against their sacrifices repeated euery day the holinesse and effectuall sanctifying power which was in his sacrifice against their weakenesse and disability to sanctifie Hereupon he concludeth Hee taketh away the former to establish the latter the sacrifices of the law to establish his owne sacrifice Now how could this conclusion be good if this sacrifice should be reiterated seeing the often repetition argues weakenesse and impotency therefore the Apostle so often vses these words once offered to note the al-sufficiency of Christs sacrifice in the single and vnrepeated act of offering hee hauing annihilated and disanulled all other sacrifices whatsoeuer Wherefore the blood of Christ shed personally by himselfe being of sufficient vertue and merit to purifie cleanse and redeeme all beleeuers it must necessarily follow that there needes no reiteration but we may content our selues with that onely sacrifice offered vpon the crosse The Minor is so plaine and Orthodoxe that hee deserues not the name of a Christian that shall deny it Argument 2. Secondly he that offereth a true Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne must be of more value then the sacrifice it selfe but the Priest is not of more value then the body of Christ. Ergo the Priest in the Masse cannot offer the body of Christ. The Maior is true for the gift is not accepted for it selfe but for the worthinesse of him that offers it as Ireneus affirmes wherefore albeit Cains sacrifice was not of lesse worth in it selfe then Abells yet the person of Cain being vnworthy because of the wickednesse of his heart his offering was reiected but Abell beeing more worthy then his oblation in regard of his faith the Lord had respect vnto him and to his offering so Christ as Priest was God and man and therefore of more merit and efficacy then his humane nature which was the onely sacrifice for without the merit of the Godhead by which the humanity was offered the sacrifice of Christ could not haue beene of infinite value and desert Wherefore he that presumes to offer the body of Christ truely and really vnto God the Father for a Propitiatory sacrifice for sinne blasphemously sayes in effect that he is of more value worth and merit then the sacrifice he offers Argument 3. Thirdly 〈◊〉 lawfull sacrifice is grounded vpon expresse words of Scripture whereby it may appeare that God hath instituted such a sacrifice but there is no command in scripture for the sacrifice of the Masse Ergo. The sacrifice of the Masle is not lawfull The Maior proposition is prooued by the words of Christ Invaine doe they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandements of men Where our Sauiour sharpely reprehendeth the Scribes and 〈◊〉 for teaching those things to belong to the worship of God which were of their owne inuention and not by Gods expresse command for this is a true Thesis Nothing ought to bee accounted of the substance or essence of Gods worship but what God himselfe hath expresly commanded in his word And for this very thing did God reprooue the Iewes because they worshipped in Tophet offering such kind of sacrifices as hee neuer appointed for I spake not vnto your fathers nor commanded them in the day that I brought them forth of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices but this I said commanding them Obey my voyce and I will be your God c. Where first God condemned them for doing what they were not commanded as offering their children vnto Molech in the vally of Tophet Secondly God shewes them wherein he will bee worshipped namely in that which he expresly commandeth Therefore albeit God had commanded the sacred action of sacrificing as a part of diuine worship yet because the Gentils in their sacrifices did not follow the prescript forme of the law of God therefore were their sacrifices abhominable and no other then I dolatrous The Minor proposition is perspicuous for let all the Gospells and writings of the Apostles bee strictly suruayed and there can neither the name nor sacrifice of the Masse be found for the sacrifices of the law had their precise and prescript forme enioyned why then if God would haue an externall sacrifice to remaine vnder the Gospell hath hee not left vs directions for the manner And whereas our aduersaries pretend a command in these words Do this hereunto we haue already answered page 56. Wherefore the sacrifice of the Masse hauing no ground in the new Testament wee must needes account it fictitious a humane inuention and therefore to be reiected Argument 4. Fourthly that sacrifice wherein there is no shedding of blood cannot bee Propitiatory But in the Masse there is no shedding of blood Ergo the sacrifice of the Masse is no Propitiatory sacrifice The Maior proposition is grounded vpon the words of the Apostle Without blood shedding there can be no remission of sinnes and in the legall sacrifices all that were Propitiatory were liuing creatures which were slaine by the Priests The minor is true according to the common consent of our aduersaries who make the Masse to be sacrificium incruentum an vnbloody sacrifice and albeit the blood of Christ be powred out yet it is not shed for them in behalfe of whom it is offered wherein they doe directly contradict themselues Argument 5. Fiftly that doctrine which is contrary to it selfe is not to be embraced in the Church But the doctrine of our aduersaryes touching the sacrifice of the Masse is contrary to it selfe Ergo it is not to bee imbraced The Maior neither Protestant nor Papist will deny The Minor is prooued For our aduersaries teach that the body of Christ in the Masse is an externall sacrifice and is truely offered vnto God the Father vnder the formes of bread and wine And yet they teach the body of Christ to be inuisible in the sacrifice wherein they are contrary to themselues for no externall sacrifice is an inuisible sacrifice neither can a sacrifice be visible which they affirme of their sacrifice when the thing offered is inuisible Wherefore if they will make it an externall offering the sacrifice it selfe must be visible but here is nothing visible according to their Tenent but the Altar the Priest his ceremoniall and mimicall actions his many hundred crossings the accidents and outward formes which are no part of the sacrifice Here then their doctrine implyes a contradiction to make it a visible sacrifice and yet the sacrifice is inuisible it is an externall oblation yet the matter offered is internall and cannot be discerned Howsoeuer though no man can perceiue the matter of their sacrifice yet euery man may perceiue the manner of their iugling
are of iudgment that he receiues not the body of Christ who doth not beleeue that he receiues it like Magick charms wherin strong imagination and beleese workes the effect And yet obserue here how contrary againe they are vnto themselues when they teach that Opus operatum The worke wrought is sufficient to merit What difference then is between the godly and the wicked Or what priuiledge hath the righteous more then the prophane seeing both good and bad receiue the same consecrated Christ performe the same worke of communicating And for all men that can pay well without difference is the Sacrifice of the Masse offered Or what comfort can the Laity of the Roman Church find in the Sacrament when that which shold giue life to their faith breedeth in them nothing but doubting and vncertainty seeing that after they haue prepared themselues they know not what they receiue because they are not assured of the intention of the consecration But here I demand of the Romanists If the consecration of the body and blood of Christ depend vpon the intention of the Priest so that if he intend not in the act of consecration the Body of Christ is not then present neither is the Bread or Wine transubstantiated How then can the Doctors of the Church of Rome free the people from the sinne of Idolatry which worship the creature in stead of the Creator the vnconsecrated Elements in stead of the true and substantiall Body and Blood of Christ For they worship the bread supposing it to be the Body of Christ when through either the negligence or wilfulnesse of the Priest in not intending consecration it remaines in its owne proper substance They thinke to falue this sore with a nice distinction they tell vs it is materiall Idolatry but not formall as though Idolatry masked vnder a couert were not a sinne and because it is not voluntarie or intentionall therefore it were tollerable The Idolatry of Israel was neuer so grosse as to worship any grauen Images in stead of God but as our Papists plead to worship God in or through their Images yet this prouoked God vnto iealousie and drew downe his vengeance vpon these Idolaters Is not this more palpable Idolatry where the Bread and Wine which are but creatures are worshipped with Latreia adoration which thēselues ascribe vnto God alone And to manifest that they ascribe vnto this Sacrifice the same diuine worship which they ascribe vnto God let but the Christian Reader examine the last generall Councell held by the Church of Rome namely the Councell of Trent where he shall finde this blasphemous Canon Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum vnigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum venerandum neque processionibus secundum laudabilem vniuersalem Ecclesiae sanctae ritum consuetudinem solemniter circumg estandum vel non publicè vt adoretur populo proponendum eius adoratores esse Idololatras Anathema sit If any man shall say that Christ the onely begotten Sonne of God is not to be adored with externall diuine worship in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and that it is not solemnly to be carried about in Procession according to the laudible and vniuersall rites and custome of holy Church and that it is not publikely to be shewed to the people that they may adore it and that the worshippers thereof are Idolaters let him be accursed And in the beginning of the same Chapter there are these words Nullus 〈◊〉 dubitandi locus relinquitur cum omnis Christi fidelis pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto latriae cultum qui 〈◊〉 Deo 〈◊〉 huic 〈◊〉 sacramento in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is now no place of doubting left seeing all the faithfull of Christ according to the custome which was alwaies 〈◊〉 in adoration may giue vnto this sacred Sacrament that worship of Latria which is belonging to the true God This is a doctrine of Diuels commanding most 〈◊〉 Idolatry and yet not to be contradicted vnder paine of his Holinesse curse But let vs admit that Christ is to be worshipped in the Eucharist yet how can the people 〈◊〉 the sinne of Idolatry when albeit the Priest faile in his intention and consequently consecrate not yet they worship the 〈◊〉 and wine with adoration But I will not here enter into the discussion of this point whether the Eucharist is to 〈◊〉 with Diuine worship Least I should too much enlarge this Treatise which hath already transcended the limites of my intention Thus hauing sufficiently satisfied as I hope the indifferent and impartial Reader concerning the propounded parts of this controuersie as namely that the pretended sacrifice of the Masse hath no ground in the Doctrine of the Scriptures practise of the Apostles or writings of the ancient Fathers as secondly touching the originall encrease and continuance of the Masse Thirdly of the imbecillity and weakenesse of their obiected Arguments Lastly of the firme and solide grounds of our dislike and opposition I shall in fine lay before the eyes of all men a briefe enumeration of all the impieties and blasphemies of this abhominable Idoll and so shall conclude all with a serious disswasion from all or any participation in that superstitious worship The Impieties of this Sacrifice are these First it is not onely diuers from the institution of Christ but quite ouerthrowes it as appeares by these particulars 1. First Christ instituted a Sacrament wherein he freely offereth himselfe to be receiued of all beleeuers by faith and to bee eaten spiritually They turne it into a sacrifice which is offered vnto God the Father not beeing distributed to the people but deuoured by the Priest and that 〈◊〉 really and materially So that whereas the Church should haue beene thankefull for that God hath giuen his onely sonne for her saluation shee striues to make God her debter by offering vnto him a sacrifice but such a sacrifice as he neuer desired expected or commanded 2. Christ in the Sacrament consecrated bread and wine which remained as signes and symboles of the body and blood of Christ. In the Masse they consecrate the reall and substantiall body of Christ taking away the Sacrament in that they take away the signes 3. In the Sacrament the vertue and efficacy is in the power of God making it operatiue by the grace of the Spirit In the Masse the deede done deserues pardon and the Priest hath a portion of remission of sinnes which may bee bestowed on whom he will 4. The Sacrament is onely profitable for the liuing but the Masse for the quicke and the dead 5. The Sacrament was instituted to manifest the Communion of Saints therefore called the Communion figured by the bread framed of many cornes and made into one loase and the wine made of many grapes so all 〈◊〉 are one body but in priuate Masse the Priest consumes all the host himselfe as though hee alone had right
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