Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	true_a	worship_n	worship_v	7,455	5	9.1341	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56750	The three grand corruptions of the Eucharist in the Church of Rome Viz. the adoration of the Host, communion in one kind, sacrifice of the Mass. In three discourses.	Payne, William, 1650-1696.; Payne, William, 1650-1696. Discourse concerning the adoration of the Host. aut; Payne, William, 1650-1696. Discourse of the communion in one kind. aut; Payne, William, 1650-1696. Discourse of the sacrifice of the Mass. aut	1688 (1688)	Wing P911A; ESTC R220353	239,325	320

probably to be a sacrificing priest but that he was to offer the sacrifice of the Mass I leave those who bring this place for it to prove for without doubt this was fulfilled long before Christ in Samuel who succeeded Eli and in Zadoc who came in the room of Abiathar who was of the Family of Eli and who was thrust out by Solomon from being priest unto the Lord that he might fulfil the word of the Lord which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shilo 1 Kings 2.27 as the Scripture observes and to make this figurative or prophetical of the Christian priesthoods succeeding the Aaronical is great strength of fancy but a very weak argument however for the sacrifice of the Mass unless that were the work of the Christian priesthood which is hard to be made out The Second is that out of the 72 Psalm at the 16. v. There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the Mountains This handful of Corn is by such Rabbinical men as Galatinus made into a cake or Placenta and that must needs be the wafer cake which being upon the top of the Mountains must be heaved and elevated over the head of the priests This is such an Argument for the sacrifice of the Mass as were sufficient to convert the Vicar of Putney who by the help of Galatinus can prove Transubstantiation out of the Rabbies and had the good fortune to be brought into the true Church not by Father P. or Father G. but by Rabbi Solomon and those two other ancient Rabbies of his Midras Coheleth which writ such a Commentary upon Ecclesiastes that they are the very Commentary it self 'T is strange as he says † Preface in Conse susveterum that the Hebrew Writers should long before Christs time have such notions but 't is more strange that some people since Christs time should have no better Arguments for the great principles of their Religion but the wind as he goes on bloweth where it listeth and some men have such a Wind Mill in their Crowns that any thing will turn it Whatever Feasts of sweet Meats and dainties the Jews expected as foretold by this Psalm in the days of the Messiah and were willing to mean by this handful of Corn on the top of the Mountains they never dreamt of the sacrifice of the Mass The next is that of the Proverbs 9. chap. 2d verse Wisdom hath killed her beasts she hath mingled her wine she hath also furnished her table but I am sure she never made this Argument for the sacrifice of the Mass I will improve this place if they please for the proof of other things as of priests Celibacy because in the next words 't is said Wisdom hath sent out her maidens verse 4. of the Church of Romes being the house that was built by wisdom because 't is said in the first verse She hath hewn out her seven pillars which are as undoubtedly the seven Hills of Rome as this Allegorical Banquet is the sacrifice of the Mass Our Adversaries sure could not be very serious and in good earnest when they produced such places as these and therefore they must excuse us for not being so in answering them I shall mention but one more which if it be not as ridiculous yet is as impertinent as the other and that is out of Daniel chapter 8. verse 11. where it is said the dayly sacrifice was taken away by a great prince that is there prophetically described It is plain that by the dayly sacrifice there is meant that of the Jews and by the prince who should take it away Antiochus who did literally perform this by destroying the Jewist Worship and horribly prophaning the Temple if by him was allegorically and prophetically meant the Christian Antichrist if I may so speak spoken of by St. Paul 2 Thess 2. and by St. John Rev. 13. described as a beast having seven heads and ten horns as Bellarmine will have it † chap. 9. de Mis l. 1. then whether this mark belongs not to him that sets up the sacrifice of the Mass and destroys as far as he has power and takes away all the purer Worship of Christ and has a great many other characters upon him that look very suspitious will be a great question for which I dare say there are a great many more probabilities then that by the dayly sacrifice here is meant the sacrifice of the Mass I come now to the New Testament where if there be any proofs for the sacrifice of the Mass it is more likely to find them then in the Old yet they produce twice as many such as they are out of that than this and like some other people are more beholden to dark Types and obscure prophesies of the Old Testament to make out their principles then to the clear light of the Gospel and to any plain places in the New and yet if any such doctrine as this were to be received by Christians and if any such wonderful and essential part of Worship were appointed by Christ or taught and practised by the Apostles we should surely have it more plainly set down in the New Testament then they are able to show it The first place they urge from thence belongs no more to the sacrifice of the Mass then the first Commandment does in the Decalogue and they had as good have quoted our Saviours words to the Devil Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and so have proved from thence that God ought to be Worshipt by the sacrifice of the Mass as those to the Woman of Samaria which Bellarmine † de Miss l. 1. c. 11. brings to this purpose out of John 4.21 23. The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father for the hour cometh and now is when the true Worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth From whence he infers that they must Worship him by sacrifice and that this must be the sacrifice of the Mass and that this is to Worship him in spirit and truth If this be not all evidence and demonstration there is none in Euclid and if we may not here cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mass is found we are blind and obstinate but I see very little more for it here then from the other places I named but rather something against it for to Worship God in Spirit and Truth and that because he is a Spirit as our Saviour there adds verse 24. is not to Worship him by an external visible Typical sacrifice as the Mass is and as those of the Jews were but by a more pure and spiritual Worship of praise and thanksgiving and prayer such as that of Christians is to be as more suitable to the spiritual nature of God and these spiritual sacrifices of Christians are not to be tyed to one place as those more gross and carnal ones of the Jews

very improper witnesses of a matter of fact that was so long ago which nothing but the Scripture history can give us any account of to which itis not only precarious but rash to add any of our own guesses and conjectures however tho some of the Fathers do by way of figure and allusion make this bread and wine of Melchisedec to relate to the Sacramental bread and wine as they make Manna and several other things which were not sacrifices yet none apply it to the sacrifice of the Mass nor could they well do it since they believed no such thing in the Romish sense as I shall show afterwards But after all what if Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine What service will this do to the sacrifice of the Mass The Priests do not there sacrifice bread and wine according to this Mystical Type nor did Melchisedec sure offer up Christs body and bloud under the species of his bread wine if we allow all that can be begged and desired that Melchisedec did sacrifice and that this his sacrifice was a Type and figure of another sacrifice why may not that be of the sacrifice of the Cross which is the true and only proper Christian sacrifice when Christ the Bread of Life was offered up unto God for us So that there is no necessity to bring in the sacrifice of the Mass to complete and answer this figure were there any thing in it besides guesse and fancy which I see no manner of reason to believe there is since there is nothing to countenance it in the New Testament and 't is very presumptuous and ungrounded to make any thing a true Type or to have a Typical meaning farther then Gods Spirit which alone could know this has given us warrant to do it by Revelation Yet without any such ground both Bellarmine † de Missâ l. 1. c. 6. and the Council of Trent * Sess 6. c. 1. make this to be the notion of Christ being a Priest after the order of Melchisedec that he was to offer up a visible and unbloody sacrifice of bread and wine and to appoint others to do this for ever whereas as the Scripture makes Christ to be a Priest after the Order of Melchisedec not upon any such account for the Author to the Hebrews makes not the least mention of this in his large discourse of this matter * Heb. 5.7 but in his having no Predecessor nor no Successor in his Priesthood as Melchisedec is represented in Scripture without any account of his Family or Genealogy without Father without Mother without Descent Heb. 7. v. 3. and in the excellency of that in general above the imperfect Aaronic Priesthood and in the Eternity and Immutability of it because he continueth ever and hath an unchangeable Priesthood verse 24. How little the Melchisedecian Priesthood of Christ upon which they lay so much stress will serve the purpose of the Mass-sacrifice nay how contrary 't is to it I shall endeavour to manifest in a few particulars First then Christ it is plain did offer up to God not an unbloody but a bloody sacrifice upon the Cross I ask whether he did this according to his Melchisedecian Priesthood If he did then Melchisedec probably as Priest of the High God might offer the bloody sacrifices of living creatures and if he were Shem the Eldest Son of Noah as is fairly conjectured by Learned men he might learn this of his Father who after the Flood built an Altar unto the Lord and took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl and offered burnt-offerings on the Altar Gen. 8.20 but then how will this be reconciled with what our adversaries pretend that it was the proper and peculiar office of Melchisedec to offer the pure and unbloody sacrifice of bread and wine And that according to that the Roman Priests are to do that and that Christ did that at his last Supper Christs Priesthood was the same at his Supper and upon the Cross if he acted therefore as a Priest of Melchisedec in one he did so in both Secondly The Scripture mentions no Act or Office of Melchisedec's Priesthood but in blessing Abraham Gen. 14.18 19. Melchisedec King of Salem brought forth bread and Wine and he was the Priest of the most high God and he blessed him and said blessed be Abraham of the most high God which hath delivered thine enemies into thine hand And this the Authour to the Hebrews takes particular notice of † ch 7. v. 1. and this answers to what St. Peter says of Christ after his Resurrection God having raised up his son Jesus sent him to bless you † Acts 3.26 which general word of blessing may include in it whatever is done for us by Christs Priesthood after his Resurrection particularly his praying and interceding to God for us Had it been any part of Christs Melchisedecian Priesthood to offer up bread and wine much more had it wholly consisted in this 't is strange the Apostle in a set and large discourse of this should not speak one word nor take the least notice of it Thirdly Christ is to have none to succeed him in his Melchisedecian Priesthood but he was himself to remain a Priest for ever the Author to the Hebrews makes this difference between the Aaronical Priests and Christ that they were to succeed one another and they truly were many Priests because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death † Heb. 7.23 but Christ was an immortal and so a perpetual Priest but this man because he continueth ever hath an unchangeable priesthood † Verse 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priesthood that passes not to others but is ever fixt and appropriate to his own person and he is made a Priest after the power of an endless Life † Verse 16. That which belongs then to Christ as he is an immortal Priest and continueth ever and hath none to succeed him that it is which constitutes his Melchisedecian Priesthood and what that is the Apostle plainly informs us in the very next verse to those I have quoted seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for us † Verse 24. Christs interceding with God by vertue of his sacrifice upon the cross and appearing in heaven in the presence of God for us and there presenting his sacrifice to his Father and powerfully mediating on our behalf this is his proper unchangeable eternal intransitive Melchisedecian Priesthood and 't is great arrogance for any to pretend to share with him or to succeed him therefore in his proper Priesthood and to call themselves as the Romanists do Priests after the order of Melchisedec when none but Christ is so This his priesthood is not committed to any upon Earth but is to be for ever executed and discharged by himself in heaven and he has left none to be proper priests in this sense but only to be Ministers to this great High