spoke To what you say concerning the Apostles words to the hebrews and that he placeth the perpetuity of Christ Priesthood partly in this viz. that there is no need he should be offered any more we confess that there is no need he should be offered bloudily any more because the effect of his bloudy sacrifice lasts for ever but we deny that there is no need he should be offered unbloudily any more because the psalmists words must be verified in him viz. that he being a Priest for ever after the order of Melchesedec there must be an everlasting sacrifice also after the the same order To what you farther say viz. that Christs intercession will continue untill the end of the world we say so too but that his intercession is a partial sacrifice if you intend a strict sacrifice such as we dispute of here I deny for by his Intercession you either understand his prayers as they are offered for us in themselves without a victim or by the mediation of a victim if without a victim then they belong not to the function of his proper Priesthood and consequently they are no part of a strict sacrifice if through the mediation of a victim then it necessarily follows that Christ doth always offer victims which is that our adversaries deny Besides by Christs intercession there is nothing sensible and permanent destroyed which is requisit in a strict sacrifice To this I add these inconveniencies that would follow from the Mounsieurs answer first it would follow that there would be no more Christian Religion or Law here upon earth because the Priesthood being translated into heaven Religion and Law must needs follow it as the Apostle says heb 7. It would follow also that there is no bare and as we may say naked truth in heaven but only shadows figures Types and ceremonies of Truth for all proper sacrifices must be types of that of the Cross and certain Religious Ceremonies It would follow also that Christs oblation must needs be often repeated a thing which our adversaries will by no means hear of Therefore the Mounsieur must seek after a better answer then this or else his cause will be quite lost Rodon 26. Seaventhly I answer that in all the holy Scripture where the Priesthood of Melchisedeck is spoken of three things only are mentioned of him viz. that he was a Priest that he was a Priest for ever and that he was so with an oath according to the application that is made of it to Iesus Christ in Psa. 110 and Heb. 7. in these words the Lord hath sworn and will not repent thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck But there is nothing at all spoken of the sacrifice of Melchisedeck nor is it said wherein it did consist for as it was fit that all the offices which we finde were born by the greatest kings Priests and Prophets under the old Testament should be collected under the person of the Messiah which was done by proposing them as types and figures of Iesus Christ and that the most illustrious type was Melchisedeck so it was more expedient not to speak of the nature of the sacrifice of Melchisedeck because it was not expedient then to speak of the nature of the sacrifice of the Messiah And therefore we know not the nature and quality of the sacrifice of Melchisedeck yet we know that he was a Priest Even as we know that Melchisedeck was a king though we know not in what manner he executed his kingly â—…ffice Answ. Mounsieur as I told you before that it is pitty you were not with the Apostles to help them concerning this question we are about so I tell you now that it is pity you were not one of Gods grand Councellors of the old time to direct and teaâ—…h the Patriarchs and Prophets of those times what was expedient and what was not to be mentioned in holy writt concerning their rites and sacrifices since all things by your advice must be done by expedience or convenience I pray tell us why was it expedient that Christs bloudy sacrifice should be typified by the Priests of the Levitical Law and the things they were to offer were particularly specified and that it was not expedient the things Melchisedeck offered as a type of Christs sacrifice whether bloudy or unbloudy should be mentioned or specified at all what mystical conceit have you in this I pray let 's hear it or else if you keep it to your self we are never the wiser nor the more illuminated by you to follow your opinion and leave our own and if you know not the nature and quality of the sacrifice of Melchisedeck God help you the more is your ignorance but we are well enough satisfied as to that because all the holy fathers say unanimously that he sacrificed unto God bread and wine and that holy writ says that he was a Priest for if one should tell us such a man is a father although he makes no mention of his son nor of his nature or quality yet we presently know he has a son or a child so also when we hear the word Priest we presently understand its correlative sacrifice so that when holy Scripture thrice mentions Melchisedeck's Priesthood and makes mention of bread and wine which he brought or offered without mentioning any other kind of thing that he ever offered and the holy fathers all agree that he sacrificed bread and wine to God as types of his body and bloud in the Eucharist we make no doubt of the nature and quality of the things he offered more then we do of his Priesthood let Mr. de Rodon and his party doubt of it as long as they please Rodon 28. Lastly I answer that it is false that the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedeck and that of Aaron did consist in this viz. that Aaron offered the bloudy sacrifices of beasts and Melchisedeck offered an unbloudy sacrifice of bread and wine It is also false that the likeness of the Priesthoost of Melchisedeck to that of Iesus Christ doth consist in this viz. that as Melchisedeck did sacrifice bread and wine so Iesus Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine these are humane inventions and are founded neither on Scripture or reason for on the contrary the Apostle writing to the hebrews placeth the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedeck and that of Aaron and its likeness to that of Christ in quite another thing first he is called Melchisedeck which being interpreted as the Apostle saith heb 7. is king of righteousness and then king of Salem that is king of Peace and herein he very well represents our Lord Iesus Christ who is truely king of Righteousness not only because he is righteous and was always without sin but also because by his satisfaction he hath purchased righteousness for us being made unto us of God righteousness he is also truly king of Peace in
that he hath reconciled men unto God made their peace with the Angels and hath particularly recommended Peace to them As for Aaron and other high Priests they were no kings much less are the Priests of the Romish Church so and consequently cannot be after the order of Melchisedeck And they that have written the lives of the Popes have sufficiently declared what righteousness and Peace they have procured for the true and faithful servants of Iesus Christ as I shall shew at large elswhere Secondly the Apostle heb 7. represents Melchisedick to us as a man come from heaven without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of days nor end of life not that he was really such a one but because Moses hath wholy concealed from us his father mother descent birth and death that he might be the type of Christ who was without father as he is man without mother as God without descent both as God and man having neither beginning of dayes as God nor end of life as God or as man But the fathers descent birth and death of Aaron and other high Priests are exactly described by Moses And there were never any Popes Bishops or Priests whose Parents birth and death were not known consequently they cannot be after the order of Melchisedec Thirdly the Apostle adds that Melchisedec being made like unto the son of God abideth a Priest for ever because Moses makes no mention of his death nor of any one that succeedeth him in his Priestly office that so he might be the type of Iesus Christ who never less his Priestly office but will exercise it untill the end of the world always interceeding for those that are his by presenting his sacrifice to God the father continually As for Aaron and other Priests they are dead and have had successors and the Popes Bishops and Priests die dayly and have successors and consequently are not after the order of Melchisedec fourthly the Apostle saith likewise that Melchisedec took tithes of Abraham and adds that Melchisedec blessed him that had the Promises viz. Abraham and the less is blessed of the greater whence it appears that Melchisedec having taken tithes of Abraham and blessed him and Levi and all the Priests in his person was more evcellent then Abraham and all his successors because he in whom all the promises were fulfilled must needs be incomparably more excellent then he that received them only But I do not believe that the Priests of the Romish Church are so bold as to prefer themselves before Abraham the father of the faithfull in whose seed all the Nations of the Earth are blessed and consequently are not after the order of Melchisedec fifthly the Apostle never spoke of the sacrifice of Melchisedec so far was he from comparing it with the sacrifice of Iesus Christ as being like it or with that of Aaron as being unlike it so that all that our Adversaries say is nothing else but meer humane invention Answ. This your last answer Mounsieur is indeed very false as to its two first points viz. that the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and that of Aaron did not consist in this that Aaron offered the bloudy sacrifices of beasts and Melchisedec offered an unbloudy sacrifice of bread â—…nd wine as also when you deny the likenesse of the Priesthood of Melchisedec to that of Jesus Christ doth consist in this that as Melehisedeck did sacrifice bread and wine so Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine This answer I say is not only false but also impious because it contradicts both scripture and the unanimous opinion of all the holy fathers It contradicts scripture because scripture says in plain and express termes that Christ took bread in his hand and said of it this is my body and took wine in a cup and said of it this is my bloud and yet you pertinaciously say it is not founded in scripture or reason It is I confess above our reason to comprehend how Christs body is in the host and yet it is not contrary to reason that it should be there and yet we have reason to believe it is there both because Christ said it and his word is truth and omnipotent as also because the words of the Royal prophet and of the Apostle concerning the everlasting Priesthood and sacrifice of Melchisedec must needs be verified in Christ as I said before which since they cannot be verified by his bloudy sacrifice as is also proved and there is no other strict sacrifice imaginable whereby to verifie them but this of the Masse it stands both with scripture and reason that as Melchisedec did sacrifice bread and wine so Christ did sacrifice his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine and consequently that the likeness of both their Priesthoods did chiefly consist in this manner of sacrificing To what you say that these are but human inventions I say they are liker divine inspirations since all the holy fathers concurr in them then your impudent denial without any proof but your own consident word is of any force or weight to weaken or hurt them You say further more that the Apostle writing to the hebrews doth place the difference between the Priesthood of Melchisedec and Aaron and its likenesse in quite another thing first because being called Melchisedeck which signifies King of Righteousnesse and being king of Salem which signifies Peace he was the type of Jesus Christ who is truly king of righteousness and king of peace But Aaron you say and other high priests were no kings and much lesse are the Priests of the Romish Church so and consequently cannot be after the order of Melchisedeck But good Sir with your leave the Apostle by this disparity betwixt Melchisedeck and Aaron viz. that Melchisedeck was a king and Aaron not that th'ones name signified Righteousness and Peace and th' others not placeth no difference between their Priesthood but only between their persons viz. that Melchisedeck being both king and Priest is a more perfect type of Jesus Christ then Aaron was who was but only a Priest and no king and all this we grant But this shews no difference between their Priesthood as any body may see and yet the difference between their Priesthood and not their persons is the thing you are to prove out of the Apostle which you will never be able to do but by the difference of their sacrifices therefore though Aaron nor any of the Romish Priests were kings your consequence has a huge slaw in it The same slaw hath your second consequence because all what you say out of the Apostle Heb. 7. concerning Melchisedecs coming from heaven without father without mother without descent having neither beginning of days nor end of life all these I say do shew the difference between Melchesedec and Aarons persons and that Melchisedec was a more perfect type of Christ then Aaron was but it shews
light and glory that now you see it is Ninthly I give and bequeath to all broaken Aldermen defunct Committees and accused Members of the House of Commons my nâ—…w Creed and by them to be disposed of to their Creditors and all others as they shall see cause that they may renew their faith and againe become credible men by which meanes the publique faith may againe revive and the City looke up and whereas my Predecessor knowne by the name of Doctors Commons of famous memory did decease about sixe yeares since having first made a will which was made publique in print and for as much as the said Doctors Commons is againe revived to my great and unspeakeable terrour I doe hereby bequeath unto my said Predecessor all jurisdiction priviledges profits and emoluments whatsoever so unjustly usurped and detained by me and the rest of my precious Brats Tenthly All my zeale for the Cause I give and bequeath to the dissenting Souldiers that have deserted the Army that they may stand up mightily in the gap and stop the plaguy devouring Army of Sir Thomas Fairfax Eleventhly I give and bequeath all my new invented Oathes and Covenants all my Schismaticall Sermons all my Perjuries Forgeries Plots Treacheries Rebellions Equivocations and mentall reservations to my deare children the Scots provided that they shall make use of them in their owne Countrey and not else where Twelfthly I give and bequeath unto Dr. Cyballs 10. l. of lawfuâ—…l money of England in consideration of my Funerall Sermon besides two Canenicall Coats which he may turne as he sees fitting and I desire him to make his prayer shorter then the ordinary use hath been for I my selfe must confesse the blasphemies treasons heresies incongruities tautologies absurdities of my children in their measure of Prayer from time to time observed by the people hath beene a great cause of my untimely disease And also I desire that his Sermon may be printed and published and that Wal-ey'd Bartlet at Austins-gate and Bellamy at the Old Exchange have the Printing thereof and that an Ordinance may bee desired that none dare to reprint the same Lastly I do intrust all that out of a conscientious duty to me shall suddenly after my discease leave and abandon the House of Commons Provided they exceed not the number of threescore to be my Executors that they see this my last Wil and Testament performed without any fraud according to the true sense and meaning thereof and the severall legacies to be paid to the persons aforesaid within five moneths after my death And this my Will to remaine in full force revoking all former Wills Bonds Bills Gifts whatsoever Witnesse my hand and Seale Adoniram Byfield Scribe Sealed and delivered Iuly 1647. Iohn Presbyter Simon Synod Cornelius Burges Postscript REjoyce O heavens sing aloud O earth clap thy hands for joy O England post nubula soles thou shall now have a time of quietnesse of peace of content for Presbyter Iohn is dead and will never vex thee more nor imprison thy free Denizens nor eate up thy fat things nor devour thy good things nor eate the bread out of thy childrens mouthes Therefore farewell persecution for conscience farewell Ordinance for Tythes farewell Ecclesiasticall Supremacy farewell Pontificiall Revenue farewell Dissembly of Divines dissembled at Westminster you shall constult together no more farewell Sir Simon Synod and his sonne Presbyter Iack Gens antiqua ruit multos dominata per Annos And therefore O England Interpone tuis interdum gaudia curis His EPITAPH HEre lies Jack Presbyter void of all pity Who ruin'd the Countrey and fooled the City He turned preaching to prating and telling of lies Caus'd jarres and dissentions in all Families He invented new Oathes Rebellion to raise Deceiving the Commons whilst on them he preyes He made a New Creed despised the Old King State and Religion by him bought and sold. He foure yeares consulted and yet could not tell The Parliament the way Christ went into Hell Resolved therein he never could be Therefore in great haste he 's gone thither to see FINIS gratiously to hear the humble Prayers of his hidden Petitioner and MADAM Your Majestie 's most Loyal Devoted Beadsman W. C. Chapter I. Concerning the Exposition of these words This is my body MOnsieur de Rodon against ths exposition of the Roman Catholicks who by this passage of Scripture This is my body understands the real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament of the Altar frames his argument thus Rodon 1. He that speaks contrary to the usage of all the world and takes words otherwise then all other men do must without doubt speak very obscurely but if Iesus Christ by these words This is my body had meant the real presence of his body in the host as the Romish Doctors assert and consequently had meant the substantial Conversion of the bread into his body he had spoken contrary to the common usage of aâ—… the world and had taken the words otherwise then all other men do which I prove thus Theâ—… was never any author either sacred or prophane that made use of such words as these This is my body to signifie the real presence of a thing immediatly after the pronouncing of them and not before on the contrary there was never any man that did not use them to signifie that the thing was already that which it was to be For example when God the Father speaking of Iesus Christ said this is my beloved Son it is certain that Iesus Christ was the son of God before God said it and in common usage it is never said this is that except the thing be so before it is said to be so For example we do not say this is a Table before that which we mean by the word this be a table Therefore it is contrary to the common stile of all authors as well sacred as prophane and contrary to the common usage of all men to make these words of Iesus Christ this is my body to signifie thâ—… substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body and the real presence of his body in the host immediately after the pronouncing of them by the Priest and not before seeing then that Iesus Christ when he said this is my body did not speak contrary to the common usage of all â—…hâ—… world and dâ—…d not takâ—… the wordâ—… otherwise â—…hen all other men do it necessarily follows that these words of Iesus Christ when he said this is my body do not signifie the substantial conversion of the bread into Christs body nor the real presence of Christs body in the host immediately after the Priest hath pronounced them and not before And this being so the Romish doctors must seek some other passages of Scripture than this This is my body to prove such a conversion and such a presence and seeing they can find none I conclude that such a conversion and such a presence have no foundation in Scripture Answ.
of your selues for as Christ covers not your impurities nor imputes his righteousness unto you but rather esteems you for no better then heathens and publicans because you hear not his Church so the holy Ghost has nothing to do with you for Christs holy spirit never contradicts Christ. True it is what you say that that which God hath decreed Jesus Christ hath purchased and the holy Ghost hath begun that that is reputed by God perfect and compleat But this only concerns orthodox people and not you for them be these the Apostle speaks of 1 Tym. 2. 8. in these words you aledge I will that men pray every where lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting And Ephes. 5. Iesus Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish Very farr alass are you from such people for you pray but very little or nothing in comparison of others who pray both day and night and you pray not every where for if you were compared with the rest of the world who profess Christ you are but a handful of people in little corners or Islands and there too but for a very short time in comparison of former ages how holy your hands are set aside your own private conceits of your selves the rest of the world can easily judge how void of wrath especially against us we very well know how undoubting you are in points of Religion no body breathing can tell for no two of you could ever as yet fully agree as to that point and every one of you is always seeking but never finding what can quiet and content his conscience in that matter you run from the luke-warm Protestant to the precise Puritan or Presbyterian who hates and rayles at the Protestant Bishops and Clergy as much as they do at us others of you from being Presbyterians turn Independents and viceversa from Independents and Presbyterians you turn Anabaptists from Anabaptists you become Quakers from Quakers Fanaticks and from Phanaticks at last you become Atheists your union consists only in this that to preserve your worldly Interest you retain the common notion or name of Protestant and band all against the Roman Catholick whereas on the contrary the Roman Catholick or Papist holds still to his old Lady Dinna to his Invocation of saints to his praying for the souls departed to the Indulgences which are as he believes bequeathed by Christ unto his Church to Pur gatory all which they say are included in these two articles of our belief viz. I believe in the holy Catholick Church and in the communion of saints In a word all the Roman Catholicks do unanimously agree in all the tenents and points of their whole Religion and are perfectly satisfied and contented in their consciences as to all matters of faith without running here and there from one sect to another to search and seek after new opinions as the Protestants do How then can you be the Church the Congregation of the faithful whom the Apostle sayes Ephes. 5. Christ loved and gave himself for how can you be a glorious Church a Church without spot or wrinckle or any such thing a holy one and without blemish Objection 6th Roman 20. The sixth objection is drawn from Gen. 14. in these words And Melchisedeck king of salem bringing forth bread and wine for he was a Priest blessed him and from Ps. 110. and from Heb. 7. where it is said thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck from which words they argue thus Iesus Christ is a Priest not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedeck the difference between Aaron and Melchisedeck consisting in this viz. that Aaron and the other Levitical Priests offered bloudy sacrifices killing and shedding the bloud of beasts which they sacrificed to God as a signe and figure of the bloudy sacrifice of Iesus Christ on the Cross But Melchisedeck offered an unbloudy sacrifice for when he went to meet Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings he offered to God bread and wine And seeing this bread and wine offered to God by Melchisedeck were signs and types of Christs body and bloud Iesus Christ was obliged to offer an unbloudy sacrifice viz. his body and bloud under the species of bread and wine which he did at the Institution and celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist that so the reality of the thing typified might answer to the shaddows and types Secondly that although Melchisedeck had brought all his bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his Armyâ—… that returned from the slaughter of the kings yet he first offered it to God and then gave it to them that so they might partake of the sacrifice of bread and wine and the reason of this is because the scripture saith that Abraham returned from the battle with great spoils amongst which there was bread and drink enough for the refreshment of himself and of his people Also it saith expresly that Abrahams people had taken such refreshment as was necessary before Melchisedeck met them and consequently they had no need of the bread and wine which he brought except it had been to partake of the sacrifice of the bread and wine which he offered Thirdly they say this is strongly proved by the following words for he was a Priest of the most high God which show the reason why Melchisedeck brought bread and wine viz. to make an oblation or offering of it to God for if he had brought this bread and wine for the refreshment of Abraham and his people the scripture would have said that he brought this bread and wine because that Abraham and his army being faint and tired had need of meat and drink but it speaks nothing of this on the contrary it saith that he brought bread and wine for he was a Priest fourthly they say that Jesus Christ is a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedek and seeing there can be no Priest without a sacrifice there can be no eternal Priest without an eternal or perpetual sacrifice But the sacrifice of the Cross was offered but once and cannot be reiterated for Jesus Christ dieth no more Rom. 6. Therefore there must be another perpetual sacrifice in the Church which Iesus Christ offereth by the hands of Priests which can be nothing else but the sacrifice of the Masse viz. the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud under the species of bread and wine typified by the sacrifice of broad and wine of Melchisedeck Answer Rodon 21. To this I answer first that the hebrew word doth not signifie bringing but brought drew out caused to be brought c. But our Adversaries falsifie the Text thus to make way for another falsification viz. to put
no difference of their manner of sacrificing and consequently touches not their Priesthood at least reduplicatively as it ought to do to make the Mounsieurs consequence slawless your words out of the Apostle viz. Melchisedec being made like unto the son of God abideth a Priest for ever to make your third consequence follow smoothly are quite for us and against you for if the son of God abideth a Priest for ever then it will follow that he will sacrifice for ever or that there must be a perpetual sacrifice but the perpetual sacrifice cannot be that of the cross for though its effect be perpetual yet the sacrifice it self is not so for it is past and gone and a new other bloudy sacrifice he cannot offer any more because Christ can die no more Rom. 6. Therefore it must be an unbloudy sacrifice which is offered by his ministers his mistical members that must correspond with Christs everlasting Priesthood and that is the holy sacrifice of the Mass offered under the species of bread and wine symbolized by the bread and wine sacrificed to God by Melchisedeck and consequently the sacrifice of the Mass out of these words of the Apostle is a sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedeck And Christs continual intercession for us in heaven as Mr. de Rodon surmizes is not a sacrifice at least not a strict one yet if Christ be a strict Priest for ever there must be a strict sacrifice answerable to hisstrict Priesthood for ever first because his Priesthood doth not totally consist in his intercession as Mr. de Rodon himself confesses secondly because his intercession unless it be medianâ—…e victima through the mediation of a victime is no more sacrifice then the prayers of other people are and if it be through the mediation of a victime then Christ offers new victimes continually which our adversaries will not admitt of Thirdly the inconveniences I spoke of before would follow if Christs continual intercession for us in heaven were a strict and rigorous sacrifice viz. there would be no Christian Religion nor Law here upon earth nor no naked and pure truth in heaven but only shadows and types of truth for the reasons there shewn But the Mounsieur says that Aaron and the high Priests all died and that the Popes Bishops and Priests die daylie therefore he concludes our sacrifice is not after the order of Melehisedeck which is to last for ever Aaron we confess and all the Priests of the old Law died and their Priesthood is also quite destroyed But although our Popes Bishops and Priests die daily we deny that our Priesthood dies or is destroied no more then the Kingship of a kingdom dies or is destroied when the King dies and leaves a successor behinde him to succeed where is now your brave consequence Mounsieur He will fetch it out smoothly with his fourth reason which is because Melchisedeck took Tithes from Abraham and the Levitical Priests who descended from him and consequently Melchisedeck was a type of Jesus Christ who was infinitely more excellent then Abraham and all his successors because he in whom all the promises were fulfilled must needs be incomparably more excellent then he that received them only all this we grant Then replyes the Mounsieur strongly But I do not believe that the Priests of the Romish Church are so bold aâ—… to prefer themselves before Abraham the father of the faithful in whose seed all the Nations of the earth are blessed No more do I also and I am sure on 't too that none of the Romish Priests nay nor the Pope himself dares prefer his own person before the person of Abraham or of any of the least Saints in heaven But for his Priesthood or Priestly function I am sure both the Pope all his Priests will prefer theirs before Abrahams priesthood and all the priestly functions of the old Law But all this will not fetch out the consequence you aim at Lastly both holy Scripture and the Apostle make mention that Melchisedeck brought or offered bread and wine and they say he was a priest without mentioning any other thing that he ever brought or offered to be sacrificed but bread and wine and they say also that Aarons offering or sacrifices were beasts soul c. and all the holy Fathers as I shall presently shew do compare and collect out of these different sort of sacrifices the difference betwixt Melchisedeck and Aarons priesthood therefore if it be true that Christ promised his spirit to his Church until the consummation of the world as we believe he did therefore I say if this be but a humane invention I dare maintain it is a very good and solid one and a hundred thousand times of more firmity and weight then Mr de Rodons divine inspirations as he may think them to be or rather diabolical illusions as I take them to be with his own silly bare word without any kinde of proof for the contrary Rodon 29. To conclude my answer with this argument Iesus Christ hath offered no sacrifice but after the order whereof he was established a Priest but he was established a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck only as the Apostle observes Therefore he hath offered no sacrifice but after the order of Melchisedeck but accocding to the Romish Doctors there is no other sacrifice after the order of Melchisedeck but that of the masse therefore according to the Romish Doctors Iesus Christ hath offered no other sacrifice but that of the masse and seeing according to them the sacrifice of the masse is an unbloudy sacrifice it follows that Iesus Christ hath offered no other sacrifice and consequently he hath not offered a bloudy sacrifice on the Cross which is blasphemy Answ. Mounsieur as I followed and hunted you all along this Treatise be sure this captious and sophistical argument shall not save you Therefore I answer that Christs bloudy sacrifice was not after the order of Melchisedeck nor of Aaron either but the proto-type of both for both Melchisedeck and Aarons sacrifices were but types of Christs bloudy sacrifice Therefore since Christs bloudy sacrifice cannot be a type of its own self it cannot be a sacrifice after the order of Melchisedeck or of Aaron which were but meer types and consequently since Aarons Priesthood and sacrifices are quite abolisht and destroyed it is necessary for to uphold and maintain Christs everlasting Priesthood that a sacrifice should be instituted after the order of Melchisedeck which is to remain for ever and since this sacrifice cannot be a bloudy one it must needs be an unbloudy one which we say and have hitherto defended is no other then that of the Mass and so we say that although Christ offered a bloudy sacrifice which we confess were blasphemy to deny yet his bloudy sacrifice was not after the order of Melchisedeck nor of the order of Aaron but the primitive principal and prototype sacrifice of both But at the Inâ—…itution of
of their livelyhood cast them into Prison or banish them c. against the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament whereas the thing in it self is not impossible to God nor the verity of this oath revealed by him to any of them But that which aggravates the sin the more is that in the thing wherein God most obliged and demonstrated his love to mankind in that very thing they disown and contradict his word Christ sayes by way of intermination or oath Amen Amen I say unto you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud you shall not have life in you And they swear point blank against him saying it is not his flesh and bloud but bread and wine or at the best nothing else but the signe of his flesh and bloud But how forsooth is it possible for us to eat and drink the flesh and bloud of the son of man in the Sacrament unless his flesh and bloud be in it what perjury is how grevious a sin how distructive to human society how infamous and how it may be committed and what penalties are due to open perjurers I need not set down here the laws of all Nations do sufficiently set it down But to be so ungrateful for a benefit of so high a nature as this is and to disown it flatly by confirmation of an oath against Christs express words and against so many clear testimonies of scripture and all the holy fathers must needs in my opinion astonish any Christian of common reason and sense yet from whom God withdraws his grace and the light of faith he will fall I must confess into these and such like inconveniencies and absurdities and greater too if they can be possibly for heresy is a bottomless gulf of darkness and ignorance that conveys those miserable reprobates that fall into it into the other bottomless pit or gulf of hell out of which there is no redemption and so is the Psalmists words verified in these two gulfs where he sayes that Abyssus Abysum invocat one pit leads or draws a man to another As to all the rest of the Translators raylings against Popery and its tenents against its practises in reference to Protestant Magistrates or civil government that as it is pernicious to their souls by its heretical doctrines and Idolatrous services so it is to their persons and estates and consequently that to introduce it into this kingdom would be an act as unpolitick as Antichristian as hath been demonstrated in that incomparable piece intituled The established Religion in opposition to Popery All this old fustian stuff is but to vent his bitterness whereof he is so full that unless he gave it some passage he must needs burst or crack for until he shewes this established Religion we will never own its demonstration where no two are of the same opinion concerning faith how can there be a Religion established therefore I refer all his scolding-stuff to the oyster-women of Billings-gate to be answered and I say that if our Religion be the only true Religion as we doubt not but she is for she has all the marks of it and there is but one Religion that is good certainly she cannot be pernicious to civil Government for Christs Religion commands us to honour our king and obey our superiour Powers but all the world knows that whe Popery is most in vigour and force and where it is in greatest â—…lourish it never intâ—…enches or encroaches upon their Monarchs temporal power nor upon any of their Magistrates It was never read or heard of yet that the Roman Cathoâ—…icks ever took up arms against their Catholick Princes or any Catholick Prince against another upon the score of Religion only when they are at civill or forreign wars it is never about Religion unless it be against the Turk the common enemy of Christendom But the lâ—…st civill warrs of England all men know was commenced upon the pretext of Religion and upon a pretended score of defending the Gospel a most virtuous king was innocently murdered by his own subjects in this quarrel the Roman Catholicks allthough he was of a different Profession had no hand in his innocent bloud they abhominated and detested so horrid a sacriledge from the bottom of their hearts they stuck to him defended him spent their lives and estates for him as long as they were able and there was any hopes of his safegard he was never betrayed by any of them in any charge they bore under him his welfare and safety was their chief aym and every one of them was ready to sacrifice himself his fortune and estate for his sake After they saw all was lost that he was taken from them and there was no resisting the divine fate as many of them as could followed their Liege soveraigne that now is whom God long preserve but then banished not by his Roman-Catholick subjects and in forraign countries they cleaved to him there they fought for him and many of them quitted their good employments and honourable places they had under forreign Princes whereupon their whole livelyhood and fortunes depended only for to follow and serve him and hazard their lives for his sake in hopes to reiâ—…throne him in his fathers of happy mememory royal throne Afterwards they accompanied and wayted on him home at his Restauration and ever sines served him as Loyally and faithfully all along as any subjects can their Prince and others of them that without evident danger of ruining themselves for ever could not follow and wayt upon him beyond Sea helpt him with their hest Intelligences and some of them under-hand with their means also All these are fresh demonstrations of their Loyalty and things that happened in our own age how can such people then be justly impeached with diâ—…loyalty or how can their practises be pernicious in reference to his sacred Majesty and to his Protestant Magistrates and people whereas they all live in Peace and tranquility with their fellow-subjects and never raised the least commotion or mutiny against the government though never so much provoked thereunto That England was so glorious and happy a kingdom in it self for many ages and was a terrour to its neighbours that invaded it and often conquered them and their kingdomes under Popish kings and their Papist subjects needs no proof for the very chronicles of England made by Protestant Authors themselves do suâ—…ciently shew that as also many memorable worthy things done by them and many of their happy governments we see also that all our neighbouring Popish kings and absolute Princes do live and govern peacably and quietly over their Papist subjects which demonstrats evidently that Popery is not incompatible or inconsistent with kâ—…ngship or civil government and consequently if it be the only true Religion as for matter of government or state it is neither unpolitick or Antichristian â—…o introduce it into any kingdome or country whatsoever But O England England in former times