Selected quad for the lemma: order_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
order_n	aaron_n	according_a	power_n	66	3	4.5901	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65422	Popery anatomized, or, A learned, pious, and elaborat treatise wherein many of the greatest and weightiest points of controversie, between us and papists, are handled, and the truth of our doctrine clearly proved : and the falshood of their religion and doctrine anatomized, and laid open, and most evidently convicted and confuted by Scripture, fathers, and also by some of their own popes, doctors, cardinals, and of their own writers : in answer to M. Gilbert Brown, priest / by that learned, singularly pious, and eminently faithful servant of Jesus Christ M. John Welsch ...; Reply against Mr. Gilbert Browne, priest	Welch, John, 1568?-1622.; Craford, Matthew. Brief discovery of the bloody, rebellious and treasonable principles and practises of papists.	1672 (1672)	Wing W1312; ESTC R38526	397,536	586

in the Old Testament was and is fulfilled in the New Testament But the New Testament hath not so much as one syllable of your sacrifice of the Mass therefore it could not be prefigured in the Old Testament For if it were prefigured by the sacrifices of the Old Testament it behoved either to be one with the spiritual sacrifice of all Christians or else one with the bloody sacrifice of Christ upon the cross for only these two sorts of sacrifices are prefigured in the Old Testament recorded to be fulfilled in the New Testament but your sacrifice of the Mass is one with neither of them for it is not one with the first sort for they are spiritual you will have it external neither is it one with the other of Christs sacrifice upon the cross for there he died there he shed his blood and there he suffered the torments of Gods wrath and indignation for our sins and there he satisfied the justice of God and merited an everlasting redemption to us But in your sacrifice of the Mass your selves grants that neither is he crucified nor is his blood shed nor suffers he the wrath of God for our sins nor satisfies properly the justice of God for the same nor properly merits remission of our sins in the Mass Bellarm. lib. 2. de missa cap. 4. therefore it is not one with that sacrifice of Christ upon the cross For two several actions which have two different forms and are done in divers times and places for divers ends cannot be one only and the self same sacrifice for it is the form that gives a thing to be and distinguishes it from all other things But Christ his offering up of himself upon the cross and your sacrifice of the Mass have different forms are done in divers places and times and for diverse ends therefore they cannot be both one Further if they were both one then it should follow that as the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of an infinit valor so the sacrifice of the Mass should be of the same valor But Bellarmin saith lib. 2. de missa cap. 4 fol. 740. That the sacrifice of the Mass is but of a finit valor and the sacrifice of the cross of an infinit valor Therefore they cannot be both one and the self same sacrifice Therefore this sacrifice of your Mass seeing it is not one with neither of these two sorts of sacrifices is not prefigured in the Old Testament As for the second that it was fore-told by the Prophets It is as true as the former for all the sacrifices which were fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New Testament But the New Testament as hath been said makes only mention of these two sorts of sacrifices Christs on the cross and our spiritual sacrifices and not a syllable or the sacrifice of the Mass Therefore it is not fore-told by the Prophets in the Old Testament As for these Scriptures which ye quote Malac. 1.10.11.12 Isai 19.19.21 and 56.7 they speak of the spiritual worship of God and of the spiritual sacrifices which the Gentils being called should offer up unto God under the Gospel whereof mention is made in these places Heb. 13.15.16 1. Pet. 2.5 Rom. 12.1 and 15.16 For either they speak properly and literally or else figuratively But if you say they speak properly of external sacrifices then they speak here of that legal and ceremonial worship of the Jewes and so these places doth not appertain to the New Testament Or if you will say they speak figuratively then I say they make nothing for your external sacrifice in the Mass which you will have to be a sacrifice not figuratively but properly So howsoever ye expone them they can no wayes make for your external sacrifice in the Mass Either therefore must ye prove this sacrifice of your Mass in the New Testament first which ye will never be able to do or else the figures and prophesies in the Old Testament will never prove it seeing there is nothing either prefigured or fore-told in the Old Testament but that which in the New Testament is fulfilled Let us see therefore what you can alledge for this your sacrifice in the New Testament You say that Christ the chief Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck in this action and according to the order of Aaron upon the cross instituted it Matth. 26.26 Luke 22.19 Mark 14 22. and commanded to be observed to the end of the world Before I come to the institution there are two things to be examined which you have written here The first that you say that Christ according to the order of Aaron did offer up himself upon the cross Unto the which I answer first that you gain-say here two great Papists Alanus and Bellarmin whereof the one saith that Christ never sacrificed Aaronicè that is according to the order of Aaron Alanus de Eucharist lib 2. cap. 9. The other saith that Christ his sacrifice upon the cross was neither according to the order of Melchisedeck nor yet according to the order of Aaron Bellarm. de Missa lib. 1. cap. 6 fol. 626. And not only he affirmes it that it is not according to the order of Aaron but also he affirmes that this should be certain to all the faithful So if you be of the faithful and his doctrine be true which the Pope your head hath priviledged to be printed this should also have been certain to you and so you should not have gain-said it You had need to beware of this M. Gilbert to contradict so openly the learned Fathers and Maisters of your Catholick faith for by this doing ye will both bewray your selves that you have no unity and concord one with another and also ye will bring your self in suspicion with your head that ye are not a defender of the Catholick faith seeing you so openly contradict the maisters and defenders thereof Mark this Reader what concord these men have among themselves some saying one thing some another Next I say if you refer this also to his person that as this action was according to Aaron so himself was a Priest according to his order in his sacrifice Then I say you both gain-say the plain Scriptures of God Heb. 5.6.10 and 7.11 and also the learnedst of your Church Bellar. lib. 1. de missa cap. 6. For suppose it be true that this sacrifice of his upon the cross did accomplish all the sacrifices of Aaron and put an end unto them according as he said It is finished Yet he offered up this sacrifice not as he was a Priest according to Aaron for he was not a Priest according to his order at all but as he was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedeck and therefore the Scripture joyns both together Heb. 5.6.7.10 to assure us that he offered up himself upon the cross as he was Priest not according to Aaron but according to Melchisedeck

The second thing is that you say Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck in this action which you mean the Mass did offer up his body and blood under the formes of bread and wine It is true indeed that Christ according to the order of Melchisedeck is an high-Priest and not according to the order of Aaron but yet neither is it certain out of the Scripture that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine in an external sacrifice For the Scripture saith only he brought it forth For this is the proper signification of the Hebrew word Hotzsi as in sundry places of Scripture Ezech. 22. Psal 135. Exod. 8. Num. 30. and so the Chaldaick Paraphrast Amena which is to bring forth and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Cyprian Epist ad Caecil Chrysost hom 35. in cap. 14. Genes Joseph lib. 1. cap. 19. Ambros upon the 7. cap. Epist ad Heb. he brought forth for to refresh Abraham c. And Cardinal Cajetan saith the same upon the 14 of Gen. There is nothing written there of a sacrifice or oblation but a bringing forth of bread and wine to refresh the victors saith he which is not to sacrifice And it is certain that he gave it to Abraham and his company to refresh them with after the slaughter of these Kings And the Apostle Heb 7 whereas he sets down these things wherein Melchisedeck was a type of Christ he doth not so much as give any inkling of this For there he compares Melchisedeck with Christ First that as Melchisedeck was both King and Priest so was Christ Next as Melchisedeck was without father and mother beginning and ending the Scripture not mentioning of it so was Christ Thirdly as Melchisedeck was greater then Aaron and had a more excellent Priesthood then the Levitical Priesthood so was Christs But never a word here of a sacrifice of bread and wine wherein Melchisedeck should have resembled the sacrifice of your Mass as ye suppose So you find out here that which the Spirit of God found not out and so ye make your self wiser then the holy Ghost in his Epistle But we will learn not to be wise above that which is written and to search no further then the Spirit of God hath found out already And suppose it were granted to you which ye are never able to prove that Melchisedeck did offer up bread and wine yet what to do hath this with your devilish abomination of your Mass wherein ye say the substance of bread and wine is gone away only the formes remaining For if your sacrifice in the Mass be like the sacrifice of Melchisedeck then the substance of bread and wine should remain as it did in the sacrifice of Melchisedeck and the bread and wine should be offered up and not Christs body and blood as bread and wine only were offered up in Melchisedeck his sacrifice So then either Melchisedeck his sacrifice is not a type of your sacrifice in the Mass or else true bread and wine remains in the Sacrament and not Christ his body and blood which is offered up Choose you then whither you will deny your sacrifice to be according to the order of Melchisedeck or else will you let go your real presence your transubstantiation and your personal offering up of Christ Jesus in your abominable Mass for one you must do Thirdly if Christ offered up such a sacrifice at his Supper as was prefigured by Melchisedeck which you affirm here then must it follow that Christ fulfilled that figure perfectly and so the same sacrifice needs no more to be offered up again and so here will follow the desolation of your Mass-Priests whose work is chiefly in repeating of this sacrifice again Fourthly I would ask you whither is this sacrifice which ye say he offered up according to the order of Melchisedeck in his last Supper one with that sacrifice which he offered up upon the cross or not If it be one then I say as he died and shed his blood on the cross and purchased an everlasting redemption by the same so this sacrifice of your Mass must be joyned with his death and shedding of his blood and must have the like vertue and effect to redeem us and so two absurdities will follow The one that Christ not only should twise have died once in the Supper and afterward upon the cross but also dies and is crucified continually in your Mass and yet the Scripture saith he died but once The other that that sacrifice of his upon the cross is superfluous for what needed him to die again to redeem mankind since the first offering of himself in the Supper was a sufficient redemption For if his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption which you cannot deny and if the sacrifice of him in the Supper be one with that of necessity it must follow that as his sacrifice upon the cross was a sufficient redemption even so his sacrifice in the Supper must be a sufficient redemption for mankind And therefore Alanus a great defender of your Catholick faith saith according to the judgement of the Council of Trent That the new Covenant is founded on the blood of Christ offered up in the Supper before he was crucified and that Christ was truly our passover the day before he suffered and he saith This is the foundation of all Christian doctrine according to the judgement of the Council Alanus de Euchar. lib. 2 cap. 28. Now if this be true that he was our Passover before he died and the covenant was founded in his blood which he offered up in the Supper then certainly Christ died in vain which is more then blasphemous and so blasphemous must that doctrine of your Mass be which carries with it such a blasphemie And if you will say it is not the same with that sacrifice upon the cross then I say First you are contrary to your own Church in this who saith it is one with that sacrifice of the cross Next Christ his body and blood is not offered then in the Supper for his body and blood was offered up upon the cross and so your Mass is gone or else make two Christs one in the Supper under the forms of bread and wine which the Disciples saw not and another who was offered up upon the cross which was seen of all So whither will ye go and unto what side will ye turn you M. Gilbert for the uphold of your Mass For there are rocks and sand-beds on every side So neither did Christ offer up himself in a sacrifice at all in his last Supper neither did he it according to the order of Melchisedeck But now let us see how ye prove this sacrifice out of the institution And seeing this point of doctrine is such a weighty point as whereupon the salvation and damnation of souls doth hing therefore I pray thee Christian Reader deceive not thine own soul to thy everlasting perdition but take

As to the second who is he that hath caused all to worship the first Beast that is hath brought again that tyrānous cruelty dominion over the poor Church of God in setting up idolatry and abolishing the true worship of God which the Heathen Emperors did but the Popes of Rome For was not the Emperor of the East excommunicat because he would not suffer Images in the Temples Have not they filled the world with their Idolatry as hath been proved Who have made war with the Saints oppressed them in all the parts where their dominion might reach but they France Germany England Scotland the Low Countreys and all Europe bear witness unto this As to the third who by lying wonders have deceived the world but they And as to the fourth who hath healed the deadly wound of the first Beast in setting up an Empire here in the West in the person of Charles the Great which was more then three hundred years so deadly wounded through the incursion of other Nations that there was no Empire in the West Who I say did all this but the Popes of Rome Giving unto them the style or bare name but taking by little and little the substance of the whole Empire to themselves so that Theodorick à Niem saith lib. 3. cap. 43. The Roman Empire is so little now in Almany that there is some Bishops or Archbishops that will spend twise as much as they will do of all the lands that is under their subjection And some Princes have more land then the Emperor hath And if ye will look to Rome saith he and Italy it was once the seat of the Empire but now the Emperor hath nothing of it but the style As to the fifth Who is he who hath caused make the Image of the Beast and given a spirit unto it that it should speak That is who have set up a very Image of the Roman Monarchy and Hierarchy in the whole frame of their government in the Church of God but the Popes of Rome So that the whole frame of their government and Hierarchy is a lively pattern and image of the Roman Empire For as in the Roman Empire there was an Emperor whom all did worship as God unto whom there was joyned a Senat who was next in authority to him so is the frame of the government of the Papistical Kingdom There is a Monarch the Pope whom all are compelled when they come in his sight to worship as an earthly God to whose sentence all must stand to who judgeth all but can be judged of none who hath joyned with him a Senat of Cardinals who are next him in authority Secondly as in the Roman Monarchy the Emperor took upon him not only the highest Kingly authority in all matters civil but also the Priestly authority and power over Religion and not that only but also to be Tribuns over the people who had the power of forbidding and annulling of all decrees made by other Magistrats Even so the Popes of Rome have usurped all these three First the highest Royal authority over all Kings and Princes next to be Lords over Religion so that as Antoninus one of his Archbishops saith Summa part 3. tit 22. c. 5. He may creat new Religions thirdly to be Tribuns that is to disanul whatsoever decree or judgement of any Bishop or inferior Judges yea of Synodal and General Councils if they be not ratified by him Thirdly as in Rome was the head of the Empire the Emperor and his Senat with him and as the Emperors had their Magistrats under them in all their Provinces and places of their dominions from whom all their authority was and who was at their beck and commandment So in the Popes Kingdom the Pope who is the head and the Senat of Cardinals which is next him in authority have their seat in Rome and they according to the old pattern of the Roman Empire have their Bishops Archbishops Abbots Priors Monks Friers c. in all the places of their dominion under them who have their whole authority from him and who all are his sworn men So here is then the lively image of the former beast And as to the sixth Who did kill all them that would not worship the image and this frame of government of Popes Cardinals Bishops Archbishops c. and their Religion but the Popes of Rome The blood of infinit thousands do testifie this And what hath brought all under their bondage both one and other that none might buy or sell that is neither brook Civil nor Ecclesiastical offices but those who were marked with his mark that is took on them his profession and was Catholicks as he termes them Is not this sufficiently known that none might have offices nor benefices in the Church but they that received his mark orders from him And none might brook their Kingdoms and civil dignities in so far as lay in his power but these that were of his profession Rex venit ante fores surans prius urbis honores Post homo fit Papae recipit quo dante coronam Clement lib. 2. tit 9. And Erasmus saith in his Adagles That neither Baptism nor marriage nor sacrifice nor psalms nor prayer nor Sacrament nor grave in the Papistical Kingdom are given without money Now last of all to what Kingdom or Church under heaven since this Revelation was written doth the number of the name of the Beast here set down agree but to the Latin Kingdom of the Popes and their Latin Church for here is set down the name of the Kingdom of Antichrist The number of the name of the Beast here set down is 666. and the λ α τ ε ι 30 1 300 5 10   ν ο σ.     50 70 200.   all which being joyned together maketh 666. letters of the name of this Antichristian Kingdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amounts to the same number of 666. For what is the name of the Popish Kingdom and Hierarchie Is not the Church called the Latin Church Is not all the exercises of their Religion almost in Latin And suppose the Old Testament be written in Hebrew and the New in Greek yet have they not condemned the Originals as corrupted And have they not authorized the Latin interpretation as only authentical So that Papacie is the very Kingdom of Latins Now the letters of this Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Latin for the Revelation was written in Greek doth amount to the same number 666. And what other Kingdom or Monarchy under heaven can show whose name is such that the letters thereof amounteth to this number Ireneus an ancient Writer yea so ancient that he saw and heard Polycarpus who was one of Johns Disciples who received this Revelation mentioneth that the name of this Beast in this prophesie is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iren. lib. 5. cap. 25. Sed Latinis nomen 666. numerum habet valde verisimile est quia