Priests should become Christochthonoi Christ Killers Yet how can they auoid the suspition of treason against the life of Christ when they seperate his reall body from his blood for it is greatly to be feared that they who powre out his liuely blood and breake his reall and substantiall body are guilty of the death of our Lord and Sauiour Argument 8. Eighly If Christ be dayly sacrificed in the Masse then Christ doth daily satisfie for our sinnes but Christ doth not daily satisfie for our sinnes ergo Christ is not dayly sacrificed in the Masse The consequence is plaine by euidence of Scripture for wheresoeuer and whensoeuer Christ was to be sacrificed it was for the satisfaction of his Fathers wrath for sinne Who gaue himselfe a ransom for all to be testified in due time Hee was delinered to death for our offences Who loued vs and gaue himselfe for vs an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweete smelling sauour If when we were enemies we were reconciled vnto God by the death of his sonne c. Who gaue himselfe for our sinnes that he might deliuer vs from this present euill world By these and diuers other places of holy Scripture it is plainely prooued that satisfaction for our sinnes is the end of Christs sacrifice and in naming the one wee suppose the other The Minor is prooued because Christ did perfectly satisfie for the sinnes of all the elect appeasing fully the wrath of God by his sacrifice vpon the Crosse and now ceasing from making any further satisfaction he onely sitting at the right hand of God maketh intercession for vs. For to satisfie the wrath of God is to doe that for vs which wee should haue done and to suffer that which we had deserued namely death and so Christ should againe yeelde obedience to the Law and suffer death againe but the Apostle sayth Christ being once dead dyeth no more neither is Almighty God so vniust as to require satisfaction of him that hath perfectly satisfyed already But our aduersaries say that Christ is sacrificed in the Masse to apply vnto vs the satisfaction which Christ hath giuen for vs on the Crosse. But so in applying satisfaction he makes satisfaction for Christ cannot be sacrificed truely but hee must truely die and he cannot die but to make satisfaction Againe if Christ ought to be sacrificed againe that the fruite of his sacrifice may be applyed vnto vs then ought he as well to be incarnate againe in the wombe of the Virgin that the fruite of his incarnation may be applied vnto vs to die to be buried to rise againe that so the fruite of his death Sepulture and resurrection may be applyed vnto vs. Lastly the application of the benefit of Christs sacrifice by reiteration of his sacrifice is not found in Scripture But there is a double meanes one internall and that is the efficacie of the Spirit of God which powerfull applies 〈◊〉 vs the vertue of Christs sacrifice the other is externall namely the Preaching of the word and the Sacraments which two concurring together beget faith in the soule which particularly applies the benefit of Christs oblation to the beleeuer In a word let them consider what applicari to be applied signifies and they shall easily perceiue that the sacrifice of Christ is applied vnto vs when Christ is offered not to God as in the Masse but to vs as in the holy Eucharist Christ freely giuing his body to be eaten his blood to be drunke and that spiritually by faith Argument 9. Ninthly if in the Masse Christ be offered vnto God by the Priests of Rome then hee is not the onely Priest of the new Testament But Christ is the onely Priest of the New Testament Ergo he is not offered by the Priests of Rome in the sacrifice of the Masse The consequence is true for if there be a true and reall sacrifice in the Masse there must needes follow a true and reall Priest-hood which offereth this sacrifice and so Christ is not the onely Priest of the new Testament The Minor is denied by our aduersaries but is proued by vs. First there is no other proper externall Priesthood vnder the Gospell but that which is after the order of Melchizedech of which order there is no man worthy but onely Christ as is sufficiently declared And whereas our aduersaries vainely boast their Priest-hood to be after the order of Melchizedech herein they are contrary to Scripture which makes this not to be a common Priest-hood as Aarons was but personall belonging onely vnto Christ wherefore the Apostle sayes that Christ because he continueth for euer hath Aparabaton Hierosunen such a Priest-hood as cannot passe from one to another Where the Apostle plainly shewes that such as were mortal and consequently not eternall were vncapable of that order of Melchizedech such are the Priests of Rome mortall as those of Aaron were and thereof vnto them cannot this Priest-hood be diuolued They thinke to cut vs off with this distinction Christ is the primary or principall Priest but men may be secundary and lesse principall by whose ministery Christ may offer himselfe vnto God I demaund then was not Christ euen vnder the Law a Priest after the order of Melchizedech and were not the Priests of Aaron being compared to Christ that was to come Secundary Priests were they not therefore Types and figures of the Priest-hood of Christ wherefore when the primary or superior Priest was come the Priest-hood of Aaron vanished and the Apostle would haue no legall Priesthood to remaine But where hath he substituted any other secundary Priests instead of the former Certes the Scripture hath not appointed any Againe by the same reason that the Apostle disanulles the legall Priest-hood hath he also excluded all other externall Priest-hood vnder the Gospell for he opposeth him that is immortall against those that are mortall God and man against those who are meere men Now if the Priests of Rome be no freer from mortality or fuller of deity then the Priests of Leuy they are then by the same reason both excluded for Cui ratio perfectum medium conclusionis conuenit eidem ipsa conuenit conclusio To whom the true reason and perfect medium of a conclusion doth agree to the same also the conclusion it selfe may be applied Againe Christ is plainely manifested to be the only Priest of the New Testament and so alone able to offer the sacrifice of propitiaton for our sinnes by that figuratiue entring alone of the high Priest once a yeare into the Tabernacle Againe he that offers a true propitiatory sacrifice effectuall in it selfe to procure pardon for 〈◊〉 must needes be a Mediator of the new Testament therefore is it sayd of Christ But now hath hee obtained a better ministry by how much also he is made a Mediator of a better couenanant And for this cause he is the 〈◊〉 of the new Testament that by meanes of death c. By which
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
practise of the most points of controuersie betweene them and vs. The Methode which I shall follow in this ensuing confutation shall be this First I shall shew that the pretended sacrifice of the Masse hath no foundation either in the Scriptures or practise of the Apostles or was knowne to the Fathers of the first sixe hundred yeares after Christ. Secondly I shall shew how the Masse got entrance increase and continuance in the Church of Rome from the time of Gregorie the great vntill these 〈◊〉 dayes Thirdly I shall answer vnto the Obiections of our Aduersaries Lastly I shall lay downe arguments confuting them and establishing the Doctrine now taught in the Church of England And for the first of these If this sacrifice of the Masse haue any ground in Scripture the Papists will be sure to alleadge whatsoeuer may seeme to make for their purpose Let vs then lay in the ballance of the Sanctuary their wrested Scriptures and see how they prooue the matter in hand First they alleadge the words of our Sauiour to the woman of Samaria The houre commeth that you shall not worship the father neither in this mountaine nor at Ierusalem but the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth What prooue they from hence to adore say they is to sacrifice which sacrifice say they is the sacrifice of the Masse But who can be so blind as not plainely to discerne that by worship is meant all spirituall seruice and that after the materiall sacrifices the spirituall sacrifices shall succeede And Saint Augustine vnderstands it of inward and spirituall prayer Wouldest thou pray in a Temple pray within thy selfe saith he changing this outward and materiall Seruice to inward and spirituall Chrysostome expounds Christ to 〈◊〉 of the spirituall sacrifice of our selues which the Apostle mentions Rom. 12. 1. And 〈◊〉 their owne Cardinall thus expounds this place In spirit that is to say not in the mountaine not at 〈◊〉 not in 〈◊〉 one 〈◊〉 place not with a temporall Seruice but with an inward and spirituall Ferus likewise one of their own though nor so corrupt as now they are sayes In spirit in as much as they shall haue receiued the Spirit of 〈◊〉 crying in him Abba Father in truth in as much as they shall call upon him in his Sonne who is Truth it selfe Offering saith he afterwards no more any quicke and liuing creatures but their owne bodies in sacrifice a holy oblation and offering Thus neither by the Fathers nor by some of their owne Writers expounding this Scripture can it appeare that Christ speakes in this place concerning the sacrifice of the Masse Secondly the falshood of Iohannes 〈◊〉 Durantus is palpable when he saith That it is perspicuous by the testimonies of Christ himselfe and of Paul the Apostle and of the ancient Fathers that Christ instituted the sacrifice of the Masse and was the Authour thereof Wherefore hauing recited the institution of the Sacrament out of the 22. chapter of Luke and the first of the Corinth the eleuenth vpon these words Doe this in remembrance of me hee concludeth that by those words Christ gaue commandement to sacrifice for to doe signifies to sacrifice according to that of Virgill Quum faciam vitulam pro frugibus c. Answ. I answer Facere in the latine signifies sometimes to sacrifice but it is onely a Poeticall phrase feldome read and neuer but when it is ioyned with the thing to be sacrificed And the greeke language wherein the Euangelist Luke and the Apostle Paul writ vseth not the word Poiein to sacrifice Wherefore Christ instituting there not a Sacrifice but a 〈◊〉 enioyneth vs to doe the same that hee hath done namely to blesse the bread to eate the bread to blesse the cup to drinke of the cup to distribute them both and to receiue them both Thirdly a great Papist of late yeares seeing himselfe thrust out of this place flyeth to another and will needes prooue that the Apostles said Masse by that place of the Acts. Leitourgountôn ae autôn kai nesteuontôn As they ministred vnto the Lord and fasted This word Leitourgountôn as they ministred he will haue to signifie as they were saying Masse Answ. I answer the word properly signifies to 〈◊〉 ones duty or to serue and therefore is to be translated as they were seruing the Lord. I know in the greeke Church the Lords Supper was called leitourgia a liturgie or seruice but that is kat exochen because it is the clearest badge of our Christian profession and a speciall worke of Gods seruice So the Apostle calls the almes of the Saints leitourgia a liturgy or seruice in both which places the word is vsed which they would haue to signifie to say Masse in the place before alleadged They may as well prooue that the Angells said Masse for the same Epitheton is attributed to them They are called leitourgika pneumata ministring spirits It were strange to translate it Massing spirits But what is the meaning of the former place Leitourgounton As they were ministring Oecumenius tells vs Truely the same that 〈◊〉 they were preaching The Syriacke and the Arabian As they were at praiers Their old translation as they were executing their office and ministerie And the Glosse addeth in good workes euery man according to his order and degree Nicholas de Lyra and Caietan two of their owne men the first sayes As they serued God euerie one according to his degree fasting to the end that their spirits might be so much the more raysed and lifted vp to 〈◊〉 and diuine things The second sayes He speaketh nothing of what kind their ministring was but in as much as hee had spoken before of Prophets and teachers he would in finuate vnto vs that they serued God in teaching and prophecying Among these and all ancient expositers there is not one can be found that did euer dreame of finding the Masse in this place of Scripture But let vs further grant that the word doth signifie that they were celebrating the holy Sacrament yet what can they from thence collect to prooue the sacrifice of the Masse yea but say they Leitourgein signifies to sacrifice Nay but properly to execute a publike charge either in spirituall or temporall affaires Wherefore Suidas calls Leitourgia he demosia huperesia a publike of fice or charge and so is called quasi ta leita ergazein to doe some publike worke for the people or suppose wee should yeeld they were sacrificing why not sacrificing the Gospell according to that place which formerly I haue quoted and expounded to bee nothing els but by preaching the Gospell to make the sacrifice of Christ to be knowne to their hearers and by the sword of the spirit the word of God to kill and slay mens sinnefull lusts that so they may bee offered vp to God a pure and vnspotted sacrifice Fourthly they tell vs of the Masse of Saint
vse as meanes for the conuersion of others were to liue in future ages and had not as yet beeing and consequently could not at that time finish those acts whereunto they were destined of God but if he vnderstand by these words All things necessary for mans saluation are not finished all the specificall acts of religion as Prayer Preaching Administration of the Sacraments c. and whatsoeuer of that kind which is necessary to mans saluation is not finished this is false for that they had their institution from Christ before his death and so in the species they were finished Or if thereby the sacrifice of Christ was not finished this is false for both it and the saluation of man by it was finished as appeares by the Apostles vsing the same words saying With one offering teteleioken consummauit he hath consummated for euer such as are sanctified And whereas he sayes that if all things necessary for mans saluation were consummated then the sacraments and all doctrine should bee superfluous this is false for the institution of them might be consummated although the exercise of them in future ages were not finished Againe the perfection of Christs sacrifice abolisheth not the vse of doctrine and Sacraments which doe represent vnto vs the death and sacrifice of Christ but it abolisheth all other sacrifices of Propitiation for if they be but memorialls of Christs death they are superfluous the word and sacraments beeing sufficient to that end and if they be more then memorials as auaileable to forgiue sinnes they are blasphemous and make Christs sacrifice imperfect Argument 17. The seauenteenth argument is taken from the falshood of the Canon of the Masse and it is thus framed Such as is the Canon such is the sacrifice But the Canon of the Masse is false Ergo the sacrifice is false and consequently not Propitiatory The falshood of the Masse appeares in diuers things 1. In the ancient Church when the Lords Supper was celebrated the Christians vsed to bring their agapai which were the bread and wine for the reliefe of the poore and the maintenance of the Ministry and when they had laide downe these oblations which were neuer accounted a Propitiatory sacrifice they prayed for the prosperity and preseruation of the Church which in the Canon before the consecration is applyed vnto the bread and wine and the bread and wine is offered vnto God the Father for the happinesse of the Church Secondly in the Canon They pray vnto God that he would accept that pure sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ as he accepted the sacrifices of Abell and Melchizedech In which words they become intercessours vnto God the Father to accept his Son Iesus Christ as though he were not worthy to be accepted of himselfe And how absurd is it to compare the most pretious sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ if it were so really and truely vnto the sacrifice of Abel which was but a lambe or a goate And how vnwisely doe they pray that God would accept the sacrifice of his Sonne as hee did accept the sacrifice of Melchizedech whereas it cannot appeare as is formerly prooued by the holy scripture that Melchizedech offered bread and wine how absurd is it then to compare the sacrifice of Christ with that sacrifice which neither was is nor shall be Thirdly the Canon saith that the Priest offereth vnto God the heauenly Father the bread of life But where are they commanded to offer the bread of life seeing in the scripture there is mention made of eating the bread of life but not of offering Fourthly the Canon ouerthrowes the article of ascension for it commands the Angells to carry that vnspotted sacrifice to the high Altar of heauen and to present it before God the Father What Is not Christ ascended and fitteth for euer at the right hand of God and hath he now more need of the helpe of Anglls then when he first ascended by the whole power of his Godhead and cannot hee appeare before his Father but by the assistants of Angells But let me bee bold to demand three questions of our aduersaries grounded vpon these words of the Canon Supplices te rogamus omnipotens Deus iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli c. We humbly beseech thee O Omnipotent God that tbou wouldest command this sacrifice to be carryed by the hands of the holy Angell vnto thy high Altar in the sight of thy diuine Maiesty c. First if they vnderstand it of the bread and wine transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ how comes it to passe that they are not taken by the Angell and carryed immediately into heauen according to the prayer of the Church Secondly I demand if their doctrine bee true of their Multipresence that the true humane body and blood of Christ be both in heauen and in many thousand places vpon the earth at one time what need then the Angell to carry the body of Christ into heauen where it is already before his heauenly Father Thirdly if it be so as they say that Christ in the night when he instituted the Lords Supper did offer himselfe his naturall body and blood vnder the forms of bread and wine a true Propitiatory sacrifice to his heauenly Father I demand whether the Angell did carry this sacrifice into heauen or whether it did 〈◊〉 before his Father in heauen or no If they say no how then was the sacrifice accepted or how comes the Church to pray for that priuiledge of hauing this sacrifice carryed into heauen which was not vouchsafed to the sacrifice offered immediately by Christ himselfe If they affirme that it was carryed into heauen it would then follow that Christs body was in heauen before his passion resurrection or ascension and when he in his humane nature ascended into heauen from his Disciples hee found his humane body and blood before his Father and to haue beene there before it came thither Thus they make Christ to haue two bodies and consequently two soules and so Christ is not one but two but many but innumerable These absurdities doe directly result and arise from their blasphemous Canon which is so grosse and palpable as deserues to be hissed out of the Church Lastly the Canon in diuers places ouerturnes the Mediation of Christ in that they pray to Saints and Angells making them to be intercessours it also establishes Purgatory and prayer for the dead doctrines so dissonant from the truth of the Scriptures as when we see them authorized in the Church of Rome wee may iustly call in question the vertue of their massing sacrifice Argument 18. The eighteenth Argument is taken from the effect of the Masse thus That which destroyeth the true nature of the Lords Supper cannot be a true Propitiatory sacrifice for the 〈◊〉 of the quicke and the dead But the pretended sacrifice of the Masse doth subuert and destroy the nature of the Lords Supper Ergo