MELCHIZEDECHS Antitype. Or The eternall Priesthood and All sufficient sacrifice of Christ.

THe Authour of this Epistle wri­ting Caluine in the argument of this Epistle. vnto the beleeuing Iewes which had receiued the do­ctrine of Christ, intends not to persuade them that Iesus was the Messiah foretolde by the Prophets to bee the Sauiour of the world, for of this they were already satisfied: but his scope and intent is rather more fully to in­forme them concerning the offices of Christ, which [Page 2] he prooues largely and exactly to be three: Prophe­ticall, Kingly, and Priestly. These hee layes downe generally in the three first verses of this Epistle. For Chap. 1. [...]. 1, 2. first hee shewes that whereas the Lord had spoken obscurely and vmbratically by his Prophets touch­ing the Christ, yet now hee spake personally by his Sonne, who was the Messiah himselfe and the great Prophet of his Church. Secondly, he shewes that Vers. 2. 3. Iesus was our Lord and King appointed by his fa­ther as heire of all things, by whom he made the world; in whom alone the glorie and maiesty of the father is to be contemplated, who sustaineth all things by his mightie word, each creature obeying his command. Thirdly, that the same Iesus the sonne of God was the Priest which offered that all-sufficient sacrifice Vers. 3. for remission of the sinnes of all that beleeue in him.

Thus the Authour hauing layd the ground worke of his subsequent matter doth in the sequell of the Epistle polish euery particular part with sundry ar­guments, still building vpon that foundation which he had laid. But because the Iewes thought it strange that the Gospell should take place, and be preferred before the Law, therefore the Authour first declares [...]. the excellency of Iesus Christ shewing him to be not onely man but God, farre aboue all Angells, and consequently worthy of a great deale more honour then Moses.

Hauing handled his Propheticall and Regall offi­ces, hee comes in the fourteenth verse of the fourth The diffe­rence between Christ and [...]. chapter to his Priestly office; and comparing him with Aaron, layes downe diuers differences be­tweene [Page 3] Christ and Aaron; who differed:

First in person, the one being onely man, the o­ther as well God as man.

Secondly in qualitie, the one being sinnefull, of­fered sacrifice, not onely for others but for himselfe also; the other being Choris hamartias, without sinne offered himselfe for vs.

Thirdly in order; the one being of the Leuiticall order; the other after the order of Melchisedech; and consequently the one was temporarie; the other e­ternall.

Fourthly in the manner of sacrificing; Aaron of­fered the blood of beasts, but Christ offered himselfe, yea his owne blood.

Fiftly in efficacie; the sacrifices of Aaron being in themselues of no vertue, not able to cleanse sinne: but the sacrifice of Christ was effectuall pur­ging all beleeuers from all their sinnes.

Sixthly in the reiteration; for Aaron and his sons were bound to reiterate their sacrifices euery day: Christ offered once for all.

Seauenthly, Aaron entred into an earthly taber­nacle without the people, but Christ into a heauenly with all his faithfull members.

Then the Apostle shewes what Analogie and pro­portion The agree­ment between Christ and Aaron. there was betweene the Priest-hood of Christ, and that of Aaron; which agreed.

First in election, for as the Leuiticall Priests were elected to their office: so was Christ ordained of his Father.

Secondly, they did offer sacrifice with blood, so did Christ.

[Page 4] Thirdly, they did it in behalfe of the people, so did Christ.

Fourthly, they prayed for the people, so did Christ.

Last'y, they entred into the Sanctum Sanctorum, Holy of Holyes; so did Christ.

The Authour in the ninth chapter hauing com­pared the carnall rites with the spirituall; the [...]Tabernacle which was corruptible; with the glorious tabernacle of Christs humane nature which was and is incorruptible; the blood of beasts with the blood of Christ; shewing that these were but the shadowes, whereof Christ was the substance, in whom we inioy all things spiritually, and by whose blood al things are sanctified vnto vs: in this chap­ter he shewes the insufficiencie of the Leuiticall ob­lations to be imployed by their frequent reiteration, and the perfection of Christs sacrifice by the single act: wherefore the Hebrewes should not rest in the Leuiticall sacrifices, which being types of Christ had their perfection in him, who hauing offered one sa­crifice for sinne, sitteth for euer at the right hand of God.

This text doth diuide it selfe into two parts. The text diui­ded.

An Agent and his Actions.

The Agent in this relatiue pronoune, Autos, He.

His Actions are two. The first done and past. The second present and in doing. The first, hee offered one sacrifice for sinne, where we haue.

First the subiect of his action, He offered a sacrifice.

[Page 5] Secondly, the singularitie of this subiect. One sa­crifice.

Thirdly, the end of both; for finne.

His second action is expressed by three predica­ments.

Situs. His gesture He sitteth.

Vbi, His place, at the right hand of God.

Quando. His time; how long, for euer.

In the first is intimated his Maiestie; in that hee sitteth.

In the second his Omnipotencie, at the right hand of God.

In the third his Eternitie; in that hee sitteth for e­uer.

In the first action you haue Christ in the state of humiliation. In the second in the state of exaltation. In the first he is dying for sinne; in the second [...] ouer sinne. And first of the first, Hee hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne.

In the handling of which words this Method shal be obserued.

First I shall shew who was the Priest that offered. Secondly, what was the sacrifice which was offered. Thirdly, the scope and end whereunto it was directed.

This Priest was Christ, the eternall sonne of God, one with the Father, [...]of all things, and by whom all things doe subsist, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, a perfect man without sinne, full of grace and truth. He it was that tooke vpon him this function to be a Priest, and to offer an all-sufficient sacrifice to expiate for the sinnes of the elect. And herein did Christ [...] mainely differ from the Leuiticall Priests [Page 6] in that they were onely the persons offering sacrifice, and not the sacrifice it selfe; but Christ was both the Christ both Priest and sacrifice. Priest and Sacrifice: for there could no sufficient sa­crifice bee found for the sinne of man, but onely Christ; and none worthy to offer the sonne of God, but onely himselfe.

But seeing Christ in the vnitie of his person had entertained a dualitie of natures, consisting of Deitie and Humanitie, hence arises a question.

Whether the Priestly office of Christ belong vn­to Quest. Answ. his Godhead or to his manhood, or to both? The answer is, that Christ is this Priest according to nei­ther nature separately or diuided, but according to both natures ioyntly, as he was both God and man. See this confirmed, How much more shall the blood of Heb. 9. 14. Christ who by the eternall spirit, offered himselfe to God, purge our consciences from dead works to serue the liuing God. By which eternall spirit we are to vnder­stand his eternall Godhead, concurring with his man­hood to make him a perfect Priest. Why Christ as Priest was to be God end man.

The reasons why the Priestly office of Christ did re­quire that he should be both God and man are these. First as he was a Priest, so was he to be a Mediatour; but he could not be a Mediatour except he were God and man; for Opera Christi Mediatoris sunt The andri­ca: The workes of Christ which concerne his Mediatour­ship [...]. proceede from both natures.

Secondly, because he was to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, so that he must bee apator and [...] ametor, without father, without mother, as Melchise­dech was. Now he was not without father but as hee was man, nor without mother but as he was God.

[Page 7] Thirdly, because hee must be both God and man that reconciled in one God vnto man, and man vnto God.

Lastly, because no creature could satisfie Gods [...]but onely God, none ought but onely man; wherefore the Godhead of Christ did giue unto his manhood efficacie and merit to deserue at Gods hands remission of our sinnes: for the manhood of it selfe without the Godhead hath no vertue or effica­cie to be meritorious; So it appeares that Christ Ie­sus was the High Priest for his elect, according to both natures:

Concerning the Priesthood of Christ there are three things obseruable.

First, that albeit Christ was a Priest, yet he did not arise out of the Priestly stocke of Aaron, he was not of the tribe of Leui, but of the Princely stocke of Why Christ did not arise out of the Priestly stocke of Aaron. Dauid, being borne of the tribe of Iudah, aud that for these two reasons.

First, to shew that hee was not a Priest after the order of Aaron, but of a new order differing from the Leuiticall as the Anti-type from the Type, the true Priesthood from the figuratiue.

Secondly, he arose of the Regall tribe of Iudah, that so like Melchisedech hee might bee not onely a Priest but a King, Yet notwithstanding in the priest­hood of Aaron there were many resemblances of Christs Priesthood 1. In that the high Priest was annoynted with oyle, so was Christ spiritually: God Psal 45. 7. euen thy God hath annointed thee with the oyle of glad­nesse aboue thy fellowes. 2. In the sumptuous appar­rell which the high Priest put on: a type of the rich [Page 8] and [...] of [...]. 3. In the speciall parts of the high Priests attire; as the E­phod, the shoulders whereof had two Onix stones whereon were engrauen the names of the twelue tribes; to represent Christs carrying all the elect on his shoulders; supporting them in this life against the world, the flesh, and the diuell. Next the brest­plate of iudgement wherin were set twelue stones ha­uing engrauen on them the names of the 12. tribes of Israel; and with these did he appeare before God in the Sanctuarie; representing thereby that Iesus our High Priest being in his heauenly Sanctuarie, beares in memorie all the elect before God; and vpon this ground the Church in the Canticles prayes that she [...]8.6. might bee set as a seale vpon his heart, and as a seale vpon his arme. Then the Vrim and Thummim; the first whereof signifies Lights, the second Perfections; Col. 23. representing in Christ. 1. The light of wisedome, for in him are hid all the treasures of wisedome and knowledge. 2. His perfection, wherein he excelleth all creatures. Lastly, the Priest had a plate on his fore­head whereon was engrauen Holinesse to Iehouah; re­presenting the holines of Christ wherewith he doth appeare before his father for the redemption of his people.

In the second place we are to obscrue the eternity Christs priest­hood how [...]. [...]. 110.4. of Christs Priesthood; for it is saide, Thou art Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech. Now the Priesthood of Christ is said to bee eternall, not that Christ shall for euer offer sacrifice for the sinnes of his people; but that the vertue and efficacie of his sacrifice doth extend it selfe vnto eternity in the [Page 9] saluation of all beleeuers: in that by the merit of this oblation of his death and passion hee hath purcha­sed for all his members eternall glorie. So that the eternitie of Christs Priesthood consists not in the continuation of his Sacerdotall acts, but in the eter­nall effect of his sacrifice vpon the elect. For when Christ shall at the last day iudge the world, and shall inuest the soules and bodies of all his Saints with glo­ry and immortalitie, then shall cease the Propheticall, and Priestly offices of Christ, and onely his Regall or Kingly office shall remaine: for the Saints in glorie shall haue perfect knowledge, and shall need no in­formation from him as a Prophet; nor shall neede the sacrifice or intercession of Christ as a Priest, but shall yeeld all obedience in thought, word, and deede vnto him as their King.

Quest. But how can the sacrifice of Christ beeing (but finite and temporarie) be of infinite and eter­nall merit?

Ans. The act of Christ vpon the orosse, offering himselfe a sacrifice for the sinnes of his Saints was a finite act, and temporarie, lasting but some certaine houres, and so consequently could not be of it selfe of [...]and eternall vertue: but if we consider that with his manhood there was inseparably vnited his Godhead which was of eternall and infinite efficacie; and Christs sacrifice was accepted of his father, not Math. 3 17. onely as the sacrifice of the sonne of man, but also as the sacrifice of the Sonne of God his onely begotten Son, then we mustneedes confesse the sacrifice of Christ to be of infinite and eternall merit. Here then is the so­lution of this doubt. Albeit the Manhood of Christ [Page 10] onely was the sacrifice for our finnes which did satis­fie Gods wrath, yet the Manhood of Christ alone was not sufficient: for the Dietie must concurre (though not in suffering) yet in giuing vertue, power, and officacie to merite eternall life at the hands of God.

Thirdly, wee are to obserue the parts of Christs Priesthood which are two.

First, Satisfaction or Expiation for our sinnes, [...] whereby Christ hath payd the price for our iniqui­ties, and hath giuen himselfe an all-sufficient ransome for vs. From which satisfaction ariseth our reconci­liation whereby God is well pleased with vs in his [...], and wee in Christ are made the Sonnes of God.

Secondly, [...], and that consists of two [...] things.

First, in that he makes request for vs before his fa­ther, not that he doth kneele before him to pray for [...] vs, but that hee doth continually and incessantly ap­peare before him by the merit of his righteousnesse making intercession for vs: for as Christ did vnite his eternall righteousnesse vnto his humane nature at his birth, and continued it vntill his death; so his hu­mane nature endued with perfect righteousnesse ap­peares before God the Father in heauen after an in­effable manner making request for vs.

Secondly, in that hee doth offer our prayers and thanks giuings to God, making them acceptable in [...] himselfe, Christ is that Angell spoken of by S. Iohn, The golden altar is his Godhead, signifying Purity and Merit, his incense is his righteousnesse, which beeing [Page 11] an offering of a sweet smelling sauour in the nostrills of his Father, makes the prayers of the Saints ac­ceptable to the father.

These things being thus made plaine touching the [...] Priesthood of Christ, the Thesis or point of Do­ctrine followes, That there neuer was, nor euer shall be any Priest that could or shall hereafter offer a perfect satisfactorie sacrifice for the sinnes of the redeemed, but onely Christ Iesus the son of God. For if any creatures could haue satisfied for the sin of man, and reconciled him vnto God, he would neuer haue layd so heauy a burthen vpon his onely Son, as to endure the shame of cursed Iewes, and (which was tenne thousand times more) the infinite wrath of his heauenly Fa­ther for the transgressions of mankind. And indeede Christ onely was sufficient for this office if we consi­der these particulars.

First, he that was to offer such a sacrifice must bee Reas. 1. God and man, after the order of Melchizedech, with­out father, without mother; which should be King of Salem, and authour of eternall peace; who was so but onely Christ?

Secondly, hee that offered such a sacrifice was of Reas. 2. no lesse worth, merit, aud dignity with God then the sacrifice it selfe; seeing (as Ireneus speakes) The sacri­fice receiues its efficacy and value from the Priest that offers it.

Wherefore the sacrifice that was offered for the sinnes of man, beeing of infinite worth and excellen­cie, according as the sinne of man was of infinite de­formitie, and deserued infinite punishment; so must the Priest likewise bee of infinite desert at the hands [Page 12] of God that must offer so great a sacrifice. Hereupon it followes that the humane nature of Christ beeing perfectly holy of it selfe, yet not infinitely holy, could neuer haue beene a sufficient sacrifice for our sinnes, had not the Dietie beene vnited to it, so to make him an infinite Priest, that hee might giue infinite merite and efficacie to his oblation. But a creature of infinit desert could not be found. Not Angels who are fi­nite in being, and whose holinesse is but deriued from God, his Sanctitie being the fountaine and theirs the streames. [...]man for he had corrupted his wayes, and was become abhominable, and had neede of a Mediatour to stand betweene God and himselfe. None there for was sufficient for this function, none worthy of this Priesthood but Christ Iesus the Sonne of God.

By the ground of this reason, wee may obserue a Differences betweene a sa­crifice aud a Sacrament. [...] in 5. cap. [...]. maine difference betweene a Sacrifice and a Sacra­ment: a Sacrament doth not receiue it efficacie and vertue from the minister, but may be administred ef­fectually to a beleeuer, albeit it be by a wicked Mini­ster; but a sacrifice is either accepted or reiected for the worthinesse or vnworthinesse of the person [...]. As appeares euidently in Cain and Abel, their [...]. 4. sacrifices both sufficient for matter, but God imbra­ced Abels, because he offered with a righteous heart, and abhominated Cains, because he was wicked. The people of [...]and Iudah because their [...]was full [...]. of blood, and their hearts full of [...], therefore were [...] sacrifices an abhomination vnto the Lord, [...]. and for their wickednes did the Lord [...]his owne ordinances.

[Page 13] The third reason why Christ onely is that Priest who can offer a perfect propitiatorie sacrifice for the sinnes of mankind, is because he that offered that ob­lation [...]. 7. 3. was to haue neither archen emeron, nor zoes te­los, beginning of dayes, nor end of life; but what crea­ture is there which was not framed in time by the God of eternity; seeing in the beginning God made the Gen. 1. 1. heauen and the earth, and all things therein, where then shall we find any Priest to parallell eternity, but onely Christ Iesus the Sonne of God.

Fourthly, there was and is but one Mediatour be­tweene [...] God and man, which was the office of the Priest, but this Mediatour is onely Christ Iesus. For albeit there bee appointed ministers of Gods holy word to present the prayers of the faithfull before God, and to impetrate for them, yet this is not for the worthinesse of their owne persons and in their owne names, but in the name and for the [...] of Christ do they make request for the whole Church of Christ. And to this purpose Saint [...] [...]in these words, If the Apostle had [...]These [...] things haue I written vnto you, that you should [...] but if any man sinne you haue me for a Mediatour, [...] by my prayer obtaine pardon for your sinnes ( [...] placeth the Bishop to be a Mediatour betweene God and the people) what good or faithfull Christian [...]abide him, who would behold him as the Apostle of Christ, and not rather as Antichrist? By which words of Saint Augustine, it appeares to be a point of [...]to place any creature as a [...] God and man, but onely hee who [...] God and man Christ Iesus.

[Page 14] Fiftly and lastly there is but one that could offer this Sacrifice, because as the Priesthood was peculiar to Christ alone, so the act of offering this sacrifice ac­cording to the order of that Priesthood did proper­ly and personally appertaine to Christ. Now Christ had such a Priesthood as no creature was capable of, and therefore the Apostle cals it aparabaton ierosunen, [...] such a priesthood as could not passe from him to any o­ther creature, no not to the father or the holy Ghost; therefore was it translated from Aarons order to Christ, where it resteth, and from whom it cannot be translated or remooued by succession, or any o­ther wayes; and seeing he hath translated the Leuiti­call Priesthood, and bound it to his owne person, hee hath thereby made the new Testament vnalterable, and his priesthood vnchangeable. Wherefore seeing there is but one onely that is God and man, after the order of Melchisedech, without father, without mother, king of Salem and Prince of Peace. Seeing there is but one that is of equall dignitie, with this all-sufficient sacrifice. Seeing there is but one that hath neyther be­ginning nor end of dayes. Seeing there is but one Me­diatour betweene God and man. And seeing the priest­hood was tyed to one particular person, and all these agree onely vnto Christ; it followes therefore that there is but one onely priest who was worthie and a­ble to offer this perfect satisfactorie sacrifice; and that was Iesus Christ.

The first vse of this point is for confutation of the [...] doctrine of the Church of Rome; for you haue heard that Christ is Priest not according to his hu­mane nature onely but also according to his diuine, [Page 15] which the papists veterly deny; making him to bee a Fulke on the 5. Heb ver. 6. priest onely as he was man; but altogether vniustly; for in the office of priesthood there are two things necessarie. Ministerie and Authoritie. In respect of the Ministeriall part Christ performed that office as man; but in respect of Authoritie of entring into the Holy of Holyes, and presenting vs before God and reconci­ling vs vnto him, which was the principall part of his priesthood, he did performe it as the Sonne of God; as the second person in the Trinitie, co-worker with the Father in the creation of the world: wherefore that he might be a priest able and worthy to make at­tonement with God he was God; that his reconcilia­tion might extend to men, he was man; and so being God and man he is a perfect mediatour between God and man; and an high Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech.

But the Papists hold Christ to bee a Priest onely in Obiect. his humane nature, because they thinke that onely in his humane nature he was annoynted.

I answer, that if this annoynting be onely taken for [...] the collation of the gifts and graces of the Spirit; it is true, onely the humane nature of Christ was an­nointed. But by this annointing is also vnderstood the ordaining of Christ to be the Mediatour and Sa­uiour of the world, and in this sence not onely his hu­mane nature but also his diuine was annoynted to this end. For the humane nature of Christ albeit it was pure and spotlesse, yet could it neuer haue wrought our redemption without the assistance of his Godhead, for as he was man, so he was borne, hee fa­sted, he suffered, he dyed; but to rise from the graue, [...] [Page 14] [...] [Page 15] [Page 16] to ascend into heauen, to reconcile vs to God, this he could not doe but by the power, might, and effica­cie of his Godhead. And to this purpose are the words of Bernard, Singula [...]opera ad [...]siue il­lam necesse est pertinere naturam: ad [...]scilicet mi­seria, ad illam [...]. All the workes of Christ doe appertaine either to one nature or other; to the humane nature belongs his miserie; to his [...]na­ture, his power.

Diuers authorities of the Fathers are alleadged by the Rhemists for the proouing of their opinion, which you shall find sufficiently answered by learned [...] vpon the fift chapter of the Hebrewes, vers. 6.

Secondly, seeing Christ onely is that Priest that can offer an al-sufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of his Vse 2. elect, this then demonstrateth the sacrilegious blas­phemie of the Romish Priesthood, that they dare pre­sume to arrogate that office to themselues, which is onely peculiar to Iesus Christ How dare such pre­sumptuous priests once vndertake to offer a sacrifice for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead, seeing the offering of that sacrifice caused the Sonne of God to sweat clods of water and blood, to endure the infinite wrath of his infinite father, and had he not beene cor­roborated by the dietie, his body had beene vanqui­shed by death, and captiuated by the power of the graue; if the Sonne of God could not do it but with so much difficultie; proud are the sonnes of [...] the Priests of Rome, who seeme to doe it with such facili­tie. But I would argue Socratically with them by de­manding some questions.

1. First, he that was to offer this sacrifice was to [Page 17] be God and man without sinne: I demaund whether any of them be God and man; if not then they can­not offer this satisfactorie sacrifice, neither are they after the order of Melchizedech. If they say that e­uery one of their priests is God and man, oh how doe they blaspheme? how doe they proclaime them­selues of the spawne of Antichrist? who takes vpon him to be God, and exalts himselfe aboue all that are 2. [...]. 2. 4. called Gods.

2. Secondly, the Angell told Daniell, Dan. 9. that Christ should take away sinne by his sacrifice, and the Eph. 5. 2. holy Apostle sayes, Christ offered himselfe an oblation and sacrifice to God of a sweet smelling sauour. So that this sacrifice could be offered of none but Christ. Are they so many Christs?

3. Thirdly, there was but one high Priest at once among the Iewes, to signifie that there was but one high Priest that could take away our sinnes by offe­ring a satisfactory sacrifice. But are not they innume­rable?

4. Fourthly, hee that offered this sacrifice was to be of no lesse dignitie and worth then the sacrifice it selfe, seeing a sacrifice is accepted for his sake that of­fers it. But dares the masse priest say he is himselfe of equall dignitie with the sacrifice he offers: or that it is accepted for his sake? No not for his eares.

Lastly the sacrifice that the Priest offers in the masse, either is the same that Christ offered or another; if it be another, then it is not propitiatory, seeing the true satisfactory sacrifice was but one according to the text, hauing offered one sacrifice. If it be the same, why then doe they make the sacrifice of Christ imperfect [Page 18] and weake by their so often reiteration; yea, why doe they make the Scripture false which sayes,, Hauing offered one sacrifice once for all. And as the Leuiticall sacrifices being so frequently repeated did shew that they were in themselues imperfect, and could neuer Heb. 10. 1. make the commers hereunto perfect; so doth the often repetition of the sacrifice of Christ argue the imbe­cility thereof.

Obiect. But the factors of the Church of Rome will say, that Christ may haue deputies on earth in his stead to offer sacrifice.

Ans. I answer hereunto two wayes. First, I say Christ is not bound to offer any more sacrifice at all; for the oblation of himselfe vpon the crosse did con­summate mans redemption, and put an end [...]all typical sacrifices of the law, and to his sacrifice which he was to offer for mans reconciliation? wherefore seeing Christ is not to offer any more sacrifice, what needes he a deputie to offer sacrifices, where neither seruice is required nor expected, what need is there of a substitute?

2. I answer by the way of admission; let vs grant that Christ is yet to offer sacrifice, or to continue his begunne sacrifice, which is most erroneous. Yet we must consider Christ two wayes. 1. as God. 2. as a Mediatour. As hee is God with the Father, and the holy Ghost, he hath Kings and Magistrates to bee his deputies on earth: therefore they are called Elohim Gods. But as he is a Mediatour he hath neither depu­tie nor vicegerent, neither king to rule ouer his Church, nor priest to offer sacrifice for him.

Quest. If they aske what wee doe then with Mini­sters [Page 19] in the Church of England?

Answ. I answer, wee make them not Mediatours and sacrificing priests (as Parmenian the heretick and the papists doe) but we haue them for such purposes as Christ hath commanded, namely, to administer the word and sacraments, to vse prayer and discipline in the Church, which is no part of the office of Christs eternall priesthood, or chiefe sacrificers dignity,

Plainely then doe appeare vnto vs the blasphemie and sacriledge of the Priests of Rome in establishing their massing priesthood, for while they seeke to maintaine their owne glory, they robbe Christ of his; endeauouring to confirme the multiplicity of their priests, they ouerthrow the singular priesthood of [...]Christ.

Quest. But heere may bee demanded a question whether the title priest may properly be assigned to a Minister of the new Testament?

Answ. I answer, howsoeuer it bee crept into the Church, yet (as learned Fulke) it is not a proper title for the ministers of the Gospell, in regard, that wee haue but one Priest Iesus Christ; for the office of the Priest is to offer sacrifice which doth not appertaine to the ministers of Christ Iesus, neither is the name priest any where in the new Testament ascribed vnto the Ministers in respect of their office.

But how then shal we answer to that place of Paul, Rom. 15. 16. That I should be the Minister of Iesus Christ, to the Gentiles ministring the Gospell of God, that the offering vp of the Gentiles might be acceptable beeing sanctified through the Holy Ghost. Where the word [...]to [...]; ministring the Gospell, signifies as much [Page 20] as sacrificing the Gospell; and so Erasmus translates it, explained by the word following, namely, that the offering of the Gentiles; where it appeares that a sacerdotall action is attributed vnto Paul, being a mi­nister of the Gospell; and therefore that the title priest may as lawfully and conueniently be ascribed to him. So Origen, Sacrificale opus est [...]E­uangelium, It is a sacrificall worke to preach the Gos­pel. Origen, in epist. ad Rom. lib. 16. [...]. I answer vnto the place alleadged out of the Ro­mans (as Caluin on the place) that the Apostle speakes there Metaphoricall alluding to the priest­hood of Aaron and the Leuiticall oblations, that as the priest did offer the oblation that was brought vnto him vnto the Lord: so Paul had a carefull desire by the preaching of the Gospell to subdue the affe­ctions of the Gentiles, and so to offer them (as it were) a pure and acceptable sacrifice vnto God. So Origen and other of the fathers tearme the preaching of the Gospell a priestly or sacrificall worke; not absolutely but comparatiuely and by way of simili­tude.

Obiect. But here may bee obiected these testimo­nies of Scripture, 1. Pet. 2. 5. 9. Reu. 1. 6. Reu. 20. 6. by which place it appeares that there are priests of the new Testament which ought still to offer sacrifice vnto God.

Answ. Vnto these places I answer, that if you consider who these are that are here spoken of, you shall finde them not to be onely the Clergie, but all faithfull Christians which haue not a materiall or ex­ternall priesthood but a spirituall and an internall, and so they doe offer spirituall sacrifices as I shall [Page 21] 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 Vse 3. 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 Hebt 4. 15. 16. Heb. 10. 19. 20. 21. [...]. 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 [Page 22] 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? 1. Cor. 15. 55. 1. [...]. 2. 1. 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 [Page 23] men; for as the Apostle vnder the Gospell, would at 1. Cor. 14. 34. 1. Tim 2. 12. 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, [...]. de sa­cerd. Rom. ca. [...] 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. Rex idem homi­num Phoebique sacerdos. 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 What a Sa­crifice [...]. scripture vnderstood the act of sacrificing; sometimes the thing ordained to be sacrificed; and [...]both [Page 24] these concurre to the making of a sacrifice; it may therefore be thus defined.

A sacrifice is a sacred and religious action instituted [...]. [...]. 4 de cultu Dei [...]pag. 425. & 475. by God whereby we offer some externall thing vnto the true God, which wee know will be acceptable vnto him. I called it a sacred religious action instituted by God, because it was a part of Gods worship prescribed vnto the Fathers before the writing of the law in Sinai, and taught by them vnto their children from age to age, and after the deliuering of the law commaunded expresly to the people of Israel. Againe, it was a sa­cred and religious action, because it was to bee per­formed holily and religiously to Gods glory, the edi­fication of the Church, and the saluation of the per­son offering. Againe, I say it is the offering of some external thing: as Abel of the firstlings of his flock, &c. Gen. 4. 4. For it must be some outward visible thing animate or inauimate. I speake of the sacrifices of the law, and not of the Gospell, which I shall shew to be as well internall as externall. I say moreouer that it must be offered to the true God; and therefore all sacri­fices offered by the Heathens vnto their Idolls and fained gods are improperly called sacrifices, in re­gard that it can neuer be called sacred which tends to the dishonour of the true God. Furthermore I say there must bee ioyned with this, Knowledge; for there can be no acceptable sacrifice vnto God, which is done ignorantly, without the knowledge of Gods holy will, the Apostle sayes whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne. And without faith it is impossible to please God; Rom. 14. 23. now faith cannot subsist without the knowledge of that which we doe beleeue. Lastly I say it must bee a [Page 25] thing acceptable to God. Therefore the price of a whore, the price of blood, a dogs head, swines blood, and the like, though they were offered yet are they abhominable, because they are forbidden, yea whatso­euer is unseemely or vndecent is not acceptable.

The Leuiticall sacrifices were of two sorts Ilastika The leuiticall sacrifices of two sorts. expiatory, or Eucharistika Gratulatory. In the expi­atory, propitiatory, or satisfactory sacrifice (for these different titles belong all to one thing) the Iewes had respect vnto their sinnes, and by the laying their hand on the beast, and slaying it before the Lord, they did in act confesse that they themselues had deserued death eternall for their sinnes, but by the blood of Ie­sus Christ the immaculate lambe who was to dye for mankind, they were assured to receiue remission of their sinnes, and freedome from eternall death. This sacrifice was called Catat, that is sinne, or a sacrifice for sinne. So Paul alluding hereunto saith, that God Zanch. de sacri­ficiis Iùdeorum. 1. Cor. 5. [...]. hath made him sinne for vs who knew no sinne, that is to say, God made him a sacrifice for sinne. It is also called Ilastikon, or expiatory from the end for the which it was instituted, namely to represent the sacrifice which should expiate and satisfie for our sinnes, which was Christ himselfe. So that this sa­crifice was called Expiatory, not properly but Metony­mically, as hauing relation to the Messiah. Vnto his sacrifice were referred that offering which was called [...] of Olon and chauo, because it was all­burnt in the fire, and the priests had no part of it; or else it was so called Or Gnolab. of Holah, which signifies to as­cend, because it being wholy consumed in the fire, did ascend vp vnto God in the smoake. Vnto this [Page 26] Expiatory sacrifice were also referred those oblations which were offered for the cleansing of lepers, for the purification of women after childbirth, for tou­ching of dead bodies, for the sanctifying of Priests for all these pollutions had respect to the pollution of sinnes.

The other sacrifices were Eucharistica; or offerings of thanksgiuing, whereby they did testifie their thank­fulnesse for benefits temporall or spirituall; this kind of sacrifice was called Zebach Schelamim, [...]pacificorum; a peace offering, because it was offered by them that had (beeing reconciled to God by the former sacrifice) receiued remission of their sinnes, and were at peace with God: as also because thereby they testified their gratitude to God for all his fa­uours, which the Hebrewes did comprize vnder the word Peace.

And to this sacrifice were referred the meate offe­rings and drinke offerings, the first fruits and the tenths all which were testimonies of their thankfulnes.

And indeed all sacrifices may be reduced to these two heads. Either Ilastika, or Eucharistika, Expiatory, or Gratulatorie. For according vnto Gods affection towards man, such were mens [...]towards God. Now God is either angry with vs and so pu­nisheth vs; or is well pleased and so blesseth vs; and all the effects of God vpon euery man are either bles­sings or cursings; when hee is angry, hee sends cur­sings; when hee is well pleased, hee sends blessings; wherefore hauing stirred him vp to wrath by sinnes, the Iewes offered Ilasticke sacrifices to appease his wrath; hauing appeased his anger and pleasing him [Page 27] by obeying his commandements, they obtained his blessings and fauours to their bodies and soules, wher­fore they offered Eucharisticke sacrifices to testifie their thankfulnesse to the Lord.

Now in both these kinds of sacrifices had the Iews respect vnto the Messiah, fixing the eye of their faith vpon Christ that was to come, both in him expecting saluation by the satisfactory sacrifice of his death, and in him rendering thankes vnto Iehouah for all his blessings, which they were made partakers of through the Messiah.

Thus much of a sacrifice in generall, and of the kind of sacrifices among the lewes.

The second thing I propounded is to shew you what this particular sacrifice is which Christ offered for finne.

As there was vnder the law a double sacrifice Ila­sticum Christ offered a double sa­crifice. and Eucharisticum, Expiatory and Gratulato­ry: So is there vnder the Gospell this double sacrifice offered by Christ: for when he had finished his Pro­pheticall office here on earth, he then entered vpon his Pontificall or Priestly office, which was to offer sacrifice for all beleeuers. And albeit this expiatory sacrifice was first in order of nature, as making way for the Eucharisticall, whereby it might be accepta­ble to God, hauing satisfied for sinne by his death, and so reconciling God and man: yet in time his Eu­charisticall sacrifice was offered before his Expiato­ry; and the reason hereof is alleadged by a most fa­mous Diuine, whose words are these, Although the [...]. de [...]Dei externo. Father was first to be appeased by the Ilasticall sacri­fice of Christ [...]the crosse, and so forgiuenesse of [Page 28] sinne, and of punishment beeing obtained, then should haue followed the sacrifice of thanksgiuing for all bene­fits obtained by Christs death and passion; yet Christ offers his sacrifice of thankesgiuing, as if hee were al­ready crucified. For so he was indeed in Gods decree and in his determination; and in this respect hee is [...]13. 8. [...], The lambe slaine from the beginning of the world.

This Eucharisticall sacrifice of Christ was in the Lords Supper, which was not vnworthily euer after Why the Lords Supper was called by the Fathers the Eucharist. in the Church of God by the Fathers tearmed by the name of the Eucharist. Yet vnderstand mee; I doe not say that the bread and the cup were this Eucha­risticall sacrifice that Christ offered, but the thanks­giuing which he offered to his father. For before hee brake the bread and gaue the cup to his Disciples; it is the opinion of all ancient and moderne writers, that lifting vp his eyes vnto heauen, in the name of all the elect that were, are and euer shall bee in the world, he gaue thanks to his heauenly Father for all his blessings of nature, grace and glory, but especially for that remission of [...]and redemption from e­ternall death purchased by that sacrifice of his body vpon the crosse. So that in these two sacrifices of Christ all the Leuiticall sacrifices had their full perfe­ction and accomplishment. Therefore the Apostle sayes ( [...]. 5.2.) that Christ gaue himselfe [...], an oblation and a sacrifice: by an obla­tion vnderstanding a gratulatory offering, and by sa­crifice an expiatory host for sinne. And that the [...]sacrifices had their consummation in Christ appeares in that figuratiue casting the open [Page 29] and doues out of the Temple, as Theophylact. on the 21. chapter of Math. obserueth, saying, Iesus eiicien­do boues & columbas, praesignauit non vltra opus esse a­nimalium sacrificio, sed oratione, [...]casting the ox­en and doues out of the Temple, signified that there should no longer need the sacrifice of beast, but of prayer.

But it is demanded, Which of these two sacrifices it is that the Apostle speakes of? The text it selfe cleares this doubt, you heard before that the Eucharisticall sacrifices were for mercies and blessings receiued, and the Ilasticke or Expiatorie sacrifices were for sinnes committed; so that when the Apostle sayes, this sacrifice was for sinne, it plainely appeares that hereby is meant the Expiatory sacrifice of Christ of­fered to appease his Fathers wrath.

This sacrifice is no other then Christ himselfe, dy­ing vpon the crosse for the transgressions of man­kind. Origen speaking of Christ, sayes, Ipse est hostia Sancta Sanctorum. He is the most holy sacrifice for his holy ones. Which the Apostle Saint Peter confirmes. 1. Pet 1. 18 19. Ephes. 5. 2. saying, For so much as ye know that you were not redee­med with corruptible things as siluer and gold: But by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lambe without ble­mish or without spot. Christ himselfe was this sacrifice, who so loued vs, that he gaue himselfe for vs an offering and sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour.

But according to which nature was Christ the sa­fice [...]. for sinnes?

Onely according to his humane nature, as appeares, Answ [...]1. 0. 10. By which will we are sanctisied through the offering of the body of [...] for [...]; by which words (the [Page 30] body of Christ) we are to vnderstand the whole hu­mane nature of Christ, for there the part is put for the whole; so that Christ the man consisting of body and soule was the sacrifice for our sinnes, and as we in soule and body had transgressed against God, so Christ both in soule and body was to suffer punish­ment, and to make satisfaction for our offences. Com­pare The whole manhood of Christ thy sacrifice. [...]. 53. 10. this place of the Hebrews with the words of the Prophet Esa. and you shall easily discouer this truth, Yet it pleased God to bruise him, hee hath put him to griefe: when thou shalt make his soule an offering for sinne, he shall see his seede, he shall prolong his dayes, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. What the Propheticall Apostle Paul attributes to the body, the Euangelicall Prophet Esa. attributes to the soule; so that both these being essentiall parts of man, make the whole humanitie of Christ to bee the sacrifice for our sinnes. And as the Tree of life did represent the Godhead of the Messiah: so did the Animate sacrifi­ces Why the man­hood of Christ must be [...]sacrifice. Reas. 1. of the Leuiticall law shadow out his Manhood.

And the reasons why this sacrifice that Christ offe­red should be his manhood are these.

1. Because that in the same nature the offence was made, in the same nature was the sacrifice to bee offered, and the satisfaction to bee performed, for o­therwise Gods iustice could not be appeased: but in the nature of man was a transgression committed, therefore in mans nature must a sacrifice bee offered and satisfaction made. And for this reason the An­gels that fell from God had no benefit by the Incar­nation of Christ, nor by his death and passion, be­cause he tooke not vpon him their nature, neither in [Page 31] their nature did he offer sacrifice.

2. Secondly, the death of the beasts in the Cere­moniall law did figure out the death of that sacri­fice which the Sonne of God was to offer vnto his Fa­ther for mans Redemption. So that in that nature wherein Christ dyed, in that nature he was to sacri­fice: but Christ as he was God could not dye; for the Godhead is apathes, and cannot suffer; but accor­ding to his humanitie he dyed truely, and not fanta­stically, and in shew onely, as Marcion and the Ma­nichees heretically thought. And indeed considering Gods eternall decree of sending his Sonne to be [...]flesh, it was necessarily required that hee should dye and shed his blood to appease his Fathers wrath, and to procure forgiuenesse of sinnes for all beleeuers: for Heb. 9. 22. according to the words of the Apostle, choris haima­tekchusias ou ginetai aphesis, without blood shedding is no remission. So it appeares, that the humane nature of Christ consisting of soule and body was the Al­sufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of all beleeuers.

3. The third thing propounded is the necessitie The necessitie of the [...]of Christ. of this sacrifice. Adam being seduced by his wife, and eating the forbidden fruit brought vpon himselfe and all his posteritie three euills.

First, hee was by his transgression guilty of [...]before God.

Secondly, he was depriued of all his grace of inte­grity and righteousnesse which God had conferred vpon him in his creation.

Thirdly, he was driuen out of Paradise, to signifie his banishment from the celestiall Paradise. Where­fore it was necessary that there should bee a sacrifice [Page 32] offered for man.

First, that his sinnes might be remitted whereby he was turned from God.

Secondly, that he might be restored againe to the state of grace.

Thirdly, that he might be re-united and reconci­led vnto God, and inherit eternall life.

These three were effected by the sacrifice of Christ.

For first by this Sacrifice our sinnes are pardoned, and the guilt of all our iniquities is washed away by the blood of Iesus: hee was that promised fountaine which should be set open for Iudah and Ierusalem to Zachar. 13. 1. Rom. 4. 25. wash in. This appeares by the words of Paul, Tradi­tus est in mortem propter offensas nostras, He was deli­uered to death for our offences.

Secondly, by this sacrifice wee are made pertakers of his grace, whereby wee are comely in the eyes of God the Father, for hee thereby imputed his righte­ousnesse vnto vs, and communicated that life of grace which was radically in himselfe the head, vnto all his faithfull members: for by him it is that wee all receiue grace for grace.

Thirdly, hereby are wee entitled againe vnto the kingdome of heauen lost by our first parents: for 2. Cor. 5. 1. when this earthly tabernacle is dissolued, we are put inro possession of that building of God not made with hands which endures for euer in heauen. All these three are contained in one verse. Christ Iesus is made vnto 1. Cor. 1. 30. vnto vs of God, righteousnesse, sanctification, and re­demption. Righteousnesse in the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, [...]in the communication of his grace; and Redemption in the saluation of our soules and bo­dies. [Page 33] By this that hath beene spoken wee may note that the beginning, middle, and end of mans happi­nesse is from the sacrifice of Christ; by him wee are deliuered from the bondage of sinne; by him wee are in the liberty of grace, by him are wee estated in glory.

By him we haue our fetters knockt off, and our fil­thy rags cast away; by him we are arrayed with rich apparrell of holines and innocencie; by him wee are brought into his fathers presence and are accepted of God Almightie. Through him we haue our Iustifica­tion; through him we haue our Sanctification; through him we haue our Glorification.

Seeing then the saluation of all beleeuers is perfect­ly wrought and consummated by the sacrifice of Christ, here may arise a question.

Quest. Whether there be any sacrifices to bee of­fered by Christians vnder the Gospell or no?

Answ. I answer, there are not any Ilasticke or propitiatory sacrifices to bee offered for attonement with God; for to that end Christ hath offered him­selfe once for all. But as you haue heard that all Chri­stians are spirituall Priests, so they haue spirituall sa­crifices to offer still vnto God; which sacrifices are these.

First, a broken and a contrite heart, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart Spirituall sa­crifices. Psal. 51. 17. oh Lord thou wilt not despise, without this sacrifice all others are abhominable in the sight of God.

Secondly the offering vp of beleeuers per leitourgi­an ministrornm, by the seruice of Gods ministers; of this Paul speakes, That I should be the minister of Iesus [Page 34] Christ to the Gentiles ministring the Gospell [...]God, that Rom. 15. 6. the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, [...]san­ctified by the Holy Ghost.

Thirdly, al manner of prayer and supplication. Let Psal 141. 2. my prayers be directed before thee as [...]incense, and the lifting vp of my hands as the euening sacrifice.

Fourthly, all praise and thanksgining which wee Heb. 13 15. giue vnto God. By him therefore let vs offer the sa­crifice of prayse to God [...], that is, the fruits of our [...] thanks to his name. This sacrifice of [...]Orthodox fathers called an im ton thu sian, an vnbloody sacrifice, as [...] in his embassage for the Christians to the Emperours Antonius and [...]. And Eusebius, Offerant illi logikas kai Lib. [...]. demonst. anaimous thu sias. Let them offer [...]and vnbloody sacrifices So Cyrill, Oecumenicus, Iustine Martyr, Cle­mens Alexandrinus, fathers of great [...], cal­led [...] Haleluiahs of Angels, and the holy hymnes of the Saints acceptable [...]sacrifi­ces.

Fiftly, our almes and reliefe of the poore, are spi­rituall Heb. 13. 16. sacrifices, To doe good and to distribute forget not for with such sacrifices God is well [...]. And Paul calls the beneuolence of the Philippians sent by Ep phroditus, an odor of a sweet smell, and a sacrifice Phil. 4. 18. acceptable well pleasing to God.

Sixtly there is the sacrifice of righteousnesse or iustice, Offer to God the sacrifices of right [...]: Psal 4. 5. Psal. 51. 19. and againe, Then shalt thoube pleased with the sacrifi­ces of righteousnesse.

[...]there is the slaying of our sinnes, and offering them vp dead vnto the Lord with there sig­nation [Page 35] of our selues to Gods seruice, I beseech you therefore [...]by the mercies of God that you pre­sent your bodies a liuing sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your reasonable seruice.

Eighthly, the bodily death of the Martyrs infli­cted on them by bloody tyrants is a spirituall sacri­fice. Thus Paul calls himselfe a Sacrifice. Yea if I bee offered vp a sacrifice for the seruice of your faith. And I take it in this sense, it is the Prophet Dauid speakes Phil. 2. 17. Psal. 116. 15. [...]. lib. 4. c. 15 saying. Precious in the sight of God is the death of his Saints. Thus did that holy Polycarpe the Disciple of Saint Iohn, call his death which hee indured for the Ang. tom. 5. lib. 22. cap. 10. de ciuitate Dei. testimony of Iesus a Sacrifice. And so Saint Augustine speaking of the Martyrs hath these words. The Gentils dedicated Temples, consecrated Priests, erected altars, and offered sacrifices to their gods. We Christians dedi­cate Temples to our Martyrs, not as to Gods, but to their memories as to dead men; whose spirits liue with the Lord. Neither doe we erect alvars whereon we sacrifice to the Martyrs, but to one God theirs and ours. Wee offer sacrifice, at which sacrifices those Martyrs as men of God are named in their place and order; nor are they [...]by him that offers the sacrifice, for the sacri­fice is not made to them but to God, although it be in the remembrance of them, for he is the minister of God and not theirs; and the sacrifice is the body of Christ, which is not offered vnto them, for they themselues are that bo­dy. In the latter end of which words Saint Augustine shewes that the whole Church which is the my­sticall body of Christ (whereof the Martyrs are a part) is a gratefull sacrifice acceptable vnto God.

[Page 36] Lastly, the sacrament of the Lords supper is a sa­crifice (but not after the manner of the Papists) but onely figuratiuely. So the bread and cup are called Dial. cum [...]Iudeo, p. 201. & 269. edit. Comel. the sacrifices of Christians by Iustine Martyr; because they represent the sacrifice of Christ, and were insti­tuted in remembrance of it. So Dyonisius calls it Sum­bolike ierourgia ^☐ Symbolicum Sacrificium. Eccles. Hiera. cap. 30. a Symbolicall sacrifice. So Saint Augustine, Quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est veri Aug. lib. 10. [...]. 5. de ciuitat. [...] [...]. That which by all men is called a sacrifice, is but a signe of the true sacrifice. And that immolation which is in the hands of the Priest, is called the passi­on, death, and crucifixion of Christ: not that it is so indeed and in truth, but onely by the way of remem­brance. So that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper may be called Sacrificium [...], a Recordatory Sacrifice, wherein vsing the signes and Symbolls of his body and blood, with true faith, and thankfull hearts we celebrate the memoriall of the death and sacrifice of our Sauiour Iesus Christ. Wherefore the Fathers called it an vnbloody sacrifice, because it was not a proper sacrifice, but onely mysticall and figura­tiue.

And indeed this makes it not to bee properly a sacrifice; because in a sacrifice we giue vnto God, but in a Sacrament wee receiue from God; but in the Lords Supper wee giue not the body and blood of Christ vnto God, but receiue it from the minister as from Christ for the confirmation of our faith, which makes it to be properly and truely a sacrament: but a sacrifice it is called improperly and by representati­on. Thus you see what was the sacrifice offered by [Page 37] Christ, and what are the spirituall sacrifices of euery Christian.

Now followes the third branch of this first part The end of Christs sacri­fice. of the text. Namely, the cause why Christ offered this sacrifice, or the end whereunto this sacrifice was directed, which is said here to be for sinne.

But this man hauing offered one sacrifice for sinne.

Here we are to note that albeit the Angels had sin­ned Note. as well as man, yet it was not for their sinne that Christ offered sacrifice (for they had no benefite by his incarnation, death, or passion) but for the sinnes of mankind; and withall we are to obserue that albeit Christ was a man endued with true humane nature, yet in regard he was not a sinnefull man but a lambe without blemish and without spot, a lambe for his inno­cencie 1. Pet. 1. 19. of nature, and without blemish for integritie of conuersation, therefore hee needed no sacrifice to be offered for him to purge his sinne, as all men els doe, but onely offered in behalfe of all beleeuers.

Therefore we may safely affirme that Christ recei­ued no benefit by his owne sacrifice in respect of re­mission Christ tecei­ued no benefit by his owne sacrifice. of his sinnes; for seeing hee was without sin, he needed no sacrifice to bee offered for himselfe. Wherefore the actiue obedience of Christ to the law did appertaine both to the elect, and to himselfe: to the elect that the law might be fulfilled by Christ for them, to himselfe, for as hee was a creature after the image of God, so was hee bound to obey the law of his creatour: but his passiue obedience appertai­neth onely to the faithfull, seeing he had not sinned: therefore he deserued no punishment, and hauing not [...]needed no sacrifice to bee offered for [Page 38] himselfe. This appeares by the word of the Angell Gabriel vnto Daniell. And after threescore and two [...]. 9. 26. weekes the Messiah shall be [...], but not for himselfe. Thereupon worthily did the Councill of Ephesus stablish this Canon, Si quis dic it Christum pro se obtu­lisse Concilium Ephe sinum. sacrificium, & non magis pro nobis solum; Anathe­ma [...]. If any man shall say that Christ did offer an obla­tion for himselfe, and not rather for vs alone, let him be accursed.

For vs then it is that Christ offered sacrifice and for our sinne.

Quest. But what sinne?

Answ. All sinnes of the elect, originall and actu­all, of omission and commission; of weakenesse and wilfulnesse; before their conuersion, and since their conuersion; whatsoeuer is anomia, a transgression of the law, is by this sacrifice of Christ expiated; yea the sinne against the Holy Ghost albeit it be not at a­ny time actually pardoned, yet there is so much me­rit and worth in this sacrifice as to deserue the par­don of it, if the party com̄itting it could come to re­pentance. Not that that sinne can bee or is at any time pardoned, because of the incredulitie and im­penitencie of the sinner, but that the sinne in it selfe considered cannot be so great, but the mercy of God is able to pardon it; and the merits of Christ in this sacrifice are of such sufficiencie as to deserue remissi­on and giue satisfaction for it.

Now whereas it is said to be a sacrifice for sinne, it offers to our obseruation three things.

First, the heinousnesse and abhominablenesse of Obser. 1. sinne; euery sinne be it neuer so small is both so odi­ous [Page 39] in the eyes of God and iniurious to his diuine law, that nothing can expiate it but the death and sacrifice of the Sonne of God: why then shall any Christian take pleasure in sinne, which drew Christ Iesus from his [...]one of Maiestie, and fastned him to the crosse, which caused him to shed his precious blood, and to giue his life as a ransome for the sons of men. As the burthen of our sinnes were well nigh vnto Christ [...], so let the practise of them be vnto vs detestable. Let vs neither extenuate their number nor their nature; for the smallest sin though but once done is committed against a God of an [...]maiestie, and deserues an infinite punishment, and could not be satisfied for, but by the infinite sacri­fice of the Sonne of God Christ Iesus.

Secondly, we may obserue heere the insufficiencie of all other sacrifices both before and vnder the law, [...]. 2. for they were not able to [...]the sinnes of the [...]and therefore to speake properly there was [...]but one true Ilasticke and propitiatory sacri­fice for sinne, which Christ Iesus offered when he gaue his body vpon the crosse for our redemption. And therefore doth the Apostle [...]this sacrifice of Christ [...]exochen aboue all others thusian to theo, is [...]euodias, a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling [...]. Thereby intimating that this sacrifice bee­ing most gratefull to God, in it alone was God well pleased.

Obiect. But here may be obiected, Noah after the waters were abated off the earth, and that at Gods Gen. 9. 21. command he was come forth of the Arke; hee tooke of euery cleane beast, and of euery cleane foule, and [...] [Page 40] burnt offerings on the altar, and the Lord smelled a [...], 20. 18. sweet sauour. And againe, Exod. 29. 18. The offerings that are made for the consecration of the Priests are called sweet sauours vnto the Lord.

Answ. I answer, these sacrifices are to be conside­red two wayes, either in themselues, or as they haue re­lation to Christ. As they were considered in them­selues, Amos 5. 21. [...]. Isa. 1. 13. 14. [...]66. 3 so they had no sweet sauour in the nostrills of God; because they were but earthly things, and of a finite vertue; and therefore doth the Lord often complaine against those that reposed confidence on­ly in the outward ceremony of sacrificing, whose oblations were an abhomination to him. But as these offerings had relation to the sacrifice of Christ, and were offered by faith in his sacrifice, so they were ac­ceptable vnto God, and God did smell a sweet sauor in them; not for themselues but for the Antitype Christ Iesus who was figured by them; and therefore it is said that By faith Abel offered a more excellent sa­crifice [...]6. 6. then Cain. Not but that Cains might in value equall Abels, but because Abel offered by faith in Christ, and Cain without faith: And as the Leuiti­call sacrifices of the law were onely accepted in Christ, so and no otherwise are our spirituall sacrifi­ces of the Gospell, yee also as liuing stones are built vp a spirituall house, an holy Presthood to offer vp spiritu­all Heb. 11. 4. sacrifice, acceptable to God by Iesus Christ. By which it appeares that all our sacrifices and seruices are to be presented before God, onely in the perfection of this al-sufficient sacrifice of Iesus Christ.

Thirdly, obserue we here the perfection of this sa­crifice, Obser. 3. in that there was nothing in sinne, but the [Page 41] contrary might bee found in this sacrifice. In sinne there is imperfection, in this sacrifice perfection; in sinne disobedience, in this sacrifice obedience; in sin carnall delight and pleasure, in this sacrifice vnspeak­able torture and torment; in sinne pride, in this sacri­fice humilitie; in sinne enuy, in this sacrifice loue; in sinne mans destruction, in this sacrifice mans restau­ration; in sinne death, in this sacrifice life. So that wheresoeuer sinne had made a breach, this sacrifice of Christ makes it vp, giuing full satisfaction for euery default.

Quest. But here will arise a great question which of late hath troubled the Church of God, and it is this. Seeing here it is [...]downe indefinitely that Christ offered one sacrifice for sinne; Whether did Christ offer a propitiatory sacrifice to satisfie for the sinnes of all men; as well reprobates as elects.

Answ. The Arminians are of opinion that Christ [...]Molin. Anatom. [...]. by the sacrifice of his death obtained remission of sins, reconciliation and saluation for all and particular men. Nor doe they doubt to say, that by the death of Christ, reconciliation was obtained for Cain, Pha­raoh, Saul and Iudas, not as they were reprobates but as they were sinners: for God (say they) doth equally intend and desire the saluation of all men; and the in­credulitie of man is the cause that remission and re­conciliation is not applyed to all. They hold moreo­uer that the end which God propounded to himselfe in deliuering his Sonne to death was not to apply the benefit of remission to some particular men; nor doe they [...]that Christ was appointed to death by his Father before God thought of sauing men. One [Page 42] of them sayes, That reconciliation being obtained, [...], pag. 21. there was yet no necessitie of application; that is, af­ter saluation and reconciliation for almes was obtai­ned, there was no necessitie that any one should bee saued; because hee will haue the decree of sending Christ in order to goe before the Decree of sauing those that beleeue; therefore that God intended to send his Sonne, when as yet hee had not intended to saue them that beleeue. And the [...] would haue this to be the end why God sent his Son, name­ly, to make the saluation of men possible, and to lay open a way to himselfe whereby hee might saue sin­ners, without any preiudice to his Iustice; (by this meanes say they) God hath gotten power of sauing man, because without the death of Christ, by which the iustice of God was satisfied, God could not bee willing to saue man.

But the Truth bids vs be of another opinion. Wee doe acknowledge that Christ dyed for all men; but we deny that by the death of Christ saluation and for­giuenesse of [...]is obtained for all men: or that re­conciliation is made for Cain, [...], Saul, Iud [...]. Neither doe we thinke that remission of sinnes is ob­tained for any one whose sinnes are not remitted; or that saluation was purchased for him whom God from eternity hath decreed to condemne. We deny that election is after the death of Christ, seeing Christ doth euery where affirme that he dyed for his sheep, and for those whom his Father gaue him.

And when we say that Christ dyed for all, wee take it thus, that the death of Christ is sufficient to saue [...]doe [...]; [...]and that it is sufficient [Page 43] to saue all men that euer were, are, or [...]bee if they did beleeue in him; and that the cause why all men are not saued is not the insufficiency of the death of Christ, but the incredulity of man.

Whosoeuer therefore shall say that Christ offered his body an expiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of euery particular man, as of pharaoh, Cain and Iudas; hee doth by this doctrine openly mocke God: for Christ is imagined to obtaine that from his Father which he knew would neuer profit; as if God should grant to his Sonne the saluation of that man, which from eter­nity he decreed to condemne: for if Christ obtained reconciliation and remission of sinnes for Cain or Iu­das, whether considered as reprobates or as sinners, yet he knew this reconciliation and remission should neuer be applyed vnto them; and therefore their do­ctrine is as if Christ should say vnto his Father, I pray thee receiue to [...]those whom I know thou [...]ne­uer receiue into [...], and whom I know certainly to be condemned. For Christ as God knew full well the se­crets of election.

Surely these men doe their endeauour that Chri­stian Religion should be made a mocking stocke. Can God at one and the same time loue and hate a man? Loue him because he giueth his Sonne for him, and would haue reconciliation obtained for him: hate him because from eternitie he decreed to condemne him. Can God be so vniust as to punish one offence twice? For once Christ (as the Arminians teach) sustained the punishment of [...] and Iudas, and for them made satisfaction vpon the crosse, yet for the same sins doe the same persons suffer eternall death.

[Page 44] Obiect. To strengthen their tottering and decli­ning cause they alleadge scripture, God so loued the Ioh. 3. 16. world, &c. which place they rest to prooue Christs dying for all men, wheras indeed by the world Christ vnderstandeth the noblest and most worthy creatures as in the sequel of the verse, That al those that beleeue in him might not perish [...]haue euerlasting lise. Where what was obscure by the generall tearme of the world is explained by its restriction onely vnto the faithfull; and in this sense is the word World [...]. Ioh. 6. 33. Ioh. 6. 33. But albeit we grant that by the world is vnderstood mankind in generall, yet it will not follow that Christ purchased saluation for all particular men, but that he came to saue the whole nature of man, though not all [...], for in that hee redeemed some men; it doth aboundantly testifie the loue of God to man­kind.

Obiect. 2. They assault vs with the words of [...] Ioh. 1. 29. Iohn Baptist, Behold the lambe of God [...] a­way the sinnes of the world: but hereby wee are to vn­derstand that in the whole world no mans sinnes are remitted but by Christ: as in the same sense Saint 1. [...]. 15. 22. [...] speakes, In Christ all men are made aliue, because no man is made aline but by him. If a man say that [...] taught all Greece and Italy Physicke; hee doth not say that all particular men, each seuerall person in Greece or Italy learned of him; but that no man learned [...]but from him.

Not to trouble you with many arguments, the Thesis or true Position of this [...]is this: That [...]. Christ [...]fus offere a not his body vpon the crosse to bee a propitiatory or [...] for the sinnes of a­ny [Page 45] reprobate, but onely for the sinnes of the elect, which haue in times past, doe at this present, and shall hereafter, beleeue in Christ and attaine to true repentance. This Rom. 3 25. benefite then of Christs sacrifice is onely confined to beleeuers, as the Apostle manifests, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood; whereby it appeares that there is no propitiation without faith, and consequently no obtaining of re­conciliation.

And the same Apostle in the same epistle affordeth Rom. 8. 33. 34. a strong testimony for the confirmation of this point, for he sayes, who shall lay any thing to the charge, &c. which place tells vs, that they for whom Christ dy­ed cannot be condemned, nor can any thing be layed to their charge: but the reprobates are condemned, and something is laide to their charge; therefore Christ dyed not for them: neither did he make satis­faction for their sinnes; but onely for such as beleeue in him; and for these alone doth hee also make inter­cession, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou Ioh. 17. 9. hast giuen me. So that the Ocean of Christs loue in offering of sacrifice and applying it, is bounded with­in the shoare of beleeuers, not extending it selfe vnto any reprobate; wherefore the Scripture, which is the best expositer of it selfe, shewes that when it sayes, 1. Ioh 2. 2. Christ was a propitiation for the sinnes of the whole world; meanes not of all men in generall, but makes it plaine by restraining it to some onely, This is my blood which is shed for many for remission of sins, and Math. 26. 28. the sonne of man [...], that he might giue his life a re­demption for many, and he was offered once for the sins Heb. 9. [...]. of many. By this it is plaine that all men haue not [Page 46] benefite by Christs sacrifice, neither is the guilt of euery mans sinnes washed away by the [...]of this lambe of God, but onely of the elect in Christ who haue, doe, and shall beleeue in his holy name. Away then with the erroneous innouation of the Armini­ans, teaching satisfaction for each particular man. And away with that [...]conceit of most common people, concerning [...]Redemption, whereby they are apt to say, that all men shall be saued, and God forbid that any man should goe to hell; thus out of [...]charitie they iudge contrary to the Canon of Gods word; for the iudgement of charitie is not alwayes the iudgement of verity.

The [...]and Sacrifice of Christ with the end of both of them beeing thus largely and suffici­ently explained, I shall thinke it necessary now to draw all that hath beene formerly spoken to this Cor­rolary which I will lay downe as a generall doctrine collected out of the three parts of the first branch of the text, and it is this: That Iesus Christ the eternall The Corrola­ry or generall doctrine. Sonne of the euer-liuing God, as God and man was the onely Priest that offered on the crosse his whole humane nature, soule and body, a true and perfect Expiatory sacri­fice to satisfie for all the finnes of all true [...]; where by hee wrought their perfect reconciliation with God, and obtained full remission for all their offences. The which position in euery particular hath beene so fully prooued that it needs no further confirmation; wherefore it shall be necessary to make some applica­tion to our selues. The vses to be made of this doctrine are diuers.

Vse 1. First, it teacheth vs to consider the true [Page 47] and proper nature of sinne, which is so contrary to the [...]essence of God, so opposire vnto his sacred law, so odious and abhominable in his eyes, so noxi­ous and dangerous to the soule of man, that all the creatures in the world, men and angels, gold and pre­cious iewells, could not appease the wrath of God, or be a propitiatory sacrifice for the atonement and reconciliation of mankind, but onely [...]Christ, God and man, the eternall Sonne of his Father. Oh then how are most men too blame that esteeme their [...]as things not worthy regarding, not worthy excepting against; and how are all men to bee con­demned, that either for a little gaine, or a small deale of perishing pleasure, will make no scruple to pollute, [...]to wound and slay their soules with wilfull and knowne wickednesse? Alas, alas, sinne is so hainous in Gods account that all the world is not able to sa­tisfie for it; but onely the eternall Sonne of God, and that by being a sacrifice, and powring foorth his pre­cious blood. Well then did sinne draw Christ from the bosome of his father? Did sinne cause him to take our nature vpon him? Did sinne nayle him to the crosse, piercing his hands, his feet, his side? Did [...]take away his blood, and with his blood, his life? Did sinne make him a sacrifice, burning in the flames of his fathers wrath, and crying, Eli, Eli, [...], My God, my God, why [...]thou for saken me? was sinne the procuring cause of all this his [...]? Cursed then be that man that shall eyther [...]and delight in sinne, or shall extenuate and lessen his sinne, esteeming it [...]or slender cause why God should cast a man into hell; or (as sinne [...]the [Page 48] heart of Christ shall not bee pricked and pierced at the heart with sorrow and repentance. Put thy sinne in one ballance and the price that was payd for it in the other; and thou shalt soone finde the one to be of infinite weight to presse thee downe to hell, and the other to be of infinite pretiousnesse to recouer thee to heauen. This is the first vse of this point for infor­mation to teach vs that if Christ were offered a sacri­fice for our sinnes; sinne then is not to be [...]as a slight and slender thing.

Vse 2. The second vse of this point is for instructi­on, to teach vs what loue God the Father hath expres­sed vnto vs mortalls in that he sent his Sonne to bee a sacrifice for mankind. God commendeth his loue to­wards vs, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ dyed Rom. 5. 8. for vs.

Great, yea infinite surely was the loue of God, in that when we had reiected him, and giuen heede to the entisements of the Serpent, when we had raced forth his image out of our whole man, and instead thereof had imprinted therein the feature of the Di­uell; when we had rebelled against our maker, tram­pling his law vnder our feete, destroying our owne soules, yet that there should remaine within his bo­some a more then fatherly affection towards vs, in­somuch that he gaue his onely sonne, that euery one [...]. 3. [...]. that [...]in him might not perish, but haue euer­lasting life; this is loue indeede, farre transcending the loue of any creature, which ought to beget in vs true thankfulnesse and a holy retorsion of loue a­gaine. For, but that God had so much compassion on Adam, as to make vnto him, that promise of the [Page 49] blessed seede, he and we in him, had beene hopelesse and helpelesse, not [...]to get forth of that pit into which we were plunged: so that the Lord may say [...]. 13. 9. vnto Adam, Perditio tua ex te ô Adam, saluatio ex me, Oh Adam thy destruction proceedes from thy selfe, thy saluation only from me and from my loue. Should not the consideration of this loue of God plentifully powred out vpon vs, without any desert on our part, prouoke vs to loue him with all our heartes, withall our strength, withall our power. Why do men loue riches more then God? why doe men loue pleasure more then God? why do men re­ioyce more in temporall honour, then in God? Be­cause they call not to minde the loue that God hath shewed to mankind, in sending his sonne into the world to be a sacrifice for our sinnes. Hath God so manifested his loue, and shall it be so buried in obli­uion? Psal. 50. 22. O consider this yee that forget God, least I teare you in peeces, and there be none to deliuer you.

Here as God the father hath manifested his com­passion, so God the Sonne Iesus Christ hath decla­red his prompt and ready affection to vs poore sin­ners, in that sponte of his owne free-will, he was plea­sed to take vpon him that arduous and paineful office of priesthood, and to effect that stupendious worke of our redemption. That he that was verbum incre­atum, the Word increate, should become verbum in­carnatum, the Word incarnate: Here was loue with­out parallell, without compare: Especially if wee consider that he could not take vpon him the shape of a seruant, but he must infinitely humble himselfe; and in humbling himselfe he must die for vs, and in [Page 50] dying for vs, he must die not for the righteous but for sinners; and if the wordes of Christ be true, that greater loue there cannot be then that a man should lay [...]14. 15. downe his life for his friend; how great then is that loue when God shall lay downe his life for his ene­mies? If Christ hath thus loued vs, let vs labour to loue him againe, and if wee will giue an euident de­monstration of our loue to Christ, let vs expresse it by this, euen by our care to keepe his commandements; for so sayes Christ, If yee loue me, keepe my comman­dements. Thus so often as wee meditate on the Priest-hood and sacrifice of Christ, whereby wee re­ceiue remission of sinnes, and reconciliation, wee should in them as in a glasse behold the incompre­hensible compassion of God our father, and the vn­speakable loue of Christ our Sauiour.

The third vse of this point is for consolation vnto Vse 3. all Gods elect, who are sanctified with the grace of Christ, hauing the eyes of their vnderstandings illuminated, and being renewed in the spirit of their minds, are become new creatures; for to them hath he made an atonement and reconciliati­on, by his sacrifice and oblation which hee offered vpon the crosse, once for all.

Whosoeuer thou art therefore, that fearest the Lord, and art begotten againe to a [...]hope: albeit, thou findest in thy selfe many failings and infirmi­ties, and that the burthen of those [...]which thou diddest commit in the dayes of thy vnregene­ration, and non-conuersion doe so oppresse thee, as that thou art weary and heauy laden; yet lift vp the eyes of thy faith vnto Christ, hee was the Priest [Page 51] that offered vp his humane nature, an al-sufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of all that beleeue in him; he felt the sharpe wrath of God against him, but it was for thy sinnes, that thou mightest be freed from the wrath to come, he hath borne thine infirmities, he was broken for thy transgressions; the chastisement of thy peace was layd vpon him, and by his stripes thou art healed; he put himselfe in thy roome, and by the punishment of his soule and body, did free thy soule and body from eternall damnation.

If therefore thou be stung with sinne, Christ is the brazen Serpent exalted on the crosse: list vp the eyes of faith vnto him, and thou shalt be restored. It was for thy sake that Christ Iesus was made a Ho­locaust or sacrifice, that he might abandon all en­mity, and consummate a perfect peace betweene thee and God. Wherefore feare not thy sinnes, but reioyce in thy Christ; and let thy soule be ioyfull within thee, say vnto thy soule as Dauid did, Prayse the Lord, ô my soule, and all that is within me, prayse his holy Name; because hee hath of his tender com­passion, on thee conferred the riches of his mercy, and incorporated thee into the mysticall body of his sonne Christ Iesus, by whose most holy sacrifice God is so appeased that I dare runne boldly vnto the Throne of Grace, and with confidence in his name assure my selfe of eternall life.

But vnto all wicked men, which liue without feare, and die without repentance, (albeit their outward profession be more glorious in shew, then was the profession of the most strict Pharisie, but do­ing good workes in hypocrisie and dissimulation) I [Page 52] will say concerning the benefit of Christs Sacrifice, as Peter sayd to Simon Magus touching the guifts of [...]. 8. 21. 22, 23 the Holy Ghost, You haue neither part, nor lot in this matter; (that is in the sacrifice of Christ,) for your heartes are not right in the sight of God. Repent [...]of your wickednesse, and pray God, if perhaps the thoughts of your hearts may be forgiuen you: for I [...]you are in the gall of bitternesse and band of [...].

Oh you wicked and vngodly men, [...]not your soules, feede not your selues with vaine hopes, and dreaming expectations of future happinesse, for vnto heauen can you not come, but by the sacri­fice of Christ, and till you leaue your sinnes by [...]and reformation, and be changed from your miserable state of nature, to the comfortable state of grace, you can haue no part norportion in Christs sacrifice; for that was onely offered for them that were elected before all time, and shall be cal­led in time to the sauing knowledge of the Lord Ic­sus Christ.

Wherefore if any man desire to come to heauen, and there to enioy the felicity of Gods glorious Kingdome, let him then by a true [...]faith apply the sacrifice of Christ vnto himselfe, Let the [...]for sake-his wayes, and the vnrighteous his [...]55. 7. thoughts; and let him returne vnto the Lord, and hee will haue mercy vpon him; and to our God for hee will aboundantly pardon. Vse 4.

The last vse of this point is for consutation of that most blasphemous doctrine; and damnable heresie of the Church of Rome, concerning the sa­crisice [Page 53] of the Masse established by Canons in the cur­sed Councill of Trent, and is now taught, and belee­ued by all Papists. The words of which Canons are [...]. these, If any man shall say that in the Masse, there is not offered vnto God a true and proper Propitiatory Sacrifice vnder the formes of bread and wine: or shall deny that by this sacrifice is effected, that those which come vnto God with a true heart and vpright conscience, do obtaine mercy, let him be accursed.

The other Canon hath these words, If any man shal say, the sacrifice of the masse to bee onely a sacrifice of praise and [...], or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ vpon the crosse, and not propitia­tory; or shall say that it is profitable onely for him that [...]it, and not both for the quicke and the dead; for their sinnes, punishments, and satisfactions, let him bee accursed. This diuelish and most hereticall doctrine as it hath beene already confuted by the Scriptures (which are as the ancients stile them the touchstone of truth, the pillar of faith, a strong army against he­retickes) so shall it also appeare to bee vnknowne to the Fathers of the Primitiue Church, and gain-sayd by diuers of then owne Writers.

Now if in this [...]wee shall somewhat more then ordinarily relye vpon the [...]of Writers, it is to be borne with, in regard that it is the best course ( [...]like owles they [...]the light of Heretici [...]lucifugae scrip­turarum. [...]. cont. [...]. the Scripture) to deale with them, which so much stand vpon antiquity, by the [...]of antiquity, and the testimony of their [...]men.

And the [...]shall I [...], because it falls so patte in the way, that I must eyther remooue [Page 54] it, or leape ouer it; as also, because herein consisteth the most principall part of Diuine Seruice in the Church of Rome; and vnto them it is the badge and cognizance to distinguish betweene the good and e­uill Christian; and in going thereunto, or not going, a man workes his owne saluation or damnation; as also because it compriseth in it the doctrine or the 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.

[Page 55] First, they alleadge the words of our Sauiour to Allegat. 1. Ioh. 4. 23. 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 Answ. 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 Aug, tract. [...]in [...]. 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 In Iohan. Hom. 32. 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 Allegat. 2, De [...]. cath. cap. 3 [...] 1. & [...]. place concerning the sacrifice of the Masse.

Secondly, the falshood of Iohannes [...]Du­rantus [Page 56] 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.

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 Allegat. 3. Genebrard. will needes prooue that the Apostles said Masse by that place of the Acts. Leitourgountôn ae autôn kai Acts 13. 2. Rhem. [...]. in locum. 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 [Page 57] 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 Rom. [...]2. Cor [...]. 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, Heb. 1. 14. 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. Oecumenius [...]. 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 Nich. Lyra in locum. 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 Caietan. in loc. 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 [Page 58] 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 Rom. 15. 16. 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 Peter, Allegat. 4. S. Marke, S. Matthew, S. Andrew, S. Dennis, S. Cle­ment. These are nothing but forged fables: of which we may say as Augustine touching that false booke of the Acts of the Apostles, which the Manichees falsely pretended, that hereby the enemies of the Gospel endea­uour to weaken the strength of the scriptures, and to strengthen the arme of falshood; and therefore I may say of them as Leo the first said of those writings; That these pretended writings of the Apostles which vnder their names, containe the seedes of many false doctrines, [...]not onely to be forbidden in the Church but quite banished and burned. Forged they are as appeares.

First by this, that they abound so with errours [Page 59] which in the purer ages of the Church, were not hatched.

Secondly, in that none of them were euer menti­oned by any of the Fathers that liued 500 yeares af­ter Christ. Lastly, in that in the masse of St. Iames many sentences, yea whole clauses of Paules Epistles are wouen in and inserted, albeit St. Iames was be­headed before Paul writ any Epistles.

Fiftly, they alledge for the maintenance of their Allegat. 5. blasphemous sacrifice, that Epistle which quite kils it, and huntes it out of the world. Wee haue an Hebr. 13. 10. altar, whereof they haue no power to eate which serue in the Tabernacle. Now say they, if they had an al­tar, then had they also a sacrifice, and if a Sacrifice, what, but that of the Masse?

Ans. I answere, let vs learne what this Altar is, and wee shall soone know what the sacrifice is. The scope and meaning of the Author is to prooue that as the beasts were burned without the campe which were offered for sinne-offerings for the people; so Christ suffered without the gates, being made a sinne­offering for his elect; and as the Priest that serued in the Tabernacle had no part of that sinne offering, so they that trusted in the ceremonies of the leuiticall Law, and thought to be made perfect by legall sa­crifices; they had no part in Christ, and that because they did make frustrate the Crosse of Christ, which was the visible Altar, whereon hee was offered with­out the gate.

And thus, and no otherwise, hath their owne [...]. glosse vnderstood it, saying, We haue an [...]that is the Crosse vppon which Christ was offered, of which

Christs sacrifice. And (saith he) according to this second manner, it is proper to this sacrament that Christ is im­molated or sacrificed therein. Thus these great and learned Doctors, pillars I may call them of the Church of Rome confesse the same with vs, that Christ is not really, properly, and truely sacrificed in the Eucharist, but Metonymically; because therein is a representation of the death of Christ, and a com­memoration of his passion; and an application to eue­ry particular beleeuer of the benefits of Christs re­demption vnto himselfe by faith.

And here we are to take notice of the reason, why the Fathers tearmed the Sacrament by the name of a Sacrifice; and why they called it an vnbloody Sacri­fice.

Seeing the whole outward seruice both of the Iewes and Gentiles consisted principally in sacrifi­ces, it seemed hard and harsh to those that were con­uerted either from the one side or other, and like to giue much offence, if the Church should wholy abo­lish all sacrifices; because these Prosolites newly con­uerted to Christianity did not beleeue that religion could subsist without sacrifices. Least therefore they might exasperate or prouoke either the one or the o­ther, the Christians applyed themselues both to heare and speake of altars and sacrifices; and for that the Apostles had taught them that all externall sacri­fices had their end in Christ, they therefore durst not giue any approbation to the continuance of Iew­ish sacrifices, much lesse to Heathenish: therefore they called the Lords Supper, their prayers, their ser­uice, their almes, and well-nigh euery religious acti­ons [Page 73] a Sacrifice, the Table of the Lord, an Altar, the Bishops, and Pastors, Priests. And thus the Fathers called the Supper of the Lord, the true Sacrifice of Christ, because of the truth of representation, and truth of the effect thereof to the faithfull, because al­so August. [...] Deil. 10. c. 20. that the Church doth therein truely offer her selfe to God, as August. de ciuit. Dei. lib. 10. cap. 20.

Thus the Lords Table was called by the Fathers an Altar, not properly, but by a signe and allusion; Auth. libr. de cultur. agr. Dom. in August: and hereupon sometimes it is called an Altar, some­times a Table. The Table of thy spouse hath holy bread and an [...]Cup. And Augustine, None say so [...]such as receiue life from the Lords Table. Againe he calls August. cont. lit. Petil. lib. 2. c. 47 it an Altar ( Ad Bonifa. Epist. 90.) saying They rushed in vpon him with horrible [...], and furious cruelty with clubs, and such like weapons, as he stood at the Altar, breaking downe the wood of the Altar most bar­barously. And some of the Fathers deny that they haue any Altar properly; which doubtlesse they would neuer haue done, had they acknowledged a Propitiatory sacrifice in the Sacrament. Our Altar is an earthly gathering together of such as do apply them­selues to prayers. Clem. Alexan. Strom. 7. Arnob. lib. 6. cont. gentes.

Arnobius sayth, The heathen did accuse the Christi­ans, because they did not build them Altars. About the 400. yeare Altars began, not for sacrifice, but for the honour and memory of the Martyrs; as the Councill of Carthage doth record, cap. 11. Concil. 5. Carth.

Now how do the Fathers call it an vnbloody sa­crifice? In two respects, first thereby to distinguish betweene this representatiue Sacrifice of the Sacra­ment, and the bloody sacrifices of the law, and the [Page 74] bloody Sacrifice offered by Christ himselfe vpon the Crosse; by which very distinction it appeares that Zanch. de cultu. [...]. the Fathers dreamed not of Transubstantiation or the presence of any humane or [...]blood, in the Sacrament, for then doubtlesse they would ne­uer haue vsed that distinction. And me thinkes that distinction being admitted by the Church of Rome, [...]and ouerturneth the reality of a Propitiatory [...]: For Christ cannot be sacrificed except hee be slaine, and he cannot be slaine without shedding of blood, and if his blood be shed really vpon the Table after a corporall manner, then how is it an vnbloody Sacrifice: wherefore it is first called an vn­bloody Sacrifice to distinguish betweene the bloody sacrifices of the Iewes, and of Christ himselfe; it be­ing not a resacrificing of Christ, but onely a figura­tiue representation and a mysticall commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ.

Secondly, it was called an vnbloody Sacrifice, be­cause it was Eucharisticall and a sacrifice of prayse and thankesgiuing, as for all blessings in generall, so es­pecially for the worke of our redemption by Christ. And this is manifested by a notable saying of Saint In tem. 3. ex lib. [...] Petr. [...]cap. 19. Augustine, Hold it firmely, and doubt not that the only begotten sonne of God, which was made flesh for vs, offered himselfe for vs a sacrifice of a sweet smelling sauour vnto God, to whom with the Father and the Ho­ly Ghost, in the time of the ancient Law, liuing sacri­fices were offered; and to whom now with the Father and the holy Ghost, one onely God, the holy Church dotb not cease to offer bread and wine throughout the whole world. For in those carnall sacrifices there is a [Page 75] figuring of the flesh of Christ, which hee was to offer for our sinnes, and of the blood which he was to shed for the remission of sinnes: but in this sacrifice there is a commemoration and thankesgiuing for the flesh of Christ which he hath offered, and of the blood which he powred out for vs. Obserue here, first he calleth it bread and wine which is offered: Secondly, hee shewes the end, only for commemoration and thanks­giuing.

So that none of the Fathers did tearme the Eu­charist or Sacrament of the Lords Supper, in that sence which the Papists doe, to bee an vnbloody sacrifice; because Christ without shedding of [...]was really, properly, and personally offered; but be­cause it was both a representation of that substantiall and great sacrifice which Christ offered on the Crosse; as also because it was a sacrifice of prayse, thanksgiuing, and commemoration.

And heereupon some of the learned Papists as Gropperus and others being ashamed of this grosse Gropperus. and [...]opinion of the Romanists, haue con­fessed the Masse to be nothing but, Onely a remem­brance of the passion of Christ, in a publicke congrega­tion of Christians, where there is a generall thankes­giuing for the benefit of our redemption; but that Sa­crifie of Christ vpon the Crosse, to bee offered to God, and to remaine in the presence of God in the time of the Supper, that when a man despaires of his owne worth, hee may apprehend the price of our redemption (to wit) the body of Christ by faith, and offer it to God, be­tweene the wrath of God and his sinnes, for the obtai­ning of that pardon which Christ hath both merited and procured.

[Page 76] Thus haue wee at length, brought this first part of our confutation to an end, in which is plainely prooued, that the Popish Sacrifice of the Masse, hath no foundation either in the Scriptures, or Apostolicall constitutions; or was either knowne vnto, or named by the Fathers for the space of 600. yeares after Christ; as also that the Fathers vsed the word Sacrifice in a farre different sence from that of the Church of Rome.

The second part followes wherein wee shall de­monstrate The second generall part. how, and by what degrees the Masse was brought into the Church, and how it increased; and first shall I shew the meaning of the word Masse, and how it was vsed in the Ancient Church. The Papists [...]. lib. 5. Epist. 33. themselues are not certaine of the antiquity of the word Missa, the Masse; yet they finde it no ancienter then Pope Leo, and Saint Ambrose his time; so their Azorius Iesuit institut. moral. part 3. lib. 10. cap. 18. As also Masso­nius [...]. 2. de [...]. Rom. titul Leo primus. owne Iesuites confesse; Bellarmine and others. But the word Missa when it is vsed by the Fathers, signi­fies nothing but a publike meeting to the Communi­on, and prayers; or a dismission of the assembly, or the forme of their religious worship: For the first of these it [...]an [...]gathered together, to serue God publikely (as Georg. Cassan. praefat. in preces suas, confesseth) which the Greekes signified by the word sunagein, to meete together, sunaxeis poiein, to make congregations; ekklesiazein to gather to­gether, which words they for the establishing of their hereticall doctrine, haue absurdly translated, to make Masse, or to goe to Masse.

Secondly, the word Masse was vsed for the forme of religious seruice vsed by, and in the Church, and [Page 77] signified the same with [...] or hierourgia. The Meleuitan Counsell taketh prayers and Masses both for one thing; and to this purpose Saint Augustine Council. [...]. c. 12. Aug. Serm. de Temp. 251. in a Sermon (if it be his) sayth, There are some, and chiefly great men in the world, when they come vnto the Church, are not deuoutly affected to celebrate the Prayses of God, Sed cogunt presbiterum vt abreuiet Missam; but compell the Minister to make short the Masse.

Heere the word Masse signifieth the whole Litur­gie, reading of Scriptures, singing of Psalmes, Prayers, and Praysings of God.

Thirdly, it signified the dismission of some of the Hug. de [...]. victe. Thom. Aquin. 3. part. quest. 83. [...] 4. congregation; as wee shall shew immediately. The Papists deriue it diuersly, some a missione. Quia ob­latio & preces ad Deum mitttantur; because an I ob­lation and prayers are sent vp to God, or Quia Ange­lus a Deo mittatur, qui sacrificio [...], because an Angell is sent from God to assist the Sacrifice. Some [...]. de litourg. sancti Dionys. of the word Missath vsed ( Deutr. 16. 10.) or Masah which signified a free gift, or Eleuation, but certainly there are no words now vsed in the Church of the Latines, or which were vsed formerly deriued of the Hebrewes, but they were first vsed by the Greeke Church and Fathers: but this word Missa or Mis­sath was neuer vsed by any of the Fathers of the Greeke Church to signifie, either the assembling or seruice, or Sacrifice of the Church.

And therefore is rather to be thought to be deri­ued a missione, and that two wayes, either a donis missis, from the gifts that were sent by such as were of ability, at the celebration of the Sacrament, both [Page 78] for the furnishing of the Lords Table, as also for Salmaron Iesuit epist. ad [...]de nomine [...]. Azor. Iesuit. In­stitut. moral. par [...]. l. 10. c. 18. [...]Tom. 3. concion. p. 110. the reliefe of the poore. Or else it was called [...], a dimissione populi (as Cyprian calls, remissam pecca­torum, for remissionem) when the Deacon cries, Ite missa est: Leaue is granted, you may depart. And it is not vnlikely, that the same custome was vsed by the Greeke Church, when the Minister cried, Aphesis laois; dismission to the people.

This dismission was two-fold.

The first was called Missa [...] when the Catechumeni (that is) such as beeing conuerted to Christianity, but not sufficiently [...]in the principles of religion, and therefore were not as yet baptized, were caused to depart; as [...]with them the Penitents who for some open and scanda­lous crime did do publike penance in the congrega­tion; [...]. Maurus Institut l. 1. c. 32 Innocen. de sacr. Altaris myster. l. 6. cap. 12. Beat us Rhenanus in lib. quar. Tert. [...]. Marcion. and the Energoumenoi (that is,) such as were excommunicate (who were so called, because being deliuered vp vnto Sathan, they were supposed to be vexed with wicked spirits) These three sorts of people were permitted to bee present both at the prayers, seruice, and Sermon; but when the Lords Supper be­gan to be administred, they were to depart; where­fore the Deacon cryed with a loud voyce, Ite missa est Leaue is giuen, you must depart. A custome not vn­like [...] that of the Iewes, which was, not to permit any Leprouse or infected person to be present at their sacrifices; and the [...]of the Heathens, who would haue present at their sacrifices and augurati­ons, neither enemy, nor conquered, nor woman, nor virgin, nor any profane person; wherefore the Priest was wont to aske Tis têde? who is there? and the [Page 79] answere was returned, Kaloi k'agathoi; none but such as are good and honest.

The second, was Missa Fidelium, the Masse of the Faithfull, which was the whole ceremony and cele­bration of the Lords Supper: Then all things being finished, they had liberty to depart.

Thus it appeares that the word Masse is not so ancient as our aduersaries pleade, Ierome who was the Pastor of Rome, and of no small credit with them, neuer vses the words; Ambrose once onely; Augustine but twise, and neither of these in that sence in which the Papists vse it. And whereas they obiect that place of Ierome one the 11. chapter of the Prouerbes, it is not thought to be his, because therein is mentioned Gregory, who liued about 200. yeares after Ierome; but the best learned do ascribe it to Bede, as they do the Sermon of Saint Augustine de tempore, to Ambrose or Hugo de Sancto Victore.

But from the name, let vs proceede to the thing it selfe.

Albeit, that about the time of Saint Gregory, there hapned such an alteration of the Canon of the Masse; of the manner of seruice; of vestiments; of the bread; of priuate Masses; of prayers vnto Saints; and so continued till Charles the great, insomuch that the Church of Rome had cast off her ancient simplicity, and Matron-like habit, and became like a garish Curtezan, yet this sacrifice of the Masse was not as yet allowed of generally in the Church. Not in Gregories time, for Bellarmine himselfe confesseth he could finde nothing in his writings for confirma­tion of this their sacrifice. For the corporall reality [Page 80] of this sacrifice, which our aduersaries defend vpon an imagination of a Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ, seemes to be sufficiently Greg. tom. 1. Moral. l. 14. c. 31. confuted by that disputation held by Gregory against Eutiches the Hereticke, who denied that Christ had a true humane body, against whom Gregory ob­iected [...]saying of our Sauiour to his Disciples, who after his resurrection made a doubt of that which [...] spared not to maintaine, namely, that it was not the same body wherein he was cruifi­ed, but onely a shadow of a body, and so his huma­nity was but kata Phantasian, not really, but onely in appearance; But Gregory obiects the words of Christ. Handle me, and see for a spirit hath not flesh Luke 24. 39. and bones, as you see me haue; behold my hands and feete, that it is I my selfe.

By the same testimony of sence, may Christians now discerne bread to be bread after consecration, by which the Disciples discerned Christs flesh to be flesh after resurrection; they were to beleeue because they did see and feele it to be the flesh of Christ, wee haue the benefit of foure sences, seeing, handling, [...] Sermone sax­on. legend in Fest Pascbatis to be seene in the Library at Ox­ford, and other Cathedrall Churches. tasting, smelling, to prooue vs to receiue not flesh, but bread.

And here we may note what was the faith of the Church of England about those times of St. Gregory, by an ancient Homily written in the Saxon tongue, and appointed to be preached throughout England in euery Church vpon Easter day.

Part where of runnes thus.

In the holy sont we see two things in that one crea­ture; after the true nature, the water is corruptible wa­ter, [Page 81] and yet after [...]mystery [...]hath hallowing might. So also wee behold the holy housell, it is bread, after bodily vnderstanding, then wee see it is a body [...], and [...]; but if wee acknowledge therein a spirituall might, then vnderstand wee that life is therein, and it giueth [...]to them that [...]it with [...]. Much difference there is betweene the inuisible might of the holy [...], and the visible shape of the proper nature. It is naturally corruptible bread and corruptible wine; and it is by the might of Christs word, truely [...]body and his blood, not so notwithstanding bodily, but spiritually, much diffe­rence is there betweene the body that Christ suffered [...]; and the body that is hallowed to housell; the body [...]Christ suffered in, was borne of the flesh of Mary with blood, and with bone, with skinne, with [...]in humane limmes, with a reasonable soule [...]; and his spirituall body, which we call the [...], [...]the­red of many cornes without blood and bone, without limme, without soule, and therefore nothing therein is to be vnderstood [...]; but all is spiritually to be vn­derstood. By these words [...]appeares that the ancient Christians in England held not that grosse transubstantiation maintained now by the Romish Church, which is the mother of the Massing sacri­fice, for take away [...]and of necessity you lay the honour of their sacrifice in the dust.

For the space of [...]yeares after Gregory, this Sa­crifice of the Masse beganne to gather strength, and to be taught, and [...], though not gene­rally in the Church of Rome. Pasca. de Corp. & Sang. Dom. ap. 9. & 10.

[...] Abbot of Corby in [...] hath these [Page 82] words. Because we sinne daily, Christ is Sacrificed for vs Mystically, and his Passion giuen in Mystery. Againe, The blood is drunken in Mystery spiritually, and it is all spirituall which wee eate. And, The full similitude is [...], and the flesh of the imaccu­late Lambe is faith inwardly; that the truth he not wan­ting to the Sacrament, and it be not ridiculous to Pa­gans, that wee drinke the blood of a [...]man. Note here, that he would [...]the outward [...], and the inward substance represented by the signe, to subsist in the Sacrament, otherwise it takes away the truth of the Sacrament; and hee would not haue the [...]thinke, the [...]to be so absurd, as to drinke the reall and substantiall blood of Christ with their bodily mouthes, but onely Sacramentally, and in a Mystery.

Bertram [...] liued about the 900. yeare of Bertram. de Corp & Sang. Dons. Christ, in the time of Charles the [...], whose wordes agree directly with the Doctrine of the Church of England, and are these. Our Lord hath done this at once, euen in offering himselfe ( [...]is to say, sacrifi­cing himselfe for vs:) For hee was once offered for the finnes of the people; and this [...]notwithstanding is dayly celebrated by the [...], but in a mysterie: to the end that what hath beene accomplished by our Lord lesus in offering himselfe once, might be handled [...]day, by the celebrating of the Mysteries, of the [...]of the memory of his passion. Where is to be noted how he opposeth the mysticall [...], to the reall receiuing, and the dayly [...]of the remembrance, to the once offering of the [...]. Againe, He [...] which is [Page 83] dayly offered by the faithfull, in the mysterie of his body and his blood, namely, that whosoeuer will draw neere vnto him, may know that he must [...]part in his sufferings; the image and representation whereof is ex­hibited in the holy Mysteries.

About the 1000. yeare liued Neither doth it appeare by the writings of Bede, of [...]in cap. 5. Osea. &c. 2. Habbae. &c. 1. Malac. of Rcmigius in Psal. 51. of Ra­ban de Instit. Cleric. l. 1. c. 32. Of [...]in c. 10. epist. [...]. Heb. All which liued betweene the time of Gre gory the Great and the Late­ran Councell. Adde vnto these [...] Deane of [...]. Maurice in An­geires the won­der of [...]for allearning: He liued be­tweene the 1100. and 1200 yeares or about the [...]: ac­cording to [...]. [...] an Arch-bishop in France, deni­ed the reall pre­sence as [...] reports, An 1004. num. 5. Adde vnto the former Almari­cus, a Doctor of Paris, [...]for this opini­on, about the yeare 1190. of whom Ber­nardus Lutzen­burg. and Ga­guinus, a French Histo­rian make men tion. These latter directly withstood transubstantia­tion, before the Lateran Coun­cell. Theophilact who seems Theophil. in c. 8 [...]. to deny this Propitiatory Sacrifice; in these words, The medicines which are effectuall and forcible do heale at the first time, being administred, but those which neede to bee taken againe and againe, doe sufficiently argue their weaknesse by that onely note: euen so it fa­reth betweenethe Legall Sacrifices, and the Sacrifice of Christ. But here ariseth a question, Whether we also doe offer sacrifices without shedding of blood? vnto which we answere affirmatiuely; but it is that we doe renue the Memory of the death of the Lord; and yet in the meane time it is but one Sacrifice not many, because it hath beene offered but onely once: We offer then [...]himselfe, or rather the Remembrance of this oblation, by which he did offer himselfe. And in another place he hath these words, Where there is remission of sins, there needes not any more sacrifices: but Christ hath of­fered a Sacrifice seruing and standing sufficient for e­uer; and therefore wee haue no neede of any other se­cond sacrifice.

About the 1000 yeare they beganne to ordaine Priests, with these words, Accipe potestatem missas celebrandi, & sacrificium offerrendi pro viuis & mor­tuis. Take power to celebrate Masses, and to offer Sacrifice sor the quicke and the dead. Then had priuate Masse gotten some life, wherein the Priest alone did communicate for himsefe, and for [Page 84] those who had payed him a good price to be remem­bred when hee receiued the Sacrament, that inten­tionally the vertue of his communicating might pro­fit them to saluation. Then began the circumgesta­tion; or carrying about of the host with the adora­tion or worshipping of it. Then began they to as­cribe to it the power of healing, and working of mi­racles.

And about this time did the Church of Rome giue vnto the Sacrament that great and as yet vnre­couered name of taking away the cup of the Lords Supper from the Layity, that is, like Arithmeticians they had liberally studied addition, making many things essentiall to the Sacrament of the Supper, which were not; so now they might put in practise Substraction by with-holding the one halfe of the E­lements (wherwith Christ institutes and the Apostles and Primitiue Church celebrated the Lords Supper) from the lay people.

Let euery man iudge here whose religion is new, or who are the Innovators, they or we. Them suc­ceeded the [...] & the [...] a­bout the yeare [...].

Among diuers other additions vnto the ceremo­nies of the Masse, in the yeare 1065. was ioyned the blessing of the incense wherein there is mention made of a propitiatory sacrifice. But this doctrine was not generally established in the Church till with­in [...]de Villa noua [...] [...]about the yeare 1243 as [...]. [...]. Cent. 13 [...]. [...]. Cap. 11. this 408 yeares; for as one of their greatest School­men [...], Ante Concilium Lataranense hoc dogma non suit. Before the Councill of Lateran this opi­nion, namely of [...]was not, that is, generally approued and maintained.

And Cornalius Musso a Bishop of Bitrutum (so [Page 85] famous for his learning as Sixtus Senensis writeth, that he was a Preacher at twelue yeares old, and all Italy ranne after him) did defend in the Councell of Trent; that Christ at his last Supper did offer no sacri­fice [...] 3. d 74. sect. 2. pag. 9 49. [...]. & [...]26. 28. at all; meaning no true Propitiatory sacrifice. For (as he vrgeth) if he offered himselfe to his Father in his last Supper, then should he not haue perfected his sacrifice with one oblation made, as Saint Paul teacheth, but with a double oblation twice made, once in the Supper, and once vpon the crosse, which were most repuguant to the holy Scripture.

But from the time of the Laterane Councill, this doctrine of the Masse tooke such roote, and spread it selfe so farre and so fast that the greatest part of Eu­rope is darkned with the darke shade thereof; grow­ing by degrees from an action of thanksgiuing to an Eucharisticall Sacrifice, and from thence to a Propiti­atory sacrifice by way of Mystery and Commendati­on; and from thence to a true, proper, and reall Pro­pitiatory sacrifice, equall with, nay farre more effectu­all then the sacrifice that Christ himselfe offered vp­on the crosse. And this dangerous and blasphemous doctrine crept in the more easily by the ignorance of these latter ages both in the Church and Common­wealth, caused by the troubles of the Church of Rome; as also by the corruption of languages, which was in this last thousand yeares, occasioned by the mixture of diuers nations together in seuerall king­domes, and especially Italy; and this heresie beeing crept into the Church was fostered and nourished by the coldnesse of mens deuotion, the couetousnesse of the Priests, and the [...]of the Bishops. The [Page 68] coldnesse of mens deuotion was such, that whereas in the feruent zeale of the Christian Church, the Sup­per of the Lord was celebrated euery Lords day, yea in some Churches euery day, and great multitudes resorted and thronged thereunto, yet in processe of time, men began so to neglect the Lords Table, that there was this law enacted to compel them to a more carefull respect of communicating, That such lay peo­ple as did not communicate at the least euery feast of the Natiuity, Easter and Whitsontide should bee held for Infidells.

This law was afterward ratified by Charles the Carol. Mag. lib. 1. cap. 138. 182. 167. Great; and vrged vpon the people.

But hereby it came to passe that the profits of the Priests were much curtalled, because the people brought not so many offerings as in former times; wherefore the Clergie thought to vse a speedy reme­die for this disease; and therefore began to teach them, that the Sacrament was not onely profitable for the saluation of the Communicants, but also for all their friends, and kindred liuing and dead, which the Priest should remember secretly with himself at the time of celebration; and this they called Vim [...], the force & efficacie of the Masse. This broght in store of gaine to the Priests purse, as Diana did to Demetrius and his companions; and as the Pythonisse did vnto her Act. 10. 25. Act. 16. 16. masters; no maruaile then if they stand to maintaine that which maintaines them.

This doctrine of the Massing sacrifice they cun­ningly built vpon two foundations, which were layd both at this time, the better to keepe the people in awe, and to cause the more respect vnto their sacrfice.

[Page 87] The first was Transubstantion; for after it was taught that the bread and wine was changed substan­tially into the body and blood of Christ, then what reuerence was too great for this sacrifice? who could doubt that it was Propitiatory?

The second was Purgatory; for then (might the people argue) if our friends departed out of this world doe abide the scorching flames of Purgatory; and that wee our selues must thither too; and if the holy sacrifice of the Masse hath such vertue as to ease the soules therein; then let vs out of charitie to our friends pay some portion of money to the Priest, for the cessation of their paines; and out of loue to our selues when we dye, let vs leaue grounds and goods to the Church that Masse may be sayd for vs when we are dead. Thus you see how the sacrifice of the Masse got footing: vpon what ground it stood, and so con­tinues.

But God that still prouideth for his Church, will, and hath caused light to breake out of darknes, that albeit the darknes of Fgypt bee palpable, yet light shall shine clearely in Goshen; and to this end hath sent diuers of his seruants to deliuer truth out of pri­son, and to manifest the light there of vnto his peo­ple.

Their owne tongues are against them; and some of their owne brood hatched about the time of the Laterane Councell, disclaime this point. As you haue heard Aquinas speaking in this case, pag. 71. so heare whether he be not still the same, who sayes, It Aquin. in Sum. part. 13. q. 73. art. 6. behooneth that there euermore should remaine some re­presentation of the passion of our Lord. In the old te­ament [Page 88] this principall sacrament was the Paschall lambe; whereupon the Apostle sayes, Christ our Paschall Lambe was offered. And in place thereof hath succeeded the Eucharist in the new Testament, which is a Memori­all of his passion past and suffered, as the other was a prefigurer and [...]of his passion to come.

Petrus Alphonsus at the same time did acknow­ledge Petr. Alph. l. 2. [...] the Masse or Eucharist for no other thing then a Sacrifice of praise. And this was at that time one of the questions disputed by the Albigenses and Petrus Brutis, who was burnt at Tholosa where hee taught [...]dialog. tit. 12. publikely that it was not a Propitiatory. All these sa­crifices (saith he) which were vsed vnder the law, were nothing but [...]of this great sacrifice, which was to destroy sinne, But since the comming of Christ wee vse not any other Sacrifice, but that of bread and wine which he hath ordained, & is like vnto that which Moses in the law called [...] and sacrifice of prayse; for therein we prayse God for the benefit hee hath bestowed vpon vs, sauing vs by his onely Sonne, &c.

Alexander Hales seemes to crosse the Masse in di­uers Alex. Hales. of his assertions: for he speakes thus, Iesus Christ hath offered a double sacrifice, a spirituall and corporall, the spirituall that is a sacrifice of deuotion, and loue to­wards mankind, which he hath offered in spirit; the cor­porall, the sacrifice of the death which he vnderwent vp­on the crosse, which is represented in the sacrament. (Marke he confesseth no realitie of a sacrifice, any otherwise then by [...]). The spirituall figu­red by the incense and perfume which was made vpon the inner [...]; the corporall which hee offered in his flesh, two wayes, that is to say, sensibly vpon the crosse, [Page 89] and insensibly vpon the altar. (Obserue he tearmes it an insensible offering, not grosse vnder the formes of bread and wine.) That sensible sort being shadowed out by the sacrifices of beasts; but the insensible by the sacrificing of things that are insensible, as fruits, bread and wine, both the one, and the other vpon the vtter altar.

Here he maketh one Propitiatory, for such were the sacrifices wherein beasts were offered with the shedding of their blood for sinne; figuring out the singular sacrifice vpon the crosse offered by the Mes­siah the Lord Iesus Christ. The other Eucharisticall onely, for such properly were those of fruites, bread, &c.

Lyra also that Catholike interpreter of the whole Nic. Lyran. [...] ad Heb. c. 10 scripture seems not much to dissent from the former; for writing of the Sacrifice of Christ that it is not to be iterated, preoccupates an obiection thus. You will say the sacrament of the altar is euery day offered vp in the Church. But the answer hereto is, that this is no reiterating of the sacrifice, but an ordinary remembring and calling to mind of the onely Sacrifice offered vpon the crosse, wherefore it is said, Math. 26. Doe this in re­membrance of me.

That most learned Arrias Montanus, vpon Luk. 22. Arrias [...]in Luc. 22. thus writes, This is my body: that is, My body is sacra­mentally contained in this sacrament of bread: and straight way he addes (like another Nicodemus Christs nightly disciple) The secret and most mysticall manner whereof, God will once vouchsafe more clearely to vn­fold vnto his Church.

Thus hath the light of truth appeared from the [Page 90] beginning of the Primitiue Church vntill these our dayes, albeit (till within this hundred and odde yeares) it hath from the time of Gregory shined more dimmely, and since the Laterane Councell seemed well nigh to be quite extinct,

But at last the Sunne of righteousnes communi­cated his light vnto these [...], which haue illumi­nated our Horizon, such as Luther, Zuinglius, Oeco­lampadius, Caluine, Beza, Iewell, and many famous Martyrs in queene Maryes dayes as Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Bradford, Philpot, &c. which (albeit it plea­seth the Romish Factors to brand them with the ti­tle of Heretickes) haue so dispelled the darkenesse of superstition, and discouered the Mysterie of Anti­christ, that all the world may point out which is the purple and scarlet Whore, Babylon the great, the mo­ther Reu. 17. 5. of harlots and abhominations of the earth; whose shame, her children, louers and friends would saine conceale, but God hath layd it open, and will dayly more and more, before men and angells, till the time come, when she shall be cast downe, burnt with fire, and made desolate for euermore.

Thus haue I let you see briefly (and I doubt more briefly then so ample a matter doth require) how the sacrifice of the Masse crept into the Church, and how it hath continued.

How first it was celebrated in a most plaine and simple manner.

Secondly, it began to admit some encrease of cere­monies, especially the offerings for the dead, which was but a gratulation and thankesgiuing for them, vntill 200. yeares after [...].

[Page 91] Thirdly, prayers for the dead, got entrance into the Supper about 400. yeares; then came in Purgato­ry and redemption of soules thence by Masses, though not generally taught nor authorized by any Councill.

About the 780. yeare Gregoryes Masse was publike­ly taken vp in the Churches of Italy, whereas before Ambrose his Masse was of more generall vse.

Fourthly, the disputations of Transubstantiation began about the yeare 840., but were not fully con­cluded till the Councell of Lateran by Innocent the third, anno 1216. After which came in the offering of the body and blood of Christ vpon the altar. And after that, there followed the enclosing carying about and adoration of them. Thus grew the Church of Rome from euill to worse, till it came to that mise­rable state wherein it now is.

And as the Romanists are Innouatours in respect of the Sacrifice of the Masse, so are they also in re­spect both of the Canon & of the Ceremonies of the Masse: for whereas they boast that the forme of the Masse in respect of the Canon is so ancient, as that they deduce it from the Apostles, and to this end al­leadge the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy of Dionysius, some of their owne writers doe question the veritie and an­tiquity of that book, doubting whether it be spurious or no; and that the Canon hath admitted diuers ad­ditions by seuerall and sundry Popes appeares by their owne Polidore Virgill, whose words bee these. Polid. Virgil. de inuent. re­rum. l. 5. ca. 11. All the Mysteries were deliuered by Christ to his Apo­stles barely and plainely, sauouring more of piety then outward shew; for Peter was went onely to consecrate by [Page 92] saying the Lords prayer; after this these [...]were enlarged by Saint Iames, by Saint Basill; Coele­stine Anno 423. added the entrance of the Masse, beginning with this [...], Iudge me oh Lord. Damasus added the Anno 577. confession which is made by the Priest before hee ascend vnto the Altar; some ascribe it to Pontianus; Grego­ry Anno 600. added the [...]which followeth the Entrance; and that Lord haue mercy vpon vs, should bee repeated ninetimes, with the Antiphonie after the Epistle, Gospel, and communion. Telesphorus added the hymne of Anno 129. glory to God on high. Gelasius added the conclusions of Anno 493. the prayers [as vpon Christmas day, because thou didst giue thine onely Sonne, &c. as is set downe in the book of Common prayer and vsed at the administration of the Communion by the Church of England] Ierom added the Epistle and Gospell, and that all men should stand vp at the reading of the Gospell; [...]they borrowed from the Church of [...]; the singing of Anno 336. the Creed was added by Pope Marke the first? which Damasus afterward renewed; Gelasius added the Anti­phony which they call Tractum, with the hymnes and pre­faces which goe before the Canon, which are nine in number; the tenth to the honour of the Virgine Mary the mother of God Pope Vrbane added. Aaron first burnt frankincense on the Altar according as God commanded Moses; and Pope Leo the third comman­ded the same to be vsed in the Church, which also the Anno 800. Heathens did vse. The washing of the hands was a ce­remony taken from the custome of the Iewes, and from the Gentiles, whose vse was to wash their hands when they sacrificed. Xystus the first appointed that in the pre­face, Anno 170. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabbath, should bee [Page 93] sung. Whereby it appeares that the Canon of the Masse was neither all composed by one man, nor was digested into that forme wherein now it is. Which appeares by this that Pope Alexander the first who [...] ccclx. yeares Anno 109 before Gelasius and Syricius in memorie of the passion of Christ caused these words to be added, who the day be­fore he suffered, vnto these words, this is my body; whereby it is [...]that that was the beginning of the Canon. Leo'1. afterwards added, therefore this [...]; Anno 440. and this holy sacrifice and immaculate host; Grego­ry annexed three prayers which are these, Dispose our dayes in thy peace, and deliuer vs from eternall damna­tion; and cause vs to be numbered among thine elect. So others added other things; after the Canon is ended, then is said the peace of God; then was appointed that the Priests should kisse one another by Innocent the first, Anno 408. and that the people should kisse the pax by Leo the se­cond. Anno 682.

Now for the ceremonies of the Masse, most of them were borrowed from the Iewes and ancient I­dolatry of the Romanes instituted by Numa Pompili­us their second King about 700. yeares before the in­carnation of Christ.

As their shauing of Priests, which the ancient I­dolatrous Romanes vsed after the forme of the Baby­lonians, or of the Herculean Priests, called for the same cause Stephanophores, as bearing a crowne vpon their heads; these were by the Heathenish Romanes Curio saeerdos qui in sua cura, id est in sua pa­rocbia sacris [...], Tit. Liu l. 1. dec. [...]. tearmed Curiones, from whence our Romish Priest­hood haue borrowed the name of Curate. Next the vestment of the Priest, which Numa Pompilius ordai­ned to be White, called by the Latins Alba, and with [Page 94] the Vestment hath continued to this day, wherein the Priest celebrateth Masse.

But our Romanists scorning to bee beholding to [...]in [...]de exposit. [...]. Gab. [...]in lib. [...]exposit. Miss. their Idolatrous Predecessours will haue this Aulbe to figure the conuersation of Christ in his flesh, or the purity of his body incarnate in the wombe of the Virgin. O­thers interpret the white colour to signifie chastity and continency. Others signifie by the Aulbe, the White garment presented by Herod vnto Christ, when he was sent backe as a foole to Pilate.

Aboue this, the old Roman Idolators vsed an orna­ment Alexand. ab Alexan [...] 4. c. 17 Super tunicam pectori tegumen Tit. Liu. l. 1. decad. 1. Purpureo vela­re comas ad­opertus ami­ctu, &c. Virgil. [...]. 3. for the breast of brasse or copper, which is by the Church of Rome now turned into gold or siluer, tearmed the Cheasuble. They vsed also a vayle to co­uer their heads, called an Amice first inuented by AEneas; which also our Masse Priests vse; and they will haue it to represent the vayle wherewith Christ was couered, when the Iewes mocked him in the house of Caiphas. Or the Diuinity of Christ hid vnder the humanity.

Adde vnto these the Stole, the Manuple, and the Zone: which three (saith one) do represent the three cords wherwith Christ was bound, and led before the High Priest. Or by the Zone (saith Biel) were figured the rods wherewith Christ was whipped; by the Stole laid a crosse, the crosse that Christ carryed on his shoulders; The Manuple carryed on the left arme represents the band of loue wherwith Christ was hol­den.

Another interpreteth the Zone or Girdle wher­with the Aulbe is trussed or tyed together, to signifie the band of the charity of God.

[Page 95] The Stole put vpon the Amice on the necke of the Priest in forme of the crosse to figure the obedience of Iesus Christ vnto the death of the Crosse.

The Manuple carryed vpon the left hand to figure the eternall felicity of Iesus Christ.

Another saith the Amice figureth Faith; the Stole humility of obedience; and the Manuple the watch­full and hearty deuotion of the Massing Sacrificer. Thus are they vncertaine among themselues of the fi­guratiue representations of their Sacrificall Vest­ments.

The next ceremonie was Holy-water borrowed from the ancient Idolaters of Rome, and inuented by Numa, who ordained that the people should bee Proc. in l. de [...]. & Gag. Procl. Plarenicatu. Eius aquae aspersione, peccata praesertim per­iuria mendatia­que delui cre­debant. Blond. li. de Roman. [...] fast. [...] 3. sprinkled with sea, or salt water, because that salt was of a fierie nature which is apt to purifie; hereby they purged and cleansed the faults of the people, especially lying and periury.

Pope Alexander the first of that name, and one of the first corrupters of the holy sacraments, following the Idolatry of Pompilius, commanded this coniu­ring and consecrating of holy water, to driue away diuells. But to colour this [...]hee vseth this comparison. If it be so (saith Pope Alexander) that Si cinis [...]aspersus [...]Iudeorum, & e. [...]. the ashes of a red cow, offered vp in sacrifices, ming­led with water of the fountaine purified the people of the Iewes; by greater reason the water sprinkled with salt should purifie Christians and chase away [...]. Thus haue they continued that Idolatrous vse of Ho­ly Hist. [...]. lib 6. cap. 35. water still in the Church of Rome, which the Hea­thens did vse 360. yeares after Christ, as appeares by that story of Valentinian.

[Page 96] After the sprinkling of Holy-water followes the Procession which Platina ascribes to Agapetus, Bishop of Rome; but I find it well nigh a 1000. yeares before [...]. him practised by the ancient Idolatrous Romanes called Supplication.

The order of Procession instituted by Numa: ei­ther Supplicationes quas nos proces­siones vocamus, [...]circa de­lubra fanaque & [...], in quibus honos dijs dabatur, praecedentibus pueris [...], & sacerdotibus coronatis, ac Lauream tenen­tibus manu, ac voce modulata canentibus car­men, subsequen­te Maximo [...], vel curionc, deinde sequentibus pa­tricijs [...]cum coniugibus [...]tiberis [...]corena­tis. Apul. lib. 11. de [...]. Blond. de Rom. [...]. 2. [...] Alexandre. lib. 5. cap. 27. to appease the wrath of their gods, or to obtaine peace, or the fruits of the earth was this.

First, before the Procession went young children, then the Priests clad in white Vestments, singing hymnes, prayses, and songs vnto their gods; after fol­lowed the High Bishop (called by them Pontifex Maximus) which title was after giuen to all the Em­perours of Rome that were not Christians (as ap­peares by their coynes and Sculptures) then the anci­ent Senators of Rome, and their wiues and chil­dren, with crownes on their heads.

In the Procession was carryed commonly the Pa­gent or shrine of Iupiter or Anubis oy some of the Priests clad in white Vestments, their heads beeing shauen, and hauing a crowne vpon their heads. This crowne was in such repute, that the Emperour Anto­nius Commodus himselfe being the High Bishop cau­sed his head to be shauen, and to be crowned to beare the shrine of the god Anubis.

Before the shrine went a Torch-bearer, carrying a taper light in his hand: when Procession did passe through the streetes, there were appointed certaine places for station; during which solemnitie, the Tem­ples were set open, the Altars and Images perfumed with Incense; the shoppes being shut, the Halles of Iustice closed, and the prisoners vnchained. What [Page 97] more exact Analogy and proportion can there bee then betweene the Procession of the Idolatrous Ro­manes, and that which is now in vse among the Idolatrous Romanists?

After the sprinkling of Holy-water, and the pro­cession were finished, Numa instituted the sacrificer Ouid. lib. 4. [...]. should celebrate the sacrifice, being cloathed with his Aulbe, and Chasuale, his head crowned, and his beard shauen, who approached to the Altar, with a Taper light, which commonly was of Tede, or Plut. in Numa. Pine-tree; Hee ordained also that the Priest should turne himselfe to the Altar, toward the East; which Porpherius the Hereticke did not onely continue, but ordained also the porches, and images to be turned toward the East, that those that entred into the [...]. ab [...]lib. 4. c. 17. Temples in bowing themselues before them, might addresse their prayers toward the East; as the [...] worship the Sunne in the East.

Wherefore our aduersaries must needes [...]that there Altars erected toward the East their lamps and wax candles, their Images reuerenced, nay wor­shipped in their Missall sacrifice, to haue taken their originall, not from the Law of God, but from the ancient Romane Idolaters.

Moreouer it was ordained of Numa, that the Rem [...]facturus ad [...]leuandam cul­pam se in pri­mis reum dicere debebat, & [...], ac fateri admis­sum, vultumque submittere. Alex ab Alexand. l. 4. c. 17. Blond. l. 1. de Rom. Triump. Priest being thus compleatly attired, the Altar being furnished with lightes, and Images, should before all things make his Confiteor, and [...]This offences, and aske pardon of the gods, and goddesses, As Pythagor as affirmes [...]his [...]Verses, and Or­pheus in his Hymnes: For [...] iudged the Priest to bee well purged by his [...], but without this [Page 98] Confiteor the Sacrifice could not be well celebrated. Which was reuiued by Damasus and Pontianus Bi­shops of Rome.

Next vnto these the turnings, tossings, crowchings, kissings, were to be vsed by the Pompilian Priest, for Hae sunt verti­gines in sacris a Numa institu­tae dextram ad [...], & se in orbem circumagere. [...]de Rom. Trium. Macrob. in Saturnal. Numa supposed great holinesse to consist therein. Which are also in vse among the Masse-Priests; for as Titleman affirmeth the Priest in trauersing the Altar maketh seauen Curtsies or Congies vnto the assi­stants in his Sacrifice, that he may driue away the seauen deadly sinnes, by the seauen fold graces of the Spirit of God.

Vnto these wee may adde, the perfuming the Al­tar with Incense, for the Ancient Roman Idolaters were wont to vse in their Sacrifices, perfume of In­cense, [...]. lib. 1. de Rom. Triam. Alexan. ab. Ale. lib. 4 cap. 17. which they caused to be kept in a little vessell called Acerra, a Censour; with which incense the Sacrificer did perfume the Altar, Images, Hostes, es­pecially the [...]of the god Ianus and the god­desse Vesta, which tooke pleasure in incense, and wine offered to them; for in the time of the Tro­tanes [...]veteres non thu­re, sed [...]& citri [...]Deos a [...]. [...]. Til. Liuius l. 3. [...] 3. Cedar and Citron were vsed for perfume. That the Romaines did vse Incense in their Sacrifices, ap­peares by the word Thus, which signifieth Incense being [...]of the Greoke Word Thuo, which sig­nifies to sacrifice.

This [...]was brought into the Church by Loo Bishop of Rome borrowing it from the Heathenish practise of the ancient Idolatours; by which Incense now [...] Tittleman is signified the prayer of the Priest, which doth mount vp into Heauen in a [...]of sweetnesse, as the smoake of Incense and the [Page 99] Censour doth signifie the grace of the Holy Ghost. Biel interprets the Incense to signifie Mary Magda­lens anoynting of Christ, and because Christ was twise anointed, therefore the incense must be twice offered in the Missall Sacrifice.

Vnto these adde in the next place the Offertory of Blond. [...]. 2. [...]Trium. Rom. their first fruites to the honour of their gods and goddesses, and these the Sacrificer might carry to his owne house for the nourishment of himselfe, and [...]siue benesicibrū duo [...]gene­ra, vnum quorū collatio ad rem­pub. aut princi­pem, aut ad [...]collegiū spectabat, alterā quorum collatio ad aliquam fa­miliam eiusque successores perti­nebat; quae bene­ficia viris patro­natus censeba­tur. Blond. de Rom. Trium. l. 2. his family. For when Numa had instituted diuers or­ders of Sacrificers; as Bishops, Augures, Sauliens, Fe­ciaux, Curions and others, he ordained also meanes for their maintenance, and commanded out of the com­mon treasurie, meanes for their prouision; and many priuate persons following his example did the like; so that benefices became rich by foundations; some of which benefices were at the bestowing of the Prince or the Common-wealth, or of the Colledge of Bishops: Others were at the presen­tation of some priuate Patrons, and their Suc­cessours, by whom they were first founded. They had beside these, that which was offered at the Altar; and the first fruites when any of these benefi­ces were voyde; they had also Annuals, Legacies, and Bequests which were giuen by the dead that the Priest might pray for them, as appeares this day by the ancient monuments of the Heathen Idolators.

They had also amerciaments, fines, confiscations, Cicer. in orat. pro domo sua ad Pontifices. as the house of Cicero when he was banished, was confiscate to the Colledge of the Priests, and dedica­ted specially to the sacrifices celebrated in the Tem­ple of the Goddesse Libertie. By which it appeares [Page 100] that the Idolatries and Superstitious ceremonies of the Church of Rome, are not new in themselues but borrowed from the old Idolators of Heathenish Rome, practised before the incarnation of our Saui­our Christ.

Neither can I here omit the ancient custome of the Romanes, which being paralelled with this of our aduerfaries differs nothing from that vsed in the now Romish Church. For in the time of Numa Pompi­lius Mysterys [...], qui sacris intererant, ro­tundis [...]quos in honorem Deorum adhi­bebant, stantes vescebantur. A­lex. ab Alex. l. 4. ap. 17. the Idolatrous Romanes, (after the mysteries of their worshippe were finished) did communicate within the Temple little Cakes consecrated to the honour of their Gods to whom they did offer their sacrifices.

These little round cakes or hostes were eaten by the Sacrificer and the assistantes, standing and not sit­ing.

The Flower whereof they were made, was called Mola; from whence is deriued this word Immolare to Sacrifice.

These little cakes were diuers according vnto the diuersity of their gods and goddesses, and had on them the Images of those gods or goddesses, to whom they were dedicated. From whom our super­stitious Aduersaries haue beene bold to borrow their Idolatrous practise of offering a wafer cake with the Picture of Christ vpon the Crosse, which cake is no longer or it was, but (as they teach) is really transubstantiated into the very body of Christ.

Nor must I here forget to set before the eyes of the Christian Reader, the behauiour of the Masse-Priest, while he is offering his sacrifice. First he makes three [Page 101] crosses vpon the round host to signifie the threefold Doctrine of Christ, by the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost; in pronouncing these words, Haec dona, hoec munera, hoec sancta sacrificia illibata. Other Masse Glossers interpret the third Crosse to signifie the treason of Iudas. Then followes fiue crosses more to figure the fiue dayes of respite betweene Palme-Sun­day, and Good-Friday. Or otherwise the fiue wounds of Christ.

Of which fiue crosses, the three first are made to signifie the deliuering of Christ vnto the high Priest, Or to figure the price which Christ was sold for, to wit, three times ten which make thirty.

The other two crosses are made separately the one vpon the host, the other vpon the chalice alone, to play the two persons of Christ and Iudas, then hee stretcheth out his armes to figure Christ stretched on the crosse. Which done he maketh three crosses to represent the threefold estate of such as haue bene­fit by that sacrifice, namely, those in Heauen, on earth, in purgatory.

He smiteth afterwards his breast, to play the part of the Publican repenting in the Temple: But this smiting must be with the three hinder-most fingers; for the thombe and the fore-finger are reserued to consecrate and transubstantiate the Host into the body of Christ; moreouer he smiteth his breast three times, to figure the three-fold offence of thought, word, and deede. Then he eleuateth the host to be adored. Then he lifteth vp his voyce to represent the person of the theefe, or the Centurion which con­fessed Christ in his passion.

[Page 102] Six other crosses are againe made, three vpon the chalice couered, to represent the three houres that Christ hanged on the crosse aliue; and the other three on the chalice vncouered (with the round host lifted vp againe) to figure the three houres that Christ hanged on the crosse dead. Then he kisseth the cha­lice, and maketh two crosses to figure the water and blood that issued out of the side of Christ.

Then the Priest must take the couering cloath off from the chalice, and couer it with the patyne, to figure the breaking of the vaile of the Temple in the middest at the death of Christ. This done, the host is put from aboue the chalice and is couched vnder the corporas to figure the burying of Christ.

The Priest hauing thus acted the parts of Christ, of the holy Theefe, of Iudas, then acteth the person of the Centurion in singing the Pater Noster, by the seauen petitions whereof Durandus would signifie the seauen weepings of the Virgin Mary, or the sea­uen graces of the Holy Ghost, or the seauen Beati­tudes, or the seauen deadly sinnes. This song finished, the Priest keepeth silence to signifie the silence, or rest of Christ in the Sepulcher.

Who sees not here a Masse of fopperies, and will­worship in this sacrifice of the Masse? shall not God say vnto our Masse-mungers, as he did vnto the Isra­elites. [...] Who required these things at your hands? where hath Christ either giuen precept or example to make such representations of his passion by externall mum­meries, and histrionicall gestures? [...].

But these things are of great antiquity, and haue beene of long vse in the Church, and why should [Page 103] wee now become Innouatours.

Answere. I answere wee are not Innouatours be­cause we abolish these Popish Idolatries, and keepe our selues to the practise of the Primitiue Church, but they are Innouatours, that haue brought these superstitions into the Church.

And [...]as they pleade Antiquity; I answer, first Antiquity or continuance of an euill is no ground for a tolleration, and idolatry in religion is not to be permitted though neuer so ancient; for by the same argument may the Turkes [...]their Maho­metan Alcoran, which they haue possessed about 900 yeares; vnder the which law they haue subdued nations, conquered Realmes and Empires.

By the same reason might the Israelites iustifie the sacrificing of their children vnto Moloch in the valley of Tophet, a most detestable Idolatry, yet pacti­sed well nigh the space of 1200 yeares, till it was quite abolished by that good King Iosiah.

The Brazen Serpent, a thing commanded by God himselfe, possessed by the Israelites for the space of 2 Kings 18. 4. 900. yeares, vnto which the people had burnt in­cense from time to time; yet neither the long continu­ance, nor the generall practise of such an Idolatry could preuaile with Hezechiah for tolleration. Could the people of Israel be excused for commit­ting [...]by the two calues of Dan, and Bethel 1 Kings 12. [...] erected by [...], and worshipped for the space of three or foure hundred yeares? No, the long pra­ctise of an euill, can afford no ground for permission; but Idolatry though neuer so aged is to be extirpated; as Theodosius the Emperour answered vnto the [Page 104] Senatours of Rome, when they pressed him with the antiquity of their Pompilian religion, which they had obserued for the space of 1000. yeares.

Againe, the Masse is not so ancient as our aduer­saries pretend, neither in respect of the Canon, nor in respect of the Ceremonies, least of all in respect of the Sacrifice. The Canon being patched toge­ther by sundry Popes, who haue added their parts and parcels at seuerall times. The Ceremonies as the diuers garments, holy-water, wax-tapers, the Offertory Prayer for the dead, Procession, & the like, crept in also by degrees, one after another as their owne Histories declare sufficiently. And the sacrifice not acknowledged by any till within these 400 and odde yeares, about the time of the Lateran Coun­cell, vnder Innocent the third.

Now let the indifferent Reader iudge of the im­pudencie of our Aduersaries who bragge so much of antiquitie, endeauouring to deduce their Masse from the Apostles time, against their owne consciences, and the credit of all hystories. For hereby clearely is declared the induction not onely of the Ceremonies but also of the very Canon of the Masse; all which do not sauour only of Innouation, but also of Iudaisme and Gentilisme; the badges of a false and superstitious Sacrifice.

The third part of this confutation followes, where­in The third ge­nerall part, of [...]confutati­on. we shall giue answer vnto some of the maine and principall arguments wherewith they endeauour to establish their battered and shaken imposture, and to oppugne the inuincible truth of God and his Church. So that wilfully they ouerturne the very [Page 105] principles of nature, the order of all things, the huma­nity of their Sauiour, the truth of the Sacrament, the truth of Scripture, the foundations of all [...]; confusedly iumbling heauen and earth together, ra­ther then they will admit of a tropicall speech in our Sauiours consecration.

And first for the maintaining of the sacrifice of the Argum. 1. Psal. 110. 4. Heb. 5. 6. Rhem. annot. Heb. 7 sect. 8. Bellar. cap. 6. Hoffmeist. asser. sacrif. Missae. Masse they alleadge. That Christ is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech; but the proper act of Melchizedechs Priesthood did consist in sacrifi­cing vnder the formes of bread and wine. Ergo. The eternity of Christs Priesthood standeth in the sacrifi­cing of his body and blood in those formes by those Priests whom hee hath promised to continue in his Church till the worlds end. Rhemist. annot. Heb. 7. sest. 8. Bellar. cap 6. Hoffmeyst. assert. sacrific. missae.

And that Melchizedechs Priesthood consisted in oblation of bread and wine, they would prooue by these Reasons.

First, from the word, He brought forth. The He­brew Bellar. c. 6. Translators of Doway. pag. 56. annot. on Gen. 14. & pag. 57. word is properly applyed to the bringing forth of a sacrifice; as Gen. 4. The like word is vsed to sig­nifie Cain and Abels sacrifice.

Secondly, because Abraham had no need of bread and wine to refresh himselfe, being returned with so great spoyle from his enemies, and so hauing suffici­ent to refresh himselfe with, it is likely Melchizedech brought them forth to offer to God.

Thirdly, as Melchizedech is said to be the Priest of the High God, so it was requisite that the Scripture Bellar. cap. [...]. also should make mention of his sacrifice; but this sa­crifice is not mentioned else-where.

[Page 106] Fourthly, from the phrase of the words, Melchize­dech brought forth bread and wine, for hee was the Priest of the most high God; the scripture alleadging this as a reason of his bringing forth bread and wine, Bellar. [...]. because he was a Priest, and did it to sacrifice.

Fiftly, Christ is said to bee a Priest for euer: but this Priesthood cannot remaine, except his sacrifice remaine: therefore seeing the sacrifice of Christ on Bellar. ibidem. the crosse is done, he must haue another sacrifice dai­ly to be offered in the Church, and that is the sacri­fice of Melchisedech in bread and wine.

Vnto these we answer seuerally.

First, concerning the word [...] Iaza or Iaksa, which they say signifies properly to bring forth a sacrifice; this is false, for it properly imployes as much as pro­ferre, Zanch. de cultu dei externo. Exod. 3. 10. Exod 8. 18. Psal. 135. 7. to bring forth; as if he should say, Exire feeit & adferri panem, hee made bread and wine to bee brought forth, and the word is vsed in this sense most commonly: as, That thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel forth of Egypt. So the bring­ing forth of lice. Exod. 8 18. The bringing forth of the winds, Psal. 135. 7. The bringing forth of water out of the rocke, and the like. And where it hath any relati­on to a sacrifice, there it is ioyned either with the word sacrifice or oblation, restraining the generall signification thereof to the speciall act of offering or sacrificing.

Wherefore whereas many of them reade it obtu­lit, he suffered: they corrupt the text, for it is protulit, he brought foorth; and vnto this haue we the consent of all the Fathers, who note that it was rather a Mu­nificent act of his Regall office proceeding from his [Page 107] bountie and liberality, then any Sacrificiall act of his Priestly function.

Therefore Ierome translates it Melchizedeck profe­rens panem & vinum; and Cyprian, protulit panem. And [...]Gen. Cyp. ad Caecil. [...] [...]. thus doth Rabbi Salomon expound this place, say­ing, that Melchizedech did testifie by this gift and good hansell, that he tooke it not in ill part that his poste­rity were slaine by Abraham.

Thus also Tertullian and Epiphanius render it, with whom consent some of their owne Writers. Caietan Caietan. in Gen. 14. Sic Lyra [...]. saith, Nihil hic dictum est, &c. Nothing is here said of sacrifice or oblation, but of bringing forth, which Iose­phus saith was done to the refection of them that had got­ten Andrad. defens­fidel. Trid. lib. 4. the victory, Andradius also doth herein forsake his friends, and acknowledgeth this to bee the true exposition; for in the defence of the Councell of Trent against Chemnitius, he hath these words. Wee need not Chemnitius to striue about the word offering; seeing that both in the best corrected Latin coppies, and also in the holy Fathers, which apply this place vnto the holy Eucharist, It is proferens brought forth, and I in iudgement agree with them which say that Melchizedech refreshed Abrahams souldiers, wearied and fainted with long fight.

Vnto this doth the Romish translation consonant­ly accord, where the word is Proferens, bringing foorth, and not offerens offering; which [...]the Papists are bound by the Councill of Trent-sess. 4. not to reiect vpon what pretence soeuer.

The Chaldee Paraphrast saith, he brought, or cau­sed to be brought; and the Greeke hexenegae, hee Ambr. in ep. Hebr. c. 7. brought foorth. Ambrose, [...]in refectionem; and [Page 108] Hugo Cardinalis seems to hold himselfe satisfied with that sence, affirming that the Hebrew Doctours had so expounded it. And thus also Erasmus and Sigoni­us doe take it: for which they are reprooued by Pos­seuine Posseu in. biblio. Select. l. 4. c. 14. the Iesuite.

And it is to be obserued, that when any of the Fa­thers translate it obtulat, he offered, they referre it to [...]. cont. Iud Amb. de Sacra­ment. l. 4. c. 3. Chrys. in Ps. 110. Abraham, and not to God; Tertullian saith, Abra­hamo reuertenti de praelio obtulit panem & vinum; and so Ambrose. Occurrit Melchizedech & obtulit A­brahamo panem & vinum. Melchizedech [...] Abra­ham, returning from the warre, and offered vnto him bread and wine. They say not that he offered to God, but to Abraham, and it had beene idolatry in Melchi­zedech to haue offered to Abraham religiously: where­fore he offered onely ciuilly; that is, hee made proffer of bread and wine to refresh himselfe and his soul­diers.

Secondly, whereas they say Abraham had no need thereof, in regard he had taken a greet spoyle from the enemies, &c.

I answer, it appeares not that Abraham had refreshed himselfe by the spoyle taken from the kings, because in the refusall of the profer made vnto him by the king of Sodome, he protests that hee would not take any thing, saue onely that which the young men had Gen. 14. 23. eaten; where he reiects all the goods, excepting one­ly what the young men had eaten; whereas doubt­lesse had hee tasted any refreshing in the spoyle, he would haue mentioned it, as being a thing pro­perly taken by him; and therefore (as a late Diuine ob­serues) [...]. Synops. [...]. it was Gods prouidence to send Melchizedech [Page 109] that he should be refreshed rather at his hands, then by the king of Sodom a wicked Infidell.

But suppose Abraham had refreshed himselfe and his souldiours with the spoyle, yet what knew Mel­chizedech that; wherefore in curtesie, and to expresse his inward a acrity, hee declares it by his outward li­berality and bounty; and thus much may bee colle­cted out of the words of Iosephus, who sayes, That Melchizedech ministred to Abraham and his host vi­ctualls Lib. 1. Antiquil. c. 11. and great aboundance of things necessary; and after the feast began to prayse him and blesse God who had subdued his enemies vnto him.

Thirdly, whereas they say, that Melchizedech bee­ing the Priest of the high God, it was necessary that his sacrifice should be mentioned, but no sacrifice is mentioned but his bread and wine.

I answer there is mention made of his sacrifice implicitely, for in that he is said to be a Priest, it pre­supposes his offering of sacrifice; neither is it of ne­cessity that his sacrifice should be mentioned, seeing he might be a Priest, albeit the matter of his sacrifice be not nominated; and doubtlesse many things con­cerning Melchizedechs Priesthood were concealed according to the saying of Paul. Of whom wee haue many things to say, which are hard to be vttered, because ye are dull of hearing; yet Paul shewes whereby hee Heb. 5 11. declared himselfe to bee a [...], namely, in blessing Abraham, and receiuing tythes of him.

But suppose the matter of his sacrifice be not spe­cified, must it therefore needs follow that hee sacrifi­ced bread and wine?

Fourthly, they ground vpon the phrase ( for he was) [Page 110] alleadging it as a reason why hee offered bread and wine, for he was (say they) because he was the Priest of the high God.

But herein they discouer their owne ignorance; for the Hebrew saith ( and he was) or ( but he was); So the Greeke hen de iereus tou theou; and the Chaldee [...]. in Gen. 14. Paraphrast; Et erat minister coram Deo, And he was a minister before God, whereunto Caietane assenteth, saying, And where as it followeth in the vulgar transla­tion; for he was the Priest, as though this were the cause of the offering, which is not in the Hebrewes (vt causa sed vt separata clausula) as a cause, but as a disiunctine participle; as if hee would say, Melchizedech was a king, which appeares by this plentifull feasting of A­braham and his souldiours; and hee was not onely a King, but also the Priest of the high God; so that in this one verse is comprised both the Regall and Sa­cerdotiall office of Melchizedech; and vnto each of them is ascribed his proper act; for hauing named King of Salem, he sayes immediately brought foorth bread and wine, noting therein his Regall [...]. Then mentioning his Priesthood he sayes, and he was the Priest of the most High God; and immediately shewing wherein he declares his Priestly office sayes, and bee blessed him; in the former is expressed his Kingly, in the latter his Priestly function.

Fiftly they say, the Priesthood of Christ cannot be eternall except there remaine a sacrifice, and there re­maines no sacrifice but of bread and wine, because the sacrifice vpon the crosse was finished at Christs death.

Vnto this we answer by denying the falshood of [Page 111] this argument in diuers points.

First, we say the Priesthood of Christ may remaine eternall, though the Sacrifice remaine not eternally in sacrificing; for (as I haue shewed formerly) the eternity of Christs sacrifice is not to bee iudged by the eternity of the act of sacrificing, but by the vertue and efficacie of the Priest and Sacrifice, which are so Heb. 10. 14. meritorious as to procure eternall saluation vnto all beleeuers for whom it was offered; and in this sense the Priesthood of Christ is said to be eternall.

Againe, we affirme that the Sacrifice of Christ shall remaine for euer; not in offering, but as hauing Heb 7. 24. beene offered; so the humane nature of Christ which was our Sacrifice shall for euer remaine hypostatical­ly vnited to the Deity.

Againe, it is not necessary that Christ should haue an externall Priesthood here on earth that should offer bread and wine, and bee after the order of Melchizedech; for in the time of the law there was an externall Priesthood after the order of Melchize­dech, yet euen then was Christ a Priest after the order [...]. Synops, papis. of Melchizedech; and as he had a sacrifice in fore, so now hath he in fuisse.

But we demand here, if the proper act of Melchise­dechs sacrifice consist in bread and wine, why doth not Paul mention it: for in the historicall relation of Melchizedechs meeting of Abraham. Heb. 7. 1. he men­tions Pareu, in 7. cap. ad Hebr. those things wherein hee was a type of Christ, but neuer so much as names the bringing foorth of bread and wine, as nothing appertaining to his Priesthood.

And if the Church should continue a sacrifice af­ter [Page 112] Melchizedechs order, and haue no direction from Christ or his Apostles, it may soone erre in the maine point of Christian religion. Ho sius and after him Bel­larmine saith, That this mystery was too great for the Hebrewes to conceiue; but by their leaue, the Apostle tells them of things as strange in a manner; of a man without Father, without Mother, without beginning or end of dayes. And if there had beene any difficulty, of whom might they haue beene more clearely and plainely instructed then of the Apostles? and why were not the Hebrewes as capable of this doctrine as any nation among the Gentiles?

And doubtlesse had the substance of the Eucharist consisted in the offering vp of Christ vnder the forms of bread and wine, both our Sauiour aud his Apostles would haue spoken clearely of it, for as Saint Augu­stine to this purpose. Let no man alleadge vnto me the cont. liter. Petil. c. 16 d. 9. things that are spoken darkely or figuratiuely, faith must be builded vpon that which is cleare, and not subiect vn­to diuers interpretations.

I will conclude this answer with shewing two things.

First, wherein Melchizedech was a type of Christ; aud in what respect Christ is said to be a Priest after [...] [...]of Christ not kata pantos, but kata [...]. the order of Melchizedech.

Secondly, the absurdities which will ensue vpon their doctrine.

1. He was a type of Christ in his name Melchize­dech, which signifies king of righteousnesse; so was Isay 9. 6. Christ.

2. In that he was king of Salem, that is, King of peace, so is Christ the Prince of peace.

[Page 113] 3. In regard of his double office exercising pub­likely the sacred functions both of King and Priest; so did Christ.

4. In that he is said to be apator, and ametor, with­out father, without mother; so Christ was without fa­ther as man, without mother as God.

5. In the eternity and continuance of his office, for there is no mention made of his death, that there­in he might be a type of the eternity of Christs priest­hood.

6. In the excellency of his person, beeing greater then the Patriarch Abraham; which appeares in bles­sing him. So is Christ aboue all men in regard of his humane nature, it being perfectly sanctified by the Godhead, and made the head of the Church. So that the bringing forth of bread and wine was no type of the Priesthood of Christ, albeit I deny not but it was a type of his Regall bountie and munificence, typifying the spirituall refection which Christ our King affords to all that warre against the enemies of their saluati­on.

Secondly, obserue here the absurdities that will follow hereupon.

They say the order of Melchizedechs sacrifice consists Vbique offertur sub sacerdote Christo, quod protulit Melchi­zedech quando benedixit Abra­ham. Aug. de ciuit. [...]. li. 17. cap. 17. properly in sacrificing bread and wine; & their Priests offer after the order of Melchizedech: hereupon it will follow that either Melchizedech offered vp the body of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine, as they doe; which no man euer affirmed; or they offer one­ly bread and wine as he did, and that they will neuer confesse; or else the sacrifice of Melchisedech, and of the Romanists being different, they must needes bee [Page 114] of different orders; and thus they wound themselues with their owne weapons; for if they will ground their sacrifice vpon Melchizedechs offering bread and wine, they must needes then confesse that in the Masse is offered nothing but bread and wine; and indeede the Fathers typically applying Melchizedechs bring­ing forth bread and wine to refresh Abraham and his souldiours returning from the slaughter of the kings, vnto the Sacrament of the Eucharist, make an apt and fit comparison; for so Christ by the bread and wine in the Sacrament (being eaten with faith in the thing represented) nourisheth all beleeuers, refreshing them in the skirmish against their spirituall enemies.

But Bellarmine thinkes to shake vs off, and to make vs loosen our hold by telling vs, That the sacrifice of the Masse, and the sacrifice of Melchizedech agree in the outward symboles and formes, though not in the substance, and that is sufficient; for the representati­on is in the accidents not in the substance, and that was but the type or Symbole, and therefore the sub­stance may be diuers.

What hath Bellarmine aduantaged himselfe by this excuse? hereupon it will follow, that they who con­secrate bread and wine onely doe more properly imi­tate Melchisedechs sacrifice, then the Masse-Priests who say they consecrate flesh and blood vnder the formes of bread and wine. In the one there is the forme and substance of Melchizedechs sacrifice; in the other the accidents alone.

Againe, if Melchisedechs sacrifice doth represent the sacrifice of the Masse, it must represent it as a sa­crifice; but the Masse is no sacrifice but in respect of [Page 115] the inward substance, for the outward formes are not the sacrifice, but the body of Christ vnder those formes: ergo Melchizedechs sacrifice must repre­sent the Masse in the substance which is the body of Christ.

Thirdly, types and shadowes differ from the body in outward symboles onely, but agree in substance, as St. Paul shewes, Christ to bee the same spirituall 1. Cor. 10. 4. meate and drinke to the Israelites and vs, but to be sundryly represented by diuers Sacraments or repre­sentations; wherefore the sacrifice of Melchizedech and that of the Masse, (if it were a true resemblance of Christs sacrifice) should differ in externall forme, but agree in substance.

Againe, if Melchizedechs Priest-hood be eternall by the offering of the body of Christ by the Priests of Rome, then it would follow, that either these Priests shal say Masse and offer this sacrifice after the consum­mation of this world, and the day of iudgement; or else Christ shall make choyce of some others, who may offer this sacrifice in Heauen, or else this sacri­fice must cease, and so not be eternall; any of which no man of a sound minde or firme iudgement will admit.

Lastly, if Melchizedechs Sacrifice of bread and wine, were a type of the Masse, then should it be (as the Church of Rome holds the Masse to be) a true propitiatory [...] for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead, otherwise why should they so much la­bour to reduce their sacrifice to the sacrifice of Mel­chizedech, and so to make it more excellent then the Leuiticall sacrifices, the excellency whereof [Page 116] cannot consist in the resemblance of the formes of Melchizedechs offering, but also in the ver­tue and efficacy. But no man euer sayd that Mel­chizedech offered a true Propitiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead.

Thus much shall serue for answere vnto their first Argument.

The second Argument is taken from the Paschall Argum. 2. [...]. cap. 7. Doway [...]. page 190. Lambe; and it stands thus. The Paschall Lambe was a figure of the Eucharist; but the Paschall Lambe was first sacrificed, ergo in the Sacrament of the Eucha­rist there is a sacrifice.

We answere, what if we should grant them the whole argument, they cannot glory much in their purchase, for what would be concluded, but what is already granted, namely, that in the Eucharist, there is a sacrifice, to wit, Eucharisticall, or at most [...] by way of representation or recordation. But let vs grapple with our aduersaries a little more closely.

First wee doe confesse the Paschall Lambe and the Eucharist to haue some analogy and similitude; as that they both represent Christ crucified; as also they were both to bee eaten; the one with sowre hearbes, the other with sorrow and repentance; third­ly in the end, for remembrance of deliuerance, the one corporall, the other spirituall. But againe, there were many dissimilitudes, the Passeouer was eaten with blood, the Eucharist without materiall blood. The Passeouer was eaten at Euen, the Eucharist is administred in the Morning; of the Passeouer nothing was left, but of the Eucharist, is left and reserued by [Page 117] the Papists; the Passeouer was eaten in their houses, the Eucharist in the Church; seeing then they agree not in all things; why may they not disagree in the matter of a sacrifice.

But to speake precisely, we cannot grant the Pas­chall Lambe to be a Type of the Eucharist, albeit this succeeded in the roome of the other; but properly and [...]. aduers­missae sacrif. c. 4. Iohn 19. 372 directly to be a Type of Christ; according to the Euangelist, That the Scripture should be fulfilled, not a bone of him should be broken; and if the Typicall Passeouer was fulfilled in Christ, wee are not to seeke any other Antitype, wherein it should be ac­complished. Furthermore it was not a Type of Christ in all things; for then as Zanchius obserues Zanch. de cult. Dei extern. Christ should haue beene fleade, and had his skinne pulled off, scorched in the fire, and his bones burnt, after the lewes had eaten his naturall flesh, as they did with the Paschall Lambe; but as the Lambe was sacrificed, and eaten in remembrance of their deli­uerance out of Egypt, so Christ was sacrificed on the Crosse, and eaten in the Sacrament for a remem­brance of our eternall redemption by his meritorious Sacrifice.

Vnto the assumption we answere: It is not proba­ble that the Paschall Lambe was sacrificed; because sacrifices were brought vnto the Priest, and offered by none but a Priest on the Altar; but the passeouer was slaine by the housholder and all his family (as Lib. 1. [...]. Philo Iudeus affirmes) without any Altar; now if our aduersaries will haue such an exact correspondency, why then should it not be as lawfull for a lay person to consecrate the host, as for a maister of euery fa­mily [Page 118] to slay, dresse, and eate the Paschall Lambe; or for a multitude to consecrate and not one Priest alone.

Againe, it was not lawfull for an vncleane person to offer sacrifice till he had separated himselfe for some certaine season, according to the prescri­bed time of the ceremoniall Law; but no mans vn­cleannesse ought to exclude him from he [...]. Numbers 9. 10. Ergo the Paschall Lambe was no sa­crifice.

Againe, the Iewes after the edifying of the Tem­ple sacrificed not out of Ierusalem; yet were they accustomed in all their remouings from place to place, to eate the Paschall Lambe in the moneth ap­pointed; [...]. Miss. sacrif. c. 4. Exodus 8. 26. Exodus 12. And Moses, when Pharaoh permitted him to sacrifice in Egypt, refusing sayd, It was not-meete, yet refused hee not to celebrate the Passeouer there; whereby it appeareth to be no sacrifice.

But Bellarmine to proue the Passeouer alleadgeth Marke 14. 12. Marke 14. 12. When they sacrifice the Passeouer. But we must obserue that it is called a sacrifice Katati, af­ter a sort, because it was slaine as the other sacrifices; and because it was a spirituall sacrifice: for the word Zebach which signifies a sacrifice killed, is often vsed about the ceremony of the Paschall Lambe, because it was killed as other sacrifices; and is vsed also sometimes largely for a spirituall sacrifice, as Psalme [...]. 17. The Sacrifices of God are a broken spirit.

But let it be granted that the Paschall Lambe was a Sacrifice, yet no otherwise then Eucharisticall for the remembrance of the great and admirable deli­uerance of the Iewes out of Egypt. Yea, if we grant [Page 119] it to be propitiatory it helpes them not, but rather disaduantageth them in their practise; for if they will haue the Paschall Lambe to be a figure of the Masse, how comes it to passe that the former was offered with blood, this without, the one by the whole family, the other onely by the Priest; of the former nothing was to be reserned, but they reserue the host to be kept in the pyx; the former was not to be carried forth of the house; but the host is carried about in the streetes to be worshipped and adored.

Neither do the fathers compare the Paschall Lamb to the Eucharist or Lords Supper but onely in these three respects; first, that as the Iewes did eate the one, so do Christians the other. Secondly as the Pas­chall Lambe did represent Christum moriturum, Christ which was to die; so the Lords Supper doth repre­sent Christum mortuum, Christ which hath dyed. Thirdly, as the one was in commemoration of the bodily deliuerance of Israell out of Egypt; so is the other in commemoration of our spirituall redempti­on out of the iawes of Satan.

Touching the first, namely, the eating of the Pas­chall Lambe, and the feeding on Christ in the Sacra­ment; Chrysostome speaks, Hoc mysterium tradidit, &c. Chrys. hom. 83. in Math. Hee deliuereth this mystery, when the Law was to cease, and he dissolueth their principall solemnity, to wit, of the Paschall Lambe; and cals them to a terrible Table, saying, Take eate, this is my body. Where note that he calles it a Table to be trembled at, not because of the reall presence of Christ there, as the Papists expound it, but because of worthy or vnworthy communi­cating. [...]cap. 25. Math lib. 4. So Ierome, Our Passeouer is sacrificed, prouided [Page 120] that we eate it with [...]bread of sincerity and truth: Basil sayth, Let vs celebrate the Passeouer not in In cap. 1. Es 1. the leauen of malice & wickednes, but in the vnleauened bread of sincerity and truth, seeing Christ who is the true Lambe is offered in the euening, that is in the end of the world, whose flesh is meate indeede.

Secondly, they compare it to the Eucharist in re­presenting Christ. Tertullian, Our Lord hauing decla­red that he desired to eate his Passeouer (for it was in­dignity Cont. Marcion lib. 4. for the Lord to desire any thing but his owne) gaue and distributed it to his Disciples, and made it his body, saying, this is my body, that is a figure of my bo­dy. Thomas their owne Angelicall Doctor sayth, Seeing Christ our Passeouer is offered let vs feast, fee­ding Thom. in 1. Cor. cap. 5. on Christ not onely Sacramentally, according to that of St. Iohn, If you eate the flesh of the sonne of man, &c. but also spiritually by enioying his wise­dome.

Lastly, they are compared, in respect of com­memoration. Lyra. Exod. c. 12. So Lyra. All whatsoeuer Moses hath written hath relation to Christ, and therefore in the sa­crificing of the Lambe there is a double sence; the one is the state of the people comming out of Egypt, & this is the litteral and first sence; the other is the fore-shewing and shadowing out of Christ, who was to be crucified; and this is the first in intention, though last in accomplish­ment. By which allegations, it appeares plainly, that the ancients seldome or neuer call the Paschall Lambe a sacrifice, and in what respects they compare it to the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper.

And thus much for answere vnto the second argu­ment.

[Page 121] The third argument which is alleadged by the Ro­manists, Argum. 3. and whereupon they most depend is groun­ded on the prophesie of Malachy, chap. 1. 11. For from the rising of the Sunue, to the going downe of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in euery place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name shall be great among the Heathen, saith the Lord of Hoasts. Seeing the sacrifice of the Masse is so generally offered among all Gentiles: therefore it must needs be that pure oblation foretold by the Prophet Malachy. And that this Sacrifice may the better appeare, Bellarmine alleadgeth these reasons.

First, from the signification of the Hebrew word Mincha, which properly betokeneth an exter­nall Bellar. cap. 10. Sacrifice made with oyle and incense, and ther­fore cannot be vnderstood of Spirituall and internall sacrifices.

Secondly, it is called a pure offering, such as can­not be polluted; but prayers may be polluted, onely the sacrifice of the Masse cannot bee defiled by the illnesse of the Minister.

Thirdly, the Prophet speaketh of such an offering as was not in vse among the Iewes, saying, I will not accept any offering at your hands, but spirituall sacrifi­ces Verse 10. were in vse among them.

Fourthly, the Prophet speaketh directly to the Priests, Thus saith the Lord of Hoasts vnto you, oh ye Priests; and reproouing their sacrifices, bringeth in a Verse 6. new kind of offering, which a new Priesthood should offer to God, which cannot be meant of spirituall sa­crifices.

[Page 122] To these we answer: That the intent of the Lord by the Prophet is to oppose the Gentiles against the Answere. Iewes, and shew the difference betweene the Leuiti­call sacrifices which they defiled, and the spirituall sa­crifices which should bee offered not by one nation onely, but by euery people vnder the new Testament. Wherefore the Prophet doth comprehend the whole [...]. de [...]Dei externo. seruice of the Christian Church vnder these three heads.

1. The knowledge of God by the preaching of the Gospell.

2. Inuocation or calling vpon the name of the Lord by prayer.

3. Liberality towards the poore in workes of cha­rity.

The first is shewed in these words, From the rising of the Sunne to the setting of the same, my name shall bee great among the Gentiles.

The second in these words, and in euery place incense shall be offered to my name.

The third is signified by the word Mincha, or a pure oblation; for as Zanchius obserues by the names Ibid. of bread and wine all beneficence and liberalitie is sig­nified in the Scripture. So Iacob calls the Present, hee Gen. 33. 11. 1. Sam 25.27. sent his brother Esau Mincha; and Abigail the pre­sent she brought to Dauid by the same name. But I tye not my selfe precisely to this exposition of Zanchi­us vnderstanding by Mincha, Beneficence, or Libe­rality.

Therefore I answer to Bellarmin that if he will haue Mincha vnderstood properly and not [...], then it would follow that the Prophet did speake [Page 123] in that place of the Iewish ceremonies which should bevsed among Christians, but with more purity then among the Iewes: but the Papists confesse that hee speaketh not of Iewish sacrifices, but of the sacrifices of Christians.

Againe, if he will haue Mincha to bee vnderstood Metaphorically, then the Masse is but figuratiuely a sacrifice, and not properly; at most it will bee but flo­wer or bread without any Transubstantiation, as Min­cha was. And whereas Bellarmine inferreth that be­cause Mincha signifieth properly an offering of flower or bread with oyle and incense: therefore it cannot be vnderstood of the spirituall sacrifices of Christians, how vnschollerlike (and therefore how vnlike him­selfe) doth hee argue? Who knowes not that many things are spoken figuratiuely, being applyed impro­perly from their natiue significations to signifie things which indeed they are not, I am a doore (saith Christ) I am the vine; if these things be vnderstood li­terally and not Metaphorically, we shall make but a bad construction. But an example like this of the Prophet Malachy, may bee that of the Prophet Esay, where speaking of the Church of Christ among the Gentiles he faith, And they shall bring all your brethren Esay 66.20. for an offering to the Lord out of all nations vpon hor­ses, and in chariots, and in litters, vpon mules, and vp­on swift beasts, vnto my holy mountaine Ierusalem saith the Lord; as the children of Israell bring an offering in a cleane vessell to the house of the Lord. What must all Christians be properly slaine and offered as sacrifices to the Lord or figuratiuely? or must they be brought to the terrestriall, or to the spirituall and celestiall Ie­rusalem?

[Page 124] But Bellarmine vrges that the Prophet speakes of a pure offering which cannot be polluted, but spirituall sacrifices may be defiled by the offerer.

I answer, No holy action, as prayer, preaching, mortification, prayses, Almes-deeds, and the like, are sacrifices but onely as they are offered in and through Iesus Christ, so that in respect as they proceed from vs simply, they may bee defiled by our inherent cor­ruptions, yet being offered through Christ they are pure and holy; for as our Sauiour telleth vs, it is the [...]. 23.19. Altar that sanctifieth the gift. So in Christ are all our sacrifices offered, and hee is the altar that sanctifieth them; and therefore saith the Apostle, By him (that is by Christ Iesus spoken of in the former verse) let vs offer the sacrifice of [...]to God continually. So the Heb 13.15. [...]Pet. [...]. 5. Apostle Peter calls the faithfull, An holy Priesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifices by Iesus Christ. So that our spirituall sacrifices being offered on Christ our Altar cannot be contaminated by our sinnes.

Thirdly, whereas Bellarmine would perswade vs that the Prophet speaketh of such an oblation as was not in vse among the Iewes; we deny it, for he spea­keth not of any new kind of oblation, but makes a dif­ference betweene the impurity of the Iewish sacrifices, and the pure offerings of Christians, the one being of­fered with disdaine, the other with true faith in Christ. And it appeares that the Prophets reproofe exten­deth it selfe as well vnto the people as to the Priests, verse 14. Cursed be he that [...]in his flocke a male, and [...] voweth, and sacrificeth to the Lord a corrupt thing. Thus the people were blamed for bringing polluted bread, for offering the blind, the lame, and the sicke [Page 125] for oblations to God; and the Priests were blamed for accepting of such impure sacrifices.

They alleadge the iudgements of the Fathers, as Iren. l. 4. c. 3 2. Iustin. dial. cum Tryphone [...]. 125. [...]. cont. [...]& proph. li. 1. c. [...]. of Ireneus, Iustine Martyr, and Augustine, who haue applyed this place vnto the bread and the cup in the Eucharist or Lords Supper.

We deny not that it may be applyed vnto the Sa­crament of the Supper, but therefore it followes not, that thereby is giuen sufficient ground for the institu­on of a Sacrament; and yet admit this were a suffici­ent foundation whereon to build the institution of the Eucharist, yet not therefore of the sacrifice of the Masse, seeing (as I shall hereafter shew) there is irre­concilable difference betweene the holy Supper of our Lord Christ, and the blasphemous sacrifice of the Idolatrous Masse; and doubtlesse these Fathers that applyed this place vnto the Eucharist, neuer dreamed of any true reall Propitiatory sacrifice which should be offered by the Minister in the administration of the Sacrament, as appeares sufficiently by all their writings.

Moreouer (as one well obserued) if our aduersaries Sadeel deuni. Christi sacrif. will haue this place vnderstood literally, then must the Priests of Rome not be after the order of Melchi­zedech, but after the order of Aaron; for the Prophet speaking of the same sacrifice, chap. 3. vers. 3. sayes that Christ at his comming shall purifie the sonnes of Leui, they shall be Leuiticall, but onely purified: but they will not grant themselues to be after the order of Aa­ron, but they are there called Leuites by the way of allusion (say they) assimulating them vnto the priests of the Law: but if they admit of a figuratiue [...] [Page 126] in the persons offering, why not as well in the sacri­fice offered?

I will conclude this answer with laying before your eyes the common consent first of the Prophet Dauid, and the Euangelist S. Iohn the Diuine, and the Apo­stle Paul; then of the Fathers of the Church in suc­ceeding ages.

Dauid vnderstands it of prayer and supplications, Let my prayers come before thee as the incense, and the Psal 141. 2. lifting vp of my hands as the euening sacrifice, where the Prophet vseth the same word Mincha, which is v­sed by Malachy; the one place giuing most cleere light vnto the other; for by incense is plainely meant prai­er, and by the pure oblation the lifting vp of the hands.

Thus the beloued Disciple of Christ expounds what is meant by this incense: And another Angell came and stood at the altar, hauing a golden censer, and there was giuen to him much incense, that he might offer Reu. 8. 3. it with the prayers of the Saints vpon the golden Altar. This Angell is Christ (as is shewed formerly) the cen­ser is his humanity, the incense is his righteousnes, wher­by our spirituall sacrifices of prayer and prayses haue their acceptance in the eyes of God. This place of Ma­lachy may also seeme to be expounded by that of Paul. 1. Tim. 2. 8. I will therfore that men pray euery where, lifting vp pure hands without wrath and doubting.

Thus haue we the consent of Scripture; let vs see also the agreement of Fathers. Tertullian citing this Tertul. con. [...], peg 124. place expounds it of spirituall sacrifices, which being pure, hee opposeth to the impure sacrifices of the Iewes; and in his booke against Marcion, he expounds [Page 127] it of glorifying, and praysing God, and of prayer pro­ceeding Contra Marc. l. 3. pag. 212. & l. 4. pag. 223. [...]. in 1. Mal. from a pure conscience. Hierome on this 1. of Malachy hath these words; Dicit, orationes san­ctorum Domino offerendas esse non in vna orbis pro­uincia Iudea, sed in omni loco: The Prophet here saith that the prayers of the Saints shall be offered, not in that one Prouince of Iudea, but in euery place. Chry­sostom Chrys. tom. 2. in Mat. hom. 17. colum. 1183. [...]tom. 5. in orat. 2. [...]. Iudeos. col. 1107 Euseb. li. 1. de demonst. Euang. cap. 6. vnderstands it of the spirituall worship of God. Eusebius vnderstands it of prayer, lib. 1. de demonstra­tione Euangelica, c. 6. Malachias nihil aliud significat, &c. The Prophet Malachy signifies nothing hereby, but that neither definitiuely at Ierusalem nor any other place, but in euery region, the Gentiles shall offer the in­cense and sacrifice of prayer (to di, euchôn thumiama) vnto God which is called a cleane sacrifice, not by blood, Tertul. aduers. Iudeos. but by godly actions. Tertullian also expounds it of the preaching of the Gospell among all nations. And so Hier. in Esa. ca. 52. Hieronim. vpon Esay saith, The sound of the Apostles is gone throughout all the ends of the world, euery where there is sacrifice offered to God: And herein is accompli­shed the word of the Prophet, namely in this, that God is purely preached, and purely called vpon in euery place. Theodoret expounds it of the abolishing the Iewish Theod. in 1. Mal sacrifices, and of the seruing of God in spirit and truth, as our Sauiour af firmeth in his speech vnto the woman of Samaria.

And whereas they obiect some Fathers who haue vnderstood it of the Eucharist, wee haue alleadged both the same Fathers and others with them expoun­ding it otherwise.

Againe, if those places be well confidered, we shall finde the [...]this place to the Lords [Page 128] Supper not for proofe of any Propitiatory sacrifice, but onely for a sacrifice Eucharisticall and of thanks­giuing: [...]. cont. haere. Valent. l. [...]. c. 32. as first. They obiect Ireneus, l. 4. c. 32. whose words are these, Christus suis discipulis dans consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis, (non quasi indi­genti, sed vt ipsi nee infructuosi, nec ingrati sint;) eum qui ex creatura panis est accipit, &c. Noui Testamenti nouam docuit oblationem: quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis ac­cipiens in vniuerso mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat, primitias suorum munerum in nouo Testa­mento, Idem cap. 33. de quo Malachias praesignificauit. Et paulo post. In omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, & Sacrifi­cium purum; incensum Ioannes in Apocalypsi orationes Idem cap. 34. Haec loca Irenei [...]tor­quet [...]. in assert. sacrif. Missae. esse ait Sanctorum. Et capite sequenti. Quoniam igitur cum simplicitate Ecclesia offert iuste munus eius, purum sacrificium apud Deum reputatum est, quemadmodum Paulus Philippensibus ait. Repletus sum acceptis ab Epa­phrodito, &c. Oportet enim nos oblationem Deo facere & in omnibus gratos inueniri. Atque ibidem. Offeri­mus non quasi indigenti sed gratias agentes donationi e­ius, & Sanctificantes creaturam; quemadmodum enim Deus non indiget eorum quae a nobis sunt; sic nos indi­gemus [...]offerre Deo, sicut Salomon ait, qui misere­tur pauperis foeneratur Deo. Christ giuing counsell vnto his Disciples to offer vnto God the first fruits of his crea­tures, not as of any necessity in God, but that they might not be vnfruitfull or vngratefull, tooke that which by creation is bread, and gaue thankes, saying, This is my body, &c. teaching that in the new Testament, there is a new oblation; which the Church taking from the Apostles offereth throughout the whole world vnto God, the first fruits of his gifts in the new Testament, to him that gi­ueth [Page 129] whatsoeuer food and nourishment we haue, which Malachi foretold.

There is no question but Ireneus here speakes of the Lords Supper: but is there one word which can intimate any Propitiatory sacrifice? No, hee calls it an offering in two respects.

First, that wee might not seeme vngratefull vnto God, but should offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiuing.

Secondly, that we should not be vnfruitfull, and therefore should offer vnto God our first fruits, accor­ding vnto the ancient Custome of the Christians, who were wont at the celebration of the Lords Supper to send their offering, whereof part was taken to fur­nish the table with bread and wine; a second part was distributed to the poore; and a third part went to prouide necessaries for the Church: so that here is mention made of an Eucharisticall, but not of a Pro­pitiatory sacrifice; of the offering of fruits and things without life, and not of the reall offering of our Lord Iesus Christ; of a solemne thankesgiuing for good things receiued, and not of any atonement or paci­fication of Gods wrath for sinnes committed. And what this incense is whereof Malachi speaketh, Irene­us [...], saying, Euery where incense and pure sa­crifices c. 33. are offered to my name; Saint Iohn in the [...]hath called the prayers of the Saints, the offering of incense.

And againe, In as much as the Church offereth in [...] c. 34. and singlenesse of heart, her offering vnto God is by good right reputed a pure and vndefiled sacrifice, as Saint Paul saith to the Philippians, I was filled hauing [Page 130] receiued of Epaphroditus the things which you sent, an odour of a sweet smell a sacrifice acceptable, well plea­sing to God, for it behooueth that we offer vp [...]sacrifi­ces to God, that [...]all things we may be found thankefull. And this offering hee further makes plaine by that which followes, saying, We offer vnto him, not because he standeth in [...], but that we may be thankefull vnto him for his gifts, and so by this meanes sanctifying the creature: for as God hath no need of any thing pro­ceeding from [...], so hau we need to offer vnto him, ac­cording to that which Salomon saith, Hee that [...]the poore, lendeth to the Lord.

Now in all this place which they make so sure a ground for their sacrifice of the Masse, where is one word of sacrificing Christ, or of any Propitiatory host? yea rather doth not Ireneus directly specifie a sacrifice of thank [...], and of charity, in as much as that which is giuen to God, is giuen to the vse of our neighbour, and that which is giuen to the poore is sacrificed to God.

Secondly, they [...]that of Iustine Martyr, [...]Martyr [...]. cum Tryp. where he calleth the bread and wine the sacrifices of the Eucharist. His words are these, We are truely made the Priests of God, according to that which he witnesseth himselfe, because that throughout the whole world there are offered vnto him pure and [...]. He addes, Praecepit [...] Eucharistiam in memori­am [...], He tooke bread to make the Eucharist in re­membrance of his passion. But to what end? To offer for a propitiatory sacrifice? No, but he declares the rea­son, Vt gratias agamas Deo tum pro eo quod mundum cum omnibus, hominis gratia condidit: tum ob id [...] [Page 131] quod ab omni in qua fuimus malitia nos liberauit, ac principatus potestatesque perfecta occiderit occidione, per eum qui de consilio & voluntate eius factus est patibilis, That we should render than kesvnto God, as well for that he that created the world, and [...]that is therein, for the vse and benefit of man: as also for that hee hath deliue­red vs from all the malice whereunto wee stood subiect, and hath slaine with a perfect slaughter the principali­ties and powers which did oppresse vs, by him who by his will and counsell was made to suffer.

Out of which words the most subtle Papist is not able to prooue either directly or by consequence that Iustine alloweth in the Eucharist any Propitiatory sa­crifice, but onely Eucharisticall and of thankesgi­uing. And therefore Langus is condemned by the Index expurg. pag. 75. Councell of Trent to bee raced, because hee hath not expounded this place after their manner.

Thirdly, they [...]that Augustine expoundeth Cont. aduers. leg & proph. l. 1. c. 20. this place of the sacrifice of Melchizedech, and apply­eth it to the Eucharist. Wee grant it. But the words following declare that both the sacrifice of Melchize­dech (if it may be granted that he sacrificed bread and wine) and the Lords Supper are both but sacrifices of prayse and thankesgiuing, his words be these. Ecclesia immolat Deu in corpore Christi sacrificium laudis, &c. The Church sacrificeth to God in the body of Christ the sacrifice of prayse, seeing the God of Gods hauing [...], hath called the earth from the sunne rising vnto the setting thereof: for this Church is the spirituall Israell, [...]from the carnall Israell, which serued God in the shadowes of sacrifices, in which was signified and [...]forth this singular sacrifice, which Israell according [Page 132] to the spirit now offereth. Out of the house of this Israel he hath not taken any calues; for in it are offered, and sa­crificed vnto God the sacrifice of prayse.

Where we see manifestly that Augustine shewing the difference between the sacrifices of the Iewes, and of the Christians declares the Iewes to haue onely the shadowes of the sacrifice of Christ, but vs to haue the true sacrifice, which wee celebrate with praise and thankesgiuing. And he addeth afterward, saying, In euery place incense is offered to my name; And Saint Iohn expoundeth it in the Apocalyps, the prayers of the Saints. Ibid.

Thus haue wee hunted them out of their chiefest starting hole, euen this place of Malachi, clearing it from all pretence of the sacrifice of the Masse both by consent of Scripture and of the Fathers; as also free­ing the obiected testimonies of the Ancients from their corrupt expositions.

The fourth argument follows. And it is Bellarmines, Argum. 4. who argues thus against vs for the maintaining of his Sacrifice. If the Fathers had thought that the Eucharist Bellar. l. 1. de [...]. c. 15. were a Sacrament onely and not a sacrifice also (mea­ning Propitiatory) they could not haue spoken other­wise of the Eucharist then of Baptisme; but the Fathers neuer call baptisme a sacrifice, or say, that to baptize is to sacrifice. Therefore the word Sacrifice was vsed by the Fathers in a proper sence.

Whereby he doth clearely grant that the word Sa­crifice attributed by the ancient Fathers vnto the Eu­charist, may be interpreted Metaphorically, if once it could be shewed, that the same Fathers haue applyed the same word Sacrifice vnto the Sacrament of Bap­tisme. [Page 133] Otherwise their Iesuite Suarez, would not so Suarez [...]tom. 3. disp. 74. Sect. 2. vrgently haue moued his Reader principally to Ob­serue against Heretickes (so he calleth Protestants) that the holy Fathers of [...]times did neuer call the Mi­nistry of baptisme by the name of a sacrifice, although Metaphorically it might be so tearmed, therefore it is a signe that when they tearme the Eacharist a [...], they name it so properly.

Seeing then the parallell of Baptisme may giue our aduersaries their demanded satisfaction, we de­sire August. tom. 4. expos. ad Rom. pag. 1185.. vsq ad 1187. them first to consult with St. Augustine, who ex­pounding that place to the Hebrewes, chap. 10. Vnto them that sinne voluntarily, after they haue obtained the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sa­crifice for sinne, sayth, Illud ad Hebreos diligentius qui pertractant, sic intelligunt, vt non de sacrificio contribulati per paenitentiam cordis accipiendū sit quod dictum est (non adhuc pro peccatis relinquitur Sacrifici­um:) sed de Sacrificio de quo tunc loquebatur Apostolus, id est, Holocausto dominicae passionis; quod eo tempore offert quisque pro peccatis suis, quo eiusdem passionis fi­de dedicatur, et Christianorum fidelium nomine bapti­zatus imbuitur, vt hoc significaret Apostolus, nempè, non posse deinceps eum qui peccauer it, iterum baptizan­do purgari., &c. That it is not to be vnderstood of a sa­crifice of a troubled spirit by repentance, but of that sa­crifice wherof the Apostle spake, that is, that the Holocaust or burnt offering of the Lords Passion, which euery one offers at that time for his sinnes, when he is dedicated by faith in the same passion, and being baptized is en­dued with the name of a faithfull Christian, that the Apostle might signifie thus much; That he that sinned, [Page 134] could not afterward by baptisme bee purged. And let Sal. les. in Heb. 10. disp. 19. them looke vpon their Iesuite Salmaron, who doth not vtterly reiect that interpretation.

And to the end they may rest sufficiently satisfied, they may be contented to consult with their learned Reader of Spaine, who renders the reason why most of the fathers did call Baptisme a sacrifice; which they did (sayth he) Metaphorically, that is, figuratiuely his [...]Canus loc. Theol. l. 12. § Quid igitur fol 424. words are these: Sed quaeris quid causae pleris (que) anti­quorum fuerit, vt Baptismum hostiam appellauerint, id­eoque [...]non superesse hostiam [...], quiae Baptismus repeti non potest; Sanè quia Baptismo com­morimur & per hoc Sacramentum applicatur nobis hos­tia crucis ad plenam peccati remissionem: Hinc illi per Eaptisu ū [...]hostiam nuncupârunt, & post bap­tisma semel acceptum nullam hostiam esse reliquam [...]sunt, quia baptismus secundus non est. Nei­ther may we thi ke that the calling Baptisme a Sa­crifice is a solecisme in Diuinity, seeing the Apostle speaking of rebaptizing, calles it a recrusifying of Christ; as Salmaron obserues rightly out of Pope Clemens; and their Iesuite Ribera consirmes it out of Chrysostome, Theophilact, Oecumenius, and Damascene. And how could our aduersaries doubt that the fa­thers Riber Iesu. com. in Heb. 6. would call Baptisme a sacrifice, who haue so vsually called it the Passion slaying and crucifying of Chrys. [...]Heb. hom 16. [...]. de bapt. Christ. Baptisma estpassio Christi, sayes Chrysostome, Baptisme is the passion of Christ. Tingimur in passione Christi, sayth Tertullian, We are dipped in the passion of Christ. But how is it called a sacrifice or the Passion of Christ, properly or figuratiuely? Let [...]. their owne I esuite answere for vs in this point. It is named a crucifying of Christ (sayth he) because it is a similitude of Christs Passion.

[Page 135] Wherefore by this Analogy betweene these two Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist, wee may conclude out of the restimony of St. Augustine, re­corded Aug. [...]simpli. refereate [...]. par. 3. q. 83. art. 1 by their ancient Schoole-man Aquinas, That names of things are giuen to the signes of the same things which are represented; as for example, the pain­tea image of Cicero wee vse to call Cicero; and so the celebration of this Sacrament, (namely of the Lords Supper) which is a representation of the Passion of Christ the true sacrificing, is called an immolation. Where we see their owne Doctor agreeing with Au­gustine, and we consent with them both in this that the Eucharist may bee called a sacrifice, as a Picture may be called by the name of the thing which it re­presenteth.

A [...]Argument which they alleadge followes, Argum. 5. Esay 61. 6. and 66. 21. & 56. 7. and it is grounded on the words of Esay, But yee shall be named the Priests of God. Againe, And I will also take of them for Priests, and for Leuites sayth the Lord. And, Them will I bring vnto my Holy mountaine and make them ioyfull in the house of Prayer, their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shalbe accepted vpon mine Altar. This (say they) must bee vnderstood of the Christian Church, wherein the Prophet Esaias fore-telleth, that there shalbe externall Priests, Altars, and Sacrifices, whereby must needes be vnderstood the sacrifice of the Masse.

We answere, first by deniall of the consequence; for, because the Prophet sayth, there shall be in the Church of Christ, Priests, Altars, Sacrifices, there­fore it must be an externall Priest-hood, materiall Altars, proper sacrifices; this is a plaine Non sequi­tur. [Page 136] For who sees not that the Prophet expressing the VVorship of God vnder the Gospell alludes vnto the ceremonies of the Law; and by an exter­nall Legall Priest-hood, and sacrifice, figuratiuely intimates that which is Spirituall and Euange­licall.

Now from things that are spoken Metaphorically and allusiuely, to inferre a proper and direct conclu­sion is no good forme of arguing: For it is the opi­nion of their greatest Schoole-man, [...] Thom. [...] [...]. 5. 1. 1. non esse argumentatiuam. That Symbolicall, Metaphoricall, or Allegoricall testimonies prooue nothing. And if wee will not vnderstand these and the like speeches figuratiuely, but litterally, then must all Christian Churches be raced downe, and we must be constrained to build Ierusalem againe, to reedifie the Temple, to erect a new Altar, to seeke Priests out of the Linage of Leui, according vnto the words of the Prophets, and so there should not in euery place be offered a pure oblation, (according to that of Malachie) but onely at Ierusalem; nor of any of the Gentiles, but onely of the Iewes. Wherefore when Esaias sayth, Ye shall be called the Priests of God, Hee meanes not the Masse-Priests of Rome; but hee speakes of the godly whom Peter calles a Royall 1 Peter 2. 9. Priest-hood.

And it is to be obserued that all those who are not Priests in this sence, the Prophet calls them strangers, and accounts them as the sonnes of Forrainers: For all that are not holy to the Lord, being called to the sacred Priest-hood of the new couenant, are deemed but as men without Christ, aliens from the common­wealth Eph. 2. 12. [Page 137] of Israel, Strangers from the couenants of pro­mise, hauing no hope, and being without God in the world; but this our aduersaries note not.

Againe, the Prophet doth not establish the Ie­wish rites and ceremonies, but by them shadowes Esay 19. 19. forth the Christian worship. So Esay prophecied that there should be an Altar in the middest of Egypt, and a publicke profession of true Religion, but it cannot be spoken of the Romish Altars, or Massing-Sacrifice. So prophecying of the spirituall worship of the Church of Christ, he sayes, All the flockes of Cedar shalbe gathered together vnto thee, the Rams of Nebaioth shall minister vnto thee, they shall come vp with acceptance vpon mine Altar, and I will glorifie the Esay 60. 7. house of my glory. Who is so ignorant as once to iudge, that these things are properly spoken, and litterally to be vnderstood? or once to thinke that that there should be any bloody sacrifices of beasts and cattell in the Church of Christ? St. Iohn in his Apocalyps mentions in Heauen, an Altar, Incense, Censers, Temple, Arke of the Couenant.

What sound Christian abhorres not from so grosse an interpretation, as to thinke these things to be ma­teriall, and so to be litterally vnderstood? and not ra­ther that the Prophet, Apostle, and Euangelist speake allusiuely, both in the names and things, comparing, the spirituall worship of the Church Militant, and the glorious state of the Church Tryumphant vnto the ceremoniall worship of the Leuiticall Priest­hood. And that the former places are thus to be in­terpreted the consent of the Fathers will manifestly declare.

[Page 138] Cyprian sayes, All Christians do offer vnto God a [...]. dayly sacrifice, being ordained Priests of holinesse; where note he excludes no Christian from the office of this spirituall Priest-hood, nor from offering a dayly sacrifice; and what the Romanists will haue on­ly to be vnderstood of the Clergy, he will haue also Orig. in [...] 9. applyed to the Layety. With him assents Origen saying, All such as are annoynted with the holy vnction, that is, with the Spirit of Christ, are made Priests. All the rest of the Antients agreeing hereunto in the ex­position of the former places; so that from them the Papists can collect no pretence for either sacrifice or Priest-hood.

In the next place they assault vs with those proofes Argum. 6. of Daniel chapt. 8. 11. and chapt. 11. 31. and chap. 12. 11. where the Prophet (say they) foretelleth that An­tichrist shall cause the dayly sacrifice to cease which (say they) is the sacrifice of the Masse.

Herevnto we answere by shewing two errours in this Argument.

First, in that they apply the places to the times of Antichrist.

Secondly, that they by a false consequence will haue this iuge sacrificium, dayly sacrifyce, to be the sacrifice of the Masse.

For the first, he who should cause the dayly sacri­fice to cease is not Antichrist, but was vnderstood of Antiochus Epiphanes, hee was that little horne fore­told chap. 8. 9. who came of the stocke of Seleucus [...]. Nicanor, who was one of those to whom the fourth part of Alexanders mighty Monarchy was diuided. For the Goate spoken of in this Chapter, is the Greci­an [Page 139] Monarchy; that one horne was Great Alexander, which horne, being broken by death, there arose foure hornes: the Monarchy was diuided into foure parts, whereof Seleucus Nicanor had one, (of whose stocke came forth this little horne, Antiochus Epi­phanes) he raigned in Syria; Ptolemeus another, who was created King of Egypt. Antigonus had the King­domes of Asia; and Cassander commanded Greece, and Macedony.

And that Antiochus Epiphanes was of the stocke of Seuleucus Nicanor, appeares by his pedigree, for he was the sonne of Antiochus the Great, who was the sonne of Seleucus Callinicus, who was the sonne of Antiochus Theos, who was the sonne of Antiochus Soter, who was the sonne of Seleucus Nicanor; and he is called a Little-horne, because he was the yongest of his brethren, and so most vnlikely to attaine the Kingdome, but being left a pledge vnto the Romans at Rome he escaped thence, and returned into Syria, where (his brother Seleucus surnamed Philopator being vnfit for the gouernment) hee obtained the King­dome.

In his second expedition against Ierusalem, hauing taken the City, he caused the bookes of the Scrip­tures to be burnt, the dayly sacrifice to cease for the space of two thousand and three hundred dayes, which make six yeares, three moneths and a halfe, and caused an Idoll of the Gentiles to be set vp in the Temple, and worshipped of the Iewes, which was the abhomination of desolation prophecied by Da­niel; which Idoll stood in the Temple a thousand two hundred and ninety dayes; which make three [Page 140] yeares six months, and odde dayes; so that hee began his raigne in the 137. yeare of the Grecian Monar­chy (the beginning whereof was reckoned from the [...] 10. [...]. Chron. [...]. 4. ver. 5. death of Alexander the Great) and in the 143 yeare he entred into the Sanctuary and profaned it, and in the 145 yeare on the fifteenth day of the moneth Casleu which is our Nouember he caused the Idoll of abhomination to be set vp in the Temple of the Lord; and in the 148 yeare in the moneth of Zan­thicus which is our Aprill, the King gaue liberty for the purging of the Temple, and on the 25 of the moneth Casleu was it cleansed and sanctified againe. This was in the 348 yeare after the Babilonian capti­uity, and 152 yeares before the natiuity of Christ. And this is sufficient to cleare this place of Scrip­ture from the misinterpretation of our aduersaries, who against all reason would haue it applyed to the times of Antichrist.

Iosephus thus expounds it, affirming that whatso­euer touching this matter was foretold, the Iewish na­tion Ioseph. de antiq. [...]. 10. cap. 14. suffered by Antiochus Epiphanes.

Thus also doth Chrysostome expound it, saying, The custome of the Iewes was to offer a sacrifice euening & morning, and euery day, and they called this sacrifice, ( entelechismon) a continuall action; now Antiochus at his comming tooke away the same. And with him doth ioyne Nicolas Lyra, referring both the eight and [...]in 8. & 11. Dan. eleuenth of Daniel, vnto the dayes of Antiochus. Many of the ancients expound this place of the roo­ting out of the Iewish Priest-hood, fulfilled in the vtter Catastraphe and ruine of Ierusalem by Titus Vespasianus;, where vnto Christ Iesus the true expoun­der of the Law and the Prophets, hath referred this [Page 141] place, saying, When you shall see the abhomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the Prophet set in the holy place, &c. And thus doth Origen expound it Mathew 24. 15. Orig. in Matth. [...]. [...]. saying. Daniel doth signifie and note out vnto vs, the seauenty yeares after the comming of our Lord; for this weeke doth confirme and ratifie the testament, &c. And in the middest thereof the sacrifice of the [...]was taken away euen in the 35 yeare, and so was accom­plished that which had beene written: In the middest of the weeke, &c. Then also was the abhomination of de­solation, &c. When they saw Ierusalem be siedged.

I do not deny but that Antiochus was a type of Antichrist, for as the former set vp an Idoll in the Temple, so this latter sets vp images in the Church; the one burnt the Scriptures, the other conceales them from the lay people; the first hindred the dayly sacrifice, and this latter hath conuerted the great sa­crifice of Christ into an abhomination, in that the Priest must offer a propitiatory sacrifice for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead, greater abhomination then this was not in the dayes of Antiochus.

Secondly, let vs grant that this prophesie is to be fulfilled in the dayes of Antichrist; yet how shall it be prooued that this Iuge sacrificium, dayly sacrifice, is the sacrifice of the Masse? Let this bee first prooued, and wee shall soone yeelde the cause. In the originall there is no mention made of a sacrifice, but the word Iuge, daily, without any substantiue; must there needes be vnderstood sacrifice? why then doth Ierome call it Iugem cultum, the dayly Worship of [...]. in [...] God; and Theodoret Ecclesiasticum cnltum, the Ec­clsiasticall worship or seruice of God? yet both of these restraine this prophesie to the time of Anti­christ. [Page 142] So Tremellius translates it. Why may it not be [...]of the preaching of the Gospell, which shall be much hindered by Antichrist, seeing that is Metaphorically a sacrificing worke; Origen calls it Tremel. in loca. Danielis. Ori. in [...]. [...]. Chrys. in [...]. hom. 29. [...], a sacrificing worke; and Ch ysostom; Sacerdotium meum est praedicare Euangelium, My priest­hood is to preach the Gospell. But let vs grant it is to be vnderstood of the Eucharist, and that this is called a sacrifice; but how any other then Eucharisticall, or of thankesgiuing? but let it be granted to bee vnder­stood of the Lords Supper, and it is called a Propitia­tory sacrifice: how any otherwise then by repre­sentation? how any otherwise then of commemora­tion? Thus the ground whereon they build, shrinkes from them, as refusing to become a foundation for such a tottering fabricke.

But against this interpretation of our Antagonists, let vs oppose Socratically, and by the way of interro­gation, desiring them to answer to these demands.

First, why doth not the Apostle Saint Paul. 2. The. 2. and Saint Iohn the Apostle and Euangelist. 1. Ioh. 4. 3. Reuel. 17. and 18. in their description of Antichrist, make mention of this place of Daniel, or of taking away for a time this Iuge sacrificium, dayly sacrifice; or hindering the sacrifice of the Masse? Doubtlesse, had Daniell spoken of Antichrists taking away the sacri­fice of the Masse, the Apostles would not haue either forgotten, or willfully pretermitted so great a matter. But by their forgetfulnesse, we may conceiue the Masse not to be worth remembring; or by their volun­tary omission, we may iudge it indigne and vnworthy to be spoken of.

[Page 143] Secondly, I demand how Christ is euer with his Church vnto the end of the world? Turrian answers for all the rest, Christ is with vs in the mystery of the Turrian cap. 2. tract. de Missa. Vega de Missa. this. 45. Masse; but then I require againe, whether Antichrist shall take away the Masse for a thousand two hundred and ninety dayes? Turrian and with him Vega answer, saying, Gabriel that cannot lye, saith that Antichr ist shall abolish and put downe the continuall sacrifice; and what other thing is that but the Masse, say they. See now how our subtle aduersaries haue entangled them­selues; for how can Christ be euer with his Church in the sacrifice of the Masse, when the sacrifice it selfe of the Masse (by their owne confession) shall bee abolished by Antichrist for the space of three yeares and six moneths?

Thirdly, I demand whether that Iuge sacrificium, dayly sacrifice be meant properly or Metaphorically? if properly, then the sacrifice of the Masse is Iudaicall; then ought it to bee offered onely in one place, and that euery day, morning and euening, which our Ro­mish Priests obserue not. If Metaphorically, why then doe they vrge the verity and reality of a Hila­sticke or Propitiatory sacrifice? or why doe wee not agree and consent that it is Propitiatory by resem­blance?

Lastly, if Antichrist shall abolish the sacrifice of the Masse for the space of three years and sixe months, then I demand, how shal there remaine in the Church of Rome a continuall and constant succession neuer to bee interrupted? Seeing by their owne consessions, hee shall make interruption both of sacrifice and Priesthood.

Herein are our aduersaries contrary to themselues, [Page 144] as they are alwayes contrary to the truth.

Diuers other arguments are alleadged by them, but these are the principall; and seeing their strong­est testimonies are so infirme and weake, I thinke it wil be supervacaneous and vnnecessary to trouble my selfe in giuing answer to those which are more friuo­lous, hauing the lesse pretence and shew of rea­son.

Wherefore thus much shall serue for the third part of this confutation, namely the answering of their obiections.

DE GRAMMATI­CA ET EIVS PARTIBVS.

GRAMMATICA, EST recte scribendi atque loquen­di ars.

Grammaticae quatuor sunt partes:

Orthographia,

Etymológia,

Syntaxis,

Prosodia.