MELCHIZEDECHS
Antitype
.
Or
The
eternall
Priesthood
and
All
sufficient
sacrifice
of
Christ
.
Hebr
-
10.
12.
But
he
hauing
offred
one
Sacrifice
for
sinne
,
sitteth
for
euer
at
the
right
hand
of
God
.
THe
Authour
of
this
Epistle
writing
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
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
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
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
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
.
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
.
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
.
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
in
that
they
were
onely
the
persons
offering
sacrifice
,
and
not
the
sacrifice
it selfe
;
but
Christ
was
both
the
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
How
much
more
shall
the
blood
of
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
.
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
.
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
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
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
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
brest-plate
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
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
;
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
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
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
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
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
,
Sonnes
of
God
.
Secondly
,
〈◊〉
,
and
that
consists
of
two
First
,
in
that
he
makes
request
for
vs
before
his
father
,
not
that
he
doth
kneele
before
him
to
pray
for
Secondly
,
in
that
hee
doth
offer
our
prayers
and
thanks
giuings
to
God
,
making
them
acceptable
in
Iohn
,
The
golden
altar
is
his
Godhead
,
signifying
Purity
and
Merit
,
his
incense
is
his
righteousnesse
,
which
beeing
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
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
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
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
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
〈◊〉
was
full
of
blood
,
and
their
hearts
full
of
〈◊〉
,
therefore
were
〈◊〉
sacrifices
an
abhomination
vnto
the
Lord
,
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
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
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
.
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
,
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
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
I
answer
,
that
if
this
annoynting
be
onely
taken
for
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
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
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
called
Gods
.
2.
Secondly
,
the
Angell
told
Daniell
,
Dan.
9.
that
Christ
should
take
away
sinne
by
his
sacrifice
,
and
the
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
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
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
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
,
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
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
.
Obiect
.
But
here
may
bee
obiected
these
testimonies
of
Scripture
,
1.
Pet.
2.
5.
9.
Reu.
1.
6.
Reu.
20.
6.
by
which
place
it
appeares
that
there
are
priests
of
the
new
Testament
which
ought
still
to
offer
sacrifice
vnto
God
.
Answ.
Vnto
these
places
I
answer
,
that
if
you
consider
who
these
are
that
are
here
spoken
of
,
you
shall
finde
them
not
to
be
onely
the
Clergie
,
but
all
faithfull
Christians
which
haue
not
a
materiall
or
externall
priesthood
but
a
spirituall
and
an
internall
,
and
so
they
doe
offer
spirituall
sacrifices
as
I
shall
shew
when
I
come
to
speake
of
the
sacrifice
that
Christ
offered
.
So
that
these
places
of
scripture
doe
prooue
the
〈◊〉
priesthood
not
to
bee
lawfull
,
nor
the
title
of
priest
properly
to
appertaine
to
the
ministers
of
the
Gospell
,
but
onely
that
all
Christians
should
be
spirituall
priests
to
offer
spirituall
sacrifice
to
God
.
The
third
and
last
vse
of
this
point
,
is
that
which
Seeing
wee
haue
not
a
high
Priest
,
which
cannot
be
touched
with
the
feeling
of
our
in
〈◊〉
:
but
was
in
all
points
tempted
like
as
we
are
,
without
sinne
:
let
vs
therefore
come
boldlie
vnto
the
throne
of
grace
,
that
we
may
obtaine
mercy
,
and
finde
grace
to
helpe
in
time
of
need
:
and
againe
,
Hauing
therefore
,
brethren
,
boldnesse
to
enter
into
the
Holyest
by
the
blood
of
Iesus
;
By
a
new
and
lining
way
which
he
hath
consecrated
for
vs
,
through
the
raile
,
that
is
to
say
,
His
flesh
:
And
hauing
an
high
Priest
ouer
the
house
of
God
:
Let
vs
draw
neere
with
a
true
heart
in
full
assurance
of
faith
,
hauing
our
hearts
sprinkled
from
an
euill
conscience
,
and
our
bodies
washed
with
pure
water
.
Seeing
Christ
Iesus
whom
the
Father
had
deereed
from
all
eternity
,
did
from
euerlasting
giue
himselfe
a
Sacrifice
for
our
transgressions
,
and
when
the
fulnesse
of
time
was
come
,
by
vertue
of
his
priesthood
did
offer
vp
himselfe
and
offering
of
a
sweet
smelling
sauour
vnto
God
for
vs
;
Oh
then
let
vs
with
wonder
admire
the
infinite
one
of
God
that
spared
not
his
owne
sonne
;
the
infinite
compassion
of
his
Sonne
,
that
spared
not
his
owne
life
,
but
shed
his
blood
plentifully
for
our
saluation
.
Let
vs
with
boldnesse
,
confidence
,
and
assurance
flye
vnto
our
high
Priest
Christ
Iesus
,
who
is
entred
into
the
Sanctum
〈◊〉
,
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
?
if
any
man
sinne
,
we
haue
an
aduocate
with
the
Father
Iesus
Christ
the
righteous
.
But
let
vs
bee
assured
,
that
the
head
being
entered
into
the
most
holy
place
,
will
at
length
draw
all
the
members
after
it
,
to
make
them
pertakers
with
it
of
glory
and
immortality
.
Thus
much
for
the
first
part
who
was
the
Priest
.
Now
followes
the
second
,
what
was
the
sacrifice
?
In
the
declaration
whereof
for
our
better
vnderstanding
I
shall
propound
to
my selfe
this
Methode
.
First
,
to
speake
somewhat
of
a
sacrifice
in
generall
,
and
of
the
kinds
of
sacrifices
.
2.
To
shew
what
this
particular
sacrifice
was
.
3.
To
shew
the
necessity
of
this
sacrifice
.
First
to
speake
of
sacrifices
in
generall
.
Sacrifice
was
instituted
by
God
for
the
vse
of
man
after
his
fall
;
for
it
is
thought
that
if
man
had
not
sinned
,
there
had
neuer
beene
any
institution
of
sacrifice
.
The
persons
imployed
in
sacrificing
were
men
;
for
as
the
Apostle
vnder
the
Gospell
,
would
at
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
.
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
A
sacrifice
is
a
sacred
and
religious
action
instituted
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.
whatsoeuer
is
not
of
faith
is
sinne
.
And
without
faith
it
is
impossible
to
please
God
;
The
Leuiticall
sacrifices
were
of
two
sorts
Ilastika
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
[
*
](A05408-e5910-b)
*
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
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
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
Although
the
Father
was
first
to
be
appeased
by
the
Ilasticall
sacrifice
of
Christ
〈◊〉
the
crosse
,
and
so
forgiuenesse
of
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
This
Eucharisticall
sacrifice
of
Christ
was
in
the
Lords
Supper
,
which
was
not
vnworthily
euer
after
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
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
.
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
Onely
according
to
his
humane
nature
,
as
appeares
,
By
which
will
we
are
sanctisied
through
the
offering
of
the
body
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
〈◊〉
;
by
which
words
(
the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
.
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
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
Christ
to
the
Gentiles
ministring
the
Gospell
〈◊〉
God
,
that
Thirdly
,
al
manner
of
prayer
and
supplication
.
Let
Fourthly
,
all
praise
and
thanksgining
which
wee
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
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
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
acceptable
well
pleasing
to
God
.
Sixtly
there
is
the
sacrifice
of
righteousnesse
or
iustice
,
Offer
to
God
the
sacrifices
of
right
〈◊〉
:
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
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
〈◊〉
.
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
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
.
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
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
〈◊〉
.
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
Christ
,
and
what
are
the
spirituall
sacrifices
of
euery
Christian.
Now
followes
the
third
branch
of
this
first
part
But
this
man
hauing
offered
one
sacrifice
for
sinne
.
Here
we
are
to
note
that
albeit
the
Angels
had
sinned
lambe
without
blemish
and
without
spot
,
a
lambe
for
his
innocencie
Therefore
we
may
safely
affirme
that
Christ
receiued
no
benefit
by
his
owne
sacrifice
in
respect
of
remission
Daniell
.
And
after
threescore
and
two
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
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
Secondly
,
we
may
obserue
heere
the
insufficiencie
of
all
other
sacrifices
both
before
and
vnder
the
law
,
〈◊〉
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
tooke
of
euery
cleane
beast
,
and
of
euery
cleane
foule
,
and
〈◊〉
burnt
offerings
on
the
altar
,
and
the
Lord
smelled
a
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
,
By
faith
Abel
offered
a
more
excellent
sacrifice
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
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
,
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
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
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
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
.
Obiect
.
To
strengthen
their
tottering
and
declining
cause
they
alleadge
scripture
,
God
so
loued
the
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.
Obiect
.
2.
They
assault
vs
with
the
words
of
〈◊〉
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
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
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
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
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
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
,
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
the
sonne
of
man
〈◊〉
,
that
he
might
giue
his
life
a
redemption
for
many
,
and
he
was
offered
once
for
the
sins
of
many
.
By
this
it
is
plaine
that
all
men
haue
not
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
?
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
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
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
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
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
will
say
concerning
the
benefit
of
Christs
Sacrifice
,
as
Peter
sayd
to
Simon
Magus
touching
the
guifts
of
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
thoughts
;
and
let
him
returne
vnto
the
Lord
,
and
hee
will
haue
mercy
vpon
him
;
and
to
our
God
for
hee
will
aboundantly
pardon
.
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
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
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
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
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
.
First
,
they
alleadge
the
words
of
our
Sauiour
to
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
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
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
1.
&
〈◊〉
.
place
concerning
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
.
Secondly
,
the
falshood
of
Iohannes
〈◊〉
Durantus
is
palpable
when
he
saith
,
That
it
is
perspicuous
by
the
testimonies
of
Christ
himselfe
,
and
of
Paul
the
Apostle
,
and
of
the
ancient
Fathers
,
that
Christ
instituted
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
,
and
was
the
Authour
thereof
.
Wherefore
hauing
recited
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
out
of
the
22.
chapter
of
Luke
,
and
the
first
of
the
Corinth
.
the
eleuenth
,
vpon
these
words
:
Doe
this
in
remembrance
of
me
;
hee
concludeth
,
that
by
those
words
Christ
gaue
commandement
to
sacrifice
;
for
to
doe
signifies
to
sacrifice
according
to
that
of
Virgill
.
Quum
faciam
vitulam
pro
frugibus
,
&c.
Answ.
I
answer
,
Facere
in
the
latine
signifies
sometimes
to
sacrifice
;
but
it
is
onely
a
Poeticall
phrase
feldome
read
,
and
neuer
but
when
it
is
ioyned
with
the
thing
to
be
sacrificed
.
And
the
greeke
language
wherein
the
Euangelist
Luke
,
and
the
Apostle
Paul
writ
,
vseth
not
the
word
Poiein
to
sacrifice
.
Wherefore
Christ
instituting
there
not
a
Sacrifice
but
a
〈◊〉
enioyneth
vs
to
doe
the
same
that
hee
hath
done
,
namely
,
to
blesse
the
bread
,
to
eate
the
bread
,
to
blesse
the
cup
,
to
drinke
of
the
cup
,
to
distribute
them
both
,
and
to
receiue
them
both
.
Thirdly
,
a
great
Papist
of
late
yeares
,
seeing
himselfe
thrust
out
of
this
place
,
flyeth
to
another
,
and
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
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
leitourgika
pneumata
,
ministring
spirits
.
It
were
strange
to
translate
it
Massing
spirits
.
But
what
is
the
meaning
of
the
former
place
.
Leitourgounton
,
As
they
were
ministring
,
Oecumenius
tells
vs
,
Truely
the
same
that
(
〈◊〉
)
they
were
preaching
.
As
they
were
at
praiers
.
Their
old
translation
as
they
were
executing
their
office
and
ministerie
.
And
the
Glosse
addeth
,
in
good
workes
euery
man
according
to
his
order
and
degree
.
Nicholas
de
Lyra
,
and
Caietan
two
of
their
owne
men
;
the
first
sayes
,
As
they
serued
God
euerie
one
according
to
his
degree
,
fasting
to
the
end
,
that
their
spirits
might
be
so
much
the
more
raysed
and
lifted
vp
to
〈◊〉
and
diuine
things
.
The
second
sayes
,
He
speaketh
nothing
of
what
kind
Among
these
and
all
ancient
expositers
there
is
not
one
can
be
found
that
did
euer
dreame
of
finding
the
Masse
in
this
place
of
Scripture
.
But
let
vs
further
grant
that
the
word
doth
signifie
that
they
were
celebrating
the
holy
Sacrament
:
yet
what
can
they
from
thence
collect
to
prooue
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
?
yea
but
,
say
they
,
Leitourgein
signifies
to
sacrifice
.
Nay
,
but
properly
to
execute
a
publike
charge
either
in
spirituall
or
temporall
affaires
.
Wherefore
Suidas
calls
Leitourgia
,
he
demosia
huperesia
,
a
publike
office
or
charge
;
and
so
is
called
quasi
ta
leita
ergazein
;
to
doe
some
publike
worke
for
the
people
;
or
suppose
wee
should
yeeld
they
were
sacrificing
,
why
not
sacrificing
the
Gospell
according
to
that
place
which
formerly
I
haue
quoted
and
expounded
to
bee
nothing
els
,
but
by
preaching
the
Gospell
to
make
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
to
be
knowne
to
their
hearers
;
and
by
the
sword
of
the
spirit
the
word
of
God
to
kill
and
slay
mens
sinnefull
lusts
,
that
so
they
may
bee
offered
vp
to
God
a
pure
and
vnspotted
sacrifice
.
Fourthly
,
they
tell
vs
of
the
Masse
of
Saint
Peter
,
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
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
Wee
haue
an
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
sinne-offering
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
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
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
.
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
;
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
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
.
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.
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
bloody
Sacrifice
offered
by
Christ
himselfe
vpon
the
Crosse
;
by
which
very
distinction
it
appeares
that
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
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
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
.
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
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
signified
the
same
with
〈◊〉
or
hierourgia
.
The
Meleuitan
Counsell
taketh
prayers
and
Masses
both
for
one
thing
;
and
to
this
purpose
Saint
Augustine
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
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
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
for
the
furnishing
of
the
Lords
Table
,
as
also
for
〈◊〉
,
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
;
Ite
missa
est
Leaue
is
giuen
,
you
must
depart
.
A
custome
not
vnlike
T
is
têde
?
who
is
there
?
and
the
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
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
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
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
,
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
.
9.
&
10.
〈◊〉
Abbot
of
Corby
in
〈◊〉
hath
these
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
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
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
[
*
](A05408-e13000-b)
*
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
mention
.
These
latter
directly
withstood
transubstantiation
,
before
the
Lateran
Councell
.
Theophilact
who
seems
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
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
.
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
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
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
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
Common-wealth
,
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
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
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
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
.
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
behooneth
that
there
euermore
should
remaine
some
representation
of
the
passion
of
our
Lord
.
In
the
old
teament
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
Petrus
Brutis
,
who
was
burnt
at
Tholosa
where
hee
taught
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
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
,
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
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.
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
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
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
〈◊〉
.
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
.
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
saying
the
Lords
prayer
;
after
this
these
〈◊〉
were
enlarged
by
Saint
Iames
,
by
Saint
Basill
;
Coelestine
Pontianus
;
Gregory
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
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
Numa
Pompilius
ordained
to
be
White
,
called
by
the
Latins
Alba
,
and
with
the
Vestment
hath
continued
to
this
day
,
wherein
the
Priest
celebrateth
Masse
.
But
our
Romanists
scorning
to
bee
beholding
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
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
.
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
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
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
The
order
of
Procession
instituted
by
Numa
:
either
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
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
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
Pythagor
as
affirmes
〈◊〉
his
〈◊〉
Verses
,
and
Orpheus
in
his
Hymnes
:
For
〈◊〉
iudged
the
Priest
to
bee
well
purged
by
his
〈◊〉
,
but
without
this
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
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
,
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
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
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
,
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
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
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
.
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
will-worship
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
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
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
And
first
for
the
maintaining
of
the
sacrifice
of
the
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
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
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
,
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
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
,
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
bountie
and
liberality
,
then
any
Sacrificiall
act
of
his
Priestly
function
.
Therefore
Ierome
translates
it
Melchizedeck
proferens
panem
&
vinum
;
and
Cyprian
,
protulit
panem
.
And
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
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
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
brought
foorth
.
Ambrose
,
〈◊〉
in
refectionem
;
and
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
And
it
is
to
be
obserued
,
that
when
any
of
the
Fathers
translate
it
obtulat
,
he
offered
,
they
referre
it
to
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
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
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
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
)
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
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
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
Againe
,
we
affirme
that
the
Sacrifice
of
Christ
shall
remaine
for
euer
;
not
in
offering
,
but
as
hauing
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
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
And
if
the
Church
should
continue
a
sacrifice
after
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
and
his
Apostles
would
haue
spoken
clearely
of
it
,
for
as
Saint
Augustine
to
this
purpose
.
Let
no
man
alleadge
vnto
me
the
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
;
and
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
2.
In
that
he
was
king
of
Salem
,
that
is
,
King
of
peace
,
so
is
Christ
the
Prince
of
peace
.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
;
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
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
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
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.
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
.
Ierome
,
Our
Passeouer
is
sacrificed
,
prouided
that
we
eate
it
with
〈◊〉
bread
of
sincerity
and
truth
:
Basil
sayth
,
Let
vs
celebrate
the
Passeouer
not
in
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
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
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.
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
.
The
third
argument
which
is
alleadged
by
the
Romanists
,
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
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
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
To
these
we
answer
:
That
the
intent
of
the
Lord
by
the
Prophet
is
to
oppose
the
Gentiles
against
the
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
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
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
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
?
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
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
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
for
oblations
to
God
;
and
the
Priests
were
blamed
for
accepting
of
such
impure
sacrifices
.
They
alleadge
the
iudgements
of
the
Fathers
,
as
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
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
〈◊〉
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
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
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
.
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
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
,
but
by
godly
actions
.
Tertullian
also
expounds
it
of
the
preaching
of
the
Gospell
among
all
nations
.
And
so
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
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
Supper
not
for
proofe
of
any
Propitiatory
sacrifice
,
but
onely
for
a
sacrifice
Eucharisticall
and
of
thanksgiuing
:
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
,
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
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
〈◊〉
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
,
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
〈◊〉
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
Thirdly
,
they
〈◊〉
that
Augustine
expoundeth
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
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
.
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
,
If
the
Fathers
had
thought
that
the
Eucharist
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
.
Otherwise
their
Iesuite
Suarez
,
would
not
so
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
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
accipiendum
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
,
could
not
afterward
by
baptisme
bee
purged
.
And
let
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
Chrysostome
,
Theophilact
,
Oecumenius
,
and
Damascene
.
And
how
could
our
aduersaries
doubt
that
the
fathers
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
It
is
named
a
crucifying
of
Christ
(
sayth
he
)
because
it
is
a
similitude
of
Christs
Passion
.
Wherefore
by
this
Analogy
betweene
these
two
Sacraments
of
Baptisme
and
the
Eucharist
,
wee
may
conclude
out
of
the
testimony
of
St.
Augustine
,
recorded
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
,
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
shal
be
accepted
vpon
mine
Altar
.
This
(
say
they
)
must
bee
vnderstood
of
the
Christian
Church
,
wherein
the
Prophet
Esaias
fore-telleth
,
that
there
shal
be
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
.
For
who
sees
not
that
the
Prophet
expressing
the
Worship
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
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
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
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
common-wealth
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
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
shal
be
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
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
.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Ecclsiasticall
worship
or
seruice
of
God
?
yet
both
of
these
restraine
this
prophesie
to
the
time
of
Antichrist
.
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
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
.
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
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
,
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
.
Argument
.
1.
The
fourth
and
last
part
now
followes
,
wherein
wee
shall
lay
downe
arguments
sufficiently
proouing
our
owne
opinion
,
that
in
the
Masse
there
is
not
a
true
reall
Propitiatory
sacrifice
for
the
sinnes
of
the
quicke
and
the
dead
,
and
therefore
not
lawfull
to
be
vsed
in
the
Church
of
God
.
And
this
is
prooued
.
First
,
that
sacrifice
which
is
al-mighty
,
al-sufficient
,
and
absolutely
perfect
,
in
respect
of
the
desired
end
cannot
be
reiterated
by
men
;
But
the
sacrifice
of
the
the
immaculate
Lambe
Iesus
Christ
vpon
the
crosse
was
almighty
,
al-sufficient
,
and
absolutely
perfect
in
respect
of
the
desired
end
which
is
the
saluation
of
the
faithfull
.
Ergo.
The
al-sufficient
and
perfect
sacrifice
of
Christ
cannot
be
reiterated
in
the
Masse
.
The
Maior
is
confirmed
by
the
words
of
the
Apostle
,
The
law
which
had
a
shadow
of
good
things
to
come
,
and
not
the
very
image
of
the
things
,
can
neuer
,
with
those
sacrifices
which
they
offered
yeare
by
yeare
continually
,
make
the
commers
thereunto
perfect
;
for
then
,
should
they
not
haue
ceased
to
be
offered
?
because
that
the
worshippers
once
purged
,
should
haue
had
no
more
conscience
of
sinnes
.
What
doth
the
Apostle
conclude
here
?
He
opposeth
the
Gospell
to
the
law
;
our
Soueraigne
Priest
Christ
Iesus
,
against
the
Priests
of
Aaron
;
his
sacrifice
which
had
no
need
to
be
renewed
,
against
their
sacrifices
repeated
euery
day
;
the
holinesse
and
effectuall
sanctifying
power
which
was
in
his
sacrifice
,
against
their
weakenesse
and
disability
to
sanctifie
.
Hee
taketh
away
the
former
to
establish
the
latter
,
the
sacrifices
of
the
law
,
to
establish
his
owne
sacrifice
.
Now
how
could
this
conclusion
be
good
,
if
this
sacrifice
should
be
reiterated
?
seeing
the
often
repetition
argues
weakenesse
and
impotency
:
therefore
the
Apostle
so
often
vses
these
words
once
offered
,
to
note
the
al-sufficiency
of
Christs
sacrifice
in
the
single
and
vnrepeated
act
of
offering
;
hee
hauing
annihilated
,
and
disanulled
all
other
sacrifices
whatsoeuer
.
Wherefore
the
blood
of
Christ
shed
personally
by
himselfe
,
being
of
sufficient
vertue
and
merit
to
purifie
,
cleanse
,
and
redeeme
all
beleeuers
,
it
must
necessarily
follow
,
that
there
needes
no
reiteration
,
but
we
may
content
our selues
with
that
onely
sacrifice
offered
vpon
the
crosse
.
The
Minor
is
so
plaine
and
Orthodoxe
that
hee
deserues
not
the
name
of
a
Christian
that
shall
deny
it
.
Argument
.
2.
Secondly
,
he
that
offereth
a
true
Propitiatory
sacrifice
for
sinne
must
be
of
more
value
then
the
sacrifice
it selfe
;
but
the
Priest
is
not
of
more
value
then
the
body
of
Christ
.
Ergo
,
the
Priest
in
the
Masse
cannot
offer
the
body
of
Christ
.
The
Maior
is
true
for
the
gift
is
not
accepted
for
it selfe
,
but
for
the
worthinesse
of
him
that
offers
it
,
as
Ireneus
affirmes
;
wherefore
albeit
Cains
sacrifice
was
not
of
lesse
worth
in
it selfe
then
Abells
,
yet
the
person
of
Cain
being
vnworthy
,
because
of
the
wickednesse
of
his
heart
,
his
offering
was
reiected
,
but
Abell
beeing
more
worthy
then
his
oblation
in
regard
of
his
faith
,
the
Lord
had
respect
vnto
him
and
to
his
offering
;
so
Christ
as
Priest
was
God
and
man
,
and
therefore
of
more
merit
and
efficacy
then
his
humane
nature
which
was
the
onely
sacrifice
;
for
without
the
merit
of
the
Godhead
by
which
the
humanity
was
offered
,
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
could
not
haue
beene
of
infinite
value
and
desert
.
Wherefore
he
that
presumes
to
offer
the
body
of
Christ
truely
and
really
vnto
God
the
Father
for
a
Propitiatory
sacrifice
for
sinne
;
blasphemously
sayes
in
effect
,
that
he
is
of
more
value
,
worth
and
merit
then
the
sacrifice
he
offers
.
Argument
.
3.
Thirdly
,
〈◊〉
lawfull
sacrifice
is
grounded
vpon
expresse
words
of
Scripture
,
whereby
it
may
appeare
that
God
hath
instituted
such
a
sacrifice
:
but
there
is
no
command
in
scripture
for
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
.
Ergo.
The
sacrifice
of
the
Masle
is
not
lawfull
.
The
Maior
proposition
is
prooued
by
the
words
of
Christ
,
Invaine
doe
they
worship
me
,
teaching
for
doctrines
the
commandements
of
men
.
Where
our
Sauiour
sharpely
reprehendeth
the
Scribes
and
〈◊〉
for
teaching
those
things
to
belong
to
the
worship
of
God
,
which
were
of
their
owne
inuention
,
and
not
by
Gods
expresse
command
;
for
this
is
a
true
Thesis
.
Nothing
ought
to
bee
accounted
of
the
substance
or
essence
of
Gods
worship
,
but
what
God
himselfe
hath
expresly
commanded
in
his
word
.
And
for
this
very
thing
did
God
reprooue
the
Iewes
;
because
they
worshipped
in
Tophet
,
offering
such
kind
of
sacrifices
as
hee
neuer
appointed
;
for
I
spake
not
vnto
your
fathers
,
nor
commanded
them
in
the
day
that
I
brought
them
forth
of
Egypt
concerning
burnt
offerings
and
sacrifices
;
but
this
I
said
commanding
them
,
Obey
my
voyce
,
and
I
will
be
your
God
,
&c.
Where
first
God
condemned
them
for
doing
what
they
were
not
commanded
,
as
offering
their
children
vnto
Molech
in
the
vally
of
Tophet
.
Secondly
,
God
shewes
them
wherein
he
will
bee
worshipped
,
namely
in
that
which
he
expresly
commandeth
.
Therefore
albeit
God
had
commanded
the
sacred
action
of
sacrificing
as
a
part
of
diuine
worship
,
yet
because
the
Gentils
in
their
sacrifices
did
not
follow
the
prescript
forme
of
the
law
of
God
,
therefore
were
their
sacrifices
abhominable
,
and
no
other
then
I
dolatrous
.
The
Minor
proposition
is
perspicuous
;
for
let
all
the
Gospells
and
writings
of
the
Apostles
bee
strictly
suruayed
,
and
there
can
neither
the
name
,
nor
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
be
found
;
for
the
sacrifices
of
the
law
had
their
precise
and
prescript
forme
enioyned
;
why
then
if
God
would
haue
an
externall
sacrifice
to
remaine
vnder
the
Gospell
,
hath
hee
not
left
vs
directions
for
the
manner
?
And
whereas
our
aduersaries
pretend
a
command
in
these
words
Do
this
;
hereunto
we
haue
already
answered
page
56.
Wherefore
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
hauing
no
ground
in
the
new
Testament
,
wee
must
needes
account
it
fictitious
,
a
humane
inuention
,
and
therefore
to
be
reiected
.
Argument
.
4.
Fourthly
,
that
sacrifice
wherein
there
is
no
shedding
of
blood
cannot
bee
Propitiatory
.
But
in
the
Masse
there
is
no
shedding
of
blood
.
Ergo
,
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
is
no
Propitiatory
sacrifice
.
The
Maior
proposition
is
grounded
vpon
the
words
of
the
Apostle
,
Without
blood
shedding
there
can
be
no
remission
of
sinnes
;
and
in
the
legall
sacrifices
,
all
that
were
Propitiatory
were
liuing
creatures
,
which
were
slaine
by
the
Priests
.
The
minor
is
true
according
to
the
common
consent
of
our
aduersaries
,
who
make
the
Masse
to
be
sacrificium
incruentum
an
vnbloody
sacrifice
,
and
albeit
the
blood
of
Christ
be
powred
out
,
yet
it
is
not
shed
for
them
,
in
behalfe
of
whom
it
is
offered
,
wherein
they
doe
directly
contradict
themselues
.
Argument
.
5.
Fiftly
,
that
doctrine
which
is
contrary
to
it selfe
is
not
to
be
embraced
in
the
Church
.
But
the
doctrine
of
our
aduersaryes
touching
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
is
contrary
to
it selfe
.
Ergo
,
it
is
not
to
bee
imbraced
.
The
Maior
neither
Protestant
nor
Papist
will
deny
.
The
Minor
is
prooued
.
For
our
aduersaries
teach
that
the
body
of
Christ
in
the
Masse
is
an
externall
sacrifice
,
and
is
truely
offered
vnto
God
the
Father
vnder
the
formes
of
bread
and
wine
.
And
yet
they
teach
the
body
of
Christ
to
be
inuisible
in
the
sacrifice
;
wherein
they
are
contrary
to
themselues
;
for
no
externall
sacrifice
is
an
inuisible
sacrifice
;
neither
can
a
sacrifice
be
visible
(
which
they
affirme
of
their
sacrifice
)
when
the
thing
offered
is
inuisible
.
Wherefore
if
they
will
make
it
an
externall
offering
,
the
sacrifice
it selfe
must
be
visible
,
but
here
is
nothing
visible
(
according
to
their
Tenent
)
but
the
Altar
,
the
Priest
his
ceremoniall
and
mimicall
actions
,
his
many
hundred
crossings
,
the
accidents
and
outward
formes
;
which
are
no
part
of
the
sacrifice
.
Here
then
their
doctrine
implyes
a
contradiction
to
make
it
a
visible
sacrifice
,
and
yet
the
sacrifice
is
inuisible
,
it
is
an
externall
oblation
,
yet
the
matter
offered
is
internall
and
cannot
be
discerned
.
Howsoeuer
though
no
man
can
perceiue
the
matter
of
their
sacrifice
,
yet
euery
man
may
perceiue
the
manner
of
their
iugling
.
Argument
.
6.
Sixtly
,
if
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
was
perfectly
finished
vpon
the
Crosse
,
then
is
it
vnlawfull
for
any
Priest
to
presume
to
offer
againe
this
sacrifice
.
But
the
offering
of
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
was
perfectly
finished
vpon
the
crosse
.
Ergo
,
it
is
vnlawfull
to
presume
to
offer
this
sacrifice
againe
in
the
Masse
.
The
consequence
is
euident
.
For
hee
that
goes
about
to
offer
that
sacrifice
which
was
perfectly
finished
vpon
the
crosse
,
cannot
but
by
his
reiteration
preiudice
,
and
call
in
question
the
perfection
thereof
;
for
as
Chrysostome
speaketh
,
he
that
hath
a
soueraigne
medicine
,
which
by
once
applying
is
perfectly
able
to
cure
a
disease
,
and
shall
often
apply
the
same
,
doth
derogate
from
the
vertue
thereof
:
so
he
that
shall
reiterate
the
all-sauing
sacrifice
vpon
the
crosse
,
by
the
frequent
reiteration
,
charges
it
with
impotency
,
and
imbecility
.
Wherefore
whatsoeuer
pretence
our
aduersaries
may
vse
,
they
by
their
Massing
sacrifice
,
doe
no
lesse
then
robbe
the
al-sufficient
sacrifice
of
the
Crosse
,
and
with
irreligious
blasphemy
derogate
from
it
,
the
meritorious
power
to
saue
all
that
beleeue
.
The
Minor
is
manifest
by
the
words
of
our
Sauiour
,
he
cryed
Consummatum
est
,
It
is
finished
.
What
Wherefore
if
Christ
hath
on
his
crosse
cancelled
the
hand
writing
which
was
against
vs
;
if
hee
by
his
crosse
hath
reconciled
vs
vnto
his
father
;
if
he
on
the
crosse
did
once
sacrifice
himselfe
for
all
beleeuers
,
then
God
forbid
any
man
should
〈◊〉
in
ought
saue
the
crosse
of
Christ
,
God
forbid
any
Christian
should
seeke
for
a
Propitiatory
sacrifice
in
the
Eucharist
,
which
hath
no
vertue
in
it
to
procure
pardon
for
sinne
vnto
any
soule
;
but
onely
faithfully
receiued
to
seale
the
remission
purchased
by
the
bloody
sacrifice
of
Christ
vpon
the
crosse
.
But
our
subtle
Antagonists
thinke
to
auoide
the
The
first
that
God
would
for
his
part
,
and
as
much
as
in
him
lyes
,
be
reconciled
to
men
.
Secondly
,
that
he
would
receiue
them
into
fauour
,
they
working
by
faith
and
repentance
.
The
first
degree
(
say
they
)
is
in
the
sacrifice
of
Christs
death
on
the
crosse
.
The
second
is
in
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
;
and
for
the
confirmation
of
this
distinction
they
adduce
God
was
in
Christ
reconciling
the
world
vnto
himselfe
,
not
imputing
their
trespasses
vnto
them
;
and
hath
committed
vnto
vs
the
word
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
But
our
aduersaries
,
by
this
distinction
thinking
to
auoid
us
,
haue
giuen
vs
the
greater
aduantage
.
For
this
latter
degree
of
remission
of
sinnes
is
nothing
els
but
the
application
of
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
vnto
all
men
;
as
if
they
should
say
,
that
,
then
are
wee
made
partakers
of
that
great
benefite
of
Christs
sacrifice
,
when
we
doe
receiue
him
with
a
true
faith
.
And
for
this
end
was
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
instituted
:
Vt
cruenti
sacrificij
salutaris
virtus
,
in
remissionem
From
hence
I
conclude
,
that
if
the
application
of
a
Propitiatory
sacrifice
bee
not
the
sacrifice
it selfe
,
(
for
he
that
confounds
the
thing
and
the
application
of
that
thing
,
shewes
but
weakenesse
of
iudgement
)
and
that
in
the
Masse
there
is
an
application
of
the
great
Propitiatory
sacrifice
offered
by
Christ
,
it
must
needes
follow
,
that
in
the
Masse
there
is
no
Propitiatory
sacrifice
it selfe
,
true
,
and
reall
,
but
onely
an
application
of
the
great
and
al-sufficient
sacrifice
offered
by
Christ
.
Therefore
the
Apostle
sayes
,
that
God
hath
committed
to
vs
(
his
ministers
)
the
ministery
of
reconciliation
.
From
which
words
I
collect
these
two
obseruations
:
First
that
the
Pastors
of
the
Church
of
Christ
are
Ministers
of
application
of
Christs
sacrifice
;
but
not
of
sacrificing
Christ
himselfe
.
Secondly
,
that
this
application
is
made
not
by
sacrificing
of
Christ
,
(
as
our
Romanists
dreame
)
but
by
teaching
,
admonishing
,
and
exhorting
,
with
the
administration
of
the
Sacrament
according
to
the
institution
of
Christ
.
Argument
7.
Seauenthly
,
if
Christ
be
truely
and
really
offered
in
the
Masse
,
then
in
the
Masse
he
is
really
slaine
:
But
in
the
Masse
he
is
not
truely
and
really
slaine
,
ergo
in
the
Masse
Christ
is
not
reall
offered
.
The
Consequence
appeares
by
this
,
that
the
offering
of
Christ
,
and
the
slaying
of
Christ
are
neuer
seperated
in
the
holy
Scripture
:
For
it
was
not
with
Christ
,
as
with
the
beast
vnder
the
Law
,
which
were
first
slaine
and
then
offered
vppon
the
Altar
;
but
Christ
,
in
the
instant
of
his
death
was
offered
a
sacrifice
of
a
sweet
smelling
sauor
to
his
Heauenly
Father
.
Let
the
Scriptures
be
examined
,
and
iudge
whether
euer
they
speake
of
the
Sacrifice
of
Christ
,
but
thereby
is
meant
his
death
.
For
this
he
did
once
when
he
offered
himselfe
:
How
much
more
the
blood
of
Christ
,
which
by
the
eternall
spirit
offered
himselfe
without
spot
to
God
,
So
Christ
was
once
offered
to
beare
the
sinnes
of
many
.
These
and
all
other
places
of
the
new
Testament
which
speake
of
the
offering
of
Christ
are
to
be
interpreted
of
his
death
:
Wherefore
to
say
Christus
〈◊〉
est
,
Christ
is
offered
,
is
nothing
else
but
to
say
,
Christus
mortuus
est
,
Christ
is
dead
,
or
Christ
is
slaine
,
Wherefore
if
Christ
be
truely
and
really
offered
in
the
Masse
,
he
must
be
truely
and
really
slaine
.
Our
aduersaries
answere
.
That
there
is
a
Sacramentall
immolation
of
Christ
in
the
Masse
,
because
by
the
power
and
vertue
of
Transubstantiation
the
body
of
Christ
is
consecrated
and
made
to
subsist
by
it selfe
,
and
the
blood
of
Christ
is
consecrated
and
made
to
subsist
by
it selfe
,
and
so
though
they
are
seperated
locally
and
in
appearance
,
yet
they
are
not
seperated
propter
concomitantiam
;
by
concomitance
they
are
both
ioyned
together
.
By
this
their
distinction
they
thinke
to
vp
hold
their
Masse
by
which
they
ouer-turne
it
.
For
first
,
in
that
they
say
it
is
a
Sacramentall
immolation
,
herein
they
speake
more
truely
then
they
are
aware
.
wherein
wee
consent
with
them
;
for
if
it
be
Sacramentall
it
cannot
be
proper
,
reall
,
and
externall
,
seeing
that
which
is
Sacramentall
,
is
so
relatiue
hauing
reference
vnto
that
substance
,
whereof
it
is
a
shadow
or
resemblance
.
Againe
,
for
the
body
and
the
blood
to
be
framed
seperately
,
and
yet
by
concommitance
not
to
be
seperated
;
who
heares
not
a
contradiction
in
these
words
?
The
Minor
our
aduersaries
themselues
confesse
;
they
will
not
say
Christ
is
slaine
really
and
truely
in
the
Masse
,
least
their
Priests
should
,
become
Christochthonoi
,
Christ
Killers
.
Yet
how
can
they
auoid
the
suspition
of
treason
against
the
life
of
Christ
,
when
they
seperate
his
reall
body
from
his
blood
;
for
it
is
greatly
to
be
feared
that
they
who
powre
out
his
liuely
blood
,
and
breake
his
reall
and
substantiall
body
are
guilty
of
the
death
of
our
Lord
and
Sauiour
.
Argument
.
8.
Eighly
,
If
Christ
be
dayly
sacrificed
in
the
Masse
,
then
Christ
doth
daily
satisfie
for
our
sinnes
;
but
Christ
doth
not
daily
satisfie
for
our
sinnes
,
ergo
Christ
is
not
dayly
sacrificed
in
the
Masse
.
The
consequence
is
plaine
by
euidence
of
Scripture
;
for
wheresoeuer
and
whensoeuer
Christ
was
to
be
sacrificed
,
it
was
for
the
satisfaction
of
his
Fathers
wrath
for
sinne
.
Who
gaue
himselfe
a
ransom
for
all
to
be
testified
in
due
time
.
Hee
was
delinered
to
death
for
our
offences
.
Who
loued
vs
,
and
gaue
himselfe
for
vs
,
an
offering
and
a
sacrifice
to
God
,
of
a
sweete
smelling
sauour
.
If
when
we
were
enemies
,
we
were
reconciled
vnto
God
by
the
death
of
his
sonne
,
&c.
Who
gaue
himselfe
for
our
sinnes
,
that
he
might
deliuer
vs
from
this
present
euill
world
.
By
these
and
diuers
other
places
of
holy
Scripture
,
it
is
plainely
prooued
that
satisfaction
for
our
sinnes
is
the
end
of
Christs
sacrifice
,
and
in
naming
the
one
:
wee
suppose
the
other
.
The
Minor
is
prooued
because
Christ
did
perfectly
satisfie
for
the
sinnes
of
all
the
elect
,
appeasing
fully
the
wrath
of
God
by
his
sacrifice
vpon
the
Crosse
;
and
now
ceasing
from
making
any
further
satisfaction
,
he
onely
sitting
at
the
right
hand
of
God
,
maketh
intercession
for
vs
.
For
to
satisfie
the
wrath
of
God
is
,
to
doe
that
for
vs
which
wee
should
haue
done
,
and
to
suffer
that
which
we
had
deserued
,
namely
death
;
and
so
Christ
should
againe
yeelde
obedience
to
the
Law
,
and
suffer
death
againe
;
but
the
Apostle
sayth
,
Christ
being
once
dead
,
dyeth
no
more
;
neither
is
Almighty
God
so
vniust
,
as
to
require
satisfaction
of
him
that
hath
perfectly
satisfyed
already
.
But
our
aduersaries
say
that
Christ
is
sacrificed
in
the
Masse
to
apply
vnto
vs
the
satisfaction
which
Christ
hath
giuen
for
vs
on
the
Crosse.
But
so
in
applying
satisfaction
he
makes
satisfaction
;
for
Christ
cannot
be
sacrificed
truely
,
but
hee
must
truely
die
,
and
he
cannot
die
,
but
to
make
satisfaction
.
Againe
,
if
Christ
ought
to
be
sacrificed
againe
,
that
the
fruite
of
his
sacrifice
may
be
applyed
vnto
vs
,
then
ought
he
as
well
to
be
incarnate
againe
,
in
the
wombe
of
the
Virgin
,
that
the
fruite
of
his
incarnation
may
be
applied
vnto
vs
;
to
die
,
to
be
buried
,
to
rise
againe
,
that
so
the
fruite
of
his
death
,
Sepulture
,
and
resurrection
may
be
applyed
vnto
vs
.
Lastly
,
the
application
of
the
benefit
of
Christs
sacrifice
,
by
reiteration
of
his
sacrifice
is
not
found
in
Scripture
.
But
there
is
a
double
meanes
,
one
internall
,
and
that
is
the
efficacie
of
the
Spirit
of
God
,
which
powerfull
applies
〈◊〉
vs
the
vertue
of
Christs
sacrifice
;
the
other
is
externall
,
namely
,
the
Preaching
of
the
word
and
the
Sacraments
,
which
two
concurring
together
,
beget
faith
in
the
soule
,
which
particularly
applies
the
benefit
of
Christs
oblation
to
the
beleeuer
.
In
a
word
,
let
them
consider
what
applicari
,
to
be
applied
signifies
,
and
they
shall
easily
perceiue
that
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
is
applied
vnto
vs
,
when
Christ
is
offered
,
not
to
God
(
as
in
the
Masse
)
but
to
vs
,
as
in
the
holy
Eucharist
;
Christ
freely
giuing
his
body
to
be
eaten
,
his
blood
to
be
drunke
,
and
that
spiritually
by
faith
.
Argument
.
9.
Ninthly
,
if
in
the
Masse
Christ
be
offered
vnto
God
by
the
Priests
of
Rome
,
then
hee
is
not
the
onely
Priest
of
the
new
Testament
.
But
Christ
is
the
onely
Priest
of
the
New
Testament
.
Ergo
,
he
is
not
offered
by
the
Priests
of
Rome
,
in
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
.
The
consequence
is
true
,
for
if
there
be
a
true
and
reall
sacrifice
in
the
Masse
,
there
must
needes
follow
a
true
and
reall
Priest-hood
which
offereth
this
sacrifice
,
and
so
Christ
is
not
the
onely
Priest
of
the
new
Testament
.
The
Minor
is
denied
by
our
aduersaries
,
but
is
proued
by
vs
.
First
,
there
is
no
other
proper
externall
Priesthood
vnder
the
Gospell
,
but
that
which
is
after
the
order
of
Melchizedech
;
of
which
order
there
is
no
man
worthy
,
but
onely
Christ
,
as
is
sufficiently
declared
.
And
whereas
our
aduersaries
vainely
boast
their
Priest-hood
to
be
after
the
order
of
Melchizedech
,
herein
they
are
contrary
to
Scripture
,
which
makes
this
not
to
be
a
common
Priest-hood
,
as
Aarons
was
,
but
personall
,
belonging
onely
vnto
Christ
;
wherefore
the
Apostle
sayes
,
that
Christ
because
he
continueth
for
euer
,
hath
[
Aparabaton
Hierosunen
]
such
a
Priest-hood
as
cannot
passe
from
one
to
another
.
Where
the
Apostle
plainly
shewes
that
such
as
were
mortal
,
and
consequently
not
eternall
,
were
vncapable
of
that
order
of
Melchizedech
;
such
are
the
Priests
of
Rome
,
mortall
as
those
of
Aaron
were
,
and
thereof
vnto
them
cannot
this
Priest-hood
be
diuolued
.
They
thinke
to
cut
vs
off
with
this
distinction
:
Christ
is
the
primary
or
principall
Priest
;
but
men
may
be
secundary
and
lesse
principall
,
by
whose
ministery
Christ
may
offer
himselfe
vnto
God
.
I
demaund
then
,
was
not
Christ
euen
vnder
the
Law
a
Priest
after
the
order
of
Melchizedech
?
and
were
not
the
Priests
of
Aaron
being
compared
to
Christ
that
was
to
come
Secundary
Priests
?
were
they
not
therefore
Types
and
figures
of
the
Priest-hood
of
Christ
?
wherefore
when
the
primary
or
superior
Priest
was
come
,
the
Priest-hood
of
Aaron
vanished
,
and
the
Apostle
would
haue
no
legall
Priesthood
to
remaine
.
But
where
hath
he
substituted
any
other
secundary
Priests
instead
of
the
former
?
Certes
the
Scripture
hath
not
appointed
any
.
Againe
,
by
the
same
reason
that
the
Apostle
disanulles
the
legall
Priest-hood
,
hath
he
also
excluded
all
other
externall
Priest-hood
vnder
the
Gospell
,
for
he
opposeth
him
that
is
immortall
against
those
that
are
mortall
,
God
and
man
,
against
those
who
are
meere
men
:
Now
if
the
Priests
of
Rome
be
no
freer
from
mortality
,
or
fuller
of
deity
then
the
Priests
of
Leuy
,
they
are
then
by
the
same
reason
both
excluded
,
for
Cui
ratio
&
perfectum
medium
conclusionis
conuenit
,
eidem
ipsa
conuenit
conclusio
.
To
whom
the
true
reason
and
perfect
medium
of
a
conclusion
doth
agree
,
to
the
same
also
the
conclusion
it selfe
may
be
applied
.
Againe
,
Christ
is
plainely
manifested
to
be
the
only
Priest
of
the
New
Testament
,
(
and
so
alone
able
to
offer
the
sacrifice
of
propitiaton
for
our
sinnes
,
)
by
that
figuratiue
entring
alone
of
the
high
Priest
once
a
yeare
into
the
Tabernacle
.
Againe
,
he
that
offers
a
true
propitiatory
sacrifice
,
effectuall
in
it selfe
to
procure
pardon
for
〈◊〉
,
must
needes
be
a
Mediator
of
the
new
Testament
,
therefore
But
now
hath
hee
obtained
a
better
ministry
,
by
how
much
also
he
is
made
a
Mediator
of
a
better
couenanant
.
And
for
this
cause
he
is
the
〈◊〉
of
the
new
Testament
,
that
by
meanes
of
death
,
&c.
By
which
places
and
the
like
it
is
euident
,
that
hee
that
was
to
be
the
Priest
of
the
new
Couenant
was
also
to
be
the
Mediatour
betweene
God
and
man
;
and
that
there
is
no
Mediatour
but
onely
Christ
appeares
Paul
;
For
there
is
one
God
,
and
one
Mediatour
betweene
God
and
man
,
the
man
Iesus
Christ
.
Wherefore
if
they
say
they
are
Priests
of
the
new
Testament
,
they
may
as
well
say
,
they
are
Mediatours
,
and
if
Mediators
,
then
Redeemers
of
the
Church
.
Argument
.
10.
Tenthly
,
if
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
be
giuen
vnto
vs
to
bee
receiued
with
truth
,
faith
,
and
humble
reuerence
,
then
Christ
is
not
offered
vnto
his
Father
by
the
Priest
in
the
Eucharist
,
much
lesse
in
the
Masse
.
But
he
is
offered
vnto
vs
in
the
Eucharist
.
Ergo.
Christ
is
not
offered
by
the
Priest
vnto
his
Father
.
The
hypotheticall
connexion
appeares
by
the
nature
of
those
things
which
are
opposite
,
for
the
end
of
Christs
institution
of
the
Supper
was
to
exhibite
himselfe
vnto
all
beleeuers
Spiritually
,
to
be
receiued
Sacramentally
,
for
the
sealing
and
confirmation
of
their
faith
;
and
not
to
bee
offered
vp
by
any
mortall
vnto
his
Father
.
And
whereas
they
obiect
that
God
gaue
vnto
the
Israelites
sacrifices
which
they
should
offer
vnto
God
.
We
answer
that
this
exception
is
plaine
heterogenes
of
another
nature
;
for
their
sacrifices
were
corporall
and
externall
,
ours
spirituall
and
internall
.
The
assumption
is
prooued
by
the
words
of
Christ
,
Take
,
eate
,
this
is
my
body
which
is
giuen
for
you
.
Taking
The
Communion
of
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
.
That
is
the
communicating
,
and
distributing
of
the
blessed
body
and
blood
of
Christ
,
whereof
all
beleeuers
in
common
are
made
partakers
.
They
affirme
the
Eucharist
to
be
not
onely
a
Sacrament
,
out
also
a
Propitiatory
sacrifice
;
were
deny
it
vpon
this
ground
;
because
all
expiatory
sacrifices
properly
so
called
haue
their
complement
in
the
most
perfect
and
absolute
sacrifice
of
Christ
Iesus
,
which
he
offered
himselfe
vpon
the
crosse
.
But
say
they
,
Christ
sacrificed
himselfe
in
the
Eucharist
,
which
appeares
by
these
words
,
Datur
,
frangitur
,
effunditur
;
is
giuen
,
is
broken
,
is
powred
out
;
where
our
Sauiour
speakes
in
the
present
tense
,
and
not
,
shall
be
broken
,
shall
be
giuen
,
shall
be
powred
out
.
We
answer
,
first
some
of
their
owne
writers
haue
denyed
that
Christ
offered
any
Propitiatory
sacrifice
when
he
instituted
and
distributed
the
Eucharist
,
see
p.
84.
And
he
himselfe
saies
that
his
time
was
not
fully
come
;
namely
,
wherein
he
should
be
offered
.
Againe
,
their
owne
translation
hath
tradetur
,
effundetur
,
shall
be
giuen
,
shall
be
powred
out
;
which
Lyra
Math.
26.
&
〈◊〉
Cor.
11.
following
,
doth
so
render
,
and
so
is
it
in
the
Canon
of
the
Masse
.
Moreouer
,
our
Sauiour
might
so
speake
not
to
signifie
a
present
sacrifice
,
but
to
intimate
that
his
body
Agnus
ab
origine
mundi
occisus
,
The
lambe
slaine
from
the
beginning
of
the
world
,
because
God
had
appointed
him
from
the
beginning
to
be
the
Sauiour
of
the
world
.
And
why
might
not
Christ
speake
in
the
present
tense
,
hauing
respect
vnto
their
〈◊〉
,
whose
property
is
to
make
things
past
,
and
to
come
to
be
truely
present
.
But
the
direct
answer
is
,
that
in
the
words
of
Christ
there
is
an
Enallage
temporis
,
the
present
time
being
set
for
the
future
;
and
this
kind
of
speech
is
frequent
in
the
scripture
:
as
,
Woe
vnto
that
man
by
whom
the
Sonne
of
man
is
betrayed
;
for
shall
be
betrayed
.
Vnto
vs
a
sonne
and
borne
of
,
&c.
And
thus
their
owne
Cardinall
expounds
it
,
saying
.
Euangelistae
in
voce
praesentis
effunditur
;
&
Paulus
And
so
Gregory
de
Valentia
vpon
these
words
This
is
my
body
which
is
giuen
for
you
]
saith
,
That
is
,
,
which
shall
be
offered
by
mee
slaine
vpon
the
crosse
.
So
Hugo
Cardinalis
vpon
Math.
26.
Fregit
,
id
est
,
frangendum
in
cruce
signauit
,
He
brake
(
that
is
)
he
signified
it
to
be
broken
vpon
the
crosse
.
Now
who
sees
not
the
blasphemie
of
our
peruerse
aduersaries
,
who
against
the
light
of
holy
scripture
,
and
(
I
thinke
I
may
safely
say
against
the
light
of
their
owne
conscience
,
dare
affirme
that
Christ
in
the
Lords
Supper
offered
his
transubstantiated
body
vnto
his
Father
an
expiatory
sacrifice
for
the
sinnes
of
the
elect
,
how
can
they
reconcile
this
doctrine
,
and
the
words
of
the
Apostle
,
Christ
offered
himselfe
once
for
all
?
which
they
can
neuer
effect
,
till
they
prooue
Hee
offered
himselfe
once
for
all
?
who
sees
not
by
their
doctrine
a
double
offering
of
Christ
?
Who
perceiues
not
double
dealing
in
the
matter
?
Argument
.
11.
The
eleuenth
argument
.
That
sacrifice
which
is
not
of
diuine
institution
is
not
lawfull
in
the
Church
.
But
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
is
not
of
diuine
institution
.
Therefore
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
is
not
lawfull
.
The
Maior
is
prooued
by
the
confession
of
their
owne
Iesuite
,
who
sayes
that
the
Church
cannot
institute
any
new
sacrifice
or
sacrament
;
for
the
ordinance
of
such
essentiall
parts
of
Gods
worship
must
bee
of
diuine
institution
;
(
and
as
he
affirmeth
〈◊〉
.
7.
)
Sacrificia
veteris
legis
omnia
fuerunt
a
Deo
immediate
instituta
,
licet
erant
a
Mose
promulgata
;
Sacrificij
autem
〈◊〉
gis
solus
Christus
Deus
&
homo
author
est
.
God
was
the
authour
of
all
the
sacrifices
of
the
old
Law
,
albeit
they
were
promulgated
by
Moses
:
and
Christ
God
and
Man
is
the
authour
of
the
sacrifice
of
the
new
Testament
.
Therefore
hath
Salomon
their
Iesuite
iustly
taxed
a
Great
Scholler
of
their
owne
Church
,
for
saying
,
the
Church
had
authority
to
institute
a
new
sacrifice
if
Christ
himselfe
had
instituted
none
.
The
Minor
is
true
;
for
as
Martin
Luther
exacteth
of
our
aduersaries
a
demonstration
of
their
sacrifice
from
the
institution
of
Christ
,
wherein
(
as
hee
obserueth
)
We
reade
that
Christ
did
distribute
this
sacrament
vnto
his
disciples
,
but
that
he
offered
it
vp
in
forme
of
a
sacrifice
we
cannot
find
.
Hereunto
their
Cardinall
Bellarmine
answereth
,
That
this
manner
of
argument
from
scripture
〈◊〉
But
if
he
wold
take
the
aduise
of
Suarez
,
or
stand
to
his
owne
answer
,
which
elsewhere
he
himselfe
hath
deliuered
,
he
would
not
so
slightly
reiect
that
forme
ofarguing
.
For
first
Suarez
a
Iesuite
of
his
owne
society
,
that
hee
might
prooue
the
receiuing
of
the
bread
and
the
wine
in
the
Eucharist
not
to
bee
any
essentiall
part
of
this
sacrifice
reasoneth
negatiuely
from
Christ
his
institution
thus
.
It
is
very
likely
that
Christ
instituting
this
sacrifice
did
not
make
it
of
the
essence
of
this
sacrifice
for
the
Priest
to
receiue
,
for
the
Euangelists
negatiue
authority
proones
it
;
it
being
probable
that
they
relating
the
history
of
so
great
a
mystery
would
not
haue
pretermitted
so
essentiall
a
rite
thereof
;
who
doe
expresly
signifie
that
Christ
did
consecrate
the
Eucharist
,
but
that
hee
himselfe
did
take
it
they
doe
not
report
;
and
immediately
hee
addes
,
If
the
Priests
receiuing
of
the
bread
and
wine
be
of
the
essence
of
the
Eucharist
,
it
ought
to
haue
bin
cleerely
and
plainely
deliuered
by
the
Euangelist
.
From
hence
may
bee
collected
thus
much
.
That
wbosoeuer
is
not
expressely
related
by
the
Euangelist
concerning
the
institution
of
this
sacrament
is
not
essentiall
or
absolutely
necessary
thereunto
.
This
is
Suarez
his
confession
,
and
as
much
as
Luther
and
we
desire
,
for
if
the
Euangelists
haue
not
layde
downe
any
institution
of
a
sacrifice
,
nor
so
much
as
named
a
a
sacrifice
in
the
Eucharist
,
wee
ought
not
to
embrace
it
;
this
therefore
argues
the
malice
of
our
aduersary
Bellarmine
,
who
calls
this
a
ridiculous
manner
of
reasoning
in
vs
,
which
is
vsed
by
a
Doctour
of
his
owne
order
not
inferiour
to
himselfe
in
learning
and
iudgement
.
Secondly
,
let
vs
appeale
vnto
the
iudgement
of
the
Cardinall
himselfe
,
who
answers
in
another
case
after
the
same
manner
;
for
hee
reciteth
the
Liturgies
that
passe
vnder
the
name
of
Saint
Iames
,
because
all
things
(
saith
he
)
contained
in
those
liturgies
,
and
in
the
liturgies
of
other
Fathers
,
are
not
taken
from
the
example
or
precept
of
Christ
.
Thus
doth
the
Cardinalls
argument
frame
it selfe
:
whatsoeuer
in
the
seruice
of
God
is
not
by
prescript
precept
,
or
direct
example
of
Christ
confirmed
,
is
not
lawfull
or
warrantable
;
see
now
the
partiality
and
philautia
of
the
Cardinall
;
for
what
hee
thinkes
commendable
in
himselfe
,
he
accounts
ridiculous
in
another
.
The
Liturgie
of
Saint
Iames
is
not
lawfull
,
because
it
contains
many
things
not
taken
either
from
the
example
or
commandement
of
Christ
,
yet
we
may
not
say
,
that
the
Masse
is
vnlawfull
because
it
cannot
be
prooued
by
either
example
or
commandement
of
Christ
.
Note
here
the
Cardinall
requires
greater
authority
for
the
confirmation
of
a
Liturgy
then
of
their
Massing
sacrifice
.
Wherefore
,
when
they
vrge
the
lawfulnesse
of
this
their
sacrifice
,
let
vs
reply
Orthodoxally
in
the
Cardinals
owne
words
,
Shew
vs
either
example
or
commandement
from
Christ
,
and
it
shall
〈◊〉
.
For
in
this
tempestuous
night
of
opposition
and
contention
,
wee
haue
nothing
to
steere
our
course
by
;
but
by
the
compasse
of
Scripture
,
and
the
Load-starre
Christ
,
in
whom
wee
are
to
obserue
dicta
&
facta
,
his
words
and
his
actions
in
his
institution
.
It
is
not
vntrue
that
some
Romanists
haue
thought
that
Christ
did
name
the
word
sacrifice
or
oblation
spirit
of
the
truth
,
lead
them
into
all
truth
;
if
this
were
omitted
which
is
the
maine
part
of
Gods
seruice
,
and
the
chiefe
solace
of
a
Christian
soule
?
But
we
will
not
〈◊〉
them
to
so
strict
a
taske
as
to
finde
in
the
institution
of
Christ
,
the
very
words
of
a
sacrifice
or
oblation
;
it
shall
auaile
them
to
proue
any
word
tending
to
that
purpose
.
Bellarmine
brags
of
the
probate
of
the
point
,
and
vseth
this
argument
.
Christ
offered
himselfe
vnder
the
forme
of
bread
and
wine
vnto
his
father
,
and
bid
his
Apostles
do
this
in
remembrance
of
him
,
therefore
the
Church
may
offer
a
sacrifice
propitiatory
according
to
Christs
command
,
laying
,
Do
this
.
Who
sees
not
here
a
Paralogisme
,
or
petitio
principij
?
For
he
takes
that
for
granted
,
which
is
the
life
of
the
cause
;
and
hee
supposes
that
Christ
offered
himselfe
vnder
the
formes
of
bread
and
wine
,
which
can
neuer
be
proued
,
and
therefore
is
vnlikely
to
be
granted
by
vs
,
for
if
it
can
appeare
that
Christ
at
the
institution
of
the
Eucharist
or
Lords
Supper
did
〈◊〉
his
body
into
the
bread
and
wine
,
and
so
did
offer
it
vnto
his
father
,
wee
shall
soone
yeelde
,
and
the
controuersie
shall
haue
end
.
But
can
any
man
beleeue
that
Christ
carried
his
whole
body
in
owne
of
his
hands
?
that
he
gaue
it
to
be
eaten
to
his
Disciples
,
which
saw
him
present
at
the
Table
,
and
heard
him
speaking
to
them
,
both
while
they
were
eating
him
,
and
afterward
?
that
the
same
sonne
of
man
should
at
once
both
〈◊〉
his
owne
body
and
〈◊〉
intine
and
whole
at
Table
?
That
a
true
naturall
body
should
be
in
many
places
at
once
?
Vnlesse
,
hee
were
as
Tursellian
reports
of
St.
Xanier
one
of
Loyala's
Sealiger
layes
downe
his
Axiome
,
The
numericall
vnity
of
a
finite
thing
cannot
stand
without
continuity
.
But
Bellarmine
sayth
,
The
very
places
,
wherein
Christs
body
is
,
are
discontinued
;
yea
,
and
the
very
body
of
Christ
it selfe
,
is
〈◊〉
from
it selfe
〈◊〉
respect
of
place
,
though
not
in
respect
of
substance
and
quantity
.
As
though
there
could
be
any
diuision
of
a
materiall
substance
,
but
by
bounds
of
place
;
or
as
if
quantity
were
not
both
bounded
and
measured
by
place
alone
:
Or
as
if
that
sinite
body
,
which
is
in
two
places
at
once
,
were
not
first
diuided
in
it selfe
.
So
that
we
demaund
of
Bellarmine
,
as
once
Paul
did
in
another
case
,
Is
Christ
diuided
?
The
Papists
do
Behold
here
is
Christ
,
or
there
:
but
which
is
much
worse
,
Behold
Christ
is
both
here
and
there
,
and
euery
where
,
in
his
true
humane
nature
;
thus
they
blush
not
to
teach
impossibilities
,
that
the
selfe
same
body
should
be
all
here
,
and
all
not
here
;
all
visible
and
all
inuisible
;
all
vppon
the
Table
,
and
all
in
Heauen
;
all
eaten
and
all
vneaten
;
all
in
England
and
all
at
Rome
.
Who
sees
not
these
impostures
to
be
most
palpable
?
And
for
that
Bellarmine
will
haue
these
words
Do
this
,
to
signifie
as
much
as
to
sacrifice
,
thereby
to
establish
their
great
Diana
,
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
,
hee
alleadgeth
not
one
of
the
whole
Catalogue
of
the
Fathers
who
hath
so
interpreted
those
words
:
Insomuch
that
his
brother
Cardinall
dispairing
of
the
proofe
of
the
Masse
,
by
these
words
is
faine
to
confesse
:
Vt
vel
hoc
ex
loco
,
vel
alijs
scripturae
Do
this
,
or
by
other
places
of
Scripture
;
yet
it
is
effectually
proued
by
the
tradition
of
the
Church
.
Which
may
make
vs
iustly
admire
the
vaine
〈◊〉
of
our
aduersaries
,
who
boasting
of
nothing
more
then
Scripture
,
are
yet
faine
wholy
to
relinquish
it
,
and
to
build
vpon
the
tradition
of
the
Church
;
but
an
answere
〈◊〉
this
〈◊〉
afore
.
And
for
these
words
,
(
Is
giuen
,
broken
,
shed
for
you
.
)
they
interpret
to
be
a
present
giuing
in
the
Eucharist
by
way
of
sacrifice
;
but
this
is
sufficiently
answered
in
the
former
〈◊〉
.
Now
seeing
the
words
of
Christs
institution
doe
make
their
sacrifice
to
be
a
meere
non
Ens
,
let
ve
examine
his
actions
,
and
see
if
any
of
them
will
breath
any
life
into
this
their
sacrifice
.
The
actions
of
Christ
the
Scripture
mentions
to
be
foure
,
Hee
tooke
bread
,
He
blessed
it
,
He
brake
it
,
He
gaue
it
.
Not
any
one
of
The
first
action
is
the
taking
of
the
bread
,
before
consecration
and
the
heauing
it
vp
which
they
call
the
Eleuation
of
the
host
;
this
is
not
essentiall
to
the
because
it
cannot
be
prooued
neither
by
Scripture
nor
the
tradition
of
the
Church
that
Christ
did
vse
it
.
Albeit
herein
he
dissents
from
Sotus
a
learned
Doctor
who
with
others
thought
it
to
be
vsed
by
Christ
,
and
in
some
sort
to
〈◊〉
to
the
substance
of
this
sacrifice
.
The
second
action
is
the
Consecration
of
the
Host
in
the
words
of
Christ
,
Hoc
est
corpus
meum
,
This
is
my
body
.
This
Suarez
〈◊〉
to
be
intrinsecall
and
essentiall
to
this
sacrifice
,
and
to
be
the
sacrificing
action
;
and
yet
tels
vs
that
it
was
the
opinion
of
many
learned
men
,
That
consecration
was
but
only
an
antecedent
vnto
the
sacrifice
,
but
properly
neither
to
be
of
the
essence
,
nor
yet
any
part
of
this
sacrifice
.
And
how
can
the
Papists
confidently
build
their
sacrifice
vpon
those
words
,
This
is
my
body
?
when
their
owne
Bishop
hath
prooued
from
the
testimonies
of
the
〈◊〉
§
21.
p.
117.
most
ancient
Fathers
,
that
those
are
not
the
words
of
consecration
;
but
that
the
words
of
consecration
were
before
those
words
,
when
Christ
prayed
and
blessed
the
bread
,
and
the
cup
;
and
therefore
hee
alleadgeth
the
perpetuall
practise
of
the
Church
,
from
the
age
of
the
Apostles
whose
custome
was
to
consecrate
by
prayer
or
benediction
;
as
also
the
Liturgies
of
St.
Iames
,
Clement
,
Basil
,
Chrysostome
,
do
declare
the
same
,
being
backed
with
the
iudgement
of
many
learned
Schoole-men
,
to
whom
hee
adioynes
the
Diuines
of
Colein
,
all
agreeing
consecration
rather
to
be
in
the
prayer
or
blessing
of
Christ
,
then
in
these
words
,
This
is
my
body
;
which
hee
rather
accounts
to
be
the
institution
then
the
consecration
of
the
Sacrament
.
The
third
action
after
the
words
of
consecration
is
the
Oblation
vsed
by
the
lifting
vp
of
the
Host
,
in
these
words
,
Be
mindfull
,
ô
Lord
,
&c.
Concerning
Ecchius
,
〈◊〉
,
Ruardus
.
Others
say
,
it
is
of
the
essence
,
but
not
the
whole
essence
,
as
Scotus
,
Gabriel
Biel
,
Soto
,
Canus
:
these
Suarez
quoteth
but
differing
from
them
all
,
for
he
affirmes
it
to
be
no
essentiall
part
of
the
sacrifice
,
with
whom
agrees
Bellarmine
,
because
say
they
,
it
is
not
expressed
in
the
Scripture
,
neither
yet
is
it
probable
other
wayes
,
that
this
kinde
of
eleuation
,
or
lifting
vp
was
vsed
by
Christ
in
the
institution
;
onely
herein
these
Iesuites
differ
:
Suirez
will
haue
this
eleuation
to
be
an
Ecclesiasticall
rite
,
but
Bellarmine
to
be
Apostolicall
.
The
fourth
action
is
the
dipping
of
the
consecrated
Host
into
the
cup
;
which
Canus
makes
to
bee
of
the
substance
of
this
sacrifice
;
which
Suarez
againe
The
fift
action
is
the
distribution
of
the
〈◊〉
according
vnto
the
example
of
Christ
,
who
gaue
it
vnto
his
Disciples
:
which
(
saith
the
Iesuite
)
some
Catholike
Doctours
haue
iudged
to
be
the
full
complement
and
perfection
of
this
sacrifice
.
But
(
as
learned
2.
3.
Morton
obserues
)
first
they
must
shew
vnto
vs
where
the
essence
of
this
sacrifice
is
to
bee
found
,
The
last
action
is
the
Priests
consuming
the
consecrated
formes
by
eating
and
drinking
;
some
make
this
to
be
the
substance
of
the
sacrifice
and
the
very
essence
Thomists
,
Ledesima
,
Canus
,
and
Bellarmine
;
who
are
againe
contradicted
by
other
great
Doctours
of
the
Roman
Church
,
as
Thomas
Aquinas
,
〈◊〉
,
Maior
,
Alan
:
Cassalus
,
Catharinus
Turrianus
,
Palacius
;
with
whom
Salmeron
doth
consent
:
all
which
doe
deny
that
this
consumption
of
the
Host
doth
belong
to
the
essence
of
this
sacrifice
.
Thus
haue
you
seene
what
〈◊〉
warre
our
aduersaries
doe
maintaine
among
themselues
;
〈◊〉
against
Manasses
,
and
Manasses
against
Ephraim
,
but
both
against
Iudah
.
〈◊〉
war
in
their
owne
campe
,
yet
they
all
conspire
against
the
truth
.
Now
let
the
Reader
iudge
,
where
is
vnity
or
consent
in
doctrine
,
when
their
greatest
Doctours
in
the
maine
point
of
religion
,
are
at
variance
directly
contradicting
one
another
with
,
est
&
non
est
,
it
is
and
it
is
not
.
They
vniustly
vpbraid
vs
with
dissentions
,
when
alas
ours
is
no
dissention
if
compared
with
theirs
,
we
onely
differing
in
the
fringe
,
they
in
the
garment
;
wee
alone
in
the
ceremonies
,
they
in
the
substance
and
very
soule
of
religion
.
Thus
haue
we
largely
and
sufficiently
prooued
by
the
testimonies
of
our
aduersaries
that
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
was
not
instituted
by
Christ
,
and
therefore
(
by
the
confession
of
their
owne
Iesuites
)
not
to
be
admitted
into
the
Church
.
Argument
.
12.
The
twelfth
argument
is
grounded
vpon
Bellarmines
l.
〈◊〉
.
de
missa
.
c.
2
sect.
8.
owne
ssertion
,
which
is
this
:
Ad
verum
sacrificium
requiritur
vt
quod
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
sacrificium
plane
destruatur
,
id
〈◊〉
,
ita
mutetur
vt
desinat
esse
id
quod
erat
.
To
a
true
sacrifice
is
required
,
that
that
which
is
offered
vnto
God
in
sacrifice
be
wholy
destroyed
:
that
is
,
And
againe
,
Verum
&
reale
sacrificium
veram
&
realem
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
A
true
and
a
reall
sacrifice
requireth
a
true
and
reall
death
,
or
destruction
of
the
thing
sacrificed
.
Which
assertion
is
true
in
all
Propitiatory
sacrifices
,
wherein
there
was
alwayes
a
destruction
of
the
offering
or
sacrifice
,
and
that
by
death
and
shedding
of
blood
;
that
therein
they
might
bee
perfect
figures
of
the
great
sacrifice
of
Christ
vpon
the
crosse
,
wherein
his
body
did
shed
blood
,
suffered
death
,
sustained
destruction
,
though
not
totall
and
perpetuall
,
yet
partiall
and
for
a
season
,
in
so
much
,
that
although
hee
was
not
consumed
,
yet
there
was
in
him
for
a
time
a
cessation
or
ceasing
to
bee
a
liuing
man
as
hee
was
before
.
Our
aduersarie
then
hauing
vouchsafed
vs
this
ground
worke
,
we
will
make
bold
thus
to
build
vpon
it
.
Euery
thing
really
and
properly
sacrificed
for
propitiation
doth
suffer
a
real
destruction
of
the
substance
;
But
the
body
of
Christ
doth
not
in
the
sacrifice
of
the.
Masse
suffer
a
reall
destruction
.
Ergo.
In
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
the
body
of
Christ
is
not
really
and
properly
offered
.
The
Maior
being
graunted
by
the
Cardinall
,
the
Minor
prooues
it selfe
thus
.
If
the
body
of
Christ
doth
in
the
Masse
suffer
destruction
(
which
to
say
were
blasphemy
)
it
must
eyther
be
in
whole
or
in
part
;
if
in
whole
,
how
come
we
to
finde
the
same
Christ
,
the
same
body
and
blood
the
next
morning
againe
in
the
Masse
?
If
but
in
part
,
or
for
a
time
(
as
it
was
during
his
beeing
in
the
graue
)
then
would
follow
that
the
Church
for
a
time
hath
no
Christ
perfect
God
and
perfect
man
.
Now
Bellarmine
affirmes
that
the
Priests
eating
of
the
consecrated
elements
(
which
are
made
the
body
of
Christ
)
is
the
destruction
of
the
sacrifice
;
his
words
are
these
,
Consumptio
seu
manducatio
,
quae
fit
a
sacer
dote
quôd
fit
essentialis
pars
〈◊〉
,
inde
probatur
,
quia
in
tota
actione
missae
nulla
est
alia
realis
destructio
But
herein
how
is
hee
constant
to
himselfe
,
who
sayes
,
The
substance
of
the
sacrifice
must
suffer
destruction
:
and
yet
hold
againe
,
that
the
Priest
consumes
not
the
body
of
Christ
by
eating
it
,
for
it
suffers
no
diminution
,
but
onely
the
formes
of
bread
and
wine
.
Who
sees
not
here
a
most
palpable
contradiction
?
for
he
will
haue
the
body
of
Christ
to
be
the
substance
of
this
sacrifice
,
and
this
sust
ance
must
be
consumed
,
or
els
it
is
no
sacrifice
;
and
yet
when
it
comes
to
the
push
,
the
body
of
Christ
suffers
not
destruction
but
only
the
formes
.
Is
not
this
to
make
quidlibet
ex
quolibet
?
Is
not
this
to
make
it
a
sacrifice
and
no
sacrifice
?
Is
not
this
to
say
the
body
of
Christ
is
the
substance
of
this
oblation
and
not
the
substance
,
because
it
is
not
consumed
?
Againe
,
if
a
Propitiatory
sacrifice
be
as
Bellarmine
defines
it
:
That
which
doth
pacifie
the
wrath
of
God
for
the
remission
of
sinnes
.
I
demand
then
how
remission
of
sinnes
is
procured
?
mentall
presence
of
the
Lords
body
and
blood
there
is
a
true
,
reall
,
and
actuall
application
of
his
death
(
quo
ad
meritum
,
in
regard
of
the
merit
of
it
)
to
all
that
receiue
with
faith
.
But
the
Iesui
te
will
haue
a
proper
death
of
Christ
in
the
Eucharist
,
euen
as
he
is
truely
,
really
,
substantially
and
corporally
present
;
and
yet
see
how
he
thwartes
and
crosses
himselfe
in
the
last
words
,
saying
,
Christ
in
the
Eucharist
dyes
not
.
Hence
we
may
frame
this
Argument
.
After
the
same
manner
that
Christ
is
in
the
Eucharist
,
after
the
same
manner
hee
dyes
in
the
same
[
for
an
actuall
and
corporall
presence
requires
an
actuall
and
corporall
death
as
a
sacramentall
presence
,
a
sacramental
death
onely
]
But
in
the
Eucharist
(
by
our
aduersaries
owne
confession
)
Christ
dyes
not
properly
,
actually
,
or
bodily
.
Ergo
,
in
the
Eucharist
,
hee
is
not
properly
,
actually
,
or
bodily
present
.
Thirdly
,
note
how
contrary
this
doctrine
is
vnto
it selfe
.
The
body
of
Christ
(
saith
he
)
and
the
blood
of
Christ
are
consecrated
apart
and
seuerally
,
yet
they
do
not
subsist
apart
,
least
there
should
be
an
actuall
,
and
reall
effusion
of
the
blood
of
Christ
.
But
I
demand
,
if
it
be
so
that
they
are
consecrated
and
made
apart
,
then
when
the
Priest
hath
consecrated
the
body
of
Christ
first
(
for
hee
cannot
consecrate
both
in
an
instant
)
doth
not
that
body
subsist
without
blood
,
till
hee
hath
made
and
consecrated
the
blood
also
?
This
is
strange
in
the
sacrament
that
the
body
of
Christ
and
his
blood
should
admit
for
a
time
,
such
an
actuall
separation
as
is
betweene
that
which
hath
a
being
,
and
that
which
hath
no
being
.
Lastly
,
note
how
enigmatically
he
tells
vs
of
those
things
which
are
separated
by
consecration
,
and
yet
are
indiuisibly
conioyned
,
that
they
cannot
be
separated
;
contrary
to
the
institution
of
Christ
,
who
tooke
the
bread
,
and
the
cup
seuerally
,
consecrating
them
asunder
,
to
figure
vnto
vs
that
actuall
and
reall
separation
of
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
vpon
the
crosse
.
Argument
.
13.
The
thirteenth
Argument
is
this
.
That
which
is
a
Ergo
,
The
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
is
not
Propitiatory
.
The
Minor
is
thus
prooued
.
That
which
doth
appease
Gods
wrath
must
bee
of
infinite
value
.
But
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
is
not
of
infinite
value
.
Ergo
,
The
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
cannot
appease
Gods
wrath
.
The
Maior
is
prooued
:
because
the
wrath
of
God
for
sinne
being
infinite
,
cannot
be
pacified
but
by
that
which
is
of
infinite
merite
and
desert
,
and
this
is
confessed
First
,
here
he
disableth
the
Leuiticall
sacrifices
,
because
of
their
often
repetition
and
reiteration
.
Secondly
,
he
prooues
our
Maior
Proposition
,
that
nothing
can
appease
the
infinite
wrath
of
God
,
and
so
satisfie
his
iustice
,
but
that
which
is
of
infinit
merit
and
desert
;
therefore
all
the
Angells
in
heauen
could
not
haue
wrought
mans
redemption
by
satisfying
for
the
sinne
of
Adam
,
but
Christ
himselfe
:
nor
he
,
had
he
been
meere
man
and
not
Theanthropos
,
God
and
man
,
for
no
finite
creature
can
bee
of
infinite
desert
before
God
;
wherefore
it
was
necessary
that
the
Deitie
of
Christ
should
giue
efficacie
,
vertue
,
and
desart
vnto
the
humanity
by
the
Hypostaticall
vnion
:
which
desart
should
be
infinite
,
euen
as
the
Godhead
of
Christ
was
.
The
Minor
appeares
that
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
is
not
of
infinite
value
or
desart
,
by
the
testimony
of
In
these
words
,
the
〈◊〉
pleades
our
cause
;
for
herein
I
note
especially
two
things
.
First
,
that
the
often
repetition
of
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
,
argues
that
it
is
but
of
finite
value
and
merit
.
Secondly
,
that
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
vpon
the
crosse
,
was
onely
of
infinite
value
,
desert
,
and
merite
to
make
satisfaction
,
and
to
procure
pardon
for
all
sinnes
past
and
to
come
.
Wee
may
demand
then
in
the
Cardinalls
owne
words
,
Quorsum
igitur
missae
?
What
need
haue
we
of
Masses
?
Seeing
Christ
hath
accomplished
our
redemption
by
offering
himselfe
once
for
all
.
But
whence
proceedes
this
insufficiencie
of
the
masse
?
if
it
be
the
same
body
,
and
consequently
the
same
sacrifice
(
as
they
teach
)
how
hath
it
lost
its
vertue
,
that
it
should
not
be
infinite
in
the
Masse
,
as
well
as
on
the
crosse
?
Bellarmine
alleadgeth
three
reasons
hereof
,
but
so
weake
and
infirme
,
as
can
no
way
beseeme
a
man
of
so
great
learning
.
The
first
is
taken
from
the
sacrifice
it selfe
which
is
offered
;
for
in
the
sacrifice
of
the
crosse
the
very
naturall
being
of
Christ
in
his
humane
body
was
destroyed
;
The
second
is
taken
from
the
person
offering
;
for
in
the
sacrifice
of
the
crosse
,
the
person
offering
is
the
Sonne
of
God
immediately
by
himselfe
;
but
in
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
,
the
person
offering
,
is
the
Son
of
God
,
by
the
hand
of
the
Priest
.
As
though
a
mortall
man
could
by
his
infirmity
disable
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
,
and
diminish
the
extent
of
that
infinite
oblation
.
The
third
reason
is
taken
from
the
will
of
Christ
;
for
albeit
he
could
by
one
oblation
obtaine
all
things
of
God
for
all
men
,
yet
he
would
not
,
but
the
benefits
of
his
passion
,
should
bee
obtained
in
a
certaine
measure
;
and
if
any
man
desire
a
reason
hereof
,
it
is
not
for
vs
curiously
to
search
into
it
;
but
his
will
is
a
sufficient
reason
.
These
grounds
,
alas
,
how
weake
are
they
for
a
Christian
to
build
his
faith
vpon
?
How
shall
a
man
bee
established
by
such
tottering
foundations
?
As
touching
diuers
other
most
materiall
points
of
Religion
,
so
also
concerning
this
,
our
grand
Captaines
Caietane
,
Canus
,
Soto
,
these
defend
the
vertue
and
valour
of
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
to
be
infinite
:
on
the
other
side
contend
Thomas
Aquinas
,
〈◊〉
,
Maior
,
Gabriel
,
with
whom
Bellarmine
takes
part
,
confidently
maintaining
the
vertue
,
merit
,
and
desert
of
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
to
be
absolutely
finite
in
it selfe
.
Argument
14.
The
foureteenth
Argument
is
taken
from
the
end
of
a
propitiatory
sacrifice
,
and
it
is
thus
framed
.
A
true
propitiatory
sacrifice
doth
procure
remission
of
sinnes
.
But
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
doth
not
procure
remission
of
sinnes
.
Ergo
,
The
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
,
is
no
true
propitiatory
sacrifice
.
The
Maior
is
by
Bellarmine
himselfe
affirmed
,
in
The
first
proposition
,
then
hauing
the
common
consent
of
all
men
,
we
must
proue
our
assumption
.
Which
our
Romanists
thinke
a
Herculean
worke
,
Hic
labor
,
hoc
opus
est
.
Now
to
prooue
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
,
not
to
be
auaileable
to
procure
the
pardon
of
sinne
,
we
alleadge
first
the
testimonies
of
our
aduersaries
,
that
so
there
owne
tongues
may
fall
vpon
them
,
as
the
The
sacrifices
of
the
Masse
by
vertue
of
the
deede
done
,
did
immediatly
conferre
the
infusion
of
habituall
grace
.
Others
directly
affirmed
the
contrary
,
some
hold
the
obtaining
of
this
grace
to
be
infallible
;
Others
againe
,
that
it
is
vncertaine
,
as
Durand
,
Canus
,
Corduba
.
Some
maintaine
it
to
be
auaileable
for
the
remission
of
mortall
sinnes
.
Others
,
to
be
auaileable
onely
for
the
remission
of
veniall
〈◊〉
,
(
as
Gregory
of
〈◊〉
reporteth
)
which
(
say
they
)
may
be
pardoned
without
grace
.
Others
againe
are
of
opinion
,
that
it
is
not
efficatious
for
the
pardon
of
any
sinne
,
but
onely
,
to
gaine
release
of
〈◊〉
punishments
,
the
guilt
whereof
had
beene
formerly
pardoned
.
Some
thinke
this
is
wrought
by
the
vertue
of
impetration
and
prayer
;
others
by
the
power
of
satisfaction
and
redemption
.
〈◊〉
is
there
found
confusion
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
in
the
Campes
of
our
enemies
,
for
euery
mans
hand
is
against
his
fellow
,
as
once
was
in
the
army
of
the
Midiaenites
.
How
then
can
this
sacrifice
be
thought
fit
to
be
vsed
in
the
Church
,
which
is
so
lacerated
,
and
〈◊〉
in
peeces
,
by
the
seueral
opinions
of
so
many
Doctors
of
great
repute
,
who
contend
so
stoutly
for
it
?
Againe
,
the
Apostles
speakes
plainly
hereof
,
Heb.
10.
18.
saying
,
Where
remission
of
sinnes
is
,
there
needs
no
more
sacrifice
for
sinnes
.
But
who
dares
deny
that
absolute
and
perfect
remission
of
offences
,
was
purchased
vnto
all
beleeuers
by
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
offered
on
the
crosse
once
for
all
?
Our
aduersaries
themselues
dare
not
,
nor
doe
not
deny
it
,
yet
will
they
not
relinquish
their
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
.
Argument
.
15.
The
fifteenth
Argument
.
The
Apostle
sayes
that
Christ
needes
not
to
offer
himselfe
often
,
but
now
once
in
the
end
of
the
world
hee
hath
appeared
to
put
away
sinne
by
the
sacrifice
of
himselfe
;
and
againe
,
By
one
offering
he
hath
perfected
for
euer
,
them
that
are
sanctified
;
From
these
testimonies
of
Scripture
,
I
frame
this
Syllogisme
;
If
Christ
once
in
the
end
of
the
world
was
sacrificed
to
put
away
sinne
;
and
by
one
offering
hath
perfected
them
that
are
〈◊〉
,
then
he
is
not
offered
in
the
Masse
.
But
Christ
once
in
the
end
of
the
world
was
sacrificed
to
put
away
sinne
,
and
by
one
offering
of
himselfe
once
for
all
hath
perfected
them
that
are
sanctified
.
Ergo
,
Christ
is
not
offered
in
the
Masse
.
Bellarmine
answeres
,
that
the
Apostle
there
speaketh
But
wee
are
to
obserue
,
that
the
Apostle
by
these
words
,
excludes
and
cuts
of
all
iterations
of
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
;
for
otherwise
,
if
Christ
should
now
be
often
sacrificed
really
,
though
after
any
manner
,
the
difference
of
the
Apostle
could
neuer
stand
,
betweene
the
Leuiticall
sacrifices
which
were
often
repeated
,
and
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
,
which
was
once
offered
.
Secondly
,
that
is
but
a
false
distinction
of
a
bloody
and
an
vnbloody
sacrifice
,
as
they
vnderstand
it
,
otherwise
then
the
fathers
did
;
for
there
can
be
no
proper
vnbloody
sacrifice
of
Christ
;
neither
could
hee
be
offered
vp
otherwise
then
by
dying
:
Therefore
he
is
not
offered
vp
in
the
Eucharist
because
therein
hee
dyeth
not
.
Thirdly
,
we
neede
not
inuent
a
new
kind
of
sacrifice
,
which
may
apply
vnto
vs
the
efficacy
of
Christs
death
,
seeing
to
that
end
Christ
hath
appointed
the
preaching
of
the
word
,
and
the
administration
of
the
Sacraments
.
Bellarmine
replyeth
:
first
though
the
death
of
Christ
be
applyed
by
the
Preaching
of
the
word
,
and
For
then
he
must
haue
often
suffered
.
But
we
cut
off
Bellarmines
answere
,
by
affirming
;
That
albeit
both
the
Eucharist
and
Baptisme
doe
apply
the
death
of
Christ
vnto
vs
,
yet
is
not
Baptisme
superfluous
,
because
it
is
of
Christs
institution
,
so
is
not
the
Masse
.
Againe
,
they
apply
Christs
death
diuersly
;
baptisme
as
the
seale
of
our
regeneration
;
the
Eucharist
as
a
signe
of
our
redemption
;
the
one
signifies
our
sanctification
by
the
washing
of
Christs
blood
;
the
other
our
iustification
by
the
sufferings
of
the
same
Christ
our
Sauiour
;
the
one
for
our
initiation
into
the
Church
;
the
other
for
our
confirmation
:
so
that
neither
of
them
are
superfluous
;
but
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
is
superfluous
,
because
the
remembrance
and
shewing
forth
of
Christs
death
is
sufficiently
performed
without
a
sacrifice
.
Wherefore
the
comparison
holds
not
,
that
the
Masse
may
as
well
be
vsed
to
apply
the
vertue
of
Christs
death
,
albeit
the
Eucharist
doth
the
same
,
as
baptisme
,
seeing
baptisme
is
of
Christs
institution
,
the
Masse
is
not
;
and
baptisme
,
and
the
Lords
Supper
,
though
they
both
apply
the
death
of
Christ
,
yet
in
diuers
manners
,
and
for
diuers
ends
.
But
the
Papists
pretend
the
same
to
be
the
end
of
the
Masse
,
which
is
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
And
whereas
Bellarmine
sayth
,
the
Apostle
speakes
of
the
bloody
sacrifice
of
Christ
,
it
is
true
,
for
he
neuer
once
dreamed
of
an
vnbloody
sacrifice
which
could
neuer
haue
any
existence
,
in
rerum
natura
.
For
if
you
marke
the
Apostles
words
,
hee
quite
knockes
this
vnbloody
sacrifice
of
the
Papists
on
the
head
,
saying
,
Not
that
he
should
offer
himselfe
often
,
&c.
For
then
must
〈◊〉
often
haue
suffered
.
Intimating
that
there
can
be
no
proper
offering
,
or
real
sacrificing
of
Christ
,
but
by
death
and
suffering
.
Wherefore
where
there
is
no
actuall
death
of
Christ
,
nor
reall
suffering
,
there
can
be
no
true
and
proper
offering
;
and
Christ
hauing
but
once
died
really
,
he
could
but
once
be
really
offered
.
Argument
.
16.
The
sixteenth
Argument
is
taken
from
the
words
of
Christ
,
who
being
on
the
Crosse
cryed
out
,
Consummatum
est
,
It
is
finished
.
Giue
vs
leaue
to
demand
,
Ferus
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
cap.
19.
what
was
finished
?
Let
one
of
their
owne
friends
speake
.
Why
,
now
was
finished
,
whatsoeuer
God
had
determined
,
whatsoeuer
he
had
commanded
,
whatsoeuer
the
Law
and
the
Prophets
had
foretold
concerning
Christ
;
whatsoeuer
was
necessary
and
conducible
for
mans
saluation
;
the
oblation
was
offered
;
the
types
fulfilled
,
the
shadowes
abolished
,
the
Scriptures
were
verified
,
and
the
great
sacrifice
,
[
quo
solo
Deus
placari
potuit
]
by
which
onely
the
〈◊〉
of
God
was
pacified
,
is
now
perfected
.
In
which
words
obserue
,
first
,
that
whatsoeuer
was
necessary
for
mans
faluation
was
now
accomplished
;
what
neede
then
haue
we
of
Masses
?
Secondly
,
that
Ferus
sayes
,
The
sacrifice
of
Christ
was
finished
.
How
dares
any
man
then
renew
it
in
the
Masse
?
Thirdly
,
he
sayes
,
The
sacrifice
of
Christ
on
the
Crosse
,
onely
could
〈◊〉
Gods
wrath
.
How
then
comes
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
to
be
propitiatory
?
Bellarmine
answeres
,
that
these
words
,
It
is
finished
,
breaking
of
aboue
foretold
,
Exod.
12.
46.
Secondly
,
the
pearcing
of
him
with
a
speare
,
prophecied
Zach.
12.
10.
But
let
vs
admit
for
good
Ferus
his
wordes
,
Quoniam
fuit
in
opere
consummationis
,
ideo
dixit
consummatum
est
,
because
they
were
in
the
act
of
consummation
,
or
ready
to
be
consummated
,
therefore
he
sayd
,
It
is
finished
.
And
let
vs
admit
for
good
the
first
part
of
Bellarmines
answere
,
that
the
prophecies
were
fulfilled
;
yet
let
vs
a
little
pause
before
we
grant
the
second
.
For
whereas
he
sayes
,
All
things
necessary
to
mans
saluation
,
were
not
finished
;
it
is
true
if
hee
meane
some
speciall
actes
〈◊〉
did
concerne
Christs
person
,
as
his
resurrection
,
and
assension
,
without
which
our
redemption
could
not
bee
perfectly
consummated
.
Againe
,
if
he
vnderstand
it
of
some
indiuiduall
actions
of
religion
,
which
were
to
be
performed
for
the
saluation
of
such
particular
persons
as
should
beleeue
afterward
,
it
is
true
,
they
were
not
finished
,
because
the
persons
whom
God
had
appointed
,
and
decreed
to
vse
as
meanes
for
the
conuersion
of
others
,
were
to
liue
in
future
ages
,
and
had
not
as
yet
beeing
,
and
consequently
could
not
at
that
time
finish
those
acts
,
whereunto
they
were
destined
of
God
;
but
if
he
vnderstand
by
these
words
,
[
All
things
necessary
for
mans
saluation
,
are
not
finished
]
all
the
specificall
acts
of
religion
,
as
Prayer
,
Preaching
,
Administration
of
the
Sacraments
,
&c.
and
whatsoeuer
of
that
kind
which
is
necessary
to
mans
saluation
is
not
finished
;
this
is
false
,
for
that
they
had
their
institution
from
Christ
before
his
death
,
and
so
in
the
species
they
were
finished
.
Or
if
thereby
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
was
not
finished
;
this
is
false
;
for
both
it
,
and
the
saluation
of
man
by
it
was
finished
;
as
appeares
by
the
Apostles
vsing
the
same
words
,
saying
,
With
one
offering
,
teteleioken
,
consummauit
,
he
hath
consummated
for
euer
such
as
are
sanctified
.
Againe
,
the
perfection
of
Christs
sacrifice
abolisheth
not
the
vse
of
doctrine
and
Sacraments
,
which
doe
represent
vnto
vs
the
death
and
sacrifice
of
Christ
,
but
it
abolisheth
all
other
sacrifices
of
Propitiation
;
for
if
they
be
but
memorialls
of
Christs
death
they
are
superfluous
;
the
word
and
sacraments
beeing
sufficient
to
that
end
;
and
if
they
be
more
then
memorials
,
as
auaileable
to
forgiue
sinnes
,
they
are
blasphemous
,
and
make
Christs
sacrifice
imperfect
.
Argument
.
17.
The
seauenteenth
argument
is
taken
from
the
falshood
of
the
Canon
of
the
Masse
,
and
it
is
thus
framed
.
Such
as
is
the
Canon
,
such
is
the
sacrifice
.
But
the
Canon
of
the
Masse
is
false
.
Ergo
,
the
sacrifice
is
false
,
and
consequently
not
Propitiatory
.
The
falshood
of
the
Masse
appeares
in
diuers
things
.
1.
In
the
ancient
Church
when
the
Lords
Supper
was
celebrated
,
the
Christians
vsed
to
bring
their
agapai
,
which
were
the
bread
and
wine
for
the
reliefe
of
the
poore
,
and
the
maintenance
of
the
Ministry
;
and
when
they
had
laide
downe
these
oblations
(
which
were
neuer
accounted
a
Propitiatory
sacrifice
)
they
prayed
for
the
prosperity
and
preseruation
of
the
Church
:
which
in
the
Canon
before
the
consecration
is
applyed
vnto
the
bread
and
wine
,
and
the
bread
and
wine
is
offered
vnto
God
the
Father
for
the
happinesse
of
the
Church
.
Secondly
,
in
the
Canon
,
They
pray
vnto
God
that
he
would
accept
that
pure
sacrifice
of
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
,
as
he
accepted
the
sacrifices
of
Abell
and
Melchizedech
.
In
which
words
they
become
intercessours
vnto
God
the
Father
to
accept
his
Son
Iesus
Christ
,
as
though
he
were
not
worthy
to
be
accepted
of
himselfe
.
And
how
absurd
is
it
to
compare
the
most
pretious
sacrifice
of
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
(
if
it
were
so
really
and
truely
)
vnto
the
sacrifice
of
Abel
,
which
was
but
a
lambe
or
a
goate
.
And
how
vnwisely
doe
they
pray
that
God
would
accept
the
sacrifice
of
his
Sonne
as
hee
did
accept
the
sacrifice
of
Melchizedech
,
whereas
it
cannot
appeare
(
as
is
formerly
prooued
)
by
the
holy
scripture
,
that
Melchizedech
offered
bread
and
wine
;
how
absurd
is
it
then
to
compare
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
with
that
sacrifice
which
neither
was
,
is
,
nor
shall
be
?
Thirdly
,
the
Canon
saith
,
that
the
Priest
offereth
vnto
God
the
heauenly
Father
the
bread
of
life
.
But
where
are
they
commanded
to
offer
the
bread
of
life
,
seeing
in
the
scripture
there
is
mention
made
of
eating
the
bread
of
life
,
but
not
of
offering
?
Fourthly
,
the
Canon
ouerthrowes
the
article
of
ascension
;
for
it
commands
the
Angells
to
carry
that
vnspotted
sacrifice
to
the
high
Altar
of
heauen
,
and
to
present
it
before
God
the
Father
.
What
?
Is
not
Christ
ascended
,
and
fitteth
for
euer
at
the
right
hand
of
God
?
and
hath
he
now
more
need
of
the
helpe
of
Anglls
then
when
he
first
ascended
by
the
whole
power
of
his
Godhead
?
and
cannot
hee
appeare
before
his
Father
,
but
by
the
assistants
of
Angells
?
But
let
me
bee
bold
to
demand
three
questions
of
our
aduersaries
grounded
vpon
these
words
of
the
Canon
,
Supplices
te
rogamus
omnipotens
Deus
,
iube
haec
perferri
per
manus
sancti
Angeli
,
&c.
We
humbly
beseech
thee
,
O
Omnipotent
God
;
that
tbou
wouldest
command
this
sacrifice
to
be
carryed
by
the
hands
of
the
holy
Angell
,
vnto
thy
high
Altar
in
the
sight
of
thy
diuine
Maiesty
,
&c.
First
,
if
they
vnderstand
it
of
the
bread
and
wine
transubstantiated
into
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
,
how
comes
it
to
passe
,
that
they
are
not
taken
by
the
Angell
,
and
carryed
immediately
into
heauen
according
to
the
prayer
of
the
Church
?
Secondly
,
I
demand
,
if
their
doctrine
bee
true
of
their
Multipresence
,
that
the
true
humane
body
and
blood
of
Christ
be
both
in
heauen
,
and
in
many
thousand
places
vpon
the
earth
at
one
time
,
what
need
then
the
Angell
to
carry
the
body
of
Christ
into
heauen
,
where
it
is
already
before
his
heauenly
Father
?
Thirdly
,
(
if
it
be
so
as
they
say
,
that
Christ
in
the
night
when
he
instituted
the
Lords
Supper
,
did
offer
himselfe
,
his
naturall
body
and
blood
vnder
the
forms
of
bread
and
wine
,
a
true
Propitiatory
sacrifice
to
his
heauenly
Father
)
I
demand
whether
the
Angell
did
carry
this
sacrifice
into
heauen
,
or
whether
it
did
〈◊〉
before
his
Father
in
heauen
,
or
no
?
If
they
say
no
;
how
then
was
the
sacrifice
accepted
?
or
how
comes
the
Church
to
pray
for
that
priuiledge
,
of
hauing
this
sacrifice
carryed
into
heauen
,
which
was
not
vouchsafed
to
the
sacrifice
offered
immediately
by
Christ
himselfe
?
If
they
affirme
that
it
was
carryed
into
heauen
,
it
would
then
follow
,
that
Christs
body
was
in
heauen
before
his
passion
,
resurrection
,
or
ascension
;
and
when
he
in
his
humane
nature
ascended
into
heauen
from
his
Disciples
,
hee
found
his
humane
body
and
blood
before
his
Father
,
and
to
haue
beene
there
before
it
came
thither
.
Thus
they
make
Christ
to
haue
two
bodies
,
and
consequently
two
soules
;
and
so
Christ
is
not
one
,
but
two
;
but
many
;
but
innumerable
.
These
absurdities
doe
directly
result
,
and
arise
from
their
blasphemous
Canon
;
which
is
so
grosse
and
palpable
,
as
deserues
to
be
hissed
out
of
the
Church
.
Lastly
,
the
Canon
in
diuers
places
ouerturnes
the
Mediation
of
Christ
,
in
that
they
pray
to
Saints
and
Angells
making
them
to
be
intercessours
;
it
also
establishes
Purgatory
and
prayer
for
the
dead
,
doctrines
so
dissonant
from
the
truth
of
the
Scriptures
,
as
when
we
see
them
authorized
in
the
Church
of
Rome
,
wee
may
iustly
call
in
question
the
vertue
of
their
massing
sacrifice
.
Argument
.
18.
The
eighteenth
Argument
is
taken
from
the
effect
of
the
Masse
;
thus
.
That
which
destroyeth
the
true
nature
of
the
Lords
Supper
cannot
be
a
true
Propitiatory
sacrifice
for
the
〈◊〉
of
the
quicke
and
the
dead
.
But
the
pretended
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
doth
subuert
and
destroy
the
nature
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
Ergo
,
the
pretended
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
is
not
Propitiatory
for
the
sinnes
of
the
quicke
and
the
dead
.
The
Maior
is
not
denyed
by
our
aduersaries
.
The
Minor
is
thus
prooued
.
Augustine
saith
,
Sacramentum
est
visibile
signum
inuisibilis
gratiae
;
a
visible
signe
of
inuisible
grace
;
so
that
in
euery
sacrament
there
is
signum
&
signatum
,
the
signe
and
the
thing
signified
,
both
which
abide
whole
and
intire
,
in
such
sort
as
it
is
not
possible
that
the
one
can
be
the
other
,
or
any
part
of
the
other
.
But
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
destroyeth
the
nature
of
a
sacrament
,
for
it
taketh
away
the
substance
of
the
bread
,
which
is
the
signe
and
seale
of
his
body
;
it
taketh
away
the
substance
of
the
wine
,
which
is
the
symbole
of
his
blood
;
and
that
by
〈◊〉
and
altering
them
,
as
some
of
them
hold
,
or
els
by
annihilating
them
,
as
others
say
;
or
by
reducing
them
into
their
first
matter
;
from
substances
into
accidents
,
contrary
vnto
all
nature
,
yea
contrary
to
the
things
signified
;
for
there
ought
to
be
resemblance
betweene
the
signe
and
the
thing
signified
;
as
Manna
did
represent
the
bread
of
life
which
came
downe
from
heauen
;
in
baptisme
,
water
which
washeth
away
corporall
spottes
,
the
blood
of
Christ
which
cleanseth
our
spirituall
pollutions
;
bread
and
wine
which
nourish
our
naturall
life
,
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
,
which
sustaine
and
feede
vs
vnto
eternall
life
.
But
roundnesse
,
whitenesse
,
moistnesse
,
and
rednesse
,
which
they
giue
vs
for
signes
,
what
analogy
or
proportion
haue
they
with
our
spirituall
nourishment
?
These
accidents
of
bread
and
wine
haue
no
power
or
vertue
to
feede
the
body
,
but
the
substance
of
bread
and
wine
;
they
leaue
those
,
and
take
away
this
;
where
then
is
the
sacrament
when
the
signe
is
abolished
.
Againe
,
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
taketh
away
the
thing
signified
in
the
Lords
Supper
.
What
s
that
?
It
is
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
,
yea
Christ
himselfe
.
For
the
very
body
and
blood
of
Christ
was
giuen
only
for
them
which
〈◊〉
in
him
and
abide
in
him
;
for
them
(
saith
the
Apostle
)
which
dwell
in
him
by
faith
;
and
in
whose
hearts
he
dwelleth
:
for
them
(
saith
Saint
Augustine
)
which
are
his
members
;
and
therefore
the
same
Father
saith
a
man
may
eate
panem
Domini
,
the
bread
of
the
Lord
;
and
yet
not
eate
panem
Dominum
,
the
Lord
the
bread
;
making
a
difference
betweene
the
bread
in
the
sacrament
,
and
that
life-giuing
bread
which
is
Christ
himselfe
represented
by
the
symboles
in
the
Eucharist
.
But
oh
what
iniury
is
offered
by
the
Papists
in
their
sacrifice
vnto
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
,
which
is
the
food
of
eternall
life
,
when
dogs
and
swine
,
that
is
reprobates
and
hypocrites
shall
bee
made
pertakers
of
it
;
nay
,
and
these
ex
opere
operato
,
by
vertue
of
the
very
act
of
receiuing
doe
merit
remission
of
sinnes
and
relaxation
of
punishment
;
nay
a
Mouse
,
or
a
Dog
may
eate
the
precious
body
of
our
Lord
Iesus
Christ
(
which
doth
so
〈◊〉
their
greatest
Doctors
,
that
if
it
be
demanded
;
Whether
if
a
Dog
or
a
Mouse
doe
eate
the
〈◊〉
Host
,
they
doe
〈◊〉
the
very
body
of
Christ
?
they
are
at
a
non
plus
,
and
know
not
what
to
answer
)
.
Wee
affirme
and
dare
iustifie
;
That
the
signe
of
the
Sacrament
may
be
receiued
of
all
that
are
of
competent
age
in
the
Church
;
But
,
Res
Sacramenti
,
the
thing
signified
in
the
Sacrament
,
can
onely
be
receiued
by
the
faithfull
,
which
are
rightly
of
the
Church
:
for
,
so
saith
Origen
;
Of
this
true
and
verie
meate
of
this
Word
made
flesh
,
no
wicked
or
vngodly
man
can
eate
,
because
it
is
the
Word
and
Bread
of
life
;
because
hee
that
eateth
of
this
bread
liueth
for
euer
.
And
S.
Augustine
speakes
plainely
to
this
purpose
,
saying
;
The
Signes
are
21.
6.
25.
common
to
the
good
and
〈◊〉
,
but
the
thing
proper
to
the
faithfull
alone
:
therefore
the
Apostles
did
eate
,
Panem
Dominum
,
The
bread
which
was
the
Lord
;
but
Iudas
onely
,
Panem
Domini
,
the
Bread
of
the
Lord
,
against
the
Lord
.
Doth
not
this
take
away
Christ
himselfe
,
when
the
Church
shall
giue
vnto
wicked
men
,
and
vnbeleeuers
,
and
they
themselues
shall
receiue
the
very
substantiall
Body
of
Christ
.
Againe
,
they
destroy
the
humanity
of
Christ
,
for
the
which
,
the
Fathers
of
the
Church
haue
so
mightily
contended
against
diuers
Heretikes
:
for
,
when
without
warrant
of
Gods
word
,
they
ascribe
vnto
this
body
,
a
property
of
being
in
a
thousand
places
at
once
,
how
do
they
not
destroy
the
nature
of
a
true
Humane
body
,
which
can
be
but
in
one
place
at
one
time
?
as
is
prooued
,
Pag.
198.
Nay
,
doth
not
this
Sacrifice
make
Christ
a
dead
Christ
,
in
that
they
doe
really
separate
his
body
from
his
blood
,
making
them
in
consecration
,
and
after
consecration
,
to
subsist
apart
;
which
separation
was
the
very
death
of
Christ
?
And
whereas
Christ
saith
;
I
am
with
you
vnto
the
end
of
the
world
.
And
;
Where
two
or
three
are
gathered
together
in
my
name
,
I
will
be
in
the
middest
of
them
.
These
and
the
like
speeches
,
are
to
be
vnderstood
of
the
Diuinitie
of
Christ
,
which
filleth
all
places
:
as
these
Speeches
;
You
shall
not
have
me
alwaies
with
you
;
It
is
expedient
for
you
,
that
I
goe
away
.
The
heauens
must
containe
him
,
vntill
the
restauration
of
all
things
,
are
to
be
vnderstood
of
his
Humanity
,
which
is
circumscriptiuely
,
onely
in
one
place
at
once
.
And
so
the
Fathers
vnderstand
these
places
.
Origen
saith
;
It
is
not
the
man
which
is
euery
where
;
Where
two
or
three
be
gathered
together
in
his
name
;
Or
,
yet
is
alwaies
with
vs
vntill
the
end
of
the
world
;
Or
,
which
is
in
euery
place
where
the
faithfull
are
assembled
;
but
,
it
is
the
Diuine
power
which
is
in
Iesus
.
And
so
Saint
Augustine
;
You
haue
the
poore
alwaies
with
you
,
&c.
]
Let
not
good
men
be
troubled
,
in
respect
of
his
maiestie
,
prouidence
,
grace
,
&c.
It
is
fulfilled
which
he
said
;
I
am
alwaies
with
you
.
In
respect
of
the
flesh
,
which
the
Word
tooke
vpon
it
,
it
is
the
same
which
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
You
shall
not
haue
me
alwaies
.
The
Church
enioyed
him
but
a
few
daies
,
in
respect
of
his
bodily
presence
;
but
,
now
it
possesseth
him
by
faith
,
and
seeth
him
no
more
with
these
bodily
eies
,
&c.
And
in
another
place
,
vpon
〈◊〉
Vado
,
&
venio
ad
aos
.
He
went
as
men
,
he
staied
behinde
as
God
:
He
went
,
in
as
much
as
he
was
but
in
one
place
;
he
staied
and
abode
still
,
in
as
much
as
hee
was
euery
where
.
By
which
words
of
S.
Augustine
it
appeares
,
that
hee
conceiued
the
Humane
body
of
Christ
to
reside
in
one
place
,
and
not
to
bee
in
many
places
at
once
.
And
in
another
of
his
writings
hee
It
is
expedient
for
you
that
I
goe
.
]
Although
that
hee
be
alwaies
with
vs
by
his
Diuinitie
:
but
,
if
he
had
not
gone
away
from
vs
corporally
,
we
should
haue
seen
him
daily
with
these
carnall
eies
,
and
should
neuer
haue
beleeued
in
him
spiritually
,
&c.
And
for
this
cause
he
hath
absented
himself
in
body
from
al
the
Church
,
to
the
end
,
that
faith
may
be
edified
and
builded
vp
.
And
to
this
purpose
,
S.
Cyrill
.
It
is
meete
,
that
all
the
faithfull
beleeue
,
that
howsoeuer
our
Lord
be
absent
in
body
,
yet
he
is
present
by
his
power
to
all
them
that
loue
him
,
&c.
And
reciprocally
,
no
man
doubteth
,
seeing
hee
ascended
into
heauen
,
that
hee
is
absent
in
the
flesh
,
though
present
in
the
spirit
.
What
is
it
then
?
I
will
not
leaue
you
comfortlesse
;
that
is
,
how
that
after
he
is
ascended
into
heauen
,
he
is
in
vs
by
his
Spirit
.
And
againe
;
He
is
absent
according
to
his
Humanity
;
but
,
present
according
to
his
Diuinitie
.
Vigilius
,
Bishop
of
Trent
,
dissenteth
not
from
the
former
,
saying
;
The
Sonne
of
God
had
a
beginning
,
as
concerning
the
nature
of
his
〈◊〉
;
but
,
he
had
not
any
,
if
you
consider
the
nature
of
his
Diuinitie
;
in
regard
of
that
,
he
is
a
creature
,
but
in
regard
of
this
the
Creator
:
in
respect
of
that
,
hee
is
a
subiect
to
be
contained
in
one
place
;
but
,
in
respect
of
this
it
is
not
possible
for
him
to
be
contained
in
any
place
.
And
this
is
the
Catholike
faith
,
&
confession
,
which
the
Apostles
haue
deliuered
vnto
vs
,
&c.
Beda
saith
;
Christ
ascending
vp
into
heauen
,
after
the
resurrection
,
left
his
Disciples
corporally
,
howbeit
,
the
presence
of
his
Diuine
Maiesty
did
neuer
leaue
them
.
I
will
conclude
these
testimonies
with
the
saying
of
Bernard
;
I
goe
from
you
,
saith
the
Lord
,
according
to
my
humanitie
;
but
,
I
doe
not
goe
away
from
you
according
to
my
Diuinitie
:
I
leaue
you
with
my
corporall
presence
,
but
I
aide
and
assist
you
with
the
presence
of
my
Spirit
.
But
,
it
may
be
said
,
that
the
body
of
Christ
,
being
now
a
glorified
body
,
may
bee
in
diuers
places
at
once
.
No
,
so
long
as
the
humanity
of
Christ
continues
to
bee
a
Creature
,
so
long
is
it
limited
to
one
place
.
Theodoret
speakes
to
this
purpose
;
It
is
glorified
with
diuine
grace
,
adored
of
the
celestiall
powres
;
but
notwithstanding
,
a
body
,
subiect
to
that
limitation
that
it
was
before
.
And
Augustine
saith
;
The
Lord
is
on
high
,
but
the
Lord
which
is
verity
and
truth
(
that
is
to
say
,
in
as
much
as
he
is
God
)
is
here
also
:
it
must
needs
be
,
that
the
bodie
wherein
he
rose
againe
,
should
continue
in
one
place
,
albeit
,
that
his
truth
be
dispersed
abroad
euerie
where
.
With
whom
doth
consent
Gregory
Nazianzen
;
We
teach
the
same
Christ
,
consisting
of
a
circumscriptible
bodie
,
and
of
an
incircumscriptible
spirit
:
of
a
body
which
may
be
contained
in
a
place
;
and
a
spirit
which
no
place
is
able
to
containe
.
Now
,
against
such
a
cloud
of
witnesses
,
with
one
consent
agreeing
,
that
the
body
of
Christ
is
finite
,
and
so
limited
to
one
place
,
and
cannot
be
in
many
places
at
once
,
doth
the
Church
of
Rome
contest
,
to
maintaine
this
their
Sacrifice
,
like
the
Vbiquitaries
in
ancient
times
,
who
would
haue
the
body
of
Christ
to
fill
all
places
.
But
,
they
obiect
,
That
Christ
is
God
,
and
therefore
If
God
could
doe
these
things
,
it
were
an
〈◊〉
,
and
want
of
power
in
him
;
for
,
great
is
the
power
of
the
Word
,
in
that
it
cannot
lye
;
for
that
,
therein
cannot
bee
any
contradiction
,
as
,
it
is
,
and
it
is
not
.
Nay
,
some
things
in
the
creature
God
cannot
doe
,
p.
Sum.
q.
25.
art
3.
&
4.
&
〈◊〉
.
Gentil
.
l
1.
c.
4
for
,
as
Aquinas
speakes
;
God
is
not
Almightie
,
in
respect
of
the
things
wherein
there
is
〈◊〉
,
because
they
cannot
be
accounted
of
as
possible
things
;
as
,
he
cannot
make
an
〈◊〉
man
;
nor
,
a
Triangle
without
three
angles
,
&
their
lines
.
For
,
this
is
to
make
a
thing
,
to
be
,
and
not
to
be
.
Neither
can
he
(
as
I
suppose
)
make
a
naturall
body
without
quantitie
,
or
quantitie
without
dimensions
;
or
,
that
which
hath
dimension
,
to
be
in
diuers
places
at
once
,
and
yet
to
remaine
entire
in
both
places
;
for
,
that
were
ro
make
a
contradiction
true
,
that
the
whole
body
of
Christ
should
be
here
,
and
the
whole
body
of
Christ
should
not
be
here
.
Wherefore
,
when
the
Papists
ascribe
vnto
the
body
of
Christ
,
multipresence
;
or
,
vertue
to
be
in
a
thousand
places
at
one
instant
,
what
is
this
,
but
to
suppose
an
impossibility
,
and
to
take
from
the
natural
properties
of
a
true
humane
body
:
and
thus
,
as
they
destroy
the
signe
in
the
Sacrament
,
so
by
their
sacrifice
doe
they
subuert
the
very
substance
of
the
thing
signified
.
Argument
.
19.
The
last
Argument
is
taken
from
the
vncertainty
of
this
Sacrifice
,
and
is
thus
framed
;
That
which
is
a
true
propitiatory
Sacrifice
for
sinne
,
giues
assurance
vnto
him
for
whom
it
is
offered
,
of
remission
of
his
sinne
.
But
,
the
Sacrifice
of
the
Masse
giues
not
aslurance
of
remission
of
sinne
:
Ergo
,
The
Sacrifice
of
the
Masse
,
is
not
propitiatory
.
The
Minor
is
thus
proued
;
That
which
dependeth
not
vpon
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
,
nor
vpon
the
sacramentall
words
(
as
the
Papists
terme
them
,
)
but
,
vpon
the
intention
of
the
Priest
,
can
giue
no
assurance
of
remission
:
For
,
if
the
Priest
intend
not
with
his
minde
,
albeit
he
speaketh
the
words
with
his
mouth
,
yet
(
according
to
their
owne
doctrine
)
he
consecrateth
not
,
and
so
the
body
of
Christ
is
not
really
in
the
Sacrament
,
and
consequently
,
it
cannot
be
a
proper
Sacrifice
.
And
thus
they
tye
the
grace
of
God
,
not
to
his
institution
,
accompanied
with
his
holy
Spirit
;
but
,
to
the
intention
of
the
consecrating
Priest
;
and
the
Son
of
God
shall
not
be
ours
,
that
is
,
the
life
which
is
in
him
shall
not
distribute
it selfe
vnto
the
faithfull
,
further
then
the
discretion
of
this
intention
shal
extend
.
And
it
shall
be
in
the
power
of
the
Priest
to
frustrate
and
send
away
empty
,
a
whole
Assembly
of
Christians
,
gathered
together
with
desire
to
receiue
saluation
by
this
Sacrifice
.
Yea
,
howsoeuer
the
people
are
apt
to
depart
without
any
benefit
to
their
soules
,
for
,
if
the
intention
of
the
Priest
be
not
to
consecrate
,
or
that
in
the
act
of
consecration
his
minde
bee
otherwise
busied
in
thinking
of
other
matters
,
then
the
body
of
Christ
are
not
vnder
the
formes
of
Bread
and
Wine
;
neither
is
it
a
reall
Sacrifice
.
And
neuerthelesse
,
if
he
doe
consecrate
,
yet
the
people
do
not
communicate
therein
,
because
they
are
not
assured
of
the
Priests
intention
,
and
therefore
cannot
be
assuied
of
the
Reall
presence
of
the
body
of
Christ
.
Now
,
where
there
is
not
assurance
in
the
communicating
,
there
can
be
no
comfortable
,
or
sauing
receiuing
,
Whatsoeuer
is
not
of
faith
,
is
sin
.
And
they
themseluer
are
of
iudgment
that
he
receiues
not
the
body
of
Christ
,
who
doth
not
beleeue
that
he
receiues
it
:
like
Magick
charms
,
wherin
strong
imagination
and
beleese
workes
the
effect
.
And
yet
obserue
here
,
how
contrary
againe
they
are
vnto
themselues
,
when
they
teach
;
that
,
Opus
operatum
,
The
worke
wrought
,
is
sufficient
to
merit
.
What
difference
then
is
between
the
godly
and
the
wicked
?
Or
,
what
priuiledge
hath
the
righteous
more
then
the
prophane
?
seeing
both
good
and
bad
receiue
the
same
consecrated
Christ
;
performe
the
same
worke
of
communicating
?
And
for
all
men
(
that
can
pay
well
)
without
difference
is
the
Sacrifice
of
the
Masse
offered
.
Or
,
what
comfort
can
the
Laity
of
the
Roman
Church
find
in
the
Sacrament
,
when
that
which
shold
giue
life
to
their
faith
,
breedeth
in
them
nothing
but
doubting
,
and
vncertainty
?
seeing
,
that
after
they
haue
prepared
themselues
,
they
know
not
what
they
receiue
,
because
they
are
not
assured
of
the
intention
of
the
consecration
.
But
here
I
demand
of
the
Romanists
;
If
the
consecration
of
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
depend
vpon
the
intention
of
the
Priest
,
so
that
if
he
intend
not
in
the
act
of
consecration
,
the
Body
of
Christ
is
not
then
present
,
neither
is
the
Bread
or
Wine
transubstantiated
.
How
then
can
the
Doctors
of
the
Church
of
Rome
free
the
people
from
the
sinne
of
Idolatry
,
which
worship
the
creature
in
stead
of
the
Creator
,
the
vnconsecrated
Elements
,
in
stead
of
the
true
and
substantiall
Body
and
Blood
of
Christ
?
For
,
they
worship
the
bread
,
supposing
it
to
be
the
Body
of
Christ
,
when
,
through
either
the
negligence
,
or
wilfulnesse
of
the
Priest
,
in
not
intending
consecration
,
it
remaines
in
its
owne
proper
substance
.
They
thinke
to
falue
this
sore
with
a
nice
distinction
,
they
tell
vs
it
is
materiall
Idolatry
,
but
not
formall
;
as
though
Idolatry
,
masked
vnder
a
couert
,
were
not
a
sinne
:
and
,
because
it
is
not
voluntarie
,
or
intentionall
,
therefore
it
were
tollerable
.
The
Idolatry
of
Israel
was
neuer
so
grosse
,
as
to
worship
any
grauen
Images
in
stead
of
God
;
but
(
as
our
Papists
plead
)
to
worship
God
,
in
or
through
their
Images
:
yet
,
this
prouoked
God
vnto
iealousie
,
and
drew
downe
his
vengeance
vpon
these
Idolaters
.
Is
not
this
more
palpable
Idolatry
,
where
the
Bread
and
Wine
,
which
are
but
creatures
,
are
worshipped
with
Latreia
,
adoration
which
themselues
ascribe
vnto
God
alone
?
And
to
manifest
,
that
they
ascribe
vnto
this
Sacrifice
,
the
same
diuine
worship
which
they
ascribe
vnto
God
,
let
but
the
Christian
Reader
examine
the
last
generall
Councell
,
held
by
the
Church
of
Rome
,
namely
,
the
Councell
of
Trent
,
where
he
shall
finde
this
blasphemous
Canon
;
Si
quis
dixerit
in
sancto
Eucharistiae
Sacramento
,
Christum
vnigenitum
And
in
the
beginning
of
the
same
Chapter
there
are
these
words
;
Nullus
〈◊〉
dubitandi
locus
relinquitur
,
cum
omnis
Christi
fidelis
,
pro
more
in
Catholica
Ecclesia
semper
recepto
latriae
cultum
,
qui
〈◊〉
Deo
〈◊〉
,
huic
〈◊〉
sacramento
in
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
There
is
now
no
place
of
doubting
left
,
seeing
all
the
faithfull
of
Christ
,
according
to
the
custome
which
was
alwaies
〈◊〉
in
adoration
may
giue
vnto
this
sacred
Sacrament
that
worship
of
Latria
,
which
is
belonging
to
the
true
God
.
This
is
a
doctrine
of
Diuels
;
commanding
most
〈◊〉
Idolatry
,
and
yet
not
to
be
contradicted
vnder
paine
of
his
Holinesse
curse
.
But
let
vs
admit
,
that
Christ
is
to
be
worshipped
in
the
Eucharist
,
yet
how
can
the
people
〈◊〉
the
sinne
of
Idolatry
,
when
albeit
the
Priest
faile
in
his
intention
,
and
consequently
consecrate
not
,
yet
they
worship
the
〈◊〉
and
wine
with
adoration
.
But
I
will
not
here
enter
into
the
discussion
of
this
point
,
whether
the
Eucharist
is
to
〈◊〉
with
Diuine
worship
?
Least
I
should
too
much
enlarge
this
Treatise
,
which
hath
already
transcended
the
limites
of
my
intention
.
Thus
hauing
sufficiently
satisfied
(
as
I
hope
)
the
indifferent
and
impartial
Reader
,
concerning
the
propounded
parts
of
this
controuersie
;
as
namely
,
that
the
pretended
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
hath
no
ground
in
the
Doctrine
of
the
Scriptures
,
practise
of
the
Apostles
,
or
writings
of
the
ancient
Fathers
:
as
secondly
touching
the
originall
encrease
and
continuance
of
the
Masse
:
Thirdly
,
of
the
imbecillity
and
weakenesse
of
their
obiected
Arguments
:
Lastly
,
of
the
firme
and
solide
grounds
of
our
dislike
and
opposition
.
I
shall
in
fine
lay
before
the
eyes
of
all
men
a
briefe
enumeration
of
all
the
impieties
and
blasphemies
of
this
abhominable
Idoll
,
and
so
shall
conclude
all
with
a
serious
disswasion
,
from
all
,
or
any
participation
in
that
superstitious
worship
.
The
Impieties
of
this
Sacrifice
are
these
.
First
,
it
is
not
onely
diuers
from
the
institution
of
Christ
,
but
quite
ouerthrowes
it
,
as
appeares
by
these
particulars
.
1.
First
,
Christ
instituted
a
Sacrament
wherein
he
freely
offereth
himselfe
to
be
receiued
of
all
beleeuers
,
by
faith
,
and
to
bee
eaten
spiritually
.
They
turne
it
into
a
sacrifice
,
which
is
offered
vnto
God
the
Father
,
not
beeing
distributed
to
the
people
,
but
deuoured
by
the
Priest
,
and
that
〈◊〉
,
really
,
and
materially
:
So
that
whereas
the
Church
should
haue
beene
thankefull
for
that
God
hath
giuen
his
onely
sonne
for
her
saluation
,
shee
striues
to
make
God
her
debter
by
offering
vnto
him
a
sacrifice
;
but
such
a
sacrifice
as
he
neuer
desired
,
expected
or
commanded
.
2.
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
consecrated
bread
,
and
wine
,
which
remained
as
signes
,
and
symboles
of
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
.
In
the
Masse
they
consecrate
the
reall
and
substantiall
body
of
Christ
,
taking
away
the
Sacrament
in
that
they
take
away
the
signes
.
3.
In
the
Sacrament
,
the
vertue
and
efficacy
is
in
the
power
of
God
,
making
it
operatiue
by
the
grace
of
the
Spirit
.
In
the
Masse
the
deede
done
deserues
pardon
;
and
the
Priest
hath
a
portion
of
remission
of
sinnes
,
which
may
bee
bestowed
on
whom
he
will
.
4.
The
Sacrament
is
onely
profitable
for
the
liuing
,
but
the
Masse
for
the
quicke
and
the
dead
.
5.
The
Sacrament
was
instituted
to
manifest
the
Communion
of
Saints
,
therefore
called
the
Communion
figured
by
the
bread
:
framed
of
many
cornes
,
and
made
into
one
loase
,
and
the
wine
made
of
many
grapes
;
so
all
〈◊〉
are
one
body
:
but
in
priuate
Masse
,
the
Priest
consumes
all
the
host
himselfe
,
as
though
hee
alone
had
right
vnto
Christ
,
the
Layty
gazing
on
him
appearing
rather
to
be
excommunicate
persons
,
then
to
haue
any
communion
in
the
body
of
Christ
,
as
also
the
Communion
of
Saints
is
abolished
by
the
Masse
,
seeing
any
notorious
sinner
,
who
can
pay
for
a
Masse
,
shall
haue
as
much
relaxation
of
paines
,
as
a
〈◊〉
man
.
6.
In
the
administration
of
the
Sacrament
the
Laity
did
pertake
of
the
cup
as
well
as
the
clergy
.
But
in
the
Masse
,
the
Sacrament
is
maimed
by
taking
away
the
cup
from
the
Lay
people
.
7.
Christ
instituted
,
the
Sacrament
in
remembrance
of
himselfe
,
saying
,
Doe
this
in
remembrance
of
me
.
The
Priest
sayes
Masse
in
remembrance
of
the
dead
.
Againe
,
hereby
they
destroy
the
remembrance
of
Christs
death
.
For
as
a
Testament
doth
suppose
the
death
of
the
Testator
,
so
the
alteration
of
that
Testament
supposeth
that
the
Testator
is
not
yet
dead
:
wherefore
the
Masse
beeing
so
much
altered
from
the
institution
of
Christ
,
which
hee
bequeathed
as
a
Testament
vnto
his
Church
,
doth
by
consequence
deny
the
death
of
Christ
:
For
it
beeing
sufficiently
proued
to
be
another
pretended
Testament
,
differing
from
the
first
institution
,
doth
〈◊〉
require
againe
,
that
Christ
should
dye
,
recrucisying
the
Sonne
of
God
;
for
as
Paul
sayth
,
Where
a
Testament
is
,
there
must
necessarily
follow
the
death
of
the
Testator
.
Moreouer
if
Christ
be
offered
〈◊〉
day
how
is
this
not
rather
to
institute
a
new
sacrifice
,
then
to
Doe
it
in
remembrance
of
his
great
sacrifice
vppon
the
Crosse.
8.
Christ
instituted
the
Sacrament
,
to
be
reuerently
distributed
vnto
the
people
.
But
the
Masse
is
reserued
in
the
Pix
,
is
carried
about
the
Cities
and
Townes
like
a
may-game
.
9.
Christ
gaue
bread
and
wine
to
his
Disciples
.
The
Priest
〈◊〉
God
vnto
the
people
,
hee
being
the
maker
of
his
Maker
,
and
they
eating
God
with
their
bodyly
mouthes
,
to
Christ
instituted
the
Sacrament
to
confirme
our
Faith
;
they
say
Masse
to
redeeme
mens
soules
,
to
cure
diseases
,
to
worke
miracles
.
The
second
impiety
of
the
Masse
.
It
commandeth
and
practiseth
things
directly
contrary
to
Gods
word
,
〈◊〉
inuocation
of
Saints
,
and
Angels
,
Prayer
for
the
dead
,
Adoration
of
creatures
,
Purgatory
,
&c.
Thirdly
,
it
by
consequence
affirmeth
that
Christ
is
out
of
the
fauour
of
his
Heauenly
Father
,
and
therefore
had
neede
of
an
earthly
Mediator
,
which
is
the
Priest
,
who
may
offer
the
body
of
Christ
vnto
his
Father
,
and
pray
that
God
would
accept
him
as
the
sacrifice
of
Abell
.
Fourthly
,
the
Masse
hindreth
the
seruice
of
God
;
for
God
wil
be
serued
in
spirit
and
truth
,
with
an
inward
and
entire
affection
;
but
the
Masse
causeth
a
man
to
rest
in
the
outward
seruice
of
God
,
as
hearing
,
seeing
,
gazing
,
stooping
,
kneeling
,
knocking
,
&c.
Which
things
of
themselues
are
meritorious
by
the
worke
wrought
;
and
because
the
Masse
alone
is
sufficient
,
therefore
it
makes
needlesse
all
holy
exercises
as
Preaching
,
Prayer
,
&c.
Working
presumption
in
wicked
men
,
who
albeit
they
haue
spent
their
dayes
in
wickednesse
,
yet
if
they
haue
a
Masse
,
or
can
get
the
Priest
to
say
Masse
for
them
,
they
doubt
not
but
to
be
saued
.
Fiftly
,
it
blasphemeth
the
Deity
of
Christ
,
in
that
whereas
God
alone
is
to
be
worshipped
with
Diuine
worship
,
they
ascribe
and
yeelde
that
which
is
due
vnto
God
alone
,
vnto
the
creature
,
worshipping
it
instead
of
God
,
as
the
bread
and
the
wine
in
the
Eucharist
;
and
doubtlesse
their
Artolatreia
is
nothing
else
but
Tololatreia
.
Sixtly
,
it
derogateth
from
the
vertue
of
Christs
death
,
making
it
ineffectuall
,
and
his
sacrifice
imperfect
,
ouer-turning
the
Crosse
of
Christ
,
by
erecting
an
Altar
,
and
reiterating
that
perfect
and
all-sufficient
sacrifice
of
Christ
,
which
was
offered
once
for
all
,
whereby
hee
sanctified
for
euer
,
them
that
were
perfect
,
hauing
obtained
eternall
redemption
for
vs
.
And
as
the
reiteration
of
the
Leuiticall
sacrifices
argued
the
imperfection
of
them
,
so
the
repetition
of
the
Masse
argues
an
insufficiency
in
the
sacrifice
of
Christ
.
Seuenthly
,
it
falsifies
the
word
of
Christ
.
We
vsually
obserue
the
last
speeches
of
dying
men
,
as
oracles
,
but
Christ
dying
vpon
the
Crosse
,
shut
vp
all
with
this
speech
,
It
is
finished
,
that
is
,
Mans
saluation
is
finished
by
this
my
sacrifice
.
And
yet
the
Massedenies
it
:
What
is
this
but
to
make
Christ
a
lyer
?
Eightly
,
it
denies
the
Article
of
Christs
humanity
,
in
that
it
a
scribes
not
vnto
him
those
properties
which
are
competent
to
all
〈◊〉
bodies
,
and
without
which
a
reall
body
cannot
subsist
,
as
to
be
locally
in
one
place
at
once
,
to
be
circumscriptible
,
to
haue
true
demensions
,
&c.
Ninthly
,
it
〈◊〉
the
article
of
Christs
session
,
at
the
right
hand
of
God
:
Who
enioying
a
true
materiall
body
,
if
hee
be
present
in
the
Masse
,
cannot
sit
as
a
man
at
the
right
hand
of
his
Father
for
euer
.
Tenthly
,
it
is
the
ground
of
all
diffidence
and
distruct
,
the
Sacrament
encreaseth
our
faith
,
while
thereby
wee
apprehend
Christ
bodily
absent
to
bee
spiritually
present
:
but
the
Masse
depending
on
the
intention
of
the
Priest
cannot
but
beget
distrust
in
the
minds
of
the
people
.
Eleuenthly
,
the
Masse
robbes
vs
of
the
fruite
of
Christs
death
,
for
the
fruite
of
Christs
death
is
remission
of
sinnes
,
which
is
sealed
vnto
vs
in
the
Lords
Supper
.
But
the
Masse
(
by
the
consent
of
some
of
their
greatest
Doctors
)
is
not
auaileable
for
the
remission
of
sinnes
.
Twelfely
,
it
opens
the
mouth
of
the
Common
Aduersary
,
who
despises
both
the
persons
and
religions
of
all
Christians
,
because
the
Church
of
Rome
worshippeth
a
breaden
God
.
The
thirteenth
impiety
of
the
Masse
is
this
,
it
destroyeth
the
eternity
of
Christs
Priest-hood
,
who
was
consecrated
of
his
father
a
Priest
not
for
a
time
,
but
for
euer
,
after
the
order
of
Melchizedech
,
which
order
was
not
temporall
,
as
the
Priest-hood
of
Rome
,
but
eternall
,
not
externall
and
visible
after
his
assension
,
but
spirituall
and
inuisible
,
such
as
could
neither
be
supplyed
by
substitutes
or
successours
.
But
by
offering
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
,
they
make
themselues
after
the
order
of
Melchizedech
,
which
order
at
the
end
of
the
world
shall
cease
:
what
then
shall
become
of
Christs
eternall
Priest-hood
?
The
fourteenth
impiety
of
the
Masse
.
It
maketh
the
Priest
of
more
desert
then
Christ
himselfe
.
For
the
sacrifice
is
not
accepted
for
it selfe
,
but
for
the
worthinesse
of
the
person
offering
.
Caines
sacrifice
was
as
good
as
Abels
,
when
yet
it
was
reiected
for
the
wickednesse
of
him
that
offered
,
Abels
being
accepted
for
the
worthinesse
of
the
sacrificer
,
so
the
humane
nature
of
Christ
being
our
sacrifice
,
was
meritorious
by
the
vertue
of
the
God-head
,
whereby
it
was
offered
vnto
his
Father
.
But
if
the
Priests
do
offer
the
body
of
Christ
vnto
his
Father
,
he
must
needes
be
of
more
desert
then
the
sacrifice
it selfe
.
The
fifteenth
impiety
of
the
Masse
.
It
ouerthroweth
the
Doctrine
of
grace
and
iustification
,
which
teacheth
that
in
this
life
alone
man
hath
time
to
worke
his
saluation
,
and
to
procure
the
fauour
of
God
,
and
pardon
for
sinne
.
But
the
Masse
is
profitable
for
the
dead
,
yea
both
to
mitigate
the
paines
,
and
totally
to
liberate
out
of
Purgatory
.
The
sixteenth
impiety
of
the
Masse
is
.
It
subuerteth
Gods
decree
of
Reprobation
,
for
it
is
auaileable
for
whomsoeuer
the
Priest
shall
offer
it
,
both
for
remission
of
sinne
and
liberation
from
punishment
;
who
doubts
not
but
then
many
a
Reprobate
for
whom
Masse
is
sayd
,
is
〈◊〉
from
eternall
damnation
?
The
seauenteenth
impiety
of
the
Masse
is
.
It
robs
God
of
his
right
;
for
whereas
it
is
a
prerogatiue
royall
belonging
to
the
Regall
Crowne
of
Heauen
,
to
institute
Sacraments
and
Sacrifices
,
the
Church
of
Rome
hath
vsurped
that
power
,
instituting
this
sacrifice
which
God
neuer
commanded
them
,
neither
came
it
into
his
minde
;
but
they
like
Antiochus
Ephiphanes
,
haue
exalted
their
Idoll
vpon
the
Lords
Table
:
what
audacious
boldnesse
was
this
in
any
man
,
to
inuent
without
Gods
command
,
a
sacrifice
to
appease
and
pacifie
the
wrath
of
God
?
And
what
is
it
but
an
Ethelothrescta
,
a
〈◊〉
diuised
of
their
owne
carnall
and
corrupt
wils
and
affections
?
The
eighteenth
impiety
in
the
Masse
.
It
establisheth
the
doctrine
of
merit
,
and
ouerthroweth
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
;
for
if
a
man
may
merit
by
the
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
,
what
iniustice
was
it
in
God
to
lay
the
burthen
of
mans
wickednesse
vpon
Christ
,
causing
him
to
satisfie
by
death
,
when
men
may
merit
by
hearing
or
saying
Masse
,
by
offering
or
receiuing
this
sacrifice
.
The
nineteenth
impiety
is
.
Their
Iesuite
Salmeron
is
permitted
to
write
,
That
the
oblation
of
Christ
in
his
last
Supper
(
which
the
Romanists
hold
to
be
satisfactory
and
Propitiatory
)
receiued
no
efficacy
or
vertue
from
the
sacrifice
vpon
the
crosse
.
Which
all
Orthodoxe
Christians
cannot
but
iudge
to
bee
an
impious
Paradox
.
Seeing
both
the
Sacrament
of
Baptisme
and
of
the
Eucharist
,
haue
their
foundation
in
,
and
vertue
,
and
operation
,
from
the
great
and
all-sufficient
sacrifice
of
Christ
offered
vpon
the
crosse
.
The
twentieth
impiety
is
in
the
manner
of
celebrating
this
sacrifice
.
In
that
it
is
performed
in
an
vnknowne
tongue
,
directly
contrary
to
the
Apostolicall
iniunction
of
Saint
Paul
,
who
willeth
euery
man
that
prayeth
to
pray
in
that
language
,
which
the
common
Secondly
,
in
regard
of
the
gesture
of
the
Priest
,
which
is
so
changeable
,
so
ridiculous
,
so
affected
,
more
like
a
Player
then
a
Sacrificer
;
for
the
Priest
varieth
and
changeth
his
gesture
,
at
least
fourty
or
fifty
times
during
the
time
of
the
Masse
.
First
,
he
boweth
his
body
,
then
he
rayseth
himselfe
and
kisseth
the
Altar
on
the
right
side
:
he
boweth
againe
,
and
looketh
toward
the
host
,
hee
ioyneth
his
hands
,
wipeth
his
〈◊〉
,
listeth
vp
the
host
:
then
he
listeth
vp
his
eyes
and
boweth
himselfe
,
and
lifteth
vp
his
eyes
againe
:
hee
boweth
againe
and
lifteth
vp
the
hoast
aboue
his
forehead
,
vncouereth
the
Chalice
,
and
holdeth
it
betweene
his
hands
,
keeping
his
thumb
and
forefinger
together
:
then
hee
boweth
and
lifteth
vp
the
cup
a
little
,
then
to
his
breast
,
or
aboue
his
head
,
he
setteth
it
downe
againe
,
wipeth
his
fingers
:
then
he
spreades
his
armes
a
crosse
;
he
boweth
his
body
;
then
rising
kisseth
the
Altar
on
the
right
side
,
after
this
he
smiteth
his
breast
:
then
hee
vncouereth
the
Chalice
againe
,
and
maketh
fiue
crosses
with
the
host
,
beyond
the
Chalice
,
on
each
side
,
vnder
it
and
before
it
:
then
he
layeth
his
hands
vpon
the
Altar
:
the
Deacon
then
reacheth
the
Priest
the
Paten
;
which
he
putteth
to
his
right
eye
,
then
to
his
left
,
and
maketh
a
crosse
beyond
his
head
with
it
,
kisseth
it
,
and
layeth
it
downe
;
then
hee
breaketh
the
host
in
three
parts
,
holding
two
pieces
in
his
left
hand
;
the
other
part
in
his
right
hand
ouer
the
Chalice
,
which
with
a
crosse
,
he
letteth
fall
into
it
;
the
Priest
then
kisseth
the
Corporas
:
the
Deacon
taketh
the
Pax
from
the
Priest
,
giueth
it
to
the
subdeacon
,
and
he
to
the
Queere
;
then
humbling
himselfe
,
he
first
taketh
the
body
,
then
the
blood
;
so
hee
goeth
to
the
right
horne
of
the
Altar
;
then
the
Subdeacon
powreth
in
wine
,
and
the
Priest
rinseth
the
cup
,
and
washeth
his
hands
;
hee
turneth
himselfe
to
the
people
,
commeth
againe
to
the
Altar
,
and
turneth
to
the
people
the
second
time
:
then
bowing
his
body
and
closing
his
hands
he
prayeth
to
himselfe
:
he
riseth
againe
,
making
the
signe
of
the
crosse
,
and
bowing
againe
,
so
goeth
to
the
Altar
:
insomuch
that
[
*
](A05408-e35430-b)
*
〈◊〉
missa
〈◊〉
homo
vestitu
indutus
〈◊〉
prophanae
potius
quam
〈◊〉
sanctae
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
dicit
〈◊〉
,
imotantum
〈◊〉
Polan
.
〈◊〉
tom
2.
l.
6.
c.
56.
page
471.
Roscius-like
hee
seemes
rather
an
Actor
then
a
priest
:
the
Masse
it selfe
beeing
stuffed
full
of
ceremonies
borrowed
from
the
sacrifices
of
both
Iewes
and
gentiles
,
as
Innocent
the
third
,
and
Baronius
themselues
confesse
.
The
one
and
twentieth
impiety
,
That
the
onely
accidents
of
bread
and
wine
can
nourish
the
body
,
without
their
proper
substance
.
The
two
and
twentieth
impiety
.
That
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
may
be
made
poysenous
,
for
Bernar
dus
de
monte
Politiano
de
Domcastro
,
a
Monk
of
the
Iacobines
order
,
poysoned
with
the
Host
Henry
the
seauenth
Emperour
of
Germany
;
and
Victor
,
Pope
of
Rome
was
poysoned
with
the
wine
he
tooke
in
the
Masse
.
The
three
and
twentieth
impiety
.
That
the
body
and
blood
of
Christ
doe
subsist
apart
separated
one
from
another
,
both
in
the
act
of
consecration
and
afterward
.
The
foure
and
twentieth
impiety
.
That
Christ
is
now
in
the
Eucharist
,
not
a
liuing
but
a
dead
Christ
,
in
regard
that
albeit
(
as
they
affirme
)
the
bread
bee
changed
into
his
body
,
and
the
wine
into
his
blood
,
yet
neither
of
these
(
according
to
their
owne
tenent
)
can
be
transubstantiated
into
his
soule
,
which
is
a
spirituall
and
an
immateriall
substance
;
how
then
shall
his
soule
be
vnited
to
his
body
,
seeing
when
by
these
words
,
This
is
my
body
,
hee
changed
the
elements
into
his
body
and
blood
,
yet
hee
makes
no
mention
of
his
soule
?
Wherefore
the
body
subsisting
without
a
soule
must
be
but
inanimate
,
a
dead
corps
.
The
twenty
fiue
impiety
.
Christ
had
two
bodies
,
one
visible
wherewith
hee
sate
at
Table
,
another
inuisible
,
which
he
distributed
to
his
Disciples
vnder
the
formes
of
consecrated
bread
and
wine
.
The
sixe
and
twentieth
impiety
.
They
say
Christ
at
his
last
Supper
gaue
his
naturall
body
to
be
eaten
of
his
Disciples
;
but
by
their
doctrine
would
follow
,
that
Christ
gaue
his
mortall
body
,
as
it
was
before
his
passion
vnto
his
Disciples
;
but
vnto
his
Church
hee
giues
now
his
glorified
body
,
such
as
it
is
sitting
at
the
right
hand
of
God
.
The
seauen
and
twentieth
impietie
.
That
the
body
of
Christ
doth
daily
ascend
into
heauen
,
and
descend
from
heauen
,
as
Iaecobs
Angells
,
and
is
contained
in
the
hands
of
the
Priest
,
is
crashed
in
his
teeth
,
his
bones
being
broken
.
The
eight
and
twentieth
impiety
.
That
the
body
of
Christ
being
kept
a
long
time
in
any
vessell
,
will
corrupt
and
putrifie
,
and
wormes
will
bee
generated
of
it
;
as
Alphonsus
Magnus
the
king
of
Aragon
found
by
experience
.
The
twenty
nine
impiety
.
That
Christ
Iesus
the
Sonne
of
God
was
not
incarnate
for
vs
,
suffered
not
,
dyed
not
,
rose
not
againe
,
ascended
not
〈◊〉
heauen
for
vs
,
but
onely
bread
and
wine
did
all
these
things
in
our
behalfe
.
Or
which
is
the
last
impiety
.
The
body
of
Christ
was
not
of
the
seed
of
Dauid
,
sed
exsemine
triticeo
,
of
the
seed
of
wheat
,
was
sowed
in
the
earth
,
grinded
in
the
mill
,
baked
in
the
ouen
,
and
at
last
torne
a
peeces
with
mens
teeth
.
Thus
haue
I
laid
open
vnto
thee
(
Christian
Reader
)
a
iust
suruay
and
tryall
of
the
sacrifice
of
the
〈◊〉
Masse
,
which
(
I
doubt
not
)
appeares
to
thee
,
as
it
is
in
it
owne
nature
,
a
Masse
of
impiety
,
and
that
Mystery
of
iniquity
foretold
by
Saint
Paul
;
which
albeit
it
pretend
the
greatest
honour
and
worship
to
Christ
of
any
Ecclesiasticall
seruice
;
yet
is
there
not
a
greater
enemy
vnto
our
King
and
Sauiour
the
Lord
Iesus
;
nor
a
more
hellish
traytour
vnto
his
crowne
and
dignity
;
wherein
(
if
euer
)
The
diuell
hath
transformed
himselfe
into
an
Angell
of
light
;
couering
his
poysenous
and
deadly
hooke
with
the
baite
of
religion
;
the
most
preualent
Stratagem
that
euer
Satan
put
in
practise
to
hinder
and
oppugne
the
kingdome
of
Christ
:
yet
this
is
the
Diana
for
which
Demetrius
and
his
companions
are
so
importunate
:
because
by
this
Craft
they
get
their
gaine
.
It
may
well
bee
stiled
a
Craft
,
because
it
is
a
Mystery
of
iniquity
,
whereby
the
Church
of
Rome
is
swollen
so
bigge
with
deuouring
the
gold
,
treasure
,
and
inheritance
of
the
Laity
that
the
guttes
of
it
are
well
nigh
bursten
.
This
is
that
Helena
,
for
which
the
aduersaries
of
the
truth
doe
so
fiercely
encounter
,
which
hath
made
the
Kings
of
the
earth
drunken
with
the
cup
of
her
fornication
.
This
they
labour
so
much
to
vphold
,
which
is
the
Pillar
that
vpholds
them
;
and
for
it
they
fight
(
as
the
ancient
Romanes
were
wont
)
tanquam
pro
focis
&
aris
;
while
on
it
depends
their
rich
offerings
vpon
their
Altars
,
and
the
fatnes
of
their
kitchin
.
Take
but
away
this
one
Pillar
and
their
house
will
fall
;
and
the
fall
of
it
will
be
great
;
for
it
will
slay
all
the
Lords
of
the
Philistims
.
Now
if
any
true
Orthodoxe
Christian
,
or
soundmember
I
answere
:
No
,
for
〈◊〉
the
Masse
is
full
of
so
Argument
of
Ridley
and
Bradford
.
Secondly
,
we
cannot
be
partakers
of
Gods
religion
and
Antichrist
seruice
,
whereof
the
Masse
is
a
principall
limbe
;
a
man
cannot
bee
a
member
of
the
Church
of
Christ
,
and
of
the
Church
of
Rome
,
as
it
now
stands
.
But
he
that
frequenteth
their
Idolatrous
assemblies
makes
himselfe
a
member
thereof
.
And
therefore
cutteth
himselfe
off
from
being
a
member
of
the
Church
of
Christ
.
Argument
of
Bradford
.
Thirdly
,
to
dissemble
and
halt
in
matters
belonging
to
Gods
glory
,
is
impious
and
vngodly
;
but
they
who
are
present
at
Masse
,
both
hearing
the
name
of
God
blasphemed
,
and
seeing
many
abhominations
,
and
yet
hold
their
peace
,
do
notably
dissemble
;
Ergo
,
They
sinne
egregiously
against
God
.
Argument
of
Bradford
.
Fourthly
,
〈◊〉
of
the
Masse
impugneth
diuers
petitions
of
the
Lords
Prayer
;
and
so
the
practise
of
such
is
contrary
to
the
dayly
prayer
they
vse
.
How
can
we
say
,
Thy
Kingdome
come
,
when
nothing
in
the
earth
doth
more
destroy
the
Kingdome
of
Christ
then
the
Masse
?
How
can
we
pray
,
Thy
will
be
done
,
when
we
do
our
owne
wils
,
and
the
wils
of
Idolaters
,
flat
against
the
will
of
God
?
How
can
we
pray
,
Hallowed
be
thy
name
,
when
wee
seeme
to
approoue
the
Masse
which
is
nothing
but
blasphemy
against
the
whole
Trinity
?
How
can
wee
pray
,
Deliuer
vs
from
euill
,
which
knowing
the
Masse
to
bee
euill
,
doe
runne
into
it
?
wherefore
if
wee
meane
as
we
pray
,
we
must
not
pertake
in
the
Masse
,
least
wee
approue
of
that
in
our
practise
which
we
condemne
in
our
prayer
.
Argument
of
Bradford
.
Fiftly
,
whatsoeuer
giues
occasion
to
the
wicked
to
be
more
obfirmed
,
and
to
the
weake
to
stumble
and
fall
,
is
to
be
abhorred
:
But
Protestants
going
to
Masse
,
and
by
their
presence
giuing
allowance
to
it
,
do
occasion
the
obstinate
to
be
more
intractable
,
the
weake
Papists
to
be
more
resolute
,
the
wauering
Protestant
quite
to
fall
.
Bradfords
Argument
.
Sixtly
,
Daniel
refused
to
be
filled
with
the
Kings
meates
,
which
were
polluted
by
Idolatry
.
And
so
Bishop
Ridleyes
Argument
.
Seauenthly
,
God
commanded
his
people
Israel
,
by
the
mouth
of
his
Prophet
Amos
,
Not
to
seeke
Bethel
,
nor
to
enter
into
Gilgall
,
where
Idolatry
was
vsed
.
And
againe
,
My
soule
hath
no
pleasure
in
those
,
that
withdraw
themselues
,
sayth
the
Lord
,
If
any
man
prophane
the
Temple
of
the
Lord
,
him
will
God
destroy
,
for
the
Temple
of
God
is
holy
,
which
yee
are
.
All
strange
worship
is
counted
whoredome
by
the
Lord
,
and
they
that
follow
it
,
goe
a
whoring
.
But
they
that
goe
to
Masse
,
enter
into
Bethel
,
and
Gilgal
,
that
is
places
of
Idolatry
,
they
withdraw
themselues
from
the
faith
in
their
outward
behauiour
;
they
prophane
their
bodies
,
which
are
Gods
Temples
,
being
present
at
〈◊〉
seruice
,
they
goe
a
whoring
after
a
strange
religion
.
Ergo
;
Protestants
,
going
to
Masse
,
disobey
Gods
command
,
procure
his
displeasure
,
,
will
cause
God
to
destroy
them
,
and
diuorce
themselues
from
God
and
his
Church
.
Philpots
Argument
.
Eightly
,
The
Apostle
directly
forbids
all
participation
with
such
as
are
Idolaters
,
in
the
eating
of
meat
sacrificed
to
Idolls
,
shewing
,
that
thereby
the
weake
Ninthly
,
God
is
the
Creator
both
of
soule
and
body
,
therefore
he
is
to
be
worshipped
both
in
soule
Know
〈◊〉
not
that
your
body
is
the
Temple
of
the
holy
Ghost
,
therefore
glorifie
God
in
your
body
and
spirit
which
are
Gods
:
whereas
God
hath
giuen
both
,
so
hee
requires
the
seruice
of
both
.
And
Paul
will
not
giue
a
tolleration
to
any
man
to
dishonour
I
beseech
you
brethren
by
the
mercies
of
God
,
that
you
present
your
bodies
a
liuing
sacrifice
,
holy
and
acceptable
vnto
God
.
God
will
not
be
content
with
reseruing
the
soule
to
him
,
when
men
bestow
the
worship
of
their
bodyes
vpon
Idols
.
The
soule
and
body
make
one
man
,
and
God
will
be
worshipped
in
the
whole
entire
man
;
he
will
not
diuide
stakes
with
the
Masse
;
for
,
as
he
requireth
the
whole
heart
,
which
is
the
soule
;
so
hee
also
commandeth
the
whole
strength
,
which
is
the
body
.
Againe
,
the
soule
cannot
be
in
heauen
,
if
the
body
be
in
hell
;
neither
can
he
bow
the
knee
of
his
soule
to
God
,
that
bowes
the
knee
of
his
body
to
the
Diuell
.
The
Arke
and
Dagon
cannot
rest
vnder
one
roofe
:
Tenthly
,
Christ
would
not
fall
downe
and
worship
the
〈◊〉
vnto
Baal
:
so
God
accounts
none
for
his
seruants
that
giue
outward
worship
to
the
Idoll
of
the
Masse
,
by
bowing
vnto
it
in
token
of
adoration
,
by
kissing
the
Pax
,
by
creeping
to
the
Crosse
,
by
being
sprinkled
with
holy
water
.
Will
a
husband
,
finding
his
wife
committing
Adultery
with
another
,
admit
this
as
a
lawfull
and
reasonable
excuse
,
that
her
heart
was
with
her
husband
?
No
more
will
Christ
allow
our
bodily
presence
at
the
Masse
,
although
our
hearts
be
not
consenting
to
it
.
Bradfords
Answer
.
And
indeede
,
this
is
the
difference
betweene
the
Church
of
God
,
and
the
Synagogue
of
Satan
,
that
the
one
is
a
chast
wife
and
Spouse
of
Christ
,
&
keeps
her
to
her
husband
alone
,
and
doth
not
admit
others
to
the
vse
of
her
faith
;
the
other
plaies
the
harlot
with
many
louers
,
and
keepes
not
her
faith
nor
worship
to
God
alone
.
Eleuently
,
if
we
must
auoide
an
Hereticke
,
then
much
more
an
Idolater
:
But
an
Hereticke
is
to
bee
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
l.
3.
c.
3.
auoided
,
A
man
that
is
an
Hereticke
,
after
the
first
and
second
admonition
,
reiect
;
as
S.
Iohn
fled
from
〈◊〉
,
and
Policarpe
from
Marcion
.
Ergo
,
An
I
do
later
is
to
be
auoided
,
and
by
consequence
,
Lastly
,
the
Apostle
charges
vs
to
avoide
all
appearance
of
euill
.
1
Thes.
5.
22.
But
how
doe
Christians
auoid
the
appearance
of
euill
,
when
they
associate
themselues
with
Idolaters
,
partaking
with
them
in
their
abhomination
,
and
consenting
to
their
dishonouring
of
God
by
superstitions
,
which
in
the
Masse
is
done
in
a
high
degree
:
whereby
it
appeares
euidently
that
it
is
altogether
vnlawfull
for
an
Orthodoxe
Christian
,
a
true
protestant
,
a
sound
member
of
the
Church
of
Christ
,
to
be
present
at
the
Idolatrous
sacrifice
of
the
Masse
,
albeit
with
a
pretence
of
keeping
his
heart
to
God
.
Thus
,
hauing
laid
downe
sound
and
solide
reasons
for
our
non
conformity
vnto
that
Idolatrous
worship
,
neither
in
body
nor
soule
.
I
shall
thinke
it
expedient
to
take
away
all
excuses
of
such
as
desire
to
hault
betweene
God
and
Baal
;
approouing
the
reformed
religion
of
the
Church
of
England
,
yet
,
shall
either
for
feare
,
fauour
,
or
hope
of
gaine
,
at
any
time
be
brought
to
ioyne
with
the
Romanists
in
hearing
or
seeing
of
Masse
.
First
they
plead
;
That
albeit
there
be
some
faults
Communion
in
the
Sacraments
de
fileth
not
a
man
,
but
consent
of
deeds
.
If
there
were
but
some
small
faults
,
or
indifferent
Secondly
,
they
plead
the
examples
of
the
Prophets
Vnknowne
God
.
By
these
examples
they
iudge
themselues
priuiledged
to
goe
to
Masse
.
I
answer
;
These
examples
doe
not
patronize
such
As
I
passed
by
and
beheld
your
deuotions
,
I
saw
an
Altar
with
this
inscription
;
To
the
vnknowne
God
.
And
it
is
to
be
obserued
,
that
Paul
gaue
no
honour
to
their
Idolatry
,
but
tooke
hereby
a
iust
occasion
to
reueale
vnto
them
the
true
God
,
and
to
preach
vnto
them
,
Iesus
Christ
.
So
,
that
these
examples
,
rather
make
against
such
as
goe
to
Masse
,
professing
the
contrary
religion
,
seeing
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
his
Apostles
,
and
Prophets
,
rather
did
by
their
〈◊〉
,
condemne
such
Idolatry
and
superstition
,
then
any
way
seeme
to
giue
any
approation
of
it
.
But
such
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Protestants
as
〈◊〉
resort
to
heare
Masse
,
doe
by
their
presence
yeeld
allowance
and
approbation
of
that
Idolatrous
seruice
.
Thirdly
,
they
plead
,
that
except
they
goe
to
Masse
,
they
loose
their
lands
,
liuings
,
and
wealth
,
they
are
I
answer
in
the
words
of
our
Sauiour
;
Hee
that
loueth
father
,
or
mother
,
or
friends
,
houses
,
lands
,
riches
,
wife
,
or
children
more
then
Christ
,
is
not
worthy
of
him
.
And
whosoeuer
shall
for
feare
of
the
losse
of
any
of
these
,
reuolt
away
from
God
and
his
truth
,
is
not
worthy
of
the
name
of
a
Christian
,
seeing
hee
appeares
,
rather
to
bee
a
louer
of
himselfe
then
of
Christ
,
preferring
his
owne
temporall
profit
,
before
spirituall
gaine
;
the
fauour
of
men
,
before
the
loue
of
God
;
the
satisfying
of
friends
,
before
the
honour
of
his
Sauiour
;
the
enioying
of
an
earthly
habitation
,
before
the
purchasing
of
an
earthly
kingdome
.
Wherefore
it
is
better
to
loose
these
,
and
win
Christ
;
then
to
attaine
these
by
apostacie
and
Idolatry
,
and
loose
Christ
:
Yea
,
What
would
it
bene
fit
thee
to
gaine
the
whole
world
,
by
going
to
Masse
,
and
to
loose
thine
owne
soule
?
But
albeit
,
in
the
daies
of
persecution
,
the
Martyres
of
Christ
haue
beene
so
violently
pursued
with
cruelty
,
as
that
they
were
constrained
to
sacrifice
〈◊〉
to
God
in
the
fire
,
because
they
would
not
forsake
Christ
Iesus
,
and
ioyne
with
the
Romish
Idolaters
in
their
blasphemous
Masse
;
witnesse
Cranmer
,
Ridley
,
Latimer
,
Hooper
,
Bradford
,
Philpot
,
Bilney
,
with
many
moe
:
yet
(
thankes
be
to
God
)
in
these
our
daies
the
Gospell
flourisheth
,
the
Sacraments
are
purely
administred
,
according
to
Christs
institution
;
and
there
is
freedome
by
the
lawes
of
the
Realme
,
giuen
to
all
sound
Protestants
,
to
serue
God
,
according
to
the
doctrine
now
established
in
the
Church
of
England
.
And
if
it
bee
not
lawfull
for
a
man
to
go
to
Masse
by
eompulsion
,
but
that
he
ought
rather
to
suffer
the
spoyling
of
his
goods
,
the
losse
of
friends
,
or
to
lay
downe
his
life
for
Christ
and
his
truth
,
then
to
participate
with
them
in
their
blasphemous
seruice
,
and
impious
Sacrifice
:
Then
cursed
shall
that
man
be
,
that
being
a
Protestant
,
a
professor
of
the
true
Catholike
faith
(
howsoeuer
our
Aduersaries
of
Rome
challenge
the
title
)
shall
voluntarily
,
and
without
〈◊〉
,
either
for
flattery
,
fashion
,
present
gaine
,
or
future
hopes
,
or
the
fauour
of
great
Personages
be
drawne
to
deny
his
Christ
,
and
to
cleaue
vnto
Antichrist
,
forsaking
the
Church
of
God
,
and
becomming
one
of
the
Synagogue
of
Satan
,
forgoing
Sion
,
for
Babylon
;
Ierusalem
,
for
Bethel
and
Samaria
:
refusing
the
waters
of
Siloam
,
which
run
Fourthly
,
they
plead
the
example
of
Daniel
,
who
,
I
answer
,
that
either
Daniel
was
not
present
,
which
Fiftly
,
they
plead
the
example
of
Iehu
,
who
openly
Execution
of
that
which
was
right
in
his
eies
.
Vers.
30.
Our
answer
is
,
Iehu
is
commended
,
not
for
his
dissembling
,
Sixtly
,
they
plead
the
command
of
the
Magistrate
,
We
are
bound
indeed
to
obey
wicked
gouernours
,
Whether
it
be
right
in
the
sight
of
God
,
to
hearken
vnto
you
more
then
vnto
God
,
iudge
yee
.
And
our
Sauiour
teacheth
vs
,
to
Giue
vnto
Caesar
that
which
is
Caesars
,
and
vnto
God
that
which
is
Gods
.
As
wee
performe
our
lawfull
duties
to
men
,
so
must
we
not
for
their
sakes
,
neglect
our
duties
to
God
,
or
doe
any
thing
whereby
he
is
dishonoured
.
Seuenthly
and
lastly
,
they
plead
the
example
of
Naman
God
would
be
mercifull
vnto
him
;
vnto
whom
the
Prophet
Elisha
answered
;
Goe
in
peace
;
as
liking
of
his
motion
,
and
yeelding
to
it
.
Wee
answer
;
the
opinions
of
Diuines
,
touching
on
the
2
Commandement
.
would
neuer
worship
other
God
then
the
God
of
Israel
;
to
the
which
the
Prophet
condescendeth
.
But
howsoeuer
,
the
gesture
it selfe
is
indifferent
,
to
stand
when
the
King
stands
,
or
bow
when
the
King
boweth
:
yet
this
gesture
being
clothed
with
such
circumstances
,
seemes
not
to
be
approoued
.
That
he
should
do
this
.
First
,
in
a
Temple
.
Secondly
,
before
an
Idoll
.
Thirdly
,
in
the
time
of
publike
seruice
.
Fourthly
,
by
one
professing
the
true
God
;
This
seemes
not
so
probable
.
And
both
those
famous
Zanc.
l.
de
redemptione
.
And
Perk.
Case
of
Conscience
,
Book
.
2.
ch.
12.
Diuines
departed
from
this
answer
,
cleauing
vnto
that
which
was
more
sound
in
their
latter
workes
.
Others
thinke
,
he
speaketh
of
the
time
past
;
as
if
he
should
say
;
Herein
,
that
I
haue
bowed
in
the
house
of
Rimmon
,
&c.
The
Lord
be
mercifull
vnto
me
:
vsing
the
future
,
for
the
time
past
.
Others
(
and
that
more
truly
)
expound
the
words
of
Naaman
thus
;
That
Naaman
professed
it
a
sinne
to
goe
in
to
bow
with
his
Master
in
the
house
of
Rimmon
,
and
therefore
prayeth
twice
for
mercy
for
it
,
professing
,
he
will
neuer
worship
any
but
the
true
God
:
neither
doth
he
onely
pray
for
sinne
past
,
but
in
the
sence
of
his
owne
weakenesse
desireth
mercy
that
〈◊〉
may
not
bee
drawne
from
his
purpose
,
and
withsll
stirreth
vp
the
Prophet
to
pray
for
him
that
God
would
giue
him
grace
and
strength
,
and
for
pardon
if
at
any
time
hee
should
against
his
purpose
bee
drawne
into
his
former
sinne
:
and
in
this
sense
the
Prophet
bids
him
goe
in
peace
:
as
if
hee
should
say
,
I
will
pray
that
God
would
keepe
thee
in
thy
godly
resolution
,
and
for
mercy
and
pardon
if
thou
shouldest
be
drawne
aside
,
and
so
farewell
.
The
words
of
the
Prophet
Elisha
,
Goe
in
peace
:
are
Content
thy selfe
,
require
no
such
thing
,
it
would
trouble
thy
conscience
,
but
goe
in
peace
,
keepe
a
good
conscience
,
and
labour
for
the
peacetherof
;
(
&
so
as
Polan
.
obserues
)
the
words
of
the
Prophet
are
,
Tantum
dimittentis
abeuntem
,
non
concedentis
postulatum
;
onely
a
valediction
,
and
not
any
concession
or
granting
of
his
request
.
Againe
,
it
appeares
not
by
the
words
of
the
Prophet
that
he
gaue
any
tolleration
or
dispensation
vnto
Naaman
:
for
Naaman
makes
in
one
verse
two
petitions
;
one
for
permission
to
goe
into
Rimmons
Temple
;
the
other
for
two
mules
load
of
earth
to
carry
home
with
him
to
offer
sacrifice
vpon
,
vnto
the
Lord
.
Now
the
Prophet
makes
the
same
answer
vnto
both
,
and
therefore
doth
either
condescend
to
both
or
deny
both
:
but
grant
them
both
he
did
not
,
for
the
one
was
cleane
contrary
to
the
law
,
to
giue
Naaman
leaue
to
sacrifice
in
Syria
who
was
not
a
Priest
,
whose
office
it
was
alone
to
offer
sacrifice
;
and
moreouer
Ierusalem
was
the
onely
place
appointed
for
that
action
.
This
request
therefore
the
Prophet
can
by
no
meanes
be
thought
to
haue
granted
.
Ergo
,
nor
the
other
.
And
vnto
this
sence
I
doe
adhere
,
for
that
the
Prophet
neither
could
nor
durst
giue
any
liberty
to
Naaman
to
be
present
at
the
Idolatrous
worship
of
the
Syrian
Rimmon
.
I
am
not
ignorant
of
the
opinion
of
some
that
the
Prophet
answers
dispensando
,
by
the
way
of
dispensation
,
Conclusion
.
Thus
hauing
sufficiently
refelled
their
strongest
arguments
,
and
giuen
answer
to
their
chiefest
pleas
,
the
conclusion
shall
bee
this
.
Seeing
the
Romish
Masse
hath
quite
ouerthrowne
,
and
thrust
the
Supper
of
the
Lord
out
of
the
Church
;
(
the
holy
Supper
being
an
assembly
,
a
body
of
the
faithfull
,
vnited
and
knit
together
in
one
spirit
;
strengthening
our
faith
,
〈◊〉
our
charity
,
kindling
our
zeale
;
wherein
is
celebrated
the
memory
of
the
death
and
passion
of
our
Lord
by
a
plaine
and
open
rehearsall
of
the
cause
,
manner
,
and
benefits
of
the
same
;
whereby
the
faithfull
are
taught
to
acknowledge
and
call
to
mind
the
greatnesse
of
their
sinnes
,
and
to
admire
and
magnifie
the
great
and
vnspeakeable
mercies
of
God
;
whereby
they
are
stirred
vp
to
renounce
and
forsake
themselues
,
to
giue
themselues
wholy
vnto
God
,
to
dye
vnto
their
lusts
,
and
concupiscences
,
and
to
liue
vnto
Christ
,
who
hauing
once
deliuered
himselfe
to
the
death
of
the
crosse
for
to
giue
them
life
,
did
yet
further
vouchsafe
to
giue
himselfe
to
them
in
this
sacrament
,
as
spirituall
meate
and
drinke
to
feede
their
soules
vnto
eternall
life
;
and
herein
all
the
faithfull
doe
communicate
together
in
the
bread
and
in
the
cup
;
in
the
body
and
in
the
blood
of
our
Lord
,
being
taught
thereby
that
they
are
diuers
members
of
one
mysticall
body
,
whereof
Christ
is
the
head
;
being
quickned
,
mooued
,
and
gouerned
by
one
Spirit
,
euen
the
Spirit
of
Christ
,
liuing
one
life
,
and
hauing
their
hearts
vnited
one
to
another
by
loue
.
Herein
wee
are
seriously
admonished
of
our
bond
and
obligation
to
God
the
Father
for
sending
his
Son
,
and
God
the
Sonne
fulfilling
the
will
of
his
Father
;
the
remembrance
of
whose
death
wee
shew
forth
till
he
come
;
who
(
as
verily
as
the
Minister
giueth
vs
the
bread
and
wine
to
be
receiued
with
our
hands
,
which
being
eaten
and
drunken
,
are
conuerted
into
our
substances
and
become
nourishments
of
our
bodies
)
giueth
vs
his
body
and
〈◊〉
to
be
receiued
with
faith
,
that
we
may
eate
and
drinke
them
spiritually
,
and
that
they
may
be
turned
into
the
life
and
substance
of
our
soules
,
making
vs
one
with
Christ
,
and
Christ
one
with
vs
.
This
was
the
holy
Supper
of
the
faithfull
in
the
ancient
Church
,
and
this
is
ours
;
with
the
rest
of
the
reformed
Churches
.
But
in
the
Masse
there
are
no
footsteps
of
the
holy
Supper
;
but
all
things
are
so
changed
,
as
if
the
Lords
Supper
were
abolished
,
and
the
Masse
were
come
in
the
stead
therof
;
for
in
the
Masse
there
is
a
Prieft
in
a
strange
garment
,
his
face
fixt
vpon
an
Altar
,
with
a
Clarke
standing
behind
him
,
muttering
in
a
strange
language
,
interlarded
with
signes
,
lifting
vp
a
wafer
in
an
affected
and
ceremoniall
superstitious
sort
;
causing
it
to
be
worshipped
;
dipping
it
in
the
wine
,
eating
it
alone
,
persuading
the
people
,
that
by
thus
much
as
hath
beene
done
,
beeing
at
their
request
,
and
bought
with
somepiece
of
money
,
he
hath
sacrificed
Christ
for
them
.
What
shewing
foorth
of
the
Lords
death
is
there
till
he
come
?
Nay
is
there
not
an
abolishing
of
the
perfection
,
value
and
efficacy
of
Christs
death
and
sacrifice
?
Is
their
not
〈◊〉
in
robbing
the
lay-people
of
the
cup
?
Is
not
the
Masse
ful
of
abhominable
blasphemies
and
grosse
impieties
?
Are
not
the
deaths
and
sufferings
of
Saints
and
Martyrs
rather
reckoned
vp
then
the
death
of
Christ
represented
?
Is
there
not
rather
a
breach
of
charity
then
any
Symbole
of
loue
,
when
the
Priest
eates
all
himselfe
,
the
common
people
being
excluded
from
it
?
where
is
there
any
communion
betweene
the
members
,
(
or
signification
of
our
engrafting
into
Christ
?
)
The
scriptures
neither
authorising
,
nor
the
Primitiue
and
Apostolicall
Church
practising
,
nor
the
Fathers
in
the
first
600.
yeares
acknowledging
any
such
Propitiatory
sacrifice
,
as
the
Church
of
Rome
both
offereth
and
adoreth
;
but
in
turbulent
ages
it
grew
from
a
Sacrament
to
a
sacrifice
;
from
a
Sacrifice
of
prayse
to
a
Propitiatory
sacrifice
by
way
of
representation
;
from
thence
in
times
of
ignorance
,
carelesnesse
,
and
Politicall
contentions
to
a
reall
and
proper
Propitiatory
Sacrifice
.
And
seeing
God
our
heauenly
Father
hath
spread
a
table
for
vs
in
this
wildernesse
,
while
others
starue
for
foode
,
let
euery
true
Christian
say
with
the
Prodigall
sonne
,
I
will
arise
and
goe
to
my
Father
;
Let
vs
all
Oh
that
God
would
open
the
blind
eyes
of
such
as
are
ensnared
with
the
allurements
of
the
Romish
Church
,
and
deceiued
with
the
false
complexion
of
that
painted
Iesabell
,
beeing
poysoned
with
the
cup
of
her
fornications
;
that
so
(
if
they
belong
vnto
the
〈◊〉
of
grace
)
they
may
escape
out
of
Babylon
,
and
be
saued
.
And
for
vs
that
haue
beene
borne
of
the
Church
,
and
brought
vp
in
her
bosome
,
vnto
whom
God
hath
reuealed
the
purity
of
his
word
,
and
exhibited
his
holy
Sacraments
without
maime
or
alteration
;
let
vs
neuer
disclaime
our
Spirituall
mother
,
making
our selues
bastards
by
becomming
the
children
of
a
Scarlet
coloured
Whore
;
let
vs
neuer
become
Apostates
from
the
truth
,
staining
〈◊〉
soules
,
and
wounding
our
consciences
by
Idolatry
.
If
we
be
Iewes
,
that
is
,
the
Israel
of
God
;
let
not
vs
pollute
our selues
with
Romish
Samaritans
;
Let
vs
not
communicate
with
them
in
their
impious
Mystery
or
Mysticall
impiety
,
of
their
Massing
Sacrifice
;
least
wee
runne
vpon
our
owne
ruine
and
destruction
.
But
let
vs
abhorre
it
,
as
beeing
Antichristian
;
let
vs
renounce
it
as
most
blasphemous
against
God
,
and
against
his
Christ
.
Let
neirher
prosperity
,
nor
aduersitie
,
hope
of
profit
,
or
feare
of
losse
draw
vs
to
pertake
in
that
Idolatrous
seruice
,
least
while
we
seeke
the
world
we
loose
our
soules
;
and
while
wee
feare
the
face
of
man
,
we
bereaue
our selues
of
the
fauour
of
God
.
〈◊〉
our
aduersaries
perseuere
in
their
superstition
,
they
are
blind
leaders
of
the
blind
;
but
let
euery
Christian
Ioshua
,
say
couragiously
,
I
and
mine
will
feare
,
will
serue
,
will
worship
the
Lord
of
heauen
and
earth
,
and
not
make
to
my selfe
[
*
](A05408-e38570-b)
*
As
Auerroes
vpbraided
the
Christians
.
a
breaden
god
,
or
adore
the
creature
in
stead
of
the
Creator
.
Let
vs
not
for
feare
of
the
Popes
Anathema's
excommunicate
our selues
from
the
society
of
Gods
Saints
:
but
rather
to
say
with
vndaunted
resolution
in
the
words
of
Paul
.
We
are
ready
not
onely
to
be
bound
,
but
dye
at
Rome
for
the
name
of
the
Lord
Iesus
.
And
albeit
these
are
the
dayes
wherein
the
enemies
of
the
Gospell
thinke
to
preuaile
,
yet
fortifie
your selues
with
courage
in
your
profession
,
start
not
a
fide
like
a
broken
Bow
;
forsake
not
Christ
to
take
part
with
his
Aduersaries
,
but
stand
for
your
Sauiour
,
as
hee
hath
stood
for
you
,
fight
for
your
Sauiour
as
hee
hath
fought
for
you
,
dye
for
your
Sauiour
,
as
he
hath
dyed
for
you
,
that
you
may
receiue
the
reward
of
immortality
with
the
rest
of
the
holy
Saints
and
Martyrs
in
the
kingdome
of
heauen
for
the
infinite
merit
of
our
eternall
Priest
,
and
Al-sufficient
Sacrifice
Iesus
Christ
the
righteous
.
To
whom
with
the
Father
and
the
Holy
Ghost
,
three
distinct
persons
,
but
one
glorious
and
euerliuing
God
be
ascribed
Honour
,
Maiestie
,
Power
and
Dominion
for
euer
.
Amen
.