The Lords Supper or, A vindication of the sacrament of the blessed body and blood of Christ according to its primitive institution. In eight books; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abomination of the Romish Master. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By Thomas Morton B.D. Bp. of Duresme.
Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659.
highlight hits: on | off
Page  403


That no Scripture in the old Testament hath beene justly produced, for proofe of a Pro∣per Sacrifice in the Eucharist. [ 10]

THe Places of Scripture, selected by your Disputers, are partly Typicall, and partly Propheticall.

That the first objected Typicall Scripture, concerning Melchi∣sedech, maketh not for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist. [ 20] SECT. I. The State of the Question.

VVEE are loth to trouble you with Dispute about the end of Melchisedech his ministring Bread and Wine to Abraham, and his Company; whether it were as a matter of Sacrifice unto God; or (as1 Divers have thought) only for re∣freshing [ 30] the wearie Souldiers of Abraham; because the Question is brought to be tried by the judgement of such Fathers, who have called it a Sacrifice. Wherefore wee yeeld unto you the full scope, and suppose (with your* Cardinall) that the Bread and Wine brought forth had beene sacrificed by Melchisedech to God, and not as a Sacrifice administred by him to his Guests. Now, because whatsoever shall be objected will concerne either the matter of Sacrifice, or else the Priest-hood and office of the Sacrificer, wee are orderly to handle them both. [ 40]

Page  404
That the Testimonies of the Fathers, for proofe of a Proper Sacri∣fice in the Eucharist, from the Type of Melchisedech's Sacrifice, are Sophistically, and unconscionably ob∣jected out of Psalm. 110. and Heb. 5. SECT. II.

SOme of the objected Testimonies (See theaMargin) com∣paring the Sacrifice of Melchisedech to the Eucharist, in the name of a Sacrifice, do relate no further than Bread and Wine, [ 10] calling these Materialls, The Sacrifice of Christians: such are the Testimonies of Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostome, Theophy∣lact, Oecumenius, and Cassidore, together with two Iewish Rab∣bins; promising that at the coming of Christ all Sacri∣fices should cease, Except the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist. This is your first Collection, for proofe that the Eucharist is a Proper Visible Sacrifice. But first Vnconscionably, knowing and* confessing it to be no better than a Iewish Con∣ceipt, to thinke the Bread and Wine to be properly a Sacrifice of the new Testament. Wherefore, to labour to prove a Pro∣per [ 20] Sacrifice, in that which you know and acknowledge to be no Proper Sacrifice, do you not blush? How much better had it becomne you to have understood the Fathers to have used the word Sacrifice in a large sense, as it might signifie any sacred ministration, as Isidore doth instruct you? Who, if you aske him what it is, which Christians do now offer after the order of Melchisedech? he will say, that it is Bread and Wine.bThat is (saith hee) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood. Even as Hierome long before him;cMelchisedech in plaine Bread and Wine did dedicate the Sacrament of Christ: distinguishing both the Sa∣crament from a Proper Sacrifice, and naming the thing, that is [ 30] sayd in a sort to be offered, Not to be the Body and Blood of Christ, but the Sacrament of both. {fleur-de-lys} And as well might you have produced Augustine, who is as expresse as any, teaching that the Church now, as well as Melchisedech then, 2Offereth the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. {fleur-de-lys}

Your second kinde of objected Sentences of Fathers do in∣deed compare the Bread and Wine of Melchisedech with the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. In this Ranke wee [ 40] Page  405 reckon thed Testimonies of Cyprian and Hierome, as also of Eusebius, who doth onely make an Analogie betweene the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, and the Bread and Wine, which Melchisedech brought forth, and wherein Hee, as in Types, saw the Mysteries of Christs Body and Blood. Eucherius and Pri∣masius both say, that Christ offered Bread and Wine, that is, his Body and Blood, like as Melchisedech did, or according to the order of Melchisedech. which Body and Blood of Christ you will All sweare (wee dare say) was not the proper Subject mat∣ter [ 10] of the Sacrifice of Melchisedech, who performed his Sacri∣fice many thousands of yeares before our Lord Christ was in∣carnate in the flesh, to take unto him either Body, or Blood. And therefore could not the Fathers understand, by the Sacri∣fice of Christs Body and Blood, any thing but the Type of Christ his Body and Blood; these being then the Object of Melchise∣dech's faith, as the cited Sentences of Hierome and Eusebius do declare. Which is a second proofe of the unconscionable dea∣ling of your Disputers, by inforcing Testimonies against com∣mon sense.

[ 20] But will you see furthermore the Vnluckinesse of your game, and that three maner of wayes? First, your ordinary guize is to object the word Sacrifice out of the Fathers, as properly used, whereas your Allegations tell us, that they used it in a greater latitude, and at liberty. Secondly, and more princi∣pally, wheresoever you heare the Fathers naming Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ, ô then behold Transubstanti∣ation of Bread into Christ his Body; and behold it's Corporall presence, and that most evidently! this is your common shout. And yet behold in your owne objected Sentences of Fathers, [ 30] that which was most really Bread and Wine of Melchisedech, was notwithstanding by the forenamed Fathers called the Bo∣dy and Blood of Christ. A most evident Argument that the Fa∣thers understood Christ's words, in calling Bread his Body, figuratively.

{fleur-de-lys} A Vindication of the Truth of my former Allegations, against a Calumnious Romanist.

MY Lord of Durham (saith hee) cryes out against Bel∣larmine, that his former Testimonies are unconsconably [ 40] alleaged; and yet halfe of them hee skippeth over without any shew of Answer. To the rest he answereth two things; First, that some of their Testimonies relate no further then to Bread and Wine, making these Materials the Sacrifice of Christians. To this purpose hee quoteth many Testimonies, whereof no one doth justifie his Pretence, but many of them doe plainely confute and directly contra∣dict it.

Page  406

To have cryed out of Vnconscionablenesse against any man, without just Cause, had beene Injurious; To have skipped over any Testimony, which might be thought not sufficiently answered in the Confutation of the other Testimonies cited, had beene Diffidence; To have quoted them, and not to the purpose, had beene meere Childishnesse. But so to have quoted them, that they should contradict my purpose, had [ 10] beene starke madnesse.

The first point of my Vindication must be, to set downe the other Testimonies, which (hee saith) have beene skipped over. This is now3 performed in the Margin.

The next Exception is, that they make nothing to my pur∣pose, my purpose being to shew that the Testimonies obje∣cted speake not of Christ's. Body and Blood, but only of the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. These are fully to this pur∣pose, how then do they Contradict this Pretence? Give you mee but leave to Appeale to the Testimonies them∣selves, which are here (and in the former Section) cited out of [ 20] your owne Cardinall, visible before you in the Margin, and I shall desire no other Iudge than the most partiall among your Romish Priests, to determine whether these Testimonies goe any further than was alleged, to wit, Mel∣chisedech offered Bread and Wine, which is now offered. Item, He sacrifised in Bread and Wine, wherein hee dedicated this Sacrament of Christ. (But yet in Bread and Wine.) Item, In Bread and Wine, which the whole world now celebrateth. Item, In the same Bread and Wine now celebrated in the Eucha∣rist, [ 30] and the like. And in the last place I made good my Outcry against Bellarmine → and other Objectors, for their Vn∣conscionablenesse in concluding a Proper Sacrifice in the Eu∣charist, from the Testimonies of Fathers,* which menti∣oned onely the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine herein; which Sacrifice of Bread and Wine the Romish Objectours them∣selves do absolutely deny to be any Proper Sacrifice. Than which maner of Arguing, what can be more Vnconsciona∣ble, and lesse to the purpose? [ 40]

A second Vindication of my second kinde of Allegations and Exceptions, against the Calumnies of the same Romish Seducer.

Heare your Romanist. His second Pretence is, that the other of the Fathers Testimonies say that Melchi∣sedech offered the Body and Blood of Christ, which yet Page  407 is not said to be offered or continued by any of them, but only by Saint Cyprian and Saint Hierome.
So hee.


There needeth no more, for my discharge, than to apply the Sentences of the Fathers above-cited to the point in Question. Christ (saith Cyprian) offered up the same which Melchisedech offered, to wit, his Body and Blood. Plaine. [ 10] Againe, Bellarmine → in his Chapter concerning Melchisedech produceth Hierome saying of this Bread and Wine offered, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ. This is as Plaine. Eucherius and Primasius do both say, that Christ offered Bread and Wine, that is the Body and Blood of Christ, even as did Melchisedech. As plaine as the former. Now for any Ro∣manist to reprove all this, without any Proofe to the Con∣trary, bewrayeth both Impotencie in not effecting, and Im∣pudencie in attempting his pretended Confutation. {fleur-de-lys}

[ 20] That the Apostle to the Hebrewes, in comparing Melchisedech with Christ, did not intimate any Analogie betweene the Sacrifice of Melchisedeth, and of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. SECT. III.

BVt,ayou pre-occupate, viz. The Apostle, speaking of Melchisedech, saith, [Of whom I had much to say, and that [ 30] which is uninterpretable, because you are dull of hearing.] Chap. 5. vers. 11. Whence it may seeme (saith your Cardinall) a thing undeniable, that the Apostle meant thereby the Mysterie of the Eu∣charist, because it was above their capacity, and therefore hee purposely forbare to mention either Bread or Wine. So your An∣swerer. To whom you may take, for a Reply as in our behalfe, the Confession of your much-esteemed Jesuite Ribera, who telleth you thatb The Apostle naming it a thing Inexplicable, and calling them Dull, meant not thereby to conceale the matter implyed (which was so pertinent to that hee had in hand) from [ 40] them, because of the want of their Capacity: but did, in so saying, rather excite them to a greater Attention; shewing thereby that hee did not despaire, but that they were capable of that which hee would say; at least the learned among them, by whom others might have learned by little and little. So hee, proving the same out of those words of the Apostle, [Passing by the Rudiments, &c. Page  408 Let us goe on unto perfection:] that is, (saith hee) Do your dili∣gence in hearing, that you may attaine unto the understanding of these things, which are delivered unto those that are perfect. This is the Briefe of his large Comment hereupon.

{fleur-de-lys} Wee may here take up the Argument commonly used by all Protestants, to prove that although Christ be, in many respects, resemblable to Melchisedech, in his Priesthood most properly; yet that in the maner of his Sacrifice not so: because [ 10] then the Proper Sacrifice of Christ and Christians should be in Bread and Wine, as was that of Melchisedech. But the Sa∣crifice of Christ and Christians is not offering Bread and Wine. Therefore cannot Christ be resembled to Melchi∣sedech in the matter and nature of the Sacrifice.

This Argument wee formerly forbare to urge, because wee wanted the Assent of any of your Romish Doctors herein. But now wee have found, among your Jesuites, one confirming our Consequence, and saying, that Christ being considered to be a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, in [ 20] respect of the matter of the Sacrifice,4It is necessary that Christ, besides his bloody Sacrifice on the Crosse, should of∣fer an unbloody Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. Nor can you justly oppose against our Assumption, which is, that the Proper Sacrifice of Christ and Christians is not the offering of Bread and Wine; because this is the universall, absolute, and constant Consequence of your Romish Doctors, judging and censuring the Contrary Assertion of this Jesuite to be Iewish and Absurd, as you may finde in the fift Chapter fol∣lowing, Sect. 1. {fleur-de-lys} Notwithstanding, what our Opposites faile of, in the point of Sacrifice, they intend to gaine from the [ 30] Title of Priesthood.

Of the Priesthood of Melchisedech, as it is compared with the pretended Romish Priesthood, out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes. SECT. IV.
The State of the Question.

Aarons Priesthood (said youraCardinall) is translated into the Priesthood of Melchisedech, and this into the Priesthood [ 40] Page  409 of Christ, [A Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech:] which, because it is perpetuall and eternall, cannot be performed properly by Christ himselfe, and therefore must be executed by his Ministers, as Vicars on earth. So hee, accordingly as yourb Councell of Trent hath decreed. Insomuch that Master Sanders will have the whole Ministery of the new Testament to issuec Originally from Melchisedech. This is a matter of great moment, as will appeare; which wee shall resolve by cer∣taine Positions.

[ 10] The foundation of all the Doctrine, concerning Christ and Melchisedech, is set downe in the Epistle to the Hebrewes.

That the Analogie betweene Melchisedech his Priesthood, and the eternall Priesthood of Christ in himselfe, is most perfect, and so declared to be, [ 20] Heb. 5, 6, 7, Chapp. SECT. V.

THe holy Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrewes, compa∣ring the Type Melchisedech with the Arch-Type Christ Ie∣sus, in one order of Priesthood, sheweth betweene Both an ab∣solute Analogie, although not in equality of Excellence, yet in similitude of qualities and offices. As first in Royalty, Melchisedech is called*The King of Iustice and Peace. So [ 30] Christ (but infinitely more) is called*Our Iustice and Peace. Se∣condly, Melchisedech, in respect of Generation, was without Generation from Father or Mother (according to the formality of Sacred Story:) so Christ, according to the verity of his Huma∣nity, without Father; and, in his divine nature, without Mother: of whom also it is written, Who shall declare his Generation? Thirdly, in Time, Melchisedech a Priest for ever, having neither beginning nor end of dayes (according to the same Historicall Tenure:) so Christ an eternall Priest, Chap. 5, 6. Fourthly, in Number, onely One, who had no Predecessor, nor Succes∣sor. [ 40] So Christ, who acknowledged no such Priest before him, nor shall finde any other after him for ever. Fifthly, Christ was Vniversally King and Priest, as the Apostle noted, Chap. 7. 4. saying, That the Priesthood was changed from Aaron and Levi to Christ, in Iuda. That is, that Christs Power might be both Re∣gall, and Sacerdotall, saithaChrysostome, which was a sin∣gular dignity, as your Jesuite well observeth.

Page  410
That the nature of every other Priesthood (be it of your Romish High-Priest) dissenteth as much from the Priesthood of Melchisedech, as the Priesthood of Melchise∣dech agreeth with the Priesthood of Christ. SECT. VI. [ 10]

IF Comparison might be made of Priesthood, whom would you rather that wee should instance in, than in your intituled Summus Pontifex, that is, the High-Priest, your Pope: who not∣withstanding cannot be sayd to be a King, as Melchisedech, much lesse as Christ,aEverlasting. Secondly, much lesse a King of Peace, who hath beene reproved by Antiquity for be∣ing bA Troubler of the Peace of Christs Church: And gene∣rally complained of by others, as beingcNothing lesse than the Vicar of the God of Peace, because of his raising hostile warres against Princes of the same Nation, Blood, and Faith: And for [ 20] dDistracting the Estates of Princedome and Priestdome. Third∣ly, not King of Iustice, because some Popes have excited Sub∣jects and Sonnes to rebell against their Liege Soveraigns and Pa∣rents. Fourthly, not Originally without Generation, by either Father or Mother; some of them having beene borne in lawfull Wedlocke, and of knowne honest Parents: albeit of other∣some the Mothers side hath beene much the surer.

It will be no Answer to say, as PopeeLeo in effect did, viz. that, as Priests, you are not as were the Leviticall, by naturall Propagation; but by a Spirituall ordination: because a Spiri∣tuall [ 30] propagation is no proper, but a metaphoricall Generation. Fifthly, not without Succession; seeing that Succession, as from S. Peter, is the chief tenure of your Priesthood. Nor will that of Epiphanius help you, in this Case, to say thatfYou had no Suc∣cession by the seed of Aaron: because although this may exempt you from the Leviticall Priesthood, yet will not it associate you with the Priesthood of Melchisedech, or of Christ, whose Chara∣cters of Priesthood was to be Priests soly, individually, and abso∣lutely in themselues, without Succession by another. And this [ 40] the words of the Apostle [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, Christ had an Intransmissible Priest-hood, do fully signifie.

As little can your ordinary Answer availe, telling us that you are notgSuccessors, but Vicars of Christ, and Successors of Page  411 Peter; because, whilest you claime that the Visible Priest-hood and Sacrifice of Christ is still in the Church, which is perpe∣tuated by Succession, you must bid farewell to the Priest-hood of Melchisedech. But if indeed you disclaime all Succession of Christ, why is your Jesuite licensed to say, that yourhRo∣man Popes do succeed Christ in their Pastorshp over the Church, al∣though not in their Priesthood, by offering Sacrifices, expiating sinnes by their owne virtue? Are not the Titles of Pastor and Priest equally transcendent in Christ? Againe, if you be Vicars of Christ, then are you not after the Order of Melchisedech, [ 10] who is read to have had no more any Vicar, than that hee had either Father or Mother.

Sixtly, not in respect of the no-necessity of a Succession, which was*Immortality, because the Popes shewed themselves to be sufficiently mortall, insomuch that one Pope maligning another, after death hath dragged the Carcasse of his Prede∣cessor out of hisiGrave; to omit their other like barbarous out∣rages. {fleur-de-lys} In respect of which Mortality, Athanasius is as con∣tradictory to your Romish Doctrine as can be who resolveth, [ 20] saying;5Aaron indeed had Successors, and in the Legall Priest-hood, in processe of time, by reason of death one succeeded another: but our Lord had a Priesthood without Transition and Succession, being himselfe alwayes a faithfull High-Priest.

From the same law of Mortality Theodoret concludeth likewise that Christ in the New Testament6Transmit∣teth not his Priesthood to any other. Wherein wee may say, that Theodoret was Scholler to Chrysostome,7 who like∣wise maketh the excellencie of the New Testament, in com∣parison of the Old, to consist in this, that they had many [ 30] Priests successively, for that (by reason of Mortality) they were but men: in the New Testament, wee have Christ a Priest. So hee. This one Observation might satisfie any reasona∣ble man, for the confutation of your Romish Doctrine of Proper Priesthood; the rather because you were never able to prove, out of any Father, that Distinction of yours, to wit, of one being the Vicar, albeit the Successor of Christ. No, no this Distinction, now after a thousand yeares since Christ his Incarnation, hath beene the adulterate Coyne of your owne Romish forge. {fleur-de-lys}

[ 40] Seventhly, not Personall Sanctity,*Holy, impolluted, and separated from sinnes. For whosoever, being meerely Man, shall arrogate to himselfe to be without sinne, the holy Ghost will give him the*Lie. As for your Popes, wee wish you to make choice of whatsoever Historians you please, and wee Page  412 doubt not but you shall finde upon record, that many of them are noted to have beene as impious and mischievous in their lives, and in their deaths as infamous and cursed, as they were contrarily Bonifaces, Innocents, or Benedicts in their names. Can there be then any Analogie betweene your High Romane Priest and Christ, the Prototype to Melchisedech, in so mani∣fold Repugnancies? yet notwithstanding, every one of you must be (forsooth) a Priest after the order of Melchisedech.

Nay, but (not to multiply many words) the Novelty of your Pretence doth bewray it selfe fromkPeter Lombard, [ 10] Master of the Romish Schoole, who Anno 1145. taught (how truly looke you to that) that every Priest at his Ordination, in taking the Chalice with Wine, and Platter with the Hoast, should understand that his power of Sacrificing was from the order of Aaron. Nor may you thinke that this was his private opinion, for Hee (saith yourl Cardinall of him) collected the Sentences of Divines, and deserved to be called the Master of Schoolemen. Thus farre of the Person of Christ, as Priest; in the next place wee are to enquire into his Priestly Function.

[ 20]
Of the Function of Christ his Priesthood, now after his Ascension into Heaven; and your Cardinall his Doctrine Sacri∣legiously detracting from it. SECT. VII.

BY the Doctrine of your Cardinall, in the name of your Church,a The old Priesthood of Aaron was translated in∣to the Priesthood of Christ: Every Priest (saith the Apostle) must have something to offer, else hee were no Priest. Thus his Priest∣hood [ 30] is called Eternall, and must have a perpetuall offering, which was not that upon the Crosse. Nor can that suffice, which the Pro∣testants say, That his Priesthood is perpetuall, because of the per∣petuall virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse; or bicause of his perpetuall Act of Intercession, as Priest in Heaven; or of presen∣ting his passion to his Father in Heaven, whither his Priesthood was translated. No, but it is certaine that Christ cannot now pro∣perly sacrifice by himselfe, Hee doth it by his Ministers in the Eu∣charist, Because the Sacrifice of the Crosse, in respect of Christians, is now invisible, and seene onely by Faith: which although it be [ 40] a more true Sacrifice, yet it is not, as our Adversaries say, the only Sacrifice of Christian Religion, nor sufficient for the Conservation thereof. And againe, His sacrificing of himselfe in the Sacra∣ment, by his Ministers, is that by which onely hee is said to have Page  413 a perpetuall Priesthood. Accordingly your Cardinallb Alan; Christ (saith hee) performeth no Priestly Function in Heaven, but with relation to our Ministery here on earth, whereby hee offereth. So they, for the dignifying of their Romish Masse, as did alsoc your Rhemists; but with what Ecclipse of Iudgement and good Conscience, is now to be declared.

If wee take the Sacrifice of Christ for the proper Act of Sa∣crificing, which is destructive; so was Christ his Sacrifice but One, and Once, Heb. 7. and 8. But understanding it as the sub∣ject [ 10] matter of the same Sacrifice, once so offered to God upon the Crosse, and after his Ascension entred into Heaven, and so is it a perpetuall Sacrifice presentative before God. For as the High-Priest of the Law, after the Sacrifice was killed, entred into the Holy place once a yeare, but not without Blood, Heb. 9. 7. so Christ having purchased an eternall redemption, by his Death upon the Crosse, went into the Holy place (of Heaven) with the same his owne Blood. Vers. 12. To what end? Al∣wayes living to make supplication for us. Chapt. 7. Vers. 3. and 25.

[ 20] Hence followeth the continuall use, which the soules of the faithfull have, of his immediate Function in Heaven: Having a perpetuall Priesthood, hee is able continually to save them that come to God by him. Vers. 24, 25. Whence issueth our bold∣nesse and all-confidence, alwayes to addresse our prayers to him, or by him unto God: Wee having an High-Priest over the house of God, let us draw nere with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinckled from an evill Conscience. Chap. 10. 22. The evidence of these Scriptures hath drawne from your Iesuite Ribera (even then, when hee professeth him∣selfe [ 30] an earnest defender of your Romane Masse) these Ac∣knowledgements followingdviz. upon the Chap. 7. 23. That Christ is a true Priest, and all other do partake of his Priest∣hood, in offering Sacrifice, only in remembrance of his Sacrifice: And that hee did not performe the office of Priesthood onely upon earth, but even now also in heaven: which Function hee now dis∣chargeth by the virtue of his Sacrifice upon the Crosse. Hee pro∣ceedeth. No man (saith hee) will deny this Position (namely) that Christ now ever exerciseth the office of a Priest, by presenting himselfe for us. So hee.

[ 40] Another Theologicall Professour, of Bellarmines owne Society, in the place where hee notethBellarmine → to walke in his owne opinion alone, procedeth further,8affirming Page  414 that Christ needeth not a Sacrifice to continue to the ends of the world, to the intent hee should become a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech; because hee is to continue a Priest for ever, even after the end of the world, when hee shall not have any proper Sacrifice at all. Yet lest this Iesuite might seeme but to lispe it, by mentioning an Eternity of the Priesthood of Christ, onely in respect of his person, your Iesuite Estius cometh off roundly,9confessing a Priesthood of Christ both in Person, Office, and Effect, from the Con∣currence of the Text, as followeth. From all these wee [ 10] may understand (saith he) that Christ is called a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedech, First in respect of his Person, because there is none to succede him. Secondly in respect of his Office, by making supplication in heaven for us. Nor doth hee want an Oblation, which is the presenting of his Body that suffered to the Father for our Salvation. And thirdly in respect of the Effect, being made for us, by his Sacrifice of the Crosse, the cause of our Redemption. So hee, as just Protestantiall as can be. {fleur-de-lys}

This is still Christs Function of Priesthood, whereunto this Apostle exhorteth all Christians, at all times of need, to make [ 20] their addresse; which Saint Iohn propoundeth as the onely Anchor-hold of Faith in his Propitiation, 1. Iohn 2. If any sinne, wee have an Advocate with the Father, Iesus Christ the righteous, and hee is (what?) The Propitiation for our sinnes. The which every faithfull Christian doth apply, by faith, unto himselfe, as often as hee prayeth to God, in Christs name, for the remission of sinnes, saying, Through Iesus Christ our Lord. How therefore can this his Function of Priesthood, with∣out extreme sacrilege, be held Insufficient to his Church, for obtaining pardon immediatly from God, who seeth not? As [ 30] for other your ordinary Objections, taken from two sentences of the Apostle, speaking of the Examples of things celestiall, and of Purging sinnes now with better Sacrifices, you should not have troubled us with them, knowing them to be satisfyed by your owne AuthorseRibera, andfAquinas long∣agoe. [ 40]

Page  415
That the former Romish Sacrilegious Derogation, from Christs Priestly Function in Heaven, is contradicted by an∣cient Fathers; first in respect of Place, or Altar, and Function. SECT. VIII.

THeodoret isa alleged by you, as denying that Christ now offereth any thing by himselfe, but onely in the Church: [ 10] albeit hee saith not so, simply; but, that hee offereth not in the Church personally, which all confesse: for otherwise The∣odoret presently afterb expresseth, that Christ exerciseth his Priesthood still as man. As for the Church, his words are not, that Shee offereth the Body and Blood of Christ in Sacrifice, but, The Symbols of his Body and Blood: Therfore is this his Testimony unworthily and unconscionably objected. But wee will con∣sult with the direct speeches of Antiquity. First if you aske the Offering, Ambrose answereth you, thatcThe offering of Christ here below is but in an image: but his offering with the [ 20] Father is in truth. If of the Priest, Augustine telleth you, dThe Priest is to be sought for in heaven, even Hee, who on earth suffered Death for thee. There is some difference then sure.

As little reason have your Disputers to object that one and onely Testimony of Augustine,fPresbyteri propriè Sacer∣dotes: which hee spake not absolutely, but comparatively (namely) in respect of Lay-Christians, who in Scripture are otherwise called Priests. (As your owne*Bellarmine → , and Ro∣mane Catechisme distinguish, calling the former the Inward, [ 30] which onely the Faithfull have by the Sacrament of Baptisme; the other Outward, by the Sacrament of Orders.) And with the like liberty doth Saint Augustine call the Sacrifice of the Old Testament (although most proper) but a Signe, in respect of the Spirituall Sacrifice of this worke of mercie; which heeg calleth True, namely in the Truth of Excellencie, al∣though Page  416 though not of Propriety, as you may see. And lastly, here you have urged one, than whom there is scarcely found among Protestants a greater Adversary to your fundamentall Article of your Sacrifice, which is the Corporall existence of Christ in the Eucharist. All which notwithstanding, the dignity of our Evangelicall Function is nothing lessened, but much more amplifyed by this Comparison.

If furthermore wee speake of the Altar, you will have it to be rather on earth below, and to that end you object that Scripture, Hebr. 13. 10. Wee have [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] that is, an [ 10] Altar (saith the Apostle) whereof they have no right to eat, that serve at the Tabernacle. Thish some of you greedily catch at, for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse, and are presently repulsed by youriAquinas, expounding the place to signifie Either his Altar upon the Crosse, or else his Body, as his Altar in Heaven: mentioned Apocal. 8. and called The golden Altar. If wee our selves should tell you, how some one affirmeth that This Altar, spoken of by the Apostle, is the Body of Christ himselfe in Heaven, upon which, and by which all Christians are to offer up their spirituall Sacrifices of Faith, [ 20] Devotion, Thankefulnesse, Hope, and Charity; you would pre∣sently answer, that This one certainely is some Lutheran or Calvinist, the words are so contradictory to your Romish Garbe: notwithstanding you may finde all this in thekAn∣tididagma of the Divines of Collen. Besides your Argument drawne from the word Altar, in this Scripture, is so feeble and lame a Souldier, that yourl Cardinall was content to leave it behinde him, because Many Catholikes (saith hee) in∣terpret it otherwise.

{fleur-de-lys} And, indeed, who is of so shallow a braine, as not to [ 30] discerne the notorious unconscionablenesse of your Dispu∣ters; who confessing that the Apostles, in their times, did *Abstaine from the words Sacrifice, Priest, and Altar, do notwithstanding allege the word, Altar, in the Text to the Hebrewes, for proofe of a proper Altar in the Masse? Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your Iesuite Estius?10 Hee adhereth to the Interpretation of Aquinas, which is, that here, by Al∣tar, [ 40] Page  417 is meant the Crosse of Christs sufferings: which hee collecteth out of the Text of the Apostle, where hee saith of the Oblation of Christs Passion, that It was without the gate; and observeth, for Confirmation-sake, that the Apo∣stle often, of purpose, opposeth the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse to the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament, so farre, as never to make mention of the Sacrifice of the New Testa∣ment. So hee. What is, if this be not our Protestantiall profession, concerning this word, Altar, to prove it to be ta∣ken [ 10] Improperly for the Altar of Christs Crosse; and not for your pretended proper Altar of the Masse? {fleur-de-lys}

But wee are cited to consult with the Ancient Fathers, be it so. If then wee shall demand where our High-Priest Christ Iesus is, to whom a man in Fasting must repaire,mOrigen re∣solveth us, saying, Hee is not to be sought here on earth at all, but in Heaven. If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution, that hee cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on earth, Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him, as hee did himselfe, say∣ing, nI have another Altar in Heaven, whereof these (Al∣tars) [ 20] are but Signes; a better Altar, to be beholden with the eyes of my mind, there will I offer up my Oblations: as great a Dif∣ference (doubtlesse) as betweene Signes and Things. This could not hee have sayd of those Altars, if the Sacrifices on them both were, as you pretend, subjectively and corpo∣rally the same. If wee would know how, what, and where the thing is, which a Christian man ought to contēplate upon, when hee is exercised in this our Eucharisticall Sacrifice?oChry∣sostome is ready to instruct him, Not to play the Chough or Iay, in fixing his thoughts here below, but as the Eagle to ascend thither [ 30] where the Body is, namely (for so hee saith) in Heaven. Accor∣ding to that of the Apostle, Heb. 10. Christ sitting at the right hand of God. Vers. 12. What therefore? Therefore let us draw neere with an Assurance of faith. Vers. 22.

If wee would understand wherein the difference of the Iew∣ish Religion and Christian Profession especially consisteth, in respect of Priesthood,pAugustine telleth us that They have no Priesthood; and the Priesthood of Christ is eternall in Heaven. And the holy Fathers give us some Reasons for these and the like Resolutions. For if any would know the Reason why wee [ 40] must have our Confidence in the Celestiall Priest, Sacrifice, and Altar;qOecumenius andrAmbrose will shew us Page  418 that it is because Here below there is nothing visible; neither Temple, ours being in Heaven; nor Priest, ours being Christ; nor Sacrifice, ours being his Body; nor yet Altar, saith the other. Heare your owne Canus:fChrists offereth an unbloody Oblation in Heaven.

{fleur-de-lys} Chrysostome will not be behind his disciple Oecumenius, in expressions, who differenceth our Christian Religion from the Iewish, for that11Our Sanctuary, Priest, and Sa∣crifices [ 10] is in Heaven. And if Christians intend any other Sacri∣fice than that, hee admonisheth that they may be such, which may be accepted of in the Heavenly Sanctuarie; as namely The Sacrifice of Iustice, Praise, and of a Contrite Spirit, and the like, all meerely Spirituall (as you confesse) and there∣fore but Metaphorically called Sacrifices: And12Saint Hierome, also inviteth us To Celebrate our Passeover with him above. {fleur-de-lys} Thus in respect of the place of Residence of Christ our High-Priest, and his Function, which hath beene already confirmed by the Fathers of the first Councell of Nice. And [ 20] thus farre of the place of this Altar, the Throne of Grace; some∣thing would be spoken in respect of Time.

That the former Sacrilegious Derogation, from Christs Priestly Function in Heaven, is contradicted by Scriptures, and Fathers, in respect of the Time of the execution thereof. [ 30] SECT. IX.

CHrist his Bodily existence in Heaven (as wee have* heard) is set out by the Apostle in these termes: Hee abideth a Priest for us. Hee continueth a Priest. Hee having a continuall Priesthood. Hee, without intermission, appeareth before God for us. Thus the Apostle. But what of this, will you say? Do but marke. Are you not All heard still proclaiming, as with one voice, that your Romish Sacrifice of the Masse is the onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, andaIuge Sacrificium, that is, the Continuall Sacrifice; Continually offered: Whereof the [Iuge] and Conti∣nuall [ 40] Sacrifice of the Law was a Signe. So you. But it were strange that the Iuge Sacrificium of the Law, continuing both Page  419Morning and Evening, should be a figure of your Masse-Sacri∣fice, which is but onely offered in the Morning. As if you would make a picture, having two hands, for to represent a person that hath but one. But, not to deny that the Celebration of the Eucharist may be called a Iuge Sacrificium (for so some Fathers have termed it:) Yet, they no otherwise call it Iuge, or Continual, than they call it a Sacrifice, that is, Vnproperly; because it cannot possibly be compared for Continuance of Time to that Celestiall of Christ in the highest Heaven, where Christ offereth himselfe [ 10] to God for us day and night, without Intermission.

Whereupon it is that Irenaeus exhorteth men to pray often by Christ at his Altar,bWhich Altar (saith hee) is in Hea∣ven, and the Temple open. Apocaly p. 11. 19.cWhere (saith Pope Gregory) our Saviour Christ offereth up his burnt Sa∣crifice for us without Intermission: And whereupon your Ie∣suite Coster, out of Ambrose, affirmeth, thatdChrist exhibi∣teth his Body wounded upon the Crosse, and slaine, as a [Iuge Sa∣crificium] that is, a Continuall Sacrifice, perpetually unto his Father for us. And to this purpose serve the fore-cited Testi∣monies [ 20] of Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Chryso∣stome, and Occumenius; some pointing out the Altar in Hea∣ven, as the Truth; some by Exhortations, and some by their Examples instructing us to make our Continuall Approach unto the Celestiall Altar.


NOw you, who so fixe the hearts and minds of the Specta∣tors of your Masse upon your sublunary Altars and Hoasts, and appropriate the Iuge Sacrificium thereunto (in re∣spect of Time) during onely the houres of your Priestly Sacri∣ficing; allow your attention but a moment of Time, and you will easily see the Impiety of that your Profession.

The Iuge Sacrificium of Christ, as it is presented to God by him in Heaven, hath beene described to be Continuall, without [ 40] Intermission, Alwayes (that is) without any Interruption of any moment of Time: to the end that all sorts of Penitents and faithfull Suters, solliciting God by him, might finde (as the Apostle saith) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, Helpe at any time of need. The Gates of this Temple, Heaven, being ever open; the mat∣ter of this Sacrifice, which is the Body of Christ, being there ever present; The Priest, who is Christ himselfe, ever exe∣cuting his Function. Whereas, contrarily, you will confesse, Page  420 (wee dare say) that the Doores of your Churches may happen to be all locked, or interdicted; your Sacrifice shut up in a Boxe, or lurched, and carryed away by Mice; your Priest taken up with sport, or repast, or journey, or sleepe: yea, and even when hee is acting a Sacrifice, may possibly nullifie all his Priestly Sacrificing Act, by reason of (* Confessed) Almost infinite Defects.

Therefore the Sacrilegiousnesse of the Doctrine of your Masse is thus farre manifested, in as much that your owne Ministeriall Priesthood doth so prejudice the personall Priest∣hood [ 10] of Christ, as it is in Heaven, as the Moone doth by her interposition ecclipse the glory of the Sunne: by confoun∣ding things distinct, that is, (as wee have* learned from the Fathers) Image with Truth; The state of Wicked Parta∣kers with the Godly; Matters Visible with Invisible; Signes with Things; Worse with Better; Iayes with Eagles, and the like.

A SECOND CHALLENGE, [ 20] {fleur-de-lys} Against your Cardinall Bellarmine → his principall Grounds; out of the Confession of your owne Iesuit, both from Scriptures, and from ancient Fathers.

CHrist (saith the Apostle) is a Priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. This [for ever] your Cardi∣nall 13Bellarmine → restraineth to the time of Mortality, on∣ly to the end of the world, and that Christs Priesthood can [ 30] have no further Extent; concluding thereupon, that (for the preserving of the Priesthood of Christ) Hee, either by him∣selfe, or by some other, must necessarily offer some sacrifice unto the end of the world, because it cannot bee that that, which was but once done, can ever againe bee repeated, namely, his bloody Sacrifice upon the Crosse. So hee, Concluding it must there∣fore bee the unbloudy Sacrifice in your Romish Masse.

Although this Argument deserve no other Confutation, than what hath been given out of the Confessions of your own Iesuit. Yet because another of the same Society, and of [ 40] singular estimation in your Church, namely Vasquez (who often expresseth his reading of the works of Bellarmine → ) may seeme as it were to offer his service unto us, as being desi∣rous to oppose against the Iudgement of your Cardinall, wee may not deny him our due Attention. He both out of Scriptures and ancient Fathers (alleged in the Margin) con∣cludeth. Page  42114 that Christ is called a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, not in respect onely of the time, to the end of the world, but everlastingly beyond all worlds: and this not onely in respect of any Sacrifice to bee made heereafter, but of that his Bloody Sacrifice once and onely offered upon the Crosse. Professing, that the contrary Assertion is repugnant to Scrip∣ture, even By the Exposition of ancient Fathers, expresly teach∣ing, that Christ's Priesthood is called Eternall, because it reach∣eth beyond all mortalitie.

[ 10] And your Cardinall objected that out of Hebr. 5. Every Priest must have something to offer: Ergo, Christ, being a Priest, must not bee without a present and continuall Sacrifice, which can bee no other than that in the Eucharist. Against which the same Jesuit replyeth; But all the Greeke Fathers upon this Text (saith hee) and some of the Latine Fathers also, interpret this not of the unbloody, but of the bloody Sacrifice of Christ: which may bee sufficient for his eternall Priesthood, by reason of the unitie of his Humanitie and Divinitie, which is eternall. Nor is there any one (saith hee) of all the Fathers, [ 20] whom wee have cited in Confutation of Heretikes, that expound that Scripture to exclude the Sacrifice of the Crosse. So hee, and much more, in the place quoted against the particular and petty Reasons objected to the contrarie. What Confutation can be more convincent then that, which is warranted and fortified by the confessed Evidences of Scriptures, and Testi∣monies of Ancient Fathers? {fleur-de-lys} [ 30] [ 40]

Page  422
Of the second Typicall Scripture, which is the Passeover: shewing the weaknesse of the Argument taken from thence, for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse. SECT. X.

FIrst, it is meet wee heare your Objector speake, even your a Cardinall, who albeit hee confesseth the Paschall Lambe to have been the figure of Christ on the Crosse, yet did it in the [ 10] Ceremonies thereof (saith hee) more immediatly and principally prefigure the Eucharist than the Passion, which is proved by Scrip∣ture, 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passeover is offered up, therefore let us feast it in the Azymes of Syncerity and Truth.] Which offering up was not fulfilled on the Crosse; but it is evident that the Apostle did eat this true Paschall Lambe, the flesh of Christ, at his Supper: and this A∣postle exhorteth us to this Feast, in saying, [Let us therefore keepe our Feast, &c.] So hee, bestowing a large Chapter of Argu∣ments, wherewith to bleare our eyes, lest that wee should see in this Scripture [Our Passeover is offered up] Rather the Immola∣tion [ 20] of Christ on the Crosse, than in the Eucharist. We willing∣ly yeeld unto his alleged Testimonies of ancient Fathers, who by way of Allusion, or Analogie, do all call the Eucharist a Paschal Sacrifice. But yet that the words of this Scripture should more properly and principally meane the Eucharisticall Sacrifice (as if the Jewish Passeover did rather prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ in the Masse, than on the Crosse) not one.

It were a tedious worke to sift out all the drosse of his Argu∣mentations; Neverthelesse, because he putteth Protestants unto it, saying as followeth,bBut our Adversaries (saith hee) will say, [ 30] that the Apostle, in saying our Passeover is offered up, speaketh of Christ's Sacrifice offered upon the Crosse: but wee will prove that this figure was properly fulfilled at his Supper. (So he.) Wee will now shew you, that other Adversaries, than Protestants, are rea∣dy to encounter this your Champion.

First, the choisest Chieftaine of his owne side, armed with the Authoritie of Christ himselfe▪ Joh. 13. 1. [Before the day of the Passeover, Iesus knowing that his hower was come, that he must passe out of the world unto the Father.] Now when was this spo∣ken? Even then, saithc Tolet your Cardinall & Jesuit, When he [ 40] came to the celebrating of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, that is, at his last Supper. But what was meant hereby? namely, Christ Page  423 alluded unto the Iewish Passeover (saith hee) in signification of his owne passing over by death to his Father. So he. So also your Je∣suitd Pererius, out of Augustine.

Secondarily, to the Scripture objected, 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passe∣over is offered up, Christ▪] that is, As the figurative paschall Lambe was offered up for the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt, so Christ was offered up to death for the Redemption of his people, and so passed by his passion to his Father. So youre A∣quinus. [Our Passeover.] Namely, By his Sacrifice in shedding [ 10] his Blood on the Crosse. So your Jesuit.f Becanus. And, By this his Passeover on the Crosse was the Passeover of the Iewes fulfilled. So your Bishopg Iansenius, as flat diameter to your Cardinals Objection as can be.

A third Scripture wee find, Joh. 19. [They broke not his legs, that the Scripture might bee fulfilled which is written, A bone of him shall not be broken:] which yourh Cardinall himselfe con∣fesseth to relate onely to Christ's Sacrifice on the Crosse; and notwithstanding dare immediatly oppose, saying, Neverthe∣lesse the Ceremony of the Paschall Lambe did more immediatly [ 20] and properly prefigure the Eucharist than Christ's passion: where∣in, whether he will or no, he must be an Adversary to himselfe. For there is no Ceremony more principall in any Sacrifice than are these two, viz. The matter of Sacrifice, and the Sacrificing Act thereof. Now the matter of the Sacrifice was a Lambe, the Sacrificing Act was the killing thereof, and offering it up killed unto God. Whether therefore the Paschall Lambe did more principally prefigure the visible Body of Christ on the Crosse, or your imagined Invisible in your Masse, whether the slaine Pas∣chall Lambe bleeding to death, did more properly and immediat∣ly [ 30] prefigure and represent a living and perfect Body of Christ, than that his Body wounded to death, and blood-shed, Com∣mon sense may stand for Judge.

The Ancient Fathers, when they speake of the Sacrifice of Christ's passion, in a precise proprietie of speech, do declare themselves accordingly. If in generall, then asiOrigen: All those other Sacrifices (saith hee) were perfigurations of this our perfect Sacrifice. If more particularly, then askChrysostome, from the objected Text of the Apostle. 1. Cor. 5. [Our Passe∣over is offered up, Christ, Let us therefore keepe our Feast, &c.] [ 40] Dost thou see (saith hee) in beholding the Crosse, the joy which wee Page  424 have from it? for Christ is offered upon the Crosse, and where there is an Immolation, there is Reconciliation with God: this was a new Sacrifice, for in this the flesh of Christ was the thing sa∣crificed, his Spirit the Priest and Sacrificer, and the Crosse his Al∣tar. Insomuch, that else-where hee teacheth every Christian how, as a spirituall Priest, hee maylAlwaies keepe the Passeo∣ver of Christ. {fleur-de-lys} And yet againe the same Father, as if hee had thought this point deserved to be got by heart of every Christian:{fleur-de-lys}*That wee may speake of Christs Passion (saith hee) what saith the Figure? [Take unto you a Lambe:] but Christ [ 10] commandeth no such thing, for hee himselfe (namely at his Passion) offered up himselfe to the Father. So hee. {fleur-de-lys} What greater plainenesse can be desired? and yet behold, if it be possible, a greater frommOrigen, calling the Sacrifice on the Crosse, the Onely true Passeover. Which saying his Reporter Socrates imbraceth, as a Divine Contemplation.

{fleur-de-lys} That the third objected Typicall Scripture out of Exod. 24. [The Blood of the Testament] is not justly objected for proofe of a Proper Sacrifice [ 20] in the Masse. SECT. XI.

THis Text Exod. 24. speaking of the Sacrifice of the Old Testament [This is the Blood of the Testament] being so consonant to the words of Christ, delivered in his Institu∣tion of the Eucharist [This is the Blood of the New Testament] in the Gospell, seemeth to your Cardinall to be an Argu∣ment of great force, and therefore doth hee dart it against [ 30] us with all his strength of Arguing, saying;15The Blood of the Old Testament was the Blood of an Hoast truly sacrifised; Therefore the Blood of the New Testament mentioned in the Eu∣charist (whereof the other was a figure) must needs be the Blood of Christ properly sacrifised therein. So hee, heaping up Reason upon Reason, as it were to make a mountaine; and presently after his much working and heaving, cometh one of his owne family of the Iesuites, Vasquez by name, and kicketh all downe with his heeles, as it had beene but a Mole-hill, saying;16That it is called [The Blood of the [ 40] New Testament] by Christ, not as it is in this Sacrament, but as it referreth to the Sacrifice of Christes Passion. Which hee confirmeth by the most Authenticall kinde of proofe, even from the Scripture, out of one Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrewes, in severall places. One from these words [A Te∣stament is confirmed in men dead.] The next, Heb. 9. [Where a Testament is, there doth necessarily intervene the death of the Page  425 Testator.] And againe; [Christ was once, sacrifised to take away the death of many.] He might have added a fourth vers. 15. Christ is the mediator of the New Testament, that death coming betweene, for Redemption. &c.

Each one of these pointing out Christs Bloody Sacrifice on the Crosse, teacheth us to deale with you, by law of Retor∣tion thus: The Old Testament was confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of the Creature sacrifised: And so (accor∣ding to the Apostles Comparison) was the New Testament [ 10] confirmed by the Death and Blood-shed of Christ our Te∣stator. Therefore could not the Bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testament be a Figure of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice in the New. [ 20]

That your Cardinall Bellarmine hath Contradicted the Do∣ctrine of the Ancient Church of Rome, taught by Pope Leo the First. SECT. XII.

POpe Leo is hee, whom the Church of Rome will be thought to esteeme as equall with the best of Popes, and [ 30] therefore, hath honoured him with the singular Title of Magnus, (Ob insignem sanctitatem, doctrinam & eloquentiam, saith your Iesuit*Possevin) who lived above a thousand yeares since. Him doth your17 Cardinall object for proofe of the Sacrifice of the Masse, from the Signe of the Paschall Lambe, in a Sentence, which in it selfe is sufficient to tell us what was the Faith of the Church of Rome in his dayes; and to direct you in the point now in Question: in manifesting that your Cardinall hath egregiously abused his Testimony, for proofe of an Vn-bloody Sacrifice of Christs [ 40] Body in the Eucharist; which Leo spake so evidently and expresly of the Sacrifice of his Passion, that your Iesuite Vasquez was enforced to18 confesse thus much, even then, when hee sought to defend the Romish Sacrifice of the Eucharist.

The words of Leo are generall. All those things which were performed, concerning the Sacrificing of the Lambe by Moyses, from Gods command, were prophesied of Christ, Page  426 and did properly declare the Slaying of Christ. So hee. Ergo hee spake of 〈◊〉bloody Sacrifice. And if these Prefigu∣rations of the Old Law, in the Sacrifice of the Lambe, do properly point at the Bloody Sacrifice of Christ, then were they not properly Types of any Sacrifice in the Masse. And lest you might thinke that Leo was singular In this Opinion, your Iesuit will have you know that Chrysostome hath also the same words. Now whether you are bound rather to be∣lieve [ 10] an Ancient Romane Pope, or a late Romane Cardinall; judge you. In the last place wee are to remove an Ob∣jection. [ 20]

An Objection taken from the Comparison between the figure of the Old Testament, and the thing figured in the New; ear∣nestly insisted upon, and as easily refuted. SECT. XIII.

THe Briefe of your Reason is this.19 Figures are ne∣cessarily [ 30] inferiour unto the Things prefigured. But, In the Old Testament, the Bread of Melchisedech, the Shew-bread, the Bread of Manna, and the Paschall Lambe were figures of the Eucharist in the New Testament; Therefore the matter in the Eucharist is not simply Bread, but the Body of Christ. Thus your Cardinall. Your Dr. Heskins also playeth his descant upon this Base, and runneth voluntary in a large discourse from the20 Brazen Serpent on a Pole, the figure of Christ Crucified: From Ionas in the Belly of the Whale, a figure of Christ's Resurrection; and from the Paschall Lambe, a figure of Christ offered in the Eucharist. Now the Thing being better [ 40] than the Signe, therefore Christ herein offered is better than the Lambe: But if (as the Sacramentaries say) the Eucharist be but a Signe, then was the Paschall Lambe but the figure of a Piece of Bread, wherewith there is no Similitude. But that the things prefigured are more excellent than their Signes, is proved out of the Epistle to the Hebrewes, in preferring the Page  427 New Testament before the Old. Whereby I may Conclude (saith hee) that the Paschall Lambe being a Signe of this Sacrament, this is not Bread, but the Body of Christ. So hee. The An∣swer is easie, by a Distinction of Things prefigured. Some are Figures Principall, which are called Arche-types, and some lesse principall, called onely Antitypes. We shall make the matter plaine by Authenticall Examples, 1. Cor. 10. 2. Wee are Baptized into Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea. Hence all Expositors (aswell as your21 Aquinas) teach that The Sea, thorow which the Iraelites passed under Moses, was [ 10] a Signe of Baptisme: by which Baptisme wee are buryed in∣to Christs death, Rom. 6. This Exposition standeth firme without any Contradiction. Whereby you may perceive, that the Archetypon, or thing Principally prefigured by that Sea, is Christ's buriall: and Water in Baptisme, is but as the Antitype, or thing lesse principally prefigured thereby.

If then you shall compare the Type, or Figure, with the Thing prefigured, as Archetype, or Principall thing figured or prefigured, wee are bound by Christian verity to believe [ 20] your Proposition to be most true, (to wit) Christ's buriall is infinitely more excellent than either the Type in the Old Testament, which was the Sea they passed thorow; or yet than Water in Baptisme in the New Testament, as the Anti∣type thereof. But if you compare the Type of the Old Te∣stament with the Antitype or figure of the New, then can nothing be more false than is this your generall Proposition, affirming that Figures and Signes are inferiour to the thing prefigured, as you may see in the Apostles Example. The Sea under Moses, a figure of Baptisme under Christ.22For [ 30] as the Sea was there (saith Athanasius) so is Water here. Yet was not the Element of Water in the Sea of lesse worth in Substance, than is the Element of Water in the Font of Baptisme; both having equally in them the Substantiall Properties of Water.

Our next Example, in the same Chapter, is this: They (to wit, the Jewes) ate of the same spirituall meate, and dranke of the same spirituall drinke; (namely) Christ's Body and Blood; the one whereof was prefigured by Manna, the other by the Water out of the Rocke in the Old Testa∣ment. [ 40] Even as the same Body of Christ is configured by Bread; and his Blood by Wine in the Eucharist, which is the Sacrament of the New Testament; as hath beene proved from Fathers, and Others, in a full* Section. And for this cause Gregorie Nazianzen,23I dare say (saith hee) that the Legall Passeover was a Figure of a figure; but somewhat more obscure. So hee. Which scarce any of your Doctors dare say, lest that the Eucharisticall Oblation should be Page  428 judged a Figure of Christ's Sacrifice, and not the Proper Sa∣crificing of Christ. Now then, Compare Manna and Bread with Christ's Body; and the Water of the Rocke, and Water of Baptisme, with his Blood, and your Consequence is most Di∣vine: viz. The Thing prefigured excelleth, beyond all Compa∣rison, the Signes thereof. But yet againe Compare the Signes and Antitypes, viz. Manna with Bread, and the Water of the Rocke with Wine in the Cup: and in their Natures and Sub∣stances, the one doth not exceed the other.

You will then aske, If the Sacraments of both Testaments [ 10] were in this maner joynt Antitypes, that is, Correspondent Signes of the same Body and Blood of Christ; wherein then consisteth the Excellencie of the Sacraments of the New, if it be not in respect of their naturall and substantiall proper∣ties? Wee were about to tell you, namely, that Although these former Sacraments of both Testaments be but Cor∣porall food, and drinke; yet have the Sacraments of the Gospell a threefold Privilege above the other. The First is in respect of the Efficacie of the Signification. Signes of the Old being Propheticall, and darkly promising Christ's Body [ 20] and Blood to come. But, Signes of the New are Historicall, poynting out, unto life, Christ already come, and crucified in his Body, and his Blood shed. The Second, in respect of the Efficacie of Application, and Exhibition of both these, arising from the former Ground. For Saint Paul said more effectually, Christ, who dyed for mee, and gave himselfe for mee; than any Israelite under the Law could say, Christ, who shall dye for mee, and shall give himselfe for mee. The Third is the Excellencie of Duration, for those Signes as Shadowes, had an end long since: Whereas the Evangelicall [ 30] Symbols, as Images, are to be perpetuall to the end of the world, as Saint Paul did intimate in his speech of the Eu∣charist, You shew the Lord's death untill his coming againe, 1 Cor. 11. Now then that you see what is, indeed, the Bet∣ternesse betweene the figure and thing figured, may you not say it had beene better that your Disputers had forborne their Objection? From Typicall Scriptures wee descend to Propheticall. {fleur-de-lys} [ 40]

highlight hits: on | off