Answer to Reynolds Book, Chapter 4
CHAPTER. 4.
Of Prieſthod, and of the ſacrifice continued after Chriſt.
SEeing you will needes be called & accounted Prieſts, & that in the proper ſenſe,pag. 56. and ſignification of this word, I require no pardon at your hands for terming you, as I did. For if Chriſt be the onelie Prieſt of the new Teſtament, and his ſacrifice neuer to be repeated, as we are plainlie taught by the word of God; what Prieſts can you be, but Baalites, and what ſacrificers, but Antichristian? ſhewe your order, your Author, your inſtitution: otherwiſe we muſt eſteeme and ſpeake of you,Heb. 5.4. The Popiſh prieſt hoode was not ordainied by Chriſt but is contrarie to the Prieſthood of Chriſt, and therefore worthie to be contemned & deteſted of al faithfull Chriſtians. as ſuch a generation deſerueth. It is not lawfull for any to take honour to him-ſelfe, but he that is called of God, as Aaron: If you can prooue that God hath called you, it is meet you be receiued, & reuerenced, as the ordinaunce of God in all functions deſerueth: but this can you neuer doe, and therefore both your name, & your profeſſion is of al the godly to be deteſted, as a venemous plant, neuer planted by the heauenlie father.Mat. 15.13. Two waies you hauehave choſen, by which you will prooue your ſelues lawfull prieſts: principally, you ſay, by mine owne words, ſecondarily by deduction out of the ſcriptures. Let vsus conſider of both theſe arguments in order, and ſo it ſhall appeare in the end, that your Prieſthood was hatched of an ill egge.pag. 57.
And here you declare euidentlie to the world in the verie begininng your pitifull ignorance,M. R. affirmeth that we denie Melchiſedech to hauehave bene a Prieſt: how vntruelie all the world cā witnes. Gen. 14.18. Pſal. 110.4. Heb. 7.1. not knowing againſt whom you fight. For was it euer of vsus doubted, that Melchiſedech was a Prieſt, and offered ſacrifice? doth not the ſcripture teach the ſame moſte expreſlie, and that in manie places? yet you ſaie, you could neuer obtaine ſo much of our brethren: which argueth that God hath ſmitten you with marueilous ſenſleſnes, and as it were ſuddenlie bereaued you of your vnderſtanding. Thought you anie ſo ſimple as to beleeue you, that we denie Melchiſ. to hauehave bene a Prieſt, & to hauehave done the office of a Prieſt, which conſiſteth principally in making outward ſacrifice? Beſtowed you ſo litlte time in reading the writings of thoſe you call our brethren, that you know not what their iudgement was herein? or coulde you finde in your hart at aduenture thus to reporte of our brethren in a matter whereof you were ignorant what they taught? Take heed Maſter Rainolds, you maie abuſe the ignorance of ſome, but God wilbe reuenged of you for your vntrueth. As for your reaſon, that if Melchiſedech ſacrificed, that was in bread and wine, becauſe there is no mention made in the ſcripture of any other ſacrifice, I maruaile you ſee not the looſenes of this concluſion.M. Rainolds thinketh Melchiſedech could not make ſacrifice, vnles it were when he mette Abraham with bread & wine. For how is the head and body of this argument ioyned together? Melchiſedech was a Prieſt, therefore he ſacrifided in bread and wine. Of ſacrificing in bread and wine, there is no word in the ſcripture, which onelie recordeth, that Melchiſedech brought forth bread and wine; whereby is noted that Melchiſedech preſented Abraham with victuales,Gen. 14.18. when he returned from purſuite & ſlaughter of the kings: which is ſo clere in the text, that it is confeſſed by your owne Champion Andradius. Is this then an excellent proofe that Melchiſedech ſacrificed in bread and wine,Andrad. Defenſ. Concil. Trident. lbi. 4. becauſe he releeued Abraham & his ſeruants with breade and wine? And that ſeeing the Hebrew worde which the holie ghoſt vſed, neuer ſignifieth to ſacrifice, in any one place of the ſcripture, but onelie to bring forth, as all men knowe that hauehave but a litle taſte in the Hebrew toung.Hetſi in the Hebrue, foreign in the Greek, and proferens in the latine Vulgar edition it ſelfe. But if he ſacrificed not thus, then ſaith M. Rainolds, his ſacrifice is not mentioned in ſcripture. And what if the ſcripture hath not particularlie ſet downe what ſacrifice Melchiſedech offered? was it not ſufficient to declare that he was a Prieſt, vnleſſe it were alſo added, what manner of ſacrifice he offered? will you not beleeue the ſcriptures teſtifying that Melchiſedech was a Prieſt, vnleſſe you vnderſtand what ſacrifice he made? How manie Prieſts doth the ſcripture ſpeake of, and yet omitteth their kinde and manner of ſacrifice? Can you then reaſon, they were no Prieſts, becauſe it is not expreſſlie noted, in what things they offered their ſacrifice?
Furthermore, was not Melchiſedech a King alſo? and yet we reade not any where in ſcriptures what Kinglie dueties were performed by him, vnles you will acknowledge this to be a token of his roiall dignitie, that he releeued Abraham and his men with prouiſion: which though it be no proper marke of a King, ſeeing it may be done by others alſo that be no kings, yet doth it rather ſhew vntounto vsus a Kinglie eſtate in him (as it is alleadged by learned men) then a prieſtly. For to bring forth bread and wine, that is, meate & drinke for the ſuſtenance of a multitude, muſt rather be thought a princelie magnificence, then a prieſtly ſacrifice. Seeing then it is as neceſſarie for vsus to beleeue that Melchiſedech was a King, as that he was a prieſt, becauſe he was a figure of Chriſt, not onelie concerning his preiſthoode, but alſo his Kingdome:M. R. argument prooueth Melch. to be no king then muſte you as wel note vntounto vsus what princelie acte of his the ſcripture reporteth, as you demaunde of vsus what ſacrifice he offered. For if this prooueth not he was a King, then to vſe your owne words, there is no ſyllable in the ſcriptures of any kingly deede, that euer he did: and ſo by your profound and inuincible reaſon, as you call it, we muſte be forced contrarie to plaine ſcriptures to denie he was a king. For that he was a preiſt, beſides he is ſo called in the ſcriptures, may alſo further appeare vntounto vsus by his doings, in that he bleſsed Ahraham, which dutie belonged to the prieſt, as well as to offer ſacrifice. Thus your goodlie argument, whereof you bragg ſo much, if it be of ſuch inuincible force, as you pretende, though it may put a ſacrifice in Melchiſedechs hand, yet it taketh the kingly crowne from his heade. Wherefore you ſee, if you can ſee any thing, that your proofe whereupon you leane, wil not one lie faile you, if you preſſe it too much, but alſo breake in peeces, & hurt your ſelues.
You ſee therefore how litle cauſe you had to charge my fellowes and maſters, pag. 58.59.as you name them, with ſtubbernneſſe, who neuer denyed, nor doubted, but that Melchiſedech was a very prieſt, and executed the office of a prieſt, which chieflie conſiſteth in ſacrifice and oblation, as the Apoſtle teacheth.Heb. 5.1. Then your fellowes & maſters muſt needs be ſtubbernly ſet in maintenance of falſhoode, if they either taught you thus to write, or will commende you for writing thus beyond all compaſſe of modeſtie and trueth. But now, as though Melchiſedechs ſacrifice could hauehave beene no other, ſaue that which you dreame of, you gather of my acknowledgeing him to hauehave offered ſacrifice, that therefore he did it in breade and wine: which is an abſurd, and ſenſleſſe kinde of gathering, meete for ſuch a petty proctor of the Popes ſacrifice, as Maſter Rainolds is. The ſcriptures teſtifie that Melchiſedech was a prieſt, and this both I, and all my fellowes and maſters euer confeſſed. That the ſacrifice which Melchiſedech offered, was bread & wine, the ſcriptures no where giuegive vsus to vnderſtand, & therefore we beleeue it not, & you can neuer prooue it. You alleage the teſtimonie of Moſes thus: Melchiſedech rex Salem, Gen. 14.proferens panem & vinum (erat enim ſacerdos Dei altiſſimi) benedixit ei. Melchiſedech king of Salem, bringing forth breade & wine (for he was a Preiſt of the moſte highe god) bleſſed him, that is, Abraham, you muſt hauehave a diuine power of working miracles before you can prooue hereof that Melchiſedech offered bread and wine in ſacrifice,Melchiſedech brought forth bread & wine: … he offered ſacrifice in bread and wine. VponUpon ſuch looſe arguments hange…h the popiſh Prieſthod and ſacrifice. ſeeing your owne tranſlation ſaith no more, but that he brought forth bread and wine: and that was, as I ſhewed before, for an other purpoſe, then to offer ſacrifice: vnleſſe with the ſame mouth, wherewith you ſaide euen now, that we denie Melchiſedech to hauehave made ſacrifice, you will alſo further ſay, that to bring forth bread and wine is to offer ſacrifice: whereas no man ſeeth not, that this may be done manie waies, and for manie other vſes, then for this of ſacrifice. Wherefoe your reaſon, Melchiſedech brought forth bread and wine, is not of the ſame length with your concluſion, that therefore he offered ſacrifice in bread and wine.
But that you ſaie is a reaſon of his prieſthood, which I denie, and it is the thing in controuerſie: & ſhould by you hauehave bene prooued, not barely affirmed. For though as you report the words of Moſes, it may ſeeme that the reaſon of Melchiſedechs bringing forth bread and wine was, for that he was the Lords prieſt, yet Moſes in in his owne language ſaieth not ſo, but thus, And he was a priest of the moſt high God, as it is alſo tranſlated by Pagnine, and Vatablus, and Arias Montanus, according to the originall veritie. And though ſometime it may ſo be taken, yet how can you prooue that ſo it muſt of neceſſitie here be taken? And if it be, your ſacrifice for al that will not here of follow, as you maie learne by Andradius your greateſt Doctor,Li. 4. Defen. Trid. whoe maketh that a reaſon whie Melchiſedech, being a Cananean, and ioined perhaps in blood or frendſhip with ſome of the Kings that Abraham ſlue, notwithſtanding was ſo farr of from ſeeking to be reuenged of Abraham, that he met him frendlie and preſented him with gifts, becauſe the bonds of country and kindred are not ſo ſtrong, as of godlines & religion.popiſh arguments confuted and reiected by papiſts them ſelues. So the reaſon is not as you imagine, He offered ſacrifice in bread & wine, therefore he was a Prieſt: but by Andradius iudgement, he was the Lordes Prieſt, and therefore he refreſhed Abraham a true worſhipper of the Lord.
But what if all this were graunted without reſiſtance, that Melchiſedech offered a ſacrifice in bread and wine? it muſt be caſt in a ſtrange mould, before the ſacrifice of your Maſſe can anie waies be framed hereof. For firſt this ſacrifice might be a figure of Chriſtes bodie and blood, repreſented and offered vntounto vsus in bread & wine with out anie ſuch vnholie ſacrifice as is imagined in your Maſſe. And ſo did the auncient fathers meane, when they applied this hiſtorie of Melchiſedech to the ſacrament of Chriſtes ſupper.How the fathers applie Melchiſedechs fact to the ſacramēt of Chriſts ſupper. Wherfore when you hauehave digged as depe as you wil yet ſhal you not finde the mine or ſpring of your ſacrifice here. Againe, what reſemblance is there betwene Melchiſedechs bread and wine, and your Maſſe, wherein you teach is neither bread nor wine remaining at all? That you bring out of Muſculus and Caluin, concerning referring thoſe wordes (and he was a Prieſt) to that which followeth, and he bleſſed him, you are not hable to confute, and therefore you do well, and wiſelie to note it, but ſhew no reaſon againſt it: and ſo likewiſe you ſet before your reader an other place of Caluin, wherein he writeth that their opinion is confuted, who ſeake out the cheife reſemblance betweene Chriſt and Melchiſedech in offering of bread and wine, ſeing the Apoſtle who ſtandeth vppon other points not ſo notable, and principall, as that, ſpeaketh not ſo much as once therof. This was to hott for you to beare, & therfore you let it fal to the ground, couering it with the naked names of Hierome, & Gregory Nazianzene. Out of Caluins words by you repeted, you will the reader to note two things,Pag. 62. which being noted neuer ſo much, make nothing for your profit. The firſt is, that Caluin, and the Caluiniſtes (as it pleaſeth you to ſpeak) finde nothing wherin Melchiſedech ſacrificed, and ſo by ſacrificing prefigured the ſacrifice and Prieſthood of Chriſt: whereunto I hauehave alreadie anſwered, and further adde now, that we finde in Melchiſedech as much as the Apoſtle hath found,We expound and vnderſtand the fig…re of Melc. in ſuch ſort as the Apoſtle hath taught vsus & the Apoſtle hath found as much as truly can be found: vnles you wil ſay the holy ghoſt was groſly & fouly ouerſeene in omitting the chiefeſt thing, wherin Melchiſedech repreſented our ſauiour Chriſt. We thinke it no ſhame to finde no more then the cleare light, and wiſdome of Gods ſpirite could finde, wherwith the Apoſtle, examining & ſearching throughlie the wholl hiſtorie of Melchiſedech, hath not giuen the leaſt inkling of your ſurmiſed ſacrifice. He ſheweth diuerſe properties in which Melchiſedech was a figure of Chriſt, comparing not anie ſacrifice of Melchiſedech with the ſacrifice made by Chriſt, but the perſon of Melchiſedech with the perſon of Chriſt. So you hauehave found ſuch a propertie betwenee them two, as he neuer ſaw, and therefore muſt needes account your ſelues wiſer then he, which we by your leaues cannot acknowledge, and therfore refuſe your inuention.
The ſecond is, that the auncient fathers acknowledge Melchiſedech to hauehave ſacrificed in bread and wine, and ſo to hauehave foreſhewed Chriſtes ſacrificing in like manner. What is to be anſwered to the fathers comparing Melchiſedeches bread and wine to the Lords ſupperTo this an eaſie anſwere maie ſerue. Firſt, that whatſoeuer the fathers teach without warrant of Gods word, muſt be iudged no better then ſtubble and ſtraw, which hath no vſe in the building vp of gods ſpiritual Temple, but ſerueth onelie to be burnt. Secondlie, that the fathers, not one of them all, applie this of Melchiſedech, to the Popiſh maſſe, which was not hatched in the daies of the ancient fathers, but is a latter birde of Antichriſts brood. Thirdly, that none of the ancient fathers do prooue by this any real ſacrifice of the Church, wherein Chriſt is to be offered continuallie, as the Papiſts doe moſt wickedlie and horriblie maintaine. Laſtlie the fathers onelyonly meant to commend the excellency of the Lords ſupper, which Chriſt inſtituted in bread and wine, by this fact of Melchiſedech, that brought forth bread and wine, as it were in theſe ſignes ſhadowing and figuring Chriſt vntounto vsus, who long after appointed the ſame to be ſacraments of his body and blood. This was the cauſe why they ſo often alledge this example of Melchiſedech, as you may perceiue by Cyprian, who ſaith. In ſacerdote Melchiſedech ſacrifice, Dominici ſacramentum praefiguratum videmus: that is,Cypr. ep. 63. In Melchiſedech the Priest we ſee the ſacrament of the Lords ſacrifice prefigured. Thus Cyprian writeth in the ſame epiſtle, that you alledge here, by whoſe wordes you maie learne to what purpoſe the fathers applied that of Melchiſedech, farre otherwiſe then you doe. And in that Cyprian calleth bread and wine his bodie and blood, therein is no difficultie, meaning ſacraments of his bodie and blood. As for the new oblation that Irenaeus ſpeaketh of,Iren. li. 4. c. 32. it is the praiers and almes of the faithfull, which they offer vntounto God in the celebration of the Lords ſupper: which is ſo far from your ſacrifice, that you maie as ſoone make the north and ſouth pole meete togeather, as this teſtimonie of Irenaeus with your idoll of the Maſſe.
In that you beare your reader in hand, I hauehave diſſented from Caluin, and the Proteſtants, that argueth a weakenes of your braine, which cauſeth you to vtter ſuch idle talke. All Proteſtants, not onelie I, confeſſe that Melchiſedech was a Priest, & that he offered ſacrifice: doth it follow therefore M. R. that the ſacrifice was in bread & wine, as you pretend? whome then do I forſake? with whome doe I ioyne? what fantaſie is this that troubleth your head ſo much?
In this taking you beginne to throw out arguments,Pag 63. which muſt needs be full ſimplie and miſerably made. Howbeit ſooner may you deuiſe manie formall ſyllogiſmes for your facrifice, then make one ſound reaſon in diuinity for confirmation thereof. Thus you hauehave framed your argument with your owne hands:A Sillogiſme of M. R. examined & anſwered. That Christ did, and appointed to be done, that may & ought to be done: But Christ at his laſt ſupper offered ſacrifice according to the order of Melchiſedech, and appointed the Apoſtles and prieſts to doe the ſame: Ergo the Apoſtles & prieſts may, & ought to offer ſacrifice. This ſyllogiſme ſeemeth to be terriblye compounded, and to prooue inuincibly the ſacrifice of the Maſſe: doutleſſe Master Rainolds is perſuaded he ſhall herewith fray vsus all away. But be not diſmaied (good Reader) the light driueth darkeneſſe before it, and trueth cannot be vanquiſhed with an armie of falſe arguments, be they neuer ſo cunningly framed, much leſſe with ſuch ſlender ſophiſmes as theſe. Your Aſſumption hath two partes, & they both are falſe: whereof the concluſion following cannot be hable to looke the trueth in the face. For where you ſay I hauehave acknowledged the former part, I acknowledge no ſuch thing, nor euer did.Two graund and capitall vntrueths in the aſſumption of M. R. Syllogiſme. Chriſt at his laſt ſupper offered no ſacrifice according to the order of Melchiſedech: Chriſt appointed not the Apoſtles, nor any els, to offer the ſame. Neither of theſe parts ſhall you prooue whilſt you liue, though you liue the laſt on the earth. For what ſacrifice offered Chriſt at his ſupper? and what was the effect thereof? was this a ſacrifice according to the order of Melchiſedech? then was it not the ſame he offered on the Croſſe: for that was not of Melchiſedechs order, being not in bread and wine, as you will hauehave it, but the verie bodie of Ieſus Chriſt. But your Church maintaineth that the ſacrifice which Chriſt offered at his ſupper, was the ſame that he offered on the Croſſe. Thus handſomelie your dreames hang togeather.
Againe if Chriſt at his ſupper offered ſuch a ſacrifice, as was prefigured by Melchiſedech which you affirme, then muſt it followe that Chriſt fulfilled that figure perfectlie, and ſo the ſame ſacrifice nead no more to be offered: whereof enſueth the deſolation of your maſmōgers, whoſe occupation onelie and whollie ſtandeth in renewing the ſacrifice of the maſſe. Then would I demaund what vertue and effect that ſacrifice had, which you teach to hauehave bene offered by Chriſt at his ſupper? Did Chriſt thereby fullie appeaſe the wrath of his father? Did he fullie redeme mankinde? Or did he theſe things, but yet ſo ſlenderly & inſufficiently, that there needed another ſacrifice after, namelie his owne death vponupon the Croſſe? Anſwere plainlie as becommeth a diuine, yea a Chriſtian, yea a reaſonable man.A true Syllogiſme oppoſed againſt M. Ram. falſe & hereticall Syllogiſme.
And becauſe you framed an argument for me, as you ſay, I will doe as much for you, and thus I frame you another. If Chriſt offered are all externall ſacrifice of him ſelfe at his ſupper in bread & wine, then did Chriſt fully redeeme mankinde by a ſacrifice made in bread and wine: But Chriſt redeemed not the world, by a ſacrifice made in bread & wine, but by the ſacrifice of his owne bodie vponupon the croſſe: Ergo Chriſt offered no ſuch ſacrifice, in bread and wine at his ſupper. The partes are plaine, & need no further proofe. And where you ſay, that ſeeing Chriſt was prefigured by Aaron & Melchiſedech, therefore he offered a ſacrifice both in bloody maner, as Aaron did, and in vnbloodie, as did Melchiſedech, I ſee you labour to put life into the dead carcaſe of your argument, but all in vaine. For it cannot be ſhewed either by ſcriptures, or els by anie ancient fathers of the Church, that Chriſt offered any reall ſacrifice, but onelie in bloody maner.Heb. 10.14. Wherefore the Apoſtle ſo often repeateth the word (Once) excluding thereby all other maners of offering this ſacrifice, but one. By one oblation (ſaith the Apoſtle) hath he made perfect for euer thoſe that are ſanctified. Tell vsus what maner of oblation that was, bloody, or vnbloodie? bloodie, I truſt, you will confeſſe: and therefore no vnbloodie was neceſſary, which neither could hauehave holpen, ſeeing without ſhedding of blood there is not anie remiſſion of ſinnes. Heb. 9.22.Whereby alſo may appeare that though the ſacrifice of the maſſe be gainfull to ſuch Popiſh Prieſts, as M. R. & his companions are, yet in trueth being vnbloodie, it is vtterlie vnfitte, and vnhable to purchaſe remiſſion of ſins. Such marchandize is lightlie to be valued, as it deſerueth.
But to anſwere a litle further, concerning Melchiſedech, the ſimilitude between him and Chriſt conſiſteth not in offering vnbloodie ſacrifice,In what reſpects Melchiſedech was a figure of Chriſt. as you vntruelie and wickedlie imagine, but as the Apoſtle teacheth, in that Melchiſedech, was both a king, and a prieſt, and is ſette forth vntounto vsus in the ſcripture as eternall, and more excellent then Abraham, and the Leuitical prieſts. In theſe reſpects was he a figure of Chriſt the eternal king and prieſt, farre excelling al the prieſts of the Leuiticall order. Becauſe theſe thinges make nothing for your ſacrifice, you deuiſe a matter that was not, to prooue a thing that is not, and ſo build one lie vponupon another, the vnbloody ſacrifice of Chriſt vponupon the vnbloodie ſacrifice of Melchiſedech. But this is the iuſt iudgement of the Lord vponupon you, that ſeing you hauehave troden vnderunder your feet, the blood of the euerlaſting Teſtament, you ſhould be giuē ouer to effectual illuſions, to embrace an vnbloodie ſacrifice, which is the deuiſe of your owne braine, for the true & glorius ſacrifice of Chriſt vpō the croſſe.
This former argument of M.R. hath begotten another like to it ſelfe,Pag. 64. or rather more monſtrous. Thus it ſtandeth;An other Syllogiſme of M. Rain. like to the former, anſwered. They whoe may & ought to offer ſacrifice, as did firſt Melch. & afterward Chriſt, are truely & properlie ſacerdotes: But priests of the new Teſtament may & ought to offer ſacrifice in ſuch ſort: ergo they are truly & properly ſacerdotes, prieſts. The Minor is the ſame with the concluſiō of your other argument, as euidently falſe, as the word of god is clearlie & vndoutedlie true. For if your prieſts offer ſacrifice, as Melchiſedech and Chriſt did, then are they prieſts of Melch. order, & not prieſts onelyonly but kings. For ſo was he the figure, & ſo is Chriſt the truth. You cannot pul in ſunder theſe two offices, but if you wil needs be prieſts, & that properly, according to this order of Melchiſ. then ſeeing that order of prieſthood hath a kingdome inſeparablie annexed to it, it muſt neceſſarilie followe, that you are alſo kinges, and that properlie, which were a verie proper thing indeede, and greatlie to be accounted of.Popiſh prieſts if they be according to Melchiſedechs order, muſt not be prieſts onelie, but alſo kings If you deuide theſe offices in ſunder, it is blaſphemy; making a Prieſt according to the order of Melchiſedech, whoeis not alſo a king: If you take both iointlie to your ſelues, then will euerie hedge Prieſt be a gentleman, a lord, a King. As this is moſt abſurd, & monſtrous, ſo is that alſo, that you ſhould be prieſts according to Melchiſedechs order. For then further ought you to be eternall, without beginning or ending of daies, without father or mother, as Melchiſedech is deſcribed vntounto vsus in the ſcriptures, and as Chriſt is in trueth, and onelyonly Chriſt. So taking vponupon you this prieſthood of Melchiſedech, you commit horrible ſacriledge, and treaſon againſt the perſon of Chriſt our ſauiour, who will in time tread ſuch vermine vnderunder his feete, that creeping on the earth do preſumptuouſly chalenge to themſelues his ſpeciall prerogatiues and royalties.
S. Auguſtine calling the miniſters of the Goſpell Prieſts, ſpeaketh improperlie,Pag. 65. Auguſt. de eiuit. dei. Lib. 20 cap. 10. as hath bene anſwered. For although he ſaieth, that all Chriſtians are vnproperly called Preiſts, and others in the Church are ſo called properly, yet he meaneth not that there are anie ſuch preiſts in the Church, as Melchiſedech, or Aaron, or Chriſt was: but onelie that they are ſo termed by an vſuall, and peculiar name, which is not in cuſtome of ſpeach giuen generallie to all Chriſtians. This to hauehave bene S. Auguſtines meaning, and the iudgement of the Church heretofore, we may learne of Peter Lumbard, How the fathers cal the miniſters of the Goſpell Prieſts. Sent. lib. 4. Diſt. 12.….to let the auncient writers paſſe. For Peter firſt aſketh this queſtion, whether that which the Preiſt doth, may properly be called a ſacrifice & oblation. His anſwere he maketh thus, To this may be ſaid briefly, that which is offered, and conſecrated of the Prieſt, is called a ſacrifice, and oblation, becauſe it is the remembrance, and repreſentation of the true ſacrifice, and holy oblation that was made vppon the altar of the croſſe. Yf then there remaine in the Church no ſacrifice in proper and natural ſenſe of the word, as your owne doctour, and Maſter of ſentences confeſſeth, there can not be remaining any Prieſts, that maie ſo be called properlie. For ſuch as the kinde of ſacrifice is, ſuch is alſo the kinde of prieſthood: if the ſacrifice be not a ſacrifice properly, the prieſthood cannot be a Prieſthood properly, but onelyonly by a figuratiue and vnproper maner of ſpeach.
That Auguſtine was a prieſt him-ſelfe,Pag. 66. Auguſt Cofeſ. Lib. 9. cap. 11.12.13. you labour to prooue out of his booke of Confeſſions: in which place though he ſpeak of an altar and ſacrifice, yet he meaneth not ſuch altares and ſacrifices, as you hauehave erected and offered in all places. This ſacrifice that he ſpeaketh of, is the ſacrament of Chriſtes death, the altar is the Lords table, the remembrance of his mother in offering this ſacrifice on the altar, is giuing of thankes to God for her in celebrating the Lords ſupper. Although I denie not, but the ſuperſtition of praying for the dead was then crept into the Church: ſo that if you will needes vrge that Monica deſired to hauehave praiers made for her, I will not greatly ſtand with you herein. But that anie real ſacrifice of Chriſt, as you meane, was offered for quick or dead in thoſe daies, that I denie, and you can not prooue it by this, or an… other teſtimonie of S. Auguſtine.
Where I ſaie, that Chriſt hath committed his Church to be ruled by Paſtors and Doctors for euer, and not to Prieſtes,pag. 67. you demaund whether this appointment had effect or no & giuegive me warning to beware (as though ſome danger were at hand) what I anſwere. But we ſhall eaſilie, I truſt driue awaie this craking Annibal from the gates of our Citie, who commeth only to make a ſhew, and hath no force to hurt.Ephi 4.11. Miniſters of the Goſpell are ueuer called prieſts in the new Teſtament. That Chriſt ordained Paſtors and Doctors to rule his Church, the ſcripture is plaine, ſo that you may not forſhame deny it: now if theſe were prieſts trulie and properlie, then ſhould they hauehave bene ſo called, and by this name commended vntounto vsus in the ſcriptures. But wheras their office is declared diuerſlie in great varietie of names, y…t is this name neuer once giuen vntounto them in no Goſpell, in no epiſtle, in no booke of the new teſtament. And maie we thinke that if the miniſters of Chriſt in the new Teſtament were by Gods inſtitution verie Prieſtes, as theſe men beare vsus in hand, and had commiſſion to offer ſo excellent a ſacrifice, as no Prieſt euer the like, ſaue Chriſt himſelfe, may we thinke, I ſaie, or is it likelie that this name ſhould neuer hauehave bene found in all the new Teſtament in this ſenſe, where are ſo manifold titles giuen vntounto them, as of Elders, Ouerſeers, Rulers, Shepheards, Watchmen, Miniſters, Stewards, Seruants, and ſuch like? Of all which names none pleaſeth their humor: but Prieſts they wil be called & accounted, as though Gods ſpirite which appointeth offices in the Church, could not hauehave giuen fit names vntounto them, but would rather giuegive them anie name, then that which is their proper name. Anie man then, that hath but halfe an eie, maie ſoone ſee, that the holie ghoſt in auoiding this name ſo carefullie, hath giuen our Popiſh Prieſts a cleane wipe, and both left them out of the dore, and ſhut the dore againſt them: & though they ſtriue neuer ſo much to creepe in, yet are they to be driuen awaie by lawfull authoritie, and kept forth, as they that hauehave nothing at all to do in Gods howſe.
But here M. Rainolds hath gotten a doughtie argument, which I thinke becauſe he knew not how to bring it in fitly in ſome other place, hath halde it in here out of place. He bids me ſhew where this Church for many hundred yeares was gogouerned thus, which is as common an argument with them, to vſe his owne words, as Dunſtable hiewaie. For this reaſon is euen their common pack-horſe to beare the wholl burthen, when all other faile, where was your Church, where were your miniſters before Luther? Whereunto, that you may perceiue how farre we diſagree from the Donatiſtes, of whome you ſpeake, I anſwere, that our Church was neuer ſo ſtraited, but that it might be found in all countreis chriſtened, and our miniſters had the chiefeſt roomes, till Antichriſt by litle and litle had driuen them out: and then afterwards the Lord continuallie raiſed vp, and prouided for his Church, ſuch paſtors and doctors, as were neceſſarie for the gathering of the ſaincts togeather. Further anſwere in this place is not needfull.
As for Auguſtine the monke,Pag. 68. and Laurentius, and the reſt, whome you call the firſt Apoſtles, and conuerters of our nation, I neither acknowledge them for Apoſtles, nor Prieſts: yea ſure I am, if they were true Apoſtles, then were they no Prieſts, and if they were Prieſts, their Apoſtleſhip was of a wrong ſtampe. And though Beda ſo call them, yet it followeth not that they were popiſh prieſts, ſeing he vſed but the phraſe of common ſpeach, by which the preachers and Miniſters of the word and ſacraments were ſo called: in which reſpect my ſelfe alſo called S. Ierome a prieſt of the Romane Church. But this though an vſual, yet is it an improper kinde of ſpeach.
What wanteth in reaſoning, you ſupply in rayling.pag. 69. Iohn Bale you call a ſincke of iniquitie: Caluin, you ſaie, is more execrable then the reſt: of ſuch flowers Maſter Rainolds garden (good reader) hath aboundance, as lightlie thou ſhalt finde anie where. Thoſe ſeruants of Chriſt, of whome you ſpeake your pleaſure, hauehave noted the fathers for their declining from the puritie of the goſpel, & that may they in ſome things worthelie doe, euen as Paul did Peter. And touching this matter we hauehave in hand, there were amongſt them ſome ſuperſtitious offerings, The fathers acknowledge not the Popiſh ſacrifice.which euen the papiſts themſelues hauehave abandoned: but that the fathers were prieſts in our meaning, or thought they had anie reall ſacrifice of Chriſtes bodie and bloode, you hauehave not ſhewed, nor can.Tertul. ad Scapul. The fathers denie that any ſuch ſacrifice remaineth. Tertullian ſaith, we ſacrifice, for the ſafetie of the Emperour: but to our God, and his: but as God hath commaunded with pure praier. Tertullian knoweth not of any externall ſacrifice amonge the Chriſtians: for then would they hauehave offered that alſo for the Emperour.Iuſtin, in dial. cum Tryphone. And Iuſtinus Martyr before him, ſaieth, that Chriſtians hauehave learned to offer the ſacrifice of ſupplications, and thanksgiuing onelie. Which he would not hauehave ſayde, if Chriſtians had learned to offer the ſacrifice of the maſſe. S. Chryſoſt. ſaith,Chryſ. in epiſt. Hebr. hom. 13. If Chriſt be perfect, neuer ſinneth, alwaie liueth, why ſhoulde he offer for vsus many ſacrifices? And againe, There is no other ſacrifice: one hath purged vsus. After that remaineth fire and hell. S Auguſt. ſaith, Chriſt onelie is our preist, our ſacrifice, our Temple. Auguſt. de fide ad Pet. Di…. c. 2.I omit many moe: by theſe teſtimonies the Godly reader may vnderſtand, that in the primitiue Church was no ſuch ſacrifice, nor prieſthood, as the Popiſh is pretended to be. And therefore I ſee no cauſe, why I ſhould be affraid to ſtand in maintenance of M. Iuell that godly and learned Biſhops chalenge in this behalfe, which hath not hetherto, nor cannot be diſprooued. And though you, as alſo many of your fellowes are ſtill pinching at it, yet you are all content to let it reſt, as Doctor Harding left it, which was full greatlie to your diſcredit. And as for the Doctors that Caluin alledgeth, although they force the ſcriptures, as he ſaieth, manifeſtlie to a wrong purpoſe, in applying Melchiſedechs example to the matter of the ſacrament, yet none of them prooueth that ſacrifice, that Maſter Iewell denieth, and therefore you doe but idlelie and triflinglie ſpend your time, and trouble your reader with your follies. But you would, I dare ſaie, better intertaine him, if you had anie better prouiſion.Caluin. de vera Eccl. reform. Yet you might hauehave ſeene that Caluin in that place cenſureth thoſe fathers with theſe wordes by you alledged, for an other place of ſcripture wrongly & ſtrangely applied, not for defending the vnbloody ſacrifice as you affirme.
Then you come to lift at my argument,pag. 74. which I gathered out of the Apoſtle againſt your ſacrificing Prieſts: but your ſtrength faileth you much in this enterpriſe. The Apoſtle ſaieth, that Chriſt hath foreign, that is, an euerlaſting Prieſthoode. Heb. 7.24.Here you rehearſe diuerſe interpretations of the Greeke word, foreign, which the Apoſtle vſeth: although there are none but meanlie ſeene in that tongue, that need your helpe therein. For that properlie is foreign, that paſſeth not away from one to an other. And herein the Apoſtle compareth our ſauiour Chriſt with the Prieſts of Aarons order, & ſheweth a manifeſt difference, that the Leuitical Prieſthood reſted not in one man, but went from man to man, by reaſon of death, which ſuffered not one & the ſame Prieſt continuallie to enioie his office: but Chriſt liueth for euer, and therefore his Prieſthood abideth with him onelie,The Apoſtles reaſon excludeth the Popiſh prieſts no les then the Leuitical. and is not in execution enlarged to anie other. And this reaſon of the Apoſtle debarreth as wel the popiſh, as the Aaronical prieſts. For the Prieſts of the popiſh order are no more exempted from neceſſitie of dying, then were thoſe prieſts of Aarons ſtocke, ſo that they are no leſſe oppoſed vntounto Chriſt, then the other.
Herein therefore lieth the force of the Apoſtles argument, that the Prieſthood of the new Teſtament belongeth onelyonly vntounto him, that is immortal: for otherwiſe he had not put anie neceſſarie difference betwene that and the other: whereof it doth inuinciblie, and neceſſarielie enſue, that the onelie prieſt of the new Teſtament, is Ieſus Chriſt. This Chryſoſtome concludeth out of the Apoſtles words moſte plainly:Chryſ. in Hebr. 7. homil. 13. S Chriſoſt. plainlie condemneth all popiſh prieſts As there were (ſaieth he) manie prieſts, becauſe they were mortall ſo there is but one, becauſe he is immortall. For can they anſwere for them ſelues, that though they die, yet Chriſt liueth, whoſe partners herein they recken them ſelues to be? might not the Iewiſh prieſts likewiſe hauehave ſaid as much, ſeeing it cannot be denied, but their prieſthood alſo was referred vntounto Chriſt? But as thoſe Prieſts togeather with their Prieſthood expired, when our ſauiour Chriſt, the true Prieſt and ſacrifice, was exhibited, ſo their was no place left for other Prieſts, nor other ſacrifice, all figures being in Chriſt moſte fullie and perfectlie accompliſhed. Yet as though Chriſt had bene either a mortall prieſt like to Aaron, and his children, or his ſacrifice had not at once ſatisfied the wrath of God, they ſubſtitute to Chriſt an infinite multitude of prieſtes, far moe then were euer the Leuitical prieſts, & take vponupon them blaſphemouſly to offer againe daily the ſame ſacrifice that Chriſt once offered, which is impoſſible for any to offer, but onelyonly the ſonne of God himſelfe. O that Chriſtian people would conſider the horrible dongeon of iniquitie, that lieth hid vnderunder the abhominable ſacrifice of the popiſh maſſe, then which the ſunne did neuer beholde a thing more lothſome and deteſtable in the eies of the God of heauen.
This therefore is a ſure reaſon, and ſhal ſtand againſt the gates of hell, and force of all papiſtes, that Chriſt is a Prieſt for euer, and hath an euerlaſting Prieſthood. Therefore he is the onelyonly Prieſt of the new Teſtament, and his Prieſthood is not communicated to anie other: and ſo your prieſtes are no prieſts, your ſacrifice is no ſacrifice, your Religion is no Religion, your Chriſt is no Chriſt, your God is no God. Depart from them whoſoeuer will not be partakers of their condemnation.
To ſhew this reaſon to be childiſh,Pag. 76. you hauehave brought indeed a childiſh exception. Chriſt is (you ſaie) a true man for euer, a king for euer, our doctor, master, and teacher for euer: yet are there many men, kings, doctors, & teachers, beſides Christ. An obiection of M.R. anſwered.This man is ſuddenlie ſo drowned in the dreggs of poperie, that he hath loſt all taſte and ſenſe of trueth: for els he would hauehave bene aſhamed of ſuch an anſwere, which nothing cōmeth neare the matter. We ſpeake of thoſe offices, which Chriſt was apointed to beare by the annointing of the holie ghoſt, and ſpecial commiſſion from God: you bring inſtance of things that be of an other condition and nature, as to be a true man, an earthlie King, an outward miniſter of the word, & ſuch like. Chriſt is our onelie king, Prophet, and Prieſt: ſo that in this ſenſe, in which theſe are giuen to him, none can be King, Prophet, or Prieſt, but he. For he onelie is our ſpiritual King, he onelyonly is our teacher, and author of all heauenlie doctrine, he onelie can offer the ſacrifice propitiatorie for the ſinnes of the world. If you thinke anie can be a King or Prophet in this manner, but onelie he, you take his honour from him, and giuegive it to an other, to whome it doth not appertaine: which you do indede moſt notably in ſeſing your ſelues vponupon his Prieſthood, which doth as truelie belong to him alone, as the other of his Kingdome and Prophecie do. Now then weigh with your ſelfe, what a witles obiection you hauehave made: and if you can bring no better defenſe for your Prieſtes, then your hauehave hetherto done, you hauehave good cauſe to be ſorie, and aſhamed that euer you changed your copie, and of a miniſter of the Goſpel, became a prieſt of the popiſh order. God giuegive you grace to repent, that the fruite of Chriſtes prieſthood maie not be denied vntounto you another daie.
That which followeth, is but a ſupplie of ſuperfluous wordes, without wit, without learning, without trueth. The compariſon you make betwene an earthly prince and Chriſt, doth nothing fit your purpoſe. For if you hauehave as lawfull authoritie vnderunder Chriſt to exerciſe a prieſthood, as the ciuil gouernours hauehave vnderunder their prince to execute their office laid vponupon them, then ſhew your commiſſion, and we require no more. For as no man dare preſume in the affaires of the ſtate to commaund or enterpriſe anie thing in the princes name without a ſufficient warrant from the prince: ſo maie no man take vponupon him anie eccleſiaſticall function in the Church, vlnes he hauehave a commaundement from the Lord. But Chriſt neuer gaue you anie ſuch commaundement, he neuer laid vponupon you any ſuch office, he neuer called you to this honour, to be his fellow prieſtes: els bring vsus your Charter, that we maie ſe it, and ſhew vsus your letters of orders, that we may trie them. And further you are to conſider that although the prince beſtow offices & preferments vponupon his ſubiects, as pleaſeth him, yet his Regalities he keepeth to himſelfe, and no ſubiect wil preſume to chalenge them. Pharao gaue Ioſeph as great authoritie, as anie princes vſe to giuegive anie of their ſeruants: yet the chaire of eſtate he kept to himſelfe, & therin he was aboue him. But you moſte rudelie and arrogantlie intrude your ſelues into Chriſts ſeate, and will not onelie be his viceprieſts, but as good prieſts as he, ioined in the ſame commiſſion with him, according to the ſame order of Melchiſedech, that he was of: & ſo you are not content with ſuch offices as he hath appointed vntounto you, but you claime his chiefeſt principalities, which is no leſſe a fault, then high treaſon againſt the hieſt maieſty.
M. Rain. maketh an end of this treatiſe with an other fooliſh cauil taken out of the communion booke, wherein, he ſaith, commiſſion is giuen in ſome caſes, to the minister, to remitt ſinnes. whie ſaie you, in ſome caſes? The Miniſter of God hath power to forgiue ſinnes, not in ſome caſes onelie, but in all whatſoeuer, if the ſinner repent & beleeue the goſpell. This authoritie is giuen vntounto him by Chriſt, this the parlament, & communion booke confeſſe, this the miniſters daylie practiſe amongſt vsus. Neuertheles you are ſtill as farre from your purpoſe, as before. For this maketh not our miniſters to be prieſts, but preachers of repentance, which bring the glad tidings of the goſpell, to all thoſe that be heauie laden, and deſire to be refreſhed. Neither hauehave they power themſelues to forgiue ſinnes,Mar. 2.7. (for God onelie forgiueth ſinnes) but hauing the word of reconciliation committed vntounto them from God, they offer pardon, and in his name pronounce pardon to the ſinner, that turneth from his ſinnes vntounto the Lord. If you know this, why ſtriue you againſt a knowen & confeſſed truth? If you be ignorant what commiſſion the miniſters hauehave receiued of Chriſt, then be content to learn it out of the word of god. As for your prieſts you hauehave alleadged nothing, to prooue their calling and authoritie lawfull, and I hauehave ſhewed that the ſcriptures giuing all prieſthood, after Melchiſ. order, to Chriſt onelie, hauehave wrung in ſunder the necks of your popiſh ſacrificers, and therefore it is the duetie of all Chriſtians whoſe ſaluation conſiſteth in the ſacrifice & prieſthood of Chriſt, to thinke of you, as you are indeed, enemies of Chriſt, Baalites, idolatrous Antichriſtian Prieſtes whoſe puniſhment ſhal be with the Beaſt in the lake that burneth with fire & brimſtone for euer. The Lord open the eies of his people, that they may ſee your wickednes, and beware of you, leaſt they be in wrapped in the ſame condemnation with you.