The Buckler of the Faith, Part 2 · Article 35 · Subpart 9
Of the order of Priesthood in the Church of Rome, and of their sacrificing.
Sect. 11 In the Scripture the office of Priests is to labour in the word, 1. Tim. 5.17. and to feede the flocke of the Lord, Acts 20.17. In the 2. chap. of the Acts, the offices of Pastors are, to continue in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, & breaking of bread, & prayer.
At this day the office and duty of a Priest consisteth not in preaching the Gospell: for in the Church of Rome the greatest part of the Priests preach not. To be a Preacher, they must hauehave another dignitie besides Priesthood. By the manner of their ordination they are made sacrificers of the body of Iesus Christ.
The Bishop putteth the couer & the chalice into their hands,Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium Deo, Missas{que} celebrare, tam pro viuis quā pro mortuis. saying, Receiue power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses as well for the liuing as for the dead.
By these words the Bishop conferreth a charge which Iesus Christ did not institute, yea and such a charge as surpasseth all the dignity and power of Angels, whose vertue and excellency is nothing in regard of making Iesus Christ, and of offering him to God for a sacrifice: which deserued a formall commandement and an expresse institution of Iesus Christ. But there is no such thing found in the Scripture.
1 For the Apostle, Ephesians 4.11. and 1. Cor. 12.28. nominateth the offices which Iesus Christ established in his Church. He himselfe (saith he) gaue some to be Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Euangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. There is no mention neither there nor elsewhere made of the sacrifice of the body of our Lord.
2 And further, in the same place, their functions which God would hauehave them to exercise, are particularly declared: Which are, for the repairing of the Saints, for the worke of the ministerie, and for the edification of the body of Christ. But not to sacrifice the body of Christ.
3 And it is not without cause, that oftentimes in the new Testament all the faithfull are called Priests: but there is no place in the Scripture to be found where Pastors of the Church are expresly called sacrificers. The holy Ghost foreseeing that there would some Pastors arise that would take that title vponupon them in an iniurious sence against the Sonne of God.
4 For, not to speake of the iniurie done to the sacrifice of the crosse, whereof I will speake hereafter: I say, that by this office of a sacrificer of the body of Iesus Christ, the Priest exalteth himselfe aboue Iesus Christ. For it is manifest, that to sacrifice, is a more excellent thing, then to be sacrificed: as Aaron was more excellent then his offerings, or the things that he offered; for Aaron represented Iesus Christ sacrifising, as the thing offered represented Iesus Christ which was to be offered. The dignity of the sacrificing priest makes the offering acceptable. The Priest therefore sacrificing Iesus Christ, exalteth himselfe aboue Iesus Christ, because the Priest is the Sacrificer, and Iesus Christ is the Sacrifice. For although yt in the Masse they pretend that Iesus Christ is also the sacrificer, yet this is certaine, that the Priest sacrificing Iesus Christ in the Masse, is more excellent then Iesus Christ, in as much as he is there sacrificed. For when we shall hauehave examined and considered all the actions whereby the Priest pretendeth to accomplish his sacrifice, as the pronunciation of the consecrating words, the eleuation of the Host, the prayers which beseech God to accept of that offering the breaking; and the eating, we shall finde that the Priest doth all these things, and that they cannot be attributed to Iesus Christ. From whence it followeth, that in the sacrifice of the Masse, Iesus Christ is not sacrificed.
5 It also appeareth that in the Masse the Priest exalteth himselfe aboue Iesus Chrlst, in this, that he holdeth the Host in his hands, he breaketh it when he will, he carrieth it whither he will, and when it pleaseth him he may throw it into the fire, or treade it vnderunder his feete. For that Iesus Christ which he pretendeth to sacrifice, is without sense and motion, and cannot defend himselfe. He cannot breathe, nor open his eyes, nor stirre his hands. And although the Priest were a murtherer, an incestuous person, or a Sodomite, yet (according to the opinion of the Romish Church,) he hath Iesus Christ in his power.
6 If we aske our Aduersaries, wherein the sacrifice of the new Testament, and that perpetuall office of sacrificing according to the order of Melchizedech consisteth: they answer, that it consisteth herein, That eueryevery day the Priest sacrificeth the body of our Lord, vnderunder the accidents of bread and wine in the Eucharist. How then comes it to passe, that the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is one of the longest, and which (in a manner) speaketh of no other thing then of the sacrifice of the new Testament, and of the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedech, speaketh nothing of the Eucharist, nor of the sacrifice of bread and wine, nor of any earthly sacrifice? but speaketh of no other sacrificer then Iesus Christ, nor of any other Sacrifice then of his death? How did he forget that wherein at this day they make the Priesthood of the Christian Church onelyonly to consist? The Apostle by this reckoning, doth like one that writing of the dutie of a King, speaketh neither of his kingdome, nor of his subiects: or, as if one should write of the art of Horsemanship, without speaking of horses. For the Apostle hath at large written of the continual office of the Sacrificing in the Christian Church, without speaking of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, wherein they will hauehave this office of Sacrifice onelyonly to consist.
7 Further, if we aske our aduersaries, when this Sacrament of the order of Priesthood was instituted, they answer, that Iesus Christ did institute it when he celebrated the Eucharist among his Apostles, and say, that then they receiued the order of Priesthood. But in that action, where was there any conferring of that Order? Where was the imposition of hands? or any other ceremony which supplied that want? Where was there any instructions touching the office of Priests? seeing that priesthood (according to themselues) hath many other functions, besides sacrificing of the body of our Lord?
8 But who will beleeue, that Iesus Christ celebrating the holy Supper, did institute two Sacraments by one action? Two different or seuerall Sacraments should necessarily be instituted by different words or seuerall ceremonies. We cannot by like words and actions administer Baptisme and Marriage; or conferre Confirmation, & extreme Vnction.
9 If the Apostles were made Sacrificers when Iesus Christ said vntounto them; Do this in remembrance of me: it followeth, that they might sing Masse (as at this day they say) while Iesus Christ was vponupon the Crosse, or in the Sepulcher; which necessa…ily at one time maketh one Iesus Christ suffering vponupon the Cr…sse, and another Iesus Christ (not suffering) in the Host: one dead and laid in the Sepulcher, and another liuing in the Masse, both at one time.
10 From hence also it would follow, that the Apostles were for a while Priests without keyes, and could sing Masse without giuing absolution: for the power to remit sinnes promised vntounto them in the 18. of Saint Matthew, was not actually conferred vntounto them, but in Iohn 20.23, certaine dayes after the resurrection of the Lord.
11 Let the Reader that hath any care of his saluation, earnestly consider that which I shall say: which is, that Saint Matthew and S. Marke, reciting how, and in what manner Iesus Christ instituted & celebrated the Eucharist among his Disciples, hauehave set downe these words, Do this, and adde no more. Then if by these words, Do this, the Lord did establish Sacrificers of his body, and instituted the sacrificing Priesthood of the new Testament, as the Councell of Trent saith: and if by those words Iesus Christ instituted a Sacrament, we must say, that those two Pen-men of the holy Ghost, whereof the one, that is, Saint Matthew, was present at the action, hauehave made a rehearsall vntounto vsus of this institution, which is defectiue in the principall point, and hauehave omitted the institution of this Sacrifice so important, and of this office of Sacrificer of the new Testament. If they had done as S. Iohn doth, who speaketh not at all of the Institution of the Supper, it might be thought to be lesse strange that S. Matthew and S. Marke had omitted both the institution of the holy Supper, and of the office of Sacrificer. But reciting the institution of the holy Supper; and omitting those formall words, whereby they say he instituted an office of a Sacrificer and a Sacrifice, it is manifest and most euident, that they were ignorant of that office of Sacrificer, and of that imaginarie sacrifice.
12 I would likewise hauehave them shew me, who conferred the office of Sacrificer to Saint Paul the Apostle, and who gaue him authoritie to sacrifice the body of Iesus Christ: for he was not at the Table with the Apostles, when the Lord said vntounto them, Do this in remembrance of me. In the Acts of the Apostles we see, how Iesus Christ called him, and how he established him in his office of Apostle, in which office he saith, he was not established by any man, but by Iesus Christ. And the office whereunto Iesus Christ called him, was not to be a Sacrificer of his bodie, but to be an instrument, to beare his name before the Gentiles, and Kings, and the children of Israel, Acts 9.15. Behold here then an Apostle without the office of a Sacrificer, to whom Iesus Christ neuer said, Sacrifice me in remembrance of me.
13 And seeing that our Aduersaries are of opinion that Iesus Christ celebrated Masse in Emaus with two of his Disciples, whereof we reade in Luke 24. I aske then, If in that action he made those two Disciples Sacrificers of his bodie? If, saying vntounto them, Do this, he did not make them Sacrificers; it followeth, that these words, Do this, do not signifie, Sacrifice me. But if by these words he made them Sacrificers, it will follow that there were Sacrificers which had not their vocation from Saint Peter.
14 The Apostle S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11.14. rehearseth the institution of this holy Sacrament, that the Corinthians might be confirmed therein. There he witnesseth that Iesus Christ saying, Do this in remembrance of me, spake to all the faithfull: for those to whom he directed those words, are they (who in the verse ensuing) he commandeth to declare the death of the Lord, and to eate of that Bread, and drinke of that Cup after they hauehave examined themselues: which is a commandement made to the people, and which eueryevery faithfull Christian ought to do. By this meanes eueryevery Christian shall be a Sacrificer, and may sing Masse.
15 If these words, Do this in remembrance of me, were words that ordained the office of Sacrificers, eueryevery time, & as often as we should exhort the faithfull in that holy action, to do that in remembrance of Iesus Christ which Iesus Christ did, we should establish as many sacrificers as there are communicants.
16 The Apostle Saint Paul to the Hebrewes speaketh absolutely against this inuented office of sacrifice; for besides that which he saith in the 5. Chapter 4. verse, that No man taketh this honour vntounto himselfe, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was, in the chapter 7.23.27. he giueth two peremptory reasons, for the which the sacrifice and the office of sacrificing ought to be abolished. The one, that the soueraigne sacrificers of the Law were subiect to die, and that death hindred them from continuing. The other is, that they were bound to sacrifice first for their owne sinnes, and after for the peoples sinnes: which also concerned inferior sacrificers, who also being mortall and sinners, died and were taken away. What is in all this that equally concernes not the sacrifices of the Church of Rome, who are likewise mortall and sinfull? And what cause may be giuen, why the Priests should continue and be suffered in the Church, which may not as well be for the continuance and maintenance of the Priests of the Law? Was the Apostle so voide of sence, as not to see and perceiue that speaking in that manner against the office of the legall sacrifice, he also spake against the office of sacrificing vnderunder the Gospell? Would he not (thinke you) hauehave taken away this scruple, and preuented this obiection?
17 To be short, the Bishops of the Church of Rome are continuing there still, and yet could neuer shew their power, nor their commission from Iesus Christ to establish sacrificers of his body in the Church.