Hebrews — Chapter 9

And this is the Apostles meaning in al this comparison and opposition of Christes death to the old Sacrifices, and of Christ to their Priests: and not that Christes death or Sacrifice of the Crosse should take away al Sacrifices, or proue that those Aaronical offices were no true Sacrifices at al, nor those Priests, verily Priests. They were true Priests & true Sacrifices, though none of those Sacrifices were the high, capital, and general Sacrifice of our price and redemption: nor none of them, or of those Priests, could without respect to this one Sacrifice of Christes death, worke any thing to Gods honour, or remission of sinnes, as the Iewes did falsely imagin, not referring them at al to this general redemption and remission by Christ, but thinking them to be absolute Sacrifices in themselues. And that to haue been the errour of the Hebrues, you may read in S. Augustin li. 3. doct. Christ. c. 6. And this, we tel the Protestants, is the only purpose of the Apostle. But they be so grosse, or ignorant in the Scriptures, and so malitiously set against Gods and the Churches truth, that they peruersely and foolishly turne the whole disputation against the Sacrifice of the B. Masse, & the Priests of the new Testament: as though we held, that the Sacrifice of the altar were the general redemption or redeeming Sacrifice, or that it had no relation to Christes death, or that, it were not the representation and most liuely resemblance of the same, or were not instituted and done, to apply in particular to the vse of the partakers, that other general benefit of Christes one oblation vpon the Crosse. Against the Iewes then only S. Paul disputeth, and against the false opinion they had of their Priests and Sacrifices, to which they attributed al remission and redemption, without respect of Christes death.

4. A golden pot.) Relikes. They continue without putrefaction. The Protestants count it superstitious to keepe with honour and reuerence the holy memories or monuments of Gods benefites and miracles, or the tokens of Christes Passion, as his Crosse, garments, or other things appertaining to him or his Saincts, and thinke it impossible that such things should dure so long: when they may here see the reuerent and long reseruation of Manna, which of it self was most apt to putrifie, and of Aarons rodde, onely for that it sodenly florished by miracle, the tables of the Testament &c. See a notable place in S. Cyril li. 6 cont. Iulian. The holy CROSSE. where he defendeth against Iulian the Apostataes blasphemie, the keeping and honouring of that Crosse or wood which Christ died on. The sepulchres of Christ and his Saints. See also S. Paulinus ep. 11. and what reuerence S. Hierom and the faithful of his time did to the sepulchres of Christ and his Martyrs, and to their relikes. *We reuerence and worship (saith he) euery where Martyrs sepulchres, and putting the holy ashes to our eies, if we may, we touch it with our mouth also: and do some thinke, that the monument wherein our Lord was buried, is to be neglected? But our Protestants can not skill of this, they had rather folow Vigilantius, Iulianus the Apostata, and such Maisters, then the holy Doctors and euident practise of the Church in al ages. * Ep. 17. c. 5.

5. Cherubins.) Images in Salomons temple commanded by God. You see it is a fond thing, to conclude vpon the first or second commaundement, that there should be no sacred images in the Church, when euen among these people that were most prone to idolatrie, and grosse in imagination of spiritual things such as Angels are, and to whom the precept was specially giuen, the same God that forbade them grauen idols, did commaund these images of Angels to be made and set in the soueraine holiest place of al the Tabernacle or Temple. By which it is plaine, that much more the images of Christ and his B. mother and Saincts, that may be more truely pourtered then mere spiritual substances can be, are not contrarie to Gods commaundement, nor against his honour, or repugnant to any other Scripture at all, which condemne onely the Idols or pourtraitures of the Heathen made for adoration of false Gods.

10. Vntil the time of correction.) Al those grosse and carnal Sacrifces, ceremonies, and obseruations instituted to cleanse and purifie the flesh from legal irregularities & impurities only, & not reaching to the purging of the soules & consciences of men, being commanded not for euer, but til Christes comming, ceased then: and better, more forcible, and more spiritual Sacraments were instituted in their place. Sacrifice not take away by the new Testament, but changed into a better. For we may not imagin Christ to haue taken away the old, and put none in their place: or to alter the Sacraments only into other Sacraments external, and not also to translate the Sacrifices to some other more excellent. For it is called, tempus correctionis, non abolitionis Sacrificij aut legis: the time of correction not of abolishing Sacrifice or law. Neither haue they more reason to affirme Christes one oblation vpon the Crosse to haue rather taken away al kind of Sacrifice, then al manner of Sacraments. The time and state of the new Testament is not made lawlesse, hostlesse, or without Sacrifice, but it is the time of correction or reformation and abettering al the foresaid things.

12. Eternal redemption.) One only Sacrifice on the Crosse the redemption of the world; & one only Priest (Christ) the Redemer thereof. No one of the Sacrifices, nor al the Sacrifices of the old law, could make that one general price, ransom, and redemption of al mankind, and of al sinnes, sauing this one highest Priest Christ, and the one Sacrifice of his bloud once offered vpon the Crosse. Which Sacrifice of redemption can not be often done, because Christ could not die but once. Though the figures also therof in the law of nature & of Moyses, were truely called Sacrifices, as specially this high and maruelous commemoration of the same in the holy Sacrament of the altar, according to the rite of the new Testament, is most truely and singularly (as * S. Augustin calleth it) a Sacrifice. But neither this sort, nor the other of the old law, being often repeated and done by many Priests (al which were and are sinners themselues) could be the general redeeming and consummating Sacrifice: nor any one of those Priests, nor al the Priests together, either of the law of Nature, or of Aarons, or Melchisedechs Order (except Christ alone) could be the general Redeemers of the world. * Li. de Sp. & lit. c. 11. The Apostles disputation being only against the errour of the Iewes concerning their Sacrifices and Priests: the Protestants applying it against the Sacrifice of the Masse and Priests of the new Testament. And this is the Apostles meaning in al this comparison and opposition of Christes death to the old Sacrifices, and of Christ to their Priests: and not that Christes death or Sacrifice of the Crosse should take away al Sacrifices, or proue that those Aaronical offices were no true Sacrifices at al, nor those Priests, verily Priests. They were true Priests & true Sacrifices, though none of those Sacrifices were the high, capital, and general Sacrifice of our price and redemption: nor none of them, or of those Priests, could without respect to this one Sacrifice of Christes death, worke any thing to Gods honour, or remission of sinnes, as the Iewes did falsely imagin, not referring them at al to this general redemption and remission by Christ, but thinking them to be absolute Sacrifices in themselues. And that to haue been the errour of the Hebrues, you may read in S. Augustin li. 3. doct. Christ. c. 6. And this, we tel the Protestants, is the only purpose of the Apostle. But they be so grosse, or ignorant in the Scriptures, and so malitiously set against Gods and the Churches truth, that they peruersely and foolishly turne the whole disputation against the Sacrifice of the B. Masse, & the Priests of the new Testament: as though we held, that the Sacrifice of the altar were the general redemption or redeeming Sacrifice, or that it had no relation to Christes death, or that, it were not the representation and most liuely resemblance of the same, or were not instituted and done, to apply in particular to the vse of the partakers, that other general benefit of Christes one oblation vpon the Crosse. Against the Iewes then only S. Paul disputeth, and against the false opinion they had of their Priests and Sacrifices, to which they attributed al remission and redemption, without respect of Christes death.

15. Of those preuarications.) The Protestants dow vnlearnedly imagin, that because al sinnes be remitted by the force of Christes passion, that therfore there should be no other Sacrifice after his death. Whereas indeed they might as wel say, there ought neuer to haue been Sacrifice appointed by God, either in the law of Nature, or of Moyses: as al their arguments made against the Sacrifice of the Church vpon the Apostles discourse, proue as wel, or rather only, that there were no Sacrifices of Aarons Order or Leuitical law at al. For against the Iewes false opinion concerning them, doth he dispute, and not a word, touching the Sacrifice of the Church, vnto which n al this discourse he neuer opposeth Christes Sacrifice vpon the Crosse: al Christian men wel knowing that the host and oblation of those two, though they differ in manner and external forme, yet is indeed al one. The Apostle then sheweth here plainely, that al the sinnes that euer were remitted since the beginning of the world, were no otherwise forgiuen, but by the force and in respect of Christes Passion. Yet it followeth not thereupon, that the oblations of Abel, Abraham, Aaron, &c were no Sacrifices, as by the Heretikes foolish deduction it should doe: S. Paul not opposing Christes Passion to them, for the intent to proue them to haue been no Sacrifices, but to proue, that they were not absolute Sacrifices, nor the redeeming or consummating Sacrifice, which could not be many, nor done by many Priests, but by one, and at one time, by a more excellent Priest then any of them, or any other mere mortal man. Caluins argument against the Sacrifice of the altar, maketh no lesse against the Sacrifice of the old Law. And that you may see the blasphemous pride and ignorance of Caluin, and in him, of al his fellowes: read (so many as may read Heretical bookes) his commentarie vpon this place, and there you shal see him gather vpon this that Christes death had force from the beginning & was the remedie for al sinnes since the creation of the world, therfore there must be no moe but that one Sacrifice of Christes death. Which must needes by his deduction hold (as it doth indeed) no lesse against the old Sacrifices then the new Sacrifice of the Church, and so take away al, which is against the Apostles meaning and al religion.

20. This is the bloud.) The correspondence of wordes in dedication both Testaments proueth the real presence of bloud in the Chalice. Christes death was necessarie for the ful confirmation, ratification, and accomplishment of the new Testament, though it was begun to be dedicated in the Sacrifice of his last supper, being also within the compasse of his Passion. Which is euident by the wordes pronounced by Christ ouer the holy chalice, which be correspondent to the wordes that were spoken (as the Apostle here declareth) in the first Sacrifice of the dedication of the old law, hauing also expresse mention of remission of sinnes therby as by the bloud of the new Testament. Whereby it is plaine, that the B. Chalice of the altar hath the very sacrificall bloud in it that was shed vpon the Crosse, in & by which, the new Testament (which is the law of spirit, grace, and remission) was dedicated, and doth consist. And therfore it is also cleere, that many diuine things, which to the Heretikes or ignorant may seeme to be spoken only of Christes Sacrifice vpon the Crosse, be indeed verified & fulfilled also in the Sacrifice of the altar. Whereof S. Paul for the causes aforesaid would not treate in plaine termes. See Isychius li. 4. in Leuit. c. 4. paulo post initium, applying al these things to the immolation of Christ also in the Sacrament.

23. The examplers.) In the old Testament were figures of the new: in the new, is resemblance of the heavenly state. Al the offices, places, vessels, and instruments of the old law, were but figures and resemblances of the state and Sacraments of the new Testament, which are here called celestials, for that they are the liuely image of the heauenly state next ensuing: which be therfore specially dedicated and sanctified in Christes bloud, sacrificed on the altar, and sprinkled vpon the faithful, as the old figures and people were cleansed by the bloud of beasts. And therfore by a transition vsual in the holy Scriptures, the Apostle sodenly passeth in the sentence immediately following, and turneth his talke to Christes entrance into heauen, the state whereof, both by the Sacraments of the old law, and also more specially by them of the new, is prefigured.

25. Offer him self often.) Christ once offered in bloudy sort, but vnbloudily often, namely in the Sacrifice of the altar. As Christ neuer died but once, nor neuer shal die againe, so in that violent, painful, and bloudy sort he can neuer be offered againe, neither needeth he so to be offered any more, hauing by that one action of Sacrifice vpon the Crosse, made the ful ransom, redemption, and remedie for the sinnes of the whole world. Neuerthelesse, as Christ died & was offered after a sort in al the Sacrifices of the Law and Nature, since the beginning of the world (al which were figures of this one oblation vpon the Crosse) so is he much rather offered in the Sacrifice of the altar of the new Testament, incomparably more neerly, diuinely, and truly expressing his death, his body broken, his bloud shed, then did any figure of the old law, or other sacrifice that euer was: as being indeed (though in hidden, sacramental, and mystical, and vnblouddy manner) the very self-same B. body and bloud, the self-same host, oblation and Sacrifice, that was done vpon the Crosse. And this truth is most euident by the very forme of wordes vsed by our Sauiour in the institution and consecration of the holy Sacrament, and by the profession of al the holy Doctours. Our sacrifice, saith S. Cyprian, is correspondent to the Passion of Christ. And, The sacrifice that we offer, is the Passion of Christ. ep. 63. nu. 4. & nu. 7. S. Augustine de fid. ad Pet. c. 19. in those carnal Sacrifices was the prefiguring of the flesh of Christ, which he was to offer for sinnes, and of the bloud, which he was to sheads. But in this Sacrifice is the commemoration of the flesh of Christ which he hath now giuen, and of the bloud which he hath shed: in illis prænunciabatur occidendus, in hoc annunciatur occisus. In them he was forshewed as to be killed; in these he is shewed, as killed. And S. Gregorie Nazianzene saith, orat. in morbum, that the Priest in this Sacrifice, immiscet se magnis Christi Passionibus. S. Ambrose, 1. Off. c. 48. Offertur Christus in imagine quasi recipiens Passionem. Alexander the first, ep. ad omnes Orthodox. nu. 4. to. 1. Conc. Cuius corpus & sanguis conficitur, passio etiam celebratur. S. Gregorie, ho. 37 in Euangel. So often as we offer the host of his Passion, so often we renew his Passion. And, He suffereth for vs againe in mysterie. And Isychius, li. 2. c. 8. in Leuit. post med. By the Sacrifice of the only-begotten many thinges are giuen vnto vs, to wit, the remission or pardoning of al mankind, and the singular introduction or bringing in of the mysteries of the new Testament. The Fathers cal it the vnbloudy Sacrifice of the altar. Caluins Contempt of the Fathers. And the said Fathers and others, by reason of the difference in the manner of Christes presence and oblation in respect of that on the Crosse, called this the vnbloudy Sacrifice, as * Caluin himself confesseth, but answereth them in the pride of Heretical spirit, with these words: Nihil moror quod sic loquantur vetusti Scriptores; that is, I passe not for it, that the ancient Writers doe so speake: calling the distinction of bloudy and vnbloudy Sacrifice, scholasticall and friuolous, and diabolicum commentum, a diuelish deuise. With such ignorant and blasphemous men we haue to doe, that thinke they vnderstand the Scriptures better then al the Fathers. * Comment. in 9 Heb.