THE Pope & his cler­gie do stiffely affirme and go about to main­taine, that they bée Priests, and that it is an holie Priesthoode which they haue: euen the Priesthood of the Newe Testament. Further al­so they boast, that the sacrifice which they offer, is the sonne of God himself, euen Christ Iesus, God and man, flesh, bloud, and bone, as he was borne of the blessed virgin. We on the contrarie affirme that they be verie Baalamites, and not Priests of the Newe Testa­ment: and that their sacrifice is not the sonne of God, but the stinking and Idolatrous sacrifice of Antichrist. Who shalbe beléeued? we or they? Let neither of both for our selues haue any credit at all. For what is man, that he [Page 2] should haue any credit? Let neither of vs be our owne Judge, for then there would be partialitie: But let God on­ly strike the stroke, let him alone pr [...] ­nounce the sentence, let that part he credited which hath his witnesse & te­stimonie. When he speaketh, let man kéepe silence: When he pronounceth sentence, let the mouth of all flesh be shut vp: For who shall reply against the wordes of his mouth, which are in perfect trueth and wisedome? His te­stimonie hath he expressely set downe in the sacred Scriptures, his voyce hath he there vttered, to declare his per­fect minde and will: Let them be brought foorth, and heard, search them, for so are ye willed. Craue the true vn­derstanding at his hands, who is the onely teacher. If by them it be mani­festly proued vnto you, that the popish Priests be not the Priests of the N [...]we Testament, nor their sacrifice the sonne of God, then let men no longer doubt, but that all their whole worship is idolatrous and Antichristian. For it their priesthood and sacrifice, which are [Page 3] the two principal things be aw [...]y, what can be good in them? Let vs come to the triall of the matter. And first in gene­rall (which they deny not) the worde doth teach, that the dignitic, priuilege, and office of the holic Priest, is to ap­proch into the presence of God, to offer giftes, and sacrifice, and to make re­quest and supplication for the people. The necessitie of this office doth come from the profanesse and impuritie of men. All men are vncleane sinners, God is most pure & holie, and doth per­fectly hate sinne: And for the same cause he doth cursse and reiect all those which are polluted therwith. They can not approche, nor indure his presence, before whome nothing vncleane can stand. The prayers which come from them cannot be heard, being the pray­ers of sinners, and therefore not clean. No gift can be accepted at their hands, to make any reconcilement, or to get any fauour, they and all theirs are still reiected, they must either haue some other to do it for them, or else for euer remaine still out of fauour, and be vt­terly [Page 4] cast away in eternall perdition. He that shall do it, must be without spot of sinne, and therefore among all the sonnes of Adam, onely Jesus Christ is found worthie & able to execute this office. For if we respect this great worke of reconciliation betweene God and men, we shall finde that alone he hath wrought it, and therefore is the onely Priest of God. None other can in such consideration be called Priestes. It is true in deede that Aaron and his sonnes were cōsecrated & made priests, and did execute the ministerie of the priesthood in the Temple: But yet as their sacrifices did not, nor could not take away sinne, being but shadowes and the resemblance of the sacrifice of Christ, so also they were not sacrifices in déede, but so called, for that they were the patterne of that which is the true sacrifice. The same is to be saide of the Priestes, that they were no otherwise Priestes, but in figure, because they did resemble Christ, who alone is a Priest in trueth. Those other Priestes were separated from the people, & con­secrated [Page 5] to the seruice of the Temple. The chiefe of them might enter into the most holie place, and come before the Arke of the couenant and the mer­cie seate, and there offer with bloud to make reconciliation. They bare the names of the tribes of Israel, and so presented them before the Lorde. But yet all was but a shadow, to direct the eyes of their faith vnto Christ: for thes [...] Priestes could not wash away sinne, they could not bring men into heauen, and therefore when he came, which is the Priest in deede, and which doth ac­complish that which was by them but resembled: then all those shadowes did cease and giue place. He continueth a Priest for euer. He hath perfectly wrought the worke of reconciliation, & brought mē into fauour with God. For with the sacrifice of his bodie he hath ransomed them, and with his bloud he hath purged away their sinnes with full satisfaction, and his prayers haue béene accepted. He hath receiued ho­nour & power to saue for euer all those whome he doth sanctifie. Now the que­stion [Page 6] is, whether any can be ioyned with him in this office, and be parta­kers with him in this high dignitie, as to offer vp to God the same sacrifice which he offered. For this is without all controuersie, that such as do chal­lenge a copartnership with him in of­fring the sacrifice, and gift which he did offer, do also challenge a fellowship with him in the dignitie and glorie of the Priesthood by which he did offer it. For was not the great glorie of his Priesthood in this, that he offred him­selfe in sacrifice vnto his father? shall not those then which do the same thing receiue the same honour & glorie there­fore? Thus we sée that when as none could be found worthie in heauen and earth, but onely the Lambe, Reuela [...]. 5. yet euerie greasie shaueling will haue fellowship and glorie with him, euen in the highest part of his office. Lord how long wilt thou spare? looke downe and visite the blasphemie of the wicked beast, vpon him, and vpon the head & route of his horned shauelings. They say they be Priestes, doubtles then are [Page 7] they mediators of the Newe Testa­ment: For the Testament & the Priest are ioyned together, the Priest of the Newe Testament is the mediatour of the Newe Testament. For Christ is compared with Aaron and his sonnes, to haue obtained a ministerie so much more excellent, as he is the mediatour of a better Testament. Hebrewes. 8. 6. The excellencie of the ministerie of Aaron and his sonnes, was according to the worthinesse of the Testament, wherof they were the mediators. Fur­thermore, they could not haue that ho­nour to be Priestes, or mediators of that Testament, wherein there was but the shadow of good things to come, Hebrew. 10. 1. vnlesse it had béene giuen them of God: as it is expressed, Heb. 5. where he speaketh of that Priesthood of the lawe, which hath now ceased. Sée­ing none could haue this honour to be a Priest of the olde Testament, but such as were called of God as was Aaron: then how much lesse shall any be par­takers of this dignitie with the sonne of God, to be the Priestes & mediators [Page 8] of the newe couenant, but such as can shewe that God hath giuen them this honour? Christ did not take this honor to him selfe, Hebr. 5. but he that said. Thou art my sonne, this day haue I begotten thée, gaue it him. The Lords sware that he should be a priest. Let the Papists shewe any calling which they haue of God vnto this glorie of the Priesthood: Let them shewe any one place out of the new Testament, where Christ did ordeine Priestes: Finally, let them shewe where euer Peter or Paul, or any Apostle or minister of the Gospel, haue called themselues priests, or haue béen so called by others, other­wise than that which they giue vnto all the faithfull, that being washed & sanc­tified in the bloud of Christ, they be made Kings and Priestes vnto God. [...] Pet. 2. Reuel. 1. & 5. which is in another sense than this which they challenge. No, the worde of the Lorde is directly against you, ye priests of Baal. For it speaketh of one Priest which should a­rise after the order of Melchisedech, & not of priests. It sayeth, there is one [Page 9] mediatour betwéene God and man, 1. Timoth. 2. And therefore also it follo­weth, that there is but one Priest. Be­cause the Priest of the new Testament is the mediator of the same, is there any man so mad as to ascribe this glo­rie to the Pope and his priestes, as to say they be mediators of the newe Te­stamēt? If not, then are they no priests. Nowe, although this is sufficient to prooue their priesthood to be counter­fait, that they can shewe no calling in the worde, nor no mention that any one of the Apostles was a priest, or that any man should haue such honour: yet to make the matter more euident, I will shewe by further reasons, that their priesthood is such, that it cannot stand with the priesthood of Christ. We al knowe, that the Lord swore that his sonne should arise vp a Priest for euer, after the order of Melchisedech, Psa. 110 Then if it fall out, as it shalbe mani­festly shewed, that the Priesthood of the Papacie is directly contrary vnto that order of Melchisedech: It must néedes also followe that the same is not [Page 10] of God. The order of the priesthood of Mechisedech is gathered out of that which Moses saith of him, Genesis. 14. the wordes are these: And Melchise­dech King of Salem brought foorth bread & wine, which was also a priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, saying, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heauen and earth, and blessed be the most high God, which hath deliuered thine aduer­saries into thine hand, and he gaue him tythe of all. This man was greater than the Patriarche Abraham, as it is proued by two reasons, Hebr. 7. the one that Abraham paid him tithes: The o­ther, that he blessed Abraham. Then Moses writing of so great a man, no [...] mentioning father nor mother, nor kindred, beginning, nor end of his life: although he had a father and a mother, and kinred, and had both a beginning and an end: yet because Moses men­tioneth not any of these, it is said, that he was without father, without mo­ther, without kinred, without begin­ning of dayes, and without ende of life, [Page 11] as though he were one that had suddē ­ly come downe from heauen. When it is saide, that he was a Priest of the most high God, no mention made of a­ny annoynting, of any ministring gar­ments, of any temple, altar, or sacri­fice, nor yet of any that did succéede him, it is gathered that he doth con­tinue a priest for euer. And moreouer, that in his Priesthood all thinges are spirituall and full of endles power. By this argument, the holy Ghost proueth Hebr. 7. ver. 16. 17. 18. that the priesthood of the Leuites was abrogate, and could not stand with the Priesthood of Christ, séeing it could giue no strength nor fur­therance thereto: for the one being spirituall, and according to the power of the life that is not dissolued, the o­ther, as he speaketh being after the law of the carnall commaundement. they could not be ioyned so together as that the one might be a supply vnto the defect of the other. For although the law of the carnall commaundement, which is so called, not in respect of the founder thereof, which was God, but [Page 12] for that the substāce of the things were bodily and carnall) did profit and bene­fite men thus farre, that by outwarde carnall things, they had the resēblance of things spirituall to strengthen their faith. Yet when he was come, in whom was all the spirituall and heauenly po­wer of the Priesthood, those carnal and earthly things were to cease. As for ex­ample: Aaron was annointed with materiall oyle, he was clothed with the ministring garments, he entred into a tabernacle vpon earth which was built with hands, he had the bloud of calues and goates, and slaine beastes for sa­crifice, hee presented the names of the tribes before the mercie seat. All these and such like are the carnall cōmaude­ment, these did not take away sinne, nor restore into fauour with God: But Christ alone is the Priest that wrought that. His annoynting was not with oyle, but with the holie Ghost: He nee­ded no holie garments, for there was no spot of vncleannes in him to be co­uered. He came not with the bloud of slaine beastes, but with his own bloud. [Page 13] He entred not into y^• Tabernacle made with hands, to appeare for vs, and to present vs before the Arke: but he is entred into the very heauens, euen vn­to the throne of God, to present vs there. Thus then it followeth that the Priesthood of Aaron, being after the law of the carnall commaundement, that is to saye, the consecration was with things that were earthly and of a bodily substance, the sacrifices also of the same sort, it could do nothing. But the Priesthood of Christ, wherein all things are heauenly and spirituall, and full of endlesse power, hath fully and perfectly accomplished the worke of re­conciliation. If this order then of Melchisedech, wherin there is nothing carnall, did abolish the order of the Priesthood of Aaron, wherein al things were carnall, because the carnall things cannot helpe at al to bring men to heauen, and because the order of the one Priesthood did so differ from the o­ther, as being of a quite contrarie na­ture: It must néedes followe that the Priesthood of the Papacie cannot stand [Page 14] with the Priesthood of Christ, because it is also carnall. For was the oyle vpon Aaron carnall, and is not their annoynting & shauing carnall? Were all the ministring garments of Aaron carnall, and are not their vestments, as the Cope, the Surplesse, the Amisse, and other such holie and priestly robes carnall? Was the Altar in the Tem­ple carnall, and all the ministring ves­sels that did belong thereto, and are not the Altars of these carnall? Were Aarons incense and oblations carnall: and are not the oblations of these, and all their incense, and other things car­nall? Those former could not stande with the Priesthood of the new Testa­ment, because they were in substance carnall: howe then shall these latter, which are as carnall as they? Tell vs, O ye Baalamites of the Romish order, wherefore your order should in any re­spect be called the order of Melchis [...] ­dech, seeing it is as contrarie vnto it as was that of Aaron? The order of Melchisedech is gathered out of the description of Moses to be without any [Page 15] annoynting with oyle, without gar­ments for the ministration, without Tabernacle, without Altar, without sacrifice, without any earthly thing. And why? because his order is spiritu­all, and therefore all things thereto be­longing must be spirituall: it is eter­nall and full of endles power, and ther­fore nothing which appertaineth to the execution there of must be transitorie & weake. For shall an earthly temple, an Altar of stone, garments of silke, or of any corruptible thing be fit to be ioy­ned with that priesthood which is euer­lasting? There is no doubt, but that euery thing for the execution of the of­fice, must be agreeable vnto the nature of the Priesthood it selfe: and therefore as there is nothing mentioned in Mel­chisedech that is carnall, so also we sée that our Lorde Iesus Christ, a Priest after that order hath executed that function without any such thinges consecrated thereunto. How shall the Papistes then which haue their priest­hood executed altogether in such things as be transitorie, challenge to be of that [Page 16] order with our sauiour, wherein as the Priesthood is heauenly and eternall, so are all things there to belonging. But peraduenture ye will say: Melchise­dech was a Priest, and he offred sa­crifices to God as other Priests at that time. Wherefore should it then be ga­thered that there was no carnall thing in substance belonging to the execution of his function? He had an Altar, he had beastes to offer, and no doubt did offer. I aunswere that albeit Melchi­sedech did execute the Priestes office, after the manner of other Priests, yet that is nothing to the purpose. For the order of his Priesthood is gathered out of that description of Moses in which there is no mention of such things. We are not to doubt but that he had father and mother, that he was borne as an other man, and also had an ende of his dayes: Neuerthelesse, because those things are left out, he is brought in as one which neuer had beginning, & that neuer had ende, but continueth a priest for euer. In like sort, howsoeuer at a­ny time he executed the office of a [Page 17] priest, as others did: yet because there is no such thing expressed, & that which is expressed, is that wherein he is like­ned vnto the sonne of God, it is saide, that he was a priest after another or­der, and that there was nothing carnal in his priesthood. Therefore we are to conclude, that the priesthood of the new testament hauing nothing in it that is carnall, the priesthood of the Papacie being & consisting altogether of things carnall, and such as were also the in­uentions of men, it must néedes followe that they are not priestes of any testa­ment of God, but the priestes of Anti­christ. Further, let it be considered, that a Priest must arise after the order of Melchisedech that shall so continue for euer: For the eternall sonne of God was resembled by Melchisedech in that he is brought in without any beginning: The continuance also of his office for euer, in that there is no­thing saide of his death nor of any that did succéede him. This then being ma­nifest, what impudent wretches are those which being mortall men, that [Page 18] haue an ende, dare so blasphemously boast, that they be Priests after the or­der of Melchisedech? how shall they e­uer be able to answere vnto this? The Priest of the New Testament is after the order of Melchisedech, that is to say, a Priest for euer, without begin­ning, without end, without any to suc­céede him? Their priesthood hath a be­ginning, it hath an ende, they haue those that do succéed one after another. If this be a materiall point in that or­der of Priesthood which Christ shoulde be after, as none vnlesse his forehead be of brasse dare denie, that it should be for euer: What a childishnes were it for any man to thinke that the priesthood of the Papacie is the same when it doth faile in that which is essentiall? For they die and come to an ende. Are not these contrarie the one to the other, to continue a Priest for euer as Melchise­dech in figure, and Christ in déede, and to be Priestes for certaine yeares, and then to cease by reason of death? Are not then the Priestes made at Ro [...] contrary to this order, yea, as contrary [Page 19] as light is vnto darknes, or as heauen is vnto hell? And must it not still fol­lowe, that séeing they be no Priestes of the olde Testament, nor can not be Priestes of the New, vnto the which their order is cōtrary, that their priest­hood may be as good as the priesthood of Baal, and better it cannot be? For if it be not of God, is it not then of the diuel? Let all true Christians therefore be­hold with detestation this hellish sacri­lege of the Romish bishop, who being a priest after the diuels order, yet sayeth he is after the order of Melchisedech. Moreouer it is to be noted, which the holy Ghost sayeth Hebr. 7. ver. 26. that such an high Priest it became vs to haue, as was holie, harmelesse, vnspot­ted, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heauens. This setteth foorth the puritie, and also the high dig­nitie, which of necessitie are required in that Priest, that shal deale in our cause to bring vs to God. For if he were a sinner himself, how should he come vn­to God? If he were spotted with any vncleannes, how should he purchase fa­uour [Page 20] for others? seeing he should him­self be out of fauour. If he were vnho­lie, how should he sanctifie and make ho­lie those whome he doeth present vnto God? In like sort it is to be weighed, how great that man must be of necessi­tie, that is to enter euē vnto the throne of glorie, and there abide, as one able to saue all that come vnto God by him. For thus he must be made higher than the heauens, and aboue all creatures in the heauens. For albeit the holy and blessed Angels be separate from sin­ners, and be also about the throne of God, yet no one of them hath this glo­rie to be made higher than the heauens, none of them then can haue the honour of the Priesthood, to obtaine pardon of sinnes for the Church, that glorie and power being reserued only to the sonne who is farre aboue principalities and powers. Such a Priest as this must bring vs that are base and sinful wret­ches vnto God, in him we must be san­ctified, in him we must obtaine fauour, in him we must be heard, that is so high in fauour, that no request can be denied [Page 21] him. In him wee must be saued who hath receiued all power and authoritie both in heauen and earth, and liueth for euer. What fouler beastlines then can there be than this, that sinfull, vn­holy, and base wormes of the earth, shoulde challenge vnto themselues to be Priestes of the Newe Testament? yea, that such sillie Asses, as are scarce fit to kéepe swine, will yet haue that of­fice, that the glorie, honor, and power of, is aboue the Angels, let all men iudge nowe of this conclusion. The Priest of the New Testament is pure and holie, separated from sinners, made higher than the heauens. The Pope & all his broode are sinfull whoremon­gers, théeues and murtherers, base and vile wretches of the earth, farre off frō being higher than the heauens. There­fore their priesthood is not the priesthood of the Newe Testament. There is al­so another notable difference betwéene the olde priesthood and the newe: that those former did minister in earth, in a Tabernacle made with handes, which had no enduring substance: This latter [Page 22] is entred into the Sanctuarie of hea­uen, and there doth execute the Priests office, hee doeth not any thing in an earthly sanctuarie. For why this priest­hood is heauenly and eternall, his Ta­bernacle must be agreeable vnto the same. And it is saide that if he were on earth, he could not be a Priest, while those Priestes did stande which were after the law, Hebr. 8. 4. For although our Lord were a Priest in deede when he was vpon earth, and did offer the sa­crifice of his body, yet ye see there was no outward thing that the Priests vp­pon earth do. His bodie was slaine vp­pon earth, but was it carried into the Temple, and slaine at the Altar? Was the bloud sprinkled before the Arke of the couenant? No, all things were hea­uenly and spirituall in this sacrifice. If we regard the substance of his bodie, it was the same that ours is. But yet all the vertue & efficacie of the same, when it was a slaine sacrifice, was frō aboue. And so though he were in earth, yet the whole fruite of his worke was in hea­uen. For he being both God and man, [Page 23] was a Priest euen then in heauen, whē he was slaine vpon earth. The vertue and power of the sacrifice to purge a­way sinne, was not of the manhood, frō it selfe: but the manhood had it from the Godhead, in that the manhood was so vnited vnto y^e godhead, that they made one person. In this sense he sayth, Iohn 6. ver. 63. It is the spirite that quicke­neth, the flesh profiteth nothing. How­soeuer the flesh of Christ hath power in it forgiue life, as in déede it is the bread of life, and whosoeuer doeth eate of it shall liue for euer: yet it hath not this life of it selfe, but from the Godhead: Likewise the bloud is able to purge a­way sinne, because it is the bloud of a man which is also God. It is also said, 1. Cor. 15. The first man was of the earth earthly. The seconde man was the Lord frō heauen heauenly. Where­fore is he called a man from heauen heauenly? was it because his flesh was from heauen? cursed be he which so hol­deth. No, it was because all the vertue and efficacie which was in his man­hood to redéeme the worlde, was from [Page 24] heauen. We sée then that he being sa­crificed in earth, the efficacie of his Priesthood was in heauen. There is nothing in his Priesthood, nor in the ex­ecution thereof which is earthly. But these priestes are altogether earth, and what can they do without earthe A tem­ple they must haue on earth, an Altar of earth, manie other things of earth, which prooue that all their ministerie & function is earthie. Then to conclude, the mediatour of the New Testament is not a Priest vpon earth, nor execu­teth not the Priestes office but in the heauenly Tabernacle. The Romanes are Priests vpon earth, they minister with earthly things in earthly Taber­nacles, and vpon Altares concecrate to that purpose. Who doth not sée there­fore, that they haue no affinitie at all with Christ?

Moreouer, if it may be demaunded, is sir Iohn a King: Surely then haue there béene manie lousie Kings. Euery one which is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech is a King, for those two are ioyned together in his order, the [Page 25] kingdome, and the Priesthood. Is there any man so foolish as to take these to be kings? They may be taken for priests, but not after the order of Melchisedech so long as they haue but shauen crownes, and not crownes of golde, nor after the order of Aaron which is cea­sed: but after the order of the priests of Baal. If they obiect that the Pope hath both swordes, the spirituall, and the ci­uil, and therefore he is a King and a Priest, I aunswere, that therein he is more vnlike Christ, whose kingdome is not of this world. The kingdome of Christ is spirituall, he medled not with the ciuil sworde, but left it to the Ma­gistrate: The Pope chalenging it, is not of that order which Christ is. Seing then, as we haue prooued, none can be partakers with Christ in the most high dignitie and honour of the Priesthoode, seeing euerie Priest is a mediatour of a Testament, and of the Newe Testa­ment there is but one, seeing none can haue that honour to be Priest, but they which are called of God, and the Papistes can shewe no calling, nor cō ­secrating [Page 26] of Priestes in the Newe Te­stament. Seeing in the order of Mel­chisedech, all things are spirituall and full of endlesse power, in the order of Poperie all things carnall, Melchise­dech continueth for euer, these [...] Séeing also the Priest of the New Te­stament must be perfectly holie & pure, without spot of sinne, and higher than the heauens, the Popish Priestes are abominable sinners: Christ is a Priest in heauen, they vpon earth: He is both a King and a Priest, sir Iohn is not a king: It doth followe, that their or­der of Priesthood is not of God: but they be the idolatrous priestes of Antichrist. They can not by their ministerie and Priesthood bring men vnto God, but contrariwise they carrie headlong vn­to the diuel. Such therefore as will saue their soules must not be blind and wilfull, but open their eyes and behold the cléere and manifest trueth of God, which he hath taught in his worde. As we haue proued this one part, so let vs now come to the other, that is, to shew that the sacrifice which they offer, is [Page 27] not the sonne of God, but a wicked ab­homination, no more pleasing vnto God, than if men should offer a dogge in sacrifice vnto him. It might suffice to satisfie a modest minde, that al which they doe is naught, because they doe make themselues Priests after the or­der of Melchisedech: and so do challēge to themselues greater honour than any Angel hath, euen the honour that is due alone vnto the onely begotten sonne of God. And yet where the scripture shew­eth that this honour was giuen vnto Christ with an oth, they will haue part with him, being not able to bring one sentence of the worde to prooue that there shoulde be any Priest besides Christ. He neuer ordained any Priest, no one of his Apostles was called a Priest, and in euerie point their order is so contrarie vnto the order of Mel­chisedech, this I say might satisfie: but yet to lay open their trecherie further, we will proue that they haue abused the world, and made them worship that for God which was but a cake of flo­wer. I will not goe farre for proofe [Page 28] hereof: for it is manifestly and fully to be prooued by that which the holie Ghost hath set downe as concerning the sacrifice of the Newe Testament in the Epistle to y^e Hebrewes. Those rea­sons which are there brought to proue that the sacrifices of the lawe could doe nothing, and therefore were to be abo­lished, will also serue to throw downe the abominable idol of the Papists. For if the weaknes of those former sacrifi­ces were gathered by their nature and order which was vsed in them, then shall the sacrifice of the Masse, if it bee founde to differ as farre and further from that of Christes, than those, be found not to be the sacrifice of the New Testament.

In the Epistle to the Hebrewe [...], Chap. 9. ver. 1. it is saide, that the for­mer couenant had also ordinances of religion, and a worldly sanctuarie, and there he doth repeat particularly sun­drie things, as the candlestick, the fa­ble, the shew bread, the golden censure, the Arke of the Testament, the golden pot with Manna, Aarons rod that had [Page 29] budded, and the tables of the Testa­ment. In this worldly Sanctuarie, with these foresaide ordinances of the same nature, did the priestes of the law exercise their office: and this is one ar­gument to prooue that their Priesthood was weake and coulde not bring men vnto God. For the habitation of God is in the heauens, there is his throne of glorie, and most high maiestie: thither must those be brought which shal come vnto him: whereupon it followeth that the Priest that shall bring men vnto God, must be a minister of the Taber­nacle of Heauen. For the entring into the holie place made with handes, & the ministring in the same with ordinan­ces of the like nature, that is to saye earthly a transitorie, can by no meanes bring men eternally vnto God: For how shall earthly things compasse hea­uenly, or things which vanish and de­cay, bring that to passe which shall last for euer? Those Priestes therefore, whose priesthood was transitorie, for their priesthood must needes be of the same nature and condition that their [Page 30] temple and ordinances were, and can stand no longer than they, were for to cease, when the time was come vnto which they were prefixed. Vnto th [...]se is Christ opposed in the same Chapter, ver. 24. where he sayeth that Christ is not entred into the holie places made with handes, which are similitudes of the true sanctuarie, but is entred into heauen it selfe to appeare in the sight of God for vs. For as the sacrifice which he offred was heauenly and of eternall power, so also is his Tabernacle, and likewise his Priesthood. For those three must euer be ioyned together. Then if the Priesthood of Aaron, and his sacri­fices could do nothing, but were to cease because their Tabernacle and ordinan­ces were worldly: how much lesse shall the greasie Popish priestes be able to offer any sacrifice to appease Gods wrath, séeing the sacrifice which must do that, is heauenly and spiritual, and cannot be offred in a worldly sanctua­rie, nor with such ordinances as be of earthie nature? For it is most manifest that all the trinkets and trash of Po­pish [Page 31] Massemongers, wherewithal they do iuggle & play with their Mammets are earthly and transitorie: so is also their Temple and Altars, and conse­quently their priesthood. And further also it is certaine that the Priesthood of Aaron might rather be called heauenly than theirs, because it was the paterne of the heauenly, and he was called vn­to that honour of God, but they can shewe no calling thereto at all. Who then is so blind but may sée, that séeing the sacrifice propitiatorie cannot be of­fred by an earthly Priest, nor with earthly ordinances, that the white cake which the vncleane shaueling the Baa­lamite doth holde vp ouer his head, is not the sonne of God, but a dead Idol? If the blinde idolatous Papistes will obiect, that the efficacie of their sacri­fice and priesthood is heauenly, although it be executed on earth, they are to be aunswered that if the efficacie of their priesthood be heauenly, then is it eter­nall, but they are mortal and do not re­maine Priestes worlde without ende. Againe, the power of the sacrifice de­pendeth [Page 32] vpō the power of the Priest, [...] so their sacrifice is not eternall. This thing shalbe yet more manifest by [...] further comparison which is made be­twéene the sacrifice of Christ, and those of the lawe in the same Chapter, ver [...]. 13. & 14. where it is shewed, that if the bloud of calues and of goates, and the ashes of a red Heffer sprinkling those that were defiled, did sanctifie as tou­ching the carnall purging: then howe much more shall the bloud of Christ, which by his eternall spirite, offred him selfe to God without spot, purge your conscience from dead workes to serue the liuing God? This comparison is brought in to prooue that Christ by en­tring once into the holie places, by his owne bloud, hath founde eternall re­demption: for that being the summe of the two verses going next before, is proued by this. It was graunted with­out controuersie, that by reason of gods ordinance, y^• bloud of those poore beasts, and the water made with the ashes of the Heffer, being but a dead thing, had power in some manner to purge, as [Page 33] namely that which he calleth the car­nal purging. For if a man were pollu­ted with any outwarde pollution, and therefore might not come vnto those holie thinges which were the carnall commandements, being but shadowes and ceremonies, yet if he were sprin­kled with those, although he were not purged within frō sinne, he was coun­ted cleane: then how much more shall the bloud of the sonne of God, which hath the power of life in it, because it is the bloud of him that was not onely a man so holie that he was without spot, but also God? For herein lyeth the strength of the argument which the ho­lie ghost vseth to prooue that Christ at once by his bloud hath purged the con­science from same for euer, that this sacrifice was offred by his eternall spi­rit, which is his godhead. For y^e godhed hauing eternall power of life, the flesh and bloud of the man [...]od ioyned so with the godhead that they made one person, had also the same power, so that al­though the bloud of Christ of it selfhad not power at once to purge eternally, [Page 34] yet because it was the bloud of God, it had that force. Hereupon it followeth that the power of that purging by his bloud being eternall, and that one pur­gation being perfect, the redemption which he hath found is eternall. Here­upon we may strongly cōclude against the Papistes, & that with a double con­clusion: First, that séeing no sacrifice hath the vertue to purge away sinne, but because it is offered by the eternall spirite, And secondly, that his purging once made, being that which is made by the eternall Godhead, is perfect for euer: By the first it is manifest that they are not able to offer a sacrifice pro­pitiatorie, because they are mortal mē, by the seconde, that there is no place for them, the worke of purging sinne being alreadie accomplished for euer. If there be a newe redemption to be wrought, then let them be the priestes: in the meane time they are foule ido­laters, and sacrilegious wretches, destroying the power of Christs death, when they will take vppon them to do that which he hath alreadie perfectly [Page 35] finished. Come forth ye blind Papists, and proue that ye are more than men, shewe also that the sacrifice of Christ once offered hath not an eternall and perfect power to purge away sinne or else confesse that yours is Antichristi­an. Wee may ioyne hereunto y^e which is vsed to proue that the sacrifices of the Leuiticall Priestes did not purge sinne: namely, that they were so often offered. For thereby the holie ghost doth teach that they were not able to sanctifie the commers thereto, Heb. 10. 1. For then, as he sayeth, they shoulde haue ceased, because there should haue béene no more conscience of sinne in the worshippers, being once purged. The reason is manifest, drawen from the effect of the medicine: for if it haue ta­ken away the disease, and perfected the cure, then is it vaine to adde it any more. If it be still continually, & from time to time applyed to the sore as still remaining, then it may be said truely, that the same medicine doeth not heale. Wherefore he addeth this proofe, that notwithstanding the sacrifices were of­fred, [Page 36] yet there remained the mention of sinnes yerely, when they kept that so­lemne day of [...]rpiation. This disease of sinne still remaining, as the continuall mention & remembrance there [...]. doeth shewe: it followeth, that those sacrifi­ces did not nor could not purge it a­way. Unto these is opposed the sacri­fice of Christ, which because it hath per­fectly purged sinne for euer, so that there remaineth no more conscience thereof in those that are sanctified: it is done but once, and neuer to be re­peated or don again. The other which were Priestes in the lawe stoode daily ministring, and often offring the same sacrifices, which coulde neuer take a­way sinne. But this man hauing offe­red one sacrifice for sinne, sitteth for e­uer at the right hand of God, frō hence­forth waiting vntill his enimies be made his soo [...]loole, Heb. 10. ver [...]. 11, 12. The former did stand daily mini [...]ring as those which had not, nor coul [...] not accomplish the work of reconcil [...]ation, although they offred neuer so often: But he hauing once offered, [...]easeth [Page 37] from offring, and is set downe in the highest throne of maiestie and glorie, because as it is there saide, he hath with one oblatiō made perfect for euer those which are sanctified. If his sacri­fice did abolish sinne but for a time, as for a yere, or certaine yeres, then should he either bring nothing to passe, or else returne often and sundrie times from his glorie to offer againe. This is also confirmed in the same Chapter, ver. 18. by a conclusion which is drawen out of the forme of wordes which the Lorde vseth in the promise which he maketh of the Newe Testament: as namely, that he will remember their sinnes and their iniquities no more. He reasoneth in this manner, where God remem­breth not sinne, there he hath giuen pardon and remission, for that he col­le [...]teth, and where there is pardon, ther is no more sacrifice for sinne. Now therefore when we see this to be most manifest by the plaine doctrine of Gods worde, let vs consider the abominable wickednes of the Papistes which by their sacrifice ouerturne all this. For [Page 38] whereas there is remission of sinnes alreadie purchased, what place can ther be for their sacrifice propitiatorie? whereas that sacrifice is vnperfect, and cannot take away sinne which is often offred, how is theirs the perfect sacri­fice of Christes bodie, which is conti­nually done againe and againe? What do they lesse therefore when they teach, that in the Masse they offer Christ to his father, to be a sacrifice to take away sinne: than affirme that the promise of the New Testament hath failed, & that sinne is yet remembred, no remi [...]ion as yet obtained? And further, when they will needes haue him offred so [...] ­ten, is it not as much as to denye the effect and power of the bloud of Christ? Is it not quite contrarie to this, that with one oblation he hath made perfect for euer those that are sanctified? But here they take exception and say that they do not offer any new sacrifice but the same: And moreouer that their ob­lation is but an application of the fruit of that which Christ offered, and that because we sée & féele in our selues that [Page 39] we are still guiltie: all which is but a blinde cauill. For what though they say they offer the same, did not y^e priests the sonnes of Aaron yerely offer still the same? doth not the power of the reason stand in this, to proue that they were not auailable, because then they should haue ceased? Can they denie but that they offer often? Further, he doeth not place the perfect worke in the sacrifice of Christ, because it was but one, but because it was but once offred: for he saith not with one sacrifice, but with one offring hath he made perfect for euer those which are sanctified. This doth cut the throte of their oftē offring, when his one offring had made perfect for euer: for it leaueth nothing behind for such caitiues as they be. And fur­ther where they pretende this necessitie because we haue still guiltie conscien­ces, therein they are more than beasts: for the guiltinesse of our consciences is not for this, that there néedeth any sa­crifice to be offered to satisfie and purge sinne: but through the remnants of in­iquitie which remaine in vs because of [Page 40] the weaknes and imperfection of our faith, for in these we are not to looke to any satisfaction yet behind, but to take hold of that perfect one which hath al­readie satisfied. If that act of theirs bée propitiatorie, then is not sinne fully discharged by the other. Thus blasphe­mous they are not onely in this their God of dough but also in all other their satisfactions for sinne, and in the [...] do­ctrine of Purgatorie. For if there re­maine any satisfaction or purgation to be made, then is it not true that he hath made perfect for euer, neither was his death then of full and suffici­ent price. True it is, that although we are by his one oblation fully and per­fectly discharged for euer before God, from the guiltines of our sinnes: yet we are not in the full possession of this benefite, nor shall not be vntill the last day, for then shall his enimies be made his footestoole. The diuell, sinne & [...]th are these enimies which he hath ouer­come, that they cannot raigne ouer vs: but yet wee must in the meane time wresile with them, not therefore estee­ming [Page 41] the power of Christs death to be the lesse, because they be not alreadie vtterly abolished, as the wicked vnbe­léeuing Papistes do, and therefore set vp trashe of their own to destroy sinne, but waiting for that appointed time, when the full power of his death shall appear [...]: in the meane time staying by faith, & resting our selues on that one sacrifice once offred. To conclude then, hath not the mightie spirite of God po­wer to apply vnto vs the vertue of that bloud: but such sillie vermin as the Po­pish priests must help? The holy ghost calling vpon vs, and teaching vs to ap­plie these benefites, willeth vs to draw neere with a true heart, with full assu­rance of faith, Hebr. 10. ver. 22. we come vnto him with the heart, after a spiri­tuall manner, because all thinges in him are spiritual, we are did to approch to lay hold of him by faith, for wee can not either with the hande or with the mouth. And seeing there is not so much as one sentence in all the booke of God, which speaketh of any application of his death any other way, it must néedes [Page 42] be concluded againe that they may bée as good priestes as the priestes of Baal and no better, and that when they hold vp their idol, Christ is not betweene their fingers. Let vs go forward. It shal yet be more manifest by the words of the holie Ghost, that this sacrifice of the Masse is so farre from being the sa­crifice of the Newe Testament, that it doth flatly go against it. For he saith as concerning Christ, that he did not offer himselfe often, as the high Priest went yerely into the holie place with other bloud, Hebr. 9. ver. 25. and then in the next verse he giueth a reason, namely, that then he should haue suffred often since the beginning of the world. This sentence is verie mightie against the Papistes, because it driueth them from all their shiftes, and leaueth them na­ked and destitute: but the force of it wil not appeare vnlesse we looke vpō what principles it is grounded, to proue that if Christ should haue offered himselfe often, then must he also haue suffered death often since the beginning of the world. Among the which this offreth it [Page 43] selfe as the first to be considered, that all the holie fathers, the Patriarches and Prophets from the beginning, coulde haue no entrance vnto God but by re­mission of sinnes, and that whereas o­therwise they had the dore shut against them, by this they were restored into fauour, and receiued. For it cannot be denyed, but that by nature they were sinners as we be: and that God cannot receiue sinners. Being therefore out of controuersie that they obteined life, it must néedes followe that they had par­don: for if either there had béene no sin, or no pardon to be graunted, what ne­cessitie could there be of a sacrifice? The seconde principle without which the reason of the Apostle cannot stande is this, that there can be no remission but onely by the sacrifice of Christ: for if a­ny other sacrifice, or any other way or meane might obtaine it, then were ther not a necessitie, why he shoulde often suffer. For although ther were a neces­sitie of remission of sinnes, vnlesse all should be damned, yet he might be set free from the same necessitie of offring [Page 44] himselfe, séeing there were other wayes to obtaine it, but the holie Ghost stan­deth vppon this as a marter not to bee doubted of, that neither there is, nor neuer hath béene any thing able to de­stroy sinne, or to take away the [...]uilti­nes of it by making satisfaction, but onely the sacrifice of the sonne of God. For howsoeuer the idolatrous Innvels do ascribe vnto many things they power of purging, and satisfying for sin [...] yet the holie word of God, and those which beléeue it do giue that glorie only vnto Christ, and euen as his great glorie, wherein he hathne fellow. The third thing without which, an exe [...]ption might be iustly taken against the [...]re­said reason is this, that there co [...] be no oblation of Christ, but he must suf­fer death: for when he sayeth he should not offer him selfe often. he addeth this cause, that then he should haue s [...]ed often. It were an easie matter, [...] the offring of Christ were any thing a [...] ­lable without suffring death, to say there were no necessitie wherefore [...]ee should suffer often, seeing he might bee [Page 45] offred, and not be slaine. But this is strengthened by that which goeth be­fore in the same Chapter, where hee hath shewed that the testament is con­firmed when men are dead, because it is of no force while the testator liueth, and so he is the mediator of the Newe Testament, but yet through death. Wherefore also the former testament, in which there were but the shadowes and paterne of heauenly thinges, was ratified by death, as it is prooued by this, that it was not dedicated with­out bloud. For when Moses had read the lawe vnto the people, he tooke the bloud of calues and Goates, with wa­ter and purple Woll and Hyssop, he sprinkled both the booke and the people, saying, this is the blould of the Testa­ment which god hath commaunded vn­to you. Likewise also he sprinkled the Tabernacle and all the ministring ves­sels with bloud, and almost all things, sayeth he, by the law are purged with bloud, and without shedding of bloud, there is no remission. Here is then a manifest reason wherfore Christ could [Page 46] not be offred often, but he must then also dye often: euen because the testa­ment is of no force without the death of the testator. Here is further shewed wherefore it cannot be auailable with­out death, that is to say, there is no re­mission of sinnes without shedding of bloud. Christ therefore could not be of­fred oftē, vnlesse it should be to no pur­pose, which is most absurde, but his bloud must be often shed. Then if the Papistes will vpholde and maintaine that their sacrifice is auailable to purge away sinne, and that it is a sa­crifice propitiatorie for the quicke & the dead, as they doe impudently affirme: Let them also confesse that they mur­ther againe the sonne of God, and so shead his bloud. For if they will stande to this, that theirs is an vnbloudie sa­crifice, and though they offer him, yet they do not slay him, and yet withall do challenge the power therby to purge sinne: let them knowe that they goe di­rectly against the spirite of God which sayeth there is no remission without shedding of bloud. In this therefore [Page 47] they are after an horrible manner blas­phemous, that they will ouerthrowe the reason and argument of the holie ghost. For if by any means there might be a sacrifice to take away sinne with­out the shedding of bloud, then might Christ haue béen often offred and haue dyed but once. If the fathers had the fruite and benefite of that one oblati­on, as namely their sinnes washed a­way with that bloud once shed, & that without any offring of such vnbloudie sacrifice to apply the same: why should not wee likewise by faith obtaine the same, vnlesse some shaueling offer him daily? Ye blinde Idolaters, did y^• bloud of Christ purge away sinne before his comming, onely through faith, and shal it not now? Was there a more perfect power in it to abolish sinne, in the sa­thers which were long time before his comming, than there is after it hath béene shed in déede? For if it be so that the fathers had their sinnes washed a­way with Christes bloud, and yet no offring of him to apply the same, but apprchended through faith, shall it not [Page 48] destroy the vertue therof, or at the least diminish it, when they teach that wee cannot be partakers of him, vnlesse he be still offred? Is that which the holy Ghost speaketh, that he hath béene once made manifest in the ende of the world, to abolish sinne, by the offring himselfe to be referred onely to the fathers be­fore his comming? Doth not the reason following extend it vnto vs as wel, [...]ea euen vnto the whole Church, vntill his comming againe at the worldes ende? for he compareth it in this maner: that as it is appointed vnto mē to dye once, and after commeth iudgement: so Christ also being once offred to take a­way the sinnes of manie, vnto those that looke for him shall appeare the se­cond time without sinne, vnto saluati­on. It is the ordinance of God that whē a man hath runne his race and finished his course, he shall not be permitted to turne backe againe to do that which he left vndone, or [...]o make straight that which is crooked, but must holde him vnto iudgemēt for things past, because that onely remameth. In like sort he [Page 49] setteth the perfection of the one oblati­on of Christ, who being once offered to take away the sinnes of manie, it is so perfectly doone, that when he shall ap­peare againe the seconde time to giue the eternall saluation, there shalbe no sinne to be purged, or for which he is to make further satisfaction. For when it is saide, that he shall appeare without sinne the second time, it is not meant of his owne person, but of those whome he hath redéemed from their sinnes: which is most cléere and manifest in this, that the minde of the holie Ghost, is to shewe a difference betwéene his first and seconde appearance, euen in that point. Which if it should be vnder­stoode of his owne person should make no difference, because he was without sinne at his first appearing, although he tooke vpon him, and bare in his bodie the sinnes of his people: But at his se­conde appearance because he hath vt­terly destroyed sinne for euer, there shal be none to be borne of him, and there­fore none for which he shall againe of­fer sacrifice. The Papists, but that they [Page 50] be impudēt, might be ashamed to patch in their trumperie, to giue power vnto the death of Christ, when they sée here the perfection of it so set foorth, that it hath so at once for euer destroyed sinne, that there néedeth no more sacrifice to be offred. For will they make the power of it lesse since his cōming than it was before? We may then conclude, séeing the sacrifice of the Newe Testament, that should haue a spirituall, heauenly, and endlesse power could not be offred in a worldly sanctuarie, with worldly ordinances: the sanctuarie and all the ordinances of the Popish seruice and Priesthood are such, as are earthly, and séeing the same sacrifice coulde not be offred to be auailable, vnlesse it were offred by the eternall godhead, the Po­pish Priestes are men and not God: & being the bloud of a man which is also God, that purgeth away sinne, it hath an eternall power to purge: and so vn­lesse the Papistes will haue a newe [...] ­demption, there is no place for their propitiatorie sacrifice, And séeing the sacrifice that is perfect is but once of­fred: [Page 51] that which is often offred doeth not take away sinne. And because the sacrifice of Christ once offred hath for euer perfectly abolished sinne, the pro­mise of the Newe Testament is that God will no more remember it: and therefore no more sacrifice to be requi­red. The Papistes contrarie to that promise make satisfactions still and sa­crifices for sinne. Their sacrifice is of­fred often. Christ coulde be offred but once, because he could by but once. The sacrifice is not auailable without death because there is no remission of sinnes, without shedding of bloud. The Pa­pistes do not saye they slay Christ, they say theirs is an vnblodie sacrifice: there is no remission of sinnes without shed­ding of bloud. The sacrifice of Poperie is not the sacrifice of the Newe Testa­ment, neither can it be propitiatorie, as they bragge, for the quick & the dead. Nay it is as abominable before God, as if a man should offer a dogge in sa­crifice. Then considering what iniury these Priests after the order of Rome, haue done vnto the sonne of God, first [Page 52] in challenging that office and dignitie, which belongeth onely vnto him: and secondly in ouer throwing the perfecti­on of the vertue and efficacie of his sa­crifice. Let as many of vs, as minde to cleaue vnto Christ, to take part with him, and to fight vnder his banner, & so attaine the reward of eternal glory, remoue our selues vtterly from the campe and societie of such aduersaries: and armed with the spirituall armour of God, let vs sounde the trumpet, and bid defiance against them, and against the diuel, and Antichrist their chiefe ca­pitaines, for this is most certaine, that wee shall neuer be reputed as friendes vnto Christ, vnlesse wee be at enm [...]ty with his enimies, & fight against them. Manie do suppose that they may hold friendship and familiaritie with them, and estéeme of them as Christians, and match their sonnes with their daugh­ters, although they beare y^• same print, and be of the same stamp with their pa­rents: onely because they doe professe the name of Christ, and carrie a zeale vnto him. But this dooth bewray a [Page 53] most horrible blindnes, & grosse darke­nesse in them, which cannot sée, that to confesse the name of Christ is not anie thing at all auailable, séeing they doe vnder that pretence rob and spoyle him of his glorie, & tread downe his trueth, and destroy his lawes. The Apostle sayeth, Rom. 10. that the Iewes had the zeale of God, but yet he sayeth it was not according to knowledge, and there­fore that being not a spirituall, but a carnall zeale, could nothing at al cléere them, but that they were still those which as vtter enimies of god did fight against him. In like sort although it be graunted that the Papistes haue a de­notion towards Christ, yet what doth it helpe them, séeing it is a carnall and blind deaotion? our sauiour Christ she­weth Mat. 23. that the Scribes & Pha­rasées did build the tombes of the Pro­phets and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and saide, that if they had béene in the dayes of their fathers, they would not haue béene partakers with them in the bloud of the Prophets: but yet for all this their forwardnesse and [Page 54] good will to honour the Prophets, and to disalowe of their fathers in killing them, he threateneth them, that all the righteous bloud shead vppon the earth, should come vpon them, and why? be­cause he would send Prophets, & lesse men and Scribes vnto them: and of them they shoulde kill and crucifie: and of them they should scourge in their sy­nagogs, and persecute from citie to ci­tie. They were then guiltie, and had their part in the bloud of the former Prophets, because they murthered those of their time. Euen so is this wic­ked and bloudie generation of the Pa­pistes: they haue such a zeale to the Saints of God that were of olde, that they would honour them with diuine worship, when as in the meane time they persecute and murther all those which imbrace and follow the doctrine of those holy ones. Shall not they the [...] be guiltie of all the bloud of the Mar­tyrs whome they séeme to loue and ho­nour, as the Scribes and Pharisees did the Prophets, when as by all kinde of cruell trecheries, by treasons & per­iuries, [Page 55] they séeke to murther, & destroy all those which beare any loue to the glorious Gospell of our Lorde Iesus Christ, and that will not fall downe & worship y^• beast nor receiue his mark? If euer there were helhoundes that could not be satisfied with bloud, these are they which woulde spare neither high nor lowe, Prince nor subiect, yong nor olde. If euer there were damnable heretikes, and abominable idolaters vpō earth, these are they, which ground all their worship vppon the deuises of men, reiecting the holie scriptures, and taking the honour due vnto God & his sonne Christ, and giuing it vnto crea­tures, worshipping for God a cake made of flower. Is it not then ful time that we giue eare to the voice frō hea­uen: Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sinnes, and that ye receiue not of her plagues? Re­uel. 18. 4. Is it not plainly saide by the Angel, Reuel. 14. 9. that if any man worship the beast, and his image, & shall receiue the marke in his forehead, or in his hande: he shall also drinke of the [Page 56] wine of the wrath of God, euen of the vndelayed wine, which is powred forth into the cup of his wrath, and he shalbe tormented with fire and brimstone, in the presence of the holie Angels, and in the presence of the Lambe, & the smoke of their torment shall ascende worlde without end: and they shal haue no rest day nor night which worship the beast and his image, and if any receiue the print of his name. Being as cléere as y^• Sunne at noone dayes vnto all those which haue eyes to sée, that Rome is that Babylon, and the Pope that sa­uage and cruell beast, ought it not to driue vs as far from them as the East is from the West, to renounce their re­ligion, and false idolatrous worship, to pack vp all their trash, and send it home to Rome, to abolish their lawes, to flye their fellowship & societie, to be at vtter enmitie with them in this respect that they be the sworne enimies of Christ? What honour is there left vnto the sonne of God, when such vile caiti [...]es shall take vppon them to be partakers with him in the office and dignitie of [Page 57] the mediatorship? For when as the se­paration and enmitie betwéene God & men was such, that there coulde be no agréement nor vnitie, because God is most perfectly holie and pure, and can­not but hate that which is foule, & con­trarie vnto his nature: there was none to approch vnto him to be the me­diator betwéene him and them, which was in so high fauour as that they might be accepted through him, nor of such power as to be able to aunswere, & discharge whatsoeuer they coulde bee charged withall: but such an one as was also most holie and pure. While the Tabernacle did stande, and the most holie place which did represent heauen, the high Priest was the mediatour: for when the people were shut foorth, hee went in before the Arke to offer & make prayer for them. But those thinges were but shadowes, and his consecra­tion was carnall. He was a poore sin­full man, not able to purchase fauour for himselfe. He was a Priest agréea­ble to that couenant, but no wretched sinner can be the mediator of the newe [Page 58] couenant, to stande betwéene God and the people, that he may obtaine fauour and remission of sinnes for them, but he which is vnspotted. Alas what case then are those men in, which take a poore Popish Priest, which is an vn­cleane sooine in lecherie, to be their Priest to stande betweene God & them, to offer for them, that by him they may haue their sinnes pardoned? Doth not Dauid say, the wicked cannot stand be­fore God? How then shall any of them stande as a Priest before him to be a mediator? Doth not the holy Ghost say by Salomon, that the sacrifice of y^• wic­ked is an abomination to the Lord [...]an that which the Lord doth esteeme as a thing abominable, be a sacrifice propi­tiatorie? Can that which God doeth cursse and hate, clense away sinne? The Lord in mercie open the eyes of poore simple men which haue beene seduced & misled, that they may see what a deceipt this is, that a man shalbe made to seek life in that which is one of the greatest sinnes that can be cōmitted, as name­ly to set a poore rotten worme in the [Page 59] place and office of Christ, a vile fil thie sinner is to come before God with a sacrifice. Nowe as they he idolatrous priestes, by their cake which they wor­ship as God, ouerthrowing as much as lyeth in their power, the sacrifice of Christ, and fighting vnder the banner of the diuel against God, so also their fruites do follow accordingly, & declare what manner of trees they be. Do they not maintaine lying and periurie, all kinde of dissembling, and false treche­ries to obtaine their purposes, and to bring their mischieuous and diuelish practises to effect? Are they not bloudy murtherers and traitors against their lawfull soueraigne Prince? Let them shewe where euer Peter, Paul, or anie Apostle of Christ hath taught the like, or put it in practise. If not, then let vs conclude against them, that they be of their father the diuel, who is the au­thor of all falshod, and a murtherer, the worker of all treasons against Prin­ces. And let all men which haue any care to saue their soules be so farre frō liking of them, or consenting to them, [Page 60] that they can say with the holy Pro­phet, do not I hate them that hate thée, O Lord, am I not irkesomely g [...]eued with those that rise vp against thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred, I take them as enimies to my selfe. This zeale ought to be for the glorie of Christ in all true Christians, this loue setled in the hearts of all faithfull subiects to­wardes their Prince. There is no te­stimonie of any goodnes in men with­out this: for those men which can re­taine so willingly euen in their bosoms these vipers, as some do their w [...]ues, their sonnes, their daughters, their ser­uants, and their friends: although they make some shewe, as though they did some what mislike, yet they be verie Atheists, voide of all true knowledge, and feare of God.