Original Douay–Rheims AnnotationsHebrews 9

A golden pot.

^[1] The Protestants count it superstitious to keep with honour and reverence the holy memories or monuments of God's benefits and miracles, or the tokens of Christ's Passion, as his Cross, garments, or other things appertaining to him or his Saints, and think it impossible that such things should dure so long: When they may here see the reverent & long reservation of Manna, ^[2] which of it-self was most apt to putrefy, and of Aaron's rod, only for that it suddenly flourished by miracles, the tables of the Testament &c. See a notable place in S. Cyril li. 6. cont. Iulian. where he defendeth against Iulian the Apostate's blasphemy, the keeping and honouring of that ^[3] Cross or wood which Christ died on. See also S. Paulinus ep. 11. & what reverence S. Hierom and the faithful of his time did to the ^[4] sepulchres of Christ and his Martyrs, & to their relics. We reverence and worship (saith he ^[5] ) every-where Martyrs' sepulchres, and putting the holy ashes to our eyes, if we may we touch it with our mouth also; and do some think, that the monument wherein our Lord was buried, is to be neglected? But our Protestants cannot skill of this. They had rather follow Vigilantius, Iulianus the Apostata, and such Masters, than the holy Doctors and evident practice of the Church in all Ages.

• 1 Relics.
• 2 They continue without putrefaction.
• 3 The holy CROSS.
• 4 The sepulchres of Christ and his Saints.
• 5 ep. 17. c. 5.

Cherubins.

You see it is a fond thing to conclude upon the first or second commandment, that there should be no sacred images in the Church, when even among these people that were most prone to idolatry, and gross in imagination of spiritual things such as Angels are, and to whom the precept was specially given, the same God that forbade them graven idols, ^◦ did command these images of Angels to be made and set in the sovereign holiest place of all the Tabernacle or Temple. By which it is plain, that much more the images of Christ and his B. Mother and Saints, that may be more truly portrayed than mere spiritual substances can be, are not contrary to God's commandment, nor against his honour, or repugnant to any other Scripture at all, which condemn only the Idols or portraitures of the Heathen made for adoration of false gods.

• ◦ Images in Salomon's temple commanded by God.

Until the time of correction.

All those gross and carnal sacrifices, ceremonies, and observations instituted to cleanse and purify the flesh from legal irregularities and impurities only, and not reaching to the purging of the souls & consciences of men, being commanded not for ever, but till Christ's coming, ceased then: and better, more forcible, and more spiritual Sacraments were instituted in their place. ^◦ For we may not imagine Christ to have taken away the old, and put none in their place: or to altar 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 have they more reason to affirm Christ's one oblation upon the Cross to have rather taken away all kind of sacrifice, than all manner of Sacraments. The time and state of the new Testament is not made lawless, hostless, or without sacrifice, but it is the time of correction or reformation and abetting all the foresaid things.

• ◦ Sacrifice not taken away by the new Testament, but changed into a better.

Eternal redemption.

^[1] No one of the sacrifices, nor all the sacrifices of the old law, could make that one general price, ransom, and redemption of all mankind, and of all sins, saving this one highest Priest Christ, and the one sacrifice of his blood once offered upon the Cross. Which sacrifice of redemption cannot be often done, because Christ could not die but once. Though the figures also thereof in the law of nature and of Moyses, were truly called sacrifices, as specially this high and marvelous commemoration of the same in the holy Sacrament of the altar, according to the rite of the new Testament, is most truly and singularly (as S. Augustine ^[2] calleth it) a sacrifice. But neither this sort, nor the other of the old law, being often repeated and done by many Priests (all which were and are sinners themselves) could be the general redeeming and consummating sacrifice: nor any one of those Priests, nor all the Priests together, either of the law of Nature, or of Aaron's, or Melchisedech's order (except Christ alone) could be the general redeemers of the world.

^◦

And this is the Apostle's meaning in all this comparison and opposition of Christ's death to the old sacrifices, and of Christ to their Priests: and not that Christ's death or sacrifice of the Cross should take away all sacrifices, or prove that those Aaronical offices were no true sacrifices at all, 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 Christ's death, work any thing to God's honour, or remission of sins, as the Jews did falsely imagine, not referring them at all to this general redemption and remission by Christ, but thinking them to be absolute sacrifices in themselves. And that to have been the error of the Hebrews, you may read in S. Augustine li. 3. doct. Christ. c. 6. And this, we tell the Protestants, is the only purpose of the Apostle.

But they be so gross, or ignorant in the Scriptures, and so maliciously set against God's and the Church's truth, that they perversely and foolishly turn the whole disputation against the sacrifice of the B. Mass, and 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 Christ's death, or that it were not the representation and most lively resemblance of the same, or were not instituted and done, to apply in particular to the use of the partakers, that other general benefit of Christ's one oblation upon the Cross. Against the Jews then only S. Paul disputeth, and against the false opinion they had of their Priests and sacrifices, to which they attributed all remission and redemption, without respect of Christ's death.

• 1 One only sacrifice on the Cross the redemption of the world; and one only Priest (Christ) the redeemer thereof.
• 2 Li. de Sp. & lit. c. 11.
• ◦ The Apostle's disputation being only against the error of the Jews concerning their Sacrifices and Priests: the Protestants applying it against the Sacrifice of the Mass & Priests of the new Testament.

Of those prevarications.

The Protestants do unlearnedly imagine, that because all sins be remitted by the force of Christ's passion, that therefore there should be no other sacrifice after his death. Whereas indeed they might as well say, there ought never to have been sacrifice appointed by God, either in the law of Nature, or of Moyses: as all their arguments made against the Sacrifice of the Church upon the Apostle's discourse, prove as well, or rather only, that there were no sacrifices of Aaron's order or Levitical law at all. For against the Jews' false opinion concerning them, doth he dispute, and not a word touching the sacrifice of the Church, unto which in all this discourse he never opposeth Christ's sacrifice upon the Cross: all Christian men well knowing that the host & oblation of those two, though they differ in manner and external form, yet is indeed all one.

The Apostle then sheweth here plainly, that all the sins that ever were remitted since the beginning of the world, were no otherwise forgiven, but by the force and in respect of Christ's Passion. Yet it followeth not thereupon, that the oblations of Abel, Abraham, Aaron, &c. were no sacrifices, as by the Heretics' foolish deduction it should do: S. Paul not opposing Christ's Passion to them, for the intent to prove them to have been no sacrifices, but to prove, 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 than any of them, or any other mere mortal man. ^◦ And that you may see the blasphemous pride and ignorance of Calvin, and in him, of all his fellows: read (so many as may read Heretical books) his commentary upon this place, and there you shall see him gather upon this, that Christ's death had force from the beginning & was the remedy for all sins since the creation of the world, therefore there must be no more but that one sacrifice of Christ's death. Which must needs by his deduction hold (as it doth indeed) no less against the old sacrifices than the new sacrifice of the Church, and so take away all, which is against the Apostle's meaning and all religion.

• ◦ Calvin's argument against the sacrifice of the altar, maketh no less against the sacrifices of the old Law.

This is the blood.

^◦ Christ's death was necessary for the full 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 compass of his Passion. Which is evident by the words pronounced by Christ over the holy chalice, which be correspondent to the words that were spoken (as the Apostle here declareth) in the first sacrifice of the dedication of the old law, having also express mention of remission of sins thereby, as by the blood of the new Testament. Whereby it is plain, that the B. Chalice of the altar hath the very sacrificial blood in it that was shed upon the Cross, in & by which, the new Testament (which is the law of spirit, grace, and remission) was dedicated, and doth consist. And therefore it is also clear, that many divine things, which to the Heretics or ignorant may seem to be spoken only of Christ's sacrifice upon the Cross, be indeed verified & fulfilled also in the sacrifice of the altar. Whereof S. Paul for the causes aforesaid would not treat in plain terms. See Isychius li. 1. in Levit. c. 4. paulo post initium, applying all these things to the immolation of Christ also in the Sacrament.

• ◦ The correspondence of words in dedicating both Testaments proveth the real presence of blood in the Chalice.

The examplers.

^◦ All 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 lively image of the heavenly state next ensuing: which be therefore specially dedicated and sanctified in Christ's blood, sacrificed on the altar, and sprinkled upon the faithful, as the old figures and people were cleansed by the blood of beasts. And therefore by a transition usual in the holy Scriptures, the Apostle suddenly passeth in the sentence immediately following and turneth his talk to Christ's entrance into heaven, the state whereof, both by the Sacraments of the old law, and also more specially by them of the new, is prefigured.

• ◦ In the old Testament were figures of the new: in the new, is resemblance of the heavenly state.

Offer himself often.

^◦ As Christ never died but once, nor never shall die again, so in that violent, painful, and bloody sort he can never be offered again, neither needeth he so to be offered any more: having by that one action of sacrifice upon the Cross, made the full ransom, redemption, and remedy for the sins of the whole world. Nevertheless, as Christ died and was offered after a sort in all the sacrifices of the Law and Nature, since the beginning of the world (all which were figures of this one oblation upon the Cross) so is he much rather offered in the sacrifice of the altar of the new Testament, incomparably more nearly, divinely, and truly expressing his death, his body broken, his blood shed, than did any figure of the old law, or other sacrifice that ever was: as being indeed (though in hidden, sacramental, and mystical, and unbloody manner) the very selfsame B. body and blood, the selfsame host, oblation and sacrifice, that was done upon the Cross.

• ◦ Christ once offered in bloody sort, but unbloodily often, namely in the sacrifice of the altar.

^◦

And this truth is most evident by the very form of words used by our Saviour in the institution and consecration of the holy Sacrament, and by the profession of all the holy Doctors. 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 sins, and of the blood, which he was to shed, but in this Sacrifice is the commemoration of the flesh of Christ which he hath now given, and of the blood which he hath shed: in illis prænuntiabatur occidendus, in hoc annuntiatur occisus. In them he was foreshewed as to be killed: in these he is shewed, as killed. And S. Gregory Nazianzene saith, orat. in morbum, that the Priest in this sacrifice, immiscet se magnis Christi Passionibus. S. Ambrose li. 1. Offic. 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. Gregory, ho. 37. in Evang. So often as we offer the host of his Passion, so often we renew his Passion. And, He suffereth for us again in mystery. And Isychius, li. 2. c. 8. in Levit. post med. By the sacrifice of the only-begotten many things are given unto us, to wit, the remission or pardoning of all mankind, and the singular introduction or bringing in of the mysteries of the new Testament.

^[1]

And the said Fathers and others, by reason of the difference in the manner of Christ's presence and oblation in respect of that on the Cross, called this the unbloody sacrifice, as ^[2] Calvin himself confesseth, but answereth them in the pride of heretical spirit, with these words: Nihil moror quod sic loquantur vetusti scriptores. that is, I pass not for it, that the ancient writers do so speak: calling the distinction of bloody and unbloody sacrifice, scholastical and frivolous, and ^[3] diabolicum commentum, a devilish device. With such ignorant and blasphemous men we have to do, that think they understand the Scriptures better than all the Fathers.

• 1 The Fathers call it the unbloody Sacrifice of the altar.
• 2 Comment. in 9. Hebr.
• 3 Calvin's contempt of the Fathers.
• ◦ The Sacrifice of the altar & that on the Cross, both one.