Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 1 · Part 28
Hesk.The eight and twentieth Chapter beginneth to speake of the Prophesies, and first of the prophesie of the priesthood of Christe after the order of Melchizedech.
The one halfe of this Chapter is consumed in citing of textes,Fulk. to proue that Christe is a Priest after the order of Melchizedech: and at length, hee deuideth the Priestes office into two partes, teaching, and sacrificing. Then he affirmeth, that Christ was not a Priest after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedech. Yet in the ende of the Chapter like a blasphemous dogge, hee sayeth, that Christ executed his priesthood after the order of Aaron vppon the Crosse. Where beside his blasphemie, note how hee agreeth with him selfe. But Christ he sayeth, it called a Priest after the order of Melchizedech for the manner of his sacrifice, which maketh the difference betweene the order of Aaron, and the order of Melchizedech. For Aaron offered in bloud, the other in bread and wine. The Apostle to the Hebrues, obseruing many differences, could not finde this. But M. Heskins aunswereth that the cause why the Apostle did leaue out this manner of sacrifice, was, for that his principall purpose was, to shewe the excellencie of Christ and his priesthood, aboue Aaron, and his priesthood, which could not bee by shewing that he sacrificed breade and wine, for the Iewes sacrifices were more glorious then bread and wine. By this wise reason, he giueth vsus to deeme, that the Apostle of subtiltie suppressed this comparison, because they were weake, as though they knewe not what the sacramentes of the Church were. But if Christe sacrificed his bodie and bloud twise, he could not better hauehave shewed his excellencie aboue Aaron, then in declaring, that Christe did not onelyonly offer him self in bloud on the Crosse, but also in bread & wine, after the example of Melchizedech. For if offering of sacrifice were one of the chiefe partes of a Priestes office, and breade and wine had beene the sacrifice of Melchizedech, the Apostle neither would, nor coulde hauehave dissembled the comparison of his sacrifice with the sacrifice of Christe, which would infinitely hauehave aduaunced his priesthood aboue Aaron. For else the Hebrues, whom M. Heskins imagineth would hauehave obiected their sacrifices to be more glorious then bread and wine, might more probably hauehave replyed, that the Apostles compared Melchizedech with Christe in small matters, and omitted the chiefest parte of his office, which was this sacrifice: so that if he were inferiour in the chiefe, it was little to excell in the small matters.
But M. Heskins taketh vppon him to aunswere our obiection that we make against this sacrifice of breade and wine, which is this: as the Apostle to the Hebrues speaketh nothing of it, no more doeth Moses in Genesis. For it is sayed there, that Melchizedech brought foorth breade and wine, but neuer a worde, that he did sacrifice breade and wine. This obiection he wil aunswer, both by scripture and by the eldest learned men of Christes parleament. Concerning the parleament men, as it is true, that many of them did thinke Melchizedech to be a figure of Christ in bringing foorth bread and wine: so when we come to consider their voyces, it shall appeare, that they make little for transubstantiation, or the carnall presence.
But now let vsus heare the scripture. The scripture to proue that Melchisedech did sacrifice this bread and wine saith: that he was a Priest of the most high God, to whome is belongeth, not to bring foorth, but to offer bread and wine, so that the verie connexion of the Scripture and dependants of the same, enforceth vsus to take this sense, and none other can be admitted. This is a verie peremptorie sentence, plumped downe of you M. Heskins, not as from your doctours chaire, but euen as from Apolloes three footed stoole. But if it may please you to heare: is it not also scripture, that he was King of Salem? and wil not the verie connexion and dependance of the Scripture leade vsus to thinke, that as an example of his royall liberalitie, he brought foorth bread & wine, to refresh the hungrie and wearie souldiers of Abraham, which being such a multitude, could not easily be prouided for by a priuate man?
And where Moses sayeth, he was a priest of the highest God, hee addeth also an example of his priestly holynesse, that he blessed Abraham, & praysed God, and that Abraham gaue him tythes of al. And lest you should exclame, as your manner is, that this is a newe exposition, Iosephus in the firste booke & tenth Chapter of his Iewishe antiquities, doth so expounde it: Hic Melchisedechus milites Abrahami hospitaliter habuit, nihil eis ad victum deesse passus &c. This Melchisedech gaue verie liberall intertainment to the souldiours of Abraham, & suffered them to want nothing vntounto their liuing. But if M. Heskins wil obiect that Iosephus was a Iewe, then let him heare the author of Scholastica historia a Christian and a Catholike, as M. Heskins will confesse, allowing of the same exposition Chap. 46. in these wordes. At verò Melchizedech rex Salem obtulit ei panem & vinum: quod, (quasi exponen… Iosephus) ait: ministrauit exercitui Xenia, & multam abundantiam rerum opportunarum simul exhibuit, et super epulas benedixit deum qui Abrahae subdiderat inimicos. Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi. But Melchizedech King of Salem offered vntounto him bread and wine, which Iosephus, (as it were expounding of it) sayeth: he ministred to his armie the dueties of hospitalitie, and gaue him great plentie of things necessary, & beside the feast, or at the feast, he blessed God which had subdued vntounto Abraham his enimies. For he was a priest of the high… so God. Thus farre he … M. Heskins for his connexion perchaunce will vrge the Coniunction enim, erat enim saterdos, &c. in the vulgar Latine text, to make it to be referred to the former clause, but neither the Hebrue, nor the Greeke text hath that Coniunction. To be short, if the bringing foorth of bread and wine, perteined to his priestly office, there is nothing in the text to expresse his Kingly office: but Moses, as he calleth him, both a King, and a priest, so doth he distinctly shewe, what he did as a King, and what he did as a Priest. Yet Maister Heskins goeth on, and will proue, That if Christ were a Priest after the order of Melchizedech he offred a sacrifice after that order: but he neuer made any mo oblations then two, the one on the crosse, after the order of Aaron: the other in his last Supper after the order of Melchisedech except we will say that Christe altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God. Marke here (Christian Reader) how many horrible blasphemies, this impudent dogge barketh out against our Sauiour Christ, directly contrarie to his expresse worde. First he affirmeth, that Christ made two offerings of himselfe, whereas the holy Ghost saith. Heb. 9. not that he should oftentimes offer himselfe, as the high priest, &c. For then he should hauehave suffered oftentimes since the beginning of the world. And Heb. 10. He offered but one sacrifice for sinnes, and is set downe at the right hand of God for euer, &c. For by one only oblation, he hath made perfect for euer them that are sanctified. And in the same Chapter: where there is forgiuenesse of sinnes, there is no more sacrifice for sinne. Whervpon it followeth that if Christes sacrifice at his supper, tooke away sinnes, he offered no sacrifice vponupon the crosse.
Secondly, he affirmeth that Christe was a priest after ye order of Aaron, which he denied before, and is in plaine wordes denied by the holy Ghost Heb. 7. which place M. Heskins himselfe setteth downe in this Chapter: if perfection had beene by the Priesthoode of the Leuites (for vnderunder it the law was established to ye people) what needed it further, that another priest should arise after ye order of Melchisedech, &c not to be called after ye order of Aaron.
Thirdly, he affirmeth, that the sacrifice of Christ vponupon the crosse, was after the order of Aaron. Wherevpon it wil follow, that it was not an eternall redemption purchased by it, but transitorie, as the priesthoode of Aaron was. Whereas the holy Ghost saith, that by his owne bloud he entred once into the holy place, and found eternall redemption, which could neuer be obteined by any sacrifice after the order of Aaron.
Fourthly, he affirmeth, that Christ altogether neglected the priesthoode appointed to him of God, except he did offer sacrifice in his supper of bread and wine.
By which, he denieth, that the once offring vp of himselfe, by his eternall spirite on the crosse, was any parte of his priesthoode appointed him by God, then the which there can be no more diuelish blasphemie. And yet the beast is not ashamed to challenge and write, If not then … let the aduersary shewe, when and where Christ did sacrifice after the order of Mechizedech. Euen then, and there, thou enimie of the crosse of Christ, when and where he was made obedient to the death of the crosse, and hauing learned obedience by the thinges he suffered, he was consecrated, and made the authour of eternall saluation vntounto all them that obey him, and is called of God an high priest, after the order of Melchizedech. Heb. 5. Hauing an euerlasting priesthod, by which he is able perfectly to saue them, that come vntounto God by him, seeing he euer liueth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest it became vsus to hauehave, which is holy, harmelesse, vndefiled, separated frō sinners, and made higher then the heauens, which needed not daily, as these high Priestes, to offer vp sacrifice, first for his owne sinnes, and then for the peoples: for that he did once when he offred vp himself. Heb. 7. But beside his detestable blasphemies, see his ridiculous vanitie. If the priesthoode of Melchizedech standeth in his offering of bread and wine, then Christ also offered bread and wine, as he saide before, Christ offered in bread and wine: as Aaron did in bloud. If bread & wine be Christes offring, or any part of it, then there is bread and wine in the sacrament, & what is becomme of transubstantiation? If there was no bread & wine in ye sacrifice of Christe, then where is Melchisedeches priesthoode, by his owne diuinitie? Againe, if he say, there be the shewes, or accidents of bread & wine, then Melchizedeches bread and wine, was a figure of the accidents of bread and Wine, & then the figure was better, then ye thing figured, contrarie to his worshipfull rule, giuen in the 15. Chapter. If he say, yt Melchizedeches bread & wine, figured not the Accidents, but the bread & wine before it be consecrated, then he breaketh his rule once againe: for Melchizedeches bread, if it were not hallowed, was as good: if it were hallowed, as it was, if it were offred, it was better then ye vncōsecrated bread & wine. Finally, if he say, it figured, neither ye vncōsecrated bread & wine, nor the accidents of the same consecrated, but the body and bloud of Christ vnderunder these accidēts: beside that he makes it a figure of a figure or signe, which he said could not be, he denieth that Christ did that, wherein he affirmed the priesthoode of Melchizedech to stand: namely, that he offred bread and wine. And so thou seest M. Heskins hanged in his owne halter.