Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 1 · Part 29
The nine and twentieth Chapter proceedeth to prooue the same by S. Cyprian, and Isychius.Hesk.
I confessed before, that diuers of the olde fathers, were of opinion, that the bread and wine,Fulk. which Melchisedech brought forth, was sacrificed by him, and that it was a figure of the sacramēt, which they vnproperly called a sacrifice, meaning nothing else, but that it was a holy signe, and a thankesgiuing, offered to God for the passion of Christe: as it is manifest by diuers places in their writings. But they were farre from those blasphemies, which M. Heskins hath vttered in ye Chapter before, as to make Christes passion a sacrifice after the order of Aaron, to make Christ offer two sacrifices, and the better sacrifice, yt was after the order of Melchizedech, in the sacrament, &c.
But now let vsus consider the places of Cyprian, whether such poyson may be drawen out of them, as M. Heskins hath sucked out of his own poysoned brayne. The words of the first place are these: The sacraments signified of old, since the time that Melchisedech came forth, Serm. de coena Dom.& to the sonnes of Abraham that do his workes, the high priest bringeth foorth bread and wine. This (sayth he) is my body. They had eaten and dronken of the same bread, according to the visible fourme, but before those wordes, that common meate, was profitable only to nourish the body. But after it was saide by the Lorde, do this in remembrance, This is my flesh, & this is my bloud. As oftē as it is done with these wordes, and with this faith, that substantiall bread, and cuppe consecrated with a solemne blessing, profiteth vntounto the life and health of the whole man, being both a medicine, (Et Holocaustum) and a burnt offering, to heale infirmities, and purge iniquities. There is also declared the difference betweene spirituall meate, and corporall meate: namely, that it was one thing that was first set before them, & another thing, which was giuē & distributed by their Maister. First it is graunted, yt Cyprian thought the bread & wine brought foorth by Melchizedech, to be a figure of the sacrament, and that herein also he resembled the priesthoode of Christ, which we are neither afraide, nor abashed to denie, because the Apostle (an older doctor then Cyprian, & such an one as in his writings could not erre) could finde no such resemblance betweene Melchizedech and Christ. Concerning the sacrifice of bread and wine, I wil speake hereafter, in answere to the other places of Cyprian. But now let vsus examine M. Heskins two notes, for the reall presence, as he calleth it. The first is, that this cōmon meate being consecrated is profitable for the whole man, as a medicine to heale infirmities, and a sacrifice to purge sinnes, but neither our faith in Christ crucified, nor the merites of his passion are the sacrifice, but his very body: therefore this meate is his very body.
The Maior of this argument is ambiguous: and therefore it must be distinguished: for this worde sacrifice, is either taken properly, or vnproperly, and figuratiuely: if it be taken figuratiuely for a sacrament, or a memoriall of a sacrifice, as Cyprian meaneth, the proposition is true, but if it be taken for a sacrifice in the proper sense, it is false. For Christe offered but one sacrifice, and that but once, neuer to be repeated, which was on the crosse. Nowe, to proue that Cyprian vsed the word sacrifice, vnproperly for this time, I will shewe no more, but his owne word Holocaustum, which signifieth a whole burned sacrifice, for M. Heskins will graunt, that the sacrifice of Christ is vnproperly called a burned offering.
The second note that he gathereth, is of the Propertie of this word, Aliud: in the Neuter gender it signifieth an other substance forsooth: as we may say, Alius pater, alius filius, but not aliud pater, aliud filius. And then the rule is extended to vnum, for Christ saith, ego & pater vnum sumus, & hij tres vnum sunt. This he would beare men in hand, to be the determination of learned men, and so the bread before consecration was aliud, that is one substance, but after consecration it is aliud, that is an other substance, and so the body of Christe. This is an high point in a lowe house, but the young pettites in the Grammer schoole, can teach him that aliud in the Neuter gender put absolutely, must bee resolued into alia res, an other thing, and so doth Maister Heskins him selfe translate it. And Cyprian sheweth what other thing it is, after consecration, when he saith: here is declared the difference betweene the spirituall meate and the corporall meate, namely that it was one thing when it was first set before them, that is corporall meate, and an other thing which was giuen by their maister, namely spirituall meate. The same substance remaining, it is spirituall meate that before was corporall meate: as in baptisme the same substaunce of water remayning, it is a spirituall lauer, that before was a corporall lauer. This is the greate diuinitie of aliud and aliud. But I maruell that Maister Heskins, which seeth such high mysteries, in aliud, can not see that Cyprian saith, they did eate of the same breade before, after the visible forme, which they did afterward eate, being conuerted into spirituall meate, so that it was the same breade before and after, although it had nowe a newe vertue giuen it by the wordes of Christ, to nourish the whole man, which before nourished only the body.
The next place which he alledgeth out of Saint Cyprian is Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecitium. Where he leaueth out the beginning of the matter, bicause it expoundeth all the rest of the place against him: but I will be so bold as to add it for the better vnderstanding of S. Cyprian, and the discharging him of M. Heskins blasphemies. Item in sacerdote Melchisedech sacrificij dominici sacramentum praefiguratum videmus, secundùm quod scriptura diuina testatur & dicit: & Melchisedech &c. Also in the Priest Melchisedech we see that the sacrament of our Lordes sacrifice was prefigured, according to that the scripture testifieth, and saith. And Melchisedech king of Salem brought foorth bread and wine, and he was a Priest of the highest God, and blessed Abraham. And that Melchisedech did beare the figure of Christ, the holy Ghost declareth in the Psalmes, saying in the person of the father vntounto the sonne: Before the day starre I hauehave begotten thee. The Lorde hath sworne, and it shall not repent him, thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech; which order verily is this comming of that sacrifice, and from thence descending, that Melchisedech was a priest of the most high God, that he offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham. For who is more the priest of the highest God then our Lord Iesus Christ, which offered vp a sacrifice to God his father ▪ And offered the selfe some thing that Melchisedech offered, that is, bread and wine, euen his body and bloud. And concerning Abraham, that blessing going before, perteined to our people. For if Abraham beleued God, and it was imputed to him for rightuousnesse: so likewise who so euer beleueth God liueth also by faith, is found righteous, and long agoe shewed to be blessed and iustified in faithfull Abraham, a… S. Paule the Apostle proueth, saying: Abraham beleeued God, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse. Ye knowe therefore, that they which are of faith, euen they are the sonnes of Abraham. Wherefore the scripture foreseeing that God iustifieth the Gentiles by faith, foreshewed to Abraham, that all nations should be blessed in him. Therefore they that are of faith, shall be blessed with faithfull Abraham. Wherevpon in the Gospell we find that many are raised vp of stones, that is, yt the sonnes of Abraham are gathered of the Gentiles. And when the Lord praised Zacheus, he answered and saide, This day is saluation happened to this house, bicause this man is also made the sonne of Abraham. Therefore that in Genesis the blessing about Abraham might duely be celebrated by Melchisedech the priest, the image of the sacrifice goeth before, ordeined in bread and wine. Which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling, offered bread and the cup mixed with wine, and he that was the fulnesse, fulfilled the truth of the image that was prefigured. Thus much Cyprian. In cyting this place, note what falshood M. Heskins vseth: first of all he leaueth out the beginning, where Cyprian calleth the supper, the sacrament of the Lordes sacrifice, by which it is plaine what he meaneth, when he calleth it afterward, an oblation or sacrifice. Secondly he falsifieth his wordes, where Cyprian saith, Fuit autem sacerdos, that is, and he was a Priest, Maister Heskins chaungeth it into Fuit enim sacerdos, for hee was a Priest. Thirdly, where Cyprian compareth Christ to Melchisedech in three thinges distinctly, in that he was the Priest of the highest GOD, in that he offered breade and wine, and in that hee blessed Abraham, shewing, that Christe was the Prieste of the highest GOD, when hee offered his sacrifice to his father, meaning in his passion▪ that hee offered breade and wine as he did, meaning in his supper: and last of all, that he blessed his people as Melchisedech did Abraham. Maister Heskins confoundeth the first with the second, by putting out the interrogatiue point, that is after obtulit, and ioyning the next sentence to it, and the last he omitteth, by cutting off the dicourse that Cyprian maketh thereof. As though Cyprian had spoken of no resemblance of Melchisedech vntounto Christe, but in offering bread and wine, as he before saide most blasphemously, that the execution of that Priesthoode lay onelyonly therein.
But now let vsus looke to his collectiōs out of this place. First that Melchisedech was a figure of Christ. That shall easily▪ he graunted. Secondly, that Melchis…dech was a figure of Chris… in three pointe…, and the… the Authour doth applie them all to Christ, namely a Priest of the highest GOD, in offering sacrifice to his father, and that he offered the very same that Melchisedech did, which was bread and wine. But these two Master Heskins▪ you would make all one, when you expound the sacrifice that he offered to his father, to bee the bread and wine that he offered in the supper, and so there shall not be three pointes. Besides that you are enforced to confesse that Christ offered bread and wine to his father, the very same that Melchisedech did offer, which I am sure was no accidents, and so you doe flatly ouerthrowe your owne dearling, transubstantiation. Your next cauil is of obi… lie & protulie whereas both the text and Cyprian hauehave protili… he brough… foorth, although he seemeth to thinke, that he brought it out eo offer. And therefore to the impudencie that you charge your aduersaries withall, will sit still in your owne brasen forehead. For although he thinketh that Melchisedech offered the bread and wine, which he brought foorth, yet he cyteth the scripture truly: And Melchisedech brought foorth bread and wine, and he was a priest of the highest GOD: which you hauehave most impudently falsified, as I shewed before, saying, for he was a Priest.
Your third glose you bring to proue, that the sacrifice which Christ offered, was but on the crosse, but at the supper is, that the image of the sacrifice went before, which the Lord perfected and fulfilled, offering bread and the cup mixed with wine. An… though that sacrifice may not be referred to his sacrifice on the crosse, bicause ye image thereof was ordeined in bread and wine, and yet he fulfilled the trueth of the prefigured image; when hee offered bread and wine in the supper, as a sacrament of that sacrifice which he offered on the crosse, as Cyprian in the first sentēce of this place, doth cal it. And for most cleare demonstratiō, that Cyprian by sacrifice meaneth a sacrament, signe, and memorial of the passion of Christ, & not a sacrifice properly, consider his owne wordes in the same Epistle. Et quia passionis eius mentionē in sacrifioijs omnibus facinous, (pastio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus) nihil aliud, quàm quod ille fecit, facere debemus. And because wee make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices (for the sacrifice which wee offer is the Lordes passion) wee ought to doe nothing, but that he did him selfe. This one place will aunswere all that can bee brought out of Cyprian, or any olde doctour for the sacrifice of the Lords supper. The sacrifice which wee offer, is the Lordes passion (sayth Cyprian) what, was Christe crucified in their sacrifices? or were their sacrifices nothing els but a sacramēt of thankes giuing for the passion of Christe? You see by this place howe vnproperly they spake, but yet so as of reasonable men they might well inough bee vnderstoode, and they them selues do often expounde them selues. Wherfore thou seest (reader) what iniurie the papistes doe vntounto ye doctors, when they faine such monsters to be begotten by them, while they interprete literally, which the doctors did write figuratiuely.
But to ye testimonie of Isychius, which is a curious allegorie of sacrifices, wherin no merueyle,In Leui. lib. 6. Cap. 23. if he vse the name of sacrifice figuratiuely or vnproperly, his wordes are these. And what is this sacrifice? Two tenth deales of fine flower sprinkeled with oyle. For w…e must knowe to contemper the perfect manhoode and the perfecte Godhood, that it, to come together into one in oyle, that is, by that comparison which hee hath towarde vsus. For so the sacrifice is founde a sweete sauour to our lord, when wee vnderstande of him thinges that bee worthie. In what thinges the sacrifice whiche is the oblation of the intelligible lambe, is, and by whome it is done, howe it is celebrated, that whiche followeth declareth. For neither by vnreasonable beastes doth God receiue sacrifice of vsus, as the wordes that followe-doe plainely shewe …or, hee saith, and the drinke offering of it, shall bee of wine, the fourth part of an Hi…, bread & Polentant (M. Heskins calleth it) parched corne. Because peraduenture it might hauehave been doubtfull by whome the mysterie of the sacrifice, (whiche is by Christs, that wee spake of before) is celebrated: behold thou hast the oblation of intelligible. Melchisedech which is perfourmed in breade and wine, in which the fourth parte of an Him is offered in drinke offeringes of wine, that by the fourth part hee might signifie the tradition or deliuerie of the Gospell which is in foure bookes▪ by the drinke offering, the Lordes worde, when hee saith, This is my bloude which shall bee shedde for you: for it seemed good to the lawe giuer without diminishing to signifie the mysterie of Christe.
And then againe hee saith: The oblation of these present giftes which we hauehave shewed to bee the mysterie of the onelyonly begotten sonne, hath reconciled vsus to God, and giuen vsus the meate of the newe parched corne. Nowe to M. Heskins collections, Wee must learne here, that Melchisedech did not only bring forth, but also offer bread and wine. In deed wee learne that Isychius thought so: And that Christ the intelligible Melchisedech did sacrifice in breade and wine. Yea, but this sacrifice was a mysterie of that sacrifice, whiche hath reconciled vsus to God, for so saith Isychius also, and that no man offered this sacrifice but hee himselfe, for that hee saith also. Reade ouer the place if you doubte of my collection. By which it is plaine, it was not the sacrifice of the masse that euerie hedge priest may offer. But that wee shoulde not say that it was bare breade that hee sacrificed, he sheweth what breade it was, saying, by the drinke offering hee woulde signifie that of which hee saide, this is my bloude. See this impudent falsarie: the writer saith, hee woulde signifie Dominician sermonem, the Lordes worde, and hee saith, that of which he saide &c. Where is then the breade that the mysterie might bee fullie signified? Is it not that which he calleth the tradition of the Gospell which is in foure bookes? I dispute not howe well he applyeth these thinges, but it is more then manifest, that he speaketh so figuratiuely, that no argument can be fastened of his wordes, for the carnal presence. And whereas M. Heskins shrinketh in his hornes about the oblation of bread and wine, saying it was not bare breade, but he sheweth what bread it was. Let him aunswere me plainly, if he dare for his eares. Was it verie bread and wine, which Christ did sacrifice or no? If he say, it was verie bread and wine, then he denyeth transubstantiatiō. If he say it was not verie bread & wine which Christ did sacrifice, then he denyeth ye resemblance vntounto Melchisedechs sacrifice, and hath Cyprian against him, who as we heard before, saith, Obtulit hoc idem, quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est, panem & vinum, suum scilicet corpus & sanguinē. He offered yt selfe same thing yt Melchisedech had offered, that is to say, bread & wine, euen his body & bloud. Note here that Melchisedech and Christ offering both the verie selfe same thing, they both offered bread and wine: and likewise they both offered the body and bloud of Christ. Whereby not onelyonly transubstantiation, but also the carnal presence is vtterly ouerthrowne. And to presse him harder by his owne weightes, euen to death, If aliud signifie an other substance, as he taught vsus before, then hoc idem, signifieth the same substance, and much rather. Therefore wh…n Cyprian saith that Christ offered hoc idem quod Melchisedech, it followeth that Melchisedech offered the same substance which he expoundeth bread and wine, his body and bloude. And this two forked reason, will hold down all the papistes noses to the grindstone, that they shall not be able to auoide it for their liues.