Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 1 · Part 30
The thirtieth Chapter treateth of the same matter by S. Hieronyme and Theodoret.Hesk.
The place of Hieronyme which M. Heskins doth so triumph vponupon, is vponupon the 110. Psalme,Fulke. but those cōmentaries, both by Erasmus and by Bruno Amerbachius, are vtterly denyed to be Hieronymes doing. But seeing they be falsly intituled to him, we are cōtent to take this place, as thogh it were Hieronymes writing in deed. The words vponupon the fourth verse are these. It is superfluous for vsus to goe about to make an exposition of this verse, seeing the holy Apostle to the Hebrues hath most fully treated thereof. For hee saith, this is Mechisedech without father, without mother, without generation. And of all ecclesiastical men it is said, that he is without father as concerning the flesh, and without mother as concerning his godhead. This only therefore let vsus interpret: thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech, let vsus only see wherfore he said, after the order. After the order: that is, thou shalt not be a priest according to the sacrifices of the Iewes: but thou shalt be a prieste after the order of Melchisedech: For as Melchisedech kinge of Salem offered breade and wine: so shalt thou offer thy bodie and thy bloud, true bread and true wine. This Melchisedech hath giuen vsus these mysteries which we hauehave. He it is that hath saide, he that shall eate my fleshe and drinke my bloude. Hee hath deliuered to vsus his sacrament according to the order of Melchisedech. What can be saide more plainely in exposition of this writer, then that hee him selfe saith? that hee hath giuen vsus these mysteries, that he hath deliuered to vsus his sacrament after the order of Melchisedech, by which he expresseth, what his meaning was by offering his bodie and bloud, verie bread and verie wine, or true bread and true wine, not in the proper sence of a sacrifice, but in a mysterie, in a sacramēt. But nowe let vsus see howe M. Heskins insulteth vppon vsus, for this counterfete Hieronyme. First that he taketh vponupon him to expound, that which was left vnexpounded by the Apostle to the Hebrues, namely that Christ was a prieste, which is altogether false, for the Apostle doth not onelyonly speake of his eternall priesthood, but also of his one oblation, by which hee purchased eternall redemption. And although this writer doth refer his order to the similitude of his sacrifice in bread and wine, yet both the prophet in the psalme, and the Apostle to the Hebrues doe sufficiently declare, that the excellencie of Melchisedechs order doth consiste in this, that he was both a Kinge and a Priest, and so a liuely figure of the reall priesthoode of our sauiour Christ.
But whereas M. Heskins will controle not only vsus, but euen his owne vulgare interpretation of the bible, which saith not, obtuli… hee offred, but protulit hee brought forth, by authoritie of this Hieronyme, who (hee saith) both knewe the olde testament and vnderstoode the Hebrue tongue, he bewrayeth his owne weaknesse, and sheweth, how good a reader he hath been of Hieroms works, when he knoweth not what the true Hieronyme himselfe writeth of this matter in his Epistle to Enagrius, in which, setting downe the verie Hebrue text: foreign foreign doth thus expound it: Et Melchizedech rex Salem protulit panem & vinum. Erat autem sacerdos Dei exelsi. And Melchisedech brought forth bread and wine, and he was a priest of the high God. The same word protulit hath Ambrose, de mysterijs initiandis, and Augustine vppon the title of the 33. Psalme, and Cyprian as we heard in the last Chapter lib. 2. Epi 3. ad Caecilium. Besides this Hierome in the same Epistle sheweth, that the best learned of the Hebrues iudgement, was, that Melchizedech victori Abraham obuiam processerit, & in refectionem tam ipsius, quàm pugnatorum ipsius, panes vinum que protulerit. Melchizedech came forth to meete Abraham the conquerour, and for refection as well of him, as of his warriours, brought forth breade and wine. And concerning the order of Melchizedech, he saith, that the Greeke writers interpret it many wayes. As for example, that he alone was both a King and a Priest: and that he was a Priest before circumcision: that he was not annoynted with the oyle of the Priestes, but with the oyle of gladnesse: that hee offered not sacrifices of flesh and bloud, and tooke not the bloud of beastes and their bowels, and what soeuer is in them more then meate: Sed pane & vino simplici puro que sacrificio, Christi dedicauerit sacramentum, but with breade & wine being a simple and pure sacrifice, he dedicated the sacrament of Christ. This the true Hierome writt, and yet in the ende, will determine nothing of his owne iudgement.
But M. Heskins repeting againe a parcell of Cyprians saying, vttered in the Chapter before: Who is more properly the Priest of the high God, then our Lord Iesus Christe, which offered a sacrifice to God his father? and offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech had offered, that is, bread and wine, euen his bodie and bloud, compareth it with this saying of Hierome: As Melchizedech offered bread and wine so shalt thou offer thy bodie and thy bloud, the true breade and the true wine.
And not content with this, hee noteth in the margent a plaine place for M. Iuel. Howe plaine it is to confute M. Heskins, I hauehave shewed abundantly in the last part… of the Chapter next before this, whether I remit the reader, and passe to Theodoret, who in his second dialogue writeth thus. Godly Moses writing the olde genealogie hath taught vsus, that Adam, when hee was thus many yeres old begat Se…h, and when he had liued so many yeres, he made an ende of his life. Euen so also he sayth of Seth and Enos with other. As for the beginning of the generation of Melchizedech, and the ende of his life he ouerpasseth it in silence. Wherefore, if the historie bee looked on, he hath neither beginning of dayes, nor end of life. So in deede the sonne of God neither hath beginning of his being, neither shall hauehave ending. Therefore in these most great and verie diuine things was Melchizedech a figure of Christ our Lord. And in his priesthood, which agreeth rather to man then to God, our Lord Christ was an high Priest after the order of Melchizedech. For Melchizedech was an high Priest of the Gentiles. And our Lord Christ offered a holy and healthfull sacrifice for all men. If I sayde neuer a word (as I neede not to say many) yet the indifferent reader would see, that here is no comparison of Melchizedechs bread and wine with the sacrament of the Lordes supper. Yea, he would easily see, that he speaketh of the sacrifice of his death which our sauiour offered for all men, both Iewes and Gentiles. And much more plainly by that place which M. Heskins addeth out of the first dialogue. If therefore it appertaineth to Priestes to offer giftes, and Christ concerning his humanitie is called a Priest, he offered none other sacrifice but his owne bodie. This speaketh Theodoret expressely of the true sacrifice of his death, and not of the fained sacrifice of his supper, nor yet of any sacrament or figure of his onelyonly true sacrifice, which the olde writers (as I shewed before) do often call a sacrifice, oblation, burnt offring, &c: But that M. Heskins cannot gaine by the doctours wordes, he will winne by reason. First, if wee denye that Melchizedech was a figure of Christe his Priesthood, saying, he was a figure onelyonly of his eternitie, then wee ioyne with Eutyches, who graunted the diuinitie of Christe, and denyed his humanitie, vntounto which his priesthood properly perteyned. But who tolde M. Heskins, that wee denye Melchizedech to be a figure of Christs Priesthood? when wee most constantly affirme, that he was a figure of his eternall Priesthood, vnlesse Maister Heskins thinke the humanitie of Christe, hauing once conquered death, is not nowe euerlasting. It is not our exposition, that mainteineth the heresie of Eutyches, that the nature of Christes bodie is absorpt into the diuinitie, but it is your heresie of vbiquitie and carnall presence (Maister Heskins) that mayntaineth it most manifestly in verie deede, though in wordes you will say the contrarie.
But Maister Heskins followeth his reason, and vrgeth vsus, that it is the office of a Priest to offer sacrifice, wherefore, if Christe resemble Melchizedech in Priesthood, he must resemble him in sacrifice, and that is the sacrifice of breade and wine, for other sacrifice wee reade none that Melchizedech offered. I aunswere, as wee reade of none other, so wee read not in the Scripture one worde of that sacrifice of breade and wine, as hath beene often declared at large. And seeing the scripture expresseth not what sacrifice Melchizedech offered, wee are content to be ignorant of it, satisfying our selues with so much as the scripture affirmeth, that Christ offering him selfe once for all on the Crosse, was in the same called a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech, as wee hauehave shewed at large before out of Hebr. 5. & 7.9.10.
But it is a sport to see, how M Heskins skippeth to & fro, as it were one whipped at a stake, when hee woulde reconcile his transubstantiation, with this counterfet sacrifice of breade and wine. Christe sacrificed in breade and wine. In breade and wine I say, a kinde of foode more excellent then the breade and wine that did figure it, I meane with Theodoret and Hierome the true bread and wine, that is the bodie and bloud of Christ, that is to say, no bread nor wine. But if you giuegive him a lash on the other side, and saye: if Christ sacrificed not naturall bread & wine, then he answered not your figure, he wil leap to the other side, & say with Cyprian, & Isychius, that Christe offered the selfe same thing that Melchizedech did, and in one place he sayeth, he occupyed bread and wine in his sacrifice: so did he a table and a cuppe, and other things, but was any thing his sacrifice that he occupyed therein, sauing onelyonly that which he offered? he will say no. Did he offer bread and wine? hee dare not aunswer directly, and so the poore man to vpholde two lyes, the one contrarie to the other, is miserably tormented.