Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 1 · Part 31
Hesk.The one and thirtieth Chapter concludeth this matter of Melchizedech by S. Augustine and Damascene.
Fulk.S. Augustine is alledged vppon the 33 Psalme, whose wordes are these: The sacrifices of the Iewes were before time, after the order of Aaron, in offrings of beastes, and that in a mysterie. The sacrifice of the bodie and bloud of our Lord, which the faithfull, and they that hauehave read the Gospell do knowe, was not yet, which sacrifice is nowe diffused throughout all the worlde. Set before your eyes therefore two sacrifices, both that after the order of Aaron, and this after the order of Melchizedech. For it is writen, the Lord hath sworne, and it shall not repent him. Thou art a Priest for euer, after the order of Melchizedech. Of whom is it saide, thou art a priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech? of our Lord Iesus Christ. For who was Mel…hizedech? The King of Salem And Salem was that Citie which afterward (as the learned hauehave declared) was called Hierusalē. Therefore, before the Iewes reigned there, this Melchizedech was Priest there, which is written of in Genesis, the Priest of the high God. He it was that mett Abraham when he deliuered Loth from the hande of his persecutors and ouerthrewe them of whom he was helde, and deliuered his brother. And after the deliuerie of his brother, Melchizedech mett him (so great was Melchizedech of whom Abraham was blessed) he brought forth breade and wine and blessed Abraham. And Abraham gaue him rythes. See ye what he brought forth, and whome he blessed? And it is sayed afterwarde: Thou art a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech. Dauid sayed this in the spirite, long after Abraham. Nowe Melchizedech was in the time of Abraham. Of whome sayeth he in an… …her place▪ Thou ar… a Priest for euer after the order of Melchizedech, … of him whose sacrifice you knowe? Here saith Maister Heskins, is sacrifice auouched, and the sacrifice of the body, and bloud of our Lorde: who saith nay? But this is not the sacrifice of the masse, but the sacrifice of CHRISTES death, whereof the holy sacrament is a memoriall.
But Augustine saith farther: The sacrifice of Aaron is taken away, and them beganne the order of Melchizedech. Very well, but once againe this sacrifice is the sacrifice of Christes death, the remembraunce whereof is celebrated in the Lordes Supper: where let the Reader obserue, that he doeth yet againe denie the sacrifice of Christes passion, to be a sacrifice, after the order of Melchizedech, contrarie to the expresse worde of God; & affirmeth that it was after the order of Aaron, saying, that The sacrifice after the order of Melchizedech, was onelyonly as the Supper.
Here note that he maketh the sacrament more excellent then the sacrifice of Christes death, by so muche, as the Priesthoode, and sacrifice of Melchisedech, is more excellent then the sacrifice, and priesthoode of Aaron. But Augustine hath more yet, if it will helpe, vponupon the same Psalme. Con. 3. Before the kingdome of his father, he chaunged his …, and left him, and went his way: because there was the sacrifice, according to the order of Aaron: And afterwarde he himselfe by his body and bloud, instituted a sacrifice, after the order of Melchizedech. Therefore he chaunged his countenance in the priesthoode, and left the nation of the Iewes, and came to the Gentiles. By this we must needes vnderstand, that Christe did institute a sacrifice of his body and bloud, after the order of Melchizedech. Yea verily. But howe doe wee vnderstand, that this was in the sacrament? Therefore for any thing that is here shewed, it is no slaunder that the Pope hath turned the holy sacrament into a sacrifice, to obscure the glorie of Christe, and his onelyonly sacrifice, once offered on the crosse. For although the Fathers did sometimes call the sacrament, a sacrifice, yet they meant nothing but a memoriall, or sacrifice of thankesgiuing, for that one sacrifice, offered once, on the crosse for the redemption of the whole worlde. Whereof none other shalbe a better witnesse, then Augustine himselfe, and in his exposition of this selfe same Psalme: Saginantur ergo illo Angeli sed semel ipsum exinaninit, vt manducaret panem angelorum home: formam serui accipiens in similitudinem hominum factus: & habitu inuentus vt homo. The Angels therefore are fead with that bread (meaning the diuinitie of Christe) But he emptied himselfe, that man might eate the bread of Angels, taking the shape of a seruant, beeing made like vntounto men, and in his habite was found as a man. Humilianit se factus obediens, vsus que ad mortem, mortem autem crucis, vt iam de cruce commendar…tur nobis car… & sanguis Domini … sacrificium: quia mutauit vultum suum coram Abimelech, id est, eoram regno patris. He humbled himselfe and was made obedient to the death, euen the death of the crosse, that now the body and bloud of our Lorde might be commended to vsus from the Crosse, beeing the new sacrifice, because he chaunged his countenaunce before Abimelech, that is, before the kingdome of his Father. By this it is manifest, that Augustine referred the sacrifice after the order of Melchisedech, vntounto the crosse of Christ, whereof we are made partakers in the holy mysteries of his blessed supper. So that as well, the body and bloud of our Lorde, as the newe sacrifice in those mysteries are commended to vsus, to be participated from the crosse, where they were truely and essentially offered vntounto God by the eternall spirite of our sauiour Christ, wherby he procured euerlasting redemption.
The same Augustine in his Ep. 23. to Bonifacius. Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in se ipso, & tamen in suet … non sobèr… per omnes paschę solennitates, sed omni die populi… immolatur, nec vbi que mentitur, qui interrogatus eum respondarit immolari? Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem …arum rerum quarū sacramenta sūt non haberēt, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex haec autem similitudine plerun que etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum, sacramentum corporis Christi, corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Was not Christe once onelyonly offered vppe by himselfe? And yet in a sacrament▪ not onelyonly at eueryevery solemnitie of Easter, but euerie day he is offered for the people, neither doeth he lye, which being asked the question answereth that he is offered. For if sacraments had not a certeine similitude of those thinges, whereof they are sacramentes, they should not be sacramentes at all. And of this similitude oftentimes they take the names euen of the very thinges themselues. Therfore, as after a certeine maner the sacrament of ye body of Christ, is the body of Christ, the sacrament of the bloud of Christ is the bloud of Christ: so the sacrament of faith is faith. What can be vttered more plainely, either against the Popishe sacrifice, or against their carnal presence? This one place may expound whatsoeuer in Augustine, or any other olde writer is spoken of the sacrifice of the Lordes supper, and of the presence of Christes body and bloud therein.
After Augustine M. Heskins citeth Chrysostome in Mat. 26. to proue that the sacrament is now of the same force that it was, when it was first ordeined by Christe at his last supper. These workes are not of mans power, what thinges he did then in that supper, he himselfe doth nowe worke, he himselfe doeth make perfect. We holde the order of Ministers, but it is he himselfe, that doeth sanctifie and chaunge these thinges. With my disciples (saith he) doe I keepe my Passeouer. For this is the same table, and none other. This is in nothing lesser then that. For Christ maketh not that table, and some other man this, but he himselfe maketh both.
Hieronyme followeth a vaine discourse, against, I wote not what Petrobrusians, and Henricians, that denied the body of CHRISTE to be consecrated, and giuen by the priestes, as it was by Christe him selfe: Whome peraduenture Petrus Cluniacensis, Maister Heskins Author, doeth slaunder, when they saide none otherwise, then Chrysostome saide before, and that which Maister Heskins himselfe affirmeth, That Christ and not man doth consecrate: But by this place also are confuted the Oecolampadians, and Caluinistes, if we will beleeue Maister Heskins: who first rauing against Cranmer, vrgeth the worde of sanctification of the bread and wine, that Chrysostome vseth, charging Cranmer to hauehave saide, that the creatures of bread and wine cannot be sanctified. Which no doubt, that holy Martyr spake of the substance, and not of the vse in the sacrament. Then he snatcheth vppe Chrysostomes wordes, Transmutat, he doeth transmute, and change them. This is easily aunswered. He chaungeth the vse, but not the substance. But for more confirmation, Origen is called to witnesse Lib. 8. Cont. Celsum: We obeying the creator of all thing…s, after we hauehave giuen thankes for his benefites, which he hath bestowed vponupon vsus, doe eate the bread which is offered which by prayer and supplication is made into a certeine holier bodie, which truly maketh them more holie, which with a more sound minde do vse the same. Here by Origens playne wordes, the vse doth sanctifie the worthie receiuers. And though you adde to Ambrose his phrase De pane fit corpus Christi, of the bread is made the body of Christ, yet the interpretation of spirituall receiuing, which both Origen and Ambrose doe at large testifie, (as in due place hath and shall be more declared) doeth take away your grosse imagination. And that you doe not reiect the spirituall receiuing in the sacrament, you doe well: but you doe fondely, when you oppose it against reall receyuing, where you should say corporall or carnall, for Spiritus & Res be not opposite, but Spiritus & Car…, or Corpus, are.
And here I would hauehave the Readers to note, how Maister Heskins confesseth, that The receiuing of Christe really, (whiche is all that he striueth for) profiteth not, without the receiuing of him spiritually. But it is certeine by the scripture, that the spirituall receiuing profiteth without that, which he calleth the real receiuing. For Christ doth dwell in our hearts by faith. And whereas he saith No man can receiue Christ spiritually, which beleeueth not that he receiueth him really: I demaund of him, whether infants, and such as dye without the participation of the sacrament may not receiue Christe spiritually, without receiuing of him corporally? He must needes answere, yea, or else by Christes word they hauehave no part of eternal life: and then his assertion is false. If I should obiect the fathers of the olde testament, who did all eate Christ spiritually, before he had a naturall body, perhaps he would answere, that he speaketh of men in these dayes. But seing the Apostle 1. Cor. 10. saith, they receiued the same spirituall meat and drinke that we do, euen Christ, it is manifest, that Christ both now & then is eaten spiritually only, and not carnally.
To match with Augustine, for default of a Lorde of the higher house, he bringeth in Damascene a Burgesse of the lower house, whose authoritie although I do little esteeme, yet will I set downe his wordes, that you may see, how little helpe he hath out of them, but by racking and wresting. Melchisedech with bread & wine did receiue Abraham returning frō the slaughter of the strāgers, Li. 4. de Orthod. fid.which was a priest of the highest God. That table did prefigurate this mysticall table, as that priest bare the figure and image of Christ the true priest. Thou art (saith he) a priest after the order of Melchisedech.
First Damascene is plaine, that Melchisedech did not offer bread and wine, but he did entertain Abraham therwith at his table, & that Melchisedechs feast was a figure of Christes feast, but not of his sacrifice, which is the matter in controuersie. But you shal see how M. Heskins setteth his words on the tenter, to stretch them to a sacrifice. I wold that the aduersarie did note, that the table of Melchisedech, which al men of learning do know, is taken for the sacrifice. Who shall be able to stand before M. Heskins, which hath the iudgement of all men of learning on his side? Yea and yt which is more▪ S. Paule taketh it so: ye cannot be partakers of the table of God, and the table of diuels also, that is, of that which was offered to God, & of that which was offred to diuels. O learned expositiō! But he must remember that S. Paul reproueth not the Corinthians for offring sacrifice to the idols, but for sitting downe at the feastes, in whiche that meate that had bene offered was eaten. So that a table is still a table, and for a feast, not for a sacrifice. The conclusion of this chap, if he durst openly vtter it, containeth a most detestable blasphemie: namely, that eueryevery hedge Priest, that saith Masse, is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech. As though Christs Priesthood could not be perpetual, except it were cōtinued by succession of yt greasie order of shauelings, wheras it is expresly said Heb. 7. that his Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech, resteth only in his owne person, bicause he liueth for euer, and that it can not passe by succession. VponUpon which place (to cōclude this matter) and the Papists own graunt, I will reason thus. Christs Priesthoode after the order of Melchisedech, resteth in his owne person, and passeth not by succession: The Popish Priesthood consisting in the sacrifice of bread and wine, is continued in the world by succession: therfore the Popish Priesthood consisting in the sacrifice of breade & wine, is not the Priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedech.