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 onely 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 vpon 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 onely 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 shal be 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 vnto men and in his habite was found as a man Humilianit se factus obediens vsque ad mortem mortem autem crucis vt iam de cruce commendarâ—tur nobis carâ— 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 vs 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 vnto 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 vs to be participated from the crosse where they were truely and essentially offered vnto 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 sobèrâ— per omnes paschÄ™ solennitates sed omni die populiâ— immolatur nec vbique mentitur qui interrogatus eum respondarit immolari Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem â—arum rerum quaruÌ„ sacramenta suÌ„t non habereÌ„t omnino sacramenta non essent Ex haec autem similitudine plerunque 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 onely offered vppe by himselfe And yet in a sacrament â–ª not onely at euery 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 the 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 haue 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 thingâ—s after we haue giuen thankes for his benefites which he hath bestowed vpon vs 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
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 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 vs 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 haue shewed his excellencie aboue Aaron then in declaring that Christe did not onely 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 haue dissembled the comparison of his sacrifice with the sacrifice of Christe which would infinitely haue aduaunced his priesthood aboue Aaron For else the Hebrues whom M. Heskins imagineth would haue obiected their sacrifices to be more glorious then bread and wine might more probably haue 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 vs 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 vs 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 vs 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 vnto 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 vnto 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 vnto 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 haue 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 vpon the crosse Secondly he affirmeth that Christe was a priest after the 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 vnder it the law was established to the people what needed it further that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedech c not to be called after the order of Aaron Thirdly he affirmeth that the sacrifice of Christ vpon 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 vnto 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 vnto God by him seeing he euer liueth to make intercession for them For such an high priest it became vs to haue 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 the 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 the thing figured contrarie to his worshipfull rule giuen in the 15. Chapter If he say that 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 the vncōsecrated bread wine Finally if he say it figured neither the vncōsecrated bread wine nor the accidents of the same consecrated but the body and bloud of Christ vnder 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 The nine and twentieth Chapter proceedeth to prooue the same by S. Cyprian and Isychius I confessed before that diuers of the olde fathers were of opinion that the bread and wine 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 the Chapter before as to make Christes passion a sacrifice after the order of Aaron to make Christ offer two sacrifices and the better sacrifice that was after the order of Melchizedech in the sacrament c. But now let vs 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 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 vnto 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 that 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 vs examine M. Heskins two notes for the reall presence as he calleth it The first is that this
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 haue 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 onely 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 onely of his eternitie then wee ioyne with Eutyches who graunted the diuinitie of Christe and denyed his humanitie vnto 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 vs 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 haue 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 giue 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 onely 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 The one and thirtieth Chapter concludeth this matter of Melchizedech by S. Augustine and Damascene 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 haue 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 Melâ—hizedech The King of Salem And Salem was that Citie which afterward as the learned haue declared was called HierusaleÌ„ 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 anâ—â—her place â–ª Thou arâ— 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
alledged out of Irenaeus but for prolixitie and the same places shall afterwardes be cited for other purposes The fiue thirtieth Chapter proceedeth to the exposition of the same Prophet by S. Augustine Eusebius Out of S. Augustine is alledged a long saying lib. Aduersus Iudaeos but not so long in wordes as short of his purpose Dominus omnipotens dicit c. The Lorde almightie sayeth I haue no pleasure in you neither will I receiue sacrifice of your hands Certainly this you cannot denie ô ye Iewes that not oâ—ly he doth not take sacrifice as your handes for there is but one place appointed by the lawe of the Lord where he hath commaunded sacrifices to be offered by your handes beside which place he hath altogether forbidden them Therefore seeing you haue lost this place according to your deserts the sacrifice also which was lawfull to be offered there onely in other placeâ— ye dare not offer And it is altogether fulfilled which the Prophet saith And sacrifice will I not receiue at your handes For if the Temple and the Altar remained to you in the earthly Hierusalem you might say this were fulfilled in them whose sacrifices being wicked men abiding among you the Lorde doth not accept but that he accepteth the sacrifice of other that be of you and among you which keepe the commaundements of god But this cannot be saide for asmuch as there is not one of you all which according to the lawe which proceeded from mount Sinay may offer sacrifice with his handes Neither is this so forespoken fulfilled that the sentence of the Prophes will suffer you to aâ—nswere because wee offer not flesh with our hands with our heart and mouth we offer praise according to that in the Psalme Sacrifice to God the sacrifice of praise From this place also he speaketh against you which sayth I haue no pleasure in you c. Moreouer that you shuld not thinke that seeing you offer not and that he taketh no sacrifice at your hands therefore no sacrifice is offered to God whereof truely hee hath no neede who needeth not the goods of any of vs yet because he is not without a sacrifice which is not profitable for him but for vs be adioyneth and sayeth For from the rising of the Sunne vntil the going downe of the same my name is made honourable among all the Gentiles and in euery place a sacrifice is offered to my name euen a pure sacrifice because my name is greate among the Gentiles saith the Lorde Almightie What aunswere yee to these things open your eyes at the length see from the sunne rising to the going downe thereof that not in one place as it was appointed among you but in euery place the sacrifice of the Christians is offered not to euery God but to him that spake these things afore hand euen to the God of Israel Wherfore in another place he sayth to his Church and he that hath deliuered thee the same God of Israel shal be called the God of the whole earth Search ye the Scriptures in which you thinke to haue eternall life and truely you should haue if in them you could vnderstand Christ and hold him But search them through and euen they beare witnesse of this pure sacrifice which is offered to the God of Israel not of your nation alone of whose hands he saide he would receiue none but of all nations which say come let vs go vp into the hill of the Lord neither in one place as it was commaunded in the earthly Hierusalem bâ—t in euery place euen in Hierusalem it selfe â–ª neither after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchizedech First we must see how M. Heskins note booke deceiued him for where the words of Augustin in the beginning of this sentence are these Locus enim vnâ—to est lege domini constitutus c. that is â–ª there is but one place appointed by the lawe of the lord M. Hesk. hath falsified and set downe locus enim vnus est loco domini constitutus which he translateth For there is one place in the place of God appointed But this is not the first corruption that we haue bewrayed by a great many Nowe to the matter Maister Heskins still harpeth vpon one string that the sacrifice in this saying spoken of cannot be the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing because that is not peculiar to the Christians but was offered of the Iewes before Christe and may be yet if they be conuerted But I haue more than once or twise declared that here is no such peculiaritie in the matter of the offering but in the maner of the oblation And Augustine speaketh not halfe a worde by which we might deeme that he refuseth the spirituall sacrifice of the Christians to be the pure sacrifice prophesied in Malachie If you vrge that he sayeth it is offered after the order of Melchisedech and so hath relation to the offering of breade and wine in the Sacrament although it be no necessarie conclusion yet Augustin him selfe will tell vs that it is a spiritual sacrifice of laude and thanksgiuing And M. Heskins him selfe directeth vs to the booke saying As notable a saying as this hath S. Augustine in an other place also and quoteth lib. 1. Cont aduersariuÌ„ legis Prophetarum who so listeth to reade shall finde that that shall not repent him of the reading What place M. Heskins meaneth I knowe not but in the same booke I read in the 18. Chapter that he calleth the death of Christ 〈◊〉 singuler and onely was sacrifice If that sacrifice be but one singuler and the onely true sacrifice what manner of sacrifice is the sacrifice of the Masse which setteth vp a newe altar to ouerthrowe the crosse of Christ And that you may knowe what sacrifice S. Augustine meaneth when he nameth the sacrifice of the Church or the sacrifice of breade and wine or any such like phrase he speaketh this in the twentieth Chapter of certeine apocryphall writings falsly intituled to the Apostles Andrew Iohn Qua fillorum essent receptae essent ab ecclesia quae illorum temperibus per EpiscoporuÌ„ succesâ—iones certissimas vsque ad nostra deincapâ— tempora perseueraâ— immolat Deo in corpore Christi sacrificium â—â—â—dis Which if they had bene theirs they should haue bene receiued of the Church which from their times by most certeine successions of Bishope continueth vnto our times and after and sacrificeth to God in the bodie of Christ the sacrifice of lawde and prayse And let this suffice to discharge Augustine from M. Heskins and the Papistes blasphemous cauelling Now must we come to Eusebius which lib. â— Euang. Demonst. cap. 10. writeth thus The Mosaical sacrifices being reiected he doth by diuine reuelation declare our ordinaâ—ies that was to 〈◊〉 saying For from the rising of the 〈…〉 the going down of the sâ—â—e my name is glorified among the nations in euery place 〈◊〉
Pope Leo saide at his death that this one thing he should gayne by dying that he shoulde be resolued concerning the question of the immortalitie of the soule Wherein all the learned men in the worlde before could not satisfie him Last of all what an impudent lyer Maister Rastell is you may plainely perceiue when he chargeth the Bishop with this confession That these nine hundreth yeres and more none did euer take this way which he doth follow For although the Bishop made his chalenge of sixe hundreth yeares after Christe â–ª yet did he neuer confesse that in the nine hundreth yeres following none did euer reteine or imbrace the Gospell whiche he teacheth when God be praised there was a number euen in the moste blindest times that sawe the light thereof although they were fewe and persecuted by Antichriste SECTIO 4. From the second face of the 23. leafe to the first of the 38. leafe In which he taketh vpon him to proue that the English communion and seruice doth not followe Christe and his Apostles in taking into their handâ— and blessing the cuppe and the challice nor the primitiue Church in praying toward the East mingling water with the wine signe of the crosse altars incense tapern praying to Saintes and praying for the dead The â— in his sermon affirmed as R. saith 1. The holy coÌ„munion to be restored to the use form of the primitiue Church 2. To the same order that was deliuered appointed by Christ 3. and after practised by the Apostles 4. and continued by the holy doctours and fathers by the space of fiue or sixe hundreth yeares throughout all the catholike Churche of Christ 5. without exception or anye sufficient example to be shewed to the contrarie Al these Master Rast. saith be lyes which is his short aunswere And I coulde aunswere as shortly that then they be lyes of Master Rastells forging For the bishoppe affirmed no such thing of the ceremoniall forme of our Communion but of the doctrine thereof But let vs see his answere at large He woulde know how this Communion of ours doth agree with that which Christ deliuered and theÌ„ rehearseth the institution of Christ beginning at the eating of the Pascall Lambe and the washing of his disciples feete as though either of these perteined to the sacrament and forsoothe we must tell him how many thinges more how many things lesse our order in the coÌ„munion booke hath And firste what scripture we haue for the linnen clothe for the priestes standing on the North side of the table for our prayers confessions collects other ceremonies and seeing wee haue no scripture for these the Communion is not restored to the order appointed by Christ. I aunswere that forasmuch as those matters perteine to order and decencie we haue scripture sufficient to authorize them although as I saide before the bishop speaketh not of the ceremoniall forme of ministration but of the substaunce and doctrine which is the essential forme of the Communion concerning which we haue neyther more nor lesse then Christ vsed and deliuered Yet saith Master Rast. we haue many pointes lesse then was done by Christ at his last supper First he will not presse vs with that question why we do not Communicate after supper which peraduenture yet some doth with the sicke as a thing not vnlawfull nor tyed to any time but by the generall rule of order and decencie but he demandeth why we take not the bread into our handes before we consecrate it as Christ did A profounde question As though we doe not both take it breake it receiue it and deliuer it with our handes as Christ did Or as though Christ appointed at what moment we should touch it or that M. Rastel is able to say that Christ spake nothing of his institution before he touched the breade or as though we did not vse ordinarily before we make the exhortation vnto the Communion to take the bread and breake it and with the cup to set it before vs not to let it stand at the ende of the table as he belyeth vs as though we werâ— ashamed to folow Christ. The seconde thing that we haue lesse then Christ did as he saith is blessinge of the breade which is vtterly false for we blesse it as Christ did not with the signe of the crosse as ye would haue vs but with thanksgiuinge and prayer as the Euangelistes doe testifie that Christe did and as the primitiue and Apostolike Church did practise And therefore Iustinus martyâ— speaking of the sanctified or blessed nourishment of the sacrament calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that nourishement for which thankes is giuen by the worde of prayer receiued of him And touching the reuerende gestures vsed by Christ at his supper as we doubt nothing but that he vsed them alwayes so can M. Rastell with all his prating prooue none other then the Euangelists haue set downe And therefore for his loking on the bread separating it from the rest of the bread on the table blessing it by some special signe as the signe of the crosse c. when he can prooue out of the scriptures we shall bee content to refourme our Communion accordinge to those supposed gestures In the meane time notwithstanding his ruffian like raylinge our order of celebration hath all things instituted and deliuered by Christ to be obserued in the reuerent ministration of this most holy sacrament The seconde lye he chargeth Master Iewell with all is that he saith we haue the same order that was practiâ—ed by the Apostles where as we reade of none order practised by them For Actes the 2. we read saith he that they did breake breade in houses And yet it may be doubted whether that was the communion and actes 13. saith he when the Apostles had fasted and sacrificed they sent forth Paule and Barnabas But where finde you that translation Master Rastell that they sacrificed will you now forsake your owne Latine translation Ministrantibus illis Domino when they ministred vnto the Lorde and so wilfully runne into the curse of the Tridentine councell or will you appeale to the Greeke text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which worde signifieth any publike Ministerie by the iudgement of all learned Graetians and Erasmus himselfe whom you folowe in this translation though you count him an heretike and forsake your Catholike translation confirmed by generall Councelles Well then I see that papists iangle of general councels and catholike interpretations vnto other but they themselues will be holden of none anye longer then they liste But to the matter he saith that S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. testifieth of the veritie of the sacrament but not of the order referringe that to his owne comming As though he doeth not manifestly reforme a disorder or as though other thinges which he saith he woulde set in order at his comminge could be taken for the same thinges that he wrote of in his Epistle But what of al
105. After all these iollie questions he confesseth he should do vs wrong to require the probation of these articles bicause many of them containe indifferent ceremonies in many he sticketh vpoÌ„ such termes as he thinketh are not found in the auncient Fathers in some he presseth vs with particular wordes leauing the generall principle and in some with priuate mens opinions he might haue added in some with his own impudent lyes and forgeries which none of vs do holde and such he would make the Bishopâ— challenge to be but the world hath sufficiently seene the contrarie proued that most of the matters contained in that challenge be of the greatest mysteries of Poperie whereas these of M.Ra. witlesse and shamelesse deuising for the most part are not maintained at all in manner and forme as he propoundeth them and such as be materiall are sufficiently proued But nowe that he hath played the foole as he confesseth all this while he promiseth to play the wise man in propounding matters of weight substance in which you shall see that euen as before he chargeth vs to proue many things which we do not hold and therefore he playeth not the wise man but the craftie marchant to make the ignorant beleeue that wee maintaine that we are not able to iustifie He diuideth his challenge into foure partes the first hath three Articles To the first that it is vnlawful to make a vowe to God of chastitie obedience or pouertie I answere it is vnlawfull to make a vowe of that which is not in a mans power to performe as is the vowe of Virginitie which is a gift not giuen to all as our sauiour Christ testifieth Matt. 19. Also ConciliuÌ„ ArasicanuÌ„ 2. decreed ca. 11. De obligatione votoruÌ„ Nemo quicquam Domino rectè vouerit nisi ab ipso acceperit sicut legitur Quae de manu tua accepimus damus tibi Of the bonde of vowes No man shall rightly vowe any thing to the Lord except he haue receiued it of him as it is read Such things as we haue receiued of thy hand we giue to thee That breakers of such vowes were esteemed aboue others as singular witnesses of the libertie of the Gospell is no part of our assertion But that their meaning is honest is proued by Leo B. of Rome Ep. 90. speaking of a Monke Vnde qui relicta singularitatis professione ad militiam vel ad nuptial dâ—uolutus est publicae paenitentiae satisfactione purgandus est quia etsi innocens militia honestum potest esse coniâ—gium electionem tamen meliorem deseruisse transgressio est Wherefore he which hath forsaken the profession of sole life and fallen to warfare or marriage must be purged by satisfaction of open repentance bicause that although his warfare may be harmelesse and his marriage honest yet it is a transgression to haue forsaken his better choyse To the second that it was abhominable to make any sacrifice to God beside the sacrifice of thankesgiuing in words the figures for his benefites with remembrance of his passion c. I proue by the authoritie of Iustinus which affirmeth that these were the only sacrifices deliuered vnto the Christians therefore it was abhominable to vse any other His wordes are in his Dialogue with Tryphon against the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I my selfe doe affirme that prayers and thankesgiuings made by worthie persons are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices to god For these are the only sacrifices that Christians haue receiued to make to be put in mind by their drie and moyst nourishment of the passion which God the sonne of God is recorded to haue suffered for them Here note that he calleth the sacrament drie and moyst nourishment To the third that there was no Priesthood according to the order of Melchisedech but onely the Priesthoode of our Sauiour Christ it is manifest by the 110. Psalme that the Priesthood pertaineth to him that sitteth at the right hand of God euen to the Lord Iesus Christe also by the Apostle to the Hebrues 5. 7. Chapter in which it is saide that he hath that Priesthoode 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is so peculiar to him as it passeth not by succession Neither was there euer any greater blasphemie then that euery Popish Priest should bee a Priest after the order of Melchisedech to offer Christe to his Father And that Priestes haue not a singular sacrifice to offer for the sinnes of the people is proued by S. Augustine â— Contra aduersar leg prophe who calleth the death of Christ Vâ—um singulare solum verum sacrificium that one singular and onely true sacrifice in which the bloud of Christe was shed for vs But the Papistes call their blasphemous sacrifice an vnbloudie sacrifice therefore they haue not any singular sacrifice for the sinnes of the people The second part containeth 12. Articles in which he falsly chargeth Caluine in his institutions with diuers Articles which neither he nor any of vs doe holde The first that the sacrament of baptisme instituted by Christ is no better then the circumcision of the old lawe is proued by Saint Augustine which saith in Ioan. Tr. 26. speaking of the sacraments of the old law that they were in fignis diuersa in re quae significatur paria diuers in signes equall in the thing signified The second that baptisme is a signe onely of our profession and that our sinnes are not truly forgiuen in it is no doctrine of ours but of the Anabaptistes mightily confuted by Caluine whome he slaundereth to hold it The 3. that confirmation ought to be a sacrament is an inuention of man plaine for that it is not taught in the scriptures to be an institution of christ IrenÄ™us testifieth that the annointing with sweete oyle came first of the Valentinian heretiques Lib. 1. cap. 18. Also in S. Hieromes time the Priestes made the oyle of Chrisme and laide on their handes and not the Bishop only In Sophon cap. 3 â–ª For a Bishop did nothing more then a Priest but only in ordeining of ministers Hier. Euagrio Wherevpon it followeth that the Popish confirmation was not then a sacrament which they hold can be ministred of none but of a Bishop The fourth that Christ deliuered in his last supper a figure only of his body to be eaten of his Apostles is none of our assertions for we affirme that he deliuered breade and wine not as a figure onely but as his very body and bloud spiritually to be eaten and dronken The 5. that the power of forgiuing and reteyning sinnes which Christ gaue to his Apostles is nothing else but a comforting or fearing of mens consciences by the promises or menaces of the scripture c. is not affirmed of vs but that Christ hath giuen power to his ministers to assure the penitent of forgiuenesse in his name to pronounce his iudgment to the vnrepentant so that man followeth the sentence of God and not God of man.
praescriptionibus aduersus haereticos which is such as hee saieth that euen religion muste agree to it if with anye reason it will bee credited But in deed it is suche as while Tertulian followed too muche hee fell from the Catholike Church to be an heretike The summe of that saying which M. Rast. hath shamefully gesded falsely translated so that it seemeth he hath not red it in Tertulians booke but in some mans notes that hath ioyned together as it were cantles or patches of Tertulians saying the effecte I saie is this That because some heretikes of his time receiued not all the scriptures and those which they did receiue they receiued not whole but by additions and detractions corruptions and wrong expositions they peruerted them to their purpose his iudgement was that against such heretikes the triall was not to bee made by scriptures by which the victorie should either be none or vncertaine or not sure and therefore in as much as they were not agreed what was scripture and how great was the authoritie thereof he thought that the order of disputinge required that these questions shoulde first be decided Vnto whom the Christian faith pertaineth whose are the scriptures of whom and by whom and when and to whom the learning is deliuered by which men are made Christians For where it shall appeare that the trueth of the Christian learning and faith is there shal be the trueth of the scriptures and of the expositions and of all Christian traditions This is the iudgement of Tertulian But seeinge we receiue all the scriptures Canonicall without addition or detraction yea and for the principal articles of our religion wherein we differ from the papistes we receiue the exposition of the most auncient writers both of the Greeke and Latine Churche not bringinge in any newe doctrine but requiring that the olde doctrine may be restored this rule of Tertulian doth not concerne vs Yet are we able to aunswere to all his demaundes without any taryinge and so as it shall satisfie Tertulian or anye man that vnderstandeth him We say that Christian faith pertaineth to true Christians and that the scriptures are theirs also We say also that the learning by which men are made Christians was deliuered of Christ by his Apostles and Euangelistes in the time of the raigne of Tiberius the Emperour first vnto the Iewes and after vnto the Gentiles making one vniuersall Chruch dispersed ouer the whole worlde And the trueth of this Christian learning and faith thus and then deliuered we do hold and mainteine therefore by Tertullians rule the truth of the scriptures and expositions all Christian traditions are with vs the rather because it cannot be proued that we hold any one article of beliefe but the same is conteined in the manifest wordes of the scriptures by which onely it may be tryed what learning Christ deliuered to his Apostles and they to the churches For seeing the memory of man cānot ascende vnto so many hundreth yeares the certeine remembrance must be had out of Records of writings for so much as no writings are either so auncient or so credible as the holy scriptures the trial must be onely by the scriptures notwithstanding Tertullians opinion as Augustine teacheth in many places of his writings against the Donatistes After this discourse vpon Tertullian he addeth sixe articles more falsely pretending that they are the demaundes of Tertullian but altering them into the manner of a challenge where as I haue both set forth and answered Tertullians demaundes according to his owne words and meaning The first is if we can proue by any sufficient and likely argument that we haue any true Christian faith at all among vs for faith saith hee cleaueth vnto authoritie which they can neuer shewe for themselues c In deede suche faith as cleaueth vnto mennes authoritie wee haue none but suche as cleaueth vnto the worde of God as saint Paule saith faith commeth by hearing of the worde of God which is onely true Christian faith wee haue the whole faith of Christians as we do dayly proue not onely by the auctoritie of scriptures but also by the testimony of aunciēt writers agreeable to the same And because he is so impudent to deny that we haue any true Christian faith at all I demaunde of him why hee doth not then rebaptise those that are baptised of vs seing he is persuaded that neither the minister nor the godfathers whose faith according to their doctrin maketh much fo◠baptisme haue any true Christian faith at all The seconde that the scriptures are deliuered vnto vs that we be the right keepers of them is proued by this argument that we be the church of God vnto whome the scriptures and the custodie of them perteineth That wee are the church of God we proue by this argumēt that we beleeue and teach all that and nothing else but that which God by his holy scriptures hath appointed to be beleeued and taught for Christian faith The thirde we knowe from whome wee haue receiued the gospel not from the Papists Namely frō the doctrine of god and his holy spirite from such ministers as were stirred vp of God and lightened with his spirite according to the scriptures and from the books of the Greekes and Hebrues and not of the papists The fourth we knowe by what successours the gospell came vnto vs from God the authour of it euen from the prophets and Apostles Euangelistes pastours and teachers of the church of all ages florishing in sight of the worlde vntill the comming and tyrany of Antichrist had ouerwhelmed all the worlde with darkenesse by whom they were persecuted and driuen into corners according to the prophecie of Christe in the Apocalipse cap. 12. but yet so as they alwayes continued and testified the trueth oftentimes openly protesting against Antichrist vntill nowe at the length the time being come in which Antichrist must be consumed they are againe brought into the sight of the worlde and the kingdome of Antichrist is made obscure ignominious contemptible The fift we knowe at what time the Gospell was first delyuered vnto the Church of the gentiles namely in the reigne of Tiberius in whose time Christ suffered since which time it hath alwayes continued and shall do to the end of the worlde To the sixt wherein he requireth vs to shew the foundatiō of some Church house communion table or booke c. by which it may bee gathered that a true apostolike religion was within the 600. yeares as void of ornamēts ceremonies reuerence distinction of places and dignities sacraments and solemnities perteining to sacraments as ours is I answere our religion hath all sacraments ornaments ceremonies distinction solemnities reuerence necessarie vnto eternall life and therfore to shewe a monument of a religion voide of these it perteineth not to vs Beside that it is a foolishe and vnreasonable demaund for vs to shewe any such monument remaining aboue 900. yeares when by so often