Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	aaron_n	answer_v	sacrifice_n	12	3	7.8928	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A68078	D. Heskins, D. Sanders, and M. Rastel, accounted (among their faction) three pillers and archpatriarches of the popish synagogue (vtter enemies to the truth of Christes Gospell, and all that syncerely professe the same) ouerthrowne, and detected of their seuerall blasphemous heresies. By D. Fulke, Maister of Pembrooke Hall in Cambridge. Done and directed to the Church of England, and all those which loue the trueth.	Fulke, William, 1538-1589.	1579 (1579)	STC 11433; ESTC S114345	602,455	884

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

in thy holie hil He that is innocent of hands of a cleane hart These things we say most deare brethrē that you may al learn out of the new Testament not to cleane to earthly things but to obteine heauenly thinges The precepts therefore beeing discussed are found to be all the same or else scarse any in the Gospel which haue ben said of the prophets The precepts are the same the sacraments are not the same the premises are not the same Let vs see wherfore the praecepts are the same because that according to them we ought to serue god The sacramentes are not the same because they be other sacraments giuing saluation other promising the sauiour The sacramentes of the new Testament do giue saluation the sacramēts of the old Testament promised the sauiour Therefore now that thou holdest the thinges promised what seekest thou things promising the sauiour now hauing him I say holdest the things promised not that we haue already receiued eternall life but because Christe is already come which was foreshewed by the prophets The sacraments are changed they are made easier fewer holsomer Notwithstanding the vain exclamation of M. Hesk. vpon this place except we wil make S. August contrarie to him selfe in the places before alledged we may plainly see how he expoundeth himself in the latter end of this long passage whereof the greatest part might altogether haue ben spared Namely that there is no difference in the substance of our sacramēts frō theirs but the Christ is already come And our sacraments do not giue saluation as though we had eternal life deliuered by them in possession but because Christ the authour of eternal life that in the other was promised is now come Not that grace in them was only promised not giuen for them M. Hesk. own definition of a sacrament should be false wherin he wil not allow any thing that is superfluous much lesse vntrue But M.H. is not content with this interpretation saying that S. Augustine compareth the sacraments of the olde lawe to childrens trifles in the same place Numquid quiniam puero c. Because there are giuen to a childe certein childish playing trifles by which the childish minde is called away are they not therefore plucked out of his hands when he waxeth a great one No more therfore God because he hath plucked away those things as childrens trifles out of the handes of his sonnes by the new Testament that he might giue thē something more proprofitable they beeing now waxed greater is to be thought not to haue giuen those former things Gentle Reader I wish thee to turne ouer to this place in S. Augustine and except thou be too much blinded in affection toward M. Hesk. thou wilt confesse that he hath aduouched a manifest vntruth when thou shalt see that Augustine vttereth not these words of the sacraments of the olde Testament but of the promises of earthly benefites made vnto the Fathers of those times I can say no more conferre and iudge The sixteenth Chapter proceedeth to the next text of S. Paule which is Calix cui Benedi This text which he pretendeth to expound is written in 1. Cor. 10. The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which we breake is it not the cōmunion or partaking of the bodie of Christ This text he saith proueth the reall presence and sacrifice And first he will haue no trope or figure to be vnderstoode in this place but the very things themselues with how grosse absurditie it is I referre it to the iudgment of al reasonable Papists that know what a trope meaneth Secondly he saith it is an euil manner of disputation to go about to proue like effectes of vnlike causes Wherein I will agree with him But what vpon this Forsooth then it followeth that as the Iewes of whom S. Paule taketh example were partakers of the altar because they did eate the sacrifices so we are partakers of the bodie bloud of Christ because we eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of Christ corporally and not because we eate a peece of bread and drink a litle wine Againe as the Corinthians by eating meate offred to idols were made partakers of idols so the Christians because they did eate the bodie of Christ are made partakers thereof But to discusse this vaine cloude of sophistrie I wil reason vpon his own Maxime like causes haue not vnlike effectes S. Paule saith he would not haue the Corinthians partakers of Diuels by eating meate offered to idols which in effect was offred to diuels As they that were made partakers of Diuels bycause they did eate meat offred to diuels were not partakers of the substance and nature of diuels neither did they eate the substance of diuels no more doth it follow that we eating drinking the bread of thanksgiuing cup of thanksgiuing which are a cōmunication of the bodie and bloud of Christ do corporally eate and drink the bodie bloud of Christ or be made partakers corporally of the nature substance of the bodie bloud of christ The like I say of the altar Now concerning the sacrifice M. Hesk. saith that if S. Paule did not as well take the cup table of the Lord to be a sacrifice as the cup and table of diuels to be a sacrifice as the sacrifices of the Israelites he would not haue vsed like termes but shewed a difference I answer if the sacrament had ben a sacrifice he would haue so called it especially in this place or at least in some other place therefore it is no sacrifice he shewed a sufficient difference when he called the one a sacrifice and not the other Although if I shold grant it to be a sacrifice of thanksgiuing M. Hes. were neuer the neere of his propitiatorie sacrifice But the fathers of Christes Parleament house must be heard to establish this interpretation of M. Hes. and first Chrysost. In 1. Cor. 10. Maximè c. With these wordes he doeth get greatly to him selfe both credite and feare And the meaning of them is this That which is in the cup is the same which flowed one of his side and thereof we are partakers And he called it the cup of blessing because that when we haue it in our handes with admiration and a certeine horror of that vnspeakable gift we prayse him giuing thankes because he hath shed his bloud that we should not remaine in errour Neither hath he onely shed it but made vs all partakers of it Therefore saith he if thou desirest bloud do not sprinkle the altar of idols with the slaughter of bruite beasts but my altar with my bloud What is more maruelous then this Tell me I pray thee wha● is more amiable This also louers when they see those whom they loue allured with desire of other mens things giue their owne vnto them and counsel them to absteine from these

beloued flye from the honouring of Idols Afterward following he sheweth to what sacrifice they ought to appertein saying I speak as vnto wise men iudge what I say is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communication of the bloud of Christ and is not the bread which we breake a communication of the bodie of our Lord In this saying after the worde altar he hath gelded out thus much Ideo quippe addidit carnaliter vel secundùm carnem quia est Israel spiritualiter vel secundùm spiritum qui veteres vmbras iam non sequitur sed eam consequentem quae his vmbris praecedentibus significata est veritatem For therfore he added carnally or after the flesh because there is a Israel spiritually or according to the spirite which doth not now followe the olde shadowes but the trueth following which was signified by those shadowes All this is left out of the very middest From the end he cutteth of these wordes following Quia vnus panis vnum corpus multi sumus omnes enim de vno pane participamus Et propter hoc subiunxit videte Israel secundùm carnem nonne qui de sacrificijs manducant socij sunt altaris vt intelligerent ita se iam socios esse corporis Christi quemadmodum illi socij sunt altaris Because there is one bread and we beeing many are one bodie for we are all partakers of one bread And for this cause he added Behold Israel according to the flesh are not they which eate of the sacrifices fellowes or partakers of the altar That they might vnderstand that they are now so fellowes or partakers of the bodie of Christe as those are partakers of the altar What can be saide more playne for the spirituall manner of participation of the bodie of Christe Except M. Heskins will say that the Iewes were really corporally and substantially partakers of the altar And this is conteined in the first booke Cap. 19. And wheras M. Hesk. iangleth of the sacrifice mentioned in this place heare what sacrifice it may be by Augustines owne wordes in the 18. Chapter of the same booke Sed nec laudibus nostris eget c. But neither hath he need of our prayses but as it is profitable for vs and not for him that we offer sacrifice to God and because the bloud of Christe is shed for vs in that singular and onely true sacrifice therefore in those first times God commanded the sacrifices of immaculate beastes to be offered vnto him to prophecie this sacrifice by such significations that as they were imaculate from faults of their bodies so he should be hoped to be offered for vs who alone was immaculate frō sins Here the sacrifice of death is the singular sacrifice the only true sacrifice propitiatorie of the Church otherwise for the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing or for the sacrament to be called vnproperly a sacrifice of the auncient fathers I haue often confessed before As for Damascenes authoritie li. 4. Ca. 14. it is not worth the aunswering being a late writer more then 100. yeares out of the compasse and full of grosse absurdities and in the place by M. Hesk. alledged denyeth that Basill calleth breade wine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or exemplaria exemplaries of the bodie and bloud of Christ after the consecration which is an impudent lye for before the consecration they are no sacraments and so no exemplars of the bodie and bloud of Christe therefore if he called them exemplars it must needs be when they are sacraments that is after consecration but such lippes such lettyce he is a sufficient author for M. Heskins and yet hee is directly against transubstantiation For he saith cum sit mos hominum edere panem bibere vinum ijs rebus adiunxit suam diuinitatem whereas it is the manner of men to eate beead and drinke wine hee hath ioyned his diuinitie to these things In these words he acknowledgeth the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament the diuinitie of Christ to bee ioyned to them The nynteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text by Isidore Oecumenius M. Hesk. hath many friends in the lower house as hee hath neuer a one in the vpper house that fauoureth his bil Yet Isidorus saith litle for him but rather against him He citeth him lib. 1. offic Cap. 18. Panis c. The bread which we breake is the bodie of Christ which sayth I am the bread of life which came downe from heauen and the wine is his bloud and this is it that is written I am the true vine M. Hesk. saith truely that Isidore is the rather to be credited because he alledgeth the scripture and therefore according to these two textes of scripture he must be vnderstoode but neither of both these texts is to be vnderstood litterally but figuratiuely therefore his saying the breade is the bodie and the wine is his bloud must be vnderstood figuratiuely not litterally which M. Heskins perceiuing would help him out by foysting in a place of Cyrillus in Ioan. Annon conuenienter c May it not be conueniently sayde that his humanitie is the vine we the branches because wee be all of the same nature For the vine the branches be of the same nature So both spiritually corporally wee are the braunches and Christ is the vine In these wordes Cyrill reasoneth against an Arrian as is more at large declared in the sixth Chapter of this third booke that would interpret this place only of the diuinitie of Christe to make him lesse then his father as the vine is subiect to the husbandman But Cyrill contendeth that it may well be vnderstoode also of his humanitie because we are not onely ioyned to the diuinitie of Christ but also to his flesh which is testifyed vnto vs by the sacrament wherin we are spiritually fedd with the verie bodie bloud of Christe and so Christe is the vine both spiritually corporally that is both after his godhead after his manhod But Cyrillus would neuer denie that this saying I am the true vine is a figuratiue speach which is the matter in controuersie betweene M. Hesk. and vs. Oecumenius is alledged to as litle purpose as Isidorus in 1. Cor. 10. Poculum vocat c. He calleth the cupp of the bloud of Christ the cupp of blessing which we blesse which hauing in our hands we blesse him which hath giuen vs his bloude Here is neuer a worde but I will willingly subscribe vnto it yet M. Hesk. sayth it is a common manner of speache that the vessel is named by the thing that it conteineth hee dare not say it is a figuratiue speach lest while he would haue the bloud of Christ locally conteined in the cupp he might be pressed with the figure in the worde bloud which he cannot denye though he dissemble in the word cupp In the end he braggeth of an euident

consecrate the quickening body or else it can not be called a Masse which is nothing like to Maister Heskins seruice Lib. 4. dist 13. In the end he will ioyne issue with the proclamer that no Catholique euer thought that Christes body was caried into heauen by an Angell And it seemeth plainly that they are all ashamed of the grosse absurdities and blasphemies of their Masse and therefore are forced to feigne meanings and interpretations which are cleane contrarie to the wordes thereof The trueth is that these and some other prayers of their Canon were vsed in the Romane Church before the opinion of transubstantiation carnall presence or propitiatorie sacrifice of the Masse were receiued and this is the cause that being nowe applyed to these monstruous errours they imploy such detestable blashemies as all the Papistes in the world are ashamed to heare of and not able to defend whereas before these errours receiued some of them were good prayers some were tolerable The nine thirtieth Chapter treateth of the value of the Mas●● to the quicke and the dead Prayer for the dead beeing an auncient errour Maister Heskins triumpheth out of measure that he findeth some spottes thereof in the auncient writers bookes But there is great difference betweene praying for the dead which is an errour rising of superstition and infidelitie and offring the bodie of Christe in sacrifice for the dead which is a most horrible blaspheming Therefore he doeth maliciously wrest such thinges as are spoken of prayer for the dead or the sacrifice of prayer for the dead yea and sometimes the sacrifice of thanksgiuing for the dead to the oblation of CHRISTE for the dead Thus he abuseth first all the liturgies falsely ascribed to Saint Iame Basil Chrysostome Which as we haue proued before pretended not to offer Christes body in sacrifice and therfore offred it not for the dead although they offer prayers for the dead And here it is to be noted that Clementes liturgie forsaketh him for prayer for the dead or else we should surely haue heard of him as we did before He would get credite to that whiche is vntruely ascribed to Saint Iames by the proclaymers testimonie because he saide it was full of knowledge and full of errours also When Dionysius can say nothing for him concerning the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable for the dead he bringeth him in speaking of prayers made for the partie deceassed at his buriall Concerning the antiquitie of this Dionysius we haue shewed before that he cannot be so olde by sixe hundreth yeares as the Papistes would make him That the Apostles taught not prayer for the dead in their writinges he saith the cause was that they needed not for that the Iewes vsed both prayer sacrifice for the dead before Christes comming ▪ by testimonie of the Booke of Machabees which he sayeth S. Augustine alloweth canonicall and by witnesse of one Antonie Margarita a late conuerted Iewe to Papistrie Touching the veritie of that historie of the Machabees though Augustine allowe it to be read so it be soberly yet doeth not he take it for Canonicall and Hierome vtterly denieth it for Canonicall Expre●at in Prouerb But for as much as this controuersie of praying for the dead is vnpertinent to this cause and requireth a larger discourse then the answere to this Chapter may conteine also that Maister Heskins in the end ioyneth issue and maketh a newe challenge I thinke it best to referre the Readers to mine answere against Maister Allens Booke of Purgatorie where he shall finde all those and a number more of places alledged and answered both touching prayers for the dead and the sacrifice of the Masse to be auaileable to the dead in the same also is some treatie of prayer vnto dead Saintes In the meane season this is sufficient against all mans authoritie that the worde of God prescribeth neither the one nor the other but condemneth them both for what so euer is not of faith is sin and whatsoeuer is not of the word of God is not of faith therfore prayers for the dead and to the dead beeing not of the worde of God are sinne Neither were they vsed in the Church more then an hundreth yeres after christ And the first that maketh mention of any praiers for the dead which is the elder errour by two or three hundreth yeres is Tertullian whē he was an heretike who had receiued it with other heresies of the Montanistes who were two hundreth yeares after Christ notwithstanding that Epiphanius Augustine number it among the errours of Arrius that he denied prayers for the dead yet they both do also number it for one of the heresies of the Heracleonites to redeeme their dead with inuocations and other ceremonies vsed at their buriall How M. Heskins falsifieth the councel of Carthage which made a decree that such as denied to pay the oblations of the dead should be excommunicated as murtherers of the poore I shall not neede to rehearse vnderstanding dead mens legacies for the vse of the poore for Masses saide for the dead The same doeth M. Allen with this and other councels Likewise M. Heskins falsifieth Cyprian De Cerna Dom In huius praesentia non superuacuè in endicant lachrymae veniam nec vnquam patitur contriti cordis holocaustum repulsam In presence of him teares do neuer begge pardon in vain neither doeth the sacrifice of a contrite heart euer suffer repulse Here doth he translate Huius of this sacrifice and applyeth it to the sacrifice of the Masse for the dead whereas there is not one worde in all that sermon either of prayer or sacrifice for the dead But leauing this argument of praying and offering for the dead M. Heskins chargeth the the proclaimer with three vntrueths in one sentence where he saide that Saint Iames in his Masse preached and set foorth the death of Christ but the Papistes in their Masse haue onely a number of dumbe geastures and ceremonies which they themselues vnderstande not and make no manner mention of Christes death To the first he answereth that they haue all thinges that S. Iames had in his Masse by the proclaymers confessiō who diuideth their Masse into holie prayer holie doctrine holy consecration holy receiuing See the impudent quarrelling of this froward sophister The Bishop saith the Papistes diuide their Masse into these partes therfore he acknowledgeth their Masse to consist of these partes and yet all these are but dumbe gestures and ceremonies because the people vnderstand none of them were they neuer so good as a great parte of them is starke naught To the second he saith that they them selues vnderstand not their owne gestures and ceremonies he sayeth that diuerse writers haue expounded euerie parcell of them as Isidorus Rabanus Hugo Hoffnester Garetius and others he leaueth out Bonauentur and Durandus the cheefe belike beeing ashamed of their ridiculous interpretations But admitte these things to be set foorth in bookes doth