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	blood_n	wine_n	28	3	8.2149	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

pro complemento communionis intinctam tradunt eucharistiam populis nec hoc probatum ex Euangelio testimonium receperunt vbi Apostolis corpus suum commendauit sanguinem Seorsim enim panis seorsim calicis commendatio memoratur Nam intinctū panem alijs Christum praebuisse non legimus excepto illo tantùm discipulo quem intincta buccella magistri proditorem ostenderet non quae sacramenti huius institutionem signaret That also is to be condemned that to make perfect the communion they deliuer to the people the sacrament dipped in the cupp neither haue they receiued this testimonie brought out of the Gospell where he deliuered to his Apostles both his bodie his bloud for seuerally of the breade and seuerally of the cupp the deliuerie is mentioned For we read not that Christ gaue dipped bread to others except that disciple only whome the dipped soppe shewed to be the traitour of his maister but did not set forth the institution of this sacrament Note here the iudgement of this Counsell that the institution of Christ is to be obserued Secondly that they are condemned that receiue not the testimonie of that first institution as an onely rule to followe in the ministration of the sacrament as the Papistes do Thirdly that the bloud must not be deliuered in the bread and the body in the cuppe but seuerally the breade and seuerally the cup must be deliuered Fourthly that the communion is not perfect without both kindes which euen they confessed that dipped the bread in the wine and so gaue it foorth Fiftly consider if this Counsel could not allowe the ioyning of both kinds in one soppe what would they haue thought of taking one kinde cleane away But to follow Maister Heskins The second obiection and that presseth him hardest is the saying of Gelasius bishop of Rome That the diuision of one and the same mysterie cannot be done without great sacriledge To auoyde this most manifest and cleare authoritie he thinketh it sufficient to shewe that the decree was made against other heretiques namely the Manichees Eutychians as though it were sacriledge in one kinde of heretiques and lawful in an other He saith the Manichees to cloake their heresie would dissemblingly receiue the breade and would not receiue the cup bicause they held that Christ had but a fantasticall body without bloud And the Eutychians ioyned with them which receiued the breade as a sacrament of the diuine body of Christe in which was no bloud Concerning the Eutychians there might bee some such fantasie if they ioyned with the Manichees in this point which presently I doe not remember that I haue read But concerning the Manichees it is certaine there was an other cause of their refusall of the cup bicause they condemned all drinking of wine And of them it seemeth that Leo spake Serm. 4. de quadra which M. Heskins rehearseth Abducunt se c. They withdrawe them selues from the sacrament of the health of man and as they deny Christe our Lorde to be borne in the veritie of our flesh so they doe not beleeue that he did verily die and rise againe and therefore they condemne the day of our health and of our gladnesse with the sadnesse of their fasting And when to couer their infidelitie they are so bold to be present at our mysteries they so temper them selues in the communion of the sacraments that sometimes they are more safely hidden With vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe but the bloud of our redemption they altogether refuse to drinke which thing we will your holinesse to vnderstand for this cause that suche kinde of men may be knowne to you and by these tokens and that they whose sacrilege and dissimulation shall be found out being noted and bewrayed by the Priestly authoritie may be banished the societie of the Saints This M. Hes. confesseth to be spoken against the Manichees And I wold he would further note that Leo chargeth them with dissimulation ioyned with sacriledge which yet is more tollerable then the Papistes open impudencie and violent sacriledge But here he noteth a plaine place for the proclamer in that Leo saith with vnworthy mouth they receiue the body of Christe but that Leo so calleth the sacrament of the body of Christ which after a certaine manner is the body of Christe and not simply or absolutely it appeareth by that which followeth imediatly that those heretiques refuse to receiue the bloud of our redemption whereby hee meaneth the cup and the sacrament of his bloud for if hee should not meane the outward sacramentes but the body and bloud of Christ indeed how could his body be receiued without his bloud Therefore it is manifest hee speaketh of the signes and not of the things signified euen by their owne rule of concomitance And nowe followeth the whole saying of Gelasius Comperimus autem c. We haue found out of a certaintie that certaine men after they haue receiued a portion of the holy body do abstaine from the cup of the holy bloud who bicause I knowe not by what superstition they are taught to be withholden let them without all doubt receiue the whole sacramentes or else let them bee forbidden from the whole For the diuision of one and the same mysterie can not be done without great sacriledge Maister Heskins to shift off this place saith it was written against the Manichees But that is altogether vnlike for then Gelasius would not haue saide he knewe not by what superstition they were led for he knewe well the blasphemies of the Manichees Wherefore it is certaine they were other such superstitious people as the Papistes be nowe But if it were written against the Manichees the Papistes following their steppes shall gaine nothing but proue them selues to ioyne with the Manichees Secondly Maister Heskins saith the diuision of one mysterie is not the diuiding of the cuppe from the breade but of the body of Christ from his bloud which the Manichees did Although hee bee worthie to be knocked in the head with a mall that will not vnderstand Gelasius to speake of the sacrament yet there is no shadowe of reason to shrowde him most impudently affirming the contrarie For the Manichees did not diuide the body of Christe from his bloud but vtterly denyed him to haue either body or bloud Againe when hee saide immediately before that they should eyther receiue the whole sacramentes or abstaine from the whole hee addeth this for a reason For the diuision sayth hee of one and the same mysterie can not bee done without greate sacriledge Hee therefore that denyeth him to speake one title of diuiding the one kinde from the other is woorthie to bee diuided in peeces and to haue his partes with hypocrites where shall bee weeping and gnashing of teeth But as though he had not passed impudencie her selfe alreadie hee falleth on rayling against the proclamer that had not brought foorth past halfe a score wordes of this place

celebration of the communion an oblation or sacrifice of the bodie and blood of christ It is great leudenesse and deceiptfulnes to vrge the termes vsed by the doctors and to refuse their meaning sufficiently expressed in diuers places of their writings SECTIO 17. in the 64. leafe Whereas the bishop saith it is Christ which presenteth ●s and maketh vs a sweet oblation in the sight of his father M. Rastell denyeth that it followeth not that the priest offereth not Christ because Saint Augustine saith de ciuit dei lib. 10. cap. 20. that as the church is offered by Christ so Christ is offered by the Church But that which Augustine maketh here common to al the Church maister Rastel restreineth to his popish priests And although Augustine in the same place expounde himselfe sufficiently when he saith the daily sacrifice of the church is a sacrament of the oblation of Christ yet in Cap. 5. of the same book he speaketh most plainely Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum id est sacrum signum est Therefore the visible sacrifice is a sacrament that is to say an holy signe of the inuisible sacrifie What can bee saide more plainly concerning his meaning by the terme of sacrifice SECTIO 18. From the first face of the 65. leafe to the ende of the 67. leafe The blasphemous prayers of the Popishe Canon which desireth God to accept the body of his sonne as he did accept the sacrifice of Abel and of Melchisedech he excuseth by vehemency of deuotion and by the vnworthines of the offerer as though either of both should be the cause why Christs body should not be acceptable of it selfe Last of all he flyeth to the example of the figuratiue speaches vsed by the holy ghost in the Psalmes and canticles as where God is saide to sleepe to awake as giant refreshed from his wine yea to the rethoricall figures vsed by men as he saith by Bernard Bonauentur Gregorie in the hymmes of the church which he matcheth vnfitly with the holy scriptures But how will he make this prayer a figuratiue speach that it may be excused by any such example For seeing he will admit no figure in the word body or oblation the other wordes are plaine without figure God to accept the sacrifice of Abel c. SECTIO 19. From the 68. leafe to the seconde face of the 69. leafe The foolish prayer of the Canon that an Angel should carie away the body of Christ he defendeth to be meant after a spirituall manner caueleth of the bishops translating of perferri to be caried away which signifieth to be caried vp which is a toy to mocke an Ape for neither doth the bishop talke of Angels backes such other bables as M. Rastel deliteth to prate of but of the fond absurditie of the Papistes which imagine the ministerie of Angels necessarie for the carying of Christs body or as he saith excusing the matter for the acceptaciō of their sacrifice But in very deede this prayer being taken out of the old liturgies wherein they desired not the sacrament but their sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing to be presented to God by the ministery of Angels is so absurde when it is applyed to the transubstantiated body that it can haue no reasonable sense as it had in the liturgie cited by S. Ambrose and other old liturgies where the like prayer is made for their sacrifice but they beleued not their sacrifice to be the very natural body of Christ as the Papists say they doe SECTIO 20. in the 69 leafe Where the bishop giueth ouer to speak further of the Canon maister Rastel saith it was because he had no mater against it but his owne misunderstanding But what matter he had howe well hee hath mainteined it his aunsweres to maister Harding sufficiently declare SECTIO 21. in the 70. leafe Against adoration of the sacrament he saith we haue no arguments at al but such as may serue for ouerthrow of all orders in the Church In deede these argumentes may well and worthily serue to ouerthrow all plantes not planted by christ For why may not one hatchet serue to cut downe an hundreth fruitlesse and hurtfull trees SECTIO 22. in the same leafe to the second face of the 71. leafe That Christ gaue no commaundement of adoration he saith it is no sufficient reason first because we must not condemne all voluntary seruice of God which is without his commaundement Then belike S. Paul was not well aduised when he condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is voluntarie worshippe of God without his commaundement Coll. 2. vers 23. And where as he cauilleth of them that worshipped our sauiour Christ in the fleshe I aunswere as many as acknowledged him to be the sonne of god knewe they had an expresse cōmandemēt to worship him The rest reuerenced him as the prophet of god And whereas he saith like a protestant that an argument of authority negatiue is naught and protestant like I aunswere an argument of mans authoritie negatiue is naught but an argument of Gods authority negatiue I am content it be counted protestant like in as much as God hath expresly forbidden what so euer he hath not commaunded in his worship Deuter. 12. vers 32. Contrariwise to reason from the authoritie of men negatiuely is Papistlike and the best argument they haue for many things as if they be asked why say they not masse in englishe they will answere because the Church hath not commanded them Why doe you not giue the communion to Infants Maister Rastel saith in this booke because the Church doth not commaund it Why doth not the priest weare his chisible other vestments at euen song Because the church hath not commaunded it But maister Rastel saith Christ hauing said the sacrament to be his body needed not to commaunde the same to bee worshippid no more then the king when he speaketh to the Lords in the darke needeth to bid thē put of their caps A dark example for such an obscure argumēt But when will he proue that Christ is the same in the sacrament that the king is in the darke for remoue the darke the king is seene but take away the accidentes of breade and wine by your owne school● doctrine and where is the bodie of Christ SECTIO 23. From the seconde face of the 71. leafe to the 2. face of the 72. leafe He decideth the argument taken out of the authoritie of saint Paule negatiuely who declareth the whole institution of Christ and neuer willed adoration to be vsed to the sacrament And asketh whether S. Paul command vs to stand kneele lye or fit to tumble leane vpon brest or elbowes I aunswere whatsoeuer of these gestures is decent orderly he hath appointed the other he hath forbidden And yet the protestantes logike which hee doth so delicately contemne is not so simple