Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 60 – Part 61
The Sixtieth Chapter treateth vponupon this text of S. Paule to the Hebruer: We hauehave an altar &c.Hesk.
The text is written Heb. 13. We hauehave an altar, of which is it not lawful for them to eat, which serue in the tabernacle. By which he meaneth, that none can be partakers of the sacrifice of Christe, that remaine in the ceremoniall obseruation of the Leuiticall lawe. But Maister Heskins vnderstandeth it, that we hauehave the body of Christe in the sacrament, of which it is not lawfull for any Iewe abiding in Moses lawe to eate. And this he wil proue by Isichius and Theophylact. Isichius he citeth in Leuit. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Omnem sanguinem &c. He commaunded all the rest of the bloud of the calfe to be powred out about the foote of the altar of the burnt offering, which is in the tabernacle of witnesse. Let vsus againe vnderstand, the altar of the burned sacrifice, to be the body of Christ. For as he is the Priest and the sacrifice, so he is the altar. And knowe that S. Paule doth vnderstand the intelligible altar to be the body of Christ: for he saith we hauehave an altar, of which they hauehave no power to eate, which doe serue in the tabernacle, that is to say, the body of Christ. For of that it is not lawful for the Iewes to eate M. Heskins would hauehave it plaine, that he meaneth the reall presence of Christes body in the sacrament, when neither the Apostle, nor Isichius speake one worde of the sacrament, but of the spirituall participation of the sacrifice of Christes death, for he saith, Christ is the Priest, the sacrifice, and the altar. Therefore hee speaketh of that sacrifice that Christe him selfe did offer, not of that sacrifice, which the Papistes do imagine their blasphemous Priestes do offer. And whereas M. Heskins trifleth of M. Hoopers glose of edere and credere, that, to eate is to beleeue, although to eat the flesh of Christe be the effect of faith, bicause that by faith we eate Christ, yet may we more aptly say, to eate is to beleeue, then the Papistes say, that men may eat Christ which doe not beleeue at all. And it is a very childish sophisme, out of which M. Heskins woulde gather, that if to eate be to beleeue, and it be not lawfull for the Iewes to eate Christe, it is not lawfull for them to beleeue in Christ. For continuing in Iudaisme they can no more beleeue in Christ, then they can eate the flesh of Christe. But contrariwise by their doctrine, if the sacrament be giuen to a Iewe, that is no Christian, yet he eateth the body of Christ as he that beleeueth in Christe. The testimonie of Theophylact, although it make little for M. Hesk. yet as alwayes before, so nowe at the last I will refuse to examine, bicause I will not yeeld to his authoritie, he being a late writer. But M. Hesk. noteth vponupon ye Apostles words, We hauehave an altar, that ye Church hath but one altar, which is the body of Christ, and that is very true, of the true Catholique Church: but the hereticall and schismaticall Church of Rome hath many thousand altars, which they can not say are all one altar, although they cauill that their infinite multitudes of hostes, are one sacrifice of Christes body. Therefore the Church of Rome is not the Catholique Church of Christe, by his owne reason. And the saying of Hierome, which he citeth, Lib 2. in Hose. Cap. 8. and wresteth against vsus, doth very aptly condemne him selfe and his felow Papistes for heretiques: Vnum esse altare &c. The Apostle teacheth, that there is in the Church but one altar, and one faith, & one baptisme, which the heretiques forsaking hauehave set vp to themselues many altars, not to appease God, but to increase the multitude of sinnes, therefore they are not worthie to receiue the lawes of God, seeing they hauehave despised them, which they hauehave receiued before. And if they shall speake any thing out of the scriptures, it is not to be compared to the words of God, but to the senses of Ethnikes. These men do offer many sacrifices, and eate the flesh of them, forsaking the only sacrifice of Christ, nor eating his flesh▪ whose flesh is the meat of the beleeuers, whatsoeuer they do counterfeting the order and custom of the sacrifices, whether they giuegive almes, whether they promise chastitie, whether they counterfet humilitie, and with feigned flatterings, deceiue simple persons, the Lord will receiue nothing of such sacrifices. We forsake not the only sacrifice of Christ once offred, but our whole trust is in the merits of that sacrifice, therefore we set vp no newe altars. The Papistes set vp an other sacrifice, and therefore other altars. If our allegation & interpretation of ye scriptures may not be warranted by the spirite of God, iudging in the same scriptures by other textes, that are plaine and euident: we desire not that any man shall receiue them, as the Papistes doe, whatsoeuer the Popish Church doth define, though it be contrarie to the expresse word of God. And although wee admitte not that grosse and carnall manner of Christes body in that sacrament that they doe hold, yet do we eate the flesh of Christ verily after that maner, which the Papistes themselues do confesse to be the only profitable eating thereof, namely that which is spirituall. What our workes be, I referre them to the iudgement of God, wee boast not of them. And although fasting for merite bee iustly punishable by statute, yet godly and Christian fasting is not cleane exiled out of our Church, though not so often perhaps vsed, as meere it were it should. Our doctrine of fasting is sound and agreeable to the word of God, and therefore we dare iustifie it, our doing wee will not iustifie, nor excuse our faultes, but humbly submitte our selues to his iudgement, who knoweth our hearts, of whome we craue pardon for our offences, and grace to keepe his commandements. But now to conclude this matter, I will produce one testimonie of Gelasius an ancient Bishop of Rome, which I thinke shuld be of great weight with al Papists, if they giuegive in deed such reuerence either to yt See, or to antiquitie as they pretend. And thus he writeth Cont. Eusychet. Certè sacramēta, quae sumimus corporis, & sanguinis Christi, diuina res est: propter quod & per eadē, diuinę efficimur consortes naturae: & tamen esse non desinit substantia & natura panis & vini▪ Et certè imago vel similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorū celebratur. Satis ergo nobis euidenter ostēditur, hoc in ipso Domino Christo sentiendū, quod in eius imagine, ꝓfitemur, celebramus & sumimꝰ. vt sicut hęc in diuinā trā feūt spiritu sancto ꝑficiente substantiā ꝑmanent tamen in suę ꝓprietate naturae: sic illud ipsū mysteriū principale, cuius nobis officientiā veritatem que veraciter repręsentat, ex ijs quibus conflat, propriè permanentibus, vnū Christū, quoniam integrū verū que permanere demonstret. Certainly, the sacraments of the body and bloud of Christ which we receiue, are a diuine thing: & therefore by them we are made partakers of the diuine nature, and yet the substance & nature of the bread and wine ceasseth not to be. And surely, an image or similitude of the body and bloud of Christ, is celebrated in ye action of ye mysteries. Therfore it is shewed vntounto vsus euidently ynough, that we must iudge ye same thing euen in our Lord Christ him selfe, which we professe, celebrate, & receiue, in yt which is an image of him: yt as by the working of the holy Ghost, they passe into a diuine substance, & yet abide stil in ye propertie of their owne nature: euen so ye same principal mysterie doth shew, that one Christ abideth whole and true, whose efficiencie & truth, it doth truly represent vntounto vsus, those thinges of which he consisteth properly still remaining. Thou seest, gentle reader, yt this auncient Bishop of Rome, first doth vtterly ouerthrowe transubstantiation, when he saith, that the substance & nature of the bread & wine do remaine still in the sacraments, although they be a diuine thing. Secondly, that he excludeth ye carnall maner of presence, when he saith, we celebrate & receiue an image and similitude of the body & bloud of Christ in ye sacraments, & lastly, yt he aduoucheth ye spiritual & diuine maner of presence of Christ, when he saith, yt the sacramēts are turned into a diuine substance, which he meaneth not of ye substance of ye deitie, but of ye heauenly & wonderful manner of presence, by which Christ vouchsafeth to giuegive vntounto his faithfull members, his very body and bloud in a mysterie. And yt the Church of Rome in much later times did not acknowledge this carnall presence, it shal appeare euen out of the Popes own Canon law, euen in ye decrees. De Consecrat. distinct. 2. Cap. Hoc est. Coelestis panis qui Christi caro est, suo modo nominatur corpus Christi, cum reuera sit sacramentū corporis Christi. Vocatur que ipsa īmolario carnis, que sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, nō rei veritate, sed significā te mysterio. The heauenly bread which is the flesh of Christ, after a peculiar maner, is called the body of Christe, when as in very deed it is ye sacramēt of the body of Christ. And euen ye oblation of his flesh, which is done by ye hands of ye priest, is called the passion, death, & crucifying of Christ, not in truth of ye thing, but in a signifying mysteri. Those words which are borrowed out of August. into ye decrees, the glose doth thus vnderstand, Coeleste sacraementū, quod verè repraesentat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi sed impropriè. Vnde dicitur, suo modo sed non in veritate, sed significante mysterio… Vt sit sensus: vocatur corpus Christi, id est significat. The heauenly sacrament, which doth truly represent ye flesh of Christ, is called the body of Christ, but vnproperly. Therefore it is saide to be: after a peculiar manner, but not in truth of the thing, but in a signifying mysterie. So that the sense is: it is called the body of Christe, that is, it doth signifie the body of Christe. If these testimonies, that are taken out of the Romish Bishops owne writings, decrees, and gloses, that are so plaine will not satisfie the Papistes, that their doctrine of transubstantiation and carnall presence is neither true, ancient, nor Catholike, it is in vaine to spend more wordes with them, as with men that are obstinate, and will not be satisfied with any truth contrarie to their presumed heresie.
Hesk.The one and sixtieth Chapter maketh a recapitulation of that, that is done in this worke.
Fulk.Seeing this Chapter containeth no argument or authoritie to defend his cause, but only rehearseth what he fantasieth, that he hath brought in other places throughout all his booke for the maintenance of the same, I referre it to the indifferent readers iudgement, what I hauehave done in this breefe confutation of the same. And here I conclude this acte of repeale, that notwithstanding this bill offered to the Parleament by Tho. Hesk. in the lower house hath many friends, so that the greater part of voyces, if the house were diuided, might seeme to ouercome the better: yet for as much as in the higher house, the greatest number hauehave spoken directly against his bill, and no one lord of that house, which liued within the compasse of 600. yeres of the challenge, hath giuen his voyce to allowe it, not only the pretensed acte of Parleament set forth by the said Tho. Hesk. is proued to be false, forged, & counterfet, but also the bill that he hath put in to be considered, is vtterly reiected & condemned, & spurned out of the house.
GOD BE PRAYSED.