Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 2 · Part 49
Hesk.The nine and fortieth Chapter, proceedeth in the vnderstanding of Christes wordes, by Irenaeus & Tertullian.
Fulke.Irenęus is cited, lib. 4. Cap. 32. Sed & discipulus, &c. But also giuing counsell to his disciples, to offer to God the first fruites of his owne creatures, not as to one that hath neede, but that they also should neither be vnfrutefull nor vnthankefull: he tooke that bread which is of the creature, & gaue thankes saying: this is my bodie, & likewise he confessed the cupp, which is of the creature that is among vsus, to be his bloud & taught the newe oblation of the newe testament, which the church receiuing of the Apostles in all the worlde, offereth to God. Here M. Hesk. choppeth off ye taile, for it followeth: Euen to him which giueth foode vntounto vsus, the first fruites of his giftes: which words do both open the purpose of Irenaeus, & shewe that the oblation was of bread & wine, & not the naturall bodie of Christ, as M. Hesk. gathereth, together with the reall presence. But for clearer proofe, he addeth another testimonie out of Irenęus, which he quoteth lib. 5. but it is lib. 4. ca. 34 which it seemeth he redd not him selfe in the author, both because he knewe not where it was writen, & also because he omitteth some wordes in it. Quomodo autem constabit eis, &c. he leaueth out autem & eis: but thus the wordes are in English. But how shall it be knowen vntounto them, that that bread, in which thankes are giuen, is the bodie of their Lorde and the cupp of his bloud, if they say not that he him selfe is the sonne of the maker of the worlde? &c. And how againe do they say, that the fleshe commeth to corruption, & receiueth not the life which is nourished of the bodie & bloud of our Lord? Out of these places he noteth, that ye sacrament is the bodie and bloud of Christ, & that our flesh is nourished by the same bodie & bloud. This we confesse, so he meane spiritually, but yt he will not hauehave. And therfore, to drawe the places to his carnall presence, & nourishing, he sayth that Irenaeus hereby impugned two heresies: One, that Christ was not the sonne of God that made the world, but a man liuing in Iewrie, which dissolued the law & the Prophets, & all the works of God that made the world: The other, that the soule only should be saued & not the bodie. And therefore to confute the former, he maketh an argument of the real presence, How could a bare naturall man compasse, that his bodie should so be, if he were not the sonne of God that made the world? &c. This proceedeth of grosse ignorance, or rather of intollerable mallice, to deceiue the ignorant. For the heresie against which he writeth, was not yt Christ was a bare man, & not the sonne of God, but yt he was the sonne of another God, then he yt made ye world, for they made two gods, one ye maker of ye world, which they sayd was God of ye old testament, & another ye father of Christ, which they said, was God of the newe testament. Now Irenaeus proueth by institution of ye sacrament, in the creatures of bread & wine, yt Christ is the sonne of God yt created ye world, & of none other God, to which purpose he sayth in the 57. Chapter of that fourth booke: Quomodo autem iustè Dominus si alterius patris existens, huius conditionis quae est secundiòm nos accipiens panem fuum corpus confisebatur, & temperamentum calicis sui sanguinem confirmanit? How did our Lorde iustly, if being sonne of another father, taking bread which is of this creation that we are▪ confesse it to be his bodie, and the temperament of the cuppe he confirmed to be his bloud? Thus you see neither in the one place, nor in the other, he reasoneth of the diuine power of Christe, to make a reall presence, or transubstantiation, but of the inconuenience that Christ shoulde ordeine his sacrament in the creatures of another God. The seconde heresie he impugneth in deede, by the receipt of the bodie and bloude of Christe in the sacrament, by which our fleshe is nourished vntounto immortalitie, which nourishing, M. Heskins in no wise will hauehave to be vnderstoode spiritually, but corporally, and sayeth, it doth inuincibly proue the reall presence. I will not rippe vp what absurdities do followe, if wee say, that Christes fleshe doth nourish our flesh corporally, or after a carnall manner, as of the concoction and digestion thereof, to be turned into our nature, where he sayed before, that our flesh is turned into his fleshe: but I will proue out of Irenaeus, that he meant nourishing spiritually and not corporally. For lib. 5. he hath these wordes.
Quando ergo & mixtus calix, & factus panis, percipit verbum Dei, fit eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia: quomodo carnem negant capacem esse donationis Dei qui est vita aeterna, quae sanguine & corpore Christi, nutritur & membrum eius est.
When therefore the cuppe that is mixed, and the bread that is made, receiueth the worde of God, it is made the Eucharistie of the bloud & bodie of Christe, of which the substance of our fleshe is increased and consisteth: howe do they denye, that the flesh is capable of the gift of God, which is eternall life, which is nourished with the bodie and bloud of Christ, and is a member of him.
Here you see plainly, that our fleshe is so nourished of the bodie and bloud of Christ, that it is increased of the same, and so consisteth of them, that wee are his members, but our bodies are not increased, &c. but spiritually: therefore they are not nourished but spiritually, & after an heauenly manner.
But moste plainly, for impugning of both the heresies aforesaide, and other heresies more of transubstantiation and the carnall presence, and the sacrifice propitiatorie of the masse, he writeth, lib. 4. Cap. 34. Nostra autem consonans est sententia Eucharistiae, & Eucharistia rursus confirmat sententiam nostram. Offerimus enim ei quę sunt eius, congruenter communicationem & vnitatem praedicantes carnis & spiritus. Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis, percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & caelesti: sic & corpora nostra percipientia Euchaeristiam, iam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. Offerimus autem ei non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes donationi eius, & sanctificantes creaturam. But our sentence is agreeable to the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing, and the Eucharistie againe doth confirme our sentence. For wee offer vntounto him those things that be his owne, agreeably setting foorth the communication and vnitie of the fleshe and the spirite. For as the breade which is of the earth receiuing the calling of God, is not nowe common bread, but the Eucharistie consisting of two things, an earthly thing & an heauenly thing: euen so our bodies also receiuing the Eucharistie, are not nowe corruptible, hauing hope of resurrection. And wee offer to him, not as to one hauing neede, but giuing thankes for his gifte and sanctifying the creature.
By this place is transubstantiation ouerthrowen, where" he sayth, the sacrament consisteth of two things, an earthly and an heauenly, the carnall presence, when hee defineth it to be a heauenly thing, that is a diuine and spiritual communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ, the propitiatorie sacrifice, when he sayeth, that the creatures of breade and wine were offered for a thankes giuing, &c. That Melancton defending the popish presence abused the authoritie of Irenaeus against Oecolampadius, it ought to be no preiudice to vsus, especially duplicate page duplicate page seeing as M. Heskins before confessed, that Melancthon him selfe forsooke that opinion in the end.
Now come we to Tertullian, whose testimonie, though it bee flatly against him, yet hee hath laboured if it were possible, by wrestling and wrangling, to make it serue his turne, or a least to auoyde it, that it should not hurt his cause, Lib. 4. contra Marcionem. Professus itaque, &c. When therefore he had professed that with desire he desired to eate the Passeouer, as his owne (for it was vnmeete that God shuld desire any thing pertayning to an other) the breade that was taken and distributed to his disciples, he made it his body, saying. This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. But it had bene no figure except his body had bene of trueth. Here M. Heskins cutteth off: but it followeth in Tertullian, Caeterum &c. For a vaine thing which is a fantasie could receiue no figure. Or if therefore he feigned the bread to be his body, bicause he lacked the trueth of a body, then ought hee to hauehave giuen the breade for vsus. It would hauehave made for Marcions vanitie, that the breade should hauehave bene crucified. The alteration, falsification, and truncation of Tertullians wordes, which Maister Heskins vseth, was noted in the first booke partly, and it wearieth me to note these faultes so often as he committeth them. But here he turneth these wordes: Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus. But it had not bene a figure except it were a body of trueth. As though the breade were both a figure and a body of trueth, which cleane peruerteth the sense of Tertullian, and is contrarie to his purpose, as you may see by that which followeth. For Marcion agreed with Valentinus, against whome Irenęus writte, that Christ was not the GOD of the olde Testament, and moreouer affirmed, that Christe had not a true body, but a fantasticall body. Against both these hereticall opinions, hee reasoneth in this sentence. First he saith, Christe desired to eat the Passeouer, therefore it was of his owne institution, for it was vnmeete that God should desire any thing of an other Gods institution. And that Christe had a true bodye, hee proueth by the institution of the sacrament, which was a figure of his body, for a fantasticall body, or a vaine thing, can hauehave no figure, for a figure hath a necessarie relation to a thing of trueth, whereof it is a figure, the sacrament is a figure of Christes body, therefore Christe hath a true body.
That this is the true meaning of Tertullian, it appeareth plainely by the wordes before alledged, and by these that followe, and by the whole discourse of his worke, Lib. 5. hee saith. Proinde panis & calicis sacramento iam in Euangelio probauimus corporis & sanguinis Dominici veritatem aduersus phantasma Marcionis. Therefore by the sacrament of the breade and the cuppe, nowe in the Gospell we hauehave proued, the trueth of the body and bloud of our Lorde, against the fantasie of Marcion. But M. Hes. interpretation of Tertullians meaning, is not onelyonly false, but also ridiculous. He saith, that Tertullian to proue that Christ had a true body, bringeth in the institution of the sacrament, saying, that Christ made the breade his true body, therefore hee had a true body, as though Marcion, whiche woulde not beleeue that Christe had a true body when he liued on the earth, would acknowledge that Christe had a true body in the sacrament. But Marcion acknowledged the sacrament to be a figure of Christes body, and therevpon Tertullian inferreth that hee had a true body, whereof the sacrament was a figure.
But nowe it is a sport to see howe M. Heskins taketh vponupon him To open Tertullian, and to deliuer him from the sacramentaries. His saying hath two partes, the one that Christe made the breade his body, the other that he saith: This is my body, that is to say, a figure of my body. Nowe hee will require of ye aduersarie, whether of these two parts he will receiue? and he is certaine they wil not receiue ye former part, bicause Zuinglius, Oecolāpadius, & Bullinger, with the rest, denieth the bread to be the naturall body of Christ. But he is fouly beguiled, for al these & we with thē will neither receiue the first part by it selfe, nor the latter part by it selfe, but both parts together, as they are vttered by Tertullian, that Christ so made the bread his body, yt hee made it a figure of his body. That is to say, that hee made it a sure & vndoubted pledge of his body. And we agree with Cyprian De cae…. Deu…. that The bread which our Lord gaue to his disciples to be eaten, being not cha…nged in shape, but in nature, by the almightie power of the word was made flesh: and with S. Ambrose. li. 4. de sacr. cae. 4. That this bread before the wordes of the sacrament is bread, but when the consecration commeth to it, of bread it is made the flesh of Christ. Places often answered before by interpretation of the same Authours. And we do so vnderstand Tertullian, as he is not contrarie to him selfe, nor to any Catholique writer of his time in this matter, which is Maister Heskins rule to vnderstand a Catholique Authour, And we so vnderstand the sacrament to bee a figure, as it is not a bare figure. But nowe, bicause Maister Heskins must needes acknowledge the sacrament to be a figure, he maketh two kindes of figures. A figure of a thing absent, and a figure of a thing present. Bicause there is no doubt of the former, I will touch onelyonly the latter. An example of a figure of a thing present, he maketh in these wordes: As the spouse beholding her very husband, and seeth the scarres and tokens of wounds that he suffered for her defence and safegard, and of his children and hers: is brought in remembrance of his louing kindnesse, and of the dangers sustained for her sake. In which case although the substance of the man be present, yet to his wife he is a figure and token of remembraunce of him selfe absent, in condition of a man nowe in fight & dangered with sore and deepe woundes. For nowe he is no such man, but whole & sound, & a perfect man. HaueHave you not heard a wise similitude thinke you? Is the substance of the man present, a figure of his actiōs & passions absent? or rather the scarres present, a token of his wounds suffered, and actes passed? If hee be so grosse, that he cannot distinguish betweene substance and accidents, and the properties and effectes of them both, yet very children can plainely see, that the substance of the man occasioneth no such remē brance as he speaketh of, but the scarres of the woundes: neither do they bring the substance of the man in remē brance, but the actions and passions of the man. And therfore this is too blockish an example, that a figure may be of a thing present in substance. But Augustine Lib. sentent. Prosperi. doth helpe this matter as he weeneth: Caro carnis, &c. The flesh is a sacrament of the flesh, and the bloud is a sacrament of the bloud. By both which being inuisible, spirituall, and intelligible, is signified the visible and palpable body of our Lord Iesus Christ, full of the grace of all vertues, and diuine Maiestie. M. Hes. noteth, that the inuisible body of Christ in the sacrament, is a figure of the same visible. Very good. But let me goe with him. Although S. Augustine or Prosper speake not of an inui…ible body. But he saith directly, that the flesh and the bloud in the sacrament, are both spirituall and intelligible flesh and bloud, which is as much as I aske. Then the spirituall flesh of Christe which is in the sacrament, doth signifie yt visible and palpable body of Christ, then the which nothing can be said more plainly against the corporall presence, nor for ye spiritual presence. But he obiecteth further, yt the scriptures also vse such speaches, saying, that Christe was made in the likenesse of a man. Ph. 2. When he was a man in deede, and so Tertullian might well cal it a figure, although it be the body it self. As though S. Paule in that place speaketh of the substance of his humanitie, & not rather of the base shewe and condition that he tooke vponupon him in his humanitie, whereas he might hauehave behaued him self as God, being both God and man. Yet Augustine hath two places, by conference whereof this thing shall appeare; that the sacrament is both a figure and the very thing it selfe. The first place is in Psal. 3. speaking of Iudas the traytour, which place M. Heskins read not in Augustine, but in some other mans collections, for both he cyteth it truncately, & also addeth wordes both in the Latine and the English, which are not in Augustine, although he do not alter the sense. But Augustines wordes in deede are these. Et in historia &c. And in the historie of the newe Testament, the patience of our Lord was so great and woonderfull, that he suffered him so long as though he had bene good: Whereas he was not ignorant of his thoughtes, when he had him present at the feast, in which he commended and deliuered to his disciples, the figure of his body and his blo…d. The other place is cyted Ep. 162. Our Lorde him selfe doth suffer Iudas, a diuill, a theefe, and his seller. He letteth him take among his innocēt disciples, that which the faithful know, our price. But when Augustine him selfe saith, ye sacraments beare the name of those thinges whereof they are sacraments, it is no maruell, if the sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, be called our price, whereof it is a figure or sacrament, especially seeing Augustine flatly denyeth, that Iudas did receiue the bread which was the Lorde, but only the Lords bread. This conference therefore maketh against him, not for him: As for Theophylactes authoritie, which he calleth a plaine place for the proclamer, wee refuse, although it is not so plaine as he pretendeth, for we also affirme, that the sacrament is not a bare figuration of the flesh of Christ, but his flesh in deede, spiritually receiued. Finally, Tertullians place De resur. Car. is nothing at all for him. Ca…o corpore &c. The flesh eateth the body and bloud of Christ, that the soule may be fed with God. For by the body and bloud of Christe, he meaneth the sacrament of them, which is called by the name of that is figured or signified by it. As for the last shift, that No Catholique Doctour saith, that the sacrament is only a figure, is too childish for a Doctour to vse; for in these words of Tertullian: Corpus meum, id est▪ figura corporis met, my body, that is to say, a figure of my body, there needeth not to be added the exclusiue onelyonly, for the latter part is a description of the former, which must containe all that is in the thing described, or else it is nothing worth: as for example. If I say M. Heskins is a man, that is to say a soule, it were fond and ridiculous, but when I say he is a man, that is to say, a reasonable …ight, I neede not say he is onelyonly so, for I hauehave said before as much as he is, and so hath Tertullian: Meaning that the sacrament is a figure, but not a common or bare figure, but a diuine and mysticall token, not only to signifie, but also to assure vsus, of the spirituall feeding of vsus with the body and bloud of Christ.