Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 1 · Part 14
Hesk.The fourteenth Chapter declareth, after the minde of Chrysostome that Iob was a figure of Christ, for the desire his seruants had to eate his flesh.
Fulk.Maister Heskins doth well to adde, after the minde of Chrysostome, for it is plaine by the text, that the words of eating his flesh, are meant of hatred and not of louelove. Either that Iobs seruaunts shewed their desire to be reuenged of their maisters enimies, of whō he speaketh in ye two verses before, or else as Saint Hieronyme thinketh, that he had procured his seruants hatred for his intertainment of straungers, and other vertues mentioned in the next verse following. Pro hospitalitatibus eius & virtute, quae & caeter… sancti Deo placuerunt odium seruorum contraxerat. So that this matter standeth not vponupon any certaine figure of the scripture, but onelyonly vponupon Chrysostomes minde, vntounto which, you heare the contrarie minde of Hieronyme. But …owe let vsus consider what the authoritie of Chrysostome maketh for him: his wordes are as he cyteth them out of Hom. 45. in 6. Ioan. Vt autem non solùm per dilectionem &c. But that we should be conuerted into that flesh, not onelyonly by louelove, but also in deede: it is brought to passe by that meate which he hath giuen vsus. For when he would shewe his louelove toward vsus, he hath mixed himself with vsus by his body, and made himself one with vsus, that the body might be vnited to the hed These last words. For this is the maner of them that louelove especially, in M. Heskins trāslation are left out, I know not for what causes, peraduenture of negligence. This did Iob signifie by his seruants of whome he was loued especially, which declaring their louelove, did say: Who would giuegive vsus, that we might be filled with his flesh. Which thing Christe did, that he might binde vsus to him with g…ter louelove: and that he might shewe his desire that he had to vsus, suffering him selfe not onelyonly to be seene of them that desire, but also to be touched and eaten, and their teeth to be fastened in his flesh, and all to be filled with the desire of him. Wherefore let vsus rise from that table as Lyons breathing fire, terrible to the diuell, and let vsus knowe our heade, and what louelove he hath shewed vntounto vsus. Parents hauehave oftentimes giuen their children to be nourished of other: but I doe feede with mine owne flesh. I giuegive my selfe vntounto them, I fauour all, I giuegive an exceeding good hope to all of things to come. He that giueth him self so vntounto vsus in this life, much more in the life to come. I would be your brother, and I tooke flesh and bloud with you for your sakes. and by what thinges I am ioyned to you, the same I hauehave giuen to you againe. In this long speach of Chrysostome, what is there that maketh for Maister Heskins bill, that hee hath promoted into the Parleament house? and not rather altogether against it? For first, it can not bee necessarily concluded out of this place, that Chrysostome speaketh of the Lordes supper, but rather of that table, meate, giuing and eating of Christes flesh, which is spoken of in the sixt of Saint Iohn, where no worde is of the sacrament or supper, which at that time was not instituted. Secondly, if we should neuer so much vnderstand this speach of the sacrament, yet must we graunt it to be figuratiue, or else there wil folow infinite absurdities, beside such as M. Heskins affirmeth. Wherfore I will reason thus: Christ by this saying of Chrysostome, is none otherwise eaten then he is seene: but he is not seene corporally, but spiritually by faith, therefore he is not eaten corporally but spiritually by faith. And likewise thus: as Christ is touched and teeth fastned in his flesh, so is he giuen or eaten, but he is not touched corporally or naturally, nor teeth fastned in his flesh corporally but spiritually, therefore hee is not giuen nor eaten in the sacrament corporally, but spiritually.
The maiors of these argumēts are Chrysostoms words, the minors are ye confessions of the Papistes, which affirme Christes body to be in the sacrament inuisibly, and doe correct the recantation of Berengarius, where he affirmed, that the body of Christ is torne with the teeth: the conclusions I trust be rightly inferred. But nowe let vsus see what handsome stuffe M. Heskins gathereth out of this text of Chrysostome.
First that we are ioyned to Christe two wayes, by louelove, and by the thing it selfe. Which in other termes, is called spiritually and really. Marke this wise diuision of spiritually and really, as though such things as are ioyned spiritually, might not be ioyned really. But (M. Heskins) a spirite is not contrarie to a thing, except you will say it is nothing, but to a body, and therefore spiritually and bodily are opposite, not spiritually and really. For we are ioyned to Christe spiritually, and yet really, so that Christ dwelleth in vsus by his spirite through faith, but not bodily, so in the sacrament, we eate the body of Christ really, that is in deede & vnfeignedly, but yet in a spirituall kinde of eating, and not carnally or corporally.
But M. Heskins proceeding, affirmeth that We are spiritually ioyned to Christ by charitie and faith, and therefore incorporated into his mysticall body, but really or substantially we are ioyned to him, when by eating his very substantiall flesh in the sacrament, THE SVBSTANCE OF OVR FLESH IS TVRNED INTO THE SVBSTAVNCE OF HIS FLESH, and thereby so ioyned to him, as we are made one flesh with him &c. Note here, good reader, for thy learning, that these wordes printed by M. Heskins in another letter, that they might be seene as a speciall paradoxe▪ teach thee a newe kinde of transubstantiation. For he is not content, to hauehave the breade turned into the body of Christe, without all type or figure, really, substantially, corporally, &c. but as really, corporally, and substantially, he affirmeth that the substance of our flesh, is turned into the substance of ye flesh of Christ. O monstruous paradox, as euer any was heard, since the beginning of the world!
After this he noteth, that Christes flesh is not digested in vsus, as other meates are, which is needlesse to note, if our fleshe be digested or turned into his: adding this reason, that As it is a celestiall meate, beeing now a glorified bodie, so it draweth vsus vp to it, conuerting and turning vsus into it, according to the nature of a celestiall thing. Howe vayne this reason is, by whiche hee would auoyde the digestion, and proue his new transubstantiation and conuersion, appeareth by this, that the body of Christe in the Sacrament, was as effectuall, while hee liued in his passible bodie on earth, in which he instituted this sacrament, as it is nowe beeing a glorified bodie in heauen. And whereas hee chargeth, I knowe not what Stercoranites of our time, to affirme that the fleshe of Christ, passeth through the bodie as other meates, I thinke verilie, he lyeth most impudently. For I neuer heard, or read of any that so affirmed. Although, I woulde wishe men to speake reuerently of so high mysteries, yet the importunitie of the Papistes with their matter of transubstantiation enforceth them not to affirme of them selues, but to report, what they reade in the fathers, concerning the breade, beeing the terrestriall or outwarde parte of the Sacrament, that it is digested & passeth through, as all other naturall meates do, whereof Origen writeth in Math. Chap. 15. Quod si quicquid ingreditur in os in ventrem abit, & in sesession eijcitur: & ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Deipér que obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale, abit & in sesessū eijcitur. If what soeuer entereth into the mouth goeth into the bellie, and is cast foorth into the draught: euen that meate also which is sanctified by the worde of God and by prayer after that which it hath materiall, goeth and is cast foorth into the draught. This douteth not Origen to speake of the materiall parte of the Sacrament, by which it is manifest, that he knew no transubstantiation. The cheefe thing that M. Heskins vrgeth vsus to marke, is that, Whereas the Sacramentes woulde hauehave onelyonly a spirituall receiuing, this holy father teacheth that we are framed to Christ not onelyonly spiritually by louelove, which may bee without receiuing of meate, but, re ipsa, in deede by receyuing of meate. But I praye you M. Heskins, where saith Chrisostom that our coniunction vntounto Christ is not onelyonly spirituall. In deede he saide, not onelyonly by louelove, but in deede, but he opposeth not spiritually and really as you doe. And where you vrge that this coniunction is by meate, and this meate is his bodie, and therevppon conclude that it is a corporall coniunction, and Christ is ioyned corporally: I aunswere, that if Chrysostom may expound himselfe, this meate and this body is a spirituall meate, therefore a spirituall coniunction, and Christ is eaten spiritually. De prod. Iud. Nemo sit Iudas in mensa: hoc sacrificium cibus spiritualis est. Nam sicut corporalis cibus, &c. Let no man be Iudas in this table: this sacrifice is a spirituall meate. For as corporall meat when it findeth a bellie, possessed with humors contrarie to it, it hurteth and offendeth more, and helpeth nothing at all: euen so this spirituall meate, if it finde any man polluted with wickednes, it destroyeth him the more, not of it owne nature▪ but through the fault of him that receiueth it. Thus far Chrysostome, for the meate to bee spirituall. Finally the last obseruation that Christ doth giuegive vsus in ye sacrament, is the same fleshe, by which he was ioyned vntounto vsus, therefore his verie substantiall body and bloude, auayleth him nothing: For wee contende not, of the substance of the thing, that is giuen, but of the manner of the giuing, the thing is the verie body and bloude of Christ, but not after a corporall or naturall manner, but after a spirituall and diuine maner, or as the olde writers hauehave saide. Modo ineffabili, after an vnspeakeable manner, as so many figuratiue speaches that are spoken therof do declare, whiche to expound literally or grāmatically, were little better then extreme madnesse.
The other place which you adde out of Ho. 24. in 10.1. Cor. helpe them nothing at all, that Christ hath giuen vsus his flesh &c. That this body the wisemen did reuerence in the māger. You might hauehave added out of the same place: Quod est in calice, id est quod a latere fluxit, that which is in the cuppe is the same that flowed out of his side, and thereof we are partakers. But that all these are figuratiue speaches it is manifest by this interrogation, that followeth in the same homilie. Quid enim appello inquit communicationem? id ipsum corpus sumus. Quid significat panis? corpus Christi. Quid autem fiunt qui accipiunt corpus Christs: non multa sed vnum corpus. For what do I cal it (saith he) a participation? We are the selfe same bodie. What signifieth the bread? The bodie of Christ. And what are they made which receiue the bodie of Christ? Not many bodies but one body. And in ye same homilie. Sed quare, Addit quem frangimus? hoc in Eucharistia videre licet, in cruce autem minimè sed omnino contra. Os enim eius non conteretur. Sed quod in cruce passus nō est, id in oblatione patitur, & propter te frangi permittit. But why? doth he adde (speaking of the breade) which wee breake, that you may see in the sacrament of thankesgiuing, but not on the crosse, but altogether the contrarie. For there shall no bone of him be broken. But that which he suffered not on the crosse, he suffereth in the oblation, (for so they called the ministring of the communion, because it was a sacrifice of thanksgiuing) and for thee suffereth himself to be broken. In these places Chrysostome affirmeth the Church to be the same bodie, which the breade doth signifie, and which the faithfull doe receiue, and in the latter place, he sheweth manifest difference, betweene the naturall body of Christ that suffered on the crosse, and the spirituall receiuing of him in the supper, in whiche his bones are broken, which (he saith) was not on the crosse, which must needes bee figuratiue. I passe ouer the large allegorie he continueth in the same homilie, affirming that we must be Eagles to flye vp into heauen, and feed of Chrstes bodie where it is, for where the bodie is, thether the Eagles will be gathered.