Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 1 · Part 17
Hesk.The seuenteenth Chapter proceedeth in the same matter, by S. Cyprian, and Euthymius.
Maister Heskins, in his Epistles, and prefaces, promiseth great sinceritie,Fulke. and eueryevery where obiecteth impudencie, and insinceritie against the proclaymer, and his complices. But see what sinceritie he vseth, that matcheth Euthymius, scarse worthy to be a burgesse of the lower house, …ith Cyprian one of the most auncient Barons of the vpper house. And yet afterward he him selfe placeth him in the lower house, that is, among the writers within the compasse of nine hundreth yeres. Wheras the higher house consisteth of them that writ within 600. yeares after Christ, as the Bishop whom he tearmeth the proclaymer, maketh his challenge. And certeinely Euthymius was neuer accounted for a Lord of the parleament, before he was called thereto by Maister Heskins writte, which of what force it is to make a Baron, let the readers iudge.
For he liued about the yeare of our Lord 1170. Notwithstanding we will examine his voyce as it commeth in order. But we must first consider the voyce of Cyprian Bishop of Carthage. Which is this. The supper therefore being ordered among the sacramentall meates, De coena Domini.there mette together the newe ordinances and the olde. And when the lambe was consumed or eat…n, which the olde tradition did set foorth, the maister did set before his disciples the inconsumptible meat…. Neither are the people now bidden to feastes, painefully wrought with expenses and cunning: but the foode of immortalitie is giuen, differing from common meates, reteyning the kind of appearance of corporall substāce, but prouing by inuisible efficiencie, the presence of Gods power or the diuine vertue to be there. In this saying, First there is neuer a worde, to proue that the Pascall Lambe was a figure of the Lordes supper, which is the purpose of the Chapter, but onelyonly that the newe institution succeeded the olde, which is manifest by the history of the Gospell: Euen as Baptisme succeded circumcision, and yet was not circumcision a figure of Baptisme, Secondly note, that he doeth not affirme, the reall presence of Christes naturall bodie, but the inuisible working of his diuine power. And so his voyce is flatly againg Maister Heskins bill. Nowe let vsus consider his fonde collections. First that Christ gaue inconsumptible meate, the sacramentaries giuegive consumptible meate? For they giuegive but bread. This is a false slaunder, a thousand times repeated, for they giuegive not bread only, but euen the same inconsumptible meate, by the inuisible working of his diuine power, which Cyprian affirmeth, that Christe gaue his Disciples. But he vrgeth, That it was put before them, taken by hande, & laid in sight, which the merite and grace of his passion could not be. See I pray you how this man agreeth with Cyprian: Cyprian saith, it was by inuisible working of Gods fauour, he saith it was put before them, (for so he translateth apponit) taken by hand, and laide in sight.
His second collection is, That it differeth from common meates, reteining the fourme of corporall substaunce, whiche can neither be the breade, which differeth not from common meates, nor the spirituall meate, which they call the merite of his passion, because that reteineth not the fourme of corporall substance.
A wise reason, disioyning and seuering thinges that should bee taken together. The water in baptisme, differeth from common water, and conteyning the fourme of corporall substance, by inuisible working, proueth the presence of Gods power to be there. So doeth the bread and wine in the Lordes Supper. Which although of them selues, they be no more holy then other creatures, yet when they are consecrated for the vse of the sacrament, they differ as muche from common meates, as the bodie and the soule doe, as temporall life, and eternall life: as heauen and earth doe differ, so doeth the water consecrated for baptisme differ from common water.
His third collection, that it is called The foode of immortalitie, which cannot be bare materiall bread. A true collection, for the sacrament is not bare material bread, but the body and bloud of Christ, represented by materiall bread, as a materiall lauer is the water of regeneration, but not bare materiall water.
For confirmation is brought in Ignatius ex Ep. ad Ephe. Be ye taught of the comforter obedience to the Bishop, and the priest with vnswaruing or stable minde, breaking the bread which is the medicine of immortalitie, the preseruatiue of not dying, but of liuing by Iesus Christ. Although no learned man, that is not more wilfull then wise, will graunt this Epistle to be written by yt auncient father Ignatius, whose name it beareth: yet doth this saying, cōtein nothing but very sound doctrine of the sacrament, which he calleth bread, that i… broken to be ye medicine of immortalitie. M. Heskins vrgeth as before, yt it can non be bare bread, which hath such effects. Which I graunt willingly, but I reply vponupon him, that it cannot be the naturall body of Christ, which he exhorteth them to breake. For Christes body is not broken, but the sacramentall bread, to signifie the breaking and participation of his body.
But he proceedeth to another speech of Cyprian, which is in deede a more apparant speeche for his purpose, the wordes are these: Panis iste, quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat, non eff…gie, sed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus est caro. Et fiout in persona Christi humanitas videbatur, & lateba… diuinitas: ita sacramento visibili ineffabiliter se diuina infudie essentia. This bread which our Lorde did reache vntounto his disciples, beeing chaunged not in shape, but in nature, by omnipotencie of the worde is made fleshe. And as in the person of CHRISTE, the humanitie was seene, the diuinitie was hidden, euen so the diuine essence hath powred it selfe vnspeakably into the visible sacrament. The Papistes esteeme this place to be an inuincible bulwarke of their transubstantiation, but alas it is soone ouerthrowne, when the meaning of Cyprian is boulted out, not onelyonly by sentences going before and after this saying, but also by the very wordes of this same sentence. For he maketh a manifest difference, betweene the visible sacrament and the diuine essence, which is inuisible. Whereas the Papistes by their transubstantiation, hauehave no visible sacrament, but onelyonly accidents of breade and wine, which they, nor none other can call a visible sacrament. Moreouer, the word diuine essence, answering to the word flesh, in the former sentence, plainely expoundeth what he meaneth thereby, namely the diuine power which the flesh of Christ hath, to giuegive life, and not the diuine nature or substance, as M. Heskins translateth it, and much lesse Christ, God and Man, as he expoundeth it. For if we take the diuine essence, for the diuine substaunce of Christes Godhead, it will bee a grosse absurditie, and a blasphemous heresie, to make any infusion or powring of that into the visible sacrament, which filleth all places. Wherefore of necessitie it signifieth the propertie or efficacie, euen as the worde nature, in the former clause doth signifie. For the former shape of the breade is not chaunged, but the nature or propertie is altered, namely to feede the soule and not the body only, as before it was made a sacrament, it serued to do. But M. Hesk. liketh not this glose, but wil hauehave nature to signifie substance, and not propertie, as it doth very often: as when we say, the nature of hearbs, of stones, of beastes, we meane the properties. But whether he will or no, it must be so taken, seing it may be so taken, or else Cyprian should be contrarie to him selfe: who distinguisheth the visible sacrament from the diuine essence, who calleth that diuine essence (a word more vsuall for substance) which is but diuine efficacie or propertie, who, if he had meant, that the bread had bene turned into the naturall body of Christe, wold neither hauehave cōpared it with the diuinitie of Christ hid vnderunder his humanitie, nor hauehave said, euen so the diuine essens, infundeth it selfe in the sacrament, but euen so the bodie of Christ is hid vnderunder the formes of bread & wine. But that there should be no doubt of his meaning, thus he writeth in the same sermon, a litle after: Haec quoties agimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide syncera panem sanctum franginus & partimur. As often as we do these thinges, we doe not sharpen our teeth to byte, but with a sincere faith we breake and diuide this holy breade. What can be more plaine to expresse the meaning of this doctour, then that wee receiue not the body of Christe with our mouth, but with our heart, not with the instrument of our teeth, but with the instrument of our faith. In the same Sermon, hee writeth Panis est esca, sanguis, vita, caro, substantia, corpus, Ecclesia: Corpus, propter membrorum in vnum conuenientium: panis, propter nutrimenti congruentiam: sanguis, propter vinificationis efficientiam: caro, propter assumptae humanitatis proprietatem. The breade is foode, bloud, life, flesh, substaunce, his body, the Church: his body, for the agreement of the members in one: bread, for the aptnes of nourishment: bloud, for the efficiencie of quickening: flesh, for the propertie of his humanitie that he tooke on him. These places do sufficiently expound the meaning of Cyprian, howe the breade is chaunged into flesh, not after any change of substance, but of qualitie and propertie, as in so many figuratiue termes is more thē manifest.
Let vsus nowe come to Euthymius aduaunced by Maister Heskins into the higher house. And he in deede seemeth to affirme the purpose of this Chapter, that the Paschall lambe was a figure of the sacrament, and yet not very plainely, but rather it was a figure of the true Passeouer, which the sacrament doth represent, but that is no materiall point of our controuersie, whether one sacrament did figure an other, his wordes are: Christe in the same table described the figuratiue and shadowing Passeouer, and set before them the true and perfect Passeouer. Herevpon hee inferreth that Christe was not truely and perfectly giuen to the Iewes in the Paschall Lambe as we teach, but onelyonly a figure and signe of him, but in the sacrament he is giuen to vsus truely and perfectly, that is by a true and reall presence. But it is pitie that hee seeth not that his authour compareth the thing signified by our sacrament, with the outward signe of the Iewish sacrament, as also the scripture doth oftentimes, against them that depended vponupon the outward ceremonies. Not that a false or vnperfect Christ was figured and receiued of the faithfull by them, but to shewe a difference betweene the shadowe and the trueth, the figure and the thing figured, when ye Iewes so sticked in the figure, that they considered not the thing signified.
The other place which was alledged out of Euthymius, bicause hee referreth the handling of it vntounto the second booke, thether also will I referre the aunswere. In the meane time, it is a childish insultation that hee makes against the proclamer, noting that hee hath found a plaine place for Maister Iewell, when neither the place is so plaine, nor the Authour within the compasse of his challenge.