Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 1 · Part 23
The three and twentie Chapter proceedeth in the proofe of the same by S. Augustine and Isychius.Hesk.
Out of Augustine he alleadgeth Ep. 86. Ad Casulanum:Fulke. reprouing one Vibicus Dicit cessisse pani pecus. &c. Hee saith that the sheepe hath giuen place to breade, as though he knewe not that then also the shewe breade was wont to bee set on the Lords table, and that now also he doeth take part of the bodie of the immaculate lambe. Hee sayth that bloude hath giuen place to the cuppe not considering that nowe also hee receyueth bloude in the cuppe. Therefore howe much better and more agreably shoulde hee saye, that the olde thinges are passed, and newe thinges are made in Christe, so that Altar gaue place to Altar, sworde to sworde, fire to fire, breade to breade, sheepe to sheepe, bloude to bloude? For wee see in all these, that the carnall oldnesse giueth place to the spirituall newnesse.
The vnderstanding of this place dependeth vppon the knowledge of the errour of Vibicus. And that was this. Hee thought that the outwarde ceremonies of the olde lawe, did signifie the outwarde ceremonies of the newe Testament, that is, that carnall thinges did succeede carnall thinges. As the lambe did signifie the bread, the bloude did signifie the wine in the sacrament, and so bread gaue place to the lambe, the cuppe to the bloud. But this Augustine denyeth. For they had bread then, and they hauehave breade nowe: they had the fleshe of a lambe then, and they hauehave the fleshe of a lambe nowe: they had bloude then, and they hauehave bloude nowe: they had carnall thinges then, and wee hauehave spirituall thinges nowe. This place therefore is directly against M. Heskins bill of the carnall presence, and hath nothinge to prooue that the shewe breade was a figure of the sacrament: but onelyonly affirmeth that they had breade, as wee hauehave breade, for they had the shewe breade. But if there had ben transubstantiation, that is, no bread in the sacrament, hee might easily hauehave confuted Vibicus saying, that breade gaue place to the sheepe. But hee confesseth that wee hauehave bread, and affirmeth, that they had breade also. And where he sayth, that wee eate parte of the body of the immaculate lambe, hee declareth sufficiently that hee spake of no carnall presence, for then hee woulde not hauehave deuided the bodie of the lambe into partes, which the Papistes say euerie one receiueth whole. Finally, where he saith that the carnall oldenesse gaue place to the spirituall newnesse, hee doth moste clearely teach vsus, that the outwarde ceremonies of the olde Testament, were figures of the spirituall things signified and giuen by our sacramentes, and not of the outwarde elementes of our sacraments. By which it is manifest, that spirituall thinges and not carnall thinges are the substance of our sacraments. Nowe to M. Heskins collections. He saith that the old sacrifices of the lambe were not figures of the sacrament: denying now in one word, that he laboured to proue before in 7. Chapters: but of the bloudie sacrifice of Christ offered vppon the crosse after the maner of Aaron. Concerning ye sence of Augustines words, let the readers weigh my collection & his, by Augustines place, and by the rest of the Epistle that is of the same matter. But marke here once againe, that hee maketh the sacrifice of Christs passion, a sacrifice after the maner of Aaron, and consequētly Christ a priest after the maner of Aaron, directly contrarie to the scriptures in expresse words Heb. 7. Secondly he vrgeth that, which Augustine saith, we nowe receiue bloud in ye cup, by which he wil exclude the distinction of spirituall receiuing. But all in vaine, except he can conclude, yt we receiue partem de agni immaculati corpore, part of the vndefiled lambes bodie. For if the one be spirituall, so is the other. I am sure the naturall bodie of Christ is not deuided into parts, but wee do spiritually receiue nourishmēt al of one bodie. To be short, if that which Augustine addeth of spirituall newnes succeeding carnall oldnes, were not a sufficient demonstration of a spirituall receiuing, I woulde bring other places of Augustine to shewe the same most plainly. But the thing being so apparant, I will not mistrust the iudgement of any indifferent reader so much, as to trouble him with more testimonies, which shall better come in, where more shewe is for M. Heskins bill.
But we must passe ouer to Isychius, whose wordes are set downe at large in Cap. 24. Leui. The verie number of the loaues doth call vsus to a contemplation of the cōmandement. So doth the setting forth of thē, & that he doth not cōmand thē to be made a burnt offering as those things which be of the frying pan, of the girdiron, & of the fornace, but that they shold be set on the table one ouer against an other, & that it shold be lawful only for the priestes to eat of thē, not for the Leuites, so that they also must eate thē in a holy place. And also that they are called holie of holies, (vnderstand what is said, for the Lord shall giuegive thee vnderstanding) remember the mysticall table of which it is commaunded that none should beginne except the intelligible Aaron, that is Christe, (For he began it first) excepte also his sonnes, which by him are made Christes, and hauehave put on him, which yet they are commaunded to eate in a holie place. And hee is that holy of holies, that they may hauehave a principall and vndespised sanctification. These loaues of two tenthes (for they are of God and man, of the same being, perfect in both) are set sixe ouer against sixe. The mysticall supper is set here, and it is set in the worlde to come. Sixe loaues are one proposition or setting foorth, as the mysterie it se…fe is perfecte and maketh them that enioye it perfecte. And in sixe dayes this visible creature was made, and the sixt day man was made, for whome Christe prepared his mysticall table. But yet altogether are rightlie twelue loaues, because the Apostles that were twelue in number first supped at the Lordes table. Here is an allegoricall interpretation of the shewe breade to signifie the Lordes supper, but that proueth it not a prefiguration of the sacrament. For there is great difference betweene an allegory, and a figure of a thing to come. But to the poynte of the bill, here is nothing for the carnall presence, but somewhat against it.
First where hee saith that the Christians (whom allegorically he calleth the sonnes of the intelligible Aaron, induti sunt eo, hauehave put on him, meaning they are baptised, for as manie as are baptised in him hauehave put him on. But they hauehave put on him onelyonly spiritually, therefore they are commaunded to eate him onelyonly spiritually.
Secondly the twelue loaues, whiche signifieth the bodie of Christ, signifieth the twelue Apostles also, which mystically were his bodie, by which you may see, hee speaketh of no carnall presence, Thirdly he calleth it a mysterie and a mysticall supper, which will not stande wt M. Heskins corporal collectiōs. No more wil yt which he addeth That it is a cleane table, first as making cleane, secondly as hauing no lies or infectiō, such as are in the misteries of the pagās. Where it is to be laughed at, that he will proue a corporal presence, because it cleanseth sinnes: for then shal we hauehave the same presence in baptisme, and the Papistes in holie water, which they affirme to clense sinnes also. But it is, a per se, that Isychius addeth. Moreouer, extolling his glorie, and aduauncing the dignitie of this mysterie into an height, he addeth, it is the holie of holies of the Lordes sacrifices for a perpetuall lawe. Therefore prayer is holie, the reading of holie scripture is holie, and the hearing of the interpretation thereof: to be short, all things that are done and sayed in the Church of God, according to the lawe, are holie. But the holie of holies of the Lordes sacrifice, of all things that are offered and done to his glorie, is the table which Christ setteth forth of his owne sacrifice. Here is a great commendation of that mysticall Table, which Christ hath set forth of the sacrifice of his death, which no man doubteth to be moste holie in the right vse thereof, and in respect of him that feedeth vsus with his bodie and bloud at that table. But what is all this to the corporall and carnall presence? But M. Heskins woulde finde a contradiction in the wordes of Oecolampadius, in that he sayeth the bread is sanctified, and yet it hath no holinesse in it, whereas that holie man speaketh plainly and distinctly, that it is sanctified, and doth sanctifie, in the right vse of it, & not in the nature of it self.