Reader
Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues · William Fulke

Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 2 · Part 20 – Part 21

Hesk.The twentieth Chapter proceedeth vponupon the same text by Saint Hilarie, and Euthymius.

Hilarius is cited Lib. 8. de Trinitat. Que scripta sunt, &c. Let vsus reade those thinges that be written, Fulke.and let vsus vnderstande those things that we shall read, & then shal we performe the dutie of perfect faith. Such thinges as we learne of the naturall trueth of Christ in vsus, except we learne of him, we learne foolishly and vngodly. For he him selfe saith: my flesh is meat in deed, & my bloud is drinke in deede. He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abideth in me and I in him. There is no place left to doubt of the trueth of his flesh and bloud. For now by the profession of our Lord himselfe it is verily fleshe and verily bloud. And this beeing taken and dronken, bring this to passe, that Christ is in vsus, and we in Christ. Out of these wordes he noteth three thinges. The first, that the text is spoken of the sacrament conteyning the bodie and bloud of Christe, of the veritie whereof there should be no doubt: The second is the corporall receiuing of Christ in the sacrament: The third is, that thereby Christ is in vsus and we in him. To the first note, this text is none otherwise spoken of the sacramēt, as we hauehave often shewed, then as the sacrament is a seale of this eating and drinking of Christes fleshe and bloud which is also without the sacrament. And that we should not doubt of the trueth of his fleshe and bloud, it is true, we confesse he hath true flesh & true bloud, & with the same doeth feede vsus, but that this flesh and bloud is conteined in the sacrament, Hillarie saith not, but Heskins. Neither doeth he speake of any corporall receiuing of Christe in the sacrament, which is the second note, but seeing he dwelleth in all them that receiue him (which is the thirde note) there is no place for the corporal receiuing, which the Papists confesse to be common to the wicked, in whome Christ dwelleth not, nor they in him.

But to proue the corporall receiuing, he hath another place out of the same booke. Si enim verè, &c. For if the WORDE was verily made flesh, and we doe truely eate the worde made flesh in the Lordes meate, how is he not to be thought to abide naturally in vsus, which being borne a man hath taken vponupon him the nature of our flesh now inseparable, & hath admixed the nature of his flesh, vntounto the nature of eternitie, vnderunder the sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated vntounto vsus. This with him is a plaine place, and much adoe he maketh about this worde, naturally, by which he meaneth nothing else but truly, for otherwise M. Heskins (if he be in his right wittes) wil confesse, that the abiding of Christe in vsus, is not naturall nor after a naturall manner, but spirituall, and after a Diuine manner. And although he spake plain ynough of the participation of his flesh vnderunder a sacramēt, yet more euidently in the same booke in these wordes. Si verè igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit, & verè homo ille, qui ex Maria natus fuit, Christus est, nos que verè sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus, & per hoc vnum erimus, quia Pater in eo est, & ille in nobis, quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur, cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit vnitatis.

If therefore Christe did verily take vponupon him the flesh of our bodie, & that man, which was borne of Marie, was verily Christ, and we doe verily receiue the fleshe of his body vnderunder a mysterie, and thereby shall be one, because the Father is in him and he in vsus, howe is the vnitie of will affirmed, when the naturall propertie by a sacrament is a sacrament of perfect vnitie. Here he saith we do verily eate the flesh of his bodie: but if you aske how? He aunswereth vnderunder a mysterie, as before he said vnderunder a sacrament. Therfore to take that absolutely (as M. Heskins doth) which of him is spoken but after a certeine manner as vnderunder a sacrament, or a mysterie, is a grosse abusing both of the authour and of the readers.

Euthymius is cited In Ioan. Caro mea, &c. My fleshe is meate in deede. It is true meate: or moste conuenient meate, as which nourisheth the soule, which is the moste proper part of man. And likewise of the bloud: or else he saide this, confirming, that he spake not obscurely or parabolically.

I maruel what Maister Heskins gayneth by this place. Forsooth yt this is no figuratiue speech, but a plain speech, signifying none otherwise then the wordes sound. Well, yet we must not cast away that which Euthymius saide in ye beginning of the sentence, that it is a meate to nourish the soule, and not for the bodie to receiue, neither receiued, but where it nourisheth the soule. And that ouerthroweth the corporall manner of eating.

Hesk.The one and twentieth Chapter continueth the same exposition by Chrysostome and Lyra.

Fulk.Chrysostome is cited Hom. 46. in Ioan. The same wordes almoste that were before ascribed to Euthymius, who borrowed them of Chrysostome. Quid autem, &c. But what meaneth this saying: my fleshe is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in deede? Either that he is the true meate, whiche saueth the soule: or that he might confirme them in that he said before, least they should thinke he spake darkely in parables. If this be spoken of the fleshe of Christe in the sacrament, then none receiue the flesh of Christ in the sacrament, but they whose soules are saued, but many receiue the sacrament, whose soules are not saued, therefore this is not spoken of the fleshe of Christ in the sacrament. Ye, but are ye aduised yt this is a plaine place for M, Iewel, that these words: My fleshe is meate in deede, and my bloud is drinke in is no figuratiue speeche? Let it be as plaine as you will, it must be meate in deede, and drinke in deede to feede our soules, and that must needes be spiritually, for our soules cannot eate carnally. As for Lyra a late Popishe writer, I hauehave often protested, that I will not stay vponupon his authoritie, let him be on M. Heskins side.