Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 2 · Part 24 – Part 29
The foure and twentieth Chapter beginneth the ex-position of the next text in the sixt of S. Iohn by S. Hillarie & S. Augustine.Hesk.
The text is:Fulke. He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud abydeth in mee, and I in him. For vnderstanding of this text, he premiseth a destinction of two manners of abyding in Christ, that is spiritually and naturally: spiritually, by right faith and sincere charitie, as S. Cyrill doth teache, and naturally by receiuing of Christes fleshe, as S. Hillarie teacheth. This distinction not being made by any doctour, but deuised vponupon occasion of termes vsed by the doctours, to ouerthrowe the meaning of the doctours, he pleaseth him verie much therein. I hauehave shewed before, that Hillarie by the worde naturally, meaneth truelye, that as Christ is truely ioyned vntounto vsus by taking on him our fleshe, and we are truely ioyned to him, by eating & drinking his flesh, vnderunder a sacrament, and vnderunder a mysterie, (for both these termes of restreint he hath, to shewe the manner of our eating to be sacramentall and mysticall, not as M. Heskins would, carnall and naturall) so Christ is truely one with God, not in vnitie of will only, but in vnitie of Godhead, in substance of diuinitie, in essence of eternitie. But let vsus heare his owne wordes. lib. 8. de Trinit. Quod autem in eo, &c. But that we be in him, by the sacrament or mysterie of his fleshe and bloud, which is communicated vntounto vsus, he testifieth him selfe saying: And this world doth not nowe see mee, but you shall see mee for I liue, and ye also shall liue, because I am in my father, and you in mee, and I in you, &c. But that this vnitie in vsus is naturall, he hath witnessed saying: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, abideth in mee, & I in him. For there shall no man be in him, but in whome he shalbe, hauing onelyonly his assumpted flesh in him, who hath taken his. By this place out of which he would buyld his destinction of naturall and spirituall abyding, the same is manifestly ouerthrowne. For the drift of that distinction (as he confesseth) is to shewe, that Christe may abyde naturally, where he doth not abyde spiritually, as in the wicked. But the place of Hillarie is plain, that where this naturall vnitie is, Christe abydeth eternally: therefore this naturall vnitie, is not in the wicked. Thus, while Maister Heskins harpeth greedily vppon the terme naturally, for the naturall presence of Christes bodie, he looseth his distinction, and with all his naturall presence also. For if his bodie be not naturally receiued of the wicked, it is not naturally present in the sacrament, as all Papistes do confesse. And further, that this natural vnitie, is after a spirituall manner, it appeareth by the last wordes of the sentence. That he in whome Christ dwelleth, hath onelyonly the assumpted flesh of Christ in him. But this must needes be after a spirituall manner, as the holie and innocent fleshe of Christe is made oures, therefore this naturall vnitie he speaketh of, is not in that sense naturall, that Maister Heskins immagineth, but after a diuine and vnspeakable manner. For otherwise, Godly men hauehave fleshe of their owne, yea, and sinfull fleshe, which is not of the singular substance of the fleshe of Christe, though it be of the nature and kinde thereof, but corrupted with sinne, as his neuer was. Thus the shewe that Maister Heskins would make, by snatching at one worde misunderstoode, by a little diligence vsed in discussing the sentence, is turned altogether against him, both in shewe and purpose of the author. The other place he citeth, though he citeth it truncately, contrarie to his promise in his preface, I will cite it whole, as I did before in the 20. Chap. of this book. If the worde in deede be made flesh, and we do verily eat the word made fleshe, in the Lordes meate, howe is he not to be esteemed, to dwell naturally in vsus, which being borne a man, hath taken vppon him the nature of our fleshe nowe inseparable, and hath ioyned the nature of his fleshe vntounto the nature of aeternitie vnderunder a sacrament of his fleshe to be communicated to vsus. For so wee are all one, because the father is in Christ, and Christ is in vsus. Therefore, whosoeuer shall denye the father to be naturally in Christ, let him first denye, that either he is naturally in Christe, or Christ is in him. For the father being in Christ, and Christ in vsus, do make vsus to be one in them. Therefore if Christ did verily take vppon him the fleshe of our bodie, and that man which was borne of Marie is verely Christe, and we do verily receiue the fleshe of Christe vnderunder a mysterie, and by this, shalbe one, because the father is in him and he in vsus, how is the vnitie of will affirmed, when the naturall propertie by a sacrament, is the sacrament of perfect vnitie. In these wordes the fleshe of Christe is communicated vntounto vsus, but vnderunder a sacrament, wee eate the fleshe of his bodie, but vnderunder a mysterie: the naturall propertie by a sacrament, is a sacrament of perfecte vnitie.
And besides all this, marke, that this naturall vnitie is such, as thereby we are vnited to the father, and being vnited to the father by Christ, it must needes followe, that we are made partakers of eternitie, which no wicked men are, therefore wicked men receiue not Christ naturally nor spiritually, and so the distinction remaineth without a difference. But nowe we come to S. Augustine, of whome he borroweth the other parte of his distinction, Tract. 26. in Ioan. Deni que iam. Nowe at the last he expoundeth, how that may be done, which he speaketh, and what it is to eate his bodie and drinke his bloud. He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloude, abydeth in mee & I in him. This it is therefore to eat that meate, and to drinke that bloude, to abide in Christ, and to hauehave him abyding in him. And by this, hee that abideth not in Christ, and in whome Christe abydeth not, out of all doubt, neither eateth his fleshe spiritually, nor drinketh his his bloude, although carnally, and visibly he presse with his teeth sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christe. But rather hee eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his condemnation, because he being vncleane, presumed to come to the sacraments of Christe, which no man receiueth worthily, but hee which is cleane of whome it is sayed: blessed are the cleane of hart, for they shall see God.
S. Augustine in these words maketh a distinctiō of eating the sacrament of the bodie & bloud of Christ, & of eating the bodie and bloud of Christ: and not onelyonly of eating spiritually & eating carnally, shewing that spiritually the fleshe of Christ is eaten, carnally the sacrament, which were vaine, if bothe were one. And ye whole discourse of that treatise is against that carnall eating of the bodie and bloud of Christ, which M. Heskins himselfe confesseth to be vnprofitable, yea, damnable without the spirituall eating, whereas the spirituall eating, vndoubtedly causeth eternall life. But better to vphold this distinction of Christes naturall & spirituall abyding, he citeth a testimonie out of the 11. Sermon de verbis Dom. in Euangelio vnderunder the name of Augustine, which whether it be rightly intituled to him, I will not contende.
The wordes are these: Illud etiam, &c. This also that he sayeth: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud, abydeth in mee & I in him, how shall we vnderstand? Can wee take them here also, of whome the Apostle sayth, that they eate and drinke their owne damnation, when they eat that fleshe and drinke that bloude? Did Iudas also, the seller and vngodly betrayer of his maister, although he did eat and drinke that first sacrament of his flesh and his bloud made with his own hands, with the rest of the disciples, as Luke the Euangelist declareth more plainly, did he abyde in Christ, or Christ in him? Finally, many which either with fained heart do eat that fleshe and drinke that bloud, or when they hauehave eaten and dronken they become Apostataes, do they abyde in Christ or Christ in them? But truely there is a certeine manner of eating that fleshe and drinking that bloude, after which manner he that shall eate and drinke, abydeth in Christ, & Christ in him. We must receiue this authoritie, so that it may stande with all the rest of the vndoubted workes of Augustine, we must be as bold to distinguish the words, fleshe and bloud, as M. Heskins is the spirituall and naturall eating. By flesh and bloud aequiuocally, he vnderstandeth the sacrament of the flesh and bloud of Christe, as where he sayeth, that Iudas did eate the sacrament of his flesh and bloud, he doth him selfe declare. And then he distinguisheth of the manner of eating, for the sacrament, (as Augustine sayth) is eaten of both wicked and godly, but the matter of the sacrament, is not eaten but to eternall life. And that Iudas did not eate the breade that was the Lorde, as we alledged before, and Prosper in his collections out of Augustine plainly defineth: He that disagreeth from Christe, neither eateth his breade, not drinketh his bloud, although he dayly receiue the sacrament of so excellent a matter vntounto condemnation of his presumption. Wherefore, although we shoulde receiue this authoritie, yet it proueth not, that wicked men receiue the fleshe of Christ, but onelyonly the sacrament thereof, which is in some manner of speaking called the fleshe of Christ, as Augustine eueryevery where affirmeth. Finally, what a blasphemous absurditie is it, to say, that Christ dwelleth naturally in wicked men, in whome he is not spiritually, and that his flesh is there, where his quickening spirite doth not worke?
The fiue & twentieth Chapter, proceadeth in the exposition of the same, by Chrysostome & S. Gregorie.Hesk.
Chrysostome is cited Hom. 45. in Ioan. Qui manducat, Fulke.&c. He that eateth my fleshe & drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in mee & I in him, which he sayeth, that he may shewe him selfe to be ioyned vntounto him (M Heskins translateth, mingled) with him, And what this mingling is, he willeth vsus to remember, what this author sayeth in the same Homilye: that wee should not onelyonly by louelove, but in verie deede be turned into his fleshe, it is brought to passe by that meate which he hath giuen vntounto vsus. I will aske no better interpretation, for this must either be a spirituall and vnspeakeable manner of conuersion, or else it would be a monsterous and blasphemous transmutation of our flesh into the flesh of Christ, as I hauehave diuerse times before noted of this place. But what sayeth S. Gregorie? in Iob. Cap. 6. Natus Dominus, &c. Our Lorde being borne is layd in the manger, that it might be signified, that the holie beaster, which long vnderunder the lawe were founde fasting, should be filled with the haye of his incarnation. Being borne, he filled the manger, who gaue him selfe to be meate to mennes mindes, saying: he that eateth my fleshe, and drinketh my bloud, abydeth in me and I in him. What winneth M. Heskins by this place? it is the meate of the soule, therefore it must be spiritually receiued. Or if hee will not hauehave it onelyonly spiritually receiued, wherefore serueth the text alledged, which he affirmeth to be verified onelyonly in them that receiue spiritually? But we must heare further out of Gregorie in Hom. Pasc. Quid nam que , &c. For what the bloud of the lambe is, you hauehave not nowe learned by hearing, but by drinking, which it put vponupon bothe the postes, when it is not dronke onelyonly with the mouth of the bodie, but also with the mouth of the heart. What newes hauehave we here? forsooth, Christes bloud dronke with mouth of bodie, and mouth of heart. I heare him say the bloud of the Pascall lambe, which he sayth, doth figure the sacrament, is so dronke, but not the naturall bloud of Christ. Why then marke what he sayeth soone after: Qui sic, &c. Hee that so taketh the bloud of his redeemer, that he will not yet followe his passion, he hath put the bloud on the one post. In this allegorie, if he call the sacrament of Christes bloude, the redeemers bloud, as he calleth it, the bloud of the lambe, what great marueile is it, or what great matter is it? the whole speache being figuratiue, both allegoricall, and metonymicall.
Hesk.The sixe and twentieth Chapter, continueth this exposition by Saint Cyrill and Lyra.
Fulke.Cyrill is cited in Ioan. Cap. 15. Qui manducat, &c. Hee that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, abydeth in mee & I in him. Whereuppon it is to be considered, that not by disposition onelyonly, which is vnderstoode by charitie, Christ is in vsus, but also by a naturall participation. For, as if a man do so mingle waxe that is melted with fire, vntounto other waxe likewise melted, that one thing seeme to be made of them both: so by the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christe, he is in vsus, and wee in him. For this corruptible nature of our bodye coulde not otherwise bee brought to incorruptiblenesse and life, except the bodie of naturall life were ioyned to it.
By these wordes Cyrill teacheth, that wee are ioyned to the naturall fleshe of Christe, so that by participation thereof, wee are made one with him: but wicked men are not made one with Christe, nor partakers of incorruptiblenesse, therefore wicked men are not ioyned to Christe by that naturall participation he speaketh of, and consequently, Christe is not corporally receiued of them, nor of any other. Yet Maister Heskins noteth, as his manner is, a plaine place for Maister Iewell, when he saith, we do partake the naturall flesh & bloud of Christe. Which wee alwayes confesse, but wee partake it spiritually, by faith: and hauehave eternall life thereby: therefore wicked men partake it not, which want both the meane and the effect. Thus Cyrill beeing aunswered, wee force not vponupon Lyra. As for that which followeth in the Chapter, to shewe that by participation of Christes fleshe, wee are not deliuered from temporall death, but from eternall destruction, being no matter of question, I passe ouer as needelesse.
The seuen and twentieth Chapter, abydeth in the same exposition by Theophylact and Ruperius Tuicen.Hesk.
Although there is no greate matter in the speache of the two Burgesses, to helpe maister Heskins purpose,Fulk. yet because they are too young to beare witnesse in this cause, I will not trouble my selfe, nor my reader, either to rehearse them, or to make aunswere to them.
The eyght and twentieth Chapter, endeth the exposition of this text by Haimo & Euthymius.Hesk.
As for fryer Haimo, I leaue him to M. Hesk. although in the words cited by him,Fulk. he sayeth nothing greatly to his intent. But for as much as Euthymius Zigabonus▪ doeth often borrowe his expositions of the old doctours, though he him selfe be not so auncient a writer, I will rehearse his testimonie in Math. 26. Si de vno, &c. If all we that are faithfull do partake of one bodie and bloud, wee are all one, by the participation of these mysteries, and we are all in Christ, and Christ is in vsus all. He sayth, he that eateth my fleshe & drinketh my bloude, dwelleth in mee and I in him. For the WORDE by assumption was vnited to flesh, and againe, the flesh is vnited to vsus by participation. Here M. Heskins noteth a plaine proofe of the presence, against the proclaimer. How so? the naturall fleshe was vnited to the sonne of God, and the sonne is vnited to vsus by participation. What else? but this participation is by faith, and causeth vsus to bee one with Christe, and Christe in vsus all, and is not in the wicked, which thing Maister Heskins with a dry foote passeth ouer, as also in translation, he omitteth the word fideles, all wee that are faithfull, because he woulde hauehave the ignorant to thinke that the vnfaithfull do partake the same flesh, as truely as the faithfull.
Hesk.The nine and twentieth Chapter, expoundeth the next texte that followeth in the sixt of Saint Iohn, by Saint Augustine, and S. Cyrill.
Fulk.The text is this: As the liuing father sent mee, and I liue for the father, and he that eateth mee, shall liue also for mee, or by the meanes of mee: In exposition of this text, he will onelyonly declare by Saint Augustine: Howe Christ liueth by the father: which because it is no matter of controuersie betwixt vsus, I do altogether omitt, & come to Cyrillus, whose wordes concerning an… thing our question are these, for the rest, as impertinent, I passe ouer. Quemaedmodum ego factus, &c. As I am made man by the will of my father, and liue by the father: because I hauehave naturally flowed out of that life which is so of nature, & perfectly do keepe the nature of my father, so that I also am naturally life: euen so he that eateth my fleshe, shall liue for mee, being wholly reformed vntounto mee which am life, and am able to giuegive life. And he sayeth, that he him selfe is eaten, when his fleshe is …aten. Because the worde was made fleshe, not by confusion of natures, but by the unspeakable manner of vnion. Here Maister Heskins noteth, that Christe is eaten when his fleshe is eaten, as a man doth see when his eye, or rather his soule by the eye doth see, &c. For the godhead is not eaten, therefore it cannot be spiritually eaten, but verily. Still he maketh spirite and trueth contrarie, as though what soeuer were done spiritually, were not done verily. But he remembreth not that Cyrill sayeth, that he which eateth this fleshe, is wholy refourmed or fashioned anewe into Christe. Whereby hee doth not onelyonly exclude wicked men, but also teache a spirituall eating, as the reformation is spirituall. And as the worde was made fleshe by an vnspeakable vnion, so wee by eating that fleshe, are ioyned to him, by an vnspeakable vnion.
Finally, where Maister Heskins sayeth, that Christs fleshe cannot be verily eaten but in the sacrament, he excludeth all them from the benefites of his fleshe, which are not partakers of the sacrament, and so condemneth all children not come to yeares of discretion. O cruell transsubstantiation.