Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 2 · Part 3
Hesk.The thirde Chapter proueth by the doctours, that the sixt of S. Iohn speaketh as well of the bread Christes fleshe in the sacrament, as of the bread his godhead.
Chrysostom is alledged in Ioan 6. Hom. 44. Iam in mysteriorum &c.Fulke. Nowe will he come to the setting forth of the mysteryes, and first of his godhead, he sayeth thus: I am the breade of life, this was not spoken of his bodie, of which about the ende he sayeth: The breade which I will giuegive is my flesh: but as yet of his godhead: for that is bread because of God the worde, euen as this bread, because of the spirite comming to it, is made heauenly breade. Maister Heskins asketh if we do not here plainely see a distinction of breades. I answere, no forsooth: but a distinction of two natures in one breade. Againe, he asketh: Doth not nowe the sixt of S. Iohn speake of the bodie of Christ in the Sacrament? I aunswere, that no such thing appeareth by these wordes of Chrysostome, otherwise then as the sacrament is a liuely representation of that his bodie, which he gaue for the life of the world. And that Chrysostome meaneth not to diuide Christe into two breades, as M. Heskins doth, he teacheth, speaking of the same mysterie of his coniunction with vsus by his fleshe Hom. 45. Vester ego frater esse volui, & communicaui carnem propter vos, & sanguinem, & per quae vobis coniunctus sum, ea rursus vobis exhibui. I would be your brother, and so I tooke parte of fleshe and bloud for you, and the same things I hauehave giuen you againe, by which I was ioyned vntounto you. So that not the godhead of Christ alone, nor his flesh alone is giuen vsus as two breades, but Christ by his flesh is ioyned vntounto vsus as one bread of life. Let vsus nowe see what S. Augustine sayeth, who expounding the same text writeth thus: Our Lorde determineth consequently howe he calleth him selfe bread, not onelyonly after his godhead which feedeth all things, but also after his humaine nature which is assumpted of the worde of God, when he sayeth afterwarde: And the bread which I will giuegive is my flesh, &c. Once againe M. Heskins asketh whether Augustine teach not a plaine difference of the bread of the Godhead of Christe, and the bread of his manhood? And once againe I aunswer, not so, but he teacheth directly the contratie, namely, Christe God and man to be one breade, and not two breades. And that the doctrine of this Chapter, is not to be restrained vntounto the sacrament, the same Augustine in the same place teacheth abundantly, while hee maketh no mention of the Lordes supper vntill he come to the ende, and then sheweth, that the mysterie of this fleshe and bloud is represented in the supper, when it is celebrated of the Church in remembrance of his death & passiō. Huius rei sacramentum, id est, vnitatis corporis & sanguinis Christi, alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Dominica mensa praeparatur, & de mensa Dominica sumitur quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicun que eius particeps fuerit. The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christ, in some places eueryevery day, in other some at certeine space of dayes betweene, is prepared in the Lordes table, and is taken at the Lordes table of some vntounto life, of some vntounto to destruction. But the thing it selfe, whose sacrament it is, to all men is to life, and to no man for destruction. whosoeuer shalbe partaker thereof. Note here also the distinction betweene the sacrament, and the thing wherof it is a sacrament, and that the sacrament may be receiued to destruction, but not the thing or matter of the sacrament, which is the bodie and bloud of Christ.
To these Barones he wil ioyne two Burgesses, and the first shalbe Theophylact, one of them which he sayeth is well towarde a thousand yeare olde. Hee woulde fayne get him credite by his antiquitie, but he ouer reacheth too farre, to make him so auncient, which cometh nerer to fiue hundred, then to a thousande yeares. But let vsus consider his speache in 6 Ioan. he writeth thus: Manifestè &c. He speaketh manifestly in this place of the communion of his bodie. For the bread (sayeth he) which I will giuegive is my flesh, which I wil giuegive for the life of the world. And shewing his power, that not as a seruant, nor as one lesse them his father, he should be crucified, but voluntarily, he sayeth: I will giuegive my flesh for the life of the world. Note (sayth M. Hesk.) that Christ spake manifestly of ye communion of his bodie. Who doubteth or denyeth that? but that he spake not of the communion of his bodie, which we receiue in the sacramēt. Note saye I, that Theophylact speaketh manifestly of his crucifying, and nor of the communion in the sacrament. After this, he interlaceth a fond excourse of the authoritie of the later writers, whome he affirmeth, and wee confesse to hauehave written plainly of his side, whereas hee sayeth, the olde writers did write obscurely: and then he taxeth Bullinger, for alledging Zwinglius, whome he slaundereth to hauehave beene slaine in a sedition raysed by him, where as the worlde, knoweth it was in warre, that was helde in defence of his countrie. The like foolish quarell he hath, for putting out of Polycarpus out of the Calender, & placing Thomas Hutten in his stood all which as vnworthie any aunswer, I passe ouer it is sufficiently knowen, what Bullinger esteemed of m…ns authoritie, & what Fox (if he meane him) iudged of the old Martyrs diuinitie. The other reasons following, I could scarse read wtout loathsomnesse, that preachers must ceasse if writers may not be receiued vnderunder 1000 yeres antiquitie & more, that speaking & writing are of like authority, and such like blockish stuffe. The elder writers are allowed, not for their age, but for their agreement with the worde of God, the later preachers are beleeued, not for yt their speaking is better then Papistes writing, but because they speake thinges consonant to the word of God, the touchstone and triall of trueth. And therefore we receiue not the testimonie of Nicholaus de Lyra the second Burgesse, because it is contrarie to the word of God, and the consent of the elder Doctours, that Christ speaketh of the sacrament, when he saith the bread which I will giuegive is my fleshe: which wordes Theophylacte, euen nowe affirmed to be spoken of the passion of Christ.