Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 2 · Part 42
The two and fourtieth Chapter, beginneth the exposition of the wordes of Christe, after the Catholike manner, with certein proues of the same.Hesk.
First,Fulk. he setteth downe the sayings of the three Euangelistes, Mathew, Marke, and Luke, and of the Apostle Paule, in which they describe the institution of the sacrament: of which he sayeth, not one maketh any mention of tropes, figures, or significations, wherein hee vseth a shamelesse kinde of Sophistrie: for although they name no tropes, or figures, or signification, yet by the Papistes owne confession, Saint Luke, & S. Paule, vse manifest tropes, figures, and significations, namely, where they say: This cupp is the newe testament in my bloud. First, it is a trope or figure, to saye, the cupp, for that which is conteined in the cup, vnlesse they will say, that the cupp, of what metall or matter so euer it was, was likewise transubstantiated into the bloud of Christe.
Likewise, where he sayeth: this cuppe is the newe testament or couenant, he must either acknowledge a signification, this cuppe signifieth the newe testament, or else he must make the newe testament to be nothing else but a cuppe.
Finally, where he sayeth, this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud, except hee acknowledge a trope or figure, he will vtterly denye that, which is in the cup, to be the bloud of Christe.
And out of all controuersie, this manner of speache vsed by Saint Luke and Saint Paule, is a manifest interpretation of the wordes vsed by S. Mathewe, and Saint Marke, this is my bloud, which are all one in sence and meaning, and teache vsus howe the wordes spoken of the breade are to be interpreted, this is my bodie, this is the newe testament in my bloude, which is as much to saye, this is a seale, and confirmation of the newe couenaunt, (which is remission of sinnes) purchased by the breaking of my bodie, and the shedding of my bloud for you. This breade and this cuppe receiued of you, shall assure you, that you are truely incorporated into my bodie, & so made partakers of eternall life. This interpretation hath in it nothing farre fetched, or strange, from ye words of Christ, & ye vsuall maner of speaking in the scripture.
But nowe M. Heskins will proue, that the wordes of Christ are to be vnderstanded without trope or figure, by the slaunders of the Infidels, which defamed ye Christians in the primitiue Church, for eating the fleshe of men and of children, as appeareth in Euseb. lib. 5 Cap. 2. & 3. in the storie of Blandina and Attalus martyrs: when they did eate the flesh of Christ. But none of them, neither in Eusebius, nor yet Iustine, Origen, Tertullian, or any other that hauehave written Apollogies, defended the Christians, by the commaundement of Christ, to eat his bodie, but vtterly denyed and derided the slaunder, that they were sayde, to eat the fleshe of men or children, as they did other slaunders, which had no ground nor similitude of trueth, as that they worshipped an Asses head, yt they companyed together in the dark like brute beastes, and such like: whereas, if they had eaten the naturall fleshe of Christ, as the Papists teache, they woulde neither hauehave simply denyed ye eating of a mans flesh, nor yet hauehave spared to shewe, how it was eaten vnderunder the formes of bread & wine, to auoide all crueltie and lothsomnes. As for the legend of S. Andrewes passion, which M. Heskins sayeth was written per Presbyteros & diaconos Achaie, is of as good credit, as ye booke of Beuis of Hampton, ye like I say of ye fable of Amphilochius a newe found olde writer: concerning the Iewe, that sawe a childe diuided when the sacrament was broken. The Legend and festiuall hauehave many such miracles. But why did he not see a man diuided, seeing Christe is not nowe a childe, but a man? Belike the authours of those miracles thought, that if they feigned him to be a little child like Tom Thumb, their miracles should be more credited, that such a one should be conteined in their cake, rather then a tall man of perfect stature. O impudent asses! But it proueth wel the reall presence (saith M. Hes.) that Auerrois a Philosopher saith: I hauehave walked ouer the world, I hauehave found diuers sectes, and yet hauehave I found none so foolish a sect. is is the sect of the Christians. For they deuour with their teeth their God whome they worship. Hereof it is easie to perceiue (saith he) that ye fame was, that they did receiue and eate Christ, whom they honoured. But herein M. Hes. bewrayeth either his falshood, or his ignoraunce. For hee speaketh as though Auerrois were an ancient Philosopher, that liued in the dayes of the primitiue Church, whereas he was a Spanish Mahometist, or rather Athist, not past three or foure hundreth yeres ago, when Poperie was in ye greatest pride, and Idolatrie couered the face of the earth. His saying therfore proueth nothing, but how great an offēce ye popish Idolatrie did giuegive to ye Heathen, Turkes, and Iewes. And whereas Iustinus in his Apollogie to the Emperour, declareth whatsoeuer was done in the assemblies of the Christians, he well dischargeth them of all slaunders that were raised against them, but defendeth not the corporall eating of mans flesh by the commaundement of Christ, although he confesse that they receiued that breade not as common bread, nor as common drinke: but as their flesh and bloud was nourirished by that foode, so they were persuaded that it was the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ for the spiritual foode of their soules.
As for the curse that Rupertus threatneth to them that adde vntounto the word of God▪ pertaineth not to them yt giuegive the true sense of the word of God, whether it be in more wordes or fewer. And whereas Rupertus saith these words of Christ, I am a vine, and this is my body, be no like speaches: I confesse, they are not in eueryevery respect, bicause in the one he did institute a sacramēt, in the other he taught as by a similitude, the true end, vse, and signification of the sacrament. Yet are they not altogether vnlike, bicause they are both figuratiue, and so iudged and compared together by the auncient Fathers. But Rupertus will proue by two reasons, that the latter is no figure. First, bicause in the former, there is a continuation of the Allegorie, which proueth it to be a figure, in the other there is none such. This is a fond reason, for both we hauehave shewed a continuation of the trope, where he saide, this cup is the newe Testament, and although there were none, yet that can not exclude a figure, no more then when baptisme is called regeneration, when the lamb is called the Passeouer, which be sacramentall speaches and such like, where no continuation of the figure followeth. The other reason of Rupertus, M. Heskins diuideth into two parts. The first is, to note the enunciation of both scriptures, for he doth not take a braunch of a vine, and say, I am this vine, or this vine is my body, but he saith of the bread, this is my body. A strong reason: he saith (as signanter) by a certaine demonstration of substaunce, and speaking of the same sacrament, That rocke was Christe, and in the time when it was a sacrament, it was and might be truely said, pointing to the rocke, this is Christ, and to the water issuing out of it, this is the bloud of Christ, and so no doubt, Christ spake by his spiri…e in the consciences of the faithfull. The second part of Rupertus reason is, that ye wordes which followe, which is giuen for you, &c. can not be applied to the figure, therefore the sense of that place is proper, and not figuratiue. But contrariwise, these wordes can not be applied to the sacrament, therefore the speach is not proper but figuratiue, and shewe howe the breade and the cup are the body and bloud of Christe, namely, as his body is broken and his bloud shed for vsus, for the vertue of the sacrament standeth in his passion, by which his body and bloud offered in sacrifice for our sinnes, are made a spirituall foode of our soules. The conference that Rupertus maketh betweene the words of Christ, and the wordes of the serpent, I passe ouer, as containing no argument in them for the proofe of M. Heskins bill, but onelyonly shewing the corrupt iudgement of the authour, whose reasons I am content to weigh, but I esteeme not his authoritie, as being a late prop of the Popish church.