Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 2 · Part 58 – Part 65
Hesk.The eigth and fiftieth Chapter endeth the exposition among the eldest Fathers by Euthymius and Isidorus.
Fulk.Although neither of these writers are within the compasse of the challenge, yet bicause Euthymius vseth much to followe auncient Doctours, and Isidorus was neere the time of the challenge, I will set downe their places and examine their wordes. Euthymius is cyted In 26. Math. Sicut vetus testamentum &c. Euen as the olde Testament had sacrifices and bloud: so hath the newe, namely the body and bloud of our Lorde. Nowe he did not say: These are the signes of my body and my bloud: but these thinges be my body and bloud. Therefore we must not looke to the nature of those things that are set foorth, but to the vertue of them. For as he did supernaturally deifie (if I may so speake) his assumpted flesh: so doth he also vnspeakably transmute these thinges into the same his quickening body, and into his precious bloud, and into the grace of them. And the bread hath a certaine similitude vntounto the body, and wine to bloud. For both the bread and body are earthly: but the wine and the bloud are airie and hote. And as bread doth comfort, so the body of Christe doth the same and much more, it sanctifieth both the body and the soule. And as the wine doth make glad: so the bloud of Christ doth the same, and moreouer is made a defence. Although the chiefest partes of this place are answered in the 17. Chapter of the first booke, and in the 51. Chap. of this second booke: yet as M. Hes. gathereth here two other matters, so I wil make answere to them. First he saith, That the figuratiue glose of the sacramētaries is flatly denied: But by what words I pray you▪ Marrie where he saith: Christ saide not these be signes of my body and bloud, but these are my body and bloud, if this be a flat deniall of a figure, bicause Christe saide not so, then is it likewise in these speaches, he saide not the rocke was a signe of Christe, but the rocke was Christe, the Lambe is the Passeouer &c. Euthymius meaneth not to exclude all figures from the saying of Christ, but to shew that the sacrament is not a bare, naked, and vaine signe, but a true signe of the very body and bloud of Christe, giuen to the faythfull in the administration of the supper.
The second matter that Maister Heskins noteth, is, of the vnspeakable transmutation, and that must needes bee meant of transubstantiation of the breade and wine into the naturall bodie and bloud of Christe, by this reason: there be foure thinges called the bodie of Christ. 1. The figure. 2. The Church. 3. The merite, fruite, or vertue of his passion. 4. And his bodie naturall, but it can not be into the figure, nor into the Churche, Nor into the spirituall bodie of Christe, I meane the merite, vertue, and grace of Christes passion, Ergo it must needes be spoken of the naturall bodie of Christ. But vouchsafe (gentle Reader) to runne ouer once againe these wordes of Euthymius, which in Latine are these. Ita & hec ineffabiliter transmuta… in ipsum vinific… corpus, & in ipsius pręciosum sanguinem si…on, & in gratiam ipso …: Euen so he doth vnspeakably transmute and change thes… thinges into the same his quickening bodie, and into his owne precious bloud, and into the grace of them. Now tell me whether M. Heskins doth flatly denie, that which Euthymius doeth flatly affirme, that the bread and wine are chaunged into the grace of the bodie and bloud of Christ? By whiche words he doth sufficiently expound, what kind of change he meaneth of them into the bodie and bloud of Christ, not a corporall but a spirituall transmutation. To the rest of the sentence which is a good exposition of the former parte, shewing both the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament, and for what cause they are vsed to represent the bodie and bloud of Christe, namely, for the similitude they hauehave vntounto the bodie and bloud of Christ: Maister Heskins sayeth nothing. But let the reader weigh it well, and he shall see it cleane contrarie both to transubstantiation, and the carnall presence.
Nowe we come to Isodorus, whom he confesseth to be somewhat out of the compasse of the challenge, and his wordes De Offi. Eccle. Lib. 18. are these. Sacrificium, &c. The sacrifice that is offered of the Christians vntounto God, Christe our God and Maister did first institute, when he commended to his Apostles his bodie and his bloud before he was betrayed, as it is read in the Gospel: Iesus tooke bread and the cuppe and blessing them gaue vntounto them.
In this place is nothing for the carnall presence, but that Isydore calleth the sacrament the bodie and bloud of Christ, which we also do, and acknowledg to be so rightly called. And Maister Heskins can conclude nothing but vponupon a negatiue, he saith not he gaue a figure, so may I conclude, he saith not he gaue his naturall body, and no figure. After this he reasoneth as fondely of Christes blessing of the bread, which although the Euangelistes do expound to be giuing of thanks, yet admit blessing to signifie consecration, and what hath he gayned? Forsooth Christ wold not hauehave blessed it to make but a figure: still he playeth the foole with that bable, but a figure, onelyonly a figure, a bare figure, which we vtterly doe forsake. But toward the ende of the Chapter, he falleth to gathering his voyces, and affirmeth that none of the olde fathers cal the sacrament a figure, except Tertullian onelyonly, wherein he lyeth impudently, for beside Ambrose, and Augustine, which both vse the very worde figure, we hauehave shewed in due places, that both they & in a manner al the rest of the fathers, hauehave either written plainely against the carnall presence, or else nothing for it. As for his last challenge, that all the protestants must bring forth when any countrie did professe the same religion that is now preached, is vaine: and hath beene sufficiently aunswered in other treatises. It is certein, that all nations yt were conuerted by the Apostles, before they were corrupted by heresie and Antechristianitie, professed the same religion that we doe. As for the alterations in King Henries time, King Edwardes, and the Queenes Maiesties, that now is, it is easie to answere. King Henrie began the worke, whiche King Edwarde finished, and the Queene repayred and vpholdeth in spight of the diuel and the Pope. As for the consent and peace of the Popishe Church, it proueth nothing, but that the diuell had then all thinges at his will, and therefore might sleepe on both sides, but now hee is disturbed of possession of the house, nowe he stormeth, and of Robin good fellowe, which he was in the Popishe time, is become playne Sathan the Diuell.
Hesk.The nine & fiftieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of the same text by the fathers of the latter days, & first Damascen, & Haymo.
Fulke.Before M. Heskins begin his pretended exposition, he chargeth Luther, to be a proude contemner of the fathers, who reuerenced them as much as it was meet they should be reuerenced, although he preferred one authoritie of scripture, before a thou…nd Cyprians & Augustines. Next to Luther, he rayleth on the bishop of Sarum, whō he calleth the proclaymer, charging him with mocking of the holie fathers, whereof some he saith be saintes in heauen, what the rest be he doth not determine, he meaneth Siluester, Isodore, Innocentius, Betram, Durand, Holcot Dunce, &c. Which if they hauehave written any thing that is ridiculous, in defence of Poperie, it were better men should laugh at their follie, then be still deceiued with their errours. But whereas M. Hesk. will set a player on a stage, and a boy in the Pa…is to answere the Bishop, I weene it be more then the reuerend M. Doctor Heskins reuested in Doctoralibus and inthronized in his Doctours chayer, dare well take vponupon him to doe. That whiche followeth in this Chapter, is consumed in cyting and vrging of the forenamed wryters, whose authoritie we doe not admitte, appealing alwayes from the lower house of punys Burgesses, to the higher house of auncient Barons.
Hesk.The sixtieth Chapter proceedeth in exposition of the same text by Theophylacte and Paschasius.
Fulke.Although we might demurre vponupon the vnderstanding of those wordes of Theophylact, In 14. Matth. That the bread & wine are transelementated into the vertue of his flesh & bloud: yet considering the corrupt time in which he liued, his authoritie is not worth the striuing for. And whereas Maister Heskins would make him so say no more then the olde fathers, Hilar. Iren. Cyril. Chrysost. &c. Seeing we hauehave already considered their testimonies, it were superfluous to repeate them againe in this place, and as often, as it pleaseth Maister Heskins to abuse their names.
The one and sixtieth Chapter continueth in the exposition of the same wordes by Oecumenius and Anselmus.Hesk.
Oecumenius saith litle to the purpose, too or fro. But Anselmus goeth more roundly to ye matter,Fulke. as one yt was ye scholler of Lanfrācus, which wrote against Berengarius. Neuerthelesse vponupon these wordes of his, riseth some other matter: Neque eminet. For we do neither altogether exclude a figure frō this sacrament, nor admit an only figure. This place M. Hesk. would hauehave to expound Tertullians figure, but we hauehave shewed before, it will not serue. VntoUnto this he addeth Augustine, cited in the Popes decrees, but not to be found in his workes in these wordes. The bodie of Christ is both the trueth and a figure: The trueth whyle the bodie and bloud of Christ in the vertue of the holie Ghost is made of the substance of bread and wine: but that is the figure which is outwardly perceiued. De cons. Dist. 2. Cap vtrum. When these wordes are found in any worke of S. Augustines, we will make aunswere to them, otherwise we may not receiue them of the onelyonly credit of the Popes law. Vnlesse they hauehave such meaning as the saying of Hilarius B. of Rome which followeth. Corpus Christi, &c. The bodie of Christ which is takē at the altar is a figure, whyle the bread & wine are seene outwardly, and a truth, while the bodie and bloud of Christ inwardly are beleeued. It seemeth to me this saying to be playne ynough, that the sacrament is an outward figure of the bodie and bloud of Christ, which is inwardly receiued spiritually by faith. As Gratian also reporteth the wordes of the same Hilarie. De Cons. Dist. 2. Vbi pars est. Non enim est quantitas visibilis in hoc aestimanda mysterio, sed virtus sacramenti spiritualis. The visible quantitie is not to be regarded in this mysterie, but the spirituall vertue of the sacrament. But M. Heskins proceedeth, and by Anselmus authoritie he will auoide the trifling sophysticall argument, made by Maister Pilkinton in the open disputation holden in Cambridge.
By like Maister Heskins had not learned the solution at that time, and therefore nowe he sendeth it ouer the sea to him. The argument was this: Christe tooke bread, he blessed bread, he brake bread, wherfore he gaue bread to his disciples: if he gaue bread, then not his bodie. M. Heskins saith, he so vseth the words, as though by the actes which the verbes expresse, nothing had beene done. Yes M. Heskins he chaunged the vse, but not the substance. But by the like sophisme (saith Maister Heskins, he might proue that he gaue no sacrament of his bodie. For that he deliuered which he tooke, but he tooke bread, no sacrament: therfore he deliuered bread, no sacrament.
But by his patience, this sophisme of his, is nothing like Maister Pilkintons argument. For in one proposition, he speaketh of the substance, in the other of another qualitie or affection beside the substance, as in this example: that which you bought in the shambles you hauehave eaten, but you bought cowe fleshe, therefore you hauehave eaten caulfes fleshe. Euerie childe seeth this followeth not. But if I speake of the substance in both alike, it followeth as thus. That which you bought in the market, you hauehave eaten, but you bought mutton, therfore you hauehave eaten mutton. VponUpon the premises graunted, this argument followeth of necessitie, and such is the argument of Maister Pilkinton, which all the Papistes in Louayne can not answere.
Hesk.The t…o and sixtieth Chapter abideth in the exposition of the same wordes by Rupertus, and Nicholaus Methonen.
Fulke.In this whole Chapter is nothing worth the reading, and much lesse the aunswering, for he doeth nothing but cite and vrge the sayings of these two late writers, of whose authoritie he knoweth we make none account, as there is no reason why we should, they being members of the Popish Church. For the auncient writers whome he nameth, their sayinges hauehave beene already weyghed and aunswered.
The three and sixtieth Chapter, taryeth in the exposition of the same wordes by Innocentius & Germanus.Hesk.
The authoritie of Pope Innocent the third, which called the Laterane Counsell,Fulk. in which transubstantiation was first decreede, must needes be of great credite with vsus. But Germanus, bishop of Constantinople, the Popes sworne enimie, I marueile why hee is ioyned with the Pope. For that he saith, is small to M. Heskins purpose, and therefore he helpeth him out with Damascen: yet he confesseth his saying subiect to cauilling. For where he writeth, that in the sacrament, Dominus & conspicitur &c. Our Lorde is both seene and suffereth him selfe to be touched, by the fe…full and holy mysteries, &c. and so sayeth Chrysostome, thou seest him, thou touchest him, thou eatest him, &c.
Maister Heskins sayeth we reason (and so wee maye in deede) that we eat him, as we see him, which is onelyonly by faith: But M. Heskins with profound Logike, wil aunswere this argument, that a thing is sayde to bee seene, when the outwarde formes are seene: and so Christe is seene, when the formes of bread and wine are seene. But by his fauour, a thing is seene: when the proper formes & accidents thereof are seene, but the forme or accidents of bread and wine are not the proper formes of Christes bodie, therefore Christes bodie is not seene by them, no more then I see a man, when I see the house wherein he is, or then I see a knife, when I see the close case or sheath wherein it is. And the words of Germanus can abyde no such boyish sophisme, for hee sayeth: Christ is seene by the fearefull and holie mysteries, but neyther bread nor wine by M. Heskins confession, & much lesse the accidēts of them are fearfull & holie mysteries, therfore the whole sacrament is so called, by which Christ is seene, & touched, and eaten, but with the eye, hand, and mouth, of faith.
The foure and sixtieth Chapter, sheweth the exposition of Petrue Çluniacensis & Bessarion vponupon the same,Hesk.
In this Chapter, beside the sayings of this Dan Peter of Clunye & Bessarion, which for a Cardinals hatt in the counsell of Florence, forsooke the vnitie of the Greeke church, he maketh a short repetition of all the authors names & sayings, whom he hath cited vpō this text: This is my bodie, which because I hauehave aunswered at large, it were needelesse to recapitulate in this place. I trust the indifferent reader will confesse, that not one of the highher house hath giuen a cleare voyce on his syde, but all are most cleare against him.
Hesk.The fiue and sixtieth Chapter, treateth of the bread, blessed, and giuen by Christ to the two disciples in Emaus, and proueth by Theophyl…st & Bed…, that it was the sacrament,
It shalbe easily graunted him, that not only these two whome he nameth of late time,Fulk. but also diuerse of the auncient doctours, are of opinion, that Christ did giuegive ye sacrament at Emaus, but yet it followeth not, that it was so. For no certeine circumstance of Scripture, can leade vsus or them so to thinke. Beda in 24. Luke writeth thus: …erti mysterij causae, &c. It came to passe for the cause of a certein mysterie, that another shape shoulde bee shewed to them in him, and so they should not know him but in the breaking of bred▪ left any man should say, that he hath knowen Christ, if he bee no… partaker of his bodie, that is to say, of his Church, whose vnitie, the Apostle commendeth at the sacrament of the bread, saying: one bread, we many, are one bodie, that when he reached to them the blessed bread, their eyes were opened, that they might know him. This place indeed sheweth, yt Beda his opinion was, that ye sacrament was there giuen, but either for transubstantiation, or the real presence, or for the communion in one kinde, he sayth nothing. For the English church in his time knewe none of all these monsters.