Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 2 · Part 6 – Part 7
Hesk.The sixt Chapter proceedeth in the opening of the vnderstāding of the same text of S. Iohn, by Beda and Cyrillus.
Fulke.Although Beda our countriman were far out of ye compasse of 600. yeres, and so vnfitly matched with Cyrillus a Lord of the higher house, yet speaketh he nothing for ye corporal presence of Christes body in the sacrament, but directly against it, His words vponupon this text of Saint Iohn are these: Hunc panem Dominus dedit, &c. This bread our Lord gaue, when he deliuered the ministerie of his body and bloud vntounto his disciples, & when he offered him selfe to his father on the altar of the crosse. And where he saith, for the life of the world, we may not vnderstand it for the elementes, but for men that are signified by the name of the worlde. In these wordes Beda according to the custome of the olde writers, and the doctrine of the Church of Englande in his time, and long after, calleth the sacrament, the mysterie of the body & bloud of Christ, and not otherwise. Yet M. Heskins pythely doth gather, that as he calleth the flesh of Christ on the crosse, breade, and yet it is verie flesh; so the fleshe of Christ in the sacrament is called bread, & yet it is verie flesh. Alas, this is such a poore begginge of that in question, videlicet, that the fleshe of Christ is in the sacrament according to his grosse meaning, that I am ashamed to heare it. Why might he not rather reason thus? the fleshe of Christe on the crosse is called bread, and yet it is not naturally bread: euen so the bread of the sacrament is called flesh, & yet it is not naturall fleshe. It is plaine that breade, in that texte of Iohn is taken figuratiuely for spirituall foode, and so the flesh and bloud of Christ on the crosse is our food, and the same is communicated to our faith in the sacrament.
Cyrillus in 6. Ioan. by M. Heskins alledged, speaketh neuer a worde either of the sacrament, or of Christes corporall presence therein. Antiquus ille panis, &c. The old bread was onelyonly a figure, an image and a shadowe, neither did it giuegive to the corruptible bodie any thing, but a corruptible nutriment for a little time. But I am that liuing and quickening breade for euer. And the breade which I will giuegive is my fleshe, which I will giuegive for the life of the worlde. Thou seest howe by little and little, he more and more openeth him selfe, and doeth set foorth this wonderfull mysterie. Hee saide, hee was the liuing and quickening breade, which shoulde make the partakers of it without corruption, and giuegive them immortalitie. Nowe he saith his fleshe is that breade, which hee will giuegive for the life of the worlde, and by which hee will quicken vsus that are partakers of the same: for truely, the quickening nature of the WORD beeing ioyned to it by that vnspeakeable manner of vnion, maketh it quickening, and therefore this flesh doth quicken them that are partakers of it. For it casteth foorth death from them, and vtterly expelleth destruction. Maister Heskins alledgeth two reasons to proue that Cyrillus speaketh of the sacrament, and neither of both worth a strawe. First, bicause he calleth it a woonderfull mysterie, as though the incarnation of Christ whereof he speaketh expresly, were not a woonderfull mysterie. Secondly, By that he saith the flesh of Christe giueth life to the partakers. For the proper partaking of Christes flesh, is in the receiuing of this holy sacrament. As though we are not partakers of Christes flesh by faith, according to that saying of Augustine vponupon the same place, Vt quid paras dentes & ventrem? crede & manducasti. Why doest thou prepare thy teeth and thy bellie? Beleeue and thou hast eaten &c. you see it is a poore helpe that he hath out of Cyrillus, when hee speaketh neuer a woorde for his cause nor of his cause.
Hesk.The seuenth Chapter endeth the exposition of this text by Theophylact and Lyra.
A short aunswere shall serue this Chapter, these two Burgesses of the lower house being late writers, speake fauourably for Maister Heskins bill.Fulk. But their authoritie is so small, that wee make none account of their speach, seeing not onelyonly many in the lower house hauehave spoken against it, but all the whole vpper house is manifestly contrarie vntounto it. And whereas hee chargeth Oecolampadius for adding this worde tantùm, onelyonly, in his translation of Theophylact, I doubt not but Oecolampadius followed either a truer copie, or a better reason then Maister Heskins in so many additions, detractions, and falsifications of Doctors, which hee hath vsed in this worke. Finally, where he chargeth the aduersaries with cauilling and slaundering; when they say that Popish Priestes make God: he himselfe slaundereth his aduersaries, for we hauehave learned of their owne writers, & namely of S. Bonauentura, that a Priest is, creator sui creatori…, the creator of his creator, and that Christ is his prisoner on the altar.