Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 2 · Part 67
Hesk.The seuen and sixtieth Chapter, proueth by the scripture…, and practises in the last Chapter handled, that the Communion vnderunder one kinde is lawfull and good.
Fulk.It aunswereth to one parte of the challenge (he saith) to proue, that the communion was ministred within 600 yeres after Christe in one kinde onelyonly. And this he will do verie easily. For he beginneth with Christ himselfe, whome moste impudently and blasphemously, he affirmeth to hauehave ministred the Communion in one kinde onelyonly, to the disciples at Emaus. First, although diuerse of the olde writers are of opinion, and yet wthout asseueration, that Christe there gaue the sacrament, yet none of them is so bolde, to gather any such diuision of the sacrament out of that place. Secondly, notwithstanding their opinion, it is most probable, that hee neuer ministred the sacrament after his first institution thereof, not onelyonly, because there is no mention thereof, but because he gaue that as the last pledge of his presence with them, immediatly before he departed from them. And although after his resurrection hee appeared to them at sundrie times, by the space of fourtie dayes, eating and drinking with them, to shewe the certeintie of his resurrection, speaking of the kingdome of God: yet is there no worde of celebrating of the sacrament with them. And it is altogether vnlikely, that he would giuegive ye sacrament, the comfort of his absence, at his first returne againe to them, and that he woulde celebrate the same to two disciples, and not to the whole number of his Apostles, who had as great neede to be confirmed in faith, as those two.
Finally, if euer he had repeated the vse of ye sacrament, it is moste probable, he woulde hauehave done it immediatly before his assention, but then he did not (which S. Luke, who sheweth that storie exactly, would not hauehave omitted) therefore there is no likelihood, that he did it before. But admitt that he did then minister the communion, doth it followe because bread is onelyonly named, therefore the cuppe was not giuen? But Maister Heskins woulde hauehave it proued, that the figure Synechdoche is here vsed, that is, part named for the whole. For profe, the institution of Christe, and practise of the church, for more then a thousand yeres after Christ, may serue a reasonable man.
Also the vsuall phrase of the scripture, which by bread meaneth whatsoeuer is ioyned with it to be receiued: as Math. 15. & Mark. 7. The disciples are accused for eating bread with vnwashed handes, &c. shall wee here exclude meat and drinke, because bread is onelyonly named? Also, Marke the 3. they had no leysure to eat breade: & Luke 14. Christe came into the house of the Pharizee to eate bread. And Iohn. 6. You seeke mee not because you hauehave seene the signes, but because you hauehave eaten of ye breade and are satisfied. And 2. Cor. 9. He that giueth seede to the sower, shall minister bread for foode. And 2. Thess. 3. wee hauehave not eaten our breade freely. And in the same Chapter, the disordered persons are exhorted, to labour and eat their owne bread.
In all these places and a great number more, breade onelyonly is named, in which it were mere madnesse to affirme, that only bread is spoken of, & not meat or drink. So the whole supper of Christ cōsisting of bread & wine, for the outwarde or earthly parte: vnderunder the name of breade, the cuppe also is comprehended. Wherefore the practise of Christ is not contrarie to his institution, as M. Heskins most arrogantly, wickedly, and vnlearnedly affirmeth. The second reason he vseth is, that the institution perteineth onelyonly to priestes, because Christ did then minister it onelyonly to priests. But first, that is not proued nor like to be true: for, seeing our Sauiour Christe did minister the communion in the house of one of his disciples, with whom he did eat the passeouer, it is not like that he excluded him from the sacrament of the new testament, with whome he was partaker of the sacrament of the olde testament. For proofe that both he and his familie were partakers of the Passouer with him, it is manifest, that it was not possible for thirteene persons to eate vp a whole sheepe and other meat also at one meale. For it was a sheepe of a yeare olde, although it were a verie small one, and must be eaten with the head, feete & the purtenaunce, and nothing reserued vntounto the morrowe. But graunt that onelyonly the Apostles were partakers of the first institution by the same reason, yt the one part of the sacrament perteined to them only, the other parte also might be left to them onelyonly, and so the people should hauehave neither of both kindes, because onelyonly priestes had both kindes deliuered vntounto them.
Further he sayeth, the doctrine of Saint Paule is not sufficient to proue, that the sacrament ought to bee ministred in both kindes: for Saint Paule doth but onelyonly set foorth the institution without an exclusiue, excluding all other maners but this. O shamelesse dogge: is not the institution of Christe an exclusiue of all other manners? take example of baptisme, is it lawfull to baptise with any other lycour then water? into any other name, then the name of the Father, the Sonne▪ and the holy Ghost? yea, it is sayed in the Actes, that the Apostles baptised in the name of Iesus Christe: and yet no man will saye, yt they brake the institution of Christe, and baptised onelyonly in the name of Christe, excluding the father and the holy ghoste. Euen so it is sayde, they continued in breaking of breade, shall wee not vnderstande this after the institution, as well as the other? Againe, if the institution of Christ, had not heene an exclusiue of all other manners, howe doth the Apostle, by the institution of Christ, reproue another manner brought in by the Corinthians? Finally, when the holy Ghost by Saint Paule, commaundeth eueryevery Christian man and woman to trye themselues, and so not onelyonly to eate of that breade, but also to drinke of that cupp: what Lucifer is that, which wil oppose him selfe against the flatt commaundement of the holie ghost, 1. Cor. 11. and saye, the lay people shall not drinke of that cuppe, or may be without the cupp well ynough? But the doctrine of the Catholike church (as he sayeth) is, that the whole sacrament is in either of both kindes, the bloude is in the bodie, and the bodie in the bloud. But this is neither the doctrine of Christ, nor the doctrine of the church of Christ. For Christ to shewe, that he is a perfect nourishment vntounto vsus, which of necessitie consisteth of meate and drinke, and neither of both can be lacking, for the nourishment of our bodies: hath instituted his sacrament both in bread and drinke, to testifie vntounto vsus, that wee are perfectly fedd in him, and therefore hath deuided the sacrament into two signes, the one to signifie his bodie, as meate, the other to represent his bloud, as drinke: and therefore confounded be he, ye confoundeth these things, which his heauenly wisedome hath thus mercifully distinguished. Iustinus also a moste auncient writer of the church affirmeth, that the sacrament consisteth of a drye and moyst nourishment, in Dialog. Cum. Tryphone aduersus Iudęos.
And euen this verie diuision of the sacrament, sufficiently confuteth both transubstantiation & the carnal presence. For, if he had purposed to giuegive vsus his naturall bodie in the forme of bread, or otherwise in the bread, he would not hauehave deuided his bloud from his bodie. But euen hereby he taught vsus, that hee spake of an heauenly, mysticall, and spirituall manner of eating his bodie, and drinking his bloud by faith, and not of a swallowing or gulping in of the same at our mouth and our throte. But the cuppe (saith Maister Heskins) is the bodie of Christ, and howe is it consecrated? by these words, This is my bloud. Why? where is nowe the plaine wordes of scripture, where bloud is taken for a whole bodie? But seeing Christ sayth further, This is my bloud which is shed for you, and that bloud, which was shed for vsus, was separated from his bodie, therefore this bloud in ye cuppe is separated from his bodie. And in verie deede, the mysterie of the cuppe is sett forth, in that he sayeth, his bloud was shedd for vsus, and not as it remayned in the veynes of his bodie: for, not his bloud in his bodie, but the shedding of his bloud, hath washed our consciences from dead workes, to serue the liuing God. So the breaking of his bodie on the crosse, hath made it a spirituall meat for vsus to feede vppon, and therefore he saith: this is my bodie which is giuen for you. And so sayeth Hesychius verie well of the crosse, Quae etiam superimpositam Dominicam carnem esibilem hominibus reddit: nisi enim superimposita fuisset cruci, nos corpus Christi nequaquam mysticè perciperemus. The crosse maketh our Lordes fleshe layde vpō it eatable of men: for except it had been layde vpō the crosse, we should not receiue mystically the bodie of Christ in Leu. lib. 2. Cap. 6.
But M. Heskins by miserable detorting of a worde or two, woulde make the auncient fathers patrones of his monstrous sacriledge, as though they taught whole Christ to be vnderunder eche kinde, of which opinion, there is not one title to be found in all their workes. First, Cyprian de Cana Domini, Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem Domini mutatus, pro…urat vitam. This common bread being changed into the bodie and bloud of our Lorde, procureth life. But here Maister Heskins playeth his olde parte most impudently, falsifying the wordes of Cyprian, by adding Domini, and leauing out that which followeth, and maketh all out of doubt, that Cyprian speaketh not here of the sacramentall bread, but of common breade. His wordes are these: Panis iste communis in carnem & sanguinem mutatus, procurat vitam & incrementum corporibus, ideo que ex consueto rerum effectu fidei nostrae adiuta infirmitas, sensibili argumento edocta est, visibilibus sacramentis inesse vitae ęternae effectum, & non tam corporali, quàm spirituali transitione nos Christo vnitos. This common breade being chaunged into fleshe and bloud, procureth life and increase to our bodies: therefore the weakenesse of our faith being holpen by the accustomed effect of thinges, is taught by a sensible argument, that in the visible sacrament, is the effect of eternall life, and that wee are vnited to Christ, not so much by a bodily, as by a spirituall transition. You see therefore, howe shamefully hee abuseth Cyprian.
Who seeing hee was so vehement against them that vsed water onelyonly in the cuppe, would he (think you) allowe, that neither wine nor water shoulde be giuen? Especially, when hee giueth a generall rule, that the institution of Christe bee precisely obserued, and that nothing else is to be done concerning the cuppe, then that Christe him selfe did before vsus, lib. …. Ep. 3. Caecilio. But are Papistes ashamed of forgerie, to mainteine their false doctrine of transubstantiation?
After Cyprian, hee depraueth the wordes of Irenaeus lib. 5. Calicem qui est creatura suum corpus confirmauit. The cuppe which is a creature, he confirmed to be his bodie: but it followeth, which he craftely omitteth, Ex quo nostra auget corpora. Quando ergo & mixtus Calix & factus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis, & corporis Christi, &c. Of which hee doeth increase our bodies. When then the mixed cuppe and breade that is made, receiueth the worde of God, the Eucharistie or sacrament of the bodie and bloud of Christe is made.
Whether there bee eclipsis or synechdoche in the former wordes, thou mayst see plainly here, that hee meant not to exclude the bread, but that they both together make the sacrament. But Maister Heskins alledgeth further out of Irenaeus: Sanguis non est nisi a venis, & carnibus & reliqua quae est secundùm hominem substantia. Bloud is not but of vaines and fleshe, and other substance of man. By these wordes which he vseth to proue, that Christe had a true bodie, because he had bloud, M. Heskins like a wise man would proue that wheresoeuer bloud is, there must be fleshe, and vaines also, wherein all the pudding wiues of Louayne will holde against him. In deede, bloude commeth from vaynes and fleshe, (as Irenęus sayeth) but it doth not followe, that where bloud is, there must be vaines and fleshe. As for the saying of Bernarde, wee are as little moued withall, as M. Heskins with Melancthon, to whome in his brauerie, he sayeth vale, and will cleaue to the substantiall doctrine of the fathers for the communion in one kinde, of which he is not able to bring one. But to conclude this Chapter, If he be asked why Christe did institute the sacrament vnderunder both kindes, if it bee sufficient to receiue one: he aunswereth, to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion. But all Christian men ought to frequent the solemne memoriall of his death and passion, therefore he did institute it, for all Christian men to receiue vnderunder both kindes. And so S. Paule concludeth, as often as you eate of this bread, and drink of this cuppe, you shewe the Lordes death vntil he come. Wherefore the scripture is directly contrarie to the sacrilegious decree of the Papistes, of receiuing the sacrament in one kinde onelyonly.