Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 17
The seuententh Chapter proceedeth vponupon the same text by the exposition of Chrysostome and S. Hierome.Hesk.
Chrysostome is cited as before vponupon this text In 1. Cor. 10. vponupon these wordes: The bread which we breake,Fulke. is it not the communication of the bodie of Christ? Quare non dixit participatio? Why said he not the participatiō? because he wold signifie somewhat more, for we do not communicate only in participation and receiuing, but in vnitie: for as that bodie is vnited to Christ, so are we by this bread ioyned together in an vnion. But why doth he adde: Which we breake? This may we see in the Eucharisty but in the crosse not so, but altogether contrariwise. There shall no bone of his be broken, (saith he) but that he suffred not in the crosse, he suffereth in the oblation and permitteth for thee to be broken. Here first he misliketh ye translation of the English Bible, that calleth it participation. A simple quarrel. I would see the Bible perfectly translated into English by the Papists. And yet the vulgar Popish Latine hath Participatio, & M. Heskins himselfe translateth it the partaking. But beside the communion whiche hee passeth ouer, M. Heskins gathereth his reall presence and sacrifice. I will adde none other place of Chrysostome, to explane his meaning, this is so manifest of it selfe against both. First whereas M. Heskins reasoneth for the reall presence of the communion, which is such with vsus & Christ, as is with Christ and his bodie, and that is substantially, and not spiritually: I answer he vtterly falsifieth Chrysostoms meaning, for he speaketh of our coniunction one with another, which is spiritually, & not of Christe with vsus: we communicate (saith he) in vnitie, that we might be ioyned one with an other in an vnion. Therefore M. Heskins argument holdeth not. Secondly, yt he speaketh of breaking of Christ in the sacrifice, is so manifest to be vnderstood spiritually, that it ouerthroweth, both the presence and the sacrifice: for Christ is not broken but spiritually: therefore he is not present but spiritually. M. Heskins …ombleth out the matter with a foolish caueat, yt though Christ suffer & be broken in ye sacrament, yet he suffreth no violence nor paine. But let him speake plainely, if he dare for his eares, that Christe is really and substantially broken, though wtout pain, for that breaking of his body, which Christ speaketh of in the institution of ye sacramēt was perfourmed really and substantially vponupon the crosse. Wherefore vponupon Chrysost. authoritie I will conclude against all ye Papistes in the world: Christ is so present in ye sacrament, yt he is broken therin, but he is not broken corporally but spiritually, therefore he is not present corporally, but spiritually. Beside this, it is to be noted in yt saying of Chrysost. that he compareth yt bodie, with this bread. As that bodie is vnited to Christ, so are we by this bread ioyned together in an vnitie or vnion. Hoc & il…ud be spoken of diuers things, else he wold hauehave said: so by the same body we are ioyned in an vnion, but he saith, by this bread, therfore the body is one thing, & this bread another thing in corporal substance. S. Hierom is cited 1. Cor. 10. Calix. benedictionis &c. The cup of blessing, &c. Therefore he named the cup first, that he might dispute more at large of the bread. Is it not the cōmunication of the bloud of Christ, as our sauiour himselfe saith? he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud abideth in me & I in him. Here is nothing but yt we do all confesse, sauing yt M. Hes. will denie the bread yt S. Hierome speaketh of, to al men, & ye cup to all lay men. The other place of Hierome yt he interlaceth after his maner, In Psal. 110. is answered before Lib. 1. Ca. 30. The third place followeth in Hierome immediatly after the first. Et panis quem frangimus nōne participatio corporis Domini est? Ita & panis idolatrie, daemonū participatio esse monstratur. And is not the bread which we breake a participation of the bodie of our Lord? Euen so also the bread of idolatrie is a participation of diuels. Here M.H. to mainteine his fond quarrel against the translation of the English Bible hath falsified S. Hier. & in steede of Participatio, set downe Cōmunicatio corporis, &c. a cōmunication of ye body, &c. The place it self is directly against M. Hesk. bil, because ye participation of ye Lords bodie is cōpared wt the participation of diuels, which cannot be a corporal maner of partaking. And it foloweth: Omnes quidē de vno pane, & de vno Calice participamus. Ita si cū idololatris de vno pane comedimus, vnū cūillis corpus efficimur. videte Israel secundū carnē. Carnalis Israel carnales hostias offerebat sicut spiritualis sacrificia spiritualia offert Christo. We al truly are partakers of one bread & of one cup, so if we eat of one bread wt idolaters, we are made one body with them. Behold Israel according to the fleshe. The carnal Israel did offer carnal sacrifices, euen as ye spiritual Israel doth offer spirituall sacrifices to Christe. In these wordes obserue, that we are so made one bodie, by partaking of one bread and cup, as by eating one bread with idolaters, which can not be after a corporall manner.
Secondly, that we offer not Christ in sacrifice, but offer spiritual sacrifice to Christ. Finally he saith vponupon ye same Chapter: Non potestis calicem Domini bibere, & calicem Daemoniorum. Non potestis Dei & Daemonum esse particip…s. You can not drinke of the cup of our Lorde and the cup of diuels: you can not be partakers of God and of Diuels. See nowe by S. Hieromes iudgement, yt to be partaker of the cup of the Lord, is to be partaker of God, & not of the bloud of Christ after a corporal, but after a spiritual maner. For if the bloud of Christ were conteined locally & substantially in the cup, & that wicked men might drink ye bloud of Christ, (as Papistes holde) then a man might be partaker both of the cup of the Lord, & of the cup of diuels, yea of the bodie of ye Lord, & of the table of diuels, which Saint Paul doth so expresly denie. As touching his bald reason of the sacrifice, it is answered before, and out of Hierome euen now, and his real presence being taken away, it passeth away with it.