Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 18 – Part 22
Hesk.The eighteenth Chapter proceedeth in the exposition of the same text by S. Augustine, and Damascen.
Fulke.He citeth S. Augustine Contra Inimic. Leg. & prophet. naming neither what booke nor Chapter, to cloake his shamefull corruption, and falsification. For in the very middes he leaueth out a sentence or two, beside that, he cutteth off the later parte, which doth clearely open Saint Augustines mind, & thus he citeth it: Nol… vos socies Daemorum, &c. I will not that ye be made fellowes of Diuels. He did truely forbid them from idolatrie. For the which thing he would declare to them, that they should euen so be made fellowes of diuels, if they did eate Idolathytes of the sacrifice, as the carnall Israel whiche did eate of the sacrifices in the Temple▪ was fellow of the altar. By occasion of that he began, that he would say this: wherefore my most beloued flye from the honouring of Idols. Afterward following he sheweth to what sacrifice they ought to appertein: saying, I speak as vntounto wise men, iudge what I say, is not the cup of blessing which we blesse a communication of the bloud of Christ? and is not the bread which we breake a communication of the bodie of our Lord? In this saying, after the worde, altar, he hath gelded out thus much: Ideo quippe addidit carnaliter, vel secundùm carnem, quia est Israel spiritualiter vel secundùm spiritum, qui veteres vmbras iam non sequitur, sed eam consequentem quae his vmbris praecedentibus significata est, veritatem. For therfore he added carnally or after ye flesh, because there is a Israel spiritually or according to the spirite, which doth not now followe the olde shadowes but the trueth following, which was signified by those shadowes. All this is left out of the very middest. From the end he cutteth of these wordes following. Quia vnus panis & vnum corpus multi sumus: omnes enim de vno pane participamus. Et propter hoc subiunxit, videte Israel secundùm carnem, nonne qui de sacrificijs manducant, socij sunt altaris? vt intelligerent ita se iam socios esse corporis Christi quemadmodum illi socij sunt altaris. Because there is one bread, and we beeing many are one bodie, for we are all partakers of one bread. And for this cause he added: Behold Israel according to the flesh, are not they which eate of the sacrifices fellowes or partakers of the altar? That they might vnderstand, that they are now so fellowes or partakers of the bodie of Christe, as those are partakers of the altar. What can be saide more playne, for the spirituall manner of participation of the bodie of Christe? Except M. Heskins will say, that the Iewes were really, corporally, and substantially partakers of the altar. And this is conteined in the first booke & Cap. 19. And wheras M. Hesk. iangleth of the sacrifice mentioned in this place, heare what sacrifice it may be, by Augustines owne wordes in the 18. Chapter of the same booke. Sed nec laudibus nostris eget, &c. But neither hath he need of our prayses, but as it is profitable for vsus and not for him, that we offer sacrifice to God, and because the bloud of Christe is shed for vsus in that singular and onelyonly true sacrifice, therefore in those first times God commanded the sacrifices of immaculate beastes to be offered vntounto him, to prophecie this sacrifice by such significations: that as they were imaculate from faults of their bodies, so he should be hoped to be offered for vsus, who alone was immaculate frō sins. Here the sacrifice of death is ye singular sacrifice, & the only true sacrifice propitiatorie of the Church, otherwise for the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing, or for the sacrament to be called vnproperly a sacrifice of the auncient fathers, I hauehave often confessed before. As for Damascenes authoritie, li. 4. Ca. 14. it is not worth the aunswering, being a late writer, more then 100. yeares out of the compasse, and full of grosse absurdities, and in the place by M. Hesk. alledged, denyeth that Basill calleth breade & wine foreign, or exemplaria, exemplaries of the bodie and bloud of Christ after the consecration, which is an impudent lye: for before the consecration they are no sacraments, and so no exemplars of the bodie and bloud of Christe: therefore if he called them exemplars, it must needs be when they are sacraments, & yt is after consecration: but such lippes such lettyce, he is a sufficient author for M. Heskins, and yet hee is directly against transubstantiation. For he saith: cum sit mos hominum edere panem & bibere vinum, ijs rebus adiunxit suam diuinitatem: whereas it is the manner of men to eate beead and drinke wine, hee hath ioyned his diuinitie to these things. In these words he acknowledgeth the bread and wine to remaine in the sacrament, & the diuinitie of Christ to bee ioyned to them.
Hesk.The nynteenth Chapter continueth the exposition of the same text, by Isidore & Oecumenius.
Fulk.M. Hesk. hath many friends in the lower house, as hee hath neuer a one in the vpper house that fauoureth his bil: Yet Isidorus saith litle for him, but rather against him. He citeth him, lib. 1. offic. Cap. 18. Panis, &c. The bread which we breake, is the bodie of Christ, which sayth I am the bread of life, which came downe from heauen, and the wine is his bloud, and this is it that is written, I am the true vine. M. Hesk. saith truely, that Isidore is the rather to be credited, because he alledgeth the scripture: and therefore, according to these two textes of scripture, he must be vnderstoode, but neither of both these texts, is to be vnderstood litterally, but figuratiuely: therefore his saying: the breade is the bodie, and the wine is his bloud, must be vnderstood figuratiuely, & not litterally, which M. Heskins perceiuing, would help him out by foysting in a place of Cyrillus in Ioan. Annon conuenienter, &c May it not be conueniently sayde, that his humanitie is the vine & we the branches, because wee be all of the same nature? For the vine & the branches be of the same nature: So both spiritually & corporally wee are the braunches and Christ is the vine. In these wordes Cyrill reasoneth against an Arrian, as is more at large declared in ye sixth Chapter of this third booke, yt would interpret this place only of the diuinitie of Christe, to make him lesse then his father, as the vine is subiect to the husbandman. But Cyrill contendeth, yt it may well be vnderstoode also of his humanitie, because we are not onelyonly ioyned to the diuinitie of Christ, but also to his flesh, which is testifyed vntounto vsus by the sacrament, wherin we are spiritually fedd with the verie bodie & bloud of Christe, and so Christe is the vine both spiritually & corporally, that is both after his godhead & after his manhod. But Cyrillus would neuer denie that this saying: I am the true vine, is a figuratiue speach, which is the matter in controuersie betweene M. Hesk. and vsus.
Oecumenius is alledged to as litle purpose as Isidorus, in 1. Cor. 10. Poculum vocat, &c. He calleth the cupp of the bloud of Christ, the cupp of blessing which we blesse, which hauing in our hands, we blesse him which hath giuen vsus his bloude. Here is neuer a worde, but I will willingly subscribe vntounto it, & yet M. Hesk. sayth, it is a common manner of speache, that the vessel is named by the thing that it conteineth, hee dare not say, it is a figuratiue speach, lest while he would hauehave the bloud of Christ locally conteined in the cupp, he might be pressed with the figure in the worde bloud, which he cannot denye, though he dissemble in the word cupp. In the end he braggeth of an euident and stronger sentence of these writers, which when it commeth, wee shal examine it, in the meane time, they hauehave no voyce in the vpper house, and therefore we feare not greatly what they say.
Hesk.The twelfth Chapter proceedeth vponupon the same text by Haime & Theophylact.
It were losse of time, to quarrell about the testimonies of these two burgesses of the lower house.Fulk. Maister Heskins sayeth, that there wanteth nothing in Theophylact, that is necessarie for a credible witnesse. At least, he should hauehave excepted, that he defended an heresie of the proceeding of the holie Ghost, against the churche of Rome in 3. Ioan. As for his antiquitie, which hee maketh to be before the controuersie was moued by Berengarius, although it were so, yet it were none argument of his trueth. But it seemeth, hee was much about the time of Berengarius Anno. 1049. Neither doth Peter Martyr, whome Maister Heskins rayleth vppon, so much esteeme his authoritie, that he would wrest it to his side, more then the verie words of Theophylact would beare, as the learned that read his workes can testifie.
Hesk.The one and twentieth Chapter, proceedeth yet vppon the same text by Anselmus & Bruno.
Fulk.Let M. Hesk. make the moste of those burgesses, the bill will passe neuer the sooner, though all the lower house allowed it, so long as it cannot be receiued into the higher house. The latter ende conteineth a vaine repetition of Cyprian and Prospers sayings so often aunswered before, with a foolishe insultation against the proclaimer, as though he sawe not these doctors, as well as M. Heskins, who (I beleeue) neuer opened halfe the bookes of them, whose sayings he hath alledged, he hath cited the most of them so corruptly, not onelyonly falsifying them, to serue his turne, but also, when there was no aduantage for him, in his corruption.
Hesk.The two and twentieth Chapter, endeth the exposition of this text, by Dionyse & Gagneius.
Two worshipfull burgesses, vntounto whome hee addeth Bishop Fisher for the thirde,Fulke. after he hath made a shorte rehearsall of all those writers, whose authoritie he hath vsed, & abused, to mainteine this his exposition.