Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 24 – Part 25
Hesk.The 24. Chapter proceedeth vponupon the same text by Chrysostom and S. Augustine.
Fulk.Chrysostome vponupon this place is cited thus: Quoniam vnus panis & vnum corpus, &c. For there is one bread & wee being many are one bodie. For what do I call (saith he) a commemoration? wee are the selfe same bodie. What is the breade? the bodie of CHRIST, and what are they made which receiue it? the body of Christ, not many bodies but one body. For as the breade is made one of many cornes, so that the cornes do not appeare, and yet there are cornes, but ioyned together, so that they can not be discerned: so are we ioyned one with an other, and with Christ. For thou art not nourished of one body, and he of an other▪ but all of the same, therefore he added all we, which doe partake of the same bread. Of these wordes Maister Heskins wil hauehave vsus to learne three things. First, that communication is to be all of one body, which is true, so wee vnderstand a spirituall kinde of coniunction, by which wee are not only ioyned to Christ, as Chrysostome saith, but also one to an other in one body. Secondly, that it is the body of Christ, by the eating whereof we are made one body, and this also is true, for we contend not for the eating of Christes body, but for the manner of eating.
The third note I thinke hee maketh, that by Chrysostomes iudgement Saint Paule meant not materiall breade, but the body of Christe, which is proued to bee false and absurde by these two reasons. First, if Saint Chrysostome by breade meant not the sacramentall breade, but the body of Christe, then his question is nothing else in effect, but what is the body of Christe? And then he answereth, the body of Christe, which is very absurde and ridiculous. Secondly, that he meaneth materiall breade vsed in the sacrament, it is manifest in that hee saith, it is made of many graines, but the body of Christe it not made of graines, therefore hee can not meane the body of Christe, but the sacramentall breade, which signifieth the body of Christe. But here Maister Heskins, as though hee were the first that espied the matter insulteth vponupon him that translateth this part of Chrysostome, which was Franciscus Aretinus, whom either of ignorāce or of malice, he chargeth to hauehave falsified Chrysostome, and in steede of his wordes which according to the Greeke are, What is the bread? to hauehave turned it, What doth the bread signifie? For my part, although the Greeke copies cōmonly extant in print, are not as he hath translated it, yet I suppose, yt he followed either some other copy that I hauehave not seene, peraduenture printed, peraduentur… written. For vndoutedly, although he were ignorantly or willfully deceiued, yet the sense of Chrysostomes words must needes be: what doth the bread signifie? which M. Heskins can not altogether dissemble, but then he will hauehave it not materiall bread, but the word, bread. But how friuolous that is, I hauehave shewed before, for this worde, Breade, is not made of cornes, but the materiall bread giuen in the sacrament. Neither doth the other worde hee citeth, any thing helpe him. Non enim simpliciter &c. For hee hath not simplie giuen his body, but when the former nature of the flesh formed out of the earth, by sinne being made mortall, was forsaken of life, he brought in an other (as I might so say) lumpe or leauen, that is, his flesh, in nature truely the same, but free from sinne and ful of life, which he giueth to all, that they might be made partakers of it, that being nourished with it, and the first that was dead being cast away, we might be ioyned together by this liuing & immortall table. Loe (saith M. Heskins) this is not a peece of dead breade, but a liuing and immortall meate, hee dare not say, table, as Chrysostome doth, for feare of a figure. But is he so blinde, that he seeth not the partaking and nourishing of the newe flesh to be such, as the casting away of the olde is? which no man doubteth to be spirituall. But seeing he braggeth so much of Chrysostome, and is such an enimie to signes and figures, let him heare what he writeth in Math. Hom. 83. Sed ficut in veteri, eodem h…c modo in beneficio reliquit memoriam mysteriorum colligendo & hinc haereticorum ora frenando. Nam quando dicunt vnde patet immolatum Christum fuisse, & alia multa mysteriae? Haec enim adferentes, eorum ora consuimus. Si enim mortuus Iesus non est, cuius symbolum ac signum hoc sacrificium est? Vides quancum ei studium fuerit, vt semper memoria tentamus pro nobis ipsum mortuum fuisse. But as in the olde Paschal▪ euen likewise here in this benefite hee hath left the memorie of the mysteries, by gathering, and hereof bridling the mouthes of heretikes. For when they say, howe is it knowne that Christ was sacrificed, and many other mysteries? For when we bring foorth those things, we soe vp their mouthes. For if Iesus be not dead, of whom is this sacrifice a token and signe? Thou seest howe great care he had, that we might alwayes keepe in remembrance, that he dyed for vsus.
There can nothing be spoken more plainly, to declare either what the sacrament is, or for what end it was ordained, or finally, what manner of sacrifice it is accounted of Chrysostome, and the auncient Fathers. But nowe followeth S. Augustine Ser. 2. Pasc. Quia Christus passus est &c. Bicause Christ hath suffered for vsus, he hath commended vntounto vsus his body and his bloud in this sacrament: which also he hath made our owne selues. For we also are made his body, and by his mercy we are that which we receiue. I like this saying very well, it maketh altogether for the truth on our side. Yet M. Heskins noteth, that he saith not, he hath commended a figure or memoriall, but his body and his bloud. I agree well, but hee saith, that hee hath commended his body and bloud in a sacrament, hee doth not say, the sacrament is his naturall body present vnderunder the formes of bread and wine corporally, that I may followe M. Heskins negatiue argument. But especially let vsus note what he saith, and not what hee saith not. He saith, we are the same that we receiue, but we are not his naturall body after a corporall manner, therfore wee receiue not his naturall body after a corporall manner. The rest that followeth to moue vsus to abide in this body of Christ, confirmeth the same. Dic mihi quid est &c. Tell me what is it whereof thou liuest? Doth thy spirite liue by thy body, or thy body by thy spirite? EueryEvery one that liueth aunswereth: I liue by my spirite. And he that can not answere this, I knowe not whether he liueth. What answereth eueryevery one that liueth? My body truely liueth by my spirite. Wilt thou therefore liue by the spirite of Christ? Be thou in the body of Christ. For whether doth my body liue of thy spirite? Mine liueth of my spirit, and thine liueth of thy spirit. The bodie of Christ can not liue but by the spirit of Christ. Hereof it is, that the Apostle Paul expounding this bread: One bread (saith he) we are one body. All men see, that this writer speaketh of our mysticall and spirituall coniunction with Christe, neither can M. Heskins him selfe make any other thing of it.
Hesk.The fiue and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vponupon the same text by Damascene and Haimo.
Maister Heskins store is farre spent, and therefore he maketh much of the remnants.Fulke. Damascene and Haimo we hauehave before diuers times excepted against, as vnlawful witnesses, and therefore we will spend no time in examining their sayings. But whereas Maister Heskins, maketh great ado in this Chapter of our coniunction with Christ, both in soule and body, we knowe it, and doe reioyce in it, but for any thing that he saith, or all the Papistes in the world, it is not necessarie, that Christs body should be eaten with our mouth after a corporall manner, that we may hauehave coniunction with his body. For then infants which eate not the sacrament, should want a necessarie manner of the coniunction of their bodies with the body of Christe, and so be out of hope of resurrection. The places of Cyrill that hee citeth in 6. Ioan. Cap. 14. be cited before, the one Lib. 2. Cap. 17. the other Lib. 2. Cap. 34. where they are answered. Then followeth a discourse to proue that communion or fellowship ought not to be had with heretiques, which is very true, and therefore not to bee had with Papistes, the greatest heretiques that are. After the saying of Haimo rehearsed, hee is angrie with vsus, that we will reiect his authoritie, being as he saith, neare a thousand yeares of age, but surely in some Chronicles that I hauehave read he is an English man, generall or prouinciall of Friers preachers, and I am sure there was neuer a Dominike Frier in the world one thousand yeares after Christe, and they that make him oldest, make him to be 840. yeares since Christ. The parcell of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 24. wherevnto he would compare his Haimo, is rehearsed more at large Lib. 1. Cap. 18. and that of Cyrill Cap. 15. in 6. Ioan.