Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 27 – Part 29
The seuen and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vponupon the same text, by Euthym. and Hugo.Hesk.
Concerning the antiquitie of Euthymius,Fulke. I hauehave often testified before, that he is no Lorde of the higher house. Notwithstanding, bicause he borroweth most of his matter of the elder writers, I will set downe his wordes which make nothing for M. Heskins purpose. In Math. 6. Quemadmod…m &c. As breade do…h comfort, so the body of Christ doth the same and more also: it sanctifieth both the body and the soule. And as wine doth make glad, so the bloud of Christe doth the same, and moreouer is made a defence. And if all we that are faithfull doe partake of one body and bloud, we are all one by the participation of these mysteries, both all in Christe, and Christe in us all. He that eateth (saith he) my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, abideth in me, and I in him. For the word… truely by assumption is vnited to the flesh: and this flesh again is vnited to vsus by participation. This place seemeth to M. Heskins to be very plaine, and so thinke I: for there is nothing in it but I graunt to bee true, being rightly vnderstoode. M. Heskins saith, he expoundeth the breade and the cuppe, to be the body and bloud of Christ, or else the text were cleerer then the exposition, in which fantasie he pleaseth him selfe exceedingly. We graunt, that the breade and cup in S. Paule, signifie the body and bloud of Christe, which we receiue in the sacrament, after a spirituall and diuine manner. Thirdly he noteth, that we are vnited by participation into the flesh of Christe, which he saith we deny, but hee lieth impudently, for we constantly affirme, that except we be partakers of the flesh and bloud of Christe, we can not be partakers of eternall life. But that this partaking is after a corporall manner, or only in the sacrament, that we deny. And that also doth Euthymius deny in effect, where he teacheth, that whereas we are vnited to Christe, & Christe to vsus, so are we vnited together. but this is after a spiritual & ineffable manner: so is the other. We graunt yt Cyril saith, we could not be partakers of eternal life except we were ioyned to ye body of natural or true life, that is, to the body of Christ, in Ioan. 6. li. 15. but we are ioyned otherwise then by ye Lords supper, or els no infants shuld be partakers of eternall life. Finally where M. Hes. affirmeth, yt the words of Euthymius by no engin▪ can be wrested from his carnal maner of presēce, bicause he speaketh before of the transmutation of the bread & wine into the body & bloud of Christ, I answere, he speaketh of no such transmutation, but yt we do graunt the same, namely a sacramental change, such as is of the water in baptisme, of which also he taketh a similitude. Siquidem in baptismo sensibilis quidem est aqua: sed donum intelligibile, est regeneratio. Quoniā enim in nobis anima cōserta est corpori, in sensibilibus intelligibilia tradidit nobis Deus. For in baptisme also, ye water truely is a sensible thing, but regeneratiō is an intelligible gift. For bicause our soule is inclosed in our body, God hath deliuered vntounto vsus intelligible things in sensible things. The water in baptisme is not chaunged into regeneration, nor regeneration included in the water: and speaking of the same transmutation, hee saith, the breade and wine are transmuted into the body and bloud of Christe, and into the grace of them. But the substance of ye bread & wine is not turned into the grace of the body and bloud, therfore neither into the body and bloud. And this is the great helpe he hath out of Euthymius. As for Cardinall Hugh, I will not trouble ye reader with his saying, whose authoritie I vtterly refuse. In the latter end of this Chap. as he vseth to deale, when he hath such single witnesses in hand, he patcheth in a piece or two of his old stuffe, serued before, as that of Dionyse, falsly called the Areopagite, Eccle. Hierach. 1. part. cap. 3 answered before. Li. 1. Ca. 35. That of Ambrose de mysterijs initiandis Cap. 9. lib. 2. cap. 10. & ser. 2. and else where oftentimes. He nameth also Irenaeus Lib. 5. aduers. haer. but he setteth not downe his wordes.
The eight and twentieth Chapter proceedeth vponupon the same text by Oecumenius and Anselmus.Hesk.
In the beginning of this Chapter, he glorieth vainly of the multitude of writers of his side,Fulk. but then they must be such as he nameth in ye title that is, late writers, although Oecumenius hath nothing yt maketh strongly for him, & the place yt is here alledged in 1. Cor. 10. is in a maner the very words of Chry. which we had euen now in ye cap. 24. Vnus panis &c. We are one bread & one body. For we are al partakers of one breade. He addeth a reason howe we are made the body of Christe. For what is the bread (saith he)? forsooth the body of Christe. And what are they made which partake it? Surely the body of Christe. For that maketh vsus also partakers of the body of Christe. For one breade, is Christe. For of many graines (as for example we may speake) one breade is made, and we being many partaking of that one, are made one body of Christe: For bicause our olde flesh is corrupted vnderunder sinne, we had neede of a newe flesh.
I had not thought to hauehave noted Maister Heskins falsification in this place, translating Corpus nempe Christi, Verily the body of Christe, but that hee would delude the ignoraunt reader afterwarde, and say, if it bee verily the body of Christe, it is not figuratiuely his body, as though nempe were the same that verè or propriè. But herein I will leaue him to children in the Grammer schoole to be derided, and boyes that neuer read three leaues of Aristotles Logike in the Vniuersities. The like follie hee sheweth in preuenting our aunswere, that Oecumenius speaketh of the mysticall body of Christe, bycause hee speaketh first of the breade that wee receiue, and after of vsus that receiue it. But doeth hee not say, wee are made the same body, that wee receiue? Wherefore I will thus inferre, wee are made the same body that wee receiue, but wee are not made the same naturall body corporally, therefore we receiue not the same natural body corporally.
Nowe let Maister Heskins make as much as hee can of Oecumenius authoritie, and ray…e as long as hee list against the disagreement of Luther, Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius, they shall bee found to agree better where they most disagree, then the Pope and al his cleargie agree with Christ and the trueth, when they all agree to persecute and oppresse. And as concerning these properties of a true Prieste, that hee gathereth out of Malachie, the lawe of trueth in their mouth, peace and equitie in their wayes, and conuersion of men from iniquitie, notwithstanding Maister Heskins slanderous pen, shal be found in them and in al the true preachers of our church in the iudgment of Christ, when the Pope and his Popish shauelings shal be condemned of false doctrine, crueltie, & abhominable life in them selues, and teaching the doctrine of licentiousnesse vntounto others, I meane the doctrine of merites, satisfactions, purgatorie, pardoning, and such like. The authoritie of Anselme a professed enimie of Berengarius I resigne to M. Hes. with ten thousand such as he is, not comparable in credite with one of the higher house, who only are me…te to determine this controuersie of the manner of Christes presence in the sacrament.
The nine and twentieth Chapter treateth of the same text by Theophylact and Dionyse, and endeth with Remigius.Hesk.
The last couple, saith M. Heskins, make vp a ful Iewrie,Fulke. to passe for life and death, but we may lawfully chalenge the aray, being enpanelled by M. Heskins a partial shirif, and also we hauehave excepted against many of the Iewrors, and now do except against both these, namely Theophylact of Bulgarie, as a late writer and an heretique, and Dionyse of the Charterhouse, as one of the feeid and fed seruants of ye Pope. Although Theophylact being reasonably expounded, according to his owne sayings in other places, saith nothing directly against vsus. But in default of these, here is a third man taken, belike de circunstantibus, & that is Remigius, whome M. Heskins to make him a lawfull Iewrie man, affirmeth to hauehave liued Anno Dom. 511. and so within the compasse of ye challenge. But if he deale so, wee must hauehave a writ against him de identitate nominis. For as we finde that there was in deede one Remigius bishop of Remes about that time, so likewise we finde that the authour of this commentarie in 1. Cor. 10. was bishop Antisiodocensis almost 400. yeres after, namely about the yere of Christ. 894. Notwithstanding, bicause his words are almost the same which are before ascribed to Hierom Cap. 17. I will not spare to set them downe. Calix benedictionis &c. The cup of blessing which we blesse, is it not the communication of the bloud of Christe? Therefore he named the cup first, because he would afterward treate more at large of the bread. It is called the cup of blessing which is blessed of the priestes in the altar, & the cuppe it selfe is called a communication as it were a participation, because all do communicate of it, and receiue parte of the Lordes bloud which it conteineth in it. And the bread whiche we breake in the altar, is it not the participation of the Lordes body? Surely it is first consecrated and blessed of the priests, and of the holie Ghost, and afterward is broken, when as now although bread be seene, in trueth it is the bodie of Christ▪ Of which bread whosoeuer do communicate they doe eate the bodie of Christ. Because we being many, which eate that bread, are one bread, (vnderstand of Christ,) and one bodie of Christ. Maister Heskins noteth that the cup conteyneth the bloud of Christ, which speech may be allowed, because the cup conteineth the wine, which is the bloud of Christ after a certeine manner, as S. Augustine saith. Secondly that though it seem bread, yet indeed is ye body of Christ, he saith Lices panis videatur, Though bread be seene, yet Christ his bodie is present, after a spirituall and incomprehensible manner. But M. Heskins wil note, that all men did drinke the bloud of Christe out of the cup. And that he saith, the bread is broken, when it is the bodie of Christe, by which wordes he denyeth transubstantiation, as in the former, the communion vnderunder one kinde. Finally in affirming vsus that eate that bread, to be the same bodie of Christ which we do eate: he doth clearly ouerthrowe the carnall manner of eating Christes body in the sacrament, as he doeth establish the spirituall manner of coniunction, that we hauehave with the bodie and bloud of Christ.