Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 3
The thirde Chapter expoundeth the residue of the texte: Et omnes candem escam spiritualem, &c.Hesk.
First he declareth that this one meate, whiche the Fathers did eate, was Manna,Fulke. and that hee proueth by the authoritie of Saint Chrysostome, and Saint Augustine, as his manner is to heape vppe testimonies of the Fathers, where no neede is of any proofe.
Secondly, he determineth wherefore it is called spirituall meate, and the water that flowed out of the rocke, spirituall drinke. Namely, because it was giuen vntounto them miraculously, and not naturally, and for none other cause, whiche is altogether vntrue: for as it hath beene prooued before, both out of the text, and confirmed by the iudgement of Saint Augustine, manna was called spirituall meate, because it fedde the faithfull, not onelyonly bodily, but also spiritually, with the bodie of CHRISTE, and the water with his bloud. But Maister Heskins seemeth to builde vponupon Chrysostomes authoritie, who in 1. Cor. 10. writeth thus. Quanuis, &c. Although those thinges that were giuen were perceiued by sense: yet they were giuen spiritually, not according to the nature of consequences, but according to the grace of the gifte. By these wordes Chrysostome meaneth, that although Manna and the water were sensible things, yet had they a spirituall signification and vertue giuen with them: for as they were not giuen by the ordinarie course of nature, but by speciall Diuine power: so they had more then a naturall propertie of nourishment, and were to be esteemed according to the speciall grace, by whiche they were giuen. But Maister Heskins will acknowledge nothing in this miracle of manna, but the feeding of their bodies, nor in the water of the rocke, but the quenching of their thirst, and seruing their bodily necessitie. In whiche grosse madnesse, hee maketh no difference betweene the faithfull, and their brute beastes, whose thirst and bodily necessitie, that water did satisfie, as muche as their Maisters.
So that if the water bee called spirituall drinke, only because it was miraculously giuen, this horrible absurditie will followe, that the cattell whiche dranke thereof, did also drinke of the spirituall rocke whiche followed them, which rocke was Christ: which euerie Christian man detesteth to heare. But contrariwise, seeing that water was a sacrament of the bloud of Christe, we may see no lesse then three heresies of the Papistes about the sacrament ouerthrowen thereby.
First, because all the people did drinke of the sacrament of Christes bloud, and not the Priestes onelyonly.
Secondly, that the elementes are no longer sacramentes, then they be in vse of ministration. For the water which was a sacrament of Christes bloud vntounto the Israelites, so often as they dranke of it, was no sacrament when they occupied it to other necessarie vses.
Thirdly, that bruite beastes, as Dogges, Apes, and myse, eating and drinking the bread and wine that hath beene consecrated to the vse of the sacrament, doe not eate and drinke the bodie and bloud of CHRISTE. For the bruite beastes did drinke of this water, which to the faithfull was consecrated in the right vse thereof, to be the bloud of CHRISTE. Yet did not the bruite beastes touche the sacrament of his bloud.
But Maister Heskins will hauehave vsus to note, That Saint Paule saith not, they dranke of that materiall rocke: but they dranke of a spirituall rocke which followed them, whiche spiritual rocke was Christe. And herevpon he condemneth Oecolampadius, for abusing Saint Paules wordes. The rocke was CHRISTE, to make it a figuratiue speache, whereas the saide proposition is to be vnderstoode grammatically or literally, and not tropically, or figuratiuely: And so is nothing like, to this proposition. This is my bodie. Peraduenture the Reader looketh for a newe transubstantiation, when hee heareth Maister Heskins exclude all tropes and figures from this saying, The rocke was Christe. But vouchsafe to heare his reason, and you shall more maruell at his monstruous impudencie. Because it is called a spirituall rocke, therefore there is no trope or figure in the speache.
But admitte that Saint Paule had no relation to the materiall rocke, out of which the waters did flowe, is this a proper and essentiall praedication to say, Christe is a spirituall rocke? will not all the Grammarians, Logicians, and Rhetoricians in the worlde throwe stones at him, that will so affirme? But all men endewed with reason will confesse, that Manna and the rocke are in one sense of Saint Paule, called spirituall: but the materiall manna was the spirituall meate, by Maister Heskins owne interpretation, therefore the materiall rocke was the spirituall rocke out of whiche flowed the spirituall drinke.
But Maister Heskins hath another reason, to proue that the material rock was not called the spiritual rocke, because the materiall rocke stoode still in the Wildernesse, but the spirituall rocke followed them. Although Saint Paule meane of the streames and riuers of water, which flowing out of the rocke, followed them all along their iourneys in the wildernesse: Yet if wee vnderstande it (as he doeth) of Christe who rather went before them then followed them, it proueth not, that the materiall rocke was not called the spirituall rocke. For in sacraments, that is spoken of the signe often times, which is proper to the thing signified, & wrought by them, as baptisme is called regeneration, the Pascall Lambe, the passing ouer, so the spirituall rocke followed them, and was Christe. But he woulde faine father his monstrous absurditie, vppon Chrysostome, 1. Cor. 10. Cum dixisset, &c. When he had sayed, that they dranke spirituall drinke, he added: For they dranke of the spirituall rocke which followed them, and ioyned to it, and that rocke was Christ. For not of the nature of the rocke (sayeth he) flowed out the water, for then it would hauehave flowed out before that time, but a certeine other spirituall rocke, wrought all things, that is Christ, which being present eueryevery where, did all the miracles, therefore he sayde following them.
In these wordes, Chrysostome putteth a difference betweene the signe, and the thing signified, that is, the materiall rocke, and Christe whome because it represented, it was called a spirituall rocke, as Manna being a corporall foode, was called spirituall meate, because it represented Christes flesh, which is the spirituall meat of our mindes. Otherwise, that the materiall rocke was not called the spirituall rocke, Chrysostome sayeth not. But Saint Augustine, as wee hauehave shewed before, affirmeth plainly, that which Maister Heskins denyeth impudently.
Proceeding in his confutation of Oecolampadius his principle, that figures bear the names of things, of which they be figures, as the fierie tongues, the Doue, and the breathing of Christe vppon his Apostles, of the holie Ghoste, and Iohn Baptist, of Helias, he denyeth that any of these examples doe proue it: for that neither any of these is called the holie Ghoste, nor Iohn called Helias. But he is fouly beguiled: for although hee quarrell at the aduerbe veluti, as it were fyerie, alledging Chrysostome to proue, that it was not naturall fyre, or winde, but the holie Ghoste: yet was that visible forme, called the holie Ghoste, as both in the seconde of the Actes, and in the eleuenth it is plaine: Hee sat vppon eueryevery one of them.
If Maister Heskins were posed (as boyes bee in the schoole) who or what sat? hee may not saye the fierie tongues, which is the plurall number, but the holie Ghoste which was represented by them. And Actes. 11. Peter sayeth: The holie Ghoste fell vppon them, euen as vppon vsus at the beginning, that is those visible signes, of his inuisible and incomprehensible presence. And whereas hee cauelleth, that the Doue is not called the holie Ghoste: I aske him howe could Iohn saye, he sawe the holie Ghoste which is inuisible, but that he sawe the bodily shape of a Doue, which was a sacrament of him? And as for the breathing of Christe, to signifie the holie Ghoste, and to bee so called: howe coulde the Apostles vnderstande it otherwise, at that time, when giuing them his breath, he sayde, receiue the holie Ghost, then when he gaue them bread, and sayed: receiue this, it is my bodie? for in both, by an outwarde and visible sacrament, hee testified, what he did giuegive them in deede, no more turning the breade into his naturall bodie, then his breath into the substaunce of the holie Ghoste.
But of all the rest, it is moste intolerable impudence, that he denyeth Iohn Baptist to bee Helias that was prophesied by Malachie, affirming that the prophesie speaketh of the comming of Helias before the seconde comming of Christ, which shall be to iudgement: saying that Christe doeth not assertiuely saye, that Iohn was Helias, but if ye will so take it, this is hee. But to knocke his blockishe ignorance, or rather serpentine mallice in the head, the Angel in Luk. 1. doth assertiuely applye that Prophesie to Iohn Baptiste, saying: Hee shall goe before him in the spirite and power of Helias, to turne the heartes of the fathers vntounto the children, which be the verie wordes of the Prophet. And our sauiour Christe him selfe, Math. 17. and Marke the 9. doth assertiuely saye, that Helias was alreadie come, according to the Prophesie, and his disciples vnderstoode, that he spake to them of Iohn the Baptist. What a shamelesse beast is this Heskins, to reason against so manifest a trueth, to mainteine so false an errour? But wee must aunswere his reasons, although no argumentes are to bee heard against the expresse authoritie of the scriptures.
First, he sayeth, that Prophesie cannot be expounded of the first comming of Christ, because he sayth, Helias shall come before the greate and fearfull daye of the Lorde: whereas the first comming of Christe, was not fearfull, but peaceable, not to iudge, but to saue. But he will not vnderstand, that Christes comming, as it was moste comfortable to the penitent sinners, so moste terrible to the hypocrites and obstinate wicked men: witnesse Iohn Baptist him selfe, Math. 3. from the seuenth verse to the ende of the twelfth. What shoulde I spende time in so cleare a matter? His seconde reason is of the authoritie of Euthymius, and Chrysostome, which if they go against the plaine authoritie of Christe, who will receiue them? Although neither of them both in the places by him cited, affirme that hee sayeth. For Euthymius, in 11. Math. Si vultis recipere quod suturum esse dictum est de hoc tempore, siue suscipere, id est, rebus animuni aduertere, ipse est Helias qui venturus erat, vtpote ipsum illius ministerium perficiens: If you will receiue that which is sayed shalbee of this time: or if you will giuegive your myndes to marke the thinges, he is Helias, which was to come, as one perfourming his ministerie: which Maister Heskins hath falsified by translating thus: If ye will receiue that that is spoken to be done hereafter to be of this present time.
And although Euthymius do hold, that Helias shall come before the seconde comming of Christe: yet doth he affirme, that Iohn is called Helias for similitude of office: Sicut primus Helias, secundus praecursor dicitur: ita sanè & primus praecursor secundus Helias appellatur, propter simile ministerium. As the firste Helias is called the second forerunner: so the seconde forerunner, is called the first Helias by reason of like ministerie.
The place of Chrysostome, although either the wordes going immediately before, or comming after, doe plainly expresse his minde, which Maister Heskins hath fraudulently concealed: yet as it is cited by him, it maketh nothing for him, but against him. I wil only rehearse the place, and leaue the iudgement to the readers. Rectè apposuit, &c. He hath well added, if you will receiue it: I came not to compell any man: that hee might seeme to require a thankefull minde of all men. And he signified that Iohn is Helias, and Helias is Iohn. For both they hauehave taken vppon them one administration, and both are appointed forerunners, wherefore he sayde not, this truely it Helias, but if ye will receiue it, this is hee: That is, if with diligent studie, and with a gentle, not a contentious mynde, you will consider the dooings of them both. Thus Chrysostome. And yet I am not ignorant, that else where, he supposeth that Helias the Thesbite shall come before the day of iudgement, which sauoureth of a Iewish fable, more then of a Christian trueth, as is plainly proued before.