Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 30
Hesk.The thirtieth Chapter, beginneth the exposition of this text, Ye cannot drinke of the cup of our Lorde and of the cup of diuels, by S. Cyprian, and Chrysostome.
Fulke.This text saith M. Heskins is a conclusion, therefore it must include sacrifice, that was in the premisses. But I denie that sacrifice was any of the termes in the premisses, of that argument wherof this is the conclusion, although it were named in the sacrifices of the Iewes, and of the Gentiles, euen as Israel, Gentiles, altar, temple, were likewise named, and yet not to be found in this conclusion, because that although they were spoken of in the discourse, yet they were not in the premisses of this argument, for this it is: Who so euer is made one bodie with CHRISTE can not drinke of the Lordes cuppe and of the cuppe of Diuels: but you are made one bodie with Christe: therefore you cannot drinke the Lordes cuppe, and the cuppe of diuels. Now therefore to Saint Cyprian Ser. 5. de Lapsis. Contra Euangelij vigorem, &c. Against the force of the Gospel, against the law of our Lord and of God, by the rashnesse of some, communication is set as libertie to them that are vnprouided. Which is a vaine and a false peace, perillous to the giuers, and nothing profitable to the receiuers. They seeke not the patience of health, nor the true medicine by satisfaction. Repentance is shut vp from sinners. The remembrance of a moste greeuous and extreeme offence is taken away. The woundes of them that are in dying are couered, and the deadly strype in the deepe and inward bowels is hidde with dissembled sorrowe.
Retourning from the altar of the diuell with handes filthye and defiled with the greasie sauour, they come to the holie of the LORDE. Almoste yet belching out the deadly meates of Idols, with their lawes yet breathing out their wickednesse, and sauouring of their deadly infections, they set vponupon the Lords body: whereas the Scripture commeth againste them and cryeth, and sayeth: Euerie cleane person shall eate the fleshe: But if any eate of the fleshe of the wholesome sacrifice whiche is the Lordes, hauing his vncleanenesse vponupon him, the same soule shall perishe from among his people. The Apostle also witnesseth and sayeth: ye can not drinke the cuppe of the Lorde, and the cuppe of Diuels: Ye can not communicate of the table of the Lorde, and the table of diuels. In this sermon Cyprian reproued those men whiche had admitted to the communion, such persons as had sacrificed to idols, before they were throughly penitent, and had made satisfaction to the Church which was offended by them, contrarie to the order of good discipline. Now saith Maister Heskins he would not so sharply hauehave reproued them, if the thing they receiued, had beene but a peece of bread. A wise reason. What if a man at that time had come vnreuerently to baptisme, had it not ben an horrible offence, although the outward element of baptisme be nothing but a litle water? Although when we say▪ that bread is a parte of the sacrament, we neuer teache, that it is but a peece of bread, neither doe we say that baptisme is nothing but water. They that vnreuerently rush vntounto the Lords sacraments are punished for their presūption, not in respect of that they receiue, whether it be bread, wine, or water, but for that they receiue it vnworthily. Another thing he noteth out of Cyprian, is, that Christes bodie is a sacrifice, because he alledgeth the scripture of Leuiticus, which is spoken of a sacrifice, as though the scripture could not be rightly applyed, that spake of holie meate vnreuerenely receiued, vntounto the vnreuerent receiuing of the sacrament, except the sacrament were a sacrifice: this is out of all compasse of reason. He might as well say, the sacrament is a burnt offring, because it is compared to a sacrifice which is a burnt offring, and an hundreth other absurdities may likewise be inferred, which for reuerence of the blessed mysteries, I spare to name. But it followeth in Cyprian immediately, where Maister Heskins leaueth: Idem conu…nacibus & pertinacibus comminatur & detr…iciat dicens: quicun que , ederis panem aut biberit calicem Domini indignè, reus eri… corporis & sanguinis Domini. Spretis his omnibus atque contemp…is, vis infertur corpori cius & sanguini eiut. Plus modò in Dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt, quàm cum Dominum neg…uerunt. The same Paule threateneth and denounceth to ye obstinate and froward, saying: whosoeuer shal eate of ye bread & drink of the cup of the Lord vnworthily, shalbe guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lord. All these sayings being despised and contemned, violence is done vntounto his bodie & his bloud. They do more offend against the Lord now with their hands & their mouth, then when they denied the Lord. These wordes declare that Cyprian calleth not the bread & cup the bodie & bloud of Christ▪ as M. Hesk. would hauehave it, properly, but figuratiuely: for no force or violence can be done to the bodie and bloud of Christe, but to the sacrament thereof there may, and Christ is iniured in the contempt of his mysteries: as the Prince in contumelious breaking & abusing of the broad seale by rebellious subiectes, though he suffer no violence in his owne person. Chrysostome is cited Ho. 11. ad Populum Antiochen. Quomodo sacrū videbimus pascha? &c. How shal we see the holie passeouer? How shall we receiue the holy sacrifice? How shall we cōmunicate in these maruelous mysteries with that tongue, with which we hauehave contemned the lawe of God? With that …ong, with which we hauehave defiled our soule? For if no man durst take the Kings purple robe with foule hands: how shall we receiue the Lordes body with a defiled tonge? For swearing is of the wicked, sacrifice is of the Lord. Therefore what communication is there betweene light and darknesse, what agreement between Christ and Beliall? Here saith M. Hesk. by the excellent titles he giueth the sacrament, is proued the reall presence. The holie sacrifice, wonderful mysteries, the bodie of our Lord, light, & Christ himself. But one of these titles is manifestly vnproper and figuratiue, namely that of light, and why may not ye rest be so likewise? Baptisme hath honourable titles, yet is there no transubstantiatiō therin. The second note, to proue the reall presence is, that saying: how shall we wt defiled tong receiue the Lordes body? Here the body is receiued with the mouth and tong, therefore corporally. But if I should say, that Chrysostome by this interogation denyeth, that it can be receiued with a defiled tong, where were the strength of this place: but I will graunt, that he vseth so to speake, but vnproperly, that the hand & the tong receiue the bodie and bloud of Christ, and yet meaneth no carnall maner of presence, as Ho. 21. ad Pop. Antioch. Cogita quid manu capias, & ipsam ab omni auaritia & rapina liberam conserua. Consider what thou receiuest with thy hand, and keepe it free from all couetousnesse & extortion. This peraduenture pleaseth M. Heskins. But it followeth soone after. Etenim perniciosum est tam tremendis ministra…em mysterijs linguam, & sanguine tal purpuratam, & factam aureum gladium, ad cornicia & contumelias & scurrilitates transferre. For it is a pernicious thing to transferre that tonge which ministreth vntounto so reuerend mysteries, & is died purple with such bloud, and made a golden sworde, vntounto rayling, reuiling, and scoffing. Here the tong doth not only receiue ye bloud of Christ, but also is made red or purple with it, & is made by it a golden sword. If these be not figuratiue speeches, they be monstruous absurdities. And yet againe in the same place: Sed rursum aduertens quod post manus & li…guam, cor suscipit horrendum illud mysteri…en, ne vnquam in proximū sumas dolum sed mensē tuam ab omni malitia mund…m conserua: fic & oculos & aures munire poteris. But againe considering that after thy handes & thy tong, thy heart receiueth that fearefull mysterie, neuer deuise any craft against thy neighbour, but keepe thy minde cleane from all malice, so maist thou defende thine eyes and thine eares. And the like speeches he hath of the eyes and the eares. By which it is euident, that although he speak figuratiuely in the way of exhortation, yet he meaned not to teache any other, but a spirituall manner of receiuing the bodie of Christ with the hart, although the eyes, eares, handes, and tong. were occupied about the sacrament thereof After M. Heskins noteth, that Chrysostome in the place by him cited, calleth the sacrament a sacrifice: so doth he an hundreth times elsewhere, but yt proueth not a propitiatorie sacrifice, but rather a memory of Christes only sacrifice as he teacheth himself In Ep. ad Heb. Ca. 10. Hom. 17. And here he taketh vponupon him to refute the rule of Cranmer, or of him that set forth ye book in his name, as though that learned father, was not able to set forth his booke himselfe as wel, as this blind buzzard Heskins, who hath nothing in effect, but yt he hath stolne out of Gardiners M. Constantius. But let vsus heare this wise refutation. A sacrifice of thanksgiuing, saith he, is not receiued of vsus, but giuen from vsus to God. No more is any sacrifice in yt it is a sacrifice, O ye vnlearned confuter of so learned a fathers rule, yet yt which is receiued is called a sacrifice in respect yt it hath bene offered. So was ye sacrament of the old writers called a sacrifice vnproperly, because it was a memorial of ye only sacrifice of Christ once offered by him self, & in respect of yt action of ye administration, which is a sacrifice of thanksgiuing, & therefore of them was called Eucharistia, a thanksgiuing. Another reason to proue it no gratulatorie sacrifice, is, because he calleth it a wonderful sacrifice, but thanksgiuing is but an ordinarie duetie. Shore vp your drousie eyes M. Hesk. & you shal see, he calleth it a holie sacrifice, & so the sacrifice of thanksgiuing. He calleth it not a wonderfull sacrifice, but a wonderful mysterie, except mysterie & sacrifice be al one wt you, but if he had called it a wonderful sacrifice, as else where he calleth it a fearfull or terrible sacrifice, doth yt proue it to be no sacrifice of thankesgiuing? Hee calleth it fearful, terrible, reuerende, wonderful, in respect of ye diuine working of our sauiour Christ, to make vsus partakers of his bodi & bloud, by receiuing these outward creatures worthily, according to his appointment, as for the names I hauehave answered before, they proue no sacrifice propitiatorie. But now at lēgth M. Hes. (hauing builded on this place of Paule & Chrysost. which deny ye partaking of ye bodie & bloud of Christ to them that are made partakers of ye table of diuels, or otherwise be wicked men) giueth S. Paul & Chryso. a new interpretation. S. Paul (saith he) doth not absolutely deny, but conditionally, saying, yt men cannot be partakers of ye Lords table, & of ye table of diuels: that is, yt thei ought not, so yt ye cannot, & ye ought not, is al one with M. Hesk. for ye cannot (sayth he) if you do wel. But thinketh this grosse expositor, to escape with this glose? I aske him whether light & darknes can agree, whether Christ & Belial can hauehave any felowship? Be these negatiues absolutly or cō ditionally? Is it now otherwise to be taken but light and darknesse ought not to agree, or cannot agree, if they do well? & Christ & Belial ought not to agree, or cannot agree if they do well? O blinde interpreter, or rather shamefull peruerter of the streight wayes of the Lord. You see in despite of the diuell, the Popishe doctrine of the wicked receiuing Christ, manifestly borne downe by the authoritie of Gods worde, and of the auncient fathers, and consequently transubstantiation layde in the dust. And yet this arrogant expounder, as though hee had found out a sworde to cutt in sunder this Gordian knot, with like madnesse runneth at Origens saying, which he will not vouchsafe to quote, least any man shoulde reade it to his shame, and ouerthrow of his popish transsubstantiation. But it is written in Math. cap. 15. Multa p…rro &c. Many things may be sayd also of the WORDE him selfe, that was made fleshe and verie meate, whome whosoeuer shall eate, shall louelove for euer, which no euil man can eate. Firste, as he hath learned of brazen faced Gardiner, he will not certeinly admitt that worke to be Origens, which is an impudent shifte, when none of them can alledge anye reason, why they shoulde doubt of it: Secondly, he heweth at it with his leaden sworde, saying: an euil man can not eat of it to his profite, but yet hee may eate of it. But it followeth in Origen immediately: Etenim si fieri posset, vt qui malus adhuc perseuerat, edat verbum factum carnem, cum sit verbum & panis viuus, nequaquam scriptum fuisset: Quisquis ederic panem hunc viuet in aeternum. For, if it were possible, that hee which as yet continueth an euill man, shoulde eat the worde made fleshe: seing he is the worde and the breade of life, it had not beene written, whosoeuer shall eate of this breade shall liue for euer. Here Origen sayeth, that no man can eate him, but hee must take profit by him, so the knott is too harde for Master Heskins wodden dagger to cleaue a sunder. For as hee himselfe concludeth, betwixt God and Beliall is none agreement, neither can Dagon stand in the presence of the Arke, and much lesse wickednesse where Christ is receiued, for he is the bread of life reiected of the wicked, but cause of eternall life to all that receiue him.