Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 46
Hesk.The sixe & fourtieth Chapter beginneth the exposition of this text. Whosoeuer therefore shall eate of this bread & drinke of the cupp, &c.
Fulke.The text is this: Whosoeuer shall eat of this bread & drink of this cupp of the Lord vnworthily, shalbe guiltie of the bodie and bloud of the Lorde. M. Heskins requireth to the worthie receiuing two things, faith, and charitie, and therefore he concludeth, that neither heretikes nor scismatikes can receiue worthily, which we confesse to be true. Afterward he chargeth vsus with abusing this text in two points: The one, that we affirme material bread to remaine after consecration, the other that we deny that wicked men can receiue the body and bloud of Christ, and both these errors he promiseth to confute, but in the end you shal see they be so assured truthes, that all the smoake and mist of his confutation can not darken the light of their veritie. The first witnesse he citeth for interpretation of the text, is S. Cyprian, Lib. 3. Ep. 15. Illi contra Euangelij legem &c. They against the lawe of the Gospell, and your honourable petition, before repentance shewed, before open confession made of a most grieuous and extreme offence, before hands laid on by the Bishop and the cleargie vntounto repentance, are so bolde as to offer for them, and giuegive them the Eucharistie, that is, to prophane the holy body of our Lord, seeing it is written, Whosoeuer shall eate of the bread, and drinke of the cup of the Lord vnworthily, shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of the Lord. Of these wordes M. Heskins gathereth, that the body of Christe is deliuered, and not materiall bread, for if materiall bread, and not the body is deliuered, then the bread is prophaned, and not the body. A proper collection. If the Kings seale for a benefite be deliuered to the Kings enimie or a traitour, that receiueth it vnreuerently and vnthankfully, is not the King iniuried, and his fauour abused? I thinke al wise men wil graunt, and not say the waxe and parchment only is iniuried and abused, bicause the Kings body is not deliuered, but waxe and parchment. Moreouer, I maruell howe M. Heskins can auoyd blasphemie, when he saith in the literall sense, the body of Christe is prophaned or vnhallowed, for to speake properly, the body of Christe can not be prophaned or vnhallowed, but the sacrament of his body which beareth the name thereof may, and the abuse of the sacrament is iustly counted an iniurie vntounto his body and bloud, whereof it is a sacrament, although his body in deed can suffer no iniurie or hurt. But ye Cyprian acknowledged bread and wine to remain in the sacrament, many places of his writings do clearly shew, namely lib. 1. ep. 6. ad Magnum. Deni que vnanimitatē Christianam firma sibi at que insuperabili charitate connexam, etiā ipsa domini sacrificia declarant. Nam quando Dominus corpus suū panē vocat de multorū granorū adunatione congestū, populū nostrū, quem portabat, indicat adunatū. Et quando sanguinem suum vinum appelat, de botris at que acinis plurimis expression atque in vnum coactum, gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum. Finally, euen our Lords sacrifices doe declare the Christian vnanimitie, which is knitted vntounto him with an insuperable vnitie. For when the Lorde calleth bread, which is made one by the gathering together of many cornes, his body, hee declareth our people which he did beare to be vnited together. And when he calleth wine, which is pressed out of many clusters and grapes, and so gathered into one, his bloud, hee doth likewise signifie our flocke, coupled together by cōiunction of the multitude that is brought into one. Here you see ye bread which is now ye sacrament, and is called the body of Christe, to be made of many graines: likewise the wine to be pressed out of many grapes, by which nothing can be vnderstoode, but materiall bread and wine. The same Cyprian Lib. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium thus writeth, Sic verò calix Domini non est aqua sola, aut vinum solum, nisi vtrumque sibi misceatur, quomodo nec corpus Domini potest esse farina sola aut aqua sola nisi vtrumque adunatum fueris & copulatum, & panis vnius compage sclidatum, quo & ips… sacramento populus noster ostenditur adunatus. So water onelyonly, or wine onelyonly, is not the Lordes cup, vnlesse both be mingled together, euen as onelyonly meale, or onelyonly water, can not be the body of Christe, except both be ioyned and coupled and compacted together in one breade, by which very sacrament our people is shewed to be vnited. Here bread made of meale and water, is called the body of Christ, therefore material bread. The next authoritie M. Hesk. citeth is Chrysostome Hom. 83. in 26. Matth. Non permittam &c. I will not suffer these things to be done, I will first deliuer vp my life, before I wil deliuer the lords body to any person vnworthily, and I will suffer my bloud to be shed rather then I will giuegive that most holy bloud to any other then to a worthie receiuer. Out of this saying he gathereth, yt the body of Christ may be receiued of an vnworthie & wicked person. How be it, no such thing followeth of these words, for though Chrysostome deliuer the body of Christ, it followeth not that they receiue it which receiue the sacrament vnworthily, which is as much as to refuse it. Chrysostome in the same Homely, saith, this sacrament to be a symbole and signe of Christ crucified, and speaking of the cup, he saith: Sed cuius gratia non aquam sed vinum post resurrectionem bibit? Perniciosam quandam hęresim radicitus euellere voluit eorum, qui aqua in mysterijs vtuntur, ita vt ostenderet quia & quando hoc mysterium traderet, vinū tradidit, & iam post resurrectionem in nuda mysterij mensa, vino vsus est. Ex germine autem, ait, vitis, quae certè vinum non aquam producit. But wherefore did hee not drinke water but wine after his resurrection? Hee would plucke vppe by the rootes a certaine most pernicious heresie of them which vse water in the mysteries, so that he would shew, yt both when he deliuered this mysterie, he deliuered wine, & nowe after his resurrection in the bare table of the mysterie, he vsed wine. And he saith of ye fruit of ye vine, which truly bringeth foorth wine & not water. Now compare these two sayings of Chrysost. in one sermon: Christ deliuered wine, Chrysost. would not deliuer the body & bloud of Christ, & see whether the later proue any transubstantiation or carnall manner of presence. Besides this, it is good to note that Chrysostome saith, that Christ vsed wine in the sacrament after his resurrection, contrarie to all the Papistes, which holde that he ministred to the two disciples at Emaus in bread only. And bicause M. Heskins vrgeth the deliuerie of Christes body to the wicked, and thereby will gather, that the wic…ed receiue the very body of Christe, let him heare also what Chrysostome saith in the same place, speaking of the vnworthy comming to the sacrament: Illud enim pessimum est, ficus Paulus ait, Christum conculcare, & testamenti sanguinem ducere communem, & spiritus gratian contemnere. For this is the worst thing that can be, as Paule saith, to tread Christe vnderunder feete, and to esteeme the bloud of the couenaunt as vncleane, and to contemne the grace of the spirite. Will he say that very body of Christe is troden vnderunder the feete of the vnworthie receiuer? And bicause he standeth so much of the word, body and bloud, Chrysostome saith further. Nullus communicet, nisi ex discipulis sit: nullus impuro animo sicut Iudas, panem assumat, ne similia patiatur. Corpus Christi etiam hęc multitudo est: quare cauendum tibi est qui hęc mysteria ministras, ne Dominum irrites, corpus hoc non purgando, ne acutum gladium pro cibo praebeas. Let none communicate except he be of the disciples: Let no man with an vnpure minde as Iudas, receiue the bread, least he suffer the like punishment. Euen this multitude also is the body of Christe: wherefore thou that doest minister these mysteries, must take heede, that thou prouoke not the Lorde, by not purging this body, least thou deliuer a sharpe sword in steed of meat. In this saying, let the indifferent reader obserue, that Iudas receiued bread, and wicked men receiue bread: that the multitude of Christians is the body of Christe, as the sacrament is: finally, that the minister to a wicked man deliuereth a sharpe sword in steede of spirituall meate: and let him iudge, howe honestly M. Heskins vrgeth the deliuerie of the body and bloud of Christ to the wicked, to exclude bread, and to proue that they receiue the very body of Christ.
His third witnesse is Origen Hom. 5. in diuorsos. Quando sanctum cibum, illud que incorruptum epulum accipis &c. When thou receiuest that holy meat, and the vncorrupt banquet, when thou inioyest the bread and cup of life, thou eatest and drinkest the body and bloud of the Lord, then the Lord entreth vnderunder thy roofe, and do thou then humbling thy selfe, followe this Centurion, and say: Lorde, I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter vnderunder my roofe. For where he entreth vnworthily, there he entereth to the condemnation of the receiuer. Here M. Heskins first noteth the presence of Christe: secondly that the sacrament it not bare bread, both which are graunted: thirdly that the body of Christe may be receiued of euill men. But all men will confesse, that this is an Alegoricall and figuratiue maner of speaking, that Origen vseth, and may be wel vnderstoode according to the rule of sacraments: which beare the names of those things whereof they be sacramentes. And seeing Origen doth else where expresly affirme, that euill men do not, neither can eate the body of Christe, in Matth. Cap. 15. it is great vnshamefastnesse, to wrest his figuratiue saying in these wordes, contrarie to his plaine meaning vttered in plaine wordes. Maister Heskins him selfe confesseth this may be obiected, and referreth vsus to the thirtieth Chapter of this booke for the answere, whither I also referre the reader both for the place it self, and for the replie to M. Heskins answere.