Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 59
Hesk.The nine and fiftieth Chapter treateth of these wordes of Saint Paul. We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones: by Irenaeus and Hilarius.
Fulk.Irenaeus is cited Lib. 5. Quomodo carnem negant esse capacem &c. Howe doe they deny that the flesh is able to receiue the gift of God, that is, eternall life, which is nourished with the bloud and body of Christ, and is made a member of him, euen as the Apostle saith, in that Epistle which is to the Ephesians: Bicause we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, speaking this not of any spirituall and inuisible man (for a spirite hath neither flesh nor bones) but of that disposition which is after the nature of man, which consisteth of flesh, and sinewes, and bones, which is nourished of the cup, which is his bloud, and is increased of the bread, which is his body. That both our bodies and soules are nourished vntounto eternall life, by eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christe, we doe most willingly confesse and acknowledge. But withall we affirme, that as our bodyes are not naturally nourished and increased with the body of Christ, but spiritually after a diuine manner, so onelyonly spiritually and after a diuine manner, we doe eate and drinke the body and bloud of Christ, and not after a carnall, naturall, or papisticall manner. And this is the plaine sense and meaning of Irenaeus his wordes. As our bodyes are naturally nourished and increased with the bread and wine of the sacrament, so are our bodyes and soules spiritually nourished and increased vntounto eternall life. For M. Heskins him selfe denyeth, that our bodyes are naturally nourished and increased with the body and bloud of Christ, when he saith, The flesh of Christ is not turned into our flesh, which must needes be, if we vnderstand that Irenaeus saith, our flesh is nourished and increased of the body of Christ, but he saith, of the bread which is his body, and of the cup which is his bloud, our flesh is nourished and increased. Therefore there is naturall and very bread in the sacrament, for our flesh can not be nourished and increased by accidentes, euen as certainely, as there is the body and bloud of Christe after a spirituall manner dispensed vntounto the faithfull, which are the members of Christ, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone. Therefore also the wicked receiue not the body and bloud of Christe, bicause they are no members of his body. That I hauehave not in this interpretation varied from the mynde of Irenaeus, his plaine words shall testifie, Lib. 4. Cap. 34. Quemadmodum enim qui est à terra panis percipiens vocationem Dei, iam non communis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & coelesti: sic & corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam, iam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. Euen as that bread which is of the earth receiuing the calling of God, is not now comon bread, but the Eucharistie or sacrament of thankesgiuing, consisting of two thinges, an earthly thing and an heauenly thing: so also our bodyes receiuing the Eucharistie, are not nowe corruptible, hauing the hope of resurrection. The place that Maister Heskins citeth out of Cyril in 15. Ioan. Non poterat aliter &c. agreeth in effect with Irenaeus, and is set downe and aunswered in the second Booke and foureteenth Chapter, whither I remit the reader.
The places of Hilarius are also aunswered in the 20. and 24. Chapters of the second Booke, yet bicause hee applyeth them to an other text, I will set them downe here also. They are in the eight Booke De trinitate, though Maister Heskins quote not the place: Eos qui inter patrem & filium &c. I aske them that bring in the vnitie of will betweene the Father and the Sonne, whether Christe be nowe in vsus by veritie of nature, or by agreement of will? For if the worde was verily made flesh, and if we doe verily receiue the worde made flesh in the Lords meate, howe is he not to be thought to abide in vsus naturally, who being borne man, did both take our nature nowe inseparable vponupon him, and also hath admixed the nature of his flesh vntounto the nature of eternitie vnderunder the sacrament of his flesh to be communicated vntounto vsus? For so we be all one, bicause the Father is in Christe, and Christ is in vsus. Whosoeuer therfore shall deny the Father to be naturally in Christ, let him first deny, that he himself is not naturally in Christ, as Christ in him, bicause the Father being in Christe, and Christe in vsus, make vsus to be one in them. Therefore if Christe hauehave truely taken vponupon him the flesh of our body, and that man which was borne of Marie, was truely Christe, and we doe truely vnderunder a mysterie receiue the flesh of his body, and by this we shall be one, bicause the Father is in him, and he in vsus.
Here Maister Heskins cutteth off the conclusion, which is this: Quomodo voluntatis vnitas asseritur, cum naturalis per sacramentum proprietas perfectae sacramentum sit vnitatis? Howe is the veritie of Will maintained, when the naturall propertie by the sacrament, is a sacrament of perfect vnitie? Hilarie reasoneth against the Arrians that saide, God was not naturally or essentially in Christe, but by vnitie of wil, as God is in vsus, but he proueth that Christe is naturally ioyned to vsus by his incarnation, and doth also communicate his flesh vntounto vsus by the holy sacrament, which (as hee expoundeth him selfe in the last sentence, that M. Hes. hath cut off) is a sacramēt or mysterie of our perfect vnitie with Christ. Therefore he doth not simply say, yt we do naturally eat ye flesh of Christ, but vnderunder a mysterie, vnderunder a sacrament, by which he meaneth, yt we doe not eate the flesh of Christ carnally, but spiritually, not after a corporall manner, but after a spirituall maner. Finally he saith, that Christe is so naturally in vsus, as we are naturally in Christ, but we are onelyonly spiritually in Christ, therefore Christ is onelyonly spiritually in vsus. For naturally as he vseth it for essentially, is not contrarie to spiritually. But he alledgeth another place of Hilarie, where he affirmeth, that Christ is in vsus both carnally and corporally: Haec idcirco a nobis commemorata sunt &c. These thinges are for this cause spoken of vsus, bicause the heretiques falsely affirming an vnitie of Will onelyonly to be betweene the Father and the Sonne, did vse the example of our vnitie with GOD, as though we being vnited to the Sonne, and by the same to the Father, onelyonly by obedience and will of religion, no propertie of naturall communion should be giuen by the sacrament of his naturall flesh and bloud, seing that both by the honor of the sonne of God giuen to vsus; and by the sonne of God carnally abiding in vsus, and we being corporally and inseparably vnited in him, the mysterie of the true and naturall vnitie is to be declared. By the words of corporally and carnally, he meaneth essentially, as he did before by the word naturally, both bicause Christe tooke our nature verily vponupon him, and also doth communicat vntounto vsus by the same, his eternitie. And that he meaneth not carnally and corporally as the Papistes doe, it is manifest by that he saith, we are not onelyonly corporally, but also inseparably vnited in him. For there, corporall coniunction maketh not an inseparable vnion, bicause they say, that Christ is as naturally; carnally, and corporally vnited to the wicked, from whome he is separated, as to the godly, wherefore it is left of necessitie, that this naturall, carnall, corporall, or essentiall dwelling of Christe in vsus, is not after a naturall manner, but after a wonderfull manner, not after a fleshly but after a spirituall manner, not after a bodily, but after a diuine and heauenly manner. To conclude, howe plaine these places be for the proclamer, and plaine against Maister Heskins the exclamer, let the readers iudge. The proclamer doth admit these sayings according to the minde of the writers, and not according to Maister Heskins falsifications and gloses.