Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 6
Hesk.The sixt Chapter declareth, that Manna was a figure, by the testimonie of S. Cyprian and Chrysostome.
It hath bene often confessed,Fulke. that Manna of the olde fathers is called a figure of the body of Christ, but that it was only a bare figure, and not the body of Christe vntounto the faithful, that is it we deny. Cyprian is cited to litle or no purpose in ser. de Coen. Dom. Huius panis &c. Of this bread Māna was a figure, which rayned in the desert. So whē we are come to the true bread in the land of promise, that meat fayled. M. Heskins saith, it is more manifest, then that it can be denyed, that this bread he speaketh of, is the holy bread of the sacrament: in which he acknowledgeth to be no breade at all. Then as manifest as he maketh it, it was a figure of Christ, which is the spiritual matter of the sacrament, and not of any holy breade thereof. But this he saith, will be proued by the last wordes of that sermon, which in deede, proue the cleane contrarie to his purpose. Sed & nos ipsi &c. But we also being made his body, both by the sacrament, and by the thing of the sacrament, are knit and vnited vntounto our heade, eueryevery one being members one of an other, shewing the ministerie of louelove mutually, do communicate in charitie, are partakers of one cup, eating the same meate, and drinking the same drinke, which floweth and runneth out of the spirituall rocke, which meate and drinke is our Lord Iesus Christ. Here is a plaine place for the proclamer, the meate and drinke is our Lorde Iesus Christe. But what proclamer denyeth, that our meat and drinke in the sacrament, is the body and bloud of Christe? This we deny, that the same is present after a bodily maner, or after a bodily manner receiued, but spiritually onelyonly, or by faith: euen as the same writer faith immediatly before Haec quoties agimus &c. As often as we doe these things, we sharpen not our teeth to eate, but with sincere faith wee breake and diuide that holy bread. But how can M. Heskins auoyde this, that we are made the body of Christe, as we are partakers of his body in the sacrament? whiche must needes be spiritually. Howe liketh he the distinction of the sacrament, and the thing or matter of the sacrament, when with Papistes, either there is no difference made betweene the sacrament of his body and his body it selfe, or else the sacrament is nothing else, but the accidents of breade and wine, by which we are neither made the body of Christ, nor vnited to him. But to auoyde our glose of spiritualitie, he fleeth backe to the saying of Cyrillus in 15. Ioan. which he hath so often repeated, and yet mangled and gelded, least the true sense might be gathered out of it. Non tamen negamus &c. Yet do we not denye, but that we are spiritually ioyned to Christ, by right faith and sincere louelove, but that we hauehave no manner of coniunction with him after his flesh, that truely we doe vtterly deny, and say it to be altogether repugnant to the holy scriptures. For who hath doubted that Christe is also a vine, and we the branches, which from thence receiue life into vsus. Heare what Paule saith, that we are all one body in Christ. For although we be many, yet are we one in him. For we all take part of one breade. Or doeth he thinke, perhaps that the vertue of the mystical benediction is vnknown to vsus? Which when it is done in vsus, doth is not make Christ to dwell in vsus corporally, by communication of the flesh of Christ. For why are the members of the faithfull the members of Christ? &c. In these wordes Cyrillus reasoneth against an Arrian, which abusing this text, I am a Vine, and my father is the husband man, saide it was spoken of the deitie of Christ, and could not be expounded of his manhoode, which Cyrill denyeth, shewing that we are not onelyonly spiritually ioyned to Christe, as to God, but also corporally, that is, to his body as to man, yet after a spirituall manner, as the textes by him alledged doe proue sufficiently, and namely the argument taken of the vertue of the mysticall blessing, which by communication of his fleshe, maketh vsus his members of his body, which all men confesse to bee so after a diuine manner, that euen they which neuer receiued that sacrament, are yet members of Christe, hauing put him on, and beeing ingrafted to him in baptisme.
But Maister Heskins will tell vsus the difference of the sacrament, and the thing of the sacrament, out of August. in deede out of the sentences of Prosper: Hoc est quod dicimus &c. This is that we say, that by all meanes we labour to proue, that the sacrifice of the Church is made of two thinges, consisteth of two thinges, the visible forme or kinde of the elementes, and the inuisible flesh and bloud of our Lorde Iesus Christe, both of the sacrament and of the thing of the sacrament, that is, the body of Christe. &c. This visible forme, Maister Heskins will hauehave to be the accidentes onelyonly, then hee will hauehave a sacrifice, whereof one part by his owne interpretation is bare accidentes without a subiect: and thirdly, that it is the body of Christe corporally receiued. But let vsus heare, not Prosper, an vncertaine Authour, but Augustine him selfe, declare these thinges vntounto vsus in Ioan. Tr. 26. Huius rei sacramentum, id est vnitatis corporis & sanguinis Christi, alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis interuallis dierum in Dominica mensa pręparatur, & de mensa Dominica sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res verò ipsa, cuius sacramentum est omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps suerie. The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the vnitie of the bodie and bloud of Christe, in some places daily, in some places with certaine distaunces of dayes, is prepared in the Lordes table, and from the Lordes table is receiued, of some persons to life, and of some to destruction. But the thing it selfe whereof it is a sacrament, is life to eueryevery man, and destruction to no man, who so euer shall bee partaker of it. Nowe iudge whether S. Augustine esteemeth the sacrament to bee onelyonly accidentes, and the thing of the sacrament to bee a bodily presence, whiche the wicked can not bee partakers of: or whether the wicked receiue nothing, but the accidents to their destruction, seeing they receiue the sacrament, but not the thing of the sacrament.
Chrysostome the second barron named in this Chapter, is cited in dictum Apost. Nolo vos igno. Dixi enim quod. &c. For I saide, that the trueth must hauehave a certaine excellencie aboue the figure. Thou hast seene concerning baptisme, what is the figure, and what the trueth. Go to, I will shewe thee also the tables, and the communion of the sacramentes, to be described there: if thou wilt not againe require of me the whole, but so requirest these things that are done, as it is meete to se… in shadowes and figures. Therefore bicause he had spoken of the sea, and of the clo…d, and of Moses, he added moreouer: And they all did eate the same spirituall meate. As thou (saith he) comming vp out of the l… uer of the waters, camest to the table, so they also cōming vp out of the sea, came to a newe and wonderfull table: I speake of Manna. And againe, as thou hast a wonderfull drinke the wholesome bloud: so had they also a wonderfull nature of drinke. Here Maister Heskins gathereth, that our drinke is the wholesome bloud of Christe, which we confesse spiritually receiued; as it was of the Fathers: likewise to proue that by the table, he meant the body of Christ, he citeth an other place. Sicut autem &c. Euen as he saide, that they all passed through the sea, so he prefigured the nobilitie of the Church, when he saide: They did all eate the same spirituall meat. He hath insinuated the same againe: for so in the Church, the rich man receiueth not one body, the poore man an other, nor this man one bloud, and that man an other. Euen so then the rich man receiued not one Manna, and the poore man an other, neither was this man partaker of one spring, and that man of a lesse plentifull. Not content with this, he addeth another sentence out of the same Homely. Sed cuius gratia &c. But for what cause doth S. Paule make mention of these thinges? For that cause which I tolde you at the first, that thou mayest learne, that neither baptisme, nor remission of sinnes, nor knowledge, nor the communion of the sacraments, nor the holy table, nor the fruition of the body, nor the participation of the bloud, nor any other such thing can profite vsus, except we hauehave a right life, and a wonderfull, and free from all sinne.
Heere Maister Heskins gathereth, that Christes bodye and bloud may bee receiued of wicked men, but eyther hee must vnderstand Sainte Chrysostome speaking of the sacramentes, by the name of the thinges whereof they be sacramentes, or else hee will fall into a great absurditie, for he saith, forgiuenesse of sinnes shall not profite, by which he meaneth, the ceremonie of absolution, and not the forgiuenesse of God in deede. Againe he must note an hyperbole or ouerreaching speach in this sentence, or else whom shal the body and bloud of Christ profite, when no man is free from sinne? But we yet must heare a sentence or two more out of Chrysostome, in 1. Cor. 10. Hom. 23. Quae autem &c. Those thinges that followe, doe signifie the holy table. For as thou eatest the Lordes body, so did they eate Manna. And as thou drinkest his bloud, so did they drinke water out of the rocke. But here Maister Heskins playes his old part, for he leaueth out that which following immediately expoundeth Chrysostome contrarie to his purpose. Quamuis in sensu quae dabantur, perciperentur, spiritualiter tamen dabantur, non secundùm naturae consequentiam, sed secundùm muneris gratiam, & cum corpore etiam animam in fidem adducentem nutriuit. Although those thinges that were giuen, were perceiued by sense, yet were they giuen spiritually, not according to the consequence of nature, but according to the grace of the gift, bringing into faith, he nourished ye soule also with the body. By these words it is most euident, that Manna and the water, were not bare figures or corporall foode onelyonly, but also foode of the soule through fayth, howe so euer Chrysostome in other places speaketh of them as figures, and as corporall food, and in those respectes preferreth our sacramentes before them.
But let vsus heare the last sentence: Qui enim illa illis &c. For he which gaue those things vntounto them, euen he hath prepared this table: And euen he him selfe brought them through the sea, and thee through baptisme: And to them gaue Manna and water, and to thee his body and bloud. VponUpon all these places of Chrysostome, Maister Heskins reasoneth, that the Fathers onelyonly receiued a figure, and we the veritie, or else there were no difference, if we both receiue a veritie spiritually, and a figure outwardly. I hauehave shewed the difference before, to be, not in the substance or vertue, but in the manner of reuelation, which was to them obscure, to vsus cleere, to them in expectation of that which was to come, to vsus in assuraunce of that which is fulfilled, namely, the redemption by Christes death. For Iesus Christe was the Lambe slaine from the beginning of the worlde, and the onelyonly foode that came downe from heauen, to giuegive eternall life to all them that did receiue him in all ages past and to come.