Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 1 · Part 24
The foure & twentieth Chapter, applying the continuall reseruation of the Shew bread, to the reseruation of the sacrament, proueth the same reseruatiō by the olde fathers, & by the perpetual practis… of the Church.Hesk.
That the sacrament (of some) was reserued in the elder dayes of the Church, it is not so great a controuersie,Fulk. as whether it ought to bee reserued by the institution of Christe. Neither is the simple reseruation, one of the proclaymers articles (as M. Heskins saith,) but whether it should be hanged vp in a Canopie for an ydol as the Papistes vse it. As for reseruation, how slenderly it is proued by him, we shall see by examination of his witnesses. For as touching his application thereof vntounto the reseruation of the shewe breade, because it is but his owne iudgement, I will not vouchsafe to aunswere it, otherwise then to denye it, to be of any force to proue his purpose. His first witnesse is Clemens Ep. 2. The sacraments of Gods secretes are committed to three degrees: to the priest, the Deacon, and the minister, which with feare and trembling ought to keepe the leauings of the peeces of the Lordes bodie, that no rottennes be found in the holie place, lest when the thing is done negligently, great iniurie be done to the portion of the Lordes bodie. By this place M. Heskins will needes proue reseruation, and the carnall presence, but neither of both will fall out of his side, although the authoritie of the Epistle is not worth a strawe, beeing a counterfet decretall ascribed to Clemens, neither in true latine, nor good sense.
And first for the carnall presence, note how he sayeth, ye remnantes of the peeces and portions of the Lords bodie, and so he doth often in this Epistle, meaning ye crommes of the sacramentall bread, which was consecrated to bee the bodie of Christ. For Christes naturall bodie cannot be broken into leauings, fragments, and portions, which be the termes he vseth. Nowe touching the reseruation, he meaneth no keeping but of these crommes, which hee calleth leauings, fragments and portions, and no keeping of them, but from mouldinesse or rottennesse, that is, that they should be spent while they are good, and not kepte while they stinke, as the Papistes doe, not the fragments, but their whole Masse cakes sometimes. For touching the sacrament it selfe, he writeth by and by after: Tanta in altario holocausta offerantur, quanta populo sufficere debens. Quod si remanserint, in Crastinum non reseruentur, sed cum timore & tremore clericorum diligentia consumantur. Let so great sacrifices bee offered on the altar, as may suffice all the people. But if any be left, let them not be kept vntill the next day, but with feare and trembling, let them bee spent by the diligence of the Clerkes. This beeing most manifest against reseruation, Master Heskins is not ashamed to racke it to stande with reseruation.
And first, he asketh the aduersarie, whether hee thinketh that Saint Clement was a foole, to denye that hee sayed before? No verily, but I think him to be no wise man, that either taketh this Epistle to bee written by Clement, the first bishop of Rome, or so vnderstandeth it, that he woulde make him contrarie to him selfe. And I thinke he that did forge this Epistle vnderunder Saint Clements name, was not onelyonly a doltish foole, but also an impudent falsarie, to make that auncient Clemens to write to the Apostle Saint Iames of such bables as those be, and that followe in the Epistle: which, if they were of weight, yet the Apostle was not to learne them of Clemens, but Clemens of him. But concerning the keeping that he speaketh of, he writeth yet more plainlye: Non eijcientes foras è sacrario velamina, not shaking abroad out of the holy place or vestrie the couering of the Lords table, lest peraduenture the dust of the Lordes bodie shoulde fall a misse from the linnen cloth beeing washed abroade, and this should be sinne to him that doth it. Lo sir, before wee had reliques, fragments, and portions, nowe wee hauehave the dust of the Lords body. What dust is this, but small crommes? But he goeth on, and that Saint Iames might the better looke to those matters, he sayeth: Iterum atque iterum de fragmentis dominic… corporis demandamus. Againe, and againe, wee giuegive charge, concerning the fragments of the Lordes bodie. And finally, he concludeth in fine Latine and cleanly termes: A principio Epistolae vsque ad hunc locum de sacramentis delegaui bene intuendis: vbi non murium stercora inter fragmenta dominicae portionis appareant, neque putrida per negligentiam remaneant clericorum. From the beginning of the Epistle vntounto this place I hauehave giuen charge concerning the sacraments to be well looked vponupon: where no Mise tordes may be seene among the fragments of the Lorde… portion, nor they remaine rotten through the negligence of the Clerkes.
You see this man would hauehave the sacrament spent, & taketh thought that the crommes, both small and great, be not cast away, nor kept vntill they be rotten, nor suffered to be eaten of Mise, nor defyled with their doung, but he is vtterly against popish reseruation. The next is Irenaeus, who in his Epistle, in which he doth sharply rebuke Victor bishop of Rome, for excommunicating the Bishops of Asia about the celebration of Easter, sayth: That they were neuer for that matter driuen from the fellowship of the Church, or comming from those partes, were not receiued: but rather all the elders or Bishops that were before them, did alwayes solemnely send the sacrament of Eucharistie to all the bishops or elders of those Churches that did not so obserue it. M. Heskins imagineth that the Bishops of Rome, did sende the sacrament into all partes of the worlde, to all bishops & elders of euerie Church: which if he did, hee had neede of many messengers. But the matter is plaine ynough. If any of those bishops or elders came to Rome, they were louingly receiued of Victors predecessours, and at the time of the Communion, the bishop would send the sacrament to them by the deacons, as well as to any of the citizens that were of his owne Church. Here is no shadowe of reseruation, but M. Heskins absurde imagination.
Tertullian followeth Irenaeus, writing to his wife, lib. 2. An arbitrare ô vxor ita gesturam te, vt clam viro sint, qua facis? Non sciet ille quid secreto ante omne cibum gustes? & si sciuerie non partem illum credit esse, qui dicitur. Doest thou thinke (ô wife) so to handle thy selfe, that these things that thou doest shalbe vnknowen to thy husbande? shall not he knowe what before all meates thou doest secretely receiue? and if hee shall knowe it, he beleeueth it not to be that bread, that it is saide to be. Thus M. Heskins hath set downe the wordes both in Latine and Englishe. But wheresoeuer he had the former question▪ An ar…itrare ô vxor ita gesturam te, vt clam viro sint quae facto? He had it not of Tertullian, for hee hath no such wordes in that booke, but onelyonly, Non sciet maritus, &c. shall not thy husbande knowe, &c. By which it is playne that he neuer read this place in Tertullian himself, but only borrowed it out of some other papist, that alledged it for this purpose, & belike gathered the former question, not as Tertullians wordes, but out of his meaning, which Maister Heskins not vnderstanding, very ridiculously, hath set down, as the words of Tertullian. These be the Popishe doctours, that boast of their great reading, when they reade but patches out of other mens notes, and collections. But to the matter. Although it may seeme, this corruption to hauehave entred into the African Churches, yt the people carried home ye sacramentall bread, and did eate it daily before all other meates, yet this is nothing like vntounto the Popish reseruation in the pixe, to be adored. And Tertullian in his Booke De Corona militis, doeth rehearse this custome among those thinges, that had no ground of scripture for them. The liks is to be saide, to the place of Cyprian, where a woman kept it in her chest, as for the miracle, whether it reproued her vnworthinesse, or her reseruation, it is not plaine by the authour. The story of Satyrus out of Ambrose proueth not directly reseruation, for it is like, the Christians being in daunger of shipwrack, did minister the communion in the shippe, & not bring it with them from the shore consecrated. And Satyrus being then but a nouice or Catechumein, and not baptised, desired the sacrament of them, meaning to receiue it before his death, if he sawe present daunger of drowning, otherwise to tarry vntill he were admitted to it, by order of the Church. But this proueth nothing at all the Popishe reseruation, although the fact of Satyrus was not without imperfection, as greatly as it is commended of Ambrose: and much lesse the Carnal presence, For Satyrus, did not so put his affiaunce in the sacrament, that he thought it to be God, but that he desired it as an helpe of his faith, that he might not depart this life without the communion of the body of Christ in the sacrament.
The place of Chrysostome, is nothing at all for reseruation, where he saith, that in a tumult the souldiers rushing into the Churches, The most holy bloud of Christ was shed vpō their clothes. For he must remēber, it was on Easter day, when all the people did communicate, and such as came were baptised. And where he saith, it was Ad vesperū diei, that they did enter, that is, in the afternoone: he must wit, that Chrysostome after the maner of the scripture, calleth ye morning before day light Vespere Sabbati, & therfore his collection is vaine. But although it were in the afternoone, what inconuenience is it if we say, they spent al the forenoone in prayer, & fasting, and hearing the worde of God, and ministring baptisme, which then was ministred twise a yeare, at Easter, & at Pentecost: and then in the afternoone towarde euening, went to the communion? Hierome reporteth of Exuperius, that he caried the Lords body in a wicker basket, and his bloud in a glasse. What reseruation is here? M. Heskins saith, he did beare it about with him, but Hieronyme saith not so, except you meane about the Churche, when he ministred the communion. But here Maister Iewel hath a double blow. O cunning Maister of defence. For here is not onelyonly reseruation, bu… also he calleth it in plaine wordes, the body and bloud of our Lorde. Maister Iewel shal not greatly feele these blowes. To the reseruation I hauehave saide before, and to the plaine calling of it body and bloud, I say, what other thing is it, then as Maister Iewel himselfe will call it? and worthily: yet no transubstantiation meant by him. But how will Maister Heskins warde these blowes? Exuperius had no hallowed pixes, nor chalices of Golde and siluer, as the Papistes must hauehave? And Exuperius ministred to the lay people in both kindes, as the Papistes will not do? What hath M. Heskins gayned by Exuperius? But then Eusebius shall help him, for in his 6. booke, and 36. Chapter, is declared, yt a certeine priest, sent to Serapion (beeing at the point of death) a litle portiō of the Eucharistie in the night season: by which it appeareth, yt it was reserued. In deed Dionysius bishop of Alexandria writeth so vntounto Fabianus Bishop of Rome. But withall he sheweth, that it was no publique order of the vniuersall Church, but his own commandement vntounto his owne Church, that he might not seeme in any point to resemble the Nouatians, which denied reconciliation to them that had fallen in persecution: wherfore he saith, that although the priest was sicke, and could not come: Tamen quia pręceptum fuerat a me, vt lapsis in exitu nemo recōciliationis solatia denegaret, & maximè ijs, quos priùs id rogasse constaret, parum &c. Yet because it had beene commanded by me, that no man should denie to them that had fallen, the comfort of reconciliation at their departure, especially to those who were known to hauehave desired it before, he gaue a litle of the Eucharistie, &c. Whiche wordes M. Heskins hath cleane left out of the text, wherby the particular commandemēt of Dionyse is expressed: and yet it is not proued that the Priest had the sacrament reserued, but it might well be, that he did then consecrate and send him parte, as he should hauehave done, if he could hauehave come to the sicke man himselfe for his owne weakenes. Last of all he rehearseth the wordes of Cyril Ad Colosyrium: I heare that they say, that the mystical blessing, if any remnants thereof remaine vntounto the next day following, is vnprofitable to sanctification. But they are madd in so saying, for Christe is not made an other, neither shal his holy body be chaunged, but the vertue of blessing, and the liuely grace do alwayes remaine in him. M. Heskins translateth in illo, in it, as though ye vertue, & quickening grace were included in the sacrament, which ye author saith to remain in Christ. But touching ye authoritie of this Cyrillus ad Colosyrium, I must admonish the Reader, that these wordes are not to be found in all the workes of Cyrillus that are extant, but is only a patch cited by other men, ye whole epistle is not to be found. So yt we can neither tel whether it were writē by the ancient Cyrillus of Alexandria, or by some late writer of yt name, nor yet what was ye argumēt & scope of yt Epistle. Neuertheles, it semeth to some, yt he wrote against ye Anthropomorphits, which thought yt the body of Christ was corrupted, if the remnants of the sacrament were corrupted: but that Cyrillus denieth, because Christ is eternall & incorruptible.
He saith not that the remnantes of the sacrament are so, for that the Papistes confesse to be otherwise, affirming that they ceasse to be the body & bloud of Christ, when the species or kinds of bread and wine are putrified or rotten. But Cyril saith, that vertue, & grace, do alwayes remaine in him, not in that sacrament reserued, which doeth corrupt. Finally, he speaketh but of reseruatiō for one day, to the vse of eating, and not of adoration, therefore he speaketh nothing against the challenge, which was not simply of reseruation, but of reseruing the sacramēt to be worshipped. But whereas M. Heskins mainteyneth reseruation by dipping of stoales, and linnen clothes in ye cup, he must remēber that Iulius in his decretal epistles, forbiddeth that dipping, as diuers counsels also do, which in due place are alledged.
Finally, Origen doth vtterly condemne that abuse of reseruation of the sacrament, affirming that it is in ye same case, that the sacrifice of the passeouer, and the sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing were, of which it was not lawfull to reserue any part, vntill the next mo…ning, therefore he saith in Leuit. 7. Ho. 5. Nam & Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat, & dicebat eis, accipite & manducate, non distulit, nec seruari iussit in erasti…um: For that bread, which our Lord gaue to his disciples, and said vntounto them, take ye, & eate ye, he deferred not, neither commanded it to be reserued vntill the next day. By which wordes it is manifest, that as he disallowed the reseruation, so was it not in vse in the East Church in his time. And that M. Heskins may be snarled in his owne coarde, he must call to minde, what paines he tooke to proue the Pascall Lambe, to be a figure of this sacrament, and how earnestly he vrgeth, that the trueth must answere the figure, in all things iustly, inso much that he alledgeth this text, that not a iote, or apricke of the law shall passe, vntill all be fulfilled. Nowe of the Pascal lambe, there was an expresse cōmandement, yt no part of it should be reserued vntill ye next day: therfore by his owne figures, textes, & manner of reasoning, I conclude, that the sacrament may not be reserued at all.