Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 1 · Part 26
Hesk.The sixe and twentith Chapter answereth the cheefe obiection of the aduer…aries.
Our cheefe argument (hee saith) against the reseruation,Fulke. and our very Achilles against all other rites vsed in the sacraments, is, that in the institution thereof there is no mention made of reseruation. But there he belyeth vsus. For we say it is directly against the commaundement of the institution, take and eate, and do this in remembrance of me. I would aske this question of him. Was it lawfull for the Apostles to hauehave reserued it when Christ cōmanded it to be eaten? If he say no, let him shewe me why it is more lawfull nowe to reserue it then it was then: seeing we hauehave the same commaundement continued, doe this in remembrance of me, that is, take and eate it?
Moreouer, we say it is cleane contrarie to the end and forme of the sacrament, that it should be reserued and caried about to be worshipped. For it is spirituall meate, whose end, vse, and fruit is in eating, not in keeping and carying about, or worshipping. But nowe let vsus see Maister Heskins profound Diuinitie in solution of our argument. There be three manner of doings as concerning the scripture. One is, to do so much as the scripture biddeth An other, to do against that the scripture biddeth. The third, to do something besides that the scripture biddeth. Concerning the first, hee saith, that As Christ tooke breade and wine, made it his body and bloud, commaunded it to be eaten and dronken in remembrance of him: so he that taketh bread and wine, and doth consecrate it, eat it, and drinke it in remembraunce of his death &c. doth as much as the scripture biddeth him, and is blamelesse in this respect. This is true, and all this doe we in our Church, therefore are we blamelesse by his owne conclusion. But they that being commaunded to eate, and minister to bee eaten, doe not eate it, nor giuegive it to be eaten, but keepe it, and hang it vp, doe manifestly breake this commaundement: and so doe the Papiste…. For they doe against that the scripture biddeth. And whereas he alledgeth the sixt Counsell of Constantinople, reprouing the Armenians for ministring with wine without water, it seemeth that both hee and the Counsell forgot his first rule. For they doing as much as they had either example or commaundement, of Christes institution, by his owne rule were in this respect blamelesse. But he addeth, that they in the Counsell alledged the Masse of Saint Iames and Basil, which is vtterly false, for they alledged but the manner of celebration of the mysticall sacrifice set foorth by them, and no Popish Masse. Whether Saint Iames did set foorth any such forme of celebration I will not here dispute, but I am sure there were many thinges intituled to the Apostles, euen while they liued, that were but counterfet, and so I thinke was this, for else it had bene Canonicall scripture, and the Churche would not, or should not hauehave chāged S. Iames his Masse, for Gregories Masse: nor Basil nor Chrysostome, should hauehave needed to hauehave made any newe liturgye, if they had bene certaine, that the olde had had the Apostles for their authours and inditers.
But M. Heskins triumpheth vponupon the old vsage of the Primitiue Churche, for mixing water with their wine, which we in our celebration obserue not, neither is it any matter that we striue for, but against the necessitie of water in the wine. Thē he cauelleth against M. Iewel, For punishing a Minister of his Dyocesse, that ministred the Communion with Ale, whereas he him selfe doth worse, like the high Priestes, that made no conscience to condemne Christ, but a great matter i… was with them to put the price of his betraying in the tresurie &c. Where note, that ministring with wine onelyonly, which was Christes institution, is called of him our tradition.
The thirde manner of doing he diuideth into two kindes. When the substaunce being kept, some circumstance is altered, or some ceremonie added for decencie. But reseruatiō is no meare circumstance of time, place, or persons, nor yet an indifferent ceremonie, but contrarie to the substance of the institution, and the cōmandement of Christ. For the sacrament was ordeined, only to be eaten and dronken, wherevnto reseruation is contrarie, so was it commaunded to be receiued, therefore ought not to bee reserued, hanged vp, worshipped, &c. And as M. Heskins will ioyne issue, so wil I demurre in law with him and all his fellowes, that Popish reseruation is contrarie to the end of the institution and commaundement of Christe, and nothing like those matters of circumstance wherewith he compareth it, of morning, euening, fasting, after supper, number of persons, or difference of sexe, or any of those kindes. Therefore (he him selfe saith) The Protestants argument of negatiue is eluded, but neuer a wh…t answered or auoyded.