Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 1 · Part 27
Hesk.The seuen and twentith Chapter, answering other arguments & obiections of the proclamer.
In the beginning of this Chapter, whereas the Bishops challenge was,Fulke. of hanging vp the sacramente vnderunder a canopie, meaning reseruation, and setting it vp for idolatrous worshipping, for which M. Heskins hath no color in antiquitie, he woulde inforce him to vnderstande his challeng of simple reseruation, or for other vses thē adoration, as to be caried to the sicke, or such as coulde not be present &c. And first he pleadeth possession of nine hundreth yeares, out of which hee shoulde not bee put without reason, but as good a lawyer as hee is, he muste know, that nowe a writ of right being brought against him, prescription of possession will not serue him.
But hee wil giuegive colour to the plaintife, and apply the reason vsed agaynste priuate masse by the proclamer, to see if it will serue against reseruation. That it is the commaundement of Christ Doe this, that is to say, practise this that I hauehave here done, and that in such forme and sorte as you hauehave s…ene mee doe it. This exposition hee refuseth as false, concerning the manner and forme: Affirming that the commaundement extendeth no further, but to the receiuing of his bodie and bloud, as the substance wherevppon the memoriall shoulde be grounded, without any charge giuen of the manner and the forme. And for proofe of this exposition, hee citeth S. Hieronyme, Chrysostome, Euthymius, Thomas Aquinas, and Hugo Cardinalis, all whiche in deede affirme, that wee are commaunded to celebrate the remembrance of his passion, but none of them exclude the manner and forme of celebration from the commaundement. Howe …oudenly hath M. Heskins forgotten the strong clubbe of his Logike, whereby hee did euen now, beate downe the proclaymers negatiue argumentes, but now againe they are the best he canne occupie him selfe. Hieronyme, Chrysostome, and the rest speake not of the manner and forme of celebration: therefore there is no necessarie forme to bee obserued, as commaunded by Christ. But as the proclamer hath no authoritie for his expsition, so M. Heskins will bring good reasō against it to proue it false. First he will graunt that the primitiue Church for fiue or sixe h…ndreth yeares after Christ did minister the sacramentes purely and without the breach of Christes commaundement. Hee will grant for the substance, but not yt they continued so long without abuse. The assumption of this proposition is, that the Masses vsed in the primitiue Church, varied from Christes institution. As for example, the Masses of S. Iames, Basil, Chrysostome, Ambrose, differed ech from other, and all from Christes institution in forme and manner. It pleaseth him to call the olde liturgies or formes of ministration vsed in diuerse Churches, masses: the diuersitie hee meaneth is in formes of prayers, and circumstances, concerning which Christe gaue no commandement, and therfore, they are contrarie to his institution.
The seconde reason is of the proclamers owne practise, who in celebration of this sacramēt vseth other time, other kinde of breade, other garmentes, other number of communicantes then Christe did. But none of these are the forme or matter of the sacrament, and so they touch not the substance. But eating and drinking is of the substantiall forme of the sacrament, and the end of the consecration of the creatures of breade and wine, to the vse of that holy mysterie, against which, not eating is contradiction, and so reseruation is a plaine contradiction of the commaundemente of Christ.
An other reason hee hath of admitting an vnworthie person, as Christ did Iudas, which is for all that a matter of question: and yet nothing to the purpose, if hee were admitted. For Christe knewe him by his diuine nature, before he chose him to bee an Apostle, but in as much as Iudas was an hypocrite, before he was reueled to the iudgement of man, hee was not to be refused. To be short, the substance of the sacrament is not only the heauenly matter thereof, as M. Heskins dreameth, but also the earthly matter and the fourme also. As for circumstances and accidentes, that touch neither the forme nor matter, they are to bee applyed to edification, order, & decencie. Cyprian and the fathers in his time, and long time after, what reason did they vse to confute them that ministred with water, mylke, clusters of grapes, dipping of bread, and linnen cloathes in the wine, and such like? Did they not beate thē down with ye institution of Christ? For they coulde well inough distinguishe the substance from the accidentes, the matter and forme from the circumstances.
After this M. Heskins will open a sleight of the proclamer, who confesseth that women in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian did carie home the sacrament to their houses, and receiued a portion therof in the morning, before meat: but he numbreth this custome among abuses, whereas neither Tertullian nor Cyprian do directly reproue them: neither do they allow them, by any one worde. But I pray you M. Heskins, if it bee no abuse, that women shoulde carie the sacrament home with them, keepe it in their coffers, and eate it eueryevery morning next their heart, why doe not you of the Popishe Church continue such an auncient custome? Why hauehave you abrogated it? and to dissuade them from it, tell tales in you legends and promptuaries, of some that hauehave carried it home, and founde it turned I cannot tell into what monsters? But peraduenture the vsage of the Church in Iustines time, will prooue it to bee none abuse. For then the sacrament was caried home to them that were absent. And here M. Heskins alleadging Iustines Apollogie, telleth not in whether Apollogie, and setteth downe a forme of wordes, which are not in Iustine, Apoll. 2. where the matter is spoken of, in such forme as he citeth thē: by which once again you may see, that his great reading of ye doctors was out of other mens notes & collections, & not of his own studie. For it semeth he knew not in which Apologie this matter is spokē of, alleging this saying thus, Cum autē is qui praest gratias egerit, & totus populus approhauerit, … qui vicentur apud nos diaconi, distribuūt vnicui que , praesenti…a vt participent de pane, in quo gratiae actae sunt, & de vino & aqua, & his, qui non sunt praesentes, deferunt domū. Whē he that is chefe hath giuen thankes, and all the people hath consented to it, these that with vsus be called deacons, doe distribute of the consecrated bread, and of the wine and water to euerie one that is present to receiue, and to those that be absente they carie it home. But Iustines owne wordes bee these: foreign.
When we hauehave ended our prayer, there is offered bread and wine and water. And the chiefe minister sendeth forth likewise praiers & thanksgiuing with al his might, and the people giuegive their consent saying Amen. Then is made distribution and participation of those thinges for which thankes is giuen, vntounto euerie one: And to them that are not present there is sent by the deacons. By these worde… it can not be proued necessarily, that the sacrament was sente to them that were absent, but rather part of the breade and wine which was offered in greate plentie, the distribution whereof belonged to the Deacons: and immediatly after mentiō is made of the contribution of the richer sorte. But admitte that they did send the sacrament to such as were sicke, or otherwise to necessarily letted, that they could not be present in bodie, & yet were present in minde, and ioyned in prayer with them, what maketh this for the popishe reseruation to bee worshipped? EueryEvery one that was present there receiued, onelyonly the Priestes receiueth amongest the Papistes, and hangeth vp the rest ouer the Altar. But it is a fine reason of M. Heskins, they carried it, therefore they reserued it: if they reserued it an houre, why might they not reserue it as long as they lift? But they caried it yt it might be receiued presently, they hanged it not vp to bee gazed vppon.
S. Basill also witnesseth, that holy men liuing in the wildernesse did reserue the sacrament in their alter. Omnes in Eremis … vitam agentes, vbi non est Sacerdos, communionem domi seruantes, a se ipsis communicant. All that leade solitarie liues in the wildernesse where there is no Priest, keeping the com…union at home, de receiue it of them selues.
M. Heskins falsifieth the wordes in translation & sayth: they receiued by them selues, as though they receiued it alone. This fragment of Basils Epistle, argueth an abuse of the reseruation, but it proueth no hanging vp of the sacrament for adoration. That this was an abuse crept in of superstition, it is manifest, for that it was afterwarde by a Godly councell condemned and forbiddē. Concil. Caesaraugustanum, Capit. 3. Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in ecclesia, anathema sit in perpetuum. Ab vniversis Episcopis dictum est, Anathema sit. If any person be proued after he hath taken the grace or gift of the Eucharistie not to hauehave spent it in the Church, let him be accursed for euer. All the bishops saide, let him be accursed. Moreouer, to prooue a thing to be lawfull, by such an vsage, as they them selues confesse to bee vnlawfull, what abusing of the simple is it? S. Hierome also in his apollogie against Iouinian, testifyeth that the people of Rome in his time vsed to keepe the sacrament in their houses, and receiue it by themselues. In this place I cannot tel whether I should suspect that which hath often been prooued before, that M. Heskins cyteth his authorities out of notebookes and collections, rather then out of his owne readings, and so knowe not what was Hieroms iudgement of this custome of receiuing at home, or else that of fraude to abuse the reader hee hath concealed it. But ye matter of trueth is this. There was a custome at Rome, to receiue eueryevery day, which custome Hierome sayth he doth neither allowe, nor reprehende. But hee appealeth to the consciences of those men that had communicated at home, the same day after they had companyed with their wiues, wherefore they durst not go to the Church. Quare non ingrediuntur ecclesias? an alius in publico, alius in domo Christus est? quod in ecclesia non licet, nec domi licet. Why come they not into the Churches? Is there one Christ in the publike places, another in their priuate house? that which is not lawfull in the Church, is not lawfull in the house. But howe can M. Heskins proue, that the people vsed to keepe the sacrament in their houses, wherof there is no worde in Saint Hierome? but rather it is to bee thought, that the Priests did come to them, and minister it in their priuate houses, which Hierome also disalloweth. And howe can he prooue, that they did receiue it by them selues? when Saint Hierome sayeth, communicant, they do communicate. The last discourse prouing by authoritie of Saint Augustine, that vniuersall obseruations of the Church, where the Scripture commaundeth not the contrarie, are to bee holden for lawes, is meerely vaine, seeing he can neuer prooue his reseruation to be catholike or vniuersally allowed and practised of the Church, and we hauehave proued it, to be contrary to the Scripture.