Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 2 · Part 44
The foure and fortieth Chapter by occasion of the wordes of Alexander, treateth of the adoration and honouring of Christes body in the sacrament.Hesk.
It is a worshipfull Alexander, that gaue you the occasion of this discourse by his wordes. But let the occasion goe, we will looke to the matter. First he rehearseth halfe a side of M. Iewels wordes against the adoration of the sacrament, out of which he gathereth two arguments, the one thus: Christ neuer gaue cōmandement to worship the sacrament: ergo, it is not to be done. This argument he answereth is negatiue, and therfore concludeth nothing. But vnderunder correction of his great Logike, when God chargeth vsus to do that onelyonly, which he commaundeth, an argument of negatiues of Gods commaundement concludeth al things to be vnlawfull, which God hath not commaunded. Hee bringeth examples of many that worshipped Christe, yet had they no commaundement of him so to doe. A great number worshipped him not as God, but as the Prophete of God, for which they had commandement in the lawe, and they that worshipped him as God most especially. But M. Heskins will make the like argument, Christ gaue the sacrament of his body to the Apostles onelyonly, and gaue no commaundement that all people should receiue it indifferently, wherefore it ought not to be done. Reuerend M. Doctour, I denye your antecedent, for ye can not proue, that he gaue it only to his Apostles, nor that he gaue no commaundement, for he gaue an expresse commaundement to continue ye same ceremonie vntil his comming againe, as S. Paule doth testifie. Therefore your argument is as like, as an apple is like an oyster. But to passe ouer the rest of his babbling against the proclamers learning, too well knowne, to bee defaced by such an obscure Doctours censure: I come to his second argument. S. Paule that tooke the sacrament at Christes hand, and as he had taken it, deliuered it to the Corinthians, neuer willed adoration or godly honour to be giuen to it. This argument he will not vouchsafe to aunswere, as concluding nothing, but he denyeth the antecedent, saying, It is false, that S. Paul deliuered no more to the Corinthians then Christ did. First he will make Paule a lyar, when he saide, that which I receiued I deliuered, &c. But howe will he proue that he deliuered more then Christ did? If you can spare laughter in reading, I could not in writing. Forsooth S. Paule deliuered to the Corinthians, that the vnwoorthie receiuer shall be guiltie of the body and bloud of Christ, whereas Christ when he instituted the sacrament gaue no such lawe. O noble Diuine! as though that if Christ at his supper had vsed no longer discourse of this sacrament, then those fewe words, which the Euangelistes doe rehearse, as a summe thereof, yet it was not necessarily to be gathered, that the vnworthie receiuer contemning the body & bloud of Christ, which is offered to him, is guiltie of haynous iniurie against the same, and therefore it is necessarie that eueryevery one that receiueth it, should examine him selfe that hee receiue it worthily. Whether Christ receiued Iudas or no, which is not agreed vponupon: but if he did, knowing him by his diuine knowledge to be a reprobate, though not yet discouered to the knowledge of man, hee gaue vsus none example to receiue notorious wicked persons, whome wee as men knowe to be vnwoorthie without repentance.
But to make the matter out of doubt, Saint Paul, though not by the terme of adoration, yet willed honour to be giuen to the sacrament. When he saith, let a man examine him selfe, and so let him eate of this bread, and drinke of this cup. For a man cannot examine him self without great honor giuē vntounto the sacrament. And for more manifest proofe, Saint Paule referreth the honour or dishonour that is done by woorthie or vnwoorthie receiuing, not to the grace of GOD, or merite of Christes passion, but to the sacrament. Who so eateth this breade, and drinketh this cuppe of the Lorde vnworthily, shall be guiltie of the bodie and bloud of Christ. Nay rather, hee referreth the honour or contempt of the sacrament to the body and bloud of Christe, whose sacrament this is, as the wordes are plaine. But who would thinke that Maister Heskins would play the foole so egregiously, to abuse his reader with ambiguities and aequiuocations? as though there were no difference betweene adoration and honouring, that is, giuing of due reuerence vntounto the sacraments, and worshipping them as Gods. But S. Augustine (I trowe) helpeth him, Ep. 118. ad Ian. Placuit &c. It hath pleased the holy Ghost, that in honour of so great a sacrament, the body of Christ should enter into the mouth of a Christian man before other meates. I holde him as blinde as a beetle, that seeth not honour in this place to signifie reuerence, which is giuen to holy things, and not adoration, which pertayneth onelyonly to GOD. His last reason to proue, that Saint Paul taught the adoration of the sacrament, is that, which is the whole controuersie, that Saint Paule taught the carnall presence, but that remaineth to bee proued afterward.