Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 2 · Part 48
The eyght and fortieth Chapter, confuteth the rest of the proclaymers wordes before rehearsed, against the honouring of Christ in the sacrament.Hesk.
The words which he taketh vponupon him to confute,Fulk. are these: It is a newe deuise to worship the sacrament. About three hundreth yere past, Pope Honorius commaunded it to be lifted vp, and the people reuerently to bowe vntounto it. How doth he confute these words? First, he saith it is no newe deuise, but ye contrarie, that is, the denying of the adoration, is not past fourtie yeres old, and yet he confesseth before, that some infected with the heresie of Berengarius & Wickliffe, might whisper it in corners, yet Berengarius and Wickliffe preached openly, & be…ore them Bertrame wrote a booke to Charles the great, wherein he confuteth the reall presence, which began in that time to be receiued of some, as it seemeth, & vpward euen to Christ, al the auncient fathers are against that carnall presence, & consequently against adoration. But to proceede: Admitting that Honorius was the first yt commaunded it to be worshipped, which was 300 yeres agoe, yet is he elder then Oecolampadius & not defamed of heresie as Oecolampadius was: yes M. Hesk he is defamed of more then heresie, and proued to bee an antichrist. As for the continuance of 300. yeres in an errour can make no prescription against ye trueth. But he saith, it is a fond argument of the proclaimer: Because Honorius commaunded the adoration of the sacrament, therefore it was neuer in vse before. But if it were generally beleeued & vsed in all ages before, as M Hesk. would beare vsus in hande, what neede had Pope Honorius to commaund it? He saith: in like manner the fleshly sort of them dispute to mainteine their shamelesse abode with their women it is a newe deuise that priests should not marrie, inuented by Vrban and Gregorie.
Whether M. Heskins were marryed, or else had a shamelesse abode with a woman, I leaue to be tryed by God & the countrie, in the countie of Cambridge. But to the purpose, I hauehave not heard any affirme, these late Popes to be the first forbidders of marriage, and therefore it is to no purpose, that he citeth Syluester before them, and Calixtus before him, and the counterfet Canons of the Apostles before them all. And yet by the prohibition of the latest Popes, it is certeine, that Priestes were married vntill their time. And for as much, as the scripture alloweth their marriage, and condemneth the forbidders thereof, and the eldest fathers in the primi…iue church confesse no lesse, it is not to bee regarded, although a whole hundreth Popes in a rowe, did eueryevery one forbid it. The like example he bringeth of fasting in Lent, decreede in the eight Toletane counsell, neere 700. yeres after Christe, but yet affirmed of Hierome, to be a tradition of the Apostles (For so they vsed to father such ceremonies and vsages, as they knewe not the beginning of them, vponupon tradition of the Apostles) neuerthelesse, he cannot shewe any Pope, or any councell before Honorius, that did commaund adoration of the sacrament, wherefore the wordes are vnconfuted vntill the contrarie can be shewed.
After this, the Proclaimer, (sayth he) falleth to mocking the Scholasticall doctours, as S. Thomas, Duns, Durand, Holcos and such like to make it seeme a dangerous thing to honour the sacrament, for that the people cannot discerne the accidents from the bodie of Christ, and so may committ idolatrie in honouring the outwarde formes, in steede of Christ, or if the priest do …mitt consecration. This M. Heskins calleth a mocking, but he is not able to auoide it in good earnest. He calleth it a phantasie, like to that which ioyned with auarice, pulled downe all the Abbeys in England. The like phantasie, he sayth, might moue vsus, not to honour Christ in heauen, and much more the Apostles that honoured Christ in the flesh, percase not sufficiently discerning the humanitie from the Deitie, and so likewise others that worshipped Christ & yet doe, euen some of the proclaymers schollers, vnderstand not these quiddities. Shal they therefore fly the honor of Christ in heauen? A wise comparison, betweene Christe both God and man, who no doubt is to be worshipped both as God & as the mediator of God & man, and the accidents of breade & wine, or bread and wine, when they are not consecrated. Christ in the flesh is to be worshipped, because he was incarnate and ioyned to the humanitie in a personall vnion, but he is not to be worshipped in bread & wine, or in ye accidents of bread & wine, because he is neither impanated, nor inuinated, nor inaccidentated, that is, not ioyned to any of them in a personall vnion. To these doubtes that are moued by his owne schoolemen, what if the Priest do not consecrate? what if he speake not the wordes of consecration? what if he had none intention to consecrate? in all which cases, the schoolemen define, that the people committ idolatrie if they worship their hoste. First hee sayeth: he goeth about to shake the foundation of this sacrament, as Brentius doth of baptisme. Concerning Brentius, although it were easie to defende his assertion euen by the schoolemen, yet because it is no matter of our controuersie, I will briefely passe it ouer. Brentius helde that Christ hath not bound vsus to baptise in certein forme of wordes to be pronounced by the minister, so the meaning be obserued, that he baptise into the name of the Father, & of the Sonne, & of the holie ghost. Herevpon, charitable M. Heskins rayleth on him, that he impugneth the forme of baptisme, and reiecteth ye wordes of baptisme, which is vtterly false: and then he reasoneth, that if the wordes of baptisme may be without daunger omitted, why may not the words of consecratiō likewise? as though Brentius sayeth, they might be omitted, where he speaketh of altering the forme of wordes, when the same sense remaineth. Next to this he farceth in another slaunder of vsus, that we agree not in the number of the sacraments, some admitting three, some two, some foure, and some neuer a one. The world knoweth what we holde herein. After this, he sheweth out of Basil & Damascen ye necessitie of the forme of baptisme, which wee confesse, & Brentius him self doth not denye. At length he defineth contrarie to ye scholemen, yt if consecration be omitted, ye danger is to the priest, & not to ye people that worship an idol. Finally, he wil moue the like doubt of our ministration, what if the minister of ye communion, doe neither speake ye words of consecration, nor hauehave intent to minister, what do the people receiue? I aunswer, wt his intentiō wee hauehave nothing to doe, but for asmuch as nothing is whispered, or mumbled in our Communion, but so vttered, yt all men may heare and vnderstand, if any thing be omitted that is necessarie to the consecration of ye sacrament, if ye people communicate with him, they are in as great fault as he. As for Richerus, whome he calleth a Caluenist, yt forbiddeth to pray to Christ, and reiecteth ye wordes of consecration, if any such be, let him aunswere for him self, we hauehave nothing to do with him. Although we acknowledge not any mumbling of wordes, but the whole action according to Christes institution, to be the forme of consecration of the sacrament.