Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 33
The three and thirtieth Chapter treateth of the Masse it selfe.Hesk.
Maister Heskins first with rayling tearmes,Fulke. taketh exception to the proclaymers diuision of the Masse, into foure partes, Prayers, consecration, receiuing, doctrine, except he adde oblation as the fifte, or comprehend it vnderunder the name of consecration. Moreouer he saith, this is but a description of Masse in the large signification. But the Masse it selfe properly is the holie consecration of the bodie and bloud of Christ, the holy oblation and offring of the same, in the memoriall and remembrance of his passion and death, with humble and lowly thankes, lawdes and prayses for the same, and holy receiuing of that body and bloud so consecrated. Here is the Lions skinne couering the asse, but yet not so closely but the long eares may be seene hanging out. For as the forme of these wordes for the most parte may be applyed to the holy communion, so almost by euerie word, he vnderstandeth another thing then either the scriptures or the auncient fathers do teache, as we shall best see in the examination of the partes which followe. First where he sayeth, the proclaymer cannot abide consecration, he sayeth falsely, for both he graunteth consecration and the presence of Christes bodie and bloud, but not the Popish charming, nor their carnall manner of presence, whiche how they be proued by M. Heskins let the readers iudge. Oblation the second part, he sayeth is proued in the first book, and declaration of the prophesies of Melchisedech, Damascen, Malachie, and in the 37. Chapter. In the same places let the reader consider the answere.
In receiuing, which is the thirde part, two things (saith Maister Heskins) offend the proclaymer, that is; receiuing vnderunder one kinde, and receiuing of the Priest alone. The former is defended by him Lib. 2. from the 64. Chap. to the end of 67. Chap. & there it is in this booke confuted. The priuate receiuing (he saith) shall be defended afterward. In doctrine the 4. part, he knoweth not what faulte the proclaymer can finde, wherein is greatest fault of all, but M. Heskins will hauehave nothing to be the doctrine of the Masse, but the Gospell and Pistle and other scriptures that are read in it.
In prayer the fift and last parte, he findeth two faultes, namely prayer to Saintes, and for the dead, for triall of these, he will hauehave recourse to the primitiue Church. It is well he can hauehave no recourse to the holie scriptures, nor to the most ancient Church, which is properly called the primitiue Church, although these two errors be of great antiquitie. But before M. Heskins vndertake these trials, he girdeth at the communion ministred in copes, and the proclaymer wearing Aarons garment for a bishoprick. If the Popish priestes had no more pleasure to say masse in their vestments, then the proclaymer to minister in copes, I thinke the common sort of Papistes would hauehave lesse deuotion to the Masses, then Gods people hauehave to ye communion, when it is ministred without any ceremoniall attyre. But Maister Heskins will proue (that neuer yet was heard off) that Christ himselfe saide Masse. For he instituted the Masse in his last supper, and that he will proue by Cyprian, but why doth he not rather proue it by ye Euangelistes? Forsooth, because the scriptures hauehave no such vnproper speech to make any shewe of the Masse, as Cyprian and the rest of the fathers hauehave. Well let vsus heare how Cyprian affirmeth that Christ saide Masse. Maister Heskins saith: First for the consecration, Lib. 2. Ep. 3. He writeth thus: Vt in Genesi, &c. That the blessing in Genesis by Melchisedech the priest might be duely celebrated about Abraham, the image of the sacrifice appointed in bread and wine goeth before, which thing our Lord perfecting and fulfilling offered bread & the cup mixed with wine, and he that is that fulnesse hath fulfilled the veriti… of the prefigured image: In these wordes M. Heskins forgetting that Christ offred bread & wine, gloseth vponupon the veritie of the image fulfilled by Christ, and expressed by Cyprian in other wordes. Obtulit, &c. He offred the same thing which Melchisedech had offered, that is bread and wine, euen his bodie and bloud. Here againe is bread and wine offered by Christe, which is his bodie and bloud after a spiritual manner, as it was offered by Melchisedech. Hitherto no worde of consecration, nor of the carnall manner of presence, but directly against it. Nowe let vsus heare howe he proueth oblation. Quaerendum est, &c. It must be asked whom they hauehave folowed. For if in the sacrifice which is Christ none but Christ is to be followed, we must then obey and doe that whiche Christ did, and which he commanded to be done. Here Maister Heskins noteth yt Christ is the sacrifice. I answere euen as the bread is his bodie & the wine his bloud. But yt Christ commaunded the Church to offer this sacrifice in remembrance of him, he teacheth plainely (saith M. Heskins.) Yea sir, but where doth he teach, either plainely or obscurely, that the Masse is a sacrifice propitiatorie for the quicke and the dead, which is the matter in question? And not the name of sacrifice vsed by Cyprian vnproperly & figuratiuely, meaning a remembrance and thankesgiuing for the onelyonly once offered sacrifice of Christe. But let vsus heare his words. Quod si nec minimia, &c. If it be not lawful to breake the least of the Lordes commaundements, how much more is it not lawful to infringe or breake things so greate, so weightie, so apperteining to the very sacrament of the Lords passion, and our redemption, or by mans tradition to chaunge it into any other thing then is ordeined of God? For if Iesus Christ our Lord and God be himselfe the high Priest of God the father, and he himselfe first did offer sacrifice, and commanded this to be done in his remembrance, that Priest supplyeth the roome of Christ truly, which followeth that which Christ did. And then he offereth a true & full sacrifice in the Church to God the father if he so begin to offer, as he hath seene Christ him selfe to hauehave offered. Here M. Hesk. reproueth our ministration in two points: First, for that we minister with wine alone contrarie to Christes institution. But when he can proue that Christ added water to his cup of wine, we will grant it to be a breach of his institution, and not before. Secondly he reasoneth, if it be so greate a matter to take away wine or water from the ministratiō, it is much greater to take away. Christes body there fro: but it is as false that we take away his bodie, as it is true, that they take away his bloud. Now concerning the tearme sacrifice, vsed by S. Cyprian, his wordes in the same Epistle declare plainely, that he vsed it (as I said before) vnproperly: Et quia passionis eius mentionem insacrificijs omnibus facimus (passio est enim Domini, sacrificium… quod offerimus) nihil aliud quàm quod ille fecit facere debemus. And because we make mention of his passion in all our sacrifices (for the sacrifice which we offer is the passion of our Lord) we ought to do nothing, but that he hath done. By this you see, that the sacrifice is Christe, euen as it is the passion of Christe, that is to say, a sacramentall memoriall of Christes body, and of his passion, & not otherwise. But Maister Heskins taking occasion of the former saying of Cyprian by him cited, rayleth at his pleasure vponupon the author of the apologie, for saying, the contention betweene Luther and Zwinglius, was about a small matter. And so it was in deede, in comparison of these cheefe and necessarie pointes of religion, in whiche they did agree. And if you make the moste of it, yet was it no greater, then the matter of rebaptising, wherein Cyprian his authour, dissented from Cornelius Bishop of Rome. Neuerthelesse Maister Heskins returning to vrge the image of the sacrifice, set foorth in Melchisedeches feast of bread and wine, bringeth in Tertullian Contra Marcion. Ita nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecrauit, qui sunc vi…um in sanguine figurauit. So now he hath consecrated his bloud in wine, which then figured wine in bloud. He quoteth not the place, least his falsification might appeare. For first he applyeth this figure to Melchisedech, which Tertullian doth to Iuda, and translateth Vinum in sanguine figurauit. He figured wine in his bloud, whereas Tertullian speaking of the blessing yt Iacob gaue to Iuda, that he should wash his garment in the bloud of the grape, sayeth, he figured wine by bloud, that is, by the name of bloud of the grape, he meant figuratiuely wine. As for the name of consecration in the true sense thereof, we neither abhorre nor refuse to vse. But he hath neuer done with Melchisedeches bread & wine, & when all commeth to all, Christ offred neither bread nor wine, as they say. Yet M. Heskins affirmeth, (if he wold abide by it) that Christ offred bread & wine in verity. But if you aske him whether he mean bread and wine in truth and veritie, he will say no verily, so M. Hesk. veritie is contradictorie to truth. To draw to an end he citeth Ambrose In praefatione Missae in coena Do. Christus formam sacrificij perennis instituens, hostiam se primus obtulit & primus docuit offerri, &c. Christ instituting a fourme of perpetuall sacrifice, first offered himselfe for a sacrifice, and first taught it to be offered.
But where Maister Heskins founde this authority, I leaue to all learned men to consider, when there is not such a title in all the workes of Saint Ambrose that are printed, new or olde. Therefore whether he fayned it him selfe, or followed some other forger, he sheweth his honest and faithfull dealing. But if we should admitte this testimonie as lawfull, whereas it is but a counterfete: yet vnderstanding howe the auncient wryters abused the name of sacrifice for a memoriall of a sacrifice; and not for a propitiatorie sacrifice, it helpeth Maister Heskins nothing at all. Saint Ambrose himselfe very improperly vseth the name of Hostia, or sacrifice as De Virgine Lib. 1. Virgo matris hostia est cuius quotidiano sacrificio vis diuina placatur. A Virgine is the hoste or sacrifice of her mother, by whose daily sacrifice the wrath of God is pacified. If Maister Heskins coulde finde thus muche in Saint Ambrose for the sacrifice of the Masse, he would triumph out of measure, that he had found it a propitiatorie sacrifice, euen for the quicke and the dead: and that those wordes of Christe: doe this in rememembraunce of me, were expounded of the Fathers for, offer a sacrifice propitiatorie. But who so listeth to heare the trueth, neede not to bee deceiued in the word of sacrifice and phrase of offring vsed by the olde writers, which was not properly, but figuratiuely &c sometimes abusiuely. For further instruction of consecration, and oblation he sendeth his Reader backe to the 2. book, 41. Chapter, to the end of the book. For the rest vntounto the 1. booke, 33. Chapter, to the end of that booke. And euen in the same places shall the Reader finde mine answere.