Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 34
Hesk.The foure and thirtieth Chapter sheweth the vse of the Masse vsed and practised by the Apostles.
Fulk.It is maruell the Apostles were such great sayers of Masse, and yet neuer make one worde mention of it in all their writinges. But we must see what Maister Heskins can picke out of them. And first he maketh another diuision of his Masse into inward substantiall partes, whiche are consecration, oblation, and receiuing, instituted by Christ, and into outward ceremonies, prayers, gestures, & manners Instituted by the ministerie of the holie Ghost, but not of Christe. In these later he graunteth, that the Masses of S. Peter, of S. Andrew, of S. Iames, of S. Clement, of S. Dionyse, S. Basil, Chrysostome, S. Ambrose do differ one from another, but not in the former substantiall partes: & specially in consecration, and oblation, wherein the controuersie standeth: which M. Heskins wil proue adding two handmaides vntounto them, that is, to consecration intention, and to oblation, prayer for acceptation. So by his Diuinitie, the intention of the priest, hath more force then the wordes of consecration to make the bodie of Christ present, and when it is present and sacrificed, it hath neede of the priestes prayers for acceptation. But he will begin with S. Peters Masse, and that he proueth by this reason, the proclaymer confesseth (though in scorne) that some say S. Peter saide Masse at Rome, but no auncient writer saith, he did not say Masse, therefore it is true, that he did say Masse. This argument is of like force with this that I will bring: some say that Maister Heskins in King Edwards time married a Nunne, whiche no auncient writer denieth, therefore it is true yt he married a Nunne, and so peraduenture it is, although it followe not vponupon the assumption that no auncient writer denieth it. And as for S. Peters Massing, as there is no auncient writer that writte within 600. yeares of Christe that denieth it, so is there none that affirmeth it. But you shall heare another reason. S. Peter that sate 2…. yeares at Rome and had saide Masse at Antioche, is not like to hauehave neglected his duetie at Rome. Admit it were true, that he was at Rome, which is not all out of doubt, and that he sate as Bishop there 25. yeares, which is proued false by the scriptures, all though Hierome and Eusebius doe affirme it: yet howe proueth M. Hesk. that it was any part of his dutie to say Masse, either there or else where, or that he did say Masse at Antioche? His first witnesse is Hugo de S. Lib. 2. de Sacra. par. 8. Cap. 14. Who although he be a late writer, vnworthie of credite in this cause, yet I wil set downe his words, that you may see howe much they make for M. Heskins cause. Celebratio Misse &c. The celebration of the Masse is done in commemoration of the Passion of Christ, as he commaunded the Apostles, deliuering to them his bodie and his bloud saying: This do ye in remembrance of me. This Masse S. Peter the Apostle is saide first of all men to hauehave saide at Antioch. In the which in the beginning of the faith, there were only three prayers saide. If this be true, none of the Apostles saide Masse at Hierusalem many yeare after Christ, but it is manifest, that they ministred the Lordes Supper, therefore the Masse is not the Lordes supper. But if he will restraine the words of Hugo to meane, that Peter was the first that saide Masse at Antioch, the consequence will be the same, for it is certeine, that the Gospell beeing first preached at Antiochia by those Cyprians, and Cyrenians that fled vponupon the persecution of Stephan, Barnabas, and Paul, sent thither by the Apostles, brought the Antiochians to be perfect Christians, in so much that the name of Christians began there, before Peter came thither to say Masse, but they could not be Christians, without the celebration of the Lordes supper, therefore the Lordes supper is not the Masse. Againe where he saith, there were but three praiers in S. Peters Masse, & some Popish writers affirme, that he vsed no praiers but ye lords praier: if this were true, what liklyhod hath S. Peters Masse wt ye Popish Masse, but only yt it pleaseth them to cal the celebratiō of ye Lords supper, (which Peter no dout ministred purely a…ter Christs institutiō,) by ye name of their impure Masse? After the testimonie of Remigius, he bringeth in Isidorus, whom he confesseth to hauehave ben before Remigius, & yet he was wtout yt compasse of 600 yeres after Christ, whereas in other places before, he maketh Remigius almost 200. yeres elder thē Isidorus. But Isidorus affirmeth Li. 1. de Off. Ecc. Cap. 15. That the order of the Masse, or prayers with which the sacrifices offered to God are cōsecrated, was first instituted by S. Peter. Although he liued in an erronious, & superstitious time, yet he meaneth yt S. Peter did appoint an order and forme of prayers, for ye celebration of ye Lords supper. But certeine it is, yt the same order was not extant in his time, much lesse now. For Gregorie is made ye institutor of the Popish Masse, whiche was not long before Isidorus. Next he will proue, that S. Paule said Masse, though no olde writer faith it: for (saith he) S. Paul did yt he taught: but he taught the Masse: Therfore he said Masse. He ministred the cōmunion, according to the doctrine he taught in those Chapters,1. Cor. 10. & 11. in which in deede is mention of consecration, and receiuing, but no syllable of oblation of Christ in the sacrament. As for ye order & forme of ministration, it was agreable to that doctrine: & when he said, Other things I wil set in order when I come, although it be not necessarily to be referred to matters cōcerning ye sacrament, sauing ye authority of Hugo, Hierom, & Augustine: yet it is out of question, yt he did dispose nothing contrary to the doctrine of yt Epistle, as all the Popish filthines is, which M. Hesk. would thrust vpō vsus, vnderunder ye name of those things, which S. Paul ordeined. But it is wonderful to see, his blockish frowardnes, yt he would proue out of Aug. yt the order of the Masse now vsed, is ye order of the Masse yt S. Paul speaketh of: Ep. 118. Vnde datur, &c. Wherby it is giuē to be vnderstanded, because it was much, that in an epistle he shuld set forth all that order of doing, which the vniuersall Church through out the world obserueth, that it is ordeined of him, which by no diuersity of maners is altred. He speketh of receiuing of ye cōmunion fasting, which M H. willfully hath corrupted, by a false translation, and by wrong pointing, & falsifying ye relatiue Quod to make it a Coniunction, yt he might apply it to ye whole order of his Popish Masse, which Aug. speaketh but of yt one ceremonie of receiuing fasting, and not after supper. Augustines wordes are these: Vnde datur intelligi quia mulium erat, vt in Epistola totum agendi ordinem insinuaret, quem vniuersa per orbem obseruat Ecclesia, ab ipso ordinatū esse quod nulla morū diuersitate variatur. Which M. Hes. hath corrupted thus: whereby it is giuē to be vnderstanded, that it was too much that in an epistle he should declare al that order of ministration, which the vniuersal Church throughout the worlde taketh to be ordeined of him, for as much as it is not, by any diuersitie of maners varied, or altered. But if it were as he fableth, yt S. Paul ordeined the ceremonial part of the Masse yt was vsed in Augustines time, ye Popish Masse being not ye same in ceremoniall partes, (as he will confesse,) that it was in Augustines time: it foloweth, that the Popish Masse is not yt, which was ordeined of S. Paule: for it is well known, it was patched & peeced together by many peeces long since August. time. And as certein it is, yt almost euerie Church in his time, had a seuerall forme of liturgie, and therefore by his owne words they cannot be that, which S. Paule set in order at the Church of yt Corinthians. The like impudēcie he sheweth in ye next saying of Aug. which he citeth Et ideo non proecipit, &c. And therfore he cōmanded not in what order it should be receiued afterward, that he might reserue this place to the Apostles by whō he would set the Churches in order. It followeth which M. Hesk. hath omitted, Etiamsi hoc ille monuisset, vt post cibos alios semper acciperetur, credo quòd eum morē nemo variasset. For if he had charged this, yt it should always be receiued after other meats, I beleeue yt no man would hauehave varied frō yt maner. When August. speketh so expresly of that one order of receiuing ye communiō before meat, what boldness is it to say, yt crouching, kneeling, & other dumb ceremonies, although they were not instituted by Christ, yet were ordeined by S. Paul, vpō colour of Aug. authority, who in ye same epistle, wished al such idle ceremonies vtterly to be abolished. The next Massemonger he maketh, is S. Andrew, out of whose legend, written by I knowe not what priestes & deacons of Achaia, he wil proue, yt S. Andrew did both say Masse, and also therin offer in sacrifice the bodie & bloud of Christ. But he is too much deceiued, if he thinke any man of reasonable vnderstanding will in these dayes giuegive credite to such fabulous legends: after S. Andrew cōmeth in S. Iames with his Masse, said at Ierusalē, which is in print: but not heard of in ye Church 600. yeres after Christ, yet M. Hesk. saith it is allowed & praysed by the proclaymer, which is vtterly false: for he proueth by a manifest argumēt, that ye liturgie, which is in print vnderunder the name of S. Iames, is a coun…erfet, because therein is a special prayer conteyned, for such as liue in Monasteries, whereas there was neuer a monasterie in the world, many hundreth yeres after the death of S. Iames. And for a further proofe of the false inscription of that liturgie to S. Iames, I will adde this argument, that he vseth the worde foreign or consubstantial which, as the learned knowe, was neuer heard of in the Church, before the heresie of Arrius was condemned in the Nicene counsell, although ye Catholike Church did alwayes confesse, yt Christ was God of the same substance, equal with the father and the holy Ghost. In deede the B. of Sarum, confesseth, that there is more in those liturgies against the Papistes, then for them, as by examining these parcels which M. Heskins citeth, we shall easily perceiue. First the liturgie of Iames, hath these wordes. Dominus, &c. Our Lord Iesus the same right, in which he was betrayed, or rather in which night he deliuered himselfe for the life of saluation of the world taking bread into his holie, vndefiled, innocent & immortall hands, looking vp into heauen, & shewing it to the God & father, giuing thankes, sanctifying, breaking, he gaue it to vsus his disciples saying Take ye, eate ye, this is my bodie, which is broken for you, and giuen vntounto remission of sinnes. Likewise after he had supped, he tooke the cup, and mingling it with wine and water, & looking vp into heauen and shewing it to the God and father, giuing thankes sanctifying, blessing, filling it with the holy Ghost, he gaue it to vsus his disciples, saying, Drinke ye all of this: this is my bloud of the new Testament, which is shed for you and many, and giuen for remission of sinnes. This saith Maister Heskins was his maner of consecration, vnlike the manner of the newe ministers in their communion, which only rehearse the words of Christ historically, not directing thē to God as a prayer, wherein he lyeth most impudently, as euerie man that heareth or readeth the praier immediately before ye receiuing of the sacrament can testifie. Concerning the tearme of consecration. I hauehave often shewed, that in the true sense thereof, we both allow & vse it, although he wold make ignorant & obstinat papists, yt wil neither heare our preachings, nor read our writings, to beleeue ye contrarie, only because he saith it. Another ridiculous cauil, he hath, that we take not ye bread into our handes before we consecrate it, But let it lie on the table, as though we had nothing to do with it. Surely we do not acknowledge such holines in our hands, yt it can consecrate the bread, but we pray to God to blesse those his creatures of bread & wine yt they may be vntounto vsus the bodie and bloud of Christ his sonne our Lord. If the Papists hauehave such holy, vndefiled, and immortal hands, as this Iames speaketh of, it is more then we knowe, or will confesse, before they can proue it. In the consecration of ye wine, he chargeth vsus. yt we mingle no water with the wine. But when he can proue, by the word of God, yt our sauiour Christ did so, we will confesse our errour, otherwise we see no necessitie of the water, & so their own schoolemen do confesse. We acknowledge yt in the primitiue Church, it was an ancient custome, to mingle water with the wine, but not as a ceremonie at the first, but as the cōmon vsage of al men yt drank ye hotte wines of the East countries: but afterward it grewe to be counted a ceremonie, including some mysterie, and at length with some it excluded the wine altogether, as with those that were called Aquarij, so daungerous a matter it is to vse any thing in Gods seruice, more then is prescribed by himselfe. But M. Heskins cānot be persuaded, that after al this sanctifying, blessing, and filling of the cup with the holy Ghost, there should bee nothing else but a bare hungrie figure. As though there were no choyce, but either transubstantiation, or a bare hungrie figure. In baptisme there is sanctification, blessing, and filling with the holie Ghost, as much as in the communion, is there therefore transubstantiation in baptisme, because there is not a bare hungrie figure? But if I might be so bold, as to examine him in his own fained Masse of S. Iames, I would aske him, how the cuppe is filled with the holie Ghost? essentially, so that ye holie Ghost, or any parte of him is conteined in the cupp? I dare say he will say no. And why then may not the bodie of Christ be present, and yet not corporally nor locally conteyned in pixe, corporax, cupp, hand, or mouth, but after a spirituall manner, as the holy Ghost is in the cuppe, by his owne Iames his saying. The last quarrell he picketh, is to our ministers, who (sayeth he) hauehave none authoritie to consecrate, because they receiue it not from the catholike succession. As for that authoritie which we hauehave receiued of God by the outwarde calling of the church, wee minde not to exchange with the Popes triple crowne, and much lesse with Maister Hesk. shauen crowne. But to shape him an answere according to his lewde obiection: seeing many are suffered to minister in our church, which were made priestes after the Popish order of antichrist, why should he denye any of them, them at the least, to hauehave power to consecrate, according to the Popish diuinitie, though the wordes be spoken in English, so long as he hath intentionē consecrandi, before he be of them disgraded, and hath his indebeble character scraped out of his handes and fingers endes? I aunswere he is not able to defend his opinion, that thei cannot consecrate, neither in Sorbona of Paris, nor in the schoole of Louain. To shutt vp this Chapter, he flappeth vsus in the mouth, with S. Mathewes Masse, testified by Abdias in the diuels name, a disciple of the Apostles (as hee saith) but one that sawe Christ him selfe, (as M. Harding sayeth) in verie deed a lewd lying counterfeter of more then Caunterburie tales. And thinketh he that such fables, will nowe bee credited? except it bee of such as wilfully will be deceiued.