Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 35
The fiue and thirtieth Chapter, sheweth the manner of consecration vsed and practised by the disciples of the Apostles, and the fathers of the primitiue and auncient church.Hesk.
His first author is Nicolaus Methonensis a Grecian,Fulk. but a late writer, who affirmeth that Clemens did write a Liturgie, which Peter, Paule, and the Apostles vsed. Although that, which he rehearseth of Clemens his Liturgie, be to small purpose, & litle or nothing differing from that hee had before of Iames, yet Nicolaus Methon, is too yong a witnesse to bee credited in this case. For he was not of yeres of discretion to discerne that for the authenticall writing of Clemens, which the more auncient church, by a thousand yeres could not hauehave perfect knowledge to be his. Neither doth the testimonie of Proclus help him any whit. For, as it is not to be doubted, but S. Iames & the other Apostles, & Clemens also appointed some forme of Liturgie for ye churches by them planted & instructed, which is all that Proclus saith: yet how proueth M. Hesk. that those which we hauehave, were ye same which were written by Iames, Clemens, or any other of lawful antiquitie, when wee bring manifest demonstrations for the contrarie? Againe, where he saith that Peter vsed the Liturgie of Clemens, he is contrary to Hugo cited in the last Chap. which sayth that Peter vsed a Liturgie of his own, cōsisting of three praiers only. The next witnesse should be Dionysius falsly surnamed Areopagita, but yt he is clean contrary to M. Hes. transubstantiation, carnal presēce, priuate Masse, or sole cōmunion, & therefore vnderunder pretence of his obscuritie he dare cite neuer a sentence out of him. Then follow the Liturgies vnderunder the names of Basil & Chrysost. verie litle in words & nothing at al in matter, differing from yt former Liturgie ascribed to S. Iames, which because M. Hesk. knoweth, we cannot receiue as ye lawful writings of Basil & Chrysost. he would vnderprop them by ye authoritie of Proclus B. of Constantinople, as he did S. Clem. & S. Iames masse euen now. The reason alledged by Proclus, will cleane ouerturne his ground worke, & proue that none of these Liturgies, were writen by thē to whom they be ascribed. For Proclus sayeth, that Basil and Chrysostom made the auncient Liturgies receiued from the Apostles shorter, cutting many things away frō them, because they were too long for the peoples colde deuotion to abide. First, this is a colde reason to alter the tradition of the Apostles, so many yeres continued in the church, for want of the peoples deuotion. But be it, that they followed this reason, then doth it followe moste manifestly, that this Liturgie which is ascribed to S. Iames is none of his, because it is as short as either that of Chrysost. or the other of Basil. But, if M. Hesk. will defende that of S. Iames, then hee must needes refuse these of Basil and Chrysost. for these are as long as it, & therfore none abridgements of it. After these Liturgies, hee addeth the testimonie of the sixt counsell of Constantinople, which condemned Pope Honorius for an heretike, wherein it is reported, ye S. Iames, Basil & Chrysostome ministred, & in their Liturgies prescribed wine to be mixed with water. But this proueth not, that these Liturgies which we hauehave are the same, that were set forth by those fathers, & as for ye water, they striue not for it, but for wine to be vsed, & not water onelyonly. Finally, where the fathers of that counsell call the celebration of the communion, an oblation and an vnbloudie sacrifice, they speake in the same sence, that the elder fathers vse the same termes, otherwise that counsell, being an hundreth yeres without the compasse of the challenge, hath no place but in the lower house among the Burgesses, whose speaches may be hearde, but they hauehave none authoritie to determine in this cause by M. Heskins order, according to the challenge.
Now at length M. Hesk. thinketh it time to see the manner of consecration in the Latine church: as though Clemens, if he were bishop of Rome, and wrote a Liturgie, as he affirmeth before, that of his making might not serue the Latine church. But Ambrose is cited, lib. 4. de Sacr. Ca. 5. Vis scire, &c. Wouldest thou knowe, that the sacrament is consecrated with heauenly wordes? Marke what the wordes be. The Priest sayth: Make vntounto vsus (faith he) this oblation ascribed, reasonable & acceptable, which is the figure of the bodie & bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ, which the day before he suffred, tooke bread in his holie hands, looked vp to heauen to the holie father, almightie, eternall God, giuing thanks blessed it, brake it, & being broken gaue it to his Apostles and disciples saying: Take ye, & eat ye all of this: for this is my bodie, which shalbe broken for many. Likewise also he tooke the cupp, after he had supped, the day before he suffered, looked vp to heauen to the holie father, almightie, eternall God, giuing thankes, he blessed it, deliuered it to his Apostles & disciples, saying: Take ye, and drinke ye all of this for this is my bloud. M. Hesk. passeth ouer that the oblation of the church, is the figure of the body & bloud of Christ, & for feare he should be espied & taken with such an assertion, he flyeth in all the haste to other words of Ambrose following. Vide, &c. See all those be the Euangelists words, vntounto these words: Take either the bodie or the bloud, from thence they be the wordes of Christ. Note eueryevery thing. Who (saith he) the day before he suffered, tooke breade in his holie hands. Before it be consecrated it is bread, but after the wordes of Christe be come vntounto it, it is the bodie of Christ. Finally, heare him saying: Take ye & eat ye all of it, this is my bodie. And before the wordes of Christ the cuppe is full of wine & water, after the wordes of Christ hauehave wrought, there is made the bloud which redeemed the people. To the like effect be the words taken out of his treatise, de oration. Dom. Memini, &c. I remember my saying, when I entreated of the sacraments▪ I told you that before the wordes of Christ, that which is offered is called bread, when the wordes of Christ are brought forth, nowe it is not called bread, but it is called his bodie. Here M. Hesk. triumpheth in his consecration, & of the vertue therof. But he must remember what Ambrose saith, De ijs qui myster, initiant. Ipse clamat Dominus Iesus, &c. Our Lord Iesus him selfe doth speake alowde. This is my bodie, before the blessing of the heauenly wordes, it is named another kinde, but after the consecration, the bodie of Christ is signified. And lib. de Sac. 4. Cap. 2. Ergo didicisti, &c. Then hast thou learned, that of the bread, is made the bodie of Christ, & that ye wine & water is put into the cup, but by consecration of ye heauenly word, it is made his bloud. But peraduenture thou sayest, I see not the shew of bloud. But it hath a similitude. For as thou hast receiued the similitude of his death, so also thou drinkest ye similitude of his precious bloud, yt there may bee no horror of bloud, & yet it may worke the price of redemption. Here M. Hesk. for all his swelling brags hath not gained one patch of his popish Masse, out of the auncient writers: for none of them vnderstoode consecration, to cause a transsubstantiation of the elements into the naturall bodie of Christe, but only a separation of them, from the common vse, to become the sacraments of the bodie & bloud of Christ. As for ye foolish cauil he vseth against protestants refusing to follow the primitiue church, for louelove & liking of innouation, is not worthie of any reputation, for in al things which thei followed Christ, most willingly we folow thē, but where ye steps of Christs doctrin are not seene, there dare we not follow them, although otherwise we like neuer so well of them.