Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 1 · Book 3 · Part 36
Hesk.The sixe & thirtieth Chapter declareth what was the intention of the Apostles & fathers in & about the consecratiō in the Mass.
Fulke.M. Hesk. will proue that their intention was to transsubstantiate the bread & wine into the bodie & bloud of Christ. And first ye idol of S. Iames is brought forth on procession in his Liturgie, which M. Hesk. had rather call his Masse: Miserere, &c. HaueHave merciemercy vponupon vsus God almightie: hauehave merciemercy vpō vsus God our Sauiour: hauehave merciemercy vponupon vsus ô God, according to thy great merciemercy, & send down vponupon vsus, & vpō these gifts set forth, thy most holy spirit the Lord of life, which sitteth together with thee god the father, & the only begottē sonne, raigning together, being consubstantiall & coeternall, which spake in the law & the prophets, & in thy newe testament, which discended in the likenesse of a doue vponupon our lord Iesus Christ, in the riuer of Iordan & abode vponupon him, which descended vponupon thy Apostles in the likenesse of fierie tongue in the parler of the holy & glorious Sion, in the day of Pentecost send down that thy most holy spirite now also ô lord vponupon vsus, & vponupon these holie giftes set forth, that comming vpō thē with his holie, good, & glorious presence, he may sāctifie & make this bread, the holy body of thy Christe, and this cup the precious bloud of thy Christ, that it may be to all that receiue of it, vntounto forgiuenesse of sinnes, and life euerlasting. M. Heskins saith, he would not hauehave prayed so earnestly, that the holy Ghost might hauehave sanctified the bread and wine, to be onelyonly figures and tokens, which they might be without the speciall sanctification of Gods spirite, as many things were in the lawe. As for only figures and tokens, it is a slaunder confuted, and denyed a hundreth times alreadie. But what a shamelesse beast is he, to affirme, that the sacraments of the olde lawe which were figures of Christe, had no speciall sanctification of ye holy Ghost, or that baptisme which is a figure of the bloud of Christ, washing our souls, may be a sacrament without the speciall sanctification of Gods spirite? you see, howe impudently he wresteth and wringeth the wordes of this Liturgie, which if it were graunted vntounto them to be authenticall, yet hitherto maketh it nothing in the world for him.
But let vsus heare how S. Clement came to the altar: Rogamus vt mittere digneris &c. We pray thee that thou wouldest vouchsafe to send thy holy spirite vponupon this sacrifice, a witnesse of the passions of our Lord Iesus Christ, that he may make this breade the body of thy Christ, and this cup the bloud of thy Christ. Here saith M. Heskins his intent was, that the bread and wine should be made ye body & bloude of Christ. And so they be, to them yt receiue worthily. But M. Heskins will not see, yt he calleth the bread and wine a sacrifice, before it is made the body and bloud of Christ, by which it is plaine, that this Clemens, intended not to offer Christes body in sacrifice, as the Papistes pretend to do. S. Basil in his Liturgie, hath the same intention in consecration. Te postulamus &c. We pray and besech thee ô most holy of al holies, that by thy wel pleasing goodness, thy holy spirit may come vponupon vsus, and vponupon these proposed gifts, & to blesse and sanctifie them, & to shew this bread to be the very honourable body of our Lorde God & Sauiour Iesus Christ, and that which is in the cup, to be the very bloud of our Lord god & sauiour Iesus Christ, which was shed for the life of the world. Of this praier M. Hes. inferreth, yt Basil by ye sanctification of ye holy ghost beleeued the bread and wine to be made Christes body & bloud, he meaneth corporally & trāsubstantially. But yt is most false, for this praier is vsed in yt liturgie, after the words of consecration, when by ye Popish doctrine, the body and bloud of Christe must needes be present, imediatly after the last sillable vm, in hoc est corpu… me…um, pronounced. Wherefore, seeing the Author of this Liturgie, after the words of cōsecration pronounced, praieth that God will sanctifie the breade and wine by his spirite, and make it the body and bloud of Christ, it is euident, that he neither beleeued transubstantiation, nor the carnall presence, nor consecration, nor intention after the manner of the Papistes, as also by this that hee calleth the bread and wine after consecration, foreign, exemplaries or figures. You see therefore, howe with patches and peeces, rent off here and there, he goeth about to deceiue the simple readers, which either hauehave no leasure, or no boookes, or no skill, to trie out his falsifications and malicious corruptions.
The like sinceritie hee vseth in citing Chrysostomes Masse, for so he calleth his Liturgie, in which is a prayer for Pope Nicholas, and the Emperour Alexius, which was seuen hundreth yeres after Chrysostomes death, and therfore could not possibly be written by him. Besides this, there be diuers copies in the Greeke tong, one that Erasmus translated, which is very vnlike that copie which is printed in Greeke since that time, as the learned sort doe knowe. The wordes he citeth, be in a manner the same that were in Basils Liturgie, sauing that in the end he addeth, Permutans ea sancto spiritu tuo, changing them by the spirt. This change may well be without transubstantiation, as hath bene often shewed before. The saying of Ambrose is more at large in the Chapter next before. As for the praier of the Popish Masse, that the oblation may be made the body and bloud of Christ, as it is vnderstoode of them, is nothing like the prayers of the elder Liturgies, although in sound of some words it seeme to agree. And as foolishly as vniustly, he findeth fault with our praier in the communion, that wee receiuing the creatures of breade and wine in remembrance of Christes death according to his institution, may be made partakers of his most blessed body & bloud. S. Iames, S. Clement, and the rest (saith he) prayed not that they might receiue bread and wine. No more doe we, thou foolish sophister. But that receiuing bread and wine, we might be partakers of Christes body and bloud, and this did all the Apostolike and Primitiue Church pray, as we pray in baptisme, not that we may receiue water, but that receiuing water we may be borne a newe. Neither did they euer pray, that the breade and wine might be transubstantiated into the body & bloud of Christ, but that they might be made the body & bloud of Christ to thē, after a spirtual & sacramētal maner. But I am much to blame, to vouchsafe these childish sophismes of any answere. Next to this, he would knowe what authoritie the Protestants can shewe, that the eating and drinking of bread & wine, is of Christes institution. That it is a part of his institution, the Euangelists & S. Paul do shewe most euidently. But though he tooke breade and wine in his hands (saith M. Heskins) he changed it before he gaue them, so that it was no more bread and wine, but his body and bloud, and therefore we charge Christ with an vntrueth: to say, that receiuing of bread and wine is of Christes institution. O Maister of impietie and follie! Christ made no such change in his handes, but that which was in the cup was still the fruit of the vine, as he himself testified, saying: I wil no more drinke of this fruit of the vine, vntill the day come when I shall drinke it a newe with you in the kingdome of my father. Math. 26. As for the praier of those Liturgies of Iames and Basil, That God would make them worthie to receiue the body and bloud of Christe, without condemnation, proueth not, that they meant to receiue the body of Christ after a corporall maner, nor that the very body of Christe may be receiued to damnation. The thirde Liturgie of Chrysostome, which Erasmus expoundeth, hath it otherwise. Dignos nos redde potenti manu …ua, vt participes simu… immaculati tui corporis, & preciosi tui sanguinis, & per nos, omnis populus. Make vsus worthy by thy mightie hand, that we may be partakers of thy vndefiled body, and of thy precious bloud, and so may al the people by vsus. This prayer is godly & sound, and so are the other, being rightly vnderstoode, namely, that they which eate of that bread, & drinke of that cup of the Lord vnworthily (as S. Paule saith) do eat and drinke their owne damnation, not considering the Lords body. But M. Heskins vrgeth, that the spiritual body of Christ, or Christ spiritually, cannot be deliuered by the Priestes to the people, but ye real body may. Yes verily, much rather then the body of Christ corporally, euen as the holy Ghost may be deliuered, in baptisme, and as eternal life and forgiuesse of sinnes may be giuen in preaching the Gospell, and none of these feinedly, but truly, yet otherwise are they giuen by God, otherwise by this Ministers. But in this distinction of M. Hes▪ it is good to note, yt he maketh Christ to hauehave a reall body, which is not spirituall, & a spirituall body which is not reall. Christ hath in deede a mysticall body, which is his Church, and yt is not his natural body, but by spiritual coniunction vnited to his only true & naturall body. But of this mystical body, M. Hes. speaketh not. Further, he taketh exceptions to our prayer, & affirmeth, that It is not the institution of Christe to receiue the creatures of breade and wine in the remembrance of his death. But notwtstanding all his childish & blockish quarels, our prayer is waranted by the Apostles words 1. Cor. 11. As often as ye eat of this bread, & drinke of this cup, ye shewe the Lords death till he come. In the last part of this Chap. he will determine of the intention of the ministers of the new Church. And yt is, that Desiring to receiue the creatures of bread & wine, they exclude the body and bloud of Christ. Who euer heard a more shamelesse lye, or a more inconsequent argument? But seing there be two sorts of ministers in this new founded Church, he wil speake of them both: one sort were made Popish Priestes, & so hauehave authoritie to consecrate, but they lacke intention, now they be fallen to heresie: there is a second sort; which thought they could not hauehave intention to consecrate, yet being none of the greasie and blasphemous order, they lack authoritie. But I wold there were not a third sort, of whom I spake in the last chap. yt wer made popish Priestes, and so continue, but in outward dissimulation ioyne with vsus, if these intend to consecrate when they minister the cōmunion, how can M. Hes. dissuade the Papists from receiuing of them, or count their sacramēt nothing but bare bread? And wheras M. He. seemeth in the end to inueigh against such, I will willingly confesse, that they are worse then he is, or such as professe what they are, but not worse then hee hath beene in King Henries & King Edwards dayes, when he dissembled and swa…e as deepely as any of them all. As for our intention, seeing it is to doe that which Christ commanded to be done, and to receiue that which he deliuered vsus to be receiued, if the particular explication of our faith will not satisfie M. Hes. at least, let him after his owne Popish Diuinitie, holde vsus excused for our implicite faith: or if his own principles can hold him no longer then he listeth, let him giuegive vsus leaue to esteeme none otherwise of them, then he giueth vsus example to do.