Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 4 · Section 46 – Section 48
SECTIO. 46. From the 152. leafe to the 154. leafe, in which he taketh in hand …o shape a generall aunswere to the particular questions which M. Iewell moueth.Rastel.
Hauing proued nothing hitherto but him selfe to be a lying marchant,Fulke. a blasphemous and vnlearned defender of the sacrifice of the Masse, to all the rest of the questions of Indiuiduum vaegum merit ex opere operato, applying of the sacrifice of the Masse, accidents remaining, the case of the mouse eating the sacrament &c. He aunswereth that these termes for any thing he knoweth, were neuer vsed within the compasse of 600. yeares, but the matters were beleeued, and that he will proue by consent of learned men, and the voyce of the Church since those 600. yeares. This is in deede as he saith, merily but falsely to the Bishop, in the beginning of his booke, which way to Croyden… a poke ful of plumbs, the Bishop asketh proofe within in 600. yeares of Christ, and M. Rastell will bring proofe without those 600. yeares, the Bishop requireth antiquitie whereof the Papistes hauehave so impudently bragged, and Rastel will bring foorth noueltie. But he hath a proper similitude, to shewe that these Articles, though they were not knowne to the auncient Church, for 600. yeares after Christe, yet are they not to be refused, no more then the fruites of Autumne, bicause they appeared not on the trees in Aprill, are to be reiected. Thus you see by this delicate similitude he denyeth the Church of Christe, his Apostles, Euangelistes, Martyrs, Confessours, Pastours & teachers, for 600. yeares together to hauehave beene a season fruitfull of matters of trueth, hauing nothing but greene ornaments and gay flowers, promising the wholesome fruites of Poperie, that hauehave appeared and waxed ripe in the latter time of the Church, as in the Haruest or monethmonth of September. If this similitude can be defended without contumely of Christ and the Primitiue Church, let al the Papistes clap their hands at it, and say. O learned M. Rast. that with so short an answere, hath satisfied all M. Iewels demaunds. But he will choake the Bishop and vsus all with the last question: Where is it read (saith he) within 600. yeares after Christ, that our blessed Lady was preached or named the mother of mercy, the handmaiden of the Trinitie, the spouse of the holy Ghost, the Queene of heauen, the Empresse of hell? and yet if you beleeue in deed that she is the mother of God, all these Articles do follow, like as the rest of that veritie which saith, this is my body. It is well that M. Rastell confesseth these titles neuer to hauehave ben giuen to the Virgine Marie, neither by Christ, nor by his Apostles, nor by any in al ye Church for 600. yeres after Christ. Nowe syr, I will answere your question. I do as constantly beleeue with my heart, and more effectually then I can expresse with wordes, that the holy and blessed Virgine Marie is the mother of hers and our Sauiour Iesus Christ, the sonne of God, very God and very man. Yet all those titles which you confesse to be neither read in any antiquitie of 600. ye…res after Christe, I abhorre and protest to be wicked, idolatrous, and blasphemous. And wheras you say that common sense teacheth, that a Kings mother is a Queene, and not of no place you trow, which is tried false by common experience, for King Dauid… mother was no Queene, I trowe, nor fiue hundreth more that hauehave beene in the world since his time, I aunswere: yet if it were graunted in earthly Princes, it followeth not in the King of heauen. For by the like reason and more probable, I might argue, the mother of a man is a woman therefore the mother of God is a Goddesse, from which blasphemie Saint Bonauenture a Popish Saint, is of no force, if he doe not farre exceede it, when he saith to the Virgine Marie. Iure matris impera filio, and againe, Coge Deum &c. By the authoritie of a mother commaunde thy sonne, and compel God to be merciful to sinners. &c.
SECTIO. 47. in the 154. leafe.Rastel.
The Bishop declareth the vanitie of the Papistes aunswere, which is, that no Masse is priuate,Fulke. bicause that eueryevery Priest communicateth with all Priestes that say Masse: for that by this reason, there should be no excommunication, whereas the partie excommunated would say, hee would communicate with the Prieste that saith Masse in Calicute. Maister Rastel saith, he that is excommunicate from one Church is excommunicated from al Churches, therefore he that is in the Communion, doth communicate with all Priestes. But hee vnderstandeth not the Bishops argument, or at least, he will not vnderstand it. For the sophistrie of the Popish argument resteth in the ambiguitie of this worde, Communicate, which signifieth to receiue the Lordes supper at one time and in one place, with others of their Church, which the Papistes take for receiuing generally, so that ye Priest in Louaine receiuing at his Masse alone communicateth with ye Priest yt likewise receiueth at his Masse alone in Calicut. Now if this receiuing wer a sufficient cōmunion, a Priest being excōmunicated in Louane, so yt no Priest wold suffer him to receiue with him at his Masse, if he would contemne their excō munication, might say Masse him selfe, & say, yt although none of you Louane Priestes will communicate with me, yet I wil communicate with the Priest that this day saith Masse in Calicut, yea, I will communicate with you in spite of your heart, for I will be at masse as soone as you, and then will I receiue at my Masse, when you receiue at your Masse, and so by our owne principle whereby wee defend our priuate Masses to be communions, I will communicate with you whether you will or no, yea, I can not choose but communicate with you, if I say Masse when you doe. And if you will say to me that I ought not to say Masse being excommunicate, I tell you, you can not excommunicate me, so long as I can say Masse. For though you count me excōmunicate, yet you knowe by our owne diuinitie, that if I doe say Masse, notwithstanding your censure, I doe consecrate as well as the proudest of you: and after I hauehave consecrated, I will receiue, and then I communicate, and so your excommunication is no excommunication at all.
Rastel.SECTIO. 48. in the 155. leafe.
Fulk.Whereas the Bishop said, that the Masse had nether her name nor her partes, vntill foure hundreth yeares after Christe, he aunswereth, that she had the essentiall and necessarie partes, but not the garnishing and decking parts. So that by his owne confession, it was a namelesse and naked Masse which they had in the church for foure hundreth yeares after Christes. So that ye later times with him were alwayes more wise and more religious, then the former, newe deuises better then olde customes. And where then is there the proud challenge of antiquitie, vniuersalitie, consent, Apostolike tradition? And if the Church might be without the Popish Masse so long after Christe, why should they teach, that nowe it is so necessarie, as there ought to be none other forme of communion vsed in the Church of God, but it?