Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 4 · Section 11 – Section 27
SECTIO. 11. From the second face of the 48. leafe, vntounto the first face of the 58. leafe, Wherein he speaketh of seruice in the mother tongue.Rastel
The Bishop reproueth the vse of the vnknowen tonge in the Masse, by the authoritie of S. Paule,Fulk that will hauehave all things in the Church done to edifying, and that prayers and thankes giuen in the Church be such, as the people to them may answere, Amen.
Maister Rastell quarreleth that this fault is common to the Masse, with Euensong, and Mattins, therefore it is no proper fault of the Masse. A proper reason: rayling and lying are no peculiar faultes to Maister Rastel, but common to him with Maister Harding, Maister Sanders, Maister Alen, and an hundreth more, therefore he doeth Maister Rastel wrong that reproueth him of rayling and lying. But before he answere the Bishops obiections, he wil make no lesse then fiue obiections him selfe against him, out of the same place of Saint Paule, wherein he triumpheth.
1 Why all the Psalter of Dauid is read in the English Church, when all the Psalmes be not vnderstoode of all English men? Forsooth syr there is no Psalme, but something may be vnderstoode of euerie Englishe man that hath capacitie of vnderstanding, and the rest, that they may learne to vnderstand them.
2 How many people be there that vnderstand not the easiest Chapter of the Gospell, muche lesse the Prophets and Psalmes? But sir they are often read that they may the better be vnderstoode, or at least so much of them, as is necessarie for them to knowe for their saluation.
3 Where singing is vsed, howe can they vnderstande any thing? Such singing as taketh away vnderstanding is forbidden in our Church, both by the booke and by iniunction.
4 How can a thousand people vnderstande him that hath a small voice, or Cornishe men, or Northerne men, a fine Londoners speech? &c. The Bishop should hauehave care to prouide a man, as well for voyce, as for other qualities, able to edifie the people, and suche nations of the Queens obedience as vnderstande not the English tongue, hauehave their prayers in their owne tongue, whiche he saith, he had forgotten, I thinke he saith as it is, for a lyer should hauehave a good remembraunce.
5 He saith we hauehave one Chapter for the better learned of the Parishe, another for the poorer, which is a flam fiue of his owne deuising. Yet he saith, there would be no end of confusion, if nothing should be read in the congregation, but that which should be vnderstoode of all that are present: as though he were wiser then the holie Ghoste, which in expresse wordes hath so commaunded, that al may learne, that all may be comforted, meaning all the congregation, not a man of a straunge language comming in chaunceably or curiously, beeing none of that flocke.
But what answere hath he to Saint Paule? euen a most shamefull shifte and impudent lie. Namely, that Saint Paule speaketh onelyonly of preaching, which he graunteth must be in the vulgar tongue, and the Gospell and Pistle he could be content should be also, if it pleased the Popes holinesse. But Saint Paule nameth expressely, not onelyonly preaching, but also praying, giuing of thankes, and singing of Psalmes or Hymnes. But he obiecteth that Saint Paule saith, he that speaketh with tongues edifieth himselfe, and he that giueth thankes in a strange tongue, doeth giuegive thankes well: It is true, if his prayer and speeche be godly and priuate, but in the congregation, the Apostle by no meanes alloweth any man to vse a strange tongue. Yes saith M. Rast. if there be an interpreter. In deede S. Paule speaketh of them which had a miraculous gifte of strange tongues, which might be vsed to set forth Gods glorie, so that there were an interpreter, that the Churche might be profited, otherwise he would hauehave Gods gift to be silent in the Churche. To be short, M. Rast. affirmeth preaching it selfe to be so vnnecessarie, that pictures may not onelyonly supplye the wante thereof, but also are necessarie for the faithfull people, and more profitable then a most eloquent and learned sermon of M. Iewell himselfe. Who would reason any longer with such an insensible Idoll? which by ye iust iudgement of God, is made like vntounto those Images whiche he worshippeth, and in whome hee putteth his trust.
SECTIO. 12. in the 58. leafe.Rastel
The bishoppe alledgeth S. Augustine, which saieth,Fulk that in our praiers wee must not chirpe like birdes, but sing like men. To this he maketh none answere, but that we must learne to vnderstand the English which we read, or els we are chirpers, as though Englishe men could vnderstand no more of English, then of Latine.
SECTIO. 13. From the first face of the 56. leafe to the 2. face of 59. leafe.Rastel
The bishoppe citeth a lawe of Iustinian, that the priest shoulde speake with an audible voice,Fulk that the people might say Amen, therefore the people shoulde vnderstande what the minister saith: M. Rastel aunswereth to this nothinge, but yt the people do, and may saye Amen, though they vnderstand him not, so long as there is no mistrust in the persons faith & honesty. So that belike, if the priest be a knaue, no man shoulde saye Amen to his masse. Good stuffe I warrant you. But in that the people said Amen to the priests wordes of consecration, he will prooue like a luftie logician, whiche findeth no reason, but much rethorike in yt bishops sermon, yt they did exclude al figuration, and significatiō of his body. We wil reason no longer, M.R. hath gottē the day, and that with maine logike. And as for the second abuse, of not receiuing in both kindes, if it were any abuse, it is the fault (he saith) of the bishops & priests, and not of the masse, which consecrateth in both kinds. But seeing receiuing is made one of the parts of the masse, receiuing in one kind onelyonly, is an abuse of the masse it self. I know he wil answer, the priest receiueth in both kindes. In deede if the sacrament had bene instituted for priests onelyonly, the aunswere had bene somewhat, but if the blood of Christ pertaine to more then priestes, surely the sacrament of his blood shoulde not be denyed to anye, for whome he shedde his blood.
Rastel.SECTIO. 14. From the second face of the 59. leafe, to the second face of 61. leafe.
Fulk.The bishop saide, the Canon of the masse for manie causes is a verie vaine thinge, and so vncertaine, that no man can redily tell on whom to father it. Notwithstanding the bishoppe saith for many causes, yet Master Rastell taketh exceptions to his argument, as though for the vncertaintie of the author onelyonly, it shoulde be refused: comparing it most leudely with certaine bookes of holy scripture, the indighters of which, although they be not knowne, yet the onelyonly author is both knowen, and acknowledged to be the holy Ghost. But Pope Innocent the third, saith, it came from the Apostles, other say from Gregory the first, & other from Gregory the thirde. But that it came neither from the Apostles, nor frō Gregory the first, euen that place which M.Ra. citeth out of Greg. lib. 7. ep. 63. doth proue sufficiently. For there Greg. reproueth the order of the liturgie or canon vsed in his time, because the Lords praier by that order, was not said ouer the sacramēt, as wel as ye praier of Scholasticus. But M.R. will hauehave Scholasticus to signifie a scholer or disciple of Christ, and not to be a proper name, which is altogether vntrue & vnlikely, for if Greg. had thought any Apostle or disciple of Christ to hauehave bin ye auctor of it, he would neuer hauehave takē vpō him to reproue it, & seing he thoght it expediēt yt the lords praier should be said ouer ye sacrament, which is not vsed in the popish canon, it followeth also that Gregorie the first, was not the author of the popish canon. And so it is not prooued to hauehave bene made within the compasse of sixe hundreth yeres after Christ.
SECTIO. 15. From the second face of the 61. leafe, to the first face of the 63. leafRastel
Here he chargeth the bishop with a shamefull lye,Fulke. for saying that the priest in the canon desireth God to blesse Christ his body, denying any such thing to be in ye Latin canon, but confesseth yt the Graecians vse such words, and excuseth thē, by vehemency of desire, wheras those words do proue, yt the authors of those liturgies beleeued not ye bread to be turned into the body of Christ, which they would neuer hauehave praied yt God shuld blesse, vpō any vehemency of desire, to confesse ye body of Christ to hauehave need of sanctification. But to returne to ye Latine canon, I pray you M.R. what be these Dona sancta & sacrificia, those gifts & holy sacrifices which he desireth God to blesse, ye bread & wine? what holines is in thē before they be consecrated? So for al your loud lying clamors, the canon is not constant with it self, or your heresie of transsubstantiation agreeth not with the canon. Also yt M. of the sentence, lib. 4. dist. 13. plainly affirmeth yt your masse is called Missa, because the Angell ye is praied for, is sent to consecrate the body of Christ, which praier is saide after the priests consecration.
SECTIO. 16. From the first face of the 63. leafe to the second face of the 64. leaf in the which he speaketh of the sacrifice of the masse.Rastel
He would know what blasphemie it is for the priest to offer Christ to his father in a propitiatorie sacrifice. Verily so great blasphemie, as none can lightly be greater. First because it taketh away the eternall and vnsuccessible priesthood of Christ. Secondly, because it maketh the priest more excellent then Christ. For eueryevery sacrifice is excepted for the dignitie of him which offereth it, so the sacrifice of Christ, which by his eternall spirite offered vp himselfe, was acceptable vntounto God. Heb. 9. But M.R. being forsaken of the scripture, flyeth to ye sayings of the doctors, that not onelyonly the priest, but all ye Church offereth Christe, neuertheles the olde fathers euen by saying so, declare that they meane not to set vp a propitiatory sacrifice, but onelyonly to celebrate a remembraunce of the only, & singular sacrifice of Christ. Chrysost. ad Heb. cap. 10. Hom. 17. Hoc autem quod facimus &c. But this that we do, is done in remembrance of that which was done. For do this (saith he) in remembrance of me. We make not another sacrifice as the high priest, but the same alwayes, but rather we worke the remembraunce of that sacrifice. And August Contra Faust. Man. lib. 20. cap. 18. Vnde iam Christiani, &c. Whereupon now the Christians do celebrate ye memorie of the same sacrifice once finished, by holy oblation and participation of the bodie & blood of Christ. Contra aduersari… lag. & proph. cap. 18. He calleth the death of Christ, Vnum, singulare, & solum verum sacrificium, the one singular, and onelyonly true sacrifice. These places with manye other, are sufficient to expounde what they meane, when in any other place figuratiuely and vnproperly. they call the celebration of the communion, an oblation or sacrifice of the bodie and blood of Christ. It is great leudenesse and deceiptfulnes to vrge the termes vsed by the doctors, and to refuse their meaning sufficiently expressed in diuers places of their writings.
RastelSECTIO. 17. in the 64. leafe.
FulkWhereas the bishop saith, it is Christ which presenteth …s, and maketh vsus a sweet oblation in the sight of his father, M. Rastell denyeth that it followeth not, that the priest offereth not Christ: because Saint Augustine saith de ciuit dei lib. 10. cap. 20. that as the church is offered by Christ, so Christ is offered by the Church. But that which Augustine maketh here common to al the Church, maister Rastel restreineth to his popish priests. And although Augustine in the same place expounde himselfe sufficiently when he saith; the daily sacrifice of the church is a sacrament of the oblation of Christ, yet in Cap. 5. of the same book he speaketh most plainely: Sacrificium ergo visibile inuisibilis sacrificij sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est: Therefore the visible sacrifice, is a sacrament, that is to say, an holy signe of the inuisible sacrifie. What can bee saide more plainly concerning his meaning by the terme of sacrifice?
SECTIO. 18. From the first face of the 65. leafe to the ende of the 67. leafe.Rastel
The blasphemous prayers of the Popishe Canon, which desireth God to accept the body of his sonne,Fulk. as he did accept the sacrifice of Abel and of Melchisedech, he excuseth by vehemency of deuotion, and by ye vnworthines of ye offerer, as though either of both should be ye cause, why Christs body should not be acceptable of it selfe. Last of all, he flyeth to ye example of the figuratiue speaches vsed by the holy ghost in the Psalmes and canticles, as where God is saide to sleepe, to awake as giant refreshed from his wine, yea & to the rethoricall figures vsed by men, as he saith by Bernard, Bonauentur, Gregorie, & in ye hymmes of the church, which he matcheth vnfitly with ye holy scriptures. But how will he make this prayer a figuratiue speach, that it may be excused by any such example? For seeing he will admit no figure in the word, body or oblation, the other wordes are plaine without figure, God to accept the sacrifice of Abel &c.
Rastle.SECTIO. 19. From the 68. leafe, to the seconde face of the 69. leafe.
Fulk.The foolish prayer of the Canon, that an Angel should carie away the body of Christ, he defendeth to be meant after a spirituall manner, & caueleth of the bishops translating of perferri to be caried away, which signifieth to be caried vp, which is a toy to mocke an Ape, for neither doth the bishop talke of Angels backes, & such other bables as M. Rastel deliteth to prate of, but of the fond absurditie of the Papistes, which imagine the ministerie of Angels necessarie for the carying of Christs body, (or as he saith excusing the matter) for ye acceptaciō of their sacrifice. But in very deede, this prayer being taken out of the old liturgies, wherein they desired not the sacrament, but their sacrifice of praise and thankesgiuing to be presented to God by the ministery of Angels, is so absurde, when it is applyed to the transubstantiated body, that it can hauehave no reasonable sense, as it had in the liturgie cited by S. Ambrose and other old liturgies, where the like prayer is made for their sacrifice, but they beleued not their sacrifice to be the very natural body of Christ, as the Papists say they doe.
Rastle.SECTIO. 20. in the 69 leafe.
Where the bishop giueth ouer, to speak further of the Canon,Fulk. maister Rastel saith, it was because he had no mater against it, but his owne misunderstanding. But what matter he had, & howe well hee hath mainteined it, his aunsweres to maister Harding sufficiently declare.
Rastell.SECTIO. 21. in the 70. leafe.
Against adoration of the sacrament, he saith we hauehave no arguments at al,Fulk. but such as may serue for ouerthrow of all orders in the Church. In deede these argumentes may well and worthily serue to ouerthrow all plantes, not planted by Christ. For why may not one hatchet serue to cut downe an hundreth fruitlesse and hurtfull trees?
SECTIO. 22. in the same leafe to the second face of the 71. leafe.Rastel
That Christ gaue no commaundement of adoration,Fulk. he saith, it is no sufficient reason, first because we must not condemne all voluntary seruice of God, which is without his commaundement. Then belike S. Paul was not well aduised, when he condemned foreign; that is, voluntarie worshippe of God without his commaundement Coll. 2. vers. 23. And where as he cauilleth of them yt worshipped our sauiour Christ in ye fleshe, I aunswere, as many as acknowledged him to be ye sonne of god, knewe they had an expresse cōmandemēt to worship him. The rest reuerenced him as the prophet of God. And whereas he saith like a protestant, that an argument of authority negatiue, is naught and protestant like, I aunswere an argument of mans authoritie negatiue is naught, but an argument of Gods authority negatiue, I am content it be counted protestant like, in as much as God hath expresly forbidden, what so euer he hath not commaunded in his worship. Deuter. 12. vers. 32. Contrariwise to reason from the authoritie of men negatiuely, is Papistlike, and the best argument they hauehave for many things, as if they be asked why say they not masse in englishe? they will answere, because the Church hath not commanded them. Why doe you not giuegive the communion to Infants? Maister Rastel saith in this booke, because the Church doth not commaund it. Why doth not the priest weare his chisible & other vestments at euen song? Because the church hath not commaunded it. But maister Rastel saith, Christ hauing said the sacrament to be his body, needed not to commaunde the same to bee worshippid, no more then the king when he speaketh to the Lords in the darke, needeth to bid thē put of their caps. A dark example for such an obscure argumēt. But when will he proue, that Christ is the same in the sacrament, that the king is in the darke? for remoue the darke, & the king is seene, but take away the accidentes of breade and wine by your owne school… doctrine, and where is the bodie of Christ?
Rastle.SECTIO. 23. From the seconde face of the 71. leafe, to the 2. face of the 72. leafe.
He decideth the argument taken out of the authoritie of saint Paule negatiuely,Fulk. who declareth the whole institution of Christ, and neuer willed adoration to be vsed to the sacrament. And asketh whether S. Paul command vsus to stand, kneele, lye, or fit, to tumble, leane vponupon brest, or elbowes: I aunswere whatsoeuer of these gestures is decent & orderly he hath appointed, the other he hath forbidden. And yet the protestantes logike, which hee doth so delicately contemne, is not so simple to make no diference betweene matters of substance, and matters of circumstance, as hee by his Popish sophistrie doth confounde.
Rastle.SECTIO. 24. From the secōd face of the 72. leafe to the second face of the 74. leafe wherin he beginneth to speak of adoration of the sacramēt.
Where the bishop saith that the olde doctours neuer make mention of adoration of the sacrament,Fulk. maister Rastell saith, the argument is both naught and lying. Naught, because it may bee they vsed it although they neuer spake of it, & lying, because he saith they do speake of it. But to aunswere the naughtinesse of the argument, I say maister Rastell is both a naughtie and lying gatherer of the bishoppes argument, dismembring that which hee ioyneth together thus. Christ, his Apostels, and the primitiue church, neuer made mention of adoration of ye sacrament, therefore is not to bee vsed. And concerning the lying supposed, I answere, that no auncient doctour speaketh one word of adoration of the sacrament as the verye sonne of GOD, but either of adoration of Christ in heauen, or of worshipping and adoring, that is, reuerently handling and honouring of the mysteries of Christ, and no more of this sacrament, then of the other, namely baptisme. For aunswere to the places he citeth out of Chrysostome, Ambrose, Augustine, I will referre the reader to mine answere, vntounto the 45.46. & 47. Chapters of the second booke of Heskins parleament, where this question is handled more at large. Sauing that which he citeth out of Hom. 83. out of Chrysost. that we are fed with that thing which the Angels do honour, which we confesse to be the body of Christ after a spirituall maner, yet pertaineth it nothing to adoration of the sacrament. And much lesse that he citeth ex Orat. in Philon. That as we entertaine God here, so he wil receiue vsus there with much glorie. Where he speaketh of honouring God, and not adoring the sacrament.
SECTIO. 25. in the 74. leafe.Rastel.
The Bishop aunswering a place of Augustine saith,Fulk. we must worship Christ where we eate him, but we eate him in heauen by faith, therefore we must worship him there. M. Rastel sayth we eate him on earth also, but proofe he bringeth none greater then his owne saying, either of reason or authoritie.
SECTIO. 26. From the end of the 74. leafe to the first face of the 79. leafe.Rastel.
The Bishop proueth we must seeke Christe in heauen,Fulk. by these reasons. Wee must lift vp our heartes, wee must seeke those things which are aboue in heauen, where Christ is, and not the things yt are vponupon earth, where Christ is not. C…ll. 3. And our conuersation is in heauen, from whence wee looke for our Sauiour, &c. Phil. 3. M. Rastel saith, the conclusion is inferred madly and miserably, bicause these textes do no more disproue Christes body to bee on earth really, then they proue our bodies to be in heauen really, as in this short example, our conuersation is in heauen: and yet Paule was on earth in body, when he saide this: O wise and happie concluder! but blinde and blockish interpretour, which reasoneth, as though the worde Conuersation in Saint Paules saying, did signifie presence or being, whereas it signifieth franches or libertie foreign our franches, freedom, or conuersation is in heauen. Where is nowe your madd and miserable conclusion?
The Bishops arguments therefore on these places stand firme and vnmoueable, that Christ is not on earth in body, but in heauen, where we must seeke him, not climbing with ladders, (as it pleaseth Maister Rastel to scoffe in so graue matters, but ascending by faith, and affection set on heauenly and spirituall things. As for his exposition of Sursian corda, howe wholesome it is, you may gather by this one note, that in the very beginning▪ he saith, that the body of Christe is not onelyonly lying on the altar, and caried in mens handes, but also broken and diuided. The places hee citeth out of Saint Augustine for adoration, be aunswered in mine aunswere to Maister Heskins before mentioned.
Rastel.SECTIO. 27.
The Bishop saith, that adoration of the sacrament is a newe deuise of Pope Honorius,Fulke. of three hundreth yeares agoe, and after him Vibanus the fourth made an holiday of Corpus Christi, &c. Maister Rastel is angrie, that three hundreth yeares should be counted a little while agoe, when it is not three score yeares since Luther sprang vp. But if Luther hauehave taught any doctrine that was not receiued in the Church a thousand and fiue hundreth yeares ago, we are content it be accounted newe, but whatsoeuer may be proued to hauehave bene taught 1500. yeares agoe, must needes be old, though Luther be newe, and in comparison of that age. Honorius and Vrbanus are but yong children. But remitting the antiquitie, Maister Rastell will stande for the veritie; bicause the Popes lacked no counsell. Neither by your doctrine needed they any. 2. The Vniuersities were not without great schollers. Such as those blinde and hereticall times affoorded. 3. Religious houses and orders were not destroyed. Yea, they swarmed with Locustes to maintaine the kingdome of Absaddon. 4. The holy Ghost in true Catholikes was inuincible. Yea, but there were fewe true Catholikes in those days. 5. The wicked spirit in heretiques would hauehave bene venterous. Yea, the Pope, the Archheretique of the world was venterous ynough, when he set vp such idolatrie. 6. A good man with the daunger of his life, would hauehave spoken the trueth. So did many good men, which cost them their liues. 7. An heretique for fame would not hauehave passed vponupon death: what neede an heretique feare death, when heresie was so generally receiued, that the true Catholikes were condemned and burned for heretiques, by the name of Albigenses, Waldenses, Pauperes de Lugduno, and such like, which from time to time were persecuted, imprisoned, and burned, for refusing and disalowing such idolatrie, and false worshipping.
These be the worshipfull reasons he hath to proue the veritie of this bread worship, which after he hath dilated more at large, hee commeth at length to admiration of the seruice of Corpus Christi day, made by Thomas Aquinas, which hee thinkeh to be so excellent, that the very sound and sense of the Anthemnes, Respondes, and Versicles, declare whence they proceeded. And I am of the same opinion, for the comparing of such thinges to the sacrament, as pertaine nothing vntounto it, declareth, that such comparison came from the spirit of man, & not from the spirite of God. As where it is saide, 3. Reg 19. That Helias sawe a cake of bread at his head &c. And Iob complaineth of the crueltie of his seruants, that would hauehave eaten his flesh. Iob. 31.
And as for the holiday, though it were instituted but of late yeares, yet he taketh it sufficient to proue the adoration necessarie, which could not be seene in the Church twelue hundreth yeres before, or els that holiday should hauehave bene set vp long before.