Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 4 · Section 2
SECTIO. 2. Frō the second face of the 12. leafe to the first face of the 19. leafe.Rastel.
When any order giuen by God is broken or abused,Fulke. (saith the Bishop) the best redresse thereof, is to restore it againe into the state that it was first in the beginning. M. Rastel saith, the Bishop can not tell where of he speaketh. For whereas he affirmed, that S. Paule had appointed an order touching the ministration of the sacramentes vntounto the Corinthians, M. Rastell will not simplie graunt that this order was appointed by God, although S. Paule himself say, he receiued it of christ, which he deliuered to thē. For this difference hee maketh. That an order giuen by God must be obserued without exception, and yet he addeth an exception of reuelation, and especial licence from God. But what so euer order S. Paule did giuegive, (he saith) is subiect vntounto the Church, to remoue or pull vp, as it shall please her. Thus the blasphemous dog barketh against ye spirit of God. But I trust al sober Christian minds will rather beleue S. Paul then Rastel, who saith of such orders as were giuen by him. 1. Cor. 14. If any man seem to be a prophet, or spirituall, let him know ye things yt I write to you, yt they be the cōmandements of God. But now M. Ra. will take vponupon him to teach vsus ye order giuē, yt Paul speaketh of, namely, That ye Christians had certein charitable suppers, called foreign, after which as August. saith, & before which as Chrysost. saith, they did vse to receiue ye sacramēt. Note here yt M. Rast. which wil hauehave old customes tried by ye fathers, bringeth in here two Doctors, one contrarie to ye other. To ye purpose. This order was taken away by cōtention & disdaine of ye rich against ye poore, & therfore Paule purposed to bring them againe to yt order of sitting, & eating their supper altogether, yt rich with the pore, by saying: That which I receiued of the Lord, I deliuered to you. And not to reforme any abuse of ye sacramēt, by reducing it to the first institution. This iudgement of M. Rastell is partly by him proued, by the authoritie of Theophylact, but chiefly it standeth vponupon his owne authoritie, without further reason. Howbeit, it is manifest by ye scripture, that Paule reproued that mingling of prophane suppers, with the Lordes supper, appointing their priuate houses for their bodily refreshings of eating and drinking. HaueHave you not houses (saith he) to eate and drinke in? By which saying it is manifest, he would hauehave no eating and drinking in the Church (as M. Rastell dreameth) but onelyonly the eating and drinking of the Lordes supper. And therefore that abuse of mingling their bodily suppers, with the spirituall supper of the Lorde whereof came so many abuses, and especiall the seuering and sundering of the congregation into diuers partes, which ought to hauehave receiued altogether, he laboureth to reforme, by bringing it to the first institution of the Lord him selfe. But M. Rast. following his owne dreame, asketh what there was in the institution, for sitting together or a sunder: for eating at Church, or at home? Yes forsooth: Christe did institute his supper to be a foode of the soule, and not of the body, and therefore to be celebrated in the congregation, and in common, as the saluation is common, and not to bee mingled with prophane banquets of bellie cheare, for which priuat houses and companies are meet, and not the Church of God. And wheras M. Rastel chargeth M. Iewel with not vnderstanding this place which he alledgeth, namely (therefore when you come together to eate, tarie one for an other:) which he saith pertaineth no more to ye institution of the sacrament, then a pot full of plumbs doth to the highway to London, he sheweth all his wit & honestie at once. For he denyeth that any thing that Saint Paule there rehearseth, namely these wordes, take, eate, this is my body &c. is the institution of the sacrament, or the originall paterne of reforming the Corinthians disorder, bicause time, place, vesture, number of communicants, and such other accidentall and variable circumstànces, be not therein expressed. So that by his diuinitie, either ye institution of the sacrament is not at all contained in ye scriptures, or else there is an other first paterne to reforme abuses by, then this yt is set downe in the scriptures. I would maruel at these monstrous assertions, but that I see, ye obstinate Papists cannot otherwise defend their Popish Masse, except they denied ye institution of the sacrament & patterne of reformation, to be conteyned in the scriptures. But if it be granted (saith M. Rast.) whiche is to farre absurde, that S. Paule did reduce the Corinthians to the first originall and institution, Why doe not rich men now bring meate to the Church, and receiue the sacrament after they hauehave filled their bellies? Forsooth because Christe instituted no such maner of suppers. And why (saith he) do you not washe one anothers feete, hauing a commandement so to do? But if this commandement be litterally to be vnderstanded, why doe you Papistes breake it? If it be not, why do you require that of vsus, which you confesse is not required, to be done of any? Humilitie is commaunded whereof our Sauiour Christe gaue vsus example in that fact, & that God graunt we may obserue: the outwarde ceremonie he commanded not to be obserued of any, but that which was signified thereby▪ And whereas Maister Rastell compareth the receiuing of both kindes by the lay people, with that ceremonie of washing of feete, to make it seeme that the iustitution of Christ might be altered in the one, aswell as in the other, he declareth what reuerence or estimation he hath of the institution of Christe. For as that ceremonie of washing of feete is and may be altogether omitted (as he fantasieth by the authoritie of the Church) so not only one kind of the sacrament, but both kindes also may be likewise taken away, both from the people & the priest, if it please the Churche of Rome. If he denie the conclusion, what hath he gayned by the argument of that example? Or what hath he proued against this our assertion, that nothing is to beleeued without the expresse worde of God conteined in the scriptures?