Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 4 · Section 32 – Section 33
SECTIO. 32. From the 99. leafe to the 103. leafe.Rastell
Whereas the bishop lamenteth the miserable case of the people which are brought into idolatrie▪ Fulkwith these blinde distinctions, M. Rast. deriding his needlesse and folish pitie, lamenteth the state of the worlde, when such things as are concluded in schooles, should be opened in pulpets, as though there were one doctrine of God for the schooles, and another for the pulpets. Yet he thinketh it not meete to teache the distinctions of the three persons in trinitie, but onelyonly to beleeue as the Churche doth beleeued, as well in the trinitie as in al other articles, and namely in this of the sacrament.
Which position of his, if it may stand, there needeth none other creed to be preached, but onelyonly this short curtall creed: beleeue as the church beleeueth, & you cannot do amisse.
But in time of popishe tyrannye, you woulde not hauehave bin satisfied, if a man examined of his faith in the sacrament, had answered, I beleue as the church teacheth, or I beleeue it to be the body of Christ, as Christ said it, and meant it to be his body: but then you must grope him in fleshe, blood, and bones, as he was borne of the virgine Mary, &c. Whether he beleeue the substance of breade to remaine after the wordes of consecration spoken by the priest, &c. Well, howsoeuer it be, all learning resteth in the brest of reuerende M. Rast. M, of art & student in diuinity, who can with one breath condemne all the pedlers, and pelting craftesmens arguments, deuised in alehouses or shops, and after recited in the protestants schooles: as this, Christ is ascended in body in to heauen, and there sitteth vntill the end of the world, therefore he is absent from the earth in bodie, and consequently is not in the sacrament, an vnlearned argument (saith M. Ra.) as this, can a priest make God? but learned sir, who taught ye people to call that which the priest maketh, their maker? or what, or which of all the reuerend rabbins of poperie, did reprooue the people for so speaking? Againe can one bodie be in more places then one at one time? An argumente of ignoraunte people. O vnlearned Augustine, whiche hath defined, that the bodie of Christ can be but in one place at one time, in Ioan. cap. 7. Tr. 30. If a mouse eat the hos… doth hee ease Christes bodie? A peltinge craftesmans argument.
What M. Rast. are you so arrogant in opinion of your owne learning, that you will condemne all the schoolemen for pedlers and tynkers, that hauehave moued, argued, & decided this question, and a hundreth like vntounto it? came this question from protestants, or from your owne popish schooles? & not from the schooles onelyonly, but euen the instructions that hauehave bene written for eueryevery simple curate, as Manupulus curatorum &c. But if a lerned man expert in liberall sciences (saith M. Rast. a great Master of liberal arts) should vse this argument of the necessitie of Christs body to be in on place: thē it were time to proue the contrarie. Howe I praye you? Because of the nature of a substance which occupieth no place. Is this the philosophie of Louaine? No maruaile if Ramus reproue Aristotle in Logike, when Rastell will set not him onelyonly, but all the phylosophers that euer were, and nature it self to schole, and tell them that it is the nature of a substance to occupie no place, whiche is as muche to saye, as to bee no where, and as Augustine saith, that which is no where, is nothing at all, and so by Master Rastels profound physical philosophie, it is the nature of a substaunce, which al other men affirme to containe all thinges, to be nothing at all.
But for a further resolution, he sayeth, Christe is in the sacrament, not as in a place locally, but as vnderunder forme of breade substantially. For before hee hath defined a substaunce to bee in no place: I woulde hee coulde holde him at this definition of Christes presence. If I shoulde reason with him of the nine maners of inesse, or beinge in a thinge, and aske him after whiche of them Christe is in the sacramente, perhappes hee woulde reiect that distribution, as sophistical and vnworthy of his learned answere?
But Christe (sayeth hee) is in the Sacrament, not as in place locally, then saye I, a man poyntinge to the pyxe hanginge ouer the altar, in whiche the consecrated cake is, muste saye, if hee saye truely, Christe is not there, lykewise poyntinge to the same holden vppe at the sacringe, carryed in procession, or wheresoeuer hee seeth it, muste likewise beleeue and saye, Christ is not there.
For I am sure he being a Master in all the seuen liberall Arts, is not so ignorant in grammer, but he will confesse this word, there, to be an aduerb of place: not so forgetful of logike, but that he remembreth what the Predicament Vbi meaneth. And to say the trueth, if the papistes coulde be content with such modest termes as the scripture teacheth, that the bodie of Christ is receiued of the faithfull in the sacrament after a wonderfull and mysticall maner, there needed neither these fond questions, nor any so bitter contention about the sacrament of vnitie. But that they will make an idoll of the Lords supper, and a bayte to satisfie their ambition, couetousnes▪ & licentiousnesse, by the sale of their masses, & applying of their merites: these grosse and monstrous absurdities had neuer beene defended. The contentions of the schoole doctours he forceth not vponupon, so long as the Church agreeth. But can your church agree (M. Rast.) when the doctours thereof dissent? If any difference of opinion be betweene Luther and Zuinglius, you crye out of our dissention. If your Church may agree within it selfe, notwithstanding ye infinite brawlings between the Thomists, and Scotists, Albertists, Occanists, about smal matters (as you say,) because all those agree in the chiefest pointes of poperie: I pray you let there be vnitie in our churche, notwithstan-the teachers vary in some matters, not of greatest momēt, agreeing in all necessarie articles of Christian religion. And if Holcot lye, in saying a man may merite by worshipping the deuil, and yet be a popish catholike, Let Luther erre in defending the carnall presence, and yet bee good christian catholike. And if your churche bee not chargeable with Holcots lye, why shoulde our churche beare the blame of Luthers error?
As for your excuse of Holcots lye, by the schoole distinction of a thing done materially & formally, wherein you shew a high point of learning, with your example of worshippinge of Luther being a diuell in forme of a doctor: I say it is wholesome diuinitie, to iustifie all superstition, Mahometrie and Idolatrie in the world, not onelyonly to be excusable, but also to be meritorious.
SECTIO. 33. From the first face of the 103. leafe to the 104. leafe.Rastle.
Where the Bishop saide, hee was vnwilling to spende time in discouering the misteries of Popish learning,Fulk. but that the importunitie of Papistes boasting (as though all learning were on their side) enforceth him: Maister Rastell more like a parasite to prouoke his popishe readers to laugh, then a man either of wisedome or honestie, scoffeth & rayleth on him, calling him a bench wistler, rather thē a preacher. But of both their learnings let the worlde iudge.