Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 4 · Section 38
RastelSECTIO. 38. From the second face of the 127. leafe, to the 131. leafe, in which he treateth of receiuing the communion in both kindes.
Fulke.To the Bishops challenge, that the Communion was neuer ministred in one kinde to any man in the space of 600. yeres after Christes: he answereth first, that if it were not, yet their Church is out of daūger, bicause it is a matter indifferent for the Lay people to receiue in one kind, or in both, alledging for proofe a saying of Luther, written before hee was throughly conuerted from Papistrie. Secondly, hee will proue that it was receiued vnderunder one kind, first bicause in Luke. 24. and Act. 20. there is no mention but of bread. Ergo, Christe and Paule gaue them the communion in one kind, a good consequent. By the same I may proue, that Christe and Paule receiued them selues but bread, bicause there is no mention of wine. And yet the Papistes holde it necessarie, that the Priest which ministreth, should of necessitie receiue in both kindes. And whereas he is ashamed of this negatiue consequence, he chargeth vsus with like reasoning, out of some place of Augustine, or Irenaeus, &c. Wheras he slandreth vsus falsly, except it be vponupon such an affirmatiue as excludeth all other things.
With like impudence he saieth, we doe not deny, but that in Tertullians time the sacrament in one kinde was carried home to their houses, which we doe vtterly deny, neither is he euer able to proue. As false it is, that he saith in Cyprians time it was carried to mens houses in one kinde, for Cyprian saith no such thing, nor any worde sounding to such end. And concerning the custome of sending the sacrament to Bishops that were straungers, which came to Rome, cited by Irenaeus Ad victor, whereby he would proue it was sent vnderunder one kinde, because wine would soone waxe sower, I say he vnderstandeth not what the custome was, but imagineth that the sacrament was sent a thousand myle of to those Bishops, whereas it was onelyonly from the Table to the places where they did sitte in the Churche, or at the worste, to their lodging where they soiourned at Rome. But passing ouer as he doeth, all reportes of carrying and sending the sacrament, whiche prooueth nothing at all the communion in one kinde, for both might as well be carried and sent as one, he commeth to a fragment of an Epistle of Basilius Ad Caesariam Pratriciam, which also he falsifieth in translation, as the rest of the Papistes, Harding, and Heskins doe. For where he saith, that such as ledde a solitary life in the wildernesse, where no Priest is, keeping the communion at home, receiue of themselues, Communionem domi seruantes à seipsis communicant, meaning they receiued one of an other, which he translateth, They communicate by themselues, Gathering that a priest may as well receiue by himselfe in the churche, as the people at home, whiche doth not followe, although neither of both be wel done. And here againe he wil hauehave no wine for feare of sauoring, whereas their is no dout, but such strong wine as groweth in those countries, will be preserued as long from sauoring, as the bread frō moulding. Like is ye example of Serapion being at the point of death to whom the priest being sicke also, sent by a boye the sacrament. Vppon which example he vrgeth reseruation, which though it be not necessarie, yet is it not the matter in controuersie, secondly the cōmunion in one kind, which is false, for he sent both and willed him to dippe the bread in the wine which he sent, and not in any thing else, as M. Rastell saith, which were an absurditie, that the bodie of Christe should be dipped in prophane licour, or sent by a boy, either if the Priest had ben so persuaded of it, as Rastel would beare vsus in hand, yt all olde fathers were. That he receiued alone, proueth no priuate Masse nor alloweth sole receiuing as ordinarie, which was done in a case of extreame necessitie in one which was excommunicated, and could not departe this life, before he had receiued the sacrament.
The last example is the superstitious fact of Satyrus the brother of Ambrose, which beeing not baptised, obteined the sacrament of ye Christians yt were in a ship with him in daunger of shipwracke, which because he might not receiue, he caused it to be wrapped, in Orario a linnen garment, which Maister Rastell calleth a stole, & wrapped that linnen garment about his necke, and without other helpe escaped by swimming. Here M. Rastel thinketh he hath great aduauntage. First that the Christians had the sacrament out of the Church. As though the ship might not be their Church for that time, to minister the communion in the time of that great daunger. Secondly that it was in one kind, except we can deuise how to wrap wine in a stole. No M. Rastel, this proueth not that the Christians receiued in one kinde, though they had wrapped one kinde in the stole (as you call it) for Satyrus, as yet no Christian. But why might they not either soake the bread in wine, as some did in those days, or else dippe a corner of that linnen cloth as some also vsed to doe, and wrappe it vp in that great linnen garment? And the words of Ambrose Fusum in viscera powred into his bowels wold not agree to drie bread. Last of all, whereas you say it was no fantastical figuratiue memorie which saued him from daunger, I agree with you: but it was not the sacrament that he carried, whatsoeuer you will call it, but his faith (as S. Ambrose saith,) that preserued him.
And how soeuer it was, the example of an vnbaptised mans weake and superstitious doing, doeth ye but small honestie, to confirme your common priuate Masse, sole receiuing, opinion of carnal presence, or what so euer beside you can gather out of it.