Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 4 · Section 41 – Section 45
SECTIO. 41. From the 139. leafe to the 144. leafe, in which he speaketh of the reall and corporall presence of Christes bodie in the sacrament.Rastle
The bisho… saith the people were not taught yt Christs body is really, substantially, corporally, carnally,Fulk. or naturally in the sacrament. Master Rastell saith, although these termes be not founde, yet that which is signified by them is found. For thus he vseth in eueryevery matter to trifle about termes, as though the bishop did striue for wordes and sylables, and not for the matter. And he would hauehave the bishop to bring out of any antiquitie, that the people were taught to beleeue, that the bodie of Christ is onelyonly figuratiuely, sacramentally, significatiuely, tropically, imaginatiuely in the sacrament, to the denyal of all presence and reallitie, as though a sacramental presence were not a presence and a reall presence also, if by reall you meane that whiche is in deede, and not counterfeted, though it bee not after a grosse and carnall manner.
For that Christ is present, and truely receyued in his sacramentes, wee doe gladly confesse, whiche is all that any aunciente writers speaketh of his presence, Hierome, Isychius, Cyrillus, Origen, Augustine or Chrysostome: whose names he citeth, or any other within 600. yers after Christ. But to maintein that grosse & corporall maner of presence or receiuing, which the papistes doe now holde, there is none of the olde writers that saith any thing to the purpose. As for Damascen is far out of the compasse, a corrupt writer, and yet more grosse in termes, then his iudgement was, as it were easie to prooue, if his authoritie were of any weight.
But Master Rastel asketh if these words be not plaine inough. This is my bodie which shall bee deliuered for you, Luk. 22. Hee maketh them somewhat plainer by chaunging the pretertence into the future, for Luke reporteth the words: which is giuen for you. I againe aske him whether these wordes bee not as plaine. This cuppe is the Newe Testament in my blood, which is shedde for you? Wee doubt not but that it is the sacrament of his true and naturall body, for we make not two bodies of Christ as the papistes doe, a naturall bodie, and a spirituall bodie, which true and naturall bodie of Christ being in heauen, is giuen vntounto vsus in those holy mysteries after a wonderfull and vnspeakeable manner, not carnally nor corporally, but spiritually and diuinelye. And where as Maister Rastell citeth a longe saying of Cyrillus against an Arrian, whiche denyed,lib. 10. ca. 15 in Ioan. that wee hauehave any corporall coniunction with Christe, and proueth the same by the strength and power of the misticall benediction, which maketh Christ to dwell corporally in vsus, it is nothing in the worlde to his corporall and carnall manner of presence. For we also do graunt, that the power of the mistical benediction is such, as maketh Christ to dwel corporally in ye faithfull, which is nothing else (as he doth immediately expounde himselfe,) but yt they are made members of Christes bodie and members one of another, which is not after any carnall or naturall manner, but after an heauēly & diuine manner of vnion. For the same Cyril doth affirme yt Christ giuing ye sacrament to his disciples gaue thē fragmēta panis peeces of bread. By which is the plaine hee meant not to teach any transubstantiation of the bread into the natural body of Christ.
This place of Cyrill is set downe at large in mine aunswere to Hesk. lib. 2. Cap. 14. And where as hee saith, we do weaken the hope of the resurrection of our flesh, by denying the carnall manner of presence of Christs body in the sacrament, I say it is vtterly false, and the contrarie is true, that the Popish heretikes do weaken the hope of resurrection in all them that hauehave not receiued the sacrament, when they faine such a presence of Christes body in the sacrament, as cannot bee receiued without the sacrament.
SECTIO. 42. From the 144. leafe to the ende of the 145. leafe.Rastell.
To ye Bishops challenge, that ye body of Christ cannot be in a thousande places or more at one time,Fulk. hee aunswereth, it needed not to be proued, because reason must giuegive place to faith, and one principle proued of Christes presence, draweth all the rest after it, and thirdly because Christs body is not locally present in the sacrament, but in one place onelyonly. Finally hee citeth a long saying of Chrisostome in Ep. ad Heb. Hom. 17. reasoning how Christ is offered eueryevery day, but the whole discourse is cleane contrary to Maister Rastels purpose, and especially the first sentence and the last, expoundeth howe Christ was offered, not really, but as in a remembrance. Doe wee not offer euerye day? Wee offer in deede, but as men which make a remembrance of his death, these wordes shewe what kinde of oblation it was, that they did make, namelye a celebration of the memoriall of his death, and not a propitiatorie sacrifice of Christes bodye, carnally present.
The last wordes are these, Wee offer not another sacrifice as the bishops did, but alwayes that same, or rather wee make the remembrance of that sacrifice. This correction sheweth, that it was not properly a sacrifice whiche they offered.
Finally there is not one worde in that discourse, but it is directly against the sacrifice of the Masse.
Rastle.SECTIO. 43. From the 145. leafe. to the 149. leafe.
Fulk.To nine parts of the bishoppes chalenge hee aunswereth nothing, but refuseth for their particularitie to answere to them. First, that the Priest did not holde the sacrament ouer his heade. Secondlye, that the people did not worship it with Godly honour. Thirdly, that it was not then hanged vnderunder a Canopye. Fourthly, that after consecration there remaineth nothing but accidences of breade and wine. Fiftly, that ye priest deuided not the sacramēt in three parts & receiued them all himselfe alone Sixtly, that whosoeuer had said the sacrament is a figure, a pledge, a token or a remembrance of Christes bodye, had not therefore ben iudged for an heretike. Seuenthly, that it was not lawefull to say 30. or twentie &c. Masses in one Church in one day. Eightly, that images were not set vp to be worshiped. Ninthly, that the lay people were not forbidden to reade the worde of God in their owne tongue. Maister Rastell saith, this is an vnlearned and pelting kinde of reasoning, but he proueth it by vnlearned and pelting examples: as it is not read that Christe did crye from his mothers breast, or did weare a peticoate, hose, or shooes, or went on his mothers errande, &c.
As though any of these thinges were articles of our beleefe, as some of those are among the Papistes, or as though it perteined any thing to knowe such matters, as the Papistes pretende their matters necessarye not onelyonly to be knowen, but also practised. Finally he woulde perswade his popish friends that these thinges neede not to bee proued to bee of such antiquitie, because the Church hath receiued them. Then let him and his fellowes bee a shamed and crie creake, whiche were wont to boaste of fifteene hundreth yeares antiquitie, for all their doctrine and ceremonyes, the consent of all ages, the traditions of the Apostles and such like: where nowe they are cutte shorte of the first sixe hundreth yeares, and being vrged to shewe their antiquitie, can say nothing, but that it is not needefull.
SECTIO. 44. in the 149. leafe.Rastell.
To the Bishoppes challenge that the wordes of consecration by no authoritie of councelles or Doctours,Fulk. ought to bee pronounced closelye: Hee confesseth the matter, but hee can proue (or else hee lyeth) that there must be an heade in the Churche, whiche as well in this matter, as in all other must bee obeyed. Howe well hee can proue it, is tryed in the fourtie Section.
The rest of the challenges hee giueth ouer, being desirous to bee at an ende with them, as I cannot blame him.
Rastle.SECTIO. 45. From the end of the 149. leafe to the 152. leafe, in whiche he woulde proue that priests hauehave auctoritie to offer Christ.
Fulk.He taketh vppon him to shewe, that the priest hath authoritie to offer vp Christ vntounto his father. But good lorde whether more blasphemously, then ignorantly and vnlearnedly. For first, he citeth the saying of ye Apostel Heb. 5. EueryEvery high Priest taken of men is appointed for men, in those things that perteine to God, to offer vp gifts and sacrifices for sinnes, which the Apostle speaketh expreslye of the priests of the old lawe, and proueth the excellency of Christ aboue them.
Secondly admitting hee shoulde speake of Pristes of the newe Testament, which is false, he saith their sacrifice must be after ye order of Melchisedech, as it is written, thou art a priest for euer after ye order of Melchisedech: of which order Christ is a priest, in respect of Popish priestes that be nowe a dayes; or else Gods oth should be broken. Surely I merueile at ye great clemency of god which stoppeth not such blasphemous mouthes with thunderbolts. that make the eternall priesthoode of Christ, which hee hath without succession, to depende vppon their greasie order, which hath not beene but of late erected, neither shall continue for euer, where as our sauiour Christe worlde without ende shal bee both a king and a priest, which is the order of Melchisedech, and consisteth nothing at all in offering of breade and wine, as is manifest by the Apostle to the Hebrewes, who sheweth in what respect Christ is a priest after ye order of Melchisedech.
As impudent as this is blasphemous, is his next argument yt by verye expresse commaundement of Christ in his last supper, they must offer him vp: saying, Do this in rememberance of me. As though Christ which neuer sacrificed himselfe but once, & that on the crosse, had at his supper offered himselfe to his father in sacrifice,
As for the testimonies of the Fathers which he citeth, are easily answered, that they spake of sacrificing Christe figuratiuely and vnproperly, as some of them confesse, namely Chrysostome, whome hee citeth, ad Heb. Hom. 17. which when he had demaunded, saying, Doe we not offer Christ daily? he answereth, yes, but rather wee celebrate the remembrance of his sacrifice: the other which hee citeth out of Dionyse, hath no word of offering Christ; although Dionyse be no writer within the compasse of sixe hundreth yeares: Neither do these words of the Liturgie intituled to S. Basil, which he rehearseth, speake more then of an vnbloudie sacrifice, which is the sacrifice of thanksgiuing, although the Liturgie is not of such antiquitie & credit, as it is pretended. And of as little is that, he citeth out of Ambrose in Psal. 38. which no man learned of sound and indifferent iudgement, will receiue for the worke of S. Ambrose. Such false principles must leane vponupon counterfet Doctours.