Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 4 · Section 4
Rastel.SECTIO. 4. From the second face of the 23. leafe, to the first of the 38. leafe. In which he taketh vponupon him to proue that the English communion and seruice doth not followe Christe and his Apostles, in taking into their hand…, and blessing the cuppe and the challice, nor the primitiue Church in praying toward the East, mingling water with the wine, signe of the crosse, altars, incense, tapern, praying to Saintes, and praying for the dead.
Fulke.The …. in his sermon affirmed (as R. saith) 1. The holy cōmunion to be restored to ye use & form of the primitiue Church. 2. To ye same order yt was deliuered & appointed by Christ, 3. and after practised by the Apostles, 4. and continued by the holy doctours and fathers, by the space of fiue or sixe hundreth yeares, throughout all the catholike Churche of Christ, 5. without exception or anye sufficient example to be shewed to the contrarie. Al these Master Rast. saith be lyes, which is his short aunswere. And I coulde aunswere as shortly, that then they be lyes of Master Rastells forging. For the bishoppe affirmed no such thing of the ceremoniall forme of our Communion, but of the doctrine thereof. But let vsus see his answere at large.
He woulde know how this Communion of ours doth agree with that, which Christ deliuered, and thē rehearseth ye institution of Christ, beginning at the eating of ye Pascall Lambe, and the washing of his disciples feete, as though either of these perteined to the sacrament, and forsoothe we must tell him, how many thinges more, & how many things lesse, our order in ye cōmunion booke hath. And firste what scripture we hauehave for the linnen clothe: for the priestes standing on the North side of the table, for our prayers, confessions, collects, & other ceremonies, and seeing wee hauehave no scripture for these, the Communion is not restored to the order appointed by Christ. I aunswere, that forasmuch as those matters perteine to order and decencie, we hauehave scripture sufficient to authorize them, although as I saide before, the bishop speaketh not of the ceremoniall forme of ministration, but of the substaunce and doctrine, which is the essential forme of the Communion: concerning which we hauehave neyther more nor lesse, then Christ vsed and deliuered.
Yet (saith Master Rast.) we hauehave many pointes lesse then was done by Christ at his last supper. First he will not presse vsus with yt question, why we do not Communicate after supper, which peraduenture yet some doth with the sicke, as a thing not vnlawfull, nor tyed to any time, but by the generall rule of order and decencie: but he demandeth, why we take not the bread into our handes, before we consecrate it, as Christ did? A profounde question. As though we doe not both take it, breake it, receiue it, and deliuer it with our handes, as Christ did. Or as though Christ appointed at what moment we should touch it, or that M. Rastel is able to say, that Christ spake nothing of his institution before he touched the breade: or as though we did not vse ordinarily before we make the exhortation vntounto the Communion, to take the bread and breake it, and with the cup to set it before vsus, & not to let it stand at the ende of the table, as he belyeth vsus, as though we wer… ashamed to folow Christ.
The seconde thing that we hauehave lesse then Christ did (as he saith) is blessinge of the breade, which is vtterly false, for we blesse it as Christ did, not with the signe of the crosse as ye would hauehave vsus, but with thanksgiuinge and prayer, as the Euangelistes doe testifie that Christe did, and as the primitiue and Apostolike Church did practise. And therefore Iustinus marty… speaking of the sanctified or blessed nourishment of the sacrament, calleth it foreign that nourishement for which thankes is giuen by the worde of prayer, receiued of him. And touching the reuerende gestures vsed by Christ at his supper, as we doubt nothing, but that he vsed them alwayes, so can M. Rastell with all his prating prooue none other, then the Euangelists hauehave set downe. And therefore for his loking on the bread, separating it from the rest of the bread on the table, blessing it by some special signe, as the signe of ye crosse, &c. when he can prooue out of the scriptures, we shall bee content to refourme our Communion accordinge to those supposed gestures. In the meane time, notwithstanding his ruffian like raylinge, our order of celebration, hath all things instituted and deliuered by Christ, to be obserued in the reuerent ministration of this most holy sacrament.
The seconde lye he chargeth Master Iewell with all is, that he saith we hauehave the same order, that was practi…ed by the Apostles, where as we reade of none order practised by them. For Actes the 2. we read (saith he) that they did breake breade in houses. And yet it may be doubted whether that was the communion, and actes 13. saith he when the Apostles had fasted and sacrificed, they sent forth Paule and Barnabas. But where finde you that translation, Master Rastell, that they sacrificed? will you now forsake your owne Latine translation? Ministrantibus illis Domino, when they ministred vntounto the Lorde, and so wilfully runne into the curse of the Tridentine councell? or will you appeale to the Greeke text foreign, which worde signifieth any publike Ministerie by the iudgement of all learned Graetians, and Erasmus himselfe, whom you folowe in this translation, though you count him an heretike, and forsake your Catholike translation, confirmed by generall Councelles? Well, then I see that papists iangle of general councels and catholike interpretations vntounto other, but they themselues will be holden of none, anye longer then they liste. But to the matter, he saith that S. Paule 1. Cor. 11. testifieth of the veritie of the sacrament, but not of the order, referringe that to his owne comming. As though he doeth not manifestly reforme a disorder, or as though other thinges which he saith he woulde set in order at his comminge. could be taken for the same thinges that he wrote of in his Epistle. But what of al this? we obserue the same essentiall order that the Apostles practised by Christs institution, which S. Paule in that place reduced, & otherwise ye bishop neither said nor ment, therfore ye foule lyes come onelyonly out of M. Rastelles foule mouth and slaunderous penne.
From whence come fiue other lyes that folowe, namely, ye the order of the cōmunion restored, hath bin cōtinued by ye holy doctors & fathers, as in the beginning of this Section: wherto he addeth, to make ye fift lie, yt the bishop saith, some refuse ye cōmuniō, where there be many refusers: in deed a few is too many, but if there were a thousand times so many, they are truely said some, so long as they be not all.
Communion agreeth not with the primitiue Churche, & olde fathers. First he bringeth in Iustine, Athanasius, Basill, and Agustine, to shewe that they vsed to praye to the East, as though that were anye parte of the Communion.
And he will know of vsus wherefore we appoint the priest to stand on ye Northside. Verely euē for the same reason, that the primitiue Churche did chuse to praye towarde the East. Namely to auoide the superstition of the Iewes, that prayed towarde the West, as we doe to auoid the superstition of the papistes that vse to pray toward the East, otherwise all quarters of heauen, of their own nature, are indifferent for vsus, to turne our selues vntounto in our praiers, either publike or priuate.
The seconde exception is, of mingling of water with the wine, which is also a pointe nothinge materiall, as their owne schoole doctours doe confesse, the vsage of this he prooueth by a counterfett decree of Alexander bishoppe … …ome, by Cyprian, and the third councell of Carthage: sauing that he belyeth Cyprian, who in deede reprooueth them that ministred with water alone, but not such as ministred with wine alone, although hee thinke it conuenient that water shoulde be mixed with the wine. But all his reasoninge is for wine, and not for water, against water alone, and not against wine alone.
Wherefore the vse of water being not of Christes institution, as many other thinges practised of the fathers at the first as indifferent, or profitable ceremonies, being ouergrowne after with superstition and opinion of necessitie, our Churche hath done verie well to curse them of, and leaue nothinge but the pure institution of Christ.
The third exception is of the signe of the crosse, which he saith, ought to be vsed in ye cōmunion, & yt he proueth by the counterfet liturgies ascribed to S. Iames & S. Basill, he citeth also Tertulian, to prooue that men vsed to make that signe on their foreheads customably at eueryevery action, which they did, to shewe themselues to be Christian… against the Heathens. Likewise he citeth the sayings of Chrisostome and Augustine, to proue that they vsed the signe of the crosse at the celebration of the communion, which is not denyed, yet cannot he proue, that the vse of that signe is necessarie to the ministration: and the first that we reade of, that had it in estimatiō, were ye Valentinian heretikes Ireneus lib. 1. Cap. 1. By fond emulation of whome, the Catholikes also began to vsurpe the same signe. Therefore our communion which lacketh that signe, lacketh nothing that is either necessary or profitable, or (considering the abuse of it) meete to be reteined.
The fourth exception is of Altars, which we hauehave not, neither in deed had the primitiue church, but tables made of bords, which although they called altars, as they did also cal them tables, yet were they neither in forme, nor matter like those which the Papists hauehave, as I hauehave shewed at large in the aunswere to M. Hesk. lib. 3. Cap. 31. whither I remit the reader. As for maister Rastels proofe out of that saying of the Apostle to the Hebrues: we hauehave an Aultar of which they may not eate, which communicate with Idols: declareth what a wel exercised man in the scriptures he is for neither be ye words of the apostle Heb. 12. as he doth falsifie them, neither doth he speake of any materiall altar, but of our spirituall Altar Christ. The words be these we hauehave an Aultar of which it is not lawful for thē to eat, which serue in the tabernacle. His next proofe is for hallowing of aultars, and oyle, & of ye priests blessing, out of the prouinciall councel of Agatha, which he citeth Cap. 14. in steede of 10. which was a new decree made by 35. Bishoppes in Fraunce, almost fiue hundreth yeares after. Christe, and therefore not Catholike, either for time or place. The saying of Opratus which he citeth last, you shal finde at large in the aunswere vntounto Hesknis before named.
The fifth exception is of incense, which hee proueth by a prayer of the counterfet masse of S. Iames, which yet may be otherwise taken figuratiuely. Also by a saying of Dennys, who was not knowē in the church fiue hundreth yeres after Christ for a writer, neither of Eusebius, Ierōe, nor Gennadius. Last of al by a saying of Ambrose lib. 1. in cap. 1. Luc. I would to god that while we incēse the aultars & bring sacrifice thither, the Angels should stand by vsus. By which word… he meaneth nothing else but prayers, which are figuratiuely, both in the psalmes & in the reuelation called incense or sacrifice. Wherefore popish sensing is not of such antiquitie as he pretendeth.
The sixt exception is of lightes and tapers, vsed in the primitiue Church, which is false, except it were in the night season, to giuegive them light. For profes he citeth a counterfet sermon of Augustine de tempore, which for all that speaketh but of oyle & wax for the vse of the night. Neither is the verse of Paulinus otherwise to bee vnderstanded, Of the Aultars bright, that were rounde ydight, with lampes thicke set and light. Finally where he citeth Hierom against Vigilantius, excusing the superstitiō of some women, that lighted candles at day time, partly by their deuotion, partely by the example of the East Churches, which onelyonly at the reading of the gospell vsed to light their candels in signe of ioye, you shall see by his owne wordes in the same place, that neither it was the custome of the latine church to …ett light candels on the aultars, neither did he allowe them that vsed so to doe, Caereas autem non clara luce accendimus sicut fustra calumniaris, sed & noctis tenebras hoc solatio temperemus, & vigilemus ad lumen, no tecum caeci dormiamus in tenebris. Quod si aliqui propter imperitiam vel simplicitatem saecularium hominum, vel certe religiosarum faeminarum de quibus verè dicere possumus, confiteor zelum Dei habens sed non secūdum scientiam, hoc pro honore martyrum faciunt, quid inde perdis? We do not light wax cādels in ye brod day light as thou dost slander vsus in vaine, but that we may temper the darknesse of the night with this comforte, & may watch by a light, least we should sleepe with thee in the darke like blinde men. And if any lay men, or perhaps deuout we men, through ignorance or simplicitye doe so for the honour of the Martyrs, of whome we may truly say: I confesse they hauehave a zeale but not according to knowledge, what leesest thou thereby? By these words you may see howe this custome came vp, namelye of superstition and ignorance, by Hieromes owne confession, although hee was more readie to excuse it, then to reforme it, as his duetie had beene.
After some rayling against our grosse, vnreasonable, and vnnaturall heresies (as he calleth them,) hee returneth to two other exceptions, the one of prayers made to saintes, vsed at the communion, the other of prayer for the deade. For proofe of the first, hee citeth the liturgies falsely intituled to Basill and Chrisostom, which the worlde knoweth are of a much later stampe, the one being vnknowen to Gregorie Nazianzen, that wrote Basils life, and commended his actes, the other praying for Pope Nicholas and the Emperour Alexius, whiche were sixe hundreth yeares after Chrisostome was deade.
After these he citeth the authorities of Chrisostome & Augustine, that mention was made of the saintes and martires at the celebration of the communion in their time, which wee confesse, and so there is in our ministration, but no prayer was in their time offered vntounto them, more then is nowe: as euen that place of Augustine which hee citeth, sufficiently doth proue. De ciuit dei lib. 22. Cap. 10. although he cite it falsely and by patches. Suo loco & ordine nominantur, non tamen à sacerdote qui sacrificat inuocantur? they are named in their order and place, yet are they not called vppon by the priest that sacrificeth: & what can be more plaine against inuocation of saintes, then this testimonie of Augustine? But hee citeth another place of Augustine, Contra Faust. Manich. lib. 20. cap. 2, where hee saith, the Christians did solemnelye frequent the memories of the martyrs, both to stirre vp themselues to a following of them, and also to be made companions of their merites, and to be helped by their prayers. This was Augustines iudgement in deede, but yet in the same place, he denyeth that any Aultars were set vp vntounto them, or that any prayers were euer offered vntounto them. Quis enim Antistitum &c. for what bishoppe standing at the aultar in the places of ye holy Martyrs, euer saide? We offer vntounto thee O Peter, or Paule, or Cyprian.
As for prayer for the deade, wee confesse it was vsed at the communion in the time of Chrisostome and Augustine, but not as any part of the communion, or as the institution of Christ, or the practise of the Church for two hundreth yeares after Christ, but onelyonly as a superstitious errour, crept into the Church and not espied, while the fathers were busily occupied in fighting against monstruous heresies of greater importance. Wherefore these exceptions notwithstanding, our celebration of the Communion hath the whole institution of Christe, the practise of the Apostles, and the obseruation of the primitiue Church for fiue or sixe hundreth yeares, so farre as it agreeth with the saide institution and practise, which was in all substantiall and essentiall partes, although the later age had added diuers superfluous and supersticious vsages: and otherwise we boast not of the conformitie of our ministration, with the auncient obseruaton, as maister Rastel, like a malicious cauiller, doth charge the Bishop, I cannot say whether more lewdely then folishly.