Three Pillars and Arch-patriarchs of the Popish Synagogues, Treatise 4 · Section 6 – Section 10
Rastel.SECTIO. 6. From the second face of the 40. leafe to the first face of the 42. leafe.
Fulk.The Bishop alledged the example of a woman out of Cyprian, which opening her chest with vnworthie handes, in which was the holy thing of the Lord, by fire breaking out, she was terrified that she durst not touch it. This miracle (saith M. Ra.) proueth none abuse in keeping the sacrament, but her fault in presuming to touch it with vnworthie handes. But why may it not serue to proue both, seeing Christe gaue not his sacrament to be locked vp in Chestes, but to be receiued? Take, eate (saith he:) but neither the breach of Christes commandment, nor of the end of his institution can persuade M. Ra. to acknowlege it to be an abuse, bicause he imagineth, that carying home of the sacrament, may iustifie their reseruation therof for adoration, yea and the communion vnderunder one kind, wheras it neither iustifieth the one, nor proueth the other. For that they (though abusiuely) kept it in corners to receiue, ca…ot serue to iustifie the popish maner of hanging it ouer ye altar, or carying it abroad in procession to be worshipped. And there is no colour in the world to make vsus thinke, that they caryed not as wel of the sanctified wine, as of the sanctified bread, home to their houses. But it is a sport to see, yt he would proue it to be the body of Christ, by the fire that came out of the chest. The same Cyprian sheweth an other miracle of an vnworthie receiuer, in whose hand the sacrament was turned into ashes, will hee say the body of Christ was turned into ashes also? But to be short, he would knowe what Doctour or Councell we can shew, to proue this carying home of the sacrament to be an abuse. For Doctour he shal hauehave Origen in Leu. cap. 7. Hom. 5. Nam & Dominus panem quem discipulis dabat, & dicebat eis accipite & manducate, nō distulit, nec seruari iussit in crastinum. For our Lord differred not yt bread which he gaue to his disciples, & said vntounto them, take ye, and eat ye, neither bad he yt it should be kept vntil the next day. For councel he shal hauehave Caesar Augustanum. Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam non consumpsisse in Ecclesia, anathema sit in perpetuum. If any man be proued, not to hauehave spent in the church, the gift of the Eucharistie which he hath taken, let him be accursed for euer. Finally, if it bee no abuse, why do not the Papistes suffer it to be done? specially of their Popish brethren whome they take to liue in persecution, vnderunder princes that professe the Gospell of Christ.
An other abuse the Bishop rehearseth within Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustines time, the Communion was giuen to young babes, contrarie to the commaundement of the holy Ghoste. Let a man examine him selfe, and so let him eat &c. whereas infantes are not able to examine them selues. This will not Maister Rastell acknowledge to be an abuse, neither that, a reason of the abolishing thereof, but onelyonly the bare authoritie of the Church, which belike hath abolished a good custome. But hee faith, infants might as well communicate as be baptized, wherein hee playeth the Anabaptist, requiring instruction before baptisme, which the scripture doth not in the children of the faithfull, as it doth examination i… the communicants. Againe he saith, they may as well communicate in the faith of the Church, as they may be baptized in the faith of their Godfathers. But I answere, they are baptized in ye faith which their Godfathers confesse, & not in that faith which they beleue, for perhaps they may be hypocrites, and so voyde of faith, or heretiques, and holde a false faith. But seeing Christ said, Drinke ye all of this, he will knowe why infants may not also drinke, and if they may not drinke, then by all, are meant none, but al that were present, that is, all Priests. But I answere, drinke ye all of this, is saide to all them, to whome, take ye, eat ye, &c. is saide, that is, to all that are able to vnderstande the mysterie, or else none might take and eate, but all Priestes, bicause onelyonly Priestes (as they say) were present, which yet they are not able to proue. As for his comparing of the sacrament with spicebread and cakebread, sauoureth of a mynde that inwardly derideth all religion, though outwardly he pretend neuer so much Popish holinesse.
Rastel.SECTIO. 7. From the first face of the 42. leafe to the first face of the 43. leafe.
Fulke.The Bishop rehearseth, that Marcus an heretique and Necromanser, (as Irenaeus writeth) made that by enchantment, there should appeare very bloud in the chalice. Hereof Rastel gathereth, that the people beleeued bloud to be there, and so he serued their faith and deuotion by his enchauntment, but that is vtterly false, for he would hauehave deceiued the people, to make them thinke that hee had the bloud of Christe, whereas the Ministers of the Catholike Church had but wine. He counterfeted also a multiplying of the same wine by his sorcerie, and all to get credite to his heresie, and not to serue the faith as M. Rastel vntruely and vnlearnedly affirmeth, but to ouerthrowe the faith of the people of God.
SECTIO. 8. From the first face of the 43. leafe to the first face of the 45. leafe.Rastel.
The Bishop rehearseth other abuses of the sacrament,Fulk. as that some hang it before their brest for a protection, some take the sacrament for a purgation against slander, S. Benet ministred the communion to a woman that was dead. M. Rastell confesseth the sacrament may be abused by Coniurers and other, but he will not graunt that S. Benet did amisse, because he was a Saint, as though Saintes could not do amisse. And he counteth it no reason, against S. Benets fact, that Christ gaue not the sacrament to dead folke, for that he saith is no reason: because Christ forbad no communion, that three be not present, neither badde the chalice to be filled when all is supped vp, nor bad vsus kneele and say, we do not presume to come to this thy table, nor carrie home the cantels of bread that are left. But notwithstanding his fonde quarrelling whatsoeuer apperteineth to the decent and reuerent ministration of the communion, Christ cōmanded, though not euerie particular thing by name. And Maister Rastell sheweth himselfe to be an ignoraunt Asse, that compareth substances and accidentes, the essential causes & variable circumstances together, whereas the one must hauehave the expresse worde of God, or else it can hauehave no being, the other for the manner of the being, hath generall rules to order it by, but no particulars expressed.
But Maister Rastell, will not condemne the fact of Benet, because Saint Augustine dare not condemne the fact of those virgins that drowned themselues contrarie to the commandement, Thou shalt not kil, because they might hauehave an extraordinarie spirite, as Sampson had, and because S. Ambrose commendeth the fact of his brother Satyrus, one that was not baptised, and therefore might not receiue the sacrament, which hanged it about his necke in a tempest and escaped. All these notwithstanding, if he will not admitte that Saint Benet did euill in breaking the commandement of Christ, yet let him heare what the Church decreed in the 3. councel of Carthage, the 6. Canon. Placuit vt corporibus defunctorum Eucharistia non detur, Dictum est enim a Domino, accipite & edite. Cadauera autem nec accipere possunt nec edere. It is decreed that the sacrament of the Eucharistie be not giuen to the bodies of them that are dead. For it is saide by our Lord. Take ye, and eate ye. But dead carcases can neither take nor eate. The councell vseth the same reason that the bishop doeth, but M. Rastel, wiser then the councell, sayeth that it is no good reason.
RastelSECTIO. 9. From the first face of the 46. leafe to the seconde face of the 47. leafe.
FulkThe Bishop affirmeth, that Albertus Pighius, one of the greatest pillers of the Popish parte, findeth fault with the Masse. M. Rastel denying him to be a great piller, (perhaps thinking himselfe to be as great) confesseth that booth he and o…her do so, but that it is not in the body of the Masse, but in the garments, and he saith they shew the better conscience to confesse the trueth, whereas protestants will acknowledge no faults one by an other, which is a shamelesse ly. But what conscience the whole Popish Church hath, hereby it may be seene, that seeing there be faultes in the Masse, so long ago espied, yet not one of them is by the Pope and his cleargie reformed.
RastelSECTIO. 10. From the seconde face of the 47. leafe, to the second face of th… 48. leafe.
FulkThat the Bishop in his sermon refuseth to speake of transubstantiation, real presence, or sacrifice, and chuseth to speake of the communion in both kindes, of the Canon of the Masse, and of the priuate Masse, Maister Rastel sayeth it is a timerous bragging, and vaine glorious weakenesse. But how well he hath quit himselfe in those cases that Maister Rastell imagineth he was afraide to deale with, his learned writings doe more sufficiently declare, to his true prayse, then Maister Rastels rayling surmises are able to obscure. And those thinges beeing taken from the Masse, which he chooseth to speak of, would make the Masse a poore sacrifice, and smally to be regarded.