D. Heskins, D. Sanders, and M. Rastel, accounted (among their faction) three pillers and archpatriarches of the popish synagogue (vtter enemies to the truth of Christes Gospell, and all that syncerely professe the same) ouerthrowne, and detected of their seuerall blasphemous heresies. By D. Fulke, Maister of Pembrooke Hall in Cambridge. Done and directed to the Church of England, and all those which loue the trueth.

SECTIO. 2. Frō the second face of the 12. leafe to the first face of the 19. leafe.

When any order giuen by God is broken or abused, (saith the Bishop) the best redresse thereof, is to restore it againe into the state that it was first in the beginning. M. Rastel saith, the Bishop can not tell where of he speaketh. For whereas he affirmed, that S. Paule had appointed an order touching the ministration of the sacramentes vnto the Corinthians, M. Rastell will not simplie graunt that this order was appointed by God, although S. Paule him¦self say, he receiued it of christ, which he deliuered to thē. For this difference hee maketh. That an order giuen by God must be obserued without exception, and yet he ad∣deth an exception of reuelation, and especial licence from God. But what so euer order S. Paule did giue, (he saith) is subiect vnto the Church, to remoue or pull vp, as it shall please her. Thus the blasphemous dog barketh against y^e spirit of God. But I trust al sober Christian minds will ra∣ther beleue S. Paul then Rastel, who saith of such orders as were giuen by him. 1. Cor. 14. If any man seem to be a pro∣phet, or spirituall, let him know y^e things y^t I write to you, y^t they be the cōmandements of God. But now M. Ra. will take vpon him to teach vs y^e order giuē, y^t Paul speaketh of, namely, That y^e Christians had certein charitable suppers, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after which as August. saith, & before which as Chrysost. saith, they did vse to receiue y^e sacramēt. Note here y^t M. Rast. which wil haue old customes tried by y^e fa∣thers, bringeth in here two Doctors, one contrarie to y^e o∣ther. To y^e purpose. This order was taken away by cōten∣tion & disdaine of y^e rich against y^e poore, & therfore Paule purposed to bring them againe to y^t order of sitting, & ea∣ting their supper altogether, y^t rich with the pore, by say∣ing: That which I receiued of the Lord, I deliuered to you. And not to reforme any abuse of y^e sacramēt, by reducing it to the first institution. This iudgement of M. Rastell is partly by him proued, by the authoritie of Theophylact, but chiefly it standeth vpon his owne authoritie, without further reason. Howbeit, it is manifest by y^e scripture, that

Paule reproued that mingling of prophane suppers, with the Lordes supper, appointing their priuate houses for their bodily refreshings of eating and drinking. Haue you not houses (saith he) to eate and drinke in? By which saying it is manifest, he would haue no eating and drink∣ing in the Church (as M. Rastell dreameth) but onely the eating and drinking of the Lordes supper. And therefore that abuse of mingling their bodily suppers, with the spi∣rituall supper of the Lorde whereof came so many abu∣ses, and especiall the seuering and sundering of the con∣gregation into diuers partes, which ought to haue recei∣ued altogether, he laboureth to reforme, by bringing it to the first institution of the Lord him selfe. But M. Rast. following his owne dreame, asketh what there was in the institution, for sitting together or a sunder: for eating at Church, or at home? Yes forsooth: Christe did institute his supper to be a foode of the soule, and not of the body, and therefore to be celebrated in the congregation, and in common, as the saluation is common, and not to bee mingled with prophane banquets of bellie cheare, for which priuat houses and companies are meet, and not the Church of God. And wheras M. Rastel chargeth M. Iewel with not vnderstanding this place which he alledgeth, namely (therefore when you come together to eate, tarie one for an other:) which he saith pertaineth no more to y^e institution of the sacrament, then a pot full of plumbs doth to the highway to London, he sheweth all his wit & honestie at once. For he denyeth that any thing that Saint Paule there rehearseth, namely these wordes, take, eate, this is my body &c. is the institution of the sacrament, or the originall paterne of reforming the Corin∣thians disorder, bicause time, place, vesture, number of communicants, and such other accidentall and variable circumstànces, be not therein expressed. So that by his di∣uinitie, either y^e institution of the sacrament is not at all contained in y^e scriptures, or else there is an other first pa∣terne to reforme abuses by, then this y^t is set downe in the scriptures. I would maruel at these monstrous assertions,

but that I see, y^e obstinate Papists cannot otherwise defend their Popish Masse, except they denied y^e institution of the sacrament & patterne of reformation, to be conteyned in the scriptures. But if it be granted (saith M. Rast.) whiche is to farre absurde, that S. Paule did reduce the Corinthi∣ans to the first originall and institution, Why doe not rich men now bring meate to the Church, and receiue the sacrament after they haue filled their bellies? Forsooth because Christe instituted no such maner of suppers. And why (saith he) do you not washe one anothers feete, ha∣uing a commandement so to do? But if this commande∣ment be litterally to be vnderstanded, why doe you Pa∣pistes breake it? If it be not, why do you require that of vs, which you confesse is not required, to be done of any? Humilitie is commaunded whereof our Sauiour Christe gaue vs example in that fact, & that God graunt we may obserue: the outwarde ceremonie he commanded not to be obserued of any, but that which was signified thereby▪ And whereas Maister Rastell compareth the receiuing of both kindes by the lay people, with that ceremonie of washing of feete, to make it seeme that the iustitution of Christ might be altered in the one, aswell as in the other, he declareth what reuerence or estimation he hath of the institution of Christe. For as that ceremonie of washing of feete is and may be altogether omitted (as he fantasi∣eth by the authoritie of the Church) so not only one kind of the sacrament, but both kindes also may be likewise taken away, both from the people & the priest, if it please the Churche of Rome. If he denie the conclusion, what hath he gayned by the argument of that example? Or what hath he proued against this our assertion, that no∣thing is to beleeued without the expresse worde of God conteined in the scriptures?

Notes

• Rastel.
• Fulke.