Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 1 · Chapter 1
To the body and blood of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, vnderunder the Sander.formes of bread and wine, all honor, praise, and thankes be giuen for euer.
I Can not tell whether I should complaine more of the Fulke.vanitie, or blasphemy of this dedicatorie Epistle: the forme whereof being so newe and strange, that the like was neuer heard of in the Church of Christ, eueryevery word almost containeth a great and grosse heresie. For not content to make the sacrament the very naturall body and blood of Christ, he maketh it the very essentiall deity it selfe. For vntounto whom is all honor and glory dewe, but vntounto God himselfe? Againe, seeing he ioineth not the persons of God the Father and of God the holy Ghost in participation of the praise, by this forme of greeting he doth either exclude them; or if he will comprehend them, for that inseparable vnity which they hauehave with the godhead of Christ, he bringeth forth an horrible monster of heresie, that God the father and God the holy Ghost, is with the body and bloud of Christ, vnderunder the formes of breade and wine. Much like the Sabellians and Patripassians, which affirmed that God the father was borne of the virgine Marie, and was crucified as well as God the Sonne. Euen so Sander by this blasphemous and heretical epistle, if he denie not honor, glorie, power, and presence eueryevery where vntounto the Father, and the holie Ghost, yet comprehendeth them with GOD the Sonne, and God the Sonne with his body and bloud, vnderunder the formes of bread and wine. For thus he writeth: I adore thee my God and Lord, really present vnderunder the formes of breade and wine. To which also he saith: And to whom should I referre the praise and thankes for it, but vntounto thee alone? Or of whome should I craue the protection thereof, but of thee? seeing thou onelyonly art a meete patron for the defence of any booke, which only art alwaies present, wheresoeuer and whensoeuer it shall be examined. To the honour therefore of thy body and bloud, I offer this poore mite &c.
By these wordes you see, that Sander acknowledgeth no GOD, nor Lorde, but him that is really present vnderunder the formes of breade and wine: except hee acknowledge more Gods and Lordes than one. And consequently, yt either he acknowledgeth not God the Father, and God the holie Ghost, or else he acknowledgeth him present vnderunder the formes of breade and wine, without distinction of persons, and with a blasphemous confusion of the substance of the two natures in Christ. For the figure called the Communication of speaches can not helpe him in this case, seeing he wil admit no figure, but a most proper speach in these wordes: This is my bodie. Whereas it is euident to all men, that are not obstinately blinde, that if Christe had purposed to make the sacrament really and essentially all that him selfe is, and would hauehave declared the same in proper speach, he would not hauehave saide: This is my bodie, and this is my bloud, which is but a part of him, and the lowest part of him; but he would hauehave saide, take, eate, this is Iesus Christ, or this is al yt I am. But when he saith: this is my body, & this is my bloud (which if it be not a figuratiue speach, should be a dead bodie and a senselesse bloud) he sheweth manifestly, that he commendeth not a meta physicall transmutation of the elements into his naturall flesh and bloud: but an heauenly and diuine mysterie, teaching vsus and assuring vsus that God the sonne being ioined with vsus in the nature of his humanitie, which he hath taken vntounto him, by the spirituall vertue of his body broken and bloud shed for vsus on the crosse, doth wonderfully feede vsus and nourish vsus, as it were with meate and drinke, vntounto eternall saluation, both of body and soule. If any man think that I referre the words of Sander, to the Sacrament, which he speaketh of the diuinitie of Christ generally, let him reade the whole Epistle, and comparing it with the title of salutation which I hauehave set downe in his owne wordes, consider whether Sander, professing that he speaketh therein to the bodie and blood of Christ vnderunder the formes of breade and wine, can be reasonably vnderstoode of Christ, after any other sorte then vnderunder the formes of breade and wine. Wherefore such bolde speaches as he vseth in this dedication, tending to so grosse heresie, were a declaration of his proude stomake, nowe broken foorth into hainous treason against his owne countrie, and actuall rebellion against his souereigne and natural Prince.
But thou O Lord Iesus Christ our onelyonly Sauiour and Redeemer, whome we adore and worship, as our King and God, not vnderunder the accidentall shapes of breade and wine, but aboue all principalities and powers, sitting on the throne of magnificence of God thy eternall father in heauen, to whom with thee and ye holie Ghost, we giuegive al honor & praise for euer, vouchsafe (if it be thy holy wil) to conuert these enemies of thy maiestie, vntounto ye true vnderstanding of thy blessed word, or if their obstinate resisting of thy spirit, so require, shewe forth thy glorious might in their speedie ouerthrowe and confusion, that we thy humble seruantes, beholding thy wonderfull iudgementes, may laude and magnifie thy holy name, as well in the saluation of thine elect, as in the destruction of thine enemies, to thine euerlasting praise and renoune for euer and euer.
Amen.
The preface to the Christian reader.Sander.
THe proposition of this painted preface, is yt the scriptures Fulke.must be expounded according to the greatest auctority that may be founde in that kinde, which Sander assumeth to be the vse, custome and practise of the Catholike Church. This assumption is false, although if it were true, it helpeth the Papistes nothing at all, which can not shewe the practise of the Catholique Church of all times, for any error, which they maintaine against vsus. The greatest auctoritie in expounding of the scriptures, is of the holy Ghost, whose iudgemenr can not be certainly founde, but in the scriptures them selues: wherefore conference of the holy scriptures of God, is of greater auctority then ye practise of men. The scriptures inspired of God, are able to make vsus wise vntounto saluation, they are sufficient to make the man of God perfect prepared to all good workes. 2. Tim. 3. Wherfore the practise and custome of Gods people, must be examined by the scriptures, and not the scriptures expounded after it. Exposition of the scriptures or prophesying must be according to the analogic of faith. Rom. 12. But faith is builded vponupon the worde of God, and not vponupon the custome of men: therefore exposition of the scriptures, must be according to the word of God, and not after the vsage of men.
The example which Sander vseth, to confirme his false assumption, is of baptising of infants of Christians, before they be taught, which doctrine he denieth to be proued by the order of Christes wordes, Matth. 28. but by the vse and consent of all nations. To this I aunswere, that the vse and consent of all nations, were not sufficient to warrant the baptisme of infants of the faithfull, except the same were warranted by the Scriptures in other places: As is manifest in the institution of circumcision. According to the couenant whereof, the Apostle saith, that all our fathers were baptized in the clowde and in the sea, 1. Cor. 10. and the children of the faithfull are holy, therefore to be admitted to baptisme, 1. Cor. 7. because they are comprehended in Gods couenant, according to which scriptures they are baptized, & the infants of Iewes or Gentiles refused, and not onelyonly vponupon the ground of the Churches custome and vse therin (as Sander affirmeth,) which custome is good, because it is grounded vponupon the Scriptures, but the scripture is not authorized by that custome. Wherefore popish confirmation, and adoration of the bodye of Christ in the sacrament, (although he falsely affirmeth, that they are the like custome of the Catholike Church) are Iewde and vngodly practises of the Papistes, because they are not warranted by the holy scriptures, but are proued contrarie to the same.
But whereas we alledge the iudgement of the fathers of the Church, for sixe hundred yeres after Christ, to be against transubstantiation and adoration: Sander replyeth, that things vncertein, must be iudged by things certeine, and not contrariwise. This principle is true: but it is false, that the iudgement of the fathers in the first sixe hundred yeres is vncerteine: as also, that those foure certeinties which he rehearseth, be either all certeinties, or certeinly on his side. The first is the wordes of the scripture, This is my body: about whose vnderstanding is all the controuersie, and therefore no certeintie that they are on their side, more then these words are certeine on our side against transubstantiation. The breade which we breake, &c. so often as ye eate of this bread, &c. The second is false, that in the Catholike church, all men worshipped the reall bodie of Christe vnderunder the formes of bread, &c. for it is the practise onelyonly of the Popish Church, and that but of late yeres, neuer admitted by the Orientall churches, beside many churches and members of Christes Church in the West, that euer did abhorre it. Thirdly, the Councell of Laterane, kept 350. yeres past, was no generall Councell of all that professe Christianity, but only of the Papistes: no more was any that followed, at Constance, Basil, Trent, nor yet that of Florence, in which, although there were some Grecians, yet the councell of Basil, was against it, and many Orientall Churches, that were neuer called to it, neither was there any thing for transubstantiatiō, or adoration, therein agreed by the Grecians, that were there.
For in the last session it is thus recorded: Quibus quidem quatuor quaestionibus dissolutis, summus pontifex petiit, vt de diuina panis transmutatione, quae quidem quarta quaestis fui… in Synodo, ageretur. At Graeci dixerunt, se sine totius orientalis Ecclesiae▪ …auctoritate quaestionem aliam tractare non posse, cùm pro illa tant…m de spiritus sancti processione Synodus conuocata fuerit. Which foure questions, beeing dissolued, the Pope desired, that of the diuine transmutation of the bread, which was the fourth matter in controuersie, it might bee treated in the synode. But the Grecians sayed, that they without the authoritie of the whole Oriental▪ Church coulde handle none other question, seeing the synode was called together, for that only question, of the proceeding of the holy Ghost.
Fourthly, although Berengarius, was condemned by three Popish councels, and by many learned preachers of his time thought to be an heretike, yet seeing his doctrine is agreeable to the Scriptures, and the iudgement of all the auncient Church, for sixe hundred yeares and more, after Christ, and was also receiued by diuers learned preachers in his time, the same being nowe taught in England, is true doctrine, and no heresie. Wherefore, none of the foure certeinties, are certeine and true on Sanders side. But he will examine vsus, what Gospell, what Church, what councels we hauehave.
First he saith we can bring no Gospel, where it is writen, This is the figure of my body: Neither doe we affirme, that it is onelyonly a figure of his body, nor denye that it is his body, after a certeine manner, as Augustine sayth. And Sander will not deny, but that it is a figure, which were not true, except it were proued out of the Gospell, which speaking of the Cuppe, sayth: This is the newe Testament in my bloud. And what Gospell doeth Sander bring? saying, This bread is turned into my body.
To the seconde demaunde, I answere: The primitiue Churche, for sixe hundred yeares, did beleeue of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, as wee doe, during which time, as there was no controuersie, so there needed no generall Councell to be gathered for confirming of that doctrine.
As there are many other articles agreed on both partes, which were neuer decreed in generall Councels: because there neuer was question about them. But when the question did arise, it was in the time of the prophecyed defection, from Christ vntounto Antichrist, and the true Church was miserably oppressed and dispersed, so that no generall Councell could bee gathered about it, neither yet can, by meanes of the ciuill dissention betweene Princes that professe Christ, and the tyrannie of heathen Princes, which holde many partes of the Church in miserable captiuitie and slauerie.
But the first sixe hundred yeares (saith Sander) make not for the Sacraments, which is declared inuincibly, by three meanes: First, diuerse fathers require vsus instantly to beleeue these wordes, This is my body, &c. although they seeme to bee against naturall reason and sense. And yet no wise man will require vsus to beleeue figuratiue wordes.
O shamelesse and senselesse heretike! will not eueryevery wise man require vsus to beleeue all the figuratiue wordes of holy Scripture? Are not these wordes true, although they be contrarie to naturall reason & sense? The rocke was Christ, I am the true vine, I am the doore, &c? and if these wordes are true, are they not to be beleeued of vsus, in their true meaning? euen so these wordes: This is my body: are true in their meaning, and therefore credite is worthily required to be giuen vntounto them. The seconde reason is, that the same fathers teache expressely, that adoration of the body and blood in the mysteries, which is a lowd lye, vnderstanding it of popish adoration. The third reason is, because the fathers teache, that we are made naturally and corporally one flesh with the flesh of Christ, in the worthie receiuing of the blessed sacrament. But this is false: for they teach that the sacrament is an argument as a signe, of our naturall and corporall coniunction with Christ, which is by his incarnation: for our coniunction by the sacrament, is neither naturall, nor corporall, but spirituall vntounto the body and bloud of Christ crucified for vsus. Wherefore these reasons notwithstanding, the sixe hundred yeres make still for vsus. Yet can wee not assure our selues of the first sixe hundred yeres (sayeth Sander) by the writings of the fathers of those times, because none of them goeth about to prooue, that the body of Christ is not vnderunder that, which the Priest blesseth, &c. or warned the people to beware of idolatrie, or hauehave vsed such wordes, as the Sacramentaries do now vse. If Sander had not in him more impudencie then learning, hee woulde not reason from authoritie negatiuely, although his negatiues are not all true. For some of the olde writers deny in expresse wordes, the sacrament to be the very body of Christ: Aug. in Psa. 98. Chrysost. in Math. That they warned not men to beware of idolatrie in worshipping the sacrament, it argueth, that none in their time did worship it, seeing you Papistes confesse, that idolatrie may bee committed in worshipping the Masse cake, if it be not consecrated, and therefore teach men to worship it, with this condition, when they see it, if it be consecrated. Such wordes as the fathers vsed in explication of the mysterie, we… vse when we teache, that it is a figure, a token, a representation, a signification, a similitude, a symbole, a type of the body and bloud of Christ; and what wordes soeuer wee vse, wee vtter none contrary to their meaning, and teaching, of the holy sacrament. But (saith Sander) that they call the sacrament a figure or holy signe, it hindereth not the reall presence, because signes instituted by Christ, hauehave reall trueth in eueryevery sacrament. Neither doe wee say the contrarie, but that the reall trueth of Christes body, is giuen vntounto vsus in the sacrament of the supper, euen as the holy Ghost is giuen vsus in the sacrament of baptisme, and yet we deny the breade which is the signe, to bee turned into the naturall bodye of Christ, euen as we deny the water, which is likewise the signe, to be conuerted into the substance of the holy Ghost. But the fathers (saith Sander) are not against the doctrine of the Papistes, because no Papist findeth fault with them. By the same reason, he might proue, that none of the Iurie which hauehave found a theefe guiltie, did goe against him, because the theefe challenged none of them. And yet Gardener & others challenge Theodoret & Gelasius. Againe he sayth, The fathers are against the Protestants, because they excuse Hilarie, Chrysost. Cyrill, by the figure of Hyperbole, which is a Rhetoricall lye, but in deede, this argument is a lewde lye, of one which knoweth neither Logike, nor Rhetorike, but like a young smatterer, or a sophisticall cauiller. For the figure of Hyperbole, is not a lye, more then any other figure of Rhetorike, in the true vnderstanding thereof, whereas after wrong vnderstanding, euen that which is spoken without all figure, is false, and vntrue. Finally, whereas he chargeth vsus to denye the workes of the auncient writers, Dionysius, Ignatius, Polycarpus, Abdias &c. that is a lowde lye, shadowed neither with Rhetorike nor reason: for we denye not the workes of those fathers, but we refuse counterfeit workes falsely ascribed to them, which thing if we proue not by manifest demonstration, we require no credit. As for that which he cauilleth against master Nowel, I omitte, as being confuted by master Nowel him selfe. But where he sayeth, the scriptures woulde neuer abide him, that should saye: This is not my body: I answere, we neuer say: This is not Christes body, after any manner: but this is not his body after a grosse, carnall, or naturall maner, and that saying the scripture will abide, euen as well as this, The rocke was not Christ, naturally, substantially, or essentially, although the scripture saye, The rocke was Christ. Or this: Christ was not a vine, properly, naturally, or substantially, notwithstanding, that he sayeth: I am a verie or true vine. The prowde bragge which Sander maketh, that popish Catholikes lacke no scripture, for any of their assertions, how true it is, let all men iudge: seing that for many things they confesse they hauehave nothing to shewe, but tradition vnwritten. Likewise, how aptly in this controuersie of the supper, he hath examined the wordes of Christes supper, noted the circumstances of thinges done and saide there, conferred the scriptures of both the testaments, and ioyned the fathers of the first sixe hundred yeres. And yet he fauoureth him selfe so much in his doing, that hee boldly affirmeth vsus to hauehave no helpe of those things. For scriptures we cannot conferre, to make the wordes of the supper plaine, because Doing, and the words therof, are more playne then any other place of scripture, concerning it, as ye passion of Christ is more playne, then the lawe and Prophets. &c. If this were true, the Apostles labored in vayne, to proue the passion of Christ, out of the lawe and the Prophets, and the rest of the writings of the Apostles, are needlesse, and vncertayne instruction, if the historye of the passion, doth teach all the doctrine that is necessary to be knowen, concerning it. But it is a clarkly conclusion of Sander: That if the words of the supper be figuratiue, none other can be playne: as though figuratiue speaches, cannot be playne, when they are vsed for playnesse sake, of them that knowe how to vse them. And because Sander chargeth vsus, Tell me masters &c: I say likewise: Tell me masters, Are these wordes recorded, to be spoken in the institution & action of the supper? This is the new Testament in my bloud. Tell me I say, are these the verie words which Christ then spake, or the interpretation of them? If they be the very words, which of you wil say, they are not figaratiue? If they be ye interpretation, then are they more cleere & plaine, then those words which he vttered: This is my bloude. Now whether the iudgement of the primitiue Church, for the first 600. yeares maketh for vsus, as it hath in many treatises, so in this that followeth, it shalbe shewed sufficiently. Last of all, it wil appeare, both by the scriptures, and testimonie of the fathers, that the iudgemēt of the externall senses, or naturall reason, was not the first argument that might moue thē that first departed from antichristianitie, to the ancient & true vnderstāding of the mysteries of Christ in his supper. Of ye almightie power of Christ we doubt no more, then of his will reueiled in scriptures, in which seeing we learne, yt Christ concerning his humanitie, was made like vsus in all things, except sin: and that our bodies, after the resurrection, shal be made like to his glorious body, Heb. 2 ver 17 Phil. 3. 21 which seeing it cannot stand with transubstantiation, wee may not reasō of his power so, that we should ouerthrow his wil. For he is almightie to do whatsoeuer, he will, & not willing to do whatsoeuer he can. But of ye whole matter, we shal intreate more at large, as occasiō is giuen, in the bookes following.