Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 3 · Chapter 14
CAP. XIIII.
That S. Augustine did not teach th…se words: Except ye ea… the Sander.flesh &c: To betoken the eating of Christonely by faith and spirit, nor yet the eating of materiall bread with faithfull remembrance of him, but the eating of his flesh, to the end we may be the better ioyned to the spirit of God.
There is no better way to be ioyned to the spirit of Fulk.god, thē by eating ye flesh of Christ spiritually, which Aug. doth teach, not ye carnall manner of eating which Sander doth defend. S. Aug. de doct. Christ lib. 3. ca 16. as Sander doth confesse, affirmeth yt this speech of Christ, Except yee eat yt flesh &c: containeth a figure. And what the meaning of this figure is, August. telleth vsus: It is a figure (saith he) commanding, that we should communicate with the passion of our Lord, and that we should sweetely and profitably remēber, that his flesh was crucisied and wounded for vsus. But Sander replyeth, first against ye Lutherans, yt August. calling this speach a figure, meaneth not to deny yt it appertaineth to the last supper. And which of the Lutherans I pray you, denyed, that it appertaineth to the last supper, although they deny yt it is singularly spoken of the last supper? Secondly he fathereth vponupon ye Zwinglians an vntruth, that they graunt the place to be vnderstoode of Christs last supper, to prooue ye necessitie of both kinds, which is a fable: for they graunt none otherwise, then I hauehave often shewed, & yet a good argument for necessitie of both kinds may be taken out of yt place, because Christ giueth vsus a perfect nourishmēt of meat and drinke, or as Iustine saith, of d…ie and moyst nourishment, vntounto which spirituall trueth, the externall seale must be made consormable. But nowe, will Sander teach vsus to vnderstande, what S. Augustine meaneth by a figuratiue speach, which is al one as if he would teach vsus to go to supper, as it is in the Greeke prouerbe. First a siguratiue speach must not denie any word in the speach, to be vsed vnproperly, but is measured by faith and good manners. Whereas Augustine telleth vsus, that if in any sentence of the scripture, the words sound against faith, & good manners, the words must not be taken in their proper sense, but they are a figure, and signifie some other thing, then the words in their proper taking do sound, as diuerse examples which he bringeth in the same place, beside his plaine wordes, do declare. This saying hee affirmeth to be a figuratiue speache, Thou shalt heape burning coales on his head, which he doeth thus interprete: Vt intelligas carbones ignis, esse vrentes poenitentiae gemitus, quibus superbia sanatur eius, qui dolet se inimicum fuisse hominis, a quo eius miseriae subvenitur: That thou m…ist vnderstand coales of fire, to be the burning groanings of repentance, by which his pride is healed, which sorroweth that he hath beene enimie of such a man, by whome his miserie is helped. Beholde, euen as coales of fire in this text, are not taken in their proper sense, for a bodily substance of woodde incensed: so is not eating and drinking in ye other sentence, taken in the proper sense, for receiuing at our mouth, chawing and swallowing, But as Augustine interpreteth, for communicating with the flesh of Christ by faith and spirite, &c. either in the Sacrament, or without it. And it is a foolish cauil of Sander, to say that charitie is not broken, when we eate Christ whole vnderunder the forme of breade, without hurting of him, &c. For Augustine counteth it slagitium, an heynous offence, to eate the fleshe of man in proper sense of eating, that is corporally: Yea, faith Sander, to eate it in peeces, as it is solde in tho shambles. As though to eate an whole man after that maner, were not more monstrous, then to eate a piece of him. But Sander to shewe his synceritie, rehearseth a large place out of Augustine in Psal. 98. which, howe cunningly he can wrest for his purpose you shall see. Durum illis visum est &c. It seemed an hard thing to the Iewes: except a man eate my flesh, he shall not hauehave life euerlasting. They tooke it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and supposed that our Lord minded to cutte of certeine small peeces of his body, and to giuegive them. This is an hard talk, say they. They were harde, & not the talke. For if they were not hard but gentle, they would say to them selues: He speaketh not this thing rashly, but because ther lieth priuie som sacrament being gentle & not hard they wold tati wt him, & shal learn of him yt thing which after their departure, those learned who taried. For when the twelue had taried with him (the other beeing departed) they (as who were sory for ye others departing) warned Christ that they were offended with his word, & so were departed. But Christ instructed them and saied: it is the spirite that quickneth, the flesh profiteth not, the wordes which I hauehave spoken to you, are spirite and life. Vnderstand yt which I hauehave spokēspiritually. Ye shal not eate this body which you see, wee shall not drinke that bloud which they shall shedde, who will crucifie me: I hauehave commended to you a certeine Sacrament, which being spiritually vnderstoode, shall make you liue. And although that Sacrament must needes be visiblye celebrated, yet it must be inuisibly vnderstanded. Three thinges Sander noteth out of this sayinge: First against the Lutherans, that Augustine vnderstandeth the precept of eating Christes flesh of the Sacrament. I answere, that Augustine in other places, and namely in his purposed commentary of that place, vnderstandeth it not to be singularly spoken of the eating in the Sacrament, but otherwise also: which is all that wee affirme and denie of referring this place to the Sacrament. Secondly he no teth against the Zwinglians, that the figuratiue speach which Augustine saieth to be in these wordes, is to be meant of the manner of eating, in the natural vnderstanding of c…r…all men, by cutting, tearing, chawing, &c. not denying the substance of his flesh whole, sound, and quicke, to be eaten vnderunder the forme of breade. I answere the naturall vnderstanding of carnall men is by eating to receiue in at the mouth that which is eaten &c. wherfore Augustine denieth that also. Thirdly he noteth that he calleth it Sacrament which in his booke de doct. Christ, he called a figure, taking the name of a figure for a holy signe of an higher trueth. This is a grosle and shameles collection, for he calleth the wordes of Christ a figure, and a figuratiue and vnproper speache, which must not be taken according to the sound of the words: S… hoc propri…sonat, nulla pute…ur figurata locu…i…. If it sound this properly, then let it be takē for no figuratiue spech. By which words you see that a figuratiue spech is an vnproper speach. But how can this snake slide away from those wordes of Augustine? You shall not eate that body which you see, nor drinke that bloud which they shall shedde, I commend vntounto you a Sacrament. Therefore y• Sacrament is not his body which then was seen, nor his bloud which afterward was shedde. But Sander gliding ouer these wordes, as though he sawe them not, presuming vponupon the credulity of Papistes, which must beleue that they make nothing against the carnall manner of presence, if he say so: he passeth to another saying of Augustine in Ioan. Tr. 26. &. 27. to proue that the error of the lewes was not concerning the substance of ye flesh that must be eaten really, but concerning ye manner of eating of it. Because Augustine saith carnem intellexerune quomodo, &c. They vnderstoode flesh, so as it is torne in a carcase, or sold in the shambles, and not as it is quickned with ye spirite of God. I answer, this was one of their errors, but not all. For Augustine in Ps. 98. bringeth in Christ, denying them his naturall body and bloud: ergo they erred in the substance as well as in the manner: & in Ioan Tr. 24. he saith: Illi putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum, ille aut em dixit se ascensurum in coelum vtique integrum. Cùm videritis fiüum hominis ascendentem vbi erat prius, certè vel tunc videbitis, quia non eo modo quo putatis, errogas corpus suum, vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia eius non consumitur morsibus. They thought, that he would giuegive out his body, but he said, that be would ascende into heauen whole. When you shal see ye sonne of mā ascending wher he was before, certeinly euen then at lest you shall see, that he giueth not out his body after that manner you thinke, euen then at lest you shall vnderstand, that his grace is not consumed with bitinges. In these wordes, the argument of his ascension, taketh away all corporal presence as wel of Christ whole, as broken in peeces, secondly the exposition of his grace not consumed wt byting, sheweth after what manner he vnderstandeth his body to be present, namely by spirituall grace, not by corporall substance. Therefore all Sanders iangling of signes and figures, is to no purpose. For when he hath prated what he can, a signe shall neuer be the thing which it signifieth; nor a figure the same thing that it figureth, except opposites may agree to one thing at one time, and in one respect.
For to vse his owne foolish example, a loafe of bread, which a baker setteth out, to signifie that bread is there to bee folde, although it be of that kinde of breade, which it signifieth to be in ye house in greater quantity, yet it is not that same bread, wherof it is the signe. No more is the Sacrament, that same thing, whereof it is a signe, and yet an assured testimonie that the thing signified is giuen to our soules and faith, as certeinely as the signe to our bodies. But because Augustine saith, except ye eate my flesh, are wordes figuratiue. Sander will reason thus: as cunningly I warrant you, as any collier in Cambridge or Oxford. The eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud, being reall deades which must be performed in Christes supper, and yet being called for good respect figurat…e wordes, must needes be figures of somwhat, and the deedes and wordes being referred to the supper, must needs betoken somwhat, as they are considered. But the eating of the flesh in Christs supper, can betoken nothing at all, except his flesh be there eaten▪ the eating whereof maie be the grounde of this betokening. Therefore these wordes import of necessitie, that in Christes supper the flesh of Christ is really eaten, and his blood is really dr…nken. For the fleshe of Christ can not be made the figure of baker… bread, &c.
O what whistling and hissing would be in the Sophisters schooles, if such an argument came among them, which reasoneth ioyntly of things to be deuided! Augustine saith the words are figuratiue, & not the deeds of eating & drinking, which are signified by the words, Except ye eate, &c.
The wordes I saye, of eating and drinking of the flesh and bloud of Christ, are figuratiue, betokening another thing then they sound in common and proper vnderstanding; and what they signifie, he sheweth, the communication with the passion of Christ, and profitable remembrance of his death, which as they are represented in the supper, so may we eate and drinke his flesh and bloud without the Sacrament, by faith and working of Gods spirite. But (saith Sander) if the eating of Christes flesh be not the figure, the wordes Except ye eate my flesh, be not figuratiue. Se you not howe this fonde Sophister, confoundeth the distinction which he him selfe before had made of figuratiue speeches and figures of thinges themselues? betweene rhetoricall figures and sacramentall figures. I say the spirituall eating which is the communication, with his passion, &c. is not a figure, but that which is vnderstoode by those figuratiue wordes, except ye eate the flesh, &c.
And although there may be a reall eating to warne vsus of spirituall eating; yet that spirituall eating which Saint Augustine calleth communicating with the passion of Christ, &c. may be without the Sacrament, and so is Augustine discharged of Sanders Sophistry.
But now he will discouer the errors of the Sacramentaries in expounding these wordes: the first is, that they make the wordes of Christ to be figuratiue onelyonly passiuely, whereas they are also figuratiue actiuely. But how I pray you are the wordes figuratiue actiuely? He answereth, the actuall eating of Christes flesh, is not onelyonly said to be figured, but also is taught to be a figure it selfe, of another spirituall eating.
If Sander were as ignorant, as his argumentes are absurd, he were the most notable Asse, that euer wrote in diuinity, but I impute it not to ignorance, but to malicious deceitfullnes, that he confoundeth wordes and deedes, and reasoneth thus: the wordes be figuratiue actiuely, because the deede is figuratiue actiuely, which is such a monster, as Sophistry neuer bredde a greater. And what proofe hauehave you of this actuall eating of Christes flesh, to be a figure actiuely of spirituall eating? Nothing but a mangled place of Ambrose, … 1. Cor. Cap. 11. wherein hee chargeth vsus with corrupting his wordes, with euil pointing or distincting, which he doth himselfe most manifestly. For vponupon these words he writeth: Mortem Domini annuntiantes done… venerit.) Qui… morte Domini liberati sumus huius rei memores in edendo & potando, carnem & sanguinem quae pro nobis oblata sunt significamus. So often as you shall eate of this breade and drink of this cuppe, you shall shewe the Lordes death vntill he come.) Because (sayth that writer) we are deliuered by the death of our Lorde, we being mindefull of this thing in eating and drinking doe signifie the fleshe and blood which were offered for vsus. But Sander readeth, in eating and drinking the fleshe and bloud, wee signifie those things which were offered for vsus. Against this wresting by mispointing, first is the relatiue quae, which lacketh an antecedent, if flesh and bloud which was offered for vsus, be not signified: Secondly the wordes Carnem & sanguinem are put absolutely, not shewing whose theie are, and the relatiue is referred to vncertain things. For if he had ment the same to be eaten which was offered, he would hauehave saide not quae but eadem, last of all the accusatiue case following the verbs eating and drinking, can be reasonably none other in an expositor, but the accusatiue case which Paul vseth, that is this breade and this cuppe.
The second fowle error of the Sacramentaries, is that they expound the wordes of Christ: Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, that is to say the figure of his flesh, which is breade and wine. And here he crieth what ignorance? what abusing of Gods word? what blasphemie? where is honestie? where is shamefastnes? where is common vnderstanding? I answere, that for honesty and shamefastnes, it is in the diuel, as soone as in Sander. For what honesty or shamefastnesse is it? thou a…ant traitor, and stinking heretike, to faine such an interpretation of the Sacramentaries, as if thou wouldest hang thy selfe, thou canst not finde that euer any vsed, or said, that the flesh of Christ is a figure of breade and wine, or that Christ in that place speaking of his flesh and bloud, spake of a figure thereof. But if no man hauehave either written or spoken so, thou wilt perhaps inferre it of other sayings or writings of theirs, which say, those words belong to the supper so truely, that they build falsely, vponupon them the necessitie of both kindes. But wilt thou not vnderstande by an hundreth times repeating, that none of vsus referreth those wordes or any other in that Chapter, vntounto the supper, otherwise, then as the supper is a sacrament, seale, or outward token ordeined of Christ to confirme our faith in that doctrine of our spirituall foode, to be giuen by him vntounto eternall life, which is giuen to the worthie receiuer in that Sacrament, in baptisme, and without either of them, by the working of Gods spirite onelyonly in some, in men of discretion not without faith? As for the necessitie of both kindes, is proued by that analogie which ought to be betweene the things signified & the signes: and also vponupon your owne concession, who vnderstanding those wordes onelyonly of sacramentall eating and drinking, may no more exclude drinking then you can doe eating.