Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 4 · Chapter 1 – Chapter 2
CAP. I.
That no reason ought to be hearde, why the wordes of Christes supper, should nowe be expounded vnproperly or fig…ratiuely. And Sander.that the Sacramentarics can neuer be sure thereof.
Christ (saith he) in his last supper, was both a testator and a lawe maker: a testator, in giuing his bodie and Fulk.…oude; and a lawemaker, in commanding his Apostels …d their successours, to continue the making of this …acrament. This testament and law was soone after writ…n and published. At which time, and euer since, the Church hath taken these wordes, This is my bodie, not …guratiuely, but properly. This last saying, is vtterly, …alse, neither can it bee prooued, by Ambrose, Chryso…tome, Augustine, Theodoret whom hee nameth, or any before or after their time, for 600 yeares, that euer the visible Sacrament was adored as ye very bodie of Christ. If he hauehave any thing to shewe, we shall hauehave it hereafter. But it is a follie (he saith) vponupon allegation of a thing so farre beyonde the memorie of man, as the primitiue Church is, to leaue the custome of the present Church, which Christ no lesse redeemed, gouerneth, and loueth, then he did the faithfull of the first sixe hundreth yeares. I answere shortly, that is not the Church of Christ, but of antichrist, which of late yeares hath taught, the worshiping of the sacrament, as God and man. And whereas, Sander replieth, that then we shall hauehave no quietnes or end of controuersies, if heretikes may appeale to the primitiue Church, as the Trinitaries in Poolande, and the Circumciders in Lithuania, for these appeale to the primitiue Church, and denie writings of Fathers and scriptures, as the Protestant: I answere, the Protestants receiue all the canonicall scriptures, by which all heresie may be condemned, the autoritie or practise of the primitiue Church, they alledge but as a witnesse of trueth, which is sufficient prooued out of the worde of God. Whereas he saith, there was but one vniuersall chaunge to bee looked for in religion, which was to be made by Christ: I affirme, the trueth of Christs religion to be vnchangeable, but there was an vniuersall chaunge to be looked for from Christes religion, to Antichrist, which saint Paul calleth an Apostasie, & saint Iohn in the Reuelation, the cuppe of fornication, whereof all nations should drinke &c. Yet was not this chaunge so vniuersal, but that the seruants of God, though in small number and credit, with the world, were preserued out of that generall apostasie, and called out of Babylon, as wee see it nowe come to passe, by the preaching of the eternall Gospel, then also foreshewed, Apocal. 14. 17. 18. &c.
Another reason, why we shoulde giuegive none eare to them, that say the words are figuratiue, is for that then wee shoulde doubt of our former faith, and in doubting become men that lacke faith. And why should you not onelyonly doubt, but refuse a false opinion, beleeued contrarie to the worde of God? But wee must tell Sander, whether hee that gaue eare first to Berengarius and Zwinglius, may giuegive eare to an other that shoulde say the Apostels had no authoritie to write holie Scriptures. No forsooth, for hee that gaue eare to Berengarius and Zwinglius, did heare them, because they brought the authoritie of scriptures, which is the onelyonly certaine rule of truth, against which no question or doubt may be mooued. As for the opinion of carnall presence, if it had beene as generally receiued before Berengarius, as Sander falsely affirmeth, yet it was lawfull to bring it to the triall of holy Scriptures, as we doe all the articles of our faith which are true, not so much because they are generally receiued, as for that they are manifestly approued, by the authoritie of the holy scriptures.
But Sander will yet enter farther, into the bowels of the cause, & before he heare what reasons cā be brought against the popish faith, he saith the Sacramentaries cannot possiblie hauehave any grounde of their doctrine, that the wordes of Christ in the supper are figuratiue, either in respect of the worde written, or the faith of all Christians, or the glorie of God, or the louelove of Christ toward vsus, or the profite of his Church. Yes verilie, all these fiue respects, moue vsus to take the wordes of Christ at his supper to be figuratiue. And, First the word written by saint Luke, and saint Paul, This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloude: which wordes being manifestly figuratiue, hauehave the same sense that the other rehearsed by Saint Matthewe, and Saint Marke, This is my bloude: and that these wordes hauehave, This is my bodie, which are vsed by all fower: Therefore by the written worde, they are all figuratiue and signifie the deliuerie of a Sacrament or seale of the newe couenant established in the death and bloudshedding of the sonne of God.
Secondly, the faith of all Christians, for sixe hundred yeares and more after Christe, hath beene sufficiently prooued to hauehave vnderstoode the wordes figuratiuely, for a figure, signe, token, pledge of the bodie and bloude of Christe, and not for the verie substance contained in formes of breade and wine. Insomuch, that the verie glosse vppon the Canon Lawe, De cons. dist. 2. Cap. Hoc est, hath these wordes, Coeleste Sacramentum quod verè representat Christi carnem, dicitur corpus Christi, sed impropriè: vnde dicitur suo modo, sed non in veritate sed significante mysterio, vt sit sensus, vocatur corpus Christi, id est significat. The heauenly Sacrament which truely representeth the fleshe of Christ, is called the bodie of Christ, but improperly. Whereof it is saide to bee after a peculyar manner, but not in trueth of the thing, but in a signifying mysterie: So that the sense is, it is called the bodie of Christe, that is to saye, it signifieth it. The author of this glosse, durst not hauehave written thus, if it had not beene an opinion generally receiued, that the wordes of Christ were not proper, but figuratiue.
Thirdely it is against the glorie of GOD that the bodie of Christ, shoulde be so made present, as it should enter not onelyonly into the mouth of wicked persons, as a deade bodie working no life, but also into the bellyes of brute beastes, which is euen horrible to name.
Fourthly it is not agreeable to the louelove of Christ toward vsus in his second comming, that his bodie by such a presence shoulde bee thought to hauehave lost all naturall conditions of a substantiall bodie, seeing the scripture putteth vsus in hope, that our vile bodies shall be made confirmable at his comming to his glorious body, Philip. 3. Wherefore that heresie of carnall presence, is contrarie to our faith of the resurrection of our bodies.
Fiftly, it is against the profite of Christes Church, which by his ascension is drawen vpward into heauen from the earth, but by this imagined presence, is mooued to looke downe vntounto Christ vponupon the earth. Col. 3. Therfore in all these respects, the exposition of the wordes must be figuratiue.
Another reason Sander hath, that seeing all figures were inuented either for lacke of words, or for pleasantnesse of speaking, and Christ neither lacked wordes nor can be prooued to hauehave spoken figuratiuely, onelyonly for his pleasure, therefore he spake not figuratiuely. If there be no more causes of figuratiue speach, then these two noted by Sander, then Christ neuer vsed any figuratiue speaches, for hee neuer wanted wordes, to hauehave spoken properly that other men could speake properly, neither can he be prooued to hauehave spoken figuratiuely, only for his pleasure, and least of all, he affected the praise of Eloquence. But if it be out of question: & Sander also cō fesseth, that in other places, Christ spake figuratiuely, then is it out of question, that this argument of Sander is not worth the paring of his nayles. For there are other causes of figuratiue speaches, then these two by him alledged, and especially the profite of the hearers, who are more moued, and better vnderstande often times by figuratiue, then by proper speaches. And for this cause, y• holy ghost speaking of Sacraments, doth vsually call thē (figuratiuely, by the names of that they signifie & seale vntounto vsus, as the Lamb is called ye Passeouer, baptisme regeneration, the bread his bodie, the cuppe the newe Testament. The profite that wee take by these kinde of speaches, is great, for they admonish…s to be as sure of the things, as we are of the signes, when the signes beare the name of the things signified and promised by them.
Of Saint Augustines rule of figuratiue speaches, Sander, that loueth no repetitions, hath written a whole Chapter before, lib. 3. Cap. 14. and therefore I will say no more of it here, onelyonly I note that by quoting the place, hee abuseth Augustines rule, against his owne example which he bringeth of eating and drinking the body and bloud of Christ, to proue that Christes wordes are not figuratiue, when Augustine saith expresly, those wordes are figuratiue which Christe spake of eating and drinking his flesh and bloud.
The rocke was Christ, (he sayeth) must needes be a figuratiue speach, because it can not be proper. And for the same cause, say we, These wordes. This is my body, are figuratiue, for yt they can not be proper. But Sander replieth, that if he had saide, this breade is my body, it might hauehave beene so thought, for breade cannot bee his body no more then the rocke be Christ. yet S. Paul doubteth not, to say, this bread, of that of which before he had said, this is my bodie. 1. Cor. 11. And I aske Sander, what was that which Christ had in his hand, and whereof he said this? It coulde not be his bodie, before the words of consecration spokē as all Catholike papists affirme: then it was bread, then, the word following Is, will not suffer the sense to be, this shalbe my body, wherefore in effect it is all one to say, hauing bread in his hand, This is my body, and to say, This bread is my body, the one is impossible by Sanders confession: ergo by necessitie of argument the other.
CAP. II.
That at all other, so the wordes of Christes supper, ought to Sanden.bee taken properlie, vntill the contrarie doeth euidently appeare.
By autoritie of Tertullian and Marcellus the Lawyer, he laboureth to proue, that all words must be taken in Fulke.their proper signification, except the contrarie be manifestly showen. Likewise Epiphanius affirmeth, that all wordes in the Scripture, neede not to be taken figuratiuelie, and that to know which is figuratiue, and which is not, diligent consideration and ancient tradition helpeth much. All this I confesse, but withall I affirme, that these wordes: This is my bodie, both by diligent consideration, and ancient tradition, are found to bee figuratiue. Neither hath Sander any thing to the contrarie. Yes I wis: the Pronowne, This (saith he) pointeth not to a thing absent. No verilie, for it pointeth to the breade that was in his hande. Neither the Verbe, Is, can bee saide of that, which presently hath no true being: ergo it cannot bee saide of the bodie of Christe, which by your owne diuinitie, hath no being in the Sacrament, before the last syllable of Hoc est corp… meum bee pronounced, then it is necessarie to bee saide of the breade in his hande, whiche had a true being. And then by your owne rule in the Chapter before, these wordes being as much, as This breade is my bodie, must needes bee figuratiue, because they cannot bee proper, for breade and Christes bodie, bee two seuerall-natures, that cannot stande together.