Answer to Campian the Jesuit, Reasons · Answer 2
WILLIAM WHITAKERS. The anſwere to the ſecond Reaſon.
WHat could be ſaid touching the Scriptures wee hauehave heard, wee muſt proceed to heare what can bee ſaid for the interpretation and expoſition of them; for our vſuall inclination in expounding the Scriptures, (ſaith Campian) hath encouraged and incited him earneſtly to deſire this encounter. And we alſo (Campian) hauehave long ago deſired to buckle with you herein. And at length the Lord hath brought you out of your lurking holes into the broad light, that we might trie it out with you; but what is our diſpoſition you ſpeake of? It is full of deceit, ſay you, and void of wiſdome. Thus you being a man of ſmall reach, and leſſe diſcretion, do conceite our inclination. Aſſuredly the matter you hauehave now in hand is a cauſe of great waight: for the force, the ſubſtance, and as it were the ſoule of the Scripture conſiſteth in the meaning: very well ſaid Hierome: The Scriptures are not in the letter, but in the vnderſtanding: Contra Lucifer. in 1. cap. ad Gila.and in another place:aDVR. Then Luther and Caluin obtruded a new Goſpell vponupon the Church; when they brought in a new ſenſe of the words, ſuch as the whole Chriſtian …orld knew not; yea it had a far other ſenſe of the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 138. If this laſt be graunted you, yet it followeth not that they brought in a new Goſpell, becauſe they differed from that ſenſe: for the ſenſe is not to be ſought for among the multitude; but we muſt looke to the Scriptures and to God ſpeaking in them: as the men of Berea did not take the ſenſe of the moſt, but ſearched the Scriptures whether Paul taught things agreeing vntounto it. The Goſpell is not in the words of the Scripture, but in the ſenſe. They then hauehave the beſt end of the ſtaffe, and are the beſt patrons of Religion and truth, who find out and keepe the true and natural meaning of the Scripture. For the letter or word is plaine; all controuerſies depend vponupon the meaning of the Word. The ſtate of the queſtion is then thus, whether of vsus twaine hauehave attained the true and naturall meaning of the Scripture: whether you Ieſuits, falſely called Catholikes; or we, who oppoſe your opinion and iudgment. Firſt therefore in generall, and in few words we will ſee what is your opinion and iudgement: then we will anſwere to your cauils. Now it is moſt cleere that you make both the Scripture it ſelfe, and the interpretation of it to depend vponupon the authority of thebDVR. Js it ſome haynous offence to require the iudgement of the Church in interpreting the Scriptures? WHIT. pag. 142. We contemne not the iudgement of the Church, but highly eſteeme it as profitable to the well interpreting of the Scriptures. But we contemne the iudgment of your Church, which hath not any thing which a true Church ſhould hauehave. DVR Whither then ſhould we goe to finde the ſenſe? WHIT. Euen whether Chriſt biddeth vsus, go ſearch the Scriptures, Iohn 5.39. And this vſe they hauehave, ſaith S. Paul. 2. Tim. 3.15.16. Church. And the Church you call not the whole multitude of Chriſtians and faithfull men, but you reſtraine both the name and nature of the Church vntounto yourcDVR. You reprooue vsus, that vvee giuegive the interpretation of the Scriptures to Biſhops: they verily ought to deliver the true ſenſe they hauehave receiued from their predeceſſors to the people. WHIT. pag. 144. S. Paul alloweth all Miniſters of the Goſpell this power to interpret the Scriptures, 1. Cor. 14.29.30. who ought aſwell to deliuer the true ſenſe, as Biſhops. Beſides, you muſt know that the knowledge of t… Scriptures and the gifts of the ſpirit are not hereditarie, or to be deliuered from hand to hand. Biſhops. But your Biſhops may differ touching the ſenſe of the Scriptures, ſo ſhall we be vncerteine and ſhall not reſolue which of them to beleeue. But you can helpe this, generalldDVR. Great and many controuerſies hauehave been decided by Councels. WHIT. pag. 145. It followeth not hereupon, that the interpreting of the Scriptures is to be ſought for of thē; or if good Councels by the true interpretation of the Scriptures hauehave taken away ſome errors and hereſies; that there…ore all interpretation is theirs, or that we muſt looke for the ſame from imp…ous and vnlearned Councels. Councels muſt decide and determine all queſtions and controuerſies. Shall we then reſt in them? no more then in the other: for theeDVR. And why not? ſeeing no Councell is of any authoritie, which was not confirmed by the Pope? WHIT. pag. 146. This is falſe: for the ſixt African Councell, and the Calcedon Councell hauehave their authority without him. And Emperors, Patria…kes, and Biſhops hauehave confinued Councels. And the Councell of Conſtantinople by letters deſired the confirmation of the decrees from Theodoſius the Emperor. DVR.. God ſet ouer the Iewes one High Priest. Deut. 17.11. Then would Christ neuer neglect his Spouſe, but leaue her a chiefe iudge vponupon the earth. WHIT. pag. 151. Yet that iudge was to determine according to the Law; Deut. 17.11. But the Pope maketh interpretations, not out of the word written, but out of his owne braine. Againe it followeth not, if ouer one little nation God ſet one chiefe iudge, Chriſt muſt ſet but one ouer the whole world. Beſides the Iewiſh iudge was a type of Chriſt. Laſtly, it followeth not that Chri… hath left his Church no iudge; i… he hauehave not le…t it one only; for eueryevery Church ha…h her Paſtor to teach her, and to d…ermine queſtions in her. Pope muſt be iudge ouer the Councels. So in the concluſion, the whole interpretation of holy Scriptures is transferred to the Pope, and muſt be fetched out of his breſt: yea and as a proper right he ſo challengeth the power of interpreting of the Scripture, that whatſoeuer he thinketh, that muſt be accounted the ſenſe and meaning of them. This is your conſtant and perpetuall propertie and diſpoſition in interpreting the Scriptures, full of dotage, error, and falſhood, void of aduiſe, knowledge and wiſdome. For what an abſurd and horrible thing is it, that the ſenſe and meaning of the holy Scripture ſhould depend vponupon one mans iudgement and voice? ſpecially being ſuch a one, as commonly the Biſhops of Rome hauehave been, vnlearned, wicked, hereticall. And hence hauehave proceeded all thoſe goodly interpretations, Take, Eate, that is, you Prieſts ſay priuate Maſſes:Dist. 31. Tenere. Drinke yee all of this, that is, only the Prieſts muſt drinke. Be yee holy, for I am holy,fDVR. Which o… the Popes or what Catholike …riter euer collected this out of that place? WHIT. pag. 159. Pope Syricius did firſt of all ſo collect: and after him Pope Innocent, as you may reade in Gra…an Dist. 31. cap. Ten…re; Dist. 82. cap. prop… ſuisti: cap. plurimos. therfore it is vnlawful for the Miniſter of the Word to marry a wife. GiueGive yee not holy things to dogges, therefore the people muſt be forbidden to reade the Scriptures. What ſhould I number vp innumerable moe of your interpretations, by which you doe nothing but peruert and wreſt the Scriptures? Is this indeed, Campian, the right interpreting of Scripture? or muſt all Chriſtians receiue this expoſition as the oracle of God?
But what ſhould I ſpeake of the conſtant tenour you keepe in the interpretation of Scripture? for you make the ſenſe of Scriptures ſo changeable, ſo diuerſe, and inconſtant, like to a noſe of waxe and a leaden rule,Pighius. that at all aſſaies it may euer ſerue your turne. So writethgDVR. Cuſanus hath written very rightly, for there are diuers ſenſes of the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 162. What rule then can be more vncerteine then the Scriptures? or what can be ſpoken more vilely of the Scripture? how then is the Scripture one rule? Phil. 3.16. how is i… firme induring for euer? 1. Pet. 1.25. how no deceitfull ballance. Augus…. d… ▪ Baptiſ. cont. Don. lib. 2. cap. 6. Nicholas Cuſanus, a Cardinall of Rome,Nicol. Cuſan. Epist. 2. Epist. 7. to the Bohemians. This vnderstand that the Scriptures are fitted to the time, and diuerſely to be vnderſtood; ſo that at one time they may be expounded according to the common & cuſtomable courſe: but change that, and the ſenſe is changed; ſo that it is no maruell if the custome of the Church at one time interpret the Scriptures after this manner, & another time after that. Was there euer the like bouldnes heard of; that men would wreſt the eternall and immutable word of God, which euer hath but one and the ſame ſenſe, to ſerue the will of the Church, that is, of the Pope of Rome?Thom. 1.…. 1. art. 10. beſides this you hauehave made ſo manyhDV…. The Fathers and Antiquity hauehave euer made theſe foure ſenſes of the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 163. To faine ſuch foure ſenſes in eueryevery ſentence differeth not much from a learned kind of madnes. Allegories I confeſſe many are in the Scriptures, but ſuch as the holy Ghoſt himſelfe hath made; but to make other Allegories, when the words may be vnderſtood without a Trope, or when the Grammaticall ſenſe is not abſurd and repugnant to ſound doctrine, I thinke is too great bouldneſſe and temerity. A Tropologicall ſenſe is not a new ſenſe differing from the Grammaticall, but one …s it were with it. Finally, if the Fathers as men hauehave erred, muſt we needs follow their errors? The Fathers reiected the errors and falſe interpretations of their predeceſſors, why may not we deale ſo with them? ſenſes of eueryevery place, to wit, an allegoricall, a tropological, an anagogicall ſenſe, that by your Ledgerdemaine, you hauehave aboliſhed the true and natiue ſenſe. Now, Campian, ſince you know that this is the manner of your Church in the interpreting of the Scripture, than which what can be more corrupt, how dare you preſume to reprehend our manner of interpretation? But we follow no other courſe then that which the Fathers hauehave preſcribed, and which the thing it ſelfe argues to be moſt fit. For that is our courſe which Augustine aduiſed: we interpret obſcure places by thoſe which are plainer, we obſerue the phraſe and ſtile of the Scripture, we weigh circumſtances, we compare ſcripture with ſcripture, we go not one iot from the Analogie of faith. They who take this courſe, adioyning their harty prayers, that the Lord would open this ſealed booke vntounto them; and teach them the true ſenſe of the ſcripture, ſhall neuer need to runne to Rome, and enquire of that ſacred Oracle of the Pope, who himſelfe neither vnderſtandeth the true ſenſe of ſcripture, neither is able to expound them to others.
But to returne now to Campian: what is the vſuall fault he finds in our dealing with the ſcripture? and what be the arguments by which he doth confute vsus? Let vsus demaund, ſaith he, (for example ſake) of our Aduerſaries what cauſed them to deuiſe this new opinion, whereby Christ is excluded out of the myſticall Supper. We, Campian, do notiDVR. If you place Christs body and your ſupper ſo farre aſunder, how do you not exclude h m from i…? WHIT. pag. 168. It is true, if things that are ſeuered could no way be ioyned but by a corporall ouching; but without it, it may fitly be, as all beleeuers are ioyned together, though they be farre diſtant and diſtracted one from another; as Iewes, Grecians, and all other godly, make but one body with Chriſt: what is that bond of this vnion, but the power of the ſpirit? Such an vnion is this in the Sacramēt, and it hath the ſome bond. exclude Chriſt out of the Supper, neither do we otherwiſe thinke of the Sacrament then both Chriſt hath taught vsus, and the old Church hath preſcribed. We certeinly affirme, that the faithfull in the ſupper receiue whole Chriſt, God and Man: we beleeue and teach that they eate his body and drinke his blood. Neither doubt we to affirme, but that he, that comes to the ſupper, and doth not in the ſupper partake of Chriſt, that he is in danger of condemnation. Doe we now exclude Chriſt from the ſupper? But whoſoeuer includeth Chriſt in the ſupper as you doe, he faineth and forgeth a new Chriſt to himſelfe, he confoundeth heauen and eart… together, he offereth violence to nature, and mu… needs admit innumerable abſurdities. Wherfore we following the ſcripture, as our ſchole-maſters, not taking vp any new opinion, place the naturall and humane body of Chriſt in heauen; for ſo the Apoſtle Peter ſpeaketh, whom the heauens muſt conteine, vntill the time that all things be reſtered; Act. 3.21.yet thekDVR. The… is Christ as preſent in Baptiſme, and in the word, and whereſoeuer your faith ſeekes for him, as in the ſupper; yea as preſent to the Father… in the old Testament as now to vsus. WHIT. pag. 169. So queſt…onleſſe he is, vnl…ſſe all men be without hope of life and ſaluation, who are depriued of the Supper. For John 6.53. yea all Chriſtians communicate of Chriſt alike, as well ſuch as come to the ſupper, as they who cannot partake in it: And that he was preſent to the Fathers it is proued. 1. Cor. 10.3.4. vertue, the communion, the benefit of this body we exclude not from the ſupper: but ſtifly maintaine, that in the ſupper whole Chriſt is preſent to each mans faith. This is the ſumme of our opinion, which I no leſſe doubt to be the true ſenſe of the ſcripture, then that Chriſt is Chriſt, or that to be ſcripture which is ſcripture. This opinion out of all others which we hold, hauehave you made choice of, as an example to impugne and gain-ſay: Let vsus ſee now how ſcholler-like you acquite your ſelfe. If they name the Gospell, ſay you, we ioyne with them. The very words make for vsus. This is my body, this is my blood: I acknowledge the words do, but I enquire now for the ſenſe of them: whether they ſhould be ſo expounded as your Church teacheth: that the bread is Tranſubſtantiated into the bodie, and the wine into the blood of Chriſt: or by a Trope and in a myſticall ſenſe, that the bread is the Sacrament, the ſigne and ſymboll of the body, and ſo the wine of the blood of Chriſt, as we interpret them. Whether opinion hath more truth in it, we will now diſcuſſe. As for that which you tell vsus of Luther, I ſuppoſe you will not expect any anſwere from me: and vndoubtedly in this thing Luther was farre more oppoſite to your opinion, then ours. For he euer condemned your Tranſubſtantiation, as it is, for an accurſed inuention and fiction of Satan. Luther we acknowledge was a man, who though he ſaw the truth in many things, yet he might erre in ſome things: his good things wee embrace, but wee are bound by no law to defend his errors.
But how ſhal we find out the meaning of this ſaying? Let vsus trie out this, ſay you, by the words thereto adioyning. Nothing can be ſpoken more truly, nothing more fitly, nor more ingenuouſly. And verely I could wiſh you would alwaies doe, as you pretend in this place to doe, ſiſt out the meaning of the ſcripture by the circumſtances of the words. But what are the words adioyning? My body which is giuen for you, my blood which is ſhed for you. Campian, you are too ſparing and ſcant in the point: repeate, and ſay, that which goeth before. As they did eate, Christ tooke bread, he bleſſed it, he brake it, and gaue it to his diſciples, and ſaid, Take, eate, this is my body, and he tooke the cup, and gaue thankes, and gau… it to them ſaying, Drinke yee all of this, for this is my blood &c. So now, Campian, I will deale with you from the words which are now adioyning. What was it Chriſt tooke? you will ſay bread: what brake he? bread: what gaue he to his diſciples? bread: wh… did he bid them take and eate? bread: what ſaid he was his bodie? was it any other thing, …hen the very ſame bread which he tooke into his hands, brake andlDVR. He tooke bread, but he gaue not bread to his diſciples, but his bodie. WHIT. pag. 183. Then one body of Chriſt is made two, one ſitting among them, another deliuered vntounto them; yea as many bodies as there were Communicants. And the diſciples did receiue, chaw, and eate him, whom they ſaw ſ…ting with them: but whē was the chāge made? for before he had ſpoken theſe operatiue words, This is my bodie, he brake it & gaue it …o his diſciples: either theſe words make not the change, or he ga…e to his diſciples, bread vnchanged. DVR. …f there was no change, then the bleſſing wa… without profit. WHIT. pag. 185. As if all bleſſings were without profit if they change not the nature of things: God bleſſed our firſt parents, Gen. 1.28. Noah and his Sonnes, Gen. 9.1 Chriſt his diſciples at his departure, Luk. 24.51. was their bleſſing without profit, becauſe they changed not their natures and ſubſtance? Beſides to bleſſe is nothing elſe but to giuegive thankes, as Luke hath it, which was done by words before, not by thoſe, This is my body. gaue to his diſciples. Therfore that when Chriſt ſaith. This is my body: this is my blood; is as much as if he ſaid: This bread is my body, and this cup is my blood. But the bread and the body of Chriſt, the cup and the blood of Chriſt, are they not differing, and wel-nigh contrary? Then tell vsus, how they can affirme, or be ſpoken one of another, vnleſſe you will admit a Tropicall ſpeech. Yet, Campian, to vſe your owne words, the matter gocth hard on your ſide, and maketh very plainly and manifeſtly for vsus. For Chriſt ſaith plainly that the bread is his body, which cannot be true without a figure, that bread made to eate, ſhould be properly Chriſts body. And this is that figure which we find ſo often in the Scriptures, ſpecially when any Sacram…nt is ſpoken of. So in Geneſis cap. 17. the Lord ſaith of CircumciſionmDV…. This is neither heere, nor any where elſe to be found in the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 173. Ma…ke well. This is my couenant which you ſhall keepe, that eueryevery manchild be circumciſed: what I pray you is, This, but that eueryevery manchild be circumciſed, and …o you hauehave it in this place directly: but ſee, Gen. 17.13. My couenant ſhall be in your fleſh, what is this but circumciſion? reade Act. 7.8. DVR. This, ſignifieth not circumciſion, but agreement or couenant betwixt God a…d Abraham touching circumciſion. WHIT. That agreemen…, was it the couenant or not? …f it was, then ſee what a goodly ſentence you hauehave made, This my couenant is my couenant. But if it was not: thē you muſt needs acknowledge a Me…nymy; that is, that the name of th… thing is giuen to the ſigne, howſoeuer then it muſt be vnderſtood by a figure. This is the couenant betwixt me and Gen. 17.10.you. Yet Circumciſion was not the couenant, but the ſigne of the couenant. Now tell vsus I pray you, what difference betwixt theſe two: This is my couenant & this is my body? The former you cannot deny, but muſt be vnderſtood by a Metonymy: and can any man make doubt, but that the latter likewiſe is to be ſo expounded. The like we reade of the Lambe.Exod. 12.11. nDVR. Theſe words are not to be found there. WHIT. pag. 174. Obſerue the words. Thus ſhall you eate it, for it is the Lords Paſſouer. That which was to be eaten is called the Lords Paſſeouer. Now they we…e cōmanded to eate the Lambe, reade Exod 12. ve…ſe 27.… is the Lords Paſſeouer. And yet the Lamb was not the Paſſeouer, but a memoriall of it: like to this is that of S. Paul. oDVR. There is no figure in the word Christ, but in rocke; for the rocke was the ſigne of Chriſt. WHIT. pag. 175. Then you acknowledge a Metonymy in the word…, becauſe the rock was the Sac…amen… of Chriſt. And if heere there be a Trope, then why not in theſe words of this Sacramēt?The rocke was Christ. 1. Cor. 10.1.Now as the rocke was Chriſt, ſo is this myſticall bread the body of Chriſt. Thus as yet you ſee the matter is neuer the better on your ſide; hauehave you any thing elſe? The Gospell, ſay you, makes for vsus, S. Paul accordeth alſo. Nay S. Paul vtterly ouerthroweth your opinion:1. Cor. 11. for when he ſpeaketh of this Sacrament in one continued ſpeech, he vſeth the wordpDVR. S. Paul call…th it ſo becauſe it vvas novv Christ, vvho vva… the liuing bread. WHIT. pag. 188. many of your fellowes interpret it far otherwiſe, yea your ſh…t S. Paul ouerthroweth, 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread vvhichwhich vve breake, is it not the Comunion of the body of Christ? Now not Chriſt was brokē but the bread. bread, foure ſeuerall times, and that after Conſecration; ſo that it appeareth▪ …earely to hauehave the proper nature of bread, though it be ſaid to be the body of Chriſt. But yet you adde: The words, the ſentences, the whole conuection of Scripture, doe often most reuerently repeate the bread, the wine, a notable miracle, heauenly food, his fleſh▪ his bodie, his blood. In good earneſt you diſcourſe of theſe things with great reuerence and ſhamefaſtnes. For you would proue that in this Sacrament, there remaineth neither bread nor wine, but certeine qualities of theſe things, hanging in the ayre, and void… of the things themſelues. And for any notable miracle, I acknowledge none, but anſwere you with Austen. They may be honoured as religious things, De Trinit. lib. 3. c. 10.but they cannot be wondred at as qDVR. Auguſtine ſpeaketh of theſ… miracles which are made of a bodily ſubſtanc…, and ſo are ſenſible: novv no ſuch thing is ſeene in the Eucharist. WHIT. pag. 191. But if there were a true miracle, it would be ſenſible, and hauehave the witneſſe of the ſenſes, as all oth…r miracles of the Scriptures hauehave. For thing… that are hid (ſaith Augustine) are not miracles. He writ three bookes of the miracles of the Scriptures, in which he hath not ſpoken one word of this miracle. Therefore he knew not the Popiſh Tranſubſtantiation.minacles. No man euer denied, but that in the Sacrament heauenly food is both prepared, and offered to all the godly. But thoſe heauenly and holy banquets, whereby our ſoules are nouriſhed vp to eternall life, you make prophane and common, when you imagine, that Chriſt may be receiued and eaten like other meates, aſwell of therDVR. Not vve, but the Scripture, the Fathers, and reaſon it ſelfe doth affirme it, but ſpeciallie S. Paul. 1. Cor. 11.27. Whoſoeuer eateth this bread. WHIT. pag▪ 195. None of theſe affirme it, and leaſt of all S. Paul; for he ſaith not, vvhoſoeuer eateth the body of Christ, but vvhoſoeuer eateth this bread. wicked, as of the moſt deuout men in the world; which is an horrible opinion, ſenſeleſſe and vnſound. For that you adde of fleſh, body, and blood, I confeſſe: for being the Sacraments of theſe things, they hauehave their names giuen vntounto them: for ſignes of things (ſaith Augustine) are ſaid to be the things of which they are ſignes. But, ſay you, heere is nothing figuratiue, nothing obſcure by doubtfull ſpeeches. True it is there is neuer a riddle in the words, no obſcuritie. For the obſcurity that is, is not in the words, but in your interpretation of them, which ten Apolloes cannot ſo vnfold and open, that things might agree and anſwere fitly one to another.
What reſteth yet, is it not that at length wee find out ſome certeine and true ſenſe of theſe words? I hope, ſay you, Antiquitie may be heard. I verily in this controuerſie will reiect no Antiquitie, no Councell, no auncient Father, neither will I refuſe any monument of true Antiquitie. For that ſame reuerend hoarie head of Fathers which you ſpeake of, could neuer come to the knowledge of this new doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation lately hatched. If thoſe holy Fathers and reuerend Elders did now liue, they would neuer acknowledge this mōſter, nor indure the ſight of it, but iudge it worthy to be abandoned into the vtmoſt parts of the world. Whereas then you ſay, They cannot away with that, They ſay then they are betrayed. You trifle and ſay nothing to the purpoſe: for we can away well with this triall, and feare no treachery in it. But will call you very willingly to this reuerend Antiquitie, as to a barre of triall. Therefore if you pleaſe we will demaund of thoſe reuerend Fathers, what they iudge to be the meaning of thoſe words, which you hauehave produced for example ſake. And ſeeing there is no neceſſity to collect all their ſayings, ſome few of them ſhall ſpeake, to giuegive vsus a taſt of the reſt.ſDVR. Tertullian ſpeaketh not of that bread, vvhichwhich Christ in his last ſupper made his body, but of another bread, vvhichwhich vvas the figure of his body vnd…r the lavv. WHIT. pag. 2…0. The pla…e ſheweth very plainly that he ſpeaketh of no other bread, then of tha… which Chriſt had ſaid, this is my body: and which, in the night he vvas betrayed, he tooke, brake, and gaue to his diſciples. Tell vsus where vnderunder the law Chriſt euer ſaid thus, or did thus with any bread? DVR. Bread & wine in the old Teſtament vvere Figures of Christs body & blood: therfore in the nevv Testament of the bread must the true body of Chriſt be made, & of the v…ine his blood. WHIT. pag. 202. It will well follow frō this, that Chriſt muſt hauehave in the new Teſtament a true body & true blood: but it cannot be inforced hereupō, that it muſt be made of bread & wine. As if becauſe their Sacramen…s were figures, the…fore ours muſt be trāſubſtantiated into the things themſelues. Then will it follow, that becauſe the flood, the …edſea, & the cloud were types of our Bap…iſme, therefore it ſhould not be a figure or a ſigne, but be turned into th… very blood of Chriſt. Tertullian ſaith,Tertul. lib. 4 contra Marc. Christ profeſſed his deſire to eate the Paſſ…ouer, as his owne, and hauing taken bread, and distributed it to his diſciples, hee made it his bodie, by ſaying▪ this is my body, that is, the figure or ſigne of my body. You acknowledge both Tertullians words and his meaning.tDVR Auguſtine ſignifieth the Sacramēt by the name of figure. WHIT pag 204. It is true, Chriſt gaue the Sacramēt to his di…ci…les▪ but Auguſtine vſeth not the word Sacrament, but figure: to ſhew that as no figu…e or ſigne is the thing wherof it is a fi u…e: ſo the bread is not properly the body, nor the w…ne the blood of Chriſt. Augustine ſaith,August. in Pſal. 3. Chriſt admitted Iudas to that banquet, in which he commended to his diſciples the figure of his body and blood. In another place alſo.uDVR Auguſtine diſputeth in this p…ace againſt the Ma…chees, carp…ng at Moſes vvords. The blood is the ſoule of the beaſt. And ſaith, it is ſo ſpoke, as the Sacramēt of the body of Chriſt is called his body, the blood is called the ſoule, becauſe it is as the ſigne of the ſoule, which lieth hid in the blood, as the Sacramet is the ſigne of the body of Chriſt, vvhichwhich is conteined in it WH T pag. 206. Nay I infer the cōtrary as the ſoule is not the blood, whē it is o… of the vaines, & may be eaten; ſo Chriſt is not in the Sacrament. And as the blood is the ſigne of the ſoule, which is not in it: ſo is the Sacrament of the bodie which is not conteined in it. The Lord verily doubted not to ſpeake thus. Contra. Adimant. cap. 12.This is my body, when he gaue the ſigne of his body. And that you may vnderſtand, that this was Augustines perpetuall tenor in interpreting of theſe words, and that he determined farre diuerſe to you touching the eating of Chriſts fleſh: heare what he ſaith in his bookes of Chriſtian Inſtruction, where he giueth diuers precepts for the vnderſtanding of the phraſe of the Scriptures. If, ſaith he, any ſentence there ſeeme to cōmaund any impious act, De doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16.or to forbid any duty tending to the profit or good of others, it is a figuratiue ſpeech; vnleſſe, ſaith Christ, you eate the fleſh of the Son of man, and drinke his blood, you hauehave no life in you: It ſeemeth to inioyne an *DVR Auguſtine did not thinke that it vvas an heynous thing, to eate the fleſh of Christ, but to cate … (as the Capernites thought) that is, torne and rent in peeces. WHIT. pag. 209. You anſwere ſomewhat as touching the fact, but nothing for the figure. But Auguſtine ſaith there is a figure, which cannot be, if the fleſh of Chriſt be either eaten, as you ſay, whole, or chopt in peeces, as the Capernites affirme. And if it be an horrible fact to eate the ſmale parts of Chriſts bo…ie, is it not a more beaſtly & bloody thing to deuoure the whole body of Chriſt at one mor…el…? DVR. It is no more heynous for a Chriſtian to eate the fleſh of Christ whole, then it was for the bleſſed Virgin to conceiue & to nouriſh it in her wombe. WHIT. pag. 211. What is this, but as if you had ſaid, It is no heynous thing to conceiue and bring forth an Infant: Therfore it is none to deuoure it after it is borne.heynous act. It is therefore a figuratiue ſpeech, commanding vsus to communicate in the Paſſion of the Lord. Doe you thinke this reuerend old man dotes, or hath he not giuen a iudicious interpretation, wel agreeing vntounto the iudgement of the auncient? I thinke matters yet goe worſe on your ſide, then they did before: but perhaps you will ſay, theſe are too aunciēt to ſerue your turne, heare then ſome of latter times.Theod. Theodoret a Gretian and a learned man writeth thus in his Dialogue… xDVR Theodorets meaning is, that the ſignes hauehave not lost their naturall properties, though their nature be changed. WHIT. pag. 214. If the naturall properties remaine, then certeinly their natures muſt, for eſſe…t…all properties can neuer be ſeparated from …heir natures: yea in the words follow ng in this very place, Theodoret affirmeth, that the nature remaineth. The myſticall bread, ſaith he, remaineth in the nature it firſt had, in the figure, and in the forme.Mysticall ſignes doe not loſe their proper nature. This very ſpeech quite ouerthroweth your Tranſubſtantiation, for if their proper nature remaine, without doubt nothing can be Tranſubſtantiated or changed. Now the bread keepeth his proper and old nature, therefore there can be no Tranſubſtantiation: but I will ioyne to Theodoret Marcarius; whoſe homilies Morelius had out of the Kings Librarie, and hath publiſhed them in Greeke: and I ſuppoſe that you being a Frier, will not reiect the teſtimony of ſo auncient a Monke: he writeth thus. In the Church, ſaith he,Marcar. homil. is offered bread and wine, yDVR. An antitype or reſemblance of the type is not the type or figure, but the ſubſtance ſignified by that type or figure. WHIT. pag. 217. An antitype is neuer properly the ſubſtance of the type, though ſometime it be another type anſwering to it, and both of them are but ſimilitudes & figures of the ſubſtance. And ſometimes a type and an antitype are both one and the ſame: as Heb. 9.24. The Tabernacle is called an antitype of heauē, being the ſubſtance ſignified by the Tabernacle and no anſwering type to the Tabernacle. And in this ſenſe doe diuers of the Fathers vſe the word Antitype: as Baſil, Nazianzen, Theodoret, Chryſost.antitypes or reſemblances of his body and blood. What, ſaith he, bread and wine? but bread is already turned into fleſh, and wine into blood. Ought a Monke to ſpeake after this manner? giuegive you them ſo ſlender a name, as ſimilitudes? Pardon mee, Campian, this Monke was neuer vſed to ſpeake after your manner, neither was your Tranſubſtantiation as yet come abroad? what ſay you now? are you pleaſed with this reuerend hoare head of the Fathers? If you reſt not heere, it ſhall be free for you to appeale to any one of the whole reuerend company of the holy Fathers; not one of them, no not any one of them, do I except againſt. For I make no doubt, but if they may be iudges, you ſhall euer hauehave the worſt. From henceforth therefore do not caſt any ſuch calumni…ions vponupon vsus, and boaſt your ſelfe of the bare names of the Fathers; for the Fathers both in this controuerſie and in many others are firme on our ſide. As for the Fathers of whom you name many, but I beleeue hauehave read but a few, I thus anſwere you. We are not the ſeruants of the Fathers, but the ſonnes. When they preſcribe vsus any thing out of the Law and diuine authoritie, we obey them, as our parents. If they inioyne any thing againſt the voyce of the heauenly truth, we hauehave learned not to harken to them, but to God. You as Vaſſals and baſe ſeruants receiue whatſoeuer the Fathers ſaie, without iudgement or reaſon, being affraid, as I think, either of the whippe, or the halter, if eueryevery thing they ſpeake be not Goſpell with you.
In few words, ſay you, this is their drift, vnleſſe thou wilt ſtand to their owne iudgement, that are guilty, there is no iudgement to be had. Verily this fits you a great deale better then vsus, for you will receiue no iudgement but the iudgement of the Pope, and Church of Rome; which Church and Pope wee hauehave proued long agoe to be guilty of moſt heynous crimes, and there hath been a perpetuall variance betwixt him and vsus. Is there any equity then in your demaunds that we ſhould ſtand to his iudgement, who … both a perſon guilty, and an aduerſarie to vsus? And well ſhould we deſerue to loſe the cauſe, if we would be ſo witleſſe contenders. Much truer ſpeaketh Auguſtine, Let one matter encounter with another, Contra Maxim. lib. 3. c. 14.one cauſe with another, one reaſon with another, by the authoritie of the holy Scriptures, which are not proper to either ſide, but common zDVR. How fooliſhly do you alledge Auguſtine, who maketh the Scripture a witnes of the truth, not a iudge, as you would hauehave it. WHIT. pag. 243. If the Scripture be the witnes, where ſhall we find a iudge anſwerable to this witnes? Is it the Church? Then muſt it be of more authority then the Scripture, which heere you affirme not, neither may it be grā ted; for the Scripture is the word of God, therefore he that is the iudge of it, muſt be the iudge of God himſelfe. To deny the Scriptures then the preheminence in iudging, is to thruſt God out of his throne Therefore as God, ſo the Scripture the word of God, hath the authoritie both of a witneſſe and a iudge. DVR. Auguſtine euer thought, that the Popes iudgement was the highest tribunall …pon earth, where all controuerſies must be decided. WHIT. pag. 244. Augustine neuer thought ſo, but writ the contrary De ciuitat Dei lib. 15. …ap. 3. The Lord, ſaith he, hath penned the Scripture, which is call…d Canonicall, becauſe it is of highest authoritie, yea hee neuer once preſſed the Arrians, either with the authoritie of the Pope, or of the Councell, which vndoubtedly he would hauehave done, neither could he hauehave done better, if the higheſt iudgement had been in the Church.witneſſes for both. And to their iudgements would we hauehave you to ſtand, not ours. As for other things you ſpeake of, I paſſe them ouer, for you will reſerue them for vsus till another place; and wheras you ſay, you hauehave cited many and worthy places of Scripture, we hauehave weighed thoſe places in their ballances, and hauehave found them to light to proue what you propoſed. And it is your vſe indeed, rather to take them by number, then by weight. But you charged vsus with ſcorning at this and ſhifting them off, we did nothing leſſe; all we did was to free them from your cauils. We hauehave, ſay you, alledged the interpretations of the Greeke and Latin Churches. I confeſſe it, but we hauehave wrung all thoſe weapons from you, and hauehave by them battered all your holds. But ſay you, what ſay they then? marry that M. Doctor Martin Luther, or M. Philip Melangthon, or certeinly M. Zuinglius, or without doubt M. Caluin, and M. Beza, hauehave faithfully intreated vponupon thoſe matters. Tell vsus, Frier, what ſhould hinder, why eueryevery one of theſe you hauehave nominated, may not as faithfully intreate of th…ſe things, as thoſe who hauehave liued before them in ages paſt? what wanted they, which the other had? what skill of art, what knowledge of the tōgues, what other helpes? there is not any one of theſe, but hath far ſurpaſſed in learning, and all deſerued commendation, the whole ſociety of Ieſuits.
But why doe I compare theſe burning lights, bright ſtarres of piety and religion, with the baſe ſcumme of your Doctors? and this now is another of your reaſons, why you were ſo deſirous to hauehave audience in the Vniuerſity Schooles. If you be, Campian, ſodeſirous, as you would make the world beleeue, I maruell why you are ſo long a comming: for our ſchooles were euer open for you, but you could neuer find the way into them. If you hereafter come, you ſhall find many in our ſchooles, that will encounter with you in all kind of learning. And heere you end your diſcourſe of the right ſenſe of the Scriptures.