An answer to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Jesuit in confidence whereof…An ansvvere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Iesuit in confidence wherof…
An answer to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Jesuit in confidence whereof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controversy of faith. Whereunto is added in brief marginal notes, the sum of the defence of those reasons by John Duræus the Scot, being a priest and a Jesuit, with a reply unto it. Written first in the Latin tongue by the reverend and faithful servant of Christ and his Church, William Whitakers, Doctor in Divinity, and the Kings Professor and public reader of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. And now faithfully translated for the benefit of the unlearned (at the appointment and desire of some in authority) into the English tongue; by Richard Stock, preacher in London. ...An ansvvere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Iesuit in confidence wherof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controuersie of faith. Whereunto is added in briefe marginall notes, the summe of the defence of those reasons by Iohn Duræus the Scot, being a priest and a Iesuit, with a reply vnto it. Written first in the Latine tongue by the reuerend and faithfull seruant of Christ and his Church, William Whitakers, Doctor in Diuinitie, and the Kings Professor and publike reader of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. And now faithfully translated for the benefit of the vnlearned (at the appointment and desire of some in authoritie) into the English tongue; by Richard Stocke, preacher in London. ...
William Whitaker 1548–1595London: printed by Felix Kyngston for Cuthbert Burby and Edmund Weaver, 1606London: printed by Felix Kyngston for Cuthbert Burby and Edmund Weauer, 1606
[40], 326 p. · 97k words · STC 25360 · ESTC S119870
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
What could be said touching the Scriptures we have heard, we must proceed to hear what can be said for the interpretation and exposition of them; for our usual inclination in expounding the Scriptures, (saith Campian) hath encouraged and incited him earnestly to desire this encounter. And we also (Campian) have long ago desired to buckle with you herein. And at length ⟨p. 59⟩the Lord hath brought you out of your lurking holes into the broad light, that we might try it out with you; but what is our disposition you speak of? It is full of deceit, say you, and void of wisdom. Thus you being a man of small reach, and less discretion, do conceit our inclination. Assuredly the matter you have now in hand is a cause of great weight: for the force, the substance, and as it were the soul of the Scripture consisteth in the meaning: very well said Hierome: The Scriptures are not in the letter, but in the understanding: 1and in another place:a The Gospel is not in the words of the Scripture, but in the sense. They then have the best end of the staff, and are the best patrons of Religion and truth, who find out and keep the true and natural meaning of the Scripture. For the letter or word is plain; all controversies depend upon the meaning of the Word. The state of the question is then thus, whether of us twain have attained the true and natural meaning of the Scripture: whether you Jesuits, falsely called Catholics; or we, who oppose your opinion and judgment. First therefore in general, and in few words we will see what is your opinion and judgement: then we will answer to your cavils. Now it is most clear that you make both the Scripture it self, and the interpretation of it to depend upon the authority of theb
Bishops. But your Bishops may differ touching the sense of the Scriptures, so shall we be uncertain and shall not resolve which of them to believe. But you can help this, general
Pope must be judge over the Councils. So in the conclusion, the whole interpretation of holy Scriptures is transferred to the Pope, and must be fetched out of his breast:
WHat could be said touching the Scriptures wee haue 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) haue long ago desired to buckle with you herein. And at length ⟨p. 59⟩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 haue 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: 1and in another place:a The Gospell is not in the words of the Scripture, but in the sense. They then haue 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 vpon the meaning of the Word. The state of the question is then thus, whether of vs twaine haue 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 vpon the authority of theb Church. And the Church you call not the whole multitude of Christians and faithfull men, but you ⟨p. 60⟩restraine both the name and nature of the Church vnto yourc 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, generalld Councels must decide and determine all questions and controuersies. Shall we then rest in them? no more then in the other: for thee 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:
1Contra Lucifer. in 1. cap. ad Gila.
aDVR. Then Luther and Calvin obtruded a new Gospel upon the Church; when they brought in a new sense of the words, such as the whole Christian world knew not; yea it had a far other sense of the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 138. If this last be granted you, yet it followeth not that they brought in a new Gospel, because they differed from that sense: for the sense is not to be sought for among the multitude; but we must look 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 unto it.DVR. Then Luther and Caluin obtruded a new Gospell vpon 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 vnto it.
bDVR. Js it some heinous offence to require the judgement of the Church in interpreting the Scriptures? WHIT. pag. 142. We contemn not the judgement of the Church, but highly esteem it as profitable to the well interpreting of the Scriptures. But we contemn the judgment of your Church, which hath not any thing which a true Church should have. DVR Whither then should we go to find the sense? WHIT. Even whether Christ biddeth us, go search the Scriptures, John 5.39. And this use they have, saith S. Paul. 2. Tim. 3.15.16.DVR. 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 haue. DVR Whither then should we goe to finde the sense? WHIT. Euen whether Christ biddeth vs, go search the Scriptures, Iohn 5.39. And this vse they haue, saith S. Paul. 2. Tim. 3.15.16.
cDVR. You reprove us, that we give the interpretation of the Scriptures to Bishops: they verily ought to deliver the true sense they have received from their predecessors to the people. WHIT. pag. 144. S. Paul alloweth all Ministers of the Gospel this power to interpret the Scriptures, 1. Cor. 14.29.30. who ought aswell to deliver the true sense, as Bishops. Besides, you must know that the knowledge of t•• Scriptures and the gifts of the spirit are not hereditary, or to be delivered from hand to hand.DVR. You reprooue vs, that vvee giue the interpretation of the Scriptures to Bishops: they verily ought to deliver the true sense they haue 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.
dDVR. Great and many controversies have been decided by Councels. WHIT. pag. 145. It followeth not hereupon, that the interpreting of the Scriptures is to be sought for of them; or if good Councels by the true interpretation of the Scriptures have taken away some errors and heresies; that therefore all interpretation is theirs, or that we must look for the same from impious and unlearned Councels.DVR. Great and many controuersies haue 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 haue 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.
eDVR. And why not? seeing no Councell is of any authority, which was not confirmed by the Pope? WHIT. pag. 146. This is false: for the sixth African Councell, and the Calcedon Councell have their authority without him. And Emperors, Patriarchs, and Bishops have confinued Councels. And the Councell of Constantinople by letters desired the confirmation of the decrees from Theodosius the Emperor. DVR.. God set over the Jews one High Priest. Deut. 17.11. Then would Christ never neglect his Spouse, but leave her a chief judge upon the earth. WHIT. pag. 151. Yet that judge 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 own brain. Again it followeth not, if over one little nation God set one chief judge, Christ must set but one over the whole world. Besides the Jewish judge was a type of Christ. Lastly, it followeth not that Chri•• hath left his Church no judge; i• he have not le•t it one only; for every Church ha•h her Pastor to teach her, and to determine questions in her.DVR. 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 haue their authority without him. And Emperors, Patria•kes, and Bishops haue 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 vpon 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 haue not le•t it one only; for euery Church ha•h her Pastor to teach her, and to dermine questions in her.
yea and as a proper right he so challengeth the power of interpreting of the Scripture, that whatsoever he thinketh, that must be accounted the sense and meaning of them. This is your constant and perpetual property and disposition in interpreting the Scriptures, full of dotage, error, and falsehood, void of advise, knowledge and wisdom. For what an absurd and horrible thing is it, that the sense and meaning ⟨p. 61⟩of the holy Scripture should depend upon one mans judgement and voice? specially being such a one, as commonly the Bishops of Rome have been, unlearned, wicked, heretical. And hence have proceeded all those goodly interpretations, Take, Eat, that is, you Priests say private Masses:1 Drink ye all of this, that is, only the Priests must drink. Be ye holy, for I am holy,f therefore it is unlawful for the Minister of the Word to marry a wife. Give ye not holy things to dogs, therefore the people must be forbidden to read the Scriptures. What should I number up innumerable moe of your interpretations, by which you do nothing but pervert and wrest the Scriptures? Is this indeed, Campian, the right interpreting of Scripture? or must all Christians receive this exposition as the oracle of God?
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 ⟨p. 61⟩of the holy Scripture should depend vpon one mans iudgement and voice? specially being such a one, as commonly the Bishops of Rome haue been, vnlearned, wicked, hereticall. And hence haue proceeded all those goodly interpretations, Take, Eate, that is, you Priests say priuate Masses:1 Drinke yee all of this, that is, only the Priests must drinke. Be yee holy, for I am holy,f therfore it is vnlawful for the Minister of the Word to marry a wife. Giue 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?
1Dist. 31. Tenere.
fDVR. Which o• the Popes or what Catholic •riter ever 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 read in Gratian Dist. 31. cap. Ten•re; Dist. 82. cap. prop• suisti: cap. plurimos.DVR. 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.
But what should I speak of the constant tenor you keep in the interpretation of Scripture? for you make the sense of Scriptures so changeable, so diverse, and inconstant, like to a nose of wax and a leaden rule,1 that at all assays it may ever serve your turn. So writethg Nicholas Cusanus, a Cardinal of Rome,3 to the Bohemians. This understand that the Scriptures are fitted to the time, and diversely to be understood; 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 marvel if the custom of the Church at one time interpret the Scriptures after this manner, & another time after that. Was there ever the like boldness heard of; that men would wrest the eternal and immutable word of God, which ever hath but one and the same sense, to serve the will of the Church, that is, of the Pope of ⟨p. 62⟩Rome?4 besides this you have made so manyh senses of every place, to wit, an allegorical, a tropological, an anagogical sense, that by your Legerdemain, you have abolished the true and native 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 have prescribed, and which the thing it self argues to be most fit. For that is our course which Augustine advised: we interpret obscure places by those which are plainer, we observe the phrase and stile of the Scripture, we weigh circumstances, we compare scripture with scripture, we go not one jot from the Analogy of faith. They who take this course, adjoining their hearty prayers, that the Lord would open this sealed book unto them; and teach them the true sense of the scripture, shall never need to run to Rome, and enquire of that sacred Oracle of the Pope, who himself neither understandeth the true sense of scripture, neither is able to expound them to others.
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,1 that at all assaies it may euer serue your turne. So writethg Nicholas Cusanus, a Cardinall of Rome,3 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 ⟨p. 62⟩Rome?4 besides this you haue made so manyh senses of euery place, to wit, an allegoricall, a tropological, an anagogicall sense, that by your Ledgerdemaine, you haue 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 haue 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 vnto 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.
1Pighius.
gDVR. Cusanus hath written very rightly, for there are divers senses of the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 162. What rule then can be more uncertain 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• firm enduring for ever? 1. Pet. 1.25. how no deceitful balance. August. d•▪ Baptis. cont. Don. lib. 2. cap. 6.DVR. 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.
3Nicol. Cusan. Epist. 2. Epist. 7.
4Thom. 1.•. 1. art. 10.
hDV•. The Fathers and Antiquity have ever made these four senses of the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 163. To faine such four senses in every sentence differeth not much from a learned kind of madness. Allegories I confess many are in the Scriptures, but such as the holy Ghost himself hath made; but to make other Allegories, when the words may be understood without a Trope, or when the Grammatical sense is not absurd and repugnant to sound doctrine, I think is too great boldness and temerity. A Tropological sense is not a new sense differing from the Grammatical, but one •s it were with it. Finally, if the Fathers as men have erred, must we needs follow their errors? The Fathers rejected the errors and false interpretations of their predecessors, why may not we deal so with them?
But to return now to Campian: what is the usual fault he finds in our dealing with the scripture? and what be the arguments by which he doth confute us? Let us demand, saith he, (for example sake) of our Adversaries what caused them to devise this new opinion, whereby Christ is excluded out of the mystical Supper. ⟨p. 63⟩We, Campian, do noti exclude Christ out of the Supper, neither do we otherwise think of the Sacrament then both Christ hath taught us, and the old Church hath prescribed. We certainly affirm, that the faithful in the supper receive whole Christ, God and Man: we believe and teach that they eat his body and drink his blood. Neither doubt we to affirm, but that he, that comes to the supper, and doth not in the supper partake of Christ, that he is in danger of condemnation. Do we now exclude Christ from the supper? But whosoever includeth Christ in the supper as you do, he feigneth and forgeth a new Christ to himself, he confoundeth heaven and earth together, he offereth violence to nature, and mu•• needs admit innumerable absurdities. Wherefore we following the scripture, as our school-masters, not taking up any new opinion, place the natural and humane body of Christ in heaven; for so the Apostle Peter speaketh, whom the heavens must contain, until the time that all things be restored; 2yet thek virtue, the communion, the benefit of this body we exclude not from the supper: but stiffly maintain, that in the supper whole Christ is present to each mans faith. This is the sum of our opinion, which I no less 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, have you made choice of, as an example to impugn and gain-say: Let us see now how scholar-like you acquit your self. If they name the Gospel, say you, ⟨p. 64⟩we join with them. The very words make for us. 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 body, and the wine into the blood of Christ: or by a Trope and in a mystical sense, that the bread is the Sacrament, the sign and symbol of the body, and so the wine of the blood of Christ, as we interpret them.
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 vs? Let vs 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. ⟨p. 63⟩We, Campian, do noti exclude Christ out of the Supper, neither do we otherwise thinke of the Sacrament then both Christ hath taught vs, 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; 2yet thek 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, haue you made choice of, as an example to impugne and gain-say: Let vs see now how scholler-like you acquite your selfe. If they name the Gospell, say you, ⟨p. 64⟩we ioyne with them. The very words make for vs. 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.
iDVR. If you place Christs body and your supper so far asunder, how do you not exclude h m from i•? WHIT. pag. 168. It is true, if things that are severed could no way be joined but by a corporal ouching; but without it, it may fitly be, as all believers are joined together, though they be far distant and distracted one from another; as Jews, Grecians, and all other godly, make but one body with Christ: what is that bond of this union, but the power of the spirit? Such an union is this in the Sacrament, and it hath the some bond.DVR. 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.
kDVR. The• is Christ as present in Baptism, and in the word, and wheresoever your faith seeks for him, as in the supper; yea as present to the Father• in the old Testament as now to us. WHIT. pag. 169. So questionless he is, unless all men be without hope of life and salvation, who are deprived 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 proved. 1. Cor. 10.3.4.DVR. 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 vs. 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
Whether opinion hath more truth in it, we will now discuss. As for that which you tell us of Luther, I suppose you will not expect any answer from me: and undoubtedly in this thing Luther was far more opposite to your opinion, then ours. For he ever condemned your Transubstantiation, as it is, for an accursed invention and fiction of Satan. Luther we acknowledge was a man, who though he saw the truth in many things, yet he might err in some things: his good things we embrace, but we are bound by no law to defend his errors.
Whether opinion hath more truth in it, we will now discusse. As for that which you tell vs 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 shall we find out the meaning of this saying? Let us try out this, say you, by the words thereto adjoining. Nothing can be spoken more truly, nothing more fitly, nor more ingenuously. And verily I could wish you would always do, as you pretend in this place to do, sift out the meaning of the scripture by the circumstances of the words. But what are the words adjoining? My body which is given for you, my blood which is shed for you. Campian, you are too sparing and scant in the point: repeat, and say, that which goeth before. As they did eat, Christ took bread, he blessed it, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body, and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gau• it to them saying, Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood &c. So now, Campian, I will deal with you from the words which are now adjoining. What was it Christ took? you will say ⟨p. 65⟩bread: what brake he? bread: what gave he to his disciples? bread: wh•• did he bid them take and eat? bread: what said he was his body? was it any other thing, •hen the very same bread which he took into his hands, brake andl gave to his disciples. Therefore 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 well-nigh contrary? Then tell us, how they can affirm, or be spoken one of another, unless you will admit a Tropical speech. Yet, Campian, to use your own words, the matter goeth hard on your side, and maketh very plainly and manifestly for us. For Christ saith plainly that the bread is his body, which cannot be true without a figure, that bread made to eat, should be properly Christs body. And this is that figure which we find so often in the Scriptures, specially when any Sacrament is spoken of. So in Genesis cap. 17. the Lord saith of Circumcisionm This is the covenant betwixt me and ⟨p. 66⟩3you. Yet Circumcision was not the covenant, but the sign of the covenant. Now tell us I pray you, what difference betwixt these two: This is my covenant & this is my body? The former you cannot deny, but must be understood by a Metonymy: and can any man make doubt, but that the latter likewise is to be so expounded. The like we read of the Lamb.4n[…] is the Lords Passover.
But how shal we find out the meaning of this saying? Let vs 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 ⟨p. 65⟩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 andl 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 vs, 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 vs. 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 Circumcisionm This is the couenant betwixt me and ⟨p. 66⟩3you. Yet Circumcision was not the couenant, but the signe of the couenant. Now tell vs 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.
lDVR. He took bread, but he gave not bread to his disciples, but his body. WHIT. pag. 183. Then one body of Christ is made two, one sitting among them, another delivered unto them; yea as many bodies as there were Communicants. And the disciples did receive, chaw, and eat him, whom they saw s•ting with them: but when was the change made? for before he had spoken these operative words, This is my body, he brake it & gave it •o his disciples: either these words make not the change, or he ga•e to his disciples, bread unchanged. 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 Sons, 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 bless is nothing else but to give thanks, as Luke hath it, which was done by words before, not by those, This is my body.DVR. 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 vnto 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,
And yet the Lamb was not the Passover, but a memorial of it: like to this is that of S. Paul. oThe rock was Christ. 2Now as the rock was Christ, so is this mystical bread the body of Christ. Thus as yet you see the matter is never the better on your side; have you any thing else? The Gospel, say you, makes for us, S. Paul accordeth also. Nay S. Paul utterly overthroweth your opinion:3 for when he speaketh of this Sacrament in one continued speech, he useth the wordp bread, four several times, and that after Consecration; so that it appeareth▪•earely to have the proper nature of bread, though it be said to be the body of Christ. But yet you add: The words, the sentences, the whole convection of Scripture, do often most reverently repeat the bread, the wine, a notable miracle, heavenly food, his flesh▪ his body, his blood. In good earnest you discourse of these things with great reverence and shamefastness. For you would prove that in this Sacrament, there remaineth neither bread nor wine, but certain qualities of these things, hanging in the air, and void• of the things themselves. And for any notable miracle, I acknowledge none, but answer you with Austen. They may be honoured as religious things, 5but they ⟨p. 67⟩cannot be wondered at as qmiracles. No man ever denied, but that in the Sacrament heavenly food is both prepared, and offered to all the godly. But those heavenly and holy banquets, whereby our souls are nourished up to eternal life, you make profane and common, when you imagine, that Christ may be received and eaten like other meats, aswell of ther wicked, as of the most devout men in the world; which is an horrible opinion, senseless and unsound. For that you add of flesh, body, and blood, I confess: for being the Sacraments of these things, they have their names given unto them: for signs of things (saith Augustine) are said to be the things of which they are signs. But, say you, here is nothing figurative, nothing obscure by doubtful speeches. True it is there is never a riddle in the words, no obscurity. For the obscurity that is, is not in the words, but in your interpretation of them, which ten Apollos cannot so unfold and open, that things might agree and answer fitly one to another.
And yet the Lamb was not the Passeouer, but a memoriall of it: like to this is that of S. Paul. oThe rocke was Christ. 2Now 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; haue you any thing else? The Gospell, say you, makes for vs, S. Paul accordeth also. Nay S. Paul vtterly ouerthroweth your opinion:3 for when he speaketh of this Sacrament in one continued speech, he vseth the wordp bread, foure seuerall times, and that after Consecration; so that it appeareth▪•earely to haue 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, 5but they ⟨p. 67⟩cannot be wondred at as qminacles. 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 ther 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 haue their names giuen vnto 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.
oDVR. There is no figure in the word Christ, but in rock; for the rock was the sign of Christ. WHIT. pag. 175. Then you acknowledge a Metonymy in the word•, because the rock was the Sacrament of Christ. And if here there be a Trope, then why not in these words of this Sacrament?DVR. 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?
pDVR. S. Paul calleth it so because it was now Christ, who wa• the living bread. WHIT. pag. 188. many of your fellows interpret it far otherwise, yea your sh••t S. Paul overthroweth, 1. Cor. 10.16. The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? Now not Christ was broken but the bread.DVR. 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 vvhich vve breake, is it not the Comunion of the body of Christ? Now not Christ was brokē but the bread.
5De Trinit. lib. 3. c. 10.
qDVR. Augustine speaketh of thes• miracles which are made of a bodily substance, and so are sensible: now no such thing is seen in the Eucharist. WHIT. pag. 191. But if there were a true miracle, it would be sensible, and have the witness of the senses, as all other miracles of the Scriptures have. For thing that are hid (saith Augustine) are not miracles. He writ three books of the miracles of the Scriptures, in which he hath not spoken one word of this miracle. Therefore he knew not the Popish Transubstantiation.
What resteth yet, is it not that at length we find out some certain and true sense of these words? I hope, say you, Antiquity may be heard. I verily in this controversy will reject no Antiquity, no Council, no ancient Father, neither will I refuse any monument of true Antiquity. For that same reverend hoary head of Fathers which you speak of, could never come to the knowledge of this new doctrine of Transubstantiation lately hatched. If those holy Fathers and reverend Elders did now live, they would never acknowledge this monster, nor endure the sight of it, but judge it worthy to be abandoned into the utmost parts of the world. Whereas then you say, They cannot away with that, They say then they are betrayed. ⟨p. 68⟩You trifle and say nothing to the purpose: for we can away well with this trial, and fear no treachery in it. But will call you very willingly to this reverend Antiquity, as to a bar of trial. Therefore if you please we will demand of those reverend Fathers, what they judge to be the meaning of those words, which you have produced for example sake. And seeing there is no necessity to collect all their sayings, some few of them shall speak, to give us a taste of the rest.s Tertullian saith,2 Christ professed his desire to eat the Passover, as his own, and having taken bread, and distributed it to his disciples, he made it his body, by saying▪ this is my body, that is, the figure or sign of my body. You acknowledge both Tertullians words and his meaning.t Augustine saith,4 Christ admitted Judas to that banquet, in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body and blood. In another place also.u The Lord verily doubted not to speak thus. 6This is my body, when he gave the sign of his ⟨p. 69⟩body. And that you may understand, that this was Augustine's perpetual tenor in interpreting of these words, and that he determined far diverse to you touching the eating of Christs flesh: hear what he saith in his books of Christian Instruction, where he giveth divers precepts for the understanding of the phrase of the Scriptures. If, saith he, any sentence there seem to command any impious act, 7or to forbid any duty tending to the profit or good of others, it is a figurative speech; unless, saith Christ, you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you: It seemeth to enjoin an *heinous act.
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. ⟨p. 68⟩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 haue produced for example sake. And seeing there is no necessity to collect all their sayings, some few of them shall speake, to giue vs a tast of the rest.s Tertullian saith,2 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.t Augustine saith,4 Christ admitted Iudas to that banquet, in which he commended to his disciples the figure of his body and blood. In another place also.u The Lord verily doubted not to speake thus. 6This is my body, when he gaue the signe of his ⟨p. 69⟩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,
sDVR. Tertullian speaketh not of that bread, which Christ in his last supper made his body, but of another bread, which was the figure of his body under the law. WHIT. pag. 2•0. The pla•e showeth 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 was betrayed, he took, brake, and gave to his disciples. Tell us where under the law Christ ever said thus, or did thus with any bread? DVR. Bread & wine in the old Testament were Figures of Christs body & blood: therefore in the new 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 from this, that Christ must have in the new Testament a true body & true blood: but it cannot be enforced hereupon, that it must be made of bread & wine. As if because their Sacraments were figures, therefore ours must be transubstantiated into the things themselves. Then will it follow, that because the flood, the •edsea, & the cloud were types of our Baptism, therefore it should not be a figure or a sign, but be turned into th• very blood of Christ.DVR. Tertullian speaketh not of that bread, vvhich Christ in his last supper made his body, but of another bread, vvhich 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 vs where vnder 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 haue 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 Bapisme, therefore it should not be a figure or a signe, but be turned into th very blood of Christ.
It is therefore a figurative speech, commanding us to communicate in the Passion of the Lord. Do you think this reverend old man dotes, or hath he not given a judicious interpretation, well agreeing unto the judgement of the ancient? I think matters yet go worse on your side, then they did before: but perhaps you will say, these are too ancient to serve your turn, hear then some of latter times.1 Theodoret a Grecian and a learned man writeth thus in his Dialogue•xMystical signs do not lose their proper nature. This very speech quite overthroweth your Transubstantiation, for if their proper nature remain, 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 ⟨p. 70⟩join to Theodoret Marcarius; whose homilies Morelius had out of the Kings Library, and hath published them in Greek: and I suppose that you being a Friar, will not reject the testimony of so ancient a Monk: he writeth thus. In the Church, saith he,3 is offered bread and wine, yantitypes 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 Monk to speak after this manner? give you them so slender a name, as similitudes? Pardon me, Campian, this Monk was never used to speak after your manner, neither was your Transubstantiation as yet come abroad? what say you now? are you pleased with this reverend hoar head of the Fathers? If you rest not here, it shall be free for you to appeal to any one of the whole reverend 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 judges, you shall ever have the worst. From henceforth therefore do not cast any such calumni••ions upon us, and boast your self of the bare names of the Fathers; for the Fathers both in this controversy and in many others are firm on our side. As for the Fathers of whom you name many, but I believe have read but a few, I thus answer you. We are not the servants of the Fathers, but the sons. When they prescribe us any thing out of the Law and divine authority, we obey them, as our parents. If they enjoin any thing against the voice of the heavenly truth, we have learned not to hearken to them, but to God.
It is therefore a figuratiue speech, commanding vs 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 vnto 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.1 Theodoret a Gretian and a learned man writeth thus in his Dialogue•xMysticall 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 ⟨p. 70⟩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,3 is offered bread and wine, yantitypes 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? giue 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 haue the worst. From henceforth therefore do not cast any such calumni••ions vpon vs, 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 haue read but a few, I thus answere you. We are not the seruants of the Fathers, but the sonnes. When they prescribe vs 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 haue learned not to harken to them, but to God.
1Theod.
xDVR Theodorets meaning is, that the signs have not lost their natural properties, though their nature be changed. WHIT. pag. 214. If the natural properties remain, then certainly their natures must, for essential properties can never be separated from •heir natures: yea in the words follow ng in this very place, Theodoret affirmeth, that the nature remaineth. The mystical bread, saith he, remaineth in the nature it first had, in the figure, and in the form.DVR Theodorets meaning is, that the signes haue 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.
3Marcar. homil.
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 never 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 heaven, being the substance signified by the Tabernacle and no answering type to the Tabernacle. And in this sense do divers of the Fathers use the word Antitype: as Basil, Nazianzen, Theodoret, Chrysost.DVR. 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.
You as Vassals and base servants receive whatsoever the Fathers say, without judgement or reason, being afraid, as I think, either of the whip, or the halter, if every thing they speak be not Gospel with you.
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 euery thing they speake be not Gospell with you.
In few words, say you, this is their drift, unless thou wilt stand to their own judgement, that are guilty, there is no judgement to be had. Verily this fits you a great deal better then us, for you will receive no judgement but the judgement of the Pope, and Church of Rome; which Church and Pope we have proved long ago to be guilty of most heinous crimes, and there hath been a perpetual variance betwixt him and us. Is there any equity then in your demands that we should stand to his judgement, who […] both a person guilty, and an adversary to us? And well should we deserve to lose the cause, if we would be so witless contenders. Much truer speaketh Augustine, Let one matter encounter with another, 1one cause with another, one reason with another, by the authority of the holy Scriptures, which are not proper to either side, but common zwitnesses for both. And to their judgements would we have you to stand, not ours. As for other things you speak of, I pass them over, for you will reserve them for us till another place; and whereas you say, you have cited many and worthy places of Scripture, we have weighed those places in their balances, and have found them to light to prove what you proposed. And it is your use indeed, rather to take them by number, then by weight. But you charged us with scorning at this and shifting them off, we did nothing less; all we did was to free them from your cavils. We have, say you, alleged the interpretations ⟨p. 72⟩of the Greek and Latin Churches. I confess it, but we have wrung all those weapons from you, and have by them battered all your holds. But say you, what say they then? marry that M. Doctor Martin Luther, or M. Philip Melanchthon, or certainly M. Zuinglius, or without doubt M. Calvin, and M. Beza, have faithfully entreated upon those matters. Tell us, Friar, what should hinder, why every one of these you have nominated, may not as faithfully entreat of th•se things, as those who have lived before them in ages past? what wanted they, which the other had? what skill of art, what knowledge of the tongues, what other helps? there is not any one of these, but hath far surpassed in learning, and all deserved commendation, the whole society of Jesuits.
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 vs, for you will receiue no iudgement but the iudgement of the Pope, and Church of Rome; which Church and Pope wee haue proued long agoe to be guilty of most heynous crimes, and there hath been a perpetuall variance betwixt him and vs. Is there any equity then in your demaunds that we should stand to his iudgement, who 〈…〉 both a person guilty, and an aduersarie to vs? 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, 1one cause with another, one reason with another, by the authoritie of the holy Scriptures, which are not proper to either side, but common zwitnesses for both. And to their iudgements would we haue you to stand, not ours. As for other things you speake of, I passe them ouer, for you will reserue them for vs till another place; and wheras you say, you haue cited many and worthy places of Scripture, we haue weighed those places in their ballances, and haue 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 vs with scorning at this and shifting them off, we did nothing lesse; all we did was to free them from your cauils. We haue, say you, alledged the interpretations ⟨p. 72⟩of the Greeke and Latin Churches. I confesse it, but we haue wrung all those weapons from you, and haue 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, haue faithfully intreated vpon those matters. Tell vs, Frier, what should hinder, why euery one of these you haue nominated, may not as faithfully intreate of th•se things, as those who haue 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.
1Contra Maxim. lib. 3. c. 14.
zDVR. How foolishly do you allege Augustine, who maketh the Scripture a witness of the truth, not a judge, as you would have it. WHIT. pag. 243. If the Scripture be the witness, where shall we find a judge answerable to this witness? Is it the Church? Then must it be of more authority then the Scripture, which here you affirm not, neither may it be gram ted; for the Scripture is the word of God, therefore he that is the judge of it, must be the judge of God himself. To deny the Scriptures then the preeminence in judging, is to thrust God out of his throne Therefore as God, so the Scripture the word of God, hath the authority both of a witness and a judge. DVR. Augustine ever thought, that the Popes judgement was the highest tribunal upon earth, where all controversies must be decided. WHIT. pag. 244. Augustine never thought so, but writ the contrary De civitat Dei lib. 15. •ap. 3. The Lord, saith he, hath penned the Scripture, which is called Canonical, because it is of highest authority, yea he never once pressed the Arians, either with the authority of the Pope, or of the Councell, which undoubtedly he would have done, neither could he have done better, if the highest judgement had been in the Church.DVR. How foolishly do you alledge Augustine, who maketh the Scripture a witnes of the truth, not a iudge, as you would haue 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 haue done, neither could he haue done better, if the highest iudgement had been in the Church.
But why do I compare these burning lights, bright stars of piety and religion, with the base scum of your Doctors? and this now is another of your reasons, why you were so desirous to have audience in the University Schools. If you be, Campian, so desirous, as you would make the world believe, I marvel why you are so long a coming: for our schools were ever open for you, but you could never find the way into them. If you hereafter come, you shall find many in our schools, that will encounter with you in all kind of learning. And here you end your discourse of the right sense of the Scriptures.
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 haue 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.
SO soon as the Adversary heard the Church named, he waxed wan: yet notwithstanding he hath devised one thing, which I would wish you to note well; that thereby you may perceive, the ruin and hard shifts of falsehood. The enemy perceived that both in thea old and newb Testament, there is every where* honourable mention made of the Church, and that it is called a holy city, a fruitful vineyard, an high hill, a direct path, the only dove, the kingdom of heaven, the spouse and body of Christ, the pillar of truth, the multitude unto which the holy Ghost being promised, poureth all things needful to salvation. The congregation, against all which the gates of hell shall never so prevail, that they shall utterly extinguish the same. The congregation, which who so repugneth, though he confess Christ with his mouth, yet hath he no more to do with Christ, then hath a Publican and heathen man. He durst not say any thing against this openly, neither would he seem to gain-say that Church, whereof the Scriptures so often make mention. He kept craftily still, the name of the Church, but the thing it self by describing it, he* took quite away. For he hath portrayed the Church with such properties as do altogether hide it and make it, as if it were Plato his Idea;c unapt to be seen with the senses, but subject to the privy insight and speculation of a very few men, such only as by special inspiration, might in their imagination comprehend this airy body, and could likewise with a sharp eye discern ⟨p. 74⟩such as are members of this chosen society, what is become of truth? where is plain dealing? what Scriptures? what just judgments, what Fathers describe the Church in this sort?* There are Epistles in the Apocalypse of S. John written byd Christ himself to the seven Churches which were in Asia. There are also diverse Epistles written by S. Peter, S. Paul, S. John. and by others unto sundry Churches. In the Acts of the Apostles, we find mention made of many Churches begun and enlarged: what were those? were they known to God only, and to his Saints, or also to all sorts of Christians? But truly necessity is a deadly dart; pardon them:
SO soone as the Aduersarie heard the Church named, hee waxed wanne: yet notwithstanding hee hath deuised one thing, which I would wish you to note well; that thereby you may perceiue, the ruine and hard shifts of falsehood. The enemie perceiued that both in thea old and newb Testament, there is euery where* honorable mention made of the Church, and that it is called a holy citie, a fruitfull vineyard, an high hill, a direct path, the only doue, the kingdome of heauen, the spouse and bodie of Christ, the pillar of truth, the multitude vnto which the holy Ghost being promised, powreth all things needfull to saluatiō. The congregation, against all which the gates of hell shall neuer so preuaile, that they shall vtterlie extinguish the same. The congregation, which who so repugneth, though he confesse Christ with his mouth, yet hath he no more to doe with Christ, then hath a Publican and heathen man. He durst not say any thing against this openly, neither would hee seeme to gain-say that Church, whereof the Scriptures so often make mention. He kept craftily still, the name of the Church, but the thing it self by describing it, he* took quite away. For he hath portraied the Church with such properties as doe altogether hide it and make it, as if it were Plato his Idea;c vnapt to be seene with the senses, but subiect to the priuy insight and speculation of a very few men, such onely as by speciall inspiration, might in their imagination comprehend this arrie bodie, and could likewise with a sharpe eye discerne ⟨p. 74⟩such as are members of this chosen societie, what is become of truth? where is plaine dealing? what Scriptures? what iust iudgmentes, what Fathers describe the Church in this sorte?* There are Epistles in the Apocalyppes of S. Iohn written byd Christ himselfe to the seauen Churches which were in Asia. There are also diuerse Epistles written by S. Peter, S. Paul, S. Iohn. and by others vnto sundry Churches. In the Actes of the Apostles, we finde mention made of many Churches begun and enlarged: what were those? were they knowne to God onelie, and to his Saintes, or also to all sortes of Christians? But truly necessitie is a deadly dart; pardon them:
*The scripture maketh honourable mention of the Church, therefore the Roman Church is that true Church of Christ, of which the Scripture speaketh so •• ten.The scripture maketh honorable mention of the Church, therefore the Romane Church is that true Church of Christ, of which the Scripture speaketh so •• ten.
*This is false, for your definition maketh a true Church
for they that all these* 1500 years cannot spy out so much, as one time, one village, one house embrued with their doctrine, until that unhappye Monk by his incestuous marriage had deflowered a Nun, dedicated to God by former solemn vow: or until that quarrelling Switzerf had conspired against his country: or until that infamous runagateg had undertaken an usurped authority in Geneva. If they will have any Church at all, they must needs fetch the same out of blind corners, and challenge those for their ancestors, whom they neither knew themselves, neither any mortal man hath seen, except they brag of such forefathers, who were manifest heretics, as Aerius, Jovinianus, 5Heluidius, Vigillantius, the Image breakers, Berengarius, Waldensis, Lothardus, Wycliffe, Huss, of all which they have begged some pieces of their devilish doctrine. Marvel not though I have not feared these smothers, which if I shall once come to the clear light, I shall easily expel. For this is our speech together. Tell me, dost thou believe as the Church doth, which flourished these many hundred years past? Yea verily: let us therefore discourse of our countries and times; what Church dost thou believe? The congregation of the faithful, whose names are unknown, but it is apparent that many such have been: Is it apparent that ⟨p. 75⟩many such have been. To whom it is apparent? To God; who saith so? we that have received our doctrine from God himself. This is a loud lie, how may I believe it? If thou were fervent in faith, thou should know this as assuredly, as thou dost that thou art alive: Can you refrain laughing when you hear such foolish answers? All Christian people are commanded to cleave fast unto the Church, they are warned to take heed, lest they be slain with the spiritual sword: they are bid keep peace in the house of God: to commit their souls in trust unto this pillar of truth, there to make all their complaints to take for heathen all such as are cast out of this Church: and yet all that, have so many men, so many hundred years, been ignorant, where that Church is, or who belong unto it; will they in darkness still stand upon that point? that where or in what place soever the Church is, there are contained therein, only saints, and such as are predestinate to go to heaven:
for they that all these* 1500 yeeres cannot spie out so much, as one time, one village, one house embrued with their doctrine, vntill that vnhappiee Moncke by his incestuous marriage had destoured a Nunne, dedicated to God by former solemne vowe: or vntill that quarrelling Swizerf had conspired against his countrie: or vntill that infamous runagateg had vndertaken an vsurped authoritie in Geneua. If they will haue any Church at all, they must needes fetch the same out of blind corners, and challenge those for their ancestors, whom they neither knew themselues, neither any mortall man hath seene, except they brage of such forefathers, who were manifest heretiques, as Aerius, Iouinianus, 5Heluidius, Vigillantius, the Image breakers, Berengarius, Waldensis, Lothardus, Wyclife, Husse, of all which they haue begged some peices of their diuelish doctrine. Maruaile not though I haue not feared these smoders, which if I shall once come to the cleare light, I shall easily expell. For this is our speech together. Tell me, dost thou beleeue as the Church doth, which flourished these many hundred yeeres past? Yea verilie: let vs therefore discourse of our countries and times; what Church dost thou beleeue? The congregation of the faithfull, whosenames are vnknowne, but it is apparant that many such haue been: Is it apparant that ⟨p. 75⟩manie such haue been. To whom it is apparant? To God; who saith so? we that haue receiued our doctrine from God himselfe. This is a loude lie, how may I beleeue it? If thou were feruent in faith, thou should know this as assuredlie, as thou dost that thou art aliue: Can you refraine laughing when you heare such foolish answers? All Christian people are commannded to cleaue fast vnto the Church, they are warned to take heed, lest they be slaine with the spirituall sword: they are bid keepe peace in the house of God: to commit their soules in trust vnto this pillar of truth, there to make all their complaints to take for heathen all such as are cast out of this Church: and yet all that, haue so many men, so manie hundred yeeres, been ignorant, where that Church is, or who belong vnto it; will they in darkenesse still stand vpon that point? that where or in what place soeuer the Church is, there are contained therein, onely saints, and such as are predestinate to goe to heauen:
*This is false, our doctrine hath been derived from Christ himself unto us, by the faithful of all ages.This is false, our doctrine hath been deriued from Christ himselfe vnto vs, by the faithfull of all ages.
DV•. The Fathers and Antiquity haue euer made these foure senses of the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 163. To faine such foure senses in euery 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 haue 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?
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.
. was their blessing without profit, because they changed not their natures and substance? Besides to blesse is nothing else but to giue thankes, as Luke hath it, which was done by words before, not by those, This is my body.
mDV•. This is neither here, nor any where else to be found in the Scriptures. WHIT. pag. 173. Ma•ke well. This is my covenant which you shall keep, that every manchild be circumcised: what I pray you is, This, but that every manchild be circumcised, and •o you have it in this place directly: but see, Gen. 17.13. My covenant shall be in your flesh, what is this but circumcision? read Act. 7.8. DVR. This, signifieth not circumcision, but agreement or covenant betwixt God a•d Abraham touching circumcision. WHIT. That agreement, was it the covenant or not? •f it was, then see what a goodly sentence you have made, This my covenant is my covenant. But if it was not: thē you must needs acknowledge a Metonymy; that is, that the name of th• thing is given to the sign, howsoever then it must be understood by a figure.DV•. 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 euery manchild be circumcised: what I pray you is, This, but that euery manchild be circumcised, and •o you haue 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 haue 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.
nDVR. These words are not to be found there. WHIT. pag. 174. Observe the words. Thus shall you eat it, for it is the Lords Passover. That which was to be eaten is called the Lords Passover. Now they we•e commanded to eat the Lamb, read Exod 12. verse 27.DVR. 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.
•
DVR. 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 haue the witnesse of the senses, as all oth•r miracles of the Scriptures haue. 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.
rDVR. Not we, but the Scripture, the Fathers, and reason it self doth affirm it, but specially S. Paul. 1. Cor. 11.27. Whosoever eateth this bread. WHIT. pag▪ 195. None of these affirm it, and least of all S. Paul; for he saith not, whosoever eateth the body of Christ, but whosoever eateth this bread.DVR. 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.
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 haue no life in you: It seemeth to inioyne an
tDVR Augustine signifieth the Sacrament by the name of figure. WHIT pag 204. It is true, Christ gave the Sacrament to his disciples▪ but Augustine useth not the word Sacrament, but figure: to show that as no figure or sign is the thing whereof it is a fi u•e: so the bread is not properly the body, nor the w•ne the blood of Christ.DVR 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.
uDVR Augustine disputeth in this p•ace against the Manichees, carping at Moses words. The blood is the soul of the beast. And saith, it is so spoke, as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is called his body, the blood is called the soul, because it is as the sign of the soul, which lieth hid in the blood, as the Sacramet is the sign of the body of Christ, which is contained in it WH T pag. 206. Nay I infer the contrary as the soul is not the blood, when it is o•• of the veins, & may be eaten; so Christ is not in the Sacrament. And as the blood is the sign of the soul, which is not in it: so is the Sacrament of the body which is not contained in it.DVR 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, vvhich 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.
6Contra. Adimant. cap. 12.
7De doctr. Christ. lib. 3. cap. 16.
*DVR Augustine did not think that it was an heinous thing, to eat the flesh of Christ, but to cate […] (as the Capernites thought) that is, torn and rent in pieces. WHIT. pag. 209. You answer 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 chopped in pieces, as the Capernites affirm. And if it be an horrible fact to eat the small parts of Christs bo•ie, is it not a more beastly & bloody thing to devour the whole body of Christ at one mor•el•? DVR. It is no more heinous for a Christian to eat the flesh of Christ whole, then it was for the blessed Virgin to conceive & to nourish it in her womb. WHIT. pag. 211. What is this, but as if you had said, It is no heinous thing to conceive and bring forth an Infant: Therefore it is none to devour it after it is borne.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.
*
Particular Churches are visible: therefore the Catholic Church is visible.Particular Churches are visible: therefore the Catholik Church is visible.
