Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 7 · Chapter 8 – Chapter 10
CAP. VIII.
Sander.
Whether the Catholikes or Sacramentaries expound more vnproperly or inconueniently, ye wordes belonging to Christes supper.
Harding.
Because these places report, that Christ gaue at his supper his verie bodie, the fathers saye, it is really in the Sacrament.
Iewell.
A thing is taken to make proofe, which is doubtfll, and the antecedent is vnproued.
Sander.
Said not Christ, take, eate, this is my bodie?
Fulke.
This prooueth not, that he gaue it in your sense. But where do the fathers say, it is really present in the Sacrament?
Iewell.
The fathers call the Sacrament a figure, a token, a signe, an image, &c. Therefore Christes wordes may be taken with a metaphor, trope, or figure.
Sander.
It standeth wel togither to be a signe & the trueth: As Christ is the image of God, & yet God also.
Fulke.
It is impossible to be a signe & the thing signified. Neither is Christ God the Father, of whome hee is the image, although he be God.
Iewell.
Euen Duns sawe, that following the bare letter, we must needs say, yt the bread it self is Christs bodie.
Sander.
The place is not quoted, therfore it is doubtful: for no man beleeueth you.
Fulke.
Looke in the fourth booke vponupon the sentences. The same affirmeth O…kam, Quodlibet 4. quest. 30. Contrariū illius non habetur ex canone Bibliae. &c. The contrary of that opinion, that bread should remaine, is not had out of the canon of the Bible, &c.
Iewell.
So the wordes stand, This (BREAD) is my body. Sander. where stand they so? in your gospel, but not in ours.
Fulke.
A foolish cauill the word, bread, is added for explicatiō, & by parenthesis shewed not to be of ye text.
Iewell.
They say (this) meant not bread, but one certeine thing in generall.
Sander.
I hauehave shewed how it is taken, lib. 4. Ca. 4. 5. & 6. Neither doth it signifie in generall, but that which is conteined vnderunder the forme of bread.
Fulke.
Who could tell, that you woulde renounce indiuidium vagum? and what is conteined but bread, before ye words of consecration be all spoken? Iewel. Est, they expounde, erit, it shalbe. Sander. you delight in falshod. Christ chose this word est, because it signifieth a most present being of a thing: for God worketh in a moment.
Fulke.
Then the wordes make not the bodie of Christ, as all other Papistes saye. For the wordes cannot be vttered in a moment.
Iewell.
Erit, they expounde the substance of this vncerteine generall, one thing that shal be changed.
Sander.
These interpretations be false.
Fulke.
They be the interpretations of all Papists except Sander, who also sayth, That which was bread before he spake, was his bodie at the ende of his speache. But what was it in the meane time, while he was in speaking, and saide, est it is?
Iewell.
It is giuen, they expounde, it shalbe giuen.
Sander.
We expound it of ye present vnblody sacrifice.
Fulke.
Harding, against whom master Iewel writeth, expoundeth it of the passion. Neither can it be both, as you say, but is in deede meant of the passion onelyonly, but yet figuratiuely: seeing Christ said of his bloud which is shed, which cannot be vnderstood of your vnbloudie sacrifice, nor of ye bloudy sacrifice of Christ, wtout a figure.
Iewell.
Do ye this, ye expound, sacrifice ye this.
Sander.
Nay sir, we controll your false translation: for Hoc facite is make this my bodie. Of the making of the sacrificed substance, I hauehave spoken. li. 4. Cap. 13.
Fulke.
Sander controlleth the greatest Papistes that euer were before him, in his newfound translation.
Iewell.
This bread, they expound, this yt was bread.
Sander.
You should name the place.
Fulke.
A weake answere: the place is 1. Cor. 11.
Iewell.
These verbs: He tooke, he blessed, he brake, he gaue, stande togither and rule one case.
Sander.
They stand together in order of writing, but not in order of doing.
Fulke.
They rule a case, according to the order of writing, and not after the order of doing.
Sander.
If the words of consecration were spoken before the breaking, what wonder ye, if the thing yt was taken, being changed, we change ye construction of verbes?
Fulke.
If the holy ghost hauehave set it downe otherwise, you shall hauehave much to doe to prooue it: if any thing be chaunged, you must giuegive vsus another accusatiue case, then panem, and not chaunge the construction of verbes.
Iewell.
He tooke bread, he blessed it away.
Sand.
He changed it into a better thing.
Fulke.
By blessing? or by saying, This is my bodie?
Sand.
God blesse me from such a man, who scoffeth at the holy mysteries.
Fulke.
Nay, he derideth your bald interpretations.
Iewell.
He brake the Accidents.
Sand.
That is true.
Fulke.
Accidents cannot be broken, except the substance whereof they be accidents, be broken.
Iewell.
He gaue his bodie.
Sand.
We beleeue it to be a meeter gift, then to giuegive common bread.
Fulke.
Who saith he gaue common bread?
Iewell.
VponUpon these fewe words of Christ, thus manie figures and moe, they hauehave imagined.
Sand.
They be not all the words of Christ, but some are the words of the Euangelists. The words of Christ are all proper, but you hauehave many moe figures and absurdities.
Fulke.
They be all the words of God, and if ye words of Christ be all proper, what neede so vnproper expositions of them? But now let vsus heare no lesse thē 41. figures and absurdities, maintained by Protestants.
Sand.
First, you ioyne together, this bread.
Fulke.
In translation wee doe not, but in sense we may, when Saint Paul saith of that which is the bodie of Christ, this breade.
Sand.
2. You hauehave done it against the Gospel, for Hoc is the newter gender, panis the masculine.
Fulke.
We hauehave not done it against the Epistle, following saint Paul, who I hope, was no enimie of the Gospell.
Sand.
3 You hauehave irerated the same fault, in ioyning hic to vinum.
Fulke.
We ioyne it none otherwise then Saint Paul ioyned, This cuppe.
Sand.
4. You hauehave deuided the pronowne hoc from the bodie and bloude, with which substantiues onelyonly it may agree.
Fulke.
Hoc is an adiectiue in the newter gender taken substantiuely.
Sand.
5. You expounde the pronowne, sometime for breade, sometime for bodie, as when you make the laying to be words of promise.
Fulke.
It is still bread: for Christ promiseth by that sacrament of bread, to giuegive his bodie.
Sander.
6. You expounde est for significat, when it standeth not betweene two seuerall natures.
Fulke.
The body of Christ and bread which is demonstrated by hoc, are two seuerall natures.
Sand.
7. You take ye same verbe est properly referring i… to the bodie of Christ, which in euerie mans heart you consecrate by preaching these words, This is my body, as Caluine teacheth.
Fulke.
You belye Caluine, and prate you wot not what. The verbe changeth not his signification, for the breade signifieth Christ, which is spiritually giuen to vsus.
Sand.
8. Some other will hauehave the verbe est to stand properly, and the breade to be a signe.
Fulke.
A fond cauill, all commeth to one reckoning, the bread, is a signe, and the bread signifieth.
Sand.
9. In the words of the cuppe, in Saint Luke ye supplie the verbe est, and then cast it out againe as superfluous.
Fulke.
A lewde cauill, answered lib. 4. circumstance 26.
Sander.
10 The nowne body you take properly, when you take est for significat: and 11. vnproperly, when est is taken properly.
Fulke.
Childish trifling, where matter is all one. see lib. 4. Circumst. 18.
Sand.
12 You expound ye relatiue quod which, so as it cannot agree with the antecedēt, & the verbe following.
Fulke.
Boyes play, answered lib. 4. circumst. 18.
Sand.
13 Datur, you expounde dabitur.
Fulke.
So doth Harding, and so it must be, as I hauehave shewed in this chapter.
Sand.
14 You expounde facere to doe onelyonly, and not to make.
Fulke.
One verbe can hauehave but one signification at one time.
Sand.
15 You expounde hoc for hic or ita in your homilye, doe thus.
Fulke.
Take your action against the Printer.
Sand.
16 In mean commemorationem, you english, in the remembrance of me, which should be, for the remembrance of me.
Fulke.
A knot in a rush.
Sand.
17 When you hauehave expounded est for significat, in the consecration of the bloud, hic remaineth without a substantiue.
Fulke.
A bable, answered lib. 4. circumst. 23.
Sand.
18 In these words, this cuppe is the new testament in my bloude, you take the nowne bloud for the signe of bloud, and so the new testament established by the figure of bloud.
Fulke.
Ye fable, we take it properly, and these words to bee a true exposition of these wordes, This is my bloude.
Sand.
19 If you take bloud properly in these words, it must also be proper in these, This is my bloud.
Fulke.
That followeth not.
Sand.
20 The construction of these words, This cup is shed for you, prooueth that which is in the cuppe to be shed, which you say is wine.
Fulke.
This cauil is answered lib. 4. circumst. 26. & 27.
Sand.
21 In Christs words: The breade which I will giuegive is my flesh, you expounde I hauehave giuen, and I doe giuegive.
Fulke.
Yea, I will giuegive, as I hauehave done, and doe.
Sand.
22 In Saint Paul (The breade which wee breake, is the communicating &c.) you expounde signifieth the communicating. As though the Iewes figures, did not the same, and yet there S. Paul distincteth our sacraments from theirs.
Fulke.
And how can bread be the communicating of the bodie of Christ, but as the Iewes Sacramentes were the same? Saint Paul sheweth what our sacraments hauehave like with theirs, & the ceremonies of the Gentiles also, & not what difference there is. You are wel studied in Saint Paul.
Sand.
23. The cuppe of blessing, you wil hauehave to be a cuppe of wine, as though ye blessing wrought nothing in it.
Fulke.
As though blessing can worke nothing but transubstantiation.
Sand.
24. You make Christ giuegive thankes to his father, in beginning the state of the new testament, in better words then deede, for his words are, This is my body, yet you will hauehave him to offer no bodie at all to his father in that thanksgiuing.
Fulke.
Where learned you that the beginning of the state of the newe testament, was at the institution of the supper? Belike baptisme pertained not to the state of the newe testament. Secondly, howe prooue you that, This is my bodie, are words of thanksgiuing or oblation to god?
Sand.
25. You teach Christ to be an instituter of shadowes, and to giuegive to our mouthes, lesse then Moses, for Manna was better then common breade.
Fulke.
Sacraments be no shadows: Neither did Moses giuegive Manna, but God for ought that I knowe. And it is most conuenient, that the signes of the new testament, should be lesse glorious then of the old, because the doctrine is more cleare.
Sand.
26. Ye expound to be guiltie of Christs bodie and bloud for eating, that is to say, for not eating or refusing to eate. For you teach euil men not to eat the bodie of Christ.
Fulke.
For wee expounde guiltie for eating, to bee guiltie for eating the Sacrament vnworthily, that is in some vnreuerently or negligently, in some contēptuously refusing that Christ doth offer thereby.
Sand.
27. You will not hauehave Christes supper to bee an externall sacrifice, and to be worse then Iewish and Idolaters altars and tables, who both did sacrifice, and S. Paul compareth Christes table with theirs.
Fulk
We will hauehave no more sacrifices, but the onelyonly and once offered sacrifice of Christes death for our redemption. The repetition of sacrifice, sheweth an imperfection in it, and not a betternes. Saint Paul compareth Christes table with the altar & table of diuels, not in sacrifice, but in causing the partakers to communicate with their altars, & tables, which sheweth what the communicating of Christes table is, and ouerthroweth your carnall presence.
Sand.
28. You expounde the shewing of Christes death by a figure, whereby you shew him not to be truly deade.
Fulk.
You shewe it by eating him aliue, whereby there is no argument of his death. We shewe it by preaching ioyned to the visible element, without which it is lame, dead, and vnperfect.
Sand.
29 Ye expounde the not making difference, &c. in such sort, that hee will not hauehave the bodie present wherein difference is to be made.
Fulk.
As though difference of the kings person and authoritie can not be made but in the kings presence.
Sand.
30 Ye denie our vnion with Christes fleshe, by corporall participation, which S. Paul teacheth by example of Adam and Eue being two in one flesh.
Fulk.
Our corporall participation, is by his incarnation, which is applied vntounto vsus by faith, through his spirite vniting vsus vntounto him, and testifyed in the supper.
Sand.
31 Whereas Christ is so much more excellent then Angels, by howe much he hath a more excellent name, you regarde not the name bodie and blood giuen to the mysteries, but affirme them to bee as they were before &c.
Fulk.
The Apostle reasoneth not because Christ hath a better name, but because he hath it by inheritance, for else the Angels are named the sonnes of God, and princes are called Gods. You hauehave not sought Christ in the scriptures, but the confirmation of your heresie. Againe, we so much regarde the name of bodie and bloode giuen to the mysteries, that wee beleeue them to bee the same, that they are called after a spirituall manner, although they hauehave not yt name by inheritance but by grace, affirming in the elementes, a greate alteration from that they were before, not in substance, but in vse and effecte.
Sand.
32 No promise in the scriptures, can be found made to him, that eateth and drinketh materiall breade and wine, but to him that receiueth the bodie and blood of Christ. Therefore you affirme breade to bee eaten and wine to be dronken in the supper, beside the worde of God.
Fulk.
The promise is made in scripture, to him that eateth and drinketh bread and wine according to Christs institution, although not for eating bread and drinking wine onelyonly. This reason would prooue that water is vsed without the worde of God in baptisme, because no promise is made to him that is washed in water, but to him that is washed according to Christes institution.
Sand.
33 Although Dauid prophecied of eating and adoring, you will graunt no meate to bee externally adored.
Fulk.
Dauid neuer prophesied of adoring the sacrament.
Sand.
34 Notwithstanding the Prophets teach, that all externall idolatrie is taken awaye by the comming of Christ, you say idolatry is committed in worshipping the sacrament.
Fulk.
The Prophetes teach not that idolatrie externall, shall be taken away by the comming of Christ, but among true Christians, which do renounce all worshipping of idols.
Sand.
35 Christ came to saue & feed the whole man… why deny you the foode of life to our bodies?
Fulk.
We affirme, that Christ feedeth bodie & soule vntounto eternall life, without the sacrament, and with it, although the foode of life be not receaued at the mouth like other meates, nor swallowed and disgested as they are.
Sand.
36 If in the supper we seede on Christ by faith alone, why is it called a supper, more then baptisme, where also wee must feede on Christ by faith?
Fulke.
Because it is the proper sacrament of our spirituall feeding, like as baptisme is of our regeneration, and yet the bloode of Christ doeth clense our sinnes in the supper, as we eate the body of Christ in baptisme.
Sand.
37 Seeing a figure may be the trueth it selfe, whereof it is a figure, why shoulde you rather detracte this honor from Christs sacrament, then giuegive the same vntounto it?
Fulk.
A figure can neuer be yt which it figureth in ye same respect: As Christ is the figure of his father, so is he not his father, as he is the figure of his fathers substance, so is he not his fathers substance, but consubstantiall with his father; for though hee be the same essence, yet hee is an other person: beside that we may not say the sacramentes are all that they may bee, but that which God will hauehave them to be. You may demaunde the like reason of Baptisme, why ye water is not the blood of Christ but a figure of it.
Sand.
38 Christ being equall with his father, made promise of the same fleshe which his father had giuen. Why deny you the gift of Christ to be as reall as his father gaue him reall flesh?
Fulk.
We deny not, but he hath giuen the same real fleshe, although not to be present really in the Sacrament.
Sand.
39 How teach you the wordes of Christ which are spirite and life, to be notwithstanding figuratiue, & consequentlie deade and voide of all life and strength?
Fulk.
Howe dare you affirme, any of Christes words, of which many are figuratiue, to be deade and voyde of life and strength? Are not those figuratiue wordes, I am the bread that came downe from heauen: This cup is the newe testament?
Sand.
40 Because the worde of God would be meate of man in respect of the body, hee tooke fleshe and said, Take eate, &c: yet you make him stil to be the meate of the minde, whereby we are excluded from hauing God corporally in vsus, through the flesh of Christ.
Fulk.
The worde became not fleshe, either onelyonly or principally to be giuen in the sacrament: but he could not hauehave beene meat, vntounto man, except hee had taken fleshe, which fleshe he communicateth vntounto vsus, through his spirit by faith, to feedboth body and minde, yet not to be receiued into the body, as bodily meats, but being receiued of the minde, to nourishe the whole man.
Sand.
41 To conclude, whereas ye finde flesh, body, bloode, ioyned with eating, drinking, taking, partaking, giuing, breaking, distributing, communicating, dijudicating, ye expounde al these words figuratiuely. As though God by so often repeting had not strengthened the common and proper signification of them.
Fulk.
You say vntruely of all these wordes, & wheras you finde bread, cup, the fruit of the vine, so often repeted, you vnderstand all figuratinely to maintaine your grosse vnderstanding, or rather your gainefull idolatrie, for which you care not to erre against grammar, rhetorike Logike, Philosophie, diuinitie, faith, trueth, nature, sense, knowledge, and conscience.
Iew.
If in these wordes, Except ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man, ye followe the letter, it killeth. Origen Hom. 7. in Leuit.
Sand.
He that taketh them as Christ by his fact did expound them, doeth followe the spirite and not the letter.
Fulk.
Yee assume for granted, that which is all the controuersie. It is not onelyonly the letter, to vnderstande the words of eating by peece meale, but of eating his fleshe by mouth carnally, as other meates are eaten, although couered from the eyes and tast, as men eate pils wrapped in a wafer cake.
CAP. IX.
Sand.
A notable place of S. Augustine corrupted by master Iewel.
Iew.
Saint Augustine saith, the sacrament of Christs body, after a certaine phrase or maner, or trope or figure of speaking, is the body of Christ.
Sand.
Secundum quēdam modum, is not meant after a certaine manner of tropicall or figuratiue speach, but in the sacrament, in the thing it self, in the substance thereof, wherin the likenes is and not in the forme.
Fulk.
Saint Augustines words being set downe more at large, then Sander citeth them, who leaueth out the foremost part, let the reader iudge, whether he meane of a manner of speach which is figuratiue and tropicall, or of a manner of being which is significatiue. Ep. 23. Bonifacio, Nempe saepè ita loquimur &c. Verily, oftentimes wee SPEAKE so, that wee SAIE Easter drawing neere, to morowe or the next day is the passion of our Lorde, whereas he hath suffered so many yeeres past, and that passion was promised but once in all. Verily, on the sonday it selfe, we SAIE this day our Lorde arose againe, notwithstanding there are so many yeres since he arose. Why, is no man so foolish to reproue vsus so SPEAKING as if wee had lyed? but because wee CALL these dayes according to the similitude of the dayes, in which those thinges were done, that it is SAIDE, the day it selfe, which is not the day it selfe, but in reuolution of time like it: that it is SAIDE to be done on yt daye, because of the celebration of the sacrament (or mysterie) which was not done that day, but long before. Was not Christ once offered in himselfe, and yet in a sacrament? not onelyonly at euerie solemnitie of Easter, but euerie day he is offered for the people. Neither surely doth he lie, who being demanded, shall answere, that he is offered. For if the sacraments had not a certayne likenes of those thinges, whereof they are sacraments, they were not at all sacramentes. Out of this likenes also, for the most part they take their names. Therefore as after a certaine maner ye sacrament of the body of Christ is the bodie of Christ, the sacrament of the bloode of Christ is the bloode of Christ so the sacrament of faith is faith. The whole discourse being of phrases and manners of speech, that are figuratiue, and this example of the Lordes supper being brought as one of them: iudge whether S. Augustine … corrupted by master Iewel. Euen the Canon law writen (as it should seeme) before the heresie of carnal presence preuailed, doth so vnderstande this place of Augustine. de Con. Dist. 2. ca. Hoc est. Sicut ergo coelestis panis, &c. Therfore as the heauenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, (yt is, saith the glosse, the heauenly sacrament which truely representeth the flesh of Christ) after his maner, is called the bodie of Christ (the sense is, saith the glosse, it is called, that is, it fignifieth the bodie of Christ) whereas indeed it is the sacrament of the body of Christ, namely of that body which being visible; which being palpable was put on the crosse, and the verie immolation of his flesh which is done by the handes of the priest, is called the passion, death, crucifying of Christ, not in the trueth of the thing, but in a signifying mysterie: so the sacrament of faith, which is vnderstod to be baptisme, is faith. Let this exposition of Augustine be conferred with that which Sander maketh, & …ee which is more Catholike.
CAP. X.
Sand.
The signification of aduerbes discussed.
Hard.
By these words really, substantially, &c. The fathers meant only a trueth of being and not a meane of being after carnall, or naturall wise.
Iew.
All aduerbs taken of nownes, signifie euermore a qualitie, and neuer the substance.
Sand.
An aduerbe hath his name, because it is ioined to the verb, and it doth make plaine and fill vp the signification thereof, which if it signifie a substance, the aduerbe doth make it to signifie the same substance more perfectly. As, Your God is verily the God of Gods. This man was verily the sonne of God.
Fulk.
The aduerb verily toucheth not the substance, but the maner of trueth, which is a qualitie.
Sand.
Christ walked corporally vponupon the water, that is, in trueth of a mans body, but not in any such accustomed maner, as other mens bodyes are wont to walke.
Fulk.
Yes verily, he walked vponupon ye water, as other men walked on the drie lande, giuing strength to the water to beare him, not changing the nature of his body otherwise then the nature of Peters body was changed, who walked likewise on the water.
Sand.
The maner of the walking, did exceede the maner of a meere naturall bodie.
Fulk.
Thē belike Peter had not a meere natural body.
Hard.
When the fathers teach Christ to be in vsus carnally, corporally, or naturally, (for al these termes, Saint Hilarie, and S. Cyril hauehave) then they meane, that Christ is in vsus, by the true substance of his flesh, and not in such maner, as common flesh is wont to be any where.
Iewel.
The fathers meane, that Christ is in vsus after a corporall, carnall, and naturall manner, and not in substance.
Fulke.
Yea after some kinde of corporall &c. manner, that is truely, soundly, and not shadowedly, effectually, &c. not after eueryevery corporall, carnall, or naturall manner.
Sand.
The qualities of the body and blood of Christ cannot be in vsus without the substance of his bodie and bloode.
Fulke.
But the general qualities of a bodie, of flesh, &c. may be in vsus, as in their subiect, without the proper subiect of Christes bodie and blood.
Sand.
S. Hilarie saith: Christ hath the father in him, according to the spirit naturally. Hath Christ a qualitie, and not the whole true substance?
Fulk.
The question is not what he hath, but what he hath by force of the aduerbe naturally, which is not of force to giuegive him the whole substance, but signifie yt hee hath it after the manner of nature, which is truely.
Sand.
Hilarie saith, he tarieth in vsus naturally.
Fulk.
That is truly, which is some maner of naturall being.
Sand.
He saith further: he is in vsus himselfe by flesh.
Fulk.
Which he tooke of vsus, and doth againe giuegive vntounto vsus.
Sand.
And againe, Naturally, according to the flesh, we liue by him, that is to say, wee hauehave obteined the nature of his flesh.
Fulk.
I aske no better interpreter then Hilarie him selfe. Whosoeuer liueth by him, hath obteined the nature of his fleshe, which is able to giuegive life, but manye liue by him which hath not receiued the supper, therfore Hilarie speaketh not of giuing the substance of his flesh in the supper, as Sander vnderstandeth, but of giuing the nature of his fleshe, which is power of life, confirmed to vsus by the sacramentes of his supper and baptisme.