Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 4 · Chapter 3 – Chapter 8
CAP. III.
The proper signification of these wordes: This is my bodie, Sander.and This is my bloude, is, that the substance of Christs bodie and bloude is contained vnderunder the visible formes of bread and wine.
If the speech were proper and not figuratiue, yet Fulke.the substance of breade being shewed, and the substance of the cuppe, and of that which is in the cuppe being shewed, it woulde not followe, the bodie and bloude to bee vnderunder these accidentes of breade and wine, but either with the substance of breade and wine, or rather that his bodie and bloude were breade and wine. For Sanders similitude hath nothing like to this matter, this is an Elephant, that is, the substance of an Elephant is contained vnderunder this visible forme. But let him bring example of any thing which bearing visible forme of one substance, is called by the name of another substance. Might not Moses hauehave said truly to the Israelites in the wildernes in the behalfe of God, pointing to the Rocke: This is Christ, or the bodie of Christ, as well as Saint Paule saith, that Rocke was Christ? Therefore looke what woulde be the sense of those wordes, the same will bee the sense of these wordes, taking the speaches either as proper, or figuratiue.
But Christ (saith he) hath forced vsus to seeke out this interpretation in causing Saint Luke and S. Paul to write, This Chalice is the newe Testament in my bloud. For of necessitie wee must interpret these wordes, This Chalice, that is to say, the thing contained in this Chalice, is my bloud. I pray you sir what necessitie? except the speach be figuratiue. You will say it is figuratiuely onelyonly for the cuppe, to signifie that which is contained therein. If you so say, then tell mee once againe, whether these wordes, The newe Testament in my bloude, bee all one in proper speach, with these wordes, my bloude. If the newe Testament in my bloude, bee all one in sense, with these wordes my bloude, they are figuratiue: for no man properlie vseth so to speake, that hee nameth the newe Testament in his bloude, when hee nameth nothing, but his bloude naturally. If these wordes bee figuratiue, not onelie in the name of cuppe, but in the wordes following, whiche are, is the newe Testament in my bloude: then the wordes of the supper are founde to bee figuratiue, and all the babling about This, and Is, and bodie, and bloude, and mine, &c. are vaine and foolish: for This and Is, are in this figuratiue speech, and that in one manner of speaking is called, My bloude, in an other, is called the newe Testament in my bloude, and by necessarie analogie, that whiche in one manner of speech is vttered by these wordes, My bodie, may and ought truely to bee vnderstoode and vttered in these wordes: The new Testament in my bodie crucified. That the Pronowne hoc, is the Neuter gender, and hic the Masculine gender, it prooueth not the alteration of substance, for the genders followe the names, and note no substantiall propertie, where the thinges differ not in the sexe. But where you saide first, the Pronowne pointeth to the visible formes, nowe you say it pertaineth rather to the Substantiue (bodie) where it endeth, then to the formes, you are not onelyonly contrarie to your selfe, but also to the schoolemen, which say it pointeth to neither of both, but vntounto indiuiduum vagum, a singular vncertaine or wandering thing. But point it as you will, it can hauehave no true literall sense, if you will holde your owne principles: for if the bodie bee not present before the wordes of consecration vttered, as all papists (I thinke) except Sander, will affirme: That which hee had in his hande was breade, at that instant, when hee saide, This. And Sander himselfe saith: This which appeared to them breade, to bee in substance at the ending of the wordes, His owne bodie: Ergo it was not so before the wordes ended, and howe can, is, a Verbe of the present tense, signifie that which shall bee after, although it bee neuer so soone after? But of the Pronowne This, wee shall hauehave occasion to speake in three Chapters following, and diuerse times it is repeted in this booke, although hee protest in the Preface that he delighted not to speake one thing twise.
CAP. IIII.
That the pronowne (this) in Christes wordes, can point neither Sander.to bread nor to wine.
I hauehave prooued before, that if it can point to nothing else, if it point to anie thing, that was there Fulke.present, but vntounto breade and wine, because bodie and bloude, by your owne principle, was not there present before the last syllable of the sentence vttered.
But Sander saith (this) signifieth a substance, because Christ saith not, This is in my body, but this is my bodie, which is a blockish reason, for Christ saith, This is ye new Testament, which is an Accident, & in my bloud, as well as This is my bloude. Well, the Protestants opinion is (saith he) that This pointeth to the bread and the wine, which signifie his bodie & bloud. But that cannot be, because this cannot agree with breade and wine, neither in Greeke nor Latine, and then telleth vsus, the genders of the nownes, &c. But good Sir: the pronowne This, is the newter gender, put absolutely, comprehending in signification that thing, which was shewed, which needed not to bee called breade and wine, because it was so to bee iudged by the bodilie senses. But then (saith Sander) you correct the wordes of Christ, as though he had said, This which is breade, is my bodie, and then euerie substance of bread shoulde signifie his bodie. He that giueth the true meaning of Christes wordes, doeth not correct them, neither doe wee referre the Pronowne This, to the generall substance of breade, but affirme, that it demonstrateth that breade onelyonly, which he at that time tooke for to make thereof a Sacrament. And whereas it is translated in Latine: Hic est sanguis, the Greeke retaineth the Newter gender. And an Adiectiue betweene two Substantiues of diuerse genders, maie agree with either of them, but that the Pronowne This, is to bee referred to the wine, the other Euangelistes doe shewe, which vtter it thus, this cuppe, that is, the wine in this cuppe. And whereas Cyprian sayeth, haec est caro mea, hee might aswell hauehave said, pointing to bread, hoc est caro mea, or hic panis est caro mea, and yet his words, as he vttereth them, hauehave none other meaning, euen as Moses speaking of the rainbowe in the person of GOD, saith, Hoc est signum foederis, &c. This is the signe of the couenaunt, where hoc agreeing in gender, with signum, doeth yet demonstrate the rainebowe, which is there a Nowne of the Masculine gender.
Moses speaking to the Israelites of Manna, Exodus 16. saieth: Iste est panis, quem dominus &c. This is the breade, whiche the Lorde hath giuen you to eate. In the Latine, the pronowne This, agreeth with panis, which is the Masculine gender, yet doth it demonstrate, Man, which is the Newter. Therefore this grammaticall discourse, of genders of nownes, Adiectiues and their Substantiues, serueth to no purpose, to prooue that bread and wine were not poynted in the wordes of Christ by the Pronowne This.
CAP. V.
That the Pronowne (This) cannot point to any certaine acts, Sander.which is a doing about the breade and wine.
The Pronowne (saieth hee) is of the singular number, and therefore it cannot signifie many thinges, done about the breade, as taking, breaking, blessing, &c. and seeing it can point but one thing, it can point no one acte certainely. To this ridiculous argument, I answere, that the Pronowne (this) doeth demonstrate that breade, with all actions, and accidents belonging to it, so that the sense is: This breade thus taken, blessed, broken, giuen, eaten, is my bodie, that is (as Tertullian, and Augustine saye) a figure or signe of my bodie, euen as the Lambe is saide to bee the Passeouer, but not a Lambe nakedly considered, but with all circumstances and actions to it belonging: such a Lambe, so taken, killed, the bloude so sprinckled, the bodie …osted, eaten, standing with staues in their handes &c, this is the Passeouer, that is, a Sacrament of the Passeouer. You see that the Pronowne being the singular number, may demonstrate a singular substance, but with all actions belonging to it.
CAP. VI.
That the Pronowne This, pointeth finallie to the body & b…d Sander.and particularly signifieth inChristes supper one certeine kinde of foode.
He taketh for proued, that which is proued to be vntrue, Fulk.that the Pronowne This, pointeth not the bread & wine, and thereof concludeth, that it pointeth onelyonly the bodie and bloud: but the first is false, ergo, the later. But if you be so hastie, saieth Sander, that you will not tarie the speaking of foure wordes, to know what particular and finall substance the Pronown This, doth point vntounto, then this doeth meane, this eatable thing. Sir, our haste is not so great, but we can stay a much longer time to knowe our masters meaning: But seeing you beare vsus in hande, that one substance is made of another, by these wordes spoken, which aske a time in speaking, and you your selues determine at what instant the change is soudenly made al at once, and would proue the same by the Pronowne This, and eueryevery other of the wordes, you must giuegive vsus leaue to consider eueryevery moment of time, in which they are spoken. For then eueryevery worde is true, when the things whereof the wordes are signes, agree with the worde, in that time in which they are vttered: for this proposition, eueryevery man is dead, cannot be true, because eueryevery man shall die, before eueryevery man be dead. And to that you saye, This, meaneth this eatable thing, I affirme, you are neuer the neere: for, if there bee not bread, what thing is there eatable before it be the body… and the bodie it is not, before the wordes are all vttered. If by an eatable thing, you meane Duns his indiuiduum vagum, then you renounce your former position, so often aduouched, that the Pronowne This pointeth to a certaine substance, and so you are rapped on the sco…se on both sides, and with your owne staues.
CAP. VII.
The naming of the chali…e prooueth not the rest of Christes Sandewordes to be figuratiue.
He were a madde man that would reason so: that because Fulke.one word is figuratiue, all the rest must be figuratiue: but this is a good argument: one word is figuratiue, ergo more may be, and figuratiue speeches are net inconuenient to be vsed in the institutiō of a Sacrament. Therefore Sander might hauehave spared his seuen reasons, which he bringeth to prooue, that the naming of the chalis prooueth not all the rest of the wordes to be figuratiue. But the naming of the chalis, the new Testament in his bloud, doth inuincibly prooue, al ye other speeches to be figuratiue. For the same sense is of these wordes: This is my bloud: and of these, This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud: but ye sense of these latter words is figuratiue, not only in respect of the word chalis, but of the new Testament in his bloud: ergo the sense of the former wordes is figuratiue. And whereas Sander saieth the Apostles could not coniecture, that est, was put for significat, which fewe but great doctors can discerne, token of thinges, to be somtime called by the names of thinges themselues: I say he doth the Apostles wrong, who beeing brought vp in the daiely exercise of the Sacramentes of the lawe, could not be ignorant, that the Lambe was called the Passeouer, whereof it was a token, and circumcision the couenant of God, whereof it was a seale, and so of many other: but these two were their principall Sacramentes, vntounto which with vsus, baptisme and the Lordes supper doth answere.
CAP. VIII.
That the wordes of Christes supper be proper, though many other be figuratiue and vnproper.Sander.
Why these wordes of our sauiour, This is my body, be not like other of his sayings, in which he is said to be Fulk.the dore, the way, the true vine: Iohn Bapt. to be Elias: or the rocke, to be Christ, he promiseth to declare in the last Chapiter, which is specially intituled against Master Nowels chalenge, and by him throughly confuted. The vniuersall consent, that he boasteth of, in discerning of figuratiue speeches, can neuer be prooued, to hauehave receiued the wordes of Christ for proper. Two reasons yet he alleageth, why none of those propositions, doth so much as seeme to sound, like the wordes of the supper. One, for that they name two seuerall natures as Iohn baptist and Elias. That is false, for not naming Iohn Baptist, Christ saith foreign, This is Helias. The other, they speake not of any certeine thing, or else they point not to it as to a thing present. This is likwise false, for Helias was a certeine thing, and hee that was pointed vntounto, by the Pron…une, This, was present. Last of all, where he chalengeth vsus to shewe, where that Proposition is figuratiue, which first instituteth and maketh any thing, I hauehave shewed before, that the propositions, which God vseth instituting and making the sacraments of circumcision and the Paschal, are figuratiue. For speaking of circumcsion of the flesh, he saieth to Abraham, this is my couenant, Gen. 17. And of the Lambe to bee slaine and vsed as he appointeth, he saith, you shall eate it in haste, for it is the Passeouer of the Lorde. These are words of institution, yet are they figuratiue, for circumcision was not the couenant, nor the Lambe the Passeouer, but figuratiuely seales, signes, and tokens of them.