Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 4 · Chapter 9

Rejoinder to Bristows Reply · Part 2 · Book 4 · Chapter 9

p. 569CAP. IX.

It is shewed by 27 circumstances of Christes supper, that hee Sander.made his reall flesh and bloud present, vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, and consequently, that his words are proper. The first circumstance of Christs last supper, is to consider who made it.

Howe necessarie the consideration of the circumstances of eueryevery place of Scripture is, for the true vnderstanding Fulke.thereof, euerie wise man will acknowledge, but no circumstance alone, nor all the circumstances together, do prooue these wordes of Christ to be proper and not figuratiue. As first we acknowledge y^e maker of the supper p. 570to be almighty, to do whatsoeuer it pleased him, but although he were sent in the flesh to men that were flesh, promiseth his flesh, and giueth his flesh, all which we constantly beleeue: yet it followeth not, that he purposed to giuegive his flesh in the Sacrament, after his incarnation, otherwise then he gaue it to the Patria…kes, before his incarnation. Acknowledging also the prouidence, wisdome, trueth, and goodnesse of the speaker, we affirme, that he speaketh heere most wisely, prouidently, truely, and well, but yet figuratiuely, without that he doth blind his spouse with figuratiue wordes (as Sander saith) which he doth no more, then God blinded his spowse, the Church of Israel, with figuratiue wordes; when he spake figuratiuely in the institution of the Sacramentes of circumcision, and of the Paschall lambe.

The second circumstance may be to consider the time when Sander.the supper was made.

The consideration of the time, which was the night Fulke.before he suffered, forbad him not, to vse figuratiue spech sufficiently to be vnderstoode, by the vsuall phrase of the scripture, speaking of Sacramentes. And therefore hee said, This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud: neither is he to be burthened, with the misunderstanding of heretikes, which vponupon colour of his words, imagine a presence, that can not stand with the trueth of his bodie, like vntounto our bodies, contrary to other manifest places of scripture Heb. 2. Phil. 3.

The thirde circumstance concerning the persons who were a… Sander.the last supper.

The Apostles that were present, hauehave sufficiently in their writinges testified those wordes to be figuratiue, Fulke.although they hauehave not expressedly saied, they are figuratiue. S. Mathew calling that which Christ dranke and gaue to be drunk, the fruit of y^t vine, which is not bloud but wine, S. Paul. calling it bread, which is broken, &c. p. 571and the cuppe the newe Testament in his bloud, beside many other argumentes of the nature of Christs humanitie, like vntounto ours in all substantiall pointes, which must of necessity inforce a figuratiue speech. And whereas Sander saith, that parables are spoken, so that men hearing doe not vnderstande: ergo Christ spake not in parables to his Apostles, to whom the mysteries of the kingdome were knowen. The argument is naught. For although parables are to blind the reprobat, yet are they to giuegive vnderstanding to the elect, and therefore Christ spake many thinges in parables, which are for better edifiyng of the Churche then if they had beene spoken plainely & without all parable. Thirdly the Apostles, which taried at Caparnaū, by his doctrine there deliuered, had learned how to eate y^e body of Christ & to drink his bloud, not as Sander saith, really vnderunder the formes of bread and wine, but spiritually, by faith in a Sacrament or mysteric.

The 4. circumstance, concerning the ending of the olde Passeouer, and the making of a newe.Sander.

The ending of the olde Passeouer, which was a signe, Fulke.doeth no more hinder the institution of a new signe, which is not corporally, that which it signifieth, no more then the ending of circumcision, hindreth the ordeining of baptisme, which is not actually that, which it representeth. That Sander denieth Moyses & Phinees to hauehave eaten the flesh of Christ, because the law brought nothing to perfection, it is a slender reason: for Moses and Phinees did not eate the flesh of Christ, by vertue of the lawe, but by promise of the Gospel, by force whereof, Christ was the same matter of saluation to them that he is to vsus. Augustine saith our Sacraments are signis diuersa, in re quae significatur paria, diuerse in signes, equall in the thing that is signified. In Ioan Tr. 26.

The fifth circumstance, concerning the preface which Christ made before his supper.Sander.

p. 572The preface he speaketh of, are these words of Christ: I hauehave desired with desire to eate this Passeouer with Fulk.you, before I die. Which words he forceth not whether they be referred to the old Paschal lambe, or to the new. If they be referred to the newe, Christ desireth onelyonly to eate his owne bodie with his Apostles, as Chrysostome sayeth, to encourage them not to bee afraide thereof, which he could not doe by faith onelyonly, therefore he did it really, wherein is none absurditie to eate it, Angels feede of it, seeing other men hauehave eaten their own flesh in a grosse manner, either for hunger, or for anger, or phansie, &c. To this I answere: first if a lyar could alwayes remember himselfe, it shoulde skill to Sanders purpose, that these wordes should not be referred to the newe Sacrament, for then Christ in calling it, this pascall lambe, or Passeouer, should begin to speake figuratiuely.

Secondly, I marueile, why he saith, it is a thing cleane impossible, that Christ should eate it by faith. How did he at other times eate the Paschal lambe? did he not eate it with faith? how was he baptized? did he not also beleeue? Although Christ partaking the Sacramentes instituted for sinful men, had a singular manner of partaking, which no man else had, that is for the profite of other, & not himselfe, who needed them not, yet there is no doubt, but bearing our person, he did partake them with faith. For, of whome is it saide? he trusted in God, &c. Psa. 22. And to that which Sander sayeth, he did eate of it, as Angels feede of it, (which cannot be corporally, but spiritually:) I agree with him, that it is no absurditie, so he will graunt mee two things: the one, that he did none otherwise eate his bodie in the supper, then he was borne againe in baptisme. The other, that it will suffise him, that we so eate the bodie of Christ, as Angels feede of it, which are thereby nourished and established in eternall life, and yet cannot receiue his body corporally into their spirites. As for the argument taken of other men, eating their owne flesh, for hunger, anger, or phansie, to prooue that it is no absurditie for p. 573Christ to eate his owne flesh corporally, is verie absurd. For a…eit, some men hauehave eaten their flesh for hunger, ange…, or phansie, yet was it an absurditie for them so to doe. Then of an argument, which is Consentaneum, to cō clude negatiuely, it may be called absurdum absurdorum. Againe, if it had beene none absurditie for men to eate their owne flesh, for hunger, anger, or phansie, yet no mā did euer eate his whole bodie: and therefore the absurditie of Christ eating his owne bodie after that manner, is not by their example auoided.

But if the desire of Christ (saith he) be referred to the old Paschal Lambe, yet was it in respect, that at the ending thereof, the newe might be instituted, which Chrysostome calleth the trueth, that was perfourmed when the figure was past, in Psa. 37. Lo Christ desireth y^e trueth, which is his owne substance, which is the onelyonly meate, wherein God taketh pleasure. To this I answere, a desire is, of that which is absent, Christes substance of his flesh was neuer absent, since his incarnation: therefore it was not that which he desired, but another trueth of the olde figures, namely, the sacrifice of his death, of which the Apostle sayeth: Christ our Passeouer is slaine & offered vp. 1. Cor. 5. Againe, where he saieth, his owne substance vnited to his godhead, is the onelyonly meate wherein God taketh pleasure, he speaketh contrarie to Christ, which saith, My meate is to doe the will of my father, and finish his worke, which was brought to passe in his suffering, which also he nameth expressely in the wordes of y^e preface. It was the last Passeouer, that hee did eate, before his suffering, so that this circumstance maketh nothing for the bodily presence.

The sixt circumstance concerning the louelove which moued Christ to institute this Sacrament.Sander.

Euen the same louelove moued him, which moued him Fulke.to institute y^e Sacrament of regeneration, neither in promising to giuegive his bodie, did he speake more, then he did perfourme. For he gaue his bodie in deede, and daily p. 574giueth it to be receiued spiritually, vnderunder the sacrament of breade and wine. But that hee shoulde giuegive it by conuersion of the elements into his bodie and bloud, louelove could not moue him to giuegive it otherwise, than as it might be most profitable for vsus; and most honourable for him, & that was to giuegive it, spiritually to be receiued.

The seuenth circumstance of washing the Apostles feete.Sander.

Because Christ washed his Apostles feete, the custome of the Church (saith he) hath bene, that all catholike Bishops and pri…si… Fulke.hauehave vsed before they came to consecrate, to wash the verie tops of their fingers, not to handle breade and wine, for then Christ might hauehave washed his disciples handes before they had eaten the Paschall Lambe, at the eating whereof was bread and wine, but cleane consciences were sufficient for eating of that bread & wine, but the other must hauehave also the bodies purified, for the more worthie receiuing therof. This is newe diuinitiea, nd newe Logike also Christ washed his Apostles feete, therefore Bishops & Priests vse to wash the toppes of their fingers before they consecrate, when it were more reason they should wash the peoples feete, who by his saying, must hauehave their bodies also purified for the more worthie receiuing This is a poore circumstance, to proue y^t Christs words are not figuratiue.

The eight circumstance, concerning the place of the last supper.Sander.

If the house in which Christ kept his Passeouer, had Fulk.been material, some of y^e Euangelists would hauehave noted y^t it stood in Zion, as well as Nicephorus & Damascen, who could hardly know the place, seeing Ierusalem was vtterly destroyed long before their time, & another city built, not standing in place of the old Ierusalem. That a great & vnacustomed matter was done in the house, so found by miracle, we confesse, but that proueth not that Christs speech was proper, because it was not abroad in y^e temple or synagogue, but in a close parlour. But where Sander saith, Christ gaue to eueryevery one of his Apostles a p. 575loafe, vnderunder the forme whereof, his owne substance was conteined, it is against y^• scripture, which saieth, he brake the bread, he gaue them, against Cyrillus, which saith he gaue them pieces of bread, against reason, that eueryevery one should eate a loaf of bread, although they wer but smal, when they had supped twise before in that euening, at y^e Paschall Lamb, & at an ordinarie supper. But if the table be real (saith Sander) much more the meat is reall. Wee denie not, but the meat is real: that is real bread & wine to the bodie, and the bodie and bloud of Christ to be receiued of the soule: for, if al things be reall, why should not the bread and wine be reall?

The ninth circumstance of the taking bread & wine.Sander.

Christ tooke bread & wine, who neuer touched the thing which Fulke.he did not sanctifie. Yes, he touched Iudas lippes with his lippes, yet did he not sanctifie them. But he sanctified y^e bread & wine to the vse of his supper. Neither went the vertue from him (as Sander saieth) by touching of his garments, but by faith, for many at the same time, did not only touch him, but thrust & throng him, yet they all receiued not vertue from him. Secondly, he tooke vnleauened bread, which was alreadie figuratiue bread: therfore he goeth not about to doe that was done alreadie, to make it figuratiue bread. I answer, the Paschall Lamb was eaten, and therefore the bread was common bread, although vnleauened, which was to be eaten seuen dayes after. But what letteth, if it once figured one thing, but that he might take it to make it a figure of an other thing? for Saint Paul sheweth that it figured sinceritie and trueth: nowe it is a seale of the remission of finnes, by the death of Christ.

Thirdly, Christ taking bread and wine, pointeth not to his Apostles, as though he would consecrate somewhat in their breasts, (as Caluine dreameth) but in breade and wine, wee must seeke the first worke of his supper. And therefore, Sander dreameth, that Christ meant to consecrate nothing in the Apostles brestes. He begon with taking bread and wine, ergo he did worke nothing in the Apostles breastes. A sounde reason, I promise you.

p. 576Last of all, this putteth vsus in minde of that great Priest Melchisedek, as Cyprian teacheth. But the Apostle writing to the Hebrues, could hauehave taught vsus more certeinly, if he could hauehave seene any such comparison betweene Christ and Melchizedeck. Heb. 7. And eueryevery sacrifice (saith he) is changed in substance from the former nature it had, sometime killed, sometime burned, sometime eaten: therefore Christ must change the breade & wine into his bodie and bloud. If we should admitte a sacrifice (as most of the olde writers call the celebration of the supper a sacrifice of thankesgiuing) verily the change by eating and drinking, were sufficient to make it answere to the change required in a sacrifice, without transubstantiation, which was not vsed in any sacrifice.

The tenth circumstance of blessing.Sander.

First, when Christ blesseth, it is not necessarie, that hee should make any outward token of lifting vp his eyes or Fulk.handes, and least of all, with making the signe of y^e crosse, as Sander dreameth waking. And although, when he blesse, he speake, by the way of doing or best…ing some reall benefite, it followeth not, but that his speach may be figuratiue, which is not alwayes imperfect, as Sander saith, but being well vsed, is better then comon speech. Although what blessing meaneth in this place, the other Euangelistes do declare, which call his blessing, thanksgiuing. And yet I denie not, but Christ blessed the bread and wine, which he sanctified, to be a diuine sacrament of his bodie and bloud, for the assurance of remission of sinnes, by the newe testament, which is established in his bloud.

The eleuenth circumstance of giuing thankes.

The best thankes (saith he) are those, that are giuen in Sander.worde and deede: therefore Christ gaue not thankes figuratiuely, Fulke.neither be the wordes of thankesgiuing figuratiue, as the Sacramentaries saye: The wordes in p. 577which Christ gaue thankes, are not expressed, & therefore y^e Sacramentaries saie not that they are either figuratiue or proper. But Sander would hauehave these wordes, This is my bodie, to be the wordes of thankesgiuing, because Irenaeus saith, Panem, in quo gratiae act…e sunt, corpus esse domini, that the breade, in which thankes is giuen, is the bodie of our Lorde: as though thankes could not be giuen, but by those wordes onlie, which are not wordes of thankesgiuing to God, but of declaring to men, how to esteeme that which Christe giueth, namely as a true pledge of his bodie and bloud: as if one deliuering the broad seale to a condemned man, saie, this is a pardon for you. That Christ gaue thankes to God both in worde and deede, not onlie at this time, but at all times, there is no question: for in all things hee was obedient to his father, euen to the most curssed and shamefull death of the Crosse: neither was it necessarie, that he should make transubstantiation, so often as he gaue thankes in worde and deede. Neither are those our ancestors, which denied the sacrament of Eucharistie or thankesgiuing, of whom Ignātius spake: for wee both receiue it, and beleeue it to bee the fleshe and bloud of Christe, in such sense as hee meant it, and as Ignatius tooke his meaning.

The twelfth circumstance of breaking.Sander.

First Sander findeth fault with the order of wordes Fulke.vsed by all the Euangelistes, in placing breaking, before the wordes of consecration, because Saint Paul sayeth the breade which we breake, is the communion of the bodie of Christ: which is no good argument: for Saint Paul thereby sheweth, that the bread is not altered from his substance, although it be vsed for a Sacrament of our spirituall communication of Christ with vsus, and of vsus one with another. 1. Cor. 10. But he will salue the matter, by saying, the Euangelistes first ioyne all the deeds of Christ together, and then expresse his wordes.

p. 578The deeds, he saith, are taking bread, blessing, thanksgiuing, deliuering: mark y^t here he maketh blessing, & thāks giuing to be only deeds, which imediatly before he affirmed to be by saying, This is my body. But howsoeuer our aduersaries are pleased w^t all (saith he) let it go for a truth, that Christ did breake, and giuegive, after the words of consecration. Thus when he hath nothing to prooue it, a starke lye must goe for a truth, contrary to the order obserued by all the Euangelistes, because that order is contrary to Popery, and the Popishe custome, which first consecrateth, and then breaketh. But taking it for a truth: the breaking of that which appeared bread, doth shew Christ to be wholy conteined in eueryevery piece thereof, whereas Christ eaten onelyonly by faith, is receiued according to y^e measure of eueryevery mans faith, which is more or lesse, contrary to the figure of Manna. I answer, whole Christ is receiued by eueryevery one, that receiueth the bread and wine in what quantitie soeuer, although Christ bestowe not his graces equally. For Christ doeth dwell in our hearts by faith: ergo he is wholy present by faith, Eph. 3.

And this meaneth Hieronyme in the place by Sander cited aduers. Iouin li. 2. after he had spoken of Manna. Et not &c. And wee also take the bodie of Christe equally. There is one sanctification in the mysteries of the master and seruant, &c. although according to the merites of the rec…iuers, that is made diuers, which is one. By merites, Hierom meaneth not workes, but worthines of faith, by which the grace of God is effectuall vntounto good workes, in some more than in other. Neither hath Eusebius Emissenus aniething contrarie to this meaning, Homil. 5. in Pasch. Hoc corpus &c. This bodie when the prieste ministreth, is as greate in the small peece, as in the whole loafe. Of this bread when part is taken, eueryevery man hath no lesse, then altogether: one hath all: twaine hath all: moe hauehave all, without diminishing.

These words (saith Sander) cannot be vnderstanded p. 579of materiall bread, nor of inward grace, neither of which are equally receiued. But yet Christ and a seale of this redemption is equally receiued, without change of the bread into Christ. For Eusebius speaketh of breade and a whole loaf, as Sander himselfe translateth, bread is not the name of accidentes, neither was there euer heard of a loafe of accidentes of bread: nor of breaking of accidentes of bread, before the Laterane Councell. But what saith Germanus Archb. of Constantinople? Post eleuationem, &c. after the eleuation, by & by, a partition of the diuine lody of is made. But truly although he be diuided into partes, yet he is acknowledged and found vndiuided, vncutt, and whole in eueryevery parte of the thinges, that are cutt. Where he saith, the diuine body is parted, he meaneth the bread, which is called his body, for the Greekes to this day, doe not acknowledg transubstantiation. Although the authoritye of Germanus bee not worth the standing vponupon, beeing but a late writer of a corrupt time.

But what speake I of fathers, saieth Sander? The breade which wee breake, is it not the communicating of our Lordes body? Because wee being many, are one bread, one body. For so much as wee all partake of the one breade. If the breade bee broken, (saith he) how partake wee all of one breade? that which is broken, is not one in number. No sir, but it was one in number before it was broken, whereof when eueryevery one receiued a parte, wee vnderstand that wee all pertaine to one whole. But the Corinthians (saith he) hauehave more then one loafe broken among them. How prooue you that, sir? the wordes of Paul seeme otherwise, and if they had twentie loaues, yet was it al one bread in kind, wherof the Apostle saide, wee all partake of one breade: which if it be not materiall breade, how is it broken? for the body of Christ is not broken. And Saint Paul, saying wee partake all of one bread, which is broken, meaneth not y^t the visible Sacrament, is nothing els but many accidentes, and no breade at all.

p. 580The thirteenth circumstance of giuing.Sander.

Sander will hauehave the words of consecration to goe before the deliuerie of the bread, contrary to the order of Fulke.all the Euangelistes: for else Christ should not giuegive a sacrament, and he promised to giuegive his flesh, &c. I answere, he gaue a Sacrament, and his flesh at his supper, although the Sacrament were not perfect in euerie singular action that belonged to it, but in the whole. Where he sayeth, the meate of Christes supper came from his hands, and that it is horrible blasphemie, to say it came another way, because he onelyonly sayeth it, it shall suffice plainly to denie it. He gaue bread and wine from his handes, but he gaue his flesh and bloud, from his eternall spirite, which giueth life vntounto his fleshe, and the working of the holy ghost, the thirde person in Trinitie, maketh it to be effectuall, which God the father by his sonne Iesus Christe, giueth vsus in his supper.

Nowe hee alleageth Saint Mathewe, Saint Marke, Saint Luke, and Saint Paul, which saye, he did giuegive with his handes, and seeing in Saint Iohn he had promised to giuegive his flesh to be eaten, what other perfourmance of his promise is there, then this gift by his hande? and here he asketh what other Gospell wee can bring forth, wherein Christ fulfilled at any time his promise there made? and here he craueth pardon to crye out vppon false preachers; Ye cruell murtherers of Christian soules, where is that meate giuen, but at Christes table, &c? Thou false hypocrite and errant traytor, & murtherer both of Christian bodies and soules, we hauehave no Gospell, but the Gospell of Christ, written by his Apostles and Euangelists. But thou contrarie to the order of all the foure witnesses, which thou namest, thou, I saye, defendest the giuing to be after the saying. And whereas they all saye, he gaue that hee tooke, and hee tooke the substance of breade, thou denyest that hee gaue the substance of bread.

Thirdly, where Christ sayeth, The bread which hee p. 581will giuegive, is his flesh, which he wil giuegive for the life of the world, which was on y^e crosse, thou affirmest, that hee giueth it only at his supper. And last of al, wheras he gaue presently, which then presently was eaten, when he said, he that eateth me &c. thou restrainest his gift onelyonly to his supper, wherin, although he gaue that before he promised, yet he gaue it not only there, nor first there, nor there with his hands, but with his spirite ioyning with his handes, that gaue the externall signes. For of giuing by hands onelyonly, without his spirit, it may be truely said, The flesh profiteth nothing, Ioh. 6. And therfore the Apostle speaking of the oblation of Christes bodie on the crosse, saith, he offered himselfe by his eternall spirite. Heb. 9.

The fourteenth circumstance of saying.Sander.

Wordes are vsed for profite, and for necessitie, therefore the wordes of God are greatly to be regarded, and Fulk.especially, the wordes concerning the sacrament, which is an hidden mysterie, and therefore hath neede to be declared by wordes: but the Sacramentaries looking to Christes deedes, as taking bread, &c. trust not his words, saying, This is my bodie, testified by foure of his disciples. Yes master Sander, those whome you call Sacramentaries, trust them better, & more certeinly beleeue them to be true, in that sense which Christe did speake them, than you popish transubstātiators do in your popish error, which to make your selues godmakers, of arrogancie and couetousnes, you defend among the ignorant. But deedes, except they be expounded by words (saith he) may hauehave many interpretations: And the deedes of the last supper, seeme to him to be vndoubted parables, which the words expounde, and therefore be no parables: for meere figuratiue words expound nothing. Who is so madd to grant to Sanders see…ings, that the deeds of Christ in taking bread, blessing, thankesgiuing, breaking, giuing, are parables? but ad…itte they were parables, why may not meere figuratiue wordes, expound parables? Christ himselfe expoundeth p. 582the parable of the tares, Matth. 13. altogether by worde… as meere figuratiue, as these of the supper. He that soweth good seede, is the sonne of man, the feeld is y^• world: The good seede are the children of the kingdome: the tares are the children of the wicked. The enimie is the diuell, The haruest is the ende of the worlde, The … pers are the Angels. And yet it is so strange a matter to Sander, that a meere figuratiue speech should expound a parable, who thinketh and saith, that this reason alone ought to persuade any man.

But he will bring a greater reason: the wordes of the supper, giuegive substance to the deedes, for no Sacrament can be made without wordes, ordeined of God.

If I should vrge this rule against fiue of your Sacramentes. I might easily prooue them to be no Sacraments, because they hauehave not wordes ordeined of God to giuegive substance of Sacraments to the externall deedes. Well, the worde of Sacrament (saith hee) must be common and knowen, therefore not figuratiue. I hauehave shewed often before, that Circumcision, and the Paschall Lambe were instituted by such figuratiue speeches, as these wordes, This is my body, This is my couenant. This is the Passeouer, baptisme is regeneration, &c.

The fifteenth circumstance of take.Sander.

Christ bad all the twelue take: ergo (saith he) he had Iudas to take that which he called his body, which was either bare bread Fulke.a figure of Christ, or his body vnderunder the formes of bread. For an …ff…ctuall signe no man corporally tooke, because Iudas rocke that the rest tooke▪ and a bare signe, Christ was not sent to giuegive, n…r onelyonly spirituall gifts, which were giuen to the olde p…triarke…, who tooke his manhood to leaue vsus corporall meanes and … of grace, which might worke vppon our soules, &c. I hauehave proued before, that Iudas was not present …t the supper, but … b…n p…es… (as somti… there are as … as he) yet …othing is gained by t…, … Christ gaue bread a… … of his bodie and p. 583bloud crucified and shedde for remission of our sinnes. And what inconuenience is it, if one as ill as Iudas receiue this effectuall signe, which hath none effect in him, because he reiecteth and contemneth it? Is not the Queenes broad …eale an effectuall signe of her pleasure, which a traitour may receiue into his handes, contemptuously, and breake in pieces maliciously? But Augustine sayeth, Ep. 162. Our Lorde suffereth Iudas to receiue among the innocent disciples, that which the faithfull knowe, our price. Against Augustine, who sayeth he was present, I oppose Hilarius, which sayeth he was absent, in Math. Can 30.

Against Sanders exposition of these wordes, our price to be nothing else, but the bodie of Christ, and not onelyonly a Sacrament thereof, I oppose Augustine himselfe to expounde his owne meaning, who sayeth of the rest of the Apostles, and of Iudas, Illi manducabunt panem Dominum, ille panem Domini contra Dominum. In Fuan. Ioan. Tract. 59. They did eate the breade which was our Lorde, he did eate the breade of our Lorde against our Lorde.

The sixteenth circumstance of eating.Sander.

Christ sayeth, eate ye once onelyonly, meaning that they should eat bodily, that he gaue them, and eat it also spiritually. Fulke.This I allowe, for vnderunder the signe of bodily eating, …e willed them to be assured of spirituall participation of his flesh and bloud and all benefites of his passion. But this will not satisfie Sander, but seeing hee sayth, eate ye, but once, hee would hauehave them to eate bodily the same substance, which they should eate spiritually, which is no good argument. And therefore hee is shamefully graueled when he saith, the verbe eate, by this meane, standeth not vnproperly (for hee can abide no figures) because eating, belongeth naturally, both to the soule & the bodie, which would make p. 584any Philosopher blush to heare, but the reason more: because the cause of eating principally belongeth to the soule, and the meane principally to the body, which hath instrumentes to eate; for a dead body can not eate, nor a soule without a body can eate properly. What say you Sander? is the soule the principall cause of eating, and the body the instrumentall cause? By this meanes the soule goeth, rideth, lieth, speaketh, leapeth, daunceth, and all whatsoeuer a dead man can not do. Well, grant then this speculation: what then? what other spirituall eating can be meant by this word eate ye, then by any other eating, for eueryevery man eateth whatsoeuer he eateth, by this reason spiritually and bodily. Wherefore in spight of your nos…, if Christ commanded his Apostles to eat spiritually, as Christians vse to speake, and not according to your physicall argument, either he commanded it by an other worde, or els this worde is vnproper. For to eate by faith, is to eate vnproperly, and not to eate physically, as all other meats are eaten.

The seuenteenth circumstance of these wordes, This is my body.Sander.

He will speake of these wordes, but as of a circumstance, if the …be Is, import no more but a bare signe, Fulke.Christ is greatly promoted, to giuegive thankes for leauing a bare signe. I answere, Christ gaue not a bare signe, but his body to be spiritually receiued, with a seale and an effect…ll signe, but eueryevery figure and token (saith he) which d…th in substance from his trueth, is alwayes bare and naked in respect of the trueth it representeth: M… …we the d…gge barketh against the dignity of baptisme, and all the Sacrament of the old time, and ca…lleth foolishly, by disioyning of thinges to be conioy…d. But Chri… (saith he) hauing a body, presented not bread and wi…e, as figur…s of his body and bloud in …e to … …ther, and gaue thankes for them. This is a p…lting …ion of that in question, for we p. 585denie the Sacrifice pretended: yet Christ at other times, gaue thankes for bodily meate, much more nowe for spirituall food of the soule, as the Sacrament is, beeing worthily receiued.

As for Melchisedek his Sacrifice in breade and wine, we finde none that he offered to God, but a refreshing to Abraham, whome in deede he blessed as the Priest of God, and so hath Christ blessed vsus with eternall happines. Therefore all this babling of Sander, that Christ offered bread and wine, to his father, which were all one as if a man should offer to a Prince a fatte Oxe, and giuegive him in a paper writen, this is a fat Oxe, &c. is not worth one Goates heare. Christ offered but one Sacrifice propitiatorie, and that but once, shedding his bloud, the great mystery of which redemption, he deliuered to his Apostles in the outwarde creatures of breade and wine. But let vsus see, howe he prooueth, that these wordes are not figuratiue.

First Ambrose saith: In the diuine consecration, the selfe wordes of our Lorde and Sauiour doe worke, and Chrysostome saith, that by this word, This is my body, the thinges set forth, are consecrated. but figuratiue wordes worke nothing, therefore they are not figuratiue. This minor is a starke lye often times confuted: These wordes in the very institution of the supper, are figuratiue, This is the new Testament in my bloud, and yet worke as much as these, This is my body. Likewise the wordes of Christ, are spirite and life, therefore not figuratiue, is a beastly argument, vnworthy answering, which wold denie al figuratiue speches to be y^e words of Christ. As blockish and brockish it is, that in these 4. words Hoc est corpus meum, we leaue neuer a one in his own signification, plucking them from their gender and case, when we expound it thus: This doth signifie my body, which is a toy to mocke with an Ape. For who can expound a sentence in other wordes to keepe the same case, and gender, and kinde of wordes alwaies?

But it is a weighty matter, that Sander hath obserued p. 586in Saint Paules order of wordes, placing the Pronowne foreign next to the Pronowne foreign, vttering the wordes after this manner. This of me is the bodie: whereas the other Euangelistes say, This is the bodie of me. Verily, there is not here so much oddes, as betweene a milhorse, and an horsemill. But what is the great mysterie, that lyeth in this obseruation? forsooth it giueth coniecture (such as in the order of words may be had) that the Pronowne This, onelyonly resteth and endeth his signification in the substantine Bodie, and cannot be referred vntounto Bread. For it were an hard speech to say: this bread of me is the signe of bodie. But if I say, this bread doeth signifie of me the bodie, what other sense hath it, then if I saye, this bread doeth signifie the bodie of mee? I blame not Sander for scanning narrowly whatsoeuer is vttered in the scripture: but in vrging the composition of the Greeke speech, which is not like the English tongue, where there is no difference in sense, seeing the Latine composition w…l wel admitt that which soundeth hardly in the English speeche, Hic panis mei signum est corporis.

The eighteenth circumstance of these wordes, which Sander.is giuen for you.

Sander playeth the foole out of measure, to vrge the Fulke.accidents of grammar in a figuratiue speech. Saint Luke sayeth, Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur. If you take corpus figuratiuely (saith he) then the sense must be, Haec est figura corporis mei, quae pro vobis datur: This is the figure of my bodie, which figure is giuen for you, and so not his true bodie, but a figure thereof was giuen for vsus. Sander thinketh he hath to do with young laddes, that learne their accidentes of grammar, which may perhaps wonder at his learned collections. But what if wee expound it thus, Hoc est corpus meum, id est, figura corporis mei (as Tertullian doeth) and reteining the gender of the Relatiue, say, quod pro vobis datur, This is a figure of my bodie, which bodie is giuen for you?

p. 587Sander hath his answere readie, that the relatiue must repete his whole antecedent, which cannot hauehave at once both a proper and vnproper meaning. What coulde Priscian, or Aristarchus hauehave vttered more learnedlie?

But when God saith in Gene. 17. Hoc est pactum meum quod obseruabitis inter me & vos &c. This is my couenant which you shall obserue betweene me and you: &c. If pactum be taken for signum or sigillum pacti, the signe or seale of the couenant, as it must needes be, for circumcision, whereof he speaketh, was not the couenant, how doth the relatiue repete the whole antecedent? howe hath one word a proper and vnproper vnderstanding? Againe Exodus 12, Haec est religio phase, Omnis alienigena non comedet ex eo. This is the religion of the Passeouer, No straunger shal eate of it. Heere co is a relatiue agreeing in the newter gender, with phase his antecedent, and yet phase the passeouer, signifieth a Lambe, which was the signe of the passeouer. Againe when it is saide, Hoc est postr…mum pascha quod comedit Iesus cum discipulis: This is the last▪ passeouer that Iesus did eate, with his disciples: hath not quod the same relation which it hath in these wordes quod pro vobis datur? But to cut off all these nice questions of Grammar, what if the figure bee laide in the verbe est, after this manner, Hoc est, id est, significat corpus …um quod pro uobis datur, this signifieth my bodie which is giuen for you? Where is then our Aristarchus become with his antecedents, and relatiues? But hee hath founde another mystery in the Greeke worde foreign, which must needes be reserred to corpus, and cannot be referred to figura corporis. And heere hee obtesteth, that he may be instructed, wherein he doth misconstrue the wordes. I hauehave already satisfied his requeste, and further I say, he doth without all Grammar, Rhetorike, Logike, Philosophie, and Diuinitie, referre hoc to corpus, which is to bee referred to that thing which hee had in his hande, which by their owne Popishe diuinitie could bee nothing but breade before hee had spoken out the wordes of consecration.

p. 588As for him that will lay the figure in the Verbe …, to take it for significat, Sander counteth him an ignorant man, because it must bee resolued by est significant, and then the reason of signifying shall be founde in the nowne (bodie) rather then in the verbe (Is:) for which cause Occolampadius admitted either y^e one or the other that is est, for significat, or copus, for signum corporis. In deede the matter is not great, for the sense, but when you call vsus to construing the words by Grammar: But taking the proposition thus: Hoc est significans corpus meum, I saye the reason of signifying consisteth not in the worde Bodie, but in the subiect of the proposition, which is the signe of the bodie, although significans followe the Verbe est: For the action of signifying pertaineth to the bread, the passion signified pertayneth to the bodie. Where Sander challengeth all the Grammarians in Christendome to finde another construction, I appeale to all the Grammarians in the worlde, whether these wordes, Hoc est corpus meum quod provobis datur, may not be construed grammatically, as wel as these other examples out of Genesis, Exodus, and a thousand more of like, that might be added.

The 19. circumstance of the Verbe facere, to doe, or make, or to offer sacrifice.Sander.

The Verbe facere, which signifieth most generally making and doing, he will hauehave now to signifie, offring Fulke.sacrifice, because that is the most excellent deede, that can bee made, which is a madde reason, if Christ, which doth alwayes the best thinges, shoulde be saide to offer sacrifice so often as he saide facere. For euerie thing that he did, was the best, in all respects, that he did it. But to prooue that facere signifieth sometime to offer sacrifice, he quoteth two places of Scripture, but reherseth neither of both for shame: the first 3 Reg. 18. Where Elias saith to the Baalites, ego faciam bouem alterum: Where facere signifieth not to offer sacrifice, but to prepare or dresse, or make ready an oxe; or at the least, is taken for interficere, to kill an oxe, which afterwarde is laide on the wo…de and p. 589offered by inuocation. The other place Leu. 15. is of two turtle Doues, faciet vnum pro peccato, & alterum in holocauslum, he shall prepare the one for a sinne offering, and the other to be a burnt offering, where facere signifieth, as before, to make readie by killing, drawing washing, and dressing as the Lawe prescribed. The same Hebrewe verbe foreign whiche is vsed in both places, beeing spoken of the Calfe, that Abraham made readie for his guestes, the olde interpreter turneth by the verbe coquo. which signifieth to dresse as a cooke dresseth. Genesis. 18. Wherefore we hauehave not yet founde facere in the scripture, for sacrificare to offer sacrifice. But Sander saying it sk…leth not whether it be ioyned with another worde in the accusatiue, or ablatiue case, or stande alone, doth insinuate, that although in scripture it cannot bee prooued to hauehave that signification, yet in some other writer, it is vsed for sacrificare, ioyned with a nowne of the ablatiue case, namely in Virgil, Cùm faciam vitula pro frugibus, ipse venito, where yet a good Grammarian will not construe facere absolutely to sacrifice, but vnderstand oblationen, or rem di…nam, or some such like worde. But in our texte the circumstance of deedes and words (saith he) do make it so to signifie. First because the 14. day at euening hee began the blessed sacrifice of his passion. Secondly, hee hath offered the olde Paschal Lambe, the chiefe sacrifice of the Lawe. These two circumstances, shew it was time to go about his only sacrifice on y^e crosse, they proue not y^t he offered another sacrifice at y^e table. Thirdly hetoke breade and wine into his handes, part of the sacrifice of Melchisedek. I answere, the scripture telleth vsus not of any such sacrifice of Melchisedek. Fourthly, he blessed and gaue thankes, wherein he consecrateth his owne bodie, the onelyonly sacrifice of mankinde. I answere, his owne bodie had no neede of consecration: hee consecrated breade to bee a sacrament of his bodie, which was not the onelyonly sacrifice for mankind, which was but once and no more offered, or to be offered. Not that he should oftentimes offer vp himselfe, saith the Apostle. Heb. 9. ver. 25. wherefore his commaundement hoc facite, doe this, is p. 590not to make a sacrifice of Christs bodie, which hee made not. But Cyptian (saith Sander) taketh the verbe facere so, lib. 2. Ep. 3. Iesus Christus &c. Iesus Christ our Lord and God himself is the hiest priest of God the father, and first hath offered sacrifice vntounto God the father, Et hoc fieri … sui commemorationem praecepit, and hath commaunded this thing to be done in his remembrance. That fieri signifieth heere not offerri, but generally hath relation to all y^t Christ did: not onelyonly the whole argument of the Epistle which was against ministring with water onelyonly, but also the verie wordes following, which Sander hath fraudulently cut off, declare sufficiently, vtique ille saccrdos vice Christi verè fungitur qui id quod Christus fecit, imitatur &c: Verily that Priest doth truely supply the roome of Christ, which imitateth that which Christ hath done: and then he offereth a true and full sacrifice to God the father in the Church, if he so begin to offer, according as he may see Christ himselfe to hauehave offered. Nay, that Cyprian meaneth not that Christ in his supper did offer his owne bodie in sacrifice to his father, for redemption of he worlde, but onelyonly a sacrifice of thankesgiuing, and commaunded the same to bee kept in remembrance of his passion. Cyprian himselfe testifieth in the same Epistle. Et quia passionis eius mentionem in sacrificijs omnibus facimus (passio est enim domini sacrificium quod offerimus) nihil aliud quàm quod ille fecit facere debemus. And because wee make mention of his passion, in all sacrifices (for the sacrifice which wee offer, is the passion of our Lorde) wee ought to doe nothing, but that which hee himselfe did.

Note heere the sacrifice which Cyprian offered, was the passion of Christ: as well as the bodie of Christ, but it was not the passion of Christ properly, therefore it was not the bodie of Christ properly. I might alleage other places out of that Epistle, to refell the impudencie of Sander: but this is sufficient, that neither facere in Cyprian, signifieth to sacrifice, neither the bodie of Christ was otherwise sacrificed of him, then as it suffered in his sacrifice.

p. 591The 20. circumstance of the pronowne Hoc.Sander.

Christ saith, doe, or make this thing, or as Haymo Fulke.saith. Make this bodie, for he saith not, sic facite, doe so, but hoc facite, doe or make this thing: I hauehave answered sufficiently this making in the first booke, where Sander findeth fault with our translation, wherevnto I adde that which Cyprian writeth, in the Epistle last mentioned. Nam si in sacrificio quod Christus est, non nisi Christus sequendus est, vtique id not obaudire & facere oportet, quod Christus fecit, & quod faciendum esse mandauit, cùns ipse in Euangelis suo dicat, si feceritis quod mando vobis, iam non dico vos seruos sed amicos. &c. If in the sacrifice which is Christ, none but Christ is to bee followed: verily that wee ought to obey and to doe, which Christ did, and commaunded to bee doone, seeing hee himselfe saieth in his Gospel, if you shall doe that which I commaunde you, nowe doe I not call you seruants, but friendes. In this saying, Cyprian referreth the verbe facere, to all thinges that Christ did, and not to making his bodie. But if wee shoulde graunt facere to signifie onelyonly to make, yet coulde Sander get no more of vsus by making, but a sacrament of his bodie: yet for his exposition, hee saieth, hee hath Iustinus Printed by Robert Steuens at Paris, Anno Dom. 1551. where hee writeth thus. The Apostles in their commentaries which are called Gospels, hauehave deliuered, that Iesus gaue them thus in commaundemēt, who when he had taken bread, and giuen thanks, said, Doe and make this thing, for the remembrance of mee foreign, that is to say my bodie.

First Sander hath put in more wordes then Iustinus, for hee hath foreign, for which Sander giueth Doe and make, hee might as well hauehave added, and sacrifice. Secondly the whole weight of the matter standeth vppon the errour of the Printer, omitting one small letter o, for in the next lyne continuing the hystorie p. 592of the institution, he rehearseth the verie words of Christ. This is my bloude, wherefore there is no doubt, but lustinus telling what Christ saide, doth not onelyonly rehearse these wordes, Doe this in remembrance of me, but also these: This is my bodie, and so hauehave all the translato…s taken it, as Sander doth confesse. Neither doth the processe of Iustinus, prooue that he did write foreign, and not foreign, because he saide, before they tooke the meate, that was consecrated by the worde of prayer, to bee the flesh and bloude of Christ, for that the Apostles do witnesse that Christ hath giuen them such a precept, Hoc facite, doe or make this thing, that is to say my bodie: for hee prooueth it by the whole hystorie of the institution, remayning in the commentaries of the Apostles, in which it is written, that Christ saide, Doe this in remē brance of me, This is my bodie, & likewise after he had taken the cup and giuen thanks, that he said, This is my blood. This processe therefore declareth, what Christe said, as wel in the one part, as in the other, and therefore excludeth the vaine cauillation of Sander, grounded vponupon a letter missing in one print, which in other copies is not omitted, as all the translations declare.

The 21. circumstance, of the wordes, in meam commemorationem Sander.for the remembrance of me.

The ende of the institution was the remembrance of Christes death, but that is best remembred by the Fulke.presence of him selfe, ergo he is really present: for Christe would make the best remembrance that could be. I answere, Christe saith in the remembrance of me, and not onelie of his dying, but of me dying and redeeming. It is against the nature of recordation, or hauing in minde, to hauehave the thing remembred actually present, & therefore Christ ordained the best memorial that could be reteining the nature of recordation, and considering other circumstances to be considered, as he did in al tokens y^t euer he made, which were y^e best that could be deuised, for God in al things doth y^e best: wherfore this reasō of Sand, p. 593would proue y^e reall presence of Christ in all sacraments, y^t were before his incarnatiō, as wel as in this. And whereas Chrysostome saieth, Christ himselfe is daily set before vsus, that we shoulde not forget him: he meaneth as saint Paul to the Galathians, where he saith, he was crucified among them, and to the Corinthians, saying: his glorie shewed vntounto vsus, with vncouered face which is by doctrine, more cleare then the figures of the Lawe. Gal. 3. 2. Cor. 3. and not in the Sacrament onelyonly. Last of all, whereas a potte of Manna, was commaunded to be reserued for a memoriall, vntounto the children of Israel, with what breade the Lord had fedde their fathers in the wildernesse, to prooue that a thing may be the remēbrance of it selfe: I answere, that it is nothing like. For there a part of that visible foode was reserued, for a sensible token of remembrance, not of it selfe, but of that which was eaten being of the same kinde. But in this sacrament, there is no such matter, except wee shoulde beleeue the tales of a bloudie finger seene in the patten &c. as a part of the whole bodie, &c. and the Papistes confesse, that Christ is not sensiblie present, as that Manna was.

The 22. circumstance of these words, drinke yee all of this.Sander.

They all dranke of one cuppe, Iudas and al (saith hee) Fulke.for if two or three had drunke vp all, either Christ must hauehave consecrated the cuppe againe, or the rest must hauehave receiued a drinke not consecrated, as they do in Englande, when one cuppe is drunke vp, an other is filled out of a prophane potte, that standeth by: therefore this circumstance doth shewe, that more then wine is drunke. This conclusion shalbe graunted, of them that drinke worthily, without this circumstance, and of them that drinke vnworthily also, for they drinke iudgement to themselues. But concerning consecration, Sander imagineth it to be a magicall murmuring of wordes ouer y^t wine which is present in one cuppe. Whereas the consecration of Christ, and the ministers of England, is a dedicating p. 594to the holy vse of the supper, of so much bread and wine, as shalbe occupied in the celebration, and neither more nor lesse. But because he saith, it is not the will of Christ, that one Priest should consecrate in one ma…eany more then once, each kinde of the sacrament, because Christ dyed but once, and then both kinds together, because his bloud and soule must be signified, apart from his flesh and bodie. I aske him what large cuppe they had, or howe often in a day they said masse in the time of Leo, bishop of Rome, when a great Cathedral Church, as bigge as Paules Church in London, was diuerse times in one day filled with communicants? Leo Ep. 79. I meruaile what vessell of wine was consecrated to serue them all, if it be necessarie to hauehave it in one cuppe when it is consecrated, as Sander seemeth to affirme, or else howe manie cuppes they had standing on the table, that could suffice so great a multitude, that all must drinke of the bloud of Christ, though there be diuers chalices which hold it, when the people are manie as Sander saith, I doubt not, vnderstanding the bloude of Christ sacramentally: but I meruaile w^t what face he can reprooue our ministration with prophane wine, if we did minister so as he slandreth vsus, when hee and his fellowes doe altogether rob the people of the sacrament of Christes bloude, and giuegive them nothing but prophane wine.

The 23. circumstance of these wordes, this Sander.is my bloude.

Because it is in the common vulgar translation, Hic est Fulke.sanguis meus, Sander maketh not a litle adoe, that hic can agree with none, but sanguis: but when the Greeke is foreign Hoc of the newter gender, it may well be translated this thing, and so the relation must be to the wine, like as the other Euangelist render it foreign this cup, that is the wine in this cuppe: for bloude it cannot be, before the words of consecration, if they will holde their owne principles. And therefore the best interpreters, to take away cauilling, turne it, Hoc est sanguis meus, This p. 595thing is my bloud, as this thing is my body, where est may still stand for significat. And yet I denie not, but hic est sanguis and haec est caro, may well be vsed, as Cyprian doth in the same sense: for a relatiue betweene two antecedents, or an adiectiue betweene two substantiues of diuerse genders, may agree with either of them without any change of the sense, as in Genesis. Cap. 2. Adam saith of the woman: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis & caro de carne mea, haec vocabitur virago. This is nowe bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, she shalbe called woman. Here the Pronoune is of both the genders, and yet there was conuersion of a bone into a woman. Likewise God speaking of the Rainebowe, which is there the Masculine gender, Gen. 9. saith: hoc est signum foederis, where hoc agreeth with signum, yet the sense is hic arcus est signum, this bowe is the signe. Absolom. Sam. 2. Cap. 18. erected a piller, called in the vulgar translation ti…lum, which is of the masculine gender, and thereof saith: Hoc erit monimentum nominis, this shalbe the moniment of my name, meaning this pillar, and yet hoc agreeth not in gender with it. I might multiply examples, infinitely, if these were not sufficient to shewe the vanitie of Sander, which of the gender of the pronowne, would prooue the speach not to be figuratiue. Where hee saith, we builde a roofe without walls or foundation, as Hierom saith of heretikes, that neglecting y^e literal sense, builded al their fantasies vponupon allegories: I answere, we doe not so but rather the Papists, which builde a sacrament without an element, denying breade and wine to remaine in the supper, as for the literall sense of scripture, we beleeue to be the onelyonly true sense, although the words many times bee vnproper and figuratiue, euen as Sander himselfe both in his rotten Rocke, and in this booke taketh, this to be the literall sense of these words, I will giuegive thee the Keyes of the kingdome of heauen, meaning authoritie.

What the new testament is whereof the holy Sander.scripture speaketh.

A testamēt (he saith) is a solemn ordeining of a thing by p. 596Fulke.words confirmed by death of the testator, dedicated with a sacrifice, offered to God bloudily. The newe Testament is a couenant or truse made by Christ with vsus, to hauehave forgiuenesse of sinnes, if we keepe his lawe. The bloude of the old Testament was put in a basen, the bloude of the newe Testament in a Chalice. I omit, that hee saith, the promise of the old Testament was but of a temporall inheritance, for keeping the lawe. But to returne to the newe Testament, which he so handleth, that there is neither rime nor reason in his argument. Three things (saith hee) are required in a solemne Testament, the couenant, bloudshedding, and application of the bloude. When Christ saieth, This is my bloude of the newe testament, either all these, or one of these may bee called the newe testament. But when saint Luke, and saint Paul reporte Christ to hauehave saide, This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloud, they seeme (saith hee) to take the worde Testament, for the substance of the thing which doth confirme the new testament, & not properly for the newe truse or promise thereof. What say you, Sander? is there any vnproper speech in the words of consecration? is a substance expressed by the name of an accident? where be the nownes, pronownes, verbs, & paticiples; where be the relatiues, antecedents, cases and genders, that fight for the proper sense of hoc est corpus meum? why serue they not heere? But heare a little more. This that is in the Chalice (saith he) is not the promise of remitting sinnes, but it is y^e new testament in Christes bloud: That is to say, it is the thing that confirmeth the newe lawe. Why sir? euen now you told vsus that it might be called a new testament, as it is a law, couenant, or promise. Will you make vsus beleeue, that the Euangelistes reporting one saying of Christ, which can hauehave but one sense, in the one of them the newe testament is taken for a promise; in the other it is not taken for a promise? But let it bee the thing that confirmeth the promise: what thing is that I pray you? His bloud, you will say. Why then, the sense of these words, the newe testament in my bloude, is my bloude in my bloude. This cuppe is my bloude in my bloude: What sense is this? But Sedulius p. 597I trow helpeth you much in 1. Co. 11. Ideo colix &c. Therfore the Chalice is called the testament, because it did beare witnesse that the passion should bee soone after, & now it testifieth that it is done: although you are faine to alter the common reading, & to put in testamentum for testamenti. How prooue you by these wordes, that Sedulius was of your minde? Alas he hath nothing to say, but being taken with a figuratiue speach, he slinketh away like a Dogge that is whipped, with his taile betweene his legges. For these wordes of Christ, This cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude: if all the Grammarians in the worlde hauehave them in hande, to construe, cannot hauehave a Grammaticall sense, but must needes bee taken figuratiuely, and being so taken, chaseth transubstantiation out of the doores, for the true sense of them can be none other, but this. This cuppe is a seale of the newe testament established in my bloude, which is shed for the remission of sinnes, and the like vnderstanding must needes be of these words, This is my bodie.

The 24. circumstance of the bloude of the] Sande….new testament.

The bloud of the newe testament is the bloude th…t confirmeth the newe testament, but that is reall bloude, Fulke.therefore this is reall bloude, saith Sander. I answere, the argument is naught, because in one proposition, the speach is figuratiue, in the other proper. But he replieth, that the olde testament, had none other thing to signifie the bloude thereof, but the bloude of Calues, therefore the newe testament hath nothing but the bloude of Christ. I answere, the bloude of Calues and Goates was it selfe a figure of the bloude of Christe, by which the newe testament is confirmed, and therefore, there was no figure of that bloude to bee made. Heb. 9.

But S. Luke and S. Paul, by reciting the words otherwise, doe so euidently name bloud in the proper signification, that no reasonable man will say, that the name p. 598of bloude standeth figuratiuely for the signe of bloude, saying, this cuppe is the newe testament in my bloude. In deede I confesse in this sentence, the worde bloud, signifieth properly, the bloude of Christ, shedde vponupon the crosse, which is that bloude which answereth the bloud of the olde Testament and not that which is in the Chalice. But then the former wordes: This cup is y^e newe testament, are figuratiue, for in proper manner of speaking the cuppe was not, …e is not, the new testament, but a sacrament or signe thereof, which newe testament was confirmed by the bloude of Christe powred forth in sacrifice vponupon the crosse. This one sworde is sufficient to cut the throate of transubstantiation & carnall presence: for as much as Saint Luke and Saint Paul, giuegive the true sense of these wordes, This is my bloude, which is shedde for you, which in effect is thus much to say, this is the sacrament or seale of the newe testament established by shedding of my bloude on the crosse. But Sander can see nothing in Saint Luke and Saint Paul, but bloude taken properly, whereby he woulde prooue, that in the speech reported by the other Euangelists, bloud should not be taken figuratiuely, which is as good an argument as this. Bloud in the exposition of a figuratiue speech, is taken properly, therefore in figuratiue speech it selfe, it is not taken figuratiuely.

The 25. circumstance, of these wordes: This …ppe or Chalic….Sander.

The cuppe (saith he) is named to shewe the manner Fulke.of fulfilling the olde figures, in which the bloud was put in a cuppe, as Chrysostome and Oecumenius affirmed, and presently sprinkled. I deny not that the cup might shewe the manner of fulfilling the old, figures of sprinkling of bloude in the sacrifices, but that was referred to the passion of Christ, and not to the sacrament, for those bloudie sacrifices, were figures of Christs bloudie sacrifice, in which was fulfilled whatsoeuer they did signifie, and not in the supper. The supper, as Augustine sayeth p. 599of all our Sacraments, is diuerse in signe, but equall in signification, with those auncient Sacraments in Ioan. Tra. 26. The putting of bloud in the ba…en, did not shew the powring of wine into the cuppe, as Sander trifleth, but they both did signifie the powring foorth of the bloud of Christ vppon the crosse. But Oecumenius saith, that in steede of the bloud of beastes, our Lorde giueth his owne bloud, and that well in a cuppe, that hee might shewe the olde Testament to hauehave shadowed this thing before. I answere, that Occumenius a late writer, to whose authoritie I am not bound, of the Sacrament, speaketh sacramentally, ascribing to the signe, that which is proper to the thing signified. Otherwise, there is nothing in his writing to warrant transubstantiation.

The 26. circumstance of the verbe est, left out in S. Lukes words.Sander.

Saint Luke leaueth out the verbe …s, according to the Fulk.phrase of the Hebrewe tongue, what verbe will you bring in his place? (saith he) the verbe significat you cannot, because foreign is the Nominatiue case, then must you needes hauehave the verbe est: but as soone as it is in his place, shal it immediatly be cast out and changed into the verbe significat, &c?

And here he amplifieth y^e matter with such eloquence as Rhetorike wil aford him. But when you hauehave spoken your pleasure of taking in, and casting out, of compulsion & enforcements, of verbs substantiue and adiectiue &c. I pray you, what great piaculum is it, if being compelled to take in the verbe substantiue to make perfect the grammaticall sense, we be also enforced to vnderstand est for significat, to make good the logical sense? And how in Gods name doe you vnderstande the verbe substantiue est, in these wordes of Saint Luke: This cup is the newe Testament, in your 23. circumstance, when you expound it so, that you say, that which is in the cup, is not the newe Testament, which is the newe truce or couenant of remitting sinnes, but the thing which witnesseth it to be confirmed? You will say, the figure is in the words newe Testament, and not in the verbe es…. p. 600Then must I sett vponupon you, with your owne weapons which you fight with all in y^e 18. circumstance. I would faine see the brasen face of Sander, with what countenance he would defend this shamlesse stuffe.

The 27. circumstance of these wordes, which is shedde for you.

This cuppe is the new Testament in my bloud, which Sander.is shedd for you, saieth S. Luke. Here (saith Sander) the Fulke.relatiue, which, is referred to the Nowne Cuppe, and not to the Nowne Bloud, because foreign is the nominatiue case, and can not agree with foreign, which is the datiue case, wherefore the sense must be the cuppe, that is, that which is in the cuppe, was shedd for vsus. but the onelyonly reall bloud of Christ was shedde for the remission of our sinnes, therefore the onelyonly reall bloud of Christ was conteined in the cuppe. And heere he asketh what answere can be framed to this argument, if hell were lett loose. To the grāmaticall construction I hauehave answered sufficiently, in confutation of his rotten rocke of the Romish Church, vntounto the g. his 9. marke of an Antichristian. That if he wil neither admit the coniecture of Beza, that those wordes might, by error of the writers, be taken into the text, nor that S. Luke vseth the figure of Soloecophanes, in that place, as in diuerse other: yet at the lest, that the article prepositiue standeth for y^e relatiue …, as often it doth, and that the verbe foreign is here vnderstoode, being left out as in the former part of y^e sentence, For howsoeuer it be, it can not be translated nor vnderstood thus: This cuppe, that is to say this bloud, which is shedde for you, is the newe Testament in my bloude. For what sense can these wordes hauehave? This bloud is the newe Testament, and this bloud is in my bloud. And nowe to the argument in which seing he vnderstandeth the speech to be proper, I denie the maior or proposition. This liquor in the cuppe of Christes banket was shedde for vsus, and I prooue it to be false euen by the wordes of Christ vttered by S. Luke and S. Matthew. The fruite of the vi…e was not shedd for vsus, the liquor in the cuppe of Christs banket, was the fruite of the vine: therefore the p. 601liquor in y^e cuppe of Christes banket was not shed for vsus. That Euthymius a late gatherer, referreth these wordes of shedding for vsus, to the cuppe, I force not, and yet hee meaneth the cuppe to be his bloud not really, but Sacramentally, euen as his bloud is not there shedde really, except the Papistes will now giuegive ouer their old distinction of vnbloudy Sacrifice, to saye that the bloud of Christ is shedd forth in the Sacrament, as Sander saieth it was presently shedde in a mysterie, and the next daye shedde naturally. What misty speech is this? The naturall bloud of Christ is shedde in a mystery, if we speake after that manner, the reall body and bloud of Christ is present in a mysterye, eaten and drunken in a mysterye, &c. he crieth out that we build a roofe without a foundation of the naturall maner of presence and receiuing. But he must be admonished that the Greek word is foreign, signifying which is shedd forth, and simply shedd, and therfore the word hath relation to the bloud which in his passion was shedde forth of his bodie. which shedding forth of his bodye, if Sander will confesse to be in his Masse, he must vtterly renownce the vnbloudy Sacrifice, so much prated of among the Papistes, for what els is a bloudy Sacrifice, but that whereof the bloud is powred out or shedde forth?

The last circumstance of the hymne saide at Christes supper.

We neuer read of any hymne saide or song after any Sander.feast, but this, and yet Christ gaue himselfe by faith and Fulk.spirite at the supper time, to some of his disciples, before that night as to S. Marie at Bethanie, Ioan. 12. therfore the hymne externally song or saide, was dewe to this externall worke of God, wherein with his owne handes, he gaue his owne body and bloud, &c. Because Sander confesseth that this circumstance aboue doth not prooue the reall presence, I will take his confession, It may not be denied but that Christ song or saied the hymne at other times, although it be expressed but this once. And if it were certeine, that this was the first and last that he song with them, yet there might be greate and sufficient cause p. 602of his ioyfull thankesgiuing at this time, wherein hee made an ende of the old ceremonie, and hauing instituted a newe sacrament of thankesgiuing, was euen the same night to beginne his passion, which was the principall caufe of his cōming into the world for the redemption of mankinde. As for these circumstances which hee confesseth, doe not euerie one by them selfe prooue the reall presence: when hee can make an argument of them altogether able to proue it, I wil take in hand to answer it. In the meane time, as he hath set them down seuerally, I hauehave answered, that neuer a one of them hath ani force of argument to proue that he entendeth by them.