Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 7 · Chapter 1
CAP. I.
Master Iewell hath not answered Doctor Harding well, touching Sander.the wordes of Christes supper in this article, Fol. 316. The people was not taught in the first sixe hundreth yeares, to beleeue, that Christs bodie is really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally in the Sacrament.
To giuegive a tast (as I promised) of Sanders collection of vntrueths, I will examine a fewe.Fulke.
The first vntruth is noted to be this: Master Iewell said, Whether Christes body be corporally in the Sacrament, Harding answereth not one worde. Harding had saide, The termes really, substantially &c. are sounde in the doctors, treating of the true being of Christs bodie in the Sacrament, Ergo (saith Sander) Master Iewell saide not truely: for hee prooueth afterwarde, Christes bodie to bee in the Sacrament. Heere the reason of this vntrueth is, the whole matter in controuersie, whether Harding hauehave proued in deed that which he intended.
The 2. vntruth. Iewell saith, in this matter hee is able to alledge nothing for direct proofe. Harding had saide, Christian people hauehave euer beene so taught, of that kind of presēce, which is founded vponupon Christs plaine words: Ergo saith Sander, hee was able to alleage somewhat. But what, I pray you? That Christian people were euer so taught: which is false, that this doctrine is grounded vponupon Christs words, which is false also. For what one doctor affirmeth the presence according to the article? Harding saith the three Euangelists and Saint Paul: Ergo saith Sander, there is ye thirde vntrueth: for M. Iewel hath words plainely written &c. But if these words prooue the presence according to the article, the controuersie should be at an ende.
The 4. vntruth is, that M. Iewell saith, Harding vponupon the wordes of the institution, foundeth his carnall presence in such grosse sort, really, and fleshly in the Sacrament. Sander replieth it is lesse carnall, grosse, and fleshly, to hauehave the substance of Christs corporall flesh, in a spirituall manner, really present vnderunder the forme of breade, then to bee in his mothers wombe, as Marcion, and Apelles counted it, or to make a lye, when he saide, take, eate, this &c: As though the graunting of Christes humanitie, prooued the Popish presence, which is contrarie to the truth of his humanitie, or that Christ might not say truely, the Sacrament to be his bodie, except it were after that manner, his bodie. His presence in spirituall manner, we graunt, but we vnderstande spirituall manner, to bee otherwise then inuisiblie, for manie thinges may be so present, that they are not seene, and yet be not spiritually, but corporally present.
The fift vntrueth is, that M. Iewell saith: Christ vseth no leading to that carnall presence.
Sander answereth: The word This, leadeth the Apostles to that vnderstanding, as if I say, this is a Lyon, it will followe vnderunder this visible forme, that I shewe, a Lyon is substantially contained, &c. As right as a rammes horne. If I shew a king or a strong man, I may say truely in some sense, This is a Lyon. For if I shew one substance, and affirme another of it, the speach must needes be either false, or figuratiue.
The sixt vntruth, and a forged lye is, that Master Iewell saith, D. Fisher saith, this sense cannot in any wise be gathered of the bare words of Christ. Fishers words, as Sander reherseth them, are these: No man shall proue by the bare words of the Gospel, that any priest in these dayes, doth consecrate the true bodie and bloud of Christ. Againe. No worde is put whereby it may be prooued, that in our masse, the verie presence of Christs bodie and bloude is made. Iudge indifferentlie of the words, what lye Iewell hath forged. Although Fisher meant, that by the interpretation of the fathers, and practise of the Church, the vnderstanding of the Gospell is more certainely obtained: then by the bare words of the Gospell. But Fisher hath other wordes: Non potest igitur per illam scripturam probari, quòd aut laicus aut sacerdos quoties id negotij tentauerit, pari modo conficiet ex pane vinóque Christi corpus & sanguinem, atque Christus ipse conficit, cùm nec is…ud in scripturis contineatur: which M. Iewel beginneth to english thus, It cannot therefore be prooued by any scripture. Here Sander playeth the schoolemaster, and apposeth him. What cannot be proued M. Iewel? giuegive me the nominatiue case to the verbe non potest, it cannot, saith Sander. What cannot? Wherevpon is grounded the 7. vntrueth, when Iewel saith: Doct. Fisher saith, the carnall presence cannot be proued neither by these words (this is my bodie) nor by any other. But I put case Master Iewell woulde answere your deepe demaunde, in saying, that potest in this place, is a verbe impersonall, and therefore he can giuegive it no nominatiue case at all, but must english it thus, non potest it cannot. If you will aske him, why he saith then the carnall presence cannot bee prooued, as though presence were the nominatiue case: he will answere you, he doth not so construe, or translate the Latine, but he inferreth that conclusion, vponupon Fishers wordes. No worde is put whereby it may be prooued, that in our Masse the verie presence of Christes bodie and bloude is made. But your learning, wil hauehave the whole speach following to bee the nominatiue. I say, let it so bee, if you will needes hauehave it so, yet Master Iewels conclusion is true: That Fisher affirmeth the carnall presence cannot bee prooued to bee made, either by laye man or Priest: ergo it cannot bee prooued at all. Yet saith Sander, Howe manie enormous faults hauehave you committed heere, master Iewell? First Harding affirmed these wordes, This is my bodie, to teach a reall presence: Fisher spake of these words, Make this thing, and not of these wordes, This is my bodie. This were an enormous fault, if Fisher had not saide, Non potest per vllam scripturam probari, it cannot be prooued by any scripture: but seeing he saide so, this is an enormous, slanderous, impudent, and foolish lye, and cauill of Sander. Secondly, Harding spake of the reall presence, if any sacrament bee made at al: Fisher, whether any man had autoritie to make anie Sacrament at all or no. When you can finde Hardings if, or condition, you shalbe answered to Fishers whether or question. Thirdly Harding spake of Christs words; Fisher of our doings. If the scripture be not Christs words, Fisher spake onelyonly of our doings. 4 Fisher doubted not but the wordes made the presence, but he asketh the heretikes howe they can proue it by the holy scriptures. Nay syr, he affirmeth precisely, that it cannot be proued by the scripture. These are the foure great enormous fault. I trust after this tast, no man is desirous to examine the rest of Sanders vntruthes, falsely fathered vponupon Master Iewel. Wherefore I wil goe from henceforth onelyonly to the matter in controuersie. Hitherto you heare not Master Iewels article disproued. Videlicet, that the people were not taught, &c. as in the beginning of the Chapter. The question, being not of the wordes, but of the meaning, saith Iewel, Christ meant not this to bee his bodie really. Hereto Sander alleageth a place of Hilarie: lib. 8. de Trin. to proue, that Christ lacked neither wisedome, nor vtterance, to speak plainely of his Sacraments, and mysteries: which is verie true, for hee spake plainely, syncerely, and truely, although he spake figuratiuely. Neither did hee speake otherwise then he meant, seeing it is his bodie after a certaine manner, as Augustine saith.
But seeing heere are three or foure persons speaking: M. Iewel, M. Harding, M. Sander, and my selfe: it shall not be amisse to bring their seuerall speaches in forme of a Dialogue for briefenesse, as Sander giueth me example.
Iewel.
Christ was the Rocke, but yet not really.
Sand.
S. Paule spake not these wordes with intent to make any sacrament, or any other thing.
Fulke.
S. Paul spake these wordes of a Sacrament, made by God in the wildernes.
Sand.
Two diuerse natures in those words are named, which can not be one substance. But this is my body nameth one substance.
Fulke.
One substance is demonstrated, and another named. Moses might hauehave said truely, shewing the rock to the people. This is Christe, or els S. Paul could not hauehave said truly, the rock was Christ.
Sand.
It was not anie one certaine rocke, whereof S. Paul spake, for ye water flowed out of two Rocks. Either of which did signifie Christ, and they both are onelyonly one Rocke in meaning, and in substance figured: therefore Saint Paul meant onelyonly of the spirituall Rocke, which is Christ.
Fulke.
Manna, which was the spirituall meat they did eate, rayned euerie day, yet was it but one Christ in signification: therefore S. Paul meant onelyonly of the spiritual Manna, which is Christ, and not of the corporall Manna which was a sacrament of Christ: if this reason hold not of the spirituall meate, howe can it holde of the spiritual drinke?
Iewel.
Christ gaue his disciples (as S. Augustine saith) the figure of his bodie and bloud.
Sand.
He did so: but he gaue such a figure, as is also the substance of his bodie, as himselfe being a figure of his fathers substance, is also the selfesame substance with his father.
Fulke.
As he gaue a figure, he gaue not the substance. Christ is the figure of his fathers substance, as he is a person distinct by himselfe, and not his father. Neither doth Augustine meane, of such an vnitie in essence, as is betweene God the father & the sonne, when he doth plainly deuide, sacramentum & rem sacramenti, the Sacrament, and the thing or matter of the sacrament: that is the figure, and the thing figured.
Sand.
He gaue a true and not a false signe, lib. 2. ca. 12. A miraculous, not a common figure. lib. 2. cap. 13. A mystical, not an artificiall figure lib. 5. cap. 16. A diuine, not a rhetoricall figure. lib. 2. cap 14.
Fulke.
These are answered in their proper places aboue cited.
Sand.
He gaue a figure of the new testament which hath truth, & not which betokeneth a thing absent from it, which August. declareth in Psa. 39. The old fathers did celebrate the figures of the thing to come. &c.
Fulke.
Augustine in this place, and in many other maketh this difference betweene the sacrament of the old Testament, and of the new, yt theirs were of Christ to come, once of Christ exhibited and alreadie come, but of the reall presence he speaketh no word. Ablata sunt signa promittentia &c. The promising signes are taken away, because the truth that was promised, is exhibited. In this bodie we are, of this bodie we are partakers. Speaking of the bodie of Christ which was sacrificed once for all, in which wee are after a mysticall manner included and are also partakers thereof, after a mysticall manner, and so were all that euer pleased GOD: not after a corporall manner, such as the Papistes imagine: wherefore Augustine saith vponupon the same Psalme, alluding to the celebration of the Sacrament, Sursum corda habcamus. Siresurrexistis cum Christo, dicit fidelibus, corpus & sanguinem domini accipientibus dicit &c. Let vsus hauehave our hearts aboue. If yee bee risen againe with Christ, hee speaketh to the faithfull, hee speaketh to them which receiue the bodie and bloude of our Lorde, if you bee risen againe with Christ, sauour of these things yt are aboue, where Christ is sitting at the right hande of God, &c. Behold Augustine teacheth howe to receiue Christ truely, and not as he saith else-where, Sacramento tenus, as farre as the sacrament, or outward signe onelyonly.
Sand.
He gaue a figure, but he spake not a figure.
Fulke.
Augustine affirmeth both prooued li. 2. cap. 14.
Sand.
The names of bodie and bloud do vsually signifie a visible, corruptible & mortal nature, which Augustine knowing, was a fraide lest children would think that Christ had walked on the earth, none otherwise then in the shape of breade: for that respect, hee alwayes teacheth that the bodie of Christ in the sacrament, is the signe and figure of Christs visible bodie.
Fulke.
Augustine feared no such matter de Trin. lib. 3. cap. 10. but onelyonly by way of a similitude sheweth, that if children should neuer learne more of Christ, then that the Sacrament shoulde be shewed them and tolde them, that it is the bodie of Christ, and also if they should neuer see the shape of bread but onelyonly in the celebration of the sacrament, they woulde imagine, that Christ had appeared onelyonly in that shape: but this is impossible, therfore Augustine coulde not feare it. And seeing hee had no such feare, he had no such respect, as Sander dreameth, as well concerning his feare, as concerning his respect.
Iew.
Tertullian saith: This is my body, that is to say, the figure of my bodie.
Sand.
Hee meaneth so as I saide before of S. Augustine, and speaketh against the Marcionites which denied the trueth of Christes body.
Fulk.
Tertullian proueth, that Christ had a true bodie, because the sacrament was a figure thereof: for a phā tasme or a vaine thing, can hauehave no figure. Wherefore Sander, and not Master Iewell, reasoneth like a Marcionite, confounding the figure with the thing figured.
Sand.
Tertullian speaking most literally of bread, as it was an olde figure of Christes body, whereof in Ieremie it was saide, Let vsus put the wood of the crosse into his bread, to wit vppon his bodie, saith: Christ then fulfilling the old figures, made bread his bodie: if he did so, it could not tarie bread any longer.
Fulk.
This place of Tertullian is shamefully mangled both in wordes and sense. Tertullian asketh. But why did he call breade his body, and not rather a pepon which Marcion accounted in steed of an hart, not vnderstanding, that this was an auncient figure of the bodie of Christ, saying by Ieremie: Against me hauehave they thought a thought, saying: Come, let vsus cast wood on his breade, that is, the crosse on his bodie. Therefore the lightener of antiquities, sufficiently declared what he would hauehave breade then to hauehave signified, when he calleth bread his body. These words declare, wherefore Christ did appoint bread to signifie his bodie, in his supper: namely because it had bene an ancient figure of his body, in somuch that it was called bread. But he made bread his body, therefore it is not his body still. I aunswere, Tertullian sheweth how hee made it his body, when he expoundeth it by the name of the figure of his body. Baptisme being made regeneration, is still a washing with water. The rocke when it was made Christ, remained still a rocke. &c.
Iew.
After consecration, saith Saint Ambrose, the bodie of Christ is signified.
Sand.
S. Ambrose de myst. cap. …. doth speake of that signification, which is made whiles the priest pronounceth: Hoc est corpus meum, which words he saith, do worke in the consecration, that which they signifie: therefore they worke the bodie and blood of Christ.
Fulk.
Fie for shame, Sander, when Ambrose saith, Post consecrationem, after consecration, will you say hee speaketh of the signification of the wordes which as spoken in the time of the consecration? the words of Christ indeede doe worke, as Ambrose saith, and what worke they, but that which is added to the elementes after cō secration? namely a signification of the bodie of Christ.
Iew.
It is a bondage and death of the soule saith S. Augustine, to take the signe in steed of the thinges signified.
Sand.
Saint Augustine meaneth of such kinde of signes, when either the thinge which appeareth to bee signified, is not at all true according to the letter, or else, when the thing signified is absent in substance. &c.
Fulk.
Saint Augustine de Doct. Chr. lib. 3. cap. 5. speaketh expressely of figuratiue speeches, when they are vnderstoode, as if they were proper: and cap 16. of the same booke, giuing a rule to knowe figuratiue speaches from proper, hee exemplifieth, the eating of the fleshe of Christ, and drinking his bloode, to be a figuratiue speach. Wherefore you see master Iewels article of chalenge standeth vntouched, for any thing brought in this chapter: And that Sander can yelde no good cause why master Iewel hath not fully answered Harding touching the wordes of Christes supper.