Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 7 · Chapter 12 – Chapter 14
CAP. XII.
Sand.
Of Christs glorified bodie, and the place of S. Hierome expounded.
Hard.
The bodie which was before the death therof thrall and fraile, is now spirituall.
Iewel.
To what ende alleageth Master Harding the spirituall state of Christes bodie? Enriches saide it was chaunged into the verie substance of God, which heresie is like Master Hardings, if it be not the same.
Sand.
The defence of the reall presence, is directly against that heresie.
Fulke.
To graunt the flesh of Christ in worde and to denie the essentiall properties thereof, is to come as neere to that heresie as can be.
Sand.
The ancient fathers proued, that as the Sacrament of the altar consisted of two thinges, the signe or forme of breade, and of the bodie of Christ, so Christ cō sisteth of two natures, the one diuine, the other humane. Wherefore you denying the presence, agree with the Arrians, Valentinians, &c.
Fulke.
The ancient fathers, neuer made the forme or accidents of breade, but bread it selfe, to be the signe, or one part of the sacrament, representing ye bodie of Christ, and the thing signified, they made like to the godheade, whereby they vnderstoode not the naturall bodie of Christ, but the effect of his death.
Hard.
S. Hierome shewing two wayes of vnderstanding Christs flesh, one spirituall (as it is verily meate) an other as it was crucified, declareth the manner of eating it onelyonly, to differ from the manner of it being crucified, the substance being all one.
Iewel.
He speaketh neither of the Sacrament, nor of any reall presence.
Sand.
He meaneth both.
Fulk.
He can meane neither of both, seeing he distinguisheth that diuine and spirituall flesh, which is meat in deede vntounto eternall life, from that flesh which was crucified, which if it were meate in the same sense, that it was crucified, that is in the naturall substance: S. Hieroms distinction should not be of that flesh which &c. and that flesh which &c. but of ye effects and affects of ye same flesh. Wherefore when he saith, the flesh of Christ is two waies to be vnderstanded, he meaneth of this word, The flesh of Christ, and not of the diuerse manners of presence therof in the sacrament, and on the crosse.
Iewel.
S. Hierom saith: of this oblatiō which is merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ, it is lawful to eate, but of yt oblatiō which Christ offered vponupon ye altar of the crosse, according to it selfe, it is lawful for no man to eate, that is to say, in grosse and fleshly manner. These words shewe a difference betweene the sacrifice made in the remēbrāce of Christ, and ye very sacrifice in deede &c.
Sand.
The difference is so great, that the thing offered is all one, and that which is crucified and eaten, is the same in substance, but not in manner of presence.
Fulke.
The difference is so great, as must needs bee betweene a sacrifice once offered and neuer to be repeted, and the memoriall of the same. The same substance that was crucified, is eaten, but not by meanes of any bodily presence, but by a spirituall kinde or manner of eating by faith.
Sand.
What marueilous making can you finde in the bread and wine, except they be made the bodie and bloud of Christ?
Fulke.
It is a merueilous thing, that the elements of bread and wine are made to the worthy receiuer in earth, the communication of the bodie and bloud of Christ sitting in heauen.
Iewell.
If a man take it fleshly, saith Chrysostome in Ioan. Hom. 47, he gaineth nothing.
Sand.
It followeth immediatly: What say we then? is not flesh, flesh? He vnderstandeth fleshly, that deuiseth a grosse and fleshly manner of eating, but not he, yt saith the flesh must be eaten, if the manner be diuine and spirituall, as in our sacrament.
Fulke.
The manner you teach is grosse and carnall, for spiritual eating we confesse, which is not onelyonly in the sacrament.
Iewell.
It is a figure or forme of speach (saith S. Augustine) willing vsus to be partakers of Christs passion.
Sand.
You are taken M. Iewel. For seeing you say, we eate Christ in the supper only by faith, and we must bee partakers of the passion Christ by faith at lest: how saith S. Hierome, we may not eate that oblation which Christ offered on the crosse according to it selfe, may we not be leeue in him? &c.
Fulke.
In the sacrament wee eate bread, which is the oblation merueilously made in the remembrance of Christ, we eate not that, which was sacrificed on ye crosse in the reall substance thereof, but by faith applying vntounto vsus the fruites and effects of his passion.
Iewell.
S. Hierome calleth the eating of the diuine & spiritual flesh of Christ, ye remēbring yt hee died for vsus.
Sander.
Then ye oblation it self is eaten of vsus, which he offered on the crosse, according to it selfe.
Fulke.
What mad man would saye, the oblation it selfe, & the remembrance therof to be all one?
Iewel.
Clemens Alexandrinus saith: there is a fleshly bloud, wherwith we are redeemed, & a spiritual, wherwith we are annointed. And this is to drinke the bloude of Christ, to be partaker of his immortalitie: As Christs bloud is not really present to annoint vsus, so it is not really present to nourish vsus.
Sander.
Clemens speaketh of the effect of Christes bloud: Hierom of the carnall bloud it selfe.
Fulke.
A monstrous shift, when Hierom distinguisheth in expresse wordes, the spirituall and diuine bloude, by which wee are nourished, from the carnall bloud that was shed with the speare, by which wee are redeemed: Wherefore he speaketh of the effect & fruite as well as Clemens.
Sander.
That S. Hierom speaketh of the Sacrament, it is proued, because he citeth such words out of S. Iohn, as all the fathers, reasons, scriptures, prooue to appertaine by way of promise to the supper, as I hauehave prooued in twentie Chapiters togither of my thirde booke.
Fulke.
His citing of wordes out of the sixt of Saint Iohn, prooue no more, then drinking of the bloude of Christ, &c. in Clemens that hee speaketh of the Sacrament. Your twentie Chapters are answered in as many by mee.
Iewel.
Saint Augustine saith: Iudas betrayed Christ carnall, thou hast betrayed Christ spirituall. For in thy furie, thou betrayest the holy gospell, to be burned with wicked fire. These wordes of Clement and Augustine, agreeing so neere in sense and phrase with the wordes of Hierom, may stand for sufficient exposition to the same.
Sander.
Augustine taketh Christ spirituall another way, cleane diuerse from Clement, or Saint Hierome. The name of spirituall, may be taken as many wayes, at spiritus, which is for God, the holy ghost, Christ, Angels, winde, gifts spiritual, the soule, the imagination, breath, anger, or punishment, and many other waies.
Fulke.
So many waies of taking as you knowe, yet you cannot tell any other, then as Clemens and Hierom take it, for that which hath not the substance, but ye grace and effect of Christ.
Sander.
That which you bring out of Athanasius, apperteineth to the Capernaits, and to no man else.
Fulke.
Yes, to as many as erre grossely, like the Capernaites, as you Papistes doc.
Harding.
The fathers vsed the wordes really, substantially, &c. to put away al doubt, of ye being of Christs verie bodie in the holy mysteries.
Iewel.
He diuineth what they meane, before they speake.
Sander.
Nay, because he is sure of their words, he expoundeth their minde.
Fulke.
He is so sure of their wordes, that he knoweth not where they are written, nor you neither. Being so often called for, and so much bragged of, bring them out for shame.
CAP. XIII.
Sander.
A place of Chrysostome expounded.
Iewel.
Chrysostom saith in the same homilie, If Christ died not, whose signe and token is this sacrifice? therefore he may be also charged wt the sacramentarie quarel.
Sander.
You proue a signe here, but not that ye trueth is absent from the signe.
Fulke.
The Sacrament is a signe: ergo, not the thing signified, a relatis.
Sander.
The sacrifice of the new testament, is ye bodie of Christ, this is the sacrifice of the newe testament, therefore it is the bodie of Christ.
Fulke.
The Sacrament is not the sacrifice propitiatorie of the newe Testament, but the passion of Christ. The Sacrament is a spirituall Sacrifice of thanksgiuing, as prayer, almes, preaching, vntounto which is no reall presence required. Your syllogisme is all of particulars, make the maior vniuersall, and the error is soone espied. EueryEvery Sacrifice of the newe Testament, is the bodie of Christ.
Sander.
Chrysostome there saith, that Marcion, Valentinus, Manichaeus, (who denied Christes reall flesh and death) are confounded by these mysteries. How can that be, if the true flesh of Christ be not conteined in them?
Fulke.
Verie well, as Tertullian frameth his argument from the figure, to the thing figured. The Sacramēt could not be a figure of Christs body, except Christ had a bodie in deede. For a voide thing, that is a phantasme, can hauehave no figure.
Sander.
Chrysostom saith: it is euident by these mysteries, that Christ is alreadie sacrificed, which cannot be true, if his reall flesh be not present, of which point I hauehave spoken in my fift booke, Cap. 1.
Fulke.
And in the same place, I hauehave aunswered the vanitie of your argument.
Iewell.
Master Harding knoweth, that Chrysostome speaketh generally of all other mysteries, for it followeth: Euen so in baptisme, the water is a thing sensible, the regeneration is a thing spirituall: wherefore, if M. Harding will force his reall presence in the one Sacrament, hee must likewise force the same in the other.
Sander.
D. Harding brought that place onelyonly to shewe, that the bodie of Christ is not visibly present.
Fulke.
The place prooueth, that the body of Christ is none otherwise present, then regeneration in baptisme.
Sander.
In baptisme, the grace of regeneration which is giuen, is conteined and giuen, when the worde commeth to the water.
Fulke.
The water is no subiect, for the grace of God, & yet Chrysost, saith, not ye grace, but regeneratiō it self. Nothing is borne againe, but the partie baptized, therefore regeneration is not conteined in the element or action of baptisme.
CAP. XIIII.
Sander.
The difference betweene baptisme and our Lords supper.
Iewel.
Forasmuch as these two Sacraments be both of like force: I wil touch, what the fathers think of gods working in baptisme. The fathers in the Councell of Nice, bid vsus thinke, that the water is full of heauenly fire &c. Basil, the kingdome of heauen is set open, Chrysostome, God himself in baptisme by his inuisible power, holdeth thy head. Ambrose, In the water is the grace of Christ, and the presence of the Trinitie. Bernard, Let vsus be washed in his bloud. &c. By force of which wordes M. Hard. may proue, yt the power of God, the heauenly fire, ye grace & bloud of Christ, is really present in baptisme.
Sander.
Nothing is really present that is affirmed of a Sacrament, except it be signified present, in the wordes instituted by Christ, which make the Sacrament, or of necessitie be inferred vponupon them.
Fulke.
Neither is all that really present, which is affirmed of a Sacrament, that is signified present, in the words instituted by Christ, which make the Sacrament: As Christ saide, This is my bodie, so hee sayde, This cuppe is the newe Testament in my bloud: yet it followeth not, that the newe Testament is really present in the cuppe, no nor in the bloud of Christ, which he shedd for vsus, but is confirmed by it, and signified by the other.
Sander.
Baptisme & the Eucharist hath many differences the one from the other.
Fulke.
If they had no differences, they should be all one, yet hauehave they not so many as you make. But in the matter in question, they hauehave like force, to vnite vsus to Christ, and assure vsus of eternall life, which none can hauehave but they that eate the flesh and drinke the bloude of Christ: or else, what becōmeth of them that are baptized, and not admitted to the communion?