Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 7 · Chapter 15 – Chapter 20
CAP. XV.
Sander.
M. Iewel replyeth not wel, touching the authoritie alleaged out of the Nicen Councell.
Harding
We behold (saith the Councel of Nice) the lambe of God foreign, put or laide on that holy table, & we receiue his precious bodie and bloud, foreign verily & in deede, which is to say, really.
Iewell.
foreign is not found in the Greek, nor in Tunstall, but deuised by M. Harding.
Sander.
It is founde in the actes of the Councell, that are not all printed, but they are extant in diuerse Libraries.
Fulke.
You name none, where we should find them, to trye your trueth and the antiquitie of those coppies.
Sander.
In many Latine printed bookes, it is translated s…m, situated or put.
Fulke.
The question is not what some Latine coppies hauehave, but what is the originall Greeke.
Iewel.
Must foreign, which signifieth to be set or placed, needes sounde a reall presence?
Sander.
Can you hauehave a capon set and placed vppon your table, which is not really present?
Fulke.
A fit comparison, betweene a capon and the lambe of God.
Iewel.
Christ dwelleth in our heart by faith, and yet not really.
Sander.
The lambe of God is not saide to be on the holy table, by faith, but to be set or laide there.
Fulke.
How can the Councell saye, We behold it set there, but by faith?
Iewel.
S. Hierom saith: as often as we enter into the sepulchre, we see our Sauiour lying in his shroode, yet he lay not there really.
Sander.
But he lay there once really. Howe coulde the Councell say, wee beholde the lambe of God placed vponupon the holy table, which neither nowe, nor at any time was really there?
Fulke.
By faith: as we behold him in his ministers, and in baptisme, washing our sinnes with his bloude, where he is not really present, nor euer was, after that manner.
Iewell.
In the Councel of Chalcedon, it is demanded, in what scripture lye these two natures of Christ, it is the same worde foreign, yet they lye not really in the scriptures.
Sander.
The heretike asked for very materiall and reall wordes.
Fulke.
If the natures may be said figuratiuely to lye, where the wordes are found: why may not the lamb of God be saide to lye, where the bread and wine, which are signes of him, do lye?
Iewell.
That word signifieth a naturall situation of place, & order of parts: such as D. Harding in the next article, saith Christs bodie hath not in the sacrament.
Sander.
It hath such situation as the forme of bread requireth.
Fulke.
Then the forme of bread is situated, & not the bodie of Christ, or the lambe of God, which you might as well vrge to be taken in his proper sense, for a natural lambe, as foreign to be laide.
Iewell.
The Councell is plaine, that we consider not basely the bread and wine that is set before vsus.
Sander.
He considereth them basely, who saith, they remaine still in earthly substance.
Fulke.
He considereth them not at all, who saith, they are no part of the Sacrament.
Iewel.
It is said, lift vp your heartes: so that there is nothing in the action to be considered, but only Christ.
Sander.
I hauehave spoken of this matter at large, lib. 2. Cap. 24. of Eagles, Cap. 27.
Fulke.
And there I hauehave briefely answered.
Iewell.
S. Ambrose saith: it is better seene, that is not seene.
Sander.
Therfore, the bodie of Christ is better sene, then bread and wine.
Fulke.
Who doubteth of that?
Iewel.
For the same cause S. Augustine saith: In Sacraments we must consider not what they be, but what they represent. For they are tokens of things, being one thing, and signifying another.
Sander.
As they be tokens, they be one thing, & signifie another: and therefore the substance of Christes bodie, is not his death or passion, or the vnitie of his Church, which thing vnderunder the forme of bread it doeth signifie, but it is another manner of thing, to wit, a bodie immortal, impassible, &c.
Fulke.
If S. Augustine had beleeued ye Sacrament to be the immortall bodie of Christ, he would neuer hauehave said, In Sacraments, we must not consider what they be, but alway what they signifie, Con. Max. lib. 3. Cap 22.
Iewell.
Touching our beholding of Christ in ye Sacrament. S. Aug. saith: It worketh such motions in vsus, as if we saw our Lord himself present vponupon the crosse.
Sander.
S. Aug. speaketh of the solemnitie of Easter, which was kept by preaching & shewing some image of Christ, & by creeping to the crosse.
Fulke.
Hee speaketh generally of signes; as for images and creeping to the crosse, is a moste impudent lye.
Iewel.
This is that Eusebius writeth, that the bodie might be worshipped by a mysterie, & that euerlasting sacrifice should liue in remembrance, and be present in grace for euer: in this spirituall sort, & not fleshly, Christ is laide present vponupon the altar.
Sander.
You leaue out that he saith, the oblation of the redemption should be euerlasting, by which wordes Eusebius declareth, that the Sacrament is such a mysterie, as offereth vsus that continuall redemption, which Christ hath purchased for vsus.
Fulke.
Eusebius declareth no such matter, but a memoriall of the euerlasting and one onelyonly sacrifice, quod semel offerebatur in pretium, which was but once offered for a price or redemption.
Sander.
The same Eusebius saith: the inuisible preist turneth the visible creatures with his worde, into the substance of his body and bloud.
Fulke.
So he saith, that man is by the workmanship of the heauenly mercy made the body of Christ in baptisme: wherefore he speaketh not of Popish transubstantiation, but of a spirituall mutation, such as is in baptisme.
Iewell.
S. Augustine saith: you are vponupon the table, you are in the cup. As the people is laid vponupon the table, so and none otherwise, the councell of Nice saieth, the lambe of God is laid vponupon the table.
Sander.
What, Master Iewell? is the table turned into vsus, as Eusebius saith, the visible creatures are turned, &c?
Fulke.
Euen such a conuersion is of the bread into his body, as is of the table and cuppe into vsus, namely spirituall. For without some kinde of conuersion, it were not possible, that wee should be on the table, and in the cuppe.
Sander.
Wee should not bee there, if our head Iesus Christ were not vnderunder the forme of bread & wine, where in we are signified: but of this more, lib. 5. Cap 5.
Fulke.
As we are there, so is our head Iesus Christ, and none otherwise.
Iewell.
The Greeke worde foreign, verily, by D. Hardings iudgment soundeth no lesse then really: But these two wordes, truely and fleshly, hauehave sundry meanings and in the sense that Christ spake vntounto the Iewes, the one doth vtterly exclude the other.
Sander.
If you take fleshly, for the substance of flesh, is is all one in speaking, to say truely and fleshly: but as concerning the corruptible qualities of flesh, it is not all one.
Fulke.
The spirituall sense of eating Christes flesh truely, in which he spake to the Iewes, doth vtterly exclude the Popish sense of eating the substance of his flesh.
Iewell.
He that eateth most spiritually, eateth most truely: as Christ is the true vine, the true Manna: and we are verily one breade, and the Apostles verily the heauens. And these are the Paschall feastes, wherein verily the lambe is slaine.
Sander.
In comparison of bodily eating alone, spirituall eating is more true, and of a better sort: but a thing both eaten in body and spirit, is farre more truely eaten both waies, then by one way alone.
Fulke.
Master Iewel hath well prooued, that ye word Truly, may wel exclude fleshly, bodily, really. As for the bodily eating, is the matter in question, therefore, not to be brought in argument.
Sander.
When the name of any thing affirmed of Christe, apperteineth to the true nature of his manhod, which he hath assumpted, it is to be verified of him not onelyonly by a metaphore but in very deede, therfore he is man in deede, offred in deede, killed in deede, buried in deede, eaten in deede.
Fulke.
For a man to bee eaten in the shape of bread, apperteineth not to ye true nature of his manhood, which he hath assumpted, therefore it is not to bee verified of him, but onelyonly by a metaphor, or figuratiue speech, by your owne rule.
Iewel.
S. Augustine vtterly remoueth the naturall office of the body: what preparest thou thy teeth? beleue, and thou hast eaten. Beleeuing in him, is the eating of the bread of life.
Sander.
S. Augustine spake these wordes, to the faithlesse Iewes of Capernaum: and not to Catholikes.
Fulke.
If Iewes become faithfull, what differ they from Catholikes? why should they hauehave another maner of eating Christ, then other Catholikes?
Sander.
S. Augustine confesseth vsus to receiue Christ by mouth also, Hominem Iesum Christum, &c. We doe receiue with a faithfull heart and mouth, the man Iesus Christ, giuing his flesh vntounto vsus to be eaten, and his bloud to be drunke, although it may seeme more horrible, to eate mans flesh then to kil it, and to drinke mans bloud, then to shedde it. Therefore his meaning is not to remoue vtterly the naturall office of the body, as Master Iewel most impudently saith.
Fulk.
He remoueth not the natural office of the body from eating the Sacrament, but from eating the natural body of Christ. And most horrible is the impudence of Master Sander, which dissembleth that S. Augustine in the place by him cited, speaketh of figuratiue sayings contra aduers. leg. & proph. lib. 2. Cap. 9. Immediatly before the words by him rehearsed, comparing our eating of Christes fleshe, with Christ beeing one flesh with his Church, and immediatly after the wordes aforesaied concluding that figuratiue sayinges must not bee contemned. Sicut duos, &c. Euen as wee doe knowe Christ and his Church, to be two in one flesh, without any obscenity against the will of these men: Euen as we receiue with faithfull hart and mouth, the mediator of God and man, the man Iesus Christ, &c. Atque in omnibus. And in all the holy scriptures, if any thing which is spoken or done figuratiuely, bee expounded according to the rule of sound faith, of any matters or wordes, which are conteined in the holy scriptures, let not that exposition bee taken contemptuously.
Sander.
Said he not, for the honour of so great a Sacrament, it pleased the holy ghost, that our Lordes body should enter into the mouth of a Christian before other meates, and yet is the office of the body remoued, and that vtterly remoued?
Fulke.
Said he not before, it was a figuratiue speach, to eate the flesh of Christ, and to drinke his bloud? and is it then a great merueile, if the Sacrament be called by the name of ye thing whereof it is a Sacrament? For the question is not in that Ep. 118. Whether the bodye of Christ should be preferred before other things, but whether ye Sacramēt shuld be receiued fasting, or after meat.
The rest of your chat, concerning the councell of 8. Cardinals, compared with the conference Wittenberg, I passe ouer, as conteining no argument touching the matters in question.
CAP. XVI.
Sander.
Whether Christes body dwell really in our …, by his na…itie.
Iewell.
Foure speciall meanes there be, by eueryevery of which, Christes body dwelleth in our bodies, not by imagination, but really, substantially, naturally, fleshly, and in deede.
Sander.
You had ben better to hauehave subscribed foure times, than to hauehave made an assertion so vaine as this.
Fulke.
The assertion is of the phrase, or manner o speaking, against which you cauil… most vainely.
Iewell.
Christes body by his natiuity, whereby hee embraceth vsus, dwelleth in our bodies really, substantially, &c.
Sander.
If you had said by his incarnation, he dwelleth naturaly in vsus, or we in him, that saying might hauehave a true sense: but to say that his body dwelleth in our bodies, not onelyonly naturally, but also really, &c. it seemeth to me very hard.
Fulke.
His natiuity importeth his incarnation. And what meane you by, naturally, but in the trueth and real substance of his body, after a naturall manner?
Sander.
Christ tooke not the common general substance of all mankind, but onelyonly the whole particular nature of man.
Fulke.
Sander fighteth against his owne shadowe, for heere is no man that saith against him: and so through the whole Chapiter. Wheras Master Iewel defendeth the phrase of speaking, Christes body dwelleth really, &c. in our bodies, which in som sense is true: Sander answereth it is not true in eueryevery sense. And he dwelleth not onelyonly by his birth, wheras Master Iewel affirmeth three other waies by which Christ may be said so to dwell in vsus.
Sander.
One thing I must put you in mind of. You defend that Christes naturall body may not be in many places at once, but you say now, that his body by his natiuity, dwelleth really, &c. in our bodies, which dwel in mani places, therfore you are against your own doctrin.
Fulke.
So long as there be no greater contrarietie, in Master Iewels doctrine, it is safe inough. This is miserable sophistry, more worthy to be hissed at among boys, …hen to be answered of learned men.
I thinke there is no cobler in Cambridge or Oxforde, but he could winde himselfe out of this fallacia. To dwell in all men by participation of common nature, is one thing, and one whole bodie, to be whole in tenne thousand places, is another thing.
CAP. XVII.
Sander.
Whether Christes bodie dwell in our bodies by faith, really or no.
Fulke.
The question should be whether this manner of speach in some sense may not be iustified.
Sander.
Master Iewels phrase defendeth Ioan of Kents heresie.
Fulke.
If he had saide, the virgine Mary conceiued Christ by faith in her heart more happily, then carnally in her wombe: In affirming the one, he had not denied ye other, and yet he had said nothing but the trueth. Did not whole Christ dwell in the godly by faith, before his incarnation? Did they not eate and drinke the bodie & bloud of Christ by faith, before his bodie was conceiued in the virgins wombe? If these sayings be true, the other phrase according to this sense may be defended.
CAP. XVIII.
Sander.
The contradiction of M. Iewel concerning Christ really dwelling in vsus by faith, and not really dwelling in vsus by faith.
Fulke.
If the worde, really, may be taken in diuerse senses, what contradiction is there? when he saith, Christ dwelleth in vsus really by faith: the word really, is made opposite to imaginatiuely, figuredly, or phantastically, and signifieth Christ in deede is communicated vntounto vsus by the effectes of his incarnation, death, passion, resurrection, &c. Where he saith: Christ is not really and fleshly placed in our hearts by faith: the word (really) is opposite to faith, which is a substance of things to be hoped fo…, which are not actually present, & signifieth that the naturall substance of Christs flesh, lyeth not locally in the substance of our heartes. According to these two significations, what contradiction is there? but that you are disposed to cauil.
CAP. XIX.
Sander.
Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by baptisme, or no.
Fulke.
This saying may be iustified in the affirmatiue, as wel as that he dwelleth really in our bodies by ye Sacrament of his supper. The diuerse vnderstanding of ye word really, maketh al the controuersie in this matter: M. Iewel taketh it in one sense, M. Sander in another: Not ignorantly mistaking, but wilfully & maliciously deprauing M. Iewels meaning, which is that Christ in deede, not phantastically or imaginatiuely, but truely after a wonderful manner, hath ioyned vsus both body & soule vntounto himselfe by baptisme.
CAP. XX.
Sander.
Whether Christ dwelleth really in our bodies by the Sacrament of the altar, or no.
Fulke.
Euen as really as he dwelleth by baptisme, & none otherwise.
Sander.
He promiseth to declare yt Christ dwelleth foure wayes in our body really, & when he commeth to the fourth way, he spendeth all his strength to declare yt Christs bodie is not really dwelling in our bodies.
Fulke.
I pitie your beggerly sophistrie, grounded vponupon the diuerse taking of the worde, really.