Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 7 · Chapter 24
CAP. XXIIII.
Sander.
That M. Iewel hath not well answered, the places of S. Cyrillus.
Harding.
Cyrillus saith: when the mystical blessing is become to be in vsus, doth it not cause Christ to dwell in vsus corporally, by receiuing of Christs body in ye communion? The same thing he saith in diuerse other places.
Iewel.
Cyrillus expoundeth himself: natural vnion is nothing else, but a true vnion. Wee are by nature the children of anger, that is in deede & truely.
Sander.
He saith not (it is nothing else) but, ss naturalē: If wee call it a naturall vnion, wee shall call it a true vnion.
Fulke.
M. Iewel saith not generally, that naturall is nothing but true, but with Cyril in these speaches, it is nothing but true, as he expoundeth himselfe.
Sander.
That which you saide of Saint Augustine, Corporaliter, non vmbraliter, sed verè & solidè: I could not finde it vponupon the 67. Psalm.
Fulke.
Then you sought it verie negligently: for there it is written, vponupon the 16. verse of that Psalme, in these words, In ipso quippe inhabitat omnis pl…nitudo diuinitatis▪ non vmbraliter, tanquam in templo a rege Salomone facto, sed corporaliter, id est solidè atque veraciter. For in him dwelleth all the fulnesse of the diuinitie, not shadowedly, as in the temple made by king Salomon, but corporally, that is to say, soundly and truely. This exposition of the worde, corporally, pleased you not, and therefore you coulde not finde it: for, if you had red ouer little more then halfe the discourse vponupon the Psalm, you must needs hauehave found it.
Sander.
Saith not Cyrill, that the mysticall blessing maketh him to dwell corporally in vsus?
Fulke.
He saith, the vertue of the mysticall blessing, when it is wrought in vsus, maketh him to dwell also corporally in vsus.
Iewel.
Saint Paul saith: The heathens are become concorporall, and partakers of the promise in Iesu Christ.
Sander.
The word corporall signifieth no more, but that the Iewes and Gentils are of one fellowship, but the meanes of making them one, remaine notwithstanding to be declared.
Fulke.
They are declared by S. Paul to be, In Christ, by the Gospell.
Iewell.
By the wordes corporally & naturally, a full perfect spirituall coniunction is meant, excluding all manner of fantasies.
Sander.
Is not that coniunction which is by faith & syncere louelove (wherof Cyrill saith, we are not onelyonly ioyned thereby, but quoque also corporally) a full perfect spirituall coniunction?
Fulke.
It is not full & perfect by faith and louelove, except we be spiritually fed wt the bodie & blod of Christ.
Sander.
If corporally be nothing else to say, but truly & without imagination: How construe you these words of S. Paul: All the fulnes of the Godhead dwelleth corporally in Christ?
Fulke.
I construe them, as S. Augustine doth in Psa. 67. before said, which place you list not to find. And I pray you do you cōstrue corporally so, that you vnderstand the godhead to be a bodie, as in your next argument a coniugatis.
Sander.
How can you auoid ye yoke, the dependance, the mutual respect that is betweene bodie & bodily? if bodily be truely, then corpus with M. Iewel, is latine for trueth.
Fulke.
The yoke is auoided, when the aduerb signifieth only a similitude vntounto that which is meant by the Nowne: as spiritualiter enforceth not the presence of a spirite, but after the similitude or maner of a spirite. So angelicè viuere, vento…èiactare, regaliter epulari, To liue like an Angel, To boast vainly like the winde, To feast like a king. &c. As for corpus, although it be not Latine for trueth, yet to signifie trueth, sometime it is not harde to finde in the scripture. S. Paul saith, The Iewish feastes are vmbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi, the shadowe of things to come, but the bodie is of Christ: what is the sense of bodie here, but trueth? As for Sanders feare; least Christes naturall bodie might so be transformed into a trueth of faith or charitie, or bones without fleshe, or skinne without flesh or bones, is vaine and foolish: yea, spiteful and malicious: for, if bodie, and bodily, be somtimes taken for trueth, and truely, according to the circumstance of the place, it will not followe, that those wordes should always be so taken, where the text openly reclaimeth.
Iewel.
Otherwise there must needs follow this great inconuenience, that our bodie must be in like maner cor porally, naturally, and fleshly in Christs bodie. For Hilarius saith, We also are naturally in him. And Cyrillus, We are corporally in Christ.
Sander.
It is most true, during the time of the coniunction.
Fulke.
The time of the coniunction is perpetual, for Hilarie saith, We are inseparably vnited in him, lib. …. Teach your Papistes, that the bodie of Christ is none owise in their mouth & bodie, then they are in ye body of Christ, & you may whistle for your Popish real presence.
Iewel.
That we be thus in Christ, requireth not any corporall being.
Sander.
That were a fine being, M. Iewel, that Christs bodie should be in vsus corporally, yet the being shoulde not be corporall.
Fulke.
This is a fine wit M. Sander, being demanded of an horsmill, to answere of a milhorse. M. Iewell would knowe, whether any corporall being is required, that we, I say we, should be in Christ corporally. You answere of Christes being in vsus, because you cannot auoide the absurditie of our beeing in Christe corporally, after your corporall and carnall vnderstanding.
Iewell.
It requireth not any locall being.
Sander.
It is a locall being, in respect that the substance of Christ occupieth the same place, vnderunder the forme of bread, which the substance of bread did occupie before.
Fulke.
That is a fine place for a man of perfect stature. But why answere you of Christes being in the Sacrament, when M. Iewel speaketh of our being in Christ corporally? I perceiue your infirmitie: you cannot heare on that side.
Iewel.
Christ fitting in heauen, is here in vsus, not by a naturall, but by a spirituall meane of being.
Sander.
The being of Christ in vsus by his spirite, is also natural, concerning the nature of his godhed, which is eueryevery where.
Fulke.
Still you take chalke for cheese. Wee enquire of the beeing of his humanitie, whether it may be naturally sitting in heauen, and here with vsus.
Iewell.
Saint Augustine sayth: After that Christ is ascended, he is in vsus by his spirite. And S. Basil, and againe S. Augustine saith the like in diuerse places. And Christ spake in S. Paul, &c.
Sander.
Shall one trueth alwayes displace another with you. These be sowters arguments, Christ is God, therefore he is not man: he is in heauen, ergo he is not in earth, &c.
Fulke.
Saint Augustine, by his ascension, and presence by his spirite, concludeth the absence of his humanitie from the earth. Ascendit in Coelum, & non est hîc, he hath ascended into heauen, and he is not here, In Ioan. Tr. 50. This is no sowters argument, except Saint Augustine be a sowter, in fine Master Sanders deintie iudgement.
Iewell.
This coniunction is spirituall, & therefore needeth not, neither the circumstance of place, nor corporall presence.
Sander.
The coniunction is spirituall, but the maner of working it, is brought to passe, by the corporall substance of Christ.
Fulke.
The corporal substance needeth not to come vntounto vsus, that a spirituall coniunction may be made betweene Christ and vsus: the spirite of God, is the onelyonly necessarie meane to make a spirituall coniunction.
Iewel.
The coniunction that is betweene Christ & vsus, neither doth mingle persons, nor vnite substances: but it doeth knit our affects togither, and ioyne our willes, saith S. Cyprian.
Sander.
S. Cyprian meaneth, we are not made consubstantiall to the Trinitie.
Fulke.
He denyeth the corporall manner of vniting of substances, namely of the substance of our bodies, with the substance of the bodie of Christ.
Iewell.
The coniunction because it is spiritual, true, full, and perfect, is expressed by this terme, corporall.
Sander.
As though, God, because he is spiritual, true, full and perfect, he might therefore be called corporall.
Fulke.
As though, that which is in somethings, is necessarie to bee in all thinges, and yet the Godhead, which is spiritually, truly, fully, and perfectly in Christ, is said to be in him corporally, Col. 2.
Sander.
Who euer heard of such vanitie? because it is spirituall, it is termed corporall.
Fulke.
Who euer heard vainer sophistrie, then that which diuideth things to be ioyned together? Master Iewel addeth true, full & perfect.
Iewel.
Corporall coniunction remoueth all mane… light and accidentall ioyning.
Sander.
If all accidentall ioyning be remoued, only substantiall ioyning remaineth. A substantiall ioyning requireth the substances to be present that are ioyned together.
Fulke.
The substances that are ioyned together after a spirituall manner, neede no locall presence of the substances to be ioyned, whome the spirite of Christe can couple, though they be in place distant, with an inseparable vnion.
Iewell.
It is vtterly vntrue, that we hauehave Christ corporally within vsus, onelyonly by receiuing the Sacrament.
Sander.
Neuer a father by you named, saith as you doe, and therefore you speake of your owne head.
Fulke.
All the fathers that saye Christ dwelleth in vsus corporally, speake generally of all the members of the Church, of which many hauehave not receiued the Sacrament, therefore it is not by the Sacrament onelyonly.
Sander.
Seeing wee cannot hauehave him corporally in vsus, without his bodie be within vsus, and yet none other thing is his bodie, beside that which is deliuered at his supper, by that meane onelyonly hee may bee corporally in vsus.
Fulke.
Neuer a father by you named, either sayeth, or meaneth, that any of your two propositions are true, therefore your conclusion is of your owne heade.
Iewel.
By Master Hardings construction, the childe is damned, who dyeth without receiuing the Sacrament of Christes bodie.
Sander.
No Catholike doeth teache so. Baptisme sussiceth vntill a man come to yeres of discretion.
Fulke.
Ergo, Baptisme maketh Christ to dwell in vsus corporally.
Iewell.
Without naturall participation of Christes flesh, there is no saluation.
Sander.
If it be so, it is you that teach the damnation of all those that receiue not the Eucharistie.
Fulk.
It is so, because Christ saith. Except ye eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and drinke his bloud, &c. and because it is so, and yet all are not damned that receiue not the Eucharist. This naturall participation, & eating of the flesh of Christ, is not onelyonly in the Eucharist.
Iewell.
S. Chrysostome saith: In the Sacrament of baptisme, we are made flesh of Christes flesh, and bone of his bones.
Sander.
These wordes you hauehave not in Chrysostome.
Fulke.
You cauill at the forme of wordes, (whereupon M. Iewell standeth not) when you cannot auoide the matter.
Sander.
He saith, they that are partakers of the mysteries, can tell how they are formed properly and lawfully out of him.
Fulke.
That they are alike formed out of Christ in both the Sacraments, it ouerthroweth your corporall presence in the one only.
Sander.
Moreouer, he giueth another sense, expounding ex ipso, for secundum ipsum.
Fulke.
That taketh not away the force of his authoritie in the former sense.
Sander.
He sheweth, that we are taken out of Christs side, as Eua out of Adam.
Fulke.
If that be by baptisme it proueth M. Iewels proposition, that we are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones.
Sander.
Although it were in him, yet is it to no purpose: for it is one thing to be made of the flesh of Christ, which may be meant of his mysticall flesh, another thing to partake his flesh naturally. We are made of his flesh by spirituall meanes.
Fulke.
What can it bee, to partake naturally his flesh, if it be not to become flesh of his flesh, & bone of his bones? you saye, we may be made of his flesh, by spirituall meanes: what may wee be made of the matter of his flesh? Chrysostome telleth you flesh and bones: yea, of his mysticall flesh. What, are we made mysticall flesh? then verily wee must bee made mysticall bones also. This is a mistie exposition of so cleare a matter.
Sander.
The reason why certeine places of Scripture are interpreted, sometime of baptisme, sometime of Christes supper, is, because in the olde time, in manye countries, the Sacrament of Christes bodie, was giuen straight after baptisme.
Fulke.
A wise reason, why they shoulde make that common to both the Sacraments, which was proper to one. They were not ministred so neete in time, but they could discerne what was common, what was peculiar to either of them.
Iewel.
Master Harding is not yet able to find, that Christes bodie is either corporally receiued into our bodies, or corporally present in the Sacrament.
Sander.
It is you that are not able to finde it: for D. Harding hath founde it, and I hauehave shewed it in Chrysostome, S. Hilarie, Gregorie Nyssen.
Fulke.
Let the readers iudge what you hauehave founde, but vaine cauillations: for, neither the words, nor ye matters, you hauehave shewed.
Sander.
So would I shewe it at large out of Cyrillus, but that partely the booke is growne alreadie too great: partly, a marueilous number of places doe proue both Christes bodie to be corporally receiued into our bodies, and to bee corporally present in the Sacrament.
Fulk.
So would I answere you sufficiently, for any thing you can bring out of Cyrillus, but that I hauehave answered alreadie in many places throughout this booke to all that euer you can gather, and scrape to make a shewe of any such matter, which were meere tediousnesse here to repeate.
Harding.
The Catholike fathers sithens Berengarius time hauehave vsed the termes really, substantially, &c. to exclude metaphors and figures, and to confesse a most supernaturall vnion with Christ, by meane of his naturall flesh, really though not locally present.
Iewell.
These doctors liued with in these 300. yeres, and are such as Master Harding thought not worth the naming.
Sander.
Hee named none, because your impudent proclamation, bound him to the time.
Fulke.
He was not so bound to the time, but he might hauehave named, if any had beene of greater antiquitie then 300. yeares.
Sander.
Damascen saith the bread, wine & water is supernaturally changed into ye body, & bloud of Christ. Theophilact saith, the bread is with secret wordes changed into our Lordes flesh, and these are aboue 700. yeres old, speaking of transubstantiation.
Fulke.
Neither of both vseth the termes really, substantially, &c. which is the matter in question. And although they vse the termes of changing and transformation, yet neither of both acknowledged transubstantiation, nor the Church of the Grecians, whereof they were members vntounto this day, doth acknowledge it.
Sander.
Haymo, Remigius, Pascasius, Lanfrancus, Iuo, Guimundus, Anselmus, Rupertus, Algerus were all learned men, and all aboue 300. yeres old.
Fulke.
Yet you shewe not where any of them, although most of them were great enemies of Berengarius, did vse the termes really, substantially, &c.
Sander.
Bernard whome you hauehave often alleaged, writeth in ser. de sanct. Martyr. Euen to this day, the same flesh is exhibited to vsus, which the Apostles had seene in his manhood, but yet spiritually forsouth, not carnally. For there is no cause why we should say, ye apparition, which was made to the fathers of the olde Testament, either that presence of his flesh, which was exhibited to the Apostles, to bee denied in these our daies. For to them who faithfully consider the matter it shal be clere, yt neither of both lacketh. For the true substance of the fleshe it selfe is present, nowe also to vsus no doubt verily, but that it is so in the Sacrament.
Fulke.
This testimony affirmeth, ye presence of Christs flesh spiritually, which we grant, and denieth the terme carn…lly, which is one of the termes in question.
Iewel.
Their doctrine is without comfort. They hold that the body of Christ remaineth no longer in our bodies, but onelyonly vntill the formes of bread and wine begin to alter.
Sander.
It is not without comfort: seing a merueilous commoditie by this touching riseth to our spirite and soule: as to those whom Christ healed by touching.
Fulke.
They were as well healed whome he touched not, but onelyonly cured by his word. But what is become of that mingling of Christes flesh with ours, and his inseparable dwelling corporally in vsus, out of Chrysostom, Hilarius and Cyrillus, Cap. 21. 22. and 23. of this booke? if Christs body tary no longer with vsus, where is the hope of resurrection, if the quickning▪ flesh of Christ bee not still in vsus?
Sander.
Moreouer I hauehave often said: our coniunction with Christ in this Sacrament, is like the carnall copulation betwene the wife and husband, where twaine are in one flesh, yet tary not alwaies corporally ioyned togither.
Fulke.
You hauehave often made a shamelesse, beastly, and filthy comparison, betwene so high a mystery, and so grosse and carnall copulation.
Iewell.
Some others saye, that so soone as our teeth touch the bread, streightwaies Christes body is taken vp into heauen. The wordes be these: Certum est quòd quàm citò species dentibus teruntur, tam citò in coelum rapitur corpus Christi.
Sander.
The greatest flower of your garland lieth in glosses and phrases.
Fulke.
The best grace you hauehave, is in railing and sl…ndering.
Sander.
You hauehave falsely translated the glosse, you hauehave englished teruntur touched, and species bread. In Berengarius confession, you could terme it by the worde, grinded.
Fulke.
So he could do nowe, if he had purposed rather to translate, then to shewe that writers opiniō: which according to the custome of Papistes nowe▪ which grind not, but swallowe down, there what yee call species, (for shapes I cannot name it, because other things of greater moment then shapes are in it) must be vnderstoode of touching with teeth, and not of grinding, where no grinding is: and yet if it were grinded with teeth, that grinding followeth so neere the touching, that there is small difference of time betweene them.
Iewell.
Here a man may say vntounto M. Harding, as he did before to the Arrian heretike.
Sander.
He spake against the heretike by the authoritie of Cyrillus, which taught vsus to be corporally ioyned by naturall participasion to Christ, as branches are ioyned to the vine, and not by faith onelyonly.
Fulke.
And euen so may he speake against Master Harding, by the authoritie of Hilarius; which saith against the Arrians, that we are corporally & inseparably vnited in Christ, which is contrarie to this popish doctrine of Christes departing from vsus.
Sander.
Bring, if you can, M. Iewel, a saying of aboue a thousand yeares olde, by which D. Hardings doctrine may be accused of heresie.
Fulke.
He hath brought in his two bookes written against D. Harding, more them fiue hundred such sayings.
Iewell.
Commeth Christ to vsus from heauen, & by & by forsaketh vsus?
Sander.
His bodie commeth not downe from heauen, but the bread is changed into his bodie, as at his incarnation he came not from heauen, by forsaking his glorie, but by assumpting flesh of the virgin.
Fulke.
His godhead which filleth all places, needed no locall ascending or descending. Therefore, it is ill compared with his body, which is circumscriptible, except you will become an Eutychian, and vbiquist.
Sander.
As after his resurrection, he ascended into heauen, so after the communion, the formes of bread & wine, being consumed, Christ ceasseth to be corporally with vsus.
Fulke.
A wise similitude. The consuming of the formes of bread and wine is compared to the resurrection: the ceassing of his being corporally with vsus, to his ascension: But how commeth this ceassing? by a newe transubstantiation of the body and bloud of Christ into bread and wine? or Christ forsaking the formes, by a newe … of substance vntounto them? or else are the formes left emptie both of their owne substance and of the substance of Christ? Against this ceassing of Christ to be corporally with vsus: Hilarie saith, in eo nobis corporali…er & inseparabiliter vnitis: We are vnited to him, not only corporally, but also inseparably.
Iewel.
Or, that wee eate Christ, and yet receiue him not, or hauehave him not? or that he entreth not, &c.
Sander.
Who teacheth the contrarie, but that your owne shadowe troubleth you?
Fulk.
Those popish doctors, that teach that the body of Christ is rauished into heauen, as soone as the species are grinded with the teeth.
Iewel.
He saith this presence is knowen to God onelyonly, then it followeth. Master Harding knoweth it not.
Sand.
He saith not this presence, but the manner of this pres… why doe you falsifie his words?
Fulke.
Woulde any man thinke, the manner of the presence shoulde be vnknowne to him, which affirmeth it is reallie, substantially, corporally, carnally, sensiblie? &c.
Iewel.
So this article is concluded with an ignoramus.
Sand.
Not so, because the question is not of the maner of Christs presence, but of his reall presence, though the manner be vnknowen.
Fulke.
Nay, the question is not of the reall presence, which we alwayes confesse, but of the maner of presence, whether it be spiritually, or corporally.
Sand.
A non credimus is a worse fault, then an ignoramus.
Fulke.
It is no fault not to beleeue, that which scripture doth not teach.
Iewel.
The old fathers neuer left vsus in such doubts.
Sand.
S. Cyrillus willeth vsus to giuegive strong faith to the mysteries, but to leaue the way & knowledge of his worke vntounto God. The first part ye hauehave broken.
Fulke.
The first part we hauehave not broken, for we beleeue the mysteries to bee the same that Christ saieth they are, but you hauehave broken the laste part, because you adde really, substātially, corporally, &c. which you hauehave not learned of Christ.
Iewel.
Emissenus saieth: Christ is present by his grace.
Sand.
You hauehave put a false nominatiue case, it is victima, the oblation which is present in grace.
Fulke.
And what is the substance of that eternall sacrifice, but Christ? for the action you confesse to be vtterly past.
Iewel.
Saint Augustine saith: Christ is present in vsus by his spirit.
Sand.
That is true, when he is in vsus by his flesh.
Fulk.
It is his spirit that maketh his flesh present, to vsus after a wonderfull manner.
Iewel.
You shall not eate this bodie that you see: it is a certaine sacrament that I deliuer you.
Sand.
The wordes of S. Augustine are, I hauehave commended or set forth.
Fulke.
To commend or set forth, is to deliuer in doctrine.
Sand.
That which was commended at Capernaum, was onelyonly the same flesh which dyed for vsus, therefore that flesh must be deliuered, not in a visible manner, but yet in truth of giuing, by bodie & taking by bodie.
Fulke.
That giuing and taking by bodie, Saint Au gustine denieth, in the person of Christ: ye shall not eate this bodie that yee see, nor drinke that bloude which shalbe shedde: It is a sacrament or mysterie which I hauehave commended vntounto you, which being sp…itually vnderstoode, shall quicken you.
Sand.
In deede M. Iewel, Christ deliuered his fleshe as well at Capernaum, as at his supper by your doctrine. But not so by the doctrine of the Gospel.
Fulke.
The Gospel saith: foreign, except ye doe eate the flesh of the sonne of man, and doe drinke his bloud, foreign you hauehave not nowe, life in you. Christ speaketh in the present temps. But howe coulde they eate his flesh and drinke his bloud, that they might hauehave life, except he did then deliuer his flesh, as well as at his supper? For many of thē might die before ye institution of his supper. Againe he saith, foreign &c. he which doth eate my flesh, & which doth drinke my bloud, foreign hath nowe life euerlasting, and I wil raise him vp in the last day. For my fleshe is verily meate, & my bloude is verily drinke. Howe was it verily meate and drinke, when he spake, if no man might eate and drinke it, before his supper? Againe, He which doth eate my fleshe, and which doth drinke my bloude, doeth abide in mee, and I in him. How can this be verified in the present temps, so oftē repeted, except Christ did at that present time deliuer his fleshe and bloude to bee eaten of all that beleeued and offered the same to all that heard him? wherefore the doctrine of the Gospel, is agreable to that which master Iewel teacheth, and directlye contrarie to master Sanders doctrine, that Christ deliuered not his flesh and blood to be eaten & dronken before his supper, but onelyonly promised them at Capernaum.
Iew.
Thus the holy fathers say Christ is present, not corporally.
Sand.
Both S. Cyrill and S. Hilarie hauehave the worde corporally concerning the sacrament.
Fulk.
But neither of both saith, that Christ is present in the sacrament corporally.
I…
Not carnally.
S…
S. Hilarie hath the word carnally.
Fulk.
You play mockeholiday. S. Hilarie saith not, That Christ is present in the sacrament carnally.
Iew.
No…rally.
Sand.
S. …larie hath the tearme naturally, diuerse times, and S. Cyrill calleth it natural partaking, and naturall vnion.
Fulk.
Neither the one, nor the other, euer saide, that Christ is in the sacrament naturally. Touching the naturall participation and vnion, it hath bene shewed how it may be without Christ being present, naturally, in the sacrament.
Iew.
But as in a sacrament, by his spirit & by his grace.
Sand.
Here appeareth what stuffe you hauehave fedde the reader withall in your whole booke. For partly you denie a trueth, which is that Christ is not corporally present, against the expresse worde of God, and the fathers, as I hauehave shewed.
Fulk.
And yet neither the expresse word of God, nor any of the fathers, hauehave this sentence: Christ is corporally present in the sacrament, or any thing equiualent to it.
Sand.
Partly you prooue, that your heresie by an other trueth which rather establisheth then hindereth the reall presence. For Christ cannot be better present in spirit and grace, then if he be present in his flesh.
Fulk.
The presence of Christ by his spirit and grace, excludeth your heresie of presence corporally, and he is better present by spirit and grace, whereby he tarieth in vsus for euer, then by your imagined presence of his body, in which you confesse him to tarie but a short time, no not in them that receiue the sacrament most worthilie.
Your conclusion being for ye most part, but a repetition of such cauils, slanders, and railings, as you hauehave vsed throughout the booke, deserueth no seuerall answere: partly because the greatest part of them are answered alreadie, and partly because both they and the rest, conteine nothing but generall accusations, without any speciall argument to proue them.
As for that you make bost that you hauehave pr… euerie one of your bookes: whether I hauehave, (a…ough briefly, yet sufficiently confuted or no) I commit to the iudgement of indifferent readers.
GOD BE PRAISED.
End of the text · William Fulke, Rejoinder to Bristows Reply (1581)