Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 7 · Chapter 21
CAP. XXI.
Sander.
That Christes bodie is proued to be really in the Sacrament, by S. Chrysostomes wordes.
Harding.
By this Sacrament (saith Chrysostom) Christ reduceth vsus, as it were into one lump with himself: and that not by faith only, but he maketh vsus his own bodie in deede, Re ipsa, which is no other to say, then really.
Iewell.
This place would hauehave stand M. Harding in better steede, if Chrysostome had said: Christ mingleth his bodie with the Sacrament, and driueth himselfe & it into one lumpe.
Sander.
M. Iewel marketh not, that Sacrament to be of it selfe the reall bodie of Christ vnderunder the formes of bread, & wine, therfore to say Christ is mingled with ye sacrament, were to say, Christ is mingled with himselfe.
Fulke.
Sanders best argument, is the whole matter in question: alas poore wretched begger.
Iewell.
Neither wil M. Harding say, that Christ mingleth himself with vsus, simply, & without figure: whereof it followeth yt much lesse it is so in the Sacrament.
Sander.
He meaneth, that Christes own bodie is ioyned to ours simply without any figure of Rhetorike or Grammar, but not without a mysticall figure.
Fulke.
If he meane, yt he mingleth himselfe with … into one lump, wtout al figure of Rhetorik, then without all figure simply, we are one lump with him, as a lumpe of dough is one. As for our wonderfull coniunction wt him, it is not that which is the figure, but the mingling into one lumpe, which are the words of Chrysostome.
Iewel.
It is a hot kind of speach, such as Chrysostom was much delighted with. It is a speach farre passing the common sense & course of trueth.
Sander.
I thought you would bring it to a figure of speach, but he taught it for a truth, as we shal see anone.
Fulke.
As though an hyperbolical speach, may not be true in any sense, because it is not true in the common sense.
Iewell.
Himself thought it necessarie to correct and qualifie ye rigor of the same speach, by these words, vt ita dicam, which is as it were, or, if I may be bold so to say.
Sander.
In other places he vseth the terme of mingling, without correction.
Fulke.
But in the same sense that he vseth it nowe, with correction.
Sander.
The correction must be referred to ye similitude or metaphor of a lump of dough, wherunto he alludeth.
Fulke.
You are welcome home to a figuratiue speache.
Sander.
What if he vse no such correction or qualifying? for, as the edition of Parise doth witnesse, his Greek wordes are foreign seipsum miscet nobis, he mingleth himselfe with vsus.
Fulke.
If no other edition witnesse for the Latine translation, let the translator answere for himself.
But his words being foreign, are most aptly translated in Latine subigit seipsum nobiscum, he kneadeth himselfe with vsus, which if it be not a figuratiue speach, I report me to you.
Iewell.
In such phrase Anacletus saith: the power of the holy ghost is mingled with the oyle.
Sander.
Pope Anacletus, whose Epistle you esteeme, as much as your shooe sole, nameth not olcum, oyle, but holy chrisme.
Fulke.
And is not your chrisme, oyle? Although the Epistle be counterfeite, and not worth a shooe latchet, yet the phrase is vsed in it by him whosoeuer fained it, and by you allowed in another sense then by transubstantiation.
Iewel.
Alexander saith, the passion of Christ must be mingled wt the oblations of the Sacraments.
Sander.
The worlde goeth hard wt his note booke, when he flieth to these decretall Epistles, for the proofe of any thing, especially for Latine phrases.
Fulke.
And why may not your owne suborned witnesses be examined, to see if they can depose any thing against your owne selues, that hauehave set vp such knightes of the post, as those decretall Epistles are, whome you your selfe flout for their Latine phrases, which in deede can scarse keepe themselues within the bondes of congruitie? Master Iewel hath plentifully displayed their forgerie, so that he feareth not any mention of Masse, or chrisme, to be founde in them.
Iewell.
Nyssenus sayeth, Saint Stephen was mingled with the grace of the holy ghoste.
Sander.
That saying prooueth that the grace of the holy ghost, was really in S. Stephen, as Christes body i… really mingled with our bodies.
Fulke.
It might likewise prooue, that S. Stephen was really in the gifts of the holy ghost, for if you take grace for the fauor of God, it was not really in Stephen, but in the holy ghost himself. If the one be absured, so is the other, except it be taken figuratiuely.
Iewel.
Chrysostom meant that we should consider that wonderfull coniunction which is betweene Christ and vsus, euen in one person.
Sander.
He confesseth more then we aske, for we are not one person with Christ.
Fulke.
Not as he is one of the three persons in trinity, nor as his humanity assumpted into the deitie, maketh one person with his death, but as he is our head and the Church his body, which is the fullnesse of him that filleth all in all things. Where Sander confesseth the matter, it is folly to striue for the phrase.
Iewell.
Leo saith: the body of him that is regenerat, is made the flesh of him that was crucified.
Sander.
Pope Leo speaketh of his mysticall flesh.
Fulke.
B. Leo speaketh of his naturall flesh, but by a spirituall and mysticall kinde of making, such as our regeneration is.
Iewell.
S. Augustine saith: we are made Christ, &c. and both he and we are one whole man.
Sander.
He saith not, one whole man, but ye whole man.
Fulke.
What number is man, Master Doctor, the singular or the plurall?
Sander.
Hee speaketh of a mysticall body of diuerse members, made vp, and perfected into a whole collegiat body. But Chrysostom speaketh of Christes ioyning himselfe to eueryevery faithfull man.
Fulke.
Sander vnderstandeth not the mysticall body of Christ, which compareth it to a collegiat bodye or ciuill corporation, with which it hath small similitude. The scripture compareth it to a naturall body, receiuing life and sense from the head, Christes ioyning of himselfe to eueryevery one of vsus, maketh vsus all one body in him.
Iew.
As we are by baptisme made Christes fleshe & Christ, in the same sense Chrysostome saith, wee are made one lumpe with Christ, and Christ hath tempered and mingled himselfe with vsus.
Sand.
The vnion is made, not onelyonly by faith, but by the thing it selfe, which is neither water, breade nor wine, nor faith, but onelyonly the reall substance of Christs body and blood.
Fulk.
That is not the question, but of the manner of the mingling, whether it be corporall or spirituall.
Sand.
Chrysostome nameth changing, sacrifice, hand, mouth, tongue, seeing, touching, eating, hauing within vsus, therefore the manner of mingling must be corporall.
Fulk.
Chrysostome nameth the hande breaking the fleshe in peeces, the mouth filled with spirituall fire, the tonge made redde with this wonderfull bloode, as you your selfe confesse, therefore he speaketh not properly, but figuratiuely of these instrumentes of the body which outwardly receiue the sacrement of so high & holy a coniunction, the manner of working whereof is wonderfull, and not done with handes, mouth, tong, &c. of men.
Sand.
Prooue that where Christ dwelleth by faith, that such dwelling is made by the thing it selfe, & not by faith onelyonly.
Fulk.
The word is be come flesh, and dwelled in vsus, being verily Immanuel, God with vsus, therefore by the thing it selfe, and not by faith only, he dwelleth with all the faithfull.
Sand.
Prooue that wee are made Christes fleshe in baptisme by the bodie of Christ, for else the vnion of the sacrament will be more reall.
Fulk.
By baptisme, wee are buried with Christe vntounto death, &c. And what purgeth vsus in baptisme, but the bloode of Christe, which purgeth vsus from all …innes?
San.
Prooue either that wee are vnited to faith it selfe, and vntounto baptisme it selfe, or else the vnion made in this sacrament, will farre passe the ioyning which is in the other.
Fulk.
Wee are neither vnited to faith, baptisme, or to the Lords supper, but to Christ, by faith, and by the sacraments.
Sand.
Here wee are vnited to the same body, wherewith we are fedde, & which wee see, and touch, but there wee bee not vnited to the water, wherewith wee are washed.
Fulk.
Neither are you here vnited to anye thing, that you see, or touch, excepte you will bee vnited to bread and wine, or to the accidentes of them, which only you holde remaine to be seene and touched. In baptisme we are vnited to Christ, whome we put on, with whome we die, are buried, and rise againe, being washed with his bloode in our soules, as our bodies are washed with cleane water.
Sand.
You say that wee are made Christ by baptisme: but prooue that Christ is there deliuered in sensible thinges, to your handes, to your mouth, to your tongue, so that you may hauehave him within you, as it is done in the supper. These phrases you must prooue to be verified by faith, and baptisme, if you will hauehave as reall a ioyning made by faith or by baptisme, as is made by the sacrament of the altar.
Fulk.
Saint Augustine saith, wee are made Christe. The phrases that Chrysostome vseth, alluding to the externall manner of participation of that sacrament, which is by hande, mouth, and tongue, are not necessarie to prooue, that the vnion made by the one sacrament, is as reall as by the other, when there bee phrases of equall force, as the phrases of ingraffing putting on, dying, and being buried with him, washed with his bloode, &c.
Iew.
As the breaking of this bread is the partaking of the bodie of our Lorde, euen so the breade of idols, is the partaking of Diuels: and if wee eate one bread with idolaters, we are made one body with them. Primasius in 1. Cor. 10.
Sand.
You falsifie the wordes of Saint Paul, that which he spake of the substance of bread, you assigne to the action of breaking.
Fulke.
You slaunder him, for although he vse the tearme of breaking of bread, yet bee assigneth not the communication to the action of breaking, but to the thing that is broken, as in the other parte of the similitude you might see, if malice had not made you blinde. Euen so the bread of idoles, &c.
Sand.
Primasius tooke not the name of breade materially, for wheaten bread, but for all kinde of meate and drinke, which the idolaters vsed: therefore he meant the bread which we breake is no materiall breade, but a kinde of meate which Christe hath prepared for vsus.
Fulk.
Primasius tooke bread materially, for wheaten bread, although not onelyonly for wheaten breade: Therfore he tooke the breade which we breake for wheaten bread, for what else is broken? Againe, the argument is nought, hee tooke bread of idolaters generally for all meates by synecdoche the figure: Therefore hee taketh the bread of Christians specially for one kinde of meate, which is no bread at all.
But howe answere you Primasius, saying there is the same vnion betweene diuels or idols, and them that eate their bread, which is betweene the body of Christ and Christians, which eat the bread which is broken?
The participation of the one, cannot be bodily, ergo not the other.