Rejoinder to Bristows Reply, Part 2 · Book 7 · Chapter 22
CAP. XXII.
Sand.
It is proued, that S. Hilarie thought the body of Christ to be really in the sacrament.
Hard.
If the word be verily made flesh, and we receiue verily, the word being flesh in our Lords meat, how he is to be thought not to dwell in vsus naturally, who both hath taken the nature of our fleshe nowe inseparable to himselfe, in that he is borne man, and also hath mingled the nature of his owne flesh, to the nature of euerlastingnes, vnderunder the sacrament of his flesh, to bee receiued of vsus in the communion. Hil. de Trin. lib. 8.
Iew.
Master Harding hath not hitherto founde, that Christes body is naturally or corporally in ye sacrament.
Sand.
You vse many shiftes, whereof this is the last, which I will nowe declare against your dissembling assertion.
Fulk.
Belike then D. Harding had not found that you are faine to seeke for him.
Iew.
Against the Arrians, Hilarius reasoned thus, Christ is really ioined vntounto ye father, as vntounto vsus, but Christ is ioyned to vsus by nature, therefore Christ is ioyned to God the father by nature. That Christ is ioyned to vsus by nature, he proueth it thus: We are ioyned to Christ by faith, that is by the nature of one faith, and that is to say, naturally.
Sand.
He falsifieth S. Hilarie, for he hath not the word naturally.
Fulk.
You slander him most impudently, for he doth expounde the wordes of Hilarie, Per vnius fidei naturam, by the nature of one faith, to be all one, as if he had said, naturally.
Sand.
S. Hilaries intent, is onelyonly to shewe that faithfull men are one among themselues by nature of faith, and not how Christ is ioyned to vsus by that faith, which he hath not at al, for he answereth the argument of the Arrians groūded vponupon that place, Act. 4. of the multitude of the beleeuers, there was one soule and one heart.
Fulk.
As though there coulde bee anye vnitie of the belieuers among themselues, but as they are al ioyned in one by Christ, & Christ to thē: whō blasphemously Sander affirmeth to hauehave had no faith frō the instant of his incarnation, because his soule was illuminated with the visiō of God, to whose nature it was ioyned in one person and where cleare vision is, there is no faith saith Sander. Not considering, that Christ did voluntarily, empty him selfe, of all such pretogatiues of his godheade, as might hinder him to hauehave experience of all our infirmities, except sinne. And therfore S. Luke testifieth yt Iesus incresed in wisedom, and stature, and fauour with God & men. But where such cleare vision is, as Sand. imagineth, there is no increase of wisdome & gods gifts. And concerning faith: read ye 22. Psal. which is a prophecie of Christ, professing his constant faith, in so much that he was therefore derided of the wicked, which saide, he trusted in God, let him deliuer him &c. Yea the Apostle to ye Hebrewes proueth the humanitie of Christ, by this Psal. 16. (where the prophet speaketh in ye person of Christ) I wil put my trust in him, that is in God: yet Sander saith, he neuer had faith, but more then faith. As though a greater & a more perfect faith were not faith.
Iewel.
Likewise he saith, we are ioyned vntounto Christ by ye regeneration of one nature, and againe: wee are ioyned to Christ by the nature of one baptisme: hereof he cōcludeth, therefore are we naturally ioyned to him.
Sand.
S. Hilarie hath not the terme naturally, of our coniunction vntounto Christ by baptisme, which terme D. Harding hath found to appertaine to the sacrament.
Fulke.
A simple quarel, to make such outcries of the terme naturally, when Hilarie hath termes in all reasonable mens iudgements, equiualent, concluding that all Christians are one, not onelyonly by wil, but also by nature, Because they are cloathed with one Christ, by the nature of one baptisme. And where I pray you, hath either Harding or you found yt Christs body is in y• sacrament naturally, according to M. Iewels challenge? wil you neuer leaue this beggerly sophistrie? Harding hath found this terme to appertaine to the sacrament: ergo he hath answered M. Iewels challenge.
Iewel.
Thus it appeareth by S. Hilarie, we may hauehave Christ naturally within vsus, by three other sundrie meanes: and therfore not onelyonly (as M. Harding holdeth) by receiuing of the sacramēt, Like as Christ is naturally corporally, and carnally in vsus by faith, by regeneration, and by baptisme: euen so and none otherwise, hee is in vsus, by the sacrament of his bodie.
Sand.
It is not confessed, that Christ is in vsus naturally, &c.
Fulke.
But it is prooued, that by nature wee are one with him: But that Christ shoulde be corporally in our bodies, Hilarie saith neither of faith, baptisme, nor of the supper.
Sand.
You distinguish regeneration from baptisme, as though baptisme were not the sacrament that did regenerate.
Fulke.
He that distinguisheth the cause from the effect, as you make it, or the signe from ye thing signified, as Hilarie meaneth, deserueth no reproofe in wisemens iudgement.
Sand.
If Christ be none otherwise in vsus by the sacrament of his body then by faith or baptisme, why do you make it a seuerall way from the other before named?
Fulke.
Because all these 4. seuerall wayes, may notwithstanding agree in one spirituall manner of coniunction, which hath no neede of your Popish reall presence.
Sand.
The vnitie of Christes birth, sufficeth not to proue that Christ is one with vsus, for that vnitie of nature, might be thought to pertaine no more to the good then to the euill.
Fulke.
There is farther required, the vertue of Christs spirite, to make that naturall vnitie effectuall, to giuegive vsus eternal life: this vniting vertue is testified by the sacrament.
Sand.
S. Hilarie doth vsus to vnderstande, that in the sacrament, we take the word, made flesh, & so verily take it, as the word was verily made flesh.
Fulk.
He expoundeth himself, saying we take it verily vnderunder a mysterie, vnderunder a sacrament, which mysterie is not the forme breade and wine, for that is an open and sensible thing.
Iewell.
That wee verily and vndoubtedly receiue Christs bodie in the sacrament, it is neither denied, nor in question.
Sand.
You saide before, that Christ in his supper added an outward sacrament to the spirituall eating, named in S. Iohn, which sacrament you said was commonly called a figure, & againe you said, the bread is a figure, this is confuse and contrarie doctrine.
Fulke.
This is wretched wrangling. An outward sacrament which is a figure, added to spirituall eating, taketh not away spirituall eating, but helpeth our faith in spirituall eating.
Sand.
You confessed before, that the sacrament is receiued with ye mou…, & now you confesse that Christs bodie is receiued in the sacrament, therefore Christs bodie is receiued with the mouth.
Fulke.
Your minor shoulde be: the sacrament is Christs bodie, which in your sense is not yet confessed, otherwise your syllogisme is as good as this, Baptisme is receiued on the outside of the bodie: the holy ghost is receiued in baptisme: therfore the holyghost is receiued on the outside of the bodie.
Sand.
The aduerbe verily in this place doth signifie naturally, really, and substantially. For as the worde is made flesh really, so we take really the word being flesh in our Lords meate. The worde was not made flesh onelyonly by our faith, but in trueth of his substance. Therefore we take the word being flesh not by our faith onelyonly, but in trueth of his substance.
Fulk.
The aduerbe verily in this place, signifieth truly, according to ye thing, but not that according to ye manner of the thing, in al points wee take the flesh of Christ in the Lordes meate, as the same was incarnate in the Virgins wombe, but as Hilarie himselfe saith afterwarde: Verè sub mysterio, We receiue the flesh of his bodie truly, vnderunder a mysterie, which excludeth naturally, or a natural manner of receiuing. We eate Christ as truely, as he was made man, & borne of ye Virgin Mary, but not in ye same manner: we eate him not sensibly, visibly, palpablie, in length, bredth, and thicknesse as hee was made fleshe, but vnderunder a mysterie or sacrament of his flesh, which is communicated vntounto vsus after a spirituall manner. And where you say the worde was not made flesh, onelyonly by our faith, therefore we take his flesh not by faith onelyonly. Neither is the antecedent true, nor the conclusion right. For Christ was not made flesh onelyonly by our faith, nor by our faith at all. For our faith was no meane of his incarnation. Where vponupon I might as rightly conclude: The word was not made flesh by our faith at all: therefore we take not the worde being made flesh by faith at all. This argument is as good vponupon the aduerbe verily, vsed by S. Hilarie, as that which you make.
Iewel.
It is the bread of the heart, hunger thou within, thirst thou within.
Sand.
As Christ by taking real flesh, is much the better breade of ye heart, & hungred within: so it is extreme madnesse to thinke that Christes bodie giuen vnderunder the forme of breade, is therefore lesse hungred within, or lesse foode of the heart.
Fulke.
If Christ had not taken reall flesh, to his diuine nature, he could not hauehave bene the foode of eternall life to vsus, but there is no such necessitie of giuing his bodie in the forme of bread, therefore the similitude is vnlike.
Iewel.
The thing that is receiued in spirit, is receiued in deede.
Sand.
Spirituall receiuing is good and true, when it shouldreth not out reall receiuing.
Fulke.
If reall receiuing bee receiuing in deede, spirituall receiuing shouldreth not out reall receiuing.
Iewel.
It is an holy mysterie, and an heauenly action forcing our mindes vp to heauen, and there teaching vsus to eate the bodie of Christ, not outwardly by the seruice of our bodies.
Sand.
Is not verè sumimus, spoken of taking by the seruice of our bodies?
Fulke.
As concerning the outward sacrament, but not concerning the bodie of Christ.
Sand.
Christ hath mingled that nature of his flesh to the nature of euerlastingnesse vnderunder a sacrament of his flesh, to be communicated vntounto vsus, which you passe ouer in Hilarie, as you were vtterly blinde. The nature of Christs flesh is I trow, real, It is cōmunicated vntounto vsus vnderunder a sacrament which is receiued by the mouth: therfore the nature of Christs flesh is receiued by our bodies, and not by faith alone.
Fulke.
And is the reall flesh of Christ mingled with his diuinitie? what can followe thereof, but confusion of the natures? If that be hereticall, then the nature of his flesh mingled with the nature of his euerlastingnesse, is not his reall flesh, nor his reall diuinitie, but the natural propertie, as he termeth it afterward, of his diuine flesh, which is communicated vntounto vsus vnderunder a sacramēt. As for your rotten reason, that whatsoeuer is receiued vnderunder the sacrament, is receiued by the mouth, because the sacrament is receiued with the mouth, is confuted before.
Iewel.
The truth hereof standeth not in any reall presence, but as Hilarius saith, in a mysterie, which is a sacrament.
Sand.
Hilarius saide, wee receiue verily the flesh of his bodie vnderunder a mysterie, you report him to say, in a mysterie. Is that no false dealing?
Fulke.
It is all one before God, and al wise and honest men.
Sand.
Well, we receiue Christ verily vnderunder the sacrament, and that sacrament is by your confession also outward, and commonly called a figure: therefore we verily receiue the flesh of Christs bodie, vnderunder an outwarde figure, which is the figure of bread, although you meane the substance of bread.
Fulke.
There is both an outward sacrament, and an inward mysterie. S. Hilarie speaketh of the whole dispe…sation of the sacrament, which is both outwarde and inward, and not of the signe of bread onelyonly, or principally. M. Iewel neuer confessed that the outward figure of bread, although in some sense it be called a sacrament, yet that it is the whole sacrament.
Iewell.
Our regeneration in Baptisme, in a certaine bodily sort, teacheth vsus the purgation of the minde, as Diony sius saith: so it is in the Sacrament of Christes bodie.
Sand.
Saint Augustine saieth: that must be eaten in the trueth it selfe spiritually, which is visibly taken in the sacrament, and not one thing outwardly taken, and another thing inwardly, as M. Iewel would hauehave it. De verb. Apost. Ser. 2.
Fulk
Are you such a bussarde, that you cannot see the opposition betweene eating in a Sacrament, and ea…ing in trueth visibly and spiritually? I trow the reall substance of Christes bodie is notvisibly eaten in the sacrament, but the breade which is so called, because it is a sacrament thereof.
Iewell.
Although Christ be not bodily present, yet that doth not hinder the substance of the mysterie.
Sand.
The substance of the mysterie, must needes be hindred where it is absent.
Fulke.
Christ is not absent, although not bodily present.
Sand.
The substance of the mysterie, is the naturall substance of Christ vnderunder the Sacrament. Therfore Saint Hilarie saieth: The naturall propertie by the sacrament is the sacrament of the perfect vnitie. The naturall propertie is the naturall substance, for so S. Hilarie vseth the word proprietas, verie much for the substance and personall being of God.
Fulke.
So often that you can bring none example, but li. 5. cap. 5. you fetch your example our of Augustine.
Sand.
These words can hauehave none other literal meaning, but this: The substance of Christ, through the forme of bread, wherin vnitie is figured, is the sacrament of perfect vnitie.
Fulke.
Lib. 5. Cap. 5. you shall finde another literall sense more agreeable to the minde and purpose of Hilarie.
Sand.
S. Hilarie saith: There is no place to doubt of the trueth of flesh and bloude. For nowe both by the profession of our Lorde himselfe, and …by our faith, it is flesh in deede, and bloude in deede. Answere I pray you M. Iewel, what is flesh in deed? what is the nominatiue case to est? I knowe none other, beside the word sacramentum &c.
Fulk.
The more foolish Priest you. For caro, the flesh of Christ, & the bloud of Christ, of whose truth we ought not to doubt, is by his profession and our faith, flesh in deede, and bloud in deede.
Sand.
It is meant by S. Hilarie, of an outward thing, for he saith immediately, haec accepta these thinges taken and drunken, doe bring to passe, that both we may be in Christ, and Christ in vsus.
Fulke.
You that could construe so pretily before, do now forget your concords, for haec accepta, will not agree with sacramentum in number, that should hauehave b… the nominatiue case to est. And what can these thinges being taken, hauehave relation vntounto, but to the flesh and bloud of Christ, which immediately before was auouched to be flesh and bloud truely? which being receiued, maketh Christ to dwell in vsus, and vsus in Christ. The outwarde thing that is receiued, bringeth not to passe, that Christ dwelleth in them that receiue it. Wherefore the flesh and bloud of Christ are receiued inwardly, & not outwardly.
Sand.
He saith further: Christ himselfe is in vsus by his flesh: not by the meane of bread and wine.
Fulk.
Who saith otherwise?
Sand.
And afterwarde he is beleeued to be in vsus by the mysterie of the sacraments, ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente, himselfe tarying naturally in vsus.
Fulke.
This cannot be after the popish vnderstanding, by which Christ tarieth no longer in vsus, then ye formes of bread and wine remaine vncorrupted.
Sand.
He concludeth against the third argument of the Arrians: Si ergo nos &c. If then we liue naturally, according to the flesh by him, that is to say hauing obteined the nature of his flesh, how can hee but hauehave the father naturally in himselfe, according to ye spirit, seing he liueth for ye father? By which it appeareth, yt as ye substance of God the father is really in the person of Christ: So S. Hilarie meant, that Christes natural substance by means of ye sacrament receiued, is within our owne persons.
Fulke.
Then Hilarie should meane, that Christ is naturally in none, but such as receiue that sacrament, and that none liue naturally according to ye fleshe by Christ, but they that receiue the communion: which is false. Therefore he meaneth that Christs flesh is truely vnited to vsus by vertue of his spirit, which is testified in the sacrament, and not that the sacrament receiued, is the onelie meane, but the seale of our faith, which apprehēdeth the working of Gods spirit in this merueilous coniunction aboue the reach of mans reason.
Sand.
But Hilarie saith: By the Sacrament of fleshe and bloud, the proprietie of natural communiō is granted.
Fulke.
We say and beleeue the same, but not onelyonly by the sacrament of the supper, but without it also.
Sand.
And againe: by the same tarying carnally, to wit in truth of flesh, in vsus.
Fulke.
But yet after a spiritual manner, according to which …, being once entred into vsus, hee neuer departeth from vsus, as in the popish sense he doth, when the shapes of bread and wine are corrupted.
Sand.
Laste of all, the mysterie of true and naturall vnitie, is to be preached in eo nobis corporaliter & inseparabiliter vnitis: We being vnited in him corporally and inseparably.
Fulke.
This cannot be restrained to the supper, seeing he is corporally and inseparablie vnited to all his members, of which manie neuer receiued the communion. And that which you teach men to receiue in the communion, is not vnseparablie vnited to them, for it departeth as soone as the breade and wine by heat of the stomake, are putrified according to all your schoolemens opinions. Wherefore there is no cause, why Maister Iewell shoulde dissemble this point, which maketh wholy against your vnderstanding of Christ present, naturally, corpo…lly, really. &c.
Iew.
Those wordes, that Christ corporally, earnally, and naturally is within vsus, in their owne rigor seeme verie hard.
Sand.
They must needes seeme hard to him that beleeueth not.
Fulk.
Master Iewel beleeueth them in such sense, as they were spoken & ment by Hilarie, & not as you wrest them.
Iew.
Hilarius said: we are one with God the father, & the sonne, not only by adoption or consent of mind, but also by nature, which according to the letter, cannot be true.
Sand.
It is a most impudent lie forged vponupon S. Hilarie, that we are one with God ye father by nature, or with God the sonne in his diuine nature.
Fulk.
You are mad through malice, no man chargeth S. Hilarie but with the phrase of speech, by which it is manifest, he tooke the wordes nature & naturally, otherwise then you, as appeareth euen by that his generall rule: Qui per eandem &c. Those yt by the same thing are one, they are one by nature, and not by will onelyonly.
Iew.
The fathers hauehave bene faine to expound, and to mollifie such violent and excessiue kindes of speach.
Sand.
Now you shew your self in your colors, you think the fathers do not speake wel, for violent speaches bee no good speaches, & excessiue speaches be not literally true.
Fulk.
Sometime the fathers speake neither well nor truely. But these violent and excessiue speaches, are well inough and good speaches, if they bee well and rightly vnderstood.
And what if hyperbolicall speaches bee not literally true, are they therefore false in the right meaning of the speakers? Metaphors be not literally true, wil you therfore say, that whatsoeuer is spoken by a Metaphor, is spoken vntruely? This paltrie is but to mocke, selye vnlearned Papistes, of whom you hauehave exhibition, for such as knowe what figures of Rhetorike meane, woulde thinke you worthie to weare a cockescombe, thus to dispute of true and false, out of Rhetoricall figures. page missing
more then of manna literally.
Sand.
Master Iewel is mad, he is blinde, full of extreme malice.
Fulk.
Railing, in steede of wordes proouing, that Nyssen speaketh of the sacrament, or of Christs naturall dwelling in vsus.
Iew.
The purpose of Gregorie Nyssen, was onelie to speake of Christes birth.
Sand.
His purpose was to speak of manna, which did both signifie the birth of Christ, and the sacrament of the altar.
Fulk.
What word hauehave you to prooue, that he spake of it, as it doth signifie the sacrament of the altar?
Iew.
In like manner of speach Saint Hierome saith: The wheat whereof the heauenly bread is made, is that of which our Lorde saide, my fleshe is meat in deede.
Sand.
The speach of S. Hierome, is of the sacrament, therefore the speach of Nyssenus, which you confesse to be like.
Fulk.
It is not like in scope and purpose, but in the phrase speaking of wheate.
Iew.
And to this purpose, saith Amphilochius: vnlesse Christ had bene borne carnally, thou haddest not beene borne spiritually.
Sand.
I knowe not to what purpose hee speaketh it, but that Christes birth is necessarie to our saluation, and because, if that birth had not gone before, we could not hauehave eaten that bodie in the sacrament.
Fulk.
You might hauehave inferred eating spiritually, a… well as borne spiritually.
Iew.
As Nyssen saith, Christ is made our bread: so he saith, he becommeth strong meat vntounto the perfecte, herbes vntounto the weake, &c.
Sand.
He may be bread, herbes, and milke in the sacrament, and without it, but he is bread, hearbs, and milke, to vsus in our mouthes (as manna was to the Iewes) onelyonly in the sacrament.
Fulk.
Where hauehave you in Nyssen your, But he is &c. in our mouth? Is he any of this bodily?
Iewell.
Gregorie Nyssen holdeth, that wee receiue Christes bodie otherwise then in the Sacrament, for hee saith: whoso hath aboundantly drunke of the Apostles springs, hath alreadie receiued whole Christ.
Sander.
You misse of your proofe, you should proue, that he receiueth Christs bodie, & you proue yt he receiueth Christ. Gregorie spake of his diuine nature, which may be receiued in our heart, & yet not his body in our bodie.
Fulke.
I pray you sir, is not whole Christ, both the diuinitie & the humanitie?
Sander.
If the eating of Christ proue his birth, it wil follow, that as he is borne really, so much more, hee is eaten really: if hee were only eaten by faith: thence we could conclude no more but a birth by faith.
Fulke.
You may as well conclude, if he be eaten only vnderunder the forme of breade, he was borne onelyonly vnderunder the form of bread, such strength is an D. Hardings argumēt.